Chelonians from the Middle Palaeolithic Site of Mealhada (Coimbra, Portugal): An Update

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read with very interest the manuscript of I. Boneta, A. Pérez-García and C. Liesau von Lettow-Vorbeck “Turtles from Middle Palaeolithic site of Mealhada (Coimbra, Portugal): an update”.

The main objectives of the work are:

            -Review the taxonomy of the chelonian remains present at the site, previously classified as Testudo (Agrionemys) hermanni and Mauremys leprosa.

            -Analyze the potential presence of anthropogenic marks on the remains.

 This systematic, archaeozoological and taphonomic study of the chelonians from Mealhada is a work of quality and of maximum interest for the scientific community. The work presents a correct structure and proper of a scientific article. The methodology is updated. The text is clear and concise, and the figures and tables are well elaborated. The used bibliography is adapted and updated.

 The main contribution of this work is the taxonomic review of the chelonian remains from this Middle Palaeolithic archaeological site. The first author has compiled (doctoral thesis) a set of distinguishing characters between species (bone plates and postcranial bones) that will be especially useful in all future chelonian works. This corpus is applied to the set studied, so all taxonomic attributions are impeccable. The taxonomic review of the set allows confirming the presence of the Iberian pond turtle (Mauremys leprosa) and identifies a new one, the European pond turtle (Emys orbicularis). This is important, because in the Iberian Peninsula there are not many records of freshwater turtles from archaeological contexts of the Lower and Middle Paleolithic. On the other hand, it also confirms the presence of a tortoise (land) that, although it does not identify at the species level because it is single remains, cannot be other than the Mediterranean tortoise (Chersine/Testudo hermanni). This would be the oldest evidence of the joint presence of the three species of chelonians in Portugal, although we must not forget the existing problems regarding the possible stratigraphic mixtures of materials during the excavation at the end of the 19th century.

 This manuscript constitutes a contribution to the literature. However, I have several suggestions of improvements that the authors may should consider.

 The taphonomic analysis identifies possible cut marks of anthropic origin on some bone plates (inner area) which may respond to butchery processing (defleshing). However, it is not ruled out that a part of these marks is related to trampling. In the case of light marks, it is difficult to ascertain their anthropic origin. In any case, its association with fire marks present on some plates (roasting) could confirm its anthropic origin.

Most of the Middle Paleolithic chelonians assemblages with anthropic evidence (cut marks, fractures, fire marks) appear on plates and bones of the Mediterranean tortoise (Testudo/Chersine hermanni). For example, in Cova del Bolomor or Abric del Pastor. The appearance of these marks on terrapins is less frequent, which it is especially important and tells us about the interest of Neanderthals in this type of resource. This question could be developed in more detail by the authors. Do the authors think that Neanderthals had a greater preference for capturing tortoises? Were they easier to catch than terrapins?

 About the fractures, it is the weakest part of the taphonomic study since they are only quantified but nothing is said about their origin (fresh or postdepositional type) or if they are associated with notches or other types of marks. I think this part could be improved.

 The term turtle is used in English in a generic way, grouping both water and land turtles. But, it can create confusion since turtles normally refers to fresh-water terrapin, and in the sample analyzed have been identified two species of fresh-water terrapin (Mauremys and Emys), but also one of (land) tortoise (Testudinidae indet.). I would use the term chelonian instead of turtle for the title and abstract.

 References:

Line 427: remove Sanchís and include Sanchis.

Line 446: remove pastor and include Pastor.

 This work is a very interesting paper that certainly deserves publication with minor changes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Boneta Jimenez et al. present a main taxonomic study, which also includes a part of Taphonomy, of the turtle assemblage from the Middle Palaeolithic site of Mealhada (Coimbra, central Portugal), which was discovered at the end of the 19th century, and chronologically framed within the interglacial Riss-Würm (ca. 120 ka). The manuscript has allowed the authors to identify remains attributed to three Iberian turtle taxa: Testudinidae indet., Mauremys leprosa, and Emys orbicularis, the last one being recognized for the first time in this site. At the level of taxonomic identification I have nothing to contribute or comment, but I would like to emphasize that the main weak point that I see in the manuscript is the taphonomic part. In my opinion, it is an study that deserves publication, but first it needs to solve some points related to the Introduction and taphonomic analysis. See my comments below.

The Abstract begins directly with the presentation of the archaeological site, however, I think it is more appropriate to start the Abstract with a few lines on the state-of-the-art that place the reader within the issue, and highlight why it is important to carry out a study of turtles such as the one described. This also applies to the Introduction. The authors should first present a context and a general problem to frame their study, not only at a paleontological level but also at a taphonomic level. And it is precisely the debate at the taphonomic level that I miss the most. The consumption of small animals in the pre-Upper Palaeolithic contexts is a highly debated topic. For some authors, the systematic obtaining of these animals is only part of the subsistence strategies linked to the anatomically modern Humans. Nevertheless, small animal remains (rabbits, birds, tortoises, turtles, etc.) are also found at many Middle Palaeolithic sites, but are often interpreted as the result of natural deaths and/or the activities of raptors and carnivores. In the case of chelonian specimens, their exploitation features prominently in prey choice models because the low handling costs of these reptiles make up for their small body size. They represent in addition an important combination of edible and non-edible resources that are easy to collect if available. So, I suggest the authors to include some paragraphs that briefly describe this debate, since there is a part of the study that describes anthropogenic damage (cut marks).

Following this line, the methods hardly include the description and definition of the main taphonomic alterations, they do not even define the cut marks and their potential confusion with other bone alterations such as trampling striations (see Domínguez-Rodrigo and Juana, 2009). The authors should define how cut marks are characterized, and especially the types they mention, such as incisions and scratches (see for example, Stiner, 1994, 2005; Blasco, 2008; Thompson, 2010; Nabais, 2012; Thompson and Henshilwood, 2014a, 2014b; Basco et al., 2016). I see the authors mention burning damage as well, however these are not defined in the Methods. Some authors define burning degrees based on coloration and other structural alterations associated with fire (e.g., fissures) and nothing is said on this in this study (see for example, Stiner et al., 1995; Blasco et al., 2016).

On the other hand, the study does not include whether other bone alterations were observed, such as those generated by carnivores or other agents. If only anthropogenic marks have been searched, as the authors mention in the Methods, it is not possible to make an adequate assessment of the origin of the chelonians in the site. I also wonder if percussion marks (e.g., Pickering and Egeland, 2006; Blasco et al., 2016) or even marks generated by carnivores (e.g., Binford, 1981; Fisher, 1995) have been registered.

At the organizational level, the presentation of taphonomic data is mentioned in the Discussion, and it would be most appropriate to include a section on Taphonomy in the Results section.

However, the main problem I see with the manuscript is the graphical presentation of the cut marks results in the Figure 4. The marks that appear in this figure could easily be confused with striations generated by trampling or dragging sediment. This Figure is a very weak point in the manuscript that must be addressed before publication, since keeping the Figure 4 as it is invalidates the interpretation of the possible use of turtles by hominids at the site. So I advise authors to incorporate better quality images in which the cut marks are clearly identified (without a doubt). For conducting this they may need to use other types of microscopes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Boneta Jiménez and colleagues' paper presents a review of several turtle remains from the Portuguese Middle Palaeolithic site of Mealhada. These materials were recovered during old excavations. Three Iberian turtle taxa were identified, namely Testudinidae indet., Mauremys leprosa and Emys orbicularis. The authors confirm previous Mauremys leprosa identifications justifying them, but also identified Emys orbicularis for the first time. The taphonomical analysis resulted in the identification of anthropic alterations (cutmarks, burnt remains) related to the processing of these animals.

Introduction: the topic under analysis is described. A succinct history of the research of the Mealhada site is given providing a necessary framework for this site’s pieces of evidence, but also focusing on the turtles’ previous data. The authors state that the aim of the study is to review the remains “to confirm or update the taxonomic identification and to perform an archaeozoological and taphonomical traditional analysis” (lines 78-79).

Materials and Methods: more information on the materials under study, the methodology of analysis, and the graphical representation of remains is presented. The authors state that standard methodologies were selected.

Results: the results of the analysis are presented, including the taxonomical and anatomical descriptions.

Discussion: an interesting discussion regarding systematics (6.1) is given, with an important contextualization of these species within the broader Iberian Peninsula record. An archaeozoological discussion (6.2) focuses on the problems regarding the context of the provenance of these remains and discusses the taphonomic data, followed by a short palaeoenvironmental discussion (6.3).

Conclusions: the main conclusions are summed up and succinctly presented, while also advising some caution due to contextual problems.

Even if problems regarding context are relevant, the manuscript is scientifically sound. The tables and figures are informative and well-prepared, and the bibliography is updated and shows a strong knowledge of the topics being discussed.

Some modifications or clarifications are needed:

Please, add a paragraph at the beginning of the Introduction with a broader scope instead of focusing on the Mealhada site right from the start.

The “fragmentation” refers to remains that are complete/incomplete, or was there a more complete methodology for the assessment of preservation/survival?

Regarding cutmarks, why were they not analyzed using more powerful equipment such as ESEM to confirm some doubts, especially on the “scratches”? The low resolution of the Figure did not allow for a proper understanding. Also, please change Table 2 to the Results section. Several of these older assemblages from Museums were subjected to intensive cleaning that could result in striae on the surface of remains but these are normally easy to identify. The authors state that some equifinality with trampling marks is possible. I would argue that considering the characteristics and location of the striae that you have identified, at least the majority are clearly cutmarks. Trampling marks wouldn’t have an “anatomical sense” regarding location or they tend to appear widespread on surfaces; so, not concentrated on areas expected to have cutmarks related to butchery, as is the case presented.

Concerning burning damage, please be more descriptive since this indicator is useful to understand the taphonomic history of the sample. Is the burning damage widespread on the surface of these elements or only observable on some portions of them? What degree did it reach? If possible please also add this information to Table 2.

Other minor suggestions/corrections:

2. Anatomical Abbreviations could be added to the Materials and Methods section.

3. Institutional abbreviation. Delete this section and renumber the following ones. According to Diversity norms, the first time that you use an abbreviation it should be followed by the full description; hence, the MG abbreviation could be described in line 58.

Lines 92-93. Please delete the sentence, you’re repeating this several times in the article.

Lines 173-176. Please delete the “placeholder text”.

Line 227. Italicise Emys orbicularis.

Line 253-257. These are repeated from the Results.

Line 363. contribuição

Line 369. cronologia

This paper fits the Diversity scope and standards, especially if one considers that it was submitted to the special issue on Fossil Reptiles and Associated Faunal Record. Considering all of this, I suggest that the paper be accepted after minor revisions. Congratulations on this interesting research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

First, thanks to the authors for considering my suggestions for change. I appreciate the effort they have made to modify the text. I think the manuscript is very close to being accepted for publication; but, there are still 3 points that need to be solved.

1. My recommendation in the first review round was to include, at the beginning of the Abstract, a few lines on the state-of-the-art and highlight why it is important to carry out a study of turtles such as the one described. The authors have only changed the Introduction section and I think that the manuscript would also benefit from this change in the Abstract.

2. The most critical point for me continues to be the taphonomic part. The Figure 4, although modified, still leaves doubts about the identification of the striations. The microscope used for the photographs is not suitable and causes confusion ─the marks could still be easily confused with striations generated by trampling or dragging sediment.

In my opinion, the Figure 4 is a very weak point in the manuscript and must be addressed mandatory before publication. I think that keeping the Figure 4 as it is, invalidates the interpretation of the possible use of turtles by hominids at the site. In an attempt to clear up possible doubts about marks, the authors write: “… the location of the identified marks may discard the trampling origin as they are not generally spread on plate surfaces and reinforce the anthropic origin” . This explanation is not enough because:

- striatiations by trampling can appear on any type of surface on the plate bone depending on the intensity of friction between sediment and bones. Thus, the location is not a sufficient argument to prove that the marks are anthropic in origin; we also need the marks to meet specific characteristics to say with certainty that they are cut marks.

- the reader expert in taphonomy cannot assess with the Figure 4 images if the striations are generated by trampling or result from human action during the butchery process.

A priori I trust the identification that the authors have made of the bone modifications, but the Figure 4 only raises doubts about the marks. If the authors are unable to provide better quality images in which the cut marks are clearly identified (without a doubt), I advise removing the figure.

3. In the section “6.2. Archaeozoological discussion”, the authors describe marks on the dorsal side of some plastron bones. This requires additional explanation, since the marks that are not on the ventral side of the shell (thus, dorsal side) would not be directly related to anthropic consumption, but could be related to a non-nutritional objective.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx