Wiley and Oceania Publications, University of Sydney are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toArchaeology in Oceania.

http://www.jstor.org

Oceania Publications, University of Sydney

The Morphology, Function and Antiquity of Australian Grinding Implements Author(s): P. Gorecki, M. Grant, S. O'Connor and P. Veth Source: Archaeology in Oceania, Vol. 32, No. 2, Studies in Australian and Pacific Archaeology I

(Jul., 1997), pp. 141-150Published by: on behalf of Wiley Oceania Publications, University of SydneyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40387068Accessed: 27-03-2015 04:48 UTC

REFERENCESLinked references are available on JSTOR for this article:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40387068?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ArchaeoL Oceania 32 (1997) 141-150

The morphology, function and antiquity of Australian grinding implements

P. GORECKI, M. GRANT, S. O'CONNOR AND P. VETH

Abstract

This paper critiques a number of core assumptions about the age, form and function of grinding implements from Australia. Distinctions which have been drawn between so-called amorphous versus formal grindstones and their associated functions are ques- tioned given the effects of low sample size in earlier assemblages, the general lack of independent studies of grindstone function and the need to consider more thoroughly the use-life cycles of this class of implements. The role of bedrock grinding patches in a seed-based

economy is examined. The possibility that intensive seed processing may have occurred in the Pleistocene is also canvassed.

Introduction

Over the last ten years a number of Australian prehistori- ans have devised morphological categories for grind- stones in order to separate those assumed to be of a gen- eralised function from those used more specifically for grinding seeds (cf. Cane 1984; Smith 1986). Smith (1985) provides a number of criteria for distinguishing a range of formal implements such as millstones, mullers, mortars and pestles from expedient forms of grindstones. He argues that formal grinding implements found in stratified assemblages within the arid zone of Australia are '... distinctive seedgrinding implements [of] a late Holocene development and that they may be associated with other widespread changes in assemblages at this time' (Smith 1986:36).

The purpose of this paper is twofold: to challenge the proposition that the systematic use of seeds only occurs by the mid- to late Holocene, and to critique the utility of morphological/functional typologies. Smith's arguments (1986) for the proposed timing for the purported shift towards intensive seedgrinding will be examined, with two problem areas focussed on. Firstly, the likelihood that activities associated with seed processing actually took place in cave/rockshelter sites will be addressed, with a discussion on the discard contexts for grindstones. Secondly, the relatively low density of artefacts in many arid zone assemblages before 4,000 BP will be highlighted

PG: Acacia Heritage Research, PO Box 292, Pennant Hills NSW 2120; MG: PO Box 414, Jabiru NT 0886; SO'C: Division of Archaeology and Natural History, RSPAS, Australian National University, Canberra 0200; PV: Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, James Cook University, Towns ville Qld 481 1

with the implications of small sample size and the low probability of recovery of formal seedgrinders drawn out. Supported by new field data from stratified and open con- texts in Australia, we will develop the following themes: • that the intensive use of seeds may not necessarily

result in the production of formal grindstones and therefore the distinction between millstones and amor- phous grindstones may not be a useful one to use if our aim is to identify grass seed use, either in the recent past or in Pleistocene contexts;

• in most rockshelters with small cultural assemblages grinding implements can be expected to be absent or rare;

• that non-portable grinding patches may also be impor- tant markers of a seed based economy;

• that so-called amorphous grindstone fragments recov- ered from Pleistocene contexts may indeed reflect sys- tematic seedgrinding;

• in many stratified archaeological contexts seed grind- ing may only be identifiable by the analysis of residues and plant remains.

A: The ethnography of seed grinding and the myth of the morphological type

Using a wide range of ethnographic observations on the processing of seeds, Smith (1985) concluded that previ- ous typologies of seed grinding implements may have been somewhat confusing. He argues that a division, based on morphology, should be made between grind- stones and seedgrinding stones (Smith 1985). This divi- sion is also a functional one. Seedgrinding implements are described as being specialised tools which are 'heav- ily and repetitively used' with 'well-worn surfaces and well-defined, discrete wear patterns', often showing 'signs of maintenance, attempts to re-use or rejuvenate the implement, and probably also evidence of deliberate manufacture' (Smith 1986: 32). As the name indicates, their primary, if not exclusive, function is to process edi- ble seeds. Two categories of seedgrinding implements are defined: the millstone and its associated muller, both used for the wet milling of grass seeds, and the mortar and pestle, both used for the pounding and dry grinding of hard seeds (acacia and some grasses).

141

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

model is further highlighted by observations made else- where in the arid zone (and see critique in Edwards and O'Connell 1995). In the Western Desert, Cane (1989; Nicholson and Cane 1991), notes that there is a contin- uum between flat seed grinding stones (amorphous grind- stones) and those having deep grooves (millstones). That is, the so-called formal grindstones are the end product of continued and extensive attrition of flat stones. It is argued (Cane 1989:113) that these two extreme types of form are variants of the same implement, representing its successive reduction through time, often presumably to its final discard state. Further, although the primary func- tion of such artefacts is to grind seeds, they are also sub- jected to other grinding and pounding processes. The implement is far more efficient and versatile in earlier stages of reduction than when worn. Rejuvenation, recy- cling, and discard processes of these implements as well as their location in the landscape have been elegantly described for the Western Desert (Cane 1989: 112-114). An observation by Mac Gardener (Kirriwirri), a Martu elder from Jigalong, aptly sums up the situation "He all finished up; he too deep now". He went on to note that the hands of the grinder would be hurt when the groove became pronounced and that the most desirable surface was flat to slightly concave; purchase often provided through stippling and pecking on the grinding surface.

Tindale (1974:100) suggests that the discard behav- iour surrounding these implements not only relates to the degree of wear but also to the availability of new stone supplies. When the raw material used for grindstones is derived from distant sources the implement may be used to the maximum of its functional life. An outcome of this process is the development through time of quarries and trading networks specialising in grindstone production and distribution (McCarthy 1939a, 1939b; Tindale 1977, 1981; Dixon et al 1993). In fact, as Smith (1986:31) notes 'In some areas the cost of the technology was sub- stantial and this is reflected both in the need to obtain seedgrinding implements through trade and in the trans- mission of ownership of the implements between genera- tions'. The high degree of reduction that might be expected on such articles of exchange is discussed fur- ther in Veth et al (1990) and McConnell (1976). This point is admirably illustrated by the following study on grindstones from Western Australia.

Where the local supply of portable stone blanks is limited, such as on the Lower Cooper Creek (cf. Veth et al 1990), then procurement costs and economising pres- sures are more likely to produce classic millstones and mortars. In other words, the occurrence of 'formal' seed- grinders, in the portable category, is likely (at least in part) to reflect raw material availability.

In areas where stone is near impossible to obtain and where food grinding is still practised, such as the west coast of Cape York, then other platforms like wooden dishes become the local version of grindstones (Grant 1992). Equally, the bases of flattened ant-bed mounds have been documented as seed processing platforms in the Little Sandy Desert (Veth 1993).

Millstones, with their one or two well-defined deep grooves, are especially seen as dignostic of seed grind- ing. They are described as 'large flat-surfaced slabs with one or more long shallow grooves worn into the surface . . . The minimum length of groove for efficient grinding is probably around 300 mm' and 'about 100 mm wide and 10-20 mm deep'. The ground suface will be very smooth. Millstones often 'show evidence of careful mau- facture' such as a 'trimmed margin, either flaked or ham- merdressed. In some cases the faces have also been trimmed' (Smith 1986: 32).

When they become too smooth the faces are often redressed 'by using a topstone to lightly peck the surface forming a stipple-like pattern of small puncture marks' (Smith 1986: 33). Müllers, are 'hand-sized implements that vary from oval to triangular in outline and from plano-convex to bi-convex in section' having a 'ground facet at an angle to the main axis of the implement. Heavily worn specimens have several ground surfaces which intersect to form the edges of the implement or to form pronounced ridges on the face of the implement.' Like millstones they often show evidence of careful manufacture and occasionally rejuvenation (Smith 1986: 33). Mortars are 'flat-surfaced blocks with a shallow oval or circular basin ground into one or both faces' and the upperstone or pestles are 'fist-sized, water worn cob- bles with a flat or slightly convex ground surface on one face'. Smith (1986:33) believes that mortars may be dif- ficult to distinguish from other amorphous grindstones and are not therefore readily diagnostic of seed grinding.

In contrast, grindstones, or 'amorphous grindstones', being expedient multipurpose tools used to grind not only plants (seeds, nuts, roots, fruits, wooden tools) but also other materials such as animals (cartilage, bone and even whole small animals) and minerals (ochre and stone tools), lack the standardisation of millstones and do not exhibit their formal morphological attributes. This view is reiterated in subsequent publications (Smith 1988a, 1988b, 1989).

Despite this clear distinction, when actually observing the processing of acacia seeds at Utopia, Smith notes that the mortar first selected by the women for initial dry grinding was discarded in favour of a 'flat surfaced slab' (Smith 1985:31). Further, the millstone selected for the second stage of the processing, i.e. wet milling, appears at first to have the precise morphology, as defined by Smith, for the expected function. Not only has it the required deep groove for wet milling but it also has evi- dence of rejuvenation stippling. Yet when used for the wet milling of these seeds, Smith (1985:31) notes that 'the groove or working surface was only used for stock- piling seed and a fresh section on one edge of the face was used for the wet milling'.

The pounding as well as the dry and wet milling processes observed were actually carried out on surfaces of what Smith defines as amorphous grindstones. Similar observations are made by Devitt (1988, 1992) for the same area.

The apparent discrepancy in Smith's morphological

142

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Figure 1: Principal areas mentioned in text (adapted from Grant 1992: Figure 7.5)

A case study from north central Western Australia

In a study of 170 grindstones from north central Western Australia, Lantzke (1990) found that there was very little uniformity in overall morphology of grindstones or of the grinding surfaces. The grindstones he analysed derive from an area of 94,000 square kilometres bounded by the Gascoyne and Murchison Rivers. The Murchison District has a climatic gradient from Mediterranean tem- perate through to arid (Figure 1). The Indian Ocean forms the western boundary of this region and the east- ern boundary lies at 115° 30' E longitude. Shark Bay occupies a central position on the coastline.

Lantzke's analysis examined the Western Australian Museum's collection of grindstones from this region in light of previous classifications and regional variability which might correspond with a north-south aridity gradi- ent. The grindstones all came from open sites. Not sur- prisingly, his results indicated that grindstones formed a higher proportion of the total assemblages in the arid to

semi-arid areas paralleling the predicted greater reliance on grass seeds in these areas, as described in the ethno- graphic literature.

The unexpected feature of Lantzke's results was that while grindstones formed a proportionally greater part of arid zone assemblages, there was no greater tendency towards deeply grooved millstones in this zone. Uniformity in morphology of mullers and grindstones was found instead to be related to the availability of raw material (Lantzke 1990). Indeed in his metrical study of the attributes of mullers and grindstones, Lantzke demonstrated that

small standard deviations for dimensions can be inter- preted as evidence for greater care in the curation of resources. The basis for this argument is that curation leads to similar forms. The smallest standard deviations for upper grindstones occurred in the Gascoyne where the raw materials are not readily available in the region (1990:94)

143

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

archaeological record. The small sample sizes of most Australian excavations and small assemblage sizes will make it additionally difficult to detect this activity. In most Pleistocene contexts this problem will be com- pounded by the even smaller assemblage sizes. Edwards and O'Connell (1995) have also drawn attention to the problems of sample size effect operating on artefact assemblages that may be associated with broad spectrum economies incorporating early seed processing.

The context in which seedgrinding occurs

The context in which seedgrinding takes place has been described in a number of ethno-archaeological studies (cf. Cane 1984; Walsh 1987), in addition to numerous ethnographic accounts (cf. Latz 1982; Tindale 1977). Neither the harvesting, husking nor winnowing of seeds takes place within caves/rockshelters. It is only at the grinding stage that processing may hypothetically be relocated to closed (i.e. wind-free) areas, such as rock- shelters. When processing does occur in shelters it is often as an emergency measure during bad weather (e.g. Nicholson and Cane 1991). The majority of observa- tions relating to communal seedgrinding place these activities in open contexts. If intensive seedgrinding is taking place it will be in a communal setting. Therefore, grindstones are most likely to be discarded in open and not closed, stratified contexts. Indeed, as Smith (1986: 34) notes on the distribution of seedgrinders at Puntutjarpa ' . . . I suggest that their presence in the site is fortuitous'.

The use of grindstones and their form at discard, how- ever, may have nothing to do with seedgrinding (Cane 1989). For example, the high incidence of grindstone fragments within the stratified deposits which Smith has examined may not be simply due to attrition or mechani- cal failure in situ. Instead they may reflect those compo- nents of exhausted grindstones which are deliberately relocated to shelters for uses such as heat retainers in hearths or as anvils for lithic reduction. Clearly, the range of functional explanations for the presence of grinding fragments in caves and rockshelters will require testing through application of use- wear and residue studies.

In summary, there are two major contexts in which seedgrinding implements occur. One of these, by far the more common, is at open campsites where the full gamut of grinding implements could, potentially, be found (from full, undamaged specimens down to small fragments). The second context would be at marginal sites such as rockshelters where discarded grindstones, in particular fragments, could be found but in much smaller quantities than at open sites. A number of site formation processes can blur this pattern, including pre- historic scavenging and modern looting of grindstones (Nelson and Lippmeier 1993: 296-299). From an archaeological perspective, we would expect grinding implements at open sites to far outnumber those at shel- ter sites.

At Shark Bay grindstones evinced the smallest stan- dard deviations and greatest uniformity and were argued to be most heavily curated. Examination of the raw material supported this conclusion. Lantzke's (1990:95) raw material analysis indicated that over half the grind- stones in the Shark Bay sample were manufactured from exotic materials, supporting the work of the geologist van de Graaff (1980) who on the basis of petrological examination of grindstones from surface assemblages at Shark Bay argued that they were made on Tumblagooda sandstone, probably from the Murchison, as well as some locally available raw materials.

The correlation between availability of raw material and degree of uniformity and curation was also sup- ported by the percentage of total surface area used for grinding. Grindstones from localities with the smallest standard deviation of key attributes have a significantly higher proportion of the total surface area of the grind- stone utilised. In the Shark Bay area, where raw materi- als are largely procured from a considerable distance, a mean of 55.8% of the total surface area of sampled grindstones has been used whereas in the Gascoyne, where the raw material for grindstones is readily avail- able, the mean is 39.7% (Lantzke 1990:95). If no local material was available at Shark Bay it would be expected that a greater percentage of total surface area would be used and deeper grooves associated with millstones might be evident. As locally available materials could be substituted when needed, until the preferred stone was replenished from long distance sources, it was not neces- sary to use the grindstones past their optimal state.

The results of Lantzke's study are unlikely to be biased by the fact that his study was based on a Museum collection. Much of the examined material was collected from pastoral properties prior to the passing of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972-80. If anything, it is likely that the method of acquisition would have been biased in favour of uniformity as the most recognisable specimens would have been collected and broken or amorphous pieces ignored. In conclusion, the results of Lantzke's analysis support Davidson and McCarthy's (1957) obser- vations on the problems of classifying mullers:

. . . there are considerable differences in outline, cross-sec- tion and number of grinding surfaces, but none of these factors is a satisfactory criterion of classification . . . since the observable features of a specimen represent a type or stage through which some but not all of them pass as a result of use (1957:443).

B: Grindstones and Archaeological Visibility

The previous section demonstrates that there is no valid functional distinction between Smith's morphological types. This means that seed grinding may be more abun- dantly represented in the archaeological record than under Smith's more restricted definition.

We will now proceed to show, however, that seed grinding is likely to be underrepresented in the stratified

144

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Artefacts Implements Implenents Grindstones Grindstones Seedgrinders Seedgrinders Site η η % η % η %

Puritjarra 5038 168 3.3 15 0.3 3 0.06

Tjungkupu 1 5638 123 2.2 38 0.7 6 0.1

Tjungkupu2 715 13 1.8 13 1.8 1 0.1 Wanmara 1346 72 5.3 89 6.2 13 0.9 Ilararil7 195 17 8.7 1 0.5 0 0 UrreD40 430 15 3.5 5 1.1 1 0.2

Kweyunpe6 2139 65 3 13 0.6 1 0.05

Therreyererte 6962 123 1.8 54 0.8 4 0.06

Puntutjarpa >76000 1686 2.2 29 0.04 5 0.007 Intirtekwerle 2479 72 2.9 11 0.4 1 0.04 Intirtekwerle Tl 20961 299 1.4 50 0.2 21 0.1 Intirtekwerle T2 > 13500 224 1.7 54 0.4 12 0.09 Native Well 1 9948 555 5.6 59 0.6 3 0.03 GramanGBl/GB4 >4689 173 3.7 37 0.8 2 0.04

Total > 150067 3605 2.4 468 0.3 73 0.05

Table 1. Seedgrinding implements as a proportion of artefact populations for selected sites (from Smith 1988b).

The problem of assemblage size and sampling

In a recent paper Hiscock (1993) discusses the low likeli- hood of recovering specific implements from stratified deposits which have a low density of artefacts to begin with. His discussion focuses on the introduction of biface technology in northern Australia. He emphasises that if a targeted implement (e.g. the biface) only forms a low proportion of all implements which are, themselves, only a minor fraction of the overall assemblage (which may also be of a low density) then the probability of encoun- tering the targeted class may be very low indeed. It is only when a density 'threshold' is reached that an inves- tigator can expect certain implements to be archaeologi- cally visible in a sample excavation. This low visibility can be exacerbated through the breakage and fragmenta- tion of the implement under study.

Hiscock's (1993) argument is particularly pertinent when the actual frequency of grindstone fragments recovered from archaeological sites in the arid zone is examined critically (Table 1). In Table 1 we have delib- erately chosen sites examined or discussed by Smith (1986, 1988b) in the creation of his typology of Australian seed grinding implements. On average, less than 2.4% of artefacts recovered from these excavations have been identified as implements of any sort.

The highest proportion of grindstones (whole and fragmented) comes from the site of Wanmara in Central Australia (Figure 1). It is described as containing '... by far the most extensive and dense occupation debris of any of the campsites along the George Gill range' (Smith 1988b: 161), with an abundance of plant foods in the sur-

roundings requiring grinding to become edible. Smith notes

The most striking archaeological feature of the site is the large number of grindstones, seedgrinding implements and fragments of grindstones. A number of complete millstones remain despite the proximity of the old road . . . I estimate that the number of smaller seedgrinding imple- ments, such as faceted mullers, to be about 300-400. (1988b:163) The results of Smith's excavations across the main

campsite at Wanmara (Table 1), presumably where the recovery of grinding material would be the highest, yielded more grindstones (89) than other types of imple- ments (72). Yet in proportional terms, the grindstone component of the assemblage represents a relatively low 6.2% of the total, while seedgrinding implements only represent 0.9% of the total (Smith 1988b:163-181). These are by far the highest figures available for any of the sites under discussion.

Table 1 provides data on the remaining sites. All grind- stone fragments are tabled (inclusive of seedgrinder, mill- stone, muller, mortar, pestle, amorphous, other and undi- agnostic) for comparison against those items specifically identified as seedgrinders. A total of 468 grindstone frag- ments were recovered (which includes seedgrinders). These grindstone fragments represent only 0.3% of all artefacts, the range at individual sites being from only 0.4% to as high as 6.2% (at Wanmara). It should be noted that the highest figures come from the open sites (Tjungkupu 2, Wanmara, Urre D40 and Therreyerte). If we consider rockshelters as a class on their own, the fig- ure drops to 0.2%. That is, one should expect to find one

145

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

C: Grinding Patches

A case study from the Croydon region, northwest Queensland

Does the paucity of formal grindstones in surface con- texts from large areas of the semi-arid and arid zone imply that intensive seedgrinding (associated by Smith with demographic packing and climatic change) never occurred in the late Holocene in these areas ? (cf. Smith 1986). Or could it be that where suitable bedrock was abundant in the landscape it was used for seedgrinding and other processing activities, as needed?

In his 1985 review, Smith makes no mention of non- portable grinding patches, which have been defined else- where as '... rock pavements or slabs worn smooth by Aborigines grinding on their surface. They are most commonly found in arid regions, where Aboriginal peo- ple, especially women, carried out seed grinding' mainly of '... acacia or grass seeds' (Flood 1990:357). Such patches when found by Smith in his own study area were, however, identified with seed grinding (Smith 1988b:135).

Recent archaeological research in the Croydon region, at the edge of the Gulf of Carpentaria plains, has resulted in the discovery of a high density of prehistoric sites (Grant 1992; Salmon 1992; Gorecki et al 1992). Of rele- vance to this paper, is the finding of over 2,000 grinding patches at 102 sites on Esmeralda Station, located to the south of Croydon along the western edge of the Gregory Range (Figure 1). All patches are located on bedrock adjacent to permanent or semi-permanent water sources (Gorecki and Grant 1994; Grant 1992).

Sites with patches are rarely associated with other archaeological material. Approximately 78% (n=80) of these sites are in the open adjacent to or in creek beds. A total of 487 grinding patches were measured on Esmeralda Station (Grant 1992). No morphological dif- ference is noted between those made on rhyolite and those made on sandstone, despite the distinct mineralogy of these rocks. The average length of these patches is 31cm (range 25-37cm) while the average width is 16cm (range 14-20cm). It was more difficult, or rather more imprecise, to calculate the depth of these patches in the field. A certainty is that they are very shallow (average 0.4cm; range 0.2-0.8cm). The form of these patches is oval to circular, with the dominant striations being paral- lel to each other along the longer axis of the patch.

In addition to patches, a limited number of amorphous grindstones and mullers were located. In this instance, they are essentially a component of complex assem- blages of major open sites located some distance away from water sources (Grant 1992). These portable grind- stones are flaked to suitable size as indicated by edge trimming. Most specimens are equally as flat as grinding patches and often have pecking scars on their surface. They are made from rhyolite or sandstone while mullers are made from a greater diversity of raw materials, with sandstone being the dominant. Many of these mullers are

fragment of grindstone for every 500 artefacts recovered from these rocksheiter deposits.

This very low probability of recovery becomes even smaller when seedgrinders are examined as a subset of all grindstones (Table 1). Of the 468 fragments of grind- stones identified, 73 of these are positively identified as fragments of seedgrinders. This means that fragments of seedgrinders (as defined by Smith 1985, 1986) represent only 0.05% of the total lithic assemblage. For rockshel- ters, the figure is 0.04%, or one fragment of seedgrinder for every 2500 artefacts recovered. On current evidence, seedgrinders would appear to constitute a rather rare commodity.

Drawing on the north American literature to strengthen the case for millstones as an important marker of a culture based on grass seeds, Smith (1986:34) cites the case of Danger Cave in Utah where (paraphrasing Jennings 1974:159) '... the assemblage includes over 1000 millstones and fragments and several hundred handstones, compared with some 2000 chipped stone artefacts' (Smith 1986:34). In contrast, the original text cited by Smith states that what was found at Danger Cave included '... over 1,000 flat milling stones and fragments, over 2,000 chipped stone pieces, hundreds of manos or handstones' (Jennings 1974:159; emphasis ours). The omission of the word 'flat' is critical here, as it is central to Smith's Australian argument. It appears to us that these 1000 American millstones are, using Smith's nomenclature, 1000 amorphous grindstones.

We concur with Hiscock (1993) regarding the recov- ery of specific implements which have a low representa- tion, especially with regard to the probability of detect- ing the 'first' invention/introduction of specific implements in Australian prehistory.

The sample effect will be especially important in this regard as, a) grindstones rarely comprise a significant proportion of implements, b) the ratio of seedgrinding implements to expedient grindstones (as defined by Smith) is generally low and c) the actual numbers of implements in units dating to before 4,000 BP are low.

In support for our argument about sample size and recovery probabilities we observe that at most of the stratified sites examined by Smith (1986) the majority of grindstones recovered from the site were from upper lev- els of the deposit and the proportion of grindstones to other implements was low even in these levels. For example, at Puritjara, Smith (1986:33) observes 'Most of the grindstones, including the five identified on my crite- ria as seedgrinders, were recovered from levels above the upper rockfall . . . suggesting an age of about 3,500 years BP'. And further (Smith 1986:34) '... the number of grindstones at this site is comparatively low ... as a ratio to retouched items'. If most of the grindstones, including the subset of seedgrinders, come from more recent levels and these are only a minor proportion of all retouched artefacts, then the probability of recovering seedgrinders in earlier levels where assemblages are much smaller would be very low indeed (e.g. Jones et al 1983; Kirch et al 1987; Hiscock 1993).

146

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

a clear association of plant tissue and starch grains on the polished surface ... and is similar to the polish on Holocene seedgrinders' (Furby et al 1993:208). More ground fragments were analysed from Cuddie Springs, with similar results (Dodson et al 1993:97):

The grindstone fragments have flat polished surfaces with plant residues, including abundant starch grains which strongly suggests processing of siliceous plants, such as grasses, probably to extract seeds. This is the oldest direct evidence for processing of plant materials in Australia

The results of residue analysis carried out on these grindstone fragments, dated to between 19,000 BP and 30,000 BP, demonstrate the growing importance of residue analysis in archaeology, particularly on issues related to the specific function of an implement. It should be added that further significant results are being obtained from analysis of these grindstones (R.Fullagar and J. Furby, pers.comm. 1995). More than 20 grind- stone fragments from Cuddie Springs, dated to over 30,000 years ago, have evidence of plant processing and other residues on their ground surfaces. Further, there is typological variation suggesting mortars and upper and lower grinding stones.

A case study from Carpenter's Gap Shelter I, central Kimberley, Western Australia

At Carpenter's Gap Shelter I, the Pleistocene evidence for the dietary importance of grass seeds is found in the macrobotanical remains themselves (McConnell and O'Connor forthcoming). Today the region today is tropi- cal semi-arid with a marked annual wet and dry season. At the height of the Last Glacial Maximum, however, the shelter would have been well inside the expanded arid zone of Greater Australia (Jones and Bowler 1980). There is no ethnographic or ethnohistorical record of seed use in this region and no grindstones were recov- ered from the limited excavations.

The deposit at Carpenter's Gap Shelter I spans a period of approximately 40,000 years but with marked discontinuities in the occupation sequence (O'Connor 1995). The radiocarbon dates available so far suggest intermittent occupation during the period from c. 40,000 BP through to the terminal Pleistocene, c. 12,000 BP, and again from c. 4,000 BP to the European contact period. At present the radiocarbon dates indicate that no sedi- ment or cultural material accumulated in the early to mid Holocene.

McConnell and O'Connor (forthcoming) identify sev- eral distinct phases of use of the site as reflected in the botanical remains. The earliest phase, from 40,000 and 30,000 BP, is characterised by grasses (Plectrachne) and waterweed (Cyperaceae) but also includes low numbers of seeds from fruit trees such as Terminalia spp., Amplelocissus sp. and Vitex sp. A wider range of grasses (Poacae, Plectrachne), shrubs (Chenopodiaceae) and water weed dominate the botanical remains of the mid

well worn, sometimes being faceted on all sides. Not a single millstone, as defined by Smith, has been found so far during these extensive surveys.

We argue that these grinding patches are a testimony to a past society whose subsistence was closely tied to a diet in which grass seeds played an important role (Grant 1992; Gorecki and Grant 1994). Indeed the region has been linked by Grant (1992)with the Panara, or grass seed, culture proposed by Tindale (Figure 1; Tindale 1977).

Additional sites with grinding patches have been recently found to the north of Croydon (Grant 1994) and in the vicinity of Hughenden (Veth, pers.obs.; Morwood 1990). If we assume that the Esmeralda results are repre- sentative of similar micro-environments in the region, then there is an estimated conservative minimum of 36,000 grinding patches to be found along the western flank of the Gregory Range alone.

Our review of the prevalence and distribution of grinding patches, and our observations on the paucity of formal grindstones in large areas of the semi-arid/arid zone of Australia, concludes that patches occur within regions where seed-based economies were well devel- oped. The function of patches is suggested to have been for wet milling of seeds (Grant 1992; Vinnicombe 1987) in addition to serving as a platform for other activities, such as those listed in Smith (1985) for amorphous grindstones. This hypothesised use finds support from the results of two residue studies carried out on frag- ments of patches and mullers from Esmeralda which demonstrate that, beside the expected evidence of starch, other classes of residue are present (Grant in prep.). These studies have identified the types of residues found on millstones (metates) and mullers (manos) from the American Southwest ( Yohe et al 1 99 1 ) .

D: New Approaches

In the light of the discussion in the previous sections, it is obvious that in order to discriminate between the use of grindstones, and grinding patches, for seeds as against other things, we need new approaches. One of these is residue analysis, which has already identified seed grind- ing amongst other uses on the grinding patches at Esmeralda.

A case study from Cuddie Springs, northwest New South Wales

The site of Cuddie Springs in New South Wales is a sig- nificant example of this new approach (Dodson et al 1993; Furby et al 1993). Preliminary residue studies car- ried out on some stone flakes indicate economic activi- ties such as plant processing dated to between 19,000 BP and 28,000 BP (Furby et al 1993:208). One of a number of grindstone fragments recovered from the same level was examined for traces of residue. The results show

147

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

are important markers of a seed-based economy, often substituting for mobile grindstones in areas where suit- able raw material for portable stones may be unavailable. Although high densities of grinding patches have only been reported for Esmeralda and the Burrup Peninsula (Vinnicombe 1987; Figure 1), we suspect they have been unreported for many parts of arid and semi-arid Australia and will be found in abundance throughout portions of the Panara region (Figure 1) and on its periphery. This is supported by recent observations made in various parts of Kakadu (Grant 1992 and pers. obs.), in Central Australia around Ernabella and in the Carnarvon Gorge in Queensland (Grant 1992; Figure 1).

The question of the antiquity of seedgrinding technol- ogy centres on the issue of whether seedgrinders can be said to occur in Pleistocene deposits at all and, if so, whether they were to a significantly greater degree multi-functional implements than their Holocene coun- terparts. Smith reviewed the earlier claims for Pleistocene grindstones and rejected all but a few on the basis of problematic associations between dated samples and grindstones or confused stratigraphie associations. Whilst allowing for the fact that several of the sites have dating problems others containing definite grinding material were firmly dated to the Pleistocene. The new evidence from Cuddie Springs and Carpenter's Gap I and the reassessment of the stratigraphie context of the river- ine sites in western New South Wales which contain large quantities of grinding material, as possibly Pleistocene in age (see Balme 1991; Hope 1993; Holdaway 1995), suggests that a closer look at all the existing Pleistocene evidence is warranted.

The fact that few grindstones have been recovered from Pleistocene contexts is totally predictable in view of the fact that they constitute a small element of assem- blages, are rarely used in shelters and that most Pleistocene assemblages are small. Interestingly, the sites where grindstones have been recovered in Pleistocene contexts all have high artefact numbers in Pleistocene levels (e.g. Malangangerr and Malakunanja II) or are in open contexts (Kalgan Hall, Cuddie Springs).

We acknowledge that there have likely been areas where grass seeds constituted a more significant part of the economy and that there have been times in prehistory when grass seeds would have been more heavily relied upon. We believe, however, that the dichotomy between formal and non-formal grindstones may not reflect the degree of reliance on seeds. If we are interested in identi- fying the genesis of seed grinding as an adaptation to the unique grasslands of arid and semi arid Australia, this classification will not assist. The grindstones found in Pleistocene deposits cannot be ruled out as seed grinders on morphological grounds alone. Confirmation that the fragments so far recovered from early deposits are indeed seedgrinders and mullers remains within the domain of residue analysis. Such studies should also be able to demonstrate that grindstones were used to grind plant foods as well as for a range of other tasks; that they were multifunctional implements.

level spits corresponding with dates of between 18,000 and 20,000 BP and the height of the last phase of glacial aridity. Much of the grass seed is burnt.

McConnell and O'Connor make a strong case that the burnt grasses were not introduced as a result of tapho- nomic processes introducing grasses burnt or charred during natural bushfires. This is based on the selectivity of burning between species and the lack of other burnt plant parts which would be anticipated if the plants were introduced by natural processes (McConnell and O'Connor forthcoming). They believe that the seeds are likely to have been burnt incidentally when lost during the grinding process. The presence of waterweed in these arid layers was surprising but perhaps relates to resource use increasingly focused on permanent water sources. The most recent phase which approximately corresponds with the late Holocene can be characterised as dominated by broad leaf deciduous trees and vine fruits of common edible species found in the area today. Most importantly the grass species found in the Pleistocene layers are absent from the record of the late Holocene although their modern distribution includes areas proximal to the shelter today. Despite the lack of any technological indi- cators for seed grinding in the Pleistocene levels and the lack of any ethnohistoric accounts suggesting grass seed use for this region, they argue that this region was part of a grass seed using culture in the Pleistocene.

Conclusions

On the basis of comparison with ethnographic specimens from central Australia Smith (1985) concluded that seed grinding implements have distinct morphological differ- ences from other types of grindstones and defined a number of formal types. After comparison of these with the Pleistocene-aged specimens he concluded that the early specimens did not meet the morphological criteria allowing them to be positively identified as seed grinders. On this basis he posits a mid-late Holocene date for the introduction of specialised seedgrinding in Australia.

We argue that variation in the morphology of grind- stones is strongly related to the availability of raw mate- rials used in their manufacture rather than necessarily reflecting a shift towards greater reliance on seeds for subsistence. We suggest that 'formal' seedgrinders domi- nate in areas where raw material is limited and reflect the use of the implements past their optimal state. In the late Holocene this trend may have been accentuated in some regions by increasing social demarcation promoting tighter control of raw material sources, trade routes and possibly a greater emphasis on a stylistically distinctive 'product' for exchange (cf. Lourandos and Ross 1994). In essence, however, we believe that millstones, grind- stones and amorphous grindstones are all variants of the same functional implement.

An additional grinding implement must join the same nomenclature. It is the grinding patch. Grinding patches

148

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Australian archaeology is clearly at the crossroads of a major revision of the nature and antiquity of seedgrind- ing behaviours.

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Jack Golson for his extensive review of an earlier version of this paper and Professor James O'Connell for detailed referee's comments.

References

Balme, J. 1991. The antiquity of grinding stones in semi-arid western New South Wales Australian Archaeology 32: 3-9.

Cane, S. 1984. Desert camps: a case study of stone artefacts and Aboriginal behaviour in the Western Desert. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Australian National University.

Cane, S. 1989. Australian Aboriginal seed grinding and its archaeological record: a case study from the Western Desert. In D.R. Harris and G.C. Hillman (eds) Foraging and Farming, pp. 99-119. London: Un win Hyman.

Davidson, D.S. and McCarthy, F.D. 1957. The distribution and chronology of some important types of stone implements in Western Australia. Anthropos 52:390-458.

Devitt, J. 1988. Contemporary Aboriginal women and subsis- tence in remote, arid Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Queensland.

Devitt, J. 1992. Acacias: a traditional Aboriginal food source in central Australia. In A.P.N. House and C.E. Harwood (eds) Australian Dry-zone Acacias for Human Food, pp.37-53. Canberra: Australian Tree Seed Centre.

Dixon, R., Rigsby, B. and Rowland, M. 1993. Lifestyles. In D.Wadley (ed.) Reef, Range and Red Dust,, pp. 4-7. Brisbane: Queensland Government Publication.

Dodson, J., Fullagar, R., Furby, J., Jones, R. and Prosser, I. 1993. Humans and Megafauna in a late Pleistocene environ- ment from Cuddie Springs, north western New South Wales. Archaeology in Oceania 28: 94-99.

Edwards, D.A. and J.F. O'Connell 1995. Broad spectrum diets in arid Australia. Antiquity 69: 769-83.

Flood, J. 1990. The Riches of Ancient Australia. Brisbane: University of Queensland Press.

Furby, J.H., Fullagar, R., Dodson, J.R. and Prosser, I. 1991. The Cuddie Springs bone bed revisited. In M.A. Smith, M. Spriggs and B. Fankhauser (eds) Sahul in Review - Pleistocene Archaeology in Australia, New Guinea and Island Melanesia, pp. 204-210. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 24.

Gorecki, P. and Grant, M. 1994. Grinding patches from the Croydon region, Gulf of Carpentaria. In M. Sullivan, S. Brockwell and A. Webb (eds) Archaeology in the North: Proceedings of the 1993 Australian Archaeological Association Conference, pp. 227-246. Darwin: North Australia Research Unit.

Gorecki, P., Grant, M. and Salmon, M. 1992. The 1992 archae- ological surveys on Esmeralda Station, Gulf of Carpentaria: preliminary results. Queensland Archaeological Research 9:54-58.

Grant, M. 1992. To go through the mill: aspects of past Aboriginal life in the Croydon region, Gulf of Carpentaria. Unpublished B.A. (Hons) thesis, James Cook University.

Grant, M. 1994. Pindathala Land: a preliminary assessment of cultural resources on Tabletop and Alehvale stations, Gulf of Carpentaria. Croydon: Confidential report to the Waratah Aboriginal Corporation.

Grant, M. (in prep.) Residues on grinding implements from the Gulf of Carpentaria: some preliminary results (in preparation).

Hiscock, P. 1993. Interpreting the vertical distribution of stone points within Nauwalabila 1, Arnhem Land. The Beagle 10:173-178.

Holdaway, S. 1995 Stone artefacts and the Transition. Antiquity 69 Special number 265:784-97

Hope, J. 1993. Pleistocene archaeological sites in the central Murray-Darling Basin, In M.A. Smith, M. Spriggs and B. Fankhauser (eds) Sahul in Review - Pleistocene Archaeology in Australia, New Guinea and Island Melanesia, pp. 1 83-96. Canberra: Department of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, The Australian National University. Occasional Papers in Prehistory 24.

Jennings, J.D. 1974. Prehistory of North America. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Jones, G.T., Grayson, D.K. and Beck, C. 1983. Artefact class richness and sample size in archaeological surface assem- blages. In R.C. Dunnell and D.K Grayson (eds), Lulu Linear Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby, pp. 55-73. Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, No. 75. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan.

Jones, R. and Bowler, J. 1980. Struggle for the Savanna: Northern Australia in Ecological and Prehistoric Perspective. In R. Jones (ed.) Northern Australia: Options and Implications, pp. 3-32. Research School of Pacific Studies, Australian National University, Canberra.

Kirch, P.V., Allen, M.S., Butler, V.L. and Hunt, T.L. 1987. Comment: Is there an early Far Western Lapita province? Sample size effects and new evidence from Eloaua Island. Archaeology in Oceania 22:123-127.

Lantzke, D.G. 1991. Grindstones: classification, analysis and distribution in the Shark Bay and adjoining regions, Western Australia. Unpublished B.Sc. Hons thesis, Department of Archaeology, University of Western Australia.

Latz, P.K. 1982. Bushfires and bushtucker: Aborigines and plants in Central Australia. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of New England.

Lourandos, H. and Ross, R. 1994. The great intensification debate: its history and place in Australian archaeology. Australian Archaeology 39:54-63.

McCarthy, F.D. 1939a. "Trade" in Aboriginal Australia, and "trade" relationships with Torres Strait, New Guinea and Malaya. Oceania 9:405-438.

McCarthy, F.D. 1939b. 'Trade" in Aboriginal Australia, and "trade" relationships with Torres Strait, New Guinea and Malaya. Oceania 10:80-104.

McConnell, A. 1976. Aboriginal trade in the Lake Eyre region. Unpublished M.A. qualifying thesis, Australian National University.

McConnell, Κ and O'Connor, S. forthcoming. 40,000 year record of food plants in the southern Kimberley ranges, Western Australia. Australian Archaeology.

Morwood, MJ. 1990. The prehistory of Aboriginal landuse on the Upper Flinders River, North Queensland Highlands. Queensland Archaeological Research 7:3-56.

149

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Nelson, M.C. and Lippmeier, H. 1993. Grinding-tool design as conditioned by land-use pattern. American Antiquity 58:286-305.

Nicholson, A. and Cane, S. 1991. Desert camps: analysis of Australian Aboriginal Proto-historic campsites. In C.S.Gambie and W.A.Boismier (eds) Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to Mobile Campsites, pp. 263-354. Ann Arbor: Michigan.

O'Connor, S. 1995. Carpenter's Gap Rocksheiter 1: 40,000 years of Aboriginal occupation in the Napier Ranges, Kimberley, W.A. Australian Archaeology 40:58-60.

Salmon, M. 1992. Esmeralda: a consideration of natural site formation processes. Unpublished B.A.(Hons) thesis, James Cook University.

Schlanger, S. H. 1991. On manos, metates, and the history of site occupations. American Antiquity 56:46(M74.

Smith, M.A. 1985. A morphological comparison of Central Australian seedgrinding implements and Australian Pleistocene-age grindstones. The Beagle 2:23-38.

Smith, M.A. 1986. The antiquity of seedgrinding in arid Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 21:29-39.

Smith, M.A. 1988a. Central Australian seed grinding imple- ments and Pleistocene grindstones. In B.Meehan and R.Jones (eds) Archaeology with Ethnography: an Australian Perspective, pp.94- 108. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Smith, M.A. 1988b. The pattern and timing of prehistoric set- tlement in Central Australia. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Universitv of New England.

Smith, M.A. 1989. Seed gathering in inland Australia: current evidence from seed grinders on the antiquity of the ethno- historical pattern of exploitation. In D.R.Harris and

G.C.Hillman (eds) Foraging and Farming: the Evolution of Plant Exploitation, pp.305-317. London: Unwin Hyman.

Tindale, N.B. 1974. Aboriginal tribes of Australia. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Tindale, N.B. 1977. Adaptive significance of the Panara or grass culture of Australia. In R.V.S. Wright (ed.) Stone Tools as Cultural Markers, pp. 345-349. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.

Tindale, N.B. 1981. Desert Aborigines and the southern coastal peoples: some comparisons. In A. Keast (ed) Ecological Biogeography of Australia, pp. 1855-1884. The Hague: Junk.

van de Graaff, W.J.E. 1980. Transportation patterns of Aboriginal artefacts in the Shark Bay area, Western Australia Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 63:1-3

Veth, P. 1993. Islands in the interior: the dynamics of prehis- toric adaptations within the arid zone of Australia. International Monographs in Prehistory. Archaeological Series 3. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Veth, P., Hamm, G. and Lampert, R.J. 1990. The archaeologi- cal significance of the Lower Cooper Creek. Records of the South Australian Museum 24:43-66.

Vinnicombe, P. 1987. Dampier Archaeological Project. Perth: Western Australian Museum.

Walsh, F.J. 1987. Patterns of plant resource use by Martu Aborigines. Unpublished M.Sc. preliminary, University of Western Australia.

Yohe, R.M., Newman, M.E. and Schneider, J.S. 1991. Immunological identification of small mammal proteins on Aboriginal milling equipment. American Antiquity 56:659-666.

Understanding prehistoric colonisation in the Pacific

As part of this major ARC Grant project, one or two PhD students are sought to carry out research on the main island of Fiji. The study will examine whether present site distributions represent evidence which still exists in both windward and leeward part of the island and thus the possibility of using them in hypotheses about colonisation, age, locational pref- erence, etc. The research would be carried out in close cooperation with coastal geomorphologists and sedimentologists

and would require the use of coring and excavation in addition to surface observation. Funding is available for both field and laboratory research, and appropriate facilities in the field are being supplied. Cooperation with the Fiji

Museum and the University of the South Pacific is being arranged. Expressions of interest are being sought from stu- dents eligible for Australian Postgraduate Awards or their equivalent, with the expectation of starting in 1998.

Attachment to the ANU is preferred but enrolment at Sydney or Auckland Universities is also possible.

Contact Professor Atholl Anderson, Archaeology and Natural History, ANU; fax 61.6.249.4917; email: aja@coombs.anu.edu.au.

150

This content downloaded from 130.95.186.147 on Fri, 27 Mar 2015 04:48:06 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions