"We applied Archaeological Social Network analysis to investigate the connections between sites attributed to the Aurignacian and the Gravettian based on shared personal ornament types. The two networks showing each technocomplexes separately (Figure 8) are colour-coded by regional group. However, these networks do not show connections between sites belonging to the other technocomplex. To address this topic, we also generated a network with both technocomplexes in a single graph (Figure 9), revealing connections between sites across both periods. However, this visualisation only indicates a site’s attribution to one of the two complexes, without showing its regional group. To provide a more comprehensive view, we created an additional version of this network that displays both the regional groupings and the connections between sites across technocomplexes (Supplementary Figure 5)."

"We also calculated the summary statistics for all the networks presented in the main text (Supplementary Table 2) using code adapted from Pereira et al. (2023). The results show that the network density is higher in the Gravettian network than in the Aurignacian network. All network interval statistics are provided in Supplementary Table 3. Additionally, the average similarity in personal ornament assemblages between sites is slightly higher in the Gravettian than in the Aurignacian (Supplementary Tables 3)."

"Our dataset is comprised of updated versions of four previously published databases assembling information on personal ornaments from the Aurignacian [42] and the Gravettian burial and occupation sites [43,51,102,103] (Fig 1; S1 Dataset Worksheets ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’). Following the publication of Baker et al. 2024, the research team was expanded to improve the reliability of cultural attributions, addressing potential ambiguities in site classification. This included a more extensive review of literature in original languages, stricter criteria for associating ornaments with a specific technocomplex, and an increased emphasis on radiocarbon dating when available. As a result, the updated Gravettian dataset includes: the addition of 3 burials and 30 occupation sites, the removal of 9 burials and 8 occupation sites, the addition of radiocarbon dates for 2 burials and 4 occupation sites, the removal of radiocarbon dates for 1 burial and 2 occupation sites, and the addition of 31 ornament types. For the Aurignacian, 4 occupation sites were added."