We are greatly encouraged by the enthusiastic discussions since the publication of our report on Science (vol.287, no.5458, p1622-1626, 2000) on the Bose Paleolithic study. These discussions are highly appreciated, as they are positive in promoting the development of Paleolithic science in China, and in clarifying some issues at Bose. Here, particular thanks are extended to Lin for his comments, which are briefly addressed as follows. Most of the questions of Lin are centered on the relations of the tektites, stone artifacts and the stratigraphy. These had already been raised in the comments of Koeberl et al (vol.289, no.5479, p507a, title: Tektites and the Age Paradox in Mid-Pleistocene China) and replied in detail in July 2000 in the same issue. Since then, further investigations have been carried out at Bose and there has not been any new evidence affecting our earlier interpretations, which are also supported by the lack of stone artifacts on the terraces younger than T4. It should be clarified that the stone tools discovered at the upper-most part of T4 at some localities are of Neolithic age, rather than Paleolithic. Thus, the statement of Lin about two possible generations of Paleolithic layers is not supported but should be further studied. Lin questioned in his past publications the existence of handaxe in the Paleolithic of China while typical handaxes in China have been internationally recognized by the majority of the Paleolithic community, such as those from the Dingcun, Lantian and Bose sites. The available ages of the Bose Paleolithic tools are naturally a contradiction to the “Movius line“. Continuous investigation is being carried out at Bose, which is expected to provide further new evidence on the main issues. Discussion in the field would be greatly helpful for clarifying some of these issues. We cordially invite Lin to realize a first visit to Bose, and are looking forward to his contribution. We are greatly encouraged by the enthusiastic discussions since the publication of our report on Science (vol.287, no.5458, p1622-1626, 2000) on the Bose Paleolithic study. These discussions are highly appreciated, as they are positive in promoting the development of Paleolithic science in China, and in clarifying some issues at Bose. Here, particularly thanks are extended to Lin for his comments, which are briefly addressed as follows. Most of the questions of Lin are centered on the relations of the tektites, stone These had already been raised in the comments of Koeberl et al (vol. 289, no. 5479, p507a, title: Tektites and the Age Paradox in Mid-Pleistocene China) and replied in detail in July 2000 in the the then issue, further investigations have been carried out at Bose and there has been been any new evidence affecting our earlier interpretations, which are also supported by the lack of stone artifacts on the terraces younger than T4. d be clarified that the stone tools discovered at the upper-most part of T4 at some localities are of Neolithic age, rather than Paleolithic. Thus, the statement of Lin about two possible generations of Paleolithic layers is not supported but should be further studied. Lin questioned in his past publications the existence of handaxe in the Paleolithic of China while typical handaxes in China have been recognized by the majority of the Paleolithic community, such as those from the Dingcun, Lantian and Bose sites. The available ages of the Bose Paleolithic tools are naturally a contradiction to the ”Movius line". Continuous investigation is being carried out at Bose, which is expected to provide further evidence on the main issues. Discussion in the field would be greatly helpful for clarifying some of these issues We cordially invite Lin to realize a first visit to Bose, and are looking forward to his contribution.