“…Our dataset (25 dated landslide events) is too limited for chronological determinations, but it shows a possible correlation with other central-European paleoclimatological proxy records, including lake-level high stands (Magny, 2004), δ 18 O speleothem records Figure 8. Dating of individual CFLLs and their reactivations compared to probability density curve of Holocene dated landslide events in the Czech and Polish part of the Outer Western Carpathians and other central-European paleoclimatological proxy records: (1) single dates of studied CFLLs (median ± 1σ), 25 dates (this study; Baroň, 2007;Klimeš et al, 2009;Pánek et al, 2009aPánek et al, ,b, 2010Baroň et al, 2011;Pánek et al, 2011aPánek et al, , 2013; (2) normalised probability density curve of the Czech and Polish landslide events, 85 dates (Alexandrowicz and Alexandrowicz, 1999;Margielewski, 2006a;Baroň, 2007;Margielewski et al, 2010Margielewski et al, , 2011; (3) normalised probability density curve of the hydrological events in Polish rivers, 331 dates (Starkel et al, 2006); (4) advances of Alpine glaciers (by various authors in Starkel et al, 2006); (5) mid-European higher lake-level phases (Magny, 2004); (6) δ 18 O record from stalagmites AH-1 and (7) B7-7 in Sauerland/Germany (Niggemann et al, 2003). (Niggemann et al, 2003), Alpine glacial advances (various authors in Starkel et al, 2006), paleofloods (Notebaert and Verstraeten, 2010;Starkel et al, 2006) and timing of other landslides from the Czech and Polish flysch Carpathians (Baroň et al, 2004;Margielewski, 2006a;Margielewski et al, 2011) (Fig.…”