Tiles (Azulejos) and Tiling Mosaic (Alicatados) Pieces Within the Alhambra Museum Collections: A Historical, Artistic, and Technical Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

Congratulations on your paper entitled "Tiles (azulejos) and tiling mosaic (alicatados) pieces within the Alhambra Museum collections: A Historical, Artistic and Technical Approach." The manuscript is presented in a well-organized and easy-to-read format. Throughout the paper, various examples filled with important references are provided to cultivate a comprehensive understanding of the use of decorated ceramics for archaeological decoration. I personally appreciate the classification offered, considering history, decorative motifs, and the reference to specific terms primarily derived from Spanish and Portuguese backgrounds. The paper can be regarded as a useful and comprehensive guide for researchers at early stages, as well as for those already working in the field who may need additional references. The English is enjoyable.

Author Response

Article

Tiles (azulejos) and tiling mosaic (alicatados) pieces within the Alhambra Museum collections: A Historical, artistic and technical approach

HERITAGE MDPI JOURNAL – Response to Reviewers Comments

REVIEWER 1:

 

1. Summary

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

 2. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer's Comment 1: Dear Author, Congratulations on your paper entitled "Tiles (azulejos) and tiling mosaic (alicatados) pieces within the Alhambra Museum collections: A Historical, Artistic and Technical Approach." The manuscript is presented in a well-organized and easy-to-read format. Throughout the paper, various examples filled with important references are provided to cultivate a comprehensive understanding of the use of decorated ceramics for archaeological decoration. I personally appreciate the classification offered, considering history, decorative motifs, and the reference to specific terms primarily derived from Spanish and Portuguese backgrounds. The paper can be regarded as a useful and comprehensive guide for researchers at early stages, as well as for those already working in the field who may need additional references. The English is enjoyable.

Author's Response 1: I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for the constructive and encouraging feedback provided on this manuscript. The reviewer's assessment of the article's structure, scholarly contribution, and the clarity of the English language is greatly appreciated. The reviewer's acknowledgement of the classificatory framework and the historical and artistic contextualisation derived from Spanish and Portuguese ceramic traditions is also appreciated. It is gratifying to ascertain that the manuscript may serve as a useful reference both for early-stage researchers and for professionals engaged in architectural ceramics conservation and heritage studies.

In the absence of any requests for modifications or additional clarifications, no changes have been made to the text in response to this comment. However, I remain open to any further suggestions that the editorial team might deem necessary.

 

Submission Date

28 May 2025

Date of this review

09 Jun 2025 18:13:49

Date of this response

14 Jun 2025 17:30:00

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript describes the historical, artistic and technical significance of tiles preserved in the Alhambra Museum. The author uses visual analysis, documentary research and typological classification. Different technological uses are considered to explore the possibility of tracing their origins.

The article is well written and structured. Very well documented and with useful references.  In general, it is suitable to be published in the 'Architectural Heritage' section of Heritage journal, and constitutes a valuable contribution to the field.

The manuscript meets the standards of the journal in terms of originality, scientific rigor, methodology, and relevance to the scope of the journal. The objectives are clearly stated, and the conclusions are well supported by the data and discussion presented.

I have no major concerns regarding the content, structure, or presentation of the manuscript. Minor language issues, if any, do not hinder comprehension and can be addressed during the copyediting process.

Just a comment regarding the first paragraph of the introduction,  reference 1 refers to a collection of works dating from before the start of the 21st century, so it would be more precise to use “the late 20th-century “ instead of “ the beginning of the 21st century”.

Author Response

Article

Tiles (azulejos) and tiling mosaic (alicatados) pieces within the Alhambra Museum

collections: A Historical, artistic and technical approach

 

HERITAGE MDPI JOURNAL – Response to Reviewers Comments

 

REVIEWER 2:

 

1. Summary

 

 

Open Review

 

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

2. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer's Comment 1: The manuscript describes the historical, artistic and technical significance of tiles preserved in the Alhambra Museum. The author uses visual analysis, documentary research and typological classification. Different technological uses are considered to explore the possibility of tracing their origins.

Author's Response 1: I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewer 2 for the positive assessment of the manuscript's methodological approach and thematic scope. The reviewer's assessment of the article's integration of visual analysis, documentary research and typological classification is of significant value, as is the emphasis placed on technological aspects to trace historical origins.

Reviewer's Comment 2: The article is well written and structured. Very well documented and with useful references.  In general, it is suitable to be published in the 'Architectural Heritage' section of Heritage journal, and constitutes a valuable contribution to the field.

Author's Response 2: I sincerely thank reviewer 2 for this positive evaluation of the manuscript's writing quality, structure, and documentation. I am especially appreciative of the encouraging remark regarding its relevance for the Architectural Heritage section and its contribution to the field.

Reviewer's Comment 3: The manuscript meets the standards of the journal in terms of originality, scientific rigor, methodology, and relevance to the scope of the journal. The objectives are clearly stated, and the conclusions are well supported by the data and discussion presented.

Author's Response 3: I would like to express my gratitude to the reviewer 2 for this comprehensive evaluation of the manuscript's originality, methodological robustness, and relevance to the journal's scope. The emphasis on the clarity of the objectives and the strength of the conclusions in relation to the evidence presented is particularly appreciated.

Reviewer's Comment 4: I have no major concerns regarding the content, structure, or presentation of the manuscript. Minor language issues, if any, do not hinder comprehension and can be addressed during the copyediting process.

Author's Response 4: I thank the reviewer for this reassuring feedback regarding the overall content, structure, and presentation of the manuscript. I also appreciate the acknowledgement that any minor linguistic issues do not affect comprehension and may be addressed during the journal’s copyediting stage. Accordingly, no changes have been made at this stage in response to this comment.

Reviewer's Comment 5: Just a comment regarding the first paragraph of the introduction, reference 1 refers to a collection of works dating from before the start of the 21st century, so it would be more precise to use “the late 20th-century“ instead of “the beginning of the 21st century”.

Author's Response 5: I acknowledge the reviewer's precise and constructive observation regarding the temporal framing in the opening paragraph of the introduction. The recommendation is hereby accepted.  Consequently, the phrase "the beginning of the 21st century" has been revised to "the late 20th century" in the manuscript to ensure greater historical accuracy.

 

Submission Date

28 May 2025

Date of this review

09 Jun 2025 22:10:56

Date of this response

14 Jun 2025 17:30:00

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper intitled: “Tiles (azulejos) and tiling mosaic (alicatados) pieces within the Alhambra Museum collections: A Historical, artistic and technical approach”, is objectively a very valuable and informative paper. It allows us to know  the collection of the Alhambra Museum and the characteristics of all the ceramics. I must admit, however, that reading the text is very heavy. The list of pieces and description are very detailed.

Furthermore, I find that the whole chapter 3.8 is  very useful, but I suggest to put it first,  after paragraph 1.2.

I suggest putting more summary tables for each typology and, if possible, images of the structures mentioned where the different typologies of tiles are found (for example, Ishtar Gate, Gate of Justice, etc. to give just one example, but there are many others). This would make the structure less heavy. Besides it would be necessary to better distinguish the historical part, very interesting, from the museum's cataloguing.

I repeat, the paper is beautiful and useful, but it needs to be made more readable.

Besides, in the conclusion, you should add that after the cataloguing must be followed a characterisation, as you indicated in the abstract.

Author Response

Article

Tiles (azulejos) and tiling mosaic (alicatados) pieces within the Alhambra Museum

collections: A Historical, artistic and technical approach

 

HERITAGE MDPI JOURNAL – Response to Reviewers Comments

 

REVIEWER 3:

 

1. Summary

 

 

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report 
( ) I would like to sign my review report 

Quality of English Language

( ) The English could be improved to more clearly express the research. 
(x) The English is fine and does not require any improvement. 

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

 

2. Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer's Comment 1: The paper intitled: “Tiles (azulejos) and tiling mosaic (alicatados) pieces within the Alhambra Museum collections: A Historical, artistic and technical approach”, is objectively a very valuable and informative paper. It allows us to know the collection of the Alhambra Museum and the characteristics of all the ceramics. I must admit, however, that reading the text is very heavy. The list of pieces and description are very detailed.

Author's Response 1: I would like to thank the reviewer 3 sincerely for this positive appraisal of the manuscript, and for acknowledging its scholarly contribution to the documentation and analysis of the Alhambra Museum's ceramic collections. I also appreciate the observation regarding the density of the text and the level of detail presented, particularly in the listing and description of artefacts. The comprehensive character of the descriptions was a deliberate choice, intended to provide a rigorous academic reference point for future research and comparative studies, especially since much of the collection is inaccessible to the public and scholarly community. Ultimately, I acknowledge the importance of readability and narrative flow, and I will take this constructive remark into careful consideration for future publications, particularly when adapting similar content for broader audiences or more thematically focused studies.

Reviewer's Comment 2: Furthermore, I find that the whole chapter 3.8 is very useful, but I suggest to put it first, after paragraph 1.2.

Author's Response 2: I am grateful to the reviewer 3 for highlighting the relevance of section 3.8 and for considering it a particularly useful contribution within the manuscript. I fully understand the intention behind the suggestion to reposition this section earlier in the text, specifically after paragraph 1.2, in order to potentially foreground certain typological and terminological clarifications. However, after careful consideration, I believe that implementing this structural change would compromise the internal coherence and intended methodological progression of the article. Section 3.8 was deliberately positioned at the end of the Results and Discussion chapter, as it synthesises the preceding detailed analyses (sections 3.1 to 3.7) and provides the reader with a broader typological and interpretative framework only after the full spectrum of decorative techniques and materials has been explored. Placing section 3.8 directly after paragraph 1.2 would introduce a high level of technical and classificatory information at a very early stage—before the reader has been gradually familiarised with the diversity of ceramic artefacts, their manufacturing techniques, and their historical context. In my view, such a shift would disrupt the article's logical flow and obscure the didactic progression that underpins its structure: from contextual and methodological background (Chapters 1 and 2), through detailed descriptive analysis (Chapter 3), culminating in the typological systematisation provided in section 3.8. Additionally, given that the primary aim of the article is to propose a methodologically grounded characterisation of the collection based on documentary examination, the typological synthesis in section 3.8 is intended as a conclusion to the analytical discourse—not as a preliminary overview. Moving it forward would risk presenting the findings prematurely, before the data and discussions that support them have been sufficiently developed.

For these reasons, I have chosen to retain the current structure, which reflects the article's analytical logic and academic intent. Nonetheless, I remain open to further editorial advice should the editorial board consider additional reordering necessary for the clarity or accessibility of the manuscript.

Reviewer's Comment 3: I suggest putting more summary tables for each typology and, if possible, images of the structures mentioned where the different typologies of tiles are found (for example, Ishtar Gate, Gate of Justice, etc. to give just one example, but there are many others). This would make the structure less heavy. Besides it would be necessary to better distinguish the historical part, very interesting, from the museum's cataloguing.

Author's Response 3:  I sincerely thank the reviewer 3 for these thoughtful and detailed suggestions aimed at enhancing the manuscript's visual structure and interpretative clarity. I truly appreciate the intention behind the proposals, particularly the aim of alleviating the density of the content and improving reader accessibility through the inclusion of further visual and tabular aids. After careful consideration, however, I have opted not to incorporate the proposed modifications for the reasons outlined below.

• Summary tables for each typology

While I recognise that summary tables can serve as valuable didactic tools, I have intentionally chosen to retain a narrative, descriptive format for each typological section. This decision was based on the nature of the primary material examined—namely, museum artefacts of high variability in terms of technique, state of preservation, provenance, and other attributions. These categories are not easily reducible to fixed, uniform parameters suitable for tabular representation without significant loss of nuance. Furthermore, each typological subsection (Sections 3.1 to 3.7) is already structured to follow a consistent internal logic, combining historical contextualisation, technical analysis, and representative examples. Introducing tables might risk fragmenting the analytical discourse and oversimplifying complex observations that rely on material, visual, and interpretive subtleties.

• Images of architectural structures mentioned (e.g., Ishtar Gate, Gate of Justice, etc.)

While I agree that including photographs or diagrams of referenced architectural contexts (particularly extraneous to the Alhambra) might assist general comprehension, this manuscript has been deliberately conceived as a focused study centred on the Alhambra Museum's ceramic holdings. The historical references to structures such as the Ishtar Gate, Qasba Mosque, or palaces in Samarra, are introduced as comparative examples intended to situate the Alhambra's material production within a broader cross-cultural and diachronic framework. Including images of all these comparative structures, many of which lie beyond the Iberian Peninsula and the Nasrid context, would require extensive illustrative permissions and significantly expand the visual and editorial scope of the manuscript. In addition, doing so might divert the focus from the primary objective: the material and technical study of the Alhambra's preserved ceramic corpus. Regarding the Gate of Justice and other internal references within the Alhambra, the manuscript already incorporates photographic documentation of representative objects linked to such structures (e.g., relief tiles, lustre fragments), all of which are directly referenced in figures and captions. My approach was to privilege images of the museum-held artefacts rather than the architectural sites, given that the study's locus is the museum collection, not an in situ architectural survey.

• Distinguishing more clearly between historical content and museum catalogue data

I fully understand and appreciate the suggestion to more clearly demarcate the historical discussion from the catalogue-based presentation. However, the integrated structure adopted in the manuscript was a deliberate methodological decision. The aim was to provide a diachronic reading of each typology that simultaneously reconstructs its historical evolution while tracing how those typologies are represented and preserved within the Alhambra Museum's collection. A strict separation between historical context and catalogue description would risk creating an artificial division between the objects' material reality and their historical-artistic significance. In many cases, particularly with regard to Nasrid and post-conquest reinterpretations, the meaning of the objects is inextricably linked to their technical attributes and provenance. This integrative approach aligns with contemporary material culture methodologies in heritage studies, where artefacts, despite being decontextualised from their original environment, can be reintegrated and interpreted as integral parts of the heritage system through their historical, artistic, and cultural values.

For these reasons, I have respectfully chosen to retain the current structure and focus of the manuscript. Nonetheless, I remain entirely open to further guidance from the editorial board should adjustments be required for publication.

Reviewer's Comment 4: I repeat, the paper is beautiful and useful, but it needs to be made more readable. Besides, in the conclusion, you should add that after the cataloguing must be followed a characterisation, as you indicated in the abstract.

Author's Response 4:  I am sincerely grateful to the reviewer 3 for the generous words regarding the scholarly and aesthetic value of the manuscript, and for the constructive encouragement to enhance its overall readability. I fully acknowledge the importance of maintaining narrative clarity, especially when dealing with a corpus of such technical and historical complexity, and I will remain mindful of this consideration in the development of future publications.

I would also like to thank the reviewer for the valuable observation regarding the need to reiterate, in the conclusion, that the cataloguing presented in the manuscript is intended as a preliminary phase towards material characterisation. Indeed, while this step was stated in the abstract, I inadvertently omitted explicit reference to it in the concluding section. In response to the reviewer's comment, I have now amended the conclusion to include this point, thus reinforcing the methodological continuity of the study and aligning the final remarks more precisely with the objectives outlined throughout the article.

 

Submission Date

28 May 2025

Date of this review

10 Jun 2025 12:07:58

Date of this response

14 Jun 2025 17:30:00

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf