ABSTRACT
Until the last few years, interpretive and Darwinian, selectionist, or evolutionary archaeologies have not had a troubled or adversarial relationship; rather, they have had very little relationship at all. Their visions of archaeology appear to be poles apart; the style and tone of the writings of either school are, it would seem at first appearance, like chalk and cheese. If the last 20 years have seen a growing diversity and fragmentation of archaeological theory, then one artefact of that fragmentation has been a lack of dialogue between different fragments. Scholars engage in ‘redlining’ of large areas of archaeological theory (Kristiansen 2004). Where the 1980s saw furious arguments at conferences, the first decade of the twenty-first century is more likely to see polished papers in parallel sessions delivered to the already converted.
