Curved Linear Diode Array Imaging of a Historic Anchor Recovered from East Anglia ONE Offshore Wind Farm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents an original approach to the study of iron anchors. This approach is not only interesting for providing useful data for conservation treatment, but also for defining the type of manufacture and dating of artefacts. I suggest only that the depth of the site be added to the introduction and that line 132 Venetti in Veneti (only one t) be corrected.
Author Response
Thank you, corrected the Veneti reference. Distance offshore and depth added to first paragraph, with other detail in lines 79-81 about the context and lack of association with other finds or assemblages.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsA very interesting study. I have left a few comments in the paper which could be addressed. The Sketchup model has been deleted, so the link should be deleted. You raise, near the end of the paper, the idea that flukes may have been present to support your conclusions but do not adequately illustrate this for the reader. You also mention the usefulness of the 2D radiography without fully explaining what information it gave you. It would be useful to have further information on these two points.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you, the SketchFab model reference has been checked and reinstated – working.
Figure 13 has been added to illustrate the likely presence of a fluke at the time of manufacture.
There is currently a paragraph explaining the results of the 2D radiography but it was perhaps missed as it is under Anchor Form and Typology. We have moved this paragraph into the beginning of the Materials and Methods section and added a cross-reference to it from the Introduction section.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
25–27: add details about the broader context of discovery. Depth? Where exactly? Are there other underwater finds around the discovery site? Or an important archaeological land site nearby? It is essential to underline that the methodology deals with an isolated find (if this is the case).
Figure 2 does not provide a clear map of the context. What is EA1_D25? The article does not mention it. What do the strange references in the caption mean? What does the large map display? And the small map? Why does the title mention a 15 m AEZ while line 58 mentions 20 m?
This figure is absolutely unclear and should be replaced with a map that provides the necessary information:
– "location of the anchor". The name "WTG_D_154" does not facilitate the reading and is unnecessary in the caption.
– "important modern settlements around"
– "important archaeological sites (with dates)"
42: "X-ray CT system." Develop the abbreviation for its first occurrence.
55: "RPS". Develop the abbreviation.
57: ROV. Ditto.
88: the link does not work and should be removed.
326, 362, 531: Votruba. Mispelling.
Metallographic analyses of anchors have already been carried out, although they focused on the composition of the material, but did not intend to date the find. A paragraph on this topic should be addressed, which would help emphasise the innovative contribution of the methodology used by the Authors. The Authors do not mention that other methods have been used to date isolated iron anchors, such as radiocarbon dating. The X-ray CT methodology is non-destructive, which is an advantage and should be underlined. This paragraph would constitute an excellent opportunity to carry out extensive bibliographical research. The article should also mention examples of underwater heritage for which X-ray CT was used.
The title should include a subtitle, such as "a non-destructive dating method," and, in any case, a few words explaining the methodology's purpose.
Author Response
Many thanks for the feedback and positive comments.
Details about the context, depth and other nearby features have been added to the opening paragraphs, and to lines 79-81 to make it clear that this was an isolated find.
Figure 2 has been reworked and now shows the location of the original find.
Most of the abbreviations (X-ray CT and ROV) were expanded in their first use (in the summary and introduction) but several reviewers missed these, so we have also explained their meaning in the Background section as well. RPS is a company name, which we have also clarified in the text.
Thank you for catching the misspelling and inactive link – these have been corrected.
We take the point about expanding on the use of CT in maritime heritage and have added examples in the Introduction, along with emphasising its suitability here.
Regarding the subtitle and purpose of the article, this is explained in the abstract as the publication does not appear to provide the opportunity to include a sub-title.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough the paper meets its goals, it could be improved if a comparison was included, as suggested. This way the reader could confirm what the authors suggest.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment. We agree, and one of the reasons for publishing the work is that we hope this paper will inspire others to use the methodology on other examples in the future. However, it is more challenging to remove an already accessioned anchor from a collection and logistically complex to transport them for scanning, so we had to concede that this was beyond the scope and funding of this project.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors
the manuscript is interesting for the field and the part related to CT scanning in well organized, precise and detailed. In the introduction there are few sentences difficult to follow, please have a look to the uploaded document. Few typos and minor mistake are also present. I would like to suggest to revise the clarity of the introduction paying attention to long and complex sentences (full of sometimes not relevant details) that reduce the importance of the work.
Regards
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
English needs to be revised and improved in particular in the Introduction where often long and complex sentences are present.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We have revised the phrasing in the highlighted sections in your file, and these are hopefully clearer. Additional details regarding the location and context of the find have also been added.
