# On the Quina side: A Neanderthal bone industry at Chez-Pinaud site, France

Malvina Baumann, Hugues Plisson, Serge Maury, Sylvain Renou, Hélène Coqueugniot, Nicolas Vanderesse, Kseniya Kolobova, Svetlana Shnaider, Veerle Rots, Guillaume Guérin, et al.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Malvina Baumann, Hugues Plisson, Serge Maury, Sylvain Renou, Hélène Coqueugniot, et al. On the Quina side: A Neanderthal bone industry at Chez-Pinaud site, France. PLoS ONE, 2023, 18 (6), pp.e0284081. 10.1371/journal.pone.0284081. hal-04160643

HAL Id: hal-04160643

https://hal.science/hal-04160643

Submitted on 12 Jul 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
1 On the Quina side: A Neanderthal bone industry at Chez-Pinaud site, France

2

3 Malvina Baumann¹¶, Hugues Plisson²¶, Serge Maury³¶, Sylvain Renou⁴&, Hélène

4 Coqueugniot²,⁵*, Nicolas Vanderesse²&, Ksenyia Kolobova⁶*, Svetlana Shnaider⁷§, Veerle

5 Rots¹*, Guillaume Guérin⁸§, William Rendu⁷&

6

7 1 – TraceoLab, Liege University, Liege, Belgium

8 2 – PACEA UMR 5199, CNRS, University of Bordeaux, Pessac, France

9 3 – Les Eyzies-de-Tayac-Sireuil, France

10 4 – Hadès, Agence Atlantique, Bordeaux, France

11 5 – Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes-PSL University, Paris, France

12 6 – Paleolithic Department, Institute of archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the

13 Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russian Federation

14 7 – ZooSCAN, International Research Laboratory 2013, CNRS, Novosibirsk, Russian

15 Federation

16 8 – Géosciences Rennes UMR 6118, CNRS, University of Rennes, Rennes, France

17

18 Corresponding author : malvina.baumann@gmail.com

19 ¶ These authors contributed equally to this work.

20 & These authors also contributed equally to this work.

21 * These authors also contributed equally to this work.

22 $ These authors also contributed equally to this work.

23

24
25

# Abstract

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Did Neanderthal produce a bone industry? The recent discovery of a large bone tool assemblage at the Neanderthal site of Chagyrskaya (Altai, Siberia, Russia) and the increasing discoveries of isolated finds of bone tools in various Mousterian sites across Eurasia stimulate the debate. Assuming that the isolated finds may be the tip of the iceberg and that the Siberian occurrence did not result from a local adaptation of easternmost Neanderthals, we looked for evidence of a similar industry in the Western side of their spread area. We assessed the bone tool potential of the Quina bone-bed level currently under excavation at chez Pinaud site (Jonzac, Charente-Maritime, France) and found as many bone tools as flint ones: not only the well-known retouchers but also beveled tools, retouched artifacts and a smooth-ended rib. Their diversity opens a window on a range of activities not expected in a butchering site and not documented by the flint tools, all involved in the carcass processing. The re-use of 20% of the bone blanks, which are mainly from large ungulates among faunal remains largely dominated by reindeer, raises the question of blank procurement and management. From the Altai to the Atlantic shore, through a multitude of sites where only a few objects have been reported so far, evidence of a Neanderthal bone industry is emerging which provides new insights on Middle Paleolithic subsistence strategies.

# Introduction

Around 48-45 000 BP, the anatomically modern humans (AMH) arrived in Western Europe, while the last Neanderthals disappeared. This arrival resulted in significant changes in archaeological material cultures that define the transition from the Middle to the Upper
49 Paleolithic. AMH brought with them a diversity of artifacts attesting of new practices. Bone
50 materials became a privileged medium for the manufacture of objects, such as hunting weapons,
51 ornaments or figurines, whose functional and social specialization appears clearly through
52 advanced shaping, achieved by scraping or abrasion. In contrast, their absence in the Middle
53 Paleolithic has led to the assessment that Neanderthal did not produce a bone industry [1-6].

54

55 The discovery of more than 1,200 bone tools at the Neanderthal site of Chagyrskaya
56 (Altai, Siberia, Russia) challenges this claim [7]. The cave deposits, accumulated in late Marine
57 Isotope Stage (MIS) 4 or early MIS 3, contained 74 human remains and a lithic industry
58 attesting to an occupation of the site by Neanderthals with cultural and genetic affinities to
59 Micoquian groups from Central and Eastern Europe. Around 60,000 - 50,000 years BP,
60 Neanderthals repeatedly came to the site during the early cold season to process the carcasses
61 of hunted Bisons [8,9]. A technological and functional analysis of the faunal remains identified
62 more than 1,000 retouchers and approximately 100 bone tools belonging to other functional
63 categories. Although their manufacture involved percussion, with marginal use of scraping and
64 abrasion, their number, diversity and recurrence lead to their consideration as an industry
65 (systematic and organized production of a set of tools) [7].

66

67 To date, the Chagyrskaya bone tools provide the only example of a Neanderthal bone
68 industry, at least, for which the authorship of AMH cannot be considered [10-12]. Bone tools
69 have already been reported in Neanderthal sites but most of the time as isolated finds. A hundred
70 kilometers away, such objects have been identified in contemporaneous levels of Denisova cave
71 [13-15]. They may have been made, in part, by Neanderthals [9,16,17]. In addition to
72 retouchers, some bone tools have also been reported in Crimean Micoquian assemblages from
73 the sites of Prolom II [18], Kiik Koba [19], Karabi Tamchin [20], Zaskalnaya VI [21], and
74 possibly Buran-Kaya III [22], as well as at Kůlna [23], in the Czech Republic, or at Salzgitter-
75 Lebenstedt [24] in Germany. Outside the Micoquian zone, examples of Mousterian bone tools
76 are even more numerous. Some have been found in Ukraine at the Molodova I site [25], in
77 France, at the Bison Cave [26], at the sites of Combe-Grenal, La Ferrassie, La Quina [27–29],
78 Pech-de-l'Azé I, Abri Peyrony [30], Montgaudier [31], Vaufrey [32], Noisetier [33], Canalettes
79 [34], and Gatzarria [35], in Spain at the sites of Axlor [36], Bolomor [37], Arlanpe [38], Abric
80 Romaní [39], and in Italy, at Fumane Cave [40]. These discoveries, most of them recently
81 investigated, allow us to reconsider earlier ones which were potentially too readily dismissed
82 such as those of La Quina [41], Ourbières [42], Tourtoirac [43], Néron [44], Pié-Lombart [45],
83 Cuva Morín [46], Rigabe [47], Hauteroche or Bois-Roche [32].

84

85 The use of bone tools by Neanderthals is beginning to be discussed, if not accepted,
86 because of this increasing number of reported cases. Most of these examples, only marginally
87 shaped, mostly by percussion, have been identified without a precise methodological
88 framework [32]. When identifications are not based on comparison with Upper Paleolithic bone
89 tools, they are established from analytical criteria borrowed from lithic technology, or simply
90 proposed by default when no other explanation can be provided. Doubts often remain because
91 of a risk of confusion with forms resulting from natural alterations or butchery activities that
92 may mimic, modify or erase traces of manufacture and use-wear traces [48–58]. As a
93 consequence, a small number of items have been reported in each site, and Neanderthal bone
94 tools, except retouchers, are still considered anecdotal. Because of their manufacturing
95 techniques, bone is sometimes regarded as a substitute material [40,47,59,60]. This is likely due
96 to a lack of understanding of the physical properties of bone and insufficient recognition of its
97 mechanical qualities [32,61]. In any case, the diversity of published identification criteria and
98 vocabulary make comparisons between sites difficult and prevents a more comprehensive
99 consideration of a Neanderthal specific bone technology.

100
101 Based on the bibliographic data and the results obtained at the Chagyrskaya Cave, we
102 hypothesize that the Neanderthals produced an original bone industry, different from the Upper
103 Paleolithic standards, especially due to the predominant use of percussion. In other words, the
104 scattered finds mentioned above could be indicative of a more general phenomenon in
105 Neanderthal technology, which has so far been underestimated due to a lack of appropriate
106 methodological and conceptual frameworks of study. This could imply, on the one hand, that
107 the previously found bone tools in various Middle Paleolithic contexts are only the most visible
108 part of a production whose main components are yet to be identified and, on the other hand,
109 that the Chagyrskaya bone industry is not a localized phenomenon resulting from a regional
110 adaptation of eastern Neanderthals. To test this hypothesis, we applied to the bone assemblage
111 of a Neanderthal settlement in western Eurasia the same techno-functional analysis as in
112 Chagyrskaya, complemented with µCT imaging.

113
114 In 2019, the new excavation of Mousterian deposits at the Chez-Pinaud site (Jonzac,
115 Charente-Maritime, France) provided the opportunity to reconsider the faunal assemblage of a
116 western Neanderthal settlement. At this multilayered site, the Quina facies, corresponding to
117 MIS 4, is characterized by a large bone-bed resulting from repeated seasonal occupations by
118 groups that came during the cold season to process the carcasses of hunted animals on their
119 migration routes [62]. In previous excavations, this bone-bed yielded numerous bone retouchers
120 [63] indicating that bone was used as raw material for tool making. It is in this archaeological
121 context, similar to that of Chagyrskaya in terms of activities and chronology, but geographically
122 and culturally distinct [8,9], that we sought new evidence of a Neanderthal bone industry.
The Chez-Pinaud site was discovered in the late 1990s by E. Marchais. It is located on the right bank of the Seugne, a tributary of the Charente River (Fig 1a), at the foot of a cliff where a limestone quarrying area partially destroyed the deposit, during the 19th century, but also allowed its discovery [64]. It was excavated several times, in 1998-1999 and 2002-2003 by J. Airvaux, then between 2004 and 2007 by J. Jaubert and J.-J. Hublin. This fieldwork campaigns revealed the presence of Early Upper Paleolithic occupations and significant Middle Paleolithic levels attributed to three Mousterian facies: a Quina-type Mousterian, a denticulated Mousterian and a Mousterian of Acheulean Tradition [63].

**Fig 1. The Chez-Pinaud site, Jonzac, France.** (a) location of the site and the main surrounding Quina site (geographical data republished from Géoportail.gouv.fr under a CC BY license, with permission from IGN, original copyright 2022). (b) 3D photogrammetric model of the excavated layer (photos and 3D processing: S. Shnaider). (c) layout of the excavation units (CAD: M. Baumann).

In 2019, new excavations were initiated in the stratigraphic unit (US) 22 (Fig 1b), in close proximity to the 2004-2007 excavation area. US22 is composed of a yellow-brown sediment of clayey sands deposited by water and solifluction [63] (S1 Fig, a-b). Preliminary studies of the lithic industry from the 2019-2020 campaigns are in line with the results of previous excavations. Characteristic of the Quina facies, the lithic industry includes a high proportion of tools, mainly side scrapers, and their shaping and resharpening waste, while nuclei are rare. The contribution of exogenous raw materials and finished tools, in a context where high quality local flint is available, as well as the versatility of tools and the evidence of
147

recycling, suggest a sparing use of lithic raw material [65]. This could stem from the high
seasonal mobility of Quina groups [66].

148

149

150

The faunal spectrum of the US22 is largely dominated by reindeer remains (*Rangifer tarandus*), a marker of a cold, dry and open environment [67,68]. Individuals were killed in late fall and during the cold season and whole or sub-whole carcasses brought to the site for processing [62]. The large accumulation of bone (S1 Fig, c), which required a long period of time, and the consistency in activities, led to the consideration of the Chez-Pinaud site as a task-specific location (*sensu* Binford [69]) related to hunting arctic deer predation. Horse (*Equus caballus*) and bison (*Bison priscus*) complete the ungulate spectrum. Small mammals include fox, (*Vulpes vulpes* or *Alopex lagopus*), arctic hare (*Lepus timidus*) and marmot (*Marmota marmota*).

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171
172

US 22 was dated by Richter et al. [73], using thermoluminescence (TL) of heated flints, to 73 ± 8 ka (average of three individual ages). A new dating by single-grain Optically Stimulated Luminescence (OSL) on sedimentary quartz indicate an age around 60-65 ka (Guérin et al., in prep.).

173

174

175

176

177

## Materials and methods

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

## Traceology

193

194

195

The bone tools studied are those from the first two excavation campaigns (2019-2020) conducted by W. Rendu, K. Kolobova and S. Shnaider. They come exclusively from US22, attributed to the Quina Mousterian. They were identified following the sorting of all the faunal remains, i.e., little more than 3220 remains, stored in the Service départemental d'Archéologie of Charente-Maritime (France). The sorting was done with the naked eye, then pieces with possible evidence of manufacture or use were examined with a Nikon SMZ-1 stereoscopic microscope. The best-preserved tools have been documented with a Makroskop Wild M420 (apochromatic zoom 5.8x-35x), completed by a Canon EOS 1100D camera, and with an Olympus BH2 microscope equipped with semi-apochromatic objectives and interference contrast. Sequences of Makroskop shots with progressive focus shift were compiled with Helicon Focus software (HeliconSoft, Kharkiv) in order to extend the field depth over the entire framed area.
In Western archaeology, these two complementary sides evolved separately through technology studies, which reconstruct the manufacturing *chaîne opératoire* of the artifacts from the shaping macro-traces, and through functional analyses, which infer their function from macro and micro use-wear. They are now at the heart of any lithic study, which is not yet the case for bone tools, whose remains are less numerous and more altered. Transfer from lithic to bone has been the most common methodological approach, both for the technological studies, with regard to sequencing of manufacturing operations [76-82], and for the use-wear analyses, with regard to the microscopic scale of examination [83-91]. However, it only concerned assemblages where the recognition of the artefacts, typologically established, did not constitute the issue of the study, and from particularly favorable preserving context, mostly of the Holocene period. It is now necessary to complete the referential frameworks by taking more account of the specificity of the bone material and by considering markers that are scarcely or not affected by surface alterations, i.e., macroscopic and/or internal.

209

210

## Taphonomic frame of reference

211

Our identification of organic (microorganism, animal, plant etc.) and inorganic (weathering, water circulation, sediment compaction etc.) taphonomic alterations is based on data outlined in publications [71,72,92-95]. We paid particular attention to the origin of bone fractures. The fractures considered as anthropogenic are those occurring on "fresh" bone, i.e., occurring shortly after the animal's death. They are characterized by a helicoidal shape and a slick surface and form acute or obtuse angles with the cortical side. Post-depositional fragmentation generally occurs on "dry" bone, i.e., that has lost all or main part of its organic component. The fracture surfaces are straight, rough and form with the cortical side an angle close to 90° [61,96-100]. However, the transition from fresh to dry bone is a gradual and non-

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220
homogeneous phenomenon. Therefore, the proposed criteria do not allow for the recognition of an anthropogenic fracture on drying bone or a post-depositional fracture on fresh bone. In the archaeological material, the fracture surfaces often have mixed features, which implies reasoning in terms of trends according to the corpus studied and taking into account all available discriminating criteria (hammers impacts, general morphology, location, variability within the corpus, etc.) [101–105].

227

228

## Archaeological frame of reference

229

Our identification of the manufacture and use-wear traces is based on a comparison with published archaeological and experimental data as well as on our own experiments. The nature and organization of the traces observed on the archaeological material led to focus more specifically on morpho-functional categories already identified in Upper Paleolithic contexts and some Middle Paleolithic sites, those of: (1) bone retouchers, (2) beveled tools, (3) tools with retouched edges, and (4) tools with smoothed end. These categories are not defined with the same precision. For the bone retouchers, we know both their mode of utilization and the activity in which they were involved. They are light soft hammers for retouching lithic edges (S1 Text) [36,75,106,107]. For the beveled tools, the nature and localization of the traces refer only to a mode of use involving percussion, but the worked material and the task performed may vary (S2 Text) [35,108–110]. Bone fragments with intentional removals on one edge (S3 Text) [40,59,96,111] or with a technical blunt on one end (S4 Text) [7,30,55,88], are characterized only by a type of damage and its location relative to the main axis. For these categories, many hypotheses about their function can be put forward. It is therefore necessary, in order to complete the available data, to enlarge the experimental frame of reference.

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245
246

Experimental frame of reference

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

Experiments specifically dedicated to Mousterian bone tools were performed by a working group including French (PACEA, UMR 5199, University of Bordeaux), Russian (Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences; ZooSCAn IRL 2013) and Belgian (Traceolab, University of Liege) researchers, among them experts in flintknapping and specialists trained to work with bones. These experiments refer to the entire *chaîne opératoire*: from the first fracturing step of the bones (S2 Fig, a-d) to the blanks shaping (S2 Fig, e-f) and until the tools-use on different worked materials and in task diversity in accordance with the archaeological contexts under study (S2 Fig, g-l).

For the purpose of this study, forty-five long bones of medium and large mammals were fractured: 16 femurs, 12 tibias, 11 humeri, 6 radio-ulna of cow (N=41), red deer (N=3) and *Equidae* (N=1), adults (6 to 12 years old, N=30), young adults (6 to 12 months old, N=12) and juveniles (< 6 months old, N=3). The long bones were split with a hard hammer (quartzite pebble of 1 to 2.5 kg) on an anvil (in situ limestone bloc or large quartzite pebble). Only the location of the impact points varied from one bone to another. Other types of bone, such as ribs and vestigial metapodial (red deer and *Equidae*), were also used without fracturing step, or after a first step reduction limited to a transverse fracturing. Twenty fractured bones have been set aside for analyzing the variability of the percussion marks and the bone fragments morphometry. They correspond to 156 flakes (excluding chips of less than 3 cm length and epiphyses), i.e., about 7-8 blanks per bone, with an average length of 10.28 cm (L. max. = 19.98 cm, L. min = 4.08 cm) and an average width of 4.3 cm (W. max = 9.88 cm, W. min = 1.46 cm).
270

The blanks shaping consisted mainly of a second fracturing step by direct percussion for sizing, gripping and/or the active edge setting, i.e., modification of the edge angulation and/or delineation. We tested the efficiency of different hammers: soft organic (antler, Juniperus communis), soft mineral (fine sandstone, limestone, schist), hard mineral (quartzite) depending on the configuration of the striking platform, the size, morphology and axis of the removals to be made. Tests were carried out to evaluate the bone response according to its state of freshness, i.e., fresh (a few days after the death of the animal) and dry (loss of fatty and wet components) and our results were compared with those of previous experiments [7,32,40,59,96,111–114].

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

Experiments in bone knapping converge on similar observations: (1) bone responds favorably to percussion, free or on anvil, (2) fresh bone responds to knapping better than dry bone, i.e., better control of the removals morphology, (3) all hammer types (vegetal, animal and mineral) allow retouching, (4) the more acute the striking angle, the more efficient the knapping; it is generally between 40° and 60° and should not exceed 80°, (5) removals are easier to be performed when the percussion is applied parallel to the direction of the bone fibers than perpendicularly, (6) the bone flakes have a butt, but the associated traces such as the bulb, bulb scars, hackles, or ripples, are not systematic and not as clearly observable as on the lithic. The results diverge about the removals morphology according to the type of hammer. In our experiments, a distinction can be made between the hard mineral hammers (quartzite) and the soft hammers (wood, antler, soft sandstone). The latter allow to perform, under similar conditions, more invasive and scaled low angle removals than the hard hammers. We also nuance previous results on the response of dry bone to knapping. The more homogeneous the material is, the easier it is for the shock wave to propagate. After the death of the animal, the bone gradually loses its organic mass, starting from the outer layers, through internal

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294
295

mechanisms of cell death and external mechanisms of exchange with the environment. This
loss of homogeneity leads to irregularities in the morphology of the removals. However, once
completely dry, as long as it has little or no weathering damage, the bone recovers its
homogeneity. More rigid, it is particularly suitable to knapping.

