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; Attenbrow, Val; Hiscock, Peter

doi:10.1002/arco.5177

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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.…”

Section: Small Changes In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Small Changes In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Small Changes In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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).…”

Section: Microliths As Small Signalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Small Signals: Comprehending the Australian Microlithic as Public Signalling

Hiscock

2021

CAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Signalling is a critical capacity in modern human cultures but it has often been difficult to identify and understand on lithic artefacts from pre-literate contexts. Often archaeologists have minimized the signalling role of lithic tools by arguing for strong form-function relationships that constrained signalling or else imposed ethnographic information on the archaeological patterns with the assumption they assist in defining the signalling carried out in prehistory. In this paper I present a case study for which it can be shown that function does not correlate with form and that the technology fell out of use 1000–1500 years ago. This means that neither presumptions of continuity in social practice nor reference to tool use provide strong explanations for the size, shape standardization and regional differentiation of Australian microliths. Sender-receiver signalling theory is harnessed to motivate a new synthesis of these microliths, and I demonstrate that not only were these artefacts probably key objects used in public signalling but also that sender-receiver frameworks enable us to infer details about the operation of the signalling system.

show abstract

Section: Small Changes In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Small Changes In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Small Changes In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Microliths As Small Signalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Small Signals: Comprehending the Australian Microlithic as Public Signalling

Hiscock

2021

CAJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Way

Koungoulos

Wyatt-Spratt

et al. 2023

Archaeology in Oceania

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across the Australian continent, backed artefacts are produced in enormous numbers during the mid-late Holocene. Previous examinations have revealed variation in the average shape of these artefacts, at both continental and regional scales. To better understand the factors creating this variability, we examine a large assemblage of backed artefacts from Ngungara (Weereewa/Lake George), in south-eastern Australia. This is one of the few open sites in Australia which has high-resolution evidence for spatially distinct, short-term workshops. Within these well-bounded workshops both locally manufactured and imported backed artefacts are present. However, across this landscape the shape of these artefacts is not uniform; rather, similarly shaped backed artefacts are concentrated in different workshop areas. Through the analysis of backed artefacts in different workshops, we suggest that "insert copying" or the replacement of spent inserts with similarly shaped, locally manufactured artefacts creates variability in backed artefact shape.

show abstract

Late Holocene hunting economies in coastal southeastern Australia: Insights from the archaeological fauna of Curracurrang 1 Rockshelter, Royal National Park

Koungoulos,

Balme,

O'Connor

et al. 2024

Archaeology in Oceania

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Curracurrang 1 (1CU5) is a rockshelter site located in the Royal National Park (RNP) on the coast south of Sydney. Excavated from 1962 to 1966, the site's rich Holocene cultural deposit has become important for understanding regional Late Holocene developments in Australian lithic and shell technologies. Our comprehensive analysis of 1CU5's faunal remains is presented here, accompanied by new AMS radiocarbon dates and a reinterpretation of the site's occupation sequence. Much of the midden deposit spans from about 2500 BP to approximately 1850 AD, rather than only the last ∼1500 years as originally believed based on less comprehensive dating. A wide range of terrestrial and marine fauna were exploited at 1CU5, with the relative importance of the latter group increasing within the last ∼1500 years. Greater fish consumption during the later period may relate to use of novel hook and line fishing technology using hooks made from shellfish, but concurrent increases in seals, seabirds and marine invertebrates suggest a broader increased reliance on marine resources. By comparison, the earlier period, which coincides with the manufacture of backed microliths, displays relatively greater reliance on terrestrial marsupials. Taxonomic representation suggests occupation of the shelter from winter through spring, and potentially into summer. Analysis of the 1CU5 fauna marks an important contribution to the understanding of Late Holocene economies at the interface of the greater Sydney and NSW South Coast cultural and biogeographic regions.

show abstract

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

Cited by 6 publications

References 39 publications

Small Signals: Comprehending the Australian Microlithic as Public Signalling

Small Signals: Comprehending the Australian Microlithic as Public Signalling

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

Late Holocene hunting economies in coastal southeastern Australia: Insights from the archaeological fauna of Curracurrang 1 Rockshelter, Royal National Park

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About