Archaeologists wishing to interpret the meanings of artifacts, both symbolic and functional, have increasingly drawn from Saussure-inspired linguistic models as a way to ‘read’ the archaeological record. Such models, however, may not be appropriate for a number of reasons, and should be discarded in favor of a discourse-centered approach, which investigates meaning through practice, currently gaining popularity among American linguistic anthropologists. Using the semiotic theory developed by Charles Sanders Peirce, this article focuses on how people use and interpret material signs such as the artifacts we excavate and analyze to produce knowledge, and how those meanings shift across contexts. Specifically, the semiotic mediation of artifacts is examined in the present context of museum displays to illustrate how the interpretation of artifacts crucially depends on their recognition as meaningful signs by knowing agents.
Ames, M.
(1991) Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.
2.
Bauer, A.A.
and R.W. Preucel (2000) The Meaning of Meaning: A Semiotic Approach to Archaeological Interpretation. Paper presented at the European Association of Archaeologists, Lisbon.
3.
Baxandall, M.
(1991) ‘Exhibiting Intention: Some Preconditions of the Visual Display of Culturally Purposeful Objects’, in I. Karp and S.D. Lavine (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, pp. 33-41. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
4.
Bender, B.
(1998) Stonehenge: Making Space. Oxford: Berg.
5.
Binford, L.R.
(1962) ‘Archaeology as Anthropology’, American Antiquity28: 217-225.
6.
Binford, L.R.
(1981) ‘Behavioral Archaeology and the “Pompeii Premise”’, Journal of Anthropological Research37: 195-208.
7.
Bloch, M.
(1991) ‘Language, Anthropology and Cognitive Science’, Man26: 183-198.
8.
Broadbent, G.
(1980) ‘Architects and their Symbols’, Built Environment6: 10-28.
9.
Broadbent, G.
(1994) ‘Recent Developments in Architectural Semiotics’, Semiotica101(1/2): 73-101.
10.
Clarke, D.L.
(1978) Analytical Archaeology, 2nd edn.New York: Columbia University Press.
11.
Clifford, J.
and G.E. Marcus, eds (1986) Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.
12.
Danto, A.C.
(1988) ‘Artifact and Art’, in ART/artifact: African Art in Anthropology Collections, pp. 18-32. New York: Center for African Art.
13.
Deetz, J.
(1967) Invitation to Archaeology. New York: Anchor Books.
14.
DuBois, J.W.
(1986) ‘Self-evidence as Ritual Speech’, in W. Chafe and J. Nichols (eds) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, pp. 313-336. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
DuBois, J.W.
(1993) ‘Meaning without Intentions: Lessons from Divination’, in J. Hill and J.T. Irvine (eds) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, pp. 48-71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Foucault, M.
(1970 [1966]) The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. New York: Vintage Books.
17.
Gardin, J.-C.
(1980) Archaeological Constructs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Geertz, C.
(1973) The Interpretation of Cultures. New York: Basic Books.
19.
Gell, A.
(1996) ‘Vogel’s Net: Traps as Artifacts and Artworks as Traps’, Journal of Material Culture1: 15-38.
20.
Gottdeiner, M.
(1995) Postmodern Semiotics: Material Culture and the Forms of Postmodern Life. Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
Gurian, E.H.
(1991) ‘Noodling Around with Exhibition Opportunities’, in I. Karp and S.D. Lavine (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, pp. 176-190. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
22.
Haraway, D.
(1988) ‘Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective’, Feminist Studies14: 575-599.
23.
Heidegger, M.
(1962 [1927]) Being and Time (trans. J. Macqarrie and E. Robinson). San Francisco, CA: Harper and Row.
24.
Hodder, I.
(1986) Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Hodder, I.
(1989) ‘Writing Archaeology: Site Reports in Context’, Antiquity63: 268-274.
26.
Hodder, I.
(1992a) ‘Material Practice, Symbolism and Ideology’, in I. Hodder (ed.) Theory and Practice in Archaeology, pp. 201-212. London: Routledge.
27.
Hodder, I.
(1992b) Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London: Routledge.
28.
Hodder, I.
(1997) ‘Always Momentary, Fluid and Flexible: Toward a Reflexive Excavation Methodology’, Antiquity71: 692-700.
29.
Hodder, I.
, M. Shanks, A. Alexandri, V. Buchli, J. Carman, J. Last and G. Lucas, eds (1995) Interpreting Archaeology: Finding Meaning in the Past. London: Routledge.
30.
Hooper-Greenhill, E.
(1991) ‘A New Communication Model for Museums’, in G. Kavanagh (ed.) Museum Languages: Objects and Texts, pp. 47-61. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
31.
Hooper-Greenhill, E.
, ed. (1995) Museum, Media, Message. London: Routledge.
32.
Hymes, D. (1970) ‘Linguistic Models in Archaeology’, in Archéologie et Calculateurs: Problèmes Sémiologique et Mathématiques, pp. 91-120. Paris: CNRS.
33.
Karp, I.
, M. Kreamer and S.D. Lavine, eds (1992) Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
34.
Karp, I.
and S.D. Lavine, eds (1991) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
35.
Kavanagh, G.
, ed. (1991) Museum Languages: Objects and Texts. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
36.
Keane, W.
(1997) Signs of Recognition: Powers and Hazards of Representation in an Indonesian Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
37.
Lee, B.
(1997) Talking Heads: Language, Metalanguage, and the Semiotics of Subjectivity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
38.
Lee, B.
and G. Urban, eds (1989) Semiotics, Self, and Society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
39.
Leone, M.P.
, P.B. Potter and P. Shackel (1987) ‘Toward a Critical Archaeology’, Current Anthropology28: 283-302.
40.
Leone, M.P.
and R.W. Preucel (1992) ‘Archaeology in a Democratic Society: A Critical Theory Approach’, in L. Wandsnider (ed.) Quandaries and Quests: Visions for Archaeology’s Future, pp. 115-135. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale Occasional Paper. vol. 20. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations.
41.
MacGaffey, W.
(1998) ‘“Magic, or as we usually say, Art”: A Framework for Comparing European and African Art’, in E. Schildkrout and C.A. Keim (eds) The Scramble for Art in Central Africa, pp. 217-235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
Merriman, N.
(1991) Beyond the Glass Case: The Past, the Heritage and the Public in Britain. Leicester: Leicester University Press.
43.
Parmentier, R.J.
(1987) The Sacred Remains: Myth, History, and Polity in Belau. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Parmentier, R.J.
(1994) Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
45.
Pearce, S.M.
(1992) Museums, Objects, and Collections: A Cultural Study. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution.
46.
Pearce, S.M.
(1994 [1990]) ‘Objects as Meaning: Or Narrating the Past’, in S.M. Pearce (ed.) Interpreting Objects and Collections, pp. 19-29. London: Routledge.
Philips, S.U.
(1993) ‘Evidentiary Standards for American Trials: Just the Facts’, in J.H. Hill and J.T. Irvine (eds) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, pp. 248-259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Preziosi, D.
(1979a) Architecture, Language and Meaning. Berlin: Mouton.
51.
Preziosi, D.
(1979b) The Semiotics of the Built Environment. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
52.
Ricoeur, P.
(1991 [1971]) ‘The Model of the Text: Meaningful Action Considered as Text’, in K. Blamey and J.B. Thompson (eds and trans.) From Text to Action: Essays in Hermeneutics 2, pp. 144-167. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
53.
Schiffer, M.B.
(1976) Behavioral Archaeology. New York: Academic Press.
54.
Schiffer, M.B.
(1985) ‘Is There a “Pompeii Premise” in Archaeology?’, Journal of Anthropological Research41: 18-41.
55.
Shanks, M.
and C. Tilley (1987) Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Silverstein, M.
and G. Urban (1996) ‘The Natural History of Discourse’, in M. Silverstein and G. Urban (eds) Natural Histories of Discourse, pp. 1-17. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
Singer, M.
(1984) Man’s Glassy Essence: Explorations in Semiotic Anthropology. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
58.
Strong, P.T.
(1997) ‘Exclusive Labels: Indexing the National “We” in Commemorative and Oppositional Exhibitions’, Museum Anthropology21: 42-56.
59.
Tambiah, S.J.
(1984) The Buddhist Saints of the Forest and the Cult of Amulets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60.
Tarlow, S.
(1999) Bereavement and Commemoration: An Archaeology of Mortality. Oxford: Blackwell.
61.
Tilley, C.
, ed. (1990) Reading Material Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
62.
Tilley, C.
(1991) Material Culture and Text: The Art of Ambiguity. London: Routledge.
63.
Trigger, B.G.
(1989) ‘Hyperrelativism, Responsibility, and the Social Sciences’, Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology26: 776-797.
64.
Urban, G.
(1991) A Discourse-Centered Approach to Culture. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
65.
Vogel, S.
(1988) ‘Introduction’, in ART/artifact: African Art in Anthropology Collections, pp. 11-17. New York: Center for African Art.
66.
Vogel, S.
(1991) ‘Always True to the Object, in Our Fashion’, in I. Karp and S.D. Lavine (eds) Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, pp. 191-204. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
67.
Watson, P.J.
, S.A. LeBlanc and C.L. Redman (1971) Explanation in Archaeology: An Explicitly Scientific Approach. New York: Columbia University Press.
68.
Yates, T.
(1990) ‘Archaeology Through the Looking-Glass’, in I. Bapty and T. Yates (eds) Archaeology after Structuralism, pp. 154-202. London: Routledge.
