Temporal and spatial features of the palace building space of Qinghai’s Kumbum Monastery and its evolution

Jing Zhang; Yunying Ren; Xiaofan An

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0262155

. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0262155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155

Temporal and spatial features of the palace building space of Qinghai’s Kumbum Monastery and its evolution

Jing Zhang ^1,^*, Yunying Ren ², Xiaofan An ³

Editor: Jun Yang⁴

PMCID: PMC9584376 PMID: 36264935

Abstract

Kumbum Monastery is the centre of Tibetan Buddhism and religious culture in Qinghai. Its palace buildings are the typical examples of Tibetan Buddhist monastery buildings and living fossils of Tibetan social history. This study selected 12 palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery as the study objects, used typological approaches and numerical method to analyse their spatial features, classified these features into four types (the ring road surrounding Dugang-style palace space, single-sided eaves of the Duguang-style palace space, three-stage palace space with cloisters connecting to Dugang, and other variants) according to their spatial structures, and discussed the temporal evolution of the spatial features from spatial and temporal perspectives to obtain the development process for the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery. The analysis showed that: 1) Because the Han people migrated to Qinghai, the architectural space of the monastery followed the practices of Tibet in the same period and began to adopt the practices of the Han people under the effect of religious indoctrination and sociopolitical influence of the Ming dynasty. 2) Due to the influence of religious development facilitated by the political environment in the Qing dynasty, all the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery adopted the practice of monasteries in Lhasa. After being implicated by the political rebellion, the monastery initiated to add the spatial layout elements of the buildings in Qinghai. Therefore, the monastery was obtaining the cues from the Han culture. 3) The dominance of religious significance over the spatial designing of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery gradually shifted to the political dominance. This paper revealed the spatial and temporal features and evolution of the palace building space, explored the generation process of the palace buildings space of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Qinghai, and provided a reference for the static conservation and dynamic development of Tibetan Buddhist monastery buildings in Qinghai.

Introduction

Background and aim

Kumbum Monastery is located in a narrow valley in Lushaer, Huanzhong County, Xining City, Qinghai Province, China. This geographical location represents the origin of the Later Period of Tibetan Buddhism [1–3]and is a typical area with a history of multicultural exchange due to the intersection of ancient traffic routes, such as the Silk Road, the ancient Tang-Tubo Road, and the Tuyuhun (a branch of ancient Mongolian) migration route in Amdo [4, 5] (Fig 1). As the centre of Tibetan Buddhism and religious culture in Qinghai, it occupies an area of 480.850m2 and has 52 palace buildings, 9,300 rooms, and a constructed area of 100,000 m². The architectures of Kumbum Monastery reflect the religious culture of Tibetan Buddhist and the regional culture of Qinghai. Among these buildings, the grand halls of Buddhas and the Buddhist colleges are used for the monastery’s main spatial functions, such as Buddhist activities and religious teaching. These two buildings constitute the core construction type of the monastery, that is, the palace building [6–9]. The palace buildings are not only the representatives of Kumbum Monastery and Tibetan Buddhist architecture but also are the living fossils of the Tibetan traditional society and history of Qinghai. Kumbum Monastery was constructed over a period of 563 years (1379–1942). During the three periods of its construction (Period I: 1379–1648, Period II: 1649–1873, and Period III: 1874–1942), construction activities (construction, reconstruction, and renovation) of the palace buildings were always prioritized [10]. The construction of the palace buildings continued through the periods of Ming and Qing dynasties and the Republic of China. Therefore, their spatial features reflect the rules and formal patterns of the environmental and topographical conditions and human relations, which suggest both the localisation of Tibetan Buddhism in the Qinghai region and the sociopolitical and economic development, transportation, and ethnic features of different historical periods.

This paper focus on the 12 palace buildings in Kumbum Monastery through typological approach, and aims to clarify their spatial features from the viewpoint of the spatial elements and their combination. As well as explores their evolution process and their relation to regional and historical contexts.

Literature review

In previous studies on architectures of Kumbum Monastery, the overall spatial features of the monastery were examined [11, 12]. Moreover, descriptive studies on the architectural structure, material characteristics, and decorative arts of a few major individual buildings have been conducted [13–15]. Considering the architectural aesthetic characteristics, Yang analysed the form of the monastery buildings through field surveys and immediate observations [16]. From 1992 to 1996, the Chinese government funded the large-scale mapping and restoration of Kumbum Monastery, and the obtained mapping data provided this paper with important information. Subsequently, Ran [6] and Chen [8], by using architectural history and typology, respectively, have classified the Tibetan Buddhist architectures by using the data from a study on Kumbum Monastery. In addition, Yang [16] have thoroughly analysed the architectural structures, material characteristics, and decorative arts of a part of the main single building of Kumbum Monastery. Zhang [17] analysed the spatial features of the palace buildings of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and classified the buildings according to their architectural types. The historical origin of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery was discussed and analysed [18, 19]. The results of these studies [6–9, 18, 19] are the frame of reference for selecting the types of palace buildings in this study.

The aforementioned studies are crucial for understanding the development of the monastery and the morphological and technical characteristics of the monastery’s buildings. However, few studies have discussed the spatial evolution of building types and evolution process of the monastery on the basis of data analysis. The exploration of the overall evolutionary law of the monastery’s buildings is limited because of the insufficient attention given to the references written in Tibetan language, which is not conducive to a comprehensive understanding of their generation process. Additionally, in the face of the crisis of historic building conservation and dissipation of regional traditional culture with rapid urbanisation, the study and conservation of historic buildings with minority characteristics have become a concern for academicians. The existing 655 Tibetan Buddhist monastic buildings in Qinghai, which are an important part of the Amdo Region and the base for Tibetan Buddhism revival [20, 21], must be urgently and systematically investigated. Kumbum Monastery is a religious centre and typical representative of the monastic buildings of Qinghai.

With this shared background, this paper focus on 12 palace buildings in Kumbum Monastery, and explores their spatial characteristics by discussing the spatial elements (interior ring road), combination of spatial elements (Buddha halls, chanting halls, ring road, colonnade or cloister), and the corresponding structural method, plane shapes and ratios. Also examines their evolution process from the perspective of time and space in the regional and historical contexts.

This study tries to provide not only a reference frame for the static conservation and dynamic development of the Kumbum Monastery but also a guidance for the future preservation of Tibetan Buddhist buildings in Qinghai.

Materials and methods

Study objects and methodology

Based on the results of existing research on Tibetan Buddhist architectural types, the grand halls of Buddhas and Buddhist colleges are the core building types of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries [6, 8, 18]. According to this finding, we considered the spatial functions, religious importance, and the construction frequency in the history of monastery construction as a classification basis to categories building types in Kumbum Monastery and limited the objects to be studied to 12 palace buildings, among 52 buildings of Kumbum Monastery. The 12 palace buildings included the grand halls of Buddhas (8 samples) and Buddhist colleges (4 samples) (Fig 2).

Monastery maps, photographs, data from the surveys of the 1992 renovation project, and related history and information were collected from the literature written in the Tibetan and other languages. Field research and online map services were used and classified. Interviews conducted with monks and craftsmen were analysed and incorporated in the analysis map.

The paper then uses time and space as research parameters. In terms of temporal parameter, the palace buildings have been repeatedly repaired, rebuilt, and expanded during the 563 years of their construction. Most of the current palace buildings are different in form from the original buildings. Furthermore, because verifying the images and data of the monastic buildings that were first built is difficult, we used time as a standard when the current structure and form of the main body of the buildings was constructed (Table 1). In terms of spatial parameter, based on the spatial function of the building, the research objects can be divided into grand halls of Buddhas and Buddhist colleges. Then we explore the spatial features through dividing space types due to the spatial elements and combination of spatial elements. Based on this, analyze the corresponding structural processing methods, plane shapes and ratios of each type. In addition, Kumbum Monastery is one of the six main monasteries of the Gelugpa Sect of Tibetan Buddhism, and it was built after the four main monasteries in Tibet. Furthermore, the Gelugpa Sect has a strict and perfect monastic management system and regulations, covering laws, organisations, and monastic buildings [22–24]. Therefore, we compared the spatial features of Tibetan Buddhist palace buildings in Tibet with those of the 12 palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery and analysed them (Fig 3).

Table 1. List of case studies.

Architecture Category	Architecture	Foundation Period	Formation Period
Grand Halls of Buddhas	Maitreya Temple	1577	1577
	Tsongkhapa Palace	1594	1594
	Sakyamuni Palace	1604	1604
	Golden Tile Temple	1622	1711
	Dhammapala Hall	1592	1592
	Amitayus Hall	1717	1781
	Hall of a Protective Deity	1692	1826
	Manjusri Bodhisattva Temple	1592	1734
Buddhist Colleges	Great Chanting Hall	1612	1766
	Juba Raseng	1646	1767
	Manba Raseng	1711	1818
	Dingke Raseng	1817	1886

Open in a new tab

With regard to the temporal and spatial features of the evolution process of palace buildings, four factors are considered important for the objectives: 1) the developmental background of the monastery’s palace buildings (the development of Tibetan Buddhism in Qinghai, the history of the construction of the monastery’s palace buildings, and the evolution of the palace buildings of Tibetan Buddhism in Tibet); 2) the spatial composition type and features of the monastery’s palace buildings; and 3) the spatial and temporal evolution of the palace buildings’ space of Kumbum Monastery and their development process.

Results and discussions

Background overview

According to the design principle of Tibetan Buddhist buildings, the historical context is critical to discuss their temporal and spatial features [8, 19]. As a typical example of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries, Kumbum Monastery is located in Qinghai Province, which is away from Tibet, but is the base for the reintroduction of Tibetan Buddhism, the place of the Gelugpa Sect establishment, and the bridgehead and transfer station for the introduction of the Gelugpa Sect into Inner Mongolia. Therefore, the history of the construction of the palace buildings of the monastery and the evolution of the palace buildings of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Tibet are the basis and foundation for the study of the spatial evolution of the palace buildings of the monastery, and analysing these buildings can establish a solid foundation for further investigation and classification of the history of the construction of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery.

Historical background of the construction of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery

Considering the sociopolitical background, major historical events, and the development of the organisation system of Kumbum Monastery, the construction history of the monastery can be divided into three periods of: building the monastery prototype (1379–1648), completing the Buddhist colleges (1649–1873), and continuing the construction of the monastery (1874–1942) (Fig 4).

The period of building the monastery prototype (1379–1648): Tsongkhapa founded the Gelugpa Sect of Tibetan Buddhism in the 15th century and first constructed the monastery to commemorate its birthplace. Subsequently, several monks visited this place and improved the monastic system. The central government of the Ming Dynasty developed many policies (such as increased the ordaining of Tibetan Buddhist monks, protected of Tibetan Buddhist monastic property, and granted monks specific immunity from crimes) to support the development of the monasteries of the Gelugpa Sect, including Kumbum Monastery. Furthermore, in Qinghai, the Ming dynasty implemented he units of Mongolia, Tusi, and thousand and one hundred household systems for the Mongols, Tibetans, and Han Chinese, respectively, to weaken the ties among various ethnic groups and developed policies to offer amnesty and enlistment to rebels in the minority ghettos. Because the Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in the country owned large lands and monastic tribes, the tribal chiefs pledged allegiance to the Ming government to politically entrench themselves. In the meantime, they cooperated with the monasteries and funded the construction of Kumbum Monastery. Kumbum Monastery was initially built with the concerted support of the Ming dynasty, Tibetan Buddhist groups [25], and the minority chiefs in Qinghai. They built seven halls around the Tsongkhapa Memorial Pagoda. The palace buildings were constructed mainly due to their religious significance and according to the instructions of the great monks and masters.

The period of completing the construction of Buddhist colleges (1649–1873): The Qing dynasty desired to consolidate its rule over Mongolia and Tibet through the leadership of the Gelugpa Sect in Tibetan Buddhism. The Qing dynasty only praised the Gelugpa Sect highly [26], enabling the sect to gradually gain power to administer Qinghai. Therefore, Kumbum Monastery grew in power, the number of monks surged, and the system and buildings of Buddhist colleges were completed. However, in 1722, the Lobuzangdanjin (the leader of the Mongol tribe in Qinghai) commenced a rebellion against the Qing dynasty, and Kumbum Monastery was implicated in this event due to its long-standing involvement with Mongolian tribal leaders [27]. After the rebellion ended, the Qing dynasty limited the political priorities given to the monastery and only allowed it to focus on religious activities and architectural construction. Consequently, the construction of the monastery buildings was not substantially affected. The main construction projects included seven palace buildings. The Buddhist colleges and their building systems were completed. Since then, the monastery has become one of the main monasteries of the Gelugpa Sect.

The period of continuing the construction of the monastery (1874–1942): The natural economy of rural China, on which the late Qing dynasty depended for its rule, began to collapse; therefore, its power gradually declined. Moreover, because the central government had to protect the country against the invasion of Western countries and suppress peasant rebellions, it had no time to pay attention to the development of Tibetan Buddhist and the construction of the monastery. During the period when the Republican government was replacing the Qing dynasty as the rulers of China, the government intended to adjust the long-term imbalanced spatial pattern of Tibetan Buddhist development in Qinghai, and therefore, constructed additional monasteries in areas outside Hehuang and implemented several initiatives to ensure the economic development of Tibetan Buddhist monasteries (1912) and promote the balanced development of Tibetan Buddhism in Qinghai. Based on this, the focus of development of Kumbum Monastery shifted to the monastic economy. The construction of the monastery mainly focused on the reconstruction and restoration of the original palace buildings and small expansion. The monastery was reconstructed on the original site, and the original forms and structures were used in reconstruction.

In the aforementioned three periods, the development of the monastery has different emphases, but it always gives priority to the grand halls of Buddhas and the Buddhist colleges.

Evolution of the palace buildings of Tibetan monasteries

According to the changes in the spatial layout and typical building components (column cap and supporting timber) of buildings, the evolution of the palace buildings of Tibetan monasteries between the 7th and 20th century (i.e. from Tibetan primitive religious period to the period of the Republic of China) was classified into five periods [7] (Fig 5).

The first period (from the 7th to 10th century): a square Buddha hall was placed in the middle, and a left-turned worship path, named as ring road, was built around it. Chanting halls were placed in the rooms that were in front of or on the left and right sides of the Buddha hall and ring road.

The second period (from the late 10th century to the first half of 13th century): the spatial layout of buildings imitated the first period, and the areas of the Buddha hall, ring road, and chanting halls were significantly expanded.

The third period (from the second half of the 13th century to the end of the 14th century): the basic spatial form of the palace building was formed. The palace buildings included the gate court, chanting hall, Buddha hall, and ring road located outside the Buddha hall.

The fourth period (from the 15th century to the 1740s): due to the continuous growth of the number of monks and laymen, who attended church, the indoor ring road debilitated, and the worship path was relocated from around the Buddha Hall to outside the palaces.

The fifth period (from the 1750s to the 20th century): since the mid-17th century, when the Gelugpa Sect was dominant among all the sects, the dominant space in monastery buildings, that is, the form of ‘Dugang Ceremony’ (the Buddha hall where monks gather and chant sutra; ‘Dugang Ceremony’ is the practice of constructing palace buildings, which is a programmed system that expresses the religious mood based on the Tantric mandala of Tibetan Buddhism.), was mature (Zhang 2016). Its form is characterised by the following aspects: 1) the palace expands in area. The monastic hierarchy is reflected by the number of pillars in the chanting hall, and 2) the area of the chanting hall increased to solve the spatial need resulting from the increase in the number of monks, thus the area of the Buddha halls decreased.

Spatial composition types and features of the palace buildings

By analysing the spatial layout of the building, we can identify the spatial composition rules and forms associated with environmental and topographical conditions and human relations in society. According to the aforementioned evolution of palace buildings in Tibetan monasteries, the spatial evolution of monasteries in Tibet is reflected in the location of the ring road and the spatial combination of Buddha halls and chanting halls. The 12 palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery will be divided into four types in our next study on the basis of the position of the ring road and spatial combination characteristics of the dominant spaces in the buildings. Moreover, we will discuss the spatial and temporal features of the Kumbum Monastery buildings by comparing the evolution of the monastery buildings with that of the buildings in Tibet.

Type 1: The ring road surrounding Dugang-style palace space

This type refers to the temple space with an interior ring road around the independent grand halls of Buddhas used for placing Buddha statues and other sacred objects at the centre. They were constructed in the period between the Ming Dynasty and the early Qing Dynasty (1577–1604). The building types are the grand halls of Buddhas. In the form of colonnades or eaves galleries shaped as the letter ‘U’ or the Chinese character ‘回’ (round and cycle). The width-to-depth ratio of the hall is equal or approximately equal to 1, that is, the plan tends to be square (Fig 6). At the same time, the approach of ‘moving pillars’ or ‘removing pillars’ is used in the grand halls of Buddhas to place the statue of Buddha or the pagoda at the centre. The ‘moving pillar’ approach, that is, moving the inner grooves of four pillars outwards by 40 cm, is used in the Maitreya Temple; the approach of ‘removing pillars’ is used in the Tsongkhapa Palace, the Sakyamuni Palace, and the Dhammapala Hall, thus making the rooms in these palaces free of pillars. In the column grid, the size of Mingjian (the space between the two pillars in the middle of the plane in the traditional architecture of ancient China) generally does not exceed 5 m, Cijian (the pillars next to Mingjian decreasing progressively) is short, and Shaojian (the pillars next to Cijian with decreasing progressively size) is the shortest (Table 2). This type of palace buildings comprises a single-story or two-story cloister, Han-style gable, and hip roof or East Asian hip-and-gable roof. The buildings of this category were mainly built in the first stage of the construction of Kumbum Monastery (1379–1643). This type of palace space is in line with the fourth period of the evolution of the palace buildings of Tibetan Monastery (the 15th century– 1740s). This type of buildings was built around the first construction period, Tsongkhapa Memorial Pagoda, and was distributed in a linear fashion in the central area of the monastery.

Fig 6 — (W, width of the Palace Halls; D, depth of the Palace Halls).

Table 2. Dimensions of the planar column network of the palace space for type I.

Architecture	W1^a(m)	W2^b(m)	W3^c(m)
Maitreya Temple	4.000	2.900	1.600
Tsongkhapa Palace	3.600	3.200	1.600
Sakyamuni Palace	3.500	3.200	1.350
Dhammapala Hall	4.160	4.150	3.850

Open in a new tab

^aW1, the Width of Mingjian.

^bW2, the Width of Cijian.

^c W3, the Width of Shaojian.

Type 2: Single-sided eaves of the Duguang-style palace space

This type of the palace space indicates that only the main spaces, which are connected with a unilateral colonnade and without the interior ring road, are used for placing Buddha statues and other scared objects. They were constructed between 1711 and 1734. The types of building are the grand halls of Buddhas. Based on the construction pattern of the palace buildings in the first period, their space gradually expands to the south and continues the original linear spatial structure. The buildings are shaped similar to the Chinese character ‘凸’ and comprise the front corridor, unilateral colonnade, and Buddha Hall, with single-side colonnades connected to the independent Buddha Hall. The width-to-depth ratio of the Buddha Hall is 7/5–3, that is, the Buddha Hall is rectangular (Fig 7). The centre of the hall is the sanctuary space where the sacred objects are placed, and the space height depends on the height of the sacred objects. For example, the Golden Tile Temple has three levels, with 20 cubic columns located on the ground floor of the hall, and 6 corridor columns and 24 columns embedded in the walls. To accommodate the large volume of the Great Silver Pagoda, pillars on each level of the hall are arranged according to the ‘removing pillar’ approach, that is, the four pillars in the middle are removed, thereby forming a patio with the connected top and bottom (Fig 8, S1 Fig). This type of the palace building has a gable and hip roof and flush gable roof. These buildings were built mainly at the end of the first period of the construction of Kumbum Monastery (1379–1643). The palace space form changed partially compared with the form of the fourth period buildings (from the 15th century to the 1740s). For example, the construction of the ring roads in Manjusri Bodhisattva Temple was cancelled.

Fig 7 — (W, width of the Palace Halls; D, depth of the Palace Halls).

Type 3: Three-stage palace space with cloisters connecting to Dugang

This type of the palace space indicates that only the main spaces, which are connected with a cloister and without the interior ring road, are used for placing Buddha statues and other scared objects. They were constructed between 1766 and 1886. All the buildings of this type are Buddhist colleges (4 samples). These buildings are rectangular in shape, and their width-to-depth ratio of the chanting hall ranges from 5/6 (0.83) to 13/10 (1.3). The buildings are shaped as the Chinese character ‘凸’ (2 samples) or are rectangular in shape (2 samples) (Fig 9). The buildings comprise an entrance, a high corridor, a courtyard, a cloister, and a chanting hall/Buddha Hall. The main building of these halls is a two-story, flat-topped, and Tibetan-style building. The ground floor serves as a chanting hall and porch; the second floor forms a patio shaped as the Chinese character ‘回’ or half of ‘回’ on top of the chanting hall, with small Buddha halls, sutra storage, and auxiliary rooms such as the Great Chanting Hall (Fig 10, S1 Fig) around it. The U-shaped ring corridors or monk rooms are situated in front of the chanting hall of the three buildings of the Buddhist colleges, namely the Great Chanting Hall, Juba Raseng, and Manba Raseng. Three sides of the front courtyard are double-layered flat-roofed cloisters. A double-opening gate is present in the middle of the east wall, and a gable and hip roof pavilion are available on top of the flat roof of the gate. The perfect example of this building type is the Great Chanting Hall (Fig 11, S1 Fig). The buildings of this type were developed mainly in the third stage of monastery construction (1649–1873). Kumbum Monastery could only be expanded towards the north and south due to the terrain constraints; the monastery is located in the Lotus Mountain, which comprises eight north–south mountain bays. Its spatial features correspond to the fifth period (from the 1750s to 20th century) of the evolution of the palace buildings of Tibetan Monastery, that is, expanding the area of the chanting hall and shrinking the area of the Buddha hall. The number of pillars used in the chanting halls reflects the hierarchy of monastery construction. The system of the Buddhist colleges of Kumbum Monastery and the time when they started to be developed are based on the educational system and the order of construction of the four Buddhist college buildings established by the Gelugpa Sect of Tibetan Buddhism.

Fig 9 — (W, width of the Palace Halls; D, depth of the Palace Halls; N, the number of pillars).

Type 4: Other variants

In addition to the aforementioned three types, there are two other variants of the palace building in Kumbum Monastery, both of them were built without an interior ring road, and the Buddha halls were linked with courtyard initially or a U-shaped closed corridor (Fig 12).

Fig 12 — (W, width of the Palace Halls; D, depth of the Palace Halls).

The first variant is the Hall of the Protective Deity. It was originally built in the Dongla Mountain outside the monastery and moved to the present site in 1692. Its original spatial form did not have the double-layered cloister in front of the temple (it was added in 1826) and the gilded copper tile temple roof (it was constructed in 1809). The Buddha Hall is rectangular, its width-to-depth ratio is 7/3, and the main hall has two floors.

The second variant is the Amitayus Hall. It was built in 1717 to pray for the longevity of the Dalai Lama stationed in Kumbum Monastery at that time. The Hall is rectangular, and the width-to-depth ratio is 5/3. The centre of the Hall is a well-hole space, and the second floor is surrounded by small cloisters. Colonnades are present in the Mingjian and Cijian of the front elevation, and a U-shaped closed corridor is situated in the back, left, and right. The Amitayus Hall has a two-story, pavilion-type East Asian hip-and-gable roof.

The main halls of both the variants were completed in the beginning of the third stage of the construction of Kumbum Monastery (1649–1873). The original form of the grand halls of Buddhas is in line with the features of the fourth stage of the evolution of the palace buildings in Tibetan monasteries, that is, discontinuing of the indoor ring road. Moreover, the practice of adding the cloisters is in line with the spatial combination elements and patterns of the other palace buildings (the four Buddhist colleges) built in the third period of Kumbum Monastery construction.

Temporal and spatial evolution

Based on the aforementioned spatial types of the palace buildings, we explored the spatial features of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery and its evolution process in the temporal and spatial dimensions.

Spatial and temporal evolution and features of the palace buildings

The spatial and temporal evolution process and features of the palace buildings in Kumbum Monastery can be discussed from three aspects: architectural type, building distribution, and spatial composition.

First, among the spatial forms of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery, type 1 (the ring road surrounding the Dugang-style palace space), type 2 (single-sided eaves of the Duguang-style palace space), and all other variants appear in the Buddhist halls. Type 3 (three-stage palace space with cloisters connecting to Dugang) is found only in the Buddhist colleges (Fig 13).

Second, type 1 and 2 are concentrated in the central area of the monastery, and type 3 is distributed in both the central and peripheral areas. Type 4 is only scattered in marginal area of the monastery nearby the entrance (Fig 14).

Third, there are four palace buildings of type 1, as well as type3, which is twice the number of buildings of type 2 or type 4 (Fig 15). It corresponds to the rise and fall of Kumbum Monastery construction activities and the historical context. And the width-to-depth ratio of the main hall includes 1(type1), 7/5-3 (type 2), 5/6-13/10 (type 3), and 7/3-5/3, it shows that the plane of the main hall follows the rectangular form, but the specific proportions are not regulr.

Fourth, the spatial composition of the palace buildings reflects the characteristics of changes with the construction space; the characteristics are manifested in the following two points: 1) Among the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery, the building with the courtyard connected to the entrance of Dugang space was built in the late Qing Dynasty, along with its four Buddhist college and two Buddha hall buildings. The main body of the Buddhist college and Buddha hall buildings was formed after 1766 and 1767, respectively. The buildings formed before them were freestanding Buddha hall buildings. 2) Among the four Buddhist college buildings, the Great Chanting Hall, Juba Raseng, and Manba Raseng have similar spatial composition forms, that is, there is certain symmetry in their overall layout. Their main building was constructed between the second half of the 18th century and the early 19th century (1766–1818). The Dingke Raseng, which was built in the second half of the 19th century (1886), adds an asymmetrical spatial courtyard layout on the basis of the spatial form of the first three. The earth walls without windows surround the Dingke Raseng, the door is in the middle of the south wall, and the door is arranged along the axis or away from the centre. This courtyard layout, namely Zhuangke-style courtyard (the type of dwelling popular in the eastern part of Qinghai Province and 11 counties and cities along the Yellow River and Huangshui River), serves as the typical residential system in the eastern part of Qinghai.

Evolution of the spatial structure of the palace buildings

To analyse the reasons for the evolution of the aforementioned forms of space construction, we should review the historical background of the construction of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery, investigate the evolution of the spatial features of the monastery’s buildings from the perspective of politics, religion, nation, and transportation, and explore the dynamic factors causing the spatial features of the palace buildings and the manner in which the multi-culture works.

Types 1 and 2 were constructed in the first stage of the monastery’s construction. Since 841, Buddhist monks fled to the Heghuang region of Qinghai to revive Tibetan Buddhism because Tibet adopted the policy of ‘eliminating Buddhism’ [28]. By the end of the Yuan dynasty(1271–1368), Tsongkhapa came to Qinghai and established the Gelugpa Sect. During the Ming Dynasty (1522–1566), the 11th emperor of the Ming Dynasty encouraged all the sects of Tibetan Buddhism that had constructed monasteries in the Huanzhong region of Qinghai [29]. With the concerted support of the central government of the Ming dynasty, religious groups, and the ruling class of ethnic groups, the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery were constructed under the instruction of the senior monks to establish their own religious significance. Therefore, the spatial features of the buildings follow the practice of the fourth stage of the evolution of the palace buildings in Tibet, that is, the worship path was moved from the periphery to the outside of the Buddha Hall. With the passage of time, the road changed partly in form, that is, the ring road was abolished. In addition, during the Ming dynasty, the central government organised large-scale migrations towards the northern regions to develop the areas devastated by the war, including the Hehuang of Qinghai, where the Kumbum Monastery was located [30]. Consequently, the construction technology of Central Plains (a traditional regional concept of the Han nationality, which refers to a vast area with Henan Province as the core that extends to the middle and lower reaches of the Yellow River, and regarded as the birthplaces and centre of Chinese ancient civilization.) of China was introduced to the area [31] and thus the style of the buildings in the Yellow River basin gradually became similar to that in Central Plains. To place the large Buddha statue and Holy Tower in the centre of the palace building in Kumbum Monastery, types 1 and 2 adopted the structural layout of ‘removing pillars’ or ‘moving pillars’ in Chinese style in the Central Plain area of the Ming dynasty.

Type 3 is observed in all the Buddhist colleges of Kumbum Monastery. Before the construction of the Buddhist colleges of Kumbum Monastery was completed, the Buddhist colleges and their architectures were already developed in a fixed form in four dominant and largest monasteries of the Gelugpa Sect located in Lasha. Although Kumbum Monastery, as the fifth main monastery of the Gelugpa Sects, was built outside Tibet, its Buddhist colleges system was formed in the Qing dynasty. In 1652, the emperor of the Qing Dynasty established the regency system in Tibet. He appointed the Gelugpa Sect as the leader of various sects of Tibetan Buddhism and acquiesced to the conversion of other sects into the Gelugpa Sect. This led many monasteries of other sects in the Qinghai to convert into the Gelugpa Sect. Moreover, 31 monasteries converted and turned into the subordinate temples of Kumbum Monastery. In this social context, Kumbum continued to follow the practices of the organization of Buddhist college, thereby establishing the order and spatial characteristics of architectures of the four dominant Gelugpa Sect monasteries in Lasha except for Dingke Raseng because although the other three Buddhist colleges had formed by 1711, Dingke Raseng was the last one to be constructed, and its architectures were formed in 1817. Before its construction, in the first year of the reign of Emperor Yong Zhen of the Qing dynasty (1723), Lobsangdanjin incited the religious forces of the Tibetan Buddhism monasteries in Qinghai to launch an open rebellion, and Chahannuomen (the great lama of Kumbum Monastery) was involved in it. Subsequently, the Qing dynasty’s rebellion was quelled. Because the Gelugpa Sect forces were involved, the Qing dynasty accepted the suggestions, presented in Thirteen Suggestions for Dealing with Qinghai Matters, to restrict the development of Gelugpa Sect monastery in Qinghai [32]. Dingke Raseng, which was built after this time, took the initiative to absorb the regional elements of architectural space in Qinghai to prove their legitimacy.

According to the aforementioned results, with influences from the religious dissemination and sociopolitical influence of the Ming dynasty, Kumbum Monastery received the coordinated support of the central government, religious groups, and the ruling class of ethnic groups because the Han immigrants were integrated with the original ethnic groups. On the premise of following the practice of the Tibetan area in the same period, the space of the buildings of Kumbum Monastery has undergone partial changes with time. Simultaneously, it started to adopt the column-net layout technique of Central Plains. Subsequently, driven mainly by the social and political climate of the Qing dynasty and influenced by the leadership of the Gelugpa Sect among the Tibetan Buddhism sects, the Buddhist college system in Kumbum Monastery was gradually completed. All the palace buildings were built according to the practices of the four major Gelugpa Sects in Lhasa. To eliminate the negative influence of the rebellion, Kumbum Monastery took the initiative to imitate the architectural layout of the buildings in Qinghai, indicating that the monastery wanted to take its cue from the Han culture to proclaim its legitimacy to the central government.

Based on this study, typical cases of each typology are worth focusing on in future studies regarding Tibetan Buddhist monastery, with the integration of politics, religion, minority, and traffic to explore the overall evolutionary law of this monastery’s buildings. And in respect to architectural preservation and conservation, it should be recognized that the protecting and conserving activities for palace buildings in Kumbum Monastery cannot be constructed according to the same template. In terms to protecting measures, the spatial element, configuration, function and the cultural connotation should be analysed dialectically, then the parts with specific and important cultural value could be clarified.

Conclusions

Due to the influence of the two strong cultures, namely the Tibetan and Han culture, the architectural space of Kumbum Monastery followed the Tibetan practice and gradually incorporated the spatial features of the Central Han area and the local buildings of Qinghai with the changing political climate, thus producing four types of palace building space, whose spatial and temporal evolution characteristics reflect the process of interpretation of the same religious mandala through different forms of palace buildings and show the religion to politics oriented evolution of the buildings of Kumbum Monastery. Nevertheless, it should be noted that Tibetan Buddhist cannot be limited formal terms. To avoid misuse architectural patterns and simple duplication of Tibetan Buddhist cultural imagery, the spatial configuration and evolution process should be explored, and the essence of cultural identity and religious thoughts should be further discussed and truly understood with the historical context in each project.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Figure of surveying and mapping of Golden Tile Palace.

(DWG)

Click here for additional data file.^{(746KB, dwg)}

S2 Fig. Figure of surveying and mapping of Great Chanting Hall.

(DWG)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, dwg)}

Data Availability

Figs 8, 10, 11 are availble from the Figshare database S1, S2, the URLs: https://figshare.com/articles/figure/S1_Figure_of_surveying_and_mapping_of_Golden_Tile_Palace_dwg_S2_Figure_of_surveying_and_mapping_of_Great_Chanting_Hall/16823605 And the rest data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

Yunying Ren received NSFC,the grant number: 52078404, the full name of the funder is 'National Nature Science Foundation of China'. URL:http://output.nsfc.gov.cn/fundingQuery The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Zhihai Nian, Gengdeng Bai. Tibetan Buddhist Temple in Qinghai [M]. Lanzhou: Gansu Nationalities Press,1993. [Google Scholar]
2.Wencheng Pu. Tibetan Buddhist Temples in Ganqing [M]. Xining: Qinghai People’s Publishing House, 1990. [Google Scholar]
3.Fanen Kong. Cultural Value of the Kumbum Monastery from the Perspective of World Heritage [J]. Huazhong Architecture,2019,37(07):13–17. [Google Scholar]
4.Litao Zhu, Huimin Su, Ping Zhang, Zhengwei Li. Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Tibetan Buddhist Temples in Qinghai Province[J]. World Regional Studies,2019,28(2):209–216. [Google Scholar]
5.Jing Zhang, Yunying Ren.2020. The Cultural Origins of the Temple Architecture of Kumbum Monastery [J]. Huazhong Architecture, 2020,38(09):125–128. [Google Scholar]
6.Guangrong Ran. Tibetan Buddhist Temples in China [M]. Beijing: China Tibetology Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]
7.Bai Su. Tibetan Buddhist Temple Archaeology [M]. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1996. [Google Scholar]
8.Yaodong Chen. Chinese Tibetan Architecture [M]. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 1999. [Google Scholar]
9.Quansheng Ge, Junhu Dai, Jun Liu, Shuying Zhong, Haolong Liu. The Effect of Climate Change on the Fall Foliage Vacation in China[J]. Tourism Management, 2013,vol (38): 80–84. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10.Zhang Jing. Study on the History of Architectures of Kumbum Monastery in Qinghai province [D]. Doctoral Thesis of Xi ’an University of Architecture and Technology, 2020.
11.Yang Zixun. A Preliminary Study of Spatial Characteristics and Its Formation Factors of the Gelugpa Sect Monastery-Taking Kumbum Monastery for an Example[C]. Chinese Society of Landscape Architecture Conference,2014(09):190–194.
12.Hui Li, Wenxi Wang, Hua He et al. Landscape space analysis of Tibetan Buddhist temple based on the space syntax[J]. Huazhong Architecture,2020,38(10):145–149. [Google Scholar]
13.Nan Shao. Study on Mural Art of Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Qinghai-Take Kumbum Monastery as an example[J]. Journal of Qinghai Normal University (Social Science).2010,26(04): 99–101+114. [Google Scholar]
14.Xiaoqing Gen, Wei Cao. The Han-style Decorative Art of Buildings in Kumbum Monastery[J]. Journal of Qinghai Minzu University (Social Sciences),2012,39(03):102–105. [Google Scholar]
15.Miaoru Wang. Study on the Interior Soft Decoration Art of Buddhist Temple Hall in Tibetan Buddhist Temple Buildings[J]. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2020,8(04): 284–290. doi: 10.4236/jss.2020.84021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16.Guiming Yang. Architectural Art History of Kumbum Monastery [M]. Beijing: China Nationalities Press, 2015. [Google Scholar]
17.Pengju Zhang. A Study on the Classification of Palace Halls of Tibetan Buddhist Temples in Inner Mongolia Based on the Development of Dugang Ceremony[J]. Journal of Architecture, 2016. (02): 95–100. [Google Scholar]
18.Jing Bo, Changming Yang. The Diversity of Traditional Regional Architectural Culture in Tibetan Area of GQCD[J]. Urbanism and Architecture, 2006(08):25–27. [Google Scholar]
19.Teng Liu, Yin Han. The plane shape of Tibetan three-phase palace with Dugang as main part[J]. Huazhong Archotecture,2121,39(07):111–116. [Google Scholar]
20.Jin Shanhe, Yang Jun, Wang Enxu, Liu Jun. The influence of high-speed rail on ice-snow tourism in northeastern Chain[J]. Tourism Management,2020,vol.38(C):80–84. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104070; 3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Yang Yun, Yang Ruxin, Chen Ming-Hsiang, Su Ching-Hui(Joan), Zhi Yin and Xi Jianchao. Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism[J]. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,2021,vol(47):35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Yongping Wang. Lhasa Architectural Cultural Heritage [M]. Nanjing: Southeast University Press, 2005. [Google Scholar]
23.Janet Gyatso, Buddhism and state in seventeenth century Tibet: cosmology and theology in the works of Sangye Gyatso[D]. Harvard University, 2018.
24.Jiaoba Xiawu. The Regulated System and Its Evoluted History of Tibetan Buddhist Monastery [J]. Qinghai Social Sciences,2020(03):160–165. [Google Scholar]
25.Peijun Bai. Study on the interaction history between Dala Lama and Kumbum Monastery[J]. Journal of Qinghai Minority University (Social Science), 2018,44(03):106–111. [Google Scholar]
26.Yu X. Study on the Regulations governing Tibet in Qing Dynasty [M]. Beijing: China Tibetology Press, 2002:615. [Google Scholar]
27.Hongping Nie. The Evolution Process of Priority of Tibetan Buddhist Groups in Qing Dynasty [J]. China Tibetology. 2019. (02):147–155. [Google Scholar]
28.Yan Da, Changshun Du. The expansion of Gelugpa Sect in Qinghai and Mongolia during Qing Dynasty [J]. Journal of Northwest Normal University(Social Sciences). 2012,49(05):58–64. [Google Scholar]
29.Zhiguanba G. Ando History of Politics and Education [M]. Lanzhou: Gansu Nationalities Press, 1989. [Google Scholar]
30.Llian-ke Wei. The Supplement of Historical Materials of Hebei Immigrants in the Early Ming Dynasty [J]. Knowledge of Culture and History,1989(10):75–77. [Google Scholar]
31.Xinbin Zhang. A Preliminary Discussion on Central Plains Culture and Commercial Capital Culture [J]. Journal of Huanghe S&T College,2007(04):31–36. [Google Scholar]
32.Xilong Wang. Discussion on The Article 13 of The Aftermath affairs of Qinghai Province in Nian Jiu Yao [J]. Tibetan Studies,1992,04:27–37. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r001

Decision Letter 0

Jun Yang

23 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-25675Temporal and Spatial Features of the Palace Building Space of Qinghai's Kumbum Monastery and its Evolution MechanismPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 19 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement:

'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement:

'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

For more information on PLOS ONE's requirements for paleontology and archaeology research, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-paleontology-and-archaeology-research.

3. We note that Figures 1 and 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1 and 3 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

4. We note that Picture 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Picture 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer 1

The authors used typological approaches and numerical method to analyse spatial features of palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery, classified them into four types, and discussed the evolution of their features to obtain the development mechanism of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery. The research is valuable. However, there are still some problems:

Structure. Literature Review had better be separated from the Introduction and make a separate section. Study Objects and Methodology should be placed in a separate section of “Methodology”. Background Overview is the content about the study area. It should also be in the “Methodology” section. The above is only the suggestion, please adjust the structure according to the actual situation.

Table. Please pay attention to the format. For example, 3-line table is usually required in published articles.

2.1 Development Background of Tibetan Buddhism in Qinghai. This part is not the key content, and it is too long now. It is suggested refining.

The reference format should be revised according to the journal standard.

The clarity of all figures needs to be improved, and some formats are wrong as shown in Fig.2. Please provide the original figures in the attachment.

In "4.1 Spatial and temporal Evolution and features of the Palace Buildings", I hope to see the evolution of the features of palace Buildings on a map/diagram, but you only gave the pie chart. In view of “Spatial and temporal evolution”, considering adding meaningful maps or modifying this subtitle.

Also, the language needs to be polished by at least one native speakers.

Reviewer 2

The manuscript focuses on spatial features and evolution mechanism of buildings in Kumbum monastery. The topic is interesting, the study area is relevant; consequently, the manuscript can attract many readers in this field; however, a thorough revision is unquestionably needed before acceptance to improve the scientific quality. See my comments below:

1. The structure of the article is chaotic and the writing pattern is not scientific enough. The current structure is difficult to read and cannot form a smooth logical system. It is hoped that the manuscript can be reorganized in the order of Introduction - Methods - Results and discussion - Conclusion;

2. The introduction of research methods is relatively thin. The rationality of the method is the guarantee of the scientificity of the article. The author should introduce the use methods of various materials in detail, while the current introduction is too general. This paper has almost no discussion on typology. I don't know how the author uses the typological method to analyze. It is speculated from the article that the author should want to introduce the morphological evolution of buildings in Kumbum Monastery with the method of process typology, but it is lack of accurate definition. In addition, how is the importance of numerical analysis reflected in the research？ I think the author should strengthen the interactive analysis of this data and the evolution mechanism of building types, not just a simple list.

3. I think section 2, 3 and 4 of the article can be integrated for in-depth discussion without parallel listing. At present, the introduction of historical narration and architectural features are independent and lack of organic connection.

4. The research on historical buildings focuses on the protection and utilization, but the article just lacks too much content on this point. The theoretical and practical significance of the research should not be ignored. What guiding value does the research results have for the protection of buildings in Kumbum Monastery? What measures should be taken to continue the tradition of Tibetan Buddhist architecture in the future? These should be described in detail in the discussion section.

5. The abstract should be revised according to the modification of the article, and at least include a brief description of the building type.

6. The main analysis and thinking can be put in the "Results and discussion", and the conclusion only needs to condense the main points of the article.

7. It is recommended that the influence mechanism can be omitted, focusing on the changes in the structure of the temple, and not discussing the influencing factors. Because there are many influencing factors, it is beyond the control of the author. A brief discussion can be done through literature review.

8. There should be an explanation for terms such as Central Plains, not the Central Plains, but the representative name of the Chinese culture?

In addition, it is recommended to invite experts in geopolitics and international relations to review the language of the article.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors used typological approaches and numerical method to analyse spatial features of palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery, classified them into four types, and discussed the evolution of their features to obtain the development mechanism of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery. The research is valuable. However, there are still some problems:

Table. Please pay attention to the format. For example, 3-line table is usually required in published articles.

2.1 Development Background of Tibetan Buddhism in Qinghai. This part is not the key content, and it is too long now. It is suggested refining.

The reference format should be revised according to the journal standard.

The clarity of all figures needs to be improved, and some formats are wrong as shown in Fig.2. Please provide the original figures in the attachment.

Also, the language needs to be polished by at least one native speakers.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript focuses on spatial features and evolution mechanism of buildings in Kumbum monastery. The topic is interesting, the study area is relevant; consequently, the manuscript can attract many readers in this field; however, a thorough revision is unquestionably needed before acceptance to improve the scientific quality. See my comments below:

5. The abstract should be revised according to the modification of the article, and at least include a brief description of the building type.

6. The main analysis and thinking can be put in the "Results and discussion", and the conclusion only needs to condense the main points of the article.

8. There should be an explanation for terms such as Central Plains, not the Central Plains, but the representative name of the Chinese culture?

In addition, it is recommended to invite experts in geopolitics and international relations to review the language of the article

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0262155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

17 Oct 2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Temporal and spatial features of the palace building space of Qinghai’s Kumbum Monastery and its evolution mechanism” (PONE-D-21-25675).

Your comments and those of the reviewers were highly insightful and enabled us to greatly improve the quality of our manuscript. In the following pages are our point-by-point replies to each of the comments of the reviewers.

Revisions in the text are shown using yellow highlight for additions. We hope that the revisions in the manuscript and our accompanying responses will be sufficient to make our manuscript suitable for publication in Advances in PLOS ONE.

We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Jing Zhang

Replies to the Journal Requirements:

Comments1:

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Reply:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. According to the PLOS ONE templates, we revised our manuscript to meet PLOS ONE ’s style requirements.

Comments2:

In your manuscript, please provide additional information regarding the specimens used in your study. Ensure that you have reported specimen numbers and complete repository information, including museum name and geographic location.

If permits were required, please ensure that you have provided details for all permits that were obtained, including the full name of the issuing authority, and add the following statement: 'All necessary permits were obtained for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

If no permits were required, please include the following statement: 'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

Reply:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. We add the statement with 'No permits were required for the described study, which complied with all relevant regulations.'

due to no permits were required.

Comments3:

We note that Figures 1 and 3 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted…We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission…. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license.

Reply:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. First, Figure 1 has been removed in the revised manuscript.

Second, Figure 3, we supplied a replacement figure (Fig 2) which is the schematic diagram just showing the distribution of buildings, and all the information in this replacement figure are based on our site investigation (see attachment ).

Comments4:

We note that Picture 1 in your submission contain copyrighted images…We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

Reply:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. Pic 1 has been removed in the revised manuscript.

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #1

Comment 1:

Table. Please pay attention to the format. For example, 3-line table is usually required in published articles.

The clarity of all figures needs to be improved, and some formats are wrong as shown in Fig.2. Please provide the original figures in the attachment.

Reply 1:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper.

Literature Review has been separated from the Introduction and make a separate section. Moreover, Study Objects and Methodology, and Background Overview have been placed in a separate section of “Methodology”.

All the Table have been revised in the standard format according to PLOS ONE Table Guidelines. Among these Tables, Table 2-3, and 5-7 in preliminary submission have been transfer into Figure 5-7, 9 and 12 because of containing graphics (see attachment).

Figure 2 has been replaced (Fig 1 now) (see attachment).

Comment 2:

Also, the language needs to be polished by at least one native speakers.

Reply 2:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. In "Spatial and temporal Evolution and features of the Palace Buildings", we add Fig 14 to show the distribution of the four types of palace spaces in buildings examples (see attachment). And the language has been polished by a native speaker.

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #2

Comment 1:

The structure of the article is chaotic and the writing pattern is not scientific enough. The current structure is difficult to read and cannot form a smooth logical system. It is hoped that the manuscript can be reorganized in the order of Introduction - Methods - Results and discussion – Conclusion.

Reply 2:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. According to your and reviewer 1’s precious suggestions, the structure of the article has been reorganized in the order of Introduction – Literature review -Materials and methods –Results and discussion – Conclusion.

Comment 2:

The introduction of research methods is relatively thin. The rationality of the method is the guarantee of the scientificity of the article. The author should introduce the use methods of various materials in detail, while the current introduction is too general.

This paper has almost no discussion on typology. I don't know how the author uses the typological method to analyze. It is speculated from the article that the author should want to introduce the morphological evolution of buildings in Kumbum Monastery with the method of process typology, but it is lack of accurate definition.

In addition, how is the importance of numerical analysis reflected in the research？ I think the author should strengthen the interactive analysis of this data and the evolution mechanism of building types, not just a simple list.

Reply 2:

According to your suggestion, we revised our article as follows:

1.We add Fig 3. (Research method framework) to show the research methods of various materials in detail (See attachment).

2. We explain the classification criteria and basis based on typology in “Spatial composition types and features of the palace buildings” (see line 117-124, whose supporting information can be seen in line 98-104) and in” Spatial composition types and features of the palace buildings” (see line 275-279). Also, we gave the definition of 4 types of palace spaces (type1,see line 283-284; type2, see line 315-317; type3, see line 343-345; type4, see line 378-379).

3. Fig 14 has been supplied to show the distribution of the four types of palace spaces in buildings examples. And Fig 14 has been added to strengthen the evolution mechanism of building types in historical context (see attachment).

Comment 3:

I think section 2, 3 and 4 of the article can be integrated for in-depth discussion without parallel listing. At present, the introduction of historical narration and architectural features are independent and lack of organic connection.

Reply 3:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. “2.1 Development Background of Tibetan Buddhism in Qinghai” in preliminary submission has been removed, and been separated and connected with the certain parts in “Temporal and spatial evolution” (see line 458-464 and line 481-496) to integrated for in-depth discussion.

Comment 4:

The research on historical buildings focuses on the protection and utilization, but the article just lacks too much content on this point. The theoretical and practical significance of the research should not be ignored. What guiding value does the research results have for the protection of buildings in Kumbum Monastery? What measures should be taken to continue the tradition of Tibetan Buddhist architecture in the future? These should be described in detail in the discussion section.

Reply 4:

Thanks for your valuable comments. Though the protection and utilization of Tibetan Buddhist monastery is crucial , its specific measurements in details are the further aim of its research, and it is not the direct research purpose of this article yet. Meanwhile, your suggestion is quite meaningful to us. A brief statement of guiding value, and protection and conversation principle of Kumbum Monastery and other Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Qinghai in the future has been supplied in the discussion section ( see line 519-526).

Comment 5:

The abstract should be revised according to the modification of the article, and at least include a brief description of the building type.

Reply5:

A brief description of the four building types have been explained in the abstract (see line 26-28).

Comment 6:

The main analysis and thinking can be put in the "Results and discussion", and the conclusion only needs to condense the main points of the article.

Reply 6:

All the main analysis sections have been organized in the "Results and discussion", as well as replaced the first part of “Conclusion and discussion” in original manuscript (see line 505-518).

Comment 7:

It is recommended that the influence mechanism can be omitted, focusing on the changes in the structure of the temple, and not discussing the influencing factors. Because there are many influencing factors, it is beyond the control of the author.

Reply 7:

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We turned focus from evolution mechanism to evolution process, and changed the corresponding titles (see line4, 405,451) and the content (see line30,41,71,152,159,407).

Comment 8:

A brief discussion can be done through literature review.

Reply 8:

A brief discussion has been supplied through literature review (see line 98-104).

Comment 9:

here should be an explanation for terms such as Central Plains, not the Central Plains, but the representative name of the Chinese culture?

In addition, it is recommended to invite experts in geopolitics and international relations to review the language of the article.

Reply 9:

“Central Plains” has been modified and explained according to the explanation from “Ci hai”（The Chinese dictionary）and experts in geopolitics (Zhang,2007) (see line 473-476), as well as the “Reference” (see line 604-605).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(24.4KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r003

Decision Letter 1

Jun Yang

1 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-25675R1Temporal and Spatial Features of the Palace Building Space of Qinghai's Kumbum Monastery and its EvolutionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 16 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments :

The authors have not adequately addressed all of the my comments raised in a previous round of review, need further modification.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All the questions have been addressed. It is recommended for publication.

Reviewer #2: The authors have not adequately addressed all of the my comments raised in a previous round of review, need further modification.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0262155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

7 Nov 2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

First of all, we sincerely apologized. Due to the negligence of the working team, the content of other manuscripts was mixed at the end of the previous replies to the comments of Reviewer 2. In this regard, we have deeply criticized and revised, and strengthened the frequency of document proofreading to guarantee that this situation will never happen again . In any case, we must deeply reflect on the last mistake and sincerely apologize to Reviewer 2.

We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Jing Zhang

Department of Environmental Design, School of Art and Media, Xi'an Technological University

Xi'an, Shaanxi, China

Email: ph_zhangjing@163.com

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #1

Comment ：

All comments have been addressed.It is recommended for publication.

Reply :

Thanks for your valuable comments on our paper.

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #2

First of all, we sincerely apologize. Due to the negligence of our working team, the content of other manuscripts was mixed at the end of the previous replies to the comments of Reviewer 2. In this regard, we have deeply criticized and revised, and strengthened the frequency of document proofreading to guarantee that this situation will never happen again. In any case, we must deeply reflect on the last mistake and sincerely apologize to Reviewer 2.

Comment 1:

Reply 1:

Comment 2:

reply 2:

According to your suggestion, we revised the introduction, and introduced the use methods to guarantee of the scientificity of the article (see line 69-75). Also, we revised Fig 2. (Research method framework) to show the research methods of various materials in detail (See attachment).

Comment 3:

Reply 3:

Thanks for your valuable comments on our paper. We have clairfied the research method using typology (see line 69-75), and have explained the classification criteria and basis based on typology in “Spatial composition types and features of the palace buildings” (see line 122-129, whose supporting information can be seen in line 103-109; and see line 141-143) and in” Spatial composition types and features of the palace buildings” (see line 281-285). Also, we gave the definition of 4 types of palace spaces (type1, see line 289-290; type2, see line 321-323; type3, see line 350-352; type4, see line 385-387).

Comment 4:

Reply 4:

Thanks for your valuable suggestion, we have analysed the number of each type cases, and the comparison of the number of different types of buildings, as well as the width-to-depth ratio of the main hall of 4 types (see line 443-448).Then we have added the analysis and the corresponding figure (Fig 15) to explore the evolution of 4 types of palace buildings through the interactive numerical analysis and historical context ( see attachment).

Furthermore, we have added the analysis and the corresponding figure (Fig 14) to discuss the distribution of 4 types of palace buildings to strengthen the interactive analysis of research objects and the overall space of Kumbum Monastery (see line 434-436, see attachment) .

Comment 5:

Reply 5:

Thank you for your valuable comments on our paper. “2.1 Development Background of Tibetan Buddhism in Qinghai” in preliminary submission has been removed, and been separated and connected with the certain parts in “Temporal and spatial evolution” (see line 479-485 and line 502-517) to integrated for in-depth discussion. Besides, we have added Fig 15 to show the architectural evolution with the historical context (see attachment).

Comment 6:

Reply 6:

Thanks for your valuable comments. According to the research result ,we have discussed the guiding value of the protection of buildings in Kumbum Monastery. We also explained the measures. And the protection and conversation principle of Kumbum Monastery and other Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Qinghai in the future has been supplied in the discussion section (see line 541-552, and 560-562).

Comment 7:

The abstract should be revised according to the modification of the article, and at least include a brief description of the building type.

Reply 7:

A brief description of the four building types have been explained in the abstract (see line 26-28).

Comment 8:

The main analysis and thinking can be put in the "Results and discussion", and the conclusion only needs to condense the main points of the article.

Reply 8:

All the main analysis sections have been organized in the "Results and discussion", as well as replaced the first part of “Conclusion and discussion” in original manuscript (see line 526-539). And the discuss part has been separated (see line 541-552), as well as the Conclusions (see line 553-562).

Comment 9:

Reply 9:

Thanks for your valuable suggestions. We turned focus from evolution mechanism to evolution process, and changed the corresponding titles (see line4, 413,468) and the content (see line30,41,159,165,472).

Comment 10:

A brief discussion can be done through literature review.

Reply 10:

A brief discussion has been supplied through literature review (see line 103-109).

Comment 11:

There should be an explanation for terms such as Central Plains, not the Central Plains, but the representative name of the Chinese culture?

In addition, it is recommended to invite experts in geopolitics and international relations to review the language of the article.

Reply 11:

“Central Plains” has been modified and explained according to the explanation from “Ci hai”（The Chinese dictionary）and experts in geopolitics (Zhang, 2007) (see line 494-498), as well as the “Reference” (see line 632-633).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.7KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r005

Decision Letter 2

Jun Yang

19 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-25675R2Temporal and Spatial Features of the Palace Building Space of Qinghai's Kumbum Monastery and its EvolutionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 03 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The author has deleted some redundant contents and the structure of the article is clearer, but there are still some problems that will affect reading and understanding: 1. Line83-119, "Literature review" should be combined with the "Introduction". Through literature review, discuss the shortcomings of previous research, and lead to the problems to be solved in this paper. Figure 2 should be the content of "Materials and methods". I don't know why it appears in the first paragraph. 2. Line167-274, these contents should not be placed in the "Materials and methods", but should appear in the secion "Discussion". 3. Line540-551, there are "Results and Discussions" before, and there is another paragraph of discussion here, which is very confusing. This part should be retitled and integrated into the "Results and Discussions". In a word, the structure of this paper still needs to be adjusted, otherwise it can not meet the reading needs of readers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed.It is recommended for publication.

Reviewer #2: The author has deleted some redundant contents and the structure of the article is clearer, but there are still some problems that will affect reading and understanding:

1. Line83-119, "Literature review" should be combined with the "Introduction". Through literature review, discuss the shortcomings of previous research, and lead to the problems to be solved in this paper. Figure 2 should be the content of "Materials and methods". I don't know why it appears in the first paragraph.

2. Line167-274, these contents should not be placed in the "Materials and methods", but should appear in the secion "Discussion".

3. Line540-551, there are "Results and Discussions" before, and there is another paragraph of discussion here, which is very confusing. This part should be retitled and integrated into the "Results and Discussions".

In a word, the structure of this paper still needs to be adjusted, otherwise it can not meet the reading needs of readers.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0262155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2

22 Nov 2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Jing Zhang

Department of Environmental Design, School of Art and Media, Xi'an Technological University

Xi'an, Shaanxi, China

Email: ph_zhangjing@163.com

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #1

Comment ：

All comments have been addressed.It is recommended for publication.

Reply :

Thanks for your valuable comments on our paper.

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #2

Comment 1:

The author has deleted some redundant contents and the structure of the article is clearer, but there are still some problems that will affect reading and understanding:

Line83-119, "Literature review" should be combined with the "Introduction". Through literature review, discuss the shortcomings of previous research, and lead to the problems to be solved in this paper. Figure 2 should be the content of "Materials and methods". I don't know why it appears in the first paragraph.

Reply 1:

Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have combined “literature review” with the “Introduction” (see line 81-120). Among them, the discussion of shortcomings of previous research can be seen from line 100 to 106, and the relevant practical problems can be seen in line 106-112. Then the problem to be solved in this paper can be seen in line 113-120. Also, the former Figure 2 has been adjusted to the part of "Materials and methods",and renamed Figure 3 (see line 151 ,153and 154, and attachment Fig 3).

Comment 2:

Line167-274, these contents should not be placed in the "Materials and methods", but should appear in the section "Discussion".

reply 2:

According to your suggestion, we revised and replaced this part to the “Discussion” (see line 173-280).

Comment 3:

Line540-551, there are "Results and Discussions" before, and there is another paragraph of discussion here, which is very confusing. This part should be retitled and integrated into the "Results and Discussions".

Reply 3:

Thanks for your valuable comments on our paper. To prevent the confusion,we have removed the former level-3 heading“discussion” ,and integrated the content at the end of the "Results and Discussions".(see line 544-551).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.8KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r007

Decision Letter 3

Jun Yang

1 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-25675R3Temporal and Spatial Features of the Palace Building Space of Qinghai's Kumbum Monastery and its EvolutionPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 15 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments:

The authors have adequately addressed most of the comments raised in a previous round of review, but the references are not enough, some latest outcomes should be referred, for example: 1) The Effect of Climate Change on the Fall Foliage Vacation in China. Tourism Management. (On line doi：10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.020); 2) The influence of high-speed rail on ice–snow tourism in northeastern China. Tourism Management（2020）, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104070; 3) Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: No comments. All questions have been addressed.

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed most of the comments raised in a previous round of review，but the references are not enough, some latest outcomes should be referred, for example: 1) The Effect of Climate Change on the Fall Foliage Vacation in China. Tourism Management. (On line doi：10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.020); 2) The influence of high-speed rail on ice–snow tourism in northeastern China. Tourism Management（2020）, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104070; 3) Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. 2022 Oct 20;17(10):e0262155. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r008

Author response to Decision Letter 3

12 Dec 2021

Dear Editors and Reviewers,

We shall look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Jing Zhang

Department of Environmental Design, School of Art and Media, Xi'an Technological University

Xi'an, Shaanxi, China

Email: ph_zhangjing@163.com

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #1

Comment ：

All comments have been addressed.It is recommended for publication.

Reply :

Thanks for your valuable comments on our paper.

Replies to the comments of Reviewer #2

Comment 1:

The authors have adequately addressed most of the comments raised in a previous round of review，but the references are not enough, some latest outcomes should be referred, for example: 1) The Effect of Climate Change on the Fall Foliage Vacation in China. Tourism Management. (On line doi：10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.020); 2) The influence of high-speed rail on ice–snow tourism in northeastern China. Tourism Management（2020）, doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104070; 3) Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008.

Reply 1:

Thanks for suggestion.We have referred the latest outcomes in our paper.

1)The Effect of Climate Change on the Fall Foliage Vacation in China. Tourism Management.(see line94, and 592-594)

2)The influence of high-speed rail on ice–snow tourism in northeastern China.(see line110, and 620-622)

3)Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism. (see line110-111, and 623-625)

Comment 2:

Reply 2

Thanks for suggestion.We have upload all figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool to ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements(see attachments).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(17KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r009

Decision Letter 4

Jun Yang

17 Dec 2021

Temporal and Spatial Features of the Palace Building Space of Qinghai's Kumbum Monastery and its Evolution

PONE-D-21-25675R4

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: The authors have adequately addressed all of the comments raised in a previous round of review，and I feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0262155.r010

Acceptance letter

Jun Yang

23 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-25675R4

Temporal and spatial features of the palace building space of Qinghai’s Kumbum Monastery and its evolution

Dear Dr. Zhang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jun Yang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. Figure of surveying and mapping of Golden Tile Palace.

(DWG)

Click here for additional data file.^{(746KB, dwg)}

S2 Fig. Figure of surveying and mapping of Great Chanting Hall.

(DWG)

Click here for additional data file.^{(1.3MB, dwg)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(24.4KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(21.7KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.8KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(17KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

[pone.0262155.ref001] 1.Zhihai Nian, Gengdeng Bai. Tibetan Buddhist Temple in Qinghai [M]. Lanzhou: Gansu Nationalities Press,1993. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref002] 2.Wencheng Pu. Tibetan Buddhist Temples in Ganqing [M]. Xining: Qinghai People’s Publishing House, 1990. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref003] 3.Fanen Kong. Cultural Value of the Kumbum Monastery from the Perspective of World Heritage [J]. Huazhong Architecture,2019,37(07):13–17. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref004] 4.Litao Zhu, Huimin Su, Ping Zhang, Zhengwei Li. Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Tibetan Buddhist Temples in Qinghai Province[J]. World Regional Studies,2019,28(2):209–216. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref005] 5.Jing Zhang, Yunying Ren.2020. The Cultural Origins of the Temple Architecture of Kumbum Monastery [J]. Huazhong Architecture, 2020,38(09):125–128. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref006] 6.Guangrong Ran. Tibetan Buddhist Temples in China [M]. Beijing: China Tibetology Press, 1994. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref007] 7.Bai Su. Tibetan Buddhist Temple Archaeology [M]. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House, 1996. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref008] 8.Yaodong Chen. Chinese Tibetan Architecture [M]. Beijing: China Architecture and Building Press, 1999. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref009] 9.Quansheng Ge, Junhu Dai, Jun Liu, Shuying Zhong, Haolong Liu. The Effect of Climate Change on the Fall Foliage Vacation in China[J]. Tourism Management, 2013,vol (38): 80–84. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2013.02.020 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref010] 10.Zhang Jing. Study on the History of Architectures of Kumbum Monastery in Qinghai province [D]. Doctoral Thesis of Xi ’an University of Architecture and Technology, 2020.

[pone.0262155.ref011] 11.Yang Zixun. A Preliminary Study of Spatial Characteristics and Its Formation Factors of the Gelugpa Sect Monastery-Taking Kumbum Monastery for an Example[C]. Chinese Society of Landscape Architecture Conference,2014(09):190–194.

[pone.0262155.ref012] 12.Hui Li, Wenxi Wang, Hua He et al. Landscape space analysis of Tibetan Buddhist temple based on the space syntax[J]. Huazhong Architecture,2020,38(10):145–149. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref013] 13.Nan Shao. Study on Mural Art of Tibetan Buddhist Monastery in Qinghai-Take Kumbum Monastery as an example[J]. Journal of Qinghai Normal University (Social Science).2010,26(04): 99–101+114. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref014] 14.Xiaoqing Gen, Wei Cao. The Han-style Decorative Art of Buildings in Kumbum Monastery[J]. Journal of Qinghai Minzu University (Social Sciences),2012,39(03):102–105. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref015] 15.Miaoru Wang. Study on the Interior Soft Decoration Art of Buddhist Temple Hall in Tibetan Buddhist Temple Buildings[J]. Open Journal of Social Sciences. 2020,8(04): 284–290. doi: 10.4236/jss.2020.84021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref016] 16.Guiming Yang. Architectural Art History of Kumbum Monastery [M]. Beijing: China Nationalities Press, 2015. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref017] 17.Pengju Zhang. A Study on the Classification of Palace Halls of Tibetan Buddhist Temples in Inner Mongolia Based on the Development of Dugang Ceremony[J]. Journal of Architecture, 2016. (02): 95–100. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref018] 18.Jing Bo, Changming Yang. The Diversity of Traditional Regional Architectural Culture in Tibetan Area of GQCD[J]. Urbanism and Architecture, 2006(08):25–27. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref019] 19.Teng Liu, Yin Han. The plane shape of Tibetan three-phase palace with Dugang as main part[J]. Huazhong Archotecture,2121,39(07):111–116. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref020] 20.Jin Shanhe, Yang Jun, Wang Enxu, Liu Jun. The influence of high-speed rail on ice-snow tourism in northeastern Chain[J]. Tourism Management,2020,vol.38(C):80–84. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104070; 3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref021] 21.Yang Yun, Yang Ruxin, Chen Ming-Hsiang, Su Ching-Hui(Joan), Zhi Yin and Xi Jianchao. Effects of rural revitalization on rural tourism[J]. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,2021,vol(47):35–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jhtm.2021.02.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref022] 22.Yongping Wang. Lhasa Architectural Cultural Heritage [M]. Nanjing: Southeast University Press, 2005. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref023] 23.Janet Gyatso, Buddhism and state in seventeenth century Tibet: cosmology and theology in the works of Sangye Gyatso[D]. Harvard University, 2018.

[pone.0262155.ref024] 24.Jiaoba Xiawu. The Regulated System and Its Evoluted History of Tibetan Buddhist Monastery [J]. Qinghai Social Sciences,2020(03):160–165. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref025] 25.Peijun Bai. Study on the interaction history between Dala Lama and Kumbum Monastery[J]. Journal of Qinghai Minority University (Social Science), 2018,44(03):106–111. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref026] 26.Yu X. Study on the Regulations governing Tibet in Qing Dynasty [M]. Beijing: China Tibetology Press, 2002:615. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref027] 27.Hongping Nie. The Evolution Process of Priority of Tibetan Buddhist Groups in Qing Dynasty [J]. China Tibetology. 2019. (02):147–155. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref028] 28.Yan Da, Changshun Du. The expansion of Gelugpa Sect in Qinghai and Mongolia during Qing Dynasty [J]. Journal of Northwest Normal University(Social Sciences). 2012,49(05):58–64. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref029] 29.Zhiguanba G. Ando History of Politics and Education [M]. Lanzhou: Gansu Nationalities Press, 1989. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref030] 30.Llian-ke Wei. The Supplement of Historical Materials of Hebei Immigrants in the Early Ming Dynasty [J]. Knowledge of Culture and History,1989(10):75–77. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref031] 31.Xinbin Zhang. A Preliminary Discussion on Central Plains Culture and Commercial Capital Culture [J]. Journal of Huanghe S&T College,2007(04):31–36. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0262155.ref032] 32.Xilong Wang. Discussion on The Article 13 of The Aftermath affairs of Qinghai Province in Nian Jiu Yao [J]. Tibetan Studies,1992,04:27–37. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Temporal and spatial features of the palace building space of Qinghai’s Kumbum Monastery and its evolution

Jing Zhang

Yunying Ren

Xiaofan An

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Background and aim

Fig 1. Ancient traffic routes in Qinghai province (202 B.C.–907 A.D.).

Literature review

Materials and methods

Study objects and methodology

Fig 2. Distribution of case studies.

Table 1. List of case studies.

Fig 3. Research method framework.

Results and discussions

Background overview

Historical background of the construction of the palace buildings of Kumbum Monastery

Fig 4. Historical and cultural background of the construction history of Kumbum Monastery.

Evolution of the palace buildings of Tibetan monasteries

Fig 5. Evolution of palace buildings in Tibetan monasteries (from the 7th to 20th century).

Spatial composition types and features of the palace buildings

Type 1: The ring road surrounding Dugang-style palace space

Fig 6. Spatial features of the palace buildings of type I.

Table 2. Dimensions of the planar column network of the palace space for type I.

Type 2: Single-sided eaves of the Duguang-style palace space

Fig 7. Spatial features of the palace buildings in type II.

Fig 8. Plan and section of the Golden Tile Temple.

Type 3: Three-stage palace space with cloisters connecting to Dugang

Fig 9. Spatial features of the palace buildings of type 3.

Fig 10. Section of the Great Chanting Hall.

Fig 11. Elevation of the Great Chanting Hall.

Type 4: Other variants

Fig 12. Spatial features of the palace buildings of type 4.

Temporal and spatial evolution

Spatial and temporal evolution and features of the palace buildings

Fig 13. Examples of the four types of palace spaces in the buildings of the grand halls of Buddhas and Buddhist colleges.

Fig 14. Distribution of 4 types of palace buildings in Kumbum Monastery.

Fig 15. Evolution of 4 types of palace buildings in Kumbum Monastery.

Evolution of the spatial structure of the palace buildings

Conclusions

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Jun Yang

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Jun Yang

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Jun Yang

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Jun Yang

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 3

Decision Letter 4

Jun Yang

Roles

Acceptance letter

Jun Yang

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases