Developing a Geocultural Database of Quaternary Palaeoenvironmental Sites and Archaeological Sites in Southeast Arabia: Inventory, Endangerment Assessment, and a Roadmap for Conservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper draws attention to a significant subject. I have found the paper very interesting. The article is well written and well structured as a scientific text, the literature review is comprehensive and up to date.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive comments.  I appreciate your positive feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author/authors,

 

It is a very interesting and documented study that relies on rigorous research.

Unfortunately, there are a lot of data presented, abbreviations, along with a methodology that, although complex, becomes difficult to be understood by potential readers: e.g., when referring to archaeological sites, no abbreviation is used; in some figures it is not easy to understand the legends (fig. 10 etc.);

As for the literature, in Table 1. Definition of geoheritage-related terms used in this study, are presented only some definitions. A more detailed analysis of the different definitions of these concepts in the research literature is needed; their presentation is not necessary in a table, but in the text and in this way a critical analysis is possible.

Tables 2 and 3 - can they be integrated in a single table, still capturing the differences?

I propose that the Results and Discussion sections be separated into 2 sections. In this way, in the discussion section, the accent would be more on the interpretation of the data and thus would contribute to a better understanding of the information, respectively of the important results obtained.

Best regards.

Author Response

Point 1:

When referring to archaeological sites, no abbreviation is used

Response 1:

Thank you for the comment. but as the article does not refer to many names of archaeological sites in the text, we do not feel the need to use abbreviations for them. 

Point 2:

In some figures it is not easy to understand the legends (fig. 10 etc.)

Response 2:

I have edited the legends to be clearer and more descriptive and added an explanation of the technique used in the maps (point displacement) in the methodology section to clarify what it means. 

Point 3:

In Table 1. Definition of geoheritage-related terms used in this study, are presented only some definitions. A more detailed analysis of the different definitions of these concepts in the research literature is needed; their presentation is not necessary in a table, but in the text and in this way a critical analysis is possible.

Response 3:

The focus of this article is not to discuss the appropriateness of a certain definition of geoheritage-related terms.  The definitions presented here merely represent definitions as used in the study to avoid confusion, and I believe a critical analysis here is unnecessary.  I have added a sentence to clarify that the definitions used in this paper are taken from previous literature and that there is a need for a critical analysis for the development of the research field. 

On the other hand, the summary table is presented here so that the readers can easily refer to the definitions of the terms as used in this study while reading the article.  We find this to be useful and necessary component of the article.

Point 4: 

Tables 2 and 3 - can they be integrated in a single table, still capturing the differences?

Response 4: 

I have combined the two tables into one.  I added a column to specify which information is available for what type of data (i.e. QP record or archaeological record)

Point 5: 

I propose that the Results and Discussion sections be separated into 2 sections. In this way, in the discussion section, the accent would be more on the interpretation of the data and thus would contribute to a better understanding of the information, respectively of the important results obtained.

Response 5:

I have split the results and discussion section into two sections, ‘Results’ and ‘Discussion’ and added a few more observations in the discussion section regarding the difference between the threats toward archaeological sites in the Middle East and North Africa region and the threats toward QP sites in Southeast Arabia.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read this manuscript with great interest. Overall, it is a well-written article. I have a few comments to share with the authors to help improving the quality of this article so it can be ready for publication.

1.       In Introduction, the first two paragraphs can be placed behind the 3rd - 5th paragraphs since the first two paragraphs introduce the particular study area of Southeast Arabia, the concept and value of Quaternary palaeoenvironmental (QP) sites. While the 3rd - 5th paragraphs return to a much broader scope and introduce the development of geoheritage conservation, quantitative evaluation methods to assess the value of geoheritage, and the notion of geoparks. I recommend the authors to start with larger scope and then narrow down to the particular study of QP sites in Southeast Arabia. It will make more sense in this way.

2.       In Figure 2, the abbreviations ‘U-Th’, ‘OSL’, and ‘14C’ should be first introduced and explained in the text, otherwise the reader cannot understand their meanings.

3.       In Section 4 and 5, the layout of sub-headings is confusing. ‘4.2.1 Endangerment Criteria’ is not followed by any other sub-section. Similarly, ‘5.3.1.1 Case study: Relating archaeological records and QP records at Jebel Faya, UAE’ is not followed by any other sub-section. Why is that?

4.       I suggest the authors to make the Section ‘5.3 Using the database’ a separate one following Section 5, as ‘5.3 Using the database’ does not belong to the description of the experimental results, their interpretation, or the experimental conclusions.

5.       The conclusion is relatively short, I suggest the authors to elaborate a bit more about their theoretical and practical contributions in this research, for instance, the categorization of ‘information collected for palaeoenvironmental/ archaeological records in the GDSA’ , and the proposal of the ‘Endangerment Criteria’, and the implication of the database.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear author/authors,

Pay attention to the writing style. There are different styles (fonts) used in the text.

Author Response

Point 1. Pay attention to the writing style. There are different styles (fonts) used in the text.

Response 1: Thank you so much for looking at the manuscript with detail.  I have used the style format specified by the journal, which uses different styles for different parts of the paper.  I have made edits so that the styles are as consistent as possible.  Furthermore, I have been told by the editorial office that formatting and other typographical issues will be addressed again once the manuscript is finally accepted.