Grouping Ceramic Variability with pXRF for Pottery Trade and Trends in Early Medieval Southern Tuscany. Preliminary Results from the Vetricella Case Study (Grosseto, Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The goals and considerations were clearly articulated from the start, showcasing the immediate connection to the cultural considerations as the ultimate goal of chemical research. This beginning, with the placing of strong emphasis on the people behind the work, is an important reminder for us all. The focus here on both scientific methodology, and the artistic features of the objects was well defined. The article well establishes the links between the chemical make-up evidence and the outer, surface evidences, as both combining to present the strongest result. I appreciate the opening clarity as to region and time frame, important for those unfamiliar, as the setting of place allows for the full understanding of the detail which follows. 

The emphasis on excessive cost of some methods as explained is also an important aspect. Especially in our current financial climate, the exploration of more readily available, lower cost options, which are still providing relevant data, is an important research goal for the future of our study. Important also is the illustration of these techniques used as a way to begin, while still employing the other, more costly measures, when possible, and after sufficient exploratory data has been gathered. This is a more inclusive approach to research which allows more participation across the field and indicates a path forward. These findings will have far-reaching impact across the arts, as each new question about the moving of areas of creativity, materials, and trade, builds upon the foundation of this work.

The placement of the data in the larger context of area and trade, together with case study examples explained which are specific, such as the small transport ware example, combine to provide a solid overview of the undertaking, which will be understandable even those outside the field. The voyage back in time to these ateliers is a fascinating one, and one that will appeal to many, regardless of area of expertise.

Author Response

Dear reviewer 1,

we highly appreciated the enthusiastic comments on our manuscript. A brief revision has been carried out for a better understanding by the reader.

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the authors have tried very hard to deal with most of the problems regarding pXRF as applied to ceramic analysis.  However, one problem that can not be addressed in their study but needs to be discussed is the XRF in general has a much more limited range of elements than NAA, ICP-MS, etc. and often distinction between ceramic groups is based upon elements that XRF is not great at detecting.  How does this limitation affect their current results and possibly guide future research? I also think they should make make it clear that their approach may not work on other pottery for this reason. 

Overall, though, other than needing a solid edit addressing the English, this is a nice paper that combines petrography and chemical analyses (WELL DONE!) and attempts to emply pXRF in a novel way. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer 2,

Thank you very much for all your suggestions that surely improve the quality of the paper. We have taken in account all your comments and a revision of the more critic sections has been carried out. We also removed the small group of reference samples of sparse glazed  from Rome since in our opinion they deserved a better contextualization and their removal allowed a better understanding of the paper by the reader.

1. I think the authors have tried very hard to deal with most of the problems regarding pXRF as applied to ceramic analysis.  However, one problem that can not be addressed in their study but needs to be discussed is the XRF in general has a much more limited range of elements than NAA, ICP-MS, etc. and often distinction between ceramic groups is based upon elements that XRF is not great at detecting.

The state-of-the-,art section has been re-organized for a better understanding of all the issues related to pXRF application to ceramic studies. In particular a brief discussion about the limits of pXRF, if compared to traditional methods, has been added in the manuscript from line 149 to line 169.

2. How does this limitation affect their current results and possibly guide future research? I also think they should make it clear that their approach may not work on other pottery for this reason.

The potentialities of the use of a tailored analytical method are introduced in the state-of-the-art (lines 170-181) and conclusions (lines 615-618) sections.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is an interesting text about an important project that explains well the opportunities and limitations of the method. I have only a few suggestions:

• Archaeological background: it is not clear to me what kind of site Vetricella is. The archaeological-historical situation and the cultural-historical interpretation need to be explained more clearly.
• Figure 3: In order to better connect the archaeometrically determined pottery entities with the archaeologically defined pottery groups, not only photos of irregularly oriented sherds but regularly oriented photos with drawings of the profiles should be shown.
• P. 12, line 437: That the ceramic groups have to do with trade is obvious, but what is meant by "Movements" - movements of people specialists or groups? One can only prove migrations with ceramics if there is detailed argumentation. This should be better explained here.
• Figure 7: I have problems understanding the message of the graph. Perhaps a longer study of the figure will help, but the authors should consider whether the graphic could be better explained in the caption or whether the graphic could be simplified.
• Bibliography: This is not a criticism, but 110 titles for the short paper seem like a lot - is that really necessary?

Author Response

Dear reviewer 3,

Thank you very much for all your suggestions that surely improve the quality of the paper. We have taken in account all your comments. A revision of the more critic section has been carried out. We also removed the small group of reference samples of sparse glazed  from Rome since in our opinion they deserved a better contextualization and their removal allowed a better understanding of the paper by the reader.

1. Archaeological background: it is not clear to me what kind of site Vetricella is. The archaeological-historical situation and the cultural-historical interpretation need to be explained more clearly.

The description of Vetricella archeological site and it’s cultural and historical interpretation have been re-organized for a clear understanding of the archaeological issues behind the present study.

2. Figure 3: In order to better connect the archaeometrically determined pottery entities with the archaeologically defined pottery groups, not only photos of irregularly oriented sherds but regularly oriented photos with drawings of the profiles should be shown.

The figure has been changed and drawings added.

3. P.12 line 437: That the ceramic groups have to do with trade is obvious, but what is meant by "Movements" - movements of people specialists or groups? One can only prove migrations with ceramics if there is detailed argumentation. This should be better explained here.

The sentence has been changed

4. Figure 7: I have problems understanding the message of the graph. Perhaps a longer study of the figure will help, but the authors should consider whether the graphic could be better explained in the caption or whether the graphic could be simplified.

The figure has been changed for a better understanding by the reader (figure 8 in the revised version of the manuscript). Part of the original figure is now included in a new figure 7 in the "Result" section.

5. Bibliography: This is not a criticism, but 110 titles for the short paper seem like a lot - is that really necessary?

We tried revisiting the bibliography by removing some references from the list. References are probably still too abundant, but the wide range of issues discussed in the present paper did not allowed removing many of of paper cited in the text.