the evolution of clothes?

Dear Whatsyourname:Humans began wearing clothes to provide camoflage for hunting other animals. The first clothing was skins, bark, plant fibers, etc., that provided cover of scent and provided camoflage by immitation of other naturally camoflaged creatures, plants, or provided an appearance similar to the animal pursued by the hunters so could approached prey close enough to capture or kill.Once man became adept at making and preserving skin clothing for the purpose of camoflage, man then possessed such skills as could be used to manufacture clothing for other purposes as such purposes became necessary, ie. for physical protection against thorns, weather, etc.Evolution of clothing occured like evolution of all other initial human inventions like tools, jewelry, art, etc. eventually becoming stylized and ritualized. However, all basic human invention (clothing, language, tools, religion, politics, etc.) intitially was due to survival necessity.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-03-2005 14:02 AM

Caraculus: You say, "Given that the technology was in place by 1.6 MYA (working hides, A robustus)"This is very interesting. Can you please provide information you have regarding "hide-working technology" in place 1.6 million years BP.The earliest documented hide scraping tools I have seen displayed in studies indicate (middle and upper Paleolithic sites) circa 400K to 40K BP and were manufactured* by Neanderthal hominids. Do you have access to information that "hide-working" preceeds Neaderthals?* Just a moment...

Yes, the site I provide a link to makes no claim that the scrapers analysed were the oldest examples ever found of hide scrapers. However, the oldest hide scraper I have been able to find a reference to online was "somewhat older than 100,000 BP."What I guess I am asking you for is proof of some sort that clothing, or even scraped hide shelters, existed at such an early date as 1.6 billion BP as you stated in your previous post. I find that a startling claim in that no evidence seems to exist to support clothing by species other than Neanderthals and CroMagnons.I am assuming that clothing initially consisted of hides. I may be way off base in that supposition. But, assuming the first clothing was hides, then we should be looking to the hide scrapers as evidence of the manufacture of clothing. That's why I supplied the link that I did, because it was the only link I found where someone actually analysed the residue from scrapers to prove what it was that was scraped.Again, if you have evidence that hide scraping indeed was practiced 1.6 billion years BP, that would be startling and valuable information.Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-05-2005 12:30 AM

Lam, you say, "... perhaps walking upright made it necessary to display the sex organ all the time, and to some societies this became somewhat of an intimidation."While I wish I could actually intimidate someone with my genitalia, I actually would find it more intimidating to walk about totally naked and upright on a daily basis due to potential damage that might occur to my privates were I to live in a primitive environment where natural or manmade projectiles and blunt instruments might be aimed at my underbelly!After all, most animals' genetalia is located in more anatomically protected position that us upright schlong-swingers. So, I can recognize the apparent need or desire for loin cloths and penis sheaths by primitive men ... particularly those imposing penis sheaths.

Graculus: Sorry for the typo. Yes, I meant to quote you at 1.6 MILLION years BP, not Billion.Again, I would find it very enlightening if there is evidence of "clothing" that early. It is "clothing" we are speaking of in this topic, not shelters or windbreaks. Gorillas and Chimps construct bedding and rudimentary shelter from twigs, branches and leaves.We need scrapers to prove hides were scraped. Wooden scrapers 1.6 million years old will be hard to come by. Bone scrapers may be extremely rare as well. But stone scrapers would survive.Maybe the hides were worked by mouth. Then the wear on teeth might reveal a reasonable early date if a jawbone is available.However, all this is speculative since hides could've been worked for bags and shelters as you have already posited. And hides used for shelters and bags could be draped, poncho style, over the body as rudimentary "clothing."But when we get to the stage of manufactured clothing beyond rudimentary poncho cloaks and loin cloths, their assembly requires binding or stitching of some sort; and needles and awls will prove the approximate date of assembled clothing (other than grass garments). Bone needles and awls seem only to be found in association with Neanderthal and CroMagnon, so I find it hard to accept anything other than rudimentary cloaks, loin cloths, and maybe headdresses prior to Neanderthal.I reject the theory that hominids absolutely require clothing for migration and habitation outside Africa. There is nothing to support such a theory other than the fact that we contemporaries cannot conceive of living naked in other than temperate regions, while many of us keep domestic stock and chain dogs outside in extremely frigid weather.A lot can evolve in 1.6 million years, I think; and we're transfering our own unsubstantiated concepts of necessity on an extinct species when we suppose they absolutely required clothing to survive "outside Africa."Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-06-2005 10:48 AMThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-06-2005 10:51 AM

RAZD: I'm having trouble associating the depiliation of the human body solely with clothing. In fact, I think the majority of hair reduction most likely occured before the emergence of widespread and heavy clothing use, but then how do we determine that? Do cave paintings give us any clue as to Paleolithic piliation?Does natural selection, ala sexual attraction, play into this? I mean, sex always seems to be a primary motivator. Did prehistoric hominids favor the less hairy mates? Or even more to the point, were less hairy females more healthy, productive, and fertile due to their more effective manufacture of vitamin D and folic acid?Vitamin D is actually a steroid hormone called calcitriol which works by turning your genes on and off. In hundreds of tissues throughout your body, calcitriol demasks your genome. It signals your genes to make hundreds of enzymes and proteins crucial to maintaining health and fighting disease. Vitamin D is produced in human skin when sunlight strikes your skin. http://www.cholecalciferol-council.com/Folic acid is essential for reproduction. Folic acid production is regulated by skin color and exposure to sunlight.In other words, was it necessary for the human body to divest itself of hair in order to facilitate the production of vitamin D and folic acid essential for health and reproductivity?If the answer is "yes," then can the reduction of body hair on humans be attributed solely to weather and clothing or more to survival of the species through efficient reproduction?

Graculus: Thank you for your interesting retorts if not fully informative replies to my questions.Let's say for the moment that I accept each of your arguments regarding H. Erectus clothing with regard to whenever it originated and in relationship to survival in Siberian climatic conditions of whatever time era ...Now, about SEA TRAVEL ...In the last sentence of Your Post #43, you indicate that Homo Erectus engaged in "ocean travel" 350KYA. Do you mean by means other than accidental mobilization via flotsom? Are you saying there is evidence of watercraft 350K BP? Or are you claiming OCEANIC (as opposed to trans-gulf, trans-estuarian, or trans-ice sheet or ice berg-hopping) travel?More enlightenment please!Regards, Abshalom

Yeah, my black and white Shih Tsu has corresponding pink and grey skin; so, what's the point?

Graculus:You ask me if I am "claiming that berg hopping and ice sheet travel would be possible without clothing?" And then you ask whether "shoes and warm socks would be a minimum requirement."I preceded my question regarding your proof of oceanic travel circa 350KYA with a caveat that I was temporarily accepting your supposition that H. Erectus had rudimentary clothing that facilitated migration into frigid regions; note: "Let's say for the moment that I accept each of your arguments regarding H. Erectus clothing with regard to whenever it originated and in relationship to survival in Siberian climatic conditions of whatever time era ...Now, about SEA TRAVEL ..."I would still appreciate evidence more than supposition; however, now that I have temporarily set aside our clothing date argument, your're suddenly taking me all the way back to 840KYA with the "colonization of Flores" via "deep water crossings." Do you mean Flores, Guatemala? Help me out here with a link to the information to which you are referring.I truly want to know about ancient hominids' ability to colonize the globe, and would like information to substantiate extremely ancient deep water navigation. I will search online for other "Floreses" while I await any information you are willing to provide.Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-08-2005 09:41 AM

Graculus:Okay, excuse my temporary ignorance! I did a quickie research on Flores Man, which I had seen written up in the news recently but had totally forgotten about, and found the information to which you are referring: http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news123.htmOther articles on the Internet indicate that Flores Man skeletons are dating about 95K to 18K BP. The stone tools to which you and the above noted article refer are dated 840K BP using fission-track dating of volcanic rock within which the tools are said to have been encased.There is still some controversy regarding fission-tracked dates of porous rock exposed to excessive water in tropical environments; however, this information is very interesting especially considering the diminutive size of Flores Man (and his brain) to begin with.Thanks for the tip, and I will continue to research and consider this information with regard to extremely ancient sea travel.Regards, Abshalom

Graculus:Thank you for your help by leading me to this information. May I suggest something?When you find a site online that contains pertinent information, highlight the site's Web address in the "address" window in the top tool bar, left click on "Edit," then left click "copy" to capture the site's address.Then when back at the EvC topic reply window, left click to access "paste," and right click to paste the captured Web address into your reply. Then we can all enjoy the sites you say are out there waiting for our enlightenment.And there is a thread called "argh ... quote boxes" in the "Practice Makes Perfect" forum where the Administrators are teaching old computer-illiterate farts like me how to use technology to make our posts look all slick and professional like the other proficients at EvC. (As you can see, I am a retarded student at this time, and even have to edit such a simple response at this one.)Regards, AbshalomThis message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-09-2005 11:49 AM

Graculus, Your description fits you and me both.Anyway, all I am asking for is links to the information you cite so that I can read it for myself.Thanks again for the guidance. And if there are other forums that might be interesting, please forward that info too.Regards, Abshalom

Well, it's obvious that at least one human function is facilitated by our great reduction of body hair ... NIT PICKIN'

"Spotted hyenas can hunt just as well as scavenge. While the large cats can pursue for only a short distance, spotted hyenas can run down prey for up to two miles at speeds over 35 mph." Not FoundThe 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?

Contracycle: I don't know how or if the following information fits into your "fine hair" discussion, but here goes ...Years ago I was a zookeeper and cared for primates including a pair of Gelada baboons.I remember the male having a "necklace" of fleshy polyps that he from time to time fingered like prayer beads. I think the female had these, too; and they swelled slightly when she was "in season," if my memory serves me well.Anyway, the male would get sexually aroused and mount the female only to have his erect penis go flacid right at the point of insertion. This went on for a couple of years until one day a zoo visitor told me, "those two baboons are related ... probably brother and sister."This floored me, that baboons might actually be physically incapable of incest. But I reported the comment to the curator of mammals as he was very frustrated that the pair of baboons had not produced any infants over the past two years.Subsequently, the zoo traded off the male for another Gelada. I asked why, and was told that a computer check had verified that both animals came from the same mother a couple of years apart, but had been purchased from two separate zoos. They had never had previous contact until they were housed together in our zoo!Well, anyway, to the point ...While we were still trying to find a way to excite the male Gelada's sex interest, I had shown him a Playboy magazine photo of a young human female wearing nothing but a strand of pearls. The male Gelada was totally absorbed by the pearls strung around the nude's neck. He looked at them quizically, and repeatedly touched the pearls in the photo with his index finger while smacking his lips and showing his teeth. He was not interested in any other feature of the photograph.Regards, Abshalom