Archaeological Analysis of the Newly Discovered Tomb with a Relief of a Couple at the Funerary Area of Porta Sarno in Pompeii

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The paper: A Monumental Tomb with a Relief of Two Spouses at the Funerary Area of Porta Sarno in Pompeii, certainly is mainly an historical archaeological paper because no scientific data has been inserted. It is not clear the provenance of the authors because there is not their affiliation.

In detail:

1.       In the title the type of study carried out is not clear

2.       Abstract line 17, I don’t’ understand the phrase: and investigation into when….?

3.       The keywords are not enlightening on the type of study

4.       Introduction: the word funerary is repeated many times; I suggest line 27 not archaeology of death but funeral archaeology

5.       Figure 1 is not very clear I suggest making an enlargement of the affected area so that it is more visible

6.       Figure 2 is not clear and not very visible

7.       From page 4 all the captions of the figures do not correspond to the figure represented so it is very difficult to follow all the text and explanations, and Figures 3 and 4 are the same, what's the difference?

8.       Page 6 line 121: you write: This paper is a preliminary and brief scientific overview of a recently investigated funerary area east of the Porta Sarno. But no scientific data are reported!

9.       Pag 6 line 141: I don’t see the figure of the woman with hair tied up in a bun. I suggest inserting a good figure enlarged with this particular

10.   Figure 7:  It is not clear,  enlarge the particular on the right top

11.   In all the text the captions are wrong!

12.   Page 13 line 268: What kind of observations were made to determine osteoarthritis? Explain

13.   In all the text you write about: the statues are in tuff: insert the references or data about this;  who said that the wall is realized in  opus incertum and the characteristics of the plaster? Insert references or data about these information...

14.   Page 21: the whole description of the priestesses of the goddess Ceres is too long

15.   Conclusion: this is an archaeological/historical conclusion? this is not clear, I suggest to give more emphasis to the discovery

16.   The references are very few

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The paper: A Monumental Tomb with a Relief of Two Spouses at the Funerary Area of Porta Sarno in Pompeii, certainly is mainly an historical archaeological paper because no scientific data has been inserted. It is not clear the provenance of the authors because there is not their affiliation.

In detail:

1.       In the title the type of study carried out is not clear

2.       Abstract line 17, I don’t’ understand the phrase: and investigation into when….?

3.       The keywords are not enlightening on the type of study

4.       Introduction: the word funerary is repeated many times; I suggest line 27 not archaeology of death but funeral archaeology

5.       Figure 1 is not very clear I suggest making an enlargement of the affected area so that it is more visible

6.       Figure 2 is not clear and not very visible

7.       From page 4 all the captions of the figures do not correspond to the figure represented so it is very difficult to follow all the text and explanations, and Figures 3 and 4 are the same, what's the difference?

8.       Page 6 line 121: you write: This paper is a preliminary and brief scientific overview of a recently investigated funerary area east of the Porta Sarno. But no scientific data are reported!

9.       Pag 6 line 141: I don’t see the figure of the woman with hair tied up in a bun. I suggest inserting a good figure enlarged with this particular

10.   Figure 7:  It is not clear,  enlarge the particular on the right top

11.   In all the text the captions are wrong!

12.   Page 13 line 268: What kind of observations were made to determine osteoarthritis? Explain

13.   In all the text you write about: the statues are in tuff: insert the references or data about this;  who said that the wall is realized in  opus incertum and the characteristics of the plaster? Insert references or data about these information...

14.   Page 21: the whole description of the priestesses of the goddess Ceres is too long

15.   Conclusion: this is an archaeological/historical conclusion? this is not clear, I suggest to give more emphasis to the discovery

16.   The references are very few

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the article “A Monumental Tomb with a Relief of Two Spouses at the Funerary Area of Porta Sarno in Pompeii”

 

The abstract is well done and does a very nice job summarizing the study.

Lines 29-30. Please add dates for the Samnite period and the eruption date.

As for the references, I thought Heritage used sequential numbering and not numbering and then alphabetical. Also, I noticed that there are only 10 references. I feel that is probably not enough for a journal article. I will comment on this further as I move through the manuscript.

I am a bit confused by figure 1. The figure itself if okay, but the caption is confusing. The acknowledgement says it is a photo, and the funerary area is clearly labeled but nothing else is. So, the whole map is the Porta Sarno area of Pompeii. Is that correct? What is the little pullout map on the left side?

Not sure how figure 2 is related to what you say in the lead in to referring to figure 2 on line 74. I really do not understand what is being presented in figure 2. There needs to be more explanation leading into presenting the figure, or there needs to be an extended figure caption explaining what exactly is in figure 2. Also, what is in each panel for figure 3 is hard to read. Is there a way to reformat this figure to make it more legible? What are the numbers along the top and at the left and right of the largest panel? There is no legend for them. I have no idea what is being presented in the lower left panel, the upper left as well. It seems like this is important information for understanding the context of the study, so these issues need to be dealt with.

Figure 3 caption says graphic? Isn’t that a photo?

Line 88 says 0,81. to be consistent shouldn’t it be 0.81, or all 0,81. In the caption for figure 3 it says 0.94m

From line 91: bun hairstyle indicating the presence of 91 a female burial (fig. 4). Can this feature be highlighted on figure 4? Also, figure 4 caption again says graphic?

Line 102, came to light does not seem like the proper phrasing. Maybe, relief was exposed.

Spacing issue on line 109. Too many spaced between pumice and bur- I have noticed other spacing issue as well, so this needs to be thoroughly checked.

Liens 118 to 121: I appreciate the fact that this article is a preliminary reporting. I think that is fine and manuscripts reporting preliminary finds need to be published. I do think you need more references in the introductory section that ends at line 118.

Lines 123 to 138 is referring to, I think, what was presented in the photos in the first section of the article. Maybe strategically refer back to these photos in the section from 123 to 138.

Is the pediment in figure 7 the same one in figure 6? If yes, make that know please. Also, I like figure 8 which hypothetically put this piece back in place.

Line 161: visits to the funerary space….  I suggest a reference here. Seems like there should be a reference or references for lines 171 to 175.

Line 163 and 165, I am not sure what (US 1019) and (US1017) are. Maybe you need to explain this a bit?

Line 203 to 223 sounds good and is a good description of the finds and their meaning, but there are no references to the interpretation of the meaning. It seems like there should be references here.

Figure 13, can you circle the coin? I guess it is where the small ruler is located.

Lines 228 to 234, again it seems like there should be references.

Can the description for figure 15 be expanded a bit to better explain exactly what is going on in that figure. Not sure how the photo relates to covering and closing the burial.

Seems like there is something missing in the photo caption for figure 16.

Was the vessel in the photos/diagram for figures 17 and 18 recovered as part of the excavation? I am not clear on this fact based upon what I read. Is that the vessel that is referred to on line 232? This needs to be cleared up a bit in my opinion. If it was recovered as part of the excavation, are there photos of it being excavated?

Can what is stated in lines 246 to 249 be explained a bit more? What morphological features led you to believe they were female? Seems like there should be a reference to other similar work as well for lines 246 to 250

Lines 260 to 267: any references to similar reliefs that have been studied? I say the same for lines 271 to 283. Same for 290 to 311. I think that there needs to be references to similar work that others have done. Same can be said really all the way through line 358. There needs to be more references overall relating your work to others.

On line 345: (Oria, 77-80).  Not sure what this is. Is it a reference? There are some references on lines 358 and 360, but there needs to be more in previous sections.

I think I understand what you are doing in lines 372 to 394. You are linking the inscriptions in other tombs to women that served as a priestess. I don’t understand what is going on beginning on like 395 and ending on 412. Maybe the context of this needs to be explained more thoroughly.

No real well-defined discussion is provided. The article goes from describing the finds, sometimes explaining their context to other finds, sometimes not. There needs to be a brief, concise discussion section added that relates the finds in this study to other finds in other studies, and then explaining what it means and why what was discovered in this study is important.

This would then logically lead to the conclusions, which as written now, is okay, but could be much stronger. Maybe focus the conclusions around the three or four most important things your study found, why they are important, and how will what you found contribute to the existing knowledge base on this topic. End with a what does the future hold for continuing this research.

Overall, I think this is an interesting paper, that presents preliminary finding, but is still deserving of eventual publication. I have pointed out a number of items I would like to see changed or added to the manuscript. There definitely needs to be more references added. Some areas are confusing, to me at least, and they need to be re-written in part to be clearer. I feel there also needs to be a short, concise discussion section added, and that the conclusions need to be reworked. Thank you to the authors for this research, and I feel that the changes I suggest will make this a publishable manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revisions. It reads much better now. I have only found two small things that I suggest as possible changes. 1. The label on Figure 2 cannot be read. If it is important to the figure find some way to make it legible. If it is not that important then remove. 2. For figure 3 none of the red labels in the figure are able to be read. As with the above statement for figure 2, make them more legible or remove. Regarding the references. Thank you for expanding the reference list. I still do not understand the reference style used. It is cited by author and year in the body and then a numbered list at the end that is chronological. All other Heritage articles that I am familiar with are cited by [1] in the body and then the full reference is provided in the references list. Also, you call your reference list a bibliography. All of that is confusing to me, but I guess that is a matter to be worked out between you as the authors and the editors.

Thank you for preparing a very interesting article. Good luck with your future endeavors.

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewer for his instructions, which we have carried out as he suggested.

We have modified figure two, removing the unnecessary and inconspicuous label, and made the necessary labels more visible.

We have also modified figure 3, removing the non-visible and non-necessary labels and making the minimum necessary labels more visible for reference.

Regarding the references, we have modified them as indicated by the reviewer, to adapt them to the "Heritage" format, citing them numerically in the text and at the end of the list as references

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx