Diagnostics and Analytical Campaign as Support for the Restoration Activity of a 14th-Century Mural Painting Representing the Virgo Lactans
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
in my opinion the manuscript is clear and well written, data and images are well presented and references are adequate. I consider the work to be a valuable contribution to the context of cultural heritage studies and appropriate for the journal Heritage.
In the attached file, I have suggested some minor changes to improve the readability of an image and correcting some typing errors. After these minor corrections, I consider the work well structured and written, ready for publication.
Thank you.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
REPLY TO REVIEWER 1
Dear authors,
in my opinion the manuscript is clear and well written, data and images are well presented and references are adequate. I consider the work to be a valuable contribution to the context of cultural heritage studies and appropriate for the journal Heritage.
In the attached file, I have suggested some minor changes to improve the readability of an image and correcting some typing errors. After these minor corrections, I consider the work well structured and written, ready for publication.
Thank you.
Authors reply: on behalf of all authors I would like to thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of the paper. We worked on it for about one year and your comment is very important because it confirms our efforts to produce a well-written and clear paper.
Thanks a lot for this.
We checked the manuscript, and we made the corrections suggested by you in the attached file.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “New insight in the production of the 14th Master Matteo Giovannetti’s workshop through a diagnostic campaign performed on the occasion of the last restoration” by Valery Tovazzi et al. offers information on the characterization of pigments and the execution technique of a medieval wall painting in the porch of St. Andrew church in Viterbo, Italy.
The title of the manuscript assumes that the wall painting was performed by Giovannetti´s workshop based on written sources, stylistic styles and comparison of the pigments characterized in this wall painting with those identified in other artworks attributed to Giovannetti. The pigments were inferred from the elemental composition obtained by XRF spectroscopy, but no confirmation was provided by other analytical techniques. Therefore, I consider that chemical evidence is not sufficient to allow an attribution to Giovannetti´s workshop. In this sense, the authors should change the title of the manuscript.
I consider that it is an interesting manuscript regarding the analysis of cross-sections of micro-samples extracted from the wall painting because it shows the different layers due to successive conservation practices on the wall painting. Nevertheless, the authors should have taken the opportunity to analyze by SEM-EDS and micro-Raman spectroscopy the different layers in the cross-sections in order to provide a precise identification of pigments and fillers in each layer. Surely, the authors have access to these analytical techniques that will undoubtedly improve the manuscript and the conclusions drawn from this study.
Regarding Table 1, in my opinion it makes no sense to include relative percentages of the elements detected in each point analyzed by XRF spectroscopy because this depends on each element, the depth of penetration and the matrix. On the other hand, in the supplementary figures it would be helpful to include the XRF spectrum of each point analyzed.
Regarding the FTIR spectra, why didn´t the authors analyze the samples by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy instead of grinding the samples and in consequence losing information on the surface and reverse layers of the samples? And why did they choose diffuse reflectance and not transmission? This is not explained in the manuscript.
Some typographic errors must be addressed:
1) Page 1, line 30, keywords: Giovannetti
2) Page 1, line 32: painting
3) Page 7, line 233: underwent
4) Page 7, line 234: interventions
5) Page 7, line 239: polarizing
6) Page 7, line 240: aims
7) Line 532: Figure 13B
8) Line 581: observe
9) Line 586: caused by the loss of…..
Author Response
REPLY TO REVIEWER 2
The manuscript entitled “New insight in the production of the 14th Master Matteo Giovannetti’s workshop through a diagnostic campaign performed on the occasion of the last restoration” by Valery Tovazzi et al. offers information on the characterization of pigments and the execution technique of a medieval wall painting in the porch of St. Andrew church in Viterbo, Italy.
The title of the manuscript assumes that the wall painting was performed by Giovannetti´s workshop based on written sources, stylistic styles and comparison of the pigments characterized in this wall painting with those identified in other artworks attributed to Giovannetti. The pigments were inferred from the elemental composition obtained by XRF spectroscopy, but no confirmation was provided by other analytical techniques. Therefore, I consider that chemical evidence is not sufficient to allow an attribution to Giovannetti´s workshop. In this sense, the authors should change the title of the manuscript.
Author’s reply: on behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the revision work and for the comments and suggestions given to us to improve the manuscript.
We agree with the reviewer comments, and we changed the title of the paper.
The new title is Diagnostics as support to the restoration activity of a 14th century mural painting representing the Virgo Lactans and to the attribution to the Master Matteo Giovannetti
I consider that it is an interesting manuscript regarding the analysis of cross-sections of micro-samples extracted from the wall painting because it shows the different layers due to successive conservation practices on the wall painting. Nevertheless, the authors should have taken the opportunity to analyze by SEM-EDS and micro-Raman spectroscopy the different layers in the cross-sections in order to provide a precise identification of pigments and fillers in each layer. Surely, the authors have access to these analytical techniques that will undoubtedly improve the manuscript and the conclusions drawn from this study.
Authors reply: concerning the analysis suggested by the reviewer, we can access to SEM-EDS by our University center, but these analyses have high costs that were not supported at the moment of the restoration. Micro-Raman spectroscopy is not available in our research group. It may clearly be possible to access to this technique thanks to the collaboration with other universities or research centers, but in this case, it was decided to proceed with the minimum number of analysis enough to obtain the information necessary to the restoration and reading of the painting.
The analyses carried out at the time of the restoration were sufficient to obtain information useful for conservation purposes and to understand the stratigraphy.
Regarding Table 1, in my opinion it makes no sense to include relative percentages of the elements detected in each point analyzed by XRF spectroscopy because this depends on each element, the depth of penetration and the matrix. On the other hand, in the supplementary figures it would be helpful to include the XRF spectrum of each point analyzed.
Authors reply: we agree with the reviewer and we removed the percentage from the table.
Concerning the XRF spectra we think that they are not useful for the aims and the results of the work. In fact, the study is addressed to know the pigments and other materials as support to the restoration and also to compare our data with those found in Avignon (the wall paintings by Giovannetti).
Regarding the FTIR spectra, why didn´t the authors analyze the samples by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy instead of grinding the samples and in consequence losing information on the surface and reverse layers of the samples? And why did they choose diffuse reflectance and not transmission? This is not explained in the manuscript.
Authors reply: we chose DRIFT modality because we had only this accessory at the moment of the analysis. Anyway, in several our previous works we always used diffuse reflectance modality, and we obtained results useful and valid for our purposes. Reflectance is reported because we are measuring it by using Diffuse Reflectance accessory.
DRIFT modality is widely used in the analysis of materials in cultural heritage as demonstrated by the wide literature related.
We have used this modality for several papers applying DRIFT both on cultural heritage materials and on other kinds of materials.
We added some explanation about our choice in the paper.
Some typographic errors must be addressed:
1) Page 1, line 30, keywords: Giovannetti
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
2) Page 1, line 32: painting
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
3) Page 7, line 233: underwent
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
4) Page 7, line 234: interventions
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
5) Page 7, line 239: polarizing
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
6) Page 7, line 240: aims
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
7) Line 532: Figure 13B
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
8) Line 581: observe
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
9) Line 586: caused by the loss of…..
Authors reply: we corrected, thank you for the comment
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe revised manuscript has been improved and most of my queries have been answered.
Regarding the new title, I would suggest to change it to “Diagnostic and analytical campaign as support to the restoration of a 14th century wall painting representing the Virgo Lactans” which is in accordance with what is mentioned in the abstract of the manuscript. In fact, in the abstract the attribution of the wall painting to Matteo Giovannetti is not even mentioned.
I consider that based on the historical and stylistic evidence discussed by the authors, the wall painting might have been painted by Matteo Giovannetti´s workshop. Regarding the pigments identified, most of them are similar to those used by Giovannetti in the paintings in Avignon, but there are some differences in the green and yellow pigments, as well as in the shellac identified in Avignon. The authors themselves conclude that the poor state of conservation of the wall painting in Viterbo could hinder the identification of some of the pigments. In conclusion and considering that there are only two artworks attributed to Giovannetti´s workshop in Viterbo, I find that the authors should be more careful in confirming the attribution of the wall painting to this master. Therefore, I propose that they replace the verb “confirm” by “suggest” in lines 533, 578 and 612.
Regarding page 12, lines 327-330, please rewrite the sentence and delete the reference to relative percentages.
On page 15, lines 408-410, could you please include a reference to support the assignation of the bands at 2987 and 2873 cm-1 to calcite? Why do you discard that tese bands correspond to C-H stretching of the organic binder?
Two typographic errors must be corrected:
1) Line 577: Matteo
2) Line 621: Matteo
Author Response
Reply to the reviewer comments are supplied in the attached file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
