3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Key words:
Early humans; British Palaeolithic; Clothing; Evidence; Inference.
Abstract:
The evidence for clothing in the British Palaeolithic is by nature not well-preserved.
By working backwards chronologically, considering early modern human evidence,
Neanderthal and finally pushing back to the very earliest humans inhabiting Britain, we can
carefully construct an understanding of hominin technological development. The evidence
for clothing that need to be considered are unambiguous Upper Palaeolithic textile
manufacturing tools, worked flax strands, inferences from hunting techniques, red ochre
use, artistic representations and the genetics of lice. These convincingly tie together into a
picture of extensive and complex clothing use by early modern humans. For earlier human
species the best evidence comes from the considerations of the biogeographical limits of
hominin cold-endurance. These, it is argued, have not been used to their full potential by
some scholars and in combination with hints from the archaeological record, including lithic
assemblages and hunting patterns, point to a deeper chronology for forms of clothing than
is widely acknowledged. Denying early humans the wherewithal to manufacture clothing is
portrayed as the last gasp of an antiquated paradigm.
1
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Due to the perishable nature of clothes and textiles, such as leather and woven plant
fibres, any attempt to date the first use of these technologies by early humans is extremely
problematic. We must rely on inferences from more taphonomically robust artefacts and
weigh up all of the available evidence before deciding on the most plausible date for the
introduction of clothing to the hominin repertoire. There is a range of data that needs to be
considered in this endeavour, from very late bone implements that are firmly associated
with the production of textiles, to butchery techniques that suggest a desire for skins and
environmental conditions that would have required ‘artificial’ insulation. All point to
clothing necessarily being utilized by humans very early in the British Palaeolithic.
Nearly all scholars are content with the interpretation that early modern humans
manufactured and wore ‘complex’ clothing, and there is a convincing suite of direct
archaeological evidence to verify this position. In the late Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 2
assemblage from Church Hole, one of many archaeologically important caves at Creswell
Crags, finds of an eyed-needle made of worked bone, at least two awls and what may have
been a thread-spool created from the transverse process of a large vertebra (Fig. 1)
unambiguously suggest the sophisticated ability to manufacture clothing (Jenkins 1984: 108;
Bahn & Pettitt 2009: 29; Pettitt & White 2012: 450). ‘Creswellian’ finds from Robin Hood
Cave, dating to roughly 12,400 B.P. (Charles & Jacobi 1994: 19), demonstrate an overrepresentation of arctic hare. Due to the danger of ‘protein poisoning’, subsistence based on
hares is unfeasible, leading Charles and Jacobi to conclude that the cave was used to trap
and skin hares for fur (Charles & Jacobi 1994: 18). This emphasis on clothing is supported by
ethnographic parallels as well as the fashioning of hare tibia into awls and perhaps needles
2
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
(Jenkins 1984: 108; Charles & Jacobi 1994: 18; Pettitt & White 2012: 450). Further support
for this behaviour is perhaps found from indications of skinning on wolf phalanges at
Gough’s Cave, and lynx from Aveline’s Hole (Charles 1997: 258, 267).
Moving deeper into the Upper Palaeolithic, but staying for the moment with anatomically
modern humans, there are a number of seams running through the archaeological record
that can be woven together into a conclusion that people were producing and utilising
sophisticated clothing. Some of the sites and finds may not belong to the British Palaeolithic
record, however their exceptional preservation and the dearth of evidence generally
available for the study of the Palaeolithic means that it must be taken as indirect evidence
of the capabilities of the inhabitants of ancient Britain (and Doggerland). The ‘Red Lady of
Paviland’, the burial of a young adult male dated to approximately 33 k B.P. (Jacobi &
Higham 2008: 904), was so-called because the extant bones are dyed red with ochre. The
current theory is that he was buried wearing heavily coloured clothing due to the fact that
the lower body is more stained that the upper (Fig. 2; Aldhouse-Green 2000a: 235), an
interpretation verified by the concentrations of pierced shells around the waist which were
likely sewn onto clothing (Aldhouse-Green 2000b: 115; Pettitt & White 2012: 416). The
implications of this theory for the ochre-stained burials of early humans are intriguing.
Another set of artefacts demonstrates the first glimpse of textile production from plantfibres by at least the Gravettian (Soffer et al. 2000: 514). These include impressions on clay
and some apparently clothed representations of Palaeolithic women known as ‘Venuses’.
Both date to 29-24 k B.P. (uncalibrated) and provide evidence that throughout much of
3
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Europe at this time modern humans were producing woven or plaited textiles (Soffer et al.
2000: 512-514, 517), a finding that is applicable to the occupants of Britain from this period
(contra Kozlowski in Soffer et al. 2000: 526). The ‘Venus’ figurines are particularly
interesting: they are the representations of women wearing scanty accessories such as caps,
belts and bandeaux (Fig. 3). Although none are wearing functional clothing, so could not
prove its use independently (McDermott in Soffer et al. 2000: 527), if understood in
conjunction with other evidence they point to the ritual importance of clothing in their
contemporary societies. Further evidence for the manufacture of plant-fibre textiles comes
from wild flax strands found in Dzudzuana Cave in Georgia from occupation layers D and C
which date to 36-31 k B.P. and 28-24 k B.P. respectively (Kvavadze et al 2009: 1359). These
strands appear to have been dyed, and were found associated with the remains of moths
and a fungus (Chaetomium) that grows on textiles, all of which implies textile manufacture
(Kvavadze et al. 2009: 1359). The picture that this evidence conjures up is one of early
modern humans exercising highly sophisticated clothing capabilities, ranging from textile
production to specialised fur trapping and manufacturing a variety of apparel, complete
with accessories.
Studies on the DNA sequences of modern lice provide a terminus anti quem for the
uninterrupted use of clothing by anatomically modern humans. The split between the head
louse and body (clothes) louse seems to have occurred between 83 k and 170 k B.P. (Toups
et al. 2011: 30). It is likely that the split demarcates the rough time that clothes became
used continuously until the present by some populations (Gilligan 2010: 32). It is important
to note that this research ignores the separate invention of clothing by ‘sink’ populations of
4
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
modern humans, non-continuous clothing use and, importantly, clothing use in other early
hominins (Gilligan 2010: 31-32; Wales 2012: 782). There is currently no evidence of body
louse transfer between early hominins and early modern humans (Wales 2012: 782),
therefore to establish whether these hominins utilised clothing other avenues of study must
be pursued.
This paper has so far reviewed the more direct archaeological evidence for clothing, relating
to anatomically modern humans. From this material scholars previously postulated that
modern humans were capable of far more complex ‘personal portable insulation’ than
earlier humans. However, in the past couple of decades there has been an increasing
movement towards appreciating the sophistication of our earlier hominin cousins. The most
visceral of critics was John Speth, whose entertainingly unorthodox 2004 article comprised
of a caricatured, yet incisively accurate, rhetorical construction of the contemporary
academic paradigm, which was then deconstructed (Speth 2004). The primary point of this
article was to highlight that the archaeological differences between Neanderthal and Homo
Sapiens may not be due to ‘mental-incompetence’ on the part of the former species (Speth
2004: 519), an idea which was furthered by Mark White’s 2006 paper building upon the
more accessible of Speth’s ideas in an academically conventional way (White 2006). Now
the general consensus is that Neanderthals wore clothes (White 2006: 558). The controversy
has shifted to how complex those clothes were.
Lissoirs are a bone tool that were probably used to prepare hides for clothing; they can
smoothly apply and move pressure over small areas resulting in tougher, more impermeable
5
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
hides (Fig. 4; Soressi et al. 2013: 14186, 14188). These specialised bone implements were
previously only associated with modern humans, but recent analysis by Soressi et al. has
discovered lissoirs in exclusively Neanderthal contexts, and pre-dating their known use by
modern humans (Soressi et al. 2013: 14186-7, supplementary information: 26). This adds to
the growing corpus of evidence for Neanderthal clothing complexity, alongside research
demonstrating the use of soft-soled footwear (Trinkhaus 2005: 1523).
The most powerful evidence for early hominin clothing comes from research into the
biogeographical limits of hominin cold-endurance, compared with climate data from
hominin-occupied sites. This has been the foremost cited source of proof for early hominin
clothing in recent academic discussion and, crudely put, consists of filling the gap between
what humans can endure without cold-adaptations and the environments in which they are
found archaeologically (see Roebroeks 2006: 431). Primates generally are adapted to
tropical heat and perform poorly in colder temperatures; this applies particularly to hairless
hominins (Gilligan 2010: 21). Aiello and Wheeler published a comprehensive analysis of
Neanderthal thermoregulation detailing estimations of the species’ thermal limits in various
conditions (Fig. 5; Aiello & Wheeler 2003). These approximations should probably not be
relied upon as confidently as they have been by subsequent scholars, as they derive from
numbers generated from a plethora of assumptions and generalisations. Having said that,
these calculations were important for dispelling the previously held idea that Neanderthals
relied exclusively upon physical robusticity for cold-survival (White 2006: 548), and are able
to provide rough markers in the snow for a discussion of Neanderthal, and other hominin,
thermal behaviours. The absolute ambient temperature limit that Neanderthals were able
6
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
to survive in, according to Aiello and Wheeler’s computations, was -23.9°C (Fig. 5; Aiello &
Wheeler 2003: 150-151). This entails granting Neanderthals elevated basal metabolic rate,
increased muscle mass of up to 20 kg, and 1 clo of insulation, suggested to come from 3.9
cm of body hair entirely covering the body (Aiello & Wheeler 2003: 150-151). This
temperature, it should be noted, requires high levels of internal heat production, using vast
energy resources that require large amounts of high-energy food (Aiello & Wheeler 2003:
155). The temperature at which this thermogenesis initiates, given all of the posited
adaptations, is 16.7°C (Fig. 5; Aiello & Wheeler 2003: 151). Gilligan (2007b: 504) believes it
likely that Neanderthals developed ‘maximal’ physiological cold defences, however the loss
of body hair has been dated to around 3 Mya by research into the pubic/head louse genetic
split (Gilligan 2010: 30-31): redeveloping 4cm of all-over body hair therefore seems unlikely.
Thus a more realistic thermogenesis limit would be around 25°C (Fig. 5). Whether humans
would have wanted to live at temperatures lower than this limit without artificial insulation,
which would have involved constant and energetically expensive internal thermogenesis,
seems highly doubtful.
As Pettitt and White (2012: 50) perceptively call to attention, temperature estimates for
climatic reconstructions are inherently misleading: mean values ‘homogenize’ what would in
reality have been wildly fluctuating temperatures. This is an important consideration as it is
the physically experienced temperatures that would have determined hominin behaviour,
not the clean and often inaccurate numbers that scientists generate. The mutual climatic
range (MCR) of beetles has been seen as the most reliable temperature valuation tool, with
the caveat that it tends to underestimate winter severity (Pettitt & White 2012: 50). Schreve
7
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
et al. (2013) cross referenced beetle MCR data with that of midges to pinpoint the mean
temperatures of a Greenland Interstadial 12 site (43-41 ka cal B.P.) in the English Midlands.
The beetle species provided a maximum summer temperature (mean July temperature) of
8-11°C, and a winter temperature (mean temperature over January-February) of -22 to 16°C, levels that were supported by the chironomid analysis (Schreve et al. 2013: 123).
These temperatures were deemed conservative, with the reality probably occupying the
lower end of the suggested ranges (Schreve et al. 2013: 123). Taken with Pettitt and White’s
concern, this information indicates very clearly that Neanderthals would not have lived in GI
12 Britain without culturally developed forms of thermal insulation, the most plausible of
which would be well-tailored clothing in combination with the use of fire and shelter. Other
MIS 3 sites have demonstrated consistency with the temperatures and environment
outlined by Schreve et al.: cool summers and long, cold winters with temperatures below 20°C (White 2006: 548). The uniform picture is of an open, mainly treeless landscape with
ground that was frozen in winter and snow cover for potentially three to six months of the
year (White 2006: 549, 555-556). There would have been high winds and heavy
precipitation, factors that impact heat retention for humans: wet clothes drastically increase
heat loss and wind-chill reduces functional temperatures (White 2006: 555-556, 560). This
reconstruction seems entirely inhospitable to human life without highly sophisticated
methods of combatting the conditions.
The use of thermal limits in scholarly arguments has been surprisingly rigid. There has been
a simple mental equation between supposed Neanderthal lower critical temperature and
estimated climatic temperatures, and because the latter are often lower than the former,
8
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
simple clothing was needed to get the numbers back in line (Gilligan (2007b) is a good
example of this arithmetical method). This approach ignores both the fact that species
invariably do not choose to live at the very edge of their thermal limits, and Pettitt and
White’s accurate concern about mean temperatures. If humans were living in mean
temperatures exceeding their physiologically comfortable levels, such as below 16°C for
extraordinarily cold-adapted Neanderthals, it would have been because they possessed the
means to keep their body temperatures above that level artificially (i.e. the level at which
costly thermogenesis initiates). Given the cognitive complexities involved with other
Neanderthal behaviours, such as the controlled use of fire and producing beautifully crafted
lithics (Roebroeks 2006: 432), it seems arbitrary to assign them only ‘simple’ clothing
consisting of a single layer of roughly-worked skins draped around their bodies (Fig. 6; as
claimed by Gilligan 2007b; 2010). Neanderthal stone tools were not as specialised as early
modern human lithics were for the manufacture of clothing (Gilligan 2007a: 103), however
experiments have shown that all of the processes necessary for producing fitted clothes can
be performed with more basic toolkits (Pettitt & White 2012: 52). Another issue with relying
upon the lithic toolkits to demonstrate clothing capabilities is the assumption that garments
must be manufactured in a certain way, namely cut and sewn in a manner we recognise,
which ignores the possibility of complex fitted clothing being produced by distinct methods.
This may fall into the area of speculation rather than scientific data condemned by Wales
(2012: 781), but this slightly hypocritical distinction is unhelpful in the interdisciplinary
subject of archaeology and in the decidedly sparse evidentiary expanse of the Palaeolithic.
Those scholars who are desperate to avoid positing sophisticated clothing for non- (sapiens)
sapiens humans have turned to a number of explanations, none of which particularly rule
9
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
out complex clothing. Theories of seasonal migrations have been effectively dismissed,
owing to the vast distances which would have to have been walked for a more tolerable
winter temperature, the costs in energy and time, and the clearly delineated cultural
geography (White 2006: 565-566; Ashton & Lewis 2012: 60). The use of fire and shelter in
lieu of complex clothing seems frankly odd, it being much harder to construct an effective
shelter that will withstand wind and snow than it is to cut and sew a few layers of furs (it is
probable that Neanderthals were doing both (White 2006: 560-561)). The position denying
Neanderthal and other pre-modern humans complex clothing is the last gasp of a paradigm
which tried to define ‘what it is to be human’ by between-species cognitive disparities (see
Speth 2004: 525; Roebroeks 2006: 432; White 2006: 567). It should therefore be accepted
that Neanderthals were able to manufacture sophisticated clothing which would keep them
at a comfortable temperature in the depths of the MIS 3 winters.
Having broken through the Sapiens-Neanderthal intellectual barrier, we must briefly extend
this to other early humans occupying Britain. At the very well preserved sites of Boxgrove
and Schoningen, there is evidence for Lower Palaeolithic hunting practices that point firmly
towards the acquisition of animal hides. At Schoningen site 13II-4 in Lower Saxony, dated
tentatively to MIS 13, the remains of twenty horses probably slaughtered by early humans
were found associated with the oldest extant hunting weapons (Thieme 2005: 116). The cutmarks on some of the horse bones are indicative of skinning, and the absence of cordal
vertebrae alludes to the removal of the complete hides with the tail attached (Pettitt &
White 2012: 52). Twenty horses would also have produced far too much food for the size of
the contemporary hominin groups as they are currently understood (Thieme 2005: 130),
10
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
which leads to the interpretation of this butchery event as a specifically hide-gathering
exercise. Even if this were not the case, the removal of hides points to a use for them as
clothes or shelter (Pettitt & White 2012: 52), a benefit which would have been quickly
realised if skinning occurred (Ashton & Lewis 2012: 60). Other evidence for the skinning of
hunted horse comes from the British site of Boxgrove where the ‘Horse Butchery Site’ bones
show cut marks that are consistent with skinning (Pettitt & White 2012: 204). Also from MIS
13 is High Lodge, Suffolk, which exhibits a large assemblage of scrapers (Pettitt & White
2012: 121-122). Although use-wear analysis has so far been inconclusive it could be that this
site was a focus of hide-preparation (Dinnis 2013 pers. comm.).
Extending the picture right back to the first known occupation of Britain by hominins, we
can see that according to climate reconstructions of Happisburgh site 3 they too would have
needed clothing. Happisburgh 3 has been dated to MIS 21 or MIS 25 (Parfitt et al. 2010: 232;
cf. Westaway 2011), however more important than the exact date is the reconstruction of
the environment lived in by those archaic humans. Beetle MCR estimates indicate summer
temperatures similar to southern Britain today, but with mean winter temperatures of 0 to 3°C: analogous to present-day southern Scandinavia (Parfitt et al. 2010: 232). This
environment would be impossible for archaic hominins (long before cold-adapted
Neanderthal) to survive without sophisticated thermal technologies (Pettitt & White 2012:
51; Ashton & Lewis 2012: 60). We should therefore accept that from their first occupation of
Britain humans were utilising clothing, and that for most of the humans inhabiting this
peninsula at the very edge of Eurasia, the clothing was sophisticated: beyond the level that
has been widely accepted in the academic discourse so far.
11
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
In conclusion, this review has charted much of the most salient evidence relating to clothing
in the British Palaeolithic, including at times forays into evidence from the wider world
which is applicable to the British picture. What is quite clear, and unanimously accepted, is
that early modern humans possessed sophisticated clothing capabilities, manufacturing and
wearing fitted, well-designed and multi-layered garments. What is not so universally
accepted, but seems similarly clear, is that Neanderthals also developed complex clothing
which has been denied them on the basis of outdated philosophical paradigms. The
fetishisation of ‘hard science’ in archaeology has elicited a denunciation of ‘speculation’
which has stifled interpretation for decades. As with many areas of the British Palaeolithic,
the hope is that future research will further illuminate this important subject.
Word Count: 3068
12
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Figures
Figure 1: Bottom Left: Needle from Church Hole made of bone (12,000 B.P.).
Top Left: probable ‘thread spool’ from Church Hole, made on bone (12,000 B.P.). Right:
Awls from Church Hole made from arctic hare tibia (12,500 B.P.).
From www.creswell-crags.org.uk/explore/exhibition-objects accessed 02/11/2013
Figure 2: the ‘Red Lady’ on display. Note the
ochre stain visibly heavier on lower body.
From www.museumwales.ac.uk/en/2356/
accessed 02/11/2013
13
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Figure 3: Venus figurine made of marl from Kostenki I. Note seemingly ‘crocheted’ cap and
bandeaux. From Soffer, Adovasio & Hyland 2000: 520
14
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Figure 4: Examples of Upper Paleolithic lissoirs.
Distal fragment of a Gravettian lissoir from Abri
Pataud (France) (45) (A). Distal fragment of a
Proto- Aurignacian lissoir from La Grotte du
Renne (France) (42) (B) and of a Magdalenian
lissoir from La Grotte de la Vache (France) (24)
(C). Almost complete Aurignacian lissoir from
Gatzarria (France) (D) and mesial fragment (with
typical scars of bending fractures at both ends)
of a Aurignacian lissoir from Castanet-Nord
(France) (46) (E). An unused modern lissoir
(upper end) and plior (bottom end) use by
leather craftsmen and made from a cow rib,
purchased from the Internet, January 2013 (F).
From Soressi et al. 2013: 14189
Figure 5: Table detailing Aiello and Wheeler’s results of thermal limits for Neanderthals
with different thermal adaptions (Increased muscle mass, added 1 clo of insulation, both)
compared to modern humans. From Aiello & Wheeler 2003: 151
15
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Figure 6: Four reconstructions featuring Neanderthal clothing capacities- which one
is the more accurate? Complexity in decreasing order clockwise from top left.
From: theothercraftlord.deviantart.com/art/Neanderthal-Hugh-159191257;
www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/Genomics-Neanderthal.html;
www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/neanderthal_prog_summary.shtml;
saccheriportfolio.wordpress.com/2012/04/08/2008-neanderthals-neanderthalfamily/ all accessed 02/12/2013
16
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Bibliography
Aiello, L. & Wheeler, P. 2003. Neanderthal thermoregulation and the glacial climate, in: T. van Andel
& W. Davies (eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape during the Last
Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project: 147-166. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research
Aldhouse-Green, S. 2000a. Climate, ceremony, pilgrimage and Paviland: the ‘Red Lady’ and his
palaeoecological and technoetic context, in: S. Aldhouse-Green (ed.), Paviland Cave and the ‘Red
lady’: a definitive report: 227-246. Bristol: Western Academic & Specialist Press
Aldhouse-Green, S. 2000b. Artefacts of ivory, bone and shell from Paviland, in: S. Aldhouse-Green
(ed.), Paviland Cave and the ‘Red lady’: a definitive report: 115-132. Bristol: Western Academic &
Specialist Press
Ashton, N. & Lewis, S. 2012. The environmental contexts of early human occupation of northwest
Europe: The British Lower Palaeolithic record. Quaternary International 271: 50-64
Bahn, P. & Pettitt, P. 2009. Britain's oldest art: the Ice Age cave art of Creswell Crags. Swindon:
English Heritage
Charles, R. & Jacobi, R. 1994. The Lateglacial fauna from the Robin Hood Cave, Creswell Crags: a reassessment. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 13: 1-32
Charles, R. 1997. The exploitation of carnivores and other furbearing mammals during the NorthWestern European Late Upper Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 16: 253277
Gilligan, I. 2007a. Clothing and modern human behavior in prehistoric Tasmania. Archaeology in
Oceania 42: 102–111
Gilligan, I. 2007b. Neanderthal extinction and modern human behavior: the role of climate change
and clothing. World Archaeology 39: 499–514
Gilligan, I. 2010. The prehistoric development of clothing: archaeological implications of a thermal
model. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 17: 15–80
Jacobi, R. & Higham, T. 2008. The “Red Lady” ages gracefully: new ultrafiltration AMS determinations
from Paviland. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 898-907
Jenkins, R. 1984. Creswell Crags: late Pleistocene sites in the East Midlands. Oxford: B.A.R.
Kvavadze, E. et al. 2009. 30,000-Year-Old Wild Flax Fibers. Science 325: 1359
17
3. Discuss the evidence (both direct and inferred) for clothing in the
British Palaeolithic.
Parfitt, S. et al. 2010. Early Pleistocene human occupation at the edge of the
boreal zone in northwest Europe. Nature 466: 229-233
Pettitt, P. & White, M. 2012. British Palaeolithic: societies on the edge of the Pleistocene world.
London: Routledge
Roebroeks, W. 2006. The human colonisation of Europe. Where are we? Journal of
Quaternary Science 21: 425-435
Schreve et al. 2013. A Middle Devensian woolly rhinoceros (Coelodonta antiquitatis) from
Whitemoor Haye Quarry, Staffordshire (UK): palaeoenvironmental context and significance. Journal
of Quaternary Science 28: 18-30
Soffer, O. Adovasio, J. and Hyland, D. 2000. The “Venus” Figurines: textiles, basketry, gender, and
status in the Upper Paleolithic. Current Anthropology 41: 511-537
Soressi, M. et al. 2013. Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences 110: 14186–14190
Speth, J. 2004. News flash: negative evidence convicts Neanderthals of gross mental incompetence.
World Archaeology 36: 519–26
Thieme, H. 2005. The Lower Palaeolithic art of hunting: the case of Schöningen 13 II-4, Lower
Saxony, Germany, in: C. Gamble & M. Porr (ed.), The Hominin Individual in Context: archaeological
investigations of Lower and Middle Palaeolithic landscapes, locales and artefacts: 115-132. London:
Routledge
Toups, M. et al. 2011. Origin of Clothing Lice Indicates Early Clothing Use by Anatomically Modern
Humans in Africa. Molecular Biology and Evolution 28: 29-32
Trinkhaus, E. 2005. Anatomical evidence for the antiquity of human footwear use. Journal of
Archaeological Science 32: 1515–1526
Wales, N. 2012. Modeling Neanderthal clothing using ethnographic analogues. Journal of Human
Evolution 63: 781-795
Westaway, R. 2011. A re-evaluation of the timing of the earliest reported human occupation of
Britain: the age of the sediments at Happisburgh, eastern England. Proceedings of the Geologists’
Association 122: 383–396
White, M. 2006. Things to do in Doggerland when you’re dead: surviving OIS3 at the
northwestern-most fringe of Middle Palaeolithic Europe. World Archaeology 38: 547-575
18