Pottery Impressions Reveal Earlier Westward Dispersal of Foxtail Millet in Inner Asian Mountain Corridor

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The application of the pottery impression casting method to the study of the spread of foxtail millet is a novel perspective, but the method is too simple.

2. The small amount of samples involved in the article makes it difficult to reflect the overall situation in the region, and it is recommended that the collection of foxtail millet samples be increased.

3. There are no significant errors in the language.

Author Response

1. The application of the pottery impression casting method to the study of the spread of foxtail millet is a novel perspective, but the method is too simple.

Thanks for the comment. We take this as a stylistic comment since simplicity (or complexity, for the same token) is not an appropriate measure of scientific research. The latter should be valued based on a given study’s contribution to human knowledge and the falsifiability/accessibility of such knowledge (cf. Popper 1934, The Logic of Scientific Discovery). In this light, we modified the introductory session of the paper and highlight its contribution.

2. The small amount of samples involved in the article makes it difficult to reflect the overall situation in the region, and it is recommended that the collection of foxtail millet samples be increased.

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree that a larger sample size can enrich the discussion. However, the number of excavated sites in the region limited our sampling coverage, which is already rigorous for a region that is less historically investigated. We have carefully avoided quantitative discussions, being aware of the sample size, and highlighted the value of future investigations.

3. There are no significant errors in the language.

Thanks for checking.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear sir,

the present paper 'Pottery impressions reveal earlier westward dispersal of foxtail millet in Inner Asian Mountain Corridor' described an earlier presence of millet in Kazakhistan, before what has been reported. The article is interesting and well written, but authors don´t go deeper in the discussion. However several points must be addressed before acceptance to Agronomy. Most of them are in the annotated file I am uploading. Here they are:

- Introduction section: well written, but there are a lack of references. 

- MM: explain better the SEM procedure, how samples were collected and processed to be watched under the electron microscope.

- Tables: remove vertical lines.

- Discussion: in general well executed, but I will speculate more about the role of millet in human consumption, which sounds interesting. Take into account that in the past human consumption was number one target for every crop. Incorporate more references to this.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Dear sir,

the present paper 'Pottery impressions reveal earlier westward dispersal of foxtail millet in Inner Asian Mountain Corridor' described an earlier presence of millet in Kazakhistan, before what has been reported. The article is interesting and well written, but authors don´t go deeper in the discussion. However several points must be addressed before acceptance to Agronomy. Most of them are in the annotated file I am uploading. Here they are:

- Introduction section: well written, but there are a lack of references. 

- MM: explain better the SEM procedure, how samples were collected and processed to be watched under the electron microscope.

- Tables: remove vertical lines.

- Discussion: in general well executed, but I will speculate more about the role of millet in human consumption, which sounds interesting. Take into account that in the past human consumption was number one target for every crop. Incorporate more references to this.

Best regards

Author Response

<response to the comments>

- Introduction section: well written, but there are a lack of references.

Fair point. We have revisited the introduction and added more references.

- MM: explain better the SEM procedure, how samples were collected and processed to be watched under the electron microscope.

We added additional descriptions of the lab protocols as following:

 The sampling procedure is as follows; 1) search for the hole of impression on the inner and outer surface and cross-section of pottery fragments by naked eye and with the use of a magnifying glass, 2) pay attention to those impressions that are not fully exposed, because most of their shape is located inside the pottery fabric and is accessible only through a small hole in the surface, 3) because usually soil remains in the holes, carefully remove it with a soft brush, 4) coat the impression and the surrounding part of the pottery with acetone containing 5% Paraloid B72 to protect the pottery surface, 5) fill silicone (Tokuyama Fit Tester, Tokuyama, Japan) into the hole, 6) remove the cast from the hole after hardening, 7) remove the coating liquid to clean the surface, using 100% acetone.

Once the silicon has hardened, it is removed and then observed and identified using SEM (KEYENCE VE-8800, Japan) with a low accelerating voltage observation (0.5～20 kV). Targeting small objectives, vacuuming of the material storage can done in a short time (about five minutes). In addition, vapor deposition as preparation before observation is not required.

- Tables: remove vertical lines.

Removed. 

- Discussion: in general well executed, but I will speculate more about the role of millet in human consumption, which sounds interesting. Take into account that in the past human consumption was number one target for every crop. Incorporate more references to this.

Thank you for the suggestion. The following sentence was added:  Furthermore, the detection of miliacin, a millet grain biomarker, on Early Iron Age pottery from Kazakhstan (ref) indicates that they may have been prepared as part of the cuisine, as grain in pottery, rather than being processed like bread. Further research is needed to understand the full picture of the processing procedures of millet as a human food resource.

<responce to the notes on the attached file>

 

L6 Write the country.

 

Added

 

L39 Place this after etc.

 

Changed

 

L46 You have to add more references. Written like that, it is a poor introduction.

 

We have revisited the introduction. At the end of this paragraph, we have added the sentences and many related references; “This method has been applied previously in Japan [refs], South Korea [ref], eastern Russia [ref], Ukraine [ref], Belarus [ref] and in western Kazakhstan [ref], and presented specific archaeobotanical data such as the introduction timing of cereals, the combinations, and spatio-temporal changes. In addition, the specific procedure and the methodology has been presented in several papers [refs].”

 

L104 Please give more details on the SEM, and the procedure.

 

Noted with thanks. We added as mentioned above.

 

L107 Yes, but you have room here to explain something on how you prepared the samples for observing under the microscope.

 

We appreciated the reviewer’s suggestion and added additional information to the session.

 

L117 Bold type.

 

Changed. Thank you for checking the details.

 

L159 Is this the correct spelling? Anyway, the letter a is not italized.

 

Corrected.

 

L202 small case L.

 

Corrected.

 

L292 Interesting, but cite at least a reference.

 

We have added the citation: Ritchey et al. 2021.

 

L326 Can you tell something on a possible food with millet? Do they make a flour out of the grain? I would write some more about it.

 

We added new sentences, which read”:  “The detection of miliacin, a millet grain biomarker, on Early Iron Age pottery from Kazakhstan (ref) indicates that they may have been cooked as a grain in the pottery rather than processed like bread. Further research is needed to understand the full picture of the processing procedures of millet as a human food resource.”

 

L342 Use a more impersonal way of phrasing (indirect speech).

 

Edited: A foxtail millet impression was identified from a phase 1 context of Dali, dating to the third millennium BC.

 

L357 I would tell more about that in discussion.

 

Additional information is added: “Furthermore, the detection of miliacin, a millet grain biomarker, on Early Iron Age pottery from Kazakhstan (ref) indicates that they may have been prepared as part of the cuisine, as grain in pottery, rather than being processed like bread. Further research is needed to understand the full picture of the processing procedures of millet as a human food resource.” in discussion part.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript addresses an interesting subject of pottery impressions of millets from Inner Asia. In general, the paper has clear objectives and the approach is scientifically sound. My main doubt concerns the construction of Result chapter. I have also some other comments.

 

 

Comments:

 

1.       Title: Replace English name of millet by Latin name

2.       Please add authorship to every Latin name when on first use

3.       In the text: English names of millets should be replaced by Latin names

4.       Subchapter 3.2 in Results: avoid references in Results chapter. These citations should be placed in methods [22] and discussion [13].  

5.       Subchapter 3.3 in Results: there is any mix of methods, results and discussion, e.g. comparative dataset should be placed in methods,  and when Authors explain their results it is already a discussion

 

Technical comments:

1.    Incomplete affiliations, without names of cities or/and countries

2.    Between Lines 56-57, 255-256, 315-316, 335-336, 347-348: too much line spacing

3.    Figure 1: red circles and red asterisk – what the difference?

4.    Captions of Figures 3 and 4: Change L into l in “length”

5.    Figure 5: whose figures are presented? Please give citations in caption of figure or author

name

 

Author Response

1. Title: Replace English name of millet by Latin name

Thank you but we do not think it is needed as Latin names are clearly stated in keywords and text.

2. Please add authorship to every Latin name when on first use

We are not familiar with this custom and would like to keep it as they are. I would let editor(s) to decide.

3. In the text: English names of millets should be replaced by Latin names

The same as 1.

4. Subchapter 3.2 in Results: avoid references in Results chapter. These citations should be placed in methods [22] and discussion [13].  

Following this comment, we removed the reference.

 

5. Subchapter 3.3 in Results: there is any mix of methods, results and discussion, e.g. comparative dataset should be placed in methods,  and when Authors explain their results it is already a discussion

 Agreed. Dataset was moved in methods, while the interpretation moved to discussion. 

Technical comments:

1. Incomplete affiliations, without names of cities or/and countries

Added.

2. Between Lines 56-57, 255-256, 315-316, 335-336, 347-348: too much line spacing

Thank you very much for carefully checking. Amended.

3. Figure 1: red circles and red asterisk – what the difference?

Asterisk has two sites at very near location.

4. Captions of Figures 3 and 4: Change L into l in “length”

Done. Thanks for pointing out.

5. Figure 5: whose figures are presented? Please give citations in caption of figure or author

Name

These are all taken by the author. The caption has been revised.

Reviewer 4 Report

See attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

See attachment.

Author Response

The authors deeply show our thanks to the reviewer for her/his thoughtful and encouraging comments. 

Line 39 – Remove ‘etc’ from the sentence. I’d like to know what all of the different types of archaeological research has been done of the relationships of sites in the region.

Removed.

Line 44 – One of the things that attracted me to reviewing this paper is how interesting the authors use of impressions in pottery to identify different types of millet.

Thank you very much!

Line 55/56 - Another point of interest, which should be the case for all archaeologists, is the use of legacy collections.

Thanks for this too!

Line 86 – Do you have the number of sherds recovered from the four sites? I think this is important in the context of how many produced impressions. Please add. If the authors don’t know then say so.

We do not know but instead we have added the number and weight of observed pottery sheards per site. These are added at line 92.

Figure 1 – Can there be an inset map showing the broader region?

Added.

Line 119 – Any impressions not identified? If so, say how many. Table 2 – Are there pottery type names that can be added the Table? Is this relevant for the specialists working in the region?

There were some. Added in the result part.

Figure 3 – ‘L’ doesn’t need to be capitalized.

Corrected.

Line 219 – This sentence ‘ the date of the unearthed stratigraphy of the pottery with impressions were used’ is somewhat awkward.

This part is re-written: On the other hand, the chronology of the identified impressions depends on the stratigraphy of the site.

Line 228 – One of the questions I had early on in the manuscript was about dating and context but the authors have addressed both in this sentence/paragraph. They state them quite clearly.

This is because we need to state clearly that the context is supportive of earlier chronology, while there is still a possibility for intrusions at the same time.

Line 246/247 – As stated above, it is very good to read that the authors are highlighting that there could be alternative scenarios for how the millet was identified.

Following this, we have added biomarker approach of millet identification at the end of discussion part.

Line 257 – Do the authors which cultures in Europe possessed millet in the 2nd millennium BC?

Please see Line257: Currently, the oldest European broomcorn millet with direct dating (between the end of the 17^th and the mid 15^th BC) is charred grain from the the Late Bronze Age Vinogradnyi site belonged to the Sabatynivka culture in Ukraine.

Line 270 – Ax someone who conducts residue analysis on pottery vessels I am pleased to read that the authors have identified this as another way to identify millet.

Thanks! Added as above mentioned. 

Line 315 – It is also important for the authors to have recognized that the role of millet at this early time may not only be related to human diet but that it may be used, perhaps contemporaneously, with animals for fodder.

We totally agree with this opinion, and we believe that our paper follows this line.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the revised manuscript has been greatly improved. The analyses carried out here are reasonable and I recommend publication of this data as it is important to our understanding of the foxtail millet dispersal processes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear sir, the document is now ready for publication. 

Best