A Comment on Hegmon and Trevathan's “Gender, Anatomical Knowledge, and Pottery Production”

A Comment on Hegmon and Trevathan's “Gender, Anatomical Knowledge, and Pottery Production”

The concern with the gender and role of Mimbres potters and painters is certainly an important one, and Hegmon and Trevathan (1996) do a good job of reviewing the various arguments about the identity of the bowl painters. Going beyond this review, they add another possible piece of evidence for the...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American antiquity Vol. 62; no. 4; pp. 723 - 726
Main Author: LeBlanc, Steven A.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: New York, US Cambridge University Press 01-10-1997
Society for American Archaeology
Subjects:
Anatomy
Archaeological sites
Archaeologists
Archaeology
Arrows
Art pottery
Ceramics
Comments
Criticism and interpretation
Gender identity
Gender roles
Hands
Hegmon, M
Pottery
Pottery figures
Prehistoric pottery
Sexes
Trevathan, W.R
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The concern with the gender and role of Mimbres potters and painters is certainly an important one, and Hegmon and Trevathan (1996) do a good job of reviewing the various arguments about the identity of the bowl painters. Going beyond this review, they add another possible piece of evidence for the role of men in the production of Mimbres art. While I concur that the other arguments they present suggest some role for men in the painting activity, I do not believe that the particular new example they present adds any weight to this argument.
ISSN:0002-7316
2325-5064
DOI:10.2307/281891