Geomagnetic and FDEM Methods in the Roman Archaeological Site of Bocca Delle Menate (Comacchio, Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents an interesting case study of MAG and FDEM in an archeological site located in North Italy. I have just few comments listed here below.

Fig.1 Map come with poor resolution as a simple screenshot. Please add a real location map with coordinates and possibly a sub panel showing a larger scale location (e.g. North-Italy).

FIg.2 Has Italian Names impressed, please change the figure with English labels to help readers.

Ln119 'landscape t', maybe a typo

Line 208 Authors did not explain the role of in-phase signal, that can be related to magnetic susceptibility. Moreover a multi-depths FDEM device can be used also with a single frequency and multi-coils probe.

Ln242 Maybe Google Earth images

Ln 300-305 Authors should underline this is just an apparent conductivity value (as correctly stated after), since no inversion of FDEM raw data was used. Also the LIN assumption should be inserted here.

Ln 376 to compare MAG and FDEM, which not in-phase signal map was considered?

Ln386 Maybe conductivity maps instead of conductive

Conclusion. In conclusion the geophysical surveys seem to not overlap with the old excavation, as correctly stated. Maybe the interesting lines coming from MAG can be better discussed in this framework.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have now completed such a revision, taking into account all your advices. We replied you point-by-point:

• The paper presents an interesting case study of MAG and FDEM in an archeological site located in North Italy. I have just few comments listed here below.

Authors: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

• Fig.1 Map come with poor resolution as a simple screenshot. Please add a real location map with coordinates and possibly a sub panel showing a larger scale location (e.g. North-Italy).

 Authors: A new image was added

• Fig.2 Has Italian Names impressed, please change the figure with English labels to help readers.

Authors: We changed the label in English

• Ln119 'landscape t', maybe a typo

Authors: We delete the letter, it was a mistake

• Line 208 Authors did not explain the role of in-phase signal, that can be related to magnetic susceptibility. Moreover a multi-depths FDEM device can be used also with a single frequency and multi-coils probe.

Authors: We have rephrased the text and we add the role of the in-phase components, even if we did not use them because they are not correlated with the geomagnetic data.

• Ln242 Maybe Google Earth images

Authors: We have added the word

• Ln 300-305 Authors should underline this is just an apparent conductivity value (as correctly stated after), since no inversion of FDEM raw data was used. Also the LIN assumption should be inserted here.

Authors: We rewrote the sentence to highlight this point.

• Ln 376 to compare MAG and FDEM, which not in-phase signal map was considered?

Authors: How we wrote in the text, the in-phase components data set was not correlated with the geomagnetic data.

• Ln386 Maybe conductivity maps instead of conductive

Authors: We have changed the suggested word.

• In conclusion the geophysical surveys seem to not overlap with the old excavation, as correctly stated. Maybe the interesting lines coming from MAG can be better discussed in this framework.

Authors: We have tried to make a first interpretation in the Conclusion chapter, even if we don’t have more archaeological information on the long and large magnetic anomalies. We need to dig!

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors:

The article presents the results of a multidisciplinary geophysical investigation (geomagnetic and FDEM method) applied to a Roman archaeological site, aimed at identifying the planimetry of previous archaeological excavations and possibly new archaeological remains. The article is well written, and the information provided is very detailed. In my opinion it deserves to be published with some minor revisions which I suggest below:

Abstract: the differences found in the results between the two methods as well as the advantage of their integrated use should be better clarified in the abstract.

Line 104 (and elsewhere): Po (Padus is the Latin name). In some parts of the work the river is called Po (in Italian) but elsewhere it is called Padus (in Latin)…

Figure 2: I recommend eliminating the definitions in Italian from the figure and from the caption, unless they are the official name of the geological formations.

Lines 115-117: Unclear sentence. It should be fixed.

Line 119: delete t

Line 139-140 vicus / vici: it would be better to define the meaning of the Latin words used.

Lines 168-169 channel/ channels: did you mean canal?

Line 281 [30-] missing references?

Line 304 where sigma is…

Line 305 quad: better write quad bike

Lines 326-328. the sentence is unclear. Please rephrase

Line 330 (white crosses on fig. 9): In figure 9 there is no white cross. Did you mean the white arrows?

