The Best Dressed Hominin Clothing, Tanning, and Textile Production in the Paleolithic

Abstract

In this chapter, we review the archaeological evidence supporting garment production in the Paleolithic with an emphasis on hide working and the rich textile industry of the Upper Paleolithic. We argue that textiles serve as an important vehicle for exploring questions related to planning, forethought, flexibility, seasonality, communities of practice, gendered labor, intergenerational knowledge transmission, the creation of taskscapes and new ways of moving through the world.

Full text

CHAPTER 9
The
Best
Dressed
Hominin
Clothing,
Tanning,
and
Textile
Production
in
the
Paleolithic
April Nowell and Aurora Skala
H
Introduction
It is estimated that more than 90 percent of the material culture as-
sociated with forager groups is made of perishable materials and thus
unlikely to survive in the archaeological record. This fact has led to a
focus on stone tool production and hunting at the expense of tasks
such as gathering and textile production as well as the knowledge base
and social relationships related to these endeavors—part of what Hur-
combe (2014: 2) refers to as the “missing majority” in the archaeological
record. To address this gap in our knowledge, the focus of this chapter
is garment production which includes both textiles and hide working.
Following Adovasio (1996: 709), “textile” is used here to mean “not only
flexible cloth with continuous-plane surfaces produced on frames or
heddle looms (i.e., textiles proper), but also products as diverse as bas-
ketry, matting, bags, nettings, cordage, sandals, and related so-called
perishable fiber artifacts.”
The loss of body hair in hominins, probably around 2.0 mya
(Dávid-Barrett and Dunbar 2016), presented a problem of how to stay
warm at night and during colder times of year (see Wales 2012; Creanza,
Fogarty, and Feldman 2013; see also Kowalczyk, Chikina, and Clark
2022). Keeping warm would also have been a concern as hominins mi-
grated into cooler climates. Researchers such as Gilligan (2010, 2017)
suggest that clothing was one of the solutions to that problem. Natu-
ral fibers trap pockets of warm air near the skin, maintaining warmth

The Best Dressed Hominin • 237
while allowing perspiration to dissipate. A study of head and body lice
deviation suggests that the regular wearing of clothing likely began at
least 200,000 years ago. There are two subspecies of the human louse
(Pediculus humanus)—the head louse (Pediculus humanus capitis) and
the body louse (Pediculus humanus humanus). They are distinguishable
from each other by how they look, how they behave, and where they
live. Hairlessness confined P. humanus capitis to the head, but sometime
between 83,000–170,000 years ago, body lice evolved to live in cloth-
ing and bedding, most often laying their eggs in the seams of clothes
(Toups et al. 2011; Brown 2021). The regular wearing of clothing must
have predated the divergence of the subspecies in order for there to be
an open niche for P. humanus humanus to inhabit.
In addition to providing warmth, clothing also offered hominins
protection from the dangers of the sun, insect and snake bites, and cuts
and blisters (and potential infections) from walking on rough terrain.
Textiles could also be made into bags and infant carriers (e.g., Gravel-
Miguel et al. 2022). Furthermore, garments are a way of culturing the
body through communicating social status, group affiliation, and indi-
vidual identity (Nowell and Cooke 2021). They are stylistically flexible
in a way that other material culture such as stone tools are not. While
garment production likely was planned well in advance in relation to
seasonally available resources (see “Forethought, Decision-Making, and
Time Management” below), ornaments could be added or removed,
and colors could be changed relatively easily making clothing the ideal
platform to simultaneously signal information about the wearer and
shape the wearer’s experience of moving through the world. In this
chapter, we review the archaeological evidence for clothing in the Pa-
leolithic and explore the implications of garment production for under-
standing planning, forethought, seasonality, multitasking, communities
of practice, gendered labor, intergenerational knowledge transmission,
the creation of taskscapes and human-animal relationships.
Archaeological
Evidence
of
Clothing
and
Textile
Production
Fibers
Fiber is the basic unit of raw material of suitable length, pliability, and
strength for conversion into thread, string, cordage, and eventually yarns
and fabrics. As Hardy et al. (2020: 1; see also Barber 1994) note: “twisted
fibres provide the basis for clothing, rope, bags, nets, mats, boats, etc.
which, once discovered, would have become an indispensable part of

238 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
daily life.” The difference between thread, string, and cordage is primar-
ily one of diameter with thread having the smallest diameter. Fibers
may be plied (twisted together) or unplied. Tensile strength increases
by plying fibers together and plied fibers are less likely to unravel, break,
or degrade. Thread is used for sewing
1
or stitching, whereas string and
cordage can be used for sewing but can also be employed for hafting
or other non-sewing activities. Retting,
2
that is, freeing plant fibers from
the woody material in which they grow, is a relatively straightforward
process, particularly in the winter. Winter conditions slowly rot away
plant material leaving fibers that can be easily collected and twisted into
string (Barber 1994).
The earliest secure evidence for fiber technology in the Paleo-
lithic is from Abris du Maras in France. At this Neandertal site, dating
to 41,000–52,000 years ago, a 6.2 mm fragment of 3-ply bast fiber was
found adhering to a Levallois flake (Hardy et al. 2020). Bast fiber is fiber
that grows just inside the bark of a tree or the outer stem of plants like
flax, jute, nettle, and hemp (Postrel 2020). At Border Cave (South Africa),
an artifact dating to 42,600 BP made from woven monocotyledon leaf
blades was recovered from Member 1 BS Lower C. (Sievers et al. 2022). It
is possible that the presence of shell (Nassarius kraussianus) and ostrich
eggshell beads at Border Cave may be indirect evidence of the use of
plant fibers for cordage in conjunction with weaving by 40,000 years
ago, although it is possible that the shells and beads were strung on
sinew (Sievers et al. 2022).
At Hohle Fels Cave in southern Germany, dating to approximately
40,000 BP, archaeologists discovered a 20 cm strip of mammoth ivory
with four holes drilled into it, which was used for making rope (Conard
and Malina 2016; Aura Tortosa et al. 2019; McKie 2020). Early modern
humans would have threaded plant fibers through the holes, twisting
them into strong ropes (McKie 2020). Other evidence of fiber technol-
ogy includes 30,0000-year-old wild flax fibers uncovered in the Repub-
lic of Georgia. It is likely that these fibers were used to make clothing or
blankets rather than cordage/rope given that they were spun, dyed, and
knotted (Kvavadze et al. 2009).
At Ohalo II, a waterlogged site in Israel, three fragments of fiber dat-
ing to 19,000 years ago were uncovered, while at Lascaux researchers
found remnants of 17,000-year-old 6-ply cordage (Bahn 2016). Accord-
ing to Barber (1994: 52–53), the Lascaux cord was “twisted from three
two-ply cords . . . . The plied cords . . . had each been formed by twisting
their component strands in the other direction from that in which they
had originally been spun. Such opposite twisting keeps the cord from

The Best Dressed Hominin • 239
coming apart once finished . . . an important principal that craftworkers
had discovered even at this early date” and presumably much earlier.
In Spain at Santa Maira Cave, archaeologists recovered multiple frag-
ments of cordage made from esparto3 (Stipa tenacissima) or a similar
grass (Aura Tortosa et al. 2019). Three fragments of this cordage that is
composed of multiple interlaced or braided fibers date to 12,730–12,710
BP rendering them “the oldest directly dated evidence of the use of
braided plant fibres in Europe” (Aura Tortosa et al. 2019: 6). Younger ex-
amples of fiber technology include two woven mats and one net from
Chertovy Vorota Cave (Russia) made from untwisted or hand-twisted
blades of sedge grass (likely Carex sordida) dating to 8400–9400 BP
(Kuzmin et al. 2012) and a similarly aged net from Finland that has been
directly dated to 9310 +/- 120 BP (Miettinen et al. 2008).
Cutmarks,
Use-Wear,
Residue,
and
Notching
A skilled individual or group needs very little to survive in terms of par-
aphernalia for creating complex clothing. For example, even long hair
can be used expediently as thread to stich up a wound or as a tying
device. Nonetheless, there are specialized tools associated with hide
processing and textile production that have been identified/inferred in
the archaeological record of the Paleolithic.
Hide
Processing
There are multiple sites with evidence of use-wear on stone tools re-
lated to hide scraping that significantly predate the divergence of the lice
subspecies (d’Errico, Doyon, et al. 2018). For example, between 300,000
and 400,000 years ago, hide processing, possibly for the manufacture
of clothing, is known throughout Eurasia and the Levant at sites such as
Hoxne (UK) (Keeley 1980); Qesem Cave (Israel) (Lemorini, Venditti, et al.
2015); Byki 1 and 7 (Akhmetgaleeva 2017); and Schöningen (Germany)
(Rots et al. 2015). At Fumane Cave, an early Upper Paleolithic site in Eu-
rope, a detailed use-wear analysis of a large assemblage of endscrapers
revealed that these artifacts were used exclusively to scrape hides (Aleo
et al. 2021).
Another tool specialized for working hides is the awl. Bone awls
used to pierce hides have been uncovered at Blombas and Sibudu,
South African sites dating to the Middle Stone Age (Henshilwood, d’Err-
ico, Marean, et al. 2001; d’Errico, Backwell, and Wadley 2012). In Europe,
awls are associated with Neandertals in Châtelperronian layers (ca.

240 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
54,000–42,000 BP) and with Denisovans in Initial Upper Paleolithic lay-
ers (48,000–37,000 BP), but this tool becomes much more common in
the Late Stone Age/Upper Paleolithic (Yanevich 2014; d’Errico, Doyon, et
al. 2018). This pattern could be the result of taphonomy or reflect a shift
toward more tailored clothing.
Ribs and long bone fragments with evidence of polish known as
bone “smoothers” or “lissoirs” have been uncovered at Lower and Middle
Paleolithic sites such as Schöningen (Germany), Pêch de l’Aze (France),
Abri Peyrony (France), La Quina (France), and Castel di Guido (Italy)
(Soressi et al. 2013; Julien et al. 2015; Martisius et al. 2020; Villa et al.
2021) (Figure 9.1). They are also very common in the Upper Paleolithic.
Hominins made lissoirs from ungulate ribs by splitting the ribs in half
Figure 9.1. Examples of lissoirs from (a) Pech-de-l’ Azé I (PA I) and (b–e) Abri
Peyrony (AP) in France. © Abri Peyrony and Pech-de-l’Azé I Projects, courtesy
of N. Martisius, M. Soressi, and S. McPherron (Martisius et al. 2020).

The Best Dressed Hominin • 241
and then shaping them through grinding and scraping (Villa et al. 2021).
Lissoirs exhibit a highly polished end with wear facets and striations
that, based on experimental archaeology and ethnographic analogy,
suggest they were used to process soft organic material, particularly
dry hides (d’Errico, Doyon, et al. 2018; Villa et al. 2021). Martisius and
colleagues (2020) applied minimally destructive ZooMS to five Middle
Paleolithic lissoirs to test whether Neandertals preferentially selected
the ribs of larger ungulate species for making these tools or if they ran-
domly chose any available rib. Their results demonstrated that in an
archaeological layer dominated by reindeer (Rangifer tarandus), Nean-
dertals consistently chose larger ungulates (Bos) from which to manu-
facture their lissoirs.
Spatulate-shaped bones are also known to have been used to pre-
pare hides in the process of making leather (Hallett et al. 2021). Spatulas
from Contrabandiers Cave (Morocco) suggest leather-making was tak-
ing place here by at least 120,000–90,000 BP. According to Hallett et al.
(2021: 5), “Spatulate-shaped tools are ideal for scraping and thus remov-
ing internal connective tissues from leathers and pelts during the hide
or fur-working process, as they do not pierce the skin or pelt.” Support-
ing evidence of leather-working based on comparisons with modern
fur removal techniques comes from an analysis of the faunal remains at
the site (Crezzini et al. 2014). Zooarchaeological analyses documented
cutmarks consistent with skinning for fur removal on sand fox (Vulpes
rueppellii), golden jackal (Canis aureus), and wildcat (Felis silvestris) skel-
etal remains (Hallett et al. 2021). Specifically, “initial incisions are made
on the forelimbs and the hind limbs to detach the skin from the paws.
The skin is then pulled towards the head in one piece, and to finally
detach the skin from the animal’s head, incisions are made near the lips,
resulting in cut marks on the mandible” (Hallett et al. 2021). These di-
agnostic marks are easy to distinguish from cutmarks produced during
meat removal. During butchering, cutmarks are concentrated on middle
and proximal shafts in order to detach muscle masses (Shipman 1986;
Hallett et al. 2021). While both types of cutmarks are found on the faunal
assemblage at Contrabandiers, there is a clear preference for skinning
carnivores for their pelts and no evidence to suggest they were also
butchered for their meat. In addition to clothing, leather can be used to
produce containers, wind breaks, and shelters (Hallett et al. 2021).
Similarly, a cutmarked bear metatarsal and phalanx (bones with very
little meat on them) from Schöningen 12 dating to 320,000 years ago
attest to the early processing of bear skins. Evidence of this behavior

242 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
is known from only two other Lower Paleolithic sites—Boxgrove in the
UK and Bilzingsleben in Germany. Researchers note that “the very thin
cutmarks found on the Schöningen specimens indicate delicate butch-
ering and show similarities in butchery patterns to bears from other
Paleolithic sites” (Verheijen et al. 2022). Interesting, only in the European
Middle Paleolithic do bears appear to be hunted for their meat (Verhei-
jen et al. 2022).
Based on a study of cutmarks and skeletal elements present at Pié
Lombard (France), archaeologists argue that Neandertals were roast-
ing rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) on site and processing their pelts to
be tanned at another location. While the return rate (time and energy
expended for caloric return) for rabbits is low, making use of the entire
animal (meat, bones, pelts) increases their value (Pelletier et al. 2019: 13)
and certainly the use of nets would have decreased capture time.
In the German Aurignacian site Geißenklösterle Cave, chamois fat
is present in sediment samples suggesting that chamois tanning may
have taken place inside the cave to create leather for future usage. At
Qesem Cave, a Lower Paleolithic site in Israel, researchers infer that
cold ash was used to preserve hides for later tanning based on ethno-
graphic analogy, experimental archaeology and use-wear and residue
analysis on stone tools (Lemorini, Cristiani, et al. 2020). Similarly, many
archaeologists have suggested that one purpose of ochre was for tan-
ning hides—again, a hypothesis that is supported through ethnographic
analogy and experimental archaeology (Rifkin 2011).
Finally, a 39,600-year-old bone artifact from Canyars, a Spanish Au-
rignacian site, is described as the earliest-known leather work punch
board. A punch board is an object that is used as a backing when
punching through leather. It provides stability, can protect the tips of
tools used to punch the leather and can prevent injury (i.e., it is pref-
erable to use a punch board than one’s leg when punching leather). It
is particularly useful if the leather is thick and one wanted even spaces
between stiches (e.g., for the sole of a shoe)—it allows you to keep the
leather taught and flat and to see the “big picture” of the required pat-
tern or design. Through experimental work, Doyon et al. (2023) demon-
strated that marks on the bone artifact are consistent with piercing soft
material, most likely hide. Furthermore, they were able to identify six
episodes of hide pricking including one they argue was the result of
producing a linear seam. Based on this evidence, Donyon et al. (2023)
suggest that tailored leather products (e.g., clothing, shoes, tents) pre-
date the introduction of bone eyed-needles into Europe approximately
15,000 years later.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 243
Textiles
Beginning in the early nineteenth century, researchers speculated that
various objects made from antler and stone functioned as crochet
hooks for making nets and shuttles or as spindles and spindle weights
for weaving and that a zigzag decoration on a reindeer antler point from
Le Placard (France) might depict basketry (Bahn 2001). While not all of
these suggestions have stood the test of time, there is growing evidence
of tools associated with textile production throughout the Upper Pa-
leolithic. For example, the function(s) of tools often called a bâton de
commandement or a bâton percé have long been debated with sug-
gestions ranging from a spear shaft straightener to a ceremonial ob-
ject belonging to a group’s leader. These artifacts are constructed from
antler with one or two circular holes drilled at a jointed end and are
usually decorated with engraved horses or other animals. Bâtons from
Gonnersdorf (Germany) dating to 13,000 BP, exhibit fine striations asso-
ciated with processing plant-based material, and ethnographic research
demonstrates the use of reindeer antler for spinning cordage (Soffer
2004). Similarly, at Gravettian sites in the Czech Republic and Russia,
including Dolnı´ Věstonice and Kostenki IV, and Aurignacian sites in
Germany, such as Vogelherd, Soffer (2004) used ethnographic analogy,
use-wear data, and tool morphology to identify battens (a weaving tool
used to push weft fibers into place, hackles (combs), and possible spin-
dles made from mammoth ribs and ivory. She also identified weaving
or loom sticks manufactured from bird bone (including swan) and a
cave lion tibia. Similar artifacts have been identified in France in “as-
semblages from the Aurignacian onward at such sites as Abri Castenet
and Blanchard, where some show very heavy use” and in Solutrean col-
lections from Laugerie Haute and in assemblages from Brassempouy,
LaFerrassie, and Pair-non-Pair (Soffer 2004: 410). They are particularly
numerous in Magdalenian assemblages from Gourdan, Arudy, and Is-
turitz (Soffer 2004).
Rondelles
as
Spindle
Whorls
In order to create a stronger weaving material with which to weave
a cloth, individual fibers must be twisted together to make a strong
thread. This can be done simply by holding one end of the fibers while
rolling the other end on your thigh or a flat surface. Flax fibers such as
the ones found in the Republic of Georgia are long enough (~1.2 m) to
be useable as they are. Other fibers (wool, cotton etc.) are much shorter

244 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
and multiple ones must be combined to extend the length of the thread.
If new fibers are added to the ends of previous ones by twi sting them
together this results in bunches or lumps in the thread in some places
and much thinner thread in others (Barber 1994). To solve this prob-
lem, twisted fiber that is still attached to a mass of fiber (e.g., flax or
wool) is attached to a stick (spindle shaft) with a disk (a spindle whorl)
that typically is at one end of the shaft (though some techniques have
the weight or whorl in the middle). It is possible to spin fibers by using
a drop spindle technique, but spinning with whorls and spindles can
also be accomplished without dropping the whorl. When using a drop
spindle technique, as the spindle is dropped straight down toward the
ground, it is set in a rotating motion (Postrel 2020). The spinner uses
one hand to hold the twisted fiber and the other hand to continuously
feed new fibers into the twist while the spindle rotates in one direction
in a constant motion (Barber 1994). The twist runs straight up from the
spindle shaft towards the fibers with the spinner’s fingers controlling
the twist. When the thread is long enough that the spindle touches the
ground, the spindle is stopped, the thread is wound around the spindle,
and then the spindle is set in motion once again (Barber 1994). The
addition of the whorl is an important innovation in that it improves the
consistency and duration of the rotating motion. Different weights of
whorls are used for different fibers meaning it is possible to infer some-
thing about the fiber from the weight of the whorl used even if the
fiber has decomposed (Barber 1994). If sticks were used as spindles they
would not have preserved or would not be recognized as spindles. Sim-
ilarly, it is probable that stone weights used like whorls existed in the
Upper Paleolithic but have remained unrecognized in lithic collections.
While spindle whorls can be made from stone, clay, or perishable
items (as long as the spindle shaft goes through the center of it) (Barber
1994), the best evidence for possible spindle whorls in the Upper Pa-
leolithic are rondelles (Figure 9.2). Rondelles are circular disks often cut
from mammoth ivory, bone (usually a scapula because of its thin, flat
surface), or from stones such as slate (Bahn 2016). They are often en-
graved with animals, humans, or abstract designs on either face. Many
rondelles have perforations in the center, while others have perforations
all around the circumference. It is clear that some of these objects func-
tioned as an optical toy known as a thaumatrope (Azéma and Rivière
2012; and Nowell 2015, 2021). When a cord is threaded through a per-
foration in the center and tugged back and forth the images on each
side appear to blend giving a sense of motion, e.g., a doe engraved on
both sides of a thaumatrope from Laugerie-Basse appears to be spring-

The Best Dressed Hominin • 245
Figure 9.2.
A bone rondelle or “Paleolithic thaumatrope” from Laugerie-
Basse. Both faces depict a doe or chamois whose movement is in split-action;
diameter is 31mm. Drawing by H. Cecil.
ing playfully (Nowell 2015, 2021). Other rondelles, however, may have
functioned as spindle whorls (Soffer et al. 2002; Soffer 2004; Riede et al.
2018). Indeed, these two technologies may be related by introducing
whimsy into the work of weaving (Riede et al. 2018; Nowell 2021). There
are other examples in the Upper Paleolithic of visual play and the playful
incorporation of imagery into otherwise mundane tools such as the
depiction of a young ibex defecating on the end of spear throwers from
the sites of Le Mas d’Azil and Bédeilhac (France) (Nowell 2021).
Imprints
on
Clay
and
Bone
Fibers and other plant parts can become imprinted on clay intentionally
as a form of decoration, accidentally when someone kneels on or oth-
erwise presses up against wet clay that is subsequently fired, or when
plants are used as temper to prevent cracking and shrinkage during the
process of drying and firing clay. According to Soffer (2004), wet clay
was used for a variety of purposes during the Upper Paleolithic includ-
ing as cement and possibly to cover baskets to make a mold or to make
them more watertight. While it is often difficult to discern the plant spe-
cies, ethnographic data and pollen analysis can be used to identify pos-
sible candidates (Soffer 2004).
There are roughly one hundred imprints of textiles on clay dating
to the Upper Paleolithic from Dolni Vestonice I and II and Pavlov in the
Czech Republic; Kostienki I and II and Zaraisk, Gasya, in Russia; Gön-
nersdorf in Germany; as well as a textile imprint on bone from France

246 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
(Cheynier 1967; Adovasio et al., 1996; Soffer et al. 2000a, 2000b, 2002;
Soffer and Adovasio 2010; Nowell and Cooke 2021). These imprints re-
cord the loom weaving of cloth including plain weave (warp and weft
threads cross at right angles, aligned so they form a simple crisscross
pattern) and twill (weave with a pattern of diagonal parallel ribs), single-
ply and multi-ply braided cordage, the looping and knotting of nets and
the plaiting of baskets or mats (Adovasio et al. 1996; Soffer 2004; Soffer
et al. 2000a, 2000b, 2002). The narrow gauge (stiches per inch) of the
finest examples of weaving are equivalent to thin cotton or linen (Sof-
fer et al. 2000b; Soffer and Adovasio 2010). Soffer and her colleagues
(2000b) further identified seams created with a whip stitch, which sug-
gests that sewing was done to produce complex items such as mats,
blankets, skirts, and other garments and bags. In Santa Maira Cave, an
Upper Paleolithic site in Spain, archaeologists documented clay impres-
sions from contact with mats, simple textiles, or flexible containers (Aura
Tortosa et al. 2019). They also identified the use of plants as temper.
Needles
In a detailed study of the morphometric and stylistic characteristic of
bone and ivory needles from 355 archaeological layers across 271 sites,
archaeologists argue that this technology “represent[s] an original cul-
tural innovation that emerged in Eurasia between 45–40 ka BP. Size dif-
ferences between the earliest known specimens, found in Siberia and
China, indicate needles may have been invented independently in these
two regions” (d’Errico, Doyon, et al. 2018: 71) (Figure 9.3). Some of the
needles are wide and flat, and were perhaps used to sew thick hides,
while others are narrow and circular. Based on ethnographic analogies,
it is likely that finer needles were used for sewing and embroidering
clothing, attaching beads, and for making bags, nets, and even tents
(d’Errico, Doyon, et al. 2018).
At the Early Upper Paleolithic site Mezmaiskaya in Russia, archae-
ologists uncovered fourteen needles that document a transition from
flat bases to fully rounded cross-sections similar to thin awls from ca.
40,000 BP to 35,000 BP (Golovanova, Doronichev, and Cleghorn 2009).
They also discovered an object dating to approximately 36,000 BP that
they suggest is a needle case. The artifact is made from a small, long
bone (48 x 10 x 10 mm) that is broken on one end (Golovanova et al.
2009). The bone was carved to produce a series of raised bands encir-
cling the bone at regular intervals along its length. These bands were
then finely engraved with hatch marks.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 247
Figure 9.3. Needles found at (a) Xiaogushan, (b) Zhoukoudian Upper Cave,
China, and (c) Strashnaya Cave, Siberia. Scale = 1 cm. © Francesco d’Errico.
Shells
and
Beads
There is archaeological evidence of shells and beads being used as
personal ornaments by at least 100,000 BP (Chang and Nowell 2020;
Nowell and Cooke 2021). While these early ornaments undoubtedly
played an important role in the social, economic, spiritual, and political
lives of Pleistocene peoples, they appear to have been strung as items
of personal adornment rather than sewn to cloth garments and bags.
The oldest beads come from Bizmoune Cave in Morocco (>142,000
BP) (Sehasseh et al., 2021). the sites of Oued Djebbana (ca. 100,000
BP) in Algeria, and Qafseh (92,000 BP) and Skhul (110,000 BP) in Is-
rael (Vanhaeren, d’Errico, Stringer, et al. 2006; Bar-Yosef Mayer, Van-
dermeersch, and Bar-Yosef 2009). At the Israeli sites, researchers have
uncovered a small number of shell beads in association with modern
humans. There is some disagreement about the designation of the ten
Glycymerys shells at Qafseh as beads, however, because the perfora-

248 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
tions are agreed to be natural (Taborin 2003; Zilhão 2007; Bar-Yosef
Mayer et al. 2009). Nevertheless, a study of use-wear on the shells sug-
gests they may have been strung (Bar-Yosef Mayer et al. 2009). In South
Africa, dating to 77,000 BP, at the Middle Stone Age site of Blombos,
researchers uncovered sixty-eight perforated tick shell beads (Narssar-
ius gibbosulus) that appear to have been strung, some covered with
ochre (Henshilwood, d’Errico, Vanhaeren, et al. 2004; d’Errico, Hen-
shilwood, et al. 2005; Vanhaeren, d’Errico, van Niekerk, et al. 2013). By
35,000–44,000 BP during the Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP), evidence
of personal adornment increases dramatically at sites such as Ksar ‘Akil
and Üçağizli (Kuhn et al. 2001; Stiner, Kuhn, and Gülec 2013). There are
hundreds of shell beads at Üçağizli alone and 90 percent of them are of
the Nassarrius gibbosulus species (Zilhão 2007). The oldest shell beads
from Australia date to between 40,000 BP and 30,000 BP at the sites of
Riwi and Mandu Mandu in Western Australia and between 25,000 and
17,000 BP at Carpenter’s Gap (Brumm and Moore 2005; see also Balme
and Morse 2006).
At African sites, beginning in the Middle Stone Age but continuing
through the Holocene, researchers have uncovered copious amounts
of ostrich eggshell (OES) beads associated with modern humans (e.g.,
Kandel 2004; Kandel and Conard 2005; Orton 2008; Miller and Wil-
loughby 2014; Dayet et al. 2017). There are multiple archaeological and
ethnographic examples of OES beads being sewn onto cloth. For exam-
ple, at the early Holocene site Grassridge Rock Shelter (South Africa), re-
searchers note “two OES beads demonstrate depressions on their faces,
which may indicate that they were sewn into place as part of decora-
tions for clothing or bags, or potentially in the alternating ‘brickwork’
pattern that has been noted in some San head bands” (Collins et al.
2020). Similarly, Nassarius beads from this site demonstrate use-wear
patterns that are consistent with the use of “these beads as decorations
sewn into clothing and/or bags” (Collins et al. 2020).
In Europe, the earliest evidence for sewing beads onto cloth comes
from the Upper Paleolithic. At some European Aurignacian (ca. 45,000–
35,000 BP) sites, there are hundreds of tiny, standardized mammoth
ivory beads that were likely sewn on to clothing (Kvavadze et al. 2009;
Taborin 2004; White 2007; see also Wolf 2015 for a discussion of beads
as identity markers in the Swabian Jura). This interpretation is supported
by the recovery of approximately 15,000 highly standardized mammoth
ivory beads at the Gravettian site Sunghir (Russia). According to Soffer
and colleagues (2000b), the sheer number of the beads and their place-
ment allowed researchers to reconstruct that the interred individuals

The Best Dressed Hominin • 249
were wearing sewn hooded garments, pants with attached footwear,
capes, and caps or hats.
At the 10,000-year-old site La Madeleine (France), a young child of
three to seven years of age was laid to rest on their back in an extended
position with their head oriented south and their arms laid out straight
along their body (Bahn 2015). The only drawing made by archaeolo-
gists during the excavation shows hundreds of Dentalium shell beads
at the child’s head, elbows, wrists, knees, ankles, and around their neck,
but the exact location of each individual bead is unknown (Vanhaeren
and d’Errico 2003; Nowell 2021) (Figure 9.4). These highly standard-
ized beads were between 6 and 7 mm in length. Based on the size of
unbroken Dentalium shells, each shell could have produced two to a
maximum of three beads. Therefore, it is estimated that it would have
taken fifteen to twenty hours to collect a sufficient number of shells
to manufacture all of the beads found in the burial. Some beads were
Figure 9.4.
a) A portion of the shell beads found in the La Madeleine child
burial. Each bead was sawed to between 6 and 7 mm in length and was
likely embroidered onto clothing worn by the child. The beads are heavily
worn suggesting they were not made specifically for the burial (© Francesco
d’Errico); b) artist’s reconstruction of child from La Madeleine dressed in
clothing embroidered with beads found in burial (drawing: © Marina Lezcano).

250 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
snapped while others were sawed to the right size. The natural pointed
end of each shell was removed to create a larger aperture so a thread
could be passed through each tiny tube-shaped bead (Vanhaeren and
d’Errico 2003). Based on wear patterns, it is clear that the beads were
embroidered onto the child’s clothing rather than having been strung
together. In total, there were 9 m of beads requiring at least that much
thread to attach them to the garment with needles as thin as 1.5 mm,
corresponding to the smallest diameter of the beads. To attach all of
the beads would have required 2,400 holes in either very soft leather or
textile. Depending on the skill of the garment maker, this clothing would
have required thirty to fifty hours to complete (Vanhaeren and d’Errico
2003).
Beads have also been used to infer the existence of infant carriers or
blankets manufactured from cloth, hide, or fur at the early Mesolithic site
Arma Veirana in Italy (Gravel-Miguel et al. 2022) and the Upper Paleolithic
site Abri Labattut in France (Henry-Gambier, Rocher, and Drucker 2019).
At each of these sites shell pendants were uncovered in association with
infant remains. The shells (Glycymeris and cowrie, respectively) were too
big to have functioned as jewelry or to have been worn on clothing by
such small infants (Gravel-Miguel et al. 2022). Use-wear suggests they
were attached to fixed objects such as a carrier or blanket.
Ochre
In addition to its likely use in tanning starting in the Lower Paleolithic
(Keeley 1980; Audouin and Plisson 1982; Velo 1986; Roper 1991; Wad-
ley 2005; Rifkin 2011), like beads, the distribution of ochre in funerary
contexts can be an indirect proxy for textiles that have long since de-
composed. Burial 2 from the Gravettian site Krems-Watchberg (Austria)
contains the remains of a three-month-old male infant. The boy was
covered in ochre and because the pigment is highly delimited in space,
researchers have argued that the infant was wrapped in a shroud. A
mammoth ivory pin was found above his head, suggesting that the
shroud was closed at the top (Einwögerer, Friesinger, et al. 2006; Ein-
wögerer, Händel, et al. 2009; Nowell 2021). Similarly, in Gravettian ad-
olescent burials, French and Nowell (2022: 9) write, “in most cases, it is
not clear whether the ochre was applied directly to the teens’ bodies or
to any (now deteriorated) clothing. In cases where the ochre is limited
to one part of the body such as the head and face, it is possible that we
are seeing the outline of an organic hat, mask, or other type of covering
that has long since disintegrated.”

The Best Dressed Hominin • 251
Imagery
Evidence of clothing and the technologies used to produce them also
derive from Upper Paleolithic figurines. Garments on female figurines
from European sites include bandeaux, belts, bracelets, and necklaces
of plant fiber, and string skirts (Soffer and Adovasio 2010). The “Dressed
Venus” from Kostienki, for example, is wearing a bandeau-style garment
with woven or braided straps above the breasts and across the shoul-
ders and back. The straps are sewn to the body of the bandeau (Sof-
fer and Adovasio 2010). One figurine from Kostienki I has similar straps
across its abdomen and what looks to be woven cuffs around its wrists.
The straps and bandeau have weft selvages (a finished edge to keep the
fabric from unraveling) (Soffer et al. 2000b).
In a study of the well-known figurine from Willandorf (Figure 9.5a,
b), researchers describe the statuette as wearing on her head a “spirally
or radially hand-woven item which may be initiated by a knotted center
in the manner of some varieties of coiled baskets” (Soffer et al. 2000b:
41). They are further able to identify warp and weft elements and stitch-
ing. This woven object could have functioned as a multipurpose gar-
ment, that is, a hat that doubles as a basket. The distinction between
woven textile and basketry is arbitrary in some contexts such as when
Figure 9.5.
a) Ventral and b) dorsal views of ivory figurine from Willandorf
(Austria) dating to ca. 25,000 BP wearing a woven head covering. © April
Nowell.

252 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
investigating the twined impressions at Dolní Věstonice (Adovasio et al.
1996: 529). Even today, clothing can double as a basket or other con-
tainer when one has to carry something unexpectedly and undoubt-
edly that was the case in the past as well.
The Gravettian female figurine from Lespugue in France is depicted
wearing a string skirt making it one of the best lines of evidence that we
have for the spinning of string by the Upper Paleolithic (Figure 9.6a–b).
According to Barber (1994: 44–45): “Her skirt consists of long strings
hanging down the back from a hip band, and the ancient sculptor has
taken the trouble to engrave the twists in each string. Furthermore . . . the
sculptor has shown the strings fraying out at the bottom into a mass of
untwisted fibers. These cannot be thongs of sinew or hide; they can only
be true twisted-fiber thread.” Similarly, the female figurine from Gagarino
in Russia also dating to the Gravettian is shown wearing a string skirt that
is shorter than that of the Lespugue figurine and hangs in the front (Fig-
ure 9.6c). Based on ethnographic analogy and archaeological data from
later periods in the same region, Barber (1994) has argued that these
string skirts were not meant as protection from the elements but rather
to broadcast a woman’s marital status or ability to bear children.
There are regional differences in what garments are depicted and
how they are worn (Nowell and Cooke 2021). In Eastern Europe, belts
are worn on the waist while in Central and Western Europe they are
worn low on the hips and in the case of the Lespugue figurine, the belt
is attached to her string skirt (Soffer et al. 2000b; Figures 9.6a and b).
By contrast, in Siberia, at the roughly contemporaneous sites of Malt’a
and Buret’, fully dressed figurines of women, men, and children have
recently been reanalyzed (Lbova and Volkov 2015). According to re-
searchers, they are wearing hooded, full-length garments sewn from
animal fur, hide (leather), and seal or fish guts (Lbova and Volkov 2015).
Many of the garments are similar to clothing worn by present-day In-
digenous people in Siberia. Altogether, Lbova and Volkov (2015, 2017)
have identified different types of hats and hoods, fur overalls, hooded
parkas, bracelets, bags, and even one backpack with two straps. Other
details include leather braided straps, shells, and fabric.
Other examples of clothing in Paleolithic art include engravings
from the 14,000-year-old Magdalenian French site La Marche of male
figures who appear to be wearing headbands or caps (Bahn 2016:
Figures 10.4a–k). Similarly at the Magdalenian site Angles-de-L’Anglin
(France), a figure of a bearded man that has been sculpted, engraved,
and painted is interpreted as wearing a shirt or cloak of some kind with
a fur collar (Saint Mathurin 1973, 1975, but see Fuentes 2017).

The Best Dressed Hominin • 253
Figure 9.6.
a) Ventral and b) dorsal views of ivory figurine known from
Lespugue (France) dating to ca. 25,000 BP. The figurine is wearing a fiber-
based belt and string skirt and is also notable for the depiction of long, straight
hair down its back. CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0), Public Domain Dedication.
(c) Figurine from Gagarino (Russia) dating to ca. 25,000 BP, wearing a string
skirt that is shorter than that of the Lespugue figurine and hangs in the front.
© Andreas Franzkowiak, taken in the Archäologisches Museum Hamburg und
Stadtmuseum Harburg, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index
.php?curid=58260830.
Footprints
and
Skeletal
Remains
Footwear protects feet from the cold and the ground surface and like
other elements of clothing can be an indicator of status or other so-
cial distinctions (Ledoux et al. 2021). While there is no direct evidence
of footwear in the Paleolithic (the oldest known example of footwear
is a Holocene sandal dating to approximately 8,300 BP from Arnold
Research Cave in Missouri in the US [Kuttruff, Dehartand, and O’Brien
1998]), evidence of footwear can be gleaned indirectly from the place-
ment of beads as well as footprints (ichnofossils) and skeletal remains.
Over the years, archaeologists have recorded literally thousands of
footprints dating to the Paleolithic (e.g., Lockley, Roberts, and Yul Kim

254 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
2008; Bahn 2015; Hatala, Roach, et al. 2016; Hatala, Harcourt-Smith, et
al. 2020; Altamura et al. 2018; Duveau et al. 2019). They are an important
source of information on an individual’s age, sex, height, weight, and
speed and mode of transportation (i.e., running, walking, or crawling—
see, for example, Romano et al. 2019) as well as an indicator of social
relationships (i.e., was an individual traveling alone or in the company of
others). While the overwhelming majority of Paleolithic hominin foot-
prints were made by bare feet, one print from the 15,000-year-old Mag-
dalenian site Fontanet Cave (France) (Clottes 1975 but see Pastoors et al.
2015; Ledoux 2019) and one print belonging to a Neandertal or modern
human from the Middle Paleolithic site Theopetra Cave (Greece) are
suggested to have been made by hominins with shod feet (Kyparissi-
Apostolika and Manolis 2021).
Another seven footprints found in clay from the 31,000–28,000-year-
old Gravettian site Cussac Cave (France) are also suggested to have
been made by hominins wearing footwear (Ledoux et al. 2021). Bipedal
walking is normally divided into three stages—the swing phase, the heel
strike, and the toeing off phase as walkers propel themselves forward.
The latter two phases result in a footprint with diagnostic characteris-
tics—deep heel and toe prints and a definable arch. While the substrate
in which the prints are made can impact how discernable the individual
elements are, all things being equal,
when covered with footwear, the distal portion of the foot becomes
simpler and more homogeneous (compared to the complex shape
formed by the separated toes of a bare foot) and, consequently, the
toes are less visible. Similarly, the use of footwear increases the me-
dium width and simplifies the shape of the print by modifying the im-
pression of the plantar arch. This simplification of morphology also
impacts the depth of the footwear prints being shallower than barefoot
prints. (Ledoux et al. 2021)
Based on their comparative and experimental work, Ledoux and col-
leagues (2021) concluded that the footprints at Cussac Cave were most
similar to tracks made by hominins walking in mud while wearing
leather shoes.
Finally, Trinkaus and colleagues have argued for the wearing of foot-
wear based on skeletal evidence (Trinkaus 2005; Trinkaus and Shang
2008). Based on a comparative study of the proximal pedal phalanges of
a sample of Middle and Upper Paleolithic populations, these researchers
argue that humans wore supportive footwear by at least the Gravet-
tian in Europe and perhaps closer to 40,000 BP in China at the site of
Tianyuan 1.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 255
Implications of Textiles for Technical Knowledge
and Intangible Culture
Tasks
and
Communities
of
Practice
Based on location of cutmarks on faunal remains, and use-wear and
residue on stone tools, archaeologists argue that Neandertals (and pos-
sibly earlier hominins) wore clothing. However, disagreement remains
over the exact nature and design of these items of apparel, whether or
not they were tailored and their role in Neandertal survival/extinction
(Aiello and Wheeler 2003; Trinkaus 2005; Wales 2012; Collard et al. 2016;
Hosfield 2016, 2020). At a minimum, we can say that Neandertals were
involved in the processing of animal skins into leather likely for making
clothing and footwear and that Homo sapiens additionally worked fi-
bers into garments. By the Upper Paleolithic in Europe, Homo sapiens
are associated with a rich textile industry that may have included spin-
ning, sewing, embroidery, dyeing, and weaving/knotting.
Tanning
Clothing in the Paleolithic almost certainly included raw hide and skin
garments as well as tanned hides. Tanning is the process of treating
the skins and hides of animals (including nonmammals such as fish) to
produce leather. For example, thick bison hides are ideal for shelters and
thicker garments while thin fish skins can be manufactured into light-
weight parkas, shoes, handbags, and belts (Rahme and Hartman 2012;
Duraisamy, Shamena, and Berekute 2017). In addition to the comple-
mentary skills of hunting, butchery, and skinning, a deep knowledge of
materials and alternate techniques is needed for tanning depending on
the time of year and the abundance and variety of resources available.
This would include an understanding of an animal’s habits and health in
order to procure a quality skin as well as the trade off to personal safety
and group wellbeing for both the hominin group and the prey species.
For example, according to Boucherat (2012: 20), “young [bison] adults
. . . [are] the most profitable in terms of food and hide surface area but
more dangerous to kill . . . calves themselves provide less meat, but it is
more tender and the hide is softer and easier to work.”
In a 2012 publication, Boucherat details experiences working with
colleagues to track, hunt, skin, and tan a European bison. While this ex-
ercise in experimental archaeology may not be directly applicable to
all tanning situations in the Paleolithic which will vary based on an-
imal, region, time of year etc., it serves as an excellent model of the
most important steps in the process. Once the bison was killed and its

256 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
skin removed, the skin was soaked in a river to keep insects from in-
festing it and to avoid attracting scavengers and predators to the area
4
(Boucherat 2012). A wooden frame was then built, upon which the skin
was stretched. Incisions were made along its flank and cordage was
passed through the incisions in order to lash the skin to the frame. Flint
tools were used to remove remaining flesh and tendons.
The skin was then rubbed with a thick enough layer of ochre to
fully penetrate it to stretch the fibers and mobilize the collagen to
maintain fiber adhesion. This process also rendered the skin less attrac-
tive to insects (Boucherat 2012). Modern tanners replicating ancestral
techniques often use the brain of the animal, or alternatively eggs, to
provide the protein required to tan a mammal hide. A mammal’s brain
usually provides the correct amount of protein to tan that animal; for
example, a deer brain provides enough protein-rich material to tan the
deer’s own hide. As noted above, through experimentation it has been
documented that ochre (and red ochre, in particular) is a useful tan-
ning agent, but it is probable that brain tanning without ochre (or some
combination of the two) was equally or more common in the Upper
Paleolithic.
Next, Boucherat and his colleagues alternated between further dry-
ing, scraping, and sanding to allow for further penetration of the ochre
(Boucherat 2012). The hide was then smoked and rubbed with fat to fill
in the space between dermal fibers to the keep the skin supple.
5
Finally,
the skin was folded and then beat to allow the fat to fully penetrate the
dermis for softening (Boucherat 2012). In experimental replications of
these processes, researchers emphasized the importance of coordinat-
ing people and tasks (creating cordage, building the frame, obtaining
ochre etc.) to achieve success (Boucherat 2012).
Dyeing
Choices for coloration can be made at every stage of garment produc-
tion. For example, one can either dye bundles of combed or carded
fibers in advance of spinning (rovings), or one can dye the spun string/
thread and/or the finished garment. It is also possible to treat the surface
of the garment with painting or embroidery, etc. When dyeing, mor-
dants (a substance that combines with a dye and fixes it to a material)
may be used to treat the material in advance or in some cases during or
after the dyeing process. Urine and some plants such as lichens contain
mordant properties like acids while tannin-rich plants such as walnut
shells can also act as a mordant.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 257
Parietal art in the Upper Paleolithic is comprised of a fairly limited
palette of colors based on naturally occurring pigments in the vicinity
of a painted cave: red hematite; red, yellow, and brown ochre (some-
times heat treated to extend the range of hues); black charcoal;
6
and
manganese and white kaolinite; and calcite. Purple, a mix of red ochre
and manganese is found at only one painted cave, Tito Bustillo in Spain
(Bahn 2016). There is evidence, however, to suggest that this palette was
significantly expanded when it came to dyeing garments (Nowell 2021).
The spun, flax fibers from the Republic of Georgia discussed above
were dyed black, gray, turquoise, and pink (Kvavadze et al. 2009) while
a Gravettian figurine of an adolescent from Malt’a (Siberia) has remnants
of vermillion and other figurines from this same site evince traces of
green and dark blue coloring. These finds are significant because blue
and green dyes are notoriously difficult to produce even in a modern
context (Cardon 2007; Bahn 2016). Postrel (2020: 110) writes, “Reds and
blues are complicated and scarce, and greens are all but impossible.
Chlorophyll doesn’t work as a dye.” Lbova and Volkov (2017: 173) note
that the adolescent “appears to be dressed in a one-piece garment with
hood, which covers the entire body and head. The front and back show
long engraved triangles, probably representing the tails of furs from
which the clothing was made. The presence of scarlet pigment has
been detected in the area under the tail, on the right thigh and on the
right arm.” Preliminary analyses show that the red pigment is composed
of iron (Fe), strontium (Sr), zinc (Zn), and zirconium (Zr) while the blue is
a blend of strontium (Sr), calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), zinc (Zn), and bromine
(Br). The green is similar to the blue but with the addition of chromium
(Cr) (Lbova and Volkov 2017; Lbova et al. 2017).
Postrel (2020: 111) notes, “Dyes bear witness to the universal human
quest to imbue artifacts with beauty and meaning—and to the chemical
ingenuity and economic enterprise that desire calls forth. The history of
dyes is the history of chemistry, revealing the power, and the limits, of
trial-and-error experimentation without fundamental understanding.”
It is clear that Upper Paleolithic artists were experimenting with colors
and with the properties of paint. At the Magdalenian site of Lascaux
(France), artisans created paint by mixing different minerals in powder
form. One sample contained calcium phosphate which is produced by
heating animal bone to 400° C. It was then combined with calcite and
heated to 1,000° C transforming it into tetracalcite phosphate (Bahn
2016). Another sample of white pigment was found to be made of pow-
dered calcite (70 percent), powdered quartz (20 percent), and porcelain
clay (10 percent) (Bahn 2016). A study of paint recipes from ten sites lo-

258 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
cated in the Midi Pyrénées region of France dating to 12,000–14,000 BP
demonstrated that at 13,000 BP, artisans altered their recipes to include
feldspar as a binder while the style of the images remained the same
(Chalmin, Menu, and Vignaud 2003). This is an important innovation as
binders are directly related to the performance of a paint including how
well it adheres and how long it lasts. It appears that this same level of
experimentation was taking place in textile dyeing as well.
Weaving/Knotting
Weaving is a method of textile production in which two sets of threads
are interlaced at right angles to form a fabric or cloth. Because the
threads are soft and pliable, one set, the warp, has to be held taught.
The frame that holds the warp tight is the loom. The second set of
threads running horizontally—the weft—is then woven into the warp
(Barber 1994). Elaborate, efficient, beautiful weaving is done with finger
weaving techniques to this day and as Soffer (2004: 408) notes, “cross-
cultural ethnographic evidence indicates that most of the textile items
we have documented for the Upper Paleolithic could have been made
by simply using fingers and perhaps shuttles, spacers, and awls. The only
exception is plain-weave fabrics, whose production required not only a
loom but also the use of battens or weaving sticks to tamp down the
weft rows.” A loom in the Upper Paleolithic could have been a backstrap
loom where the person’s body creates the tension needed for the warp
threads. The loom consists of a frame, a strap, and spacers. Spacers can
be made from wood, bone, or other materials that is threaded in and
out of the warp on both edges to give structure to the cloth. They can
also be used to tie the ends of the newly woven cloth. Backstrap looms
have been used for thousands of years and were very portable (Barber
1994). Wooden looms could have existed as well but easily could have
decomposed.
Communities
of
Practice
Tanning, dying, weaving, and sewing would have depended on inter-
generational knowledge passed down through passive observation,
hands-on learning, and direct teaching through storytelling (see Nowell
2023) and within communities of practice (Nowell 2021). While the ex-
act composition of the communities of practice are unknown, Barber
(1994) argues that fiber arts were likely associated with women. While it
is clear from ethnographic analogies that women hunt and make tools

The Best Dressed Hominin • 259
(e.g., Weedman 2005, 2006a, 2006b), globally textile work is associated
with women. Barber suggests this is because women had children with
them and this type of work can be interrupted, returned to easily, and is
not dangerous for children to be around.
Forethought,
Decision-Making,
and
Time
Management
We do not know how extensive a “wardrobe” Upper Paleolithic hominins
would have had to adapt to changing weather patterns throughout the
year, but it is likely to have been fairly limited. Postrel (2020) estimates
that 10 km of spun yarn are required to manufacture a pair of trousers.
Comparing the length of time it would take to spin a specific length of
yarn given a particular technology, she argues that it would have taken
the Vikings twenty-five days (200 hours) to spin enough wool to make a
pair of trousers, Romans twenty-eight days (227 hours), and Bronze Age
craftspeople thirty-seven days (294 hours). Given these estimates, it can
be surmised that clothes in the Paleolithic would have been carefully
constructed and highly valued. A garment is likely to have been worn to
absolute exhaustion, inherited by another member of the community,
or buried with its owner (thus taking a valuable resource out of circu-
lation). For that reason, in preparing fibers and cordage for what would
be an individual’s main garment, people would have used the best qual-
ity materials they could obtain, collected at the right time of year, and
dyed carefully to produce a lasting color for camouflage, status, or some
other aesthetic choice.
Due to the seasonality of resources, manufacturing a garment re-
quires forethought and planning, often months in advance, with choices
being made at every step of the process. As argued in Nowell (2021),
Ingold’s (1993) concept of the “taskscape” is relevant to a discussion of
textile production. Ingold (1993: 158) writes, “every task takes its mean-
ing from its position within an ensemble of tasks, performed in series of
in parallel, and usually by many people working together.” To create an
item of clothing, for example, one has to harvest and process plants at
the right time of year for both the garment and the dye and mordant.
Even maintaining a prized garment and keeping it safe from getting
damaged by fire, insects, and moisture while living an active, outdoor
lifestyle could be considered part of a fiber’s taskscape.
A finished textile is only as “good” as the skills-based knowledge of
the maker and the materials they had to work with. For example, if one
does not gather high quality bast fibers, processing them in a careful
calculated way, using skills and knowledge for processing them, one will

260 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
not end up with strong thread, no matter how skilled they are at making
cordage. Thus, garment makers would have drawn on intergenerational
knowledge for an item of clothing’s physical and even aesthetic design
and execution. Postrel observes,
Before a single weft thread can cross the warp, the weaver must es-
tablish the fabric’s structure and pattern. Even plain weave demands
forethought: Will it alternate single threads or more? Will there be [a
pattern] created with different colors or textures? . . . Will the warp and
weft threads be equally prominent or will one dominate the other?
Such questions determine what materials you use . . . how you space
the warp . . . how tightly you pack the weft. (Postrel 2020: 76)
She notes that with twill (of which there are examples in the Upper
Paleolithic) the options are even more numerous (Postrel 2020). For fi-
ber-based clothing, choosing long, strong fibers, which required minimal
splicing and splicing rarely and alternatingly so there are no weaknesses
in the plied thread or cordage used are key in garment-making (Skala,
pers. obs.). If a garment was made from leather, one might select long
leg sinew as “thread” and insure it was not cut or heat damaged, moist-
ened properly, and threaded into a needle with no sharp edges on the
eye (Skala, pers. obs.).
It is likely that collecting plants for garment making would have
been integrated with other tasks throughout the year such as gathering
plants for medicine or food or when out hunting. Similarly, using a spin-
dle whorl for spinning thread for weaving is a portable activity (Barber
1994) that can be done while walking, breastfeeding, or in the evening
while sitting around a campfire.
Upper Paleolithic peoples required deep knowledge of the craft to
be undertaken, the shifting availability of resources, the affordances of
materials, and the symbolic importance of each of their choices. They
would have spent their lives observing skilled weavers, carvers, hunters,
trackers, painters, cordage makers, dyers, plant harvesters, bead makers,
ceramicists, and tool makers. Individuals were likely not experts in all
of the tasks, but they would have had a general knowledge of these
topics and an ability to troubleshoot and transfer these skills because
of that knowledge base. This knowledge extended beyond technology
that they were taught or observed and involved how to think and how
to approach the world. Perhaps flax was not available for clothing man-
ufacture that year, so instead they used tree bark or leather, because
they knew or could imagine making clothes from that material. They
might have been successful with finding and collecting flax that year,

The Best Dressed Hominin • 261
but the frost was early or late, and that in itself could have affected the
integrity of the materials. An individual thought they would dye a gar-
ment green or brown with onions or tansy, but they had to dye it yellow
with a lichen because they had to eat the onions that year or make
medicine with the tansy. Perhaps a particular plant was not available
in abundance that year or was not available at all (e.g., some flowers
do not bloom every year), or perhaps the plant which was wanted was
available, but someone else in their group needed it for food or medi-
cine. Skills such as adaptability, resilience, confidence, and relationship
maintenance with group members are arguably the most important as-
pects of a robust textile practice.
Human-Animal
Relationships
There is a long history in Paleolithic studies of describing the relation-
ship between humans and animals as largely unidirectional—that is,
in what ways did humans exploit animals for food, clothing, tools, or
shelter? This is because much of the defining method and theory in
this field was developed within a funtionalist/processualist paradigm,
namely the application of cultural ecology (Steward 1955) and cultural
materialism (Harris 1968, 1979) to the archaeological record. Within this
paradigm, archaeologists approached animals by developing utility in-
dices (Binford 1978) and optimal foraging models (Smith 1979), account-
ing for the “schlepp effect” (Daly 1969) and undertaking risk assessment
and site catchment analysis (Roper 1979). All of these approaches were
based largely on ethnoarchaeology and aided by the rise of archaeolog-
ical science including methods for paleoenvironmental reconstruction
(Johnson 2020). Cultures were seen as partially or fully adapted to an
external environment of which animals were a large part and evaluated
on their ability to satisfy the needs of their society as measured in en-
ergy output and calorie intake.
By contrast, Paleolithic archaeology has been less influenced by
materialism and ontology—the study of the being or essence of things
(but see Conneller 2011), particularly when it comes to the relationships
between humans and animals. Gittens (2013) argues that this is because
we routinely engage with the remnants of dead of animals (rather than
living ones) and because the human origin story has always been one
of evolving away from animals. In Clark’s (1954) study of antler front-
lets from the Mesolithic site of Star Carr (England), he interpreted these
objects as either a hunting aid (i.e., a way of concealing a human from
animals) or as a mask (i.e., a way of concealing a human from other

262 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
humans). Whether the mask was worn for hunting or ritual, the person
was not altered biologically. Conneller (2004: 42) writes, “Clark’s vision
of the antler frontlets as a disguise rested on a number of more general
dichotomies of Western thought: the division between humans and an-
imals, the separateness of humans and things and the stability and im-
mutability of bodies as a biological given. Working within this tradition
the frontlets could have no effect on the human body, other than con-
cealing it from an animal or human audience.” But as Conneller (2004,
2011) emphasizes, this very particular way of seeing the world is not
applicable everywhere and every when.
For many Indigenous people, humans, spirits, some or all animals,
and even certain objects have a common inner essence (Conneller
2004: 43) and “in contrast to this stable, inner part, the outer form, the
body of both humans and animals, is seen as both mutable and rela-
tional; both humans and animal bodies can transform.” In this context,
when people take on animal bodies, they are not disguising themselves
but taking on the animal’s effects (its perspective7) and its affects (its
embodied experiences). Viveiros de Castro argues,
To put on mask-clothing is not so much to conceal a human essence
beneath an animal appearance, but rather to activate the powers of a dif-
ferent body. The animal clothes that shamans use to travel the cosmos
are not fantasies but instruments: they are akin to diving equipment, or
space suits, and not to carnival masks. The intention when donning a
wet suit is to be able to function like a fish, to breathe underwater, not to
conceal oneself under a strange covering. In the same way, the “cloth-
ing” which, amongst animals, covers an internal “essence” of a human
type, is not a mere disguise but their distinctive equipment, endowed
with the affects and capacities which define each animal. (1998: 482)
This applies not only to shamans but to the everyday experience of
ordinary people as well. As animals are broken into parts and conjoined
with new materials, they become artifacts imbued with the agency, ef-
fects, and affects of the original animal. When humans wear leather, eat
meat, adorn themselves with pierced teeth or bone beads, the animals
become essential parts of the human body, creating “ambiguity about
where human bodies end and animal bodies start. Parts of humans
transform animals, who in turn extend human bodies” (Conneller 2004:
47; see also Ingold 2000). Returning to the antler frontlets from Star
Carr, Conneller (2004, 2011) reasons that donning them would be one
way of taking on the embodied experiences and perspectives of that
particular animal.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 263
While the applicability of perspectivism and ontology to the Paleo-
lithic record needs to be tested rather than assumed (Conneller 2004,
2011), they provide an important means of breaking free from or at least
stretching a traditional processualist paradigm. For example, at Star Carr,
people hunted young red deer of either sex for their meat, but they
chose older males from which to harvest (shed or unshed) antlers. But
within this category, antlers from relatively younger males were cho-
sen for manufacture into frontlets and the antlers were often truncated
to give the impression of an even younger animal while antlers cho-
sen to be made into barbed points were from larger, more aggressive
animals. However, frontlets, bone beads, and tools made from animals
were deposited together suggesting they retained their animal affect
despite their transformation (Conneller 2011). Similarly, in the Paleolithic
the extent to which animals, plants, water, fire, and rocks are animate
could inform the significance of both the process and product of cloth-
ing manufacture and how the wearer experienced donning a garment.
Other factors include the time it took to make the garment, the people
involved in its manufacture, the affordance of the material, season, and
rarity of the animal. In this way, it is possible to analyze the archaeo-
logical evidence of the context of acquisition/selection, manufacture,
use, and deposition of materials within a perspectivist and ontological
framework to be able to develop testable hypotheses around the use
clothing as a means of understanding a people’s worldview.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we reviewed the extensive archaeological evidence sup-
porting garment production in the Paleolithic with an emphasis on the
richly developed textile industry of the Upper Paleolithic. Clothing is
one of the cultural adaptations that allowed hominins to migrate into
regions far outside what would be the natural habitat of “hairless” pri-
mates and to communicate information to those around them—easily
changing that message as needed. As Hurcombe (2014: 1) observes, “To
rethink not the value of individual studies of pottery, stone and metal,
but rather the way in which the agendas arising from these artifacts
have dominated material culture studies discourse is not to negate what
has been achieved, but rather to augment and integrate perishable ma-
terial culture as a fundamental act of enrichment.” In Paleolithic studies,
textiles serve as an important vehicle for exploring questions related to
planning, forethought, flexibility, seasonality, communities of practice,

264 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
gendered labor, intergenerational knowledge transmission, the creation
of taskscapes, and new ways of moving through the world.
April Nowell
is a Paleolithic archaeologist and Professor of Anthropol-
ogy at the University of Victoria in Canada. She directs an international
team of researchers in the study of Paleolithic sites in Jordan and col-
laborates with colleagues on the study of cave art in Australia. She is
known for her publications on cognitive archaeology, Paleolithic art,
the archaeology of children, and the relationship between science, pop
culture, and the media. She is the author of Growing Up in the Ice Age
(2021).
Aurora Skala
is an archaeologist and anthropologist who received her
MA while working with the Heiltsuk and Wuikinuxv Nations in British
Columbia, Canada, to document their rock art. In addition to special-
izing in documenting rock art sites, she has examined submerged rock
art sites and excavated underwater to record shipwrecks. Her practice
of ancestral skills, including textile techniques and flintknapping, has in-
formed her understanding of the archaeological record. She currently
works in the field of Indigenous language revitalization and serves as
an instructor in Continuing Studies at the University of Victoria, British
Columbia.
Notes
1.
It should be noted that sinew and other animal parts can also be used for
sewing.
2.
Retting means “to make something rot.” Sun, rain, and winter weather all
contribute to a natural retting process which can be simulated by soaking
plants until the cellular tissue surrounding bast-fibers rots away.
3.
Esparto is used to make the popular shoes known as “espadrilles.”
4.
See Richards (2004) for a step-by-step guide to tanning deerskin.
5.
Oak galls, sumac branches and leaves, or acorn shells can be used as a tan-
ning solution for fish (Skala, unpublished data).
6.
For example, samples taken from parietal art at Altamira cave (Spain) re-
vealed that in addition to manganese, plant-based (pine or juniper) and
animal-based (teeth, bone and horn) charcoal had been used (Bahn 2016).
7.
For example, Conneller (2004) argues that for a prey species like the tapir,
other tapirs are humans and humans are jaguars, while for the jaguar hu-
mans are tapirs.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 265
References
Adovasio, J. M. 1996. “Textiles.” In The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, ed-
ited by B. M. Fagan, 709–10. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Adovasio, J. M., O. Soffer, and B. Klı´ma. 1996. “Upper Palaeolithic Fibre Technol-
ogy: Interlaced Woven Finds from Pavlov I, Czech Republic, c. 26,000 Years
Ago.” Antiquity 70(269): 526–34.
Aiello, L., and P. Wheeler. 2003. “Neanderthal Thermoregulation and the Glacial
Climate.” In Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape
during the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project,
edited by Teejerd Van Andel and William Davies, 147–66. Cambridge, UK:
McDonald Institute.
Akhmetgaleeva, N. B. 2017. “Hide Polish of Worked Bone Tools from East Euro-
pean Late Upper Paleolithic Sites of Byki (Russia).” Quaternary International
427, Part B: 225–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.12.022.
Aleo, A., R. Duches, A. Falcucci, V. Rots, and M. Peresani. 2021. “Scraping Hide in
the Early Upper Paleolithic: Insights into the Life and Function of the Proto-
aurignacian Endscrapers at Fumane Cave.” Archaeological and Anthropo-
logical Sciences 13: 137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01367-4.
Altamura, F., M. R. Bennett, K. D’Août, S. Gaudzinski-Windheuser, R. T. Melis,
S. C. Reynolds, and M. Mussi. 2018. “Archaeology and Ichnology at Gombore
II-2, Melka Kunture, Ethiopia: Everyday Life of a Mixed-Age Hominin Group
700,000 Years ago.” Scientific Reports 8(1): 2815.
Audouin, F., and H. Plisson. 1982. “Les Ochres et Leurs Témoins Au Paléolithique
En France: Enquéte et Expériences sur Leur Validité Archéologique.” Cahiers
du Centre de Recherches Préhistoriques 8: 33–80.
Aura Tortosa, J. Emili, G. Pérez-Jordà, Y. Carrión Marco, J. R. Seguí Seguí, Jesús
F. Jordá Pardo, Carles Miret i Estruch, and C. C. Verdasco Cebrián. 2019.
“Cordage, Basketry and Containers at the Pleistocene–Holocene Boundary
in Southwest Europe. Evidence from Coves de Santa Maira (Valencian re-
gion, Spain).” Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 29(5): 581–94. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00334-019-00758-x.
Azéma, M., and F. Rivière. 2012. “Animation in Palaeolithic Art: A Pre-Echo of
Cinema.” Antiquity 86(332): 316–24.
Bahn, P. G. 2001. “Palaeolithic Weaving—A Contribution from Chauvet.” Antiquity
75(288): 271–72.
———. 2015. “Children of the Ice Age.” In The Archaeology of Childhood: Interdis-
ciplinary Perspectives on an Archaeological Enigma, edited by G. Coşkunsu,
167–88. Albany: State University of New York Press.
———. 2016. Images of the Ice Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Balme, J., and K. Morse. 2006. “Shell Beads and Social Behaviour in Pleistocene
Australia.” Antiquity 80(310): 799–811.
Barber, E. Wayland. 1994. Women’s Work: The First 20,000 years. New York:
Norton.

266 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
Bar-Yosef Mayer, D., B. Vandermeersch, and O. Bar-Yosef. 2009. “Shells and Ochre
in Middle Paleolithic Qafzeh Cave, Israel: Indications for Modern Behavior.”
Journal of Human Evolution 56(3): 307–14.
Binford, L. 1978. Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York: Academic Press.
Boucherat, T. 2012. “Experimental Archaeology: Tanning of a European Bison
Hide Using Ochre.” Bulletin of Primitive Technology 44 (fall): 19–29.
Brown, J. G. 2021. “Ticks, Hair Loss, and Non-Clinging Babies: A Novel Tick-
Based Hypothesis for the Evolutionary Divergence of Humans and Chim-
panzees.” Life 11(5): 435. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11050435.
Brumm, A., and M. W. Moore. 2005. “Symbolic Revolutions and the Austra-
lian Archaeological Record.” Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15(2): 157–
75.
Cardon, D. 2007. Natural Dyes: Sources, Traditions, Technology and Science.
London: Archetype Books.
Chalmin, E., M. Menu, and C. Vignaud. 2003. “Analysis of Rock Art Painting and
Technology of Palaeolithic Painters.” Measurement Science and Technology
14(9): 1590. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/14/9/310.
Chang, M. L., and A. Nowell. 2020. “Conceiving of Them, When Before There Was
Only Us.” In Archaeologies of the Heart, edited by K. Supernant, N. Lyons, J.
Baxter, and S. Atalay, 205–23. New York: Springer.
Cheynier, A. 1967. Comment Vivait L’Homme des Caverns à L’Âge du Renne.
Paris: Editions Robert Arnaux.
Clark, J. G. D. 1954. Excavations at Star Carr. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Clottes, J. 1975. “Midi-Pyrénées.” Gallia Préhistoire 18: 613–50.
Collard, M., L. Tarle, D. Sandgathe, and A. Allan. 2016. “Faunal Evidence for a Dif-
ference in Clothing Use Between Neanderthals and Early Modern Humans
in Europe.” Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 44: 235–46.
Collins, B. R., M. Wojcieszak, A. Nowell, T. Hodgskiss, and C. J. H. Ames. 2020.
“Beads and Bead Residues as Windows to Past Behaviours and Taphonomy:
A Case Study from Grassridge Rockshelter, Eastern Cape, South Africa.”
Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 12(8): article 192. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s12520-020-01164-5.
Conard, N., and M. Malina. 2016. “Außergewöhnliche neue Funde aus den auri-
gnacienzeitlichen Schichten vom Hohle Fels bei Schelklingen.” Archäologi-
sche Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 2015: 60–66.
Conneller, C. 2004. “Becoming Deer: Corporeal Transformations at Star Carr.”
Archaeological Dialogues 11(1): 37–56.
———. 2011. An Archaeology of Materials Substantial Transformations in Early
Prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge.
Creanza, N., L. Fogarty, and M. Feldman. 2013. “Exploring Cultural Niche
Construction from the Paleolithic to Modern Hunter-Gatherers.” In Dy-
namics of Learning in Neanderthals and Modern Humans, edited by
T. Akazawa, Y. Nishiaki, and K. Aoki, 211–28. Replacement of Neanderthals

The Best Dressed Hominin • 267
by Modern Humans Series 1. Tokyo: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
4-431-54511-8_13.
Crezzini, J., F. Boschin, P. Boscato, and U. Wierer. 2014. “Wild Cats and Cut Marks:
Exploitation of Felis Silvestris in the Mesolithic of Galgenbühel/Dos De La
Forca (South Tyrol, Italy).” Quaternary International 330: 52–60. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.056.
Daly, P. 1969. “Approaches to Faunal Analysis in Archaeology.” American Antiq-
uity 34(2): 146–53.
Dávid-Barrett, T., and R. Dunbar. 2016. “Bipedality and Hair Loss in Human Evo-
lution Revisited: The Impact of Altitude and Activity Scheduling.” Journal of
Human Evolution 94: 72–82. https://doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2016.02.006.
Dayet, L., R. Erasmus, A. Val, L. Feyfant, and G. Porraz. 2017. “Beads, Pigments
and Early Holocene Ornamental Traditions at Bushman Rock Shelter, South
Africa.” Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 13: 635–51.
Doyon, L., T. Faure, M. Sanz, J. Daura, L. Cassard, and F. d’Errico. 2023. “A
39,600-year-old Leather Punch Board from Canyars, Gavà, Spain.” Science
Advances 9(15). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adg0834.
Duraisamy, R., S. Shamena, and A. Kerebo Berekute. 2016. “A Review of Bio-
tanning Materials for Processing of Fish Skin into Leather.” International
Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology 39(1): 10–20.
Duveau, J., G. Berillon, C. Verna, G. Laisné, and D. Cliquet. 2019. “The Compo-
sition of a Neandertal Social Group Revealed by the Hominin Footprints
at Le Rozel (Normandy, France).” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 116(39): 19409–14.
d’Errico, F., L. R. Backwell, and L. Wadley. 2012. “Identifying Regional Variability in
Middle Stone Age Bone Technology: The Case of Sibudu Cave.” Journal of
Archaeological Science 39(7): 2479–95.
d’Errico, F., L.c Doyon, S. Zhang, M. Baumann, M. Lázničková-Galetov, X. Gao, F.
Chen, and Y. Zhang. 2018. “The Origin and Evolution of Sewing Technolo-
gies in Eurasia and North America.” Journal of Human Evolution 125: 71–86.
d’Errico, F., C. Henshilwood, M. Vanhaeren, and K. van Niekerke. 2005. “Nassarius
kraussianus Shell Beads from Blombos Cave: Evidence for Symbolic Be-
haviour in the Middle Stone Age.” Journal of Human Evolution 48(1): 3–24.
Einwögerer, T.s, H. Friesinger, M. Händel, C. Neugebauer-Maresch, U. Simon,
and M. Teschler-Nicola. 2006. “Upper Paleolithic Infant Burials.” Nature
444(7117): 285.
Einwögerer, T., M. Händel, C. Neugebauer-Maresch, U. Simon, P. Steier, M.
Teschler-Nicola, and E. Maria Wild. 2009. “14C Dating of the Upper Paleo-
lithic Site at Krems-Wachtberg, Austria.” Radiocarbon 51(2): 847–55.
French, J., and A. Nowell. 2022. “Growing up Gravettian.” Journal of Anthropo-
logical Archaeology 67: Article 101430.
Fuentes, O. 2017. “The Social Dimension of Human Depiction in Magdalenian
Rock Art (16,500 cal. BP 12,000 cal. BP): The Case of the Roc-aux-Sorciers
Rock-Shelter.” Quaternary International 430: 97–113.

268 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
Gilligan, I. 2010. “The Prehistoric Development of Clothing: Archaeological Im-
plications of a Thermal Model.” Journal of Archaeological Method and The-
ory 17(1): 15–80.
———. 2017. “Clothing and Hypothermia as Limitations for Midlatitude Hominin
Settlement during the Pleistocene: A Comment on Hosfeld 2016.” Current
Anthropology 58(4): 534–35.
Gittins, E. 2013. “The Archaeology of Becoming the Human Animal.” Society &
Animals 21: 120–33.
Golovanova, L. V., V. B. Doronichev, and N. E. Cleghorn. 2009. “The Emergence
of Bone-Working and Ornamental Art in the Caucasian Upper Palaeolithic.”
Antiquity 84(324): 299–320.
Gravel-Miguel, C., E. Cristiani, J. Hodgkins, C. M. Orr, D. S. Strait, M. Peresani, S.
Benazzi, et al. 2022. “The Ornaments of the Arma Veirana Early Mesolithic
Infant Burial.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory. https://doi
.org/10.1007/s10816-022-09573-7.
Hallett, E., C. W. Marean, T. E. Steele, E. Álvarez-Fernández, Z. Jacobs, J. Nic-
colò Cerasoni, V. Aldeias, et al. 2021. “A Worked Bone Assemblage From
120,000–90,000-Year-Old Deposits at Contrebandiers Cave, Atlantic Coast,
Morocco.” iScience 24(9): 102988.
Hardy, B. L., M.-H. Moncel, C. Kerfant, M. Lebon, L. Bellot-Gurlet, and N. Mélard.
2020. “Direct Evidence of Neanderthal Fibre Technology and Its Cogni-
tive and Behavioral Implications.” Scientific Reports 10(1): 4889. https://doi
.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61839-w.
Harris, M. 1968. The Rise of Anthropological Theory: A History of Theories of
Culture. New York: Crowell.
———. 1979. Cultural Materialism: The Struggle for a Science of Culture. New York:
Random House.
Hatala, K. G., W. E. H. Harcourt-Smith, A. D. Gordon, B. W. Zimmer, B. G. Rich-
mond, B. L. Pobiner, D. J. Green, A. Metallo, V. Rossi, and C. M. Liutkus-Pierce.
2020. “Snapshots of Human Anatomy, Locomotion, and Behavior from Late
Pleistocene Footprints at Engare Sero, Tanzania.” Scientific Reports 10(1):
7740. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598–020–64095–0.
Hatala, K. G., N. T. Roach, K. R. Ostrofsky, R. E. Wunderlich, H. L. Dingwall, B. A.
Villmoare, D. J. Green, J. W. K. Harris, D. R. Braun, and B. G. Richmond. 2016.
“Footprints Reveal Direct Evidence of Group Behavior and Locomotion
in Homo erectus.” Scientific Reports 6(1): 28766. https://doi.org/10.1038/
srep28766.
Henry-Gambier, D., P. Rocher, and D. Drucker. 2019. “Étude et description de la
sépulture de l’enfant de l’abri Labattut (vallon de Castelmerle, Sergeac, Dor-
dogne, France).” Paléo 30–31: 170–203. https://doi.org/10.4000/paleo.4668.
Henshilwood, C. S., F. d’Errico, C. W. Marean, R. G. Milo, and R. Yates. 2001. “An
Early Bone Tool Industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South
Africa: Implications for the Origins of Modern Human Behaviour, Symbol-
ism, and Language.” Journal of Human Evolution 41(6): 631–78.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 269
Henshilwood, C., F. d’Errico, M. Vanhaeren, K. van Niekerk, and Z. Jacobs. 2004.
“Middle Stone Age Shell Beads from South Africa.” Science 304(5669): 404.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1095905.
Hosfield, R. 2016. “Walking in a Winter Wonderland? Strategies for Early and Mid-
dle Pleistocene Survival in Midlatitude Europe.” Current Anthropology 57(5):
653–82.
———. 2020. The Earliest Europeans. A Year in the Life: Survival Strategies in the
Lower Palaeolithic. Oxford, UK: Oxbow.
Hurcombe, L. M. 2014. Perishable Material Culture in Prehistory: Investigating the
Missing Majority. New York: Routledge.
Ingold, T. 1993. “The Temporality of the Landscape.” World Archaeology 25(2):
152–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.1993.9980235.
———. 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Dwelling, Livelihood,
and Skill. London: Routledge.
Johnson, M. 2020. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK:
Wiley Blackwell.
Julien, M.-A., B. Hardy, M. C. Stahlschmidt, B. Urban, J. Serangeli, and N. J. Conard.
2015. “Characterizing the Lower Paleolithic Bone Industry from Schöningen
12 II: A Multi-Proxy Study.” Journal of Human Evolution 89: 264–86.
Kandel, A. W. 2004. “Modification of Ostrich Eggs by Carnivores and Its Bearing
on the Interpretation of Archaeological and Paleontological Finds.” Journal
of Archaeological Science 31(4): 377–91.
Kandel, A. W., and N. J. Conard, 2005. “Production Sequences of Ostrich Eggshell
Beads and Settlement Dynamics in the Geelbek Dunes of the Western Cape,
South Africa.” Journal of Archaeological Science 32(12): 1711–21.
Keeley, L. H. 1980. Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear
Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kowalczyk, A., M. Chikina, and N. Clark. 2022. “Complementary Evolution of
Coding and Noncoding Sequence Underlies Mammalian Hairlessness.”
eLife 11: e76911. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.76911.
Kuhn, S. L., M. C. Stiner, D. S. Reese, and E. Güleç. 2001. “Ornaments of the Ear-
liest Upper Paleolithic: New Insights from the Levant.” Proceedings of the
National Academy of Science 98(13): 7641–46.
Kuttruff, J. T., G. Dehartand, and M. J. O’Brien. 1998. “7500 Years of Prehistoric
Footwear from Arnold Research Cave, Missouri.” Science 281(5373): 72–75.
Kuzmin, Y. V., C. T. Keally, A. J. Timothy Jull, G. S. Burr, and N. A. Klyuev. 2012.
“The Earliest Surviving Textiles in East Asia from Chertovy Vorota Cave, Pri-
morye Province, Russian Far East.” Antiquity 86(332): 325–37.
Kvavadze, E., O. Bar-Yosef, A. Belfer-Cohen, E. Boaretto, N. Jakeli, Z. Matske-
vich, and T. Meshveliani. 2009. “30,000-Year-Old Wild Flax Fibers.” Science
325(5946): 1359.
Kyparissi-Apostolika, N., and S. Manolis. 2021. “Reconsideration of the Antiq-
uity of the Middle Palaeolithic Footprints from Theopetra Cave (Thessaly,
Greece).” In Reading Prehistoric Human Tracks: Methods and Material, ed-

270 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
ited by A. Pastoors and T. Lessen-Erz., 169–82. London: Springer Interna-
tional Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030–60406-6_10.
Lbova, L. V., and P. Valerievich Volkov. 2015. “Microscopic Analysis of the Anthro-
pomorphic Figurines from Malta (Technology of Formation, Detalization
and Decoration).” Stratum Plus Journal 1: 161–68.
———. 2017. “Pigment Decoration of Palaeolithic Anthropomorphous Figurines
from Siberia.” Rock Art Research 34(2): 169–78.
Lbova, L. V., P. Valerievich Volkov, E. N. Bocharova, V. S. Kovalev, and N. A.
Khaykunova 2017. “The Techniques of Modeling and Decorating Upper Pa-
leolithic Anthropomorphic Figurines from Malta, Eastern Siberia.” Archae-
ology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 45(3): 48–55. https://doi
.org/10.17746/1563-0110.2017.45.3.048–055.
Ledoux, L. 2019. “L’Ichnologie Préhistorique et les Traces d’Activités au Sein des
Cavités Ornées. Les Grottes de Fontanet (Ariège) et de Cussac (Dordogne).”
Master’s thesis, University of Bordeaux.
Ledoux, L., G. Berillon, N. Fourment, X. Muth, and J. Jaubert. 2021. “Evidence
of the Use of Soft Footwear in the Gravettian Cave of Cussac (Dordogne,
France).” Scientific Reports 11(1): Article 22727. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-021-02127-z.
Lemorini, C., E. Cristiani, S. N. Cesaro, F. Venditti, A. Zupancich, and A. Gopher.
2020. “The Use of Ash at Late Lower Paleolithic Qesem Cave, Israel—An
Integrated Study of Use-Wear and Residue Analysis.” PLOS ONE 15(9):
e0237502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237502.
Lemorini, C., F. Venditti, E. Assaf, Y. Parush, R. Barkai, and A. Gopher. 2015. “The
Function of Recycled Lithic Items at Late Lower Paleolithic Qesem Cave,
Israel: An Overview of the Use-Wear Data.” Quaternary International 361:
103–12.
Lockley, M., G. Roberts, and J. Yul Kim. 2008. “In the Footprints of Our Ancestors:
An Overview of the Hominid Track Record.” Ichnos 15(3–4): 106–25. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10420940802467835.
Martisius, N. L., F. Welker, T. Dogandžić, M. N. Grote, W. Rendu, V. Sinet-Mathiot,
A. Wilcke, S. J. P. McPherron, M. Soressi, and T. E. Steele. 2020. “Non-De-
structive ZooMS Identification Reveals Strategic Bone Tool Raw Material
Selection by Neandertals.” Scientific Reports 10(1): Article 7746. https://doi
.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64358-w.
McKie, R. 2020. “Take a Tusk, Drill Holes, Weave a Rope—and Change the Course
of History.” The Guardian, 1 August 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/
science/2020/aug/01/mammoth-tusk-drill-holes-make-rope-change-hist
ory-stone-age .
Miettinen, A., K. Sarmaja-Korjonen, E. Sonninen, H. Jungner, T. Lempiäinen, K.
Ylikoski, C. Carpelan, and J.-P. Mäkiaho. 2008. “The Palaeoenvironment of
the ‘Antrea Net Find.’” Iskos 16: 71–87.
Miller, J. M., and P. R. Willoughby. 2014. “Radiometrically Dated Ostrich Egg-
shell Beads from the Middle and Later Stone Age of Magubike Rockshelter,
Southern Tanzania.” Journal of Human Evolution 74: 118–22.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 271
Nowell, A. 2015. “Learning to See and Seeing to Learn: Children, Communities of
Practice and Pleistocene Visual Cultures.” Cambridge Archaeology Journal
25(4): 889–99.
———. 2021. Growing Up in the Ice Age: Fossil and Archaeological Evidence of the
Lived Lives of Plio-Pleistocene Children. Oxford, UK: Oxbow Books.
———. 2023. “Oral Storytelling and Knowledge Transmission in Upper Paleolithic
Children and Adolescents.” In “Skill Development and Knowledge Transmis-
sion,” special issue, Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 30(1): 9–
31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-022-09591-5.
Nowell, A., and A. Cooke. 2021. “Culturing the Body: Adornment and Orna-
mentation.” In Oxford Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, edited by
Andrew Lock, Chris Sinha, and Nathalie Gontier, 1–32. Oxford: Oxford Uni-
versity Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198813781.013.20.
Orton, J. 2008. “Later Stone Age Ostrich Eggshell Bead Manufacture in the North-
ern Cape, South Africa.” Journal of Archaeological Science 35(7): 1765–75.
Pastoors, A., T. Lenssen-Erz, T. Ciqae, U. Kxunta, T. Thao, R. Bégouën, M. Bie-
sele, and J. Clottes. 2015. “Tracking in Caves: Experience-Based Reading of
Pleistocene Human Footprints in French Caves.” Cambridge Archaeological
Journal 25: 551–64.
Pelletier, M., E. Desclaux, J.-P. Brugal, and P.-J. Texier. 2019. “The Exploitation of
Rabbits for Food and Pelts by Last Interglacial Neandertals.” Quaternary Sci-
ence Reviews 224: 105972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2019.105972.
Postrel, V. 2020. The Fabric of Civilization: How Textiles Made the World. New
York: Basic Books.
Rahme, L., and D. Hartman. 2012. Fish Leather Tanning and Sewing with Tradi-
tional Methods. Stockholm: Lottas Garfveri AB.
Richards, M. 2004. Deerskins into Buckskins: How to Tan with Brains, Soap or
Eggs, 2nd ed. West Valley City: Backcountry Publishing.
Riede, F., N. N. Johannsen, A. Högberg, A. Nowell, and M. Lombard. 2018. “The
Role of Play Objects and Object Play in Human Cognitive Evolution and
Domain-Specific Innovation: A Niche Construction Perspective.” Evolution-
ary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews 27(1): 46–59.
Rifkin, R. F. 2011. “Assessing the Efficacy of Red Ochre as a Prehistoric Hide Tan-
ning Ingredient.” Journal of African Archaeology 9(2): 131–58.
Romano, M., P. Citton, I. Salvador, D. Arobba, I. Rellini, M. Firpo, F. Negrino, M.
Zunino, E. Starnini, and M. Avanzini. 2019. “A Multidisciplinary Approach to a
Unique Palaeolithic Human Ichnological Record from Italy (Bàsura Cave).”
eLife 8: e45204. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45204.
Roper, D. C. 1979. “The Method and Theory of Site Catchment Analysis: A Re-
view.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 2: 119–40.
———. 1991. “A Comparison of Contexts of Red Ochre Use in Palaeoindian and
Upper Palaeolithic Sites.” North American Archaeologist 12(4): 289–301.
Rots, V., B. L. Hardy, J. Serangeli, and N. J. Conard. 2015. “Residue and Microwear
Analyses of the Stone Artifacts from Schöningen.” Journal of Human Evo-
lution 89: 298–308.

272 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
Saint Mathurin, S. 1973. “Bas-relief et plaquette d’homme magdalénien d’Angles-
Sur-l’Anglin.” Antiquités Nationales 5: 12–19.
———. 1975. “Reliefs Magdaléniens d’Angles-Sur-l’Anglin (Vienne).” Antiquités Na-
tionales 7: 24–31.
Sehasseh, E. M., P. Fernandez, S. Kuhn, M. Stiner, S. Mentzer, D. Colarossi, A. Clark,
F. Lanoe, M. Pailes, D. Hoffmann, A. Benson, E. Rhodes, M. Benmansour, A.
Laissaoui, I. Ziani, P. Vidal-Matutano, J. Morales, Y. Djellal, B. Longet, J.-J. Hub-
lin, M. Mouhiddine, F.-Z. Rafi, K. B. Worthey, I. Sanchez-Morales, N. Ghayati,
and A. Bouzouggar. 2021. “Early Middle Stone Age Personal Ornaments from
Bizmoune Cave, Essaouira, Morocco.” Science Advances 7(39): eabi8620.
Shipman, P. 1986. “Scavenging or Hunting in Early Hominids: Theoretical Frame-
work and Tests.” American Anthropologist 88(1): 27–43.
Sievers, C., L. Backwell, F. d’Errico, and L. Wadley. 2022. “Plant Bedding Construc-
tion Between 60,000 and 40,000 Years Ago at Border Cave, South Africa.”
Quaternary Science Reviews 275: Article 10728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.quascirev.2021.107280.
Smith, E. A. 1979. “Human Adaptation and Energetic Efficiency.” Human Ecology
7(1):
53–74.
Soffer, O. 2004. “Recovering Perishable Technologies through Use Wear on
Tools: Preliminary Evidence for Upper Paleolithic Weaving and Net Making.”
Current Anthropology 45(3): 407–13.
Soffer, O., and J. M. Adovasio. 2010. “The Role of Perishable Technologies in Up-
per Paleolithic Lives.” In The Magdalenian Household: Unraveling Domestic-
ity, edited by E. Zubrow, F. Audouze, and J. G. Enloe, 235–44. Albany: SUNY
Press.
Soffer, O., J. M. Adovasio, and D. C. Hyland. 2000a. “The ‘Venus’ Figurines: Tex-
tiles, Basketry, Gender, and Status in the Upper Paleolithic.” Current Anthro-
pology 41(4): 511–37.
———. 2000b. “The Well Dressed ‘Venus’: Women’s Wear ca. 27,000 BP.” Archaeol-
ogy, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 1(1): 37–47.
———. 2002. “Perishable Technologies and Invisible People: Nets, Baskets, and
‘Venus’ wear ca. 26,000 BP.” In Enduring Records: The Environmental and
Cultural Heritage of Wetlands, edited by Barbara A. Purdy, 233–45. Oxford,
UK: Oxbow Books.
Soressi, M., S. P. McPherron, M. Lenoir, T. Dogandžić, P. Goldberg, Z. Jacobs, Y.
Maigrot, et al. 2013. “Neandertals Made the First Specialized Bone Tools in
Europe.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 110(35):
14186–90.
Steward, J. H. 1955. Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear
Evolution. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Stiner, M., S. Kuhn, and E. S. Güleç. 2013. Early Upper Paleolithic Shell Beads at
Üçağizli Cave I (Turkey): Technology and the Socioeconomic Context of
Ornament Life-Histories. Journal of Human Evolution 64(5): 380–98.

The Best Dressed Hominin • 273
Taborin, Y. 2003. “La Mer et les Premiers Hommes Moderns.” In Échanges et
Diffusion Dans la Préhistoire Méditerranéenne, edited by Bernard Vender-
meersch, 113–22. Actes du 121e Congrès national des sociétés historiques
et scientifiques, section pré-et-protohistoire, Nice, 1996. Paris: CTHS.
———. 2004. Langage Sans Parole: La Parure aux Temps Préhistoriques. Paris: La
Maison des Roches.
Toups, M. A., A. Kitchen, J. E. Light, and D. L. Reed. 2011. “Origin of Clothing
Lice Indicates Early Clothing Use by Anatomically Modern Humans in Af-
rica.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 28(1): 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/
molbev/msq234.
Trinkaus, E. 2005. “Anatomical Evidence for the Antiquity of Human Footwear
Use.” Journal of Archaeological Science 32(10): 1515–26.
Trinkaus, E., and H. Shang. 2008. “Anatomical Evidence for the Antiquity of Hu-
man Footwear: Tianyuan and Sunghir.” Journal of Archaeological Science
35(7): 1928–33.
Vanhaeren, M., and F. d’Errico. 2003. “Childhood in the Epipaleolithic: What Do
Personal Ornaments Associated to Burials Tell Us?” In Mesolithic on the
Move: Papers Presented at the 6th International Conference on the Meso-
lithic in Europe, ed. L. Larsson, H. Kindgren, K. Knutsson, D. Loeffler, and A.
Åkerlund, 494–505. Oxford,UK: Oxbow Books.
———. 2005. “Grave Goods from the Saint-Germain-la-Rivière Burial: Evidence
for Social Inequality in the Upper Palaeolithic.” Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 24(2): 117–34.
Vanhaeren, M., F. d’Errico, C. Stringer, S. L. James, J. A. Todd, and H. K. Mie-
nis. 2006. “Middle Paleolithic Shell Beads in Israel and Algeria.” Science
312(5781): 1785–88.
Vanhaeren, M., F. d’Errico, K. van Niekerk, C. S. Henshilwood, and R. M. Erasmus.
2013. “Thinking Strings: Additional Evidence for Personal Ornament Use in
the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa.” Journal of Human
Evolution 64(6): 500–17.
Velo, J. 1986. “The Problem of Ochre.” Mankind Quarterly 26(3–4): 229–37.
Verheijen, I., B. M. Starkovich, J. Serangeli, T. van Kolfschoten, and N. J. Conard.
2022. Early Evidence for Bear Exploitation during MIS 9 from the Site of
Schoningen 12 (Germany). Journal of Human Evolution. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhevol.2022.103294.
Villa, P., G. Boschian, L. Pollarolo, D. Saccà, F. Marra, S. Nomade, and Alison
Pereira. 2021. “Elephant Bones for the Middle Pleistocene Toolmaker.” PLOS
ONE 16(8): e0256090. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256090.
Viveiros de Castro, E. 1998. “Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectiv-
ism.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4(3): 469–88.
Wadley, L. 2005. “Putting Ochre to the Test, Replication Studies of Adhesives
That May Have Been Used for Hafting Tools in the Middle Stone Age.” Jour-
nal of Human Evolution 49(5): 587–601.

274 • April Nowell and Aurora Skala
Wales, N. 2012. “Modeling Neanderthal Clothing Using Ethnographic Analogues.”
Journal of Human Evolution 63(6): 781–95.
Weedman, K. 2005. “Gender and Stone-Tools: An Ethnographic Study of Konso
and Gamo Hideworkers of Southern Ethiopia.” In Gender and Hide Produc-
tion, edited by L. Frink, and K. Weedman, 175–96. Walnut Creek: AltaMira
Press.
———. 2006a. “An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Hafting and Stone Tool Diver-
sity Among the Gamo of Ethiopia.” Journal of Archaeological Science 13(3):
188–237.
———. 2006b. “Gender and Ethnoarchaeology.” In Handbook of Gender in Ar-
chaeology, edited by Sarah M. Nelson, 247–94. Lanham: AltaMira Press.
White, R. 2007. “Systems of Personal Ornamentation in the Early Upper Paleo-
lithic: Methodological Challenges and New Observations.” In Rethinking
the Human Revolution, edited by P. Mellars, K. Boyle, O. Bar-Yosef, and C.
Stringer, 287–302. Cambridge, UK: MacDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research.
Wolf, S. 2015. “Personal Ornaments as Signatures of Identity in the Aurignacian—
the Case of the Swabian Jura and Western Germany.” World Heritage Papers
41: 92–102.
Yanevich, A., 2014. “Les Occupations Gravettiennes de Buran-Kaya III (Crimée):
Contexte Archéologique.” L’Anthropologie 118(5): 554–66.
Zilhão, J. 2007. “The Emergence of Ornaments and Art: An Archaeological Per-
spective on the Origins of ‘Behavioral Modernity.’” Journal of Archaeological
Research 15(1): 1–54.