Indigenous Archaeology, Collaborative Practice, and Rock Imagery: An Example from the North American Southwest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

• Overall, this is a well organized and written article that has a logical flow and structure.
• This article offers an important methodological/theoretical case study in applying collaborative approaches to rock art research.  As a theoretically/methodologically oriented piece, I believe that this article could be strengthened by providing more specific details and examples that explain how Indigenous partners and participants in the LGREAP shaped the project design, implementation, and results. For example, were collaborators included in the initial grant writing process? If so, how? If not, at what point were they included? Furthermore, what were the goals/ approaches of different Indigenous collaborators and how did they differ or resemble each other? How did the project navigate this process of aligning goals? Finally, how did Indigenous perspectives shape the dissemination plan and the storage/archiving of data?    
• The discussion on rock art and tribal engagement in section 3 could be strengthened and made more current by cutting back on some of the details provided on Julian Steward and providing some more content on the Hopi History Project and the other more contemporary examples the author(s) reference.  

 

Specific comments: 

• Overall, the citations in the literature review section on Indigenous archaeology/collaborative research captures the major contributions in this area over the past decade. However, there are several more recent volumes which speak particularly to these subjects that are important to reference/include (e.g., Atalay, Clauss, McGuire, and Welch 2014 Transforming Archaeology,  Atalay 2016 Community-Based Archaeology, and Van Alst and Shield Chief Gover 2024 Indigenizing Archaeology) 
• On page 18 the author(s) use the term “petroglyph ontology”. This is an interesting/important concept to their overall methodological contribution that could use additional definition through specific examples of what a facet/feature of this type of ontology. How is this different/similar to other digital network ontologies/modes of organization? An additional image/screen shot showing the database infrastructure would help readers better understand the “petroglyph ontology” referenced in the text.
• On pages 20-22, the authors frame the project contributions in terms of 4 kinship values, which provides a re-grounding of the discussion in terms of Indigenous Archaeology. In my opinion, this discussion could be elaborated on to strengthen the impact of the article.
  • Relationships: could the author(s) discuss how the relationships forged were different/similar across tribal participants? This section also brings up questions about how COVID impacted/change communication with partners/participants as well as what the challenges were to the initial relationship building process? 
  • Responsibility: could the author(s) discuss in more detail the non-disclosure policy prohibiting photography and online publishing and how this policy protected sites?
  • Reciprocity: from a methodological stand point it would be helpful to have more reflections on lessons learned from the co-authorship or presentation opportunities mentioned. Furthermore, what were the types of narratives that tribal partners wanted to tell and how do they differ from the types of interpretations discussed in previous sections?  
  • Redistribution: Could the authors provide some additional reflection and detail on the types of initiatives, mentorship relationships, networking, credentials that built capacity among the participants.

Author Response

Comments 1: As a theoretically/methodologically oriented piece, I believe that this article could be strengthened by providing more specific details and examples that explain how Indigenous partners and participants in the LGREAP shaped the project design, implementation, and results. For example, were collaborators included in the initial grant writing process? If so, how? If not, at what point were they included? Furthermore, what were the goals/ approaches of different Indigenous collaborators and how did they differ or resemble each other? How did the project navigate this process of aligning goals? Finally, how did Indigenous perspectives shape the dissemination plan and the storage/archiving of data?  

Response 1: I added requested detail in lines 535-547.

Comments 2: The discussion on rock art and tribal engagement in section 3 could be strengthened and made more current by cutting back on some of the details provided on Julian Steward and providing some more content on the Hopi History Project and the other more contemporary examples the author(s) reference.  

Response 2: There was no need to cut back in Section 3, so I did not. After considering adding more content on the Hopi History Project, I decided to remove that discussion entirely because it was rather weak and did not add to the manuscript's thesis. It was a distraction, and by removing it the paper reads better.

Comments 3: Overall, the citations in the literature review section on Indigenous archaeology/collaborative research captures the major contributions in this area over the past decade. However, there are several more recent volumes which speak particularly to these subjects that are important to reference/include (e.g., Atalay, Clauss, McGuire, and Welch 2014 Transforming Archaeology,  Atalay 2016 Community-Based Archaeology, and Van Alst and Shield Chief Gover 2024 Indigenizing Archaeology)

Response 3: Citations added

Comments 4: On page 18 the author(s) use the term “petroglyph ontology”. This is an interesting/important concept to their overall methodological contribution that could use additional definition through specific examples of what a facet/feature of this type of ontology. How is this different/similar to other digital network ontologies/modes of organization? An additional image/screen shot showing the database infrastructure would help readers better understand the “petroglyph ontology” referenced in the text.

Response 4: Requested detail added in lines 606-621.

Comments 5: On pages 20-22, the authors frame the project contributions in terms of 4 kinship values, which provides a re-grounding of the discussion in terms of Indigenous Archaeology. In my opinion, this discussion could be elaborated on to strengthen the impact of the article.

Response 5: Discussion elaborated.

Comments 6: Relationships: could the author(s) discuss how the relationships forged were different/similar across tribal participants? This section also brings up questions about how COVID impacted/change communication with partners/participants as well as what the challenges were to the initial relationship building process? 

Response 6: Requested detail added in lines 676-693.

Comments 7: Responsibility: could the author(s) discuss in more detail the non-disclosure policy prohibiting photography and online publishing and how this policy protected sites?

Response 7: Requested detail added in lines 719-739.

Comments 8: Reciprocity: from a methodological stand point it would be helpful to have more reflections on lessons learned from the co-authorship or presentation opportunities mentioned. Furthermore, what were the types of narratives that tribal partners wanted to tell and how do they differ from the types of interpretations discussed in previous sections?  

Response 8: Requested detail added in lines 746-758.

Comments 9: Redistribution: Could the authors provide some additional reflection and detail on the types of initiatives, mentorship relationships, networking, credentials that built capacity among the participants.

Response 9: Requested detail added in lines 775-784.

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article aims to showcase the importance of incorporating Indigenous knowledge, voices, and values into rock art research, specifically in the Southwest of the United States. The author describes how this project came to be with tribal communities in the Lower Gila River landscape. Within the piece, the author explores the intersection between rock art research and Indigenous archaeology, presenting how integrating Indigenous knowledge within archaeology is critical in our understanding of rock art images. 

Overall, a great article. I am thrilled to see this type of rock art research being conducted with, by, and for tribal communities in the Southwest. This article will be a staple for scholars interested in the intersection of Indigenous archaeology and rock art. That said, there are few citations that needed to be add and a few issues with how Indigenous archaeology is presented in the piece.

The author has a section (section 2) on Indigenous archaeology (IA) that gives a broad overview of this theoretical and methodological practice within the field. That said, the author writes about Indigenous archaeology as a “social movement” or “social critique” which does a disservice to the methodological and theoretical ways in which Indigenous people’s knowledge is elevated within our field. By referring to IA as a social movement, it does not give it the same importance as “Western archaeological science”. This may not be the authors intent, and I do not think it is as they have written about IA as an important “multivocal and collaborative” approach to archaeology.  I would like to see the author maybe cite some Indigenous archaeology case studies / more recent work with more emphasis on methods to really round out their discussion on IA. Further, their discussion on the legal tribal consultation is important and I would suggest the author look at Joe Watkin’s 2015 piece about IA and US law.
The main concern with the piece is that there are many times throughout the article I found myself wondering where the in-text citations were. There is also a lack of engagement with rock art research scholarship within the broader North American context. There have been many scholars who have worked and continue to work with Indigenous communities on rock art. Though I agree with the author that these scholars tend to focus on the interpretation side of working with communities, there has still been some efforts (Sonya Atalay, David Whitley, Carolyn Boyd, Larry Loendorf, Richard Stoffle, John Norder, Emily Van Alst). Those could be cited around line 253-254. I believe the piece would be stronger if there was a nuanced discussion at previous attempts of working with Indigenous community to understand rock art. Additionally, a small paragraph acknowledging the community engaged rock art research we see in a global context would also help (Brady, Kearny, Bradley, Tacon, Creese, Zawadzka).

Starting at line 204, the author mentions the “Rs” as important ethical guiding principles for tribal collaboration, I would like to see more engagement with Indigenous scholars who have previously suggested these “Rs” – Joanne Archibald and her Storywork method. I suggest “Decolonizing Research: Indigenous Storywork as Methodology”, Shawn Wilson’s “Research as Ceremony”, and Margret Kovach’s “Indigenous Research Methods”. These are the core books that proposed these kinship values – relationships, responsibility, reciprocity, and redistribution. In this vein, having a section about “respect” (another R) would create an important discussion on respecting different ontological understandings of what “rock art” is for communities. Within section 5, I would also suggest that the author expand on these sections by proposing why these guiding principles are so critical for the future of rock art research.

Again, a great piece, a believe with some more citations, rewriting and expansion of the sections mentioned above will result in a stronger article. This article will be an important contribution to rock art scholarship in North America and for those scholars interested in incorporating Indigenous community perspectives within rock art research projects. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The author has a section (section 2) on Indigenous archaeology (IA) that gives a broad overview of this theoretical and methodological practice within the field. That said, the author writes about Indigenous archaeology as a “social movement” or “social critique” which does a disservice to the methodological and theoretical ways in which Indigenous people’s knowledge is elevated within our field. By referring to IA as a social movement, it does not give it the same importance as “Western archaeological science”. This may not be the authors intent, and I do not think it is as they have written about IA as an important “multivocal and collaborative” approach to archaeology. 

Response 1: I added discussion in lines 97-109 that clarifies my position and addresses the reviewer's concern.

Comments 2:  I would like to see the author maybe cite some Indigenous archaeology case studies / more recent work with more emphasis on methods to really round out their discussion on IA. Further, their discussion on the legal tribal consultation is important and I would suggest the author look at Joe Watkin’s 2015 piece about IA and US law.

Response 2: Rather than discussion and evaluate different case studies, I added citations to relevant case studies following each specific point made int he corresponding section. See additions in lines 114 through 134. Regarding the legal tribal consultation discussion, rather than cite Joe Watkins, I added citation and some discussion from relevant legal articles. See lines 177-180, and 197-202.

Comments 3: The main concern with the piece is that there are many times throughout the article I found myself wondering where the in-text citations were. 

Response 3: I've added numerous citations throughout the text to better illustrate the points.

Comments 4: There is also a lack of engagement with rock art research scholarship within the broader North American context. There have been many scholars who have worked and continue to work with Indigenous communities on rock art. Though I agree with the author that these scholars tend to focus on the interpretation side of working with communities, there has still been some efforts (Sonya Atalay, David Whitley, Carolyn Boyd, Larry Loendorf, Richard Stoffle, John Norder, Emily Van Alst). Those could be cited around line 253-254. I believe the piece would be stronger if there was a nuanced discussion at previous attempts of working with Indigenous community to understand rock art. Additionally, a small paragraph acknowledging the community engaged rock art research we see in a global context would also help (Brady, Kearny, Bradley, Tacon, Creese, Zawadzka).

Response: I expanded briefly on this section in question, see lines 396-406. But I am not in complete agreement with the reviewer on this point. The thesis of the paper is that archaeologists generally don't work with Tribes, and when they do it is meager at best. The reviewer confirms that in their comment. So it is distracting to engage in a long discussion of prior attempts, when those attempts are not good examples.

Comments 5: Starting at line 204, the author mentions the “Rs” as important ethical guiding principles for tribal collaboration, I would like to see more engagement with Indigenous scholars who have previously suggested these “Rs” – Joanne Archibald and her Storywork method. I suggest “Decolonizing Research: Indigenous Storywork as Methodology”, Shawn Wilson’s “Research as Ceremony”, and Margret Kovach’s “Indigenous Research Methods”. These are the core books that proposed these kinship values – relationships, responsibility, reciprocity, and redistribution. In this vein, having a section about “respect” (another R) would create an important discussion on respecting different ontological understandings of what “rock art” is for communities. 

Response 5: I expanded the discussion on the four Rs (something Reviewer 1 also requested). I also added citations relevant to Indigenous research methods as requested; see lines 234-236. And I added section 5.5 on respect, as requested; see lines 795-815.

Comments 6: Within section 5, I would also suggest that the author expand on these sections by proposing why these guiding principles are so critical for the future of rock art research.

Response 6: I instead reframed the conclusion, Section 6, to end on why collaboration is critical to the future of rock imagery research.