This is a very interesting paper that provides new evidence of bird exploitation with a very likely symbolic component
I miss some more information regarding where the phalanx was found in the site, and some more background information of the site. Figure 2 tries to provide too much information at once but I miss a plan of the site and the exact location in bothe XY and in the stratigraphical sequences (at least at the size of the current figure, I couldn’t read it). In fact the Châtelperronian tools may merit a single figure of their own (also with where they were found and their relationship to the finding.
English needs some polishing by a native speaker (I am not myself but I provide some small corrections below).
In general I think this is a very nice paper and I hope that my comments below are useful.
throughout the text
“evidences” -> “evidence” (always singular)
“Spanish Imperial eagle” -> “Spanish imperial eagle” (also known as Iberian imperial eagle)
line 75: “the relative novelty of 75 the discovery of this symbolic expression among pre-AMH makes necessary more investigation.”.
I would not use “pre-AMH” as a synonym for Neanderthals as they were contemporary for most of the time and it could be misleading. In any case I agree with the authors that old (and new) collections should be reviewed as it is likely that more cases like this could appear, thus emphasizing the importance of taphonomic analyses in Middle Paleolithic contexts. However I think that this phrase would be better in the discussion.
In the next sentence, I would delete “With this aim” and I would rewrite it into: “Here we present a new case of large raptor pedal phalange with cut-marks associated to a CP context which expands the geographical and chronological limits of this kind of evidence and provides new insights into the emergence of behavioural modernity.”
“with evidences of cave’s human frequentation” -> “with evidence of human occupation/use of the cave”
“Units II & II” -> “Units I & II”
rather than “condyles” in phalanges it is used “trochlea”, thus you could talk about the groove in the trochlea or in the distal articulation but condyles sounds ackward. Please double-check.
“it’s obvious that eat talons don’t” -> “it is obvious that eat talons do not” Check throughout the manuscript for contractions and delete them
“recipes demonstrates” -> “recipes demonstrate”
Figure 1. Just an idea, as the paper says that the exploitation of bird claws was that lasted for 80 thousand years, maybe the different sigs could be used for different MIS periods?
-Another thing. There is too much “blue” south of the Iberian peninsula. This looks very odd to me, as it seems that Africa has been erased (maybe to keep the scale clear?).
Figure 4. Maybe I am wrong, but from the text I have understood that other sites have yielded remains of italicAquila adalbertiitalic in the Iberian peninsula outside its current range of distribution. Maybe this could be shown in the figure? (and maybe a supplementary table, if the authors have it with the Pleistocene record of Aquila adalberti in the Iberian peninsula?-this paper also has a nice paleobiogeographical value that should be underlined)
“cutmarked” -> “cut-marked”
“toot marked” -> “tooth-marked”
Ungulata is no longer used, now “Euungulata” is used. I would write the common name “Indeterminate ungulate”