PONE-D-23-05775Formation processes, fire use, and patterns of human occupation across the Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5a-5b) of Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zilhão,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 08 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,

Enza Elena Spinapolice, 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. 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 archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

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

"Over the years, the archaeological field work carried out in the Almonda karst benefited from financial and logistical support provided by a number of different institutions, primarily the following: Câmara Municipal de Torres Novas, Instituto Português de Arqueologia (IPA), RENOVA – Fábrica de Papel do Almonda, Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (projects PTDC/HIS-ARQ/098164/2008 and PTDC/HAR-ARQ/30413/2017), and Sociedade Torrejana de Espeleologia e Arqueologia (STEA). Thin sections from Gruta da Oliveira were paid for by the IPA and the University of Trento (D.E.A.'s personal allowance)... Support for the writing and publication of this paper was provided by FCT grants UIDB/00698/2020 and UIDP/00698/2020."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, 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: 

"Funding for this work was provided by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia; Portugal) grants UIDB/00698/2020 and UIDP/00698/2020. 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.

4. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere:

"Figure 2 is modified after https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2021.106885. Parts of multi-panel Figures 4, 5, 7-12 and 22 were published in previous reports, namely https://doi.org/10.1002/gea.20267, http://hdl.handle.net/10451/31145, and https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192423.

The images in those multi-panel figures that are modified or reused here are necessary to illustrate the stratigraphic descriptions and analyses presented in the text."

Please clarify whether this publication was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

5. 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:

(1) 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].”

(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/

6. We note that Figure 4 includes an image of a participant in the study. 

As per the PLOS ONE policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research) on papers that include identifying, or potentially identifying, information, the individual(s) or parent(s)/guardian(s) must be informed of the terms of the PLOS open-access (CC-BY) license and provide specific permission for publication of these details under the terms of this license. Please download the Consent Form for Publication in a PLOS Journal (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=8ce6/plos-consent-form-english.pdf). The signed consent form should not be submitted with the manuscript, but should be securely filed in the individual's case notes. 

Please amend the methods section and ethics statement of the manuscript to explicitly state that the participant has provided consent for publication: “The individual in this manuscript has given written informed consent (as outlined in PLOS consent form) to publish these case details”. 

If you are unable to obtain consent from the subject of the photograph, you will need to remove the figure and any other textual identifying information or case descriptions for this individual.

7. We note that Figure 1 (C) in your submission contain copyrighted images. 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 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 (C) 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.

8. 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: The paper by Angelucci and colleagues is an important study on the formation dynamics of the complex cave deposit of Gruta da Oliveira, carried with a multi-proxy approach which includes the macroscopical characterization of the stratigraphical units, the micromorphological analysis of soil samples, the analysis of biogenic and anthropogenic features such as lithics, heated remains, hearths, with spatial analysis and refittings. This is an excellent example, both for the methods applied and for the discussed results, of a detailed work aimed at understanding to which extent natural and biological agents affected the accumulation of the cave deposit. This is why I think this paper deserves to be published, since it can be of reference for archaeologists dealing with archaeological excavation of Palaeolithic cave sites. I just have some minor comments which I hope will help to improve the manuscript.

- In the introduction, authors begin straight to describe the geological context and the site. I think that a conceptually broader introduction could help to frame a main question addressed by the study. How is this paper a contribution to research? Is it only addressed to frame the Gruta da Oliveira sequence from a geomorphological and archaeological point of view? Since I believe in the broad scope of such research, I think that introducing the question, e.g., of the anthropic and natural impact on the formation dynamics of cave deposits, especially within the Neandertal sites of the Iberian Peninsula, can better enhance the work and help the reader focus on the issue at a broader level.

- In the lines 303-304, about the deformation of the deposit caused by a localized sinkhole, authors say that “the sinking of the basal parts of the stratification in line P of the grid, along the north wall of the passage, which is well apparent in profile view (Figs. 9-10)”. However, this is not evident to me in such figures. Can it be highlight in a better way?

- Right below, in the lines 304-307, speaking about the “Mousterian cone”, authors say that “The fact that no refits have so far been found linking layers 26-27 with layer 14 or any other layer further up in the “Middle Palaeolithic sequence” complex suggests that, by the time the accumulation of layer 15 came to an end, overall stabilisation of the sedimentary body had been achieved”. Does it mean that the Mousterian cone derives from the Access Corridor’s layers 15 to 25?

- About this, in the chapter 3.3.3 (Mousterian Cone and Passage of the Columns) only layer 27 (Passage of the Columns) is discussed, and nothing is said about the Mousterian Cone. My advice is to better expose the origin of the Mousterian Cone deposit and the relationship with the upper (Access Corridor) deposit.

- When authors talk about the pedogenic features of the deposit, I think that some information on the preservation conditions of the archaeological material could be useful. Are lithics and bones affected by patinas/concretions and other weathering features?

- In the lines 562-566 authors affirm that the concentration of burnt bones in layers 23-25, grid unit P15, is due to percolation from the above layer 22 hearths. However, no burnt bones are documented in layer 22, grid unit P15, but there are in O15, O16 and P16. Is it possible that the “suffusion-induced deformation” cited by authors could have moved all the burnt bones (but not all the lithics) of that specific square?

Reviewer #2: In their article “Formation processes, fire use, and patterns of human occupation across the Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5a-5b) of Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal)”, Angelucci et al., provide a complete and holistic revision of sedimentary formation processes of one of the most important MIS5 Paleolithic sites of South Western Europe. Combined micromorphological, spatial tools distribution, paleobotanical and archaeozoological analyses allow the authors to discuss: a) the environmental significance of the sedimentary inputs sources into the cave during human occupations, b) the morphological evolution of the Gruta de Oliveira karstic and depositional systems during the MIS5, c) the diachronic fire use and site occupancy patterns evolution by humans and animals.

Because of the extreme complexity of the functioning of the Oliveira karstic and depositional systems through the time and the importance of the archaeological findings excavated during the last decades there, such formation processes investigation study is considered as a necessary in the framework of the Almonda archaeological sites context, gaining a high relevance impact for the scientific community and deserving a publication in PLOS ONE journal. Although the manuscript appears to be in overall good shape for publication, I shall try to suggest here below some lines of action to be considered for a further improvement of the text during the revision process.

General Comments

A – The Scientific Issue

The introduction paragraph appears rather to the reader as a Geological and geochronological context paragraph (lines 42-82), study context (90-98), structure of the manuscript (lines 102-110). I suggest to move all these manuscript parts to a new “Context of the Study” paragraph or sub-paragraph into the introduction section, focusing the Introduction on the problematic and on the scientific broader context of the study.

Indeed, in the introduction paragraph, the authors should emphasise the fundamental scientific issues which have lead the development of the site formation processes/micromorphological study approach, answering to some questions: why Gruta de Oliveira deposits need a geoarcheological approach? (I suggest to highlight in one or two sentences the complexity of the Almonda karstic system and the relevance of the archaeological findings in the Middle Paleolithic research of Oliveira). Why the understanding of the morphological evolution of the karstic and depositional systems could provide human occupancy behaviour patterns inferences? How the geoarchaeological approach can help the understanding of Middle Palaeolithic sites of Spain? Is because the authors discuss about the fire use topic that it would be appreciated also an archaeological context of Fire use in South Western Europe.

The addition of this kind of information, will improve the relevance of the article into the scientific community, highlighting the importance of the geoarcheological approach. In terms of manuscript structure, such introduction will help to put the links between the scientific problematic and the main results of the article presented in the discussion giving a completeness shape of the article.

B- Stratigraphy representations and interpretative drawings

As evident in Fig. 9, layers 20, 22 and 23 are traversed by vertical sedimentary disturbance in the left side, and units 23-24-25 in the right side, following the cave wall morphology. Such feature is described in the text in lines 267-270, however, is not represented in the stratigraphic interpretative drawing (Fig. 10). Similarly, in Fig. 8, the lines delimiting the units didn’t’ follow the morphology of the layers.

Considering the importance of the morphology of the sedimentary units in the formation processes interpretation, I would suggest more precision into the stratigraphy representations.

C- The sedimentary ensembles

One of the fundamental synthesis points of the paper is represented by the definition of the sedimentary ensembles (lines 469-481). They are defined on the basis of the deposits morphogenesis and micromorphological interpretations. Their interpretation should represent one of the main results of the formation processes issue of the article.

With the aim to highlight such result and to simplify the reading of the article, I would suggest to foreground the definition and the interpretation of the ensembles throughout the text and in the illustrations. For example, adding into the Fig. 12 the graphic representation of the ensembles with the related Sedimentary Units. I would also suggest to favour the use of the sedimentary ensemble nomenclature (from line 658) together with the units nomenclature throughout the discussion section. Would also be appreciated the interpretation formation processes ensemble by ensemble in the discussion section.

D – Discussion organisation

With the aim to help the reader and to improve the structuration of the paper I would suggest to organise the discussion section in sub-paragraphs thought the following way:

Lines 618-657: “Sedimentary sources inputs significance”

Lines 658-704: “Morpho-sedimentary evolution of Gruta de Oliveira during the MIS 5”

As suggested above, in this sub-paragraph, please favour the use of the sedimentary ensembles names previously defined, together with the units numbers. This part would need also a chronological indication (ages Ka) of the mentioned layers/ensembles.

Lines 705-772: “Environmental markers”

Lines 773-855: “Fire use and occupancy patterns evolution”

Detailed Comments:

Lines 19-22: These two sentences indicate that there is some sedimentary material coming from the slope, and that the coarse fraction comes from the cave bedrock. However, in the text is indicated that the coarse material is represented by both LST SIL sources. Please clarify the sentences indicating that the filling material is represented by fine and coarse material coming from both sources.

Lines 22-23: How the erosion can induce the tectonic and structural activity? It should be the opposite. Please reformulate the sentence: “The erosional retreat of the scarp face, caused by the tectonic activity, explain the large, roof-collapsed rock masses found through the stratification.”

Line 25: “local factors” is too generic.

Line 26: “hunted ungulates species” would be more appropriate than “composition of the hunted ungulates”.

Line 30: please indicate the age range and the sedimentary ensemble for 15-19 layers

Line 31: the same for 7-14 layers.

Lines 30-31: Why is reported the faunal assemblage of 15-19 and 7-14 and there is no information for units 20-25 in the abstract? Please provide a homogeneous presentation of results in the abstract following the chronological order of the layers.

Lines 17-37: Generally, as announced in the title, we should expect an emphasis of the sedimentary processes results in the abstract.

Lines 42-98: As exposed in the General comment-A, this part should belong to a “Context of the study” sub-paragraph.

Line 114: “excavation unit” would be more appropriate.

Line 130: please refers to the three excavated areas illustration

Line 136: « Twenty undisturbed sedimentary samples….”

Line 137: “simple extraction” is too generic, please add: “ without the use of kubiena boxes or plaster bands”.

Line 226: “carbonate crust”

Lines 267-271: Why such disturbance is not indicated in the interpretative drawing?

Line 284: “randomly” would be more appropriate than “chaotically”

Lines 323: which basal layer?

Line 338: Fig. 15b

Lines 365-367: Be careful, authigenic gypsum is not always derived from weathering. And please define the type of authigenic single crystals/intergrowth formation following the Stoops 2003 guidelines for help the interpretative argumentation.

Line 394: Can the authors say if phosphate accumulation derived from guano? Are there evidences of biocorrosion features on the cave walls?

Line 419: Bone means archaeological finding corresponding to a specific anatomically part of the skeleton. Consequently: are 263 burnt bones or 263 burnt bone fragments?

Line 435: “anthropogenic inputs (ABC group source)”

Line 439: please provide a reference for the “thermal alteration” interpretation.

Line 513 (Fig. 18): With the aim to help the reading and the understanding of this paragraph, please add in Fig. 18 the name of the different excavation areas.

Line 528: the term “décapage” has been introduced here in the text for the first time, without having been previously defined. Maybe did it correspond to the “excavation unit” defined in Line 114? If yes, please add this term in the methodological section.

Fig. 18 and Fig. 20: It would be helpful if in these illustrations a sub-illustration numbering will be provided for each graphic composing them (e.g. Fig. 18a, 18b, 18c…..), with a related referring between the text and the illustrations.

Lines 576-577: This sentence is not clear. Please rephrase.

Line 634: “chemical weathering processes” would be more appropriate than “rock degradation processes”.

Line 636: « discontinuous cryoclastic events » would be more appropriate than “discontinuous frost action conditions”

Line 658: “roof collapse” or “cave wall collapse”

Line 666: “originated outside” is not necessary here.

Lines 696-698: In this sentence the authors indicate that the stratigraphy is characterized by some sedimentary hiatus. However, in lines 593 and 628 they indicate that the sedimentation is “constant” and “continuous” respectively. I suppose that the lines 593 and 628 are referring to the average sedimentation rate through the time. However, with the aim to avoid any contradictory affirmations, please clarify these sentences.

Line 721: I suggest to change the “…when humans were not around.” affirmation with a more appropriate one (e.g. “during temporary periods of cave abandon”).

Lines 882-883: Here the authors indicate how “Humans were the main contributors to the deposit’s content”. However, in the abstract we read “The accumulation primarily consists of sediment washed in from the slope through gravitational…”. Additionally, the results and the interpretation of the data indicate that the accumulation is principally composed by clastic material (coarse components) of natural origin. Please provide a unique interpretation.

All of these comments are intended to stimulate discussion and a clearer explanation of the interesting aspects dealt with in this article. Their aim is to help producing an even more solid scientific contribution of the geoarchaeological an micromorphological approaches applied on Paleolithic cave contexts in Western Europe.

Faithfully yours,

Carlo Mologni

**********

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: Carlo Mologni

Quaternary African Geology Research Associate

Leverhulme Centre for Human Evolutionary Studies

University of Cambridge

Fitzwilliam street, Cambridge CB2 1QH, UK

E-mail: cm2214@cam.ac.uk

**********

[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.

Formation processes, fire use, and patterns of human occupation across the Middle Palaeolithic (MIS 5a-5b) of Gruta da Oliveira (Almonda karst system, Torres Novas, Portugal)

PONE-D-23-05775R1

Dear Dr. Zilão,

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,

Enza Elena Spinapolice, 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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: After the revision process, Angelucci and colleagues provided the manuscript in a correct shape for a publication in PLOSONE journal.

The manuscript has been modified and improved following the review #2 comments A, B, C and D.

In details: A) the introduction section has been substantially improved by the addition of a boarder scientific context of the study, which gives a strengthen relevance of the article into the scientific community, highlighting also the importance of the geoarchaeological approach into archaeological studies; B) the stratigraphic representations and interpretative drawings has been slightly modified avoiding any stratigraphic misinterpretations of the described layers; C) the choice to circumvent the review suggestion (comment C) has been correctly augmented by the authors Additionally, the ensemble designations have been added to Figure 2C, which clarify the reading of the manuscript (however, the illustration still need the addition of the capital letter “c”); D) the discussion organisation has been structured following the review suggestions. Minor comments have been correctly addressed providing minor revisions or intelligible argumentations.

Finally, I recommend the current revised manuscript version for a publication in PLOSONE journal.

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********