Zooarchaeological evidence has often been called on to help researchers determine prehistoric relative abundances of elk (Cervus elaphus) in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Some interpret that evidence as indicating elk were abundant; others interpret it as indicating elk were rare. Wildlife biologist Charles Kay argues that prehistoric faunal remains recovered from archaeological sites support his contention that aboriginal hunters depleted elk populations throughout the Intermountain West, including the Yellowstone area. To support his contention Kay cites differences between modern (...) and prehistoric relative abundances of artiodactyls, age and sex demographics of ungulates in the prehistoric record indicating selective predation of prime-age females, and a high degree of fragmentation of artiodactyl bones indicating humans were under nutritional stress. Kay’s data on taxonomic abundances are time and space averaged and thus mask much variation in elk abundances. When these data are not lumped they suggest that elk were at some times, in some places, as abundant as they are today. Data on the age-sex demography of artiodactyl prey are ambiguous or contradict Kay’s predictions. Bone fragmentation data are variously nonexistent or ambiguous. The zooarchaeological implications of Kay’s aboriginal overkill hypothesis have not yet undergone rigorous testing. (shrink)

In this article I critique Charles Kay’s aboriginal overkill hypothesis, which states that Native Americans numbered 100 million or more in precolumbian North America, extensively humanized the landscape, and suppressed wildlife numbers, thus allowing wildlife browse to proliferate. By examining Kay’s source use and pertinent information, I find that he makes four kinds of significant mistakes: exaggerations, failure to provide necessary data, errors of omission, and errors of logic. Through examples I illustrate that Kay’s errors compromise his hypothesis. Kay uses (...) Yellowstone National Park as his primary example of such a humanized area; in contrast, I suggest it is a relatively pristine area. (shrink)