Mark Mitchell’s (Mitchell 2006) assessment of the theoretical legacy of the Smithsonian Institution’s Missouri Basin Project does not show that research in the Great Plains has made a particularly small contribution to archeological theory. The sparse population, dispersed professional community, and paucity of graduate archeology programs in the region contribute to its archeological research patterns.

Animal processing at some level accompanies all human-induced bison kill sites in North America. But, does the level or location of this processing suggest the location and kind of kill—especially jump versus non-jump bison kill sites? Byerly et al. (2005) suggest the Bone Bed 2 deposits at Bonfire Shelter, Texas did not result from the use of the site as a bison jump during Paleoindian times. To better understand these issues, a brief historical context of the work at Bonfire is presented with a discussion supporting the original interpretation that Bonfire Shelter is a stratified bison jump site.

Mark Mitchell's analysis of the legacy of the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) identified the direct historical approach as one discourse that shaped the MBP legacy. While that identification is certainly correct, the discussion is too limited in two ways. First, the use of the direct historical approach for tracing ethnicity was more limited than is generally recognized. Second, and more seriously, the rich documentary and ethnographic record of the Plains Village lifeway became a too readily used source of specific analogies for reading the archaeological record. Theory became irrelevant. Some of the numerous inaccuracies this produced are only recently being corrected.

In Byerly et al. (2005) we explored the hypothesis that the Paleoindian component at Bonfire Shelter was the result of a jump kill. Our efforts involved extensive mapping and GIS analysis, a re-examination of the Paleoindian-age bison assemblage, and consideration of the geomorphic history of the canyon in which the site is located. We concluded that the preponderance of evidence indicated the Paleoindian-age bison remains at Bonfire Shelter marked a processing site as Binford (1978) suggested, rather than a primary kill locality as originally interpreted (Dibble 1968). Bement (this issue) raises several concerns about our analysis and discussion, including that we omit pertinent information relevant to the interpretation of the site. His comments, however, result from a misreading of our discussion and a misconstrual of the data set, as we explain in this response.

In their comments, Bleed and Roper acknowledge the profound effects routine research practices have had on the conceptual development of Plains archaeology, though both disagree with aspects of my analysis. Bleed disputes my characterization of current theory in Plains archaeology but fails to appreciate the extent to which Plains archaeology continues to emphasize culture historical research. Bleed further argues that there are few connections between the research practices established by the Missouri Basin Project (MBP) and those of more recent Plains archaeologists. However, such a stance discounts the powerful influence of construct paradigms or exemplars on the development of method and theory. Roper provides valuable insights into the role played by direct historic analogy in the development of theory in Plains archaeology. However, her analysis glosses over the fact that all aspects of archaeological research are informed by theoretical propositions, whether explicitly stated or merely assumed.