The Interactive Relationship and Influence Between Kitchen God Beliefs and Stoves in the Han Dynasty (202 BCE–220 AD)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article addresses a very intriguing topic: the shifting constructions of the kitchen god. There are some degree of originality and innovation in this paper.
The English and organization is fine. I think the author needs to be more succinct and efficient with his/her writing as there are many redundant expressions and unnecessary background information/explanations given in this paper which distracts the readers from finding the core thread/clue and argument/contribution of the research.
The author has too many citations/scholarship review, especially in the introduction part. I think most of them are unnecessary. The author needs to clearly state the gap/issue of this research in the very beginning and only cite those directly related to the research question, but not everything about the research subject. Moreover, in this section, the author should rewrite about the final paragraph to clearly and precisely state his/her approach and arguments.
I consider section two on the character of zao and section three on the material culture of stove in the Han dynasty are the more fruit parts of this paper. Instead, section four and five might need to be significantly reduced if not eliminated. The key problem of this section is that the author failed in clearly separating his arguments with previous knowledge. Even though the author mostly cite original literature/primary source to conduct his/her analysis, yet I don't think the connection between yandi/zhu rong and kitchen god had not been studied. Similarly, the shifting constructions/names of kitchen god as well as its additional function as a monitoring deity seem to have already been discussed by various previous scholarships. I think author needs to state the current knowledges/opinions on these issues at the beginning of section four and five and then explain the central issue and argument that he/she will address in this section.
For section two and three, I think the logic is generally OK. I only have a few small points.
1. Please distinguish frog from toad in his quotation in the bottom part of page 5.
2. Please delete the repetitive "cooking" on line 420.
3. Please explain what the "spiritual world" is one line 431, I think he might be referring to the "underworld."
4. Please provide a more convincing analysis to support his/her speculation "these tomb owners hope to continue to be protected and blessed by the kitchen god in this way." These type of miniature goods are normally called model funerary objects "moxing mingqi." They were supposed to be used by the dead in the underworld as real objects under sympathetic magic. Unless the author finds clues about rituals suggested by those objects, we can only assume that they are stoves to be used by the dead in the Yellow Springs. Similarly, for the inscription of "yizisun" on the gold stove model. My direct understanding is that the son of the tomb occupant will please his father and get his soul to bless him and his descendants by providing a decent life for the latter in the underworld: creating lavish model funerary goods are part of these effort. In fact, the performative speech of "yizisun" appear on many Han dynasty funerary objects, especially bronze mirrors.
5. The translation between line 521 and 523 needs to be improved. The two words "xi" and "zhu" are crucial. "xi" means providing sacrificial feast and "zhu" means the wooden tablet to hold the soul, of the kitchen god, in this case.
In general, this paper has the potential to be published but needs to go through significant revision. I recommend the author to provide a clear research road map in the introduction, refine the sections two and three, and significantly shorten sections four and five unless there are clearly articulated original points that are related to his/her arguments in section two and three.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments to the Author
This is a interesting and relevant topic. However, there are issues that must be solved before this article is ready for publishing. I hope that the following feedback will help the author in the rewriting of this article.
1. Both the title, the abstract and the introduction must clearly reflect the aim of the study. For example, does the“Folk Beliefs in Stove Fire”could clearly describe the main point of the article? I believe the research focus on the two aspects: 1. the relationship between kitchen god beliefs and stoves, 2. the influence of kitchen god beliefs and stoves. Thus, the whole article should explain it.
2. Could you please explain the reason why 202 BCE-220 AD has been selected? And what’s the research area? Such as what’s the typical research object?
3. As the results are now, they are very general. What’s the exactly findings of the research? What’s the research questions you have proposed?
4. In the abstract, I can’t find the outcome of the research paper, especially the relationship between the kitchen god beliefs and stoves, and how does the kitchen god beliefs influence the stoves from the perspective of materials?
5. At the end of paragraph1 in introduction (line 39), you should describe the main idea of your research, why you choose such topic? What’s the contribution of the research?
6. From line 47 to line 166 should be outlined as literature review, the author should explain it clearly, 1, The belief in the Chinese Kitchen God, it’s lack of critical analysis here. In line 48, before “The belief in the Chinese Kitchen God began to receive attention from sociologists in the 1940s.” It’s better to add “firstly”.
7. It’s not clearly that the relationship between the belief of kitchen god the stove design, please describe it in 3.2.
8. It’s better to clarify the part 3 in detail, part 4 and 5 should focus on how does the kitchen god belief influence the stove.
9. It’s lack of analysis between the kitchen god and the design of stove, and how dose the belief of kitchen god influence the stove?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Professional text editing should be conducted on this article, as there are unclear sentences and parts in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting paper which provides a key insight into the evolution of zaoshen during the Han Dynasty. Although the argument is compelling I feel more evidence is required to demonstrate the connection between the stove and zaoshen.
It would be quite interesting to have a small paragraph highlighting other stove god/spirit traditions elsewhere in the world in order to situate zaoshen within the minds-eye of non-Chinese readers.
There is also a requirement to define terms and concepts more clearly for a non-Chinese and non-Chinese speaking audience.
You need to remove the personal names from in text references and move publication dates to behind the Surnames when direct referencing. i.e. Bray (1997, pp. 107-14) and Ren (1999, pp. 160-62) explores the formation of the Kitchen God and his family from a 66 female perspective, and compares the gender, identity and behavioral characteristics of the Kitchen God to further the understanding of traditional Chinese society and culture.
I would suggested that you make a separate history of research section and move the statement of purpose paragraph (the final paragraph of the current introduction) to above the history of research. At present it is too long before your own arguments and what you are planning to do are presented.
The discussion of the variations in the form of the character 灶 would probably be more digestible you directly referenced figure 4 rather than including the original form of the character as non-Chinese speakers will not be able to distinguish between the two forms in the text as they are at present.
There is also an issue with absolutes, there are several instances where you phrase a suposition as a fact. This is likely just a language issue. I have highlighted in places but you need to read through the text carefully, or find someone else to help.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The overall level of English in the text is good. However, it requires a thorough proof reading as there are several instances where words and terms have been incorrectly translated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the author has made good revisions based on my feedbacks. It would be nicer if he/she could state his/her research question and argument in a succinct manner at the second paragraph of the paper. Also, I hope he could use one of two sentences to explain his contribution/significance of research at the beginning of section 4.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReviewer's Comments on Revised Manuscript
The revised manuscript demonstrates a clear understanding of the research subject, the authors have established a connection between the design features of Han Dynasty stoves and the Kitchen God belief system. They have illustrate how stove design reflects religious practices and beliefs of the period.
I recommend publication after minor revisions. To further strengthen the manuscript, it's better to explicitly highlight their academic contribution in the conclusion sections.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageReviewer's Comments on Revised Manuscript
English Language Evaluation:
The revised manuscript demonstrates a clear improvement in the overall clarity and coherence of the English expression. It is suggested to further check the grammar errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is signficantly improved from the previous version.
Although I feel that a short paragraph comparing the zaoshen deity to other traditions elsewhere in the world I feel this paper is now suitable for publication. However, please replace the term batrachias with amphibians (lines 219 - 242), as amphibians is a much more recognisible term.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
