Tumplines are devices used to transfer carried weight to the head. My dad's old Voyageur packs had tumplines, and it made schlepping them around much easier.
But I am pondering how small small babies might be carried with a minimum of stress on the mother. These babies must ride lying down, as they are too weak to hold up their head. Forward facing slings tend to pull the shoulders forward - an unnatural position for weight carrying.
I propose a decide to transfer the weight of baby to the head. The head can bear a lot of weight - women around the world carry large weights on their head, leaviong arms free and allowing a natural posture - in fact encouraging good posture! This would be an upholstered ring, worn on the head. Four lines are dependent - two fore and two hind. The baby is supported in a cradle between those in front. A weight equal to baby (either a brick, or baby gear) balances the weight behind.
The mother's hands are free, and her posture good. The baby rides safely and extra diapers (or a brick) is also kept handy. The world is improved!-- bungston, Aug 10 2003 Tumpline http://www.cmc.org/...no950/tumpline.html [bungston, Oct 04 2004, last modified Oct 06 2004] While I'm not in the least certain what a tump is (link?), head slings have been used since ancient times to carry babies and other heavy weights. Also, there is a strong movement now to get pre-industrial women to *stop* carrying things on (or from) their heads, and use wheelbarrows and other transports instead.-- DrCurry, Aug 10 2003 Sp: Trump-- thumbwax, Aug 10 2003 The Trump baby is actually a different idea. This is a baby that empowers you to win other babies.-- bungston, Aug 10 2003 I once saw a picture (National Geographic?) of an African woman carrying her twins in a basket on her head. Everbody involved looked happy and positively postured.-- kbecker, Aug 11 2003 I'm aware that in many societies, people commonly carry loads on their heads. But I've always wondered if the hips aren't ultimately better suited for bearing such loads than the neck. I mean, the hips have to bear the weight even if it's carried on the head, but if you can suspend it directly from the hips, the entire upper body is free of what would seem to be an unnecessary burden. No, of course you wouldn't want a baby to be knocked around by your legs as you walk. But a load can be carried above the hips and still be supported primarily at the hips. Seems more stable, too.-- beauxeault, Aug 12 2003 //But a load can be carried above the hips and still be supported primarily at the hips. //
This is the theory behind the waiststraps on backpacks. I must admit that carrying a load this way seems better that carrying it on my hand. No doubt I am just a hidebound narrowminded cultural absolutist.-- bungston, Aug 12 2003 random, halfbakery