Because of the absence of preserved remains, reconstructing Paleolithic hide-working chaînes opératoires in Western Europe necessitates analyzing the use-wear traces. Often centered on a few specialized flint tools (scrapers), these analyses result in incomplete models. However, numerous ethnographic studies have emphasized the diversity of tool shape and raw material used in hide-working. The choice of tools and their functioning mode becomes a cultural marker for the group that employs them. This paper presents the results of crossed use-wear analyses on the Late Solutrean lithic and bone tools at Combe Saunière 1 (Dordogne, France). The late Solutrean (24.5/24 to 23.5/23 ka cal BP) in) is known for its bifacial lithic productions and its challenging climatic context of the Last Glacial Maximum [1]. Solutrean technical traditions are characterized by both sophisticated hunting-related productions and more expedient domestic productions [2]. Domestic activities, such as hide-working, are perceived as being less organized and, consequently, have been less explored by research. Nonetheless, hide probably was the primary source of protection against the cold, and may thus have played a key role in the economic organization of human nomad groups evolving in such unstable climatic conditions. Unfortunately, this activity during the Late Solutrean has not been comprehensively documented as studies have focused on lithic tools without a systemic approach. The Solutrean occupations of Combe Saunière 1 were mainly oriented towards hunting activities, but have also yielded numerous domestic tools [3]. Several flint and bone objects show traces of hide-working in various states and were used through multiple gestures. They are part of a complex chaîne opératoire, documented from acquisition to finishing end sequenced by many technical processes. Some stages of this chaîne opératoire were conducted with both flint and bone tools, while others were realized with specialized tools solely made of flint or bone. This reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire thus questions the factors influencing tool selection for different technical processes (mechanical properties of the material, morphology of the tool, morphology of the active part, etc.), thereby shedding new lights on unexplored Solutrean know-how and technical traditions. REFERENCES [1]Banks, W., et al. (2019) - An Application of Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling to Better Constrain the Chronologies of Upper Paleolithic Archaeological Cultures in France between ca. 32,000–21,000 Calibrated Years before Present, Quaternary Science Reviews, 220, p. 188–214. [2]Ducasse, S., Renard C. (2012) - De 20 000 à 18 000 BP En Quercy : Apport de la séquence du Cuzoul de Vers à la compréhension de l’évolution des comportements socio-économiques entre Solutréen et Badegoulien, Solutréen et Badegoulien au Cuzoul de Vers. Des chasseurs de Rennes en Quercy, ERAUL, p. 459–471. [3]Geneste, J.-M., Plisson H. (1986) - Le Solutréen de la grotte de Combe Saunière 1 (Dordogne). Première approche palethnologique, Gallia Préhistoire, 29-1, p. 9–27.