What counts as clothing?

[Chronos]

Yeah, it isn’t doing anyone any favors to keep dangling (as it were) that story out there. What were the circumstances that your father was able to work while (almost) completely naked? This isn’t the Lateral Thinking thread, don’t make us keep guessing.

[DSeid]

By the way, thank you for that link.

One bit in it is the fact that Aboriginals started to wear clothes as temperatures went down and then stopped again as things warmed back up.

To me that argues against any possible decoration/signaling primacy, which is part of what I was wondering.

[thorny_locust]

@DSeid

One bit in it is the fact that Aboriginals started to wear clothes as temperatures went down and then stopped again as things warmed back up

Did they stop wearing all clothes, though? Or just drastically reduce the amount of clothes they were wearing?

I’ve seen all sorts of references to people going without clothes when they were actually wearing something – just a whole lot less than the people in the cultures writing about them wore.

[DSeid]

They stoped having the tools to make them. Or so is claimed.

“The hide scraper tools and the bone awls from 12,000 years ago to midway through the Holocene [11,700 years ago to present] — those tools just disappeared from the archaeological record,” Gilligan said. He noted that “they elaborately decorated their bodies, they colored their hair, they painted themselves, they had scarification, so they didn’t need clothes.”

[thorny_locust]

So they weren’t making clothing from hides. There are plenty of other things one can make some sort of loin coverings from. (Or other clothes, for that matter; though I’ll grant that a warmer climate may well have considerably reduced the amount of clothing they were wearing.)

[DSeid]

Well there is no record of any clothing making tools during that period. The possibility exists that some clothing still existed with no tools needed or the tools now without record. Or the tools were the same used for scarification and such.

It seems improbable but could be.

[BigT]

For me, it works like most things. There’s kinda a base concept that is “clothes” and the idea gets wider as it goes on.

The base for clothes would be something like “something made of cloth that freely hangs on the body (without being held) below the neck that primarily covers up a portion of the body (possibly in layers).” Then things kinda expand from there: what if it’s not cloth? what if it’s on the head? what if it’s primarily decoration? and so on

The line is necessarily fuzzy, but the main thing I think of is that base definition when someone mentions clothes.

Also, to be clear, this is in the form of categories, not specific items. Sure, there are pants that are worn for decorative purposes, but pants in general cover up the part of the body.

[puzzlegal]

I once read an article about a region of ~China that appeared to have missed the stone age. When early humans were making stone axes and scrapers and … in all the rest of the world, none were found in this region. The article pointed out that that region neatly covered the area where bamboo was probably endemic in that time period, and that all those tools can be made of bamboo, which is cheaper than good stone.

Soooo Lots of possibilities.

[purplehorseshoe]

@Melbourne

At times, while working, my dad wore nothing else. He was an officer. He wore an officers belt.

That is the single best instance of “answering a question without answering the question” I’ve ever encountered.

Bravo.

Hats off to you, sir – oh, wait. Belts off? (Nah, that sounds weirder.)

Sorry to continue the hijack - the original discussion is fascinating! - but I, too, join the ranks (HA) of those with … questions.

[DemonTree]

@thorny_locust

Not everything eaten for dessert is a fruit. (Ice cream, anybody?) Not everything put in a pie is a fruit. Not even if it’s a sweet pie.

Yeah. Rice pudding is a dessert, but that doesn’t make rice a fruit.

---

@thorny_locust

Did they stop wearing all clothes, though? Or just drastically reduce the amount of clothes they were wearing?

Most Aborigines wore no clothes according to early European visitors and settlers.

This paper is very relevant and discusses the same question as the thread in its introduction:

The term “clothing” is employed throughout this work in
a simple and straightforward sense. The main qualification
is a distinction between “simple” and “complex” clothing,
as discussed later. Clothing is, however, highly ambiguous
with respect to items such as girdles, waistbands, and so
on. This problem becomes acute for the ethnographic study
(Study 1). In this study, for purposes of quantitative analysis, the early European and colonial-era descriptions of the
appearance of Aboriginal people are categorized as either
“clothed” or “naked”.

For Aboriginal people, the adoption (or imposition) of
European-style clothing represented a fundamental rupture
of their traditional values and identity, and it was a key
material marker of their loss. From their perspective, it was
not such much the acquisition of clothing that mattered –
in some areas they had used indigenous garments at times
– but rather it was the loss of their habitual nakedness that
went along with it. Prior to white settlement, there had
been no such thing as “nakedness”. It was a constant
psychological state for them, even when they might throw
a cloak over their shoulders to keep warm. The latter held
no particular social connotations, and to denote a special
state of being without a garment made no more sense than
for Europeans to have a distinct term for being without a
watch, or an umbrella. The regular use of European-style
clothing along with all its profound connotations, however,
was a different matter entirely:

There are no words that I have come across in our
indigenous languages to describe nakedness. Prior to
the colonists’ invasion of our territories there was no
reflection of our nakedness. The reflection of nakedness came with the other, the clothed colonising
peoples… Nakedness was our identity and culture.
What is our culture now? Still nakedness? Yes it is,
but it lies suppressed beneath the covering layers of
colonialism… This was more than a dispossession of
land; it was a dispossession of law, and the disposal
of nakedness
(Watson 1998: 2)

In the present study, even with a more restricted definition
of clothing, there arise practical areas of ambiguity between items that can be termed “clothing” and those that
better qualify as “decoration” or “ornamentation”, and
there is often an overlap where a particular item clearly
qualifies as both. This issue of what qualifies as clothing is
an entire subject in itself, and is not entirely theoretical.
Aside from the pragmatic difficulties encountered in
categorising ambiguous items for the ethnographic study in
the present work, matters of definition become crucial in
relation to the question of clothing origins. The prehistoric
origins of clothing, and the origins of personal decoration
and ornamentation, are not synonymous, although the
issues are often confused in the literature, sometimes
hopelessly so.

Another, more particular, problem with “clothing” arises in
the Aboriginal context. Garments such as kangaroo-skin
capes and opossum-fur cloaks were often used not as
clothing but as rugs or blankets, or additionally for
carrying utensils or food, or to carry infant children. The
definition of the item, in other words, might vary according
to the context of its use. In some instances it is simply not
possible to draw a distinction. Where the item is described
as being worn on the body in a particular situation, it can
usually be categorised as clothing. Where it is described as
a “cloak” or “cape” but is also used as ground covering or
as a sleeping blanket, and where it may reasonably be
inferred that the item was also used as a garment at other
times, it may be is categorised as clothing, even though its
use as such may not have been witnessed at the time. Such
an approach is not without its problems, but has been
considered the less problematical option here, though it is
admittedly open to criticism.

An underlying difficulty with the term “clothing” is that,
ultimately, it denotes the intended purpose for which the
item is manufactured or utilised. Clothing is, in a sense,
any item that is applied to the body for the purpose of
covering the exposed skin surface, whatever other purposes
it might also serve. Inferring intention is fraught with
dangers, not only of a semantic variety. It is nonetheless
inescapable, and the Concise Oxford Dictionary refers to
this aspect in its definition, “items worn to cover the
body”. Strangely enough, perhaps the most crucial aspect
of this definition is the word “to”, which implies a purpose
of giving cover to the body. This can lead to dilemmas.
One example is where an Aboriginal person (usually a
woman) might be wearing a marsupial-skin item, but with
the purpose of carrying it in this fashion whilst on the
move, as a matter of convenience, rather than as covering
(e.g. Du Portail, in Plomley and Piard-Bernier 1993: 300).
The item may actually serve as a rug rather than as a
garment. Is this clothing? The answer is probably “no”, despite it being worn on the body at the time. This issue is
pertinent in the case of the Tasmanian Aborigines, where
observers during Cook’s visit in 1777 were generally of the
view that the women they saw wearing wallaby-skin capes
were utilising them solely for the purpose of carrying their
infants, and not as clothing (e.g. Ellis 1782: 20).

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ian-Gilligan/publication/262726207_Another_Tasmanian_Paradox_Clothing_and_Thermal_Adaptations_in_Aboriginal_Australia/links/53d10de30cf2fd75bc5d6451/Another-Tasmanian-Paradox-Clothing-and-Thermal-Adaptations-in-Aboriginal-Australia.pdf

[thorny_locust]

@DemonTree

Prior to white settlement, there had
been no such thing as “nakedness”. It was a constant
psychological state for them, even when they might throw
a cloak over their shoulders to keep warm. The latter held
no particular social connotations, and to denote a special
state of being without a garment made no more sense than
for Europeans to have a distinct term for being without a
watch, or an umbrella. The regular use of European-style
clothing along with all its profound connotations, however,
was a different matter entirely:

There are no words that I have come across in our
indigenous languages to describe nakedness. Prior to
the colonists’ invasion of our territories there was no
reflection of our nakedness.

[quoted by, not written by, DemonTree]

If that’s accurate, that answers my question: there’s at least one known human culture that doesn’t have modesty in that sense of the word. So it’s not essential to humans.

Thanks for info! (though I do still wonder how the rest of us came to have it.)

[DemonTree]

@DemonTree

to denote a special state of being without a garment made no more sense than for Europeans to have a distinct term for being without a
watch, or an umbrella.

This reminds me of a line in Roald Dahl’s autobiography, which I can’t have read in 25 years and don’t have a copy of, but the internet came through for me.

@Roald Dahl

We were all very serious and dignified gents taking the train to our offices in the City of London where each of us, so we thought, was engaged in high finance and other enormously important matters. Most of my companions wore hard bowler hats, and a few like me wore soft trilbys, but not one of us on that train in the year of 1934 went bareheaded. It wasn’t done. And none of us, even on the sunniest days, went without his furled umbrella. The umbrella was our badge of
office. We felt naked without it. Also it was a sign of respectability. Road-menders and plumbers never went to work with umbrellas. Businessmen did.

@thorny_locust

Thanks for info! (though I do still wonder how the rest of us came to have it.)

I guess there are advantages to concealment, and having once got used to it as a result of the demands of climate, perhaps it is hard to go back?

[thorny_locust]

@DemonTree

I guess there are advantages to concealment, and having once got used to it as a result of the demands of climate, perhaps it is hard to go back?

Except apparently not for the people you cited as having no concept of nakedness.

[Melbourne]

OFFS. He was in the Navy. From the advantage of my declining years, he was just a kid. I don’t think he could even vote. Sometimes stuff had to be done in the water, and a lot of the sailors couldn’t swim. The weather at Bikini Atol was warm, and the public was not present. The Navy didn’t use to be any more frightened by nakedness than the rest of society was. See High schools, YMCAs, and nude swimming - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board .

[MrDibble]

@Chronos

given suitable materials, a bag is easier to conceptualize.

Humans evolved in a part of the world where woven grass baskets literally hang from trees. They had no need to conceptualize them themselves.

[thorny_locust]

Oh good point!

Carry the whole nest with the eggs in it, in order to have the eggs to eat somewhere else. Try putting something else in the nest after you’ve eaten the eggs. Try patching the nest when it starts to break down. Try making one from scratch –

Someone in there still has to get the idea of tying it on their body in order to get the full utility. But you’re right, the woven container to start with would have been right there. And even a bag you have to carry in your hand is more useful than just having your hand to carry things in.

[DemonTree]

@thorny_locust

Except apparently not for the people you cited as having no concept of nakedness.

According to the paper:

The garments were of a single-layer, draped variety, hung loosely from the shoulders. They generally took the form of capes or cloaks, and were manufactured from marsupial skins, mainly kangaroo or wallaby hides, or a number of opossum furs sewn together. These items served additionally, and sometimes primarily, as mats or rugs, and as bags or containers, the latter especially among women, who also used them to carry their infants.

That’s not very concealing. And as far as I can gather, they were not worn regularly, but only when the weather was particularly cold, so perhaps the taboo never had chance to develop?

But from reading more about other ancient cultures, it seems that clothing first became an indicator of status, with no clothing representing the lowest status, and taboos around nudity developed later, maybe as a result of this. Perhaps in a hunter-gatherer society there was not enough wealth to support large status differences, so it never happened?

Even in Western countries, there were/are times when nudity is expected and not taboo, and rules about what clothing is acceptable depend on the situation, eg pool or gym Vs fancy restaurant.

[thorny_locust]

@DemonTree

But from reading more about other ancient cultures, it seems that clothing first became an indicator of status, with no clothing representing the lowest status, and taboos around nudity developed later, maybe as a result of this. Perhaps in a hunter-gatherer society there was not enough wealth to support large status differences, so it never happened?

That’s an interesting theory, and does make sense to me. AIUI, known hunter-gatherer societies indeed are generally relatively equalitarian, with a few exceptions. I’m sure there were people better respected than others, but this may have been mostly on an individualized basis.

And it also makes sense to me that we started off with multi-purpose items useful as carriers, mats, blankets, or cloaks depending on the need of the moment.

(I’ve noticed, however, that because something makes sense to me doesn’t mean that’s the way things actually work . . . )