Response to Referee 2 Comments

Dados Bibliográficos

ID7433451
AutoresMichael O Asare (0000-0002-0008-1459, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, autor correspondente)
Ano2020
Data de publicação2020-11-09
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoPREPRINT
EditoraCopernicus GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.5194/soil-2020-51-ac3
OpenAlexW4246630271
IdiomaEN
Referências citadas25

This manuscript sets out to present a review of anthropogenic dark earths in a global perspective.It aims to make generalisations about an archaeological phenomenon, and summarize different dark earths' evolution, distribution, physico-chemical properties, as well as to propose further directions for future research.The presentation and language of the paper are good, however, the remaining two principal review criteria have not been attained.The scientific quality in particular is severely lacking.While the basic premise of this manuscript could be promising if executed in a systematic manner that takes all the existing archaeological and pedological information into C1 SOILD Interactive commentPrinter-friendly version Discussion paper consideration, this is unfortunately not the case.The literature review on which this paper is based is in its own right insufficient to such a degree that it would have to be completely re-executed in order to be of acceptable quality.It contains considerable omissions and errors, meaning that its acceptance for publication would be misleading and pose a risk for subsequent scholarship, as researchers unfamiliar with this topic would be considerably misinformed.Thus, I am afraid I must advise to reject this manuscript.Several key concepts in dark earth studies are omitted or misrepresented, and the manuscript contains significant scientific errors.The authors have failed to engage with the large, existing body of literature, and misrepresent some of the cited data.Concerning European Dark Earths, most of what is written is either based on outdated information, cites authors incorrectly, or is factually incorrect.Important sites have been disregarded.In the case of Europe, only three (!) sites are used for the discussion, while well over 40 can easily be found in published work, not including excavation reports or grey literature.This is partly true for the Amazonian dark earths as well, for instance, recent work on Belize is disregarded.Finally, the sites' evolution nor distribution is correctly represented.Anecdotal evidence is used to justify incorrect blanket statements.In addition, for several of the archaeological cases, descriptions are confused with interpretation.The term "dark earth" has for the past ten years been used as a descriptive rather than interpretative term, and the statement that "All types of ADE developed as a result of deliberate and/or unintentional deposition of domestic/occupational wastes, charred residues, bones, shells, and biomass ashes from prehistoric up to recent times" is extremely problematic and misleading.For European dark earths in particular, it is well established that many different types of activities, in combination with post-depositional processes, can lead to the formation of dark earths.The ever-growing body of scholarship explicitly contradicts the statement that dark earths are the result of a uniform set of depositional and post-depositional processes, and instead demonstrates that every dark earth must be studied individually to capture their high degree of variability, within their specific archaeological and societal context.As such, it is nonsensical to attempt to establish one set, or even C2 Origin, distribution, and characteristics of Archaeological black earth soils

Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory · Archaeology and ancient environmental studies · Computer Science · Pleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology