Ship Graffiti in Horologion of Andronikos Kyrristos, Greece: A Comparative Study and New Evidence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper contributes to the production of extra new knowledge for an important monument and its continuous presence in Athens from antiquity until nowadays. The monument is also of cultural importance, additionally to the historical and astronomical.

The paper is well structured. However, the objectives and the goal(s) of the article are not clearly presented in the introduction, as well as its contribution to the scholarship. They are mentioned throughout the paper but they need to be summarized at the beginning.

In the Discussion it would be useful to mention the interpretation of the boats provided by the earlier publications of Kienast and Damianidis on the topic. Moreover, a mention to the different periods of the graffiti would be also useful. The interpretation of the ships as votive offerings needs further elaboration and argumentation.

As for the depiction of ships on ancient Greek vases it could be added also the

Münds 2017: R. Münds, “Archaische Schiffsdarstellungen auf attischen Vasen”, in H. Frielinghaus – T. Schmidts – V. Tsamakda (eds.) Schiffe und ihr Kontext. Darstellungen, Modelle, Bestandteile – von der Bronzezeit bis zum Ende des Byzantinischen Reiches, Internationales Kolloquium 24-25 Mai 2013, Mainz, Mainz, 39–49.

It would benefit the article to add an image of the monument itself in order to be more understandable the text.

A final check for typos etc. is needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitles “Ship graffiti in Horologion of Andronikos of Kyrros, Greece: A comparative study and new evidence.” by Evangelia Panou et al. describe an interesting case study.

Please, be constant in use or not of “H” in Kyrros. In some parts of the text, it is Kyrros, while in others is Khyrros.

Abstract

Review English. Special attention to Lines 12 – 20. The last sentence is not conclusive and should refer to the most relevant results.

Introduction

Lines 26 – 27: revisit, the use of adjectives is redundant

Materials and Methods, and Results 

Information about the processing method must be included.

Discussion

Are the sketches included in figures 2 – 4 the extracted near-infrared images or actual drawings made after processing the data? Do these figures contain images from this study or Damianidis’ study? The near-infrared images from the current study must be included in the figures, the visible light image, and the drawings. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of this interesting paper hgave applied the hyperspectral spectrometry technique, an imaging technique that allows to simultaneously acquire, through a non-contact scanning, high resolution images and the characteristic percentage reflectance spectra of the analyzed materials. The technique, which combines spectroscopy and digital imaging, was used for the first time in the particularly interesting case study of the described monument of which a complete description was provided.

The  presented work was conducted methodically and the details provided on the results achieved are presented following a clear format.

However, there remains an open question on the association with the topics of sustainability and sustainable development to which this journal is addressed.

In any case, the authors do not discuss in a sufficiently detailed manner the setup used (it would also help to have photographs), the capacity of the instrument, the roughness analyzed, the software used for the analysis and reconstruction.

Another interesting curiosity is the comments on the state of preservation of the blocks: the data relating to this are not well described.

Furthermore, for general scientific interest it is asked which documents can be compared or cited in comparison with the evidences shown.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I regret to inform you that I do not consider the paper worth to be published in the Sustainability Special Issue; the topic discussed in the paper is quite interesting, but I believe it can be valorized better in an archaeology journal or similar. It does not fit any of the topic introduced in the Special Issue presentation. Unfortunately the spectral data are not really leading the paper, on the contrary of what is announced in the abstract. The spectral data are very poor and they have been just presented without any discussion regarding them. On the contrary the discussion is only devoted to the description and implications due to the morphology of the vessels. No spectroscopic data corroborating some of the discussed assumptions are presented (XRF, Raman); on site microscopy images are absent, even if possibly very useful.

Some minor revisions are as follows:

 Line 26: is Khyrros written with the H? Sometime yes, sometime no along the text

Line 76-77 “Based on the Greek law concerning cultural heritage [26], everything that falls into the category of cultural heritage up to 1830 is called ancient, while from then on up to present is called modern”; take into consideration to remove the sentence. In fact its meaning is not functional to the text comprehension or to its development.

Add the available bibliography of Susanna Bracci and her group on the topic.

The image of the total monument, with a clear indication and description of the conservation condition of the surfaces investigated is missing; Figure 1 or Table 1 can be used adding an evaluation of their state of conservation using ICOMOS glossary. The description present in lines 173 to 180 is very poor and uses decay terms not appropriately (see for example the use of “patina”).

Figure 2, 3 and 4: are they in raking light?

How do the authors identified the charcoal? What they intend with this term? Is it a simple black mark or something else? Was any particle been identified as carbon black (may be using Raman portable spectrometer)? Is an XRF spectra available (for example looking for the presence of Phosphorous traces)?

Are the drawings of Vessels 10 and 11 missing?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors provided a detailed response to the comments received even if they did not implement the article with the right motivation relating to the choice of the journal to which they submitted it.

It is believed that a more consistent reference to the sustainability of the methods used should be added in the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I regret to inform both the authors and the Editors that I do not see any useful change in the revised version of the paper. The comments provided by the authors do not respond to the reviewer issues. My opinion is still the same, that is the paper does not fit the requirements of the Sustainability Special Issue, hence it is not worth of publishing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf