Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Jul 28;16(7):e0254529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254529

Characterization of structural changes in modern and archaeological burnt bone: Implications for differential preservation bias

Giulia Gallo 1,2,*, Matthew Fyhrie 1, Cleantha Paine 3, Sergey V Ushakov 4, Masami Izuho 5, Byambaa Gunchinsuren 6, Nicolas Zwyns 1,2,7, Alexandra Navrotsky 4
Editor: Justin W Adams8
PMCID: PMC8318310  PMID: 34320009

Abstract

Structural and thermodynamic factors which may influence burnt bone survivorship in archaeological contexts have not been fully described. A highly controlled experimental reference collection of fresh, modern bone burned in temperature increments 100–1200˚C is presented here to document the changes to bone tissue relevant to preservation using Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction. Specific parameters investigated here include the rate of organic loss, amount of bone mineral recrystallization, and average growth in bone mineral crystallite size. An archaeological faunal assemblage ca. 30,000 years ago from Tolbor-17 (Mongolia) is additionally considered to confirm visibility of changes seen in the modern reference sample and to relate structural changes to commonly used zooarchaeological scales of burning intensity. The timing of our results indicates that the loss of organic components in both modern and archaeological bone burnt to temperatures up to 700˚C are not accompanied by growth changes in the average crystallite size of bone mineral bioapatite, leaving the small and reactive bioapatite crystals of charred and carbonized bone exposed to diagenetic agents in depositional contexts. For bones burnt to temperatures of 700˚C and above, two major increases in average crystallite size are noted which effectively decrease the available surface area of bone mineral crystals, decreasing reactivity and offering greater thermodynamic stability despite the mechanical fragility of calcined bone. We discuss the archaeological implications of these observations within the context of Tolbor-17 and the challenges of identifying anthropogenic fire.

Introduction

Anthropogenic burnt bones can be indicative of many social and economic behaviors and can contribute to studies identifying evidence for ritual activity [1], cremations [24], bone fuel [59], hygienic practices [5, 9], cooking and marrow warming [10], and locations of combustion features [11]. Burnt bones undergo substantive structural and compositional changes at different burning intensities, however, and the implications of these changes for differential bone survivorship in an archaeological fauna assemblage is of critical importance for studies utilizing burnt material.

Bone diagenesis can result in bone mineral disintegration or dissolution [12]. The rate, sequence, and extent of diagenetic processes are determined by many factors, including the nature of the depositional environment and the age, element, and species of the bone tissue. Postmortem bone preservation is well described in regards to the differences between compact and cancellous bone [1316], juvenile and adult bone [17, 18], intra- and interspecies variation in bone size and density [1921], and different environmental conditions [12, 2226]. However, zooarchaeological evaluations of burnt bone preservation have resulted in varied interpretations and have not addressed the different structural properties of bone burnt to different temperatures [5, 27].

The aim of this study is to describe the range of structural modifications to bone mineral produced by burning at different temperature intensities, and to relate such changes to standardized scales utilized in zooarchaeological methods, specifically here the Stiner et al. [27] scale of burning intensity. This is done with the intention of describing differences between categories of burnt bone, including any vulnerabilities to diagenetic processes that could result in assemblage biases within burnt bone in archaeological contexts. Here we present the results of a controlled experimental reference library of fresh, modern bone burnt in increments of 100–1200˚C and analyzed with Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) with Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) attachment and X-ray diffraction (XRD). We additionally compare spectroscopic measurements to a sample of burnt fauna dated to ca. 30 ka to verify visibility of alterations in an archaeological assemblage.

Bone

Bone is comprised of organic proteins primarily of collagen, inorganic mineral, and water, creating a composite material organized in compact bone in cylindrical structures of concentric lamellae surrounding an interior channel for a central blood canal [28, 29]. This hierarchical arrangement provides and maintains the biological roles of skeletal tissue: mechanical strength to transmit force and protect organs, and the regulation of homeostasis through ionic regulation [2831].

Living bone is very porous, with around 12% of bone volume comprised of open spaces [2]. The concentric systems, known as Haversian systems, constitute a large percentage of the bone matrix porosity, with the remainder composed of resorption bays and voids created between the organic and inorganic components [2932]. The amount, size, and density of pores in bone is variable across elements, species, and ages, although trabecular bone does exhibit a higher porosity than compact bone due to its more open structure [21, 29, 32].

Inorganic bone constituent, bioapatite, is isostructural to mineral hydroxyapatite Ca5(PO4)3OH. The specific chemical compositions of bioapatite reflect diet, biological age through history of bone remodeling, and variation can exist both within species and within the skeletal elements themselves [29]. Bioapatite contains 5–8 wt% carbonate which can substitute either phosphate or hydroxyl group in hydroxyapatite structure [33]. Bioapatite has a high degree of nonstoichiometry, and its composition can be described as Ca10-x(PO4)6-x(HPO4, CO3)x(OH,1/2CO3)2-x with 0<x<2 [31, 34, 35].

In vivo bioapatite has extremely small, thin, plate-like morphologies (1–7 nm thick, 15–200 nm in length, and 10–80 nm in width) which are cross-linked to organic collagen fibrils [3436]. Water is found in bone as loose mobile water in the extracellular matrix, in void spaces to facilitate movement, and integrated within and around the organic and mineral components [31, 37]. Bioapatite crystallites have typical surface areas above 200 m2g and are heavily hydrated [30, 31, 3538]. These surface layers of ions play a key role in the regulation of homeostasis, as they can be easily exchanged and provide a necessary capacity to regulate ionic concentrations in living tissue [3, 28, 3841].

Bone diagenesis

Diagenesis, the postmortem changes to bone tissue in burial environments, includes the integrated processes of microbial attack, water activity, and mineral recrystallization and can result in the complete disintegration of bone material [12]. The arrangement and size distribution of pores at the time of burial are large predictors of bone decay or bone survival, as pores mediate the access and extent of destructive agents such as bacteria and water [18, 2224, 4244]. Microbial attack itself is an active and immediate process accounting for a large amount of initial organic destruction, especially in warmer environments [42]. Microbial access to collagen degrades the protein chains, effectively removing the organic component of bone [19, 24, 32, 42, 44, 45]. The removal of the collagen component results in a more brittle biomaterial on the macroscale, and leaves bioapatite crystals unprotected on the micro- and nanoscale [46].

Exposed bioapatite is vulnerable to the incorporation of impurities and to disintegration, as postmortem crystals initially retain the specific morphology, reactivity, and thermodynamic instability of living bioapatite [47, 48]. The reaction between bone mineral and water is the most significant predicate of bioapatite disintegration at this stage of diagenesis, and bones buried in environments with active water movement are highly vulnerable to leeching and dissolution, noted to be heightened when bioapatite is exposed and easily accessible after organic removal [24, 48]. There is no universal thermodynamic model of bioapatite solubility due to the complexity of bone as a biomaterial, and rather each crystal domain is assigned its own Metastable Equilibrium Solubility (MES): a distribution phenomenon dependent on aspects of bone quality such as carbonate substitutions, ion vacancies, low crystallinity, and small crystal sizes [48, 49]. Uptake of contamination from the burial environment, such as rare earth elements and secondary calcite, has been noted to reduce as bone mineral spontaneously recrystallizes without in-vivo regulation and larger crystals grow at the expense of smaller crystals [18, 50, 51]. This process results in bone mineral with a slightly higher crystallinity, effectively decreasing the available reactive surface area of bioapatite and therefore the overall solubility compared to fresh bone [18, 36, 50, 51].

Burnt bone

Burning bone results in the decomposition of the organics and loss of water, as well as in massive changes to bioapatite crystal dimensions and structure. The extent and degree of these alterations are correlated to temperature and burning atmosphere, producing bones with different mechanical and thermodynamic properties dependent on the extent of burning. These micro- and nano- scale transformations have a notable impact on visible macroscopic changes to heat altered bone, including color changes, cracking, shrinkage, weight loss, and fragmentation [27, 41, 5255]. Burnt bone coloration is generally correlated to burning intensity, and the ease of color identification has assisted in the proliferation and use of zooarchaeological scales of coding heat alteration, such as the Stiner et al. [27] classification of burning intensity (Table 1).

Table 1. Burning intensity scale based on macroscopic visual qualities following Stiner et al. [2,7].

Burning Scale Description
0 Not burnt
1 Slightly burnt, < 50% carbonized
2 Majority burnt, > 50% carbonized
3 Fully carbonized
4 Slightly highly burnt, < 50% calcined
5 Majority highly burnt, > 50% calcined
6 Fully calcined 

Scales of burning based on macroscopic visual cues are tremendously beneficial for processing archaeological assemblages of burnt fauna, but do not reflect the sequence of changes in the composition and structural properties of burnt bone. Observations on the nano- and micro-scale have therefore led to the definition of four stages of burning which are correlated to the transformation of bone mineral and removal of organics on the nano- and microscale: dehydration, decomposition, inversion, and fusion [2, 5457]. These stages are accomplished at different temperature thresholds and were defined in oxidizing burning conditions [2, 5457]. The rate and degree of temperature induced changes depend on variables such as flesh coverage, heating and cooling rates and oxygen availability [54, 55]. Dehydration, or, the loss of water, occurs between 100 and 600˚C [2, 54, 5658]. This wide temperature range likely accounts for the quicker loss of the loosely bound water between 25 and 250˚C and the eventual loss of the additional water more structurally bound to the mineral in temperatures above 100˚C [2, 31, 56, 57].

After initial dehydration, the second stage of bone combustion is organic decomposition, from 300 to 800˚C [2, 56, 57]. With collagen degradation starting at 112–260˚C, above 300˚C a large proportion of the organics is reduced to a char [58]. Between 300 and 500˚C most mass, 50–55%, is lost, and above 500˚C any remaining char is removed by 700˚C [58]. The macroscopic transformation most noticeable with the decomposition stage is the striking changes in coloring, with bone becoming visibly blackened with the charring of organics (300˚C), corresponding to Stages 1–3 of the Stiner et al. [27] scale, and after the complete removal of organics (700˚C) transitioning to a grey and chalky white hue for Stiner et al. [27] Stages 4–6 [2, 27, 54, 56, 57]. Bone that is blackened is referred to as combusted or carbonized dependent on burning atmosphere, while grey and white bone with all organics removed can be referenced as calcined [27, 5456].

Simultaneous to the loss of organics is the alteration of the bioapatite mineral, or the inversion stage, between 500 and 1100˚C [2, 57, 58]. With the removal of the organic component at 300˚C, the larger, plate-like crystals can spontaneously grow at the expense of smaller crystals [2, 5759]. Experiments with bone burnt while powdered and subsequently cleaned with acetone report mean crystallite size increasing to 10–30 nm, and crystallite thickness moving from 2 to 9 nm [59, 60]. Above 500˚C, additional growth has been observed, with reported crystallite sizes plateauing at 110 nm and with crystal thickness reaching 10 nm [59]. The crystals, transforming from platelet like to hexagonal, later become equiaxed at 900˚C, growing more spheroidal with overall dimensions reaching 300–550 nm [60].

The last stage of heat alteration to bioapatite, fusion, accounts for the microstructural changes noted with the inversion phase above 700˚C [2, 57, 58]. Bone porosity initially increases from the originally porous in vivo status with the loss and charring of organics (~300˚C), which also corresponds to a loss in bone density [32, 60]. Carbonized and charred bone is reported to be most porous right before temperatures of calcination (600˚C) [32]. Beginning at 700˚C there is a densification as the bioapatite crystal grains grow, and by 900˚C there is a total structural coalescence from the additional crystal growth, resulting in an interlocking structure and a marked decrease in porosity [2, 59, 60].

These changes are all products of burning in oxidizing conditions [55, 56]. If a bone is brought to temperatures greater than 300˚C without access to oxygen, a different pattern of thermal alteration has been demonstrated in controlled experiments [55]. When heating occurs in reducing atmospheres, the organic char is not removed and instead becomes more ordered [55]. The crystallinity of the bioapatite does increase, however, although at a slower rate than indicated in oxidizing conditions [55]. New compounds, such as cyanamide, are also likely formed around 600˚-700˚C [55]. Bones burnt in reducing atmospheres above 600˚C do not lose the organic char component, and therefore remain black in coloring [55].

Burnt bone diagenesis

The rapid morphological and compositional changes to burnt bone tissue are similar to changes seen over prolonged periods of time in the diagenesis of unburnt bone. This includes the removal of organic components and incorporated water, as well as the recrystallization of the bioapatite crystals. The immediate and greater extent of these changes in bone burnt to both low and high temperatures, however, results in a markedly different biomaterial at time of burial than unburnt bone.

Burnt bone is more fragile than unburnt bone, with fragmentation a function of burning intensity [27]. The dehydration and eventual complete removal of collagen from bone tissue significantly changes the toughness and strength properties of bone, altering the density, the structural integrity, and the stress and strain relationship [27, 6163]. This ultimately results in a greater likelihood of mechanical fracture correlated to the amount of collagen lost, leaving calcined bone the most mechanically vulnerable [27, 61]. Due to this extreme friability, recovered burnt bone fragments do not reflect initial size at deposition and processes such as burial and trampling can severely and easily fragment burnt bone [27, 64].

The fragility, likely presence of small fragment sizes, and elimination of organic components of bone burnt to lower temperatures provides greater surface area and easy access for diagenetic agents in the context of burial environments. Bone mineral does, however, undergo tremendous crystallite growth and reorganization with burning at higher temperatures, enabling calcined bone to be protected from contamination [54, 59, 65, 66]. Because of this, calcined bone is recognized to be the most reliable source of inorganic C14 for radiocarbon dating, as the elevated crystallinity that accompanies heat alteration at high temperatures protects the Type A and B carbonate substitutions and secondary carbonate incorporated from the burning atmosphere from further alteration, which subsequently can be used to date the burning event [65, 67].

Questions about the changing vulnerabilities of differentially burnt bone prompted our investigations into the characterization of structural changes of modern and archaeological bone burnt at different temperatures. Of specific interest to this study is the timing of the organic loss, and therefore loss of bioapatite protection, in reference to the increases in crystallinity and crystal sizes of bone mineral. Archaeological bone, both unburnt and burnt, is considered in this study as an actualistic reference to relate implications to commonly used zooarchaeological scales of burning intensity, and to monitor the extent of alterations related to the spontaneous postmortem recrystallization of bone mineral which occurs over time in burial environments.

Materials and methods

Modern bone sample collection and preparation

A controlled experimental reference collection was created with modern bone to investigate the timing and impact of thermal alteration on bone organic loss, recrystallization indices, and crystallite size growth. Two horse metacarpals from different individuals were obtained from horses donated to scientific study at the UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Horses were not euthanized in relation to this or any other study, but were humanely euthanized after a poor prognosis of health following extreme cervical osteoarthritis or a femur fracture. Protocol for this procedure was approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association at the UC Davis Center for Equine Health, and was done by trained veterinary staff with great care to ameliorate animal pain, anxiety, and suffering. Metacarpals used for this study were cleaned with simmering water with the addition of borax. Three cow femurs from different individuals were used in this study and were purchased from a local butcher, Adam’s Meat Shop (Folsom, CA). These femurs were never frozen, and flesh was scraped manually to prepare for drilling. A diamond drill coring bit was used to produce solid plugs of cortical bone 3mm x 3mm, with weights ranging from 53.2 to 58.1 mg. Coring was constrained to the cortical bone tissue from the mid-diaphysis of both cow and horse bones. Solid bone plugs were specifically utilized in lieu of bone powder to avoid the effects of powder heating, as powder has an increased surface area and would be more reactive to thermal alteration. To fit the dimensions of crucibles used for thermal analyses, plugs were filed with diamond files. Post-experimental heating, three samples were selected for imaging with Scanning Electron (SE) microscopy for visualization purposes. All bone samples were then powdered with an agate mortar and pestle and sieved with 234 μm mesh.

Modern bone thermal analysis

The controlled annealing of modern bone samples was performed with Setaram Labsys Evo thermal analyzer. Bone core samples were placed in a 100 μl Al2O3 crucible and air flow 40 ml/min was established. The samples were brought to desired temperatures from 100 to 1200°C in 100˚C increments, with heating rate 20˚C /min and held isothermally for 30 minutes. The weight change and heat flow traces were recorded continuously and corrected for the baseline. Additional samples were produced at 300 and 700˚C with ramp 50°C /min and one hour dwell time for comparison.

Archaeological case study sample collection and preparation

Archaeological unburnt and burnt bone samples were collected from the site of Tolbor-17 (T-17), an open-air locale on a low altitude pass on the western flank of the Khangai Mountains of Northern Mongolia. The Ikh-Tolborin-Gol is part of the Selenga drainage system, the main river feeding Lake Baikal (Fig 1) [68]. This river valley preserves a wealth of Upper Paleolithic (UP) locales including Tolbor-4, Tolbor-15, Tolbor-16, and Tolbor-21[6871]. Most of the sites document periodic human o ccupations starting with the Initial Upper Paleolithic, ca. 45 ka, until the Holocene. The latter has recently been dated with polymineral post-IR IRSL, Quartz OSL, and radiocarbon to 42.5–45.6 ka, establishing the timing for a movement of population between the Siberian Altai and Northwestern China, contemporaneous with the earliest Homo sapiens fossils in the region [68]. The following occupations in the valley are most likely associated with Homo sapiens, and are characterized as Upper Paleolithic (UP) in the broad sense. Although it is often assumed that fire is part of the modern human behavioral repertoire allowing expansion into cold climates, evidence of the use of fire in the UP Tolbor locales is rare and has been only briefly reported [72, 73].

Fig 1. Map of Mongolia with geographic position of Tolbor-17. Map modified after Geo-atlas.

Fig 1

Tolbor-17 provides a rare opportunity to investigate faunal remains, as organic material is usually poorly preserved in the region and burnt fauna has not yet been described in detail. Like most of the other locales, T-17 is an open-air environment with a fluctuating low energy run-off, constituting a fluctuating recharge water regime [24, 44]. Initially excavated as a series of two test pits with dimensions 2 m x 1 m, the excavators at T-17 piece plotted all finds > 2 cm, and the remaining sediment from each bucket volume of excavated material was dry sieved with 4 mm and 2 mm mesh screens, with all material subsequently sorted. The T-17 lithological Unit 3 is characterized by the presence of UP lithic artifacts and organic faunal preservation, despite sedimentary evidence for episodic sheet erosion, prolonged groundwater interaction, chemical weathering, and long surface exposure. Based on its geological setting, the material studied here belongs to the second half of the Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 3, ca. 40–30 ka cal. BP and is described as UP. Unburnt and burnt fauna have been successfully recovered from Unit 3; however, this assemblage is extremely fragmentary and traditional zooarchaeological analyses based on taxonomic identification and prey selection and processing are still in the preliminary stages.

Mapped (> 2 cm) and screened (< 2 cm-2 mm) faunal remains from the T-17 Unit 3 UP assemblage were cleaned, sorted following the Stiner et al. [27] seven stage visual scale of burning intensity, and weighed (Table 2). No burning was noted in bone > 2 cm except for a single fragment Stiner et al. [27] stage 2, but fauna < 2 cm- 2mm is found to span all stages of burning intensity within Unit 3 of the exposed excavation surface (Table 2). Excluding the relatively large stage 2 fragment, all other indication of thermal alteration from the faunal assemblage was recovered in the screened materials < 2cm, emphasizing the methodological importance of screening for the recovery and recognition of burning, observations noted in previous studies [27, 74].

Table 2. T17 Unit 3 fauna burning summary.

  Screened (< 2 cm) Piece plotted (>2 cm) Total
Burning Stage* Weight (g) Weight (g) Weight (g)
0 141.36 213.31 354.47
1 1.04 0 1.04
2 5.17 1.01 6.18
3 0.69 0 0.69
4 1.95 0 1.95
5 1.37 0 1.37
6 4.5 0 4.5

*Burning stages following Stiner et al. [27].

n = 81

n = 1

Of the burnt fauna, a large percentage is nearly or fully calcined, a notable observation due to the recognized mechanical fragility of calcined bone and the unprotected open-air environment of T-17. All excavated fauna was assigned burning stages following Stiner et al. [27] and 20 bones from the same test pit of the Unit 3 assemblage were sub-sampled. A minimum of one category representing bones from this sample were selected for subsequent spectroscopic analyses to confirm heat alteration and investigate organic composition, crystallinity, and crystallite size. Bones were cleaned with ionic water sonication, and two samples representing before and after calcination were selected for imaging with SE microscopy prior to all samples being powdered with a diamond file and an agate mortar and pestle. All archaeological bone powder samples were then sieved with 234 μm mesh. No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.

Infrared spectroscopy data collection and analysis

FTIR spectroscopy is a semi-quantitative method which characterizes bond vibrations, absorbed at specific wavelengths of transmitted incident light from infrared radiation, to identify compositional and structural properties of materials [54, 75]. When applied to bone, FTIR spectroscopy can yield valuable information regarding the presence and quality of preserved organic components, as well as the relative degree of structural order, size, and strain of bioapatite crystals [7680]. This is particularly useful for the detection of organic preservation in samples screened prior to radiocarbon and stable isotope studies, and for diagenetic studies evaluating the integrity of bone mineral [79, 80].

FTIR spectroscopy has additionally had success identifying thermally altered bone, as changes to bone composition and bioapatite crystallinity can be monitored though several heat induced peak transformations which cannot be mistaken for macroscopic staining or bleaching [4, 33, 5355, 81, 82]. The identification of FTIR spectral peaks associated with the thermal alteration of bone has been extensively documented, with major alterations monitored through: (1) the ratio of carbonate to phosphate present in the sample, the C/P ratio, (2) the depletion of the presence of amide I and II functional groups, representing the organic components of bone, and (3) the presence of heat specific peak splitting, such as the loss of the peak at 874 cm-1 correlated to CO32- v2 at temperatures over 1000˚C, and the PHT shoulder peak at temperatures over 700˚C [54, 55, 58, 8385]. Measures of the crystallinity of a sample can be inferred from the infrared splitting factor (IRSF), which extrapolates the changing size and order of bioapatite crystals through increase of splitting seen in the PO43- v4 peaks [54, 58, 83].

Specific peaks relevant to this study and their inferred functional groups include the 1650 cm-1 and 1550 cm-1 peaks for the measurement of amide I and II, the 874 cm-1 and 1415 cm-1 peaks indicating presence of the v2 and v3 of carbonate, and the 900–1200 cm-1 and 50–600 cm-1 spectral regions related to the v3 and v4 phosphate components (Table 3). Additionally, the appearance of a 625cm-1 shoulder peak is attributed here to PO43- v4 bending, known as the phosphate high temperature (PHT) [58].

Table 3. FTIR-ATR wavenumbers associated with likely functional groups relevant to this study and the thermal alteration of bone.

Wavenumber Inferred peak assignment Peak transformation relevant to this study
1630–1660 cm -1 organic tissue and water, amide I + II decrease and absence
1400–1550 cm -1 CO32- v3 1415 cm-1 peak a component of C/P ratio
1028–1100 cm-1  PO43- v3 1035 cm -1 peak a component of the C/P ratio
874 cm-1 CO32- v2 peak loss
565 cm-1, 605 cm-1 PO43- v4 growth of 565 cm-1 and 605 cm-1 and decrease of the 595 cm-1 trough utilized for the infrared splitting factor (IRSF); phosphate high temperature (PHT) shoulder growth at 625 cm-1

A Nicolet 6700 Fourier transform infrared spectrometer with an ATR attachment and a deuterated triglycine sulfate (DTGS) detector and single bounce diamond crystal was used. The ATR method uses an attachment with a diamond or zinc crystal to produce spectra through the phenomenon of internal reflectance [8688]. The application of ATR minimizes sample preparation, which in turn minimizes contamination [75, 84, 86]. Spectra were collected with 256 scans in the 4000–400 cm -1 frequency region and with an 8 mm spectral range. Each archaeological and modern bone powder sample was retested for quality control.

Eight peak measurements were monitored for 168 scans representing 84 individual samples for this study, 62 modern and 22 archaeological. Each sample was tested twice, and measurements presented here represent the average values of both scans. FTIR-ATR spectra were processed with OMNIC software.

The IRSF measurements were procured for all samples following Weiner and Bar-Yosef [83].

InfraredSplittngFactor:(565cm1peakht+605cm1peakht)595cm1peakht

An additional measure of the carbonate to phosphate content, the C/P ratio, was also determined for all samples. The C/P ratio decreases with burning and utilizes the 1035 cm-1 phosphate peak unaffected by IRSF changes [75, 84].

CPratio:1415cm1peakht1035cm1peakht

Other peaks observed for this analysis were noted as they are related to the loss of organics and specific heat-induced changes [54, 55, 58] (Table 3).

X-ray diffraction

X-ray Diffraction (XRD) can be used to measure the relative sizes of bioapatite crystals [32, 54, 59, 60]. Powder XRD patterns here were obtained using Bruker D2 Phaser and Bruker D8 advance diffractometers using CuKα radiation. Bone powder samples taken from the solid bone plugs and archaeological fauna were spread with ethanol on a zero background silicon sample holder, and run from 10 to 90°2θ with 0.02° step. Dwell time was chosen to obtain at least thousand counts on the most intense peaks. The average crystallite size of analyzed samples was obtained from diffraction peaks broadening using whole pattern fitting (Rietveld refinement) procedure as implemented in Jade MDI software [89]. Diffraction profile was modeled using hydroxyapatite Ca5(PO4)3OH structure (space group P63/m) and pseudo-Voigt profile shape function. The instrumental broadening was accounted for by calibration with NIST LaB6 profile shape standard. The uncertainties in crystallite sizes are reported as obtained from least squares refinement.

Results

FTIR modern samples

The FTIR-ATR spectra were obtained for each sample, 25–1200˚C. All modern samples above 200˚C were found to exhibit spectra indicative of the thermal alteration of bone in oxygen atmospheres supported by previous research (Figs 2 and 3), including the decrease of C/P ratio, decrease of organic components by 300˚C with complete absence seen by 400˚C, the absence the 874 cm-1 peak above 1000˚C, and the presence of the PHT peak splitting above 700˚C (S1 and S2 Tables). No differences were indicated in the reheated or increased rate samples taken to 300 and 700˚C from the single-heated or controlled rate counterparts.

Fig 2. FTIR-ATR spectra of experimentally modern burnt samples grouped by with functional groups highlighted in the range of 1700–800 cm-1.

Fig 2

Fig 3. FTIR-ATR spectra of experimentally modern burnt samples with functional groups highlighted in the range of 700–500 cm-1.

Fig 3

The IRSF of all modern samples also followed reported trends in bioapatite crystallinity, with order, size and strain increasing alongside intensifying temperatures and clearly demonstrated with the presence of calcination (Figs 24; S1 and S2 Tables) [54, 57]. This increase in crystallinity is seen until 1000˚C, after which there is a marked decrease in IRSF coinciding with the equiaxing of bioapatite crystals (Fig 4). Despite the acceptance of the IRSF metric and general consensus with previously described trends, the values of modern IRSF here do exhibit large variations [54, 57]. This is seen most dramatically in the range of IRSF values reported for all samples at 900˚C in this study (Fig 4; S2 Table). No changes in crystallinity were detected in samples which were reheated or heated with increased rates.

Fig 4. Infrared Splitting Factor (IRSF) of the experimental modern and archaeological collection measured from FTIR-ATR spectra following Weiner and Bar Yosef [81].

Fig 4

FTIR archaeological samples

The FTIR-ATR spectra produced from the T-17 archaeological collection is consistent with the Stiner et al. [27] stages of temperature intensity assignments based on color alteration. Unburnt bone is supported as non-heat altered and burnt bone does not indicate signs of intrusive staining or bleaching (Figs 5 and 6). Good agreement is seen with the relative decreases of C/P ratio and the loss of organic components by Stage 3 (fully carbonized) between the archaeological and modern samples (Figs 5 and 6; S3 and S4 Tables). The appearance of the PHT with bones identified as Stage 5 supports the presence of temperatures above 700˚C at T-17, although the continued presence of CO32- v2 inferred by the 874 cm-1 peak indicates temperatures likely did not reach above 1000˚C (Figs 5 and 6; S3 Table).

Fig 5. FTIR-ATR spectra of archaeological fauna from T-17 grouped by stage of burning intensity following Stiner et al. [27] with functional groups highlighted in the range of 1700–800 cm-1.

Fig 5

Fig 6. FTIR-ATR spectra of archaeological fauna from T-17 grouped by stage of burning intensity following Stiner et al. [27] with functional groups highlighted in the range of 700–500 cm-1.

Fig 6

The IRSF of the T-17 samples also follows the trends of the experimental modern collection, with gradual increases seen through Stage 3 (fully carbonized) and demonstrably higher values reported with the presence of calcination at Stages 4, 5, and 6 (Fig 4; S3 and S4 Tables). Elevated values are not seen within the Stage 0 unburnt samples of T-17 bone, demonstrating that the spontaneous recrystallization of bone mineral that accompanies diagenesis does not exceed here values of modern or archaeological samples which have been burnt at low or high temperatures. As expected, the IRSF values can distinguish between calcined and non-calcined samples but cannot distinguish between low temperature burning samples.

XRD modern samples

The results of the XRD analyses on the modern samples demonstrate the increasing crystallite size correlated to temperature, specifically above temperatures of calcination (700˚C) (Fig 7; S2 Table). An average size threshold is clearly noted, with all samples unburnt through 600˚C averaging 9 nm, while all samples burnt at 700˚C jump to an average of 41 nm (Fig 7). An additional increase in crystallite size by approximately 30 nm is noted at 900˚C, coinciding with the fusion stage of thermal alteration of bone, with samples reaching an average of 72 nm (Fig 7). The XRD results also demonstrate that within fully calcined samples, corresponding to Stiner et al. [27] burning scale Stage 6, two temperature thresholds can be distinguished: the maximum crystal size of calcined bone >700˚C not exceeding 70 nm, and the maximum crystal size of calcined bone >900–1200˚ C exceeding 90 nm (Fig 7). This study therefore suggests average crystallite size as a metric to distinguish temperatures obtained within calcined bone classified as Stiner et al. Stage 6, > 700˚C and > 900˚C.

Fig 7.

Fig 7

XRD results of averaged crystallite size (nm) alongside selected SE images of experimental modern (A-C) and archaeological (D-E) bone to visualize the changes to crystal shape with heat alteration. Images A and D highlight the small, platelike shape of bioapatite burned to at least 300˚C. Images B and C, both modern, demonstrate morphological range of bones burnt above 700˚C, both of which are fully calcined and are considered Stage 6 on the Stiner et al. [27] scale of burning intensity. The initial growth of hexagonal crystals ~700˚C (B) and eventual equaixing and further growth of crystals above 900˚C (C) are clearly seen in images B and C, and when compared to the archaeological sample of a fully calcined Stage 6 bone (E), the bioapatite crystal morphology corresponds to the size and shape of experimental bones burned above 900˚C. Magnification and instrument details described in S1 Appendix.

XRD archaeological samples

The average crystallite size measurements for the archaeological T-17 bioapatite samples confirm that the natural postmortem recrystallization of unburnt archaeological bone does not exceed crystal sizes of modern or archaeological bones burnt to low temperatures. The crystallite sizes do increase considerably with the presence of calcination at Stiner et al. [27] Stages 4, 5, and 6 and can be distinguished from lower temperature burning and unburnt bone (Fig 7; S4 Table). Utilizing the metric of crystal size, we also suggest that for two of the archaeological samples of Stage 6 fully calcined bone there is evidence of burning > 900˚C—<1100˚C.

Discussion

The measurements presented here regarding the loss of organics, the degree of crystallinity, and the crystallite sizes are in consensus with trends reported by previous studies, with small variance likely introduced by the burning of solid bone versus powdered samples and different experimental sample preparation and burning regimes. Our results demonstrate that for bone burnt to lower temperatures before calcination, Stiner et al. [27] Stages 1–3, bioapatite retains the small reactive crystal sizes of unburnt bone but faces rapid organic loss. The depletion of the organic component is most complete just prior to temperatures of calcination (~700˚C). This disintegration of the collagen in charred or carbonized bone is recognized to produce a very open porosity, leaving bone mineral burnt highly exposed [59].

The increase in crystallinity and crystal size growth seen by 700˚C corresponding to calcination and Stiner et al., [27] Stages 4–6 immediately reduces the surface to mass ratio and active surface area of bone mineral. This lower surface area results in a product with a lower solubility potential than unburnt and charred or carbonized bone. For fully calcined Stage 6 bones which have also been exposed to temperatures above 900˚C in oxygen atmospheres, there is the additional benefit of reported compaction and closing of the porosity, further limiting the access of any destructive agents to the exposed crystallites [59]. The heat induced dimensional changes are also considerably larger than the small amounts of diagenetic recrystallization which assists with the prevention of contamination in fresh bone, as evidenced by the inclusion of unburnt archaeological samples.

Diagenetic agents such as water dissolution are therefore inferred here to be a serious threat to bone burnt to temperatures under 700˚C, because partially and wholly carbonized and charred burnt bone has low levels of crystallinity and small crystals which preserve a reactive surface area similar to unburnt fresh bone at the time of deposition. The additional lack of organic protection, open porosity, and likely small fragment sizes due to the recognized friability of burnt bones calls attention to the further vulnerability of charred and carbonized fauna in Stiner et al. [27] Stages 1–3 due to bioapatite dissolution and disintegration. Correspondingly, the lack of organic presence in burnt bones, especially bones corresponding to Stiner et al. [27] Stages 3–6, is interpreted here to be a less attractive target for the diagenetic agent of microbial action than fresh and fleshed unburnt bone.

The results of this study propose a hypothesis of differential survivorship in bones burnt to different temperature thresholds in assemblages of archaeological fauna with fluctuating water movement. This study would further suggest that bones with low density and high porosity, such as trabecular and juvenile bone, are further susceptible to dissolution if charred or carbonized. This is due to the assumption that open porosities, likely small fragment sizes, and no organic protection exacerbates the access of diagenetic agents such as fluctuating water to their small and reactive crystals.

Bone which has been calcined, including trabecular and juvenile bone, potentially has a greater likelihood to resist dissolution due to the large crystal sizes and greater thermodynamic stability. These properties have been similarly recognized to contribute to the suitability of calcined bone for inorganic C14 dating analyses [65]. Calcined bone has been shown to be more mechanically fragile than both unburnt and charred or carbonized bone, however, and traumatic action including post-depositional movement and trampling can be highly destructive. Calcined bone therefore may be expected to preserve well in a variety of depositional environments, albeit in small fragment sizes recoverable only through screening [27].

The recognition of ancient fire in the archaeological record remains a major challenge, including discerning the presence of fire with anthropogenic origins, and the utilizing the properties of burned materials to inform on specific human behaviors of interest. Current standards for identifying anthropogenic fire considers multiple techniques and lines of evidence, including the study of small, fragmented fauna and investigations at the microscopic scale [90]. This microcontextual approach is especially necessary in contexts when connecting fire to hominin behavior is unknown or unclear [90]. Hypotheses regarding the ubiquity of fire use by hominins is currently under investigation, with habitual fire use by Neanderthals during cold and arid climatic episodes being called into question by some [91], and others noting that the energetic costs of producing and maintaining fire might be substantial in an environment where fuel is lacking [92, 93]. Even though fire is largely expected to be an integral component of Homo sapiens technology, we note that Pleistocene hunter gather groups in the Ikh-Tolborin-Gol probably faced comparable economic constraints in continental climate.

In the Ikh-Tolborin-Gol, a wealth of Upper Paleolithic sites documents episodic human occupations from the earliest movements of Homo sapiens across the Eurasian steppe until the Holocene [68, 73]. Yet, direct evidence for the use of fire is rare and poorly preserved. At Tolbor-15, reddish-brown sediment and apparent accumulation of ashes have been described as ‘hearths’. The Archeological Horizons (AH) 6 and 7 are dated ca. 40.5–37.4 ka cal BP, the use of fire has been presented as an adaptive behavior to cold and arid climate [94, 95]. At Tolbor-21, concentrations of discolored sediments and rocks have been reported within AH4 and dated of ca. 42.5–41.5 ka cal BP but a formal identification of combustion features could not be confirmed [96]. At the neighboring site of Tolbor-16, two potential combustion features have been identified in Pit 1 within AH5 and AH6, dated of ca. 38.5–37.2 ka and ca. 45.5–44.5ka cal BP respectively [69]. With a singular burnt bone found within the discolored area and a few isolated charcoals found outside of this perimeter at Tolbor-16, the identification of anthropogenic fire is yet to be confirmed [68, 69].

The potential combustion features described above have in common to be directly associated with archaeological material in a context where preservation of bones is poor. They also share a lack of charcoal associated with the discolored sediment. Overall, there is little evidence for anthropogenic fire during the Pleistocene of the valley. Whether this pattern reflects human behavior, preservation, or visibility bias should be clarified to address the evolutionary significance of this technology in the valley. For example, the spectroscopic analyses presented here includes temperatures ~700–900˚C that are consistent with a high intensity fire, potentially anthropogenic. Given the small number of such bones, additional sampling micromorphological investigations and spatial analyses should confirm such interpretation. Furthermore, our results also show that at T-17 there was very little representation of bones heated to lower temperatures, all within a range that would affect their preservation given contact with water. Given that evidence of active and fluctuating water movement are observed in most of the excavated sites in the Ikh-Tolborin-Gol, we consider that the hypothesis of differential survivorship is worth testing with a full zooarchaeological profile of T-17 Unit 3.

To summarize, small fragments of both burnt and unburnt bone are preserved at T-17, which is exceptional for the region. It is therefore a key site to address issues of fire presence and preservation. The samples from T-17 included in this study both demonstrate the applicability of the observed structural changes in an archaeological assemblage of burnt bone, but also represent a first step toward the study of fire technology at the microscopic scale in the Ikh-Tolborin-Gol. Archaeological implications are that in the Ikh-Tolborin-Gol the lack of evidence for the use of fire during the Pleistocene may not only reflect human behavior. Instead, it could also be the result of a preservation bias due to complex combination of factors such as the temperatures to which bones were heated and the contact with circulating water. Testing this hypothesis should lead to a comprehensive and contextualized study of the nature and properties of the fire at T-17, and its relevance to Upper Paleolithic technological adaptations in the Tolbor valley.

Conclusion

The spectroscopic measurements reported here encompass a large reference collection of burning in highly controlled conditions 100–1200˚C in fresh solid bone cores, extending previous modern and archaeological datasets that consider the structural and compositional changes of burnt bone. Especially of note is the average crystallite size difference between bone burnt above 700˚C, a metric which may be used to distinguish greater burning temperatures within fully calcined archaeological bone, which are all considered as Stiner et al. [27] Stage 6 based on visual coloration.

Our results highlight the vulnerability of charred and carbonized bone to diagenetic agents and generate hypotheses regarding the differential survivorship of bone burnt to different temperatures. Here the nature of the hydrological environment is proposed to be a significant threat to bone burnt to low temperatures, as water fluctuation is a large factor in fresh bone bioapatite dissolution and charred and carbonized bone has similar bone mineral properties but has had organic protection already eliminated prior to burial.

This study reiterates the importance of small bone fragments, as excluding the screened faunal material from T-17 would have obscured the presence of fire almost entirely. The identification and recognition of further biases in addition to mechanical fragility of burnt bone, and the variation within bones burnt to different temperatures, is emphasized here as burnt bone exhibits a range of structural and thermodynamic properties across zooarchaeological scales of visible burning intensity.

While burnt bone can provide valuable and detailed information on ancient fires relevant to human behaviors, this study demonstrates that the structural properties and vulnerabilities of burnt bone vary widely between burning temperature thresholds, which may result in biased differential survivorship. This has large implications for studies utilizing the properties, presence, and distribution of temperatures of burnt bone to reconstruct the visibility and intensities of ancient fire, especially low temperature fire events.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix. SE microscopy imaging instrument and magnification details.

(PDF)

S1 Table. Experimental modern bone FTIR-ATR relevant peak height values.

(PDF)

S2 Table. Calculated experimental modern sample values of FTIR C/P, IRSF, and bioapatite crystal size average as measured from XRD.

(PDF)

S3 Table. FTIR-ATR Unit 3 archaeological sample relevant peak height values.

(PDF)

S4 Table. Calculated archaeological T-17 Unit 3 C/P and IRSF values, and bioapatite crystal size average as measured from XRD.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Teresa Steele for her continued feedback and illuminating discussions, and Cody Prang and Chris Gallo for their many helpful explanations. We additionally thank Drs. Eerkens, Darwent, and Parikh for their generosity and lab resources, as well as the patience, assistance, and expertise of the Peter A. Rock Thermochemistry Laboratory, NEAT research group, and the Parikh Environmental Soil Chemistry Group at the University California Davis. The authors also recognize the support given from the UC Davis Veterinary Medical Teaching Hospital, the UC Davis JD Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Laboratory, the UC Davis AMCaT Laboratory, the UC Davis DHI Transdisciplinary Research Cluster “The Cluster for Archaeology and Soil Synergy”, the Prehistory department of Université Liège, and the Center for Experimental Archaeology at UC Davis (CEAD).

Data Availability

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

Funding Statement

NZ, Grant #156074, National Science Foundation (https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=1560784). MI PaleoAsia Project Grant No. 1802, FY2016–2020) from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (“Cultural history of PaleoAsia: Integrative research on the formative processes of modern human cultures in Asia,” directed by Yoshihiro Nishiaki) (http://paleoasia.jp/en/). GG UC Davis Cluster Grant “Archaeology and Soil Science Synergy" (https://dhi.ucdavis.edu/events/2019-2020-dhi-transcollege-research-clusters-call-proposals). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Mentzer S. M., Romano D. G., & Voyatzis M. E. (2017). Micromorphological contributions to the study of ritual behavior at the ash altar to Zeus on Mt. Lykaion, Greece. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 9(6), 1017–1043. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Thompson T. Recent advances in the study of burned bone and their implications for forensic anthropology. Forensic Science International. 2004;146:S203–5. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2004.09.063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Ubelaker DH. The forensic evaluation of burned skeletal remains: A synthesis. Forensic Science International. 2009. Jan;183(1–3):1–5. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2008.09.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Iriarte E., García-Tojal J., Santana J., Jorge-Villar S. E., Teira L., Muñiz J., et al. (2020). Geochemical and spectroscopic approach to the characterization of earliest cremated human bones from the Levant (PPNB of Kharaysin, Jordan). Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports, 30, 102211. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Costamagno S, Théry-Parisot I, Brugal J-P, Guibert R. Taphonomic consequences of the use of bones as fuel. Experimental data and archaeological applications. In: Biosphere to lithosphere: new studies in vertebrate taphonomy. Oxbow Books; Oxford; 2005. p. 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Morin E. Taphonomic implications of the use of bone as fuel. Palethnologie. 2010;2:209–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Théry-Parisot I. Fuel management (bone and wood) during the Lower Aurignacian in the Pataud rock shelter (Lower Palaeolithic, Les Eyzies de Tayac, Dordogne, France). Contribution of experimentation. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2002;29(12):1415–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schiegl S, Goldberg P, Pfretzschner H-U, Conard NJ. Paleolithic burnt bone horizons from the Swabian Jura: Distinguishing between in situ fireplaces and dumping areas. Geoarchaeology. 2003;18(5):541–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Costamagno S, Théry-Parisot I, Castel JC, Brugal JP. Combustible ou non? Analyse multifactorielle et modèles explicatifs sur des ossements brûlés paléolithiques. Geston des combustibles au Paléolithique et au Mésolithique: nouveaux outils, nouvelles interpretations. 2009:61 [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Speth J, Clark J. Hunting and overhunting in the Levantine Late Middle Palaeolithic. Before Farming. 2006. Jan;2006(3):1–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barkai R, Rosell J, Blasco R, Gopher A. Fire for a reason: Barbecue at middle Pleistocene Qesem cave, Israel. Current Anthropology. 2017. Aug 1;58(S16):S314–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Turner-Walker G. The Chemical and Microbial Degradation of Bones and Teeth. In: Pinhasi R, Mays S, editors. Advances in Human Palaeopathology [Internet]. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2007:3–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Binford LR, Bertram JB. Bone frequencies and attritional processes. In (Binford LR, Ed.) For Theory Building in Archaeology. 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lyman RL. Bone density and differential survivorship of fossil classes. Journal of Anthropological archaeology. 1984;3(4):259–99. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Grayson DK. Bone transport, bone destruction, and reverse utility curves. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1989. Nov 1;16(6):643–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Outram AK. A new approach to identifying bone marrow and grease exploitation: why the “indeterminate” fragments should not be ignored. Journal of archaeological science. 2001;28(4):401–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Munson PJ, Garniewicz RC. Age-mediated survivorship of ungulate mandibles and teeth in canid-ravaged faunal assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2003;30(4):405–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Robinson S, Nicholson RA, Pollard AM, O’Connor TP. An Evaluation of Nitrogen Porosimetry as a Technique for Predicting Taphonomic Durability in Animal Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2003. Apr;30(4):391–403. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Von Endt DW, Ortner DJ. Experimental effects of bone size and temperature on bone diagenesis. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1984. May;11(3):247–53. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lam YM, Chen X, Pearson OM. Intertaxonomic variability in patterns of bone density and the differential representation of bovid, cervid, and equid elements in the archaeological record. American Antiquity. 1999;64(2):343–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lyman RL. Vertebrate taphonomy. Cambridge University Press; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nielsen-Marsh CM, Hedges REM. Patterns of Diagenesis in Bone I: The Effects of Site Environments. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2000. Dec;27(12):1139–50. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Nielsen-Marsh CM, Smith CI, Jans MME, Nord A, Kars H, Collins MJ. Bone diagenesis in the European Holocene II: taphonomic and environmental considerations. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2007. Sep;34(9):1523–31. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Nielsen-Marsh C, Gernaey A, Turner-Walker G, Hedges R, Pike A, Collins M. The chemical degradation of bone. Human Osteology in archaeology and forensic science. 2000: 439–454. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Denys C. Taphonomy and experimentation. Archaeometry. 2002. Aug;44(3):469–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Maurer A-F, Person A, Tütken T, Amblard-Pison S, Ségalen L. Bone diagenesis in arid environments: An intra-skeletal approach. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 2014. Dec;416:17–29. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Stiner MC, Kuhn SL, Weiner S, Bar-Yosef O. Differential Burning, Recrystallization, and Fragmentation of Archaeological Bone. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1995. Mar;22(2):223–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Martin RB, Burr DB, Sharkey NA, Fyhrie DP. Skeletal tissue mechanics. Second edition. New York: Springer; 2015. 762 p. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Stout SD, Cole ME, Agnew AM. Histomorphology. In: Ortner’s Identification of Pathological Conditions in Human Skeletal Remains [Internet]. Elsevier; 2019. [cited 2019 Oct 20]. p. 91–167. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Rollin-Martinet S, Navrotsky A, Champion E, Grossin D, Drouet C. Thermodynamic basis for evolution of apatite in calcified tissues. American Mineralogist. 2013. Nov 1;98(11–12):2037–45. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Drouet C, Aufray M, Rollin-Martinet S, Vandecandelaère N, Grossin D, Rossignol F, et al. Nanocrystalline apatites: The fundamental role of water. American Mineralogist. 2018. Apr 1;103(4):550–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Figueiredo M, Fernando A, Martins G, Freitas J, Judas F, Figueiredo H. Effect of the calcination temperature on the composition and microstructure of hydroxyapatite derived from human and animal bone. Ceramics International. 2010. Dec;36(8):2383–93 [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Greiner M, Rodríguez-Navarro A, Heinig MF, Mayer K, Kocsis B, Göhring A, et al. Bone incineration: An experimental study on mineral structure, colour and crystalline state. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2019;25:507–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Rey C, Combes C, Drouet C, Glimcher MJ. Bone mineral: update on chemical composition and structure. Osteoporos Int. 2009. Jun;20(6):1013–21. doi: 10.1007/s00198-009-0860-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Bala Y, Farlay D, Boivin G. Bone mineralization: from tissue to crystal in normal and pathological contexts. Osteoporos Int. 2013. Aug;24(8):2153–66. doi: 10.1007/s00198-012-2228-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Berna F, Matthews A, Weiner S. Solubilities of bone mineral from archaeological sites: the recrystallization window. Journal of archaeological Science. 2004. Jul 1;31(7):867–82. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nyman JS, Ni Q, Nicolella DP, Wang X. Measurements of mobile and bound water by nuclear magnetic resonance correlate with mechanical properties of bone. Bone. 2008;42(1):193–9. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2007.09.049 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Trueman CN, Privat K, Field J. Why do crystallinity values fail to predict the extent of diagenetic alteration of bone mineral? Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 2008. Sep;266(3–4):160–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Koeppenkastrop D, Eric H. Sorption of rare-earth elements from seawater onto synthetic mineral particles: An experimental approach. Chemical geology. 1992;95(3–4):251–63. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Reynard B, Lécuyer C, Grandjean P. Crystal-chemical controls on rare-earth element concentrations in fossil biogenic apatites and implications for paleoenvironmental reconstructions. Chemical Geology. 1999;155(3–4):233–41. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Buikstra JE, Swegle M. Bone modification due to burning: experimental evidence. Bone modification. 1989;247–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Tripp JA, Squire ME, Hedges REM, Stevens RE. Use of micro-computed tomography imaging and porosity measurements as indicators of collagen preservation in archaeological bone. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology. 2018. Dec;511:462–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Smith CI, Nielsen-Marsh CM, Jans MME, Collins MJ. Bone diagenesis in the European Holocene I: patterns and mechanisms. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2007;34(9):1485–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Hedges REM, Millard AR. Bones and Groundwater: Towards the Modelling of Diagenetic Processes. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1995. Mar;22(2):155–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Hedges REM. Bone diagenesis: an overview of processes. Archaeometry. 2002. Aug;44(3):319–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Wescott D. J. (2019). Postmortem change in bone biomechanical properties: Loss of plasticity. Forensic science international, 300, 164–169. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.04.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Trueman CN, Behrensmeyer AK, Potts R, Tuross N. High-resolution records of location and stratigraphic provenance from the rare earth element composition of fossil bones. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. 2006. Sep;70(17):4343–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Baig AA. Influences of carbonate content and crystallinity on the solubility behavior of synthetic and biological apatites. Department of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Chemistry, University of Utah; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Baig AA, Fox JL, Wang Z, Higuchi WI, Miller SC, Barry AM, et al. Metastable Equilibrium Solubility Behavior of Bone Mineral. Calcified Tissue International. 1999. Apr 1;64(4):329–39. doi: 10.1007/s002239900628 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Trueman C. N., & Tuross N. (2002). Trace elements in recent and fossil bone apatite. Reviews in mineralogy and geochemistry, 48(1), 489–521. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pfretzschner H-U. Fossilization of Haversian bone in aquatic environments. Comptes Rendus Palevol. 2004. Oct;3(6–7):605–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Shipman P, Foster G, Schoeninger M. Burnt bones and teeth: an experimental study of color, morphology, crystal structure and shrinkage. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1984. Jul;11(4):307–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Thompson T, Ulgium P. Burned Human Remains. In Handbook of Forensic Anthropology and Archaeology. Routledge. 2016: 295–303. [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Ellingham STD, Thompson TJU, Islam M, Taylor G. Estimating temperature exposure of burnt bone—A methodological review. Science & Justice. 2015. May;55(3):181–8. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2014.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Reidsma FH, van Hoesel A, van Os BJH, Megens L, Braadbaart F. Charred bone: Physical and chemical changes during laboratory simulated heating under reducing conditions and its relevance for the study of fire use in archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2016. Dec;10:282–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.van Hoesel A, Reidsma FH, van Os BJ, Megens L, Braadbaart F. Combusted bone: Physical and chemical changes of bone during laboratory simulated heating under oxidising conditions and their relevance for the study of ancient fire use. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports. 2019. Dec 1;28:102033. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Thompson TJU. The Analysis of Heat-Induced Crystallinity Change in Bone. In: The Analysis of Burned Human Remains. Elsevier; 2015. p. 323–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Thompson TJU, Islam M, Bonniere M. A new statistical approach for determining the crystallinity of heat-altered bone mineral from FTIR spectra. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2013. Jan;40(1):416–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Etok SE, Valsami-Jones E, Wess TJ, Hiller JC, Maxwell CA, Rogers KD, et al. Structural and chemical changes of thermally treated bone apatite. J Mater Sci. 2007. Sep 21;42(23):9807–16. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pramanik S, Hanif A, Pingguan-Murphy B, Abu Osman N. Morphological Change of Heat Treated Bovine Bone: A Comparative Study. Materials. 2013. Dec 21;6(1):65–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Waterhouse K. (2013). The effect of weather conditions on burnt bone fragmentation. Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 20(5), 489–495. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2013.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Herrmann N. P., & Bennett J. L. (1999). The differentiation of traumatic and heat-related fractures in burned bone. Journal of Forensic Science, 44(3), 461–469. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wang X., Bank R. A., TeKoppele J. M., Hubbard G. B., Althanasiou K. A., & Agrawal C. M. (2000). Effect of collagen denaturation on the toughness of bone. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®, 371, 228–239. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.McKinley J. I. (1994). Bone fragment size in British cremation burials and its implications for pyre technology and ritual. Journal of Archaeological Science, 21(3), 339–342. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Lanting J. N., Aerts-Bijma A. T., & van der Plicht J. (2001). Dating of cremated bones. Radiocarbon, 43(2A), 249–254. [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Major I., Dani J., Kiss V., Melis E., Patay R., Szabó G., et al. (2018). Adoption and evaluation of a sample pretreatment protocol for radiocarbon dating of cremated bones at HEKAL. Radiocarbon. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Zazzo A., & Saliège J. F. (2011). Radiocarbon dating of biological apatites: a review. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 310(1–2), 52–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Zwyns N, Paine CH, Tsedendorj B, Talamo S, Fitzsimmons KE, Gantumur A, et al. The Northern Route for Human dispersal in Central and Northeast Asia: New evidence from the site of Tolbor-16, Mongolia. Sci Rep. 2019. Dec;9(1):11759. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-47972-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Zwyns N, Gladyshev SA, Gunchinsuren B, Bolorbat T, Flas D, Dogandžić T, et al. The open-air site of Tolbor 16 (Northern Mongolia): Preliminary results and perspectives. Quaternary International. 2014. Oct;347:53–65. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Gladyshev SA, Olsen JW, Tabarev AV, Jull AJT. The Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia: Recent finds and new perspectives. Quaternary International. 2012. Dec;281:36–46. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Tabarev A., Gunchinsuren B., Gillam J., Gladyshev S., Dogandžić T., Zwyns N. Kompleks Pamiatnikov Kamennogo Veka v Doline r.Ikh Tulberiin-Gol, Severnaya Mongolia (razvedochnye raboty s ispolzovaniem GIS-Technnologii v. 2011 g) [The Stone Age site complex in the Ikh-Tulberiin-Gol River Valley, North Mongolia (survey and research using GIS-technology in 2011)]. Studia Archaeologica Instituti Archaeologici Academiae Scientiarum Mongolicae. 2012;32:26–43 [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Gowlett JAJ. The early settlement of northern Europe: Fire history in the context of climate change and the social brain. Comptes Rendus Palevol. 2006. Jan;5(1–2):299–310. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Rybin EP, Khatsenovich AM, Gunchinsuren B, Olsen JW, Zwyns N. The impact of the LGM on the development of the Upper Paleolithic in Mongolia. Quaternary International. 2016. Dec;425:69–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Villa P, Castel JC, Beauval C, Bourdillat V, Goldberg P. Human and carnivore sites in the European Middle and Upper Paleolithic: similarities and differences in bone modification and fragmentation. Revue de paléobiologie. 2004;23(2):705–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Beasley MM, Bartelink EJ, Taylor L, Miller RM. Comparison of transmission FTIR, ATR, and DRIFT spectra: implications for assessment of bone bioapatite diagenesis. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2014. Jun;46:16–22. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Lebon M., Zazzo A., & Reiche I. (2014). Screening in situ bone and teeth preservation by ATR-FTIR mapping. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 416, 110–119. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Lebon M., Reiche I., Gallet X., Bellot-Gurlet L., & Zazzo A. (2016). Rapid quantification of bone collagen content by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Radiocarbon, 58(1), 131. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Trueman C. N., Behrensmeyer A. K., Tuross N., & Weiner S. (2004). Mineralogical and compositional changes in bones exposed on soil surfaces in Amboseli National Park, Kenya: diagenetic mechanisms and the role of sediment pore fluids. Journal of Archaeological Science, 31(6), 721–739. [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Dal Sasso G., Asscher Y., Angelini I., Nodari L., & Artioli G. (2018). A universal curve of apatite crystallinity for the assessment of bone integrity and preservation. Scientific reports, 8(1), 1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-17765-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Gianfrate G., D’Elia M., Quarta G., Giotta L., Valli L., & Calcagnile L. (2007). Qualitative application based on IR spectroscopy for bone sample quality control in radiocarbon dating. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section B: Beam Interactions with Materials and Atoms, 259(1), 316–319. [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Lebon M., Reiche I., Fröhlich F., Bahain J. J., & Falguères C. (2008). Characterization of archaeological burnt bones: contribution of a new analytical protocol based on derivative FTIR spectroscopy and curve fitting of the ν 1 ν 3 PO 4 domain. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 392(7–8), 1479–1488. doi: 10.1007/s00216-008-2469-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Snoeck C., Lee-Thorp J. A., & Schulting R. J. (2014). From bone to ash: Compositional and structural changes in burned modern and archaeological bone. Palaeogeography, palaeoclimatology, palaeoecology, 416, 55–68. [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Weiner S, Bar-Yosef O. States of preservation of bones from prehistoric sites in the Near East: A survey. Journal of Archaeological Science. 1990. Mar;17(2):187–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Thompson TJU, Gauthier M, Islam M. The application of a new method of Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy to the analysis of burned bone. Journal of Archaeological Science. 2009. Mar;36(3):910–4. [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Paschalis EP, DiCarlo E, Betts F, Sherman P, Mendelsohn R, Boskey AL. FTIR microspectroscopic analysis of human osteonal bone. Calcified tissue international. 1996. Dec 1;59(6):480–7. doi: 10.1007/BF00369214 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Hollund HI, Ariese F, Fernandes R, Jans MME, Kars H. Testing an alternative high-throughput tool for investigating bone diagenesis: FTIR in attenuated total reflection (ATR) mode: An alternative tool for investigating bone diagenesis. Archaeometry. 2013. Jun;55(3):507–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Nakamoto K. Infrared and Raman Spectra of Inorganic and Coordination Compounds (Part A: Theory and Applications in Inorganic Chemistry)(Volume 1A)(Part B: Applications in Coordination, Organometallic, and Bioinorganic Chemistry)(Volume 1B). NY, John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated; 1997 [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Bruno TJ. Sampling Accessories for Infrared Spectrometry. Applied Spectroscopy Reviews. 1999. Jul 20;34(1–2):91–120. [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Rietveld H. A profile refinement method for nuclear and magnetic structures. Journal of applied Crystallography. 1969. Jun 2;2(2):65–71. [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Goldberg P, Miller CE, Mentzer SM. Recognizing fire in the Paleolithic archaeological record. Current Anthropology. 2017. Aug 1;58(S16):S175–90 [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Sandgathe DM, Dibble HL, Goldberg P, McPherron SP, Turq A, Niven L, et al. On the role of fire in Neandertal adaptations in Western Europe: evidence from Pech de l’Azé IV and Roc de Marsal, France. PaleoAnthropology. 2011;2011:216–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Henry AG. Neanderthal cooking and the costs of fire. Current Anthropology. 2017. Aug 1;58(S16):S329–36. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Henry AG, Büdel T, Bazin PL. Towards an understanding of the costs of fire. Quaternary International. 2018. Nov 10;493:96–105. [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Gladyshev G., Jull A.J.T., Dogandzic T., Zwyns N., Olsen J.W., Richards M.P., et al. 2013. Radiocarbon dating of Paleolithic sites in the Ikh-Tulberiin-Gol River Valley, Northern Mongolia. Vestnik 12 (5), 44e48 [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Khatsenovich, A.M., Rybin, E.P., Gunchinsuren, B., Olsen, J.W. 2015. The Hearthes of Tolbor-15 Site: the planigraphy of settlement and human activity in Early Upper Paleolithic of Mongolia. Vestnik, Novosibirsk, gac. un-ta, Seria: Historia y Phylologia; 2015, T.14(7) Archeologia i ethnographia–C. 38–49.
  • 96.Rybin EP, Paine CH, Khatsenovich AM, Tsedendorj B, Talamo S, Marchenko DV, et al. A new Upper Paleolithic occupation at the site of Tolbor-21 (Mongolia): Site formation, human behavior and implications for the regional sequence. Quaternary International. 2020. Sep 10;559:133–49. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Justin W Adams

14 Aug 2020

PONE-D-20-19845

Characterization of structural changes in modern and archaeological burnt bone: Implications for differential preservation bias

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gallo,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 28 2020 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Justin W. Adams, 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 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.

3. 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you for your submission.

In reviewing the feedback from all three Reviewers, several major factors have been highlighted that will need to be considered with the manuscript in its current form. Setting aside some of the suggestions to provide greater literature integration, restructure of the manuscript to improve clarity, and potentially to reduce the background content into supplementary materials to improve readability, the primary concerns raised by the reviewers focus on: 1) providing sufficient supporting data (particularly SEM data) to support the argument and interpretations made within the manuscript; and 2) greater integration of the prmary study topic (characterisation of burnt bone) with other taphonomic processes that co-vary in assemblages and impact interpretability. I encourage you to read these comments carefully, particularly those from Reviewer 1 and 3 when revising the manuscript for resubmission. I'd also note that I would expect, given the scope of the comments and requests for greater integration and expansion of data presentation, that the resubmission will require another round of peer-review.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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: The paper is very interesting and suitable for Plos One, of broader utility. However, the originality of the paper needs to be more explicitly described, crystallinity changes are referred to burning but very little if any is referred to diagenetic influence in burnt archaeological specimens (which is the objective of the paper but finally not clearly discussed). A reorganization of the text and more clear statements and aspects to be discussed to demonstrate the goals of the paper is needed.

All referred to burnt effects from modern collection applied to fossils is well and clearly described. I believe that the inference of all analyses is that bones below carbonization are underrepresented in the fossil site T-17 unit 3. I believe the problem is to better describe what the Unit 3 of T17 is characterized for. One apparent conclusion is that burning is the cause of fragmentation, but this is not true. Burning alone does not cause fragmentation, a subsequent movement or effort may produce fragmentation, but indication of which movement or effort acted after burning is not described. Further, fragmentation before and after burning can be caused by a large number of taphonomic agents (e.g. butchery, trampling, weathering, corrosion...). None of them are described in the paper. Definitively, the paper needs a better and more exhaustive description of the fossil assemblage: number of specimens, size of fossils, surface modifications, how many fossils are in each burning stage or which have also been affected by any other taphonomic agent both before and after burning should be described or included in a table...

All should be described more in detail, all should be reorganized and described in a more organized way according to objectives and conclusions, right now it is very disorganized, lacks basic information and conclusions are not clear enough, rather an act of faith...and the paper needs several reading to follow the conclusions.

Some suggestions to the authors are included in the file attached.

Reviewer #2: The article "Characterization of structural changes in modern and archaeological burnt bone:

Implications for differential preservation bias" by Gallo et colleagues is certainly interesting, well written and argued and with a correct methodology.

Although the performed methodological procedures are well known, the modern bone analysis and the discussion involving the possible preservation bias is quite interesting.

I think that the article can be published in PlosOne after some minor revisions:

1. I like very much the introductory part, it is a very good compilation/resume of the state of the art of bone transformation research. I will suggest to try to resume all the information in a graph where the X axe is the burning temperature/time (qualitative and/or quantitative) and all the mentioned parameter-changes (Y axe) are depicted.

2. First paragraph of page 13: Describe better the sedimentological/postdepositional features indicating the mentioned features/processes. Any images of the deposits and/or bone remains? They will be very welcome.

3. Include/discuss more FTIR-ATR related references for archaeological studies in the discussion, please reivew this recent work and references therein:

Iriarte, E., García-Tojal, J., Santana, J., Jorge-Villar, S.E., Teira, L.C., Muñiz, J.R., Ibañez, J.J. (2020). Geochemical and spectroscopic approach to the characterization of earliest cremated human bones from the Levant (PPNB of Kharaysin, Jordan). Journal of Achaeological Science: Reports, 30. 102211. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102211.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript by Gallo et al discusses an interesting topic related to the behaviour and diagenesis of archaeological bones after exposition at different T. Authors compare mineralogical data from modern samples and archaeological ones. The results are interesting, but the manuscript needs more work before it can be suitable for publication. I summarise my suggestions in the following bullet points.

- The abstract is not informative about the results but mostly talk about methods. I suggest to rewrite it.

- Introduction: you explain the aims of your study, but I think that a major implication of your work is not considered in this paper. I suggest to discuss in the introduction section (and maybe in the discussion or conclusion) a further implication: are your results relevant in the field of radiocarbon dating on bones or collagen and DNA extraction? I think that you may discuss the importance of changes in crystallinity of bone apatite in the context of radiocarbon dating of archaeological bones.

-The Background section is really too long. It seems a summary of the background chapters of a PhD dissertation. I suggest to strongly reduce this section and possibly to add some parts to supplementary material or add a new table summarising available information about bones, porosity, diagenesis, solubility. All information reported in this part is very interesting but are redundant in a scientific paper.

- Looking to the cited references, I noted that you completely missed the many papers published by Gregorio dal Sasso of the University of Padua (Italy). His PhD project was dedicated to the issue of archaeological bones diagenesis after burying and he investigated in details the behaviour of buried bones in terms of changes in crystallinity and interaction with water in the archaeological deposit. I strongly suggest especially to consider the paper elaborating an universal curve for apatite crystallinity (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30642-z).

- In the method section, please explain how you selected samples from the archaeological sequence of Tolbor. Moreover, In the result section I strongly suggest to add information about collected bones. For instance, the description of bones and their preservation is missing. The same for the model bone samples. Also, some pictures would help.

- I would also suggest to add (maybe in supplementary material) the section of Tolbon indicating the stratigraphic position of sampled bones. Please condor also that if bones come from different parts of the archaeological despots, they may have suffered different (I mean local) diagenetic process (e.g. related to water percolation or variations of pH values of the host archaeological layer); can this influence your results? the sole map of the study region is completely useless if you don't supply data on the stratigraphy of the site. Finally, it is not clear why you selected this specific archaeological sequence to carry out your experiments.

- The description of methods is also very long and many informations are very basic. I suggest to shorten this part of the manuscript or move some parts to supplementary material.

- I think the corpus of data described in the result section is robust and it is a good starting point for your discussion. Unfortunately, you do not present and discuss results of SEM investigation. Scanning microscope, I guess, may inform about the modification of apatite crystals of your samples; for instance changes in crystal shape or orientation, or can explain the evolution of diagenesis recording the process of recrystallization (evidence of dissolution and recrystallisation are very evident under the SEM). As you cited SEM in the Methods section, I think you should have interesting data to show. The only SEM images are in Fig. 7, but they are not discussed. SEM data would increase also the quality of discussion.

- Discussion: at the moment the discussion is mostly the comparison between data from modern samples and the archaeological ones. I suggest to expand the discussion also because the interaction between water and buried bones is not very clear. What is the specific potential influence of circulating water on bones heated at different T? As I already said, this may have huge implication intern in radiocarbon dating. Bone apatite is used in dating, but it is not the best, because it often underwent recrystallisation or contamination by CaCO3 (see Cherkinsky and di Lernia, Radiocarbon 2013 and some of the papers by Dal Sasso). Also, water circulating in an archaeological deposit is generally quite rich in dissolved CaCO3 and there are major exchanges of Ca2+ between fluids and bone apatite; you can also have deposition of CaCO3 along with recrystallisation of bone apatite. What is the interaction of Ca-rich fluids and bones heated at different T? You shall consider this fundamental interaction and discuss it on the basis of your data. Two main points are laking in the discussion, but they are mandatory, the interaction between CaCO3 rich water and archaeological bones, and the implication of your study to the field of radiocarbon dating of archaeological bones.

**********

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: Yes: Yolanda Fernández-Jalvo

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: PONE-D-20-19845_reviewer1_27july.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 28;16(7):e0254529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254529.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


14 Feb 2021

The following is copied from our Response to Reviewers document uploaded as an attachment.

Response to Reviewers:

Reviewer 1

…However, the originality of the paper needs to be more explicitly described, crystallinity changes are referred to burning but very little if any is referred to diagenetic influence in burnt archaeological specimens (which is the objective of the paper but finally not clearly discussed). A reorganization of the text and more clear statements and aspects to be discussed to demonstrate the goals of the paper is needed.

Thank you for your comment and for all your helpful suggestions. The manuscript is greatly improved with your feedback. To highlight the originality of the paper we have rewritten major portions of the introduction and background sections, attempting to summarize concisely the exact goals of the study and inclusion of the modern and archaeological samples. We believe this will reframe and clarify the role of the Tolbor-17 material for this study, as it is our intention that the Tobor-17 archaeological burnt bone serve as a comparative reference sample of changes in bioapatite crystallinity sizes and organic content for this study. Future zooarchaeological studies planned for Tolbor-17 will consider the hypothesis of differential preservation closely with supporting faunal and geoarchaeological data. We have therefore modified our conclusions to reflect this restructuring, using our results from the study as hypothesis generating observations for further closer study, with the intention to follow up more substantially in the forthcoming full zooarchaeological study of Tolbor-17.

Burning alone does not cause fragmentation, a subsequent movement or effort may produce fragmentation, but indication of which movement or effort acted after burning is not described. Further, fragmentation before and after burning can be caused by a large number of taphonomic agents (e.g. butchery, trampling, weathering, corrosion…).

Thank you for your observation. This perspective and related information will be the major focus of the next study planned for this project: a full zooarchaeological study of the Tolbor-17 faunal material. This planned study will include traditional zooarchaeological analyses including identifiable specimens, fragmentation degree, surface modifications, and preservation. We seek to describe many anthropogenic behaviors present in the Tolbor-17 fauna in the future study, and will pay specific attention to burning to test the hypothesis of differential preservation suggested by our current manuscript. This zooarchaeological investigation has had initial data collection completed in December 2019, with further analyses planned with international travel restrictions are lifted.

Definitively, the paper needs a better and more exhaustive description of the fossil assemblage: number of specimens, size of fossils, surface modifications, how many fossils are in each burning stage or which have also been affected by any other taphonomic agent both before and after burning should be described or included in a table.

We believe that through the reframing and clarification of the purpose of the archaeological material (as a reference sample confirming the visibility in changes of bioapatite crystallinity sizes and organic preservation in an archaeological assemblage and relating described changes to zooarchaeological observational scales of burning intensity) will clarify the intention of the archaeological sample inclusion. A sample of text addressing this specifically is now included in the introduction and is highlighted in the manuscript with tracked changes on page 3. We also have reframed our discussion of the archaeological material in the context of hypothesis generation, and the descriptive fossil assemblage desired here will be the focus of the next paper engaging with the planned zooarchaeological study of the full Tolbor-17 fauna from Unit 3. Language addressing this has been rewritten and is highlighted in page 23 of the manuscript with tracked changes.

Reviewer 2

I like very much the introductory part, it is a very good compilation/resume of the state of the art of bone transformation research. I will suggest to try to resume all the information in a graph where the X axe is the burning temperature/time (qualitative and/or quantitative) and all the mentioned parameter-changes (Y axe) are depicted.

Thank you very much for your time and helpful feedback for our manuscript. It was a concern of ours that the diverse researchers who may be interested in this topic (ranging in disciplines from zooarchaeology to material scientists and thermochemists) may need a full background to provide a comprehensive understanding of the many complex systems being considered, so it was our original intention to have a very extensive background section. From the feedback of our other reviewers, however, it was suggested that this be shortened and made more concise. We believe the revisions have keep the scope and scale of the original intention for the background section while eliminating some more extraneous details and clarifying the language.

Additionally, we have tried to create several versions of a schematic following your suggestion. All versions were found to be unsatisfactory, both due to the changing scenarios around burning with or without oxygen, and the variance found in reported data regarding porosity which we do not directly investigate in our own study. Our solution was to clarify the language regarding the timing of the described mechanisms, primarily found in our revised discussion section is highlighted on page 22 of the manuscript with tracked changes.

First paragraph of page 13: Describe better the sedimentological/postdepositional features indicating the mentioned features/processes. Any images of the deposits and/or bone remains?

We thank you for your suggestion. We have described the sedimentological context to the extent of our current knowledge, and have revised our text regarding our intention for the archaeological material to be a reference sample into bioapatite crystallinity and organic components of archaeological burned bone. In our forthcoming study on the full zooarchaeological material from Tolbor-17, of which the hypotheses generated by this paper will be tested with further studies, we plan on including a greater amount of detail on the post-depositional taphonomic processes and the greater geological context of Unit 3.

Include/discuss more FTIR-ATR related references for archaeological studies in the discussion, please reivew this recent work and references therein: Iriarte et al., 2020

We are grateful for your encouragement to include the very relevant work of Iriarte et al., 2020. We have now included this work in our discussion of the potential of burnt bone to make advances in our understanding of past human behavior.

Reviewer 3

The abstract is not informative about the results but mostly talk about methods. I suggest to rewrite it.

Thank you for your suggestion, and for your constructive feedback. The abstract has been fully rewritten to address your suggestion.

Introduction: you explain the aims of your study, but I think that a major implication of your work is not considered in this paper. I suggest to discuss in the introduction section (and maybe in the discussion or conclusion) a further implication: are your results relevant in the field of radiocarbon dating on bones or collagen and DNA extraction? I think that you may discuss the importance of changes in crystallinity of bone apatite in the context of radiocarbon dating of archaeological bones.

We thank you for observation, and we have included the discussion of C14 dating of the inorganic component of bone in our revised manuscript. We are grateful for the expansion of the implications and relevance of our study, and this has provided an additional opportunity for us to contextualize and highlight the massive bioapatite mineral structural reorganization of calcined bone. Importantly, it is the same mechanisms which are responsible for the usefulness of calcined bioapatite for C14 dating (thermodynamically stable crystals that can resist contamination) that we describe in this study first at temperatures of calcination (~700˚C), and also a second threshold at higher temperatures (~900˚C). This discussion and many relevant citations is included in our revised section on burnt bone diagenesis which is highlighted on page 10 our manuscript with tracked changes.

We believe our revised text and clarification on the timing of organic loss, and therefore waning usefulness for collagen and DNA extraction, will benefit those audiences as our results provide reference spectroscopic datasets illustrating the presence and quick decay of organic components in burnt bone.

The Background section is really too long. It seems a summary of the background chapters of a PhD dissertation. I suggest to strongly reduce this section and possibly to add some parts to supplementary material or add a new table…

Thank you. We had major concerns about the background necessary for all varied audiences who may be interested in this paper, and it was our original intention to have a detailed background to meet those needs. Considering your suggestion, we have completely rewritten and restructured our background sections. We believe this revised version still has the breadth to inform readers from different disciplines, but is no longer dense and focused on tangential information.

I noted that you completely missed the many papers published by Gregorio dal Sasso of the University of Padua (Italy). His PhD project was dedicated to the issue of archaeological bones diagenesis after burying and he investigated in details the behaviour of buried bones in terms of changes in crystallinity and interaction with water in the archaeological deposit. I strongly suggest especially to consider the paper elaborating an universal curve for apatite crystallinity (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-30642-z).

Thank you for your suggestion to reference the research of Gregorio dal Sasso, specifically dal Sasso et al. (2018). We are familiar with the work of dal Sasso and believe the universal curve of apatite crystallinity described in dal Sasso et al. (2018) is a significant recent advancement in the use of spectroscopy to evaluate the preservation of archaeological bone. We plan on using this methodology more extensively in our future work planned on the entire Tolbor-17 faunal assemblage, a comprehensive zooarchaeological study which is forthcoming.

I would also suggest to add (maybe in supplementary material) the section of Tolbon indicating the stratigraphic position of sampled bones. Please condor also that if bones come from different parts of the archaeological despots, they may have suffered different (I mean local) diagenetic process (e.g. related to water percolation or variations of pH values of the host archaeological layer); can this influence your results? the sole map of the study region is completely useless if you don't supply data on the stratigraphy of the site. Finally, it is not clear why you selected this specific archaeological sequence to carry out your experiments.

Thank you for your suggestion. As all burned faunal material sampled comes from a constrained area of one of the Tolbor-17 test pits and was considered to be firmly within the stratigraphic Unit 3, we do not believe this will be a complicating factor for our current study. We do plan on including more detailed sedimentological and geographic information in our more comprehensive zooarchaeological study of the full Tolbor-17 faunal assemblage, however, which will test our hypothesis of preservation bias highlighted by our conclusions further. We have clarified the stratigraphic position of the samples in our text to address this, however, and revised text can be found highlighted on page 13 of our manuscript with tracked changes.

We hope that we have also been able to clarify the inclusion of the Tolbor-17 samples in our study as initial investigations into the novel faunal preservation of Upper Paleolithic burned bone from the Tolbor valley, as well as representative samples of archaeological material sufficient to include as a reference sample to compare to our modern experimental samples. Text to acknowledge this in greater detail can be found highlighted on page 13 in our manuscript with tracked changes.

The description of methods is also very long and many informations are very basic. I suggest to shorten this part of the manuscript or move some parts to supplementary material.

We have taken your comment into serious consideration, and have tried to use more concise language to describe our methodologies. Ultimately much of the basic information have remained due to our interest in providing comprehensive detail to those reading our paper from diverse sub-disciplines who perhaps would like to recreate our study.

Unfortunately, you do not present and discuss results of SEM investigation. Scanning microscope, I guess, may inform about the modification of apatite crystals of your samples; for instance changes in crystal shape or orientation, or can explain the evolution of diagenesis recording the process of recrystallization (evidence of dissolution and recrystallisation are very evident under the SEM). As you cited SEM in the Methods section, I think you should have interesting data to show. The only SEM images are in Fig. 7, but they are not discussed. SEM data would increase also the quality of discussion.

Thank you. For this study it was our original intention that the SE microscopy images be used for visualization purposes only, and have only selected five bones typical of their burning category for SE microscopy imaging (three from our modern experimental collection, and two from our archaeological assemblage). These bone samples were selected for imaging prior to being powdered for spectroscopic analyses, and it is no longer possible to image a more comprehensive sample of the other included burned modern and archaeological bone due to the powdering which took place. To address your suggestion, we have moved the detailed information regarding the SE microscopy instrument methodology to Supplemental Information and have clarified that the inclusion of SE images in this manuscript are for generalized visualization purposes only. In addition, greater detail of morphological observations are now included in the figure caption to address the processes which are present in our five images. We are excited for the suggestion to include a greater SE microscopy component in our future studies considering the thermal alteration of burnt bone, in which we will image a more thorough and comprehensive sample of material will be considered to conduct analyses and descriptions as you suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Justin W Adams

16 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-19845R1

Characterization of structural changes in modern and archaeological burnt bone: implications for differential preservation bias

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gallo,

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.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 30 2021 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: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Justin W. Adams, 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.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

On behalf of myself and the reviewers I would like to thank you for resubmitting your manuscript and addressing the minor and major points raised during the first peer review.

Having received a second round of reviews from the original reviewers, there are very few minor points which have been raised and should be easily addressed.

Based on my own independent evaluation, I agree with Reviewer 2 that the current Discussion could very easily be expanded. I appreciate and understand that there is the intent to provide a more expanded faunal analysis of the T17 sample in the future, nor does every individual publication have to include comprehensive coverage of all topics and content. However, given the general audience of PLOS One, it is equally critical to highlight to broader significance and importance of results. And as this presents novel data that has immediate relevance towards the archaeological sample under analysis, it would seem to be a significant missed opportunity to take these results on burnt bone and contextualise them in light of a larger consideration as to what significance this result will have to site-based interpretations. The introductory segment highlights (pages 7-8) the significance of the site for human biogeography, use of fire, the minimal archaeological/faunal record in the region, etc. Yet the Discussion (and separate Conclusions) fail to pick up on the significance of this locality and what the presented results can inform on in the planned future research. This lends the impression that the site itself, or the descriptions of results from the site, have no particular interpretative significance (and any site therefore could have been picked); and therefore is a missed opportunity to provide a reinforcement of the significance of the results for the T17 site in addition to the broader experimental outcomes. I don't view this as a onerous task but strongly recommend expanding the Discussion to revisit the site and how these results assist in framing understandings of the deposits (and their significance as alluded to in the first description of the materials).

[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 #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: 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 #1: There are very minor changes suggested included in the pdf file attached. These refer to including a reference, be more precise in the sample size and delete a sentence from conclusions that is not really conclusion form the manuscript

Reviewer #2: Dear Authors,

I am quite surprised with the reviewed version of the manuscript. In my opinion, all the suggestions made by the reviewers were pertinent and most of them, apparently, easily realizable. But instead of reviewing and completing the manuscript with new information/discussion, it seems that the authors have choosen to rewrite and reorganize the text, it is better organized and better understood now, but they have not include new discussions or even explain the archaeological and stratigraphical context of archaeological remains analysed... or include sample´s photographs (as requested).

I feel that the analytical work and data is very OK, but the manuscript lacks a proper discussion. The nice analytical data support what already previous papers has published regarding the mineralogical, textural and compositional evolution of burned bone and it is a good starting point for a dscussion; but the discussion is just focused in comparing experimental results with results from archaeological data, it is OK, but which are the implications of having burnt bones in T17 ? Why it is important to have burned bones? How is archaeologically interpreted Unit 3?

In the same way, in the title "differential preservation bias" is mentioned, but it is not discussed in the text...which bias is detected in T17 collection? Why?

If the revisions of the reviewers are not tackled and the above mentioned comments corrected (they are easily realizable minor to moderate revisions) I think that this manuscript it is not suitable for PlosONE, it would be more appropiate for a more methodlogical/archaeometrical journal as e.g. Archaeometry or similar journals.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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: PONE-D-20-19845_R1_reviewer1.pdf

PLoS One. 2021 Jul 28;16(7):e0254529. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254529.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


13 Jun 2021

The following is copied from our Response to Reviewers document, uploaded as an attachment.

Response to Reviewers:

Editorial comment: Based on my own independent evaluation, I agree with Reviewer 2 that the current Discussion could very easily be expanded... However, given the general audience of PLOS One, it is equally critical to highlight to broader significance and importance of results.

Thank you for your constructive suggestions and encouragement to expand our Discussion. We agree that broadening our scope and contextualizing the inclusion of archaeological material results in a much stronger manuscript which speaks to a larger audience.

And as this presents novel data that has immediate relevance towards the archaeological sample under analysis, it would seem to be a significant missed opportunity to take these results on burnt bone and contextualise them in light of a larger consideration as to what significance this result will have to site-based interpretations.

Thank you. We have modified our Discussion portion of the manuscript to revisit the site of Tolbor-17 and expand into greater detail regarding the biogeography and relevance of studying fire in the Ikh-Tolborin-Gol, as well as highlighting the importance and relevance of the Tolbor-17 site to address larger questions of human technology.

Reviewer 1 There are very minor changes suggested included in the pdf file attached. These refer to including a reference, be more precise in the sample size and delete a sentence from conclusions that is not really conclusion form the manuscript.

Thank you for your feedback and observations. The inclusion of van Hoesel et al. (2019) is an excellent contribution to our manuscript expanding on the experimental work regarding properties of combusted bone and a complement to the cited work of Reidsma et al. (2016). To address the faunal summary table, we have added number counts for the piece plotted material. We agree that the addition of this detail provides a more traditional representation of the zooarchaeology, and the quantification of the burnt bone fragments from screens will be a component of our future work on the Tolbor-17 fauna. Thank you, additionally, for your recommendation regarding the sentence addressing small bone fragments in our conclusion. We have adjusted our text to clarify the recovery of nearly all burnt bone fragments were from the screened material, and have moved the majority of that text to our Methodology section to avoid references in the Conclusion portion of our manuscript.

Reviewer 2 …[The] discussion is just focused in comparing experimental results with results from archaeological data, it is OK, but which are the implications of having burnt bones in T17 ? Why it is important to have burned bones? How is archaeologically interpreted Unit 3?

Thank you for your suggestion and useful perspective on expanding our discussion of the archaeology and the significance of fire presence at Tolbor-17. We have added a much larger section of our Discussion paragraphs to address this, including contextualizing Tolbor-17 within the Ikh-Tolberin-Gol, as well as the ultimate reasons we are interested in investigating Upper Paleolithic fire further. We have also detailed further the rare opportunity Tolbor-17 presents to study questions of this nature, as it is rare to have fire and faunal preservation in the valley.

In the same way, in the title "differential preservation bias" is mentioned, but it is not discussed in the text...which bias is detected in T17 collection? Why?

Thank you. We have clarified our text to specify that the experimental work characterizing bioapatite growth and crystallinity (demonstrated in both modern and archaeological bone) highlights a vulnerability of charred bones that has yet to be described. Our conclusions therefore provide implications for biases in archaeological assemblages of burnt bone that may impact the visibility and study of fire presence and properties from a faunal perspective, and can be hypothesis-generating for future studies considering site specific burnt bone preservation.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .pdf

Decision Letter 2

Justin W Adams

28 Jun 2021

Characterization of structural changes in modern and archaeological burnt bone: implications for differential preservation bias

PONE-D-20-19845R2

Dear Dr. Gallo,

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,

Justin W. Adams, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Thank you for your careful consideration of the minor amendments that arose during your resubmission. I appreciate your attention to the comments from the reviewers and myself as part of that process. I'm happy to recommend acceptance of the submission.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Justin W Adams

1 Jul 2021

PONE-D-20-19845R2

Characterization of structural changes in modern and archaeological burnt bone: implications for differential preservation bias

Dear Dr. Gallo:

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. Justin W. Adams

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 Appendix. SE microscopy imaging instrument and magnification details.

    (PDF)

    S1 Table. Experimental modern bone FTIR-ATR relevant peak height values.

    (PDF)

    S2 Table. Calculated experimental modern sample values of FTIR C/P, IRSF, and bioapatite crystal size average as measured from XRD.

    (PDF)

    S3 Table. FTIR-ATR Unit 3 archaeological sample relevant peak height values.

    (PDF)

    S4 Table. Calculated archaeological T-17 Unit 3 C/P and IRSF values, and bioapatite crystal size average as measured from XRD.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-19845_reviewer1_27july.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-19845_R1_reviewer1.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers .pdf

    Data Availability Statement

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


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES