The Archeological Landscape of the Chanchán Basin and Its Agroecological Legacies for the Conservation of Montane Forests in the Western Foothills of the Ecuadorian Andes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a study of the agricultural systems of prehispanic societies in the Chanchan basin of Ecuador, combining archaeobotanical and ethnoarchaeological methods. The researchers conclude that agroecological techniques of intensification were endemic to prehispanic societies in this part of the Andes and not the result of later imperialism by the Inca empire. This manuscript presents an impressive amount of data but requires some improvements.

 

The primary changes necessary are structural – the introduction requires more theoretical grounding, especially related to terracing and agricultural intensification. Much of the authors’ argument hinges on assumptions about intensification that are never made explicit. The conclusions would be stronger if the authors included a fuller discussion of these theoretical areas. The introduction should also include a clear roadmap guiding the author through the rest of the text. This paper is long and data-rich, which requires a clearer structure for the reader.

 

Somewhere in the introductory section, the authors should also contextualize their research with previous macrobotanical studies in the Ecuadorian Andes. Furthermore, the methods should be discussed briefly in the introduction before they are described in more detail later in the methods section. The abstract provides a good framework for how I recommend structuring the introductory section.

 

The authors provide background information that I believe is not relevant to the rest of the paper. The discussion of ceramics, for example, seems unnecessary, or if it is, the authors should link the discussion of ceramics to the rest of the paper, rather than merely their importance in interpreting chronology.

 

In addition to the overall structure of the paper, the sections of the paper also need to be better organized, with conclusions and transitions to the following section. The reader is left confused at times about how one section fits with another. In addition, much of the paper reads like an archaeological report, with Munsell colors, horizon depths, and other information that I think is not relevant for this publication. Archaeological reports can be cited in the text for such details.

 

The text itself also seems at times to have been translated directly or literally from Spanish – especially apparent at line 506 where “y” was accidentally left in place of “and.” Although the English itself is well-written, the authors should be sure to revise the text closely, which will also improve the structure and flow of the paper.

 

I generally am not convinced by some of the authors’ conclusions related to terracing and intensification. Terracing certainly existed in the region before the Inca, but terracing does not always indicate agricultural intensification – this is a complex subject that again needs to be explored theoretically in more detail. Furthermore, suggesting that intensification evolved in a unilinear progression was surprising to me – such ideas were abandoned by archaeologists decades ago. Certainly other agricultural practices existed alongside terracing, whether through gardens, raised fields, or swidden practices? If the authors are to support this conclusion, they need to build a stronger argument based on the data. It’s possible I’m misunderstanding the argument, but the following contradictory quote from the article summarizes my confusion:

 

“Demonstrating that although extensive and intensive agriculture systems are different productive strategies instead of stages of an evolutionary sequence, the archaeological records show that the agriculturalization process of the pre-Hispanic archaeological landscape of the Chanchán basin followed a trajectory of unilinear progression, in which agriculture emerged extensively and then over time became increasingly intensive.”

 

The authors discuss several different macrobotanical remains throughout the paper, but most of the conclusion focuses only on Zea mays – likely because the authors are interested in intensification, but I would like to see more discussion of other types of crops in the conclusions.

 

Some minor issues I noticed:

 

The abstract is bit confusing towards the end, and the last sentence is not a complete sentence.

Line 121 – the date range given seems to me to be within the Early Archaic period rather than the Paleoindian period

The formatting of dates is inconsistent throughout the paper, 4 digit dates sometimes have a comma and sometimes do not – generally such dates should omit the comma, also in English AD usually falls before the year.

Hispanic is sometimes capitalized and sometimes not.

Line 377 – I am confused by the phrasing of “orthophotographic survey using lidar technology” – these are two different technologies, one involving georeferencing and rectifying photos taken with a passive sensor (camera) versus laser scanning with an active sensor (lidar).

 

In sum, this article demonstrates impressive work, but the conclusions need to do better justice to this research. I encourage the authors to build a clearer structure and narrative into the paper and to strengthen their argument with theoretical grounding.

Author Response

Estimado revisor 1:
Me gustaría agradecerle sus valiosos comentarios y sugerencias que me ayudaron mucho a mejorar nuevamente mi manuscrito. He hecho todo lo posible para tratarlos en consecuencia siempre que ha sido posible. Encuentre a continuación mis respuestas a sus comentarios punto por punto. Tenga en cuenta que los cambios realizados en el texto tienen como objetivo responder a todos los revisores. Enfatizando que todos los cambios sugeridos están resaltados en amarillo en el texto. ¡Gracias de nuevo!

Point 1: The primary changes necessary are structural – the introduction requires more theoretical grounding, especially related to terracing and agricultural intensification. Much of the authors’ argument hinges on assumptions about intensification that are never made explicit. The conclusions would be stronger if the authors included a fuller discussion of these theoretical areas. The introduction should also include a clear roadmap guiding the author through the rest of the text. This paper is long and data-rich, which requires a clearer structure for the reader.

Response 1: Information related to agricultural intensification and terracing has been incorporated into the introduction (pages 5-6).

Point 2: Somewhere in the introductory section, the authors should also contextualize their research with previous macrobotanical studies in the Ecuadorian Andes. Furthermore, the methods should be discussed briefly in the introduction before they are described in more detail later in the methods section. The abstract provides a good framework for how I recommend structuring the introductory section

Response 2: Information on archaeobotanical research in the Ecuadorian Andes has also been incorporated into the introduction (page 8). While the previous information on the archaeobotanical and ethnobotanical methods are evidenced at the end of page 3 and beginning of page 4.

Point 3: The authors provide background information that I believe is not relevant to the rest of the paper. The discussion of ceramics, for example, seems unnecessary, or if it is, the authors should link the discussion of ceramics to the rest of the paper, rather than merely their importance in interpreting chronology.

Response 3: Background information on ceramics from the Kañari culture has been removed. We have kept only the data of the phases and chronologies of the pre-Hispanic Kañaris occupations only to corroborate the archaeological data with the archaeobotanical ones (page 9). We have also kept the ceramic figure for the same mentioned purposes.

Point 4: In addition to the overall structure of the paper, the sections of the paper also need to be better organized, with conclusions and transitions to the following section. The reader is left confused at times about how one section fits with another. In addition, much of the paper reads like an archaeological report, with Munsell colors, horizon depths, and other information that I think is not relevant for this publication. Archaeological reports can be cited in the text for such details.

Response 4: The sections of the introduction have been better structured with transitions that allow connection to the next section. Also, additional information such as the color of the sediments has been removed. However, we have maintained data related to the type of soil and the depth of the sediment. This is because the diachronic and synchronous readings of the macrobotanical assemblages depend precisely on the contexts and sedimentary levels.

Point 5: The text itself also seems at times to have been translated directly or literally from Spanish – especially apparent at line 506 where “y” was accidentally left in place of “and.” Although the English itself is well-written, the authors should be sure to revise the text closely, which will also improve the structure and flow of the paper.

Response 5: The translation error has been corrected (pag.20). Programs such as "Grammarly" have also been used to check the spelling of the entire document.

Point 6:  I generally am not convinced by some of the authors’ conclusions related to terracing and intensification. Terracing certainly existed in the region before the Inca, but terracing does not always indicate agricultural intensification – this is a complex subject that again needs to be explored theoretically in more detail. Furthermore, suggesting that intensification evolved in a unilinear progression was surprising to me – such ideas were abandoned by archaeologists decades ago. Certainly other agricultural practices existed alongside terracing, whether through gardens, raised fields, or swidden practices? If the authors are to support this conclusion, they need to build a stronger argument based on the data. It’s possible I’m misunderstanding the argument, but the following contradictory quote from the article summarizes my confusion:

“Demonstrating that although extensive and intensive agriculture systems are different productive strategies instead of stages of an evolutionary sequence, the archaeological records show that the agriculturalization process of the pre-Hispanic archaeological landscape of the Chanchán basin followed a trajectory of unilinear progression, in which agriculture emerged extensively and then over time became increasingly intensive.”

Response 6:  Fixed the bug in the introduction. We agree with you, the idea is based on the "intensive progression of agriculture in the Chanchán basin" and not on a unilinear trajectory. Corrected the text on page 33.

Point 7: The authors discuss several different macrobotanical remains throughout the paper, but most of the conclusion focuses only on Zea mays – likely because the authors are interested in intensification, but I would like to see more discussion of other types of crops in the conclusions.

Response 7: Indeed, the discussions and conclusions are focused on Zea mays, because the botanical macroremains of this plant are the ones that present the most frequency and ubiquity within cultivated plants (especially for the Regional Development Period). However, in the discussions we mention two food species such as Phaseolus vulgaris and Lupinus mutabilis. Both of high cultural value for Andean societies (page 32)

Point 8: The abstract is bit confusing towards the end, and the last sentence is not a complete sentence.

Response 8:  The final part of the summary has been reviewed and the respective changes have been made (page 1).

Point 9: Line 121 – the date range given seems to me to be within the Early Archaic period rather than the Paleoindian period.

Response 9: The Paleoindian Period has been maintained because that is the reference used by the Institute of Cultural Heritage of Ecuador for the Andean region.

Point 10: The formatting of dates is inconsistent throughout the paper, 4 digit dates sometimes have a comma and sometimes do not – generally such dates should omit the comma, also in English AD usually falls before the year.

Response 10: The format of dates throughout the document has been corrected, without the use of commas or points.

Punto 11: Hispano a veces se escribe con mayúscula ya veces no.

Respuesta 11: Ha sido corregido en todo el documento y solo se usa prehispánico.

Punto 12: Línea 377: me confunde la redacción de "levantamiento ortofotográfico con tecnología lidar". Se trata de dos tecnologías diferentes, una que implica georreferenciación y rectificación de fotos tomadas con un sensor pasivo (cámara) versus escaneo láser con un sensor activo (lidar). ).

Respuesta 12: El texto ha sido corregido. Efectivamente ortofoto y lidar (página 16).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is structured in a comprehensible manner, written in an understandable way, and contains interesting insights into historical land management.

From my point of view, it only needs further elaboration on three points:
1) Dr concept of landscape is addressed several times. However, it remains little reflected. Especially in archeology, but also in geography, there has been extensive conceptual, theoretical work in recent decades, which has come to very differentiated results. In this respect, it needs to be clarified which understanding, whether a positivist or a social constructivist one, is being followed here.
2) I miss more detailed explanations of the climatic conditions and changes for the period in question. After all, there are clear influences on land use.
3) The conclusion unfortunately falls in its level compared to the rest of the manuscript. It rather resembles a simple summary. It would be useful to place one's own research in the current state of research, to reflect more strongly on one's own approach, and to formulate open questions. Not least, in order to increase the connectivity for other research and to give it the resonance it deserves.

Author Response

Estimado revisor 2,

Me gustaría agradecerle sus valiosos comentarios y sugerencias que me ayudaron mucho a mejorar nuevamente mi manuscrito. He hecho todo lo posible para tratarlos en consecuencia siempre que ha sido posible. Encuentre a continuación mis respuestas a sus comentarios punto por punto. Tenga en cuenta que los cambios realizados en el texto tenían como objetivo responder a todos los revisores. Enfatizando que todos los cambios sugeridos están resaltados en amarillo en el texto. ¡Gracias de nuevo!

Punto 1: El concepto de paisaje se aborda varias veces. Sin embargo, queda poco reflejado. Especialmente en arqueología, pero también en geografía, ha habido un extenso trabajo conceptual, teórico en las últimas décadas, que ha llegado a resultados muy diferenciados. En este sentido, es necesario aclarar qué comprensión se sigue aquí, si es positivista o constructivista social.

Response 1:  A theoretical section on landscape has been incorporated into the introduction to support the social constructivist landscape (page 4).

Point 2: I miss more detailed explanations of the climatic conditions and changes for the period in question. After all, there are clear influences on land use.

Response 2:  A section on paleoenvironmental and paleoclinatic records in the Western Andes of Ecuador has been added (pages 8-9).

Punto 3: Lamentablemente, la conclusión cae en su nivel en comparación con el resto del manuscrito. Más bien se parece a un simple resumen. Sería útil ubicar la propia investigación en el estado actual de la investigación, reflexionar con más fuerza sobre el propio enfoque y formular preguntas abiertas. No menos importante, para aumentar la conectividad para otras investigaciones y darle la resonancia que se merece.

Respuesta 3:  Las conclusiones han sido reformuladas en el marco de los legados agroecológicos recuperados en el paisaje de la cuenca de Chanchán (página 39).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx