Reply to “The Gravettian and the Epigravettian chronology in eastern central Europe: A comment on Bösken et al. 2017”

• Published in: Palaeogeography, palaeoclimatology, palaeoecology palaeoclimatology, palaeoecology, 2018-10, Vol.506, p.270-271
• Main Authors: Bösken, Janina, Sümegi, Pál, Zeeden, Christian, Klasen, Nicole, Gulyás, Sándor, Lehmkuhl, Frank
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Archeostratigraphy; LGM; Loess-paleosol sequences; Paleolithic; Sagvar
• ISSN: 0031-0182; 1872-616X
• DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2017.11.037

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. •Bösken et al. (2017) investigate 2 loess-paleosol sequences at the Ságvár site.•A comment questions the archeostratigraphical classification presented in the article.•Published literature demonstrates ongoing debate about cultural assignment of Ságvár.•Until a consensus is reached the classical interpretation was applied.•Changes in archeostratigraphy have no effect on absolutely-dated proxy data results.