Hodder understood, moreover, that no two people understand the world in exactly the same way. For example, my experience of America as a Greek student was very different from the experiences of my American friends. Finally, Hodder forced us to think about and address the role that present conditions play in our attempts to understand and explain the world and its past. The fact that our methodologies are sophisticated does not guarantee that our explanations are objective. We can no longer present the use of scientific techniques as proof of objectivity.
Archaeology today is what it is in each country because of what has been found.
In archaeology, as in other disciplines, the present and the past are in a dialectical relationship, which is always in motion and should always be consciously acknowledged. In other words, Ian Hodder, through his writings, initiated the second fundamental change in archaeology in the last three decades. People with habits and attitudes, likes and dislikes, strategies and emotions emerged in the picture. Capable, thoughtful and resourceful people make things that are not necessarily understood when looked at from a distant, large-scale point of view. Hodder also made us realize that what we learn about the past depends on what we ask.