Deep Water Archaeology in Italy and in the Tyrrhenian Sea
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Chapter 3:
Regarding Aurora Trust's activities in Ventotene waters (which were not only carried out in 2008 as reported in the contribution but also in 2009), it is not justified to refer to a website as there is available scientific literature that should be cited (e.g. : T. Gambin, M. Ritondale, A. Zarattini, Lazio e Sabina 6 (2010), pp. 337-340; M. Ritondale, in Assemblage 13 (2014), pp. 26-38).
Regarding the recent discovery of the Archaic wreck in the Otranto Channel -and unlike what has been reported for the other contexts - the authorship of the discovery and subsequent investigation is not reported, which is attributable to the National Superintendence for Underwater Cultural Heritage. In this case, similar to the sitography reported for other discoveries, it is suggested that reference be made to the institutional site (https://www.patrimoniosubacqueo.it/il-relitto-alto-arcaico-del-canale-di-otranto/).
Chapter 4:
In a research that focuses heavily on high technology, the specifics of the tools used are not well clarified from a technical point of view. Their description in Chapter 4 needs to be implemented (sonar, inertial navigation system, cameras, ecc...).
Author Response
Chapter 3:
Regarding Aurora Trust's activities in Ventotene waters (which were not only carried out in 2008 as reported in the contribution but also in 2009), it is not justified to refer to a website as there is available scientific literature that should be cited (e.g. : T. Gambin, M. Ritondale, A. Zarattini, Lazio e Sabina 6 (2010), pp. 337-340; M. Ritondale, in Assemblage 13 (2014), pp. 26-38).
Regarding the recent discovery of the Archaic wreck in the Otranto Channel -and unlike what has been reported for the other contexts - the authorship of the discovery and subsequent investigation is not reported, which is attributable to the National Superintendence for Underwater Cultural Heritage. In this case, similar to the sitography reported for other discoveries, it is suggested that reference be made to the institutional site (https://www.patrimoniosubacqueo.it/il-relitto-alto-arcaico-del-canale-di-otranto/).
DONE
Chapter 4:
In a research that focuses heavily on high technology, the specifics of the tools used are not well clarified from a technical point of view. Their description in Chapter 4 needs to be implemented (sonar, inertial navigation system, cameras, ecc...).
DONE
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper presents a summary of deep water archaeology in Italy and the Tyrrhenian Sea, showing a variety of interesting Roman wreck sites. The paper also advocates the use of of a bespoke ROV and survey vessel approach to investigating these sites. The paper provides a summary of all of these various aspects but offers little in the way of detail. It states that the surveys have tacked a number of existing problems for maritime archaeologists and adopted non-standard cutting-edge solutions, but there is little information provided for the reader to fully understand or even attempt to replicate the methodologies employed. More information about the ROV configuration (technical details and a diagram showing the setup) would really help to highlight the approach being used.
A number of wreck discoveries are discussed, but the reader is only given glimpses of some of these sites through individual photos or two orthophotos - ideally more of the latter with annotations highlighting key diagnostic features would significantly strengthen the paper.
The conclusions in the paper are brief and do not sufficiently summarise the paper.
Some specific comments are given below:
Line 11-14 – sentence needs restructuring and grammar checked
Line 34-36 – contradictory statement – states deep water contexts are of interest because 98% of known wrecks are in shallow water – unclear what the point being made here is?
Lines 38-45 – states that shipwrecks are likely to be pushed offshore by storms, so the shipwreck location does not always imply it was lost on a route – this therefore suggests that the opening statement in line 35 (‘essential to study direct and offshore routes’) and paragraph beginning Line 46 cannot be substantiated – need to rewrite these paragraphs
Line 47 – why military fleets – why not just state that offshore contexts help understand maritime space and maritime connectivity in the past
Line 56 – worth defining what you mean by ‘deep water’
Line 64 – clarify what you mean by ‘small ships’
Line 67 – what do you mean by a ‘good level of conservation’ – this implies intact shipwrecks (with all timbers) rather than cargo mounds with only timbers preserved when buried. This is addressed in Lines 85-88 and 92-93 where you state that conservation of organic material is not favourable.
Line 74-76 – worth citing that these wrecks should be protected under the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). All countries surrounding the Channel of Sicily have ratified this convention.
Line 85-88 – temperature isn’t the principle limiting factor. In both the Baltic and Black Seas it is eutrophication that drives shipwreck preservation - in the Baltic Sea shipwrecks a permanent halocline at c. 60-80m limits the supply of oxygen to the deeper parts of the Sea.
Line 89 – why the emphasis on ‘non-archaeological studies’ – sound derogatory
Line 98-101 – only cites one paper for the Black Sea and nothing for the Baltic Sea. You state formation processes are totally different but don’t identify what these differences are
Line 103-127 – you discuss that these are the first operations of photogrammetric surveys but the discussion is mainly focused on the diving approach and sites with no information about the photogrammetry methodology or its successes / failures / lessons learnt. Is the purposes of these paragraphs to discuss the history of the application of photogrammetry in the area, or simply highlighting some deep water investigations? You also need to be careful with your definition of photogrammetry as it’s being used as a blanket term for many different outputs – for each survey you should really discuss exactly what they were seeking to achieve, and differentiate informed photographic survey, orthophoto-mapping surveys, etc, rather than the generation of 3D volumetric models which is many today may consider as modern photogrammetry as digital photography and hardware/software have improved and become available.
Line 136 – ‘experience’ – is this the correct word?
Line 140 – explain the indignation or at least cite a source.
Line 175-180 – sentences contradict each other – first states that ROVs are expensive and need specialized ships, then says there are inexpensive ROVs that can be deployed from small craft. These ROVs are widely used for archaeological investigations so shouldn’t be stated as more suitable for marine biology. Better to reword these sentences and simply state that “ROVs suitable for deep water investigations (>300m) are generally large, expensive and require a specialised survey vessel”.
Line 180-181 – you discuss the problem of needing specialised ships in Line 175, but then state “Azionemare Foundation has tackled the problem and has adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions.”, yet in Line 193 onwards you discuss using a custom-designed catamaran for the Plutos – so basically you are using a specialised ship for the surveys after all?
Line 180 – you state that you have tackled this problem
Line 182-189 – If these first two points are in response to Lines 180-181 (adopting non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions), then this isn’t cutting edge but standard practice. The two points in Lines 188-191 are also standard practice.
Line 193 – this needs a subtitle to divide up the manuscript
Line 217-221 – very light on specs here – simply saying it has it all with no details. What are the lenses and camera system being used, depth range, pixel density, exposure times, lighting configuration, etc. In Line 180 you state that you “have adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions” yet give no details that inform or allow the reader to attempt to replicate this ‘non-standard’ approach. Without this type of information, it is impossible to assess the technology being used. See Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (2019) as a good example of a paper that goes into detail of how the ROV was setup and the methodological approaches used.
Line 243-246 – why are you using dynamic positioning to keep the ship stationary during a sonar survey? Or do you mean you use this for the ship to sit over an anomaly position? Clarify.
Line 243-246 - What is the dynamic positioning system being used – custom built of an off-the-shelf solution?
Line 252-254 – what conditions can this operate in (current / wind / wave strength).
Line 255 – what exactly is unusual – a smaller custom built solution rather than what is available with larger survey vessels? Clarify what are the unique points here
Line 266 – what is the payload of the Multipluto if it can be used for recovery of materials or artefacts?
Line 250-269 – there is no mention of how the Multipluto is dynamically positioned underwater, and the underwater conditions that it can handle (notably current strength)
Line 271 – Recovery and deployment of a 60kg ROV will not be possible from most vessels – I suspect the umbilical cannot be used for recovery so you’d still need some form of a winch system for recovery
Line 274-276 – a map showing the search area and approximate wreck positions would really be useful for the reader
Line 279-281 – does this vary by depth? In Line 77 you state that deep water wrecks are provided protection from the impact of trawling nets.
Line 312-316 – inadequate description of the setup, data collection and processing – simply states that an accurate model was produced.
Line 319-320 – dealing with changing shadows and other issues shouldn’t just be something to resolve during the processing stage, but should be minimised by a careful approach to the survey and ROV setup – none of which is even hinted at in this paper
Figure 4 – what do the letters and numbers on the figure represent?
Line 336-7 – how were the dimensions of the Dressel 2-4 accurately determined in order to permit scaling of the photogrammetric 3D model – was it based on one recovered or using existing examples?
Line 338-9 – how was the portion of marble under the sand calculated to enable calculate the weight accurately?
Line 341 – ‘very unique configuration and assessment of a marble cargo’ – please provide some information to support this statement
Line 347 – ‘perfectly preserved’ – does this imply the wreck (including all timbers) are present and intact? Figure 5 simply shows a tile mound on the seabed
Line 350 – why was nothing recovered during this survey, given the earlier discussions over how the ROV was suited for recovery of material (Lines 288-297)?
Line 361 – the pit isn’t shown which contains the shipwreck
Line 362 – how is this calculated and what were the estimates?
Section 6 – aspects of the different wrecks are discussed, including the location of certain cargo aspects, but there are no shipwreck plans / orthophotomosaics to permit the reader to understand their context – photos highlighting particular features are great but the reader really should be given some additional information to help them evaluate the sites for themselves
Line 418-419 – this statement is untrue – wood and rope are the easiest objects to observe as they are aligned on the deck and attached to it. By this logic, no ship had sails as these aren’t seen on the Black Sea wreck sites?
