PONE-D-22-27065Reconstructing archaeological palaeolandscapes using geophysical and geomatic survey techniques: An example from Red Lily Lagoon, Arnhem Land, AustraliaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moffat,

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.

 Two reviewers provided comments on your paper. As you will see, the recommendations for improvement are relatively minor. Please consider these points in your revision.  

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 20 2023 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,

Michael D. Petraglia, Ph.D.

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

"Jarrad Kowlessar is the recipient of a Flinders University Postgraduate Scholarship. Ian Moffat, Daryl Wesley and Tristen Jones were supported by George Chaloupka Fellowships from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory. Daryl Wesley is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career award (project number DE170101447) funded by the Australian Government. Ian Moffat is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career award (project number DE160100703) funded by the Australian Government and a Flinders University Early Career Researchers Award. This research was approved by Northern Land Council permit #79130 and via Flinders Human Research Ethics application #7704. Thank you to the Njanjma Rangers who provided outstanding support for the research."

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. 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:

"JK is the recipient of a Flinders University Postgraduate Scholarship (flinders.edu.au).

IM is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career award (project number DE160100703, arc.gov.au) funded by the Australian Government, a George Chaloupka Fellowship from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (magnet.net.au) and a Flinders University Early Career Researchers Award (flinders.edu.au).

DW is the recipient of an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career award (project number DE170101447, arc.gov.au) funded by the Australian Government and a George Chaloupka Fellowship from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (magnet.net.au).

TJ is the recipient of a George Chaloupka Fellowship from the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory (magnet.net.au).

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

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

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. We note that Figures 1, 4 and 7 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:

   1. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1, 4 and 7 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].”

   2. 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 is a very important paper and a first of its kind, using ERT to map the sub-surface geomorphic units and phases of the transgression in the GRLLA. The findings that all major Pleistocene sites were likely immediately adjacent to the ocean and mangrove forests at some point during the transgression provides a vital clue in interpreting changing landuse, technology and occupational intensity in the region over the last 60,000 years. This approach could be more widely adopted in the region, and opens the possibility of future excavations close to the escarpment edge adjacent to Red Lilley Lagoon with high probability of encountering buried Pleistocene sites (and rockshelters?). The non-invasive nature of this approach is likely to assure its success in future research in the region. This paper should be published with minor revisions. I have a number of small comments and suggested edits below.

Pge 3, line 72, reference to occupation by 60ka, but later 65ka. SHold be 65ka here.

LInes 79,80 Finding new sites will probably enable testing of the stratigraphic integrity of Madjedbebe per se, only replicating its sequence or not.

Line 102, MSI should be MIS?

Table 2, Madjedbebe max occupation given as 61+/- 10ka. Modelled start and end ages in Clarkson et al. 2017 are given as 65.0 ± (3.7, 5.7) and 52.7 ± (2.4, 4.3) kyr.

Line 389 New grindstone paper and new archaeobotany papers could also be cited here.

Florin, S.A., Fairbairn, A.S., Nango, M., Djandjomerr, D., Hua, Q., Marwick, B., Reutens, D.C., Fullagar, R., Smith, M., Wallis, L.A. and Clarkson*, C., 2022. 65,000 years of changing plant food and landscape use at Madjedbebe, Mirarr country, northern Australia. Quaternary Science Reviews, 284, p.107498.

Hayes, E.H., Fullagar, R., Field, J.H., Coster, A.C., Matheson, C., Nango, M., Djandjomerr, D., Marwick, B., Wallis, L.A., Smith, M.A. and Clarkson*, C., 2022. 65,000-years of continuous grinding stone use at Madjedbebe, Northern Australia. Scientific Reports, 12(1), pp.1-17.

Line 462 (and 824-828). Although it is possible pandanus declines in use or abundance in the landscape at this time, the results in Florin cannot be interpreted this way. The reason abundance dropped out is that charcoal does not survive well in Phase 6, and hence there is almost no surviving analysable carbonised archaeobotanics from this period. See Florin 2020.

Table 3 rockart inscription. is that the right word?

Line 624 extend should be extended

Reviewer #2: General comments

This paper deals with palaeogeographical reconstructions and the development of methodological approaches to better understand palaeolandscape evolution and its impact on the early human settlement of Australia. Changing landscapes have proved to affect greatly exploitation, subsistence and dispersal of hominin and early human populations, yet this parameter only recently has started to be factored in in readings and interpretations of the archaeological evidence from the Palaeolithic period. The methodological challenges are usually great and deep time reconstructions are difficult (e.g. lack of high resolution datasets – environmental, geological or fragmented archaeological records etc.) and so the development of new approaches is helping this wider discussion to move forward.

ERT as a method is not new and the authors are very well aware of the methodology’s potentials and limitations (lines 535-559). Yet the paper demonstrates the effectiveness of the ERT method – that emerges as a significant tool: (a) to investigate palaeolandscapes and their evolution over time (both short and long-term changes); (b) to predict new areas of Pleistocene/pre-Holocene activity; (c) to understand better human settlement strategies; (d) to offer new/alternative interpretations for the archaeological record in relation to rapid changes over the palaeolandscape (e.g. transgression episode 6,5 Ka and the presence of marine sell fish or observed hiatus in settlement associated with the decrease of habitable land due to the establishment of salt flats). Ultimately, this work allows predictions of new ‘targets’ for the future archaeological research that need to be confirmed or rejected through fieldwork.

The methodology detailed in the paper can be applied in other similar early contexts beyond Australia, to answer similar research questions. The paper promotes interdisciplinarity using earth sciences methodologies to offer new insights in behavioural parameters relevant to settlement choices.

This is a significant work that definitely deserves to be accepted for publication - with some minor revisions.

Suggestions for minor revisions

- Introduction> I would suggest considering minor restructuring. My suggestion would be to promote the archaeological info and then discuss methodologies and their contribution in reconstructing the palaeolandscape. It needs to be clear, I believe, why the palaeolandscape under study is important and why it would be useful to reconstruct it and try to locate pre-Holocene sites. Perhaps consider implementing lines 35-48 into the last paragraph from line 92 onwards.

- A general map of Australia with the study area shown/highlighted would be extremely useful for international readers. Perhaps consider adding it.

- Some minor issues with dates/dating methods:

Lines 279-280 > how do these dates occur, please mention the dating method.

Lines 297-299 > the basal sands and gravel layer is consisted of pre-Holocene sediments, are there any more details on the chronology/dating of these sediments? However, in Table 1 the chronology of the same layer is noted as ‘unknown’ – I would have expected pre-Holocene (?), if my understanding is correct. In any case, this needs to be clearer.

Lines 338-340 > dating method of sediments?

Line 393 > Ka is missing after 35

- Line 535-6> repetition of ‘in a meaningful way’ consider rephrasing for clarity

- Lines 617-18> perhaps elaborate a bit more on inversion result (in one-two sentences). How do the classes occur? It’s important to be clear and for the reader to understand it.

- Lines 635-6 > is line 2 profile missing from fig 5?

**********

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: Yes: Peny Tsakanikou

**********

[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.

Reconstructing archaeological palaeolandscapes using geophysical and geomatic survey techniques: An example from Red Lily Lagoon, Arnhem Land, Australia

PONE-D-22-27065R1

Dear Dr. Moffat,

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,

Michael D. Petraglia, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: