Water as a Problem and a Solution in Arid Landscapes: Resilient Practices and Adapted Land Use in the Eastern Marmarica (NW-Egypt) between the 2nd Millennium BCE and the 1st Millennium CE

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Although I am generally working in the areas with excess water supply, the drylands are very interesting to me. Many thanks for providing such interesting and comprehensive information on this, it was a pleasure to read the article. I believe it will be interesting for the readers as it contains good analyses of the study area and data. As I am not English speaking person I can not qualify the language in full, anyway, it is good in my understanding although some improvements are always possible and will be done on the copy-editing stage. In my opinion, this is a good work which deserves to be published.

Author Response

Many thanks for this review. No detailed response required to this overall positive review.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is an interesting article about an exciting region. The research methods, starting points and results are clearly presented. It is instructive and attractive illustrated. On the whole, the article can be published as it stands. Some minor notes:

- the article has numerous spelling mistakes, a very careful proofreading is necessary (p. 7 "modern the concept", p. 9 twice "distinguished", p. 12 "water availability was available", "thea valleys", p. 13 "Maramrica", p. 24 "cister", p. 26 "thy new" (for they knew?), p. 27 "stratgies" etc.

- the palaeoenvironmental history of the region, which is very central to the research topic, is dealt with relatively briefly (it had been allegedly more or less like today during the period under consideration) and only explained by reference to some literature. As far as I know, there have been strong changes in environmental conditions in North Africa over the last millennia; if this was not the case in the Marmarica, it should be explained in more detail and overall, if possible, the environmental and ecological development of the region should be described in more detail; he lack of own environmental historical studies (p. 12) is apparently a deficit of the project on which the essay is based.

- In contrast I find the introduction to the resilience and landscape concept a bit too detailed, especially as it is used to highlight aspects that are partly rather self-evident: One does not really need this whole concepts to understand the unsurprising way of life of the people in a difficult arid region, which in the prehistoric and early historic Marmarica differ little from other strategies in other times and comparable spaces - with water engineering measures, cisterns, good knowledge of water and soil conditions, water-related mobility, great emphasis on nomadic and semi-nomadic ways of economy and life.

- Fig. 3 - Brief dating of the archaeological features shown would be good.

- The author covers the region from the Bronze to the Byzantine period. Instead of "Bronze and Iron Age" in the title, I would recommend mentioning the Byzantine period in the title as well, since Iron Age is a very general term.

- If I am right informed the author's research was largely financed by the German Research Foundation. If this is the case, it should be mentioned in the text.

Figure 5: The amount of rainfall from Marsa Matruh is related here to an Israeli location. It should be explained why this particular place is suitable for comparison.

Fig. 7: Here an exact naming of the places shown is missing.

Fig. 13 obviously shows a cistern, but the description does not name it and should therefore be more specific.

P. 27 and following: Surely the severe crisis phenomena of the 5th-7th centuries coincide with the time when the Marmarica became the object of Arab or Islamic expansion and Byzantine rule first became weaker and then collapsed. Why is this reference not made, or was there no connection to the political and military events here? Instead, climatic reasons etc. are mentioned, although supposedly (see above) no major climatic changes could be observed in the region (p. 27: "climatic changes, decrease in productivity, as well as shifts in the economic net-work of the Mediterranean and Eastern North Africa may have led to the general change in the social arid landscape of the Eastern Marmarica"). If indeed these less specific factors were responsible for the crisis and not military events and the Islamic expansion, it should be explained in detail and well justified.

Author Response

Many thanks for this review which raises very imported points to be improved. Here my responses to the points the reviewer made (in brackets and in italics after my response).

- The mentioned flaws in spelling and wording are corrected (f.e. p. 7 "modern the concept", p. 9 twice "distinguished", p. 12 "water availability was available", "thea valleys", p. 13 "Maramrica", p. 24 "cister", p. 26 "thy new" (for they knew?), p. 27 "stratgies" etc.)

- the palaeoenvironmental history of the region, which is very central to the research topic, is dealt with relatively briefly (it had been allegedly more or less like today during the period under consideration) and only explained by reference to some literature. As far as I know, there have been strong changes in environmental conditions in North Africa over the last millennia; if this was not the case in the Marmarica, it should be explained in more detail and overall, if possible, the environmental and ecological development of the region should be described in more detail; he lack of own environmental historical studies (p. 12) is apparently a deficit of the project on which the essay is based.

- This is difficult to reply to. We see absolutely the point that arid environment bring forward similar ways of life and adaptation. We could (and did) descibe them withou the concept of resilience. However, resilience allows for integrating the social organisation and the econological environment XXXXX (In contrast I find the introduction to the resilience and landscape concept a bit too detailed, especially as it is used to highlight aspects that are partly rather self-evident: One does not really need this whole concepts to understand the unsurprising way of life of the people in a difficult arid region, which in the prehistoric and early historic Marmarica differ little from other strategies in other times and comparable spaces - with water engineering measures, cisterns, good knowledge of water and soil conditions, water-related mobility, great emphasis on nomadic and semi-nomadic ways of economy and life).

- the dating of the features is added (Fig. 3 - Brief dating of the archaeological features shown would be good)

- I changed the time frame not using the terms Bronze Age and Iron Age any more. I chose now "the 2^nd millenium BCE to the 1^st millenium CE". In the text such periodisation features only where it is specifically on periods such as Bronze Age or Byzantine time. (The author covers the region from the Bronze to the Byzantine period. Instead of "Bronze and Iron Age" in the title, I would recommend mentioning the Byzantine period in the title as well, since Iron Age is a very general term).

- I mentioned this in the submission mask of mdpi, where it is about financiation and acknowledgements. I think this will be publised in the final copy-edited version. (If I am right informed the author's research was largely financed by the German Research Foundation. If this is the case, it should be mentioned in the text).

- We chose Sde Boqer as (Figure 5: The amount of rainfall from Marsa Matruh is related here to an Israeli location. It should be explained why this particular place is suitable for comparison).

- added (Fig. 7: Here an exact naming of the places shown is missing).

Fig. 13 obviously shows a cistern, but the description does not name it and should therefore be more specific.

- many thanks for rising this point, where we were were too short in explaining our view on the changes and their reasons. (P. 27 and following: Surely the severe crisis phenomena of the 5th-7th centuries coincide with the time when the Marmarica became the object of Arab or Islamic expansion and Byzantine rule first became weaker and then collapsed. Why is this reference not made, or was there no connection to the political and military events here? Instead, climatic reasons etc. are mentioned, although supposedly (see above) no major climatic changes could be observed in the region (p. 27: "climatic changes, decrease in productivity, as well as shifts in the economic net-work of the Mediterranean and Eastern North Africa may have led to the general change in the social arid landscape of the Eastern Marmarica"). If indeed these less specific factors were responsible for the crisis and not military events and the Islamic expansion, it should be explained in detail and well justified.)

Reviewer 3 Report

I love the article. Was interesting to see techniques and models to make the desert environment livable from that side of the world similar to those used by the prehispanic communities from the North West Mexico / southwestern USA (my research area). I am NOT saying there was a cultural connection just those human communities sometimes find similar ways to make the best of the environment they chose to live. Piles of rocks to grow grapes vs piles of rocks to grow agaves (for example). 

I like the methodology of analysis of the four concepts (although I only count 3); events, practices, and knowledge.  Anyway, at the conclusions the authors mention to ways of life, more nomadic on the costal, vs more sedentary (agriculturalist) of the mountains. Was not clear to me if they are talking about the same group, living and using two different environments or if they were actually two different communities. The interesting thing is that similar strategies are in place in this part of the world; the Raramuri Indians from the Sierra Madre in Mexico live in the valleys in the winter with the animals and in the hills in the summer were they have the agricultural fields.

 

My only comment is to homogenize the type and size of the fonts in the text.

Author Response

Many thanks for this positive review and the interesting parallels the reviewer sees to the arid Mexican/US regions. Especially the piles of stones for growing agaves is a good comparison of "lithic mulching" in arid environment. Thanks!

I( love the article. Was interesting to see techniques and models to make the desert environment livable from that side of the world similar to those used by the prehispanic communities from the North West Mexico / southwestern USA (my research area). I am NOT saying there was a cultural connection just those human communities sometimes find similar ways to make the best of the environment they chose to live. Piles of rocks to grow grapes vs piles of rocks to grow agaves (for example). )

- The number is corrected now and was a remainder of a fourth concept (assemblage) which made the argument too complicated and was cancelled. (I like the methodology of analysis of the four concepts (although I only count 3); events, practices, and knowledge.)

- Thank you for bringing this point up. This is a crucial argument - and actually re-reading what we wrote, we think it was already clear enough. We changed some lines in the last paragraphes after the last figure to make clear that it was not the one (more mobile) and the other group (more sedentary) living side by side, but shifting allocations of people to the one or the other way of living depending on the resources (precipitation and vegetation) (Anyway, at the conclusions the authors mention to ways of life, more nomadic on the costal, vs more sedentary (agriculturalist) of the mountains. Was not clear to me if they are talking about the same group, living and using two different environments or if they were actually two different communities.)

- thanks for these parallels (The interesting thing is that similar strategies are in place in this part of the world; the Raramuri Indians from the Sierra Madre in Mexico live in the valleys in the winter with the animals and in the hills in the summer were they have the agricultural fields)

- done (My only comment is to homogenize the type and size of the fonts in the text.)

Reviewer 4 Report

This has the potential to be a fascinating and valuable article. It offers a very interesting theoretical framework based round resilience and socio-ecological systems, and an analytical structure based on events, practices and knowledge. This drives some excellent discussion of mobility, patchiness, communities of practice, knowledge, and mixed strategies. There is clearly some very interesting data in the case study to support these arguments.

There are some significant problems in chronology and methodology, which don’t seem to do justice to the quality of the underlying data.

Chronology

The title, abstract and introduction are explicit that the article addresses the Bronze Age and Iron Age. This is glossed on p. 2, para 1 as 2nd millennium BCE to mid-1st millennium CE; but many readers (like me) will be confused by the inclusion of the Late Roman period into the Iron Age. It’s clear that most of the evidence discussed is Greco-Roman; neither the Discussion section (4) or Conclusion (5) engage with the (earlier) Iron Age and Bronze Age at all, and we’re told that the survey project focused on the Greco-Roman period (p. 9, para 5). Many examples and figures don’t explain what date the evidence is. This tends to give a rather static impression of this landscape over 2500 years.

Methodology

The discussion of methodology on p. 4, para 1 and p. 9, para 5 is very brief and general. How was the fieldwork carried out? How intensive was the geoarchaeological and archaeological survey? What were the boundaries of the survey area? How were excavation sites chosen, and how were they sampled? How representative are the examples of the wider data set? This leads to many problems in Section 3 where the evidential basis of the evidence (normally presented as single examples) is not clear, which weakens the argument significantly. It doesn’t help the reader to have confidence in the quality of the data when the text makes comments like ‘We could not do real paleoenvironmental analysis’ (p. 14, para 5), or ‘the hydrological and pedological characteristics of the mounds couldn’t be analysed’ (p. 17, para 2).

I found the expression and sentence structure awkward and often incorrect. In places this made it hard to follow the argument.

There were some excellent figures, but they need to be integrated into the text more closely, with enough information (e.g. chronological) so they support the argument explicitly.

Specific points

p. 6, para 1: only three categories are listed, not four. Also p. 9, para 2, and p. 21, para 1.

p. 6–7. This is an interesting and valuable discussion of resilience, though it’s rather hard to follow in places. As with much discussion of resilience, there is a slight uncertainty about how resilience can include both returning to the old state and transforming into a new one.

p. 13 and Fig. 7. What dates are these features? Are they all modern?

p. 13. Very interesting about modern soil depth related to ancient water harvesting structures; some sample maps or sections demonstrating this would be helpful.

p. 14, para 1. Remains of these bushes were found in an archaeological context: what period was this context? This might support the argument that the BA/IA climate was similar to today.

p. 14, para 3. Fig. 4 doesn’t show the Premarmarican Plain, nor depressions. Perhaps there could be a more detailed map showing some of this variation?

p. 15, Fig. 9. What date are these remains?

p. 15, para 2. The oldest installations dated to the second millennium BCE. How many were dated? How were the samples obtained? How representative are the dated ones of the entire data set? This could do with a couple of sentences in the Methodology section.

p. 15, para 2. What date are these ‘old’ cisterns?

p. 19. This discussion needs a map; most Land readers aren’t Egypt specialists.

p. 23, para 1. Very interesting reference to faunal remains, which was not mentioned in the previous section; what date are these?

Figures

Fig. 1. Very useful map; but some labels are too small. Would the isohyets be clearer if the lines were labelled, not the spaces inbetween?

Fig. 3. These are great photos, but too small to see any detail, and a bit difficult to keep track of them in the combined caption. Could they not be split into separate figures? Or perhaps choose fewer photos but make them larger?

Fig. 4 doesn’t show the relief very clearly, particularly the three scarps which are clearly important. The overland flow arrows aren’t very clear.

Figs. 10-11. Great images, but too small to see the detail, especially the plan in Figure 10. The captions really need to give dates, so these examples can be tied into the argument.

Fig. 12. This is great. The legend needs to be in English, and the map needs to be a bit bigger (i.e. full page width). More explanation in the text of the runoff coefficient would be helpful.

Fig. 13. Nice photo, but there is no explanation in the caption or the text of what the non-Greco-Roman remains are. Bir Helu isn’t mentioned elsewhere; presumably it’s a cistern.

Fig. 14: The caption isn’t clear on the date of these cisterns, and there is nothing about how they were found and recorded.

Fig. 21. The symbols for sites need to be bigger; what colour are the 6th century CE sites? What are the different symbol shapes? This needs a key.

Author Response

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the research design appropriate? Because of the many additions , changes and corrections I think the design is now better presented	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described? I added at passages pointed to some details about methodologies	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Many thanks for the suggestions for improvement, especially on chronology and methodology as well as on the figures

replies to the comments of the reviewer

chronology

I refrained from using the labels of periods and used more often the centuries/millennia.

I added at dates and time frames to all figures were required and in general much more on chronologies, hoping that any static impression of te landscape dissappeared from the manuscript.

methodology

- I see the points the reviewer makes. I changed the phrasing on methodological issues resp. limitations of the project  (now p. 8 and 12 in the plain text without images). However, I cannot in discuss the entire set-up and design of the project, since this contribution focusses on a very peculiar aspect - resilience. I added more references to published work from the project to offer more hard facts than only possibilty to trust

language

- English proof-reading is done now

figures
- figures are amended and captions more detailed, also in chronological regards. More cross-references are also integrated and captions more elaborate (esp. in chronological regards).

Specific points

1. - changed, it was a remainder of a fourth category (assemblage) which made the argument too complicated (6, para 1: only three categories are listed, not four. Also p. 9, para 2, and p. 21, para 1.)
2. - a sentence is added on how the stability and the transformation aspect of resilience are related (6–7. This is an interesting and valuable discussion of resilience, though it’s rather hard to follow in places. As with much discussion of resilience, there is a slight uncertainty about how resilience can include both returning to the old state and transforming into a new one.)
3. - dating added, even though some are neither archaeologically nor physically dated, but belong to wadi valley with many Roman settlements and pottery production workshops comparable to other valleys where we have dated wh-installations (Megid, Umm el Ashtan). Since these structures "grow" with the accumulation of sediment behind the wh-dam or -wall, they are ancient and partly modern as well in the upper zones (13 and Fig. 7. What dates are these features? Are they all modern?)
4. - I do not really understand what the reviewer means by "Sample map or section." I added fig. 11, in the hope that this is what was requested  (Very interesting about modern soil depth related to ancient water harvesting structures; some sample maps or sections demonstrating this would be helpful.)
5. - I added the dating, and strengthened the archaeobotanical findings as indices for the similarity of ancient and modern climatic conditions (14, para 1. Remains of these bushes were found in an archaeological context: what period was this context? This might support the argument that the BA/IA climate was similar to today.)
6. The scale of the map does not allow to show depressions of the size I am referring to. They do not play the key role in the argument so that I did not add image/map. (14, para 3. Fig. 4 doesn’t show the Premarmarican Plain, nor depressions. Perhaps there could be a more detailed map showing some of this variation?)
7. added (15, Fig. 9. What date are these remains?)
8. added (15, para 2. The oldest installations dated to the second millennium BCE. How many were dated? How were the samples obtained? How representative are the dated ones of the entire data set? This could do with a couple of sentences in the Methodology section.)
9. specified (15, para 2. What date are these ‘old’ cisterns?)
10. I think with now figs 20, 21 and 27 as well as Fig. 1 orienation is possible also for readers without a background in NE-Africa. (19 This discussion needs a map; most Land readers aren’t Egypt specialists.)
11. mentioned earlier (p. 9 plain text) (23, para 1. Very interesting reference to faunal remains, which was not mentioned in the previous section; what date are these?)

Figures

- changed as suggested Fig. 1. Very useful map; but some labels are too small. Would the isohyets be clearer if the lines were labelled, not the spaces inbetween?

- changed and split up Fig. 3. These are great photos, but too small to see any detail, and a bit difficult to keep track of them in the combined caption. Could they not be split into separate figures? Or perhaps choose fewer photos but make them larger?

- I think that the different colour show very well the two scarps and related plains of the region. The arrows of the overland flow are as they are, but generally pointing north Fig. 4 doesn’t show the relief very clearly, particularly the three scarps which are clearly important. The overland flow arrows aren’t very clear.

- changed and split up Figs. 10-11. Great images, but too small to see the detail, especially the plan in Figure 10. The captions really need to give dates, so these examples can be tied into the argument.

- changed, sentence on ccr added.  Fig. 12. This is great. The legend needs to be in English, and the map needs to be a bit bigger (i.e. full page width). More explanation in the text of the runoff coefficient would be helpful.

- changed Fig. 13. Nice photo, but there is no explanation in the caption or the text of what the non-Greco-Roman remains are. Bir Helu isn’t mentioned elsewhere; presumably it’s a cistern.

- changed Fig. 14: The caption isn’t clear on the date of these cisterns, and there is nothing about how they were found and recorded.

- changed Fig. 21. The symbols for sites need to be bigger; what colour are the 6th century CE sites? What are the different symbol shapes? This needs a key.

Reviewer 5 Report

Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised version of the manuscript (land-2311329) entitled (Water as problem and solution in an arid landscape: Resilient practices and adapted land use in the Bronze and Iron Age Marmarica (NW-Egypt)) by Anna-Katharina Rieger

The manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of the resilience and niche dwelling in the ancient Eastern Marmarica. The authors have taken a mixed-method approach to reconstructing the adaptive life-strategies and resilient practices of the Bronze to Iron Age inhabitants of the arid landscape. The concept of resilience is explored and applied to a past social landscape, which helps understand the strategies to cope with risks and stress.

 

The case study of the arid social landscape of the ancient Eastern Marmarica showed how the adapted life-strategies, sufficient for a subsistence but even a surplus economy, depended on the successful management of local resources and the adaptation to the uncertainties and variabilities in resource availability in the arid environment. The authors argue that survival and life in the arid landscape of the Eastern Marmarica meant dwelling in a niche, which this socio-ecological system represents, and depended mainly on the dynamics of water and soil availability.

The manuscript is well written and organized, and the authors have effectively used various types of evidence to support their arguments. The manuscript provides a useful contribution to the study of ancient landscapes and human-environment interactions in arid environments.

 

Minor comments

1-      Figure 1: Include the north direction and reference source of the map. Increase the resolution of the map.

2-      Figure 2: Remove the word (fig. 1.3) from figure 2 caption.

3-      Figure 3, 7, 8, 10, 11: Rearrange and adjust figures. Label each image and provide a description in the caption. Improve map resolution in figure 10.

4-      Page 6: Directly after ref. 22 you mentioned (To the purpose of the analysis of the material from the past social landscape of the Eastern Marmarica I will work along four categories that allow a connection of geo-archaeological and socio-archaeological data and approaches. These categories are events [23], practices [24], and knowledge [25] (see Fig. 2),) replace four categories to three categories ?????

5-      In many places throughout the text it is not necessary to mention the page no after the references. Just refer to the references. See end of page 4, pages 6, 7, …etc

6-      In Figure 4. Scale and north direction are important. Also replace the German words to English such as Hohe in m ….etc

7-      Page 27: In the second paragraph, refer to the exact figure in the parentheses, i.e., "fig. XXX."

8-      The manuscript would benefit from more discussion of the limitations of the study, particularly in relation to the use of (geo-)archaeological evidence.

9-      The author could also discuss the implications of her findings for contemporary societies living in arid environments, and how the past can inform present-day strategies for resilience and adaptation.

Overall, the manuscript is now well organized, and to the point. I think that the manuscript looks more suitable for an international audience. Therefore, I strongly recommend it be accepted after correcting the minor comments for publication in Land

 

Author Response

Many thanks for the comments and remarks!

Reply to the comments of the reviewer

1- Figure 1: map is improved, north direction is included. The map was drawn by the author.

2- Figure 2: The word "(fig. 1.3)" is the reference to the figure in the source. I decided to keep it.

3 - Figure 3, 7, 8, 10, 11: Images are rearranged or split and changed (they have now new numbers. Resolution in figure 10 (now 15) is improved.

4-  Page 6: Directly after ref. 22 you mentioned (To the purpose of the analysis of the material from the past social landscape of the Eastern Marmarica I will work along four categories that allow a connection of geo-archaeological and socio-archaeological data and approaches. These categories are events [23], practices [24], and knowledge [25] (see Fig. 2),) replace four categories to three categories ?????

This is changed (see other replies)

5-      In many places throughout the text it is not necessary to mention the page no after the references. Just refer to the references. See end of page 4, pages 6, 7, …etc

I kept the pages until the final check by the editors

6-      In Figure 4. Scale and north direction are important. Also replace the German words to English such as Hohe in m ….etc

changed

7-      Page 27: In the second paragraph, refer to the exact figure in the parentheses, i.e., "fig. XXX."

added

8-      The manuscript would benefit from more discussion of the limitations of the study, particularly in relation to the use of (geo-)archaeological evidence.

added such discussion at least in some passages (f.e. p. 3, 7 and 12 in the text without images)

9-      The author could also discuss the implications of her findings for contemporary societies living in arid environments, and how the past can inform present-day strategies for resilience and adaptation.

I did not add this issues, since this would open the field of technical supportive measure (but see references in p. 2, 8. 19), climate change etc. See also the references to Müller Mahn and Atorki and Cole p. 3)

 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The author has engaged with my suggestions carefully and fully, and this is a very interesting, well-argued and thought-provoking article.

The chronology is clearly and explicitly explained throughout; I found the chronological explanations and interpretative comments in the figures particularly helpful. One very small point: in the first sentence of Section 3.6 (p. 11), it might be helpful to add 'Graeco-Roman' to 'Bronze Age and Iron Age'.

The methodology is explained briefly at a couple of different points in Section 3; while it's rather thin on survey and field methodology, I understand the need to remain focused, and it works fine.

The changes to the figures all work very well, and these are excellent. The three maps (Figs. 1, 20, 21) are very clear, and will make it much easier for non-Egypt specialists to follow the argument.

The caption to Fig. 17 needs a bit of clarification of sentence structure in the second paragraph; and what does CCR actually stand for?