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).
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).
Table 1.
Bone tools, Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.
Fig 3.
Species spectrums, Chez-Pinaud site, 2019–2020 excavations.
(a-c) faunal remains. (b-d) bone tools (CAD: M. Baumann).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
Fig 9.
(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).
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).
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).
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).
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).
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.
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).