Review Reports - Let the Lead Tags Talk—Terms on Carnuntum Tesserae Referring to Textiles, Colours and Dyeing in the 2nd Century CE

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a thorough and well-presented examination of lead tags found in Carnatum. For the most part, edits and comments are minor and are included below. The biggest issue is the lack of references in the section about dyes. It is not clear where much of this information comes from, and when a claim is made about the literature/previous work, references are either absent or are limited to self-citation. Increased engagement with the existing academic literature relating to dye sources/dye analysis will greatly strengthen the article, in which case I could then recommend the article for publication.

Line 30: delete commas: “In the Roman empire, commercial tags made of lead labelled…”

Line 39: replace “ca.” with “approximately” or “around”

Line 42: “whereas” instead of “while”

Line 55: why is the reference in red?

Figure 2: instead of using “…” to indicate the colour coding, use “=”

Line 103: “sections” instead of “chapters” would be more appropriate throughout

For the abbreviations/reading, it seems that sometimes the same abbreviation is interpreted as referring to multiple different things. For example, “b” is interpreted as both banata and birrus, “pa” is both palla and pannium . How do you explain this or differentiate between multiple possibilities?

Figure 3: labels are hard to read…font size should be increased, ideally don’t use italics for this

Lines 203-205: The phrasing here is confusing, and I’m not sure exactly if my interpretation is correct, but I think it should say “Alternatively, it is possible that the client Euchilus is a fullo” (rather than “further”)?

Figure 4: same issue with legibility

Line 227: “ointment” spelled incorrectly

Line 269-271: “Other important sources include archaeobotanical finds of dye plants…” why are these not referenced here?

Line 311-312: consider changing slightly to say “Weld…is the most important European dye plant for yellow since ancient times” (also, do you have a reference for this?)

Line 332: change to “been used worldwide…”

In general, section 7 (on “colours, dyes, and dyeing technologies”) is lacking in references. Where is this information coming from on the natural dyes and their sources/chemistry? I’m surprised to see that Dominique Cardon’s book is not cited once in this section, and Hofenk de Graaff is cited only once. There are also several claims that seem to be based on the broader literature that are not supported by any citations. For example, the authors state that “it can be challenging to identify plant species based on dye analysis of yellow-dyed archaeological textiles,” but there is no reference for this statement, despite there being many articles that deal with the identification (and differentiation) of yellow dyes and pigments. The authors’ own work is cited somewhat regularly in this section, but this is not necessarily the only (or most appropriate) reference.

Line 455: Label is spelled incorrectly

Line 651: “A total of 179 inscribed lead tesserae were discovered, providing historical insights…” (missing a comma)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. They have been invaluable in helping us to improve our article. My responses to your suggestions are written in red below.

The figures of the lead tags are now in section 2 (Materials and methods), supplemented by 2 figures and numbered as 3.a-g.

The translation was integrated in the Tables 1-3.

The new versions of the tables 1-3 were inserted by using the ‘Track Change’ function. However, the ‘old’ ones were deleted without this function being used.

Please note that all colour adjectives in square brackets in the caption of Figure 5 (formerly Figure 4) have been deleted, as they are listed in Table 3.

Kind regards

Regina Hofmann-de Keijzer

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is a thorough and well-presented examination of lead tags found in Carnuntum. For the most part, edits and comments are minor and are included below. The biggest issue is the lack of references in the section about dyes. It is not clear where much of this information comes from, and when a claim is made about the literature/previous work, references are either absent or are limited to self-citation. Increased engagement with the existing academic literature relating to dye sources/dye analysis will greatly strengthen the article, in which case I could then recommend the article for publication.

Line 30: delete commas: “In the Roman empire, commercial tags made of lead labelled…”
DONE

Line 39: replace “ca.” with “approximately” or “around”
ca. was replaced by “around”

Line 42: “whereas” instead of “while”
DONE

Line 55: why is the reference in red?
It was a mistake, corrected.

Figure 2: instead of using “…” to indicate the colour coding, use “=”
DONE

Line 103: “sections” instead of “chapters” would be more appropriate throughout
DONE

Lines 136-137: can you provide more insight into why these abbreviations are interpreted as referring to clothing? It’s not obvious from the table. Also, it may be easier to interpret if the translations were in the table where the words appear, rather than the caption
In the newly written Section 3 (Results and Discussion), bibliographical references are given as well as in the Tables 1-3.

Thank you very much for suggesting that the translations be integrated into the tables. Following consultation with our editor, the new versions of the tables 1-3 were inserted by using the ‘Track Change’ function. However, the ‘old’ ones were deleted without this function being used.

For the abbreviations/reading, it seems that sometimes the same abbreviation is interpreted as referring to multiple different things. For example, “b” is interpreted as both banata and birrus, “pa” is both palla and pannium. How do you explain this or differentiate between multiple possibilities?
This question is addressed in the newly written section ‘Results and discussion’.

Figure 3: labels are hard to read…font size should be increased, ideally don’t use italics for this
DONE Thank you very much for pointing that out!

Figure 4: same issue with legibility
DONE Thank you very much for pointing that out!

Line 227: “ointment” spelled incorrectly
DONE

Line 269-271: “Other important sources include archaeobotanical finds of dye plants…” why are these not referenced here?
At the end of the 'Material and Methods' section, the archaeobotanical and archaeozoological finds are mentioned. A reference is also made to the relevant subsections for more information.

Line 311-312: consider changing slightly to say “Weld…is the most important European dye plant for yellow since ancient times” (also, do you have a reference for this?)
The sentence has been changed into: Since prehistoric times, weld (Reseda luteola L.) has been the most important source of yellow dye in Europe and a reference was added.

Line 332: change to “been used worldwide…”
DONE

Line 455: Label is spelled incorrectly
DONE

Line 651: “A total of 179 inscribed lead tesserae were discovered, providing historical insights…” (missing a comma)
DONE

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The find of lead tags in a Roman cesspit at Carnuntum is spectacular, especially for the large number and the precise dating of the objects. The lead tags have a high potential for economic and textile research, and this is made perfectly clear in the article. It makes sense to focus on only one aspect in the article, and for this purpose, the evidence of the lead tags for colours and dyes was selected. The research presented in the article is a splendid interdisciplinary work between archaeology, epigraphy and natural sciences.

A few minor issues are to be criticised:

Three tables present the list of garment terms (table 1: lines 144-156), textile services (table 2: lines 157-166) and colours/dyeing terms (table 3: lines 232-254) and give translations for each term. The references for these translations indicate the pending publication by Petznek et al, which is inadequate because it is not yet accessible. A few accessible bibliographic references should be cited here.

Author Response

Vienna, 2 September 2025

Dear Reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. They have been invaluable in helping us to improve our article. My responses to your suggestions are written in red below.

The figures of the lead tags are now in section 2 (Materials and methods), supplemented by 2 figures and numbered as 3.a-g.

The translation was integrated in the Tables 1-3.

The new versions of the tables 1-3 were inserted by using the ‘Track Change’ function. However, the ‘old’ ones were deleted without this function being used.

Please note that all colour adjectives in square brackets in the caption of Figure 5 (formerly Figure 4) have been deleted, as they are listed in Table 3.

Kind regards

Regina Hofmann-de Keijzer

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A few minor issues are to be criticised:

To get an idea about the appearance of the lead tags, the reader would probably appreciate to see a foto of one or several of these lead tags right at the beginning of the article. Instead a foto of a lead tag is presented only later in the article, on pages 15-16.
Thank you very much for pointing that out. The figures were placed in section 2 (Materials and methods) and supplemented by 2 figures. Following consultation with our editor, the figures were inserted in section 2 by using the ‘Track Changes’ function. However, they were subsequently deleted from the back pages without this function being used.

Two times it is mentioned, that no textiles from Roman Carnuntum survived on which to carry out dye analysis (lines 20-21 and lines 690-691). This sentence needs to be explained in more detail: findings of Roman textiles in Carnuntum do exist (K. Grömer et al., Römische Textilfunde aus Carnuntum, in: Carnuntum Jahrbuch 2012, page 153-166), but they are too degraded to allow a successful dye analysis to be carried out.
Thank you for suggesting the change and providing the reference. The text was reformulated in three places: abstract, sector 7 (Terms related to colours and textile dyeing) and sector 17 (Conlusions) and the reference was added to the text in section 7.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a fascinating summary of the 179 excavated lead tesserae from a 2^nd C Roman cesspit in ancient Carnuntum in Pannonia Superior. The decipherment of these tags provide valuable information about the dye and textile restoration services provided in antiquity in this location – which itself has not borne preserved textiles for physical analysis. Frankly I was totally unaware of this ancient process of marking clothing for repair, so I found the entire article riveting – I think the Heritage readership will enjoy it too. Moreover, the work is presented extremely well and contains ample bibliographic information, allowing it to be accepted without further major changes. Well done.

Therefore my comments are mostly trivial:

Table 2 under colouring and dyeing contains two entries that are entirely in parentheses, which is intended to indicate the unwritten part of the abbreviation. However, there is nothing listed outside the parentheses to indicate the letters actually appearing on the lead tags. Is this an error? The entries are (colore tingere) and (tingere)

Juglon on line 298 should be juglone

The use of Chapter designations in the text to reference the sections confused me. I thought these were missing book citations. I would recommend replacing Chapter with Section, for example line 448 “See Chapter 12” would be “See Section 12 below”.

Line 461 includes the word “estimated” when I think the authors meant “esteemed” since it appears to be talking about the precious nature of the dye.

Author Response

Vienna, 2 September 2025

Dear Reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for your suggestions. They have been invaluable in helping us to improve our article. My responses to your suggestions are written in red below.

The figures of the lead tags are now in section 2 (Materials and methods), supplemented by 2 figures and numbered as 3.a-g.

The translation was integrated in the Tables 1-3.

The new versions of the tables 1-3 were inserted by using the ‘Track Change’ function. However, the ‘old’ ones were deleted without this function being used.

Please note that all colour adjectives in square brackets in the caption of Figure 5 (formerly Figure 4) have been deleted, as they are listed in Table 3.

Kind regards

Regina Hofmann-de Keijzer

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Therefore, my comments are mostly trivial:

Juglon on line 298 should be juglone
DONE

Line 461 includes the word “estimated” when I think the authors meant “esteemed” since it appears to be talking about the precious nature of the dye.
DONE

Figures 5-9 come far too late in the manuscript. They should be placed right after the description of their investigation, probably around line 90. I would also recommend one figure for what is now 6-9 with them side by side as a, b, c, and d. It will make their comparison easier and save page space.
Thank you very much for pointing that out. The photos were placed in section 2 (Materials and methods). Following consultation with our editor, the figures were inserted in section 2 by using the ‘Track Changes’ function. However, they were deleted from the back pages without this function being used.