PONE-D-22-05228The polymorphism and heritage of funerary practice of the medieval Turks in light of new findings from Tuva RepublicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Caspari,

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.

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

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Please insert comments here and delete this placeholder text when finished. Be sure to:

• Both reviewers agree (and I agree with them) that this is a very interesting and important paper that discusses Turkic archaeological heritage from the little known (in wider circles) region of Tuva. The paper brings a new set of radiocarbon dates as well as new material (from one site) and places it into a wider context.
  Although the paper has many qualities both reviewers spotted a few inconsistencies and provide detailed suggestions and comments on how to resolve certain issues. Reviewer 1 suggests to pay a closer attention to maps and illustrations to make them more clear and understandable as well as to be more consistent in the use of certain terms throughout the manuscript. Reviewer 2 also suggested some changes to the illustrations, but also provides a list of references to be used to strengthen the paper. This reviewer also suggests to add some technical details to the text such as soil/layer depths, dimensions of certain artefacts and so on. And finally, Reviewer 2 raises an important point that we cannot track the exact origin of the Turkic as an ethnic group and that the assumption that the Turks originated from the Altai has not yet been confirmed in archaeological materials, i.e. there is no such phenomenon as the "culture of the Turks" – please, pay close attention to this issue in your discussion.

Please ensure that your decision is justified on PLOS ONE’s publication criteria and not, for example, on novelty or perceived impact.

For Lab, Study and Registered Report Protocols: These article types are not expected to include results but may include pilot data. 

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by June 18th, 2022 . 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,

Mario Novak

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 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.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The excavation project is conducted with the financial and logistical help of the Russian Geographical Society (N 53/04/2019) and financial support of Dr. F. Paulsen, the Society for the Exploration of EurAsia, and the Russian Ministry of Culture (project No. 656-01-1-41/12-18). Post-excavation works of T. S. and J. B. were carried out within the framework of the Programs of Fundamental Scientific Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, State Assignments No. 0160-2020-0002 and 0184-2019-0011 respectively. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Thanks to Alexey Kasparov (IHMC RAS) for the paleozoological definitions, and Zhang Yang for research assistance.”

Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The excavation project is conducted with the financial and logistical help of the Russian Geographical Society (N 53/04/2019) and financial support of Dr. F. Paulsen, the Society for the Exploration of EurAsia, and the Russian Ministry of Culture (project No. 656-01-1-41/12-18). Post-excavation works of T. S. and J. B. were carried out within the framework of the Programs of Fundamental Scientific Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences, State Assignments No. 0160-2020-0002 and 0184-2019-0011 respectively. G. C. was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, grant number P400PG_190982.”

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/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 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/#

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

6. We note that you have referenced (Kilunovskaya et al. 2015, Kilunovskaya et al. 2017,Sadykov 2017b, Mongush and Mongush 2020) which has currently not yet been accepted for publication. Please remove this from your References and amend this to state in the body of your manuscript: (ie “Bewick et al. [Unpublished]”) as detailed online in our guide for authors

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-reference-style

7. 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: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: 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: Summury

In this interesting manuscript, Gino Сaspari and colleagues present an engaging study of early medieval materials from an important and little-explored area of the archaeological record (and one whose pertinent literature is often not shared in English). Although initially the research is based on the materials of only one site, in fact a kind of case study, the authors tried to bring the study to a new high level. The manuscript provides a detailed analysis of the Turkic antiquities of the neighboring regions of Inner Asia - Altai, Mongolia and Xinjiang. This allows the authors to consider the problem on a broader background and is important for historical interpretation.

The idea of polymorphism of Turkic burial customs is not new. The authors are right, noting the fact that the information of Chinese written sources does not match confirmation in the archeological data. This is especially true for cremations. The problem of belonging the burials of a man with a horse to specific Turkic ethnic groups is not fully understood. Recently, new, even exotic hypotheses have appeared in the literature, for example, about the belonging of all such burials in the Russian Altai to the Karluks (Kubarev, 2021). New archaeological data and a thorough analysis of various versions of translations of Chinese Dynastic Сhronicles are the keys to solving this problem.

I will especially note the series of radiocarbon dates that the authors publish. For this time and region, such data are rare due to objective reasons. Therefore, these data are of great importance for studying not only the Turkic burials in Tuva, but also in the neighboring regions of Central Asia and Southern Siberia.

I hope that the submitted manuscript will be of interest to a wide international academic audience and can be recommended for publication after a light revision.

Miscellaneous comments and suggestions

Keywords: it may be better to replace "mounted combat" with "horsemanship"

It is necessary to use the same terms throughout the text. For example: "Khanate" (lines 27, 28, 38, 74, 596 etc.) and "Khaganate" (line 173, 563 etc.), "Kok Turks" (line 114), "Gokturks" (line 122) and "Güktürks" (line 172), "Turkic" (as usual) but "Türkic period" (line 283, 292), "Altai" (that's right) and «Altay» (line 529).

(Lines 331-338) The authors explain the use of the terms "structures" and "objects". I think it is necessary to unify and choose one, because the term "structure" is used in the text, and "object" is used in the figures. This creates confusion.

