Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Aug 23;18(8):e0289378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289378

The casts of Pompeii: Post-depositional methodological insights

Llorenç Alapont 1, Gianni Gallello 1,*, Marcos Martinón-Torres 2, Massimo Osanna 3, Valeria Amoretti 4, Simon Chenery 5, Mirco Ramacciotti 1,6, José Luis Jiménez 1, Ángel Morales Rubio 6, M Luisa Cervera 6, Agustín Pastor 6
Editor: Olga Spekker7
PMCID: PMC10446210  PMID: 37610984

Abstract

The casts of Pompeii bear witness to the people who died during the Vesuvius 79 AD eruption. However, studies on the cause of death of these victims have not been conclusive. A previous important step is the understanding of the post-depositional processes and the impact of the plaster in bones, two issues that have not been previously evaluated. Here we report on the anthropological and the first chemical data obtained from the study of six casts from Porta Nola area and one from Terme Suburbane. A non-invasive chemical analysis by portable X-ray fluorescence was employed for the first time on these casts of Pompeii to determine the elemental composition of the bones and the plaster. Elemental profiles were determined providing important data that cross-referenced with anthropological and stratigraphic results, are clearly helpful in the reconstruction of the perimortem and post-mortem events concerning the history of these individuals. The comparative analyses carried out on the bone casts and other collections from burned bones of the necropolis of Porta Nola in Pompeii and Rome Sepolcreto Ostiense, and buried bones from Valencia (Spain), reveal the extent of high temperature alteration and post-depositional plaster contamination. These factors make bioarchaeological analyses difficult but still allow us to support asphyxia as the likely cause of death.

Introduction

The casts from Pompeii (Naples, Italy) represent one of the most important remains of the Vesuvian town; they are the expression of a dramatic event that made Pompeii an exceptional site, providing a focus of Roman culture studies [1]. Obtained in the 1870s by pouring plaster in the voids left by bodies that had decomposed under calcified volcanic ash, the casts typically contain skeletal remains embedded in a plaster cast that retains the body shape. These remains are for the most part human, giving a realistic and moving image of the people who lived and died in Pompeii, victims of the Vesuvian eruption of 79 AD. Several works have focused on identifying the cause of death of these individuals. The main contrasting hypotheses developed were either asphyxia [2, 3] or body evaporation supported by Petrone et al. (2018) [4], and dehydration, suggested by Martyn et al. (2020) [5]. Both studies were based on the Herculaneum population [4, 5]. Here we report the first data from a multidisciplinary study carried out on seven Pompeii cast remains: six fugitives from Porta Nola area (Fig 1) and one from Terme Suburbane, cross-referencing the obtained anthropological and chemical results with studies [2, 6, 7] of stratigraphic level that show the pyroclastic succession and the sequential events to better define the cause of death of the studied Pompeii individuals.

Fig 1. Location of casts from Porta Nola.

Fig 1

(a) Original position of some of the studied Porta Nola casts (#57, #62, #58, #54, #55). (b) Map of Pompeii. (c) Detail of casts discovery area (I: Burials of Praetorians; II: Modern Masonries; III: Tomb of Obellius Firmus; IV: Porta Nola; V: Leakpan; VI: Tomb of Esquilia Polla; VII: Anonymous Tomb).

Petrone et al. studied several skeletons found in the waterfront chambers, also called fornici, along the Herculaneum beach where some individuals looked for shelter during the eruption. Those authors propose that these individuals died instantly during later pyroclastic flows due to the vaporization of body fluids and demonstrate an “incomplete pugilistic attitude” from temperatures of more than 408°C [4]. On the other hand, studies such as the one of Martyn et al., also carried out on some Herculaneum fornici bone remains, suggested that the pyroclastic surges were below 400°C and provoked a non-instantaneous dehydration, as indicated by the muscle contraction, "boxer position", and the preservation of collagen in the studied skeletal remains [5]. A death from asphyxia caused by ashes was also supported by different studies carried out on individuals from Pompeii [2, 3]. To confirm this last hypothesis, recently, some authors calculated the pyroclastic density current. Described as “a ground hugging gas-particle flows” it was originated from the eruption column collapse or the fall of the lava dome. Then it spread out in Pompeii at low temperature over about 17 min. This combined with ash particles (smaller than 0.001 mm), gave enough time to cause death by asphyxia at Pompeii. As suggested by Dellino et al. (2021) [2], the human exposure to fine ash, even at a low particle concentration, can be tolerated for only a few minutes. This research conducted a bioarchaeological approach on seven Pompeii casts. Furthermore for the first time non-invasive chemical analysis by portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF) was carried out on these casts to determine the elemental composition in the bones and the plaster. This analytical technique has been already employed in skeletal remains to clarify taphonomic and post-depositional issues [8, 9] and in osteoarchaeological and forensic studies to identify individuals and pathologies [1014].

Methodology

Test samples

Six casts (#57, #62, #58, #64, #54, #55) from Porta Nola area and one from Terme Suburbane (#34), were selected for anthropological and multielemental analysis. The methodological approach developed in the casts analysis included the pXRF measurements of pre-eruption cremated bones, excavated by one of us (L.A.), from the same area (Porta Nola), where the casts were found, to compare the results and control in situ contamination and post-depositional factors related to the elemental profile. These remains were compared with cremated bones from another Roman period necropolis (also excavated by L.A.) located in Rome. Finally, these two groups were compared with buried bones from a Spanish Islamic necropolis. In all the cases, the surface of the cast bones, and the other cremated and buried bones were previously cleaned by employing a wet cloth with distilled water to avoid dust contamination. In total, 20 cremated bone fragments from Pompeii (CR. Po.) from different urns excavated in the necropolis of Porta Nola (fieldworks campaigns from 2015 to 2017) [15], 24 cremated bone fragments (CR. Ro.) from the Necropolis of Rome Sepolcreto Ostiense (fieldwork campaign 2018) [16] and 11 buried bone fragments from the Islamic necropolis of Colata (fieldworks campaign 2003) [17], located in the heart of the Vall d’Albaida (Montaverner, Valencia, Spain) (BR. Al.) were sampled.

Anthropological study

The biological sex was estimated employing the pelvis [18, 19], the structural differences of the skulls [20], the measurement of the diameter of the femoral head and humerus [21], the length of the glenoid cavity of the scapula [20] and measurements of the calcaneus using a discriminant function [22]. Furthermore a probabilistic sex diagnosis method [23], based on metric data was applied and a composite morphological method taking into account five morphological criteria on the coxal bone [24] was employed. To differentiate between young and older adults the degree of fusion of the medial ossification centre of the clavicle and the degree of fusion of the iliac crest to the iliac bone [25] were taken into account. Further assessment of age-at-death were based on the remodelling degree of both the auricular surface of the coxal bone [26] and pubic symphysis [27]. Anatomic variation, degenerative and osteoarticular pathologies, traumas, oral pathologies including dental wear were observed according to the methods proposed by Mann and Murphy [28] and Bass [20].

pXRF

The pXRF was employed to identify the elemental composition of the analysed bones and plaster. X-ray fluorescence spectra were obtained in situ by applying the device, a portable S1Titan X-ray fluorescence spectrometer by Bruker (Kennewick, Washington, USA) equipped with a Rhodium X-ray tube and X-Flash® SDD detector on the surface of the measured points of the casts and reference collections. The manufacturer provided Geochem-trace programme was employed to quantitatively determine the elemental content of Al, Si, K, Ca, P, S, Cl, Ti, Mn, Fe, Zn, Sr and Pb. The analytical technique employed in this work was adequately validated, employing standard reference and sample control materials, in order to obtain accurate results. The certified material Bone Ash NIST 1400 was used as a standard reference to evaluate the accuracy of the obtained data for K, Ca, P, Fe, Zn, Sr and Pb. To control the reliability of the other elements (Al, Si, Cl, Ti and Mn), the same matrix (bone) was employed. All the samples including the certified material were scanned for one minute. Each sample was analysed three times and the average concentrations were taken into account. The quality control of the results demonstrated that all the obtained elemental results have less than 5% error compared to the certified results.

Data processing and statistics

Data analysis was performed in R (version: 4.1.2) [29]. Principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to explore the dataset. PCA was performed in order to observe similarities among buried, cremated and cast bones, and plaster samples. For this, the classes including the casts (Cast), plaster (Plaster), and the reference collections such as the cremated bones from Pompeii (CR. Pompeii) and Rome (CR. Rome) and buried bones from the Islamic necropolis of Vall d’Albaida (BR. Albaida) have been created to run the statistical analyses. All the analysed elements (Al, Si, K, Ca, P, S, Cl, Ti, Mn, Fe, Zn, Sr and Pb), and the ratios Ca/P and Sr/Ca were used as variables. Data were autoscaled prior to the PCA. Finally, plots were made for Al, Si, K, Ca, P, S, Cl, Ti, Mn, Fe, Zn, Sr and Pb concentrations and Ca/P and Sr/Ca ratios. The ratio Ca/P have been used to control the integrity of the mineral component of bone [30]. The fresh bone has an estimated Ca/P ratio ranging between 2.17 and 2.31 [31]. Sr/Ca in archaeological bone, is highly susceptible to diagenesis [32]. In this work both ratios have been specifically employed to evaluate post-depositional processes comparing reference collections of burned and buried bones with bone casts and plaster.

The following R packages were used for data analysis and visualisation: factoextra (version: 1.0.7) [33] and ggplot2 (version: 3.3.5) [34].

Results

Bioarchaeological analysis on casts

The cast #57 (Fig 2) is an adult individual (25–30 years old). He was found supine and has some flexed or lopsided anatomical areas. The skull is inclined to the right and the chest is straight, presenting its coxofemoral joint slightly rotated towards its medial aspect.

Fig 2. Cast #57 and pXRF measuring points (1–6).

Fig 2

The cast #62 (Fig 3) is an adult individual (25–30 years old) identified as female, found interlaced to the left hand-forearm and holding a rope that would go over the left shoulder carrying a sack or bag. The original position of this individual was prone with the head resting on the face.

Fig 3. Cast #62 and pXRF measuring points (1–6).

Fig 3

The cast #58 (Fig 4) is an adult individual (20–25 years old) identified as a male. This was divided into 7 parts before its restoration. This cast appears to preserve the morphology of the right ear.

Fig 4. Cast #58 and pXRF measuring points (1–6).

Fig 4

The cast #64 (Fig 5) is a male adult individual between 45 and 50 years old, very altered and remodelled in an old restoration, especially in the zygomatic-facial area. This individual was originally found supine, with the upper extremities separated from the body.

Fig 5. Cast #64 and pXRF measuring points (1–6).

Fig 5

The cast #54 (Fig 6) was identified as a female adult (35–40 years). This individual was found in a left lateral decubitus position, with the head resting on the left temporal parietal, the right arm with the elbow fully flexed and the forearm next to the chest.

Fig 6. Cast #54 and pXRF measuring points (1–6).

Fig 6

The cast #55 (Fig 7) belongs to a male adult between 25 and 30 years old, originally in supine position, with the upper extremities separated from the body, and the forearms and hands on the head.

Fig 7. Cast #55 and pXRF measuring points (1–6).

Fig 7

The cast #34 (Fig 8) from Terme Suburbane is a male adult individual (20–25 years old). The original position of the individual was right lateral decubitus. The right arm had the elbow flexed, separated from the body. The legs were parallel following the longitudinal axis of the body.

Fig 8. Cast #34 and pXRF measuring points (1–6).

Fig 8

The detailed description of the studied casts can be found in S1 File.

In addition, the paleopathological data showed interesting features in some of the studied individuals. The cast #57 shows dental wear of the incisors and canines of the upper jaw, product of its axial shaft, and erosion of the lower incisors. Individual #58 also presents hypoplasia in the left lateral incisor and dental wear on the lower left lateral incisor, and also an enthesophyte of the left patella while cast #64 presents osteoarthritis in the right knee and in the medial condyle of left femur. The radiological examination also revealed traumatic perimortem fractures in the tibia and fibula of the right leg of the cast #58 and in the right humerus of the cast #55. These fractures appear to have occurred close to the time of death of the individuals. No obvious pathological conditions in the individuals #62 and #54 from Porta Nola and #34 from Terme Suburbane, were observed.

pXRF analysis

Multielement analysis results (see the measuring points in Figs 28) are shown in the S2 File and can be visualized in the S3 File. Excepting Ca and P and their ratios that are reported in the text (Figs 9 and 10).

Fig 9. Ca and P concentrations for all the analysed materials.

Fig 9

Cast bones (C57, C62, C58, C34, C64, C54, C55) and plaster (P57, P62, P58, P34, P64, P54, P55), cremated bones from Pompeii (CR. Po.) and Rome (CR. Ro.), and buried bones from the Islamic necropolis of Vall d’ Albaida (BR. Al.). In the graph, for each cast the kind of bone is indicated: cranium (CR), parietal (PR), occipital (OC), frontal (FR), maxilla (MX), mandibular (MD), tooth (TT), radius (RD), peroneal bone (PR), tibia (TB), femur (FM). •: mean; ♦: one standard deviation.

Fig 10. Ca/P ratio (a) Diagram for all the analyzed materials.

Fig 10

(b) Diagram excluding plaster (in the range up to 20) and Sr/Ca for all the analysed materials (c). Cast bones (C57, C62, C58, C34, C64, C54, C55) and plaster (P57, P62, P58, P34, P64, P54, P55), cremated bones from Pompeii (CR. Po.) and Rome (CR. Ro.) and buried bones from the Islamic necropolis of Vall d’Albaida (BR. Al.). In the graph for each cast (Cast) the kind of bone is indicated: cranium (CR), parietal (PR), occipital (OC), frontal (FR), maxilla (MX), mandibular (MD), tooth (TT), radius (RD), peroneal bone (PR), tibia (TB), femur (FM). •: mean; ♦: one standard deviation. Orange line shows the interval ratio (2.06–2.45) in fresh bones.

Both cast bone and plaster samples have elemental levels similar to bones for Pb, Mn and Al (S2 File). The different groups of samples also show similar amounts of Zn, although some casts are characterized by higher amounts of this element, especially in the analyzed teeth of cast #57 and cast #62 (TT). On the other hand, bones are richer in Ca and P (Fig 9) than plaster samples, and buried bones (BR. Albaida) show the highest mean concentrations for these elements. Several cast measured points fall within a standard deviation of the two cremated bones groups and it should be pointed out that cast #34 has the lowest concentrations for both elements (Ca and P). Most of the plaster samples show high concentrations of K, Cl, Ti and Si, and several casts show higher concentrations than bones, although cremated bones from Rome are characterized by higher elemental levels than those from Pompeii and of the inhumated ones. Plaster samples have the highest amounts of Fe, Sr and S. Casts are characterized by levels of Fe similar to those of cremated bones, while, in most of the cases, they have levels of Sr and S higher than the former ones. Concerning the calculated ratios, plasters are enriched in Ca over P (Fig 10A and 10B) and in Sr over Ca (Fig 10C), which is reflected also in some of the studied casts, such as cast #34.

Principal component analysis (PCA)

The principal component analysis (PCA) of the chemical data was carried out to observe variation of cast bones with respect to the comparative sets of burned bones, buried bones and plasters (Fig 11). The first two PCs explain 63.7% of the overall variance in the dataset.

Fig 11. Principal component analysis of chemical data from Porta Nola casts and test samples.

Fig 11

PCA scores plot with the labeled casts measured points. (a) Samples/scores plot for cast (Cast), plaster (Plaster) and cremated bones from Pompeii (CR. Pompeii) and Rome (CR. Rome) and buried bones from the Islamic necropolis of Vall d’ Albaida (BR. Albaida). Colored cremated sample points refer to bone color. (b) Variables/loadings plots for PC1 and PC2.

As can be observed in the samples/scores plot (Fig 11A), plaster samples have higher PC1 scores than bone samples. It is worth noticing that samples of buried bone group together in the third quadrant of the diagram, while those from cremated bones are scattered on both PC1 and PC2. Most of the cast samples fall within cremated bones. The colored small squares and circles referring to cremated bone colors do not show a clear grouping although the majority of the brownish bones are similar to the buried ones, which is consistent with their exposure to lower temperatures. Concerning cast samples, the majority of the cast bones are located close to cremated bones, although some fall between bones and plaster (C34.1, C34.4, C55.5, C57.4) or close to plaster (C34.3), probably due to the results of being encapsulated by plaster (Fig 11A). Variables/loadings plots (Fig 11B) indicate that scores for PC1 (50.1%) are mainly driven by P and Ca concentrations in the negative direction and by most of the other elements and Ca/P and Sr/Ca ratios in the positive one. For PC2, S, Sr and ratios are the most influential variables in the negative direction, and Al, Si, Ti, Mn, Zn and Pb in the positive one. The second PC (13.6%) provides little information to differentiate among the classes (Fig 11A).

Discussion

The elemental data

If we look at the elemental data, the obtained results show that P and Ca concentrations are the most important variables in the negative direction of PC1, being particularly high in buried bones (Fig 11B). The individual #34 suffered major plaster contamination in tibiae (C34.1 and C34.3) and femur (C34.4), as confirmed by Ca, P and Ca/P ratio graphs (Figs 9, 10A and 10B), while the parietal of the same individual (C34.5) seems to suffer only minor plaster contamination. Ca/P ratio, calculated from Hancock et al. [31] for fresh bones, was typically between 2.17 and 2.31, values close to the bone biological range will be indicative of the concurrence of both dissolution and recrystallization processes, values above this range will be indicative of processes of precipitation of new authigenic phases (Fig 10A and 10B) [35]. The mechanisms behind these processes were further explained by Nielsen-Marsh et al. [36]. The bone surface apatite is highly reactive and after death the biologically formed minerals become unstable and susceptible to the burial environment. Therefore, Ca2+ and PO43- ions are exposed and can be totally or partially replaced by the ions of other elements such as the Sr in case of the Ca. The three analysed cast teeth C57.5, C62.2 and C55.3, and the Pompeii burned tooth T055 show a Ca/P ratio in the interval of fresh bones suggesting an insignificant plaster contamination (Fig 10A and 10B). More interesting, in PCA (Fig 11) can be observed that the three teeth have a chemical profile similar to the burned bones, including the tooth T055, which indicates a proportional decrease of Ca and P in these samples. No clear differences were observed among casts, plaster, cremated and buried bones (S2 File) for the other elements.

Thus, the use of plaster as a consolidant significantly affected the elemental profiles of some analysed cast bones, while at the same time it helped preserve important information such as the identification of the perimortem position and the presence of objects as garments.

The cause of the death and the post-mortem process

A key question of this study is how our multielemental and anthropological analysis combined together can provide data to test hypotheses about the cause of death of Porta Nola fugitives. Some of the Pompeii bodies were found under more than three meters of lapilli, buried under the building collapses and blocked by pumice, while those who were outside died under the collapse of the houses, devastated by the rocks and pyroclastic material expelled by the volcano. This likely happened during the first few hours of eruption as suggested by the stratigraphic studies of Luongo et al. [6]. Nevertheless, the stratigraphic position of the studied Porta Nola fugitives indicates that they survived the early catastrophic event and died 20 hours later from the start of the eruption after the pyroclastic deposition of lapilli [7].

Focusing on the victims of Porta Nola, the stratigraphic data [6, 37] suggest that these people were fleeing the city when the rain of lapilli ended. Walking on the layer of pumice would have been quite difficult and some of them employed branches as a walking stick (see cast #54); after the first phase of the eruption these people were overcome by the dilute pyroclastic density currents of the final phase which were caused by the eruptive column collapse. The passage of these currents lasted for several minutes and even though the temperature of the gas-ash mixture was not very high, the individuals could not breathe this ash for long, resulting in asphyxia [2]. There are many studies on the devastating effects of volcanic ash and gases in the body; when gasses are inhaled and the ash enters in the respiratory system, breathing becomes impossible [38]. These problems would have been compounded by collapsed buildings and the fallen trees as evidenced by various casts of tree trunks in the Porta Nola area.

The victims of Porta Nola do not show a "pugilistic" position and they are not carrying out any action or movement despite their attempts to escape. All of them appear to be lying on their back or prone or on their side, in a relaxed position; some of them covering themselves with garments. This position suggests that ashes and volcanic gases caused the death of the exhausted and asphyxiated fugitives of Porta Nola.

Nonetheless, we should take into account that the deposition from the pyroclastic current formed a layer of hot ash that had thermal impact on corpse of people that have already died of asphyxia and were lying on the ground. The elemental data are consistent with the hypothesised thermal phenomena, corroborated also by ash stratigraphy and taphonomy. Our results show that the analysed cast bones negligibly affected by plaster contamination (see the aforementioned Ca/P ratio in teeth) have a similar chemical profile to cremated individuals from necropolises in Pompeii (pre-eruption necropolis) and in Rome, and different from buried bones (Vall d’Albaida necropolis). The higher levels of Ca and P in buried bones compared to cremated ones can be explained by the thermal impact suffered by bones, which induces both a chemical and mineralogical change in the bones with the consequence of a major leaching of these two elements. Probably the thermal impact together with post-depositional processes allowed the leaching of carbonates and phosphates, and this could explain the lower Ca and P concentrations in burned bones [39, 40]. The reconstruction of the aforementioned elemental behaviour together with the presence of textiles fingerprinted by the plaster maybe support the hypothesis of an exposure of the studied remains to high temperature in a post-depositional environment. The process can be described following the stratigraphy of the deposits of Sigurdsson et al. [7]: first, the individuals suffered asphyxia and were killed by fine ashes while they were laying on the ground trying to cover themselves with clothes, and with the fine ashes taking the shape of surrounding objects, including fine textiles. There are many examples of garments and objects such as a tied sack or objects made by leather or hemp preserved during the burial by ashes, which were identified in the casts of Porta Nola through the plaster imprint. Similarly, textile impressions have been observed in several of the studied casts (casts #56, #57, #34, #55 and #58). In some cases, fine fabrics were observable (cast #57, Fig 12), while in other cases different textiles, most likely made of wool, were identified (casts #34 and #56). Later, the dead bodies were covered by the ground surge materials. Finally, the bodies under the high temperature (over 250°C) of the ashes left by pyroclastic current suffered an “oven effect” and the “cooked” ashes left their fingerprint in a cavity, with just bones being left for many centuries, potentially suffering post-depositional processes before their discovery and infilling with plaster by archaeologists.

Fig 12. Clothing details of the cast #57.

Fig 12

Conclusions

For the first time the bone remains of fugitives from the Pompeii eruption have been directly analysed employing non-destructive analytical techniques (pXRF). The proposed approach behind this research consisted of comparing these results with those obtained on burned and buried bones employed as reference collections to evaluate the cast bones contamination by plaster. Then, based on data related to the most intact samples, the possible perimortem and post-mortem processes were discussed, cross-referencing chemical results with the anthropological and taphonomic study, and the volcano stratigraphic information found in the literature. The obtained results are clearly helpful in the reconstruction of the perimortem and post-mortem events concerning the history of these individuals and maybe, this study can shed light on the possible causes of death during the volcano eruption and create the prerequisites for a protocol to be applied to casts from Pompeii and other Vesuvian areas.

Our developed hypothesis for the cause of death is only applicable to the studied context. It is likely that the catastrophic eruption killed people in different ways and all the discussed scenarios should be taken into account. Generalizing and supporting a sole hypothesis of death becomes overly reductive.

Moreover, the use of chemical analyses on the cast skeletons is encouraged to assess the extent of post-depositional alteration and plaster contamination prior to any future biomineral or bimolecular analyses, in order to avoid misleading interpretations.

Supporting information

S1 File. Biological profile of the casts.

(DOCX)

S2 File. Sample description.

Results for pXRF analysis. Elemental concentrations for the studied samples.

(XLSX)

S3 File. Other major and minor element graphs.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thanks all the collaborators and students for their support during the 2019 Pompeii Archaeological Park fieldwork, and also all the public institutions that have contributed to the realization of this study.

Thanks to the professor Agustin Diez Castillo, the director of MAOVA museum of de Vall d’ Albaida Albert Ribera and the PhD student Alessia Larini to provide the permit to access to some bone fragments from the Islamic necropolis of Colata (Montaverner), located in the Vall d’Albaida (Valencia, Spain).

Finally, we are especially grateful to the Editor and Reviewers for their work that has consistently improved the quality of the manuscript.

Ethics statement

The authors have fulfilled all of the ethical requirements mandated by the Ethics council at the University of Valencia and at all the involved institutions including the Archaeological Park of Pompeii, the Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali Direzione interventi su Edilizia Monumentale, Servizio Coordinamento Monumenti Antichi e Aree Archeologiche and the Museu Arqueòlogic d’Ontinyent Vall d’Albaida. Therefore this research is compatible with EU and international law and has been approved by the ethics committee of the University of Valencia.

The permits for all the studied materials have been regularly obtained and the authors ensure that conditions of the permits are met.

In case of casts of Pompeii (#57, #62, #58, #64, #54, #55) not sampling have been carried out and just in situ non-destructive measurements by pXRF have been obtained (C57.1–6; C62.1–6;C58.1–6; C34.1–6; C64.2–6; C54.1–6; C55.1–6). Regarding the burned bones fragments from the necropolis of Porta Nola (Pompeii, Italy), 21 samples corresponding to different individuals and type of bones have been sampled (C006e; R008eC; R014e; T027.1eb; U094e; C027.2e; F033e; T055; U058.1e; P058.2e; T071.2eb; D073e; T253e; R262e; S666e; R696e; F724b; S802e; C808e; C809e; C075e) and transported to carry out analyses in the laboratory of the department of Analytical Chemistry of the University of Valencia (Burjassot, Valencia, Spain). The permits to analyse the casts in situ (signed date: 9/08/2019) and the bone fragments (signed date: 19/08/2019; prot. N. 11496) were authorized by the director of the Pompeii Archaeological Park, Massimo Osanna.

About the burned bones fragments from the necropolis of Sepolcreto della via Ostiense (Rome, Italy), 24 samples corresponding to different individuals and type of bones (M162; M14; M17; M387; M458; M67; M62; M137; M72a; M161; M314; M80; M574; M43; M509; M418; M216; M172; M269; M313; M599; M27; M29; M30) and transported to carry out analyses in the laboratory of the department of Analytical Chemistry of the University of Valencia (Burjassot, Valencia, Spain). The permits for bone fragments sampling were authorized by the head of service Maria Gabriella Cimino and the director Antonello Fatello from the Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali Direzione interventi su Edilizia Monumentale, Servizio Coordinamento Monumenti Antichi e Aree Archeologiche (signed date: 11/09/2020; prot N. RI/21891).

Finally, the inhumated bones fragments from the necropolis of Colada (Montaverner, Valencia, Spain), 11 samples corresponding to different individuals and type of bones (IB01; IB02; IB03; IB04; IB05; IB06; IB07; IB08; IB09; IB11; IB12) were transported to carry out analyses at the laboratory of the department of Analytical Chemistry at the University of Valencia (Burjassot, Valencia, Spain). The permits for bone fragments sampling were authorized by the director of de Museu Arqueòlogic d’Ontinyent Vall d’Albaida, Agustí Ribera (signed date: 02/06/2020; exp 20200603).

All the samples details are available in the S2 File. Casts detailed description can be found in S1 File.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by Ministerio de Universidades, BEAGAL18/00110, Dr Gianni Gallello, Conselleria de Innovación, Universidades, Ciencia y Sociedad Digital, Generalitat Valenciana, PROMETEO 2019-056, Dr M. Luisa Cervera, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, H2020-MSCA-IF-2015-704709-MATRIX., Dr Gianni Gallello. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Osanna M, Capurso A, Masseroli SM (editors). I Calchi di Pompei da Giuseppe Fiorelli a Oggi. Pompeii: Archaeological Park of Pompeii; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dellino P, Dioguardi F, Isaia R, Sulpizio R, Mele D. The impact of pyroclastic density currents duration on humans: the case of the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius. Sci Rep. 2021; 11: 4959. doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-84456-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Giacomelli L, Perrotta A, Scandone R, Scarpati C. The eruption of Vesuvius of 79 AD and its impact on human environment in Pompeii. Episodes 2003; 26(3): 235–238. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Petrone P, Pucci P, Vergara A, Amoresano A, Birolo L, Pane F, et al. A hypothesis of sudden body fluid vaporization in the 79 AD victims of Vesuvius. PLOS ONE 2018; 13(9): e0203210. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Martyn R, Craig OE, Ellingham STD, Meez I, Fattore L, Sperduti A, et al. Re-evaluation of manner of death at Roman Herculaneum following the AD 79 eruption of Vesuvius. Antiq. 2020; 94(373): 76–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Luongo G, Perrotta A, Scarpati C, De Carolis E, Patricelli G, Ciarallo A. Impact of the AD 79 eruption on Pompeii, II. Causes of death of the inhabitants inferred by stratigraphic analysis and areal distribution of the human causalities. J Volcanol Geotherm Res. 2003; 126: 169–200. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sigurdsson H, Cashdollar S, Sparks SRJ. The Eruption of Vesuvius in A. D. 79: Reconstruction from Historical and Volcanological Evidence Source. Am J Archaeol. 1982; 86: 39–51. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Pessanha S, Carvalho M, Carvalho ML, Dias A. Quantitative analysis of human remains from 18th–19th centuries using X-ray fluorescence techniques: The mysterious high content of mercury in hair. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2016; 33: 26–30. doi: 10.1016/j.jtemb.2015.08.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Janiga M, Janiga M. Different accumulation of some elements in the fry and adults of alpine bullheads (Cottus poecilopus). Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2023; 30: 44724–44732. doi: 10.1007/s11356-023-25460-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gonzalez-Rodriguez J, Fowler G. A study on the discrimination of human skeletons using X-ray fluorescence and chemometric tools in chemical anthropology. Forensic Sci Int. 2013; 231: 407.e1–407.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2013.04.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Perrone A, Finlayson JE, Bartelink EJ, Dalton KD. Application of portable X-ray fluorescence (XRF) for sorting commingled human remains. In: Adams BJ, Byrd JE (editors). Commingled Human Remains. San Diego: Academic Press 2014; 145–165. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Finlayson JE, Bartelink EJ, Perrone A, Dalton K. Multimethod resolution of a small-scale case of commingling. J Forensic Sci. 2017; 62: 493–497. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13265 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gomes RAMP, Catarino L, Santos AL. Anemia, cribra cranii and elemental composition using portable X-ray fluorescence: A study in individuals from the Coimbra Identified Osteological Collections. J Archaeol Sci. 2021; 136: 105514. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kilburn NN, Gowland RL, Halldórsdóttir HH, Williams R, Thompson TJU. Assessing pathological conditions in archaeological bone using portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF). J Archaeol Sci. 2021; 37: 102980. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Diez Castillo A, Gómez Puche M. Excavaciones arqueológicas en el yacimiento de Colata (Montaverner, Valencia). In: Terol i Reig V, Casanova E (editors). II Congrés d’Estudis de la Vall d’Albaida (Ontinyent, 5–7 de novembre de 2004): actes. Valencia: Institució Alfons el Magnànim 2008; 473–495. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kay S, Ceccarelli L, Alapont L, Albiach R. Excavations at the Necropolis of Porta Nola. New evidence for production and circulation in Pompeii. In: Osanna M, Toniolo L. (editors). Fecisti Cretaria. Dal Frammento Al Contesto: Studi Sul Vasellame Ceramico del Territorio Vesuviano. Roma—Bristol: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider 2020; 340–342. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Marcelli M, Cicone C, Alapont Martín Ll, Sastre Morro M, Evans SF, Lhériteau M. Nuove ricerche sui colombari del Sepolcreto della via Ostiense. Analisi dei resti antropologici e archeologici (Mun. VIII). Bull Commissione Archeologica Comunale Roma 2021; 121: 289–307. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Brothwell DR. Digging up bones 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1981. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hager LD. Sex Differences In the Sciatic Notch Of Great Apes And Modern Humans. Am. J Phys Anthropol. 1996; 2(99): 287–300. doi: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bass WM. Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual. 4th ed. Columbia: Missouri Archaeological Society, Incorporated; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Stewart TD J. Lawrence Angel. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1979; 51: 507–516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Hartwig WC. The anatomy and biology of the human skeleton by D. Gentry Steele and Claud A. Bramblett. Texas A & M University Press, College Station, 1988. Clin Anat. 1990; 3: 151–153. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brůžek J, Santos F, Dutailly B, Murail P, Cunha E. Validation and reliability of the sex estimation of the human os coxae using freely available DSP2 software for bioarchaeology and forensic anthropology. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2017; 164(2): 440–449. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23282 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Brůžek J. A Method for Visual Determination of Sex Using the Human Hip Bone. Am J Phys Anthrop. 2002; 117: 157–168. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.10012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Owings-Webb PA, Suchey JM. Epiphyseal union of the anterior iliac crest and medial clavicle in a modern multiracial sample of American males and females, Am J Phys Anthrop. 1985; 68: 457–466. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.1330680402 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schmitt A. Une nouvelle méthode pour estimer l’âge au décès des adultes à partir de lasurface sacro-pelvienne iliaque. Bull Mém Soc Anthropol. 2005; 17. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Schmitt A. Une nouvelle méthode pour discriminer les individus décédés avant ou après 40 ans à partir de la symphyse pubienne; Journal de médecine légale, droit médical. 2008; 51(1): 15–24. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Mann R W, Murphy SP. Regional Atlas of bone Disease, A Guide to Pathologic and Normal Variation in the Human Skeleton. Springfield: Thomas C.C. Ed.; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Wien: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.Available: https://www.R-project.org/ [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Burton J. Bone chemistry and trace element analysis. In: Katzenberg MA, Saunders SR, editors. Biological Anthropology of the Human Skeleton. 2nd edition. John Wiley & Sons. Inc.; 2008; 443–460. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Hancock RGV, Grynpas MD, Åkesson K, Obrant JT, Kessler MJ. Baselines and variabilities for major and trace elements in bone. In: Lambert JB, Grupe G, editors. Prehistoric Human Bone: Archaeology at the molecular level. Heidelberg: Springer Berlin 1993; 189–201. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sponheimer M, de Ruiter D, Lee-Thorp J, Späth A. Sr/Ca and early hominin diets revisited: new data from modern and fossil tooth enamel. J Hum Evol. 2005; 48: 147–156. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kassambara A, Mundt F. factoextra: Extract and Visualize the Results of Multivariate Data Analyses. R package version 1.0.7; 2020. Available: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=factoextra [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Nielsen-Marsh CM, Hedges REM. Dissolution experiments on modern and diagenetically altered bone and their effect on the infrared splitting factor. Bull Soc Géol France 1997; 168: 485–490. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Nielsen-Marsh C, Gernaey A, Turner-Walker G, Hedges R, Pike A.W.G., Collins M. The chemical degradation of bone. In: Cox M, Mays S, (editors.) Human Osteology: In Archaeology and Forensic Science. Cambridge, GB: Cambridge University Press; 2000: 439–454. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Doronzo DM, Di Vito MA, Arienzo I, Bini M, Calusi B, Cerminara M, et al. The 79 CE eruption of Vesuvius: A lesson from the past and the need of a multidisciplinary approach for developments in volcanology. Earth Sci Rev. 2022; 231: 104072. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zanella E, Gurioli L, Pareschi MT, Lanza R. Influences of urban fabric on pyroclastic density currents at Pompeii (Italy): 2. Temperature of the deposits and hazard implications. J Geophys Res Solid Earth 2007; 112: 1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gallello G, Kuligowski J, Pastor A, Diez A, Bernabeu J. Biological mineral content in Iberian skeletal cremains for control of diagenetic factors employing multivariate statistics. J Archaeol Sci. 2013; 40: 2477–2484. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Snoeck C, Lee-Thorp JA, Schulting RJ. From bone to ash: Compositional and structural changes in burned modern and archaeological bone. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2014; 416: 55–68. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Olga Spekker

16 May 2023

PONE-D-23-12449The Casts of Pompeii: New insightsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gallello,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: 

Dear Dr. Gallello,

We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

I have completed my evaluation of your manuscript, which has been reviewed by four highly qualified reviewers all of whom agree it is worth to be published in PLOS ONE. Nevertheless, they have suggested some changes that will help to improve the paper.

Therefore, I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after addressing the reviewers’ comments below. When revising your manuscript, please consider all issues mentioned in the reviewers' comments carefully: please, outline every change made in response to their comments and provide suitable rebuttals for any comments not addressed. Please, note that your revised submission may need to be re-reviewed.

On the other hand, the journal staff notified me that "Manuscripts reporting paleontology and archaeology research must adhere to our policies described at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research. Specifically, appropriate identification numbers for the human remains, specimens and/or samples should be provided, and the data used in the study should be publicly deposited or made accessible for replication of the study. If applicable, please ensure permission to conduct destructive sampling was obtained.”

Based on the above, 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.

PLOS ONE values your contribution and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Olga Spekker

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 30 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,

Olga Spekker, 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 human remain 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 archeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research

[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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

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 review follows the thematic points provided by Plos One.

1. The study presents the results of original research.

Yes

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

Correct - they have not

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

Partial. Bioarchaeological analysis – detail on what methods used for sex/age are needed. Currently it mostly states the sex, age result, and describes body position. If the profiling is obtained from other researchers, this needs citation.

pXRF - some clarity on method needed (see final paragraph below).

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

Yes – but more can be brought out on the elemental analysis

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

Yes – I have added comments on some bits for clarification but it’s quite nit-picky – it’s well written.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

This research investigates a moment of trauma and death among the human population in Pompeii. It directly handles the material in question. Ethics statement said NA but I feel this requires some ethics statement.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Yes – but the Cu data is missing from supplementary information.

This was an interesting article to read, thank you for sending it for review. It was concise and to the point, and presented some effective images and reading.

I have added detailed comments to the manuscript to read through – it’s mostly on some bits of clarity and should be quite quick to address.

However, I can’t ascertain what the impact of the pXRF work was. The research is framed around the bioarchaeological and elemental analysis bringing new insight but the bioarch work is quite routine on the Pompeii casts, and the results/discussion have limited content on what exactly the elemental analysis showed – what interpretation have you gathered from the data? What I can mostly see is that plaster and bone are different elemental compositions – which is expected as they’re entirely different materials. This will need strengthening and more depth in discussion to really bring the value out of your large dataset.

The pXRF method also needs some clarity as it currently poses a little risk. Did you scan samples once, in triplicate, or other? If once, this needs to be repeated, bones are highly variable. Did you achieve infinite thickness in the scans? How did you scan the bones, was it in direct contact with the cleaned bone surface or was it through the plaster? pXRF and XRF beams don’t penetrate that far into the material and will be interfered by the plaster.

Reviewer #2: The paper deals with the detail analysis of casts at Pompei with the aim of understanding the cause of death of people being impacted by the last phases of the Vesuvius eruption of 79 AD. The research is based mostly on bioarcheological data consisting of chemical measurements, by portable XRF, on bones and casts. Interpretation, namely asphyxia, is coherent with recent papers assessing the fate of people dying after the eruption based on volcanological interpretation. This multidisciplinary convergence enforces the interpretation of the natural event, which is useful also for assessing the hazard potential of devastating eruptions of Vesuvius. For these reasons I believe the paper deserves to be published on a high impact journal as PLOSONE.

Moderate revision is recommended, after consideration of the following main points

1) English needs a careful revision especially of the casts description

2) People escaping from Pompei after the first phase of the eruption were invested by the dilute pyroclastic density currents of the final phase which were caused by the eruptive column collapse. The passage of these currents lasted for several minutes and even though the temperature of the gas-ash mixture was not very high it cannot be breath for long, causing asphyxia. Therefore, asphyxia was caused by the passage of the pyroclastic density current itself, not by ash being suspended as resulting from the previous fallout of pumice of the first phase of the eruption. Afterward, the deposition from the current formed a layer of hot ash that had thermal impact on corpse of people that have already died for asphyxia and were lying on the ground. I do suggest authors to revise the paper in the discussion section as be more consistent with such a reconstruction of the eruptive events.

Regards

Pierfrancesco Dellino

Reviewer #3: There are essentially two components to your paper: the analysis of whether the plaster casts alter the chemical composition of the bone samples, as well as an interpretation on manner of death. The two topics (in my opinion) feel a bit disjointed, and having them both but in this paper seems a little forced.

I see nothing wrong with any of your conclusions, however they are not exactly ground breaking.

A few comments on spelling or where more clarification would be useful:

L 128 – use passive tense “only half the humeral shaft is available” rather than “we only have”

L 134 – I assume by “first half of femoral shaft” the proximal half is meant?

L 142 – I fail to see how the sutures or teeth give indications on sex determination?

L 180 – “carpals” not carpus; metacarpal not metacarpus

L 182 – humerus no humours

L 207 – one of the “previous” is redundant

L 331 – 334 – not sure I am following the rationale here. Also what “new authigenic phases” are referred to? A bit more information would be useful.

L 353 – 260 – this paragraph should be introduced in the intro lit review, the discussion should onl refer to concepts previously mentioned.

L 386 – lixivitation is not an English word.

Reviewer #4: Overall, this is a very interesting manuscript that examines anthropological, paleopathological, and chemical analysis of human bones and casts of Pompeii victims. The paper should be published and offers new insights into the final moments of the victim's lives and their deaths. The manuscript does need substantial editing and the PDF of the manuscript has been marked up with comments, suggestions, and other edits. Some statements are overly speculative, which is noted directly on the PDF. With some editing, this paper would make a nice contribution to the literature and to PLOS ONE.

**********

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: Yes: Pierfrancesco Dellino

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: 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.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments - Alapont_et_al_Manuscript.docx

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-12449_reviewer.pdf

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 23;18(8):e0289378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289378.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Jun 2023

AUTHORS RESPONSE;

Dear editor,

We are really grateful for giving us the possibility to revise the manuscript and answer the reviewer’s comments. We have worked hard to address all the points raised by the four referees and these have consistently improved the quality of our manuscript. Therefore, we really thank the reviewers for their work.

Reviewer #1 and Reviewer #4 comments and suggestions in the corresponding files together with the Reviewers #2 and #3 have been taken into account and reported in the new version of the manuscript in revision mode with our answers and comments.

________________________________________

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: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

Reviewer #4: Yes

________________________________________

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: 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

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

________________________________________

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 review follows the thematic points provided by Plos One.

1. The study presents the results of original research.

Yes

2. Results reported have not been published elsewhere.

Correct - they have not

3. Experiments, statistics, and other analyses are performed to a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail.

Partial. Bioarchaeological analysis – detail on what methods used for sex/age are needed. Currently it mostly states the sex, age result, and describes body position. If the profiling is obtained from other researchers, this needs citation.

pXRF - some clarity on method needed (see final paragraph below).

AUTHORS RESPONSE; We are grateful to the Reviewer #1 for the revision of our manuscript. The physical anthropological analysis in the casts was carried out directly in the field by one of the authors (Dr Llorence Alapont). The methodology employed to determine sex, age and all the anthropological aspects for the study of the 7 casts and the other reference collections follows the standardized parameters implemented by other authors. In the revised version of the manuscript, in methods section a new paragraph “Anthropological study” has been added and citations included as requested by Reviewer #1. About pXRF analysis the methodological aspects are clarified in the corresponding paragraph pXRF.

4. Conclusions are presented in an appropriate fashion and are supported by the data.

Yes – but more can be brought out on the elemental analysis

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks, in conclusion sections some lines have been added to enhance the elemental results.

5. The article is presented in an intelligible fashion and is written in standard English.

Yes – I have added comments on some bits for clarification but it’s quite nit-picky – it’s well written.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks, in the new version of the manuscript, we have taken into consideration the language revision.

6. The research meets all applicable standards for the ethics of experimentation and research integrity.

This research investigates a moment of trauma and death among the human population in Pompeii. It directly handles the material in question. Ethics statement said NA but I feel this requires some ethics statement.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks. In ethics section “Ethics statement” we have added that no samples have been collected from the casts and direct non-destructive analysis were carried.

In all the case including burned Pompeii bones from pre Vesuvius eruption and bones from Islamic population the permit have been regularly obtained following the Spanish, Italian, European and International rules and regulations.

7. The article adheres to appropriate reporting guidelines and community standards for data availability.

Yes – but the Cu data is missing from supplementary information.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks for your comment, copper data were not shown because they were below the limit of detection for all the analysed materials and remains. Therefore, Cu has been removed from the manuscript revised version.

This was an interesting article to read, thank you for sending it for review. It was concise and to the point, and presented some effective images and reading.

I have added detailed comments to the manuscript to read through – it’s mostly on some bits of clarity and should be quite quick to address.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks for the Reviewer #1 positive comments. We believe that this study is pushing forward to develop a non-destructive methodological approach for extraordinary remains like the casts of Pompeii. Consequently, we had the possibility to determine the chemical profiles of bones and plaster of some the casts for the first time, cross-referencing the data with the anthropological research. This allowed us to better understand perimortem and post-mortem processes.

However, I can’t ascertain what the impact of the pXRF work was. The research is framed around the bioarchaeological and elemental analysis bringing new insight but the bioarch work is quite routine on the Pompeii casts, and the results/discussion have limited content on what exactly the elemental analysis showed – what interpretation have you gathered from the data? What I can mostly see is that plaster and bone are different elemental compositions – which is expected as they’re entirely different materials. This will need strengthening and more depth in discussion to really bring the value out of your large dataset.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks for the Reviewer #1 comments that give us the opportunity to clarify the role of the chemical information obtained by pXRF analysis in inhumated burned remains and plaster. Once obtained the results the first steps were to develop an approach to verify if the plaster is affecting the chemical compounds of the bones. To do it, we statistically compare the elemental contents of inhumated bones burned bones and casts bones with casts plaster to select the cast bones minimally affected by the plaster contamination. The next step was to compare inhumated bones with Pompeii pre Vesuvian and Roma Ostiense burned bones collections, where we could observe chemical differences between these two big groups, that we explain with the thermal impact in the structure of the bones that causes the loss of some major elements during post-depositional processes, as confirmed by previous studies. As mentioned, “probably the thermal impact together with post-depositional processes induced the leaching of carbonates and phosphates and this could explain the lower calcium and phosphorous concentrations in burned bones [25, 26]”. Once we had made sure that these observations were “true” by running statistical analysis of the obtained chemical information, we could compare the Casts bones with the inhumated and burned bones, observing that the composition of the stated casts was similar to those of the burned bones. That gives us an important input to develop hypothesis about the post-mortem exposure of the Pompeii remains to quite high temperature being their death caused by the asphyxia as showed by anthropological studies and the preservation of garments.

Following the Reviewer #1 comments a paragraph “The elemental data” has been added in the discussion section to further enhance the important information provided by pXRF analyses.

The pXRF method also needs some clarity as it currently poses a little risk. Did you scan samples once, in triplicate, or other? If once, this needs to be repeated, bones are highly variable. Did you achieve infinite thickness in the scans? How did you scan the bones, was it in direct contact with the cleaned bone surface or was it through the plaster? pXRF and XRF beams don’t penetrate that far into the material and will be interfered by the plaster.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks for the comments, all the materials and remains were measured in triplicate in the same point and the new version of the manuscript this is now specified and in Supplementary Information (S2 File) the standard deviation has been added to observe the measurements variability. For all the seven studied casts, the measurements were carried out in the exposed bones, not in the bones inside the plaster. The casts presented with some bone remains out of the plaster although partially fixed in the plaster surface. The exposed parts of the bones were carefully cleaned in their surface to remove the dust. Once cleaned the analytical zone of the pXRF was pressed against the bone surface and measured. In the same way the plaster surface was measured to control bones contamination. To make sure that the infinite thickness is met just the most compact and thickest remains and plaster parts were measured. Furthermore some previous tests in similar bones and plaster employing pXRF were carried out in our labs under controlled conditions to evaluate the reliability and strength of the analytical method.

All the Reviewer #1 comments reported in the manuscript revised mode version are answered as comments in the attached document.

Reviewer #2: The paper deals with the detail analysis of casts at Pompei with the aim of understanding the cause of death of people being impacted by the last phases of the Vesuvius eruption of 79 AD. The research is based mostly on bioarcheological data consisting of chemical measurements, by portable XRF, on bones and casts. Interpretation, namely asphyxia, is coherent with recent papers assessing the fate of people dying after the eruption based on volcanological interpretation. This multidisciplinary convergence enforces the interpretation of the natural event, which is useful also for assessing the hazard potential of devastating eruptions of Vesuvius. For these reasons I believe the paper deserves to be published on a high impact journal as PLOSONE.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; We are really grateful to Reviewer #2 for his positive comments. Therefore this study shows a multidisciplinary approach cross-referencing pXRF chemical data with anthropological research and previous published research, supporting a death for asphyxia of the studied individuals and adding information about perimortem and post-mortem processes. Finally we developed a non-destructive methodological approach for evaluating plaster contamination to discard plaster contaminated bones and avoid misleading interpretations about bone casts original chemical contents.

Moderate revision is recommended, after consideration of the following main points

1) English needs a careful revision especially of the casts description

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks, in the new version of the manuscript the language has been revised, especially in the Results section “Bioarchaeological analysis on casts”.

2) People escaping from Pompei after the first phase of the eruption were invested by the dilute pyroclastic density currents of the final phase which were caused by the eruptive column collapse. The passage of these currents lasted for several minutes and even though the temperature of the gas-ash mixture was not very high it cannot be breath for long, causing asphyxia. Therefore, asphyxia was caused by the passage of the pyroclastic density current itself, not by ash being suspended as resulting from the previous fallout of pumice of the first phase of the eruption. Afterward, the deposition from the current formed a layer of hot ash that had thermal impact on corpse of people that have already died for asphyxia and were lying on the ground. I do suggest authors to revise the paper in the discussion section as be more consistent with such a reconstruction of the eruptive events.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; We are really grateful to Professor Dellino for his very clarifying description of the eruption phases, in the Discussion section in the new paragraph “The cause of the death and the post-mortem process” of the new version of the manuscript the description of the events has been improved following the reviewer comments.

Regards

Pierfrancesco Dellino

Reviewer #3: There are essentially two components to your paper: the analysis of whether the plaster casts alter the chemical composition of the bone samples, as well as an interpretation on manner of death. The two topics (in my opinion) feel a bit disjointed, and having them both but in this paper seems a little forced.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; We are grateful to Reviewer #3 for her/his comments. It is important to highlight that the two mentioned topics are strictly connected to support our discussion and conclusions about the perimortem and post-mortem processes. The first important step was to develop an approach to verify if the plaster is contaminating and affecting the chemical compounds of the bones. To do this, we designed a reference set of results analysing and statistically processing the elemental contents of inhumated bones, burned bones and casts bones with casts plaster to select the cast bones minimally affected by the plaster contamination. The next step was to compare inhumated bones with Pompeii pre Vesuvian and Roma Ostiense burned bones collections, where we could observe chemical differences between these two big groups that we explain with the thermal impact in the structure of the bones that causes the loss of some major elements during post-depositional processes as confirmed by previous studies. Once we had made sure that these observations are “true” by running statistical analysis of the obtained chemical information, we could compare the cast bones with the reference set of inhumated and burned, observing that the composition of the studied casts were similar to those of the burned bones. That gives us important information to develop hypothesis about the postmortem exposure of the Pompeii remains to quite high temperature being their death caused by the asphyxia as showed by anthropological studies and the preservation of garments. Finally all supported by the volcano stratigraphic literature.

I see nothing wrong with any of your conclusions, however they are not exactly ground breaking.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; This study shows a multidisciplinary approach cross-referencing pXRF chemical data with anthropological research and geological previous published research, supporting a death for asphyxia of the studied individuals and adding information about perimortem and post-mortem processes. Finally we developed a non-destructive methodological approach for evaluating plaster contamination to discard plaster contaminated bones and avoid misleading interpretations about bone casts original chemical contents. Therefore from a broader point of view here we present an innovative approach to be applied to casts from Pompeii and other Vesuvius areas shading light on the volcano eruption deaths and suggesting for the first time a protocol to be applied for the study of the casts.

A few comments on spelling or where more clarification would be useful:

L 128 – use passive tense “only half the humeral shaft is available” rather than “we only have”

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks for correcting.

L 134 – I assume by “first half of femoral shaft” the proximal half is meant?

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Yes. Thanks this was corrected.

L 142 – I fail to see how the sutures or teeth give indications on sex determination?

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks for the correction. This is a mistake it was corrected.

L 180 – “carpals” not carpus; metacarpal not metacarpus

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Corrected in the new version of the text.

L 182 – humerus no humours

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thank you for correcting.

L 207 – one of the “previous” is redundant

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks this has been corrected.

L 331 – 334 – not sure I am following the rationale here. Also what “new authigenic phases” are referred to? A bit more information would be useful.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks, further information has been added to clarify this issue. In discussion section of the new version of the manuscript “The mechanisms behind these processes were further explained by Nielsen et al. [36] being bone surface apatite heavily reactive, after death the biologically formed minerals become unstable and susceptible to the burial environment, therefore Ca2+ and P4-3 ions are expose and can be totally or partially replaced by the ions of other elements.”

L 353 – 260 – this paragraph should be introduced in the intro lit review, the discussion should onl refer to concepts previously mentioned.

We agree with Reviewer #3, as suggested this issue was introduced with a sentence in the introduction section.

L 386 – lixivitation is not an English word.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; Thanks for correcting. We refer at the word lixiviation as the process of lixiviating “the extraction of soluble components of a solid mixture by percolating a solvent through it”. However the word has been substituted with “leaching”.

Reviewer #4: Overall, this is a very interesting manuscript that examines anthropological, paleopathological, and chemical analysis of human bones and casts of Pompeii victims. The paper should be published and offers new insights into the final moments of the victim's lives and their deaths. The manuscript does need substantial editing and the PDF of the manuscript has been marked up with comments, suggestions, and other edits. Some statements are overly speculative, which is noted directly on the PDF. With some editing, this paper would make a nice contribution to the literature and to PLOS ONE.

AUTHORS RESPONSE; We are really grateful for the Reviewer #4 positive response. All the comments and suggestions have been taken into accounts and reported in the new version of the manuscript revised mode with our answers as comments in the same document.

________________________________________

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: Yes: Pierfrancesco Dellino

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE__RESPONSE_TO_REVIEWERS.docx

Decision Letter 1

Olga Spekker

14 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-12449R1The Casts of Pompeii: post-depositional methodological insightsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gallello,

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.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Dr. Gallello,

We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

I have completed my evaluation of your revised manuscript, which has been reviewed by two highly qualified reviewers all of whom agree it is worth to be published in PLOS ONE. Nevertheless, one of the reviewers suggested some minor changes and I also have some minor comments that should be addressed before your manuscript would be accepted.

Based on the above, I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after amending it.

PLOS ONE values your contribution and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Olga Spekker

My comments:

Line 57 – “also called” instead of “also called also”

Line 66 – “the pyroclastic” instead of “that the pyroclastic”

Line 68 – “then” instead of “than”

Line 85 – “Roman” instead of “roman”

Line 89 – “In total” instead of “In resume”

Line 107 – “methods” instead of “method”

Line 116 – “was” instead of “were”

Line 122 – “demonstrated that” instead of “demonstrated”

Line 182 – “detailed description of the studied casts” instead of “the studied casts detailed description”

Line 188 – “presents hypoplasia” instead of “shows hypoplasia defects presents hypoplasia”

Line 189 – “an enthesophyte” instead of “an enthesophytes”

Lines 198–199 – “Except for Ca and P and ratios reported …” – it should be rephrased

Line 204 – “for these elements” instead of “for both these elements”

Lines 219 and 227 – “radius” instead of “radio”

Line 245 – “For, PC2” – the comma is not necessary

Line 277 – “other kind of useful” instead of “other kind useful”

Line 308 – “died of asphyxia” instead of “died for asphyxia”

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 28 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,

Olga Spekker, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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. 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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: In this second review, I believe the author team has addressed the reviewer comments. The paper should be acceptable for PLOS ONE and will make a nice contribution to the literature on the use of archaeometric methods for studying the victims of Pompeii.

I only have a few minor edits:

Page 3, line 72: change "operated" to "conducted"

Page 3, line 85: Should roman be capitalized ("Roman")

Page 3, line 89: change "In resume" to "In total"

Page 4, line 99: "calcaneus and heel" are the same bone. Remove "and heel"

Page 4, line 104: change "were based" to "was based"

Page 4, line 117: change "materials" to "material"

**********

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 #2: Yes: pierfrancesco dellino

Reviewer #4: 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.

PLoS One. 2023 Aug 23;18(8):e0289378. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289378.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


16 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-12449R1

The Casts of Pompeii: post-depositional methodological insights

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gallello,

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.

ACADEMIC EDITOR:

Dear Dr. Gallello,

We appreciate you submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE and thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.

I have completed my evaluation of your revised manuscript, which has been reviewed by two highly qualified reviewers all of whom agree it is worth to be published in PLOS ONE. Nevertheless, one of the reviewers suggested some minor changes and I also have some minor comments that should be addressed before your manuscript would be accepted.

Based on the above, I invite you to resubmit your manuscript after amending it.

PLOS ONE values your contribution and I look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Olga Spekker

-AUTHORS RESPONSE: Dear editor we are very grateful for your comments and suggestions, all the recommended changes have been amended. Furthermore the text has been double checked and revised to guarantee the quality of the manuscript and avoid as far as we can typos.

My comments:

Line 57 – “also called” instead of “also called also”

Line 66 – “the pyroclastic” instead of “that the pyroclastic”

Line 68 – “then” instead of “than”

Line 85 – “Roman” instead of “roman”

Line 89 – “In total” instead of “In resume”

Line 107 – “methods” instead of “method”

Line 116 – “was” instead of “were”

Line 122 – “demonstrated that” instead of “demonstrated”

Line 182 – “detailed description of the studied casts” instead of “the studied casts detailed description”

Line 188 – “presents hypoplasia” instead of “shows hypoplasia defects presents hypoplasia”

Line 189 – “an enthesophyte” instead of “an enthesophytes”

Lines 198–199 – “Except for Ca and P and ratios reported …” – it should be rephrased

Line 204 – “for these elements” instead of “for both these elements”

Lines 219 and 227 – “radius” instead of “radio”

Line 245 – “For, PC2” – the comma is not necessary

Line 277 – “other kind of useful” instead of “other kind useful”

Line 308 – “died of asphyxia” instead of “died for asphyxia”

-AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thanks, the suggested changes have been made. Furthermore the word radius has been correctly written also in the Supporting Information S3.

Journal Requirements:

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.

-AUTHORS RESPONSE: Thanks, the reference list has been revised to ensure that it is complete and correct. As far as we know retracted papers have not been cited.

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

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 #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: Yes

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 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 #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: In this second review, I believe the author team has addressed the reviewer comments. The paper should be acceptable for PLOS ONE and will make a nice contribution to the literature on the use of archaeometric methods for studying the victims of Pompeii.

I only have a few minor edits:

Page 3, line 72: change "operated" to "conducted"

Page 3, line 85: Should roman be capitalized ("Roman")

Page 3, line 89: change "In resume" to "In total"

Page 4, line 99: "calcaneus and heel" are the same bone. Remove "and heel"

Page 4, line 104: change "were based" to "was based"

Page 4, line 117: change "materials" to "material"

-AUTHORS RESPONSE: The Reviewer #4 minor edits have been completed as suggested. Excepting for line 104 (change "were based" to "was based) and line 117 (change "materials" to "material): disagree as plural reference and not changed.

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 #2: Yes: pierfrancesco dellino

Reviewer #4: No

-AUTHORS RESPONSE: We are especially grateful to the Editor and Reviewers for their work that, certainly, has consistently improved the quality of the manuscript. A sentence to thanks the Reviewers work has been added in “Acknowledgments” section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE__RESPONSE_TO_REVIEWERS_minors.docx

Decision Letter 2

Olga Spekker

18 Jul 2023

The Casts of Pompeii: post-depositional methodological insights

PONE-D-23-12449R2

Dear Dr. Gallello,

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,

Olga Spekker, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Olga Spekker

27 Jul 2023

PONE-D-23-12449R2

The Casts of Pompeii: post-depositional methodological insights

Dear Dr. Gallello:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Olga Spekker

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Biological profile of the casts.

    (DOCX)

    S2 File. Sample description.

    Results for pXRF analysis. Elemental concentrations for the studied samples.

    (XLSX)

    S3 File. Other major and minor element graphs.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewer Comments - Alapont_et_al_Manuscript.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-12449_reviewer.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE__RESPONSE_TO_REVIEWERS.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE__RESPONSE_TO_REVIEWERS_minors.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES