The article entitled “Testing models for shifts in signaling behavior across the Last Glacial Maximum and early Last Glacial-Interglacial Transition at Boomplaas Cave, South Africa” deals with symbolic signaling shifts among hunter-gatherers at Boomplaas Cave, South Africa, during the Last Glacial Maximum and the early Last Glacial-Interglacial Transition and consequently in connection with climatic changes. The authors tested models established in archaeology to explain human signaling behavior based on the study of worked ochre, ostrich eggshell beads, silcrete, faunal, and sedimentary data and statistical analyses. They conclude from the results that there is a trend towards so-called permanent symbols and that environmental and social changes apparently influence the signaling behavior of hunters and gatherers in southern Africa.
Boomplaas Cave is undoubtedly a very important site for archaeological/paleontological studies, and the research focus of this study is therefore of great interest to archaeologists around the world.
The paper is well written. The background is explained in detail. The research objectives and methods are coherently presented and very well referenced. However, there are some points that are not entirely clear (listed below). The presentation of the results could be more convincing.
Remarks on the presentation of results:
My main concern is the presentation of the results, which I think is not entirely convincing, perhaps mainly because Tables 1 and 2 are not clear. The tables (or the table headings) need to be improved to make them understandable without having to search for information in the text.
In table 1: please explain clearly the six variables. E.g. what is % worked ochre? = ratio of worked to total ochre in %? How is the “silcrete %” calculated? Is “OES beads density” the ratio of n° of beads to n° of buckets? Add the parameter used for comparing ochre colors (b*/a*). Could you please standardize the naming of the variables in Tables 1 and 2? (Or can both tables be combined?) The table caption says ‘comparison of the study of eight variables…’ but there are only six.

P10, lines 402-403: Concerning the statistical analyses: When is a p-value significant? p = ?
P11, lines 427-434: About the color measurements: Please clarify which ratio is being considered: a*/b* or vice versa.
P11, line 441: Concerning the OES density: … the maximum is 0.7, measured for BRL7. Why is this not considered?

In the discussion:
P12, lines 479-480: “the shift in later phases toward exogenous ochre and increased silcrete…” especially for silcrete – Looking at the data 1, I can't see a trend. But, there is a huge spike for GWA-HCA that is not discussed, if I'm not mistaken.

Minor remarks on the text etc.:
What do you mean with ‘SOM’?

p. 8: Heading ‘Methods’ please change to ‘Materials and methods’ because you describe the studied materials
The subheading 3.1. is missing
Concerning the ochre finding from Boomplass cave: how endogenous ochre was distinguished from exogenous ochre?
p. 9: Subheading 3.2. Ostrich eggshell beads – Please insert the abbreviation OES here, as it is used below

Figure 6: the figures are very small, so that the legends are not legible. In the Figure caption: Information about the figure on the left is missing.

Where should the last table go? You should think about the format. It's hard to read as it is