Mesoudi and O’Brien (2008) describe an experimental simulation of the cultural transmission of projectile-point technology. They base some of their conclusions on the results of tests of correlation. I explain why their use of correlation is improper, and hence that the validity of their conclusions is questionable at best. To support that assertion, I provide simulations to demonstrate that spurious correlations arise in the situations where the authors use correlation. I also describe analysis methods appropriate for their data.

Lumps of burned clay recovered from the Lepold site (23RI59) include four mud wasp nests deposited 5500 to 6200 BP. or perhaps slightly earlier. These provide indirect evidence of structures at the site. Existence of structures would be consistent with intensive occupation and increased occupation episode length evident at this site and elsewhere in the central Mississippi valley during the Middle Holocene.

Potter criticizes our experimental study of the roles played by indirect bias and guided variation in shaping prehistoric Great Basin projectile point variation. His criticisms are technically correct from the standpoint of statistical convention, but he fails to understand the theoretical rationale of our study. Without such an understanding, his assertion that our conclusions are questionable is incorrect. Here we point out again (1) how our experimental work bridges the gap between cultural-transmission theory and the empirical record and (2) why our conclusions are indeed valid.

McCall (2010) uses data collected by Pager (1971) to argue for geographically controlled differences in the uses of painted rock art sites in the Didima Gorge, South Africa. We point out fundamental errors in the ascription of sites to particular categories that undermine the conclusions he reached. We conclude that there is no evidence to suggest different uses of painted rock shelters in the Didima Gorge.

Beck and Jones (2010) assert that Clovis “was not first in the Intermountain West”; Western Stemmed points are older than fluted points; and the stemmed point makers derived from a hypothetical pre-13,000 cal B.P. Pacific Coast migration. A less tendentious review of the data suggests instead that Western Stemmed follows Clovis in this region, as previously inferred by Willig and Aikens.

In their comment, Challis et al. (this issue) find fault with several aspects of my earlier paper on rock paintings in the Didima Gorge, South Africa (McCall 2010). In this reply, I acknowledge that they may be correct in certain assertions concerning rock shelter altitudes. I argue, however, that the significance of these “altitude adjustments” for my broader arguments concerning variability in San rock art site use patterns is minor. I close by considering more substantive challenges for the use of quantitative analytical methods in the examination rock art assemblage composition and landscape-scale variation.

Fiedel and Morrow challenge our argument that Clovis technology originated in the southern Plains or Southeast and from there was carried by populations migrating north. Upon entering the Intermountain West relatively late, they encountered a population utilizing a different technology (Western Stemmed), the latter having arrived independently from the Pacific coast. Fiedel and Morrow offer arguments in favor of Clovis-first in the Intermountain West and coastal California and against the coastal route, Clovis origins in the south, and technological differences between Clovis and Western Stemmed. We evaluate these arguments and find their supporting evidence, when provided, meager and unconvincing.