# Paleolithic eyed needles and the evolution of dress

Ian Gilligan, Francesco D'errico, Luc Doyon, Wei Wang, Yaroslav V Kuzmin

► To cite this version:

Ian Gilligan, Francesco D'errico, Luc Doyon, Wei Wang, Yaroslav V Kuzmin. Paleolithic eyed needles and the evolution of dress. Science Advances, 2024, Science Advances, 10 (26), eadp2887. 10.1126/sciadv.adp2887. hal-04685486

HAL Id: hal-04685486

https://hal.science/hal-04685486v1

Submitted on 3 Sep 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Copyright © 2024 The
Authors, some rights
reserved; exclusive
licensee American
Association for the
Advancement of
Science. No claim to
original U.S.
Government Works.
Distributed under a
Creative Commons
Attribution License 4.0
(CC BY).

ANTHROPOLOGY

Paleolithic eyed needles and the evolution of dress

Ian Gilligan<fnref n="1" />*, Francesco d'Errico²,³, Luc Doyon², Wei Wang⁴, Yaroslav V. Kuzmin⁵

Eyed needles are among the most iconic of Paleolithic artifacts, traditionally seen as rare indicators of prehistoric clothing, particularly tailoring. However, recent finds across Africa and Eurasia show that other technologies like bone awls also facilitated the creation of fitted garments. Nonetheless, the advent of delicate eyed needles suggests a demand for more refined, efficient sewing. This refinement may signify two major developments: the emergence of underwear in layered garment assemblages, and/or a transition in adornment from body modification to decorating clothes, as humans covered themselves more completely for thermal protection. Archaeological evidence for underwear is limited, but the Upper Paleolithic saw an increase in personal ornaments, some sewn onto clothing. Eyed needles may mark a pivotal shift as clothes acquired the social functions of dress, decoupling clothing from climate and ensuring its enduring presence.

INTRODUCTION

The emergence and evolution of clothing was an integral aspect of the culturalization of the human body that has substantially contributed to shaping our human niche and promoted a process of self-domestication (1-4). Clothing enabled our ancestors to inhabit a wider variety of environments and thereby access different resources and ecological niches (5). In its coevolution alongside humans, clothing not only served as a practical necessity for protection and comfort but also became a powerful tool for cultural expression, and social and individual identity (6, 7). Clothing is used by most known human societies to signify group identity, affiliation, and social status. This allowed for the formation of larger and more complex societies, as individuals could identify and cooperate with members of their group, tribe, or community based on shared clothing styles and symbols. The production of clothing, including the selection of materials and tools, required planning and resource management. These skills would have contributed to a more sustainable lifestyle and enhanced the long-term survival and prosperity of human communities. In summary, clothing has played a multifaceted role in human niche construction.

Paleolithic clothing

Direct archaeological evidence for Paleolithic clothing is elusive. Archaeological findings in Eurasia, dating back to the Early and Middle Pleistocene, indicate the use of stone tools—notably hide-scrapers—to prepare animal skins for thermal insulation as hominins occupied colder environments (5, 8). Evidence for animal skinning and hide scraping has been identified at various sites such as Hoxne (9), Qesem Cave (10), and Schöningen (11, 12). Bone “smoothers,” presumably to work skins, have been found at Schöningen (13), Grotte des Contre-bandiers (14), Pech-de-l’Azé I (15, 16), Combe-Grenal (17), and Abri Peyrony (16). At the Grotte du Renne, several smoothers found in Châtelperronian layers associated with Neanderthals are dated to 45,000 to 42,000 cal B.P. (calibrated years before the present)—dates younger than 55,000 years ago are given here as cal B.P. (18)—and

some of the smoothers bear ochre residues suggesting that they were used on ochred skin (19). Traditionally, archaeologists have associated the emergence of tailored clothes with the invention of eye needles made of bone (20, 21). The initial appearance of eyed needles in the archaeological record of northern mid-latitude environments during the last glacial cycle is consistent with a primary function in providing thermal protection (5, 20, 22). The earliest known eyed needles appear ~40,000 cal B.P. in Siberia, ~38,000 cal B.P. in the Caucasus, ~30,000 cal B.P. in East Asia, and by 26,000 cal B.P. in Europe (23).

*Homo sapiens* arrived in Europe by ~45,000 cal B.P. (24, 25). Before the dispersal of modern humans into Europe, the tools used by Neanderthals to prepare skins to cover themselves consisted of lithic hide-scrapers and rare borers, before the late appearance of bone tools in Châtelperronian contexts; skins may also have been treated with tanning agents (26). Therefore, the absence of bone awls and eyed needles cannot be argued as evidence for the absence of clothes altogether. Available evidence—including paleoenvironmental reconstructions, faunal remains, and ethnographic analogues—indicate that Neanderthals may have worn simple, poncho-style garments, although the presence of bone awls in Châtelperronian contexts could suggest a late adoption of fitted garments among some Neanderthal populations (27–29).

Eyed needles

Production of eyed needles is a sophisticated, labor-intensive technological process for hunter-gatherers (30). If bone awls sufficed for sewing fitted garments and eyed needles were not necessarily invented to tailor clothes in the first instance, then the question arises as to what purpose(s) was sufficiently salient, or what needs were sufficiently pressing, to justify the extra investment. Some clues may be ascertained by considering the benefits of transforming an awl into an eyed needle.

1) In circumstances where finer sewing was desired or required, the process of inserting a thread by hand through a small hole became increasingly tedious, a challenge that was addressed by drilling an eye into the proximal end of the awl to carry the thread through.

2) As a consequence of the above technological innovation, eyed needles made sewing more efficient, by combining two separate processes into one: (i) the piercing of holes in hides and (ii) the threading of sinew or fiber through the holes.

The benefits of manufacturing eyed needles—facilitating finer sewing by hand and rendering the task of sewing more efficient—may

<footnote n="1">¹School of Humanities, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. ²Université de Bordeaux, CNRS, MCC, PACEA, UMR5199, Pessac 33615, France. ³University of Bergen, Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour (Sapience), Department of Archaeology, History, Cultural Studies and Religion, Bergen 5020, Norway. ⁴Institute of Cultural Heritage, Shandong University, Qingdao 266237, China. ⁵Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia.</footnote>

<footnote>*Corresponding author. Email: ian.gilligan@sydney.edu.au</footnote>
pertain to adornment of clothes (23) and also the need for underwear in multilayered garment assemblages (5, 31). These two different purposes actually coincide, since the thermal need for underwear corresponds to a more complete and continuous use of clothing, which, in turn, would favor a shift from decorating the skin surface to adorning the more visible surface of clothes (5). Eyed needles would also be useful in adding fur trim, which can serve both thermal and decorative purposes (29). Eyed needles were a technological advance that facilitated more effective thermal insulation and the transformation of clothing into dress. For these reasons, eyed needles were a tipping point in human prehistory.

## THERMAL ORIGINS

A thermal basis for the development of clothing is consistent with evidence from a range of disciplines including ethnography [(32–34), text S1], archaeology (5, 31, 35), human physiology (5, 36), clothing physiology (5, 37), paleoclimatology (38–40), and entomology (41, 42). Two forms of clothing—simple and complex—can be distinguished on the basis of thermal insulation properties (5). Simple clothes are structurally loose, offering limited protection from wind chill, whereas complex clothes are fitted and can also be multilayered.

In terms of Paleolithic technologies, complex clothes are associated with dedicated hide-piercing implements, of which bone awls and eyed needles are well recognized. Bone awls appear in the archaeological record during the first half of the last glacial cycle in middle latitudes (Fig. 1), while the earliest eyed needles are restricted to the second half of the last glacial cycle (Table 1). In both cases, the geographical distributions reflect escalating physiological requirements for portable insulation as hominins occupied colder environments. Eyed needles accompanied the expansion of *H. sapiens* into Siberia (43, 44) and subsequently across Beringia into the Americas (35, 45).

## Layers and underwear

The effectiveness of adding extra layers to improve insulation derives from the basic thermal principle of clothing, namely, trapping air near the skin surface to reduce the rate of convective heat loss. Using modern-day woven fabrics, and depending on the materials, adding one extra layer can almost double the insulation value (36, 37). Holocene climates can be classified into clothing zones based on the number of layers required for people to safely endure outdoor winter conditions (46, 47). Up to four layers are needed in the sub-arctic zone, for example, and four layers are mandatory for outdoor survival during Arctic winters when mean monthly temperatures

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 1.** Locations for sites mentioned in the text with early bone awls and eyed needles. Map prepared by L. Doyon using QGIS v. 3.30.1-’s-Hertogenbosch (Free Software Foundation Inc., Boston; https://download.qgis.org/downloads/) with vector and raster from Natural Earth (https://www.naturalearthdata.com/).</figcaption></figure>

Downloaded from https://www.science.org on September 03, 2024
<table><caption>Table 1. Sites with early eyed needles, including reported dates and latitude.</caption><thead><tr><td>Site</td><td>Dating (cal B.P.)</td><td>Latitude</td><td>Region</td><td>Sources</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Denisova Cave</td><td>40,000</td><td>51°N</td><td>Southern Siberia</td><td>Derevianko et al. (113); Kuzmin et al. (100)</td></tr><tr><td>Mezmaiskaya Cave</td><td>38,000</td><td>44°N</td><td>Caucasus</td><td>Golovanova et al. (115)</td></tr><tr><td>Zhoukoudian Upper Cave</td><td>35–33,000</td><td>40°N</td><td>Northeastern East Asia</td><td>Li et al. (126); d’Errico et al. (50)</td></tr><tr><td>Yana RHS</td><td>33,000</td><td>71°N</td><td>Northern Siberia</td><td>Pitulko and Pavlova (44); Shunkov et al. (61)</td></tr><tr><td>Xiaogushan</td><td>33–21,000</td><td>40°N</td><td>Northeastern East Asia</td><td>Huang et al. (118); Zhang et al. (119)</td></tr><tr><td>Shuidonggou 2</td><td>32,000</td><td>38°N</td><td>Northern central East Asia</td><td>Li et al. (123); Keates and Kuzmin (124)</td></tr><tr><td>Kunalei-4</td><td>32,000</td><td>51°N</td><td>Central Siberia</td><td>Fedorchenko and Belousova (79)</td></tr><tr><td>Sabanikha</td><td>31,000</td><td>56°N</td><td>Central Siberia</td><td>Shunkov (61); Fedorchenko and Belousova (79)</td></tr><tr><td>Potočka Cave</td><td>30,000</td><td>46°N</td><td>Central Europe</td><td>Odar (127); Anghelinu et al. (128)</td></tr><tr><td>Kostenki-15</td><td>30,000</td><td>51°N</td><td>Central Europe</td><td>Hoffecker (35)</td></tr><tr><td>Kurtak-4</td><td>29,000</td><td>55°N</td><td>Central Siberia</td><td>Shunkov et al. (61); Fedorchenko and Belousova (79)</td></tr><tr><td>Ust-Kova</td><td>28,000</td><td>58°N</td><td>Central Siberia</td><td>Fedorchenko and Belousova (79)</td></tr><tr><td>Aitzbitarte III</td><td>28–22,000</td><td>43°N</td><td>Western Europe</td><td>Calvo and Arrizabalaga (129)</td></tr><tr><td>Shestakovo</td><td>27,000</td><td>53°N</td><td>Central Siberia</td><td>Fedorchenko and Belousova (79)</td></tr><tr><td>Dzudzuana Cave</td><td>27–24,000</td><td>42°N</td><td>Caucasus</td><td>Bar-Yosef et al. (116)</td></tr><tr><td>Shizitan</td><td>26–23,000</td><td>36°N</td><td>Central eastern East Asia</td><td>Song et al. (125)</td></tr><tr><td>Khayrgas Cave</td><td>25,000</td><td>60°</td><td>Northeastern Siberia</td><td>Kuzmin et al. (117); Fedorchenko and Belousova (79)</td></tr><tr><td>Mal’ta</td><td>25,000</td><td>53°N</td><td>Southern Siberia</td><td>Shunkov et al. (61)</td></tr><tr><td>Strashnaya Cave</td><td>23,000</td><td>51°N</td><td>Southern Siberia</td><td>Shunkov et al. (61); Kuzmin et al. (100)</td></tr><tr><td>Broken Mammoth</td><td>14,000</td><td>64°N</td><td>Northwestern North America</td><td>Hoffecker (45); Hoffecker (35)</td></tr></tbody></table>

are between -10°C and -20°C. However, these thresholds for extra layers are defined for garments made from woven materials, which provide less insulation, and are more prone to wind penetration, than the animal hides and furs used to manufacture Paleolithic garments. For this reason, the contemporary four-layer classification of clothing zones likely corresponds to a two-layer situation with Paleolithic garments (table S1).

## FROM COVERING TO DRESS

Regardless of whether or not a physiological incentive for underwear could be implicated in the advent of eyed needles, a reasonable presumption is that eyed needles reflect the emergence of a more general impetus for finer sewing. A thermal factor may be inferred from the correlation with exposure to colder environments, although this connection may not be limited to the manufacture of more thermally effective fitted clothing. As a consequence of the production of sophisticated clothing and more complete body covering, one repercussion of more regular and extensive body cover is that decoration of the human body for social purposes would necessarily be transferred

from adorning the naked skin surface to decorating the surface of clothes (5).

A formative role for decoration and the adornment of clothing in the advent of eyed needles is supported by archaeological evidence (4, 48–50). Specifically, the attachment of beads and other small decorative items to garments would favor the use of eyed needles. Acquisition of an adornment function meant that clothing underwent a transition from physical to social necessity—a transition to clothing as dress. This trend may be witnessed in the archaeological record as a greater range and diversity of beads, pendants, and other signs of adornment during the late Pleistocene in Eurasia, accompanying the development and morphological diversification of eyed needles (23, 50–54).

## ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

The evolutionary context for eyed needles encompasses not only environmental parameters influencing the use of clothing but technological innovations preceding the advent of eyed needles and cultural factors affecting body adornment in the late Pleistocene. Evidence for
body adornment is considered first, followed by technological precursors and alternatives for sewing, and archaeological evidence for the earliest eyed needles.

## Adornment

Adornment of the human body likely accompanied the emergence of *H. sapiens* between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago (55, 56), and body adornment probably was present among other hominins, including Neanderthals. Evidence includes the use of ochre and the manufacture of decorative artifacts such as pierced marine shells and beads. Three broad phases in the evolution of body adornment can be inferred: adornment of the naked skin, wearing of decorative items (e.g., necklaces, earrings, and pendants), and adornment of clothes, with many technological steps involved—for instance, up to 10 steps from body painting to industrial bead production (4).

## Ochre

The use of ochre for likely decorative purposes is documented in Africa from 100,000 years ago at Blombos Cave (57) and subsequently at other African sites (58) and in southwest Asia, at Qafzeh Cave 92,000 years ago (59). Three phases in the emergence of ochre use have been identified: sporadic use of ochre by hominins in Africa extending to at least 330,000 years ago, more frequent ochre use from 160,000 years ago, and more regular, habitual use from around 70,000 years ago (60). Use of ochre is documented at Kara-Bom, Central Altai (southern Siberia), ~43,000 cal B.P. (61) and in East Asia at Xiamabei ~40,000 cal B.P. (62), and also at the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave ~35,000 cal B.P. (50). Ochre was used from the first known human presence on the Australian continent, perhaps as early as 65,000 years ago (63). Among other hominins, use of ochre by Neanderthals is well documented (64, 65).

## Tattoos and cicatrices

Body adornment with tattoos and cicatrices is ethnographically widespread and, presumably, these practices extend deep into prehistoric

times, although archaeological evidence is minimal. Among the oldest preserved tattoos are those found on the 5300-year-old Ötzi mummy in the southern Alps of Europe (66). Tattoos are preserved on mummies and depicted in artworks in many parts of the world from the mid-Holocene, from Africa to the Americas (67–69). The oldest tattooing tools include sharpened turkey bone tools from the Fernvale site in southeast North America, dated between 5500 and 1600 years ago (70). Tattooing tools are widespread throughout Polynesia, dating from 2700 years ago (71). Tiny quartz flakes that ethnographically were used to make cicatrices are reported from the Dauan site in the Torres Strait, dating to around 700 years ago (72).

## Pierced shells and beads

Among the earliest known pieced ornaments are marine shell beads at Bizmoune and other northwest African sites, dating from the end of Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 6 ~142,000 years ago and through MIS 5 (49, 73, 74). Shell beads have been recovered from southern African sites dating from ~90,000 years ago (4, 75, 76) (Fig. 2). Beads are also found in Châtelperronian contexts associated with Neanderthals (77). Early beads are dated to 43,000 cal B.P. at Bacho Kiro Cave in southeast Europe and Üçağılızlı Cave in southwest Asia (78), and beads become common in Aurignacian assemblages from 42,000 cal B.P. (52). At the Yana RHS site within the Arctic Circle dated to 33,000 cal B.P., beads are found in association with bone awls, eyed needles, and needle cases, with some beads probably sewn onto clothes (35, 44, 79). Sewing of beads onto fitted garments is attested unequivocally at Sunghir in northwest Eurasia dating to 34,000 to 30,000 cal B.P., although the elaborate decorations were probably a special burial attire, not an everyday phenomenon (80, 81). Use-wear evidence that beads may have been sewn onto clothes is reported at Üçağılızlı Cave in southwest Asia 41,000 cal B.P. (51), and at Shuidonggou 2 in East Asia ~34,000 cal B.P. (82). At the Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, a pierced badger canine tooth has use-wear consistent with attachment to clothes (67). Shell beads occur in Island Southeast Asia (ISEA) from

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** *Nassarius kraussianu* shell beads from Blombos Cave Still Bay layers, southern Africa, dated to approximately 73,000 to 70,000 years ago. Arrows indicate use-wear facets. Photos: F. d'Errico [modified after d'Errico et al. (4)].</figcaption></figure>
~42,000 cal B.P. and become more common from the terminal Pleistocene (83, 84). On the Australian continent, beads are documented from 30,000 cal B.P. (85), although Australian beads are likely unrelated to clothing, deployed typically in necklaces (86).

## Technological precursors

### Awls

Stone borers, which occur uncommonly in the Mousterian and become more frequent in the Upper Paleolithic, could have served in penetrating animal skins to make garments. However, the main technological precursor of the eyed needle is the bone awl. Technologically, eyed needles are modified awls, with a perforated hole (eye) to facilitate insertion of sinew or thread simultaneously with piecing a hole in a material for the purpose of sewing. Awls are essentially needles without eyes. Reflecting a likely role in sewing fitted clothes, the earliest awls in the archaeological record appear in concert with an increasing human presence in colder environments during the late Pleistocene. The earliest bone awls are found in southern Africa (Fig. 1), at Blombos Cave approximately 73,000 to 70,000 years ago (87) (Fig. 3), Sibudu Cave 61,000 years ago (88), and Border Cave 44,000 cal B.P. (89). At Blombos Cave, use-wear analyses suggest that 85% of bone tools functioned to “perforate fairly soft material such as well-worked

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Bone awls from Blombos Cave, southern Africa, discovered in Still Bay layers dated to approximately 73,000 to 70,000 years ago. Photos: F. d'Errico.</figcaption></figure>

hides, possibly during the manufacture of clothing and/or carrying bags" (90).

In Europe, early bone awls are found in Châtelperronian contexts approximately 45,000 to 42,000 cal B.P. at Grotte du Renne, likely produced by Neanderthals (19, 91). Awls are dated to 42,000 cal B.P. at Stajnia Cave in central Europe (92), 40,000 cal B.P. at Grotta del Cavallo in southern Europe (93), and 31,000 cal B.P. at Mladeč, central Europe (94). In southwest Asia, awls are documented from 40,000 cal B.P. at Yafteh Cave (95) and 34,000 cal B.P. at Hayonim Cave (96). In northern Eurasia, early bone awls appear from 42,000 to 35,000 cal B.P. at Podzvonkaya, Kamenka A, Tolbaga, and Varvarina Gora in the Transbaikal region of southern Siberia (61, 79, 97, 98), Kostenki-14 from 42,000 cal B.P. (99), Denisova Cave from at least 40,000 cal B.P. (61, 100), Malaya Syia 36,000 cal B.P. (61), Sunghir 34,000 cal B.P. (81, 101), Yana RHS 33,000 cal B.P. (44), Kunalei-4 32,000 cal B.P. (79), Sabanikha 31,000 cal B.P. (79), Mal'ta 25,000 cal B.P. (61), Khayrgas Cave 25,000 cal B.P. (79), and Strashnaya Cave 23,000 cal B.P. (79). Among the earliest awls in East Asia are those from Ma'anshan ~35,000 cal B.P., with polishing at the tips and microwear evidence of repeated grinding to maintain sharpness evident, consistent with piercing animal hides for clothing (102). A polished bone awl is reported from Longquan Cave dated to ~33,000 cal B.P. (103), and bone awls are also reported at Chuandong Cave between 40,000 and 30,000 cal B.P. (104) and at the Ziyang Man site ~30,000 cal B.P. (105). On the Australian continent, early bone awls are found in cooler southern regions, from between 40,000 and 38,000 cal B.P. at Warratyi (106), at Devil's Lair in the southwest ~31,000 cal B.P. (107), in Tasmania at Warreen Cave ~31,000 cal B.P. (108), and in the southern highlands at Cloggs Cave ~23,000 cal B.P. (109) and nearby New Guinea II Cave ~21,000 cal B.P. (110).

## Other sewing technologies

A recent discovery from Canyars, an open-air site in southwest Europe, sheds light on the sewing technologies used in Europe before the introduction—or independent invention—of eyed needles (111). Microscopic analysis and experimental replication of aligned and grouped punctures on a large mammal hip bone fragment from this Aurignacian site dated to 39,600 cal B.P. (Fig. 4) indicate that the puncture marks were produced with different robust flint burins by indirect percussion with a hammer. The morphology, orientation, and arrangement of the punctures rule out the possibility that they were made to decorate the object or to record numerical information. The most parsimonious explanation for their presence on the surface of the bone is that they were made to perforate pieces of leather. The study therefore suggests that 14,000 years before the introduction of eye needles in Europe, Paleolithic hunter-gatherers were able to make tailored leather clothing and use it to cope with the harsh climatic conditions that affected Europe at that time. Another study has identified a specialized lithic tool, Noailles burins, from Gravettian contexts in Western Europe that probably served in tailoring clothes (112), adding further doubt about a necessary connection between eyed needles and tailoring garments.

## Early eyed needles

Mirroring the distribution of early bone awls, the world's oldest eyed needles are found in colder regions during the late Pleistocene (Fig. 1), when average temperatures were declining as the global climate oscillated during late MIS 3, leading into the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). The earliest eyed needles occur in northern Eurasia (Table 1), beginning from ~40,000 cal B.P. at Denisova Cave, which was occupied
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Puncture marks consistent with leather hole punching on a bone fragment at Canyars, Catalonia, dated to 39,600 cal B.P. Scale bars, 1 cm. Photos: L. Doyon, F. d'Errico.</figcaption></figure>

successively by Denisovans from 130,000 to 73,000 years ago and Neanderthals from >59,000 years ago to 50,000 cal B.P. (35, 79, 100, 113). *H. sapiens* also occupied Denisova Cave, probably after 40,000 cal B.P., based on the occurrence of Initial Upper Paleolithic (IUP) lithic artifacts and genetic evidence, although uncertainties remain (100, 114). Other sites with early eyed needles are Mezmaiskaya Cave in the Caucasus ~38,000 cal B.P. (115), Yana RHS in northern Siberia 33,000 cal B.P. (43, 44, 79), Kunalei-4 ~32,000 cal B.P. (79), Sabanikha 31,000 cal B.P. (61), Kostenki-15 30,000 cal B.P. (35, 45), Kurtak-4 29,000 cal B.P. (61), Ust-Kova 28,000 cal B.P. (79), Shestakovo 27,000 cal B.P. (79), Dzudzuana Cave 27,000 to 24,000 cal B.P. (116), Khayrgas Cave ~25,000 cal B.P. (79, 117), Mał'ta ~25,000 cal B.P. (94), and Strashnaya Cave by 23,000 cal B.P. (61, 100).

In East Asia, eyed needles begin to appear at higher latitudes by ~33,000 cal B.P., for example, at Xiaogushan (118, 119), following the arrival of *H. sapiens* in the region (120, 121). *H. sapiens* was present as early as 45,000 cal B.P. at the site of Shiyu, where a perforated graphite disc may have functioned as a button on a cloak or a bag (122). A date of 32,000 cal B.P. is reported for a needle fragment from Shuidonggou 2 (123, 124). Eyed needles are found also at Shizitan approximately 26,000 to 23,000 cal B.P. (125) and at Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, although dating of the latter is open to question (48, 118, 126). In Europe, early eyed needles occur at Potočka Cave 30,000 cal B.P. (127, 128) and Aitzbitarte III between 28,000 and 22,000 cal B.P. (129). Eyed needles make an early appearance in the archaeological record of North America, dated to ~14,000 cal B.P. at the Broken Mammoth site in the northwest corner of the continent (35, 45).

## Morphological diversification

A study of more than 200 late Pleistocene eyed needles from Eurasia and Paleolithic sites in North America identified a marked regional diversity in the size and shape of eyed needles and possible trends in morphology over time (Fig. 5) (23). The earliest eyed needles found in China are large and sturdy, suggesting that they were used for crafting thick, tailored clothing and robust leather objects. The size contrast between early needle specimens from Siberia and China

suggests the possibility of independent invention in these regions, aligning with the different lithic technologies associated with the earliest eyed needles: the Early Upper Paleolithic in Siberia and Cores and Flakes Technology in China. Existing evidence indicates minimal variation in needle size throughout the Upper Paleolithic in Siberia. In contrast, smaller and flatter needles began to emerge in China between 26,000 and 23,000 cal B.P. The high latitude (71°N) site of Yana RHS in Siberia, dated to 33,000 cal B.P., has yielded a remarkable collection of Paleolithic sewing technologies, including 192 eyed needles and eyed needle fragments, 4 needle cases, and 79 bone awls and awl fragments. The eyed needles at Yana RHS manifest considerable morphological diversity. Eight varieties of eyed needles were identified, likely reflecting specialized functions in the production of complex clothing (e.g., underwear, mittens, and outer garments), shoes, and—in the case of the more robust needles with large eyes—sewing hides for constructing tents and covering habitation sites (44, 79). The finer eyed needles would be useful in decorating garments, for instance, attaching pendants and beads, which were also found at the Yana RHS site.

The appearance of bone needles at a few Gravettian sites on the East European Plain dated to ~26,000 cal B.P. may represent either an independent invention or a geographic extension of early Siberian sewing traditions. No eyed needles have been found at numerous Gravettian sites in Western Europe (approximately 30,000 to 25,000 cal B.P.), despite substantial evidence of clothing and garment use during this period as demonstrated by numerous burials, personal ornaments, and evidence for the use of soft footwear, textiles, and nets (130–132). The relatively late appearance of eyed needles in Western Europe possibly reflects milder maritime climates compared to the more extreme seasonal ranges found in central Eurasia (5, 133). Eyed needles appear in Western Europe with the Solutrean culture, corresponding with lower winter minimum temperatures in the LGM (134, 135). During the subsequent Magdalenian period, there is a noticeable differentiation in size, with small, fine needles at one extreme and large, sturdy ones at the other, which suggests that the sewing kit of these Late Glacial hunter-gatherers contained needles of different caliper to perform specific tasks. Moreover, differences in the morphometric variation in needles found in Western Europe and in Central Europe suggest a strong pattern of regionalization in the manufacturing traditions. The morphological diversity across Eurasia may suggest independent origins in different regions, stylistic variations, cultural influences and drift, and, in some cases, demographic changes such as population replacement.

## PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL FUNCTIONS

Eyed needles make their appearance in the archaeological record of the Northern Hemisphere in a context of human exposure to increasingly colder conditions, from midway through the last glacial cycle. Eyed needles are currently unknown from the Southern Hemisphere during the Pleistocene, where thermal conditions were less extreme, even during the LGM. It is possible, however, that this absence of eyed needles could be explained by the poor preservation of organic remains in many localities of the Southern Hemisphere and/or by a historical imbalance in the intensity of research between the Northern Hemisphere contexts and the Global South. Nevertheless, an association between eyed needles and a physiological need for more thermally effective fitted clothing is apparent, although the nature of that association is not entirely clear from available evidence. A link
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 5.** Morphological variation in the size and shape of Late Pleistocene eyed needles. Scale bar, 1 cm. Modified from d'Errico *et al.* (23).</figcaption></figure>

with underwear has been posited (5), but despite the logic, convincing evidence for underwear in the late Pleistocene is scant. One corollary of more complete body covering with complex clothes is that the social functions of body decoration were necessarily shifted from the unclad skin surface onto the surface of clothes. This transition to clothing as dress was less likely to occur where clothing remained simple, as was the case in the higher latitudes of Australia (notably in Tasmania) and even in Tierra del Fuego (text S1). Acquisition of symbolic functions is not entirely excluded with simple clothes, but the traditional mode of symbolic expression was body decoration. Hence, simple clothing was less likely to persist beyond immediate thermal needs or solely for symbolic purposes. On the other hand, as an elaborate form of social display and communication, adornment of complex clothes may have allowed for increased regional diversification in cultural identities, with possible repercussions for social complexity (4). The thermal and social functions of eyed needles coincided, facilitating human colonization of high latitudes (including migration to the Americas across Beringia) and leading to the subsequent persistence of clothing in the Holocene for primarily social reasons.

**An evolutionary scenario**

A thermal basis for clothing origins and clothing-related technological innovations is supported by evidence not only from archaeology but also from a range of disciplines including human physiology, paleoclimatology, ethnography, and genetic studies on clothing (body) lice. The coalescence of evidence from these independent sources constitutes a compelling argument for the thermal origin of clothing. A sequence of adaptive processes led from simple, utilitarian garments deployed on an ad hoc basis from the mid-Pleistocene to fitted garments in the last glacial cycle. Lithic borers and bone awls were the primary technology involved with fitted clothing, followed by eyed needles (perforated awls) as a refinement for finer sewing. Eyed

needles underwent further morphological and, probably, functional diversification to become tools to perform both functional and symbolic practices.

In the period that followed the first expansion of early humans out of Africa, the utilization of animal skins primarily served for protection against the elements. These skins were likely draped over the body quite loosely, providing basic insulation and protection. The use of simple, unfitted garments became more frequent due to climate change in the mid-Pleistocene, with the transition from 41,000-year to 100,000-year glacial cycles associated with temperature fluctuations of greater magnitude (Fig. 6). Archaeological evidence comprises lithic assemblages with increasing frequencies of hide-scraping tools for preparing skins, which otherwise were essentially unmodified, aside from any tanning or other treatments (136–138). The appearance of notched stone tools and borers indicate that human groups living in middle latitudes may have begun to develop basic sewing techniques and ways to wrap animal skins closely around the body 300,000 years ago, or earlier. With the invention of bone awls ~80,000 years ago, humans were able to create tailored and fitted garments by perforating skins with more precision. This advancement resulted in clothing that conforms better to the shape of the body and provides improved protection and comfort. The development in eastern Eurasia, ~40,000 cal B.P., of eyed needles allowed for more efficient sewing of clothes. This innovation enabled humans to create more complex stitched garments, enhancing both functionality and aesthetic appeal. Eyed needles were likely used not only for practical sewing but also for attaching decorative elements such as beads, shells, and feathers, adding cultural and aesthetic qualities to clothing.

**A SOCIAL CLIMATE FOR CLOTHING**

Eyed needles are one of the most iconic of Paleolithic artifacts, traditionally regarded as confirming the development of fitted, or tailored,
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 6. Major stages in the evolution of clothing.** The main transitions in clothing, from ad hoc to routine use and from simple (loose) to complex (fitted ± layered) garments, together with the acquisition of decorative and symbolic functions. These transitions occurred within an environmental context of intensified global climate change from the mid-Pleistocene, associated with temperature fluctuations of increasing magnitude. Clothing charts by F. d'Errico; temperature chart from Brunetti and Prodi (39); reproduced under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</figcaption></figure>
clothing in mid-latitude environments during the late Pleistocene. However, while the distribution and timing for the appearance of eyed needles in the archaeological record is consistent with an increased need for portable thermal insulation, recent discoveries and analyses demonstrate that production of fitted garments does not require eyed needles. Instead, a more nuanced perspective is required to account for the advent of eyed needles.

Fitted garments were likely manufactured with awls, burins, and other devices before the advent of eyed needles. As a technological innovation that facilitates more efficient and finer sewing, the manufacture of eyed needles indicates an intensified demand for intricate sewing. In an environmental context of heightened clothing requirements, two functions that entail intricate sewing may have favored eyed needles. One is underwear, providing additional thermal insulation in multilayered garment assemblages. Another function for eyed needles relates to adornment of clothes by the attachment of beads and other ornaments onto the surface of garments. This latter function reflects the emergence of clothing as dress, a logical consequence of the more complete body covering required for physiological reasons in mid-latitude Eurasia toward and during the LGM. The two functions are not mutually exclusive, and both coincide with the increased body covering associated with the relatively late advent of complex clothing in hominin evolution.

The importance of eyed needles lies not in tailoring clothes but rather a further elaboration of clothing that, while technologically a small step, was to prove a quantum leap in human societies where clothing was used on a regular basis. Together with the largely invisible development of underwear and the more obscure genesis of modesty as a motive for covering the human body regardless of climate, the transition to clothing as dress transformed clothing from a physical to a social necessity, ensuring the continued use of clothing up to the present.

## Supplementary Materials

This PDF file includes:

Text S1

Table S1

References

## REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. R. A. Joyce, Archaeology of the body. *Annu. Rev. Anthropol.* **34**, 139–158 (2005).

2. K. Laland, B. Matthews, M. W. Feldman, An introduction to niche construction theory. *Evol. Ecol.* **30**, 191–202 (2016).

3. A. Nowell, A. Cooke, in *The Oxford Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution*, N. Gontier, A. Lock, C. Sinha, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2021), pp. 400–428.

4. F. d'Errico, K. L. van Niekerk, L. Geis, C. S. Henshilwood, New Blombos Cave evidence supports a multistep evolutionary scenario for the culturalization of the human body. *J. Hum. Evol.* **184**, 103438 (2023).

5. I. Gilligan, The prehistoric development of clothing: Archaeological implications of a thermal model. *J. Archaeol. Method Theory* **17**, 15–80 (2010).

6. M. L. S. Sørensen, Reading dress: The construction of social categories and identities in Bronze Age Europe. *Eur. J. Archaeol.* **5**, 93–114 (1997).

7. C. L. White, M. C. Beaudry, in *International Handbook of Historical Archaeology*, D. Gaimster, T. Majewski, Eds. (Springer, 2009), pp. 209–225.

8. I. Gilligan, Clothing and hypothermia as limitations for midlatitude hominin settlement during the Pleistocene: A comment on Hosfield 2016. *Curr. Anthropol.* **58**, 534–535 (2017).

9. L. H. Keeley, *Experimental Determination of Stone Tool Uses: A Microwear Analysis* (University of Chicago Press, 1980).

10. C. Lemorini, F. Venditti, E. Assaf, Y. Parush, R. Barkai, A. Gopher, The function of recycled lithic items at late Lower Paleolithic Qesem Cave, Israel: An overview of the use-wear data. *Quat. Int.* **361**, 103–112 (2015).

11. V. Rots, B. L. Hardy, J. Serangeli, N. J. Conard, Residue and microwear analyses of the stone artifacts from Schöningen. *J. Hum. Evol.* **89**, 298–308 (2015).

12. I. Verheijen, B. M. Starkovich, J. Serangeli, T. van Kolfschoten, N. J. Conard, Early evidence for bear exploitation during MIS 9 from the site of Schöningen 12 (Germany). *J. Hum. Evol.* **177**, 103294 (2023).

13. M.-A. Julien, B. Hardy, M. C. Stahlschmidt, B. Urban, J. Serangeli, N. J. Conard, Characterizing the Lower Paleolithic bone industry from Schöningen 12 II: A multi-proxy study. *J. Hum. Evol.* **89**, 264–286 (2015).

14. E. Y. Hallett, C. W. Marean, T. E. Steele, E. Álvarez-Fernández, Z. Jacobs, J. N. Cerasoni, V. Aldeias, E. M. L. Scerri, D. I. Olszewski, M. M. A. El Hajraoui, H. L. Dibble, A worked bone assemblage from 120,000–90,000 year old deposits at Contrebandiers Cave, Atlantic Coast, Morocco. *IScience* **24**, 102988 (2021).

15. M. Soressi, S. P. McPherron, M. Lenoir, T. Dogandžić, P. Goldberg, Z. Jacobs, Y. Maigrot, N. L. Martisius, C. E. Miller, W. Rendu, M. Richards, M. M. Skinner, T. E. Steele, S. Talamo, J.-P. Texier, Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* **110**, 14186–14190 (2013).

16. N. L. Martisius, F. Welker, T. Dogandžić, M. N. Grote, W. Rendu, V. Sinet-Mathiot, A. Wilcke, S. J. P. McPherron, M. Soressi, T. E. Steele, Non-destructive ZooMS identification reveals strategic bone tool raw material selection by Neandertals. *Sci. Rep.* **10**, 7746 (2020).

17. E. Tartar, A. Legrand-Pineau, E. Claud, S. Costamagno, E. Discamps, J.-P. Faivre, Informal but specialized: Mousterian bone hideworking tools from Combe-Grenal (Dordogne, France). *PaleoAnthropology* **2022**, 211–236 (2022).

18. P. J. Reimer, W. E. N. Austin, E. Bard, A. Bayliss, P. G. Blackwell, C. Bronk Ramsey, M. Butzin, H. Cheng, R. L. Edwards, M. Friedrich, P. M. Grootes, T. P. Guilderson, I. Hajdas, T. J. Heaton, A. G. Hogg, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, S. W. Manning, R. Muscheler, J. G. Palmer, C. Pearson, R. W. Reimer, D. A. Richards, E. M. Scott, J. R. Southon, C. S. M. Turney, L. Wacker, F. Adolphi, U. Büntgen, M. Capano, S. M. Fahrni, A. Fogtmann-Schulz, R. Friedrich, P. Köhler, S. Kudsk, F. Miyake, J. Olsen, F. Reinig, M. Sakamoto, A. Sookdeo, S. Talamo, The IntCal20 Northern Hemisphere radiocarbon age calibration curve (0–55 cal kbp). *Radiocarbon* **62**, 725–757 (2020).

19. M. Julien, M. Vanhaeren, F. d'Errico, in *Le Châtelperronien de La Grotte Du Renne (Arcy-Sur-Cure, Yonne, France)*, M. Julien, F. David, M. Girard, A. Roblin-Jouve, Eds. (Supplément à Paléo, 2019), pp. 139–190.

20. D. de Sonneville-Bordes, in *France Before the Romans*, S. Piggot, G. Daniel, C. McBurney, Eds. (Thames and Hudson, 1973), pp. 30–60.

21. D. Stordeur-Yedid, *Les Aiguilles à Chas au Paléolithique* (CNRS, 1979).

22. S. A. Semenov, *Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear* (Cory, Adams and MacKay, 1964).

23. F. d'Errico, L. Doyon, S. Zhang, M. Baumann, M. Lázničová-Galetová, X. Gao, F. Chen, Y. Zhang, The origin and evolution of sewing technologies in Eurasia and North America. *J. Hum. Evol.* **125**, 71–86 (2018).

24. J.-J. Hublin, N. Sirakov, V. Aldeias, S. Bailey, E. Bard, V. Delvigne, E. Endarova, Y. Fagault, H. Fewlass, M. Hajdinjak, B. Kromer, I. Krumov, J. Marreiros, N. L. Martisius, L. Paskulin, V. Sinet-Mathiot, M. Meyer, S. Pääbo, V. Popov, Z. Rezek, S. Sirakova, M. M. Skinner, G. M. Smith, R. Spasov, S. Talamo, T. Tuna, L. Wacker, F. Welker, A. Wilcke, N. Zahariev, S. P. McPherron, T. Tsanova, Initial Upper Palaeolithic *Homo sapiens* from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. *Nature* **581**, 299–302 (2020).

25. D. Mylopotamitaki, M. Weiss, H. Fewlass, E. I. Zavala, H. Rougier, A. P. Sümér, M. Hajdinjak, G. M. Smith, K. Ruebens, V. Sinet-Mathiot, S. Pederzani, E. Essel, F. S. Harking, H. Xia, J. Hansen, A. Kirchner, T. Lauer, M. Stahlschmidt, M. Hein, S. Talamo, L. Wacker, H. Meller, H. Dietl, J. Orschiedt, J. V. Olsen, H. Zeberg, K. Prüfer, J. Krause, M. Meyer, F. Welker, S. P. McPherron, T. Schüler, J.-J. Hublin, *Homo sapiens* reached the higher latitudes of Europe by 45,000 years ago. *Nature* **626**, 341–346 (2024).

26. H. Meller, in *Erkenntnissjäger: Kultur und Umwelt des Frühen Menschen*, J. M. Burdukiewicz, L. Fiedler, W.-D. Heinrich, A. Justus, E. Brühl, Eds. (Landesmuseum fur Vorgeschichte, 2003), pp. 697–702.

27. I. Gilligan, Neanderthal extinction and modern human behaviour: The role of climate change and clothing. *World Archaeol.* **39**, 499–514 (2007).

28. N. Wales, Modeling Neanderthal clothing using ethnographic analogues. *J. Hum. Evol.* **63**, 781–795 (2012).

29. M. Collard, L. Tarle, D. Sandgathe, A. Allan, Faunal evidence for a difference in clothing use between Neanderthals and early modern humans in Europe. *J. Anthropol. Archaeol.* **44**, 235–246 (2016).

30. B. K. Issenman, *Sinews of Survival: The Living Legacy of Inuit Clothing* (University of British Columbia Press, 1997).

31. I. Gilligan, *Climate, Clothing, and Agriculture in Prehistory: Linking Evidence, Causes, and Effects* (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

32. E. H. Man, *On the Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands* (Royal Anthropological Institute, 1932).

33. R. B. Lee, *The !Kung San: Men, Women, and Work in a Foraging Society* (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980).

34. T. Nomokonova, R. J. Losey, A. V. Gusev, G. Kohut, S. Razdymakha, L. Vozelova, A. V. Plekhanov, The one-eyed Elder woman stitches an ornament: Needles, needle cases,
and women from the lamal-Nenets region of Arctic Siberia. *J. Anthropol. Archaeol.* **74**, 101589 (2024).

35. J. F. Hoffecker, *Modern Humans: Their African Origin and Global Dispersal* (Columbia Univ. Press, 2017).

36. K. C. Parsons, *Human Thermal Environments: The Effects of Hot, Moderate, and Cold Environments on Human Health, Comfort and Performance* (Taylor & Francis, 2014).

37. L. H. Newburgh, Ed. *Physiology of Heat Regulation and the Science of Clothing* (W. B. Saunders, 1949).

38. I. K. Seierstad, P. M. Abbott, M. Bigler, T. Blunier, A. J. Bourne, E. Brook, S. L. Buchardt, C. Buizert, H. B. Clausen, E. Cook, D. Dahl-Jensen, S. M. Davies, M. Guillevic, S. J. Johnsen, D. S. Pedersen, T. P. Popp, S. O. Rasmussen, J. P. Severinghaus, A. Svensson, B. M. Vinther, Consistently dated records from the Greenland GRIP, GISP2 and NGRIP ice cores for the past 104 ka reveal regional perennial-scale 6¹⁰O gradients with possible Heinrich event imprint. *Quat. Sci. Rev.* **106**, 29–46 (2014).

39. M. Brunetti, F. Prodi, The climate system. *EPJ Web Conf.* **98**, 02001 (2015).

40. J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves, T. Mauritsen, A new global surface temperature reconstruction for the Last Glacial Maximum. *Clim. Past* **18**, 1883–1896 (2022).

41. R. Kittler, M. Kayser, M. Stoneking, Molecular evolution of *Pediculus humanus* and the origin of clothing. *Curr. Biol.* **13**, 1414–1417 (2003).

42. M. A. Toups, A. Kitchen, J. E. Light, D. L. Reed, Origin of clothing lice indicates early clothing use by anatomically modern humans in Africa. *Mol. Biol. Evol.* **28**, 29–32 (2011).

43. Y. Y. Kuzmin, Siberia at the Last Glacial Maximum: Environment and archaeology. *J. Archaeol. Res.* **16**, 163–221 (2008).

44. V. V. Pitulko, E. Y. Pavlova, Upper Palaeolithic sewing kit from the Yana site, Arctic Siberia. *Strat. Plus* **2019**, 157–224 (2019).

45. J. F. Hoffecker, *A Prehistory of the North: Human Settlement of the Higher Latitudes* (Rutgers Univ. Press, 2005).

46. B. W. Olesen, in *Environmental Ergonomics: The Ergonomics of Human Comfort, Health and Performance in the Thermal Environment*, Y. Tochihara, T. Ohnaka, Eds. (Elsevier, 2005), pp. 479–506.

47. J. B. Eicher, S. L. Evenson, *The Visible Self: Global Perspectives on Dress, Culture, and Society* (Fairchild, 2015).

48. A. Bouzouggar, N. Barton, M. Vanhaeren, F. d'Errico, S. Collcutt, T. Higham, E. Hodge, S. Parfitt, E. Rhodes, J.-L. Schwenninger, C. Stringer, E. Turner, S. Ward, A. Moutrim, A. Stambouli, 82,000-year-old shell beads from north Africa and implications for the origins of modern human behavior. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* **104**, 9964–9969 (2007).

49. F. d'Errico, M. Vanhaeren, N. Barton, A. Bouzouggar, H. Mienis, D. Richter, J.-J. Hublin, S. P. McPherron, P. Lozout, Additional evidence on the use of personal ornaments in the middle Paleolithic of north Africa. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* **106**, 16051–16056 (2009).

50. F. d'Errico, A. P. Marti, X. Wei, X. Gao, M. Vanhaeren, L. Doyon, Zhoukoudian Upper Cave personal ornaments and ochre: Rediscovery and reevaluation. *J. Hum. Evol.* **161**, 103088 (2021).

51. M. C. Stiner, S. L. Kuhn, E. Güleç, Early Upper Paleolithic shell beads at Üçağızlı Cave I (Turkey): Technology and the socioeconomic context of ornament life-histories. *J. Hum. Evol.* **64**, 380–398 (2013).

52. M. Vanhaeren, F. d'Errico, Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* **33**, 1105–1128 (2006).

53. L. Lbova, Personal ornaments as markers of social behavior, technological development and cultural phenomena in the Siberian early upper Paleolithic. *Quat. Int.* **573**, 4–13 (2021).

54. J. Baker, S. Rigaud, D. Pereira, L. A. Courtenay, F. D'Errico, Evidence from personal ornaments suggest nine distinct cultural groups between 34,000 and 24,000 years ago in Europe. *Nat. Hum. Behav.* **8**, 431–444 (2024).

55. C. M. Schlebusch, H. Malmström, T. Günther, P. Sjödin, A. Coutinho, H. Edlund, A. R. Munters, M. Vicente, M. Steyn, H. Soodyall, M. Lombard, M. Jakobsson, Southern African ancient genomes estimate modern human divergence to 350,000 to 260,000 years ago. *Science* **358**, 652–655 (2017).

56. C. M. Vidal, C. S. Lane, A. Asrat, D. N. Barfod, D. F. Mark, E. L. Tomlinson, A. Z. Tadesse, G. Yirgu, A. Deino, W. Hutchinson, A. Mounier, C. Oppenheimer, Age of the oldest known *Homo sapiens* from eastern Africa. *Nature* **601**, 579–583 (2022).

57. C. S. Henshilwood, F. d'Errico, K. L. van Niekerk, Y. Coquinot, Z. Jacobs, S.-E. Lauritzen, M. Menu, R. García-Moreno, A 100,000-year-old ochre-processing workshop at Blombos Cave, South Africa. *Science* **334**, 219–222 (2011).

58. F. d'Errico, R. G. Moreno, R. F. Rifkin, Technological, elemental and colorimetric analysis of an engraved ochre fragment from the Middle Stone Age levels of Klasies River Cave 1, South Africa. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* **39**, 942–952 (2012).

59. E. Hovers, S. Ilani, O. Bar-Yosef, B. Vandermeersch, An early case of color symbolism. *Curr. Anthropol.* **44**, 491–522 (2003).

60. R. Dapschauskas, M. B. Göden, C. Sommer, A. W. Kandel, The emergence of habitual ochre use in Africa and its significance for the development of ritual behavior during the Middle Stone Age. *J. World Prehist.* **35**, 233–319 (2022).

61. M. V. Shunkov, A. Y. Fedorchenko, M. B. Kozlikin, A. P. Derevianko, Initial Upper Palaeolithic ornaments and formal bone tools from the East Chamber of Denisova Cave in the Russian Altai. *Quat. Int.* **559**, 47–67 (2020).

62. F.-G. Wang, S.-X. Yang, J.-Y. Ge, A. Ollé, K.-L. Zhao, J.-P. Yue, D. E. Rosso, K. Douka, Y. Guan, W.-Y. Li, H.-Y. Yang, L.-Q. Liu, F. Xie, Z.-T. Guo, R.-X. Zhu, C.-L. Deng, F. d'Errico, M. Petraglia, Innovative ochre processing and tool use in China 40,000 years ago. *Nature* **603**, 284–289 (2022).

63. C. Clarkson, Z. Jacobs, B. Marwick, R. Fullagar, L. Wallis, M. Smith, R. G. Roberts, E. Hayes, K. Lowe, X. Carah, S. A. Florin, J. McNeil, D. Cox, L. J. Arnold, Q. Hua, J. Huntley, H. E. A. Brand, T. Manne, A. Fairbairn, J. Shulmeister, L. Lyle, M. Salinas, M. Page, K. Connell, G. Park, K. Norman, T. Murphy, C. Pardoe, Human occupation of northern Australia by 65,000 years ago. *Nature* **547**, 306–310 (2017).

64. M. Soressi, F. d'Errico, in *Les Neandertaliens: Biologie et Cultures*, B. Vandermeersch, B. Maureille, Eds. (CTHS, 2007), pp. 297–309.

65. W. Roebroeks, M. J. Sier, T. K. Nielsen, D. De Loecker, J. M. Parés, C. E. S. Arps, H. J. Mücher, Use of red ochre by early Neandertals. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* **109**, 1889–1894 (2012).

66. A. Deter-Wolf, B. Robitaille, L. Krutak, S. Galliot, The world's oldest tattoos. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* **Rep. 5**, 19–24 (2016).

67. N. V. Polosmak, Tattoos in the Pazyryk world. *Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia 4*, 95–102 (2000).

68. G. J. Tassie, Identifying the practice of tattooing in ancient Egypt and Nubia. *Pap. Inst. Archaeol.* **14**, 85–101 (2003).

69. L. Krutak, *Tattoo Traditions of Native North America: Ancient and Contemporary Expressions of Identity* (LM Publishers, 2014).

70. A. Deter-Wolf, T. M. Peres, S. Karacic, Ancient Native American bone tattooing tools and pigments: Evidence from central Tennessee. *J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.* **37**, 103002 (2021).

71. G. Clark, M. C. Langley, Ancient tattooing in Polynesia. *J. Isl. Coast. Archaeol.* **15**, 407–420 (2020).

72. I. J. McNiven, Dauan 4 and the emergence of ethnographically-known social arrangements across Torres Strait during the last 600-800 years. *Aust. Archaeol.* **62**, 1–12 (2006).

73. M. Vanhaeren, F. d'Errico, C. Stringer, S. L. James, J. A. Todd, H. K. Mienis, Middle Paleolithic shell beads in Israel and Algeria. *Science* **312**, 1785–1788 (2006).

74. E. M. Sehasseh, 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. Laissaqui, I. Ziani, P. Vidal-Matutano, J. Morales, Y. Djellal, B. Longet, J.-J. Hublin, M. Mouhiddine, F.-Z. Rafi, K. B. Worthey, I. Sanchez-Morales, N. Ghayati, A. Bouzouggar, Early Middle Stone Age personal ornaments from Bizmoune Cave, Essaouira, Morocco. *Sci. Adv.* **7**, eabi8620 (2021).

75. C. S. Henshilwood, F. d'Errico, M. Vanhaeren, K. van Niekerk, Z. Jacobs, Middle Stone Age shell beads from South Africa. *Science* **304**, 404 (2004).

76. M. Vanhaeren, L. Wadley, F. d'Errico, Variability in Middle Stone Age symbolic traditions: The marine shell beads from Sibudu Cave, South Africa. *J. Archaeol. Sci. Rep.* **27**, 101893 (2019).

77. J. Zilhão, The emergence of ornaments and art: An archaeological perspective on the origins of "behavioral modernity". *J. Archaeol. Res.* **15**, 1–54 (2007).

78. S. L. Kuhn, M. C. Stiner, E. Güleç, I. Özer, H. Yılmaz, I. Baykara, A. Açıkkol, P. Goldberg, K. Martínez Molina, E. Ünay, F. Suata-Alpaslan, The early Upper Paleolithic occupations at Üçağızlı Cave (Hatay, Turkey). *J. Hum. Evol.* **56**, 87–113 (2009).

79. A. Y. Fedorchenko, N. E. Belousova, Chronology and cultural attribution of the earliest Upper Palaeolithic bone needles of Siberia. *Strat. Plus* **2021**, 217–257 (2021).

80. E. Trinkaus, A. P. Buzhilova, M. B. Mednikova, M. V. Dobrovolskaya, *The People of Sunghir: Burials, Bodies, and Behavior in the Earlier Upper Paleolithic* (Oxford Univ. Press, 2014).

81. Y. Y. Kuzmin, M. Boudin, M. Wojcieszak, A. Zazzo, L. van der Sluis, D. I. Stulova, K. N. Gavrillov, E. V. Veselovskaya, S. V. Vasilyev, Sungir revisited: New data on chronology and stratigraphy of the key Upper Paleolithic site, central Russian Plain. *Radiocarbon* **64**, 949–968 (2022).

82. Y. Wei, F. d'Errico, M. Vanhaeren, F. Li, X. Gao, An early instance of Upper Palaeolithic personal ornamentation from China: The freshwater shell bead from Shuidonggou 2. *PLOS ONE* **11**, 1155847 (2016).

83. M. C. Langley, S. O'Connor, E. Piotto, 42,000-year-old worked and pigment-stained Nautilus shell from Jerimalai (Timor-Leste): Evidence for an early coastal adaptation in ISEA. *J. Hum. Evol.* **97**, 1–16 (2016).

84. M. C. Langley, S. Kealy, Mahirta, S. O'Connor, Sequins from the sea: Nautilus shell bead technology at Makpan, Alor Island, Indonesia. *Antiquity* **97**, 810–828 (2023).

85. K. Morse, Shell beads from Mandu Mandu Creek rock-shelter, Cape Range peninsula, Western Australia, dated before 30,000 b.p. *Antiquity* **67**, 877–883 (1993).

86. J. Balme, S. O'Connor, Bead making in Aboriginal Australia from the deep past to European arrival: Materials, methods, and meanings. *PaleoAnthropology* **2019**, 177–195 (2019).

87. F. d'Errico, C. S. Henshilwood, Additional evidence for bone technology in the southern African Middle Stone Age. *J. Hum. Evol.* **52**, 142–163 (2007).

88. L. Backwell, F. d'Errico, L. Wadley, Middle Stone Age bone tools from the Howiesons Poort layers, Sibudu Cave, South Africa. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* **35**, 1566–1580 (2008).
89. F. d'Errico, L. Backwell, P. Villa, I. Degano, J. J. Lucejko, M. K. Bamford, T. F. G. Higham, M. P. Colombini, P. B. Beaumont, Early evidence of San material culture represented by organic artifacts from Border Cave, South Africa. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* **109**, 13214–13219 (2012b).

90. C. S. Henshilwood, F. d'Errico, C. W. Marean, R. G. Milo, R. Yates, An early bone tool industry from the Middle Stone Age at Blombos Cave, South Africa: Implications for the origins of modern human behaviour, symbolism and language. *J. Hum. Evol.* **41**, 631–678 (2001).

91. T. Higham, R. Jacobi, M. Julien, F. David, L. Basell, R. Wood, W. Davies, C. Bronk Ramsey, Chronology of the Grotte du Renne (France) and implications for the context of ornaments and human remains within the Châtelperronian. *Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.* **107**, 20234–20239 (2010).

92. A. Picin, D. Stefański, M. Cieśla, P. Valde-Nowak, The beginning of the early Upper Paleolithic in Poland. *J. Paleolit. Archaeol.* **6**, 12 (2023).

93. F. d'Errico, V. Borgia, A. Ronchitelli, Uluzzian bone technology and its implications for the origin of behavioural modernity. *Quat. Int.* **259**, 59–71 (2012).

94. E. M. Wild, M. Teschler-Nicola, W. Kutschera, P. Steier, E. Trinkaus, W. Wanek, Direct dating of early Upper Palaeolithic human remains from Mladeč. *Nature* **435**, 332–335 (2005).

95. M. Otte, F. Biglari, D. Flas, S. Shidrang, N. Zwyns, M. Mashkour, R. Naderi, A. Mohase, N. Hashemi, J. Darvish, V. Radu, The Aurignacian in the Zagros region: New research at Yafteh Cave, Lorestan, Iran. *Antiquity* **81**, 82–96 (2007).

96. O. Bar-Yosef, B. Arensburg, A. Belfer-Cohen, P. Goldberg, L. Meignen, M. C. Stiner, N. D. Munro, S. Weiner, in *Quaternary of the Levant: Environments, Climate Change, and Humans*, Y. Enzel, O. Bar-Yosef, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2017), pp. 231–240.

97. S. G. Vasiliev, E. P. Rybin, Tolbaga: Upper Palaeolithic settlement patterns in the Trans-Baikal region. *Archaeol. Ethnol. Anthropol. Eurasia* **37**, 13–34 (2009).

98. V. I. Tashak, Y. E. Antonova, Palaeolithic complexes of the Podzvonkaya site in the south of western Transbaikal: Comparative characteristic. *Theory Pract. Archaeol. Res.* **28**, 80–96 (2019).

99. M. V. Anikovich, A. A. Sinitsyn, J. F. Hoffercke, V. T. Holliday, V. V. Popov, S. N. Lisitsyn, S. L. Forman, G. M. Levkovskaya, G. A. Pospelova, I. E. Kux'mina, N. D. Burova, P. Goldberg, R. I. Macphail, B. Giaccio, N. D. Praslov, Early upper paleolithic in eastern Europe and implications for the dispersal of modern humans. *Science* **315**, 223–226 (2007).

100. Y. V. Kuzmin, V. S. Slavinsky, A. A. Tsybankova, S. G. Keates, Denisovans, Neanderthals, and early modern humans: A review of the Pleistocene hominin fossils from the Altai Mountains (Southern Siberia). *J. Archaeol. Res.* **30**, 321–369 (2022).

101. E. Trinkaus, A. P. Buzhilova, Diversity and differential disposal of the dead at Sunghir. *Antiquity* **92**, 7–21 (2018).

102. S. Zhang, F. d'Errico, L. R. Backwell, Y. Zhang, F. Chen, X. Gao, Ma'anshan cave and the origin of bone tool technology in China. *J. Archaeol. Sci.* **65**, 57–69 (2016).

103. S. Du, X. Li, L. Zhou, H. Pang, O. Bar-Yosef, X. Wu, Longquan Cave: An early Upper Palaeolithic site in Henan Province, China. *Antiquity* **90**, 876–893 (2016).

104. Y. Wang, X. Zhang, X. Sun, S. Yi, K. Min, D. Liu, W. Yan, H. Cai, X. Wang, D. Curnoe, H. Lu, A new chronological framework for Chuandong Cave and its implications for the appearance of modern humans in southern China. *J. Hum. Evol.* **178**, 103344 (2023).

105. Y. Zhang, X. Wu, S. Zhang, A study of the bone awl from the Ziyang Man site, Sichuan Province. *Acta Anthropol. Sin.* **42**, 1–14 (2023).

106. G. Hamm, P. Mitchell, L. G. Arnold, G. J. Prideaux, D. Questiaux, N. A. Spooner, V. A. Levchenko, E. C. Foley, T. H. Worthy, B. Stephenson, V. Coulthard, C. Coulthard, S. Wilton, D. Johnston, Cultural innovation and megafauna interaction in the early settlement of arid Australia. *Nature* **539**, 280–283 (2016).

107. C. E. Dortch, J. Dortch, Review of Devil's Lair artefact classification and radiocarbon chronology. *Aust. Archaeol.* **43**, 28–32 (1996).

108. R. Cosgrove, Forty-two degrees south: The archaeology of late Pleistocene Tasmania. *J. World Prehist.* **13**, 357–402 (1999).

109. J. Flood, Pleistocene man at Cloggs Cave: His tool kit and environment. *Mankind* **9**, 175–188 (1974).

110. P. Ossa, B. Marshall, C. Webb, New Guinea II Cave: A Pleistocene site on the Snowy River, Victoria. *Archaeol. Ocean.* **30**, 22–35 (1995).

111. L. Doyon, T. Faure, M. Sanz, J. Daura, L. Cassard, F. d'Errico, A 39,600-year-old leather punch board from Canyars, Gavà, Spain. *Sci. Adv.* **9**, eadg083 (2023).

112. A. Calvo, U. Perales, M. Garcia-Rojas, C. Normand, A. Arrizabalaga, Just before sewing needles: A functional hypothesis for Gravettian Anilles-type burins from Isturitz cave (Basque Country, southwestern France). *J. Archaeol. Sci.* **25**, 420–432 (2019).

113. A. P. Derevianko, M. V. Shunkov, M. B. Kozlikin, A. Y. Fedorchenko, G. D. Pavlenok, N. E. Belousova, in *Problems of Archaeology, Ethnography, Anthropology of Siberia and Neighboring Territories, Vol. XII*, A. P. Derevianko, Ed. (Institute of Archaeology & Ethnography Press, 2016), pp. 72–75.

114. Y. V. Kuzmin, S. G. Keates, The chronology of hominin fossils from the Altai Mountains, Siberia: An alternative view. *J. Hum. Evol.* **146**, 102834 (2020).

115. L. V. Golovanova, V. B. Doronichev, N. E. Cleghorn, The emergence of bone-working and ornamental art in the Caucasian Upper Palaeolithic. *Antiquity* **84**, 299–320 (2010).

