PONE-D-24-19948‘But no living man am I’: Bioarchaeological evaluation of the first-known female burial with weapons from the 10th-century-CE Carpathian BasinPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tihanyi,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript entitled 'But no living man am I': Bioarchaeological evaluation of the first-known female burial with weapons from the 10th-century CE Carpathian Basin' presents a case of a female burial with a set of objects referable to weapons together with fairly typical grave goods for a female grave.

The three reviewers welcomed the manuscript with positive comments but also expressed critical issues that need to be addressed by the authors.

In my view, there are two general problems with this contribution:

1.    The authors commendably take a critical approach to the data and emphasise how other explanations may be valid in interpreting the funerary/anthropological/paleopathological context. Converselym, this caution is not matched by the same degree of terminological prudence (as one reviewer notes the presence of an arrowhead and a single bow plate do not constitute sufficient evidence of a female burial with weapons) and the title should be changed, especially by removing the quotation from Tolkien that refers directly to a female warrior character.

2.    The authors should move the lengthy description of genetic analyses to the supplementary information and reduce the lengthy descriptions of possible methodologies (see those for sex determination). At the same time, more effective and less time-consuming techniques for proteomics of dental enamel are ignored, just as teeth are never analysed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 15 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,

Luca Bondioli, 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. We note that Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 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  Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 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/

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[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

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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

Reviewer #3: 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 research paper, entitled "But no living man am I": Bioarchaeological evaluation of the first-known female burial with weapons from the 10th-century CE Carpathian Basin" by Balázs Tihanyi and co-authors presents the bioarchaeological study of a female burial (No 63), discovered within the 10th century CE century CE cemetery of Sárrétudvari-Hízóföld (eastern Hungary).

The tomb yielded a grave goods set that is related to both the female sphere (including ornaments that recurred in other female and subadult tombs at the site) and the male sphere (including weapons and an archery set, which were typical of the Sárrétudvari-Hízóföld male tombs).

The study of this funerary context addresses a complex and contentious topic: the identification of female warrior status in past human societies through the examination of funerary evidence. Furthermore, it considers the question of determining an individual's sex and gender based on biological parameters and material culture.

The authors are fully aware of the critical nature of the topic and I was pleased to see a lengthy paragraph in the introduction to the paper outlining the state of the art of approaches to the study of gender identity and sex determination from an archaeological and bioarchaeological perspective.

In general, this article is well written, the English used is fluid and the approach to the scientific data is critical.

In the presentation of the 'palaeopathological' data and subsequent discussions, the authors adopt a nuanced approach, acknowledging the limitations of the sample and the multi-etiology of the lesions under consideration.

However, I would recommend that the authors consider more explicitly that, with the exception of the fractures at the humeroscapular joint, the observed lesions may be more likely to be related to the mature age of the individual and not to a specific activity associated with.

Moreover, the presence of the archer's set in the tomb (an element that, in a post-processualist perspective, could also be indicative of a 'gift' or the exaltation of a status and not of the deposition of the individual personal objects) is worthy of further consideration.

Additionally, as proposed below, I would like the authors to extend the comparison between the bioarchaeological evidence gathered in this study on individual SH 63 and that available not only on the other individuals with weapons in the tombs, but also on the other female individuals and, in general, for the necropolis as a whole.

This would help to avoid forcing a connection (tombs with weapons) that could produce flawed observations.

From a methodological and analytical perspective, it is my contention that the application of further investigative tools, such as bone histology, would enhance the reliability of the conclusions drawn. This would entail the verification of phenomena such as osteopenia, osteoporosis and bone fragility, and the distinction between these and phenomena of diagenetic bioerosion. Furthermore, radiographic examination of the fracture injuries would enable a more detailed investigation of the state of bone remodelling and healing.

It would also be of interest to ascertain whether there are any differences between the sexes and between individuals of the same sex in terms of nutrition (carbon and nitrogen isotopes) and origin (oxygen and strontium isotopes, for example).

Finally, I would recommend to provide images of a higher quality, as the low resolution of the figures submitted for review made it challenging to accurately compare the lesions described in the text with their photographic documentation.

Below are a few more detailed observations:

lines 47-49: Although the discussion makes it clear that the hypotheses regarding the presence of the fractures and other bone lesions (the latter being of a multi-etiological nature) may be connected either to the activities carried out in life by the woman (use of the bow, horse-riding) or to other idiosyncratic and/or ontological factors, the abstract places too much emphasis on seeking a connection between the evidence found on the remains of the female with weapons and the other armed males in the necropolis. This connection may lead to a flawed interpretation of the data, which has not been compared with the other unarmed individuals in the necropolis, both male and female.

It would be advisable for the authors to consider making this sentence more nuanced.

lines 61-62: When referring to archaeology, I would always use the term gender and not sex.

Additionally, the expression 'classic archaeology' can be confused with 'classical', whereas the authors here refer to 'traditional archaeology'.

lines 66-67: The term 'classical anthropology' should be changed to 'traditional anthropology'.

It would be advisable to revise the sentence, as the methods of traditional anthropology, based on morphology and morphometrics, although less expensive than DNA techniques, are no simpler.

line 84: Please, add to the bibliography on the use of amelogenin in archaeological contexts the article by Lugli and colleagues (2019) ' Enamel peptides reveal the sex of the Late Antique 'Lovers of Modena'.

linee 219-221: Please, provide a more detailed description of the composition of the sample and how the number of males and females has changed since the previous analyses. Out of a total of 162 adults, the previous analyses identified 70 females and 85 males (155 sexually determined and 7 non-determined), while the sex was subsequently confirmed for 52 females and 69 males. Has the number of undetermined people therefore increased?

line 259: Please, provide a rationale for the authors' determination of the percentage of exhibit preservation as greater than 50 per cent, and include a reference.

line 263: As above. Please, add reference.

line 269: Please, add reference for thickness of cranial bones.

line 272: Please, add reference for age estimation based on auricular surface or symphysial surface.

Furthermore, the authors do not discuss the estimation of age at death based on the wear of the occlusal surfaces of the dental enamel. It is unclear why this parameter was not considered for the individual SH63.

lines 357-364: I would move the ethical statement to the appropriate space in the submission form.

linee 404-409: Please, add reference for all the changes in bone anatomy described in this paragraph.

lines 418-422: Please, provide a detailed account of the methodology employed by the authors to distinguish this type of lesion from post-depositional and diagenetic alterations. Additionally, please include a comprehensive bibliography. As previously stated, these types of alterations were deemed worthy of investigation through the analysis of bone cortical histology.

line 541: Please, add the reference to ' by Skoglund and colleagues'.

lines 633-637: Although the authors acknowledge the multi-etiology of the lesions identified on the remains of SH 63, they do not explicitly address the possibility that these lesions may be caused by physiological and degenerative-ontological processes within the skeleton, rather than being strictly related to the lifestyle of the individual. The authors do not provide a precise age at death for the individual, although they do hypothesise osteopenia and osteoporosis (post-reproductive age?).

It would be advisable for the authors to consider the influence of the individual's age at death when expanding this part of the discussion.

This factor should also be considered when comparing injury data from other individuals who were armed. Rather than considering similarities in lifestyle, can we posit that they were compatible individuals in terms of age at death?

Reviewer #2: Well written article on an interesting burial context from 10th century AD Hungary. This article is presented as the ‘first known female burial with weapons (plural). The authors describe the remains in a lot of detail, and are careful to avoid overinterpretation, and clearly indicate where the problems are related to preservation and context. In general I find the description well done and the discussion well rounded, and the conclusion convincing.

I have a few notes for nuances.

As indicated in the article, multiple burials are known from this time period where women were buried accompanied by arrowheads. They have only been interpreted differently by previous scholars (as amulets), due to the lack of additional gear (and likely a different mentality in interpretation in previous times). The presence of the bow plate in combination with the arrowhead and possibly quiver remnants is a good indication that the arrowhead would be a utility item/weapon rather older interpretations for the arrowheads. However, this is the only weapon found in the grave, so it is not plural, and if other graves also contain arrowheads, is it really the first? You could consider rephrasing 'first ...with archery gear'

As the authors themselves also indicate in the discussion, archery equipment is likely to have been part of a toolkit that allowed also for defense, and other indications are also present for women in this society to have been skilled horseriders as there have also been numerous indications of women from this time period being buried with horse gear. Therefore, horse-riding and using bow and arrow is definitely a possible component of the female lifestyle for this time period and population. It is however absolutely the case, as the authors describe, that this seems to be a rarer occasion where the skeletal remains can be interpreted with confidence on being female, and have a combination of a bow plate and an arrowhead. This in combination with the healed pathological descriptions on the women having had an active lifestyle, is to me convincing.

-Small terminology note: The authors refer to the bows of this timeperiod as compound bow. I think this is a translation issue, as it should be composite bow. The term "compound bow" is more commonly used to refer to specific type of modern bow that has a system of pulleys and cables that help in drawing and holding the bowstring. The type of bows discussed in this article should be referred to as "composite bows."

Pathology notes: it is described that ‘the most striking feature’ in the skeleton is the ‘significant lower bone density’. If it is significant that means its measurable, but I don’t see described how this was determined, other than ‘thinning of the bone’ which is quite vague. I am commenting on this because the authors stated themselves that the bone preservation was poor. So how can this be ascertained? It is described that the bone was thin in comparison to other individuals in the series, but no data is reported for the other individuals so it is difficult to say that this is ‘significant’. Specifically in the discussion, it is stated ‘ the presence of osteoporosis…supports the results’. But there are no methods described how osteoporosis is diagnosed. Diagenetic changes in relation to bone loss for investigating age related bone loss, so the clear emphasis on the poor preservation of the bones in relation to sex determination, but no comment on this for bone density, I find a bit concerning.

I am giving a few suggestions where methodologies are described how osteopenia or osteoporosis can be measured and described using quantitative methods.

Brickley, M. B., & Agarwal, S. C. (2003). Techniques for the investigation of age-related bone loss and osteoporosis in archaeological bone. In Bone loss and osteoporosis: an anthropological perspective (pp. 157-172). Boston, MA: Springer US.

Van Spelde, A. M., Schroeder, H., Kjellström, A., & Lidén, K. (2021). Approaches to osteoporosis in paleopathology: How did methodology shape bone loss research?. International Journal of Paleopathology, 33, 245-257.

Interpretation of the trauma: I find there is some conflicting in the way the authors argue what caused the injuries. On the one hand, it is described that the type of injuries are likely/easily related to osteoporosis, which would be related to aging and bone loss. On the other hand, they interpret it as related to an active lifestyle and that the traumas are consistent with injuries observed on individuals buried with weapons and/or horse riding gear. Are these two interpretations not conflicting?

I do appreciate the authors writing from line 633 onwards that the interpretation is problematic and there is no over interpretation indeed.

Final note – I really appreciate how the conclusion is written up, as the authors clearly avoid over interpretation but at the same time indicate their findings clearly. Its interesting that this research is part of a larger study on DNA from the region – I’ll be looking forward to reading more about the results of the larger studies that can improve the context of this find.

Reviewer #3: The paper under review presents a female burial with weapons from the Carpathian Basin. This is a very interesting finding, given extensive discussions regarding the association between sex and gender. The paper, thus, makes a significant contribution and is worthy of publication, though I have some minor recommendations, as follows:

1. In the second paragraph of the Materials and Methods, the authors state that the material from the cemetery under study was initially sexed and then the analyses were repeated using different sexing methods and many of the original sex estimates were confirmed. Were the remaining original males and females deemed of indeterminate sex after re-assessment or were they classified are belonging to the opposite sex from the one originally estimated?

2. The section "Anthropological re-examination of the skeletal remains" is currently too vague; the readers have to check long lists of references to understand what methods the authors used and even then, it is not clear which methods (e.g. for sex estimation) were prioritized over others in cases where different methods produced contradictory results, or how different methods for mechanical stress or pathology were practically implemented in this case give n the partial preservation of the bones (e.g. what proportion of a bone had to be present in order for a condition to be recorded as present/absent?)

3. Why did the authors analyze three different elements (petrous bone, tooth, humerus) for aDNA? As expected, they found that the petrous bone performs much better than the others (which in this case did not work at all), so why engage in additional and unnecessary destructive analyses?

4. In the results of the mechanical stress markers, the authors provide very detailed descriptions of the trauma, entheseal changes and arthritis. However, as a result, the reader gets rather lost. It would be helpful to add a skeleton silhouette marking the joints, entheses and other anatomical areas that manifest signs of mechanical stress (e.g. use red for arthritis, blue for entheseal changes, green for trauma). This will help illustrate the distribution of relevant markers.

Once the above minor issues are addressed/explained, I am happy to see the paper published. It is an original and well contextualized study.

**********

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

Reviewer #3: 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.

‘But no living man am I’: Bioarchaeological evaluation of the first-known female burial with weapon from the 10th-century-CE Carpathian Basin

PONE-D-24-19948R1

Dear Dr. Tihanyi,

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,

Luca Bondioli, 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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #2: Dear authors,

Thanks for addressing my comments - I think the changes made have improved the quality and credibility of case made. Regarding the requests for edits that the authors decided not to make, I think the authors explained their rationale well. Although I still hold the opinion that some of the suggested edits would have benefitted the manuscript (e.g. suggested changes to the title, and the section on osteoporosis and described lesions), I do see the side of the authors for their choice, and it not an issue to me. I do not have further comments to add.

Best of luck with the finalization of the manuscript and the continuation of the project.

Reviewer #3: The authors have addressed all of my comments, as well as those of the other reviewers (as far as I can judge), thus I recommend the paper for publication.

**********

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 #2: Yes: Simone Anna Maria Lemmers

Reviewer #3: No

**********