Archaeological and ethnographic evidence from the Sepik coast of Papua New Guinea documents the survival in the western Pacific of a stylized symbol or motif — the so-called ‘Lapita face’ — on pottery and possibly other kinds of material items (such as wooden bowls and serving platters) for at least 3300 years. A plausible reason for the persistence of this iconography is that it has referred to ideas about the living and the dead, the human and the divine, and the individual and society that remained socially and spiritually profound and worth expressing long after the demise of Lapita as a distinct ceramic style. We detail evidence for saying that the ‘faces’ on Lapita vessels from thousands of years ago and certain stylized designs on historic and modern carved wooden bowls and platters from this coast are historically linked ways of alluding to sea turtles, creatures figuring prominently in the lore and cosmology of Pacific Islanders. Here we describe four prehistoric wares (or ‘phases’ or ‘periods’) in the Aitape ceramic sequence on the Sepik coast that, considered in series, fill the temporal gap between practices and beliefs in Lapita times and present-day realities in this part of the world.

Twenty-three radiocarbon results are now available from the Wayland's Smithy long barrow, and are presented within an interpretive Bayesian statistical framework. Four alternative archaeological interpretations of the sequence are considered, each with a separate Bayesian model, though only two are presented in detail. The differences are based on different readings of the sequence of Wayland's Smithy II. In our preferred interpretation of the sequence, the primary mortuary structure was some kind of lidded wooden box, accessible for deposition over a period of time, and then closed by the mound of Wayland's Smithy I; Wayland's Smithy II was a unitary construction, with transepted chambers, secondary kerb and secondary ditches all constructed together. In the Bayesian model for this interpretation, deposition began in the earlier thirty-sixth century cal. bc, and probably lasted for a generation. A gap of probably 40–100 years ensued, before the first small mound was constructed in 3520–3470 cal. bc. After another gap, probably of only 1–35 years, the second phase of the monument was probably constructed in the middle to later part of the thirty-fifth century cal. bc (3460–3400 cal. bc), and its use probably extended to the middle decades of the thirty-fourth century cal. bc. Results are discussed in relation to the local setting, the nature of mortuary rites and the creation of tradition.

Bisson (2001) proposes that imposition of form in Middle Palaeolithic scrapers can be recognized when the rules for scraper manufacture, which are based upon functional considerations, are known. He derives these ‘scraper production rules’ on the basis of experiments with novice flintknappers, and finds that they apply to Neanderthal-manufactured Mousterian scrapers. He interprets the violation of these rules in scrapers from Skhul Cave as evidence that anatomically modern humans imposed form on their stone tools, and therefore had mental templates. This study provides evidence that the ‘scraper production rules’ are not, in fact, the rules according to which Neanderthals made their tools. Instead, they reflect flaking mechanics and elements of Bisson's experimental design rather than any functional considerations taken into account during scraper manufacture. Furthermore, methodological flaws in Bisson's analysis of Middle Palaeolithic artefacts undermine his arguments that archaeological scrapers either follow or violate the rules. These problems render untenable his conclusion that Neanderthals did not have mental templates and that they lacked flexibility and innovation in stone-tool making.

Our final paper in this series reasserts the importance of sequence. Stressing that long barrows, long cairns and associated structures do not appear to have begun before the thirty-eighth century cal. bc in southern Britain, we give estimates for the relative order of construction and use of the five monuments analysed in this programme. The active histories of monuments appear often to be short, and the numbers in use at any one time may have been relatively low; we discuss time in terms of generations and individual lifespans. The dominant mortuary rite may have been the deposition of articulated remains (though there is much diversity); older or ancestral remains are rarely documented, though reference may have been made to ancestors in other ways, not least through architectural style and notions of the past. We relate these results not only to trajectories of monument development, but also to two models of development in the first centuries of the southern British Neolithic as a whole. In the first, monuments emerge as symptomatic of preeminent groups; in the second model, monuments are put in a more gradualist and episodic timescale and related to changing kinds of self-consciousness (involving senses of self, relations with animals and nature, perceptions of the body, awareness of mortality and attitudes to the past). Both more distant and more recent and familiar possible sources of inspiration for monumentalization are considered, and the diversity of situations in which mounds were constructed is stressed. More detailed Neolithic histories can now begin to be written.

There can be no doubt that Peter Bellwood's First Farmers is a major new statement which presents a robustly expressed solution to one of those classic problems which provides a benchmark for theorization and justifies archaeology as a field. But agreement stops there. Few academic books published recently have evoked such highly charged reactions. On the one hand, First Farmers has impressed many critics, reached audiences far afield from traditional archaeological readerships, and garnered major book awards from professional bodies such as the Society for American Archaeology. On the other hand, it has been subjected to a level of concerted criticism rare in the academic world. As the reviews below show, it has clearly hit a nerve; the gloves are off.

First Farmers polarizes scholars in complex ways. Much recent work on agricultural origins, particularly in Europe, has had a strongly indigenist and particularistic tone, averse to mass movements of peoples and ‘grand narratives’ in general. But even advocates of grand narrative in general may take exception to Bellwood's ‘language dispersals’ thesis. Similarly, the very attempt to bring together linguistic, genetic and archaeological data in an account of the past is controversial to some, but even those who aspire to this kind of interdisciplinary synthesis rarely agree on how it can be carried out.

Neither the book nor its critics here are likely to be the last word on the subject. But whether one agrees with it or not, First Farmers is a welcome addition to the agricultural origins scene, which, at least in Europe, has been evolving over the last two decades towards a sort of eclectic middle-ground consensus in which difference of opinion is accommodated by eschewing bold generalization.