Megan Kassabaum has developed a useful approach for interpreting feasting remains, but its application to the Feltus site demonstrates that modifications need to be made. In particular, the characterization of competitive feasting is too simplistic, and her model does not include work types of feasts, which may be responsible for the remains at the Feltus site. The interpretation of feasting at the Feltus site as resulting from social solidarity needs of a dispersed egalitarian society appear questionable on the basis of a high incidence of special meat, the occurrence of smoking pipes, monumental architecture, and indications of possible human sacrifices.

Red Bird was a Cherokee murdered at the Red Bird River Petroglyph site (15Cy51) and buried at the Red Bird River Rockshelter (15Cy52) during the late eighteenth century, where he left an important record of traditional petroglyphs. His legacy is key to understanding the origins of Sequoyah's Cherokee Syllabary and its relationship to rock art. Personal testimonies of Red Bird's descendants are supported by primary documents and archaeological evidence, including the letters of Sequoyah's maternal uncle, John Watts, and prototypes of Cherokee Syllabary characters engraved at 15Cy52 in 1808, when members of Sequoyah's matrilineal family resided nearby.

Despite new arguments by Tankersley and Weeks that we misinterpreted petroglyph engravings and ignored site formation processes at the Red Bird River Shelter in Kentucky (15CY52), we remain convinced that there is no evidence for Cherokee Syllabary writing at the site. The petroglyphs are clearly not symbols present in any version of the Cherokee Syllabary. There is no empirical evidence for any site formation processes that have altered the shelter or its petroglyphs in the ways they suggest. There is still no evidence that Sequoyah ever spent any time in the vicinity of Red Bird River Shelter.

My recent article offered a model by which to better classify feasts by distinguishing between archaeological correlates of group size and sociopolitical competition. Applying this model to remains from a precontact mound site, I highlighted feasting's role in promoting group solidarity in the American South. Hayden's comment argues that my scheme does not accommodate certain types of events, and it questions my noncompetitive interpretation. I address both critiques here by citing further data from the Southeast, emphasizing the importance of interpreting feasts within their cultural and historical contexts, and highlighting Hayden's continued reliance on long-standing assumptions about feasting and monumental architecture.