Land Use and Social Dynamics in Early 19th Century Bova, Calabria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper finished an interesting work, offering an overall profile of land use and social dynamics in early 19th Century Bova. This is an important work and has some implications for archaeological work and contemporary pattern of land use, especially its interaction with social landscape. However, I feel the organization and writing of this manuscript is poor, which should be largely modified.

1.        In introduction, please discuss something about the relevance between land use (change) and social dynamic. And clearly mention what the social dynamic indicates in your work. Also, from the whole work, the concept indication of land use and social landscape is not clear or of focus.

2.        In the main body of your work, I feel there is no clear logic to organize your work. You always mention a lot beyond the focus of some paragraphs. It makes the reader puzzled and the reader cannot capture the very interesting points. For example, section 3.1 should be shortened. In your paper, you should focus on narrating your text centered with land use and social dynamics.

3.        Line 177-179, what period was this work embedded in?

4.        Line 179-180, how is this distance of nine km derived?

5.        Table 1, what is the unit for citizens? Why so small for the towns except for Bova?

6.        Have you assessed the precision of your derived materials? For example, compare your results of land use with the contemporary status.

7.        There are many language issues in terms of typo, spelling and confusing expressions. For example, line 201 was and was used to…; line 269 but but;​ line 281 datefor; line 316 proper..too many. Please carefully check throughout your work and make corrections.

8.        Please make the conclusion more concise, some argumentation can be moved to discussion.

Author Response

1. In introduction, please discuss something about the relevance between land use (change) and social dynamic. And clearly mention what the social dynamic indicates in your work. Also, from the whole work, the concept indication of land use and social landscape is not clear or of focus. Added clarifications to the first paragraph and moved the end of the third paragraph to the end of the 2^nd.

 

2. In the main body of your work, I feel there is no clear logic to organize your work. You always mention a lot beyond the focus of some paragraphs. It makes the reader puzzled and the reader cannot capture the very interesting points. For example, section 3.1 should be shortened. In your paper, you should focus on narrating your text centered with land use and social dynamics.

Understood, but in order to understand these points you need to have some idea of where the people are situated and how difficult it might be to get around. I have tried to clarify that the in lines 202-206 and 234-241 how this relates to social dynamics.  Lines 91-97 identify how the social dynamics are being investigated.

 

3. Line 177-179, what period was this work embedded in?

Information added  - it’s now line 193-195

 

4. Line 179-180, how is this distance of nine km derived?

This has now been spelled out lines 202-210

 

5. Table 1, what is the unit for citizens? Why so small for the towns except for Bova?

What do you mean by unit?  This is the number of people from that town listed in the cadaster that forms the data base.  The documents are not a census. They are tax documents (as stated elsewhere) and the table title makes that clear.

 

6. Have you assessed the precision of your derived materials? For example, compare your results of land use with the contemporary status.

There is not direct equivalent between historical documents and contemporary ones.  They don’t measure the same things.

7. There are many language issues in terms of typo, spelling and confusing expressions. For example, line 201 was and was used to…; line 269 but but;​ line 281 datefor; line 316 proper..too many. Please carefully check throughout your work and make corrections.

Good points, I have corrected, although I couldn’t find the double period.

 

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Sorry that, in the previous round, I failed to notice that this paper was for a special issue in Land Use in Archaeology.

This revision has seen significant improvement in quality and is ready for publication except for some minor text edits (to correct some typos and gramma mistakes). 

 

Author Response

This revision has seen significant improvement in quality and is ready for publication except for some minor text edits (to correct some typos and gramma mistakes). 

 Have made every effort to find them and correct.  Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I reviewed an earlier version of this manuscript before.  In my review, I noted that it was not a typical submission to this journal, but that since it was being considered for a special edition, I though it was appropriate.

I was only a little surprised to see that the other reviewers did not share my view, and they all voted to reject it.  However I was more surprised to see that it was still being considered for publication despite such negative reviews.  I have never seen that happen before.

Nevertheless, I still hold to my original opinion of the initial submission.  I think that there are several ways to see a value in a piece like this.  One is to consider the economic and social consequences of an isolated agrarian area that is cut off from national economic integration.  I find that an interesting topic, even though it is not in my area of specialization.  I speculated that some members of the readership would also find it interesting.

Looking at the other reviews, it is obvious that the reviewers did not share my views on the manuscript.  It looks like however that the author worked quite hard to satisfy the criticisms of the reviewers, although those reviewers will have to be the judge of that.

The author has made good use of headings, paragraph breaks, tables and figures to lay out the narrative, which I found relatively straightforward to follow. 

Other than that, my impression of the manuscript is essentially unchanged.  Please see my earlier review if you wish to see more detail.

Decision: Accept

Author Response

Thank you, have tried once again to clear up typos and similar issues, plus address points made by those who may not be familiar with the concerns of historical archaeology

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Review of land-1946076-peer-review-v1

Land Use and Social dynamics in early 19th Century Bova, Calabria

 

The paper presents a well written and compelling case study based on what appears to be an enviably rich data set. The problems below notwithstanding, it was a joy to read the paper. When eventually published it will most certainly make it set reading for my students..

 

One of the major problems is that the text weaves in and out of various chronological periods, with the reader becoming lost. For example, Line 225  states ‘French directive to blockade goods”  which period?

Clearly this suggests Napoleonic? But it looks out of context here. The chronological signposting must be much better developed.

 

Below are a number of issued that the authors may wish to consider when revising the manuscript

 

Consider other markets for olive oil too…In the mid 1800s olive oil was used to lubricate high-value steam engines, esp. in naval settings. The British Navy even owned olive plantations in Spain.. 

 

Personal adornments lines243-244..What would you expect to find these in the first place. If this was a poor area then the relative value of such objects would have been disproportionately high and thus the effort to relocate of lost/dropped  items…further, unless you really state the ground visibility, and the surface is homogenous and cleared f all vegetation, the chances of finding personal adornments during surveys is low…

 

Line 254 ff… I do not understand why such disputes, which will be primarily over land and damages thereto, would include commentary on luxury items…this needs to be rethought and then clarified

 

Line 257ff this makes no sense. So they do not show in the archaeological record..that makes sense unless you are dealing with a corpse that has not been discovered until today…but now you are introducing the issue of the survival of material culture in private hand…this is a new conceptual and methodological dimension that is now sprung on the reader. This needs MUCH more thought…

 

Line 261 “This latter”  the silk? Please rethink the entire sentence 261 to 264. As it stands, it makes no sense

 

Line 289-290: “We might then inquire what benefit there was to this mutual lack of interest and who was most likely to benefit from it.” I do not follow. What “mutual lack of interest” this has not been established….

 

I think the paper could be improved by adding some images of walling, threshing floor, oil mills, types of housing to illustrate the description. It would bring it ‘more to live to the reader.

 

Minor issues

 

Line 189 Table 1.To which year do the data refer to? State in the caption. You cannot epct the reader to hunt for this information in the text

 

Line 239 Table 2: Why the odd colouring?  And again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 266 Figure 5  : again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 286 Figure 6 : again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 439 Table 5         again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 482          Figure 11 : again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 281 typo “datesfor”

 

Line 283 “people lived off very little except in the capital”  meaning unclear

 

Line 423  ‘who owns’   should be ‘who owned’

 

Line 504          Distbution

 

Author Response

One of the major problems is that the text weaves in and out of various chronological periods, with the reader becoming lost. For example, Line 225  states ‘French directive to blockade goods”  which period?

Clearly this suggests Napoleonic? But it looks out of context here. The chronological signposting must be much better developed.

 

I have changed French to Napoleonic now line 254. The weaving in and out of periods is inevitable as political control of the kingdom of Naples (or of the two Sicilies depending on the moment) went back and forth.  I have tried to clarify this lines 36-8 by adding all the dates.

 

Below are a number of issued that the authors may wish to consider when revising the manuscript

 

Consider other markets for olive oil too…In the mid 1800s olive oil was used to lubricate high-value steam engines, esp. in naval settings. The British Navy even owned olive plantations in Spain.. 

 

Yes, but not here in Calabria at least between 1805-1815.  They were blocked from trading with Britain by law and I have clarified that.

 

Personal adornments lines243-244..What would you expect to find these in the first place. If this was a poor area then the relative value of such objects would have been disproportionately high and thus the effort to relocate of lost/dropped  items…further, unless you really state the ground visibility, and the surface is homogenous and cleared f all vegetation, the chances of finding personal adornments during surveys is low…

 

Agreed, but I was also including Church objects here and I’ve clarified that

 

Line 254 ff… I do not understand why such disputes, which will be primarily over land and damages thereto, would include commentary on luxury items…this needs to be rethought and then clarified

 

Have done so, but they are related, as they are also about what physical items were exchanged, beyond land, including tools. lines 337-343

 

Line 257ff this makes no sense. So they do not show in the archaeological record..that makes sense unless you are dealing with a corpse that has not been discovered until today…but now you are introducing the issue of the survival of material culture in private hand…this is a new conceptual and methodological dimension that is now sprung on the reader. This needs MUCH more thought…

 

I have added additional information in line 109-113 in response to this.  Of course all material culture is in private hands and is what archaeologists hope to find ….. but in all periods as far back as prehistory this is always the possibility of things that are saved and passed on from generation to generation.  Also, personal materials include tools.

 

Line 261 “This latter”  the silk? Please rethink the entire sentence 261 to 264. As it stands, it makes no sense

See updates in lines 413-415

 

Line 289-290: “We might then inquire what benefit there was to this mutual lack of interest and who was most likely to benefit from it.” I do not follow. What “mutual lack of interest” this has not been established….

 

I have clarified see lines 472-475

 

I think the paper could be improved by adding some images of walling, threshing floor, oil mills, types of housing to illustrate the description. It would bring it ‘more to live to the reader.

 

Good point, I have added photographs

 

Minor issues

 

Line 189 Table 1.To which year do the data refer to? State in the caption. You cannot epct the reader to hunt for this information in the text

Done

 

Line 239 Table 2: Why the odd colouring?  And again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

I thought the coloring was easier to read.  That said I’ve provided one with a blue background and added the date for the data.

 

Line 266 Figure 5  : again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 286 Figure 6 : again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 439 Table 5         again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

Line 482          Figure 11 : again …to which year do the data refer to? State in the caption

 

I have added this, even though they are all from the one document that comprised the database as described in the text.

 

Line 281 typo “datesfor”

 

Line 283 “people lived off very little except in the capital”  meaning unclear

 

Line 423  ‘who owns’   should be ‘who owned’

Fixed now

 

Line 504          Distbution

 

Fixed

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

It is generally fine, though some minor issues. 

Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The author has adequately addressed my concerns. It can be published

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is not relevant to the focus areas of this journal.

It is not clear why the audience of this journal would be interested in the land use and social-economic characteristics of this particular location.

 

Author Response

I am working to clean up typographical and organizational issues, but as I was invited to submit this paper I'm not clear why the reviewer feels it is not appropriate for this journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the manuscript titled "Landuse and Social dynamics in early 19th Century Bova, Calabria," the author analyzes and explores Bovan's choices regarding what to grow and where to grow it utilizing cadastral records from the early 1800s and spatial analysis. Currently, this work is in an inferior form and can't be recommended for publication. The work is more suited to any Geography or Sociology journal than "LAND." The novelty of this research is so low. Please specify why the scientific community needs this research. What is your research going to contribute?

• The scientific language of this manuscript is so poor. Extensive English editing is required.

 

• Please format the margin of text properly. It's better to use "Justify." It's an article, not a project report or assignment.

 

• The methodology of this work is not transparent with bare results. Imageries are used in this manuscript in the raw form. Why don't the authors process these images to present a clear picture of the scenarios?

 

• The introduction of this work seems so poor. I don't know why the authors mix the study area and introduction sections. It's better to reconstruct the whole introduction and modify it appropriately. Could you keep it in line with your research topic?

 

• The abstract of this work is so poor and does not correctly present the overview of the research. It's suggested to modify the abstract appropriately and explain key results adequately.

 

• Where is section 5 (conclusion)?

 

• The manuscript title "Landuse and Social dynamics in early 19th Century Bova, Calabria "also keyword "Land sue," So where are the land use maps, and which satellite imageries are used for the Land-use maps of the 19^th Century?

Line 192-197. The put question there,

Can we identify contrasting economic diversity spatially within the landscape? Did some citizens have greater access to resources than others, and if so, which ones? It does appear that institutions (the Church) and a few individuals hold much more land than the rest of the citizenry, although it is only possible to map a sample of the holdings. However, we know that these groups hold many plots across many localities.

It's not a class presentation where we need to ask the questions to audience to carry their intention.

 

• In lines 7, 8, 10, 27, 29, 30, 40, 145, and so on, there should be a single space at the start of every new line instead of a double space.
• Line 21-27 reconstruct that sentence.
• Information presented in Line 20-32, Are there any references or citations, etc.
• Line 33-37. It's better to write to refer to this type of information in the study area section, Insetd of Introduction.
• Line 50. Please check the error in the use of brackets.
• Table 5. Screenshot of the word table, Why doesn't the author fix that grammatical error before finalizing.

Author Response

In response to the concern that this is not appropriate for this special edition of Land, I remain unclear as to why, but the author's statement that this is better suited to another type of journal may in fact be true. As I was invited to submit for this edition and this is the type of work I've been doing I presume those who reached to to invite me knew that.

Formatting.  I am using the formatting in the template provided by LAND.

The images provided in this paper are not in their raw and include both enhancements to original elevation data as well as classifications intended to highlight the fractured nature of the local topography.  In addition, shapefiles were created for each of the 40 sample localities and attribute data then mapped.

Regarding scientific language.  Perhaps as an archaeologist, my writing is too informal for this reviewer but I would prefer the work to be accessible to a wide range of readers.

The methodology section has been revised and additional clarifications of process provided.

The abstract, introduction and other sections have been substantially revised.  If the reviewer doesn't find the topic to be of interest to this issue of the journal, that is an entirely different problem.  Within the field for which it is written, the lack of research on the post medieval use of the land in the southern Calabria is in fact an area that is little studied combining a variety of data sources and much discussion is dismissed as too close to the present day to have lessons for current citizens.  This is an attempt to provide some concrete data on what in fact was being grown in the area and provided insight into current practices.

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript is not typical at all. But this is for a special issue in archeology, so it is a good fit. It is a rather intensive study of land use and land tenure in a remote part of southern Italy during the Napoleonic era.  For those of us who enjoy reading history, this manuscript is interesting because it provides a lot of detail about land use during the time when feudalism was ending.  However, what makes it so atypical is that it does not seek to offer up any hypotheses, or any principles that we might apply to land use and tenure elsewhere.  It does not pretend to be any thing but a narrative of what I described above.

I think however that a manuscript such as this may very well have a place in the journal, and especially the issue on archeology, and so I have reviewed it on the basis of the narrative it provides, not on the standards that would normally apply to a submission where hypothesis testing, the search for generalizations etc are paramount.

First the manuscript is well organized.  In the first part (Introduction) the authors describe the region with a lot of detail.  They use figures to help the reader get an understanding of the study area.  The descriptions they provide are well documented by sources.  Some of the points they make about lack of regional economic integration and of deep water harbors near land give the reader an understanding of the challenges the populace faced during the study era.

Part Two (Materials and Methods) also demonstrates thorough documentation of the historical factors that contributed to the conditions the population faced in the area.

Section Three forms the majority of the manuscript and presented the findings that the authors were able to obtain from a variety of methods.  I am not very experienced in evaluating historical research.  Most of the manuscripts I review are based on survey data and applied statistical analysis.  But in the narrative the authors have produced, it does in fact read like a systematic multi-disciplinary approach to understanding land use/tenure, production and the distribution of wealth in the study area and epoch.  Again, I think that readers who are interested in history and land use would enjoy reading this narrative.

It is in Section 4 (Discussion) where the authors begin to draw conclusions, such as they are.  For example, the conclusion that the patchwork land tenure of small plots may have been implemented to reduce risk.  The step toward drawing conclusions that may shed light here or elsewhere begins in earnest on line 553 where the authors asks a basic question about what the findings mean for economic standing. As the authors proceed to attempt to answer this question throughout the rest of the manuscript, we get some concluding insights that gave me a lot to think about that might very well apply to communities that are similar, or even not so similar to the one under investigation in the study.

There are some minor English glitches in the manuscript.  For example in line 8 in the abstract it must be “….. religious infrastructure of southern Italy ….”  The authors omitted the word “of.”  So an examination of the English is required.  Once that is completed I recommend publication.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 4 Report

land-1688482-peer-review-v1

Review of Landuse and Social dynamics in early 19th Century Bova, Calabria

 

The start of introduction is partly repetitive.

The whole introduction is convoluted and muddled. The aim of the paper needs to be stated better and anchored in existing literature on the history of Italian land use. Then the author needs to set out the background to the study community.

 

The methodology reads convoluted and muddled. The author needs to exercise more stringent scholarly care and set out the methods and sources more clearly

 

Line 47–52      This is a conceptual jump in the discussion

Line 63–68 this reads muddled and disjointed from the previous text

 

 

Table 2            Is it appropriate and ethical to name “Top Individuals” ? Did they consent to being named? Or are these historic data. Neither the text not the caption make it clear what this table shows

 

Table 4 (line 249): what is “comparison of sumOaks by location?

Also, this is a figure, not a table

 

 

Table 4 (line 262) double numbering of the figure. I do not understand why this is a histogram where number of people has been stacked in top of area. This makes no sense

 

Table 5            What is the unit of measure here?

 

Tables 6 and 7 (both are figures !) are not informative at all

 

Also, by this point in time I have lost the thread of what the author was trying to say and argue.

 

 

 

MINOR ISSUES

Figure 1 is difficult to read (too dark)

 

Line 59 15 – 1800 =?

 

Line 74  What is (17-19) in these round brackets” Refs are in angular brackets

 

Line 94 “don’t”  avoid colloquialisms, “do not”

 

The paper needs serious attention to formatting with excessive white spaces after full stops, stray hyphens (line 171)  as well as missing full stops (eg line 23) commas (eg line 35) or spaces (line 66). The presentation of the text its extremely careless.

 

Some of the sentence structure and expression also needs attention. It is recommended that the paper be edited by a professional native English speaking editor.

Author Response

Editing of typographic and grammatical errors and a rearrangement of sections to provide further clarity have been made.