Reaction–diffusion systems are an intensively studied form of partial differential equation, frequently used to produce spatially heterogeneous patterned states from homogeneous symmetry breaking via the Turing instability. Although there are many prototypical “Turing systems” available, determining their parameters, functional forms, and general appropriateness for a given application is often difficult. Here, we consider the reverse problem. Namely, suppose we know the parameter region associated with the reaction kinetics in which patterning is required—we present a constructive framework for identifying systems that will exhibit the Turing instability within this region, whilst in addition often allowing selection of desired patterning features, such as spots, or stripes. In particular, we show how to build a system of two populations governed by polynomial morphogen kinetics such that the: patterning parameter domain , morphogen phases , and even type of resulting pattern  can all be determined. Finally, by employing spatial and temporal heterogeneity, we demonstrate that mixed mode patterns  are also possible, allowing one to build arbitrarily complicated patterning landscapes. Such a framework can be employed pedagogically, or in a variety of contemporary applications in designing synthetic chemical and biological patterning systems. We also discuss the implications that this freedom of design has on using reaction–diffusion systems in biological modelling and suggest that stronger constraints are needed when linking theory and experiment, as many simple patterns can be easily generated given freedom to choose reaction kinetics. Alan Turing’s chemical theory of morphogenesis Turing  is a remTuring-type patterning is also studied in a variety of other settings, such as in nonlinear optics Oppo , geochemHowever, despite enormous theoretical and experimental advances, the theory has, so far, had some fundamental obstructions in explaining biological patterns . In particular, we will demonstrate how to construct polynomial morphogen kinetics such that the patterning parameter domain, morphogen phases, and aspects of the resulting pattern can all be determined at will. We demonstrate examples of these constructions numerically, giving examples of non-contiguous parameter domains where patterning occurs, as well as parameter regimes where the resulting patterns are qualitatively different in specified ways. Such bespoke Turing systems may be valuable for designing chemical, or biological systems, as they will suggest general qualitative features that either have to be (i) discovered, thereby directing future experimental design, or (ii) designed, in the case of synthetic patterning construction. Whilst we will focus on designing a specific chemical system able to match any desired parameter space, the ideas we present should be valuable for the analysis and design of other self-organising systems, and to help illuminate issues of robustness in Turing systems.Note that the results of this work can either be viewed in a positive or negative light. The positive view commends Turing’s theory for being general enough to mimic a huge range of biological complexity, whilst the negative view suggests that such modelling does not allow us to distinguish Turing’s mechanism from alternative hypotheses without further constraints from biology. This has been discussed widely before, such as by Oster ; “So whau and v, termed “morphogens”, which is a standard and general name for the populations whose interactions may generate patterning. Critically, we are intrinsically assuming that each population is made up of a large number of individuals, so as to allow a continuum description, although there has been extensive work done on low-copy number reaction–diffusion systems  . Additionally, the design framework shown in this toy model has implications for the use of Turing systems in other frameworks as we discuss later.f and g are functions describing the reaction kinetics. Moreover, u and v satisfy zero-flux boundary conditions on We first briefly review the basic linear instability analysis for reaction–diffusion systems, in order to motivate our choice of nonlinear kinetics. Let B to be two, or less, for simplicity of presentation. Our results regarding the existence of Turing patterns and their phase are independent of dimension, whereas the specific results and simulations regarding stripes or spot selection, discussed in Sect. f and g, in order to satisfy the necessary conditions over a given parameter region for patterns, of any kind, to exist.In the rest of the paper, we restrict the dimension of k . Hence, instability of a particular mode depends on its associated wavenumber, k. For this choice of domain, we have that n, which is nonnegative, without loss of generality.For Eqs.  and 2)  2) to prf and g in the usual way , we canfor Eqs.  and 2)  f and g From considering inequalities  and 5),,5), we felations –6) and  and \docu and v will be out of phase in the cross-kinetics case  and in phase in the pure kinetics case, at least for linearised solutions, though, in practice, this relation is typically inherited even when nonlinear dynamics eventually feature.Kinetics with the mutatis mutandis in the case that We will use the sign structure of We specify new variablesD, whilst D large enough. Namely, the minimum possible diffusion isD (the ratio of the two diffusion coefficients) can be as high as required in a particular application can, once again, only be determined on a case by case basis, through applying the known data to the equations and deriving the appropriate scales.Under this transformation, the Turing instability criteria simplify toD and L large enough to ensure that a system is able to pattern at a suitable wave number. This criterion is not only simple, but also highlights the required relative strengths of the activation and inhibition effects of the two populations. Namely, under the signs of u to be the (self-)activator and v to be the (self-)inhibitor, then we see that the strength of inhibition of u on v, i.e. F, has to be stronger than the self-inhibition, i.e. G. Equally, G has to be greater than unity so that self-inhibition is also stronger than self-activation.If we further define u on v has to be stronger than the self-inhibition of v. Thus, in the non-dimensionalised case, where the influence of u and v on u is taken to be the same relative strength, then, regardless of the sign structure, the influence of the self-activator on the self-inhibitor has to be stronger than the self-inhibition. In turn, this influence is stronger than the influence of either morphogen on the activator, which is a useful constraint to place on biological systems that are suggested to act through a Turing instability. Whilst these conclusions are only strictly true in the two morphogen case, analogous results can be drawn for systems with more populations, typically resulting in restrictions to the kinds of interactions between groups of morphogens that can support pattern formation f and g. sing Eq. , with \dThe results derived for 2 in Eq.  demonstrD we can calculate the minimum domain, L and large enough D (see Eqs. (Another benefit from defining the desired parameter space using level sets is that since ough Eq.  and noti as Eqs.  and 26)\document as Eqs.  and 28)\documentH is any smooth function and either u, v) to be morphogens, we also specify that the choice of H should not violate the positivity of the trajectories. However, in more general cases, e.g. one of  measuring transmembrane potential differences, this condition can also be relaxed.Finally, we note that Eqs.  and 26)26) and EL sufficiently large. For a bounded patterning space D. We will now give a few examples of this framework to design parameter spaces, before discussing nonlinear selection effects.Critically, although these extra nonlinear terms will not influence the stability characteristics of the homogeneous steady state at , they may create new steady states that have different parameter regions of existence and stability. Equally, higher-order terms are able to influence the observed patterns , and heNumerical simulations of the following reaction–diffusion systems were run using the finite element software COMSOL Multiphysics 5.3 using a backward differentiation formula scheme in time. The initial conditions are uniformly randomly generated about the steady state 1, with range 0.1. Simulations were run until the supremum of the time derivative over all grid points was less than It should be noted that our stopping tolerances  into their polar forms r and r and 10 equally spaced values of We now numerically evidence that for the chosen kinetics, all patterns in the circular parameter domain correspond to spot patterns. In order to sweep over D, can be prescribed. To take the complexity one step further, we construct a system that takes a pure kinetic form on one of the regions, whilst taking a cross-kinetic form on the other.We now give an example of a reaction–diffusion system that is Turing unstable on an unbounded and non-contiguous parameter region, assuming a large enough spatial domain and diffusion ratio, We begin by specifying the disconnected domain,entclass1pt{minimasee Fig. b.Fig. 4aa is greater than or less than 3. The perturbed system is now of the forma, b) is in the right-hand region of a, b) is in the left-hand region of Critically, further refinement of the kinetics is required to address the constraint that the kinetics are of different types in the different regions. To enforce this, we return to the linearised perturbation system of Eqs.  and 16)16)40\docn to Eq. , and detSimulations of Eqs.  and 46)46) in thThus far, we have demonstrated how to create a set of kinetics that can be tailored to suit any parameter region in either case of wanting the populations in phase or out of phase. Although a greater complexity of pattern is possible in spatial dimensions higher than one, all two-dimensional simulations so far have only demonstrated spot patterns. Hence, in this section we demonstrate that the choice of pattern can similarly be specified as required in the two-dimensional case. Namely, the pattern kinetics can be tuned using a new parameter to provide either spots or labyrinthine patterns depending on the desired application.Achieving such specificity is an application of a previously proven result, where Ermentrout  used weaThe analysis of the most often observed case, hexagonally arranged spots, is complicated by the fact that its wave mode template produces resonant secular terms in the weakly nonlinear expansion at quadratic order that cannot be completely removed. Rather, a Fredholm solvability criterion has to be applied and assumptions about quadratic terms remaining small are required. Thus, we must remember that all of the reported results only hold in the weakly nonlinear regime and should be taken only as approximate results formally valid only near the boundaries of the Turing regime .C is increased, whilst not influencing the desired patterning parameter region. Note that we subtract the cubic term to maintain positivity near D and the domain size, To investigate the influence of cubic terms, we need to extend the basic system –33). As. As33).  to Eqs.  and (33)C parameter to control pattern type) is outside the scope of the weakly nonlinear regime. Specifically, although for small C we are able to track the start of bifurcation from the stable homogeneous state to stable heterogeneous patterns, the point at which the patterns cease to be stable is defined at a higher order. Further, as we will see in the upcoming simulations, as C increases the spot pattern begins to bifurcate from the stripe solution, rather than from homogeneity, a result that is completely outside weakly nonlinear analysis. Thus, to understand the bifurcation properties of system (Having subjected Eqs.  and 48)48) to a f system –(48) in f system .C increases, the region of stable spot pattern existence shrinks. Further, although stripe patterns are available when C increases  and cross (bottom row) kinetics. As expected, we observe in both kinetic types that as the value of C increases left to right, the pattern transitions from spots to labyrinthine structures. We also note the amplitude of the pattern is suppressed with increasing C due to the cubic term having an inhibitory role.Using these ideas, we now extend the non-contiguous parameter region kinetics, Eqs.  and 46)46), to pAs a final example, we extend the model given by Eqs.  and 50)50) to haThere are many technical difficulties in generalising the linear theory explored in earlier sections, though some progress has been made; see, for instance, Krause et al. , Kozák eWe focus on demonstrating our results through simulation, leaving a detailed mathematical justification for future work. Whilst our intuition for the “localization” of patterning above can be justified near a steady state, we will show that the predictions of the linear theory, developed in the papers cited above, appear to hold even when transitioning between patterned states which are far from equilibrium. Justifying such evolving states is beyond the scope of what we aim to do here, which is merely to demonstrate the ability of a modeller to design sophisticated patterns in space and time.C and a with functions of space and time, which we will specify for our examples. We also assume that the linear and weakly nonlinear results of the previous sections hold, at least for well-chosen functions, and give two examples where spatial and temporal heterogeneity interact with the patterning process in interesting ways. In both examples, we will consider a domain of size C. In the second example, we leave both spatial regions fixed, but instead exploit the parameter a to globally change between pure and cross-kinetic systems, so that u and v change phase.To proceed, we replace H is a sharp Heaviside step function. Hence, C rapidly transitions between C in Fig. For the first example, we set C can be increased such that this does not happen. , though we do see some changes in the striped half of the domain, as these structures are generally less stable to perturbation than spots. Simulations of only spot dynamics (not shown) confirm this as we can indefinitely oscillate between in and out of phase kinetics without modifying the number or organization of spot patterns, as long as sufficient time is given for the pattern to relax between such oscillations.Snapshots of simulating Eqs.  and 50)50) with D, and such scales often apply in development, for instance  that is no longer a steady solution to the reaction–diffusion system (as the Laplacian term will not vanish), but can instead be thought of as a steady state to the equations in the absence of transport. If the diffusion is sufficiently small, or equivalently the domain is sufficiently large compared to gradients in heterogeneity, then this can be justified asymptotically , assumiThis suggests that if we are unable to constrain our models, through domain and diffusion scales or kinetic terms, then the reaction–diffusion framework alone is able to produce essentially any simple desired qualitative pattern and is thus automatically consistent with any simple stripe or spot pattern and even patterns with sharp transitions between spots and stripes. Moreover, recent work into larger interaction networks has demonstrated that the Turing instability is even less constrained when more populations are considered. Work by Marcon et al.  shows thNotably, even though the assumptions of large diffusion ratios and large domains are generally necessary, there are many ways these assumptions can be weakened, such as by using substrate binding to slow one of the populations down, creating the large diffusion ratio required for a two species model , generating an observable pattern transition between spots to stripes, or, vice versa. Such outcomes can be encompassed in the presented framework. Namely, if we want a pattern to transition between spots and stripes, we can introduce a feedback between the experiment and a cubic term like that seen in Sect. D, will cause patterns to be eradicated, even with parameters such that Currently, we have not presented a means of guaranteeing that other mechanisms of patterning will not be feasible outside of Nonetheless, such subtleties do not ameliorate the overarching observations that, with free reign, it is feasible to construct kinetics that generate any simple homogeneous, or sharply stratified Turing pattern within any specified region of parameter space. Hence, we conclude that critical consideration is required when reaction–diffusion models are compared with experimental data; especially with regard to the extent, the reaction kinetics have been constrained. In particular, the interpretation of such comparisons is only as informative as the constraints that are placed upon the model, noting that mechanism-based restrictions on the kinetics will reduce such freedoms.Although the universality of these Turing systems potentially limits the insights that we are able to generate with minimal biological constraints, they are nonetheless useful Gelfert . For exaEqually, experimentalists are constantly working within the freedom of Turing’s theory to try and further constrain possible mechanisms. Recent work by Economou et al.  investigFinally, the fundamental idea behind the Turing instability is extremely valuable across the spectrum of experimental, modelling, and theoretical studies. Namely, the Turing instability demonstrates that a system can be more than the sum of its components. A diffusive system is thought to generally dissipate patterns and connecting this to a stable set of kinetics should, intuitively, not create sustained heterogeneity. Thus, philosophically, the Turing pattern demonstrates the need for mathematical modelling of biological ideas, where verbal models and intuition can only take us so far . Future, theoretical studies should also address limitations of Turing’s theory, such as the tendency of a limited variation in the wavelength or determining fundamental principles valid beyond two-species models.


While death is universal, reactions to death and ways of dealing with the dead body are hugely diverse, and archaeological research reveals numerous ways of dealing with the dead through time and across the world. In this paper, findings are presented which not only demonstrate the power of archaeology to promote and aid discussion around this difficult and challenging topic, but also how our approach resulted in personal growth and professional development impacts for participants. In this interdisciplinary pilot study, archaeological case studies were used in 31 structured workshops with 187 participants from health and social care backgrounds in the UK, to explore their reactions to a diverse range of materials which documented wide and varied approaches to death and the dead. Our study supports the hypothesis that the past is a powerful instigator of conversation around challenging aspects of death, and after death care and practices: 93% of participants agreed with this. That exposure to archaeological case studies and artefacts stimulates multifaceted discourse, some of it difficult, is a theme that also emerges in our data from pre, post and follow-up questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. The material prompted participants to reflect on their biases, expectations and norms around both treatment of the dead, and of bereavement, impacting on their values, attitudes and beliefs. Moreover, 87% of participants believed the workshop would have a personal effect through thinking differently about death and bereavement, and 57% thought it would impact on how they approached death and bereavement in their professional practice. This has huge implications today, where talk of death remains troublesome, and for some, has a near-taboo status–‘taboo’ being a theme evident in some participants’ own words. The findings have an important role to play in facilitating and normalising discussions around dying and bereavement and in equipping professionals in their work with people with advanced illness. As a result of advances in healthcare and changing cultural preferences, most people in the developed world die in hospital , althougThe 24-month project, ‘Continuing Bonds: exploring the meaning and legacy of death through past and contemporary practice’ , explored a new and creative approach to addressing this need. Using archaeology, it provided an alternative framework for reflecting on death, through the provision of accessible archaeological case studies that illuminated the variety of methods through which past societies have dealt with the dead. Moreover, it focused on one particularly enduring concept: that of ‘Continuing Bonds’ between the living and the dead. The idea of Continuing Bonds has been developed by sociologists and psychologists as a framework for understanding the grieving process, where it is understood that death is not the end of the relationship between the living and the dead, but that the dead continue to have meaning and significance in the lives of the living –35.what will survive of us…’ examined how the discovery of the Plantagenet King, Richard III, beneath a carpark in Leicester could act as a catalyst for the exploration of death practices and ‘continuing bonds’ with ancestors, including the spiritual dimensions and complexities of re-interment. This led to an exhibition  displayed in public spaces in Leicester in 2015. During the exhibition, project members witnessed a transition in conversations as members of the public talked about their own experiences and expectations as a direct result of engaging with the archaeological material; this observation further inspired the development of the Continuing Bonds Project and our aim to explore how archaeology can both reveal and inform attitudes to death and dying.An event in 2014, ‘The Continuing Bonds project comprised an interdisciplinary team of archaeologists, end of life care professionals and a counselling psychologist/qualitative psychology researcher, with support from experts in pharmacy, sociology and social psychology. The team were based across universities and hospices in two UK cities: one in the North of England and one in the Midlands.This was the first project of its kind (to the knowledge of the authors) that explicitly used archaeology with end-of-life care practitioners and students. Subsequent projects have aligned with our aims e.g. , 37). Th. Th37]).Our project aims were threefold: firstly, to explore the value of archaeology for facilitating discussion around death and bereavement; secondly, to enable reflection on contemporary attitudes to death and bereavement, challenging norms and biases; and thirdly, to understand the potential impact of workshop attendance on individuals, professional practice and patient care.This paper outlines our findings, along with a reflection on why and how we believe the project succeeded.The Continuing Bonds project involved delivering workshops to health and social care professionals and students. The workshops showcased archaeological materials, usually through printed pictures and accompanying text, along with audio-visual resources and artefacts. The archaeological case studies sought to challenge perceptions of what many of our participants might consider to be ‘normal’ or ‘usual’ treatment of the dead.The project used mixed methods to explore the impact of the workshops. An action research approach  was adopEthical approval was awarded by the University of Bradford (E487) and from the NHS (IRAS 203842). The project was registered on the NIHR portfolio for research (CPMS 33182). Informed consent was gained from all workshop participants to use their data for research and publication. All individuals received information sheets prior to participation, which included potential risks, they were alerted to the use of images of human remains (such as might be viewed in museums), and they were provided with sources of further information and support. Workshops were facilitated to ensure ethical compliance, including ‘ground rules’ for each workshop , and each workshop included facilitators trained in psychological/emotional support.Health and social care professionals and students in Leicester and Bradford were recruited through local organisation emails, flyers and posters. Advertising utilised hospices, local bereavement support , universities, hospitals and GP surgeries, as well as websites and social media. Individuals were invited to participate in as many workshops as they wished.Eight workshop themes were chosen, with bespoke contents for each theme. The first four themes were outlined in the project proposal: ‘memorialisation and legacy’ ; ‘age anth-9th centuries BCE), moving the viewer from the assumption of violence, to possibilities of compassion, in what appear at first sight to be brutal practices. Case studies were arranged, where possible, in order of perceived ‘accessibility’, with participants starting with the most ‘familiar’ topics and moving onto progressively more ‘challenging’ materials. For instance, in the workshop on the theme of ‘Memorialisation and Legacy’ , which had been made of around 100 beads from potentially 5 different necklaces. The next station discussed objects placed directly into graves, ‘Grave Goods’, including images of a burial with pottery from a prehistoric site in Syria and replicas of pottery recovered from Khok Phanom Di, Thailand (2000–1500 BCE) , designed to illustrate a breadth of perspectives . Themes  Legacy’ , partici500 BCE) . The fin500 BCE) .A total of 31 workshops were delivered, each of the eight themes  being repeated at least three times. Each two-hour workshop was facilitated by three team members using a semi-structured approach. After introductions to the project, confirming consent, and instructions, participants were assigned to a group of two-five people, which moved around a series of ‘stations’, each addressing a different aspect of the workshop theme. For instance, in the workshop on ‘Objects and the Dead’, the stations addressed the sub-themes of ‘Heirlooms’, ‘Grave Goods’ (objects placed in the grave), and ‘Human remains as objects’. Each group spent time at every station. As the project adopted an action research ethos, the design and delivery of subsequent workshops iteratively evolved in response to participant feedback and team observations; stations reduced in number and content, enabling deeper engagement with the case studies.Following small group discussions at each station, participants were then brought together for a focus group discussion, facilitated by two of the project team. The focus groups had a semi-structured format, which began by asking participants which materials prompted the most discussions; in many cases, little facilitation was needed as discussion arose organically from participants. Focus group discussion was brought to a close by asking the participants for any reflections on the potential impact of the workshop experience on their understanding and professional practice.At the end of each workshop, the wellbeing of the group was checked. Support networks and follow-on materials were signposted. Participants were then invited to take part in a quick art activity, using paint to add their handprint to a communal art piece. This piece not only echoed some of the earliest art left by prehistoric people, but the handprints themselves, being both highly individual yet anonymous, symbolised the personal nature of the accounts contributed by workshop participants in this study . This liTo provide evidence as to the impacts attributable to participation, quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Firstly, participants were asked to complete questionnaires at the beginning (Pre-WQ), end (Post-WQ) and 1–3 months after attendance at a workshop in a Follow-up Questionnaire (FUQ). Questionnaires included a mix of Likert scale questions and free text responses. Individuals who attended multiple workshops were asked to complete a Post-WQ on each occasion.The Pre-WQ  collecteThe Post-WQ  sought tThe workshop made me think about death, dying and bereavement in different ways;Prior to the workshop, I felt confident in talking about death, dying and bereavement with family, friends, peers and patients;I anticipate that my confidence in talking about death, dying and bereavement has increased as a result of the workshop;The workshop will impact how I approach death, dying and bereavement in my professional practice;I felt more comfortable talking about personal experiences regarding death, dying, bereavement and loss in the workshop than I would in general life.Participants were also asked:To identify words and/or suggest words which most accurately described their experience of the workshop;And, whether they would recommend the workshop to a colleague.The FUQ , which wIn addition, eleven survey respondents were then interviewed, around 6–9 months after participation, with semi-structured interviews being employed to qualitatively explore participant sense-making of and meanings attributed to participation. Interviewees were purposively selected to gain a diversity distribution based on professional/educational background , gender, workshop topic attended, number of workshops attended and workplace setting. They were sampled from the 49 individuals who volunteered to have an interview in their FUQ response. Consent was gained prior to the interviews, and interviews were conducted via the telephone or face to face at a mutually convenient time, with the semi-structured interviews conducted by a member of the project team, and later transcribed by a reputable transcriber with a clearly agreed confidentiality policy.Quantitative data was collated using Excel spreadsheets and analysed using descriptive statistics. For each question, free text responses were analysed thematically employing an inductive, iterative approach . Text waThe project recruited 146 individual participants. Twenty-four participants attended two or more workshops, with 187 workshop participations in total. All 146 participants were sent a link to the FUQ via email, which 85 participants (58%) completed. Eleven volunteers were selected for semi-structured interviews, from those who had given permission in their FUQ responses.There were 127 female and 19 male participants, of whom 89% were white British, and 61% described themselves as religious or spiritual. Most participants were qualified professionals (77%) including nurses (39%), counsellors/psychotherapists (25%), occupational therapists (4%), social workers (6%), physiotherapists (4%), doctors (8%) and chaplains (4%). Other professionals (11%) included researchers and speech and language therapists. Twenty-three percent of participants were students: primarily they were training in nursing (54%), followed by those studying counselling/psychotherapy (21%), health/wellbeing/social care/social work (17%), and medicine (8%). In terms of working in end-of-life contexts, 56% had substantial experience, 34% a small amount, and 11% had no experience.Post-WQ data revealed that:Almost all of the survey respondents (93%) thought that archaeological materials could be used to facilitate discussions about death, dying, bereavement and loss ;The majority of participants (84%) agreed that the workshop had made them think differently about death, dying and bereavement ;Just under half of the participants (47%) anticipated an increase to confidence in talking about death, dying and bereavement, as a result of the workshop ;Over half (57%) of participants reported that the workshop impacted upon how they would approach death, dying and bereavement in their professional practice ;41% agreed (compared with 34% who disagreed) that they felt more comfortable talking about death, dying, bereavement and loss in the workshop than they would in general life ;Overwhelmingly, participants said that they would recommend the workshop to others (93%) .The analysis of interview data gave rise to superordinate (or ‘master’ themes) that included: ‘Transition’; ‘Threshold’; ‘Diversity and Difference’; ‘Territory’; ‘Taboo’; ‘Signification’; ‘Paradox’; ‘Epiphany’; ‘Discourse and Space’; ‘Feelings’ and ‘Catalyst’. These themes are referred to and illustrated in the discussion of key findings.Overall, the data evidences four main key findings: Archaeology can facilitate conversations around death, dying and bereavement; Archaeology challenges cultural norms and highlights diversity in death practices; the workshops influenced people in their professional practice; and the workshops were a positive experience. These findings are discussed in greater detail below, together with supporting quotations, which are referenced by workshop theme, questionnaire type, and anonymous participant number. Quotations from interviews are referenced by a randomly assigned number, along with transcript page and line number.…many people within the health and care sectors are not given opportunities to discuss death and dying and are less able to cope with them when they encounter them. The workshop seemed to be a “safe” and accessible way of broaching the subject, with less likelihood of raising internal barriers when discussing the topic” .Of the 149 participants who were asked, 93% agreed that archaeological materials could be used to facilitate discussions about death, dying, bereavement and loss . Particithese materials are non-personal, non-judgemental and so “safe” in many ways” . Participant reflections alluded not only to the importance of ‘safe’ materials, but also of a ‘safe space’; “[The workshop was] well-structured and therefore [gave] safe group experiences” , and “I felt more comfortable because I would not expect the conversation to upset anyone as we have come together with this discussion in mind” . Another participant commented that “The workshop seemed to be a “safe” and accessible way of broaching the subject, with less likelihood of raising internal barriers when discussing the topic” . Further participants indicated that this feeling of ‘safety’ encouraged more in-depth personal reflection, as exemplified by the comment that the materials “can move people from academic knowledge to personal experience/feelings etc.” .Participants felt that archaeology provided a non-threatening way to introduce the topic of death and dying, helping to remove barriers to a difficult topic, with one person stating that ‘Of the participants asked, 41% strongly agreed or agreed that they felt more comfortable talking about personal experiences regarding death, dying, bereavement and loss in the workshop than they would in general life . Althougdead peoples body parts or ashes to create artefacts that 'live on' and can be used”. They stated that they remembered the conversation because of the “staff member’s honesty at sharing that she had turned her dad’s ashes into a necklace which she wears.” The participant wrote about how, “after the workshop [the staff member] purposefully brought it in to show [her] which [she found] very touching” , indicating that the workshop had a lasting emotional impact on this participant also. Another participant recalled that she had “spoken about the different ways people remember their ancestors to colleagues’ , and another shared that “[the workshop] ha[d] been a great discussion point with [their] colleagues” . One participant reflected that ‘Workshops like this are very helpful in this context to increase the ease with which you approach the dead or the dying. They help to reduce stigma, break down boundaries and accept death as a normal part of life’ .The workshops prompted continued discussion about death and dying beyond immediate participation. Of the 85 respondents who completed a FUQ, 60% noted that they had discussed the workshops with colleagues. One respondent recalls a conversation during the workshop being drawn on later, writing that the workshop materials on plastered skulls had caused reflection on the use of “I visited my mum's grave on Sunday for Mothers’ Day and my son and I talked about how we want to be buried. He wants to be under a tree. I told him about the jaw bone on a necklace that I saw with you” , while another participant wrote that ‘I've told friends about what I learned and considered attitudes to death in my own culture and family. I was most struck by the care taken in ancient societies over burying the dead and by the difference in attitude to images of the dead between some cultures I saw and my own’ . Only 18% of FUQ respondents had not discussed the workshop with family, friends or colleagues.Of the 85 respondents, 40% had discussed the workshop with family and 34% with friends. One participant, for example, described a conversation around their own post-mortem wishes: “This type of workshop would not only go a long way in raising awareness about death, dying and bereavement but [would] also make… people think about how they would want things done when they die” . Other participants stated that they had discussed the workshops ‘with work colleagues ‘ , and ‘It has made me think more about my wishes when I die and also think about what my children should do after I have gone with regard to mourning period and rituals’ .The workshops had the additional impact of empowering participants to take steps in their own personal preparations for dying, illustrated by reflections such as “The interview analysis theme of ‘Discourse and Space’ evidences how much the chance to talk and a creative, supportive space in which to do so was valued. This is not limited to reflections on the efficacy of the workshops, e.g. subtheme ‘Unusual Rites Prompted Better Discussion’ but also that discussion of personal experiences in a safe space was valuable to the individual. The workshops also supported a professional skills gain: e.g. subtheme ‘Difficult Conversations More Easily Had’.The theme of ‘Signifiers’: ritual, the presentation and representation of the dead, the use of physical artefacts in memorialisation practices but also psychological signifiers  is strongly linked to the theme of ‘Territory’ with its connotations of ownership and boundaries: whose death is it, after all? These can be difficult conversations that are as much about the needs of the living as they about the dead. There was an interesting amount of interview data about societal tendencies to plan a good remembrance of the dead, rather than plan a good death for the dying. Here a tension can be evident in terms of who owns the death: e.g. subtheme ‘My Death Is, and Isn’t, About Me’, the rights of the dying vs the rites of the dead.The culture of the workshop and the skills of the facilitators and the safety there was in the room that people are able to talk about these issues, these difficult issues, and look at images that might have been perhaps disturbing in a safe way. And that's a relief actually because, as you know better than I, it’s one of the last taboos’ .‘Taboo’ also features thematically in the data, not only in terms of death being something whereby more taking and openness would perhaps help ameliorate the difficulties surrounding the phenomenon, but there being some nuance to this–some participants felt that expressing relief about someone dying is still taboo, perhaps in part due to how hard it is to articulate the concurrent emotions of profound grief of loss and profound relief of release. One participant discusses the safe space of the workshops in the context of being challenged, talks about ‘“Cross cultural approaches allow us to question our assumptions when faced with very different perspectives from other times and places” , showing how the materials encourage self-reflection around personal beliefs.Participants told us that “The images from the workshop were very powerful and thought provoking and reinforced the different attitudes towards death in different cultures and at different periods in time” , revealing the diversity of practices and the culturally-contextual nature of reactions to death, and encouraging acceptance of difference: “hearing about death and burial rituals in different cultures throughout history… "gives permission" for people today to react to death in their own way” . Another participant said that the archaeological materials reinforced that ‘…we are all trying to find meaning no matter what belief system or race” .“[I particularly remember] the case that highlighted the cultural tradition of exhuming dead bodies as a means to celebrate and remember their life. I remember this because it is so far removed from how we culturally behave and our group generally found it quite a shock which generated a good deal of discussion…” .The comments indicated that it was often the more challenging case studies  which led to the biggest reactions: I found the day interesting to see the differing attitudes and level of knowledge other allied healthcare professionals had about death and dying” .Some participants noted that it was not only the archaeological materials which stimulated a challenge to beliefs and reflection but also the workshop participants and the group working: “I think they [workshop materials] would help widen understanding of different approaches to death, dying and bereavement. Perhaps more effective than traditional equality and diversity training” FUQ44.Other comments from participants suggested the use of the workshop for broader training around diversity, with one participant stating that “It is no surprise that ‘Diversity and Difference’ was a strong theme in the analysis of interview data. Being designed to support reflection, the workshops offered physical, mental and emotional space allowing participants to explore and question, to better appreciate ‘strange-to-me’ and unfamiliar practices, to glimpse the cultural appositeness of the unfamiliar, ultimately to rethink and reframe practices closer to home for their ‘rightness’ and inevitability. Thus, the impact of the workshops goes beyond participants recognising obvious physical and material variation in physical rites and extends to reflecting on how norms, values and traditions are culturally invested and embedded. If phenomena are thus socially constructed—conditional and to which we are conditioned–then there is room for change, personal development, transition.Overall, 58% (n = 96) of participants agreed or strongly agreed in the post-workshop questionnaire that attendance at the workshop would influence the ways in which they approached death, dying and bereavement in their professional lives .Furthermore, a high proportion of the student participants, 21 out of 24 (87.5%), agreed that the workshop would impact upon their practice.“I am beginning to open up when discussing dying at the hospice…” , and “I have mentioned the workshop as a way of bringing dying up in conversation with families, when the time is right of course” . Another participant commented that ‘I referred to it with a family member/service user talking about how we are important to those left behind when we have died” .The free text comments from the Post-WQ and the FUQ provide further details on this impact and examples of how it played out in their work: “I will now feel more aware of the history of my patients and how to approach the subject with them” , and another stating that “I give talks on the work we do and it has probably made it easier for me to be bolder and braver in talking about bereavement” .For some, the impact related to general confidence, knowledge and awareness of diversity in death practices, with one participant reflecting that Prior to the workshop, 84% (n = 158) of participants felt that they were confident in talking about death, dying and bereavement with family, friends, peers and patients; this included 79% of students, with only 8.5% (n = 16) disagreeing/strongly disagreeing. Despite the majority of participants reporting high confidence levels prior to the workshop, 47% (n = 88) (including 42% of students) anticipated an improvement in their confidence to have such discussions after attending the workshop. Of the 16 participants who were not confident prior to the workshop, 68% agreed/strongly agreed that their confidence would be improved as a result of workshop participation.This has interested me through thirty years of practice and has given me a chance to refresh, consolidate and rethink both my work and my personal responses” ; “The workshop has helped me to "normalise" thinking on the issues around death and dying, both professionally and personally. It has been most helpful” .Whilst the project sought to explore professional changes and asked explicit questions about this in both the Post-WQ and FUQ, the data showed that many participants also reflected on their own personal beliefs and experiences, and in many cases, it was difficult to distinguish between personal and professional impacts: “anxiety’, ‘difficult’, ‘raw’, ‘fear’, ‘disgust’. Where disorientation and ambiguity are found, the ground can be fertile for the individual to transition through that liminal space towards the threshold of new understandings and concepts. If the latter are grasped then the discussion started in the workshops can act as a catalyst. It is clear from interviews that participants, stimulated by the case studies in the workshops, negotiated meaning and changes of meaning, some even experiencing personal epiphanies particularly around the paradoxes evident in life and death: ‘the irony of spending life trying to escape from the inescapable fact of death’; and that ‘the end is not the end’. One interviewee states ‘The irony is it’s like the inevitable, there is no escape from it yet it seems everyone, a lot of people seem to try to escape from talking about it’ .Interview analysis themes of ‘Transition’, ‘Threshold’, ‘Epiphany’ and ‘Catalyst’ all speak to the extent to which participants found the experience transformative: we can suggest that such a space is liminal for both the personal and the professional self. The data reveals that a wide range of emotions were experienced, including the uncomfortable: ‘The majority of participants (93%) said that they would recommend the workshop to others , indicatThe additional free text words that participants offered indicate the nuance and depth of their experiences: revealing; emotional; valuable; surprising; important; reflective; enlightening; instructive; deep; perspective shift; enabling; stimulating; poignant; challenging (x2); insightful. Again, these provide a mixture of intellectual and emotional responses to the workshops.Few suggestions for improvement were given, with the exception of requests for longer sessions . A balance was struck by the project team as part of our reflective approach: throughout the project, workshop materials were reduced to enable greater depth of engagement and reflection. It was felt that longer workshops would have had a negative impact on attendance/recruitment.has helped me with my own recent losses and also helped me feel the importance of my work in a society where we hurry past such milestones’ . Others reflected that ‘…it helped in the long process of accepting death of myself and my loved ones’ ; and that ‘I think the workshop help[ed] me in continuing to be accepting of death’ ; and finally, that ‘People often do not want to talk about dying when it is going to happen to us all. Thinking about death and bereavement can be painful but I believe a lot of this pain could be lightened if more people attended these kind of workshops’ .Some participants reflected that the workshops had helped them come to terms with their own bereavements. While the workshops were not intended as ‘therapy’, there were nonetheless therapeutic benefits for some individuals. One participant, for example, wrote that thinking about how past cultures dealt with death ‘The emergent theme of ‘Feelings’ in the qualitative data is broad and much of it reflects positive experience of the workshops: ‘stimulating’; ‘enjoyable’; ‘motivating’; ‘comforting’ and ‘I am less scared’.A high proportion of participants found that the workshops and content impacted upon their perceptions of death and bereavement, with 87% stating that the workshops had made them think differently about death and bereavement, and 93% stating they would recommend the workshop to colleagues. Whilst more than half of our participants had a lot of experience working with the dying or bereaved, they acknowledged that there were few opportunities to discuss their experiences and perspectives around death, even within palliative care professions and services. While a large proportion of individuals (84%) already felt confident discussing death and bereavement prior to the workshop, 47% anticipated an increase in confidence after participating, suggesting that even where confidence levels are high, there are significant benefits to confidence in discussing death and bereavement.Most participants (92%) agreed that archaeology can be used as a tool for enabling discussion and challenging perceptions and biases around death, dying and bereavement. Although research considering the use of archaeology for modern day intervention and change is in its infancy, our findings are consistent with other literature which has effectively used the past to engage individuals in discussion about contemporary issues. This includes healthy eating  and psycThe results also demonstrate a self-reported impact on professional practice. Our findings demonstrate that for our participants, archaeology was an excellent way of starting conversations, both within the workshops themselves, and beyond, with a ‘ripple effect’ in personal and professional settings. The impact on student participants was very high: 24 students participated in workshops, with 3 attending more than one workshop. Of these, 79% (n = 19) thought that the workshop had made them think differently about death, dying and bereavement. Furthermore, whilst 79% of this group stated they were already confident in discussing death and bereavement, 42% agreed that their confidence increased as a result of workshop participation. These findings appear particularly pertinent considering the research described above regarding students' feeling ill-equipped to discuss death with dying patients .Our results suggest that a number of factors were key in impacting the project participants, and Providing a safe environment was crucial for many participants. In addition to the detached or non-personal nature of the archaeological materials, a sense of safety came from coming together with the shared and explicit purpose of talking about death and dying. Meanwhile, shifts in attitudes towards death and bereavement were achieved through the creation of cognitive dissonance amongst participants. Cognitive dissonance –a feelinThe use of case studies which participants linked to modern day practices helped to both challenge and normalise diverse funerary practices, enabling some participants to conceptualise more challenging practices through the lens of modern-day bereavement. This, in turn, encouraged reflection and empathy, and for some participants, suggested the humanity of grief spread across time and myriad cultures.The analysis of free text comments suggested that personal changes in attitudes to death, dying and bereavement were necessary in creating impact in the professional lives of the participants, and that this shift in values, attitudes and beliefs will filter through to changes in practice over protracted periods of time. The dynamic and reciprocal nature of personal and professional identities is one that is recognised across disciplines such as nursing , 56 and . The results of the Continuing Bonds project add further weight to the argument that arts and humanities research can bring value to contemporary society ‘by creating the conditions for change; … an openness, a space for experimentation and risk-taking at the personal, social and economic levels, [and] an ability to reflect in a safer and less direct way on personal, community and societal challenges’  Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript.3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately.  These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF.4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure.[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to QuestionsComments to the Author1. 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: PartlyReviewer #2: Yes**********2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: N/AReviewer #2: I Don't Know**********3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?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.The Reviewer #1: YesReviewer #2: 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: NoReviewer #2: Yes**********5. Review Comments to the AuthorPlease 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. Reviewer #1: General CommentsThe inadequate referencing within the paper made it a challenge to stay focussed on your message, which is a shame because your topic is really very interesting and novel. It was confusing when you had some references in the reference list and others in the text. Also some claims you make need more than just one reference to support them, especially in the introduction where you are linking place of death with a lack of willingness to discuss.... E.g., This disconnect is in part due to a lack of willingness by public, health and social care professionals to focus on how the last phase of life should be discussed and negotiated, including considerations about key decisions regarding health care interventions such as admission to hospital and resuscitation. Also, the first reference in your list requires more details.The paper requires a careful read to check whether statements in building your case for your research (in the background) are sufficiently supported, as well as in your conclusion . They found that workshops using archaeological materials - because of these materials’ ‘detached and safe’ qualities - provoked useful conversations and reflections, particularly among those professionals in their early career stage.I cannot provide critical feedback on the analytical methods used in this paper, as I am unfamiliar with best practices in these kinds of social science studies. I do have a few thoughts on some of the underlying premises and framework of the paper.1. This work follows in a long history of work by scholars, like Ernest Becker (cited by the authors) and Geoffrey Gorer , pp.49-52, not cited by the authors), who argue that westerners deny death . Even though the authors recognize that these beliefs are contextual, they cite a work by Walter 1991, which is now nearly 30 years ago, I would be interested to know if, indeed, this notion holds true today in the UK, Europe, and North America, etc. Major shifts have occurred in the last 30 years, with the growing hospice movement, that makes me wonder if this taboo still exists. Are there any more recent studies of this attitude? I also wonder if this idea of ‘westerners treat death as a taboo/non-western peoples don’t have this idea’ is problematic in itself. The notion of western/non-western is problematic, and one could argue that such a dichotomy (and a focus on how ‘others do it’) perpetuates a kind of exoticization of unfamiliar peoples . See more on this here: Fabian, J., 1972. How others die—reflections on the anthropology of death. Social Research, pp.543-567.2. Another aspect of this piece that needs to be addressed is the lack of adequate cultural contextualization/signposting. For example, in the abstract there is little specificity about where the Arts and Humanities Council is located, where the team of researchers are from (the UK), and where the workshop participants are from (UK). It is only on page four that we learn that: The team were based across universities and hospices in two cities in the North of England and the Midlands .3. The use of terms such as ‘modern, western society’ has been critiqued in recent years . Furthermore, it is problematic that the UK is framed as the proxy for contemporary/modern western society, but at the same time recognizes that it is a diverse place (with people engaged in diverse practices and holding different beliefs regarding death). If what the authors are signaling is that a ‘modern western society’ is culturally diverse, then that is what should be stated. I would suggest avoiding this term altogether (‘modern western society’).4. Since archaeology plays such a central role in this study, it would be useful to know exactly what case studies were used. These should be listed in their entirety. Also how is archaeology being defined? It is confusing that (in one of the few examples mentioned in the text) Victorian death portraits were contrasted with family portraits taken with mummified body of living Sulawesi people . The ‘archaeological’ nature of this Sulawesi example is confusing, as the people being referred to are living.**********what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article  digital diagnostic tool,  25 Sep 2020Please note - comments below are also in the 'response to reviewers' file which has been uploaded. Dear Editor/reviewersThe Continuing Bonds team thank you for the thoughtful comments. We have taken these on board and believe this has resulted in a much more robust paper. In response to the review comments, we have substantially re-structured the paper. In addition to the reviewers’ comments we have added data to the results (such as the words used to describe the workshops), and made the findings clearer. We are incredibly grateful for the reviewers’ comments and hope you will find that the revised version meets the high standards for publication in Plos ONE. For clarity, the responses have been addressed in the table below: Comment: Response: Complete?Please provide further evidence in your results to support the conclusions of your study. As presented, descriptive statistics and a statement of growing recognition are not sufficient. The structure has been changed to enable a clearer link between the study, results and conclusions, and a rewording of the conclusion to ensure we are drawing on the results. Thank you for pointing out this fundamental improvement. YGeneral comments: http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf1. 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  Manuscript and files have been checked and now conform with requirements. Y2. We noted in your submission details that a portion of your manuscript may have been presented or published elsewhere. ["Figures 2 and 3 were also used in Büster et al 2018 (preliminary results) - authors retain copywrite permission. "] Please clarify whether this [conference proceeding or publication] was peer-reviewed and formally published. If this work was previously peer-reviewed and published, in the cover letter please provide the reason that this work does not constitute dual publication and should be included in the current manuscript. Thanks for noting this. The Büster et al 2018 paper was a snapshot of the project taken at the end of the first year, written for an archaeological audience. We confirm that the Plos ONE submission does not replicate this paper and has not been published elsewhere. The images that were reused in the 2018 publication have been removed and replaced by new, unused images. Y 3. Please remove your figures from within your manuscript file, leaving only the individual TIFF/EPS image files, uploaded separately. These will be automatically included in the reviewers’ PDF. Images have been removed and uploaded separately. Y4. Please ensure that you refer to Figure 6 in your text as, if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the figure. Added . YReviewer #1 Referencing: The inadequate referencing within the paper made it a challenge to stay focussed on your message, which is a shame because your topic is really very interesting and novel. It was confusing when you had some references in the reference list and others in the text. All references have been reviewed and updated. YAlso some claims you make need more than just one reference to support them, especially in the introduction where you are linking place of death with a lack of willingness to discuss.... E.g., This disconnect is in part due to a lack of willingness by public, health and social care professionals to focus on how the last phase of life should be discussed and negotiated, including considerations about key decisions regarding health care interventions such as admission to hospital and resuscitation. Added in contemporary and more internationally relevant references. yAlso, the first reference in your list requires more details. Updated. YThe reference list needs a general tidy up. Done YThe paper requires a careful read to check whether statements in building your case for your research (in the background) are sufficiently supported, as well as in your conclusion . YWhat is BME in Figure 1? Black and Minority Ethnic - this figure has been removed YIs 'white British' the standard descriptor for ethnicity in Britain? Yes YFigure 2 & 4 could be presented using text. Pie chart isn't really needed for those data. These have been removed a table of data is presented instead (Table 1) YThere are other mistakes in the script which require a careful edit.  and Geoffrey Gorer , pp.49-52, not cited by the authors), who argue that westerners deny death . Even though the authors recognize that these beliefs are contextual, they cite a work by Walter 1991, which is now nearly 30 years ago, I would be interested to know if, indeed, this notion holds true today in the UK, Europe, and North America, etc. Major shifts have occurred in the last 30 years, with the growing hospice movement, that makes me wonder if this taboo still exists. Are there any more recent studies of this attitude? I also wonder if this idea of ‘westerners treat death as a taboo/non-western peoples don’t have this idea’ is problematic in itself. The notion of western/non-western is problematic, and one could argue that such a dichotomy (and a focus on how ‘others do it’) perpetuates a kind of exoticization of unfamiliar peoples . See more on this here: Fabian, J., 1972. How others die—reflections on the anthropology of death. Social Research, pp.543-567. Thankyou for this really useful insight. We have undertaken further research and added in further supporting evidence for the difficulty around talking about death. We have also removed terms such as ‘western culture’ which we agree are problematic. YAnother aspect of this piece that needs to be addressed is the lack of adequate cultural contextualization/signposting. For example, in the abstract there is little specificity about where the Arts and Humanities Council is located, where the team of researchers are from (the UK), and where the workshop participants are from (UK). It is only on page four that we learn that: The team were based across universities and hospices in two cities in the North of England and the Midlands . We have made the abstract more concise, and included greater contextualisation in the introduction.We did include the following information: ‘These two regions of the UK are characterised by relatively high rates of deprivation compared to the National average: Bradford ranks 11th in the UK; Leicester, previously ranked 23rd, has recently moved outside of the top 30.’ however, when we re-reviewed the text, this didn’t fit - this wasn’t the motivation behind selecting these study sites.  YThe use of terms such as ‘modern, western society’ has been critiqued in recent years . Furthermore, it is problematic that the UK is framed as the proxy for contemporary/modern western society, but at the same time recognizes that it is a diverse place (with people engaged in diverse practices and holding different beliefs regarding death). If what the authors are signaling is that a ‘modern western society’ is culturally diverse, then that is what should be stated. I would suggest avoiding this term altogether (‘modern western society’). Agree - thank you for raising this, we have removed the term YSince archaeology plays such a central role in this study, it would be useful to know exactly what case studies were used. These should be listed in their entirety. Now included in additional files, S1 Table YAlso how is archaeology being defined?It is confusing that (in one of the few examples mentioned in the text) Victorian death portraits were contrasted with family portraits taken with mummified body of living Sulawesi people . The ‘archaeological’ nature of this Sulawesi example is confusing, as the people being referred to are living. Explanation added into section on archaeological materials Yhttps://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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Complete YWhile revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, With thanksKarina Croucher, Corresponding AuthorAttachmentResponse to reviewers.pdfSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 12 Nov 2020PONE-D-20-02889R1Archaeology and contemporary death: Using the past to provoke, challenge and engagePLOS ONEDear Dr. Croucher,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 address Reviewer 2 comments concerning the inclusion of cultural context in the abstract.  Please also include further content from the workshops and address the discussion recommendations of Reviewer 3.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 submit your revised manuscript by 12 December 2020. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at 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.http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocolsIf 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: We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.Kind regards,Rosemary FreyAcademic EditorPLOS ONE[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to QuestionsComments to the Author1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressedReviewer #3: (No Response)**********2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Partly**********3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: I Don't KnowReviewer #3: N/A**********4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?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.The Reviewer #2: YesReviewer #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 #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********6. Review Comments to the AuthorPlease 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. Reviewer #2: The title and abstract still make no mention of the cultural/national context for this research. It is always important to situate and provide a geographic context for research on what are fundamentally cultural practices.So, for example, in line 35: In this interdisciplinary pilot study, archaeological case studies were used in 31 structured workshops with 187 participants from health and social care backgrounds – it should be added – in the UK.Reviewer #3: The new manuscripts submitted by the authors deals with most of the corrections presented by the peer reviewers, many of which deal with technical aspects of the work. However, the paper still presents a strong straw man argument where the front of the article argues that death is perceived as taboo and is not discussed particularly in a palliative care setting. And yet the subjects involved in these workshops indicated that they would have been happy discussing death with their family prior to the workshops. As a result, the article tends to show that the archaeology of death is interesting, rather than transforming perceptions around death experience. In part this can be addressed by the reframe implied by review 2s suggestions – who pointed about that Walter is an old source, and by exploring he context of this discussion a bit more – Becker’s fear of death hypothesis has been rather dramatically disproven, which suggests that we do not fully know the role of death in modern social context. Importantly it would be useful for this paper to present some of the contend of the workshops and explain how these created a discussion of mortality or dying specifically, as opposed to general conversations about commemoration or the apparent eccentricity of past peoples. An archaeology of dying is still not fully comprehensible so how did the cases facilitate that claim?**********what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article  digital diagnostic tool,  30 Nov 2020Dear Editor/reviewersThe authors thank you for the thoughtful comments. We have responded below to the additional comments raised by Reviewer 3 and hope the paper now meets the high standards for publication in Plos ONE. Reviewer's Responses to QuestionsComments to the Author1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressedReviewer #3: (No Response)>> Thank you, we are pleased that reviewer 2 recognises that all comments have been addressed2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.Reviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Partly>> We are delighted that Reviewer 2 is happy the data support the conclusions, however, to further address the concerns of reviewer 3, we have added in additional data which further supports our claims (see detailed response below for line numbers)3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?Reviewer #2: I Don't KnowReviewer #3: N/A>> No response required4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.Reviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes>> No response required5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.Reviewer #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes>> No response required6. Review Comments to the AuthorPlease 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. Reviewer #2: The title and abstract still make no mention of the cultural/national context for this research. It is always important to situate and provide a geographic context for research on what are fundamentally cultural practices.So, for example, in line 35: In this interdisciplinary pilot study, archaeological case studies were used in 31 structured workshops with 187 participants from health and social care backgrounds – it should be added – in the UK.>> Addressed, added to line 38 in the abstract, and line 147 in the text. Reviewer #3: The new manuscripts submitted by the authors deals with most of the corrections presented by the peer reviewers, many of which deal with technical aspects of the work. However, the paper still presents a strong straw man argument where the front of the article argues that death is perceived as taboo and is not discussed particularly in a palliative care setting. And yet the subjects involved in these workshops indicated that they would have been happy discussing death with their family prior to the workshops. As a result, the article tends to show that the archaeology of death is interesting, rather than transforming perceptions around death experience. In part this can be addressed by the reframe implied by review 2s suggestions – who pointed about that Walter is an old source, and by exploring he context of this discussion a bit more – Becker’s fear of death hypothesis has been rather dramatically disproven, which suggests that we do not fully know the role of death in modern social context. Importantly it would be useful for this paper to present some of the contend of the workshops and explain how these created a discussion of mortality or dying specifically, as opposed to general conversations about commemoration or the apparent eccentricity of past peoples. An archaeology of dying is still not fully comprehensible so how did the cases facilitate that claim? >> Thank you for your observations here. We have worked extensively to address the issues raised by reviewer 3 in the following ways: 1) We have revised (toned down) the language around the concept of ‘taboo’ and rephrased as ‘troublesome’ and/or ‘problematic’. E.g. in lines: lines 80-84; 831-833; 839-8422) Additional literature has been added around the modern social context of death: e.g. lines 71-75; 91-102; 111-113. These additional sources also add nuance around the idea that there are differences in attitudes towards death in general/abstracted, and personal death/planning for death3) To further support our argument that the workshops have had significant impacts on the participants, we have added additional interview data which highlights participant responses to the material, including their use of the word ‘taboo’: Lines 400-403; 486-513; 551-560; 604-617; 659-661; 867-69Relevant information about the insights from interviews have been added throughout, i.e. 297-98; 335-342; 348-350; 358-9; 410-11; 746-49An additional author has been added, who has analysed the interview data  cementing her role as a co-author. 4) Although many of the workshop participants were already comfortable talking about death, the section starting on line 447 talks about participant comfort around death, and further figures have been added to make it clearer that the 58% saying they were already comfortable talking about death, was 58% of those who ‘disagreed’ rather than 58% of the whole (12% of respondents) – lines 443-444 – hopefully this makes it clearer and is less likely to misrepresent, and makes clear that our argument is not a ‘straw man’, but based on our data, from b1oth participants, and in the literature discussed above. We also draw attention that while participants still have confidence around death, they still reported a positive change from participating in the workshops. We believe the data and added nuance address the concerns raised by Reviewer 3.5) Additional archaeological examples have been added in: i.e. lines 225-247; 268-270. These have been kept fairly brief, as adding further archaeological material would move the paper in a different direction, and is the subject of an earlier paper , and of forthcoming work. To pinpoint the exact case studies and how they inspired a reaction would require detailed analyses of conversations within the workshops, which is outside of the scope of this paper, and while interesting, our observations from being in the workshops suggest that different individuals responded differently to different case studies. We intentionally have not talked about ‘an archaeology of dying’ in this paper – the case studies present different reactions to death through time and place, rather than explicitly discussing ‘dying’ through time. To further explore the individual archaeological case studies and individual workshop reactions is beyond the scope of this paper. This paper presents a wider perspective on the impacts of the workshop and its material.Thank you for your time in reviewing the paper. This paper has been delayed heavily due to the pandemic and we would be grateful for a timely response if at all possible . With thanksKarina Croucher, Corresponding AuthorAttachmentResponse to reviewers.docxSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 3 Dec 2020Archaeology and contemporary death: Using the past to provoke, challenge and engagePONE-D-20-02889R2Dear Dr.Croucher,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.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.An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at onepress@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 Kind regards,Rosemary FreyAcademic EditorPLOS ONEAdditional Editor Comments :Reviewers' comments:Reviewer's Responses to QuestionsComments to the Author1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressedReviewer #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 #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #2: N/AReviewer #3: N/A**********4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?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.The Reviewer #2: YesReviewer #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 #2: YesReviewer #3: Yes**********6. Review Comments to the AuthorPlease 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. Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed my concerns (and those of the other reviewer). I agree with the other reviewer that while the participants may not have seen death as a taboo prior to the study, they appear to have benefited from the knowledge of diverse mortuary practices.Reviewer #3: Much improved, the article now address the points well and frames the taboo topic in light of the project parameters, and it is good to see the case studies explained in detail.**********what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.Reviewer #2: NoReviewer #3: No 16 Dec 2020PONE-D-20-02889R2 Archaeology and contemporary death: Using the past to provoke, challenge and engage Dear Dr. Croucher: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. onepress@plos.org.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 plosone@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staffon behalf ofDr. Rosemary Frey Academic EditorPLOS ONE