PUSHING LIMITS AND FINDING INTERPRETIVE BALANCE: A REPLY TO MONKS AND ORCHARD.

We reiterate the basis for our interpretation of the Namu site as a winter-village settlement from at least 7000 B.P., and note that Monks and Orchard do not provide an alternative interpretation of the available data. They also mistakenly suggest an assertion on our part that alt Northwest Coast villages were dependent on a salmon-based storage economy by 1000 B.P. We never argued for this point. Finally, Monks and Orchard offer a lengthy defense of methods for seasonality estimation, which we support. We used those same methods, and continue to support their refinement and application toward understanding the nature of seasonal activity at Namu. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]