PONE-D-24-34740South Arabia’s prehistoric monument landscape shows social resilience to climate changePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. McCorriston,

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 Feb 28 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,

Shai Gordin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

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 the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. [Details of individual tomb excavations and multiple radiocarbon dates were published previously in McCorriston 2023 Persistent Pastoralism (book). The published details serve as foundational information for the broader, collective analysis developed here, which relies on unpublished survey data and original analysis. While excavations of most individual tombs have therefore previously appeared, the prior publication--including vital stratigraphic and construction details--underpins classification of monument types and contexts for radiocarbon dates in this manuscript. Such detail is far too lengthy (book) to include in PLOS ONE but serves as essential transparency for assertions on construction details, classifications, and dating in the PLOS ONE submission]. Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well.

5. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to a repository upon acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors deposit their data before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire minimal dataset will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption.

6. We note that there is identifying data in the Supporting Information file <Description of Monument Types.xlsx and S-T3 dates_tableV2_ OMAN MONUMENTS.xlsx>. Due to the inclusion of these potentially identifying data, we have removed this file from your file inventory. Prior to sharing human research participant data, authors should consult with an ethics committee to ensure data are shared in accordance with participant consent and all applicable local laws.

Data sharing should never compromise participant privacy. It is therefore not appropriate to publicly share personally identifiable data on human research participants. The following are examples of data that should not be shared:

-Name, initials, physical address

-Ages more specific than whole numbers

-Internet protocol (IP) address

-Specific dates (birth dates, death dates, examination dates, etc.)

-Contact information such as phone number or email address

-Location data

-ID numbers that seem specific (long numbers, include initials, titled “Hospital ID”) rather than random (small numbers in numerical order)

Data that are not directly identifying may also be inappropriate to share, as in combination they can become identifying. For example, data collected from a small group of participants, vulnerable populations, or private groups should not be shared if they involve indirect identifiers (such as sex, ethnicity, location, etc.) that may risk the identification of study participants.

Additional guidance on preparing raw data for publication can be found in our Data Policy (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-human-research-participant-data-and-other-sensitive-data ) and in the following article: http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long .

Please remove or anonymize all personal information (Name,Date), ensure that the data shared are in accordance with participant consent, and re-upload a fully anonymized data set. Please note that spreadsheet columns with personal information must be removed and not hidden as all hidden columns will appear in the published file.

7. We note that Figures 3 and 6 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 3 and 6 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/

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: Yes

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: McCorriston and colleagues ms titled “South Arabia’s prehistoric monument landscape show social resilience to climate change” is an interesting addition to scholarly bibliography deserving further discussion. Built upon previous investigation by several of the authors, this paper presents results of original unpublished research: a multivariate analysis of 371 archaeological monuments from the Dhofar region of Oman. The main aim is to assess environmental and cultural factors influence on the location of different type of sites and their construction in a long durée perspective. The authors conclude that older monuments were built by larger groups during the Holocene Humid periods, but posterior aridification led to changes in the groups’ size resulting in changes from episodic to accretion construction techniques.

The Introduction gives an overview of the topics addressed and the authors state that they want to assess how measurable changes in megalithic monuments location and construction relate to social resilience of shifting demographics in the arid landscape of Dhofar region. Under the Materials and methods section, the authors present information concerning “Monument survey methods”, “Field documentation methods”, “Environmental data analysis and machine learning”, “Bootstrap aggregating”, “Environmental data analysis and regularized multinomial logistic regression”, “Collocation analysis”, “Technological and labor data analysis”. These sub-sections are clear and well-presented showing an important multivariate analysis accompanied by proper statistical testing. The Results are presented according to:

i) environmental factors influencing monument placement, showing spatial patterning (near to springs, low topographic positions, near to routes, and to higher vegetation biomass), some patterning of type of monuments in relation to environmental differences, and labour input as total stone volume;

ii) spatiotemporal relationships between monument, with clusters near water sources and different spatial relations according to type of monuments with interesting collocation results;

iii) technological and labour requirements for monument construction, lacking significant difference in total stone volume depending on the size of the largest stone, but with single-episode constructions being correlated with larger volume and accretive constructions with smaller volumes. Some interesting chronological patterns were observed.

Finally, the Discussion starts with a critic on the lack of holistic perspectives in the study of desert monuments, and a discussion on the relevance of these type of monuments in past pastoralist societies. The authors emphasize that the Platforms >> HCT shift (respectively, near to and further from springs) coincide with major aridification, which is related to subsistence changes (cattle < goat). It is discussed that prior monument placement was considered mostly to construct monuments far (and not closer) to preceding sites, and that changes in volume and size of stones indicates different investment in construction. It is also argued that HCT would relate to smaller mobile groups as a consequence of increasing aridity, triliths with increasingly smaller dispersed groups in a hyper-aridity environment, and Boat graves to an increased monsoon moisture after an arid period – these changes would represent new socio-cultural strategies in the dead-living relational world.

The ms makes a good case for the existence of associations between climatic and environmental factors but also social aspects. All data presented is accompanied by robust statistical tests and the main conclusions are properly presented and based on evidence or appropriate reasoning. Used bibliography is complete and updated. The figures and tables accompanying the text and as supplementary material are well prepared and informative, and data is freely available in tDAR. Overall, this ms is publishable, highly citable and scientific sound. Congratulations to the authors on this very interesting study.

On a minor note, please uniformize the use of “BP” and “ya” between the abstract, text and table 2. Finally, I would like to make a few comments and suggestions whose only objective is to contribute to making this ms clearer and stronger:

• “Monument survey methods” - it is not completely clear to the reader what is new concerning this sub-section and what was already published in previous papers of the team.

• Chronology - it should not deeply impact the argumentation, but I advise adding a more adequate and in-depth discussion of chronology in this paper since this is a critical aspect directly involved in the discussion and conclusions. The tight timeline sequence for the different types of monuments needs clarification because broader chronologies are not completely in accordance if this ms is compared to other studies (e.g., McCorriston et al. 2014). It seems that only a small sample of absolute dates exist and this should be discussed concerning its possible impact/bias on the chronological aspects of the ms. For example: developing a bit more on the SCABs presumed relative chronology attribution because none of your sample (n = 23) is dated; clarify the chronology and reuse of some of these monuments (e.g., HCT reuse during the 3rd and 2nd millennium BP; triliths dated construction or reuse) and the influence this might have on your results discussion. Studies in other regions show multi-period use of SCABS and I wonder if these multi-periods “episodic” use of monuments is as relevant in the samples presented in this study.

• Construction techniques – Supplementary material shows that all platform and HCT are episodic, one SCAB is accretive and the rest episodic, and all trilith and boat are accretive. Is the differentiation between “episodic” and “accretive” monuments clear cut (e.g. lines 136-138 / 316-328)? Specially concerning episodic monuments, it is not uncommon for large late prehistory megalithic sites (e.g., Western Europe alignments and cromlechs but also dolmens) to show multi-period modifications/additions and long separated uses. I understand what is the authors reasoning, but if there can be issues in properly understanding building (and use) phases it is better to mention that somewhere and be clear in relation to which were the variables considered to separate episodic from accretive constructions beyond monument typology (if any) in the text itself.

• Monuments description and sample size - which of the monuments under analysis were subject to archaeological excavations? I suggest clarifying this issue and eventually adding this information in the supplementary data (e.g., ASOM Monument Data.xls), as well as a small paragraph discussing the sample size for the different monument types because large differences exist among types.

• General aspects – several recent papers look at multi-proxies to discuss the impact of aridification phasis in late prehistoric populations, including “First Monument builders”, for example in terms of subsistence changes, among others. I think the paper would benefit from inserting some of this information on the Introduction/Discussion appealing to a wider audience and enriching the ms. Adding some broader information on the study area archaeological record dynamics that accompany the monuments and subsistence changes discussed, if existing, would also improve the ms.

• Conclusion - the ms lacks a short conclusion summarizing the main results/interpretations and possibly future research directions.

Reviewer #2: Review: South Arabia’s Prehistoric Monument Landscape Shows Social Resilience to Climate Change

Introduction

The manuscript explores the role of prehistoric monuments (although I prefer not to use the term “prehistory” as it can be pejorative to other communities who have history but lacks the means to write about them) in South Arabia, particularly in the Dhofar region of Oman, as adaptive social strategies to mitigate the effects of climate change. The authors utilize an interdisciplinary approach, combining archaeological evidence, GIS-based environmental analysis, and machine learning techniques to analyze 371 monuments and their environmental and cultural contexts over a span of 7,000 years. This study is highly innovative and contributes to our understanding of human-environment interactions in arid regions. While the manuscript is robust and demonstrates methodological rigor, certain aspects can be improved to enhance clarity, accessibility, and broader applicability.

The manuscript’s primary strength lies in its integration of diverse methodologies to examine the relationship between environmental change and human adaptation. By employing multivariate analysis and machine learning techniques alongside archaeological field data, the authors construct a comprehensive framework that links monument distribution and construction to socio-environmental factors. Additionally, the manuscript’s temporal scope provides a long-term perspective on the role of monuments in illustrating social resilience. The use of a robust dataset comprising 371 monuments, along with environmental variables such as proximity to springs, vegetation cover, and fog density, adds empirical weight to the conclusions. Moreover, the authors’ insights into labor investment and construction technology offer valuable contributions to the field of archaeology and resilience studies.

COMMENTS ON THE CONTENT

Clarity in Writing and Structure (revise only if targeting a general audience)

One significant challenge is the manuscript’s dense and technical writing style, which may limit its accessibility to a broader audience, including non-specialist readers. For instance, the methods section, while comprehensive, uses jargon and assumes familiarity with machine learning concepts and GIS-based analyses. Simplification and clearer explanations are necessary to make the manuscript more approachable.

To address this, the authors should consider restructuring the manuscript to include brief explanations of technical terms and methodologies. For example, while the use of bootstrap aggregating in machine learning is commendable, a layperson explanation of its purpose and advantages—such as reducing variance and avoiding overfitting—would greatly enhance reader comprehension. Similarly, the concept of accretive versus episodic construction is critical to the study’s findings but is introduced with minimal context. Providing more background on how these terms apply to archaeological practices would aid understanding.

Methodological Details

Although the manuscript demonstrates methodological rigor, certain details are either missing or underexplained, making it difficult for other researchers to reproduce the study. For instance, the criteria for categorizing monuments into episodic and accretive constructions are not fully articulated. Readers need a clearer understanding of how these classifications were determined based on archaeological evidence.

Moreover, the parameters used in regularized logistic regression and other statistical techniques require further justification. Why were specific thresholds or values chosen, and how do they align with previous studies? For example, the authors mention using a one-standard-error rule to select the optimal model for logistic regression but do not explain why this approach was preferred over alternatives. Expanding on these choices would strengthen the methodological transparency of the study.

Environmental and Cultural Context

While the manuscript effectively addresses environmental influences on monument placement, the cultural and social dimensions of these structures are underexplored. Monuments are described primarily as markers of social collectivity and resilience, but their deeper cultural significance is not sufficiently elaborated. How did these structures function within the social networks of ancient pastoralists? What cultural or symbolic meanings might they have conveyed?

To expand the discussion, the authors could incorporate ethnographic analogs or comparisons with other regions where pastoralist communities use monuments to establish social ties or mark territorial boundaries (perhaps in another paper). Such parallels would provide a more holistic understanding of the interplay between environment, culture, and resilience. Additionally, the authors could explore the potential spiritual or ritualistic functions of these monuments, as these aspects often play a critical role in their construction and placement.

Statistical Analysis and Visualizations

The presentation of statistical results is another area that requires attention. The figures and tables, while informative, are dense and challenging to interpret. For instance, Figure 5, which presents the coefficients from regularized logistic regression, is not easily understandable without additional context or explanation. Readers unfamiliar with this statistical technique may struggle to grasp its implications.

To improve accessibility, the authors should consider simplifying the visualizations or providing annotated versions that guide readers through the key findings. Partial dependence plots and other outputs could be accompanied by textual explanations that summarize the main takeaways. Additionally, including a brief tutorial or supplementary material on how these statistical techniques were implemented would be a valuable resource for readers.

Theoretical Framework

The concept of “social resilience” is central to the manuscript but is not clearly defined. While the authors cite resilience theory, they do not sufficiently engage with its broader theoretical underpinnings. What specific dimensions of resilience are being addressed, and how do they relate to the archaeological record? More importantly, what are there any parallels in other parts of the world?

A more explicit connection to resilience frameworks, such as coping, adaptive, and transformative capacities, would ground the study’s findings in a larger theoretical context. For example, the authors could discuss how the construction of monuments reflects adaptive strategies to environmental stressors or how these structures facilitated transformative social changes over millennia.

Collocation Analysis

The results of the collocation analysis, which show minimal spatial overlap between successive monument types, challenge the initial hypothesis that later monuments would cluster near earlier ones. This finding is intriguing but underexplored in the discussion. Why might monument builders have avoided earlier sites? Could this reflect shifts in settlement patterns, changes in social organization, or symbolic preferences for new locations?

The authors might want expand their interpretation of these results, considering alternative explanations and their broader implications for understanding monument landscapes. Additionally, they could discuss how these patterns compare to monument-building practices in other arid regions, thereby situating their findings within a global context.

Global Relevance

The issues identified in this manuscript—such as the interplay between environmental constraints, cultural practices, and technological adaptations—are not unique to South Arabia. Similar challenges and opportunities can be observed in monument landscapes worldwide. For example:

• Sub-Saharan Africa: Megalithic monuments, such as those in Ethiopia (Gedeo landscapes, perhaps), also reflect social strategies for resilience in arid and semi-arid environments. Like the Dhofar monuments, these structures often mark significant social or ritual spaces and are located in environmentally strategic areas.

• The Andes, South America: In regions such as the Peruvian highlands, ancient agricultural terraces and ritual spaces demonstrate how past societies adapted to environmental stressors. These structures also reflect communal labor investments and social networks, paralleling the episodic construction of Dhofar’s platforms.

• Atlas and Anti-Atlas Mountains (Morocco): The terraced agricultural landscapes in Morocco’s Atlas Mountains provide a striking example of how past and present societies have managed water and soil resources in challenging environments. These terraces, much like the Dhofar monuments, represent significant communal labor investments and illustrate the interplay between environmental adaptation and social organization.

By framing the findings in a comparative context, the authors could enhance the manuscript’s relevance to global discussions about resilience and human adaptation. Highlighting these parallels would also underscore the universality of certain adaptive strategies while respecting the unique cultural contexts of each region.

RECOMMENDATION

The manuscript presents a groundbreaking study that highlights the role of monuments as adaptive strategies for social resilience in arid environments. Its multidisciplinary approach and robust dataset make significant contributions to the fields of archaeology and resilience studies. However, revisions are needed to enhance clarity, methodological transparency, and theoretical depth. Moreover, positioning the findings within a global comparative framework would enrich the study’s contributions and demonstrate its broader applicability.

By addressing these issues, the authors can ensure that their findings reach a broader audience and have a lasting impact on both archaeological research and interdisciplinary studies of human-environment interactions. The manuscript is a strong candidate for publication in PLOS ONE following minor revisions.

**********

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.

South Arabia’s prehistoric monument landscape shows social resilience to climate change

PONE-D-24-34740R1

Dear Dr. McCorriston,

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,

Shai Gordin, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing my initial comments. This ms looks good and would be a great contribution to archaeological studies on climate change.

**********

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

**********