PONE-D-24-21063Fingerprinting conflict: A comparative model with applications to archaeological and historical dataPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Wichmann,

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 attached reviews offer several important observations and questions. In light of this feedback, revisions to the manuscript are necessary. Please carefully address all comments, particularly those from Reviewer 1. Given the length of the paper and the extensive literature on violence, I recommend refraining from adding new references to your bibliography. However, please ensure full compliance with all other comments from Reviewer 2.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 31 2024 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,

Stefanos Gimatzidis, 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 financial disclosure:

“This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy (grant EXC 2150 390870439).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that Figures 9 and 10 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 Figures 9 and 10 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.

4. 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: Partly

**********

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: 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: Review

The article consists of several parts that build on each other in a comprehensible way. The first part explains why a new model was developed to describe conflicts in the past. The authors rightly criticize the fact that the discussion has increasingly focused on war and violence in the last years. At least from the perspective of archaeology, I can confirm this. They propose a model in which de-escalation and escalation are examined in order to comparatively investigate (pre-)historical conflict processes. Indicators for de-escalation and escalation are presented as examples and categorized into five levels of a pyramid.

The second part includes ten case studies. They are described on the basis of indicators of de-escalation and escalation, and the archaeological and historical sources are presented. As the archaeological and historical evidence of the individual case studies is very different, the indicators are also heterogeneous. The authors are aware of this and characterize their approach as "generous": "Nor do we attempt to heavily restrict the assignment of different indicators to different pyramid cells" (lines 1928-29). For each case study, the indicators are listed along an approximate timeline and each indicator is assigned to a specific level of the pyramid. The case studies are clearly presented. Only the case study 'trade policies' in Rome stands out. Here the focus is exclusively on the economic sphere and the economic policies are described in lines 1207-1208 as a potential for conflict. It is thus limited to only one aspect of Roman society in the period of the Early Republic and Late Empire, whereas all other case studies attempt to take into account sources from various areas of (pre-)historical communities and processes.

The section with the case studies is purely descriptive but provides an interesting approach to how completely different times and regions can be described using the model of de-escalation and escalation. But is this model also suitable as an analytical tool? The authors address this question in the third and final part of the article. They evaluate the indicators in combination with the levels in the pyramid using several statistical methods. The result of the summary statistics is the 'fingerprinting' they also refer to in the title. It is shown in Figure 21 and is easy to understand except for the sometimes difficult to distinguish gray shades.

In connection with 'fingerprinting', the article takes a temporal factor into account, but only to make the levels in the pyramid statistically comparable. The temporal dimension is my main criticism of this manuscript, as it is not discussed critically enough. The individual case studies show various processes or events that are classified as de-escalating or escalating. However, in most cases it is not clear whether and to what extent de-escalating and escalating indicators are connected in time or even represent a reaction within particular processes. In the case study of the Volga-Germans, for example, indicators of escalation can be found up to 1875, while there are no indicators of de-escalation in the same period. Does this mean that no de-escalation measures were taken until well into the 19th century? Generally, the question arises how and to which extent certain indicators are connected in time and may have led to an increase/decrease in escalation and de-escalation. Direct correlations can certainly only ever be assumed - especially in prehistoric times. But I think this is an important point that the authors should discuss critically because such considerations are particularly interesting for the interpretation of the following statistical analyses. Fig. 22 shows the result of the analysis of the weighted means, but here too the indicators for de-escalation and escalation were evaluated in the respective case studies, always taking the entire period into account.

A revision of Figure 23 ‘Spearman correlation’ is advisable, as 'Schleswig-Holstein' is missing. Secondly, the four 'ideal types' in the same figure should be added graphically to make it easier to understand. The following conclusion is derived from this analysis: "different combinations of gradients in escalation or de-escalation exist, but we do not observe a combination of strongly represented lower escalation levels and strongly represented higher levels of escalation, suggesting the hypothesis that the safest way to avoid high levels of escalation like outbreaks of violence may be to focus on basic (lower) levels of de-escalation like cooperation and regulation" (lines 1996-1999). I consider this to be problematic, as the temporal and causal relationships for the case studies have not been discussed in detail or are often not clear from the archaeological and historical sources.

This is of course a problem that is inherent to the sources and cannot be solved. But I would therefore advise the authors to comment in detail on the temporality of the indicators. The aim stated in the abstract is 'to identify typical patterns in conflict situations'. They are still formulated very abstractly in this manuscript, however convincing the 'finger printing' in the case studies may be.

Some suggestions for corrections:

Keywords: delete ‘war’ and ‘peace’, replace with ‚escalation‘ and ‚de-escalation’

line 49: ‘Finally we offer a Conclusion’, please contribute a little bit more to this sentence.

line 238: ‘but it also be imply …’ Delete ‘be’

line 268: two times ‘representing’

Lanzenspitzen, better ‘spearheads’ (please check)

line 426: ‘burial constructions’, not ‘custom’ when you are writing about burial mounds

Case study: Poland: in the text you discuss cooking pits as gathering places, but you do not show them as indicators of de-escalation in Fig. 7?

line 604: ‘the subsistence strategy changed’ instead of ‘a changed subsistence strategy emerged’

Case study: Hedeby: Please use the same terms in the text and in Fig. 15. In Fig. 15 two times ‘signal fires’. The first time it is given as an indicator of escalation, but without a symbol

Case study: Rus’: Fig. 16 – Why are the events of ‘Byzantine military services’ not given in one line according to the time line?

line 1482-38 and Fig. 16: familiar missionary language: should it be assigned only descalating, according to the text?

Reviewer #2: I provided detailed comments to the paper in a word file I uploaded. The review opens with a general comment on the paper. My primary concern is the simplicity of the model since the studied social phenomenon is more complex. I then provide an example demonstrating my point and continue with detailed comments to improve the quality of the paper.

**********

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.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments of the Reviewer.docx

Fingerprinting conflict: A comparative model with applications to archaeological and historical data

PONE-D-24-21063R1

Dear Dr. Wichmann,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Stefanos Gimatzidis, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: