Response to Comment on "Permanent human occupation of the central Tibetan Plateau in the early Holocene".

Abstract

Zhang <i>et al</i> contest that Chusang was part of an annual mobility round that "more likely" included seasonal use of high-elevation environments than permanent use. We show that their probabilistic statement hinges on indefensible claims about hunter-gatherer mobility. In the context of quantitative data from hunter-gatherer ethnography, our travel model shows that seasonal-use models are highly unlikely to explain Chusang.