Dear editor of the PCI Archaeology, dear authors of the manuscript entitled “From polishing to burning: deciphering a middle Neolithic hoard from Beringen Brouweshuis (Belgium) through functional analysis”

I am delighted to review the work by Tomasso and colleagues, which focuses on the microscopic analysis of micro traces on polished stone axes to document their use biography and lifecycle, consequently contributing to the discussion on their significance in Neolithic hoard practices. 

In general, I find that the study is well-designed, featuring adequate methodology, documentation, and description of the acquired and analysed data. I recommend that the manuscript be published after minor revisions. Nevertheless, I believe that the manuscript could benefit from some adjustments concerning the scope and research questions that drive the study. I assume the researchers aim to investigate and contribute to the discussion on Neolithic ritual practices through the analysis of use-wear traces on polished axes (the so-called big picture). From my perspective, this discussion encompasses various interrelated aspects; however, this is not clearly articulated in the Abstract and Introduction. References to ritual practices and object biographies are notably absent in these sections.

In the Introduction, I suggest that the first paragraph, which provides details about the site and selected assemblage, be moved to the end of the section. The narrative should begin with a broader context, emphasizing the research questions presented in the second paragraph, followed by the selected case study. Here, the authors could elaborate more on the contribution of use-wear studies to these questions. Specifically, why is use-wear significant, and why should it be considered in this area of research? What data can use-wear provide that other types of artefact analyses do not? The focus should be on the deposition of these objects and the activities they are associated with.

There appear to be two sections titled "Materials and Methods," which I assume is an error. The third section, currently also called "Materials and Methods," should be titled "Sampling." In this section, the authors should clarify the criteria used for the initial sorting of the artefacts when they state, “... most promising for functional analysis.” 

In the Results section, while the authors report damage associated with the exposure of the artefacts to heat, they should substantiate their interpretations with key reference studies. In the Discussion, I again highlight the absence of an initial paragraph, or a few sentences dedicated to contextualizing the study, where the broader picture and main research questions are introduced and discussed. For instance, the authors refer to the concept of the “biographic approach” for the first time here. I believe this concept should be introduced much earlier in the manuscript. Following this idea, it is evident to me that the take-home message of this investigation is centred on hoarding practices, rituals, and interpreting the archaeological assemblages; this focus seems to be lacking in the introduction of the manuscript.

The review of the article From Polishing To Burning: 1 Deciphering A Middle Neolithic 2 Hoard From Beringen 3 Brouwershuis (Belgium) 4 Through Functional Analysis represents an interesting contribution of functional studies to the interpretation of tools documented in certain structures. I would like to make a few comments bellow, which are not so much criticisms as suggestions for improving the text. 

Line 73. One of the biggest deficiencies I have noticed is in the contextual information. You give an explication of the location of the site and talk directly about the structure in which the material was found. I think it would be interesting to describe much better the site, its characteristics, what kind of structures have been discovered, if there are other structures similar to the ones studied, what data other disciplines offer (about the economy, for example), etc.

A map of the sit is also included, but a general map of Belgium would be useful for readers unfamiliar with the geography of the area. 

Line 96. I think that one of the researchers who has done the most work on polished tools is Alba Masclans. I think her work should be referred to. Moreover, most of her studies are on Neolithic tools from funerary contexts. 

Line 107. With regard to the material, the authors do not explain why they only analysed 17 tools. What is the reason for this selection? In this sense, they have not explained whether there are other structures with lithic material that have not been studied. 

Line 245. Regarding the modifications, it is surprising that even if they are very modified, as the author says, small modifications are associated with the hafting of these tools. The question is: could these types of modifications not be the result of alterations? Is there no other possibility than this interpretation?

Line 294. The authors are very interested in interpreting material that is fundamentally linked to the symbolic sphere. For example, the fact that a tool is documented as a strike-a-light is not seen as just another use or reuse, but as an element linked to the ritual. What seems strange to them may be part of the ritual, and other activities, such as wood or leather work, which are documented on other instruments, do not seem to them to be related to the symbolic world. 

Line 309. “The absence of extreme discoloration or complete fracturing suggests controlled burning”. In the photos, the presence of cracks and negatives of potlids from exposure to intense heat show that there was no controlled heating. These changes occur precisely when the heat is very intense. This leads to destruction of the flint or loss of quality when heating is used to cut the cores. 

Line 313. It says: "This controlled exposure implies that the tools were purposefully modified before deposition, potentially carrying ritual significance”. This is another example of the search for an exclusively symbolic interpretation. I think this kind of interpretation is very risky and without solid evidence. Many of the tools have been badly affected by high heat and little control. In any site with thermally altered flint tools, there are different degrees of alteration due to proximity or lack of proximity to the heat source, exposure, etc. However, this does not imply anything symbolic, but simply changes inherent to the activities carried out in the settlements. It is difficult to make these assessments if other structures on the site have been analysed or similar cases have not been evaluated. In any case, these are proposals by the authors, which the scientific community will evaluate as solid or not on the basis of the data presented. 

For all these reasons, I believe that this article should be published with minor modifications, regardless of whether the authors reflect on their interpretations or not.