Table 1.
Synthesis of French Upper Paleolithic sites with parietal or block sculptures: location, chronological attribution, type of site, support, and sculpture, along with iconography.
Fig 1.
Geographic distribution of sites with parietal, boulder, or block sculptures in France.
Note that portable sculptures are excluded from this overview. Map created with Qgis 3.36.3 “Maidenhead”. Background maps reprinted under a CC BY or equivalent license from: NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. ETOPO 2022 15 Arc-Second Global Relief Model. 2022. doi: 10.25921/fd45-gt74; M. Zickel, D. Becker, J. Verheul, Y. Yener, C. Willmes. Paleocoastlines GIS dataset. CRC806-Database. 2016. doi: 10.5880/SFB806.19; European Environment Agency (EEA). European catchments and Rivers network system (Ecrins), natural sub basins of Europe – version 0, Dec. 2011. 2011; Institut national de l’information géographique et forestière (IGN). BD TOPO. 2017.
Table 2.
Information on participants involved in the experimental protocol, including assigned skill level, sex, age, handedness and participation phase.
Table 3.
Summary of experimental modalities, showing combinations of techniques and the tools used.
Fig 2.
Techniques tested during the experiments.
(A) Pecking, (B) Scraping, (C) Engraving and (D) Polishing.
Table 4.
Surface roughness parameters: codes, types of analyses, descriptions, units, and variables retained based on technique or expertise analysis.
Table 5.
Original engraving modalities and their renamed sets.
Fig 3.
Morphometric measurements taken from the profile of the engravings.
WIS: Width of the Incision at the Surface, LDC: Left Depth Convergent, RDC: Right Depth Convergent. Diagram redrawn from Courtenay et al [139].
Fig 4.
Surfaces resulting from the various techniques tested.
(A) CS: Control surfaces correspond to unworked areas of the blocks; (B) Ems: Engraving with multiple strokes using a blade (Set C); (C) PDPB: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a broken Blade + Ems: Engraving with multiple strokes with a pick (Set I); (D) PIPP: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Pick; (E) PDPP: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Pick; (F) PIPB: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Blade; (G) PDPC: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Cobble; (H) ScS: Scraping with an endScraper; (I) ScB: Scraping with a Blade; (J) PoS: Polishing with Skin; (K) PoHS: Polishing with Humid Sand; (L) PoC: Polishing with a Cobble; (M) PSc: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade and Scraping with an endScraper; (N) PScPoE: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade, Scraping with an endscraper, Polishing with Skin and Engraving with a blade (Sets D, E); (O) PScEPo: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade, Scraping with an endscraper, Engraving with a blade (Sets F, G) and Polishing with Skin.
Fig 5.
Photographs (A-C) and RTI images (A’-C’) comparing surface modifications produced by (A, A’) scraping with a blade; (B, B’) scraping with an endscraper on a surface previously pecked with a pick; (C, C’) polishing with a cobble.
Textural differences between B and C may be difficult to distinguish with the naked eye. RTI images, however, show that larger pores and depressions are preserved on surfaces subjected to polishing alone.
Fig 6.
Correlation matrix of roughness parameters retained for the technique analysis.
Fig 7.
Distribution of selected parameters for the technique analysis.
CS: Control Surface; PIPB: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Blade; PIPP: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Pick; PDPP: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Pick; PDPC: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Cobble; PSc: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade and Scraping with an endScraper; ScS: Scraping with an endScraper; ScB: Scraping with a Blade; PScPo: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade, Scraping with an endscraper and Polishing with Skin; PoHS: Polishing with Humid Sand; PoS: Polishing with Skin; PoC: Polishing with a Cobble.
Fig 8.
PCA based on selected roughness parameters.
CS: Control Surface; PIPB: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Blade; PIPP: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Pic; PDPP: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Pick; PDPC: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Cobble; PSc: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade and Scraping with an endScraper; ScS: Scraping with an endScraper; ScB: Scraping with a Blade; PScPo: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade, Scraping with an endscraper and Polishing with Skin; PoHS: Polishing with Humid Sand; PoS: Polishing with Skin; PoC: Polishing with a Cobble.
Table 6.
Summary of LDA statistics for the technique analysis: overall data and by skill level.
Fig 9.
Distribution of Depth, WIS, and A in the superficial engraving analysis.
Set A: Engravings produced with a burin using multiple strokes, Set B: Engravings produced with a flake using multiple strokes, Set C: Engravings produced with a blade using multiple strokes, Set D: Pecking + Scraping + Polishing + Engravings produced with a blade using single stroke, Set E: Pecking + Scraping + Polishing + Engravings produced with a blade using multiple stroke, Set F: Pecking + Scraping + Engravings produced with a blade using single stroke + Polishing, Set G: Pecking + Scraping + Engravings produced with a blade using multiple strokes + Polishing.
Fig 10.
PCA based on metric statistics for the superficial engraving analysis.
Fig 11.
PCA based on EFA of superficial engravings.
Extreme shape changes are visualised across each of the corresponding PC scores. Set A: Engravings produced with a burin using multiple strokes, Set B: Engravings produced with a flake using multiple strokes, Set C: Engravings produced with a blade using multiple strokes, Set D: Pecking + Scraping + Polishing + Engravings produced with a blade using single stroke, Set E: Pecking + Scraping + Polishing + Engravings produced with a blade using multiple stroke, Set F: Pecking + Scraping + Engravings produced with a blade using single stroke + Polishing, Set G: Pecking + Scraping + Engravings produced with a blade using multiple stroke + Polishing.
Fig 12.
Comparison of indirect percussion pecking marks produced with a broken blade by (A) the expert and (B) a novice.
The two experimenters used different active parts: the novice struck with one of the two angles of the break, while the expert used the entire fractured edge.
Fig 13.
Correlation matrix of roughness parameters obtained for the expertise analysis.
Fig 14.
Distribution of retained linear parameters for the expertise analysis.
PIPB: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Blade; PIPP: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Pick; PDPP: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Pick; PDPC: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Cobble; PSc: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade and Scraping with an endScraper; ScS: Scraping with an endScraper; ScB: Scraping with a Blade; PScPo: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade, Scraping with an endscraper and Polishing with Skin; PoHS: Polishing with Humid Sand; PoS: Polishing with Skin; PoC: Polishing with a Cobble.
Fig 15.
Distribution of retained circular parameters for the expertise analysis.
PIPB: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Blade; PIPP: Pecking in Indirect Percussion with a Pick; PDPP: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Pick; PDPC: Pecking in Direct Percussion with a Cobble; PSc: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade and Scraping with an endScraper; ScS: Scraping with an endScraper; ScB: Scraping with a Blade; PScPo: Pecking in direct percussion with a broken blade, Scraping with an endscraper and Polishing with Skin; PoHS: Polishing with Humid Sand; PoS: Polishing with Skin; PoC: Polishing with a Cobble.
Table 7.
Summary of LDA statistics by technique for the expertise analysis.