Mortars and Renders: The Case of the Roman Villa Horta da Torre Fronteira, Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is well-structured and provides a comprehensive chemical assessment of mortars and renders of of the Roman Villa Horta da Torre Fronteira, Portugal.

Some small suggestions for improving the text:

According to the instructions (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/heritage/instructions) The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum.

The  abstract needs to be reviewed, also considering periods instead of commas.

In the second sentence of the introduction, remove: If not

In Figure 1 E, it would be interesting to highlight the location with a different color

Figure 1B depicts the sample extraction sites for the study. It highlights 70 specific locations. However, the article analyzed only 9 samples. The reason for this reduction is not clear.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The abstract needs to be reviewed, also considering periods instead of commas.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for dedicating time to review our manuscript. We have addressed all identified issues and incorporated the changes you suggested to enhance the quality of our work. The modifications related to your comments are highlighted in yellow within the revised submission.

We agree with your comment, only eleven samples were selected for analysis. For a better reading of samples’ location, we changed the figure with the location of samples studied in this work. The Fig. 1E is highlighted with different color. Regarding the abstract, I acknowledge your observation that it should be a maximum of about 200 words. We have made efforts to condense the content while maintaining clarity. We've noticed that some published articles in the journal have slightly exceeded this word limit, and we hope you can consider a slight extension for our abstract. You’re understanding and consideration on this matter are highly appreciated.

Best Regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors submitted a very interesting article titled “Mortars and Renders: Case of the Roman Villa Horta da Torre Fronteira, Portugal”.

The article regards petrographic, mineralogical, chemical and thermal characterization of different mortar samples.

The title is appropriate. It is of course essential to clearly explain the objectives of the work in the Introduction.

The general structure of the manuscript conforms to the scientific method (e.g., Introduction-Materials and Methods-Data (results)-Discussion-Conclusions).

The manuscript contains very useful information but, in my opinion, the paper should be published after major revisions.

Specific comments are reported on the attached pdf file. 

I recommend the authors to check the manuscript for typos once more before the final submission.

Sincerely,

The reviewer.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for dedicating time to review our manuscript. We have addressed all identified issues and incorporated the changes you suggested to enhance the quality of our work. The modifications related to your comments are highlighted in Bright Green within the revised submission.

Sure, we have checked for typos, formatting errors and re-designed the figures.

You’re understanding and consideration on this matter are highly appreciated.

Best Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Mortars and Renders: Case of the Roman Villa Horta da Torre Fronteira, Portugal” aims to report the results of the characterization study of mortars from a middle Imperial / Late antique Roman building in the ancient Lusitania province. The paper has several layout and typing carelessness, detectable even from a very preliminary examination. Within the text, experimental and interpretation errors are extremely recurrent.  The discussion of the results is indeed lacking, and the paper does not actually provide any new information about the study of ancient mortars, other than to report a preliminary characterization of the main compositional characteristics of the analyzed compounds

 

Specific considerations

-          the draft requires a full revision of the English grammar and spelling as well as a complete polishing of the typesetting errors. i.e.: Page 5: line 11: dolo-stone (dolostone); Page 15, why lines 23-25 are highlighted?; Page 17, line 1: double parenthesis after f in the captions;  Page 19, line 2 label c: I think it is BSE image (not SE); page 21, line 28 tessserae (tesserae); Page 21, line 24: intonacco (intonaco).

-          Quality of Figure 3 is low as the picture appears pixelated. Please provide a geological sketch map with a better quality.

-          Please enlarge figure 1, in particular 1B in order to make visible the positioning of the samples.

-          No references about the geological context are provided. Please report some literature regarding the geological characteristics of the area.

-          Page 6, line 51: mortar function not clear: Group A mortars can be simply defined as wall-painting mortar samples; Group B seems preparation mortar for wall-mosaic; Group C seems preparation mortar for opus sectile (stone slab) wall revetment; Group D: Masonry mortar or joint mortar for stone walls. Please adopt these definitions in order to make clear to the reader the type of material under study.

-          Rearrange the tables according to the format of the journal. This operation has to be done for all the tables included in the draft. In particular:

-          Table 1 returns many typesetting errors. Please rearrange according to the styles of the Journal.

-          Table 2: which is the mineral phase by side of Albite? A clinopyroxene? Remove the upper band, that is misleading and confusing. Reorganize the table according to the styles of the journal. Labels of the left band must follow the description of the group-types previously suggested. The caption about the quantification of the mineral phases is absolutely not clear. Try making the parameterizations of phases simpler; what is Apidote? Did you mean Epidote?

-          XRD spectra with identification of peak phases must be added, at least for one representative sample for each group.

-          Figure 5: what is granitic? Do you mean granite?, please define in the caption what is plg (plagioclase?); the quartzite in figure 5d seems a gneiss actually. Please add more sub-figures in order to present better the minero-petrographic composition and variability of the studied samples.

-          In page 15, line 24: Al-Si-Ca phases do not exist in cement chemistry in particular for newformed phases occurring from pozzolanic reactions in environmental temperature. Maybe you refer to the quasi-gel like phases such as C-A-S-H structures, or AFm, that are very common among the pozzolanic products occurring in ancient cocciopesto-rich mortars. Please rephase this sentence.

 

General considerations

In many parts of the paper, the mentioned literature is outdated and not strictly appropriate with the topic.

-          In the introduction, the general literature regarding the ancient types and evolution of mortars along time in not updated. Please update the references with a more specific research, i.e.:

Hobbs L.W., Siddall R. 2011, Cementitious materials of the ancient world, in , Å. Ringbom, R.L. Hohlfelder (eds.), Building Roma Aeterna: Current Research on Roman Mortar and Concrete, Proceedings of the conference (Helsinki, 27-29/03/2008), Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum 128, Helsinki, 34-58.

Artioli G., Secco M., Addis A. 2019, The Vitruvian legacy: mortars and binders before and after the Roman world, EMU Notes in Mineralogy, 20, 4, 151-202. 10.1180/EMU-notes.20.4

 

-          Regarding the philological studies on the Vitruvian standards for mortar recipes, it’s absolutely important to update the literature with more recent works, i.e.:

Greco A.V. 2011, Virtutes Materiae, il contributo delle fonti latine nello studio delle malte, intonaci e rive-stimenti nel mondo romano, Studi di Storia Antica e di Archeologia 9, Ortacesus.

Lancaster L.C. 2021, Mortars and plasters - How mortars were made. The literary sources, in Mortars, plaster and pigments, Research questions and sampling criteria, Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences (2021), 13, 192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-021-01395-0

 

-          Regarding the ubiquitous presence of Al, Si and Mg in the binder matrix of the analyzed mortars, as observed in page 23, lines 2-5, I suggest the authors to consider better the basic principles of cement chemistry regarding the rection products occurring in ancient (as well as modern) mortar-based materials, and to check the recent literature on the topic. In mean that the fairly constant stoichiometry of the peaks in the binders of Mg-Al-Si detected via EDS analyses - even if not particularly pronounced – could be related to the development of M-S-H or M-(A)-S-H phases, whose presence is being frequently detected in ancient and modern mortars and binders. These para-pozzolanic phases can develop in environmental condition from the reaction of typically-stable aggregates, rich in Mg, Si and Al, through an alkaline medium (Na, K), with a subsequent precipitation of the above-mentioned new-formed phases, usually connoted by a low-crystalline quasi-phyllosilicate mineral structure. Reconsider therefore also sentence at page 20, lines 12-14, as these phases are structurally affine to smectite clays, even if they should not be considered as clay intrusions but reaction phases. As a consequence, I do not think that Mg is related to Mg-rich limes, as stated at page 23, line 10. I would suggest the authors to reconsider also this sentence.

 

Please check and mention at least the following literature on the topic, for MSH in modern mortars:

Bernard, E.; Nguyen, H.; Kawashima, S.; Lothenbach, B.; Manzano, H. .; Provis, J.; Scott, A.; Unluer, C.; Winnefeld, F.; Kinnunen, P. MgO-Based Cements – Current Status and Opportunities. RILEM Tech Lett 2023, 8, 65-78. https://doi.org/10.21809/rilemtechlett.2023.177

 

Roosz et al. 2015, Roosz C., Grangeon S., Blanc P., Montouillout V., Lothenbach B., Henocq P., Giffaut E., Vieillard P., Gaboreau S., Crystal structure of magnesium silicate hydrates (M-S-H): The relation with 2:1 Mg–Si phyllosilicates, Cement and Concrete Research, 73, 228-237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.03.014

 

 

-          The recognition of the development of M-S-H/M-A-S-H also in ancient mortars is growing in recent literature, mention for example:

-          Ponce-Antón G., Zuluaga M.C., Ortega L.A., Agirre Mauleon J., Petrographic and Chemical-Mineralogical Characterization of Mortars from the Cistern at Amaiur Castle (Navarre, Spain), Minerals 2020, 10, 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/min10040311

-          Dilaria S., Secco M., Ghiotto A.R., Furlan G., Giovanardi T., Zorzi F., Bonetto J., Early exploitation of Neapolitan pozzolan (pulvis puteolana) in the Roman theatre of Aquileia, Northern Italy, Scientific Reports, 13, 4110. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-30692-y

-          Baragona et al. 2022, Baragona A., Zanier K., Franková D., Anghelone M., Weber J., Archaeometric Analysis of Mortars from the Roman Villa Rustica at Školarice (Slovenia), Annales, Ser. Hist. Sociol., 32, 4, 449-552. DOI 10.19233/ASHS.2022.31

 

Finally, for a general overview of the development of hydraulic phases in ancient mortars (C-A-S-H and M-S-H for example), mention, for example:

 

Dilaria, S., Secco, M., Bonetto, J., Ricci, G., Artioli, G. (2023). Making Ancient Mortars Hydraulic. How to Parametrize Type and Crystallinity of Reaction Products in Different Recipes. In: Bokan Bosiljkov, V., Padovnik, A., Turk, T. (eds) Conservation and Restoration of Historic Mortars and Masonry Structures. HMC 2022. RILEM Bookseries, vol 42. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31472-8_4

 

 

In conclusion, considering the numerous inaccuracies, the little analytical thoroughness of the data, and the typing, grammar and layout issues, I suggest a complete revision of the present draft, with a general review of the analytical data and the update of the references here reported. Nevertheless, the authors' effort to use and cross-correlate different techniques is appreciable, and this makes the work acceptable from an analytical point of view. However, the results definitely need to be revised and improved. I therefore recommend a major revision with careful checking of the points reported in this review.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The draft requires a full revision of the English grammar and spelling as well as a complete polishing of the typesetting errors

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for dedicating time to review our manuscript. We have addressed almost all the identified issues and incorporated the changes you suggested to enhance the quality of our work. The modifications related to your comments are highlighted in ‘Turquoise’ within the revised submission.

Two of the suggested references are cited in the introduction part. Surely, we have checked for typos, formatting errors and resolved ‘specific considerations.’ We are following the journal format for tables.

Figure 1, 3 are replaced with a better-quality image.

You’re understanding and consideration on this matter are highly appreciated.

Best Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The manuscript you presented deals with an interesting and important subject. It provides a simple but effective methodology to overcome a current issue in the full characterization of mortars from a Roman villa to better understand the production technique and choice of raw materials, in the geological context of this rural construction of the mortars from the villa.

Considering the potential impact on the field of studies, I believe this paper deserves publication. However, there are several errors and issues that the authors may wish to evaluate before being accepted for publication. I provide here a list of them:

 

ABSTRACT: it properly resumes the study approach and the results.

 

INTRODUCTION: I appreciate the fact the authors go straight to the point of their research. In the first lines of this section, it would be interesting if the authors should add some more references, such as:

-        Talib, H., Khan, R. B. N., Khitab, A., Benjeddou, O., & Khan, R. A. (2023). Scanning through multidisciplinary techniques and recreation of historic mortar: Case study of Rohtas Fort. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 18, e02052.

-        Marrocchino, E., Telloli, C., Paletta, M. G., Leis, M., & Vaccaro, C. (2022). The mural paintings of the cloister in the Certosa di Calci, Pisa. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 43, 103461.

-        Curulli, A., Montesperelli, G., Ronca, S., Cavalagli, N., Ubertini, F., Padeletti, G., & Vecchio Ciprioti, S. (2020). A multidisciplinary approach to the mortars characterization from the Town Walls of Gubbio (Perugia, Italy). Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 142(5), 1721-1737.

-        Esposito, D., Conte, A. M., Corda, L., & Giorgi, E. (2020). An interdisciplinary approach for the historical and technical characterization of medieval and modern mortars. Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage, 20(20), 197-212.

In my opinion, should be advisable to separate the geographical-geological setting from the rest of the text.

As concerns Fig. 1 I suggest improving the quality of the images, in particular Fig. 1B and Fig. 1E in my opinion require to be clearer. Also, Fig.3 requires a quality improvement.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In section 2.1 “Samples” the authors should better describe this section, providing some details regarding the sampling actions. As concerns the other sections of this paragraph, the authors well explain in their manuscript the several analytical methods they used.

 

RESULTS: are presented rationally, and the data, which seem to have been produced very carefully, are well presented and discussed. Tables 1, 2, 3and 4 are clearly readable, pictures and diagrams have good quality and help the readers to better understand the meaning of the text.

 

DISCUSSION: The authors extensively discuss the results obtained on the studied samples using different analytical methodologies. This section is well supported by appropriate evidence and provides good answers to the aims of the study.

 

CONCLUSION: the importance of the research questions is addressed in this manuscript, which clearly describes the study approach that presents multidisciplinary research of mortars from the Roman Villa Horta da Torre Fronteira, Portugal.  This research delves into a comprehensive analysis of mortar types, their manufacturing techniques, and the geological origins of constituent materials, shedding light on their characteristics within the context of a villa. The classification of mortar samples based on their functional role within the villa provides valuable insight into their composition and utilization. The examination of aggregates, particularly the presence of lithic grains and prismatic shapes, hints at probably limited transportation of materials from their geological sources, aligning with the local geological characteristics within a narrow radius. The uniformity in granularity across various applications, coupled with coarser sands compared to contemporaneous Roman villae, suggests a potential lack of meticulous attention in material selection and manufacturing techniques. An intriguing deduction emerges regarding the villa's location, positing it approximately 300 km away from the Roman governing center in Hispania. This spatial distance might have influenced the availability and deliberate selection of construction materials. The suggestion that the builders might not have had the means or socio-economic capability to opt for finer materials due to their context is an intriguing perspective.

Several typos are present in the text, I suggest that the authors revise accurately the text.

In conclusion, this study presents a detailed examination of mortar compositions, manufacturing practices, and their possible implications within the socio-economic and geographical context of the Roman era, offering valuable insights into construction practices during that period.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4,

Thank you very much for dedicating time to review our manuscript. We have addressed all identified issues and incorporated the changes you suggested to enhance the quality of our work. The modifications related to your comments are highlighted in ‘Pink’ within the revised submission. Two of the suggested references are cited in the introduction part. The figures related to geographical and geological parts are separated from the study samples. Surely, we have checked for typos, formatting errors and re-designed the figures. The section 2.1 is revised.

You’re understanding and consideration on this matter are highly appreciated.

Best Regards,

Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

as I can see, you made most (but not all) of the suggested changes. I suggest making all the

revisions or explain why they were not made.

 

My concerns are the following:

 

Figure 1: again, the writing on the figure is almost illegible. Can the Authors enlarge the writings?

Figure 2 and Figure 3. Well done, better than the previous.

Figure 4. The authors should enlarge numbers on the photo and explain them in the caption.

Figure 5. Better than previous one. I personally don’t like the yellow circles around letters…but  more than anything else, the writing on the white paper underneath the samples should be removed. The background should be removed from the photo and only the sample should be kept.

Table 1. I personally appreciated that the Authors removed the inner borders from the table. However, again, some figures are not alligned. Please, check once more. Moreover, also for these photos of the samples the background should be removed (the paper underneath the sample).

Table 2. The structure of the table is changed and I personally appreciate the current more than the previous one. However, my concerns stay the same: how did the Authors reach such a specific information about phases through XRD qualitative analysis? I saw that the Authors added XRD patterns…this is ok but not helpful. During the qualitative interpretation of an XRD pattern, it is not possible to precisely discriminate the type of feldspar (both plagioclase or k-feldspar,in this case) in samples. On the contrary, for example, the quartz is clearly identifiable through its two precise peaks at about 27 ° and about 21 ° 2 θ).

Figure 7. Well done.

Figure 8. The letters in the circles are in black, differently from the other image and are in different positions (top right, top left, bottom left, bottom right). The scale bar is almost illegible. Please enlarge and uniform the colors and the position of the letters as the previous figures.

Figure 9. I appreciate the enlargment of the diagrams but see comment for Figure 8 anyway regarding letters.  

Figure 10. The authors should enlarge diagrams and writings. Same concerns as previous figures about letters.

Figure 11-12. Different circles for letters once more. Writings are too little to be read easily.  

Figure 13. Well done for writings but I think that they should be larger. Element in boxes in panel d are too little. Same concerns as previous figures about letters.

Please, be consistent with the style of figures/photos and diagrams. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

the Reviewer. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for dedicating your time to review our manuscript. We have addressed identified issues to enhance the quality of our work. The modifications related to your comments are highlighted in Bright Green within the revised submission.

Respected Reviewer, below is a detailed list of the modifications we have made;

1. In Figure 1, we have replaced the smaller text with larger writing.
2. Figures 2 and 3 remain unchanged as per your approval.
3. We have enlarged the numbers in Figure 4 and described the samples in Table 1.
4. We have replaced the yellow circles around the letters in Figure 5. The writing on the white paper underneath the samples has been partially removed, with ‘QPCard 101’ kept for reference only.
5. In Table 1, we attempted to aligned the figures. The polished sections look like a background paper underneath the samples.
6. Thank you for pointing out another mistake. We have revised Table 2 accordingly.
7. You have already approved Figure 7, and it remains unchanged.

8. In Figure 8, the letters in the circles are now formatted, and larger text is written on the picture. However, the scale bar is hidden for parts c & d.
9. Figure 9 has also been formatted regarding the letters.
10. The quality of Figure 10 is enhanced.
11. In Figure 11-12, the same circles are used for letters and text is highlighted.
12. To address the third reviewers’ comments, Figure 13 has been modified.

We tried to be consistent with the formatting. Thank you again for your time and valuable feedback.

Best Regards,

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the first review, the overall quality of the paper is increased. Nevertheless, many issues are still detected and are worth of major revisions.

 - figure 4: please report in the picture the sample location labelled according to the label used in the rest of the text.

- line 282-284: mosaic layers are well studied in literature. Usually, below the tesserae setting bed (sovranucleus) [here you could anticipate note 45], there is the nucleus and eventually the rudus, according to the Vitruvian sequence. Please mention some literature on analytical studies of mosaic preparation i.e.

Secco M., Dilaria S., Addis A., Bonetto J., Artioli G., Salvadori M., Evolution of the Vi-truvian recipes over 500 years of floor making techniques: the case studies of Domus delle Bestie Ferite and Domus di Tito Macro (Aquileia, Italy), Archaeometry, 60, 2, 185-206. https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12305

 

- Table 2: why you report gehlenite (pyroxene) in the column of anorthite feldspar? create a column for gehlenite and other cpx detected. I think that they are mainly related to backed clays phases of cocciopesto aggregates (newformed for high-T), as commonly detected in ceramics. Py is probably diopside (backed Ca-Clays).

- table 2 captions: why label of Epidote is still Ap (should be Ep). Many typos errors in the caption detected.

- figure 6 is incomprehensible: too low quality picture and mineral phases are not distinguishable. Please enlarge and rearrange the figure (maybe by reporting multiple patterns at fixed X bar d-spacings).

- line 449: replace with Ca-Al-Si hydrated phases;

- line 450: substitute with "quasi-gel like pozzolanic phases"

- lines 451-452: regarding the development of CASH phases in cocciopesto mortars, please mention some reference studies in which this was observed, such as:

Dilaria et al. 2022b, Dilaria S., Secco M., Rubinich M., Bonetto J., Artioli G. 2022 High-performing mortar-based materials from the late imperial baths of Aquileia: An outstanding example of Roman building tradition in Northern Italy, Geoarchaeology, 37, 637–657.  https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.21908

Coutelas A. 2019, L’hydraulicité des mortiers antiques, entre préconçus et réalité: I’exemple des mor-tiers de tuileau et autres matériaux de Gaule romaine, I.F. Ortega, S. Bouffier (dir.) 2019, Mortiers et hydraulique en Méditerranée antique, Archéologies Méditerranéennes 6, Aix-en-Provence, 17-30.

 

- line 494: replace with “Ca-rich aerial lime”

- Where are the EDS spectra for SEM images at figure 13? The authors refer to MASH development but actually no EDS spectra are reported, proving this assumption. MASH development is eventually evidenced for Figure 12 samples (mosaic preparations).

- why in the caption of figure 13. you report  sample HT-13P that is wallpainting from G-1, and Ht-20T that is wall mosaic preparation, and not mortar of G-4?

- For the sake of clarity, please add SEM+EDS spectra of filling mortars of G-3 group.

- line 522: where is pyroxene identified by EDS?

- Figure 8: please identify in the images the mineral inclusions reported in the caption (as for figure 7).

- in the discussion, why you refer to note 45 (sovranucleus for mosaics) instead of vitruvian intonachino layer with sparry calcite (as Vitruvius refer mainly to sparry calcite not to marble)? better if you mention:

Daniele D., Gratziu C. 1996, Marmo e calcite spatica di vena: termini di un equivoco sull’intonaco vitruviano, in AnnPisa, Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, IV, I, 2, 541-548.

The use of very thin intonachino layes with no calcite is common in late antiquity, as evidenced for Aquileia: i.e.

Dilaria S., Sebastiani L., Salvadori M., Secco M., Oriolo F., Artioli G., Caratteristiche dei pigmenti e dei tectoria ad Aquileia: un approccio archeometrico per lo studio di frammenti di intonaco prove-nienti da scavi di contesti residenziali aquileiesi (II sec. a.C. – V sec. d.C.), in La Peinture Murale Antique Méthodes et Apports d’une Approche technique, Actes du colloque inter-national (Louvain-la-Neuve, 21/04/2017), AIRPA 3, Roma, 125-148.

 

- line 687

 regarding the development of pozzolanic and para-pozzolanic reaction phases, such as MSH, in ancient mortars, please report a better reference as, as Roosz et al. 2015 do not deal with ancient recipes.

Dilaria, S., Secco, M., Bonetto, J., Ricci, G., Artioli, G. (2023). Making Ancient Mortars Hydraulic. How to Parametrize Type and Crystallinity of Reaction Products in Different Recipes. In: Bokan Bosiljkov, V., Padovnik, A., Turk, T. (eds) Conservation and Restoration of Historic Mortars and Masonry Structures. HMC 2022. RILEM Bookseries, vol 42. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-31472-8_4

 

Other typos errors

- What is xxx in line 448

- line 364: "lumps and quartz" are in a bigger font size in respect to the rest of the captions

- line 449: -The

 

General issues

- each subfigure should be mentioned in the draft (i.e. subfigures in fig 4, 5 . please verify this aspect and add the reference to subfigure in the text, when appropriate.

- In general terms, the chemical evidence of the binder in my opinion is mainly related to the development of M(A)SH phases more than the use of marly limestone, mentioned at lines 517-520, that are not present locally, apart from crystalline limestones/dolostones, that is the source of lime mentioned at lines 688.

- Please carefully check the correspondence of samples mentioned in the text with the caption and tables, as many times errors and incongruences were detected

- a full revision of English is still necessary.

- In the response letter, the authors are supposed to reply to each point addressed by the reviewers. Please in the next revision, provide detailed replies to the second review questionable points.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

- a full revision of English is still necessary.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript. We have incorporated the changes you suggested to enhance the quality of our work. The modifications related to your comments are highlighted in Turquoise within the revised submission.

1. Figure 4 is now labelled consistently with the rest of the text.
2. Lines 287-289: We have included the suggested literature on analytical studies of mosaic preparation.
3. In Table 2, a separate column has been created specifically for pyroxene.
4. In the caption of Table 2, the label for Epidote has been changed to (Ep), and any typos have been corrected.
5. Figure 6 has been replaced with the best-quality picture available to us. Please note that we are unable to find a higher-quality image.
6. Line 451 of the previous draft has been replaced with "Ca-Al-Si hydrated phases".
7. Line 452 now reads: "quasi-gel like pozzolanic phases".
8. Lines 453-454 of the previous draft have been modified, and relevant reference studies have been mentioned.
9. Line 498 has been updated with the suggested phrase "Ca-rich aerial lime".
10. In Figure 13, available EDS spectra for SEM images have now been included.
11. The masonry mortar HT-18 has been added from G-4.
12. In Figure 14, SEM+EDS spectra of filling mortars from the G-3 group have been added.
13. Line 572 now includes a mention of pyroxene identified by EDS.
14. In Figure 8, the minerals have been identified and labelled directly on the image, similar to Figure 7.
15. In the discussion section, note 45 has been replaced.
16. Note 50 has been added as requested.
17. Suggested note 54 has been cited in the text.
18. The unnecessary 'xxx' has been removed from line 448.
19. The font size in the captions is now consistent throughout the manuscript.
20. In line 449 of the previous draft, the word 'The' has been added where appropriate.
21. Each subfigure is now mentioned in the text.
22. Dear Reviewer, while we agree that the pozzolanic reactions may not be evident or detectable by XRD, we appreciate your suggestion as an added possibility. However, we also believe that the presence of clay from lime raw materials or aggregates could account for the presence of Al, Si, and Mg. (previous text lines 517-520 & 688).
23. We have double-checked the correspondence between samples mentioned in the text and their respective captions.
24. The manuscript has undergone revision to improve the quality of the English language used.

Thank you once again for your time and valuable feedback. We appreciate your thorough review and the suggestions you have provided.

Best Regards,
Authors