Our recent paper demonstrated that radiocarbon assays sampled from wood charcoal were not systematically skewed when compared to non-wood samples from the same site. This suggests that the “old wood” problem may not be quite as problematic in the temperate Middle Ohio Valley as many suspect. In their comment, Hart and Nolan missed our broader point and mischaracterized our findings. Specifically, we did not suggest that our findings apply to the entirety of eastern North America, nor did we make analytical errors. A thorough reading of our paper clearly supports the following rebuttal. Our main point is that scholars should think twice before discarding radiocarbon dates from wood charcoal, for in some contexts they are the most useful means of determining important chronological information. Despite the suggestion to the contrary, “old wood” concerns do form elements of several hygiene protocols, including Nolan's (2012).