The “Restoration of the Restoration”: Investigation of a Complex Surface and Interface Pattern in the Roman Wall Paintings of Volsinii Novi (Bolsena, Central Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript seems to be interesting. Ultraviolet fluorescence photography (UVF), X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF) , microscope conservation, Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), µ-Raman spectroscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) were used to study the conservation status and related materials. However, there are some issues with the writing and content discussion of this paper that require further revision. The following comments and suggestions should guide the authors to better revisethe paper:

1. The structure of this manuscript needs to be optimized. Firstly, the introduction section does not provide a literature review of similar studies or cases. Authors can place the information of the research object to 2 Materials and Methods. Secondly, the manuscript should further clarify the core scientific issues and innovative points targeted by the research, and conduct further in-depth analysis in the discussion section. In addition, a conclusion section should be added to summarize the new findings and understanding of the research.

2. From the overall structure of the manuscript, the introduction of the research object and methods in the paper is relatively comprehensive, but the analysis and discussion of the data are relatively simple, which makes the entire study look more like a report than a paper. 

3. The manuscript is not very friendly for readers in non-professional fields. It is suggested to  modify the abstract and other sections to make the presentation of research objectives, results, and innovative understandings more concise.

4. The authors should clarify that the manuscript has not been previously published (e.g. in an Italian academic journal). Although there is controversy, it is generally believed that the same research result can only be published once. 

5. The manuscript provides some test data, and as a geological researcher, I believe that a comprehensive analysis of these data can be further optimized. 

6. Some figures can be further modified to make their format more refined and organized.

7. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing, particularly in English grammar and sentence structure so that the study is clear to the reader. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

manuscript needs careful editing, particularly in English grammar and sentence structure so that the study is clear to the reader. 

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the careful revision work on the paper, that certainly will contribute to improve the quality of the manuscript.

I will try to reply point by point to the various comments and I will correct the paper accordingly.

The changes and corrections in the manuscript text have been made in red characters in order to make them immediately visible.

And here, point by point, I report the reply to the reviewer comments.

1) The manuscript seems to be interesting. Ultraviolet fluorescence photography (UVF), X-ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy (XRF), microscope conservation, Scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), µ-Raman spectroscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) were used to study the conservation status and related materials. However, there are some issues with the writing and content discussion of this paper that require further revision. The following comments and suggestions should guide the authors to better revise the paper:

Authors reply: we would like to thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our paper and for the comments and suggestions that helped us to improve the paper.

2. The structure of this manuscript needs to be optimized. Firstly, the introduction section does not provide a literature review of similar studies or cases. Authors can place the information of the research object to 2 Materials and Methods. Secondly, the manuscript should further clarify the core scientific issues and innovative points targeted by the research and conduct further in-depth analysis in the discussion section. In addition, a conclusion section should be added to summarize the new findings and understanding of the research.

Authors reply: we changes the manuscript structure according to the reviewer comment. Conclusion section has been added. Several references have been added both in the Introduction and in the Discussion sections.

3. From the overall structure of the manuscript, the introduction of the research object and methods in the paper is relatively comprehensive, but the analysis and discussion of the data are relatively simple, which makes the entire study look more like a report than a paper.

Authors reply: results are reported in the specific section without comments and discussion, this because they are later discussed in the dedicated paragraph, i.e. Discussion.

4. The manuscript is not very friendly for readers in non-professional fields. It is suggested to modify the abstract and other sections to make the presentation of research objectives, results, and innovative understandings more concise.

Authors reply: we modified the abstract and the other sections

5. The authors should clarify that the manuscript has not been previously published (e.g. in an Italian academic journal). Although there is controversy, it is generally believed that the same research result can only be published once.

Authors reply: the paper has never published before. If the reviewer is referring to the reference [2], this paper (in Italian) deals only with the restoration operations performed by the restorer Filomena Di Stasio, and not with the analysis of the materials. The results of the analysis have never been published before the present paper.

6. The manuscript provides some test data, and as a geological researcher, I believe that a comprehensive analysis of these data can be further optimized.

Authors reply: we are not sure to have understand what the reviewer would like to say. We hope that the changes made in the manuscript match the reviewer comments

7. Some figures can be further modified to make their format more refined and organized.

Authors reply: figures have been modified to improve the format and the organization

8. It is noted that your manuscript needs careful editing, particularly in English grammar and sentence structure so that the study is clear to the reader.

Authors reply: done

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper, titled "The 'Restoration of the Restoration': Investigation of a Complex Surface and Interface Pattern in the Roman Wall Paintings of Volsinii Novi (Bolsena, Central Italy)," explores the findings of analyses conducted on various wall paintings within Room E of the Domus delle Pitture in the Roman archaeological site of Volsinii Novi, Central Italy. The primary objective was to support a recent restoration effort, which encountered difficulties due to prior interventions detrimental to the paintings. The analysis successfully identified traditional Roman pigments alongside those from previous restorations, as well as various materials contributing to surface alterations. Notably, the authors identified bluish areas containing calcium oxalates and copper arsenates, posing challenges in restoration decision-making. The findings provide valuable insights for restoration strategies, though further research is warranted to address the complexities of these historical artworks.

While English is not my native language, I find the document to be well-written and easily understandable, requiring no further language review. The research effectively reach its objectives, and the results are presented and discussed adequately. However, in my opinion, the conclusion section could be enhanced by emphasizing the main findings of the research and proposing potential new research directions to address identified gaps. Additionally, there are a few minor comments and errors that should be addressed:

Figure 1: increase the font and the rectangle size of the legend and the font size of the rooms letter

Figure 3 and 4: Perhaps you can joint these two figures in one, separating by colors the points of XRF and the microsampling…

L344 Titanium oxide is also frequently used in white paints. Have you consider this possibility for the high Ti content in sample X17 and in the other samples, instead of as impurity of iron?

 Figure 6, 7 and 8 Increase the font size of A, B., C etc…

L427 spectra

L 497.   Discussion and conclusions (I recommend to separate this section in two, one for the discussion and other for the conclusions)

L531 was not revealed

L532 it is not easy to detect by .. (to avoid repetitions)

L548 [30, p121;32]. It is not necessary to indicate the page…

In my opinion, the conclusion section must be improved including some recommendations for the future…. You have more text of conclusion in the abstract than in the section…

Author Response

On behalf of all authors, I would like to thank the reviewer for the careful revision work on the paper, that certainly will contribute to improve the quality of the manuscript.

I will try to reply point by point to the various comments and I will correct the paper accordingly.

The changes and corrections in the manuscript text have been made in red characters in order to make them immediately visible.

1. The paper, titled "The 'Restoration of the Restoration': Investigation of a Complex Surface and Interface Pattern in the Roman Wall Paintings of Volsinii Novi (Bolsena, Central Italy)," explores the findings of analyses conducted on various wall paintings within Room E of the Domus delle Pitture in the Roman archaeological site of Volsinii Novi, Central Italy. The primary objective was to support a recent restoration effort, which encountered difficulties due to prior interventions detrimental to the paintings. The analysis successfully identified traditional Roman pigments alongside those from previous restorations, as well as various materials contributing to surface alterations. Notably, the authors identified bluish areas containing calcium oxalates and copper arsenates, posing challenges in restoration decision-making. The findings provide valuable insights for restoration strategies, though further research is warranted to address the complexities of these historical artworks.

While English is not my native language, I find the document to be well-written and easily understandable, requiring no further language review. The research effectively reach its objectives, and the results are presented and discussed adequately. However, in my opinion, the conclusion section could be enhanced by emphasizing the main findings of the research and proposing potential new research directions to address identified gaps. Additionally, there are a few minor comments and errors that should be addressed:

Authors reply: we would like to thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation of our paper and for the clear and well-addressed comments and suggestions that certainly improved the paper.

2. Figure 1: increase the font and the rectangle size of the legend and the font size of the rooms letter.

Authors reply: we modified the figure as requested.

3. Figure 3 and 4: Perhaps you can joint these two figures in one, separating by colors the points of XRF and the microsampling…

Authors reply: we agree with the reviewer comment. It is better to join the two figures into one. We made this and now figure 3 and 4 become figure 3. The subsequent figures have been re-numered accordingly

4. L344 Titanium oxide is also frequently used in white paints. Have you consider this possibility for the high Ti content in sample X17 and in the other samples, instead of as impurity of iron?

Authors reply: In the point X17 the content of Ti is very high because this is a restored area of the painting, so it has been supposed that titanium white is contained in the materials used for the restoration. In the other points (X8, X12, X13, X16 and X18) the low counts of Ti could be associated to earth-based pigments, but, due to the various restoration over time, it may be that Ti could come from inpainting pigments. We modified the discussion according to your comment, thanks

5. Figure 6, 7 and 8 Increase the font size of A, B., C etc…

Authors reply: we increased the font size, thank you for the comment.

6. L427 spectra

Authors reply: we corrected the word. Thanks for the comment.

7. L 497.   Discussion and conclusions (I recommend to separate this section in two, one for the discussion and other for the conclusions)

Authors reply: according to the suggestion, we modified the last part of the paper by introduction the conclusion paragraph, separated by the discussion.

8. L531 was not revealed

Authors reply: we corrected the sentence.

9. L532 it is not easy to detect by .. (to avoid repetitions)

Authors reply: we corrected the verb. Thanks for the comment.

10. L548 [30, p121;32]. It is not necessary to indicate the page…

Authors reply: we indicated the page because the reference is associated to a book and it may be useful to have the page number where the discussed topic is located.

Anyway, according to your suggestion, we remove the page nr.

11. In my opinion, the conclusion section must be improved including some recommendations for the future…. You have more text of conclusion in the abstract than in the section…

Authors reply: we agree with the reviewer. Conclusion paragraph has been added and improved. Thanks for the comment.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is suggested that the authors further strengthen the discussion section and emphasize the new findings of the research. 

Can the authors provide specific suggestions for dealing with bluish stains?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #1

A further revision has been made considering your comments.

Changes are highlighted in blue characters to distinguish them from the previous ones.

We would like to thank the reviewer for the detailed work of revision that certainly led to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer #1

It is suggested that the authors further strengthen the discussion section and emphasize the new findings of the research. 

Authors reply: we have widely discussed the results and the most relevant findings about the superimposed materials, mainly the bluish green layer that has not been characterised yet, despite the various report on it.

Anyway, we added further discussion and the most relevant aspect of our work and about the possible origin of the bluish layer

Can the authors provide specific suggestions for dealing with bluish stains?

Authors reply: we added some possible explanations for the bluish layer on the surface of the second pictorial phase, that is the most preserved and was saved because considered the most important for the Archaeological contest.

We hope that now the discussion could be considered complete. Thank for your comment

Minor editing of English language required

Authors reply: in the previous step, English language has been revised. But, as the reviewer requests further revision, we made it by applying a specific software and the help of an English teacher.