It is delightful to read an archaeological work that is so fluent with the history and uses of philosophical traditions and their effects on archaeological debates. Equally refreshing is Olsens decision to abstain from creating a cavalcade of case studies, although the number of examples andtheir analyses increase towards the end of the book. The conventional way of writing archaeological theory as a series of case studies is often tedious for readers as well as restrictive for theoretical discussion. In fact, the absence of case studies could be seen as an implication of Olsens position:at its best, writing about things makes the neat distinction between an abstract, theoretical introduction and the subsequent, concrete case study questionable. Olsens book is an imperative call for new ways of making archaeological theory relevant for other disciplines and is a reminder of the importance of ontological difference in thinking about things.Much recent theoretical discourse in archaeology is focused on active, relational objects conceived as entanglements,assemblages, and bundles of things. In Defense of Things is a timely, highly readable explication of the ideas and philosophy behind this turn towards object ontologies. Social scientists and particularly archaeologists interested in materiality studies could not ask for a more lucid introduction to the issues in play. Olsens central thesis is echoed in recent works by Nicole Boivin, Ian Hodder, Chris Webmoor and Tim Witmore, and Carl Knappett and Lambros Malafouris, among others. Inspired by Merleau-Ponty as well as by Latour, Olsen argues that it is time for social scientists to transcend the material/ideal split that is the heritage of Cartesian philosophy, and to give things their proper due as central to human existence. His self-avowed bricolage approach to the topic contains very clear, concise discussions of key literature and ideas, thankfully without the hubristic language that distracts from the l(