PONE-D-21-37152Technical traditions and individual variability in the Early Neolithic: Linear Pottery Culture flint knappers in the Aisne Valley (France)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. ALLARD,

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. Both reviewers are positive, but each of them makes suggestions for additions that will substantially improve the paper. Please address all of the reviewers suggestions while making your revisions.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 12 2022 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: https://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,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

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 

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.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

(NO, The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript)

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution. 

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map 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 1 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/

5. 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.

[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: This contribution is an exciting contribution for the study of particular lithic productions (blade technologies), in which the identification of potential differences between the assemblages is pursuit. The paper's general aim and primary objective are interesting and important since most of the works do not pay attention to socio-cultural aspects related to particular methods and variabilities applied in the flaking. The paper demonstrates the high preparation and knowledge of the authors in the technical reading of these materials. However, this circumstance omitted some crucial aspects in the contribution.

Some of the aspects evaluated as discriminant markers in the material include as mention by the authors: "The inclination between the striking platform and blade detachment surface suggests a very different core morphology with a seemingly plain striking platform. However, the knapper heavily abraded the overhangs and striking platform edge on this core, resulting in a massive reduction of the surface in contact with the punch as the blade was detached." Those differences are understood as "different technical traditions" and not just learning skills or simply individual expressions in the knapping. I have the same opinion about the existence of such differences, but at the same time, I thought that such variations could happen inside the same knapping school. If the authors disagree with this, it is crucial to justify their interpretation in a deeper way.

Another aspect of being considered is the chronology of the technical evolution of particular markers and knapping resources that may change in short periods. From the moment that the study includes discrete clusters, it is essential to confirm the coetaneous character of the studied assemblages. Regarding this topic, please improve the chronological description of the studied units and their contemporaneity.

I agree with the authors in the general appreciation of the value of technical resources as an informative element in comparison to different assemblages or lithic cluster, but traditions have to be considered from a whole perspective (that include the change in the technical resources employed along the entire C.O.) and not just a particular preparation mode.

The existence of skill levels is slightly presented, and the criteria used are not clear enough (lines 583 to 589). Try to clarify the variables employed and include references about the previously employed criteria.

Please include in the discussion the potential effect of changes in the raw material quality in the difference in the technical strategies documented (raw material discussion and description are mostly absent in the text).

There is a general absence of the review of experimental blade production in this chrono-cultural context. Please, include a more intense review of previous experimental studies and their conclusions (check the following references based on previous experimental and skill analysis:

-Castañeda, N. A 2016. Few Good Blades. An Experimental Test on the Productivity of Blade Cores from the Casa Montero Early Neolithic Flint Mine (Madrid, Spain). Journal of Lithic Studies 3(2).

-Soriano S., 2019. Un néandertalien qui avait plus d’un coup de percuteur dans son sac ! Le procédé de l’éclat-punch. In: David E (ed) Anthropologie des techniques. Cahier 1 : De la mémoire aux gestes en préhistoire. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 157–166.

- Baena, J. et al. 2019. Good and Bad Knappers Among Neanderthals Pages 95-117

In Learning Among Neanderthals and Palaeolithic Modern Humans, Yoshihiro Nishiaki &Olaf Jöris Eds, 2019 Springer.

In any case, the study is quite intelligent and clearly opens a precise methodology for approaching different sin styles, probably in past knapping schools and perhaps in cultural traditions. With this contribution, the authors start the discussion about these aspects, and it is quite worthy of initiating the debate.

I recommend its publication after some minor changes since the perspective and the estudy is woth enough.

As minor changes I would suggest the following aspects:

1) Please include changes in figures 2,3 and 4 and also 10, 11, and 12 with images of the complete blades

2) Including the directions of the detaches of preparations (and perhaps the diachritic) in the previous figures will also provide a clearer image of the technical differences.

3) Study the possibility to integrate a map of the different traditions described in the text with chronologies and locations.

4) Please consider to present a more clear way the briefly described “Alpha tradition.” And the dif

Reviewer #2: The article is one of the few original studies that is focused on the search for meaningful criteria that make it possible to characterize not only the general and the specific in the methods of production of flint blades - blanks for tools - at various sites of the Vaux-et-Borset and the Aisne Valley regions, but to determine individual techniques in flintknapping inherent in particular masters. The author describes in sufficient detail the methodological basis of the research, based on a rigorous analysis of flint blades: their parameters, types of striking platform, the angle between the platform and the flaking surface. Involving the results of experimental work, he reveals the details of the flint splitting process and naturally comes to the conclusion that the artifacts he studied with the same flint splitting technology (pressure or impact) have significant differences, allowing them to be considered products of different masters. The results obtained allowed the author to make a logical conclusion that the technological analysis of the flint inventory is an important source not only for highlighting the history of technology, but it also allows us to consider complex issues of socio-economic features of the life of ancient societies.

All of the above allows to positively evaluate the peer-reviewed article. Nevertheless, the addition of some sections will significantly increase the argumentation of the author's proposals and reveal to the reader the significance of the work done.

In “Materials and Methods”:

it is necessary to give a short description of the flint industry of that local variant of the LPC, to which the settlement materials belong; give a more detailed description of the archaeological context, as well as indicate what other categories of flint products and in what quantity, besides the blades studied by the author, were found in residential and household objects (cores, retouchers, tools used for flintknapping?);

In “Results”

it is necessary to more reasonably justify the assumption that the difference in the methods of obtaining blades found in the same house may indicate the work of two different masters. Modern experimental work suggests that the same master can successfully modify some operations to obtain the same type of flint blank for various objective (quality of raw materials, condition and quality of a hammer stone, etc.) and subjective reasons (the need to speed up the process, fatigue, etc. ).

The “conclusion” section could be expanded by proving the importance of a detailed technological analysis of the flint inventory for modeling various socio-economic reconstructions.

The conclusions can be substantially supplemented by the inclusion of schematically depicted flint processing techniques that characterize the individual details of flint processing.

I would like to wish the author to continue the work begun, to increase the number of materials studied, which is of great importance for the study of various aspects of production activities.

**********

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: Concepcion Torres Navas

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.

Technical traditions and individual variability in the Early Neolithic: Linear Pottery Culture flint knappers in the Aisne Valley (France)

PONE-D-21-37152R1

Dear Dr. ALLARD,

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,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #2: 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 #2: Yes

**********

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

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 #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 #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 #2: Re-evaluating the article under review, I would like to once again emphasize the high professionalism of the authors, the significant contribution of their methodological developments to socio-economic research based on the study of the features of ancient technologies for processing flint raw materials and manufacturing blade blanks. A thorough technological analysis of flint products from several archaeological objects of the LPC culture allowed the authors to show that the details of flint knapping characterize not only the technological traditions of this stage of cultural development, but can also be a source for interpreting the individual characteristics of flint raw materials processing both in different residential complexes and in the same dwelling.

Reworked by the authors, taking into account the comments of the reviewers, the article has acquired a more reasoned basis for the assumptions made. In the "methods and materials" section, information about the archaeological context has been significantly expanded. In the “Results” section, data on the nature of local flint raw materials are supplemented, and the review of experimental works is also significantly expanded, which allowed the authors to better argue the statements made about the nature of flint knapping technology. The extended section "Conclusions" has become a full-fledged summary of the study, showing the wide interpretive possibilities of a detailed study of the features of ancient technology.

Thus, the peer-reviewed article can be published. It is certainly an interesting study based on an original technique for studying flint artefacts, which can initiate a wide discussion of the results among specialists.

I wish the authors further success in their work, successful completion of the LPC flint industry research project, and a wider application of the proposed methodology to other Neolithic archaeological sites.

**********

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 #2: No