Peer review of: The first Australian plant foods at Madjedbebe, 65,000–53,000 years ago (2020)



Reviewers' Comments: 
 
Reviewer #1: 
Remarks to the Author: 
The paper has addressed many of the concerns raised by the initial review. As such it reads as a 
stronger paper with particular focus upon the archaeobotanical remains and is an important 
contribution to our understanding of diet, resource use and colonizing strategies of modern humans. 
However, there are some issues with some of the changes made that need to be addressed. 
 
The article has brought in additional evidence of other studies completed on EMH plant use to provide 
a context for their own study. I am concerned with two of these that relate to Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in 
Israel (references 4 and 12) – this is an Acheulian site that dates to 780,000 years ago and does not 
relate to EMH and should be removed. 
 
Ten plant types are referred to on page 3 line 16 and again on page 8 line 25. This would be 
Buchanania, Canarium australianum, polydrupe Pandanus sp.; Persoonia falcata and Terminalia sp 
(from endocarps); Monocotyledonous stem-based storage organ types A and B (from vegetative 
parenchyma); two types of Arecaceae (stem tissue) and the tenth is seeds based on grinding stone 
evidence? This needs to be made clearer particularly as the article has now removed the grinding 
stone evidence and there appears to be no seeds found within the archaeobotanical remains. Perhaps 
discussing why there is a lack of seeds also needs to be considered particularly due to the grinding 
stone evidence. 
 
One of the examples identified as Curcuma australasica rhizome in the first submission is now 
identified as Arecaeae stem tissue. 
 
 
 
Reviewer #3: 
Remarks to the Author: 
The manuscript presents the findings of some excellent archaeobotanical research at the EHM site of 
Madjedbebe in NW Australia. Although the age of the Phase 2 occupation presented here is questioned 
by some, it can be presumed to minimally predate 50K bp. As such, the materials under discussion 
here - especially those derived from the fills of archaeological features - are mostly associated with 
EHM occupation of the site. 
 
The archaeobotanical research is very impressive and conservative in terms of the identifications, 
which is always welcome. I found the SOM for identifications to be excellent and convincing in terms 
of rationale for taxonomic identifications. 
 
I have four minor issues that the authors may wish to consider: 
 
1 - The argument at the beginning that EMH dispersal is more associated with faunal exploitation than 
floral exploitation does not really ring true. Despite the paucity of sites, and the lack of robust 
archaeobotanical recovery at most, some of the oldest EMH sites in Sunda and Sahul are clearly 
associated with plant exploitation, including of toxic foods. Maybe start the argument with a different 
emphasis - these new findings at Madjedbebe reinforce the findings from Niah and Ivane Valley - and 
present robust evidence for the exploitation of a more diverse plant assemblage than at any other 
early site. I would take this to be the key point. 
 
Similarly, suggested broadening of diet in Holocene and association with agriculture is a very old idea 

- the reference used is Flannery 1969 - actually agriculture likely leads to restriction of diet in many 
places. So, I think this is a false start to get the argument going - it would be much better to start 
with early evidence from MSA sites in Africa, Niah and Ivane - and go from there ... 
 
2 - Although the plants identified require processing and cooking - these are not as necessarily labour 
intensive as suggested in the manuscript. The archaeobotany of EMH occupation at Niah suggests 
toxic plant food processing, whereas this is not necessarily implied by the Madjedbebe data. So, 
perhaps tone this aspect down. 
 
3 - Pandanus extraction experiment is completely out-of-place and nonsensical - no doubt based on 
urban dwellers who have no experience with extracting materials, other than cracking the odd walnut 
or peeling a banana. There is no comparison - as a skilled practitioner could probably do work with 
Pandanus as easily as we would do these mundane activities with walnuts and bananas. I would 
suggest omitting the '54 blows' sentence and associated SOM. Just think - how long would it take 
most people to milk a cow relative to someone who knows what they are doing? 
 
4 - Antiquity of plant remains is a thorny issue. As I understand it, most of these materials cannot be 
directly radiocarbon dated because they are at/beyond the range of the technique. Ok. However, that 
leaves the issue of archaeological association and antiquity unresolved for those archaeobotanical 
fragments distributed through the stratigraphy, rather than those collected from the hearth (which are 
presumably more secure in terms of chronostratigraphic association). Surely a more relevant SOM 
than the Pandanus extraction experiment would be to look at the age-depth comparison for the site as 
a whole between radiocarbon and OSL dates - showing how the ability to date carbon-based materials 
(such as older plant fragments) tales off downward. I also wonder if there is carbon replacement in 
some archaeobotanical remains - especially more porous parenchyma - which could actually be 
measured directly in those fragments to show that there is increasing replacement of carbon with 
depth; hence, meaning they cannot be directly dated (even if not beyond the radiocarbon limit). Just a 
thought. 
 
Lastly - use of 'bush foods' in title is somewhat misleading - as only has currency in Australian context 
- even if it will play well in the media.