From Conquests to Epidemics in 18th-Century South America: A Reflection on Social Resilience and Reconstruction: Review of the Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A study of epidemics in the Americas has to start with a critical analysis of the sources. How do we know that a specific epidemic took place? what was the nature of the epidemic? what was its population impact? Without this preliminary information and a clear timeline of events, the discussion of the impact of epidemics on colonial policy is speculative and of little interest.

The text does not fit into an IMRD article structure. There are many historical digressions that will confuse the readers unfamiliar with the specificity of the Spanish colonial history. There are also many repetitions of almost identical sentences.

The discussion of the plague of Marseilles of 1720-22 is confusing. The authors seem to suggest that there were plagues epidemics in Spain later in the 18th c, which is contrary to common knowledge and should be clearly documented. Hence the need for a timeline with the discussed events, maybe as a table or a box.

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A study of epidemics in the Americas has to start with a critical analysis of the sources. How do we know that a specific epidemic took place? what was the nature of the epidemic? what was its population impact? Without this preliminary information and a clear timeline of events, the discussion of the impact of epidemics on colonial policy is speculative and of little interest.

Response: Thank you for this valuable observation. I have revised the introduction to include a comprehensive critical analysis of the sources and clarified the timeline of the 1742-1743 epidemic. These revisions now provide a detailed account of how the epidemic was documented, what historical records corroborate its occurrence, the specific nature of the disease (Yersinia pestis), and its demographic and socio-political impacts. By incorporating these foundational elements, the discussion on the epidemic's influence on colonial policy is now firmly anchored in the historical context, making it more relevant and informative.

The text does not fit into an IMRD article structure. There are many historical digressions that will confuse the readers unfamiliar with the specificity of the Spanish colonial history. There are also many repetitions of almost identical sentences.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. The manuscript has been revised to streamline the historical narrative, reducing unnecessary digressions and avoiding repetition. The introduction and methodology sections have been refined to ensure clarity, conciseness, and focus, ensuring relevance to the broader context of epidemics and resilience in South America. Additionally, efforts were made to align the structure more closely with the IMRD format while still maintaining the narrative nature of the review. This provides a more coherent and accessible read for those unfamiliar with the intricacies of Spanish colonial history.

The discussion of the plague of Marseilles of 1720-22 is confusing. The authors seem to suggest that there were plagues epidemics in Spain later in the 18th c, which is contrary to common knowledge and should be clearly documented. Hence the need for a timeline with the discussed events, maybe as a table or a box.

Response: Thank you for this observation. I have clarified the distinction between the plague of Marseilles (1720-22) and the 1742-1743 epidemic along the Royal Road in South America. Additionally, I have included a table (Table 1) summarizing the timeline of key epidemic events and responses in 18th-century South America. This table helps provide clear documentation of the events discussed in the manuscript, eliminating any confusion regarding the historical timeline.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this manuscript with an interest. However, I have several concerns:

1. I do not agree that this is an article, i.e., an original study. This is a review, specifically a narrative review. Therefore, I suggest that the authors reconsider the manuscript type and its structure. The "Methods" section does not describe the study methodology. Instead, it reads as another subsection of a review, like all other subsections. A narrative review does not need to be divided into the same subsections as an original article, scoping review, or systematic review, such as methods, results, and discussion. It can be structured more freely, with the logical flow of available material guiding different subsections.

2. Although the study design of this manuscript best fits a narrative review, it would benefit from some systematization. I suggest adding a table that lists the social reconstruction strategies implemented by colonial authorities, summarizing the main aspects. Additionally, this manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a figure, such as a plague map.

Overall, this is an interesting manuscript that could be appreciated by readers interested in the history of epidemiology.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read this manuscript with an interest. However, I have several concerns:

1. I do not agree that this is an article, i.e., an original study. This is a review, specifically a narrative review. Therefore, I suggest that the authors reconsider the manuscript type and its structure. The "Methods" section does not describe the study methodology. Instead, it reads as another subsection of a review, like all other subsections. A narrative review does not need to be divided into the same subsections as an original article, scoping review, or systematic review, such as methods, results, and discussion. It can be structured more freely, with the logical flow of available material guiding different subsections.

Response: Thank you for your insightful feedback. I agree with your suggestion to reclassify the manuscript as a narrative review. Accordingly, I have restructured the manuscript to align with the narrative review format. The "Methods" section has been revised, simplifying the description of the literature analysis process and following a more flexible structure that enhances the logical flow of the material. I believe these changes have improved the clarity and appropriateness of the manuscript's structure, making it more suitable for a narrative review.

2. Although the study design of this manuscript best fits a narrative review, it would benefit from some systematization. I suggest adding a table that lists the social reconstruction strategies implemented by colonial authorities, summarizing the main aspects. Additionally, this manuscript would benefit from the inclusion of a figure, such as a plague map.

Response: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. In response, I have included a table that summarizes the social reconstruction strategies implemented by colonial authorities in response to the 1742-1743 plague. This table highlights key public health measures, administrative reforms, and community initiatives, providing a systematic overview of the responses discussed in the manuscript. Additionally, I have included a map showing the geographic spread of the 1742-1743 plague along the Royal Road between Buenos Aires and Lima. This visual representation complements the discussion in the manuscript and offers readers a clearer understanding of the spatial context of the epidemic.

Overall, this is an interesting manuscript that could be appreciated by readers interested in the history of epidemiology.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. I am glad to hear that you found the manuscript interesting and believe it will appeal to readers with an interest in the history of epidemiology. I have carefully addressed the concerns raised by the reviewers, refining the manuscript to improve clarity and coherence. The additions of a critical analysis of sources, a clear timeline of epidemic events, and a more systematic approach to social reconstruction strategies have enhanced the historical narrative. I hope these revisions will provide further value to readers in understanding the intersection of epidemiology, colonial governance, and resilience in 18th-century South America.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper does not provide accessible evidence of a significant plague outbreak along the Camino Real between Buenos Aires and Lima during the specific period of 1742-1743.

I haven't found any record of even a plague epidemic in South America after the 1720s using several search engines, including ChatGPT.

Author Response

The paper does not provide accessible evidence of a significant plague outbreak along the Camino Real between Buenos Aires and Lima during the specific period of 1742-1743.

I haven't found any record of even a plague epidemic in South America after the 1720s using several search engines, including ChatGPT.

Response: 

Thank you for your comments and for identifying critical areas for clarification. The primary objective of this paper remains the examination of the social and demographic resilience of populations affected by the epidemic along the Camino Real between Buenos Aires and Lima during 1742-1743, rather than conducting a detailed epidemiological attribution to Yersinia pestis.

While the specific causative agent remains uncertain, our approach relies on historical records documenting the significant demographic consequences of an epidemic in the region. As referenced in previous studies, such as Frias et al. (2017) and Ruiz (2001), there is historical documentation of recurrent epidemics in South America during this period, underscoring the severity and reach of the 1742-1743 outbreak. This is substantiated by accounts in Buenos Aires and other areas, describing both the scale of the impact and the social responses, indicating a substantial crisis affecting multiple communities along the Camino Real.

To further clarify the demographic impact, we present data from Córdoba that reflects an over 300% increase in mortality during the 1742-1743 epidemic period compared to pre- and post-epidemic phases, as illustrated in Table 1 below. These mortality figures are based on our ongoing research and are provided here as an example to contextualize the epidemic's extensive impact, which is central to understanding resilience dynamics within these communities.

Table 1. Comparative Mortality Rates During the 1742-1743 Epidemic in Córdoba

Month	Pre-Epidemic (1740/1)	Epidemic (1742/3)	Post-Epidemic (1744/5)
January	10	29	13
February	7	18	12
March	4	18	15
April	5	46	8
May	4	48	9
June	7	33	10
July	10	21	14
August	9	41	9
September	11	31	12
October	12	38	15
November	22	34	6
December	20	23	14
Total	121	380	127

Additionally, we have revised the figures to better align with the historical narrative. The plague cycle diagram (previously Figure 2, now removed) has been replaced with a clearer illustration detailing the regional progression of the epidemic's social and demographic effects.

Lastly, regarding the historical response to the epidemic, institutional records from Santa Fe provide insight into community actions. For example, the city council mandated a novena to San Jerónimo in November 1741, hoping for relief from "plague, drought, and common needs," and again in January 1742, dedicating prayers to San Roque. These religious observances, reflecting communal hope and cohesion, serve as important examples of the adaptive strategies employed during this crisis.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

My congratulations on an excellent job! I have only one question for you: Is the map that you included in your review copyright-protected? As you know, for publicly available images to be included in your manuscript, you need to ensure that the images are either in the public domain, licensed for reuse, or you have obtained permission from the copyright holder. Proper attribution and compliance with any specific licensing terms are required to avoid copyright infringement. Therefore, as an alternative, you might consider creating a map yourself.

Author Response

My congratulations on an excellent job! I have only one question for you: Is the map that you included in your review copyright-protected? As you know, for publicly available images to be included in your manuscript, you need to ensure that the images are either in the public domain, licensed for reuse, or you have obtained permission from the copyright holder. Proper attribution and compliance with any specific licensing terms are required to avoid copyright infringement. Therefore, as an alternative, you might consider creating a map yourself.

Response: Thank you for your positive feedback. The original map was sourced from the public domain via PARES (Portal de Archivos Españoles) and properly attributed in the manuscript. However, we have now included a newly created map to further enhance the clarity and originality of the work.