Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 27;21(3):e0344705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344705

Archaeometric analysis of Early Bronze Age bread from Küllüoba Höyük

Salih Kavak 1,*, Yusuf Tuna 2,#, Yasin R Eker 3,#, Şemsettin Akyol 4,#, Abdurrahim C Özcan 5,#, Murat Türkteki 2,#
Editor: Enrico Greco6
PMCID: PMC13028366  PMID: 41894372

Abstract

Bread is a fundamental foodstuff that has driven social and technological development for millennia, with the earliest evidence dating to pre-agricultural societies. While archaeological sites from the Neolithic period show systematic grain processing, well-preserved bread from the subsequent Early Bronze Age, particularly in a clear ritual context, is exceedingly rare. Here we report the discovery and comprehensive archaeometric analysis; employing Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) coupled with Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) spectroscopy, Vibrational Spectroscopy (FTIR and Raman), and Thermal Analysis (TGA-DSC) of a 5,000-year-old carbonized bread from the Küllüoba settlement in Anatolia, dated 3200−3000 BC. Microscopic examinations reveal that it is made from coarsely ground emmer wheat (Triticum dicoccum) and a small amount of lentils (Lens culinaris). The presence of air voids suggests kneaded dough, possibly leavened. The detection of rachis fragments indicates the use of unsieved flour. Intentionally deposited and subsequently carbonized, the bread was sealed beneath a layer of sterile soil and appears to have been an offering connected with the ritual abandonment of the structure. This finding offers unique evidence of advanced food technology and highlights the symbolic importance of bread in Early Bronze Age societies, directly linking food production to cultural and ritual practices.

Introduction

As one of the oldest and most fundamental foods in human history, bread is not merely a foodstuff but also a tool that strengthens social solidarity, identity, and societal organization [1]. Imbued with symbolic meanings throughout history, bread has played a central role in the relationship between communities, nature, and the sacred [2,3]. This study of the 5,000-year-old carbonized bread from Küllüoba highlights the symbolic importance of bread in Early Bronze Age societies, directly linking food production to cultural and ritual practices.

Hunter-gatherer societies possessed grain processing skills even before the advent of agriculture [4]. This process began with the grinding of plants in the Palaeolithic. With the domestication of wheat and barley, bread became a food product and a component of social identity, solidarity, and economic systems. Bread, therefore, became one of the symbols of sedentary life. Bread production processes have long been intertwined with ritual and social functions, as evidenced by 23,000-year-old grinding stones at the Ohalo II site in the Near East and ovens found in Neolithic settlements [4]. Pre-agricultural communities’ complex grain processing techniques reveal bread’s role beyond mere nutrition. Carbonized bread-like remains found at the Shubayqa 1 site in Jordan, dating back approximately 14,000 years, provide evidence of such advanced grain processing techniques [5,6].

With the Neolithic, bread production became systematized and integral to social life [7]. Ovens and grinding stones found in large-scale Neolithic centers, such as Çatalhöyük, show that bread-making contributed to developing the division of labor [8]. Associated with rituals, bread production played an important role in shaping social identity and cultural values [9].

However, the identification and characterization of amorphous charred food remains present significant challenges when relying solely on macroscopic observation. To address this, recent archaeobotanical research has increasingly integrated advanced archaeometric techniques to unravel the of ancient culinary practices. Methodologies such as Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) have become essential for visualizing microstructural details, including starch granules and aleurone layers, which are crucial for taxonomic identification and understanding grain processing. Complementing microscopy, chemical analyses using Vibrational Spectroscopy (FTIR and Raman) and Thermal Analysis (TGA-DSC) allow researchers to probe the molecular composition, detecting traces of proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates, and to estimate baking conditions such as temperature [5,10]. This multi-analytical approach represents the current state-of-the-art in food archaeology, enabling a precise reconstruction of ingredients and technological choices that visual inspection alone cannot provide.

This study examines the archaeological and archaeometric data from the carbonized bread remains discovered during the 2024 excavations at Küllüoba Höyük. The mound is located at the western end of the Upper Sakarya Basin, east of the province of Eskişehir. It is a medium-sized mound, measuring approximately 350x250 meters. The Küllüoba Höyük presents a continuous occupation sequence from the Transition to the Early Bronze Age through to the Transition to the Middle Bronze Age (ca. 3200–1900 BCE). This long-term settlement has been divided into six main layers based on stratigraphic radiocarbon results and relative chronology. The stratigraphic sequence begins with the lowest layers, corresponding to the advanced stages of the Transition to the Early Bronze Age (EBA Ia) and the subsequent Early Bronze Age I (EBA Ib). Following this, architectural remains attributed to the early (EBA IIa), middle (EBA IIb), and late (EBA IIc) phases of the Early Bronze Age II stand out, particularly for their planned architectural layout, administrative units, storage and production areas, and indications of social organization (Table 1). The uppermost layers correspond to the Early Bronze Age III (EBA IIIa) and the Middle Bronze Age (EBA IIIb) transition. This stratigraphic sequence, established due to more than thirty years of excavations at Küllüoba, reveals in detail the processes of continuity and transformation in chronological and cultural terms. Moreover, it sheds light on early state formation and urbanization dynamics in Western and Inland Western Anatolia.

Table 1. The overview of the stratigraphy of Küllüoba Höyük.

Approximate Date Range (BC) Stratigraphy
2150−1950 EBA IIIb
2400−2150 EBA IIIa
2500−2400 EBA IIc
2600−2500 EBA IIb
2700−2600 EBA IIa
2900−2700 EBA Ib
3200−2900 EBA Ia

Recent excavations at Küllüoba have revealed structures deliberately filled with red soil [11] (Fig 1). This indicates that the custom of constructing ritual burials, primarily observed in Neolithic Anatolia, may have continued into the Early Bronze Age. The continuation of this practice, previously identified at Neolithic sites such as Göbekli Tepe, Karahantepe, and Çatalhöyük, as well as Chalcolithic sites like Canhasan [12–16], enhances our understanding of the social and ritual dynamics of the period.

Fig 1. An aerial view reveals the location of the buried structures.

Fig 1

Excavations in Area 2, located in front of Structure No. 1, have revealed a distinct architectural layout compared to other structures on the site. The building, consisting of two rooms, contained six ovens in Room 1, indicating that it underwent five separate construction phases. The bread, the subject of this study, was found on the lowest level of the structure. Four absolute radiocarbon dates from this phase (Layer VI) at Küllüoba indicate that this layer should be dated between 3200 and 2900 BCE (Fig 2). The C14 sample taken from the upper architectural phase of the room where the bread was discovered yielded the above result. The C14 analysis of the bread sample (see Fig 5) yields a date that significantly refines the stratigraphy.

Fig 2. Radiocarbon dating of Küllüoba Layer VI.

Fig 2

Materials and methods

The bread remains analyzed in this study is housed at the Eskişehir Eti Archaeology Museum in Eskişehir, Turkey. The specific inventory number for this specimen is 50/1. Analysis permits were obtained from the Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums. All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.

Description of the Küllüoba bread

The most remarkable find in the room is the carbonized bread, discovered just east of the doorway (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Küllüoba Höyük excavation, Room 2, and the position of the bread unearthed.

Fig 3

The oval, bread measures 12 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm thick. It was recovered without damage during excavation. A piece was missing from its edge, suggesting it may have been deliberately broken off (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Küllüoba bread remains.

Fig 4

The location of the find and subsequent analysis indicate that the bread was deliberately carbonized as part of a ritual act and left as an offering, rather than being accidentally burned kitchen waste. Similar ritual practices are known from various periods [17–19]. The 50 cm thick layer of sterile red soil covering this phase protected the bread, allowing it to survive through subsequent occupation phases.

The bread remains were photographed and documented during the excavation work, then taken directly from the site to the research laboratory without undergoing any processing. Small sample pieces taken from the bread remains were examined and photographed using a stereozoom microscope in the laboratory. The sample taken for other spectrometric and compositional analyses was taken to the Necmettin Erbakan University Science and Technology Application and Research Centre, where the analyses were conducted in the laboratories there.

The surface observations were made using a Leica EZ4HD stereozoom microscope. The dough morphology and the microscopic fragments (granules, cells, phtoliths...) were characterized as is by high-resolution imaging obtained from field-emission scanning electron microscopy (Zeiss Gemini 500, FE-SEM). The accelerating voltage of electron was 2 kV while the FE-SEM images were obtained using secondary electron imaging (SE2 mode). The area elemental mapping of the sample was performed using an energy dispersive X-ray (EDX) detector (Oxford Instrument, Xmax 50 SEM) attached to the FE-SEM with an accelerating voltage of 7 kV using an SDD detector. The chemical composition was assessed by Fourier Transform Infra Red (FTIR) spectroscopy (Thermo Scientific Nicolet iS20). The spectrum was recorded in attenuated total reflectance (ATR) mode in the 4000−400 cm-1 range with a resolution of 0,5 cm-1. Only few micrograms of sample was analyzed without any specific preparation. Similar sample preparation was used to complete the chemical analysis via Raman spectroscopy (Renishaw inVia Reflex confocal Raman Microscope). The Raman spectrum was obtained with a 532 nm laser beam in the 800−3500 cm-1 range with a resolution of 0,3 cm-1. To improve the relevance of the results, both spectra were deconvoluted with Voigt functions using Fityk version 1.3.1 software. The detected peaks were finally compared and interpreted using the spectra of archaeological and contemporary breads investigated in the literature. Finally, the thermal behaviour of few micrograms of sample was performed with thermogravimetric analysis coupled with differential scanning calorimetry (TGA-DSC) instrument (Setaram Labsys Evo). The measurement was done from room temperature to 500oC at a heating rate of 10oC/min under nitrogen atmosphere (20 mL/min).

For archaeobotanical research, a total of 22 soil samples (62.85 L) were collected from Area 2, where bread was found. Carbonized plant remains were separated from the soil samples using a flotation system (motorless drum system). A soil sample is poured into the drum, and all light materials, including plant remains, rise to the surface. A constant flow of water passing through the system collects these floating materials in a chiffon located at the part of the drum where the water exits. These samples were then dried, sifted, and packaged for analysis. The samples were examined, identified, and classified under a stereozoom microscope at the Istanbul University Prehistory Laboratory.

Results and discussion

Radiocarbon (C14) dating

The radiocarbon dating of the bread was performed at the TÜBİTAK Marmara Research Center Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) laboratory. The standard radiocarbon age for the sample obtained from the bread remnant (T8-50/2) was established as 4385 + /- 34 BP. The calibrated outcomes at a 95.4% probability reveal intervals of 3261–3252 cal BC (0.8%) and 3100–2907 cal BC (94.7%). The median date was determined to be 2993 cal BC. The data definitively situate the material in the late 4th millennium BCE (Fig 5).

Fig 5. Radiocarbon dating of Küllüoba bread.

Fig 5

Microscopic analysis

SEM analyses revealed air voids of various sizes and irregular shapes on the surface and inside the bread (Fig 6). These voids indicate that the dough was kneaded and subjected to brief heat treatment.

Fig 6. SEM images of bread dough texture.

Fig 6

Microscopy revealed coarsely ground grain particles distributed throughout the inner matrix, not just on the surface (Fig 7).

Fig 7. Cereal grain ground into a dough-like consistency.

Fig 7

Microscopic examination revealed seed fragments and bran particles exhibiting morphological characteristics indicative of Triticum sp. (Fig 8). Upon evaluating the micromorphological observations alongside the archaeobotanical data from the site, where Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat) is the principal cereal crop found in the hearths and surrounding environment, emmer wheat is recognized as the primary component of the bread. This demonstrates that the main raw material was emmer wheat, which was widely grown in early agricultural societies.

Fig 8. Grain fragment of Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat).

Fig 8

In particular, the bread contained not only cereal but also legume residues. Stereomicroscope data and SEM images indicated structures matching Lens culinaris (lentil) based on the morphology of ground seed fragments and seed coats (Fig 9). This suggests the bread’s recipe included legumes, albeit in small amounts, to increase its nutritional value.

Fig 9. SEM image of the seed coat of Lens culinaris (lentil).

Fig 9

A rachis (spikelet stalk) fragment is also found in the bread (Fig 10). This finding reveals that the grains were used in a relatively unprocessed state, without being fully sieved, indicating a functional yet straightforward processing technology.

Fig 10. Rachis fragment in bread tissue under a stereozoom microscope.

Fig 10

Detailed SEM analysis showed that the starch granules had different shapes and sizes that matched the cereal and legume species that were found (Fig 11). The preservation of these granules shows that cereal and legume carbohydrates retained their structural integrity after cooking. This suggests the bread may have been baked briefly at a high temperature.

Fig 11. Different morphologies and sizes of starch granules.

Fig 11

In addition to analyzing the microscopic structure, the sample’s chemical composition was analyzed using EDX (Fig 12). The analysis identified carbon (C) as the dominant element, with concentrations ranging from 49.4% to 59.8%, which is consistent with the carbonized nature of the organic material. Oxygen (O) was the second most abundant element, detected at 25.3% to 29.2%. The prevalence of these elements confirms the organic origin of the sample and is typical for carbonized plant-based materials. Calcium (Ca) was also detected at lower levels (6.2% to 10.9%). This element likely resulted from contamination from the surrounding soil, as minerals like calcium carbonate (CaCO₃) may have adhered to the bread’s surface.

Fig 12. Result of chemical analysis of dough tissue using EDX.

Fig 12

These multifaceted analyses demonstrate that the Küllüoba bread is not merely a carbonized residue but also preserves microstructural and elemental traces of its plant components. Combining Triticum dicoccum and Lens culinaris suggests a nutrient-dense and deliberately diversified recipe. The presence of rachis fragments and varied particle sizes suggests that unsieved, coarsely ground raw materials were used, resulting in a bread product that is both technologically simple and nutritionally rich.

Vibrational spectroscopy

Vibrational spectroscopy is a chemical characterization technique based on irradiation and time-limited excitation of the sample. Fourier Transform InfraRed (FTIR) spectrum is obtained via infrared (IR) light radiation, and Raman spectrum is obtained with monochromatic light radiation.

The chemical structure of the bread sample was investigated by both FTIR and Raman spectroscopy. Since the chemical structure of the initial dough ingredients is unknown and the sample was stored underground for a long time, all peaks are probably not specific to the bread sample. Therefore, the interpretation of the peaks can be discussed again with the development of further information. To improve the relevance of the results, both spectra were deconvoluted with Voigt functions using Fityk version 1.3.1 software. The detected peaks were finally compared and interpreted using the spectra of breads investigated in the literature.

The FTIR spectrum presents three significant peak domains between approximately 800–1200 cm ⁻ ¹, 1300–1800 cm ⁻ ¹, and 2800–3700 cm ⁻ ¹, and two other peak domains between 400–800 cm ⁻ ¹ and 1800–2400 cm ⁻ ¹ (Fig. 13). Peaks below 800 cm ⁻ ¹ are related to the skeletal vibrational modes of aromatic rings, while those between 1800–2400 cm ⁻ ¹ represent conjugated double or triple bonds between C, N, and/or O [20,21]. Both domain peaks confirm that a large number of organic molecules with bond resonances in their structure are present in the sample.

Fig 13. Experimental FTIR spectrum of the Küllüoba bread sample.

Fig 13

Among the most important peak domains, a large number of peaks between 800–1200 cm ⁻ ¹ (1135, 1098, 1039, 1007, 1005, 990, and 921 cm ⁻ ¹) are characteristic for polysaccharide molecules (Fig 14a). The most intense peaks at 1005 and 1007 cm ⁻ ¹ correspond to those of starch [21].

Fig 14. Deconvoluted FTIR spectrum domains of the Küllüoba bread sample (a) 800-1200 cm ⁻ ¹ (b) 1300-1800 cm ⁻ ¹ (c) 2800-3700 cm ⁻ ¹ (Experimental spectrum in blue – Simulated spectrum in red).

Fig 14

In the 1300–1800 cm ⁻ ¹ region, peaks at 1627, 1551, and 1422 cm ⁻ ¹ are typical of the stretching bands of amide I, II, and III found in gluten and proteins (Fig 14b) [22,23]. Furthermore, the peak at 1657 cm ⁻ ¹ is probably related to the -OH bending of adsorbed water and not to the bread structure. Otherwise, no peaks were detected between 1700–1800 cm ⁻ ¹, which usually reflects the presence of carbonyl groups. The absence of carbonyl groups indicates that the organic structure has been heavily carbonized.

In this case, the absence of carbonyl groups can be attributed to either the lack of oil in the dough, which leads to the loss of carbonyl groups at high temperatures [24]. Or it can be explained by the low water content in the dough recipe, since its excess promotes ester hydrolysis, which favors the presence of carbonyls in the structure [22].

Finally, the peaks in the 2800–3700 cm ⁻ ¹ region are related to single bond (N-H, O-H, C-H…) stretching modes (Fig 14c). The peak at 3407 cm ⁻ ¹ is characteristic for OH in carbohydrates, proteins, and polyphenols [20]. The peak at 3301 cm ⁻ ¹, the lowest wavenumber, reflects the intermolecular H-bonded O–H stretching, while the peaks at 3539 and 3618 cm ⁻ ¹, the highest wavenumbers, are due to the asymmetric O-H stretching specific to non-hydrogen-bonded isolated hydroxyl. Isolated OH is present in the protein structure of the gluten network when bread is well baked [22]. Finally, peaks at 2927 and 2862 cm ⁻ ¹, typical of the C-H stretching mode, are observed in breads, and their attenuation reflects the presence of oil and/or salt, which are critical for the development of the gluten network [24].

Comparison of the FTIR spectrum with those of bread literature supports the presence of lipids, polysaccharides, and proteins. In particular, peaks at 2927 and 3301 cm ⁻ ¹ may be typical of the gluten network (2921 and 3280 cm ⁻ ¹ according to Sivam et al. [22]). On the other hand, the absence of carbonyl groups and the attenuated C-H stretching modes suggest that the bread dough was prepared with a minimum amount of water.

The Raman spectrum presents significant peak regions deconvoluted by the combination of strong and weak peaks (Fig 15). Among the strongest peaks, those at 1141, 1272, 1373, 1549, 1601, and 2914 cm ⁻ ¹ are due to specific bonds, while the one at 2642 cm ⁻ ¹ is an overtone reflecting the vibrational behavior of single aromatic layers, as in the single-layer graphene [25,26]. Therefore, the presence of carbohydrates (1141 and 1272 cm ⁻ ¹ C-O stretching of ether), proteins (1373 cm ⁻ ¹ N-H bending amide III, 1549 cm ⁻ ¹ N-H bending amide II, and 1601 cm ⁻ ¹ C = C stretching aromatic), and lipids (1601 cm ⁻ ¹ C = C stretching aromatic and 2914 cm ⁻ ¹ = C-H stretching in saturated lipids) was predicted [22,27]. On the other hand, the weakest peaks at 1358 cm ⁻ ¹ (CH2 bending in Aliphatic), 1740 cm ⁻ ¹ (C = O stretch of ester/carboxylic acid in lipids and amino acid), 2438 cm ⁻ ¹ (-C ≡ N stretch of Nitrile), and 3214 cm ⁻ ¹ (-C-H stretch in unsaturated lipids) indicate that other organic structures are present in smaller amounts. Additives are probably enriching the nutritional quality of the breads.

Fig 15. Deconvoluted Raman spectrum of the Küllüoba bread sample.

Fig 15

Thermal characteristics

On the thermogram up to 500oC, half of the total mass loss (~13%) occurs below 150oC. This temperature value is critical for bread, where the expected mass loss is approximately 28%, while for dough this value is 36% [28,29] (Fig 16). The difference in mass loss between ancient and recent bread can be explained by the slow carbonization process. However, 10% of the mass loss was observed around 100oC due to the soil moistening over time. This aspect is supported by endothermic heat flow, indicating the breaking of weak bonds and the evaporation of moisture [30]. Above 150oC, following a significant endothermic peak, a large exothermic peak seems to begin between 160oC to 230oC. Furthermore, mass loss continues during heating and a new inflection can be discerned between 160 and 250oC. These results are likely related to the formation of new bonds and the release of small molecules, indicating that the sample had not previously been heated to this temperature.

Fig 16. TGA-DSC curve of Küllüoba breads.

Fig 16

Archaeobotanical Results

The archaeobotanical samples examined were taken from inside hearths, in front of hearths, inside pots/bowls, next to ceramics, from pits, and various areas/corners within the structure.

Hearths

Hearths are one of the most obvious archaeological sites indicating cooking activities and the use of plant remains within structures. Four archaeobotanical samples (T8: 32/1, 44/1, 45/2, and 48/1) were selected and examined from this site (S1 Table). According to the data obtained, grain remains were found in high concentrations in the hearths. These grains include emmer, einkorn, six-row barley, and bread/durum wheat (Fig 17). Grains in the hearths indicate that these products were included in the cooking process and that an attempt was made to prepare bread or grain-based foods. But they may have been charred by careless use, and the leftover grains may have been mixed with fuel in the hearths.

Fig 17. Cereals of Area 2.

Fig 17

(a) einkorn (Triticum monococcum), (b) barley (Hordeum vulgare), (c) emmer (Triticum dicoccum), (d) bread/durum wheat (Triticum aestivum/durum).

Additionally, when examining the wheat and barley obtained from the hearths above, it is worth noting that they exhibit severe burns that could cause significant morphological abnormalities. In addition to consumption, the extraction of einkorn/emmer and six-row barley rachis from the stoves indicates that the grains underwent specific processes (such as separation from their husks) within Area 2, and we can say that the rachis were considered waste and used for fuel purposes. In the examples, legume residues such as bittervetch, peas, and lentils are much less common than grains (Fig 18). The aforementioned legume residues may have been included in the consumption chain for food types such as soups, porridge, or bread within Area 2. Additionally, wild plants inside the hearths were mixed with the products to be burned (consciously or unconsciously). This is because many of these wild plants are considered weeds in fields.

Fig 18. Legumes of Area 2.

Fig 18

(a) lentil (Lens culinaris), (b) bittervetch (Vicia ervilia), (c) pea (Pisum sativum).

Looking at the samples taken from the hearths, we can see that they have undergone cleaning processes. For example, the presence of botanical remains in sample 32/1, albeit somewhat incomplete, indicates that these areas underwent cleaning procedures during a specific period. However, when we compare this sample with another (T8: 48/1), the furnace was used without a complete cleaning procedure.

In front of the hearths

To better understand the activities inside the hearths, samples directly related to the areas in question were taken from in front of the hearth areas and analyzed (T8: 38/1 and 45/3). These samples were generally obtained with an ashy structure. These archaeobotanical samples were collected in front of the hearths; their contents (such as types of grains and legumes) are very comparable to one another and do not differ much from those collected inside the hearths. These plant remnants that were removed from the hearth fronts must have been dispersed around the region as rubbish while the hearths were being cleaned.

Pits

The pits inside the structures are where waste was accumulated and later disposed of, so the data inside them is always carefully observed. Archaeobotanical samples (T8: 37/1, 37/2, 39/1, and 48/1) from the four pits in Area 2 were analyzed to evaluate plant-based consumption within the space from different angles. The analyses revealed the presence of emmer, einkorn, and bread/durum wheat belonging to the cereal family and six-row barley residues. Legumes such as peas, bitter vetches, and lentils were also found in much smaller proportions than cereals. The abundant presence of rachis residues in the waste pits indicates that rachis was swept or thrown into the pits as waste/trash.

Pottery Interiors and Surroundings

Since a systematic silo and storage area concept has not yet been identified in Area 2, archaeological botanical samples (T8: 32/5, 35/2, 36/11, 36/12) were taken from the ceramics and evaluated to understand storage strategies and identify plant use. Samples 32/5 and 36/11 were taken directly from the pottery, but only a small amount of botanical remains were found. However, a larger quantity of botanical remains was found in the sample collected from the area adjacent to pottery 34/4. The plant remains may have been mixed into the soil due to spreading from the pottery (perhaps through breakage).

In archaeological settlement contexts, particularly those reflecting daily life, food-related activities such as preparation and cooking are known to have occurred. We note that we have found similar evidence in Area 2. One of our findings was observed in an archaeobotanical sample taken from a pot in front of the fireplace, numbered 35/2. This food residue, which does not appear to be porridge or bread-like, has been subjected to a cooking process and is likely to contain black cumin residues. It has also been observed that the black cumin seeds in the food residue do not have seed coats. Even a small amount of black cumin residue in the archaeobotanical sample supports this idea. Another finding indicating that the food residues had been cooked was detected in an archaeobotanical sample (44/1) taken from the hearth. The thin food pieces resemble the flatbread commonly consumed today in terms of structure. However, there is also the possibility that they are crumbs. Observing whether the broken pieces contained grains or legumes was impossible. The food fragments were exposed to high heat, causing their inner parts to become highly carbonized. Another porridge-like food residue, sample 46/3, was obtained from a botanical sample taken from the eastern side of the hearth. This food sample may also have been scattered from a handled vessel on the east hearth.

Another example of food remains comes from a garbage pit. In archaeobotanical samples taken from two different levels (top and bottom) of the same pit, no food remains were found at the bottom, but some organic remains were found at the top. The food samples in question consist of compacted grain fragments, and these organic remains were likely subjected to food preparation processes. In another sample from a different waste pit (sample no. 39/1), there are clumps of fragments consisting mainly of grains. The presence of hulled six-row barley residues, coupled with the observed alteration of morphological characteristics in both barley and certain durum wheat due to high heat exposure, indicates that these clump samples likely coalesced in a location such as a hearth and were subsequently discarded into the pit as refuse.

When looking at plant consumption in general, six-row barley, emmer wheat, einkorn wheat, and bread wheat are used in noticeable amounts in Area 2. Six-row barley is used with and without husks, while einkorn wheat is consumed as single-grain and double-grain varieties. The economic plant residues obtained directly support particular grain and legume residues in the bread’s composition. Legume residues (lentils, peas, and bitter vetches) appear in smaller quantities than grains. This fact may be because legumes are stored in smaller amounts and for shorter periods than grains. This possibility is because legumes’ water/moisture content makes them more prone to dampness, insect infestation, and decay. Another possibility is that legumes are used in liquid dishes without being ground. Bedstraw (Galium sp.), field gromwell (Lithospermum arvense), bromegrass (Bromus sp.), catchfly (Silene sp.), needle spikerush (Eleocharis sp.), and saltwort (Salsola sp.) are some of the wild plant residues observed in this category. Plants such as milkwort and lithospermum are known as field weeds and generally mix into the harvest during grain/legume harvesting. Therefore, their presence in the structure may be possible. The abundance of some examples of bromegrass (e.g., pit no. 39/1) raises questions about whether this wild grain species was also included in consumption. An example of plant remains collected from the environment is bramble (Rubus sp.). The presence of brambles in Area 2 indicates that the Küllüoba people did not consume only cereals/legumes but also collected brambles in season and ate their fruit along with the seeds, benefiting from the ecological system around them. Due to their fragile structure, detecting bramble fruits is usually a matter of chance [31].

The analysis results we obtained are primarily similar to the earlier archaeobotanical analyses of the Early Bronze Age I in Küllüoba [32]. The consumption of cereal and legume families and the similarity of wild plants have drawn a parallel pattern [33,34].

Microscopic and SEM analyses revealed that the main components of the Küllüoba bread were Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat) and a small amount of Lens culinaris (lentil). Archaeobotanical studies from the same site support this finding. The abundance of barley in the site’s archaeobotanical samples shows that it was not used in bread-making, indicating a preference for emmer wheat in bread production. This data offers substantial information about local preferences compared to studies from sites like Neolithic Çatalhöyük, which show different cereal mixtures or a focus on specific cereals [35,36]. Bread and food remains from Çatalhöyük indicate various grains and legumes, but specific recipes could vary temporally or spatially [35,37]. For comparison, 14,400-year-old bread-like remains from the Natufian settlement of Shubayqa 1 in Jordan indicate the use of wild cereals, such as barley, einkorn, and oats, as well as aquatic plant tubers [5]. This suggests that even pre-agricultural communities developed complex recipes [5], whereas the more refined recipe at Küllüoba, based on domesticated species, reflects the evolution of settled agricultural societies.

The variable-sized air pockets in the bread suggest that the dough may have undergone fermentation or leavening. This could indicate a significant technological step, especially compared to the unleavened flatbread from Shubayqa 1 [5] and the porridges and simple baked doughs found at many other archaeological sites [35,37,38]. Bran and coarsely ground particles suggest that whole grains were ground and used without sieving, resulting in a highly fibrous dough. Thermal analysis indicated cooking temperatures above 150–160°C, providing indirect information about the oven or hearth technologies of the period.

The Küllüoba bread is described as oval and flat, with a diameter of 12 cm. This shape generally resembles the flatbreads from Shubayqa 1 [5], but differs in size and shape from the bread found at Çatalhöyük [37]. The size and form of the Küllüoba bread is unique among the known examples from Anatolia. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the discovery is the context. The bread’s discovery near a doorway, deliberately carbonized and sealed under a sterile red earth fill, suggests it was more than a remnant of a daily meal. The ritualistic burial of structures is a practice known from the Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods [13–16], and the location strengthens the interpretation that the Küllüoba bread was part of an abandonment or closure ritual, perhaps as an offering. This aligns with the general understanding that bread carries nutritional but also social and ritual meanings [1–3]. While bread from other sites is often found in more domestic contexts, such as hearths or storage areas [5,35,37,39], this particular context at Küllüoba provides rare evidence of the symbolic value of bread in the Early Bronze Age.

Conclusions

The carbonized bread remains from Küllüoba Höyük, dating to the Early Bronze Age (3200−3000 BC), is a significant find that sheds light on the history of bread-making and related cultural practices, not only in Anatolia but across the Near East. The archaeometric analysis of this bread reveals unique aspects of Küllüoba’s food culture, allowing for comparison with finds from contemporary and earlier settlements. The microscopic and spectroscopic data have enabled detailed inferences about the production process, the raw materials, and baking techniques, providing crucial evidence for evaluating the find’s ritual context.

The Küllüoba bread, with its specific ingredients, possible leavening, distinct form, and especially its ritualistic context, makes it an excellent point of comparison for the history of bread in the Near East and Anatolia. From the pre-agricultural Shubayqa 1 [5] to Neolithic Çatalhöyük [35,37] and Jarmo [38] and sites in Europe [39], the Küllüoba archaeological record illuminates the use of domesticated grains, basic processing techniques, specific grain preferences, and a complex ritual purpose. This detailed data, obtained through multiple analytical methods, confirms that bread is not only a food source but also an indicator of technological development and complex social behavior. The Küllüoba bread is one of the earliest known examples in Anatolia, both in terms of form and content, and it constitutes a unique record of the food culture of early societies.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Archaeobotanical data from Küllüoba Höyük Trench T8.

(DOCX)

pone.0344705.s001.docx (29.4KB, docx)

Acknowledgments

The Küllüoba Excavation was supported by Bilecik Şeyh Edebali University Scientific Research Projects GAP-2024–568 No. Project. We would like to thank Dr. Ashley Cercone for reviewing and proofreading the article.

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for the research, design, data collection, or analysis of this study. The Article Processing Charge (APC) will be covered by LESAFFRE TURQUIE MAYACILIK ÜRETİM ve TİC. A.Ş.

References

  • 1.Bread D. Bread in archaeology. Civilisations. 2002;49:27–36. doi: 10.4000/civilisations.1353 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Popova T. Bread remains in archaeological contexts. In: Bacvarov K, Gleser R, editors. Southeast Europe and Anatolia in prehistory essays in honor of Vassil Nikolov on his 65th anniversary. Bonn: Habelt Book. 2016. p. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Fernandez-Armesto F. Near a thousand tables: a history of food. New York: The Free Press. 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Dubreuil L, Nadel D. The development of plant food processing in the Levant: insights from use-wear analysis of Early Epipalaeolithic ground stone tools. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015;370(1682):20140357. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0357 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Arranz-Otaegui A, Gonzalez Carretero L, Ramsey MN, Fuller DQ, Richter T. Archaeobotanical evidence reveals the origins of bread 14,400 years ago in northeastern Jordan. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(31):7925–30. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1801071115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Yeomans L, Richter T, Martin L. Environment, seasonality and hunting strategies as influences on Natufian food procurement: The faunal remains from Shubayqa 1. Levant. 2017;49(2):85–104. doi: 10.1080/00758914.2017.1368820 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Balossi-Restelli F, Conati-Brbaro C, Lemorini C, Mori L, D’Errico D. Bread in prehistory: Looking for the path of an extraordinary invention. In: Manetti C, Rufo F, editors. BREAD: an interdisciplinary perspective. Roma: Sapienza Università Editrice. 2017. p. 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hodder I. Çatalhöyük in the context of the middle eastern neolithic. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2007;36:105–20. doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.36.081406.094308 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Mithen S. After the ice: A global human history 20,000-5,000 BC. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Corti C, Bettinetti R, Brunello V, Motella De Carlo S, Rampazzi L, Recchia S, et al. Ancient bread recipes: Archaeometric data on charred findings. J Cultural Heritage. 2024;66:572–83. doi: 10.1016/j.culher.2024.01.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Türkteki M, et al. Küllüoba kazısı 2022 yılı çalışmaları. Kazı sonuçları toplantısı. 2023;295–310.
  • 12.Ülger S. Yakındoğu İlk Neolitik Kültürlerinde Yapı Kültü ve Yapıların Gömülme Sorunu. İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Schmidt K. Göbekli Tepe-Southeastern Turkey-The Seventh Campaign, 2001. Neo-Lithics. 2002;1:23–5. doi: 10.3406/paleo.2000.4697 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Karul N. Buried buildings at pre-pottery neolithic Karahantepe. Türk Arkeoloji ve Etnografya Dergisi. 2021;82:21–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mellaart J. Excavations at Çatal Hüyük, second preliminary report, 1962. Anatolian Studies. 1963;13:43–103. doi: 10.2307/3642490 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.French DH. Excavations at can hasan: second preliminary report. Anatol Stud. 1962;13:29–42. doi: 10.2307/3642489 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ashton J. The history of bread from prehistoric to modern times. London: Kessinger Publishing. 1904. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Collins BJ. Ritual meals in the hittite cult. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World. 1995;129:77–92. doi: 10.1163/9789004283817_007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Karauğuz G. Hititler döneminde Anadolu’da ekmek. Tarih İncelemeleri Dergisi. 2007;22:245–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kassem A, Abbas L, Coutinho O, Opara S, Najaf H, Kasperek D, et al. Applications of Fourier Transform-Infrared spectroscopy in microbial cell biology and environmental microbiology: advances, challenges, and future perspectives. Front Microbiol. 2023;14:1304081. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1304081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Mecozzi M, Pietroletti M, Scarpiniti M, Acquistucci R, Conti ME. Monitoring of marine mucilage formation in Italian seas investigated by infrared spectroscopy and independent component analysis. Environ Monit Assess. 2012;184(10):6025–36. doi: 10.1007/s10661-011-2400-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Sivam AS, Sun-Waterhouse D, Perera CO, Waterhouse GIN. Application of FT-IR and Raman spectroscopy for the study of biopolymers in breads fortified with fibre and polyphenols. Food Research International. 2013;50(2):574–85. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2011.03.039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Pourfarzad A, Habibi Najafi MB, Haddad Khodaparast MH, Khayyat MH. Serish inulin and wheat biopolymers interactions in model systems as a basis for understanding the impact of inulin on bread properties: a FTIR investigation. J Food Sci Technol. 2015;52(12):7964–73. doi: 10.1007/s13197-015-1939-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Sivam AS, Sun-Waterhouse D, Perera CO, Waterhouse GIN. Exploring the interactions between blackcurrant polyphenols, pectin and wheat biopolymers in model breads; a FTIR and HPLC investigation. Food Chemistry. 2012;131(3):802–10. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2011.09.047 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Silva-Molina R, Rosales-Pérez A, Torres-Castro A, Valdivia-García S. The role of pH on the second harmonic response of glycine sodium nitrate (GSN ). Int J Phys Sci. 2011;6:885–90. https://doi:10.5897/IJPS10.628 [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Valeš V, Drogowska-Horná K, Guerra VLP, Kalbáč M. Graphene-enhanced Raman scattering on single layer and bilayers of pristine and hydrogenated graphene. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):4516. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60857-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rodriguez A, Kurouski D. Raman spectroscopy enables non‐invasive and quantitative assessment of macronutrients in baked foods. J Raman Spectroscopy. 2023;54(9):899–904. doi: 10.1002/jrs.6528 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Lapčíková B, Burešová I, Lapčík L, Dabash V, Valenta T. Impact of particle size on wheat dough and bread characteristics. Food Chem. 2019;297:124938. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2019.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.G Khater ES. Heat and mass balance for baking process. J Bioproces Biotech. 2014;04(07). doi: 10.4172/2155-9821.1000190 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Schiraldi A, Piazza L, Riva M. Bread staling: a calorimetric approach. Cereal Chemistry. 1996;73(1):32–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Balcı H, Özbal R, Gerritsen F, Fidan E. Different manifestations of neolithization in northwest anatolia: An archaeobotanical review from barcın höyük and bahçelievler, turkey. Documenta Prehistorica. 2022;49:28–44. doi: 10.4312/dp.49.19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Özcan AC. Küllüoba yerleşmesi ilk tunç çağı I mezarlığının ve yapıların arkeobotanik değerlendirmesi. Bilecik: Bilecik Şeyh Edebali Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Özcan AC, Balcı H, Türkteki M. Bitkilerin ritüel dünyadaki yansıması: Küllüoba höyüğü ilk tunç çağı I mezarlığının arkeobotanik değerlendirmesi. In: Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı. 2024;7–19.
  • 34.Özcan AC, Balcı H, Türkteki M. Küllüoba yerleşmesi ilk tunç çağı I dönemi arkeobotanik analizinin sonuçları. In: Arkeometri sonuçları toplantısı. 2025;13–26.
  • 35.González Carretero L, Wollstonecroft M, Fuller DQ. A methodological approach to the study of archaeological cereal meals: a case study at Çatalhöyük East (Turkey). Veg Hist Archaeobot. 2017;26(4):415–32. doi: 10.1007/s00334-017-0602-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.González Carretero L. On the origins of bread cultures in the Near East: a new archaeobotanical study of charred meals and cooking practices from Neolithic Çatalhöyük (Turkey) and Jarmo (Iraqi Kurdistan). University College London. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kavak S. Çatalhöyük 2023 yılı kuzey tera alanı arkeobotanik çalışmaları. In: Arkeometri Sonuçları Toplantısı, 2024. 245–54.
  • 38.González Carretero L, Lucas L, Stevens C, Fuller DQ. Investigating early agriculture, plant use and culinary practices at Neolithic Jarmo (Iraqi Kurdistan). J Archaeol Sci Rep. 2023;52:1–17. doi: 10.1016/j.jasrep.2023.104264 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Heiss AG, Antolin F, Bleicher N, Harb C, Jacomet S, Kühn M, et al. State of the art. Analytical approaches in the investigation of components and production traits of archaeological bread-like objects, applied to two finds from the Neolithic lakeshore settlement Parkhaus Opéra (Zürich, Switzerland). PLoS One. 2017;12:1–30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0182401 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Peter F Biehl

24 Nov 2025

Dear Dr. kavak,

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.

All comments need to be addressed in detail before re-submission.

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

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 08 2026 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.. 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.

  • 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 . 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,

Peter F. Biehl, PhD

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 ..

3. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

4. Please upload a copy of Figure 17, to which you refer in your text on page 14. If the figure is no longer to be included as part of the submission, please remove all reference to it within the text.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information ..

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Your manuscript has now been seen by a referee, whose comments are appended below. You will see from these comments that while the referees find your work of potential interest, they have raised substantial concerns that must be addressed. In light of these comments, we cannot accept the manuscript for publication, but would be interested in considering a revised version that addresses these serious concerns.

We hope you will find the referees' comments useful as you decide how to proceed. Should presentation of further data and analysis allow you to address these criticisms, we would be happy to look at a substantially revised manuscript. However, please bear in mind that we will be reluctant to approach the referees again in the absence of major revisions.

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

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

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

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This paper presents a study on a sample of charred bread dating back to the Bronze Age and found in Anatolia. The sample was analysed using optical and electron microscopy techniques, but also subjected to chemical analysis using EDX, FTIR, Raman and TG-DSC. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the raw materials used and the methods of preparation.

ABSTRACT: It seems clear to me, but I would add at least a mention of the type of analysis conducted, in order to make it more interesting for an audience with a more scientific background.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction clearly presents the importance of bread in human history, citing the main discoveries of ancient bread and reconstructing the history of this food with its highly symbolic and ritualistic power. The introduction also describes the site of origin of the sample analysed. In my opinion, given the type of journal chosen for publication, at least one paragraph dedicated to the scientific analysis of ancient bread is missing. This addition would serve to outline the state of the art in this field and justify the choice of analytical techniques used.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In my opinion, all experimental details should be collected in this section and not in the discussion of results section. These details should also be completed, according to the instructions given in the specific comments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This section presents the results divided by technique. The idea is good, but the sections on SEM-EDX, FTIR, Raman and TG-DSC analyses need to be revised in terms of the interpretation of the results.

CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps a little long, some considerations could be brought forward to the ‘Results and discussion’ section.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE: The text is sufficiently clear, but needs some revisions to correct typos or a few incomplete sentences.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: There are only 2 self-citations out of 35 papers cited. As mentioned in the specific comments, I would suggest expanding the bibliography on the application of analytical techniques on similar samples of archaeological bread.

Specific comments:

1) Line 107

"Plant remains were obtained from the soil samples using a flotation system"

Please provide some more information about the flotation system used.

2) Lines 116-117

"The oval, flat bread measures 12 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm thick"

In my opinion, these details should be included in the materials and methods section.

3) Lines 127-128

"Conducted microscopic and elemental analyses to determine the carbonized bread sample's composition, production method, and plant content"

Please check this sentence, which appears to be incomplete.

4) Lines 128-132

Some instrumental details are missing, such as the energy used, the type of electrons used to collect the image, and the type of elemental analysis conducted (point? Area?). Was the sample metallised or observed as is? Were one or more fragments taken from the entire sample of bread found?

5) Lines 142-143

"Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat) seed particles and bran were identified by the analysis (Fig. 7)."

What are the distinctive features that allowed the plant structures observed to be identified as emmer wheat?

6) Lines 159-160

"A detailed SEM analysis revealed starch granules of different morphologies and sizes (Fig. 10)."

Are the shape and size of these granules consistent with the identified plant species?

7) Lines 166-168

"The analysis revealed carbon (C) as the most dominant The element's concentration ranged from 49.4% to 59.8%, indicating that the organic structure was largely preserved through carbonization"

This sentence needs to be revised from a grammatical point of view. Furthermore, even if the organic structure had not been preserved during carbonisation, the result would still be to have a lot of carbon. In my opinion, the amount of carbon present cannot be used to assess the state of preservation of the bread sample.

8) Lines 169-170

"The high concentration of these two elements indicates that heat treatment and burial stabilize the carbon-based organic molecules"

The same considerations made in the previous point apply here. Even after exposure to heat, the initial carbon remains carbon...

9) Lines 176-177

"These multifaceted analyses demonstrate that the Küllüoba bread is not merely a carbonized residue but also preserves molecular-level traces of its plant components"

As already specified, EDX analysis cannot provide information at the molecular level, but only at the elemental level.

10) Line 183

"Vibrational spectroscopy is a nondestructive characterization technique"

That is not entirely correct. Some vibrational spectroscopy techniques are non-destructive, while others require, for example, grinding of the sample.

11) Line 184

"Fourier Transformed InfraRed (FTIR) spectra"

Transform, not Transformed

12) Lines 186-195

"Both spectra are complementary since FTIR detects vibrations based on electrical dipole moment changes, while Raman detects vibrations based on electrical polarizability changes. In other words, FTIR is sensitive to polar bonds affected by connected atoms or surrounding molecules. On the other hand, Raman is sensitive to the ability of the electron cloud to distort the bond (nonpolar covalent bonds, symmetric vibrational bonds, aromatic and conjugated systems, or heavy atomic bonds). During Raman measurement, the molecule's vibrational energy level briefly reaches a high-energy collision state and returns to a lower energy state by emitting a photon. The difference between the emitted photon and the excitant laser frequencies provides the Raman shift. The Raman shift corresponds to the frequency of the fundamental IR absorbance band of the bonds"

I am not sure it is necessary to introduce the theory of infrared and Raman spectroscopy in a paper of this kind. I assume that most readers know what we are talking about, or know where to find information if they do not already have it.

However, specific information on the analyses carried out is completely missing: brand and model of the instruments, analysis intervals, types of sources and detectors, resolution, number of scans, etc. For infrared spectroscopy: was an ATR technique used? All this information is fundamental in a scientific article, much more so than the theory of spectroscopy.

13) Line 202

"spectra of breads investigated in the modern literature"

Does the term ‘modern’ refer to literature or bread? From personal experience, I know that it is not easy to find studies that apply infrared spectroscopy to samples of ancient bread and that it is therefore common practice to compare the spectra obtained with those recorded on samples of modern bread. It also seems to me that the few studies of infrared spectroscopy on ancient bread have not been cited here.

14) Lines 205-206

"Deconvolution of the latter group of peaks shows that there are so many peaks that it is not possible to assign a meaning to specific molecules"

To be precise, individual peaks are not associated with molecules, but with specific vibrations within a molecule. Only by grouping together the information provided by multiple peaks is it possible to identify the molecule that produced them.

15) Lines 208-209

"those between 1750-2400 cm⁻¹ represent conjugated double or triple bonds between C, N, and/or O"

Looking at the spectrum, there do not appear to be any peaks in this region. The spectrum is extremely noisy, probably due to moisture in the sample or an unsatisfactory background correction. It would nevertheless be advisable to indicate at least the main peaks discussed in the text on the spectrum.

16) Lines 210-211

"but probably not all of them are related to the bread structure."

On what basis can this statement be justified?

17) Lines 222-224

"The lack of carbonyls may be natural, but the presence of a large number of additives (grains, leaves…) also suggests that carbonyl groups have probably disappeared in the structure."

This sentence is unclear.

18) Lines 242-244

"the attenuated C-H stretching modes suggest that the bread dough was prepared with a minimum amount of water and possibly without oil and/or salt."

However, line 236 stated that the attenuation of these peaks was due to the presence of oil and/or salt.

19) Line 264

"The thermogravimetric analysis result (Setaram, Labsys Evo analyzer)"

Here too, details such as heating rate and, above all, the type of atmosphere used (nitrogen, air, etc.) are missing.

20) Line 265

"shows a maximum mass loss of 13% when the temperature reaches 150°C."

Please explain this sentence more clearly.

21) Lines 266-267

"Therefore, it can be assumed that the Küllüoba bread is above 150°C. "

Please explain this sentence more clearly.

22) Lines 269-271

"which changes at endothermic values between 50 and 150°C, indicating that the chemical bonds in the bread are broken between these temperatures"

It is not necessarily the case that bonds are broken; even the evaporation of moisture generates an endothermic peak in DSC.

23) Lines 271-273

"The exothermic heat flow observed when the temperature rises above 160°C may be due to the formation of new bonds, suggesting that the possibility is likely baked at this temperature."

I honestly don't see the exothermic peak above 160°C. Could you indicate it clearly, perhaps with an arrow? On the contrary, I see a slight endothermic peak just before 250°C, linked to the corresponding weight loss.

24) Lines 315-317

"These samples, which show no significant differences compared to those inside the furnaces and are similar in content; they were probably scattered across the area as debris while cleaning the hearths"

Please check this sentence because it seems incomplete.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 27;21(3):e0344705. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344705.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Jan 2026

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

Response: Following the reviewer’s suggestions, the manuscript has been revised and expanded, and the radiocarbon (C¹⁴) result for the bread has been included as a newly conducted analysis. In this context, we consider our study to be technically sound and to support its conclusions with important analytical results.

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy

requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

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

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper presents a study on a sample of charred bread dating back to the Bronze Age and found in Anatolia. The sample was analysed using optical and electron microscopy techniques, but also subjected to chemical analysis using EDX, FTIR, Raman and TG-DSC. The purpose of the analysis was to determine the raw materials used and the methods of preparation.

ABSTRACT: It seems clear to me, but I would add at least a mention of the type of analysis conducted, in order to make it more interesting for an audience with a more scientific background.

Response to Abstract Comment: We appreciate the suggestion to make the abstract more appealing to a scientific audience. We have revised the abstract to explicitly list the specific analytical techniques employed in the study, including SEM-EDX, FTIR, Raman spectroscopy, and TGA-DSC. We believe this addition clearly highlights the archaeometric depth of the research.

INTRODUCTION: The introduction clearly presents the importance of bread in human history, citing the main discoveries of ancient bread and reconstructing the history of this food with its highly symbolic and ritualistic power. The introduction also describes the site of origin of the sample analysed. In my opinion, given the type of journal chosen for publication, at least one paragraph dedicated to the scientific analysis of ancient bread is missing. This addition would serve to outline the state of the art in this field and justify the choice of analytical techniques used.

Response to Introduction Comment: We appreciate the reviewer's valuable suggestion regarding the need for a scientific context. We agree that a dedicated paragraph outlining the 'state of the art' in ancient bread analysis was missing. We have inserted a new paragraph in the Introduction section that discusses the limitations of macroscopic examination and justifies the application of the specific archaeometric techniques used in this study (SEM, FTIR, Raman, TGA-DSC), citing relevant literature in the field.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: In my opinion, all experimental details should be collected in this section and not in the discussion of results section. These details should also be completed, according to the instructions given in the specific comments.

Response to Materials and Methods: We fully agree with the reviewer’s recommendation to consolidate all experimental details within the Materials and Methods section. In the revised manuscript, we have moved the descriptive details from the Results section to this section. Furthermore, we have significantly expanded the Materials and Methods section to include all missing technical specifications, instrument models, and operational parameters as requested in the specific comments.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: This section presents the results divided by technique. The idea is good, but the sections on SEM-EDX, FTIR, Raman and TG-DSC analyses need to be revised in terms of the interpretation of the results.

Response to Results and Discussion: We appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback on the structure of this section and their constructive criticism regarding the data interpretation. We have extensively revised the Results and Discussion section to address the specific concerns raised in the detailed comments. Specifically, we have: Refined the interpretation of SEM-EDX results to focus on elemental composition rather than implying molecular stabilization or preservation based solely on carbon content. Re-evaluated the FTIR and Raman spectra descriptions to ensure accurate peak assignments and resolved contradictions regarding lipid/salt presence. Corrected the interpretation of thermal events in the TGA-DSC analysis, clarifying the distinction between moisture loss and chemical decomposition. These revisions ensure that our conclusions are scientifically robust and fully supported by the analytical data.

CONCLUSIONS: Perhaps a little long, some considerations could be brought forward to the ‘Results and discussion’ section.

Response to Conclusions: We have shortened this section by moving the detailed comparative discussions (such as comparisons with other archaeological sites like Çatalhöyük and Shubayqa 1) to the Results and Discussion section. The revised Conclusions section now focuses strictly on the primary findings and the broader implications of the study.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE: The text is sufficiently clear, but needs some revisions to correct typos or a few incomplete sentences.

Response to English language: We have carefully proofread the entire manuscript to identify and correct typos and complete any fragmented sentences. We believe the revised text is now grammatically accurate and flows more smoothly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: There are only 2 self-citations out of 35 papers cited. As mentioned in the specific comments, I would suggest expanding the bibliography on the application of analytical techniques on similar samples of archaeological bread.

Response to Bibliography: We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestion to broaden the bibliographic context. We have significantly expanded the reference list by including additional studies that apply similar analytical techniques (such as SEM, FTIR, and Raman) to archaeological bread samples. These new citations allow for a better integration of our findings with the current state of the art and provide a stronger basis for comparative discussion.

Specific note:

"We would like to inform you that the direct radiocarbon dating results for the bread sample, which were pending at the time of initial submission, have now been received. We have incorporated these new data into the revised manuscript, providing direct chronological evidence that further corroborates the stratigraphic dating."

1) Line 107

"Plant remains were obtained from the soil samples using a flotation system"

Please provide some more information about the flotation system used.

Response to Comment 1: We appreciate the reviewer’s request for more detailed information regarding the archaeobotanical recovery process. We have rewritten the relevant paragraph in the Materials and Methods section to provide a comprehensive description of the flotation system used. The revised text now clearly outlines the technical specifications of the flotation process.

2) Lines 116-117

"The oval, flat bread measures 12 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm thick"

In my opinion, these details should be included in the materials and methods section.

Response to Comment 2: We agree with the reviewer's suggestion that the physical dimensions of the sample are better suited for the Materials and Methods section. Accordingly, we have moved the sentence describing the bread's shape and measurements ('The oval, flat bread measures 12 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm thick') to that section.

3) Lines 127-128

"Conducted microscopic and elemental analyses to determine the carbonized bread sample's composition, production method, and plant content."

Please check this sentence, which appears to be incomplete.

Response to Comment 3: Thank you for bringing this grammatical oversight to our attention. We have revised the sentence to ensure it is complete and grammatically correct by converting it to the passive voice. The sentence now reads: 'Microscopic and elemental analyses were conducted to determine the carbonized bread sample's composition, production method, and plant content.

4) Lines 128-132

Some instrumental details are missing, such as the energy used, the type of electrons used to collect the image, and the type of elemental analysis conducted (point? Area?). Was the sample metallised or observed as is? Were one or more fragments taken from the entire sample of bread found?

Response to Comment 4: We have updated the Materials and Methods section to include all the missing instrumental details. The revised text now explicitly specifies the accelerating voltage (EHT), the type of electrons used for imaging (Secondary Electrons - SE), the nature of the EDX analysis (point and area measurements), and the sample preparation process (metallization). Additionally, we have clarified the sampling strategy, stating how the specific fragments were selected from the bread remains for analysis.

5) Lines 142-143

"Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat) seed particles and bran were identified by the analysis (Fig. 7)."

What are the distinctive features that allowed the plant structures observed to be identified as emmer wheat?

Response to Comment 5: We used a combination of micromorphological features and the specific archaeobotanical context of the find to identify Triticum dicoccum, not just the SEM image.

In the SEM micrographs, we observed unique bran fragments (pericarp tissues) and coarse particle structures that exhibit morphological characteristics consistent with hulled wheat species. But as the reviewer points out, it can be hard to tell T. dicoccum apart from other Triticum species just by looking at carbonized flour fragments. Consequently, this diagnosis was robustly corroborated by the archaeobotanical analysis of the soil samples obtained from the immediate vicinity (hearths and floors) of the bread. Since Triticum dicoccum makes up most of the cereal assemblage in this area (as shown in the Archaeobotanical Results section) and the bran residues seen in SEM were all the same shape, the raw material was identified as emmer wheat.

We changed the sentence in the "Results and Discussion" section that talks about this to make it clear that the identification is based on this combined evidence, which makes it more scientifically accurate.

6) Lines 159-160

"A detailed SEM analysis revealed starch granules of different morphologies and sizes (Fig. 10)."

Are the shape and size of these granules consistent with the identified plant species?

Response to Comment 6: Yes, the morphology and size of the starch granules observed in the SEM analysis are consistent with the plant species identified in the sample, specifically Triticum dicoccum (emmer wheat) and Lens culinaris (lentil). We have clarified this consistency in the revised manuscript.

7) Lines 166-168

"The analysis revealed carbon (C) as the most dominant The element's concentration ranged from 49.4% to 59.8%, indicating that the organic structure was largely preserved through carbonization"

This sentence needs to be revised from a grammatical point of view. Furthermore, even if the organic structure had not been preserved during carbonisation, the result would still be to have a lot of carbon. In my opinion, the amount of carbon present cannot be used to assess the state of preservation of the bread sample.

Response to Comment 7: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment regarding both the grammatical structure and the interpretation of the results. We acknowledge that high carbon content is a natural outcome of the carbonization process and does not inherently prove the preservation of the structural integrity. Therefore, we have corrected the grammatical error and revised the sentence to state that the high carbon concentration reflects the carbonized nature of the organic material, rather than using it as an indicator of structural preservation.

8) Lines 169-170

"The high concentration of these two elements indicates that heat treatment and burial stabilize the carbon-based organic molecules"

The same considerations made in the previous point apply here. Even after exposure to heat, the initial carbon remains carbon...

Response to Comment 8: We accept the reviewer's valid point, which aligns with the previous comment. We acknowledge that the elemental presence of carbon and oxygen does not inherently prove the stabilization of specific molecular structures, as elemental carbon persists regardless of structural preservation. We have revised the sentence to remove the claim regarding 'stabilization' and instead stated that this composition is characteristic of carbonized organic matter derived from carbohydrates.

9) Lines 176-177

"These multifaceted analyses demonstrate that the Küllüoba bread is not merely a carbonized residue but also preserves molecular-level traces of its plant components"

As already specified, EDX analysis cannot provide information at the molecular level, but only at the elemental level.

Response to Comment 9: We fully agree with the reviewer’s correction. As noted, EDX analysis yields elemental data rather than molecular information. Since this sentence concludes the section on microscopic and elemental analyses (SEM-EDX), we have revised the text to accurately reflect the data obtained. We replaced the term 'molecular-level' with 'microstructural and elemental' to correctly describe the preservation traces detected by these specific methods.

10) Line 183

"Vibrational spectroscopy is a nondestructive characterization technique"

That is not entirely correct. Some vibrational spectroscopy techniques are non-destructive, while others require, for example, grinding of the sample.

Response to Comment 10: To ensure scientific accuracy, we have removed the term 'nondestructive' and redefined the technique based on its operational principle. The revised sentence now reads: Vibrational spectroscopy is a chemical characterization technique based on irradiation and time-limited excitation of the sample.

11) Line 184

"Fourier Transformed InfraRed (FTIR) spectra"

Transform, not Transformed

Response to Comment 11: We have corrected the phrase to 'Fourier Transform InfraRed' in accordance with the standard scientific nomenclature.

12) Lines 186-195

"Both spectra are complementary since FTIR detects vibrations based on electrical dipole moment changes, while Raman detects vibrations based on electrical polarizability changes. In other words, FTIR is sensitive to polar bonds affected by connected atoms or surrounding molecules. On the other hand, Raman is sensitive to the ability of the electron cloud to distort the bond (nonpolar covalent bonds, symmetric vibrational bonds, aromatic and conjuga

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0344705.s003.docx (24.2KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Enrico Greco

24 Feb 2026

Archaeometric analysis of Early Bronze Age bread from Küllüoba Höyük

PONE-D-25-50027R1

Dear Dr. kavak,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support ..

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,

Enrico Greco

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

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 #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I have carefully re-read the paper and it has improved substantially, both in terms of content and in the structure and readability of the text. All the issues I previously raised appear to have been fully addressed.

I have no further comments and believe the manuscript is now suitable for publication.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.). 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 For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .-->

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Enrico Greco

PONE-D-25-50027R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. kavak,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Enrico Greco

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 Table. Archaeobotanical data from Küllüoba Höyük Trench T8.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0344705.s001.docx (29.4KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0344705.s003.docx (24.2KB, 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