Dog Consumption at Tell Zirāʿa: Is It a “Cultural Marker” for the “Sea Peoples”?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

see attached. I am uploading a version with track changes so that the reviewer can see what was done. Thank you for the very  helpful advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper. Given that you have submitted it to an international journal, not everyone reading it will be a regional expert keyed into the various culture-historical periods. So, on the first mention of each period and subperiod you need to provide estimated date ranges. Alternatively you can provide a table that lists the periods and subperiods with date ranges.

I am concerned with the representativeness of the faunal bone assemblages from each context. While you provide overall contexts of dog bones with butchery evidenced within each period/subperiod, you do not provide any quantitative assessment as to whether the assemblages are comparable. Is it possible, for example, to calculate the NISP/cubic meter of excavated soil? There may be other calculations that you can think of that will allow you and the readers to assess if the assemblages are reasonably comparable.

In two places you indicate that the quantity of dog bone is statistically insignificant. It is not clear what you mean by this. Did you perform a statistical analysis of some kind? If so you need to specify the test and the results. If not and you are using the phrase casually, I think it better that you choose another descriptor for the sample sizes.

The English is fine.

Author Response

see attached. I am uploading a version with track changes so that the reviewer can see what was done. Thank you for the very  helpful advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This an excellent study that shows that hypotheses of dog consumption characteristic of Philistines may be tested as a "cultural marker" in the archaeological record. The authors address well the numbers of overall faunal finds, individual dog percentages, and those with cut marks suggesting consumption, for several different time periods, and considering the context of the finds. This makes this an important study to be published.

In the Conclusion on page 31, there is an important mathematical error: 10 / 1800 years should equal 0.56/century, and 8 / 600 years should equal 1.33/century (not 1.8 and .75).

In addition, my one criticism is statistical, I feel that the following statement at the end of the paragraph "Something changes most certainly" is going too far statistically, based on a total of just 18 samples.

Overall, very well written and proofread, with just a few minor corrections needed:

p. 1, Introduction line 3: add a period after "etc"

p. 24, lines 7-8: change "81,5 %" to "81.5%", and "3,7 %" to "3.7%"

p. 32, 2nd line of 2nd paragraph: delete "of" so that it reads "...depositional contexts for each of he butchered..."

Author Response

see attached. I am uploading a version with track changes so that the reviewer can see what was done. Thank you for the very  helpful advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We try to answer all your questions and issues in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf