Rock Images at La Casa de las Golondrinas and the Kaqchikel Maya Context in Guatemala

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The paper provides an overview of the La Casa de las Golondrinas archaeological site and its cultural features. It contributes to the rock art documentation and offers a perspective that combines landscape and animistic approaches. It also presents comparative interpretations between the figures depicted at the site and other sites in Mesoamerica, as well as ethnographic and religious content among the surviving Maya.

 

General Comments

This paper fulfills the requirements of originality and importance for Maya studies. However, the author should review the punctuation in general and improve the paper's structure to enhance the flow of the argument. The frequent references to other pictographs, sites, and sources interrupt the natural reading of the text, making it difficult to follow the connections with the main idea.

The research questions and methods are not clearly presented, which makes it difficult to follow the author's conclusions. Moreover, the conclusion reads more like a summary of earlier points rather than a distinct contribution.

 

Specific Comments

The maps could be improved, including a better geographic distribution of the locations of the site, showing the location of the sacred cultural features that place the sacred landscape (Agua Mountain, the Fuego Volcano, Acatenango, vertical rock faces, rock overhangs, rock shelters, caves, trees, water sources, tunnels, burrows, and holes).

Include the location of the conjunction of all those sacred attributes in La Casa de las Golondrinas and their association with the astronomical and calendrical features of the site.

The argument could be strengthened by expanding the Maxwell and Garcia citation with multiple references to demonstrate that the argument is consistent with other experts in Maya studies.

Adding a brief definition of the main theoretical arguments would help clarify how the author explains the archaeological site as a sacred landscape with calendrical features and how the archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric sources support the study.

In general, the quality of the photographs could be improved. In particular, figures such as the fire serpent or the plumed serpent could include the mentioned examples from other sites. It can be a graphic way to compare and distinguish the similarities mentioned by the author.

Author Response

In response to the overall feedback given by the two reviewers, this paper has been substantially revised and in several places is augmented with additional material and references. In place of citing line-specific changes, we have put red text in the manuscript where significant sections have been added or moved.  The responses below will specify how each comment is addressed and, where appropriate, identify the section of the paper where the changes can be found.

Responses to specific common questions:

• The paper’s theoretical background and empirical research center on the application of ethnographic and ethnohistoric information in the interpretation of rock art. To strengthen this underpinning of the paper’s methodology, we have added examples and citations of key work done that applies this approach to rock art sites in other parts of the world outside of Meso-America (Introduction, Section 1, p.2). We have also clarified the limited extent that this approach has been applied in the Maya area (Introduction, Section 2, p.2).
• The paper’s research questions are now clearly stated. (Introduction, Section 1, pp. 1-2) The methods – that is, the specific identification of the ethnographic and ethnohistoric resources that are used in the paper, along with characterization of their attributes and recognition of their limitations – are now substantially laid out (Introduction, Section 1 and 2, pp.2-3).
• The “Conclusion” section (pp. 40-42) (now titled “Discussion” Section 12) has now been rewritten to bring together the major findings of the research and discuss their implications for the Golondrinas rock art site itself and the images studied, linking them to the cultural context in which the site exists… and at the same time acknowledging the inability of the research to completely penetrate the vision of the Pre-Conquest Maya who created the site and the imagery.
• The conclusions of each of the specific findings of the research are established in the individual sections devoted to each aspect of the site or of images to which ethnographic/ethnohistoric information is applied. These include:

• The findings that identify key characteristics of sacred sites in the Kakchikel area and other May and Meso-American sites and related belief systems (Section 6, pp. 10-15) that support the proposition that Golondrinas itself is such a sacred site (Section 8, pp. 16-17).
• The ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources that inform the paper’s interpretation of each of the images analyzed (Section 9, pp. 18-25 and Section 10, pp. 25-45).
  • The article has a complete and extensive bibliography that reflects each reference provided in the text.
  • We believe that the Discussion, Section 12 (pp. 40-42) appropriately summarizes and synthesizes the findings of the paper, while acknowledging the limitations of present-day ability to fully reconstruct the mind-set of the pre-Conquest Maya who used the site and created the imagery.

Reviewer 1.

The paper provides an overview of the La Casa de las Golondrinas archaeological site and its cultural features. It contributes to the rock art documentation and offers a perspective that combines landscape and animistic approaches. It also presents comparative interpretations between the figures depicted at the site and other sites in Mesoamerica, as well as ethnographic and religious content among the surviving Maya.

General Comments

This paper fulfills the requirements of originality and importance for Maya studies. However, the author should review the punctuation in general and improve the paper's structure to enhance the flow of the argument. The frequent references to other pictographs, sites, and sources interrupt the natural reading of the text, making it difficult to follow the connections with the main idea.

This observation was appreciated and was a major reason for the substantial re-write that is presently being submitted. This re-write corrects inappropriate punctuation, and more importantly restructured to make the flow of the analysis clearly accessible to the reader. Several of the examples from other sites that were “distracting” or that appeared tangential to the argument have either been taken out or – when appropriate – re-framed as examples supporting the paper’s main arguments

The research questions and methods are not clearly presented, which makes it difficult to follow the author's conclusions. Moreover, the conclusion reads more like a summary of earlier points rather than a distinct contribution.

• As noted above, the Introduction, Section 1-2 (pp. 1-2) now clearly lays out both the paper’s research questions and the methodology – application of relevant ethnographic and ethnohistoric information to the site itself and to selected images at the site. The final “Discussion” Section 12 summarizes Section 11 (pp. 40-42) appropriately summarizes and synthesizes the findings of the paper, while acknowledging the limitations of present-day ability to fully reconstruct the mind-set of the pre-Conquest Maya who used the site and created the imagery.

Specific Comments

The maps could be improved, including a better geographic distribution of the locations of the site, showing the location of the sacred cultural features that place the sacred landscape (Agua Mountain, the Fuego Volcano, Acatenango, vertical rock faces, rock overhangs, rock shelters, caves, trees, water sources, tunnels, burrows, and holes).

We have replaced the original map with two maps.  Figure 1 clearly illustrates the location of the site in the Kaqchikel area and its placement within Mesoamerica and Figure 2 shows ethnographically important geographic features as well as the structure of the site itself.

Include the location of the conjunction of all those sacred attributes in La Casa de las Golondrinas and their association with the astronomical and calendrical features of the site.

 We find that our earlier use of the term “conjunction” was inappropriate in inferring that all the attributes of the site itself and selected aspects of the site – e.g., the astronomical and calendrical feature in one section – were all part of one holistic interpretation. The present paper is clearer now in first establishing the ethnographic and ethnohistoric basis for identifying the overall site itself as a sacred site, and then focusing on specific distinct parts of the site – separate images as well as the calendrical part. The Discussion Section 12 (pp. 40-42), however, does make the point that such a sacred site is appropriate for development of an astronomical calendrical site, that the calendrical function interacts with specific images on the rock wall, and that together these calendrical aspects do open the way to recognition of the likely references to rainy/dry seasonality (and possibly to associated rituals). So while “conjunction” was not an appropriate term, we appreciate the reviewer’s interest in hearing our understanding of the connection of the calendrical aspect of the site with its broader importance, and hope to have provided that information.

This comment suggests that we are “conjoining” the sacred site characteristics of Golondrinas with the presence of the calendrical aspect. We find both aspects to be significant – the sacredness of the site makes it a location for supernatural imagery, and the intentional development of a calendrical element is entirely in keeping with the broader sacred nature of the site and the spiritual forces it interacts with. But – while adding an important dimension to the site’s content – the calendrical feature does not define the site. As noted, we provide extensive ethnographic and ethnohistoric basis for considering the whole of the  Golondrinas site itself to be a sacred location Sections 6, 7, 8 (pp. 10-18).

The argument could be strengthened by expanding the Maxwell and Garcia citation with multiple references to demonstrate that the argument is consistent with other experts in Maya studies.

We have added in Section 8, Page 18 additional examples of Maya sites outside the Kaqchikel area that reinforce the Kaqchikel-specific findings of Maxwell and Garcia regarding characteristics of sacred sites.

Adding a brief definition of the main theoretical arguments would help clarify how the author explains the archaeological site as a sacred landscape with calendrical features and how the archaeological, ethnographic, and ethnohistoric sources support the study.

The paper’s theoretical approach uses a grounded theory based on work done in a number of other rock art sites, which have applied ethnographic and ethnohistoric information in the interpretation of rock art (Section 1, page 2) . To strengthen the underpinning of the paper, we have added examples and citations of key work done that applies this approach to rock art sites in other parts of the world outside of Meso-America (Introduction, p.2). We have also clarified a section that explains the limited extent of the use of ethnography to interpret rock art in Guatemala.

In general, the quality of the photographs could be improved. In particular, figures such as the fire serpent or the plumed serpent could include the mentioned examples from other sites. It can be a graphic way to compare and distinguish the similarities mentioned by the author.

 We believe all the photos, maps, and illustrations submitted to be of publication quality. They appear to be clear on a computer screen, although when printed on a routine printer they do lose quality. If there are any images that need refinement or manipulation to achieve publication quality, please let us know what you need done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article offers compelling evidence to support the argument that the Casa de las Golondrinas rock art site forms a key part of a sacred landscape that may have extended over millennia. The author(s) draw on ethnographic and historical sources for the Kaqchikel Maya to show similar features in the landscape and symbolic themes in pre- and post-Columbian ritual contexts. The paper also seeks to draw from these sources to assign meaning to motifs found in the rock art at the Golondrinas site. The authors are more successful in giving evidence for a continuing perception of elements that conform the sacred landscape; nonetheless, the discussion of meaning for single images and image clusters tends to be speculative, or, at best, citing only one of several possible meanings. The identification of motifs and motif clusters is more convincing in the case of the later, post-Classic images, that are well-defined in the broader literature. The arguments are less persuasive for the earlier images.  

 

Suggestions for the author(s):

 

1. It would be helpful to include a description of the context of the rock images, with a summary of the chronology, the definition of styles, and changes over time. Do the painting techniques, use of color, context of the images, type of motif, etc., vary over time? How was the rock art dated? Also, illustrate any motifs that are present throughout the sequence that may indicate the time depth of any of the symbolic meanings ascribed to the motifs. Discuss the associated excavated materials and how they contributed to an understanding of the sequence. Were excavations carried out at the Golondrinas site itself, or only in other nearby sites. Is it possible to demonstrate that all the peoples that occupied the area during the 3000 years produced rock images, or were there periods of abandonment of production? P 6 ln 157 states that rituals were carried out throughout the entire sequence. What is the evidence for this? I would suggest that a section on Methods would be useful to address these questions.

 

2. On p. 7, lines 198-200 the authors state, “This paper is an attempt to place the site in its Kaqchikel cultural context and interpret the images using ethnographic information by Kaqchikel Maya archaeological and cultural scholars, ethnohistoric documents and sources on Maya cosmology.” Is it possible to project Kaqchikel Maya culture back 3000 years? This seems highly unlikely, considering the population shifts described in other sections of the text.

 

3. In section 4 it would be helpful to identify the age of the glyphs that are being analyzed. Apart from the very late, Postclassic images, no reference to chronology is given. In general, the identification of figures is highly subjective and may or may not correspond to the original meaning(s) intended by the painters. These meanings may have been modified or reinterpreted through time. This section should be carefully revised to indicate that the interpretations are possibilities rather than assertions of fact.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Specific comments:

 

References to the figures should be given at appropriate places in the text throughout.

 

The use of subtitles for sections should follow the guidelines for the MS. As they are now (for example, p.9 ln 124), the subtitles are easily confused with the text.

 

Standardize the spelling of Junahpu’ and nahual throughout the text. Also Coatepec and Coatepeque

 

p 1 ln 19: Translate name and indicate here that Golondrinas will be used hereafter to refer to the site. This must be followed consistently throughout the paper.

 

P 1 ln 22: Give the Spanish name for the volcanoes and the English translation and be consistent throughout the paper in referring to these either in Spanish or English. Refer here to Figure 2a and 2b

 

P1 ln 24: replace "real" with "physical". Otherwise, it implies that the mythical and sacred landscapes are not real.

 

7. 7. Lines 225-237. This paragraph is out of place in the section on cultural and ethnographic sources. I would recommend creating a section on historical ethnography, summarizing what is known about the occupants of the region through time. This would be a good place to mention the Mexican influence from the north, its chronology, and if it involved any population influx.

 

253. 8 line 253. “At La Casa de las Golondrinas, similar natural features are found conjoined in one place, making the area highly charged with spiritual meaning”. Rephrase. The conjunction of natural features at Golondrinas suggests the symbolic significance of the site.

 

1. 8 line 270: Clarify the phrase “and or the Place of Reeds”

 

8. 8. The references to the altepetl seem out of place in this discussion, unless this can be understood as a pan-Mesoamerican ideal. Clarify the extent of Mexican influence on the Golondrinas site and give reference to the chronology of this influence. The Golondrinas site was clearly established prior to this influence, so it is difficult to understand how it could have impacted the location of the site. Clarify, in this regard, lines 286-290.

 

10. 10. I would suggest a change to the title of Section 3, “Historical Events Related to Sacred and Ritual Sites” to better accommodate the subsections that follow. Perhaps “Contemporary and Historical Sacred and Ritual Sites”

 

1. 13 line 440: clarify “daykeepers authors’ note”

 

1. 13 line 462: clarify “the English translation of this passage is as follows.” What is being translated?

 

1. 15 lines 512-515: Place this paragraph in the next section as an introduction to the discussion

 

89. 18 lines 588-89. Place the discussion of Figures 10 a and b here, before going on with the description of the snakes in the codex

 

710. 23 lines 699-710. The Spanish version should be placed in a footnote.

 

24. 24. Are the deer shown in Figures 14 a and b the same figure? If not, give placement of 14 (b) at the Golondrinas site.

 

24. 24. Figure 14 b. This could also be interpreted as a hunting scene.

 

950. 33 lines 48-950. It does not explain the presence of human activity. It can be argued that this combination of elements contributed to the conception of the site as a place of power, or a part of a sacred landscape.

 

References:

Several references listed did not appear in the text:

Bessie-Smith 2008

Polo-Sifantes 2014

Sachse, Franke 2021

Stone and Ericastilla 1998

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The text should be reviewed by a native English-speaker. There are several instances of awkward construction that could be improved.

Author Response

Please refer to the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) have taken into consideration many of the previous suggestions and the resulting text has benefited from these changes. There a still a few revisions that need to be considered:

Line 127. What is meant by “This reserved approach”?

Line 138. "half of the Guatemalans who are Maya comprise multiple sub-cultures"

Line 188. “sit” should be “site”

Figure 2. The location of the Golondrinas site on the larger map is not clear. Consider separating the larger and smaller maps in separate boxes, each with its own scale.

Line 242. Arqueológico del Área

Line 273. How do the 3010+/-90 B.C. to 1150-970 B.C. dates translate to 1450-1000 B.C.?

Line 377. El Niño

Line 387. Fuego Volcano

Line 823. pilgrimage

Line 835. “states” should be “stating” or “that state”

Line 910. Huitzilopochtli

Lines 950, 961, 980. K’ul’ulkan. Should this be K’uk’ulkan? Or Q’uq’ulkan’? Unify spelling when possible.

Line 1003. Eliminate “Casa de las”

Lines 1019-1022. This sentence needs to be revised to clarify its meaning

Line 1057. Include description of Figure 10 (a)

Line1060. “In Area E there is a small rock that intersects the wall” This is not clear. Is there a crack in the wall? How does the rock intersect the wall?

Line 1094. 9.5 meters long by 4 meters. Change to 9.5 m wide by 4 m high

Lines 1129-1130. Eliminate “where they are created”. Change “depict” to “depicts”

Line 1155. By the water

Line 1169. Change to “se nos ha inculcado tener respeto”

Line 1174. “indica la llegado o inicio del invierno has llegado” Change to “indica la llegada o inicio del invierno”

Line 1189.  Chang to “where our sun lord is born”

Line 1190-1191. Change to “And we can say that is when the winter is born, and it is a sign..”

Line 1194. “idioma”. Change to “language”

Line 1195. “is a sign”. Change to “it is a sign”

Line 1218. “the seeking out”.  Change to “in which the seeking out”

Line 1228. “(Looper 2019), and”

Line 1264. “axis. As Maxwell and...”

Line 1267. “(Figure 14b).”

Line 1279.  “is a plant showing roots and a floral top”. Change to “is an image we have interpreted as a plant...”

Line 1287. “possible “Priests” - frame the scene”. Change to “possible “Priests” – that frame the scene”

Line 1310. (Christenson 2007:35)

Line 1314. Junajpu', junapuj, junapuh, and Junahpu' appear in the text. Unify spelling

Line 1439. Change “chords” to “cords” or “ropes”

Line 1451. Junaphu’

Line 1646-1649. “Elsewhere in the Kakchikel area and other Maya and Meso-American areas, specific large areas of exposed rock and caves that are sacred, and in many places are sites for ongoing ritual practice such as at Q’umarkaj, the Postclassic capital of the Q’iche, and Iximché Jul, a small cave at Iximche, believed to connect to Q’umarkaj.” Clarify the meaning of this sentence.

Line 1656.  “which itself has springs from the mass of the Agua Volcano”. Change to “which itself is fed by springs from the Agua Volcano”

Line 1697.  adds

The bibliography needs to be revised so as align to a standardized style throughout.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some awkward sentence constructions. The translations could be improved.

 

Author Response

The author(s) have taken into consideration many of the previous suggestions and the resulting text has benefited from these changes. There a still a few revisions that need to be considered:

Line 127. What is meant by “This reserved approach”? 

Reply:  line 287, the word reserved has been deleted

Line 138.

Reply: Actually line 294. "half of the Guatemalans who are Maya; Comprise multiple sub-cultures is deleted.

Line 188.

Reply: Actually line 421  “sit” should be “site”. It is Corrected.

Figure 2. The location of the Golondrinas site on the larger map is not clear. Consider separating the larger and smaller maps in separate boxes, each with its own scale.

Reply: The site maps have been changed in figure 1.  There are now two maps see lines 386-391.

Line 242. Arqueológico del Área   

Reply: Corrected line 453

Line 273. How do the 3010+/-90 B.C. to 1150-970 B.C. dates translate to 1450-1000 B.C.? 

Reply: Lines 591-593 have been edited and corrected.

Authors rewrite: Lines 672-678  have been rewritten to reflect new preliminary interpretations of the Cache.  

Line 377. El Niño   Reply: Could not find El Niño in the text

Line 387. Fuego Volcan    Reply: corrected

Line 835. “states” should be “stating” or “that state”  Reply: stating inserted into the text line 2017

Line 910. Huitzilopochtli  Reply: corrected line 2295

Lines 950, 961, 980. K’ul’ulkan. Should this be K’uk’ulkan? Or Q’uq’ulkan’? Unify spelling when possible.

Reply the Guatemalan spelling is Q’uqulkan and has been corrected on lines  2188. 2240. 2242

 

Line 1003. Eliminate “Casa de las”   

Reply: corrected multiple places but maintained.  in quoted text and titles. 

Lines 1019-1022. This sentence needs to be revised to clarify its meaning  Reply: the sentence has been revised in lines 2306-2307

Line 1057. Include description of Figure 10 (a) 

Reply: corrected on line 2416.

Line1060. “In Area E there is a small rock that intersects the wall” This is not clear. Is there a crack in the wall? How does the rock intersect the wall? 

Reply: corrected in line 2420.

Line 1094. 9.5 meters long by 4 meters. Change to 9.5 m wide by 4 m high  

Reply: changed in line 2483

Lines 1129-1130. Eliminate “where they are created”. Change “depict” to “depicts” 

Reply: English corrected in line 2546

Line 1155. By the water 

Reply: cound not find this phrase and not sure what is needed here.  

Line 1169. Change to “se nos ha inculcado tener respeto”    

Reply: corrected line 2602

Line 1174. “indica la llegado o inicio del invierno has llegado” Change to “indica la llegada o inicio del invierno” 

Reply: change made line 2607.

Line 1189.  Change to “where our sun lord is born” 

Reply: change made line 2622. 

Line 1190-1191. Change to “And we can say that is when the winter is born, and it is a sign..”

Reply: change made line 2623

Line 1194. “idioma”. Change to “language”

Reply: change made line 3422

Line 1195. “is a sign”. Change to “it is a sign” 

Reply: corrected line 2624

Line 1218. “the seeking out”.  Change to “in which the seeking out” 

Reply: change made in line 2623

Line 1228. “(Looper 2019), and” 

Reply: corrected line 2862

Line 1264. “axis. As Maxwell and...” 

Reply: corrected line 2823

Line 1267. “(Figure 14b).” 

Reply: corrected line 2826

Line 1279.  “is a plant showing roots and a floral top”. Change to “is an image we have interpreted as a plant...” 

Reply: corrected line 2853.

Line 1287. “possible “Priests” - frame the scene”. Change to “possible “Priests” – that frame the scene” 

Reply: corrected line 2862

Line 1310. (Christenson 2007:35)  

Reply: corrected line 2900

Line 1314. Junajpu', junapuj, junapuh, and Junahpu' appear in the text. Unify spelling   

Reply: should be Junajpu throughout changes have been made

Line 1439. Change “chords” to “cords” or “ropes” 

Reply: chords changed to cords in lines 2964 and 3263

Line 1451. Junaphu’ 

Reply: rewritten as Junajpu in all locations

Line 1646-1649. “Elsewhere in the Kakchikel area and other Maya and Meso-American areas, specific large areas of exposed rock and caves that are sacred, and in many places are sites for ongoing ritual practice such as at Q’umarkaj, the Postclassic capital of the Q’iche, and Iximché Jul, a small cave at Iximche, believed to connect to Q’umarkaj.” Clarify the meaning of this sentence. 

Reply: sentence deleted

Line 1656.  “which itself has springs from the mass of the Agua Volcano”. Change to “which itself is fed by springs from the Agua Volcano” 

Reply: corrected 3488-3489

Line 1697.  Adds  Reply: corrected line 3529

The bibliography needs to be revised so as align to a standardized style throughout.

Reply: I have worked on the bibliography and it seems to be correct now.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are still some awkward sentence constructions. The translations could be improved.

Reply: We worked on the English translations and  think they reflect nicely the Kaqchikel-Spanish.  There is repetition in the Spanish but this may reflect the fact that the Kaqchikel language uses couplets.