Exploring that - if there was a belt with loops worn and nothing else, one person in one group used the loops to carry tools to hunt or gather with, and another in another group the number of loops represented their social status and there was no other function - are both clothes, neither, or only one?
A cape worn only to identify they are the group leader. Clothing?
How much of clothing’s major function is protection from the elements, and how much is its major function its social value, be that covering up body regions considered out of public viewing by the group mores, decoration, and/or social signaling?
I think protection from the elements, signaling status and decoration are all things that clothing are for. If an item is worn on the body for any of those purposes, it’s clothing.
Test cases - an animal with a bit of plastic caught on its leg is not wearing clothing, because it didn’t choose to do so; this could apply to a human as well that has inadvertantly become entangled with something.
I suspect that the “protection” role of clothing is more “primitive” than the other roles - a person who is alone has no reason to signal status (and little reason for decoration), but still may need protection
Actually, I think that a solo human has nearly as much reason for decoration as one in a group. Consider how many people wear decorative underwear, even when there’s no chance that anyone but them will see it.
But yeah, protection, decoration, and status are all purposes of clothing, as well as maintaining societal standards of decency, and providing places to attach pockets, clips, or other storage devices. If an Amazonian wearing a belt and a penis sheath isn’t “wearing clothes”, then neither am I in the summer when I have on shorts and a T-shirt.
I think it’s a blurry line, and we’re probably going to have trouble coming up with a precise definition.
I will say that we speak of people “wearing” jewelry using the same word as we use to speak of people “wearing” winter coats; though considering the extent to which English at least uses the same word sometimes to mean drastically different things, that may not mean much.
My idea of clothing normally assumes some sort of flexible material – textiles, hides, synthetics, even chain mail – or I suppose large pieces of inflexible material like plate armor. But I wouldn’t normally consider a small bit of hard decoration to be clothing. I’m sure there’s some edge cases (“a rigid metal penis sheath!” or “A ring made of leather!”) but I think that covers most of it.
Neither. Is a bag clothing? Because that’s the same function as the first.
Yes.
Now, or originally?.Because the original discussion was in the context of developing clothing, and I was speaking in that context.
Also, “protection from the elements” was perhaps not the best wording there, I didn’t just mean weather, but also abrasions and pokes and stuff like that.
Nowadays, I’d thumbsuck it’s 50-50 functional vs social, especially in temperate places (I mean, tell me clothing is primarily about social function in winter in Minnesota…), but when clothing was being developed, much more about protection. This is indicated by clothing developing when it was needed for elemental protection, not in the many thousands of years before when social signaling could still have been its function for otherwise already modern humans..
I think that’s it for me - to me. clothing needs to be cloth, or sufficiently cloth-like if leather or fur. And there will be plenty of edge-cases with such a scheme.
If someone was standing around dressed in rigid pieces of body covering, I would consider them to be clothed for all intents and purposes. How well clothed would depend on the pieces in question. I certainly wouldn’t consider them to be naked or near-naked. Your mileage may vary.
(By “plate armor” I mean less actual historical plate armor – or any other historical armor types – and simply “pieces of rigid material designed to be covering the non-bendy parts of the body”).
My dad wore a belt and nothing else as a Navy officer, so I’ll accept “both clothes, neither, or only one”.
But I spent time in the highlands of PNG, where the guys down from the hills dressed like Gunga-Din
For the uniform he wore
Was nothing much before,
And rather less than half of that behind,
For a piece of twisty rag
And a goatskin water-bag
Was all the field-equipment he could find.
It wasn’t for protection from the elements. The climate didn’t require it. But I’ve stubbed my toes, and cut my fingers, and (now that I’m fat), dropped food on my front. I don’t discount “protection” as a purpose of clothing.
I was brought up comfortable with naked, but for general living, or water-carrying in a war zone, I think I’d choose to be protected, and that’s “clothing” even if it’s only a bamboo tube.
A purse is an item of clothing. A grocery bag not.
Interestingly precisely because the purse is not only an item of function but part of an outfit, decoration, social signaling. Whether it is cloth, leather, or metal.
The original comment was about whether a tribe that wore a belt and nothing else was wearing clothing or decoration. But it has moved on …
I don’t think there is much to disagree about there.
I suspect however that almost immediately Og was asking if that loincloth made his ass look fat. More seriously stated, I suspect that its purpose as a social signifier as well was pretty damn immediate, even in very flat structured hunter gatherer groups.
Question: in those groups that had no need for clothing as protection from the elements for thousands of years, were there other decorative practices that were social signifiers? Face paints, tattoos, piercings …? I suspect there were. The desire for markings of status place within the group I suspect has always been there, and as soon as clothing of any sort developed it was used for that function. The best hunter got the choicest skins … and it marked him as the best hunter, so on.
