Thin-Section Petrography in the Use of Ancient Ceramic Studies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Review Report

 

Manuscript ID: minerals-3835439

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Thin Section Petrography in the Use of Ancient Ceramic Studies

 

Overall Assessment

 

This manuscript offers a comprehensive and timely overview of the application of thin section petrography in ancient ceramic studies. The author effectively synthesizes historical developments, methodological principles, and different archaeological applications of this technique. The article may serve as a valuable resource for students, archaeologists, and geoarchaeologists by articulating petrography's enduring relevance in a research landscape increasingly dominated by high-tech analytical methods. It rightly advocates for the integration of petrographic analysis with complementary approaches, such as INAA and experimental archaeology, in order to achieve a more holistic understanding of ancient ceramic production and provenance.

 

The manuscript detailed explains the fundamental concepts, such as site catchment areas, the identification of various temper types, and the interpretation of firing indicators. The inclusion of selected case studies, spanning from the Neolithic to the Mamluk periods and primarily focusing on the Levant and Aegean regions, effectively demonstrates the practical utility of petrographic analysis in tracing ancient trade networks and reconstructing technological shifts. This contributes significantly to our understanding of ancient economies, population migrations, and craft traditions. Furthermore, the article commendably promotes the use of open-access resources, such as the Levantine Ceramics Project database, thereby encouraging collaborative research and standardization within the field of petrographic studies.

 

Despite these considerable strengths, the manuscript, as a review article, is primarily descriptive rather than presenting novel empirical data or advanced quantitative analyses (e.g., more in-depth statistical grouping or microfossil dating techniques). It relies heavily on existing literature, including a significant proportion of the author's own previous work. Some sections exhibit redundancy, with key points being reiterated in both the abstract and the introduction. There is also a noticeable geographic bias towards the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean, which limits the global representativeness of the examples and potentially overlooks diverse applications of petrography in other regions, such as the Americas, East Asia, or Africa. Minor technical issues, including inconsistent figure labeling, awkward phrasing, typographical errors, and the citation of future-dated publications, also detract from the overall polish and scholarly rigor of the manuscript. While the article touches upon the limitations of petrographic analysis, a more expanded discussion on aspects such as subjectivity in fabric grouping or the absence of recent advancements (e.g., AI-assisted image analysis) would further enhance its critical depth.

 

Overall, while highly informative and valuable, the manuscript would benefit from careful editing to improve conciseness and flow, a broader geographic scope in its examples, and clearer differentiation between naturally occurring inclusions and intentionally added tempers in its discussions and illustrations. Addressing these points will significantly enhance the manuscript's impact and scholarly contribution.

 

 

Specific Comments

 

Introduction Section

 

1. Neolithic Pottery Chronology (Page 1, lines 10-11): The statement regarding the pottery Neolithic periods (ca. 7,000–8,000 years ago) lacks precise chronological context and supporting citations. While this timeframe is generally applicable to certain regions, it is crucial to acknowledge the significant regional variations in the emergence of Neolithic pottery, with some instances predating this range globally (e.g., the Dolní Věstonice ceramics, which are much older). To enhance accuracy and scholarly rigor, please revise this statement to include specific regional contexts or provide a more generalized, yet well-referenced, overview of early ceramic technologies. Consider citing foundational works that discuss the broader timeline of ceramic development, such as Vandiver et al. (1989) [1] or similar authoritative sources.

 

2. Transition to Academic Significance (Page 2, lines 56-59): The introduction transitions somewhat abruptly from outlining the applications of thin-section petrography (provenance and technology reconstruction) to stating the paper's aims. To improve flow and justify the necessity of this review, it is recommended to insert a brief transitional paragraph. This paragraph should clearly articulate the academic motivation behind this synthesis, emphasizing why a comprehensive review of thin section petrography in ancient ceramic studies is particularly valuable and timely for the current state of the field. This would help to set the stage more effectively for the subsequent discussion of the method's potential and case studies.

 

Section 2.1 (Archaeological Ceramics)

 

1. Chronological Precision of Early Ceramics (Page 2, line 65): The assertion that pottery vessels emerged "from the Neolithic period onwards" requires further qualification. While functional pottery containers indeed became widespread during the Neolithic, earlier ceramic technologies, particularly in non-utilitarian contexts (e.g., figurines and ritual objects like the 26,000-year-old ceramic animal figurines from Dolní Věstonice), predate the Neolithic in various parts of the world. Please revise this claim to clarify that while utilitarian pottery became prevalent in the Neolithic, ceramic technology itself has a deeper history, acknowledging its earlier manifestations in non-functional or artistic forms. Referencing works such as Vandiver et al. (1989) [1] would be appropriate here.

 

2. Temperature Symbol Formatting (Page 2, lines 72 & 75): The formatting of the Celsius temperature symbol is inconsistent (e.g., "900º C" vs. "1,100º"). For technical professionalism and adherence to SI unit rules, please standardize the formatting to "°C" without any spacing (e.g., "900°C") throughout the entire manuscript.

 

Section 2.2 (History of Research)

 

1. Ann Shepard's Contribution (Page 3, line 86): The discussion of Ann Shepard's pioneering work primarily focuses on her early contributions (e.g., Shepard 1942, with hand-drawn thin sections). However, it notably omits her foundational contribution in 1956, where she established standardized fabric classification systems in her seminal work, Ceramics for the Archaeologist. This omission distorts the historical progression of petrographic studies. Please revise this section to include a citation to Shepard (1956) [2] and acknowledge the significance of her work in standardizing petrographic analysis.

 

2. Pioneering Narrative (Page 3, line 87): The phrase "during 1960’s–1970’s with works of David Peacock and others" implies a pioneering narrative for this period. While Peacock's contributions are undoubtedly significant, it is important to acknowledge that earlier standardizations and substantial works in ceramic petrography existed, such as Matson's (1965) [3] protocols for Near Eastern ceramics. To provide a more accurate historical context and avoid misrepresenting the timeline of advancements, please expand the citations to include Matson (1965) and other relevant earlier works that contributed to the field's development.

 

3. Typographical Error (Page 3, line 109): The word "ither" is a typographical error. Please correct it to "either" for grammatical accuracy.

 

4. Missing Citations (Page 4, lines 138-146 and 168-173): Several passages in these lines summarize established knowledge within ceramic archaeology but lack appropriate citations. To maintain scholarly integrity and provide proper attribution, please add relevant references to support the claims and discussions in these sections.

 

Page 5, Figure 2

 

1. Copyright Compliance for Subfigures 2 and 6: The caption for Figure 2, specifically for subfigures 2 (Terra Rossa, citing Ben-Shlomo & Bouzaglou 2025) and 6 (Rendzina, citing Ben-Shlomo 2019), fails to adequately address copyright compliance. While sources are mentioned, there is no explicit permission declaration for reproduced images, which is a violation of standard publishing ethics. Furthermore, the caption ambiguously presents all subfigures uniformly without clearly distinguishing original images from third-party content. Please add standardized attributions (e.g., "Reproduced with permission from [Source]" or "Adapted from [Source]") to clarify the provenance and copyright status of all images, ensuring full compliance with journal guidelines.

 

2. Legibility of Mineral Labels (Figures 2-3): The mineral labels (e.g., QZ/DL/LS) in Figures 2 and 3 are illegible at the current resolution. This significantly hinders the reader's ability to interpret the photomicrographs effectively. Please resubmit high-resolution images with larger font labels and high-contrast formatting (e.g., white text on a dark background or vice versa) to ensure optimal readability and clarity.

 

Page 6, Lines 247-254

 

1. Spelling Correction (line 250): The term "foraminiferra" is misspelled. Please correct it to "foraminifera," which is the standard paleontological term for these microfossils crucial for chronological analysis.

 

2. Typesetting Norms (line 247): The hyphenated break "cat- / egorizing" violates standard typesetting norms. Please rewrite the word as "categorizing" without fragmentation.

 

3. Syntax Improvement (line 252): The sentence begins with "Since different species can reflect different geological dates and eras...". To improve logical flow and connection to the preceding discussion on microfossil dating and provenance, please replace "Since" with "These" (i.e., "These different species can reflect...").

 

4. Subject-Verb Agreement (line 253): The phrase "Macroscopic fabric description and clas- sification is also used..." contains a subject-verb disagreement. As "description and classification" is a compound subject, the verb should be plural. Please change "is" to "are" (i.e., "Macroscopic fabric description and classification are also used...").

 

Figure 3 Caption

 

Missing Attribution: Similar to Figure 2, the caption for Figure 3 lacks proper attribution for the image sources, potentially violating ethical guidelines. Please ensure that full references and explicit permissions are included for all reproduced images in Figure 3 to avoid any infringement issues.

 

Overall Recommendation

 

This article has significant academic value and contributes meaningfully to the field of ancient ceramic studies. The comprehensive nature of the review and the detailed explanations of petrographic principles are commendable. However, addressing the aforementioned issues—including improving timeline precision, ensuring citation completeness, correcting spelling and formatting errors, and ensuring full copyright compliance for all figures—is essential for the manuscript to meet the high standards of Minerals.

 

References

 

[1] Vandiver, P. B., Soffer, O., Klima, B., & Svoboda, J. (1989). The origins of ceramic technology at Dolni Věstonice, Czechoslovakia. Science, 246(4933), 1002-1008. [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/246/4933/1002]

[2] Shepard, A. O. (1956). Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington.

[3] Matson, F. R. (1965). Ceramic ecology: An approach to the study of early cultures of the Near East. In F. R. Matson (Ed.), Ceramics and Man (pp. 202-217). Aldine Publishing Company.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Rev 1

 

Top of Form

This manuscript offers a comprehensive and timely overview of the application of thin section petrography in ancient ceramic studies. The author effectively synthesizes historical developments, methodological principles, and different archaeological applications of this technique. The article may serve as a valuable resource for students, archaeologists, and geoarchaeologists by articulating petrography's enduring relevance in a research landscape increasingly dominated by high-tech analytical methods. It rightly advocates for the integration of petrographic analysis with complementary approaches, such as INAA and experimental archaeology, in order to achieve a more holistic understanding of ancient ceramic production and provenance.

 OK

The manuscript detailed explains the fundamental concepts, such as site catchment areas, the identification of various temper types, and the interpretation of firing indicators. The inclusion of selected case studies, spanning from the Neolithic to the Mamluk periods and primarily focusing on the Levant and Aegean regions, effectively demonstrates the practical utility of petrographic analysis in tracing ancient trade networks and reconstructing technological shifts. This contributes significantly to our understanding of ancient economies, population migrations, and craft traditions. Furthermore, the article commendably promotes the use of open-access resources, such as the Levantine Ceramics Project database, thereby encouraging collaborative research and standardization within the field of petrographic studies.

 OK

Despite these considerable strengths, the manuscript, as a review article, is primarily descriptive rather than presenting novel empirical data or advanced quantitative analyses (e.g., more in-depth statistical grouping or microfossil dating techniques). It relies heavily on existing literature, including a significant proportion of the author's own previous work. The article presents the general state of research

 Some sections exhibit redundancy, with key points being reiterated in both the abstract and the introduction. Corrected There is also a noticeable geographic bias towards the Levant and the eastern Mediterranean, which limits the global representativeness of the examples and potentially overlooks diverse applications of petrography in other regions, such as the Americas, East Asia, or Africa. It was chosen to present studies the author is better acquainted with, the principles in other regions are the same

Minor technical issues, including inconsistent figure labeling, awkward phrasing, typographical errors, and the citation of future-dated publications, also detract from the overall polish and scholarly rigor of the manuscript. Corrected

While the article touches upon the limitations of petrographic analysis, a more expanded discussion on aspects such as subjectivity in fabric grouping or the absence of recent advancements (e.g., AI-assisted image analysis) would further enhance its critical depth. expanded

Overall, while highly informative and valuable, the manuscript would benefit from careful editing to improve conciseness and flow, a broader geographic scope in its examples, and clearer differentiation between naturally occurring inclusions and intentionally added tempers in its discussions and illustrations. Addressing these points will significantly enhance the manuscript's impact and scholarly contribution.

 OK- clarified

The text has been edited for other mistakes

 

Specific Comments

 

Introduction Section

 

1. Neolithic Pottery Chronology (Page 1, lines 10-11): The statement regarding the pottery Neolithic periods (ca. 7,000–8,000 years ago) lacks precise chronological context and supporting citations. While this timeframe is generally applicable to certain regions, it is crucial to acknowledge the significant regional variations in the emergence of Neolithic pottery, with some instances predating this range globally (e.g., the Dolní Věstonice ceramics, which are much older). To enhance accuracy and scholarly rigor, please revise this statement to include specific regional contexts or provide a more generalized, yet well-referenced, overview of early ceramic technologies. Consider citing foundational works that discuss the broader timeline of ceramic development, such as Vandiver et al. (1989) [1] or similar authoritative sources. Corected

 

1. Transition to Academic Significance (Page 2, lines 56-59): The introduction transitions somewhat abruptly from outlining the applications of thin-section petrography (provenance and technology reconstruction) to stating the paper's aims. To improve flow and justify the necessity of this review, it is recommended to insert a brief transitional paragraph. This paragraph should clearly articulate the academic motivation behind this synthesis, emphasizing why a comprehensive review of thin section petrography in ancient ceramic studies is particularly valuable and timely for the current state of the field. This would help to set the stage more effectively for the subsequent discussion of the method's potential and case studies. OK added

 

Section 2.1 (Archaeological Ceramics)

 

1. Chronological Precision of Early Ceramics (Page 2, line 65): The assertion that pottery vessels emerged "from the Neolithic period onwards" requires further qualification. While functional pottery containers indeed became widespread during the Neolithic, earlier ceramic technologies, particularly in non-utilitarian contexts (e.g., figurines and ritual objects like the 26,000-year-old ceramic animal figurines from Dolní Věstonice), predate the Neolithic in various parts of the world. Please revise this claim to clarify that while utilitarian pottery became prevalent in the Neolithic, ceramic technology itself has a deeper history, acknowledging its earlier manifestations in non-functional or artistic forms. Referencing works such as Vandiver et al. (1989) [1] would be appropriate here. Corrected, though most of this is not relevant for the article topic

1. Temperature Symbol Formatting (Page 2, lines 72 & 75): The formatting of the Celsius temperature symbol is inconsistent (e.g., "900º C" vs. "1,100º"). For technical professionalism and adherence to SI unit rules, please standardize the formatting to "°C" without any spacing (e.g., "900°C") throughout the entire manuscript. corrected

 

Section 2.2 (History of Research)

 

1. Ann Shepard's Contribution (Page 3, line 86): The discussion of Ann Shepard's pioneering work primarily focuses on her early contributions (e.g., Shepard 1942, with hand-drawn thin sections). However, it notably omits her foundational contribution in 1956, where she established standardized fabric classification systems in her seminal work, Ceramics for the Archaeologist. This omission distorts the historical progression of petrographic studies. Please revise this section to include a citation to Shepard (1956) [2] and acknowledge the significance of her work in standardizing petrographic analysis. Corrected

 

1. Pioneering Narrative (Page 3, line 87): The phrase "during 1960’s–1970’s with works of David Peacock and others" implies a pioneering narrative for this period. While Peacock's contributions are undoubtedly significant, it is important to acknowledge that earlier standardizations and substantial works in ceramic petrography existed, such as Matson's (1965) [3] protocols for Near Eastern ceramics. To provide a more accurate historical context and avoid misrepresenting the timeline of advancements, please expand the citations to include Matson (1965) and other relevant earlier works that contributed to the field's development. corrected

 

1. Typographical Error (Page 3, line 109): The word "ither" is a typographical error. Please correct it to "either" for grammatical accuracy. corrected

 

1. Missing Citations (Page 4, lines 138-146 and 168-173): Several passages in these lines summarize established knowledge within ceramic archaeology but lack appropriate citations. To maintain scholarly integrity and provide proper attribution, please add relevant references to support the claims and discussions in these sections. Corrected, The references are given in the top of the paragraph

 

Page 5, Figure 2

 

1. Copyright Compliance for Subfigures 2 and 6: The caption for Figure 2, specifically for subfigures 2 (Terra Rossa, citing Ben-Shlomo & Bouzaglou 2025) and 6 (Rendzina, citing Ben-Shlomo 2019), fails to adequately address copyright compliance. While sources are mentioned, there is no explicit permission declaration for reproduced images, which is a violation of standard publishing ethics. Furthermore, the caption ambiguously presents all subfigures uniformly without clearly distinguishing original images from third-party content. Please add standardized attributions (e.g., "Reproduced with permission from [Source]" or "Adapted from [Source]") to clarify the provenance and copyright status of all images, ensuring full compliance with journal guidelines. corrected

 

1. Legibility of Mineral Labels (Figures 2-3): The mineral labels (e.g., QZ/DL/LS) in Figures 2 and 3 are illegible at the current resolution. This significantly hinders the reader's ability to interpret the photomicrographs effectively. Please resubmit high-resolution images with larger font labels and high-contrast formatting (e.g., white text on a dark background or vice versa) to ensure optimal readability and clarity. In order to see the individual figures and their details of the thin section one has to, in any case, zoom in for about 250-300% - in that case the labels are clearly visible. Enlarging more the actual labels will obscure the mineral data in the photos

 

Page 6, Lines 247-254

 

1. Spelling Correction (line 250): The term "foraminiferra" is misspelled. Please correct it to "foraminifera," which is the standard paleontological term for these microfossils crucial for chronological analysis. corrected

1. Typesetting Norms (line 247): The hyphenated break "cat- / egorizing" violates standard typesetting norms. Please rewrite the word as "categorizing" without fragmentation. corrected

1. Syntax Improvement (line 252): The sentence begins with "Since different species can reflect different geological dates and eras...". To improve logical flow and connection to the preceding discussion on microfossil dating and provenance, please replace "Since" with "These" (i.e., "These different species can reflect..."). corrected

1. Subject-Verb Agreement (line 253): The phrase "Macroscopic fabric description and clas- sification is also used..." contains a subject-verb disagreement. As "description and classification" is a compound subject, the verb should be plural. Please change "is" to "are" (i.e., "Macroscopic fabric description and classification are also used..."). corrected

 

Figure 3 Caption

 Missing Attribution: Similar to Figure 2, the caption for Figure 3 lacks proper attribution for the image sources, potentially violating ethical guidelines. Please ensure that full references and explicit permissions are included for all reproduced images in Figure 3 to avoid any infringement issues. corrected

 

Overall Recommendation

 

This article has significant academic value and contributes meaningfully to the field of ancient ceramic studies. The comprehensive nature of the review and the detailed explanations of petrographic principles are commendable. However, addressing the aforementioned issues—including improving timeline precision, ensuring citation completeness, correcting spelling and formatting errors, and ensuring full copyright compliance for all figures—is essential for the manuscript to meet the high standards of Minerals. corrected

 

References

 

[1] Vandiver, P. B., Soffer, O., Klima, B., & Svoboda, J. (1989). The origins of ceramic technology at Dolni Věstonice, Czechoslovakia. Science, 246(4933), 1002-1008. [https://science.sciencemag.org/content/246/4933/1002]

[2] Shepard, A. O. (1956). Ceramics for the Archaeologist. Carnegie Institution of Washington.

[3] Matson, F. R. (1965). Ceramic ecology: An approach to the study of early cultures of the Near East. In F. R. Matson (Ed.), Ceramics and Man (pp. 202-217). Aldine Publishing Company.

Added

peer-review-49477409.v2.pdf

Submission Date

07 August 2025

Date of this review

24 Aug 2025 12:28:03

Bottom of Form

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A few minor suggestions:

- In the Abstract (line 8), "building materials made of fired and unfired clay", like in the Introduction (line 37).

- Line 56 - "...can also be acquired by" the fabric and composition of the paste.

- Line 108 - to mention that the petrographic analysis must be correlated with the compositional analyses of the elemental or oxide abundancies of the clay material.

- Lines 150-153 - to mention that this is the domain of micromorphology, a very detailed and specific analysis. 

The Figures 2-9 must be presented more precisely. The notes in the legends for different inclusions (e.g., FR, LS, CP) are not always indicated in the photos, as for Figures 2, 3, 5, and 8. The condition of the photo in Crossed Polarized Light or Plane Polarized Light does not always correspond, or is not mentioned, as for Figure 2/5, Figure 3/5, Figure 4/1, 3, 4, or Figure 5/1, 2, 4.

Maybe to mention the dimension of the scale bar in figures 8 and 9.

Author Response

Rev 2

A few minor suggestions:

- In the Abstract (line 8), "building materials made of fired and unfired clay", like in the Introduction (line 37). corrected

- Line 56 - "...can also be acquired by" the fabric and composition of the paste. corrected

- Line 108 - to mention that the petrographic analysis must be correlated with the compositional analyses of the elemental or oxide abundancies of the clay material. corrected

- Lines 150-153 - to mention that this is the domain of micromorphology, a very detailed and specific analysis. corrected

The Figures 2-9 must be presented more precisely. The notes in the legends for different inclusions (e.g., FR, LS, CP) are not always indicated in the photos, as for Figures 2, 3, 5, and 8. The condition of the photo in Crossed Polarized Light or Plane Polarized Light does not always correspond, or is not mentioned, as for Figure 2/5, Figure 3/5, Figure 4/1, 3, 4, or Figure 5/1, 2, 4. corrected

Maybe to mention the dimension of the scale bar in figures 8 and 9. Seen on photograph

 

Submission Date

07 August 2025

Date of this review

26 Aug 2025 10:37:06

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper describes thin section petrography and its analytical potential from the archaeological point of view, regarding archaeological ceramic artefacts.

In itself, the work is not particularly novel, as it unpacks what has already been synthesized by other authors in key works such as those cited of Dr. Quinn—especially Quinn 2022, on which much of the paper directly relies—without citing the original authors who first raised the different issues discussed (see, for instance, lines 175–255, which are essentially a direct rendering of Quinn 2022). Nevertheless, it is a good synthesis of all this, and certainly useful in the context of the journal and the issue in which it is being published.

From a bibliographic point of view, the most noticeable gaps appear in section 2.2, History of Research. For example, more relevant than the institutions in which the author himself works and which he mentions would be to highlight the important UK school, whose main centers were the University of Sheffield and UCL, and which played a crucial role in training archaeologists in petrography and in developing the current methodology of interpretation. It is also important to stress the original sources of the present descriptive protocols, particularly those concerning quantification (especially line 87). Similarly, lines 312–316 also require specific references for the information provided.

The selected case studies do not seem to follow a clear rationale beyond their proximity to the author, but they are valid applications of the methodology, as valid as any other, though perhaps a bit restrictive. For instance, once again, important foundational studies referring to ceramic petrography in the Aegean are missing. For example, regarding the combination of techniques and levels of analysis for a more accurate identification of provenance (line 396), it is essential to cite Day et al. 1999: P. M. DAY, E. KIRIATZI, A. TSOLAKIDOU, V. KILIKOGLOU, 1999, Group Therapy in Crete: A Comparison Between Analyses by NAA and Thin Section Petrography of Early Minoan Pottery, in Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 8, pp. 1025-1036.

On another note, the phrase 'the accessibility of the equipment needed' is repeated throughout the text, but there is no description of what that equipment actually is.

Some suggestions regarding the figures:
In Figs. 2.6 and 3, the letters indicating the inclusions of the thin section are not clearly visible. The lighting in some of the images in Fig. 3, such as 3.6, is not very good. Finally, Fig. 7 right lacks a scale, and in Fig. 9 the scale is barely legible.

Lastly, I note some minor errors to be addressed:
Line 250: foraminifera
Line 299: can be reflected
Line 478: peeling
Line 500: Aegean
Line 604: fabric

In conclusion, this is a sound piece of work: not novel in itself, but useful both as a synthesis in its first part and as a demonstration of its potential in the second. It therefore meets the requirements for publication.

Author Response

Rev 3

 

This paper describes thin section petrography and its analytical potential from the archaeological point of view, regarding archaeological ceramic artefacts.

In itself, the work is not particularly novel, as it unpacks what has already been synthesized by other authors in key works such as those cited of Dr. Quinn—especially Quinn 2022, on which much of the paper directly relies—without citing the original authors who first raised the different issues discussed (see, for instance, lines 175–255, which are essentially a direct rendering of Quinn 2022). Unclear what is meant by that? Nevertheless, it is a good synthesis of all this, and certainly useful in the context of the journal and the issue in which it is being published. OK

From a bibliographic point of view, the most noticeable gaps appear in section 2.2, History of Research. For example, more relevant than the institutions in which the author himself works and which he mentions would be to highlight the important UK school, whose main centers were the University of Sheffield and UCL, and which played a crucial role in training archaeologists in petrography and in developing the current methodology of interpretation. OK added (these are just examples) It is also important to stress the original sources of the present descriptive protocols, particularly those concerning quantification (especially line 87). Similarly, lines 312–316 also require specific references for the information provided. This is not clear since these things are not mentions in the line nos. noted

The selected case studies do not seem to follow a clear rationale beyond their proximity to the author, but they are valid applications of the methodology, as valid as any other, though perhaps a bit restrictive. OK For instance, once again, important foundational studies referring to ceramic petrography in the Aegean are missing. Two at least are discussed, there are too many to mention.  For example, regarding the combination of techniques and levels of analysis for a more accurate identification of provenance (line 396), it is essential to cite Day et al. 1999: P. M. DAY, E. KIRIATZI, A. TSOLAKIDOU, V. KILIKOGLOU, 1999, Group Therapy in Crete: A Comparison Between Analyses by NAA and Thin Section Petrography of Early Minoan Pottery, in Journal of Archaeological Science 26, 8, pp. 1025-1036. Added

On another note, the phrase 'the accessibility of the equipment needed' is repeated throughout the text, but there is no description of what that equipment actually is. corrected

Some suggestions regarding the figures:
In Figs. 2.6 and 3, the letters indicating the inclusions of the thin section are not clearly visible. The lighting in some of the images in Fig. 3, such as 3.6, is not very good. Finally, Fig. 7 right lacks a scale, and in Fig. 9 the scale is barely legible. Answers to these were given above for same questions be Rev No 1 and 2.

Lastly, I note some minor errors to be addressed:
Line 250: foraminifera corrected
Line 299: can be reflected corrected
Line 478: peeling corrected
Line 500: Aegean  corrected
Line 604: fabric  corrected

 

In conclusion, this is a sound piece of work: not novel in itself, but useful both as a synthesis in its first part and as a demonstration of its potential in the second. It therefore meets the requirements for publication.

OK

Submission Date

07 August 2025

Date of this review

29 Aug 2025 18:34:09

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf