The Flight of Saint Mary Magdalene—A Case Study of the Dismantling, Repositioning and Restoration of a Votive Aedicule and Wall Painting in Nardò, Lecce, Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper proposes the relocation and restoration intervention of a rural votive aedicule in the town of Nardò in Apulia, Italy, in 2015. Although the topic is interesting because of the type of intervention, the paper cannot be configured as a scientific article since it appears to be a brief technical report.

The bibliography is entirely lacking. The bibliography needs to include studies of other relocation of buildings in Italy and other European contexts and local bibliographic literature that would better contextualize the artistic asset.

Although it is stated in the conclusions that the intervention was guided by "an accurate and in-depth fact-finding investigation", there is no trace of such research, and it has not been illustrated.

The architectural restoration discipline, now widely accepted and certainly followed in this intervention, needs to be fully considered in this paper, and there is no reference to a specific theoretical and practical methodology.

Except for painting restoration, the technical intervention aspects of dismantling and relocating the aedicule are listed without any commentary. The interventions are listed by points as if they were a metric or price list of public works.

There is no reference to any Restoration Charter or reference regulations. For the state of conservation of surfaces, no reference is made to the degradation classifications drawn up by ICOMOS (to give the article a more international scope), nor even to UNI 11182 rules or NorMaL Recommendations 1/88.

Despite one sense of the care and attention with which the restoration work was conducted, the paper needs to include the characteristics to be considered a scientific-type article worthy of an international journal such as Heritage. It needs to add a state of the art that looks at both Italian and international examples; a methodological section; a proper discussion of preliminary investigations of an archival historical type and construction techniques; a reference bibliography for each stage of the methodological restoration process.

Even if we admit that the paper's purpose was to focus on some specific aspects of the intervention, this goal is not well achieved because many references and insights need to be included.

It is also not explained what constraints ensure the link between the wayside shrine and the new foundations. It is not specified whether provisions have been made for the seismic behaviour of the structure.

The paper cannot be accepted in this form. The paper does not return credit to the work conducted by the authors because it is too concise. I encourage the authors to rewrite and resubmit the paper with due attention. More strength and value should be given to such an interesting intervention that deserves more in-depth study to be well understood in the international scientific debate.

Additional detailed remarks are given below:

Section 1: There is a lack of a historical urban frame that would make people understand the town's urban history up to the expansion and the choices that led to the creation of the ring road. Such contextualization should also contain appropriate historical and bibliographical references that are absent here.

Figure 3, line 42: Year of publication?

Lines 59-60: Give bibliographic references or examples of similar representations in the same area.

Line 75: Are there any studies on the widespread assets in the Salento landscape? Are there no historical studies or descriptions by local scholars about these aedicules and the one in the case study?

Section 1.2: As mentioned above, no reference is made to the degradation classifications compiled by ICOMOS or UNI 11182 or NorMaL Recommendations - 1/88.

Line 99: on what scientific basis is this claimed if no reference is made to any art-historical studies?

Figure 8: A plan at a more detailed scale, in addition to the satellite, would be advisable

Section 2.2: thoroughly revise the structure of this section. One cannot simply list a series of operations. Each of these operations needs to be commented on and discussed more broadly. This looks like a list from the Italian regional price lists of public works. The list could be placed on a table.

Lines 123-128: this should be illustrated more widely, even graphically

Figure 10: the link should be put in for easier access. Also, the QRcode cannot be a figure in the paper. This video link is suggested to be moved to the appendix after the bibliographic references.

Lines 171-172: specify materials

Lines 174-175: write differently. This is the item of contract specifications or a price list.

Line 177 "mortar, plasters, colors": what kind of mortar? What kind of plaster? What kind of colour?

Lines 289-294: as already mentioned, this cannot be expressed only in the conclusion without mentioning it in a methodology section. After the methodology section, a specific section on these preliminary aspects should be developed.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The paper proposes the relocation and restoration intervention of a rural votive aedicule in the town of Nardò in Apulia, Italy, in 2015. Although the topic is interesting because of the type of intervention, the paper cannot be configured as a scientific article since it appears to be a brief technical report.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 1 for her/his comments. Important changes were made and some concepts were highlighted (marked in red in the paper) to adapt the text to a scientific standard and for a better understanding of the work.

The bibliography is entirely lacking. The bibliography needs to include studies of other relocation of buildings in Italy and other European contexts and local bibliographic literature that would better contextualize the artistic asset.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the insertion of a relative bibliography both to interventions on minor works in the Salento area and of a local nature on similar goods and representations.

Although it is stated in the conclusions that the intervention was guided by "an accurate and in-depth fact-finding investigation", there is no trace of such research, and it has not been illustrated.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the inclusion of research and references on the rural heritage, on analogous representations and on methods of intervention on minor works in the Salento area.

The architectural restoration discipline, now widely accepted and certainly followed in this intervention, needs to be fully considered in this paper, and there is no reference to a specific theoretical and practical methodology.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the insertion of examples and bibliography regarding some restoration interventions recently carried out on minor works in the Salento area.

Except for painting restoration, the technical intervention aspects of dismantling and relocating the aedicule are listed without any commentary. The interventions are listed by points as if they were a metric or price list of public works. There is no reference to any Restoration Charter or reference regulations. For the state of conservation of surfaces, no reference is made to the degradation classifications drawn up by ICOMOS (to give the article a more international scope), nor even to UNI 11182 rules or NorMaL Recommendations 1/88.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the adaptation of the text to this request.

Despite one sense of the care and attention with which the restoration work was conducted, the paper needs to include the characteristics to be considered a scientific-type article worthy of an international journal such as Heritage. It needs to add a state of the art that looks at both Italian and international examples; a methodological section; a proper discussion of preliminary investigations of an archival historical type and construction techniques; a reference bibliography for each stage of the methodological restoration process.

• Important changes were made and some concepts were highlighted (marked in red in the paper) to adapt the text to a scientific, including what request.

Even if we admit that the paper's purpose was to focus on some specific aspects of the intervention, this goal is not well achieved because many references and insights need to be included.

• Important changes were made, to include references and insights (marked in red in the paper).

It is also not explained what constraints ensure the link between the wayside shrine and the new foundations. It is not specified whether provisions have been made for the seismic behaviour of the structure.

• Important changes were made (marked in red in the paper) to answer to what request.

The paper cannot be accepted in this form. The paper does not return credit to the work conducted by the authors because it is too concise. I encourage the authors to rewrite and resubmit the paper with due attention. More strength and value should be given to such an interesting intervention that deserves more in-depth study to be well understood in the international scientific debate.

Additional detailed remarks are given below:

Section 1: There is a lack of a historical urban frame that would make people understand the town's urban history up to the expansion and the choices that led to the creation of the ring road. Such contextualization should also contain appropriate historical and bibliographical references that are absent here.

• For the historical and urban reconstruction of the centre, which goes beyond this contribution, please refer to the attached bibliography (marked in red in the paper).

Figure 3, line 42: Year of publication?

• Figure 3. The intervention area (marked in red in the paper) on the IGM map, 1:25.000 scale (F 214IV SW - Nardò), 1947.

Lines 59-60: Give bibliographic references or examples of similar representations in the same area

• The update of the contribution contemplates a study on analogous representations in the Salento area, with relative bibliography (marked in red in the paper).

Line 75: Are there any studies on the widespread assets in the Salento landscape? Are there no historical studies or descriptions by local scholars about these aedicules and the one in the case study?

• Relating to studies on the widespread heritage of the rural landscape and Salento aedicules, please refer to the attached bibliography (marked in red in the paper).

Section 1.2: As mentioned above, no reference is made to the degradation classifications compiled by ICOMOS or UNI 11182 or NorMaL Recommendations - 1/88.

• The integration of the text (marked in red in the paper ) also includes the reference to the classifications of degradation.

Line 99: on what scientific basis is this claimed if no reference is made to any art-historical studies?

• The update of the contribution marked in red in the paper ) contemplates better specifications about it.

Figure 8: A plan at a more detailed scale, in addition to the satellite, would be advisable

• The Authors have inserted a project document to better define the area of intervention, which can also be deduced from the satellite images and from the attached IGM cartography.

Section 2.2: thoroughly revise the structure of this section. One cannot simply list a series of operations. Each of these operations needs to be commented on and discussed more broadly. This looks like a list from the Italian regional price lists of public works. The list could be placed on a table.

Lines 123-128: this should be illustrated more widely, even graphically

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the adaptation of the text to this request.

Figure 10: the link should be put in for easier access. Also, the QRcode cannot be a figure in the paper. This video link is suggested to be moved to the appendix after the bibliographic references.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper ) contemplates the adaptation of the text to this request.

Lines 171-172: specify materials

Lines 174-175: write differently. This is the item of contract specifications or a price list.

Line 177 "mortar, plasters, colors": what kind of mortar? What kind of plaster? What kind of colour?

Lines 289-294: as already mentioned, this cannot be expressed only in the conclusion without mentioning it in a methodology section. After the methodology section, a specific section on these preliminary aspects should be developed.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the adaptation of the text to this request.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The text which describes repositioning and restoration of a Votive Aedicule in the countryside of Nardò is interesting and with a lot of useful information. The theoretical part is missing as well as the references from the theoretical background, so the text is more professional than scientific with a lot of descriptions.

The text should be rewritten regarding the academic standards and IMRAD scheme could be used or argumentative essay with pro-and-cons argumentation.

The references are missing especially those related with theoretical background.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The text which describes repositioning and restoration of a Votive Aedicule in the countryside of Nardò is interesting and with a lot of useful information. The theoretical part is missing as well as the references from the theoretical background, so the text is more professional than scientific with a lot of descriptions.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 2 for her/his comments. We have added a theoretical part and the references for the theoretical background (marked in red in the paper).

The text should be rewritten regarding the academic standards and IMRAD scheme could be used or argumentative essay with pro-and-cons argumentation.

• Important changes were made and some concepts were highlighted (marked in red in the paper) to adapt the text to an academic standard and for a better understanding of the work.

The references are missing especially those related with theoretical background.

• We have added the references for the theoretical background (marked in red in the paper).

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper describes a restoration experience.

Ther isn't a scientific background related to the issues posed by the case study, nor to the history of the artifact and of its context.

Please reference it to the scientific issues posed by operative choices, to the theory and methodologies of restoration.

There are not bibliographical references.

Please check the english language, in particular of the abstract.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The paper describes a restoration experience.

Ther isn't a scientific background related to the issues posed by the case study, nor to the history of the artifact and of its context.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 3 for her/his comments. Important changes were made, adding theoretical parts related to the issues posed by the case study, and to the history of the artifact and of its context (marked in red in the paper).

Please reference it to the scientific issues posed by operative choices, to the theory and methodologies of restoration.

• Important changes were made, adding theoretical parts related to the scientific issues posed by operative choices, to the theory and methodologies of restoration (marked in red in the paper).

There are not bibliographical references.

• We have added the bibliographical references (marked in red in the paper).

Please check the english language, in particular of the abstract.

• The new translation of the article was entrusted to a mother tongue university professor.

Reviewer 4 Report

This paper has a low scientific and academic quality because it does not propose a clear scientific question and then solve it by using a lot of supporting data or related experiments/algorithms.  On the contrary, it even looks like a conservation report by simply introducing the intervention and conservation states about a votive aedicule. The map photos in this paper were very low because the locations were not clearly marked. In addition, there are no data shown in this paper to prove related intervention is well configured. Therefore, I don't think this paper can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

This paper has a low scientific and academic quality because it does not propose a clear scientific question and then solve it by using a lot of supporting data or related experiments/algorithms. On the contrary, it even looks like a conservation report by simply introducing the intervention and conservation states about a votive aedicule.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 4 for her/his comments. Important changes were made, adding theoretical parts related to the issues posed by operative choices in the case study (marked in red in the paper).

The map photos in this paper were very low because the locations were not clearly marked.

• The Authors have inserted a project document to better define the area of intervention, which can also be deduced from the satellite images and from the attached IGM cartography.

In addition, there are no data shown in this paper to prove related intervention is well configured.

• Important changes were made, adding theoretical parts (in red) to illustrate the results of an interesting example of good practice regarding conservation and enhancement of local cultural assets both in terms of material culture, and of immaterial  culture. In particular, the rural identity, today particularly threatened through neglect, abandonment, vandalism, urban sprawl and soil erosion. Indeed, it is a particular case of social rather than environmental sustainability. 

Therefore, I don't think this paper can be published in its current form.

• The authors trust in a positive evaluation of the new version of the article.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has improved in terms of content, although some aspects should, in any case, be further investigated. The authors are reminded that Heritage is a scientific journal that must maintain a high research results standard.

Reference to the type of artefact has been added to section 1.1 and examples of similar cases have been included.

A methodological section was added. However, the indications of the Brindisi and Lecce Superintendence should be better explained.

In section 1.3, there is still no reference to the codification of the definitions of decays proposed by the scientific community (like ICOMOS or the UNI 11182 standards or the NorMaL Recommendations 1/88). There is no reference to any Restoration Charter or reference standards for both the building and the landscape.

Figure 9: A plan at a more detailed scale (1:200 or 1:100) would be desirable if it exists.

Lines 140-143: Although the emphasis is on "an accurate and in-depth fact-finding investigation", there is no trace of such a research, and it has not been fully explained. The results of the research about the history of the building and the stratigraphy must be integrated and explicitly explained.

Section 2.2.1: needs to be longer and should be explained in detail.

Section 2.2.4: it should be better explained how the aedicule was fixed to the new wall structure. A plan or other drawings (if any) at a scale of 1:50, 1:100 or 1:200 would help understand these aspects and the final arrangement of the area.

The paper is still at a barely sufficient level, but can be accepted if the authors integrate what is required.

Author Response

The paper has improved in terms of content, although some aspects should, in any case, be further investigated. The authors are reminded that Heritage is a scientific journal that must maintain a high research results standard.

Reference to the type of artefact has been added to section 1.1 and examples of similar cases have been included.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 1 for her/his comments. Important changes were made and some concepts were highlighted (marked in red in the paper) to adapt the text to a high research results standard.

A methodological section was added. However, the indications of the Brindisi and Lecce Superintendence should be better explained.

• The indications of the Brindisi and Lecce Superintendence are explained in reference n. 8 (marked in red in the paper).

In section 1.3, there is still no reference to the codification of the definitions of decays proposed by the scientific community (like ICOMOS or the UNI 11182 standards or the NorMaL Recommendations 1/88). There is no reference to any Restoration Charter or reference standards for both the building and the landscape.

• Reference to the codification of the definitions of decays proposed by the scientific community are explained in reference n. 7 and in the conclusions (marked in red in the paper).

Figure 9: A plan at a more detailed scale (1:200 or 1:100) would be desirable if it exists.

• Figure 9b shows the project plan on and aerophotogrammetric map (marked in red in the paper).

Lines 140-143: Although the emphasis is on "an accurate and in-depth fact-finding investigation", there is no trace of such a research, and it has not been fully explained. The results of the research about the history of the building and the stratigraphy must be integrated and explicitly explained.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the adaptation of the text to this request.

Section 2.2.1: needs to be longer and should be explained in detail.

• The update of the contribution (marked in red in the paper) contemplates the adaptation of the text to this request.

Section 2.2.4: it should be better explained how the aedicule was fixed to the new wall structure. A plan or other drawings (if any) at a scale of 1:50, 1:100 or 1:200 would help understand these aspects and the final arrangement of the area.

• The update of the contribution (really the section is 2.2.3, marked in red in the paper) contemplates the adaptation of the text to this request. Added Figure 12 (marked in red in the paper) can help to better understand these aspects and the final arrangement of the area.

The paper is still at a barely sufficient level, but can be accepted if the authors integrate what is required.

• The authors trust that the additions will meet the requirements

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Conclusion is modest and can be improved.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Conclusion is modest and can be improved.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 2 for her/his comments. We have expanded the conclusions to meet the request (marked in red in the paper).
• The authors trust in a positive evaluation of the new version of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please consider that "References" cannot be used as "Notes". Please move the  references 1-4 to  Acknowledgments.

Some references are general, not strictly referred to the case study, or tourist books (for example some Mennonna's works). Please review the references.

Author Response

Please consider that "References" cannot be used as "Notes". Please move the references 1-4 to Acknowledgments.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 3 for her/his comments. References 1-4 were moved to Acknowledgments (marked in red in the paper).

Some references are general, not strictly referred to the case study, or tourist books (for example some Mennonna's works). Please review the references.

• References have been revised, removing the ones not strictly referred to the case study.
• The authors trust in a positive evaluation of the new version of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

I still insist my original view that this paper was not a scientific article, and it even looks like a simple technical reprot. I can not find ant data, academic theory, experiments, etc. Although the authors tried to make some changes and modifications, no substantial improvement can be found. For an example, in the first revision round I have raised the problem about the pictures, but in this version, low qualities were still existed. I think this paper can be suitable to be submitted to a newspaper to introduce what the authors have done to conserve heritage buildings, but it is not suitable to be published in a academic journal. Therefore, I think it should be rejected.

Author Response

I still insist my original view that this paper was not a scientific article, and it even looks like a simple technical reprot. I can not find ant data, academic theory, experiments, etc. Although the authors tried to make some changes and modifications, no substantial improvement can be found. For an example, in the first revision round I have raised the problem about the pictures, but in this version, low qualities were still existed. I think this paper can be suitable to be submitted to a newspaper to introduce what the authors have done to conserve heritage buildings, but it is not suitable to be published in a academic journal. Therefore, I think it should be rejected.

• The Authors thanks Reviewer 3 for her/his comments. Important changes were made, adding theoretical parts (marked in red in the paper) to illustrate the results of an interesting example of good practice regarding conservation and enhancement of local cultural assets both in terms of material culture, and of immaterial  culture. In particular, the rural identity, today particularly threatened through neglect, abandonment, vandalism, urban sprawl and soil erosion. Indeed, it is a particular case of social rather than environmental sustainability. 
• The authors trust in a positive evaluation of the new version of the article.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf