Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is important work that will, undoubtedly, be helpful to future scholars who are relying on translations of the Dutch travel account. The way that the passages of each translation are compared is clear and well-explained. I do not think that major changes to content are necessary. Below, I have identified passages that are unclear and will either need rewording or additional information. 

 

Page 1, beginning of introduction:  I suggest replacing the word “little” with a word that is obviously an adverb attached to “explored.” As is, the sentence can be misread as stating that the explorers “recorded little.” “…who recorded scarcely/insufficiently/rarely explored territories…” 

 

Similarly, in this phrase: “especially in the context of the colonization of the European empires deployed over vast areas of the world in the seventeenth century,” the wording can be misread as the European empires being colonized. I suggest “European colonization of vast areas of the world in the seventeenth century” for clarity.

 

Same paragraph: We need to know here who Medina is, when he wrote his translation, and what the “original source” is. 

 

Page 2, who is Van Noort and when is he writing? 

 

Page 3: “Initially, the Dutch, seeing the availability of the 107 Mapuche-Huilliche, sent one of the ships to Brazil in search of more men and weapons to 108 begin conquest and colonization.” I assume this is to the Dutch-occupied northeast of Brazil, but this should be specifically clarified to not cause misunderstandings about a Dutch-Portuguese alliance. 

 

Page 3–Because this is the only image discussed and it is again mentioned in the conclusion, the print needs further discussion and considerably more information. What is the source? Was it published in a book? Who was the artist and where did they get their source material? Does it accurately represent what is described in the accompanying text? If the print is a translation, a translation of the written descriptions into a visual image, it would be helpful and relevant to discuss the accuracy of that translation. 

 

Page 4 first paragraph: It would help to include the context in which the four Dutchmen and Manqueante provided their information to the Spanish. 

 

Page 4, first sentence of the last paragraph: The wording “sources of the Dutch expedition” sounds like you are describing the Dutch travel accounts, but the word “foreigners” suggests that you are still describing the Spanish sources. If that is the case, I suggest specifying “Spanish sources about the Dutch expedition.”

 

Your literature review in section 1.2 is very clear.

Page 6, second paragraph: the meaning of “hubris of point zero” is not obvious in the sentence. I would add an explanation of the term if you want to include it. 

 

The last sentence of this paragraph is very long and, therefore, difficult to follow. Breaking it up into numerous sentences will be helpful. 

 

Page 16, caption for figure 2: as with the first figure, this should include the date, where the map was published (if published) and any other identification of the source images. 

 

Page 16, second paragraph: “However, we know from chronicles and recently published works about a series of agreements and negotiations that the indigenous people established with the Spanish,” is missing a few words.  

 

Page 18, end of section 3: It would help to have a reminder of when each of these translations was written. What is the timeline of the changes to the narrative? 

 

Page 19, third paragraph: Overall, did the Dutch describe the Mapuche in a positive light? It would help to add more nuance here, since the Dutch are also a “foreign power” with a specific agenda. A reminder of what the Dutch aims were and why their characterization of the Mapuche is more reliable than Spanish sources would strengthen your arguments about the significance of your work. 

Again, I suggest adding more specificity to the wording of “rescuing the history of the territory… from transimperial perspectives.” After all, the Dutch explorers were aiming to create a transoceanic empire themselves. More specifically referring to the original Dutch texts versus the altered translations will make this section much stronger. 

 

The discussion of the context in which the 1892 Spanish translation was created is excellent. It would be wonderful to have a bit more of such contextualization for the other translations. I also suggest moving this discussion of the context of the translations to the previous section where you compare the various excerpts.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Most of the text is very clearly written, although the first section is less clear. I have provided suggestions to help with clarity. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors 1. What is the main question addressed by the research? 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material? 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? 6. Are the references appropriate? 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

1. It is a hermeneutic discussion of texts in European languages about a series of events in southern Chile related to native peoples.
2. Yes, it is. The gap is that these events were incorporated to historiography without incorporating sources in Dutch and its translations in European languages other than Spanish.
3. I believe I answer the question in number 2.
4. None.
   
5. Yes.
6. Yes.
7. I don't have any comments to add.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

By calling the various accounts of the Dutch expedition to Chili "colonial", could you provide examples of other contemporary accounts that are not? 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

  In de first half of the 17^th century, the Dutch sent ships to explore the Pacific coast of Chili.  That expedition was extensively publicized in books in various languages. The manuscript discusses these  various versions and the differences in the texts.   > 2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it > address a specific gap in the field? Yes, the topic is original . I have never seens a similar analysis of the contemporary literature on the discoveries   > 3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published > material?   It provides an insight into the reseasons behind the reporting > 4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the > methodology? What further controls should be considered?   I don't see room for improvement, but it might be helpful in case the authors mention the variations in similar travologues at the time > 5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented   Yes, they are > and do they address the main question posed?   They do > 6. Are the references appropriate? Yes they are > 7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. It would be extremely useful to know whether there exist other travelogues in various translations at the time and whether these texts also show differences from the original text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an important, though not entirely new, topic. Historians of science and knowledge have attempted similar comparisons, usually focusing on a narrower period analysis (in particular, not linking the early modern with the modern periods, as this article does). As the authors argue, it is important to revise the narratives of European overseas colonization. It is especially essential to compare accounts of geographic and maritime expeditions published in various languages and in different imperial contexts. This work is all the more important in imperial studies, where one problem is that different “national” historiographies do not immerse themselves with each other (the case of the Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch is a good example - many important studies still need and can be done on this regard, given the importance of the ties and rivalries between these actors in the 17th century. The possibilities for comparative studies with Iberian and Dutch sources are immense, but there are not so many examples of this kind of study). In this case, the study of this Dutch account is important, particularly in order to compare it with what is known from Spanish accounts for an area that is usually approached with Spanish documents, particularly in their connection to the indigenous people of Chile. For this reason, the authors deserve to be congratulated for studying this subject in particular. Still, the subject in question presents a serious challenge: dealing with different languages and historiographies. The fact that this article was written by three people with different backgrounds may have helped to unravel the complexities of the subject, and overall, they have succeeded. Thus, this type of study is much needed, historiographically speaking, and following some of the methodologies raised by the authors. In this respect, I have no major objections to the methodology used. I also think that this paper fits well within the aim and scope of the journal and the special issue in question.

As this study demonstrates, translation processes often involved changes not only related to issues of translation between different languages, but also to the intentions of the text editors themselves. I think this is one of the main conclusions of this essay (alongside the main idea about the problems surrounding the construction of trans-imperial narratives about the indigenous peoples of Chile). It is here that I believe this work would benefit from a clearer connection to classical works on the history of science and knowledge. In particular, an issue that is raised in all the sections, and especially in the conclusion, but never fully addressed, is the cultural and political contexts behind each publication and translation edition. I think it is important to better explain to future readers what the various interests of the editors of each edition were. This would render this study consistent with some studies of the history of science and knowledge that are not included here, but that have already followed this approach with remarkable results (and that are very close to the main conclusions of this article). I am thinking of some works by Peter Burke (The Social History of Knowledge), Benjamin Schmidt (Innocence abroad. The Dutch Imagination and the New World, 1570-1670), Harold Cook (Matters of Exchange) and Arndt Brendecke (Imperio y Informacion). Other important works to consider for this kind of approach are the edited volume by Benjamin Schmidt and Sven Drupé (Translating knowledge in the Early Modern Low Countries) and some of Arthur Der Weduwen's works on Dutch printing and its major impacts in Europe and overseas in the 17th and 18th centuries.

This need is especially evident in point 2.1. I think it is important to address this before starting the comparison of translations: to add a paragraph with a reflection on the exact context of publication of each of the editions in question and the intentions behind each publisher's publication. This applies to all the editions under consideration. Alternatively, this could also be added in the paragraph before the Conclusion. I understand that this will increase the length of the article. My suggestion is to refer future readers to specific bibliography on the subject. I think this question is unavoidable in the light of the various differences between translations and editions identified by the authors.

This question is also linked to its later consequences in the article. For instance, it is fundamental to explain the reasons why José Toribio Medina introduced so many changes in the edition he authored, since this edition is widely used and its users are probably unaware of this translation issue on the indigenous people of Chile. In the case of Medina, this is all the more necessary given that he was an important historian who published important works on the history of Chile and South America in general. But the same could be said of the first Dutch edition and the German translation. It would be interesting if the authors could better clarify their point of view as to why there are so many differences between these two editions, when they were published three years after each other and the contexts of publication seem to be close, as they argue.

 

Finally, strengthening the argument in these sections is also important for another reason. The authors argue that it is important to carry out more trans-imperial studies that link diverse sources and approach the problems of translation/editing with a critical eye to the portraits of indigenous people (a thesis with which I entirely agree), but it is also important that this article sets an example for future researches that may follow this path. This is also the reason why I think it is important to improve the question of the contexts behind each edition because, in the end, what is critically behind this are cultural differences and ways of writing and perceiving the indigenous people of Chile. As such, they deserve some reflexion.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some minor English edition queries that need to be addressed (conjugation of some verbs, lacking words and prepositions), but in general, the English is comprehensible. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I attach the beginnings of my report which includes an extract I think will be of interest to the authors.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor editing

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf