Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article “Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model” is an interesting paper. It is well-structured and well-written. I am not sure it fits well in the Special Issue, but I think it presents nice and well-conducted research that presents a different perspective on the topic.

In general, I found that certain parts of the article are slightly repetitive and could be summarised a bit more so I encourage the authors to re-read it with an intention to limit repetition and be a bit more concise in some parts.

Also, I think the article would benefit from some illustrations. Maybe some images/photos of textiles or workshops as well as a scheme where the trajectories, bifurcation points and equifinality points can be summarised visually in a drawing or a graph.

The introduction is interesting and places the research into gaps that are indeed real in this research field. However, the introduction needs a better description of the trajectory equifinality model (TEM) so the reader can understand it better from the beginning.

Line 141: the acronym BFPs has not been explained.

There is a problem with the use of plant-derived dyes and the introduction of lac insect dye. Since this is not a plant, I suggest using “natural dyes” throughout the manuscript, without specifying the plant or animal origin.

In Table 1 the participants are described according to “weaving experience”. Does this always include dyeing as well? If so, this should be specified.

The dye plants are sometimes described with scientific names (Indigofera tinctoria) and sometimes with common name. This should be unified and probably both scientific and common names should be used.

Also, the labels used in the TEM mapping column have not been explained, so they are difficult to understand when first encountered in the manuscript.

Table 3: Mulberry silk, Eri silk, Tussar silk and Muga silk should be described with their scientific names as well. Are these different plants? Or different insects?

Why are only deep burgundy, violet/purple and rust-orange mentioned as colours?

In the answers, chemicals are often mentioned. Although these seem not to be used at the moment, it sounds like there is knowledge around them and this implies that they were probably used at some point. This represents a lacuna in the study, as it sounds like there was a phase when things were not all natural. Any additional insight on this?

Also, costumers are mentioned. But who are the customers? Are these all small-scale productions? And how does the situation change when the scale of production needs to increase?

Line 470: the term feedstock is used here but never used before. Is this related to the land? Please, clarify.

The “potential limitations” paragraph is very nice. One missing point in my opinion is the one that is usually raised against these types of works. What is the actual market for these textiles? Would natural dyes and silk textiles really be sustainable in the event of having to serve a global mass market? I understand that this might fall beyond the scope of this, but it is important to possibly reiterate this aspect and the fact that taking these systems as models for textile production is unfortunately not often easy.

In the “future research” paragraph, I think it might be wort mentioning that dye analysis could also be a useful tool to integrate. Artisans often have old textiles made by their grandparents or great-grandparents, but they don’t know exactly how they were dyed. This information can be reconstructed by chemical analysis and sometimes surprising results are obtained.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript entitled “Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model.” We are grateful for you spending your valuable time on reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. The authors have carefully reviewed the comments and put in a lot of effort to address them in a step-by-step manner as shown below. Changes to the manuscript are marked in tracked changes.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

The author

====================================

REVIEWERS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR THE AUTHOR:

 

Response to Reviewer #1

General comment 1:

The article “Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model” is an interesting paper. It is well-structured and well-written. I am not sure it fits well in the Special Issue, but I think it presents nice and well-conducted research that presents a different perspective on the topic.

General response 1:

We thank the reviewer for recognising the paper’s structure and contribution. We acknowledge the concern regarding alignment with the Special Issue and take this opportunity to clarify its relevance to the thematic scope. We deliberately framed the study to extend the discussion by integrating cultural heritage perspectives into textile innovation. This framing complements the issue’s focus through a distinct yet connected lens.

 

General comment 2:

Also, I think the article would benefit from some illustrations. Maybe some images/photos of textiles or workshops as well as a scheme where the trajectories, bifurcation points and equifinality points can be summarised visually in a drawing or a graph.

General response 2:

We appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestion to include visual materials. In response, we incorporated Figures 1–6 into the main text and added Figures B1–5 in the appendix. These figures depict plant-dyed silk textiles and schematically represent the trajectories, bifurcation points, and equifinality points. Their inclusion strengthens clarity and accessibility by providing supporting evidence.

 

Point 1:

The introduction is interesting and places the research into gaps that are indeed real in this research field. However, the introduction needs a better description of the trajectory equifinality model (TEM) so the reader can understand it better from the beginning.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need for a clearer description of the trajectory equifinality model. We expanded this section in lines 78–118, pages 2–3, to provide a fuller explanation that strengthens readers’ understanding from the outset. We trust this revision addresses the concern and enhances the accessibility of the framework.

 

Point 2:

Line 141: the acronym BFPs has not been explained.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for noting the omission. We have explained the acronym BFPs at its first occurrence. This clarification enhances consistency and improves readability throughout the paper.

 

Point 3:

There is a problem with the use of plant-derived dyes and the introduction of lac insect dye. Since this is not a plant, I suggest using “natural dyes” throughout the manuscript, without specifying the plant or animal origin.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestion. We have revised the manuscript to employ the term natural dyes consistently throughout.

 

Point 4:

In Table 1 the participants are described according to “weaving experience”. Does this always include dyeing as well? If so, this should be specified.

Response 4:

We thank the reviewer for requesting this clarification. In the revised manuscript, we specified that weaving experience includes dyeing experience. This clarification ensures accuracy and removes potential ambiguity in Table 1.

 

Point 5:

The dye plants are sometimes described with scientific names (Indigofera tinctoria) and sometimes with common name. This should be unified and probably both scientific and common names should be used.

Response 5:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the inconsistency. We revised the manuscript to present dye plants consistently with both scientific and common names. This revision ensures clarity and standardisation across the text (e.g., Indigofera tinctoria).

 

Point 6:

Also, the labels used in the TEM mapping column have not been explained, so they are difficult to understand when first encountered in the manuscript.

Response 6:

We thank the reviewer for noting the lack of explanation. We revised Table 3 to define the labels in the TEM mapping column by presenting the themes, categories, coding framework, and their meanings. This revision enhances clarity and strengthens reader comprehension.

 

Point 7:

Table 3: Mulberry silk, Eri silk, Tussar silk and Muga silk should be described with their scientific names as well. Are these different plants? Or different insects?

Response 7:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. We revised Table 3 to include the scientific names of the silk varieties: Mulberry silk (Bombyx mori), Eri silk (Samia ricini), Tussar silk (Antheraea mylitta), and Muga silk (Antheraea assamensis). This clarification ensures taxonomic accuracy and enhances reader understanding.

 

Point 8:

Why are only deep burgundy, violet/purple and rust-orange mentioned as colours?

Response 8:

We thank the reviewer for raising this point. We revised Table 3 to present the full range of colours rather than restricting it to deep burgundy, violet/purple, and rust-orange. This revision provides a more accurate representation of the data.

 

Point 9:

In the answers, chemicals are often mentioned. Although these seem not to be used at the moment, it sounds like there is knowledge around them and this implies that they were probably used at some point. This represents a lacuna in the study, as it sounds like there was a phase when things were not all natural. Any additional insight on this?

Response 9:

We thank the reviewer for this perceptive observation. In the revised manuscript, we expanded the discussion to acknowledge the historical use of chemicals alongside natural dyes. We clarified that while current practices rely on natural dyes, some respondents indicated prior awareness or use of chemical dyes. This addition addresses the identified lacuna and provides a more complete account of the practice trajectory.

 

Point 10:

Also, costumers are mentioned. But who are the customers? Are these all small-scale productions? And how does the situation change when the scale of production needs to increase?

Response 10:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. In the revised manuscript, we clarified that the customers are primarily small-scale buyers who value cultural heritage and artisanal quality. We also expanded the discussion to consider how scaling up production may alter customer profiles, market demand, and sustainability challenges. This revision strengthens the contextual understanding of production and consumption dynamics.

 

Point 11:

Line 470: the term feedstock is used here but never used before. Is this related to the land? Please, clarify.

Response 11:

We thank the reviewer for noting the unclear use of the term feedstock. In the revised manuscript, we removed the term and clarified the intended meaning. We now explain that, through TEM analysis, BFPs—such as transitions from traditional production to innovative natural silk practices—were interpreted as value-laden acts that reinforced cultural identity, safeguarded intangible cultural heritage, and sustained sericulture production (lines 500–503, page 18). This revision improves clarity and removes potential confusion.

 

Point 12:

The “potential limitations” paragraph is very nice. One missing point in my opinion is the one that is usually raised against these types of works. What is the actual market for these textiles? Would natural dyes and silk textiles really be sustainable in the event of having to serve a global mass market? I understand that this might fall beyond the scope of this, but it is important to possibly reiterate this aspect and the fact that taking these systems as models for textile production is unfortunately not often easy.

Response 12:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised manuscript (lines 597–603, page 20), we expanded the potential limitations paragraph to address the market dimension. We clarified that although natural dyes and silk textiles offer cultural and environmental value, their scalability for global mass markets remains challenging. We emphasised that these systems should be understood as context-specific models rather than universally applicable solutions. This addition acknowledges the limitation and strengthens the critical framing of the study.

 

Point 13:

In the “future research” paragraph, I think it might be wort mentioning that dye analysis could also be a useful tool to integrate. Artisans often have old textiles made by their grandparents or great-grandparents, but they don’t know exactly how they were dyed. This information can be reconstructed by chemical analysis and sometimes surprising results are obtained.

Response 13:

We thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. In the revised manuscript (lines 621–623, page 20), we added a note in the future research paragraph to highlight the potential of dye analysis. We clarified that chemical analysis of historical textiles can reconstruct dyeing practices and uncover unexpected results, thereby enriching the understanding of artisanal heritage.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I find this work compelling for scientific and humanistic colleagues alike. It is well presented and well written. The only request I would have would be to include  images to assist readers to understand how TEM maps onto textile heritage in the RQ proposed, illustrating possibly craft processes and TEM pathway throughout.

Regards.

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript entitled “Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model.” We are grateful for you spending your valuable time on reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. The authors have carefully reviewed the comments and put in a lot of effort to address them in a step-by-step manner as shown below. Changes to the manuscript are marked in tracked changes.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Sincerely,

The author

====================================

REVIEWERS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR THE AUTHOR:

 

Response to Reviewer #2

Point 1:

I find this work compelling for scientific and humanistic colleagues alike. It is well presented and well written. The only request I would have would be to include images to assist readers to understand how TEM maps onto textile heritage in the RQ proposed, illustrating possibly craft processes and TEM pathway throughout.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this encouraging feedback and constructive suggestion. In response, we added Figures 1–6 to the main text and Figures B1–5 to the appendix. These visuals illustrate craft processes and the TEM pathway, thereby assisting readers in understanding how TEM maps onto textile heritage in relation to the research question.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find the work "Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model" extremely interesting and certainly part of an increasingly relevant and necessary line of research. 

However, I believe that some aspects should be considered in order to improve the manuscript:

- inaccuracy in the introduction: they are not pigments but dyes used in silk dyeing.
 
In general, I think it would be very useful to add the recipes that people refer to and perhaps comparisons between ancient and current recipes. There is also talk of a need to discover ancient recipes, but I would emphasize how these differ from “modern” or industrial recipes through “measurable” elements. I therefore recommend including the recipes identified by the weavers in the appendix. I believe this would add value and bring a new element to the work.
 

Author Response

Response to Reviewers

Dear Reviewers,

Thank you for reviewing the manuscript entitled “Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model.” We are grateful for you spending your valuable time on reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. The authors have carefully reviewed the comments and put in a lot of effort to address them in a step-by-step manner as shown below. Changes to the manuscript are marked in tracked changes.

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

The author

=============================================

REVIEWERS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR THE AUTHOR:

 

Response to Reviewer #3

General comment 1:

I find the work “Innovative Plant-Dyed Silk Textiles: Does Intangible Cultural Heritage Matter? A Trajectory Equifinality Model” extremely interesting and certainly part of an increasingly relevant and necessary line of research.

General response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this positive assessment. We appreciate the recognition of the paper’s relevance and contribution to an important and growing field of research.

 

Point 1:

However, I believe that some aspects should be considered in order to improve the manuscript:  - inaccuracy in the introduction: they are not pigments but dyes used in silk dyeing.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for noting this inaccuracy. In the revised manuscript (lines 25–31, page 1), we corrected the terminology to specify dyes rather than pigments in reference to silk dyeing. This change ensures scientific accuracy and precision in the introduction.

 

Point 2:

In general, I think it would be very useful to add the recipes that people refer to and perhaps comparisons between ancient and current recipes. There is also talk of a need to discover ancient recipes, but I would emphasize how these differ from “modern” or industrial recipes through “measurable” elements. I therefore recommend including the recipes identified by the weavers in the appendix. I believe this would add value and bring a new element to the work.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable recommendation. In the revised manuscript, we added Table A1, which compares traditional and innovative plant-based dye recipes in silk textile dyeing. This addition highlights measurable differences between historical and contemporary practices and strengthens the contribution of the appendix.