Multicropping Pattern Reveals Human Adaptation at the Wanbei Site (ca. 5.7–4.4 ka cal. BP) in the Middle and Lower Huai River Valley, China
, Huiyuan Gan 3, Zhijie Cheng 4, Yajie Sun 1,2, Dailing Zhang 1,2, Liugen Lin 5 and Juzhong Zhang 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is well-documented, well-argued, and well-structured. However, the article title and content professionals outside the reader are less interested in reading. The English language needs appropriate editing.
1, the author tries to study the ancient adaptation strategies adopted by human societies to cope with climatic and cultural changes by using archaeological methods to study the cultivation of wheat and rice in the Huabei region in history This topic is interesting, but is it possible to discover the ancient adaptation strategies adopted by human societies to cope with climatic and cultural changes? Also, would the authors please consider if this paper is more appropriate for an archaeological journal rather than this journal? 2, The article uses a smaller research project to try to draw a broader research conclusion, so should the limitations of the study, the scope of application, be expressed in the discussion? 3, The significance of the study should be consistent in the abstract and in the conclusion. 4, The language of the article needs to be further revised in accordance with international norms to meet the requirements of international academic journals.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The origins of agriculture is always an interesting and complicated topic. Here the authors illustrated through phytolith analysis how rice and other crops (millet) where harvest at the same time. Here, they illustrate that a major mechanism for adopting agriculture, at least for this region, was based on multy-crooping pattern. That mean this Holocene communities do not depend only on one species, but several. In addition, the authors illustrated that domesticated rise could came from the south regions, while millet arrive through cultural relation through the north. I find this very interesting, because normally we think that early communities (in this case Holocene) where some rather isolated and the research shows the contrary. Humana communities are more complex.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Although I find the topic and study interesting, I have some concerns as to the quality of the manuscript in its current form.
Nearly all cited literature is from China.
In the Introduction and Methods, it feels like the authors assume all readers are familiar with the geography and prehistory of China.
L. 78: Phytoliths are very durable compared to many other plant remains.
L. 83: Phytoliths from seeds are rare and usually not diagnostic.
L. 111-127: A picture/scheme of the profile, indicating depth, sample locations, cultural phases and dating would be helpful.
L. 160-167: These are not ICPN descriptors. You should also separate morphological descriptions from interpretations of plant origins (and justify the latter based on the literature).
The Results section feels too detailed, and key trends/patterns are not highlighted.
L. 178-231: Are there any indications of raw material? There can be a great difference between plant refuse and dung, since each reflects other types of plant selection.
L. 270-278: Summary of results, not discussion.
L. 279-311: Belong in the Introduction
L. 344-348: This characteristic of domestication should be explained in the Introduction, preferably with a figure explaining what “fish-scale decorations” look like. The results should appear in the Results section.
L. 384: What are these codes?
The level of English is uneven. Some sentences are very fluent, while others contain some basic grammatical errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript is much improved. However, two minor issues remain:
L. 90-100 are an important addition, but requires referring to a figure showing these morphotytpes (Figure 4, which should thus be renumbered as 1).
Figures 2+3: If possible, please indicate location of C-14 samples in the transect.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
