â•œThe Holy Brick of Birth-givingâ•š: A Reassessment of ...
1
ABSTRACT “The Holy Brick of Birth-giving”: A Reassessment of Ancient Near Eastern Birth Bricks and Their Medical Role in Delivery Emily Liske, Faculty Advisor: Dr. Erin Darby IV. CLINICAL STUDIES & MODERN BIRTHING TOOLS V. CONCLUSIONS III. ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIES The bricks of birth are often described as a birthing tool in ancient Near Eastern societies. Assertions about their function and usage are based almost solely on two sources: ancient religious texts and ethnographic studies. However, upon closer investigation, the religious texts suggest that the bricks were primarily ritual implements, and the ethnographic studies cited only briefly allude to the possible use of bricks prior to delivery. In order to assess the likelihood that birth bricks were used as a medical aid during labor, this project evaluates the available textual and archaeological sources, the central terminology, and commonly-cited ethnographic studies. The project then makes suggestions about the actual functionality of the bricks based on modern clinical studies and analysis of the aforementioned sources. The research suggests that bricks may have served a ritual function during birth in the ancient Near East, but are unlikely to have played a functional or medical role during delivery. This research has demonstrated that scholars base their reconstructions of ancient birth bricks on a small number of texts that hail from a broad range of time periods and regions. The definition of many of the central terms lack consensus, including the question of whether one or more bricks were used. There is a dearth of archaeological data, and scholars disproportionately depend on a small number of ethnographic sources, most with problematic origins. Modern clinical studies of birthing aides also question the plausibility of most scholarly reconstructions. Thus, one cannot use these sources to reconstruct how the bricks were used as a tool during childbirth in the ancient world. Future work can, however, focus more on the exact ritual context of the bricks. By accepting that a functional role is unlikely, scholars should be able to move forward with more productive avenues of symbolic study of the bricks of birth. II. CENTRAL TERMINOLOGY Region Terminology Egypt jfd m ḏbt Meskhenet (msḫnt) Mesopotamia sig4-tu-tu-ku libittu Israel ’obnayim Fig. 1: Map of the cultures where birth bricks are mentioned Fig. 2 (left): Possible birth brick from Abydos; Fig. 3 (middle): Birth scene at the Dendera Temple; Fig. 4 (right) Reconstructed use of the bricks (after Wegner, 2009) Fig. 6: Illustration of Polak’s observations (based on oral communication and notes), which first appeared in Ploss, 1872 Fig. 7 (left): BirthRite seat Fig. 8 (right): Dutch- designed birthing stool Fig. 9 (a and b): “Birth E-Z” birthing chair There is a lack of scholarly consensus in the translations of “brick(s)” in the ancient texts, especially whether the terms refer to a single or multiple bricks (Table 2). In some cases the definition of a term is unclear or based on the iconography of the related hieroglyph (Fig. 5). If a single brick is the correct translation, it would be difficult for women to utilize it for squatting or even standing during labor. If multiple bricks were employed, their use during parturition is more plausible. The bulk of the material describing birth bricks is comprised by religious or mythological texts from Near Eastern cultures (Fig. 1), in most cases written, codified, and preserved by an elite class of male scribes who may have had very limited knowledge of birth rituals. Of these texts, some sources are separated in time by almost a millennium from each other. In most scholarship, texts from multiple cultures and time periods are mixed together in order to generate a so-called “typical” use for birth bricks that does not consider regional or chronological specificity (Table 1). There are far fewer archaeological finds, though their impact is skewed in the literature towards an almost equal standing with the religious texts. Most prominent is the only possible example of a birth brick (Fig. 2) and images of birthing supports in Egypt (Fig. 3). There is no mention of birth bricks in any medical collections from Egypt or Mesopotamia. Even if birth bricks were the purview of the midwife rather than magico-medical professionals, the absence of bricks from the copious list of magico-medical texts describing birth in these cultures is puzzling. Based on these relatively meager data, scholars have constructed how the bricks were used. Most describe a woman standing or kneeling on multiple bricks during delivery (Fig. 4) (e.g., Wegner, 2009; Roth & Roehrig, 2002; Kilmer, 1987). In the absence of historical data, scholars rely heavily on ethnographic studies to reconstruct the function of birth bricks. Unfortunately, numerous problems arise. • Most scholars cite only three ethnographic studies from modern Persia and three from Egypt. The summaries of these studies that appear repeatedly throughout the literature magnify their impact (e.g., Engelmann, 1884; Wegner, 2009; Stol, 2000). • Rather than describing the single position that appears in scholarly reconstructions, the case examples include numerous positions, such as sitting (Morsy, 1982), squatting (Winkler, 1936), or standing (Häntzsche, 1864) on bricks and at different times during the labor and delivery process. • These studies often include observations or stories about other birth practices in which no bricks or blocks are mentioned, calling into question whether such practices were widespread in the regions of origin (Morsy, 1982). • These studies are from millennia after the time period of interest, calling into question their applicability for the ancient Near East. • The origins of these studies and the nature of the observations described are deeply problematic. Many accounts are inconsistent regarding when the bricks are actually utilized, and many, including some of the most frequently cited, were generated from informants or travelers rather than first-hand observers (Ploss, 1872; Winkler, 1936) (Fig. 6). SOURCES: Cottrell, Barbara H. and Mary K. Shannahan. “A Comparison of Fetal Outcome in Birth Chair and Delivery Table Births.” Research in Nursing & Health 10 (1987): 239-243; Engelmann, Geo. J. Labor among Primitive Peoples: Showing the Development of the Obstetric Science of To-Day from the Natural and Instinctive Customs of All Races, Civilized and Savage, Past and Present. St. Louis: J. H. Chambers & Co, 1884; Häntzsche, JC. “Haram und Harem.” In Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde. Berlin: Verlag Von Dietrich Reimer, 1864; Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn. “The Brick of Birth.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, no. 3 (July 1987): 211-213; Morsy, Soheir. “Childbirth in an Egyptian Village.” In Anthropology of Human Birth. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1982; Ploss, H. H. Ueber die Lage und Stellung der Frau während der Geburt bei verschiedenen Völkern. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit & Comp., 1872; Roth, Ann Macy and Catharine H. Roehrig. “Magical Bricks and the Bricks of Birth.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 88 (2002): 121-139; Stewart, Peter, Edith Hillan, and Andrew A. Calder. “A Randomised Trial to Evaluate the Use of a Birth Chair for Delivery.” The Lancet 321, no. 8337 (June 11, 1983): 1296-1298; Stol, Marten. Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting. Groningen: Styx, 2000; Thies-Lagergren, Li and Linda J. Kvist. “Assessing the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of birth.” Evidence Based Midwifery 7, no. 4 (2009): 30-35; Waldenström, Ulla and Karin Gottvall. “A Randomized Trial of Birthing Stool or Conventional Semirecumbent Position for Second-Stage Labor.” BIRTH 18, no. 1 (March 1991): 5-10; Wegner, Josef. "A Decorated Birth-Brick from South Abydos: New Evidence on Childbirth and Birth Magic in the Middle Kingdom." In Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt. New Haven: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University, 2009; Winkler, Hans A. Agyptische Volksunde. Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1936. Fig. 5: Depiction of Meskhenet in the Book of the Dead Chapter 125 from the papyrus of Anhai Current clinical studies of birthing positions could be used to speculate upon the position of women during labor and the use of implements and furniture. There are numerous modern clinical studies that evaluate the use of birth stools and chairs, all with positive results, though none particularly address birth bricks. However, these studies can still be used to ascertain the most effective usage of birthing tools and furniture. These clinical studies all utilize tools that provide support and/or something for the mother to lean on (Fig. 7-9) (Stewart, 1983; Cottrell, 1987; Waldenström, 1991; Thies-Lagergren, 2009). Based on these studies, it is unsubstantiated to speculate that the mother kneeled on the birth bricks, or that she stood on them during delivery. She may, however, have utilized the standing position during the primary stage of labor, as both a means of stretching and to make it more accessible for the midwife to carry out a genital exam. During the second stage of labor, though, this position would have lacked support, even with assistants standing nearby to steady the mother. Further, none of these clinical or ethnographic studies support the usage of a singular brick. Most likely, if used at all in a functional sense, the mother used the bricks as sitting support, with her buttocks situated on them. This position would have also allowed space for the midwife to regularly examine the woman’s laboring progress and assist in the child’s delivery. I. TEXTUAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES Table 1: Archaeological finds and primary texts in which birth bricks may be mentioned Table 2: Terms translated as “birth brick/s” from ancient Near Eastern literature Region Source Time Period Egypt Papyrus Westcar 2500 BCE Hymn to Khnum Roman Period (30 BCE – 461 CE) Steal Turin no. 50058 New Kingdom Period (c. 1550-1085 BCE) Abydos birth brick Late 13 th Dynasty (c. 1700-1650 BCE) Dendera relief Late Ptolemaic Period (c. 305-30 BCE) Mesopotamia Atra-ḫasīs 17 th century BCE Enki and the World Order 2500 BCE Israel Exodus 1:16 6 th /5 th century BCE
Transcript of â•œThe Holy Brick of Birth-givingâ•š: A Reassessment of ...
ABSTRACT
“The Holy Brick of Birth-giving”: A Reassessment of Ancient Near Eastern Birth Bricks and Their Medical Role in Delivery
Emily Liske, Faculty Advisor: Dr. Erin Darby
IV. CLINICAL STUDIES & MODERN BIRTHING TOOLS
V. CONCLUSIONS
III. ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIESThe bricks of birth are often described as a birthingtool in ancient Near Eastern societies. Assertionsabout their function and usage are based almost solelyon two sources: ancient religious texts andethnographic studies. However, upon closerinvestigation, the religious texts suggest that thebricks were primarily ritual implements, and theethnographic studies cited only briefly allude to thepossible use of bricks prior to delivery.
In order to assess the likelihood that birth brickswere used as a medical aid during labor, this projectevaluates the available textual and archaeologicalsources, the central terminology, and commonly-citedethnographic studies. The project then makessuggestions about the actual functionality of the bricksbased on modern clinical studies and analysis of theaforementioned sources. The research suggests thatbricks may have served a ritual function during birthin the ancient Near East, but are unlikely to haveplayed a functional or medical role during delivery.
This research has demonstrated that scholars basetheir reconstructions of ancient birth bricks on a smallnumber of texts that hail from a broad range of timeperiods and regions. The definition of many of thecentral terms lack consensus, including the questionof whether one or more bricks were used. There is adearth of archaeological data, and scholarsdisproportionately depend on a small number ofethnographic sources, most with problematic origins.Modern clinical studies of birthing aides also questionthe plausibility of most scholarly reconstructions.
Thus, one cannot use these sources to reconstructhow the bricks were used as a tool during childbirth inthe ancient world. Future work can, however, focusmore on the exact ritual context of the bricks. Byaccepting that a functional role is unlikely, scholarsshould be able to move forward with more productiveavenues of symbolic study of the bricks of birth.
II. CENTRAL TERMINOLOGY
Region Terminology
Egyptjfd m ḏbtMeskhenet (msḫnt)
Mesopotamiasig4-tu-tu-kulibittu
Israel ’obnayim
Fig. 1: Map of the cultures where birth bricks are mentioned
Fig. 2 (left): Possible birth brick from Abydos; Fig. 3 (middle): Birth scene at the Dendera Temple; Fig. 4 (right) Reconstructed use of the bricks (after Wegner, 2009)
Fig. 6: Illustration of Polak’s observations (based on oral communication and notes), which first appeared in Ploss, 1872
Fig. 7 (left): BirthRite seatFig. 8 (right): Dutch-designed birthing stool
Fig. 9 (a and b): “Birth E-Z” birthing chair
There is a lack of scholarly consensus in thetranslations of “brick(s)” in the ancient texts,especially whether the terms refer to a single ormultiple bricks (Table 2). In some cases the definitionof a term is unclear or based on the iconography of therelated hieroglyph (Fig. 5).
If a single brick is the correct translation, it wouldbe difficult for women to utilize it for squatting oreven standing during labor. If multiple bricks wereemployed, their use during parturition is moreplausible.
The bulk of the material describing birth bricks iscomprised by religious or mythological texts fromNear Eastern cultures (Fig. 1), in most cases written,codified, and preserved by an elite class of malescribes who may have had very limited knowledge ofbirth rituals. Of these texts, some sources areseparated in time by almost a millennium from eachother. In most scholarship, texts from multiplecultures and time periods are mixed together in orderto generate a so-called “typical” use for birth bricksthat does not consider regional or chronologicalspecificity (Table 1).
There are far fewer archaeological finds, thoughtheir impact is skewed in the literature towards analmost equal standing with the religious texts. Mostprominent is the only possible example of a birthbrick (Fig. 2) and images of birthing supports inEgypt (Fig. 3).
There is no mention of birth bricks in any medicalcollections from Egypt or Mesopotamia. Even if birthbricks were the purview of the midwife rather thanmagico-medical professionals, the absence of bricksfrom the copious list of magico-medical textsdescribing birth in these cultures is puzzling.
Based on these relatively meager data, scholarshave constructed how the bricks were used. Mostdescribe a woman standing or kneeling on multiplebricks during delivery (Fig. 4) (e.g., Wegner, 2009;Roth & Roehrig, 2002; Kilmer, 1987).
In the absence of historical data, scholars rely heavilyon ethnographic studies to reconstruct the function ofbirth bricks. Unfortunately, numerous problems arise.• Most scholars cite only three ethnographic studies
from modern Persia and three from Egypt. Thesummaries of these studies that appear repeatedlythroughout the literature magnify their impact (e.g.,Engelmann, 1884; Wegner, 2009; Stol, 2000).
• Rather than describing the single position thatappears in scholarly reconstructions, the caseexamples include numerous positions, such assitting (Morsy, 1982), squatting (Winkler, 1936), orstanding (Häntzsche, 1864) on bricks and atdifferent times during the labor and deliveryprocess.
• These studies often include observations or storiesabout other birth practices in which no bricks orblocks are mentioned, calling into question whethersuch practices were widespread in the regions oforigin (Morsy, 1982).
• These studies are from millennia after the timeperiod of interest, calling into question theirapplicability for the ancient Near East.
• The origins of these studies and the nature of theobservations described are deeply problematic.Many accounts are inconsistent regarding when thebricks are actually utilized, and many, includingsome of the most frequently cited, were generatedfrom informants or travelers rather than first-handobservers (Ploss, 1872; Winkler, 1936) (Fig. 6).
SOURCES: Cottrell, Barbara H. and Mary K. Shannahan. “A Comparison of Fetal Outcome in Birth Chair and Delivery Table Births.” Research in Nursing & Health 10 (1987): 239-243; Engelmann, Geo. J. Labor among Primitive Peoples: Showing the Development of the Obstetric Science of To-Day from the Natural and Instinctive Customs of All Races, Civilized and Savage, Past and Present. St. Louis: J. H. Chambers & Co, 1884; Häntzsche, JC. “Haram und Harem.” In Zeitschrift für allgemeine Erdkunde. Berlin: Verlag Von Dietrich Reimer, 1864; Kilmer, Anne Draffkorn. “The Brick of Birth.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 46, no. 3 (July 1987): 211-213; Morsy, Soheir. “Childbirth in an Egyptian Village.” In Anthropology of Human Birth. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company, 1982; Ploss, H. H. Ueber die Lage und Stellung der Frau während der Geburt bei verschiedenen Völkern. Leipzig: Verlag von Veit & Comp., 1872; Roth, Ann Macy and Catharine H. Roehrig. “Magical Bricks and the Bricks of Birth.” The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 88 (2002): 121-139; Stewart, Peter, Edith Hillan, and Andrew A. Calder. “A Randomised Trial to Evaluate the Use of a Birth Chair for Delivery.” The Lancet 321, no. 8337 (June 11, 1983): 1296-1298; Stol, Marten. Birth in Babylonia and the Bible: Its Mediterranean Setting. Groningen: Styx, 2000; Thies-Lagergren, Li and Linda J. Kvist. “Assessing the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of birth.” Evidence Based Midwifery 7, no. 4 (2009): 30-35; Waldenström, Ulla and Karin Gottvall. “A Randomized Trial of Birthing Stool or Conventional Semirecumbent Position for Second-Stage Labor.” BIRTH 18, no. 1 (March 1991): 5-10; Wegner, Josef. "A Decorated Birth-Brick from South Abydos: New Evidence on Childbirth and Birth Magic in the Middle Kingdom." In Archaism and Innovation: Studies in the Culture of Middle Kingdom Egypt. New Haven: Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, Yale University, 2009; Winkler, Hans A. Agyptische Volksunde. Stuttgart: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1936.
Fig. 5: Depiction of Meskhenet in the Book of the Dead Chapter 125 from the papyrus of Anhai
Current clinical studies of birthing positions could beused to speculate upon the position of women duringlabor and the use of implements and furniture. Thereare numerous modern clinical studies that evaluate theuse of birth stools and chairs, all with positive results,though none particularly address birth bricks.However, these studies can still be used to ascertainthe most effective usage of birthing tools andfurniture.
These clinical studies all utilize tools that providesupport and/or something for the mother to lean on(Fig. 7-9) (Stewart, 1983; Cottrell, 1987;Waldenström, 1991; Thies-Lagergren, 2009). Basedon these studies, it is unsubstantiated to speculate thatthe mother kneeled on the birth bricks, or that shestood on them during delivery. She may, however,have utilized the standing position during the primarystage of labor, as both a means of stretching and tomake it more accessible for the midwife to carry out agenital exam. During the second stage of labor,though, this position would have lacked support, evenwith assistants standing nearby to steady the mother.Further, none of these clinical or ethnographic studiessupport the usage of a singular brick. Most likely, ifused at all in a functional sense, the mother used thebricks as sitting support, with her buttocks situated onthem. This position would have also allowed space forthe midwife to regularly examine the woman’slaboring progress and assist in the child’s delivery.
I. TEXTUAL & ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES
Table 1: Archaeological finds and primary texts in which birth bricks may be mentioned
Table 2: Terms translated as “birth brick/s” from ancient Near Eastern literature
Region Source Time Period
Egypt
Papyrus Westcar 2500 BCE
Hymn to Khnum Roman Period (30 BCE – 461 CE)
Steal Turin no. 50058 New Kingdom Period (c. 1550-1085 BCE)
Abydos birth brick Late 13th Dynasty (c. 1700-1650 BCE)Dendera relief Late Ptolemaic Period (c. 305-30 BCE)
MesopotamiaAtra-ḫasīs 17th century BCE
Enki and the World Order 2500 BCE
Israel Exodus 1:16 6th /5th century BCE
![faithlutheranyucaipa.orgfaithlutheranyucaipa.org/Bulletin.pdf · Translate this page... (¢Š(¢Š(¢Š(¢Š(¢Š(¢Š(¢Š(¢Š(¢Š( ÿÙ endstream endobj 21 0 obj /ExtGState/XObject/ProcSet[/PDF/Text/ImageB/ImageC/ImageI]](https://static.fdocuments.net/doc/165x107/5aab04227f8b9a2b4c8b7693/this-page-sssssssss-endstream-endobj-21-0-obj-extgstatexobjectprocsetpdftextimagebimagecimagei.jpg)
