Zooarchaeology of the Late Bronze Age Fortified Settlements in Lithuania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors

An interesting manuscript that needs improvement. My suggestions: the title is way too long, please shorten it. The abstract needs to be rewritten, it is written in too general terms. The same goes for the Introduction section - please expand this section with data from the available literature. The Material and Methods section should be combined into one section, and the examples given, such as age determination based on teeth, fusion of epiphyses with bones or molar measurements, should be shown in a diagram and included in the main article or in the supplementary materials. The Discussion section is interesting, please write on what basis you think the metacarpals shown bear post-inflammatory marks and what their etiology might be - Figure 6 is unreadable.

Regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a fairly standard zooarchaeological report on the animal remains from two sites in eastern Lithuania. The merit lies in the unusually good dating and recovery of deposits, which presents reliable data for the LBA of the region that has previously been missing due to ambiguous dating and poor recovery strategies.

This is generally a standard text that is easy to read and provides raw data (though two tables are missing, but I assume they provide fragment counts) that will be invaluable for future comparisons and synthetic reviews. Most of my comments are made on the pdf (attached), but some major points include:

1. Methods are fine but rather dated.

2. Don’t routinely repeat quantities in the text that are given in tables. Similarly be careful not to repeat results in the discussion.

3. Make sure you fully explore other explanations of the data where they could be challenged.

4. The only addition I would like to see would be a better consideration of what the findings could mean for cultural/ landscape differences in the LBA between regions though I acknowledge this would require rather more effort.

5. It is fairly well written and would benefit from a thorough read through, though I appreciate the authors are writing in a non-native language.

Generally I have no problem with this paper and would be happy to see it published.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper by V. Micelicaitė and colleagues aims to evaluate previously proposed dietary and subsistence patterns of the Lithuanian Late Bronze Age. For that, the authors focus on the recently collected zooarchaeological assemblages from the fortified settlements of Garniai 1 and Mineikiškės. They conclude that these communities were focusing on small ungulate husbandry and that hunting and fishing declined significantly after the Early Bronze Age.

In the Introduction, the authors give an introductory perspective on the topic under analysis, namely palaeoconomical information on Lithuania. Then, several problems with previous zooarchaeological knowledge are presented, with methodological and recovery bias being emphasized. The authors state that they will provide more insight into the subsistence and diet of Late Bronze Age inland areas of the Eastern Baltic region by analysing the zooarchaeological assemblage of these two sites (lines 61-64). The Materials and Methods succinctly present the sites under analysis and the methodologies applied in this study. The Results section gives a small description of both sites’ assemblages separating mammals, fish, and molluscs. The Discussion is divided into Animal Husbandry, Hunting, fishing and gathering, and Butchering, and presents the discussion of important aspects of the faunal assemblages (but see below). Finally, Conclusions briefly sum up the evidence and discussion. 

I must address some comments to the authors for the different parts of this manuscript:

· The Methods and Results sections are not extensive enough. The authors basically only show anatomical and taxonomical classification, the estimate of age-at-death (based on bone and tooth data), and MNI quantification. Also, please include the methodologies for the estimate of fish size in the Methods section.

· The Results Tables 2, 3, and 10, of utmost importance to data presentation and discussion, are absent in the pdf.

· No information from taphonomical analysis (e.g., cutmarks, burning damage, anthropic breakage) is presented in the Results section, but in the Discussion, some information that is of utmost importance for the understanding of these sites is mentioned. This suggests that further analyses were made but not mentioned in the Methodology and Results. The citation of an article in press [54], to which I cannot have access, might need clarification in the sense that the absence of taphonomical data in the manuscript under review might be related to this publication. Nowadays, the presentation of a faunal assemblage without taphonomical information is (at least) not common, especially in Q1-indexed journals.

· In the Discussion, several graphs (Figures 3, 4, 5, and 7) are presented but basically have the same information from the different small tables from the Results section, although now in % instead of absolute values. The majority of the information from the mentioned tables is also given in the text from the Results. Do we really need this repetition of information in text, tables, and figures?

· This paper needs important proofreading of English and clarification of several sentences (e.g., lines 47-50).

Other minor comments/changes:

· Table 1 – Indicate what “vnt.” means

· Line 83 – bovid charred

· Line 84 – Hordeum vulgare

· Line 100 – minimum number of individuals

· Line 107 – Do you mean [29,30,31,32]?

· Line 140, 151, 189, 191 – I assume you refer to the lower M1 and P3.

· Lines 198-202 – Delete. It is a repetition of lines 192-197.

· Line 244 – shell

· Line 269 – Delete one “in”

· Line 301 – Check “to the for the”

· Line 330 – Check “in the in”

· Line 346 – ir?

· Line 443 – Check “that and the higher”

The manuscript has several problems that need to be addressed in both formal and contextual spheres. The Discussion is very interesting but has a debt that does not relate to the Results presented. Several tables are mentioned but not given in the pdf; at the same time, I do not see the need for numerous small tables, and later the same information is presented in different graphs. Hence, I do not believe the figures/tables are informative, well-prepared, or adapted to the paper’s content. The bibliography seems well-elaborated and updated, but some changes that need to be made in this manuscript will eventually imply that this is further enriched.

The Discussion section presents new data (e.g., cutmarks, burn damage) from the assemblages under analysis that was previously absent. This information and the broader discussion presented by the authors is a clear demonstration that the assemblage and problem under analysis are of interest. Due to that, I will not advise the rejection of this paper. I will still state that more information needs to be given to the reader in order for this paper to be accepted for consideration in the journal Heritage. Altogether, even if the scope is adequate to some extent, the current state of this paper makes it not fit the standards for a research paper in Heritage.

 

I want to address some further comments to the authors. You use Silver [25] for the registration of epiphyseal fusion and teeth eruption time. For future studies, I would advise the consideration of recent and less problematic studies that are more informative on these topics (e.g., see Zeder or Lemoine’s studies for caprine and swine, among others). I found your paper of interest, especially the Discussion section where more information is presented and the relevance of these sites beyond the typical “taxonomical list” is addressed. If the majority of the aspects I raised are considered and modifications made, this will be a publishable and interesting article. The assemblages have a considerable size and are definitely noteworthy. I am looking forward to these changes and the eventual publication of these assemblages.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors followed the reviewer's suggestions. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Following revisions, the paper by Micelicaitė and colleagues was resubmitted with substantial improvements. Criticism by myself and other reviewers was considered and modifications were made. I still maintain some doubts regarding the lack of taphonomic information which would allow for a very interesting discussion. However, considering that the paper’s focus is zooarchaeological, I advise its acceptance.

During proofreading, please check for small mistakes such as:

Line 89: “as well as”

Line 241: “identified”

Line 389 “very”

Line 441: “identified”

 

Congratulations on your work.