The changes visible in the late Holocene archaeological record of Island Melanesia have traditionally been explained through a culture‐historical framework, in which the appearance of Lapita pottery and an associated suite of portable artefacts, plant and faunal remains was considered evidence of a distinct cultural group arriving in the region. Evidence from pre‐Lapita sites in the region, dating to as early as the late Pleistocene has demonstrated that island colonization in the Pacific has a far greater antiquity than previously considered. Continuity in aspects of the pre‐Lapita and Lapita assemblages in Island Melanesia indicate that many of the colonization strategies previously considered to have first appeared with Lapita were in fact developed well before the late Holocene. This has necessitated reassessment of the concept of Lapita as a subsistence package fully imported to Melanesia from Island Southeast Asia, and acknowledgement of the multiple origins of aspects of the assemblages. As a consequence, there has been a demise in the simplistic cultural explanation for the appearance of Lapita in Island Melanesian assemblages. However, as yet the archaeological evidence has offered no alternative explanation for the late Holocene changes which coincide with the initial colonization of Remote Oceania by the makers and bearers of Lapita pottery.