Benjamin Edwards (Durham University; b.g.edwards@durham.ac.uk) and Arthur Anderson (Durham University; arthur.anderson@durham.ac.uk)

This session aims to look below the surface of interpretation, and explore the interplay between assumptions, subjectivity and objectivity in the textual and visual representation of archaeological data.

The dominance of reflexive or post-processual archaeologies over the last twenty-five years has generated an extensive literature on the tension between human subjectivity and the (debated) ideals of objectivity in archaeological writing. Yet the scope of this literature can often be rather limited. Either overtly discussing the means of subjective interpretation, or critically examining subjectivity in the interpretations of others.

In contrast, this session aims to look below the surface. Examining how the very means by which we communicate (in writing, reconstruction, diagrams, photographs etc.) exposes inherent attitudes toward the subjective and objective. We are concerned with how the manner in which we present interpretations, rather than the actual content, helps us justify our knowledge claims and transmits subtleties of attitude and interpretation which may not be obvious. We are interested in looking for contradictions between our theories of interpretation and the means by which these theories are communicated. For example, do our interpretations stress plurality and reflexivity, but our methods of presentation betray an implicit and contradictory claim to objective truth?

Papers are invited that examine the underlying assumptions behind the presentation of archaeological data in any medium, from writing to physical reconstruction. It is hoped that the session will address questions such as: what structures do we continually reproduce in conforming to acceptable methods of communication or presentation? How can the visual and written language of archaeology act as a means of exclusion? How have accepted codes of academic expression shaped archaeological practice, and moreover, as means of communication advance rapidly in the online age, how could changes in those codes reshape practices?