Premium
Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts
Author(s) -
ROBERTSON GAIL,
ATTENBROW VAL,
HISCOCK PETER
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
archaeology in oceania
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 1834-4453
pISSN - 0728-4896
DOI - 10.1002/arco.5177
Subject(s) - scraper site , archaeology , assemblage (archaeology) , flake , geology , mining engineering , geography , computer science , materials science , world wide web , composite material
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.