Abstract
The debate regarding the underlying motivations for large game hunting in western North America has ensued in American Antiquity for over a decade. Empirical support for the original argument for costly signaling hunting by Hildebrandt and McGuire partly derived from a regional synthesis of faunal data from southeastern California that demonstrated a spike in artiodactyl hunting during the Middle Archaic. This spike is primarily driven by the faunal assemblage from a single, highelevation site located in the White Mountains of southeastern California. It was suspected that this anomaly was a reflection of analytical differences in taxonomic identifications among faunal analysts. Contrary to expectations, it was discovered that taxonomic identifications were conservative. Instead, the previously reported number of identified specimens for artiodactyls was calculated in a manner inconsistent with other analyses in the region. When corrected, the regional data show a pattern of faunal exploitation that is consistent with expectations derived from optimal foraging theory.