the evolution of clothes?

quote:

---

I once read a book called The Naked Ape by some guy

---

Desmond Morris.I have elsewhere read that probably the first discrete, purposeful device built by humans was the baby-sling.I'm not convinced "because it is cold" is an adequate answer. It's cold for animals too, yet they either stick it out and adapt or migrate.Yes minimalist clothing is worn in the tropics, but that just raises the question again - if clothing is unnecessary in the tropics, why does anyone where any at all?And of course some don't - some stone age societies consider a rough belt and a feather in the hair to be superbly turned out. There are certain contexts in which even a Zulu wearing only a penis-sheath would be over-dressed. And I point out, it gets pretty cold in Zulu country on the big open plains in winter, and can even snow from time to time.What strikes me as much more interesting about clothing is its concentration on the face. That is, just about the only part of our body to NOT be concealed with a socially constructed set of symbols and signals is the face itself. I wonder if this plays a role in social construction, moving the communities psychology away from "animal" concerns and to more "intellectual" concerns, asd in a certain sense everyone is dealing with an early disembodied head.

quote:

---

oh, and here's the kicker. it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. this is the reason women wear makeup and not men. and since beauty is a factor in sexual selection, and i'm sure is hereditary -- well you know where i'm going. the women actually DO become more beautiful than the men.

---

Its only self-fulfilling becuase we fulfill it. There is more European history of extravagantly and revealingly dressed men (come on, hotpants over tights like Francis Drake?) than women.

quote:

---

Well, if we didn't have an evolutionary advantage such as our brain power, we would probably have stuck it up too. You are forgetting the human factor. It's like asking why aren't we going around raping every female we could find just so we could plant our seeds? Well, we can think.

---

Actually I think the human factor is rather overrated. Both geese and orca's pair-bond for life monogamously, so human mating patterns don't look that odd to me by comparison to other animals. Different animals have different strategies.But part of what I was getting at was the suggestion that it is becuase we can think that clothes are used. Clothes are massive social symbols; sumptuary laws have been one of the prime means of constructing class and caste dominance. Cloth was a status symbol of governmental significance in the bronze ages of both Mesopatamia and the Peruvian Andes that I know of for certain, and almost certainly more widely.I do think that the basic discovery of the technique occurred becuase of an opportunistic adapatation of our external environment. But I don;t think that in fact is actually an answer to the question "why do we were clothes" - that answer I suspect is specifically social and political.Anyway I have only recently discovered the complexities of this issue recently myself, and find it increwasingly fascinating. It seems that textile production may be quite a significant technical development with a major impact on subsequent social order.

quote:

---

Eyes and noses don't work too well when you cover them up; were it not for that I suspect these burkas would lack even the gauzy bit over the face.

---

Well yes, granted. I don't discount the practical limits to covering the ports. But you see the burka is very much a socially constructed device rather than one that is opportunistically adopted out of need, and yes I agree if they could get away with it it would be totally solid.When I lived in Bayswater I would occasionally see wealthy Arabic women with very ornate face coverings, made out of a metal mask with a suspended silk veil such that only the eyes were visible, but mouth and nose were not (I think) impeded.

quote:

---

Perhaps it is a combination of both protection and class struggle. Caveman A might find a better fur than caveman B and starts to say, "argg..." which translates to "haha, I'm better than you." This eventually leads to the head caveman of the clan demanding the other cavemen to give him the best furs.

---

Umm kinda. I don't think that scenario would actually happen becuase in most such societies the killing of the beast is a very personal act, and the fur as symbol of that act is likely to be much more important, and socially protected, than its utility value. So this situation would be more likely to be perceived as a challenge to go out and kill and even better, bigger, glossy-coated version for yourself.But textiles are a different matter becuase they are EXTREMELY labour intensive. It is at this point I think that clothing becomes significant as something other than statements of personal prowess and enter the field of "social management". Furs can be produced by isolated individuals in short order, while textiles require both a technical and labour investment before production can begin.

quote:

---

I'm not sure that the first clothing would have been of hides. Twisted grasses may hve been used as rope and string, so grasses may have been used as clothing. The FLK site at Olduvai (associated with H habilis) shows a the remains of a windbreak and possibly a fence. About 1.6 MYA. So "shelter" was a familiar concept.

---

British MuseumThis is a not-very-good picture of the strange object known as the Standard of Ur for lack of any better name clearly shows what seems to be grass skirts. One imagines they must not have been radically different to those worn until recently in the Polynesian islands.I'me well aware that this is much much later than the period you were discussing, but it does show an early use of grass skirts by humans (on the timescale of our civilisaiton). Given the slow pace of technical development in pre-industrial societies, these may well be the very first form of dress, still in use.

quote:

---

man
elephant
rhino

---

Interestingly all three you listed without caveats are savannah animals.Hmm, but I can't take it much further than that becuase all the other savannah animals I can think of are furred.Ah, the hippo. This is not a savannah animal but is probably on the same course as the present aquatic mammals.

quote:

---

hence the caveat on the hippo in my list

---

Oops I missed it.

quote:

---

if running were the criteria then cheatahs would have significantly less fur eh?

---

No. Just becuase an adaptation would be beneficial if it happened does not imply it must necessarily happen or have happened.counter-point: hippos, elephants, rhino's and humans are largely monochrome, having little or no fur. Hunting cats have patterned 'stealth-fur' despite being pounce or chase predators. Swings and roundabouts.

quote:

---

ever shaved a spotted animal? the coloration can be on the skin as well

---

I don't find that atball surprising as hair is dead matter. But I'm not aware of patterned skin without fur in mammals. Besides that its irrelvant - regardless of whether it is an optimum solution or otherwise it explains what we see. At the veryleast as a counterpoint to the dismissing of running as a factor it is perfectly valid.

quote:

---

a predator even. (but with that old caveat of water friction selecting for low drag skin over fur and constant temperature allowing loss of fur once sufficient body size is reached)

---

You're splitting furs RAZD. Point conceded although in fact orca's still have all their hair, it is just extremely fine an adapted to assist gliding through water.

quote:

---

it is not our long distance running that {allows\allowed} humans to catch more fleet of foot animals, but the persistence and ability to track said animals and actually {walk\jog} them down rather than just run.

---

No on the savannah. A wounded animal is often capable of running. Even if you have inflicted a fatal wound you might have a mutliple mile run to get to the point at which it actually falls over dead. And you want to be there soon becuase if the hyena's arrive at the kill first you've got more trouble than you need.What exactly is the difference between jog and run? That seems too fine a dictinction to bother drawing in this context. I knew a man who ran - or jogged if you prefer - for 3 straight days, interspersed with stretches of walking. Thats exactly how we exhibit the persistance you mentioned, and why we need to track in the first place. If we simply ran prey down there and then neither of those would be necessary.

quote:

---

I agree, but I also note that there is really no fully "hairless" mammal that I am aware of. Certainly human does not qualify. It is one of the defining characteristics of mammals.

---

Agrred, in fact I seem to recall there are actually no hairless mammals at all, some just have "vestigial" hair.But this now reaches the point of absurdity in that clearly elephants are much much less hairy than bears.

quote:

---

Jogging is more like a half run in speed and endurance.

---

Yes of course but you missed the point: why are bothering to draw the distinction? I don't think you are succeeding in making a point by objecting to the statement that ahir loss is an adaptation to running by pointing out that mostly we jog. The relevant factor in hair loss, increased heat dispersion, is still relevant.

quote:

---

And I repeat: Attributing our {rare} loss of hair to our {unique} long-distance ability in this regard is a logical (causal) fallacy -- they are not necessarily connected.

