Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author of the paper, “Artistic Integration and Localized Adaptation: An Analysis of Ridge Decorations in the Sinicization Process of the Yungang Grottoes,” conducted systematic study on the roof ridge decorations at the Yuangang Cave site and interpreted those motifs in the larger wave of Sinification of Buddhist art in China. These motifs have not been studied systematically in the past. The author made compelling arguments, through finding abundant supports from Chinese textural references and visual materials from huanxiang of the Han dynasty.

There are only minor problems in English and the format of terms in pinyin. I would recommend the editor get all the terms in pinyin checked. 

For example: the following are problematic only from the title and abstract:

--“ Ridge Decorations” alone is not clear enough. At least in the title and in the beginning, use “roof ridge decorations.”

--line 6 ”the ridge decorations of the Yungang Grottoes,” change “of”

--line 7  “ Buddhism's eastward”

--Line8:  “Chiwei 鴟尾” should be “chiwei 鴟尾”

--line 9-10:  “The findings demonstrate that these ridge decorations constitute the comprehensive sinicization of Buddhist art in China.”  Roof ridge decorations are minor motifs in Buddhist art. Changes and adoption of foreign culture can start from minor motifs. Roof ridge decorations cannot “constitute the comprehensive sinicization of Buddhist art in China.” Suggestion: rephrase

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is clear. There are only very minor things that make the expressions awkward. They can be easily improved. 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer's high recognition of this study. Your acknowledgment of the systematic research value, the sufficiency of argumentation, and the use of Han dynasty textual materials is highly meaningful to us. We are pleased to fill the scholarly gap in the study of Yungang Grottoes' roof ridge decorations and interpret them within the broader perspective of the sinicization of Buddhist art in China.

Comments 1: Ridge Decorations' alone is not clear enough. At least in the title and in the beginning, use 'roof ridge decorations.'

Response 1: Revised. We completely agree with the reviewer's point. "Ridge Decorations" alone could indeed be ambiguous. We have revised the title and first occurrence in the text to the more specific "roof ridge decorations."

Comments 2: line 6 "the ridge decorations of the Yungang Grottoes," change "of"

Response 2: Revised. "of" to "from".

Comments 3: line 7  "Buddhism's eastward"

Response 3: Revised. "the eastward dissemination of Buddhism along the Silk Road."

Comments 4: "Chiwei 鴟尾" should be "chiwei 鴟尾"

Response 4: Thank you very much for pointing out this formatting issue. According to academic conventions, Chinese pinyin terms in English text should be lowercase italics (capitalized only at the beginning of sentences). We have comprehensively revised the formatting of all pinyin terms.

Comments 5: line 9-10:  “The findings demonstrate that these ridge decorations constitute the comprehensive sinicization of Buddhist art in China.”  Roof ridge decorations are minor motifs in Buddhist art. Changes and adoption of foreign culture can start from minor motifs. Roof ridge decorations cannot “constitute the comprehensive sinicization of Buddhist art in China.” Suggestion: rephrase

Response 5: We have rephrased this argument to make it more accurate. "The findings suggest that these roof ridge decorations offer compelling evidence of the thorough-going sinicization of Buddhist art in China, a process that established a distinctive aesthetic synthesis balancing foreign religious symbolism with local cultural expression. "

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have carefully read this paper, and it can be affirmed as a good-quality academic research work. There exists a wealth of research findings concerning the sinicization of Buddhist art; even the elements discussed by the author in the paper—such as chiwei, phoenix, gāruḍa, triangular patterns, and flame beads—have been individually studied to some extent. However, this paper attempts to integrate these isolated research contents and argues that they constitute a systematic expression. From this perspective, the paper is undoubtedly innovative. 

 

Nevertheless, this approach also gives rise to an issue: the author’s analysis still proceeds on an element-by-element basis. While the author intends to demonstrate how these elements can be integrated through the "Ridge Pattern," although Section 3 of the paper addresses this question to a certain degree, if the focus is on integration via the Ridge Pattern, there would be no need for an exhaustive individual introduction to each specific element. As stated in the paper, previous scholars have already conducted scattered studies on these individual elements; thus, the author’s core focus should lie in illustrating how to systematize these elements through the Ridge Pattern, which ought to be the central theme of the paper. 

 

Consequently, the research focus of the paper appears somewhat ambiguous. On one hand, the author seeks to integrate these elements to highlight the paper’s innovativeness; on the other hand, a significant portion of the paper is devoted to analyzing and introducing each element individually. This latter part, unfortunately, tends to dilute the core research focus of the paper—despite the inherent connection between the two aspects. Therefore, I would like to offer a revision suggestion for the author’s reference: in the subsequent section where each element is analyzed individually, the author should emphasize their original findings. A mere integration of previous research on individual elements would render this part less relevant, as the true focus of the paper lies in integrating these elements and proposing a systematic perspective of "Ridge Decorations" to examine this academic issue. 

 

In addition, the paper contains several minor issues, which are provided for reference only: 

1. Lines 149–150: The image in these lines may need to be replaced with a clearer version, as the three numbers on the far left and the number on the far right have become extremely blurry and difficult to identify.
2. Lines 247–248: For the entry "(Zhao Ye, Wu yue chun qiu helü neizhuan (Inner Biography of King Helü of Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue))", it is recommended that the Pinyin and the title of the book be italicized to maintain consistency with the formatting style used elsewhere in the paper. The same applies to "Sanfu huangtu jiaozheng (Correction of the Sanfu Huangtu)" in Lines 326–327, as well as in numerous other instances such as Lines 340, 349, and 409, which will not be listed in detail here.
3. Lines 188–191, 218–222, and 295–299: All these sections provide introductions to chiwei, particularly brief accounts of its origin and development. There appears to be some repetition among these sections. Furthermore, in certain parts where details such as chiwei’s origin, symbolic meaning, and the location of the component are discussed, no specific sources are cited for the viewpoints presented. If these conclusions are derived from other scholars’ research, proper citations should be provided; if they are based on the author’s original investigations, an explanation should also be included. Just as the author has clearly specified the sources when discussing the phoenix, clarifying the sources of information will enhance the persuasiveness of the paper.
4. Line 319: There is a large blank space in the Chinese text in this line, which should be adjusted.
5. Lines 449–456: Regarding the origin of the gāruḍa, the inclusion of additional secondary literature citations would strengthen the persuasiveness of the argument, as the author currently presents conclusions directly without providing supporting evidence or reference materials.
6. Chinese names: The author occasionally uses inconsistent formatting for Chinese names. For example, some names are formatted as "Chen, Zhi 陳直", while others are written as "Deng Tongde 鄧同德, Zhang Jinyun 張金雲, and Zhang Zhihua 張志華". If the first format (surname followed by given name, separated by a comma) is adopted, it should be applied consistently throughout the paper. If the second format (without a comma) is preferred, the order should be adjusted to "given name + surname" (e.g., "Tongde Deng 鄧同德") to conform to standard English naming conventions.
7. References: The entry for Sofukawa in the reference list exhibits inconsistent font formatting, which should be standardized.
8. Translations of classic works: For the translations of well-known classical texts in the paper, it is advisable to refer directly to existing English translations. For instance, the translation of the excerpt from Zhuangzi in Note 2 could draw on established English versions of the text.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. Lines 149–150: The image in these lines may need to be replaced with a clearer version, as the three numbers on the far left and the number on the far right have become extremely blurry and difficult to identify.
2. Lines 247–248: For the entry "(Zhao Ye, Wu yue chun qiu helü neizhuan (Inner Biography of King Helü of Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue))", it is recommended that the Pinyin and the title of the book be italicized to maintain consistency with the formatting style used elsewhere in the paper. The same applies to "Sanfu huangtu jiaozheng (Correction of the Sanfu Huangtu)" in Lines 326–327, as well as in numerous other instances such as Lines 340, 349, and 409, which will not be listed in detail here.
3. Lines 188–191, 218–222, and 295–299: All these sections provide introductions to chiwei, particularly brief accounts of its origin and development. There appears to be some repetition among these sections. Furthermore, in certain parts where details such as chiwei’s origin, symbolic meaning, and the location of the component are discussed, no specific sources are cited for the viewpoints presented. If these conclusions are derived from other scholars’ research, proper citations should be provided; if they are based on the author’s original investigations, an explanation should also be included. Just as the author has clearly specified the sources when discussing the phoenix, clarifying the sources of information will enhance the persuasiveness of the paper.
4. Line 319: There is a large blank space in the Chinese text in this line, which should be adjusted.
5. Lines 449–456: Regarding the origin of the gāruḍa, the inclusion of additional secondary literature citations would strengthen the persuasiveness of the argument, as the author currently presents conclusions directly without providing supporting evidence or reference materials.
6. Chinese names: The author occasionally uses inconsistent formatting for Chinese names. For example, some names are formatted as "Chen, Zhi 陳直", while others are written as "Deng Tongde 鄧同德, Zhang Jinyun 張金雲, and Zhang Zhihua 張志華". If the first format (surname followed by given name, separated by a comma) is adopted, it should be applied consistently throughout the paper. If the second format (without a comma) is preferred, the order should be adjusted to "given name + surname" (e.g., "Tongde Deng 鄧同德") to conform to standard English naming conventions.
7. References: The entry for Sofukawa in the reference list exhibits inconsistent font formatting, which should be standardized.
8. Translations of classic works: For the translations of well-known classical texts in the paper, it is advisable to refer directly to existing English translations. For instance, the translation of the excerpt from Zhuangzi in Note 2 could draw on established English versions of the text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your thorough and insightful review of our manuscript. We are deeply grateful for your recognition of the paper's innovative approach in systematically integrating previously scattered research on individual decorative elements. Your constructive feedback has been invaluable in helping us refine and strengthen the paper's core argument and presentation.

We have carefully addressed each of your comments in the revised manuscript. Below, we provide a detailed point-by-point response to your suggestions.

Comments 1: Consequently, the research focus of the paper appears somewhat ambiguous. On one hand, the author seeks to integrate these elements to highlight the paper’s innovativeness; on the other hand, a significant portion of the paper is devoted to analyzing and introducing each element individually. This latter part, unfortunately, tends to dilute the core research focus of the paper—despite the inherent connection between the two aspects. Therefore, I would like to offer a revision suggestion for the author’s reference: in the subsequent section where each element is analyzed individually, the author should emphasize their original findings. A mere integration of previous research on individual elements would render this part less relevant, as the true focus of the paper lies in integrating these elements and proposing a systematic perspective of "Ridge Decorations" to examine this academic issue.

1. Response to core comments：

Section 4.1 (Chiwei): Now emphasizes chiwei's dual role—traditional fire-prevention symbolism and structural that anchors Buddhist elements at fixed ridge terminals.
Section 4.2 (Phoenix): Condensed historical overview; highlights functional equivalence principle showing phoenix-garuda interchangeability.
Section 4.3 (Garuda): Shifted from general iconography to specific morphological transformations at Yungang.
Section 4.4 (Flame Elements): Emphasizes mediating function of elements with dual genealogy that bridge Buddhist and Chinese traditions.
Connected individual elements to systematic framework: Each subsection now explicitly links back to the three design principles (positional hierarchy, functional equivalence, adaptive deployment).

The revised structure maintains necessary context for non-specialist readers while foregrounding our core argument: ridge decorations functioned as an integrated architectural system with coherent design principles

2. Response to Specific Comments:

(1）We have replaced Figure 1 with a newly prepared high-resolution line drawing created from our field documentation. All identifying numbers are now clearly legible. The revised figure maintains the same scholarly information while ensuring professional visual qualityWe have systematically addressed all specific issues raised in your review.

