Traces of Ancient Turkish Belief Systems in Kazakh: The Example of ‘Baksı’
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
I would like to thank you for your efforts on your valuable work in which you made a considerable contribution to the field. It would be my pleasure to state that the article is well written and easy to understand. Besides, the organisation of the article is satisfying in terms of its components and sections: introduction part begins with focus questions to figure out the representations of “baksı” in historical, linguistic and cultural contexts; provides information about methods and resources used and finally claims that the aim of the study is to shed light to Kazak cultural identity. Definitions of the word in Kazak, its historical development, the usage in historical Turkic dialects such as Old Uyghur, Kipchak and Chagatai as well as examples in Kazakh culture from proverbs, idioms, epics and fairy tales and finally the importance as an ethno-cultural concept functioning as a healer, a spiritual guide and a fortune-teller could be found at the following sections. As a conclusion, it is stated that with these elements listed above, baksı is a bridge between the past and the future in Kazakh culture that shapes the identity of Kazakh people and the way they perceive the world.
Although the article is well developed as figured out above, it would benefit from some highlights.
Initially, the usage of pronoun “he” mentioning baksı is conspicuous in the article. As it was argued many times in the related literature, the transgression of boundaries by shaman in the form of wearing clothing specific to the opposite sex, expresses the symbolic intertwining of boundaries between genders in many societies. Therefore, male pronoun creates some main questions in the readers’ mind: is baksı always a male person in Kazak culture? The article mentions colorful clothes or in a way that reminds of an animal for instance a deer, but are there any examples baksı wearing like the opposite sex in Kazakh culture? The issue of gender of baksı need to be clarified in the study.
Secondly, as it is stated in the article that baksı has an important place in Kazakh culture but it is also valid in other ancient and contemporary belief systems which makes it a subject of ethnology and social anthropology. The study needs to be improved in terms of references on shamanism including literature especially in the field of ethnology and social anthropology, which helps to recognize the close connections between baksı in Kazak culture and shamanic design in general.
Lastly, it is mentioned in the conclusion that the concept of baksı is not only a historical heritage in Kazakh culture but also a dynamic cultural practice that continues to have an impact today. Is that impact continues to live only in oral cultural memory or are there living human treasures in terms of UNESCO programme referring talented tradition bearers and practitioners? In other words, are there any living baksı in Kazak society today? If so, being able to see some photographs and include interviews with a living baksı strengthens the sense of cultural continuity.
As a conclusion, it could be stated that the methodology clearly explained, the theory is connected to the data and the results are persuasive in the study. I would like to thank in advance with the idea that these constructive suggestions will make the article stronger.
Author Response
I would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of my manuscript. I have carefully considered all of the suggestions and tried to incorporate the necessary revisions to the best of my ability. Some sections have been substantially expanded and reorganized. Please kindly find the revised version of the manuscript attached for your review.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author/s,
This article examines the concept of “Bakhshi (baḫši)” in depth, starting with its etymological origins and continuing with its use in historical Turkic dialects, its multi-layered reflections in Kazakh folk culture, and its religious and cultural transformation. Combining philological and ethnographic data, this interdisciplinary study analyzes the symbolic and functional dimensions of the Bakhshi figure in Kazakh society. The contribution of this study to the literature is original and noteworthy in that it shows how the concept of Bakhshi has evolved not only historically but also as a living cultural element.
The author has thoroughly examined the semantic variation, etymology, and cultural functions of the word “Bakhshi” from historical Turkish dialects to contemporary Turkish dialects. However, the presentation of the study is largely based on literature review, and the author should present his/her own interpretation more clearly in the relevant sections.
The abstract section of the article presents a broad approach to Bakhshi from etymological, cultural, and religious perspectives. However, when reading the abstract section, the following questions should also be answered briefly:
- What questions does this article seek to answer?
- What research method is used in this article?
Introduction
The author presents a comprehensive historical framework for the subject. However, this section contains some shortcomings in an academic context.
The historical background, historical transformation, and conceptual explanations in the introduction section are not supported by any academic sources. References to scientific sources should be provided. Failure to cite scientific sources gives the impression of generalization.
Furthermore, the introduction section does not clearly state the place of the study within existing literature. The author should refer to academic studies conducted on the subject to date; clearly state which approaches have come to the fore, which gap in the literature this study aims to fill, and what its original contribution is.
The introduction section of the study occasionally includes methodological explanations. These explanations should be presented systematically in a separate methodology section. It is recommended that the method section be structured independently of the introduction section.
The study should clearly state the belief system on which the examined bakhshi figure is based - Shamanism, Animism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, or a different system.
The article does not sufficiently address the gender dimension of the bakhshi figure; analyzing data on the existence of female bakhshis could add an important dimension to the study.
The fourth chapter presents numerous examples from the Old Uyghur Turkic, Kipchak Turkic, and Chagatai Turkic periods. The examples presented in this section are valuable, but they could be enriched by analyzing the social and cultural changes of the word bakhshi with concrete examples and their reasons.
The fifth chapter is an original and valuable study that broadly examines the semantic transformation of the word “bakhshi” in the context of Kazakh folk narratives through examples such as epics, fairy tales, proverbs, and idioms.
Comparing the variations in meaning of the word “bakhshi” (scholar, teacher, shaman, otaçı-physician, scribe, minstrel, religious guide, etc.) in different periods, different geographical areas, and various Turkish dialects is a valuable example of an approach to semantic change. However, the extent to which the figure of the bakhshi is alive today in modern Kazakh society, and whether it is a folkloric or living figure, needs to be clarified more clearly.
Author Response
I would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to improving the quality of my manuscript. I have carefully considered all of the suggestions and tried to incorporate the necessary revisions to the best of my ability. Some sections have been substantially expanded and reorganized. Please kindly find the revised version of the manuscript attached for your review.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
Although it was stated in your response that the arrangements I suggested had been made, it could easily seen that you only two paragraphs added under the methodology subtitle. The paper still needs to be improved in terms of anthropological and ethnographic views. The study successfully demonstrates the practice of baksı in Kazakh culture, but it falls short of explaining its relationship to the shamanic belief system and its role as part of a larger world. While this requires reading previous anthropological studies, the lack of any of these in the references section demonstrates the study's limitations. For this reason, I must regretfully state that it is not appropriate to publish the study in its current form.
Thank you again for your efforts, and please resubmit your work after making the necessary adjustments.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I would like to sincerely thank you for your valuable time, careful evaluation, and constructive comments on my manuscript. Your detailed feedback has been extremely helpful in identifying the areas that needed improvement.
I have carefully and diligently revised the manuscript in line with your suggestions to the best of my ability. I truly appreciate your guidance, which has significantly contributed to enhancing the quality and clarity of my work.
Thank you once again for your efforts and valuable contribution.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsMethodology:
The author(s)' addition of an independent methods section is an appropriate and sufficient revision.
Abstract:
The revisions in this section are insufficient. The purpose/context of the study, method(s), main findings, and conclusion/contribution should be clearly stated. The abstract does not meet the structure and content requirements specified in MDPI's “Instructions for Authors” (purpose/context–method–results–conclusion). (See MDPI Genealogy, Instructions for Authors):
“Abstract: The abstract should be a total of about 200 words maximum. The abstract should be a single paragraph and should follow the style of structured abstracts, but without headings: 1) Background: Place the question addressed in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study; 2) Methods: Describe briefly the main methods or treatments applied. Include any relevant preregistration numbers, and species and strains of any animals used; 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations. The abstract should be an objective representation of the article: it must not contain results which are not presented and substantiated in the main text and should not exaggerate the main conclusions.”
(https://www.mdpi.com/journal/genealogy/instructions#manuscript)
Introduction:
The revisions in this section are insufficient.
The introduction does not summarize the current state of the literature, does not systematically cite key studies, and fails to establish a clear connection between the study and the literature.
If this work is a research article, references to primary publications should be provided in the “Introduction” section. (See MDPI Genealogy, Instructions for Authors):
"Introduction: The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper."
(https://www.mdpi.com/journal/genealogy/instructions#manuscript)
Gender dimension:
The positioning of the Bakhshi figure according to gender, especially the place of female Bakhshis in tradition, has not yet been established as an analytical axis in the current version. Furthermore, in this context, conceptual definitions, historical/ethnographic evidence, and comparative examples have not been addressed in a comprehensive manner.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your valuable report and constructive suggestions, which significantly enhance the quality and scope of our study. Your detailed comments have been very helpful, and we have carefully revised the manuscript in line with your recommendations to the best of our ability. Regarding your important observation on the gender dimension, we fully agree that the positioning of the Bakhshi figure according to gender—especially the place of female Bakhshis in tradition—represents a crucial analytical axis that deserves systematic attention. However, due to the conceptual, historical/ethnographic, and comparative breadth that such an investigation requires, we were not able to incorporate it comprehensively within the scope of the current article. We would like to emphasize that this limitation is not due to a lack of importance but rather to the fact that the gender aspect of Bakhshihood is significant enough to warrant a separate, in-depth study. Indeed, I am already planning a forthcoming article that will specifically focus on the concept of gender in Bakhshi traditions, where I will provide detailed conceptual definitions, historical and ethnographic evidence, and comparative examples across Central Asian contexts. For the present article, our main objective has been to trace and analyze the broader historical, cultural, and linguistic aspects of the Bakhshi figure. We believe that by treating the gender dimension in a dedicated future study, we can do full justice to this important subject without diluting the primary focus of the current work. We are grateful for your insightful remarks and are confident that our planned future work on this theme will build directly upon the foundations laid in the present article.
Sincerely,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author,
It appears that you have improved your article by taking into account most of the suggestions. I thank you for your patience, effort, and dedication throughout this process and wish you the best in your endeavors.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your kind words and thoughtful evaluation. I truly appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to reviewing my work. Your constructive feedback and valuable suggestions have significantly contributed to improving the quality of my article.
It has been a great opportunity for me to learn and refine my study through this process, and I am sincerely grateful for your guidance and encouragement.
With kind regards and best wishes,
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author's revisions to the abstract, introduction, and methodology sections at the end of the second round are appropriate and sufficient. I would like to emphasize that I particularly appreciate the author's efforts to enhance the overall quality of the work.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
I am truly grateful for your kind assessment and encouraging words. It is very rewarding to know that the revisions to the abstract, introduction, and methodology sections have met your expectations.
Your constructive comments throughout the review process have been invaluable in helping me improve the overall quality of the article. Thank you sincerely for your support and appreciation.
With best regards,
