Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology

by Ian Hodder, Scott Hutson

The third edition of this classic introduction to archaeological theory and method has been fully updated to address the rapid development of theoretical debate throughout the discipline. Ian Hodder and Scott Hutson argue that archaeologists must consider a variety of perspectives in the complex and uncertain task of "translating the meaning of past texts into their own contemporary language". While remaining centered on the importance of meaning, agency and history, the authors explore the latest developments in post-structuralism, neo-evolutionary theory and phenomenology. Previous Edition Hb (1991): 0-521-40142-9 Previous Edition Pb (1991): 0-521-40957-8

Genres: Archaeology, Nonfiction, Anthropology, History, Science, Material Culture, Reference

312 pages, Hardcover

First published November 27, 1986

About the author

Ian Hodder is Dunleavie Family Professor of Archaeology at Stanford University. A Fellow of the British Academy, he has received numerous awards for his accomplishments, including the Oscar Montelius Medal from the Swedish Society of Antiquaries, the Huxley Memorial Medal by the Royal Anthropological Institute, the Fyssen International Prize, and the Gold Medal by the Archaeological Institute of America, along with honorary doctorates from the Bristol and Leiden Universities. Hodder is the author of numerous books, including Symbols in Action (Cambridge, 1982), Reading the Past (Cambridge, 1982), and Entangled: An Archaeology of the Relationships between Humans and Things (2012).

Reviews

[Richard]

One of the few works in critical theory that I read cover to cover by choice. The text goes through various schools of archaeological thought (Marxist, cultural-historical, structuralist, etc.), revealing their respective strengths and critiquing holes in their epistemologies. Some of the major themes that run through each chapter include the agency of individuals, materialism vs. idealism, and the inevitability of interpretation. While the writing could stand to be a bit punchier, Hodder mounts his critiques quite clearly, and makes a formidable argument for post-processualism. I've read a few other anthologies that try simplifying these same topics to make them more digestible for undergrads, but this book manages to be far more understandable without being condescending; compared to authors like Spivak or Bourdieu, this is a fairly accessible theoretical work.

[Έρση Λάβαρη]

Κείμενο πολύ καλό, προσεγμένο κι επιμελημένο, με άρτια εμφάνιση και δομή. Ωστόσο, για κάποιον που δεν διαθέτει γνώσεις σχετικά με το αντικείμενο της νέας αρχαιολογίας και των ρευμάτων της, είναι σίγουρα δυσνόητο και ελλιπώς τεκμηριωμένο.

[Anna P]

Critique here and there, but overall a good comprehensive start for arch theory.

Slow in the first few sections and I felt that it didn’t highlight the origins of the older (or should I say “older”) theoretical frameworks which in my other studies, I would say is vital to understanding their position and thus rejection by the greater archaeology community today.

Not so good origin stories leads to theories built out of imperialist/Western houses and are then perpetuated. That’s discussed later as critical to understand in interpretation, but not referenced as part of the dissection of say, processualism.

[Lauren Webster]

Pretty engaging throughout, I especially loved the parts about how different cultures and languages cannot be viewed from our own perspective and we can’t truly ever hope to put ourselves in their perspective.

[Carole-Lesley Rowland]

it is as one would expect informative

[Ellana Thornton-Wheybrew]

There are parts of this which I think are grasping at straws a little, but overall an interesting book

[leenbeanz]

yes, I read this for class and yes, it still counts! very engaging but soooooo wordy. I'm on my hands and knees begging academics to learn how to get to their goddamn point......

[Xarah]

Boy, now that was fun reading. Boy, I do love theory. I guess the book would be better if it was a little more approachable. I found it to lack enough examples to fully understand the concepts the authors were proposing; not that I really cared all that much anyways. I wouldn't have read this on my own, but class dictated that I read it. Boy, that was fun.

[Emily]

Chapters cover major interpretive theories & approaches used by archaeologists. Presumes familiarity with theorists of the 19th - 20th century. Good for advanced undergrads or grad students who are familiar with theory & archaeology.

I found it difficult to read and I've done field work and took a PhD exam that included archaeological theory.

[Mark]

great book