close
Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul 11;12(1):11747.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15174-x.

65,000-years of continuous grinding stone use at Madjedbebe, Northern Australia

Elspeth H Hayes  1   2 , Richard Fullagar  3   4   5 , Judith H Field  6 , Adelle C F Coster  7 , Carney Matheson  8 , May Nango  9 , Djaykuk Djandjomerr  9 , Ben Marwick  10 , Lynley A Wallis  11 , Mike A Smith  5   12 , Chris Clarkson  13   14   15   16
Affiliations

65,000-years of continuous grinding stone use at Madjedbebe, Northern Australia

Elspeth H Hayes et al. Sci Rep. .

Abstract

Grinding stones and ground stone implements are important technological innovations in later human evolution, allowing the exploitation and use of new plant foods, novel tools (e.g., bone points and edge ground axes) and ground pigments. Excavations at the site of Madjedbebe recovered Australia's (if not one of the world's) largest and longest records of Pleistocene grinding stones, which span the past 65 thousand years (ka). Microscopic and chemical analyses show that the Madjedbebe grinding stone assemblage displays the earliest known evidence for seed grinding and intensive plant use, the earliest known production and use of edge-ground stone hatchets (aka axes), and the earliest intensive use of ground ochre pigments in Sahul (the Pleistocene landmass of Australia and New Guinea). The Madjedbebe grinding stone assemblage reveals economic, technological and symbolic innovations exemplary of the phenotypic plasticity of Homo sapiens dispersing out of Africa and into Sahul.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Since 2018 LW has been engaged as the Cultural Heritage Advisor for GAC on a contract basis. Other authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Location of Madjedbebe, site layout and the distribution of grinding stones. (a) Location of the site. Sea levels are shown at −80 m bsl equivalent to MIS 3; (b) Photo of the Madjedbebe and Djuwamba massif taken from the north. The blue tarp indicates the location of the excavation against the rockshelter wall (photo courtesy of Tiina Manne); (c) Grid layout of site showing 1973 (B3), 1989 (B4-5), 2012 (B1-E4) and 2015 (B5-C6) excavated areas and location of the back wall; (d) Frequency distribution of grinding stones and exotic raw materials by depth. The assemblage is divided into front (rows 5–6) and back (rows 1–3) to account for the 5° slope in stratigraphy from the back to the front; (e) Location of 3-D plotted grinding stones at Madjedbebe colour-coded by Phase. Grey dots represent lithics, ground ochre and other artefacts. Row 1 is closest to the back wall of the rockshelter and Rows 5 and 6 are located outside the dripline. Rows 4 and 5 show fewer plotted artefacts as B4 and part of B5 they were excavated in 1989 and artefacts were not plotted in situ.
Figure 2
Figure 2
3-D scans of grinding stones from Madjedbebe. (a) GS32, C2-C3/37, Phase 2, mortar; (b) GS20, E1/27, Phase 4, filing stone; (c) UPGS26, C3/35, Phase 3, pounding stone fragment; (d) GS73, B5/52, Phase 2, millstone fragment; (e) GS79, B6/54, Phase 2, whetstone. (f) L49, C2/5, Phase 7, upper hand stone; (g) L52, C3/5, Phase 7, upper hand stone; (h) GS36, C1/35, Phase 2, tabular fragment; (i) GS50, C4/45, Phase 2, tabular fragment. Scale bars are 2 cm.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Examples of grinding stones from Madjedbebe with usewear consistent with plant processing/seed grinding from Phases 7–2. Under low magnification, the more elevated quartz grains on the surface of the sandstone are levelled and sometimes striations are visible. Under high magnification, use-polish is very bright and restricted to the more elevated part of the relatively rough quartz grains, creating a reticular or net-like pattern with a distinct boundary between the polished and unpolished zones to indicate the processing of a harder plant material such as seeds. In instances where the use-polish extends into the lower recesses of the grains (e.g., b, c), we infer the processing of softer plant materials. (a–c) Usewear on L49 from Phase 7; (d–f) usewear on GS2 from Phase 6; (g–i) usewear on L52 from Phase 6; (j–l) usewear on GS3 from Phase 5; (m, o) usewear on GS16 from Phase 4; (n, p) usewear on UPGS26 from Phase 3; (q–s) usewear on GS73 from Phase 2; (t–v) usewear on GS39, Phase 2. Scale bars for artefact images are 5 cm; scale bars for low magnification images vary: (a, g) 5 mm; (m, n, q, t) 2 mm; (d, j) 1 mm; scale bars for high magnification images are 0.05 mm.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Examples of stone and bone files from Madjedbebe: UPGS39 from Phase 7, UPGS21 from Phase 4 and GS79 from Phase 2. (a) levelled surface of UPGS 39; (b) use-polish on the more elevated zones of the stone micro-topography with numerous striations on UPGS39; (c) metal residues with evident smearing and directionality on UPGS39; (d) levelled grains on the surface of UPGS21; (e, f) striated (arrows) and undulating use-polish on UPGS21; (g) collagen tissue stained with Orange G from pipette extraction sampled from UPGS21; (h) organic residue cf. bone on UPGS21; (i) white residue with blue mineral secretion, cf. bone and vivianite, on UPGS21; (j, k) surface of GS79 with removed grains and surface striations/scratches; (l) quartz grain on the surface of GS79, note that the grain is fractured (arrow) from contact with a hard material (e.g., stone). Scale bars for artefact images are 5 cm; scale bars for low magnification images are 1 mm; scale bars for high magnification images are 0.05 mm image i. is 0.02 mm.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Examples of grinding stones from Madjedbebe with usewear and residues consistent with processing red pigment. Note that the red mineral grains occur in the lower recesses of the stone micro-topography and occur with an undulating use-polish. (a–c) Usewear and red pigment residues on R66 from Phase 6; (d–f) usewear and red pigment residues on L813 from Phase 5; (g–i) usewear and red pigment residues on GS15 from Phase 4; (j, l) usewear and red pigment residues on UPGS25 from Phase 3; (k, m) usewear and red pigment residues on UPGS36 from Phase 2; (n–p) usewear and red pigment residues on GS41 from Phase 2. Scale bars for artefact images are 5 cm; scale bars for low magnification images are 2 mm; scale bars for high magnification images are 0.05 mm.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Examples of starch grains recovered from grinding stones from Madjedbebe submitted for starch grain analysis. Phase 7: (a, b) L49; (c) UPGS2. Phase 6: (d) UPGS4. Phase 5: (e) GS3. Phase 4: (f) UPGS14. Phase 3: (g, h) UPGS32. Phase 2: (i) GS9; (j–l) GS40; (m, n) GS48; (o, p) GS73; (q, r) GS 74; (s, t) GS86.
Figure 7
Figure 7
GC–MS chromatographs of seed grinding/pounding tools from Phase 2. (a). Detected molecules in extractions sampled from GS73: 1) unidentified carbohydrate; 2) unidentified carbohydrate; 3) degraded amino acid; 4) nonanoic acid; 5) contamination from plastics; 6) methylcyclodecane; 7) dodecanoic acid; 8) pentadecanol; 9) hexadecenoic acid; 10) ascorbic acid; 2,6-dihexadecanoate; 11) 3,7,11-trimethyl-1-dodecanol; 12) pentadecanol; 13) 16-methyl heptadecanoic acid; 14) octadecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-1,3-propanediyl ester; 15) 8-octadecenal; 16) unidentified terpenoid (similar to farnesan); 17) unidentified terpenoid; 18) contamination from plastics; 19) 10-methyl-nonadecane; 20) 6-methyl-octadecane. (b). Detected molecules in extractions sampled from GS75: 1) unidentified carbohydrate; 2) unidentified carbohydrate; 3) 2-methyl-2-phenyl-oxirane (epoxy-Cumene); 4) degraded fatty acid; 5) contamination from plastics; 6) contamination from plastics; 7) hexadecenoic acid (palmitic acid); 8) ascorbic acid, 2,6-dihexadecanoate; 9) unidentified long chain fatty acid; 10) octadecanoic acid; 11) hexadecanoic acid, 1-(hydroxymethyl)-1,2-ethanediyl ester (dipalmitin glycerol); 12) pentadecanol; 13) 2,2'-methylenebis[6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-4-methyl-phenol (2,2'-methylenebis[6-tert-butyl-)p-cresol); 14) 2,3-dihydroxypropyl hexadecanoate (Monopalmitin); 15) hexadecanoic acid, 2-hydroxy-1-(hydroxymethyl)ethyl ester (2-mono-palmitin); 16) unidentified long chain fatty acid; 17) unidentified long chain fatty acid; 18) octadecanoic acid, 2,3-dihydroxypropyl ester (1-mono-stearin);19) unidentified long chain fatty acid.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ambrose SH. Chronology of the Later Stone Age and food production in East Africa. J. Archaeol. Sci. 1998;25:377–392. doi: 10.1006/jasc.1997.0277. - DOI
    1. Avery G, Cruz-Uribe K, Goldberg P, Grine FE, Klein R, Lenardi MJ, Marean CW, Rink WJ, Schwarcz H, Thackeray AI, Wilson ML. The 1992–1993 excavations at the Die Kelders Middle and Later Stone Age cave site, South Africa. J. Field Archaeol. 1997;24(3):263–291.
    1. Barham L. Possible early pigment use in south-central Africa. Curr. Anthropol. 1998;39:703–710. doi: 10.1086/204793. - DOI
    1. Barham L. Systematic pigment use in the middle Pleistocene of South-Central Africa. Curr. Anthropol. 2002;43:181–190. doi: 10.1086/338292. - DOI
    1. d'Errico F, Salomon H, Vignaud C, Stringer C. Pigments from the Middle Palaeolithiclevels of Es-Skhul (Mount Carmel, Israel) J. Archaeol. Sci. 2010;37(12):3099–3110. doi: 10.1016/j.jas.2010.07.011. - DOI

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources