Ships Arriving at Ports and Tales of Shipwrecks: Heterotopia and Seafaring, 16th to 18th Centuries

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although I agree with the author's conclusions, I do believe the article needs to be reviewed in several areas:

a) The article is mainly directed to the Spanish, or at least Iberian, reality, and that should be clearly stated right in the beginning. And, with this in mind, the article should be directed in that direction, rather than trying to be generalist (in my opinion, the microscopic view is mainly a product of Iberian archaeologists, who are more dedicated to modern realities than those of the 20th century, for example) (lines 245-248).

b) The term Maritime History, in my view, is the big umbrella that encompasses all that is related to the maritime world, including maritime archaeology, which, naturally, includes underwater and maritime landscape archaeology. I believe the author shares the same interpretation, but it doesn't appear in the text, and it should (lines 219-220).

c) One of the areas that shows that the author is mainly focused on the Spanish world is when he mentions the "human behaviour" of the shipwrecks (lines 150-153) or the relations "between land and sea" (lines 182-183). Both areas are well-studied in Portugal, for example, in the mentioned Historia Tragico Maritima, where the tensions on board and among the survivors have been widely examined. However, the descriptions of the local African people have also been used, as they are their first descriptions.

d) Part 3 is clearly a Spanish approach, in terms of legislation. But, on the foreign examples mentioned (from line 506 below), nothing is mentioned about Portugal. It should. Portugal is only mentioned in two examples (lines 405-406 and 424-425), which refer to a period when the same King held both crowns. During this period, the contraband was particularly strong, mainly to evade the King's taxes in Seville. I do think that both examples, especially the second, are related to that reality, rather than shipwrecks.

e) I believe in line 334, some words are missing after "attacked".

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Thank you very much for your review, indeed your comments and corrections have been very useful. Please see my responses and some updated text in the attached PDF. I hope that my corrections address all of the reviewer's comments without altering my overall conclusion but demonstrating openness, conceptual precision, and greater comparative balance.

Best Regards

Ana Crespo-Solana 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article addresses a pressing need in contemporary historiography by critically engaging with emerging trends in the field and challenging traditional approaches to maritime history. By deconstructing rigid and outdated perspectives — which frequently overlook essential agents, such as the sea and the environment, as well as marginalised voices — the work opens up innovative layers of analysis. It distinguishes itself through its integration of plural and multidisciplinary perspectives, thereby enriching our interpretation of maritime and underwater contexts.

The adopted approach is particularly valuable for underwater archaeology and shipwreck studies. The article underscores the importance of analysing archaeological sites as integrated components of a complex reality, rather than as isolated remnants. These sites are shaped not only by the historical periods in which they originated but also by their surrounding environments and their ongoing transformation into the present. This holistic perspective enhances the study’s relevance for both the academic community and wider society.

While the references provided are current and pertinent, the inclusion of frameworks such as Blue Humanities could further strengthen the theoretical foundation, as it encapsulates many of the interdisciplinary currents discussed. Additionally, the incorporation of organisational charts or visual diagrams would help clarify the theoretical and conceptual reflections presented, illustrating their intersections and enriching the reader’s experience.

Author Response

Dear Colleague, Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files. Please, see my response in the attached file in pdf. 

Best

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Colleague, congratulations on this very interesting work that I had the pleasure of reading during these days.

Only a small revision of some specific journal rules is needed, namely the citations and some bibliographic data that are missing.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear colleague,

Many thanks for your kind words and for taking the time to read my work. I truly appreciate your positive feedback. I will carefully revise the journal's guidelines and make sure that the citations and the missing bibliogrpahic data are corrected accordingly.

Best Regards

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nothing to add.