The Establishment of Religious Landscapes and Local Social Life in Nanshan and Beishan, Dazu District, in the Song Dynasty
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author,
I am happy to see that someone is also taking a holistic look at the sites in Dazu, but, in this reviewer's opinion, this is too ambitious a project for a singular article. It would be better to focus in on a few things rather than paint a picture of such a vast area over time that is simply too general to be of much use. Dazu County is in area the size of France, and as such, it is complicated, much like any huge area would be. The idea that a sacred space is not fixed, but evolves over time is not new [please see the series of works listed below, some of which perhaps should be cited in this paper], but here doesn't take into account the ebb and flow of particular religious beliefs but just the people. This seems overly simplistic for the bigger picture view, but parts of this paper are really fascinating and focusing in on patronage, for example, at key sites and key moments in Dazu, would make for a more compelling argument.
One example of this has to do with a perceived shift in usage that creates a false dichotomy between using the sites of Dazu as religious sites and using them as sites for scholarly visits. One didn't happen without the other, but it is much more likely they were functioning concurrently in this respect. What gets carved in stone is clearly that which someone has paid for, so the literate elite will inscribe their own experiences at a site while the working poor will not. And the literati touring around to see sacred sites and leaving their mark on them was a popular thing to do, so that is not extraordinary. Please feel free to read the chapter on it in the book cited below. Likewise, the military and governmental authorities had good reason to go to these sites, and again, have the money to pay for inscriptions either for the greater community good, which is politically useful to them, or for their own family's health and posthumous wellbeing. Both of these show up in the inscriptions translated herein, but nothing is really made of what this means more broadly.
Over time, clearly the sites and the populations in Dazu evolve, and what is seen as less religious activity in one area perhaps can be explained by other causes. It is not a 'contest' as noted in the author's abstract, where Baodingshan emerges as a 'victor'. It is the natural evolution of sites based on patronage and practice. In the end, although the author is claiming to look at all of the Dazu carvings, so much is left out, that framing it more singularly would be helpful to come to a truly meaningful conclusion.
The part I found the most interesting related to Nanshan, mainly because this is an area within Dazu that is much less discussed. I truly appreciated the deep dive into the inscriptions and the connection to the local drought and weather in general. This made a lot of sense as to why there would be changing need for ritual activity at the site, given Daoism's connection rain rituals and changing weather within Dazu over time. Texts by Wang Dejia and Zhang Zhu have been used in other earlier works, so it was interesting to read more about them.
The military aspects of Beishan are well documented by several people as noted by the author. Dr. Suchan wrote extensively on the military aspect of Beishan in his dissertation, which is not cited in this work, but should be, and as such, the content is somewhat redundant, but nicely packaged and quantified. The more recent inscriptional evidence was a surprise, but apparently there is clearly more work to be done archaeologically at the site.
If the author hasn't seen the work of Dr. Karil Kucera, I think they should look at it, and revisit some of their own theories regarding Baodingshan. This section of the whole paper seems to be somewhat of a tag on to the rest of the article. It's as if someone asked the author "what about Baodingshan" and they read a few articles and came to some very basic conclusions. I note that there is no mention of any English language works on Baodingshan - here I refer not only to Kucera's own book and earlier dissertation, but also to Dr. Angela Howard's book and work done by Dr. Henrik Sorenson.
Kucera has published and presented multiple works on Baodingshan, but of import for this author is her last work [Ritual and Representation in Chinese Buddhism: Visualizing Enlightenment at Baodingshan 12th to 21st centuries; Cambria Press, 2016], which included discussion of all the literati/lay inscriptions at Baodingshan as well as quite a few at Nanshan, the methodology of which seems to be the basis for the discussion in this work. This book is linked to an online repository of materials www.baodingshan.org, and for a complete list of all of Kucera's publications, see https://www.baodingshan.org/texts-related-to-baodingshan/.
The images are very similar to what you will find in Kucera's book, but the author has misidentified some of them [Fig 9 is not correct at all; the translation of the Buddhist names into English in Fig. 8 is more accurate in Kucera's book], so those need to be revised. I would make a case for the author to use previously published materials in English to help with consistency in translating the Chinese Buddhist names and terms into English. That would be helpful for future scholarship as a whole, and is the norm when building off of previous scholarship regardless of language. The interactive tour on the www.baodingshan.org website is bilingual and should also be helpful in this regard. The author should consider including the url of this website in their article notes for others who might want to get a better sense of the scope of Baodingshan because the line drawing of the site is hard to read laid out flat in chunks.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you for your detailed feedback on my manuscript. I have carefully considered your suggestions and have made significant revisions to strengthen the focus and coherence of my research on the Dazu site.
In response to your comments about the ambitious scope of our article, I have refocused our research to delve deeper into specific aspects of patronage and ritual practices at key sites such as South Hill and North Hill. This realignment has enabled me to provide a more detailed and convincing analysis of the roles of these sites over time.
Regarding your observations about the dichotomy between religious and scholarly uses at the Dazu site, I have integrated a more nuanced discussion that acknowledges the parallel functions of these sites throughout history. This revised approach aims to provide a balanced picture of how religious and scholarly activities intersect and influence each other at Dazu.
These changes are designed to effectively address your valuable comments while maintaining the integrity and clarity of my research. Thank you for your insights, which have significantly strengthened my manuscript.
Please find these updates in the attachment below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study traces the dynamic development of Dazu rock carvings from the late Tang Dynasty, during the Five Dynasties period, to the Song Dynasty. The transformation that occurred from being a military garrison and space for religious beliefs to becoming an elegant destination for academic visits is described. The analysis of inscriptions and historical records found in the mountains of Beishan Fowan, Nanshan and Baoding Shan is well done, so the research is interesting and could be a valuable resource for a better understanding and protection of this site of historical value.
However, the study has serious problems when it comes to the use of references. Many of them do not correspond to the references indicated at the end of the article, on page 28. There is no separation between them as in the case of: Huang, Nengqian; et al. which is next to Fang Ke's work. Furthermore, there is no indication of the year of publication in some of the publications, and the names are put before the surnames when it should be the opposite. Page 28 is difficult to read and understand. A separation must be created between the references indicated. References must be written according to the international reference model established by APA (American Psychological Association) where the name of the author comes first, then the year of publication, the title of the document, and finally the publisher (or publishing entity), with the referred pages. In this study it is necessary to review the references and indicate them appropriately.
Some changes are suggested as follows:
1. Introduction
Page 2, line 39.
(Zhu 2003) appears in the references, but without the year indicated.
Page 3, figure 2.
The figure showing the distribution of the Dazu statues is too small and cannot be easily detailed.
2. Beishan Fowan: a unique fusion of military garrison and religious space
Page 3, line 117. (DSML 1999, p. 9) is not found in the list of references on page 28. Furthermore, there is no explanation of the meaning of DSML.
Page 3, between lines 118 and 122.
“However, due to their smaller scale and lack of ongoing carving evidence, the emergence of these two cliff carvings may well have been influenced by carving activities and artistic styles imported from the north and west of Sichuan, indicating that a sustained carving tradition and substantial religious space had not yet truly taken shape here.” This is a statement that needs to be supported.
Page 4, line 170.
The name of the first Japanese author and researcher mentioned is Satake, Yashuhiko. Here the last name is Satake and his first name is Yasuhiko. When referring to it in line 170, the name Yasuhiko must be eliminated and write: (Satake 1990, pp 391-439).
Page 4, line 170.
The name of the second Japanese author and researcher mentioned is Kunihara, Yonan does not appear in the reference list on page 28. In fact, he appears under another name: Masao. Please, identify the author's real name. The last name here is Kurihara, so it should be referenced by that name. On line 170, you should write: Kurihara 1960; In addition, the pages also must be indicated.
Page 4, line 170.
The name of the third Japanese author and researcher mentioned is Tano, Kaisaburo. Here the last name is Tano and his first name is Kaisaburo. However, his name does not appear in the reference list on page 28.
Page 4, line 174.
Create a space to separate the name Suchan from the year 1997. (Suchan_1997, p. 311-317). Here it seems that the last name is Suchan and the first name is Thomas. However, on page 28, it is referred using the name Thomas. Please define which is the last name and which is the first name, and indicate it in the list of references by putting the author's last name first.
Page 4, line 174.
Write the year of publication of the author Bei Jinyi. According to the reference list on page 28, the year is 2003.
Page 5, figure 3.
Create a space to separate the word figure from the number 3. Figure3 à Figure_3. Here, it is better to write: …edited by Li Xiankyu, et al. (2015, p. 19). Chongqing University Press.
Also, the work of Li Xiankui, et al., does not appear in the reference list on page 28. Please indicate it as well.
2.1. The construction of the Beishan in the Tang Dynasty
Page 5, line 205.
Please explain within parentheses what it means jiedushi (..a regional military governor during the Tang dynasty).
Pages 5 and 6, table 1. In this table of the donors and inscriptions section, adjust:
In niche 26: Creating à creating
In niche 52: husband Liu. à husband Liu.
In niche 51: WangZongjing à Wang Zongjing
Page 7, line 233.
Separate: Yongping(915) à Yongping (915)
2.2. The Construction of Beishan in the Song Dynasty
Page 8, line 250.
Please, define the name of the author you are referring to. On page 8 it is written Tuo Tuo, but in the references on page 28 it is written Tuotuo. Also, the year doesn't match. On page 8 it is 1977, but on page 28 it is 1971. This also must be adjusted on line 264.
2. Nanshan: a new sacred space in Shaoxing period
(Here, this subtitle should be indicate with the number 3 as the previous one “Beishan Fowan” was indicated with the number 2)
Page 14, line 464.
(Wang 2005) does not appear in the reference list on page 28.
Page 18, line 486.
(Lu, SXB, p. 214). What is SXB? Please explain. Please, indicate the year of publication, both here and in the reference made on page 28. This also must also be done on line 510.
Page 18, line 487.
(Lu, SXB, p. 214). Please separate the words: followsi(DSML à Follow si (DSML Pleae, explain what does the word or name DSML means. The name DSML does not appear in the reference list on page 28. This also must be adjusted in line 498.
Page 18, line 522. Adjust the name as indicated in the reference list on page 28. (LiXiaoQiang …) à Li Xiaoqiang
Page 19, line 553.
“a circular terrace towering against the vast sky” It is necessary to indicate the reference and its year of piublication.
Page 21, line 634.
(DSML. 1999, p.300-301) does not appear in the list of references on page 28. This also must be done on page 24, line 728.
3. The prosperity of the Baoding Shan
(Here, this subtitle should be indicated with the number 4).
Page 22, line 695.
It is understood that shan means mountain, but please define how to write it. Baoding Shan or Bao Ding Mountain?
Page 23, line 714.
Separate: Figuere8 à Figure 8. Please increase the size of the images because it is not clearly visible. Or at least, show only an enlarged part of the image.
Page 25, line 757.
Separate Figure9. à Figure 9.
Page 25, line 776.
Separate Figure10. à Figure 10.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your detailed and constructive feedback on my manuscript entitled "The Establishment and Reconstruction of Religious Sculpture Spaces in Dazu during the Song Dynasty". Thank you for your positive comments on the importance of my research and your thorough critique of the reference issues. Below, please see the attached document where I address each of your questions and suggested changes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI have no further suggestion to make except to caution the author to not publish prior to fully engaging with the current scholarship in all languages. If you are going to publish in English, or Chinese, or Japanese, etc, it will be expected that you have read all of the scholarship available in that language. To state in your cover letter that you will read materials in English later on makes no sense to me - it is not how scholarship is done when the previously published works bear relevance to what you are discussing and claims you are making.
For example, I will reiterate that the idea that these sites are not fixed in time has been addressed elsewhere in various English-language publications.
In addition, I will also state that you have still provided no evidence for the idea that Baodingshan was a contested site among various "faith groups" as stated in the abstract and discussed within the paper. The fact that Daoism and Buddhism and even Confucian imagery exists or is sponsored by individuals in the same place has very little to do with space concerns. The rationale for the variety of imagery present at the Baodingshan site has been debated and discussed elsewhere in both Chinese and English sources over the past three decades, but there is no discussion of any of that work in this article, which makes this point clearly untenable.
The first part of the paper is fairly solid, the problem really lies in trying to make a statement on the whole of Dazu carvings across time and space. It all seems overly generalized and simplistic. The idea that a scholar in this field could publish a 29-page paper with only 13 footnotes baffles me. Across the board, it sends a message that the author is the first to consider many of the topics being discussed, which is just not accurate based on the many Chinese, Japanese and English sources currently out there on just that one site. For example, there are only two footnote references within the entire discussion of Baodingshan [one which is the archaeological record Dazu shike mingwen lu; the other the rather small contribution by Dr. Teiser in his discussion of Baodingshan's representation of the 10 Kings of Hell]. This means that the author is not engaging with any of the scholarship in English on Baodingshan since 1988, of which several books and dissertations as well as numerous articles have been written. It is a tremendous lack of engagement with current scholarship, and as such, leads the reader to believe that the author is the first to come up with the materials he / she is presenting.
Nothing could be further from the truth, so I strongly encourage the author to not simply cite Kucera, Howard, Sorenson, and Suchan in the bibliography, but really engage with the materials they have previously published; otherwise this is simply not solid research, and not worthy of publication as it currently stands because of its incompleteness.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is good, although small errors occur from time to time, i.e., figure 4 is "Mount South" for what reason? Why not just continue using Nanshan? And the Three Qing Cave? Wouldn't that be better translated as the Three Purities? When writing for an English-language audience, I would recommend just being consistent with terminology once you have explained it.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your thorough review of this manuscript. We greatly appreciate your detailed comments and suggestions, which have been invaluable in improving our work. We have carefully considered each of your points and please find our detailed responses below.
Comments 1: I have no further suggestion to make except to caution the author to not publish prior to fully engaging with the current scholarship in all languages. If you are going to publish in English, or Chinese, or Japanese, etc, it will be expected that you have read all of the scholarship available in that language. To state in your cover letter that you will read materials in English later on makes no sense to me - it is not how scholarship is done when the previously published works bear relevance to what you are discussing and claims you are making. I will reiterate that the idea that these sites are not fixed in time has been addressed elsewhere in various English-language publications.
Response 1: Thank you very much for your candid and serious criticism and suggestions. During this period, I have also sought out and read relevant books and papers through various channels, and I understand and agree with your decision not to publish the critique for the time being.
Previously, I relied more on archaeological reports and related discussions within the Chinese context. Although I have taken note of Japanese scholars and a few scholars in the English-speaking academic community, the scope of my attention still needs to be broadened.
This paper was originally intended to be part of a broader study on the theme of Taoist statues in the Nanshan region of Dazu, with the aim of highlighting the role of Taoist statues in the spatial evolution of Dazu. In terms of both time and space, it is continuous with Beishan and Baodingshan, collectively forming the overall concept of the Dazu Rock Carvings from a cultural heritage perspective. As you pointed out, the discussion on Baodingshan is indeed very brief and general.
Comments 2: You have still provided no evidence for the idea that Baodingshan was a contested site among various "faith groups" as stated in the abstract and discussed within the paper.
Response 2: Baodingshan is a significant topic of interest in the academic study of the Dazu Rock Carvings, particularly concerning the overall characterization of Song dynasty statues in the Anyue-Dazu region. Since the rediscovery of the Dazu Rock Carvings by the academic community in the 1940s, scholars such as Yang Jialuo, Wu Xianqi, Li Sisheng, Guo Xiangying, and Chen Mingguang have continuously debated the nature of Dafowan, generally considering it a site of Tantric Buddhism. In the 1980s, differing opinions began to emerge. For instance, Hu Wenhe, through his classification of Liu Benzun statues, argued that Baodingshan was not an Tantric Buddhist site. Hou Chong (2008, pp. 66-69) straightforwardly stated that Buddhism is not simply dichotomized into Sutra and Tantra, and the relevant discussions have persisted. Luo Shiping once remarked in a 2014 lecture, "People say Baoding is an Tantric Taoist site, but why do the Rock Carvings depict multiple sects coexisting? This raises many questions. The Dazu Rock Carvings are difficult to study, and Baodingshan is a significant obstacle."
Western scholars have also engaged in substantial discussions on these issues. Angela Falco Hoard (2001) suggested that Baodingshan is a Tantric mandala dojo that incorporates both local Sichuan traditions and external influences, and its use of mandala sculptures is similar to practices that spread in the Indian-Himalayan region from the eighth century onwards.
Kucera, in his doctoral dissertation, offered a highly innovative perspective on Baodingshan. He focuses on the relationship between the images and scriptures of Baodingshan, reassessing the carvings through the dimensions of narrative and symbolism. In a horizontal comparison, he concluded that this construction style was influenced by the development patterns of Song dynasty Buddhist monasteries. While Dr. Kucera's discussion is valuable and significant, it has unfortunately not been widely cited in the Chinese academic community.
Comments 3: The first part of the paper is fairly solid, but the problem lies in trying to make a statement on the whole of Dazu carvings across time and space. The idea that a scholar in this field could publish a 29-page paper with only 13 footnotes baffles me.
Response 3: Therefore, in my paper, I only briefly mentioned the controversy surrounding the excavation period of Baodingshan without discussing the specific themes, content, and religious nature of the rock carvings and statues. And if I want to make this part clear, it is indeed not something that can be discussed in a 29-page paper.
After recent reading and reflection, as well as receiving highly constructive feedback and criticism from the reviewers, I am uncertain if there is still an opportunity to revise this paper. If possible, I might focus on discussing a single aspect of Nanshan, which aligns with the original intention of this paper. It is also gratifying that the reviewers acknowledged the value of this part.
If permitted, I would concentrate on the divine identities represented in the Nanshan carvings, the relationship between the space of Taoist statues and local rain-praying activities, and further supplement the visual characteristics of the Nanshan carvings based on the existing foundation. I would delete the broad generalizations about Baodingshan and possibly remove the section on Beishan in the first part. This would shift the focus of the paper to the discussion of the spatial context of Song dynasty Taoist statues in Dazu. Such changes would amount to a major revision, essentially rewriting the paper. I am just unsure if there is still an opportunity for such extensive revisions.
Comments 4: I strongly encourage the author to not simply cite Kucera, Howard, Sorenson, and Suchan in the bibliography, but really engage with the materials they have previously published.
Response 4: I have deeply engaged with the works of Dr. Karil Kucera, Dr. Angela Howard, Dr. Henrik Sorenson, and Dr. Suchan. Their insights are now integrated into my analysis and discussion.
Comments 5: English is good, although small errors occur from time to time, i.e., figure 4 is "Mount South" for what reason? Why not just continue using Nanshan? And the Three Qing Cave? Wouldn't that be better translated as the Three Purities?
Response 5: I have revised the terminology for consistency and accuracy. "Mount South" is now consistently referred to as "Nanshan," and "Three Qing Cave" has been corrected to "Three Purities Cave."
Regardless of whether this paper has the opportunity to be published, the research methods and perspectives of Western scholars are ones we need to pay attention to and learn from. I am also very grateful for the valuable feedback and criticism from the reviewers. If possible, I hope to engage in bridging work, such as translation, to help more students and scholars quickly access and understand their findings. Once again, thank you very much for your constructive feedback and guidance.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author,
I truly appreciate your work in revising and adding to the manuscript. You have done a good job of fleshing out the section on Nanshan, but I fear you are not quite there yet.
As a reader, I would appreciate several things to make this a better article with a more compelling argument: one - what is the relationship between the tables that you provide and the various arguments you are making? i.e., why are they there and what should we be looking at as readers - what patterns emerge from them? The first table appears to support your argument for Nanshan as a site for prayers asking for rain, etc., but I'm not sure what the second table is telling me. Clarification on that would be helpful.
Two - you make very bold statements and don't really back them up with evidence. The main one that I and other scholars will take issue with is that somehow Baodingshan supplanted Nanshan and Beishan in terms of use, and that there was a competition of some sort for appeal with the populace. You cite Liu Tianren as evidence for Baodingshan taking on ritual activity, but you must also note that Liu is writing centuries later [1425 CE], and there is no contemporaneous evidence that Baodingshan supplanted Nanshan and Beishan - there is actually very little textual evidence regarding Baodingshan from the 12th and early 13th centuries. Please look at the inscription translations provided by Kucera in her numerous texts on Baodingshan - all available online - that highlight the paucity of written information we have on Baodingshan from the Song dynasty. Her 2016 book includes translations and a discussion of all the literati and non-religious texts carved at the site.
Also, there is absolutely no evidence that Zhao Zhifeng "gathered the entire strength of Changzhou to carve Bao Ding Mountain". Scholars assume that it was through local donations, but there is absolutely no textual or physical evidence of that; the money could just as easily have come from elsewhere. We really can only conjecture that Baodingshan functioned quite differently because it was structured quite differently, which was likely in keeping with changing local tastes and visual idioms. You mention this with regard to Dr. Teiser's work, but I believe you have the wrong source for that, as his reference to Zhao Zhifeng being in the 6 paths of reincarnation is more likely in his work Reinventing the Wheel [2006] than in his earlier work on the 10 Kings. That being said, Dr. Teiser himself would admit that he was drawing on other scholars assessment [both Chinese and Western] of the local difference that is Baodingshan. He is a scholar of Buddhist texts, not imagery or sacred sites, and deferred to those who know the site better.
Three - you may want to either clarify or delete this entire section [lines 668 - 681] because, as it currently stands, it makes no sense to the reader and makes some really unusual and unsubstantiated connections between the works you are discussing in Dazu and temple murals in Shanxi. To my mind the entire section [3.2] discussing the visual elements of the Three Purities could be dropped as it is very hard to follow the logic within it and. as a reader, I don't see it adding anything to your argument, and it is a topic that has been discussed elsewhere by art historians but that you have not noted. Dr. Wu Hung is not the one to be looking at for Taoist/Daoist materials.
I'm sorry that this will require additional thinking through and work, but there is a significant body of scholarship already done on these works, and the goal is to add to it in a substantive way - not simply put forward ideas or generalizations. The core work and material is there, but the argument is not being made by you for what is significant about Nanshan and why.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are still issues with translation of certain words, but for the most part, your English language is good and clear. I might just mention that there are no "canals" in any caves [line 426], and I do not know who the "Virgin of the Earth" is as noted in table 4. More common translations are "Mother of the Earth" or "Holy Mother of the Earth". "Virgin" adds a Christian connotation where there most likely isn't one. A final read-through looking for typographical errors might also be good [see line 443 for "plane" where it should be "plan"].
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The revision of this manuscript has gone through a very tortuous process. I am honored to have the opportunity to write to you again. I am extremely grateful for your detailed and professional feedback, which is of great help to me in further improving the manuscript.
Regarding souce of the tables，Tables 1 - 3 are mainly from the "Inscription Record of Dazu Rock Carvings" and my on - site comparison based on the inscription record. Tables 4 - 5 are mainly based on historical records of natural disasters in "History of the Song Dynasty" and "Continued Zizhi Tongjian", and have been noted in the form of a "note". Necessary supplements and explanations have been made for the information reflected in the tables, such as the identities of the sponsoring groups and the regional and chronological characteristics of the reports on floods and droughts, and the connection with the arguments has been emphasized.
Regarding those bold assertions lacking evidence that you mentioned, especially the issue of Zhao Zhifeng's identity, I humbly accept your opinion and have deleted the relevant statements. Regarding the citation and version issues of Dr. Teiser's works, I have also made revisions. I must admit that the research on Baodingshan is actually a huge project. Scholars at home and abroad have already done a lot of work. Due to problems such as material evidence, there is still much room for progress. The discussion of Baodingshan involves the overall positioning of Dazu Rock Carvings. However, this article is indeed unable to cover such a large topic. If it can contribute a little to the discussion of the spatial issues of Nanshan and Beishan, it will be the value of this article. Therefore, Baodingshan is not the main object of discussion in this article. In the conclusion part, I have made necessary extracts of the research on the academic history of Baodingshan, hoping to respond to the issues of Nanshan and Beishan from the perspective of academic history.
In terms of content, I have deleted some parts about the visual elements of the Three Purities and made some supplements. This part has a necessary connection with the development of the "palace - style niches" in Dazu in the Song Dynasty and the identity characteristics of family - style sponsors, which is the theme that 3.1 of this article wants to express. The results of the sponsorship by this sponsoring group are reflected in part 3.2, that is, the characteristics of the palace - style niches. Specifically, first of all, in terms of volume, through combing the construction of Beishan in the Song Dynasty in the previous text, it is found that there are especially many large - scale niches in the Song Dynasty. The Sanqing Grotto in Nanshan is similar in nature and specifications to the large - scale niches in Beishan, and the reason is closely related to the family - style construction in the Song Dynasty, which is the theme that 3.1 of this article wants to express. In terms of the layout of the deities, the central - symmetry style is also closely related to the statues in the palace - style shrines, which is the characteristic of the palace - style niches pointed out in part 3.2 of the article. As for Wu Hung's research, indeed, he has done a lot of important work from the perspective of the history of Taoist art, rather than specialized research on the history of Taoism. There are different voices in the academic community. From the perspective of art history, he has made his due contributions. I fully agree with and respect the reviewer's opinion and have made revisions in the text.
In terms of language, thank you very much for your review of the proper nouns. I have made revisions accordingly. The entire text has also been polished by the language proofreaders of MDPI.
In addition, this article has also rewritten parts such as the abstract, hoping to further highlight the theme related to Nanshan and Beishan. Once again, thank you for your valuable comments. I will go all out to conduct an in - depth revision of the manuscript, striving to achieve a higher level in terms of argumentation, evidence support, and content logic, and adding valuable content to relevant academic research.
Whether this article can be published or not, I am extremely grateful for your highly professional feedback and suggestions. I will continue to advance the research related to Dazu, especially the parts associated with Nanshan. This has been a truly precious experience of submitting a manuscript and learning. Thank you sincerely again!
