A Multisensory Analysis of the Moisture Course of the Cave of Altamira (Spain): Implications for Its Conservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General consideration

The manuscript addresses an important topic, that relating to the conservation of the paintings of the Altamira cave, threatened by the presence of moisture. The manuscript includes interesting results that can potentially be useful to those charged with site conservation. However, the structure of the manuscript is not convincing. Furthermore, a contextualization of the study and some in-depth analyses relating to the site are missing. Finally, the bibliography needs to be improved.

Encouraging the authors to make the requested changes, I indicate the detailed comments below.

Specific comments

Abstract. Indicate to whom and why the results of the research can be useful.

Introduction. The section directly addresses the analysis of the study site without contextualizing the topic of conservation in the broader landscape of international studies in the sector with reference also to the remote sensing techniques proposed in the manuscript. Only after this phase, by inserting a guiding thread, the authors will introduce the conservation problems of the Altamira site, explaining the reasons for the study, its aim and the methodology adopted. The part relating to the discussion of the Altamira cave should be moved to a specific section which can be named “The cave of Altamira: geographic setting, background and previous studies” or something similar. In this section, in addition to inserting what is reported in the Introduction, the authors will discuss:

a) the weather-climatic context of the area in which the Altamira cave is located;

b) the geological features of the site by referring to the literature or direct data deriving from site surveys;

c) studies relating to previous microclimatic monitoring investigations conducted in the Altamira cave, illustrating the main results. The studies will be useful to better understand the causes of the humidity (e.g. infiltration, condensation) that threatens the conservation of rock paintings;

d) the history of previous restoration interventions, anticipating and expanding what is reported in lines 670-672. Past restorations will be useful to evaluate the risk for the conservation of rock paintings and better contextualize the results of the investigations reported in the manuscript.

Line 55-58. The discussion must be linked with literature data or any technical reports relating to the analysis of the state of conservation drawn up by the relevant bodies.

Line 91. Highlight that previous studies [14,15] were performed by some of the same authors who signed the manuscript submitted for publication.

3.2. Results of the GPR overlying layer: attributes

Discuss the results relating to the identification of fractures in close connection with what is reported in Figure 8 (e.g. line 503-504).

Line 529. To which geophysical investigations are the authors referring ([14, 15)]?

4. Discussion

Line 596-598. Compare with data in the literature relating to microclimatic monitoring to constrain the hypotheses.

Line 604-605. Which data supports this statement?

Line 623. “…other indirect phenomena”. What do the authors mean?

Line 650-651. Connect the discussion to any literature data available relating to microclimate monitoring inside the cave.

Line 652-655. The discussion on importance of degradation phenomena needs to be correlated to the literature of the sector (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.165218 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2016.11.011 ).

Line 665. “Recent geophysical prospecting…”(?). Please clarify.

Conclusions. Include some considerations relating to possible concrete risk mitigation countermeasures that the authorities in charge of the conservation of the Altamira rock paintings should implement based on the findings of the research. Also discussing the limitations of the study and analysing future research prospects to improve the knowledge of the cave, having the preventive conservation in mind (e.g. which other aspects not considered in the research should be investigated or which aspects should be investigated better?)

Minor points

When (date) were the surveys carried out?

Some images do not include graphic scale (Figg. 2,4,5,6,10)

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to thank the editor for the time and effort to gather insightful reviews for our submission. We also would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript that help significantly improve our paper's quality in this revision.

Based on the provided set of reviews, we have carefully revised our paper. The details of our revision are described below. We hope that the reviewers find the changes satisfactory, and the revised manuscript successfully addresses the comments of the reviewers.

The revised manuscript is submitted to the MDPI submission website, and we attach this letter that discusses our changes made with respect to each of the comments. Again, these reviews were very instructive, and we would like to thank the reviewers once again for their time to review the paper.

You can find the point-by-point answers in the attached document

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

In general, the paper was enjoyable to read and informative. Additional references would be useful. A few typos do exist and should be corrected. A few figure captions could be improved. Background material on what happened to the cave at discovery would be informative. Here ate a list of specific items to address:

Line 39: References for “well-known bisons” would be helpful.

Line 40: Figure 1 caption should be expanded with additional details. For example, clarify if the black lines are outlining the extent of the Cave of Altamira. Could highlight that the ceiling image for Polychrome Hall is also shown.

Line 44: References for the natural closure.

Line 51: More details about discovery and what was done that exposed the cave; include references please. This could even include the infilling of the main fissure that is discussed towards the end of the paper and has a significant impact on the paintings.

Line 66: more details highlighting what we are looking at would be helpful. Is the white calcium deposits? What is the yellow?

Line 287.5 Eq 3: The first Z2 is actually Z1.

Line 306: Clarify if this was done inside the cave looking up.

Line 312: This is the first mention of the cement and should be discussed in the background material as previously noted.

Line 362: Is the extra “o,” a typo?

Line 467: Figure 8 Caption. This is a very complex figure and the authors should expand the caption. Also – the caption panel labels to not match the figure panel labels.

Line 504: How was the humidity data collected or what was the data source? The paper does not discuss climate monitoring as part of its data collection.

Line 604: How was the humidity data collected or what was the data source? The paper does not discuss climate monitoring as part of its data collection.

Line 613: Should the phase “journey to the innermost zones” be “journey from the innermost zones”?

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We would like to thank the editor for the time and effort to gather insightful reviews for our submission. We also would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their valuable comments on the manuscript that help significantly improve our paper's quality in this revision.

Based on the provided set of reviews, we have carefully revised our paper. The details of our revision are described below. We hope that the reviewers find the changes satisfactory, and the revised manuscript successfully addresses the comments of the reviewers.

The revised manuscript is submitted to the MDPI submission website, and we attach this letter that discusses our changes made with respect to each of the comments. Again, these reviews were very instructive, and we would like to thank the reviewers once again for their time to review the paper.

You can find the point-by-point answers in the attached document

Best regards,

The authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors performed a thorough revision, following the reviewer's suggestions in detail. I congratulate the authors for the work carried out which has certainly contributed to increasing the scientific quality of the article and the interest for the scientific community and stakeholders.

Kindest regards