We originally concluded that because birth scenes depicted on Mimbres bowls are anatomically unusual or impossible, and men are generally unfamiliar with the details of birth, the pots most likely were painted by men. Three of the four counter-arguments presented in the comments—(1) there is no other way to depict birth; (2) one part of one painting is actually a crack in the vessel; (3) some men are involved in birthing—either are incorrect (1) or have no impact on our conclusions (2 and 3). The fourth counter-argument—that the depictions are necessary artistic conventions—is significant but does not negate our conclusions. The comments by Espenshade and by Shaffer et al. misrepresent and distort our argument and in one case misquote us.

The published paper by Patterson (1994) gives the impression that Latin American archaeology has a significant orientation toward social archaeology. We present evidence, however, that indicates the restricted nature of social archaeology in time (1970s and early 1980s) and space (Cuba, Mexico, Peru, and Venezuela). Social archaeology developed only in a political context where the model pursued by the state was sympathetic to marxist ideology during a specific historical period. Further, at the academic level, social archaeology gradually lost appeal to students in those countries where it developed because of the politicization of the archaeological discourse at universities and the lack of a relationship between practice and theory (epistemological theory). The practical aspects of social archaeology have never passed beyond those of cultural history produced under the schema of a national state archaeology. Consideration of the realities under which archaeology developed in each Latin American country leads to a broader understanding of the context in which social archaeology exists in Latin America today.

The respondents raise interesting issues that deserve further discussion in this and other forums. I urge readers to examine my original paper published in this journal and compare it with the concerns raised here. I do note several points of agreement, including the recognition that repressive governments affect the work of archaeology both directly and indirectly; that Latin American countries differ remarkedly in their individual histories and approaches to government; and that, in general, archaeology in Latin America is dependent on the state.