Table 4. Comparisons among the modern human groups from different paleoecological and technological categories: a) with Labatut 1 assigned to an open category, and b) with Labatut 1 assigned to a mixed category.
| a) Labatut 1 assigned to an open category | |||
| Central tendencies | F | df | p |
| MANOVA Wilks’ λ—Technology | 2.555 | 10 | 0.036 |
| ANOVA Asfc (Complexity) | 5.473 | 2 | 0.018 |
| ANOVA epLsar (Anisotropy) | 1.599 | 2 | 0.237 |
| ANOVA Smc (Scale of maximum complexity) | 6.587 | 2 | 0.010 |
| ANOVA Tfv (Textural fill volume) | 1.257 | 2 | 0.315 |
| ANOVA HAsfc (Heterogreneity) | 2.039 | 2 | 0.167 |
| MANOVA Wilks’ λ—Paleoecology | 0.526 | 5 | 0.752 |
| MANOVA Wilks’ λ—Technology* Paleoecology | 0.703 | 10 | 0.711 |
| b) Labatut 1 assigned to a mixed category | |||
| Central tendencies | F | df | p |
| MANOVA Wilks’ λ—Technology | 2.687 | 10 | 0.029 |
| ANOVA Asfc (Complexity) | 4.779 | 2 | 0.026 |
| ANOVA epLsar (Anisotropy) | 2.285 | 2 | 0.138 |
| ANOVA Smc (Scale of maximum complexity) | 6.166 | 2 | 0.012 |
| ANOVA Tfv (Textural fill volume) | 1.219 | 2 | 0.325 |
| ANOVA HAsfc (Heterogreneity) | 1.486 | 2 | 0.260 |
| MANOVA Wilks’ λ—Paleoecology | 0.685 | 5 | 0.645 |
| MANOVA Wilks’ λ—Technology* Paleoecology | 0.567 | 10 | 0.822 |
Significant values with p<0.05 are represented in bold.