Prentiss et al. (2003) have argued for a relatively recent, short (1600–1100 B.P.), and noncontinuous occupation of large villages and large housepits on the British Columbian Plateau. They argue that these developments resulted from climatically induced resource impoverishment in the region. I maintain that their database is inadequate for such conclusions and that their interpretations are in conflict with dates that I obtained from large housepits as well as with the distribution of early point styles (dating from 1200–4800 B.P.) that concentrate in the rim middens of large and medium-sized housepits. These data indicate that large villages and housepits that emerged by 2600 B.P., or earlier, were continuously occupied and corresponded more to the development of collector-based technologies rather than any climatic deteriorations or the introduction of the bow and arrow.

Brian Hayden argues that our analysis of Keatley Creek stratigraphy and dates offers inaccurate conclusions. Although our data demonstrate that the village appeared late and was somewhat unstable, Hayden continues to support a model of early emergence and high stability. Hayden offers no new data to support his position. Consequently, we argue that there is no reason to reject our revised view.

In a recent volume of American Antiquity, Hodder and Cessford (2004) suggested that various aspects of the domestic architecture at Çatalhöyük reflect a concern for the construction of social memory and social regulations through daily, habituated practices. The authors note that domestic architecture provides a locus for the construction of social memory in ethnographically documented “house societies” (e.g., Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995; Joyce and Gillespie 2000) and imply that a similar pattern was prevalent during the Neolithic at Çatalhöyük. While not disputing the general premises of this suggestion, I argue that ethnoarchaeological work in two house societies in Indonesia ( West Sumba and Tana Toraja) can provide further, more detailed insight and some alternate perspectives on the social system of Neolithic Çatalhöyük, particularly in relation to notions of “daily practice” and the critical role of feasting in these societies.

This response to Adams’ comment regarding the interpretation of Çatalhöyük, a 9000 year old tell site in central Turkey, notes some important differences between Neolithic Çatalhöyük and the Indonesian societies described by Adams. Ritual was closely linked to daily practices in all houses at Çatalhöyük. While it is argued that socialization through daily routines in houses was a main mechanism for creating and maintaining social relationships at Çatalhöyük, it is also accepted that feasting was a very central part of social and political strategies. However the role of feasting needs to be situated within specific sets of historical meanings. Similarly, a contextual analysis of the circulation of human heads suggests that those at Çatalhöyük were more likely ancestral heads than victim or enemy heads.