Ecological Wisdom Study of the Han Dynasty Settlement Site in Sanyangzhuang Based on Landscape Archaeology

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

This paper sets out to explore a Han dynasty settlement in Sanyangzhuang through the lens of landscape archaeology and to assess the concept of “ecological wisdom” in this context. The site is very interesting, and the attempt is promising. Furthermore the authors should be commended for including various materials in their analysis. The work has the potential to make a valuable contribution, particularly if the authors refine their theoretical framework and strengthen the methodological section.

Please find below a set of comments intending to improve the paper so that it reaches publication after revisions.

1. Title and Abstract

The title is long and slightly confusing. I suggest removing the word “site” and placing “ecological wisdom” in brackets, as this term is not widely established in landscape archaeology literature.

The abstract should be shortened to highlight the novelty of the research. The first general definitions of settlements and related concepts should be removed.

Throughout the paper, the word “settlement” is sufficient; the addition of “site” is redundant, particularly given the long-standing scholarly debate on settlement definitions within different models of landscape archaeology.

Please add chronological frameworks in parentheses whenever historical phases are mentioned (e.g., “mid-Western Han Dynasty (ca. XXX BCE)”).

2. Introduction

The term ecological wisdom should be explained more thoroughly, since it is not a standard concept in landscape archaeology (see below for suggestions). Similarly, the term ecological intelligence research is unfamiliar; the authors may wish to consider parallels with established terms such as cultural ecology or frameworks from anthropology.

The current definition of landscape archaeology in the introduction is vague, and the authors may wish to reflect carefully on why they need to define it here. If they choose to do so in a short paragraph, it would be helpful to avoid oversimplification and instead provide a richer, nuanced description. Foundational works on processual, post-processual, phenomenological, remote sensing, or environmental approaches should be cited to demonstrate engagement with the breadth of landscape archaeology.

3. Methods

The opening definition of landscape archaeology is too general. It should be expanded and contextualized with reference to key theoretical frameworks and perhaps a couple of parallel case studies.

The definition of settlement within landscape archaeology is debated. The authors here are dealing with a settlement as both an inhabited space and its broader landscape, and this should be contextualized accordingly.

The framework of ecological wisdom is introduced without sufficient theoretical grounding. In landscape archaeology, human–environment interactions are often studied through theories such as Ingold’s temporality of the landscape (1993) or Tilley’s phenomenology of landscape (1994), which move beyond the human–nature binary. The authors might reflect on this and strengthen their framing (but see also below).

Terminology requires refinement. For example, the term ‘cultural relics’ is not widely used in current academic discourse. More precise alternatives could include ‘archaeological material,’ ‘cultural remains,’ or ‘material culture.’ Likewise, the statement “landscape archaeology is a comprehensive study” (lines 114–115) would be more accurately phrased as “landscape archaeology is a comprehensive method.”

4. Results and Discussion

The ecological analysis in Section 3.2 is one of the more interesting aspects of the paper, particularly in connection with the preceding discussion (p. 10). However, the methodology section should reference this analysis earlier to provide context for the reader. Ecological wisdom as a concept can be productively situated in more traditional theoretical frameworks. The authors should connect it with Ingold’s temporality of landscape, Tilley’s phenomenology of landscape, or Barrett’s Fragments from Antiquity. These foundational references would strengthen the novelty of the term while rooting it in recognized landscape archaeology scholarship (see also comments on ecological wisdom above).

5. Figures and Visuals

Figure 5 is central to the argument but should be improved for clarity. Consider using a basemap with low opacity to provide clearer spatial context for the reader.

Excavation methodology should be briefly outlined. Figure 6 depicts excavations and drills of different size, but the method is not explained – please clarify whether these represent test pits, rescue excavations, or another strategy, and situate this within the context of landscape archaeology practice.

Figures 9–10 appear low in resolution and lack scales and north arrows. Including these elements is standard practice in archaeological illustration and would greatly improve clarity and comparability.

Figure 11 also appears low in resolution (possibly due to PDF quality) and lacks a north arrow. Adding this element would ensure consistency with best practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English is satisfactory in terms of clarity and readability. However, the manuscript requires further improvement to meet the standards of academic writing, particularly in the use of terminology and stylistic precision. In several places, the language is overly descriptive or informal, lacking the rigor expected in scholarly work. For example:

• “...proposing to do a good job in the protection and utilization of significant sites, to make the heritage displayed on the vast land ‘come alive,’ improve the level of display and utilization, and tell the story of Chinese characteristic sites well.”
• “The selection of settlement sites presents a dual feature of practicality and ritual, which not only meets basic survival needs but also constructs spatial order and internal functional zoning through symbolic astronomical directions.”
• Ecological wisdom refers to the wisdom derived from ecological practice and serving ecological practices, including ecological research, planning, design, construction, and management.

These passages illustrate how the manuscript sometimes relies on descriptive phrasing or circular definitions rather than precise, analytical academic language.

Prior to acceptance, the authors are encouraged to revise all such sections to adopt a more formal, concise, and academically appropriate style. To ensure consistency and quality throughout the manuscript, they may also wish to seek assistance from a professional academic editor or a fluent English speaker with experience in scholarly writing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments and professional advice. These opinions help to improve the academic rigor of our article. Based on your suggestion and request, we have made the corrected modifications to the revised manuscript. We hope that our work can be improved again. Furthermore, we would like to show the details as follows:

Comments 1: The title is long and slightly confusing. I suggest removing the word “site” and placing “ecological wisdom” in brackets, as this term is not widely established in landscape archaeology literature.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Because other settlements of the Han Dynasty still exist today and are preserved as villages, but the Han settlement of Sanyangzhuang has become a site, and there are also villages built near the site area, the names of the villages are the same as the research object, so we added the “site” after the “Han Dynasty settlements” to distinguish them.

 

Comments 2: The abstract should be shortened to highlight the novelty of the research. The first general definitions of settlements and related concepts should be removed.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have shortened the content of the abstract and made modifications to the beginning of the abstract.

 

Comments 3: Throughout the paper, the word “settlement” is sufficient; the addition of “site” is redundant, particularly given the long-standing scholarly debate on settlement definitions within different models of landscape archaeology.

Response 3: Thank you for valuable feedback. The explanation of this part can be found in response 1.

 

Comments 4: Please add chronological frameworks in parentheses whenever historical phases are mentioned (e.g., “mid-Western Han Dynasty (ca. XXX BCE)”).

Response 4: Thank you for your advice. We have added chronological frameworks in parentheses when the article mentions a new historical period.

 

Comments 5: The term ecological wisdom should be explained more thoroughly, since it is not a standard concept in landscape archaeology (see below for suggestions). Similarly, the term ecological intelligence research is unfamiliar; the authors may wish to consider parallels with established terms such as cultural ecology or frameworks from anthropology.

Response 5: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added relevant content to provide a detailed explanation of this term ecological wisdom (Page 2; the third paragraph of Section: 1. Introduction; Line 75-79). Besides, the description of the term ecological intelligence is inaccurate in our wording, the correct statement is ecological wisdom, which we have revised.

 

Comments 6: The current definition of landscape archaeology in the introduction is vague, and the authors may wish to reflect carefully on why they need to define it here. If they choose to do so in a short paragraph, it would be helpful to avoid oversimplification and instead provide a richer, nuanced description. Foundational works on processual, post-processual, phenomenological, remote sensing, or environmental approaches should be cited to demonstrate engagement with the breadth of landscape archaeology.

Response 6: Thank you for valuable feedback. We have added a theoretical introduction to landscape archaeology in the introduction section, and explained the existing problems in the research status and the research objectives of this study. (Page 2; the second to fourth paragraphs of Section: 1. Introduction; Line 69-84)

 

Comments 7: The opening definition of landscape archaeology is too general. It should be expanded and contextualized with reference to key theoretical frameworks and perhaps a couple of parallel case studies.

Response 7: Thank you for your advice. We provide the additional clarification on the definition of landscape archaeology in order to concretize it. (Page 3; the first paragraph of Section: 2. Materials and Methods; Line 92-113)

 

Comments 8: The definition of settlement within landscape archaeology is debated. The authors here are dealing with a settlement as both an inhabited space and its broader landscape, and this should be contextualized accordingly.

Response 8: Thank you for your advice. We have added explanations in the definition section of settlements to better explain the scope of research on settlements. (Page 3; the second paragraph of Section: 2. Materials and Methods; Line 118-127)

 

Comments 9: The framework of ecological wisdom is introduced without sufficient theoretical grounding. In landscape archaeology, human–environment interactions are often studied through theories such as Ingold’s temporality of the landscape (1993) or Tilley’s phenomenology of landscape (1994), which move beyond the human–nature binary. The authors might reflect on this and strengthen their framing (but see also below).

Response 9: Thank you for valuable feedback. We have added Ingold’s and Tilley’s theory to strengthen the theoretical framework. We have read relevant theory books such as The temporality of the landscape (1993) and A Phenomenology of Landscape Places, Paths and Monuments (1994), and summarize the main content of these books. (Page 3; the third paragraph of Section: 2. Materials and Methods; Line 132-149)

Comments 10: Terminology requires refinement. For example, the term ‘cultural relics’ is not widely used in current academic discourse. More precise alternatives could include ‘archaeological material,’ ‘cultural remains,’ or ‘material culture.’ Likewise, the statement “landscape archaeology is a comprehensive study” (lines 114–115) would be more accurately phrased as “landscape archaeology is a comprehensive method.”

Response 10: Thank you for valuable feedback. We have optimized the terminology by replacing ‘cultural relics’ with ‘cultural remains’, and adjust “landscape archaeology is a comprehensive study” to “landscape archaeology is a comprehensive method”.

 

Comments 11: The ecological analysis in Section 3.2 is one of the more interesting aspects of the paper, particularly in connection with the preceding discussion (p. 10). However, the methodology section should reference this analysis earlier to provide context for the reader. Ecological wisdom as a concept can be productively situated in more traditional theoretical frameworks. The authors should connect it with Ingold’s temporality of landscape, Tilley’s phenomenology of landscape, or Barrett’s Fragments from Antiquity. These foundational references would strengthen the novelty of the term while rooting it in recognized landscape archaeology scholarship (see also comments on ecological wisdom above).

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. As mentioned above, we have studied the origin, development, and current status of the theory, and by reading relevant literature and papers, we have sorted out the theoretical framework, thereby enhancing the completeness of the theory.

 

Comments 12: Figure 5 is central to the argument but should be improved for clarity. Consider using a basemap with low opacity to provide clearer spatial context for the reader.

Response 12: Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted the clarity of Figure 5 and added a schematic diagram of each diversion of the Yellow River. This more clearly demonstrates the changes of the Yellow River in the study area within the research time frame.

 

Comments 13: Excavation methodology should be briefly outlined. Figure 6 depicts excavations and drills of different size, but the method is not explained – please clarify whether these represent test pits, rescue excavations, or another strategy, and situate this within the context of landscape archaeology practice.

Response 13: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added content on excavation methods for the study area. (Page 7; the first paragraph of Section: 3. Results and Discussion; Line 250-252)

 

Comments 14: Figures 9–10 appear low in resolution and lack scales and north arrows. Including these elements is standard practice in archaeological illustration and would greatly improve clarity and comparability.

Response 14: Thank you for your advice. We have improved the resolution of Figure 9-10 and added the north arrows in Figure 10. Figure 9 is a cross-sectional view of the archaeological site, oriented vertically upwards and downwards, therefore the direction of the compass cannot be determined. Due to the fact that Figure 10 is a rendering of the excavated farmland, the scale cannot be determined. Regarding the size of farmland, it can be seen from Figure 12.

 

Comments 15: Figure 11 also appears low in resolution (possibly due to PDF quality) and lacks a north arrow. Adding this element would ensure consistency with best practice.

Response 15: Thank you for your advice. Figure 11 was obtained from Zhang, Q. A Survey of the Farming Evolvement before Shang and Zhou Dynasties from the Farmland Remains of the Sanyangzhuang Site. Agricultural History of China, 2014, 33(05): 14-24+67., and the image resolution in the original text is the same. I am sorry that I cannot obtain a higher resolution image.

 

Comments 16: The overall quality of English is satisfactory in terms of clarity and readability. However, the manuscript requires further improvement to meet the standards of academic writing, particularly in the use of terminology and stylistic precision. In several places, the language is overly descriptive or informal, lacking the rigor expected in scholarly work. For example:

“...proposing to do a good job in the protection and utilization of significant sites, to make the heritage displayed on the vast land ‘come alive,’ improve the level of display and utilization, and tell the story of Chinese characteristic sites well.”

“The selection of settlement sites presents a dual feature of practicality and ritual, which not only meets basic survival needs but also constructs spatial order and internal functional zoning through symbolic astronomical directions.”

“Ecological wisdom refers to the wisdom derived from ecological practice and serving ecological practices, including ecological research, planning, design, construction, and management.”

These passages illustrate how the manuscript sometimes relies on descriptive phrasing or circular definitions rather than precise, analytical academic language.

Response 16: Thank you for valuable feedback. I will answer each of the three sentences you have listed one by one.

The sentence“...proposing to do a good job in the protection and utilization of significant sites, to make the heritage displayed on the vast land ‘come alive,’ improve the level of display and utilization, and tell the story of Chinese characteristic sites well.” comes from “National Cultural Heritage Administration. Notice of the National Cultural Heritage Administration on the Issuance of the “14th Five-Year Plan” Special Plan for the Protection and Utilization of Major Sites. Tech. rep. The Central People's Government of the People's Republic of China, 2021-11-19.”, so this is the official statement of the government, and I'm sorry that I can't make any changes.

The sentence “The selection of settlement sites presents a dual feature of practicality and ritual, which not only meets basic survival needs but also constructs spatial order and internal functional zoning through symbolic astronomical directions.” has been changed to “In terms of site selection, settlements consider practicality and ceremony, which can not only meet basic living needs, but also divide internal functional zones based on the meaning implied by the orientation of the constellations.” (Page 1; the Abstract; Line 36-38)

The sentence “Ecological wisdom refers to the wisdom derived from ecological practice and serving ecological practices, including ecological research, planning, design, construction, and management.” has been modified. We have removed this sentence from the original text, no longer directly stating the concept of theory, but providing a detailed explanation of the theoretical source of this sentence. (Page 3; the third paragraph of Section: 2. Materials and Methods; Line 132-149)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article reports an interesting Ecological Wisdom Study of the Han Dynasty Settlement Site. The results are well presented. I suggest positioning the study area on the map of China in Figure 2 and adding an explanation of the three boxes in the caption.

It would be interesting to show some examples of the analyzed satellite images and the interpretation of the traces used to construct models of the spatial distribution of elevations, dimensions, and appearance in the study area, as well as other examples of the sources of archaeological data or the sequence of temperatures and the variations of the climatic indicators considered.

Author Response

Comments 1: The article reports an interesting Ecological Wisdom Study of the Han Dynasty Settlement Site. The results are well presented. I suggest positioning the study area on the map of China in Figure 2 and adding an explanation of the three boxes in the caption.

Response 1: Thank you for your advice. We have positioned the study area on the map of China in Figure 2 and adding an explanation of the three boxes in the caption. (Page 5; line 204-209)

 

Comments 2: It would be interesting to show some examples of the analyzed satellite images and the interpretation of the traces used to construct models of the spatial distribution of elevations, dimensions, and appearance in the study area, as well as other examples of the sources of archaeological data or the sequence of temperatures and the variations of the climatic indicators considered.

Response 2: Thank you for your advice. We will present the figure of temperature and dry wet changes in the eastern and central regions of China during the Qin and Han dynasties in the winter half year in the supplementary file, which can visually demonstrate the climate change in the study area. Regarding the size data of residential buildings, I referred to the paper "Liu, H. et al. The Han Dynasty Courtyard Site in Sanyangzhuang, Neihuang County, Henan Province. Archaeology, 2004, (07), 34-37+101-102+2.", which is an official archaeological report with high credibility.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Landscape archaeology is a fascinating discipline that helps understand the relationship built between a human community and its surrounding natural environment. The result of that relationship is the landscape (a socio-cultural structure), an abstract concept created to understand and provide meaning to its world. In this sense, I thought the article would be led in on. Instead, they use other concepts or disciplines to understand the cultural development of the Sanyangzhuang site from the Han dynasty. This ecological wisdom concept portrays a very romantic relationship between the community and the environment. Such as how this Han site transforms its immediate area into agricultural plots, where they can get between two and three harvests per year. The analysis and data presented are very compelling. However, the data and analysis only go for this immediate area. There is no data on the regional level. How the area was responding to a highly demanding agricultural activity. Is the rest of the region exhausted? Was it an environmental change in the region over time? How does the local fauna and vegetation react? Or how were they replaced? The authors' only focus on the immediate area, the ecological wisdom seems like an awesome solution.

A small critique, but I think it is important. The authors use the term "reliques" (probably as something old) when they mention archaeological material or evidence. However, that particular term is used for items with ceremonial or religious value. I suggest changing it to simple "archaeological evidence, material, or remains".

Figures: no problem there. However,it could be interesting to use the regional maps to show the environmental change through time in the area.

Author Response

Comments 1: Landscape archaeology is a fascinating discipline that helps understand the relationship built between a human community and its surrounding natural environment. The result of that relationship is the landscape (a socio-cultural structure), an abstract concept created to understand and provide meaning to its world. In this sense, I thought the article would be led in on. Instead, they use other concepts or disciplines to understand the cultural development of the Sanyangzhuang site from the Han dynasty. This ecological wisdom concept portrays a very romantic relationship between the community and the environment. Such as how this Han site transforms its immediate area into agricultural plots, where they can get between two and three harvests per year. The analysis and data presented are very compelling. However, the data and analysis only go for this immediate area. There is no data on the regional level. How the area was responding to a highly demanding agricultural activity. Is the rest of the region exhausted? Was it an environmental change in the region over time? How does the local fauna and vegetation react? Or how were they replaced? The authors' only focus on the immediate area, the ecological wisdom seems like an awesome solution.

Response 1: Thank you for valuable feedback. From the changes in the life and growth of some subtropical animals and plants in the Yellow River Basin during the Qin and Han dynasties, it can be seen that the number and area of rhinoceroses, bamboo, and citrus have all decreased, indicating that the overall environmental climate has been developing towards dryness and coldness since the late Western Han Dynasty.

 

Comments 2: A small critique, but I think it is important. The authors use the term "reliques" (probably as something old) when they mention archaeological material or evidence. However, that particular term is used for items with ceremonial or religious value. I suggest changing it to simple "archaeological evidence, material, or remains".

Response 2: Thank you for valuable feedback. We have changed the term "reliques" to archaeological "remains", which will be more in line with the meaning expressed in the original text.

 

Comments 3: Figures: no problem there. However, it could be interesting to use the regional maps to show the environmental change through time in the area.

Response 3: Thank you for valuable feedback. We have adjusted the clarity of Figure 5 and added a schematic diagram of each diversion of the Yellow River. This more clearly demonstrates the changes of the Yellow River in the study area within the research time frame.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have sufficiently addressed my points. Accept.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English is satisfactory in terms of clarity and readability. However, the manuscript requires further improvement to meet the standards of academic writing, particularly in the use of terminology and stylistic precision. In several places, the language is overly descriptive or informal, lacking the rigor expected in scholarly work. For example:

• “...proposing to do a good job in the protection and utilization of significant sites, to make the heritage displayed on the vast land ‘come alive,’ improve the level of display and utilization, and tell the story of Chinese characteristic sites well.”
• “The selection of settlement sites presents a dual feature of practicality and ritual, which not only meets basic survival needs but also constructs spatial order and internal functional zoning through symbolic astronomical directions.”
• Ecological wisdom refers to the wisdom derived from ecological practice and serving ecological practices, including ecological research, planning, design, construction, and management.

These passages illustrate how the manuscript sometimes relies on descriptive phrasing or circular definitions rather than precise, analytical academic language.

Prior to acceptance, the authors are encouraged to revise all such sections to adopt a more formal, concise, and academically appropriate style. To ensure consistency and quality throughout the manuscript, they may also wish to seek assistance from a professional academic editor or a fluent English speaker with experience in scholarly writing.