Mining Exploration, Raw Materials and Production Technologies of Mortars in the Different Civilization Periods in Menorca Island (Spain)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work presents a new study on the physical, mineralogical and petrographic characterization of the building materials (mainly mortars) employed in some structures from the Cap de Forma archaeological site in Menorca Island (Spain) with the aim to identify raw materials and their provenance, to investigate the production techniques and to better constrain the age of construction of some building structures. The research is supported by petrographic and X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) data and by physical and mechanical property data. This study brings new, interesting findings on the raw materials employed in the production of the mortars and the adopted technologies. However, for the reasons given below, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript in its present form, so I suggest major revision before publication.

I have the following major comments mostly concerning the manuscript structure, which I
encourage the authors to think about in detail.

1. The ”Abstract” must briefly present your results and conclusions - actually it is rather some kind of Introduction.

2. The “Introduction” is not developed enough and does not allow, in its present form, a clear understanding of the contribution of the existing literature on the specific topic of the paper and the real gaps in knowledge concerning the research. References are lacking, and the various building structures of the archaeological site are badly described and roughly dated, unlike the literature reports. Moreover, as reported in a comment in the text, a sketch map of the archaeological site could be useful to better understand the descriptions. I suggest replacing figure 4 with a more detailed plan also reporting the sampling sites and other information.

3. In the paragraph “sampling” of the section “Materials and methods”, the various sampling sites are simply indicated, but the various structures from which samples were collected (tank, building structures, pit and so on) are not historically contextualised in the light of the data from literature. Also in this case, a more detailed sketch-map of the investigated site could help the reader.

4. The section “Results” is, in my opinion, the most problematic part of the paper, notably in the subparagraph “Mineralogical and petrographic characteristics of mortars”. In fact, each sample is described separately on the basis of visual analysis, stereomicroscopy analysis, and transmitted polarized microscopy without a well-organized descriptive layout. Mortars, for instance, should be conventionally described reporting the binder/aggregate ratio and the grain size (not the grain size of a single type of grains), the roundness and the sorting of the aggregate. The description should also continue describing the type of the aggregate (lithics, monocrystalline grains, skeletal remains, brick/ceramic fragments) and their nature (type of lithics, mineral phases, etc). Then, the binder matrix should be described, giving information about the microstructure, its optically isotropic or anisotropic character, heterogeneity, porosity (reporting pore size, shape, presence of clacks, etc). Moreover, samples of natural stone are also badly described, being generally classified as limestones, lacking their appropriate description. The lithics occurring in the mortars also lack an appropriate petrographic characterization. All this might limit a clear identification of the raw materials and their provenance (speculated in the discussion section).

Finally, the studied samples are grouped according to their petrographic and mineralogic features but it would be appreciable if, beside the sample names, the area of sampling (e.g., cistern, house fort, etc) could be reported.

5. In the section “Discussion”, about the presence of anhydrite and bassanite in some mortar samples (lines 819-820) Authors give an interpretation different to that one that is proposed in the result section (lines 563-564 and lines 701-703). Broadly speaking, any discussion on the obtained data should be proposed in this section and it should not to be anticipated in the result section.

6. Section “References”. I noticed a very strange referencing method: in the introduction, only a reference was included to provide background information; moreover, some references are lacking in the section “discussion” as well. On the contrary, in the last part of the Introduction section (lines 71-79) more than forty references are indicated to support some general statements concerning the study of mortars. I'm not questioning the value of the single references, but I suggest privileging the references strictly relevant to the topic of the paper.

7. For convenience of reader Table 3 and Table 4 should also report the characteristics of the group A, B, C (e.g., groups G.1, H - Limestone samples).

8. Figure 1, 2a, 2b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 seem to have poor quality. I do not know if it could be due to the quality of the draft file. Please check the resolution of the submitted images.

Most images in Figure 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 show low magnification, making the evaluation of the petrographic characterization difficult. Moreover, the use of arrows and label to highlight the features in the pictures is highly recommended for a better comprehension of the reader.

I was non able to see figure 15. Please check if image file is correctly uploaded

9. I am not a native speaker, but the text requires professional English check - there are many strange formulations.

In the manuscript, attached as separated file, I did many additional comments.

I am sure, after proper rewriting, your contribution will be valuable for many scientists worldwide.
Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

the manuscript has been extensively revised and many parts of the text have been rewritten and improved in accordance with your suggestions. Below you will find answers to comments you highlighted in your review. Please see the Word attachment of manuscript with highlighted changes.

_____

Responses to reviewer comments

This work presents a new study on the physical, mineralogical and petrographic characterization of the building materials (mainly mortars) employed in some structures from the Cap de Forma archaeological site in Menorca Island (Spain) with the aim to identify raw materials and their provenance, to investigate the production techniques and to better constrain the age of construction of some building structures. The research is supported by petrographic and X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) data and by physical and mechanical property data. This study brings new, interesting findings on the raw materials employed in the production of the mortars and the adopted technologies. However, for the reasons given below, I cannot recommend publication of the manuscript in its present form, so I suggest major revision before publication.

I have the following major comments mostly concerning the manuscript structure, which I
encourage the authors to think about in detail.

1. The ”Abstract” must briefly present your results and conclusions - actually it is rather some kind of Introduction.

Answer: The abstract was almost totally rewritten including aims, methods and main results.

2. The “Introduction” is not developed enough and does not allow, in its present form, a clear understanding of the contribution of the existing literature on the specific topic of the paper and the real gaps in knowledge concerning the research. References are lacking, and the various building structures of the archaeological site are badly described and roughly dated, unlike the literature reports. Moreover, as reported in a comment in the text, a sketch map of the archaeological site could be useful to better understand the descriptions. I suggest replacing figure 4 with a more detailed plan also reporting the sampling sites and other information.

Answer: The introduction has been totally rewritten, making it clear the topic and the contribution of this paper. Several relevant references have been added. A new chapter on the site description has been added after the introduction, reporting a more detailed description and a more constrained dating based on literature. A sketch map of the site has been added to the Fig. 1.

3. In the paragraph “sampling” of the section “Materials and methods”, the various sampling sites are simply indicated, but the various structures from which samples were collected (tank, building structures, pit and so on) are not historically contextualised in the light of the data from literature. Also in this case, a more detailed sketch-map of the investigated site could help the reader.

Answer: Figure 4 was modified adding the main structures superimposed to the sampling scheme. Additional information on the sampled structures have been added to the new chapter 2 (site description) and thus are not repeated here.

4. The section “Results”is, in my opinion, the most problematic part of the paper, notably in the subparagraph “Mineralogical and petrographic characteristics of mortars”. In fact, each sample is described separately on the basis of visual analysis, stereomicroscopy analysis, and transmitted polarized microscopy without a well-organized descriptive layout. Mortars, for instance, should be conventionally described reporting the binder/aggregate ratio and the grain size (not the grain size of a single type of grains), the roundness and the sorting of the aggregate. The description should also continue describing the type of the aggregate (lithics, monocrystalline grains, skeletal remains, brick/ceramic fragments) and their nature (type of lithics, mineral phases, etc). Then, the binder matrix should be described, giving information about the microstructure, its optically isotropic or anisotropic character, heterogeneity, porosity (reporting pore size, shape, presence of clacks, etc). Moreover, samples of natural stone are also badly described, being generally classified as limestones, lacking their appropriate description. The lithics occurring in the mortars also lack an appropriate petrographic characterization. All this might limit a clear identification of the raw materials and their provenance (speculated in the discussion section).

Finally, the studied samples are grouped according to their petrographic and mineralogic features but it would be appreciable if, beside the sample names, the area of sampling (e.g., cistern, house fort, etc) could be reported.

Answer: According to reviewer suggestions, the Results section has been rewritten modifying the structure of manuscript and with a new classification of sample groups and subgroups. Indeed, the result data have been presented according to the sampling criteria from the different sectors and ancient structures of Cap de Forma archaeological site, so as to have full correspondence with the discussion of the results in the following section. Consequently also the tables 2 and 3 have been modified with new classification of mortars and limestone groups.

5. In the section “Discussion”, about the presence of anhydrite and bassanite in some mortar samples (lines 819-820) Authors give an interpretation different to that one that is proposed in the result section (lines 563-564 and lines 701-703). Broadly speaking, any discussion on the obtained data should be proposed in this section and it should not to be anticipated in the result section.

Answer: This discrepancy was fixed eliminating the last interpretation, since after a careful checking of literature, seems not plausible.

6. Section “References”. I noticed a very strange referencing method: in the introduction, only a reference was included to provide background information; moreover, some references are lacking in the section “discussion” as well. On the contrary, in the last part of the Introduction section (lines 71-79) more than forty references are indicated to support some general statements concerning the study of mortars. I'm not questioning the value of the single references, but I suggest privileging the references strictly relevant to the topic of the paper.

Answer: Strictly relevant references were added, and many others (less specific) were removed throughout the manuscript. The bibliography was modified accordingly.

7. For convenience of reader Table 3 and Table 4 should also report the characteristics of the group A, B, C (e.g., groups G.1, H - Limestone samples).

Answer: Correction done.

8. Figure 1, 2a, 2b, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 seem to have poor quality. I do not know if it could be due to the quality of the draft file. Please check the resolution of the submitted images.

Answer: Low resolution images were improved.

Most images in Figure 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 show low magnification, making the evaluation of the petrographic characterization difficult. Moreover, the use of arrows and label to highlight the features in the pictures is highly recommended for a better comprehension of the reader.

I was non able to see figure 15. Please check if image file is correctly uploaded

Answer: The problem was fixed.

9. I am not a native speaker, but the text requires professional English check - there are many strange formulations.

Answer: English text was widely reviewed to improve the English quality.

In the manuscript, attached as separated file, I did many additional comments.

Answer: Almost all the points raised in the pdf annotated version were corrected according to suggestions.

I am sure, after proper rewriting, your contribution will be valuable for many scientists worldwide.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript of Columbu et al. is an interesting study focused on the investigation of ancient mortars from the Cap de Forma archeological site. Mineralogical and petrographic characteristics of the investigated mortars as well as several physical parameters were determined, followed by an in-depth discussion that took into account the function of the mortars, the raw materials used and production technologies. Overall the article is well written, the experimental data are correctly discussed and the topic will most probably find interest within the scientific community. I have only some minor comments for the authors.

Specific issues that need to be clarified are discussed in more details below:

Introduction: There are some parts of recycled text from a previous published paper (http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/FORTMED2015.2015.1758), including exact sentences. For example, lines 57-58:  "It is not a talaiot, at least in the common sense of the term, as the building is different from the known archetypes of this class of monuments", are the same as in the previous published paper, pg. 383. This is just an example. Please rephrase these parts.

Sampling: The authors mention that a total of 32 samples of mortars and stones were taken. However, in Table 1 only 15 samples are included. Please clarify. Also, it would be great to include some images with the actual sampling areas.

Section 3.2: Please specify the equipment used for optical microscopy. Also, no details are provided in terms of sample preparation for XRD analysis. Please clarify.

Line 208: "Seven thin sections were realized from the most significant samples…". Please explain how these representative samples were chosen.

Line 211: "In addition, X-ray diffractometric analyses (XRD) were performed on the samples 211 belonging to MIN2, MIN6, MIN8, MIN10, MIN11, MIN12 and MIN13 sampling points.. ". Why not on the exact same group of samples as the one investigated by optical microscopy (thin sections)? Please clarify.

Line 252: "... cut from the hand samples". Hand samples is confusing, please rephrase.

Line 284: "Binder / aggregate ratio by imagine analysis". Please correct to imaging analysis.

Line 288: Reference to Fig. 4 in the text is not clear to me. I believe it is an error.

Line 391: "Fragments of dark-coloured organic material (coal?), with size of about 100 μm are commonly found." In the absence of any analytical data on organic compounds this sentence needs a reference.

Figure 7: "thin section with stratification in two layers: 1) cocciopesto mortar, 2) a few pluri-millimetric fragments of limestone". Please highlight/indicate these notations in the figure (1 and 2).

Line 496: "The latter is certainly correlated to its presence in the raw limestone used for the production of lime..". Please add a reference.

Line 498: "The presence of periclase is linked to dolomite itself….". Please add a reference.

Line 516: "In addition to these, some small and rare scattered quartz crystals (20-30 μm) can be recognized, indicating that it may be a weakly arenaceous limestone (i.e., calcarenite) rather than pure limestone". This sentence needs a reference.

Line 518: "The XRD analysis shows the presence of some peaks in the diffractogram that are not well identified, probably attributable to magnesite". The peak positions should be given.

Figure 8-b is blurred and hardly visible. Please correct.

Line 443: "The presence of mafic (?) minerals with a maximum size of 500 μm is also noted". Is also a possibility… given the question mark. Please rephrase.

Line 594: "The presence of magnesite (MgCO3) appears odd in itself but could be associated with the high presence of the same dolomite." Please add a reference.

Lines 641-645: This phrase is unclear toward the end. Please rephrase.

Lines 704-708: Maybe this information (the fact that the investigated sample belong to different historical phases) should have been provided in the sampling section (3.1).

Lines 721-725: Please add some references. The study on radiocarbon dating should be cited first here.

Figure 15 is actually missing. There is only a blank square.

Line 848: "This assumption is further confirmed by chemical analyses performed by SEM-EDS.. ". Data should be provided or a reference if elsewhere published.  

Line 850: "Indeed, it is well documented that local limestones are partly to totally dolomitized thus explaining the source of magnesium found in the mortars". Please provide a reference.

References: Up to 38 of the 64 references cited are auto-citations, meaning almost 60%. I don't doubt the expertise in the field of any of the authors, but I consider that the authors should cite only their previous papers that are closely related to the topic discussed in the current manuscript. Please revise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

the manuscript has been extensively revised and many parts of the text have been rewritten and improved in accordance with your suggestions. Below you will find answers to comments you highlighted in your review. Please see the Word attachment of manuscript with highlighted changes.

_____

Responses to reviewer comments

The manuscript of Columbu et al. is an interesting study focused on the investigation of ancient mortars from the Cap de Forma archeological site. Mineralogical and petrographic characteristics of the investigated mortars as well as several physical parameters were determined, followed by an in-depth discussion that took into account the function of the mortars, the raw materials used and production technologies. Overall the article is well written, the experimental data are correctly discussed and the topic will most probably find interest within the scientific community. I have only some minor comments for the authors.

Specific issues that need to be clarified are discussed in more details below:

Introduction: There are some parts of recycled text from a previous published paper (http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/FORTMED2015.2015.1758), including exact sentences. For example, lines 57-58:  "It is not a talaiot, at least in the common sense of the term, as the building is different from the known archetypes of this class of monuments", are the same as in the previous published paper, pg. 383. This is just an example. Please rephrase these parts.

Answer: All sentences have been rephrased. The introduction was almost totally rewritten after the suggestion of reviewer 1.

Sampling: The authors mention that a total of 32 samples of mortars and stones were taken. However, in Table 1 only 15 samples are included. Please clarify. Also, it would be great to include some images with the actual sampling areas.

Answer: A total of 32 samples of mortars and stones were taken from main 13 sampling points of the Cap de Forma archaeological complex. Thus, in the Tab. 1 only the data of 13 sampling points are reported, while all the 32 samples/specimens used to determine the physical properties are reported in Tabs. 3 and 4.

Section 3.2: Please specify the equipment used for optical microscopy. Also, no details are provided in terms of sample preparation for XRD analysis. Please clarify.

Answer: The required information was added.

Line 208: "Seven thin sections were realized from the most significant samples…". Please explain how these representative samples were chosen.

Answer: We explained the reasons of samples selection.

Line 211: "In addition, X-ray diffractometric analyses (XRD) were performed on the samples belonging to MIN2, MIN6, MIN8, MIN10, MIN11, MIN12 and MIN13 sampling points.. ". Why not on the exact same group of samples as the one investigated by optical microscopy (thin sections)? Please clarify.

Answer: We explained the reasons of samples selection.

Line 252: "... cut from the hand samples". Hand samples is confusing, please rephrase.

Answer: Corrected.

Line 284: "Binder / aggregate ratio by imagine analysis". Please correct to imaging analysis.

Answer: Corrected throughout the manuscript.

Line 288: Reference to Fig. 4 in the text is not clear to me. I believe it is an error.

Answer: It was an error. Removed.

Line 391: "Fragments of dark-coloured organic material (coal?), with size of about 100 μm are commonly found." In the absence of any analytical data on organic compounds this sentence needs a reference.

Answer: Several references about the occurrence of coal fragments in the site have been added in the introduction.

Figure 7: "thin section with stratification in two layers: 1) cocciopesto mortar, 2) a few pluri-millimetric fragments of limestone". Please highlight/indicate these notations in the figure (1 and 2).

Answer: The Fig. 7 has been modified, adding a line that divides two layers of: 1) cocciopesto mortars and 2) mortars with a few pluri-millimetric fragments of limestone.

Line 496: "The latter is certainly correlated to its presence in the raw limestone used for the production of lime..". Please add a reference.

Answer: References added.

Line 498: "The presence of periclase is linked to dolomite itself….". Please add a reference.

Answer: References added and even a second possible explanation was provided.

Line 516: "In addition to these, some small and rare scattered quartz crystals (20-30 μm) can be recognized, indicating that it may be a weakly arenaceous limestone (i.e., calcarenite) rather than pure limestone". This sentence needs a reference.

Answer: References added.

Line 518: "The XRD analysis shows the presence of some peaks in the diffractogram that are not well identified, probably attributable to magnesite". The peak positions should be given.

Figure 8-b is blurred and hardly visible. Please correct.

Answer: The apparently blurred photo of figure 8b (which has a high resolution at 300 dpi) is due to the fact that the limestone (consisting mainly of calcite) in thin section has a very light, almost white colouration, but is completely realistic.

Line 443: "The presence of mafic (?) minerals with a maximum size of 500 μm is also noted". Is also a possibility… given the question mark. Please rephrase.

Answer: corrected according to suggestion.   

Line 594: "The presence of magnesite (MgCO3) appears odd in itself but could be associated with the high presence of the same dolomite." Please add a reference.

Lines 641-645: This phrase is unclear toward the end. Please rephrase.

Answer: rephrased

Lines 704-708: Maybe this information (the fact that the investigated sample belong to different historical phases) should have been provided in the sampling section (3.1).

Answer: this information has been more clearly stated in the introduction and in the sampling section

Lines 721-725: Please add some references. The study on radiocarbon dating should be cited first here.

Answer: the study, that is still in press, has been added as a reference

Figure 15 is actually missing. There is only a blank square.

Answer: Figure 15 has been replaced with a new one.

Line 848: "This assumption is further confirmed by chemical analyses performed by SEM-EDS.. ". Data should be provided or a reference if elsewhere published.  

Answer: It belongs to our unpublished data. It was added to the text.

Line 850: "Indeed, it is well documented that local limestones are partly to totally dolomitized thus explaining the source of magnesium found in the mortars". Please provide a reference.

Abundant references about this fact have been added throughout the text

References: Up to 38 of the 64 references cited are auto-citations, meaning almost 60%. I don't doubt the expertise in the field of any of the authors, but I consider that the authors should cite only their previous papers that are closely related to the topic discussed in the current manuscript. Please revise.

Answer: Reference list was widely modified, reducing the number of auto-citations and adding numerous references strictly relevant to the topic.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Journal: Minerals (ISSN 2075-163X)

Manuscript ID: minerals-1548474

Type: Article

Title: Mining exploration, raw materials and production technologies of mortars in the different civilization periods in Menorca Island (Spain)

Authors: Stefano Columbu*, Anna Depalmas, Giovanni Brodu, Gianni Gallello, Dario Fancello

Section: Clays and Engineered Mineral Materials

General comments for Authors:

The work presented by the authors is very interesting and detailed. It may arouse the interest of the readers. The subject is topical and clarifies many things related to the materials used in antiquity by the first people on the island of Menorca.

However, the work has some shortcomings that need to be resolved in order to raise the scientific level of this article. As a general comment, the following is stated:

The work is too long and in some cases repetitive. This could provoke a certain rejection in the readers.

The Discussion is too long and repeats elements seen in the Results Section.

There are too many figures.

Figures and Tables are placed too far away from the paragraphs where they are first cited.

The use of parentheses is abused.

Specific Comments for Authors:

Abstract. At the end of the abstract, a brief description of the results obtained should be given, as well as an explanation of how the results obtained could be applied.

Introduction. The Introduction is a kind of state of the art on the work done over time; therefore, authors are advised to remove the paragraphs from line 42 to 70 and put it at the end of the Introduction. Check.

Reconsider the word artifact throughout the document? Could it be structure, monument...?

Figure 1. Has this figure been made by the authors or by other ones? If it is by other authors, the reference citation must be made. Check.

Figure 3. The way of citing the authors of the Geological map of Minorca Island is wrong. The correct way is the following: "Geological map of Minorca Island [X]". The number in square brackets [X] must appear in the "References" section with the corresponding text. Check.

I ask the authors: What is the purpose of Section 2. "Geological setting of Menorca Island" in this work? In my opinion it has no role and makes the work very long. Check.

Line 178. Write (Table 1 and Figure 4) instead of (Tab. 1, Fig. 4). Please check this throughout the document.

Table 1 and Figure 4 should be removed to Section 3.1. The current position within the text is not appropriate. Please remove.

Line 253. Remove the parenthesis, this causes confusion.

Line 256. Please put the equation on a line outside the paragraph, then describe each element of the equation separately. Do the same for equations appearing on Lines 259 to 261 and throughout the manuscript. Check.

Table 2. Abbreviations have to be placed at the bottom of the table, not in the title. Check.

Table 2. This Table, as well as the Figures, must be placed immediately after the paragraph where it is cited for the first time. Please amend.

Figure 12. It is in the wrong position. It should be placed before Table 2. Please move.

It is recommended to remove microphotographs a and b from Figures 5 to 11. There is no sense in showing the macroscopic fragments of the sample as these details have been given in Table 1. Please delete in each case.

Line 634. Write Figure 13b instead of Fig.13b. Check.

Line 663. Write "mechanical strength" instead of "mechanical resistance". Check.

Lines 680 and 683.Write "1. and 2." instead of "1: and 2:".  Check.

Section 5. Discussion. This section needs to be revised. The authors do not cite references from line 678 to 858, so their ideas are not fully supported. New references need to be introduced. Check.

Figure 15. This Figure cannot be displayed; it may be a problem with converting the word document to pdf. Revise.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

the manuscript has been extensively revised and many parts of the text have been rewritten and improved according to your suggestions. Below you will find answers to comments you highlighted in your review.

Please see the Word attachment of manuscript with highlighted changes.

__________

Response to reviewer comments

General comments for Authors:

The work presented by the authors is very interesting and detailed. It may arouse the interest of the readers. The subject is topical and clarifies many things related to the materials used in antiquity by the first people on the island of Menorca.

However, the work has some shortcomings that need to be resolved in order to raise the scientific level of this article. As a general comment, the following is stated:

The work is too long and in some cases repetitive. This could provoke a certain rejection in the readers.

Answer: The manuscript has been largely improved in accordance with the reviewers' suggestions. The text has been rewritten and reduced in some sections and modified in others, trying to reduce the text wherever possible to make it as readable as possible.

The Discussion is too long and repeats elements seen in the Results Section.

Answer: Several statements from results were deleted and moved to the discussion were they are more appropriate. This also avoid repetitions

There are too many figures.

Answer: The figures are functional to the text and support the presentation and discussion of the results; if they were omitted from the manuscript, the contents would certainly be less comprehensible to the reader. For these reasons, it was considered correct to leave the figures already presented in the first version of the manuscript.

Figures and Tables are placed too far away from the paragraphs where they are first cited.

Answer: Corrected according to suggestions.

The use of parentheses is abused.

Answer: Many sentences throughout the text where rephrased.

Specific Comments for Authors:

Abstract. At the end of the abstract, a brief description of the results obtained should be given, as well as an explanation of how the results obtained could be applied.

Answer: The abstract was almost totally rewritten including aims, methods and main results.

Introduction. The Introduction is a kind of state of the art on the work done over time; therefore, authors are advised to remove the paragraphs from line 42 to 70 and put it at the end of the Introduction. Check.

Answer: The introduction was almost totally rewritten and reorganized after the suggestion of reviewer 1.

Reconsider the word artifact throughout the document? Could it be structure, monument...?

Answer: Checked and corrected.

Figure 1. Has this figure been made by the authors or by other ones? If it is by other authors, the reference citation must be made. Check.

Answer: Reference has been added.

Figure 3. The way of citing the authors of the Geological map of Minorca Island is wrong. The correct way is the following: "Geological map of Minorca Island [X]". The number in square brackets [X] must appear in the "References" section with the corresponding text. Check.

Answer: Reference was corrected adding the citation in both caption and reference list.

I ask the authors: What is the purpose of Section 2. "Geological setting of Menorca Island" in this work? In my opinion it has no role and makes the work very long. Check.

Answer: The text has been reduced but, in our opinion, this section cannot be deleted. This work focuses on the provenance of raw materials from the Menorca Island so, it is important to inform the reader where each material can be found in the surroundings, and this is propaedeutic to the discussion section.

Line 178. Write (Table 1 and Figure 4) instead of (Tab. 1, Fig. 4). Please check this throughout the document.

Answer: Checked and corrected.

Table 1 and Figure 4 should be removed to Section 3.1. The current position within the text is not appropriate. Please remove.

Answer: Moved to the suggested position.

Line 253. Remove the parenthesis, this causes confusion.

Answer: Corrected.

Line 256. Please put the equation on a line outside the paragraph, then describe each element of the equation separately. Do the same for equations appearing on Lines 259 to 261 and throughout the manuscript. Check.

Answer: Checked and corrected.

Table 2. Abbreviations have to be placed at the bottom of the table, not in the title. Check.

Answer: .Corrected

Table 2. This Table, as well as the Figures, must be placed immediately after the paragraph where it is cited for the first time. Please amend.

Answer: Corrected.

Figure 12. It is in the wrong position. It should be placed before Table 2. Please move.

Answer: Fig. 12 has been moved before the Table 2 and following figures have been re-numerated.

It is recommended to remove microphotographs a and b from Figures 5 to 11. There is no sense in showing the macroscopic fragments of the sample as these details have been given in Table 1. Please delete in each case.

Answer: Photos a) and b) in Figures from 5 to 11 (new from 6 to 12) show the peculiar macroscopic features of samples that the text does not explain so well. In addition, another referee has asked for some additions to these photos. For these reasons it would be preferable to leave them.

Line 634. Write Figure 13b instead of Fig.13b. Check.

Answer: Corrected.

Line 663. Write "mechanical strength" instead of "mechanical resistance". Check.

Answer: Corrected.

Lines 680 and 683.Write "1. and 2." instead of "1: and 2:".  Check.

Answer: Corrected.

Section 5. Discussion. This section needs to be revised. The authors do not cite references from line 678 to 858, so their ideas are not fully supported. New references need to be introduced. Check.

Answer: Discussion has been widely modified, and several references have been added.

Figure 15. This Figure cannot be displayed; it may be a problem with converting the word document to pdf. Revise.

Answer: Problem fixed.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the changes you made in the manuscript. In my opinion, it is now much more fluent and readable. Still, in the section Discussion (2. Materials from the pit and the cistern), at lines 794-796, you propose that the presence of periclase in some mortar samples might be due to the thermal dehydration at 110°C that samples have undergone in the laboratory. However, the thermal reaction of brucite Mg(OH)₂ to give MgO+H₂O takes place at  the temperature of 350–450 °C, so it appears non very credible that formation of periclase had occurred in the lab for heating at T 105°C. Moreover, I highlighted in the manuscript, attached as separated file, some errors and typos. After these small changes,  the paper can be published.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Answers to reviewer comments

The paper has been revised according to the suggestions of Reviewer 1.
In the discussion section, a more plausible explanation for the occurrence of periclase in some samples has been provided. Some references supporting our hypothesis have been added and consequently references have been renumbered to the text and the new citations have been added to the reference list.
Orthographic and grammatical errors, highlighted by reviewer 1 in the annotated pdf version of the manuscript, have been checked and corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have significantly improved their work and have followed the recommendations made by the Reviewer.

The paper is now better structured and can be approved for publication in the Minerals Journal.

Author Response

The paper has been revised according to the suggestions of Reviewer 1.
In the discussion section, a more plausible explanation for the occurrence of periclase in some samples has been provided. Some references supporting our hypothesis have been added and consequently references have been renumbered to the text and the new citations have been added to the reference list.
Orthographic and grammatical errors, highlighted by reviewer 1 in the annotated pdf version of the manuscript, have been checked and corrected.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf