In their comment Hiscott and co-authors adhere rigidly to ages and sources for sedimentary units in the subsurface of the Marmara shelf that they have previously reported in their publications from 2002 through 2007. This adherence is in spite of a superior age-depth model from our 13 m-long sediment core that penetrated deeply into the deposits under consideration and in disregard to the results of subsequent more-detailed and full-coverage mapping of the region under scrutiny. The age revisions are dismissed by the authors of the comment as representing sediments severely disturbed during coring. We rebut this criticism. The Bosporus source attributed by them to the sedimentary units sampled and dated by us appears to be driven by their conception that the Black Sea had a persistent outflow prior to its two-way connection with Marmara. Irrespective of whether the outflow was persistent, our reply shows that the drawing of the isopachs of the sedimentary units by Hiscott and coauthors was accomplished in a fashion to promote the Bosporus source hypothesis regardless of the geographic limits of their survey. The ages assigned to the units are equally indeterminate because the cores used by them have missing core tops of unknown lengths that are not discussed in their publications. Furthermore, the sub-bottom reflectors at the sites where the reflectors were calibrated to their only core without a missing top are actually hidden by the finite width of the bottom reflecting wavelet. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.