This paper seeks to reconstruct the formation of plaggenic anthrosols using luminescence dating techniques. The data presented look good and the discussions are generally persuasive. While I think that the work is appropriate for the journal and ultimately deserves to be published, I have several suggestions for how this paper might be improved.

For sections

1. The abstract is a little bit cumbersome, consider deleting the second and third sentences.
2. The second section might be merged into the first section, placed just before presenting the scientific questions and research objectives.

For figures:

①Figure 2 should be labeled with latitude and longitude.

②The title of Figure 3 (b)'s z-coordinate should be changed to "Dose recovery ratio".

③In the caption of Figure 4, it should be specified that the average value is calculated from how many results.

④In Figure 6c, it is mentioned in line 388 of the text that the OD results of the filtered feldspar and quartz are very similar. However, comparing Figure 5 and Figure 6c separately is not intuitive. It may be worth considering including the OD of quartz in Figure 6c for comparison.

⑤In Figure 7, what does each point represent? Are they the age results of each sample? More detailed explanations should be provided in the caption.

⑥Table 3 should include a depth column for easier comparison with the figures.

For lines

Line 17, "Recently, luminescence... have recently", one of the "recently” should be removed.

Line 69, the second goal has not been introduced in the previous text. Why is it important to identify changes in disturbances? What is the significance?

Line 110, "They conclude that~", who does the "They" refer to?

Line 240, the sample ID does not match that in the Table 1.

Line 265, it is good to consider the influence of fading on the ratio. However, is the ratio of Pirir290 really applicable to Pirir175? Is it possible to obtain a reference value by fitting data from published measurements of IR50 and pirir175 results taken simultaneously?

Line 268, "To determine the ages of samples", what specific ages are being referred to? If it refers to the poorly-bleached sample, it is understandable to use MAM to determine the depositional age. However, since the filtered pIRIR ages are already from well-bleached grains, why not use CAM to derive the depositional age? Actually, in your context, it doesn't seem like MAM is being used to obtain the conventional "depositional age", correct? So, this should be explained in more detail.

Line 291, why is the sigmab input for quartz determined as 0.15±0.04?

Line 373, why is it at most an overestimate of 30%? Isn't there unfiltered/filtered ratio over 1.5?

Line 473, I now understand that the high proportion of poorly bleached grains in the plaggen layer can be attributed to intensive cultivation activities, as you have clearly explained. However, why can we infer that the sedimentation rate also increased during the same time?

Line 488, I am not arguing against the idea of using MaxAM to estimate the depositional age. However, it should be noted that bioturbation not only introduces younger grains but can also bring older grains from lower layers. Therefore, the use of MaxAM cannot completely eliminate the influence of bioturbation.

Line 496, the expression of this age is somewhat confusing. I suppose it should be "900-1000 years ago"? The same issue applies to Line 503. Please check the consistency of age expression throughout the article, abstract, and discussion sections.

Line 517, “The ratio of De_IRSL~” at single grain scale. As you have mentioned that the ratio has already been applied in single-aliquot.

Line 519, Single-grain feldspar pIRIR yields similar ages as single-aliquot quartz OSL ages when~.

Lastly, I am interested to know if the authors have checked the variations in the proportions of zero-age grains throughout the profile.

Review of Luminescence dating approaches to reconstruct the formation of plaggic anthrosols  - Choi et al

I have read this manuscript with great interest, and found it to be well-structured and well-written (with the exception of the introduction which would benefit from a good look from the team of experienced authors). The work focuses on dating methods suited for soils subject to bio- and anthroturbation, and the results achieved with those methods for a site in the Netherlands. The innovation in the dating method is a new kind of filtering of dating results for feldspar grains, which is well explained and seems to work well. The results achieved are probably not the main point of the paper, but are of regional interest as well (where the region is NW-Europe, the region where plaggen agriculture was practiced). The work is well embedded in the landscape archeology literature, but doesn't seem to add much to that literature - perhaps because of the weak spatial component of the work.

Overall, there is clear value to the work in my opinion, and it deserves to be published with minor revisions.  

l147 - are you sure that veneered is the right word? It's beautiful! But it feels not quite right. Maybe 'covered' is better?

l160 - I'd like to read more about the location of the pit inside the B. site. It may be important for your interpretation whether the site is right in the middle, on the edge, close to the river, etc.

l163 - Be clear about which soil classification system you're using also in the text. You're using Dutch classifiers for your horizons (Aap for instance). The FAO system, which I think you should adopt, has different meaning for the lowercase a than the dutch system (see page 72 https://www.fao.org/3/a0541e/a0541e.pdf). Since most readers will know the FAO system but not the dutch system, please either switch to FAO (recommended) or spend some space on explaining what Aap and other codes mean to non-Dutch speakers.

l181 I'd appreciate a picture of the tubes inside the pit, with a scale-ribbon. Reference your figure 5 here, or duplicate its right half as your new figure 3. That's less abstract than reading the depths from Table 1.

l210 You mentioned using the Wageningen lab for pre work. Were the readers also there, or in Koeln?

l313 It seems the test results are well documented here in the results. Well done, and appropriate given your first objective. They are results here (otherwise, they might have fitted in your methods).

 Figure 5: please extend also the top dashed line to the left of the figure

 L327 can you argue with numbers that there is no clear trend? I see a weak trend that is the opposite of your expectation, which would be interesting/require explanation/speculation if it were significant

 In Figure 8 and Table 2, can you add a column with years in CE? There may be a standard that calls for years before 2017, but it feels easier to read for a wider audience with years CE as a secondary x-axis or extra column.