Table 1.
List of analysed sites and assemblages in order of decreasing latitude.
Fig 1.
Map showing the analysed sites.
The Digital Elevation Model (DEM) and ocean bathymetry data were obtained from the USGS EROS Centre (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/eros/data) and EMOD network (https://emodnet.ec.europa.eu). Technocomplex attributions provided in the map legend reflect those given in corresponding publications (where provided). See ‘Materials and methods’ section for details and Table 1 for the attribution of each assemblage.
Fig 2.
Binary heatmap of techno-typological attributes among the studied assemblages.
Assemblages in the heatmap are ordered by decreasing latitude as per Table 1. Black = presence, grey = absence.
Fig 3.
Scree plot showing the contribution of each dimension to the explained variance.
Fig 4.
Correspondence Analysis row plots of the first two dimensions.
A) Row plot of assemblages coloured by technocomplex and B) row plot of assemblages coloured by median calibrated ages BP (the four undated assemblages are coloured white).
Fig 5.
Correspondence Analysis biplot and column plots.
A) Combined biplot of rows (assemblages) and columns (techno-typological attributes) and B) column plot showing the contribution of variables (techno-typological attributes) to the variance explained by the two dimensions. The colour ramp indicates the contribution as a percentage.
Fig 6.
Bar graph showing the contributions of column variables (techno-typological attributes) to the first two dimensions.
A) Contributions to the first dimension, B) contributions to the second dimension and C) Combined contributions to the first and second dimensions.
Table 2.
Results of partial Mantel tests between the three distance matrices.