The Importance of Indigenous Cartography and Toponymy to Historical Land Tenure and Contributions to Euro/American/Canadian Cartography

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an analysis of maps made by indigenous people and the usefulness in understanding indigenous land tenure. The topic might be interesting to historical cartographers. However, there are shortcomings in the analysis and the presentation. Moreover, the topic might be more suitable to specialized cartographic journals such as the Journal of Maps.

1. The presentation is mainly descriptive.
2. There is no methodology section.
3. The introduction is too short and ends abruptly without stating the justification for the study.
4. The discussion section that is supposed to synthesize the historical maps presented in the previous sections is too short and fails to tie up everything.
5. Part of the discussion in section 5 should be in the introduction section to explain the need for the study.

Author Response

The authors present an analysis of maps made by indigenous people and the usefulness in understanding indigenous land tenure. The topic might be interesting to historical cartographers. However, there are shortcomings in the analysis and the presentation. Moreover, the topic might be more suitable to specialized cartographic journals such as the Journal of Maps.

1.           The presentation is mainly descriptive.
The presentation is supposed to be descriptive. This is not a GIS study, per se; rather, it’s an historic and contemporary cartographic analysis of Indigenous land tenure and toponomy.

2.           There is no methodology section.

A Methods and Materials section has been added.

3.           The introduction is too short and ends abruptly without stating the justification for the study.

The Introduction has been lengthened.

4.           The discussion section that is supposed to synthesize the historical maps presented in the previous sections is too short and fails to tie up everything.

The Discussion section already succinctly ties up the manuscript.

5.           Part of the discussion in section 5 should be in the introduction section to explain the need for the study. 

See #3 above.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting and relevant topic that deserves to be published, but the paper is not yet in a publishable form. It comes across as a collection of interesting anecdotes about old maps, rather than a cohesive thesis.

In particular, the very short description of the Sinixt project leaves me wondering if this is just one of the many indigenous maps listed, and if so, why does it get its own section? Or is it the main project to be discussed, and if so, why is it so short?

Detail comments:

• The title is 3x too long, and yet, it is probably a good description of a rather unfocused paper. If you can refine your thesis, a more concise title will probably be easier to create.
• Line 26: this construction is cumbersome but understandable, given the varying preferences for referring to indigenous Americans (oh, there's a fourth!)
• Section 1: this isn't really an introduction; it seems more like a paragraph from the middle of an introduction. The first couple sentences of the abstract aren't too bad; perhaps they can be expanded into an introduction that actually introduces the topic and tells us why it is interesting and important enough to continue reading.
• Sections 2-4: these descriptions are interesting, but collectively they seem like a bunch of disconnected descriptions of various maps; more like an annotated bibliography than a research paper. I'm left thinking the main thesis of your paper is "There are a lot of indigenous maps out there," which isn't much of a thesis. The abstract suggests a better thesis: "These maps say a lot about how indigenous peoples understood the geography of their lands." Is that the point? If so, it is vague in the abstract and completely lost in the paper.
• The bibliographic citations of online sources are formatted completely incorrectly. They should be cited exactly like any other source, just with a URL at the end.
• Figures need to be referenced in the text. For example, Figure 1 on line 53, Figure 4 on line 283, etc.
• Section 5. See above; depending on what the point of the paper is, this should either be shortened and folded into section 4 as just another example of recent work, or it should be expanded to form the bulk of the paper and sections 2-4 should be abbreviated into one section. In my opinion, either could result in a good paper.
• Line 258: Since 95% of readers have not heard of the Sinixt, this needs a brief introduction to the nation. Who are they? Where are they?
• Line 266: Why on earth is there a paragraph about hydroelectric power in here? I can imagine some possible connections, but no rationale is written here.
• Line 329: I am left wishing the entire paper was about this paragraph. Is there another paper on this topic?  

Author Response

This is an interesting and relevant topic that deserves to be published, but the paper is not yet in a publishable form. It comes across as a collection of interesting anecdotes about old maps, rather than a cohesive thesis.

In particular, the very short description of the Sinixt project leaves me wondering if this is just one of the many indigenous maps listed, and if so, why does it get its own section? Or is it the main project to be discussed, and if so, why is it so short?  The Sinixt section has been lengthened to help explain why it serves as a current excellent case study.

Detail comments:

•            The title is 3x too long, and yet, it is probably a good description of a rather unfocused paper. If you can refine your thesis, a more concise title will probably be easier to create. The title has been shortened.

•            Line 26: this construction is cumbersome but understandable, given the varying preferences for referring to indigenous Americans (oh, there's a fourth!)  We have edited that line.

•            Section 1: this isn't really an introduction; it seems more like a paragraph from the middle of an introduction. The first couple sentences of the abstract aren't too bad; perhaps they can be expanded into an introduction that actually introduces the topic and tells us why it is interesting and important enough to continue reading. The Introduction has been lengthened.

•            Sections 2-4: these descriptions are interesting, but collectively they seem like a bunch of disconnected descriptions of various maps; more like an annotated bibliography than a research paper. I'm left thinking the main thesis of your paper is "There are a lot of indigenous maps out there," which isn't much of a thesis. The abstract suggests a better thesis: "These maps say a lot about how indigenous peoples understood the geography of their lands." Is that the point? If so, it is vague in the abstract and completely lost in the paper. We added statements like this to strengthen our position

•            The bibliographic citations of online sources are formatted completely incorrectly. They should be cited exactly like any other source, just with a URL at the end. ???

•            Figures need to be referenced in the text. For example, Figure 1 on line 53, Figure 4 on line 283, etc.  Figures in the text are now referenced as suggested.

•            Section 5. See above; depending on what the point of the paper is, this should either be shortened and folded into section 4 as just another example of recent work, or it should be expanded to form the bulk of the paper and sections 2-4 should be abbreviated into one section. In my opinion, either could result in a good paper. This section has now been expanded.

•            Line 258: Since 95% of readers have not heard of the Sinixt, this needs a brief introduction to the nation. Who are they? Where are they?  A discussion about the Sinixt has been added.

•            Line 266: Why on earth is there a paragraph about hydroelectric power in here? I can imagine some possible connections, but no rationale is written here.  The connection with the hydroelectric power has been explained.

•            Line 329: I am left wishing the entire paper was about this paragraph. Is there another paper on this topic?  We referenced E. Richard Hart article in Cartographica.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting but the content and the structure of the manuscript - in the current form - is rather "informative" than scientific. 

The intoduction is too short. I suggest to add at least: a) literature review about the subject, b)  clear statement about the scientific question of the paper.

The overal methodolody to answer the scientific question is not clear. The author, has to read the sections 2-5 to assume the proposed research strategy. Thus, I suggest to add a separate section to illustrate the methodology adopted. 

The role of GIS to answer the research question is not clear. Did you use GIS only for mapping purposes? Did you make any GIS-based map comparisons / overlay  to estimate the geographic intelligence of Native Americans? what are the results of such analyses?

The discussion section is to too brief. I suggest to add in this section: a) comments about the assumptions as well as the limitations of the paper, b) a clear presentation of the most impoertant findings of the paper, c) a clear presentation of the open questions / future research d)comments concerning  the contribution of this work to the scientific literature.

For all these reasons I suggest to reconsider the paper after major revision.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

The paper is interesting but the content and the structure of the manuscript - in the current form - is rather "informative" than scientific.  This is not a scientific study, per se; rather, it’s an historic and contemporary cartographic analysis of Indigenous land tenure and toponomy.

The introduction is too short. I suggest to add at least: a) literature review about the subject, b)  clear statement about the scientific question of the paper. The Introduction has been lengthened.

The overall methodology to answer the scientific question is not clear. The author, has to read the sections 2-5 to assume the proposed research strategy. Thus, I suggest to add a separate section to illustrate the methodology adopted.  A Methods and Materials section has been added.

The role of GIS to answer the research question is not clear. Did you use GIS only for mapping purposes? Did you make any GIS-based map comparisons / overlay  to estimate the geographic intelligence of Native Americans? what are the results of such analyses?  No we did not use GIS for research here, and it was used only for mapping purposes. 

The discussion section is to too brief. I suggest to add in this section: a) comments about the assumptions as well as the limitations of the paper, b) a clear presentation of the most important findings of the paper, c) a clear presentation of the open questions / future research d)comments concerning  the contribution of this work to the scientific literature. The Discussion section already succinctly ties up the manuscript.

For all these reasons I suggest to reconsider the paper after major revision.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have revised the manuscript based on the comments. However, the manuscript could still be improved.

1. The introduction is still short, though the justification for the study is better. The author can cite previous studies to indicate the gap they want to cover. The following statement "Before continuing, it must be noted that in historical cartography, G. Malcolm Lewis is the standard bearer for scholarship in this arena [1]." should be placed close to the statement about the previous maps by Malcolm Lewis.
2. The discussion section should include limitations of the study, comparison of the results with others in the literature, and possible future research.

Author Response

1. The introduction is still short, though the justification for the study is better. The author can cite previous studies to indicate the gap they want to cover. The following statement "Before continuing, it must be noted that in historical cartography, G. Malcolm Lewis is the standard bearer for scholarship in this arena [1]." should be placed close to the statement about the previous maps by Malcolm Lewis.  moved
2. The discussion section should include limitations of the study, comparison of the results with others in the literature, and possible future research. We added a sentence at the end about future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

A major improvement, but there are still some issues. Thank you for highlighting the changes.

Your general thesis and intent is now much more clear. That said, the clarity will probably result in me finding more small issues.

The new material is generally of lower writing quality than the original; I'm guessing this is likely because the journal rushed this revision.

Title is still too long and complicated, and "with" is confusing and seems grammatically incorrect. How about "The Contributions of Indigenous Cartography to Understanding Historical Land Tenure"?

Throughout the paper, you use both "Toponomy" and "Toponymy." I believe both spellings are correct, but pick one.

The introduction paragraph is better. The last sentence is redundant, given the new sentence about Lewis in the middle (which needs a proper citation).

Section 2 seems unnecessary. I know that was requested by another reviewer, but this is not intended to be scientific experimental research, and the description isn't really relevant here. Historical documentary research never has a "methods" section. Everyone will assume you found this material the way you did. What would make more sense is more of a lit review of past studies of indigenous cartography in general (i.e., talk about what Lewis said, don't just refer to him) and use that to develop a general conceptual framework for understanding the many maps you will be discussing. This is typical in historical studies.

Sections 3 and 4 still come across like an annotated bibliography of a random collection of indigenous maps, albeit a very interesting collection. It needs more reflection on what this collection means as a whole. An introductory and conclusion paragraph in each section would help. The one you have in Section 5 is a good example. Or maybe just my previous suggestion of a conceptual framework section will do the trick.

Thank you for the introduction to the Sinixt. That is very helpful.

The sentence you added to the hydro paragraph helps me see the connection, but just adding it to the end of the paragraph is not very effective. Perhaps something at the beginning to replace the current first sentence, such as "One of these issues has been the development of hydroelectric power in the traditional homelands of indigenous people, including the Sinixt."

The new sentence about the lack of negotiations and treaties over hydroelectric power, and the declaration of extinction, should be brought together, since you are clearly insinuating a connection. Something like "As the Canadian and British Columbian governments worked to develop hydroelectric facilities, they did not negotiate with the Sinixt or sign a treaty with them. In fact, in 1956, the Canadian government declared the Sinixt extinct." Is there a citation for the lack of a treaty?

The first three paragraphs of page 11 seem like they would make more logical sense near the beginning of section 6.

I will repeat, the bibliographic citations for most of the maps is incorrect. They aren't sentences about where you found them, they should be cited like anything else: author, title, year, publisher, etc. Add archival location info and URL at the end if relevant. Any style guide should explain this. Unless this is a standard writing style in your community that I just haven't ever seen before.

Author Response

Title is still too long and complicated, and "with" is confusing and seems grammatically incorrect. How about "The Contributions of Indigenous Cartography to Understanding Historical Land Tenure"?  changed ‘with’ to ‘to’.  As to your suggested title, it’s missing the critical word ‘toponymy’.

Throughout the paper, you use both "Toponomy" and "Toponymy." I believe both spellings are correct, but pick one.  We choose toponymy.

The introduction paragraph is better. The last sentence is redundant, given the new sentence about Lewis in the middle (which needs a proper citation). Moved the last sentence to the middle.

Section 2 seems unnecessary. I know that was requested by another reviewer, but this is not intended to be scientific experimental research, and the description isn't really relevant here. Historical documentary research never has a "methods" section. Everyone will assume you found this material the way you did. What would make more sense is more of a lit review of past studies of indigenous cartography in general (i.e., talk about what Lewis said, don't just refer to him) and use that to develop a general conceptual framework for understanding the many maps you will be discussing. This is typical in historical studies. We will leave any decision about section 2 to the editors.

Sections 3 and 4 still come across like an annotated bibliography of a random collection of indigenous maps, albeit a very interesting collection. It needs more reflection on what this collection means as a whole. An introductory and conclusion paragraph in each section would help. The one you have in Section 5 is a good example. Or maybe just my previous suggestion of a conceptual framework section will do the trick. We disagree.

Thank you for the introduction to the Sinixt. That is very helpful.

The sentence you added to the hydro paragraph helps me see the connection, but just adding it to the end of the paragraph is not very effective. Perhaps something at the beginning to replace the current first sentence, such as "One of these issues has been the development of hydroelectric power in the traditional homelands of indigenous people, including the Sinixt." The new sentence about the lack of negotiations and treaties over hydroelectric power, and the declaration of extinction, should be brought together, since you are clearly insinuating a connection. Something like "As the Canadian and British Columbian governments worked to develop hydroelectric facilities, they did not negotiate with the Sinixt or sign a treaty with them. In fact, in 1956, the Canadian government declared the Sinixt extinct." Is there a citation for the lack of a treaty?  The paragraph on hydroelectric power has been rewritten.

The first three paragraphs of page 11 seem like they would make more logical sense near the beginning of section 6. We disagree.

I will repeat, the bibliographic citations for most of the maps is incorrect. They aren't sentences about where you found them, they should be cited like anything else: author, title, year, publisher, etc. Add archival location info and URL at the end if relevant. Any style guide should explain this. Unless this is a standard writing style in your community that I just haven't ever seen before.  The references have been changed to what ISPRS prefers. But we changed the title to References and Endnotes since some are purely endnotes and not references.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am satisfied with the revision as well as with the clarificationsfrom provided from the authors. To my opinion the paper is suitable for publication in IJGI

Author Response

Thanks.