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‐backe...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Archaeology in Oceania 2019-07, Vol.54 (2), p.73-89 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 89 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 73 |
| container_title | Archaeology in Oceania |
| container_volume | 54 |
| creator | ROBERTSON, GAIL ATTENBROW, VAL HISCOCK, PETER |
| description | 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 première étude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outils à bord émoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux‐ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaient été extraits de matières premières variées. Les éclats retouchés sans bord émoussé de Deep Creek ont‐ils été utilisés à des fins différentes? Afin de répondre à cette question, 40 outils sans bord émoussé ont été sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bord émoussé avaient été utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoup étaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outils étaient 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 non émoussés retouchés avaient été emmanchés.
Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bord émoussé en Australie. À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composant à bord émoussé était très semblable à celui des outils sans bord émoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bord émous |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1002/arco.5177 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2250389495</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2250389495</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-f846f4187e71a5030f63476580b773c2bae2e98415d0eb8e3cfa76451fa41983</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1OwzAQhS0EEqWw4AaWWCGR1k6c2GFXwl-lSpXa7iPHGatp07jYiarsOAJLzsdJSChix2p-9L03mofQNSUjSog_llaZUUg5P0EDKgLmMRYGp2hAuC88JuLoHF04tyGE8DikA_S5AFfkDWBZ5bhx8PX-cQBpu1GWrSscNhpXpurWmVRbyLGF2jRq3XXS1qClqh3W1uzwI8AeJxZgi5drKGuwd3jZ5hW0-EG6orrH092-LJSsC1N1GmNxvQZsTQn9kV_7P9NLdKZl6eDqtw7R6vlplbx6s_nLNJnMPOXHnHtasEgzKjhwKkMSEB0FjEehIBnngfIzCT7EgtEwJ5AJCJSWPGIh1ZLRWARDdHO03Vvz1oCr041pbPe8S32_8xMxi8OOuj1SyhrnLOh0b4udtG1KSdrnnva5p33uHTs-soeihPZ_MJ0skvmP4hunAogj</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2250389495</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><creator>ROBERTSON, GAIL ; ATTENBROW, VAL ; HISCOCK, PETER</creator><creatorcontrib>ROBERTSON, GAIL ; ATTENBROW, VAL ; HISCOCK, PETER</creatorcontrib><description>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 première étude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outils à bord émoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux‐ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaient été extraits de matières premières variées. Les éclats retouchés sans bord émoussé de Deep Creek ont‐ils été utilisés à des fins différentes? Afin de répondre à cette question, 40 outils sans bord émoussé ont été sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bord émoussé avaient été utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoup étaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outils étaient 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 non émoussés retouchés avaient été emmanchés.
Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bord émoussé en Australie. À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composant à bord émoussé était très semblable à celui des outils sans bord émoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bord émoussé étaient souvent mono‐tâche, dédiés à une seule fonction, alors que les artefacts à bord émoussé étaient souvent multifonctionnels et polyvalents. Ces résultats aident à comprendre le processus d'utilisation des outils en Australie.
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0728-4896</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1834-4453</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/arco.5177</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Richmond: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure ; analyse tracéologique microscopique ; Analysis ; Artefacts ; backed ; Basins ; Bones ; Coastal inlets ; Cutlery ; Fins ; Incisors ; Knives ; Mangrove Creek ; microlithic ; microlithique ; Multipurpose ; non‐backed retouched ; non‐microlithic ; non‐microlithique ; Questions ; Raw materials ; residue and use‐wear analysis ; Saws ; Scrapers ; Shelters ; Skin ; Tool use ; trace microscopic analysis ; Wear ; Wood ; éclats sans bord émoussé ; éclats à bord émoussé</subject><ispartof>Archaeology in Oceania, 2019-07, Vol.54 (2), p.73-89</ispartof><rights>2019 Oceania Publications</rights><rights>2019 Oceania Publications. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-f846f4187e71a5030f63476580b773c2bae2e98415d0eb8e3cfa76451fa41983</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-f846f4187e71a5030f63476580b773c2bae2e98415d0eb8e3cfa76451fa41983</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-8893-4742 ; 0000-0002-6710-6673 ; 0000-0003-2897-4934</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Farco.5177$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Farco.5177$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>ROBERTSON, GAIL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ATTENBROW, VAL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HISCOCK, PETER</creatorcontrib><title>Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts</title><title>Archaeology in Oceania</title><description>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 première étude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outils à bord émoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux‐ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaient été extraits de matières premières variées. Les éclats retouchés sans bord émoussé de Deep Creek ont‐ils été utilisés à des fins différentes? Afin de répondre à cette question, 40 outils sans bord émoussé ont été sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bord émoussé avaient été utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoup étaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outils étaient 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 non émoussés retouchés avaient été emmanchés.
Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bord émoussé en Australie. À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composant à bord émoussé était très semblable à celui des outils sans bord émoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bord émoussé étaient souvent mono‐tâche, dédiés à une seule fonction, alors que les artefacts à bord émoussé étaient souvent multifonctionnels et polyvalents. Ces résultats aident à comprendre le processus d'utilisation des outils en Australie.
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.</description><subject>analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure</subject><subject>analyse tracéologique microscopique</subject><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Artefacts</subject><subject>backed</subject><subject>Basins</subject><subject>Bones</subject><subject>Coastal inlets</subject><subject>Cutlery</subject><subject>Fins</subject><subject>Incisors</subject><subject>Knives</subject><subject>Mangrove Creek</subject><subject>microlithic</subject><subject>microlithique</subject><subject>Multipurpose</subject><subject>non‐backed retouched</subject><subject>non‐microlithic</subject><subject>non‐microlithique</subject><subject>Questions</subject><subject>Raw materials</subject><subject>residue and use‐wear analysis</subject><subject>Saws</subject><subject>Scrapers</subject><subject>Shelters</subject><subject>Skin</subject><subject>Tool use</subject><subject>trace microscopic analysis</subject><subject>Wear</subject><subject>Wood</subject><subject>éclats sans bord émoussé</subject><subject>éclats à bord émoussé</subject><issn>0728-4896</issn><issn>1834-4453</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kE1OwzAQhS0EEqWw4AaWWCGR1k6c2GFXwl-lSpXa7iPHGatp07jYiarsOAJLzsdJSChix2p-9L03mofQNSUjSog_llaZUUg5P0EDKgLmMRYGp2hAuC88JuLoHF04tyGE8DikA_S5AFfkDWBZ5bhx8PX-cQBpu1GWrSscNhpXpurWmVRbyLGF2jRq3XXS1qClqh3W1uzwI8AeJxZgi5drKGuwd3jZ5hW0-EG6orrH092-LJSsC1N1GmNxvQZsTQn9kV_7P9NLdKZl6eDqtw7R6vlplbx6s_nLNJnMPOXHnHtasEgzKjhwKkMSEB0FjEehIBnngfIzCT7EgtEwJ5AJCJSWPGIh1ZLRWARDdHO03Vvz1oCr041pbPe8S32_8xMxi8OOuj1SyhrnLOh0b4udtG1KSdrnnva5p33uHTs-soeihPZ_MJ0skvmP4hunAogj</recordid><startdate>201907</startdate><enddate>201907</enddate><creator>ROBERTSON, GAIL</creator><creator>ATTENBROW, VAL</creator><creator>HISCOCK, PETER</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7TN</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>L.G</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8893-4742</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6710-6673</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2897-4934</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201907</creationdate><title>Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts</title><author>ROBERTSON, GAIL ; ATTENBROW, VAL ; HISCOCK, PETER</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2977-f846f4187e71a5030f63476580b773c2bae2e98415d0eb8e3cfa76451fa41983</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure</topic><topic>analyse tracéologique microscopique</topic><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Artefacts</topic><topic>backed</topic><topic>Basins</topic><topic>Bones</topic><topic>Coastal inlets</topic><topic>Cutlery</topic><topic>Fins</topic><topic>Incisors</topic><topic>Knives</topic><topic>Mangrove Creek</topic><topic>microlithic</topic><topic>microlithique</topic><topic>Multipurpose</topic><topic>non‐backed retouched</topic><topic>non‐microlithic</topic><topic>non‐microlithique</topic><topic>Questions</topic><topic>Raw materials</topic><topic>residue and use‐wear analysis</topic><topic>Saws</topic><topic>Scrapers</topic><topic>Shelters</topic><topic>Skin</topic><topic>Tool use</topic><topic>trace microscopic analysis</topic><topic>Wear</topic><topic>Wood</topic><topic>éclats sans bord émoussé</topic><topic>éclats à bord émoussé</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>ROBERTSON, GAIL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ATTENBROW, VAL</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HISCOCK, PETER</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Oceanic Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Archaeology