“Wawa Pampay”: Andean Ritual for the Emotional Transformation of Grief in an Andean Community

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for your valuable contribution with the manuscript “Wawa Pampay: Andean ritual of emotional transformation of grief in an Andean community.” I have reviewed your work and suggest the following changes to strengthen your article before publication.

 

1) Is the content concisely described and contextualized with respect to previous and current theoretical and empirical background on the subject?

Needs improvement.

The article addresses a topic of great cultural and ethnographic relevance, and the abstract clearly presents the objective of the study and its importance. However, the introduction appears disorganized and does not effectively anticipate the structure of the article, making it difficult for the reader to follow the main line of argument. There are thematic jumps without clear connections between ideas. For example, the text moves from marriage customs and the transition to fertility (citing Balán, 1996) to the introduction of “terruqueo” (Gutiérrez-Gómez et al., 2023) and “Warmi urquy” (Gutiérrez-Gómez et al., 2024), without a discursive bridge that articulates the relevance of these elements to “Wawa Pampay” and its study. This erratic structure, jumping from one topic to another without a solid thread, could be significantly improved. It would be very important for the authors to explain the organization of the article at the beginning, to guide the reader through the different sections and their contributions to the overall objective of the study.

Regarding the contextualization and framework of the fieldwork:

The information about the location where the fieldwork was carried out (the town of Magnupampa, province of La Mar, region of Ayacucho) is very brief. A more detailed and dense description is required to understand the specific ethnographic context in which the research was carried out. This would enrich the reader's understanding of the environment of ritual practices.

There is an important conceptual contradiction that needs to be analyzed in depth: line 41 mentions “Andean cultural resistance,” which implies an active defense of one's own traditions. However, line 129 states that traditional rites cannot be abandoned “because visitors like to see this type of activity.” This tension between cultural autonomy/resistance and the influence of tourism or the external gaze on the persistence of rituals is crucial and should be explored and discussed more explicitly in the manuscript.

The phenomenon of “terruqueo” (the stigma of being labeled a terrorist) is mentioned in lines 42-47 as a “social phenomenon that affects farmers.” However, the topic is not revisited later nor is it explicitly connected to the objectives or findings of the study on the “Wawa Pampay.” If this phenomenon has a direct implication for the practice, perception, or disappearance of the ritual, it should be developed and connected more deeply to the central argument of the article; otherwise, it would be advisable to consider omitting it in order to maintain focus.

2) Are the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated?

Yes.

The qualitative research design, with an ethnographic methodology, is clearly stated in the abstract and in the Materials and Methods section. The specific methods (participant observation, in-depth interviews in Quechua, photographic and audiovisual recording) are well described, as are the study site (Magnupampa) and ethical considerations (respect for beliefs and privacy, informed consent). The research questions are directly inferred from the study objectives presented in the abstract: to understand the cultural and emotional significance of the ritual and to document its symbolic elements in the face of the risk of disappearance. For a qualitative study of this nature, the absence of explicit hypotheses is appropriate.

3) Are the discussion and arguments coherent, balanced, and convincing?

Needs improvement. The Discussion section makes an effort to synthesize the findings and connect them to broader themes, such as nostalgia for ritual, changes due to modernity and health services, the scarcity of research, intergenerational transmission, and the enduring nature of grief. The discussion is relatively balanced in presenting both the historical richness of the ritual and the current challenges.

However, the overall coherence and flow of the argument could be strengthened. The transitions between paragraphs or ideas are not always sufficiently strong, which can make it difficult to follow a unified line of argument. Greater “density” in the elaboration of the connections between the evidence (quotes from participants and literature) and the authors' interpretation would make the arguments more convincing.

The paragraph begining on line 62 addresses religious syncretism in Andean communities. To enrich the discussion of the hidden elements behind religious rites and the depth of syncretism, the work could delve deeper into whether popular Catholicism constitutes a real frame of reference and provide specific empirical examples that demonstrate this beyond the mere coexistence of practices. We recommend reading Amuedo and Vilte (2019) (not included in the references provided) to strengthen this section.

Regarding bibliographic citations: it is noted that the author uses references from archaeology, history, and other disciplines (e.g., Millett & Gowland, 2015 on Roman contexts; Dubois, 2012 on the archaic Greek world; Crandall et al., 2012 and Kawchuk, 2019 on child sacrifice) to interpret the ethnographic material. These references often come from contexts that are very distant in time and space from the Andean universe under study. This can lead to problematic extrapolations if the conceptual bridges established between these studies and the specific Andean context of “Wawa Pampay” are not robustly and explicitly justified.

A problematic conceptualization is detected in the way the text establishes homologies between the ritual sacrifice of children in different peoples and eras (e.g., lines 109-111, lines 168-173) and funeral rituals for the eventual deaths of babies, such as the “Wawa Pampay.” We consider that the two practices are not directly comparable, beyond the common element of infant death. We recommend revising this argument and clarifying the limits of the comparison, providing a more rigorous justification of the relevance of these references to the Andean case.

Line 168 states that “In various cultures around the world, children were selected as ritual offerings.” It would be essential to support this statement with specific bibliographic citations that contextualize this idea in the Andean universe or in pre-Inca/Inca cultures, if the intention is to establish a link with that past in the context studied, or to omit the comparison if it is not directly relevant.

In some passages, value judgments are made regarding cultural practices, such as when referring to “ignorance about vaccination” (line 144). Such statements should be avoided or reformulated in an analytical manner, prioritizing an ethnographic description and analysis of local perceptions without making external assessments of the beliefs or behaviors of the participants.

4) For empirical research: Are the results clearly presented?

Needs improvement. The results are presented in thematic subsections (Symbolic Meaning, Emotional Experience, Role of the Community, Ritual Components, and Therapeutic Function). The use of direct quotations in Quechua with their respective translations (e.g., lines 76-80, 92-96, 113-119) is a significant strength, as it adds authenticity and provides direct empirical evidence.

However, there is a significant structural problem that impacts clarity:

The existence of two identical subsections titled “2.4. Ritual components and their therapeutic function” (line 251) and “2.5. Ritual components and their therapeutic function” (line 302) creates confusion and makes it difficult to understand the organization of the findings. It is imperative to correct this duplication, either by renaming one of the sections to reflect its specific content or by merging them if the topic is a natural continuation.

The abstract and the Materials and Methods section mention that participant observation was used and that fieldwork was conducted with extended visits and cohabitation with families. The article mentions participating in a ritual, but concrete ethnographic details and a more detailed description of the ritual experience itself are lacking. An immersive and detailed narrative of the experience, from the researcher's perspective, would be key, given that the “Wawa Pampay” ritual occupies a central place in the work. Currently, information about the ritual is presented through testimonies and some fragmented descriptions.

Line 415 explicitly states that participant observation allowed for the documentation of “not only the visible actions during the rituals, but also the gestures, silences, and expressions that reveal the emotional and spiritual background of the practice.” Unfortunately, this rich and qualitative material (gestures, silences, expressions observed by the researcher) is not explicitly or densely incorporated into the text. Its inclusion would significantly reinforce the study's contribution, especially considering that, as the author acknowledges, there are no previous systematic studies on this funeral rite.

Translations of the Quechua quotations are provided, sometimes with the indication “Freely translated” or directly with the translation. It would be important to provide literal translations of the Quechua quotations, in addition to the more fluid interpretations or translations, in order to give greater transparency and documentary value to the empirical material.

5) Is the article adequately referenced?

It could be improved. Teh article uses an in-text citation style (Author, Year) consistently throughout the manuscript. The list of references at the end of the document is comprehensive and appears to follow a standardized format. However, as noted in point 3, the relevance of some references used for the interpretation of Andean material is questionable, as they come from very distant contexts. 

 

6) Are the conclusions supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in the secondary literature?

Yes, but it could be improved. The general conclusions of the study, presented in the Discussion section, are largely supported by both the participants' testimonies and the secondary literature cited. The experiences of nostalgia for ritual, changes in ritual practices due to modernity and the introduction of health services, and the importance of community support in grief are supported by the empirical evidence collected and contextualized by relevant studies. To further strengthen this point, it is suggested that more direct and explicit references to specific findings (testimonies or descriptions of the ritual) be made when drawing conclusions in the Discusion, thus consolidating the link between the evidence and the final statements. A more robust presentation of the empirical material (as detailed in point 4) would allow the conclusions to be supported more convincingly.

7) Quality of English.

Significant improvements are needed. The quality of the English in the manuscript needs improvement.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions and comments; the work was carried out as indicated. Please refer to the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The premise of the article is interesting, and I looked forward to reading a paper on this ritual/practice. I think the ritualization of child death is understudies, especially as practiced in the global south. I also appreciate the use of non-English texts to support the article, as it can be an attempt to break open death scholarship.

 

Unfortunately, however, I think the idea behind the paper is better than its execution. There are some major issues, that need to be resolved before the paper is publishable. The first advice I would like to give the writer is that your reader might not be knowledgeable in the Peruvian context (as I am) or the Andean language. Too many things are left unsaid/unexplained, making it difficult for me to understand what the article is about. 

 

The Introduction starts with highlighting several topics/issues, that do not seem to be part of the rest of the article, e.g., a comparison between Andean and other South American cultural expressions (without explanation of the actual differences and similarities), marriage customs, terruqueo, gender roles, cultural belonging, language, the pantheon of spirits. I am unclear what the article is actually about, something which should become clear from the Introduction.

 

I think the article is about a ritual, but what is that ritual, who performs it, when, how, why, how is it experienced, etc.? All these things are left unsaid. Apparently the author wants to comment on the structural transformation of the ritual. That sounds very interesting, and I’d love to read about that – the present article however does not do that. It is unclear to me what the exact ritual is, what it does, how it is experienced, and how it has changed and under which influences.

 

Too much language-specific terms are used without explanation, e.g., wamani, runasimi. Also, the long quotes in the Andean language take up too much space, especially considering it’s a language that not a lot of people will be able to read. What is the use of having these long quotes, and not translations or summaries in English? Because summaries are often not given, I feel I miss a lot of important information just because I don’t read the language.

 

Methods are insufficiently mentioned and explained. In addition, I wonder whether its an historical or contemporary research? And what constitutes the “child” in “child death” (or is it actually about baby death)?

 

Conclusions are too easily made, without enough support. E.g., lines 166-167: the author jumps very easily to saying that certain beliefs still survive. How so? What is this based on? The same goes for the conclusions in lines 239-240, where it is stated that the customs are viewed negatively. How so, by whom, why, etc.?

 

More and better academic literature should be used. The literature cited seems quite dispersed, and not really reflecting the state of the art of this topic. In addition, literature is used too “easily,” as strawman arguments. An example is lines 270-271, where Nel’s work is equated too easily to the Peruvian case. Nel’s work is about prenatal death in Western contexts – which does not translate that simply to postnatal deaths in non-Western contexts. McIntyre’s and Abel’s work is equally not necessarily universal. Using these sources so uncritically does not strengthen the article.

 

All in all, I think the research done is probably interesting, but the article needs a lot more work to convey that to the reader.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the suggestions and comments; the work was carried out as indicated. Please refer to the attached PDF document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I see the changes made by the authors, and value their work in trying to prepare a better article. In my view, however, the changes are only minor, which make the article better, but still not good enough for publication. The issues regarding the uncritical way of handling literature remain, as well as the lack of an overall description of what the article is actually about. I would advise the authors to read more literature on (child) death rituals, and contextualise the case study better. 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments. We have added more authors addressing child burial rituals, including national cases, which were incorporated into the introduction (lines 90–109). The work is primarily based on interviews and testimonies, analyzed in relation to the existing literature within the results section. It is challenging for us to expand the analysis further, as the draft has already been reviewed by English translation specialists. For greater detail, we have added separate sections for the discussion and conclusion (discussion: lines 414–459). The final PDF version with the additions is being submitted.