High-Lead Glazed Ceramic Production in Western Iberia (Gharb al-Andalus) between the 10th and Mid-13th Centuries: An Approach from the City of Évora (Portugal)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a fine, very detailed and well-presented, and highly illustrated article.

 

p. 5 – should note for what reason the unglazed vessels were sampled. Are the unglazed samples considered as reference material? Is there other reference material of these or other sites?

p. 9. It should be explained for each method (especially XRF, XRD and SEM-EDS) why they were used and what they can contribute to the research question (sourcing, grouping, technology?)

Table 4: what is the difference between “tr” in x’s. and trace – in color shading?

p. 22 line 495 what does “chemicals” mean?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor issues

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your comments.

Our answer are included in the attached file.

Regards,

MassimoBeltrame

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper and the authors have very well characterized their ceramics.

The authors' primary focus in this study was to determine the provenance of the samples, the ceramic and glaze technologies used, and to comprehend trade contacts between cities. I believe that the objectives defined were achieved.

Although the topic is not highly original, the study offers an extensive approach in the field of glazed ceramics. Correlating ceramics collected from three significant archaeological sites and investigating both the origin of the materials and the technology achieved at each site.

Markers and graphs are difficult to read. I recommend that the Authors raise the size and font size.

Figure 4 should be credited to the authors.

Figure 6 is cited before Figure 5. I suggest to the Authors to reverse the positions of the figures.

line 475: "Also, vertical fissures were very." I believe a word is missing.

Table 5:  “wt% oxide” is missing

Some information, such as tables 2 and 3 and the geological information, might be transferred to the support information to make the manuscript easier to read.

The conclusions are adequate and well support the manuscript. 

The references are appropriate.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments.

Our answer can be found in the attached file.

Best regards,

Massimo Beltrame

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for submitting a manuscript to the Ceramics journal on the topic of "High lead glazed ceramic production in western Iberia (Gharb al-Andalus) between the 10th and mid-13th centuries. An approach from the city of Évora (Portugal)". Research of this nature is tremendously important for developing local archaeological projects and is even more critical for advancing archaeometry methodologies.

The presented work employs a limited set of methodologies (e.g., ICP-MS/NAA are not utilized), but the authors provide a substantial volume of data that is analyzed and discussed in an erudite manner. In my estimation, the paper is cogently structured and lucidly composed overall. The authors elucidate the historical and geological context of the research and present the materials and procedures for archaeological analysis. The results of analyses of ceramics from diverse towns are discussed comparatively.

For the purpose of enhancing the quality of publication, the authors may consider the following recommendations:

1.                  The authors are recommended to refine the abstract. The first sentence of the abstract should be formulated in a way that provides the reader with an understanding of the work's contents.

2.                  In Section 3.2.3, it states: "…XRF spectrometer (ED-XRF), equipped with a silver X-ray tube, and calibrated using 36 standard reference materials. Glass beads were prepared for this purpose (1:10 sample/flux ratio). The authors are kindly requested to provide greater specifics in the manuscript text regarding the nuances of sample calibration and the characteristics of the standards utilized.

3.                  Comparative analysis of the results from the current study with technical and technological parameters and attributes of well-known Chinese ceramic wares, such as tri-colored lead-glazed Sancai ceramics (10.1016/j.jasrep.2022.103346), may offer significant research interest relevant to the understanding of medieval glazed ceramics. You may also consider improving your work using the results presented in these publications focusing on the Tang tricolor ceramics of Sanzai: 10.1016/j.jas.2005.06.007, 10.1016/j.jas.2004.08.004, 10.1016/j.nimb.2013.11.011

4.                  Comments on figure formatting:

·                    Figures 1 and 2 should appear immediately under the paragraph in which they are first mentioned. This comment applies to many figures in this work (e.g., Figure 6). The authors should pay attention to this.

·                    The quality (size, resolution) of the map in Figure 1 needs improvement. Place names are difficult to read. Enlarging the size and resolution of the photographs in Figure 3 would also be beneficial, as examining them in the current presentation is quite challenging. It may also make sense to consider arranging these images across two pages in an album configuration.

·                    In Figure 6, it would be useful to indicate inclusions and label them directly on the image.

·                    Figure 7 unambiguously requires changes. The authors should enlarge the size and resolution of the images. Legends are barely legible. Arranging the ternary plots one below the other seems to be the optimal format for presentation. Similar adjustments to the graphs in Figures 8 and 9 are also necessary.

Upon consideration of these recommendations, in my view, the article will fully meet the criteria for scientific publication.

I wish the authors all the best in their future endeavors!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your comments.

Our answer can be found in the attached file.

Best regards,

Massimo Beltrame

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for a job well done. The authors have addressed all comments. The manuscript may be published in its current form.