Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

  The subject addressed in the current article ("The transformation of the indigenous landscape in the first colonized region of the Caribbean") is appropriate for the journal aims.   The current article's primary goal is to present an archaeological reconstruction of the indigenous landscape transformation in the first colonized region of the Caribbean.    The author stated goal is to address this complex topic of this research as a critical problem in landscape archaeology.  - In this respect, the author realizes a brief but valuable history of the landscape archaeology issues in the Introduction. - In the next section, Material and the methods, he presents the target area, the relief, the distances and dimensions, and the archaeological sites identified here. Moreover, he makes also a presentation of the relevant finds for the definition of this culture (-s).  - The third section is fascinating, from the perspective of multiple approaches to taskscapes. Again, the topic is challenging, and the proposed approach is exciting.  - The study ends with Conclusions, where the author deduces that two analytical levels can explain the transformation of indigenous landscapes. The proposal is exciting, and we agree with the author's conclusions. We remind you that the author used for this study 283 archaeological patterns that conform to the indigenous taskscapes. They were compared to the 284 regional movements and settlement patterns of the early Spanish colonizers in the same 285 study region. - The illustration of the study can be improved. Map quality is low sometimes. Other times the used dots to mark the archaeological sites are blurry. Maybe the author should consider reworking all the figs in the draft. - The references are adequate and include sources from 1821 - 2019.   Recommendations for improving the manuscript: • Maybe (why not?!) the author may consider including in the article an info-chart or chart that presents the issues discussed in the conclusions. • Please rework and improve all figures of the article. • In section 'References', there are some omissions in the presentation of the titles, in the sense that it does not respect the journal's editorial rules everywhere. • A native English speaker should revise the text.   Conclusions: In our opinion, the current manuscript should be accepted for publication after minor changes recommended here.    We would like to invite the author to revise the current manuscript based on our comments and congratulate them for this exciting study.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

 

Point 1: The illustration of the study can be improved. Map quality is

low sometimes. Other times the used dots to mark the archaeological sites are blurry.

Maybe the author should consider reworking all the figs in the draft.

 

Response 1: Indeed, when I added the images to the word file they all seemed good. Yet, after checking the submitted manuscript most of them lost resolution. This is very odd since all original images have at least 600 dpi. I will re-add them to the final draft and pay more attention to their quality on the word file. Also, I will contact the journal editors for assistance with this.

 

Point 2: Maybe (why not?!) the author may consider including in the article an info-

chart or chart that presents the issues discussed in the conclusions.

 

Response 2: Thank you for this suggestion, yet I am uncertain about the added value of another visual aid; particularly since the paper has already 9 figures (two new were added as suggestions by the journal editor). Nonetheless, I will work again on the result section to bring more clarity to the arguments.

 

Point 3: In section 'References', there are some omissions in the presentation of the titles, in the sense that it does not respect the journal's editorial rules everywhere.

 

Response 3: I checked all the references and adjust them to the journal rules.

 

Point 4: A native English speaker should revise the text.

 

Response 4: Yes, the final draft will be sent to a native English speaker.

 

Point 5: In our opinion, the current manuscript should be accepted for publication after minor changes recommended here. We would like to invite the author to revise the current manuscript based on our comments and congratulate them for this exciting study.

 

Response 5: Thank you very much for the relevant comments and suggestions to improve the paper, and for your positive assessment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

See attachment to editor(s).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Point 1: Line 104 need dates for each cultural period, especially since some readers may not be

knowledgeable of the prehistory of the Dominican Republic and Haiti. In another section later on

the author does provide dates so be consistent.

 

Response 1: The dates were added to the text.

 

Point 2: Line 244 - control of indigenous population…

 

Response 2: Thank you for spotting this one!

 

Point 3: I may have missed then when reading the manuscript but does the author present a taskscape for mixed communities, those communities that include both indigenous and Spanish peoples living together? I read that there were indigenous and Spanish ones but curious about integrated communities based on intermarrying, etc.

 

Response 3: No, I did not include this in the paper as from my research in Montecristi, I did not record mixed Spanish and indigenous sites. Hopefully, this is something for the future. Also, this is why I needed to rely on the documentary and cartographical data to be able to reconstruct the Spanish taskscapes.

 

Point 4: One of my questions relates to the author’s discussion of the three spatial scales (large, medium, and small) and how these relate to the four groups of archaeological sites (large, medium, small, resource exploitation). In the Discussion section on indigenous and Spanish taskscapes, the author discusses small-scale taskscapes which I take to mean that these are what he has referred to in the section on Methods and Materials as a small site. But in the Discussion section, the words exploitation of resources is used which he has defined as his fourth tier classification of sites Resource Exploitation sites. My point is that I was getting a little confused on how to correlate his large, medium, and small sites with large-scale, medium-scale, and small-scale taskscapes. I presume it is an easy fix, just ensuring the same terms are used in each section. If I have this wrong, then the editor can disregard.

 

Response 4: The small-scale and medium-scale taskscapes are spatially connected with the archaeological pattern within the research area. This includes all groups of sites (small, medium and large and the exploitation of sea resource sites). Yet, the small-scale has to do with the specific activities in each site, whereas the medium-scale has to do with interconnectivity between sites. The large-scale has to do with the larger region of the northwestern Dominican Republic. I have adjusted the text to make this more clear and better connected to the site categories described.

 

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx