Narrative-Based Nature of Heritage: Between Myth and Discourses: Case of Šiluva Place-Making in Progress

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with an interesting and somehow difficult subject, by exploring the relation among different, and yet interconnected concepts as is the case of cultural heritage, narrative, discourse, myth, religion and authenticity. The case of Siluva is well explained, however, it would improve the overall reading of the paper if it would be further discussed in relation to the myth-narrative-discourse theory and the way it can be used to placemaking and to affect our understanding of authenticity. Considering the concept of authenticity, one that is relational, intrinsically context-dependent, multiple and variable, it could be interesting to further develop its understanding, taking as reference the work, for instance, of David Lowenthal and Jukka Jokilehto, just to name a few.

In the attached document you can find specific comments and questions. Some parts of the paper are difficult to read and would greatly benefit with a rewriting.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We thank so much for important remarks of our work. We corrected the marked areas of the text and we agree that it made difficult to read text. Also in the part that is dedicated to the case study we add several sentences that should make more clearness how the theory of myth-discourse-narrative is revealed in Siluva place making strategy.

Over all goal is to make margin between myth and discourse [in the future] as small as possible. Also delete margins between ritual and work, travel and stay, sacrum dimension and profane dimension.

Reviewer 2 Report

Although this paper has an interesting and timely premise, it seems to get lost in the delivery of the discussion and case study components of the paper. 

To enable the paper to be clearly understood, be accessible to the desired audience and to be cited, I would recommend that the authors revise the writing style. In its present form, all too often complex sentences and fancy words create a mask of sophistication that hides many inconsistencies and contradictions. Many of the sections and paragraphs delve into concepts or notions that do not link up with one another or are not concluded/ drawn together at the end of the sections. This results in a long winded dialogue or contemplation of what concepts like myth, time or authenticity may mean from differing perspectives. Yet, these are only cursorily linked to the place or environment discourses that are indicated in the introduction and objectives of the research. It is an interesting journey of contemplation, but its reason and outcome are not coordinated or explicit, nor is the methodology adopted for the production of this specific narrative. 

How this information is used to analyse the case study is also not clear and if anything raises some contradiction. While the intangible values that define the town and its identity originate from a spiritual event that is interpreted as a myth passed down through generations, attempts to turn this into a town logo and attract more pilgrims it could be argued that these are promoting acts of material consumption just as much as they are encouraging spiritual consumption.  

 

Author Response

We sincerely thank for the remarks of our manuscript.

However the review insists that paper lacks structure and clearness. We agree that structure of article is unorthodox since the paper is intended to be horizon scanner rather than strict practical or methodologic tool. Therefore we emphasized that in the introduction once again. Also, we added up some formulae that may help to understand the idea better.

For the review to help improve the manuscript it would have been good to have at least one or two examples where the paragraphs do not link to one another just to make errors more explicit.

Therefore, we are not rewriting the text just to make language style appear better. But we agree that the content of paper is not easy to read and comprehend since it tries to describe things that are not present in corporeal reality.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I think this is a very original paper and the topic is very good approached.

No more comments 

Author Response

Thank you very much for very positive response to our work. We really tried to widen interaction between physical world and metaphysical realm.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx