Reassigning Functionalities: On the Taifa “Perfume Bottle” or Canteen from Albarracin, Teruel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good, solid and well-written article. I suggest just a few corrections:

Line 41: put 'loss of information' instead of 'loss of memory'.

Lines 60-61: about the hajj, replace the trivialising 'common practice' by 'was a fundamental religious prescription-based practice and goal'

Line 118: add 'piety' after authority. That element of the Islamic ethos uphold by Muslim rulers is crucial although often overlooked in Islamic art historical narratives. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 41: put "loss of information" instead of "loss of memory"

Response 1:   Agree.

Comment 2: Lines 60-61:"about the hajj, replace the trivialising "common practice" by "was a fundamental religious prescription-based practice and goal"

Response 2:  Agree. I appreciate the precision.

Comment 3: Line 118: "Add "piety" after authority. That element of the Islamic ethos uphold by Muslim rulers is crucial although often overlooked in Islamic art historical narratives.

Response 3: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for interesting paper. The article represents a highly advanced level of scientific scholarship. The author convincingly demonstrates that the silver-gilt container discovered in 1964, could have served as a canteen used for religious purposes during pilgrimages to Mecca, not as a perfum bottle, as was suggested before.  Furthermore, the study establishes its connection to similar vessels produced in Late Antiquity, and considers it as an intermediate link in the transfer of the discussed prototype to the medieval Islam. It is highly probable that this canteen was produced in a workshop withi a Taifa of Albarracinb.

The author applies an appropriate methodology and effectively integrates relevant scholarly works. The structure of the article is clear and coherent. The thesis is explicitly stated and convincingly substantiated.

Author Response

Comment 1:  Thank you for interesting paper. The article represents a highly advanced level of scientific scholarship. (...)

Response 1: Thank you so much for this comment. There are no suggestions.