Rhetorical Analysis of Mimbres Pottery Pieces

Evie Giaconia

Anthropology is not a hard science, but it is a science nonetheless, and it shows in

the rhetorical analysis of two very different types of anthropological writing. My subject
for this analysis was the Mimbres people, a Native American culture that existed in New
Mexico and Arizona from 200-1250 CE. An article in Archaeology magazine discusses
the distinctive pottery style developed by the Mimbres until its abrupt disappearance, and
a piece published in the Journal of Archaeological Research provides critique about the
practices used to study the Mimbres today. These are two very different texts meant for
two very different audiences, and the breakdown that follows will prove it.
Jude Isabella is a freelance scientific journalist. She wrote On the Trail of the
Mimbres in 2013, after interviewing several archaeologists about the Mimbres culture.
The article gives a brief overview of who the Mimbres were, their pottery style, dates of
making and finding the pottery, and the eventual 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 in around them expertly. Invention is, as could be inferred, the first.
This is not an article that could be generated by sitting at a computer and pulling
knowledge to the front of your mind. It is a scientific article that took research. Jude
discussed the Mimbres with several professional archaeologists, including Steve
LeBlanc, an expert in Mimbres pottery, and Michelle Hegmon, another expert in the
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 experts. The article
is framed around their knowledgeultimately, piecing it together and making the

information engaging is the authors job, not inventing the knowledge herself. She picks
up the ethos of the professionals by association.
Arrangement is the second canon heavily involved in this article. For a text such
as this, meant to be attractive and easy to read, arrangement is everything. 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. This is no dry
journal, this has, at least, the potential for interest. It is as if there is a rule: pathos first.
Emotion to grab the reader, and then logos to guide them through the story. The article,
after this thrilling intro, transitions into a background of the Mimbres people, for this is
not an article for pre-knowledgeable experts. 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. Who are these guys? asks an
archaeologist in last paragraph. The reader is left to wonder. This structure is logos at
work: it is a conventional pattern that readers are used to. It is a story. We are all familiar
with how a story is supposed to work, and this article is no exception. From past to
present, it guides the reader gently, explaining and questioning. It is an engaging mold
that is well suited to the text.
Delivery also plays a part in this article. The piece is covered in full-color pictures
that are supplemental to the story. There is an intense cover spread, also full-cover, meant
to grab attention. The typeface and color styles are aesthetically pleasing and attractive. It
is a piece meant to draw in readers.
All of these things are clues as to the discourse community. A story-like structure,
extensive background information, a catchy header and pretty pictures. The discourse

community is not a panel of experts reading and review a professionals paper, or looking
to do anything with this information. This article is intended for people who are interested
in archaeology, casually. There is very little jargon, and what is there is explained by the
text. The article is designed to attract readers and buyers, and tell a fun story while its at
it.
The academic text that will serve as comparison is, coincidentally, written by one
of the archaeologists interviewed in the 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 then suggests areas that need more
focus to better understand the culture. It is very much a professional, knowledgeable
paper. It practically screams ethos. It contains a list of sources sited that is twenty pages
long, and was published in the Journal of Archaeological Science. This isnt someone
interviewing an expert, this is the expert.
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 cannot, of course, be pulled completely from memory, as it is a
professional paper and must be thorough and well-developed to achieve its purpose.
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 conclusion.
Unlike the article, the paper is much more comprehensive. Hegmon gives us an overview
of everything currently (in 2013) known about the Mimbres: archaeological background,
culture history, demographics, environment, settlement and mobility, abandonment, the

entire known history of the pottery stylethe 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 lacking in the corpus, 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 is writing 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 article. There is no cutting
of information to make room for more interesting things. This paper was designed for
professionals. It is a peer-reviewed journal and acts like it. There are a few maps and
graphs, but no color pictures. There is no fancy type or cover, it is black and white and
no-nonsense. This is meant for a discourse community of other archaeologists who have
the power to enact the changes Hegmon is suggesting. She is arguing a specific point, not
entertaining readers. The title is not eye-catching, it is informative and pointed. This is a
professional speaking to other professionals.
These differences in rhetorical strategies are key to the existence of different
styles of writing. If the article was written like the paper, Archaeology magazine would
crash and burn. Readership would be zero. If the paper was written like the article,
informal and speculative, Hegmon would be laughed out of publication. Different
audiences require different approaches, in different rations. Isabella uses more pathos
than Hegmon, because that is what is most engaging to an audience 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: a steady, well-developed, structured

argument. Both of the texts had exigence, and that affected how the texts were developed.
The exigence of the article? To attract readers, mostly. This influenced the how the entire
article was structured and displayed. The exigence for the paper was to effect a very
specific change, and this too influenced the rhetoric: it had to be convincing, professional,
and well-supported.

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