Lines of Settlement: Lost Landscapes within Maps for Future Morphologies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a very interesting piece of work that will be appreciated by HERITAGE readers.

Some elements will need the attention of the authors to provide greater clarity.

Abstract: Para 2 seems out of place. It would be important to clarify the tome of the county in the manuscript analysis.

page 3. can this be merged with the background? County or country? there seems to be some confusion throughout the text.

page 4 - line139. is this an incomplete setence? or a subtitle? please revise font.

page 5, line 180. IBID.

page 10, line 323 and 338 - different template for subtitles?

Conclusions: are rather generic. Need revision.\

Overall: The manuscript department from the importance of study archived maps for urban morphologists. It would be important that in the discussion and conclusions such focus could be better explored and examined.

 

Author Response

The authors thank you for your comments.

Abstract: Para 2 seems out of place. It would be important to clarify the tome of the county in the manuscript analysis. Now merged within single paragraph Abstract to aid the connection of sentences.

page 3. can this be merged with the background? County or country? there seems to be some confusion throughout the text.  County has been corrected to Country

page 4 - line139. is this an incomplete setence? or a subtitle? please revise font. It was a subtitle – now removed

page 5, line 180. IBID. now removed

page 10, line 323 and 338 - different template for subtitles? There was a problem with fonts changing during the online upload of manuscript – Hopefully this is rectified in the resubmission.

Conclusions: are rather generic. Need revision.\   Conclusion and discussion have been reworked

Overall: The manuscript department from the importance of study archived maps for urban morphologists. It would be important that in the discussion and conclusions such focus could be better explored and examined.

Reviewer 2 Report

Heritage 1251204

Review of :  Lines of settlement: lost landscapes within maps for future  morphologies

 

 

Overall, the essay is though provoking and warrants publication, but it needs a major revision.

 

The article is written in an engaging style that borders on the colloquial, with frequent tendentious and prejudicial choice of words. Contentious writing is ok, but it needs to have substance. At various points of the paper I was not sure where contentious writing ended and polemic began

 

The discussion of the Russell and Hoddle #1 and #2 maps needs to be more nuanced. Russell designed the layout, gridding and orientation of the town structure, including the block numbers, while Hoddle superimposed the standard allotment /parcellation grid that exists throughout NSW. The narrative of

 

I am concerned that the authors commented that “there wasn't necessarily absolute knowledge that the demolition of Batman's Hill and the 213 waterfalls would occur.” There was NO knowledge. Basic perusal of even the Russell map shows in which Russel envisaged the expansion of the town. Looking at the block numbers it is north, eventually resting in square plan.

 

What surprises me is the inadequate reading of the map, when the authors place the first map at boundary between  the documentation of what went before and was to follow.  Why is the Burial Hill not mentioned?

 

Also, if the authors want to push a point, why is there no comment on the fact that Indigenous Australian names are wholly absent on the maps, yet they are included on contemporary maps of NSW settlements?

 

The discussion section needs to be improved. It introduces new concepts that should have been signposted in the introductory framing.

 

 

ISSUES of APPROPRIATENESS OF LANGUAGE

Line 16 ‘county’ This should have been picked up before the manuscript was submitted.

Line 16 ‘ aboriginal land’  the currently accepted term is ‘Indigenous Australian’, but even if the author’s desire/s their term, it must be spelled with a capital A

Line 17 ‘ first nations’  Capitals needed

Capitalisation of ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Indigenous’ needs attention  throughout

Line 77,  of ‘Aboriginal Australian’’ and ‘Indigenous Australian’’ aside. The term  ‘Aborigines’ is deemed derogatory….I am shocked to see it in a manuscript

Line 105  “people freely roamed the area”  ‘roamed’ reads denigrating and assumes a non-sedentary lifestyle

 

 

.

This manuscript is riddled with spelling mistakes, loose grammar , wrong uses of tenses and failures in expression. The referencing is author-date, but then switches to numbers (lines 77–85) with the numbers not even sequential (suggesting the text was copied from somewhere). The reference list is incomplete. The font of the text switches on and off, showing that text has been pasted in. Taken together, all of this suggests a very careless if not slipshod approach to manuscript submission by the authors. On a formal level, the manuscript does not rise to the level of a second year student’s assignment. The manuscript needs a thorough edit at the very least.

 

 

Line 255:           “Space is a loosened activity, that is not unmapped, but that is not strategic to the map, 255 and difficult to map, and is historically much less mapped”  this makes no sense

 

MINOR ISSUES

Lines 15–21       These paragraphs are single sentence paragraphs

Line 19 Font issue

Line  20 ‘ they're’ colloquial contractions should be in academic writing.  There are other instances

Line 22–23 “ This paper ., identify their ., and trace how” Grammar

Line 31–32“…understanding of the patterns of development over time, this is core to the re-31 search in the field of urban morphology”  Expression

Line 33 ‘structure of a cities form”           city’s form

 

I am stopping at line 40 and will not highlight any further formal issues…this needs to be addressed thoroughly

 

Line 91 Reference for the assertion needed

Line 139            I presume that is meant to be a heading

Line 180            I presume that is meant to be a heading

Line 373            Reference for the assertion needed

 

 

Author Response

The authors are grateful for your constructive comments.

The discussion of the Russell and Hoddle #1 and #2 maps needs to be more nuanced. Russell designed the layout, gridding and orientation of the town structure, including the block numbers, while Hoddle superimposed the standard allotment /parcellation grid that exists throughout NSW.

This section has been rewritten – with attention to the sequence of work and transition between Russell to Hoddle

 

I am concerned that the authors commented that “there wasn't necessarily absolute knowledge that the demolition of Batman's Hill and the  waterfalls would occur.” There was NO knowledge. Basic perusal of even the Russell map shows in which Russel envisaged the expansion of the town. Looking at the block numbers it is north, eventually resting in square plan.

This sentence has been removed

 

What surprises me is the inadequate reading of the map, when the authors place the first map at boundary between  the documentation of what went before and was to follow.  Why is the Burial Hill not mentioned?  

We have now noted Burial Hill in the overall description of Figure 1 – Russell’s detailed landscape survey

We have chosen to focus on the 2 landscape features that were prominent in Hoddle’s map (fig 2) as examples of how landscape was demolished in the process of development.

 

Also, if the authors want to push a point, why is there no comment on the fact that Indigenous Australian names are wholly absent on the maps, yet they are included on contemporary maps of NSW settlements?

We have now mentioned that Bourke named the streets with only the Yarra Yarra River bearing an Indigenous Australian name. We also now note that Hoddle later named several suburbs with local Indigenous Australian names.

 

The discussion section needs to be improved. It introduces new concepts that should have been signposted in the introductory framing.

 

 

ISSUES of APPROPRIATENESS OF LANGUAGE

Line 16 ‘county’ This should have been picked up before the manuscript was submitted.    Corrected

Line 16 ‘ aboriginal land’  the currently accepted term is ‘Indigenous Australian’, but even if the author’s desire/s their term, it must be spelled with a capital A Check - Corrected

Line 17 ‘ first nations’  Capitals needed Corrected

Capitalisation of ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Indigenous’ needs attention  throughout  Corrected

Line 77,  of ‘Aboriginal Australian’’ and ‘Indigenous Australian’’ aside. The term  ‘Aborigines’ is deemed derogatory….I am shocked to see it in a manuscript  Corrected

Line 105  “people freely roamed the area”  ‘roamed’ reads denigrating and assumes a non-sedentary lifestyle  Removed

 

This manuscript is riddled with spelling mistakes, loose grammar , wrong uses of tenses and failures in expression. The referencing is author-date, but then switches to numbers (lines 77–85) with the numbers not even sequential (suggesting the text was copied from somewhere). The reference list is incomplete. The font of the text switches on and off, showing that text has been pasted in. Taken together, all of this suggests a very careless if not slipshod approach to manuscript submission by the authors. On a formal level, the manuscript does not rise to the level of a second year student’s assignment. The manuscript needs a thorough edit at the very least.   Manuscript has been revised

Note - for appropriate terminology -we have referred to Jones et al (2018). Indigenous Knowledge in the Built Environment: A Guide for Tertiary Educators. 

in particular the section  Indigenous Australians P8

'Aboriginal' - is normally applied to Indigenous inhabitants of mainland Australia and Tasmania

Reviewer 3 Report

The reviewed paper contributes to the understanding of urban heritage through the prism of historical maps and drawings. Undoubtedly, this is both interesting and important research theme. The paper provides a lot of interesting facts and ideas, but it needs improvements before any further consideration. I specify several recommendations below, and, more generally, I kindly ask the authors to make their contribution more academic and less dependent on the local knowledge (not all readers have had chance to visit Melbourne).

• Abstract: It should be focused more on results, shorter, and not split into paragraphs.
• Section 1: please, name this as Introduction and indicate your objective very clearly.
• The structure of the paper is unconventional. I see two alternative solutions, which both are possible. First, the structure may remain as is, but the paper should be labeled as "Communication" with clear explanation of its viewpoint essence and the unusual structure in the first section. Second, the entire paper can be re-written to match the conventional structure: Introduction – Materials and Methods – Results – Discussion – Conclusions.
• I think this paper needs section Discussion where the findings and the relevant ideas are summarized, generalized, and put into the context of international research. Something from what is now Conclusions can be moved to there.
• Conclusions: I'd prefer to see a list of the main findings.
• I see names in the text, but without exact citations – e.g., you mention De Certeau, but rarely indicate the year of his work.
• References: too small amount of literature, including articles in top international journals, are cited.

Author Response

The authors thank you for your comments

Abstract: It should be focused more on results, shorter, and not split into paragraphs. revised

Section 1: please, name this as Introduction and indicate your objective very clearly. revised

The structure of the paper is unconventional. I see two alternative solutions, which both are possible. First, the structure may remain as is, but the paper should be labeled as "Communication" with clear explanation of its viewpoint essence and the unusual structure in the first section. We have adopted this advice. 

I think this paper needs section Discussion where the findings and the relevant ideas are summarized, generalized, and put into the context of international research. Something from what is now Conclusions can be moved to there. revised

Conclusions: I'd prefer to see a list of the main findings. revised

I see names in the text, but without exact citations – e.g., you mention De Certeau, but rarely indicate the year of his work. References added

References: too small amount of literature, including articles in top international journals, are cited. Further References added

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I congratulate the authors for their thorough and wide-ranging revision of their paper. This is now  a great paper that will find much citation. I will certainly use as a suggested reading in a course I am teaching and will cite in in my own future work.

Author Response

Many thanks for your most positive feedback! We are grateful for your input into the review process.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors worked well to improve their manuscript, and it looks much better now. I have three additional recommendations:

1) I may be mistaken, but I do not see the De Certaeu's work in References.

2) Some works should be cited in Discussion.

3) The manuscript should be formatted according to the journal's rules (you can download template from the journal's web-page).

Author Response

Many thanks. We have formatted the manuscript according to the journal guidelines - including the referencing revisions.

Images are submitted at 300dpi.