Figure 9. It looks confusing to me. It is not clear why two orthophotos were used, which, among other things, do not have the same orientation. All the necessary information, including the limits of previous excavations, should be placed in the same image, in order to better compare the results discussed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have now completed such a revision, taking into account all your advices. We replied you point-by-point:

Dear Authors: The article presents the results of a multidisciplinary geophysical investigation (geomagnetic and FDEM method) applied to a Roman archaeological site, aimed at identifying the planimetry of previous archaeological excavations and possibly new archaeological remains. The article is well written, and the information provided is very detailed. In my opinion it deserves to be published with some minor revisions which I suggest below:

Authors: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions

• Abstract: the differences found in the results between the two methods as well as the advantage of their integrated use should be better clarified in the abstract.

Authors: We add some new sentences in order to improve the abstract.

• Line 104 (and elsewhere): Po (Padus is the Latin name). In some parts of the work the river is called Po (in Italian) but elsewhere it is called Padus (in Latin)…

Authors: We have changed the name in Po river

• Figure 2: I recommend eliminating the definitions in Italian from the figure and from the caption, unless they are the official name of the geological formations.

Authors: A new image was added

• Lines 115-117: Unclear sentence. It should be fixed.

Authors: We rewrote the sentence.

• Line 119: delete t

Authors: We delete it.

• Line 139-140 vicus / vici: it would be better to define the meaning of the Latin words used.

Authors: We have defined the meaning in the text.

• Lines 168-169 channel/ channels: did you mean canal?

Authors: We have changed the word in canal

• Line 281 [30-] missing references?

Authors: We have added the number.

• Line 304 where sigma is…

Authors: We have corrected the mistake.

• Line 305 quad: better write quad bike

Authors: We did the correction.

• Lines 326-328. the sentence is unclear. Please rephrase

Authors: We rewrote the sentence.

• Line 330 (white crosses on fig. 9): In figure 9 there is no white cross. Did you mean the white arrows?

Authors: Yes, we did a mistake.

• Figure 9. It looks confusing to me. It is not clear why two orthophotos were used, which, among other things, do not have the same orientation. All the necessary information, including the limits of previous excavations, should be placed in the same image, in order to better compare the results discussed.

Authors: We have decided to improve the figure adding a new image with a saturation colour filter. We think that it is important to have two different images in order to highlight the crop marks that are not visible on a merged image, as you suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

please fine my comments on your manuscript in the marcked pdf version of the paper.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have now completed such a revision, taking into account all your advices. We replied you point-by-point:

Authors: We followed all your suggestions and comments indicated in the pdf file.

• ..the applied geophysical methods..

Authors: Yes, we have added it.

• many others

Authors: Yes, we have corrected it.

• their ability to..or These methods are able to..or They are able to..

Authors: Yes, we have corrected it.

• ...and there are

Authors: Yes, we have corrected it.

• that reported their success

Authors: Yes, we have corrected it.

• i think i got the point, but this sentence need to be rephrased..is not clear

Authors: We rewrote the sentence.

• I'm not sure i understand this sentences...they look more for discussion or conclusion information rather than for the introduction..please, try to be more clear

Authors: We rewrote the sentence and part of them was moved in the conclusion.

• and the GPR?

Authors: We have added it.

• i totally agree..i'd suggest to reorganaize this part of the introduction in a way that a reader can get the point. Geophysical prospecting for archaeology, pro, limitation, the importance of an integrated use of different methods, etc etc..

Authors: We rewrote the introduction and we tried to improve it.

• ..main..repetition..be carefull all over the text

Authors: We checked them.

• it's a repetition..you already said that few lines before

Authors: We delete the sentence.

• the height of the bottom sensor from the ground is?

Authors: We have added this information in the text.

• i'd believe that the readers would be corious to see also the in phase maps

Authors: We rewrote the sentence and the in-phase data were not able to give us more information and they are not correlated with the magnetic map.

• why? it lack an archaeological interpratation of the recovered anomalies

Authors: We tried to improve the archaeological interpretation in the Conclusion chapter, even if we don’t have more archaeological information on the long and large magnetic anomalies. We need to dig!

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Good job,

thanks

V.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you very much for your positive comment.