Antiquity 2021 Vol.

95 (380): e7, 1–9

https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13

Project Gallery

Grinding-stone features from the Pastoral Neolithic

at Luxmanda, Tanzania
Mary E. Prendergast1,*, Katherine M. Grillo2, *, Agness O. Gidna3 &
Audax Z.P. Mabulla4
1
Department of Anthropology, Rice University, USA
2
Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, USA
3
National Museum of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
4
Department of Archaeology and Heritage Studies, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
* Authors for correspondence: ✉ [email protected] & kgrillo@ufl.edu

The initial spread of food production in eastern Africa is associated with livestock herding during the
Pastoral Neolithic. Recent excavation at Luxmanda, Tanzania, a site dating to c. 3000 BP, revealed circular
installations of lower grinding stones and numerous handstones. This discovery, unprecedented for this era,
challenges previous ideas about pastoralist mobility and subsistence.

Keywords: Tanzania, Neolithic, pastoralism, mobility, subsistence

Introduction
The spread of livestock herding through sub-Saharan Africa marked a sea change from
longstanding foraging lifeways and is thought to pre-date farming by millennia in parts of
the continent (Marshall & Hildebrand 2002). In Kenya and Tanzania, sites dating to the
Pastoral Neolithic attest to early herding by 5000 BP and specialised pastoralism by
3000 BP (Figure 1). Luxmanda is the southernmost known Pastoral Neolithic site, and
like other habitation sites of this era, it is characterised by middens with abundant pottery,
lithics and the remains of livestock; a series of radiocarbon dates places initial occupation
at c. 3000 cal BP (Prendergast et al. 2013; Grillo et al. 2018). Luxmanda’s size (approximately
3ha) and good preservation allow reconstruction of the settlement through traditional and
geophysical survey along with targeted excavation. Results from the 2018 season enable
new interrogations of previous assumptions about Pastoral Neolithic communities, including
that they were highly mobile, largely archaeologically invisible and almost exclusively reliant
on livestock for food.

Identification and excavation of stone features

During geophysical survey in 2015, areas of high thermoremanent anomaly were detected
and flagged for future investigation (Figure 2). In 2018, two such areas were identified as

Received: 14 July 2020; Accepted: 10 August 2020

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd. This is an
Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited.

1
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Mary E. Prendergast et al.

Figure 1. Map of Africa (A), showing the study region with Pastoral Neolithic sites indicated by black dots (B) and
detail of the Luxmanda area (C). Basemap in (B) produced with Natural Earth; basemap in (C) is SPOT 1.5
resolution imagery licensed to M.E. Prendergast courtesy of the Harvard University Center for Geographic Analysis;
map by M.E. Prendergast.

roughly circular concentrations of large, partially buried stones, mostly invisible under vege-
tation. These were cleared, mapped and named Stone Feature One (SF1; approximately
18m2) and Stone Feature Two (SF2; approximately 90m2) (Figure 3).
Prior to test excavations, we interviewed the landowners and several older residents of
Luxmanda village about the stones. These informants had no prior knowledge of these
features and did not view them as meaningful to the community within living memory.
As cairns are a known feature of Pastoral Neolithic mortuary traditions, we proceeded
with caution in a limited section of SF1 and placed a 4m2 trench. Given time constraints,
the volume of cultural material found and the difficulty of excavation amongst stones, this
area was reduced to 2m2 (units 29–30) and then 1m2 (unit 30).

Excavation results
Units 29–30, representing around 12.5 per cent of SF1, revealed a denser, deeper feature than
expected from the surface, with no indication of burials (Figure 4). Twelve large lower

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
2
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Grinding‐stone features from the Pastoral Neolithic at Luxmanda, Tanzania

Figure 2. Site plan of Luxmanda (A) and detail (B) of the area discussed in the text; map by M.E. Prendergast.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
3
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Mary E. Prendergast et al.

