Review Reports - Archaeological Classification of Age of Sail Shipwrecks Based on Genever’s Material Culture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Archaeological Classification of Age of Sail Shipwrecks Based 2 on Genever’s Material Culture is an excellent article that takes a step back to look at alcohol consumption aboard ships in the age of sail and how the material remains of this consumption to help archaeologists decipher ship nationality. The paper contributes to a growing body of literature that uses comparative approaches and bigger data sets to investigate human behavior and consumption and it contributes to a methodology for identifying shipwrecks.

It is very well-written with zero editorial issues. This is one of very few papers I've ever reviewed that is in this great of editorial shape. Well done author! The paper was logical and had great flow. The data set was acceptable and the conclusions were in line with the data and sample size presented. Historical context and background was well researched and sources were excellent. I recommend publication wholeheartedly.

Author Response

Thank you to Reviewer 1 for their kind words and taking the time to read the article. I am glad that you also saw the merit in my comparative approach.

Best,

Charlotte Jarvis

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of the paper:

Archaeological Classification of Age of Sail Shipwrecks Based on Genever’s Material Culture

By Charlotte Jarvis

In my view, the author has done a very thorough work in compiling information about case bottles and stoneware drinking vessels associated to shipwrecks from Holland and other origins.

The main outcome of her research is that: wreck sites with both square case bottles and stoneware drinking vessels are likely to be Dutch ships, while British, French, and Portuguese ships generally do not contain both types of material. (Page 16, lines 678-679). This is an important and valuable conclusion and thus I believe the paper should be published.

Having said that, in my view the article needs improvement or rewriting in some parts in order to address or take into account some important issues (listed below). This is all complemented by comments on the PDF file itself and in the review form.

11) Methodology section

This section must be significantly improved, clearly indicating which steps were taken in the research, which sources were used (Archaeological, historical -written and graphic-), how were the sources selected (with what criteria, if any? (for example looted sites are not included, but what if a site was partially looted and partially excavated properly?) How is the information analised? Etc

As a suggestion related to the methodology, for an academic paper grey literature (such as the website Below the surface) should be avoided.

22) Reuse or recycling of genever containers on board ships

The fact that many bottles (and other containers) are frequently recycled or reused on board historic vessels is not duly considered. It should be acknowledged, and taken into consideration for the assumptions and conclusions of this article. In other words, glass or stoneware bottles that did contain or could have contained genever, at the time of the ship´s loss could have NOT contained genever inside. Some examples are the Queen Anne´s Revenge, the HMS Swift, and the Kennermerland . The latter is a VOC ship for which the author admits that at least two Bartmann jugs contained mercury (Page 13, line 594)

33) Use of containers that may look like genever containers (for example on the basis of the type of ceramic, like stoneware) which were not used for genever.

I don’t think it is duly acknowledged in her article as a note of caution, although the author herself gives examples of such situations:

“The VOC’s Avondster’s midship galley and crew area show a mix of Asian and European stoneware storage jars, including the Bartmann variety. These were found near the galley area and thus would have held provisions of all sorts, not just alcohol” (page 14, lines 646-648)

44) Figures

Figures should be located close to where they are mentioned in the text for the first time

55) Tables

In first place, the tables are not referenced in the text. This is a basic requirement for academic papers. The text should include phrases like: “Table 1 represents…” or “As can be seen in Table 1…” and so on. Same with the figures.

Secondly, the difference between the two tables is not clear, since their respective titles are:

Table 1. Summary of a Sample of British, French, and Portuguese Shipwrecks (NOTE: if a list is already a sample, putting “summary of sample” looks strange. You can put selected cases)

Table 2. Sample of Age of Sail Shipwrecks (NOTE: this one includes the same nationalities as Table 1, plus Dutch)

So why two tables?

Thirdly, I suggest to add a column with the main bibliographic references for each site. However, if the policy for bibliographic reference is not to include them in the text, then a number next to the name of the wrecksite, which corresponds to a bibliographic reference at the end, should be added.

In fourth place, probably another column with additional relevant information (or something like that) may solve the problem of the lengthy descriptions site by site that form the results and discussions sections (see below).

66) Results section and Discussion section

There is not much difference between the Results Section (specially after point 3.2) and the Discussion sections. They both include of a long list of wrecksites and a brief description of their contents, ocassionally with a comment, and also without a clear distinction between what the original researchers state and what the author thinks. I found these two sections very difficult to follow and suggest to summarise the information in table/s within the results section, and leaving the discussion precisely for considerations on what where the results. I also suggest not to include sites where the information is unreliable, or there is no data or too incomplete.

This is a good example of cases when “less is more”.

77) Conclusions section

Phrases like: “This correlation is strongest for the period 1580-1760” (Page 16, line 684) should be supported by some objective and clear data, such as percentages of shipwrecks that have both type of remains (case bottles and stoneware drinking vessels) and are of Dutch origin, perhaps divided into time frames. This can be easily derived from the tables, and the author can arrive to several conclusions along this line. In any event, the reader should have enough data in order to determine whether he/she agrees with the author.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my article, and for your extremely helpful comments. I found that while the comments required some intense restructuring of the paper, they greatly helped improve the overall flow and strength of the argument. I especially liked your suggestion to add the background information for each shipwreck to the table. Below, I will reply to some of the more specific comments.

Methodology

I liked the suggestion to make the methods (especially the integration of historical and archaeological data more clear) and hope that I have rewritten accordingly.
I also added a better section talking about why I do not use treasure-hunted shipwrecks and the ethical nature of it.
I did not continue to avoid the so-called grey literature (Below the Surface website) that you critiqued. This is because the website is run by a professional archaeologist, who excavated on many of the shipwrecks I discussed, and therefore is done by a reputable author. I did, however, after your comments make this fact more obvious.

Reuse or Reuse/Use of similar looking containers

Thank you for bringing this point to my attention. Before, I thought that I did a sufficient job mentioning this point, but now I see I needed to be more clear.

Figures

To me, the figure placement seems okay. I used the Heritage style-guidelines which said the images must be 'close to the main text'. For other journal requirements and in my university, this had always been within 1 page, and that is the case in my paper.

Tables

The feedback here was very useful and I have incorporated more background information into the table and combined it all into only 1 table.
This does make the table less pleasing to the eye and so I will be attaching it seperate and asking the Heritage graphics/editors work with it.

Results and Discussion

I have also restructured this and integrated the material better to avoid repetition.

Conclusion

I have tried to make the conclusion stronger and based in more material

PDF Comments

Many of these I made the changes for. It was especially helpful to see where I forgot to translate a Dutch word for the reader.
Thank you for catching one of the jenever/genever typos
A few times it was noted that I had not introduced a wreck before, but that was not the case. Nevertheless, I tried to make it more clear.
I added artefact dimensions to the figure captions

Thank you again for all your assistance and help with the article!

Best,

Charlotte

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This new version is much clearer and better structured. The efforts and good disposition of the author are appreciated.

I have very few additional comments (indicated as notes or highlights in the PDF manuscript attached) but there is no need from my part to see the article again. It can go directly to publication.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you again for taking the time to read my work. I found your suggestions extremely helpful, especially with regard to the sentences you suggested re-wording. I also appreciate the typos you caught. It can be hard to see spelling errors in the tracked changes sometimes! I have made all the suggested fixes

Best,

Charlotte Jarvis