In their reply to our recent paper (Blockley et al.2000), Housley et ~ l(2.0 00) make four substantialpoints. Firstly, they assert that our critique oftheir two-stage re-colonization model rests solelyupon radiocarbon calibration. Secondly, and consequently,they point to problems with Late Glacialcalibration curves. Thirdly, they argue thatradiocarbon calibration should be advanced onlyfor sound archaeological reasons. Finally, theystate that our approach is environmentally deterministicand that we have demonstrated onlya weak correlation between human demographicchange and rapid climatic amelioration.Housley et al. (2000) argue against the use ofLate Glacial calibration curves, and in particularstate that 'it is because the calibration data are soheavily smoothed that Blockley et al. dispute ournotion of a northward movement of people'
