PONE-D-20-10718

Human encroachment, climate change and the loss of our archaeological organic cultural heritage: Accelerated bone deterioration on Ageröd, a revisited Scandinavian Mesolithic key-site in despair

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Boethius,

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 have to be addressed before re-submission.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 29 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

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://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 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Your manuscript has now been seen by three referees, whose comments are appended below. You will see from these comments that while the referees find your work of of great interest, they have raised some 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 concerns.

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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 a very important if deeply disturbing article, and parallels observations in the circumpolar north and high elevations. The news is very bad, but if it sparks large scale responses (and lots of rescue excavation) we have a chance to save something for the future. Very nice work, very frightening results. This needs immediate publication.

Reviewer #2: While I fully agree with the sentiment and broad conclusions of this paper, its presentation is currently not suitable for publication. It needs heavy and consistent language editing and some parts should, I suggest, be revised. This is true of both the conclusions drawn in relation to the data at hand - some statements are rather strong given the inherent uncertainties - while others are missed out on: this is particularly urgent with reagrd to the need for revised heritage management and financing aspects for 'climate rescue excavations'.

I've tried to help with some of these aspects, so please see the comments in the annotated pdf.

Finally, I just noticed that also the title might need revising (it's 'at' not 'on' Ageröd)

Reviewer #3: Review PLOS ONE paper Boethius et al. Human encroachment…

Good article with important topic, but sometimes too focused on Swedish and/or Mesolithic material and publications. Quite a bit of work on in situ site preservation and changing preservation conditions has been carried out, particularly in the UK, DK, NL and Norway - some Mesolithic, many other periods, all relevant in this context. Some ref suggestions below.

minor language and typographical errors corrected (-> = change to)

JoAS: Journal of Archaeological Science; CMAS: Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites

l. 22: unique,

l. 30: today if compared – delete if

l. 32: has not been -> has rarely been (there are refs on next page to published analyses)

l. 39: ago,

l. 96: Photography’s -> Photographs

l. 97: profile -> section

l. 119 70s -> 1970s

l. 130: was done by -> was carried out by

l. 138: fixpoints in -> fixpoints from

l. 147: soil bank from when the ditch was dug and maintained throughout the last decades. -> soil bank of excavated ditch material from its establishment and maintenance.

l. 147: arbitrary -> arbitrarily

l. 153: excavation,

l. 154: layers -> deposits

l. 155: is -> are

l. 156: by layer, and all layers -> stratigraphically, and all deposits

l. 160, 165, 167, 290, 292, 372, 431: cultural layer(s) -> archaeological deposit(s)

l. 161: layers -> deposits

l. 164: Profiles -> Sections

l. 165: show -> shows

l. 178: surface,

l. 181, 182, 183: stage -> stages

l. 193: categories -> sub-categories

l. 212: constitute -> constitutes

l. 214: excavation,

l. 217: remains,

l. 238, 240: are -> is

Table 1, l. 290 (and all other use): Elk -> Moose (Elk= Cervus canadensis; Moose = Alces alces)

l. 248: excavation,

l. 252, 306: indicate -> indicates

l. 257, 258: is -> are

l. 265: excavation -> excavations

l. 272, 305, 325: increase -> increases

l. 298: was created -> were created

l. 307: appears -> appear

l. 309: delete when

l. 311: trench -> trenches

l. 319: numbers -> number

l. 331: were -> where

l. 338: who -> which

l. 340: focus -> focuses

l. 341: delete comma after analysis

l. 344: add reference, Boreham et al. 2011 JoAS 38, 2833-57

l. 362: form -> forms

l. 377: add references to published material, eg. Gregory & Matthiesen 2012 CMAS 14, 479-86, Boreham et al. 2011 - possibly more; you are not the only ones to have come across this problem

l. 426: cultural -> archaeological

l. 428: remains. ->add references: Martens et al. 2016 CMAS 18,8-29; Martens 2017 ARC 32.2, 123-140; Tjelldén et al. 2016 CMAS 18, 126-138

Fig. 4: Zone boarders -> Zone borders

Fig. 7, Fig. 10: Elk -> Moose

**********

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: Thomas H McGovern

Reviewer #2: Yes: Felix Riede

Reviewer #3: Yes: Vibeke Vandrup Martens

[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-20-10718_reviewer.pdf

Human encroachment, climate change and the loss of our archaeological organic cultural heritage: Accelerated bone deterioration at Ageröd, a revisited Scandinavian Mesolithic key-site in despair

PONE-D-20-10718R1

Dear Dr. Boethius,

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):

Please make minor corrections listed by reviewer 3 before submission.

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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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: This is an excellent and timely paper, revisions make it stronger. This problem is widespread, but most focus has been on circumpolar (e.g. Svalbard, Greenland, Alaska) or high elevation cases. This case is particularly troubling and calls into question the dominant rubric of preservation in situ without excavation.

Reviewer #2: Thanks for addressing all outstanding concerns in your revision. I look forward to seeing this paper published.

Reviewer #3: The authors have included almost all suggestions from previous review. However, a few more language errors were discoverd during this reading.

Two general comments; PLOS ONE is a North American publication channel. I therefore recommend that Moose is used for Alces Alces, not Elk (even if that is the Eurasian term).

Archaeological deposits translates into Swedish kulturlager. Depositional layers is a strange term to use (e.g. l. 160).

l. 164: trench -> trenches

l. 168, 170: archaeological white cultural layer -> white archaeological deposit (or layer, if you must)

l. 184: analysis -> analyses

l. 185: where -> were

l. 187: available upon request to the museum -> avalable at the museum upon request/ avalable upon request posed to the museum

l. 198: criteria's -> criteria

l. 200: equivalent with -> equivalent to

l. 233: reasons for why -> reasons why

l. 264 (and consitently): Elk -> Moose (or add note about Elk/Moose)

l. 369: organic preservation -> preservation (organic comes later in same sentence)

l. 414: worst soil properties for organic preservation -> worst soil properties for bone preservation (many organics like acidic environments - wood, leather, textile - but bone certainly doesn't)

l. 415: Borehamn -> Boreham

l. 432 move Latin name after seeds and shells (to increase legibility)

l. 437 etching, -> etching

l. 455: periods,

l. 483: condition -> conditions; on -> of (rewrite sentence: This raises serious questions about the preservation conditions of similar wetland sites in Northern Europe)

l. 487: were pyrite oxidize -> where pyrite oxidizes; develop -> develops

l. 488: ones -> once; wet,

l. 492: and are thus -> and thus

l. 506: These have -> This has

l. 514: calls -> call

l. 522 add reference: McGovern, 2018 (Thomas H. McGovern 2018. Burning Libraries: A Community Response. CMAS, 20:4, 165-174, DOI: 10.1080/13505033.2018.1521205)

l. 537: 4letting -> letting

**********

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: Thomas H McGovern

Reviewer #2: Yes: Felix Riede

Reviewer #3: Yes: Vibeke Vandrup Martens