Combining Historical, Remote-Sensing, and Photogrammetric Data to Estimate the Wreck Site of the USS Kearsarge
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read the manuscript entitled ‘Combinining historical, remote sensing and photogrammetric data to estimate the wreck site of the USS Kearsarge’ with great interest. In the study the authors make use of and combine several different sources in order to narrow down the possible location of the remains of the ship. There is a historical background to the vessels history and the events that lead to its wreckage. There is also a discussion regarding the artillery, not least the Dahlgren guns, which should be possible to relocate and there is also a brief account on the salvage attempts.
After this historical background there is a review of the historical charts that cover the area, which are kept in different archives and the information on possible wrecksites. The data from the historical sources are then combined with bathymetry and other surveys of the possible wreck area. The conclusion is that there are many wrecks in the area but it is not possible to ascertain if any of the wrecks are USS Kearsarge.
As formulated on page two the aim of the paper is to ‘estimate the location of the USS Kearsarge’. As noted already this aim was not fulfilled. It is questionable if it is possible to reach this aim with the methods presented in the paper, without diving at the site and without probing the seabed? I also wonder about the wrecks that were ‘found’ in this survey (mentioned on for instance page 2, 9ff), how can you be sure this is not USS Kearsarge? This is not clear from the text. Altogether this is more of a report of a desktop survey than a research paper with a clear research question, a theoretical perspective a specified method and a discussion of results.
Nevertheless, the text provides a lot of information regarding a maritime area and a ‘ship trap’ which is not so well known among maritime archaeologists globally. It may thus have a value in this sense and I leave it to the editors of Heritage to decide. Perhaps an alternative title could be ‘The Roncador Cay and the search for USS Kearsarge: a desktop survey’?
With this said I have the following comments on the manuscript itself.
Page 3, Figure 1. Please add a scale bar and the place names mentioned in text.
Page 3, After its wreckage it is stated that the US Navy wanted to salvage ‘such a historic ship’. Is that really so? Were they really that sentimental? If they were, it is really something interesting and perhaps the authors could develop that a little bit more. One could expect that the objectives for salvaging were first and foremost economic.
Figure 8, 9, 10, 11: Please add enlarged area with the wreck symbol and delete the map without any wreck information.
Figure 12, 13, 15, 17, 18: Add scale bar.
Author Response
We appreciate you taking the time to read our text. Your suggestions and comments improved the manuscript.
A response letter is attached.
Thank you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Fix the abstract where is says "Colombia has several historical shipwrecks" when there are actually hundreds. Clean up abstract. Run your paper through grammarly.
Author Response
We appreciate you taking the time to read our text. Your suggestions and comments improved the manuscript.
A response letter is attached.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
A very interesting article that I think needs some continued work to present the novely of the approach the authors have taken. I have made an annotated file - both in terms of English, style and suggestions for improvements to the article that I hope may be useful
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to comment on the article and to check and correct the English in the text.
A response letter is attached.
Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
This Version of the article has been improved and is much clearer and the illustrations are better.
How did the authors process plate I map in the GIS? Did the authprs try scaling / rectifying the map with a modern map - that would have potentially given coordinates. Apologies if I have misunderstood!
I still do not really see how and why (statistically speaking) the authors created a circular search area between points A and B? Why make what is effectively a random circle around two dubious positions? Secondly why include point A - observation shows that the wreck was in 3-5 metres of water and point A is clearly in deeper water from their own bathymmetry and plate 1.
I feel these points need to be addressed before deciding on publication so I have recommended accept after minor revision as hopefully these can be answered otherwise I think it should be rejected .
Author Response
We sincerely appreciate the comments, which unquestionably assisted us in improving the article, methodology, and results. New images and comments have been added. We also used MDPI's English editing service.
The attached document contains the responses to the comments.
Thank you very much.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
