The concerns brought forward by Lengyel and Wilczyński (2017) deal mainly with the putatively erroneous archeostratigraphical classification of the Ságvár Upper Paleolithic site in the context of two loess-paleosol sequences that were investigated in Bösken et al. (2017). The aim of the original study by Bösken et al. (2017) was not to re-evaluate the archeology of the site, but to investigate the paleoenvironmental conditions. According to the published literature, it is still not clear how to allocate the site culturally. While the authors were not in the position to validate a new archeological classification of the site, the classical interpretation of the site was followed. Nevertheless, possible future changes in the archeostratigraphy have no effect on the fidelity of the paleoenvironmental results, which are based on absolutely-dated proxy data.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.11.037 Accessed 99 times | Last updated 09.07.2018
Bösken, J., Sümegi, P., Zeeden, C., Klasen, N., Gulyás, S., Lehmkuhl, F. (2017, in press): Reply to „The Gravettian and the Epigravettian chronology in eastern central Europe: A comment on Bösken et al. 2017”. – In: Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
|Authors||Bösken, Janina and Sümegi, Pál and Zeeden, Christian and Klasen, Nicole and Gulyás, Sándor and Lehmkuhl, Frank|
|Title||Reply to „The Gravettian and the Epigravettian chronology in eastern central Europe: A comment on Bösken et al. 2017”|
|Journal||Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology|
|Year||2017, in press|