Is archaeology a science? Is archaeology a humanity? What are the politics of spectatorship and archaeological representation? These initial thoughts form the basis for our archaeological explorations. Within current archaeological discourse, there are a growing number of requests for expressions, which illuminate and expose the interpretive and artistic qualities of presentation and narration. Yet few scholars actively utilize expressive practice to explore these philosophical issues. As such, we feel that it is an opportune time to intervene in visual and textual discourse by issuing a manifesto for our project. We call for a development of a critically reflexive practice of visual archaeological expressionism, which seeks to contest traditional modes of thought and action.

In preparing for the publication of the seven papers in the special supplement of Cambridge Archaeological Journal, we were concerned to find an outlet that could find a worldwide audience, as we believe that these papers have more than regional or period significance. That is a big claim. The case studies presented in the supplement are all of early Neolithic long barrows and long cairns of the fourth millennium cal. bc in southern England. Why should a study of the dating of constructions that held the remains of selected human dead, from a particular region of northwest Europe, at a particular point in the regional Neolithic sequence, have any wider importance? We offer two reasons. First, we are applying, perhaps for the first time to a group of monuments rather than to individual sites, a method for the interpretation of radiocarbon dates which enables much more precise estimates of chronology. Secondly, from this promise of far more robust and precise dating come many implications for the kinds of agents that we may wish to people our pasts, for the kinds of lives they lived, and for the histories that we can try to write about them. These are two developments, we suggest, which any archaeology needs to embrace.

This article presents a study of the deposition of jewellery on bodies in the third-millennium bc Mesopotamian ‘Royal Cemetery’ at Ur. Four assemblages of adornments are identified and evaluated in relation to burial type, gender, age, privilege, and behavioural role. Aspects of the social and ritual identities of the dead are then interpreted through adornment. While the historic definition of the interred community and the precise nature of their practices are open to speculation, this study begins to clarify dynamics of group and individual identity at this site of human sacrifice.

Campfire rituals of focused attention created Baldwinian selection for enhanced working memory among our Homo sapiens ancestors. This model is grounded in five propositions: the emergence of symbolism occurred late in the archaeological record; this emergence was caused by a fortuitous genetic mutation that enhanced working memory capacity; a Baldwinian process where genetic adaptation follows somatic adaptation was the mechanism for this emergence; meditation directly affects brain areas critical to attention and working memory; and shamanistic healing rituals were fitness-enhancing in our ancestral past. Each proposition is discussed and defended. Supporting evidence and potential future tests are presented.

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.

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.