The Remains of a Manila Galleon Compass: 16th-Century Nautical Material Culture
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The real importance of the paper is that it presents very interesting and complete information on the construction and functioning of compasses based in navigation treatises. However, further evidence would be required to assert the object was manufactured in Spain, beyond its simplicity and the fact that such objects appear regularly on Spanish treatises. Might it have been built in the Philippines, in Mexico or anywhere else. Moreover, the instrument is associated with 16th century remains associated to a Manilla Galleon, but does this mean it necessarily belonged to this vessel considering compasses did not change until the 18th century. Finally, in my opinion the instruments should be considered important as a set, rather than giving prevalence to one of them. I would suggest to dedicate more attention to comparisons between the documented compass remains or even conduct experimental research, building a compass following this instructions and comparing its precision with a nowadays compass and documenting carefully the difficulties found in the process of building and using it.
1. I suggest “presents” rather than “exposes”
2. I suggest “ran ashore” rather than “crashed”
3. Several words such as “Defeat” or “Dizzy needle” seem directly translated from the Spanish words, but they have a different meaning in English.
4. In absence of the hull remains how is it possible to determine the lead was actually sheeting not patches to fix localized damages.
5. “. They measure in the outer rim, 14.3 cm diameter by 1 cm 127 with a thickness of 1 mm” Review sentence.
6. Quality of the picture “Fig.1” is too low for a publication.
7. It might be worth clarifying, why pilots wanted to prevent air from entering the compass. (Winds causing undesired movements of the needle?)
Author Response
Please check attached file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The find is fantastic, and the article should be published after major revisions. My main concern is that the authors relay on Hispanic sources without convincing the redear that the object was indeed of Hispanic manufacture. Additional comments in the attached PDF
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
