Patterns of Style, Diversity, and Similarity in Middle Orinoco Rock Art Assemblages
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I believe is an excellent paper, but it needs some clarification. I point out these issues:
1. A stylistic (typological) classification is argued as a basic variable for statistical quantification, but there is no clear definition of what is understood as “style” in the terms of the text, especially when categories with differentiated semantic loads are also used to refer to common elements, as a “form” or “iconography”. This definition must be clear at the beginning of the text.
2. The cultural or chronological implications of statistical quantification are not clear. The stylistic variation, the distribution of graphics features or the topological relationships in the middle Orinoco have social or temporal implications or not? It must be necessary to extend this discussion or provide an argument about it, especially since the text has mentioned long temporal sequences in the area.
3. Although a paragraph suggests that an investigation with different questions could yield different results using the same data, there is no discussion about the relativity of the conclusions provided at the statistical level; especially how to corroborate the conclusions raised, that I assumed as a working hypothesis.
4. Only in one circumstance in the text, the taphonomic factor is taken into account. Why the results are not discussed from this perspective? At this point, it seems that the text is quite conditioned by a false premise, which consider the integrity of the evidence s a fact. It would be important to broaden the discussion in this regard.
Author Response
I believe is an excellent paper, but it needs some clarification. I point out these issues:
1. A stylistic (typological) classification is argued as a basic variable for statistical quantification, but there is no clear definition of what is understood as “style” in the terms of the text, especially when categories with differentiated semantic loads are also used to refer to common elements, as a “form” or “iconography”. This definition must be clear at the beginning of the text.
Following this comment and the recommendations of Reviewer 2, we have clarified the working definition of “style” in the text, with expanded references to the broader literature.
2. The cultural or chronological implications of statistical quantification are not clear. The stylistic variation, the distribution of graphics features or the topological relationships in the middle Orinoco have social or temporal implications or not? It must be necessary to extend this discussion or provide an argument about it, especially since the text has mentioned long temporal sequences in the area.
We have clarified the language in the introduction to make it clear that we do not aim to address the chronology of rock art in the Middle Orinoco. We have described the available evidence in the introduction for completeness and to illustrate the difficulty of drawing conclusive correlations. We hope that the reviewers agree that dating rock art is challenging, but that this should not exclude the possibility of performing analysis in geographical and topological space.
3. Although a paragraph suggests that an investigation with different questions could yield different results using the same data, there is no discussion about the relativity of the conclusions provided at the statistical level; especially how to corroborate the conclusions raised, that I assumed as a working hypothesis.
This paragraph has been revised to emphasise that the methods and techniques we used in the study are reproducible (see Supplementary Information) and potentially extendable to other contexts. We intended to underscore that our data is available to other scholars, should they have different questions and a desire to use different techniques.
4. Only in one circumstance in the text, the taphonomic factor is taken into account. Why the results are not discussed from this perspective? At this point, it seems that the text is quite conditioned by a false premise, which consider the integrity of the evidence s a fact. It would be important to broaden the discussion in this regard.
The lead author has discussed taphonomy at length in a separate publication (Riris 2017, Antiquity). Our original manuscript summarised the main findings of this study. We have referred to the relevant conclusions in the text in the context of preservation and the possible bias towards later periods in the rock art record, on the basis that rock art motifs occasionally occur as decoration on material culture. In our fieldwork we noticed very few direct correlations between the setting of a site and its level of preservation, apart from obvious cases like painted sites not preserving in watery or exposed settings. The taphonomy of a given site is likely to be complex and specific to its setting. For present purposes we have assumed that, on average, the effects of differential preservation will cancel each other out on the spatial scale that we have adopted here. This information has been added to the text, in the Discussion.
Reviewer 2 Report
This submission to Arts recommends itself as a progress report on work undertaken as part of a large-scale study of Atures Rapids and related Orinoco regions. The subject matter is of great interest.
Suggestions
Presentation of METHODS. The description of quantitative analysis assumes a readership familiar with computational methods. While clear explanations of the Shannon index and motif co-presence and Jaccard coefficient measures are given by the authors, the exclusively technical language employed in the Results, Discussion and Conclusions sections limits reader access. The article would be rendered more accessible through a glossing (unpacking in plain language) of technical expressions (“pairwise comparison”, “network analysis”, e.g.) at key points. One or two reader-friendly illustrations of just how the study throws light on the interrelatedness of sites would be helpful. In this respect the conclusions drawn in ll. 275-86 might be explored in terms their implications for speculation about group identity and interaction. The authors might distinguish between findings that contribute to an understanding of the rock art corpus in space-time contexts (e.g. the suggestion of a baseline vocabulary, or the view that “Middle Orinoco rock art displays strong stylistic inter-relatedness within an overall pattern of high diversity”) and findings that will refine procedure (avoiding falling into the trap of choosing conspicuous assemblages as type-sites that on appearances promise a Rosetta stone key to understanding corpora).
Where links are established what scope is there for investigating similar motif elements that might have distinctly different functions? For example: geometric designs for decorative purposes (cf. textiles, ceramics) and plan-view icons employed in narrative sequences (e.g. the site-path, often circle and line forms, of Australian desert ground drawing and painting; see Munn 1973).
Definition of STYLE. The question of the usefulness of stylistic analysis is a very large topic in rock art research (Bahn and Lorblanchet eds,1993; Layton 1992: ch. 7; Conkey and Harstorf eds, 1990) with scholars adopting widely different stances on the subject, from art history perspectives, to embracing data analytics, to an outright rejection of style as a useful tool. In view of this, the authors’ relegation of a definition to their Supplementary Information is regrettable, especially since the word cues a leading preoccupation with motif classification in their title. The article could make it clear that there are approaches to stylistic analysis that take into account elements other than motif design in a relational way, rather than reducing style to data-manageable motif-content types. Note Maynard 1976: 143, for example: style = “the sum total of the technique, form, motif, size and character of a figure”. A question arises: what hermeneutic opportunities are forfeited in single element data analysis? (Of course there is no reason why different approaches, atomised and holistic, can’t be taken by the same researchers and the authors flag their intention to compare their results with the conclusions drawn in traditional analysis.)
The authors might find Layton 1992, ch. 6, on “Figure and Motif” (if this text is unfamiliar to them) a useful comparative source in terms of its reflections on and documentation of approaches to image classification in Australia, a continent where there is a well-documented “geometric” element within an early regionally-varying tradition employing what might be described as a “baseline vocabulary” (Franklin 2007 in Rock Art Research 24[1]). If they have not encountered it, they might also consult Layton’s (1992: 201ff; & Appendix) investigation of Jaccard cluster evidence for patterns in Australian rock art motif distribution.
Additional comments
P. 8, ll. 231-32. Note Greer and Greer (1998) in AIRA 22, p. 93: “It is now certain that pictographs and burials are not related”.
P. 8, l. 234, P. 14, l. 444 and elsewhere: “However” is not a conjunction. (In line 343 the usage is grammatically correct.)
P. 12, l. 390: “proxemics and periodicity”. Gloss with common idiom.
P. 13, l. 409: “To this end”. I don’t comprehend the meaning of this expression. Similarly?
P.14. ll. 421-424. Simplify style. The paper is not at all concerned with emic significance.
P. 14, l. 425: “To this end” On this score?
P. 14, l. 431: “include”
P. 14, l. 434: with which (word order)
P. 15, l. 464: typo
P. 15, l. 466: give specific examples of variance
P. 15, l. 485: large Cite examples to be absolutely clear about what is meant by “large” here
Author Response
This submission to Arts recommends itself as a progress report on work undertaken as part of a large-scale study of Atures Rapids and related Orinoco regions. The subject matter is of great interest.
Suggestions
Presentation of METHODS. The description of quantitative analysis assumes a readership familiar with computational methods. While clear explanations of the Shannon index and motif co-presence and Jaccard coefficient measures are given by the authors, the exclusively technical language employed in the Results, Discussion and Conclusions sections limits reader access. The article would be rendered more accessible through a glossing (unpacking in plain language) of technical expressions (“pairwise comparison”, “network analysis”, e.g.) at key points. One or two reader-friendly illustrations of just how the study throws light on the interrelatedness of sites would be helpful. In this respect the conclusions drawn in ll. 275-86 might be explored in terms their implications for speculation about group identity and interaction. The authors might distinguish between findings that contribute to an understanding of the rock art corpus in space-time contexts (e.g. the suggestion of a baseline vocabulary, or the view that “Middle Orinoco rock art displays strong stylistic inter-relatedness within an overall pattern of high diversity”) and findings that will refine procedure (avoiding falling into the trap of choosing conspicuous assemblages as type-sites that on appearances promise a Rosetta stone key to understanding corpora).
We have edited the Methods section for clarity by using more accessible, less jargon-like terms. Furthermore, we had not considered the contrast drawn by the reviewer between findings of a methodological nature and those contributing to our understanding of the regional archaeological record. We have incorporated this distinction in order to structure the Discussion more logically.
Where links are established what scope is there for investigating similar motif elements that might have distinctly different functions? For example: geometric designs for decorative purposes (cf. textiles, ceramics) and plan-view icons employed in narrative sequences (e.g. the site-path, often circle and line forms, of Australian desert ground drawing and painting; see Munn 1973).
Readers familiar with the regional ethnographic literature will note our allusions to this topic in the Introduction (see Reichel-Dolmatoff and Hugh-Jones in particular on the subject of indigenous art and its parallels to ancient rock art). While the manuscript already deals with correlations between archaeological material culture and rock art, we did not go so far as to connect these areas with the ethnographic record. The revised manuscript has been amended to note this in greater depth, in particular how ethnographic art could be analysed in the same way.
Definition of STYLE. The question of the usefulness of stylistic analysis is a very large topic in rock art research (Bahn and Lorblanchet eds,1993; Layton 1992: ch. 7; Conkey and Harstorf eds, 1990) with scholars adopting widely different stances on the subject, from art history perspectives, to embracing data analytics, to an outright rejection of style as a useful tool. In view of this, the authors’ relegation of a definition to their Supplementary Information is regrettable, especially since the word cues a leading preoccupation with motif classification in their title. The article could make it clear that there are approaches to stylistic analysis that take into account elements other than motif design in a relational way, rather than reducing style to data-manageable motif-content types. Note Maynard 1976: 143, for example: style = “the sum total of the technique, form, motif, size and character of a figure”. A question arises: what hermeneutic opportunities are forfeited in single element data analysis? (Of course there is no reason why different approaches, atomised and holistic, can’t be taken by the same researchers and the authors flag their intention to compare their results with the conclusions drawn in traditional analysis.)
The authors might find Layton 1992, ch. 6, on “Figure and Motif” (if this text is unfamiliar to them) a useful comparative source in terms of its reflections on and documentation of approaches to image classification in Australia, a continent where there is a well-documented “geometric” element within an early regionally-varying tradition employing what might be described as a “baseline vocabulary” (Franklin 2007 in Rock Art Research 24[1]). If they have not encountered it, they might also consult Layton’s (1992: 201ff; & Appendix) investigation of Jaccard cluster evidence for patterns in Australian rock art motif distribution.
We are grateful for the references to specific works on the subject of style provided by this reviewer. We have acquired and read the majority with interest and endeavoured to incorporate them to the fullest extent possible. Following this and similar comments by Reviewer 1 on our working definition of “style”, we have moved this text from the Supplementary Information to the main body. We note that our definition of what constitutes a distinct motif type is very much in line with the quote from Maynard (1976) equating style with “the sum total of the technique, form, motif, size and character of a figure”.
Additional comments
P. 8, ll. 231-32. Note Greer and Greer (1998) in AIRA 22, p. 93: “It is now certain that pictographs and burials are not related”.
P. 8, l. 234, P. 14, l. 444 and elsewhere: “However” is not a conjunction. (In line 343 the usage is grammatically correct.)
P. 12, l. 390: “proxemics and periodicity”. Gloss with common idiom.
P. 13, l. 409: “To this end”. I don’t comprehend the meaning of this expression. Similarly?
P.14. ll. 421-424. Simplify style. The paper is not at all concerned with emic significance.
P. 14, l. 425: “To this end” On this score?
P. 14, l. 431: “include”
P. 14, l. 434: with which (word order)
P. 15, l. 464: typo
P. 15, l. 466: give specific examples of variance
P. 15, l. 485: large Cite examples to be absolutely clear about what is meant by “large” here
We have made the above corrections to the text and clarified points where necessary.
Reviewer 3 Report
Your text is often not easy to read. When you write a paper I advise you to do so as if it were for non-professional readers.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Your text is often not easy to read. When you write a paper I advise you to do so as if it were for non-professional readers.
We have revised the manuscript to be easier to read. Specifically, we have a) reduced the number of technical or jargon terms, b) shortened sentences and separated clauses, and c) improved the structure of the text. We hope this will satisfy Reviewer 3.
