Non-Invasive Preservation Assessment of Archaeological Animal Bones by Complementary Imaging Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

We congratulate the authors for this work because it is a work with a very original theme and because it offers a new line of research that can be of great help to other researchers in the analysis of their samples, but I only congratulate the authors.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

We congratulate the authors for this work because it is a work with a very original theme and because it offers a new line of research that can be of great help to other researchers in the analysis of their samples, but I only congratulate the authors.

Response 1: 

The authors thank the reviewer for their kind words. No actional feedback, so no changes made.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very interesting work, as it combines molecular and two imaging techniques to assess the state of preservation of excavated bones. The introductory section offers a short but detailed description of archaeological bones and the current trends regarding their analysis. Regarding the two applied imaging techniques, the results are very interesting and well supported by the presented figures. The only drawbacks I can spot are the presentation of FTIR and XRF results, as both are not enough supported, or to be more precise, not adequately presented. In overall, this is a very interesting work, it is well organized, the manuscript is also well organized and easy to follow, with good use of language, the results are derived from the measurements, it is well fitted for the scope of the journal, but, please, take care of the following:

 

 

1. Line 4. Please check the journal’s template regarding names appearance.
2. Line 17. Based on.
3. Line 17. Check the journal’s template regarding citations in abstract.
4. Lines 17-19. The authors state that bones are composed of organic and mineral components. In the case of the “mineral” ones, do they mean the inorganic components or the ones that are formed due to fossilization?
5. Line 24. X-ray tomography.
6. Lines 28-29. Please use ; to separate keywords.
7. Line 69. Please, explain abbreviations upon their first mentioning.
8. Lines 81-88. This paragraph should be moved in the introduction.
9. Lines 93-94. Some details regarding the bones that were used for this study should also be added in the introduction, and better in its last paragraph. Although the use of archaeological bones for the conduction of study is clearly mentioned in the abstract, this should also be stated in the scope, giving some initial details regarding their origin (animal), the excavations they were found, and their dating.
10. Regarding FTIR measurements. I understand that FTIR measurements were employed for choosing the samples. Were they performed for the present analysis? If this is the case, lines 105- 123, together with Figure 2 should be moved in the results and discussion section. ATR-FTIR infrastructure and measurement conditions should be mentioned in the materials and methods section.
11. Regarding FTIR analysis again. “The ATR-FTIR amide I to phosphate ratio (AmI/P)” is not enough. Please refer to those bands’ wavenumbers. Please, show at least one representative spectrum. Can ratio values of high and low organic content be mentioned, in terms of limits? Can this be supported by literature? Were the FTIR spectra provided in a supplementary file and I didn’t have access?
12. Lines 170-171 and Table 2. The major, minor and trace categorization of the elements by means of XRF analysis is insufficient. Why are quantitative (even semi-quantitative) results not presented?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The preservation of archaeological bone is of great importance for both archaeological and conservation science studies. This study adopted Neutron and X-ray tomography which are non-invasive to detect the preservation condition. It would be benefit for evaluating the organic content of bones before the isotopic analysis or aDNA analysis which would will enable effective sampling. It also will contribute the subsequent protection of the bones. Overall, this manuscript has a clear structure and scientific methods, and it holds considerable academic value. The only aspect that could be improved is to emphasize the significance of assessing the preservation status of bones for related academic research in the conclusion section.

Author Response

Comments 1: 

The preservation of archaeological bone is of great importance for both archaeological and conservation science studies. This study adopted Neutron and X-ray tomography which are non-invasive to detect the preservation condition. It would be benefit for evaluating the organic content of bones before the isotopic analysis or aDNA analysis which would will enable effective sampling. It also will contribute the subsequent protection of the bones. Overall, this manuscript has a clear structure and scientific methods, and it holds considerable academic value. The only aspect that could be improved is to emphasize the significance of assessing the preservation status of bones for related academic research in the conclusion section.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The significance of the findings in relation to other academic research that assess the preservation of archaeological bone, such as aDNA, ZooMS, and microbial damage, have now been emphasized in the conclusions section (page 18, lines 598-619)

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Neutron and X-ray tomography allows for non-invasive visualization of the distribution of organic matter in bones, and in this study, the authors used this approach to visualize the heterogeneity of the distribution of organic matter in bones.

The samples analyzed in this study were found in four sites (Battle Abbey Medieval, Camber Castle Tudor, Corbridge Roman, Housesteads) and date to the Roman and Tudor periods.

For bioarchaeologists, this approach is very interesting because it allows them to identify the most suitable sampling location, thus limiting the damage caused by invasive sampling on archaeological bones for destructive analyses such as C14 and aDNA, thus helping to ensure positive results.

Furthermore, this approach allows us to obtain data on postmortem effects on bones and how these influence their preservation.

I find this article very interesting and worthy of publication. My only suggestion is to describe the archaeological contexts in which the finds were found.

A description of the archaeological sites where they were recovered is missing. These aspects should also be considered in discussions of the results.

I add two more small suggestions:

Line 107 “Seven archaeological bones were selected to represent various aspects of the collection.” Remove because it was already written before or describe why that sample was selected.

Line 108 “times and with different excavation histories” This sentence seems a little too generic to me, not having made any mention of archaeological contexts.

Line 545-547

“Without archaeological records it is not 545 possible to confidently attribute the cause of this iron, however it may be linked to nearby iron objects” Why are there no archaeological references?

Author Response

Comments 1: A description of the archaeological sites where they were recovered is missing. These aspects should also be considered in discussions of the results.

Response 1: Thank you for highlighting this. The brief description of the sites has been improved (lines 80–85).

Comments 2: Line 107 “Seven archaeological bones were selected to represent various aspects of the collection.” Remove because it was already written before or describe why that sample was selected.

Response 2: We have updated the text to remove line 107.

Comments 3: Line 108 “times and with different excavation histories” This sentence seems a little too generic to me, not having made any mention of archaeological contexts.

Response 3: We agree with this comment; however, there is no additional archaeological context available for these sites. This has now been addressed in the text (lines 109–114).

Comment 4: Line 545-547 “Without archaeological records it is not 545 possible to confidently attribute the cause of this iron, however it may be linked to nearby iron objects” Why are there no archaeological references?

Response 4: Thank you for highlighting this concern. The lack of archaeological context has been addressed in lines 109–114 directly, and references 15–18 refer to publications on each archaeological excavation.