116. O. Bar-Yosef, A. Belfer-Cohen, T. Mesheviliani, N. Jakeli, G. Bar-Oz, E. Boaretto, P. Goldberg, E. Kvavadze, Z. Matskevich, Dzudzuana: An Upper Palaeolithic cave site in the Caucasus foothills (Georgia). *Antiquity* **85**, 331–349 (2011).

117. Y. V. Kuzmin, P. A. Kosintsev, A. D. Stepanov, G. G. Boeskorov, R. J. Cruz, Chronology and faunal remains of the Khayrgas Cave (eastern Siberia, Russia). *Radiocarbon* **59**, 575–582 (2017).

118. W.-W. Huang, Z.-H. Zhang, R.-Y. Fu, B.-F. Chen, J.-Y. Liu, M.-Y. Zhu, H.-K. Wu, Bone artefacts and ornaments from Xiaogushan site of Haicheng, Liaoning Province. *Acta Anthropol. Sin.* **1986**, 259–266 (1986).

119. J.-F. Zhang, W.-W. Huang, B.-Y. Yuan, R.-Y. Fu, L.-P. Zhou, Optically stimulated luminescence dating of cave deposits at the Xiaogushan prehistoric site, northeastern China. *J. Hum. Evol.* **59**, 514–524 (2010).

120. L. Doyon, Bone needles in China and their implications for late Pleistocene hominin dispersals. *Acta Anthropol. Sin.* **38**, 362–372 (2019).

121. W. Wang, C. Bae, A. Xu, Chinese prehistoric eyed bone needles: A review and assessment. *J. World Prehist.* **33**, 385–423 (2020).

122. S.-X. Yang, J.-F. Zhang, J.-P. Yue, R. Wood, Y.-J. Guo, H. Wang, W.-G. Luo, Y. Zhang, E. Raguin, K.-L. Zhao, Y.-X. Zhang, F.-X. Huan, Y.-M. Hou, W.-W. Huang, Y.-R. Wang, J.-M. Shi, B.-Y. Yuan, A. Ollé, A. Queffelec, L.-P. Zhou, C.-L. Deng, F. d'Errico, M. Petraglia, Initial Upper Palaeolithic material culture by 45,000 years ago at Shiyu in northern China. *Nat. Ecol.* **8**, 552–563 (2024).

123. F. Li, F.-Y. Chen, X. Gao, "Modern behaviors" of ancient populations at Shuidonggou Locality 2 and their implications. *Quat. Int.* **347**, 66–73 (2014).

124. S. G. Keates, Y. V. Kuzmin, Shuidonggou localities 1 and 2 in northern China: Archaeology and chronology of the Initial Upper Palaeolithic in north-east Asia. *Antiquity* **89**, 714–720 (2015).

125. Y. Song, X. Li, X. Wu, E. Kvavadze, P. Goldberg, O. Bar-Yosef, Bone needle fragment in LGM from the Shizitan site (China): Archaeological evidence and experimental study. *Quat. Int.* **400**, 140–148 (2016).

126. F. Li, C. J. Bae, C. Bronk Ramsey, F. Chen, X. Gao, Re-dating Zhoukoudian Upper Cave, northern China and its regional significance. *J. Hum. Evol.* **121**, 170–177 (2018).

127. B. A. Odar, A Dufour bladelet from Potočka zijalka (Slovenia). *Archeol. Vestn.* **59**, 9–16 (2008).

128. M. Anghelinu, M. Mărgărit, L. A. Niță, A paleolithic eyed needle from Bistricioara-Lutărie III (Ceahlău Basin, northeastern Romania). *Stud. Preist.* **14**, 27–35 (2017).

129. A. Calvo, A. Arrizabalaga, Piecing together a new mosaic: Gravettian lithic resources and economic territories in the western Pyrenees. *Archaeol. Anthropol. Sin.* **12**, 282 (2020).

130. J. Riel-Salvatore, C. Gravel-Miguel, in *The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death and Burial*, S. Tarlow, L. Nilsson Stutz, Eds. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2013), pp. 303–346.

131. F. d'Errico, M. Vanhaeren, in *Death Shall Have No Dominion*, C. Renfrew, M. J. Boyd, I. Morley, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015), pp. 45–61.

132. L. Ledoux, G. Berillon, N. Fourment, X. Muth, J. Jaubert, Evidence of the use of soft footwear in the Gravettian cave of Cussac (Dordogne, France). *Sci. Rep.* **11**, 22727 (2021).

133. J. F. Hoffercke, *Desolate Landscapes: Ice-Age Settlement in Eastern Europe* (Rutgers Univ. Press, 2002).

134. L. G. Straus, A quarter-century of research on the Solutrean of Vasco-Cantabria, Iberia and beyond. *J. Anthropol. Res.* **56**, 39–58 (2000).

135. G. Ramstein, M. Kageyama, J. Guiot, H. Wu, C. Hély, G. Krinner, S. Brewer, How cold was Europe at the Last Glacial Maximum? A synthesis of the progress achieved since the first PMIP model-data comparison. *Clim. Past* **3**, 331–339 (2007).

136. R. F. Rifkin, Assessing the efficacy of red ochre as a prehistoric hide tanning ingredient. *J. Afr. Archaeol.* **9**, 131–158 (2011).

137. K. MacDonald, Fire-free hominin strategies for coping with cool winter temperatures in north-western Europe from before 800,000 to circa 400,000 years ago. *PaleoAnthropology* **7**, 7–26 (2018).

138. R. Hosfield, *The Earliest Europeans: A Year in the Life—Seasonal Survival Strategies in the Lower Palaeolithic* (Oxbow Books, 2020).

139. L. R. Binford, Constructing Frames of Reference: An Analytical Method for Archaeological Theory Building using Ethnographic and Environmental Data Bases. *University of California Press*, (2001).

140. R. L. Kelly, *The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum* (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

141. K. Sterleny, Ethnography, archaeology, and the late Pleistocene. *Philos. Sci.* **89**, 415–433 (2022).

142. L. A. Otak, in *Arctic Clothing of North America—Alaska, Canada, Greenland*, J. C. H. King, B. Pauksztat, R. Storrie, Eds. (McGill-Queen's Univ. Press, 2005), pp. 74–79.

143. M. Kodama, in *Ainu: Spirit of a Northern People*, W. W. Fitzhugh, C. O. Dubreuil, Eds. (Smithsonian Institution, 1999), pp. 313–326.

144. S. K. Lothrup, *The Indians of Tierra del Fuego* (Museum of the American Indian, 1928).

145. M. Gusinde, *The Lost Tribes of Tierra del Fuego: Selk'nam, Yamana, Kawésqar* (Thames and Hudson, 2015).

146. C. R. Darwin, *Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H.M.S. Beagle, Under the Command of Captain Fitzroy, R.N. from 1832 to 1836* (Henry Colburn, 1839).
147. I. Gilligan, *Another Tasmanian Paradox: Clothing and Thermal Adaptations in Aboriginal Australia* (Archaeopress, 2007).

148. I. Gilligan, Clothing and climate in Aboriginal Australia. *Curr. Anthropol.* **49**, 487–495 (2008).

149. R. Cosgrove, A. Pike-Tay, W. Roebroeks, in *Southern Asia, Australia and the Search for Human Origins*, R. Dennell, M. Porr, Eds. (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014), pp. 175–188.

150. M. F. Péron, *A Voyage of Discovery to the Southern Hemisphere, Performed by Order of the Emperor Napoleon, During the Years 1801, 1802, 1803, and 1804* (Richard Phillips, 1809).

**Acknowledgments:** We thank the anonymous reviewers for their critical advice and suggestions. **Funding:** This research was supported by the following agencies: Initiative d'Excellence IdEx, University of Bordeaux, Talent program grant #191022-001 (F.d'E., L.D.); French government in the framework of the University of Bordeaux's IdEx "Investments for the Future" program/GPR "Human Past" (F.d'E., L.D.); Research Council of Norway, Centres of Excellence (SFF) (F.d'E.), Centre for Early Sapiens Behaviour, SapienCE grant #262618 (F.d'E.);

European Research Council Synergy Grant for the project Evolution of Cognitive Tools for Quantification (QUANTA), #951388 (F.d'E.); The National Social Science Foundation of China #20&ZD246 (W.W.); The Taishan Scholars Project Special Funds #003 (W.W.); State Assignment of the Sobolev Institute of Geology and Mineralogy #122041400252-1 (Y.V.K.); and Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Y.V.K). Support for Open Access publication was provided by the Council of Australian University Librarians (CAUL). **Author contributions:** Conceptualization: I.G. and F.d'E. Writing—original draft: I.G. and F.d'E. Writing—review and editing: I.G., F.d'E., L.D., W.W., and Y.V.K. Site dating and location checks: L.D., W.W., and Y.V.K. Translations: W.W. and Y.V.K. Visualization: L.D. and F.d'E. **Competing interests:** The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Submitted 18 March 2024

Accepted 21 May 2024

Published 28 June 2024

10.1126/sciadv.adp2887