Different Ways of Knowing and a Different Ways of Being: On a Path to Reawakening Legacy of the Maya Forest

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is quite interesting and the approach to the human side of AF and CET as two women responsible for the project-community relation is quite interesting

The paper just needs to develop further in therms of human-animal relation in the same way that the author makes the relation human-plants.  There is an archaeological reserve for Maya Flora and Fauna that the author mentions as one of the pillars of all of this. And the relation with the flora through forest gardeners is visible, but how does the Fauna gets protected and included in the project and in the heritage-community relation?

Author Response

We have been able to incorporate the importance of fauna as a vital component of the milpa cycle and the forest garden. We also add that are part of the habitat created by the forest garden, integral in the traditional ecological knowledge that identifies damsel fly to find water, that rest in a hammock awaiting the return of the tepescunite, and can find the way back to the avocado tree in the forest.  we could spend more time on the fauna but reference the Ford and Nigh book that consider aspects of the habitat as a critical part of daily needs. This is a story of the ow to engage community participation, so reflecting on the nature bring in both flora and fauna.

Reviewer 2 Report

As a description of an archaeological community project by archaeologists who are activists and idealists, this is very interesting and even inspiring. If that is all that the authors (and journal editors) wish to achieve, then this is sufficient.

However, the paper calls itself a ‘review’ and uses the word ‘lessons’. If that is the case, then mere description of how wonderful everything was is not enough. What is needed is evidence of reflection, analysis, and discussion of what aspects went well, what could have gone better, and what you might have done differently. The word ‘lessons’ gives the impression that you are drawing out some transferable learning for other archaeological community projects, but there is nothing like that here. It would be more useful to a wider readership if you analysed the mechanisms used by the project, and drew out how well they worked (or not).

There is also evidence of gaps in your own analysis of what is essential in such community projects. For example, you recognise four essential elements to building a community partnership, but you omit two of the most important that have been identified by previous action research (and, ironically, from what you write, both these missing elements were indeed an important aspect of your project). They are:

• Sustainable partnerships and relationships often begin with open conversations about what archaeologists and communities might want to do together, rather than projects being imposed by archaeologists. From what you write, this is what happened in your project, so why isn’t it recorded as an essential element? It would also be useful – for other projects – to learn what the mechanisms were for these sorts of conversations, who was involved beyond the initial approach, and whether agreement was reached immediately or through an iterative process
• Communities feel they have agency and decision-making around the project, including managing resources and being involved in evaluation. You write less about this, but it is an essential aspect for sustainable partnerships – again, it would be useful if you could be more specific about what the practical mechanisms were in involving the community in the project and them having real agency: how were joint decisions reached, how often, who was involved, and how were any disagreements resolved? The key is always the question ‘Who decides?’ So in your project, who decided, and how? This is a big gap in the paper.

These two elements have been previously identified as going to the heart of successful community partnerships, so it would be useful for you to say more about them.

If this is indeed meant to be a review which brings out lessons for others – which is what you claim – then much more analysis of strengths and weaknesses is necessary, rather than mere description of what you did.

Author Response

We have developed a more detailed background and created a section on relationship and lessons that enriches the narrative.

The sequence is reorganized to highlight the interactions.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Assessment:

I consider this is a very interesting article opening optimal perspectives for El Pilar Archaeological Reserve for Maya Flora and Fauna in Belize.

Archaeological and anthropological approaches are well considerate here with other social perspectives in a pertinent way to provide a very valued tangible heritage in this case.

However, I recommend improve the structure of article.

 

Recommendations.

1.- STRUCTURE.

Article structure could be improved. I recommend follow Heritage template, as example:

1.- Introduction.               

The main part of Chapter “3.-Background: Passing on The Legacy” could be placed here.

2.- Materials and Methods:

                Authors should specify what materials they have and what methods they intend to develop or justify evaluation of the role of humans in the caretaking of the environment.

This chapter is a simple description of the four sites of interest in the Cayo District of Belize, not a real methodological exposition.

 

3.- Results. Experience Work In Progress

3.1 Creating the Model School Forest Garden Känan K’aax

3.2 Building Bridges and Making Connections of Wealth Untold

3.3 Community Partnerships

 

4.-Discussion. Recognizing the Past, Valuing the Present, Embracing the Future

                Please, place this chapter into a discussion context of result with other similars/dissimilars experiences

 

2.- IMAGES

 

Figure. 1.-. Lack copyright of satellital imagery.

Figure. 2.-  Lack copyright of satellital imagery.

Please, unificate scale bars design.

Figure. 5.-  Lack copyright.

Figure. 6. Lack copyright.

Figure 7.- Lack copyright.

Figure 9.- Lack copyright.

Author Response

We have rearranged the structure to reflect the suggestions and we have indicated the source of the figures and maps. This is an improvement.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors;

Thank you very much for your time.