Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T14:25:01.853Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Reconsideration of Animal Body-Part Utility Indices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Duncan Metcalfe  and
Kevin T. Jones
Duncan Metcalfe
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112
Kevin T. Jones
Affiliation:
Issaquah, WA 98027
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The animal body-part utility indices developed by Lewis Binford have been used to interpret faunal assemblages ranging from Plio-Pleistocene sites in East Africa to a late prehistoric bison kill in the High Plains of North America. Little attention, however, has been placed on refining or further developing these scales of economic utility. We examine Binford's derivation of the modified general utility index (MGUI) and demonstrate that it is needlessly complex. A nearly identical index, the food utility index (FUI), is presented. It simply scales variation in the amount of meat, marrow, and bone grease associated with different caribou body parts. We then use the insights provided by this simple scale to explore relations among economic utility, differential body-part representation, and human decision making.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 1988 , pp. 486 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Binford, L. R. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1981 Bones : Ancient Men and Modern Myths. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Binford, L. R. 1984 Faunal Remains from Klasies River Mouth. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Blumenschine, R. J., and Caro, T. M. 1986 Unit Flesh Weights of Some East African Bovids. African Journal of Ecology 24 : 273–286.Google Scholar
Edwards, A. L. 1983 Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. Irvington, New York.Google Scholar
Frison, G. C. 1974 The Casper Site : A Hell Gap Bison Kill on the High Plains. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
Halloran, A. F. 1961 American Bison Weights and Measurements from the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge. Proceedings of the Oklahoma Academy of Science 41 : 212–218.Google Scholar
Lyman, R. L. 1985 Bone Frequencies : Differential Transport, In Situ Destruction, and the MGUI. Journal of Archaeological Science 12:221–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, D. B., and Jones, K. T. 1987 Silver Island Expedition : Research Structure. Ms. in possession of authors.Google Scholar
Sokal, R. R., and Rohlf, F. J. 1981 Biometry. 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Speth, J. D. 1983 Bison Kills and Bone Counts. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. H., and Mayer, D. 1983 Behavioral Faunal Analysis of Selected Horizons. In The Archaeology of Monitor Valley 2. Gatecliff Shelter, by Thomas, D. H., pp. 353–390. Anthropological Papers Vol. 59. American Museum of Natural History, New York.Google Scholar
Wheat, J. B. 1972 The Olsen-Chubbuck Site : A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill. SAA Memoirs No. 26. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D. C. Google Scholar
White, T. E. 1952 Observations on the Butchering Technique of Some Aboriginal Peoples : I. American Antiquity 4 : 337–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. E. 1953a A Method of Calculating the Dietary Percentage of Various Food Animals Utilized by Aboriginal Peoples. American Antiquity 4 : 396–398.Google Scholar
White, T. E. 1953b Observations on the Butchering Technique of Some Aboriginal Peoples No. 2. American Antiquity 2 : 160–164.Google Scholar
White, T. E. 1954 Observations on the Butchering Technique of Some Aboriginal Peoples Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6. American Antiquity 3 : 254–264.Google Scholar