Spatial Analysis of the Functional Andean Worldview of the Archaeological Site of Ankasmarka, Cusco—Peru 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Analysis of the Functional Andean Worldview of the Archaeological Site of Ankasmarka, Cusco-Peru 2024 - Part I.

 

Abstract:

“Without sustainable strategies that integrate cultural heritage into development plans, there is a risk of losing both historical remains and contemporary cultural identity. The methodology is mixed, triangulating qualitative methods such as participant observation” There needs to be a sentence linking these two parts of the Abstract. The authors need to convey in the sentence that in order to influence development plans, a thorough understanding of sites such as Ankasmarka is required.

Methods:

“constructions. .” remove full stop.

Figure 5 Full stop needed after Ankasmarka under results.

Figure 9 appears to be missing. Precipitation data.

Figure 10 has the wrong caption.

2.4.1 and 2.4.2 Ensure that Latin names of genera and species are italicised.

 

Comments:

The paper is largely a descriptive account of the archaeological site of Ankasmarka. As the authors highlight, it is truly remarkable site with very well preserved structures. The figures and tables provided in the paper are of exceptionally high quality. However, the very descriptive rather than analytical nature of the paper means that the relationships between the structures, artefacts and ecofacts, the wider landscape, as well as Andean cosmology, are not explored. This might be rationale for stating that the paper is Part I. If so, this needs to be explained in the introduction, and there also needs to be a clear statement of what Part II provides, and indeed further parts. In addition, given the emphasis in the abstract and introduction on development planning, I am surprised that this did not feature more strongly in the paper. In the abstract it appeared to be almost the main theme of the paper i.e., the potential threat to cultural heritage from development plans. However this is not apparent from the main text. If this paper is to be published, I would strongly recommended having a section that links the cultural heritage to sustainable development, and explains the content of Part II and so forth.

Author Response

Por favor vea el archivo adjunto.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of “Analysis of the Functional Andean Worldview of the Archaeological Site of Ankasmarka, Cusco-Peru 2024-Part I”

 

This is apparently the first of a series of articles. Given that I only have this manuscript, I cannot comment on how well it integrates with the larger series. The goal of the manuscript as I understand it is demonstrate the importance of studying Ankasmarka to promote “a deeper understanding of the relationship between humans and their environment” and the “Andean worldview” (Page 6). In the introduction, the authors provide a brief introduction to the Inca civilization and some of its major settlements. This includes Ankasmarka, the focus of the paper, which is described in greater detail than the other settlements. There is also an extremely limited discussion of Inca cosmology and worldview.

In Section 2 (Materials and Methods), the authors discuss how they will use the results of archaeological excavation and quantitative tools such as ArcGIS to conduct their analyses. The authors provide more summary regarding Ankasmarka’s environmental and geographic setting (Sections 2.2. and 2.3). Section 3 then provides “Results,” which is a summary of the archaeological remains at Ankasmarka. This includes the general site layout and a general typology of architectural structures (e.g., dwellings, workshops, warehouses). Three sectors are identified based on geographical and architectural clusters. If I understand correctly, Sector A is a ceremonial area associated with funerary structures, although it also has many dwellings. Sector B is primarily a dwelling cluster although it also has a considerable number of tombs. Sector 3 has primarily warehouses along with some tombs.

Section 4, the “Discusión” (spelled using the Spanish spelling), stresses that Ankasmarka served as a storage, production, and likely military center. The authors note that it is similar to Kuelap, an archaeological site in the Amazon, but they also note that these two sites reflect cultural and geographic differences. Section 5, the “Conclusions” restates the differences among Sections A, B, and C, and then states that the settlement is “an important ceremonial, residential, and strategic location.”

Again, I am unable to evaluate this paper in its larger context. As a standalone manuscript, the paper has no larger point beyond serving as a site summary. I read these sorts of site summaries often, but they are rarely published in a journal such as Quaternary. Even as a site summary, I am uncertain why the authors include some of the information that they do. For example, what is the significance of including a section dealing with the wind speed or relative humidity at the settlement? This information is not important to the Discussion or Conclusions sections of this paper. Does it meaningfully factor into future discussions? Likewise, the argument that Ankasmarka is especially important as a ceremonial center is underdeveloped. It seems like any of the large Inca settlements mentioned in the introduction. Are tombs or other ceremonial structures especially common here? Or is the one “Viewpoint” structure of singular importance? As it is, most of the architecture and site layout seems like the standard habitation and storage facilities associated with large settlements across the Americas, as opposed to a particularly significant ceremonial settlement.

The upshot is that I would not support publishing this paper as a standalone manuscript, although it might be great in the context of the other papers in the series. To improve the paper, I recommend the authors really focus on what makes this settlement special in terms of illustrating some aspect of the Andean worldview.  However, it may be that this manuscript is perfect depending on the subsequent manuscript(s).

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revisions do a better job placing Ankasmarka in its social and cultural context.  

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Lines 228 to 235 remain in Spanish. They need to be translated.