Lost Gardens: From Knowledge to Revitalization and Cultural Valorization of Natural Elements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is interesting and used a wide range of references. The study could be divided in three phases: the first phase is the cognition of the lost gardens; the second phase could be called the analysis, and the third phase includes the formulation of revitalization strategies. The paper provided a comprehensive base of study in the first phase and the effort of authors is admirable. In this part only two point are important and should be considered: A) the evaluation of garden over time. B) Wholeness of garden which is fundamental for identity and authenticity.
The main point refers to the second and third phases of study. As the authors mentioned, the aim of study is providing a general methodological approach for assessing the revitalization and valorization activities. How the knowledge and data are provided should be analyzed and used for revitalization is missing part of the paper.
Authors provided a schematic representation of the steps in two main categories (figure 1): First is how to approach the interpretation of the lost garden and the second one is the evaluation. While the different aspects of evaluation and required knowledge are presented, the method of evaluation is ignored. Moreover, how such complete and deep knowledge could be applied for revitalization is less considered by authors. If only the suggested method pays attention to cognition of lost gardens, the framework is acceptable. But if it focuses on the revitalization process, it should make clear how comprehensive data should be applied in this process and revitalization strategies formulation
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Lost gardens: from knowledge to revitalization and cultural valorization of natural elements to Sustainability Journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Reviewer 1:
R. The manuscript is interesting and used a wide range of references. The study could be divided in three phases: the first phase is the cognition of the lost gardens; the second phase could be called the analysis, and the third phase includes the formulation of revitalization strategies. The paper provided a comprehensive base of study in the first phase and the effort of authors is admirable. In this part only two point are important and should be considered: A) the evaluation of garden over time. B) Wholeness of garden which is fundamental for identity and authenticity.
A. Many thanks for your appraisal
R.The main point refers to the second and third phases of study. As the authors mentioned, the aim of study is providing a general methodological approach for assessing the revitalization and valorization activities. How the knowledge and data are provided should be analyzed and used for revitalization is missing part of the paper.
Authors provided a schematic representation of the steps in two main categories (figure 1): First is how to approach the interpretation of the lost garden and the second one is the evaluation. While the different aspects of evaluation and required knowledge are presented, the method of evaluation is ignored.
A. Thanks for your comments: We understand your point of view, but considering the wide multidisciplinary approach of such a study, we avoided adding for each field a detailed methodological description, which are well consolidated for each of them. In any case, we added some consideration to the methods of evaluation: “A garden is not merely a combination of natural elements; it also illustrates the cultural aspects of society in which gardens are located. For comprehensive knowledge, both natural features (climate, land, and plants) and cultural aspects (historical period, ideology behind the garden construction and functional design) should be considered. In such a multidisciplinary approach, we will enhance each component of the study, like a “tile” in a complex “mosaic of knowledge”. Among the different disciplines, the methods for building such single tiles are often consolidated, and then for the question of space, we give here only the references of the most relevant literature.
R. Moreover, how such complete and deep knowledge could be applied for revitalization is less considered by authors. If only the suggested method pays attention to cognition of lost gardens, the framework is acceptable. But if it focuses on the revitalization process, it should make clear how comprehensive data should be applied in this process and revitalization strategies formulation
A. While addressing the application of knowledge on valorization/revitalization depends on the available knowledge and resources and needs a comprehensive evaluation, we just summarized this point in text and figure. This point can be evaluated on a more detailed basis for further studies.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper stands as a state of the art and integrated approach to the study (knowledge) and restoration (revitalization) of ancient gardens. The authors consider a wide range of studies and approaches that underline their broad knowledge of the topic.
Despite these good premises, the work presents several issues that make substantial changes necessary.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology is too long and redundant. Many useful concepts are often submerged under a thick layer of descriptions and/or too many examples. Here are some more detailed comments and critiques:
In lines 69-75, the connection between the natural features and the cultural aspect is quite vague. I would dedicate a few more lines to clarify it. Also, Figure 1 does not help to clarify and organize the ideas expressed in the text. I suggest rethinking it including, as bullet points, the benefit brought by each methodology.
Archaeo-botanical and Archaeo-environmental data: Given the large number of disciplines considered, the authors often provide imprecise definitions or non-appropriate quotations. For example, The definition of archaeobotany (lines 141-142) is too general and imprecise. I suggest providing one from a compendium like:
Arnold, C. A. (2013). An introduction to paleobotany. Read Books Ltd.
The same goes for Geoarchaeology (lines 155-160). The authors illustrate only part of such a wide field of study. Geoarchaeological analyses rely not only upon topographic research (also what do they exactly mean with topographic?). For example, the geological approaches applied by geoarchaeologists include coring and the stratigraphic analysis of boreholes. While this quotation is certainly valuable when introducing a new topic a more general text would be good to include. For example:
Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R. (2008). Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Oxford: Blackwell publishing
The ancient philosophy of nature and symbolism of plants and garden: While I appreciate and acknowledge the fact the authors have such an extensive knowledge of the topic, the long description of the different examples slow down the reading which, in some cases are redundant. I suggest shrinking this section by describing in a few lines, the added values or peculiarities of each philosophy/religion for the overall methodology proposed.
Data on physical conditions: among the publications in line 304, the first two seem to deal with aerial archaeology in general, while only the third tackles the identification of ancient gardens through remote sensing of airborne or space-borne imagery.
Line 309: What about UAV (drone)? they are also playing a crucial role in this regard a may be critical also for better identifying gardens. The authors may find it useful to read general methodological texts as well as their application on specific case studies like:
Campana, S. (2017). Drones in archaeology. State‐of‐the‐art and future perspectives. Archaeological Prospection, 24(4), 275-296.
Marchetti, N., Al-Hussainy, A., Benati, G., Luglio, G., Scazzosi, G., Valeri, M., & Zaina, F. (2019). The Rise of Urbanized Landscapes in Mesopotamia: The QADIS Integrated Survey Results and the Interpretation of Multi-Layered Historical Landscapes. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, 109(2), 214-237.
Interpretation of old landscapes: I did not understand this section (lines 284-296). First, I do not find correspondence in Fig. 1. Second, while the other section provides multidisciplinary methodologies and their outcomes, in this case, there is no method explained and a mere statement about the human influence on gardens and landscapes. Either they delete this part or they explain better their arguments also updating Figure 1. Regarding the present Landscape, the author should take into consideration the discussion about Landscape as a complex system with multiple interacting variables. The paper quoted is too narrowly focused. I would rather suggest quoting:
Branduini, P., Laviscio, R., L'Erario, A., & Toso, F. C. (2019). Mapping evolving Historical Landscape Systems. In The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-2/W11, 2019 GEORES 2019 – 2nd International Conference of Geomatics and Restoration, 8–10 May 2019, Milan, 277-284.
DISCUSSION
The current discussion vaguely summarizes some of the concepts illustrated in the methods. This is somewhat useless, while it would be much more welcomed to discuss specific aspects of this broad and complex methodology. For example:
Multidisciplinary: This paper is fully multidisciplinary, but only cursorily refers to this aspect. How do different skills interface in this approach?
Online tools and GIS: Both are mentioned only a couple of times (lines 349-350, 376-377) saying very vaguely how these are useful. How can GIS (both remote and WebGIS) be useful for the study of ancient landscapes? What about other software like AutoCAD which are widespread among architects, topographers and archaeologists? In general, this discourse should be extended and put in relation (when necessary) with the disciplines mentioned.
Communication: Sharing knowledge of ancient gardens certainly fits into the broader discourse on the communication of the past. In The plant management activities (lines 363-383) the authors quickly mention the importance of this practice but without discussing it.
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is basically non-existing. It would be good to stress:
- The relevance and added value of this study.
- Future outlooks.
LANGUAGE, REFERENCE AND LAYOUT
English needs a complete revision by a native speaker. Here and there several sentences cannot be fully understood, thus slowing down the reading.
References are often badly laid out and necessitate a thorough revision.
There are numerous misspellings and typos. At various points, I have noticed open and non-closed brackets.
Line 36: Close the bracket at some point.
Line 269: I would use “pottery vessel” or “pottery jug” instead of earthenware pottery (which is redundant)
Line 270: Tepe Sialk
Line 291: Why the bracket?
Line 488 “Ramat Rahel” not “Ramat Rachel”
Line 488: Fig. 9 does not exist.
In general, I believe that this is a work that can, if properly revised, provide the methodological and practical tools for knowing and revitalizing ancient gardens.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Lost gardens: from knowledge to revitalization and cultural valorization of natural elements to the Sustainability Journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
Reviewer 2:
R. The paper stands as a state of the art and integrated approach to the study (knowledge) and restoration (revitalization) of ancient gardens. The authors consider a wide range of studies and approaches that underline their broad knowledge of the topic.
A. Thanks for this comment.
R. Despite these good premises, the work presents several issues that make substantial changes necessary.
METHODOLOGY
R. The methodology is too long and redundant. Many useful concepts are often submerged under a thick layer of descriptions and/or too many examples. Here are some more detailed comments and critiques:
R. In lines 69-75, the connection between the natural features and the cultural aspect is quite vague. I would dedicate a few more lines to clarify it.
A: As the reviewer points out, we have added the cultural connection to natural features, as below “A garden is not merely a combination of natural elements; it also illustrates the cultural aspects of society in which gardens are located. For comprehensive knowledge, both natural features (climate, land, and plants) and cultural aspects (historical period, ideology behind the garden construction and functional design) should be considered.
R. Also, Figure 1 does not help to clarify and organize the ideas expressed in the text. I suggest rethinking it including, as bullet points, the benefit brought by each methodology.
A. According to the reviewer suggestion, we modified Fig. 1, adding several bullet points, showing the most relevant benefits, which are related to the various approach.
R. Archaeo-botanical and Archaeo-environmental data: Given the large number of disciplines considered, the authors often provide imprecise definitions or non-appropriate quotations. For example, The definition of archaeobotany (lines 141-142) is too general and imprecise. I suggest providing one from a compendium like:
- Arnold, C. A. (2013). An introduction to paleobotany. Read Books Ltd.
A: As suggested by the reviewer, a few lines were added to better describe the section, and the suggested reference was included.
R. The same goes for Geoarchaeology (lines 155-160). The authors illustrate only part of such a wide field of study. Geoarchaeological analyses rely not only upon topographic research (also what do they exactly mean with topographic?). For example, the geological approaches applied by geoarchaeologists include coring and the stratigraphic analysis of boreholes. While this quotation is certainly valuable when introducing a new topic a more general text would be good to include. For example:
Goldberg, P., & Macphail, R. (2008). Practical and theoretical geoarchaeology. Oxford: Blackwell publishing
A: As suggested by the reviewer, a few lines were added for describing geoarchaeological data and we also added the suggested reference.
R. The ancient philosophy of nature and symbolism of plants and garden: While I appreciate and acknowledge the fact the authors have such an extensive knowledge of the topic, the long description of the different examples slow down the reading which, in some cases are redundant. I suggest shrinking this section by describing in a few lines, the added values or peculiarities of each philosophy/religion for the overall methodology proposed.
A: We believe in the high relevance of this section since the application of philosophical implications in garden valorization is fundamental. This is an original part of the paper, which is often neglected in the literature. We highlighted its importance by providing examples that would catch the attention of readers interested in this topic. Such part is also very important in stressing the importance of the selection of plants in a garden, which don’t follow only aesthetic reasons.
In any case, we deleted a few lines such as: The uni-versum (i.e., addressed to unity) is qualitatively defined by a place that was the garden, or paradise, a place of cultivation of the beautiful/good order. and some lines before. Some further reductions were also done in the different paragraphs.
R. Data on physical conditions: among the publications in line 304, the first two seem to deal with aerial archaeology in general, while only the third tackles the identification of ancient gardens through remote sensing of airborne or space-borne imagery.
A: As suggested by the reviewer, we change the references (95-96) related to general aerial photography to the crop-marks section.
R: Line 309: What about UAV (drone)? they are also playing a crucial role in this regard a may be critical also for better identifying gardens. The authors may find it useful to read general methodological texts as well as their application on specific case studies like:
Campana, S. (2017). Drones in archaeology. State‐of‐the‐art and future perspectives. Archaeological Prospection, 24(4), 275-296.
Marchetti, N., Al-Hussainy, A., Benati, G., Luglio, G., Scazzosi, G., Valeri, M., & Zaina, F. (2019). The Rise of Urbanized Landscapes in Mesopotamia: The QADIS Integrated Survey Results and the Interpretation of Multi-Layered Historical Landscapes. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, 109(2), 214-237.
A: We used the terms of aerial photography in general, considering that these kinds of photos can be provided through various tools, but in any case, we added more clearly UAVs or "drones". We also added the suggested literature.
R. Interpretation of old landscapes: I did not understand this section (lines 284-296). First, I do not find correspondence in Fig. 1. Second, while the other section provides multidisciplinary methodologies and their outcomes, in this case, there is no method explained and a mere statement about the human influence on gardens and landscapes. Either they delete this part or they explain better their arguments also updating Figure 1. Regarding the present Landscape, the author should take into consideration the discussion about Landscape as a complex system with multiple interacting variables. The paper quoted is too narrowly focused. I would rather suggest quoting:
Branduini, P., Laviscio, R., L'Erario, A., & Toso, F. C. (2019). Mapping evolving Historical Landscape Systems. In The International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Volume XLII-2/W11, 2019 GEORES 2019 – 2nd International Conference of Geomatics and Restoration, 8–10 May 2019, Milan, 277-284.
A: Thanks for the suggested references that we added to the literature. To better explain this point, we also improved Fig. 1, also modifying the location of the old landscape evaluation. It should be noted that in the importance of a careful interpretation of old landscape (human-nature relationship) is emphasized by several authors. As natural parts of old landscape evaluation are overlapped by the archaeo-environmental section, here the cultural values of the landscape are focused.
R. DISCUSSION
The current discussion vaguely summarizes some of the concepts illustrated in the methods. This is somewhat useless, while it would be much more welcomed to discuss specific aspects of this broad and complex methodology. For example:
Multidisciplinary: This paper is fully multidisciplinary, but only cursorily refers to this aspect. How do different skills interface in this approach?
A. Thanks, we stressed more clearly this topic, and the need for an interdisciplinary team, as you can see below:” The multidisciplinary approach requires a team of experts in the different fields, and the analysis of the botanical aspects requires the assessment of the past and present wild and cultivated flora, such as of the natural vegetation. Despite the evidence of such multiple needs, the study of gardens is often approached separately by architects, archaeologists, and historians, and with lower frequency by scientists, and rarely with a true multidisciplinary approach. The different skills should approach each other’s considering the different expertise and producing an integrated documentation and a project of valorization.
R. Online tools and GIS: Both are mentioned only a couple of times (lines 349-350, 376-377) saying very vaguely how these are useful. How can GIS (both remote and WebGIS) be useful for the study of ancient landscapes? What about other software like AutoCAD which are widespread among architects, topographers and archaeologists? In general, this discourse should be extended and put in relation (when necessary) with the disciplines mentioned.
A: GIS is a well-known tool in archaeological studies and data management in archaeological areas, which provides a platform for correlating a wide range of data in analysing the landscape, human settlements, natural resources, topographical features etc. GIS uses geographic coordinates systems and world map projections while CAD coordinates are relative to the object being modelled and are not usually relative to any particular place on earth. Explaining all these information and tools, their differences, correlation and application exceed our aims, but in any case, we added some comments in the discussion, as below “This documentation and projects should consider materials, shapes, and natural elements without neglecting any of them. Tools as GIS systems, and software like AutoCAD, which are widespread among architects, help in the analysis and rendering of such documentation.
R. Communication: Sharing knowledge of ancient gardens certainly fits into the broader discourse on the communication of the past. In The plant management activities (lines 363-383) the authors quickly mention the importance of this practice but without discussing it.
A: Evaluating the plant management activity is essential for further valorization plan, if the current situation and next planning can be supported by management procedure. In the last paragraph of the section, we described the strategic vision, which can be used in different site based on their situation.
R.CONCLUSION
The conclusion is basically non-existing. It would be good to stress:
- The relevance and added value of this study.
- Future outlooks.
A: We clarified such point, and we hope that the added comments make it clearer: “The relevance and the added value of this study are the built-up of a net of required expertise’s in a multidisciplinary approach, able to enhance the value of each component of the study, in a complex mosaic of knowledge. The built of the single tiles has a consolidated methodology, but the whole process lacks in a general approach. Future outlooks are a hopeful change in neglecting the role of the natural elements in an integrated approach in the revitalization/valorization strategies of lost gardens”.
R. LANGUAGE, REFERENCE AND LAYOUT
English needs a complete revision by a native speaker. Here and there several sentences cannot be fully understood, thus slowing down the reading.
References are often badly laid out and necessitate a thorough revision.
A. We checked again the English with the help of a native speaker. As well, we applied references based on journal referencing methods using Mendeley application. However we checked the reference again.
R. There are numerous misspellings and typos. At various points, I have noticed open and non-closed brackets.
Line 36: Close the bracket at some point.
Line 269: I would use “pottery vessel” or “pottery jug” instead of earthenware pottery (which is redundant)
Line 270: Tepe Sialk
Line 291: Why the bracket?
Line 488 “Ramat Rahel” not “Ramat Rachel”
In general, I believe that this is a work that can, if properly revised, provide the methodological and practical tools for knowing and revitalizing ancient gardens.
A. According to your suggestion, we modified the issues.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is well written and clear. The authors' effort to build an operative framework for the revitalization/valorization of lost gardens is valuable.
The overall structure of the article is well designed as well. Images and schemes help the general understanding of their position, although they could be referenced and explained a little be more in the text.
The Discussion and Conclusion paragraphs can be improved adding, for example, some comments to the case-studies presented throughout the images and maybe some more.
The English needs a spell check (for example at line 291 there is an unclosed bracket).
The approach presented should be framed at the end (discussion/conclusion) with respect to contemporary literature/experiences about garden restoration.
Author Response
Dear Editor,
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled Lost gardens: from knowledge to revitalization and cultural valorization of natural elements to Sustainability Journal. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We are grateful to the reviewers for their insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes within the manuscript.
Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.
R. The article is well written and clear. The authors' effort to build an operative framework for the revitalization/valorization of lost gardens is valuable.
The overall structure of the article is well designed as well. Images and schemes help the general understanding of their position, although they could be referenced and explained a little be more in the text.
A. Many thanks for your appraisal: As suggested by the reviewer, we add more descriptions of figures 2 and 3 in the text. The other figures are comprehensively described in the text.
R.The Discussion and Conclusion paragraphs can be improved adding, for example, some comments to the case-studies presented throughout the images and maybe some more.
A: We considered your suggestion, and we improved both paragraphs, stressing overall the need of deeper knowledge of naturalistic features.
R. The English need a spell check (for example at line 291 there is an unclosed bracket).
A: As suggested by the reviewer, we corrected the issue.
R. The approach presented should be framed at the end (discussion/conclusion) with respect to contemporary literature/experiences about garden restoration.
A: Thanks, we improved such parts, giving evidence of lacks and needs.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Despite, the current version of manuscript is acceptable, As authors mentioned: they avoided adding for each field a detailed methodological description" and "In such a multidisciplinary approach, we will enhance each component of the study, like a “tile” in a complex “mosaic of knowledge”; This subject should clearly indicates in abstract and also in methodology.
Reviewer 2 Report
I wish to thank the authors for considering my comments and improving the paper accordingly!
The paper is now stronger and it will certainly become a reference point for the study of ancient gardens.
For example, Figure 1 is now much clearer and the section regarding ancient philosophy of nature and symbolism of plants and gardens, albeit still a bit long, works better. In any case, I understand and accept the authors' arguments.
Also, the linguistic corrections have improved the readability of the paper.
