Emu butchery and economic utility: Implications for understanding Australian zooarchaeology and megafauna extinctions.

Modern emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae)butchery, economic utility and analogues forthe Australian archaeological record

Jillian Garvey, Brett Cochrane, Judith Field and Chris Boney

Australia’s largest flightless bird, the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), has been an important

prey animal for Indigenous people for millennia, especially in arid/semi-arid areas where, along

with large kangaroos, they can provide high economic returns from single kills. Understanding

modern prey selection, butchering patterns and the relative nutritional value of the different body

portions in these animals has important implications for interpreting patterns of species and body

part representation in the archaeological record. A butchery study, economic utility assessment,

and meat and marrow fatty acid analysis of the Australian emu has established the relative

economic importance of different body parts. The results show that the femur/pelvic region

yielded the greatest amount of meat, and that the quantity and quality of fats associated with

these units makes bone fracturing for marrow extraction superfluous. The results provide new

insights into the relative importance of emu in Australian Aboriginal diets, past and present, and

establish useful comparative data for studies of the now extinct giant flightless bird Genyornis

newtoni.

Keywords: Australia, Late Pleistocene, archaeology, Dromaius novaehollandiae, economic utility, fatty acid analysis, Genyornis newtoni

Introduction

Modern humans arrived in Sahul (Pleistocene

Australia-New Guinea) sometime between 40 ka and

c. 60 ka, arguably at a time of megafauna decline and

deteriorating climatic conditions (O’Connell and Allen

2004; Field et al. 2008; Davidson 2010; Summerhayes

et al. 2010; Wurster et al. 2010). The timing and

coincidence of these events is the subject of intense

debate (Wroe and Field 2006; Field et al. 2008; 2011).

While a broad picture is emerging of when and where

modern humans were present on the landscape, we still

have little detail on the subsistence practices of the first

Australians. Of particular interest is the potential

interaction of humans with megafauna as well as the

utilisation of some of our modern large target prey,

such as the kangaroo and emu (e.g. O’Connell and

Marshall 1989; O’Connell 2000; Johnson 2005; Wroe

and Field 2006; Field et al. 2008; 2010).

The first human arrivals occupied most environ-

ments across the continent within a relatively short

period of time, adapting to a new vegetation and

faunal suite not seen in South-East Asia (Denham

et al. 2009). Apart from the rich south-west Tasmania

sites (e.g. Allen 1996; Cosgrove and Allen 2001;

Garvey 2006), there are few continental sites with

well-preserved faunal remains. Current datasets indi-

cate that, since the arrival of the first humans in Sahul,

there has been negligible variability in available target

prey; with the exception of some now extinct mega-

faunal species (Sutton et al. 2009; Field and Dodson

1999). Investigations into prey selection, butchering

and use of many of these species are hampered by the

scarcity of ethnographic observations on the economic

importance of different prey species. Most studies

looking at aspects of economic utility have targeted the

extant kangaroo to evaluate carcass composition for

the modern domestic meat trade (Garvey 2010). Only

two studies are known from Australia that have

Jillian Garvey (corresponding author), Archaeology Program, La TrobeUniversity, Victoria 3086, Australia; e-mail: [email protected]; BrettCochrane, 12 Waratah St, Brewarrina, NSW 2839, Australia; Judith Field,School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University ofNew South Wales, NSW 2052, Australia; Chris Boney, PO Box 79Brewarrina, NSW 2839, Australia.

� Association for Environmental Archaeology 2011Published by ManeyDOI 10.1179/174963111X13110803260840 Environmental Archaeology 2011 VOL 16 NO 2 97

examined the economic importance of target prey

which occur in archaeological assemblages. O’Connell

and Marshall (1989) studied the Red kangaroo

(Macropus rufus Desmarest) in order to construct

utility indices as a general guide for macropods. The

abundance of another, much smaller, macropod, the

Bennett’s wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus Desmarest)

in the rich south-west Tasmanian archaeological sites

(Allen 1996; Pike-Tay et al. 2008), has led researchers

to extend the work of O’Connell and Marshall (1989)

to investigate the economic utility of this species

(Garvey 2010). These studies have enabled a greater

understanding of the patterns of use and relative

abundance of macropods across time and space

providing important interpretive frameworks for

Australian zooarchaeological studies. What has been

missing from the dataset is the relevant information on

Australia’s largest extant bird — the emu Dromaius

novaehollandiae Latham — which is known to have

been an important prey animal for Australian

Aborigines in the recent past.

An understanding of the economic utility of the emu

may also have important interpretive implications for

the extinct Pleistocene bird, Genyornis newtoni Stirling

and Zietz (Rich 1979). G. newtoni appears to be one of

the megafaunal species that overlapped with human

occupation of the Australian continent. Fossil remains

of G. newtoni have been recovered from Cuddie

Springs and Lancefield Swamp in south-eastern

Australia (Field et al. 2008). While the relative

economic importance of these species is unknown,

we propose that the skeletal similarities between the

emu and G. newtoni suggest that approaches to

butchering would be paralleled. An economic utility

study of the emu would thus serve two purposes:

1) provide the first baseline data on the processing

methods and nutritional value of emu; and

2) establish a reference point for evaluating archae-

ological assemblages that include both D. novae-

hollandiae and G. newtoni skeletal remains.

Genyornis newtoni and Dromaiusnovaehollandiae

The study presented here evolved following investiga-

tions at the late Pleistocene archaeological site of

Cuddie Springs in western New South Wales

(Dodson et al. 1993; Field and Dodson 1999; Field

et al. 2008; Fillios et al. 2010). Among other identified

extant and extinct species, the remains of the extinct,

large flightless bird G. newtoni were recovered

from the same horizons (Stratigraphic Unit 6) as

flaked stone artefacts, implying contemporaneity and

possible interaction with humans (Field and Boles

1998; Fillios et al. 2010). Emu (D. novaehollandiae)

are also known from the archaeological horizons.

Most skeletal elements of G. newtoni were present

and complete in the excavated squares from Strati-

graphic Unit 6B (Fig. 1). The leg elements were

generally found in close anatomical association and

have been reported as separated articulations (Wroe

et al. 2004: fig. 1). No cutmarks were identified on any

G. newtoni skeletal elements and the lack of weathering

and/or abrasion, the fine-grained enclosing sediments,

and the ephemeral water hole conditions indicated that

the faunal remains were in a primary depositional

setting (Field 2006; Field et al. 2008; Fillios et al. 2010).

The presence of flaked stone artefacts with usewear

consistent with butchering, throughout the unit, implies

a human role in the accumulation of the remains. Little

attention has been paid to the economic importance of

G. newtoni or the emu, inhibiting an accurate evaluation

Figure 1 G. newtoni limb bones partly excavated at the

Cuddie Springs site in south-eastern Australia.

All longbone leg elements are found within a

1 m square in fine-grained enclosing sediments

and were deposited during a positive lake phase

during the Late Pleistocene. Flaked stone tools

have also been recovered from these horizons

and some artefacts can be seen in section (in

Stratigraphic Unit 6A SU6A, overlying SU6B)

(photo J. Field)

Garvey et al. Modern Emu Butchery

98 Environmental Archaeology 2011 VOL 16 NO 2

of their potential as prey or determining which portions

of the bird would be targeted for consumption. Further-

more, as the limb elements from Cuddie Springs did

not exhibit any physical damage that is traditionally

associated with butchering, it is important to evaluate

whether marrow extraction was ever likely, in either G.

newtoni or emu. Marrow extraction is an important

aspect of macropod exploitation (Garvey 2011) yet

there is little known concerning similar strategies in the

emu.

Study aims

The aim of this paper is to present:

1) modern emu butchery and cooking practices of

Indigenous Australians;

2) an economic utility (or anatomy) study of the

emu; and

3) a fatty acid analysis of the emu bone marrow,

muscle and stomach lining.

The implications of these results for analysing and

interpreting Australian zooarchaeological assem-

blages, including the extinct flightless bird Genyornis

newtoni, will be discussed in light of the findings. In

this paper, we have decided to only concentrate

on the development of the emu utility model and

the ethnographic study of butchery practices. The

archaeological application of this model will be

explored in a future publication.

The Australian Emu, Dromaius novaehollandiae

The Australian emu, Dromaius novaehollandiae

(Fig. 2), belongs to the Order Struthioniformes, or

the ratites; a diverse group of large, flightless birds

with small wings and without a keeled sternum. Emu

are Gondwanan in origin and are restricted to the

southern hemisphere, with most species now extinct.

Extant species include: the African ostrich (Struthio

camelus Linnaeus); two species of South American

rhea (Rhea americana Linnaeus and R. pennata

d’Orbigny); five species of the New Zealand kiwi

(Apteryx haastii Potts, A. owenii Gould, A. rowi

Tennyson et al., A. australis Shaw and Nodder and A.

mantelli Barrlett); and three species of cassowary

restricted to northern tropical Australia and New

Guinea (Casuarius casuarius Linnaeus, C. unappendi-

culatus Blyth and C. bennetti Gould). The largest and

most famous extinct rarities include Aepyornis max-

imus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire or the elephant bird of

Madagascar which grew to approximately 450 kg

(990 lb) and stood to 3 m (9?8 ft) tall, and the 11

extinct species of Moa from New Zealand. The

largest was the Giant Moa (Dinornis giganteus Owen)

which grew to about 250 kg (550 lb) and reached

3?3 m (11 ft).

The emu, Dromaius novaehollandiae, was one of

four Dromaius taxa common in Australia prior to

European settlement (c. 1788). The other three were

the Tasmanian emu, D. novaehollandiae diemenensis

Le Souef, the King Island emu D. ate Vieillot, and

the Kangaroo Island emu D. baudinianus Parker, all

of which were smaller than their mainland cousin.

Today, D. novaehollandiae is Australia’s largest

bird, inhabiting many environments including open

woodlands, scrublands, semi-arid and arid regions

across mainland Australia. It is particularly com-

mon in pastoral and cereal-growing areas. Emus are

highly nomadic, and move in response to local

climatic conditions and the availability of water.

The emu is omnivorous, feeding on insects, berries,

fruit and flowers. Breeding occurs between April

and October when the female lays 5–11 eggs. The

male then broods over the eggs and raises the young

until approximately 18 months of age (Pizzey and

Knight 2001).

The emu and kangaroo are currently Australia’s

largest native terrestrial animal prey and are still

hunted by Indigenous people (Roth 1901; Thomson

1939; Gould 1966; 1969a; 1969b; 1981; O’Dea 1991;

O’Connell 2000). Published ethnographic accounts of

Figure 2 The Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae

(photo J. Garvey)


Environmental Archaeology 2011 VOL 16 NO 2 99

emu butchery differ to that observed for the kangaroo.

A notable difference is that macropod hindlimbs

and metatarsals are cracked open to access the

bone marrow (McArthur 1948, 121; O’Connell and

Marshall 1989), while emu longbones always seem to

be discarded intact.

Despite being regular modern prey, emu bones are

very rare in the archaeological record (e.g. Cosgrove

and Allen 2001; Garvey 2006; 2007; Fillios et al.

2010). Emu eggshell has been reported from a

number of Pleistocene and Holocene archaeological

sites and is commonly associated with hearths, e.g.

Tunnel Cave in Western Australia and Lake

Menindee in New South Wales (Dortch 1996;

Cupper and Duncan 2006). Skeletal elements are

known from only a handful of sites. Lancefield

Swamp in Victoria has yielded both G. newtoni and

emu remains, though they comprise ,1% of the

faunal assemblage (Gillespie et al. 1978) and the

relationship between the artefacts and the faunal

remains has never been successfully clarified. The

Cuddie Springs site also contains emu and G. newtoni,

which are associated with the archaeological record

(Field and Boles 1998; Fillios et al. 2010).

The Dromornithidae and Genyornis newtoni

The Dromornithidae or dromornithids were a family

of large flightless birds endemic to Australia.

Sometimes referred to as ‘thunder birds’, ‘demon

ducks’ and ‘mihirungs’, they evolved sometime

during the late Oligocene and disappeared in the late

Pleistocene (Rich 1979). Represented by five genera

and seven species, the dromornithids were a group of

birds with enormous robust bodies, powerful legs and

vestigial wings, with fused scapula and coracoids in

their shoulder girdles and no keel on their sternum

(Murray and Vickers-Rich 2004: 31). The largest

dromornithid, Dromornis stirtoni Owen (Stirton’s

Thunderbird), is represented in late Miocene levels

at Alcoota in the Northern Territory. It was probably

the world’s largest bird at approximately 3 m tall and

weighing 500 kg. Despite the superficial resemblance

of D. stirtoni to the ratites, Murray and Megirian

(1998) determined that they are phylogenetically

related to the Anseriformes: the geese, ducks and

screamers. In effect, the dromornithids including

Genyornis could be referred to as the giant geese of

Tertiary and Quaternary Australia.

Genyornis is the only Quaternary dromornithid

known and is represented by a single taxon G.

newtoni. G. newtoni was first described during the late

1890s from material found at Lake Callabonna in

South Australia (Stirling 1896; Stirling and Zietz

1896; 1890). Since then it has been recorded from

across southern and central mainland Australia. It is

represented by skeletal material, eggshell, gizzard

stones or gastroliths, possible footprints, and argu-

ably in rock art (Rich and Gill 1978; Rich 1979;

Williams 1981; Field and Boles 1998; Miller et al.

1999; Ouzman et al. 2002; Murray and Vickers-Rich

2004).

Little is known of the palaeoecology of G. newtoni

(Rich 1979). Because of their enormous size and very

robust legs, the dromornithids are considered to have

been relatively slow birds, unlike the modern emu and

ostrich, which are slender, flightless birds designed to

run at high speeds. While G. newtoni is considered to

have been heavily built, it has been difficult to estimate

its possible body mass (Murray and Vickers-Rich

2004, 207). Using models and comparisons with living

taxa, Murray and Vickers-Rich (2004, table 18)

established an estimated weight range of 250–350 kg

for G. newtoni, with a conservative mass of 275 kg.

Compared to the size of the emu (30–45 kg), G.

newtoni would have been a considerable target prey

animal for Australian Aborigines.

Economic utility

Economic utility (or economic anatomy) examines

the potential selection and transportation of a prey

animal’s specific body parts based upon the assess-

ment of its relative food value. Economic utility data

is important for constructing models of human

exploitation of animal carcasses in archaeological

assemblages, and provides important indicators of

potential site use (Binford 1978; Thomas and Mayer

1983; Jones and Metcalfe 1988; Metcalfe and Jones

1988; Grayson 1989; Lyman 1992; 1994, 223–34;

Lyman et al. 1992; Reitz and Wing 1999, 213–21).

Since its formulation by Binford (1978) and applica-

tion to caribou (Rangifer tarandus C. H. Smith) and

sheep (Ovis aries Linnaeus), economic utility indices

has been constructed for a variety of other mammals

(e.g. Blumenschine and Caro 1986; Outram and

Rowley-Conwy 1998; Lyman et al. 1992; Savelle

and Friesen 1996; Savelle et al. 1996; Savelle 1997;

Diab 1998). This includes two Australian macropods;

the Red kangaroo Macropus rufus (O’Connell and

Marshall 1989) and the Bennett’s wallaby Macropus

rufogriseus (Garvey 2010). Only two examples of the

economic utility of a bird have been reported in the

literature; the New Zealand kiwi (Apteryx sp.) (as a

proxy for the extinct Moa) (Kooyman 1984), and the

South American rhea (Rhea americana) (Giardi-

na 2006). Here we present the data for another

ratite — the extant Australian emu (Dromaius



novaehollandiae). We argue that the emu data may be

used (with caveats) as a modern analogue for the

economic utility of G. newtoni.

Fatty acid analysis

When meat is low in lipids (fat), then the bone

marrow, typically from the tibia or femur, is

consumed to obtain the essential missing nutrients.

Kangaroos in particular are renowned for being very

lean and, where concentrations of skeletal remains of

kangaroo are found in archaeological sites (e.g.

Garvey 2011), marrow-containing bones are nearly

always found broken. Several different methods

have been used to assess human preference for

specific animal body parts, and these have a direct

bearing on interpreting skeletal representation in

faunal assemblages (Binford 1978; Jones and

Metcalfe 1988; Morin 2007). The amount of lipids

(fats) in animal bone marrow, particularly in

artiodactyls, has received considerable attention

(Bear 1971; Fong 1981; Pond 1988; Cederlund

et al. 1989). Prolonged reliance on lean meat by

humans means a diet high in protein and con-

sequential physiological problems (Speth and

Spielmann 1983; Speth 1987; 1991; Outram 2002).

Fatty meat, bone marrow and carbohydrates contain

more than 50 essential fatty acids that are required

for cellular regulation and growth in humans (Speth

1989; 2010; Hockett and Haws 2003; 2005; Burger

et al. 2005). Importantly, lipids or fat are a

concentrated source of energy, suppling nine kcal

per gram compared to the four kcal per gram

produced by carbohydrates and protein (Speth

1989). Although people may not be consciously

aware of the energy provided by consuming bone

marrow and fatty meats, these products are extre-

mely palatable and provide longer periods of satiety

(Speth 1987; 1989; 1991; 2010; White 2001). Recent

nutritional studies of emu meat have been driven by

the increasing prominence of such products in the

domestic/international farming and game meat

market (Smetana 1993; Berge et al. 1997; Sales and

Horbanczuk 1998; Shao et al. 1999). The analysis

presented here extends these studies to:

1) establish the nutritional value of emu muscle,

marrow and stomach lining via fatty acid analysis;

2) investigate how the relative nutritional value of

each may be reflected in the frequency, distribu-

tion and modification of skeletal elements in the

Australian zooarchaeological record; and

3) determine the nutritional potential of the larger

extinct Genyornis newtoni.

Site setting and study context

The Australian semi-arid zone supports populations of

emus that increase significantly during wet periods with

subsequent declines in times of drought (Brown et al.

2006). Local Aborigines still hunt emu — with cars and

guns — using important knowledge concerning the

practices of butchering and consumption that have

been passed down through the generations. Brett

Cochrane and Chris Boney have paternal affiliation

with the Murawori tribe, and Chris Boney has

connections to the area around Cuddie Springs via

maternal connections to the Weilwan people. They have

routinely hunted, butchered and cooked ‘bush tucker’

(various native fauna) since they were children. It is

important that these practices and methods are

documented for future generations. Our study was

undertaken in the semi-arid south-east of the continent,

approximately 85 km south-east of Brewarrina on

Wirroona Station (near the Cuddie Springs site), New

South Wales (longitude: 146u52’E; latitude: 29u58’S).

Methodology

The emu study was undertaken using two male emus

(Individuals A and B) that were provided by Brett

Cochrane in September 2009. The animals were part

of a large mob of emus (.30) that were resident on

Wirroona Station. The animals were butchered and/

or dissected in the Wirroona Station Woolshed, a

process that began within one hour of the kill.

Traditional butchering: Individual A

Individual A was immediately butchered by Cochrane

and Boney after acquisition and the process docu-

mented by Garvey. Two of the prized portions of the

emu are the stomach lining and the intestines.

Cochrane and Boney refer to the stomach as ‘bundal’;

its traditional name in this region. In this study, the

bundal was collected separately and processed by

removing the contents and the thick layer of associated

fat (Fig. 3A). The bundal is typically cut into small

pieces and fried in a pan. The intestine is called the

‘running guts’. It is often stuffed with vegetables and

breadcrumbs and made into sausages.

The upper hindlimb and pelvic region were plucked

free of feathers to expose the skin. In these particular

birds there was very little (yellow) fat visible beneath

the skin, indicating that the animal was relatively

lean. Cochrane and Boney both commented on the

lack of a visibly thick fat layer, indicating it was too

lean for their purposes and under normal hunting

circumstances would have been abandoned.

When the skin was broken, a layer of yellow fat

was exposed. Several steak-sized portions of meat



(approximately 300–400 gm) were cut from the hind

region of the bird. Each meat portion had a layer of

fat attached to it (Fig. 3B). These portions were

frozen, to be cooked later. The legs were dismem-

bered from the pelvis using a sharp knife. No contact

between the knife and the bones was observed during

this process. The foot was separated from the leg, and

both legs were strung up on poles so that they could

be easily de-fleshed (Fig. 3C). Using a sharp knife,

the muscle was removed from the femur as one large

piece. Again, no contact was observed between the

bone and the knife. Once the butchery had ceased, the

bones were inspected for cut marks, however none

were observed. It was decided that the muscle and fat

from both legs would be made into rissoles; some

vegetables were added to the meat and then processed

using a bench mounted manual kitchen mincer.

Economic utility dissection: Individual B

A controlled economic utility analysis of Individual B

followed the butchering of Individual A. Carcass

weight, body measurements, estimated age and collec-

tion details are presented in Table 1. The method used

to dissect the emu followed Garvey (2010).

The bird was first entirely plucked of feathers and

skinned prior to dissection and the body was divided

into six core units (Table 2):

1) cranial: skull and mandible;

2) axial: vertebrae and ribs minus the cranium;

3) pectoral girdle: sternum, clavicle, coracoid and

scapula;

4) forelimb: humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacar-

pus and digits;

Table 1 Characteristics of the Australian emu, Dromaiusnovaehollandiae, Individual B, used in the economicutility study

Characteristic Emu

Sex MaleAge AdultDate of Death 21.09.09Season of Death SpringCollected Cuddie Springs, NSWElevation (m a.s.l.) 30 m a.s.l.Weight (kg) 42 kgSnout-to-vent (mm) 1500Height (head-to foot) (mm) 1900

Figure 3 Butchering the Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae Individual B, where: A) is the bundal or stomach lin-

ing; B) is the leg being removed from the pelvis with steaks and layers of fat on the bird’s rump visible; and C)

is Brett Cochrane defleshing the leg. In all three photos the yellow fat has been arrowed (photos J. Garvey)



5) pelvic girdle: synsacrum- fusion of the pelvis and

six caudal vertebrae; and pygostyle- fusion of the

final few caudal vertebrae; and

6) hindlimb: femur, fibula, tibiotarsus, tarsometa-

tarsus and digits.

The six core units were then divided into a further 12

individual anatomical units with gross weight, flesh

weight and bone weight recorded for each (Table 3).

Where there were paired elements, only the left was

included in the analysis. The gross weight is the weight

of the whole anatomical unit and includes the flesh, fat

and bone from each element; flesh weight is the weight

of the flesh; and bone weight the weight of the bone

after it has been cleaned (after Garvey 2010). All

internal organs or viscera were removed and indivi-

dually weighed, with the digestive tract cleaned before

being weighed and measured (Table 4). The stomach

(or gizzards) of both the emus were checked for

gizzard stones (gastroliths). Gastroliths were only

found in the stomach of Individual B (Fig. 4A).

The emu Meat Utility Index (MUI) and Modified Meat UtilityIndex (MMUI)

For consistency with other utility index calcula-

tions (Lyman et al. 1992; Savelle and Friesen 1996;

Savelle et al. 1996; Diab 1998; Outram and

Rowley-Conwy 1998; Garvey 2010), the feathers,

viscera and the diaphragm were excluded. The utility

index is the equivalent of the Meat Utility Index

(MUI) following Lyman et al. (1992), where the

weight of the flesh associated with each specific

anatomical unit is measured (Table 5 and Fig. 5A).

The emu MUI was then normalised on a scale of 1–

100 to calculate the %MUI (following Binford 1978;

Lyman et al. 1992) (Table 5). Where the anatomical

unit consisted of a paired element, only the left side

was included in calculating the MUI and %MUI.

The emu Modified Meat Utility Index (MMUI) was

developed (following Lyman et al. 1992, 539–40), to

control for the possibility of the inclusion of ‘riders’

during emu butchery (Binford 1978, 74–75) (Table 6

and Fig. 5B). The MMUI takes into consideration

the likelihood that riders or anatomical units of low

economic value (i.e. those with little meat) that are

associated with elements of high economic impor-

tance, may also be transported. When an anatomical

unit of low value was adjacent to a higher ranked

unit, the two units were averaged, and the average

value assigned to the lower ranked unit. If the lower

ranked unit was situated between two units of higher

ranks, then the values of the higher units were

averaged and this was assigned to the lower rank

unit. The MMUI were then normalised to a scale of

1–100 and referred to as %MMUI (Table 6).

Fatty acid analysis

Samples for fatty acid analysis (,10 g) were collected

from the stomach lining, the hindlimb muscle,

marrow from the proximal tibiotarsus, distal tibio-

tarsus and the metatarsal. Helical or spiral fracture

scars and percussion marks were present on bones

which were broken to extract marrow for assay. All

samples were refrigerated at 4uC until delivered to the

National Measurement Institute (NMI), Melbourne

for FAMES (Fatty Acid Methyl Esters) analyses.

Table 2 The gross weight (gm), flesh weight (gm) andbone weight (gm) for the six core body parts forthe Australian emu, Dromaius novaehollandiae,Individual B (NB only the left side of pairedelements are included)

Body PartGross Wt(gm)

Flesh Wt(gm)

Bone Wt(gm)

1 Cranial 214.3 23.6 190.72 Axial 5150.0 1730.0 3420.03 Pectoral Girdle 86.0 8.0 78.04 Forelimb 85.6 10.4 75.25 Pelvic Girdle 4100.0 600.0 3500.06 Hindlimb 14,400.0 9820.0 4580.0

TOTAL 24,035.9 12,192.0 11,843.9

Table 3 The gross weight (gm), flesh weight (gm) and bone weight (gm) of the 12 anatomical units for the Australianemu, Dromaius novaehollandiae, Individual B (NB only the left side of paired elements are included)

Anatomical Unit Gross Wt (gm) Flesh Wt (gm) Bone Wt (gm)

1 Skull & mandible 214.3 23.6 190.72 Cervical vertebrate 1200.0 470.0 730.03 Thoracic vertebrate 1000.0 200.0 800.04 Lumbar vertebrate 900.0 180.0 720.05 Sternum 220.0 50.0 170.06 Ribs 1830.0 830.0 1000.07 Pectoral Girdle 43.0 4.0 39.08 Wing 42.8 5.2 37.69 Pelvis & sacrum 4100.0 600.0 3500.010 Femur 6300.0 4800.0 1500.011 Tibiotarsus & Fibula 900.0 110.0 790.012 Tarsometatarsus & Digits 900.0 110.0 790.0

TOTAL 17,650.1 7,382.8 10,267.3



Results

Two emus were evaluated in this analysis: Individual

A was butchered using traditional methods; while

Individual B underwent an economic utility dissection

and fatty acid analysis of its meat, marrow and stomach

lining to determine its nutritional content. The results

from Individual A have important implications for our

understanding and interpretation of identifying emu

butchery in the Australian archaeological record. It was

found that the emu stomach lining and intestines were

considered a delicacy, with the meat from around the

pelvis and femur the most sought after. Observations

and subsequent discussions of the butchery further

influenced our selection of samples submitted for fatty

acid analysis, with the inclusion of stomach lining as

well as the meat and marrow.

All raw data from the economic utility dissection of

Individual B is presented in Tables 1–4. Approximately

22 kg meat (53% of total weight) was recovered from a

42 kg emu, with bone constituting 13 kg (32% of total

weight). The Meat Utility Index (MUI) and %MUI

indicated that the femur yielded the most flesh of all the

emu elements, even when riders were taken into

consideration (Table 5). In combination, the femur

and pelvis are the greatest meat-bearing parts of the

animal (Table 6). The relationship between the emu

%MUI and %MMUI was tested using the Spearman

Rank Coefficient, and were found to be moderately

associated (R50?60, P,0?48, Fig. 6). These results

indicate that modification for riders is an important

consideration in the economic utility of the Australian

emu.

In placental ungulates and rodents, and the ma-

rsupial macropod, it has been established that the

amount of unsaturated fats increases distally from the

body core temperature or the heart (Dietz 1946; Meng

et al. 1969; West and Shaw 1975; Turner 1979; Pond

1988, 92; Madrigal and Capaldo 1999; Garvey 2011).

This means that marrow in the distal elements

(towards the hands and feet) will be softer and oilier

and hence more palatable, providing longer periods of

Table 4 The viscera weights (gm) for the Australian emu,Dromaius novaehollandiae, Individual B

Viscera Gross Wt (gm)

1 Brain 10.62 Heart 297.33 Diaphragm 30.04 Lungs 208.25 Trachea 148.06 Spleen 38.07 Liver 735.28 Oesophagus 105.49 Stomach (cleaned) 350.010 Gizzard Stones 41.611 Intestines (cleaned) 1250.012 Kidneys 33.012 Pancreas 20.0

TOTAL 3267.3

Table 5 The Meat Utility Index (MUI) and the %MUI perskeletal element for the Australian emu, Dromaiusnovaehollandiae, Individual B

Anatomical Unit MUI (gm) %MUI

1 Skull & mandible 23.6 0.52 Cervical vertebrate 470.0 9.83 Thoracic vertebrate 200.0 4.24 Lumbar vertebrate 180.0 3.85 Sternum 50.0 1.06 Ribs 830.0 17.37 Pectoral Girdle 4.0 0.18 Forelimb 5.2 0.19 Pelvis & sacrum 600.0 12.510 Femur 4800.0 100.011 Tibiotarsus & Fibula 110.0 2.312 Tarsometatarsus & Digits 110.0 2.3

Figure 4 A) gizzard stones removed from the stomach of the Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae Individual B

(*wood); B) Genyornis or emu gizzard stones from late Pleistocene north-west Victoria (photos J. Garvey)



satiety than leaner foods. For these reasons, people

will predictably target these elements. To accurately

evaluate the nutritional value of the emu, samples of

marrow, muscle and stomach lining were submitted

for Fatty Acid Profile (FAMES) assays; 32 fatty acids

were subsequently identified (Table 7). Importantly,

the pattern of marrow content observed in macropods

and placental mammals was found to mirror that in

the emu (Fig. 7).

DiscussionModern hunting and butchery practices

In the semi-arid region of western NSW, the emu is

still taken on a regular basis for food by Indigenous

Australians. Modern technology means it is usually

hunted from a vehicle using a rifle. Both local farmers

and Indigenous people have commented that the

emu’s curiosity makes it easy prey. An object such as

a piece of cloth or a mirror can be waved from a

Table 6 The Modified Meat Utility Index (MMUI) and the %MMUI flesh weights for the Australian emu Dromaiusnovaehollandiae Individual B

Anatomical Unit Flesh Wt (gm) Parts Averaged MMUI (gm) %MMUI

1 Skull & mandible 23.6 None 23.6 0.52 Cervical vertebrate 470.0 None 470.0 9.83 Thoracic vertebrate 200.0 Thoracic, cervical & lumbar 283.3 5.94 Lumbar vertebrate 180.0 Lumbar & thoracic 190 4.05 Sternum 50.0 Sternum & ribs 440.0 9.26 Ribs 830.0 None 830.0 17.37 Pectoral Girdle 4.0 Pectoral girdle, ribs & sternum 294.7 6.18 Forelimb 5.2 Forelimb & ribs 417.6 8.79 Pelvis & sacrum 600.0 Pelvis & femur 2700.0 56.310 Femur 4800.0 None 4800.0 100.011 Tibiotarsus & Fibula 110.0 Tibiotarsus & femur 2455.0 51.112 Tarsometatarsus & Digits 110.0 None 110.0 2.3

Figure 5 Outline of the Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae skeleton with the frequency of the; A) Meat Utility

index (MUI) and B) the Modified Meat Utility Index (MMUI) (adapted from Minnear and Minnear 1984, fig. 4.1)



stationary vehicle to get its attention, drawing in the

curious animal for a closer look. Such practices were

used by the Garawara people in the Northern

Territory (Pickering 1992). Other methods include

shooting an individual and causing injury so the bird

thrashes around, provoking other individuals to

move in for a closer look.

Emus, once caught and killed, may either be

cooked whole in a traditional ground oven, or

butchered or filleted for rissoles or steaks. The

cooking method is usually dictated by the resources

available. If cooking in a ground oven, a hole about a

metre in depth will be dug to accommodate the entire

bird. A fire will be started adjacent to the hole and

left to burn down until coals have formed. The bird is

then placed in the ground oven, with dirt and coals

placed on top for four to six hours or until cooked.

Due to inclement weather we were unable to cook the

birds in a ground-oven and instead butchered the

bird for rissoles and steak and collected the bundal

(stomach lining).

The documented butchering methods (of Cochrane

and Boney) were similar to those reported by

Pickering (1995). Bovid butchery strategies by the

Garawara people in the Gulf of Carpentaria meant

that large quantities of meat were obtained with

minimal disarticulation and/or damage to the carcass.

Notably, the absence of surface modifications to

bones of G. newtoni at Cuddie Springs (Field and

Boles 1998; Fillios et al. 2010), if scavenged or

butchered, may be explained by reference to the

behaviour of modern Aboriginal groups in the

processing of the emu for meat.

Whilst observing the Gunwinggu hunting buffalo

in Arnhem Land, Altman (1982) found that, in all

circumstances, it was butchered where killed. The

primary reason for this was the enormous size of the

buffalo. The highly prized portions, the liver,

stomach lining, heart and tongue, were usually

claimed by the elders. The buffalo fat was also an

important commodity. Once the fat and meat had

been distributed, it was cooked in individual family/

domestic group ground-ovens. However, when the

next largest sized prey, the kangaroo or emu, was

caught, it was first cooked whole in a ground-oven,

and then distributed (Altman 1982). These observa-

tions lend support to the notion that the very large

goose-like bird G. newtoni could have been butchered

where it was killed and the selected portions removed,

then cooked and/or transported.

Economic utility of the Australian emu

The economic utility study of the emu indicates that

approximately 53% of the total body weight of the bird

consists of muscle flesh, and that this was predomi-

nately found around the birds’ hind limb and pelvis

(Table 5, Fig. 5A). In total, 10?2 kg of meat was

removed from this region of the animal and accounted

for almost 25% of the total body weight. When scaled

up for the much larger G. newtoni, the equivalent

Figure 6 Comparison of the %MUI and the %MMUI for the Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae, Individual B



hind-region portions account for approximately 60–

80 kg of meat from a 275 kg animal. Emu meat is

notoriously rich and fatty, and, despite being described

as lean by Cochrane and Boney, both birds analysed in

this study had a large amount of visible yellow fat

around and within the muscle bundles. It is anticipated

that G. newtoni would also have stored fat in a similar

way. However, as previously stated, G. newtoni had

very robust and powerful legs compared to the gracile

emu, so it is expected that G. newtoni would have

provided more meat in this region compared to the

emu. So, while the emu is a good basis for initial

comparison and development of an economic utility

model for extinct G. newtoni, these results could be

refined and supplemented by future work on the

economic anatomy of its closet living relatives the

Anseriformes (ducks, geese and screamers).

Emu fat is prized amongst Indigenous people:

Gould (1966) commented that the Ngatatjara sought

emu fat as a fixative for decorative pigments and was

rubbed onto wooden artefacts to keep them from

splitting and cracking in the dry desert heat; White

Table 7 Fatty acid composition of the Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae Individual B stomach lining, muscleand bone marrow shown in Fig. 7

StomachLining

Muscle/Meat

TibiotarsusProximal-marrow

TibiotarsusDistal- marrow

Metatarsal-Marrow

Saturated Triglycerides in Extracted FatC4:0 Butyric % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C6:0 Caproic % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C8:0 Caprylic % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C10:0 Capric % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C12:0 Lauric % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C14:0 Mystric % ,0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 ,0.1C15:0 Pendadecanoic % 0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C16:0 Palmitic % 16.5 19.1 16.8 14.8 14.6C17:0 Margaric % 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2C18:0 Stearic % 18.8 12.6 9.6 6.8 6.7C20:0 Arachidic % 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1C22:0 Behenic % 0.4 0.2 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C24:0 Lignoceric % 0.1 ,0.1 0.2 ,0.1 0.1TOTAL UNSATURATED 36.5 32.7 27.4 22.2 21.7Mono-unsaturated Triglycerides in Extracted FatC14:1 Myristoleic % ,0.1 ,0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2C16:1 Palmitoleic % 1.1 2.7 3.2 5.4 6.6C17:1 Heptadecenoic % 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.2 0.2C18:1 Oleic % 18.7 30.0 39.4 36.9 40.6C20:1 Eicosenic % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C22:1 Docosenoic % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C24:1 Nervonic % 0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1TOTAL MONO-UNSATURATED 20.6 33.4 42.5 42.5 47.2Poly-unsaturated Triglycerides in Extracted FatC18:2wg Linoleic % 16.0 15.8 9.7 9.9 9.6Total Fat (Folch) g/100 g 1.0 1.7 58.3 84.0 25.5C18:3w6 gamma-Linolenic % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C18:3w3 alpha-Linolenic % 3.9 7.1 18.5 23.7 20.0C20:2w6 Eicosadienoic % 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2C20:3w6 Eicosatrienoic % 0.6 0.2 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C20:3w3 Eicosatrienoic % 1.4 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3C20:4w6 Arachidonic % 11.6 5.6 0.4 0.3 0.2C20:5w3 Eicosapentaenoic % 2.2 2.9 ,0.1 0.2 0.1C22:2w6 Docosadienoic % ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1Omega 3 Fatty Acids 13.6 11.9 19.3 24.7 20.6Omega 6 Fatty Acids 29.1 21.7 10.2 10.3 10.0C22:4w6 Docosatetraenoic % 0.4 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1C22:5w3 Docosapentaenoic % 5.0 1.3 0.4 0.4 0.2C22:6w3 Docosahexaenoic % 1.0 0.3 ,0.1 ,0.1 ,0.1TOTAL POLY-UNSATURATED 42.5 33.4 29.3 34.8 30.5TOTAL MONO TRANSFATTY ACIDS 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3TOTAL POLY TRANSFATTY ACIDS 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1P:M:S Ratio 1.2:0.6:1.0 1.0:1.0:1.0 1.1:1.6:1.0 1.6:1.9:1.0 1.4:2.2:1.0



(2001, 354, fig. 7) illustrated an ‘unwrapped bundle of

highly-valued golden emu fat’ that was distributed by

a Donydji hunter to his selected kin; while Brett

Cochrane commented that female elders in his family

like to rub emu fat on their faces and hands to protect

their skin from the drying effects of the semi-arid

climate. Today, ‘emu oil’ is commercially available

and is sold worldwide, having both medicinal and

cosmetic purposes (e.g. Yoganathan et al. 2003;

Whitehouse et al. 1988; Bennett et al. 2008;

Howarth et al. 2008). It is clear that emu fat, and

potentially fat from G. newtoni, served many pur-

poses other than dietary.

Besides fat, meat, bundal (stomach) and the

intestines, emus are a source of other desirable

commodities. Emu eggs are commonly collected by

Cochrane, Boney and their families. When the males

are on their nests, usually around May–June during

good seasons, one person will distract the adult bird

while another person will remove some of the eggs.

Not all the eggs are taken, to ensure some remain to

hatch. The eggs are extremely rich and are either

scrambled or made into omelettes. Some eggs are

‘blown’ (the egg white and yolk are removed when a

hole is drilled in either end) so they can be

decoratively carved. The decoration can take several

months to complete. In addition, emu feathers are

known from ethnographic studies to have been used

for ornamentation, woven into mats and belts, and as

shoes. Bone needles were also produced (Roth 1904;

Khan 2003). It is likely that the eggs, feathers and

possibly bone from G. newtoni could have been used

in a similar manner.

Australian zooarchaeological assemblages: amodel for emu (and G. newtoni) bones

The late Su Solomon suggested to us that Indigenous

Australians avoided emu bones due to the presence of

potentially dangerous spicules in the trabecular tissue

(Field and Boles 1998). During the dissection of

Individual B we found that spicules were clearly

present throughout the femur cavity. However,

spicules in the tibiotarsus only appear to occur at

the proximal and distal ends (Fig. 8A). The spicules

were not observed in the shaft, similar to that seen in

mammals such as the kangaroo (Fig. 8B). Whether a

similar situation occurred with respect to G. newtoni

may be difficult to establish. Verification of our

observations via CT scanning or X-ray of the emu leg

will be an important future study. Certainly, the bone

cavities of G. newtoni limb bones at Cuddie Springs

were mostly filled with clay and silt. As such,

determining if G. newtoni also had a similar

morphology is not possible here. G. newtoni speci-

mens from other sites may have preserved the very

fine spicules.

If humans did indeed avoid large bird bones that

contained spicules, despite their potential marrow

yield, then we would expect them to have only

targeted the hollow emu tibiotarsus and avoided the

femur. Kooyman (1984) found that Moa breakage

patterns identified from Owens Ferry in New Zealand

indicated that only the tibiotarsus was split to access

its marrow. Another New Zealand site, Shag River

Mouth (Kooyman 1998) yielded evidence that the

femur was occasionally broken in addition to well

defined systematic breakage of the tibiotarsus for

marrow procurement. Kooyman (1984) further sur-

mised that the overrepresentation of the pelvis,

tarsometatarsus and phalanges at Owens Ferry was

probably attributed to their being transported as

‘riders’ rather than for their marrow-bearing capa-

city. The presence of riders at Owens Ferry supports

the conclusions of the economic utility analysis

presented here where a moderate correlation was

found between the Meat Utility Index and the

Figure 7 Outline of the Australian emu Dromaius novae-

hollandiae skeleton with the percentage of unsa-

turated fatty acids in the marrow (dark circles),

muscle and stomach or bundal lining (lighter cir-

cles) (adapted from Minnear and Minnear 1994,

fig. 4.1)



Modified Meat Utility Index. It supports our

contention that riders are an important consideration

when assessing emu body part representation in

archaeological assemblages.

While emu bone marrow is very high in unsatu-

rated fats, there is already enough fat on the body

(Fig. 3) to make accessing the bone marrow non-

essential. The reverse situation exists for the

Australian macropod. There is so little dissectible

fat available in kangaroos and wallabies that people

needed to supplement their diets by cracking open the

longbones to access the bone marrow (Garvey 2011).

Gastroliths or gizzard stones in the zooarchaeological

record

Due to the lack of grinding teeth, a variety of birds

ingest small stones and/or fragments of wood,

referred to as gastroliths or gizzard stones, into their

gastrointestinal tracts to aid with mechanical diges-

tion. Other animals that also use gastroliths include

crocodiles, alligators, seals, sea lions and dinosaurs.

Both of the emus used in this study had their

stomachs checked for gizzard stones. Interestingly,

only the emu used in the economic utility study

(Individual B) had any present, with 11 gastroliths

collected (Fig. 4A). Of these, two were found to be

pieces of wood that would have eventually been

digested in the bird’s stomach, while the remaining

nine were stone. Gizzard stones are important as they

can potentially be used to identify specific taxa in the

archaeological and palaeontological record (Fig. 4B).

Surprisingly, the emu gizzard stones were not

rounded from mechanical processing in the emu’s

stomach. The lack of rounding contrasts with

expectations based on the morphology of ratite

gastroliths identified elsewhere. Gastroliths have

commonly been described as being rounded, worn

and polished (Anderson et al. 1998). Recent experi-

ments by Wings and Sander (2007) suggested that

perhaps they are not as polished as previously

believed, suggesting that there is significant varia-

bility, conceivably depending on context and local

environmental conditions. The lack of gizzard stones

in Individual A further implies that emus may replace

their gizzard stones on a regular basis. Additional

investigation of emu gizzard stones, and the implica-

tions for G. newtoni, is required.

Conclusion

This paper presents the first modern butchery,

economic utility and fatty acid analysis of the

Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae. It has

important implications for understanding the eco-

nomic role of the emu in modern Indigenous society

and also in the Australian archaeological record. The

study of the emu provides tantalising new evidence

that may be extrapolated to the extinct giant goose of

Australia’s late Pleistocene G. newtoni. Following

from Pickering (1995), the large amounts of easily

accessible meat and fat provided by one G. newtoni

carcass combined with low human population

numbers at this time means that the likelihood of

physical damage to bones would be low. It necessarily

follows that detecting a human signature in the

scavenging or butchering of these birds may be

equally difficult.

Specific outcomes include:

1) The portions of greatest economic value in the

modern emu are the pelvis, hind region, stomach

lining and the intestines. Feathers, eggs and emu

Figure 8 Tibiotarsus of the Australian emu Dromaius novaehollandiae individual B, where A) spicules are only located at

the proximal and distal end of the bone (spicules are arrowed), and B) the shaft of the tibiotarsus does not con-

tain spicules with the marrow resembling that found in mammal longbones (photos J. Garvey)



fat are also important commodities. Hence, it is

predicted that the leg bones of the emu and/or G.

newtoni are the most likely elements to be present

in archaeological consumption or habitation sites.

2) A 42 kg emu yields approximately 10?2 kg of

meat from the pelvis and leg. Therefore, G.

newtoni is likely to have provided 60 to 80 kg of

meat from its hind region alone.

3) Large amounts of meat and fat can be obtained

from an emu with minimal effort; hence G.

newtoni bones are unlikely to have sustained

damage during defleshing.

4) As with the emu, G. newtoni is likely to have had

substantial amounts of fat associated with the

muscle. This means that it was not necessary to

supplement the already fatty meat with the bird’s

fatty marrow. Hence we predict that emu and G.

newtoni longbones are likely to be found complete

and not cracked open.

5) If people did access emu longbones for their large

marrow yield, then given the observed pattern of

spicule distribution we would expect to find only

the tibiotarsus bones and not the femora cracked

open in archaeological sites. Further investigation

is required to determine the distribution of

spicules in G. newtoni longbones.

Acknowledgements

We are very grateful to Margaret and Ted Johnstone

for their generous logistical support in the field and

their continuing friendship. We are indebted to the

Currey and Green families for help, advice and access

to their properties during this work. Grateful thanks

are also due to the Brewarrina Aboriginal

Community and the Walgett Shire Council and the

many volunteers who helped us. Brad Orcher

provided field assistance and made great rissoles

from the emu meat. The authors acknowledge the

facilities as well as scientific and technical assistance

from the staff in the Australian Microscopy and

Microanalysis Research Facility (AMMRF) and the

Australian Centre for Microscopy and Microanalysis

at the University of Sydney under whose auspices this

work was undertaken. The project was funded by the

Australian Research Council (DP0557923) and

the University of Sydney. This paper is dedicated to

the late Su Solomon, who first brought to our

attention the lack of cracked emu longbones in the

Australian archaeological record.

ReferencesAllen, J. (ed.) 1996. Report of the Southern Forests Archaeological

Project, Volume 1. Bundoora: School of Archaeology, La Trobe

University.

Altman, J. C. 1982. Hunting buffalo in North-Central Arnhem Land: a

case of rapid adaptation among Aborigines. Oceania 52, 274–85.

Anderson, A., Worthy, T. and McGovern-Wilson, R. 1998. Moa

remains and taphonomy, pp. 200–13 in Anderson, A., Allingham,

A. and Smith, I. (eds.), Shag River Mouth: The Archaeology of an

Early Southern Maori Village. Canberra: The Australian National

University.

Bear, G. D. 1971. Seasonal trends in fat levels of pronghorns,

Antilocapra americana, in Colorado. Journal of Mammalogy 52,

583–89.

Bennett, D. C., Code W. E., Godin, D. V. and Cheng, K. M. 2008.

Comparison of the antioxidant properties of emu oil with other

avian oils. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48,

1345–50.

Berge, P., Lepetit, J., Renerre, M. and Touraille, C. 1997. Meat quality

traits in the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae) as affected by muscle

type and animal age. Meat Science 45, 209–21.

Binford, L. R. 1978. Nunamuit Ethnoarchaeology. New York:

Academic Press.

Blumenschine, R. J. and Caro, T. M. 1986. Unit flesh weights of some

East African bovids. African Journal of Ecology 24, 273–86.

Brown, O., Field, F. and Letnic, M. 2006. Variation in the taphonomic

effect of scavengers in semi-arid Australia linked to rainfall and

the El Nino Southern Oscillation. International Journal of

Osteoarchaeology 16, 165–76.

Burger, O., Hamilton, M. J. and Walker, R. 2005. The prey as patch

model: optimal handling of resources with diminishing returns.

Journal of Archaeological Science 32, 1147–58.

Cederlund, G. N., Bergstrom, R. L. and Danell, K. 1989. Seasonal

variation in mandible marrow fat in moose. Journal of Wildlife

Management 53, 587–92.

Cosgrove, R. and Allen, J. 2001. Prey choice and hunting strategies in

the Late Pleistocene: evidence from southwest Tasmania, pp. 397–

429 in Anderson, A., Lilley, I. and O’Connor, S. (eds.), Histories

of Old Ages: Essays in Honour of Rhys Jones. Canberra: Pandanus

Books.

Cupper, M. L. and Duncan, J. 2006. Last glacial megafaunal death

assemblage and early human occupation at Lake Menindee,

southeastern Australia. Quaternary Research 66, 332–41.

Davidson, I. 2010. The colonization of Australia and its adjacent

islands and the evolution of modern cognition. Current

Anthropology 51 (Supplement 1), s177–s189.

Denham, T., Fullagar, R. and Head, L. 2009. Plant exploitation on

Sahul: from colonisation to the emergence of regional specialisa-

tion during the Holocene. Quaternary International 202, 29–40.

Dietz, A. A. 1946. Composition of normal bone marrow in rabbits.

Journal of Biological Chemistry 165, 505–11.

Diab, M. C. 1998. Economic utility of the ringed seal (Phoca hispida):

implications for Arctic archaeology. Journal of Archaeological

Science 25, 1–26.

Dodson, J. R., Fullagar, R., Furby, J. H. and Prosser, I. P. 1993.

Humans and megafauna in a Late Pleistocene environment at

Cuddie Springs, northwestern New South Wales. Archaeology in

Oceania 28, 93–99.

Dortch, J. 1996. Late Pleistocene and recent Aboriginal occupation at

Tunnel Cave and Witchcliffe Rock Shelter, Naturaliste Region,

south-western Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 1996(2),

51–60.

Field, J. 2006. Trampling the Pleistocene: does taphonomy matter at

Cuddie Springs? Australian Archaeology 63, 9–20.

Field, J. and Dodson, J. 1999. Late Pleistocene megafauna and human

occupation at Cuddie Springs, southeastern Australia. Proceedings

of the Prehistoric Society 65, 275–301.

Field, J. H. and Boles, W. E. 1998. Genyornis newtoni and Dromaius

novaehollandiae at 30,000 b.p. in central northern New South

Wales. Alcheringa 22, 177–88.

Field, J., Fillios, M. and Wroe, S. 2008. Chronological overlap between

humans and megafauna in Sahul (Pleistocene Australia–New

Guinea): a review of the evidence. Earth Science Reviews 89, 97–

115.

Field, J. H., Wroe, S., Trueman, C. N., Garvey, J. and Wyatt-Spratt,

S. J. 2011. Looking for the archaeological signature in Australian

megafaunal extinctions. Quaternary International. DOI:10.1016/

j.quaint.2011.04013.



Fillios, M., Field, J. and Charles, B. 2010. Investigating human and

megafauna co-occurrence in Australian prehistory: mode and

causality in fossil accumulations at Cuddie Springs. Quaternary

International 211, 123–43.

Fong, D. W. 1981. Seasonal variation of marrow fat content from

Newfoundland moose. Journal of Wildlife Management 45, 545–

48.

Garvey, J. 2006. Preliminary zooarchaeological interpretations from

Kutikina Cave, southwest Tasmania. Australian Aboriginal Studies

2006(1), 58–63.

Garvey, J. 2007. Surviving an Ice Age: the zooarchaeology from SW

Tasmania. Palaios 22(6), 583–85.

Garvey, J. 2010. Economic anatomy of the Bennett’s wallaby

(Macropus rufogriseus): implications for understanding human

hunting strategies in late Pleistocene Tasmania. Quaternary

International 211, 144–56.

Garvey, J. 2011. Bennett’s wallaby (Macropus rufogriseus) bone

marrow quality vs quantity: evaluating human decision making

and seasonal occupation in late Pleistocene Tasmania. Journal of

Archaeological Science 38, 763–83.

Giardina, M. 2006. Anatomıa economica de Rheidae. Intersecciones en

Antropologia 7, 263–76.

Gillespie, R., Horton, D. R., Ladd, P., Macumber, P. G., Rich, T. H.,

Thorne, R. and Wright, R. V. S. 1978. Lancefield Swamp and the

extinction of the Australian megafauna. Science 200, 1044–48.

Gould, R. A. 1966. Notes on hunting, butchering, and sharing of game

among the Ngatatjara and their neighbours in the West Australian

desert. Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers 36, 41–46.

Gould, R. A. 1969a. Yiwara: Foragers of the Australian Desert.

London: Collins.

Gould, R. A. 1969b. Subsistence behaviour among the Western Desert

Aborigines of Australia. Oceania 38, 253–74.

Gould, R. A. 1981. Comparative ecology of food-sharing in Australia

and northwest California, pp. 422–54 in Harding, R. S. O. and

Teleki, G. (eds.), Omnivorous Primates: Gathering and Hunting in

Human Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.

Grayson, D. K. 1989. Bone transport, bone destruction, and reverse

utility curves. Journal of Archaeological Science 16, 643–52.

Hockett, B. and Haws, J. A. 2003. Nutritional ecology and diachronic

trends in Paleolithic diet and health. Evolutionary Anthropology

12, 211–16.

Hockett, B. and Haws, J. A. 2005. Nutritional ecology and the human

demography of Neanderthal extinction. Quaternary International

137, 21–34.

Howarth, G. S., Lindsay, R. J., Butler, R. N. and Geier, M. S. 2008.

Can emu oil ameliorate inflammatory disorders affecting the

gastrointestinal system? Australian Journal of Experimental

Agriculture 48, 1276–79.

Johnson, C. N. 2005. What can the data on late survival of Australian

megafauna tell us about the cause of their extinction? Quaternary

Science Reviews 24, 2167–72.

Jones, K. T. and Metcalfe, D. 1988. Bare bones archaeology: bone

marrow indices and efficiency. Journal of Archaeological Science

15, 415–23.

Khan, K. 2003. Catalogue of the Roth collection of aboriginal artefacts

from North Queensland, Volume 3. Items collected from

McDonnell Electric Telegraph Office, McIvor River, Mapoon

and the Pennefather and Wenlock Rivers, Maytown, Mentana,

Mitchell River, Morehead River, Moreton Electric Telegraph

Office and Musgrave, in 1897–1903. Technical Reports of the

Australian Museum 17, 1–106.

Kooyman, B. 1984. Moa utilisation at Owens Ferry, Otago, New

Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Archaeology 6, 47–57.

Kooyman, B. 1998. Moa hunting and butchery, pp. 214–22 in

Anderson, A., Allingham, A. and Smith, I. (eds.), Shag River

Mouth: The Archaeology of an Early Southern Maori Village.

Canberra: The Australian National University.

Lyman, R. L. 1992. Anatomical considerations of utility curves in

zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 19, 7–22.

Lyman, R. L. 1994. Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Lyman, R. L., Savelle, J. M. and Whitridge, P. 1992. Derivation and

application of a meat utility index for phocid seals. Journal of


McArthur, M. 1948. Food consumption and dietary levels of groups of

Aborigines living on naturally occurring foods, pp. 90–135 in

Mountford, C. P. (ed.), Records of the American-Australian

Scientific Expedition to Arnhem Land Volume 2: Anthropology

and Nutrition. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.

Madrigal, T. C. and Capaldo, S. D. 1999. White-Tailed Deer marrow

yields and Late Archaic Hunter-Gatherers. Journal of


Meng, M. S., West, G. C. and Irving, L. 1969. Fatty acid composition

of caribou bone marrow. Comparative Biochemistry and

Physiology 30, 187–91.

Metcalfe, D. and Jones, K. T. 1988. A reconsideration of animal body-

part utility indices. American Antiquity 53, 486–504.

Miller, G. H., Magee, J. W., Johnson, B. J., Fogel, M. L., Spooner,

N. A., McCulloch, M. T. and Ayliffe, L. K. 1999. Pleistocene

extinction of Genyornis newtoni: human impact on Australian

megafauna. Science 283, 205–08.

Minnear, P. and Minnear, M. 1994. The Emu Farmer’s Handbook.

Texas: Induna Company.

Morin, E. 2007. Fat composition and Nunamiut decision-making: a

new look at the marrow and bone grease indices. Journal of


Murray, P. F. and Megirian, D. 1998. The skull of the dromornithid

birds: anatomical evidence for their close relationship to

Anseriformes. Records of the South Australian Museum 31, 51–97.

Murray, P. F. and Vickers-Rich, P. 2004. Magnificent Mihirungs: The

Colossal Flightless Birds of the Australian Dreamtime.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

O’Connell, J. F. 2000. An emu hunt, pp. 172–81 in Anderson, A. and

Murray, T. (eds), Australian Archaeologist: Collected Papers in

Honour of Jim Allen (Division of Archaeology and Natural

History, Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies). Canberra:

Australian National University.

O’Connell, J. F. and Allen, J. 2004. Dating the colonization of Sahul

(Pleistocene Australia-New Guinea): a review of recent research.

Journal of Archaeological Science 31, 835–53.

O’Connell, J. F. and Marshall, B. 1989. Analysis of kangaroo body part

transport among the Alyawara of Central Australia. Journal of


O’Dea, K. 1991. Traditional diet and food preferences of Australian

aboriginal hunter-gatherers. Proceedings of the Royal Society of

London, Series B Biological Sciences 334, 233–40.

Outram, A. K. 2002. Bone fracture and within-bone nutrients: an

experimentally based method for investigating levels of marrow

extraction, pp. 51–64 in Miracle, P. and Milner, N. (eds.),

Consuming Passions and Patterns of Consumption. Cambridge:

McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.

Outram, A. and Rowley-Conwy, P. 1998. Meat and marrow utility

indices for horse (Equus). Journal of Archaeological Science 25,

839–49.

Ouzman, S., Tacon, P. S. C., Mulvaney, K. and Fullagar, R. 2002.

Extraordinary engraved bird track from North Australia: extinct

fauna, dreaming being and/or aesthetic masterpiece? Cambridge

Archaeological Journal 12, 103–12.

Pickering, M. 1992. Garawa methods of game hunting, preparation and

cooking. Records of the South Australian Museum 26, 9–23.

Pickering, M. 1995. Notes on Aboriginal hunting and butchering of

cattle and buffalo. Australian Archaeology 40, 17–21.

Pike-Tay, A., Cosgrove, R. and Garvey, J. 2008. Systematic seasonal

land use by late Pleistocene Tasmanian Aborigines. Journal of


Pizzey, G. and Knight, F. 2001. The Field Guide to the Birds of

Australia. Sydney: Angus and Robertson.

Pond, C. M. 1988. The Fats of Life. Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge.

Rich, P. 1979. The Dromornithidae, an extinct family of large ground

birds endemic to Australia. Bulletin of the Bureau of Mineral

Resources, Geology and Geophysics 184, 1–190.

Rich, P. and Gill, E. 1978. Possible Dromornithid footprints from

Pleistocene dune sands of southern Victoria, Australia. The Emu

76, 221–23.

Reitz, E. J. and Wing, E. S. 1999. Zooarchaeology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Roth, W. E. 1901. Food: its search, capture, and preparation. North

Queensland Ethnography Bulletin 3, 7–31.



Roth, W. E. 1904. North Queensland Ethnography Bulletin 7: Domestic

Implements, Arts and Manufactures. Brisbane: Government

Printer.

Sales, J. and Horbanczuk, J. 1998. Ratite meat. World’s Poultry Science

Journal 54, 59–67.

Savelle, J. M. 1997. The role of architectural utility in the formation of

zooarchaeological whale bone assemblages. Journal of


Savelle, J. M. and Friesen, T. M. 1996. An odontocete (Cetacea) meat

utility index. Journal of Archaeological Science 23, 713–21.

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

application of an otariid utility index. Journal of Archaeological

Science 23, 705–12.

Shao, C. H., Avens, J. S., Schmidt, G. R. and Maga, J. A. 1999.

Functional, sensory, and microbiological properties of restruc-

tured beef and emu steaks. Journal of Food Science 64, 1052–54.

Smetana, P. 1993. Emu Farming: Background Information. Department

of Agriculture Western Australia.

Speth, J. D. 1987. Early hominid subsistence strategies in seasonal

habitats. Journal of Archaeological Science 14, 13–29.

Speth, J. D. 1989. Early Hominid hunting and scavenging: the role of

meat as an energy source. Journal of Human Evolution 18, 329–43.

Speth, J. D. 1991. Nutritional constraints and Late Glacial adaptive

transformations: the importance of non-protein energy sources,

pp. 169–78 in Barton, N., Roberts, A. J. and Roe, D. A. (eds.),

The Late Glacial in North-West Europe: Human Adaptation and

Environmental Change at the End of the Pleistocene (CBA

Research Report No. 77). Council for British Archaeology:

London.

Speth, J. D. 2010. The Paleoanthropology and Archaeology of Big-Game

Hunting: Protein, Fat, or Politics? Springer: New York.

Speth, J. D. and Spielmann, K. A. 1983. Energy source, protein

metabolism, and hunter-gatherer subsistence strategies. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 2, 1–31.

Stirling, E. C. 1896. The newly discovered extinct gigantic bird of South

Australia. Ibis 7, 593.

Stirling, E. C. and Zietz, A. H. 1896. Preliminary notes on Genyornis

newtoni: a new genus and species of fossil struthious bird found at

Lake Callabonna, South Australia. Transactions and Proceedings

of the Royal Society of South Australia 20, 171–90.

Stirling, E. C. and Zietz, A. H. 1890. Fossil remains at Lake

Callabonna. Part 1: Genyornis Newtoni: a new genus and species

of struthious bird. Memoirs of the Royal Society of South Australia

1, 41–80.

Summerhayes, G., Leavesley, M., Fairbairn, A., Mandui, H., Field, J.,

Ford, A., and Fullagar, R. 2010. Human adaptation and plant use

in highland New Guinea 49,000 to 44,000 years ago. Science 330,

78–81.

Sutton, A., Mountain, M.-J., Aplin, K., Bulmer, S. and Denham, T.

2009. Archaeozoological records for the Highlands of New

Guinea: a review of current evidence. Australian Archaeology 69,

41–58.

Thomas, D. H. and Mayer, D. 1983. Behavioural faunal analysis of

selected horizons, in Thomas, D. H. (ed.), The archaeology of

Monitor Valley 2: Gatecliff Shelter. Anthropological Papers of the

American Museum of Natural History 58, 353–90.

Thomson, D. F. 1939. The seasonal factor in human culture: illustrated

from the life of a contemporary nomadic group. Proceedings of the

Prehistoric Society 5, 209–22.

Turner, J. C. 1979. Adaptive strategies of selective fatty acid deposition

in the bone marrow of desert bighorn sheep. Comparative

Biochemistry and Physiology 62A, 599–604.

West, G. and Shaw, D. 1975. Fatty acid composition of Dall sheep

bone marrow. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 50B, 599–

601.

White, N. G. 2001. In search of the traditional Australian Aboriginal

diet — then and now, pp. 343–59 in Allen, J. (ed.), Rhys Jones’

Festschrift Volume of Essays. Department of Archaeology and

Natural History Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,

ANU: Canberra.

Whitehouse, M. W., Turner, A. G., Davis, C. K. C. and Roberts, M. S.

1998. Emu oils(s): a source of non-toxic transdermal anti-

inflammatory agents in Aboriginal medicine. lnflammopharmacol-

ogy 6, 1–8.

Williams, D. L. G. 1981. Genyornis eggshell (Dromornithidae; Aves)

from the Late Pleistocene of South Australia. Alcheringa 5, 133–

40.

Wings, O. and Sander, P. M. 2007. No gastric mill in sauropod

dinosaurs: new evidence from analysis of gastrolith mass and

function in ostriches. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 274, 635–

40.

Wroe, S. and Field, J. 2006. A review of the evidence for a human role

in the extinction of Australian Megafauna and an alternative

explanation. Quaternary Science Reviews 25, 2692–2703.

Wroe, S., Field, J., Fullagar, R. and Jermiin, L. 2004. Megafaunal

extinction in the Late Quaternary and the global overkill

hypothesis. Alcheringa 28, 291–332.

Wurster, C. M., Bird, M. I., Bull, I. D., Creed, F., Bryant, C., Dungait,

J. A. J. and Paz, V. 2010. Forest contraction in north equatorial

Southeast Asia during the Last Glacial Period. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences 107, 15509—11.

Yoganathan, S., Nicolosi, R., Wilson, T., Handelman, G., Scollin, P.,

Tao, R., Binford, P. and Orthoefer, F. 2003 Antagonism of croton

oil inflammation by topical emu oil in CD-1 mice. Lipids 38, 603–

07.



Emu butchery and economic utility: Implications for understanding Australian zooarchaeology and megafauna extinctions.

Documents