Even though we were religiously taught to put babies on tummies to sleep in
the era 20 yrs ago, there is not much point at railing against a 40%
reduction in SIDS in most places where Back to Sleep campaigns have been
instituted. (Quoting the article in paper re:  babies not crawling.)  When I
think about how very young babies sleep when co-sleeping, it's gen. on back
or side anyway.

Reading the anthropologic lit there are stories of ritual celebrations
called "feet touch the ground" ceremonies.  These in cultures when babies
are worn or carried until they can walk.  So crawling -- with all it's risks
of eating weird things, getting stung or bitten, getting snatched by a
predator, etc. may be the luxury of people with indoor carpeting for all I
know.

I think, given the variety of human exper. we can't generalize too much
about these things.  There were tribes of American Indians who bound babies
in papoose boards, and Chinese who park babies on their backs in sand bags
all day while mother goes out to work. I'm not wild about bucket babies and
feel the same way about allowing tummy time, but as immobiliztion of infants
has long human history, I think we must be cautious about generalizing too
much.

Barbara Wilson-Clay BSEd, IBCLC
Austin Lactation Associates
http://www.lactnews.com

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html