PONE-D-24-55044Buca della Iena and Grotta del Capriolo: new chronological, lithic, and faunal analyses of two late Mousterian sites in Central ItalyPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gennai,

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 Mar 21 2025 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. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

3. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported human remain 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.

4. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The research is funded by the Horizon Europe scheme (GA no. 101061427 Acronym: MobiliTy) awarded to Jacopo Gennai and Elisabetta Starnini. Dates of Buca del Tasso and one date of Buca della Iena was funded by the Center Museo di Storia Naturale of the University of Pisa awarded to Damiano Marchi.”

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.

6. We note that Figures 1, 2, 4, and 18 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, 4, and 18 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/

7. We note that Figures 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14in 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 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14 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: 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: The paper by Gennai et al, deals with the reappraisal of the studies on the materials from two Late Mousterian sites, Buca della Iena e Grotta del Capriolo, located in Tuscany and excavated mainly in the ‘70s.

Although the paper has the merit of reanalyzing with a more modern approach two otherwise neglected sites, putting them in the context of coeval sites in NW Italy, and this is of course always welcome, possibly its contribution to “enhance our understanding of late Neanderthal settlement in the northwestern Italian peninsula and provide insights into their demise” (lines 21-22 in the abstract) is not so significant because on one side (Buca della Iena) we are dealing mainly with a hyaena den with just some evidence of Neanderthal occupation and on the other (Grotta del Capriolo) we only have a very small sample that in the end, with all its limitations, is not so informative; therefore maybe the authors should not explicitly aim at such high goals, that cannot be achieved with the information from these sites.

At the beginning of the Abstract maybe some indication at least to the Region where the sites are located should be added.

On line 22 the reference about “NW Italian peninsula” (similar indication also on line 32) can be understood only after reading the paper, but here, just reading the abstract, it is a bit confusing since the title is mentioning only “central Italy”. Try to modify the phrase, adding for example something about the fact that the sites will be considered within the context of NW Italian sites.

Line 38 “..the end of their kind…”, maybe better “ …their disappearance…” (it applies to both Neanderthals and Mousterian industries).

Lines 50-56. The Uluzzian, placed here between the two Homo sapiens dispersals, needs some connection with previous and subsequent phrases, explaining why it is mentioned there, besides simple chronology.

Line 61. “Raw material procurement in these contexts …”, although there are the references, please add information about the name and/ or location of such contexts.

Line 91 Maybe better “..new radiocarbon dates” instead of “new radiocarbon data”.

Line 144 Lithic Analysis. The fauna paragraph (see later) explains that only the sample from reliable excavation areas has been considered. Here there should be a similar explicit statement saying that in this case materials from both reliable and unreliable excavation areas will be considered and compared.

From Line 153 Fauna Analysis. As far as the faunal sample from Buca della Iena is concerned, there is absolutely no mention about the previous restudy of the assemblage by Stiner, published in her 1994 book, but considered also in others of her papers as an example of a hyaena den, therefore also these references should be taken into account and discussed explicitly also comparing information.

Besides the total number of specimens involved also the size of the two samples should be mentioned, especially because sample sizes are very different.

Info about methodologies used for assessing age at death and age categories should be added.

Lines 165-166 cut marks are one type of butchery marks, so maybe just use the latter (similar occurrences are present also in other parts of the paper, so check them too).

Line 168 it is “… gnawing by rodents and small carnivores…” and not “…of rodents…”

Table 2 and Table 3. In both tables there are several lines with numbers but no categories. Maybe I am missing something, but in any case, the meaning of such numbers is not clear. Totals of the categories (e.g., Blade, Core) should be at least plural (or explicitly “Total Blades, Total Cores) and maybe placed at the bottom and not at the top of the corresponding list. Check numbers in the tables, for example in Table 2 the stratigraphically unreliable “Blade” (total) should be 8 and not 7, and actually the grand total in the last column is correctly 11 and not 10. For better clarity please add blade/flake/core/etc. wherever only the adjective is used.

Figures 6-8 and 12-14, for an easier reading, maybe add to the captions the reference to artifact categories at least by group, not leaving all the details to the supplementary materials.

The fact that at both sites “Complete artefacts are the most frequent” is related to “modern” selection during excavation and previous studies, or could it be ancient? Please discuss and comment on this. Is debris completely missing or was it not considered in this study.

Lines 235-236. The reference to positive and negative peaks is not correct since there are no values below 0 in the graph of figure 11. Therefore, it is better to use “high” and “low”. (same in line 280).

In order to assess artifact density how was the cubic meter calculated?

In the captions of Figs 9-10 and 15-16. Better phrase “The frequency is reported as percentage using only stratigraphically reliable artefacts”.

For both sites it would be better to add a summary table with the total number of artifacts by level in order to understand better the statistical significance of the percentages reported in the graphs.

In figures 11 and 17 the term levels instead of spits that is employed in all the other lithic graphs is used, while the fauna graphs for Buca della Iena use Level ….please unify. Mention somewhere in the first part that no lithics were found in layer 15 (it only appears much later in the paper).

Line 265 Assessing the homogeneity of an assemblage by comparing two samples of very different sizes (99 vs. 440) maybe is not so statistically valid.

Line 266 Table 5 is probably Table 4.

Line 321 Please add some comments and possibly a graph with the distribution of the faunal remains by layer.

In the Fauna text and tables please correct Rhinoceratidae into Rhinocerotidae

Line 332 Please specify in the methods which animals (at these sites) fall in the three size categories.

In tables 4 and 6 the line “Identified specimens” repeats the same information of the line just above it (Total Identified specimens), so maybe remove it. Does the “Indeterminate bones” category include also vertebrae and ribs or not? In case it does not include them maybe move the line just above the final total.

Line 333 Since according to taxonomic identification U. spelaeus is the most frequent species in almost all the levels, discuss more extensively later in the paper why Buca della Iena should be a hyaena den as the name of the site itself implies and not a bear den.

Lines 341-343. This part about the age at death should be expanded in particular providing more detail by species, especially the most common ones, focusing on both carnivores (probably mostly of natural accumulation) and ungulates (result of carnivore and human accumulation?), and mentioning possible peculiarities for more rare taxa.

Lines 347-349 Here and in Fig. 19 it makes no sense to lump together all the modifications, it is better to divide them at least by group (e.g., human, carnivore, other natural)

Line 350 As mentioned before, please discuss more extensively somewhere why the carnivore traces observed are attributed only to hyaena and not to bear.

Line 377 Please specify in the discussion hypotheses about why the faunal assemblage is so poorly preserved at Capriolo.

There are some problems with the numbering of the Supporting information material in the main text (e.g., Iena and Capriolo SI fauna tables are reversed and mixed) and some of the references to the SI tables along the main text are missing. Please check and add.

Line 388 soil pH and manganese staining are two different things, please correct here and in the relevant SI tables.

Line 436 is missing the specific reference to the relevant Supplementary Information file.

Line 629 “smaller range” of what? Smaller geographical range? Please specify.

Lines 677-680 Although I may agree about the similarities in the use of local resources, I do not see any real evidence from the data presented in this paper about the high mobility at Buca della Iena and Grotta del Capriolo. Buca della Iena may have been just used ephemerally because most of the time it was a carnivore den, but this does not imply necessarily high mobility ( and of course the data for Capriolo are not enough to infer much about mobility). Therefore, support better your hypothesis of high mobility at these sites.

Although it is difficult to distinguish between faunal remains accumulated by carnivores and those accumulated by humans (but maybe shed antlers are likely just carnivore accumulation), is there any evidence of seasonal use of Buca della Iena, and are there any differences between layers in this aspect? Are there any available seasonality data for Grotta del Capriolo?

In the discussion it would be interesting to have a commented graph with the distribution of both lithics and faunal remains by layer, adding also information on human and carnivore damage on the bones and see how they fit (or not) in order to infer variations along the sequence in the type of occupation by humans and carnivores.

Reviewer #2: The article is undoubtedly essential for understanding the latest Neanderthal evidence during MIS 3 in an area of northern Tuscany, which serves as a bridge between the Ligurian final contexts and those of southern Tuscany, thus filling a gap in the occupation of Homo neanderthalensis in this area of the Italian Peninsula. The study of contexts discovered and documented in periods when archaeological techniques were not yet fully developed, such as the sites investigated for this article, like Buca della Iena and Grotta del Capriolo, is of fundamental importance. The technological analysis of the lithic industry and the faunal analysis have been carried out according to the classic and well-established criteria that underpin modern studies of these materials, all enriched by chronological analyses that allow these contexts to be framed within a sufficiently short time window, thus enabling the evaluation of Neanderthal occupation in the area. However, the occupation of the two sites remains unclear, as the two caves were likely shared by alternating occupations of Homo neanderthalensis, Crocuta crocuta, and Ursus spelaeus. Perhaps the dynamics of occupation at these two sites should be better explained, as has been done for Grotta Guattari at Circeo. Given the age of these contexts and the scarce documentation, I am uncertain whether such an explanation is entirely feasible in detail. The images proposed are suitable for the article; my only critique pertains to the images related to the lithic industry, which, in my opinion, could be enhanced with the addition of diacritical schematic arrows to highlight the directions of detachment on the flakes and cores.

**********

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.

Buca della Iena and Grotta del Capriolo: new chronological, lithic, and faunal analyses of two late Mousterian sites in Central Italy

PONE-D-24-55044R1

Dear Dr. Gennai,

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,

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

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: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

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: (No Response)

**********

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

**********