Russian Icons, 17th–18th c. Non-Destructive, Non-Invasive Diagnostic Methodology for an Integrated Study of Micrographic Triptychs from the Benaki Museum Collection
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A non-invasive (non-sampling) strategy was developed using several imaging techniques and XRF to study three triptychs and two polyptych side panels (16th – 17 th c.) belonging to the collection of the Benaki Museum. The study is very well organized, the presentation is clear and the results are extremely useful for the readers of Heritage. Therefore, the submitted manuscript can be published in Heritage. I have only some minor comments which can be (not necessarily) considered by the authors to further improve the quality and the impact of their work.
The most important concern is associated with the reported identifications.
- Identification of indigo. Indigo (Indigofera species and other) cannot be distinguished from woad (Isatis tinctoria L.) even by HPLC. Therefore, the reported result should be: either indigo or woad (indigo/woad) e.g. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 246-254.
- Identification of madder. With the developed (non-invasive) strategy it is not easy to identify the species of the organic lake. Although imaging techniques can provide some indications about the presence of madder my strong suggestion to the authors is to avoid reporting any result. Based on the icon dates the use of cochineal is, in fact, more likely e.g. Journal of Archaeological Science 38 (2011) 246-254.
- Identification of inorganic pigments. Some pigments contain some very common elements and therefore their identification by XRF (and imaging techniques) may raise concerns (e.g. grenn earth, verdigris etc). On page 13 (lines 332-341) the authors describe some of these concerns. The paragraph could be expanded to show to the readers that the authors are aware of the limitations of their methodology
Finally, the authors may slightly revise the abstract to include some of their results. Abstract can become more informative.
Author Response
Thank you for taking time to review our manuscript and the perceptive and very helpful comments. Please, see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present an integrated approach to the analysis of Russian icons. Majority of the inorganic pigments were identified and described by using more non-descrutive techniques including XRF, visual examination and imaging on a micro scale. Other constituents such as the organic binding medium, dyes and coloured glazes were not identified, but, as proposed by the authors, could be performed by using μRaman spectroscopy in their next complementary study. The paper is well organized and present interesting study of Russian icons and I recommend it for the publication in the present form.
Author Response
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
All my comments and suggestion were considered and convincing answers were given to all my questions. I think the paper is now suitable for pubblication in its current form.
