Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts

Abstract

A previous use-wear and residue analysis of backed artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter showed that they had a range of functions and had been used with a variety of raw materials. Were non-backed retouched flakes at Deep Creek used for different purposes? To answer this question, 40 non-backed specimens were selected for microscopic use-wear and residue analysis. Not all of these non-backed artefacts had been used, but we identified that many were scrapers, knives, incisors and saws. These tools were used for bone-working and wood-working, and possibly skin-working and non-woody plant-processing. Some of these non-backed retouched artefacts were hafted. For the first time, these results allow comparison of the tool use of backed and non-backed artefacts in Australia. At Deep Creek, the range of functions for the non-backed component was extremely similar to that of the backed artefacts. Although both artefact categories displayed similar tool use, they are distinguished in one interesting way: non-backed specimens were often single purpose, dedicated to one function, whereas backed artefacts were often multifunctional and multipurpose. These results help us understand the structure of tool use in Australia. RÉSUMÉ Une premièreétude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outilsà bordémoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux-ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaientété extraits de matières premières variées. Leséclats retouchés sans bordémoussé de Deep Creek ont-ilsété utilisésà des fins différentes? Afin de répondreà cette question, 40 outils sans bordémoussé ontété sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bordémoussé avaientété utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoupétaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outilsétaient employés pour du travail sur l'os et sur le bois, et peut-être pour le traitement des peaux et de plantes non ligneuses. Certains de ces outils noń emoussés retouchés avaientété emmanchés.Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bordémoussé en Australie.À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composantà bordémousséétait très semblableà celui des outils sans bordémoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bordémousséétaient souvent mono-tâche, dédiésà une seule fonction, alors que les artefactsà bordémousséétaient souvent multifonctionnels et polyvalents. Ces résultats aidentà comprendre le processus d'utilisation des outils en Australie.Mots-clés:éclatsà bordémoussé,éclats sans bordémoussé, analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure, Mangrove Creek, microlithique, non-microlithique, analyse tracéologique microscopique

Small Signals: Comprehending the Australian Microlithic as Public Signalling

“…At least in southeastern Australia these functional claims have been thoroughly refuted. In sites with good organic preservation, residue and wear evidence of hafting has been documented, and the rates of hafting are identical for both microliths and other retouched flakes (Robertson et al 2019); hence hafting in itself is not evidence that microliths were part of projectiles. More importantly the residue and wear evidence is not compatible with claims for microliths predominantly being projectile armatures.…”

“…More importantly the residue and wear evidence is not compatible with claims for microliths predominantly being projectile armatures. A series of high quality use-wear and residue studies have now demonstrated that microliths were used for varied craft tasks involving multi-purpose cutting and slicing and gouging of both plants and animal materials (Attenbrow et al 2009; Robertson et al 2009; 2019). These studies show no evidence for the use of microliths as projectile armatures, instead they document a large diversity of uses on similar shaped microliths: bone graving, hide scraping, plant scraping and cutting, meat cutting, wood carving, feather whittling, and others.…”

“…Given this diversity of functions on specimens of similar size and shape, no reference to tool use can offer an explanation for standardization of artefact size and shape. Substantial independence of form and function has recently been revealed by a study showing that both microliths and quite different classes of retouched flakes had virtually identical ranges of functions (Robertson et al 2019).…”

“…I begin by reiterating that research has demonstrated that these objects are typically hafted tools, but that tool function does not explain either their form or their standardization. Indeed, on a global scale these microliths are unlike the lithic forms that would be predicted for functions such as bone graving or wood scraping, and the functions of Australian microliths have been shown to be the same as the functions of other lithic tools such as ‘scrapers’ (Robertson et al 2019). Additionally, we know that microliths of the same shape and size had quite different tool uses (Robertson et al 2009).…”

Investigating hafting and composite tool repair as factors creating variability in backed artefacts: Evidence from Ngungara (Weereewa/Lake George), south‐eastern Australia

“…Continent-wide studies of backed artefacts show regional distinctions in shape, no matter what their material, indicating that raw material is not creating those large-scale differences (Hiscock & Maloney, 2016). Similarly, function has limited explanatory power with regards to backed Archaeology in Oceania 215 artefacts, as both wear features and residues give evidence that backed artefacts were used as craft tools that worked multiple materials in multiple ways (Attenbrow et al, 2009;Boot, 1993;Robertson et al, 2009Robertson et al, , 2019Robertson & Attenbrow, 2008). In addition, non-backed artefacts, formerly called "scrapers", have also been shown to have been used for a similar range of functions as backed artefacts from the same sites (Robertson et al, 2019), soundly decoupling function from backing retouch.…”