PONE-D-19-25674

Emergence of corpse cremation

during the Southern Levantine Pre Pottery Neolithic

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Bocquentin,

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.

==============================

all comments must be addressed.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Nov 16 2019 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,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. 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.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS ONE's requirements for paleontology and archaeology research, see "" ext-link-type="uri" xlink:type="simple">https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.""

3. We note that  Figure(s) 1 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a) You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure(s) [#] to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b)  If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4.  In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your manuscript has now been seen by two referees, whose comments are appended below. You will see from these comments that while the referees find your work of potential interest, at least one reviewer has raised substantial concerns that must be addressed. In light of these comments, we cannot accept the manuscript for publication, but would be interested in considering a revised version that addresses these serious concerns.

We hope you will find the referees' comments useful as you decide how to proceed. Should presentation of further data and analysis allow you to address these criticisms, we would be happy to look at a substantially revised manuscript. However, please bear in mind that we will be reluctant to approach the referees again in the absence of major revisions.

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: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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: No

**********

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: Yes

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: This is an excellent paper that pulls together a number of interdisciplinary approaches to the study of what appears to be the earliest example of intentional cremation in the Near East. I recommend that it be published in PLoSONE with some minor revisions. My only major concern is that the authors have not made an entirely convincing case that the individual was cremated as a fresh corpse, and that alternative interpretations have not been sufficiently/explicitly examined. Please see additional comments and text edits in the attached pdf.

Reviewer #2: General comments

From a technical standpoint this is a robust and important study. I am strongly supportive of the publication of these materials. Having said this, there are significant revisions that need to take place before this paper is acceptable for publication.

Presentation and description of recovered materials

First, the authors need to reengage with and make the case for their interpretation of Locus 338 being the primary location of cremation (=cremation in the pit). They need to make a much stronger argument that considers the small physical scale of the feature and the practically of human cremation. At the moment the authors present a somewhat disjointed position, with surprisingly little discussion focused on taphonomy of the pit that is framed by other archaeological or ethnographic literature on cremation (see cited references below) or an understanding of the mechanics of fire. They argue that this was a small pit, 80 cm wide and 60 cm deep, and with a thin lining, perhaps one cm in thickness, with the bones of a single individual found in bottom 40 cm basis. The critical questions are 1) did the cremation take place inside of the basin, as they argue, or near the pit and the bone material later pushed in?, and 2) how much time passed between biological death of the individual and the act of cremation?

Their argument for primary context appears to be largely based on “some anatomical coherence” (Pg. 6.) and they argue that the burial found in locus 338 was burned in place. They argue that the cremated individual was probably seated, possibly fell forward, presumably over an open pit. Moreover, they argue that a few articulated bones, such as the phalanges of the right thumb, support argues for a “short delay between death and cremation”. In the final discussion they argue (Second sentence, Discussion, Pg. 16) “What remains of the deceased allows us to affirm that it was a relatively fresh corpse that has been burnt”. Confusingly they also argue in the conclusion (second paragraph, Pg. 17) that “This quantity of individuals packed in structures not larger (about 1 m diameter) than locus 338 of Beisamoun convinced the authors that that the deceased must have been cremated already skeletonized or at least decomposed (some joints are indeed still articulated).”

This needs to be pushed further. Depending upon conditions of humidity and temperature, defleshing as they argue can take months to years. This is not a “relatively fresh corpse”. I am not entirely convinced by the authors argument, and urge the authors to make a much stronger argument that draws upon more up to date literature as well ethnographic accounts of cremation. The pattern described here may well reflect cremation of a partially defleshed skeleton, but this takes years in dry and sandy conditions (think Near East, 8,200 kya). Moreover, can a skeletonized individual, partially defleshed, be seated? In addition to the literature the authors cite there is a significant body of literature (see references below) that highlights several physical aspects to creation: cremation requires more fuel that researchers assume, cremation requires good air flow and oxygen (and is therefore usually physically placed above the ground) and creation is, well, actually more complicated that researchers assume. From my reading the simplest explanation is that Locus 338 provides the remains of a cremated individual that was partially defleshed over multiple years, with the remains perhaps in a cloth bundle, burned above the pit, which then fell into the pit, and then at some point later (less than a week, possibly the same day) the additional fauna and other materials were swept into the shallow basin. The authors need a simple, cohesive narrative, such as the above, that brings this all into perspective. At the moment the current presentation is somewhat disjointed, inconsistent, and needs to be reframed in a more focused way.

Second, the core presentation of the skeletal analysis is inventive, visual (for example Fig. 6), and robust. At the same time the authors need to reengage with some of their core assumptions, making clear that these are interpretations and placing this argument within existing literature. For example, the authors spend a lot of time documenting the colour of burned bone materials (e.g., Fig, 4, which is framed around a colour gradation from black to white) but don’t directly explicitly make the case that different colour bone reflects specific different combustion history, accounting for variation in conditions such as fuel, burn time, and the amount of oxygen. Some of this discussion treats bone colouration in a very simplistic fashion, and with limited consideration of variation. Moreover, do all researchers identify visual color differences the same way?. What are the difference between Grey, Grey-White? Does this really reflect different burning environments? As a reader I am not convinced that this means anything. Is the entire bone in question Grey, or are parts of the bone Grey, with others being Grey-White, and others Grey-Black? (assuming we can agree what each of these is….). Again, these are good researchers, but some of this is being presented in an overly neat package that does not recognize variation. There are methodological and interpretative assumptions here that need to be made clear.

Third, I think the authors need to develop at least one robust paragraph that focused on excavation methods, data recovery, and documentation. Based on the skeletal analysis I am convinced that this was an excellent and professional excavation. The audience, however, needs to understand how Locus 338 was excavated, the methods used, the documentation process. None of this is directly presented, at least by section 3.2. A single substantial paragraph should address this.

Fourth, this paper is in need of editing as the presentation is at times rather cumbersome and confusing (Eg. Top two sentences of page 2. Pg. 5. “If an apparent anatomical anarchy is visible at first,..” ) and the authors need to clearly define their terms. In different sections in the paper the authors interchangeably use the term pit, cremation pit, structure, pyre structure, feature to talk about Locus 338. The authors need to select one descriptive term and the stick with it.

Fifth, at times the authors make some bold statements, that are only supported in a minor way, or in other cases, presented in a way that is very confusing.

Sec. 342. Pg 8 The authors state “The south, east and west walls show significant rubefaction indicating that the cremation was carried out on site.” What does this mean? The authors need to consider that this journal is focused on a general educated audience, so please slow down, take your time, and be clear.

Pg. 11. Last paragraph. “We observed five striae on the posterolateral face of the posterior talar facet of the right calcaneus (though the posterior talar facet was too fragmentary to be observed fully).” The general readers are not going to follow this.

“The practice of wrapping corpses has been practiced in this area since the Natufian period and is quite common in Neolithic contexts all over the Levant [e.g. 13, 46]. I agree that this is likely the case, but the authors are clearly overstating this. We have bits of evidence to support this argument, but these are small data points, not a conclusive understanding. Please rescale this argument.

Again, I remain supportive of the publication of this interesting work.

Cited literature

Thompson, T (ed.). 2015. The Archaeology of Cremation: Burned Human Remains in Funerary Studies [Paperback]. Oxbow books.

Schmidt, C. W. and S. A. Symes, 2008. The Analysis of Burned Human Remains, Elsevier.

Cerezo-Roman, A. Wessman, and H. Williams (eds.) 2017. Cremation and the Archaeology of Death. Oxford University Press.

**********

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: Scott D. Haddow

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-19-25674_reviewer SDH.pdf

PONE-D-19-25674R1

Emergence of corpse cremation during Pre Pottery Neolithic in the Southern Levant

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Bocquentin,

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.

==============================

Please address these minor revisions/corrections.

==============================

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 22 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,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Academic editor additional comments;

Your manuscript has now been seen again by the two referees, whose comments are appended below. You will see from these comments that while all major comments have been addressed the referees suggest minor revisions which will improve the manuscripts. As these are minor revisions we hope you can address them quickly and resubmit.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. 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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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: The paper is considerably improved in its current version and I still believe this is an important and generally well-documented piece of research. However, I am disappointed that the authors persist in playing down or ignoring entirely the increasing evidence from other sites in the Neolithic Near East for delayed burial (involving either complete desiccation of the corpse or some form of soft tissue reduction, i.e. partial decomposition), especially in the discussion section where the last set of comments were completely ignored.

Regarding desiccation, under the right environmental conditions, or with intentional effort, human remains can desiccate in parts of the world that would not be considered "deserts". There are ethnographic examples from Papua New Guinea and other tropical environments (where corpses are smoked), for example, and even within Mediterranean coastal regions such as Sicily, where the well-known Capuchin mummies at Palermo desiccated naturally.

As with reviewer #2, I am skeptical about the feasibility of successfully cremating a fresh corpse in such a small and poorly ventilated space - both in terms of fuel load required and proper ventilation (regardless of whether or not the pit opening was left uncovered). I would find their argument more convincing if they acknowledged the possibility that the corpse may have been already partially decomposed, as it would likely require less fuel; proper ventilation may have been less of an issue as well, and would still accommodate the observation that joint articulations seem to have been maintained. They use the term "relatively fresh corpse", but perhaps they need to define what they mean by "relatively". It may be that we, as reviewers, and the authors are not so far apart after all on the possibility of a period of delay between death and cremation?

Regarding data availability (question 4 above), as mentioned in my comments on the first draft, it would have been nice to see more images of the burnt bones themselves so that one could independently assess the level of heat alterations to bone in the context of differences between dry and fleshed bone. I do understand however that providing images of every single bone is not feasible.

Reviewer #2: Author: Fanny Bocquentin

Title: Emergence of Corpse Cremation during the Southern Levantine Pre Pottery Neolithic

Journal: PLOS-ONE

File number: PONE-D-1925674

Rec: Accepted with minor revisions.

This is now an excellent paper, and should be published with minor revisions. The authors have made a good effort to address my concerns with the original version. I am supportive of the publication of this paper subject to addressing the issues raised below.

Reviewer 2: Ian Kuijt

General comments

First, while this is a great methodological paper, the paper suffers from having a very poor introduction. The introduction meanders and does not really tell the readers what the main focus of the paper will be….and then the paper kind of gets lost in history and symbolism. The authors need to identify the main focus of the paper. Is it strictly focused on demonstrating that this earliest occurrence of intentional primary cremation from the Near East? If so, this is a wasted opportunity. This is excellent research, well-illustrated and presented, but the authors do not step back from the trees and talk about the forest. I urge the authors to think about the big issues they identify at the end of the paper, in some ways using these themes to introduce the paper. The introduction and abstract are the most important ways you can draw in the readers, so these need to be crisp, focused on major evolutionary issues, and digestible to the readers.

Second, the paper does a poor job of defining the dates of the periods in question. For example, the PPNC / final PPNB is mentioned on page one, but not with specific details. It is mentioned in the abstract, but this also needs to be in the body of the text.

Third, I would urge the authors to go back and add a sub-heading to introduce the site of Beisamoun and reorganize the section Chrono-Cultural Context. I think the original was more effective. Right now the site is introduced in a hidden way, buried in the middle of the section titled Chrono-Cultural Context. This is a poorly developed section, with the title hinting at a discussion of regional culture-history, and then in the middle of this section we are introduced to Beisamoun.

Fourth, the authors have added a much needed section on excavation methods (sections 2.1., 2.2.). These are excellent and really, really, make this an outstanding paper.

Fifth, section 2.6.3. deals with the burning event. This is a good section. My only suggestion is to add more clarity, if you can, about the placement of the wood and body. You talk about fuel and other great topics, but I am struggling to understand what you see as the original position of the fuel and body. For example, do you believe that the 60 cm deep pit was filled with wood, up to and above the ground surface, and then the fire was started? Given the need for oxygen this makes sense, for it is all about oxygen. In another section you state that the person may have been seated in the 60 cm high pit. If so, was fuel placed around the body? If this is your argument then place find a place, probably as the lead sentence of one of your paragraphs to state this up front. Help you reader understand your overall view, and then dive into the details.

Specific comments:

Fig. 1. The names of multiple sites are misspelled on the map and need to be corrected.

Tell el-Kerkh is the correct published spelling, not Tell-el-Kherk as listed on Fig. 1.

Yarim Tepe II is the correct published spelling, not Yarim tepe II as listed on Fig. 1

‘Ain Ghazal is the correct published spelling, not Aïn Ghazal as listed on Fig. 1. Sorry, but M. Sauvage, CNRS, needs to correct this figure before publication.

Pg. 2., first sent, first paragraph. “The treatment of the dead during the Neolithization process in the Near East was a complex process, part of the cognitive and symbolic world that guided the economic and dietary shift from hunting and gathering to agro-pastoralism [e.g. articles in 1].” This suggests that the treatment of the dead “guided” the shift from hunting and gathering to agro-pastoralism. I would urge the authors to reconsider this argument, or perhaps it is a misstatement.

Pg. 3., first paragraph “…as the condemnation of the funeral building itself by fire.” This is poor wording. Might I suggest “the burning of the funerary building”. Condemnation is not a clear way to present this.

Pg. 3., first paragraph, and throughout the entire paper, “…site of Tell Ain el Kherk in a …”. As correctly cited in the references, the name of this site is Tell el-Kerkh (see Tsuneki 2012). To meet the publication standards of this journal it is critical that the authors employ the correct, published spelling of all sites in the text, references and figures.

Pg. 4., end of second paragraph “They are currently kept at the French National

Research Center in Jerusalem (CRFJ) and they will be handed over to the IAA after publication. In the meantime, they are available for review upon request to the CRFJ and the corresponding author of the current article.” This should be in a foot or endnote. This does not advance discussion: it is an administrative aside.

Pg. 4., first sentence of section 2.1. “As for all features…”. Should be corrected to “As with all features….”

The paper reads well, but as with all essays at this point of production, there are typos and grammatical issues that need to be cleared up before publication.

Cited literature

Tsuneki, A. 2012. Tell el-Kerkh as a Neolithic Mega Site. Orient. Vol. XLVII: 29-66

**********

7. 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: Scott D Haddow.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ian Kuijt

[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.

Emergence of corpse cremation during the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of the Southern Levant: A multidisciplinary study of a pyre-pit burial

PONE-D-19-25674R2

Dear Dr. Bocquentin,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. 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 help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- 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.

Kind regards,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: