An Insight into a Shang Dynasty Bronze Vessel by Nuclear Techniques
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Title: “An insight into a Shang dynasty bronze vessel by nuclear techniques”
Authors: Filomena Salvemini, Zeljko Pastuovic, Attila Stopic, Min-Jung Kim, Sue Gatenby
Reviewer evaluation:
The paper reports about an interesting artefact in the East Asian Collection of the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences in Sydney, Australia. It provides a non-destructive protocol for the study of metal objects in museum collections. Therefore, the subject is valuable and coherent with the journal “Applied Sciences”. However, before being considered suitable for publication in the Journal, it is necessary to reorganise some sections of the manuscript. Essential modifications include: the correct description of materials and methods (for example, radiocarbon dating is not mentioned in section 2); the provision of additional details for the burial/survey history of the object, as well as for ion beam analysis (methodology and results). As far as I know, this type of analysis is quite innovative in Heritage Science and it is worth stressing its novelty and improving its description. I am not sure whether the radiocarbon dating section is relevant. I would suggest removing it from the results.
The conclusions need some rewriting to enhance the meaningfulness of the research.
Therefore, I recommend reconsidering the paper after major revision.
Reviewer’s comments:
Specific comments:
ABSTRACT:
· I would include a brief summary of the results in the abstract.
INTRODUCTION:
Lines 22-25: This sentence is quite similar to the abstract in ref. [3]:
"The Chinese aristocracy of the Shang (circa 1550 to 1030 B.C.) and Zhou (circa 1030 to 221 B.C.) dynasties commissioned the casting of sumptuous vessels in bronze for making ritual offerings of food and wine to their esteemed ancestors. The technical sophistication and extravagant consumption of raw materials required to produce these vessels attests to their importance as symbols of power for the ruling class".
Please, modify to avoid plagiarism or use citation style.
I would also provide a reference from the historical point of view, as [3] is a text on the technical analysis of vessels, not on their history.
· Line 38: Is ref. [1] correctly cited here?
· Lines 44-57: This paragraph is quite complex. I would suggest making it clearer and remove bullet 6 as it does not deal with Chinese bronzes.
· Lines 58-66: Please, modify to make it clearer and shorten each sentence (suggestions included in the revised pdf file).
· Lines 97-102: in the previous paragraph, the potentialities of n-CT on metal artefacts; I feel that the same level of detail is needed for PIXE. Please, modify.
· Line 100: This is the sentence that explains what you did so you don't need references here. I would move them to the next sentence, with ref. [21] (line 102).
MATERIALS&METHODS:
· Lines 104-105: Dates are again different from the introduction. Please, be consistent.
· Lines 124-125: Is it worth mentioning the term ‘jue’ in the text? Moreover, in the text you introduce a range of production for the object (lines 104-105), but here you give a year with certainty. Please, modify for consistency.
· Line 140: Provided in the next sentence.
CONSERVATION HISTORY:
· I would move this section before the materials and methods.
· Lines 157-159: This description is quite detailed. Is there any reference for the conservation treatment? If not, please specify what the source is (oral communication from a conservator?).
· Lines 164-167: Please specify what the source for this citation is.
RESULTS:
· Lines 171-174: This shall be part of section 2 (materials & methods).
· Lines 189-191: Please, modify the position of each letter in Fig. 3 and shorten the caption.
· Figure 4: I would not include an image that is not yours under the results. My suggestion is to include the link in the text (line 188) and remove Fig. 4.
· Lines 196-199: Can you tell the nr of moulds? If so, please include it in this sentence.
· Line 200: There is no mention of how you performed the statistical analysis of n-CT data in section 2. Please, provide some details (after line 133).
· Table 1: I would move Table 1 here, after line 205.
Are length and width (aspect ratio) average values? If so, specify it in the headings.
The perimeter is not explained in the text.
· Table 2: How can you discriminate between the volume that is effectively attributed to the object from that of the patina? Please, clarify the data processing steps in the text.
· Lines 208-209: This process is particularly important as it can generate a great error. Could you please explain the criteria adopted for the arbitrary removal of mineralization?
· Lines 209-212: Unclear sentence, please explain better.
· Line 214: Please, modify the position of each letter in Fig. 5 so that it is above each projection. Double-check planes.
· Line 238: The scale in Fig. 6 goes up to 2 mm but here you say the maximum thickness is 3 mm...
· Line 241: I would not use the term 'coating' as it might stand for an intentional act. Maybe 'the dark layer on the bronze surface'?
· Line 245: Please, modify the position of each letter in Fig. 6 so that it is above each projection. Double-check planes.
· Footnote 2: Please, provide reference for this information and check if all terms of the equation are defined in the footnote.
· Fig. 7 – 8: These are very briefly explained in the text. Please provide details of what they tell to justify their presence.
· Line 259: Consider replacing 'silverly' with 'metal'. For clearness, you might use the same terms chosen in section 3 to describe the repair.
· Lines 285-288: If it is a fallen flake, it is also reasonable to assume that it is only made of corrosion products, and it does not include the original alloy. Therefore, I seriously doubt that you can find any area representative of the alloy on the flake. Please consider this aspect in section 4.3.
· Lines 289-293: Can you speculate on the possible mineralogical phases present in the flake, based on the distribution of these elements?
· Line 293: Can you provide any detail of the burial/survey history?
· Line 298: This type of analysis is not mentioned in the materials & methods. Please, provide details on how and where the radiocarbon dating was performed. Alternatively, you might consider not to mention it, as it is likely to come from a contaminant material.
DISCUSSION
· For what is included in this section, it is more likely to be the conclusion section. Consider renaming it.
· Lines 311-313: outcomes of gamma sp. are missing.
· Lines 328-331: This sentence demolishes the meaningfulness of the paper. Please, consider rewriting to highlight the strength of your work.
Other comments:
· see pdf file of the manuscript “applsci-2130933-peer-review-v1_revised”
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
All authors are thankful to the reviewers for their constructive feedback which will greatly improve the quality of the article. Each comment has been individually addressed and details on the applied changes have been provided in the attached file. We hope that our contribution is now suitable for publication.
Kind regards,
Filomena Salvemini
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the manuscript “An insight into a Shang dynasty bronze vessel by nuclear techniques” authors made contribution in the investigation of a bronze wine vessel, which is attributed to Shang dynasty. Due to the necessity for nondestructive analyses to be used, researchers probed material structural characteristics with n-CT and Particle induced X-ray spectroscopy techniques. Implementation of these techniques provided certain new knowledge about the object, but to my opinion insufficient to justify the stated motivation for the research. I recommend revision of the article before publication in Applied Sciences journal.
1. From the Introduction part:
From line 59
“Although the scientific examination of dozens of Chinese bronze objects produced from the period between the Erlitou culture and the Zhou dynasty which have been excavated in major archaeo logical site is completed, and despite the abundance of results from various elemental and isotopic analyses on Chinese copper-based objects in the literature, i) the role of alloys, patterns of impurities or interactions among various central or local metal industries, ii) the investigation of regional interactions and iii) the methodology of multi-piece-mould casting have never been addressed systematically [5, 12].”
From line 74
“The presented forensic study combines a suit of non-invasive analytical tools to characterize a Shang Dynasty bronze wine vessel with the goal to ascertain its authenticity.”
Based on the above cited parts, one could conclude that the experimental methods described below will give the answers to these open questions. Unfortunately, this was not the case in the presented manuscript.
I would kindly ask authors to reformulate introduction part to the extent that stated motivation logically leads to the research results and conclusions presented in the Chapter 4.
2. Figure 3, Figure 5 and Figure 6 captions: “3D maps shown in xy (a) and xy (b) planes”- repeated. Please add coordination system to the figures.
3. Regarding Figure 3, explain were the same size dots used to mark pore position, do bigger dots represent several pores close to each other?
4. Graphs presented in Fig 5d, Fig6d, Fig7 b,c,d, Fig8 b, Fig9c- too small, can’t be read properly.
5. Line 222, typo “if” to “of”.
6. In the Chapter 4.3 authors employ PIXE analysis to reveal elemental composition of the fallen flake and conclude that corrosion led to unreliability regarding determined composition of the bronze alloy. Regarding patina part, they concluded that there were different Fe, Ca, K minerals present. Whether the presented conclusions can be strengthened by combining PIXE analysis results with the findings of other non-destructive techniques, for example Mossbauer 119Sn and 57 Fe spectroscopy? Please discuss. For sure, in the patina flake part, detailed composition of minerals could be revealed that way.
7. Radiocarbon dating of the dark deposit gave age of 6390±60 B.P., i.e. 1950-6390= 4440 B.C. ?! How that can be contaminant?
Author Response
All authors are thankful to the reviewers for their constructive feedback which will greatly improve the quality of the article. Each comment has been individually addressed and details on the applied changes have been provided in the attached file. We hope that our contribution is now suitable for publication.
Kind regards,
Filomena Salvemini
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper reports about a very interesting topic and it suggests a systematic approach for the study of ancient bronze objects and their corrosion products. I confirm the subject is valuable and coherent with the journal “Applied Sciences”. I was really glad to verify that, in its new shape, it favours clearness. All sections of the paper have been greatly improved. Suggestions are provided with this revision for minor editing (see pdf file). Therefore, I recommend accepting the paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the additional feedback. Each comment has been individually addressed and the applied changes have been listed hereafter.
Kind regards,
Filomena Salvemini
-----------------------------
Line 28: “there” removed and “they” added.
Line 54: “the” added
Line 57: “the” removed
Captions of figures 3-5 corrected: “xy (a), zy (b), yx (c)”
Line 222: “nomal’s corrected with “normal’s”
Figure 4: caption modified accordingly
Figure 7: caption modified accordingly
Line 311: “the” removed