296

297

298

299

300

Our bone tools were used for flint knapping (e.g., scrapers shaping), woodworking (e.g., handles manufacture), plant working (e.g., herbaceous harvesting), skin working (e.g., prototanning), ice working (e.g., fishing hole), butchery (e.g., meat cutting), and soil working (e.g., digging up roots).

301

302

303

304

305

Mechanical bone properties

306

307

Bone is a complex matter composed mainly of an organic matrix of collagen fibers and
an inorganic matrix of hydroxyapatite crystals, organized in lamellae along the anatomical axis.
Changes in fiber orientation from one lamella to another form a solid and relatively
homogeneous frame, reinforced by the prevalence of the mineral component. At the
macrostructural scale, bone has viscoelastic properties and transverse isotropic reaction. It can
absorb energy by reversible deformation, fix a permanent deformation, and break if the stress
exceeds its resistance [61,96,115–118]. Its deformation capacity also depends on the rate of the
applied stress. The higher the latter, the higher the stiffness response of the bone. In addition,
the progressive dehydration of the matter, after the animal death, increases its hardness [119].
Bone can therefore, depending on the stress application conditions and the matter freshness,
behave as a rather ductile or rather brittle material. It shares characteristics with conchoidal

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317
318

fracture materials (development of a percussion cone below the impact area) [95,120], and as
the latter, responds to stresses in a predictable manner.

319

320

321

Internal traceology

322

323

The plastic deformation capacity of bone, that lithic does not have, opens an additional
research field on deformations and cracks localized in the stress area, which may affect not only
the bone surface but also the underlying internal structure and are likely to supply diagnostic
criteria for tool recognition. Among the imaging techniques providing access to the internal
structure of solid matters, microtomography [121] is particularly suitable for the observation of
damage and micro-damage into the cortical tissue [122–128]. It is a non-destructive imaging
technique based on X-ray slices recombined for getting a 3D model of the scanned object,
according to the principle of Computerized Tomography [129,130]. Used mainly in the medical
field, this technique is still little involved in the studies of archaeological bone artifacts [131–
137]. µCT could enable the implementation of a method of “internal traceology” for
supplementing surface information or for compensating for it when it is altered.

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

We performed µCT capture, without prior treatment of the samples, on 9 bone tools
from the Chez-Pinaud site (S1-S9 Files) and 5 bone tools from our experiments, getting a total
of 25 scans (S1 Table). The archaeological bone tools were chosen for their particularly good
state of preservation, and to cover the morpho-functional diversity. The scanner chamber
dimensions (260 mm in diameter and 420 mm in length) allowed a complete capture of each
specimen at voxel sizes between 98 µm and 26 µm while scans of ROI (region of interest) were
performed at resolutions between 33 µm and 5 µm (minimum values fixed by the volume to be

336

337

338

339

340

341
342

covered). The µCT operated at a voltage of 110 to 120 kV and an intensity of 110 to 200 µA.

343

The X-ray beam was filtered by a 0.1 mm thick copper plate.

344

345

We used a General Electric V|Tome|xs dual source microscanner (PACEA laboratory, University of Bordeaux, France). Volume reconstruction and visualization were performed with AVIZO 7.1 software (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham).

348

349

# Results

350

351

## General features

352

353

Within the faunal remains from 2019-2020 campaigns, we identified a total of 103 bone tools. The feasibility of use-wear analysis is constrained by a loss of material on the surface of the bone due to exfoliation phenomena (delamination of the outermost cortical layers). Longitudinal cracks from the weathering, combined with the weight and nature of the sediment and with the passage of the quarry machinery, probably caused much of the fragmentation of the bone remains. Only 15% of the tools are complete or sub-complete, i.e., free of post-depositional or recent breakage.

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

Of the 103 bone tools, a majority are marked by scores areas (sensu Mallye et al. [138]) localized on the cortical face (N=91), some have removals at one or both ends of the main axis (anatomical axis; N=10), and/or removals on the cortical and/or medullary surface of a lateral edge (N=7) and/or a smoothed area, more or less extensive, at one end (N=2). The main modifications, which changed the volume of the blanks, are always associated with one or more marginal modifications such as chipping, striations, compactions, rounding etc. The main

362

363

364

365

366
367 modifications correspond respectively to the following morpho-functional categories: (1) bone retouchers, (2) beveled tools, (3) retouched tools, (4) smooth-ended tools (Table 1; Fig 2). More than 88% of the blanks were used as retouchers, and 81% exclusively in this way. Multiple-use tools accounted for 9% of the total. The most common association is a bone retoucher with a beveled end, followed by a bone retoucher with a lateral retouched edge. To date, there are no tools that combine the four major modifications.

373

<table><caption>374 Table 1. Bone tools, Chez-Pinaud site, 2019-2020 excavations.</caption><thead><tr><th>Number of tools</th><th>Type</th><th>Number of blanks</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">103</td><td>Bone retouchers</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td>Beveled tools</td><td>10</td></tr><tr><td>Retouched tools</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>Smooth-ended tools</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table>

375 Bone blanks number and count of active area per tools category.

376

377 Fig 2. Bone tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a–d), (i–k) beveled tools. (a, g–h, e–f, n) retouched tools. (a, f, j, m–o) bone retouchers. (l) smoothed-end tool (photo: M. Baumann).

380

381 All tools are made from bone, except for a horse incisor used as retoucher [139]. The taxa used in their manufacture are the same as those hunted and brought to the site: reindeer (34%), horse (26%) and *Bos/bison* (5%), but with different proportions (Fig 3d). Bones of large ungulates are almost twice as numerous among the tools as among the faunal remains (Fig 3a–
385

b). While bone retouchers are made equally from large (53.8%) and medium (46.2%) ungulate bones, multiple tools are always made from large ungulate bones. The blanks are mainly flakes of long bones (87%): tibia (42.6%), humerus (17%), femurs (17%), metapods (12.8%) and radio-ulna (10.6%), for anatomically determined pieces. Ribs (8.7%), phalanges (N=2), coxal (N=1) and scapula (N=1) fragments complete the corpus.

386

387

388

389

390

391

**Fig 3.** Species spectrums, Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a-c) faunal remains. (b-d) bone tools (CAD: M. Baumann).

392

393

394

The blanks were split by direct percussion. Percussion marks and notches, sometimes associated with microcracks and/or secondary splinters, are visible on, at least, 30% of the tools. Fracture morphologies show that the bones were fractured in a fresh state. The lengths of the complete and sub-complete tools range from 5.6 cm to 15.4 cm (L. avg. = 9.1 cm) for widths between 1.8 cm and 5.1 cm (W. avg. = 3 cm). Thicknesses, rarely altered, were recorded on all tools. They vary from 0.1 cm to 1.41 cm (Th. avg. = 0.7 cm). The general characteristics of the blanks used to manufacture the tools are comparable to those of the faunal remains of the same assemblage. These faunal remains show that all long bones types were fractured, with approximately 17% percussion marks, while the fresh fracture rate reaches 76% of long bones. Eighty percent of the bone fragments correspond to a quarter or less of the shaft (reindeer < 5-6 cm; horse/bison < 7-8 cm), and 7% to between a quarter and half of the shaft (5-6 cm < reindeer < 13-14 cm; 7-8 cm < horse/bison < 16-17 cm). The lengths of the complete bone tools from medium size ungulates of the 2019-2020 excavation fall within this latter range (8 cm < medium size ungulates < 12 cm), while the lengths of the complete bone tools from large size ungulates cover the two sets (5 cm < large size ungulates < 16 cm).

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409
410 **Bone retouchers**

411

412 **Morphometry**

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

Retouchers are the most frequently found bone tools in Middle Paleolithic contexts (S1 Text) [36,37,60,138,140–145]. US22 already had yielded nearly 510 during previous excavations; these retouchers were described and analyzed (Airvaux excavations: 202 specimens [146], Jaubert-Hublin excavations: 307 specimens [147]). The 91 bone retouchers from the new excavations show the same characteristics, indicating a continuity in the activities and choices made by the Quina in the handling of these tools. The blanks are 54% from large size ungulates (55% in Airvaux excavations and 47% in Jaubert-Hublin excavations). The tibia (22%) is the most used bone, but it is also the easiest to identify so our estimation might be biased. Flat bones represent 8% of the corpus and the use of short bones is anecdotal (2 phalanges). The thickness of the retouchers is directly correlated with the bone used, with an average value of 0.86 cm for large size ungulates and 0.45 cm for medium size ungulates. The length of the most complete specimens ranges from 5 cm to 9 cm, with a width of 2 to 3 cm. However, the range of values is much smaller in the retouchers made from medium size ungulate bones than in those made from large ungulates, which may reflect stricter selection to achieve the dimensions required by the tools. Selection was also observed in Quina-type Mousterian layers at Les Pradelles, a secondary butchery site, where reindeer accounted for 98% of the faunal remains and provided 95% of the blank retouchers [144]. At the Chez-Pinaud site, the average length of medium size ungulate retouchers (8.5 cm) is greater than those from Les Pradelles (7.3 cm). The higher proportion of large size ungulate remains at Chez-Pinaud likely provided enough suitable blanks to make a stronger selection.
435 **External modifications**

436

437 On our 91 bone retouchers, scores areas are mainly single (73%), sometimes double
438 (24%; Fig 4d), more rarely triple (3%), with prior scraping of the striking zone in 23% (Fig 4c).

439 Their density varies from a few scores (3-4) to the superposition of several dozen (Fig 4i), the
440 latter being less frequent. The scores are oriented perpendicular to the main axis with slight
441 variations of obliquity (Fig 4a). They are linear, more or less rough, and sometimes associated
442 with small chip removals (Fig 4b), that, according to Mallye et al. [138] indicates the use of dry
443 bone fragments, or at least, fragments which have lost some of their moist, fatty surface
444 component (Fig 4b).

445

446 **Fig 4. Bone retouchers from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019-2020 excavations.** (a) scores
447 orientation. (b) scores associated with small chip removals. (c) scraping of the striking area. (d)
448 on horse tibia, n°2020. (e-g) on reindeer diaphysis, n°3727, 3396 and 3320. (h) on horse
449 metapodial, n°3587. (i) dense scores area. (j) on horse incisor, n° 4061 (photo: M. Baumann
450 except j, S. Renou).

451

452 At the Les Pradelles site, three groups of retouchers were distinguished based on tools
453 size and score intensity: those, (1) dedicated to shaping and resharpening Quina scrapers, (2)
454 corresponding to shaping and resharpening other tools and, (3) used occasionally for
455 resharpening various active edges [144]. This proposal highlights that the variability of
456 retouchers, often understood as the result of opportunistic use of non-specialized tools, may be
457 more a matter of a "case by case" selection, adapted to the retouch to be performed. At Chez-
458 Pinaud, groups of retouchers stand out, such as the small elongated specimens on the diaphysis
459 of reindeer (Fig 4e-g) with two short, well-marked scores areas (Fig 4i). The types of lithic
460

edges retouch depend on multiple factors, including the weight of the bone retoucher, its
handling capabilities, its trajectory or the energy transmitted [148,149]. The use of small
elongated flakes sets a range of possibilities that is not that of semi-complete metapod
specimens (Fig 4h), itself quite different from that of ribs or horse incisor (Fig 4j).

461

462

463

464

465

Internal damage

466

467

The mode of use of a bone retoucher can also be revealed by its internal damage. The
retouching of a lithic edge with a bone retoucher is the result of a reciprocal effect of one
another, combining percussion and cutting. The lithic edge penetrates the bone by cutting and
separating the fibers, while the energy transfer takes place at the bottom of the cut when
maximum penetration is reached. The percussion does not only initiate a crack on the impact
lithic edge but also in the bone material. The propagation of the latter should depend on many
parameters related to the applied stress (dynamics of the blow, position and handling of the
retoucher, kinematics, etc.) and the state and structure of the bone (anatomical characteristics,
location of the active zone, humidity, temperature, etc.) [61,93,96,98,99]. The development of
use cracks and micro-cracks into bone tools has already been demonstrated with a reindeer
antler hammer [134] and some projectile points [132,136]. We therefore sought to investigate
this type of damage through µCT imaging of three experimental (S2 Table) and three
archaeological bone retouchers (S5-7 Files).

468

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

Cracks and micro-cracks were detected on our three experimental specimens. They are
frequent but not systematic and extend in the direct extension of the bottom of the scores. They
are mainly simple (Fig 5e), but can also be complex, with one or more secondary cracks from
a main crack (Fig 5c). They always follow a curved path with a tendency to reach the bone

482

483

484
surface. Cracks can lead to partial chip detachment (Fig 5b), while the formation of a first crack promotes shrinkage if a second crack develops nearby (Fig 5d). All cracks and micro-cracks have the same orientation, in accordance with the regularity of the flintknapper's gesture. They can therefore provide information about the direction of the movement and possible changes in the position of the bone retoucher or lithic edge during the knapping process. At our scale of analysis, simple visual examination does not detect significant differences in crack length, depth, or delineation, based on the freshness states of the experimental bone retouchers.

492

**Fig 5. μCT imaging of bone retouchers.** (a) 3D reconstruction of an experimental sample from a cow tibia. (b–c) cracks from use under the scores area, on sagittal cross-sections. (d–e) cracks from use under the scores area, on transverse cross-section. (f) 3D reconstruction of an archaeological sample from horse tibia, n°2020. (g–h) cracks from use under the scores area, on sagittal cross-section. (i–j) cracks from use under the scores area, on transverse cross-section (μCT image processing [IP] and CAD: M. Baumann).

499

Internal visualization of our archaeological bone retouchers is a delicate task. First, because we are dealing with fossilized material, i.e., with a large mineral component. The density of the material is greater and the grey levels recorded by the μCT no longer reflect, or only partially reflect, the original structure of the bone. Secondly, because the bones from Chez-Pinaud are altered by cracks from weathering that could mimic the technical cracks. Weathering cracks develop along the natural lines of weakness of the bones, i.e., appearing perpendicular to the surface, when the bone is observed along its main axis (Fig 5j) and parallel to the surface, when observed in cross-section. Cracks with similar characteristics as the damage caused by the use of experimental retouchers are visible under the scores area at 30-20 µm resolution (Fig 5g–j). These initial observations validate our hypothesis of the formation of use cracks below
510

the surface of the retouchers scores areas and the possibility of their detection in the
archaeological material.

511

512

513

## Beveled tools

514

515

## Morphometry

516

517

The morpho-functional category of beveled tools is well documented in Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic contexts (S2 Text) [35,85,88,108–110,150–152]. At Chez-Pinaud, the seven beveled tools range in length from 4.46 cm to 11.84 cm (L. avg. = 6.89 cm), for widths from 2.51 cm to 5.11 cm (W. avg. = 3.51 cm) and cortical tissue thicknesses from 0.56 cm to 1.36 cm (Th. avg. = 0.99 cm). Six of them have lost their original length. Two have a post-depositional and a recent breakage, respectively, while the other four are shortened by a transverse fracture at the proximal extremity. The latter have the attributes of a rapid fracture on fresh bone, posterior to the blank fracture. Their hinge morphology (fracture initiation from the upper side; Fig 6g) or sawtooth morphology (fracture initiation from one of the lateral sides; Fig 7g) [79,82,153,154] and limited extent are characteristic of bending stress near the fracture line. They may be the result of tools use. In one case, the transverse fracture is covered by a striking zone (Fig 6f), indicating that the tool was reused after its deterioration. This striking zone demonstrates that the beveled tool was still efficient despite its relatively short length (L. = 6.5 cm), which is less than the average length of all specimens.

518

519

520

521

522

523

524

525

526

527

528

529

530

531

532

**Fig 6. Beveled tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.** (a) chipping on the cortical surface at the distal end. (b) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (c) on medium sized ungulate diaphysis, n°1026. (d) on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°3609. (e)

533

534
535

blunt on the medullary surface at the distal end. (f) striking surface at the proximal end. (g)
hinge fracture at the proximal end (photo: M. Baumann).

536

537

538

**Fig 7. Beveled tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.** (a) on horse humerus, n°1014. (b) edge retouch on the cortical surface. (c) chipping partially covered by a blunt on the cortical surface at the distal end. (d) on bison metatarsal, n°1527. (e) chipping on the cortical surface at the distal end. (f) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (g) sawtooth fracture at the proximal end (photo: M. Baumann).

539

540

541

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

549

550

551

552

553

554

555

556

557

The beveled ends of our archeological specimens are formed by the cortical surface and one of the fracture surfaces caused by the blank production at an angle of about 30° to 70°. This particular morphology must therefore have been obtained during the first stage of fracturing; a result that is far from systematic given the morphological diversity of bone fragment extremities within the faunal remains of US22. Our experimental fracturing on fresh bone also produced limited fragments with a morphology suitable for direct use as a bevel. Several non-exclusive hypotheses can be put forward: (1) a control, during the first stage of fracturing, of the parameters required to obtain blanks with convex beveled ends of acute angle, (2) an anticipation by the selection and setting aside of suitable blanks following the processing of the carcasses, (3) a shaping by percussion of the active end posterior to the first fracturing stage. It is also necessary that the edge to be shaped presents a favorable knapping angle. Two pieces could illustrate this last case.

558

**External modifications**
The distal extremity of the shortest piece (Fig 8a) shows two generations of 3 or 4 longitudinal lamellar removals, at the junction between the cortical surface and a lateral fracture. Their location, regularity and organization, seem to refer to the burin blow technique, i.e., to intentional removals. As with a lithic burin, the objective could be the shaping of the active part and/or a production of bladelets. Experimentally, the removal of small elongated flakes along its main axis does not raise any particular difficulty, provided that the flaking angle is favorable. In this axis, the propagation of the shock is facilitated by the absence of curvature and the longitudinal macrostructural organization of the bone fibers. In all cases, the piece was used. Its distal extremity is blunt and chipped (Fig 8b). On the larger specimen (Fig 8e), the medullary surface of the bevel has a large and low-angled removal initiated from a lateral edge (Fig 8h). The latter is posterior to the first stage of fracturing of the blank and partially covered by use-wear traces (chipping). Given the initial thickness of the blank edge, it could correspond to a thinning form the bevel.

572

**Fig 8. Beveled tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.** (a) set of burin-like removals. (b) blunt over removals at the distal end. (c) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (d) on medium size ungulate diaphysis, n°888. (e) on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°3648. (f) hinge fracture at the proximal end. (g) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (h) large and low-angle removal initiated from the lateral edge (photo: M. Baumann except a, H. Plisson).

579

The bevels are bifacial (N = 5) or unifacial (N = 2), on the cortical and medullary surfaces (N = 6; Fig 7a) or on a lateral side (N = 1; Fig 7d). The lateral beveled tool shows a proximal fracture that is also lateral, in agreement with the axis of the stress exerted on the tool. All specimens show blunting of the cutting edge (Fig 7c), sometimes associated with visible
584

compaction by flattening and wrinkling of the protruding areas. In 6 cases out of 7, the blunting
is also associated with bifacial chipping (Fig 6a-b), more advanced on one face of the bevel
(Fig 8g). We count one to four generations of small removals in the main axis, with a slight
variation in their orientation. The bevel without a chipped end is marked by a bending fracture
topped with a pronounced bluntness on the front and medullary surface (Fig 6e).

585

586

587

588

589

590

**Internal damage**

591

592

The operating process of the beveled tools involves percussion, which motivates the
search for internal cracks and micro-cracks. The cutting edge of a bevel is only effective on a
raw material of lesser hardness. Nevertheless, depending on this hardness, the contact between
the two can alter the bone. Here, the stress is applied longitudinally to the bone fibers. To test
for use-related internal damage in beveled tools, we scanned two experimental (S2 Table) and
four archaeological specimens (S3-5 and S9 Files).

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

We did not identify any evidence of bone fiber deformation in the experimental
specimens. However, macroscopic cracks developed in both tools. These were cracks extending
a few millimeters under the surface, visible on sagittal and frontal µCT cross-sections at the
distal ends. These cracks are direct extensions of removals produced during use (Fig 9b, A).
The short cracks located around the striking platform (which may subsequently cause chipping
of the periphery) are different from those that develop in the medial part. The latter penetrate
only one or two millimeters along the main axis, but extend further in width (Fig 9e, E). We
noted one multiple crack (Fig 9d, E). In one specimen, three cracks also formed starting from
the medullary surface of the distal part, below the area in contact with the worked material.
They follow the same direction for a few millimeters (Fig 9b, B-D). If the cracks located

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608
609

directly under the active extremity can be related to shocks received along the main axis, i.e., characterized by a dominant compressive stress, those located further on the periphery could result from repeated bending stresses, i.e., correspond to fatigue cracks.

610

611

612

613

**Fig 9. μCT imaging of beveled tools.** (a) 3D reconstruction of an experimental sample from a Cow tibia. (b) cracks from use under the bevel, on a sagittal cross-section. (c) cracks from use under the bevel, on a transverse cross-section. (d) cracks from use under the striking surface, on a sagittal cross-section. (e) cracks from use under the striking surface, on a transverse cross-section. (f) 3D reconstruction of an archaeological sample from horse humerus, n°1014. (g–h) concentration of cracks under the bevel, on a frontal cross-section. (i–m) sagittal cross-sections of the bevel showing the non-uniform damage distribution (μCT IP and CAD: M. Baumann).

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

For the archaeological beveled tools, the selected anatomical fragments are close to the epiphyses. The organization of bone fibers is more complex than in the diaphysis. Unlike experimental beveled tools, where the main axis of the tool is the same as the anatomical axis, archaeological beveled tools have their active extremity positioned obliquely to the anatomical axis. The cracks on the medullary surface, located on the periphery below the distal extremities, cannot be directly compared to those of the experimental specimens, as they follow the natural lines of weakness in the bone structure. We can only point out that the cracks concentrate at the active extremity (Fig 9h, A) and that there may be a connection between the technical micro-cracks and the development of taphonomic macro-cracks. Here, if the modifications were solely taphonomic, their distribution would be uniform, but parts of the beveled edges still show sharp and acute zones (Fig 9j), while others are chipped (Fig 9l), compressed (Fig 9k) or blunted (Fig 9m).

622

623

624

625

626

627

628

629

630

631

632

633
634 **Retouched tools**

635

636 **Morphometry**

637

638 This category includes all tools in which one edge has been, according to the pattern of
639 removals on the bone blank, intentionally retouched (S3 Text) [6, 26, 27, 31, 33, 36, 40, 155–157]. The
640 sizes of the retouched tools from Chez-Pinaud are quite heterogeneous, but the average cortical
641 thickness, at 0.9 cm (σ = 0.2), is among the highest for all tools. This could be related to the
642 need for sufficient thickness to knap the blank. The retouched tool lengths are probably not the
643 original ones. Specimens without recent or post-depositional breakage (N=4) have an average
644 length of 8.7 cm. They were fractured, at least at one extremity, subsequent to primary stage
645 fracturing to obtain the blank (Fig 10c).

646

647 **Fig 10. Retouched tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.** (a) possible
648 beveled tool on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°2132. (b) blunt localized at the distal end. (c)
649 secondary fracturing step of the proximal end. (d) removals on the cortical surface at the distal
650 end. (e) removals at the proximal end on the medullary surface. (f) possible beveled tool on
651 reindeer metacarpal, n°143 (photo: M. Baumann).

652

653 **External modifications**

654

655 Two pieces of our archeological specimens show, at one extremity, the beginning of
656 edge convergence and a convex front like those of the beveled tools. Recent and post-
657 depositional breaks prevent from asserting the presence of a bevel and/or damage typical of this
658 class of tool. However, on both specimens, the preserved part is covered with a blunt that is too
659 localized to be taphonomic (Fig 10b). In addition to this localized blunting, they are both also
660 retouched. On one of them (Fig 10a), the removals are located at a lateral edge of the distal
661 extremity and were performed in two stages. The first removals performed, two on the cortical
662 surface (Fig 10d) and one on the medullary surface, are large and scaled. The second series of
663 4 to 6 removals consist on an alternating and abrupt retouch, which formed a serrated profile
664 edge. The latter, partially blunted, could correspond to an active edge. It should be noted that
665 the use of the tool as a retoucher is posterior to its shaping. On the second specimen (Fig 10f),
666 the retouch is located on the medullary surface of the proximal part (Fig 10e). It is a continuous
667 retouch of at least three series of removals that form a straight edge. The opposite edge, also
668 interrupted by a post-depositional break, has two low-angle removals, suggesting similar
669 processing for both edges. We have not identified any use-wear traces. Thus, one of the
670 hypotheses to put forward could be that of an adjustment for handling.
671

672 There are two small fragments of retouched bone artifacts (Fig 11). On the first one, the
673 cortical surface and a fracture (occurring on fresh bone) form an acute angle where the retouch
674 was performed. The latter is prior to the separation of this small fragment from a larger one.
675 The retouch is scaly, low-angle, bifacial on a first portion and then unifacial (Fig 11b). The
676 bifacial retouch is separated from the unifacial retouch by an unretouched but regularly blunted
677 edge portion. The rectilinear leveling of the edge, its asymmetrical blunting, and the extension
678 of the latter in the retouched areas suggest that it resulted from a transverse motion of the tool
679 (i.e., perpendicular to the edge) in a positive rak angle, probably on soft material. This motion
680 was still applied after the tool was retouched (Fig 11c). The second small fragment is a flake
681 coming from a larger retouched tool. Its obverse side is the medullary face, its reverse is the
682 flaked surface associated with part of a fracture from the first stage of fracturing of the blank.
683 The retouch was done on the medullary surface (Fig 11d). It consists of several low-angle
684

removals that form a sharp active edge. This active edge is slightly blunted with adjacent "stretched" and parallel reliefs, longitudinal striations and crescent-shaped chips (Fig 11f). It was probably used to cut middle soft material. The two small fragments thus belonged to larger tools whose active edges were shaped and/or resharpened by retouch.

685

686

687

688

689

**Fig 11. Retouched tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.** (a) retouched edge fragment on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°5. (b) scalariform and low-angle removals. (c) retouch intercalated between 2 blunting episodes. (d) low-angle removals on the medullary surface. (e) retouched edge fragment on medium size ungulate diaphysis, n°529. (f) detail of the blunt with longitudinal striations (photos: M. Baumann except d and f, H. Plisson).

690

691

692

693

694

695

Two nearly complete artefacts show removals on a lateral edge, part of which predates the adjacent fracture. This pattern involves the following sequence: (1) an initial fracturing aimed at obtaining the blank, (2) followed by the retouch of an edge, (3) a fracturing step that removed part of the retouched edge, (4) and then an extension of the retouch to the remaining part of the edge. This could correspond to a knapping accident. On the fragment also used as a retoucher and beveled tool (Fig 7a), 7 partially overlapping removals on the cortical face are present. The removals are initially invasive and semi-abrupt. Where the striking platform is preserved, they are scaled at low-angles (Fig 7b). The organization of the removals of a second fragment (Fig 2n) is comparable. On the portions of the edges where the striking platform is preserved, there is no evidence of use. The obtuse angles of the retouched edges and, in one case, the proximity to cancellous bone, do not make them suitable for use. The retouch would be better suited to shaping for sizing and/or handling.

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

**Internal damage**
709

710

The retouch, achieved by percussion, can cause cracks and micro-cracks in the bone.

711

However, the pattern of cracks should be expected to be significantly different from other artifacts. The stress is not applied on a surface and in the direction of the mass (likely to absorb a significant portion of the energy), as with the retouchers, but tangentially along an edge. µCT recordings were made on five archaeological tools (S1-2, S4-5 and S7 Files) and two experimental tools (S2 Table).

712

713

714

715

716

717

In the experimental tools, cracks and micro-cracks developed from the percussion point.

718

They are not systematic and vary in size from one to several millimeters (Fig 12b-c). They are always wider in the longitudinal axis than in the transverse axis and have a curved trajectory.

719

720

The areas with the most numerous and extensive cracks correspond to those parts at the edge where most of the removals were knapped. Single cracks sometimes appear at the end of the removal in direct continuation of the flaked surface (Fig 12d).

721

722

723

724

**Fig 12.** µCT imaging of retouched tools. (a) 3D reconstruction of an experimental sample from a Cow tibia. (b) multi-cracks from shaping at the percussion point on a sagittal cross-section. (c) simple cracks from shaping at the percussion point on a sagittal cross-section. (d) cracks from shaping at the beginning and the end of a removal. (e) simple cracks from shaping at the percussion point on a transverse cross-section. (f) 3D reconstruction of an archaeological sample from large size ungulate diaphysis, n°5. (g-h) frontal cross-sections of the archaeological sample n°5, A and C, cracks from shaping at the beginning of retouches, B, set of micro-cracks from use, D, multiple “star-shaped” cracks. (i-m) variation of the active edge morphology on transverse cross-sections (µCT IP and CAD: M. Baumann).

725

726

727

728

729

730

731

732

733
734

On archaeological specimens, cracks also developed at percussion points (Fig 12g, A), rarely at the end of removals. The micro-damage is more numerous and diverse than on the experimental specimens, probably due to a more complex history, including the use of the retouched edge, its resharpening, possible accidental breaks, taphonomic alterations, etc. One tool (Fig 12f) shows micro-cracks that are not related to the retouch but to the use of the edge.

735

736

737

738

739

740

741

742

743

744

745

746

747

748

749

On the unretouched part of its active edge, a series of micro-cracks has developed directly below the surface, over a thickness of less than one millimeter with the same pattern. Here, the density of material, visualized on the µCT cross-section by a clear increase in grey levels, is higher than in the rest of the tool (Fig 12g, B). If this pattern correlates with surface damage, it could correspond to transverse motion of the bone tool on soft material in a positive rak angle.

Transverse µCT cross-sections of the edge (Fig 12i–m) confirm the pronounced and asymmetric nature of the blunt with the formation of a flat on the cortical face (Fig 12k). The retouch was probably done to restore some sharpness to the edge (Fig 12m). Internal cracks are also visible on the opposite edge, adjacent to the fracture that probably caused the fragment to detach from its original tool. The multiple "star-shaped" crack could be related to a percussion point (Fig 12h, D).

750

751

## Smooth-ended tool

752

753

## Morphometry

754

755

756

757

One of the faunal remains under study shows at its distal end a blunt that is characteristic of use (S4 Text, S8 File). It is a portion of the mesial part of a large ungulate rib (L. = 9.44 cm; W. = 1.68 cm; cortical Th. = 0,3 cm). The tool, rather brittle, was collected in several fragments
758

that were glued back together. Three quarters of the lower face is missing, while the proximal
extremity is a recent break (Fig 13).

759

760

761

**Fig 13. Smoothed-end tool, n°2020, from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.** (a) blunted bending fracture at the distal extremity. (b) striations from use on the ventral face at the distal extremity. (c) scraping striations on the cranial face (photos: M. Baumann).

762

763

764

765

**External modifications**

766

767

Intense scraping is visible on the dorsal, ventral, and cranial faces of the rib fragment (Fig 13c). At one extremity, a blunt covers a bending fracture that reveals the cancellous tissue (Fig 13a). At this location, the junction between the ventral surface and cancellous tissue is a flat surface (Fig 14c), whereas the junction between the dorsal surface and cancellous tissue is smoother and shows micro-flakes and tears (Fig 14d). At the top, the rounded compact surface is marked by indentations and micro-flaks (Fig 14a–b). Over the entire surface, the micro-flaks and indentations are partially covered by the blunt area. The latter is associated, on the dorsal and ventral faces, with striations, shorter than the scraping striations but always more or less parallel to the main axis (Fig 13b).

768

769

770

771

772

773

774

775

776

777

**Fig 14. µCT imaging of a smoothed-end tool, n°2020, from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.** (a–b) rounded and compacted surface marked by indentations and micro-flakes at the distal end. (c) flat surface at the junction between the ventral surface and the cancellous tissue. (d) micro-flakes and pull-outs on a smoothed surface at the junction between the dorsal surface and the cancellous tissue. (e–g) frontal, sagittal and transvers cross-sections showing a possible crack of use.

778

779

780

781

782
783

784

785

786

787

788

789

790

791

792

793

794

795

796

## Internal damage

797

798

799

800

801

802

803

804

805

806

807

Experimentally, the sharpness of a bone edge decreases quite rapidly during its use, but its loss of matter is minimal unless the material being worked is abrasive. Macroscopic blunting of a sharp irregular bone edge cannot result from scraping soft organic material (e.g., skin, leather, bark). The latter would be ripped or pierced before a blunt had developed. The bluntness of the bending fracture and the nearly spherical shape of the extremity of the rib examined (Fig 14f), which is not in the progressive extension of the rib sides, indicate shaping by abrasion. The chronological relationship between this shaping, the scraping of the sides and the use-wear traces is unclear. The indentations and micro-flakes leveling may precede the final shaping stage, due to the semi-secant character of the various surfaces of the distal extremity. Perhaps are we dealing with the rejuvenation of a tip previously deformed by use? This combination of features is close to those of pressure flakers [158–162].

The active part of this rib segment results from a combination of shaping and use-wear. Abrasion shaping induces compressive stress, first applied randomly to the surface roughness. Once the roughness is reduced, the stress is distributed more evenly over a larger contact area which reduces the pressure. This shaping does not *a priori* induce internal cracks and micro-cracks. Conversely, indentations and micro-flakes are the consequence of a point stress that has exceeded the elastic deformation capacity of the bone and is likely to produce internal damage. On the µCT cross-sections, the rib shows several transverse and longitudinal cracks. In its mesial and proximal parts, the through-cracks follow the same orientation as those that caused the post-depositional fragmentation. They always develop perpendicular to the cortical surface toward the cancellous tissue. At the active part, the only crack detected originates at one edge
808

and traverses the cortical tissue toward the opposite edge and not toward the cancellous tissue (Fig 14g). This could be due to a different formation dynamic. In addition, this crack starts from an indentation (Fig 14e) and follows the same orientation as the micro-flake on the opposite side (Fig 14f). It could therefore result from the same type of stress as the latter.

809

810

811

812

813

## Discussion

814

815

## Towards an outline of the Neanderthal bone industry

816

817

Our main study objective was to identify, in the western side of the Neanderthal expansion zone, evidence of a common use of bone as a raw material for tool making, as we did in the easternmost part in the Chagyrskaya Cave (Siberia, Russia). The identification of 103 bone tools among the 3220 faunal remains from the first two new campaigns at the Chez-Pinaud site provides such evidence. This number of tools is quite large given the small area currently excavated (7m²), but more significantly, it is equivalent to the number of lithic tools (N=109).

818

819

820

821

822

823

Of the 103 bone tools, 83 are bone retouchers, similar to those previously identified at this site and comparable to those found in many Mousterian assemblages across Eurasia. The originality lies within the 20 additional tools used for other purposes: as wedge/chisel, lateral cutting edges and, perhaps, pressure flaker. The Quina groups that occupied the Chez-Pinaud site thus produced a variety of tools for different tasks. Although bone tools are much more numerous at Chagyrskaya Cave [7], coming from a larger excavated area, the distribution of different categories is more or less the same, with a large majority of retouchers (88% at Chez-Pinaud; 94% at Chagyrskaya) followed by tools with lateral retouch (6.3% and 9.7%), beveled tools (4.7% and 6.8%), and smooth-ended tools (1.8% and 2%), with respectively 8.7% and 6.8%

824

825

826

827

828

829

830

831
832

multi-use tools. These four types, although disparately, have been already reported, from other
Mousterian sites, such as Axlor ("retocadores," "cincel," "hueso retocado," "alisador" [36]) and
Combe-Grenal ("retouchoirs", "outils façonnés par percussion," "pièces esquillées," "pièces à
extrémités émoussées" [28]).

833

834

835

836

837

838

839

840

841

842

843

844

845

846

847

848

849

850

851

852

853

854

855

856

It is not yet possible at this early stage of the study to determine whether the tool blanks
are the result of integrated debitage within the food fracturing, a distinct operative sequence, or
an opportunistic later collection. A study of the variability of bone processing (by species and
anatomical elements) and an assessment of the degree of control over the morphometry of the
blanks remains to be carried out. However, obtaining proper edge angles without controlled
fracturing seems unlikely, leaving the question open. A trend is apparent in the characteristics
of the blanks used. Long bones from large size ungulates (horse, bison) were mainly selected
and a strong selection was made on the remains of medium size ungulates (reindeer), showing
a clear preference for the largest size and/or the densest fragments. This preference is also very
clear at the Chagyrskaya Cave, where more than 80% of the bone blanks are from large size
ungulates, whereas they account for only 52% of the ungulate remains (NISP) from the
Micoquian deposits [163]. More broadly, this pattern is consistent with the selection observed
in Mousterian assemblages for the retouchers [138,144,164–168].

The shaping of the tools is clearly attested. It is mainly concentrated on the active parts.

Scraping marks are visible on the active area of about 23% of the bone retouchers, a proportion
close to those of the bone retouchers from the Quina deposits of De Nadale (17%) [168] and
Les Pradelles (18%) [144]. Scraping was used to shape and/or clean the smooth-ended rib, while
abrasion was used to shape and/or rejuvenate the tip. Only one specimen from the Chez-Pinaud
site is currently available, but other smooth-ended ribs shaped by scraping and/or abrasion have
already been reported in Middle Paleolithic assemblages dated between 75 and 45 ka ago, including those from Abri Peyrony and Pech de l'Azé [30], La Quina [41], Axlor [36], Zaskalnaya VI [21] (S3 Table, S3 Fig) or Lartet [169]. Within the Quina levels of Chez-Pinaud, direct percussion is widely applied, for shaping or resharpening the lateral edges and bevels and, possibly, for shaping out the prehensile parts. Among ancient bone artifacts, the most frequently reported are those that were retouched, although only the least questionable specimens, deeply transformed, are illustrated, such as the elephant bones bifaces [170] (S4 Table, S4 Fig). Following Anne Vincent's conclusions on the Charente Mousterian deposits [32], we note, at Chez-Pinaud and Chagyrskya, the tendency to limit the retouch to only a few removals, necessary and sufficient to make the active edge effective. A beveled artefact raises the question of the production of bone bladelets from core-like blanks. The evidence is tenuous but consistent with some of the bone artefacts from Chagyrskaya: burin-like tools (Fig 15d), possible bone core (Fig 15e) and bone bladelets (Fig 15c).

**Fig 15.** Micoquian bone industry from the Chagyrskaya cave, Russian federation, 2008–2018 excavations. (a) bone tool with negatives of lamellar removals. (b) detail of a burin-like removal negative. (c) bone bladelet. (d) burin-like tool. (e) possible bone nuclei. (f) negatives of lamellar removals (photos: M. Baumann).

## A functional diversity to be explored

Bone retouchers form a homogeneous functional category, i.e., light hammers for retouching lithic edges. In US22, bone retouchers appear to be primarily dedicated to resharpening side scrapers during carcass processing. Waste from shaping and resharpening scrapers was primarily done with a soft hammer [65], and, among the removals, those related
882

to maintenance dominate, while traceological analyses shows that the side scrapers were used
to cut meat and hide [171], but a more precise correlation could be drawn between bone
retouchers groups and specific knapping tasks [138,144,148]. For this purpose, the information
provided by external damage and tools morphometry, on which Costamagno et al.'s bone
retouchers groups are based [144], could be supplemented by internal damage detected by µCT.

883

884

885

886

887

In particular, the cracks that developed under the scores areas can provide gesture information
that would identify, for example, the bone retouchers used for the Quina retouch [149].

888

889

Among the beveled tools, the diversity in active edges (dimensions, position, front
delineation etc.) and the distribution of use-wear traces, suggest that these tools were used in a
significant diversity of tasks, involving different worked materials: soft, when blunted and
without chippings, harder, when chipped with limited bluntness. The short length of complete
specimens, the frequency of short and transverse shaft fractures, and the modification of the
handling part of one of the tools could argue for the use of handles [110], as already
demonstrated for Middle Paleolithic lithic tools [172] Handles, which improve the efficiency
(accuracy and force) [173], are generally regarded as a significant investment of time and
energy [174], as well as an essential step in the technological evolution [175,176]. However, a
wooden clamp and leather strap as we have done experimentally is not a great investment.

890

891

892

893

894

895

896

897

898

899

900

Based on its mechanical properties, the bone responds favorably to experimental
knapping. Edge shaping by percussion does not necessarily mean the placement of an active
part. This may explain the heterogeneity in retouched tools, both in terms of morphometry and
retouch quality. In all cases, the retouch was performed on thick blanks and the removals,
preferentially on the medullary face, seem to be limited to what is strictly necessary. Two active
edge fragments provide functional clues. Both were used on soft material, one for cutting and

901

902

903

904

905

906
907

the other for scraping. In the latter, we observe that the pattern of internal damage can indeed
change as a function of the stress experienced. Technical advantages of bone cutting edges, at
a site where flint is abundant, remains to be understood.

908

909

910

911

Smooth-ended tools, particularly rib tool, are often considered as hide working
[29,30,36,154,177], due to the regular rounded shape of the active extremities that can be
interpreted as resulting from significant contact with a soft worked material. In our study, the
Chez-Pinaud rib shows external and internal damage from a point contact area with a material
harder than bone, with the regular rounded active edge being the result of shaping. The
Chagyrskaya deposits have yielded, at least, two tools with similar characteristics [7].
Experimentally, many tasks can lead to the blunting [178]. It should be kept in mind that such
task diversity could exist in the Middle Paleolithic.

912

913

914

915

916

917

918

919

920

Understanding the role of bone tools in technical systems

921

922

923

924

925

926

927

928

929

930

931

The recurrence of bone tool types with distinct potential functionalities in the US22
from Chez-Pinaud, together with that of the Micoquian assemblage from Chagyrskaya and the
occasional report of similar tools from numerous Middle Paleolithic sites, suggests that these
elements had a specific role to play in the pre-Upper Paleolithic technical systems and that their
apparent simplicity is not synonymous with opportunism. The equivalent proportions of bone
and lithic tools in a task specific location, such as Chez-Pinaud, allows us to consider that the
two productions had a technical synchrony. While the complementarity between the bone
retouchers and the sharp lithic edges is fairly obvious in a site dedicated to carcass processing,
the other functional categories of bone tools reflect a broader range of related activities that
may have taken place at the site. The functional spectrum of the Quina flint industry is limited,
932

as it relies on a low diversity of tool types, mostly short, often thick, lacking the pointed shapes
of the biface or Levallois industries. Bone provides elongated shapes, sometimes with minimal
preparation (ribs), while its resistance to impact and relative elasticity make it better suited to
certain tasks than flint. Such complementarity is not specific to Middle Paleolithic, but it
appears all the more necessary in a technical context such as that of the Quina Mousterian.

933

934

935

936

937

938

Whatever the system considered, its functioning necessarily requires a certain stability
despite its internal constraints (or contradictions) [179], which are predictable, and external
which are fluctuating. Having a low-cost solution for the execution of an essential task meets
this stability requirement. Possibly this is what using an easily renewable by-product of a central
recurring resource provides. Nevertheless, at Chez-Pinaud the selection of diaphysis and ribs
from the large size ungulates, as well as the larger modules from medium size ungulates,
suggests that the raw material for tools making was not so abundant to cover all needs that the
production of blanks could depend on random fracturing. For skilled flint knappers accustomed
also to breaking bone, obtaining bone fragments of predefined shape and edge angulation was
certainly not a concern. A diversity in Mousterian bone breakage pattern has been recently
evidenced [180] which may not be linked with marrow recovering only. This is a technological
topic to be investigated in itself, as M. Mozota Holgueras advised for retouchers [181].

939

940

941

942

943

944

945

946

947

948

949

950

951

Nearly 20% of the pieces show evidence of re-use, with use as a retoucher being the
most recent. This opens up the notion of blank management. Although robust, the thickness of
the horse and bison bone blanks, not to mention reindeer, did not allow for successive and
alternative forms as observed for lithic tools circulating from site to site [65]. This intrinsic
limitation, coupled with the recurrent availability of bones, means that the bone tools discussed

952

953

954

955
956

here were likely produced, used and discarded in situ, as has been described elsewhere for
certain categories of lithic tools [182].

957

958

959

Conclusion

960

961

From the Altai to the Atlantic shore, through a multitude of sites where only a few
objects have been reported so far, evidence of a Neanderthal bone industry is emerging,
probably with ancient roots [183,184]. Its invisibility, even in the most recent synthesis
published on Neanderthal [185], is probably due in part to ill-defined categorizations in which
aesthetic and ideological anthropocentric criteria inherited from the last century are still
combined. It is also related to a compartmentalization between the fields of expertise necessary
for its identification: at Chez-Pinaud site, bone tools other than the retouchers are only
highlighted in the part of US22 currently studied. Nevertheless, regardless of the cognitive
value attributed to the use of bone material and its transformation techniques [169], bone tools
shed light on related technical registers that are little or not documented through lithic tools and
provides complementary information on Middle Paleolithic subsistence strategies. There is thus
a promising avenue of research to be further explored.

962

963

964

965

966

967

968

969

970

971

972

973

974

Acknowledgments

975

The Chez-Pinaud excavation is under the supervision of the Service Régional
d'Archéologie of Nouvelle Aquitaine, Poitiers. We are grateful to the Conseil Général of the
Charente-Maritime for its support. The field work will not be possible without the major help
of the Communauté de Commune de Haute Saintonge and Jonzac Municipality. We thank the
two reviewers whose comments contributed to the improvement of this article.

976

977

978

979
980

981

Declarations

982

No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations

983

984

References

985

1. Mellars P. Major Issues in the Emergence of Modern Humans. Curr Anthropol. 1989;30: 349–385.

986

987

2. Klein RG. Anatomy, Behavior, and Modern Human Origins. J World Prehistory. 1995;9: 167–198.

988

989

3. Bar-Yosef O. The Upper Paleolithic Revolution. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2002;31: 363–393.

990

991

4. d'Errico F. The invisible frontier. A multiple species model for the origin of behavioral modernity. Evol Anthropol. 2003;12: 188–202.

992

993

5. Henshilwood CS, Marean CW. The origin of modern Human behavior: Critique of the models and their test implications. Curr Anthropol. 2003;44: 627–651. doi:10.1086/377665

994

995

996

6. Zilhão J. The Emergence of Ornaments and Art: An Archaeological Perspective on the Origins of “Behavioral Modernity.” J Archaeol Res. 2007;15: 1–54.

997

998

7. Baumann M, Plisson H, Rendu W, Maury S, Kolobova K, Krivoshapkin A. The Neandertal bone industry at Chagyrskaya cave, Altai Region, Russia. Quat Int. 2020;559: 68–88. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2020.06.019

1000
1001 8. Kolobova KA, Roberts RG, Chabai VP, Jacobs Z, Krajcarz MT, Shalagina AV, et al. Archaeological evidence for two separate dispersals of Neanderthals into southern Siberia. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117: 2879-2885. doi:10.1073/pnas.1918047117

1004 9. Mafessoni F, Grote S, de Filippo C, Slon V, Kolobova KA, Viola B, et al. A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Chagyrskaya Cave. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117: 15132-15136. doi:10.1073/pnas.2004944117

1007 10. d'Errico F, Julien M, Liolios D, Baffier D, Vanhaeren M, Constantin C, et al. Les poinçons en os des couches châtelperroniennes et aurignaciennes de la grotte du Renne (Arcy-sur-Cure, Yonne): comparaisons technologiques, fonctionnelles et décor. In: Bodu P, Constantin C, editors. XXVe Congrès Préhistorique de France. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française; 2004. pp. 45-65.

1012 11. d'Errico F, Borgia V, Ronchitelli A. Uluzzian bone technology and its implications for the origin of behavioural modernity. Quat Int. 2012;259: 59-71. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.03.039

1015 12. Gravina B, Bachellerie F, Caux S, Discamps E, Faivre J-P, Galland A, et al. No reliable evidence for a Neanderthal-Châtelperronian association at La Roche-à-Pierrot, Saint-Césaire. Sci Rep. 2018;8: 1-12.

1018 13. Baumann M, Kozlikin MB, Plisson H, Shunkov MV. Early Upper Paleolithic Unshaped Bone Tools from the Southern Chamber of Denisova Cave. Probl Archaeol Ethnogr Anthropol Sib Neighboring Territ. 2017;23: 50-54.

1021 14. Baumann M, Fedorchenko AYu, Kozlikin MB, Plisson H, Shunkov MV. The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Bone Tools from South Chamber of Denisova Cave. Probl Archaeol Ethnogr Anthropol Sib Neighboring Territ. 2018;24: 33-35.
1024 15. Kozlikin MB, Rendu W, Plisson H, Baumann M, Shunkov MV. Unshaped Bone Tools
1025 from Denisova Cave, Altai. Archaeol Ethnol Anthropol Eurasia. 2020;48: 16–28.
doi:10.17746/1563-0110.2020.48.1.016-028

1027 16. Prüfer K, Racimo F, Patterson N, Jay F, Sankararaman S, Sawyer S, et al. The complete
1028 genome sequence of a Neanderthal from the Altai Mountains. Nature. 2014;505: 43–49.
doi:10.1038/nature12886

1030 17. Slon V, Hopfe C, Weiß CL, Mafessoni F, de la Rasilla M, Lalueza-Fox C, et al.
1031 Neandertal and Denisovan DNA from Pleistocene sediments. Science. 2017;356: 605–
1032 608. doi:10.1126/science.aam9695

1033 18. Stepanchuk VN. Prolom II, a Middle Palaeolithic Cave Site in the Eastern Crimea with
1034 Non-Utilitarian Bone Artefacts. Proc Prehist Soc. 1993;59: 17–37.
1035 doi:10.1017/S0079497X0000373X

1036 19. Бонч-Осмоловский ГА. Палеолит Крыма: Грот Киик-Коба. Вып. 1. Изд-во
1037 Академии наук СССР; 1940.

1038 20. Burke A, d'Errico F. A Middle Palaeolithic bone tool from Crimea (Ukraine). Antiquity.
1039 2008;82: 843–852. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00097611

1040 21. Stepanchuk VN, Vasilyev SV, Khaldeeva NI, Kharlamova NV, Borutskaya SB. The last
1041 Neanderthals of Eastern Europe: Micoquian layers IIIa and III of the site of Zaskalnaya
1042 VI (Kolosovskaya), anthropological records and context. Quat Int. 2017;428: 132–150.
1043 doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.042

1044 22. Laroulandie V, d'Errico F. Worked bones from Buran-Kaya III level C and their
taphonomic context. In: Chabai V, Monigal K, Marks A editors. The Paleolithic of
1046 Crimea, III, The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea.

1047 Liège: ERAUL; 2004.pp. 83–94.

1048 23. Neruda P. Economic behavior and mental capacity of Neanderthals. In: Fridrichová-

1049 Sýkorová I, editor. Ecce Homo In memoriam Jan Fridrich. Praha: Krigl; 2010. pp. 111–

1050 129.

1051 24. Gaudzinski S. Middle Palaeolithic Bone Tools from the Open-Air Site Salzgitter-

1052 Lebenstedt (Germany). J Archaeol Sci. 1999;26: 125–141. doi:10.1006/jasc.1998.0311

1053 25. Demay L, Péan S, Patou-Mathis M. Mammoths used as food and building resources by

1054 Neanderthals: Zooarchaeological study applied to layer 4, Molodova I (Ukraine). Quat

1055 Int. 2012;276–277: 212–226. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.11.019

1056 26. Hardy M, Bouchard GP, Doyon L. Un outil en os à usages multiples dans un contexte

1057 moustérien. Bull Société Préhistorique Fr. 2014;111: 741–744.

1058 27. Bordes F. Typologie du paléolithique ancien et moyen. Bordeaux: Delmas; 1961.

1059 Available: https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k33368868

1060 28. Tartar E, Costamagno S. L’utilisation des matières osseuses au Moustérien. In: Turq A,

1061 Faivre J-P, Maureille B, Lahaye C, Bayle P, editors. Néandertal à la loupe. Les Eyzies-

1062 de-Tayac: Musée national de Préhistoire; 2016. pp. 89–97.

1063 29. Tartar E, Legrand-Pineau A, Claud E, Costamagno S, Discamps E, Faivre J-P. Informal

1064 But Specialized: Mousterian Bone Hideworking Tools from Combe-Grenal (Dordogne,

1065 France). PaleoAnthropology. 2022;2. doi:10.48738/2022.iss2.112

1066 30. Soressi M, McPherron SP, Lenoir M, Dogandžić T, Goldberg P, Jacobs Z, et al.

1067 Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. Proc Natl Acad Sci.

1068 2013;110: 14186–14190. doi:10.1073/pnas.1302730110
1069 31. Debénath A, Duport L. Os travaillés et os utilisés de quelques gisements préhistoriques charentais (Paléolithique ancien et moyen). Bull Société Archéologique Hist Charente.
1070 1971;1971: 189-202.
1071

1072 32. Vincent A. L'outillage osseux au paléolithique moyen : une nouvelle approche. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris 10. 1993.
1073

1074 33. Oulad El Kaïd C. L'exploitation des matières osseuses au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen : l'exemple de la grotte du Noisetier (Fréchet-Aure, Hautes-Pyrénées). Mémoire de Master, Université de Toulouse Jean-Jaurès. 2016.
1075
1076

1077 34. Patou-Mathis M. Etude taphonomique et palethnographique de la faune de l'Abri des Canalettes. In: Meignen L, editor. L'Abri des Canalettes. Paris: CNRS; 1993. pp. 199-237.
1078
1079

1080 35. Tartar E. The recognition of a new type of bone tools in Early Aurignacian assemblages: implications for understanding the appearance of osseous technology in Europe. J Archaeol Sci. 2012;39: 2348-2360. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.02.003
1081
1082

1083 36. Mozota Holgueras M. El hueso como materia prima: el utillaje óseo del final del musteriense en el sector central del norte de la península ibérica. Tesis, Universidad de Cantabria. 2012.
1084
1085

1086 37. Blasco R, Rosell J, Cuartero F, Peris JF, Gopher A, Barkai R. Using Bones to Shape Stones: MIS 9 Bone Retouchers at Both Edges of the Mediterranean Sea. PLOS ONE.
1087
1088

1089 38. Garrido Pimentel D, Mozota Holgueras M, Garate D. Industria ósea y ornamentos de los niveles del Paleolítico medio antiguo y Paleolítico superior de La cueva de Arlanpe (Lemoa, Bizkaia). In: Rios-Garaizar J, Garate Maidagan D, Gómez-Olivencia A,
1090
1091
1092 editors. La cueva de Arlanpe (Lemoa): Ocupaciones humanas desde el Paleolítico
1093 Medio Antiguo hasta la Prehistoria Reciente. Bilbao: Diputación Foral de Bizkaia;
1094 2013.

1095 39. Rosell J, Cáceres I, Blasco R, Bennàsar M, Bravo P, Campeny G, et al. A
1096 zooarchaeological contribution to establish occupational patterns at Level J of Abric
1097 Romaní (Barcelona, Spain). Quat Int. 2012;247: 69-84.
1098 doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2011.01.020

1099 40. Romandini M, Cristiani E, Peresani M. A retouched bone shaft from the Late
1100 Mousterian at Fumane cave (Italy). Technological, experimental and micro-wear
1101 analysis. Comptes Rendus Palevol. 2015;14: 63-72. doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2014.08.001

1102 41. Henri-Martin L. Recherches sur l'évolution du moustérien dans le gisement de La Quina
1103 (Charente). Paris: Schleicher Frères; 1907. Available:
1104 https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9615893h

1105 42. Pittard E. De l'origine du Travail de l'os chez les Paléolithiques. Bull Mém Société
1106 Anthropol Paris. 1907;8: 65-72. doi:10.3406/bmsap.1907.6980

1107 43. Daniel R. Note sur les niveaux aurignaciens et moustériens de la grotte de Tourtoirac
1108 (Dordogne). Bull Société Préhistorique Fr. 1932;29: 527-528.
1109 doi:10.3406/bspf.1932.5662

1110 44. Veyrier M, Combier J. L'industrie osseuse moustérienne de la grotte Néron à Soyons
1111 (Ardèche). L'Anthropologie. 1952;56: 583-585.

1112 45. Texier P-J. L'industrie moustérienne de l'abri Pié-Lombard (Tourettes-sur-Loup,
1113 Alpes-Maritimes). Bull Société Préhistorique Fr. 1974;71: 429-448.
1114 doi:10.3406/bspf.1974.8277
1115 46. Freeman LG, Freeman LG. Mousterian Worked Bone from Cueva Morin (Santander, Spain): A Preliminary Description. Views of the Past. La Hague: De Gruyter; 1978. pp. 29–52. doi:10.1515/9783110800074.29

1118 47. Defleur A. Contribution à la connaissance de l'industrie osseuse du Paléolithique moyen. Bull Société Préhistorique Fr. 1988;85: 138–140. doi:10.3406/bspf.1988.9334

1120 48. Sutcliffe AJ. Similarity of Bones and Antlers gnawed by Deer to Human Artefacts. Nature. 1973;246: 428–430. doi:10.1038/246428a0

1122 49. Shipman P, Phillips-Conroy J. Hominid tool-making versus carnivore scavenging. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1977;46: 77–86. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330460111

1124 50. Binford LR. Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths. San Diego: Academic Press; 1981.

1126 51. Shipman P, Rose JJ. Bone tools: an experimental approach, Scanning electron microscopy in archaeology. In: Olsen SL, editor. Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology. Oxford: BAR; 1988. pp. 303–335.

1129 52. Haynes G. Mammoths, Mastodonts, and Elephants: Biology, Behavior and the Fossil Record. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991.

1131 53. Chase PG, Armand D, Debénath A, Dibble H, Jelinek AJ. Taphonomy and Zooarchaeology of a Mousterian Faunal Assemblage from La Quina, Charente, France. J Field Archaeol. 1994;21: 289–305. doi:10.2307/530332

1134 54. Villa P, Bartram L. Flaked bone from a hyena den. Paléo. 1996;8: 143–159. doi:10.3406/pal.1996.910

1136 55. Villa P, d'Errico F. Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. J Hum Evol. 2001;41: 69–112. doi:10.1006/jhev.2001.0479
1138

56. Backwell LR, d'Errico F. Evidence of termite foraging by Swartkrans early hominids.

1139

Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98: 1358-1363. doi:10.1073/pnas.98.4.1358

1140

57. Backwell L, d'Errico F. The origin of bone tool technology and the identification of early hominid cultural traditions. In: d'Errico F, Backwell L, editors. From Tools to Symbols: From Early Hominids to Modern Humans. Johannesburg: Wits University Press; 2005. pp. 238-275.

1141

1142

1143

1144

58. Villa P, Castel J-C, Beauval C, Bourdillat V, Goldberg P. Human and carnivore sites in the European Middle and Upper Paleolithic: Similarities and differences in bone modification and fragmentation. Rev Paleobiologie. 2004;23: 705-730.

1145

1146

1147

59. Vincent A. Préliminaires expérimentaux du façonnage de l'os par percussion directe, quelques reproductions d'artefacts reconnus dans des niveaux du Paléolithique moyen. In: Aguirre E, Patou-Mathis M, editors. Outillage peu Élaboré en Os et en Bois de Cervidés. Viroinval: CEDA; 1985. pp. 23-32.

1148

1149

1150

1151

60. Rosell J, Blasco R, Fernández Peris J, Carbonell E, Barkai R, Gopher A. Recycling bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain), Bolomor Cave (Spain) and Qesem Cave (Israel). Quat Int. 2015;361: 297-312. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.009

1152

1153

1154

1155

61. Johnson E. Current Developments in Bone Technology. Adv Archaeol Method Theory. 1985;8: 157-235.

1156

1157

62. Niven L, Steele TE, Rendu W, Mallye J-B, McPherron SP, Soressi M, et al. Neandertal mobility and large-game hunting: The exploitation of reindeer during the Quina Mousterian at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France). J Hum Evol. 2012;63: 624-635. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2012.07.002

1158

1159

1160
1161 63. Jaubert J, Hublin J-J, Mcpherron S, Soressi M, Bordes J-G, Claud E, et al. Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien à Jonzac (Charente-Maritime) : Premiers résultats des campagnes 2004-2006. In: Jaubert J, Bordes J-G, Ortega I, editors. Les Sociétés Paléolithiques dans un Grand Sud-Ouest de la France, Nouveaux Gisements, Nouveaux Résultats, Nouvelles Méthodes. Paris: Société Préhistorique Française; 2008. pp. 203-243.

1167 64. Airvaux J. Le site Paléolithique de Chez-Pinaud à Jonzac, Charente-Maritime : Etude sur la coupe gauche. Cressensac: Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest; 2004.

1169 65. Soressi M. Les industries des niveaux du Paléolithique moyen. L 'industrie lithique des niveaux moustériens (fouilles 1998-99). Aspects taphonomiques, économiques et technologiques. In: Airvaux J, editor. Le Site Paléolithique de Chez-Pinaud à Jonzac, Charente-Maritime : Premiers Résultats, Etudes sur la Coupe Gauche. Cressensac: Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest; 2004. pp. 79-95.

1174 66. Delagnes A, Rendu W. Shifts in Neandertal mobility, technology and subsistence strategies in western France. J Archaeol Sci. 2011;38: 1771-1783.
doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.04.007

1177 67. Delpech F, Donard E, Gilbert A, Guadelli J-L, Gall O, Martini-Jacquin A, et al. Contribution à la lecture des paléoclimats quaternaires d'après les données de la Paléontologie en milieu continental. Bull Institu Géologie Bassin Aquitaine. 1983;34: 165_177.

1181 68. Discamps E. Hommes et hyènes face aux recompositions des communautés d'Ongulés (MIS 5-3) : Éléments pour un cadre paléoécologique des sociétés du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur ancien d'Europe de l'Ouest. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Bordeaux I. 2011. Available: https://theses.hal.science/tel-00671035
1185 69. Binford LR. Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Am Antiq. 1980;45: 4-20. doi:10.2307/279653

1187 70. Rendu W, Kolobova KA, Shnaider S. Chez-Pinaud (Commune de Jonzac, Charentes Maritimes). Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux I; 2019.

1189 71. Fernandez-Jalvo Y, Andrews P. Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2016. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-7432-1

1191 72. Behrensmeyer AK. Taphonomic and Ecologic Information from Bone Weathering. Paleobiology. 1978;4: 150-162.

1193 73. Richter D, Hublin J-J, Jaubert J, McPherron SP, Soressi M, Texier J-P. Thermoluminescence dates for the Middle Palaeolithic site of Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (France). J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40: 1176-1185. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.09.003

1196 74. Семенов СА. Первобытная техника, опыт изучения древнейших орудий и изделий по следам работы. Москва, Ленинград: Академия Наук СССР; 1957.

1198 75. Semenov SA. Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. London: Cory, Adams & Mackay; 1964.

1201 76. Stordeur D. Proposition de classement des objets en os selon le degré de transformation imposé à la matière première. Bull Société Préhistorique Fr. 1978;75: 20-23.

1203 77. Billamboz A. Les vestiges en bois de cervidés dans les gisements de l'époque Holocène, Essai d'identification de la ramure et de ses composantes pour l'étude technologique et l'interprétation palethnographique. In: Camps-Fabrer H, editor. L'industrie en Os et Bois de Cervidé durant le Néolithique et l'Âge des Métaux. Paris: CNRS; 1979. pp. 93-129.
1208 78. Liolios D. Variabilité et caractéristiques du travail des matières osseuses au début de l'Aurignacien : approche technologique et économique. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris 10. 1999.

1211 79. Averbouh A, Provenzano N. Propositions pour une terminologie du travail préhistorique des matières osseuses: I - Les techniques. Préhistoire Anthropol Méditerranéenne. 1998;7-8: 5-26.

1214 80. Averbouh A. Technologie de la matière osseuse travaillée et implications palethnologiques: l'exemple des chaînes d'exploitation du bois de cervidé chez les Magdaléniens des Pyrénées. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris 1. 2000.

1217 81. David E. Technologie osseuse des derniers chasseurs préhistoriques en Europe du Nord (Xe-VIIIe millénaires avant J.-C.), Le Maglemosien et les technocomplexes du Mésolithique. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris 10. 2004.

1220 82. Rigaud A. Langue de bois...de renne, Observations artisanales et technologiques sur certains termes relatifs au travail du bois de renne et des matières dures animales. In: Desbrosse R, Thévenin A, editors. Arts et Cultures de la Préhistoire, Hommage à Henri Delporte. Paris: CTHS; 2007. pp. 275-301.

1224 83. Campana DV. An analysis of the use-wear patterns on Natufian and Protoneolithic bone implements. Thesis, Columbia University. 1980.

1226 84. Stordeur D, Anderson-Gerfaud PC. Les omoplates encochées néolithiques de Ganj Dareh (Iran), Etude morphologique et fonctionnelle. Cah Euphrate. 1985;4: 289-313.

1228 85. Sidéra I. Les assemblages osseux en bassins parisien et rhénan du VIe au IVe millénaire B. C. : histoire, techno-économie et culture. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris 1. 1993.
1231 86. LeMoine GM. Use Wear Analysis on Bone and Antler Tools of the Mackenzie Inuit.

1232 Oxford: BAR; 1997.

1233 87. Christidou R. Outils en os néolithiques du Nord de la Grèce : études technologique.

1234 Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris 10. 1999.

1235 88. Maigrot Y. Etude technologique et fonctionnelle de l'outillage en matières dures

1236 animales La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Thèse de doctorat,

1237 Université de Paris I. 2003.

1238 89. Legrand A. Nouvelle approche méthodologique des assemblages osseux du Néolithique

1239 de Chypre : entre technique, fonction et culture. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris

1240 1. 2005.

1241 90. Griffitts J. Bone Tools and Technological Choice: Change and Stability on the Northern

1242 Plains. Thesis, University of Arozina. 2006. Available:

1243 https://repository.arizona.edu/handle/10150/195929

1244 91. Buc N. Tecnología ósea de cazadores-recolectores del humedal del Paraná inferior

1245 (Bajíos Ribereños meridionales). Tesis, Universidad de Buenos Aires. 2010.

1246 92. Brain CK. Bone weathering and the problem of bone pseudo-tools. South Afr J Sci.

1247 1967;33: 97–99. doi:10.10520/AJA0000008_15

1248 93. Shipman P. Life History of a Fossil: An Introduction to Taphonomy and Paleoecology.

1249 Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1981.

1250 94. Lyman RL. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.

1251 doi:10.1017/CBO9781139878302

1252 95. Fisher JW. Bone surface modifications in zooarchaeology. J Archaeol Method Theory.

1253 1995;2: 7–68. doi:10.1007/BF02228434
1254 96. Bonnichsen R. Pleistocene Bone Technology in the Beringian Refugium. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press; 1979. doi:10.2307/j.ctv16vr2

1256 97. Haynes G. Frequencies of Spiral and Green-Bone Fractures on Ungulate Limb Bones in Modern Surface Assemblages. Am Antiq. 1983;48: 102–114. doi:10.2307/279822

1258 98. Villa P, Mahieu E. Breakage patterns of human long bones. J Hum Evol. 1991;21: 27–48. doi:10.1016/0047-2484(91)90034-S

1260 99. Outram AK. Bone fracture and within-bone nutrients: an experimentally based method for investigating levels of marrow extraction. In: Miracle PT, Milner N, editors. Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption. Cambridge: McDonald institute for Archaeological Research; 2002. pp. 51–63.

1264 100. Karr LP, Outram AK. Bone Degradation and Environment: Understanding, Assessing and Conducting Archaeological Experiments Using Modern Animal Bones. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2015;25: 201–212. doi:10.1002/oa.2275

1267 101. Sadek-Kooros H. Primitive Bone Fracturing: A Method of Research. Am Antiq. 1972;37: 369–382. doi:10.2307/278436

1269 102. Morlan RE. Spiral fractures on limb bones: Which ones are artificial? In: LeMoine GM, Scott MacEachern A, editors. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Chacmool Conference. Calgary: University of Calgary; 1983. pp. 241–269.

1272 103. Blumenschine RJ, Selvaggio MM. Percussion marks on bone surfaces as a new diagnostic of hominid behaviour. Nature. 1988;333: 763–765. doi:10.1038/333763a0

1274 104. Pickering TR, Egeland CP. Experimental patterns of hammerstone percussion damage on bones: Implications for inferences of carcass processing by humans. J Archaeol Sci. 2006;33: 459–469. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2005.09.001
1277 105.Galán AB, Rodríguez M, de Juana S, Domínguez-Rodrigo M. A new experimental study on percussion marks and notches and their bearing on the interpretation of hammerstone-broken faunal assemblages. J Archaeol Sci. 2009;36: 776-784. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2008.11.003

1281 106.Henri-Martin L. Maillets ou enclumes en os provenant de la couche moustérienne de la Quina (Charente). Bull Société Préhistorique Fr. 1906;3: 155-162. doi:10.3406/bspf.1906.11456

1284 107.Huston JM, García-Moreno A, Noack ES, Turner E, Villaluenga A, Gaudzinski-Windheuser S. The origins of bone tool technologies. Mainz: RGZM; 2018. Available: https://books.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/index.php/propylaeum/catalog/book/408

1287 108.Deffarge R, Laurent P, Sonneville-Bordes D de. Ciseaux ou lissoirs magdaléniens. Bull Société Préhistorique Fr. 1974;71: 85-96. doi:10.3406/bspf.1974.8301

1289 109.Camps-Fabrer H, Cattelain P, Choï S-Y, David E, Pascual-Benito J-L, Provenzano N. Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie de l'Os Préhistorique, Cahier VIII : Biseaux et Tranchants. Treignes: CEDAR; 1998.

1292 110.Maigrot Y, Clemente-Conte I, Gyria E, Lozovskaya OV, Lozovski VM. Analyse fonctionnelle des outils biseautés à 45° de Zamostje 2. In: Lozovski VM, Lozovzska OV, Clemente-Conte I, editors. Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Volga Region. Sait-Petersbourg: Russian Academy of Science; 2013. pp. 120-141.

1297 111.Backwell LR, d'Errico F. The first use of bone tools: a reappraisal of the evidence from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania. Palaeontol Afr. 2005;40: 95-158.
1299 112. Biberson P, Aguirre E. Expériences de taille d'outils préhistoriques dans des os d'éléphant. Quaternaria. 1965;7: 165-183.

1301 113. Stanford D, Bonnichsen R, Morlan RE. The ginsberg experiment: modern and prehistoric evidence of a bone-flaking technology. Science. 1981;212: 438-440.
doi:10.1126/science.212.4493.438

1304 114. ETTOS. Techniques de percussion appliquées au matériau osseux : premières expériences. Cah Euphrate. 1985;4: 373-381.

1306 115. Currey JD. Three analogies to explain the mechanical properties of bone. Biorheology. 1964;2: 1-10. doi:10.3233/BIR-1964-2101

1308 116. Hayes WC, Gerhart TN. Biomechanics of bone: Applications for assessment of bone strength. In: Peck WA, editor. Bone and Mineral Research. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1985.
pp. 259-294.

1311 117. Barone R. Anatomie comparée des mammifères domestiques. Anatomie comparée des mammifères domestiques. Paris: Vigot frères; 1986.

1313 118. Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA, Fyhrie DP. Skeletal Tissue Mechanics. New York: Springer; 2015. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-3002-9

1315 119. Reina N, Laffosse J-M. Biomécanique de l'os, application au traitement et à la consolidation des fractures. In: EMC, editor. Appareil locomoteur. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2014. pp. 14-031-A-10. doi:10.1016/S0246-0521(14)62010-6

1318 120. Crabtree DE. The cone fracture principle and the manufacture of lithic materials. Tebiwa. 1972;15: 22-42.

1320 121. Elliott JC, Dover SD. X-ray microtomography. J Microsc. 1982;126: 211-213.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2818.1982.tb00376.x
1322 122.Leng H. Micro-computed tomography of microdamage in cortical bone. Thesis,
1323 University of Notre Dame. 2006.

1324 123.Landrigan MD, Li J, Turnbull TL, Burr DB, Niebur GL, Roeder RK. Contrast-
1325 enhanced micro-computed tomography of fatigue microdamage accumulation in human
1326 cortical bone. Bone. 2011;48: 443-450. doi:10.1016/j.bone.2010.10.160

1327 124.Al-Mukhtar AM, Könke C. Fracture Mechanics and Micro Crack Detection in Bone:
1328 A Short Communication. Conference Medical Device Materials V. Novelty: ASM
1329 International; 2011. p. 27776.

1330 125.Alam K. Experimental and numerical investigation of cracking behavior of cortical
1331 bone in cutting. Technol Health Care Off J Eur Soc Eng Med. 2014;22: 741-750.
1332 doi:10.3233/THC-140848

1333 126.Boschin F, Zanolli C, Bernardini F, Princivalle F, Tuniz C. A Look from the Inside:
1334 MicroCT Analysis of Burned Bones. Ethnobiol Lett. 2015;6: 258-266.
1335 doi:10.14237/eb1.6.2.2015.365

1336 127.Stocchero M, Toia M, Jinno Y, Cecchinato F, Becktor JP, Naito Y, et al. Influence of
1337 different drilling preparation on cortical bone: A biomechanical, histological, and
1338 micro-CT study on sheep. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29: 707-715.
1339 doi:10.1111/clr.13262

1340 128.Willett T, Josey D, Lu RXZ, Minhas G, Montesano J. The micro-damage process zone
during transverse cortical bone fracture: No ears at crack growth initiation. J Mech
1341 Behav Biomed Mater. 2017;74: 371-382. doi:10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.029

1343 129.Hounsfield GN. Computerized transverse axial scanning (tomography). 1. Description
1344 of system. Br J Radiol. 1973;46: 1016-1022. doi:10.1259/0007-1285-46-552-1016
1345 130.Stauber M, Müller R. Micro-computed tomography: a method for the non-destructive evaluation of the three-dimensional structure of biological specimens. Methods Mol Biol Clifton NJ. 2008;455: 273–292. doi:10.1007/978-1-59745-104-8_19

1348 131.Tuniz C, Bernardini F, Turk I, Dimkaroski L, Mancini L, Dreossi D. Did Neanderthals Play Music? X-Ray Computed Micro-Tomography of the Divje Babe ‘Flute’*. Archaeometry. 2012;54: 581–590. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4754.2011.00630.x

1351 132.Bradfield J. Investigating the potential of micro-focus computed tomography in the study of ancient bone tool function: results from actualistic experiments. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40: 2606–2613. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.02.007

1354 133.Bello SM, De Groote I, Delbarre G. Application of 3-dimensional microscopy and micro-CT scanning to the analysis of Magdalenian portable art on bone and antler. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40: 2464–2476. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.12.016

1357 134.Bello SM, Parfitt SA, De Groote I, Kennaway G. Investigating experimental knapping damage on an antler hammer: a pilot-study using high-resolution imaging and analytical techniques. J Archaeol Sci. 2013;40: 4528–4537. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.016

1360 135.Lázničková-Galetová M. The phenomenon of Gravettian necklaces – Mammoth ivory necklaces from Dolní Věstonice I (Moravia, Czech Republic). Quat Int. 2015;359–360: 229–239. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2014.08.040

1363 136.Bradfield J, Hoffman J, De Beer F. Verifying the potential of micro-focus X-ray computed tomography in the study of ancient bone tool function. J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2016;5: 80–84. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2015.11.001
1366 137. Lucas C, Galway-Witham J, Stringer CB, Bello SM. Investigating the use of Paleolithic perforated batons: new evidence from Gough's Cave (Somerset, UK). *Archaeol Anthropol Sci.* 2019;11: 5231-5255. doi:10.1007/s12520-019-00847-y

1369 138. Mallye J-B, Thiébaut C, Mourre V, Costamagno S, Claud É, Weisbecker P. The Mousterian bone retouchers of Noisetier Cave: experimentation and identification of marks. *J Archaeol Sci.* 2012;39: 1131-1142. doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.12.018

1372 139. Rendu W, Renou S, Koliasnikova A, Baumann M, Plisson H, Discamps E, et al. Neanderthal subsistence at Chez-Pinaud Jonzac (Charente-Maritime, France): A kill site dominated by reindeer remains, but with a horse-laden diet? *Front Ecol Evol.* 2023;10: 1085699. doi:10.3389/fevo.2022.1085699

1376 140. Jéquier CA, Romandini M, Peresani M. Les retouchoirs en matières dures animales : une comparaison entre Moustérien final et Uluzzien. *Comptes Rendus Palevol.* 2012;11: 283-292. doi:10.1016/j.crpv.2011.12.001

1379 141. Abrams G, Bello SM, Di Modica K, Pirson S, Bonjean D. When Neanderthals used cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) remains: Bone retouchers from unit 5 of Scladina Cave (Belgium). *Quat Int.* 2014;326-327: 274-287. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2013.10.022

1382 142. Daujeard C, Moncel M-H, Fiore I, Tagliacozzo A, Bindon P, Raynal J-P. Middle Paleolithic bone retouchers in Southeastern France: Variability and functionality. *Quat Int.* 2014;326-327: 492-518. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2013.12.022

1385 143. Rougier H, Crevecoeur I, Beauval C, Posth C, Flas D, Wißing C, et al. Neandertal cannibalism and Neandertal bones used as tools in Northern Europe. *Sci Rep.* 2016;6: 29005. doi:10.1038/srep29005
1388 144. Costamagno S, Bourguignon L, Soulier M-C, Beauval C, Meignen L, Mussini C, et al. Bone retouchers and site function in the Quina Mousterian: The case of Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc, France). In: Huston JM, García-Moreno A, Noack ES, Turner E, Villaluenga A, Gaudzinski-Windheuser S, editors. The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies. Mainz: RGZM; 2018. pp. 1-31.

1393 145. Mateo-Lomba P, Rivals F, Blasco R, Rosell J. The use of bones as retouchers at Unit III of Teixoneres Cave (MIS 3; Moià, Barcelona, Spain). J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2019;27: 101980. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101980

1396 146. Beauval C. La faune des niveaux moustériens de "Chez-Pinaud" (Jonzac, Charente-Maritime, France), Prémière analyse. Le site paléolithique de Chez Pinaud à Jonzac, Charente-Maritime Premiers résultats : Études sur la coupe gauche. Cressensac: Préhistoire du Sud-Ouest; 2004. pp. 125-156.

1400 147. Maillard B. Etude des retouchoirs en os des niveaux du Moustérien Quina de chez Pinaud, Jonzac (Charente-Maritime). Mémoire de Master, Université de Bordeaux I. 2016.

1403 148. Rigaud A. Retouchoirs sur éclats diaphysaires ou « affûtoirs » de Labastide (Hautes-Pyrénées), Du Barbarisme scientifique à la rigueur artisanale au travers de l'expérimentation. Archéologie Pyrén Occident Landes. 2007;26: 193-200.

1406 149. Bourguignon L. Apports de l'expérimentation et de l'analyse techno-morphofonctionnelle à la reconnaissance du processus d'aménagement de la retouche Quina. In: Bourguignon L, Frère-Sautot MC, editors. Préhistoire et Approche Expérimentale. Montagnac: Monique Mergoil; 2001. pp. 35-66.

1410 150. Provenzano N. Coins et ciseaux au Paléolithique supérieur. Mémoire de Master, Université de Provence. 1984.
1412 151. Voruz J-L. Outillages osseux et dynamique industrielle dans le néolithique jurassien.

1413 Lausanne: Bibliothèque historique vaudoise; 1984.

1414 152. Maigrot Y. Tracéologie des outils tranchants en os des Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C.

1415 en Bassin parisien, Essai méthodologique et application. Bull Société Préhistorique Fr.

1416 1997;94: 198–216. doi:10.3406/bspf.1997.10878

1417 153. Pétillon J-M. Des Magdaléniens en armes, Technologie des armatures de projectiles en

1418 bois de Cervidé du Magdalénien supérieur de la grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques).

1419 Treignes: CEDARC; 2006.

1420 154. Tartar E. De l'os à l'outil, caractérisation technique, économique et sociale de

1421 l'utilisation de l'os à l'Aurignacien ancien, Etude de trois sites : l'Abri Castanet (secteur

1422 nord et sud), Brassempouy (Grotte des Hyènes et Abri Dubalen) et Gatzarria. Thèse de

1423 doctorat, Université de Paris 1. 2009.

1424 155. Rosell J, Blasco R, Campeny G, Díez JC, Alcalde RA, Menéndez L, et al. Bone as a

1425 technological raw material at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain).

1426 J Hum Evol. 2011;61: 125–131. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2011.02.001

1427 156. Zilhão J, Cardoso J, Pike A, Weninger B. Gruta Nova da Columbeira (Bombarral,

1428 Portugal): Site stratigraphy, age of the Mousterian sequence, and implications for the

1429 timing of Neanderthal extinction in Iberia. Quartär. 2011;58: 93–112.

1430 157. Aranguren B, Grimaldi S, Benvenuti M, Capalbo C, Cavanna F, Cavulli F, et al.

1431 Poggetti Vecchi (Tuscany, Italy): A late Middle Pleistocene case of human–elephant

1432 interaction. J Hum Evol. 2019;133: 32–60. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2019.05.013

1433 158. Geib P. Basketmaker II Horn Flaking Tools and Dart Point Production: Technological

1434 Change at the Agricultural Transition. In: Schlanger SH, editor. Traditions, Transitions
1435 and Technologies, Themes in Southwestern Archeology. Boulder: University Press of
1436 Colorado; 2002. pp. 272–306.

1437 159. Gryba EM. An Assessment of the Free-Hand Pressure Flaking Technique of Precontact
1438 North America. Lithic Technol. 2006;31: 57–77.

1439 160. d'Errico F, Backwell LR, Wadley L. Identifying regional variability in Middle Stone
1440 Age bone technology: The case of Sibudu Cave. J Archaeol Sci. 2012;39: 2479–2495.
1441 doi:10.1016/j.jas.2012.01.040

1442 161. Baumann M. A l'ombre des feuilles de laurier, l'équipement osseux solutréen du Sud-
1443 ouest de la France : Apports et limites des collections anciennes. Thèse de doctorat,
1444 Université de Paris 1. 2014.

1445 162. Baumann M, Maury S, Plisson H. Les compresseurs solutréens. Archéologues Malgré-
1446 Tout Apporter sa pierre pour y voir clair Mélanges offerts à Claire Bellier et Pierre
1447 Cattelain. Treignes: CEDARC; 2022. pp. 191–211. Available: https://hal.science/hal-
1448 03933591

1449 163. Шуньков МВ. Междисциплинарные исследования Чагырской пещеры – стоянки
1450 среднего палеолита Алтая. Новосибирск: Издательство ИАЭТ СО РАН; 2018.

1451 164. Veselsky A. Kabazi V: Bone and Stone Tools Used in Flint Knapping. In: Chabai VP,
1452 Richter D, Uthmeier T, editors. Kabazi V: Interstratification of Micoquian and
1453 Levallois-Mousterian Camp Sites. Cologne: Simferopol; 2008. pp. 427–453.

1454 165. Pérez L, Hernández CM, Galván B. Bone retouchers from the Middle Palaeolithic site
1455 of El Salt, Stratigraphic Unit Xa (Alicante, Spain): First data and comparison with the
1456 Middle to Upper Pleistocene European record. Int J Osteoarchaeol. 2019;29: 238–252.
1457 doi:10.1002/oa.2732
1458 166.Alonso-García P, Navazo Ruiz M, Blasco R. Use and selection of bone fragments in the north of the Iberian Peninsula during the Middle Palaeolithic: bone retouchers from level 4 of Prado Vargas (Burgos, Spain). Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2020;12: 218. doi:10.1007/s12520-020-01097-z

1462 167.Martisius NL, Welker F, Dogandžić T, Grote MN, Rendu W, Sinet-Mathiot V, et al. Non-destructive ZooMS identification reveals strategic bone tool raw material selection by Neandertals. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 7746. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-64358-w

1465 168.Martellotta EF, Livraghi A, Delpiano D, Peresani M. Bone retouchers from the Mousterian Quina site of De Nadale Cave (Berici Hills, north-eastern Italy). J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2021;36: 102864. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102864

1468 169.Baumann M, Ready E, Plisson H, Maury S, Vanderesse N, Coqueugniot H, et al. Not so unusual Neanderthal bone tools: new examples from Abri Lartet, France. Archaeol Anthropol Sci. 2022;14: 200. doi:10.1007/s12520-022-01674-4

1471 170.Zutovski K, Barkai R. The use of elephant bones for making Acheulian handaxes: A fresh look at old bones. Quat Int. 2016;406: 227-238. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.01.033

1473 171.Claud É, Soressi M, Jaubert J, Hublin J-J. Étude tracéologique de l'outillage moustérien de type Quina du bonebed de Chez-Pinaud à Jonzac (Charente-Maritime). Nouveaux éléments en faveur d'un site de boucherie et de traitement des peaux. Gall Préhistoire. 2012;54: 3-32. doi:10.3406/galip.2012.2492

1477 172.Rots V. Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology. Leuven: Leuven University Press; 2010. doi:10.2307/j.ctt9qf05s

1479 173.Rots V. Towards an understanding of hafting: the macro- and microscopic evidence. Antiquity. 2003;77: 805-815. doi:10.1017/S0003598X00061743
1481 174. Pétrequin P, Pétrequin A-M. Ecologie d'un outil : la hache de pierre en Irian Jaya (Indonésie). Paris: CNRS; 1993.

1483 175. Mcbrearty S, Brooks AS. The revolution that wasn't: a new interpretation of the origin of modern human behavior. J Hum Evol. 2000;39: 453-563.
doi:10.1006/jhev.2000.0435

1486 176. Barham L. From Hand to Handle: The First Industrial Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.

1488 177. Averbouh A, Buisson D. Les lissoirs. In: Clottes J, Delporte H, editors. La Grotte de la Vache (Ariège), 1- Les occupations du Magdalénien. Paris: RMN; 2003. pp. 309-324.

1490 178. Arrighi S, Bazzanella M, Boschin F, Wierer U. How to make and use a bone "spatula". An experimental program based on the Mesolithic osseous assemblage of Galgenbühel/Dos de la Forca (Salurn/Salorno, BZ, Italy). Quat Int. 2016;423: 143-165.
doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2015.11.114

1494 179. Simondon G. Du mode d'existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier; 1958.

1495 180. Vettese D, Borel A, Blasco R, Chevillard L, Stavrova T, Hohenstein UT, et al. New evidence of Neandertal butchery traditions through the marrow extraction in southwestern Europe (MIS 5-3). PLOS ONE. 2022;17: e0271816.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0271816

1499 181. Mozota Holgueras M. Experimental programmes with retouchers: where do we stand and where do we go now. In: Huston JM, García-Moreno A, Noack ES, Turner E, Villaluenga A, Gaudzinski-Windheuser S, editors. The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies. Mainz: RGZM; 2018. pp. 15-32.
1503 182.Geneste J-M. Analyse lithique d'industries moustériennes du Périgord : une approche du comportement des groupes humains au paléolithique moyen. These de doctorat, Université de Bordeaux I. 1985.

1506 183.Julien M-A, Hardy B, Stahlschmidt MC, Urban B, Serangeli J, Conard NJ. Characterizing the Lower Paleolithic bone industry from Schöningen 12 II: A multi-proxy study. J Hum Evol. 2015;89: 264-286. doi:10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.10.006

1509 184.Villa P, Boschian G, Pollarolo L, Saccà D, Marra F, Nomade S, et al. Elephant bones for the Middle Pleistocene toolmaker. PLOS ONE. 2021;16: e0256090. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256090

1512 185.Romagnoli F, Rivals F, Benazzi S. Updating Neanderthals, Understanding behavioural Complexity in the Late Middle Palaeolithic. Academic Press; 2022.

1514

1515

1516 Supporting information

1517 S1 Text. Bone retouchers

1518 S2 Text. Beveled tools

1519 S3 Text. Retouched tools

1520 S4 Text. Smooth-ended tools

1521

1522 S1 Fig. 1. Archaeological deposits of the Chez-Pinaud site (Jonzac, France). a) location of the excavation area in 2019-2021; b) left stratigraphic cut (after Airvaux and Soressi 2005); c) view of the “bone-bed”, 2021 excavation (photos: W. Rendu).

1525 S2 Fig. Experiments with replicas of Mousterian type bone tools. a) fracturation by direct percussion on anvil; b) fractured fresh long bones of Bovinae; c) regular flakes from bone fracturing; d) impact of direct percussion; e) retouched bone blank; f) flake from retouch; g) Mousterian side scrapers shaping;
1528 h) meat cutting; i) hair removing from skin; j) wooden peeling; k) plant harvesting; l) soil digging
1529 (photos: H. Plisson).

1530 S3 Fig 3. Examples of ribs with smoothed end discovered in other Middle Paleolithic contexts. a, c–d) Abri Peyrony; b) Pech de l'Azé (after Soressi et al. 2013); e) Zaskalnaya VI (after Stepanchuk et al. 2017); f) Chagyrskaya Cave (after Baumann et al. 2020); g) Abri des Canalettes (after Patou-Mathis 1993); h) Axlor (after Mozota Holgueras 2012); i–k) La Quina (after Henri-Martin 1907–1910); l–m) Grotte du Noisetier (after Oulad El kaïd 2016).

1535 S4 Fig. Examples of retouched bone artifacts discovered in pre-AMH contexts. a) Castel di Guido (after Villa et al. 2021); b) Nova de Columbeira (after Zilhão et al. 2011); c) Vauffrey (after Vincent 1993); d) Poggeti Vecchi (after Aranguren et al. 2019); e) Bois-Roche (after Vincent 1993); f) Combe-Grenal (after Tartar and Costamagno 2016); g–h) Chagyrskaya (after Baumann et al. 2020); i) Gran Dolina (after Rossel et al. 2011); j) Abric Romaní (after Carbonel et al. 1994).

1540
1541 S1 Table. Microtomographic recording parameters of the experimental and archaeological tools from Chez-Pinaud site.

1543 S2 Table. Experimental samples analyzed in µCT.

1544 S3 Table Reports (non-exhaustive) of smoothed-end ribs from Neanderthal contexts in Eurasia.

1545 S4 Table Reports (non-exhaustive) of knapped bone tools from pre-AMH contexts in Eurasia.

1546
1547 S1 File. 3D model, retouched bone tool #CPN19-5, Chez-Pinaud site

1548 S2 File. 3D model, retouched bone tool #CPN19-529, Chez-Pinaud site

1549 S3 File. 3D model, beveled bone tool #CPN19-534, Chez-Pinaud site

1550 S4 File. 3D model, beveled bone tool #CPN19-888, Chez-Pinaud site

1551 S5 File. 3D model, beveled bone tool #CPN19-1014, Chez-Pinaud site

1552 S6 File. 3D model, bone retoucher #CPN19-2020, Chez-Pinaud site

1553 S7 File. 3D model, retouched bone tool #CPN19-2132, Chez-Pinaud site

1554 S8 File. 3D model, smoothed-ended bone tool #CPN20-3581, Chez-Pinaud site

1555 S9 File. 3D model, beveled bone tool #CPN20-3609, Chez-Pinaud site
1556

1557
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 1.** The Chez-Pinaud site, Jonzac, France. (a) location of the site and the main surrounding Quina site (geographical data republished from Géoportail.gouv.fr under a CC BY license, with permission from IGN, original copyright 2022). (b) 3D photogrammetric model of the excavated layer (photos and 3D processing: S. Shnaider). (c) layout of the excavation units (CAD: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Fig 2. Bone tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a–d), (i–k) beveled tools. (a, g–h, e–f, n) retouched tools. (a, f, j, m–o) bone retouchers. (l) smoothed-end tool (photo: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig 3. Species spectrums, Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a-c) faunal remains. (b-d) bone tools (CAD: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 4.** Bone retouchers from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a) scores orientation. (b) scores associated with small chip removals. (c) scraping of the striking area. (d) on horse tibia, n°2020. (e–g) on reindeer diaphysis, n°3727, 3396 and 3320. (h) on horse metapodial, n°3587. (i) dense scores area. (j) on horse incisor, n° 4061 (photo: M. Baumann except j, S. Renou).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 5.** µCT imaging of bone retouchers. (a) 3D reconstruction of an experimental sample from a cow tibia. (b–c) cracks from use under the scores area, on sagittal cross-sections. (d–e) cracks from use under the scores area, on transverse cross-section. (f) 3D reconstruction of an archaeological sample from horse tibia, n°2020. (g–h) cracks from use under the scores area, on sagittal cross-section. (i–j) cracks from use under the scores area, on transverse cross-section (µCT image processing [IP] and CAD: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 6.** Beveled tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a) chipping on the cortical surface at the distal end. (b) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (c) on medium sized ungulate diaphysis, n°1026. (d) on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°3609. (e) blunt on the medullary surface at the distal end. (f) striking surface at the proximal end. (g) hinge fracture at the proximal end (photo: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_9.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 7.** Beveled tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a) on horse humerus, n°1014. (b) edge retouch on the cortical surface. (c) chipping partially covered by a blunt on the cortical surface at the distal end. (d) on bison metatarsal, n°1527. (e) chipping on the cortical surface at the distal end. (f) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (g) sawtooth fracture at the proximal end (photo: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 8.** Beveled tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a) set of burin-like removals. (b) blunt over removals at the distal end. (c) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (d) on medium size ungulate diaphysis, n°888. (e) on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°3648. (f) hinge fracture at the proximal end. (g) chipping on the medullary surface at the distal end. (h) large and low-angle removal initiated from the lateral edge (photo: M. Baumann except a, H. Plisson).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 9. µCT imaging of beveled tools.** (a) 3D reconstruction of an experimental sample from a Cow tibia. (b) cracks from use under the bevel, on a sagittal cross-section. (c) cracks from use under the bevel, on a transverse cross-section. (d) cracks from use under the striking surface, on a sagittal cross-section. (e) cracks from use under the striking surface, on a transverse cross-section. (f) 3D reconstruction of an archaeological sample from horse humerus, n°1014. (g–h) concentration of cracks under the bevel, on a frontal cross-section. (i–m) sagittal cross-sections of the bevel showing the non-uniform damage distribution (µCT IP and CAD: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_12.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 10.** Retouched tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a) possible beveled tool on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°2132. (b) blunt localized at the distal end. (c) secondary fracturing step of the proximal end. (d) removals on the cortical surface at the distal end. (e) removals at the proximal end on the medullary surface. (f) possible beveled tool on reindeer metacarpal, n°143 (photo: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_13.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 11.** Retouched tools from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations. (a) retouched edge fragment on large size ungulate diaphysis, n°5. (b) scalariform and low-angle removals. (c) retouch intercalated between 2 blunting episodes. (d) low-angle removals on the medullary surface. (e) retouched edge fragment on medium size ungulate diaphysis, n°529. (f) detail of the blunt with longitudinal striations (photos: M. Baumann except d and f, H. Plisson).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /><figcaption>**Fig 12.** µCT imaging of retouched tools. (a) 3D reconstruction of an experimental sample from a Cow tibia. (b) multi-cracks from shaping at the percussion point on a sagittal cross-section. (c) simple cracks from shaping at the percussion point on a sagittal cross-section. (d) cracks from shaping at the beginning and the end of a removal. (e) simple cracks from shaping at the percussion point on a transverse cross-section. (f) 3D reconstruction of an archaeological sample from large size ungulate diaphysis, n°5. (g-h) frontal cross-sections of the archaeological sample n°5, A and C, cracks from shaping at the beginning of retouches, B, set of micro-cracks from use, D, multiple "star-shaped" cracks. (i-m) variation of the active edge morphology on transverse cross-sections (µCT IP and CAD: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /><figcaption>Fig 13. Smoothed-end tool, n°2020, from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019-2020 excavations. (a) blunted bending fracture at the distal extremity. (b) striations from use on the ventral face at the distal extremity. (c) scraping striations on the cranial face (photos: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_16.png" /><figcaption>Fig 14. µCT imaging of a smoothed-end tool, n°2020, from the Chez-Pinaud site, 2019-2020 excavations. (a-b) rounded and compacted surface marked by indentations and micro-flakes at the distal end. (c) flat surface at the junction between the ventral surface and the cancellous tissue. (d) micro-flakes and pull-outs on a smoothed surface at the junction between the dorsal surface and the cancellous tissue. (e-g) frontal, sagittal and transvers cross-sections showing a possible crack of use (µCT IP and CAD: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_17.png" /><figcaption>Fig 15. Micoquian bone industry from the Chagyrskaya cave, Russian federation, 2008–2018 excavations. (a) bone tool with negatives of lamellar removals. (b) detail of a burin-like removal negative. (c) bone bladelet. (d) burin-like tool. (e) possible bone nuclei. (f) negatives of lamellar removals (photos: M. Baumann).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_18.png" /><figcaption>S1 Fig. Archaeological deposits of the Chez-Pinaud site (Jonzac, France). (a) location of the excavation area in 2019-2021. (b) left stratigraphic cut (after Airvaux and Soressi 2005). (c) view of the “bone-bed”, 2021 excavation (photos: W. Rendu).</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_20.png" /><figcaption>**S2 Fig. Experiments with replicas of Mousterian type bone tools.** (a) fracturation by direct percussion on anvil; (b) fractured fresh long bones of Bovinae. (c) regular flakes from bone fracturing (d) impact of direct percussion. (e) retouched bone blank. (f) flake from retouch. (g) Mousterian side scrapers shaping. (h) meat cutting (i) hair removing from skin. (j) wooden peeling. (k) plant harvesting. (l) soil digging (photos: H. Plisson).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_21.png" /><figcaption>S3 Fig. Examples of ribs with smoothed end discovered in other Middle Paleolithic contexts. (a), (c-d) Abri Peyrony. (b) Pech de l'Azé (after Soressi et al. 2013). (e) Zaskalnaya VI (after Stepanchuk et al. 2017). (f) Chagyrskaya Cave (after Baumann et al. 2020). (g) Abri des Canalettes (after Patou-Mathis 1993). (h) Axlor (after Mozota Holgueras 2012). (i-k) La Quina (after Henri-Martin 1907-1910). (l-m) Grotte du Noisetier (after Oulad El Kaïd 2016).</figcaption></figure>
## References

- Baumann, M., Plisson, H., Rendu, W., Maury, S., Kolobova, K. and Krivoshapkin, A. (2020). The Neandertal bone industry at Chagyrskaya cave, Altai Region, Russia. Quaternary International 559: 68–88.

- Henri-Martin, L. (1907-1910). Recherches sur l'Evolution du Moustérien dans le Gisement de la Quina (Charente), Premier Volume 1, Industrie Osseuse. Paris: Schleicher Frères.

- Mozota Holgueras, M.M. (2012). El hueso como materia prima: El utillaje óseo del final del Musteriense en el sector central del norte de la Península Ibérica. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Cantabria.

- Oulad El Kaïd, C. (2016). L'exploitation des matières osseuses au Paléolithique inférieur et moyen : l'exemple de la grotte du Noisetier (Fréchet-Aure, Hautes-Pyrénées). Master II, Université de Toulouse Jean-Jaurès.

- Patou-Mathis, M. (1993). Etude taphonomique et palethnographique de la faune de l'Abri des Canalettes. In: Meignen, L. (ed), L'Abri des Canalettes. Paris: CNRS, pp.199-237.

- Soressi, M., McPherron, S.P., Lenoir, M., Dogandžić, T., Goldberg, P., Jacobs, Z., Maigrot, Y., Martisius, N.C., Miller, C.E., Rendu, W., Richards, M., Skinner, M.M., Steeles, T.E., Talamo, S. and Texier, J.P. (2013). Neandertals made the first specialized bone tools in Europe. PNAS 110: 14186–14190.

- Stepanchuk, V.N., Vasilyev, S.V., Khaldeeva, N.I., Kharlamova, N.V., Borutskaya, S.B. (2017). The last Neanderthals of Eastern Europe: Micoquian layers IIIa and III of the site of Zaskalnaya VI (Kolosovskaya), anthropological records and context. Quaternary International 428: 132–150.
S4 Fig. Examples of retouched bone artifacts discovered in pre-AMH contexts. (a) Castel di Guido (after Villa et al. 2021). (b) Nova de Columbeira (after Zilhão et al. 2011). (c) Vauffrey (after Vincent 1993). (d) Poggeti Vecchi (after Aranguren et al. 2019). (e) Bois-Roche (after Vincent 1993). (f) Combe-Grenal (after Tartar and Costamagno 2016). (g-h) Chagyrskaya (photo: M. Baumann). (i) Gran Dolina (after Rossel et al. 2011). (j) Abric Romaní (after Carbonel et al. 1994).

<figure><img src="image_22.png" /></figure>
## References

- Aranguren, B., Grimaldi, S., Benvenuti, M., Capalbo, C., Cavanna, F., Cavulli, F., et al. (2019). Poggetti Vecchi (Tuscany, Italy): A late Middle Pleistocene case of human-elephant interaction. Journal of Hulan Evolution 113: 32-60.

- Carbonel, E., Giralt, S., Vaquero, M. (1994). Abric Romani (Capellades, Barcelone, Espagne) : une importante séquence anthropisée au Pléistocène supérieur. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 91: 47-55.

- Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Campeny, G., Díez, J.C., Alcalde, A.R., Menéndez, L., et al. (2011). Bone as technological raw material at the Gran Dolina site (Sierra de Atapuerca, Burgos, Spain). Journal of Human Evolution 6: 125-131.

- Tartar, É., Costamagno, S. (2016). L'utilisation des matières osseuses au Moustérien. In: Turq, A., Faivre, J.-Ph., Maureille, B., Lahaye, Ch., Bayle, P. (eds), Néandertal à la loupe. Les Eyzies: Musée National de Préhistoire, pp. 89-97.

- Villa, P. and d'Errico, F. (2001). Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 41: 69-112.

- Vincent, A. (1993). L'outillage osseux au Paléolithique moyen : une nouvelle approche. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris 10.

- Zilhão, J., Cardoso, J.L., Pike, A.W.G., Weninger, B. (2011). Gruta Nova da Columbeira (Bombarral, Portugal): Site stratigraphy, age of the Mousterian sequence, and implications for the timing of Neanderthal extinction in Iberia. Quatär 58: 93-112.
<table><caption>S1 Table. Microtomographic recording parameters of the experimental and archaeological tools from Chez-Pinaud site.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Identification number</th><th>Raw material</th><th>Tool type</th><th>Scanned area</th><th>Resolution (µm)</th><th>Slice nb.</th><th>Correction value</th><th>kV</th><th>µA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Archaeological tools</td><td>CPN19-5</td><td>Diaphysis<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>26</td><td>1625</td><td>10.40</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-529</td><td>Diaphysis<br>medium size ungulate</td><td>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>26</td><td>1625</td><td>10.40</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-534</td><td>Humerus<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Beveled</td><td>Complete</td><td>35</td><td>2125</td><td>8.32</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-888</td><td>Diaphysis<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Beveled<br>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>35</td><td>1500</td><td>9.13</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-1014</td><td>Horse humerus</td><td>Beveled<br>Retouched<br>Retoucher</td><td>Complete<br>ROI* 1</td><td>67<br>21</td><td>1200<br>2550</td><td>2.46<br>3.52</td><td>120<br>120</td><td>250<br>250</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-2020</td><td>Horse tibia</td><td>Retoucher</td><td>Complete<br>ROI 1</td><td>62<br>22</td><td>1200<br>2250</td><td>2.48<br>4.49</td><td>120<br>120</td><td>250<br>250</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-2132</td><td>Diaphysis<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Beveled ?<br>Retouched<br>Retoucher</td><td>Complete</td><td>43</td><td>1375</td><td>7.12</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN20-3581</td><td>Rib<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Smoothed</td><td>Complete<br>ROI 1<br>ROI 2</td><td>54<br>14<br>5</td><td>1275<br>1625<br>2550</td><td>8.31<br>27.10<br>74.83</td><td>120<br>120</td><td>100<br>100</td></tr><tr><td>CPN20-3609</td><td>Bison metatarsal</td><td>Beveled<br>Smoothed</td><td>Complete</td><td>43</td><td>1375</td><td>8.41</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Experimental tools</td><td rowspan="3">Exp-10</td><td rowspan="3">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="3">Beveled</td><td>Complete</td><td>89</td><td>1200</td><td>2.82</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>13</td><td>2250</td><td>8.24</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>Zone 2</td><td>13</td><td>2250</td><td>1.69</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Exp-13</td><td rowspan="3">Red deer femur</td><td rowspan="3">Beveled<br>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>89</td><td>1200</td><td>2.82</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>24</td><td>2250</td><td>5.22</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 2</td><td>24</td><td>2250</td><td>2.12</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Exp-46</td><td rowspan="2">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="2">Retoucher<br>Retouched</td><td>Compete</td><td>98</td><td>1500</td><td>2.78</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>21</td><td>2250</td><td>6.18</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Exp-57</td><td rowspan="2">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="2">Retoucher</td><td>Complete</td><td>98</td><td>1200</td><td>3.18</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>21</td><td>2550</td><td>3.22</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Exp-58</td><td rowspan="2">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="2">Retoucher</td><td>Complete</td><td>98</td><td>1200</td><td>3.18</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>33</td><td>2250</td><td>4.02</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>S2 Table. Microtomographic recording parameters of the experimental and archaeological tools from Chez-Pinaud site.</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Identification number</th><th>Raw material</th><th>Tool type</th><th>Scanned area</th><th>Resolution (µm)</th><th>Slice nb.</th><th>Correction value</th><th>kV</th><th>µA</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Archaeological tools</td><td>CPN19-5</td><td>Diaphysis<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>26</td><td>1625</td><td>10.40</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-529</td><td>Diaphysis<br>medium size ungulate</td><td>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>26</td><td>1625</td><td>10.40</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-534</td><td>Humerus<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Beveled</td><td>Complete</td><td>35</td><td>2125</td><td>8.32</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-888</td><td>Diaphysis<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Beveled<br>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>35</td><td>1500</td><td>9.13</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-1014</td><td>Horse humerus</td><td>Beveled<br>Retouched<br>Retoucher</td><td>Complete<br>ROI* 1</td><td>67<br>21</td><td>1200<br>2550</td><td>2.46<br>3.52</td><td>120<br>120</td><td>250<br>250</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-2020</td><td>Horse tibia</td><td>Retoucher</td><td>Complete<br>ROI 1</td><td>62<br>22</td><td>1200<br>2250</td><td>2.48<br>4.49</td><td>120<br>120</td><td>250<br>250</td></tr><tr><td>CPN19-2132</td><td>Diaphysis<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Beveled ?<br>Retouched<br>Retoucher</td><td>Complete</td><td>43</td><td>1375</td><td>7.12</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td>CPN20-3581</td><td>Rib<br>large size ungulate</td><td>Smoothed</td><td>Complete<br>ROI 1<br>ROI 2</td><td>54<br>14<br>5</td><td>1275<br>1625<br>2550</td><td>8.31<br>27.10<br>74.83</td><td>120<br>120</td><td>100<br>100</td></tr><tr><td>CPN20-3609</td><td>Bison metatarsal</td><td>Beveled<br>Smoothed</td><td>Complete</td><td>43</td><td>1375</td><td>8.41</td><td>120</td><td>120</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">Experimental tools</td><td rowspan="3">Exp-10</td><td rowspan="3">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="3">Beveled</td><td>Complete</td><td>89</td><td>1200</td><td>2.82</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>13</td><td>2250</td><td>8.24</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>Zone 2</td><td>13</td><td>2250</td><td>1.69</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Exp-13</td><td rowspan="3">Red deer femur</td><td rowspan="3">Beveled<br>Retouched</td><td>Complete</td><td>89</td><td>1200</td><td>2.82</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>24</td><td>2250</td><td>5.22</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 2</td><td>24</td><td>2250</td><td>2.12</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Exp-46</td><td rowspan="2">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="2">Retoucher<br>Retouched</td><td>Compete</td><td>98</td><td>1500</td><td>2.78</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>21</td><td>2250</td><td>6.18</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Exp-57</td><td rowspan="2">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="2">Retoucher</td><td>Complete</td><td>98</td><td>1200</td><td>3.18</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>21</td><td>2550</td><td>3.22</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Exp-58</td><td rowspan="2">Cow tibia</td><td rowspan="2">Retoucher</td><td>Complete</td><td>98</td><td>1200</td><td>3.18</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>ROI 1</td><td>33</td><td>2250</td><td>4.02</td><td>120</td><td>250</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>S3 Table. Reports (non-exhaustive) of smoothed-end ribs from Neanderthal contexts in Eurasia.</caption><thead><tr><th>Loc</th><th>Site</th><th>Nb.</th><th>Industry</th><th>Dates</th><th>Ref.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">France</td><td>Abri Peyrony</td><td>3</td><td>MTA</td><td>MIS 3 (43 – 37 ky BP)</td><td>Soressi et al. 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Noisetier</td><td>2</td><td>Discoid</td><td>MIS 3 (42 ky BP)</td><td>Oulad El Kaïd 2016</td></tr><tr><td>La Quina</td><td>3</td><td>MAT/Denticulate</td><td>MIS 3 (48 - 40 ky BP)</td><td>Henri-Martin 1907-1910<br>Debénath et al. 1998</td></tr><tr><td>Lartet</td><td>4</td><td>Levallois</td><td>MIS 3 (48 - 35 ky BP)</td><td>Debénath and Duport 1971</td></tr><tr><td>Pech de l'Azé</td><td>1</td><td>MTA</td><td>MIS 3 (51 ky BP)</td><td>Sorressi et al. 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Pradayrol</td><td>1</td><td>Discoid<br>Levallois</td><td>MIS 3</td><td>Villeneuve et al. 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Canalettes</td><td>1</td><td>Levallois</td><td>MIS 5-4 (73 ky BP)</td><td>Patou-Mathis 1993<br>Valladas et al. 1987</td></tr><tr><td>Vaufrey</td><td>1</td><td>Mousterian</td><td>MIS 7-6 (270-142 ky BP)</td><td>Vincent 1993</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Spain</td><td>Cueva Mórin</td><td>1</td><td>MTA (Vasconian)</td><td>MIS 3 (&gt;43 ky BP)</td><td>Freeman 1971<br>Maíllo-Fernández et al. 2014</td></tr><tr><td>Axlor</td><td>1</td><td>Quina</td><td>MIS 3 (&gt;47 ky BP)</td><td>Mozota Holgueras 2012<br>Gómez-Olivencia et al. 2018</td></tr><tr><td>Germany</td><td>Salzgitter-Lebenstedt</td><td>8</td><td>Levallois</td><td>MIS 3 (55 – 48 ky BP)</td><td>Gaudzinski 1999<br>Pastoors 2009</td></tr><tr><td>Crimea</td><td>Zaskalnaya VI</td><td>1</td><td>Levallois (Ak-Kaya)</td><td>MIS 3 (39 – 30 ky BP)</td><td>Stepanchuk et al. 2017</td></tr><tr><td>Siberia</td><td>Chagyrskaya</td><td>2</td><td>Micoquian (Sibiryachika)</td><td>MIS 4-3 (60 – 50 ky BP)</td><td>Baumann et al. 2020</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>S4 Table. Reports (non-exhaustive) of knapped bone tools from pre-AMH contexts in Eurasia.</caption><thead><tr><th>Loc</th><th>Site</th><th>Nb.</th><th>Industry</th><th>Dates</th><th>Ref.</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">France</td><td>Combe-Grenal</td><td>1<br>1</td><td>Mousterian Levallois<br>Denticulate</td><td>MIS 3 (39-38 ky BP)</td><td>Bordes 1961<br>Vincent 1993<br>Tartar and Cotamagno 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Jonzac</td><td>7</td><td>Quina</td><td>MIS 4 (72 ky BP)</td><td>Rendu et al. 2020<br>Richter et al. 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Vaufrey</td><td>1</td><td>Mousterian Levallois</td><td>MIS 4 (74 ky BP)</td><td>Vincent 1993<br>Tartar and Costamagno 2016</td></tr><tr><td>Pié-Lombard</td><td>4</td><td>Levallois</td><td>MIS 5 (70 ky BP)</td><td>Texier 1974<br>Texier et al. 2011</td></tr><tr><td>Rigabe</td><td>6</td><td>Levallois</td><td>MIS 3-5</td><td>Defleur 1988<br>Brugal et al. 2020</td></tr><tr><td>La Ferrassie</td><td>1</td><td>Mousterian</td><td>NR</td><td>Bordes, 1961</td></tr><tr><td>Bois-Roche</td><td>+/-15</td><td>Mousterian</td><td>NR</td><td>Vincent 1993</td></tr><tr><td>Baume de Gigny</td><td>1</td><td>Mousterian</td><td>NR</td><td>Vuillemey 1989</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Germany</td><td>Rhede</td><td>1</td><td>Micoquian (Keilmesser)</td><td>MIS 5 (70 ky BP)</td><td>Tromnau 1983<br>Baales and Stapel 2015</td></tr><tr><td>Sirgenstein</td><td>1</td><td>Mousterian</td><td>NR</td><td>Hahn 1976<br>Ono 2006</td></tr><tr><td>Belgium</td><td>Trou Magrite</td><td>1</td><td>Mousterian</td><td>MIS 3</td><td>Personal inventory<br>Jimenez et al. 2016</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">Italy</td><td>Fumane</td><td>1</td><td>Levallois</td><td>MIS 3 (42 ky BP)</td><td>Romandini et al. 2014<br>Peresani et al. 2013</td></tr><tr><td>Poggeti Vecchi</td><td>10</td><td>Mousterian</td><td>MIS 6-7 (171 ky BP)</td><td>Aranguren et al. 2019</td></tr><tr><td>Casal de'Pazzi</td><td>1</td><td>Protopontinian</td><td>MIS 7 (270-250 ky BP)</td><td>Anzidei and Gioia 1992<br>Marra et al. 2018<br>Villa et al. 2021</td></tr><tr><td>La Polledrara</td><td>+/-3</td><td>Acheulean (without bifaces)</td><td>MIS 9 (324 ky BP)</td><td>Santucci et al. 2016<br>Villa et al. 2021</td></tr><tr><td>Lademagne</td><td>+/-2</td><td>Acheulean</td><td>MIS 10-11 (405-389 ky BP)</td><td>Pereira et al. 2018<br>Villa et al. 2021</td></tr><tr><td>Castel di Guido</td><td>81</td><td>Acheulean</td><td>MIS 11 (395 ky BP)</td><td>Boschian and Saccà 2015<br>Villa et al. 2021</td></tr></tbody></table>
## S1 Text. Bone retouchers

The bone retoucher is a common Middle Paleolithic bone tool (Armand and Delagnes 1998; Mallye et al. 2012; Jequier et al. 2012; Mozota Holgueras 2012; Blasco et al. 2013; Abrams et al. 2014; Deaujard et al. 2014; Rosell et al. 2015; Rougier et al. 2016; Doyon et al. 2018; Costamagno et al. 2018; Mateo-Lomba et al. 2019), which already exist in previous periods (Roberts and Parfitt 1999; Langlois 2004; Smith 2013; Julien et al 2015; Kolfschoten et al. 2015; Moigne et al. 2016) and last throughout the Upper Paleolithic (Patou-Mathis 2002; Castel et al 2003; Castel and Madelaine 2003; Rigaud 2007; Tartar 2009, 2012). Identified from its use-wear traces, it has benefited from functional analyses since the first specimens were discovered (Henri-Martin 1906). Most scholars agree that it is a light hammer for shaping lithic edges (Bonch-Osmolovskyi 1940; Semenov 1964; Feustel 1973; Rigaud 1977, 2007; Schelinskii 1983; Vincent 1988; Bourginon 2001; Schwab 2009; Mozota 2012; Mallye et al. 2012). But bone retouchers are seen as an undifferentiated unit, despite their morphometrical diversity, because of the scores apparent uniformity that does not allow to see significant differences between sites or chronocultures, apart from of the longitudinal orientation of the scores, specific to Upper Paleolithic material (Schwab 2002).

## References

- Abrams, G., Bello, S.M., Modica, K. Di, Pirson, S. and Bonjean, D. (2014). When Neanderthals used cave bear (Ursus spelaeus) remains: Bone retouchers from unit 5 of Scladina cave (Belgium). Quaternary International 326-327: 274-287.

- Armand, D. and Delagnes, A. (1998). Les retouchoirs en os d'Artenac (couche 6c) : perspectives archéozoologiques, taphonomiques et expérimentales. In Brugal, J.-P., Meignen, L. and Patou-Mathis, M. (eds.), Économie Préhistorique : Les Comportements de Subsistance au Paléolithique, APDCA, Sofia Antipolis, pp. 205-214.

- Blasco, R., Rosell, J., Cuartero, F., Fernández Peris, J., Gopher, A. and Barkai, R. (2013). Using bones to shape stones: MIS 9 bone retouchers at both edges of the Mediterranean Sea. PLoS ONE 9: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0076780

- Бонч-Осмоловский, Г.А. (1940). Палеолит Крыма. Грот Киик-Коба. Вып. 1. М.; Л. [Вонč-Osmolovskij G.A. (1940). Paleolit Kryma, Grot Kiik-Koba (Paleolithic of the Crimea. Kiik-Koba cave). Vyp. 1. M.; L].

- Bourguignon, L. (2001). Apports de l'expérimentation et de l'analyse techno-morpho-fonctionnelle à la reconnaissance du processus d'aménagement de la retouche Quina. In Bourguignon, L. and Frère-Sautot, M.C. (eds.), Préhistoire et Approche Expérimentale, Monique Mergoil, Montagnac, pp. 35-66.

- Castel, J.-C., Chauvière, F.-X. and Madelaine, S. (2003). Sur os et sur dents, les « retouchoirs » aurignaciens de la Ferrassie (Savignac-de-Miremont, Dordogne). Paléo 15: 29-50.

- Castel, J.-C. and Madelaine, S. (2003). Stigmates observés sur les dents de grands carnivores à l'Aurignacien, L'exemple de l'Abri de La Souquette à Sergeac (Dordogne, France). Paléo 15: 251-254.

- Costamagno, S., Bourguignon, L., Soulier, M.-C., Meignen, L., Beauval, C., Rendu, W., Mussini, C., Mann, A. and Maureille, B. (2018). Bone retouchers and site function in the Quina Mousterian: the case of Les Pradelles (Marillac-Le-Franc, France). In Huston, J.M., Garcia-Monero, A., Noack, E.S., Turner, E., Villaluenga, A. and Gaudzinski-Windheuser, S. (eds.), The Origins of Bone Tool Technologies, RGZM, Tagungen, pp. 1-31.

- Daujeard, C., Moncel, M.-H., Fiore, I., Tagliacozzo, A., Bindon, P. and Raynal, J.-P. (2014). Middle Paleolithic bone retouchers in Southeastern France: Variability and functionality. Quaternary International 326-327: 492-518.

- Doyon, L., Li, Z., Li, H. and d'Errico, F. (2018). Discovery of circa 115,000-year-old bone retouchers at Lingjing, Henan, China. PLoS ONE 13: e0194318

- Feustel, R. (1973). Technik der Steinzeit, Archäolithikum-Mesoli-thikum, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, Weimar.
- Henri-Martin, L. (1906). Maillets ou enclumes en os provenant de la couche moustérienne de la Quina (Charente). Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 3: 155-162.

- Jéquier, C.A., Romandini, M. and Peresani, M. (2012). Les retouchoirs en matières dures animales: Une comparaison entre Moustérien final et Uluzzien. Comptes Rendus Palevol 11: 283-292.

- Julien, M.-A., Hardy B., Stahlschmidt, M.C., Urban, B., Serangeli, J., Conard, N.J. (2015). Characterizing the Lower Paleolithic bone industry from Schöningen 12 II: A multi-proxy study. Journal of Human Evolution 89: 264-286.

- Kolfschoten, T.V., Parfitt, S.A., Serangeli, J. and Bello, S.M. (2015). Lower Paleolithic bone tools from the 'Spear Horizon' at Schöningen (Germany). Journal of Human Evolution 89: 226-263.

- Langlois, A. (2004). Au sujet du Cheval de La Micoque (Dordogne) et des comportements humains de subsistance au Pléistocène moyen dans le Nord-Est de l'Aquitaine. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Bordeaux I.

- Mallye, J.B., Thiébaut, C., Mourre, V., Costamagno, S., Claud, É. and Weisbecker, P. (2012). The Mousterian bone retouchers of Noisetier Cave: Experimentation and identification of marks. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 1131-1142.

- Mateo-Lomba, P., Rivals, F., Blasco, R. and Rosell, J. (2019). The use of bones as retouchers at Unit III of Teixoneres Cave (MIS 3; Moià, Barcelona, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science Report 27: 101980. doi:10.1016/j.jasrep.2019.101980

- Moigne, A.-M., Valensi, P., Auguste, P., García-Solano, R., Tuffreau, A., Lamotte, A., Barroso, C., Moncel, M.-H. (2016). Bone retouchers from Lower Palaeolithic sites: Terra Amata, Orgnac 3, Cagny-l'Epinette and Cueva del Angel. Quaternary International 409: 195-212.

- Mozota Holgueras, M.M. (2012). El hueso como materia prima: El utillaje óseo del final del Musteriense en el sector central del norte de la Península Ibérica. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Cantabria.

- Patou-Mathis, M. (2002). Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique, Cahier X : Retouchoirs, Compresseurs, Percuteurs, Os à Impressions et Éraillures, Publications de l'Université de Provence, Aix-en-Provence.

- Rigaud, A. (1977). Analyse typologique et technologique des grattoirs magdaléniens de La Garenne à Saint-Marcel (Indre). Gallia Préhistoire 20: 1-43.

- Rigaud, A. (2007). Retouchoirs sur éclats diaphysaires ou « affûtoirs » de Labastide (Hautes-Pyrénées), Du Barbarisme scientifique à la rigueur artisanale au travers de l'expérimentation. Archéologie des Pyrénées Occidentales et des Landes 26: 193-200.

- Roberts, M. and Parfitt, S. (1999). A Middle Pleistocene Hominid Site at Eartham Quarry, Boxgrove, West Sussex. English Heritage, London.

- Rosell, J., Blasco, R., Fernández Peris, J., Carbonell, E., Barkai, R. and Gopher, A. (2015). Recycling bones in the Middle Pleistocene: Some reflections from Gran Dolina TD10-1 (Spain), Bolomor Cave (Spain) and Qesem Cave (Israel). Quaternary International 361: 297-312.

- Rougier, H., Crevecoeur, I., Beauval, C., Posth, C., Flas, D., Wißing, C., Furtwängler, A., Germonpré, M., Gómez-Olivencia, A., Semal, P., Van Der Plicht, J., Bocherens, H. and Krause, J. (2016). Neandertal cannibalism and Neandertal bones used as tools in Northern Europe. Science Report 6: 1-11.

- Щелинский, В.Е. (1983). К изучению техники, технологии изготовления и функций орудий мустьерской эпохи. Рогачёв АН (ред), Технология производства в эпоху палеолита, Наука, Ленинград, 72-133. [Šelinskij, V.E. (1983.) K izučeniů tehniki, tehnologii izgotovleniâ i funkcij orudij must’erskoj èpohi (Towards the study of technic, manufacturing technology and functions of tools of the Mousterian epoch). In Rogachjov, A.N. (ed.), Tehnologiâ proizvodstva v èpohu paleolita (Production technology in the Paleolithic era), Nauka, Leningrad, 72-133.]

- Schwab, C. (2002). Fiche éclats diaphysaires du Paléolithique moyen et supérieur : la Grotte d'Isturitz (Pyrénées-Atlantiques). In Patou-Mathis, M. (ed.), Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie Osseuse Préhistorique, Cahier X : Retouchoirs, compresseurs, percuteurs...Os à impressions et éraillures, SPF, Paris, pp. 59-73.

- Schwab, C. (2009). Les "os à impressions et à éraillures": premiers résultats expérimentaux. Antiquités Nationales 40: 29-37.

- Semenov, S.A. (1964). Prehistoric Technology, an Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear, Cory, Adams & Mackay, London.
- Smith, G.M. (2013). Taphonomic resolution and hominin subsistence behaviour in the Lower Palaeolithic: differing data scales and interpretive frameworks at Boxgrove and Swanscombe (UK). Journal of Archaeological Science 40: 3754–3767.

- Tartar, É. (2009). De l'os à l'outil, caractérisation technique, économique et sociale de l'utilisation de l'os à l'Aurignacien ancien, Etude de trois sites : l'Abri Castanet (secteur nord et sud), Brassempouy (Grotte des Hyènes et Abri Dubalen) et Gatzarria. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris I.

- Tartar, É. (2012). Réflexion autour de la fonction des retouchoirs en os de l'Aurignacien ancien. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 109: 69–83.

- Vincent, A. (1988). L'os comme artefact au Paléolithique moyen : principes d'étude et premiers résultats. In Otte, M. (ed.), L'Homme de Néandertal, Vol. 4: La Technique. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 185–196.

## S2 Text. Beveled tools

Beveled tools, mainly made from antler, are frequently identified in Upper Paleolithic contexts (Deffarges et al. 1974; Provenzano 1984). In later periods, Mesolithic and Neolithic, bone specimens are more common (Camps-Fabrer et al. 1998; Maigrot 2003). In techno-traceological studies, chisels (for cutting) and wedges (for splitting) are often grouped together (Provenzano 1998) because they share the same characteristics: a cutting edge at one end marked by crushing sometimes associated with a blunt area, chips or small removals, and striations oriented along the main axis of the tool. The force imparted to set them in motion can be transmitted directly by the arm, or indirectly with a hammer. In the latter case, the tools are characterized by a striking surface located on the end opposite to the bevel and materialized by a crushing area surrounded by macro to micro removals. However, the absence of a striking surface does not necessarily indicate that a hammer has not been used. This occurs when the tools are hafted, such as the bone bevels from the Swiss Final Neolithic (Voruz 1984). If the handle is not preserved, it can be revealed by: (1) the proximal end shaping (Sidéra 1989), (2) a glossing/blunting of the proximal tool edges (Maigrot 1997), a clear limit of the distal use-wear traces, or a clear change of the bone material coloration (Maigrot 2003). Repeated hammering of the proximal end can also lead to fatigue fractures. These use-fractures are reportedly quite common on bone beveled tools (Tartar 2012; Maigrot et al. 2013).

## References

- Camps-Fabrer, H, Cattelain, P., Choï, S.-Y., David, E., Pascual-Benito, J.-L., Provenzano, N. and Ramseyer, D. (1998). Fiches Typologiques de l'Industrie de l'Os Préhistorique, Cahier VIII : Biseaux et Tranchants, CEDAR, Treignes.

- Deffarges, R., Laurent, P. and de Sonneville-Bordes, D. (1974). Ciseaux ou lissoirs magdaléniens. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 71: 85–96.

- Maigrot, Y. (1997). Tracéologie des outils tranchants en os des Ve et IVe millénaires av. J.-C. en Bassin parisien, Essai méthodologique et application. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française 94: 198–216.

- Maigrot, Y. (2003). Étude technologique et fonctionnelle de l'outillage en matières dures animales, La station 4 de Chalain (Néolithique final, Jura, France). Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris I.

- Maigrot, Y., Clemente Conte, I., Gyria, E., Lozovskaya, O. and Lozovski, V. (2013). Analyse fonctionnelle des outils biseautés à 45° de Zamostje 2. In Lozovski, V.M., Lozovskaya, O.V. and Clemente Conte, I. (eds.), Zamostje 2, Lake Settlement of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Fisherman in Upper Volga Region, Russian Academy of Science, St-Petersburg, pp. 120–140

- Provenzano, N. (1984). Coins et ciseaux au Paléolithique supérieur. Mémoire de Master, Université de Provence.

- Provenzano, N. (1998). Fiche générale des objets à biseau distal. In Camps-Fabrer, H. (eds.), Fiches typologiques de l'industrie osseuse préhistorique, Cahier VIII: biseaux et tranchants, Commission de nomenclature sur l'industrie osseuse préhistorique, CEDARC, Treignes, pp. 5-16.

- Sidéra, I. (1989). Un complément des données sur les sociétés rubanées, l'industrie osseuse de Cuiry-lès-Chaudardes. BAR, Oxford.
- Tartar, É. (2012). The recognition of a new type of bone tools in Early Aurignacian assemblages: Implications for understanding the appearance of osseous technology in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 39: 2348–2360.

- Voruz, J.-L. (1984). Outillage Osseux et Dynamisme Industriel dans le Néolithique Jurassien, Bibliothèque Historique Vaudoise, Lausanne.

## S3 Text. Retouched tools

The identification of an intentional retouch on bone is often put forward when all other causes that could lead to removals have been ruled out (Vincent 1993). The archaeological context allows the diagnosis to be based with greater confidence (Inizan et al. 1995). At Chez-Pinaud, the absence of carnivore consumption traces (chewing, grooves, pits, punctures, and digestion blunts; Stucliffe 1973; Haynes 1983; Campas and Beauval 2008; Fourvel 2012), dispels the first source of possible confusion regarding notches origin. The likelihood that the bone blanks were transformed by humans for technical purposes is here increased by their tool status: most were used as ret touchers. Among the technical causes, bone fracturing by percussion during butchery processes also lead to the formation of removals (medullary or cortical side). In this case, the latter are related to the adjacent fracture, and sometimes to traces of the anvil's counter-strike on the opposite face, all resulting from a single event, generally a violent blow given perpendicular to the bone (Capaldo and Blumenschine 1994; Pickering and Egeland 2006).

Although there are few references about the intentional retouch of bone, positive clues of identification can nevertheless be used. Lithic knapping provides keys to understanding that can partially be transferred to bone insofar as the latter behaves like a conchoidal fracture material. However, bone is also a fibrous material whose mechanical properties vary according to the stress direction. Therefore, it responds to knapping in a more complex way than flint, due to its anisotropic structure. Nevertheless, common regularities and characteristics can be observed, implying the same reasoning in their analysis. The organization of the removals is the main criterion to consider for identifying an intentional knapping (Lyman 1984; Vincent 1993; Inizan et al. 1995).

## References

- Campas, E. and Beauval, C. (2008). Consommation osseuse des carnivores : résultats de l'étude de l'exploitation des carcasses de bœufs (Bos taurus) par des loups captifs. Annales de Paléontologie 94: 167-186.

- Capaldo, S.D. and Blumenschine, R.J. (1994). A quantitative diagnosis of notches made by hammerstone percussion and carnivore gnawing on bovid long bones. American Antiquity 59: 724-748.

- Fourvel, J.-B. (2012). Hyénidés modernes et fossiles d'Europe et d'Afrique: Taphonomie comparée de leurs assemblages osseux. Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Toulouse.

- Haynes, G. (1983). Frequencies of spiral and green-bone fractures on ungulate limb bones in modern surface assemblages. American Antiquity 48: 102-114.

- Inizan, M.-L., Reduron-Ballinger, M., Roche, H. and Tixier, J. (1995). Préhistoire de la pierre taillée, IV - Technologie de la pierre taillée. Cercle de recherches et d'études préhistoriques, Meudon.

- Lyman, R.L. (1984). Broken bones, bone expediency tools, and bone pseudotools: Lessons from the Blast zone around Mount St. Helens, Washington. American Antiquity 49: 315-333.

- Pickering, T.R. and Egeland, C.P. (2006). Experimental patterns of hammerstone percussion damage on bone: Implications of inferences of carcass processing by human. Journal of Archaeological Science 33: 459-469.

- Stucliffe, A.J. (1973). Similarity of bones and antlers gnawed by deer to Human artefacts. Nature 246: 428-430.

- Vincent, A. (1993). L'outillage osseux au Paléolithique moyen : une nouvelle approche. Thèse de Doctorat, Université Paris 10.
## S4 Text. Smooth-ended tools

Blunts are among the most common bone alterations induced by a variety of post-depositional processes (Sutcliffe 1973; Shipman and Rose 1988; Olsen 1989; Villa and d'Errico 2001; Fernández-Jalvo and Andrews 2013). The main criteria for differentiating a technical blunt from a taphonomic one is its extension, location, orientation, its transition with adjacent surfaces, and the combination of these different features. Natural erosion or dissolution tends to cover most, if not all, of the bone surface, whereas a blunt from use is restricted to the surface or edge of the active area. Hafting or gripping blunts may be more extensive, but remain related to a particular tool area. Blunt from friction into the sediments is mainly superficial and does not affect the concavities. The tool effectiveness depends on the control of its working angle. Maintaining this angle induces a regularity of the use-wear characteristics. The profile of the active edge rounding (seen in cross section) thus depends on the way the tool is used but also on the worked material physical properties, depending on whether the latter is organic or mineral, dry, fresh or wet, compact or granular, fibrous or not, etc. The maximum development of the bluntness is fixed by the minimum sharpness necessary to obtain the expected results on the worked material.

## References

- Fernández-Jalvo, Y. and Andrews, P. (2016). Atlas of Taphonomic Identifications, Springer Dordrecht, New York.

- Olsen, S.L. (1989). On distinguishing natural from cultural damage on archaeological antler. Journal of Archaeological Science 16: 125-135.

- Shipman, P. and Rose, J.J (1988). Bone tools: An experimental approach. In Olsen, S. (ed.), Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, BAR International, Oxford, pp. 303-336.

- Sutcliffe, A.J. (1973). Similarity of bones and antlers gnawed by deer to Human artefacts. Nature 246: 428-430.

- Villa, P. and d'Errico, F. (2001). Bone and ivory points in the Lower and Middle Paleolithic of Europe. Journal of Human Evolution 41: 69-112.