Archaeomagnetic Dating of Three Furnaces inside the Middle Age Settlement of San Genesio (San Miniato, Pisa, Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor, please find below my review on the manuscript entitled “Archaeomagnetic dating of three furnaces inside the Middle Age settlement of San Genesio (San Miniato, Pisa, Italy)” submitted to Land by Principe and co-authors.

The manuscript presents the archeomagnetic dating of three furnaces in Pisa (Italy) by means of the regional paleomagnetic reconstruction SCHA.DIF.4k. The work applies both paleomagnetic directional and intensity protocols to get the geomagnetic full-vector for each furnace. In addition, a rock-mag study is performed to know the origin of the thermoremanence.

After reading the manuscript, I have found some mistakes about the use of the models that must be corrected. In addition, one of the dating presents a wrong geographical location and thus, the dating is not correct. I suggest a major revision to correct these mistakes and I will be happy to review a new version of this manuscript after that.

Major comments:

a) Mix of references and paleosecular curves/models:

During the full text, there is a mistake about the names and the used of the different paleomagnetic reconstructions and references. I suggest reviewing the curves/models and the corresponding references taking into account the following considerations:

- Model SCHA.DIF.4k, this model was developed for the last 4ka and for the European region (is a regional model). The correct publication is Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2021). The “C” in SCHA means “CAP”, since this model was built by means of spherical cap harmonic functions. Please, revise the complete manuscript and include the correct name for the regional model.

- Model SHA.DIF.14k, this model is a global reconstruction for the last 14ka and the correct publication is Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2014).

- Dating tool archaeo_dating, was developed in 2011 and the publication is Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2011). The reference Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2022) (line 280) is not correct. The tool has been recently updated, but the correct reference is that of 2011.

- In addition, in lines 264 – 266 and Table 2: I do not understand well this sentence and the table content. Have the authors dated the furnaces using the global SHA.DIF.14k model or other previous palaeosecular variation curves? Please, clarify this point. When the authors indicate the ages using Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2014), maybe it means SHA.DIF.14k model (column 2 in Table 2)?. However, what means the use of Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2011) in the column 1 of Table 2? since in that publication any paleosecular curve was included, it is only the dating tool.

b) Dating procedure:

To me, it is not clear if for the furnaces SGEN02 and SGEN03 the dating were carried out using the full vector (direction and intensity) or only direction. Figures 6 and 7 only show directional dating and the section 5 is only focused on directional ages. I recommend to date the furnaces 2 and 3 using the full vector, since intensity values for these furnaces are provided. Of course, in one case (SGEN01) the intensity value presents an anomalous value (very low) and then it is better to use only the direction for dating (the authors also indicate this issue in line 372), but what happens with the other two furnaces with “reasonable” intensity values?

In addition, I have found some mistakes in the dating process of SGEN01: In this case, I think the dating is wrong. The map (Figure 5) shows a wrong location for this furnace. As one can see, the location is in Albania… this means that the dating was carried out considering this location and the paleosecular variation curve in that location. Please, calculate again the dating with the correct coordinates. Of course, the dating interval will not change considerable. 

c) Manuscript structure.

I propose to move the section “5. Directional ages” after section “6. Archaeointensity Determination” and to label the section as “6. Archeomagnetic ages” including the dating using only direction for furnace 1 (only direction due to the anomalous value of the intensity) and full-vector for furnaces 2 and 3. Then the authors can discuss about the results.

 

End of review.

Best,

F. Javier Pavón-Carrasco

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Top of Form

Review Report Form

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor, please find below my review on the manuscript entitled “Archaeomagnetic dating of three furnaces inside the Middle Age settlement of San Genesio (San Miniato, Pisa, Italy)” submitted to Land by Principe and co-authors.

The manuscript presents the archeomagnetic dating of three furnaces in Pisa (Italy) by means of the regional paleomagnetic reconstruction SCHA.DIF.4k. The work applies both paleomagnetic directional and intensity protocols to get the geomagnetic full-vector for each furnace. In addition, a rock-mag study is performed to know the origin of the thermoremanence.

After reading the manuscript, I have found some mistakes about the use of the models that must be corrected. In addition, one of the dating presents a wrong geographical location and thus, the dating is not correct. I suggest a major revision to correct these mistakes and I will be happy to review a new version of this manuscript after that.

Major comments:

1. a) Mix of references and paleosecular curves/models:

During the full text, there is a mistake about the names and the used of the different paleomagnetic reconstructions and references. I suggest reviewing the curves/models and the corresponding references taking into account the following considerations:

- Model SCHA.DIF.4k, this model was developed for the last 4ka and for the European region (is a regional model). The correct publication is Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2021). The “C” in SCHA means “CAP”, since this model was built by means of spherical cap harmonic functions. Please, revise the complete manuscript and include the correct name for the regional model.

- Model SHA.DIF.14k, this model is a global reconstruction for the last 14ka and the correct publication is Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2014).

- Dating tool archaeo_dating, was developed in 2011 and the publication is Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2011). The reference Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2022) (line 280) is not correct. The tool has been recently updated, but the correct reference is that of 2011.

CORRECTED

- In addition, in lines 264 – 266 and Table 2: I do not understand well this sentence and the table content. Have the authors dated the furnaces using the global SHA.DIF.14k model or other previous palaeosecular variation curves? Please, clarify this point.

DONE

When the authors indicate the ages using Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2014), maybe it means SHA.DIF.14k model (column 2 in Table 2)?.

YES, DONE

However, what means the use of Pavón-Carrasco et al. (2011) in the column 1 of Table 2? since in that publication any paleosecular curve was included, it is only the dating tool.

CORRECTED

 

1. b) Dating procedure:

To me, it is not clear if for the furnaces SGEN02 and SGEN03 the dating was carried out using the full vector (direction and intensity) or only direction. Figures 6 and 7 only show directional dating and the section 5 is only focused on directional ages. I recommend to date the furnaces 2 and 3 using the full vector, since intensity values for these furnaces are provided. Of course, in one case (SGEN01) the intensity value presents an anomalous value (very low) and then it is better to use only the direction for dating (the authors also indicate this issue in line 372), but what happens with the other two furnaces with “reasonable” intensity values?

 

WE ABSOLUTELY AGREE AND WE NOW PROVIDE FULL VECTOR DATING DIAGRAMS FOR SGEN03 SAMPLES AS SUGGESTED BY THE REVIEWER. PLEASE SEE BELOW AND IN REVISED MANUSCRIPT. PLEASE NOTE THAT NO PALEOINTENSITY DETERMINATION WAS OBTAINED FOR SGEN02 WHILE THE INTENSITY VALUE FOR SGEN01 IS ABNORMALLY LOW. WE MADE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT IN THE REVISED TEXT.

NEW VERSION OF FIGURE 10 BASED ON GEOMAGNETIC FULL VECTOR AS SUGGESTED BY THE REVIEWER.

 

In addition, I have found some mistakes in the dating process of SGEN01: In this case, I think the dating is wrong. The map (Figure 5) shows a wrong location for this furnace. As one can see, the location is in Albania… this means that the dating was carried out considering this location and the paleosecular variation curve in that location. Please, calculate again the dating with the correct coordinates. Of course, the dating interval will not change considerable. 

CORRECTED, was an old draft of the figure

1. c) Manuscript structure.

I propose to move the section “5. Directional ages” after section “6. Archaeointensity Determination” and to label the section as “6. Archeomagnetic ages” including the dating using only direction for furnace 1 (only direction due to the anomalous value of the intensity) and full-vector for furnaces 2 and 3. Then the authors can discuss about the results.

WE STRONGLY AGREE WITH THIS REVIEWR SUGGESTION AND THE TEXT ORDER HAS BEEN CONSEQUENTLY CHANGED

 

End of review.

Best,

1. Javier Pavón-Carrasco

 

Submission Date

22 August 2022

Date of this review

16 Sep 2022 17:12:20

Bottom of Form

© 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Interesting approach. However, some points need elucidation.

1)      Regarding D, I orientation measurements; how the seismic activity affect the values?

2)      low ?95 parameters do not secure precision. Systematic errors may arise. Can you comment on this?

3)      Very interesting the high intensity in medieval 1000--1300 AD. In this case I would like to see a discussion on this event as much discussion and novel measurements have been made

4)      In Fig 5 the red spot of the site is misplaced?

5)      A clearer comparison with available archaeomag curves in the vicinity of Italy should be made recalling Geomagia world data set too.

6)      A very interesting correlation study between Aurorae and archaeomag orientations is worth noted and commented! It includes ages in this article.

Indeed auroral reports from ancient Chinese records and from Greece and Italy, from historical sources (Bamboo Annals, Tai ping yu lan, Ch'unch'iu period and Aristotle, Anaxagoras, Seneca, Pliny, Livy, respectively) in the 1st millennium B.C., have been earlier discussed in relation to the geomagnetic pole (GP) coordinates through archaeo-magnetic inclination and declination data.

On the homogeneously distributed burnt mud bricks archaeomagnetic measurements and discussion of errors are worth to cite this work:

W.S. Downey (2011) ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DIRECTIONAL DETERMINATIONS ON VARIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS FROM THE LATE MINOAN DESTRUCTION SITE AT MALIA, CRETE Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 21‐31


Moreover on kilns also

Aidona, E., Kondopoulou, D., Alexandrou, M., and Ioannidis, N., 2010. Archaeomagnetic studies in kilns from N. Greece. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 43(4):1888–1897.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

2 - Review Report Form

( ) I would not like to sign my review report (x) I would like to sign my review report

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required DONE
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

THERE IS NOT A SIGNATURE AT THE END OF THE REVISION ...

Are all the cited references relevant to the research? ()

Is the research design appropriate? ()

Are the methods adequately described? ()

Are the results clearly presented? ()

Are the conclusions supported by the results? () Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Interesting approach. However, some points need elucidation.

1) Regarding D, I orientation measurements; how the seismic activity affect the values?

THERE ARE NO PIECES OF EVIDENCE OF SEISMIC ACTIVITY INSIDE THE ARNO AND PISA PLAIN. SO, THE ANSWER IS: THERE ARE NOT SEISMIC EFFECTS ON THESE MEASUREMENTS

2) low ?95 parameters do not secure precision. Systematic errors may arise. Can you comment on this?

FISHER STATISTICS INVOLVES TWO PRECISION PARAMETERS ?95 AND K. BOTH ARE NOW MENTIONED IN CONJUNCTION AND BOTH ATTEST TO AN EXCELLENT GROUPING OF PÁLEODIRECTIONS WHICH IS ESSENTIAL FOR ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATING. WE MADE AN ADEQUATE STATEMENT IN THE REVISED TEXT.

3) Very interesting the high intensity in medieval 1000--1300 AD. In this case I would like to see a discussion on this event as much discussion and novel measurements have been made

APPARENTLY HIGH INTENSITY DURING THE MEDIEVAL PERIOD IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PALEOSECULAR VARIATION PATTERNS AT THE SAN GENESIO LOCALITY. THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DISUSED IN PAVON-CARRASCO ET AL., 2014B – NOW PROPERLY REFERENCED IN OUR REVISED MANUSCRIPT. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THAT THE INTENSITY VALUES WE PRODUCED ARE IN PERFECT AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPOSED MODEL.

In Fig 5 the red spot of the site is misplaced?

CORRECTED

5) A clearer comparison with available archaeomag curves in the vicinity of Italy should be made recalling Geomagia world data set too.

Open Review

English language and style

Yes Can be improved

()

()

() (x) () (x) ()

6) A very interesting correlation study between Aurorae and archaeomag orientations is worth noted and commented! It includes ages in this article.

Indeed auroral reports from ancient Chinese records and from Greece and Italy, from historical sources (Bamboo Annals, Tai ping yu lan, Ch'unch'iu period and Aristotle, Anaxagoras, Seneca, Pliny, Livy, respectively) in the 1st millennium B.C., have been earlier discussed in relation to the geomagnetic pole (GP) coordinates through archaeo-magnetic inclination and declination data.

The article

On the homogeneously distributed burnt mud bricks archaeomagnetic measurements and discussion of errors are worth to cite this work:

W.S. Downey (2011) ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DIRECTIONAL DETERMINATIONS ON VARIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS FROM THE LATE MINOAN DESTRUCTION SITE AT MALIA, CRETE Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 21-31

Moreover on kilns also

Aidona, E., Kondopoulou, D., Alexandrou, M., and Ioannidis, N., 2010. Archaeomagnetic studies in kilns from N. Greece. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 43(4):1888–1897.

COMMENTS TO THE POINTS 5 AND 6 OF THE REVIEW-2 :

(1) THE REVIEWER PROBABLY REFERS TO AN ITALIAN CURVE (THEMA ET AL 2006) WHICH IS LONG OVERTAKEN BY THE NEW CURVE PRODUCED EXPLICITLY FOR EUROPE BY PAVON CARRASCO ET AL 2021 AND USED IN THIS WORK;

(2) GEOMAGIA IS A DATABASE CONTAINING A NUMBER OF PALAEOMAGNETIC AND ARCHAEOMAGNETIC DATA. IT IS NOT A TOOL FOR PRODUCING ARCHAEOMAGNETIC AGES BY THE COMPARISON WITH AN UPDATED GEOMAGNETIC REFERENCE CURVE.

(3) THE WORK IS NOT ORIENTED TO THE PRODUCTION OF A NEW CURVE FOR THE ARCHEOMAGNETIC DATING OF ITALIAN ARTIFACTS, BUT TO DATE ARTIFACTS WITH THE INTERNATIONALLY PUBLISHED AND WELL-CONSTRAINED CURVE FOR THE COORDINATES OF THE SITES UNDER ANALYSIS. THE MATLAB TOOLS PROVIDED BY PAVON-CARRASCO ET AL. 2011 AND THE TWO REFERENCE CURVES PRODUCED IN 2014 AND 2021 WELL CORRESPOND TO THESE REQUIREMENTS.

(4) IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH WORK IS INVOLVING THE AURORA (BOREAL?) DATA AND WHAT IS THE INTEREST OF A SIMILAR PAPER INSIDE A PAPER DEVOTED TO THE PERFECTION OF THE DATING OF MEDIEVAL-AGE FURNACES.

(5) THE PAPERS SUGGESTED BY THE REVIEWER-2 REFERS TO ARE OF NO USE FOR DATING OBJECTS OF A MEDIEVAL CONTEXT.

22 August 2022
29 Aug 2022 13:07:49

Submission Date Date of this review

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Terminology used to for the kilns/furnaces as "fiery structures" needs to be remedied.

 

The grammar of the English translation of the article needs to be corrected; there are errors in subject/verb agreement, punctuation, spelling, and sentence construction.

 

Inconsistent use of verb tenses.

 

Incorrect use of subject and plurals of nouns throughout.

 

Articles should accompany nouns; this does not always occur.

 

Frequent stilted translation from the Italian into English:  e.g, …the presence of a Roman-Byzantine human group…. (lines 90-91).

 

There are places in the text where the English grammar is so convoluted and incorrect that the meaning is convoluted.

 

Incorrect terminology in places:  e.g., a series of military posts…were born (lines 86-87).  The sentence should military posts were established.

 

Authors are inconsistent with use of CE and AD.  Likewise, if authors choose to use, CE, then BC dates should be changed to BCE.

 

The resolution of Figure 1 should be improved, if possible.  Although the added text is clear, the Google Earth images and the geological map are not very sharp.

 

Inconsistent capitalization of directional terms (north/North, etc.).

 

Consular names have been given in Italian and not in Latin; this needs to be corrected.

 

Figures and illustrations:  site plan with location of furnaces/kilns would be welcome; photographs of each furnace/kiln area before sampling should be included.

 

Dimensions for each kiln/furnace need to be provided.

 

The majority of the article is taken up with the procedure of the archaeometric analysis of the three kilns/furnaces and the interpretation of the data.  Although critical for dating and the identification of the particular use of the facilities, the detailed treatment of the archaeometric process might be better placed as an addendum to the article.  Important is the interpretation of how the three kilns/furnaces functioned at the site and how their use reflects the economic and social realities of the time.  More emphasis on the interpretation of use would be welcome as would inclusion of any other archaeological materials encountered at the site that would add to the discussion of craft or industrial production.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

3 - Review Report Form

(x) I would not like to sign my review report ( ) I would like to sign my review report

(x) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Are all the cited references relevant to the research? (x)

Is the research design appropriate? (x)

Are the methods adequately described? (x)

Are the results clearly presented? ()

Are the conclusions supported by the results? (x) Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Terminology used to for the kilns/furnaces as "fiery structures" needs to be remedied.

DONE

The grammar of the English translation of the article needs to be corrected; there are errors in subject/verb agreement, punctuation, spelling, and sentence construction.

Inconsistent use of verb tenses.

Incorrect use of subject and plurals of nouns throughout.

Articles should accompany nouns; this does not always occur.

THE ENGLISH GRAMMAR HAS BEEN ATTENTIVELY REVISED

Frequent stilted translation from the Italian into English: e.g, ...the presence of a Roman-Byzantine human group.... (lines 90-91).

MODIFIED

There are places in the text where the English grammar is so convoluted and incorrect that the meaning is convoluted.

THE ENGLISH TEXT HAS BEEN REVISED AND SIMPLIFIED

Incorrect terminology in places: e.g., a series of military posts...were born (lines 86-87). The sentence should military posts were established.

“POSTS” HAS BEEN CHANGED IN “VILLAGES”

Authors are inconsistent with use of CE and AD. Likewise, if authors choose to use, CE, then BC dates should be changed to BCE.

Open Review

English language and style

Yes Can be improved

()

(x)

() () () () ()

DONE

The resolution of Figure 1 should be improved, if possible. Although the added text is clear, the Google Earth images and the geological map are not very sharp.

WE SUGGEST REDUCING THE DIMENSION OF THE FIGURE IN THE EDITED TEXT

Inconsistent capitalization of directional terms (north/North, etc.).

DONE

Consular names have been given in Italian and not in Latin; this needs to be corrected.

DONE

Figures and illustrations: site plan with location of furnaces/kilns would be welcome; photographs of each furnace/kiln area before sampling should be included.

Dimensions for each kiln/furnace need to be provided.

DONE IN DESCRIPTION OF FIGURE 2

The majority of the article is taken up with the procedure of the archaeometric analysis of the three kilns/furnaces and the interpretation of the data. Although critical for dating and the identification of the particular use of the facilities, the detailed treatment of the archaeometric process might be better placed as an addendum to the article.

THIS ARTICLE IS FOCUSED ON THE AGE DETERMINATION BY MEANS OF ARCHAEOMAGNETIC METHODS OF THE 3 FURNACES FOUND DURING ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXCAVATION INSIDE SAN GENESIO SITE. TO DESCRIBE ANALYTICAL PROCEDURE AND THE PROCESSES OF AGE DEFINITION IS CRUCIAL IN THE ECONOMY OF THIS PAPER

Important is the interpretation of how the three kilns/furnaces functioned at the site and how their use reflects the economic and social realities of the time.

DONE (see the discussion section)

More emphasis on the interpretation of use would be welcome as would inclusion of any other archaeological materials encountered at the site that would add to the discussion of craft or industrial production.

NO ARTIFACT HAS BEEN FOUND INSIDE OR STRICTLY RELATED TO THESE FURNACES. SAN GENESIO IS A COMPLEX ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE ARCHAEOLOGICALLY STUDIED AT LEAST FROM 2001 (see introduction). THE THOUSANDS OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL MATERIALS THAT HAS BEEN FOUND AND STUDIED IN THIS SITE AND SOME ITS PECULIAR ASPECT HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ARCHAEOLOGICALLY BASED PAPERS (see references)

peer-review-22213913.v2.pdf

22 August 2022
13 Sep 2022 05:17:30

Submission Date Date of this review

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Editor and authors. After reading the new version of the manuscript, I recommend its publication. Just some points:

Line 27. SHA.DIF4K -> SCHA.DIF.4k

Line 285. Remove “(2021)” before “model”.

Best.

Author Response

Line 27 and line 285 of the text has been changed as requested by the reviewer

Reviewer 3 Report

There still is need of editing of the text, as there are run on sentences and incorrect punctuation.

Author Response

The text has been deeply revised, following the suggestion of the reviewer. Changes are tracked in the resubmitted manuscript by means of the blue color of the text