Abstract
In the comment on “Varves of the Dead Sea sedimentary record.” Quaternary Science Reviews 215 (Ben Dor et al., 2019): 173–184. by R. Bookman, two recently published papers are suggested to prove that the interpretation of the laminated sedimentary sequence of the Dead Sea, deposited mostly during MIS2 and Holocene pluvials, as annual deposits (i.e., varves) is wrong. In the following response, we delineate several lines of evidence which coalesce to demonstrate that based on the vast majority of evidence, including some of the evidence provided in the comment itself, the interpretation of these sediments as varves is the more likely scientific conclusion. We further discuss the evidence brought up in the comment and its irrelevance and lack of robustness for addressing the question under discussion.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