All the titles of the publications in Russian in the text are given in transliteration, except for one book by Dmitry Savinov (line 87) given in Cyrillic. I recommend to follow one style.

The phrase "...gold and metal jewelry" (line 150) is not quite clear. I understand that this is supported by the reference, but it's better to rephrase.

The map in Fig. 1 shows the distribution of excavated Turkic burials in Inner Asia very well, but it may be better to add geographical landmarks so that it becomes more informative.

There are no symbols in Fig. 13. What do the triangles on the plan mean? Ceramics? If yes, add coments to the caption please.

What does the signature in Fig. 7 "ob.27 may not be included" mean?

It is necessary to check the scale for all items in Fig. 8. I have doubts about the size ratios of some plaques and buckles. In addition, it was better to show some items (plaques from object 7) horizontally, as they were usually attached to a belt.

If the limit of figures allows (I’m understand it is always problem), you need to add a map with the location of the Tunnug, and not be limited to a reference to own early publication. But it remains on the decision of the authors.

«The dog would have been about the size of a fox terrier or a large husky» (line 463). I believe that such a comparison with specific breeds of dogs is not correct.

Table 1. What software was used to calibrate radiocarbon dates?

Once again, this important study by an international team of researchers can be recommended after minor revision and hopefully will be useful for a wide academic audience.

Reviewer #2: This is an interesting study; the authors have collected new archaeological evidence of Turkic funerary customs and, more generally Turkic cultural heritage in Central Asia. The paper is well written and structured. The manuscript comes as a result of promising field research and excavations in the Valley of the Kings in Tuva. The article provides an exhaustive list of literature, taking into account the latest research. The paper can be relevant to a broader readership, such as archaeologists, cultural anthropologists, ethnographers, and historians. The archaeological context is well presented for Central Asia in the Early Middle Ages. The authors discuss a broad range of cultural analogies published by other authors. The originality and interpretative ideas of the authors are based on new radiocarbon data, which confirms the legitimacy of correlating described monuments with the time of the Turkic Khaganate and the era of the early Middle Ages.

However, in my opinion, the paper has some shortcomings in regards to some formal aspects and text, and I feel that collected evidence has not been utilized to its full extent. Below the authors and the editor can find the remarks.

-line 555-556: while discussing the meaning of fences in medieval burial practices of the region, I strongly support the idea of the memorial purpose of fences – the so-called “ogradki”; since there are no arguments in favor of the fact that these are cenotaphs, and I agree with the arguments of the authors against the fact that these are cenotaphs.

- Figs 5, 8: In the article, we do not see an analysis of the typology of the bits and stirrups found on the monument. Also, the latest research on this problem is not cited (Seregin 2017; 2018).

-When analyzing the culture of the early Middle Ages, it would be useful to cite the work of Dosymbaeva (Dosymbaeva 2006).

-line 665: The problem is that we cannot track the exact origin of the Turkic as an ethnic group. The information/assumption that the Turks originated from the Altai has not yet been confirmed in archaeological materials. There is no such phenomenon as the "culture of the Turks" in the vastness of central Eurasia. It can also be interpreted as many different cultures. Whether different cultures can be called polymorphism of "Turkic culture" is an open question. Consider in the discussion.

-line 434, Fig.11: It should be noted that the monuments studied by the authors are not analyzed from the point of view of the spatial orientation of the graves and bodies interred. It is known, that the Turks had certain preferences in this respect: an eastern alignment of sacred objects, burials, dwellings. But the article does not consider the question of the monument's compliance with this cultural trait. Culturally based preferences (esp. E-W alignment) typical for Turks are evident in Fig.11, for example. Consider updating the manuscript.

-lines 373-374: It would be useful to use Western examples of funerary "fences" - in the form of typologically similar ditches in the burial mounds of the Khazars (Kruglov 2018) and the fence of the Voznesensky complex on the Dnieper (Ambrose 1982). They are generated by the same Turkic cultural environment and reflect the same ideas as the "fences" in Central Asia. In the Voznesensky memorial complex, we see traces of post-funeral rituals, when burned stirrups and weapons were placed in a pit after regular post-funeral feasts for several years.

-Fig.1. Formal correction: could you consider adding the names of the countries on the map.

-Fig.3. Formal correction: could you consider adding the depths (picture B for example)? Some more technical information about these soil covers (type etc.) would be useful e.g. cracking caused by…, consider adding a citation to some soil studies if necessary.

-Fig. 4. Formal suggestion: illustration is showing Tunnug 1. Medieval artifacts. Iron horse bits- can you add some more information, what elements is it exactly, what material is it made of, state of preservation (partially/full preserved, etc.), museum collection number? The same applies to Fig. 4-6; very vague description, and it can be improved. This is rather an en masse material, but in Fig.7 there is some strange note on a picture ‘maybe not include’- please remove it, or correct it differently.

- Fig. 8- Bronze finds from Objects 6 and 7- can you describe or name these items? function etc. Perhaps it could be a good idea to provide in descriptions some information about typologies of arrowheads by citation of appropriate published works. Fig. 8- scale in cm. Unify the fonts and scales in all illustrations. In Figs. 7-8 treat every item separately labeling them with numbers or letters, arrowhead 1, 2,3 – feature number 6, arrowhead 4,5,6,7 -feature number 27, etc. Fig. 9- maybe adding the author of the photo: photo by XY, that applies to all photos and drawings in the manuscript, drawn by/photo by, or if taken from a book, drawing after citation;

-Fig.14: formal suggestion: in the description please add dimensions of the stele, the stone material it was made of, and optionally weight. It would be useful to mark pictures a,b,c; the stele had been decorated, and there is some almond shape in the upper part, can you comment on that? is this perhaps anthropomorphic, or if not, add some comment regarding potential decorations. Add the author of these photos.

-line 575,587-590- change of the font? there is something wrong with the font format here; please also check the citation format: example: Linghu 1971: 910 (vol. 50, biography no. 42, “Tujue”, or Wang 1935: 1784 (vol. 100); these are Chinese works but the format of citation should match modern standards somehow; the dating of Chinese Dynasties if mentioned also should have AD/BC.

-Fig.15 I would like to suggest inserting item no. 4 in a horizontal position so the illustration keeps a more regular shape.

-lines 613-614 ‘Russian archaeologists such as V.V. Gorbunov, G.V. Kubarev, V.D. Kubarev, N.N. Seregin, A.A.Tishkin, have published compendiums of these artifacts… etc. Please add all mentioned works as citations by the end of the sentence.

But, despite these remarks, the article can be published without any doubt. The authors' conclusions are based on a large amount of factual material and correct theoretical generalizations. Below I recommend some more works which the authors may find useful for their manuscript in revison process:

Ambrose. A.K. About the Voznesensky complex of the VIII century on the Dnieper — a question of interpretation // Antiquities of the epoch of the Great Migration of peoples V to VIII centuries. Moscow: 1982. pp. 204-222. In Russian

Dosymbaeva A.M. Western Turkic Khaganate. Cultural heritage of the Kazakh steppe. Almaty, 2006. In Russian

Kruglov, E. V. FORMATION OF THE SOURCE BASE OF THE SOKOLOVSKY BALKATIP MONUMENTS // Nizhnevolzhsky Archaeological Bulletin. – 2018. – Vol. 17. – No. 1. – pp. 144-159. – DOI 10.15688/nav.jvolsu.2018.1.7. In Russian

Seregin, N. N. Stirrups from the burial complexes of the early medieval Turks in Mongolia // Peoples and religions of Eurasia. – 2017. – № 3-4(12-13). – Pp. 9-23.

Seregin, N. N. Horse bits and cheeks from early medieval Turkic burials in Mongolia // Izvestiya Altaiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. – 2018. – № 2(100). – Pp. 174-181. – DOI 10.14258/izvasu(2018)2-29. In Russian

In Russian:

Серегин, Н. Н. Стремена из погребальных комплексов раннесредневековых тюрок Монголии // Народы и религии Евразии. – 2017. – № 3-4(12-13). – С. 9-23.

Серегин, Н. Н. Удила и псалии из погребальных комплексов раннесредневековых тюрок Монголии // Известия Алтайского государственного университета. – 2018. – № 2(100). – С. 174-181. – DOI 10.14258/izvasu(2018)2-29.

Амброз А.К. О Вознесенском комплексе VIII в. на Днепре — вопрос интерпретации // Древности эпохи великого переселения народов V-VIII вв. М.: 1982. С. 204-222.

Досымбаева А.М. Западный Тюркский каганат. Культурное наследие казахской степи. Алматы, 2006.

Круглов, Е. В. Формирование источниковой базы памятников типа Соколовской балки. Шилов В.П.: курганный могильник Ордынский бугор // Нижневолжский археологический вестник. – 2018. – Т. 17. – № 1. – С. 144-159. – DOI 10.15688/nav.jvolsu.2018.1.7.

**********

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: Alexey Fribus

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dalia Pokutta, Ph.D., Department of Archaeology University of Stockholm (ARL) Sweden; Department of Archaeology and Museology Masaryk University, Czech Republic

[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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: review 280422.docx

PONE-D-22-05228R1The polymorphism and tradition of funerary practices of medieval Turks of Central Asia in light of new findings from Tuva RepublicPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Caspari,

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.

 The manuscript is almost ready to be accepted. Please, address two minor suggestions proposed by the reviewers and return the manuscript back. Once you resolve these two issues the paper will be ready two be accepted. 

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 22 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,

Mario Novak

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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:

Both reviewers agree that all issues have been properly addressed and that the manuscript can be accepted for publication. However, before I accept it, please address two minor suggestions by both reviewers.

[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: 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

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

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

**********

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: I believe that the revised article can be published. Please correct the typo: page 4 line 2: Seregin and Matrenin (not Maternin)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: Alexey Fribus

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dalia Pokutta

**********

[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.

The polymorphism and tradition of funerary practices of medieval Turks in light of new findings from Tuva Republic

PONE-D-22-05228R2

Dear Dr. Caspari,

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,

Mario Novak

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: