Meat Supplies at the Ribadeo I Shipwreck (San Giacomo di Galizia galleon): Preliminary Results from Three Small Faunal Samples
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Marta Moreno-García, Miguel San Claudio Santa Cruz, and Ana Crespo Solana's paper present the zooarchaeological and taphonomic analysis of three small samples (NSP = 78) recovered from the 16th-century Ribadeo I shipwreck. Cattle, sheep, pig, goose, and hake were identified and their kill-off patterns and butchery practices are presented.
The Abstract is well-prepared. The Introduction presents the topic under analysis and the relevance of this study for the broader discussions on foodways and the meaty victuals in 16th-century ships. As the authors state, this is an under-studied area of research in the Iberian Peninsula. The Materials and Methods give more information about the samples analyzed and their provenance and present the methodology selected. The methodology is uncommonly complete in comparison to current practices of study of more chronologically recent faunal assemblages. The Results are then presented concerning their preservation (3.1), the faunal spectrum, body parts and aging data (3.2), and the butchery patterns (3.3). All of this information is perfectly considered in the Discussion section, presenting possible interpretations but also being clear on its limitations and caveats. The data is interestingly discussed concerning the site itself and in comparison to other existing pieces of information in a wider perspective. The Conclusion section is clear and concise.
This is a scientifically sound manuscript, with informative well-prepared tables and figures, and an important updated bibliography. The discussion of the data and the inferences made are definitely top-tier. The only possible criticism is that the samples are very small, but that is shadowed completely by the large methodological framework, the sample's context of provenance, and the overall importance of the study presented. This paper is very interesting and fits the journal’s scope and special issue topics perfectly. Not much more can be said, I suggest the acceptance of the paper in its present form. Congratulations to the authors.
Author Response
We are very thankful for your positive comments and very pleased to know you consider our work top-tier.
Reviewer 2 Report
The work entitled "Meat supplies at the Ribadeo I shipwreck (San Giacomo di 2 Galizia galleon): preliminary results from three small faunal 3 samples" shows a quite original study regarding the use of animal resources in San Giacomo di 2 Galizia galleon).
The study is original, and rather unusual, since studies of this type are rarely published. I think the article should be published. however I have some suggestions that I think will help to improve the work.
In its current state, the article is some disordered, in the section on materials and methods some results are described. and in the methods section there are analytics that are not described in sufficient detail.
In the results chapter, the actual point 3.2 could be point 3.1. because in this section the species that appear on the site are described. Table 1 that is placed in the methods and materials should be moved to this section, since in this section the remains are described. A row should be added to table 1, or a new table should be created where it is specified what MNI is in the accumulation, since this data has not been contributed to the study. Mortality patterns should also be clearly displayed on a table. In other words, specify whether the individuals are adults, juveniles, children, etc. All this (MNI and age pattern could go to the same new table)
Then the actual section 3.1 could be moved to 3.2, and 3.3 can be maintained.
The methods section must be completed.
In the study, a taphonomic analysis of the samples is made when describing cut marks, however, the methods do not refer to any researcher who has analyzed cut marks.
Authors could refer to the classic studies by Binford (1981) or to any other author who has characterized crop marks.
Binford LR (1981). Bones: ancient men, modern myths. New York, Academic press.
The authors have shown some interesting rodent markings, however in the methods they have not shown which authors have followed to identify those markings. There are many authors who have studied rodent markings, but the work of Fernanderz Jalvo & Andrews 2016 could be a good example of work to reference.
Fernández-Jalvo Y, Andrews P (2016). Atlas of taphonomy Identification. Springer http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7432-1
The same happens in the assumptions that are made for burned bone used as fuel, there are many works in this regard, but you could mention the study by Yravedra & Uzquiano 2013 that experimentally shows how bone can be used for this function.
Yravedra, J. & Uzquiano, P. (2013). Burnt bone assemblages from El Esquilleu cave (Cantabria, Northern Spain): deliberate use for fuel or systematic disposal of organic waste?. Quaternary Science Reviews 68, 175-190
Lastly, in the methods section, the authors must indicate how they have identified the marks, if it has been by eye, or if it has been using binocular loupes, or 10-20X hand loupes. Etc.
Finally, figure 4 should be improved since the cut marks are not well appreciated.
Author Response
We thank your comments and we will try to answer the points raised.
1) To begin with we believe the paper is well organized and that it follows closely the guidelines stated in the journal’s Instructions for Authors. It is difficult for us to identify which are the results included in section 2. Materials and methods because you did not point them out. We understand that no proper results have been presented here other than the location of the three faunal samples and their numbers. This was done to justify why they are analyzed as a unit. Therefore, no changes have been made to the original version.
2) In relation to the methodological approach, it is clearly stated that standard zooarchaeological procedures have been followed (line 75). We are aware that the study of butchery marks on animal bone assemblages is a very interesting research issue, but it was not the focus of our paper. For that reason, we decided to include only references specifically dealing with assemblages similar to ours in section 3.3. and along the Discussion. The same procedure has been followed with the burning. The three references that discuss in detail animal bone color alterations in underwater archaeological contexts are [28-30]. Considering that our samples are dated in the late 16th-century AD and derive from the meat consumed on board, the suggestion to cite Binford (1981) or Yravedra & Uzquiano (2013) does not seem suitable because both works are orientated to prehistoric faunal assemblages.
Despite all this, a new sentence has been added to section 2:
Lines 85-7: Cut and gnaw marks as well as burns were recorded in order to characterize the preservation of the samples. Bone surfaces were observed under a light microscope (x10-x40 magnification).
3) We would like to keep section 3.1. Preservation as the first of our results. It is a standard practice in any archaeozoological analysis to start by describing the preservation state of the samples in order to characterize them and understand the biases that may have affected the assemblage. In this case, it was important to highlight that sample HU/001 was very different from the other two. It was not our intention to carry out a taphonomical analysis of so few remains which, moreover would not fit the topic of the special issue.
4) We agree that Table 1 could have been placed in section 3.2., but we do not see a major problem in leaving this table where it is, given the small number of samples and remains in each of them. Besides, it follows the journal guideline stating that tables and figures should be placed next to the paragraph where they are mentioned for the first time.
As regards the data in Table 1, we do not estimate MNI. It has widely been acknowledged that it is a very problematic quantification method due to the biases it entails. Nowadays it is not used by most archaeozoologists and it would not make sense to apply such methodological approach to a sample comprised by 78 skeletal elements, mainly cattle ribs.
5) Mortality patterns cannot be calculated from such a small sample. According to Davis (1987: 46), at least 1000 bones are needed to trustfully estimate this variable. For that reason, we refer to aging data all along the paper. The only aging information available derive from five skeletal elements which are described in lines 165-170.
Davis, S. J. M. 1987: The archaeology of animals. B.T. Batsford Ltd. London.
6) The visibility of butchery marks displayed by cattle ribs in Figure 4 is probably a problem of the pdf resolution.
