Animal Matter in Indigenous Place-Thought: A Case from the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(see attached file)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for a stimulating review of the manuscript. I have addressed the recommendations in the following way.

1. One of the major revisions was to provide further discussion of the anthropological theory in regard to distinguishing between ontological theory and new materialism in archaeology. The reviewer recommended adding a separate section providing a more robust theoretical discussion of this body of theory, including some additional references. I have added a section called Place-Though and Relationality, wherein I expand on Venessa Watts’ description of Haudenosaunee creation history to further explain the difference with new materialisms. Here, place (as site) and thought (knowing) are understood as inseparable from the socialities of persons. I do clarify that archaeologists are attuned to examining materiality and action (agency) methodologically, but this is not unique to new materialism, as Todd (2016) pointed out in her critique. 
2. The conclusion describes the sociality of animal persons, particularly in regards to the concept of active dwelling in the altepetl, directly linking the narrative to archaeological data (captivity, gendered spatiality, seasonality, in vivo sacrifice, and even ritual mishaps).
3. Another criticism was to be aware of slippage back to interpretive (post-processual) descriptions that emphasize animals as symbols (representations). I have gone back to the defined sections and re-read the entire article to check back on this potential slippage. As best I could I avoided words like representation, though I was true to my sources based on descriptions or translations that were ethnohistorical/ethnographic, that were not based on the same theoretical framework applied in this study.
4. As requested by the reviewer, I integrated additional theoretical sources throughout the text, especially in the new theoretical section. I also added sources that better define the distinction between the general term sacred mountain and the specific Nahuatl term altepetl, which is well documented during the Post Classic period.
5. Minor comments on sentence structure and wording were corrected.
6. There was a comment on the uncomfortable fluidity between the Lat Postclassic example of the Aztec Templo Mayor and the Early Classic Moon Pyramid. I clarify this by explicitly recognizing the temporal separation. However, as the entire article carefully evaluates what are the relevant features that materially and socially define the altepetl based on the Post Classic term altepetl, the entire article leads up to being able to make this comparison. In other words, it was not a light comparison drawn out of a hat but one that was substantiated by careful reading of the term in the Post Classic context and linking it to the Teotihuacan data, specifically from a single building episode.

Again, I thank the reviewer for these carefully constructed comments and suggestions; I am certain these revisions have significantly contributed to this article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

When I teach our archaeological theory seminar, I tell my students to watch for the use of neologisms because they tend to be used by authors attempting to make their material sound more important than it is. Thus, I was immediately on alert when the author called bones "corporeal animal forms." I was futher put off by the over-use of "embodied/embodiment and corporeal.  The frequent use of "rigorous" was also a tip off that the analysis might be less than rigorous, which it was.  Hanging the discussion on "thing power" and "place-thought" simply added to the conviction that the entire  manuscript was hugely contrived.

Author Response

I thank the reviewer 2 for their opinion on the article. Unfortunately, there were very few specific comments that could lead to productive revisions. Zooarchaeology and isotope bone chemistry are considered rigorous methodologies and the term rigorous should not arouse such discomfort. It is precisely this type of reaction that there should be no rigor when applying complex theories that this article attempts to overcome. There are three mentions of the term “rigorous” and I have rephrased them in accordance to soften the type of reaction demonstrated by Reviewer 2. Instead, I specify zooarchaeology and isotope bone chemistry as the methods applied, but these are just a few of the rigorous methods available to archaeologists and I would like to speak more broadly about the usage of various analytical techniques as useful tools to broaden our application of these theories.

The other major criticism concerns neologisms. These are useful if there doesn’t exist a term that nicely encompasses a complex set of ideas and when they are well defined. Place-Though itself is a neologism, and I think it is well-received in the literature. Corporeal animal forms have been useful to articulate the materiality of the evidence (animal bodies as alive, as well as bones and teeth, or other animal body parts) but also one that emphasizes corporeal interaction as the site of engagement. I have already published this term elsewhere in peer-reviewed venues so I cannot change the term only for this article. I have included a citation of this in the revised version.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Animal Matter in Indigenous Place-Thought: A Case from the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan, Mexico” considers the zooarchaeoogical data from two remarkable ritual deposits in Building 4 of the Moon Pyramid through the concept of “place-thought.” Place thought is a slippery term to define; Watts (2013:21) who coined the term is the best source for a definition: “is the non-distinctive space where place and thought were never separated because they never could or can be separated. Place-Thought is based upon the premise that land is alive and thinking and that humans and non-humans derive agency through the extensions of these thoughts.” This is Watts attempt to examine indigenous world view through an emic perspective. After defining place-thought, the article describes the altepetl, “one of the foundational concepts in Mesoamerican knowledge systems,” and proposes that the Moon Pyramid at Teotihuacan represents a constructed altepetl related to the foundation of the Teotihuacan state and represented by a significant expansion of the structure (known as Building 4) ca. 250 CE. The author then presents the data from Burials 2 and 6, focusing on the analysis of faunal material from the two deposits. The following section considers the human-animal interactions that occurred prior to and during the creation of the two ritual deposits. The article closes with a consideration of the Moon Pyramid as altepetl and altepetl as place-thought.

 

The manuscript is well organized and clearly written. The sections on data and human-animal interactions are the strongest parts of the article, in my opinion. Here the author’s expertise as a zooarchaeologist shines through. I found the concept of place-thought, particularly as applied to these case studies, to be creative and original. Overall, the author makes their case in a compelling argument. Most of the citations are older than 5 years, but I believe they are relevant to the argument.

 

I do have a few suggestions to improve the article, however. First, I found the discussion of place-thought to be a bit too surficial, perhaps since I had not previously read the term. I would encourage the author to perhaps include a bit more about the origin of the term and how other scholars have applied it. This could be a single paragraph. Watt’s 2013 article is well-cited, but I think the audience of this article may be as unfamiliar with the concept as I was.

 

Second, I don’t object to applying the term Altepetl back in time—it is a Nahuatl word used by the Aztecs to describe organized communities/societies—at least within Central Mexico, but I’m not sure it is accurate to describe it as a pan-Mesoamerican foundational concept, at least by that name. For example, the author cites Brady and Ashmore (1999) in line 71 in a sentence defining altepetl, but Brady and Ashmore do not use the term. I think the author can fix this issue by acknowledging the original source of the term and explaining how other (older) Mesoamerican cultures seem to have had similar ideas about “water mountains” and creation myths.

 

Third, given the journal and its audience, I think the author should include a bit more background on Teotihuacan in the introduction. Much of the journal's readership may not be familiar with it.

 

 

Specific suggestions:

Line 56: Change “doesn’t” to “does not”

Line 70: Is the altepetl a “person” or a “place?”

Line 281: “half of this number 9” is awkwardly phrased.

Author Response

I thank Reviewer 3 for their thoughtful comments and suggestions to improve the article. I have addressed the issues in the following manner:

1. The reviewer requested a more in-depth coverage of the concept of place-thought. I have included a new section called Place-Thought and Relationality where I expand on the description of place-thought using Watts’ Haudenosaunee creation history (2013). I could not find other sources of archaeologists who have applied the term, so this article provides a novel contribution in this manner.
2. As the reviewer rightfully notes, altepetl is a specific term documented for the Post Classic Nahuatl-speaking population, and the article tried to extend this concept, as specifically linked to sovereignty and governance back in time to Teotihuacan. I have revised the introduction to the concept of altepetl, first introducing a pan-Mesoamerican concept of the sacred mountain, to the specific link of sacred mountains to pyramids in the urban core, and then finally to the specific application of the altepetl as applied in this article.
3. The third recommendation was to include a little more background about the city of Teotihuacan itself. I have included a brief overview alongside relevant citations in the introduction.
4. Specific comments on wording have also been revised.

Again, these revisions have improved the article’s scope and contextualized the archaeological dataset further. I thank the reviewer for contributing to a better final product.