Space, Patronage, and Ritual Art: Steles in the Guyang Cave (Late 5th–Early 6th Century)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the author identifies an intriguing phenomenon—the interplay between steles and images in the Guyang Cave at Longmen. This investigation contributes meaningfully to our understanding of Northern Wei Buddhist practices. It is grounded in extensively detailed studies. However, several areas of the article would benefit from further clarification and elaboration. The following comments are meant to help the authors to bring out the strength of the article.

1) One line of evidence concerns the self-identification terms found in the inscriptions. Before concluding that the patrons accepted the idea of “stele and statue as one unity,” the author should provide a more nuanced discussion of these terms. The issue of self-identification emerges from the broader socio-religious context of the Northern Dynasties and warrants a deeper exploration. The author could further connect with current discussion of "image" in the field.

2) The article insightfully notes the connection between the Guyang steles and tomb steles in terms of their social functions. However, the distinction between these steles and Buddhist votive texts remains underdeveloped. A more detailed explanation of their differences—both in content and function—would strengthen the analysis.

3) Regarding Case 2, the author suggests a possible rivalry between the patron groups of Huicheng’s and Sun’s steles, inferred from their spatial positions on the cave walls. Yet, in the absence of more concrete information about these groups and a clarified chronology of the two niches, this argument remains speculative. The issue of chronological sequencing of the niches in Guyang Cave, though not the article’s primary focus, should nonetheless be addressed more thoroughly. Referencing existing scholarship on niche chronology would enhance the credibility of this point.

4) Finally, the author could consider expanding Section 5 to place the case of Guyang within a broader historical and artistic framework. Contextualizing the findings within the larger trends shaping Buddhist art in the late Northern Wei would further underscore the significance of the study.

Additional Comments:

• Lines 45–51: The final paragraph repeats the abstract verbatim. Please consider paraphrasing to avoid redundancy and to offer a more conclusive synthesis.

• Lines 75–78: This section is organized around a single paragraph and a chart, which feels abrupt. Readers would benefit from more specific descriptions of the three groups and a clearer explanation of the rationale behind this categorization.

• Line 311: The author refers to Huichang’s stele as a “monument,” yet this usage does not clearly align with established scholarly definitions of the term. It would be helpful to clarify or contextualize this terminology with reference to prior literature.

Author Response

(All changes in my manuscript are highlighted in yellow.)

Comment 1: One line of evidence concerns the self-identification terms found in the inscriptions. Before concluding that the patrons accepted the idea of “stele and statue as one unity,” the author should provide a more nuanced discussion of these terms. The issue of self-identification emerges from the broader socio-religious context of the Northern Dynasties and warrants a deeper exploration. The author could further connect with current discussion of "image" in the field.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. Therefore, I have downplayed the whole idea of “stele and statue as one unity” . As a result, the paper now chooses not to highlight the possible affinities between the Guyang Cave and Image-making steles(zaoxiang bei). I decided to limit the scope of my discussion and to re-focus on how the steles took shape as ritual art in the particular spatial context of the Guyang Cave. The overall conclusion also becomes a much smaller issue: how art should be considered an ongoing ritual process. For the sake of this, I have changed the title into “Space, Patronage, and Ritual Art: Steles in the Guyang Cave (Late 5th–Early 6th Century)” I have also written a new scholarship review from the end of page 2 to the beginning of page 3. I no longer emphasize Dorothy Wong’s work on the origins of the image-making stele(zaoxiang bei). Instead, I introduced Gong Dazhong’s work on the stylistic connection between the Guyang Cave and the Yungang Grottoes. In the review, I also included the works by Stanley Abe and Amy McNair as they offered insights on the early construction of the Guyang Cave and the patronage issue. In addition, I have eliminated further discussion on “statue and stele as one unity” from line 192 to line 206, between page 10 and page 11. In doing so, the paper avoids the pitfall caused by the patrons’ acceptance issue.

 

Comment 2: The article insightfully notes the connection between the Guyang steles and tomb steles in terms of their social functions. However, the distinction between these steles and Buddhist votive texts remains underdeveloped. A more detailed explanation of their differences—both in content and function—would strengthen the analysis. 

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. More specifically, my discussion on the connection between the Guyang steles and tomb steles mostly appears in the case of Huicheng’s stele, and the connection in the social sense only reveals itself through the stele inscription. But it does not impact my discussion on the stylistic issues, which is my main interest in the case. Therefore, I shall downplay the connection for the sake of concision. I have eliminated the related contents from line 219 to line 255, between page 11 and page 12. In addition, in my discussion of the Sun Qiusheng stele, I have also deleted line 428 to line 462, between page 17 and page 18.

 

Comment 3: Regarding Case 2, the author suggests a possible rivalry between the patron groups of Huicheng’s and Sun’s steles, inferred from their spatial positions on the cave walls. Yet, in the absence of more concrete information about these groups and a clarified chronology of the two niches, this argument remains speculative. The issue of chronological sequencing of the niches in Guyang Cave, though not the article’s primary focus, should nonetheless be addressed more thoroughly. Referencing existing scholarship on niche chronology would enhance the credibility of this point.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. Chronology is one of the most contested issues in the study of Guyang Cave, as many of the important early sculptures bear inscriptions concerning their dates of construction. But scholarly interpretation on these inscriptions have caused confusion and debates for decades. In particular, the steles by Huicheng and Sun Qiusheng at stake are the two famous controversial examples. As I have shown in table 1, scholars have proposed three different possible dates for the Huicheng stele’s construction, and two possibilities for the Sun Qiusheng stele. It is hard to expect that scholar will settle these debates in the near future, most works on the Guyang Cave tends to temporarily forgo the expectation of a clear chronology. But for the sake of concision, I have deleted line 428 to line 462, between page 17 and page 18. So this issue is also resolved.

 

Comment 4: Finally, the author could consider expanding Section 5 to place the case of Guyang within a broader historical and artistic framework. Contextualizing the findings within the larger trends shaping Buddhist art in the late Northern Wei would further underscore the significance of the study.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. The issue of Section 5 is also related to your Comment 1. The paper was previously tied to the idea of “stele and image as one unity.” Now it is re-focused onto the sculptural technical innovations and patron competition issue issues. Accordingly, I have rewritten Section 5 between page 25 and page 26.

 

Additional Comments:

•  

Lines 45–51: The final paragraph repeats the abstract verbatim. Please consider paraphrasing to avoid redundancy and to offer a more conclusive synthesis.

Response: The last part of the introduction has been rewritten from line 46 to line 54 in page 2.

•  

Lines 75–78: This section is organized around a single paragraph and a chart, which feels abrupt. Readers would benefit from more specific descriptions of the three groups and a clearer explanation of the rationale behind this categorization.

Response: I have retracted long paragraphs from the chart, and integrated the information into the main text. Please see this between line 92 to line 142, from page 3 to page 7.

•  

Line 311: The author refers to Huichang’s stele as a “monument,” yet this usage does not clearly align with established scholarly definitions of the term. It would be helpful to clarify or contextualize this terminology with reference to prior literature.

Response: The term “monument” was initially used to reflect the connection between Huicheng’s stele and tomb steles. As per my response to Comment 1, the paper has now forgone the discussion on the connection. Therefore, the term “monument” is unnecessary as well, and I have removed it.(The sentence between line 383 and line 384 now becomes “ Such a representation of a stele allows viewers to grasp its presence more effectively.” )

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article explores the diverse and intricate interplay between the image and stele forms of art in the Guyang Cave. It seeks to fill in a scholarly gap by addressing the question how “zaoxiang bei” became a fully-fledged art form in the fifth century through a detailed analysis of its pioneering examples in the Guyang Cave.

It reveals the various strategies adopted by carvers and their patrons to maximize the visual and ritual efficacy of their stele/sculptural creation. These strategies range from using high relief, deep carving, to character enlargement and others. The author tries to contextualize these artistic choices by analyzing them in relation to the spatial and visual challenges/resources facing the patrons and carvers, while also drawing links to the potential cultural/ritual implications of specific stylistic choices. By doing so, the author offers a lively picture of the artistic creation in the Guyang cave, deepening our understanding of the integration of the image- and stele-form in the early development.

The article can benefit from more clear structuring. At present, it is sometimes difficult to follow the argument and logic of the author amid the swamp of art historical details. The main point of this article can be more clear. Does the author want to emphasize the heretofore neglected artistic vigor of Guyang patrons when integrating the stele and image forms, or does they want to delineate the processual integration of the two previously separate art forms?

The author also tries to connect the stele form with tomb steles. However, there were also steles intended for above-ground settings, such as those erected as memorials of significant political achievements 纪功碑. Did these memorials also use the seal script and high-relief technique? While many Buddhist steles were erected for deceased family members, presenting a natural point of connection with the funerary culture, it would be helpful for the author to give a more comprehensive discussion of the stele tradition in early China in order to make a more compelling case for the artistic choices of the Guyang Cave patrons and their ritual/political intentions if any.  

There are occasional grammatical missteps in the article, such as line 394 “There is no titled inscribed”. The language could also benefit from further polishing.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Clear overall. There are occasional grammatical missteps in the article, such as line 394 “There is no titled inscribed”. The language could also benefit from further polishing.

Author Response

(All changes in my manuscript are highlighted in yellow.)

Comment 1: The article can benefit from more clear structuring. At present, it is sometimes difficult to follow the argument and logic of the author amid the swamp of art historical details. The main point of this article can be more clear. Does the author want to emphasize the heretofore neglected artistic vigor of Guyang patrons when integrating the stele and image forms, or does they want to delineate the processual integration of the two previously separate art forms?

Response1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. Therefore, I have downplayed the processual integration of the two previously separate art forms: stele and image. I decided to limit the scope of my discussion and to focus on how the steles and images interacted with each other and the patronage issue in the particular spatial context of the Guyang Cave. For the sake of this, I have changed title into “Space, Patronage and Ritual Art: Steles in the Guyang Cave (Late 5th–Early 6th Century)” I have also written a new scholarship review from the end of page 2 to the beginning of page 3. I no longer emphasize Dorothy Wong’s work on the origins of the image-making stele(zaoxiang bei). Instead, I introduced Gong Dazhong’s work on the stylistic connection between the Guyang Cave and the Yungang Grottoes. In the review, I also included the works by Stanley Abe and Amy McNair as they offered insights on the early construction of the Guyang Cave and the patronage issue. In addition, I have eliminated further discussion on “statue and stele as one unity” from line 192 to line 206, between page 10 and page 11. I have also rewritten the last part of the introduction from line 46 to line 54 in page 2, and the conclusion between page 25 and page 26. In doing so, the paper shows a more clear structure and more focused discussion.

 

Comment 2: The author also tries to connect the stele form with tomb steles. However, there were also steles intended for above-ground settings, such as those erected as memorials of significant political achievements 纪功碑. Did these memorials also use the seal script and high-relief technique? While many Buddhist steles were erected for deceased family members, presenting a natural point of connection with the funerary culture, it would be helpful for the author to give a more comprehensive discussion of the stele tradition in early China in order to make a more compelling case for the artistic choices of the Guyang Cave patrons and their ritual/political intentions if any.  

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. My discussion the on connection between the Guyang steles and tomb steles mostly appears in the case of the Huicheng stele, and the connection in the social sense only reveals itself through the textual content of the inscription. But it does not impact my discussion on the stylistic issues, which is my main interest in the case of the Huicheng stele. Therefore, I shall downplay the connection for the sake of concision. In this regard,I have eliminated the related contents from line 219 to line 255, between page 11 and page 12. In addition, in my discussion of the Sun Qiusheng stele, I have also deleted line 428 to line 462, between page 17 and page 18.

Comment 3: There are occasional grammatical missteps in the article, such as line 394 “There is no titled inscribed”. The language could also benefit from further polishing.

Response 3: Thank you so much for pointing out the details. I have rewritten the beginning of every case study in section 4. There are no more lines like “There is no title” in section 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article provides a case study of ten selected sets of niched image with stele on the side in the Guyang cave at Longmen, with interests in how they look. The author raises some interesting points, such as that the carved stele is a representation of a stele, and that two different types of stelae were prototypes for carved stelae in this one cave. However, this article reads like a report written to a course instructor instead of a standalone piece of academic work. It requires significant revision regarding the framing of research question, the structure of narrative, the quality of research and writing.

Firstly, the author should make clear why it is important to study the “image-stele interplay” and why the Guyang Cave and the ten chosen image-stele sets is the best case to study, rather than using Dorothy Wong’s work as the sole ground for setting up their own stage (lines 59-69). The significance of the study, as the author mentions in the concluding section, seems to be displaying a spectrum of relationships between Buddhist and funerary/secular practices of stele-making (lines 630-632). If that is the case, then the author should ground their study on a solid and concise literature review of this issue.

Secondly, the author seems to assume their reader are experts in Chinese Buddhist art and very familiar with the case, as they did not include even a basic introduction of the Guyang Cave or the Eight Great Niches and why they are important and relevant. Neither are the relevant scholarship introduced. For example, the author uses “style” to describe the distinctions among the ten sets—does their method follow Japanese archaeologists Mitsuno and Narahiro or Chinese archaeologists Su Bai? Furthermore, it is confusing for most readers if no drawings indicating the location of the ten steles in the cave are included at the beginning.

Thirdly, part of the research is built on shaky grounds as the basic reading of images and texts are suspicious. For instance, the 503 image commissioned by Grand Consort Hou is undoubtedly a cross-legged Maitreya Bodhisattva, but the author states that this statue was made to “honor the Buddha” (line 590). Logic link is lost. I do not understand either why 情 can mean a “scene” and the author have not explained(line 461). The modern terms are translated in unique and uncertified ways too: “image-making stele” for 造像碑，”commemorative stele” for 纪事碑。

Fourthly, sections 1, 2, 3, 5 are disproportionally short, whereas section 4 has most analysis done. The four subsection titles, written in quotation marks, are difficult to understand. Each subsection has not clearly summarize the shared formal features among the cases, historical and contextual factors that led to such formal features, and the significance of this style.

Fifthly, the language is colloquial and coarse—it should be revised. It is unnecessary to overgeneralize things, such as “rare experience in the history of Chinese steles”(319-320) and “a rare case in the history of Chinese Buddhist cave temples” (lines 383-384), or to address the stele as the most solemn and dignified art form in Chinese art history (lines 388-392), or to exaggerate the difficulty of deciphering a stele inscription (312-317).

Having said these, I hope the article will be soon revised to the extent that it is ready for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

see my last point.

Author Response

(All changes in my manuscript are highlighted in yellow.)

Comment 1: the author should make clear why it is important to study the “image-stele interplay” and why the Guyang Cave and the ten chosen image-stele sets is the best case to study, rather than using Dorothy Wong’s work as the sole ground for setting up their own stage (lines 59-69). The significance of the study, as the author mentions in the concluding section, seems to be displaying a spectrum of relationships between Buddhist and funerary/secular practices of stele-making (lines 630-632). If that is the case, then the author should ground their study on a solid and concise literature review of this issue.

Response 1:Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. Therefore, I have downplayed the whole idea of “stele and statue as one unity” . As a result, the paper now chooses not to highlight the possible affinities between the Guyang Cave and Image-making steles(zaoxiang bei). I decided to limit the scope of my discussion and to re-focus on how the steles took shape as ritual art in the particular spatial context of the Guyang Cave. The overall conclusion also becomes a much smaller issue: how art should be considered an ongoing ritual process. For the sake of this, I have changed the title into “Space, Patronage, and Ritual Art: Steles in the Guyang Cave (Late 5th–Early 6th Century)” I have also written a new scholarship review from the end of page 2 to the beginning of page 3. I no longer emphasize Dorothy Wong’s work on the origins of the image-making stele(zaoxiang bei). Instead, I introduced Gong Dazhong’s work on the stylistic connection between the Guyang Cave and the Yungang Grottoes. In the review, I also included the works by Stanley Abe and Amy McNair as they offered insights on the early construction of the Guyang Cave and the patronage issue. In addition, I have eliminated further discussion on “statue and stele as one unity” from line 192 to line 206, between page 10 and page 11.

In this regard, I have also rewritten my abstract in page 1, the last part of the introduction from line 46 to line 54, and the conclusion between page 25 and page 26. In doing so, the paper shows a more clear structure and the discussion becomes more focused.

 

Comment 2: the author seems to assume their reader are experts in Chinese Buddhist art and very familiar with the case, as they did not include even a basic introduction of the Guyang Cave or the Eight Great Niches and why they are important and relevant. Neither are the relevant scholarship introduced. For example, the author uses “style” to describe the distinctions among the ten sets—does their method follow Japanese archaeologists Mitsuno and Narahiro or Chinese archaeologists Su Bai? Furthermore, it is confusing for most readers if no drawings indicating the location of the ten steles in the cave are included at the beginning.

Response 2: Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with the comment. Let me first clarify the “style” issue. In this study, the formal analysis mostly refers to how the Guyang steles were executed. Since it does not focus on the statues per se, the works by Japanese and Chinese archaeologists do not come into play too much. In fact, section 3 includes a table and quick discussion on the stylistic groups of the Guyang steles. It shows how my formal analysis are closely connected to the studies by Stanley Abe and Amy McNair, who did not only pay attention to the steles but also the spatial and patronage context in which the styles took shape. Therefore, I have written a new scholarship review.

The locations of steles are generally included in Table 1 between page 5 and page 6. But for the key cases, the issue of locations needs a little more clarification. In the case of the Huicheng stele, figure 1 in page 7 is in fact a more delicate and relevant indicator of its location because it shows the lighting. The discussion on the stele also mostly focuses on how its position near the entrance helps it catch lights. In the case of the Grand Consort Hou stele, I chose to present figure 11 in page 23. This is because it does not only show how the stele is located near the ceiling, but also how the two works by Grand Consort Hou stand nearby. This is the only case in which the “relative positions” of the stele become crucial to the study. Whereas in other cases, the relative positions do not come into play too much. Therefore, I did not choose to include a grand overview of all the ten steles.

 

Comment 3: part of the research is built on shaky grounds as the basic reading of images and texts are suspicious. For instance, the 503 image commissioned by Grand Consort Hou is undoubtedly a cross-legged Maitreya Bodhisattva, but the author states that this statue was made to “honor the Buddha” (line 590). Logic link is lost. I do not understand either why 情 can mean a “scene” and the author have not explained(line 461). The modern terms are translated in unique and uncertified ways too: “image-making stele” for 造像碑，”commemorative stele” for 纪事碑。

Response 3: Thanks for pointing these out. I agree with the comment. The statue made in 503 is indeed a Maitreya. So I changed the phrase “honor the Buddha” into “honor the deity”. Please see line 665 in page 24. In modern Chinese, the term “表情” is a compound(noun), which mean the two characters form a unity and together they meant “facial expression.” But compound words only came into being during early Western Han in China. More specifically, Sima Qian contributed a lot to this invention in 史記. Before that, the classical Chinese did not have such things. That is to say, “表”and “情” have to be two separate terms and they mean two different things. So the words form a “verb-object phrase.” This grammar tradition has always remained in classical Chinese before and after Sima Qian. It is in this sense, that “表” means to express, and “情” is the thing expressed. So “情” could mean “scene” or “situation” or “feelings.” In Ritual of Zhou周礼, there is the phrase “情，谓情实.”  So the word can mean a “scene in reality.”

The paragraphs including terms 造像碑and纪事碑have all been deleted since the paper now has a new focus.  

 

Comment 4: sections 1, 2, 3, 5 are disproportionally short, whereas section 4 has most analysis done. The four subsection titles, written in quotation marks, are difficult to understand. Each subsection has not clearly summarize the shared formal features among the cases, historical and contextual factors that led to such formal features, and the significance of this style.

Response 4: Thanks for pointing that out. Yes, the first three sections are relative short. Because these are mostly the preparation of the main text body, section 4. Theoretically speaking, the first three sections could be merged into one. But for the sake clarification, I chose to let them stay. But your comments make me realize that at least in section 3, the table is too abrupt, and the paragraphs in the table are too long. Therefore, I have retracted the long paragraphs from table 1, and integrated the information into the main text.I believe that this also addresses the disproportion issue that you mention. Please see this between line 92 to line 142, from page 3 to page 7. 

In section 4, I have also made major revisions to the subsection titles. First, I have made changes to the title of 4.3 (in line 464, page 18) and 4.4(line 602, page 22). More importantly, before starting the case studies, I included a more detailed explanation of the four titles between line 166 and line 178, from page 166 to page 178.

 

Comment 5: the language is colloquial and coarse—it should be revised. It is unnecessary to overgeneralize things, such as “rare experience in the history of Chinese steles”(319-320) and “a rare case in the history of Chinese Buddhist cave temples” (lines 383-384), or to address the stele as the most solemn and dignified art form in Chinese art history (lines 388-392), or to exaggerate the difficulty of deciphering a stele inscription (312-317).

Response 5: Thanks for pointing these out. In the first case, I have deleted the sentence “rare experience in the history of Chinese steles” in line 260. In the second and third cases, the first and second paragraphs in page 18 have all been deleted. This is because that part of the discussion has been downplayed. This takes away the overall theoretical framework under question, so it also alleviates the exaggeration issue.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article analyzes the relationships between the textual steles and sculptures in Buddhist Guyang Cave at Longmen Grottos from the late Northern Wei period. The author/s made detailed introductions of the historical circumstances and religious background for the creations of highlighted parts of the cave carvings, as well as insightful observations and arguments, e.g., incorporation of mourning rituals within a religious framework, blending of Buddhist and Funeral practices, enhancement of niche statues’ publicity by the steles, etc. The manuscript can be improved and strengthened by a clearly articulated thesis based on these observations and stated in the introduction. The following sections should then be organized accordingly.

The title of the article, “image-stele interplay,” suggests a focus on analyzing the relationships between the statue and the stele, while the subsequent texts discuss also the locations of the carvings within the caves, etc. An adjustment of the title to be more tuned to the main discussions and central thesis, e.g. about rituals, would be beneficial.

In addition to such major issues, the author/s may want to pay attention to some logical details of the analysis. There are many speculative statements throughout the manuscript, for instance, statements about the intentions of the craftsmen and patrons. Such speculations should be contextualized with more factual support. The argument that the cave carving might be the origin of the “image-making stele” (zaoxiangbei), while citing other scholars, should also be more critically evaluated, even challenged, as they may be representations of actual free-standing steles.

 

The following are some Structural problems for material organization:

• Dorothy C. Wong’s theory about the Buddhist “image-making stele” may be borrowed from Guyang Cave stand alone as a section while there are more scholarships cited in later discussions. This makes Section 2 extremely short. If it must stand alone, justify its significance.
• The long Discussion on Liu Xian epitaph stone should be better integrated into the analysis of Guyang Cave carvings. The discussion is to establish the connection between the Buddhist stele and the Han-Wei tomb epitaph based on the title inscribed in seal script and high-relief. The way this material is presented is distracting as it stands now. Some details may be moved to the notes.
• etc.

 

The following are language/formatting problems:

• Add Chinese characters to key terms, Guyang, Longmen, Xiaowen, etc.; as well as translations from standard Chinese expressions, "An Image for Duke of Shiping," etc.
• Table 1: descriptions are too long to be suitable for charting; summarization and shortening are needed; some information needs to be incorporated into the main texts or notes. Description repeated in Section 4 so no need for long descriptions in the table.
• Clarifications: “relatively well-crafted” [103], “sculpted image” [105], “mutual verification of stele and image” [108], “character enlargement” [109], “Statue for the Society Members” [129], etc.
• Some texts in parentheses are confusing, leaving readers to wonder the origins of the quotations, e.g., "stele and statue as one unity" [139], etc.
• Need more notes to cite the sources, e.g., “Since Eastern Han, tomb stele commissioners 186 have been using such displays to publicly demonstrate their close emotional ties and social connections with the deceased.” [186-188] etc.
• “King of the North Sea“：元祥Prince Beihai 北海王 and Yuan Xiang, make it clear that these are the same person in the first mention. In general, “Wang” is translated as Prince instead of King.
• “Clear Gentlemen”: provide the Chinese (Qingshi 清士?) and provide a better translation as “clear gentlemen” doesn’t make any sense.
• Beginning a paragraph with “Case 7).”, etc.: not appropriate.
• etc.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

The following are some Structural problems for material organization:

• Dorothy C. Wong’s theory about the Buddhist “image-making stele” may be borrowed from Guyang Cave stand alone as a section while there are more scholarships cited in later discussions. This makes Section 2 extremely short. If it must stand alone, justify its significance.
• The long Discussion on Liu Xian epitaph stone should be better integrated into the analysis of Guyang Cave carvings. The discussion is to establish the connection between the Buddhist stele and the Han-Wei tomb epitaph based on the title inscribed in seal script and high-relief. The way this material is presented is distracting as it stands now. Some details may be moved to the notes.
• etc.

 

The following are language/formatting problems:

• Add Chinese characters to key terms, Guyang, Longmen, Xiaowen, etc.; as well as translations from standard Chinese expressions, "An Image for Duke of Shiping," etc.
• Table 1: descriptions are too long to be suitable for charting; summarization and shortening are needed; some information needs to be incorporated into the main texts or notes. Description repeated in Section 4 so no need for long descriptions in the table.
• Clarifications: “relatively well-crafted” [103], “sculpted image” [105], “mutual verification of stele and image” [108], “character enlargement” [109], “Statue for the Society Members” [129], etc.
• Some texts in parentheses are confusing, leaving readers to wonder the origins of the quotations, e.g., "stele and statue as one unity" [139], etc.
• Need more notes to cite the sources, e.g., “Since Eastern Han, tomb stele commissioners 186 have been using such displays to publicly demonstrate their close emotional ties and social connections with the deceased.” [186-188] etc.
• “King of the North Sea“：元祥Prince Beihai 北海王 and Yuan Xiang, make it clear that these are the same person in the first mention. In general, “Wang” is translated as Prince instead of King.
• “Clear Gentlemen”: provide the Chinese (Qingshi 清士?) and provide a better translation as “clear gentlemen” doesn’t make any sense.
• Beginning a paragraph with “Case 7).”, etc.: not appropriate.
• etc.

 

The language needs to be further polished with the help of a professional English editor to proofread the entire manuscript.

Author Response

(All changes in my manuscript are highlighted in yellow.)

Comment1: The manuscript can be improved and strengthened by a clearly articulated thesis based on these observations and stated in the introduction. The following sections should then be organized accordingly.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. Therefore, I have rewritten my abstract in page 1, the last part of the introduction from line 46 to line 54, and the conclusion between page 25 and page 26. In doing so, the paper shows a more clear structure and the discussion becomes more focused.

Comment 2: The title of the article, “image-stele interplay,” suggests a focus on analyzing the relationships between the statue and the stele, while the subsequent texts discuss also the locations of the carvings within the caves, etc. An adjustment of the title to be more tuned to the main discussions and central thesis, e.g. about rituals, would be beneficial.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. The title now becomes: “Space, Patronage, and Ritual Art: Steles in the Guyang Cave (Late 5th–Early 6th Century).” As mentioned in my response 1, I have also chosen a new focus for my argument through rewriting my abstract, introduction and conclusion.

Comment 3: In addition to such major issues, the author/s may want to pay attention to some logical details of the analysis. There are many speculative statements throughout the manuscript, for instance, statements about the intentions of the craftsmen and patrons. Such speculations should be contextualized with more factual support. The argument that the cave carving might be the origin of the “image-making stele” (zaoxiangbei), while citing other scholars, should also be more critically evaluated, even challenged, as they may be representations of actual free-standing steles.

Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. First, I have chosen not to highlight the possible affinities between the Guyang Cave and Image-making steles(zaoxiang bei). For this purpose, in the case of the Huicheng stele, I have eliminated the discussion on how the patrons would like to present “stele and statue as one unity.” I have deleted line 192 to line 206, between page 10 and page 11.

Meanwhile, I have also chosen to foreground the steles themselves instead of giving the patrons too much agency, so as to avoid speculative statements on people’s intentions. For example, in the case of Huicheng’s stele, I deleted the speculated contrast be the elites’ and craftsmen’s conception on reading and viewing. Please see page 14, line 339 to line 344, and line 350 to line 352. In the case of Grand Consort Hou’s stele, I have changed my tone to foreground the stele instead of the patron. Please see page 24 , line 631 to line 641. Minor adjustments of this kind have also been made in the case of Sun Qiusheng’s stele. Please see page 17, from line 413 to line 415.

Comment 4: Dorothy C. Wong’s theory about the Buddhist “image-making stele” may be borrowed from Guyang Cave stand alone as a section while there are more scholarships cited in later discussions. This makes Section 2 extremely short. If it must stand alone, justify its significance.

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I agree with the comment. This issue is also related to your comment 3. Since I have downplayed  the possible affinities between the Guyang Cave and Image-making steles(zaoxiang bei), I no longer emphasize Dorothy Wong’s work on the origins of the image-making stele in the review of scholarship. Instead, I introduced Gong Dazhong’s work on the stylistic connection between the Guyang Cave and the Yungang Grottoes. In the new review, I also included the works by Stanley Abe and Amy McNair as they offered insights on the early construction of the Guyang Cave and the patronage issue. Please see this from line 68 to line 89, from page 2 to page 3. 

 

Comment 5: The long Discussion on Liu Xian epitaph stone should be better integrated into the analysis of Guyang Cave carvings. The discussion is to establish the connection between the Buddhist stele and the Han-Wei tomb epitaph based on the title inscribed in seal script and high-relief. The way this material is presented is distracting as it stands now. Some details may be moved to the notes.

Response 5: I have removed this discussion from line 291 to line 327 between page 13 and page 14.

 

Comment 6: Add Chinese characters to key terms, Guyang, Longmen, Xiaowen, etc.; as well as translations from standard Chinese expressions, "An Image for Duke of Shiping."

Response 6: I have added the Chinese characters to key terms. Please see page 1, and section 3 between page 3 and page 4.

 

Comment 7: Table 1: descriptions are too long to be suitable for charting; summarization and shortening are needed; some information needs to be incorporated into the main texts or notes. Description repeated in Section 4 so no need for long descriptions in the table.

Response 7: I have retracted the long paragraphs from table 1, and integrated the information into the main text. Please see this between line 92 to line 142, from page 3 to page 7.

 

Comment 8: Clarifications: “relatively well-crafted” [103], “sculpted image” [105], “mutual verification of stele and image” [108], “character enlargement” [109], “Statue for the Society Members” [129], etc.

Response 8: I have clarified the terms. Please see page 10, paragraph 1.

 

Comment 9: Some texts in parentheses are confusing, leaving readers to wonder the origins of the quotations, e.g., "stele and statue as one unity" [139], etc.

Response 9: I have eliminated this discussion in page 11, line 203.

 

Comment 10: Need more notes to cite the sources, e.g., “Since Eastern Han, tomb stele commissioners 186 have been using such displays to publicly demonstrate their close emotional ties and social connections with the deceased.” [186-188] etc.

Response 10: I have eliminated the relevant discussion in page 12, line 253. But in section 4.2, where I discuss the Han Dynasty stele frenzy, I have added a note to cite Zhao Chao’s work on pre-modern Chinese stone carvings. See page 18, line 430 and note 21.

 

Comment 11: “King of the North Sea“：元祥Prince Beihai 北海王 and Yuan Xiang, make it clear that these are the same person in the first mention. In general, “Wang” is translated as Prince instead of King.

Response 11: I have supplemented the necessary information to clarify the person’s identity, and adjusted the translation. Please see page 4, line 120.

Comment 12: “Clear Gentlemen”: provide the Chinese (Qingshi 清士?) and provide a better translation as “clear gentlemen” doesn’t make any sense.

Response 12: I have chosen a new translation. Please see page 21, between line 555 and line 556.

 

Comment 13: Beginning a paragraph with “Case 7).”, etc.: not appropriate.

Response 13: Each of these paragraphs now has a new beginning. See: section 4.1 in page 10, section 4.2 in page 16,section 4.3 in page 18, and section 4.4 in page 22.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is significantly improved. Good work! I have a few suggestions to make the article read more pleasantly.

First, if "space" is emphasized by the title and througout the paper, I strongly suggest that it include maps showing the shape and visual contents in the Guyang Cave. The size of the cave and the main buddha statue should be mentioned too. It is also important to know the sizes of each work, if the author wants to prove something is "exceptionally large" (line 602) or deep.

Second, religious art having ritual function is not uncommon, so it is better to specify what the author means by "ritual" in each specific context, especially at the beginning of section 4: commemoration of a deceased figure or a living community? merit accumulation or tranferrence for a wider range of sencient beings? or the real ritual--vegeterian feast and ceremonial perade?

Third, the author should explain in what sense each case study represent the group and in what sense they are unique. For instance, the perade scene in the 498 niche (fig. 5) is a unique scene, so why the author chose to focus on it and to what extent it could speak for Group 2?

Fourth, the distinction between "a writing surface" and "a relief image" does not seem clear when they were mentioned in lines 274-275. The author might want to introduce their theory about reading or viewing a stele earlier than the current version.

Lastly, I don't understand why the titles for subsections 4.1-4.4 have brackets, and they seem to me only capture a part of the formal features but not reflective of the arguments about patronage and space.

Author Response

Comment 1: First, if "space" is emphasized by the title and througout the paper, I strongly suggest that it include maps showing the shape and visual contents in the Guyang Cave. The size of the cave and the main buddha statue should be mentioned too. It is also important to know the sizes of each work, if the author wants to prove something is "exceptionally large" (line 602) or deep.

--Response 1: Thank you for pointing these out. I agree with the comments. Therefore, I have included all the maps. See figures 1-4. I have also added the dimensions of the cave and main statue. Please see lines 32-34. I explain the size of the large characters in two aspects. First, this issue is initially mentioned by Stanley Abe. This time, I cite Abe’s contribution in full text. Please see citation 32(lines 622-625). Second, previously I have compared the year-502 Grand Consort Hou stele’s inscription to that by Sun Qiusheng. In the comparison, within one stele, Grand Consort Hou can write only two sentences, but Sun Qiusheng included a name list of more than 200 persons. This shows how much larger the characters by Grand Consort Hou are. Please see lines 655-656, page 25. This time, to make things more clear, I added another comparison. The second comparison is between the steles by Grand Consort Hou and Yin Aijiang. Even though Yin Aijiang’s stele is much smaller in size, it also gives a name list of twenty-one people, and the number of character is almost five times that of the Grand Consort Hou’s stele. I believe with the new data added, the contrast is sharp. Please see lines 656-659, page 25.

 

 

Comment 2: religious art having ritual function is not uncommon, so it is better to specify what the author means by "ritual" in each specific context, especially at the beginning of section 4: commemoration of a deceased figure or a living community? merit accumulation or tranferrence for a wider range of sencient beings? or the real ritual--vegeterian feast and ceremonial perade?

--Response 2: Thanks you so much for pointing this out. Your suggestions summarize the essence of my cases. I put them in my own words and added a few paragraphs at the beginning of the section 4. Please see lines 215- 237, pages 12-13.

 

Comment 3: the author should explain in what sense each case study represent the group and in what sense they are unique. For instance, the perade scene in the 498 niche (fig. 5) is a unique scene, so why the author chose to focus on it and to what extent it could speak for Group 2?

--Response 3: Thank you for pointing this out. I add the explanation how each case represents their respective group in the beginning of section 4. Please see lines 194-208, pages 11-12.

 

Comment 4: the distinction between "a writing surface" and "a relief image" does not seem clear when they were mentioned in lines 274-275. The author might want to introduce their theory about reading or viewing a stele earlier than the current version.

--Response 4: Thank you for the comment and I believe it is in two parts. The first part is about the distinction between “writing surface” and “a relief image” from the maker’s point of view. The second part is about the “viewing” and “reading ” experience from the view of the reception side. In light of this, my study of Huicheng's stele establishes a productive dialogue with Professor Wu Hung's seminal work on the “transparent stone pillars” along thel spirit paths of Southern Dynasties imperial burials. These two cases—roughly contemporaneous in date and both engaging with stone inscription practices—reveal complementary dimensions of material semiotics in medieval Chinese art. Wu Hung's theoretical framework demonstrates how craftsmen conceptualized the stone pillars through dual perceptual modes: as two-dimensional surfaces for textual display, and as three-dimensional volumes whose materiality could be conceptually "erased" to achieve transparency. This intentional material ambiguity created distinct viewing conditions: For living viewers, the reversed characters deliberately undermined readability; For the deceased, the stone's conceptual transparency ensured visibility of the inscriptions. My analysis of Huicheng's stele extends this dialectic by examining how: the high-relief treatment similarly negotiates between two-dimensional legibility and three-dimensional presence. This comparison reveals how both elite mortuary and Buddhist devotional contexts employed stone's material qualities to mediate between: surface/depth, legibility/embodiment, human/divine perception. The parallel demonstrates that Northern and Southern Dynasties Chinese artisans across different contexts shared sophisticated approaches to stone's semiotic potential. So I cited Wu Hung’s article. See citation [21], line 294, page 14.

 

Comment 5: I don't understand why the titles for subsections 4.1-4.4 have brackets, and they seem to me only capture a part of the formal features but not reflective of the arguments about patronage and space.

--Response 5: I have modified and elaborated on the titles. Please see line 240, page 13; line 378, page 17; line 437, page 18; and line 599, page 24.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is much improved. Some editing will make it ready to be published. Thanks.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for the excellent revisions. 

Author Response

Thank you so much! Attached here is my thoroughly edited manuscript.