“…In earlier work, this was due to a lack of datable material by the methods then available, or to the use of methods that are not appropriate for determining ages of the loess deposits or paleosols [Enzel et al, 2008]. The published chronologies and the rates of dust accretion and erosion that have been inferred from them are based heavily on stratigraphic relations and association with human artifacts, and on radiocarbon analyses of pedogenic calcic nodules [e.g., Yaalon and Dan, 1974;Horowitz, 1979;Issar and Bruins, 1983;Enzel, 1984;Issar et al, 1984;Gerson et al, 1985;Goldberg, 1986;Magaritz, 1986;Gerson and Amit, 1987;Yair and Enzel, 1987;Goodfriend and Magaritz, 1988;Zilberman, 1992;Ben David, 2003]. Only recently have reliable optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) ages been reported for the late Pleistocene loess of the Negev [Avni et al, 2006], but even these ages are on reworked, secondary fluvial loess and not primary loess.…”