Heritage Science Contribution to the Understanding of Meaningful Khipu Colours

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review report for Manuscript ID: heritage-2118917

The manuscript is an interesting study case. However, other non-invasive or micro-invasive analytical techniques, such as reflectance imaging spectroscopy, FORS, Raman, etc., would have more complementary information.

 -        Add scale to all images. Please add the units to the images with the rule on them.

 -        Materials and methods

The authors included XRF point analysis and mapping under the same section (XRF mapping). There should be two sections or a revision of the section title. Suggestion:

XRF

Point analysis

Artax …

Mapping

M4 …

Please, add information about the data processing software used.

-        Caption in Figure 9.

“Marks are placed on samples where indigo was identified by HPLC, for clarity also the samples not 347 discussed in this manuscript are marked.”

Please clarify, which marks indicate what. The asterisk on Fig.9 MBR indicates the samples with indigo; are the samples not included in the manuscript or both?

Also, include the proper reference to the figure in the text, discussing the corresponding marks.

Author Response

• = Reviewer comment
  • = Reply
• On other non-invasive or micro-invasive analytical techniques:
  • it would have been good to include these other techniques too, unfortunately, we didn't have funding for that, but we will keep this in mind for future studies when applying for funding.
• Add scale to all images. Please add the units to the images with the rule on them
  • added approximate dimensions to Figure texts instead of adding scale bars to the photographs. To some XRF images, scale has been added. We'll take this note into consideration, adding a ruler to all photos when shooting the very photograph
• XRF point analysis and mapping under the same section
  • Problem was solved by adjusting the section
• add information about the data processing software used
  • Specified in the XRF section

• Caption in Figure 9.

  “Marks are placed on samples where indigo was identified by HPLC, for clarity also the samples not discussed in this manuscript are marked.”

  Please clarify, which marks indicate what. The asterisk on Fig.9 MBR indicates the samples with indigo; are the samples not included in the manuscript or both?

  • the numbered samples in the VIS photo are those discussed in the article, and the marks on the MBR photo are placed on those that contain indigo (whether they are discussed in the article or not). The photos are aligned and are shot always in the same position.
    Number of samples discussed in the article was added to all photos in Fig.9 in order to clarify this.
  • Fig. 9 is discussed in text and the presence of indigo (indicated by the "*" marks is discussed in the same section.

Thank you for the thoughtful review, we really appreciate it.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Identification of fiber of the samples in the text. I think its important to separate/identify the fibers with their colors.  In some sections, authors do, but not consistently. Would be good to include at the beginning, ie in Table 1?

2. Most quipu studies include the composition, spin and ply direction of the cords, It would be useful to have that info-- even as an appendix.

[Fig 2 notes 'left' and 'right' wrapping but does not explain- and actually, this idea is not mentioned in the text?]

3. There are a number of recent publications: S. Hyland (various); Murro and Spitstoser (Dumbarton Oaks "Written in Knots" 2019); Missing is important publication Ana Roquero Tintes y Tintoreros de America. (especially for discussion of mordents and auxillary agents, and in chapter on cochineal in Ecuador)

Author Response

• = Reviewer
  • = Authors' Reply
•  Identification of fiber of the samples in the text.
  • Added fiber type in table 1 and in the caption of table 3
• Most quipu studies include the composition, spin and ply direction of the cords, It would be useful to have that info-- even as an appendix.
  • Appendix added
• [Fig 2 notes 'left' and 'right' wrapping but does not explain- and actually, this idea is not mentioned in the text?]
  • the “left” and “right” here are not attributes of the wrapping but of “Figure 2” which has a photo on the left and one on the right. This has been clarified in the caption
•  recent publications: S. Hyland (various); Murro and Spitstoser (Dumbarton Oaks "Written in Knots" 2019); Missing is important publication Ana Roquero Tintes y Tintoreros de America. (especially for discussion of mordents and auxillary agents, and in chapter on cochineal in Ecuador)
  • Three relevant publications from Hyland are cited. If the reviewer has other specific publications from this author in mind which are relevant to the argument, or if there are sections of the manuscript's argument to expand on through specific Hyland's publications, could the reviewer please indicate which specific publication is referring to as in the cases of the other authors? This would be very helpful.  Splitstoaser 2019 has been added as well as useful citations from Roquero 2006.

Thank you for the thoughtful review, we really appreciate it and really improved the quality of our work.

Reviewer 3 Report

This work reports on a multi-technique study of two khipus, and, It gives useful information concerning this particular kind of artwork.

The combined use of the different techniques is well described. All the results are convincing.

Therefore, I recommend this work for publication in the present form. I have no particular corrections to suggest.

Author Response

Thank you for thoughtfully reading our work and for considering it ready for publication, we really appreciate the effort and time you dedicated to this.