Response to critique of the claim of cannibalism at Cowboy Wash

The original authors of Billman et al. (2000) are joined by three other ana lysts from the Cowboy Wash research team to respond to the critique of this article by Dongoske et al. (2000). Dongoske and his coauthors state that B illman et al. (2000) failed to test alternative hypotheses or to consider a lternative explanations for the findings at 5MT10010 and similar sites. The original authors point out that alternative hypotheses were examined and r ejected, leaving a violent episode of cannibalism as the most plausible exp lanation for the remains found at 5MT10010. Dongoske et al. also question m any aspects of the osteological, archaeological, coprolite, and biochemical analyses that were presented in the 5MT10010 study. Our response addresses issues of data collection, procedure, and interpretation, and attempts to clarify some points that were not fully developed in the original text due to length restrictions.