Agrarian Archaeology: A Research and Social Transformation Tool
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor
I would like to thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the manuscript “Agrarian Archaeology. A research and social transformation tool".
The aim of this research is clear, and the title is informative and relevant.
The authors well-describe the three examples that allow them to expose both the advances in historical research and the strategies they have put in place to turn it into an active tool for today’s society.
The manuscript is very interesting and well-written, providing the necessary background information and stepwise introducing the study approach.
The Introduction provides a good, generalized background of the topic that is clearly presented and gives the reader an appreciation of the experience carried out. The motivations for this study are clear and the objectives are well-defined.
The Case Studies Paragraph is well-organized, and the authors well depict the contexts they considered.
The fourth paragraph “4. New narratives and new forms of heritage management” in my opinion is the core of the manuscript where the authors described with emphasis their ideas of connection between academic and local interests and where the reader can breathe their enthusiasm.
The conclusions of this paper are supported by appropriate evidence and provide good answers to the aims of the study.
References are relevant, and they represent an appropriate key study; the authors should check if all the references follow the journal format.
In my opinion, this paper presents interesting data, it is easy to understand for all types of readers and it is a good manuscript, presented in a rationale way.
My suggestion is that could be interesting to enrich this kind of research with archaeometrical characterizations of the materials found in the archaeological sites.
Best Regards
Author Response
We welcome all comments from Reviewer 1.
References are relevant, and they represent an appropriate key study; the authors should check if all the references follow the journal format.
We have revised the references again to fit the format of the journal.
My suggestion is that could be interesting to enrich this kind of research with archaeometrical characterizations of the materials found in the archaeological sites.
We are unable to incorporate an archaeometric characterisation of the materials in the different case studies, as in one of the cases excavation has recently been completed and the data are not available. Therefore, we believe that it would be counterproductive to include some cases and not others.
Reviewer 2 Report
Reformulate all second person plural (WE) constructions with impersonal constructions more appropriate for a scientific paper. E.g. "In the area we are concerned with" in "In the investigated area"
The authors should be much more generous with maps, all the cited places e.g. Horticeo, Panune, Entrecorros, Espaneo, Los Porquerones and Bus-
añe etc... should be clearly placed on a map.
Fig. 1 is not framing properly all the places and location, I suggest to create a second map zooming on the studied area with all the places and major city center and geomorphological features.
Fig. 3 the ruler is too small and difficult to read
Fig. 4 is not readable and the ruler is in (miles ?) put it in Km and rethink how to frame it, fonts in the figure are too small.
I really appreciate the idea of conviviality that the authors want to convey but Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 do not add useful information other than those already expressed in the text, eliminate these group photographs not suitable for a paper.
Author Response
Reformulate all second person plural (WE) constructions with impersonal constructions more appropriate for a scientific paper. E.g. "In the area we are concerned with" in "In the investigated area"
We welcome all comments from Reviewer 2.
We have revised the wording of the text.
The authors should be much more generous with maps, all the cited places e.g. Horticeo, Panune, Entrecorros, Espaneo, Los Porquerones and Bus-
añe etc... should be clearly placed on a map.
We have incorporated two new maps, one of the location of the case studies and the other of the toponymy of Andrúas.
Fig. 1 is not framing properly all the places and location, I suggest to create a second map zooming on the studied area with all the places and major city center and geomorphological features.
Fig.1 Modified
Fig. 3 the ruler is too small and difficult to read
Fig.3 Modified
Fig. 4 is not readable and the ruler is in (miles ?) put it in Km and rethink how to frame it, fonts in the figure are too small.
Fig.4 Modified
I really appreciate the idea of conviviality that the authors want to convey but Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 do not add useful information other than those already expressed in the text, eliminate these group photographs not suitable for a paper.
We have changed the images. These are more detailed images of the methodologies applied. We believe that not adding images to this section of the text, as there are in the first part, would give the impression that one is more important than the other, when in the text we try to convey the opposite.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I think figure 1, 4 and 5 can still be improved in readibility and clarity. Check font size, and hierarchy of written and visual information in the images.
https://openpress.usask.ca/introgeomatics/chapter/maps-as-communication/ just to give some suggestions.