in Oceania</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>ROBERTSON, GAIL</au><au>ATTENBROW, VAL</au><au>HISCOCK, PETER</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts</atitle><jtitle>Archaeology in Oceania</jtitle><date>2019-07</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>54</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>73</spage><epage>89</epage><pages>73-89</pages><issn>0728-4896</issn><eissn>1834-4453</eissn><abstract>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 première étude de traces d'usure et de dépôts de résidus sur des outils à bord émoussé de l'abri de Deep Creek avait montré que ceux‐ci remplissaient diverses fonctions et avaient été extraits de matières premières variées. Les éclats retouchés sans bord émoussé de Deep Creek ont‐ils été utilisés à des fins différentes? Afin de répondre à cette question, 40 outils sans bord émoussé ont été sélectionnés pour une analyse microscopique de tracéologie et de dépôts de résidus. Seule une partie de ces outils sans bord émoussé avaient été utilisés, mais nous avons constaté que beaucoup étaient des racloirs, des couteaux, des trancheurs et des scies. Ces outils étaient 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 non émoussés retouchés avaient été emmanchés.
Ces résultats permettent de comparer pour la première fois l'utilisation d'outils avec et sans bord émoussé en Australie. À Deep Creek, l'éventail des fonctions du composant à bord émoussé était très semblable à celui des outils sans bord émoussé. Bien que les deux catégories d'outil aient eu une utilisation similaire, ils se distinguent par un point intéressant: les spécimens sans bord émoussé étaient souvent mono‐tâche, dédiés à une seule fonction, alors que les artefacts à bord émoussé étaient souvent multifonctionnels et polyvalents. Ces résultats aident à comprendre le processus d'utilisation des outils en Australie.
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.</abstract><cop>Richmond</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><doi>10.1002/arco.5177</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8893-4742</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6710-6673</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2897-4934</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0728-4896 |
| ispartof | Archaeology in Oceania, 2019-07, Vol.54 (2), p.73-89 |
| issn | 0728-4896 1834-4453 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2250389495 |
| source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals |
| subjects | analyse de dépôts de résidus et de traces d'usure analyse tracéologique microscopique Analysis Artefacts backed Basins Bones Coastal inlets Cutlery Fins Incisors Knives Mangrove Creek microlithic microlithique Multipurpose non‐backed retouched non‐microlithic non‐microlithique Questions Raw materials residue and use‐wear analysis Saws Scrapers Shelters Skin Tool use trace microscopic analysis Wear Wood éclats sans bord émoussé éclats à bord émoussé |
| title | Residue and use‐wear analysis of non‐backed retouched artefacts from Deep Creek Shelter, Sydney Basin: Implications for the role of backed artefacts |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T08%3A28%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Residue%20and%20use%E2%80%90wear%20analysis%20of%20non%E2%80%90backed%20retouched%20artefacts%20from%20Deep%20Creek%20Shelter,%20Sydney%20Basin:%20Implications%20for%20the%20role%20of%20backed%20artefacts&rft.jtitle=Archaeology%20in%20Oceania&rft.au=ROBERTSON,%20GAIL&rft.date=2019-07&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=73&rft.epage=89&rft.pages=73-89&rft.issn=0728-4896&rft.eissn=1834-4453&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/arco.5177&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2250389495%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2250389495&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |