Cuddie Springs critique

Wed Jun 20 11:25:53 EST 2001

Dear List members, It has been interesting to see the enthusiastic
responses from Esmee Webb, Richard Gillespie and now Bruno David after
publication of the Roberts et al. paper.

While I could enter into a lengthy reply to all of these contributions I
feel that it would be worthwhile for you to read the Cuddie Springs
publications already out and make a judgement for yourselves.  Please note
that there is a forthcoming publication in Quaternary Science Reviews by
myself, Dodson and Prosser, however i think that it won't change the views
of those that have made up their minds that the site is disturbed.

I would say however that all of those involved in the excavation of the
Cuddie Springs site refute the assertion that the site is disturbed, we
have never published anything to that affect and to say so is a deliberate
mis-inpterpretation of the current published work.  Secondly, Bruno David
in his critique of the published data also makes some serious intepretive
errors.  While much of what is to be published by him is just plain wrong I
will draw your attention to just a couple of points.  

1.  There are 6 grindstone fragments reported in the Fullagar and Field
paper from below the delfation pavement.  More have been recovered during
excavations in 1997 and 2001, though these have not yet been published.

2. For your imformation the presence of tree roots are probably from a tree
growing in one of the disused wells in the 1930s.

3. Flannery (who calls it a spring) has never been to the site so I would
assume that the investigators of the site, including a respected
geomorphologist and biogeographer might have a better understanding of the
nature of the site (who through careful analsyis have demonstrated it is an
ephemeral lake).

4. Grindstones are  found in the lowest archaeological level, but at the
interface between Statigraphic unit 6a and 6b.  So they may well be part of
the upper stratigraphic level stone assembalges. (Please interpret this
exactly as i have stated it).  No grindstones are found below this interface.

5.  Bruno has made the same mistake as Gillespie -  put a full stop after
Table 5 on page 293 (as there is in the publication) and you will find that
what is written takes on a different meaning altogether. 

6. It probably would have been more illuminating for Bruno David if had
bothered to consult with the investigators of the site before writing this
piece of fantastic literature.  It contains  many errors of interpretation
and to suggest that the deflation pavement is anthropogenic is ludicrous,
especially considering it is 1 m below the land surface.

I would not have responded to this and probably should not have, but I
could not sit back and let this one slip by.  

Judith Field

At 18:28 19/06/2001 -0600, Tim Barrows wrote:
>Dear listmembers,
>
>The following message is from Bruno David, please reply directly to 
>him or to the list for discussion.
>
>cheers,
>
>Tim.
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>Dr. Bruno David
>Dept. Geography & Environmental Science
>Monash University
>PO Box 11A
>Clayton, 3800
>Australia
>Bruno.David at arts.Monash.edu.au
>Phone W (03) 9905 2938
>Fax (03) 9905 2948
>
>Extract from book, from Chapter 8 ('Seeds of Change'):
>
>Bruno David. In press.  Landscapes, Rock-art and the Dreaming: an
>archaeology of preunderstanding.  Continuum Press, London.
>
>Yet a single locale with reported Pleistocene seed grinding stones is
>left:  the central northern New South Wales spring site of Cuddie
>Springs.  Little has so far been published of the geomorphological or
>taphonomic contexts of these finds.  As few as 21, and possibly as many
>as 26, Pleistocene grinding stones have been claimed from this site.
>Based on a combination of the stones' morphologies and on the presence
>of certain classes of use wear and residue, at least five of the
>grinding stones are treated as plant processing millstones or mullers by
>the excavators.  All are claimed to be around 30,000 years old, and all
>of the claimed Pleistocene specialised seed grinding stones illustrated
>are very small fragments, less than 7.2cm maximum length (Fullagar &
>Field 1997, fig. 3b).  However, only one of these (artefact CS6034) was
>found below a chrono-stratigraphically critical 'deflation surface'
>(Stratigraphic Unit 5, Archaeological Level 4) that is overlain by mixed
>mid Holocene and Pleistocene sediments.  This 'deflation surface' has
>been reported as a key to the interpretation of the site's stratigraphic
>integrity.  Field and Dodson (1999, p. 284) report that the 'bone
>recovered from this unit was fragmented, and the degree of
>mineralisation varied considerably 
 Since some of the bone was very
>dense and black, while other bone was brown in colour and friable, the
>bone assemblage may be mixed'.  Consisting of an up to 5cm thick mass of
>interlocked rocks and bones (including stone artefacts), Stratigraphic
>Unit 5 'marks the upper limit of the in situ megafauna deposits' (Field
>& Dodson 1999, p. 283), and with this the upper limit of the in situ
>stratigraphy generally (see Photo 12 at
>http://artalpha.anu.edu.au/web/arc/resources/photos/cuddie/cuddie97.htm).
>Said to be continuous across the excavation squares, this 'deflation
>surface' is reported as a 'pavement of stone formed by the lag deposits
>[that] seals the overlying clays from the archaeology and faunal record
>below' (Field & Dodson 1999, p. 284), an 'archaeology and faunal record
>below' that threatens to revise our understanding of human-megafaunal
>relations as well as of the antiquity of systematic seed grinding in
>Australia.  I ask:  where do the Stratigraphic Unit 5 rocks come from in
>this stone-poor riverine plain?  The modern lake floor itself consists
>of grey alluvial soils, and the surrounding plains of red soils.  The
>other excavated strata below and above this unit are clayey
>(Stratigraphic Unit 4), clayey and silty (Stratigraphic Unit 6), clayey
>and sandy (Stratigraphic Unit 1), silty (Stratigraphic Unit 3) or
>gravely (Stratigraphic Unit 2).  Field and Dodson (1999, pp. 291, 292-3)
>write:  'The low relief in the area around Cuddie Springs, the
>fine-grained sediments that comprise the deposit and the absence of any
>stone outcrops for at least 4km supports the notion that the stone
>present in the archaeological levels must have been brought on site by
>people'; 'The closest and most accessible stones are silcrete cobbles
>from a gibber plain (a plain covered in cobber sized stones) c.4km west
>of the site'.  How did the rocks come to be deposited in Stratigraphic
>Unit 5, and what is their source?  And has the 'pavement' truly sealed
>the underlying sediments since the late Pleistocene, given the evidence
>of extant (but presumably dead) tree roots immediately below it (see
>Photo 14 at
>http://artalpha.anu.edu.au/web/arc/resources/photos/cuddie/cuddie97.htm).
>Geomorphological investigation is required to answer whether or not the
>pavement is anthropogenic, perhaps constructed by farmers during the
>late 19th or early 20th century to create a firm footing for people or
>cattle (a European well was dug in 1876 but 10m from the excavation; did
>the rocks come from the well sediments, as one possibility, or was it
>brought in from the gibber plain 4km away?).  The pavement's possible
>post-European antiquity is only strengthened by the presence of cattle
>bone in the stratum immediately overlying it:  'Archaeological Level 5
>is considered to be significantly disturbed as the bone from this level
>contains skeletal elements of both megafauna and modern cow' (Field &
>Dodson 1999, p. 295). Tracing the extant of the pavement through
>excavation or other means, including an assessment of its relationship
>to the recent well, may be warranted to resolve such questions.
>The stratigraphic integrity of underlying cultural sediments at Cuddie
>Springs is also problematic.  First, the site is a ground-fed spring
>according to Flannery (1997), although this is not clear from the
>literature as it is also reported as an 'ephemeral freshwater lake' by
>the excavators (Fullagar & Field 1997, p. 300; also Field & Dodson 1999,
>p. 279).  As a site that is periodically inundated, doubts will remain
>of the stratigraphic integrity of sediments until geomorphological
>results appear in press.  The question of whether or not deposits become
>fluid or viscous when wet requires address.  The presence of
>stratification within the deposits is not in itself sufficient to dispel
>this potential problem, for viscosity of the sediment matrix may affect
>the stratigraphic integrity of certain particle masses but not others.
>In particular, the question needs to be asked as to whether or not
>stone, bone, large pieces of charcoal and other relatively large items
>had a tendency to settle onto a firmer but mixed stratigraphic level
>during times of inundation when sediments were muddy, creating a
>contaminated deposit in the critical Stratigraphic Unit 6A.  Secondly,
>stone artefacts occur in direct chronological association with extinct
>Pleistocene fauna (particularly in Stratigraphic Unit 6B), including
>Sthenurus, Diprotodon and Genyornis (although only Sthenurus is claimed
>to have been directly used by people, as evidenced by a burnt femur)
>(Dodson et al. 1993; Field 1999).  The giant flightless bird Genyornis
>in particular has recently been the subject of intensive study in the
>Lake Eyre basin to the west of Cuddie Springs, where its extinction has
>been dated to 50,000±5000 years ago (Miller et al. 1999), at least
>15,000 years before their apparent presence at Cuddie Springs.
>Furthermore, Field and Dodson (1999, pp. 294-5) note that 'The presence
>of a Pallimnarchus sp. tooth in AL2 [Stratigraphic Unit 6A,
>Archaeological Level 2] is considered intrusive and may have been
>derived from an exposure in another part of the site, for example well
>digging.  The tooth is exfoliated and heavily mineralised and the
>preservation is not consistent with other bone and teeth from this
>level'.  And again:  'The incidence of heavily mineralised bone is
>higher [in Stratigraphic Unit 6A = Archaeological Levels 2 and 3] than
>in AL1 [Stratigraphic Unit 6B] and increases again in AL4 [Stratigraphic
>Unit 5, the 'pavement'].  It is not yet clear whether differences in
>mineralisation of bone represents differential preservation or the
>presence of intrusive material from other horizons' (Field & Dodson
>1999, p. 295).  In these critical units there is thus evidence of
>intrusions.  Never before have such megafaunal remains been found in
>direct chronostratigraphic association with cultural materials in
>reliable stratigraphic contexts , fuelling scepticism over the integrity
>of deposits.  Indeed, all of the megafaunal species represented at
>Cuddie Springs are commonly suspected of having become extinct more than
>40,000 years BP, eight thousand years or more before the apparent age of
>the deposits in which they are found.  In this context, it must also be
>asked why so many stone artefacts (including grinding stones) are found
>in sediments suggesting past 'marshy conditions', and 'shallow, still
>freshwater environments' of the earliest 'cultural' levels (Field &
>Dodson 1999, p. 285, and elsewhere).  And if 'a substantial proportion'
>of the megafauna in the earliest 'cultural' sediments 'died in situ',
>why are there no articulated megafaunal bones in those strata?
>There are other signs that there may be critical taphonomic problems at
>Cuddie Springs, not least from the distribution of radiocarbon dates.
>Of note are the 10 AMS and conventional dates from the critical and
>supposedly more or less intact Stratigraphic Unit 6 below the 'pavement'
>(Field & Dodson 1999, table 3).  From the lowest part of this layer,
>Stratigraphic Unit 6B (=Archaeological Level 1), come six radiocarbon
>dates averaging 30,720±160 years BP. Stratigraphic Unit 6A
>(=Archaeological Levels 2 and 3) above has four dates averaging
>29,553±170 years BP (averages calculated on Calib 4.1).  Despite this
>apparent near-contemporaneity, the faunal and stone artefact remains in
>the two strata show major differences.  Of special concern is that the
>bone distribution implies a sequential stratigraphic structure, with an
>increasing incidence of modern fauna and decrease in megafauna in the
>upper Stratigraphic Unit 6A, despite the apparent near-contemporaneity
>of Units 6A and 6B as indicated by the radiocarbon dates:  'The bone
>assemblage from AL2 was more fragmented compared to AL1, as well as
>containing a higher percentage of extant species. 
 The species
>composition of AL2 shows a greater number of animal species represented
>in the deposit compared to AL1, with four species of extinct fauna
>identified.  Genyornis newtoni is now absent 
' (see also Field & Dodson
>1999, table 5 for its presence in Stratigraphic Unit 6B, although we are
>also told that 'By the time people had arrived at Cuddie Springs 

>Genyornis newtoni 
 are all extinct' [Field & Dodson 1999, p. 293]).
>These are worrying signs:  why is there a sequential change from much
>modern fauna and few megafauna in the upper cultural levels of
>Stratigraphic Unit 6, to increasing proportions of megafauna in the
>lower parts of this Unit, if these strata are near-contemporaneous?  Are
>we to believe that we are faced with the moment of extinction?  More
>likely is the possibility that there has been some significant degree of
>mixing of likely pre-human megafaunal deposits with more recent cultural
>deposits.  But if such mixing has taken place, it becomes difficult to
>determine which artefacts relate to which periods of time within the
>cultural sequence, especially if the overlying strata contain very
>recent materials (including cattle bone).
>Also of concern is the apparent association of Pleistocene dates and
>Tula adzes or Tula adze-like artefacts, a stone tool type shown by Peter
>Hiscock and Peter Veth (1991) to be restricted to the mid to late
>Holocene elsewhere in the arid zone.  John Dodson et al. (1993, p. 97)
>have thus noted of Cuddie Springs:  'from sediments dated between 30,000
>and 19,000 BP, grindstones, ochre fragments and woodworking tools with
>identical usewear and similar morphology to tula adzes (Kamminga 1982)
>were recovered'.  While the Cuddie Springs sediments are reported to be
>stratified, the absence of post-depositional movement of materials
>within and between layers must be demonstrated empirically via
>geomorphological studies before this otherwise important site that
>threatens a need to revise established wisdom on human-megafaunal
>relations as well as on the antiquity of seed grinding in Australia can
>be reliably accepted.
>
>
>
****************************
Dr. Judith Field, 
U2000 Research Fellow
Archaeology, A14
University of Sydney, 2006
N.S.W., Australia
Phone: 612 9351 7412
FAX:   612 9351 5712
Email: J.Field at chem.usyd.edu.au