In his welcome commentary on our paper (Rochette et al. 2018), Mizera (2019) challenges our preferred interpretation for the Australasian tektite (AAT) source: soil-covered old continental sediments, i.e., 10Be-rich onto 10Be-poor material. Blum et al.’s (1992) analysis of Sr and Nd isotopic ratios points toward Jurassic-Cretaceous sediments, such as those found in abundance in south Laos and east Thailand (Singsoupho et al., 2014). Our point was that Chinese loess, or any other thick Quaternary sedimentary column, cannot account for the consistent 10Be gradient observed from Indochina to Antarctica, interpreted as the translation of a vertical gradient in the target. Mizera put forward instead his previously published (Mizera et al., 2016) target hypothesis in northern China deserts (i.e., the source of Chinese loess dust), and specifically in the Baidan Jaran desert (BJD), using a stack of glacial period sediments (10Be-poor) and interglacial paleosol (10Be-rich).