PONE-D-21-07251

New relative sea-level (RSL) indications from the Eastern Mediterranean: Middle Bronze Age to the Roman period (~3800-1800 y BP) Archaeological Constructions at Dor, the Carmel coast, Israel.

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yasur-Landau,

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 need to be addressed before re-submission.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 30 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're 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.

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). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

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

1. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

1. Please upload a copy of Figure 8, to which you refer in your text on page 17. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission please remove all reference to it within the text.

1. We note that Figures 1, 2 and 3 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:

4a, You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 2 and 3 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].”

4b, 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/

1. 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.

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

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 great interest, they have raised some concerns that must be addressed before re-submission.

[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: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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: 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: 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: In this paper, the authors aim to establish a more reliable relative sea level curve for the Carmel Coast and Southern Levant between ca. 3500 and 1800 y BP). To establish it, they use a set of new data set acquired recently at Tel Dor. These data are archaeological structures that give both chronological information and relative position according to past sea levels. They clearly reach their mean goal and the new data provided are very valuable. As an overall point of view, the scientific quality of this paper is very hight and very clearly presented, the bibliographical references are up to date and I didn’t notice any lack. The English seems to be very correct, at least for a non-native English speaker as I am.

In the Introduction chapter, the authors present in a synthetic way the general principles guiding the use of archaeological proxies to reconstruct ancient past relative sea level (l. 44-59) and a quick, but precise and complete overview of the state of the research (l. 60-73). They point out a lacuna of information for the period between 4000 and 2000 y BP that they are able to partially fill. The last part of the introduction (l. 74 to 83) presents briefly and superficially the data used and the chronological covering of them. This last is a bit problematic to me. For MBA, LBA and IA, the authors add few words to characterise the periods: “with its second urban revolution” for MBA, “followed by the collapse of the Bronze Age world system” for the LBA and “with its rise of regional states and Assyrian and Babylonian domination” for IA. As a first point, nothing has been added to Persian and Hellenistic period and this disequilibrates the whole passage (l. 77 to 83). The second point is about the interest and the subsequent description of the short characterisation. It is, in my sense, too much or not enough. The quality of the paper does not depend on the characterisation of the period in question and if the authors absolutely want to keep it, it needs to be more detailed and bibliographical references are needed. The way how it is presented is simplistic and disserve the general quality of the paper.

The second chapter precises some regional setting. The authors states first the widely agreed tectonic stability of the Israelian coast (l. 87-102). Numerous and relevant references are provided as well as the main proxies used to demonstrate this stability. A very welcome mention to the very different situation in Lebanon, immediately North of the area in question, is noticeable. Once tectonic stability established, the authors refer to GIA vertical contribution to reconstruct RSL changes. At line 105, the authors mention “Both models present low rate” but only one model is clearly mentioned. The authors state then the importance of the South Levant in term of coastal human occupation and development and how the archaeological sites evolved since Neolithic to Roman period (l. 109-121). Finally, the authors focused on the site of Tel Dor (l. 122-142), which is the main subject of the paper, stating its general chronology and briefly describing the main buildings.

The third chapter describes the methods used to obtain the new data at Dor. Nine new RSL data points, all from Dor, are added to 13 existing on the wider area, and all are presented in the table 1. I do not understand how “new” data points are related to existing bibliography in the table 1. This point needs to be clarified. This chapter is subdivided into 5 subchapters. The first one (l. 161-168), is devoted to underwater structures detailing how the measurements have been done and the dates obtained. All measurements are related to the Israel Land Survey Datum with a zero-mark 8 cm above the mean sea level. It could be interesting to clarify how these 8 cm have been obtained and what the authors called mean sea level (biological sea level?). The second subchapter (l. 161-168) is devoted to the coastal pool at Dor, the authors have created a DSM used to measure the altitude of the sea level indicators and have revisited the unpublished the ceramic assemblage associated to the pool and have corrected the initial datation of the structure by A. Raban (2nd c. CE instead of 2nd-early c. CE). In the third subchapter (l. 171-185) which measurements are relevant to study the past sea levels and why. The fourth subchapter (l. 188-196) deals with uncertainties of the measurements, benchmarks, mean tide fluctuations and how the total uncertainties of the relative sea level estimated has been calculated. The mathematical expression given l. 196 has some formatting errors in my version of the paper that need to be checked. The fifth and last subchapter (l. 199-220) deals with modelling the RSL curve, all the data processing is precisely described including different parameters used (and why they are used) as well as comparative existing models.

The results are presented in the fourth chapter divided into 3 subchapters. The first one (l. 231-285) details the 9 new data set points used in the paper. The identification of the structures used, their dates, the type of RSL information provided and the results of the measurements are listed. The second part (l. 288-309) summarises the new results obtained and initiates a comparison with the already existing data. The authors emphasize already here the main results of this study: (l. 295-298) “the current suggested sea-level position for the period between ~ 3800 y BP and ~2200 y BP was above -3.0 m MSL and probably closer to -2.0 m MSL followed by abrupt sea-level rise to near-present levels in the early Roman period, around 2000-1800 y BP”. In the third subchapter (l. 313-334), the authors compare the model prediction from the data obtained at Dor to different GIA models. No one matches totally with the new data. If most of the differences could be related to “expected range of GIA model uncertainties”, a rapid sea level rise observed for Dor between 2000 and 3000 years “is not reproduced by any of the considered models” (l. 333-334). This very interesting local observation is not discussed in detail in this chapter.

All the data are discussed in the fifth chapter, the last one and the longest one. It is divided into 5 subchapters. In the first subchapter (l. 338-381). The results are put into regional context and allowed the authors to refine the RSL evolution since 3800 to 1800 BP. They focus firstly on a low RSL (between 2 and 3 m below the mean current sea level) dated between 3800 and 2200 BP that could correspond to the altitude of geomorphological features at ca. -2,5 m identified by Goodman-Chernov et al. along the Israeli coast. Secondly, they evaluate the RSL contemporaneous to the activity of the pool at + 0.176m +/- 0.32 that corresponds to the average altitude of the bottom of the channel. Apart the fact that the result only mentioned in chapter 4.1 misses in this part of the paper (only for reading comfort purposes), it is unclear why an average value is used. If we add the maximum uncertainty to this altitude, 0.176 + 0.32= +0.49, sea water was not able to cross a passage at +0.85 m, +0.75 m and +0.66 m before reaching the pool. Something here remains unclear to me. Thirdly, the authors emphasize the “abrupt sea-level rise indicates rates of ~8 mm/year for a few hundred years” (l. 377-378) that is not corroborated elsewhere on the coast without explanation apart the non-tectonic origin of this rise. It could be interesting to suggest any interpretation of it or at least to raise the question. Looking at the fig. 5 (computed relative sea level for the coast of Israel with the chronological and vertical uncertainties), it appears that this rapid rise is mainly based on two data set (n° 15 and 17 in table 1) that do not come from Tel Dor. They come from Akko (n°15) based on Sharvit et al. 2020 and Caesarea (n°17) based on Raban et al. 2009. These two last data sets are not detailed and discussed in the text. Because these forms the angle that mark the beginning of the rapid rise, it seems to me very important to detail them. In the second subchapter (l. 384-434), the authors confront the results of RSL measurements to predicted models. The general conclusion of this part is that no model among the several models tested fit with the data produced in this paper. This have been already said in the subchapter 4.3 with less detail about the characteristics of the models. From my point of view, this part is too long. The figures related are clear enough to avoid the written description of the models tested. Minor changes have to be done in order to avoid repetition between subchapter 4.3 and 5.2. About the discussion itself, I totally understand the authors who spent, without any doubt, many times running the different models. Even if none fit with the new data, it was an important part of this research to test them. As often, absence of result is a result. As mentioned in the paper (l. 431-434) “Various mechanisms to explain fluctuations have been suggested, e.g. [2,19] for the last 2000 years, but so far with no means of verification. The inability, however, of the models to detect the longer-term low sea levels this study presents for the pre-Roman time period requires further investigation”. It could be very welcome to add some further research questions or processes. In the subchapter 3 (l. 437-468)., the authors attempt to put their results in Mediterranean perspective but as they notice (l. 439-441), tectonically stable areas are not common in the Mediterranean Sea. The comparisons used comes from the other part of the Mediterranean, in France and Tunisia and the results, once again, does not fit with the result presented here. I notice here the site of Fréjus (ancient Forum Iulii) is systematically misspell (please change Fre’jus for Fréjus, l. 448, 450, 459…). Despite the fact that no rapid rise is attested in western Mediterranean and low level are lower in Israel than western Mediterranean around ca. 3500 BP, I am asking myself about the relevance of such comparison. I totally understand that the only areas comparable are in western Mediterranean but how to interpret these comparisons? I have no answer apart to put into a light the singularity of the Israeli coastline in the Levant comparing to the neighbouring area (Lebanon and Syria as mentioned l. 464-468). In the fourth subchapter (l. 470-535), the authors raise questions about the impact of the rapid sea level rise observed on coastal structures and sites. They claim, with lot of caution, that this rapid rise could “perhaps”, “among other reasons”, be responsible for the decline of harbour sites and harbour infrastructures precisely listed in the text. The authors point out clearly several examples contemporaneous of this rapid rise and the absence of new harbour structures in the area. They’re right but at the same time the period covering the 2nd and the 1st century BC is not very favourable for flourishing sea-based economy. Meanwhile, it is difficult to agree with such dramatic impact of a, finally, relatively rapid sea level rise compared to tectonically active area, when harbour cities as Tyre, Byzantium or Naples among many others keep important maritime activities despite very important environmental changes or events. As only a personal point of view, the authors are too deterministic. The fifth subchapter (l. 538-565) is devoted to the environmental impact of RSL changes along the Israeli coast. Several examples of environmental from the area are listed with appropriated bibliographical references but none deal clearly with vertical changes of the RSL. All the examples deal with horizontal modification of the coastline (mainly progradation) that is related to a positive sedimentary budget. The relation ship between RSL changes and horizontal changes is possible but not demonstrated.

The conclusions of the paper highlight 4 points. The first one (l. 568-571) states the broad impact of the results presented not only on the “sea-level research community” but as well for “archaeological and historical reconstructions”. It’s clearly the case. The second point (l. 572-578) emphasizes how the new data provided allows to precise the RSL changes especially for a period unwell represented, the Iron Age. The authors mention as well the already detailed differences between the prediction models and their own results stating a fundamental methodological issue. The fourth and the fifth point underline the two major statements of the RSL changes that are (1) a Roman Sea Level next to the current one and (2) the rapid rise of RSL during Hellenistic period from a lower level (ca. 2.5 m) quite stable between 3800 and 2200 BP.

This paper provided new data fundamental for the understanding of the RSL changes along the Israeli coast. As stated by the authors, the results presented will clearly impact future environmental and geoarchaeological research. The data are clear and well presented, the figures are relevant and very readable, the bibliographical references are up to date. My opinion about this paper is very positive but it seems to me that, despite the quality and the importance of the data presented the authors try to go too far within interpretative parts of the text. I am not convinced by the impact on the RSL changes on the coastal sites. The authors clearly and brilliantly state a rapid rise of the RSL during Hellenistic period but didn’t demonstrate the relationship between this rise and the decline of the coastal site. The only argument presented here is chronological parallel. As well, the relationship between environmental changes and RSL changes is not documented. As the authors states (l. 564-565): “Ongoing geo-archaeological research in a few sites along the coast is expected to add more high-resolution data for these periods”.

Finally, a brief format issue to check, in the paper, years are generally abbreviated “y” but I find “yr” as well, e.g. in chapter 4. I recommend the authors to normalise the abbreviations according to the editor recommendations.

Reviewer #2: This is my first review where I do not have any substantive recommendations to the authors - the manuscript is in publishable form in my opinion. All the concerns about the data I would have (subsidence, effects from other Mediterranean sites) are addressed by the authors in a convincing manner. I find it surprising that a substantive sea level change is associated with a comparatively stable period in the history of the region.

**********

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: No

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.]

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 PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

New relative sea-level (RSL) indications from the Eastern Mediterranean: Middle Bronze Age to the Roman period (~3800-1800 y BP) Archaeological Constructions at Dor, the Carmel coast, Israel.

PONE-D-21-07251R1

Dear Dr. Yasur-Landau,

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: