People That Time Forgot: Villa de Leyva, Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper that seems more like a statement about what the author hopes to find after doing more fieldwork and analysis.

p. 10. Evidence for raised fields is tenuous. He refers to an open lot currently serving as a sheep pasture as “a favorable location for raised fields” and supports that view by a road cut revealing stratigraphy “like raised fields known for the Maya Lowlands.” It is difficult to clearly see the profile in Fig. 10d. It would be helpful to show a direct view of the profile along with: (1) a profile drawing labeling and describing the relevant features of the strata and (2) a stratigraphic profile of a raised field in the Maya Lowlands so we can see the similarities. Are there soils data (granulometric, chemical) that can be referenced to support the interpretation of a prehispanic raised field? The author states that the presumed raised field is “sufficiently intact for a successful program of excavation … to help identify … raised field cultivation.” This suggests that he intends to do this work another time.

p. 12. Without additional evidence, I would not conclude that the Parque Nariño was the location of a precolonial marketplace based on what a local said and that the large natural stone was placed there by the precolonial Indigenous people. Any possibility that early maps made by the 16^th-century colonial settlers might show something relevant?

I appreciate the author’s discussion of processional routes and pilgrimages. For many Indigenous peoples the cosmological landscape was mapped onto the physical landscape, and it is appealing to think that pilgrimages with shrines or stations in selected locations reinforced connections between the humans and the cosmos or the numinous. Of course, the challenge is to demonstrate this in some believable way. The author is trying to do that. There are other studies available that address pilgrimages archaeologically. I would suggest that the author reference some of those to place his study into a larger context of doing this kind of work.

I would suggest that the author reframe the paper in a way to make clear that this is a project very much in the works and that ideas presented here are serving as hypotheses or expectations to be tested with additional fieldwork and analysis. Regarding additional work, perhaps it would be useful and relevant to conduct GIS viewshed analyses from various perspectives to assist in interpretations of what the purported pilgrims might have seen at different stages (or even times of day) of their pilgrimage.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 has provided constructive comments that I have tried to incorporate where relevant. The comment about a paper statement is a little misplaced as this work is a multimethod approach using settlement pattern, landscape approaches, and artifact analysis in an environmental context that obviously will require future intensive excavation in some areas. This is particularly true of Calle 12 tentatively identified as raised field which in isolation may appear tenuous if it were not for the broader context of ethnohistorical description of their use in the valley in the 16^th century and before as well as current evidence for their reuse today, all discussed in the paper. Also, I have included the suggested sediment term (granulometric) for the road cut profile on page 10 and stress that the information queried regarding Maya raised fields is available to the reader in the page citation provided. And I don’t agree that the informant information regarding the Parque Nariño as a pre colonial market should not be included but further support, I have added other relevant evidence on page 12.  However, the reviewer ignores the significant Winter Solstice alignment of the stone megalithic with the Terrace Platform and Infiernito which cannot be coincidental and strongly suggests a Prehispanic ceremonial space. Besides, the Parque Nariño and its monolith and columns are argued to be significant not as a marketplace but as a pilgrimage station. Though I appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to broaden the discussion of pilgrimage behavior and archaeological context, I believe this goes beyond the scope of the article but does provide subject matter for another paper, just not this one. The same is true of the GIS watershed analysis recommended.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article could gain more if the topic were the cultural Muisca prehispanic landscape. The main argument about the apparent lack of local communities' previous de foundation of the town is some sort simplistic. Every archaeologist who works the contact – the early colonial period in America knows that the Spaniards always established themselves in areas with a big local population (who else is going to do the work around?). However, the article shows a very interesting contexts, where the Muisca prehispanic community used the local resources for their benefit, transforming the natural environment into a cultural landscape with agricultural terraces, canals, astronomical platforms, etc. I think that is a more strong argument than the local population was not there. In addition, the author described all those material contexts very well. A little more work on the theoretical structure is suggested (especially if the cultural landscape concept had been used)

Minor critics:

-I do not see any citations for the introduction and local description of the area (is there nothing to cite?)

-Although reads well, here and there are minor English errors that can be improved. Some editing could be good.

-Although a good description is presented on the google images/figures, could not do any harm if some edition on the images could be done in order to show what the author wants us to see (ex, arrows, lines, circles, etc.).

Author Response

Reviewer 2 offers some good suggestions though the comment about Muisca cultural landscape is a little perplexing as the landscape is a major focus of the paper. The assertion that the Colonial Spanish usually established themselves where the people were is already a major point discussed in the paper. As outlined, in the Leiva Valley, the Spanish first colonized Monquirá before being evicted by the government then had to move 5 km east to Villa de Leyva where there were other people. I tried to clarify on page 4 by stating the distance between Monquirá and Villa. As suggested, I added some key references in the Introduction that provide up-to-date and comprehensive works outlining theoretical perspectives of Muisca archaeology.