New Archaeological Discoveries Based on Spatial Information Technology and Cultural Analysis: Taking the Study of the Spatial Relationship between Ancient Chinese Capitals and the Natural Environment as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the overall idea behind this study sounds quite interesting. The understanding of the surroundings and environment is a key element notably difficult to track back in cultural landscapes. It would be interesting to see further steps, especially considering the ambitious "artificial-natural" correlation used, and given the judgement of the authors themselves on the limits of the available technologies. Attention should be kept also in the selection of the elements points (building and natural ones). It is appreciated the differentiation between firts-level and second-level element points.   

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have responded point by point, and the comments are listed as below.

Point 1: The overall idea behind this study sounds quite interesting. The understanding of the surroundings and environment is a key element notably difficult to track back in cultural landscapes. It would be interesting to see further steps, especially considering the ambitious "artificial-natural" correlation used, and given the judgment of the authors themselves on the limits of the available technologies. Attention should be kept also in the selection of the elements points (building and natural ones). It is appreciated the differentiation between first-level and second-level element points.

Response 1: Thanks for your comments and approval. Because there is no specific amendment, so we checked the manuscript carefully and added some related references to make it more convincing. The references are listed as below.

[1]Byington, M. E. Recovery of lost archaeological features on the Yalu River through GIS and historical imagery. Archaeological Research in Asia. 2022, 30, 100363.

[2]Lech, P. and P. Zakrzewski. Depopulation and devastation: using GIS for tracing changes in the archaeological landscape of Kharaib al-Dasht, a Late Islamic fishing village (Kuwait). Archaeological Prospection. 2021, 28, 17-24.

[3]Mejia Calderon, D. F. and P. A. Carretero Poblete. Archaeological Landscapes Analysis of Basin Viewshed at the Puruha Site of Collay. Arqueologia Iberoamericana. 2017, 36, 43-47.

[4]David, M.B.; Anders, F. Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age; Polity Press: Malden, MA, 2017.

[5]Oliver, L.D. Digital Humanities: History and Development. Wiley-ISTE: NY, USA, 2018.

[6]Dong, H.W.; Liu, Q.H.; Zhou, J.X.; Zhang, Y.H. & Mei, X.Q. New information obtained from surveying and mapping study of Han Chang 'an City site. Archaeology and Cultural Relics. 2000, 5, 39-49.

[7]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. Archaeological Excavation Report of Weiyang Palace, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty, 1980-1989; Encyclopedia of China Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1996.

[8]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. Guigong, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty: report of archaeological excavation 1996-2001; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2007.

[9]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Armory of Han Chang 'an City: A collection of Reports on Chinese field archaeology; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2005.

[10]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Ceremonial Architecture Site of Western Han Dynasty; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2003.

[11]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Xi'an Chang ’an Site Protection Center of Sui and Tang Dynasties; Xi'an World Heritage Monitoring and Management Center. Archaeological data of Chang 'an City Site in Sui and Tang Dynasties; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2017.

[12]George Modelski. World Cities: -3000 to 2000; FAROS 2000: Washington D.C., USA, 2003; pp. 218.

[13]Ian Morris. Social Devlopment; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, California, USA, 2010; pp. 121-124.

[14]Robin R. Wang. Yinyang: The Way of Heaven and Earth in Chinese Thought and Culture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2012.

[15]Chen, Y. L. Exploration on the Cultural Connotation of English and Chinese Numerical Digits. Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research. 2018, 103, 552-555.

[16]Wu, H.Y. Numerical Culture in China. Yuelu Press: Hunan, China, 2013.

[17]Kim, Y. Worship of Mountains and Rivers and State Power in Ancient China. Historical Studies of Ancient and Medieval China. 2014, 34, 1-42.

[18]Francesca, B.; Vera D.L., & Georges, M. Graphics and Text in the Production of Technical Knowledge in China. Brill: Leiden, Netherlands, 2007. pp.135-168.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper integrates archaeological data, GIS-based methods and tools and what the authors call “humanistic meaning” to understand the relationship between ancient cities and the surrounding landscape and if the planning of the former was influenced by the latter.

This is certainly an interesting and comprehensive approach. However, the paper presents numerous flaws on different points. Below I provide details of the problems to be solved.

1   1. INTRODUCTION

The authors seem to be unfamiliar with some key concepts of archaeology. To affirm (even implicitly) in fact as an initial statement, that the study of what they call "individual cultural relics" (better to use terms more suitable and widespread in archaeology such as "material culture") is not complex and without interdisciplinary characteristics, is absolutely wrong as demonstrated by decades of publications for example on ceramics, metal objects, glyptic etc.

The use of “restore” is also problematic. It’s not just a matter of terminology. Restoration is standing alone discipline (at least in the western thought, while I’m aware of the different approaches of numerous other cultures which for example led to conventions like Nara) addressing the physical rehabilitation of part of an ancient building or object. From what I could understand, with “restoration” the authors refer more to the reconstruction of the urban history.

When introducing the spatial information technologies and methodologies used, authors should also take into account the fact that actually most archaeologists rarely (if ever) use automatic or semi-automatic systems. In the majority of cases, they simply use manual visualization of unprocessed imagery (generally from Google Earth). The articles cited (2-5) contribute to provide a biased idea, as most of the authors are not archaeologists but rather satellite image analysts.

In the second issue there are some layout problems with the citations like “Shuji (2010)” and others instead of numbers.

I really appreciated the third research question and in particular the fact that the collaboration between different fields is often still little explored.

2.1 OVERVIEW OF THE HAN/TANG CITIES

I’m a bit surprised to see that there is no quotation in this paragraph. Where did the authors take all this info about the case studies??

It would be particularly interesting to know where they got the info about the greatest city in the world. If we look at milestone publications like Modelsky (2003) or Morris (2010) there is no agreement on which was the largest city in the world in the periods considered. For example, according to both authors above, at the time of the Western Han dynasty, Alexandria of Egypt was the greatest city in the world, then replaced by Rome which during the 1st century AD exceeded 1 million people. Even in the centuries of the other two dynasties, Chang'an rivalled Constantinople (modern Istanbul) or Ctesiphon (in Iraq). I suggest adding these publications in the analysis also saying that at best Chang’an was one of the largest cities in the world.

When saying that “Although archaeologists have drawn plans (Figure 1) for the above two capitals, they have failed to accurately map the environmental elements around the cities (including peaks, valley entrances, rivers, etc.), which makes it impossible to directly and accurately observe whether there is a closer connection between the environmental elements inside the cities and those outside the cities, which means that many important truths may be concealed.” are the authors referring to paleoenvironmental reconstruction? Are they referring to the identification of ancient rivers or lakes etc. or the modern ones? This makes the difference between geoarchaeological research and a pure geographic analysis of the existing evidence.

 2.2 RESEARCH OBJECTS AND CURRENT PROBLEMS

I’m not sure about the meaning of the second part of this sentence (page 4): “the city plans drawn by archaeologists lack the surrounding environmental elements, and are not drawn in strict accordance with the cartographic specifications”. Archaeological maps are nowadays made largely exploiting digital technologies. Maps are made in CAD or GIS often using background bases taken from national cartography. So, I don’t really understand the authors’ point.

In point 2 when they write “only scattered sites”, do they mean neighbourhoods of the ancient cities? The way the authors used the term “sites” in many passages can be misleading and I suggest changing it.

In general points 1-3 are a more detailed version of the three groups of questions at the end of page 2. How do they relate? Do the way they are presented in this section make them research questions? If not, why they are repeated?

3.1 The Technical Flow Chart and Technical Defects 

Although the workflow is more or less understandable both in the image and in the text, I suggest putting in figure 2 a title for first stage, second stage, third stage etc. so one can follow more easily and quickly.

3.2.1 Collection and Collation of Relevant Data

A table resuming the different types of satellite images used and their characteristic is necessary to allow the replication of this methodology by other researchers.

The table must also include the source. Moreover, it would be good to spend 1-2 lines explaining their position with respect to open source VS on-purchase imagery. This is crucial if they want their method to be replicated. On-purchase images may in fact prevent many researchers to follow the authors’ workflow due to the lack or limited amount of funding.

From the middle to the end of this section there is a long list of articles and books unproperly quoted. The citation system must be uniformed, following the journal guidelines!

3.2.4 Construction and Parameter Setting

Although the “Graphic Operation Module” represents a very interesting approach, the operation rules made by the authors in points 1, 2 and 3 must be supported by a solid literature on the subject. You cannot take for granted these numbers and modules only saying that their typical of Chinese culture. Although globally renowned, the description of the Confucian concept of yin and yang needs to have solid studies explaining it quoted by the authors.

The use of “step” in the same section, refers to a unit? Like foot, yard or meter? This must be clarified.

4.4.2  Cultural Connotations behind Capital Scale and Proportion Figures

Although interesting alignments emerge from the analysis, the authors do not explain them in their historical context. For example, what is the connection between West Market-Fu'ang Gate-Baolin Valley Entrance? Could it be a cultural, religious or military one or could this be a simple coincidence?  

The same is for the East Market-Daming Palace-Niubeilang Mountain line or the Hanyaun Hall-Danfeng Gate-Niubeilang Mountain line.

For someone that is not fully aware of the multifaceted Chinese culture, it is quite hard to understand why these cannot be read as simple coincidences.

Other comments:

As already mentioned in various points, the bibliography must be expanded considerably.

In general, English must be reviewed by a native speaker.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have responded point by point, and the comments are listed as below.

Point 1: 1. Introduction (page 2, paragraph 1), About key concepts of archaeology. To affirm (even implicitly) as an initial statement, that the study of what they call "individual cultural relics" (better to use terms more suitable and widespread in archaeology such as "material culture") is not complex and without interdisciplinary characteristics, is absolutely wrong as demonstrated by decades of publications for example on ceramics, metal objects, glyptic etc.

Response 1: Thanks for the comments. We have corrected this incorrect statement and have replaced by “Ancient cities have many remarkable characteristics, such as a large scale, many elements, diverse forms of site preservation, a strong association with the surrounding environment, etc, the research on them has complex and interdisciplinary characteristics.”

Point 2：1. Introduction (page 2, paragraph 2), The use of “restore” is problematic. It’s not just a matter of terminology. Restoration is standing alone discipline (at least in the western thought, while I’m aware of the different approaches of numerous other cultures which for example led to conventions like Nara) addressing the physical rehabilitation of part of an ancient building or object. From what I could understand, with “restoration” the authors refer more to the reconstruction of the urban history.

Response 2：Thanks for the comments. We have changed the word "restore" and replaced the phrase with" One of the core issues in the research on ancient cities is to understand the historical situation or explore an ancient people’s thoughts by analyzing the characteristics (size, location, relative relationship, importance, etc.) of archaeological sites in cities. " (1. Introduction)

Point 3：1. Introduction, When introducing the spatial information technologies and methodologies used, authors should also take into account the fact that actually most archaeologists rarely (if ever) use automatic or semi-automatic systems. In the majority of cases, they simply use manual visualization of unprocessed imagery (generally from Google Earth). The articles cited (2-5) contribute to provide a biased idea, as most of the authors are not archaeologists but rather satellite image analysts.

Response 3: Thanks for the comments. We have added your suggested information to this section of the narrative to make the presentation more convincing, as follows“In recent years, besides carrying out scattered archaeological excavations, most archaeologists actually rarely used automatic or semi-automatic systems to research. In the majority of cases, they simply used manual visualization of unprocessed imagery (generally from Google Earth). On the other hand, satellite image analysts mainly use spatial information technology to identify, predict, and map archaeological sites in large-scale areas.”

Point 4：1. Introduction (page 2, paragraph 4), There are some layout problems with the citations like “Shuji (2010)” and others instead of numbers.

Response 4：Thanks for the comments. We have corrected these layout problems of the citations in page 2.

Point 5：2.1. Overview of the Han/Tang Cities, There is no quotation in 2.1. Overview of the Han/Tang Cities Where did the authors take all this info about the case studies?

Response 5：Thanks for the comments. We have supplemented the related information sources about the case studies in page 3, and added some references. The references are listed as below.

[1]Dong, H.W.; Liu, Q.H.; Zhou, J.X.; Zhang, Y.H. & Mei, X.Q. New information obtained from surveying and mapping study of Han Chang 'an City site. Archaeology and Cultural Relics. 2000, 5, 39-49.

[2]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. Archaeological Excavation Report of Weiyang Palace, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty, 1980-1989; Encyclopedia of China Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1996.

[3]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. Guigong, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty: report of archaeological excavation 1996-2001; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2007.

[4]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Armory of Han Chang 'an City: A collection of Reports on Chinese field archaeology; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2005.

[5]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Ceremonial Architecture Site of Western Han Dynasty; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2003.

[6]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Xi'an Chang ’an Site Protection Center of Sui and Tang Dynasties; Xi'an World Heritage Monitoring and Management Center. Archaeological data of Chang 'an City Site in Sui and Tang Dynasties; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2017.

[7]George Modelski. World Cities: -3000 to 2000; FAROS 2000: Washington D.C., USA, 2003; pp. 218.

[8]Ian Morris. Social Devlopment; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, California, USA, 2010; pp. 121-124.

Point 6：2.1. Overview of the Han/Tang Cities, If we look at milestone publications like Modelsky (2003) or Morris (2010) there is no agreement on which was the largest city in the world in the periods considered. For example, according to both authors above, at the time of the Western Han dynasty, Alexandria of Egypt was the greatest city in the world, then replaced by Rome which during the 1st century AD exceeded 1 million people. Even in the centuries of the other two dynasties, Chang'an rivalled Constantinople (modern Istanbul) or Ctesiphon (in Iraq). I suggest adding these publications in the analysis also saying that at best Chang’an was one of the largest cities in the world.

Response 6：Thanks for the comments. We have added these publications in the analysis and said that Chang’an was one of the largest cities in the world. The references are listed as below.

[1]George Modelski. World Cities: -3000 to 2000; FAROS 2000: Washington D.C., USA, 2003; pp. 218.

[2]Ian Morris. Social Devlopment; Stanford University Press: Redwood City, California, USA, 2010; pp. 121-124.

Point 7：2.1. Overview of the Han/Tang Cities, When saying that “Although archaeologists have drawn plans (Figure 1) for the above two capitals, they have failed to accurately map the environmental elements around the cities (including peaks, valley entrances, rivers, etc.), which makes it impossible to directly and accurately observe whether there is a closer connection between the environmental elements inside the cities and those outside the cities, which means that many important truths may be concealed.” are the authors referring to paleoenvironmental reconstruction? Are they referring to the identification of ancient rivers or lakes etc. or the modern ones? This makes the difference between geoarchaeological research and a pure geographic analysis of the existing evidence.

Response 7: Thanks for the comments. We are referring to the geographic analysis of the modern ones (existing evidence). Many aspects of this paper, such as the study of alignment relationships, are based on this information. We regret that we have not been able to make this clear to you, so we have further revised the presentation by adding some annotation in section 2.1

Point 8：2.2. Research Objects and Current Problems, I’m not sure about the meaning of the second part of this sentence (page 4): “the city ichnographies drawn by archaeologists lack the surrounding environmental elements, and are not drawn in strict accordance with the cartographic specifications”. Archaeological maps are nowadays made largely exploiting digital technologies. Maps are made in CAD or GIS often using background bases taken from national cartography. So, I don’t really understand the authors’ point.

Response 8 : Thanks for the comments. What is meant here is that - since many archaeological discoveries were made in the mid-20th century or even earlier - people did not use CAD or GIS to produce maps of ancient cities, but rather drew them by hand using tools such as rulers, and as a result many of the maps made in that period were not actually accurate, and one of the tasks of this study is to correct and align these less accurate drawings so that subsequent studies of spatial relationships can be carried out. One of the tasks of this study is to correct and align these less accurate drawings so that subsequent studies of spatial relationships can be carried out. In order to make this part of the statement clearer, we have added a note after this sentence, as you suggested.

Point 9：2.2. Research Objects and Current Problems (page 4), In point 2 when they write “only scattered sites”, do they mean neighbourhoods of the ancient cities? The way the authors used the term “sites” in many passages can be misleading and I suggest changing it.

Response 9：Thanks for the comments. We refer to several hundred surviving sites scattered in different locations and still visible on the surface, and we have added some notes after the word "sites" for clarity.

Point 10：2.2. Research Objects and Current Problems, In general points 1-3 are a more detailed version of the three groups of questions at the end of page 2. How do they relate? Do the way they are presented in this section make them research questions? If not, why they are repeated?

Response 10：Thanks for the comments. The three groups of questions at the end of page 2 are used to illustrate general issues in the study of ancient cities. In section2.2, points 1-3 refer to the Chinese capitals of the Western Han dynasty as well as the Sui and Tang dynasties, referring to the difficulties encountered in this study. To avoid confusion, we have further revised the text in section 2.2 to differentiate it from the previous presentation.

Point 11：3.1. The Technical Flow Chart and Technical Defects, I suggest putting in figure 2 a title for first stage, second stage, third stage etc. so one can follow more easily and quickly.

Response 11: Thanks for the comments. We have put in figure 2 a title for first stage, second stage, third stage etc. so everyone could follow more easily and quickly.

Point 12：3.2.1. Collection and Collation of Relevant Data, A table resuming the different types of satellite images used and their characteristic is necessary to allow the replication of this methodology by other researchers.The table must also include the source. Moreover, it would be good to spend 1-2 lines explaining their position with respect to open source VS on-purchase imagery. This is crucial if they want their method to be replicated.

Response 12: Thanks for the comments. We have set out a table containing the different types of satellite imagery, sources, and characteristics of the imagery to facilitate others' understanding of the satellite imagery in question. In addition, we have explained our position with respect to open source VS on-purchase imagery, we believe that "these satellite images are of open source (Table 1), they allow other researchers to easily replicate the methodology."(in section 3.2.1).

Point 13：3.2.1. Collection and Collation of Relevant Data, From the middle to the end of this section there is a long list of articles and books unproperly quoted. The citation system must be uniformed, following the journal guidelines!

Response 13：Thanks for the comments. We have fixed some of the formatting following the journal guidelines, to ensure that the citation system was uniformed.

Point14: 3.2.4. Construction and Parameter Setting of “Decision Model of Spatial Relationship between Cities and Natural Elements”, The operation rules made by the authors in points 1, 2 and 3 must be supported by a solid literature on the subject. You cannot take for granted these numbers and modules only saying that their typical of Chinese culture. Although globally renowned, the description of the Confucian concept of yin and yang needs to have solid studies explaining it quoted by the authors.

Response 14: Thanks for the comments.We have added some relevant literature in section 3.2.4 to further explain the close connection between these numbers and modules and Chinese culture, in order to facilitate the reader’s understanding of the Confucian concept of yin and yang, etc., mentioned in the text. The references are listed as below.

[1]Robin R. Wang. Yinyang: The Way of Heaven and Earth in Chinese Thought and Culture; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2012.

[2]Chen, Y. L. Exploration on the Cultural Connotation of English and Chinese Numerical Digits. Advances in Social Science Education and Humanities Research. 2018, 103, 552-555.

[3]Wu, H.Y. Numerical Culture in China. Yuelu Press: Hunan, China, 2013.

Point15: 3.2.4. Construction and Parameter Setting of “Decision Model of Spatial Relationship between Cities and Natural Elements”, About the use of “step”, refers to a unit? Like foot, yard or meter? This must be clarified.

Response 15：Thanks for the comments. The “step” refers to a unit, to avoid confusion, we have renamed it “Bu”(Chinese name), and put this note in section 3.2.4. (“The above mentioned ‘Li’ and ‘Bu’ are Chinese length units, ‘Bu’ means to take one step with both feet, ‘Li’ is a larger unit of length, with 1 Li = 300 Bu in the Han dynasty and 1 Li = 360 Bu in the Sui and Tang dynasties.”)

Point 16: 4.4.2. Cultural Connotations behind Capital Scale and Proportion Figures, Although interesting alignments emerge from the analysis, the authors do not explain them in their historical context. For example, what is the connection between West Market-Fu'ang Gate-Baolin Valley Entrance? Could it be a cultural, religious or military one or could this be a simple coincidence? The same is for the East Market-Daming Palace-Niubeilang Mountain line or the Hanyaun Hall-Danfeng Gate-Niubeilang Mountain line.For someone that is not fully aware of the multifaceted Chinese culture, it is quite hard to understand why these cannot be read as simple coincidences.

Response 16: Thanks for the comments. We have added this discussion in section 5.3, and we believe that these alignments lines are closely related to the cultural perceptions of the time, for which we have also added some references for further explanation.

Point 17: The bibliography must be expanded considerably.

Response 17: Thanks for the comments. We have expanded a lot of bibliographies, in order to make the expression clearer.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see Pdf document.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have responded point by point, and the comments are listed as below.

Point 1: The archaeological aspects of the paper, particularly the statements you make without references need further work.

Response 1: Thanks for the comments. We have added archaeological documentation to make the presentation clearer and more convincing. The references are listed as below.

[1]Dong, H.W.; Liu, Q.H.; Zhou, J.X.; Zhang, Y.H. & Mei, X.Q. New information obtained from surveying and mapping study of Han Chang 'an City site. Archaeology and Cultural Relics. 2000, 5, 39-49.

[2]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. Archaeological Excavation Report of Weiyang Palace, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty, 1980-1989; Encyclopedia of China Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1996.

[3]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. Guigong, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty: report of archaeological excavation 1996-2001; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2007.

[4]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Armory of Han Chang 'an City: A collection of Reports on Chinese field archaeology; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2005.

[5]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Ceremonial Architecture Site of Western Han Dynasty; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2003.

[6]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Xi'an Chang ’an Site Protection Center of Sui and Tang Dynasties; Xi'an World Heritage Monitoring and Management Center. Archaeological data of Chang 'an City Site in Sui and Tang Dynasties; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2017.

Point 2: What is cultural concept analysis that you mention in your abstract and title? Please define as I do not think it is a term used often. And if it is a term used before, please reference.

Response 2: Thanks for the comments. We have replaced the term cultural concept analysis with a more common and easily understood term such as “ humanistic analysis” and supplemented some annotations in the abstract.

Point 3: More references about Human/environment interaction in the past through an archaeological GIS perspective.

Response 3: Thanks for the comments. We have supplemented some references about Human/Environment interaction in the past through an archaeological GIS perspective. The references are listed as below.

[1]Byington, M. E. Recovery of lost archaeological features on the Yalu River through GIS and historical imagery. Archaeological Research in Asia. 2022, 30, 100363.

[2]Lech, P. and P. Zakrzewski. Depopulation and devastation: using GIS for tracing changes in the archaeological landscape of Kharaib al-Dasht, a Late Islamic fishing village (Kuwait). Archaeological Prospection. 2021, 28, 17-24.

[3]Mejia Calderon, D. F. and P. A. Carretero Poblete. Archaeological Landscapes Analysis of Basin Viewshed at the Puruha Site of Collay. Arqueologia Iberoamericana. 2017, 36, 43-47.

Point 4: Please specify how the two capitals are closely related with the natural environment? What defines human/nature harmony? These are concepts you need to spell out to the reader and incorporate references. Discuss what aspects of the environment might be important to people, rather than let the reader try and work it out.

Response 4: Thanks for the comments. We have specified how the two capitals are closely related with the natural environment (section 5.3) and what defines human/nature harmony, we have added some explanation in abstract and conclusions. We have supplemented some of the references and information to discuss what aspects of the environment might be important. In section 5.3 ,we wrote “Why did the ancient Chinese choose to align these natural elements with urban elements? We believe there are the following reasons. Firstly, the peaks and valley entrances are the most easily recognisable topographical markers and very culturally significant representations, while palaces and marketplaces were the most important spatial areas in ancient capitals, and the city walls delineated the city boundaries. Aligning important capital elements with eye-catching topographical markers remotely could have the effect of reinforcing each other and highlighting urban design ideas. Secondly, in order to highlight the most important central axis of the city, the ancient Chinese would deliberately have this central axis point to valley entrances so that the symmetrical hills on either side of the valley entrances would form a visual foil. The Han Dynasty capital city's central axis was aligned with the Ziwu Valley, a unique valley running very close to due north-south. Its name standing for Midnight and Noon. It was an interesting example of the Chinese expression of fusion of time and space. A turtle-shaped boulder was located at the mouth of the valley opposite the central axis of the Sui and Tang capitals, and the turtle was a divine creature worshipped at the time, with the meaning of keeping the capital safe for a long time. So that the two valley entrances are rich in cultural significance. Thirdly, the ancients would also have chosen high and graceful peaks (Niubeiliang mountain, Jiuzong mountain, Caolian ridge) as markers so that other subdominant axes point to them so that people in the city could easily see the eye-catching peaks and thus further understand the unique position in which people stood in the city.” The references are listed as below.

[1] Kostić, N. The unity of heaven and man: Ancient Chinese concept of three properties of the universe - in the change of Zhou. Zbornik Matice srpske za drustvene nauke. 2015, 152, 393-408.

[2]Ji, C. The Book of Changes; Richard W.; Cary, F.B., Translator; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1997.

[3]Kim, Y. Worship of Mountains and Rivers and State Power in Ancient China. Historical Studies of Ancient and Medieval China. 2014, 34, 1-42.

[4]Francesca, B.; Vera D.L., & Georges, M. Graphics and Text in the Production of Technical Knowledge in China. Brill: Leiden, Netherlands, 2007. pp.135-168.

Point 5: The introductions insinuate there is no work being done to understand the archaeological site within its natural environments, but there are ample archaeological examples that have considered the concepts of human/environment interaction before, through settlement placement. Please do further reading to incorporate their concepts.

Response 5: Thanks for the comments. We have supplemented some of the references about archaeological examples which considered the human/environment interaction. The references are listed as below.

[1]Byington, M. E. Recovery of lost archaeological features on the Yalu River through GIS and historical imagery. Archaeological Research in Asia. 2022, 30, 100363.

[2]Lech, P. and P. Zakrzewski. Depopulation and devastation: using GIS for tracing changes in the archaeological landscape of Kharaib al-Dasht, a Late Islamic fishing village (Kuwait). Archaeological Prospection. 2021, 28, 17-24.

[3]Mejia Calderon, D. F. and P. A. Carretero Poblete. Archaeological Landscapes Analysis of Basin Viewshed at the Puruha Site of Collay. Arqueologia Iberoamericana. 2017, 36, 43-47.

Point 6: page 1, You can provide more references on work that has been done using satellite data for mapping ancient cities.

Response 6: Thanks for the comments. We have provided some references on work that has been done using satellite data for mapping ancient cities. The references are listed as below.

[1]Bachagha, N., et al. Mapping the Roman Water Supply System of the Wadi el Melah Valley in Gafsa, Tunisia, Using Remote Sensing. Sustainability. 2020, 12, 16.

[2]Stott, D., et al. Mapping an ancient city with a century of remotely sensed data. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci-ences of the United States of America. 2018, 115, E5450-E5458.

Point 7: page 3, You provide no references, even when stating there has been long-term work by archaeologists here.

Response 7: Thanks for the comments. We have supplemented some of the references about long-term work on Chang’an city by archaeologists. The references are listed as below.

[1]Dong, H.W.; Liu, Q.H.; Zhou, J.X.; Zhang, Y.H. & Mei, X.Q. New information obtained from surveying and mapping study of Han Chang 'an City site. Archaeology and Cultural Relics. 2000, 5, 39-49.

[2]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. Archaeological Excavation Report of Weiyang Palace, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty, 1980-1989; Encyclopedia of China Publishing House: Beijing, China, 1996.

[3]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Nara National Research Institute for Cultural Properties. Guigong, Chang 'an City, Han Dynasty: report of archaeological excavation 1996-2001; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2007.

[4]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Armory of Han Chang 'an City: A collection of Reports on Chinese field archaeology; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2005.

[5]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences. The Ceremonial Architecture Site of Western Han Dynasty; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2003.

[6]Institute of archaeology of Chinese academy of social sciences; Xi'an Chang ’an Site Protection Center of Sui and Tang Dynasties; Xi'an World Heritage Monitoring and Management Center. Archaeological data of Chang 'an City Site in Sui and Tang Dynasties; Cultural Relics Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2017.

Point 8: page 4, Would be good to have the first figure of the site within the landscape, the study area map. As we are un-situated at this stage. The reference on this figure needs year and authors?

Response 8: Thanks for the comments. We have supplemented the location map with landscape in figure1, and added year and authors in this figure.

Point 9: page 4-Numbered points 1,True that a topographic map cannot reflect multiple elements of a complex site, but it is not true that city ichnographies drawn by archaeologists lack the surrounding environmental elements. I would say on the contrary. Many studies of settlement explore the site within its natural surroundings. However, if you are implying this happened in your case study, please back your statement up with some references.

Response 9: Thanks for the comments. We have corrected this statement, and to be precise, “city ichnographies drawn by archaeologists lack the surrounding environmental elements” only occurs in the case of our study. In addition, we have added the relevant note, "Since many of the archaeological discoveries around Chang'an City were carried out in the mid-20th century or even earlier, when people did not use CAD or GIS to produce maps of the ancient city, but instead took manual drawing using tools such as ruler gauges, resulting in a number of drawings made during that period that were actually not accurate, and the work of this study One of the tasks of this study is to correct and align these less accurate drawings so that subsequent studies of spatial relationships can be carried out."

Point 10: page 5, I think harmony between man and nature needs a definition with references to other works that describe these concepts. You also discuss some decision models, but no references to other works to back up or justify the structure of these models.

Response 10: Thanks for the comments. We have added the definition of “harmony between man and nature” (pursuing the harmonious interaction between man and everything in heaven and earth) in section 3.1 and section 5.3, and supplemented some references to back up the structure of these models in section 3.1. The references are listed as below.

[1]Paul, W. Models of Decision-Making: Simplifying Choices. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, England, 2015.

[2]Kwakkel, J. H. The Exploratory Modeling Workbench: An open source toolkit for exploratory modeling, scenario discovery, and (multi-objective) robust decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2017, 96, 239-250.

Point 11: page 5, About the satellite imagery is used ‘to obtain a preliminary superimposed base map’ please specify what imagery.

Response 11：Thanks for the comments. We have amended "the satellite imagery" to "current satellite imagery" and added a note after the passage (city ichnographies + current satellite images) to make the statement clearer.

Point 12: page 7-Figure 3, The figure is quite busy, I think it can be made clearer, the red for example is barely seen.

Response 12：Thanks for the comments. We have modified this figure to make it clearer, and increased the recognition of the red symbol.

Point 13: page 11-18, The text could do with some slight character spacing to be a little clearer. Should this section just be ‘results’ as your following section is ‘results discussions’ and the distinction isn’t clear.

Response 13: Thanks for the comments. We have adjusted character spacing to be clearer, and separated the results and discussion sections as per the instructions on the journal website.

Point 14: Your conclusion will be more solid if you bring in some references from other archaeological work that considers the environment, landscape and settlement. Your statements about technology and humanities can be strengthened through references but I think you will find that there is more of an intersection between the two that your paper alludes to. Think about digital humanities for example.

Response 14: Thanks for the comments. We have supplemented some of the references about archaeological work that considers the environment, landscape and settlement. We have also supplemented references about digital humanities. The references are listed as below.

[1]Byington, M. E. Recovery of lost archaeological features on the Yalu River through GIS and historical imagery. Archaeological Research in Asia. 2022, 30, 100363.

[2]Lech, P. and P. Zakrzewski. Depopulation and devastation: using GIS for tracing changes in the archaeological landscape of Kharaib al-Dasht, a Late Islamic fishing village (Kuwait). Archaeological Prospection. 2021, 28, 17-24.

[3]Mejia Calderon, D. F. and P. A. Carretero Poblete. Archaeological Landscapes Analysis of Basin Viewshed at the Puruha Site of Collay. Arqueologia Iberoamericana. 2017, 36, 43-47.

[4]David, M.B.; Anders, F. Digital Humanities: Knowledge and Critique in a Digital Age; Polity Press: Malden, MA, 2017.

[5]Oliver, L.D. Digital Humanities: History and Development. Wiley-ISTE: NY, USA, 2018.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I wish to thank the authors for having extensively revised the paper and accepting my suggestions. I think that the overall quality of the paper has now substantially improved.

Therefore, I think it can be accepted after a few minor corrections as follows:

-       - Title. They changed “Cultural concept” with “Humanistic” which sounds quite a weird terminology. Could you explain this? Maybe Historical, Culture-based or Archaeological analysis?

       - A thorough text editing is necessary to check typos and the English language. 

-       - 3.2.2 “The current satellite images are checked, the geographical location is marked by the QGIS-OSGeo4W software (an official project of the Open Source Geospatial Foundation), and the historical images of the CORONA satellite and old maps are used for the supplementary identification of disappeared or damaged sites.”  This is true but it must be supported by literature examples. I suggest:

Casana, J. (2020). Global-scale archaeological prospection using CORONA satellite imagery: automated, crowd-sourced, and expert-led approaches. Journal of Field Archaeology, 45(sup1), S89-S100.

Zaina, F., & Nabati Mazloumi, Y. (2021). A multi‐temporal satellite‐based risk analysis of archaeological sites in Qazvin plain (Iran). Archaeological Prospection, 28(4), 467-483.

Watanabe, N., Nakamura, S., Liu, B., & Wang, N. (2017). Utilization of Structure from Motion for processing CORONA satellite images: Application to mapping and interpretation of archaeological features in Liangzhu Culture, China. Archaeological Research in Asia, 11, 38-50.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have responded point by point, and the comments are listed as below.

Point 1: Title. They changed “Cultural concept” with “Humanistic” which sounds quite a weird terminology. Could you explain this? Maybe historical, culture-based or archaeological analysis?

Response 1: Thanks for the comments. “Humanistic analysis” in our manuscript means “Cultural analysis”, we have corrected these words in title and abstract to make this part of the statement clearer.

Point 2: A thorough text editing is necessary to check typos and the English language.

Response 2: Thanks for the comments. We have checked typos and the English language by MDPI language editing service, it provide the most comprehensive edit, which includes grammar and style, and checks the overall structure and clarity of the writing.

Point 3: 3.2.2. “The current satellite images are checked, the geographical location is marked by the QGIS-OSGeo4W software (an official project of the Open Source Geospatial Foundation), and the historical images of the CORONA satellite and old maps are used for the supplementary identification of disappeared or damaged sites.” This is true but it must be supported by literature examples. I suggest:

Casana, J. (2020). Global-scale archaeological prospection using CORONA satellite imagery: automated, crowd-sourced, and expert-led approaches. Journal of Field Archaeology, 45(sup1), S89-S100.

Zaina, F., & Nabati Mazloumi, Y. (2021). A multi‐temporal satellite‐based risk analysis of archaeological sites in Qazvin plain (Iran). Archaeological Prospection, 28(4), 467-483.

Watanabe, N., Nakamura, S., Liu, B., & Wang, N. (2017). Utilization of Structure from Motion for processing CORONA satellite images: Application to mapping and interpretation of archaeological features in Liangzhu Culture, China. Archaeological Research in Asia, 11, 38-50.

Response 3: Thanks for the comments. We have added literature examples in section 3.2.2. to provide instructions. The references are listed as below.

[1] Casana, J. Global-scale archaeological prospection using CORONA satellite imagery: automated, crowd-sourced, and expert-led approaches. Journal of Field Archaeology. 2020, 45(sup1), S89-S100.

[2] Watanabe, N.; Nakamura, S.; Liu, B.; Wang, N. Utilization of Structure from Motion for processing CORONA satellite images: Application to mapping and interpretation of archaeological features in Liangzhu Culture, China. Archaeological Research in Asia. 2017, 11, 38-50.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The additional sentence in the introduction is incredibly confusing as I have already said in my previous comments there are many studies of archaeologists using satellite imagery beyond visualisation of unprocessed imagery. You are still very much underestimating the work already done by archaeologists in remote sensing globally. I think the editor of Remote Sensing will agree, as they have many archaeology papers that go beyond using Google Earth. This link as old as 2016 (https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2918408/view) has many examples of semi-automated research in archaeology and there are many, many more examples from 2016 to today. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have responded point by point, and the comments are listed as below.

Point 1: The additional sentence in the introduction is incredibly confusing as I have already said in my previous comments there are many studies of archaeologists using satellite imagery beyond visualisation of unprocessed imagery. You are still very much underestimating the work already done by archaeologists in remote sensing globally. I think the editor of Remote Sensing will agree, as they have many archaeology papers that go beyond using Google Earth. This link as old as 2016 (https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2918408/view) has many examples of semi-automated research in archaeology and there are many, many more examples from 2016 to today.

Response 1: Thanks for the comments. We are sorry that we did not understand you accurately before. We have revised the relevant statements in Introduction--“In recent years, archaeologists and satellite image analysts have conducted intensive scientific research in this interdisciplinary area and have achieved many results, in addition to Google Earth, they have used various satellite images for archaeological research, and have also used spatial information technology to identify, predict, and map archaeological sites in large-scale areas”. In addition, we have added some references. The references are listed as below.

[1] Agapiou, A.; Alexakis, D.D.; Sarris, A.; Hadjimitsis, D.G. On the use of satellite remote sensing in archaeology. In Best Practices of Geoinformatic Technologies for the Mapping of Archaeolandscapes.; Sarris, A(ed.).; Archaeopress: Oxford, UK, 2015; pp. 115-125.

[2] De, L.V.; Paulissen, E.; Waelkens, M. Methods for the extraction of archaeological features from very high-resolution Ikonos-2 remote sensing imagery, Hisar (southwest Turkey). Journal of Archaeological Science. 2007, 34, 830-841.

[3] Menze, B.H.; Mühl, S.; Sherratt, A.G. Virtual survey on north Mesopotamian tell sites by means of satellite remote sensing. In Broadening horizons: multidisciplinary approaches to landscape study.; Ooghe, B.; Verhoeven, G(eds.).; Cambridge Scholars Pub-lishing: Newcastle, UK, 2007; pp. 5-29.

[4] Kvamme, K. An examination of automated archaeological feature recognition in remotely sensed imagery. In Computational Approaches to Archaeological Spaces.; Bevan, A.; Lake, M(eds.). Left Coast Press: Walnut Creek, CA, USA, 2013; pp. 53-68.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf