Residue and Use‐Wear Analysis of Non‐Backed

Residue and use-wear analysis oF non-backed RETOUCHED ARTEFACTS FROM Deep Creek Shelter, SYDNEY BASIN: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ROLE OF BACKED ARTEFACTS.

Robertson, Gail; University of Queensland, Archaeology

Attenbrow, Val; Australian Museum, ; University of Sydney, Archaeology

Hiscock, Peter; University of Sydney, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences

Abstract

A previous use-wear and residue analysis of backed artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter showed they had a range of functions and had been used with a variety of raw materials. Were non-backed retouched flakes at Deep Creek were 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.

Une analyse précédente de l'usure et des résidus d'artefacts sauvegardés de Deep Creek Shelter a montré qu'ils avaient une série de fonctions et avaient été utilisés avec une variété de matières premières. Est-ce que des lamelles retouchées sans endos à Deep Creek ont été utilisées à différentes fins ? Pour répondre à cette question, 40 échantillons non endossés ont été sélectionnés pour une

This is the author manuscript accepted for publication and has undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/arco.5177.

analyse microscopique de l'usure et des résidus. Tous ces artefacts sans endos n'avaient pas été utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que bon nombre d'entre eux étaient des grattoirs, des couteaux, des incisives et des scies. Ces outils ont été utilisés pour le travail des os et du bois, et éventuellement pour le travail de la peau et le traitement des plantes non ligneuses. Certains de ces artefacts sans endos retouchés ont été greffés.

Pour la première fois, ces résultats permettent de comparer l'utilisation d'artefacts avec et sans endos en Australie. À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composant sans endos était extrêmement similaire à celui des artefacts sans endos. Bien que les deux catégories d'artefacts aient montré une utilisation similaire des outils, elles se distinguent d'une manière intéressante : les spécimens sans endos étaient souvent à usage unique, dédiés à une seule fonction, alors que les artefacts avec endos

étaient souvent multi-fonctionnels et à usages multiples. Ces résultats nous aident à comprendre la structure de l'utilisation des outils en Australie.

Key words: backed, non-backed retouched, residue and use-wear analysis, Mangrove Creek microlithe, non-microlithe, analyse microscopique tracéologique, Mangrove Creek.

INTRODUCTION

Previous microscopic residue and use-wear studies addressed the use of backed artefacts in Holocene south-eastern Australia (Attenbrow et al. 2009; Fullagar 2016, Fullagar et al. 2009; Robertson 2002,

2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2009, 2011; Robertson and Attenbrow 2008; Robertson et al. 2009). The backed artefacts excavated from Deep Creek Shelter (DC) were interpreted by Robertson as multi-purpose, being employed mostly for bone- and wood-working, with some general non-woody plant-processing, light butchery, and possible throwing/thrusting use and use in a decorative or ritual context. They functioned predominantly as incisors, scrapers and knives and many were multifunctional. However,

whether backed artefacts were used differently to other retouched flakes in the site was not addressed.

The present study answers this question.

BACKED AND NON-BACKED ARTEFACTS

Morphological variation in retouched flakes is pronounced in eastern Australia, with variability in blank size and shape being a notable contributor to the difference between specimens. Variation was traditionally expressed by classifying specimens into different groups, but as the groupings were not conceptually comparable and their boundaries were ill-defined those classifications operated poorly to characterize the pool of retouched flakes at any site or in any region. Early explorations of the variation using multivariate techniques failed to find support for the traditional classifications, revealing that many of the differences were patterned as multidimensional continuums (e.g. Glover

1969). A detailed exploration of the nature of continuous and discontinuous variation in the large

Capertee 3 assemblage revealed that a multivariate discrimination between backed and non-backed retouched flakes was robust and repeatable, but that within either group no sub-classifications were readily able to be identified (Hiscock and Attenbrow 2005:62-84). Although these results are yet to be confirmed by modern studies of morphometry or repeated at other sites, they are the foundation of the distinction made in this paper between backed and non-backed artefacts in the Sydney basin. Backed artefacts were distinguished principally by their steep marginal retouch (81.0o + 6.4o), typically bidirectionally retouched at their tips, retouched less distally and more laterally, and made on thinner flakes. Non-backed specimens tended to not have those features, with varied but on average lower retouch angles (73.9o + 12.2o), typically unidirectional retouched edges, more diverse retouch locations and made on thicker flakes (Figure 1). For any single trait these classes overlap but agglomerative hierarchical cluster analyses and discriminant analysis of size and retouch morphology separates the two groups (Hiscock and Attenbrow 2005:62).

These quantitative analyses make a broad separation of retouched flakes into backed and non-backed varieties that parallels the division made in conventional classification (Hiscock and Attenbrow 2005).

The difference in size and shape between these two groups has consistently prompted speculation about them being made for different purposes. There has been little agreement in the hypothesized use

of backed artefacts. They were originally thought to have been scalpels (Etheridge and Whitelegge

1907), then hypothesized to be cutting tools in composite knives or saws (e.g. Turner 1932), or skinning/skin-working tools (e.g. Stockton 1970; Tindale 1955). However, the most common and persistent model has been that backed artefacts were hafted on to thrown spears and served as spear barbs and/or tips (e.g. Attenbrow 2004; Boot 1993; Campbell and Noone 1943; Flood 1995; Fullagar

1994, 2016; Kamminga 1980; McCarthy 1948:72; McDonald et al. 2007; Morwood 1981; Stockton

1979; Turner 1932; White and O’Connell 1982). Nevertheless, whatever the proposal, these models of backed artefact use retained two characteristics. First, the typical use of backed and non-backed artefacts was different, which implies that wear and residues on specimens in each category should be distinctly unalike. Second, these models implied a single dominant use for most or all backed artefacts, which implies that wear and residues should be uniform on backed specimens.

We have previously tested the proposition that wear and residues were uniform on backed artefacts, and concluded that the proposition was falsified (Robertson et al. 2009). Backed artefacts were used for diverse craft production activities: wood-working, bone-working, hide-working, plant and flesh processing. Many specimens were multi-functional, unambiguously refuting the idea that Australian backed artefacts had a single use. This conclusion applied to a number of sites in the Sydney Basin, including Deep Creek Shelter. In this paper, we study backed and non-backed retouched flakes at

Deep Creek Shelter to test the proposition that they had distinctly different uses.

DEEP CREEK SHELTER AND ASSEMBLAGE

Deep Creek Shelter is a large rockshelter in the Upper Mangrove Creek catchment in the New South

Wales Central Coast (Figure 2). The excavated deposit in Deep Creek contained over 10,000 stone artefacts of which 42 are backed artefacts and 142 are non-backed retouched flakes. The deposit accumulated as the result of roof fall or weathering due to human occupation of the site and stone artefacts and charcoal were present throughout the deposit (Attenbrow 1982:12-13). A radiocarbon date of 6210 90 BP (Beta-3623) from charcoal from Level 13 indicates occupation of the shelter began 6830–7258 calBP (two sigma calibrated range). Backed artefacts were recovered only from

Levels 3 to 9, bracketed by radiocarbon dates of 1070±100 BP (Beta-4670) and 4014±36 BP (Wk-

42535) from charcoal samples (Attenbrow 1982). At two sigma, calibrated ranges for these dates show that backed artefacts were deposited between 735–1145 and 4289–4530 calBP. Most of our sample of non-backed retouched flakes (38 of 40 specimens) came from the levels of this time period

(Supplement 1). In this paper, we do not study change in tool use during the three thousand years or so that the assemblage accumulated, and we note that we have already shown that there is no demonstrable change over time in the use of backed artefacts (Attenbrow et al. 2009).

Retouched flakes were made on a range of lithic materials, and both backed and non-backed groups were made on the same rocks: jasper, silcrete, tuff, quartz and quartzite. While the range of materials was the same, backed artefacts were more frequently made on silcrete while non-backed artefacts were most frequently made on tuff. These differences in material selection are distinct but they are not statistically significant (χ2 = 8.356, d.f. = 4, p = 0.079), and we therefore do not predict that raw material differences between the backed and non-backed batches will have major implications for studies of use. Although lithic raw material potentially plays a role in the creating variation in wear patterns and residue preservation, we assess this by comparing the patterns against materials. For instance, in the results we present below there is no association between raw material group and whether or not there is evidence for use (χ2 = 2.279, d.f. = 3, p = 0.517).

Residue and use-wear analyses were undertaken to identify the use of 40 non-backed artefacts from

Deep Creek Shelter (Supplement 1; Figure 1). These artefacts were selected because their maximum dimension (<40 mm) was comparable to the backed artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, they exhibited macroscopic evidence of retouch, and all but two came from the same analytical levels (3 to 9) as the backed artefacts; the two exceptions were ESP4001 and ESP4017 which came from Levels 1 and 10 respectively.

USE-WEAR/RESIDUE ANALYTICAL METHODS

An integrated microscopic residue and use-wear analysis was adopted for this study of Deep Creek non-backed retouched artefacts. Fullagar (1986) was the first to apply this method to Australian

artefacts and it has since been used in numerous archaeological studies both in Australia and internationally (e.g., Barton et al. 2009; Cooper & Nugent 2009; Field et al. 2009; Fullagar 1994,

1998, 2011; Fullagar et al. 2015; Hardy & Svoboda 2009; Hardy & Moncel 2011; Haslam 1999,

2009; Kononenko et al. 2015; Kononenko et al. 2016; Lentfer et al. 2013; Lombard 2005, 2008;

Monnier et al. 2013; Pawlik & Thissen 2011; Robertson 2002, 2005, 2006a, 2009, 2011; Robertson &

Attenbrow 2008; Robertson et al. 2009; Rots & Williamson 2004; Rots et al. 2015; Ulm et al. 2009;

Wadley et al. 2004).

The same method was used in the analysis of the backed artefacts from Deep Creek and other sites in the Mangrove Creek catchment (e.g., Robertson et al. 2009). Use-wear analysis was employed primarily to locate used edges and to determine the mode of action of a tool. The major forms of use- wear identified were edge-rounding, edge-fracturing, striations and lineation, and abrasive smoothing and polish (for definitions of these terms, see Robertson 2005:48-51). The co-occurrence of use-wear and residues was used to establish that residues were related to use. It is important to note that use- wear attributes were observed in less than ideal conditions. Accurate use-wear analysis requires artefacts to be thoroughly cleaned, often with harsh chemicals, prior to microscopic examination (e.g.,

Rots et al. 2006:936). However, the artefacts in this study were museum specimens and it was necessary to use only non-destructive techniques for the analyses, therefore cleaning of the artefacts

(over and above that undertaken prior to this study – see below) was not a viable option.

Artefacts were examined in the University of Queensland’s use-wear and residue laboratory.

Microscopic examinations were designed to identify use-wear features, residues adhering to the artefacts, breakage patterns, and evidence for hafting. For the identification of hafting, Rots

(2010:203-204) distinguishes five types of wear: polish, scarring, rounding, striations and bright spots. Importantly, if the bright spots are localised on a particular part of the tool and are associated with scarring, the tool has definitely been hafted. Polish and scarring combined are also useful indicators. However, according to Rots (2003:812) ‘[t]he use of resin often hinders trace production’ which is an interesting finding in relation to interpretations of Australian artefact use where the presence of resin traces is the most distinctive hafting evidence recorded in most previous research. In

fact, Rots (2003:812) determines that ‘absence of scarring and polish in a well-delimited area’ usually signifies the use of resin, not necessarily the absence of hafting. Rots (2010:204) also notes that ‘the coarser the raw material, the slower the formation of hafting traces’ which is significant in relation to

Australian stone artefacts, which are usually manufactured on relatively coarse material. Therefore, in this study, the presence and distribution of resin is considered the primary evidence for the prior existence of a haft, with wear features providing supplementary data. Presence/absence of a haft was considered important since hafting has a significant influence on the mode of action of a tool.

Accurate microscopic identification required a two-staged approach using both low and high magnification microscopes. For this analysis, it involved the use of an Olympus SZ61 and an

Olympus BX51 microscope. The Olympus SZ61 is a stereo-binocular microscope with variable magnifications from 6.7x to 45x diameters mounted with a Qimaging digital camera. The light source employed was a Microlight 150 fibre-optic light with adjustable arms, which allow observation of artefact surfaces with oblique lighting, an essential feature for the identification of a number of use- wear attributes. Initial examination of an artefact at low magnification allows assessment and identification of traces of wear, including use-wear and wear due to taphonomic factors, location of potential use-related residues, hafting evidence and contaminants.

An Olympus BX51 metallographic microscope fitted with 10x eyepiece lenses and 10x, 50x and 100x objective lenses was used for high-power microscopy, providing nominal magnifications of 100x,

500x and 1000x diameters. The microscope employs vertical incident brightfield and darkfield illumination for observation of residues and artefact surfaces and utilizes a fixed polarising filter and a rotating (360°) analyser. The objectives are long working distance lenses enabling examination of the characteristically uneven topography of stone artefact surfaces. The Olympus BX51 is fitted with an

Olympus DP70 digital camera.

An image database of plant, animal and mineral residues and types of use-wear from a range of activities, created for previous research (Robertson 2005, 2011:87-88; Robertson & Attenbrow 2008), was used for comparative analyses. Residues and use-wear typically associated with various hypothesised tasks and functions, based on a review of the literature and the results of replicative

experiments, were assembled into a table (see Supplements 2 and 3). Individual artefact use was then inferred from this table of commonly co-occurring residues and use-wear features. However, there is a degree of uncertainty in interpretation of task and/or function when use-wear or residues are present but limited in extent, and, based on the table of residue and use-wear criteria (see Supplement 2), this was incorporated into the results and presented as

 certain (all essential and most other criteria met),

 probable (some, but not all, essential criteria met) or

 possible (at least one essential criterion met for both residues and use-wear).

For example, certain identification of secondary stage bone-working (scraping or cutting periosteum, modifying bone) would require the presence of at least

 sheet collagen, collagen fibrils and proteinaceous film residues, with

 use-wear consisting of edge rounding and fracturing plus striations perpendicular to or

parallel with the edge (e.g., ESP4029);

probable identification of secondary bone-working would require identification of

 sheet collagen, plus vivianite or granular bone collagen residues (i.e. only some of the

essential criteria), and

 use-wear consisting of edge rounding and fracturing plus striations perpendicular to or

parallel with the edge (e.g., ESP4018)

 edge rounding or fracturing but no striations and

 all the essential residue criteria (e.g., ESP4005); possible identification of secondary bone-working would require either

 some essential residues and not all diagnostic use-wear (e.g., ESP4039)

 only some essential use-wear features and only some essential residues (e.g., ESP4020).

Some artefacts were not assigned a specific task, even though they exhibited diagnostic use-wear, because there were no associated residues to confirm the interpretation. This conservative identification enhanced the robustness of our interpretations.

The following taphonomic issues relating to the analysis of wear on the tools were also considered.

Firstly, observation of edge-rounding is usually the starting point for use-wear analysis since some rounding is evident after even short-term use. However, rounding can also be caused by natural attrition including depositional and post-depositional factors, and an assessment of use-related rounding was based on the condition of other edges on the artefact as well as the presence of other use-wear features (Kamminga 1982:17). Rounding was recorded not only as present/absent but also in terms of degree (slight, moderate or pronounced) and location. Secondly, striations caused by post- depositional effects, such as rolling, may occasionally be confused with use-related striations although post-depositional striations are likely to be random in direction and location. Post-excavation activities such as sieving, transport and curation procedures, including brushing and cleaning, are also known to cause surface modification to lithic artefacts. Thus, although the orientation of striations is the most useful indicator of direction of tool action, the above limitations were considered before assigning striations to use-wear. Thirdly, non-use related activities likely to produce edge-scarring on artefacts are retouch, trampling, and transport (particularly transport prior to discard) and these possibilities were considered before assigning particular patterns of edge scarring to use-wear.

Fourthly, abrasive smoothing and polish are on a continuum and their separate identification relies more on the use of either low- or high-power microscopy and the type of lithic substrate than any perceived difference in their formation process. Abrasive smoothing is more likely to be visible on relatively granular lithic materials, such as those used in the manufacture of many Australian tools, and has a ‘frosted’ appearance at low magnification. Polish is not usually well-developed on

Australian tools with a few exceptions (Fullagar 1991; Kamminga 1982:16). In this study polish is noted merely as present/absent along with its location and associations. Hence the possibility of

taphonomic effects on the surfaces of the stone artefacts was explicitly examined throughout the analysis.

Recovery and post-excavation curation

Excavated deposits from Deep Creek Shelter were wet sieved in the field. All artefacts were washed and brushed in the laboratory where they were placed on trays to dry with ‘hand-towel’ paper beneath them. Provenance details were written on them in Indian ink and they were then stored in plastic bags with cardboard labels inside the bags. Prior to being sent for residue and use-wear analysis, they were re-bagged separately from their labels. Other than the initial examination and classification of the excavated assemblages and re-bagging, they were not subjected to any other form of handling.

This prior treatment introduced several issues that were taken into account during microscopic examination, particularly with regard to wear features as described above. Also, both hand-towel paper and cardboard are likely to leave fibrous and/or amorphous cellulose residues although these are likely to be distributed randomly over the artefacts, not fixed or anchored, and not in association with use-wear. When such features were observed they were set aside and not employed in inferences.

RESULTS

Results of the residue and use-wear analysis are provided here, with additional details of the evidence seen on each artefact presented in Supplement 3. Of the 40 non-backed retouched artefacts analysed,

11 exhibit both use-wear and residues which we interpret as clear evidence of use, another nine display use-wear with limited residues which we argue gives some indications of use, whilst a further seven exhibit limited use-wear evidence with no visible residues and are difficult to interpret. Thirteen artefacts, despite being retouched, have no identifiable use-wear or residues and it is plausible that they were never used or perhaps only minimally used (see below) (Tables 1 and 2).

We discuss the evidence for tool use by distinguishing between function and associated task.

Function describes tool use in terms of the way an implement was used: for cutting, scraping, incising, drilling or thrusting/throwing. For each tool these actions were inferred from observations of both patterns of use-wear and the location of task-related residues. Even if residues indicate the task

performed, a function was not inferred unless wear or distinctive residue location was observed.

Hence it is sometimes possible to infer an associated task but not a function, and vice versa. Task describes tool use in terms of the materials worked: non-woody plant-working, wood-working, bone- working, skin-working, and ﬂesh-working (such as butchering). The task(s) of each tool were recognised by identifying combinations of unambiguous residues or remnants of materials with which the tool made contact during use.

Using this conceptual framework, we characterise task(s) and function(s) involved in each tool’s use to quantify the frequency of different tasks and functions in the assemblage. We acknowledge that any specimen could have more than one use. When tools were used for more than one function, such as being used to both scrape and incise, we describe them as multifunctional. When tools were used on more than one material, such as being employed for wood-working and skin-working, we describe them as multi-purpose (Robertson 2005:17; Robertson et al. 2009:300-302).

Functions

A function has been inferred or proposed on the basis of use-wear and, where possible, on the location of residues (Table 1 and Supplement 3).

Scraping: Five artefacts (ESP4006, 4007, 4018, 4019 and 4029) exhibited clear evidence for use as scrapers, with one artefact (ESP4007) probably also used for cutting. For example, the distal edge of

ESP4006 carried multiple step, hinge and feather flake scars with striations perpendicular to the edge on the ventral surface. In addition, areas on both lateral margins exhibited pronounced rounding with striations running perpendicular to the margin, indicating more than one edge had been used (Figure

3). ESP4006 had multiple uses as a scraper/adze and may have been re-hafted in a different orientation at some stage or de-hafted and edges used without a haft (Roth 1904:17). A further seven artefacts (ESP4001, 4005, 4010, 4020, 4024, 4025 and 4036) were probably used as scrapers, although use-wear was less pronounced. One of these (ESP4005) was probably also used for incising and another (ESP4025) was probably also used for cutting. In addition, five artefacts (ESP4022, 4027,

4039, 4012 and 4032) with slight use-wear were probably used as scrapers.

Tasks associated with scraping were bone-working (ESP4005 and 4029, and possibly ESP4018, 4020,

4025 and 4039) and wood-working (ESP4007, probably also ESP4019 and 4024, and possibly

ESP4006, 4010 and 4022). ESP4025 was used for a task associated with animals, inferred from the presence of collagen residue, vivianite crystals and putative mammalian red blood cells caught in flake scars all along the ventral lower lateral margin (Figure 4). Bone-working (for example, removal of periosteum) or skin-working are both tasks for which this artefact may have been used.

Cutting: None of the Deep Creek non-backed retouched artefacts exhibited clear unequivocal evidence for use as a knife, although five artefacts (ESP4004, 4007, 4013, 4014 and 4025) had some wear indicating cutting as a probable function, or, in the case of ESP4013, possible use as a saw.

ESP4004 may have been used in non-woody plant-processing or wood-working. ESP4007 was certainly used for working a charred resinous wood, with wear consisting of pronounced rounding along one lateral margin and striations at 45° to the edge, and pronounced rounding and bevelling of the ‘nose’, with some evidence of crushing. ESP4025 was possibly used on both animal and non- woody plant material.

Incising: Only one artefact (ESP4005) gave any indication of use as an incisor, although, as described above, it probably also functioned as a scraper. Incising was inferred from the presence of use-wear in the form of rounding and crushing on the tip, with both sheet and granular bone collagen as well as vivianite present on the tip and adjacent margin. Animal residues suggest a task such as bone- working.

Sawing: Artefact ESP4013 is the only artefact for which use as a saw is a possibility. This artefact exhibits fine parallel striations, multiple bending fractures, polish and pronounced rounding along one lateral margin suggesting prolonged contact between the tool and the contact material (Figure 5).

However, there were no visible use-related residues and an allocation of task was not possible.

Thrusting/Throwing: Artefact ESP4011 exhibits use-wear features suggestive of, although not diagnostic of, damage from impact (See Supplement 3 and Figure 6). The tip exhibits significant damage, with step flake scars on both surfaces, each with one oblique step fracture. The lack of residues other than resin means we have no suggestion of an associated task and we are unable to

infer the kind of composite tool the specimen was part of, or whether the damage was created by throwing or thrusting the object. The artefact has been hafted, shown by resin patches across the proximal two-thirds which indicates hafting had left only the tip and adjacent lateral margins exposed.

Lacking evidence for function: Thirteen retouched non-backed retouched artefacts in our sample lack identifiable use-wear (ESP4003, 4009, 4015, 4017, 4021, 4026, 4028, 4030, 4031, 4035, 4037,

4040, 4041). There may be several different reasons for this: it may be that they were used for only a short expedient use episode during which little or no wear developed; or the tools were used on a soft material or substrate that caused little or no wear on the tool; or the tools are made from particularly hard raw material resistant to the creation of wear. Each of these circumstances is likely to limit the development of identifiable diagnostic use-wear features. Hence the lack of wear need not be diagnostic of the specimen being unused. However, in addition to lack of wear traces, none of these thirteen artefacts exhibited any residues, and the likely explanation is that they were not used.

Tasks

Residues associated with use-wear were observed on nine non-backed retouched artefacts, but were only in sufficient quantity to unequivocally infer an associated task on three specimens (ESP4005,

4029 and 4007):

 ESP4005 and 4029 were used for bone-working. On the tip and adjacent margins of

ESP4005, there are a number of fragments of collagen, mostly sheet and granular bone

collagen and also a small quantity of vivianite. On ESP4029, small bone fragments, granular

bone collagen, collagen fibres and sheets are caught on the edges of the step flake scars on

the steep edge and on the ventral surface. Vivianite crystals are frequently visible on the

collagen residues and a long collagen fibre bundle with fraying fibrils is firmly anchored to

the lip of a flake scar and appears to have a small section of associated blood residue (Figure

7).

 ESP4007 was used for wood-working, inferred from the presence of charred resinous residue

scraped onto the used margin as well as plant fibres and charcoal (Figure 8).

With less certainty, we can identify tasks associated with an additional six artefacts:

 ESP4018, a scraper, had residues of animal origin, possibly indicating scraping bone to

remove the periosteum, that is, secondary bone-working (Figure 9).

 ESP4019, a scraper, had residues consisting of resin (often degraded), sap and fine charcoal

located on the steep distal edge. These residues indicate this artefact was almost certainly

used for some form of wood-working, probably as a hafted scraper.

 On ESP4020, although collagen residues were limited in quantity, they were observed on both

sides of a ridge on the lower dorsal margin in association with polish and striations

perpendicular to the adjacent edge, suggesting scraping bone.

 ESP4024, probably a scraper, had residues typically associated with wood-working and was

probably used for scraping charred resinous wood.

 ESP4025 exhibited residues indicative of use on animals (collagen fibres and tissue, and

possible mammalian red blood cells). Butchering, skin- or bone-working are all possibilities,

with use-wear probably indicative of scraping and/or cutting.

 ESP4039 exhibited limited diagnostic use-wear features, but residues located on both sides of

the distal end consisted of collagen (including fibrils), lipids and associated vivianite, with the

irregular structure of the collagen sheets suggesting connective tissue such as that found in the

periosteum. Secondary bone-working is a possible associated task and, based on residue

distribution, scraping is a likely function.

For the remaining 31 non-backed retouched artefacts, a task could not be inferred.

Hafting

In this study, the presence, location and distribution of resin was considered the primary evidence of hafting, with wear features, particularly polish (‘bright spots’) and multidirectional lineation in the resin, providing supplementary data (see above). Hafting was unequivocally inferred for 12 artefacts

(ESP4001, 4004, 4005, 4006, 4011, 4012, 4013, 4014, 4019, 4022, 4036 and 4039), with ESP4005 providing an example of resin distribution, in this case on the proximal one-third of the artefact

(Figure 10a and 10b) and ESP4012 providing a clear example of multidirectional lineation in the resin, indicating movement of the tool within a haft (Figure 10c and d). ESP4019 exhibits an area of polished resin again suggesting movement of the tool in a haft (Figure 10e and f), while ESP4039 displays resin distribution on the proximal one-third of the artefact as well as multidirectional lineation in some of the resin (Figure 10g and h); ESP4002, 4023, 4026, 4029 and 4030 were probably hafted; and ESP4017, 4024, 4025 and 4041 were possibly hafted. Three artefacts (ESP4007,

4018 and 4020), which had certainly been used, exhibited no evidence for hafting and four artefacts

(ESP4017, 4026, 4030 and 4041) (10%) exhibited no evidence for use but did exhibit some evidence for hafting (Table 1 and Supplement 3). Thus, overall, 42.5% (n=17) of the used artefacts exhibited some evidence for hafting, while 25% (n=10) of the artefacts which exhibited some evidence for use were not hafted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our question was whether the backed and non-backed retouched artefacts at Deep Creek Shelter had been used in the same way and for similar tasks. Here we have shown that typical functions for the non-backed retouched flakes at this site were cutting, scraping and incising. These common functions are very similar to those identified on backed artefacts in an earlier study (Robertson 2005), in which backed artefacts were found to have functioned mostly as scrapers, knives and incisors, with some being multi-functional tools. Those backed specimens were used for bone-working, wood-working

(including incising wood), general plant processing, and light butchery, with a single specimen identified as possibly used to make ritual/decorative objects, and several others as having been possibly used to capture or process birds or other animals.

Many of the functions for which people employed non-backed artefacts were also functions for which they employed backed artefacts (Table 2). The majority of non-backed retouched flakes that retained evidence of use were employed for cutting, scraping, and incising. One non-backed artefact may also have been used in a percussive/thrusting or throwing action. Another non-backed retouched flake was perhaps used for sawing, but this is the only task that was not evident in the wear on our sample of

backed artefacts from the site. We therefore conclude that backed and non-backed tools were often functionally equivalent despite their morphological differences.

We emphasise that the non-significant difference in raw material observed between the two classes is not responsible for the functional similarities and differences we observe. For example, there is no association between raw material group and evidence for scraping (χ2 = 4.102, d.f. = 3, p = 0.251), cutting (χ2 = 5.795, d.f. = 3, p = 0.122), or incising (χ2 = 2.771, d.f. = 3, p = 0.428). On this basis we refute any suggestion that material properties are responsible for the residue/wear findings.

The two classes, backed and non-backed retouched flakes, had the same range of functions, but our evidence shows there was a difference between the classes in how frequently specific functions were employed (Table 2). For example, while scraping was common on both backed and non-backed artefacts, incising was common only on backed artefacts. Evidence for scraping is proportionately more common on backed artefacts than on the non-backed ones, a finding that challenges the value of the historical tendency of archaeologists in eastern Australia to label non-backed retouched flakes as

‘scrapers’. Our conclusion is that such functional labels should not be used merely because the retouch on a specimen is not backing.

One main difference we observed between backed and non-backed retouched flakes is the rates of use and of multi-functionality. Only 68% of non-backed retouched flakes from Deep Creek retain residue and/or wear evidence of having been used, whereas 95% of backed artefacts have evidence for use.

As discussed earlier this might indicate lower rates of tool use for non-backed specimens, but it might alternatively be that the minimal or lack of identifiable wear indicates that the tool was used only briefly. Single or minimal use may also explain the lack of residues in association with use-wear on many of the tools, because, although both classes of artefact were subject to the same taphonomic issues in situ, lesser quantities of residue deposited initially may also result in reduced rates of preservation. Langejans (2010:972) suggests that when organic residues are preserved it is because the decay process is incomplete. As all the specimens we described were recovered from the same levels of a single deposit we conclude that preservation is not the main factor producing significantly

more residues on backed than non-backed specimens. The differences are likely to result from differences in tool use.

We suggest that use-wear was less developed on many of the non-backed artefacts because they were expedient tools, often used only once or twice so that they did not develop diagnostic wear patterns.

This pattern may have been magnified by retouching that removed functional edges and associated traces of use on specimens that were used once or more. Rates of multi-functionality are also different for the two tool forms. The rates for backed artefacts with evidence for multiple functions (66%) are far higher than rates for the non-backed retouched flakes reported here (5%).

Attachment of the stone specimens to a haft appears to have occurred at similar rates on both backed and non-backed artefacts: 27% of each artefact class had unequivocal residue and wear evidence of hafting. This evidence suggests that although some tools in the non-backed assemblage may have been used expediently (based on the limited degree of use-wear and quantity of residues observed), enough time and effort had been expended to insert these kinds of retouched flakes into a haft.

In conclusion, backed and non-backed tools at Deep Creek were used for the same range of functions.

There is no basis for considering them functionally different tools, even though they have different morphologies. Furthermore, backed artefacts were more frequently used for scraping than non-backed tools, revealing that traditional functional labels made without wear and residue evidence should not be accepted. We have shown that the two forms differ not in the range of functions they had but in the longevity and multi-functionality of use. Backed artefacts used by the Aboriginal occupants of Deep

Creek Shelter may have been used more frequently than the non-backed tools they made. Our evidence is also consistent with the idea that backed artefacts were manufactured to produce a versatile multi-purpose and multi-functional tool which was reused or used regularly (e.g., Attenbrow et al. 2009; Hiscock 2008; Robertson et al. 2009). In contrast, edges on non-backed artefacts may have been retouched expediently and the tool used briefly and discarded. These results provide a basis for a greater understanding of tool use during the mid-Holocene in south-eastern Australia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Grant (DP0770259 –

Evolution of technology and tool use in 10,000 years of Aboriginal History). Microscopic residue and use-wear analysis was carried out by Dr Gail Robertson in the Archaeological Microscopy Laboratory in the School of Social Science at the University of Queensland. We thank the Darginung Local

Aboriginal Land Council for their continuing support for our research. We also thank Dr Alison

Crowther and Tessa Corkill for their useful comments on earlier versions of this paper and Dr

Crowther also for her help in preparation of the figures for publication.

REFERENCES

Attenbrow, V. 1982 Archaeological Investigation of Deep Creek Shelter, Mangrove Creek Dam.

Unpublished report to NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service and NSW Department of

Public Works.

Attenbrow, V. 2004 What’s Changing: Population Size or Land-Use Patterns? The Archaeology of

Upper Mangrove Creek, Sydney Basin. Canberra: Pandanus Books.

Attenbrow, V., G. Robertson and P. Hiscock 2009 The changing abundance of backed artefacts in

south-eastern Australia: a response to Holocene climate change? Journal of Archaeological

Science, 36:2765-2770.

Barton, H., P. Piper, R. Rabett and I. Reeds 2009 Composite hunting technologies from the

Terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene, Niah Cave, Borneo. Journal of

Archaeological Science 36:1708-1714.

Boot, P. 1993 Analysis of resins and other plant residues on stone artefacts from Graman

New South Wales. In B. Fankhauser and J.R. Bird (eds) Archaeometry: Current

Australasian Research, pp.3-12. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School

of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University.

Campbell, T.D. and H.V.V. Noone 1943 South Australian microlithic stone implements.

Records of the South Australian Museum VII:281-307.

Cooper, J. and S. Nugent 2009 Tools on the surface: residue and use-wear analyses of stone

artefacts from Camooweal, northwest Queensland. In M. Haslam, G. Robertson, A.

Crowther, S. Nugent, and L. Kirkwood, (eds) Archaeological Science Under a

Microscope: Studies in Residue and ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Thomas H.

Loy, pp.207-227. Terra Australis 30. Canberra: ANU Epress.

Field, J., R. Cosgrove, R. Fullagar and B. Lance 2009 Starch residues on grinding stones in

private collections: a study of morahs from the tropical rainforests of NE Queensland.

In M. Haslam, G. Robertson, A. Crowther, S. Nugent, and L. Kirkwood, (eds)

Archaeological Science Under a Microscope: Studies in Residue and ancient DNA

Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy, pp.228-238. Terra Australis 30. Canberra: ANU

Epress.

Flood, J. 1995 Archaeology of the Dreamtime: The Story of Prehistoric Australia and its

People. Rev. edn. Sydney: Angus & Robertson.

Fullagar, R. 1986 Use-wear and residues on stone tools: functional analysis and its

application to two southeastern Australian archaeological assemblages. Unpublished

Ph.D. thesis, La Trobe University.

Fullagar, R. 1981 The role of silica in polish formation. Journal of Archaeological Science

18:1-24.

Fullagar, R. 1994 Objectives for use-wear and residue studies: views from an Australian

microscope. Helinium 34(2):210-224.

Fullagar, R., ed. 1998 A Closer Look. Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools. Volume 6.

Sydney: Archaeological Computing Laboratory, University of Sydney.

Fullagar, R. 2011 Burins, Bones and Base Camps: A Re-analysis of Aire Shelter 2, Glenaire,

Southern Victoria. Technical Reports of the Australian Museum, Online 23:103-131.

Fullagar, R. 2016 Uncertain evidence for weapons and craft tools: functional investigations of

Australian microliths. In Iovita, R. and K. Sano (eds) Multidisciplinary Approaches to

the Study of Stone Age Weaponry, pp.159-166. Vertebrate paleobiology and

paleoanthropology series. Dordrecht: Springer.

Fullagar, R., E. Hayes, B. Stephenson, J. Field, C. Matheson, N. Stern and K. Fitzsimmons

2015 Evidence for Pleistocene seed grinding at Lake Mungo, south-eastern Australia.

Archaeology in Oceania 50 Supplement:3-19.

Fullagar, R., J. McDonald, J. Field and D. Donlon 2009 Deadly weapons: Backed microliths

from Narrabeen. In M. Haslam, G. Robertson, A. Crowther, S. Nugent and L.

Kirkwood (eds) Archaeological Science Under a Microscope: Studies in Residue and

ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy, pp.248-260. Terra Australis 30.

Canberra:ANU Epress.

Glover, I. C. 1969 The use of factor analysis for the discovery of artefact types. Mankind

7:36-51.

Hardy, B., and M-H. Moncel 2011 Neanderthal use of fish, mammals, birds, starchy plants

and wood 125-250,000 years ago. PLoS One 6(8).

Hardy, B. and J. Svoboda 2009 Mesolithic stone tool function and site types in Northern

Bohemia, Czech Republic. In M. Haslam, G. Robertson, A. Crowther, S. Nugent, and L.

Kirkwood, (eds) Archaeological Science Under a Microscope: Studies in Residue and

ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy, pp.159-174. Terra Australis 30.

Canberra: ANU Epress.

Haslam, M. 1999 What a Dump: Use-wear and Residue Analysis of Lithic Artefacts from

Copan, Honduras Unpublished BA(Hons) thesis, Department of Anthropology and

Sociology, University of Queensland.

Haslam, M., G. Robertson, A. Crowther, S. Nugent and L. Kirkwood, (eds) 2009

Archaeological Science Under a Microscope: Studies in Residue and ancient DNA

Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy. Canberra: ANU Epress.

Hiscock, P. 2008 Archaeology of Ancient Australia. Routledge, Sydney.

Hiscock, P. and V. Attenbrow 2005 Australia’s Eastern Regional Sequence revisited:

Technology and change at Capertee 3. Oxford, UK: Archaeopress.

Kamminga, J. 1980 A functional investigation of Australian microliths. The Artefact 5:1-18.

Kamminga, J. 1982 Over the Edge: Functional Analysis of Australian Stone Tools. St

Lucia: Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland.

Kononenko, N., R. Torrence and P. Sheppard 2016 Detecting early tattooing in the Pacific

region through experimental usewear and residue analyses of obsidian tools. Journal of

Archaeological Science Reports 8:147-63.

Kononenko, N., R. Torrence and P. White 2015 Unexpected uses for obsidian: experimental

replication and use-wear/residue analysis of chopping tools. Journal of Archaeological

Science 54:254-269.

Langejans, G. 2010 Remains of the day - preservation of organic micro-residues on stone

tools. Journal of Archaeological Science 37:971-985.

Lentfer, C., P. Matthews, C. Gosden, S. Lindsay and J. Specht 2013 Prehistory in a nutshell:

a Lapita-age nut-cracking stone from the Arawe Islands, Papua New Guinea.

Archaeology in Oceania 48(3):121-129.

Lombard, M. 2005 Evidence of hunting and hafting during the Middle Stone Age at Sibudu

Cave, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a multianalytical approach. Journal of Human

Evolution 48(3):279-300.

Lombard, M. 2008 Finding resolution for the Howiesons Poort through the microscope:

micro-residue analysis of segments from Sibudu Cave, South Africa. Journal of

Archaeological Science 35(1):26-41.

McCarthy, F.D. 1948 The Lapstone Creek excavation: two culture periods revealed in eastern

New South Wales. Records of the Australian Museum 22:1-34.

McDonald, J., D. Donlon, J. Field et al. 2007 The first archaeological evidence for death by

spearing in Australia. Antiquity 81:877-885.

Monnier, G., T. Hauck, J. Feinberg, B. Luo, J-M. Le Tensorer and H. al Sakhel 2013 A multi-

analytical methodology of lithic residue analysis applied to Paleolithic tools from Hummal,

Syria. Journal of Archaeological Science 40:3722-3739.

Morwood, M.J. 1981 Archaeology of the Central Queensland Highlands: the stone

component. Archaeology in Oceania 16:1-52.

Pawlik, A. and J. Thissen 2011 Hafted armatures and multi-component tool design at the

Micoquian site of Inden-Altdorf, Germany. Journal of Archaeological Science

38:1699-1708.

Robertson, G. 2002 Birds of a feather stick: microscopic feather residues on stone artefacts

from Deep Creek Shelter, New South Wales. In S. Ulm, C. Westcott, J. Reid, A.Ross,

I.Lilley, J.Prangnell and L. Kirkwood (eds), Barriers, Borders, Boundaries:

Proceedings of the 2001 Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference.

Tempus 7:175-182. Brisbane: Anthropology Museum, The University of Queensland.

Robertson, G. 2005 Backed Artefact Use in Eastern Australia: A Residue and Use-Wear

Analysis. Unpublished PhD thesis, School of Social Science, The University of

Queensland, St. Lucia.

Robertson, G. 2006a Diatoms and sponge spicules as indicators of contamination on utilised

backed artefacts from Turtle Rock, Central Highlands, western Queensland. In S. Ulm

and I. Lilley (eds), An Archaeological Life: Papers in honour of Jay Hall, pp.125-140.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit Research Report Series 7. Brisbane:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Unit, The University of Queensland.

Robertson, G. 2006b Thesis Abstract Backed artefact use in Eastern Australia: a residue and use-wear

analysis. Australian Archaeology 62:64-65.

Robertson, G. 2009 Aboriginal craft and subsistence activities at Native Well I and Native

Well II, Central Western Highlands, Queensland: results of a residue and use-wear

analysis of backed artefacts. In M. Haslam, G. Robertson, A. Crowther, S. Nugent and

L. Kirkwood (eds), Archaeological Science Under a Microscope: Studies in Residue

and ancient DNA Analysis in Honour of Thomas H. Loy, pp.239-257. Terra Australis 30.

Canberra: ANU Epress.

Robertson, G. 2011 Aboriginal use of backed artefacts at Lapstone Creek rock-shelter, New

South Wales: an integrated residue and use-wear analysis. Technical Reports of the

Australian Museum, Online 23:83-101.

Robertson, G. and V. Attenbrow 2008 Skin-Working at Emu Tracks II, New South Wales,

Australia: An integrated residue and use-wear analysis of backed artefacts. Lithic

Technology 33(1):31-49.

Robertson, G., V. Attenbrow and P. Hiscock 2009 Multiple uses for Australian backed

artefacts. Antiquity 83:296-308.

Roth, W. 1904 Domestic Implements, Arts, and Manufactures. North Queensland

Ethnography Bulletin 7:453-86.

Rots, V. 2003 Towards an understanding of hafting: the macro- and microscopic evidence.

Antiquity 77:805-815.

Rots, V. 2010 Prehension and Hafting Traces on Flint Tools: A Methodology. Leuven:

Leuven University Press

Rots, V., L. Pirnay, Ph. Pirson and O. Baudoux 2006 Blind tests shed light on possibilities and

limitations for identifying stone tool prehension and hafting. Journal of Archaeological Science

33:935-952.

Rots, V., B. Hardy, J. Serangeli and N. Conard 2015 Residue and microwear analyses of the

stone artifacts from Schöningen. Journal of Human Evolution 89:298-308.

Rots, V. and B.S. Williamson 2004 Microwear and residue analyses in perspective: the

contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. Journal of Archaeological Science

31(9):1287-1299.

Stockton, E.D. 1979 The search for the first Sydneysiders. In P. Stanbury (ed.) 10,000 Years

of Sydney Life: A Guide to Archaeological Discovery, pp. 49-54. Sydney: The Macleay

Museum, The University of Sydney.

Turner, R. 1932 Pygmy implements. Mankind 1(5):110-12.

Ulm, S., K. Vernon, G. Robertson and S. Nugent 2009 Historical continuities in Aboriginal

land-use at Bustard Bay, Queensland: results of use-wear and residue analysis of

Aboriginal glass artefacts. Australasian Historical Archaeology 27:111-119.

Wadley, L., B. Williamson and M. Lombard 2004 Ochre in hafting in Middle Stone Age southern

Africa: a practical role. Antiquity 78(301):661-675.

White, J.P. and J.F. O’Connell 1982 A Prehistory of Australia, New Guinea and Sahul. Sydney:

Academic Press.

TABLE 1. DEEP CREEK SHELTER. NON-BACKED RETOUCHED ARTEFACTS – A

SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS AND TASKS (N=40). Degree of certainty of interpretation of use,

function, task and hafting indicated as certain (C), probable (Pr) and possible (Po).

ESP ID No ID ESP Level Analytical Use for Evidence use of Certainty Function Function certainty of Functions No Task certainty Task of Tasks No Hafted certainty Hafting

Use No 4001 01 Pr Scraping Pr 1 C 0 Y C d Evidence

Use No 4002 03 Po No evidence n/a 0 C 0 Y Pr d Evidence

Non No 4003 03 C No evidence C 0 C 0 N C e evidence

Non-

woody

plant Use 4004 04 Pr Cutting Pr 1 processin Po 1 Y C d g or

wood-

working

Use Incising and Bone- 4005 04 C Pr 2 C 1 Y C d scraping working

Use Scraping/adzin Wood- 4006 04 C C 1 Po 1 Y C d g working

Use Scraping and C, Wood- 4007 01 C 2 C 1 N Pr d cutting Pr working

Use No 4008 03 Po No evidence C 0 C 0 N C d evidence

Non No 4009 03 C No evidence C 0 C 0 N C e evidence

Use Wood- 4010 04 Pr Scraping Pr 1 Po 1 N C d working

05 Use Throwing or No 4011 Pr Po 1 C 0 Y C b d thrusting evidence

05 Use No 4012 Po Scraping Po 1 C 0 Y C b d evidence

05 Use Cutting or No 4013 C Pr 1 C 0 Y C b d sawing evidence

05 Use No 4014 Pr Cutting Pr 1 C 0 Y C b d evidence

Non No 4015 06 C No evidence C 0 C 0 N C e evidence

Use No 4016 06 Po No evidence C 0 C 0 N C d evidence

Non No 4017 10 C No evidence C 0 C 0 Y Po e evidence

Use Bone- 4018 00 C Scraping C 1 Po 1 N C d working

Use Wood- 4019 03 C Scraping C 1 Pr 1 Y C d working

Use Bone- 4020 03 C Scraping Pr 1 Po 1 N C d working

Non No 4021 03 C No evidence C 0 C 0 N C e evidence

Resinous

Use wood- or 4022 04 Pr Scraping Po 1 Po 1 Y C d plant-

working

Use No 4023 04 Po No evidence C 0 C 0 Y Pr d evidence

Use Wood- 4024 04 C Scraping Pr 1 Pr 1 Y Po d working

Skin or

bone- Use Scraping or 4025 04 C Pr 1 working Po 2 Y Po d cutting or wood-

working

05 Non Probabl No 4026 No evidence C 0 C 0 Y Pr b e e evidence

05 Use probabl No 4027 Scraping Po 1 C 0 N C b d e evidence

05 Non Probabl No No evidence C 0 C 0 4028 b e e evidence N C

05 Use Bone- 4029 C Scraping C 1 C 1 Y Pr b d working

4030 05 Non Pr No evidence C 0 No Pr 0 Y Pr

b e evidence

Non No C No evidence C 0 C 0 4031 09 e evidence N C

Use No 4032 03 Po Scraping Po 1 C 0 N C d evidence

Use No 4033 03 Pr No evidence C 0 C 0 N C d evidence

Use No 4034 03 Po No evidence C 0 C 0 N C d evidence

Non No C No evidence C 0 C 0 N C 4035 03 e evidence

Use No 4036 04 C Scraping Pr 1 C 0 Y C d evidence

Non No 4037 06 C No evidence C 0 C 0 N C e evidence

Use Bone- 4039 04 Pr Scraping Po 1 Po 1 Y C d working

Non No 4040 04 C No evidence C 0 C 0 N C e evidence

Non No 4041 06 C No evidence C 0 C 0 Y Po e evidence

TABLE 2. DEEP CREEK SHELTER. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF FUNCTIONS AND

ASSOCIATED TASKS FOR BACKED AND NON-BACKED RETOUCHED ARTEFACTS.

Degree of certainty of interpretation of function and task indicated as certain (C), probable (Pr) and possible (Po). Note some specimens have overlapping functions and tasks when different edges were used. For DC backed artefacts, see Appendix in Robertson 2005:429.

Functions Associated Tasks

Haft

ing

working working

working -

working

Artefact type Artefact scrapers Scraping/ Cutting/knives Sawing/saws or Throwing thrusting/projectile Incising/incisors Bone Wood resinous) (including Skin processing Plant butchery Light decorative or Ritual or Hunting birds? processing 23

24(C 22(C (C 11( Backed 4(C) 7(C) ) ) 1(C 16(C) ) 1(C 1(C C) artefact 0 3(Po 0 1(Po 1(C) 2(Po 4(Po ) 2(Po) 4( ) ) 11(P (N=42) ) ) ) ) Po r)

)

Non- 12( 5(C) 2( 1(C) backed C) 7(Pr C) 1(Pr retouch 5(Pr 1(Pr 1(C 1(Po 2(Po 5(Pr ) 1(Pr) 4( ) 0 0 0 ed ) ) ) ) ) ) 5(Po Po 5(Po artefact 4(Po ) ) ) (N=40) )

Figure 1. Deep Creek Shelter: Examples of the various morphologies of non-

backed retouched artefacts subjected to microscopic analysis.

Figure 2. Location of Deep Creek Shelter in the Upper Mangrove Creek

Catchment, New South Wales Central Coast.

Figure 3. ESP4006 a. Multiple step, hinge and feather flake scars, associated with striations

perpendicular to the edge on the ventral surface (15x). b. Lineation in resin, at right angles

to used edge in (a) suggesting the tool has been re-hafted and re-used in a different

orientation (100xBfplp). c. Pronounced rounding/beveling with fine perpendicular striations

on one margin (35x). (Key: Bf = brightfield; Df = darkfield; pp = part-polarised light; xp =

cross-polarised light; plp= plane-polarised light).

Figure 4. ESP4025 a. Collagen (500xBfxp). b. Smeared resin and polish (500x Bfpp). c.

Striations and collagen, including fibrils, on ventral lower lateral margin with possible

mammalian red blood cells (RBCs) (500xBfpp). d. Collagen with associated vivianite on

the lip of a flake scar on the ventral lower lateral edge (500xBfxp). (see Figure 3 caption for

key).

Figure 5. ESP4013 a. A series of bending initiated flake scars with pronounced rounding and

polish on the lower dorsal lateral margin (100xDf). b. Numerous fine striations parallel to

the lateral margin in (a) (500xBfpp). c. Polish on the margins of the series of bending

initiated flake scars in (a) (100xBfpp). (see Figure 3 caption for key).

Figure 6. ESP4011 a. Damage to the dorsal tip with an oblique step fracture suggesting

possible impact (30x). b. One of several thick resin patches distributed across the proximal

dorsal surface (100xBf). (see Figure 3 caption for key).

Figure 7. ESP4029 a. Multiple step flake scars along steep ventral margin (10x). b. Collagen

fibre caught on lip of step flake scar (100xBfxp). c. Vivianite crystals visible on a fragment

of collagen(500xBfxp). d. One of several resin patches, often with ‘halos’, on dorsal surface

(100xBfpp) (see Figure 3 caption for key).

Figure 8. ESP4007 a. Pronounced rounding and striations subparallel to the edge associated

with residue on a dorsal lateral margin (40x). b. Charred resinous residue scraped along a

dorsal lateral margin exhibiting pronounced rounding (100xBfxp). c. Charred resin scraped

onto the rounded dorsal lateral margin (500xDf). (see Figure 3 caption for key).

Figure 9. ESP4018 a. Striations with associated residue sub-perpendicular to the edge on a

rounded ridge (100xBf). b. Striations sub-perpendicular to the edge on a rounded ridge

(500xBf). c. Collagen sheets with associated vivianite caught on the lip of a step flake scar

(500x Bfxp). d. Collagen fragments caught on the lip of a step flake scar (500xBfxp). (see

Figure 3 caption for key).

Figure 10. a. ESP4005 Scattered thick resin patches located on the proximal end (12x); b.

ESP4005 Degraded resin on the proximal end (100xDf). c. ESP4012 Multidirectional

lineation in the resin 100xBf and d. 500xBf; e. ESP4019 Resin and polish (100xBf); f.

ESP4019 One of numerous scattered resin patches (500xBf). g. ESP4039 Resin distributed

on the proximal one-third of the artefact (12x); h. ESP4039 Multidirectional lineation in

resin (500xBf).