'Reflexive methodology' in archaeology (and reflexivity in anthropology) has been most prominently advanced by Ian Hodder and implemented in his long-term excavation project at Catalhoyuk, Turkey. Succinctly, such a program directs critical attention to the manner in which investigators constitute their evidence for deriving arguments/hypotheses. The critical (and contentious) working presuppostion for reflexivity: the 'subject' as 'author' of knowledge is privileged (or at least asserted) at the mediator between objects/external reality and ideas/hypotheses developed as 'mirrors' or representations of this 'evidence'. Such 'reflective attention' to ourselves in the role as progenitors of evidence (though actual positions extend along a spectrum ranging from extreme constructivist to 'guarded objectivity' with materiality constraining possible interpretation [link]) may be seen as a direct extension of 'critical archaeology' with attention to socio-political and economic context in informing (unconsciously) interpretation (variant of Marxist arch. with material 'base' as driving force) and the 'linguistic turn' in arch. coalescing in the late '70's and 80's which likened material culture to 'solid' texts of meaning with the attendant implication of 'multiple possible readings' [link]. The convergence of these theoretical pushes in arch. took form within a wider theoretical movement in the humanities/social sciences pushing for 'construction of knowledge' as a reassertion of 'Personal Idealist' philosophy (arch.'s fellow discipline of anthropology is notably the customary carrier of this general outlook) and the ascendancy of Science Studies as a (much needed) bridging discipine for the widening gulf between 'objective and subjective knowledge' in academia. With symmetrical arch., whilst the active role of materiality is asserted (rather than consisting of passive receptors for the mapping-on of meaning), the media we employ to 'transform' such 'solid reality' into the workable and transportable material for presentations/publications/argumentation (cf. Latour's 'immutable mobiles') has an effect as to the subsequent arguments that we may derive and support with our 'mediated material'. Thus, as a component of critical and reflexive arch., their must be attention to 'media modes': how have we brought-forward engagements with the materiality of a site - as different media do different things - and how are we combining such mediated materiality with our arguments.

Return to Building500 Home

Return to Key Themes

Return to Symmetrical Archaeology Home