Rhetorical Analysis of Mimbres Pottery Pieces

Evie Giaconia

Anthropology is not a hard science, but it is a science nevertheless, and it shows

in the comparison between the styles of writing that encompass the discipline. Just like
Watson and Cricks publication and the flashy Io9 article, the divide in professional and
nonprofessional writing is clear. The subject discussed in the two sources is the Mimbres
culture, a Native American people that existed in New Mexico and Arizona from 2001250 CE. An article published in Archaeology magazine discusses the distinctive pottery
style developed by the Mimbres until its abrupt disappearance, while a piece published in
the Journal of Archaeological Research provides critique about the practices used to
study the Mimres culture today. These are two very different texts meant for two very
different audiences, as evidenced by the analysis provided below.
Jude Isabella is a freelance scientific journalist. She wrote On the Trail of the
Mimbres in 2013, with compiled research and interviews with several prominent
archaeologists. The article gives a brief overview of who the Mimbres were, their pottery
style, the dates of making and finding the pottery, and the abrupt cessation of the style. Of
the five canons of rhetoric, three feature prominently in this article. The three pisteis,
ethos, logos, and pathos, weave expertly around them. The first mentionable canon is
invention, as could be inferred. This is not an article that could be generated by sitting at
a computer and pulling knowledge out of your brain. It is a scientific article that took
research. Isabella discussed the Mimbres with several professional archaeologists,
including Steve LeBlanc, an expert in Mimbres pottery, and Michelle Hegmon, a
foremost expert in Mimbres culture. This is ethos at its finestthe journalist may not be
an expert on the culture, but she knows people who are. The experts names are dropped
over and over throughout the article, as if saying this is the truth, and it came from

specialists. The article is framed around their knowledgeultimately, piecing it together

and making the information engaging is Isabellas job, not inventing the knowledge
herself. She picks up the ethos of the professionals by association.
The second canon of arrangement works in tandem with logos and pathos to make
this article whole. Arrangement is everything for a text such as this, published in a
magazine and meant to be engaging and easy to read. There is a captivating teaser at the
beginning: Archaeologists are tracking the disappearance of a remarkable type of
pottery to rewrite the story of a cultures decline (Isabella, 36). The bold words proclaim
that this is no dry journal, it has something interesting to the hoi polloi within. It is there
to evoke curiosity in the reader. It is as if there is a rule within the arrangement of articles
like this: pathos first. Emotion to grab the reader, then logos to guide them through the
story. The article, after this thrilling intro, transitions into a structured, logos-driven
background of the Mimbres people. This is not an article for pre-knowledgeable persons.
Readers expect explanation. There are brief overviews of the archaeological history of the
sites, the history of the pottery, and finally an intriguing conclusion meant to raise
curiosity: more pathos to frame the article. Who are these guys? asks an archaeologist
in the last paragraph (Isabella, 40). The reader is left to wonder. The structure is logos at
work: it is a conventional pattern that readers are used to, the story. From past to present,
it guides the reader gently, explaining and questioning. It is engaging and well-suited to
the text.
The last prominent canon of rhetoric that plays a part in this article is delivery.
The piece is covered in full-color pictures that are supplemental to the story. There is an
intense cover spread, also full-color, meant to grab attention. The typeface and color

styles are aesthetically pleasing and attractive. It is a piece meant to draw a reader in.
This is also a prime example of pathos. The pictures werent put there so the reader could
go oh, thats boring and academic, Ill just move on. They were placed there to inspire
the reader to give the article a second glance, to lure the gaze an down to the text below.
All of these factors make up a distinctive text, but you cant plot a line with a
single point. The academic text that will serve as comparison is, coincidentally, written
by one of the archaeologists interviewed in the Isabellas article. Michelle Hegmon is an
archaeologist whose research focuses on the Mimbres culture. Her journal, Recent Issues
in the Archaeology of the Mimbres region of the North American Southwest, reviews
current archaeological knowledge of the Mimbres culture, and suggests areas that need
more focus to improve the overall understanding of the people. It is very much a
professional, knowledgeable paper.
Invention, in this case, truly is invention. Hegmon draws from her own lifetime of
research and knowledge to write this paper, along with dozens of other archaeologists
findings and research. It practically screams ethos. It contains a list of sources cited that
is twenty pages long, and was published in the Journal of Archaeological Science. This
isnt someone interviewing an expert, this is the expert.
The arrangement of this text is both similar and different to the article. Like the
article, there is an introduction, an overview of the Mimbres culture, and a conclusion.
Unlike the article, the paper is infinitely more comprehensive. It is logos on steroids.
Hegmon gives us an overview of everything known about the Mimbres as of 2013:
archaeological background, culture history, demographics, environment, settlement and
mobility, abandonment, the entire known history of the pottery style. The picture is

clear. Hegmon provides a corpus of information about the Mimbres people. Also unlike
the article, her conclusion reaches a more specific point. It is a description of all the
things the corpus lacks, outlining areas of research that are vital (Hegmon, 37). Lacking
areas include humans and their landscape and population estimates. There is a distinct
exigence for writing this paper: Hegmon has seen a gap in knowledge that needs to be
filled, and has written this paper in response. It is a call to action for other professionals:
this needs to happen, she is saying, so we can better understand the Mimbres.
The delivery of this paper is entirely different from the informal article. There is
no pruning of information to make room for sensational topics. This was published in a
peer-reviewed journal, and it acts like it. There are a few maps and graphs, but no eyecatching color pictures. There is no fancy type or cover; it is black and white and nononsense. Hegmon is arguing a specific point, not entertaining readers. There title is
informative and pointed. There is no room for flash or glamour.
These differences in rhetorical strategies are key to demonstrating exactly what
discourse community the text was meant for. Isabellas article, with its story-like
structure, extensive background information, and catchy header, was meant for an
audience that had to be coaxed in. There is little jargon, all information is provided. It
was meant for people interested in archaeology, casually. It was designed to attract
readers and buyers, and look good while doing it. Hegmons discourse community is
entirely different. From the title to the publication, it is aimed at a specific audience of
professionals who can understand this highly technical information. The exigence of the
paper is most telling: the suggestion for improvement. Who is the only audience Hegmon
could be talking to? Other professionals with the power to enact her changes. These

different strategies and audiences are key to the existence of different styles of writing
within a discipline. If the article was written like the paper, Archaeology Magazine would
crash and burn. If the paper was written like the article, informal and speculative,
Hegmon would be laughed out of publication. Isabella uses more pathos than Hegmon,
because that is what is most engaging to an audience that is only superficially interested
in the topic. Hegmon has about five times more logos in her paper, because that is what
constitutes a peer-reviewed document. Both texts are fine examples of writing in their
fields, but operate in totally different spheres, demonstrating perfectly how diverse
writing within a single discipline can be.

Sources
Hegmon, M. (2002). Recent Issues in the Archaeology of the Mimbres Region of
the North American Southwest. Journal Of Archaeological Research, 10(4), 307-357.
Isabella, J. (2013, June). On the Trail of the Mimbres. Archaeology. 66(3), pp. 3640