3D Modelling of Archaeoseismic Damage in the Roman Site of Baelo Claudia (Gibraltar Arc, South Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study combined GIS-based topographic analysis tools with archaeological study on a renowned heritage site. The paper is well presented and interesting. Two comments:

1) A methodological review on geometric assessment of archaelogical sites is absent in the paper. A supplyment may help readers to better understand the field and is necessary to highlight the contributions of this research. 

2) Deciding the 'Main direction'(line 274) of the wall is crucial to the following analysis in the paper, but it is not easy to exclude subjectiveness and randomness for walls with seious distortion. A discussion on its potential impact on further analysis could make the method presented in the paper more convincible.

 

 

Author Response

Consulte el archivo adjunto

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper analyses of earth quake damage in the ancient roman city of Baelo Claudia in South Spain (Gibraltar Arc) by means of the use of 3D modelling by Structure From Motion. Although it is of interest to the readers and contains relatively novel content, in my opinion, the manuscript cannot be considered for publication in its current form, as major revisions are required throughout. The methods used are not adequately described, but the objectives are unclear. I strongly recommend that the authors redefine this manuscript's purpose and then restructure the contents accordingly to reflect better the significance of the results obtained. Furthermore, the presentation lacks both in terms of language and in terms of illustrations and must be improved to adhere to the journal's standards. Below I raise a number of points which I believe will improve the manuscript and may allow a revised version to be published.

General comments

While reading the manuscript in its current form, I was conflicted on the type of paper that the authors intended to present—a case study or a research article. If this presents a case study, then I recommend that the authors define it clearly both in the title and in the abstract. In this case they should identify (in the introduction section) why the employed techniques were used in similar drones-related literature to justify why they have been chosen for the presented case study.  The results should then present comprehensively how the processing of the point clouds (which include metric content).

Specific comments

Line 31 replace RPA with UAV

Line 43: Generally the words that go into the title are different from the keywords: replace

Line 196 - 218 I don't understand the sense of making drone images for an object whose shooting height is 75 cm (Marble dish tsunami). In this case, close-range photogrammetry would be preferable. Justify the use of the UAV in the text.

What is the point of taking drone images of an object with a height of 75 cm?

Line 224 - 226: this is a very important part in order not to have discussions about monitoring work. It is necessary to specify what kind of topographic support with GNSS techniques has been done, what precision has been reached in altimetry and in planimetric, the number of control points used for each case study, Precision, number of control points, spatial distribution (even with an image) is fundamental in order not to have criticism on the next part of the text. Also the final accuracy of the model, i.e. RMSE on GCP points, should be specified.

244 - 252 The approach taken can be criticised. Why interpolate a DEM if comparisons can be made on the dense point cloud directly? Interpolation always produces a supercicle that fits the reality but is by definition not something measured like the point cloud. It is essential to discuss this approach in order not to have problems with the results.

It is necessary to extend the bibliography, especially for the development of methods and results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors updated the manuscript to include all my suggestions. I have no more comments for the manuscript. I believe that the manuscript "3D MODELLING OF ARCHAEOSEISMIC DAMAGE IN THE ROMAN SITE OF BAELO CLAUDIA (GIBRALTAR ARC, SOUTH SPAIN)" should be published.