PONE-D-22-28990The king’s spice cabinet – Plant remains from Gribshunden, a 15th century royal shipwreck in the Baltic SeaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Larsson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Both reviewers make suggestions for improving the manuscript. Please consider these while making your revisions, and pay particular attention for the need of additional references for factual statements. Text citation numbers need to be in brackets rather than parentheses. Please be sure to check the references cited section to make sure it is consistent with the journal's style requirements. Also please provide accession or catalog numbers for the specimens if available.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported 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 archaeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

3. 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.

4. We note that Figures 1 and 2 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:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 2 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].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: 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

**********

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: This paper present important evidence that should be published, however, I think on occasion the text can be repetitive and so I suggest the authors go through and check whether text is being repeated and either condense or remove. For example, I think that the section 'The Baltic preservative environment and Northern European maritime archaeobotanical comparanda' (98) although useful is repeated in more detail and with more references in the discussion, making this paper very long while not adding any new information. I would suggest removing this and just commenting in the introduction that these sites exist and that you will be looking at them more in detail in the discussion. The section on preservation (100-112) could then go into the intro to explain the site.

I also feel that the authors should double check where they reference and where they don’t. Periodically I wanted to see where they got that information from and there didn’t seem to be a reference e.g. around 778 (the archival sources).

Table two I think needs some more information. First, how many sites are we talking about? You could have frequency rather than presence absence, because we don’t know how rare the finds are from this table. The figures look great, although Figure 2 could be clearer as it was a bit pixelated in my version.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript presented for the review addresses an interesting aspect of maritime archaeobotany. It should be stressed that analysis of plant remains from underwater sites are among the less frequently described, especially in the context of Baltic region, which is related to the nature of the site. Some of the plant findings may be overlooked at the stage of collecting samples, and some of them are damaged due to inadequate storage or conservation processes. In this context, very careful work is essential, as it means - undamaged samples of the material and its thorough preparation for research. This made it possible to add more information, this time botanical, about the history of Gribshunden, a 15th century royal shipwreck. The very interesting element of the article is the comparison of the obtained results with archaeobotanical and historical data from not only ship wrecks, but also from Baltic towns.

A huge contribution of the article is the presentation of archaeobotanical data, which are generally not recorded at terrestrial archaeological sites. First of all I mean the finds of saffron, the presence of which in ancient towns is generally known only on the basis of historical sources

Generally, the submitted article is very well suitable for publication in PlosOne as the data set and the available information is impressive, the research methods are a good example of interdisciplinary cooperation and the historical background for data interpretation is comprehensively enrolled by the article. I recommend the manuscript to be accepted after minor revision.

In detail I want to suggest the following changes or I have some questions. I did not add these comments to the text because it seems to me that what she presented below is understandable.

1. The overall structure of the article is correct, but in my opinion, the Abstract should be shortened. I think that too much historical data was presented here, which is important, but not quite in this part of the article. I would put more emphasis on pointing out the uniqueness of the archaeobotanical finds described in the article.

2. Introduction is also rather lengthy. It contains a general background on the history of the ship and archaeobotanical study. The research problem is only presented at the end of this long part. I suggest a small reorganization and focusing on the main research problem.

3. Materials and methods - According to the Authors, the botanical material was preserved uncharred. Could any part of the plant remains be partially mineralized?

4. The chapter The Baltic preservative environment and Northern European maritime archaeobotanical comparanda it seems like a good part for discussion. I suggest to move it.

5. Table 1. List of economic plant species… – I believe that taxa such as Rubus spp. should be in the fruit category. Nuts should be a separate category.

6. Fig. 1. I would prefer that the map shows the main cities within the Baltic Sea where archaeobotanical research was conducted and the results of which were used to create the article.

7. I wonder if it's not worth commenting on the lack of figs (Ficus carica) in the materials from the wreck. Fig remains are one of the most commonly found traces of exotic fruit in materials from mediaeval towns. According to the authors, is her absence from the list due to the possibility of being overlooked or is she simply not on the ship? Which would probably be strange considering the presence of other luxury products.

8. Flax (Linum usitatissimum) it could also mean a kind of medicinal plant.

9. Henban (Hyoscyamus niger) represents ruderal weeds. Of course, it is also a very interesting plant which is used in traditional herbal medicine. I would be very careful with a story about the plant's role on a royal ship based on a single find, which could be totally accidental. Yes, Authors wrote “If future excavation on the wreck produces greater numbers of henbane seeds, its purpose may become clear”, but I suggest shortening this paragraph.

10. Copy editing of the English is needed as some phrases seem to be too long and too complex (hard to read at times…).

**********

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

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

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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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

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

The king’s spice cabinet – Plant remains from Gribshunden, a 15th century royal shipwreck in the Baltic Sea

PONE-D-22-28990R1

Dear Dr. Larsson,

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

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

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

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

Kind regards,

John P. Hart, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments: