<PE-AT>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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 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.<PE- FRONTEND> 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, This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 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 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. 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 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Levels 3 to 9, bracketed by radiocarbon dates of 1070±100 BP (Beta-4670) and 4014±36 BP (Wk- 42535) from