Meltzer indicates that little change is evidenced by the New Archaeology. To the contrary, analysis of changes in archaeological theory since 1960, in light of changes in anthropological theory, indicates that a major metaphysical shift from historical, particularistic research to nomothetic research seeking explanations has occurred. Therefore, a major paradigm shift is indicated.

A brief response is given to Custer's comment on my article, "Paradigms and the nature of change in American archaeology." Custer's position contains errors of fact and interpretation, propounds a questionable view of the history of science in general (and archaeology in particular), and fails to disprove my original arguments.

Difficulties encountered in attempting to apply Hodder's hypothesis about social boundary signalling in periods of resource competition indicate a potentially fertile area for the development of "middle range theory," Problems in defining critical tests are indicated.

Davis's comments have evoked a clarification of earlier work, and a discussion of more recent insights into the complexities of boundary signalling and the role of material culture in such behavior.