The Ceramic Production and Distribution Network in the Ancient Kingdom of Navarre (Spain) during the 12th–15th Centuries
, Sayoa Araiz-González 1,2, Esther Lasheras 1,2 and Adrián Durán 1,2,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a fine and detailed compositional study. The technical aspects seem fine however I find that a general more "cultural" research question is missing or is not clearly stated- in abstract and discussion. For example are diffrences between Islamic/Christian/Jewish(?) ceramic or glaze technologies. Also it would be helpful to have a table with the data on all samples: context, site, form, type, glaze type, production center grouping
It was also not clear what was used as reference material (previous groups??) to decide how each compositional group should be provenanced.
In Figure 4 it is not clear what the color of the dots indicate
More questions and comments in PDF file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Pamplona, August 25th, 2024
Editor and reviewers Heritage
Dear Editor and Reviewer of Heritage,
Enclosed you will find the revised manuscript of the paper entitled “The ceramic production and distribution network in the ancient Kingdom of Navarre (Spain) during the 12th-15th centuries” by Iván Ruiz-Ardanaz, Sayoa Araiz-González, Esther Lasheras and Adrián Durán, to be considered for publication in Heritage.
We have considered all your comments. We have done a great effort to perform all the modifications that reviewer has recommended. The paper has notably improved after introducing all the corrections in the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewer and editor for their very valuable comments. Modifications are marked in red in the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Adrián Durán (Corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Reviewer 1:
Comment 1: [General: This is a fine and detailed compositional study. The technical aspects seem fine however I find that a general more "cultural" research question is missing or is not clearly stated- in abstract and discussion]
Response 1: [Thanks for your comment and evaluation about our work. Following your valuable comment, we have added more “cultural” research questions in discussion (section 4.3.) that we will explain in the following responses. Christian Kingdom of Navarre and the commercial network is mentioned in the Abstract section.]
Comment 2: [General: For example, are differences between Islamic/Christian/Jewish(?) ceramic or glaze technologies] [Section 4.3., but how can the compositional analysis be linked to the different cultures? were there Christian and Jewish production centres?]
Response 2: [The techniques of Muslim potters were incorporated into the Christian technologies. For this reason, it was not possible to clearly distinguish between the technologies of the different cultures. Studies about Jewish production was very little in comparison with Christian and Islamic productions studies. Some phrases have been added in the section 4.3. regarding different historical and technological points: “After the Christian conquest in 1119, a new paradigm was created in the material culture, since the techniques of Muslim potters were incorporated into Christian productions [2,3]. For this reason, compositional analysis could not be linked to the different producing cultures”. “However, from Christian and Islamic productions on a gap opens with respect to Visigoth and Jewish ceramics [2,32]”. “In this sense, in Pamplona during the 10th century, Visigoths, Muslims and Carolingians fought for control of the city. In Tudela, Alfonso I the Battler took the town in 1119. Under Christian rule, urban planning underwent some changes, such as the replacement of the main mosque by the cathedral, the creation of a Muslim quarter or the displacement of the Jewish population [2,3,31,32]”]
Comment 3: [Also, it would be helpful to have a table with the data on all samples: context, site, form, type, glaze type, production centre grouping] [Section 4.2., it would be helpful to have a table with all sample analysed with: type/form or ware, site, source according to XRF etc.] [Figure 2 Legend: any specific pottery types forms or glazes analysed?]
Response 3: [Thanks for your suggestion. We have added a new Table S1 (Supplementary Materials) in which the type of material is specified (vessel, tegulae, clay, brick, tile) together with the site of location and the source location (producing centre) and specifying if they were employed as reference samples or not. From our point of view there is no necessary to add more information in the legend of Figure 2 because the information of the type of pottery (vessel, tegulae, clay, brick, tile) was provided in Table S1].
|
ID |
Type/Form or ware |
Site of location |
Source location (Producing centre) |
Reference samples |
|
EST-1 |
Body of a vessel |
Estella |
Estella |
x |
|
EST-2 |
Body of a vessel |
Estella |
Estella |
x |
|
EST-3 |
Body of a vessel |
Estella |
Estella |
x |
|
EST-4 |
Body of a vessel |
Estella |
Estella |
x |
|
LUM-1 |
Handle of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-2 |
Body of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-3 |
Handle of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-4 |
Handle of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-5 |
Handle of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-6 |
Body of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-7 |
Body of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-8 |
Handle of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
PAM-1 |
Body of a vessel |
Pamplona |
Pamplona |
x |
|
PAM-2* |
Body of a vessel |
Pamplona |
||
|
PAM-3 |
Body of a vessel |
Pamplona |
Pamplona |
x |
|
TAF-1* |
Body of a vessel |
Tafalla |
||
|
TAF-2* |
Base of a vessel |
Tafalla |
||
|
TAF-3 |
Body of a vessel |
Tafalla |
Tafalla |
x |
|
TUD-1 |
Body of a vessel |
Tudela |
Tudela |
x |
|
TUD-2 |
Lip of a vessel |
Tudela |
Tudela |
x |
|
TUD-3 |
Lip of a vessel |
Tudela |
Tudela |
x |
|
ABL-1 |
Roman Tegulae |
Ablitas |
Ablitas / Tudela |
x |
|
ABL-2 |
Roman Tegulae |
Ablitas |
Ablitas / Tudela |
x |
|
ABL-3 |
Roman Tegulae |
Ablitas |
Ablitas / Tudela |
x |
|
ABL-4 |
Roman Tegulae |
Ablitas |
Ablitas / Tudela |
x |
|
ABL-5 |
Roman Tegulae |
Ablitas |
Ablitas / Tudela |
x |
|
LUM-mod-1 |
Body of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
LUM-mod-2 |
Body of a vessel |
Lumbier |
Lumbier |
x |
|
TAF-clay |
Clay |
Tafalla |
Tafalla |
x |
|
TAF-kiln-1 |
Brick |
Tafalla |
Tafalla |
x |
|
TAF-kiln-2 |
Brick |
Tafalla |
Tafalla |
x |
|
TAF-mod-1 |
Brick |
Tafalla |
Tafalla |
x |
|
TAF-mod-2 |
Brick |
Tafalla |
Tafalla |
x |
|
GOR-1 |
Body of a vessel |
Gorrizluzea |
Estella |
|
|
GOR-2 |
Body of a vessel |
Gorrizluzea |
Lumbier |
|
|
GOR-3 |
Body of a vessel |
Gorrizluzea |
Estella |
|
|
MON-1* |
Base of a vessel |
Monreal |
||
|
MON-2 |
Body of a vessel |
Monreal |
Lumbier |
|
|
MON-3 |
Handle of a vessel |
Monreal |
Pamplona |
|
|
OLI-1 |
Wall tile |
Olite |
Tudela |
|
|
OLI-2 |
Wall tile |
Olite |
Tudela |
|
|
OLI-3 |
Wall tile |
Olite |
Tudela |
|
|
OLI-4 |
Wall tile |
Olite |
Tudela |
|
|
OLI-5 |
Wall tile |
Olite |
Tudela |
|
|
OLI-6 |
Wall tile |
Olite |
Tudela |
|
|
RAD-1 |
Base of a vessel |
Rada |
Tudela |
|
|
RAD-2 |
Body of a vessel |
Rada |
Tudela |
|
|
RAD-3 |
Body of a vessel |
Rada |
Estella |
|
|
RON-1 |
Body of a vessel |
Roncesvalles |
Estella |
|
|
RON-2 |
Body of a vessel |
Roncesvalles |
Lumbier |
|
|
TIE-1 |
Brick |
Tiebas |
Tafalla |
|
|
TIE-10 |
Handle of a vessel |
Tiebas |
Estella |
|
|
TIE-2 |
Brick |
Tiebas |
Tafalla |
|
|
TIE-3 |
Brick |
Tiebas |
Tafalla |
|
|
TIE-4 |
Brick |
Tiebas |
Tafalla |
|
|
TIE-5 |
Body of a vessel |
Tiebas |
Pamplona |
|
|
TIE-6 |
Handle of a vessel |
Tiebas |
Pamplona |
|
|
TIE-7 |
Body of a vessel |
Tiebas |
Estella |
|
|
TIE-8 |
Body of a vessel |
Tiebas |
Pamplona |
|
|
TIE-9 |
Handle of a vessel |
Tiebas |
Pamplona |
|
|
VIA-1* |
Body of a vessel |
Viana |
||
|
VIA-2* |
Body of a vessel |
Viana |
||
|
ZAM-1 |
Brick |
Zamarze |
Estella |
|
|
ZAM-2* |
Body of a vessel |
Zamarze |
||
|
ZAM-3 |
Base of a vessel |
Zamarze |
Lumbier |
* source is not defined
Comment 5: [Abstract: missing is the aim of the research or research question]
Response 5: [At the final of the Abstract section, a phrase has been added. In this revised version, we have indicated the aims of the study: “Therefore, two aims were defined for this paper: to characterise the ceramic pastes for each of the producing centres and to know where the ceramics were exported.”]
Comment 6: [Section 1.2., are there difference in glazed ceramics technology between the Islamic-Andalusian traditions and the more "European" traditions?]
Response 6: [Our study is devoted to the ceramic pastes. That is the reason why the glazes have not been described or discussed. In any case, following the comment of the reviewer 1, we have added some phrases regarding the Islamic-Andalusian and European traditions for manufacturing glazes in Section 1.2.: “The earliest glazes manufactured in the Iberian Peninsula have been found in the south of Al-Andalus and dated in the 9th century. Two colours stood out in these first vessels: green and honey brown. From the 10th century, it is documented the green and manganese pottery. All these glazes were manufactured by using silica with lead as flux and tin as opacifier [12]. In the 11th-12th century, the lead-glazed earthenware ceramic was developed in Western Europe, mainly in France and British Isles [13,14]. Tin-glazing was introduced in the Peninsula through the Muslim civilization during the 13th century and then passed to Italia, where the term majolica was first applied to this Hispano-Moresque lusterware [15].” Three new references have been added, those with numbers [12] (Molera et al., 2018), [14] (Holmqvist et al., 2020) and [15] (Savage, 2024).
Comment 7: [Section 1.4. but would this change elemental abbundancies? and how?]
Response 7: [The elemental abundancies did not change. In firing procedures, temperature ranges or type of atmosphere could modify the mineralogical phases but not the elemental abundances. We have added “mineralogical phases” in parenthesis to clarify this item.]
Comment 8: [Section 1.4., but is there another question relating to different technological traditions and to distribution of each workshop?]
Response 8: [Perhaps, we have not completely clarified the objective of our paper. Sorry for our error. A phrase has been added in the Abstract and in the Section 1.4. We think that this item has been properly clarified. In this revised version, we have written the following: “The aim of the paper is twofold, to identify the characteristic composition of the ceramic pastes for each of the producing centres of the epoch (Tudela, Tafalla, Pamplona, Estella and Lumbier), trying to differentiate among them and to know the scope of the exports of the different producing centres within Navarre”]
Comment 9: [General remark: It was also not clear what was used as reference material (previous groups??) to decide how each compositional group should be provenanced.] [Section 2.1., what group would be used as a "reference" for a production center composition?]
Response 9: [Samples which were selected as “references” for a production centre were those completely identified as to be from the different production centres described. These samples were the following (see Supplementary Materials, Table S1): EST-1, EST-2, EST-3, EST-4, LUM-1, LUM-2, LUM-3, LUM-4, LUM-5, LUM-6, LUM-7, LUM-8, PAM-1, PAM-3, TAF-3, TUD-1, TUD-2, TUD-3. In addition to these samples, others were also considered (see Table S1): LUM-mod-1, LUM-mod-2, TAF-clay, TAF-mod-1, TAF-mod-2, TAF-kiln-1, TAF-kiln-2, ABL-1, ABL-2, ABL-3, ABL-3, ABL-4, ABL-5. For this historical and archaeological identification, we extensively consulted to technicians from Navarre Government. This item has been clarified in the section 2.1.]
Comment 10: [Section 2.1., this would be refrence?]
Response 10: [The reference of the production of Tafalla is that of Silván (1973). It has been added in this revised version].
Comment 11: [Section 3.1., how many samples altogether?]
Response 11: [65 samples were analysed (those described in the Supplementary Materials, Table S1). This phrase has been added in the new version]
Comment 12: [General remarks: In Figure 4 it is not clear what the color of the dots indicate] [Figure 4 Legend: but what do the different colors mark?] [Figure 4 Legend: are these the bricks and tiles?]
Response 12: [The legend of the Figure 4 has been modified trying to clarify this item. Now, the meaning of colour and dots have been written and related to the different producing centre samples. It has been written the following legend: “…The circles referred to archaeological samples from the producing centres, considered as “reference” samples (Estella -red circle-, Lumbier -purple circle-, Pamplona -orange circle-, Tafalla -blue circle-, and Tudela -green circle-), the squares referred to the other reference samples of known origin (Lumbier -purple square-, Tafalla -blue square-, Ablitas -green square-), the inverted triangles and x refer to samples from other archaeological sites: Gorrizluzea, Monreal, Olite, Rada, Roncesvalles, Tiebas, Viana, and Zamarze. The colours of the inverted triangles and x are related to the colour of the producing centre reference samples)”.]
Comment 13: [Legend Table 3: in %]
Response 13: [Added in the legend]
Comment 14: [Section 3.3., how about the firing temperature?] [Section 3.3., can we deduct something from these minerals? firing temperature?]
Response 14: [Thanks again for all your valuable suggestions. We agree with the reviewer and some discussion had been previously written in the section 4.1., the presence of anorthite in Tafalla and Tudela indicated very high firing temperatures (1000ºC or more). Other characteristic phases such as diopside (found in Tudela samples) or wollastonite (appearing in Tafalla samples) indicated firing temperatures from 950-1000ºC. These phases were not detected in the samples from the other producing centres. Although these results were described in the previous version, we have added some other phrases in section 3.3.: “The presence of anorthite indicated high firing temperatures (1000ºC or more)”, “The detection of wollastonite (in Tafalla samples) and diopside (in Tudela samples) indicated firing temperatures from 950ºC to 1000ºC”.]
Comment 15: [Section 4.1., How- are there refrence groups?]
Response 15: [We think that we have clarified the items regarding the different reference and producing centres. In any case, for clarifying this section, we have added “Table 3” and “Table 4” because the mineral and chemical elemental composition of the samples corresponding to the different producing centres are described in these Tables. In the Supplementary Materials Table S1 was indicated the reference samples and the XRF elemental composition was described in Supplementary Materials Table S3]
Comment 16: [Section 4.1., minor not minority]
Response 16: Changed.
Comment 17: [Section 4.2., interesting that bricks were exported!]
Response 17: Yes, we agree with the reviewer. It is interesting to know that bricks were also exported.
Comment 18: [Section 5, conclusions: but are there any further archaeological or cultural conclusions or thought related to the results?]
Response 18: [We think that our study contributes to the knowledge of Mediaeval ceramics in Navarre. In this epoch, Christian, Islamic and Jewish productions were produced in the kingdom, but it was not possible to distinguish among them, as mentioned and explained above in this letter. Some words have been added in the conclusions (“…in a historical period in which mainly Christian and Islamic productions were present.”]
Thanks again for your very valuable comments. We hope that this revised version can be accepted for publication in Heritage journal.
Dr. Adrián Durán (corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is a nice example of ceramic archaeometric studies. Both the topic and the applied methods are appropriate to do successful research, though some additional observations on the ceramic pastes would be useful. However, the reviewer found the sample number not enough to come to as general statements as the authors did. In addition, some further details are necessary to make sound conclusions. See my comments in the text.
Emphasizing some of the comments:
- It is a bit strange that you use 2 articles of Heritage from 2024 as general reference to provenance study of pottery. There are traditional ceramic archaeometric studies from Spain or from the "classical" European archaeometry which could be mentioned.
- Referring to a relevant geological map or descriptive literature is necessary.
- Rephrasing the sentences due to grammatical problems is necessary in more cases.
- Reference sample collecting (both the weaving factory clays and the bricks) should be referenced and detailed.
- More details on the results is necessary. In Fig.4., please, specify which triangle and which x refers to which archaeological site. Please, give details of the grouping of the archaeological samples from other sites to one or another centre. It is necessary for establishing your statements in the discussion. I am afraid that accepting your classification as a base of characterization (averages calculated from both production center + geological + other sites samples) can include biases. You did not add information on the comparative geological samples and the similarities/differences. 3 samples by production sites in the case of TAF, TUD, PAM seem to be not enough to characterize a pottery workshop. To understand your interpretation of the data, the absolute concentration values of elements would be really useful. E.g. calcite (and partly gehlenite) content is variable in the ceramic paste of different production centers. But how does this correlate with the CaO content? You should connect these data to each other more directly than simply referring to the Supplementary material. Are these really calcareous clays?
- Fig.5.: there are missing or not mentioned mineral phases there. It seems that EST-1 contains the highest ratio of calcite and gehlenite, though it is the least Ca-containing group.
- Fig.6.: There is no mentioning in the results that there are outliers in the production center samples (like we can see in Fig.6f). It is very important.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See suggestions in the commented text
Author Response
Pamplona, August 25th, 2024
Editor and reviewers Heritage
Dear Editor and Reviewer of Heritage,
Enclosed you will find the revised manuscript of the paper entitled “The ceramic production and distribution network in the ancient Kingdom of Navarre (Spain) during the 12th-15th centuries” by Iván Ruiz-Ardanaz, Sayoa Araiz-González, Esther Lasheras and Adrián Durán, to be considered for publication in Heritage.
We have considered all your comments. We have done a great effort to perform all the modifications that reviewer has recommended. The paper has notably improved after introducing all the corrections in the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewer and editor for their very valuable comments. Modifications are marked in red in the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Adrián Durán (Corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: [General: This is a nice example of ceramic archaeometric studies. Both the topic and the applied methods are appropriate to do successful research, though some additional observations on the ceramic pastes would be useful. However, the reviewer found the sample number not enough to come to as general statements as the authors did. In addition, some further details are necessary to make sound conclusions. See my comments in the text.]
Response 1: [Thanks for your nice comment and evaluation about our work. Regarding the number of the samples employed, as usually happens in cultural heritage studies, the number of available samples was limited. That was the reason why we have employed additional samples as “reference” samples and not only archaeological samples in the case of TAF and LUM. We will explain this item in detail in the following responses. We have considered all your comments and added some discussion to improve our work.]
Comment 2: [Abstract: Middle Ages! (not Age) here and later on]
Response 2: [It has been modified in the cases in which the term was incorrectly written along the entire text. Middle Ages is now written]
Comment 3: [Abstract: "each production centre". Use another expression not to repeat yourself]
Response 3: [It has been changed to manufacture centre.]
Comment 4: [Abstract: "greater" compared to what? also in the following sentences, you can say "enriched in X" "or X-rich"]
Response 4: [It has been properly modified according to the comment from the reviewer.]
Comment 5: [Abstract: commercial network in the Kingdom of Navarre]
Response 5: [Modified]
Comment 6: [Keyword: meaningless to use synonyms in keywords] [Keyword: "provenance" covers the seek for different raw materials, however, to be correct, you did not investigate raw materials, so I suggest to delete this keyword "raw material"] [Keyword: the age and the location are mentioned in the title so, I suggest to delete "12th-15th c." and "Kingdom of Navarre" you could use keywords for other specification of your research]
Response 6: [Following your advices, the new Keywords are: pottery; Middle Ages; provenance; Principal Component Analysis;
Comment 7: [Section 1.1., it was an independent kingdom only until...]
Response 7: [Modified]
Comment 8: [Section 1.1., at the western margin of the Pyrenees]
Response 8: [Modified]
Comment 9: [Section 1.1., converted?]
Response 9: [Modified]
Comment 10: [Figure 1: - please, add a sketch of SW Europe or Iberia with the indication of the region showed here
- please, indicate the 5 observed sites with another colour/sign]
Response 10: [Thanks for your comment. In order to clarify the meaning of the Figure 1, some modifications have been performed: A sketch of Iberia has been added (green square) with the indication of the Navarre region. We think it is better to write some additional text boxes and arrows concerning the Kingdom of Navarre (see the new Figure 1) and not to change the colours.]
Comment 11: [Section 1.2., central south?]
Response 11: [Modified]
Comment 12: [Section 1.2., stylistic importance? influential importance? I suggest to rephrase this sentence for clarity.]
Response 12: [Modified to clarify. Now it is written: “The influential importance of these centres was not as high as that of Tudela…”]
Comment 13: [Section 1.2., It cannot be understood which kiln find this sentence refers to.]
Response 13: [We have modified the sentence. We hope now it will be clearer to understand the meaning: “In Navarre, two kilns are barely known, one Roman in Ribaforada (1st century AD) (near Tudela) and another mediaeval in Caparroso (near Tafalla) (11th and 13th centuries) [8,9]. However, the small size of its combustion and firing chambers makes it unlikely that its production was more than local”. Two kilns are mentioned, but with only local production.]
Comment 14: [Section 1.3., mineralogical composition]
Response 14: [Changed]
Comment 15: [General comment and Section 1.3., It is a bit strange that you use 2 articles of Heritage from 2024 as general reference to provenance study of pottery. There are traditional ceramic archaeometric studies from Spain or from the "classical" European archaeometry which could be mentioned.]
Response 15: [We think that these two articles from Heritage are noteworthy, but other three “classical” articles exploring Spain and European archaeometry have been added (Molera et al., 2018 [12]; Polvorinos et al., 2011 [20]; Tite, 2008 [21])].
Comment 16: [General comment: Referring to a relevant geological map or descriptive literature is necessary] [Section 1.4., reference [17] These is an infrastructural map, not a geological one.]
Response 16: [Sorry for our error. We have deleted the ancient reference and added the last edition of the geological map of Navarre, edited by the local government: [22] Mapa Geológico de Navarra (Memoria y Mapa). Gobierno de Navarra, Departamento de Obras Públicas, Transportes y Comunicaciones. Servicio de Obras públicas (ed.) 1997, Pamplona (Navarre)]
Comment 17: [Section 1.4., The grammar of these sentences is confusing. Please, rephrase them. E.g. "...you could see how..." why how? E.g. in the Lumbier sentence there is no subject.]
Response 17: [The phrases have been modified to write in a grammar correct form: “On this geological map, Pamplona and Lumbier are in the pre-Pyrenean basins where marls from the end of the marine Eocene abound. In the case of Lumbier, clay minerals could also have been extracted from decalcification clay of the close Sierra de Leyre (Eocene limestone). In the case of Estella and Tafalla, the clays were found on continental sedimentary materials from the early Miocene. In the case of Estella, Triassic clays from Keuper could also have been used (due to the proximity of the Iguzquitza diapir).”]
Comment 18: [Section 1.4., repetition of Ega]
Response 18: [Deleted]
Comment 19: [Section 1.4., suggestion: instead of "temperature ranges" simply "temperature"]
Response 19: [Modified according to the suggestion from the reviewer]
Comment 20: [General comment: Rephrasing the sentences due to grammatical problems is necessary in more cases]
Response 20: [Some sentences have been rephrased. We have followed the comments from the PDF file and all the corrections of rephrasing suggested have been performed: “…centres of the epoch (Tudela, Tafalla, Pamplona, Estella and Lumbier), trying to differentiate among them and to know the scope of the exports of the different producing centres within Navarre locations.”]
Comment 21: [General comment and Section 2.1., Reference sample collecting (both the weaving factory clays and the bricks) should be referenced and detailed] [Figure 3: This sample collecting (both the weaving factory clays and the bricks) should be referenced.]
Response 21: [We have added the reference [6]. Also, we have added the following phrase to clarify this item: “The provenance of these samples from Lumbier and Tafalla was widely consulted with local authorities and technicians from Navarre Government”. We are secure about the provenance of these samples.]
Comment 22: [Table 2: Mentioning the full no. of samples would be useful.]
Response 22: [At the beginning of the section 3.1. has been mentioned the full number of samples that have been analysed: 65 (those described in the Supplementary Materials, Table S1)]
Comment 23: [Section 3.1., Complicated grammar Suggestion: Positive coefficients of PC1 show that Mg, ... directly correlate with each other.]
Response 23: [The first sentence of the paragraph has been completely rephrased. Now it is written: “Positive coefficient of PC1 showed that Mg, Ca, Sc and Sr directly correlated with each other (Ca group)”.]
Comment 24: [Section 3.1., major and minor elements]
Response 24: [Added and modified some expression, major and minor were more employed in the text]
Comment 25: [Section 3.1., What are Ca and Si groups? You have to explain them before use these terms.]
Response 25: [In this revised version, we explained the meaning of Ca and Si group in this paragraph: Ca group is related with positive values of PC1 and Si group with negative values of PC1. It has been written: “Positive coefficient of PC1 showed that Mg, Ca, Sc and Sr directly correlated with each other (Ca group). On the contrary, they had an inverse correlation with Al, Si, Ti and Fe, which showed a direct correlation between themselves (Si group)”.]
Comment 26: [Section 3.1., delete "the"]
Response 26: [Done]
Comment 27: [Section 3.1., Which of these phases is stable in a ceramic?]
Response 27: [Halite and calcite are the phases more frequently found in ceramics. Sorry, but we think it is not necessary to add some new information concerning this point]
Comment 28: [Section 3.1., alumosilicates]
Response 28: [silicoaluminates has been deleted and aluminosilicates added]
Comment 29: [Section 3.1., grammatical suggestion: ...distinguished calcareous clays from siliceous clays]
Response 29: [Modified]
Comment 30: [Section 3.1., complicated gramar]
Response 30: [Thanks again for your corrections. The first sentence of this paragraph has been modified to clarify the meaning. In the revised version, it is written “Two groups were distinguished considering the coefficients of PC2: the first group was formed by Na, Mg, Al, and Ti with positive values, and the second by Sc, Mn and Zr with negative values”.]
Comment 31: [Section 3.1., see the similar grammatical correction above]
Response 31: [Modified]
Comment 32: [Section 3.1., Where is Ti put in this classification?]
Response 32: [Ti belongs to the first group with Na or Mg. It has been added]
Comment 33: [Section 3.1.] Legend for Figure 3: delete "the"] [Legend for Figure 3: This is a fragmented part of the sentence. Please, rephrase it.] [Legend for Figure 3: missing verb and grammatically not correct] [Legend for Figure 3: repetition]
Response 33: [Some modifications have been performed in the paragraph just before the Figure 3: “Finally, the values of the coefficients of PC3 divided the elements in two groups: Na (0.38), Mg (0.38), Mn (0.60), Fe (0.23), Zr (0.34) (positive values) from K (-0.37) (negative values) (Table 2). Potassium seemed to be specific to the second group of samples in which the rest of the elements were in lower concentrations: Al (-0.15), Ti (-0.09), Sc (-0.06), Ca (-0.05) (Table 2)” and also in the Legend for Figure 3: “Representation of PCA coefficients from the elemental compositions of ceramics: (a) first two Principal Components (PC1 and PC2) where the most contributing elements were Si, Fe, Ca and Sc for PC1 and Mn, Zr, Na and Mg for PC2; (b) first and third Principal Components (PC1 and PC3) where the most contributing elements were Mn and K for PC3”. In addition, the commas “,” of the x and y axes have been changed by points “.”]
Comment 34: [Section 3.1., fragmented sentence, missing verb]
Response 34: [This phrase has been re-written; the missing verb was appeared (it was added)]
Comment 35: [Section 3.2., complicated sentence]
Response 35: [The first paragraph of the section 3.2. was widely modified to clarify the meaning: “The score matrix (U) allowed the samples to be classified depending on the chemical elemental analysis (by XRF) and the representation of PC1, PC2 and PC3”]
Comment 36: [General comment, Legend for Figure 4, Please, specify which triangle and which x refers to which archaeological site.]
Response 36: [triangle and x refer from the other archaeological sites: Gorrizluzea, Monreal, Olite, Rada, Roncesvalles, Tiebas, Viana. and Zamarze (it has been now written to clarify). The colours of the inverted triangles and x are related to the colour of the producing centres. For our intention, that is the best possible representation because in this form the archaeological samples with unknown origin can be assigned to the different producing centres]
Comment 37: [General comment, Section 3.2., You should give details of the grouping of these samples to one or another centre. Thus, you could establish the statements of the discussion.]
Response 37: [Thanks for your comment. In the revised version, we have added two new Supplementary Tables, Table S3 and Table S4 and paragraphs explaining.
In Table S3 the elemental chemical composition of the samples that we have considered as “reference” samples are shown: - From the producing centre of Estella: samples EST-1, EST-2, EST-3, EST-4; - From the producing centre of Lumbier: samples LUM-1, LUM-2, LUM-3, LUM-4, LUM-5, LUM-6, LUM-7, LUM-8, LUM-mod-1, LUM-mod-2; - From the producing centre of Pamplona: samples PAM-1, PAM-3; - From the producing centre of Tafalla: samples TAF-3, TAF-clay, TAF-kiln-1, TAF-kiln-2, TAF-mod-1, TAF-mod-2; - From the producing centre of Tudela: samples TUD-1, TUD-2, TUD-3, ABL-1, ABL-2, ABL-3, ABL-4, ABL-5.
|
ID |
Site |
Si (%) |
Ca (%) |
Al (%) |
Fe (%) |
K (%) |
Mg (%) |
Ti (%) |
Na (%) |
Mn (%) |
Sr (%) |
Sc (%) |
Zr (%) |
|
EST-1 |
Estella |
47.0 |
6.5 |
22.8 |
12.8 |
6.0 |
2.0 |
1.34 |
0.66 |
0.08 |
0.14 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
|
EST-2 |
Estella |
46.0 |
7.5 |
23.0 |
13.2 |
5.7 |
2.0 |
1.39 |
0.59 |
0.09 |
0.11 |
0.02 |
0.11 |
|
EST-3 |
Estella |
48.5 |
6.3 |
23.1 |
11.8 |
6.2 |
1.6 |
1.44 |
0.42 |
0.06 |
0.17 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
EST-4 |
Estella |
45.5 |
8.0 |
22.7 |
13.3 |
6.2 |
1.8 |
1.39 |
0.53 |
0.09 |
0.15 |
0.01 |
0.00 |
|
LUM-1 |
Lumbier |
52.7 |
1.9 |
19.8 |
16.6 |
4.9 |
1.5 |
1.13 |
0.18 |
0.38 |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.10 |
|
LUM-2 |
Lumbier |
54.9 |
1.2 |
19.2 |
15.5 |
5.0 |
1.5 |
1.28 |
0.28 |
0.32 |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.12 |
|
LUM-3 |
Lumbier |
54.4 |
1.4 |
19.1 |
16.1 |
4.9 |
1.4 |
1.25 |
0.32 |
0.33 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
|
LUM-4 |
Lumbier |
53.6 |
1.8 |
19.4 |
16.4 |
5.0 |
1.4 |
1.12 |
0.16 |
0.34 |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.12 |
|
LUM-5 |
Lumbier |
54.3 |
2.1 |
19.3 |
15.0 |
4.9 |
1.7 |
1.27 |
0.00 |
0.32 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.15 |
|
LUM-6 |
Lumbier |
55.7 |
2.1 |
18.3 |
14.8 |
4.6 |
1.6 |
1.21 |
0.24 |
0.35 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
|
LUM-7 |
Lumbier |
54.5 |
1.3 |
19.6 |
15.7 |
5.0 |
1.7 |
1.25 |
0.19 |
0.31 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
|
LUM-8 |
Lumbier |
53.6 |
4.4 |
18.7 |
14.3 |
4.9 |
1.6 |
1.35 |
0.17 |
0.33 |
0.06 |
0.01 |
0.12 |
|
LUM-mod-1 |
Lumbier |
57.9 |
1.5 |
18.1 |
13.7 |
4.5 |
1.6 |
1.42 |
0.13 |
0.30 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
|
LUM-mod-2 |
Lumbier |
56.5 |
1.6 |
18.5 |
13.6 |
4.8 |
1.7 |
1.28 |
0.27 |
0.32 |
0.05 |
0.00 |
0.16 |
|
PAM-1 |
Pamplona |
37.5 |
23.8 |
15.6 |
12.1 |
5.5 |
2.1 |
1.06 |
0.00 |
0.19 |
0.23 |
0.17 |
0.07 |
|
PAM-3 |
Pamplona |
40.8 |
18.4 |
17.4 |
12.3 |
6.0 |
2.1 |
1.12 |
0.00 |
0.18 |
0.21 |
0.06 |
0.08 |
|
TAF-3 |
Tafalla |
27.6 |
40.0 |
13.6 |
9.6 |
4.6 |
2.9 |
0.79 |
0.03 |
0.13 |
0.23 |
0.14 |
0.05 |
|
TAF-clay |
Tafalla |
26.3 |
41.8 |
12.2 |
10.7 |
4.3 |
2.4 |
0.96 |
0.28 |
0.15 |
0.30 |
0.14 |
0.05 |
|
TAF-kiln-1 |
Tafalla |
12.3 |
38.3 |
12.3 |
10.3 |
5.3 |
3.6 |
0.93 |
0.00 |
0.16 |
0.20 |
0.12 |
0.06 |
|
TAF-kiln-2 |
Tafalla |
26.4 |
44.5 |
11.6 |
9.4 |
3.4 |
2.5 |
0.84 |
0.00 |
0.16 |
0.23 |
0.14 |
0.06 |
|
TAF-mod-1 |
Tafalla |
26.3 |
43.2 |
12.1 |
9.6 |
4.1 |
1.8 |
0.91 |
0.00 |
0.15 |
0.24 |
0.14 |
0.05 |
|
TAF-mod-2 |
Tafalla |
27.3 |
43.8 |
12.0 |
9.9 |
3.0 |
2.0 |
0.86 |
0.26 |
0.16 |
0.24 |
0.15 |
0.06 |
|
TUD-1 |
Tudela |
35.1 |
17.2 |
21.2 |
13.6 |
2.7 |
4.9 |
1.18 |
1.26 |
0.20 |
0.24 |
0.04 |
0.06 |
|
TUD-2 |
Tudela |
33.1 |
26.7 |
15.8 |
11.2 |
5.5 |
4.4 |
0.95 |
0.17 |
0.18 |
0.31 |
0.17 |
0.08 |
|
TUD-3 |
Tudela |
35.6 |
17.8 |
20.4 |
13.7 |
4.9 |
4.2 |
1.14 |
0.82 |
0.22 |
0.26 |
0.08 |
0.07 |
|
ABL-1 |
Ablitas / Tudela |
31.6 |
32.2 |
15.5 |
11.0 |
2.5 |
4.2 |
1.01 |
1.13 |
0.20 |
0.19 |
0.15 |
0.04 |
|
ABL-2 |
Ablitas / Tudela |
31.9 |
32.0 |
15.1 |
11.1 |
2.5 |
4.2 |
0.97 |
0.86 |
0.18 |
0.30 |
0.13 |
0.06 |
|
ABL-3 |
Ablitas / Tudela |
31.7 |
32.7 |
15.4 |
11.2 |
0.9 |
4.3 |
0.99 |
1.71 |
0.19 |
0.31 |
0.13 |
0.06 |
|
ABL-4 |
Ablitas / Tudela |
27.9 |
34.2 |
13.5 |
9.2 |
4.2 |
6.2 |
0.86 |
0.34 |
0.16 |
0.54 |
0.16 |
0.06 |
|
ABL-5 |
Ablitas / Tudela |
30.4 |
29.8 |
15.5 |
12.6 |
0.6 |
6.5 |
1.09 |
1.84 |
0.18 |
0.62 |
0.14 |
0.07 |
In Table S4 the elemental chemical analysis of the samples found in other archaeological sites within Navarre region are shown: - From Gorrizluzea: GOR-1, GOR-2, GOR-3; - From Monreal: MON-1, MON-2, MON-3; - From Olite: OLI-1, OLI-2, OLI-3, OLI-4, OLI-5, OLI-6; - From Rada: RAD-1, RAD-2, RAD-3; - From Roncesvalles: RON-1, RON-2; - From Tiebas: TIE-1, TIE-2, TIE-3, TIE-4, TIE-5, TIE-6, TIE-7, TIE-8, TIE-9, TIE-10; - From Viana: VIA-1, VIA-2; - From Zamarze: ZAM-1, ZAM-2, ZAM-3. And samples PAM-2, TAF-1 and TAF-2.
|
ID |
Site |
Si (%) |
Ca (%) |
Al (%) |
Fe (%) |
K (%) |
Mg (%) |
Ti (%) |
Na (%) |
Mn (%) |
Sr (%) |
Sc (%) |
Zr (%) |
|
PAM-2 |
Pamplona |
44.4 |
12.6 |
18.8 |
13.2 |
5.8 |
2.5 |
1.14 |
0.14 |
0.21 |
0.13 |
0.03 |
0.07 |
|
TAF-1 |
Tafalla |
45.1 |
13.3 |
18.1 |
13.1 |
5.1 |
2.9 |
1.11 |
0.30 |
0.19 |
0.12 |
0.04 |
0.10 |
|
TAF-2 |
Tafalla |
53.8 |
5.4 |
17.4 |
14.7 |
4.6 |
2.0 |
1.18 |
0.21 |
0.18 |
0.09 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
GOR-1 |
Gorrizluzea |
54.2 |
1.0 |
20.0 |
13.9 |
6.8 |
1.7 |
1.24 |
0.20 |
0.12 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.00 |
|
GOR-2 |
Gorrizluzea |
50.8 |
4.7 |
18.4 |
17.2 |
3.7 |
2.9 |
1.38 |
0.11 |
0.29 |
0.08 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
|
GOR-3 |
Gorrizluzea |
46.9 |
4.5 |
24.0 |
14.2 |
6.0 |
1.9 |
1.37 |
0.45 |
0.07 |
0.08 |
0.01 |
0.10 |
|
MON-1 |
Monreal |
37.7 |
14.3 |
20.6 |
14.4 |
6.3 |
3.6 |
1.17 |
0.26 |
0.14 |
0.15 |
0.06 |
0.07 |
|
MON-2 |
Monreal |
47.3 |
2.8 |
22.6 |
16.5 |
6.9 |
1.7 |
1.27 |
0.00 |
0.13 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.14 |
|
MON-3 |
Monreal |
41.8 |
16.1 |
18.2 |
13.4 |
5.4 |
2.7 |
1.16 |
0.18 |
0.22 |
0.16 |
0.06 |
0.08 |
|
OLI-1 |
Olite |
31.9 |
23.6 |
17.3 |
13.0 |
5.7 |
5.4 |
1.07 |
0.87 |
0.20 |
0.25 |
0.10 |
0.06 |
|
OLI-2 |
Olite |
31.5 |
24.3 |
17.5 |
12.7 |
4.5 |
5.9 |
1.05 |
1.03 |
0.21 |
0.23 |
0.09 |
0.06 |
|
OLI-3 |
Olite |
32.1 |
23.9 |
17.4 |
12.7 |
5.4 |
5.3 |
1.06 |
0.90 |
0.20 |
0.22 |
0.09 |
0.06 |
|
OLI-4 |
Olite |
35.3 |
25.0 |
15.0 |
12.0 |
4.3 |
4.3 |
1.05 |
1.23 |
0.18 |
0.21 |
0.14 |
0.08 |
|
OLI-5 |
Olite |
36.0 |
22.2 |
17.1 |
12.4 |
4.6 |
4.6 |
1.11 |
1.09 |
0.15 |
0.17 |
0.12 |
0.07 |
|
OLI-6 |
Olite |
34.3 |
24.6 |
16.7 |
11.5 |
4.7 |
4.7 |
1.04 |
0.99 |
0.17 |
0.18 |
0.09 |
0.07 |
|
RAD-1 |
Rada |
34.7 |
19.9 |
19.2 |
12.9 |
6.1 |
4.2 |
1.10 |
0.53 |
0.19 |
0.23 |
0.13 |
0.06 |
|
RAD-2 |
Rada |
34.4 |
20.2 |
18.9 |
13.0 |
6.3 |
4.6 |
1.10 |
0.40 |
0.17 |
0.20 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
|
RAD-3 |
Rada |
42.7 |
7.0 |
22.0 |
13.7 |
8.4 |
4.1 |
1.22 |
0.22 |
0.14 |
0.09 |
0.01 |
0.06 |
|
RON-1 |
Roncesvalles |
48.2 |
4.9 |
22.2 |
13.8 |
5.7 |
2.5 |
1.47 |
0.31 |
0.11 |
0.09 |
0.01 |
0.13 |
|
RON-2 |
Roncesvalles |
51.1 |
3.8 |
18.9 |
16.9 |
4.9 |
1.5 |
1.26 |
0.21 |
0.37 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.15 |
|
TIE-1 |
Tiebas |
30.0 |
37.9 |
13.4 |
9.7 |
4.9 |
2.2 |
0.93 |
0.00 |
0.13 |
0.21 |
0.19 |
0.06 |
|
TIE-2 |
Tiebas |
23.3 |
46.6 |
11.1 |
10.7 |
4.4 |
1.8 |
0.90 |
0.00 |
0.11 |
0.34 |
0.28 |
0.07 |
|
TIE-3 |
Tiebas |
23.8 |
47.5 |
11.3 |
10.0 |
3.2 |
2.2 |
0.85 |
0.00 |
0.12 |
0.29 |
0.29 |
0.06 |
|
TIE-4 |
Tiebas |
22.1 |
50.1 |
10.7 |
9.7 |
3.6 |
1.8 |
0.82 |
0.00 |
0.15 |
0.40 |
0.29 |
0.07 |
|
TIE-5 |
Tiebas |
37.7 |
22.0 |
17.4 |
11.7 |
5.6 |
2.7 |
1.05 |
0.61 |
0.19 |
0.12 |
0.08 |
0.06 |
|
TIE-6 |
Tiebas |
38.4 |
25.8 |
15.2 |
10.7 |
4.4 |
3.2 |
1.05 |
0.45 |
0.20 |
0.13 |
0.07 |
0.08 |
|
TIE-7 |
Tiebas |
44.8 |
10.4 |
19.9 |
13.5 |
6.1 |
2.1 |
1.26 |
0.76 |
0.16 |
0.09 |
0.01 |
0.11 |
|
TIE-8 |
Tiebas |
40.3 |
19.8 |
16.4 |
12.5 |
4.6 |
2.8 |
1.19 |
0.45 |
0.22 |
0.11 |
0.06 |
0.05 |
|
TIE-9 |
Tiebas |
42.1 |
17.5 |
17.4 |
12.0 |
4.6 |
2.5 |
1.09 |
0.18 |
0.18 |
0.15 |
0.04 |
0.08 |
|
TIE-10 |
Tiebas |
47.0 |
9.7 |
19.3 |
12.7 |
6.1 |
2.2 |
1.30 |
0.72 |
0.01 |
0.09 |
0.01 |
0.12 |
|
VIA-1 |
Viana |
40.1 |
13.1 |
19.0 |
14.0 |
6.5 |
2.9 |
1.21 |
0.23 |
0.13 |
0.15 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
|
VIA-2 |
Viana |
36.4 |
14.1 |
21.7 |
16.5 |
6.0 |
3.0 |
1.14 |
0.34 |
0.13 |
0.13 |
0.05 |
0.06 |
|
ZAM-1 |
Zamarze |
42.7 |
9.4 |
23.4 |
14.8 |
5.2 |
2.0 |
1.31 |
0.53 |
0.12 |
0.12 |
0.02 |
0.09 |
|
ZAM-2 |
Zamarze |
47.5 |
9.8 |
20.0 |
13.7 |
4.3 |
1.7 |
1.33 |
0.45 |
0.17 |
0.12 |
0.01 |
0.13 |
|
ZAM-3 |
Zamarze |
53.4 |
2.1 |
19.4 |
16.3 |
4.7 |
1.7 |
1.19 |
0.22 |
0.38 |
0.06 |
0.00 |
0.13 |
Some additional discussion and data have been added in Section 3.2: “The chemical composition of GOR-2, MON-2, RON-2 and ZAM-3 matched with those from Lumbier due to the high percentages of Si (50% or more), very low of Ca and Mg (minor than 5%), Al and Fe ca. 19% and 15% respectively (Supplementary Materials, Table S3 and Table S4). Analyses of samples OLI-1, OLI-2, OLI-3, OLI-4, OLI-5, OLI-6, RAD-1 and RAD-2 showed similarities with those from Tudela and Ablitas (Si percentages ca. 32%, and high Ca and Mg percentages ca. 30% and 5%) (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4)”. “Samples GOR-1, GOR-3, RAD-3, RON-1, TIE-7, TIE-10 and ZAM-1 were assigned to the producing centre of Estella. The most characteristic percentage of these samples were those of Al (the highest of the producing centres, ca. 22%) and K (the highest values of the producing centres in average, ca. 6%) (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4). Samples MON-3, TIE-5, TIE-6, TIE-8 and TIE-9 were associated with the Pamplona manufacture centre, and samples TIE-1, TIE-2, TIE-3 and TIE-4 with Tafalla production (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4). Samples TIE-1, TIE-2, TIE-3 and TIE-4 were bricks with composition based on very high percentages of Ca (usually higher than 40%) and very low of Si (percentages minor than 30%) and Fe (minor than 11%) (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4)”.
Comment 38: [General comment, Section 3.2., Can you compare these averages with those ones calculated exclusively from the geological + production center-connected samples? I am afraid that accepting your classification as a base of characterization can include biases. 3 samples by production sites in the case of TAF, TUD, PAM seem to be not enough to characterize a pottery]
Response 38: [As mentioned in the Response 37, we have added some new comparatives after considering exclusively the samples considered as “reference” samples (Table S3), and the other archaeological samples which were assigned to the different producing centres (Table S4). The new comparatives (assigning the different samples with the producing centres) were included in the section 3.2. and 4.2. In the case of TAF and TUD some new samples were collected to define the characteristics of each of the producing centres because we had considered that more samples were necessary as mentioned by the reviewer. In the case of TAF, the “reference” samples were the following: TAF-3, TAF-clay, TAF-kiln-1, TAF-kiln-2, TAF-mod-1 and TAF-mod-2. For TUD producing centre, the “reference” samples were: TUD-1, TUD-2, TUD-3, ABL-1, ABL-2, ABL-3, ABL-4 and ABL-5 (Table S1). Unfortunately, only two samples (PAM-1 and PAM-3) were possible to define the characteristics of the producing centre of Pamplona (it was not possible to obtain more samples).]
Comment 39: [Section 3.3., haematite, use the same spelling through the text]
Response 39: [We have homogenized the term hematite along the entire text]
Comment 40: [General comment, Section 3.3., To understand this part of the data, the absolute concentration values of elements would be really useful. E.g. calcite (and partly gehlenite) content is variable in the ceramic paste of different production centers. But how does this correlate with the CaO content? You should connect these data more directly to each other than referring to the Supplementary material. Are these really calcareous clays?]
Response 40: [A wide comparative between XRD and XRF elemental analyses have been added in the section 3.3. Some of these comparatives could be seen in the ancient version in the section 4.1. but some new data were added now. In the case of EST samples, “…These results coincided with those of XRF in which the content of K (illite phase) and Si (quartz and illite) were high, and the content of Ca (calcite and gehlenite) was low (Table 3, Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4).”. In the case of LUM, “…these samples showed the highest percentages of Si and Fe, Tables 3, S3 and S4…”. The TAF ceramics presented “…the highest values of Ca by XRF, Tables 3, S3 and S4…”. We have also added a sentence regarding the calcareous character of clays of TAF and TUD.
Comment 41: [Section 3.3., You did not add information on the comparative geological samples and the similarities/differences.]
Response 41: [According to reviewer, we have added a new paragraph in section 4.1., in which we compare the crystalline phases found in the different producing centres: “Regarding the similarities or differences in crystalline phases detected in the different producing centres, quartz was identified in all the samples (mainly in EST, LUM and PAM), illite was also in all the samples (minor abundance in LUM). The higher quantities of calcite were detected for TAF, PAM and TUD, although this phase was also detected in EST. Hematite appeared in all the samples, mainly in EST and LUM. Gehlenite was observed in four of the five centres (mainly in TAF and TUD, but also in PAM and EST). The main differences between the centres were due to the presence of anorthite, only existing in TUD and TAF, diopside only in TUD, and wollastonite in TAF (Table 4 and Figure 5).”]
Comment 42: [General comment, Figure 5, Cannot be seen the peaks of phase: - TAF: wollastonite, illite; - TUD: diopside. It seems that EST-1 contains the highest ratio of calcite and gehlenite, though it is the least Ca-containing group. In almost all groups (except for LUM), there is also another feldspar type than anorthite.]
Response 42: [Thanks for your comment. We have checked again all the XRD diffractograms of samples from TAF and TUD, because only one of each producing centres has been depicted in Figure 5. After checking, we have corrected the assignation of ++ corresponding to illite from TAF (now it is written only one +). Wollastonite of TAF is seen at 2Θ ca. 17º, 69º and mainly the peak at 53.3º, they are slight peaks but all of them appeared. Illite signals are more difficult to see in the diffractogram represented in the Figure 5 but are present in other diffractograms samples of TAF. In the case of TUD, the signals of diopside could be seen at 40.8 and 42.3º, although the magnitude of the signals were low (only one + in Table 4). Regarding the EST-1 diffractogram, the signal more evident is that of quartz. In this sample calcite and gehlenite are important, and illite and hematite. In the other samples of EST producing centre (EST-2, EST-3 and EST-4), signals of illite and hematite are more important than those of calcite and gehlenite, and this conclusion is that written in the Table 4, and this result match better with the XRF result. It is possible that other feldspars were present, but we think that the phases indicated were the most important: Q (quartz), I (illite), C (calcite), H (hematite), G (gehlenite), A (anorthite), D (diopside) and W (wollastonite).
Comment 43: [Section 4.1., Still, 3-8 samples by workshop seems to be not enough for the characterization to me. Especially that you show (without discussion) outliers in Fig.6f. General comment: There is no mentioning in the results that there are outliers in the production center samples (like we can see in Fig. 6f). It is very important.]
Response 43: [As mentioned before, the total number of samples considered as “reference” were 30, distributed in the following form: - Four samples for Estella producing centre: EST-1, EST-2, EST-3 and EST-4; - Ten samples for Lumbier centre: LUM-1, LUM-2, LUM-3, LUM-4, LUM-5, LUM-6, LUM-7, LUM-8, LUM-mod-1 and LUM-mod-2; - Two samples for Pamplona: PAM-1 and PAM-3; - Six samples for Tafalla: TAF-3, TAF-clay, TAF-kiln-1, TAF-kiln-2, TAF-mod-1, TAF-mod-2; - Eight for Tudela: TUD-1, TUD-2, TUD-3, ABL-1, ABL-2, ABL-3, ABL-4 and ABL-5 (Supplementaty Materials, Table S1). We hope you understand the difficulties in the availability of archaeological samples that usually occurs for cultural heritage studies.
In the revised version (section 3.2.), it has been mentioned that there are six samples that are outliers in the distribution of the producing centres: “Samples PAM-2, TAF-1, TAF-2, MON-1, VIA-1, VIA-2 and ZAM-2 were not possible to assign to any production centres (marked with asterisk in the Supplementary Materials Table S1). PAM-2 was not associated with PAM centre due to the low Ca content (12.6%) in comparison with the Ca average content of the other PAM samples (21.8%). TAF-1 and TAF-2 showed higher Si (45.1 and 53.8% respectively), Al (18.1 and 17.4%) and Fe (13.1 and 14.7%) contents in comparison with the average values of TAF samples: 24.4% of Si, 12.3% of Al and 9.9% of Fe. The amounts of Ca in TAF-1 and TAF-2 were very low (13.3% and 5.4%) when comparing with the average TAF content in Ca (41.9%). The percentages of the other samples (MON-1, VIA-1, VIA-2 and ZAM-2) were not completely matched with any of the producing centre.”]
Comment 44: [Section 4.1., "previous" cannot mean the results of this paper, you could use "above"]
Response 44: [It was corrected along the entire text]
Comment 45: [Section 4.2., These conclusions should be established in details at the end of the geochemical results section.]
Response 45: [The conclusions discussed in the section 4.2. have been widely added in the sections 3.2. and 3.3. In this revised version, we have also included the most important findings concerning the crystalline phases found in the archaeological samples and how these results could be associated with the five producing centres. In Section 3.3., a new paragraph was added: “Regarding the classification of the different archaeological samples within the producing centres, the most remarkable findings were the following: calcite was not detected in either GOR-2 or MON-2 (therefore they could be related to LUM producing centre), gehlenite was observed in MON-3 and assigned to PAM centre. Relative high amounts of gehlenite were detected in OLI-1 and OLI-3, anorthite in OLI-2 and OLI-3, and diopside in OLI-2, which allowed to relate to TUD. Similar results, especially for anorthite and diopside phases, were detected in RAD-1 and RAD-2. The presence of wollastonite in TIE-2, TIE-3 and TIE-4 was associated to TAF. In RON-1, calcite was present (EST) and not in RON-2 (LUM) (Table S1 and Table 4)”.]
Comment 47: [Section 4.2., grammatically confused]
Response 47: [The phrase has been re-written: “…shows to which places within Navarre the samples manufactured in the different production centres were exported…”]
Comment 48: [Section 4.2., This also should be mentioned first in the results.]
Response 48: [It has been mentioned in the section 3.2.]
Comment 49: [Figure 6: (f) What does the mentioning 2 production sites (TAF, PAM) mean here? You did not mention that some samples from the production sites do not fit into their chemical groups.]
Response 49: [In this revised version, we have mentioned and discussed about these three samples: PAM-2, TAF-1 and TAF-2 that do not fit into their chemical groups (“…PAM-2 was not associated with PAM centre due to the low Ca content (12.6%) in comparison with the Ca average content of the other PAM samples (21.8%). TAF-1 and TAF-2 showed higher Si (45.1 and 53.8% respectively), Al (18.1 and 17.4%) and Fe (13.1 and 14.7%) contents in comparison with the average values of TAF samples: 24.4% of Si, 12.3% of Al and 9.9% of Fe. The amounts of Ca in TAF-1 and TAF-2 were very low (13.3% and 5.4%) when comparing with the average TAF content in Ca (41.9%)…”, thanks again for your comment].
Comment 50: [Conclusions: Are you sure that this composition is related exclusively to the clay? Is not it possible that clay mixing or tempering was applied? Was this investigated somehow (e.g. petrography)?]
Response 50: [We think that the composition is exclusively related to the clay. In the sampling of the archaeological ceramics, only the internal part of the artefact was collected for analyses. Our main objective was to correlate the archaeological samples with the different producing centres. Sorry but petrographic studies were not available for us].
Comment 51: [References: I suggest not to mention papers under review. If it will be accepted till the publication of this paper, then it is okay.]
Response 51: [We understand your appreciation. In the case of the ancient reference [29] (now it is reference [37]), the paper was reviewed and Major Revision was the decision. Some days we sent the revised version and it is under review at this moment. We hope the paper will be accepted in the next days and published with all the bibliographic data very soon.]
Thanks again for your very valuable comments. We hope that this revised version can be accepted for publication in Heritage journal.
Dr. Adrián Durán (corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is devoted to archaeometric study of ceramics from Medieval Navarre. Authors have used XRF and XRD for elemental and mineralogical characterisation of ceramuc fragments. The paper is well-written and would be of interest to readers of Heritage.
There are several remarks to the manuscript.
Major remarks.
1. Sampling procedure should be deiscribed in more detail. Authors should address several points: what is sample heterogenity due to application of glazes, pigments, post-deposition alterations, addition of tempering material to clay paste etc.?; what is the sufficient sample mass (volume) that is representative of the whole sample?; what are the required cleaning procedures before sampling? Some literature references on ceramic sampling should be given.
2. In paragraph 4.2, authors discuss possible distribution routes of ceramic wares based on the PCA results. There should be some quantitative critera to relate "exported ceramics" to "production sites" - unfortunately, authors do not provide any details.
For example, "Tudela exported ceramics to Rada (RAD-1, and RAD-2)". But the cluster for Tudela in PCA diagram is quite sparse - authors note that "... in the case of Tudela the extraction was carried out from different and/or more heterogeneous sources." It might be an alternative explanation: RAD-1 sample could be of local origin, and fall into Tudela cluster due to heterogenity of Tudela clay sources.
In my opinion, paragraph 4.2 should either include some quantitative evaluation or should be rewritten to underscore the hypotetical nature of the assigment of "exported" ceramics to production centers.
Minor remarks.
3. Table 1. What does "N" means? Number of unique samples from each site? Are there cases when two distinct samples (shards) could originate from a single vessel? Some comments should be given.
4. Table 2 and Fig. 5 could be moved to supplementary information.
5. Suggestion for future research. Authors might consider statistcal evaluation of a joined dataset of XRF and XRD data. XRD "values" (which are +++, ++ etc) could be converted to numerical levels of 1,2,3 etc.
In my opinion, the paper is valuable, but should undergo major revision (due to remarks 1 and 2).
Author Response
Pamplona, August 25th, 2024
Editor and reviewers Heritage
Dear Editor and Reviewer of Heritage,
Enclosed you will find the revised manuscript of the paper entitled “The ceramic production and distribution network in the ancient Kingdom of Navarre (Spain) during the 12th-15th centuries” by Iván Ruiz-Ardanaz, Sayoa Araiz-González, Esther Lasheras and Adrián Durán, to be considered for publication in Heritage.
We have considered all your comments. We have done a great effort to perform all the modifications that reviewer has recommended. The paper has notably improved after introducing all the corrections in the manuscript. Thanks to the reviewer and editor for their very valuable comments. Modifications are marked in red in the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Adrián Durán (Corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: [General: The paper is devoted to archaeometric study of ceramics from Medieval Navarre. Authors have used XRF and XRD for elemental and mineralogical characterisation of ceramic fragments. The paper is well-written and would be of interest to readers of Heritage. There are several remarks to the manuscript. In my opinion, the paper is valuable, but should undergo major revision (due to remarks 1 and 2).]
Response 1: [Thanks for your comment and evaluation about our work. We have considered all the remarks that you have indicated.]
Comment 2: [General, 1. Sampling procedure should be described in more detail. Authors should address several points: what is sample heterogeneity due to application of glazes, pigments, post-deposition alterations, addition of tempering material to clay paste etc.?; what is the sufficient sample mass (volume) that is representative of the whole sample?; what are the required cleaning procedures before sampling? Some literature references on ceramic sampling should be given.]
Response 2: [We have added a new paragraph in the Section 2.1. concerning the sampling procedure: “The samples were collected from the innermost part of the ceramic paste, where there were no remains of glaze or soil. Approximately 1-2 grams were extracted for performing the analysis from two different parts of the paste sample (trying to be representative of the whole sample). We tried to damage the archaeological samples as little as possible and they were not subjected to any type of treatment after being collected.” “In the case of the creation of the so-called reference groups we have followed the sampling criteria described in literature [28,29] such as: the assignation of samples to specific geographical locations (EST, LUM, PAM, TAF and TUD in our case), the assignation of the ceramic typology in terms of composition (thanks to XRF and XRD analyses) and morphology (Supplementary Materials, Table S1), and also defined chronological periods (Table S1)”]
Comment 3: [General, 2. In paragraph 4.2, authors discuss possible distribution routes of ceramic wares based on the PCA results. There should be some quantitative critera to relate "exported ceramics" to "production sites" - unfortunately, authors do not provide any details. For example, "Tudela exported ceramics to Rada (RAD-1, and RAD-2)". But the cluster for Tudela in PCA diagram is quite sparse - authors note that "... in the case of Tudela the extraction was carried out from different and/or more heterogeneous sources." It might be an alternative explanation: RAD-1 sample could be of local origin, and fall into Tudela cluster due to heterogenity of Tudela clay sources. In my opinion, paragraph 4.2 should either include some quantitative evaluation or should be rewritten to underscore the hypotetical nature of the assigment of "exported" ceramics to production centers.]
Response 3: [Thanks for your very valuable comment. We have introduced some additional and quantitative information in section 3.2., “The chemical composition of GOR-2, MON-2, RON-2 and ZAM-3 matched with those from Lumbier due to the high percentages of Si (50% or more), very low of Ca and Mg (minor than 5%), and Al and Fe ca. 19% and 15% respectively (Supplementary Materials, Table S3 and Table S4). Analyses of samples OLI-1, OLI-2, OLI-3, OLI-4, OLI-5, OLI-6, RAD-1 and RAD-2 showed similarities with those from Tudela and Ablitas (Si percentages ca. 32%, and high Ca and Mg percentages ca. 30% and 5%) (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4)”. “Samples GOR-1, GOR-3, RAD-3, RON-1, TIE-7, TIE-10 and ZAM-1 were assigned to the producing centre of Estella. The most characteristic percentage of these samples were those of Al (the highest of the producing centres, ca. 22%) and K (the highest values of the producing centres in average, ca. 6%) (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4). Samples MON-3, TIE-5, TIE-6, TIE-8 and TIE-9 were associated with the Pamplona manufacture centre, and samples TIE-1, TIE-2, TIE-3 and TIE-4 with Tafalla production (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4). Samples TIE-1, TIE-2, TIE-3 and TIE-4 were bricks with composition based on very high percentages of Ca (usually higher than 40%) and low of Si (percentages minor than 30%) and Fe (minor than 11%) (Supplementary Materials Table S3 and Table S4).” “Samples PAM-2, TAF-1, TAF-2, MON-1, VIA-1, VIA-2 and ZAM-2 were not possible to assign to any production centres (Table S4, marked with asterisk in the Supplementary Materials Table S1). PAM-2 was not associated with PAM centre due to the low Ca content (12.6%) in comparison with the Ca average content of the other PAM samples (21.8%). TAF-1 and TAF-2 showed higher Si (45.1 and 53.8% respectively), Al (18.1 and 17.4%) and Fe (13.1 and 14.7%) contents in comparison with the average values of TAF samples: 24.4% of Si, 12.3% of Al and 9.9% of Fe. The amounts of Ca in TAF-1 and TAF-2 were very low (13.3% and 5.4%) when comparing with the average TAF content in Ca (41.9%). The percentages of the other samples (MON-1, VIA-1, VIA-2 and ZAM-2) were not completely matched with any of the producing centre”.
In addition, we have added some other considerations (in section 4.2.) after your comment: “The cluster of Tudela in PCA diagram was shown quite disperse (Figure 4). The possible heterogeneity could have at least two complementary explanations: the intrinsic variability of the samples from Tudela, and the two different samples origins (TUD and ABL) that were considered as being “reference” of the same producing centre (TUD) (Supplementary Materials, Table S1). Comparing both TUD and ABL samples, some differences were found in Ca content (20.6% for TUD and 32.2% for ABL). There were also different contents of Fe, notable low Si content for ABL-4 (27.9%) and Al for TUD-2 (15.8%), and high Ca amount for TUD-2 (26.7%) (Supplementary Materials, Table S3)”. In the case of RAD-1 sample, the quantitative elemental analyses matched with the average of TUD samples (TUD-1, TUD-2 and TUD-3): 34.7% Si in RAD-1 and 34.8% Si in average TUD-1, TUD-2 and TUD-3; 19.9% Ca in RAD-1 and 20.6% Ca in average TUD-1, TUD-2 and TUD-3; 19.2% Al in RAD-1 and 19.1% in average TUD-1, TUD-2 and TUD-3, so we think the assignation to TUD centre production could be correct.]
Comment 4: [Minor remarks. 3. Table 1. What does "N" means? Number of unique samples from each site? Are there cases when two distinct samples (shards) could originate from a single vessel? Some comments should be given.]
Response 4: [The meaning of “N” in Table 1 is the number of samples corresponding to each site. Table 1 showed the list of sites from where mediaeval archaeological samples were collected. In addition to these samples, other were considered and studied (in other epochs) as has been clarified in this revised version (please see the revised Section 2.1.): LUM-mod-1, LUM-mod-2, TAF-clay, TAF-mod-1, TAF-mod-2, TAF-kiln-1, TAF-kiln-2, ABL-1, ABL-2, ABL-3, ABL-4, ABL-5, and ABL-6.]
Comment 5: [Minor remarks. 4. Table 2 and Fig. 5 could be moved to supplementary information.]
Response 5: [We think that it is better to maintain Table 2 in the core of the manuscript. In this revised version, some additional quantitative data has been added. According to your comment, Figure 5 has been moved to Supplementary information, Supplementary Materials, Figure S1]
Comment 6: [Minor remarks. 5. Suggestion for future research. Authors might consider statistcal evaluation of a joined dataset of XRF and XRD data. XRD "values" (which are +++, ++ etc) could be converted to numerical levels of 1,2,3 etc.]
Response 6: [Thanks to your suggestions for future research. We will consider statistical evaluation and numerical levels for future publications. Joined evaluation of XRF and XRD data have been added in the section 3.3., writing numerical values to improve the discussion]
Thanks again for your very valuable comments. We hope that this revised version can be accepted for publication in Heritage journal.
Dr. Adrián Durán (corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for making the revision. I believe that the whole text became clearer (especially that you explained the connecting of other arch. samples to production sites in details).
However, I still find questionable to make decisions on workshops based on 3-8 samples by sites. In addition, your observation - using averages calculated not only from the geological + production center-connected samples but involving also those samples that you decided to belong to one of the production centres - is quite dangerous, i.e. if your classification is not good then the averages are not good and your characterization in not correct.
Smaller scale problem is with the contradiction between XRF and XRD data for EST samples (EST-1 contains the highest ratio of calcite and gehlenite, though it belongs to the least Ca-containing group).
Another one: What does the mentioning 2 production sites (TAF, PAM) mean in Fig.5.f? You did not mention that some samples from the production sites do not fit into their chemical groups.
Still, you did not used the background information on the geology.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
see in the text
Author Response
Pamplona, August 30th, 2024
Editor and reviewers Heritage
Dear Editor and Reviewer of Heritage,
Enclosed you will find the revised manuscript (2n round) of the paper entitled “The ceramic production and distribution network in the ancient Kingdom of Navarre (Spain) during the 12th-15th centuries” by Iván Ruiz-Ardanaz, Sayoa Araiz-González, Esther Lasheras and Adrián Durán, to be considered for publication in Heritage.
We have considered and answered all your comments. We have done a great effort to perform all the modifications that reviewer has recommended trying to explain all our decisions. Thanks to the reviewer and editor for their very valuable comments. Modifications are marked in red in the manuscript.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Adrián Durán (Corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Reviewer 2:
Comment 1: [General: Thank you for making the revision. I believe that the whole text became clearer (especially that you explained the connecting of other archaeological samples to production sites in details).]
Response 1: [Thanks for your nice comment. In the first round, we considered all the comments from the three reviewers and the paper has notably improved. In this second round, we have considered all your comments.]
Comment 2: [Section 1.2. simply: importance / influence.]
Response 2: [We have written “influence” and deleted “influential importance”.]
Comment 3: [Section 1.3., and the whole text: I suggest to use "mineralogical composition" instead of "mineral composition" in the whole text.]
Response 3: [The suggested correction has been performed along the entire text.]
Comment 4: [Section 1.4., Do you really mean clay minerals or rather the clay (as a sediment/rock), the raw material?]
Response 4: [Thanks for your comment, perhaps it is better to indicate the clay (raw material).]
Comment 5: [Section 1.4., expression in the brackets explains the phrase with the same words.]
Response 5: [It has been deleted the words in the brackets. As mentioned, it is redundant.
Comment 6: [Section 2.1., Do you mean topography of the geographical region or the typology of the ceramics?]
Response 6: [Thanks for your comment. We have clarified this item. Now it is written the following: “…the assignation of ceramic type in terms of composition (thanks to XRF and XRD analyses and typology (Supplementary Materials, Table S1)…”. We mean the typology of the ceramics.]
Comment 7: [Section 2.1., What does it mean? You should really add references or detailed explanation.] [General comment: However, I still find questionable to make decisions on workshops based on 3-8 samples by sites.]
Response 7: [Thanks for your comment. We have modified this phrase. Now it is written the following: “Samples which were selected as reference for a production centre were those described as to be from the different production centres described. First, this selection was done following historical and geographical criteria [4,10,11,18,30]. Then, following chemical elemental and mineralogical characterization criteria”. Five references were added.]
Regarding the number of samples by site, we hope you understand the difficulties in the availability of archaeological samples, from 12-15th centuries in some sites. This fact is very common in cultural heritage studies. Perhaps, it could be questionable, but papers concerning cultural heritage studies have usually these difficulties.
Comment 8: [Section 2.1., I suggest: the clays used in a local weaving factory that maintained production until the end of the 20th century (TAF-clay, TAF-mod-1, TAF-mod-2) and several brick fragments from the ancient kiln (TAF-kiln-1, TAF-kiln-2) [6] were analysed.]
Response 8: [It has been modified according to the suggestion from the reviewer.]
Comment 9: [Section 2.2., major and minor elements.]
Response 9: [Changed.]
Comment 10: [Legend for Table 2: still incomplete sentence.]
Response 10: [It has been properly completed.]
Comment 11: [Section 3.1., Which of these phases is stable (and, thus, relevant) in a ceramic?]
Response 11: [Calcite and dolomite are the most relevant phases usually found in a ceramic.]
Comment 12: [Section 3.1., it should be indicated also as an ion]
Response 12: [It was an error. Ti4+ would be the correct form, but we prefer to delete this cation because the most important were Na+ and Mg2+.]
Comment 13: [Legend for Figure 4: all are dots It confused me. I thought that "circle" refers to the surrounding ellipsoids around the groups of localities.] [Legend for Figure 4: Still, one cannot identify which triangle/x refers to which locality. I understand that you used the colours as interpreting solution, ie. which production centre those belong to. But then, you should mention what the grey triangles means? Outliers?]
Response 13: [In order to clarify these points, a new Figure 4 has been added in the article and also in this response letter. Now the different symbols are explained and assigned. Yes, as mentioned the reviewer, the colour is interpreted as solution of which production centre belong to each of the samples. The grey triangles mean outliers. Some new words were added in the legend: “… The colours of the inverted triangles and x are related to the colour of the producing centre reference samples: red to EST, purple to LUM, orange to PAM, blue to TAF, green to TUD). Outliers are represented by grey inverted triangles.” We hope that these points are clearer now.]
Comment 14: [Section 3.2., It was already mentioned in the "samples" section. I would delete this repetition from here.]
Response 14: [Done.]
Comment 15: [Section 3.2., This should be moved to the "samples" section because there is no list of the archaeological samples before this point.]
Response 15: [We have moved this phrase to the “samples” section. Thanks for your comment.]
Comment 16: [Section 3.2., And indicated with grey triangles in Fig.4?]
Response 16: [Added for clarifying this item.]
Comment 17: [General comment and Sections 3.1. and 4.2., in addition, your observation -using averages calculated not only from the geological + production center-connected samples but involving also those samples that you decided to belong to one of the production centres – is quite dangerous, i.e. if your classification is not good then the averages are not goof and your characterization is not correct.]
Response 17: [Thanks for your comment. The results in Table 3 are the average of three types of sample: the archaeological reference samples; other reference samples (modern/Ablitas); and exported archaeological samples (only those that were similar). It should be noted that before constructing Table 3, two checks were made: First, the PCA results were studied, in which similar samples are more easily identified. Second, the elemental data from XRF were checked to ensure that all the elements within a group were similar and there were no significant differences. Once these two checks were carried out, the averages were taken and Table 3 was constructed.
In the revised version (first round) we decided to separate the results by XRF in two different Tables: - Table S3 have the XRF results of the “reference” samples; - Table S4 have the XRF results of the samples that we have tried to associate to the different production centres. In this sense, when writing the discussion, we have separated the average % corresponding to the “reference” samples than those of the different locations from Navarre. In the case of TUD, the samples from Ablitas were also included to obtain the average values.
The data that we have employed were the following (all of these are average values of the samples):
|
% |
Si |
Ca |
Al |
Fe |
K |
Mg |
|
EST |
46.8 |
7.1 |
22.5 |
12.8 |
6.0 |
1.9 |
|
LUM |
54.8 |
1.9 |
19.0 |
15.2 |
4.9 |
1.6 |
|
PAM |
39.2 |
21.8 |
16.5 |
12.2 |
5.8 |
2.1 |
|
TAF |
24.4 |
41.9 |
12.3 |
9.9 |
4.1 |
2.5 |
|
TUD |
32.2 |
27.9 |
16.6 |
11.7 |
3.0 |
4.9 |
|
% |
Si |
Ca |
Al |
Fe |
K |
Mg |
|
GOR |
50.6 |
3.4 |
20.8 |
15.1 |
5.5 |
2.2 |
|
MON |
42.3 |
11.1 |
20.5 |
14.8 |
6.2 |
2.7 |
|
OLI |
33.5 |
23.9 |
16.8 |
12.4 |
4.9 |
5.0 |
|
RAD |
37.3 |
15.7 |
20.0 |
13.2 |
6.9 |
4.3 |
|
RON |
49.7 |
4.4 |
20.6 |
15.4 |
5.3 |
2.0 |
|
TIE |
34.9 |
28.7 |
15.2 |
10.4 |
4.8 |
2.4 |
|
VIA |
38.3 |
13.6 |
20.4 |
15.3 |
6.3 |
3.0 |
|
ZAM |
47.9 |
7.1 |
20.9 |
14.9 |
4.7 |
1.8 |
Comment 18: [Section 3.3., It seems that EST-1 contains the highest ratio of calcite and gehlenite, though it is the least Ca-containing group.] [General: Smaller scale problem is with the contradiction between XRF and XRD data for EST samples (EST-1 contains the highest ratio of calcite and gehlenite, though it belongs to the least Ca-containing group).]
Response 18: [In EST (see Table 4) samples, the quantities of calcite and gehlenite are defined as minority (only one +). In the sample (EST-1) represented in the Supplementary Figure S1 by XRD, the intensity of the quartz peak is very high in comparison with all the other phases (including calcite and gehlenite) although perhaps it is not so clearly seen. The average amount of Ca in EST is 7.1%, according to the XRF and XRD result.]
Comment 19: [Section 3.3., You still did not add information on the comparative geological samples and the similarities/differences.] [General: Still, you did not use the background information on the geology.]
Response 19: [In this version of the article, we have added some background information on the geology in section 3.3. Some phrases were added: “Clays from Estella probably proceed from the sedimentary materials from the Miocene and Triassic clays from Keuper”, “Marls from the end of marine Eocene are probably the origin of Pamplona clays”, “Tafalla and Tudela clays proceed from the continental sedimentary materials from Miocene”. Thanks for your comment. ]
Comment 20: [Section 3.3., Based on XRD patterns, in almost all groups (except for LUM), there is also another feldspar type than anorthite. It should be mentioned.]
Response 20: [We have checked again the diffractograms. Albite could be present in some of the samples. It has been added the following phrase: “In almost group (except for LUM), there is also another feldspar type than anorthite, very possibly anorthite (NaAlSi3O8, PDF 09-0466).]
Comment 21: [Section 3.3., last phrase, it should be rephrased]
Response 21: [Now it has been written: “…calcite was present (EST) and absent in RON-2…”.]
Comment 22: [Legend for Table 4, suggestion: Semiquantitative mineralogical composition of ceramic pastes by production centres]
Response 22: [It has been written as suggested by the reviewer.]
Comment 23: [Section 4.2., explanations: ]
Response 23: [Done.]
Comment 24: [Section 4.2., still confused.]
Response 24: [The sentence has been clarified and simplified. Now it has been written the following: “Figure 5 shows to which places the ceramics manufactured in the different production centres were exported”.]
Comment 25: [Figure 5: (f) What does the mentioning 2 production sites (TAF, PAM) mean here? You did not mention that some samples from the production sites do not fit into their chemical groups.]
Response 25: [Thanks for your comment. These samples (PAM-2, TAF-1 and TAF-2) are written in the text as samples which could not be assigned to any production centre with certainty. We think there is not necessary to add some additional comment.]
Thanks again for your very valuable comments. We hope that this revised version can be accepted for publication in Heritage journal.
Dr. Adrián Durán (corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have addressed all comments, both in the responce letter and in the paper itself. In my opinon, no further corrections are necessary.
Author Response
Pamplona, August 30th, 2024
Editor and reviewers Heritage
Dear Editor and Reviewer of Heritage,
Enclosed you will find the revised manuscript (2n round) of the paper entitled “The ceramic production and distribution network in the ancient Kingdom of Navarre (Spain) during the 12th-15th centuries” by Iván Ruiz-Ardanaz, Sayoa Araiz-González, Esther Lasheras and Adrián Durán, to be considered for publication in Heritage.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Adrián Durán (Corresponding author) on behalf of all the authors
Reviewer 3:
Comment 1: [General: Authors have addressed all comments, both in the response letter and in the paper itself. In my opinion, no further corrections are necessary.]
Response 1: [Thanks for your nice comment and answer.]
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
