On Mediation and Material Agency in the Peircean Semeiotic

  • Christopher M. Watts


This chapter seeks to advance our understanding of material agency through an interpretive framework fashioned from the semeiotic ideology of Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914). In doing so, it attempts to move beyond a rote recital of Peirce’s sign types and their lineaments and toward a larger reading of his philosophical outputs, examining potential points of contact between material agency and Peirce’s thinking on semeiotic functioning. Owing to the contours of a creative mind steeped in mathematics and logic, his is a canon marked by heroic theorising, labyrinthine reasoning and runaway terminology. As such, uncharitable interpretations of Peirce’s writing often evoke words such as ‘impenetrable’ or ‘torturous,’ but it is nevertheless a literature that commands our attention, chiefly because of its non-anthropocentric, anti-Cartesian emphasis on semeiotic mediation. In the Peircean framework, semeiosis is neither bound up in language nor contingent on human consciousness, but rather exists as a relative and relational property tethered to particular experiential settings. Where the human subject is implicated, perception, cognition and belief were understood by Peirce to be engendered by a sensory experience of signs. The phenomenological underpinnings of these themes are explored throughout this chapter and illustrated with reference to a case study involving precontact Aboriginal pottery from southwestern Ontario, Canada.


Material Culture Material Agency Western Basin Human Consciousness Brute Fact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



I would very much like to thank Carl Knappett and Lambros Malafouris for inviting me to contribute a chapter to this volume. My thinking on this topic has benefitted greatly from their advice and observations. I am also indebted to Robert Preucel, who very kindly read and commented upon an earlier draft of this chapter. Any faults or omissions in this work, however, are entirely my own. Finally, the research described herein was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Doctoral Fellowship, as well as several University of Toronto Open Fellowships.


  1. Akrich, M., and Latour, B., 1992, A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies. In Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change, edited by W. Bijker and J. Law, pp. 259–264. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, A.A., 2002, Is What You See All You Get? Recognizing Meaning in Archaeology. Journal of Social Archaeology 2:37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boast, R., 1997, A Small Company of Actors: A Critique of Style. Journal of Material Culture 2:173–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Capone, P.W., and Preucel, R.W., 2002, Ceramic Semiotics: Women, Pottery, and Social Meanings at Kotyiti Pueblo. In Archaeologies of the Pueblo Revolt: Identity, Meaning, and Renewal in the Pueblo World, edited by R.W. Preucel, pp. 99–113. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Google Scholar
  5. Coben, L., 2006, Other Cuzcos: Replicated Theaters of Inka Power. In Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community and Politics, edited by T. Inomata and L. Coben, pp. 223–259. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
  6. Costall, A., 1995, Socializing Affordances. Theory and Psychology 5:467–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costall, A., 1997, The Meaning of Things. Social Analysis 41:76–85.Google Scholar
  8. Dobres, M.-A., and Robb, J.E., 2000, Agency in Archaeology: Paradigm or Platitude. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by M.-A. Dobres and J.E. Robb, pp. 1–17. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  9. Eco, U., 1976, A Theory of Semiotics. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  10. Gardin, J.-C., 1992, Semiotic Trends in Archaeology. In Representations in Archaeology, edited by J.-C. Gardin and C. Peebles, pp. 87–104. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  11. Gell, A., 1998, Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  12. Gosden, C., 2005, What Do Objects Want? Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 12:193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greimas, A.J., 1966, Sémantique Structurale. Librairie Larousse, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. Hawkes, T., 1977, Structuralism and Semiotics. University of California Press, Berkeley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hodder, I., 1982, Sequences of Structural Change in the Dutch Neolithic. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 162–177. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hodder, I., 1989, This is Not an Article About Material Culture as Text. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 8:250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hodder, I., 1992, Material Practice, Symbolism and Ideology. In Theory and Practice in Archaeology, edited by I. Hodder, pp. 201–212. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  18. Hookway, C., 1985, Peirce. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.Google Scholar
  19. Keane, W., 2003a, Self-Interpretation, Agency, and the Objects of Anthropology: Reflections on a Genealogy. Comparative Studies in Society and History 45:222–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keane, W., 2003b, Semiotics and the Social Analysis of Material Things. Language and Communication 23:409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keane, W., 2005, Signs are not the Garb of Meaning: On the Social Analysis of Material in Things. In Materiality, edited by D. Miller, pp. 182–205. Duke University Press, Durham, North Carolina.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Knappett, C., 2002, Photographs, Skeumorphs and Marionettes: Some Thoughts on Mind, Agency and Object. Journal of Material Culture 7:97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Knappett, C., 2005, Thinking Through Material Culture: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Latour, B., 1993, We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by C. Porter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  25. Law, J., 1999, After ANT: Complexity, Naming and Topology. In Actor Network Theory and After, edited by J. Law and J. Hassard, pp. 1–14. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.Google Scholar
  26. Lele, V.P., 2006, Material Habits, Identity, Semeiotic. Journal of Social Archaeology 6:48–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenoir, T., 1994, Was the Last Turn the Right Turn? The Semiotic Turn and A. J. Greimas. Configurations 2:119–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malafouris, L., 2005, The Cognitive Basis of Material Engagement: Where Brain, Body and Culture Conflate. In Rethinking Materiality: The Engagement of Mind with the Material World, edited by E. DeMarrais, C. Gosden and C. Renfrew, pp. 53–62. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  29. Olsen, B., 2003, Material Culture after Text: Re-Membering Things. Norwegian Archaeological Review 36:87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parmentier, R.J., 1994, Signs in Society: Studies in Semiotic Anthropology. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  31. Parmentier, R.J., 1997, The Pragmatic Semiotics of Cultures. Semiotica 116:1–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peirce, C.S., 1958–1965, The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. 8 volumes. Edited by C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and A.W. Burks. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Peirce, C.S., 1967, Manuscripts in the Houghton Library of Harvard University, as identified by Richard Robin. Annotated Catalogue of the Papers of Charles S. Peirce. University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst.Google Scholar
  34. Peirce, C.S., 1977, Semiotics and Significs. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  35. Preucel, R.W., 2006, Archaeological Semiotics. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Preucel, R.W., and Bauer, A.A., 2001, Archaeological Pragmatics . Norwegian Archaeological Review 34:85–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Savan, D., 1989, An Introduction to C. S. Peirce’s Full System of Semeiotic. Toronto Semiotic Circle, Monograph No. 1.Google Scholar
  38. Schnapp, J., Shanks, M., and Tiews, M., 2004, Archaeology, Modernism, Modernity. MODERNISM/modernity 11:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sebeok, T.A., and Uniker-Sebeok, J., editors, 1992, Biosemiotics. The Semiotic Web 1991. Mouton de Gruyter, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Sebeok, T.A., Hoffmeyer, J., and Emmeche, C., editors, 1999, Biosemiotica. Semiotica 127.Google Scholar
  41. Shanks, M., and Tilley, C., 1987, Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Shepard, A.O., 1976, Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Publication Number 609, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  43. Short, T.L., 2004, The Development of Peirce’s Theory of Signs. In The Cambridge Companion to Peirce, edited by C. Misak, pp. 214–240. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thomas, J., 2004, Archaeology and Modernity. Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  45. Thomas, J., 2007, The Trouble with Material Culture. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 9/10:11–23.Google Scholar
  46. Washburn, D.K., and Crowe, D.W., 1988, Symmetries of Culture: Theory and Practice of Plane Pattern Analysis. University of Washington Press, Seattle.Google Scholar
  47. Watts, C., 2007, From Purification to Mediation: Overcoming Artifactual ‘Otherness’ with and in Actor-Network Theory. Journal of Iberian Archaeology 9/10:39–54.Google Scholar
  48. Watts, C., 2008, Pot/Potter Entanglements and Networks of Agency in Late Woodland Period (ca. AD 900–1300) Southwestern Ontario, Canada. British Archacological Reports, International Series, Archacopress, Oxford (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  49. Whitridge, P., 2004, Whales, Harpoons, and Other Actors: Actor-Network Theory and Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology. In Hunters and Gatherers in Theory and Archaeology, edited by G. M. Crothers, pp. 445–474. Occasional Paper No. 31, Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations