Reply to the Comment on " Shoreface sand supply and mid- to late Holocene aeolian dune formation on the storm-dominated macrotidal coast of the southern North Sea"

International audienceBaeteman and Mauz (2012) raise three main points of disagreement with Anthony et al. (2010) regarding the probable age and mode of formation of an inland dune on the North Sea coastal plain of France: (1) the proposed chronology of dune formation, (2) the interpretation of the stratigraphic data from the dune, and (3) the proposed model of dune formation. The chronology proposed as an alternative by Baeteman and Mauz (2012) is not based on radiometric ages directly derived from this inland dune. Baeteman and Mauz (2012) propose a sea-level-driven mechanism of coastal evolution that fails to demonstrate how this dune was formed, and they do not provide any evidence in support of what they refer to as a 'surge drift line' involved in the formation of this dune, nor of the mechanisms of dune formation. We highlight numerous flaws in the comments and interpretations of Baeteman and Mauz (2012) that demonstrate failure to take into account recent findings on the main sediment-transport mechanisms and morpho-sedimentary outcomes characterising the shallow, sediment-rich, mixed storm- and tide-dominated macrotidal shoreface of the southern North Sea, compounded by an inadequate understanding of morphodynamic processes and sediment-supply conditions involved in coastal progradatio