The comments of Stanford and Bradley (above) do not address our criticisms and obfuscate the topic at hand with irrelevant data (e.g. the south-to-north movement of fluted points through the Ice Free Corridor), nonexistent data (e.g. ‘under the water’ or ‘destroyed sites’), and questionable data (e.g. Meadowcroft and Cactus Hill are by no means widely accepted, nor are Stanford and Bradley's ‘eight LGM sites’ in the mid-Atlantic region). Before touching on some of these points, we direct the reader to several recent articles (e.g. Morrow 2014; Raff & Bolnick 2014) that provide new evidence or arguments inconsistent with a trans-Atlantic migration, including the fact that DNA from the Clovis Anzick child (Montana) shows no European ancestry (Rasmussen et al. 2014). Although Stanford and Bradley describe their Solutrean ‘solution’ (Stanford & Bradley 1999) to the Pleistocene colonisation of North America as ‘testable’, their position is that the idea is correct until falsified. They propose that their colleagues have yet to provide sufficient ‘critiques’ or ‘challenges’ to discount it (see also Collins 2012; Collins et al. 2013). Yet they are the ones proposing a hypothesis inconsistent with overwhelming multidisciplinary evidence, and they ignore results of tests that do not support their claims.

Determination of the provenance of material culture by means of chemical analysis has a long and distinguished history in archaeology. The chemical analysis of archaeological objects started in the intellectual ferment of late-eighteenth-century Europe (Caley 1948, 1949, 1967; Pollard 2013), almost as soon as systematic (gravimetric) means of chemical analysis had been devised (Pollard in prep.). Many of the leading scientists of the day, such as Vauquelin, Klaproth, Davy, Faraday and Berzelius, carried out analyses of archaeological objects as part of their interests in the contents of the ‘cabinets of curiosities’ of the day (Pollard&Heron 2008). The subject moved frommere curiosity to systematic and problemorientated study with the work of G¨obel (1842),Wocel (1854), Damour (1865) and Helm (1886), who essentially formulated the idea of ‘provenance studies’—that some chemical characteristic of the geological rawmaterial(s) provides a ‘fingerprint’ which can bemeasured in the finished object, and that if an object from a remote source is identified at a particular place, then it is evidence of some sort of direct or indirect contact and ‘trade’ between the two places.

It was Antiquity (Daniel 1980) that revealed details of the death of “the greatest prehistorian in Britain, and probably in the world” (Piggott 1958: 312), the Australian Vere Gordon Childe (1892–1957). Antiquity would later note what is still the over-modest marker of his final resting place (Barton 2000). And it was Antiquity that published Childe's ‘Retrospect’ in which he summarised his archaeological career, noting that it began at Oxford, and started again in 1922 “after a sentimental excursion into Australian politics” (Childe 1958: 69). In this article it is suggested that this was far more than an excursion; that through force of circumstance he abandoned a potentially high-flying archaeological trajectory and embarked on an equally high-flying replacement career in politics; only further force of circumstances brought him back to archaeology.

As an American archaeologist who has worked in Syria, living in a rural village in Raqqa Province off and on for decades, I am frequently asked: did you see it coming? Were there early signs of the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war? The answer is both yes and no. In retrospect, the signs were there, but foreign archaeologists did not always identify them. More often we simply chose to ignore them. Regardless, we have come to many important realisations. Foremost, Near Eastern archaeology has reached a major turning point, which raises a more pressing question: what now? Our answers will profoundly shape the future of our field. As archetypal students of history, we must learn from the lessons of the past and act. Playing the part of the metaphorical ostrich and burying our heads in the sand would be far easier, perhaps even customary, but this cannot be our course. A strong and engaged field is needed now more than ever—my primary intent here is to dissect what this means.

Provision for visiting Stonehenge was radically reorganised in 2013. Why was it so difficult to achieve? Will the new scheme work? Here we present a multi-part review of the new arrangements. Christopher Chippindale is a former editor of Antiquity and author of Stonehenge complete, which recounts the changing fortunes of the monument down the ages. Mike Pitts has excavated at Stonehenge and written about the site in Hengeworld. Chris Gosden, Professor of European Archaeology at Oxford, approaches the issues from a World Heritage Site perspective. The section is co-ordinated by N. James who reviews the effectiveness of a visitor centre several minutes by land train from the stones.