Remote Sensing Materials for a Preliminary Archaeological Evaluation of the Giove Countryside (Terni, Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper presents an important case history on two Roman and subsequently medieval settlements on the Tiber river. The paper is of interest, and I have only some minor revision points:
The data are not migrated if I understand correctly. Did the authors try to migrate them (in particular in relationship to the depth slices)? The authors do not prompt to any zero timing either, but maybe this processing step was taken for granted and not explicitly claimed. The authors have an evaluation of the spatial depth of the slices. How did they convert the return time into spatial depth?
As still minor points, moreover:
Fig. 2: it would be useful somewhere in the paper to say how long is that roman wall.
Line 63 please reprhase “previous work has found kilns nearby”
Line 66, erase the barred words
Line 67, CE stands for?
Line 107, write “dewow” in black
In figs. 6-8 and then in fig. 10, it would be better to indicate with an arrow the path relative to the represented Bscan.
In fig. 9, the represented depth is probably up to one meter rather than about one meter, because it is a perspective representation.
Author Response
Authors’ Reply to the Review Report 1 (in red)
The paper presents an important case history on two Roman and subsequently medieval settlements on the Tiber river. The paper is of interest, and I have only some minor revision points:
The data are not migrated if I understand correctly. Did the authors try to migrate them (in particular in relationship to the depth slices)? The authors do not prompt to any zero timing either, but maybe this processing step was taken for granted and not explicitly claimed. The authors have an evaluation of the spatial depth of the slices. How did they convert the return time into spatial depth?
Thank you for your comments. Regarding the migration, so sorry, we have taken for granted the migration because it is a standard procedure, but probably we were wrong and we have mentioned it (moreover, in both radargrams and depth slices the DME (Dewow, Migration, Envelope) option is on). We have also clarified the zero timing (it was taken for granted as well, sorry again). Regarding to the velocity, we have specified we have used the hyperbola calibration at different depth to gain the mentioned average velocity.
As still minor points, moreover:
Fig. 2: it would be useful somewhere in the paper to say how long is that roman wall.
Done
Line 63 please rephrase “previous work has found kilns nearby”
Done
Line 66, erase the barred words
Done
Line 67, CE stands for?
Current Era, nowadays it is the most common way for chronology in archaeology.
Line 107, write “dewow” in black
Done
In figs. 6-8 and then in fig. 10, it would be better to indicate with an arrow the path relative to the represented Bscan.
Done
In fig. 9, the represented depth is probably up to one meter rather than about one meter, because it is a perspective representation.
Corrected, thanks
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript has some substantial flaws and must be revised:
- It is not clear what the objective of the study is.
- The used techniques/methods must be justified and the results better explained and linked to an objective.
- The results are overall vaguely explained.
- It is hard to see how the obtained results add new knowledge to the landscape of Giove.
- The research design must be embedded in state-of-the-art and address achieved results internationally on the subjects that are dealt with (landscape and remote sensing).
- The discussion section needs a substantial improvement that takes the abovementioned comments in consideration.
Additional comments:
Line 20: Introduction: An objective must be formulated here in the introduction. What was the purpose of carrying out this study? This is by no means clear to the reader as it is now. A state-of-the-art is also missing related to landscape studies and the use of remote sensing (an international perspective).
Line 23: What are the negative effects?
Line 32: Why especially the left bank?
Line 42: Why were these two specific areas selected?
Line 49: west instead of north?
Line 62: western instead of eastern? Please check the use of references to compass points throughout the paper.
Line 62: Why likely? Isnt it obvious?
Line 63: If this argument is related to the river as transport route, it should be mentioned.
Line 68: ...the left shoulder?
Figure 3c: Scale is needed.
Line 98: This is not mentioned above as stated.
Line 99-101: If this is the case, the use of metal detector should be mentioned after the GPR and integrated as part of this methodological approach. Thus, three main methods were used: drone, GPR and photogrammetry.
Line 113-116: In the buildings? Please elaborate. Why was this done? More details about how this was done. This part is too cursory.
Figure 4b: Crop marks must be indicated on the photo.
Figure 4c: Where? - please explain and indicate on photo.
Figure 4d: Where? - please explain and indicate on photo.
Figure 4e: For me the distribution of sherds is not visible. This must be elaborated, shown and explained better. As it is now, the photo does not illustrate what is mentioned in the caption. Could it be an idea to employ some kind of image processing?
Figure 5: Please indicate on the photo.
Line 148: Change to Geophysical Prospection
Line 159: The term 90 degree anomalies must be explained.
Figure 6-10: More thorough explanations are needed to better understand these results.
Line 202: What is ….the final database.?
Figure 11a: Scale is needed. Close up photos would also be nice (same as figure 3c?).
Figure 11b: Should be indicated on the photo.
Line 214: This section must be adjusted. It must be explained more clearly what current archaeological knowledge is on the one hand, and on the other hand: explicitly explained how the authors think that the presented study has contributed to moving knowledge about the Giove landscape forward. The discussion must relate to the papers objective (which is currently missing as mentioned above). Further-on it must address and refer to state-of-the-art within international research on the intersection between archaeological landscape studies and employment of remote sensing techniques. The discussion section is far too shallow as it is now.
Author Response
Authors’ Reply to the Review Report 2 (in red)
The manuscript has some substantial flaws and must be revised:
It is not clear what the objective of the study is. The used techniques/methods must be justified and the results better explained and linked to an objective.
Thank you for your comments. We have expanded this with substantial integrations.
The results are overall vaguely explained. It is hard to see how the obtained results add new knowledge to the landscape of Giove.
Thanks, we have also improved this part.
The research design must be embedded in state-of-the-art and address achieved results internationally on the subjects that are dealt with (landscape and remote sensing).
We have included an international state of the art within the introduction part.
The discussion section needs a substantial improvement that takes the abovementioned comments in consideration.
Thanks, we believe the integrations now with the explanation of the results make more sense.
Additional comments:
Line 20: Introduction: An objective must be formulated here in the introduction. What was the purpose of carrying out this study? This is by no means clear to the reader as it is now. A state-of-the-art is also missing related to landscape studies and the use of remote sensing (an international perspective).
Thanks for the suggestion. We have improved this part.
Line 23: What are the negative effects?
The main negative effects were floods and erosion. We have specifies it within the text.
Line 32: Why especially the left bank?
Based on its geomorphology, it is the most stable side.
Line 42: Why were these two specific areas selected?
Based on previous archaeological surveys in the area
Line 49: west instead of north?
North-west, thanks.
Line 62: western instead of eastern? Please check the use of references to compass points throughout the paper.
Thanks, we have preferred to use left bank to be consistent with the rest of the paper.
Line 62: Why likely? Isnt it obvious?
As generally happened with archaeological interpretations of a survey, unfortunately, due to the previous archaeological studies of the area and our research, we cannot be 100% sure about it until we will not dig.
Line 63: If this argument is related to the river as transport route, it should be mentioned.
Not necessarily, as above-mentioned explained.
Line 68: ...the left shoulder?
The left shoulder of the railway bridge. It destroyed the remains of the church.
Figure 3c: Scale is needed.
Done
Line 98: This is not mentioned above as stated.
It was mentioned above the olive grove and the farmland.
Line 99-101: If this is the case, the use of metal detector should be mentioned after the GPR and integrated as part of this methodological approach. Thus, three main methods were used: drone, GPR and photogrammetry.
Thank you for the suggestion.
Line 113-116: In the buildings? Please elaborate. Why was this done? More details about how this was done. This part is too cursory.
As explained, the photogrammetry was performed for the most relevant structures in San Valentino and Malvicino. In particular, for the ancient wall in San Valentino and for the internal walls of the pigsty in Malvicino. We have added the detail on how we collect the photos with a reference to the manual.
Figure 4b: Crop marks must be indicated on the photo.
Done.
Figure 4c: Where? - please explain and indicate on photo.
Done.
Figure 4d: Where? - please explain and indicate on photo.
Done.
Figure 4e: For me the distribution of sherds is not visible. This must be elaborated, shown and explained better. As it is now, the photo does not illustrate what is mentioned in the caption. Could it be an idea to employ some kind of image processing?
We have explained this a little bit better. The reddish sherds are usually changing the color of the superficial soil, turning it from brown to red.
Figure 5: Please indicate on the photo.
Done
Line 148: Change to Geophysical Prospection
Done
Line 159: The term 90 degree anomalies must be explained.
We have changed this term with perpendicular.
Figure 6-10: More thorough explanations are needed to better understand these results.
We have explained the possible nature of this anomaly in both the Results and Discussion sections.
Line 202: What is ….the final database.?
By law, a database has to be created and submitted to the Soprintendenza and the Italian Central Institute of Archaeology (Istituto Centrale per l’Archeologia – ICA).
Figure 11a: Scale is needed. Close up photos would also be nice (same as figure 3c?).
Done
Figure 11b: Should be indicated on the photo.
Done
Line 214: This section must be adjusted. It must be explained more clearly what current archaeological knowledge is on the one hand, and on the other hand: explicitly explained how the authors think that the presented study has contributed to moving knowledge about the Giove landscape forward. The discussion must relate to the papers objective (which is currently missing as mentioned above). Further-on it must address and refer to state-of-the-art within international research on the intersection between archaeological landscape studies and employment of remote sensing techniques. The discussion section is far too shallow as it is now.
Thanks for the suggestion. We have improved this part.
Reviewer 3 Report
I see the paper as a brief, preliminary - rather than final - evaluation of the project. I am afraid that it would be more appropriate to write about the application of non-destructive methods on a site level (two sites - San Valentino and Malvicino) rather than on a landscape level. In other words, the area of both sites included to the project is small and, as such, should not be characterized as landscape.
Although in the introduction the Roman and early medieval periods are mentioned, in fact just a very limited part of the text brings data/results on the latter.
I am not quite sure if the paper should not be offered for publication in later stage of the project.
Also, I detected a few language mistakes, such as:
lines 140-141- opus caementicum (instead of caementicium);
line 176 - above is the radargrams (sing. x plur.);
The sentence on lines 187-188 These maps show evident subsurface anomalies or close to the modern structures
(probably related to modern foundations) or elongated probably related to modern pipelines. makes no sence.
Concerning terminology: for vegetation marks on the grass surface use preferably the term parch marks rather than crop marks (used commonly for cultural plants, such as cereal plants).
Author Response
Authors’ Reply to the Review Report 3 (in red)
I see the paper as a brief, preliminary - rather than final - evaluation of the project. I am afraid that it would be more appropriate to write about the application of non-destructive methods on a site level (two sites - San Valentino and Malvicino) rather than on a landscape level. In other words, the area of both sites included to the project is small and, as such, should not be characterized as landscape.
Thanks for the comment. We have explained better the value of this preliminary survey within the context of the Giove’s territory. In particular, the relevance of these two sites related to the Tiber river and the related settlements.
Although in the introduction the Roman and early medieval periods are mentioned, in fact just a very limited part of the text brings data/results on the latter.
The early medieval period is mainly due to the wall remains, the focal point of San Valentino survey.
I am not quite sure if the paper should not be offered for publication in later stage of the project.
The main aim of this project was academic, involving students to better understand the best practices using non-destructive techniques. The next step will be, hopefully, in the future, an archaeological dig. We have tried to explain better this aspect in the paper.
Also, I detected a few language mistakes, such as:
lines 140-141- opus caementicum (instead of caementicium);
Done
line 176 - above is the radargrams (sing. x plur.);
Done
The sentence on lines 187-188 These maps show evident subsurface anomalies or close to the modern structures (probably related to modern foundations) or elongated probably related to modern pipelines. makes no sence.
We have rephrased it.
Concerning terminology: for vegetation marks on the grass surface use preferably the term parch marks rather than crop marks (used commonly for cultural plants, such as cereal plants).
Done
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made sufficient changes of the manuscript which are in accordance with the first review. Most importantly, it is now clear that the paper is disseminating preliminary results/work in progress instead of a landscape study.
Author Response
Many thanks for your suggestions!