(2) Lines 247-248, 326-327, 340, 349, 409, etc. (Italicization Consistency): We conducted a comprehensive manuscript review and standardized all Pinyin romanizations of Chinese book titles and translated book titles in italics throughout the text, footnotes, and references.

(3) Lines 188-191, 218-222, 295-299 (Chiwei Repetition and Missing Citations): We eliminated redundancy by consolidating chiwei introductions into Section 4.1 and clearly distinguished cited historical facts from our original analysis of chiwei's structural positioning in the ridge system.

(4) Line 319 (Spacing Issue): The formatting error has been corrected and we verified proper text alignment throughout the manuscript.

(5) Lines 449-456 (Garuda Origin Citations): We substantially expanded documentation by incorporating Miao Lihui (2005), Li Jingjie (2022), Wang Yunjin (2010), Buswell and Lopez (2014), Xinjiang Research Institute of Grottoes (2017), and Dunhuang Academy (2016), providing robust scholarly grounding for garuda's transmission and transformation.

(6) Chinese Names Formatting: We standardized all Chinese author names to comma format (Surname, Given name 汉字) following Chicago Manual of Style conventions, with the exception of Buddhist monastic names which remain as single-unit dharma names.

(7) Sofukawa Reference Entry: We corrected the entry for consistent formatting with proper romanization of Japanese name with macrons and uniform font throughout.

(8) Classical Text Translations: We revised our translations to reference established English versions where available, notably adopting Burton Watson's authoritative translation (1968) for the Zhuangzi excerpt in Note 4, while providing original Chinese text for specialist readers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Artistic Integration and Localized Adaptation: An Analysis of Ridge Decorations in the Sinicization Process of the Yungang Grottoes” provides a thoughtful examination of the stylistic and cultural changes in ridge decorations during the Sinicization of Buddhist art in China. The topic is both relevant and important for East Asian art and Buddhist studies, especially in exploring how artistic motifs developed through cultural exchange and localization. It is a commendable effort that integrates visual, architectural, and historical analyses, demonstrating a solid understanding of descriptive art-historical interpretation. The subject aligns well with the scope of Religions.

However, the paper would benefit from minor revisions to improve its analytical depth, contextual framing, and visual documentation. The introduction should clearly state the main research question and clarify how this study offers new insights into the Sinicization process that go beyond existing scholarship on the Yungang Grottoes. While several relevant works are cited, including recent publications, the discussion could be strengthened by engaging more deeply with current studies on Chinese Buddhist architectural ornamentation and stylistic adaptation, incorporating both Chinese and international scholarship.

The methodological approach should be clarified more explicitly. It is important to specify whether the analysis primarily focuses on formal, iconographic, or comparative aspects, as a clear outline of the method would enhance the interpretive credibility. Figures and plates are crucial to this study; all images should be high quality. Additionally, the discussion of “localized adaptation” could be enhanced by incorporating comparative references to other East Asian countries, along with more examples from Dunhuang or Longmen, to provide stronger support for the argument.

Author Response

We are deeply grateful for your thoughtful and constructive review. We greatly appreciate your recognition that the topic is "both relevant and important for East Asian art and Buddhist studies" and your acknowledgment of our integration of "visual, architectural, and historical analyses." Your expert guidance has been invaluable in helping us strengthen the manuscript.

We have carefully addressed your suggestions in the revised manuscript. Below we provide a point-by-point response.

Comments 1: The introduction should clearly state the main research question and clarify how this study offers new insights beyond existing scholarship.

Response 1: We have revised the Introduction (Section 1) to explicitly articulate our research question and original contribution. We added a clear statement explaining that prior research has analyzed individual decorative elements or general sinicization processes separately, yet few studies have examined how roof ridge decorations functioned as an integrated system of cultural adaptation. We then clarified our novel contribution: through systematic analysis of five primary decorative elements with their spatial arrangements, this study reveals how foreign religious symbols were strategically adapted through three design principles—positional hierarchy, functional equivalence, and adaptive deployment—thereby creating a distinctive aesthetic synthesis that balanced Buddhist spiritual meaning with Chinese cultural expression. This revision makes explicit that our contribution lies not in cataloging individual motifs, but in demonstrating how these elements functioned as an integrated architectural system governed by coherent design principles.

Comments 2: It is important to specify whether the analysis primarily focuses on formal, iconographic, or comparative aspects, as a clear outline of the method would enhance interpretive credibility.

Response 2: We added a comprehensive new section, Section 2.2 (Methodological Framework), which explicitly articulates our integrated methodology combining formal analysis, iconographic interpretation, and comparative-historical research. The section explains our tripartite approach: (1) formal-typological analysis (Section 3) establishing systematic classification based on decorative element types, spatial positioning, and combination patterns; (2) iconographic analysis (Section 4) examining each element through genealogical investigation of its symbolic meanings and cultural functions; (3) comparative-historical research employing both diachronic comparison (tracing developments from Han Dynasty through Northern Wei to subsequent transmission) and synchronic comparison (examining variations within caves and parallel developments at contemporary sites). Readers now have a clear roadmap of our methodology and understand how each analytical layer contributes to the overall argument.

Comments 3: Figures and plates are crucial to this study; all images should be high quality.

Response 3: e replaced Figure 1 with a newly prepared high-resolution line drawing, ensuring all cave identifying numbers are clearly legible as you requested. Additionally, we reformatted Table 1 according to MDPI journal standards for improved clarity and professional presentation.

We are grateful for your expert guidance. The revised manuscript now clearly articulates what is new in our study—the systematic analysis of ridge decorations as an integrated architectural system—and establishes how we arrive at these conclusions through an explicit tripartite methodology. We have also addressed the visual documentation concerns you raised. We believe these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript's analytical clarity and scholarly rigor.

Thank you again for your invaluable contribution to this work.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had the honor to read this study on an important topic and I am happy to report that this is a well-researched and clearly articulated article that demonstrates a high level of scholarly rigor and methodological precision. The study addresses a long-overdue yet significant topic, making an important contribution to the field. The tabulation at the end of the paper is particularly commendable, as it provides readers with a clear and accessible summary of the decorative patterns. But the Table can be re-formatted to make it easier to read. 

A minor suggestion concerns the illustrations, particularly figures 5 through 11. Given their academic value, these images should be reproduced in larger and higher-resolution formats to better serve the needs of researchers and enhance the overall quality of the publication.

Author Response

We are deeply honored by your generous assessment of this manuscript and profoundly grateful for your recognition of its scholarly rigor. Your encouragement regarding the systematic approach and the tabulation of decorative patterns is most gratifying, as these were central to our methodological design.

We have carefully addressed both of your constructive suggestions:

Comments 1: "The tabulation at the end of the paper is particularly commendable... But the Table can be re-formatted to make it easier to read."

Response 1: Revised. Following your suggestion and in strict accordance with MDPI journal formatting requirements, we have made the following revisions to Table 1：

Original figures in table 1 included figure references like "Figure 2", "Figure 10", etc. These have been deleted as per MDPI guidelines.

Comments 2: A minor suggestion concerns the illustrations, particularly figures 5 through 11. Given their academic value, these images should be reproduced in larger and higher-resolution formats to better serve the needs of researchers and enhance the overall quality of the publication.

Response 2: Images Figures 5-11 have been sourced from the most authoritative published materials available: Zhang, Chao 张焯, Wang, Heng 王恒, and Zhao, Kunyu 赵昆雨, eds. (2017). Yungang Shiku Quanji 云冈石窟全集 [The Complete Works of Yungang Grottoes], Vols. 7, 8, 11. Qingdao: Qingdao Publishing House. And these images have their sources credited, and copyright matters have been confirmed with the Yungang Academy 云冈研究院, which indicated that citing the source is acceptable.