Nude Attitude

by Rob Boyte

In 1992 I wrote that the National Geographic needs a nude attitude adjustment.  I referred to their reluctance to portray white European and American nudists as candidly as they do other nude cultures.  I've been a long time member of the National Geographic Society, and really enjoy its exploration of our world and universe, but in areas of body acceptance they still exhibit a prudishness that hasn't quite left the 19th century.

The January issue is an example of this.  Its feature article is about Neandertals (new spelling), and included the latest information on this mysterious relative of ours.   There are many new insights with the large finds of fossils throughout Europe.

Anatomically, Neandertal was capable of speech, so we can assume a language.  They inhabited Europe for abut 200,000 years, and coexisted with modern humans for about 10,000 years (between 40 and 30 millennia ago).  Then they disappeared, and no one knows exactly why. 

There are several theories for the mysterious disappearance, from overt annihilation by modern humans, displacement by modern humans, or interbreeding with modern humans.  Some scientists argue that they were a different species, others say they were compatible with humans for interbreeding.  One possibility is that they lacked a conceptual way of human thinking that thrust us modern humans into the exhilarating mess that we find ourselves in.  Perhaps they lacked the driving curiosity of our species, or couldn't conceive of past and future, and existed until their present ran out.

There are  fascinating findings that Neandertal probably had a developed culture, and were not just brute animals as had long been supposed.  They not only made functional tools, but also wore ornamentation.  They may have ritualistically disposed of their dead, and there is evidence of injured members who must have been cared for and supported by others.  And, surviving a couple of ice ages, they had to wear clothes. 

As a modern human who wears as few clothes as possible, I live most of the year in cut-off shorts, even when the temperature gets into the forties.  This year Florida has had in one month the equivalent of the Neandertals 200,000 year existence, alternating between tropical and frigid.  So, I start out nearly naked and end up in cut-offs with a shirt and jacket.  In other words, as it gets colder, my first impulse is to cover my shoulders, arms and chest, not the hairy bottom part of my body.  Even more basic, check out the nude beach when the temp drops suddenly.  You'll see towels draped on shoulders, not around the waist.   So, are these illustrations suggesting another theory for Neandertals disappearance during the great Ice Age - that they were too stupid to cover their shoulders?

If we're assuming, by the paintings, that it was not cold enough to cover their shoulders, then why the loin cover?   Of course we know the reason for the "Alley Oop" wardrobe.  We can't show a naked cave man due to modern modesty. 

That's why the very first reconstruction of Neandertal, an illustration in Harper's Weekly in 1873, was wearing fur around his middle.   A more accurately nude (side view) reconstruction appeared in L'Illustration in 1909, although it was inaccurately bestial.  A rather low-browed, brutish looking Neandertal reconstruction appeared in The Illustrated London News in 1929 wearing just a fur around his loins.  This was the contemporary image of Neandertal when V.T. Hamlin created "Alley Oop" in 1933.  It appears that Victorian era prudery overrode scientific logic in the 19th century and reconstructions of Neandertals modestly hid their unmentionables.  This has become a tradition, copied by subsequent artists.  

Using my opposable thumb, I flipped through all the anthropology books at hand with illustrations of primitive humans, and found that Australopithecines are always  allowed to be nude.   Many of the primitive human reconstructions even venture to show front views of men and women with discernible genitals.  These were done in the more naturally comfortable 1970s.  By contrast a very accurately reconstructed statue of a Neandertal man  made in 1990 for exhibit at the Maxwell Museum of the University of New Mexico was "altered" for public propriety and has no genitals.  How easily the school kids will now be able to solve the mystery of Neandertals extinction.

Homo erectus is usually portrayed nude, except in the World Book Encyclopedia 1996 edition, that says they were the first to use fire and may have been the first to wear clothing, which helped them move into cold climates.  Shown, is a very nice illustration of a group of  Homo erectus people in an obviously warm climate wearing skins on their loins. 

A lot of this has to do with artistic license, and illustrations have been used that scientists know are inaccurate.  The 1873 reconstruction of Neandertal had domesticated dogs sharing his cave, and a beautifully done 1952 painting by Z. Burian, of a Cro-Magnon man has him prematurely holding a bow and arrows.   It appears that the artist for  National Geographic has merely subscribed to our cultural mythos of how primitive people dressed, and in so doing will now perpetuate that myth further.

We've barely discerned that Neandertals had language, much less philosophy, so why would we assume that they had modesty?   In defending its policy of photographing naked natives, the Geographic says they photograph them "in their natural settings, providing honesty and credibility to the respective photo essay."  Photos being out of the question, the artist should have imagined how Neandertal would not have dressed during those tropical times between the ice ages.  There are anthropological photos that show us unselfconsciously naked cultures that live in the tropics today.   There's no reason to think that ancient primitive humans in tropical conditions would have worn unnecessary clothing.  For the artist to show us "Alley Oop" is neither honest nor credible.

IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOI

The History of Clothing - Volume One

Rob Boyte

Remember the thong bathing suit, or T-back?   They were the semi-nude craze just a decade ago.   Now and then you still see them, either as a fashion statement or in places where some rudimentary clothing is required. 

I never owned one, having tried one on and found that a 3/4 inch strap up my natal cleft (butt crack) was quite irritating.  I went with the traditional G-string (anal floss) when required.  Butt, you ask, what brought on this nostalgia for retro swimwear?  It was the discovery of the thong's long history. 

I thought it had originated in Asia, where Sumo wrestlers seem to be wearing a larger, less attractive variation of it, but the September 1997 issue of National Geographic Magazine has placed this uncomfortable and unnecessary article of clothing at a much earlier age than Japan itself. 

The thong it seems, was worn by the earliest Homo sapiens about 117,000 years ago.  In an article about the discovery of an ancient woman's footprint by the sea in South Africa, there is a painting by Richard Schlecht.  This is the artist who dressed Neanderthals in "Ally Oop" fashion in the January 1996 issue of National Geographic.  Apparently he has knowledge of archaic fashion that is never mentioned in the articles but appear in his paintings.

So, our earliest ancestor, perhaps knowing that she was going to leave a footprint in the sand that would solidify and be seen 117,000 years later in more modest times, put on her favorite animal skin T-back for a walk to the beach.  It gives me such a feeling of connectedness to realize that this ancient ancestor of mine and all humanity also chafed at a strap up her butt.   Although I sometimes wonder why.