The manuscript titled "Remote Sensing and Archaeological Survey of Umm ar‐Rasas, Jordan" presents a multi-source geospatial investigation that integrates satellite remote sensing, aerial legacy data, and modern surveying techniques for the identification of the historical topography and construction phases of the fortress and the documentation of several archaeological and ethnographical remains within the study area.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written. It outlines the historical and archaeological significance of the Limes Arabicus and highlights the importance of combining remote sensing data with on-the-ground surveys and field validation. Therefore, I recommend the PCI preprint for further steps in the publication process. However, there are some minor aspects in the text that the authors might address in order to improve the appearance and impact of the final published manuscript.

First, the abstract seems too long (851 words). A short and less detailed abstract would help its lecture. For example, the second paragraph could be moved entirely to the introduction section, which is relatively short and currently only focuses on the site's geographic context, or the following state-of-the-art section.

Secondly, several aerial and satellite historical photographs are used (e.g., Stein archive, Corona, Hegaxon). The acquisition years are indicated in the text, but the complete date of acquisition (e.g., DD-MM-YYYY) is only shown in figures captions or through the text. Perhaps the authors could provide a table with all source and acquisition dates. Such information might be relevant to understand better traditional or long-term land use patterns and seasonal observations that might change from one season to another. This is critical for interpreting the two high-res Pleiades scenes acquired in 2020 and 2022. Perhaps the authors could expand their satellite-based observations with climate or precipitation records for the observed seasons. For example, in line 257 it is mentioned that soils are not excessively dry in October. However, a seasonal or yearly comparison with temperature and precipitation trends in the study area could reinforce this interpretation.    

In addition, several archaeological observations are made through visual photointerpretation across the landscape, but little is known about their potential chronological period, such as the irrigated fields, canals, or quarries built in and around the fortress. I wonder whether the authors can expand or elaborate further on the potential long-term use of such structures, as several of those might be linked to the traditional ecological knowledge of the inhabitants till very recent times.

Besides some small comments and typos (see below); I wonder whether the section in line 308 about using laser scanners would better fit under the methods sections to allow for a more comprehensive view of integrating different spatial tools and instruments.

Small comments:

Line 194: "A satellite image is a matrix of numerous pixels, and the value of each is related to the solar energy."; while this statement is generally correct, perhaps the authors could emphasize using multi-spectral optical satellite imagery to differ from other types of satellite acquisition (e.g., from active sensors).

Line 218: an extra “(“ should be removed for better readability of the Pleiades sensor and image properties.

Line 186: image processing was carried out using "specific software". Perhaps the authors could provide a detailed list of the software/tools/versions they used for such analysis. Only ENVI 4.7 is mentioned later in the text (line 235).

Fig.1 -> Figure caption could also indicate the origin of the base maps (e.g., Google or Bing?) and the source of the panchromatic image in b). The same comment applies to Fig. 11.

The article deals with the application of remote sensing and photogrammetry methods to the study of the settlement and fort at Umm er-Rasas. The Italian team utilizes state-of-the art methods incorporating both historical and modern satellite imagery, including recently de-classified Hexagon mission. The presentation of methods and results in the first half of the article is made very clear and is well described with sufficient accompanying figures. However, I have some remarks regarding the overall structure of the paper and its aims.

The abstract is too long. Many things are repeated in the introduction (such as history of research) or in the presentation of the methods (such as technical details). I believe that the paper was present at CAA 2023 and the abstract is likely the long abstract submitted to the conference call for papers. If the article is indeed intended for the conference proceedings, then the long abstract might be probably retained? Otherwise, it needs to be significantly reduced and be more concise.

In the introduction I miss very clear and explicit statement regarding the aims and goals of the performed analyses in the context of the project, and especially with its new focus on the fort and the civilian settlement. Overall, what are the intentions of authors with this paper? This problem is again reflected in the discussion which is only very brief and rather presents only plans for the future. If this is supposed to be read as a methodology paper, I am lacking a discussion of the contributions and limitations of the methods employed. If this is supposed to be read as an archaeological-historical paper, I am lacking a thorough discussion focusing on the new findings and how it changes our understanding of the site.

The ‘methods and tools’ and ‘results’ sections are not structured well. The ‘methods’ section is wholly dedicated to the remotely sensed satellite data and their results. Whereas ‘results’ section only very briefly touches on the analysis of the remotely sensed data and then describes methods of laser scanning and photogrammetry survey that were applied. I would suggest to clearly split the methods, the results, and the discussion.

Authors admit that they were not able to present the full results of the photogrammetric survey due to issues with permits from the Department of Antiquities, and so I understand not much can be discussed there. I leave it to the discretion of the authors whether to include the photogrammetric survey in the article, if it cannot be fully presented and discussed. The possible identification of an early fort would deserve a proper presentation and discussion.

I would suggest further English editing, there are couple of paragraphs where style can be improved, but it is not critical.

In my opinion, the work demonstrates a high level of methodological rigour.

Please see remarks below and minor comments in the pdf attached

Abstract

The abstract is extensive and thorough regarding the discussed topics, yet lacks conciseness.
I recommend summarising it.

Introduction

The introduction presents the archaeological area being studied and the current research state objectively. While the abstract and article provide clear reasons for the research and its issues, I recommend briefly summarising the research objectives in bullet points for clarity and conciseness.

Materials and methods

The methods, materials and tools used in the research are explained in detail in this section of the article.

Results

There is consistency between the remote sensing data analysed and the data verified in the field. The authors include in the results section all the research carried out in the field, including the use of photogrammetry and laser scanning to survey the castrum, which I consider to be consistent with the logical thread of the article.

Tables and figures

The figures are clear and the captions are accurate.

Discussion

The findings are thus adequately supported by the results, and the discourse takes full account of current and previous research. I look forward to the results of the forthcoming geophysical survey.

References

The references are more than appropriate