you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 86 points 2 days ago (13 children)

Pants degrade much more than a flute made of bone, I'm not sure we can say humans didn't have pants simply because we didn't find them.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    You make a good point .

    But counterpoint, if I could be prancing around in the woods with a flute instead of plunging computer bits, you couldn't keep my pants on if you tried.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 days ago (4 children)

    Very likely, it would have been a leather or hide used as a textile. So they might have survived in burials to some degree.

    Though, what's sort of funny is that humans got close, and just never connected leggins to whatever covered the hips.

    Otzi from 3200 BC wore a loincloth, a belt, and leggings. Sort of like if you were wearing a kilt and socks that went to your crotch, and had a garter so they connected to your belt. So "pants" is all about when did people start attaching leggings to their loincloths. Or loincloths to your leggings. Apparently not super popular for most of human history.

    Oh! Anthropologically NSFW images showing the clothing. It's like assless chaps!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    To be honest I am surprised by the 3000 year old pant as very early. Pants require a lot of sewing to make, and are totally optional- ask a scot, tarzan, a legionnaire, or a tunic-wearing ancient oligarch.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment