Dear authors,

Many thanks for the submission of your very interesting paper. I also thank the referees for their detailed comments.

It is certainly a well written manuscript, which we will gladly accept for publication after minor revisions.

I agree with both referees, that it would improve the paper, if you add more information on the creation of the indices. The text, which you propose in your response seems very suitable for that purpose. I also appreciate the other revisions, which you announce in the authors comments.

Regarding the possibility, that Hauser was biased by his earlier experiences: It could be worth to add a few words on this matter (either specifically referring to Hauser or more in general) in chapter 5.1.

In regard to the refence period 1961-1990, I agree with the authors, that this is a widely accepted period. In order to avoid irritations, maybe you can add a publication, where this is explained, because also other reference periods are used in this context (e.g. 1901-1960, see Brázdil et al. 2005).

Kind regards,

Dear authors,

Many thanks for the revised version of your highly interesting paper. The manuscript is of course accepted with the changes proposed. There are only two tiny remarks:

p. 4, line 17 – I would recommend “Imperial-Royal” instead of “I. R.”.

p. 11, line 34 – there are one or two words too much in this phrase.

Kind regards,