Who says early pants weren’t made of penis bones
Comment on What a time in history...
Zagorath@aussie.zone 3 days ago
Or could it be that bone preserves better than textiles?
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 2 days ago 
wander1236@sh.itjust.works 3 days ago It does say “indication” which would probably include more than just literal physical remains of pants, like drawings and statues.
ech@lemmy.ca 3 days ago
A better comparison would be the earliest known representation of a flute in similar context (statue, painting, etc)
arrow74@lemmy.zip 3 days ago
This is the correct interpretation.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 3 days ago
“Indications of humans wearing pants” doesn’t have to refer to an archeologist finding preserved remains of pants buried in the ground. It could refer to art depicting people wearing pants, writings where people are described as wearing pants, a receipt for the purchase of some pants, or even the discovery of tools that could be used for making pants.
svcg@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 days ago
I myself gave on account of you 19 pairs of trousers to the palace and Sumi-abum gave (likewise) 18 pairs of trousers, apart from the sealed document which we both handed over to the temple of Shamash.
Complaint tablet to Ea-Pantsir
saltnotsugar@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Og bought pants today for one ooga, attached is the receipt, a sworn statement, and several paintings of Og wearing the heck out of these bad boys.
Hazel@piefed.blahaj.zone 3 days ago An absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, as they say.
Willy@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
We got us a scientist here.