---

Well I agree they are not NECESSARILY connected. However I didn't provide a full defence of the concept because the thread is about clothes. The argument about hair loss and running has to do with the rate of heat dissipation, that is that we can maintain pace over long distances because we sweat well. Now you point out that hippos and rhinos are not runners and this is true - but also they are big, massive animals. Seeing as volume increases by the cube and area increases by the square, big animals have proportionally less area with which to dissipate heat. Thus it is not suprising to me that some big savannah animals are hairless on the basis of exactly the same reason that humans are hairless. Running is merely an *application* of the facility that hairlessness allows - increased heat transmission.And furthermore, it is unsurprising that animals in arctic or cold areas both tend to have lots of hair and tend toward the large, in order to minimise heat dissipation.

quote:

---

It applies in forest and jungle as much as on savannah. It is an intelligent rationing of endurance in order to achieve a future goal, if you will.

---

The mechanics of locomotion might apply, but there is very little opportunity for sustained running in the jungle or forest. Savannahs are flat, empty and dry-hot - optimum running conditions. We are also, I point out again, 50% leg by height and a significant proportion by mass. We have all sorts of sex-related interest in legs, buttocks and feet, which makes sense if pedal locomation is a big deal in our evolutionary past. The "running ape" model seems compelling to me, of which the argument to hair loss is only a part.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-12-2005 06:12 AM

quote:

---

The hyenas are more hairy than leopards, chettahs, and female lions, and more mottled (camoflaged) than many large cats. So, why haven't hyenas specialized through the hair reduction stage according to this long range stalking theory?

---

Two miles is not very much. The proposition for humans goes as far as multiple days at 3-5 km/h for a total range in the order of 100+km.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-17-2005 09:42 AM

quote:

---

that still doesn't get us to loss of hair from the running hunting bit.

---

It shows that hair loss for running in humans would have contributed to hunting efficiency where it might not have done for other animals.Incidentally I think you are badly wrong to claim that no other animals have heat dissipation ctonrols for running. I say this becuase ALL mamaals have heat regulation systems; heat regulation is a "fundamental" technology for mammals. An adaptation of that system is not terribly suprising imo. Some whales have blood vessels built as heat exchangers as an adaptation to the cold depths they inhabit.tjhere is a general continuum of larger, heavy-furred animals in cold environmants and smaller, lighter-furred animals in hot environments. We fit into that paradigm well enough that no extraneous answer is called for IMO; heat exchange is a fundamental parameter of an animals operating envelope.This message has been edited by contracycle, 01-17-2005 09:50 AM

[quote] humans can continue to do the walk-run-walk-run fully clothed, and they spend more time walking when it is hot to a greater degree related to temperature than to clothing.[/.quote]OK - next new york marathon, I'll bet on a runner in trunks and you can bet on a runner in a gorilla suit.

quote:

---

maybe hats make a bigger contribution to cooling? Hair actually provides shade for the skin, and increased surface for sweat to evaporate from.

---

Thats taken as a supporting data point by the running ape argument - our main area still exhibiting hair is on the tops of heads where the sun beats down. Hair that blocks sunlight would still be useful; hair that impedes sweat would not be.

quote:

---

I don't believe I ever said that or even implied it. My only question is that if thinning hair is a benefit to humans in the survival selected trait of getting fed then why isn't it more prevalent in other similar sized hunters?

---

And that point has been rebutted multiple times: just because something WOULD be beneficial if it happened does not mean that it WILL happen.

quote:

---

AND If it is not more prevalent then either (1) the concept is invalid or (2) there are other factors involved that {accent\mitigate} the action of this factor or (3) there are other factors that are way much more involved in the selection for thinner hair (like sexual selection) and this aspect is a bit-player on a larger stage.

---

Point 1 is silly. Point 2 can support my argument - it is a specific combination of factoirs in the human body form, such as being bipedal, that make long distance running a viable strategy at all. I'm not sure ther are any presently observed niches of which the same could be said. Point 3 is reasonable enough except for the fact that sexual selection describes only the mechanism and not the motive; that is I find it to be a perpetual non-answer.