Humans first wore clothes 170,000 years ago

1. 64

   pisean282311posted 12 years ago

   Humans began to wear clothing 170,000 years ago, a technology which enabled them to migrate out of Africa successfully, a new study has claimed.
   
   The evidence comes from seemingly very unfashionable lice, since US scientists tracked when head lice evolved into clothing or body lice 170,000 years ago, used DNA sequencing for their calculations.
   
   "We wanted to find another method for pinpointing when humans might have first started wearing clothing. Because they are so well adapted to clothing, we know body lice or clothing lice almost certainly didn't exist until clothing came about in humans,"said study leader David Reed of Florida University.
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------
   
   your views?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      did they have body lice because hairer?

      replyreport
   2. 60

      kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      chasing the wind

      replyreport
      1. 64

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         ?

         replyreport
   3. 51

      paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why did the humans started wearing clothes? Please

      replyreport
      1. 64

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         to protect oneself from weather...nothing more than that...

         replyreport
         1. 51

            paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            How are you so sure?
            
            The other animals in the same circumstances did not wear any clothing. Why?

            replyreport
            1. 74

               Rishy Richposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Because Allah told humans to wear clothes & because Allah told animals to be naked. It too must have been told somewhere in Quran. You were trying to point that out. Right? Happy? Satisfied?

               replyreport
               1. 82

                  vox vocisposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  If you take a better look at some forum threads Rishy Rich, you will find that some people just wait for others to suggest sth so that they could provoke meaningless discussions and negative feelings. It is their purpose of being in this community (unfortunately).  Advice - just ignore them otherwise they will comment again!
                  
                  I would say that people first started wearnig clothes because they were cold, then as intelligent and creative beings they started using them to feel better, look better and earn money while at it!

                  replyreport
                  1. 74

                     Rishy Richposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Agree

                     replyreport
                  2. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Africa is mostly hot not cold.

                     replyreport
      2. 60

         pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe because our hair/fur fell out. (If we had hair/fur) Which is where the lice might have come from. When our hair fell out our skin had not yet conditioned itself to the elements. So rather than waiting to adapt, we got impatient, killed a buffalo or something and used their skin instead.
         
         If we kept our hair we might have been able to exist like animals do? We might not have needed to kill another animal.
         
         Our culture used flax. Can't remember if they killed animals. Probably...

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            yes, of course they killed animals - the giant moa, fish etc.   Moa since extinct. The only mammals in NZ at the time were bats (not sure if they ate those) & I'm pretty sure they were light on the 'clothing' front.
            The leaders had cloaks with feathers (probably off the Moa)

            replyreport
            1. 60

               pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Haha, no the feathers were from birds. Perhaps way, way back when moas existed they were feathers from that. I can't remember..
               
               Yes I know they killed animals for food eventually, Just not sure about the clothing.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Moa eggs would have been a feast too - much larger than emu egg. No wonder the Moa became extinct

                  replyreport
         2. 0

            Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            well, apparently they ate their enemies too
            
            http://maorisource.com/MaoriWeapons.html
            
            As for clothing - all they had was birds (some up to 200kg) and plants like flax to make clothing from
            
            They made tools from stone and bone (including human bone)
            
            This is only a few hundred years ago

            replyreport
            1. 60

               pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Yes we have come a long way haven't we! Haha
               
               The source you provided seems to know a bit about our culture on a very surface level. Perhaps that is because he is European and lives in New York, I don't know?
               
               If you are really interested, The best European source of the times was Eldon Best. He actually lived in the days we were being colonized. His finding are about as close to accurate as one will get. Maori in the days were very skeptical of the Europeans and even then didn't give away a lot. His findings however are tainted by his Christian faith but if you can get past that you might get more insight into the Maori way of life.
               
               Ancient Maori (before colonization) never killed other human beings to eat. They killed for various reasons but the ritual of eating and drinking the blood was adopted from race that were here before we migrated. Apparently they were called Mori ori or something. It did have a spiritual significance to this ritual but I can't remember what that was. It was erroneous nevertheless. At least it is for modern Maori. It may not have been for them.
               
               There were a few noted exceptions to eatings ones enemy in the colonization period one of which is portrayed in a movie called Utu.
               
               Dead chiefs bones were usually used for different things including weapons. These also had spiritual significance that I cannot remember lol.

               replyreport
   4. 0

      Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      lots of indigenous cultures, in hot climates up until very recently (with european influence) were practically naked - just something around the groin sometimes.

      replyreport
   5. 61

      Dave Mathewsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      So what's your point? Is it that a form of clothing existed that far back, or is it that people wore clothing that far back? Or is it the fact that people wear clothing? I don't get it.

      replyreport
      1. 64

         pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

         there is only one point and that is we wear clothes since 1.7k years...isnt it interesting?

         replyreport
         1. 59

            Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Boy, this will piss the creationists off! 

            replyreport
         2. 0

            Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            well, not everyone wore clothes.  Check out these uncontacted tribespeople
            
            http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … rrows.html

            replyreport
            1. 59

               Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               They have more clothing on than did some people at beaches I have visited. 

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  some of them might wear a groin cloth that doesn't cover everything
                  
                  http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blo … ction.html

                  replyreport
   6. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      ROFL!
      Oh my.  LOL
      That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.

      replyreport
2. 60

   pennyofheavenposted 12 years ago

   So they arrived at all that with lice. Never heard of such lice. What are they? Like lice in the head?

   replyreport
   1. 64

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      might be...

      replyreport
3. 68

   goldenpathposted 12 years ago

   Very interesting.  Never head of this.  It's well worth the investigation.  We've certainly adapted untold amounts of history and relics from other worlds.  It's cool to know that they suffered these pesky devils as we do on Earth.

   replyreport
4. 56

   Maduraiposted 12 years ago

   Lice are studied because unlike most other parasites, they are stranded on lineages of hosts over long periods of evolutionary time.

   replyreport
5. 59

   kazemaru2posted 12 years ago

   That makes some sense not advanced to have a form of writing yet intelligent enough to clothe themselves.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      well writing was not important for survival , clothing was...

      replyreport
      1. 51

         paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you.
         
         But why use clothing?

         replyreport
         1. 64

            pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            i dont think clothing idea came instantly...we as species were hunters to start with...after killing the prey and eating up , skins might be used to protect from weather and slowly idea of  stiching and wearing might have developed...moral of story - PETA was not formed at that time or else we would still be roaming with clothes

            replyreport
            1. 51

               paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Sorry, I don' understand  "PETA". Please elaborate for me.

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  well PETA is world wide group which does some fabulous work for animals..

                  replyreport
            2. 51

               paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               It is just an imagination. Why should man wear clothes for just weather; when it was the same for every animal in the vicinity?

               replyreport
               1. 64

                  pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  no it is not imagination..it is logical...you can test wearing no clothes in this winter weather and see how you do in comparison to other species......clothes served singular purpose that is to protect from weather...all other reasons came later.

                  replyreport
                  1. 51

                     paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I see many living animals in this winter; if man would have not used clothing; he would have evolved otherwise; unless it is a design of the Creato-God.

                     replyreport
                  2. 61

                     srwnsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Yes but our bodies are used to wearing clothing now. If you hadn't ever wore clothing you might choose to move to a warmer climate or your body would get used to the surroundings. I'm a southern truck driver and I ask people up here in the north how they deal with the frigid temperatures. "You get used to it." they generally say.

                     replyreport
                     1. 51

                        paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I appreciate your input

                        replyreport
      2. 0

         Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         only in cold climates is clothing important for survival.  In hot climates they didn't bother much at all

         replyreport
6. 61

   srwnsonposted 12 years ago

   They were ashamed of their nudity I believe is the answer you're looking for.

   replyreport
   1. 64

      pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      after 1,70,000 years of programming , ofcourse humans would feel odd without clothes but that is not main reason for wearing clothes..those reasons like religion came much later ...what authors of religion wrote was based on social psychology of their times and they obviously could not relate to jungle living ancestor who existed in long long past...

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         well, it's so muggy here at the moment, it would be quite nice not to wear clothes, but it's not socially acceptable

         replyreport
      2. 60

         Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I believe there are still civilizations alive today in tropical climates that live in a nude or semi-nude state.
         
         I would assume that the need to wear clothing for any other purpose than protection from the elements, originated with those religion's that invented the need for laws based on thier definition of morality. Just a guess.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            there probably are

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I wonder if they need any help in the hitchen?

               replyreport
         2. 0

            Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            they have darker skin too - no sunscreen etc.   Any pale-skinned ones in hotter climate would have died out?

            replyreport
   2. 0

      Baileybearposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      only because society says so.  Young children enjoy being nude until they learn 'conventions'

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's really good news you just gave me BB, Since I still love running around nude, it's obvious I still haven't grown up.
         
         Night time in the country is a great time to stroll around outside naked. It's so relaxing I don't even mind the horses around here laughing at me.

         replyreport
         1. 93

            habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            If you did that here, you'd be covered in "skeeter" bites!

            replyreport
   3. 92

      Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, no one was ashamed until after the practice was well established. The first shame probably was shame of being too poor, not of nudity itself.
      
      There are other reasons to wear clothes besides weather. One is to hide sexual interest. Another is to carry wealth - even in the 1800's buffalo robes had real value. When clothing was difficult to make, it was worth much more.
      
      Clothing can have value as camouflage, to hide scent, to conceal weapons.. and to indicate status. The story of clothing is much more than covering nudity.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         And let's not forget about those briers and thorns! 

         replyreport
7. 93

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   Who were the most popular designers back then? Did they have knock-offs like we do now?

   replyreport
   1. 60

      pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      What are knock offs?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Don't ever buy a ROLLEX watch. It's probably a knock off of a ROLEX.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Oh hahaha!

            replyreport
      2. 93

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Fakes.

         replyreport
   2. 60

      Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Habee, I just recently watched Clan of the Cave Bear. They had some pretty good tailors back then. I didn't catch any labels but will watch closer the next time it's on. Peace

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Have you read the book, along with the sequels? Great reads!

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Stump Parrishposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            no I haven't, thanks for the tip. Off to the library website.

            replyreport
8. 68

   ThoughtfulSpotposted 12 years ago

   Ewwww... But interesting.
   
   I didn't realize that lice were so important to research.  Cool.
   
   Does anyone know if the clothing timeline correlates to the migration out of Africa?  I wonder if, as opposed to humans losing body hair, the newfound need for coverings was because we were venturing into colder climates?
   
   With the African heat, and our (hypothetically) dark skin tones (some theorize that the lighter skin colors were a later evolutionary development) to protect from sun exposure, there may have been no need for clothing until humans started making longer journeys.  (Although, I do wonder if even cultures in hot climates might have preferred to ultimately develop some sort of garment.  Nakedness is nice and all, but when I'm working hard outside, I do like to have my more sensitive areas protected from dirt, rocks, bugs, etc.)

   replyreport
   1. 61

      couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I learned that the lighter skin was a mechanism to absorb more sunlight in geographical areas where there was limited daylight hours, as in extreme northern countries like Scotland, Scandinavia, etc.

      replyreport
      1. 68

         ThoughtfulSpotposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's what I meant by "evolutionary development"... As people moved North from Africa, they evolved (including their skin tone) in order to adapt to the colder climates.  That's why I was asking if there was, perhaps, a correlation in time frames between these mass migrations and the advent of wearing more extensive clothing.
         
         I'm interested in human history, but not very knowledgeable when it comes to dates.

         replyreport
9. 59

   Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago

   Come on guys!  How many times do you think the climate has changed over the last 170,000 years?  The Younger Drayas event, only around 13,500 years ago, lasted perhaps 1000 years and some think caused the extinction of mammoth, mastodon, and other mega-fauna as well as most of the Clovis culture population.
   
   Possibly a comet or asteroid impact which caused cold temperatures because it blasted dust and smoke into the atmosphere and blocked the sunlight.  When it gets cold, skins and furs are the only option or you do not survive.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Yes but what I want to know is that where the clothing lice came from? Was it animal lice or something?

      replyreport
      1. 61

         couturepopcafeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm just guessing but since lice like to burrow in fur and hair, and humans didn't have all that much fur, the lice were transported onto humans from the animal fur.  Maybe just like diseases, they were never exposed to them before that.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Druid Dudeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Lice existed before. Their penchant for humans, has followed us, caring for those areas mainly, not touched by clothing, the hairy areas of head and groin. We seem to be their habitat of choice. Fleas, and ticks aren't as particular. Owned cats and dogs for a long time, been through some seasons where the lice were like the golden horde, yet have never treated pets for lice, nor have I ever heard it mentioned by vets.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               pennyofheavenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Oh haha. Read the OP again and it said head lice "evolved" into clothing lice. Duh! Thanks!

               replyreport
      2. 59

         Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         They evolved!  Possibly only a very few lice which could endure being in the dark could stand the cold climates the fur wearing humans were in. Their offspring would eventually dominate.  Natural selection.
         
         
         A species of butterfly in Hawaii evolved a mouth to enable it to eat bananas which were imported there by the Polynesians long ago.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            ThoughtfulSpotposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            For some reason a butterfly eating a banana totally freaks me out.  I have no idea why, but I now can't get the image out of my head, and its completely giving me chills.  How weird.
            
            Congrats on your "100" btw.  (and on giving me nightmares.)  

            replyreport
10. 51

    paarsurreyposted 12 years ago

    It is just an imagination. Why should man wear clothes for just weather; when it was the same for every animal in the vicinity? Africa where they say man first lived has a hot weather; not very cold there.

    replyreport
    1. 64

       pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       it is what they have arrived to conclusion not using some  books written by group of men thousands of years ago...they have reached conclusion using scientific means...yes books can come from imagination...i agree on that with you and it is imagination of our ancestors which thought clothes were needed to hide something than to protect us from weather...

       replyreport
       1. 51

          paarsurreyposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          I think clothing was a distinctive symbol that man was to evolve to more hights of evolution than the other animals.

          replyreport
          1. 64

             pisean282311posted 12 years agoin reply to this

             i  understand you think that...

             replyreport
11. 51

    paarsurreyposted 12 years ago

    I think clothing was a distinctive symbol that man was to evolve to more heights of evolution than the other animals.

    replyreport
12. 52

    Peekaposted 12 years ago

    I have read someplace of a theory that, way back when, mankind was evolving into living in the ocean because it was safer and warmer. Man lived close to water, ate clams/mussels/seaweed/fish, and ran into ocean to escape predators and started to evolve into an ocean creature; grasping fingers to dig in sand, pick clams, webbing between fingers and toes, deep diving reflex,  vertical posture from treading water, nose with nostrils pointing downward (diving and treading water), lived in social groups like porpoises, etc.  Going in/out of water was easier if you do not have fur.
    
    Then weather got colder faster than mankind could evolve back into furry creatures.  Furless humans needed to cover themselves to keep warm when they started staying on land more than in water.  Most predators do not eat fur and early man were scavengers and would wrap themselves in animal skins. Clothing is man's way of adorning themselves to attract mates. Men and women do not really have the obvious natural physical things that most animals have to attract each other; shiny feathers, head plume, lion's mane, songs, etc, that can be seen and heard from a distance.  Clothing serves that purpose by being flashy, emphasizes certain body parts, shows that the person can be a successful mate, etc.
    
    Head lice evolved to live on people's heads since the head was above water most of the time.  When mankind stayed on land longer, a head with hair is warmer because there is increased blood flow to the head.  Its a nice place to live and chances are better to meet other head lice because people will touch heads together more often than banging other hairy parts together.

    replyreport