Compositional Analysis of Cultic Clay Objects from the Iron Age Southern Levant

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is original and well structured. There are three points that would be worth raising (at least one in a footnote): 1) why are there no other explanations of the use of JPFs? Why is only a religious use attributed to them?; 2) if the figurines are made by people and not by a workshop, there should be all three types of Jerusalem clay. But on the other hand, I do not understand why a workshop would want to use only one type of agille for the vessels and another for the figurines: it does not make sense, especially if the clay of the figurines was undergoing a purification process; 3) why make a reference to the Neolithic figurines of Hungary (Körös Neolithic culture) and the Aztec empire? They are too far apart chronologically and culturally.

 In addition:
A) some references in the bibliography are missing (e.g., Press 2012).
B) the article needs re-reading (the article ‘the’ is spelled ‘you’, one = remained in the text without relation to the text like other two and three points: I do not mean that the English is not good, but that the speed of writing caused some small errors).

Author Response

The article is original and well structured. There are three points that would be worth raising (at least one in a footnote):

 1) why are there no other explanations of the use of JPFs? Why is only a religious use attributed to them?;

NOTE ADDED

 

2) if the figurines are made by people and not by a workshop, there should be all three types of Jerusalem clay. But on the other hand, I do not understand why a workshop would want to use only one type of agille for the vessels and another for the figurines: it does not make sense, especially if the clay of the figurines was undergoing a purification process;

I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THIS: AS THE RENDZINA CLAY MAY HAVE BEEN MORE ACCESSABLE IN MOST PART OF THE CITY OF JERUSALEM (ALSO WITH A MAP)

 

3) why make a reference to the Neolithic figurines of Hungary (Körös Neolithic culture) and the Aztec empire? They are too far apart chronologically and culturally.

THESE WERE ADDED SINCE COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS OF FIGURINES IS QUITE RARE AND THE CULTIC OBJECTS PRODUCTION ISSUES ARE QUITE UNIVERSAL

 In addition:
A) some references in the bibliography are missing (e.g., Press 2012). ADDED
B) the article needs re-reading (the article ‘the’ is spelled ‘you’, one = remained in the text without relation to the text like other two and three points: I do not mean that the English is not good, but that the speed of writing caused some small errors).  DONE

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The main issue of the paper is petrographic and religious analysis of the clay figures from the Southern Levant.

This topic within the approach offered by the author(s) is original and relevant to the field. The author(s) do not concentrate only on the dry and technical analysis as it is often in this kind of research, but they try to understand the culic role of these objects in a broader cultural context refering to Mesopotamia. The petrographic analysis sheds a new light on the places of production and poses a question about the process of making involving the priests.

Through the means of petrography the author(s) show where these clay figures were produced. It offers a new approach to the material. The references are appropriate.

Please review spellings: Yawahist instead of Yahwist, bible instead of Bible. I figured out that there are many double spaces within the text.

otherwise I find the text clear and publishable, it is offers an interersting point of view on the clay figurines and their cultic context.

Author Response

The main issue of the paper is petrographic and religious analysis of the clay figures from the Southern Levant.

This topic within the approach offered by the author(s) is original and relevant to the field.

The author(s) do not concentrate only on the dry and technical analysis as it is often in this kind of research, but they try to understand the culic role of these objects in a broader cultural context refering to Mesopotamia. The petrographic analysis sheds a new light on the places of production and poses a question about the process of making involving the priests.

Through the means of petrography the author(s) show where these clay figures were produced. It offers a new approach to the material. The references are appropriate.

 

Please review spellings: Yawahist instead of Yahwist, bible instead of Bible. I figured out that there are many double spaces within the text.

DONE

otherwise I find the text clear and publishable, it is offers an interersting point of view on the clay figurines and their cultic context.