Line 429-30 – ‘relatively new frontier’ yet in Line 103-119 you discuss such studies dating back 60 years
Line 431-6 – ‘collaborations with institutions and private entities’ – this can be both a positive and negative – some private entities state only they have the ability to explore such deep sites and therefore use this as justification for salvage activities following ‘archaeological study’, contravening the UNESCO convention. I would reword this conclusion to clarify how the partnership with Fondazione Azionemare aligns with the convention
Author Response
This paper presents a summary of deep water archaeology in Italy and the Tyrrhenian Sea, showing a variety of interesting Roman wreck sites. The paper also advocates the use of of a bespoke ROV and survey vessel approach to investigating these sites. The paper provides a summary of all of these various aspects but offers little in the way of detail. It states that the surveys have tacked a number of existing problems for maritime archaeologists and adopted non-standard cutting-edge solutions, but there is little information provided for the reader to fully understand or even attempt to replicate the methodologies employed. More information about the ROV configuration (technical details and a diagram showing the setup) would really help to highlight the approach being used.
DONE
A number of wreck discoveries are discussed, but the reader is only given glimpses of some of these sites through individual photos or two orthophotos - ideally more of the latter with annotations highlighting key diagnostic features would significantly strengthen the paper.
THE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF IMAGES HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE EDITOR
The conclusions in the paper are brief and do not sufficiently summarize the paper.
Some specific comments are given below:
Line 11-14 – sentence needs restructuring and grammar checked
NOT CLEAR
Line 34-36 – contradictory statement – states deep water contexts are of interest because 98% of known wrecks are in shallow water – unclear what the point being made here is?
OK CORRECTED
Lines 38-45 – states that shipwrecks are likely to be pushed offshore by storms, so the shipwreck location does not always imply it was lost on a route – this therefore suggests that the opening statement in line 35 (‘essential to study direct and offshore routes’) and paragraph beginning Line 46 cannot be substantiated – need to rewrite these paragraphs
OK, WE HAVE ADDED AN ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’
Line 47 – why military fleets – why not just state that offshore contexts help understand maritime space and maritime connectivity in the past
YES OK
Line 56 – worth defining what you mean by ‘deep water’
OK
Line 64 – clarify what you mean by ‘small ships’
OK
Line 67 – what do you mean by a ‘good level of conservation’ – this implies intact shipwrecks (with all timbers) rather than cargo mounds with only timbers preserved when buried. This is addressed in Lines 85-88 and 92-93 where you state that conservation of organic material is not favourable.
OK, WE HAVE ADDED ‘RELATIVE’ and ‘…’.
Line 74-76 – worth citing that these wrecks should be protected under the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). All countries surrounding the Channel of Sicily have ratified this convention.
INCLUDED
Line 85-88 – temperature isn’t the principle limiting factor. In both the Baltic and Black Seas it is eutrophication that drives shipwreck preservation - in the Baltic Sea shipwrecks a permanent halocline at c. 60-80m limits the supply of oxygen to the deeper parts of the Sea.
OK, WE HAVE CUT THE WORD COLD
Line 89 – why the emphasis on ‘non-archaeological studies’ – sound derogatory
IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST ON THE SUBJECT ALSO OUTSIDE THE ARCHAEOLOGY
Line 98-101 – only cites one paper for the Black Sea and nothing for the Baltic Sea. You state formation processes are totally different but don’t identify what these differences are
WE HAVE ADDED REFERENCES FOR BALTIC SEA. DISCUSSION ON DEFFERENCES BETWEEN BALTIC SEA AND MEDITERRANEAN IS OUT OF THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE.
Line 103-127 – you discuss that these are the first operations of photogrammetric surveys but the discussion is mainly focused on the diving approach and sites with no information about the photogrammetry methodology or its successes / failures / lessons learnt. Is the purposes of these paragraphs to discuss the history of the application of photogrammetry in the area, or simply highlighting some deep water investigations? You also need to be careful with your definition of photogrammetry as it’s being used as a blanket term for many different outputs – for each survey you should really discuss exactly what they were seeking to achieve, and differentiate informed photographic survey, orthophoto-mapping surveys, etc, rather than the generation of 3D volumetric models which is many today may consider as modern photogrammetry as digital photography and hardware/software have improved and become available.
THE PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN TITLED “FIRST STEPS OF DEEP WATER ARCHAEOLOGY”, NOT NECESSARY RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, BUT WE HAVE PAY ATTENTION AND CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY
Line 136 – ‘experience’ – is this the correct word?
NOT CLEAR
Line 140 – explain the indignation or at least cite a source.
OK: QUOTED
Line 175-180 – sentences contradict each other – first states that ROVs are expensive and need specialized ships, then says there are inexpensive ROVs that can be deployed from small craft. These ROVs are widely used for archaeological investigations so shouldn’t be stated as more suitable for marine biology. Better to reword these sentences and simply state that “ROVs suitable for deep water investigations (>300m) are generally large, expensive and require a specialised survey vessel”.
OK
Line 180-181 – you discuss the problem of needing specialised ships in Line 175, but then state “Azionemare Foundation has tackled the problem and has adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions.”, yet in Line 193 onwards you discuss using a custom-designed catamaran for the Plutos – so basically you are using a specialised ship for the surveys after all?
Line 180 – you state that you have tackled this problem
Line 182-189 – If these first two points are in response to Lines 180-181 (adopting non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions), then this isn’t cutting edge but standard practice. The two points in Lines 188-191 are also standard practice.
Line 193 – this needs a subtitle to divide up the manuscript
THE TITLE QUOTES EXACTLY WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THE CHAPTER
Line 217-221 – very light on specs here – simply saying it has it all with no details. What are the lenses and camera system being used, depth range, pixel density, exposure times, lighting configuration, etc. In Line 180 you state that you “have adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions” yet give no details that inform or allow the reader to attempt to replicate this ‘non-standard’ approach. Without this type of information, it is impossible to assess the technology being used. See Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (2019) as a good example of a paper that goes into detail of how the ROV was setup and the methodological approaches used.
Line 243-246 – why are you using dynamic positioning to keep the ship stationary during a sonar survey? Or do you mean you use this for the ship to sit over an anomaly position? Clarify.
Line 243-246 - What is the dynamic positioning system being used – custom built of an off-the-shelf solution?
Line 252-254 – what conditions can this operate in (current / wind / wave strength).
Line 255 – what exactly is unusual – a smaller custom built solution rather than what is available with larger survey vessels? Clarify what are the unique points here
Line 266 – what is the payload of the Multipluto if it can be used for recovery of materials or artefacts?
Line 250-269 – there is no mention of how the Multipluto is dynamically positioned underwater, and the underwater conditions that it can handle (notably current strength)
Line 271 – Recovery and deployment of a 60kg ROV will not be possible from most vessels – I suspect the umbilical cannot be used for recovery so you’d still need some form of a winch system for recovery
ANSWERED TO ANU QUESTIONS
Line 274-276 – a map showing the search area and approximate wreck positions would really be useful for the reader
NO SPACE AVAILABLE FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 279-281 – does this vary by depth? In Line 77 you state that deep water wrecks are provided protection from the impact of trawling nets.
WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD ‘USUALLY’, BUT IN LINE 77 WE SAY ‘…in an area not attended by the fishing vessels’ WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEEP WATER WRECKS ARE PROTECTED AT ALL
Line 312-316 – inadequate description of the setup, data collection and processing – simply states that an accurate model was produced.
WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE TYPE OF THE CAMERA, THE NUMBER OF IMAGES AND THE SOFTWARE EMPLOYED. IN THE FOLLOWING LINES WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE RULES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMAGES DURING THE SURVEY. WE THINK THAT FOR THIS KIND OF PAPER IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
Line 319-320 – dealing with changing shadows and other issues shouldn’t just be something to resolve during the processing stage, but should be minimised by a careful approach to the survey and ROV setup – none of which is even hinted at in this paper
ADDED INFO ABOUT THE SURVEY
Figure 4 – what do the letters and numbers on the figure represent?
THEY ARE THE NUMBERS OF THE BLOCKS
Line 336-7 – how were the dimensions of the Dressel 2-4 accurately determined in order to permit scaling of the photogrammetric 3D model – was it based on one recovered or using existing examples?
WE HAVE RECOVERED TWO DIFFERENT AMPHORAS FROM THE SITE. WE HAVE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION IN THE PAPER
Line 338-9 – how was the portion of marble under the sand calculated to enable calculate the weight accurately?
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 341 – ‘very unique configuration and assessment of a marble cargo’ – please provide some information to support this statement
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 347 – ‘perfectly preserved’ – does this imply the wreck (including all timbers) are present and intact? Figure 5 simply shows a tile mound on the seabed
OK; ONLY THE CARGO IS PRESERVED
Line 350 – why was nothing recovered during this survey, given the earlier discussions over how the ROV was suited for recovery of material (Lines 288-297)?
WE HAVE RECEIVED PERMISSION LATER
Line 361 – the pit isn’t shown which contains the shipwreck
OK; CORRECTED
Line 362 – how is this calculated and what were the estimates?
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A SECOND SURVEY TO HAVE MORE PRECISE DATA
Section 6 – aspects of the different wrecks are discussed, including the location of certain cargo aspects, but there are no shipwreck plans / orthophotomosaics to permit the reader to understand their context – photos highlighting particular features are great but the reader really should be given some additional information to help them evaluate the sites for themselves
THERE ARE THE ORTOPHOTOS OF THE TWO SHIPWRECKS AND FURTHERMORE IMAGES ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 418-419 – this statement is untrue – wood and rope are the easiest objects to observe as they are aligned on the deck and attached to it. By this logic, no ship had sails as these aren’t seen on the Black Sea wreck sites?
WE HAVE ADDED BETTER EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT. SAIL IS MORE FRAGILE THAN WOOD WHILE NOT ORGANIC MATERIALS, SUCH AS METAL, ARE NORMALLY MUCH LESS EXPOSED TO DEGRADATION.
Line 429-30 – ‘relatively new frontier’ yet in Line 103-119 you discuss such studies dating back 60 years
OK; WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD
Line 431-6 – ‘collaborations with institutions and private entities’ – this can be both a positive and negative – some private entities state only they have the ability to explore such deep sites and therefore use this as justification for salvage activities following ‘archaeological study’, contravening the UNESCO convention. I would reword this conclusion to clarify how the partnership with Fondazione Azionemare aligns with the convention
WE HAVE QUOTED THE CONVENTION CONSIDERING OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE RESPECTED AS IN ANY OTHER UNDERWATER ACTIVITIES
This paper presents a summary of deep water archaeology in Italy and the Tyrrhenian Sea, showing a variety of interesting Roman wreck sites. The paper also advocates the use of of a bespoke ROV and survey vessel approach to investigating these sites. The paper provides a summary of all of these various aspects but offers little in the way of detail. It states that the surveys have tacked a number of existing problems for maritime archaeologists and adopted non-standard cutting-edge solutions, but there is little information provided for the reader to fully understand or even attempt to replicate the methodologies employed. More information about the ROV configuration (technical details and a diagram showing the setup) would really help to highlight the approach being used.
DONE
A number of wreck discoveries are discussed, but the reader is only given glimpses of some of these sites through individual photos or two orthophotos - ideally more of the latter with annotations highlighting key diagnostic features would significantly strengthen the paper.
THE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF IMAGES HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE EDITOR
The conclusions in the paper are brief and do not sufficiently summarize the paper.
Some specific comments are given below:
Line 11-14 – sentence needs restructuring and grammar checked
NOT CLEAR
Line 34-36 – contradictory statement – states deep water contexts are of interest because 98% of known wrecks are in shallow water – unclear what the point being made here is?
OK CORRECTED
Lines 38-45 – states that shipwrecks are likely to be pushed offshore by storms, so the shipwreck location does not always imply it was lost on a route – this therefore suggests that the opening statement in line 35 (‘essential to study direct and offshore routes’) and paragraph beginning Line 46 cannot be substantiated – need to rewrite these paragraphs
OK, WE HAVE ADDED AN ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’
Line 47 – why military fleets – why not just state that offshore contexts help understand maritime space and maritime connectivity in the past
YES OK
Line 56 – worth defining what you mean by ‘deep water’
OK
Line 64 – clarify what you mean by ‘small ships’
OK
Line 67 – what do you mean by a ‘good level of conservation’ – this implies intact shipwrecks (with all timbers) rather than cargo mounds with only timbers preserved when buried. This is addressed in Lines 85-88 and 92-93 where you state that conservation of organic material is not favourable.
OK, WE HAVE ADDED ‘RELATIVE’ and ‘…’.
Line 74-76 – worth citing that these wrecks should be protected under the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). All countries surrounding the Channel of Sicily have ratified this convention.
INCLUDED
Line 85-88 – temperature isn’t the principle limiting factor. In both the Baltic and Black Seas it is eutrophication that drives shipwreck preservation - in the Baltic Sea shipwrecks a permanent halocline at c. 60-80m limits the supply of oxygen to the deeper parts of the Sea.
OK, WE HAVE CUT THE WORD COLD
Line 89 – why the emphasis on ‘non-archaeological studies’ – sound derogatory
IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST ON THE SUBJECT ALSO OUTSIDE THE ARCHAEOLOGY
Line 98-101 – only cites one paper for the Black Sea and nothing for the Baltic Sea. You state formation processes are totally different but don’t identify what these differences are
WE HAVE ADDED REFERENCES FOR BALTIC SEA. DISCUSSION ON DEFFERENCES BETWEEN BALTIC SEA AND MEDITERRANEAN IS OUT OF THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE.
Line 103-127 – you discuss that these are the first operations of photogrammetric surveys but the discussion is mainly focused on the diving approach and sites with no information about the photogrammetry methodology or its successes / failures / lessons learnt. Is the purposes of these paragraphs to discuss the history of the application of photogrammetry in the area, or simply highlighting some deep water investigations? You also need to be careful with your definition of photogrammetry as it’s being used as a blanket term for many different outputs – for each survey you should really discuss exactly what they were seeking to achieve, and differentiate informed photographic survey, orthophoto-mapping surveys, etc, rather than the generation of 3D volumetric models which is many today may consider as modern photogrammetry as digital photography and hardware/software have improved and become available.
THE PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN TITLED “FIRST STEPS OF DEEP WATER ARCHAEOLOGY”, NOT NECESSARY RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, BUT WE HAVE PAY ATTENTION AND CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY
Line 136 – ‘experience’ – is this the correct word?
NOT CLEAR
Line 140 – explain the indignation or at least cite a source.
OK: QUOTED
Line 175-180 – sentences contradict each other – first states that ROVs are expensive and need specialized ships, then says there are inexpensive ROVs that can be deployed from small craft. These ROVs are widely used for archaeological investigations so shouldn’t be stated as more suitable for marine biology. Better to reword these sentences and simply state that “ROVs suitable for deep water investigations (>300m) are generally large, expensive and require a specialised survey vessel”.
OK
Line 180-181 – you discuss the problem of needing specialised ships in Line 175, but then state “Azionemare Foundation has tackled the problem and has adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions.”, yet in Line 193 onwards you discuss using a custom-designed catamaran for the Plutos – so basically you are using a specialised ship for the surveys after all?
Line 180 – you state that you have tackled this problem
Line 182-189 – If these first two points are in response to Lines 180-181 (adopting non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions), then this isn’t cutting edge but standard practice. The two points in Lines 188-191 are also standard practice.
Line 193 – this needs a subtitle to divide up the manuscript
THE TITLE QUOTES EXACTLY WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THE CHAPTER
Line 217-221 – very light on specs here – simply saying it has it all with no details. What are the lenses and camera system being used, depth range, pixel density, exposure times, lighting configuration, etc. In Line 180 you state that you “have adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions” yet give no details that inform or allow the reader to attempt to replicate this ‘non-standard’ approach. Without this type of information, it is impossible to assess the technology being used. See Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (2019) as a good example of a paper that goes into detail of how the ROV was setup and the methodological approaches used.
Line 243-246 – why are you using dynamic positioning to keep the ship stationary during a sonar survey? Or do you mean you use this for the ship to sit over an anomaly position? Clarify.
Line 243-246 - What is the dynamic positioning system being used – custom built of an off-the-shelf solution?
Line 252-254 – what conditions can this operate in (current / wind / wave strength).
Line 255 – what exactly is unusual – a smaller custom built solution rather than what is available with larger survey vessels? Clarify what are the unique points here
Line 266 – what is the payload of the Multipluto if it can be used for recovery of materials or artefacts?
Line 250-269 – there is no mention of how the Multipluto is dynamically positioned underwater, and the underwater conditions that it can handle (notably current strength)
Line 271 – Recovery and deployment of a 60kg ROV will not be possible from most vessels – I suspect the umbilical cannot be used for recovery so you’d still need some form of a winch system for recovery
ANSWERED TO ANU QUESTIONS
Line 274-276 – a map showing the search area and approximate wreck positions would really be useful for the reader
NO SPACE AVAILABLE FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 279-281 – does this vary by depth? In Line 77 you state that deep water wrecks are provided protection from the impact of trawling nets.
WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD ‘USUALLY’, BUT IN LINE 77 WE SAY ‘…in an area not attended by the fishing vessels’ WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEEP WATER WRECKS ARE PROTECTED AT ALL
Line 312-316 – inadequate description of the setup, data collection and processing – simply states that an accurate model was produced.
WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE TYPE OF THE CAMERA, THE NUMBER OF IMAGES AND THE SOFTWARE EMPLOYED. IN THE FOLLOWING LINES WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE RULES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMAGES DURING THE SURVEY. WE THINK THAT FOR THIS KIND OF PAPER IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
Line 319-320 – dealing with changing shadows and other issues shouldn’t just be something to resolve during the processing stage, but should be minimised by a careful approach to the survey and ROV setup – none of which is even hinted at in this paper
ADDED INFO ABOUT THE SURVEY
Figure 4 – what do the letters and numbers on the figure represent?
THEY ARE THE NUMBERS OF THE BLOCKS
Line 336-7 – how were the dimensions of the Dressel 2-4 accurately determined in order to permit scaling of the photogrammetric 3D model – was it based on one recovered or using existing examples?
WE HAVE RECOVERED TWO DIFFERENT AMPHORAS FROM THE SITE. WE HAVE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION IN THE PAPER
Line 338-9 – how was the portion of marble under the sand calculated to enable calculate the weight accurately?
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 341 – ‘very unique configuration and assessment of a marble cargo’ – please provide some information to support this statement
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 347 – ‘perfectly preserved’ – does this imply the wreck (including all timbers) are present and intact? Figure 5 simply shows a tile mound on the seabed
OK; ONLY THE CARGO IS PRESERVED
Line 350 – why was nothing recovered during this survey, given the earlier discussions over how the ROV was suited for recovery of material (Lines 288-297)?
WE HAVE RECEIVED PERMISSION LATER
Line 361 – the pit isn’t shown which contains the shipwreck
OK; CORRECTED
Line 362 – how is this calculated and what were the estimates?
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A SECOND SURVEY TO HAVE MORE PRECISE DATA
Section 6 – aspects of the different wrecks are discussed, including the location of certain cargo aspects, but there are no shipwreck plans / orthophotomosaics to permit the reader to understand their context – photos highlighting particular features are great but the reader really should be given some additional information to help them evaluate the sites for themselves
THERE ARE THE ORTOPHOTOS OF THE TWO SHIPWRECKS AND FURTHERMORE IMAGES ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 418-419 – this statement is untrue – wood and rope are the easiest objects to observe as they are aligned on the deck and attached to it. By this logic, no ship had sails as these aren’t seen on the Black Sea wreck sites?
WE HAVE ADDED BETTER EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT. SAIL IS MORE FRAGILE THAN WOOD WHILE NOT ORGANIC MATERIALS, SUCH AS METAL, ARE NORMALLY MUCH LESS EXPOSED TO DEGRADATION.
Line 429-30 – ‘relatively new frontier’ yet in Line 103-119 you discuss such studies dating back 60 years
OK; WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD
Line 431-6 – ‘collaborations with institutions and private entities’ – this can be both a positive and negative – some private entities state only they have the ability to explore such deep sites and therefore use this as justification for salvage activities following ‘archaeological study’, contravening the UNESCO convention. I would reword this conclusion to clarify how the partnership with Fondazione Azionemare aligns with the convention
WE HAVE QUOTED THE CONVENTION CONSIDERING OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE RESPECTED AS IN ANY OTHER UNDERWATER ACTIVITIES
This paper presents a summary of deep water archaeology in Italy and the Tyrrhenian Sea, showing a variety of interesting Roman wreck sites. The paper also advocates the use of of a bespoke ROV and survey vessel approach to investigating these sites. The paper provides a summary of all of these various aspects but offers little in the way of detail. It states that the surveys have tacked a number of existing problems for maritime archaeologists and adopted non-standard cutting-edge solutions, but there is little information provided for the reader to fully understand or even attempt to replicate the methodologies employed. More information about the ROV configuration (technical details and a diagram showing the setup) would really help to highlight the approach being used.
DONE
A number of wreck discoveries are discussed, but the reader is only given glimpses of some of these sites through individual photos or two orthophotos - ideally more of the latter with annotations highlighting key diagnostic features would significantly strengthen the paper.
THE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF IMAGES HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE EDITOR
The conclusions in the paper are brief and do not sufficiently summarize the paper.
Some specific comments are given below:
Line 11-14 – sentence needs restructuring and grammar checked
NOT CLEAR
Line 34-36 – contradictory statement – states deep water contexts are of interest because 98% of known wrecks are in shallow water – unclear what the point being made here is?
OK CORRECTED
Lines 38-45 – states that shipwrecks are likely to be pushed offshore by storms, so the shipwreck location does not always imply it was lost on a route – this therefore suggests that the opening statement in line 35 (‘essential to study direct and offshore routes’) and paragraph beginning Line 46 cannot be substantiated – need to rewrite these paragraphs
OK, WE HAVE ADDED AN ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’
Line 47 – why military fleets – why not just state that offshore contexts help understand maritime space and maritime connectivity in the past
YES OK
Line 56 – worth defining what you mean by ‘deep water’
OK
Line 64 – clarify what you mean by ‘small ships’
OK
Line 67 – what do you mean by a ‘good level of conservation’ – this implies intact shipwrecks (with all timbers) rather than cargo mounds with only timbers preserved when buried. This is addressed in Lines 85-88 and 92-93 where you state that conservation of organic material is not favourable.
OK, WE HAVE ADDED ‘RELATIVE’ and ‘…’.
Line 74-76 – worth citing that these wrecks should be protected under the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). All countries surrounding the Channel of Sicily have ratified this convention.
INCLUDED
Line 85-88 – temperature isn’t the principle limiting factor. In both the Baltic and Black Seas it is eutrophication that drives shipwreck preservation - in the Baltic Sea shipwrecks a permanent halocline at c. 60-80m limits the supply of oxygen to the deeper parts of the Sea.
OK, WE HAVE CUT THE WORD COLD
Line 89 – why the emphasis on ‘non-archaeological studies’ – sound derogatory
IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST ON THE SUBJECT ALSO OUTSIDE THE ARCHAEOLOGY
Line 98-101 – only cites one paper for the Black Sea and nothing for the Baltic Sea. You state formation processes are totally different but don’t identify what these differences are
WE HAVE ADDED REFERENCES FOR BALTIC SEA. DISCUSSION ON DEFFERENCES BETWEEN BALTIC SEA AND MEDITERRANEAN IS OUT OF THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE.
Line 103-127 – you discuss that these are the first operations of photogrammetric surveys but the discussion is mainly focused on the diving approach and sites with no information about the photogrammetry methodology or its successes / failures / lessons learnt. Is the purposes of these paragraphs to discuss the history of the application of photogrammetry in the area, or simply highlighting some deep water investigations? You also need to be careful with your definition of photogrammetry as it’s being used as a blanket term for many different outputs – for each survey you should really discuss exactly what they were seeking to achieve, and differentiate informed photographic survey, orthophoto-mapping surveys, etc, rather than the generation of 3D volumetric models which is many today may consider as modern photogrammetry as digital photography and hardware/software have improved and become available.
THE PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN TITLED “FIRST STEPS OF DEEP WATER ARCHAEOLOGY”, NOT NECESSARY RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, BUT WE HAVE PAY ATTENTION AND CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY
Line 136 – ‘experience’ – is this the correct word?
NOT CLEAR
Line 140 – explain the indignation or at least cite a source.
OK: QUOTED
Line 175-180 – sentences contradict each other – first states that ROVs are expensive and need specialized ships, then says there are inexpensive ROVs that can be deployed from small craft. These ROVs are widely used for archaeological investigations so shouldn’t be stated as more suitable for marine biology. Better to reword these sentences and simply state that “ROVs suitable for deep water investigations (>300m) are generally large, expensive and require a specialised survey vessel”.
OK
Line 180-181 – you discuss the problem of needing specialised ships in Line 175, but then state “Azionemare Foundation has tackled the problem and has adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions.”, yet in Line 193 onwards you discuss using a custom-designed catamaran for the Plutos – so basically you are using a specialised ship for the surveys after all?
Line 180 – you state that you have tackled this problem
Line 182-189 – If these first two points are in response to Lines 180-181 (adopting non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions), then this isn’t cutting edge but standard practice. The two points in Lines 188-191 are also standard practice.
Line 193 – this needs a subtitle to divide up the manuscript
THE TITLE QUOTES EXACTLY WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THE CHAPTER
Line 217-221 – very light on specs here – simply saying it has it all with no details. What are the lenses and camera system being used, depth range, pixel density, exposure times, lighting configuration, etc. In Line 180 you state that you “have adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions” yet give no details that inform or allow the reader to attempt to replicate this ‘non-standard’ approach. Without this type of information, it is impossible to assess the technology being used. See Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (2019) as a good example of a paper that goes into detail of how the ROV was setup and the methodological approaches used.
Line 243-246 – why are you using dynamic positioning to keep the ship stationary during a sonar survey? Or do you mean you use this for the ship to sit over an anomaly position? Clarify.
Line 243-246 - What is the dynamic positioning system being used – custom built of an off-the-shelf solution?
Line 252-254 – what conditions can this operate in (current / wind / wave strength).
Line 255 – what exactly is unusual – a smaller custom built solution rather than what is available with larger survey vessels? Clarify what are the unique points here
Line 266 – what is the payload of the Multipluto if it can be used for recovery of materials or artefacts?
Line 250-269 – there is no mention of how the Multipluto is dynamically positioned underwater, and the underwater conditions that it can handle (notably current strength)
Line 271 – Recovery and deployment of a 60kg ROV will not be possible from most vessels – I suspect the umbilical cannot be used for recovery so you’d still need some form of a winch system for recovery
ANSWERED TO ANU QUESTIONS
Line 274-276 – a map showing the search area and approximate wreck positions would really be useful for the reader
NO SPACE AVAILABLE FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 279-281 – does this vary by depth? In Line 77 you state that deep water wrecks are provided protection from the impact of trawling nets.
WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD ‘USUALLY’, BUT IN LINE 77 WE SAY ‘…in an area not attended by the fishing vessels’ WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEEP WATER WRECKS ARE PROTECTED AT ALL
Line 312-316 – inadequate description of the setup, data collection and processing – simply states that an accurate model was produced.
WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE TYPE OF THE CAMERA, THE NUMBER OF IMAGES AND THE SOFTWARE EMPLOYED. IN THE FOLLOWING LINES WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE RULES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMAGES DURING THE SURVEY. WE THINK THAT FOR THIS KIND OF PAPER IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
Line 319-320 – dealing with changing shadows and other issues shouldn’t just be something to resolve during the processing stage, but should be minimised by a careful approach to the survey and ROV setup – none of which is even hinted at in this paper
ADDED INFO ABOUT THE SURVEY
Figure 4 – what do the letters and numbers on the figure represent?
THEY ARE THE NUMBERS OF THE BLOCKS
Line 336-7 – how were the dimensions of the Dressel 2-4 accurately determined in order to permit scaling of the photogrammetric 3D model – was it based on one recovered or using existing examples?
WE HAVE RECOVERED TWO DIFFERENT AMPHORAS FROM THE SITE. WE HAVE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION IN THE PAPER
Line 338-9 – how was the portion of marble under the sand calculated to enable calculate the weight accurately?
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 341 – ‘very unique configuration and assessment of a marble cargo’ – please provide some information to support this statement
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 347 – ‘perfectly preserved’ – does this imply the wreck (including all timbers) are present and intact? Figure 5 simply shows a tile mound on the seabed
OK; ONLY THE CARGO IS PRESERVED
Line 350 – why was nothing recovered during this survey, given the earlier discussions over how the ROV was suited for recovery of material (Lines 288-297)?
WE HAVE RECEIVED PERMISSION LATER
Line 361 – the pit isn’t shown which contains the shipwreck
OK; CORRECTED
Line 362 – how is this calculated and what were the estimates?
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A SECOND SURVEY TO HAVE MORE PRECISE DATA
Section 6 – aspects of the different wrecks are discussed, including the location of certain cargo aspects, but there are no shipwreck plans / orthophotomosaics to permit the reader to understand their context – photos highlighting particular features are great but the reader really should be given some additional information to help them evaluate the sites for themselves
THERE ARE THE ORTOPHOTOS OF THE TWO SHIPWRECKS AND FURTHERMORE IMAGES ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 418-419 – this statement is untrue – wood and rope are the easiest objects to observe as they are aligned on the deck and attached to it. By this logic, no ship had sails as these aren’t seen on the Black Sea wreck sites?
WE HAVE ADDED BETTER EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT. SAIL IS MORE FRAGILE THAN WOOD WHILE NOT ORGANIC MATERIALS, SUCH AS METAL, ARE NORMALLY MUCH LESS EXPOSED TO DEGRADATION.
Line 429-30 – ‘relatively new frontier’ yet in Line 103-119 you discuss such studies dating back 60 years
OK; WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD
Line 431-6 – ‘collaborations with institutions and private entities’ – this can be both a positive and negative – some private entities state only they have the ability to explore such deep sites and therefore use this as justification for salvage activities following ‘archaeological study’, contravening the UNESCO convention. I would reword this conclusion to clarify how the partnership with Fondazione Azionemare aligns with the convention
WE HAVE QUOTED THE CONVENTION CONSIDERING OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE RESPECTED AS IN ANY OTHER UNDERWATER ACTIVITIES
This paper presents a summary of deep water archaeology in Italy and the Tyrrhenian Sea, showing a variety of interesting Roman wreck sites. The paper also advocates the use of of a bespoke ROV and survey vessel approach to investigating these sites. The paper provides a summary of all of these various aspects but offers little in the way of detail. It states that the surveys have tacked a number of existing problems for maritime archaeologists and adopted non-standard cutting-edge solutions, but there is little information provided for the reader to fully understand or even attempt to replicate the methodologies employed. More information about the ROV configuration (technical details and a diagram showing the setup) would really help to highlight the approach being used.
DONE
A number of wreck discoveries are discussed, but the reader is only given glimpses of some of these sites through individual photos or two orthophotos - ideally more of the latter with annotations highlighting key diagnostic features would significantly strengthen the paper.
THE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF IMAGES HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE EDITOR
The conclusions in the paper are brief and do not sufficiently summarize the paper.
Some specific comments are given below:
Line 11-14 – sentence needs restructuring and grammar checked
NOT CLEAR
Line 34-36 – contradictory statement – states deep water contexts are of interest because 98% of known wrecks are in shallow water – unclear what the point being made here is?
OK CORRECTED
Lines 38-45 – states that shipwrecks are likely to be pushed offshore by storms, so the shipwreck location does not always imply it was lost on a route – this therefore suggests that the opening statement in line 35 (‘essential to study direct and offshore routes’) and paragraph beginning Line 46 cannot be substantiated – need to rewrite these paragraphs
OK, WE HAVE ADDED AN ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’
Line 47 – why military fleets – why not just state that offshore contexts help understand maritime space and maritime connectivity in the past
YES OK
Line 56 – worth defining what you mean by ‘deep water’
OK
Line 64 – clarify what you mean by ‘small ships’
OK
Line 67 – what do you mean by a ‘good level of conservation’ – this implies intact shipwrecks (with all timbers) rather than cargo mounds with only timbers preserved when buried. This is addressed in Lines 85-88 and 92-93 where you state that conservation of organic material is not favourable.
OK, WE HAVE ADDED ‘RELATIVE’ and ‘…’.
Line 74-76 – worth citing that these wrecks should be protected under the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). All countries surrounding the Channel of Sicily have ratified this convention.
INCLUDED
Line 85-88 – temperature isn’t the principle limiting factor. In both the Baltic and Black Seas it is eutrophication that drives shipwreck preservation - in the Baltic Sea shipwrecks a permanent halocline at c. 60-80m limits the supply of oxygen to the deeper parts of the Sea.
OK, WE HAVE CUT THE WORD COLD
Line 89 – why the emphasis on ‘non-archaeological studies’ – sound derogatory
IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST ON THE SUBJECT ALSO OUTSIDE THE ARCHAEOLOGY
Line 98-101 – only cites one paper for the Black Sea and nothing for the Baltic Sea. You state formation processes are totally different but don’t identify what these differences are
WE HAVE ADDED REFERENCES FOR BALTIC SEA. DISCUSSION ON DEFFERENCES BETWEEN BALTIC SEA AND MEDITERRANEAN IS OUT OF THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE.
Line 103-127 – you discuss that these are the first operations of photogrammetric surveys but the discussion is mainly focused on the diving approach and sites with no information about the photogrammetry methodology or its successes / failures / lessons learnt. Is the purposes of these paragraphs to discuss the history of the application of photogrammetry in the area, or simply highlighting some deep water investigations? You also need to be careful with your definition of photogrammetry as it’s being used as a blanket term for many different outputs – for each survey you should really discuss exactly what they were seeking to achieve, and differentiate informed photographic survey, orthophoto-mapping surveys, etc, rather than the generation of 3D volumetric models which is many today may consider as modern photogrammetry as digital photography and hardware/software have improved and become available.
THE PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN TITLED “FIRST STEPS OF DEEP WATER ARCHAEOLOGY”, NOT NECESSARY RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, BUT WE HAVE PAY ATTENTION AND CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY
Line 136 – ‘experience’ – is this the correct word?
NOT CLEAR
Line 140 – explain the indignation or at least cite a source.
OK: QUOTED
Line 175-180 – sentences contradict each other – first states that ROVs are expensive and need specialized ships, then says there are inexpensive ROVs that can be deployed from small craft. These ROVs are widely used for archaeological investigations so shouldn’t be stated as more suitable for marine biology. Better to reword these sentences and simply state that “ROVs suitable for deep water investigations (>300m) are generally large, expensive and require a specialised survey vessel”.
OK
Line 180-181 – you discuss the problem of needing specialised ships in Line 175, but then state “Azionemare Foundation has tackled the problem and has adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions.”, yet in Line 193 onwards you discuss using a custom-designed catamaran for the Plutos – so basically you are using a specialised ship for the surveys after all?
Line 180 – you state that you have tackled this problem
Line 182-189 – If these first two points are in response to Lines 180-181 (adopting non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions), then this isn’t cutting edge but standard practice. The two points in Lines 188-191 are also standard practice.
Line 193 – this needs a subtitle to divide up the manuscript
THE TITLE QUOTES EXACTLY WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THE CHAPTER
Line 217-221 – very light on specs here – simply saying it has it all with no details. What are the lenses and camera system being used, depth range, pixel density, exposure times, lighting configuration, etc. In Line 180 you state that you “have adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions” yet give no details that inform or allow the reader to attempt to replicate this ‘non-standard’ approach. Without this type of information, it is impossible to assess the technology being used. See Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (2019) as a good example of a paper that goes into detail of how the ROV was setup and the methodological approaches used.
Line 243-246 – why are you using dynamic positioning to keep the ship stationary during a sonar survey? Or do you mean you use this for the ship to sit over an anomaly position? Clarify.
Line 243-246 - What is the dynamic positioning system being used – custom built of an off-the-shelf solution?
Line 252-254 – what conditions can this operate in (current / wind / wave strength).
Line 255 – what exactly is unusual – a smaller custom built solution rather than what is available with larger survey vessels? Clarify what are the unique points here
Line 266 – what is the payload of the Multipluto if it can be used for recovery of materials or artefacts?
Line 250-269 – there is no mention of how the Multipluto is dynamically positioned underwater, and the underwater conditions that it can handle (notably current strength)
Line 271 – Recovery and deployment of a 60kg ROV will not be possible from most vessels – I suspect the umbilical cannot be used for recovery so you’d still need some form of a winch system for recovery
ANSWERED TO ANU QUESTIONS
Line 274-276 – a map showing the search area and approximate wreck positions would really be useful for the reader
NO SPACE AVAILABLE FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 279-281 – does this vary by depth? In Line 77 you state that deep water wrecks are provided protection from the impact of trawling nets.
WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD ‘USUALLY’, BUT IN LINE 77 WE SAY ‘…in an area not attended by the fishing vessels’ WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEEP WATER WRECKS ARE PROTECTED AT ALL
Line 312-316 – inadequate description of the setup, data collection and processing – simply states that an accurate model was produced.
WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE TYPE OF THE CAMERA, THE NUMBER OF IMAGES AND THE SOFTWARE EMPLOYED. IN THE FOLLOWING LINES WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE RULES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMAGES DURING THE SURVEY. WE THINK THAT FOR THIS KIND OF PAPER IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
Line 319-320 – dealing with changing shadows and other issues shouldn’t just be something to resolve during the processing stage, but should be minimised by a careful approach to the survey and ROV setup – none of which is even hinted at in this paper
ADDED INFO ABOUT THE SURVEY
Figure 4 – what do the letters and numbers on the figure represent?
THEY ARE THE NUMBERS OF THE BLOCKS
Line 336-7 – how were the dimensions of the Dressel 2-4 accurately determined in order to permit scaling of the photogrammetric 3D model – was it based on one recovered or using existing examples?
WE HAVE RECOVERED TWO DIFFERENT AMPHORAS FROM THE SITE. WE HAVE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION IN THE PAPER
Line 338-9 – how was the portion of marble under the sand calculated to enable calculate the weight accurately?
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 341 – ‘very unique configuration and assessment of a marble cargo’ – please provide some information to support this statement
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 347 – ‘perfectly preserved’ – does this imply the wreck (including all timbers) are present and intact? Figure 5 simply shows a tile mound on the seabed
OK; ONLY THE CARGO IS PRESERVED
Line 350 – why was nothing recovered during this survey, given the earlier discussions over how the ROV was suited for recovery of material (Lines 288-297)?
WE HAVE RECEIVED PERMISSION LATER
Line 361 – the pit isn’t shown which contains the shipwreck
OK; CORRECTED
Line 362 – how is this calculated and what were the estimates?
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A SECOND SURVEY TO HAVE MORE PRECISE DATA
Section 6 – aspects of the different wrecks are discussed, including the location of certain cargo aspects, but there are no shipwreck plans / orthophotomosaics to permit the reader to understand their context – photos highlighting particular features are great but the reader really should be given some additional information to help them evaluate the sites for themselves
THERE ARE THE ORTOPHOTOS OF THE TWO SHIPWRECKS AND FURTHERMORE IMAGES ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 418-419 – this statement is untrue – wood and rope are the easiest objects to observe as they are aligned on the deck and attached to it. By this logic, no ship had sails as these aren’t seen on the Black Sea wreck sites?
WE HAVE ADDED BETTER EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT. SAIL IS MORE FRAGILE THAN WOOD WHILE NOT ORGANIC MATERIALS, SUCH AS METAL, ARE NORMALLY MUCH LESS EXPOSED TO DEGRADATION.
Line 429-30 – ‘relatively new frontier’ yet in Line 103-119 you discuss such studies dating back 60 years
OK; WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD
Line 431-6 – ‘collaborations with institutions and private entities’ – this can be both a positive and negative – some private entities state only they have the ability to explore such deep sites and therefore use this as justification for salvage activities following ‘archaeological study’, contravening the UNESCO convention. I would reword this conclusion to clarify how the partnership with Fondazione Azionemare aligns with the convention
WE HAVE QUOTED THE CONVENTION CONSIDERING OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE RESPECTED AS IN ANY OTHER UNDERWATER ACTIVITIES
This paper presents a summary of deep water archaeology in Italy and the Tyrrhenian Sea, showing a variety of interesting Roman wreck sites. The paper also advocates the use of of a bespoke ROV and survey vessel approach to investigating these sites. The paper provides a summary of all of these various aspects but offers little in the way of detail. It states that the surveys have tacked a number of existing problems for maritime archaeologists and adopted non-standard cutting-edge solutions, but there is little information provided for the reader to fully understand or even attempt to replicate the methodologies employed. More information about the ROV configuration (technical details and a diagram showing the setup) would really help to highlight the approach being used.
DONE
A number of wreck discoveries are discussed, but the reader is only given glimpses of some of these sites through individual photos or two orthophotos - ideally more of the latter with annotations highlighting key diagnostic features would significantly strengthen the paper.
THE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF IMAGES HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE EDITOR
The conclusions in the paper are brief and do not sufficiently summarize the paper.
Some specific comments are given below:
Line 11-14 – sentence needs restructuring and grammar checked
NOT CLEAR
Line 34-36 – contradictory statement – states deep water contexts are of interest because 98% of known wrecks are in shallow water – unclear what the point being made here is?
OK CORRECTED
Lines 38-45 – states that shipwrecks are likely to be pushed offshore by storms, so the shipwreck location does not always imply it was lost on a route – this therefore suggests that the opening statement in line 35 (‘essential to study direct and offshore routes’) and paragraph beginning Line 46 cannot be substantiated – need to rewrite these paragraphs
OK, WE HAVE ADDED AN ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’
Line 47 – why military fleets – why not just state that offshore contexts help understand maritime space and maritime connectivity in the past
YES OK
Line 56 – worth defining what you mean by ‘deep water’
OK
Line 64 – clarify what you mean by ‘small ships’
OK
Line 67 – what do you mean by a ‘good level of conservation’ – this implies intact shipwrecks (with all timbers) rather than cargo mounds with only timbers preserved when buried. This is addressed in Lines 85-88 and 92-93 where you state that conservation of organic material is not favourable.
OK, WE HAVE ADDED ‘RELATIVE’ and ‘…’.
Line 74-76 – worth citing that these wrecks should be protected under the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). All countries surrounding the Channel of Sicily have ratified this convention.
INCLUDED
Line 85-88 – temperature isn’t the principle limiting factor. In both the Baltic and Black Seas it is eutrophication that drives shipwreck preservation - in the Baltic Sea shipwrecks a permanent halocline at c. 60-80m limits the supply of oxygen to the deeper parts of the Sea.
OK, WE HAVE CUT THE WORD COLD
Line 89 – why the emphasis on ‘non-archaeological studies’ – sound derogatory
IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST ON THE SUBJECT ALSO OUTSIDE THE ARCHAEOLOGY
Line 98-101 – only cites one paper for the Black Sea and nothing for the Baltic Sea. You state formation processes are totally different but don’t identify what these differences are
WE HAVE ADDED REFERENCES FOR BALTIC SEA. DISCUSSION ON DEFFERENCES BETWEEN BALTIC SEA AND MEDITERRANEAN IS OUT OF THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE.
Line 103-127 – you discuss that these are the first operations of photogrammetric surveys but the discussion is mainly focused on the diving approach and sites with no information about the photogrammetry methodology or its successes / failures / lessons learnt. Is the purposes of these paragraphs to discuss the history of the application of photogrammetry in the area, or simply highlighting some deep water investigations? You also need to be careful with your definition of photogrammetry as it’s being used as a blanket term for many different outputs – for each survey you should really discuss exactly what they were seeking to achieve, and differentiate informed photographic survey, orthophoto-mapping surveys, etc, rather than the generation of 3D volumetric models which is many today may consider as modern photogrammetry as digital photography and hardware/software have improved and become available.
THE PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN TITLED “FIRST STEPS OF DEEP WATER ARCHAEOLOGY”, NOT NECESSARY RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, BUT WE HAVE PAY ATTENTION AND CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY
Line 136 – ‘experience’ – is this the correct word?
NOT CLEAR
Line 140 – explain the indignation or at least cite a source.
OK: QUOTED
Line 175-180 – sentences contradict each other – first states that ROVs are expensive and need specialized ships, then says there are inexpensive ROVs that can be deployed from small craft. These ROVs are widely used for archaeological investigations so shouldn’t be stated as more suitable for marine biology. Better to reword these sentences and simply state that “ROVs suitable for deep water investigations (>300m) are generally large, expensive and require a specialised survey vessel”.
OK
Line 180-181 – you discuss the problem of needing specialised ships in Line 175, but then state “Azionemare Foundation has tackled the problem and has adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions.”, yet in Line 193 onwards you discuss using a custom-designed catamaran for the Plutos – so basically you are using a specialised ship for the surveys after all?
Line 180 – you state that you have tackled this problem
Line 182-189 – If these first two points are in response to Lines 180-181 (adopting non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions), then this isn’t cutting edge but standard practice. The two points in Lines 188-191 are also standard practice.
Line 193 – this needs a subtitle to divide up the manuscript
THE TITLE QUOTES EXACTLY WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THE CHAPTER
Line 217-221 – very light on specs here – simply saying it has it all with no details. What are the lenses and camera system being used, depth range, pixel density, exposure times, lighting configuration, etc. In Line 180 you state that you “have adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions” yet give no details that inform or allow the reader to attempt to replicate this ‘non-standard’ approach. Without this type of information, it is impossible to assess the technology being used. See Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (2019) as a good example of a paper that goes into detail of how the ROV was setup and the methodological approaches used.
Line 243-246 – why are you using dynamic positioning to keep the ship stationary during a sonar survey? Or do you mean you use this for the ship to sit over an anomaly position? Clarify.
Line 243-246 - What is the dynamic positioning system being used – custom built of an off-the-shelf solution?
Line 252-254 – what conditions can this operate in (current / wind / wave strength).
Line 255 – what exactly is unusual – a smaller custom built solution rather than what is available with larger survey vessels? Clarify what are the unique points here
Line 266 – what is the payload of the Multipluto if it can be used for recovery of materials or artefacts?
Line 250-269 – there is no mention of how the Multipluto is dynamically positioned underwater, and the underwater conditions that it can handle (notably current strength)
Line 271 – Recovery and deployment of a 60kg ROV will not be possible from most vessels – I suspect the umbilical cannot be used for recovery so you’d still need some form of a winch system for recovery
ANSWERED TO ANU QUESTIONS
Line 274-276 – a map showing the search area and approximate wreck positions would really be useful for the reader
NO SPACE AVAILABLE FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 279-281 – does this vary by depth? In Line 77 you state that deep water wrecks are provided protection from the impact of trawling nets.
WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD ‘USUALLY’, BUT IN LINE 77 WE SAY ‘…in an area not attended by the fishing vessels’ WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEEP WATER WRECKS ARE PROTECTED AT ALL
Line 312-316 – inadequate description of the setup, data collection and processing – simply states that an accurate model was produced.
WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE TYPE OF THE CAMERA, THE NUMBER OF IMAGES AND THE SOFTWARE EMPLOYED. IN THE FOLLOWING LINES WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE RULES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMAGES DURING THE SURVEY. WE THINK THAT FOR THIS KIND OF PAPER IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
Line 319-320 – dealing with changing shadows and other issues shouldn’t just be something to resolve during the processing stage, but should be minimised by a careful approach to the survey and ROV setup – none of which is even hinted at in this paper
ADDED INFO ABOUT THE SURVEY
Figure 4 – what do the letters and numbers on the figure represent?
THEY ARE THE NUMBERS OF THE BLOCKS
Line 336-7 – how were the dimensions of the Dressel 2-4 accurately determined in order to permit scaling of the photogrammetric 3D model – was it based on one recovered or using existing examples?
WE HAVE RECOVERED TWO DIFFERENT AMPHORAS FROM THE SITE. WE HAVE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION IN THE PAPER
Line 338-9 – how was the portion of marble under the sand calculated to enable calculate the weight accurately?
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 341 – ‘very unique configuration and assessment of a marble cargo’ – please provide some information to support this statement
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 347 – ‘perfectly preserved’ – does this imply the wreck (including all timbers) are present and intact? Figure 5 simply shows a tile mound on the seabed
OK; ONLY THE CARGO IS PRESERVED
Line 350 – why was nothing recovered during this survey, given the earlier discussions over how the ROV was suited for recovery of material (Lines 288-297)?
WE HAVE RECEIVED PERMISSION LATER
Line 361 – the pit isn’t shown which contains the shipwreck
OK; CORRECTED
Line 362 – how is this calculated and what were the estimates?
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A SECOND SURVEY TO HAVE MORE PRECISE DATA
Section 6 – aspects of the different wrecks are discussed, including the location of certain cargo aspects, but there are no shipwreck plans / orthophotomosaics to permit the reader to understand their context – photos highlighting particular features are great but the reader really should be given some additional information to help them evaluate the sites for themselves
THERE ARE THE ORTOPHOTOS OF THE TWO SHIPWRECKS AND FURTHERMORE IMAGES ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 418-419 – this statement is untrue – wood and rope are the easiest objects to observe as they are aligned on the deck and attached to it. By this logic, no ship had sails as these aren’t seen on the Black Sea wreck sites?
WE HAVE ADDED BETTER EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT. SAIL IS MORE FRAGILE THAN WOOD WHILE NOT ORGANIC MATERIALS, SUCH AS METAL, ARE NORMALLY MUCH LESS EXPOSED TO DEGRADATION.
Line 429-30 – ‘relatively new frontier’ yet in Line 103-119 you discuss such studies dating back 60 years
OK; WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD
Line 431-6 – ‘collaborations with institutions and private entities’ – this can be both a positive and negative – some private entities state only they have the ability to explore such deep sites and therefore use this as justification for salvage activities following ‘archaeological study’, contravening the UNESCO convention. I would reword this conclusion to clarify how the partnership with Fondazione Azionemare aligns with the convention
WE HAVE QUOTED THE CONVENTION CONSIDERING OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE RESPECTED AS IN ANY OTHER UNDERWATER ACTIVITIES
This paper presents a summary of deep water archaeology in Italy and the Tyrrhenian Sea, showing a variety of interesting Roman wreck sites. The paper also advocates the use of of a bespoke ROV and survey vessel approach to investigating these sites. The paper provides a summary of all of these various aspects but offers little in the way of detail. It states that the surveys have tacked a number of existing problems for maritime archaeologists and adopted non-standard cutting-edge solutions, but there is little information provided for the reader to fully understand or even attempt to replicate the methodologies employed. More information about the ROV configuration (technical details and a diagram showing the setup) would really help to highlight the approach being used.
DONE
A number of wreck discoveries are discussed, but the reader is only given glimpses of some of these sites through individual photos or two orthophotos - ideally more of the latter with annotations highlighting key diagnostic features would significantly strengthen the paper.
THE LIMITATIONS ON THE NUMBER OF IMAGES HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE EDITOR
The conclusions in the paper are brief and do not sufficiently summarize the paper.
Some specific comments are given below:
Line 11-14 – sentence needs restructuring and grammar checked
NOT CLEAR
Line 34-36 – contradictory statement – states deep water contexts are of interest because 98% of known wrecks are in shallow water – unclear what the point being made here is?
OK CORRECTED
Lines 38-45 – states that shipwrecks are likely to be pushed offshore by storms, so the shipwreck location does not always imply it was lost on a route – this therefore suggests that the opening statement in line 35 (‘essential to study direct and offshore routes’) and paragraph beginning Line 46 cannot be substantiated – need to rewrite these paragraphs
OK, WE HAVE ADDED AN ‘ON THE OTHER HAND’
Line 47 – why military fleets – why not just state that offshore contexts help understand maritime space and maritime connectivity in the past
YES OK
Line 56 – worth defining what you mean by ‘deep water’
OK
Line 64 – clarify what you mean by ‘small ships’
OK
Line 67 – what do you mean by a ‘good level of conservation’ – this implies intact shipwrecks (with all timbers) rather than cargo mounds with only timbers preserved when buried. This is addressed in Lines 85-88 and 92-93 where you state that conservation of organic material is not favourable.
OK, WE HAVE ADDED ‘RELATIVE’ and ‘…’.
Line 74-76 – worth citing that these wrecks should be protected under the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (2001). All countries surrounding the Channel of Sicily have ratified this convention.
INCLUDED
Line 85-88 – temperature isn’t the principle limiting factor. In both the Baltic and Black Seas it is eutrophication that drives shipwreck preservation - in the Baltic Sea shipwrecks a permanent halocline at c. 60-80m limits the supply of oxygen to the deeper parts of the Sea.
OK, WE HAVE CUT THE WORD COLD
Line 89 – why the emphasis on ‘non-archaeological studies’ – sound derogatory
IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN INTEREST ON THE SUBJECT ALSO OUTSIDE THE ARCHAEOLOGY
Line 98-101 – only cites one paper for the Black Sea and nothing for the Baltic Sea. You state formation processes are totally different but don’t identify what these differences are
WE HAVE ADDED REFERENCES FOR BALTIC SEA. DISCUSSION ON DEFFERENCES BETWEEN BALTIC SEA AND MEDITERRANEAN IS OUT OF THE AIM OF THE ARTICLE.
Line 103-127 – you discuss that these are the first operations of photogrammetric surveys but the discussion is mainly focused on the diving approach and sites with no information about the photogrammetry methodology or its successes / failures / lessons learnt. Is the purposes of these paragraphs to discuss the history of the application of photogrammetry in the area, or simply highlighting some deep water investigations? You also need to be careful with your definition of photogrammetry as it’s being used as a blanket term for many different outputs – for each survey you should really discuss exactly what they were seeking to achieve, and differentiate informed photographic survey, orthophoto-mapping surveys, etc, rather than the generation of 3D volumetric models which is many today may consider as modern photogrammetry as digital photography and hardware/software have improved and become available.
THE PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN TITLED “FIRST STEPS OF DEEP WATER ARCHAEOLOGY”, NOT NECESSARY RELATED TO THE APPLICATION OF PHOTOGRAMMETRY, BUT WE HAVE PAY ATTENTION AND CORRECT THE TERMINOLOGY
Line 136 – ‘experience’ – is this the correct word?
NOT CLEAR
Line 140 – explain the indignation or at least cite a source.
OK: QUOTED
Line 175-180 – sentences contradict each other – first states that ROVs are expensive and need specialized ships, then says there are inexpensive ROVs that can be deployed from small craft. These ROVs are widely used for archaeological investigations so shouldn’t be stated as more suitable for marine biology. Better to reword these sentences and simply state that “ROVs suitable for deep water investigations (>300m) are generally large, expensive and require a specialised survey vessel”.
OK
Line 180-181 – you discuss the problem of needing specialised ships in Line 175, but then state “Azionemare Foundation has tackled the problem and has adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions.”, yet in Line 193 onwards you discuss using a custom-designed catamaran for the Plutos – so basically you are using a specialised ship for the surveys after all?
Line 180 – you state that you have tackled this problem
Line 182-189 – If these first two points are in response to Lines 180-181 (adopting non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions), then this isn’t cutting edge but standard practice. The two points in Lines 188-191 are also standard practice.
Line 193 – this needs a subtitle to divide up the manuscript
THE TITLE QUOTES EXACTLY WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THE CHAPTER
Line 217-221 – very light on specs here – simply saying it has it all with no details. What are the lenses and camera system being used, depth range, pixel density, exposure times, lighting configuration, etc. In Line 180 you state that you “have adopted non-standard particularly cutting edge solutions” yet give no details that inform or allow the reader to attempt to replicate this ‘non-standard’ approach. Without this type of information, it is impossible to assess the technology being used. See Pacheco-Ruiz et al. (2019) as a good example of a paper that goes into detail of how the ROV was setup and the methodological approaches used.
Line 243-246 – why are you using dynamic positioning to keep the ship stationary during a sonar survey? Or do you mean you use this for the ship to sit over an anomaly position? Clarify.
Line 243-246 - What is the dynamic positioning system being used – custom built of an off-the-shelf solution?
Line 252-254 – what conditions can this operate in (current / wind / wave strength).
Line 255 – what exactly is unusual – a smaller custom built solution rather than what is available with larger survey vessels? Clarify what are the unique points here
Line 266 – what is the payload of the Multipluto if it can be used for recovery of materials or artefacts?
Line 250-269 – there is no mention of how the Multipluto is dynamically positioned underwater, and the underwater conditions that it can handle (notably current strength)
Line 271 – Recovery and deployment of a 60kg ROV will not be possible from most vessels – I suspect the umbilical cannot be used for recovery so you’d still need some form of a winch system for recovery
ANSWERED TO ANU QUESTIONS
Line 274-276 – a map showing the search area and approximate wreck positions would really be useful for the reader
NO SPACE AVAILABLE FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 279-281 – does this vary by depth? In Line 77 you state that deep water wrecks are provided protection from the impact of trawling nets.
WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD ‘USUALLY’, BUT IN LINE 77 WE SAY ‘…in an area not attended by the fishing vessels’ WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEEP WATER WRECKS ARE PROTECTED AT ALL
Line 312-316 – inadequate description of the setup, data collection and processing – simply states that an accurate model was produced.
WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE TYPE OF THE CAMERA, THE NUMBER OF IMAGES AND THE SOFTWARE EMPLOYED. IN THE FOLLOWING LINES WE HAVE DESCRIBED THE RULES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF IMAGES DURING THE SURVEY. WE THINK THAT FOR THIS KIND OF PAPER IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION.
Line 319-320 – dealing with changing shadows and other issues shouldn’t just be something to resolve during the processing stage, but should be minimised by a careful approach to the survey and ROV setup – none of which is even hinted at in this paper
ADDED INFO ABOUT THE SURVEY
Figure 4 – what do the letters and numbers on the figure represent?
THEY ARE THE NUMBERS OF THE BLOCKS
Line 336-7 – how were the dimensions of the Dressel 2-4 accurately determined in order to permit scaling of the photogrammetric 3D model – was it based on one recovered or using existing examples?
WE HAVE RECOVERED TWO DIFFERENT AMPHORAS FROM THE SITE. WE HAVE GIVEN THIS INFORMATION IN THE PAPER
Line 338-9 – how was the portion of marble under the sand calculated to enable calculate the weight accurately?
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 341 – ‘very unique configuration and assessment of a marble cargo’ – please provide some information to support this statement
OK; EXPLAINED BETTER
Line 347 – ‘perfectly preserved’ – does this imply the wreck (including all timbers) are present and intact? Figure 5 simply shows a tile mound on the seabed
OK; ONLY THE CARGO IS PRESERVED
Line 350 – why was nothing recovered during this survey, given the earlier discussions over how the ROV was suited for recovery of material (Lines 288-297)?
WE HAVE RECEIVED PERMISSION LATER
Line 361 – the pit isn’t shown which contains the shipwreck
OK; CORRECTED
Line 362 – how is this calculated and what were the estimates?
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A SECOND SURVEY TO HAVE MORE PRECISE DATA
Section 6 – aspects of the different wrecks are discussed, including the location of certain cargo aspects, but there are no shipwreck plans / orthophotomosaics to permit the reader to understand their context – photos highlighting particular features are great but the reader really should be given some additional information to help them evaluate the sites for themselves
THERE ARE THE ORTOPHOTOS OF THE TWO SHIPWRECKS AND FURTHERMORE IMAGES ARE LIMITED IN NUMBER FOR EDITORIAL POLICY
Line 418-419 – this statement is untrue – wood and rope are the easiest objects to observe as they are aligned on the deck and attached to it. By this logic, no ship had sails as these aren’t seen on the Black Sea wreck sites?
WE HAVE ADDED BETTER EXPLAIN THE CONCEPT. SAIL IS MORE FRAGILE THAN WOOD WHILE NOT ORGANIC MATERIALS, SUCH AS METAL, ARE NORMALLY MUCH LESS EXPOSED TO DEGRADATION.
Line 429-30 – ‘relatively new frontier’ yet in Line 103-119 you discuss such studies dating back 60 years
OK; WE HAVE CHANGED THE WORD
Line 431-6 – ‘collaborations with institutions and private entities’ – this can be both a positive and negative – some private entities state only they have the ability to explore such deep sites and therefore use this as justification for salvage activities following ‘archaeological study’, contravening the UNESCO convention. I would reword this conclusion to clarify how the partnership with Fondazione Azionemare aligns with the convention
WE HAVE QUOTED THE CONVENTION CONSIDERING OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE RESPECTED AS IN ANY OTHER UNDERWATER ACTIVITIES
Reviewer 3 Report
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
Author Response
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but, of course, his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE THANKS
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
WE HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL, THANKS
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Fantastic piece of research and much needed for Italy. Well done!
Congratulations on collating such a large compendium of information in such a reduced space.
There is just a couple of recommendation and comments on a few sections of the paper from my perspective.
The recommendation will be to re-word slightly your examples about treasure hunting and deep sea sites. Between lines 74 and 79 the authors talk about the dangers of treasure hunting whilst quoting treasure hunters as good practice. This is contradictory to your arguments. Sean Kingsley was for many years the main archaeologist of Odyssey Marine, a notorious treasure Hunting firm. Quoting him regarding protection of underwater sites is not correct. I am sure the authors can find numerous other sources to justify their comments in this part. I suggest this gets removed.
Kingsley is not quoted by the authors as a protector of sites and we are well conscious of his grey activities.., but of course his small book on the impact of fishing on shipwreck is the best publication on this topis ever written.
I would also add other sites that have been looted by treasure hunters and that are currently in extreme depths. One of them is the Spanish galleon San Jose and the heavily looted and deep site of the City of Cairo in the Indian Ocean.
DONE
In section '3. The first steps of the deep water archaeology in Italy and Tuscany' It is mentioned the early days of research in France as an example, but then spend more than four paragraphs talking about French developments. I suggest making this slightly smaller and include other countries in the Mediterranean (Israel) as well as other expeditions. Especially as the first work using ROV in deep sites was also done in the Mediterranean in the Skerki Bank by McCann et al . in the 1980's
It would be good to see these small issues addressed. Otherwise I congratulate and salute the authors for a very well written and researched document.
I HAVE QUOTED ONE MORE SURVEY IN ISRAEL
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are thanked for making changes to the article, following the recommendations from the previous review. One aspect that remains a concern is the imagery used in the paper - in the original review a number of additional images were requested, but the response from the authors has been that there is no space available due to editorial policy. However, it would we fairly easy to change the images. For instance, Figures 1 and 3 largely replicate each other, so only a single image is needed. In figure 6, two different images are shown side by side to create a single figure - a similar collage could be provided by combining figures 7, 8,10 and 11 for Dae 39, and Figures 9 and 12 for Dae 42. These changes would reduce the number of images in the paper by 5, meaning that space can be created for the requested in the original review, notably a location map for the wrecks, and orthophotos showing the plans of wrecks Dae 39 and 42. These changes would significantly increase the value of the paper and also allow the reader to cross-reference the photographs of specific finds with the shipwreck plans provided by the orthophotos. All orthophotos should also include the orientation of the wreck (north arrow). The description of Figure 4 should state that the letters and numbers represent the individual blocks.
The conclusions section still remains very brief and doesn't sufficiently summarise the paper.
Author Response
we have combined some photos and added some images. Regarding the request of the orthophotos of DAE 39 and 42, we answer that they do not exist since we still have not made them. Figs. 1 and 3 are not similar and it is important we publish both.
We have added the arrows of the North. Regarding the numbers, in archaeology this is an obvious convention so we think it is not necessary to add indication in the captions.
We have added some considerations in the conclusions
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
