Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Notes on paper

1. Author should explain technical terminologies for the reader. For example, does constructivism in relation to archaeology have the same meaning as it does in relalation to teaching and learning? What are ‘presentism’ and futurism’ in this context? Placement of explanation in a footnote would be sufficient.
2. Discussion of relativism in archaeology is interesting (eg. Trigger) but could differentiate between new critical lenses in interprettion, such as dreams, eschatology and feminism, and the extreme relativism, such as “feature A could mean a multitude of things depending on the viewer’s point of view.” The latter would, I suspect, be baffling for the original creator.
3. I think ‘construction’ could be used to replace most uses in the paper of the term ‘engineering’.
4. The paper takes a long time to reveal that it is really about a form of architectural education employing archaeology.
5. Sometimes the text is overweighted with jargon, for example: “The students explored the role of materials in archaeology and ancient engineering practices, focusing on material properties and their influence on the negotiation of ‘multisystem composition’ within the historic fabric of buildings, including the structural, constructional, and environmental systems. Hence, exploring material agency in architectural archaeology through an object-laden epistemology deconstructs the ‘objective’ engineering of ancient archaeologies as they relate to past times.”

“ Students’analysis of building constructions and their static forces reveals both building techniques and their performance over time.”???

6. The use of Bruno Latour’s Actor Network theory in this paper, although it is not cited, underlies references to material agency, but seems unnecessary and extraneous to the actual purpose of the sudy- a case of theoretical ornamentation?
7. ‘Squishes’ > ‘squinches’; ‘youth architects’ > ‘young architects’; lear (Amro, 2018)ning
8. Reference to Harrison on page 18 should have been introduced at the beginning where author refers to archaeology in relation to the future. What Harrison is really referring to is the necessity of critical heritage practices to counter, for example, power narratives or ‘authorized heritage discourse’. This was not an invitation to engage in neo-traditionalism.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language is generally good, but there are a few glitches- see point 7 above, and some typos, eg. 'lear (Amro, 2018)ning'

Author Response

Architectural Archaeology through Reverse Engineering: A Constructivist Perspective from Jordan

 

Please allow me to extend my sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which have been fully considered in this revised version and have dramatically enhanced the quality of this research.

Reviewer 1

Reviewer Comment	Author Response
1.      Author should explain technical terminologies for the reader. For example, does constructivism in relation to archaeology have the same meaning as it does in relalation to teaching and learning? What are ‘presentism’ and futurism’ in this context? Placement of explanation in a footnote would be sufficient.	Provide in: ·        footnote 1 (page 23) ·        The title ‘A Continuum of Custodianship and Agency in Architectural Archaeology Ontology’ (pages 19-20)
2.      Discussion of relativism in archaeology is interesting (eg. Trigger) but could differentiate between new critical lenses in interprettion, such as dreams, eschatology and feminism, and the extreme relativism, such as ‘feature A could mean a multitude of things depending on the viewer’s point of view.’ The latter would, I suspect, be baffling for the original creator.	Please see the discussion under the titles: ·        ‘Architectural Archaeology: The Knowledge-Transfer Framework as Epistemology and Ontology (pages 4-5) ·        ‘Conclusion’ (page 20).
3.      I think ‘construction’ could be used to replace most uses in the paper of the term ‘engineering’.	I am afraid that ‘construction’ can replace ‘engineering’ without conceptual loss. The reverse-engineering strategy (Schiffer, 2013; Eilam, 2005; Beiersdorf, 2017) targets construction's intellectual system of design logic, structural reasoning, and material optimisation—the ‘why’ behind the ‘how’. Second, while Dessales (2017) distinguishes building archaeology from construction archaeology, the suggested framework teaches students to reconstruct engineering logic—structural mechanics, material science, and performance criteria actively manipulated by ancient builders—which is not reducible to construction techniques alone. Third, replacing ‘engineering’ with ‘construction’ would diminish the paper's disciplinary contribution and architecture's particular expertise in engineering sciences, which Jordanian archaeological pedagogy lacks. Fourth, student reflections indicate that they learned engineering principles (load capacity, seismic behavior, material properties, structural analysis software) rather than just construction history. Therefore, the term‘engineering’ accurately describes what students learn and what our framework offers.
4.      The paper takes a long time to reveal that it is really about a form of architectural education employing archaeology.	It is clearly presented in the revised version in the introduction and its subsections (pages 2-5)
5.      Sometimes the text is overweighted with jargon, for example: ‘The students explored the role of materials in archaeology and ancient engineering practices, focusing on material properties and their influence on the negotiation of ‘multisystem composition’ within the historic fabric of buildings, including the structural, constructional, and environmental systems. Hence, exploring material agency in architectural archaeology through an object-laden epistemology deconstructs the ‘objective’ engineering of ancient archaeologies as they relate to past times.’ ‘Students’analysis of building constructions and their static forces reveals both building techniques and their performance over time.’???	I have systematically revised the manuscript to replace dense theoretical shorthand with concrete descriptions of what students did—measured, modelled, tested, compared, and discovered—and have anchored every conceptual claim in specific examples from Jordan's archaeological sites and student projects. The constructivist framework is now demonstrated through the pedagogical case study rather than buried under its own terminology.
6.      The use of Bruno Latour’s Actor Network theory in this paper, although it is not cited, underlies references to material agency, but seems unnecessary and extraneous to the actual purpose of the sudy- a case of theoretical ornamentation?	Thank you for this perceptive observation. You are correct that the manuscript invoked ANT-inflected terminology without justification; I have removed all such language and replaced it with direct descriptions of what students observed and concluded about material behavior and construction processes. The revised text now grounds its claims in pedagogical evidence rather than theoretical ornamentation.
7.      ‘Squishes’ > ‘squinches’; ‘youth architects’ > ‘young architects’; lear (Amro, 2018)ning	Corrected as needed
8.      Reference to Harrison on page 18 should have been introduced at the beginning where author refers to archaeology in relation to the future. What Harrison is really referring to is the necessity of critical heritage practices to counter, for example, power narratives or ‘authorized heritage discourse’. This was not an invitation to engage in neo-traditionalism.	Harrison has been cited on pages (6, 13) and the discussion section (pages 18-20). The intervention has materially improved the manuscript's theoretical precision and guarded against a misreading that would have undermined our constructivist and critical commitments.
Comments on the Quality of English Language Language is generally good, but there are a few glitches- see point 7 above, and some typos, eg. 'lear (Amro, 2018)ning'	Corrected as needed

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a teaching-focused article on architectural of archaeology. The authors use two main concepts: reverse engineering and learning through the construction.  I would like to offer some suggestions:

• It would be interesting explain the exercise and form of evaluation of the students more clearly as well as it would be interesting provide a context about the formative aspects of the students.
• The results offer a qualitative assessment; however, it would be valuable to include a quantitative analysis.
• Another aspect to consider is a restructuring of the text to improve the readability.

Author Response

Architectural Archaeology through Reverse Engineering: A Constructivist Perspective from Jordan

 

Please allow me to extend my sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which have been fully considered in this revised version and have dramatically enhanced the quality of this research.

Reviewer 2

Reviewer Comment	Author Response
It would be interesting explain the exercise and form of evaluation of the students more clearly as well as it would be interesting provide a context about the formative aspects of the students.	Explained as it appears on pages 8-9 (in the Research Design section, following Table 1).    Also, please see pages 9-10 (Documentation phase description) and page 11 (Analysis phase description).   The evaluation framework is also detailed in Table 1 on page 8 and in footnote 5.
The results offer a qualitative assessment; however, it would be valuable to include a quantitative analysis.	The response to the reviewer's comment regarding the inclusion of quantitative analysis is addressed on pages 7 of the manuscript. Within the "Research Design" section, the text details the quantitative assessment framework used to evaluate student work across the four competency domains. Additionally, Footnote 5 reinforces these methodological details, explicitly outlining the quantitative indicators and the independent scoring process by two instructors.   The intent of incorporating this quantitative analysis is to demonstrate that the study's findings are not solely qualitative but are grounded in a robust, multi-instructor quantitative assessment framework with high inter-rater reliability. However, to build upon this foundation, further quantitative research on this topic is recommended, particularly longitudinal studies tracking graduate trajectories and the development of more sophisticated statistical instruments to complement the rich qualitative depth presented here.
Another aspect to consider is a restructuring of the text to improve the readability.	A clear structure with well-defined titles and subtitles has been included.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Revision Comments:

1- Please, re-write the abstract, trying to summarize all the current written lines into brief information. Then, please give the current research aims, the methodology to achieve them, and the most interesting results and findings.

2- The first title, better named introduction and under it, subtitles may come. The first section needs revision. Please give explaining examples to enhance the understanding of the prolonged theoretical information provided in the introduction section. Compare between the architectural Archaeology and the well-established practices as architectural Conservation of Historic Buildings, and pure Archaeology (e.g. Islamic Archaeology, etc.) and other classification of Archaeology science. Give brief background on worldwide experience in the current research field (outside Jordan) and how researches can benefit from them. Finally, it is better to show the relationship between current subject and the worldwide practices in architectural conservation and preservation of archaeological places regarding the ICOMOS charts and recommendations. In my opinion, what provided to be implemented in Jordan (while I believe it is already applied) is the common practice for dealing with the preservation of architectural heritage in regional countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. 

3- Please, add in each section the brief definition of the major utilized expressions such as, Architectural Archaeology, reverse engineering, etc. You provided detailed literature review without previously defining each terminology (even briefly).

4- Table 1 needs more explanations for its work and results, since the commenting is brief and not enough. Figures needs more coverage in the paper’s text.

5- In fact, and since the beginning, I find it difficult for specifically realizing the main aims of this paper. After finishing its reading, I understand that the researcher demonstrates the Jordan architectural engineering university’s experience in adding supplementary courses to architectural engineering students for utilizing the Architectural Archaeology in conservation of architectural heritage in Jordan. The researcher should know that other worldwide countries has other educational experiences to achieve similar goals. In regional countries, they have bachelor programs on universities fully specialized in architectural conservation and restoration of architectural heritage. Students study tens of courses concerning various aspects of the architectural conservation projects. Besides, you demonstrated the idea, through writing down opinions of a number of students after finishing the courses. In my opinion, the researcher did not measure the success of this educational experience through stakeholders (companies that work in architectural restoration field) and the authorities (ministry of Archaeology). Please try to review the paper and cover these points. Try to provide more enhancement to attract readers from other countries and prove the idea and aims of the research with more measurable approaches and methodology. 

6- The format of the paper needs revision. Why you did not provide conclusions at the paper's end? Please, try providing the major outcomes of the work and future fields to expand the research works.  

Author Response

Architectural Archaeology through Reverse Engineering: A Constructivist Perspective from Jordan

 

Please allow me to extend my sincere gratitude to the reviewers for their insightful and constructive comments, which have been fully considered in this revised version and have dramatically enhanced the quality of this research.

Reviewer 3

Reviewer Comment	Author Response
1- Please, re-write the abstract, trying to summarize all the current written lines into brief information. Then, please give the current research aims, the methodology to achieve them, and the most interesting results and findings. The first title, better named introduction and under it, subtitles may come. The first section needs revision. Please give explaining examples to enhance the understanding of the prolonged theoretical information provided in the introduction section. Compare between the architectural Archaeology and the well-established practices as architectural Conservation of Historic Buildings, and pure Archaeology (e.g. Islamic Archaeology, etc.) and other classification of Archaeology science.	·        Rewritten abstract (page 1) ·        Restructured ‘Introduction’ section with subtitles (pages 1-6) ·        Comparison between architectural archaeology and well-established practices- Pages 3-4 (section ‘Distinguishing Architectural Archaeology’) ·        Explaining examples to enhance understanding of theoretical information - throughout the introduction and early sections.
Give brief background on worldwide experience in the current research field (outside Jordan) and how researches can benefit from them. Finally, it is better to show the relationship between current subject and the worldwide practices in architectural conservation and preservation of archaeological places regarding the ICOMOS charts and recommendations. In my opinion, what provided to be implemented in Jordan (while I believe it is already applied) is the common practice for dealing with the preservation of architectural heritage in regional countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia.	Please see the "Distinguishing Architectural Archaeology" section and its accompanying footnote (pages 3-4). Additionally, on page 3, the manuscript references ICOMOS.
3- Please, add in each section the brief definition of the major utilized expressions such as, Architectural Archaeology, reverse engineering, etc. You provided detailed literature review without previously defining each terminology (even briefly).	Definitions have been provided at the point of first use in each major section. For example, architectural archaeology (Page 4), reverse engineering (page 6), object-laden epistemology and a value-laden ontology (page 7), etc.
4- Table 1 needs more explanations for its work and results, since the commenting is brief and not enough. Figures needs more coverage in the paper’s text.	Endnote 5 (page 8) offers an extensive explanation of how the four-domain framework was operationalized.
5- In fact, and since the beginning, I find it difficult for specifically realizing the main aims of this paper. After finishing its reading, I understand that the researcher demonstrates the Jordan architectural engineering university’s experience in adding supplementary courses to architectural engineering students for utilizing the Architectural Archaeology in conservation of architectural heritage in Jordan. The researcher should know that other worldwide countries has other educational experiences to achieve similar goals. In regional countries, they have bachelor programs on universities fully specialized in architectural conservation and restoration of architectural heritage. Students study tens of courses concerning various aspects of the architectural conservation projects. Besides, you demonstrated the idea, through writing down opinions of a number of students after finishing the courses. In my opinion, the researcher did not measure the success of this educational experience through stakeholders (companies that work in architectural restoration field) and the authorities (ministry of Archaeology). Please try to review the paper and cover these points. Try to provide more enhancement to attract readers from other countries and prove the idea and aims of the research with more measurable approaches and methodology.	·        The "Distinguishing Architectural Archaeology" section (page 3-4) references European traditions ·        Regional programs are mentioned in endnote 2 (page 4) ·        Stakeholder measurement is recommended within the ‘future research part- the last paragraph in the conclusion.
6- The format of the paper needs revision. Why you did not provide conclusions at the paper's end? Please, try providing the major outcomes of the work and future fields to expand the research works.	The entire structure has been revised with a ‘Conclusion’ section

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I note that there is no rating between average and high. Nevertheless I think this second draft is a big improvement upon the first draft- the structure is clear and well-signposted, the methiodology is clearly stated, and the terminology is more clearly explained. The paper makes a valuable contribution to its fields of architectural pedagogy, heritage studies and archaeology.

There are only two suggestions for edits: centring for cantering (unless horsemanship was being meant), and insetting or quotation marks for all substantial quotations.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

There are only two suggestions for edits: centring for cantering (unless horsemanship was being meant), and in setting or quotation marks for all substantial quotations.

1. Cantering is corrected as “centring.”
2. Quotation marks are added as needed.

Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The researchers covered and conducted all the required comments and completed the revision of all parts of the paper. In my opinion, the paper in its revised form is accepted and ready for publishing in Architecture Journal. The followings are more details about the acceptance:

• What is the main que by the research?

This article proposed a constructivist architectural archaeology framework that reorients heritage education from intervention toward knowledge transfer. By engaging students in reverse engineering, deconstructing ancient techniques through digital documentation and structural simulation. Then reconstructing knowledge for contemporary application the framework positions them as active interpreters and advocates for Jordan's archaeological heritage. Importantly, this approach avoids extreme relativism, while diverse interpretive lenses remain valuable, engagement with structural analysis, material testing, and construction documentation disciplines interprets interpretive freedom. Engineering epistemology establishes constraints on meaning even as it opens reinterpretation, maintaining the productive tension between methodological pluralism and epistemic rigor.

• Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? 

This topic is original and relevant to its field. 

• What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The Hashemite University experiment yielded transformative outcomes across four dimensions: science-making (recovering ancient engineering as legitimate knowledge); heritage-making (sites shifting from relics to living practice); temporality-making (past–present dialogue); and advocacy-making (students as custodian-transmitters). By integrating heritage into core curricula, this framework reaches future architects beyond specialized conservation programs, addressing regional gaps where technically sophisticated conservation struggles to cultivate community support. Nevertheless, this study has limitations. Its pedagogical focus on conceptual validation made long-term professional impact measurement unfeasible; the 42-student cohort, while appropriate for analytical generalization, cannot support statistical inference; and the Jordanian focus limits claims of transferability.

• What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

I believe the paper is acceptable in its current state. It does not need any improvements.

• Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? 

Yes, they efficiently do and address.

Please also explain why this is the case?

They provide effective conclusions that cover up all paper's works and sections.

• Are the references appropriate?

Yes. They considered the latest in its field.

• Any additional comments on the tables and figures?

No. All Tables and Figures are clear and cover all data the researchers need to demonstrate and analyze.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

No comments. Thank you.