https://orcid.org/0009-0008-1558-8181
Figures
Abstract
Needles and awls are common artifacts in the perishable archaeological record. To understand behavioral motivations for their use, this study examines ethnographic activities linked to needles and awls in North America. We hypothesize that thermoregulation would have been the strongest driver of perforator use. Ethnographies from eHRAF World Cultures are examined to evaluate activity types and temperature effects on the prevalence of perforator use. We observe that the sum of non-thermoregulation activities (69%) account for the majority of ethnographic perforator occurrences. Such activities include tattooing, medical suturing, basketry, and ceremonial activities among others. Nonetheless, the most prevalent activity identified is clothing production, accounting for 14% of ethnographic observations. We furthermore observe from a series of linear mixed-effect models that account for spatial autocorrelation that the probability of perforator observations increases at the coldest temperatures and decreases at the warmest, with a 52% probability of observing perforator tools ethnographically at −35.5°C and a 37% probability of observing perforators where temperatures reach +12.9°C. These results support the hypothesis that thermoregulation, particularly clothing manufacture, was a major driver of perforator tool use while simultaneously revealing that such tools were also commonly deployed in a wide array of activities. Such findings provide insight into the environmental and socio-cultural factors that influenced the use of perforators and thus inform our understanding of an artifact class that is increasingly observed in the archaeological record.
Citation: Litynski ML, Field S, Haas R (2026) Ethnographic meta-analysis shows that thermoregulation activities predict needle and awl use in North America. PLoS One 21(3): e0343888. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343888
Editor: Enza Elena Spinapolice, Sapienza University of Rome: Universita degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, ITALY
Received: July 18, 2025; Accepted: February 12, 2026; Published: March 5, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Litynski et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: R code associated with this manuscript can be found at this github link: https://github.com/mlitynsk/NA_bonetools Currently, this github repository is now available for public viewing. The GitHub repository includes the updated linear mixed-effect models. All other relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Perforator tools made from bone, including needles and awls (Fig 1), are not uncommonly observed in Paleolithic perishable assemblages around the world [1,2]. Needles are perforator objects that consist of a long groove and a point/tip and are meant to be passed through a material, while awls increase in width away from the tip but do not have an eye or groove and are not passed completely through the medium [3,4]. Such tools offer critical insight into how early human populations solved the adaptive challenges of Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene global expansion. Both tool types have been used by humans for thousands of years, with bone awls dating to as early as ~75 ka [5–7] and needles dating to at least 45 ka [5]. At first glance, perforators might seem to be tools for producing and maintaining leather clothing and housing, which allowed Paleolithic populations to enter and survive cold Pleistocene environments [5,8–11]. However, ethnographic observations suggest that such tools also served a variety of other purposes unrelated to thermoregulation. For example, perforators are commonly used in the production of basketry, tattooing, and wood working [12–19]. The extent to which perforator tools can be confidently linked to thermoregulatory activities or other purposes remains unclear, limiting our understanding of how influential these tools were in shaping past human migration into cold environments.
This analysis approaches the problem by compiling ethnographic accounts of North American needle and awl use from the eHRAF World Cultures database. We are interested in determining the extent to which needles and awls were created and used for manufacturing thermoregulation items or alternative purposes. Under a thermoregulation framework, cold climates necessarily compel humans to invest in thermoregulatory technologies that often include perforator tools. This model makes two basic empirically testable predictions for the ethnographic record. First, we should expect that perforator tools are most often associated with thermoregulation activities in the ethnographic record. Second, it anticipates that environmental temperatures predict the use of perforator tools. The frequency of perforator tool observations in the ethnographic record ought to be greater in cold climates than in warm climates. Such predictions align with Osborn’s [11] observation that a 1,300-year cold snap between 12.9–11.6 cal. ka known as the Younger Dryas Cold Event significantly increased the importance of thermoregulatory technology such as the manufacture of tailored skin clothing and thus inflated the production of needles for sewing.
Although there is good reason to suspect that thermoregulation was the major driver of perforator technology, qualitative observation of ethnographic literature shows that needles and awls commonly serve a variety of functional and symbolic purposes outside of the realm of thermoregulation. Examples of such needle and awl functions include tattooing human skin, beadwork, fishing, basketry, woodwork, and serving as gifts for ceremonies [3,12,14–18]. When used in these capacities, needles and awls are not limited to cold environments.
Moreover, while previous research shows that perforators figure prominently in the production of cold-weather clothing, at least one prominent counter example shows that such technologies are not requisite for cold-climate adaptation. Namely, Garvey [19] highlights how ethnographic Patagonian populations that inhabited cold polar environments did not make tailored leather clothing nor is there evidence of needles, awls, or microblades in the Late Pleistocene archaeological deposits of Patagonia. The lack of evidence for bone perforator tools suggests individuals may have had alternative physiological and behavioral adaptations to the cold, and the colonization of this region during the Late Pleistocene was likely slow and thus the technology and knowledge to manufacture fitted clothing was lost [19].
These varied examples highlight that while perforator tools are linked to thermoregulation activities, the extent to which this is true remains unclear. Such tools likely serve as multi-tools for any combination of activities. The two models of perforator use represent lenses through which we can understand the extent to which needles and awls were used in cold stress adaptations or other applications.
At one extreme, we could suppose that environmental temperatures exerted a strong effect on the use of such tools. At the other extreme, we could suppose that some other combination of perforator functions overwhelms any climatic effects. The answer has implications for our interpretation of bone perforators in the archaeological record and thus our understanding of human behavior more generally, especially global migrations. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the magnitude of climatic and other effects on the use of perforator tools among ethnographic societies.
Materials and methods
This study evaluates two predictions derived from the working model. First, the model anticipates that the majority of ethnographic observations of perforator tools (including needles and awls) will primarily be associated with thermoregulatory activities including clothing, shelter, bedding, and blanket manufacture and maintenance. Second, the model anticipates that the probability of observing the use of perforator tools will increase in colder environments. Ethnographic observations of perforator use in North America are used to evaluate these predictions. We select North America as a case study for understanding perforator tool use based on the ability to obtain data from Indigenous groups spanning extremes of cold and warm conditions at a continental scale. Additionally, the ethnographic observations, unlike archaeological observations, afford a view of the perishable toolkits and behavioral adaptations associated with perforator tools. Here we focus on an ethnographic approach, remaining alert to its analytical limitations and with an eye toward a complimentary archaeological approach in the future. This section describes creating the perforator tool database, operationalization of environmental temperature data, and analytical methods of evaluating tool use types and environmental temperature relationships.
Creating the perforator tool database
The ethnographies compiled to test these predictions are from the eHRAF World Cultures (electronic Human Relations Area Files) database. All eHRAF data include paragraph citations presented in S1 Table. The data presented from the eHRAF World Cultures database are published under a CC BY license, with permission granted from eHRAF. The eHRAF database provides access to ethnographic texts [20] from over 300 Indigenous and ethnic groups located in a variety of regions associated with all possible historical climate zones across North America.
We first search all eHRAF records for the terms, “needle” and “awl” (S1 Table). For each record mentioning needles or awls, the tool type, publication citation, page number, activity type (e.g., clothing, blankets, tattooing, basketry, mats, etc.), activity classification (e.g., thermoregulatory or alternative), and perforator material are recorded. Activity types related to the creation or maintenance of materials likely to be used for thermoregulatory purposes (e.g., blankets, clothing, shelter, bedding, mats, etc.) are classified as “thermoregulatory” and all activities related to materials not directly related to thermoregulation (e.g., basketry, ceremonies, tattooing, storytelling, fishing, etc.) are classified as “alternative”. If a given tool is associated with multiple activities by the same eHRAF source, then each activity is recorded as a separate observation.
We remain alert to several limitations and biases that come with deriving data from eHRAF World Cultures. First, we recognize the impact of ethnocentrism and how certain activities associated with needles and awls may not be included in the ethnographic documents. In this light, we also recognize the inherent gender bias that can skew the perspectives, experiences, and information shared in the ethnographic record [21–23]. As a first approximation, we have no theoretical reason to believe these biases compromise the integrity of our analysis because such biases ought to play out equally across the entire geographical and temperature domains of this study. At most, they may only diminish the statistical power of our analysis. We focus on qualitatively and quantitatively evaluating the ethnographic data and associated perforator activities directly recorded in eHRAF World Cultures. Additionally, we assess the relationship between perforator tool activity types and temperature by qualitatively evaluating geographical data by plotting our ethnographic database in space in addition to selecting specific search terms specific to perforator tools. The coded data and the temperature trends associated with perforator tool use remains relevant and useful to understanding the wide variety of uses for needles and awls.
Environmental temperature data
Our analysis requires the assignment of a temperature variable to each ethnographic case. We use the average minimum temperature of the coldest month (MTCM) to capture thermoregulatory pressures that a given ethnographic group likely experienced. This proxy seems particularly salient relative to common alternative proxies such as effective temperature [24–26] because MTCM quantifies the extreme or limiting environmental conditions that impact people’s ability to survive in cold environments and thus the dependence of clothing for human survival. Furthermore, MTCM most precisely captures the selective forces driving thermoregulation, with previous scholars noting that it is often extreme events that shape cultural selection rather than averages [27,28]. We obtain MTCM data from WorldClim version 2.1 [29], a database consisting of high-resolution weather and climate information between the years 1970 and 2000 on a global scale presented in geographic format (i.e., GeoTiff). The MTCM for each ethnographic group in the database is based on the geographic centroid of the group’s territory based on eHRAF World Cultures, with MTCM data derived from bioclimatic variable BIO6 from WorldClim (Fig 2). This included groups associated with perforator tool technologies and those with no mention of needles/awls ethnographically. Non-Indigenous cultural groups within eHRAF were not included in this study. All temperature extraction routines are performed by ArcGIS.
Latitude and longitude information republished from the eHRAF World Cultures database under a CC BY license, with permission from Dr. Carol Ember, original copyright 1993.
We recognize that the WorldClim climate data do not span the entire period of ethnographic data in this study spanning the 19th-21st centuries. However, temporal mismatches are on the order of 0–150 years. At this temporal scale and given that our dataset spans some 50 degrees C, any MTCM errors are certain to be trivial. Additionally, paleoclimatic datasets are based on a series of interpolations and assumptions. Such assumptions would likely introduce greater error relative to WorldClim which provides high-resolution temperature data across all geographical regions in North America, ensuring consistent and comparable data between cultural groups. For this reason, WorldClim is the most appropriate dataset for the analysis and is most likely to minimize error in the temperature variable considered in this analysis.
Statistical analysis
To test the prediction that the majority of perforator tools were used for thermoregulation, the total number of ethnographic documents within the “thermoregulation” and “alternative” categories were converted to percentages with the expectation that the proportion of thermoregulatory activities should exceed that of other activities. A chi-square test is used to evaluate statistical significance of observed differences in proportions.
To assess the effect of MTCM on perforator tool occurrences, we conduct a series of linear mixed-effect logistic regressions. The first model examines the effect of MTCM on the frequency of perforator occurrences per ethnographic record. The second model examines the effect of MTCM on the frequency of thermoregulation perforator activities per ethnographic record. The third model evaluates the effect of MTCM on the frequency of non-thermoregulatory perforator activities per ethnographic record. Additional models evaluate the effect of MTCM on the frequency of major activity types. For all models, we account for differential representation of documents by incorporating the total frequency of documents associated with each Indigenous group as a random-effect variable. We furthermore take into account the longstanding issue of spatial autocorrelation, also known as Galton’s Problem [30] by including latitude and longitude coordinates of each ethnographic group as a random effect. We do this using the Matérn correlation function implemented with the spaMM R statistical computing environment [31,32]. Error terms are reported as predictive variance, which is used to denote the uncertainty in the linear predictor [31].
Results
The eHRAF database includes ethnographic observations from 59 North American Indigenous cultural groups. Of these, needle use is observed in the ethnographies of 55 groups (93%) represented in 278 documents (S1 Table). Awl use is observed among 54 groups (92%) within 273 literature sources. Of the 467 individual documents examined, we record 1,191 separate needle or awl observations in the ethnographic record. This includes instances where multiple activities were associated with the same eHRAF document. Here we use these observations to assess the extent to which thermoregulatory and other activities anticipate the use of perforator tools in the ethnographic record of North America.
Tool function
Two-hundred and twenty-three mentions of needles and/or awls in the eHRAF ethnographic record fall under the generic “Toolkit” category and thus cannot be assigned to a specific activity. Tools in this “Toolkit” category are nonetheless considered in statistical models evaluating the relationship between environmental temperature and ethnographically observed needles and awls. We record a total of 92 distinct activities. The most frequent activity type observed in association with perforator tools is “Clothing” with 133 observations (Table 1). The second most frequent activity is ceremonies or rituals with 76 observations. Other activities with more than 20 observations include basketry (n = 61), tattooing (n = 59), shoes (n = 48), piercings (n = 37), storytelling (n = 35), trading (n = 35), mats (n = 33), shelter (n = 31), medical (n = 29), snowshoes (n = 26), blankets (n = 21), and fishing (n = 20; Table 1; Fig 3). When considering the frequency of thermoregulation activities (n = 301, 31%) and those activities associated with alternative purposes (n = 665, 69%), we observe a statistically significant difference (X2 = 137, df = 1, p=<0.01). We therefore observe that the occurrence rate of alternative activities, in aggregate, is approximately double that of thermoregulatory activities. However, clothing manufacture and maintenance is the most prominent single activity associated with perforator tools. These observations indicate that while clothing production and thus thermoregulation do largely motivate the use of perforator tools, alternative activities are also important.
Only those activities observed on 20 or more occasions in the ethnographic record are featured in this graph.
We furthermore observe clear differences in the activity types performed with needles and awls, often but not always in obvious ways. For example, there are more observations of awls used for ceremonies/rituals, baskets, shoes, piercings, storytelling, and instances of trading compared to needles (Table 1). Needles are used more frequently for clothing manufacture, tattooing, mats, medical use, snowshoes, blankets, and fishing (Table 1). Both perforator tool types are represented in relatively equivalent proportions for manufacturing shelter from both plant and animal materials.
Perforators and temperature
The MTCM temperatures for 59 cultural groups under consideration range between −35.5°C and +12.9°C. Statistical results indicate a negative relationship between the probability of observing perforator tools in the ethnographic record and MTCM (p = 0.07). The logistic regression results indicate that at an MTCM of −35.5°C there is a 52 ± 15% probability of observing perforator tools ethnographically, dropping to a 37 ± 14% probability at an MTCM of +12.9°C (Fig 4; Table 2). When considered separately, we once again observe a negative relationship between MTCM and ethnographically observed needles (p = 0.08) and awls (p = 0.10). There is a 35 ± 25% chance of observing a bone needle among ethnographic groups living in regions where MTCM averages −35.5°C dropping to an 18 ± 23% probability of observing needles among groups living where MTCM reaches +12.9°C. Similarly, in regions where MTCM averages −35.5°C, there is a 37 ± 30% chance of observing an awl dropping to a 20 ± 31% chance at +12.9°C. These results consistently show that lower temperatures predict increased likelihood of perforator use regardless of tool type but that temperature effects are stronger on needle use compared with awl use.
Ethnographic observations are denoted by open black circles, with 1 indicating presence and 0 indicating absence. Red lines represent best fit logistic regressions and dotted lines show predictive variance. A. all perforator tools. B. thermoregulation observations. C. alternative observations. D. needles only. E. awls only.
Logistic regression is also used to assess the effects MTCM on perforator tools classified as “thermoregulation” versus those classified as “alternative purposes.” Not surprisingly, we discover a negative relationship between MTCM and the probability of observing needles and awls used specifically for thermoregulatory activities in the ethnographic record (p = 0.05). We find that probability of observing a perforator tool drops from 26 ± 38% at an MTCM of −35.5°C to 9 ± 40% among accounts at an MTCM of +12.9°C. In contrast, we do not detect a statistically significant relationship between the prevalence of perforator tools used for alternative purposes and temperature data (p = 0.40; Fig 4; Table 2).
Analysis of tools used for several other distinct activity types shows strong negative relationships between temperature and occurrences of needles or awls. These activities include the manufacture or use of clothing, footwear, snowshoes, and fishing related activities (p < 0.01, Table 2). Except for fishing, we note that these are all thermoregulatory activities. Other individual uses of needles and awls do not appear to be related to temperatures. Examples of such activities with no significant relationship between temperature and perforator tools occurrences include tattooing (p = 0.30), ceremonies or rituals (p = 0.58), piercing (p = 0.25), storytelling (p = 0.55), medical use (p = 0.52), shelter (p = 0.28), and blankets (p = 0.72), basketry (p = 1), and mats (p = 0.95; Table 2).
Discussion
Ultimately motivated to advance our understanding of archaeological perforator tools, this meta-analysis began by asking whether environmental temperature influences the prevalence of perforator tool uses in the ethnographic record, and to what extent needles and awls are associated with thermoregulation activities compared with alternative uses. The working model anticipated that thermoregulation activities would be the primary driver of perforator tool use. We hypothesized that needles and awls would be observed more frequently among ethnographic cultures living in colder environments as opposed to warmer climates. These predictions were tested by examining perforator tool prevalence and use types within the eHRAF ethnographic record, and comparing those observations with environmental temperature data (WorldClim MTCM) associated with 59 Indigenous groups represented in the eHRAF World Cultures database. The representation of perforator tools among 100% of the groups considered in this study highlights the importance of this technology on a continental scale.
The results of the meta-analysis fail to support the initial prediction that the majority of occurrences of needles and awls in the eHRAF World Cultures database would be associated with thermoregulation. Rather, non-thermoregulatory activities significantly outnumber thermoregulatory activities indicating the importance of needles and awls for alternative functions, most notably ceremonies/rituals, basketry, tattooing, piercing, discussions of needles or awls in storytelling, trading, and fishing (S1 Table). Nonetheless, the manufacture of clothing—a distinctly thermoregulatory activity—is the single most prevalent activity associated with perforator tools with 133 ethnographic observations. Moreover, six out of the eight thermoregulation activities associated with perforator tools occur in the top 20 coded categories, with four of those within the top 10 most frequently cited categories, underscoring the central importance of thermoregulation in motivating the use of perforator tools. We therefore find general support for the predicted association between thermoregulatory activities and perforator use while also observing a wide range of non-thermoregulatory activities.
The data furthermore support the second prediction derived from the working model that the probability of observing perforator tools in the eHRAF World Cultures ethnographic record would be negatively related to temperature. This hypothesis holds true when all perforator tools in aggregate, when only considering needles and awls, and when considering those tools used specifically for thermoregulation. As expected, this trend is not observed when considering the frequencies of perforator tools used for alternative purposes with an exception among the variables we tested including fishing, which also shows a negative relationship with temperature.
The finding of a clear relationship between temperature and perforator use in the ethnographic record reveals the importance of such tools among societies living in cold environments. Yet, a different perspective is required to explain the high frequency of alternative activities observed such as tattooing, medical applications, basketry, etc. One potential link may follow from the ideas of cumulative culture, defined as “the modification, over multiple transmission episodes, of cultural traits (behavioral patterns transmitted through social learning) resulting in an increase in the complexity or efficiency of those traits” [33]. In other words, cumulative culture operates on the principle that cultural innovations are not reflections of a single individual but rather a result of building upon, modifying, and refining the technological and cultural achievements of previous generations. The gradual and directional accumulation of knowledge and skill leads to increasingly complex and efficient technologies and practices.
In the context of perforator tools, it is possible that the primary motivator behind needles and awls included the manufacture of clothing and other thermoregulation material culture items. However, as these tools became embedded within cultural traditions, the potential of needles and awls for alternative uses became apparent. Over successive generations, human populations could have observed, experimented, and taught others about the significance and multifaceted nature of needles and awls thus expanding the functional repertoire of perforators to include their use in ceremonies and rituals, medical suturing, basketry, tattooing, and other cultural uses beyond thermal technology. The diversification of needle and awl use not only highlights the practical functionality of the tools but also broader mechanisms of cumulative cultural evolution, in which the constant stream of exchange and engagement of ideas contributed to the versatility of tool traditions. Future research has the potential to further validate if cumulative culture was a primary contributor to a wide range of technological and social behaviors observed in relation to needles and awls in the ethnographic and archaeological records. Below, we consider several of the different activity types observed before concluding with additional implications for the archaeological record.
Use types and temperature
As expected, perforator tools used to make several thermoregulation items like clothing, shoes, and snowshoes are used more commonly among colder environments. Surprisingly, there is no relationship between temperature and other thermoregulation items such as shelter or blankets. While sample size could be driving these outcomes, it is important to consider that shelter can offer shade to alleviate the effects of hot environments in addition to providing a climate-controlled space in colder landscapes [4]. Additionally, blankets can be other deeply rooted in sociocultural phenomena such as ceremonies, rituals, dances and rituals, horse blankets, social status, infant care, trade, and general comfort (see S1 Table) [34–38]. Blankets can also serve as a form of covering to provide shade and protect the skin from sun exposure, therefore alleviating the effects of warm stress.
Mats serve a variety of purposes including bedding, floormats, cushions for sitting, home décor, or used on the walls of housing structures. We anticipated that mats would be more prevalent in cold environments where they serve as a tool to reduce heat loss via thermal conditions with the ground. Consider, for example, backpackers who almost invariably transport and sleep on ground pads. However, housing structures are applicable to maintaining thermoneutrality in both warm and cold environments, and nighttime temperatures may require this basic thermoregulatory technology even in otherwise warm climates. The elevated prevalence of mats in warmer environments may reflect comfort, privacy/soundproofing, and decoration these items have to offer in the general household rather than their provision of warmth. Additionally, warmer environments are related to increased frequency and intensity of disease, pathogens, and insect pests [39]. Therefore, floormats provide the opportunity for individuals to avoid pests and stay off the ground to maintain hygiene and health. Finally, floormats can provide a cooling effect associated with areas where heat can become trapped underground [40].
The non-significant relationship between temperature and basketry production reflects both the use of basketry in warm and cold climatic regions. The use of basketry production within warmer environments could be reflective of the availability of seeds, berries, and other plants collected for subsistence considering there is evidence of using basketry as a specialized food-processing technique (S1 Table) [41]. Furthermore, ethnographic evidence points to the creation and use of basketry in cold geographical regions in North America, with an example including the Yup’ik of Southwest Alaska and Natives of the Aleutian Islands using dried grasses to manufacture baskets [42]. This clearly demonstrates how basketry is not bound by certain climatic conditions but rather is pertinent to cultures across diverse ecologies.
The categories of ceremonies/rituals, storytelling, and medical care observed as part of this research are not correlated with temperature. This is not surprising considering the pancultural nature of such activities [43–45]. Tattooing and piercing are additional perforator tool activities with no correlation with temperature. While initially we expected that tattooing would be associated with warmer climates where skin tends to be more visible, there are many accounts of tattooing areas of body that are more visible to others even while clothing is worn such as the face, hands, and neck (S1 Table). It is also clear that tattoos have personal significance which helps to explain why needles are used to tattoo portions of the body that would be covered by clothing while exposed to cold external environments such as the arms, chest, shoulder, back, and legs (S1 Table). In other words, exposing large portions of the skin to external environmental conditions is not necessary for tattoos to carry significance, thus tattooing can occur in both warm and cold climates [46,47].
Conclusions and implications for archaeological record
This study examined a hypothesized relationship between environmental temperature and perforator tool use in human societies by examining the prevalence of needle and awl technologies among 59 distinct North American Indigenous groups occupying variable climatic conditions. The data support the hypothesized increased dependence on perforator tools in cold temperatures. This research is one of the first to quantitatively estimate the effect of temperature on perforator tool use in the ethnographic record. The manufacture of clothing is an important motivator for the creation and use of needles and awls. While the data are consistent with this model, this study furthermore underscores the multifaceted utility of perforator tools across diverse cultural contexts.
As a proxy for interpreting perforator tools in the past, the findings presented here anticipate that the prevalence of Paleolithic bone needles and awls in archaeological contexts should increase in colder climates. These findings should be evaluated in the ethnographic records of other parts of the world. The data also imply that while clothing manufacture and maintenance is likely a major driver of perforator tool presence in the archaeological record, the presence of perforator tools does not guarantee their use as thermoregulatory technologies. Researchers should proceed with caution when evaluating needles and awls in archaeological contexts and avoid preconceived notions that these tools act as direct proxies for the manufacture of thermoregulatory material culture in the past. A more appropriate and tempered approach should acknowledge the multiplicity of behaviors associated with such tools. Nonetheless, a quantitative approach in which analysts consider not only the presence of perforator tools but also their abundance in the archaeological record should be used to strengthen inferences about thermoregulatory activities in a given region in the past. A future archaeological analysis of the relationship between temperature and perforator occurrence across the globe would certainly offer a complimentary approach toward further clarifying the relationship between climatic conditions and perforator tool use in human societies. Additional studies may also explore the extent to which additional cultural variables could have impacted how and where needles and awls were used by past populations, with examples of such factors including mobility or sedentism, economic strategies, and patterns of landscape exploitation.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Excel spreadsheet featuring the raw data compiled for this study, based on texts available within the eHRAF World Cultures database.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0343888.s001
(CSV)
Acknowledgments
We thank Allison Caine for providing insight into the ethnographic explanations for observed temperature relationships and perforator tool use. The authors also thank Bree Doering and Todd Surovell for reading earlier drafts of the paper. The ethnographic data analyzed for this project was provided by the eHRAF World Cultures database. Finally, this manuscript greatly benefits from comments provided by the editors and anonymous reviewers.
References
- 1. Pelton SR, Litynski M, Allaun SA, Buckley M, Govaerts J, Schoborg T, et al. Early Paleoindian use of canids, felids, and hares for bone needle production at the La Prele site, Wyoming, USA. PLoS One. 2024;19(11):e0313610. pmid:39602430
- 2. Wang L, Li T, Wang Q, Tong Y, Chen S, Yuan S, et al. Ancient DNA insights into Neolithic bone-tool use on the Tibetan Plateau. J Archaeol Sci. 2025;177:106183.
- 3.
Breitborde R. A functional bone tool analysis. Northridge (CA): California State University, Department of Anthropology. 1983.
- 4.
Pelton S. A thermoregulatory framework for hominin research: archaeological and ethnographic studies with implications for global human dispersal. Laramie (WY): University of Wyoming, Department of Anthropology. 2019.
- 5. d’Errico F, Doyon L, Zhang S, Baumann M, Lázničková-Galetová M, Gao X, et al. The origin and evolution of sewing technologies in Eurasia and North America. J Hum Evol. 2018;125:71–86. pmid:30502899
- 6. d’Errico F, Backwell LR, Wadley L. Identifying regional variability in Middle Stone Age bone technology: The case of Sibudu Cave. J Archaeol Sci. 2012;39:2479–95.
- 7. Henshilwood CS, d’Errico F, Marean CW, Milo RG, Yates R. 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. 2001;41(6):631–78. pmid:11782112
- 8. Gilligan I. The Prehistoric development of clothing: archaeological implications of a thermal model. J Archaeol Method Theory. 2010;17(1):15–80.
- 9. Gilligan I, d’Errico F, Doyon L, Wang W, Kuzmin YV. Paleolithic eyed needles and the evolution of dress. Sci Adv. 2024;10(26):eadp2887. pmid:38941472
- 10. Lyman RL. North American Paleoindian Eyed Bone Needles: Morphometrics, Sewing, and Site Structure. Am Antiquity. 2015;80(1):146–60.
- 11. Osborn AJ. Eye of the Needle: Cold Stress, Clothing, and Sewing Technology during the Younger Dryas Cold Event in North America. Am Antiquity. 2014;79(1):45–68.
- 12.
De Laguna F. Under mount saint elias: the history and culture of the Yakutat Tlingit. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1972.
- 13.
Densmore F. Chippewa Customs. 86. U.S. Govt. print. off. 1929. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=ng06-005
- 14. Bates J, Needham A, Conneller C, Milner N, Pomstra D, Little A. Flint awls at the Mesolithic site of Star Carr: Understanding tool use through integrated methods. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2022;43:103478.
- 15.
Gijn AL. Implements of bone and antler: A Mesolithic tradition continued. In: Kooijmans LPFB, editor. Schipluiden: a neolithic settlement on the dutch north sea coast c. 3500 cal bc. Leiden: Faculty of Archaeology, Leiden University. 2006. p. 207–24.
- 16.
Jenness D. The material culture of the copper Eskimos. Edmond Cloutier, King’s Printer and Controller of Stationery. 1946. https://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/document?id=nd08-028
- 17. Keddie G. Bone awls: bridging or widening the gaps between archaeology and ethnology. The Midden. 2016;44(1).
- 18.
McIlwraith TF. The Bella Coola Indians: Volume Two. University of Toronto Press. 1948.
- 19.
Garvey R. Patagonian prehistory: human ecology and cultural evolution in the land of giants. Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press. 2021.
- 20.
Fischer MD, Ember CR. Big data and research opportunities using HRAF databases. In: Chen SH, editor. Big Data in Computational Social Science and Humanities. New York, NY: Springer. 2018.
- 21. Divale WT. Female status and cultural evolution: A study in ethnographer bias. Behav Sci Res. 1976;11(3):169–211.
- 22.
Slocum S. Woman the gatherer: male bias in anthropology. In: Reiter RR, editor. Toward an Anthropology of Women. New York and London: Monthly Review Press. 1975.
- 23. Watts J, Jackson JC, Arnison C, Hamerslag EM, Shaver JH, Purzycki BG. Building Quantitative Cross-Cultural Databases From Ethnographic Records: Promise, Problems and Principles. Cross-Cultural Research. 2021;56(1):62–94.
- 24. Binford LR. Willow Smoke and Dogs’ Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Am antiq. 1980;45(1):4–20.
- 25.
Kelly RL. The Lifeways of Hunter-Gatherers: The Foraging Spectrum. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2013.
- 26. Loffler G. Subsistence-patterns, gender roles, effective temperature, and the evolutionary timing of a post reproductive life span. Med Hypotheses. 2016;89:48–57. pmid:26968909
- 27. Grant PR, Grant BR, Huey RB, Johnson MTJ, Knoll AH, Schmitt J. Evolution caused by extreme events. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2017;372(1723):20160146. pmid:28483875
- 28.
Moran EF. Human Adaptability: An Introduction to Ecological Anthropology. 3rd ed. Routledge. 2008.
- 29. Fick SE, Hijmans RJ. WorldClim 2: new 1‐km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Intl J Climatol. 2017;37(12):4302–15.
- 30. Murdock GP, White DR. Standard cross-cultural sample. Ethnology. 1969;9:329–69.
- 31.
Stein ML. Statistical interpolation of spatial data: some theory for kriging. New York: Springer. 1999.
- 32.
R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2022.
- 33. Dean LG, Vale GL, Laland KN, Flynn E, Kendal RL. Human cumulative culture: a comparative perspective. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2014;89(2):284–301. pmid:24033987
- 34. Blomberg NJ. Sacred figures in Navajo blankets: A re-evaluation of timeframe and its implication for cultural change. J Southwest Anthropol Hist. 2016;55(4):357–72.
- 35.
Khau M. Gender and the politics of the Basotho blanket. In: Moletsane R, Mitchell C, Smith A, editors. Was it something I wore? Dress Identity Materiality. Cape Town, South Africa: HSRC Press. 2012.
- 36. Lycett SJ. Spatially mediated cultural transmission and the distribution of horse blanket styles among post-contact and reservation-period tribes of western North America. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2020;12(5).
- 37. Pearlstein E. Restoring provenance to a Native American feather blanket. Museum Manag Curatorship. 2008;25(1).
- 38. Whitaker K. Navajo saddle blankets: textiles to ride in the American West. Am Indian Cult Res J. 2004;28(2).
- 39.
National Research Council (US) C on C Ecosystems, Infectious Disease, and Human Health. Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease. Washington DC: National Academies Press (US). 2001.
- 40. García-García A, Cuesta-Valero FJ, Miralles DG, Mahecha MD, Quaas J, Reichstein M, et al. Soil heat extremes can outpace air temperature extremes. Nat Clim Chang. 2023;13(11):1237–41.
- 41. Geib PR, Jolie EA. The Role of Basketry in Early Holocene Small Seed Exploitation: Implications of a Ca. 9,000 Year-Old Basket from Cowboy Cave, Utah. Am antiq. 2008;73(1):83–102.
- 42.
Woven legacies: Basketry of Native North America. San Francisco: San Francisco Airport Museum. 2009.
- 43. Legare CH, Watson‐Jones RE. The Evolution and Ontogeny of Ritual. The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology. Wiley. 2015. 1–19.
- 44. Shynkaruk V, Salata H, Danylova T. Myth as a phenomenon of culture. Вісник НАКККіМ. 2018;0(4).
- 45. Wong YS, Allotey P, Reidpath DD. Health Care as Commons: An Indigenous Approach to Universal Health Coverage. iipj. 2014;5(3).
- 46.
Kuwuhara M. Tattoo: An Anthropology. 1st ed. Routledge. 2005.
- 47. Ghosh P. Tattoo: a cultural heritage. Antrocom J Anthropology. 2020;16(1):295–304.