Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification

Camille Berruyer; Stéphanie M. Porcier; Paul Tafforeau

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0229140

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 31, 2019
16 Dec 2019 Decision Letter - William Oki Wong, Editor PONE-D-19-24542 Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification PLOS ONE Dear Camille Berruyer, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 27 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'. Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, William Oki Wong, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements: Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that Figure 7 includes an image of a participant in the study. As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the patient/participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual. 3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: N/A ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: Please see my Review uploaded as attachment, many thanks. Reviewer #2: PONE crocodile cadaver mummy This a very interesting article, but there are a few issues. Firstly the language needs revision by a native speaker. Then, other points: The type of preservation of this animal is very interesting. The experimental work is a great plus. However, the arguments for the fact that a semi-decomposed cadaver was used are not compelling. Perhaps the authors would revise the English (perhaps some of the arguments loose their clarity due to language issues), and also revisit their conclusions, maybe presenting the cadaver theory as a possibility, but not the only one. Also, the authors should explore why the ancient Egyptians would have removed all of the bones—even if they were using a slightly putrefied cadaver, one would expect the flesh and internal organs to be removed, not the bones. Speculation would be fine. Specifis (including language issues) -Do not capitalise Ancient (as in Ancient Egyptian should be ancient Egyptian) l. 29 granted completely continuous access is awkward phrasing l. 40-46 somewhat unclear in meaning, mainly due to language issues l. 50 better if: several individuals representing the same species were to read several individuals of the same species l. 53 Instead of mummification preparation protocol the authors should say mummification, or alter the phrasing. Also, awkward phrasing: involving cessation of putrefaction has been brought forward. l. 61 should say provenanced. Would be useful to have the dimensions of the animal (skull and post-cranial) l. 64 not driven by…. Choose another word l. 66 unclear: alathough (17)) do mention both Esna… l. 67-68 no proof that bandaging provides chronological data or provenance data l. 68 should read on the period of the.. l. 81 maybe better to say dark coloured mummification materials (balm) and then refer to it as balm thereafter l. 82 Unclear: The limbs are hidden in skin folds l. 83 Provide more precise details of the location of the incisions. Maybe on an image? Also, break, not brake, and indeed, the whole sentence following from ‘brake’ needs to be revisied for clarity (clearly a problem with language). l. 85-87 Unclear: Fractures into the balm layer and the scattered remains of textile, rope, 85 plants shoots, and other isolated elements indicate that certain parts of the original external layers were removed from the mummy. l. 110 Not sure about anatomical properties l. 136: Thus, only osteoderms, phalanges, skull preserved, almost all with cut marks? But then l. 137 mentions metapodia. Maybe authors should provide a list of all the bones that appear in fig. 3 l. 146 maybe vegetal or a variety of plant matter rather than floral? It is only a quibble. l. 157 Abrupt introduction of rope… l. 168 Awkward English l. 181 English issues : dorsal aspects is stick to a remaining part of the cartilaginous l. 278 When mummies are being produced dermestids can enter the body, as seems to be the case with this animal. Sometimes, even when the animal is covered with natron, these beetles can enter the body and carry out their entire life cycle during the course of desiccation. See: Ikram, S. 2015. ‘Experimental Archaeology: From Meadow to Em-baa-lming Table’, in C. Graves-Brown (ed.) Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and Experimental Methods in Archaeology, pp. 53-74. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. The authors have to argue more convincingly that the crocodile had been dead for some time when it was eviscerated and basically turned into a taxidermied crocodile in term of having most of the bones, flesh and organs removed and being stuffed with grassed (but after being traditionally desiccated using natron, and then covered with the conventional balm?). l. 290 the skin was cleaned—maybe the authors could suggest with what? l. 293 Possible that the natron was not well cleaned off the body, which is why it stayed on, rather than having the balm mixed with natron. Perhaps analyses of the balm in these areas would clarify the situation. SEM? l. 300 Palm leaves, particularly the ribs, and textiles are traditionally used to make crocodiles (and sometimes humans) more rigid and stackable. Generally this is more common in immature crocodiles, but is also known in mature animals. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Jana Jones PhD Macquarie University Sydney Australia 2106 Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-19-24542 review.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229140.r001
Revision 1
30 Jan 2020 Author Response Response to reviewer We are very grateful to the editor and to the reviewers for their constructive comments and corrections. As the English level was clearly a problem, we asked to one of our colleague to revise the whole text to improve its quality. As a result, the version with track changes will show a huge amount of modifications, but the vast majority are linked to this English improvement. For all the other questions and comments not directly linked to the general English level, we reply point-by-point hereafter to the best of our capacities. Reviewer #1 -l. 42 Delete ‘content’, substitute ‘composition’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 62 Delete space after ‘information’ and before the full stop. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 66 insert ‘Lortet and Gaillard (17.)’ Just the reference number is not sufficient. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 67 ‘However, as all the textiles have been removed, it is now impossible to reliably derive the origin …. through manufacturing techniques’. It would not have been possible to ‘reliably derive the origin’ unless there was evidence of an especially unusual and datable weaving or spinning technique. I would suggest: ‘it is now impossible to gain insights into the origin of this mummy through any distinctive manufacturing techniques’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 68 Delete ‘elucidate on’, insert ‘reveal’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 77 Delete ‘relative to’, substitute ‘in’ → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 77 Delete ‘hence we propose hereafter …’ insert (new sentence) ‘Hence we propose the following updated description’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 78 Delete ‘already’, insert ‘have’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 81 ‘plants’. Delete ‘s’, = singular ‘plant shoots’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 82 Delete ‘stick’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 83 Delete ‘brake’, insert ‘break’. Misspelling. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 84 Delete ‘indicating’, insert ‘indicate’. Delete ‘corps’, insert ‘corpse’, or better still, ‘body’. → Done, please see in the modified text -L. 85 Delete ‘into’, insert ‘in’ the balm layer’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 169 Insert space after ‘surface’ and before ‘Figure 1’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 181 ‘Its dorsal aspects is stick’. Delete s = singular ‘dorsal aspect. Delete ‘is stick’, insert ‘adheres’, i.e. ‘Its dorsal aspect adheres’. → Done, please see in the modified text -ll. 196-211 NBB The composition of the ‘balm’ has not undergone chemical analysis. This should be acknowledged in the manuscript, as only the mineral inclusions that constitute natron have been identified (ll. 196-211, and Table 2.) → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 238 Delete ‘maintained., substitute ‘secured’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 255 ‘posture given to the body’ Suggest ‘position in which the body was arranged’. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 265 Delete ‘is’, insert ‘are’ (plural) → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 352 Delete ‘Univeresety’, insert ‘University’. Misspelling. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 359 Ibid. ‘University’ → Done, please see in the modified text ------------ Reviewer #2 The line numbers are given for the “track change” document. -Do not capitalise Ancient (as in Ancient Egyptian should be ancient Egyptian). → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 29 granted completely continuous access is awkward phrasing. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 40-46 somewhat unclear in meaning, mainly due to language issues. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 50 better if: several individuals representing the same species were to read several individuals of the same species. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 53 Instead of mummification preparation protocol the authors should say mummification, or alter the phrasing. Also, awkward phrasing: involving cessation of putrefaction has been brought forward. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 61 should say provenanced. Would be useful to have the dimensions of the animal (skull and post-cranial). → Done, please see the addition in the modified text -l. 64 not driven by…. Choose another word. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 66 unclear: although (17)) do mention both Esna… → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 67-68 no proof that bandaging provides chronological data or provenance data → Removed from the text -l. 68 should read on the period of the… → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 81 maybe better to say dark coloured mummification materials (balm) and then refer to it as balm thereafter → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 82 Unclear: The limbs are hidden in skin folds → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 83 Provide more precise details of the location of the incisions. Maybe on an image? Also, break, not brake, and indeed, the whole sentence following from ‘brake’ needs to be revisied for clarity (clearly a problem with language). → Done, please see in the modified text and on the revised figure 1 -l. 85-87 Unclear: Fractures into the balm layer and the scattered remains of textile, rope, 85 plants shoots, and other isolated elements indicate that certain parts of the original external layers were removed from the mummy. → Done, please see in the modified text and on the revised figure 1 -l. 110 Not sure about anatomical properties → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 136: Thus, only osteoderms, phalanges, skull preserved, almost all with cut marks? But then l. 137 mentions metapodia. Maybe authors should provide a list of all the bones that appear in fig. 3 → Done, added in the caption of the figure 3 -l. 146 maybe vegetal or a variety of plant matter rather than floral? It is only a quibble. → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 157 Abrupt introduction of rope… → Done, the rope is mentioned in the introduction part (l.91) of the revised document -l. 168 Awkward English → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 181 English issues : dorsal aspects is stick to a remaining part of the cartilaginous → Done, please see in the modified text -l. 278 When mummies are being produced dermestids can enter the body, as seems to be the case with this animal. Sometimes, even when the animal is covered with natron, these beetles can enter the body and carry out their entire life cycle during the course of desiccation. See: Ikram, S. 2015. ‘Experimental Archaeology: From Meadow to Em-baa-lming Table’, in C. Graves-Brown (ed.) Egyptology in the Present: Experiential and Experimental Methods in Archaeology, pp. 53-74. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales. The authors have to argue more convincingly that the crocodile had been dead for some time when it was eviscerated and basically turned into a taxidermied crocodile in term of having most of the bones, flesh and organs removed and being stuffed with grassed (but after being traditionally desiccated using natron, and then covered with the conventional balm?). → Done, please see in the modified text paragraph 4. Insects -l. 290 the skin was cleaned—maybe the authors could suggest with what? → Unfortunatly, nothing in the data can bring us solid argument regarding how this cleaning was performed. It could have been purely mechanical or using water, but in both cases, no visible traces could be retrieved. Hence, we prefer not to bring any hypothesis on this specific point. -l. 293 Possible that the natron was not well cleaned off the body, which is why it stayed on, rather than having the balm mixed with natron. Perhaps analyses of the balm in these areas would clarify the situation. SEM? → We propose a mixture of balm with natron because of the 3D repartition of natron inclusions inside the balm. Indeed, the skin was not perfectly cleaned of its natron (we can see a thin layer of natron in direct contact with the skin surface) but it is also possible to see a “direction” where the natron in suspension in the balm “fell” during the drying, due to a decantation process that occurred before the full solidification of the balm. We modified the text to make this explanation clearer. -l. 300 Palm leaves, particularly the ribs, and textiles are traditionally used to make crocodiles (and sometimes humans) more rigid and stackable. Generally this is more common in immature crocodiles, but is also known in mature animals. → We added this point to the text as it is indeed a very common feature in small crocodile mummies. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response-to-Reviewer.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229140.r002
31 Jan 2020 Decision Letter - William Oki Wong, Editor Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification PONE-D-19-24542R1 Dear Camille Berruyer, We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication. Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. With kind regards, William Oki Wong, Ph.D. Academic Editor PLOS ONE Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229140.r003
Formally Accepted
6 Feb 2020 Acceptance Letter - William Oki Wong, Editor PONE-D-19-24542R1 Synchrotron “virtual archaeozoology” reveals how Ancient Egyptians prepared a decaying crocodile cadaver for mummification Dear Dr. Berruyer: I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE. With kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. William Oki Wong Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229140.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .