Theban Glass Traditions in the 1st Millennium BCE, Greece: New LA-ICP-MS Data and Their Archaeological Implications
, Johannes T. van Elteren 4, Nikolaos Zacharias 5, Simon Chenery 6 and Julian Henderson 7Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is well structured and reads easily. I think something went wrong with the type-setting as all the chemical compounds have lost their subscripts (Na2O instead of Na2O, and similar for other compounds). There are a few instances were relics from previous versions can also be seen, so I would recommend a thorough re-read to correct these aspects.
After a long introduction on the site and time-period considered, the discussion and conclusion seem rather short (why are both taken together). I think there is more to be said about trade/production organization (do you think the finished objects were imported? Could there be local reworking? What about the relation with metallurgy (high Sn values for example)? What about colors and sources for the colorants? With this data I think the authors can do more than they have done.
Though I understand that the authors want to look at their glass provenance, I think they should look for comparisons closer in time to their glass (Hellenistic glass for example or even roman imperial) rather than the late antique Egyptian Foy groups (there are earlier Egyptian glasses that can be considered), similarly for the Levantine glasses I think earlier groups should be considered. Though the general trends (more accessory minerals in Egyptian glasses) are valid, contemporary samples would be much better. They might not be as easy to come by, but make much more sense.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We would like to thank the first reviewer for the constructive review. Please see the attched reply to Reviewer 1.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The analysis of this set of materials is undoubtedly interesting because of the chronology of the samples and the place where they were found. However, although reference is made to the archaeological works where they come from and the chronology of each bead, it is not possible to identify any specific reference to the tombs where the beads come from. This even though sometimes in the text it is mentioned that some beads of a certain group come from the same tomb, but not from which tomb. Something that undoubtedly would be of interest for future research.
Further comparison with contemporary materials in Europe, Egypt and the Levant would be interesting.
In the Fig 8 it is not clear wich is the mentioned “black line”
In Line 368 refernece is miss. The references should be reviewed
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attached the reply to Reviewer 2.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
No comments
Author Response
There is no comment to reply to.
Thank you.
