Review Reports
- Doris Esenarro1,2,*,
- Jorge Lescano3 and
- Brenda Chalco1
- et al.
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Emiliano Gallaga
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
see attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWell-done research about the complexity of the Inca engineering through the Tipon archaeological site. There is nothing new about it, but illustrated with precise research and technology is very impressive. All the data, analysis, and presentation of it is done well. Where I have some criticism is on the discussion and conclusions. First, I think they are very short, the authors could develop a little more, especially the socio-cultural aspect of the hydraulic work. The agricultural and economic aspect of it is understandable, but the ritual-ceremonial aspect of it I think they could develop a little more. For example, the author mentions that all this engineering brings water to everybody, but they do not mention that to get the liquid they have to work it and maintain it (la Mita o Minka). All the work we see at the Inca sites has a strong communal goal.
In addition, the authors mention the site of Ollantaytambo and compare it to Tipon. The mention is like casual, but they should develop more if is important to make the comparison and explain why.
At the end of the conclusion, the authors mention that "this approach contributes to the UN sustainable developed goals. Again, this line is through casual at the end, and I think they need to explain more why. On the other hand, those goals, are for archaeological sites, or modern communities? is not clear. Are they saying that the engineering of the Tipon site could be replicated in modern communities?
The figures are very nicely done, the only criticism is that some of them had small letters.
Figure 2: the names of the rivers are too small, and difficult to read.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached pdf file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx