Producing Territories for Extractivism: Encomiendas, Estancias and Forts in the Long-Term Political Ecology of Colonial Southern Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Land review report

Brief summary 

The author develops a relevant discussion on how a traditional native territory has been naturalized in Southern Chile, hence legitimizing a long process of material and symbolic appropriation since colonial times, with consequent transformations in the production of a new form of land that is currently protected by environmental groups yet contested by Mapuche communities.

 

General concept comments

Article.

The article brings to perspective a long trajectory of extractivism in Southern Chile, using a historical and archaeological landscape research scope. It is interestingly argued, following Vitale (2011), how extractivism is rooted in places where colonial accumulation occurred.

The theoretical approach, however, could make better use of the decolonial and feminist references that are briefly cited in sections 2 and 4. Likewise, the work would benefit if referencing the current Mapuche conflict, in terms of forestry extractivism and colonial state as it appears in the final paragraph.

 

Review

Note that the reiterative use of nature, natural, naturalization and naturalized needs to be assessed as it is confusing at times. I suggest the use of quotation marks (line 27) to make distinctions when referring to the production of nature (line 7).

Please revise reference when discussing the introduction of animals; dogs are present in Prehispanic times throughout Chile, as registered in archaeological records, so they would not be introduced by the Spaniards as a species. More information in Silva&Root-Bernstein, 2021 (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ece3.7642).

There are references cited missing data, such as Guarda (line 458), de Ovalle (line 500) and Rosales (line 539).

 

Specific comments 

Sections 1, 2 and 3 need to be proof-read as there are many details, for example, riff instead of rift in the key words (line 19), I when it should be it (line 57), among other typos.

When referring to Spanish words, concepts and/or places, it would be preferable to add a short English translation or definition, like in the case of the Moros or Moors (line 172), the cabildo council (lines 180 and 187), Southern Chile (line 181), or the Andes cordillera (line 492).

The figures presented are missing some letters such as B, C and F (line 600). In addition, letter C is not visible in the figure as it is black; this could be fixed by turning letter C white.

Please clarify the photointerpretation of human interpretation of the mound hill, which is stated as steps (line 614).

Add CELCO when referring to the 2004 socioenvironmental scandal in the Cruces River (line 657).

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1:

• I added a new section about the current Mapuche conflict in Chile and Argentina.
• I checked and used quotation marks for the concept of nature, naturalization and naturalized.
• I introduced the reference of Silva & Root-Bernstein (2021).
• I checked the references’ missing data.
• I requested a new proof reading and I have changed the main Spanish words.
• I changed the colors of the letters in the images.
• I added a picture of the mound hill, and I added a reference.
• I added CELCO in the Conclusion

Reviewer 2 Report

The approach from historical geography and historical political ecology are of great significance for understanding the genealogy of cultural landscapes. However, I think it would have been positive if archaeology had been present in the design of the research carried out up to now, although it is admitted that the next step is to collaborate with archaeologists (606-607).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2:

• This is the second year of my research project. I have contacted an archaeologist to support the remote sensing analysis and to conduct fieldwork with me during 2023.
• Comings articles will have an informed archaeological section.

Reviewer 3 Report

See attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

• I added new paragraphs to connect the different sections to clarify my argument.
• I changed the introduction to make the purpose of this article clear.
• In response to Reviewer 1 and to the editor, I added a new section to explain the current Mapuche conflict, and to clarify the aim of this article.
• I cut some historical data to focus on the main argument.
• I agree with your comment about long quotes. However, I decide to keep them, because this is a special issue of Land about “Archaeological and Historical Landscapes of South America: From Past Changes to Current Landscape Configurations”. Therefore, I believe it could be interesting for the issue’s audience.
• I integrated the historical section about the fort with the remote sensing section, trying to bring more “meat on the bones”.
• I changed many Spanish-isms, but I kept some of them related to the Encomienda.
• I requested a new proof reading.
• I avoided the use of the term “ancient”. It is used only related to current Mapuche conflict, and their claim about pre-Columbian and pre-Republican territories.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

This is a MUCH improved manuscript. The changes made in many places have significantly improved the manscuript by clarifying the purpose and connecting the historical details/context/political environment with the archeology. Knowing that this MS is part of a special issue on archeology and historical landscapes of South America also explains why apparently disparate foci are brought together here. 

I have few suggestions other than to recommend to the author to rephrase the sentence "aim is to illustrate how extractivism is rooted in places where colonial accumulation occurred." Isn't that true everywhere in Chile (or LA)? You want to show the specific forms of land change and accumulation and to link the colonial organization of the landscape to contemporary extractive practices. 

Also, do not fall into the trap that Pre-Columbian landscapes or "metabolism" were static. Extractive practices among Indigneous folks changed and some of those practices were exploitative to conquered peoples (or others). I am not drawing a false equivalency with colonial practices which were radical, genocidal, and transformative in ways exceeding Indigenous practices, but hisorical geography has made a lot of progress showing how the agency of Indigenous folks changed landscapes over time and across places, and not always in productive and egalitarian ways. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you very much again for your valuable comments. I have made the changes detailed below.

• Line 48: The second aim is to illustrate the specific forms of land change and accumulation and to link the colonial organization of the landscape to contemporary extractive practices. 
• Line 543:  In this way, I am not making an essentialist argument, but rather showing how the indigenous lands were integrated with the global market via the consolidation of the encomienda, which on one hand was associated with the dispossession of people and lands, and on the other involved the production of new “nature” for mining, livestock, agricultural production, and the military control of the territory.