History in Points, Lines and Polygons: Time Depth in the Landscape of Guangdong Province, Southern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is interesting and the proposed methods seems clear in exposition. Some parts can be improved as follow:

172 - reference and must be explained better. Is it a georeferencing overlapping ? Are there corrections to be made among different geodatas?

180 - clarify how interpretation has been made. It would be advisable to cite - if not use - ai method for this task, which should be much faster. 

English is fine, except for some small glitches

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. Those comments are helpful in improving our paper. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Here are the responses to your suggestions one by one.

172- We have re-written these lines [now 183-185] to clarify the process for mapping the land use based on successive raster datasets.

180- Whilst it would be possible to use AI method to identify graves, it would first be necessary to provide a training dataset. To create such a training dataset, manual interpretation (as done here) would first be necessary, so using AI would not save sufficient time to make it worthwhile. We have added a relevant reference [191-193].

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, 

The landscap archology is an interesting topic to study in China, and this paper explained well the relationship between historical Points, Lines and Polygons. But more revisions are needed to make this research complete:

1.     The introduction part focused too much on the literature review. But the factual data are ignored. For example, you can explain more backgrounds including the data of global landscape changes, the benefits or impacts it causes to human or the nature. Then, the landscape change in Guangdong should also be explained to indicate why this area is important and some general data about the landscape changes in this region.

2.     What is the relationship between change, persistence and time depth? Is landscape persistence an index under landscape Change? Then, the importance of studying landscape persistence is not fully explained.

3.     After reading the introduction, it is not clear why you choose to use time depth to indicate the landscape persistence? Just following the paper of Van Eetvelde [31]?

4.     In lines 93-97, why “graves, field boundaries, and land use” are selected to represent the points, lines and polygons?

5.     2.1 Study Area, not only to introduce the basic situation of this area, but need to state the importance of it and is there any previous research about this area?

6.     The photos 2-3 by Bingxu Fang, who is not the author of this paper. Do you have permission to use these photos?

7.     Research method in 2.3, how the workflow is developed? According to what? Following what theory or previous methodology, following the paper of Van Eetvelde? Your method is mainly following to make a time depth map, so more literature reviews about time depth map should also be added. From lines 180-216, there is no reference?

8.     “Continuity” this concept is not explained. Why can it represent the time depth of point? And why Kernel density is representing the Continuity?

9.     The Feng Shui Funeral Culture should be introduced in introduction about why you choose to study graves in China.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. Those comments are helpful in improving our paper. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Here are the responses to your suggestions one by one.

1. The general introduction to the Case Study area in Guangdong appears in section 2.1 ‘Study Area’. Full relevant details about the general landscape (climate, soils, population, etc) [lines 114-119] and its history [lines 119-133] are given there. To address the reviewer’s concern, we have added an additional line at the beginning of the section to introduce the general trends in Guangdong province [109-113].
2. Time depth is an index under landscape persistence. New line added [68-69] to explain the concept of ‘time depth’ more clearly.
3. New line added [68-69] to explain the concept of ‘time depth’ more clearly also addresses this question.
4. The choice of graves is justified in lines 94 ff., and we have added a new line pointing out the unusually dense clustering of graves in the area which makes them an interesting class of monument to study. The paper explores what is the significance of the relationships between these different types of historic features, as we have explained in lines 100-106.
5. The area has not been studied previously and does not have special importance. We have added a sentence (134-136) to explain the choice of study area.
6. Yes, we have permission to use the images (as noted in the Acknowledgements at the end of the paper).
7. The papers with regard to ‘Time Depth’ has been listed in reference [31-35], where different scholars apply various terms to solve similar questions. When it comes to the method, indeed, the workflow has been designed specifically for this study. We adopt the proven methods to identify land use and field boundaries [183-190]. In the following steps, we just use simple ArcGIS tools and statistics analysis to explore the spatial relationship between three elements, which is an experimental approach.
8. Section 3.3 analyses the continuity (= persistence) of graves. Kernel density analysis of graves indicates that clusters develop around stable (i.e. continuous and persistent) locations.
9. We have not chosen to study graves in China specifically as a way to study Feng Shui funeral culture (this would be a valid research topic, but is not the main focus of our paper). Instead, we have chosen to introduce Feng Shui funeral culture in section 4.2 as a possible explanation for the stability of graves in the landscape. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 

Firstly, I would like to thank you for your work in this field.

You did a good job!

After extensive reading, I only have a few comments for the current version, which are not many but essential.

For revision details, please see the followings:

 

[1] The title is a bit long, I suggest shortening it and adding more information about the case. Meanwhile, I think your title is a little bit deviation from your context. Not 100% match.

[2] I suggest you add more keywords and sort the words alphabetically. It can help you improve the manuscript's exposure.

[3] In chapter 2. I suggest you provide details and re-order the statement for the research method, data, and analysis process. From these angles, why/when/how, etc. Clarifying these questions one time can make your logic more intact and help readers get your main research path clearly.

[4] I suggest you reorder the conclusions chapter with the following structure: research issue + research result + research value + research direction in the future.

[5] I suggest you insert your figure after its appears in the context for the first time, such as figure 5. This can provide a better reading experience.

[6] if possible, I suggest you simplify figure 4, it is great and necessary, but it is a little bit complicated and difficult to understand.

 

If my comments are properly considered and followed, I have no further comments on this manuscript.

Again, I have a high comment on your current contribution. 

All my upon-revision recommendations are intended to help this manuscript be more readable for readers.

Author Response

Thank you for the comments and suggestions concerning our manuscript. Those comments are helpful in improving our paper. Based on the instructions provided in your letter, we uploaded the file of the revised manuscript. Here are the responses to your suggestions one by one.

1. We have shortened the title as suggested by the reviewer.
2. We have added keywords and sorted into alphabetical order as suggested by the reviewer.
3. We follow a standard structure of academic papers: study area, study material, and methods, which shape a ‘where-when-how’ logic structure. We feel it would be more confusing for readers to change this.
4. Conclusion has been re-ordered as suggested. The newly added paragraph highlights that this method enriches previous aspects of landscape studies, particularly in the Chinese context.
5. We have re-ordered the figures as suggested.
6. The figure has been coloured in order to make the structure clearer to readers.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It can be seen taht the paper has been revised accordingly and now meet a better quality. But the figures need to be replaced into high-quality ones.

Reviewer 3 Report

no further comments.