1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Anthropology
  4. Volume 50, 2021
  5. Article

Annual Review of Anthropology

Volume 50, 2021

Peirce and Archaeology: Recent Approaches

Abstract

The philosophy of Charles S. Peirce, and in particular his theory of signs (semiotic), has seen increasing interest within archaeological theory over the past 20 years. This article reviews Peirce's most influential ideas within archaeology, directs readers to where in Peirce's voluminous works they can find these ideas, and discusses how each of them has been applied by archaeologists to a variety of different research topics. In addition to the semiotic, these ideas include Peirce's metaphysical doctrine of synechism; his methodological pragmatism; abductive logic; and the phenomenological concepts of firstness, secondness, and thirdness. Finally, I discuss two research areas—materiality and paleolithic archaeology—in which a combination of Peirce's ideas has led to important new insights.

Keyword(s): archaeological theory, Peirce, pragmatism, semiotic
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110112
2021-10-21
2024-05-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/50/1/annurev-anthro-101819-110112.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110112&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Agbe-Davies A. 2016. How to do things with things, or, are blue beads good to think?. Semiot. Rev. 2016:4 https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/12
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Agha A. 2007. Language and Social Relations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  3. Agha A. 2017. Money talk and conduct from cowries to bitcoin. Signs Soc 5:2293–355
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Aldenderfer M. 2011. Envisioning a pragmatic approach to the archaeology of religion. Archeol. Pap. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 21:123–36
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baron JP. 2014. Metapragmatics in archaeological analysis: interpreting classic Maya patron deity veneration. Signs Soc 2:2249–83
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Baron JP. 2016. Patron Gods and Patron Lords: The Semiotics of Classic Maya Community Cults Boulder: Univ. Press Colo.
  7. Barrett JC. 2013. The archaeology of mind: It's not what you think. Camb. Archaeol. J. 23:11–17
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Barrett JC. 2014. The material constitution of humanness. Archaeol. Dialogues 21:165–74
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Barrett JC. 2019. The archaeology of population dynamics. Curr. Swed. Archaeol. 27:37–51
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauer AA. 2002a. A pragmatic semiotic model for the interpretation of material culture. Strukturno-Semioticheskie Issledovan v Arkheologii (Structural and Semiotic Investigations in Archaeology) AV Evglevsky 27–36 Donetsk, Ukraine: Donetsk Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bauer AA. 2002b. Is what you see all you get? Recognizing meaning in archaeology. J. Soc. Archaeol. 2:137–52
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bauer AA 2013a. Multivocality and “wikiality”: the epistemology and ethics of a pragmatic archaeology. Appropriating the Past: Philosophical Perspectives on the Practice of Archaeology G Scarre, R Coningham 176–94 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bauer AA. 2013b. Objects and their glassy essence: semiotics of self in the Early Bronze Age Black Sea. Signs Soc 1:11–31
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Brent J. 1998. Charles Sanders Peirce: A Life Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
  15. Callon M 1986. The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. Mapping the Dynamics of Science and Technology: Sociology of Science in the Real World M Callon, J Law, A Rip 19–34 London: Macmillan
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Callon M, Latour B 1981. Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macrostructure reality and how sociologists help them to do so. Advances in Social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Micro- and Macro-Sociologies K Knorr-Cetina, AV Cicourel 277–303 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Capone PW, Preucel RW 2002. Ceramic semiotics: women, pottery, and social meanings at Kotyiti Pueblo. Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the Pueblo World RW Preucel 99–113 Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Chumley L. 2017. Qualia and ontology: language, semiotics, and materiality; an introduction. Signs Soc 5:S11–20
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cipolla CN. 2013. Becoming Brothertown: Native American Ethnogenesis and Endurance in the Modern World Tucson: Univ. Ariz. Press
  20. Cipolla CN. 2016. Being and becoming stone. Semiot. Rev. 2016:4 https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/10
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Cipolla CN. 2018. Earth flows and lively stone What differences does ‘vibrant’ matter make?. Archaeol. Dialogues 25:149–70
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Coben LS 2006. Other Cuzcos: replicated theaters of Inka power. Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics T Inomata, LS Coben 223–59 Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Crossland Z. 2009. Of clues and signs: the dead body and its evidential traces. Am. Anthropol. 111:169–80
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Crossland Z. 2013. Signs of mission: material semeiosis and nineteenth-century Tswana architecture. Signs Soc 1:179–113
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Crossland Z. 2014. Ancestral Encounters in Highland Madagascar: Material Sign and Traces of the Dead New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  26. Crossland Z. 2018. Forensic afterlives. Signs Soc 6:3622–47
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Crossland Z 2019.. “ I make this standing stone to be a sign”: material presence and the temporality of the trace in highland Madagascar. Time and History in Prehistory S Souvatzi, A Baysal, EL Baysal 229–49 London: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Crossland Z, Bauer AA. 2017. Im/materialities: things and signs. Semiot. Rev. 2016:4 https://www.semioticreview.com/ojs/index.php/sr/article/view/9
    [Google Scholar]
  29. d'Errico F, Henshilwood C, Vanhaeren M, Van Niekerk K. 2005. Nassarius kraussianus shell beads from Blombos Cave: evidence for symbolic behaviour in the Middle Stone Age. J. Hum. Evol. 48:13–24
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Deacon TW. 1997. The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain New York: Norton
  31. Deacon TW 2011. The symbol concept. The Oxford Handbook of Language Evolution M Tallerman, KR Gibson 393–405 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  32. DeMarrais E, Gosden C, Renfrew C 2004. Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
  33. de Saussure F. 1966. Course in General Linguistics New York: McGraw-Hill
  34. Díaz-Guardamino Uribe M 2008. Iconical signs, indexical relations: Bronze Age stelae and statue-menhirs in the Iberian Peninsula. J. Iber. Archaeol. 11:31–45
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Filipowicz P 2017. Semiotics in action: Neolithic imagery on the move. Framing Archaeology in the Near East: The Application of Social Theory to Fieldwork I Milevski, TE Levy 51–62 Sheffield, UK: Equinox
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Fogelin L. 2014. Material practice and the metamorphosis of a sign: early Buddhist Stupas and the origin of Mahayana Buddhism. Asian Perspect 51:2278–310
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Fogelin L. 2015. An Archaeological History of Indian Buddhism Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  38. Gal S. 2017. Qualia as value and knowledge: histories of European porcelain. Signs Soc 5:S1S128–53
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Gardin J-C. 1992. Semiotic trends in archaeology. See Gardin & Peebles 1992 87–104
  40. Gardin J-C, Peebles CS 1992. Representations in Archaeology Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
  41. Garofoli D, Iliopoulos A. 2019. Replacing epiphenomenalism: a pluralistic enactive take on the metaplasticity of early body ornamentation. Philos. Technol. 32:2215–42
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Gokee C 2016. Shapen signs: pottery techniques, indexicality, and ethnic identity in the Saalum, Senegambia (ca. 1700–1950). Ethnic Ambiguity and the African Past: Materiality, History, and the Shaping of Cultural Identities FG Richard, KC MacDonald 55–86 New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Graves-Brown PM. 1995. Fearful symmetry. World Archaeol 27:188–99
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Harris OJT, Cipolla CN. 2017. Archaeological Theory in the New Millennium: Introducing Current Perspectives New York: Taylor & Francis
  45. Hawkes C. 1954. Archeological theory and method: some suggestions from the Old World. Am. Anthropol. 56:155–68
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Herzfeld M. 1992. Metapatterns: archaeology and the uses of evidential scarcity. See Gardin & Peebles 1992 66–86
  47. Hodder I. 1987. The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  48. Hodder I 1989. Post-modernism, post-structuralism and post-processual archaeology. The Meaning of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression I Hodder 64–78 London: Unwin Hyman
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Hodgson D. 2014. Decoding the Blombos engravings, shell beads and Diepkloof ostrich eggshell patterns. Camb. Archaeol. J. 24:157–69
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Hodgson D, Pettitt P. 2018. The origins of iconic depictions: a falsifiable model derived from the visual science of Palaeolithic cave art and world rock art. Camb. Archaeol. J. 28:4591–612
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Iliopoulos A. 2016a. The evolution of material signification: tracing the origins of symbolic body ornamentation through a pragmatic and enactive theory of cognitive semiotics. Signs Soc 4:2244–77
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Iliopoulos A. 2016b. The material dimensions of signification: rethinking the nature and emergence of semiosis in the debate on human origins. Quat. Int. 405:111–24
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Iliopoulos A. 2019. Material Engagement Theory and its philosophical ties to pragmatism. Phenomenol. Cogn. Sci. 18:139–63
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Iliopoulos A. 2020. Early body ornamentation as ego-culture: tracing the co-evolution of aesthetic ideals and cultural identity. Semiotica 232:187–233
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Jones A. 2006. Animated images: images, agency and landscape in Kilmartin, Argyll, Scotland. J. Mater. Cult. 11:1–2211–25
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Joyce RA 2007. Figurines, meaning and meaning-making in early Mesoamerica. Image and Imagination: A Global Prehistory of Figurative Representation C Renfrew, I Morley 107–16 Cambridge, UK: McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Joyce RA. 2011. What should an archaeology of religion look like to a blind archaeologist?. Archeol. Pap. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 21:1180–88
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Joyce RA 2012. Life with things: archaeology and materiality. Archaeology and Anthropology: Past, Present and Future D Shankland 119–32 London: Berg
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Keane W. 2003. Semiotics and the social analysis of material things. Lang. Commun. 23:409–25
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Keane W. 2005. Signs are not the garb of meaning: on the social analysis of material things. Materiality D Miller 182–205 Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Keane W. 2010. Money is no object: materiality, desire, and modernity in an Indonesian society. See Preucel & Mrozowski 2010 347–61
  62. Kissel M, Fuentes A. 2016. From hominid to human: the role of human wisdom and distinctiveness in the evolution of modern humans. Philos. Theol. Sci. 3:2217–44
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Kissel M, Fuentes A. 2017. Semiosis in the Pleistocene. Camb. Archaeol. J. 27:3397
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Knappett C. 2005. Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective Philadelphia: Univ. Pa. Press
  65. Knappett C. 2011. An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  66. Kockelman P. 2011. Biosemiosis, technocognition, and sociogenesis: selection and significance in a multiverse of sieving and serendipity. Curr. Anthropol. 52:5711–39
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Kockelman P. 2015. Four theories of things: Aristotle, Marx, Heidegger, and Peirce. Signs Soc 3:1153–92
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Kohn E. 2015. Anthropology of ontologies. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 44:311–27
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Latour B. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
  70. Lele VP. 2006. Material habits, identity, semeiotic. J. Soc. Archaeol. 6:148–70
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Liebmann M. 2008. The innovative materiality of revitalization movements: lessons from the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. Am. Anthropol. 110:3360–72
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Malafouris L. 2004. The cognitive basis of material engagement: where brain, body and culture conflate. See DeMarrais et al. 2004 53–61
  73. Martel AR 2020. Semiotics and meaning of rock art. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology C Smith Cham: Springer, 2nd ed.. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51726-1_2831-1
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  74. Olsen B. 2003. Material culture after text: re-membering things. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 36:287–104
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Olsen B. 2007. Keeping things at arm's length: a genealogy of asymmetry. World Archaeol 39:4579–88
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Olsen B, Shanks M, Webmoor T, Witmore CL. 2012. Archaeology: The Discipline of Things Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  77. Parmentier RJ. 1997. The pragmatic semiotics of cultures. Semiotica 116:11–114
     [Google Scholar]
  78. Peirce CS. 1933. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 4: The Simplest Mathematics Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Peirce CS. 1998. The Essential Peirce, Vol. 2: Selected Philosophical Writings (1893–1913) Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Preucel RW. 2006. Archaeological Semiotics Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell
  81. Preucel RW, Bauer AA. 2001. Archaeological pragmatics. Nor. Archaeol. Rev. 34:285–96
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Preucel RW, Mrozowski SA 2010. Contemporary Archaeology in Theory: The New Pragmatism Malden, MA: Wiley
  83. Pugh D. 2013. Scenes of exclusion: historical transformation and material limitations to Pawnee gender representation. J. Mater. Cult. 18:153–67
     [Google Scholar]
  84. Rédei AC, Skoglund P, Persson T. 2019. Applying cartosemiotics to rock art: an example from Aspeberget, Sweden. Soc. Semiot 29:4543–56
     [Google Scholar]
  85. Renfrew C 1994. Towards a cognitive archaeology. The Ancient Mind: Elements of a Cognitive Archaeology C Renfrew, EBW Zubrow 3–12 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  86. Renfrew C 2001. Symbol before concept: material engagement and the early development of society. Archaeological Theory Today I Hodder 122–40 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Renfrew C. 2004. Towards a theory of material engagement. See DeMarrais et al. 2004 23–31
  88. Renfrew C, Frith C, Malafouris L. 2008. Introduction. The sapient mind: archaeology meets neuroscience. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 363: 1499.1935–38
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Schoenfelder JW. 2011. The semiotics of Gunung Kawi: materializing affiliation at ancient and modern Balinese temples. Archeol. Pap. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. 21:1147–65
     [Google Scholar]
  90. Shanks M. 2007. Symmetrical archaeology. World Archaeol 39:4589–96
     [Google Scholar]
  91. Shults L. 2010. Spiritual entanglement: transforming religious symbols at Çatalhöyük. Religion in the Emergence of Civilization: Çatalhöyük as a Case Study I Hodder 73–98 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  92. Silverstein M 1976. Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. Meaning in Anthropology K Basso, H Selby 11–55 Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  93. Silverstein M 1993. Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics JA Lucy 33–58 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
     [Google Scholar]
  94. Silverstein M. 2013. Discourse and the no-thing-ness of culture. Signs Soc 1:2327–66
     [Google Scholar]
  95. Sonesson G. 1994. Prolegomena to the semiotic analysis of prehistoric visual displays. Semiotica 100:267–331
     [Google Scholar]
  96. Stanish C. 2012. The revaluation of landscapes in the Inca Empire as Peircean replication. The Construction of Value in the Ancient World JK Papadopoulos, G Urton 128–36 Los Angeles: Cotsen Inst. Archaeol., Univ. Calif. Los Angel.
     [Google Scholar]
  97. Swenson E. 2015. The materialities of place making in the ancient Andes: a critical appraisal of the ontological turn in archaeological interpretation. J. Archaeol. Method Theory 22:3677–712
     [Google Scholar]
  98. Swenson E. 2018. Trace, revelation, and interpretant in archaeological research: the Graffiti of Huaca Colorada, Peru. Signs Soc 6:2349–78
     [Google Scholar]
  99. Wallis NJ. 2013. The materiality of signs: enchainment and animacy in Woodland Southeastern North American pottery. Am. Antiq. 78:207–26
     [Google Scholar]
  100. Watts CM 2008. On mediation and material agency in the Peircian semeiotic. Material Agency: Towards a Non-Anthropocentric Approach C Knappett, L Malafouris 187–207 New York: Springer
     [Google Scholar]
  101. Webmoor T. 2007. What about “one more turn after the social” in archaeological reasoning? Taking things seriously. World Archaeol 39:4563–78
     [Google Scholar]
  102. Witmore CL. 2007. Symmetrical archaeology: excerpts of a manifesto. World Archaeol 39:4546–62
     [Google Scholar]
  103. Wylie A. 1989. Archaeological cables and tacking: the implications of practice for Bernstein's ‘Options beyond objectivism and relativism. .’ Philos. Soc. Sci. 19:11–18
     [Google Scholar]
  104. Wynn T. 1995. Handaxe enigmas. World Archaeol 27:110–24
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-101819-110112
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error