Archaeology of the Landscape of Metalworking Sites in Italian Alpine Areas (Orobic Alps) between the Middle Ages and the Modern Era
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper presents a very interesting topic and in line with the editorial lines and the topics of interest of Land journal.
Despite this, the structure of the article needs a change. Indeed, the part on “Materials and Methods” confuses the presentation of case studies, with raw data and results. The object of study and the data collected (Materials) must be presented in a clearer way, while even the "Methods" need more clarity and explanation (documentary studies? Geography and historical cartography? Landscape archaeology? why use these methods?).
After "Materials and Methods" you cannot go directly to "Discussion" without having a "Results" paragraph. The author should make this effort to restructure the article to make the work clearer and more scientific.
I don't know if it's a my problem of visualization, but I can't find the image captions…
The first figure is not sufficient to frame the study area in an international journal where readers may not know the location of the study micro-area. There is a need for a map of Italy in which the study area is easily recognizable.
If these changes are made, the article merits to be published.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
thanks for the comments. The text has been reworked and reviewed accordingly and improved following the suggestions. Figures has been changed and implemented (see the new version of the manuscript).
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic is very interesting but its presentation (and probably the investigation ratio) is quite confusing. The structure of the text is very unclear. Methods should be listed and specified. How can they give quantifiable results? Results should be presented more clearly and distinctly from the "materials and methods" chapter. If the investigation is a hybrid between history and archaeology, then archaeological protocols should be followed too, especially in the surveying activities. It looks to me like a report of activities more than an article. I suggest to thoroughly revise the whole draft since its conceptualization.
Author Response
Dear Colleague, thanks for the useful comments. The suggestions have been accepted and the whole structure of the paper reassessed. Please, see the new version of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Archaeology of the landscape of metalworking sites in Italian Alpine areas (Orobic Alps) between the Middle Ages and the Modern Era
From an archaeological and historical point of view, the manuscript explores several ancient and ruined mining areas of Valtellina with clear potential to become a tourist attraction and educational resource.
The manuscript's topic is very interesting, and its historical, ethnographic and archaeological importance is also very relevant. It is also worth mentioning that the author seems to have a fairly deep knowledge of the subject and the area of ​​study.
Unfortunately, the manuscript presents serious structural problems that make it very difficult to publish it without addressing major changes and restructuring a large part of the text.
The top 4 issues observed are summarized below.
1. The manuscript is not, in structure, a scientific article. The author describes his findings, but not with the structure that manuscripts submitted to the LAND journal should have. The introduction of the manuscript is quite brief and with very little background (none internationally), and the section on materials and methods is very long, but it does not introduce the methodology used. Additionally, the results section is missing, which would be the most important to understand the author's contribution. From the methodology section, we turn to a discussion that has almost no references and continues to be very descriptive and not so much interpretive. The conclusions are not derived directly from the information described in the text and are rather an embodied reflection, although very pertinent, of the importance of conserving the cultural heritage of all these archaeological and ethnographic remains.
2. Tables and figures do not connect to the text. Figures do not have figure captions or graphic or numerical scale. In the captions of figures and in the text, these sources should always be indicated. Only by connecting figures and text will the reader be able to follow the text's explanation fully. Dividing the explanation into several subsections according to the geographical location and, more specifically, citing the figures would help the reader avoid getting lost while reading.
3. It is difficult for the reader to know which part is reconstructed from historical information and which is from archaeological sources. Additionally, it is not known on several points if references are missing or if the statement/interpretation given is from the author of the manuscript. For example:
Lines 202-2023: By the end of the process, the iron ore had lost roughly 25% of its initial weight, facilitating the transport of the material to the reduction sites.
Lines 210-211: Once the combustion phase had ended, the iron ore was deposited on the bottom and, once it had cooled, was extracted using shovels through a small opening.
Lines 286-187: By using the indirect smelting process, it became possible to produce pig iron in a continuous cycle without the need to 287 interrupt combustion, as was the case for the traditional direct smelting process (bas-288 sofuoco), in order to obtain the metal bloom and introduce fresh charcoal and iron ore.
Is there a way to prove these statements, or is it an author's interpretation? Often, the references are indicated only at the end of the paragraph; therefore, the reader does not know if the last sentence or the entire paragraph is referenced.
4. All the references are in Italian, which is understandable. However, if the author wants the manuscript to be international, he should introduce some references in English and compare the local results with those obtained in other areas and consider a broader geographical scale. Otherwise, the reader might wonder why the manuscript was not submitted to an Italian journal in Italian.
Additionally, it is suggested to introduce a table with the approximate chronology of the historical events explained in the text and some graphic scheme that allows a more concise summary of the productive chain (extraction-transformation) described in the text.
I hope that the comments serve to improve the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Colleague,
thank you for the review.
The manuscript structure has been completely reworked. The introduction expanded with more information for the background (including international references). Also the section on materials and methods is changed with the introduction of the methodology used. Additionally, new references have been added. Figures have been cited in the text and figure captions added. Finally, English new references have been added.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
I have no further comments
