Morphometric Analysis through 3D Modelling of Bronze Age Stone Moulds from Central Sardinia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The value of this paper from my perspective lies primarily in the novel approach to acquiring data, i.e., use of photogrammetry with 3D modelling, which allowed for a more detailed examination of the molds. Archaeologists working in a variety of settings may be inspired to try this approach for gleaning more from the archaeological record. The next most interesting thing deals with the stone moulds themselves. That they were found to be chloritic, and not steatitic, is of considerable local archaeological significance because of the previous identification of such finds as "steatite." Determining the moulds were made of locally available stone is perhaps less dramatic in comparison and not at all surprising. I'm willing to concede there is already enough going on in this paper as is, but there is no discussion of casting itself as an important technological innovation in the Early Bronze Age. I trust there will be future publications contextualizing these mold finds within a more archaeometallurgical approach. 

No real complaints about English language text but there are a few awkwardly phrased sentences that grammar check might catch or offer alternatives. 

Author Response

Dear Referee,

we thank you for the revision of our manuscript.

 Referee 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The value of this paper from my perspective lies primarily in the novel approach to acquiring data, i.e., use of photogrammetry with 3D modelling, which allowed for a more detailed examination of the molds. Archaeologists working in a variety of settings may be inspired to try this approach for gleaning more from the archaeological record. The next most interesting thing deals with the stone moulds themselves. That they were found to be chloritic, and not steatitic, is of considerable local archaeological significance because of the previous identification of such finds as "steatite." Determining the moulds were made of locally available stone is perhaps less dramatic in comparison and not at all surprising.

I'm willing to concede there is already enough going on in this paper as is, but there is no discussion of casting itself as an important technological innovation in the Early Bronze Age.

I trust there will be future publications contextualizing these mold finds within a more archaeometallurgical approach.

No real complaints about English language text but there are a few awkwardly phrased sentences that grammar check might catch or offer alternatives.

Response 1: In order to better focus the objectives of our paper, we have reworded the abstract and the introduction, also better specifying the multidisciplinary approach adopted and the purpose of this work.

Response 2: In addition, we have also reworded Results and Discussion in the same paragraph and added a new Conclusion section.

Response 3: It is also our intention to extend the study to other similar artefacts, integrating the research with a more archaeometallurgical approach.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall, the paper is well written and describes a very interesting approach aimed at analysing the morphometry of a collection of 5 Bronze Age moulds through photogrammetry. However, I identified the following critical points:

1) The goal(s) of the paper is/are not clearly exposed. It is a good practice to describe the paper objectives in both the abstract (very briefly) and the Introduction (with more details).

2) Along the paper, the authors present the results of the XRD analysis. Firstly, XRD should also be mentioned in the "Abstract" section. Secondly, and more relevant, it is not clear for me the reason why authors used this technique. What do the authors want to demonstrate? How XRD can help in the "morphometric analysis through 3D modelling of Bronze Age stone moulds from Central Sardinia"? This point should be explained along the text.

3) Introduction

• Actually, this section describes the materials studied in the paper. In my opinion, the text included between the lines 8 and 59 should be moved to the "2. Materials and Methods" section. Authors should discuss in this section other relevant points, i.e., they could make the state-of-the-art of the approach used in their paper, explain whether their methodology is innovative, describe the goals of the paper and explain how their approach can be useful to achieve the objectives, etc.
• Line 28: “This study is focused on some fragments…”: how many? please, detail the number.
• Line 29: “founded” should be “found”
• Lines 29-32: “As described in a previous study [1] three fragmented moulds (B1, B2, B3; Figure 2) were collected in a large Nuragic settlement called Santu Perdu (district of Bidonì) near the  South-Eastern shores of the Omodeo Lake. It consists of about…”: What “It consists of” is referred at?
• Lines 36-38: “The second mould fragment (B2) has an irregular parallelepiped shape and keeps the carved moulds for three different kinds of artefacts”: this sentence should be reformulated. It is not very clear what the authors mean.

4) Materials and Methods

• This section does not describe any material, but it is only about the methods. You could consider to two different sub-sections, i.e. “2.1 Materials”, and “2.2 Methods” followed by “2.2.1 Mineralogical and petrographic characterization of the stone moulds”, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, etc.
• The methodology is accurately described.

5) Results

• Results are well exposed. However, XRD data - although interesting - is not relevant at all in the context of the information provided by the authors. I do not see how XRD could be pertinent with the "morphometric analysis through 3D" of the moulds. Please, consider removing XRD data from the paper if you do not have a clear vision of how XRD can help address significant issues.

6) The paper ends with the "4. Discussion" section. The final section should be about conclusions. Please revise this issue.

Author Response

Dear Referee,

we thank you for the revision of our manuscript.

Here are the answers point-by-point to the various comments and actions taken in order to modify the document following the recommendations made by the review of our manuscript.

Referee 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper is well written and describes a very interesting approach aimed at analysing the morphometry of a collection of 5 Bronze Age moulds through photogrammetry. However, I identified the following critical points:

• The goal(s) of the paper is/are not clearly exposed. It is a good practice to describe the paper objectives in both the abstract (very briefly) and the Introduction (with more details).

Response 1: We thank you for your precious suggestions. We have revised the abstract and the introduction, focusing better on the goals of the paper and specifying the multidisciplinary approach that includes mining-pertrographic characterisation carried out on lithoid materials.

• Along the paper, the authors present the results of the XRD analysis. Firstly, XRD should also be mentioned in the "Abstract" section. Secondly, and more relevant, it is not clear for me the reason why authors used this technique. What do the authors want to demonstrate? How XRD can help in the "morphometric analysis through 3D modelling of Bronze Age stone moulds from Central Sardinia"? This point should be explained along the text.

Response 2: We have revised the text according to your suggestions.The mineralogical-petrographic analysis is intended as part of the multidisciplinary approach proposed in this work for the characterisation of stone moulds. The aim of our work therefore extends not only to the morphometric analysis of the artefacts, but also to the verification of the lithological definition reported by previous archaeological studies and to the possible identification compatible raw materials.

• Introduction

Actually, this section describes the materials studied in the paper. In my opinion, the text included between the lines 28 and 59 should be moved to the "2. Materials and Methods" section.

Response 3: We do thank you for your suggestion and we moved the material description in section 2.

Authors should discuss in this section other relevant points, i.e., they could make the state-of-the-art of the approach used in their paper, explain whether their methodology is innovative, describe the goals of the paper and explain how their approach can be useful to achieve the objectives, etc.

Response 3.1: We have modified the introduction decribing in detail the goals of the paper and have moved the text between lines 28 and 59 according to your suggestions.

Line 28: “This study is focused on some fragments…”: how many? please, detail the number.

Response 3.2: We have specified the number of studied artefacts

Line 29: “founded” should be “found”

Response 3.3: Action done

Lines 29-32: “As described in a previous study [1] three fragmented moulds (B1, B2, B3; Figure 2) were collected in a large Nuragic settlement called Santu Perdu (district of Bidonì) near the  South-Eastern shores of the Omodeo Lake. It consists of about…”: What “It consists of” is referred at?

Response 3.4: We have modified the text and deleted the last sentence.

Lines 36-38: “The second mould fragment (B2) has an irregular parallelepiped shape and keeps the carved moulds for three different kinds of artefacts”: this sentence should be reformulated. It is not very clear what the authors mean.

Response 3.5: This sentence has been reworded

4) Materials and Methods

This section does not describe any material, but it is only about the methods. You could consider to two different sub-sections, i.e. “2.1 Materials”, and “2.2 Methods” followed by “2.2.1 Mineralogical and petrographic characterization of the stone moulds”, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, etc.

The methodology is accurately described.

Response 4: The text between lines 28 and 59 has been reworded and moved to paragraph 2.1.

5) Results

Results are well exposed. However, XRD data - although interesting - is not relevant at all in the context of the information provided by the authors. I do not see how XRD could be pertinent with the "morphometric analysis through 3D" of the moulds. Please, consider removing XRD data from the paper if you do not have a clear vision of how XRD can help address significant issues.

Response 5: We have implemented the abstract and the introduction, providing a more clear definition of the multidisciplinary approach of our work, based both on the compositional and  morphometric analysis of the artefacts. 

6) The paper ends with the "4. Discussion" section. The final section should be about conclusions. Please revise this issue.

Response 6: According to your suggestion, the Conclusion section has been added. In addition, the 4. Discussion section has been moved in 3, as Results and Discussion.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for your revision. I consider you have properly answered my questions.

In my opinion the paper should be accepted in present form.

Many congratulations!

Best regards.