PONE-D-23-22913The shaping of social and symbolic capital during the transition to farming in the Western Mediterranean: archaeological network analyses of pottery decorations and personal ornamentsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Pereira,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Both reviews are positive. The reviewers offer suggestions for improving your manuscript. Please address these comments while making your revisions. Also, please add an explanation for your use of the three centrality indices. Why were these three (out of the many available) chosen? Each of of the centrality indices measures different network properties. How do the results of each centrality index affect your interpretations of the networks?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 09 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,

John P. Hart, 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:

“This work was supported by the French National Research Agency under the IDEX Bordeaux NETAWA Emergence project № ANR-10-IDEX-03-02 ‘Out of the Core: Exploring social NETworks at the dawn of Agriculture in Western Asia 10 000 years ago’, the CNRS Momentum project ‘Symboling and neighboring at the dawn of Agriculture’ and the Grand Programme de Recherche ‘Human Past’ of the University of Bordeaux.”

We note that you have provided funding information that is 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:

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

This work was supported by the French National Research Agency under the IDEX Bordeaux NETAWA Emergence project № ANR-10-IDEX-03-02 ‘Out of the Core: Exploring social NETworks at the dawn of Agriculture in Western Asia 10 000 years ago’ [SR], the CNRS Momentum project ‘Symboling and neighboring at the dawn of Agriculture’ [SR] and the Grand Programme de Recherche ‘Human Past’ of the University of Bordeaux [SR].”

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 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/

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: I Don't Know

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: No

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 paper addresses important questions regarding the nature of Early Neolithic society in western Europe. It presents the existing literature coherently and appears to be very much up to date (though I am not closely familiar with the details). The datasets appear to be well curated and appropriately structured for network analysis. The choice of similarity measures in the latter is appropriate, and draws on their successful use in recent archaeological network analysis. Clearly the authors are familiar with the latest methods and make extensive use of the latest and best work in the field, that by Brughmans and Peeples in particular.

I find the interpretation of the contrasting patterns observed in pottery vs ornaments quite convincing. Here we have an excellent example of how network analysis can help draw out and visualise patterns in complex datasets that might otherwise be elusive. I do have one observation about the interpretation though, particularly as the authors place emphasis on the identities engendered by bead types (at a wide geographic scale) versus those embodied in ceramic decorative techniques (more localised). In his book ‘Connected Communities’, Peeples makes good use of a sociological distinction between relational and categorical identities. This has also been taken up in a recent review on network science and island archaeology by Helen Dawson. Do the authors think there may be such a distinction in operation here, with beads connected to a kind of categorical identity, while pottery decoration is more linked to relational identity? It seems worth exploring, particularly given the expression of this difference in these recent network approaches in archaeology.

In summary, I feel this will be a great case study for those interested in archaeological network applications, that is to say at a methodological level, as well as contributing to a more nuanced understanding of processes of cultural identity and transmission in the European Early Neolithic. I would accept with some minor revisions – a careful read through by a native speaker, to iron out various infelicities in language, for example, lines 66-68:

correct to “Our ability to store information and make it circulate between individuals and groups is a critical behaviour that signals a tipping point in our evolutionary history”

Line 70, correct to:

How did information and knowledge circulate during the past?

Lines 71-2 also need attention;

Line 79: circulation routes, not roads

Line 124: preventing to explore… correct to ‘hindering an exploration of’, or similar

ETC…

Reviewer #2: Here are some thoughts on the main strengths and areas for improvement in this manuscript:

Strengths:

The study addresses an interesting and important research question about how different types of material culture reflect social networks and knowledge transmission in the past.

The methods are sound, using social network analysis and statistical tests to analyze patterns in two distinct archaeological datasets. The large sample size spanning 1500 years seems appropriate for the addressed topic.

The findings reveal distinct structures and transmission dynamics for pottery vs. personal ornaments, highlighting how each operated differently as cultural proxies. This is a novel contribution.

The discussion links the results back to the broader context of cultural transmission and diffusion during the Neolithic transition.

Areas for improvement:

• The abstract provides a nice overview of the study and highlights the key objectives, methods, and findings, but it is way too long. Some suggestions:

- The first sentence refers to the "storage and circulation of information" - consider rephrasing to be more specific about the types of information being studied here (e.g. symbolic, cultural).

- When introducing the two types of data analyzed (pottery decorations and personal ornaments), it may help to briefly explain why these are useful proxies.

- The summary of findings could highlight more clearly that the two types of data revealed different network structures and transmission patterns (the pottery data showed tighter, more regional networks while the ornament data revealed more widespread, persistent associations). There is no need for a full explanation here.

- The last sentence refers to "social and symbolic capital" - this concept could perhaps be introduced more clearly earlier in the abstract so the connection is evident.

- Make sure the tense is consistent throughout (currently it switches between past and present). Using past tense since this is reporting completed research findings may flow better.

• The introduction could provide more background on why the Neolithic transition is significant and how cultural transmission relates to the research questions.

• The description of the methods/analysis is quite brief - more detail on the network measures, statistical tests, etc. would help readers better evaluate the approach.

• The conclusions could connect back more directly to the original research aims and highlight the wider theoretical implications of the findings.

The structure jumps around a bit - the results section intersperses the main findings with more detailed statistics. Consider reorganizing for clarity.

Careful editing could improve clarity and readability throughout - some sections are dense with archaeological terminology.

Overall the study tackles an important research question and provides novel evidence using social network analysis. However, strengthening the background framing, methods reporting, results presentation, and discussion would improve the clarity and impact of the work. With minor changes, this work can make a valuable contribution to the literature on cultural transmission and Neolithic social dynamics.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The shaping of social and symbolic capital during the transition to farming in the Western Mediterranean: archaeological network analyses of pottery decorations and personal ornaments

PONE-D-23-22913R1

Dear Dr. Pereira,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: