Content uploaded by Richard Fullagar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Fullagar on Sep 04, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Closer Look: Recent Australian Studies of Stone Tools
Richard Fullagar (ed.) 1997
Sydney University Archaeological Methods Series 6
7
Grinding and pounding
stones from Cuddie
Springs and Jinmium
Judith Field
School of Archaeology
The University of Sydney
Richard Fullagar
Division of Anthropology
Australian Museum
2
Richard Fullagar
7
INTRODUCTION
In Australia, grinding and pounding stones have been studied less extensively than flaked stone
artefacts, despite much recent work on certain artefact types (for example, Smith 1985, 1986,
1988, 1989; Veth et al. 1997; Gorecki et al. 1997; Kamminga 1981; Hall et al.1989). McCarthy’s
study remains the only synthesis of non-flaked Aboriginal stone implements, and is useful simply
because it emphasises the range of tasks and multi-functional tools which might be encountered
archaeologically. In this paper, we briefly review the range of non-flaked implements;
morphologically distinct pounding and grinding implements; and functional evidence for food
processing. We argue that use-wear/residue analysis is crucial for understanding grinding and
pounding implements, and that interpretations of function are not necessarily independent of tool
design. We present a case study with descriptions of implements from two Australian
archaeological sites: Cuddie Springs, an open site in semi-arid, south-eastern Australia; and
Jinmium, a rock shelter in monsoonal, tropical north-western Australia. We summarise results of
use-wear and residue analysis on tools from these two sites, and distinguish those implements
associated specifically with processing plant foods.
The Cuddie Springs excavations revealed a range of sandstone, phyllite, quartzite and other
metamorphic stone implements, some with smoothly ground, polished surfaces and traces of starch
and phytoliths (Fullagar and Field 1997). These grinding and pounding stones have been found
with flaked stone artefacts, ochre, charcoal and bones in association with dates spanning the last
30,000 years. In the older levels they are contemporary with extinct fauna. The Jinmium site
contained sandstone grinding implements, waterworn quartzite cobbles with traces of use from
processing starchy plants, probably tubers, and also ground mudstone artefacts (Fullagar et al.
1996). The antiquity of initial human occupation at Jinmium, as indicated by both rock art
sequences and dated sediments, remains uncertain. Initial thermoluminescence ages spanning
100,000 years are contradicted by optical dates and alternative interpretations which suggest
human occupation may span only the last 10,000 years (Roberts et al. in press). However, Tacon
et al. (1998) suggest production of engraved cupules at Jinmium could be as early as 40,000 years.
Further dating of sediments and rock art at Jinmium are in progress.
Our primary concern in this paper is the functional interpretation of archaeological artefacts, many
of which are small fragments. The case studies demonstrate how use-wear and residues
complement technological analyses to assign a function to grinding stone fragments, unmodified
cobbles and other artefacts. Many of the artefacts were used to process particular plant foods , and
provide evidence for understanding prehistoric diet (cf. Edwards and O’Connell 1995).
Australian grinding and pounding implements
In Australia, grinding and pounding have been associated with the processing of many materials,
including ochre (McCarthy 1967), bone artefacts (McCarthy 1967:57,68), shell artefacts
(McCarthy 1967; Attenbrow et al. this volume), wooden artefacts (for example, McCarthy
1967:58,68, 70,78), stone artefacts (for example, whetstones for shaping edge-ground axes,
McCarthy 1967:67), small animals (Yohe et al. 1991), tubers and fibrous roots (Kamminga 1982;
Hall et al. 1989), seeds and nuts (McCarthy 1967:55ff,59; Cane, 1989; Jones & Meehan, 1989; see
references in Smith 1988:105), and preparation of many other products (for example, medicines,
drugs and resins for hafting or fixatives). Grinding was also a mechanism in some rock art
engravings (McCarthy 1967:61; Flood 1977). Grinding and pounding stones are still sometimes
used by Aboriginal people, and stone raw material types range from very hard rocks, like quartzite,
to loosely cemented sandstones.
The classification of McCarthy (1967:43-72) which covers the range of non-flaked Aboriginal
stone implements, is divided into nine main classes based primarily on known or presumed
function. Most of these implements were manufactured by grinding or pounding, and were used to
process food or craft products. Implement types such as missile stones or basket weights, might be
impossible to identify archaeologically because they bear no manufacturing marks. Other types
3
Grinding and pounding stones from Cuddie Springs and Jinmium
7
such as ritual implements depend for identification of function on ethnographic information. The
nine main classes of McCarthy (1967) include three classes which explicitly refer to “percussion
stones”, “abrading stones” (which includes grinding stones), and a multifunctional class of
“percussion and abrading implements” (which includes mortars). He highlights the fact that
Aboriginal implements are often not function-specific, hence the multifunctional class “percussion
and abrading implements”. This is illustrated by ethnographic examples, including an Aranda man
grinding an axe blade on a seed grinding dish. Other examples include the expedient use of stones
presumably picked from the ground nearby and used for some ad hoc task like pounding
bloodwood gum.
Smith (1985, 1986, 1988, 1989) revised McCarthy’s classification to provide categories more
suitable to the archaeological identification of grinding and pounding implements: “millstones”,
“mullers”, “mortars”, “pestles” and “amorphous”. Implements which were carefully quarried,
designed, shaped and maintained are easily classifiable: for example, the large tabular slabs of
sandstone manufactured into the grooved millstones for seed grinding from Late Holocene sites
(Smith 1985, 1987). The lower seed grinding stones were shaped by flaking and pitting (see
Mulvaney, this volume), and the smoothed concave surfaces are a consequence of use. The upper
stones (mullers) have one or more facets with convex surfaces which are associated with a rocking
motion while grinding the seeds. Other grinding implements or fragments have a less distinctive
shape, and flat surfaces which would be classified as “amorphous”, although they may still have
been used for processing seed (see Veth et al. 1997; and Gorecki et al. 1997 for a critique of
Smith’s classification).
Percussion produces a form of use-wear with pitting and a rough surface. Depending on the stone
type and the plants processed by these activities, polish may form at various stages of development
(Fullagar 1991), but pounding is unlikely to permit extensive polish development unless the
material is very soft and siliceous, like sago palm (Fullagar 1989) or ferns roots (Hall et al. 1989).
Pounding stones for processing nuts or tubers may be unmodified stones selected for their size,
and they have been documented throughout Australia from the temperate and arid zones to the
monsoonal tropics. Stones used for grinding siliceous materials, like grass seeds, will sustain a
polish from use which is much more developed than on stones used for pounding. Distinctive
residues on stone tools include phytoliths and starch grains, which can indicate what plant taxa
were processed (Fullagar and Field 1997; Kealhofer et al. in press). While pounding of nuts,
tubers, other plant and animal materials might be seen as an early adaptation of humans, the
manufacturing of grinding dishes (see Mulvaney, this volume) and the grinding of seeds are
thought to be more complex, relatively more recent innovations, and restricted to the arid and
semi-arid zones (Tindale 1977; Smith, 1989; Balme, 1991; Fullagar and Field 1997).
Cuddie Springs
Cuddie Springs is an open site in semi-arid, central northern New South Wales and has a record of
human occupation overlapping with a suite of extinct fauna (Dodson et al., 1993; Furby, 1995).
The grinding stones are present in six analytical archaeological levels spanning at least 30,000
years, and about forty of these implements have been analysed (Figures 1-4). These artefacts have
been examined microscopically for traces of use, including residues and polish (Fullagar & Field,
1997). The artefacts have a range of morphologies including single or double sided grinding
surfaces, each with convex, flat or concave cross-sections (Figures 1-4; Table 1). Sampling and
analysis of residues on the used surfaces have identified functions which include animal (rare) and
plant (common) processing (Furby, 1995). Specific taxonomic identification of processed plant
materials is not yet possible, though we are currently analysing phytoliths, starch grains and other
tissues. Residues and polish on some grinding surfaces suggest processing of starchy, siliceous
plants prior to 28,000 years ago. Likely candidates include seeds or sporocarps from fern
(nardoo), acacia, grass, chenopods and other shrubs (Fullagar & Field 1997).
Of interest is the range of implements as inferred from the design and morphology of fragments.
Pounding implements include hammerstones, mortars and pestles (for example, CS957,
archaeological level 4; CS5000, archaeological level 5). Fragment CS5000 (Figure 4A), has a
circular pitted surface which is interpreted as an anvil or mortar. The cross-section of grinding
stone fragments is difficult to interpret, although even very small pieces often are clearly concave,
4
Richard Fullagar
7
flat or convex. Many (n=23) have grinding surfaces on two sides with concave, convex, flat or
uneven opposing surfaces. Others (n=10) have a single surface, concave (n=2), convex (n=1), flat
(n=5) or uneven (n=2). A significant proportion have one or two flat surfaces (23 out of 33),
including five fragments with opposing flat surfaces. Some with flat grinding surfaces may be
classifiable as mullers at some stage in their use-life, because of an opposing, distinctive convex
morphology. Others classifiable as undiagnostic or “amorphous” (using the terminology of Smith
1985, 1986, 1988), have flat surfaces with distinct plant residues (starch grains and phytoliths),
and polish development consistent with grinding siliceous plants. These thin sandstone fragments
with flat surfaces are likely to be part of lower grinding slabs.
Design considerations are important in distinguishing pounding and grinding. Fragments of a
sandstone grinding dish are suggested by a concave surface, thinner towards the centre, with the
circular outer rim intact (for example, Figure 1E). The thinnest part of the fragment CS6034 is less
than 1 cm thick and the material is sandstone, characteristics which together would be unsuitable
for any kind of pounding action. Limited grinding and pounding experiments with similar
sandstone support this inference. Morphologically, fragment CS6034 fits within Smith’s class of
grinding dish or millstone fragment. Use-wear and residue analyses further support this
interpretation with evidence of starchy siliceous plant processing. Sandstone fragments with
ground concave surfaces are therefore likely to be upper stones (for example, Figure 4H).
Use-wear and residue studies suggest siliceous and starchy plant processing, and several
implements are likely to be multifunctional. It is highly significant that at Cuddie Springs there is a
range of morphological classes which in turn suggest a range of processing techniques and,
perhaps, a variety of exploited plants. Beth Gott (personal communication) suggests that in historic
times about 15 plant families and 50 species of seed were processed for food by Aborigines in the
northwestern plains of NSW. Further studies of residues (starch and phytoliths) and wear pattern
variability (particularly more controlled experiments) are in progress. Preliminary analyses
indicate that processed plants include grass seeds.
Jinmium
The Jinmium rock-shelter is located in the north west of the Australian continent in the east
Kimberley region. The site lies on undulating sands which slope gently towards the Coornamu
swamp and Sandy Creek (see Atchison and Fullagar, this volume). The climate is characterised by
a semi-arid regime with a monsoonal rainfall pattern, that is a distinct wet season between
December and April. The archaeological record was investigated by excavation of four 1 m x 1 m
pits in spits within natural stratigraphic units (Fullagar et al., 1996). The lithic finds include
flaked stone, grinding stones, unmodified quartzite cobbles and sandstone rubble. Of interest here
are three quartzite cobbles, one grinding stone (Figure 5), and two ground mudstone fragments
(Figure 6).
In Unit 1, three water-worn quartzite cobbles with no macroscopic traces of human modification
were found. A relatively high frequency of starch grains were visible microscopically and
measured by counting numbers of starch grains. Plant remains that are typical residues of seed
grinding, that is phytoliths and/or oxalate crystals were not found on these implements. The
potential for integrating phytolith analysis with use-wear and residue studies has been recently
demonstrated by Kealhofer et al. (in prep.). A study by Atchison (1994; Atchison & Fullagar, this
volume) has demonstrated that residues collected from the surface of the cobbles have a higher
frequency of starch grains than in the surrounding sediment. The presence of starch grains together
with the absence of phytoliths and oxalate crystals eliminates grasses, water lily, palm and some,
but not all tubers. The morphology and use-wear on these utilised cobbles contrast with traces on
mullers, which have a convex and highly polished surface with abundant starch (Figure 5).
Phytoliths on this muller have yet to be analysed, but the polish suggests grass seed processing.
Some cobbles have traces of percussion damage with minimal or no polish development,
suggesting use as hammerstones or as pounders for the production of circular engravings/cupules
which are present at the site. Further experiments will be required to assess whether such a
distinction is possible.
5
Grinding and pounding stones from Cuddie Springs and Jinmium
7
Two small, tabular mudstone pieces with extensive grinding were recovered from Unit 1
(Figure 6). These pieces fit together and appear to be part of an artefact which has been ground on
opposing surfaces into a circular shape, with remnants of a hole chipped in its centre. Extensive
microscopic study failed to find any residues or traces of use, apart from mudstone debris
accumulated in the course of grinding and shaping the artefact. Given the excellent preservation of
organic residues (including seeds and microscopic starch grains), it is likely in this case that the
absence of any traces of use is real evidence that the artefact was not an implement for processing
food or craft products. Given the careful shaping and delicate grinding facets, it may be a
fragment from a broken ornament.
DISCUSSION
Use-wear and residue analysis provides a method for identifying tool function in cases where the
tools have not been altered or shaped. For example, quartzite cobbles from Jinmium have not
been shaped or modified by people, but have distinctive wear marks and residues which suggest
the pounding of tubers. Use-wear and residues are potentially helpful for interpreting fragments or
broken pieces (the amorphous grinding stones in Smith’s classification) and implements which fit
into more than one morphological class. For example, many of the grinding stone fragments from
Cuddie Springs have traces of use which are distinctive of processing siliceous starchy plant
materials, including grass seeds. Use-wear and absence of residues can suggest a non-utilitarian
function for implements, as for the the mudstone fragments from Jinmium. In each case, design
and other contextual information must be considered in interpreting tool functions.
Identification of technologies for processing tubers and seeds is important, particularly when other
archaeological evidence of plants is rare or absent. At Jinmium in tropical northwestern Australia,
evidence of seed grinding is preceded by evidence of tuber pounding, though sample size is small.
Tubers provide much higher returns for much less labour, compared with seeds, and perhaps the
later addition of seed processing is indicative of dietary stress. Inadequate temporal and climatic
data limit interpretations at Jinmium. However, at Cuddie Springs, a large sample of grinding and
pounding stones in a palaeoecological context support a model which relate seed grinding to
increasing climatic and dietary stress (Fullagar and Field 1997).
Typological and contextual analyses (Smith 1985, 1988; Balme 1991, 1995) have indicated that
widespread wet milling of grass seeds is associated with distinctive implement morphologies, and
that intensive seed grinding of this kind was a Late Holocene phenomenon. The new data from
Cuddie Springs challenges this scenario, and indicates a much earlier seed grinding economy. The
origins of seed grinding have been related to resource stress (White and O’Connell, 1982),
induced by higher aridity and perhaps associated with megafaunal extinctions. Edwards &
O’Connell (1995) have argued that the shift to seed exploitation may have been a product of
resource depletion, that is they will only be exploited when other higher ranked resources become
scarce. A model has been developed by Field (Furby 1995; Fullagar and Field 1997), in an
attempt to explain the development of seed grinding in the semi-arid margins prior to the Last
Glacial Maximum. Initial exploitation of plants was expedient and there may have been no formal
equipment for the processing of seeds as a periodic supplement during visits when other resources
were scarce. In the semi-arid zones plant foods become more important periodically, depending
on the availability of water and extent of droughts. After about 30,0000 years ago, climatic
changes induced a shift to more extensive grasslands around Cuddie Springs. At the same time,
faunal records suggest a drop in the number of browsing animals. To survive in increasingly arid
areas, people were pressured to adopt more efficient techniques for harnessing fewer resources
while at the same time maintaining their commitment to sites of significance and the associated
cultural and spiritual ceremonies. More refined use-wear and residue studies have the potential to
test this scenario by identifying specific plants being processed.
Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological studies will be important for understanding the potential
range of plants that were exploited for food, the spectrum of morphologies of different types of
processing tools, and the context of tool-use. Integration of phytolith analysis with use-wear and
6
Richard Fullagar
7
residues for the Cuddie Springs artefacts is in progress and will provide a basis for identifying
particular plant taxa (cf. Kealhofer et al. in prep.).
CONCLUSION
Use-wear and residue studies, integrated with tool design and artefact morphology, provide the
key for better understanding the specific function of grinding and pounding stones. Plant food
processing can be identified by microscopic analysis. It is also possible to test whether fragments
with ground surfaces are ornamental, rather than used to process some food or craft product. As
larger assemblages are excavated from Cuddie Springs, Jinmium and other sites, we expect to
recover more reliable information on the history of plant food processing and palaeodiets in
different environments. Extensive reference collections (phytoliths and starch grains), and more
replicative and controlled experiments are required to fully understand the nature of use-wear and
residues on pounding and grinding stones.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Biddy Simon, Paddy Carlton and others from Marralam, the local
Mirriuwung-Gajerrong people, Waringarri Aboriginal Corporation, Essie Coffey, Garry Lord, Ted
Fields and the Brewarrina Local Aboriginal Land Council. Jim Allen, John Dodson, Les Field and
Lesley Head have provided continuing support, discussion and critical comment. Funding has
been provided by the Australian Research Council, AIATSIS, UNSW, The Australian Museum,
National Geographic and the University of Wollongong. Figures 5C and 6 are reproduced from
Fullagar et al. (1996) with permission of the authors and Antiquity. Figures 1A,E,F and 2C are
reproduced from Fullagar and Field (1997) with permission of the authors and Antiquity.
References
Atchison, J.M. 1994. Analysis of food starch residues at the Jinmium archaeological site,
Northern Territory. Unpublished BEnvSC (Hons) thesis, University of Wollongong.
Attenbrow, V., Fullagar, R. and Szpak, C. this volume, Reassessing the chronology and function
of stone files in southeastern Australia, and implications for the manufacture of shell
fish-hooks.
Balme, J. 1991. The antiquity of grinding stones in semi-arid western New South Wales.
Australian Archaeology 3, 3-9.
Balme, J. 1995. 30,000 years of fishery in western New South Wales. Archaeology in Oceania
Cane, S. 1989. Australian Aboriginal seed grinding and its archaeological record: a case study
from the Western Desert. In D.R. Harris & G.C. Hillman (eds) Foraging and farming:
the evolution of plant exploitation. London: Unwin. pp. 99-119.
Dodson, J., R. Fullagar, J. Furby, R. Jones and I. Prosser 1993. Humans and megafauna in a Late
Pleistocene arid environment from Cuddie Springs, northwestern New South Wales.
Archaeology in Oceania 28(2):94-99
Edwards, D.A. & O’Connell, J.F. 1995. Broad spectrum diets in arid Australia. Antiquity 69,
769-783
Comment [ajw1]: Page ref
7
Grinding and pounding stones from Cuddie Springs and Jinmium
7
Flood, J. 1997. Rock art of the Dreamtime. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.
Fullagar, R. 1989. The potential of lithic use-wear and residue studies for determining stone tool
functions. In P.P. Gorecki and D. Gillieson (eds) A Crack in the Spine: Prehistory and
Ecology of the Jimi-Yuat Valley, Papua New Guinea. James Cook University of North
Queensland, Townsville. pp.209-223.
Fullagar, R. 1991 The role of silica in polish formation. Journal of Archaeological Science 18:1-
25
Fullagar, R. and Field, J. 1997. Seed grinding implements from the Pleistocene Australian arid
zone. Antiquity 71:300-307.
Fullagar, R., D. Price and L. Head 1996. Early human occupation of northern Australia:
stratigraphy and dating of the Jinmium rockshelter, Northern Territory. Antiquity
70:751-73.
Furby, J.H. 1995. Megafauna Under The Microscope: Archaeology and Palaeoenvironment at
Cuddie Springs. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, N.S.W.
Gorecki, P., Grant, M., O’Connor, S. and Veth, P. 1997. The morphology, function and antiquity
of Australian grinding implements. Archaeology in Oceania 32 (2):141-150.
Hall, J., Higgins S., and Fullagar, R. 1989 Plant residues on stone tools. In W. Beck, A. Clarke
and L. Head (eds) Plants in Australian Archaeology. Tempus Monograph Series,
Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland. pp. 136-160
Jones, R. & Meehan, B. 1989. Plant foods of the Gidjingali: ethnographic and archaeological
perspectives from northern Australia on tuber and seed exploitation. In D. R. Harris &
G.C. Hillman (eds) Foraging and farming, the evolution of plant exploitation. London:
Unwin Hyman. pp. 120-135.
Kamminga, J. 1981. The bevelled pounder. An Australian stone implement type from south-east
Queensland. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland. 92:31-35.
Kamminga, J. 1982. Over the edge. Functional analysis of Australian stone tools. Occasional
Papers in Anthropology. 12. University of Queensland: Anthropology Museum.
Kealhofer, L., R. Torrence, R. Fullagar, in press. Integrating phytoliths within use-wear/residue
studies of stone tools. Journal of Archaeological Science.
McCarthy, F.D. 1967. Australian Aboriginal stone implements. Sydney: Australian Museum.
Roberts, R., M. Bird, J. Olley, R. Gallagher, E. Lawson, G. Laslett, H. Yoshida, R. Jones, R.
Fullagar, G. Jacobsen, and H. Quan, 1998 Optical and radiocarbon dating at Jinmium,
rock shelter, northern Australia. Nature 393:358-362.
Smith, M.A. 1985. A morphological comparison of Central Australian seed-grinding implements
and Australian Pleistocene-age grindstones. The Beagle, Occasional Papers of the
Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences 2 (1), 23-38.
Smith, M.A. 1986. The antiquity of seed-grinding in arid Australia. Archaeology in Oceania 21,
29-39.
Smith, M.A. 1988. Central Australian seed grinding implements and Pleistocene grindstones. In
B. Meehan & R. Jones (eds) Archaeology With Ethnography: An Australian
Perspective. Depart of Prehistory, Research School of Pacific Studies, ANU, Canberra.
pp 94-108.
8
Richard Fullagar
7
Smith, M.A. 1989. Seed gathering in inland Australia: current evidence from seed-grinders on
the antiquity of the ethnohistorical pattern of exploitation. In D. R. Harris & G.C.
Hillman (eds) Foraging and Farming, the evolution of plant exploitation. London:
Unwin Hyman. pp.305-317.
Tacon, P., R. Fullagar, S. Ouzman and K. Mulvaney 1997. Cupule engravings from Jinmium-
Granilpi (northern Australia) and beyond: exploration of a widespread and enigmatic
class of rock markings. Antiquity 71:942-65 .
Tindale, N.B. 1977. Adaptive significance of the Panara or grass seed culture of Australia. in
R.V.S. Wright (ed.) Stone tools as cultural markers: change, evolution and complexity.
AIAS. Canberra. pp. 345-353.
Veth, P., Fullagar, R. and Gould, R. 1997. Residue and use-wear analysis of grinding implements
from Puntutjarpa Rockshelter in the Western Desert. Australian Archaeology 44:23-25.
White, J.P. & O’Connell 1982. A Prehistory of Australia, New Guinea and Sahul. Academic
Press, Sydney.
Yohe, R.M., Newman, M.E. and Schneider, J.S. 1991. Immunological identification of small
mammal proteins on Aboriginal milling equipment. American Antiquity 56(4):659-666.
9
Grinding and pounding stones from Cuddie Springs and Jinmium
7
Figure 1: Grinding implements from Cuddie Springs from Units 1 and 2. (Illustrations:
Drahos Zak).
10
Richard Fullagar
7
Figure 2 Grinding and pounding implements from Cuddie Springs from Archaeological level
4 (Illustrations: Drahos Zak).
11
Grinding and pounding stones from Cuddie Springs and Jinmium
7
Figure 3 Grinding implements from Cuddie Springs from Archaeological level 4
(Illustrations: Drahos Zak).
12
Richard Fullagar
7
Figure 4 Grinding and pounding implements from Cuddie Springs from Archaeological
levels 5 and 6 (Illustrations: Drahos Zak).
13
Grinding and pounding stones from Cuddie Springs and Jinmium
7
Figure 5 Quartzite cobbles from Jinmium, Unit 1 with starch residues, probably used for
pounding starchy tubers. Scale = 10 mm. (Illustration: Drabs Zak).
A: C1/III, Spit 23C; B: C1/III Spit 25 (Tool 3 in Atchison & Fullagar this volume); C: C1/III
Spit 25 (Tool 2 in Atchison & Fullagar this volume); D: C1, Surface (Tool 1 in Atchison &
Fullagar this volume).
Figure 6 Quartzite cobbles from Jinmium, Unit 1 with starch residues, probably used for
pounding starchy tubers. Scale = 10 mm. (Illustration: Drabs Zak).
14
Richard Fullagar
7
Table
Table 1 Morphology and summary data for grinding and pounding implements from Cuddie
Springs.
A
abrasion, 3
anvil, 4
B
bone, 2
C
Cuddie Springs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12, 14
D
diet, 2
E
edge-ground axe, 2, 3
engraving, 2, 5, 8
F
fern, 3
flaking, 3
G
grass, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
grinding, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 14
gum, 3
H
hammerstone, 4, 5
J
Jinmium, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13
K
Kimberley, 4
M
megafauna, 6
millstone, 3
mortar, 3, 4
mudstone, 2, 4, 5
muller, 3, 4, 5
N
nuts, 2, 3
15
Grinding and pounding stones from Cuddie Springs and Jinmium
7
O
ochre, 2
oxalate crystals, 5
P
palm, 3, 5
percussion, 3, 5
pestle, 3, 4
phyllite, 2
phytolith, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8
pitting, 3
plant food, 2, 6
polish, 3, 4, 5, 7
pounding, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 14
Q
quartzite, 2, 3, 4, 5
R
residue, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
resin, 2
rock art, 2
roots, 2, 3
S
sandstone, 2, 3, 4
Sandy Creek, 4
seed, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
siliceous plant, 3
smoothing, 3
starch grains, 3, 4, 5, 6
T
tuber, 2, 3, 5, 13
U
use-wear, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
W
water lily, 5
wet milling, 6
wood, 2
