Thankyou Kathy for your response (8 Sept) to my question "Why do so many babies nurse for long periods, then sleep for a few hours?''
I would like to explore this further, particularly in the first few weeks of the baby's life, when most mothers will not be engaged in physically demanding chores.  I am trying to understand feeding from the baby's point of view, which should be fairly consistent across all cultures and lifestyles.
I find it difficult to understand how a person from another people group carrys on with basic life activities.  So I can't really imagine how this type of feeding - a brief suck several times an hour, round the clock- happens.  The grass on the other side of the fence is often greener.  Many times I have heard stereotypical statements about women who squat in the paddy field to give birth, bury the placenta, then carry on with their work.  The ''noble savage'' myths don't tell of high maternal and infant mortality rates from preventable causes.  What happens to the babies in these cultures, where frequent feeding is the norm, in the establishment of breastfeeding?
When I studied midwifery (1972) I was trained to instruct mothers to feed their babies "by the clock".  First day, 3 minutes each side; second day 5 minutes, third day 7 minutes; and 10 minutes per side thereafter.  Babies who didn't perform as they were supposed to were "comp-ed" - and all mothers needed a good sleep at night!.  Women had a clock on the bedside table and often watched the clock more than the baby.  The first feed was probably 4 to 6 hours after birth, but a ''forceps'' baby had to be left lying quietly in the cot for 24 hours, so was bottle fed with the sweetened condensed milk mixture of the day.  The rationale behind the timed feeds was that the woman's nipples had to be protected, and colostrum was pretty insignificant anyhow.  Need I add that breastfeeding rates were at an all-time low in Australia at that time.  The wonder is that anyone succeeded with breastfeeding.

That was 1972.  Within 6 months of finishing midwifery training I gave birth to my first child.  My memory of the first breastfeed, within minutes of the birth, are quite clear - the baby wanted to nurse, and had no knowledge of "3 minutes''.  At that point I discarded the timed feed routine, and let the baby lead.  I have seen the same process many times, in several countries.  Then a long sleep, eager feeding, followed by sleeping which is deep and no amount of prodding would make the baby take the breast.
When a woman lives in a society which does not allow long periods (such as 30 minutes) for the mother of a baby (say 2 weeks old) to nurse, it must be the mother who says "that's enough for now" and take her baby off her breast so that she can get up and stir the pot, or whatever.  I don't think the closeness to the mother's body, and movement, necessarily wakes a baby up.  I have had babies sleep for hours in a sling after what I would call a "good'' feed.
It seems to me that there is an enormous range of lifestyle patterns in breastfeeding that are good enough for nurturing the child.  It also seems that babies who take large feeds and sleep for long periods are not necessarily disadvantaged (ie sensory deprivation).  I am not trying to argue right and wrong here.  I will be interested in any further discussion on this matter.
Many thanks,
Joy Johnston, Midwife IBCLC
Melbourne, Australia