This reply seeks to answer the comments by Neff and Schiffer et al. by stating the following: 1) evolutionary theory in archaeology is limited by the overextension of biological attributes to nonbiological artifacts, such as pottery; 2) evolutionary theory when applied to technological studies has an underlying technological determinist implication, and hence is inappropriate for use in the study of ancient technologies; 3) the subfields and disciplines of ceramic studies in archaeology are becoming increasingly isolated from each other and from the mainstream of interpretation, as evidenced by exclusionary bibliographies, language and study groups; and 4) ceramic studies are best approached on a contextual, case-by-case basis.

Ortman's comments concerning the evolutionary archaeology model of style in his study of the textile metaphor in Mesa Verde pottery designs are based upon a misunderstanding of the assumptions of the neutral model of style. We clarify these assumptions and explain why Ortman's study is not a test of the model.

My comments on evolutionary archaeology (EA) were not intended to address assumptions of the neutral model of style, but rather the readiness of evolutionary archaeologists to conclude that decorative variation is selectively neutral. In light of this misunderstanding, I welcome the opportunity to clarify my position on implications of my research for EA, as there was insufficient space in the original article to do more than hint at the issues raised by Hurt and her coauthors.