Red and Black Paints on Prehistoric Pottery of the Southern Russian Far East: An Archaeometric Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript Number: Ceramics- 2347955

 

The manuscript “Red and black paints on prehistoric pottery of southern Russian Far East: archaeometric study” presents study of 6 samples decorated with red paint and 7 samples with black decorations of prehistoric ceramics excavated in southern Russian Far East using optical microscopy, SEM-EDS and micro-Raman spectroscopy.

 

The topic is interesting and it is suitable for this journal. However, the manuscript shows some major deficiencies:

 

1.      Investigated assemblage of pottery samples consists of 6 red-painted samples from 5 excavation sites and 7 black-decorated samples from 5 excavation sites. Authors state that pottery is the most numerous find at all archaeological sites in region of interest. Therefore, it is important to precisely explain criteria for selection of samples. Sometime it is one sample per site, is it representative sampling?

2.      Reconsider aims of the manuscript, as no investigations of origins of paint have been shown.

3.      Archaeological background needs to be rewritten, in particular it needs to be condensed. It is not clear what was done before and what is subject of this work. There is no need to tell in so many words what was already published. Citing literature at appropriate places is important, for example sentence at lines 56-57 “The majority of radiocarbon dates…” needs literature source. Also, claim at lines 68-73. Description of samples given in this paragraph is repeated later when presenting visual characterization and optical microscopy investigations. Repetitions must be avoided in the entire manuscript.

4.      Section 3.1. provide exact number of investigated samples in this section. Explain “pit-house 9” and “pit-houses 3 and 4”

5.      Figure 5 caption: should be “black-painted”

6.      Lines 145-146: explain Baranovskii ochre deposit as it is only mentioned once in Fig 1. caption. It is unclear if ochre sample from Baranovskii deposit was investigated.

7.      Section 3.2 For all used experimental techniques state which samples have been investigated and how experiments have been performed.  Why two SEM instruments where used? Line185: it is unclear what are 1-2 sites (points) and recorded 14-22 spectra at each site (point). Have authors consider that uncoated samples sometimes show higher Fe concentrations in SEM-EDS measurements? Why peak fitting is mentioned in section 3.2 and later no results shown?

8.      Results and discussion: lines 207-209 already given in section Archaeological background. Claim at lines 210-213 needs literature source. All micrographs need scaling bars. Why authors did not polish cross sections and used higher magnification at optical microscope to better discuss thickness of the paint? Define “slip”. It is unclear where is it seen on optical micrographs. General comment, authors can discuss only shown results. So, show optical micrographs for all samples or at least add for R4 and R5 as they are described as different from other samples.

9.      Fig. 7 caption: explain a, b, c, d.

10.  Lines 214-216 repetition

11.  Line 234: why “supposed hematite crystals” were not investigated with EDS?

12.  Lines 235-238: this information should be given in section 3.2 not here

13.  Delete Table 1 and corresponding discussion - repetition.

14.  Lines 282-283: detection of P in the case of sample R5 is interesting. But to be able to make any conclusion it would be important to increase number of investigated samples. Or again, explain sampling procedure.

15.  Line 284: it is unclear if only sample R1 has been investigated by Raman spectroscopy? Explain in section 3.2 how many measurements per sample have been performed.

16.  Fig. 10 caption: add explanation for Q

17.  Table 2 will be useful only if results are presented as mean values with standard deviations. Add in section 3.2. how measurement for ochre samples have been performed.

18.  Lines 333-334: results not shown in this work, provide reference

19.  Lines 347-348: how these measurements were performed, on which samples, what given concentration ranges mean? How these results relate to concentrations given in line 353 (also how is that obtained?)?

20.  Lines 374-376: in this manuscript results on thickness of paint layer are not shown.

21.  Lines 387-390: repetition from section 2.

22.  Lines 407-408: results have to be shown that support given conclusions.

23.  Delete Table 3.

24.  Figure 16: there is no need to show several identical Raman spectra. That is typical for this type of research.

25.  Figure 17 does not support conclusion that bones were used for decoration. Peak at about 960 cm^-1 is very narrow and intensive for burnt animal bones and what is shown in Figure 17 (right) is more likely artifact after fluorescence correction. What peaks are marked with numbers at Figure 17?

26.  Using Raman spectroscopy, authors clearly detected amorphous carbon on investigated samples. But other representative Raman spectra need to be shown. From given wavenumbers it is possible that magnetite is also detected, which together with carbon will indicate reduction atmosphere. I am not convinced, based on shown results, that charred bones material was used for decoration.

 

General comments:

1.      Majority of figures has low quality

2.      The English language in which the manuscript is written needs to be improved thoroughly, e.g. line 32 “long-timed history” (just history), line 40 “the case of study” (case study), line 463 “basing on the positions” (based on the positions).

 

Having all this in mind I recommend this manuscript to be published in Ceramics after major revisions.

 

The English language in which the manuscript is written needs to be improved thoroughly, e.g. line 32 “long-timed history” (just history), line 40 “the case of study” (case study), line 463 “basing on the positions” (based on the positions).

Author Response

Thanks to the respectful Reviewer for all comments! They are very detailing, high-professional and helpful for the improving of the manuscript as well as for the further development of discussed research subject, indeed. We, authors, tried to follow the comments in the order of manuscript correction. All corrected and changed places of manuscript are marked by green color.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a workmanlike study using a range of techniques to examine red and black painted pottery from the Yankovskaya culture in eastern Eurasia. The methodology looks sound, and the conclusions are clearly drawn from the methodology. The conclusions also make archaeological sense with respect to normal ceramic painting techniques. The paper will be of interest to people engaged in the archaeology of the Primor'ye region and its ceramics.

The paper therefore deserves publication, after extensive revision to the English. Unfortunately, English issues made the paper difficult to read, although the conclusions and the gist of the paper could be determined. In a few cases, the figures were too small--Figure 9, in particular, was very difficult to read in the review copy. 

Needs to be extensively proofread and rewritten for clarity of English.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2.

Thanks to the respectful Reviewer for the comments!

1.This is a workmanlike study using a range of techniques to examine red and black painted pottery from the Yankovskaya culture in eastern Eurasia. The methodology looks sound, and the conclusions are clearly drawn from the methodology. The conclusions also make archaeological sense with respect to normal ceramic painting techniques. The paper will be of interest to people engaged in the archaeology of the Primor'ye region and its ceramics.

2.The paper therefore deserves publication, after extensive revision to the English. Unfortunately, English issues made the paper difficult to read, although the conclusions and the gist of the paper could be determined. In a few cases, the figures were too small--Figure 9, in particular, was very difficult to read in the review copy. 

Response to the comments:

Thanks for the comments helpful for the improving manuscript.

As for the comment 2, at first, the manuscript text was revised in the order to improve English language. Our colleague Dr. Richard Bland kindly revised and corrected the English (see the Acknowledgements, green mark).

Then, we improved the quality of all figures in the manuscript. Some figures were replaced and changed in some details.

Also, other correcting works were provided to improve all sections of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have improved original manuscript. It can be accepted for publication in its present form