Between Land and Sky—A Study of the Orientation of Roman Centuriations in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. It is felt that in the conclusion section, the authors could have engaged more extensively with prior literature. As it now stands, the discussion and conclusion part remains very thin.

2. In conceptualizing the study design, the notion of centuriations was very weakly operationalized (in fact very inadequately discussed in the literature review). This should be further established in the conceptual part of the research.

3. What are the implications and limitations of this research? 

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

We have tried to improve the manuscript by considering your suggestions.

In particular, we added more references, mainly in the introduction and discussion in order to better conceptualize the research and show the relevance of the results more clearly.

Regarding point 3 (limitations and implications), one of the main implications of this work, that is expressed in the text, is that this is an analysis of the biggest sample of this kind of data studied within the same region of the Roman Empire. In consequence, these results  may apport an innovative perspective to the topic of the design of the Roman rural landscapes by which the use of preferred directions that, sometimes, could involve astronomical elements, should not be fully dismissed.

Of course, this study have various limitations. On the one hand, for various logistic and strategic reasons, the data could not be compared with measurements made in situ.  Fieldwork would have been tremendously interesting in order to confirm the accuracy of some of the values obtained remotely and because many other interesting features on the landscape can be identified when you are on the terrain.

On the other hand, not all the centuriations included in the sample are as well studied and documented as desiderable. In consequence, there is a lack of specific information for various of the divisions included in this work, like data about the periods of foundation, and even visual material remains to do the measurements in some cases.

However, this statistical study is a first approach that allows the identification of particular patterns and it is the starting point for future and more detailed analyses, that could be carried out in particular regions or for centuriations created during the same historical proccesses.

We hope to have responded to your requirements and improved the previous manuscript. Thank you very much. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

Congratulations for the work done.

Results of the paper are really interesting. I would like to highlight the quality of the scientific structure of the paper as well as the multidisciplinary methodology implemented to develop the research.

No objection to summit the paper in the current version. 

Regards

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

We are happy that you liked the paper, which took us great effort in the last years, and we hope it would be useful and of interest  for other colleagues.

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the role of astronomy in architecture and planning is a delicate one, but the authors have managed to deal with it in a balanced manner, also pointing out the limits of the research and possible integrations with a more qualitative approach to the study of the territory.

To make the discussion and its hypotheses even more convincing, it would be interesting to also give voice to the historiographical positions that oppose astronomical theories (perhaps, above all, applied to themes of architecture, rather than topography), in order to give a broad panorama of positions, allowing the rigour of the study proposed here to affirm its own "lay" approach with respect to ideological drifts.

With respect to the content, I have no competence to evaluate the strictly physical aspects, but the historical-territorial part seems to me well argued.

Only one question of relevant method: why were only 80% of the cases listed studied (line 91)? with what selection criteria (why start from a very dated text like Settis 1986?)? why are the important centuriations of the north-western regions (IX and XI regiones) excluded, despite a rich bibliography? was a historical geopolitical criterion adopted? I think the choice must be justified. In fact, I think it is necessary to give adequate reasons for it.

With respect to the lexicon, I am perplexed by the use of the term 'state' (line 28 and alibi) and the term 'cadastres' (line 130), which refers to fiscal, not topographical activities.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. We have tried to incorporated in the text the different aspects commented.

-Regarding the bibliography against the astronomical theories, it is true that, even though some works were already mentioned, these positions needed to be explained in more detail. We have expanded this section by commenting some of the works that dismissed the role of astronomy in the creation of Roman landscapes.

• Regarding the sample, we used Settis (1986) as the starting point since it encompasses a long list of centuriations for many areas of the Empire and, particularly, Italy. However, we are concious that in the last years several research has been done so we have tried to find as many centuriations as possible in more recent bibliography and include them in the dataset.
• Once we had a list of centuriations accounted in ancient texts and recent bibliography, the next step was to identify the grids on the ground in order to measure their orientation.

Unfortunately, not all the centuriations mentioned or studied are currently visible in the satellite imagery and sometimes there are not evidences enough to ensure that the divisions observed are Roman and not later layouts. This has limited the number of the centuriations that we could either measure or  include in the sample, even though some of them have been previously studied.

However, our aim is to enlarge the sample progressively incorporating as many released data as possible.

About the lexicon, we appreciate the correction.

We hope to have improved the previous manuscript and fulfilled your suggestions.

Thank you very much.