In the last few decades, archaeologists have increasingly studied the material expression of religion. At the same time, they have recognized that some objects are animate in ways similar to people. Building on previous research that combines studies of religion, object agency and behavioural perspectives, we present an approach that focuses on the variety of rituals, especially rites of passage, in which objects participate over the course of their life histories. Occurring in societies at all levels of organizational complexity, rites of passage offer archaeologists an opportunity to contribute to the anthropology of ritual and an understanding of the ways that some objects take on, or are given, attributes of life. More subtly, by comparing the rites of passage of objects and the people who interact with them, we can assess differences in the specific qualities of object and human agency. These approaches may help us to orient the search for archaeological evidence of rites of passage as well as to interpret enigmatic deposits such as caches, hoards and offerings.

I propose that archaeologists, in pursuing a renewed interest in studying technological change, construct general theories and models of invention processes. As an example, this paper presents the “cascade” model for investigating invention processes in the context of “complex technological systems.” Building on the recognition that the vision of a new complex technological system is often obvious, the cascade model asserts that the hard work of invention takes place in a series of invention “cascades,” as people strive to achieve acceptable values of a new technology's core or critical performance characteristics during life-history processes (i.e., fashioning a prototype, replication or manufacture, use, and maintenance). The cascade model is illustrated by means of the nineteenth-century electromagnetic telegraph, and implications are drawn for studying invention processes in the complex technological systems of small-scale societies.

Many new, or processual, archaeologists of the 1960s argued that Americanist archaeology became scientific only in the 1960s. The hypothesis that the rate of publication of archaeological research in Science and Scientific American increased after about 1965, as new archaeologists sought to demonstrate to their peers and other scientists that archaeology was indeed a science, is disconfirmed. The rate of archaeological publication in these journals increased after 1955 because the effort to be more scientific attributed to the processualists began earlier. Higher publication rates in both journals appear to have been influenced by an increased amount of archaeological research, a higher rate of archaeological publication generally, and increased funding. The hypothesis that editorial choice has strongly influenced what has been published in Science is confirmed; articles focusing on multidisciplinary topics rather than on narrow archaeological ones dominate the list of titles over the period from 1940 through 2003.

Loney's (2000) recent paper claims that American archaeologists have paid scant attention to the study of technological, especially ceramic, change. We argue that, in fact, interest in such change processes has grown greatly in recent decades and that Loney has overlooked much relevant literature. We support our general argument with a catalog of recent behavioral research on technological change.

In their comment on Schiffer (1996), Broughton and O’Connell perpetuate several common misconceptions about behavioral archaeology. This brief reply clarifies the character and goals of behavioral archaeology and indicates that this vigorous program is now beginning to produce "social" theory beyond the explanation of variability in artifact designs.

We furnish a theoretical framework for explaining that portion of formal variability in artifacts attributable to the behavior of the artisan. Major causal factors are the artisan's knowledge and experience, extent of feedback on performance in activities along the artifact's behavioral chain, situational factors in behavioral chain activities, technological constraints, and social processes of conflict and negotiation. In identifying the causal factors at work in a specific case, the investigator must focus analytically on activities-that is, on people-people, people-artifact, and artifact-artifact interactions-and on the performance characteristics relevant to each. Application of this behavioral framework allows abandonment of many cherished but unhelpful concepts, including style and function. Ceramic artifacts, the low-fired, clay cooking pot in particular, are employed for illustrative purposes.

Diversity in archaeology's social theories is desirable, but factioning of the discipline into antagonistic, paradigm-based camps undermines the scientific enterprise. In order to promote efforts at building bridges between different theoretical programs, this paper examines relationships between behavioral archaeology and evolutionary (selectionist) archaeology. Potential common ground is brought to light, incompatibilities are critically examined, and possible synergies are explored. It is concluded that there is no fundamental reason why these two programs cannot work in concert to achieve the goal of explaining behavioral (or evolutionary) change in human societies. Whether productive relationships can be established between other programs remains to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

This paper examines pottery technology and change through the eyes of the experimental archaeologist. A new vision is presented of experimental archaeology and the role its findings can play in archaeological explanation. It is argued that the most useful results of experimental archaeology are best obtained with long-term research programs. This perspective is illustrated by a case study of the relations between surface treatments (interior and exterior) and thermal performance in cooking pots. The experiments indicate that surface treatments like texturing, organic coatings, and smudging have marked impacts on thermal shock cracking and on thermal spalling in simulated cooking. It is emphasized that the findings of experimental archaeology, expressed as correlates, can be employed in explanations of prehistoric technological change, but only when embedded in more inclusive correlate theories and coupled with the requisite contextual information.