And how many of them would have reached adulthood?
2007-09-16 06:52:13 · 5 answers · asked by Cybele 1 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
And mortality from 1-5 was another 50%.
Basically, we didn't really improve that until the past 100 years or so.
And she had as many as she could. Not like there are condoms or the pill. Bearing children was dangerous, so it also had a significant mortality rate.
2007-09-16 14:04:48 · answer #1 · answered by jared_e42 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In Hunter-Gatherer societies women of child bearing age usually had one baby at the breast and another at the hip, a child capable of walking. This arises from the inability of the mother to carry more than one child. The act of breast feeding activates hormones that suppress the release of ovum preventing the chance of another pregnancy. Infant mortality rate was very high, around 50% and life expectancy for adults was often not extremely high either due to stresses of daily life such as strenuous work and periodic malnutrition. These factors limit the total number of children a woman was capable of bearing and raising to adulthood. The number of births could have been quite high but the number of surviving offspring would have ben only slightly more than was needed to maintain the population and sometimes not even that.
Hope this helps!
2007-09-16 14:42:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The women these societies usually have as many children as they are capable of bearing. When the women are getting enough food that can mean a child every 1 to 2 years when food is scarce far fewer children are born. Infant mortality is always high in every primitive society, typically on the order of 50% in the first year.
2007-09-16 07:05:56 · answer #3 · answered by milton b 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't know but I do know that pioneer women would have 12 or 14 kids. From these children the parents would hope that they would have 2 or 3 boys to help in the fields. Most died as did many women in childbirth. It could have been any better back then. . .I would imagine you were perpetually pregnant until you died.
2007-09-16 18:17:48 · answer #4 · answered by towanda 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
probably not as many as you would think. they were eating as close to a macrobiotic diet as you can be. seasonal game and plant life, plus were extremely physically active. the human body does not menstruate every 28 days in those conditions.
plus they were probably nursing their children through the toddler years, which meant at least two to five years per child of lactation ammenorhea (absence of periods).
add that up with short life expectancy. i'm guessing about the average today 2.5 children.
2007-09-17 20:29:05 · answer #5 · answered by jenbeckpdx 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