<p>This article examines the semiotic dimensions of legal recognition in Aotearoa New Zealand, focusing on the burial dispute in <i>Takamore v Clarke</i>. It argues that the settler legal system’s failure to recognise Māori burial as law is not a doctrinal flaw but a semiotic one. The incapacity lies in the common law’s structural inability to perceive Māori semiotic repertoires—<i>whakapapa</i> (genealogy), <i>whenua</i> (ancestral land), <i>karakia</i> (ritual incantations), and collective authority—as juridical signs of law. By relegating tikanga Māori to the status of “values” or “custom,” the Supreme Court rendered Indigenous legality invisible and reinforced colonial dominance. The article introduces the concept of semiotic pluralism to reframe the debate. This approach moves beyond normative pluralism, which admits Indigenous norms only through translation into settler categories, toward recognition of Indigenous law based on its semiotic repertoire. Burial practices under <i>tikanga</i> thus emerge as acts of counter-jurisdiction: juridical performances that contest colonial sovereignty and affirm Māori authority over life, death, and land. The conclusion emphasises that genuine recognition of <i>tikanga</i> requires a shift from normative inclusion to semiotic recognition. Such a shift not only affirms Māori legal authority but also challenges the epistemic hierarchies of settler jurisprudence, opening the possibility of a genuinely plural legal order in Aotearoa New Zealand.</p>