Figure 3. Stone Feature One prior to excavation (A) and the unexcavated Stone Feature Two (B); photographs by M.E.
Prendergast.

grinding stones in this feature extend to the base of the excavation (Figure 5). They exhibit
varied use-wear: they have been pounded, ground and pecked. One has a deep, cup-like
depression. Some measure approximately 0.60m at their greatest dimension, although
around 0.40m is more common. A grey, dung-derived deposit with an ashy appearance
(designated PU 2-B) was found above and between the grinding stones. This deposit is simi-
lar to others found elsewhere across the site, and contained domestic refuse including pottery

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
4
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Grinding‐stone features from the Pastoral Neolithic at Luxmanda, Tanzania

Figure 4. Excavation of units 29–30 (A), with details (B–D) of one lower grinding stone; photographs by K.M. Grillo.

attributable to the Pastoral Neolithic ‘Narosura’ tradition, lithic debris and livestock remains.
Additional finds include an ostrich eggshell bead and 12 definitive (and 3 possible)
handstones.

Additional groundstone artefacts

Groundstone artefacts were identified in situ during excavations elsewhere across the site and,
much more commonly, on the surface, possibly brought up by tillage. All 46 in situ ground-
stone artefacts were measured and photographed (Figure 6), and 20 of these were dry- and
wet-brushed under sterile conditions to sample for microbotanical remains. These samples
are now being analysed; a technological analysis of the assemblage is also pending.

Discussion and future research

Grinding stones are well documented ethnographically in many parts of Africa, including
eastern Africa (e.g. Arthur 2014; Shoemaker et al. 2017), but are archaeologically understud-
ied, except in north-eastern Africa and the Horn, where they are associated with
intensive wild plant processing and/or agriculture (e.g. Nixon-Darcus & D’Andrea 2017;

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
5
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Mary E. Prendergast et al.
Figure 5. East profile of units 29–30, with artefact density by depth; PU refers to pedostratigraphic units; illustrations by M.E. Prendergast.
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
6
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Grinding‐stone features from the Pastoral Neolithic at Luxmanda, Tanzania

Figure 6. Examples of Luxmanda groundstone artefacts with two views of each; photographs by K.M. Grillo.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
7
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Mary E. Prendergast et al.

Lucarini & Radini 2019). Shoemaker and Davies’s (2019) comprehensive review of Pastoral
Neolithic grinding stones in eastern Africa demonstrates their potential to illuminate
culinary, crafting and mortuary traditions. At least ten Pastoral Neolithic sites (six of them
funerary) report lower grinding stones. In many cases these are marked by ochre stains,
whereas no obvious traces were seen at Luxmanda. The Luxmanda artefacts also tend to
be larger and thicker than many of those reported as slabs (Shoemaker & Davies 2019:
tab. 2), are spatially concentrated in a way not previously reported from habitation sites,
and are not—based on testing thus far—associated with burials. In these senses, the
Luxmanda stone features appear to be unique for the Pastoral Neolithic. Many of the exca-
vated lower grinding stones are too large to be easily transportable—prompting us to question
narratives that Pastoral Neolithic herders were always highly mobile.
The size of the assemblage and morphology of the lower grinding stones seem to suggest
intensive processing of plant foods. Linguistic evidence, site locations, the presence of axes
and ethnographic analogies have been cited to suggest Pastoral Neolithic cereal cultivation
(Robertshaw & Collett 1983). This has long been contested on the grounds of a lack of direct
evidence (Bower 1991; Crowther et al. 2018); archaeobotanical sampling has generally been
limited, however. Other uses of some of the Luxmanda groundstone artefacts are possible:
anvils, for example, may have been used to pound bone for marrow and grease extraction,
a scenario consistent with zooarchaeological evidence (Grillo et al. 2018) and lipid residues
(Grillo et al. 2020). We do not yet know why or how the grinding stones were aggregated into
these circular features, but we suggest they were intentionally deposited, before the end of
their potential use-lives, with dung and domestic refuse discarded on top. Although add-
itional research is needed and is underway, we suggest Luxmanda’s grinding-stone features
have the potential to transform understandings of Pastoral Neolithic mobility patterns,
food systems and communal social behaviours.

Acknowledgements
Permission was granted by the Tanzanian Commission for Science and Technology
(2018-327-NA-2012-50) and Antiquities Division (13/2017/2018). We are grateful to
our hosts in Luxmanda and our teammates, especially D. Contreras, T. Fitton and
M. Storozum for their help identifying these features.

Funding statement
Fieldwork was supported by a National Geographic Society grant to M.E. Prendergast
(NGS-196R-18), a Wenner-Gren Foundation grant to K.M. Grillo, and a Palaeontological
Scientific Trust grant to A.O. Gidna.
References
Arthur, J. 2014. Culinary crafts and foods Bower, J. 1991. The Pastoral Neolithic of East
in southwestern Ethiopia: an Africa. Journal of World Prehistory 5: 49–82.
ethnoarchaeological study of Gamo groundstones https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00974732
and pottery. African Archaeological Review 31: Crowther, A., M.E. Prendergast, D.Q. Fuller
131–68. & N. Boivin. 2018. Subsistence mosaics,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-014-9148-5 forager-farmer interactions, and the transition to

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
8
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press
 Grinding‐stone features from the Pastoral Neolithic at Luxmanda, Tanzania

food production in eastern Africa. Quaternary Nixon-Darcus, L. & A.C. D’Andrea. 2017.
International 489: 101–20. Necessary for life: studies of ancient and modern
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.01.014 grinding stones in highland Ethiopia. African
Grillo, K.M., M.E. Prendergast, D. Contreras, Archaeological Review 34: 193–223.
T. Fitton, A.O. Gidna, S.T. Goldstein, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10437-017-9252-4
M.C. Knisley, M. Langley & A.Z.P. Mabulla. Prendergast, M.E., A.Z.P. Mabulla, K.M. Grillo,
2018. Pastoral Neolithic settlement at Luxmanda, L. Broderick, O. Seitsonen, A.O. Gidna &
Tanzania. Journal of Field Archaeology 43: D. Gifford-Gonzalez. 2013. Pastoral Neolithic
102–20. sites on the southern Mbulu Plateau, Tanzania.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00934690.2018. Azania: Archaeological Research in Africa 48:
1431476 498–520.
Grillo, K.M. et al. 2020. Molecular and isotopic https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2013.841927
evidence for milk, meat and plants in prehistoric Robertshaw, P. & D. Collett. 1983. The
eastern African herder food systems. Proceedings of identification of pastoral peoples in the
the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 117: archaeological record: an example from East
9793–99. Africa. World Archaeology 15: 67–78.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920309117 Shoemaker, A.C. & M.I.J. Davies. 2019.
Lucarini, G. & A. Radini. 2019. First direct Grinding-stone implements in the eastern African
evidence of wild plant grinding process from the Pastoral Neolithic. Azania: Archaeological Research
Holocene Sahara: use-wear and plant micro-residue in Africa 54: 203–20.
analysis on ground stone tools from the Farafra https://doi.org/10.1080/0067270X.2019.
Oasis, Egypt. Quaternary International 555: 66–84. 1619284
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2019.07.028 Shoemaker, A.C., M.I.J. Davies & H.L. Moore.
Marshall, F. & E. Hildebrand. 2002. Cattle 2017. Back to the grindstone? The archaeological
before crops: the beginnings of food potential of grinding-stone studies in Africa with
production in Africa. Journal of World Prehistory reference to contemporary grinding practices in
16: 99–43. Marakwet, northwest Kenya. African
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019954903395 Archaeological Review 34: 415–35.

© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Antiquity Publications Ltd.
9
https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2021.13 Published online by Cambridge University Press