Archaeometric Surveys of the Artifacts from the Archaeological Site of Baro Zavelea, Comacchio (Ferrara, Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Singnififant finding is required in Abstract section. 

Result clarification need to be improved. 

Correlation between results/sub section is needed. 

Section 6 need to be changes/rename. 

Several references are outdated. Kindly replace with the updated (5 years before current year)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Singnififant finding is required in Abstract section. 

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have modified the abstract.

Result clarification needs to be improved. 

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have added more information.

Correlation between results/sub section is needed. 

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have added a new sentence.

Section 6 need to be changes/rename. 

            We agree with the Reviewer, and we have deleted the number, as requested by the Author’s Guideline.

Several references are outdated. Kindly replace with the updated (5 years before current year)

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have changed some references, except for some related to classifications.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think it was an interesting job and authors obtained some achievements.

Some suggestions are recommended. 

1. In the abstract section, some achievements are suggested to be supplemented and the background contents can be shortened.

2. I think the conclusion section can be summarized for 3-4 points for a better reading ability. 

3. Line 220 it was suggested to be written into an equation. 

4. Table 3 can be described in a figure and data can be attached below. 

In total, it was a good job. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

I think it was an interesting job and authors obtained some achievements.

Some suggestions are recommended. 

1. In the abstract section, some achievements are suggested to be supplemented and the background contents can be shortened.

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have modified the abstract.

2. I think the conclusion section can be summarized for 3-4 points for a better reading ability. 

            We agree with the Reviewer, and we have summarized the Conclusion, as requested.

3. Line 220 it was suggested to be written into an equation. 

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we changed line 220 with an equation.

4. Table 3 can be described in a figure and data can be attached below. 

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have described Table 4 as figure 4.

In total, it was a good job. 

            We thank the Reviewer for the appreciation and for the suggestions for the improvements of the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper discusses a “Archaeometric surveys of the artifacts from the archaeological 2 site of Baro Zavelea, Comacchio (Ferrara, Italy).”. In my opinion, the authors shall revise the paper carefully/significantly and submit again for a review. The research can be improved in the following aspects:

 

1- Please provide main output of your research with an appropriate value in abstract. Abstract exactly don't reflect scope of this paper.

2- More meaningful keyword list should be prepared.

3- References need to get to the point of the paper and clearly spell out its contributions.

4- More detailed interpretations of figures and tables could be expected in the paper.

5- The quality of some figures should be improved to rise the readability

6- The interpretation of results section is not well written in the paper. The article has significant   shortcomings in terms of the significance of the presentation of the results.

7- The paper should be discussed from the generally viewpoints. It should not be discussed of only one way.

8- Conclusions should be given a systematic and brief explanation of the research issue.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This paper discusses a “Archaeometric surveys of the artifacts from the archaeological 2 site of Baro Zavelea, Comacchio (Ferrara, Italy).”. In my opinion, the authors shall revise the paper carefully/significantly and submit again for a review. The research can be improved in the following aspects:

1- Please provide main output of your research with an appropriate value in abstract. Abstract exactly don't reflect scope of this paper.

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have modified the abstract.

2- More meaningful keyword list should be prepared.

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have changed the keywords.

3- References need to get to the point of the paper and clearly spell out its contributions.

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have changed some references.

4- More detailed interpretations of figures and tables could be expected in the paper.

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have added more information.

5- The quality of some figures should be improved to rise the readability

            We agree with the Reviewer, and we have improved the quality of the figures.

6- The interpretation of results section is not well written in the paper. The article has significant shortcomings in terms of the significance of the presentation of the results.

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, we have partially modified the results, adding more information.

7- The paper should be discussed from the generally viewpoints. It should not be discussed of only one way.

We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion, we partially modified the text.

8- Conclusions should be given a systematic and brief explanation of the research issue.

            We agree with the Reviewer, and we have summarized the Conclusion, as requested.

Reviewer 4 Report

Would you please insert a stratigraphic column show the different formation, their age and their thickness (see attached as example).

Would you please generate barchart relate to the XRF analysis (see attached as example).

Would you please established a mineral components based on the XRF analysis.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Would you please insert a stratigraphic column show the different formation, their age and their thickness (see attached as example).

            We thank the Reviewer. The main focus of the work is the petro-archaeometrical characterization of the natural and building materials finds in the excavation. We currently are unable to produce the stratigraphic section, the archaeologists are still working on it, but we thank the reviewer for the suggestion and will prepare it for further work.

Would you please generate barchart relate to the XRF analysis (see attached as example).

            We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion, we added the bar chart related to the XRF analysis in the text as figure 3.

Would you please established a mineral components based on the XRF analysis.

            We thank the reviewer for the observation, but we are only able to make a few inferences about the mineral components based on the XRF analysis. As the excavation and survey work is still ongoing and we are collecting more samples, we will expand the study of these by also introducing XRD analysis and thin section study in the next paper.

Reviewer 5 Report

I have several comments before publishing.

1. Thanks in the abstract should be moved to Acknowledgment.

2. Deleting the term “texture” from the manuscript, because this means that you have calculated mean, stander deviation (sorting), skewness, and kurtosis.

3. There is repetition in the sentence “which were then analyzed at Department of Physics and Earth Sciences of the University of Ferrari”, so delete this along the manuscript. It mentioned only in the Materials and methods one time.

4. Deleting the word “Map” from Figure 1, because from b to i are pictures (figures) not maps.

5. Deleting the title of paragraph 2.2. And merged with 2.3.

6. Page 5: why the authors dried the samples at 105 °C for 24 hours, under this temperature some materials are converted. Always in geochemical analysis, we use 60°C for drying.

7. In the geochemical analysis, the LOI was determined at 1000 to 1100°C for 2 hours. Here, the LOI represent H₂O released from the clay and gypsum minerals in addition to the CO₂ released from calcite and dolomite. The studied samples are enriched in calcite and dolomite in addition to clay minerals, and the LOI values are very low relative to the present minerals. So, after treating the samples with 1000 °C for 24 hours, what phases represent this LOI.

8. What is the importance of the trace elements? The authors not employ these elements in this study.

10. Adding the symbols in the fields of the Figure 2.

11. Merging the Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c to be one table, and delete the chemical analysis of the trace elements.

12. All the total of the major oxides is 100%, are their values recalculated to 100%.

13. Page 13: how the authors know there is feldspar and mica? We know this from XRD analysis, or we should have positive correlation between Al₂O₃ and K₂O (K-feldspar) or between Al₂O₃ and Na₂O (plagioclase).

14. More details in conclusions section, so the authors should rewrite it to more representative and concentrate.  

 

With my best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 5

I have several comments before publishing.

1. Thanks in the abstract should be moved to Acknowledgment.

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have modified the abstract.

2. Deleting the term “texture” from the manuscript, because this means that you have calculated mean, stander deviation (sorting), skewness, and kurtosis.

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, and we have modified the text

3. There is repetition in the sentence “which were then analyzed at Department of Physics and Earth Sciences of the University of Ferrari”, so delete this along the manuscript. It mentioned only in the Materials and methods one time.

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have modified the text

4. Deleting the word “Map” from Figure 1, because from b to i are pictures (figures) not maps.

            We agree with the Reviewer, and we have modified the caption.

5. Deleting the title of paragraph 2.2. And merged with 2.3.

            We thank the Reviewer for his / her suggestion, and we have modified the manuscript.

6. Page 5: why the authors dried the samples at 105 °C for 24 hours, under this temperature some materials are converted. Always in geochemical analysis, we use 60°C for drying.

            We thank the Reviewer for the observation, we are sorry, we made a typo mistake, and we correct it.

7. In the geochemical analysis, the LOI was determined at 1000 to 1100°C for 2 hours. Here, the LOI represent H₂O released from the clay and gypsum minerals in addition to the CO₂released from calcite and dolomite. The studied samples are enriched in calcite and dolomite in addition to clay minerals, and the LOI values are very low relative to the present minerals. So, after treating the samples with 1000 °C for 24 hours, what phases represent this LOI.

            We thank the Reviewer for the observation, we improved the text with calcimetric results carried out, in order to validate the LOI procedure, on selected samples of mortars and bricks..

 

8. What is the importance of the trace elements? The authors not employ these elements in this study.

            We agree with the Reviewer, and we have added more information in the results.

10. Adding the symbols in the fields of the Figure 2.

            We have modified figure 2, to better explain the result.

11. Merging the Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c to be one table, and delete the chemical analysis of the trace elements.

            We thank the Reviewer’s suggestion, but all the authors agree that trace elements are important in the analysis to discriminate materials. Only the most significant graphs comparing trace elements with silica content have been included in the manuscript, but this does not mean that the other trace elements are also not important. For this reason, the trace elements in the tables in figure 2 have not been deleted.

12. All the total of the major oxides is 100%, are their values recalculated to 100%.

            Yes.

13. Page 13: how the authors know there is feldspar and mica? We know this from XRD analysis, or we should have positive correlation between Al₂O₃and K₂O (K-feldspar) or between Al₂O₃and Na₂O (plagioclase).

            We thank the Reviewer for the suggestion, we add two more diagrams and implemented the text with their short description.

14. More details in conclusions section, so the authors should rewrite it to more representative and concentrate.  

            We agree with the Reviewer, and we have summarized the Conclusion, as requested.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is ready for publication

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for his/her suggestions that have enriched and improved our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

In my opinion, the revised version of manuscript is sufficient for publication.

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for his/her suggestions that have enriched and improved our work.

Reviewer 4 Report

I did request a stratigraphic column where samples were taken but it was not provided

Author Response

Unfortunately, we are unable to provide the stratigraphic sampling column at this time. The work by the archaeological group that supervised the work is still being published and they have not allowed us to include it in this work.

Reviewer 5 Report

Most of my comments were not taken into consideration and still I have commented:

1. Deleting the term “texture” from the manuscript, because this means that you have calculated mean, stander deviation (sorting), skewness, and kurtosis.

2. There is repetition in the sentence “which were then analyzed at Department of Physics and Earth Sciences of the University of Ferrari”, so delete this along the manuscript. It was mentioned only in the Materials and methods one time.

3. In the geochemical analysis, the LOI was determined at 1000 to 1100°C for 2 hours. Here the LOI represents H₂O released from the clay and gypsum minerals in addition to the CO₂ released from calcite and dolomite. The studied samples are enriched in calcite and dolomite in addition to clay minerals, and the LOI values are very low relative to the present minerals. The CaO and MgO contents are not confirmed with the LOI. So, after treating the samples with 1000°C for 24 hours, what phases represent this LOI?

4. What is the importance of trace elements? The authors did not employ these elements in this study.

5. Adding the symbols in the fields of Figure 2.

6. Merging Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c to be one table, and delete the chemical analysis of the trace elements.

7. All the total of the major oxides is 100%, are their values recalculated to 100%?

8. Page 15: Changing Si₂O to SiO₂.

 

With my best regards

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewer for his/her suggestions that have enriched and improved our work.

 

1. Deleting the term “texture” from the manuscript, because this means that you have calculated mean, stander deviation (sorting), skewness, and kurtosis.

            We thank the Reviewer, and we deleted “texture” in the manuscript.

2. There is repetition in the sentence “which were then analyzed at Department of Physics and Earth Sciences of the University of Ferrari”, so delete this along the manuscript. It was mentioned only in the Materials and methods one time.

            We thank the Reviewer, and we delete the sentence in addition.

3. In the geochemical analysis, the LOI was determined at 1000 to 1100°C for 2 hours. Here the LOI represents H₂O released from the clay and gypsum minerals in addition to the CO₂released from calcite and dolomite. The studied samples are enriched in calcite and dolomite in addition to clay minerals, and the LOI values are very low relative to the present minerals. The CaO and MgO contents are not confirmed with the LOI. So, after treating the samples with 1000°C for 24 hours, what phases represent this LOI?

We thank the Reviewer, through LOI procedure the loss of weight is due only to volatile elements. In the case of the presence of carbonate, the procedure is able to measure the loss of only CO₂. This latter corresponds to the 43.971% (based on the molecular weights) of the calcium carbonate content. For this reason, the loss of weight recorded by LOI results in any case lower than the percentage of carbonates.

4. What is the importance of trace elements? The authors did not employ these elements in this study.

            As requested previously, we add new information in the results

5. Adding the symbols in the fields of Figure 2.

            We added the legend in the figure 2a and 2b as requested

6. Merging Tables 2a, 2b, and 2c to be one table, and delete the chemical analysis of the trace elements.

            Done

7. All the total of the major oxides is 100%, are their values recalculated to 100%?

YES

8. Page 15: Changing Si₂O to SiO₂.

            We thank the Reviewer, and we applied the correction.