Sacred Places, Ritual and Identity: Shaping the Liminal Landscape of Banda Neira, Maluku Islands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript entitled “Sacred places, ritual and identity: Shaping the liminal landscape of Banda Neira, Maluku Islands.” Your work offers a compelling exploration of how ritual, identity, and sacred landscapes intersect in the cultural life of Banda Neira, and it clearly reflects extensive field engagement, community sensitivity, and interdisciplinary intention.

The manuscript touches upon important and underrepresented themes in the study of ritual landscapes, including the dynamics of sacred space, postcolonial heritage, and community resilience. The ethnographic richness of your data, particularly your attention to sacred sites, ritual routes, and community structure, is commendable and of high documentary value.

However, in its current form, the manuscript requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication. Below, I outline several areas where improvements are needed to strengthen the academic rigor, theoretical integration, and analytical clarity of the paper.

1. Theoretical Framework: Needs Stronger Integration and Depth

While you draw on Lefebvre’s Production of Space and Van Gennep’s Rites of Passage, their application remains mostly introductory and descriptive.

You should explicitly map how these theories frame your data, for example: how Lefebvre’s spatial triad relates to specific ritual actions or how the separation-liminality-incorporation model is reflected spatially and socially.

Please consider integrating more recent literature (e.g., Thomassen 2014 on liminality; Bell 1997 on ritual as practice; Haggar 2024 on communitas revisited) to update your conceptual grounding.

2. Analytical Structure: More Comparative and Typological Depth Needed

Your results section presents an impressive volume of ethnographic material, yet it often reads as a descriptive narrative.

Please consider organizing your analysis around types of sacred sites, ritual stages, or community functions (e.g., communal vs. exclusive spaces, female-led vs. male-led practices).

Comparative analysis between Namasawar and Fiat adat villages could be better emphasized to demonstrate how spatial practices reflect different socio-religious orientations.

3. Methodology: Clarify Analytical Procedures and Operationalization

While your ethnographic approach is appropriate, the analytical steps—especially regarding spatial analysis and symbolic interpretation—need further clarification.

For instance, how did you define or detect “liminal spaces”? How was GIS used to analyze or visualize symbolic-spatial relationships?

Please consider adding a visual schema or table linking ritual phases, key actors, sacred sites, and corresponding spatial-symbolic functions.

4. Language and Academic Writing: Streamline and Refine

The manuscript would benefit from tighter writing—some sections are repetitive and overly descriptive.

Avoid redundancy (e.g., repeated explanations of the same sacred sites in multiple sections) and strive for clearer topic sentences and analytical transitions.

Consider enlisting a native-level English editor or academic writing service to improve clarity and fluency.

 

5. Conclusion and Contribution: Clarify Your Value-Added

Your conclusion currently reiterates results but does not sufficiently articulate the academic and practical contributions of your study.

Please clarify:

  What theoretical or conceptual innovation does this study offer?

  How can your findings inform broader studies of ritual landscapes or cultural heritage governance?

  What are the implications for policy, heritage planning, or intergenerational transmission?

I believe your manuscript contains valuable empirical insights and has the potential to make a significant contribution to the literature on ritual, space, and heritage in Southeast Asia. However, in its current form, it does not yet meet the standards of analytical and theoretical rigor required for publication.

Author Response

The team wishes to thank Reviewer 1 for their systematic review, constructive comments and ideas they provided in this first round of review. The commentary provided valuable insights to refine the contents and analysis of our contribution. All alterations (c. 35% of the originally submitted document) are described here and highlighted in the (amended) text document. also submitted:

Comment1: While you draw on Lefebvre’s Production of Space and Van Gennep’s Rites of Passage, their application remains mostly introductory and descriptive. You should explicitly map how these theories frame your data, for example: how Lefebvre’s spatial triad relates to specific ritual actions or how the separation-liminality-incorporation model is reflected spatially and socially. Please consider integrating more recent literature (e.g., Thomassen 2014 on liminality; Bell 1997 on ritual as practice; Haggar 2024 on communitas revisited) to update your conceptual grounding.

Response1: Thank you for this observation: We have attempted to expand on how theory allowed us to process and interpret our data -in three specific areas of the paper listed below- also by incorporating the more recent bibliography, as prompted by comment1.

• “The study adopts Henri Lefebvre’s theory of the production of space, which conceptualises space as a social product shaped by practices, representations, and spatial experience [15]”. (lines 55-60)
• “Considering all these aspects, The Buka Kampung ritual is a concrete form of regenerative, symbolic, and collective spatial production in the Banda indigenous community (lines 494-510)
• “Bell (1997) argues that rituals not only reflect but shape cultural patterns [16]. The sacred landscape is continually recreated through repeated pilgrimage, reinforcing community identity. “ (lines 611-613)

Comment2: Please consider organizing your analysis around types of sacred sites, ritual stages, or community functions (e.g., communal vs. exclusive spaces, female-led vs. male-led practices).

Response2: This is a good point. Further explanation, depth and interconnection is given for the categories (sacredness, communities) our case study analysis wraps around. These are highlighted mainly in two areas, listed below:

• The exclusive sacred places belonging to Kampung Namasawar have a character that is more connected to the natural landscape and ancestral mythology.” (lines 360-420)
• “Women in Banda have played a central role in safeguarding land, customs and lineage in the Banda Islands since the colonial period in 1609” (lines 473-497)

Comment3: Comparative analysis between Namasawar and Fiat adat villages could be better emphasized to demonstrate how spatial practices reflect different socio-religious orientations

Response3: A paragraph has been added to illustrate comparisons between Namasawar and Fiat adat  (lines 297-312)

Comment4: While your ethnographic approach is appropriate, the analytical steps—especially regarding spatial analysis and symbolic interpretation—need further clarification. For instance, how did you define or detect “liminal spaces”? How was GIS used to analyze or visualize symbolic-spatial relationships?

Response4: Visualisation of symbolic or relational values/meanings is a considerable discussion in the heritage management/studies minded GIS bibliography. For the needs of this study and to better serve our data, we followed a few basic principles, now more systematically discussed in lines 263-280,

Comment5: Please consider adding a visual schema or table linking ritual phases, key actors, sacred sites, and corresponding spatial-symbolic functions.

Response5: Thank you for this comment. Figure 3 was added to illustrate these connections along with a descriptive paragraph: lines 433-472.

Comment6: Your conclusion currently reiterates results but does not sufficiently articulate the academic and practical contributions of your study. Please clarify: What theoretical or conceptual innovation does this study offer? How can your findings inform broader studies of ritual landscapes or cultural heritage governance? What are the implications for policy, heritage planning, or intergenerational transmission?

Response6: Conclusions section (lines 703-741) has been re-written, also focusing on the points highlighted by Reviewer 1 (esp. lines 720-741). 

Once again, authors wish to thank Reviewer 1 for the provided commentary and look forward to meeting your expectations. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The team would like to express sincere thanks to Reviewer 2 for their thorough review, thoughtful feedback, and insightful suggestions during this initial evaluation. The comments offered have been instrumental in enhancing the clarity and depth of our work. We have revised approximately 35% of the original submission, with all changes detailed below and clearly marked in the revised manuscript, which we have also submitted.

Comment1:The abstract is weak and should be rewritten to clearly state your research problem, methodology, key findings, and significance.

Response1: Thank you for this observation. The abstract has been re-written addressing the points mentioned in Comment1, see lines 15-26.

 

Comment2: Arnold van Gennep’s theory of rite de passage (1909) provides, You should add more details about this theory

Response2: Following also the commentary of Reviewer1 the theoretical backbones of the study have been revisited -with reference to more recent bibliography, adding content and further wrapping it around our available data. Especially, see lines 55-60, 494-510 and lines 611-613.

 

Comment3: life transitions through three phases: separation, liminality and incorporation, It’s better to add more details about each one

Response3: Thank you for this comment. Rite de passage's stages have been further elaborated in lines 520-609.

 

Comment4: No discussion section has been mentioned, just mentioned some previous work. The real interpretation and explanation of the results must be well discussed

Response4: A new section has been added in the paper to better collect and illustrate our discussion points, see lines 642-699

 

Comment5: three types: key informants, main informants and supporting informants. Rewrite

Response5: A better categorisation of informant has been attempted in lines 254-257, following Comment5 of Reviewer2.

 

Comment6: Figure 1. Banda Neira Island. Needs to add citations. You should add latitudes and longitudes, a, b, c for each map, separated caption for each one. The gray colored map of Maluku Province is not clear, you should enlarge the size of it, and improve its resolution. Bar scale line for each one. Contour lines refere to what! Figure 2. Show the recommended comments as mentioned in figure 1. Photots on the left hand are too small, you should enlarge them and add cation for each one. Figure 2 and 3 are similar, you can merge in one figure, some photos are repeated in figure 3, why? It is not accepted.

Response6: Figure 1 (lines 202-203) & Figure 2 (lines 313-317) have been modified to cover the points raised in Comment6.

Comment7: The conclusion section presents just repeated text, not elaborative, you should make the conclusions more robust, be more precise with the fundamental results.

Response7: Conclusions section has been rewritten to better reflect the main points of the study. See especially lines 722-741

 

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your review and look forward to aligning our work with your expectations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper uses an interdisciplinary approach to explore the need for sacred landscape preservation and its contribution to collective memory, cultural identity, and transmission in Banda Neira, Maluku Islands.

An interesting topic to examine; however, the authors should address a few weaknesses before publishing.

• In the Abstract, the key findings should be pointed out better.
• In the Introduction, clarify the meaning of the term “linearity”. Also, you could better highlight the gap your research covers in the existing knowledge, and define the research aim. You could also refer to Schulz, the first to introduce the term “genius loci”, the spirit of place people perceive in a certain place.
• You had better provide the results in a separate section. Critically discuss what should be preserved and protected, at what level and for what period, and the role scarce landscapes and their distinct characteristics, structured by tangible and intangible forms, play at cultural, environmental, economic, and social levels, in light of previous research.
• According to the analysis, what are your concrete recommendations to the stakeholders involved in cultural heritage protection for theoretical and practical implementation at local and global levels?

Author Response

We are grateful to Reviewer 3 for their careful assessment, constructive remarks, and thoughtful suggestions in this initial review round. Their input has significantly contributed to strengthening the focus and analysis of our work. Approximately 35% of the original manuscript has been revised; all changes are outlined below and clearly indicated in the updated version of the document, which is included in our resubmission.

Comment1: In the Abstract, the key findings should be pointed out better.

Response1: Following also the commentary of Reviewer1 & Reviewer2, the abstract has been thoroughly re-written to reflect more thoroughly the contents of this study, see lines 15-26.

 

Comment2: In the Introduction, clarify the meaning of the term “linearity”. Also, you could better highlight the gap your research covers in the existing knowledge, and define the research aim.

Response2: The term 'linearity' has been better described and the research question articulated, following the above recommendation. Please, see lines lines 48-54

 

Comment3: You had better provide the results in a separate section.

Response3: A separate section (lines 642-699) has been added to better describe the main discussion points of the study.

 

Comment4: According to the analysis, what are your concrete recommendations to the stakeholders involved in cultural heritage protection for theoretical and practical implementation at local and global levels?

Response4: While the paper does not provide recommendations to the involved interested groups, a number of policy/ethics points have been raised in lines 672-682.

 

Comment5: Critically discuss what should be preserved and protected, at what level and for what period, and the role scarce landscapes and their distinct characteristics, structured by tangible and intangible forms, play at cultural, environmental, economic, and social levels, in light of previous research

Response5: Even though the study does not include this heritage management perspective, lines 722-741 provide a spring board to a future paper revolving around the themes of legal framework, preservation and resources that research team is already working on. 

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. We are committed to meeting your expectations and look forward to your response.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See attached file 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors improved the paper satisfactorily.