Corded Ware and Contemporary Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from Southeast Lithuania: Technological Insights through Geochemical and Mineralogical Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My comments are for authors and editors both. Though certain aspects of this research are outside my expertise I believe this is an excellent paper worthy of publication. It is novel in the variety of methods applied to the samples analyzed, which are used to examine technological style, both clay selection and treatment including firing. The major finding, in my opinion, is that the ceramics of what are believed to be two different cultural groups in Lithuania are essentially the same. Made the same way using the same methods. If this is correct, it might be worth making that more obvious in the paper. Yes it's in there but it is partially buried amidst the necessart technical details. For future reference, I think the authors might get more out of the work of Sillar and Tite on "Technological Choices" than with Lechtman's Technological Style. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: My comments are for authors and editors both. though certain aspects of this research are outside my expertise I believe this is an excellent paper worthy of publication. It is novel in the variety of methods applied to the samples analyzed, which are used to examine technological style, both clay selection and treatment including firing. The major finding, in my opinion, is that the ceramics of what are believed to be two different cultural groups in Lithuania are essentially the same. made the same way using the same methods. If this is correct, it might be worth making that more obvious in the paper. Yes it's in there but it is partially buried amidst the necessart technical details.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your good opinion of our article. We would like to clarify the main conclusion: they lived in the same environment, used the same clay raw material from the morainic till, but the different communities made slightly different technological choices in the preparation of the clay paste, the surface treatment, and the firing conditions. We believe that the modifications we have made to the structure and the shortened conclusions of our revised manuscript now present the main findings more coherently and clearly.

Point 2: For future reference, I think the authors might get more out of the work of Sillar and Tite on "Technological Choices" than with Lechtman's Technological Style.

Response 2: We are very grateful for the recommended work by Sillar and Tite; that paper is very important, but we have forgotten it and failed to include it in the reference list before. The terms ‘Technological Choices’ or ‘Chaîne Opératoire’ are now more popular and commonly used, but for our study we have chosen the old but, in our opinion, still valuable term ‘Technological Style’ by Lechtman, which allows us to classify the ceramics and ‘...reflects the conscious and unconscious elements that together influence the technological choices...’ (quote from: Sillar and Tite, 2000, p. 9). We found the reference you suggested very useful and added it to the Reference list of our manuscript. Thank you very much.

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: “ Corded Ware and Contemporary Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from Southeast Lithuania: Technological Insights through Geochemical and Mineralogical Approaches”

Authors: Eglė Šatavičė *, Gražina Skridlaitė, Inga Grigoravičiūtė-Puronienė, Aivaras Kareiva, Aušra Selskienė, Sergej Suzdalev, Gailė Žalūdienė, Ričardas Taraškevičius

General comments:

The paper reports an interesting case-study of a specific pottery production in Southeast Lithuania, comparing features of different cultures and periods. Great care was given to define the historical and geological context of the 3 archaeological sites under investigation, which is very important when the aim is to define differences in the production and track the chain of supplies. Several methods were chosen for chemical and textural analysis, but some details lack about the type of samples (why didn’t you use thin-sections?) and the motivation for the chosen protocol (why SEM analysis was performed with 2 different instruments and set-ups? It doesn’t help comparisons…).

Personally, I found it hard to follow the discussion when the results were given in separate sections. More than once, it happens that details of the discussion are given within the results or, vice versa, some results are provided in the discussion. This is particularly evident with SEM images. For all these reasons, I would recommend the merging of results and discussion and possibly a stricter selection of data to be shown within the main body. The conclusions can be shortened and give a more general view of the general remarks of your research (no need to mention raw data again). Some minor English corrections are required. Suggestions on how to modify the different parts of the manuscript are provided in specific comments and in the enclosed pdf file ‘minerals-1808312-peer-review-v1_revised.pdf’.

Specific comments:

·         Pag. 1 - Since the journal is Minerals, not all readers could be familiar with the definition of Corded Ware. I would provide a brief definition here.

·         Fig. 1 - I could not find a III bl (light yellow) in the legend

·         Fig. 2 - Could it help to separate the samples from different sites with a line or colour bands and include the name of the specific settlement next to the corresponding line? I guess these are the sections as seen after the cut but it is not clear to me whether you obtained thin-sections or cross-sections. I would specify it in 2.2.

·         Pag. 3 line 97 - Is one sample enough to define differences between cord-decorated and hunter-gatherer pottery at Margiai? Same question for Šakės.

·         Table 1 - From the description given in the text, I assume 'organics' stands for straw. If so, I would specify it in the table. Additionally, I would not include clay pellets in the temper, as the temper is most of the time intentional and for specific purposes, while the clay pellet is indeed an uncontrolled imperfection while working the paste. I would only give a brief comment about it in the text and remove this detail from the table.

·         Lines 114-120 - As you specified in 2.3, the description of cross-sections comes from OM and SEM-EDS analysis so it is considered a result. I would move this sentences to the result section.

·         Line 124 - A brief explanation of what the Globular Amphora culture is?

·         Lines 127-128 - The description of these 2 samples is rather different. For the first, you provide type of vessel and description of matrix and inclusions; for the second, the type of vessel only. Please, homogenize.

·         Line 184 - I guess XRD can contribute to the estimation of the firing temperature, as well; Did you prepare KBr pellets or not? Did you use a diamond cell? Please, specify it (if it is KBr, please, do mention the weight ratio sample:KBr).

·         Lines 194-206 - I don't get the reason of studying the same samples with two different SEM-EDS instruments. Please further motivate your choice.

·         Lines 215-217 - This goes in 2.3.

·         Line 219 and Table S2 - If I understood it correctly, you compared bulk data from XRF and SEM-EDS data from the matrix of the cross-section. Isn't it risky to try to draw the same conclusions from 2 different data-sets? Could it be more reliable to mechanically separate the clay fraction and use XRF for a second analysis?

·         Line 228 - Please, always use the same number of decimals.

·         Lines 228-231 - Values higher than Cν do match with those in the 8th and 14th column of table S1 but the lower do not match. Please, provide some more details.

·         Table S2 - How were the concentrations in Table S2 measured? Please specify the technique used for it. Also, the meaning of it is not that clear to me. Did you analyse all the dark area? And all the light one? How can you make sure that it is not a partial estimation? I am not completely sure about the usefulness of this table.

·         Lines 303-308 and lines 316-317 – The estimation of the firing temperature in my opinion belongs to the discussion, which is now in section 4. I would recommend to merge results and discussion, at least for what is the direct insight of each data-set.

·         Fig. 5 - I would consider to stack the spectra to make band differences more visible.

·         Line 336 - What is the assignment of the band at 1020 cm^-1?

·         Lines 346 and 348-49 - If you wish to discuss the bands in the region of hydroxyl stretching within the text, I recommend showing them in Fig. 5.

·         Lines 357-359 - This is quite obvious, as you know from XRD that your samples do not contain calcite. I would remove this sentence.

·         Lines 360-362 - I guess this is something you assume from previous references, as you don't know the firing temperature of your samples. Please, modify the sentence to make it clearer.

·         Lines 366-369 – Is the estimation of firing temperature by FTIR in agreement with XRD data?

·         Section 3.5 - Is it possible to divide your samples into fabrics, based on mineralogical and morphological observation by OM and SEM-EDS?

·         Fig. 6 – What about B1 and B2? Why aren’t they shown in the chart?

·         Fig. 6 and following ones - You already mentioned in the methods that minerals abbreviations are according to [55], so maybe there is no need to repeat them in each caption.

·         Fig. 7d, 7e and 8a - I am not sure this is apatite, isn't it too bright compared to zircon?

·         Table S5 – what about monazite? Did you analyse any crystals (they are in the images)?

·         Lines 473-475 - The similarity between 10a and 10b is quite clear. In turn, based on a quick comparison of Fig. 10c and 10d, I could hardly say they belong to the same type. Could you provide any further detail to support your assumption?

·         Line 493 – missing cross-reference.

·         Lines 529 – 530 - This is part of the discussion. Consider merging of results + discussion.

·         Table S8 - A light grey background could help to visualise only the values of p < 0.05?

·         Section 4.1.1. I find this section not that useful. I would consider removing it, or at least condense it in a couple of sentences with 4.1.2.

·         Lines 634-637 – Can you provide any possible explanation for Ti opposite trend in your data and Kurosawa’s?

·         Line 678 - Was this conscious or depending on available supplies?

·         Section 4.1.3. – This section is rather difficult to follow. I would consider rewriting and making it shorter.

·         Section 4.2 - Clustering 16b is definitely more effective in terms of 'cultural meaning'. I would focus more on it (if not remove plot 16a and Fig. 17) and its description. A possible solution is to show plot 16a and 18 and discuss their meaning in detail, while removing the rest of the plots and their discussion.

·         Line 839 - Could trace elements from the bulk tell you anything about different sand?

·         Figure 19 - Consider this as a supplementary table.

·         Line 884 - Please, recall here or at line 674 the definition of 'fatty clay'.

·         Lines 895-903 - This is enough to explain the difficulty in comparing your results with previous literature. I would remove lines from 687-726.

·         Lines 905 – 922 - Consider shortening this paragraph.

·         Lines 937 – 941 - You are giving results that are never described before and you are in the discussion section now! I strongly recommend the merging of results and discussion.

·         Line 940 – what kind of organic impurities?

·         Line 986 - I seriously doubt that this is a slip, it's too thick, at least for what I see in Fig. 21. Moreover, the difference with the core is not that obvious in Fig. 21b or c, maybe you can consider lower magnification. Are you sure you're not observing the difference in firing conditions, rather than an intentional coating?

·         Lines 988 – 991 - What range of variation in P and S content can suggest food production? Can you provide any reference?

·         Line 1000 - In Table 1 only M2 has clay pellets but I think that what you are showing in Fig. 8b for M3 is a clay pellet…

·         Lines 1127-1128 - Even in this case, I have some doubts about the definition of slip for the outer layer. From what I can see in Fig. 24d, there is not a huge difference in texture. Maybe BSE images at lower magnification could help.

·         Lines 1191-1193 - Is there any known difference in typology between B2, B3 and B4?

·         Lines 1211-1240 – I would suggest to shorten this paragraph (no need to mention raw data again) and provide the general meaning of these differences.

·         Line 1287 - Is there a more general, cultural reason for the decrease of the firing temperature with the emergence of the classic CW tradition?

·         Line 1294 - I would be very cautious with this statement and provide further evidence.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you very much for the critical and careful reading of our manuscript as well as for your really valuable comments and the opportunity for a scientific discussion. We would like to sincerely thank you for your suggestions for our manuscript. After considering your recommendations, we have accepted them as very valuable and have thoroughly revised and modified our manuscript accordingly. We believe that the modifications: merging the results and discussion, shortening the conclusions and some of the sections, and moving some tables and figures to supplementary material, have resulted in a more logical structure for our manuscript and a more coherent presentation of the geochemical and mineralogical approaches. All the corrections in the manuscript were highlighted using ‘Track changes’ feature. In addition, a point-by-point response is given bellow (please see the attachment). We are now convinced that this revised version is fully suitable for publication in ‘Minerals’.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting work with sounded results supported by chemical data. Overall, it is well written and logically structured and I suggest publication after minor corrections. There are few suggestions mainly regarding introduction and figures. Goechemical methodology and data is robust and well described, normalizing data by Clarke’s upper continental crust values. Besides, the array of techniques employed for characterizing corded ware is of high relevance, each one of the techniques providing insightful data and allowing a very precise detail of knowledge about the samples that have been analyzed.

This manuscript is very ambitious in the conclusions but, unfortunately, the number of ceramics analyzed are very low (only 12 for a large region and period – 1000 years) and for three sites and different sub-cultures. Such low number of samples do not allow such degree of confidence when identifying technological traditions, etc. It should suggest broad-scale conclusions (geographically and chronologically) in a more cautious way since they represent a low statistically significance.

The state of the art on the previously excavated Neolithic settlements in the area should be extended and discussed more profoundly. Currently, authors only mention the excavation of three sites in the 80s decade, focusing on the geomorphological characteristics of these sites and providing scarce archaeological information. Even these three sites, which have been chosen for analyses, are not thoroughly discussed. One should expect more information on these pivotal sites.

Figure 16 depicts numbers in colors not clearly, they can be seen a little bit unfocus.

Figure 2 could add some drawings for the main typologies of corded wares, if possible (or as supplementary materials). Some are beakers, other pots, and another one a cup. It would be of potential interest to the reader see the typological differences.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: This is an interesting work with sounded results supported by chemical data. Overall, it is well written and logically structured and I suggest publication after minor corrections. There are few suggestions mainly regarding introduction and figures. Goechemical methodology and data is robust and well described, normalizing data by Clarke’s upper continental crust values. Besides, the array of techniques employed for characterizing corded ware is of high relevance, each one of the techniques providing insightful data and allowing a very precise detail of knowledge about the samples that have been analyzed.

Response 1: Dear Reviewer, we would like to sincerely thank you for your careful reading of our manuscript, your high opinion of our paper, as well as the suggestions and subsequent opportunity for scientific discussion. We hope that once the manuscript has been revised and corrected in light of yours and other Reviewers’ comments, you will find it improved enough for publication.

Point 2: This manuscript is very ambitious in the conclusions but, unfortunately, the number of ceramics analyzed are very low (only 12 for a large region and period – 1000 years) and for three sites and different sub-cultures. Such low number of samples do not allow such degree of confidence when identifying technological traditions, etc. It should suggest broad-scale conclusions (geographically and chronologically) in a more cautious way since they represent a low statistically significance.

Response 2: We are aware that the number of ceramics examined is very small and of low statistical significance, but due to the destructive nature of the methods used, we have chosen to conduct very detail research on a small number of samples. For a long time, technological traditions have been described and typologically classified only on the basis of those ceramic features that are visible to the naked eye. We have therefore chosen representative examples of different technological traditions and investigated these features using geochemical, textural and mineralogical approaches. The combination of research methods not only allowed a bulk chemical and mineralogical characterisation, but also the microstructural composition and the variables that affect the pottery’s bulk chemical signature to be obtained for the pottery samples. We believe that a detailed analysis of even a small number of samples allows us to draw some conclusions about the different technological choices made by different communities and may be useful for the future research.

Point 3: The state of the art on the previously excavated Neolithic settlements in the area should be extended and discussed more profoundly. Currently, authors only mention the excavation of three sites in the 80s decade, focusing on the geomorphological characteristics of these sites and providing scarce archaeological information. Even these three sites, which have been chosen for analyses, are not thoroughly discussed. One should expect more information on these pivotal sites.

Response 3: We agree that the archaeological information is sparse, the sandy soil and decayed organic material having made the region appear scientifically unworthy. The last excavations were conducted here in the 20^th century and the material was only typologically classified. We believe that our study will awaken scientific interest and show that even old, forgotten material can provide a wealth of information about prehistoric societies and their technological choices.

We have supplemented the description of the settlements in Lines 83–87:

‘During 1980–1985, three multi-period sites: 1064 m² at Margiai [20], 808 m² at Barzdis [21], and 636 m² at Šakės [22] were excavated by Dr Rimantienė. The settlements contained various Stone Age and Early Metal period hearths together with stratigraphically mixed ceramics and flint assemblages that can be classified only typologically.’

Point 4: Figure 16 depicts numbers in colors not clearly, they can be seen a little bit unfocus.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. To make the information clearly visible, we have replaced Figures 16 and 18 (currently Figures 8 and 9) with high-resolution images.

Point 5: Figure 2 could add some drawings for the main typologies of corded wares, if possible (or as supplementary materials). Some are beakers, other pots, and another one a cup. It would be of potential interest to the reader see the typological differences.

Response 5: Thank you for your recommendation. Unfortunately, due to the small size of the fragments, it is not possible to reconstruct the exact shape of the vessels. And due to copyright restrictions, we are unable to use reconstructions made by other authors in our article.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Title: “ Corded Ware and Contemporary Hunter-Gatherer Pottery from Southeast Lithuania: Technological Insights through Geochemical and Mineralogical Approaches”

Authors: Eglė Šatavičė *, Gražina Skridlaitė, Inga Grigoravičiūtė-Puronienė, Aivaras Kareiva, Aušra Selskienė, Sergej Suzdalev, Gailė Žalūdienė, Ričardas Taraškevičius

Second revision - General comments:

The paper reports an interesting case-study of a specific pottery production in Southeast Lithuania, comparing features of different cultures and periods. Great care was given to define the geological context of the 3 archaeological sites under investigation, which is very important when the aim is to track the chain of supplies. Several details have been included in the description and motivation of the chosen protocol. The organisation of results and discussion has remarkably changed. I agree with the authors that the paper has now a more logical structure and a more coherent presentation of its outcomes.

I really appreciated the effort put in the revision, but also the fact that you considered my comments as a fruitful discussion, and provided explanations and answers to curiosities that are even independent from the manuscript.

Personally, I still feel that the analysis of a small number of samples is not sufficient to draw enthusiastic conclusions about different technological choices and I would be slightly more cautious in those conclusive sentences (see Response 6 of the cover letter). I’m also prone to confirm that ‘a coherent narrative of the methodological possibilities and choice determinants of advantage’ is not necessary in a paper, where you show the most effective strategy and briefly mention the other options. I would rather say that such approach is more suitable for a PhD thesis, where the narrative of a methodological approach is needed. However, I respect the choice of the authors, as carefully motivated in their cover letter.

Few minor corrections are suggested (see pdf file ‘minerals-1808312-peer-review-v2_revised’).

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

we would like to thank you for your patience, for reading our manuscript once again carefully and allowing us to improve it. We are grateful for appreciating our efforts to make the manuscript more logical and coherent by accepting your recommendations. After considering your additional recommendations, we have accepted them as very valuable and slightly modified our manuscript accordingly. All the corrections in the manuscript were highlighted using ‘Track changes’ feature. In addition, a point-by-point response is given (please see the attachment). We hope that once the manuscript has been revised and corrected, you will find it improved and suitable for publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf