Classic Maya “killed” objects. They broke and dispersed ceramic vessels. After adding exotic artifacts, they burned everything, buried the deposit with marl, and tore down associated rooms or buildings. This complex set of interrelated activities has been classified as a termination ritual. Instead of accepting this as a natural category, we study how the Classic Maya strategically differentiated some practices from others. Our case study are the deposits in Structure 5PS-12, an eighth-century AD building at the outskirts of the royal capital of Tamarindito, Guatemala. Destroyed wall foundations and evenly distributed wall fall indicate that Structure 5PS-12 was dismantled. Complete tools and exotic artifacts are found within the wall fall and on the floor. Refitted ceramic sherds show that partial vessels were broken apart and scattered across the building. The combination and sequence of these practices reveal a deliberate strategy to distinguish some practices from others. Its practitioners may have witnessed a fire ceremony conducted by the divine rulers of Tamarindito in AD 762. Structure 5PS-12 attests to shared and possibly copied ritual procedures, whereas unique practices establish a local way of abandonment. The process of differentiation allows people to display but also question shared cultural frameworks. The Maya ritualized practices in a social discourse about appropriate norms and behaviors.

Mortuary practices could vary almost indefinitely in the Viking Age. Within a theoretical framework of ritualization and architectural philosophy, this article explores how doors and thresholds were used in mortuary practice and ritual behaviour. The door is a deep metaphor for transition, transformation and liminality. It is argued that Viking Age people built ‘doors to the dead’ of various types, such as freestanding portals, causewayed ring-ditches or thresholds to grave mounds; or on occasion even buried their dead in the doorway. The paper proposes that the ritualized doors functioned in three ways: they created connections between the dead and the living; they constituted boundaries and thresholds that could possibly be controlled; and they formed between-spaces, expressing liminality and, conceivably, deviance. Ultimately, the paper underlines the profound impact of domestic architecture on mortuary practice and ritual behaviour in the Viking Age.

Human ethology is defined as the biology of human behavior. The methods it employs and the questions it poses are elaborations of those generally used in the various fields of biology, but especially adapted to the study of man. Observation and experimentation in the natural and seminatural setting as well as the comparative method derived from morphology play important roles in human ethology, and the exploration of phylogenetic adaptations constitutes one of its focal interests. On the basis of observations on experientially deprived and nondeprived children, comparative primate and animal behavior studies, and cross-cultural investigations, certain universal phylogenetic adaptations (in terms of fixed action patterns, innate releasing mechanisms, releasers, innate motivating mechanisms, and innate learning dispositions) have been found to occur. However, human ethology does not restrict itself to the investigation of phylogenetic adaptations. The question as to how a behavior pattern contributes to survival can be posed with respect to cultural patterns as well. Similar selection pressures have shaped both culturally and phylogenetically evolved patterns. Through cross-cultural studies a number of universal social interaction strategies have been discovered.

This article, which is based on the fourteenth McDonald Lecture, considers two tensions in contemporary archaeology. One is between interpretations of specific structures, monuments and deposits as the result of either ‘ritual’ or ‘practical’ activities in the past, and the other is between an archaeology that focuses on subsistence and adaptation and one that emphasizes cognition, meaning, and agency. It suggests that these tensions arise from an inadequate conception of ritual itself. Drawing on recent studies of ritualization, it suggests that it might be more helpful to consider how aspects of domestic life took on special qualities in later prehistoric Europe. The discussion is based mainly on Neolithic enclosures and other monuments, Bronze Age and Iron Age settlement sites and the Viereckschanzen of central Europe. It may have implications for field archaeology as well as social archaeology, and also for those who study the formation of the archaeological record.