Journal of Archaeological Science (1996) 23, 713721

An Odontocete (Cetacea) Meat Utility Index

James M. Savelle and T. Max Friesen
Department of Anthropology McGill University, 855 Sherbrooke Street West, Montreal, PQ, H3A 2T7, Canada
(Received 17 January 1995, revised manuscript accepted 21 August 1995)
A meat utility index for odontocetes (Cetacea), based on average flesh weight per skeletal portion of a harbour porpoise
(Phocoena phocoena), is presented. The highest ranked portions are associated with the middle and posterior vertebral
column, while the lowest ranked portions are associated with the flippers, head, and anterior part of the vertebral
column. The index (including both meat utility values and modified meat utility values) is applied to archaeologicallyand ethnoarchaeologically-derived cetacean bone assemblages. Results suggest that while the ease of edible sculp and
meat removal may significantly skew expected bone element frequencies, the index (especially that based on modified
meat utility values) is nevertheless a useful predictive tool for small, and to some extent medium-sized, cetaceans.
? 1996 Academic Press Limited

Keywords: BONE TRANSPORT, FOOD UTILITY INDICES, ODONTOCETES, CETACEANS, HARBOUR

PORPOISE, ZOOARCHAEOLOGY.

documented traditional Native societies (see reviews

by Heizer, 1941, 1968; McCartney, 1984; Stoker &
Krupnik, 1993), and their remains have been recovered
in a variety of archaeological contexts, especially in
northern and Pacific rim regions (e.g. McGhee, 1974;
McCartney, 1979, 1980; Arutiunov, Krupnik &
Chlenov, 1982; Huelsbeck, 1988; Lyman, 1991;
Hiraguchi, 1992; Savelle, 1994; Savelle & McCartney,
1994; Friesen & Arnold, 1995). Accordingly, the lack
of appropriate cetacean utility indices represents a
major deficiency in any attempt to interpret cetacean
zooarchaeological assemblages from the perspective of
economic anatomy.
Here, we address this problem, in at least a preliminary fashion, through the development of a meat
utility index for the harbour porpoise (Phocoena
phocoena). The procedure follows that suggested
by Metcalfe & Jones (1988) and Lyman et al. (1992),
but is modified to accommodate cetacean anatomy,
and should be generally applicable to most smaller
Odontoceti (toothed whale) species, including dolphins, other porpoises, and monodontids (white whales
and narwhals). The index is then compared against the
previously-developed pinniped indices, and applied
to data derived from both ethnoarchaeological and
archaeological contexts.

Introduction
ollowing Binfords (1978) pioneering study, the
development and application of utility indices
has played an increasingly important role in
zooarchaeological research. As noted by Binford, such
indices provide an economic frame of reference
(1987: 453) against which butchery, transport and
utilization of animal carcasses may be examined. To
date, however, utility indices have been derived primarily for terrestrial mammals [see summary and discussion in Lyman (1994: 225234)], and it is only recently
that attention has been directed to marine mammals,
specifically pinnipeds [harp and hooded seals combined as one phocid seal index(Lyman, Savelle &
Whitbridge, 1992); ringed seals(Mason, Gerlach
& Diab, 1993); sea lions for an otariid seal index
(Savelle, Friesen & Lyman, 1996)].
While the various phocid seal and otariid seal indices
aid the interpretation of a variety of pinniped zooarchaeological assemblages, they are inadequate for
the interpretation of cetacean assemblages, a group
described by one marine zoologist as the most
peculiar and aberrant of mammals (Stonehouse, 1985:
76). Although both groups of marine mammals are
anatomically streamlined and exhibit thick subdermal
blubber layers which incorporate almost all body fat,
cetaceans differ in a number of respects, not least of
which is the absence of a pelvis and associated
rear limbs (except as extremely small, rudimentary
elements), the presence of flukes and a dorsal fin or
ridge, and (usually) a larger head relative to body
size. In addition to their exploitation by 19th and
20th century industrialized societies, cetaceans were
hunted extensively by a number of ethnographically-

Material and Methods

The index is based on a harbour porpoise (Figure 1)
which was supplied by Dr. Thomas Smith of the Pacific
Biological Station, Department of Fisheries and
Oceans, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, and was processed
specifically to develop an economic utility index at that
713

0305-4403/96/050713+09 $18.00/0

? 1996 Academic Press Limited

714 J. M. Savelle and T. M. Friesen

Thoracic
Cervical

Fin
Lumbar

Head

Caudal

Flukes

Scapula

Ribs

Sternum

Peduncle

Flipper
Figure 1. Schematic representation of harbour porpoise anatomy indicating major skeletal parts and locations of processing cuts.

facility in late June 1993. The porpoise was a subadult

female weighing 272 kg which had been retrieved from
a fishing net in which it had drowned in early June, and
was frozen until immediately prior to processing. The
stomach and intestine contents, and the brain, were
partly frozen when the porpoise was processed, and
are included in viscera weight and skull meat weight
respectively.
The following procedures were conducted with the
supervision and assistance of Gregor Beck and George
Horonowitsch, two marine mammal biological technicians at the Pacific Biological Station. The complete
porpoise was first weighed and measured, and dorsal
skin and blubber thickness determined, according to
standard biological procedures (see relevant biometrical data in the Appendix). The initial processing step
involved the removal and weighing of the hide and
associated subdermal blubber layer. Each fluke, the
peduncle (posterior-most portion of the tail with associated caudal vertebrae), left and right flippers and
associated bone (humerus, radiusulna, carpals, metacarpals, phalanges), and dorsal fin were then removed
and weighed separately. Because the flippers were
relatively small, contained very little flesh, and were
essentially impossible to separate into element units,
even with prolonged boiling, they are treated as single
units. All internal organs, with the exception of the
brain, were then removed and each weighed separately.
The scapulae, sternum, head and associated meat were
then removed and weighed.
The remaining axial column was then separated into
left and right rib and pelvic units, cervical, thoracic,
lumbar, and caudal vertebral sections, each of which
was weighed. Much of the meat associated with the
thoracic, lumbar, and caudal vertebral sections formed
a series of long, easily-removed strips running along
the left and right dorsal and ventral sides of the
transverse processes [these muscles are described in

detail in Pabst (1990)]. This meat constitutes a large

proportion of the total available meat in cetaceans, and
is dealt with further below.
Following completion of the above procedures, each
individual anatomical unit that contained bone was
boiled until the associated flesh could be easily removed. Following removal, individual or groups of
bones were weighed. These weights were then subtracted from the total unit weight to derive a flesh
weight. The total animal weight before processing
differs by 32373 g or 119% of the combined weight of
all component parts. This discrepancy is due primarily
to the loss of blood and other body fluids during
processing, while weighing error may be a second, but
minor, contributing factor.

Results and Derivation of a Meat Utility

Index
All raw data (gross, flesh and bone weights) for individual anatomical parts are presented in the Appendix.
Note that the easily removed meat associated with the
thoracic, lumbar, and caudal vertebrae is listed separately, but is included in the index calculations. In
addition, the remnant pelves are included in the caudal
vertebrae unit in the index. Peduncle meat weight was
calculated on the basis the ratio of sculp weight to meat
weight for the remainder of the animal (359%) and
added to the caudal vertebrae. Gross weights of left
and right flippers, scapulae, ribs, and separate easily
removed meat sections, flukes and sculp sections are
significantly correlated (rs =1000, P<0000). This
suggests that there were no major differences in the
way each side of the carcass was dismembered, and
accordingly left and right sides are averaged in the
construction of the index.
As noted by Lyman et al. (1992: 535), the sculp
and viscera are traditionally excluded in utility index

An Odontocete (Cetacea) Meat Utility Index 715

Table 1. Average flesh weights (g) and %MUI per skeletal part

Table 2. Derivation of %MMUI from flesh weights

Anatomical portion

Anatomica Flesh
portion
weight

Discussion
Dealing first with the overall anatomy of the porpoise,
it is immediately evident that the sculp (skin plus
subdermal blubber) constitutes by far the largest anatomical unit, constituting well over one third
(36%) of the total body mass. This is consistent with
larger odontocetes such as white whales and narwhals
(Heide-Jorgensen, 1994), and large baleen whales such
as the North Pacific right whale (Omura et al., 1969).

3469
796
9040
18388
16766
7304
380
885
1066

None
Head and thoracic
Thoracic and lumbar
None
Caudal and lumbar
Rib and thoracic
Sternum and rib
Rib and flipper
None

Modified
flesh weight %MMUI
3469
6255
13714
18388
17577
8172
3842
4185
1066

189
340
746
1000
956
444
209
228
58

100

80

60

40

20

U
D
TH
O
R
R
IB
H
E
A
D
FL
IP
SC
A
P
C
E
RV
ST
E
R

derivations, and we follow that procedure here, although weights of individual organs are included in the
Appendix, and could be included if desired by individual researchers. Accordingly, and again following
Lyman et al. (1992), the indices derived here are meat
utility indices (MUI) associated with anatomical units
with associated bones. These indices are listed in Table
1, with the first column indicating total flesh weight per
unit (or averaged flesh weight in the case of paired
units), and the second column indicating the meat
utility indices normed on a scale of 1100, that is, the
%MUI.
We did make one exception to established procedures in the derivation of the MUI for the head.
Almost all of the associated flesh was extremely
tough, essentially unedible gristle immediately beneath the hide, with almost no muscle per se, with the
exception of the tongue and the mandibular adductors.
The processing of an additional 18 narwhal and five
beluga whale skulls by one of us (J.M.S.) suggests that
this is probably characteristic of most, if not all,
odontocetes. Since the indices are derived to establish
the relative importance of useable meat for each anatomical unit, we felt it appropriate to adjust the flesh
weight of the head. Accordingly, we use 20% of the
total non-bone weight for the flesh weight of the head
in our calculations, and believe this to be a conservative adjustment. Finally, and again following established procedures, we calculated modified meat utility
indices (MMUI) to account for the transportation of
riders (Binford, 1978: 7475; see also Metcalfe &
Jones, 1988: 503504; Lyman et al., 1992: 539540).
The parts averaged, and the resulting MMUI and
%MMUI are presented in Table 2, and the %MMUI
compared against %MUI in Figure 2.

Head
Cervical
Thoracic
Lumbar
Caudal
Rib
Sternum
Scapula
Flipper

Parts
averaged

189
43
492
1000
912
397
21
48
58

3469
796
9040
18388
16766
7304
380
885
1066

LU

%MUI

% MUI and % MMUI

Head
Cervical
Thoracic
Lumbar
Caudal
Rib
Sternum
Scapula
Flipper

Average flesh weight

Figure 2. Comparison of the %MUI to the %MMUI. Values are

arranged in descending order for the %MUI values. : %MUI;
: %MUI.

Table 3. Comparison of body composition of harbour porpoise (this

study) and Black right whale (Omura et al., 1969)

Meat
Blubber
Bone
Viscera
Blood and fluids

Right whale

Harbour porpoise

313%
398%
128%
139%
26%

311%
359%
61%
150%
119%

Furthermore, the overall body composition of the

harbour porpoise is remarkably similar to North
Pacific right whales (Table 3), the only other cetacean
for which we have been able to locate comparable data.
The only major difference is in the proportion of the
total bone weight, which is approximately twice as
great in the right whale as in the harbour porpoise
(128% versus 61%), and which is accounted for by the
much more massive mandibles and presence of baleen
plates rather than teeth in the right whale.

716 J. M. Savelle and T. M. Friesen

Table 4. Comparison of utility indices (%MUI) for phocid
seals (Lyman et al., 1992), sea lions (Savelle et al., in press) and
harbour porpoise (this study). See text for discussion of
modifications to sea lion and phocid seal indices
Anatomical
portion
Head
Cervical
Thoracic
Lumbar
Caudal
Rib
Sternum
Scapula
Flipper

Harbour
porpoise

Phocid seals

Sea lions

189
43
492
1000
912
397
21
48
58

274
358
249
329
445
1000
27
198
157

307
948
220
138
214
1000
92
286
203

Dealing specifically with the meat utility indices, the

lumbar and caudal vertebrae provide the highest
values, and stand out as a group in approximately
equal proportions (Tables 1 & 2, Figure 2). Thoracic
vertebrae and ribs are intermediate in value, followed
by the head, while the remaining elements constitute
relatively minor portions. These data are in marked
contrast to other marine mammals for which we have
indices. Table 4 compares the indices derived in this
paper with those of phocid seals and otariid seals. For
the purposes of these comparisons, cetacean caudal
vertebrae (with remnant pelves) are equated with pinniped pelves, cetacean flippers are equated with flesh
weights for entire pinniped forelimbs, and pinniped
rear limbs have been omitted. The %MUI or %MMUI
for cetaceans are only weakly correlated with those for
any of the pinnipeds (in all cases, rs <0533, P>0139),
confirming that significant anatomical differences exist
between the two beyond the obvious presence-absence
of rear limbs.

Applications
Following Binford (1978) and Lyman et al. (1992),
amongst others, we recognize that economic utility
provides only one of several potential frames of
reference within which to interpret skeletal part frequencies at archaeological sites. Nevertheless, the
following examples provide at least a preliminary
indication of the analytic potential of the cetacean
indices presented here.
Central Japan: prehistoric Jomon dolphin hunting
Dolphin remains have been recovered from a number
of Jomon-period sites in Japan, with the Mawaki site
producing the remains of at least 285 individual
dolphins and porpoises, of which Pacific white-sided
dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) and common
dolphin (Delphinus delphis) are typical (Hiraguchi,
1992: 35). These two species are essentially identical in

Table 5. MAU frequencies of dolphin and beluga whale elements at

archaeological sites discussed in this study

Head
Cervical
Thoracic
Lumbar
Caudal
Rib
Sternum
Scapula
Flipper

Mawaki
(Jomon, Japan)
Dolphin

Gupuk
(prehistoric Inuit)
Beluga whale

220
127
135
144
164

230
200

190
36
12
32
28
31
10
40
60

size and morphology to the harbour porpoise, and thus

provide an ideal starting point for evaluation of the
indices presented here. The site is located approximately 300 m inland from the present coastline, but at
the time of occupation was situated on the beach
adjacent to the mouth of a small stream (Hiraguchi,
1992: 36), strongly suggesting it was a primary processing area, with carcasses discarded there following
initial butchery. Furthermore, no evidence of carnivore
gnawing was noted, suggesting that this taphonomic
factor, at least, did not adversely affect the assemblage.
Although he did not give a precise elemental breakdown for the entire site, Hiraguchi (1992: 4142) does
provide MNIs (minimum number of individuals) for
different skeletal portions for the A-B files of grids 1
m#15 m, and additional information on vertebrae is
given in Miyazaki & Hiraguchi (1986). For purposes of
this application, we have used MNIs for heads, scapulae, humeri and radii as equivalent MAUs (minimum
animal units), while the various vertebral values are
true MAUs which we calculated from data in Miyazaki
& Hiraguchi (1986). In calculating MAUs, we follow
the procedure outlined by Binford (1987: 50) and
discussed in detail by Lyman (1994: 104113); that is,
MAUs are derived by dividing the minimum number
of each element (disregarding sides) by the number
of times that element occurs in a complete skeleton
(Table 5).
The scatterplots of %MAU versus both %MUI and
%MMUI (Figures 3 and 4 respectively) tend to confirm
the interpretation of the site as a primary processing
locality, with each resembling a reverse utility curve,
the negative correlation being strongest for MAU
versus %MMUI (rs = "0536, P=0215 as opposed to
rs = "0107; P=0819 for MAU versus %MUI).
Central Canadian Arctic: modern beluga and
narwhal hunting
Ethnoarchaeological investigations of modern Inuit
beluga and narwhal hunting were conducted in 1989
and 1993 at Kuvinaluk, a modern outpost camp in the
central Canadian Arctic (Savelle, 1995), and followed

An Odontocete (Cetacea) Meat Utility Index 717

25
SCAP

MAU

20

HEAD

FLP

CAUD

15
LUM

THOR

CERV
10

20

40

60

80

100

% MUI
Figure 3. Scatterplot of MAU frequencies of dolphin bones from the
Mawaki site, Japan, against %MUI.

25

MAU

20

SCAP
HEAD
FLP

CAUD

15
THOR

CERV

LUM

10

20

40
60
% MMUI

80

100

Figure 4. Scatterplot of MAU frequencies of dolphin bones from the

Mawaki site, Japan, against %MMUI.

previous ethnoarchaeological investigations there in

1980 (Savelle, 1984). While beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) are
considerably larger than harbour porpoises, (adults
typically 3550 m in length and approximately 500
1500 kg in weight), they are similar in morphology
(all being odontocetes), with the exception of the tusk
in the narwhal. Although the hunts involved
modern technologies and took place within a mixed
traditional/monetary economy, they nevertheless prove
instructive.
Table 6 summarizes the processing of three belugas
and 10 narwhals for which detailed information was
recorded. The belugas were processed approximately
35 km east of Kuvinaluk, and carcass parts were
transported by boat to two caching areas. The
narwhals were processed approximately 15 km from
Kuvinaluk, and most removed parts were cached
adjacent to the processing site. Several important
observations follow from the data.

(1) As would be expected, culling of carcass parts

increases with increased distance from the residential
site (Kuvinaluk), an observation consistent with previous studies of butchery and transport (e.g. Binford,
1978; Bunn, Bartram & Kroll, 1988; OConnell,
Hawkes & Jones, 1988).
(2) The high value put on mattak (hide and associated
blubber) relative to meat is evident. Historically, mattak was highly prized throughout the Arctic, and in
modern Greenland, for example, beluga mattak sells
for over four times the price of fresh beluga meat
(Caulfield, 1993). In the case of the belugas, only
mattak and associated bone was removed from the
carcass.
(3) When mattak or meat was removed, primarily
only easily detached portions were taken. In the case
of mattak, this included the body sculp (minus the
head), forelimbs and flukes. Mattak is extremely easy
to remove, and can be detached in convenient portable units (Figure 5). In the case of meat, the portions removed were restricted to the easily-removed
axial muscle tissues associated with the vertebrae.
Thus, almost no bone was removed, even in the case
when a large proportion of the meat was detached.
Again, this is consistent with previous observations
that bones with low processing costs are more likely
to be left at the kill site (e.g. OConnell et al., 1988).
(4) The converse of (3) is also apparent. That is,
those bones from which mattak could not be easily
removed (e.g. forelimbs, peduncle in two cases) were
transported away from the kill sites as complete
units.
Again, it should be stressed that the hunts and
processing were conducted within a modern technological and economic context. However, the results
suggest that beluga whales and narwhals may be
approaching the threshold size wherein bone transport
is simply not cost effective regardless of the remaining
meat attached to the bone (except in the case of the
smallest bones and/or where other factorssuch as
architectural utility in the case of bowhead whales
may be relevant; e.g. McCartney, 1980; Savelle &
McCartney, 1990).

Western Canadian Arctic: late prehistoric Inuit beluga

whale hunting
The final case study presented here is based on an
analysis of beluga whale bones from Gupuk, a prehistoric Inuit site in the Mackenzie River Delta, Northwest Territories, Canada (Friesen and Arnold, 1995).
The late prehistoric and early historic Mackenzie Inuit
exhibited what was perhaps the greatest reliance on
small toothed whales of any ethnographically recorded
society. This adaptation was most pronounced at the
settlements of Kittigazuit and Gupuk, both located on
the East Channel of the Mackenzie River, where
late 19th century Mackenzie Inuit assembled at

718 J. M. Savelle and T. M. Friesen

Table 6. Anatomical parts of whales removed and transported from primary processing locations by Inuit from
Kuvinaluk, Arctic Canada

Anatomical portion

Beluga whales
(% removed)

Narwhal
(% removed)

Sculp
Viscera
Head
Cervical
Thoracic
Lumbar
Caudal

80% (estimate)
0
0
0
0
0
0

90% (estimate)
0
0
0
65% of associated meat (est.)
80% of associated meat (est.)
60% of associated meat (est.)
[entire peduncle with bone removed in two cases]
100%
0
0
25% (estimated, as riders)
100%

Fluke (includes sculp)

Rib
Sternum
Scapula
Flipper

100%
0
0
0
100%

Figure 5. Inuit processing adult narwhals near Kuvinaluk, Arctic Canada, showing procedure for removal of sculp.

large summer camps to take advantage of the seasonal presence of beluga whales (Stefansson, 1919;
Whittaker, 1937; Nuligak, 1966; McGhee, 1974). Recent excavations at Gupuk (Arnold, 1988, 1994) have
yielded large assemblages of artefacts and animal
bones, including a sample of 2266 beluga bones,
representing a minimum of 19 individual whales, from
House 1 in Area 1 of the site (Friesen & Arnold, 1995).
This beluga bone sample, which forms the basis of the
present analysis, was recovered using 6 mm (quarterinch) mesh, and represents the entire sample from a
completely excavated house. The median of three

radiocarbon dates from this house is 650&40

(RIDDL-550), confirming its status as a prehistoric
dwelling.
In order to predict body part frequencies which
should be evident in the Gupuk beluga bone sample,
ethnohistoric data concerning butchery and body part
transport must be assessed. The following outline is
based primarily on the ethnohistoric record from
Kittigazuit, a site adjacent and similar to Gupuk
(McGhee, 1974). After beluga whales had been harpooned, they were towed to shore to be processed near
the summer camps. Following processing, meat and

An Odontocete (Cetacea) Meat Utility Index 719

20

20
HEAD

HEAD
15

MAU

MAU

15

10

FLP

SCAP
CERV
STER
0

10

FLP

LUM
RIB THOR
20

40

CAUD
60

80

100

% MUI

SCAP
CERV RIB
STER
20

40
60
% MMUI

LUM
THOR
80

CAUD
100

Figure 6. Scatterplot of MAU frequencies of beluga whale bones

from the Gupuk site, Arctic Canada, against %MUI.

Figure 7. Scatterplot of MAU frequencies of beluga whale bones

from the Gupuk site, Arctic Canada, against %MMUI.

blubber were either (a) consumed or discarded at the

summer camp, (b) prepared for transport to fall or
winter camps, or (c) cached directly at winter villages
located immediately adjacent to the processing areas.
Following consumption, many bones would be removed from the houses and discarded as refuse in a
midden or elsewhere.
Based on this ethnohistorically-documented pattern
of body part transport and consumption, the Gupuk
House 1 sample is expected to exhibit a reverse utility
profile (Friesen & Arnold, 1995). This expectation
is based on the assumption that higher utility
body portions were transported away from the site to
distant fall camps, while lower utility portions were
cached at the winter village, due to its proximity to the
processing site.
When Gupuk beluga MAU values are plotted
against the cetacean %MUI (Figure 6), the correlation
is weak (rs = "0117; P=0765), although a reverse
utility curve is vaguely suggested. When the MAU
values are compared against %MMUI (Figure 7),
however, a much stronger reverse utility pattern is
evident (rs = "0517; P=0154). That is, with the exception of two outliers (heads and sterna), lower utility
body parts (flippers, scapulae, and cervical vertebrae)
are present in successively higher frequencies than the
four highest utility parts (lumbar, caudal and thoracic
vertebrae and ribs). Although the transport and taphonomic history of this sample is undoubtedly complex,
the two outliers may result, at least in part, from the
effects of variable bone density (Lyman, 1984). In this
regard, some bone destruction by dogs is indicated by
the fact that 129% of all beluga bone fragments exhibit
evidence of carnivore gnawing. The low observed frequency of sterna may result from the fact that they are
among the least dense bones in the beluga skeleton,
and therefore might be particularly vulnerable to destruction. The high frequency of skulls, on the other
hand, may be partially explained by the fact that skulls

were identified on the basis of auditory bullae, which

are among the densest and most compact bones in the
beluga skeleton, and are therefore resistant to destruction. However, it may also reflect an over-estimate of
the utility of skulls in the %MMUI calculated in this
report, a point to which we return below.

Conclusions
The cetacean utility index presented here represents a
preliminary step in the development of an economic
frame of reference for the interpretation of cetacean
bone assemblages. The study has proved instructive in
several respects. First, the importance of body parts
not directly associated with bone elements (sculp) or
that are easily removed from bone elements (axial
muscles) cannot be overemphasized. The ease of hide
and flesh removal in cetaceans is much greater than for
terrestrial mammals, and subsequently has a much
greater potential influence on the resulting zooarchaeological assemblages.
Second, and despite the above caveat, for smaller
and even medium-sized cetaceans the utility index does
indeed serve as a valuable predictive tool. Furthermore, the %MMUI index appears to be the most
reliable indicator, as in both the case of the dolphin
assemblage from the Mawaki site in Japan, and the
case of the Canadian Arctic Gupuk beluga whale
sample, the MAUs plotted against the cetacean
%MMUI yielded the strongest reverse utility curves.
These results suggest that the %MMUI, at least, is
applicable to many odontocetes.
Finally, our decision to reduce the meat utility value
of the head has been shown to fit the general pattern
evident in both the ethnoarchaeological example and the
two archaeological examples. If anything, our reduction
of the head-associated meat utility to 20% of its initial
value may still represent an overestimate, as indicated by
the very high frequency of skulls in the Gupuk sample.

720 J. M. Savelle and T. M. Friesen

In general, it appears likely that after the removal of

easily detached edible parts such as the tongue from
cetacean carcasses, heads will be transported significant
distances from the butchery site only in exceptional
circumstances, due to both the low meat utility and the
relatively high weight of bone and inedible gristle. In
fact, we believe that a case could be made for assigning a
%MMUI value approaching zero to the skulls of
medium and large cetaceans for these reasons.

Acknowledgements
Thomas G. Smith, George Horonowitsch and Gregor
Beck, all of the Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo,
B. C. kindly arranged for the acquisition, and assisted
in the processing, of the harbour porpoise. Matthew
Sturgess assisted with the data compilation and analysis. Junko Habu kindly arranged for access to, and
translated relevant parts of, Miyazaki and Hiraguchi
(1986). The laboratory research was funded by the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada. The field research projects in the Canadian
Arctic discussed in the application section were funded
by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Social Sciences Research Committee
at McGill University, and the Prince of Wales Northern Heritage Centre, Yellowknife, and supported logistically by the Polar Continental Shelf Project (Energy,
Mines and Resources, Canada). Finally, R. Lee
Lyman, Duncan Metcalfe, and an anonymous reviewer
made many valuable comments and suggestions
for improvement on an earlier version of this paper.
Our sincere appreciation is extended to all of these
individuals and organizations.

References
Arnold, C. (1988). Vanishing villages of the past: rescue archaeology
in the Mackenzie Delta. The Northern Review 1, 4058.
Arnold, C. (1994). Archaeological investigations on Richards Island.
In (J.-L. Pilon, Ed.) Bridges Across Time: The NOGAP Archaeology Project, Canadian Archaeological Association Occasional
Paper No. 2. Canada: Canadian Archaeological Association.
pp. 8594.
Arutiunov, S. A., Krupnik, I. I. & Chlenov, M. A. (1982). Kitovaya
Alleya. Drevnosti ostrovov proliva Senyavina. Moscow: Nauka. (In
Russian).
Binford, L. R. (1978). Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. New York:
Academic Press.
Binford, L. R. (1987). Researching ambiguity: frames of references
and site structure. In (S. Kent, Ed.) Method and Theory for
Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, New
York: Columbia University Press, pp. 449517.
Bunn, H. T., Bartram, L. E. & Kroll, E. M. (1988). Variability in
bone assemblage formation from Hadza hunting, scavenging, and
carcass processing. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 7,
412457.
Caulfield, R. A. (1993). Aboriginal subsistence whaling in Greenland: the case of Qeqertarsuaq Municipality in West Greenland.
Arctic 46, 144155.
Friesen, T. M. & Arnold, C. D. (1995). Zooarchaeology of a focal
resource: dietary importance of beluga whales to the precontact
Mackenzie Inuit. Arctic 48, 2230.

Heide-Jorgensen, M. P. (1994). Distribution, exploitation, and

population status of white whales (Delphinapterus leucas) and
narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in West Greenland. Meddelelser
om Gronland, Bioscience 39, 135149.
Heizer, R. F. (1941). Aboriginal whaling in the old and new worlds.
Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, CA, U.S.A.
Heizer, R. F. (1968). A bibliography of aboriginal whaling. Journal
of the Society of Bibliographers of Natural History 4, 344362.
Hiraguchi, T. (1992). Catching dolphins at the Mawaki Site, Central
Japan, and its contribution to Jomon society. In (C. M. Aikens &
S. N. Rhee, Eds.) Pacific Northeast Asia in Prehistory: Hunter
FisherGatherers, Farmers, and Sociopolitical Elites. Pullman:
WSU Press. pp. 3545.
Howell, A. B. (1929). Contribution to the comparative anatomy of
eared and earless seals (Genera Zalophus and Phoca). Proceedings
of the United States National Museum 73, 1142.
Huelsbeck, D. R. (1988). The surplus economy of the central
Northwest Coast. In (B. L. Isaac, Ed.) Prehistoric Economies of
the Pacific Northwest Coast. Research in Economic Anthropology,
Supplement 3, 149177.
Lyman, R. L. (1984). Bone density and differential survivorship of
fossil classes. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 3, 259299.
Lyman, R. L. (1991). Prehistory of the Oregon Coast. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Lyman, R. L. (1992). Prehistoric seal and sea lion butchering on the
southern Northwest Coast. American Antiquity 57, 246261.
Lyman, R. L. (1994). Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lyman, R. L., Savelle, J. M. & Whitridge, P. (1992). Derivation and
application of a meat utility index for phocid seals. Journal of
Archaeological Science 19, 531555.
Mason, O. K., Gerlach, C. & Diab, M. (1993). Whaling and/or
reindeer-herding in Choris culture: Arctic chameleon or chimera?
Paper presented at the 20th Annual Meeting of the Alaska
Anthropological Association, Anchorage.
McCartney, A. P. (Ed.) (1979). Archaeological whale bone: a northern resource. University of Arkansas Anthropological Papers 1.
Arkansas: University of Arkansas.
McCartney, A. P. (1980). The nature of Thule Eskimo whale use.
Arctic 33, 517541.
McCartney, A. P. (1984). History of Native whaling in the Arctic
and Subarctic. In (H. K. SJacob, K. Snoeijing & R. Vaughen,
eds.) Arctic Whaling. The Netherlands: Arctic Centre, University
of Groningen. pp. 79111.
McGhee, R. (1974). Beluga Hunters. Newfoundland Social and
Economic Studies 13. Newfoundland: Memorial University.
Metcalfe, D. & Jones, K. T. (1988). A reconsideration of animal
body-part utility indices. American Antiquity 53, 486504.
Miyazaki, N. & Hiraguchi, T. (1986). Animal remains. In (T.
Takahori & Y. Yamada, Eds.) The Mawaki Site, Japan: The
Noto-machi Board of Education. pp. 346400. (In Japanese).
Nuligak (1966). I, Nuligak. (M. Metayer, Ed.). Toronto: Peter
Martin Associates.
OConnell, J. F., Hawkes, K. & Jones, N. B. (1988). Hadza hunting,
butchering, and bone transport and their archaeological implications. Journal of Anthropological Research 44, 113161.
Omura, H., Ohsumi, S., Nemoto, T., Nasu, K. & Kasuya, T. (1969).
Black right whales in the North Pacific. Scientific Report of the
Whales Research Institute 21, 178.
Pabst, D. A. (1990). Axial muscles and connective tissues of the
bottlenose dolphin. In (S. Leatherwood & R. R. Reeves, Eds.) The
Bottlenose Dolphin. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. pp. 5167.
Savelle, J. M. (1984). Cultural and natural formation processes of a
historic Inuit snow dwelling site, Somerset Island, Arctic Canada.
American Antiquity 49, 508524.
Savelle, J. M. (1994). Prehistoric exploitation of white whales
(Delphinapterus leucas) and narwhals (Monodon monoceros) in the
eastern Canadian Arctic. Meddelelser om Gronland, Bioscience 39,
101117.
Savelle, J. M. (1995). An ethnoarchaeological investigation of Inuit
beluga whale and narwhal harvesting. In (A. P. McCartney, Ed.)

An Odontocete (Cetacea) Meat Utility Index 721

Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic: hunting the
largest mammals. Edmonton: Canadian Circumpolar Institute,
Studies on Whaling No. 3, pp. 127148.
Savelle, J. M. & McCartney, A. P. (1990). Prehistoric Thule Eskimo
whaling in the central Canadian Arctic: current knowledge and
future research directions. In (C. R. Harington, Ed.) Canadas
Missing Dimension: Science and History in the Canadian Arctic
Islands. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Nature, pp. 695723.
Savelle, J. M. & McCartney, A. P. (1994). Thule Inuit bowhead
whaling: a biometrical analysis. In (D. Morrison & J.-L. Pilon,
Eds.) Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E.
Taylor, Jr. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury
Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 149. pp. 281
310.

Savelle, J. M., Friesen, T. M. & Lyman, R. L. (1996). Derivation and

application of an otariid utility index. Journal of Archaelogical
Science 23, 705712.
Stefansson, V. (1919). The Stefansson-Anderson arctic expedition of
the American Museum: preliminary ethnological report. Anthropological papers of the American Museum of Natural History 14.
Stoker, S. W. & Krupnik, I. I. (1993). Subsistence whaling. In (J. J.
Burns, J. M. Montague & C. J. Cowles, Eds.) The Bowhead Whale.
Special Publication No. 2. Lawrence, KS Society for Marine
Mammalogy, pp. 579629.
Stonehouse, B. (1985). Sea Mammals of the World. New York:
Penguin Viking Inc.
Whittaker, C. (1937). Arctic Eskimo. London: Seeley, Service & Co.

Appendix
Harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), Pp-93-1, subadult female, 272 kg; snout to fluke
notch length 1174 cm; snout to anterior insertion of flipper 244 cm; maximum girth 73 cm;
axillary girth 70 cm; posterior girth 508 cm; dorsal fin length 72 cm; fluke length 154 cm;
fluke width 260 cm; skin thickness 04 cm; dorsal blubber thickness 18 cm; sculp (skin plus
blubber) weight 978 kg.
Gross weight (g)

Meat weight (g)

Bone weight (g)

17346
796
9040
(5717)
18388
(14298)
16176
(8914)
2958
133
7159
7448
380
817

6598
403
1814

1115
1599

833
1179

282
420

1232
1343

937
953

295
390

Sculp
Right side
Left side
Total

48257
49561
97818

Viscera
Stomach (with contents)
Liver
Kidneys (two)
Pancreas
Spleen
Intestines (with contents)
Uterus
Lungs (two)
Heart
Trachea and oesophagus
Miscellaneous viscera
Total viscera

2686
8115
1991
610
371
9716
442
9640
1644
2994
2567
40776

Axial
Head (with mandibles and hyoid)
Cervical
Thoracic
easily removed meat
Lumbar
easily removed meat
Caudal
easily removed meat
Fluke (includes sculp)
Pelvis (two)
R rib cage
L rib cage
Sternum
Dorsal fin
Appendicular
R forelimb
R scapula
R flipper
L forelimb
L scapula
L flipper

23944
1199
10854
20248
18820
3187
155
7965
8218
497

1860
2644
229
22
806
770
117