browne 2011 coarse coastal deposits as palaeo-environmental archives for stor
TRANSCRIPT
Southern Cross UniversityePublications@SCU
Theses
2011
Coarse coastal deposits as palaeo-environmentalarchives for storms and tsunamisAntony BrowneSouthern Cross University
ePublications@SCU is an electronic repository administered by Southern Cross University Library. Its goal is to capture and preserve the intellectualoutput of Southern Cross University authors and researchers, and to increase visibility and impact through open access to researchers around theworld. For further information please contact [email protected].
Publication detailsBrowne, A 2011, 'Coarse coastal deposits as palaeo-environmental archives for storms and tsunamis', PhD thesis, Southern CrossUniversity, Lismore, NSW.Copyright A Browne 2011
1
Coarse coastal deposits as
palaeo-environmental archives
for storms and tsunamis
Antony Browne
June 2010
This thesis has been submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
with the School of Environmental Science and Management
Southern Cross University, Lismore,
Australia.
2
Antony Browne was posthumously awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
While the award process recommended minor changes to the submitted manuscript, for
the purpose of preserving the candidate‘s original work those recommended minor
changes were not incorporated.
3
Dedication
To Layla and Max
I certify that the work presented in this thesis is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
original, except as acknowledged in the text, and that the material has not been submitted,
either in whole or in part, for a degree at this or any other university.
I warrant that I have obtained, where necessary, permission from the copyright owners to
use any third-party copyright material reproduced in the thesis (e.g. questionnaires,
artwork, unpublished letters), or to use any of the candidate‘s published work (e.g. journal
articles) in which the copyright is held by another party (e.g. publisher, co-author).
4
Acknowledgements
Tony Browne joined Southern Cross University in 1995, when he started studying for a
degree in Coastal Management. He was a definite asset in any class and had a knack of
asking tricky but illuminating questions (in my classes, anyway). After completing his
bachelor degree, with very good results, he went on to do an Honours degree, graduating
in 1998 with First Class Honours. From there he progressed naturally to enrolling for a
PhD, starting in 1999.
Studying for a doctorate in science is like no other activity. Once through the stage of
selecting a topic and a useful study approach, one dives into the literature and starts on the
process of collecting data. There is, of course, always the problem of wondering whether
one is doing the right thing, and even the best supervisor cannot banish qualms on that
score. The really stressful stage is the writing-up process. No matter how much support is
available, writing up seems always to be a process of groping through a fog, wondering
what it all means and hoping that there isn‘t an unseen cliff ahead.
So the writing-up stage of a PhD is always a long process, made worse by distractions like
the need to gain some sort of income, and the needs of other people around. And here is
the reason why Tony did not have time to finish and submit his thesis before he died well
before his time. Tony Browne was a support system in his own right. He was an excellent
communicator, partly because he was as sharp as a tack but also because his calm air made
people instinctively warm to him. He was a terrific teacher, able to put over complex ideas
so that students could understand them, and he would not be happy until they really did
understand. He taught for several years in a variety of units: Earth Sciences,
Environmental Mapping, Hydrology and Climatology and others.
5
These activities took time away from thesis writing. More important, perhaps, was the fact
that Tony was always ready to assist and support his fellow students and, on occasion,
staff members as well. He was a counsellor and mentor for many undergraduates, not only
those taking the units he taught. There are many people for whom Tony made a crucial
difference and he will not easily be forgotten.
This collection of his unpublished work is one memorial to him. The affection which
people had for him, and still have for his memory, is another. But perhaps the most
important one is the influence that he had on the School. For an all-too-brief window of
time, Tony Browne made life easier for many people and showed the rest of us how some
things are really important but can never show up in a list of published references.
Nick Holmes
6
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction to the thesis ............................................................ 15
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 15
1.2 Thesis structure ...................................................................................................................................... 17
1.3 Origin of the largest known coastal boulders....................................................................................... 22
1.4 The dispute: tsunamis versus storm waves .......................................................................................... 23
1.5 The physics of boulder transport by waves .......................................................................................... 25
Chapter 2: Literature Review: Progress in tsunami research since the 2004 tsunami 31
2.1 Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 31
2.2 New insights from the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami of 26 December 2004 ........................................ 31
2.3 Influence of the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami on geomorphologic and sedimentologic tsunami
research ......................................................................................................................................................... 36
2.4 Conclusions: new facts and open questions in tsunami research, with particular emphasis on
South-East Asia ............................................................................................................................................ 42
Chapter 3: Tsunamis and hurricanes and their effects on coral reefs and pre-historic human populations in the Caribbean .......................................... 47
3.1 Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 47
3.2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 48
3.3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 49
3.4 Results and discussion ............................................................................................................................ 52 3.4.1 Different hydrodynamics reflected in sedimentary features ............................................................. 53 3.4.2 Breakage of coral colonies ................................................................................................................ 54 3.4.3 Transport ........................................................................................................................................... 54 3.4.4 Abrasion ........................................................................................................................................... 56 3.4.5 Setting, sorting and inland extent ..................................................................................................... 57 3.4.6 The influence of coastal topography on deposits .............................................................................. 58
3.5 The main diagnostic features for discriminating between storm induced and tsunamigenic coarse
deposits .......................................................................................................................................................... 61 3.5.1 Storm deposits .................................................................................................................................. 61 3.5.2 Tsunami deposits .............................................................................................................................. 62
3.6 Hurricanes and tsunamis in the Caribbean ......................................................................................... 63
3.7 Coarse onshore depositional units in the wider Caribbean ................................................................ 64 3.7.1 Storm deposits .................................................................................................................................. 64 3.7.2 Tsunami deposits .............................................................................................................................. 65 3.7.3 Deposits of uncertain origin .............................................................................................................. 68
7
3.8 The impact of extreme wave disturbances on reefs ............................................................................. 68 3.8.1 Reef disturbance interpreted by coarse deposits: Bonaire ................................................................ 71
3.9 The impact of extreme wave events on prehistoric human populations ............................................ 76 3.9.1 New insights in regard to tsunami effects on prehistoric populations .............................................. 79
3.10 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 83
Chapter 4: Coastal boulder deposits at Galway Bay and the Aran Islands, western Ireland .................................................................................................. 84
4.1 Preface ..................................................................................................................................................... 84
4.2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 85
4.3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 85
4.4 Regional setting and methods ................................................................................................................ 87
4.5 Results ..................................................................................................................................................... 91 4.5.1 Boulders and boulder ridges ............................................................................................................. 91 4.5.2 The relative age indicators for ridge and boulder deposition ............................................................ 99 4.5.3 Indicators of the numerical ages of large boulder ridges in western Ireland .................................. 103
4.6 Discussion of previously published observations and data ............................................................... 110
4.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 121
Chapter 5: Wave-emplaced coarse debris and mega-clasts in Ireland and Scotland: a contribution to the question of boulder transport in the littoral environment ..................................................................................................... 124
5.1 Preface ................................................................................................................................................... 124
5.2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 125
5.3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 125
5.4 Regional setting and methods .............................................................................................................. 127
5.5 Results ................................................................................................................................................... 130 5.5.1 Coarse coastal deposits and the intensity of abrasion ..................................................................... 130 5.5.2 Boulder deposits ............................................................................................................................. 134 5.5.3 Galway Bay and the Aran Islands, western Ireland ........................................................................ 143 5.5.4 Grind of the Navir, Shetland ........................................................................................................... 144 5.5.5 Annagh Head, western Ireland ........................................................................................................ 146
5.6 Discussion .............................................................................................................................................. 151
5.7 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 160
Chapter 6: Boulder transport by waves: progress in physical modelling 161
6.1 Preface ................................................................................................................................................... 161
6.2 Abstract ................................................................................................................................................. 162
8
6.3 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 162
6.4 J. Nott’s approach ................................................................................................................................ 164 6.4.1 General remarks .............................................................................................................................. 164 6.4.2 Nott‘s formulas ............................................................................................................................... 164
6.5 Approach based on the momentum force ........................................................................................... 170 6.5.1 Calculation of momentum force and friction force ......................................................................... 170 6.5.2 Estimation of the movement of subaerially exposed boulders ........................................................ 171 6.5.3 Estimation of the way of transport by wave impact ........................................................................ 174 6.5.4 Predicting the movements of submerged boulders ......................................................................... 176
6.6 Another approach to calculating the energy of single waves and their effect on boulders ............ 180
6.7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 184
6.8 Appendix: Register of mathematical symbols .................................................................................... 186
Chapter 7: Concluding discussion .............................................................. 188
7.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 188
7.2 Source of boulders ................................................................................................................................ 189
7.3 Problems of modelling .......................................................................................................................... 190
7.4 Questions of boulder size and density ................................................................................................. 191
7.5 Boulder forms ....................................................................................................................................... 192
7.6 Transportation mode ........................................................................................................................... 192
7.7 Gaps in the knowledge about important parameters ........................................................................ 193
7.8 The need for integrative solutions ....................................................................................................... 193
7.9 New interpretations of old data ........................................................................................................... 194
7.10 Desiderata for future research on the boulder transport problem ................................................ 195
Appendix A: References focussing on the Indian Ocean Tsunami, 26.12.2004 .......................................................................................................................... 196
Appendix B: Publications in Tsunami Research after the Indian Ocean Tsunami ............................................................................................................ 213
Part I: Publications discussing already known Palaeo-Tsunamis ......................................................... 213
Part II: Publications presenting new evidence for palaeo-tsunamis ..................................................... 218
References ....................................................................................................... 236
9
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Earth- and seaquakes with tsunamis in 2000–2007 ............................ 37
Table 4.1 Ages from boulder ridges of the Aran Islands and Galway ................ 108
Table 5.1 Dimensions of boulders from coastal sites in Ireland and Scotland .. 148
Table 5.2 Radiocarbon data from boulder deposits, west coast of Ireland ........ 149
Table 6.2 Conditions for movement of boulders. ............................................... 172
Table 6.3a Wave velocity, momentum and movement of boulders. .................. 173
Table 6.3b At the moment of wave impact high acceleration occurs ................ 173
Table 6.4 Uplift and transport distance of boulders during a tsunami wave ...... 179
10
List of Figures
Fig. 3.1 Spit constructed by Hurricane Lenny, north-western coast of Bonaire ... 56
Fig. 3.2 Hurricane ridges and tsunami ramparts, Bonaire ................................... 59
Fig. 3.3 Fresh debris ridge constructed by hurricane Lenny ............................... 59
Fig. 3.4 Tsunami deposits with a chaotic, bimodal internal structure .................. 60
Fig. 3.5 Coarse coral rubble ridge accumulated by Hurricane Lenny .................. 60
Fig. 3.6 A complex ridge at Salina Tern, NW Bonaire ......................................... 61
Fig. 3.7 Hurricane tracks (categories 4 and 5) in the Western Atlantic ................ 63
Fig. 3.8 Tsunami deposits from the wider Caribbean .......................................... 65
Fig. 3.9 Depositional rampart ............................................................................. 69
Fig. 3.10 Well-sorted coral debris from a hurricane 600 BP ................................ 73
Fig. 3.11 Offshore bathymetry, north-east coast at Washikemba (Bonaire) ........ 74
Fig. 3.12 Prehistoric human demographics in the southern Caribbean. .............. 81
Fig. 4.1 Boulder deposits, Aran Islands and Galway Bay. ................................... 89
Fig. 4.2 Cliff profiles along the exposed shorelines of the Aran Islands. ............. 90
Fig. 4.3 Poulsallagh, east coast of Galway Bay.................................................. 95
Fig. 4.4 Wave-dislocated boulders, Galway Bay ................................................. 96
Fig. 4.5 Boulders, south-western coast of Inishmaan north of Taunabruff ......... 96
Fig. 4.6 Imbrication ............................................................................................. 97
Fig. 4.7 Seaward of boulder ridges ..................................................................... 98
Fig. 4.8 The Wormhole SW of Gort na gCapall on Inishmore ............................ 99
Fig. 4.9 SW of the Inisheer lighthouse ................................................................ 99
Fig. 4.10 Old limestone boulders and sandstone cobbles in limestone ridges. . 100
Fig. 4.11 Older landward ridge and a younger and higher seaward boulder ridge
north of Black Fort ............................................................................................. 101
11
Fig. 4.12 Coastal contours near the Black Fort of southern Inishmore .............. 103
Fig. 4.13 Distribution of ridges, SW corner of Inishmore (Cvahallaun) ............. 107
Fig. 14 Foundations of Viking boathouses, Skipi Geo, Orkney ......................... 113
Fig. 5.1 Sites visited along west and north coasts of Ireland and Scotland ....... 129
Fig. 5.2 Cobble beach ridge, Annagh peninsula, Ireland .................................. 131
Fig. 5.3 Large boulders about 100 m inland, Inishmaan, Aran Islands .............. 131
Fig. 5.4 Iron Age promontory fort, Corraun peninsula, western Ireland ............. 133
Fig. 5.5 Platy boulders west of Downpatrick Head, north coast of Ireland ........ 136
Fig. 5.6 Well-imbricated boulders south of Crohy Head, Donegal ..................... 136
Fig. 5.7 Large granite boulders south of Bloody Foreland ................................. 137
Fig. 5.9 Esha Ness, northwest mainland Shetland ............................................ 139
Fig. 5.10 Hamnavoe on West Burra Island, Shetland ....................................... 141
Fig. 5.11 Southern tip of mainland Shetland .................................................... 142
Fig. 5.12 Boulder ridges, Aran Islands and the east coast of Galway Bay ........ 144
Fig. 5.13 Grind of the Navir, Esha Ness, northwest mainland of Shetland ........ 146
Fig. 5.15 Cliffs and boulder ridges, south coast of Inishmore, Aran Islands, central
west coast of Ireland .......................................................................................... 156
Fig. 6.1 Forces acting on a submerged boulder. .............................................. 165
Fig. 6.2 Forces acting at a boulder during wave impact. .................................. 170
12
List of published papers included in this thesis
Scheffers, S., Scheffers, A., Browne, T. and Haviser, J. 2008. Tsunamis, hurricanes on the
demise of coral reefs and shifts in pre-historic human populations in the Caribbean.
Quaternary International 195: 69 – 87.
Scheffers, A., Browne, T., Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S. and Haslett, S. 2010. Coastal boulder
deposits in Galway Bay and the Aran Islands, Western Ireland. Annals of
Geomorphology 54 (3): 247-279.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., Kelletat, D., Browne, T. 2009. Wave-emplaced coarse debris
and megaclasts in Ireland and Scotland: boulder transport in a high-energy littoral
environment. Journal of Geology 117 (5): 553 – 573.
Benner, R., Browne, T., Brueckner, H., Scheffers, A. and Kelletat, D. 2010. Boulder
transport by waves: progress in physical modelling. Annals of Geomorphology 54
(3): 127-146.
13
Abstract
In coastal environments the history of evolution is stored in landforms and sediments.
Therefore, geomorphology and geology (in particular sedimentology) are the most
relevant disciplines for analysing this history. From landforms and sediments, scientists
draw conclusions about processes, their energy, combinations and sequences. It seems
logical, therefore, that the strongest processes and most significant single events are the
ones which will be best preserved, or at least that they will dominate the geomorphologic
and sedimentologic data.
My hypothesis is that coarse coastal deposits, and in particular large boulders, not only
have the greatest potential to be preserved of all coastal sediments, but also deliver the
best means of calculating the transport energy of a single wave. The size and weight of
boulders, the distance they have moved against gravity, and the horizontal distance they
have been moved all give hints about the ways in which they were transported and enable
physical equations to be used to calculate the energy that was required to move them.
Using observations and modelling, it should be possible to determine the amount of
energy required to transport a boulder of a specified mass, and whether the necessary
energy could have been delivered by extreme storm waves with a very short impact (about
0.2 sec), a height at the coast of rarely more than 10–12 metres, and a limited velocity (of
8–9 metres/sec at the most), or only by tsunami waves with long-lasting (minutes or tens
of minutes) flows of huge water masses with velocities which can be more than 20
metres/sec and with significant flow depths.
As energy arises from a combination of mass and velocity it should be evident that the
difference in the transport power of storm and tsunami waves may well be in the order of
14
one to many thousands. Field observations and conclusions, when interpreted using the
theoretical framework hitherto developed for the boulder transport problem, can at least
identify the sizes of those boulders which could never have been moved by storm waves
against gravity but only by strong tsunamis. This will give a field instrument to identify
possible palaeo-tsunami deposits. With a lot of objective field evidence in mind (for
example the size, weight, position inland and height above sea-level of boulders, the kinds
of surfaces on which they have been moved, and the kinds of movement which their form
and preservation show they have transported by), I and co-authors of Benner et al. (2010)
have developed some general and basic principles of the physics of boulder transport by
shallow (tsunami) and deep (storm) water waves. The results are consistent with empirical
data from coastal engineers and the observation of boulder movements caused by
hundreds of strong storm impacts.
15
Chapter 1: Introduction to the thesis
1.1 Background
Coastal environments store their history of evolution in landforms and sediments.
Therefore, geomorphology and geology (in particular sedimentology) are the most
relevant disciplines for analysing this history. From landforms and sediments, scientists
try to draw conclusions about processes, their energy, combinations and sequences. It
seems logical, therefore, that the strongest processes and most significant single events are
the ones which will be best preserved or at least, that they will dominate the
geomorphologic and sedimentologic data.
In contrast to this, however, the geomorphology of coastal environments is described in
textbooks as an ongoing process of many forces, and not a catalogue of extreme events.
Currently, we do not know whether a certain coastal form is the result of long-lasting
―normal‖ processes or of singular impacts.
Coastal studies have always been confronted with this question, but it is only during the
last 30–40 years, and particularly in the last decade, that the practice of developing an
event history has been developed. Based on geology, rock type, tectonics, sea-level
history, climate and complex ecological relations, scientists try to find evidence of the
most energetic impacts along a coast, which are either strong storm waves or tsunami
waves. To infer the story from the landscape, remnants of former processes in the form of
sediments are the most promising material for analysis, because the principles of
stratigraphy (using relative dating) can be applied, as well as multiple other analytical
16
techniques from geophysics, geochemistry or microbiology and numerical or ―absolute‖
dating. That is why fine sediments (sand, silt and clay, together with organic matter) are
preferred as archives in coastal studies. There is a large catalogue of methods, as well as
results from all coastal regions of the world, which can be used to interpret these data. The
properties of fine sediments can be used to distinguish between energetic impacts like
storm waves and tsunami waves and many catalogues have been developed and published
with this in mind. The properties involved include: the kind of stratification, grain
characteristics like form, sorting and density, and the types of micro-organisms
present.These catalogues show remarkable differences according on the location where the
studies have been made (tropical, deserts, mid-latitudes, polar, shallow or deep water etc.),
but most authors argue that their results are indicative of the general aspects of either
storm waves or tsunamis. However, in the course of the research conducted during the last
decade, more and more of what were formerly considered to be ―classical‖ aspects of one
or the other process have been found in both sedimentary archives. Scientists from Japan,
who have the longest and most intensive experience of studying storms and tsunamis at
the same place, conclude that there is no exclusive criterion for judging whether fine
sediments are associated with storms or with tsunamis. Their conclusions can be shown by
the following quotes from the authoritative book on tsunamiites edited by Shiki et al.
(2008):
―Tsunamiites are still the most difficult deposits to identify among the many kinds of
high-energy event deposits‖ (p. 320);
―Tsunami deposits are not identifiable on the basis of exclusive and diagnostic criteria
because other kinds of deposits share some of their characteristics‖ (p. 39);
―…no apparent difference between tsunami and storm sedimentation except for the wider
distribution‖ (p. 40);
17
―There is no one single convenient key to distinguish tsunami-generated sediments from
those generated by other events‖ (p. 320);
―It must be stressed, that a convenient key for identifying tsunamiites does not exist‖ (p.
321).
I agree with these conclusions of our Japanese colleagues, and therefore my focus, under
the guidance of my supervisor Dr Anja Scheffers, has been to investigate coarse coastal
deposits, particularly those which are too large to be transported by even the strongest
storm waves (judged from storm wave observations and the volume and weight of the
boulders, as well as the extent of their vertical and horizontal dislocation). This approach
was and still is under debate and very recently citations in review articles by leading
authors in tsunami studies, such as Felton (2002, p. 242), confess that ‗boulder deposits
may well be the last frontier of sedimentary environments for study on planet Earth‘.
Similarly, Dawson and Stewart (2007) suggest that ―boulder complexes may represent the
most promising area of scientific enquiry‖.
1.2 Thesis structure
My hypothesis is that coarse coastal deposits, and in particular large boulders, not only
have the greatest potential of preservation of all coastal sediments, but are also the basis
for the best estimates or calculations of the transport energy of single waves. The size and
weight of boulders, their transport against gravity and the horizontal transport distance all
give hints to the character of transport and allow us to calculate, using physical equations,
the energies needed to transport them. By observations and modelling it should be
possible to calculate the amount of energy needed to transport a boulder of a specified
size, and whether the energy necessary can be delivered by extreme storm waves with a
18
very short impact (about 0.2 sec) and a limited velocity (a maximum of about 8–9 m/sec
when they reach shore), or only by tsunami waves with a long-lasting flow of huge water
masses with velocities of more than 20m/sec. As energy intensity depends on mass and
velocity it should be evident that the difference in transport power of storm and tsunami
waves may well be in the order of one to many thousands.
Field observations and conclusions, in combination with the theoretical framework
presented in this thesis, can at least identify the sizes of the boulders which could
definitely never have been moved by storm waves against gravity but only by strong
tsunamis. This will provide a field instrument to identify possible palaeo-tsunami deposits,
which are in agreement with the (limited number of) observed modern tsunami deposits
(like Chile 1960, Hawaii 1975, Nicaragua 1992, Papua-New Guinea 1998, Andaman-
Sumatra 2004 and others).
It has been said that the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami of December 26, 2004 was the most
disastrous in human history. This is probably correct if one measures this by the number
of fatalities (over 225,000), but is certainly wrong in terms of geomorphologic and
sedimentologic processes along the coastlines of the world. This can be shown by a
comparison of well-studied and dated palaeo-tsunamis worldwide. The Sumatra-Andaman
tsunami has triggered tsunami research and raised more open questions, but too often is
used as the classical example of a strong tsunami and its signatures in the geological
record are put forward as being those of a strong tsunami. Because of its low velocity, this
is incorrect.
19
In Chapter 2 of this thesis the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami of 2004 is compared to other
tsunamis that occurred worldwide in 2000–2008. The state of the art of geomorphic and
sedimentologic tsunami research is discussed and the most important issue for future work
is identified.
On the basis of research in tropical areas with hurricane impacts (see Chapter 3 of this
thesis) I have extended the research subject to regions which are dominated by strong
winter storms, such as the west coasts of Scotland and Ireland, and additionally, based on
field experience and the worldwide literature, I have developed some general and basic
principles of the physics of boulder transport by shallow (tsunami) and deep (storm) water
waves.
My research along the coastlines of Ireland and Scotland is based on the extended
literature on the coastal geomorphology as well as on historical documents on storm
events in this region. This research is presented in Chapters 4 and 5 of this thesis.
Problems regarding the transport of coarse coastal sediments, and in particular the
movement of large boulders by waves, are far from being solved, and their discussion is
highly controversial among field scientists and modellers. These questions, neglected for a
long time in coastal science, may be, as Felton (2002, p. 242) says: ―the last frontier of
sedimentary environments for study on planet Earth‖. They have become more important
due to an increasing number of publications on palaeo-tsunami deposits during the last one
or two decades (Bryant, 2001; Bryant & Haslett, 2007; Haslett & Bryant, 2007a, 2007b;
Jones & Hunter, 1992; Kato & Kimura, 1983; Kawana & Nakata, 1994; Kelletat 2005c;
Kelletat & Schellmann, 2001, 2002; Kelletat et al., 2005, 2007; Mastronuzzi & Sanso,
20
2000, 2004; Mastronuzzi et al., 2006; Monaco et al., 2006; Morhange et al., 2006; Nott,
1997, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Robinson et al., 2005, 2006; Rowe 2006; Scheffers 2002a,
2002b, 2003a, 2003b, 2004, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c; Scheffers & Kelletat, 2003, 2005;
Scheffers et al., 2005a; Schubert, 1994; and Taggart et al., 1993).
Although rarely mentioned in connection with modern tsunamis such as those of
Nicaragua in 1992, Papua New Guinea in 1998 or Andaman-Sumatra in 2004, large
boulders of up to several hundred and even 2000 tonnes have evidently been dislocated by
waves against gravity and moved onshore (see, for example, Dawson et al., 1996;
Gelfenbaum & Jaffe, 2003; Goldsmith et al., 1999; Keating et al., 2005; Kelletat et al.,
2007; Lavigne et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2005; McSaveney et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2006;
Richmond et al., 2006; Satake et al., 1993; or Shi et al., 1995).
Absolute age dating of marine organisms attached to boulders and killed by this transport
process has, furthermore, changed significantly our knowledge of the likely frequency of
tsunamis along the shorelines of the world. We are, however, still far from an agreement
as to which size or weight of boulders can be transported by extreme storm waves, and
what size boulders could only be transported by tsunami waves, with their much larger
mass of water and usually higher flow velocity. Some coastal scientists even deny tsunami
boulder transport in general and hypothesise super-storms to explain the dislocation of
enigmatic boulders onshore. However other scientists argue that super-storms, which
would involve much more energy than a Category 5 hurricane, cannot exist on Earth
because of physical restrictions (see Holland, 1997; Landsea, 2000; Murname et al., 2000;
Tonkin et al., 2000; or Nott, 2003c, 2004). There are many characteristics which are
common to all tsunami deposits, such as trains of imbricated boulders, isolated boulders,
21
extremely large boulders along shallow foreshore situations, boulders balancing on the
crest of boulder ridges and reefs, and the rarity of their dislocation during Holocene high
sea level (that is, about the last 6000 years). In addition, the absence of observations of
very large boulders transported during hundreds and thousands of destructive tropical
cyclones points to the fact that we cannot exclude tsunamis as the source for boulder
transport even on steep and cliff coastlines.
A reasonable method for solving the problem of boulder transport by waves may be to
investigate exposed coastlines which are known to be the sites of strong storms and
extreme wave heights in the open ocean. If deep-water conditions can be found close to
the coastlines, there should be a good chance for very high waves striking the coast with a
maximum potential energy for transporting sediments, including very large boulders.
Unfortunately, such observations are rare, to the extent that most authors consider the
dislocation of boulders of only several tons during storms to be worth publishing (for
example Lorang, 2000 and Saintilan & Rogers, 2005).
Parallel to the work of coastal scientists there are literally millions of people worldwide
with the ability to observe and objectively describe their experiences of what large waves
can do to coastlines. Every year reports are made about the catastrophic impacts on
coastlines produced by tsunamis, winter storms, storm floods, and tropical cyclones.
However, a review of the literature on extreme storm wave impacts on reefs and coastlines
tends to suggest that such events only build storm ridges several metres high consisting of
cobbles and small boulders, and in isolated cases transport boulders weighing several tons
onshore (see Gilmour & Smith, 2006).
22
Bearing this in mind, it is surprising that some very simple questions remain: what types
of boulders (with respect to form, volume, weight, and setting) can be transported
landward/upward by the largest storm waves, and which sizes could only be moved by
greater forces, that is, by tsunami waves or tsunami flows. In this context it is also
uncertain which hydrodynamic forces are needed (in nature, not in an experiment) to
transport a boulder of a given form and size at a locality where many other parameters like
slope angle, roughness, material, and bathymetry are well known. In the relevant literature
these questions unfortunately remain unanswered (Brown, 2001; Bruun, 1994; Carter,
1993; Done, 1992; Hogben & Lumb, 1967; Sarpkaya & Isaacson, 1981; Ward et al.,
1977). It almost seems that there is a reluctance to take boulders seriously. Given their
potential importance in assessing tsunami impacts, as Dawson and Stewart (2007)
correctly state, it is surprising that boulder transport is not afforded more attention by
scientists. This situation raises the following questions:
Is it the case that a few individual researchers have, in fact, already solved these problems
but that the community of coastal researchers has ignored them? And if so, perhaps these
works are being ignored because they do not support subjective opinions about whether
storms or tsunamis are responsible for the transport of large boulders?
I will now briefly review some of the most important aspects of the current knowledge on
coastal boulder transport.
1.3 Origin of the largest known coastal boulders
The largest boulders transported from sea to land are reported by Bourrouilh-Le-Jan and
Talandier (1985) from the Tuamotus, and by Hearty (1997b) from the Eleuthera/Bahamas
by Frohlich et al. (2009) from Tonga. The Bahamas boulders were moved in the last
23
interglacial period, the others during the Younger Holocene. Some of the boulders in each
of these sites weigh more than 2000 tons and have longest axes of 20 m. The authors
briefly mention the possibility of tsunami impacts, but since they are not able to identify
the tsunami origin or source area, they conclude that the dislocation took place by cyclone
waves of much greater energy than those of today. However, cyclones with power much
greater than Category 5 cannot occur because of physical restrictions (see Holland, 1997;
Landsea, 2000; Murname et al., 2000; Tonkin et al., 2000; Nott 2003c, 2004; Nott &
Hayne, 2001). Hence the authors‘ failure to consider tsunamis can be excused because ten
or more years ago the concept of tsunami boulder transport was only in its infancy.
1.4 The dispute: tsunamis versus storm waves
During the last 10 to 20 years more than 100 papers have been published demonstrating
tsunami boulder transport, in particular for the palaeo-tsunamis of the late Holocene up to
historical times. A number of tsunami researchers dismiss these results and call them
―misinterpretations‖ (Tappin, 2007; Morton et al., 2006) arguing that all the boulders –
even those of several hundreds or even thousands of tonnes in weight – were dislocated by
storms, even when positioned far inland and on high ground.
Their main arguments are not based on recent observations, either of winter storms in the
regions of the greatest wave energy, like southern New Zealand and Tasmania (see Brown
1991), or of the many extreme hurricanes observed during the last hundred years. They
predominantly refer to very few references, among them Bourrouilh-Le-Jan and Talandier
(1985), Hearty (1997a, 1997b), and Noormets et al. (2002, 2004). Noormets et al. (2002,
2004) observe from their study of aerial photographs of large boulders on the north coast
of Oahu (Hawaii) that at least some of them had been moved during the last decades (that
24
is, moved at or near their former position in the supratidal, which does not mean that the
same forces would have been able to dislocate them from the subtidal against gravity).
They conclude that the well known very high swell and storm waves in this region are
mostly responsible for moving these boulders and find that the largest boulder of 64 tons
was moved by the Aleutian tsunami in 1946, another one by a tsunami in 1957, but also
one by a storm in 1969. Another well cited source is the observation by Süssmilch (1912)
that on a horizontal intertidal platform near Sydney (Australia) a large boulder (originally
of approximately 235 tons) was detached and moved 50 m laterally during a storm in
1912.
However in 1976, during the most severe recorded storm ever to hit New South Wales, the
boulder was not moved again. The situation near Sydney is homologous to that of Cabo de
Trafalgar in southern Atlantic Spain (Whelan & Kelletat, 2003, 2005). Here,
approximately 80 platy boulders, weighing from 10 to 90 tons, can be found on an
intertidal platform. They were broken off this platform during the tsunami of Lisbon in
1755 and transported up to 300 m laterally and have not been moved since. Imamura et al.
(2008) describe examples of tsunami boulders less than 10 m above sea level. They were
deposited by the Meiwa tsunami on the Ryu-Kyu-Islands of southern Japan in 1771 and
have never moved since although numerous typhoons have impacted that coastline.
Examples can be cited where a single ‗large boulder‘ was moved during storms in a range
of locations worldwide, but the scientific and grey literature does not suggest that storm
waves commonly transport large boulders (let us say more than 20 tons) in large numbers
to form significant deposits like boulder clusters, ridges or boulder fields.
25
1.5 The physics of boulder transport by waves
Jonathan Nott (1997, 2003a, 2003b, 2004) attempts to explain boulder movement with
equations concerning boulder movements from a subaerial, submerged or joint-bound
positions (still remaining in e.g. a cliff, but separated from the neighbouring rock by open
joints). The equations estimate wave heights necessary ―to overturn boulders‖ of certain
forms and weights. For the joint-bound scenario he finds that a storm wave has to be four
times as high as a tsunami wave to result in the same transport energy. This certainly is an
important step forward in the understanding of boulder transport by waves, and it supports
a lot of the arguments of the ―tsunamiists‖, because to transport a 50-ton boulder, a storm
would require wave heights that simply do not exist on our planet. Nevertheless, several
factors found in nature are not included in Jonathan Nott‘s equations, including:
transport against gravity or inland
the type of surface on which the boulder is located. It may be on a smooth or steep
slope; it may be stretched, concave or convex and may exhibit different kinds of
roughness
whether the boulder is on loose material or hard rock
the kind of packing arrangement and boundary layer
the wave velocity
the bathymetry in the foreshore area with its influence on wave breaking
green water or suspension load in the flow
flow depth versus wave height
the impact of surf beat
other high-energy coastal processes like waterspouts (de Lange et al., 2006) or freak
waves.
26
As we can see, the factors influencing boulder transport are numerous and complex, which
explains why these questions remain open today. Nevertheless we should encourage all
colleagues to focus on these open questions and give field geologists and
geomorphologists the available data to work with in any given environment. It will
certainly be better to try to solve problems rather than to dismiss the views of those whose
conclusions differ from one‘s own views.
Given the great disparity between the frequency of hurricane and tsunami occurrence and
the limited number of occasions on which eyewitnesses are able to observe tsunami
boulder transport, numerical calculations may provide a tool to differentiate between the
two processes. In recent years, the physics of boulder movement by waves (storms versus
tsunamis) has been discussed – based on studies by Nott (1997, 2003a, 2003b, 2004) and
Nott and Bryant (2003). This chapter aims to present the most recent developments in
tsunami boulder research by examining theoretical approaches and inductive field
observations of palaeo-tsunami deposits, as well as the sedimentary evidence from the
tsunami of December, 2004, in the Indian Ocean. Finally, I highlight open questions
concerning the research on the process of boulder translocation onshore, both horizontally
and upwards against gravity.
According to Nott (2003), for the joint-bound scenario, a storm wave of 16.3 m is required
to overturn a cubic boulder of eight cubic metres or 20 tonnes (that is, 2 × 2 × 2 m), and a
32.6 m wave is required if it is a cuboid (i.e. a-axis is longer than in a cube), and a 40.7 m
wave is necessary if this boulder is platy. The wave heights for boulders of with a volume
of 27 m³ (that is, 3 × 3 × 3 m) should be 24.4 m, 40.7 m and 48.9 m, respectively,
27
depending on the boulder‘s form, and for a 64 m³ boulder (i.e., a cube of 4 × 4 × 4 m) the
waves must range from 32.6 m to 57 m in height depending on the boulder‘s form.
Nevertheless, several variables found in nature are not included in Nott‘s equations, such
as transport against gravity, transport inland, transport on a smooth or steep slope, and
transport on loose material or hard rock. Nott also does not take in to consideration the
importance of wave velocity, bathymetry in the foreshore area with its influence on wave
breaking, green water or suspension load in the flow, flow depth versus wave height.
Above all we have to consider other influences on wave movement and wave breaking.
Waves break (and lose energy) if the water depth becomes less than 1.28 times the wave
height. In other words, waves of 8 m break in about 10 m of water, and waves of 16 m
break in 20 m of water. Therefore, the height of waves measured or modelled in deep
water in the open ocean is not an accurate indication of their energy at the shoreline after
crossing a shallow water section.
This is not a purely academic dispute; it has far-reaching consequences for our
understanding of coarse coastal deposits in general. Some researchers argue that the
movement of all large boulders at very high altitudes along western European shorelines
was caused by storms. For this hypothesis to be valid, the power of waves generated by
these storms would have had to be far greater than the power of nearly all palaeo-tsunamis
so far recorded. This includes the Storegga event of 8000 BP; the Lisbon event of 1755;
the Pacific tsunamis of 1946, 1960 and 1964; the Nicaragua event of 1992; the Papua New
Guinea event of 1998; and even the Andaman-Sumatra catastrophe of 2004. If this is the
case, then many of the textbooks on waves and tsunamis need to be rewritten.
28
Chapter 6 of this thesis aims to close this apparent gap in our knowledge. Together with
physicist Prof. Reinhold Benner and co-authors I developed simplified, yet accurate
mathematical equations to improve the existing knowledge of boulder movement by
waves and the storm/tsunami threshold for boulder dislocation.
The study of the relationships between waves and the dislocation of boulders leads me to
the following assessment: Calculations should differentiate between the very short impact
of a storm wave and the subsequent flow regime which has a steady constant velocity.
In a split second, the impact of a wave triggers a huge force which accelerates the
boulders. For a subaerially exposed boulder weighing 90 tonnes, this only occurs if wave
velocities exceed 10–12 ms-1, which in nature does not happen. Storm waves with heights
of 3–6 m and, therefore velocities of less than 9 ms-1, do not have the necessary force to
uplift a 90 tonne cube-like boulder lying in 3–6 m of water vertically by 1 m.
Storm waves with heights of 10 m in deep water are extremely rare; however, in theory
they could uplift subaerial boulders of 90 tonnes up to 9 m vertically and dislocate them
inland for 50 m, or uplift boulders of 250 tonnes up to 0.6 metres vertically and 6 m
inland. In reality, the values are rather close to zero due to the energy loss by friction and
due to the flow regime being three-dimensional rather than one-dimensional, as is
assumed in most models.
If the boulder is submerged and a constant flow velocity occurs over a long enough time
period, the resulting hydraulic forces which develop can add to the dislocation of the
boulder. However, since the largest wave lengths of storm waves near the coast are
usually not longer than 100–150 m, the wave period will typically be shorter than 10–12
seconds. Half of the time of the wave period (which is the time of forward current) is not
29
sufficient time for the development of a uniform flow velocity and hence is not sufficient
for continuous hydraulic forces to develop.
Even if the top of a boulder is below sea level, a fragment may be above the water when
the wave hits it due to the withdrawal of the water in front of the wave. If submergence is
limited (that is, if the boulder is in shallow water), the boulder will be moved in a
subaerial context; however, if it is submerged in deeper water where it will not be exposed
by the withdrawal of the water in front of the wave, it will be positioned at the bottom of
the wave trough where water movement is directed seaward and downward, and so
landward movement by storm waves may be impossible to achieve.
Cube-shaped boulders are more readily moved than other shapes.
The energy required to uplift a boulder for two metres is nearly the same as the energy
required to transport the same boulder horizontally for 20 m. Under constant conditions of
friction, the doubling of a slope angle against which a boulder is moved means that it
would take approximately 20% more energy to transport the boulder. The friction for
movements of boulders on loose pebbles or gravel is much easier to calculate than friction
on rough rocky slopes because rough rocky slopes have many irregularities.
When comparing storm and tsunami waves, there are many differences that need to be
taken into consideration. Tsunami water masses flow with nearly constant velocity
towards the shore, whereas storm waves ebb and flow. Tsunami waves have much greater
wave lengths and velocities at the coast than storm waves. Velocities of 16 ms-1, 20 ms-1
or even more have been reported (Titov & Synolakis, 1997; Prakhammintara, 2007). Thus,
the energy stored in a tsunami wave is many times higher than that stored in a storm wave,
30
and as such, high kinetic energies can develop. Thus, tsunami waves are theoretically able
to uplift big boulders more than 70–150 m and transport them more than 3 km inland. In
reality, uplift heights may reach about 30–70 m with transport distances exceeding 1 km.
31
Chapter 2: Literature Review: Progress in tsunami
research since the 2004 tsunami
2.1 Preface
It has been said that the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami of December 26, 2004 was the most
disastrous in human history. This is probably correct if one considers the number of
fatalities (over 225,000), but is certainly wrong in terms of geomorphologic and
sedimentologic processes along the coastlines of the world. This can be concluded from a
comparison of well-studied and dated palaeo-tsunamis worldwide. The Sumatra-Andaman
tsunami has triggered an increase in tsunami research and has resulted in questions being
asked which challenge the assumptions which are usually made about geomorphic and
sedimentologic processes, but too often it is used as the classical example of a strong
tsunami. Because of its low velocity, this is incorrect. In this chapter the Sumatra-
Andaman tsunami of 2004 is put in the frame of other tsunamis that occurred worldwide
in 2000–2008, the state of the art of geomorphic and sedimentologic tsunami research is
discussed and the most important issue for future work is identified.
2.2 New insights from the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami of 26
December 2004
Tsunamis have long been known as natural phenomena, as demonstrated by catalogues for
nearly 4000 years for the Mediterranean and Chinese Seas (NGDC, 1997, 2001; Zhou &
Adams, 1986). However, the signatures most considered have not been the effects on
nature, but those on mankind and society: tsunamis (and other natural catastrophes) have
32
often been regarded as a penalty for disobedience by a government, ruler or society as a
whole. This attitude has influenced reports on disasters, which often cited growing
numbers of fatalities to show the type of severe curse meted out to bad societies. This
attitude was prevalent at least until medieval times. As most tsunamis are triggered by
strong earthquakes or seaquakes, it remains unclear what numbers of fatalities can be
attributed to the tsunami itself, even for younger events such as Lisbon 1755 or Messina
1908, and what number were due to the quake or to fires or epidemics after the event.
Current thinking is that the greatest number of fatalities is usually due to the earthquakes
themselves. The Indian Ocean event of 2004 was an exception, because the majority of
victims (80% or even more) were killed by the tsunami waves and flow (Appendix A:
References focussing on the Indian Ocean Tsunami, 26.12.2004).
While ancient tsunamis, in particular those with a mythical background (such as the
Santorini event that possibly caused extinction of the Minoan civilization) have attracted
scientific attention, the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 is the most intensively investigated
so far because of its far-reaching effects and because it is believed to have caused more
fatalities than any other tsunami.
The data on the 2004 tsunami comes mainly from the large number of task forces who
inspected all areas affected shortly after the event, as well as rapid communication and
almost immediate availability of satellite images of the areas destroyed. The number of
papers on the 2004 event is still increasing and more aspects are being identified.
However, this type of intensive research may also be a reflection of the weakness of
tsunami research to date. Sometimes modelling has been used in an attempt to compensate
for the lack of field research and prejudices have driven research, as evidenced by very
33
selective collection of field data (in particular from fine sediments) to support hypotheses
on tsunami behaviour. The most important point may be that most scientists believe that
this extraordinary tsunami has provided the model case for all past and future strong
tsunamis and will explain signatures and processes, allowing input of data into models.
However, this belief is wrong according to data published on palaeo-tsunami research.
The Indian Ocean tsunami had the greatest number of fatalities, but it was less harmful to
nature. Destruction of coral reefs and coastal vegetation including mangroves was patchy,
with dislocation of much smaller sediment volumes than for other palaeo-tsunamis
worldwide. The main reason was the slow movement for 500 seconds along the 1200-km-
long fault; in particular. The wide and protecting shelves and shallow waters in front of
most of the coastline decreased the tsunami flow to a speed that many people could
outrun. Stronger constructions such as modern concrete buildings suffered less damage
than indigenous houses and shops. The fine tsunami sediments distributed more than two
kilometres inland are nearly invisible and hard to find just five years later. Boulder
dislocation was restricted to a few sites and was much less in volume, weight and
altitudinal transport than for many other palaeo-tsunamis. On the other hand, good
cooperation between scientists from the developed world and those from the countries
affected has grown, more sophisticated techniques for tsunami observation have been
developed, awareness of this type of risk has increased and warning systems have been
promoted.
Some of the more important results should be mentioned here:
Seismic modelling is conclusive and the distribution of tsunami waves can be detected by
satellite imagery, although the topography of the sea floor is not known in sufficient
detail. This is one of the reasons why tsunami research in this region remains
34
underdeveloped, in particular regarding previous events and the overall tsunami risk in the
area.
There is consensus on the tectonic situation, with vertical and horizontal dislocation of
several meters along a 1200-km subduction fault within 500 s, and the strength (9.0–9.3
on the Richter scale). However, using satellite images and GPS techniques, Song (2007)
found that the highest waves and strongest energy came from horizontal rather than
vertical displacement, and that horizontal displacement accounted for two-thirds of the
wave height and five times more energy than the vertical processes. These results are
consistent with findings for the more recent tsunamis of Samoa and Chile.
Data are generally not available to calculate the energy at the coastline; the most important
parameter for tsunami processes is the water depth in shallow areas (<10 m deep), which
has not been checked by large ships. These data are missing in most of the models, which
end at the 10-m isobath. This is particularly important for the west coast of the Thai-
Malaysian Peninsula, where the shallow water belt extends for many kilometres,
influencing wave breaking and tsunami flow energy via friction processes.
A fine sediment layer washed ashore in areas affected by the tsunami. To date it is still
unclear whether it came from beaches, the foreshore or at least partly outwashed from
weathered rocks on the mainland. Another important issue is the fate of these deposits: in
the humid tropics, marine particles (carbonates) are dissolved rapidly and monsoon rains
wash away fine sediments in a very short time. In addition, the rapid spread of vegetation
and soil development, including soil organisms, bioturbate the fine sediment layers so that
they may disappear within a few years. These sediments are certainly difficult or
35
impossible to find as palaeo-tsunami evidence after centuries or millennia. A Thai-
German research project (TRIAS: Tracing Tsunami Impacts On- and Offshore in the
Andaman Sea Region, http://www.triasproject.net/) is addressing these and other issues,
combining offshore research with searching of geo- and bio-archives of previous tsunami
events onshore.
Here we give an example of how prejudice can lead to incorrect conclusions that persist
for a long time in many heads and papers. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL)
dating is an important method used to determine the age of sand sediments. Shortly after
the event 2004 tsunami deposits should have given OSL signals of zero, which was the
case for 23 of 24 samples dated in two German laboratories (Kelletat et al., 2006). Data
published by other authors gave ages of 500–1500 years. The explanation for these OSL
signals being greater than zero was that the tsunami had taken a sheet of sediment from
the foreshore, where bioturbation constantly mixes sediments so that they cannot yield a
zero signal. The conclusion and hypothesis then (e.g. Bishop et al., 2005) were that using
this method and data we could be certain of the origin of the onshore fine sediments: a
sheet from the foreshore that is constantly bioturbated! Hopefully more OSL data will
show that this is an extreme over-simplification of the problem of the sediment source.
If some frequently cited literature on tsunami deposits (Dawson, 1996; Dawson & Shi,
2000; Dawson et al., 1991; Dawson & Stewart, 2007) and field reports by task forces
immediately after tsunamis (Dawson et al., 1996; Keating et al., 2005; Bahlburg & Weiss,
2006) is correct, almost all the sediment moved by tsunamis is fine sediment. However,
The extraordinary ability of tsunamis to move coarse debris and boulders has often been
pointed out (Scheffers, 2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2006a, 2008; Kelletat, 2008; Kelletat et al.,
36
2005, 2007; Benner et al., 2008). The size and position of these boulders has been used to
estimate the energy of previous tsunamis. During our field work in Thailand on tsunami
deposits from the 2004 event we observed that this tsunami, in contrast to many palaeo-
tsunamis, moved almost no coarse sediments, and single boulders and boulder fields were
scarce and restricted to the tidal area (Kelletat et al., 2006). Goto et al. (2007) describe a
boulder field at Pakarang in western Thailand, for which we dated destruction of a reef to
4700–5100 BP, but the dislocation from the foreshore into the tidal area is a 2004 process.
For all the other areas affected by the 2004 tsunami, only Paris et al. (2008) describe a
similar boulder field (undated) on the west coast of Sumatra, and even the islands west of
Sumatra such as Nias and Simeulue, uplifted for approximately 1.5 m during an
earthquake on March 28, 2005, do not show destruction of the now dry fringing reefs.
Therefore, the tsunami flow was not great enough to destroy reefs over large areas or to
dislocate larger boulders (more than several tons), as mentioned above, because of the
shallow foreshore conditions, despite a flow depth ranging from 4 m to more than 30 m.
Video evidence reveals a flow velocity of not more than 8 m/sec, which is significantly
less than for many palaeo-tsunamis investigated.
2.3 Influence of the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami on
geomorphologic and sedimentologic tsunami research
As a short summary of remarkable tsunamis worldwide since the start of 2000, Table 2.1
shows that these events are much more frequent than previously thought.
37
Table 2.1 Earth- and seaquakes with tsunamis in 2000–2007
Date Region Force
(Richter
scale)
Remarks
May 4, 2000 Sulawesi, Philippines 7.6 Run-up 6 m
Nov. 16,
2000
Papua-New Guinea 8.0 Run-up 3 m
Nov. 21,
2000
West Greenland ? Rock fall with run-up of 50 m
Jan. 13, 2001 El Salvador 7.7
June 23,
2001
Peru 8.4 Run-up 8.2 m, inundation 490 m
Jan. 3, 2002 Vanuatu 6.7
Mar. 5, 2002 Mindanao, Philippines 7.5 Run-up 3 m
Sept. 8, 2002 Papua New Guinea 7.6 Run-up 5.5 m
Oct. 10, 2002 Irian Jaya, Indonesia 7.6
Jan. 22, 2003 West Mexico 7.4
Mar. 27,
2003
New Caledonia 7.3
May 21,
2003
Algeria 6.8 Run-up 3 m
Aug. 21,
2003
New Zealand 7.1 Run-up 5 m
Sept. 25,
2003
Hokkaido, Japan 8.3 Run-up 3.9 m
38
Oct. 31, 2003 Honshu, Japan 7.0
Nov. 17,
2003
Aleutes 7.7
Sept. 5, 2005 Honshu, Japan 7.2
Nov. 2, 2004 Vancouver, Canada 6.7
Nov. 23,
2004
Macquarie Is.,
Australia
8.1
Nov. 28,
2004
Hokkaido, Japan 7.0
Dec. 26,
2004
Sumatra-Andaman 9.0 Run-up 50.9 m, max. inundation 5 km
Jan. 19, 2005 Honshu, Japan 6.5
Mar. 28,
2005
Sumatra 8.7 Run-up 3 m (100 died in panic
evacuation)
Apr. 10,
2005
Sumatra 6.7
June 15,
2005
Northern California 7.2
Aug. 16,
2005
Honshu, Japan 7.2
Nov. 14,
2005
Honshu, Japan 7.0
Mar. 3, 2006 Tonga 8.0
Mar. 14,
2006
Seram, Indonesia 6.7 Run-up 3.5 m
39
July 19, 2006 Java, Indonesia 7.7 Run-up 16 m, inundation 2 km, 720
fatalities
July 29, 2006 Kamtschatka 4.4 Run-up ca. 3 m
Sept. 28,
2006
Samoa 6.9
Oct. 15, 2006 Hawaii 6.7
Nov. 15,
2006
Kuriles 8.3
Jan. 21, 2007 Maluku Islands 7.5
Mar. 25,
2007
Vanuatu 7.1
Mar. 25,
2007
Honshu, Japan 6.7
Apr. 1, 2007 Solomon Islands 8.0 Run-up 11 m, inundation 500 m, 54
fatalities
Apr. 21,
2007
Southern Chile 6.2
Aug. 2, 2007 Sakhalin 6.1
Aug. 8, 2007 Java 7.5
Aug. 15,
2007
Peru 8.0 Run-up 10 m, inundation >2 km
Sept. 2, 2007 Santa Cruz Islands 7.2
Geophysical parameters are available for most of the tsunamis reported here, but data on
run-up and inundation are rare. There is consensus that earthquakes with a force of 7.2
40
on the Richter scale and of shallow source (30 km under the earth‘s surface or sea
bottom) represent a significant tsunami risk. Data for events listed here are from US
National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) and other sources.
In these 8 years nine quakes with a force of 8.0 or more occurred, which is a significant
tsunami risk. Besides the Andaman-Sumatra tsunami, which had a local maximum run-up
of 50.90 m and run-up of 30–35 m over a wide area, run-up heights of 10 m occurred on
four occasions. The run-up of the Andaman-Sumatra tsunami seems extremely high;
however for palaeo-tsunamis since 1600 listed by the NGDC, run-up has been greater than
50 m on 15 occasions and greater than 100 m on six occasions (Scheffers & Kelletat,
2003). Thus, there is no simple relation between earthquake strength and run-up height.
The reference lists in Appendix B, Part I and Part II) give insights into how much the 2004
tsunami has influenced regional tsunami research. Examples include the North Sea,
northern Scotland, western Ireland, south-west England and Wales, Brittany, Sri Lanka,
western and eastern Australia, the western Mediterranean (Spain, Algeria), the eastern
Mediterranean (Sicily, Apulia, Greece, Turkey, Lebanon), Portugal, Morocco, the Arabian
peninsula, the Caribbean (Puerto Rico and Jamaica), the Bahamas, the Seychelles and the
Falkland Islands.
Studies on fine sediments have been continued (Switzer et al., 2005; Dominey-Howes et
al., 2006; Morton et al., 2007; Tappin, 2007), and existing catalogues on the
discrimination of storm and tsunami deposits have been extended. Several authors believe
it is possible to discriminate between storm and tsunami deposits, and have put forwards
evidence to support their claims, although in the latest book on the state of the art in
tsunami sediment research (Shiki et al., 2008), which has several contributions to the
41
problem scientists from Japan and elsewhere with the widest experience in tsunami
research emphasise that all aspects of sedimentology may be found in fine deposits caused
by both storms and tsunamis, and that there are no exclusive criteria for determining
whether particular sediments were deposited by storms or by tsunamis.
Coarse sediments and boulder deposits have attracted much more attention since 2004
(Scheffers 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008a, 2008b; Scheffers et al. 2008a, 2008b; Scheffers &
Kelletat 2005, 2006; Mastronuzzi et al., 2006; Kelletat 2008; Imamura et al. 2008, Benner
et al., 2008, and others), often combined with addressing the question of how far boulders
can be transported by storm waves (Williams & Hall, 2004; Saintilan & Rogers 2005; Hall
et al., 2006; Nott, 2006; Scheffers & Scheffers, 2006; Scheffers et al. 2007a, 2007b,
2008). At present the controversy on this question continues, sometimes with hostile
arguments and discrimination against papers from authors belonging to opposing groups
of scientists. Thus, this question urgently needs more attention to provide new evidence
and sound conclusions.
As the Andaman-Sumatra tsunami affected mostly tropical and subtropical coasts,
investigation into coral reef destruction by tsunamis has intensified (Baird et al., 2005;
Brown 2005; Chavanich et al., 2005; Fernando et al., 2005; Foster et al., 2005; Morris,
2005; Pennisis, 2005; Phongsuman & Brown, 2005; Satapooimin et al., 2005; Scheffers et
al., 2007; Tun et al., 2005; Kench et al., 2006). So far, data on destruction by hurricanes
and typhoons have been published, but data on tsunamis have been limited. The question
as to whether coastal vegetation, and mangroves in particular, provides protection against
strong tsunami waves has been dealt with, but the results are controversial (Danielsen et
al., 2005; Dahdough-Guebas et al., 2005; Kathiresan & Rajendran, 2005; Kerr et al., 2006;
42
Yanagisana et al., 2006; Rhodes et al., 2007). The exact source of sediments deposited by
a tsunami, in particular sediment movement offshore, is another field of research in its
infancy, whereas an increasing amount of attention is being given to archaeological and
historical sources as well as to legends and myths as tools in palaeo-tsunami research
(Masse, 2007; Scheffers 2006c; Vött et al., 2006, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c; Bryant, 2007;
Scheffers et al., 2008; Bryant et al., 2007).
The genesis of so-called chevrons is a new topic in the field of tsunami research (Scheffers
et al., 2008). A debate is occurring on whether these are formed by tsunami wash, or even
triggered by cosmic impacts on the sea if impact ejecta such as shocked quartz, magnetite
spherules and other minerals have been found (Abbott et al., 2005a,2005b, 2006, 2007;
Bryant et al., 2007, 2008; Collins et al., 2005; Martos et al., 2006; Masse, 2007; Masse et
al., 2006; Meyers et al., 2007). A more intensive search for oceanic craters is urgently
needed to clarify answers to these questions. Also needed is better dating of those found
so far. It is evident that after a tsunami a catastrophic as that of 2004, known palaeo-
tsunamis have been investigated again, partly using new methods (Reference list BI).
2.4 Conclusions: new facts and open questions in tsunami
research, with particular emphasis on South-East Asia
The timing of the tsunami of December 26, 2004 and the fact that it occurred over a wide
geographical area allowed direct observation of wave extension and height, as well as of
the number of waves, and refraction from obstacles on the coastline or ocean bottom. Such
information was previously only obtained by modelling using data on earthquake depth
and forces and run-up heights. Satellite images also provided information on the
inundation width and all the areas affected, highlighting what the first steps should be for
43
aid efforts. There should have been sufficient time to warn distant regions such as Sri
Lanka, India and East Africa, but there was very little infrastructure in place to quickly
pass on such warnings to the population affected.
For the first time, satellite images played an important role in the observation of complex
water flows, in particular backwash movements, vortices and whirlpools, which are
important for sediment mobility and reef destruction. From these data it has been possible
to make connections between suspension loads and times and reef destruction. GPS was
used for the first time for immediate and later measurement of vertical and horizontal
crustal movements for comparison with earthquake forces and tsunami wave propagation.
Unfortunately, the exposed fringing reefs at Nias and Simeulue, uplifted by the earthquake
of March 28, 2005 and undisturbed in spite of a strong water flow of 30–35 m in depth on
December 26th, 2004, have not been used to investigate specific questions regarding reef
community structures or former sedimentary signatures on a reef with repeated earthquake
and tsunami activities. Many of the first very clear signatures are mantled by vegetation,
but classification of soil and vegetation impacts is still possible using old and younger
satellite data. The results from these studies are complex: severely damaged areas are
immediately alongside areas with almost no damage. This is true for coral reefs as well as
for mangrove swamps, but the reason for this still unknown, whereas the distribution of
onshore fine deposits has been found to be congruent with small variations in topography.
Unfortunately, all warnings against locating built-up areas close to the coast and advice to
build at least 300 m back from the beach have been in vain. New hotels and resorts have
been built on the old sites or even seaward of them. Some have been located where they
can be affected by coastal erosion which is likely to occur in the course of beach
adaptation after steepening caused by the tsunami.
44
Geomorphological changes directly on the coastline have mostly been small (Fagherazzi
& Du, 2008), with erosion of 20–50 m, except for many fresh or widened incisions cut
mostly by backflow, but also present on flat islands where no backflow occurred. For
onshore areas, coastlines and even beaches, much data from satellites, aerial photographs
and maps are available for comparison of the status before and after the tsunami. However
such data are generally not available for foreshore areas (except for some small reef
sections well known by divers). An additional problem exists in the west of Thailand,
where offshore sands containing deposits of tin have been dredged for nearly 100 years,
creating an artificial topography.
On the west coast of Thailand, beaches had been subjected to limited general erosion and
their slopes have generally steepened, with cliffs being created on older beach ridges.
Sometimes these cliffs are adapted to a line of strong tree roots such as old Casuarinae.
Lower vegetation may have been cut over ground by high loaded suspension flows. In the
five years since the tsunami, new beaches have developed in many places, normally by
elongation of a low and slow angled profile into the mainland, with loss of land. At most
places, however, remnants of cliffs can be seen in the sediments that are only decimetres
high, but when the beach profiles are totally adapted to the normal wave regime of the
area again, the upper beach line or the dense vegetation limit will move inland by several
more meters. Where the tsunami has taken a lot of material from the foreshore or
deposited rubble to break wave energy, a new beach ridge may have been formed of
approximately 2 m high and nearly 40 m wide, as at Cape Pakarang in the north of Khao
Lak.
45
Directly after the Sumatra-Andaman tsunami many official and scientific bodies stated
that such a catastrophe was totally unexpected because there was no evidence of previous
tsunamis in the area. This is not true. For example, in the myths of the Moken (the so-
called sea gypsies) in Phang Nga Bay, Thailand, people knew from their elders that a
quick and strong ebbing of the sea would be followed by a deadly wave. They escaped
immediately to higher and safe ground.
What is missing is research on the palaeo-tsunami history of the Indian Ocean. Along its
eastern rim of the Indian Ocean, – for example on the west coast of Australia, there is
much evidence of palaeo-tsunamis that have been dated (Nott, 2004; Nott & Bryant, 2003;
Scheffers et al., 2008). The 1883 Krakatoa eruption caused an extreme example of a
volcanic tsunami with thousands of fatalities, and in 1945 a 15-m tsunami run-up occurred
on the coastline of Pakistan. The structure of the ocean bottom, the subduction zone and
the Andaman-Sumatra Trench, as well as the presence of active volcanoes, all point to a
high tsunami risk, including a risk of submarine slides into the trench. To find signatures,
geo- and bio-archives have to be investigated, which these archives are currently the focus
of research in many disciplines and many countries in South-East Asia. First results from
Thailand (Jankaew et al., 2008) and Sumatra (Monecke et al., 2008) are available,
pointing to at least one older tsunami approximately 600 years ago, and older sediment
layers are still to be dated. The boulders dislocated at Cape Pakarang were broken by other
palaeo-tsunamis approximately 4700 and 5100 years ago, and more research and dating
should uncover a long history of palaeo-tsunamis in the wider area and a high risk of
similar events in the future.
46
The newly installed warning system will be of benefit, at least for events that allow
warning times of 15–20 minutes, which is a very critical time because of the closeness of
structural elements to fast plate movements just off the entire coastline of Sumatra and
Java and further to the north and south.
47
Chapter 3: Tsunamis and hurricanes and their effects
on coral reefs and pre-historic human populations in the
Caribbean
3.1 Preface
This paper reviews extreme events and their impact on coral reefs and prehistoric human
society in the wider Caribbean. It argues that a better understanding of coral reef
morphologies, structures and disconformities and their causes can be gained by
incorporating long-term (multi-century to millennial) records captured in coarse
depositional units. The extreme wave event records also provide archaeologists with
answers to pre-historic human dynamics.
This paper is a collaborative work by SR Scheffers, A., Scheffers, T. Browne, T. and J.
Haviser. Tony Browne contributed 25% of the research design, 25% of the data analysis
and 25% of the interpretation of the data.
Scheffers, SR, Scheffers, A., Browne, T. and Haviser, J., 2008. Tsunamis and hurricanes
and their effects on coral reefs and pre-historic human populations in the Caribbean.
Quaternary International 195: 69–87.
48
3.2 Abstract
A review of extreme natural events and their impact on coral reefs and prehistoric human
society for the wider Caribbean is presented. As a biological and geological archive of
hurricane or tsunami chronology, onshore coarse coral deposits were used.
The influence of natural disturbances on coral reefs is extremely complex and the
relatively short time span of historical records does not provide sufficient long-term
information on extreme natural events such as tropical hurricanes or tsunami variability.
The sedimentary record of extreme natural events, such as tsunamis and tropical storms,
and their impacts on coral reefs are present in the form of coarse onshore reef debris.
These coarse sediments provide information on, for example, spatial and temporal
variability of extreme events. The short-term impact of tropical hurricanes on coral reefs is
well documented and has been studied in great detail, but the impact of tsunamis on coral
reefs was rather neglected until the recent past, when the Indian Ocean Tsunami in
December 2004 caused the greatest tsunami catastrophe in human history. This
contribution focuses on natural extreme events, such as tsunamis and hurricanes and
presents evidence and case studies of modern and ancient tropical examples, the problem
of distinguishing deposits from these two different wave events, and the significance of
the deposits for reef evolution studies within the Caribbean region. A better understanding
of coral reef morphologies/structures or disconformities and their origins can be gained by
incorporating long-term (multi-century to millennial) records captured in coarse
depositional units. The extreme wave event records also provide explanations to
prehistoric human dynamics.
49
3.3 Introduction
The high diversity in coral reefs is generally considered to be a reflection of disturbances
and semi-continuous cycles of destruction and renewal (Rogers, 1993). Disturbances may
occur as hurricanes and tsunamis, diseases and human impacts such as ship groundings or
dynamite fisheries (e.g. Scoffin, 1993; Hughes, 1994; Blanchon et al., 1997; Riegl and
Luke, 1998; Riegl, 2001). Studies of changes in ecology and morphology of reefs brought
about by tropical hurricanes are numerous (e.g. Woodley et al., 1981; Bourrouilh-Le Jan
and Talandier, 1985; Mah and Stearn, 1986; Done, 1992; Woodley, 1992; Massel and
Done, 1993; Blanchon and Jones, 1997; Connell et al., 1997; Treml et al., 1997; Glynn et
al., 1998; Hughes and Connell, 1999; Gardner et al., 2004; Adjeroud et al., 2005). Severe
impacts and continuous disturbances not only alter the structure of reefs, but also create
coral debris and turn parts—or even the entire framework—of a living reef into loose
fragments (Rasser and Riegl, 2002). The fate of resulting fragments, however, has been
largely neglected in these studies.
The impact of tsunamis on reefs and the resulting erosion and deposition of coral debris
has only been recognized during the last 10 years (e.g. Yeh et al., 1993), and of course
received massive attention after the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 for which most reef
damage was reported due to the uplift and earthquake as well as to dislodgement of
massive and large branching corals and smothering of colonies by sedimentation (e.g.
Baird et al., 2005; Brown, 2005; Obura and Abdulla, 2005; Kench et al., 2006;
Satapoomin et al., 2006; Kelletat et al., 2007). Although rarely mentioned, coral rubble
and coral boulders derived from living reef or the reef framework evidently have been
dislocated by modern tsunami waves, such as those of Nicaragua in 1992, Papua New
50
Guinea in 1998 or the Indian Ocean tsunami (Simkin and Fiske, 1983; Goto et al., 2007;
Kelletat et al., 2007; Paris et al., 2007; Paris et al., 2008).
Observations off Aceh revealed that the highest frequency of overturned corals was found
on fringing reefs inside bays while the reefs at adjacent headlands were mostly undamaged
(Foster et al., 2005). The tsunami may have been less damaging to the reefs of Aceh than
initially expected for two reasons. First, the tsunami involved only three large waves.
Once the waves had passed and receded the event was over. Secondly, there is evidence
that tsunami damage is greater in areas with gently sloping bathymetry (Searle, 2005).
According to eyewitness reports from the Reef Check team on Pulau Weh, the tsunami
wave swiftly inundated the island rather than forming a breaking wave on the fringing
reefs. In cases where tsunami waves can shoal and build up, they may break. The weight
of the falling water could crush and dislodge corals. In the Andaman Islands, for example,
low lying islands with shallow shelving coasts suffered heavy damage while islands with
steeper offshore bathymetry or outlying fringing reefs that absorbed some of the tsunami
energy suffered much less damage (Searle, 2005). In both the Seychelles (Obura and
Abdulla, 2005) and Sri Lanka (Rajasuriya, 2005) reefs located further offshore with
steeper seabed gradients suffered significantly less damage compared to shallow inshore
reefs. Similarly, the oceanic atoll reefs of the Maldives archipelago were not heavily
affected by the tsunami (Obura and Abdulla, 2005).
Although not observed for the Indian Ocean Tsunami, depending on the nature and
intensity of the disturbance (either cyclones or tsunamis), ridges and ramparts of coarse
deposits several meters in height, decametres in width and several kilometres in length
were formed along coastlines in the Caribbean and elsewhere (e.g. McKee, 1959; Maragos
51
et al., 1973; Scheffers, 2002). Knowledge of the evolution of the coastal landscape on a
regional scale is important in interpreting these deposits and correctly determining their
origin. This includes, for example, the local geology and neotectonic processes, coastal
geomorphology, climate and vegetation, water run-off and the status of soil development
and weathering, sea level variations (Milne et al., 2005), bathymetry, wave climate and
offshore sediments. The health of the coral reef at the time of disturbance also determines
the amount and type of reef material which can be subject to erosion by hurricanes and/or
tsunamis. Stability of the reef framework also determines whether corals are easily
dislodged by waves (Rasser and Riegl, 2002; Madin, 2005). In addition, the frequency of
extreme events affecting a particular reef is important. The frequency of impacts and the
type of extreme event will determine whether a reef will develop or perish (Blanchon and
Jones, 1997; Lirman and Fong, 1997; Riegl, 2001). The Acropora Biological Review
Team (2005), Hubbard et al. (1997) and MacIntyre et al. (2007) note apparent gaps in the
appearance of the reef builder Acropora palmata at 4500–3000BP at several Caribbean
sites. The ecological implications of these gaps are not entirely clear, but were
obviously not caused by human activity and are so far attributed to hurricane origin. The
understanding of the Holocene history of coral reef evolution is mostly based on the
interpretation of boreholes (e.g. Aaronson et al., 2002). However, Blanchon and Perry
(2004) point out that information from cores is limited in identifying coral reef
environments and conclude that hurricanes have major influence on facies development,
as do MacIntyre et al. (2007).
Tsunami and hurricane waves are hydrodynamically different and consequently might be
expected to have different impacts on reefs. This paper identifies the differences between
hurricane and tsunami wave dynamics and based on these proposes differences in
52
formation of coral reef debris depositional units. Finally, we provide a discussion on
implications and possibilities of coral debris units (temporal and spatial) in geo-
archaeological studies. We hypothesize that onshore coral reef deposits help in a better
understanding of coral reef evolution and human culture shifts.
3.4 Results and discussion
Hurricane and tsunami wave characteristics: differences in hydrodynamics and
destructive potential
Tsunami and storms are the only natural events causing waves large enough to destroy
reefs and subsequently deposit coarse material onshore, which may be preserved in the
geological record. Tsunami waves are dissimilar from wind-generated ocean waves and
are generated by a number of different mechanisms (e.g. submarine earthquakes,
submarine slides, volcanic eruptions, oceanic meteorite/asteroid impacts or atmospheric
disturbances). Individual waves inundate the land for a matter of minutes and are
associated with high energy levels in both run-up and backwash. Tsunamis usually consist
of a few, high velocity, long-period waves that entrain sediment from below storm wave
base, the shore face, beach and landward by-pass zone. Sediment is transported primarily
in suspension, and material is distributed over a broad region where sediment falls out of
suspension when flow decelerates.
Flow depths can exceed 10 m. For tsunami the spacing between wave crests is roughly 5–
20 min. Tsunami waves propagate in almost a straight line near the coastline causing large
run-ups that vary at a scale of tens of kilometres as a function of coastal bathymetry
(Ioualalen et al., 2007). Storms, on the other hand, consist of meteorologically induced
waves. The waves can inundate the land, almost continuously, for many hours with highly
53
variable energy levels. Storm inundation is usually gradual and prolonged, consisting of
many waves that erode beaches and dunes with no significant overland return flow until
after the main flooding. Sediment is transported primarily as bed/traction load that is
deposited within a zone relatively close to the beach. Storm flow depths are commonly
less than 3m. For storm waves the crest of waves passing by a stationary observer would
be every 10–15 s. The steep topography of the shore relative to the wavelength of a
tsunami allows the wave to rush onshore at very high speed. For example, the Aitape
tsunami in Papua New Guinea (July 17, 1998) travelled across the sand barrier at Sissano
Lagoon at approx. 80km with a wave height of 15m (Nott, 2006). Titov and Synolakis
(1997) observed for the Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki tsunami (flow velocity of 65 km/h) that the
sites with maximum destruction or sediment dislocation were more congruent with flow
velocity than with inundation height. In contrast, storm waves cross the shore at 10–20
km/h. Therefore, high velocity tsunami waves have an enormous destructive potential,
which is accented by the fact that moving water has 1000 times the force of air travelling
at the same velocity (Nott, 2006).
3.4.1 Different hydrodynamics reflected in sedimentary features
Problems of coarse coastal sediment transport, in particular large boulders by waves, are
far from being solved, and their discussion is highly controversial among field scientists
and modellers. These questions, neglected for a long time in coastal science, as A. Felton
(2002, p. 242) says: ‗‗may well be the last frontier of sedimentary environments for study
on planet Earth‘‘, but they have become more important due to an increasing number of
publications on palaeo-tsunami deposits during the last one or two decades (e.g. Taggart et
al., 1993; Schubert, 1994; Bryant and Nott, 2001; Robinson et al., 2006; Scheffers et al.,
2006).
54
Highly disputed is the transport capacity of storm/tsunami waves for large boulders. Given
their potential importance in assessing tsunami impacts, as Dawson and Stewart (2007)
correctly stated, it is surprising that boulder transport is not afforded more attention by
scientists, because this situation opens speculations in all directions. Although Nott‘s
formulas have been questioned (Morton et al., 2006), they are the only mathematics we
have at present by which extreme event wave heights can be calculated. Recently,
Imamura et al. (2008) presented a numerical model for the transport of a single boulder by
tsunami waves based on hydraulic experiments. The described differences in
hydrodynamics of tropical cyclones and tsunamis are thought to lead to distinct
differences in coarse deposits. Some aspects are briefly outlined.
3.4.2 Breakage of coral colonies
Intense hydrodynamic events cause devastation to coral reef communities by damaging
and dislodging the coral colonies that form the habitat structure (Connell, 1978; Woodley
et al., 1981; Connell et al., 1997). Baird et al. (2005) indicate that hydrodynamic stress
does indeed break corals with the breakage dependent upon coral morphology and were
wave velocity exceeds 2 m/sec flow. However, Madin (2005) states that severe
hydrodynamic stress alone is unlikely to break colony branches. Branch removal is likely
to be caused by impacts of waterborne projectiles, such as dislodged coral fragments and
loose rubble. However, the most important fact is that the mechanical integrity of coral
colonies to withstand waves is limited by the independent and highly variable strength of
the substrate upon which they happen to settle (Madin, 2005) and weakly attached or
unattached colonies have a higher probability of dislodging (Bries et al., 2004).
3.4.3 Transport
The processes of beach ridge accumulation composed of coarse material under storm
conditions is discussed in detail by Nott (2006), who points out that wave run-up may not
55
always play an important role. Rather the height of an onshore rubble ridge is a function of
storm surge, tide and wave set up combined. Observations of historical and modern storm
events suggest that the surge and the lower part of the orbital movement of waves within
the storm contribute predominantly to the formation of ridges. On Funafuti atoll, the surge
of Tropical Cyclone Bebe was 1.5m above the ridge crest at 3.5m above sea level (asl)
(Maragos et al., 1973; Baines et al., 1974; Baines and McLean, 1976). This evidence
clearly shows that ridge formation even in an extreme cyclone takes place in the
environment where orbital waves of water and particles touch the ground, and not at the
level of the highest breakers. Breaking waves (6–9m high) during hurricane Lenny (1999)
formed a fresh spit only 2m high asl at its crest, and long ridges on neighbouring islands
have had heights of mostly less than 1m asl formed by waves of many meters in height
(Fig. 1) (Scheffers and Scheffers, 2006). However, the probability of generating a new
ridge is dependent on the coastal slope, which might have been dramatically steepened by
ridge accumulations of older events.
Strong tsunami waves with a high flow velocity and depth are capable of transporting all
particle sizes by suspension or bed load. The inland extent of the deposits is dependent on
the coastal slope: on shallow slopes a wide sheet-like deposit may be laid down with
sediment fining from seaward to landward, whereas on steeper slopes, backwash may
rework the initial deposit, and the sorting and size distribution of particles will be altered.
56
3.4.4 Abrasion
Fig. 3.1 Spit constructed by Hurricane Lenny near sea level at the north-western coast of Bonaire. The material is composed by rather well rounded coral debris. The crest is situated at 2m asl. During the hurricane, waves were at least 6m high.
One typical aspect of hurricane beach ridges is the high proportion of well rounded and
abraded fragments due to the potential movement in thousands of waves over time periods
often reaching 24 h or more on the reef flat and during the onshore transport process
(Knowlton et al., 1981; Scoffin, 1993). In contrast, tsunami waves affect reefs suddenly
and the event is short lasting (o30 min) causing almost no abrasion of corals or coral
fragments (Scheffers et al., 2006; Kelletat et al., 2007; Paris et al., 2008). Abraded
fragments in tsunami deposits are mostly derived from the reef flat where they have been
rounded during former storm events or during the normal wave regime. A quantitative
approach is visualized in Fig. 3.2, where a tsunami deposit and a hurricane deposit are
compared with regard to fragment size, degree of abrasion and spatial distribution of
fragments across the deposits.
57
3.4.5 Setting, sorting and inland extent
Coarse coral rubble ridges generated by hurricanes show a number of distinct sedimentary
features (Scoffin, 1993; Hayne and Chappell, 2001; Nott, 2006). They are usually well
sorted, stratified and show a rather stable packing arrangement. The orientation of the long
axis is mostly parallel to the shoreline. Whereas the beach face shows the best
stratification, orientation, imbrication and other features reflecting prolonged sorting,
these aspects are less developed on the steep landward slope, where gravity alone
(‗‗avalanching‘‘) is responsible for deposition characteristics
Tsunami waves usually are not capable of sorting fine from coarse material, and deposit
all particles in a chaotic mixture or at least in a bimodal setting (Scheffers and Kelletat,
2004). The deposits often show only minor orientation of the longest axes, less perfect
package arrangements, and unstable settings with delicate positions of balancing boulders.
The inner structure of coarse coral tsunami deposit contain rounded particles derived from
the reef flat or a beach yet the majority consists of freshly broken parts of coral colonies
(Fig. 4). Whereas the energy (or wave height) of a storm/tsunami event can be estimated
by the size of transported boulders or their position onshore, the total amount of debris is
not a good indicator of the transport energy. Here, the time gap between two events of
high energy to produce a new reef body and consequently new debris available for
destruction plays a more crucial role. A longer time span between wave impacts creates a
higher accumulation of debris on the foreshore reef. Changes in the coral community
structure by former extreme events and possibly diseases which weaken reef structure, all
contribute to the total amount transportable by waves.
58
3.4.6 The influence of coastal topography on deposits
Compared to tsunami waves, storm waves with their limited spatial extent and water mass
(Morton et al., 2006) are more refracted by offshore topography, coastline configuration or
shoreline features. Therefore their course is closely adapted to finer differences in coastal
geomorphology than tsunami waves. The latter are only influenced by larger differences in
bathymetry or coastline configuration (Kerr et al., 2006). Storm ridges of coarse material
appear in continuous bands only on beaches or within flat coastal environments and each
small refracting obstacle (rock, mangrove) leads to the forming of landward tongue-like
lobes of debris with steep slopes landward (Fig. 3A) (Scoffin, 1993; Scheffers and
Scheffers, 2006). The geomorphologic aspect of these high energy storm deposits is rather
similar from place to place: it mostly is a sharp ridge or ridge sequence following the
shore contour line (Fig. 3.5), but this is restricted to flat coasts. In some places,
avalanching of fragments down a steep leeward slope is typical, in others a steepening of
the seaward slope by younger and weaker storm waves can be seen, removing particles
back into the foreshore area or adding new rubble terraces to an older ridge (Fig. 6).
Ridges often consist of only one storm deposit, but it can occur that two or even more
storm deposits are present in what appears to be one ridge.
59
Fig. 3.2. Quantitative analysis on transects over hurricane ridges and tsunami ramparts from Bonaire, showing differences in spatial distribution, number of fragments, fragment size and degree of abrasion.
Fig. 3.3. (A) Landward/leeward flank of a fresh debris ridge constructed by hurricane Lenny (1999) along the west coast of Bonaire. Note the avalanching tongues of debris with steep slopes. (B) Deposits of Hurricane Tecla, 1877 resemble the shape of the Lenny ridge. The preservation of the ridge is excellent with respect to all sedimentary details.
60
Fig. 3.4. Tsunami deposits with a chaotic, bimodal internal structure. The exquisite preserved corallite structure without any signs of abrasion suggests that the onshore deposits have been formed from live coral fragments broken off during the events. Incorporated are rounded coral rubble fragments. Upper right corner: Diploria strigosa, lower right corner: Acropora palmata.
Fig. 3.5. Coarse coral rubble ridge accumulated by Hurricane Lenny in November 1999 at Wayaka Beach, NW Bonaire.
61
Fig. 3.6. A complex ridge at Salina Tern, NW Bonaire; the oldest and highest (at 3–3.5m above sea level) is dated to 600 BP. Another ridge from 1877 (Hurricane Tecla) shows smaller amounts of debris and a wave-cut terrace in the older ridge at about 2m asl. Subsequent Hurricane Lenny in 1999 has formed a terrace _1m asl. The Electron Resonance Spin (ESR) method was used to date the events.
3.5 The main diagnostic features for discriminating between
storm induced and tsunamigenic coarse deposits
3.5.1 Storm deposits
(1) Ridges are 4m high, sometimes 35m wide, and clasts are o0.5m with occasional
boulders never exceeding 20 tons.
(2) Imbrication is weakly present.
(3) Ridges mostly follow the coastal contour and start immediately at the shoreline.
(4) Ridges have smooth seaward slopes and a laterally undulating steep landward contour
(due to tongue-like lobes) with aspects of avalanching.
(5) Ridges have no micro-topography.
(6) Internal structure is fairly sorted and stratified, with sand filling the pores when wave
energy declines.
62
(7) Ridges can be reworked by consecutive storms, or follow each other consecutively
(with the oldest storm furthest from shore), or can be superimposed (ridge
system/complex).
(8) Coarse fragments generally show signs of bioerosion by marine organisms, well
rounded and corallite structures indistinguishable.
(9) Larger boulders only appear where large waves can develop (deep water immediately
at the coast).
3.5.2 Tsunami deposits
(1) Ramparts are o4m high, sometimes 400m wide, and clasts occasionally over 300 tons.
Mega-clasts diminish in size landwards. A seaward strip of bare rock is characteristic, i.e.
the seaward front of the deposit is separated from the cliff line/shoreline by a strip of bare
rock.
(2) Imbrication strongly present, in particular with large boulders.
(3) Ramparts mostly do not follow coastal contours.
(4) Ramparts have steep, step-wise, seaward slopes (due to abrasion of later storms), and a
smooth landward slope, never reached by storm waves.
(5) Ramparts can have a micro-topography of hollows, diagonal ridges and ripples, but no
ridge complex or system is present.
(6) Internal structure is highly chaotic (a mixture of very large boulders and sand) except
for the steepening and abrasion of the seaward slope, no stratification.
(7) Ramparts almost never reworked and corallite structures distinguishable.
(8) Coarse fragments generally have sharp edges.
(9) Boulders are mostly angular, without orientation of longest axis, often in a delicate
position leaning against another in clusters. Individual boulders might breakage by
63
smashing down (even if originally weight might have been 200 tons). No smaller particles
have accumulated at the seaward side of the larger boulder clusters.
(10) Tsunami boulders are often derived from the cliff face and cliff top.
(11) Large boulders appear on land along shallow water coasts and fringing reefs such as
on Curacao or Barbados (170 tons, 500m wide reef flat).
3.6 Hurricanes and tsunamis in the Caribbean
Fig. 3.7. Hurricane tracks (categories 4 and 5) in the Western Atlantic from 1850 to 2005 (http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/index.shtml).
Hurricanes are common natural phenomena in the Intra-Americas-Seas (Fig. 7), whereas
tsunami events are less frequent. During the last 100 years approximately 1000 tropical
storms and about 200 hurricanes of categories 2–5 occurred in the Intra-Americas Seas
region (Fig. 7). The tsunami history for the Caribbean over the last 500 years is compiled
by Lander et al. (2002) and O‘Loughlin and Lander (2003) and for the Lesser Antilles by
Zahibo and Pelinovsky (2001). These historical sources mention 91 reported wave events,
which might have been tsunamis. Of these, 27 are judged reliable by the authors and an
additional nine are considered to be true tsunamis. However, the authors also mention that
despite earthquake magnitudes of up to 7.6 and a local run-up to several meters, no
onshore deposits of these tsunami events have been found originating from tsunamis
during historical times (i.e. since the first visits by Europeans).
64
3.7 Coarse onshore depositional units in the wider Caribbean
3.7.1 Storm deposits
Storm deposits have been described for Belize by Scoffin (1993), Stoddart (1963, 1965,
1971) and Verneer (1963). Jones and Hunter (1992) and Hernandez-Avila et al. (1977)
mention hurricane-derived onshore coarse debris deposited at Grand Cayman. Kjerve et al.
(1986), Woodley et al. (1981), Woodley (1992) and Robinson et al. (2006) described
deposits on Jamaica. Caribbean Windward Islands have gained special attention because
of their position in the centre of the hurricane belt. The islands exhibit storm depositional
features described by Bush (1991), Hernandez-Avila et al. (1977) and Moya and Mercado
(2006) for Puerto Rico and Gardner et al. (2004) and Hubbard et al. (1991) describe
similar deposits on the Virgin Islands. Perkins and Enos (1968) have described deposits on
the Bahamas. Recent hurricane deposits have been analysed on the islands of Bonaire and
Curacao (Scheffers and Scheffers, 2006). Schubert and Valastro (1976) refer to a storm-
deposited ridge in the southern Caribbean Sea near Bonaire. The ridge along the northern
and eastern coasts of La Orchila Island, Venezuela is composed of coral rubble and shell
fragments ranging in size from pebbles to boulders and is as much as 100m wide and 3m
high. It may be likely that this deposit can be attributed to the same proposed tsunami
event that affected Bonaire, but thorough investigations are lacking.
65
3.7.2 Tsunami deposits
Fig. 3.8. Tsunami deposits from the wider Caribbean (clockwise, starting in the upper left corner): (A) coral rubble ridges from the east coast of St. Martin dated to 500 BP; (B) seaward front of a tsunami ridge along the southern coast of Anguilla (dated to 1500 BP); (C) large Acropora palmata and other coral fragments at about 6m asl in old vegetation at the west coast of Curacao (1500 BP); (D) imbricated boulders with very large Acropora palmata at 15m asl at the east coast of northern Eleuthera, Bahamas, dated 3000 BP. The Electron Resonance Spin (ESR) method was used to date the events.
66
For Jamaica and the Cayman islands, Jones and Hunter (1992) as well as Robinson et al.
(2006) have mapped boulder and other coral fragment deposits along the south and north
coasts. For Puerto Rico and accompanying islands (Isla de Mona), Taggart et al. (1993)
and Moya and Mercado (2006) have described large boulders and debris accumulations.
On the islands of Anguilla and St. Martin, Scheffers and Kelletat (2006) found a similar
signature of extreme events along the more protected southern coasts with shallow water
and fringing reefs as well as on the exposed coastlines (Fig. 8A and B). On St. Martin, at
the leeward side, a rampart of several meters high composed of coral debris was described.
On Guadeloupe along the central east coast, landward of a wide fringing reef, boulders,
large head corals and bimodal chevron features with sand and coral rubble reach at least
10m asl. Here storm waves are only small, as indicated by the presence of old and dense
vegetation (Scheffers et al., 2005; Scheffers and Kelletat, 2006). On Barbados, Scheffers
and Kelletat (2006) identified coarse debris deposits up to 20m asl and up to 250m from a
high cliff. The largest single boulder has a weight of 170 tons at 15m asl. For Venezuela,
Weiss (1979) and Schubert (1994) have reported large boulders on steep coastal slopes or
on top of cliffs. Kelletat et al. (2004) mapped boulder distributions, including fragments of
Acropora palmata on Long Island and Eleuthera as tsunami deposits (Bahamas, Fig. 8D).
These can be found along the Atlantic facing cliffs between about 10 and 20m asl and at
150m distance from the cliff edge. The weight of individual boulders may reach more than
300 tons, and imbrication is a common phenomenon. Because of recurrent strong
hurricanes striking the Bahamas it is important to investigate whether hurricane waves
may be responsible for boulder transport. A comparison of aerial images of 1970 and 2003
covering 3 km of coastline with several hundred boulders shows that not even smaller
boulders (50 tons) closer to the shoreline have been moved within this time period. Only
one boulder has moved landwards from its near-cliff position over a distance of 30 m,
67
although extreme hurricanes Andrew (1992) and Floyd (1999) recorded sustained winds
of 200 km/h and wave heights of at least 10m at this site. Most observations and
publications on coarse tsunami deposits of the Younger Holocene have been discovered
on the Netherlands Antilles islands of Curacao, Bonaire and Aruba (Fig. 8C) (Scheffers,
2002; Radtke et al., 2003; Scheffers and Kelletat, 2003; Scheffers et al., 2006). Here the
rampart deposited on 5–6m high Pleistocene reef terraces is well developed, containing
several million tons of boulders and coarse fragments. Much material originates from a
fringing reef, but the largest boulders (max. 260 tons) are broken out of the Pleistocene
cliff. The deposits reach up to 400m inland and are reworked along the immediate seaward
front by wave action during storms/hurricanes so steep cliff fronts may have been
developed. There is a clear regional gradient, a westward decrease, in amount of boulders,
boulders weight/volume, thickness of deposits, and width of ramparts from the east coast
of Bonaire along the east and north-east coast of Curacao towards the east coast of Aruba.
As hurricanes normally move from east to west gaining power on their way into the
Caribbean basin, this character of coarse deposits is difficult explained by storms although
the impact of storms is highly sensitive to their landfall and one location may be greatly
affected as opposed to a few kilometres along the coast. However, the suggested tsunami
deposits occur consistently over a spatial scale of more than 215 km, a 100 km for the
ABC islands alone. Morton et al. (2006) have identified the coarse coral rubble deposits
on Bonaire as storm wave beach ridge systems through their sorting and stratification.
However, our field observations differ from those described by Morton et al. (2006),
which are based on deductions and not congruent with natural features. For instance, most
deposits described are not a complex of ridges but were formed by one event (no sorting,
no stratification, bimodal, soil and vegetation development), which is corroborated by
ESR and 14C dating of these sediments. The proposed possibility of a different sea level is
68
discussed later. In many cases, admittedly, we cannot clearly prove a tsunamigenic origin.
However, it is possible to exclude storm waves transporting single boulders, mega-clasts
or depositional units because of their different internal structure, material, shape or
(mostly) their position far outside the reach of even the strongest storm waves. Storm
waves are limited in height and transport capacity, whereas the transport capacity of
tsunamis is nearly unlimited.
3.7.3 Deposits of uncertain origin
Onshore deposits that were initially interpreted being tsunamigenic for the Bahamas by
Hearty (1997) with mega-boulders of _2000 tons from the last interglacial were recently
questioned by Mylroie (2008). In later papers, Hearty and Neumann (2001) and Hearty et
al. (2002) attributed those mega-boulders together with chevron features to the occurrence
of giant waves at the end of MIS 5e, but did not clarify the source mechanisms of these
‗‗giant waves‘‘. Mylroie (2008) instead proposes a ‗‗tower karst hypothesis‘‘ in which the
boulders in question represent remnant hills left behind by erosion of an overlying
eolianite unit. However, assuming that interpretation is correct for the two boulders named
‗‗Cow‘‘ and ‗‗Bull‘‘, five more large boulders which are not fixed to their base and
transported for a longer distance to the leeward side of Eleuthera cannot be explained
(Kelletat et al., 2004).
3.8 The impact of extreme wave disturbances on reefs
Extreme wave events are important structural agents of coral reef communities (Connell,
1973; Glynn, 1973; Hughes, 1989). These disturbances provide space on reefs, which is an
important asset in these space-limited ecosystems (Jackson, 1977) and storm stress is
likely the most important physical factor structuring reefs (Dollar, 1981). The impact of
disturbance on reefs depends on the intensity and frequency of disturbance (Grigg and
69
Dollar, 1990; Dollar and Tribble, 1993; Rogers, 1993; Lirman and Fong, 1997). Hurricane
and tsunami disturbances vary, and many factors are responsible for the severity of
destruction such as surge and periodicity of storms whereas wave height and velocity
count for both. Several studies have shown that there is substantial spatial variation in
damage following cyclones (Connell, 1978; Connell et al., 1997; Hughes and Connell,
1999; Lugo et al., 2000) and different intensities of storms have varied effects. Even when
severe hurricanes do not cause extensive damage to coral communities, they most
probably weaken the substrate allowing severe damage to occur during subsequent less
intense storms (Lirman and Fong, 1997). However, the degree of reef damage is mostly
Fig. 3.9. (a) Aerial view of the depositional rampart. (b) Panoramic view of the same location.
70
determined by the time elapsed since the previous disturbance (Glynn et al., 1964;
Highsmith et al., 1980; Woodley et al., 1981). These factors, as well as the seemingly
stochastic nature of natural disturbances throughout the Holocene caused seemingly
unpredictable changes to reef ecosystems (Harmelin-Vivien and Laboute, 1986; Rogers,
1993; Harmelin-Vivien, 1994). Much research has gone into the influence of hurricanes in
reefs (e.g. Woodley et al., 1981; Woodley, 1992; Dollar and Tribble, 1993; Lugo et al.,
2000; Gardner et al., 2004; Adjeroud et al., 2005), while tsunamigenic impacts received
almost no attention. This may be caused by the inherent low frequency of tsunamis and
relative high frequency of hurricanes. Since the Holocene transgression, hurricane activity
had a significant impact on long-term reef development and accretion (Adey, 1978;
Highsmith et al., 1980; Hubbard, 1988). If a Caribbean island has a high frequency of
hurricanes, the long-term reef accretion may be suppressed due to removal of the fast
growing and, in former times, dominant reef builder Acropora palmata. In contrast, a
Caribbean reef receiving less frequent storms, may have higher accretion rates (Highsmith
et al., 1980; Hubbard, 1988). Several studies (Emanuel, 2005; Webster et al., 2005)
predict an increase in the frequency of intense hurricanes in the Caribbean. It has become
an accepted principle of ecology that communities may exist in alternative states that have
varying degrees of stability (Knowlton, 1992) and that transition from one state to another
may be rapid (Knowlton, 1992). Factors responsible for causing these transitions may
include the removal of a keystone species (Power et al., 1996) or a change in the
frequency and intensity of some form of disturbance, such as large-scale wave impacts, so
that it no longer has the effect postulated under the intermediate disturbance hypothesis
(Connell, 1978). The effect of (palaeo-) tsunami waves on reefs and the combined effect
of both natural disturbances frequently occurring in the Caribbean is an important point to
consider when studying reef development. The importance of the previous disturbance
71
history of a reef is highlighted when different disturbances occur in sequence over a
relative short period of time. In most cases, the damage caused by the initial disturbance,
the time elapsed between events, and the severity of the more recent disturbances
determines the fate of the affected communities (Lirman and Fong, 1997; Ostrander et al.,
2000).
The disturbance history of reefs may be visible in onshore coarse deposits, if preserved in
the geological record and may be potentially fragmentary. Nevertheless, onshore coarse
deposits are useful geo-archive to interpret the evolution of reefal environments. Here we
examine the potential effects that extreme events could have had on coral reef structure
and ecology and try to pinpoint the exact nature of these events. To approach these
questions a case study is provided from the island of Bonaire.
3.8.1 Reef disturbance interpreted by coarse deposits: Bonaire
Modern reefs are absent along the windward side of Curacao and Bonaire, yet Holocene
and Pleistocene reefs did exist there (Pandolfi and Jackson, 2001). However, most of the
Holocene reef remains are accumulated in onshore deposits containing millions of coral
fragments and framework boulders. An estimated 4 million tons of coral debris
incorporating all major reef builders typical for windward locations (Bak, 1975) occur in
ridges and ramparts over several kilometres (Fig. 9a and b). Huge boulders (max. weight
of 260 tons) are scattered over the last interglacial reef terrace and in-between debris units
resting at approximately 6m asl. Unambiguously, extreme wave events are responsible for
this enigmatic sedimentary signature. Three questions arose and are answered by
investigating these coarse depositional units. (1) Which processes caused these
depositional units: hurricanes, tsunami or a combination thereof? (2) When did these
disturbances occur? and (3) Why is there no modern reef when all parameters are
72
favourable for coral growth? Since the beginning of the Holocene, Bonaire lies outside of
the hurricane frequented areas, but hurricanes do occur. However, even hurricane Ivan
(2004) with maximum wave height at the east coast cliff of 12m (Scheffers and Scheffers,
2006), only removed smaller coral debris and sand from the near-cliff belt into the sea. On
the leeward side some eroded coral rubble was brought onshore and physical damage to
reefs was minimal. Two extreme events are visible in characteristic storms deposits on the
south side of Bonaire and were dated to 600 BP and 1877AD (see Fig. 10). Together with
hurricanes Lenny (1999) and Ivan (2004) there were four severe storms in the last 600
years. If the enigmatic onshore coarse deposits were the product of hurricane activity, the
events had to be several orders of magnitude greater than those for recorded history of the
Caribbean basin. Holland (1997) and Holland and McBride (1997) showed however, that
present extreme storms (such as Ivan in 2004) are at the thermodynamic limit and more
powerful storms are physically not possible.
The ramparts on the windward coast of Bonaire (Washikemba and Spelonk) are 4m high,
400m wide and 12km long, separated from the cliff by a 50m wide strip of bare
Pleistocene rock and 6m above mean sea level. The internal structure is chaotic and most
corals therein can be identified to species level. The bathymetry of the north-eastern shore
(Fig. 11) shows a steep wall reaching to 5m below sea level after which a small terrace
and a gentle slope extending more than 500m off the coast are present. This slope was the
Pleistocene basement of the Holocene reef. Moreover, this relative shallow environment,
extending for more than 500m (see Fig. 11), makes present reefs more susceptible to
extreme wave destruction (Searle, 2005). Variations in sea level or neotectonic
movements throughout the Younger Holocene could explain that at former higher sea
levels the height of storm waves reaching shore was higher than today or that the deposits
73
are presently elevated out of modern storm reach, but were not at the time of deposition
(Morton et al., 2007). However, the geomorphology of the Bonaire north-east coast is
characteristic for windward limestone coastlines with cliffs, benches, bio-erosive notches
and sharp sculptured rock pools. The horizontal and vertical extension of the well-
developed bio-constructive and bio-erosive coastal features. Their size and their relation to
modern sea level exclude any significant neotectonic movement or other higher sea level
Fig. 3.10. (A) Onset of well-sorted coral debris (Acropora cervicornis) from a hurricane 600 BP on a bimodal tsunami deposit, dated to 1300 BP (seaward aspect). (B) Landwards the finer hurricane debris is avalanching over the boulder-rich tsunami deposits. Note the Montastrea annularis of _8 tons. The Electron Resonance Spin (ESR) method was used to date the events.
74
Fig. 3.11. The profile visualizes the offshore bathymetry of the north-east coast at Washikemba (Bonaire) where the submarine Sargassum platycarpum dominated slope (10–12%) initiates at 5m water depth. The cliff top at 5m above sea level, a notch of 41m deep and the onshore depositional unit are indicated.
stands during the Younger Holocene (Focke, 1978). All Holocene sea level curves of the
wider Caribbean region are in accordance with these observed features (i.e. sea level
reached present day height around 3000 BP). Although differences in terms of vertical
offsets are debated, especially between 11 ka and 4 ka BP, none of the sea level curves
proposes a Holocene high stand above present sea level (Rull, 2000; Toscano and
Macintyre, 2003, 2005, 2006; Blanchon, 2005; Gischler, 2006). Schellmann et al. (2004)
dated the lowest coral reef terrace on neighbouring Curacao to MIS 5e (125,000 BP) and
present day elevation of the discussed rampart site at +5 to 6m corroborates with this
eustatic sea level, suggesting negligible neotectonics. However, Bonaire is tilted, with the
last interglacial coral reef platform rising from mean sea level in the south to +11m in the
north.
75
Washikemba, positioned in the middle of this axes is elevated at +5m. Yet, even with 5m
uplift over 125,000 years, Washikemba only uplifted 0.24m during the last 6000 years.
Therefore, we conclude that forces of greater magnitude, such as tsunamis, are responsible
for these accumulations. Tsunamis are more infrequent than hurricanes. The chronology
of tsunami deposits, if present, should document the low frequency and reveal intervals of
hundreds to thousands of years with no disturbance. A total of 45 age determinations of
coral samples by Radiocarbon and ESR show a clustering of ages with long time gaps
without boulder/coarse coral fragment deposition, despite numerous strong hurricanes.
Three extreme impacts with different magnitudes can be clearly distinguished. The
youngest event occurred at approximately 500 BP, a second event at 3100 BP, and the
oldest at 4200 BP (Scheffers et al., 2006), indicating the tsunamigenic source of the coarse
debris assemblages. In comparison, the 3100 BP event was greater in magnitude (5–10
times) as witnessed by volume, sedimentology and distribution of these deposits. The
impact of the 3100 BP event on coral reefs was catastrophic—the whole 3D coral reef
structure between Spelonk and Lac Baai (approximately 12 km of shoreline and down to
30–35m depth) was completely removed and deposited onshore (see Fig. 10). Reef
regeneration did not occur after this event. The event left behind a sediment free, bare rock
submarine platform, which is at present covered by a macro-algae-dominated community.
Only in few places the bottom is covered with small coral colonies. Along this coastal
stretch all numerical ages cluster around the time periods 1500 and between 3100 and
4200 BP and no debris fragments date to 500 BP, emphasizing that a reef was not present
after the former event. The 500 BP event is documented by the coral debris around the
southern tip of the island. Here, the coral reef could recover, and this event did not push
the reef over the threshold of no return, i.e. it did not completely remove the living reef
and its framework.
76
Recovery of the north-east Bonaire reef from the 3100 BP event could have been inhibited
by a combination of factors. The magnitude of the initial disturbance (tsunami) and
frequency of successive disturbances (hurricanes) could have flipped the switch for a reef
‗‗turn-off‘‘ (Riegl, 2001). Combined with low initial densities of invading corals, this will
have delayed the recovery of the reefs on this exposed coast. The present, spatially highly
irregular, occurrence of corals suggests the influence of the demographic Allee effect. An
Allee effect in marine systems occurs when some component of individual fitness
deteriorates as population density or size decreases towards zero (Gascoigne and Lipcius,
2004). Also, pre-emption of space by early invaders, such as algae, would limit coral
recruitment (Williams et al., 2001). If coral recruitment occurred, macro-algal whiplash
(mechanical disturbance by macro-algae due to wave action) would limit survival
(McCook et al., 2001). Similar impacts have been described by MacIntyre et al. (2007) for
Barbados. Although a known tsunami source has not been identified, the impacts were not
local, but regional and can be found on neighbouring islands (Aruba, Curacao) (Scheffers,
2004) and the north coast of Venezuela (Weiss, 1979).
3.9 The impact of extreme wave events on prehistoric human
populations
Archaeological investigations of the prehistoric Caribbean have indicated a series of
population movements into the region over the last 5000 years, with variable origins,
technological development levels, and intensities of population movement in different
areas of the region (Rouse and Allaire, 1978). Within the scope of archaeological research
has been the documentation of those various population movements and their subsequent
localized cultural developments, yet of significant additional importance is the
77
understanding of post-depositional factors that have affected the sites, such as volcanic
flows, earthquakes and hurricanes. This paper examines the potential effects that
prehistoric tsunami events could have had on both the prehistoric human populations
living on the islands, as well as the post-depositional effects on the archaeological sites
used to interpret those populations. To approach this question a case study is provided
here, from the southern Caribbean islands of Curacao and Bonaire. Scheffers (2002) and
Scheffers et al. (2006) have identified three significant time units for tsunami events in the
southern Caribbean, which would have affected Curacao and Bonaire at approximately
3100, 1500 and 500 BP. As well, another significant tsunami event occurred at about 4200
BP. It is of some interests to note these dates also correspond to either significant shifts in
the prehistoric populations and/or alteration of the archaeological evidence of those
populations on the two islands. For clarity on these factors, some background of the
prehistoric cultures of the islands needs to be provided. The earliest known human
inhabitants crossed over from the South American mainland onto the island of Curacao at
about 4500 BP (Haviser, 1987). Until now, it has been assumed that after about 1000
years of living on Curacao, some of these people migrated onto Bonaire at about 3500 BP
(Haviser, 1991). These first inhabitants, identified at the technological development level
called ‗Archaic Age‘, were adapted to exploiting the mangrove stands and associated
natural food resources of coastal and bay environments including the reefs. The Archaic
Age is distinguished by small bands of semi-nomadic people, having a lack of agriculture
and lack of ceramics production, to which we can identify direct similarities in artifacts
with the northern South American mainland (Rouse and Cruxent, 1963). There are
numerous Archaic Age sites known from Curacao, most of which are at higher elevations
on the south coast, yet the oldest site is at a inland terraced rock shelter on the north coast
at Rooi Rincon. On Bonaire there are far fewer Archaic Age sites (current total 4), mostly
78
at the west and south coast inland bays, yet with the oldest archaeological site known for
Bonaire at a high ground knoll at the east coast bay of Lagun. It has been suggested that
migrations of Archaic Age people from Curacao to Aruba happened at a much later date,
around 2400 BP (Haviser, 2001). By about 1500 BP, the Archaic Age people were well
established on Bonaire and Curacao, when these hunter-gatherer fisherfolk were invaded
by a far more complex culture of Amerindians from Venezuela, and thus the introduction
of the ‗Ceramic Age‘. The Ceramic Age refers to a level of technological development
which includes the manufacture of ceramics, the use of agriculture, and implies a more
complex social organization. Over the subsequent several 100 years, these Ceramic Age
populations adapted to the islands. There was clearly a close relationship between Bonaire
and Curacao during the early Ceramic Age period, as noted by artifact evidence such as
distinctive ceramic painting styles unique to these two islands (Haviser, 1987).
On Bonaire, the Ceramic Age people probably never exceeded a population of about 1000
people, and on Curacao not exceeding about 2000 people, who lived in sedentary
communities with pole-construction huts, located in the vicinity of their various manioc,
maize and agave agricultural fields. The burial of their dead was apparently close to the
huts within the village area, as primary direct and primary urn burials, with grave goods
common. The presence of grave goods suggests an association with the concept of
personal material possessions, which coincides with the ability for sedentary peoples to
accumulate individual material items. The rock painting sites on the islands were probably
sacred locations, where perhaps male initiation rites were performed. The use of
agriculture, and construction of permanent dwellings, indicates an attempt to manipulation
of the environment for their own goals, thus these peoples were far less dependent on
nature then were their Archaic Age predecessors.
79
With the contact of Spanish slave hunters and explorers at about 500 BP, the Amerindians
of the islands became more cautious of Europeans and retreated to more isolated interior
settlements. However, the general lifeways of those Amerindians who survived slave
captures and disease, were relatively undisturbed by the 16th century Spanish political
domination, yet dramatic changes were beginning, as with the initial disruptive contact by
the Dutch, destroying the interior villages, and eventually capturing the islands under
Dutch rule. On Bonaire, this period of first Dutch domination was a continuation of the
benign attitude towards the Amerindians. However on Curacao the majority of the
Amerindians were deported to Venezuela along with the captured Spaniards, thus
effectively ending their time on Curacao.
3.9.1 New insights in regard to tsunami effects on prehistoric populations
In regard to the effects of tsunami events on the Amerindian populations, several new
insights can now be suggested for the archaeological data, which significantly adjust the
previously held concepts and provide us with a potential new scenario of prehistoric
developments visualized in Fig. 12. The first of these correlating data relates to the
identification of the Archaic Age populations on Curacao and Bonaire, as being first on
Curacao then 1000 years later on Bonaire. Could the earlier 4200 BP event have resulted
in a depopulation of the small Archaic Age group from Bonaire? A tsunami event coming
from the east could have removed the archaeological evidence of earlier sites along the
east coast, which is exactly where the currently known oldest Archaic Age site is situated.
Indeed, the 3100 BP tsunami event is reported to be of the greatest magnitude of force on
Bonaire, coming from the east, and the Lagun site, as the oldest archaeological site on the
island, is atop a knoll of potential height (18m asl) to be protected from the full force of
80
the wave. The oldest archaeological site on Curacao is also on the vulnerable north coast;
in a protected elevated (54m asl) terrace area. The currently known Archaic Age sites, that
could have survived the 3100 BP tsunami event, are all located on the south coast and
inland bay areas of the two islands, away from the direct force of the waves. Thus it can
be suggested that during the Archaic Age on these islands there was a direct impact on the
human population by tsunami destruction of the mangrove stands and reefs (which were
eradicated) as their primary food source area, and potentially also destruction of their east
coast (Bonaire) or north-east coast (Curacao) occupation areas.
81
Fig. 3.12. Prehistoric human demographics in the southern Caribbean during the last 5000 years.
Clearly, with a hunter-gatherer-fishing subsistence system, any significant alteration of the environment, such as mangrove and reef destruction by a tsunami event, would seriously effect the populations ability to survive and indeed would force new adaptations to the altered environment, such as shifting focus to the leeward side inland bays. Furthermore, the actual understanding of the archaeological data of the Archaic Age has been seriously affected by the elimination of archaeological sites on the abovementioned coasts, which may have resulted in a bias of data interpretation of the Archaic Age population for the islands.
A second unique correlation between the identified major extreme event dates and the
prehistoric populations of these islands is during the 1500 BP event. This event occurred
at the same time the Ceramic Age people were reaching the Caribbean coast of Venezuela,
after their river migrations from the interior. The earliest population of this Ceramic Age
group reached Bonaire before reaching Curacao, from the east, and precisely at the 1500
82
BP time period. Thus, it could be suggested that the rapid eastward coastal Venezuela
movement of the Ceramic Age peoples, was perhaps stimulated forward and outward onto
the islands by such a tsunami event. Furthermore, as Ceramic Age agricultural farmers
their primary subsistence base on grown starches rather than on marine reefs would have
had less significant impact, than was the case for the Archaic Age populations.
Nonetheless, the elimination of the reef and/or mangrove areas, as a significant secondary
food source area, could also have stimulated a movement further along the coast in search
of new reefs.
The third major tsunami event for these islands is reported at 500 BP, a very significant
date for the Amerindian populations due to the arrival of the Europeans at that same time
period. If we try to understand an Amerindian perspective of that first encounter with the
Europeans, then we must acknowledge that their cosmology would be influenced by a
major natural event, like a tsunami, as a signal of serious destructive changes to their
world. These cosmological concerns of significant destructive change would be further
implemented by the further elimination of the few surviving reefs and mangrove stands
which were a major food source and symbol of life in the sea. Thus for the prehistoric
populations the impact of a major tsunami would have been both physically and
cosmologically devastating. What we eventually see historically, as the final result of the
Amerindian responses to their diminishing world, was a retreat to the far interiors of the
islands, away from invading enemies and safely away from the ravages of tsunami waves.
An extremely important aspect of the tsunami effect on human populations is the post-
depositional impact on the archaeological remains themselves, which distorts the
reconstruction of archaeological chronologies and interpretations. Whole areas of
archaeological sites are removed or altered (by both inland re-deposits and also complete
83
removal by return to sea drainage, the latter seems to be the most common evidence in our
case, due to the very shallow nature of the original Archaic Age deposits on the limestone
terraces), thus causing a skew of the interpretations.
3.10 Conclusion
The wider Caribbean witnessed several extreme tsunami events and more frequent
hurricanes with definite imprints on reefs and human populations. These wave events left
behind coarse coral debris ridges and ramparts composed of reef material originating from
the living reef at time of impact. This material is excellently suited for dating and
establishing a chronological record of events through the Holocene. The event type (storm
or tsunami) is easier identified in coarse deposits compared to fine sediment analyses. The
example of Bonaire shows that the study of onshore deposits can reveal the disturbance
regime of reefs, differentiate between storms and tsunamis, and establish extreme event
chronologies and intensities. Furthermore, subsequent establishment of extreme event
chronologies and intensities might be able to explain existing coral reef morphologies and
diversity and migrations of prehistoric populations. This paper is a viable means to
identify the effect of removal of archaeological sites on archaeological interpretations in a
specific case (Bonaire), which could be a model for a broader application to other areas.
84
Chapter 4: Coastal boulder deposits at Galway Bay
and the Aran Islands, western Ireland
4.1 Preface
This paper is based on the extended literature on the coastal geomorphology of Galway
Bay and the Aran Islands of Western Ireland, as well as on historical documents on storm
events in this region. It is a collaborative work by A. Scheffers, T. Browne, D. Kelletat, S.
Scheffers,. and S Haslett. Tony Browne contributed 25% of the paper‘s concept and
research design, 30% of the data analysis and 30% of the interpretation of the data.
Scheffers, A., Browne, T. Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S. and Haslett, S. 2010. Coastal Boulder
Deposits at Galway Bay and the Aran Islands, Western Ireland. Annals of
Geomorphology, 54 (3): 247-279.
85
4.2 Abstract
The central west coast of Ireland is exposed to the open Atlantic and shows extraordinary
imprints of wave events, along kilometres of coastline, among them dislocated boulders
up to 50 m above sea level and weighing more than 100 tonnes. This paper documents the
geomorphology and sedimentology of these littoral deposits and the processes involved in
their dislocation, based on field studies and a number of absolute age dates. It also
discusses formerly published hypotheses on the genesis and ages of these rare features and
the possibility of their tsunamigenic origin.
4.3 Introduction
Among field scientists and modellers, questions about the transportation of coarse coastal
sediments remain highly controversial. This is particluarly the case for large boulders
which have been transported by waves. Neglected for a long time in coastal science, they
‗may well be the last frontier of sedimentary environments for study on planet
Earth‘(Felton 2002, p. 242). Discussion about this issue has become more important due
to an increase in the number of publications on palaeo-tsunami deposits during the last
two decades (Bryant, 2001; Bryant & Haslett, 2007; Haslett & Bryant, 2007a, Haslett &
Bryant 2007b; Jones & Hunter, 1992; Kato & Kimura, 1983; Kawana & Nakata, 1994;
Kelletat, 2005; Kelletat & Schellmann, 2001, 2002; Kelletat et al., 2005, 2007;
Mastronuzzi & Sanso, 2000, 2004; Mastronuzzi et al., 2006; Mastronuzzi et al. ,2007,
Monaco et al., 2006; Morhange et al., 2006; Nott, 1997, 2003a, 2003b, 2004; Robinson et
al., 2005, 2006; Rowe, 2006; Scheffers, 2003a, 2003b, 2005, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c;
Scheffers & Kelletat, 2003, 2005; Scheffers et al., 2005a; Schubert, 1994; Taggart et al.,
1993, or Imamura et al., 2008)). Although rarely mentioned for modern tsunamis, such as
86
those of Nicaragua in 1992, Papua New Guinea in 1998 or the Andaman-Sumatra event in
2004 (e.g., Dawson et al., 1996; Gelfenbaum & Jaffe, 2003; Goldsmith et al., 1999;
Keating et al., 2005; Kelletat et al., 2007; Lavigne et al., 2006; Liu et al., 2005;
McSaveney et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2006; Richmond et al., 2006; Satake et al., 1993; or
Shi et al., 1995), large boulders up to several hundred and even 2000 tons evidently have
been dislocated by waves against gravity and moved onshore. We are far from an
agreement as to the maximum size or weight of boulders which could be transported by
storm waves, and which size boulders could only be transported by tsunamis, with their
much larger mass of water and higher flow velocity over a longer time (Benner et al.,
2008).
Some coastal scientists even deny tsunami boulder transport in general and hypothesize
super-storms to explain the dislocation of enigmatic boulders onshore (Bourrouilh-Le-Jan
& Talandier, 1985; Hearty, 1997a,b; or Morton et al., 2006). Others argue that super-
storms with much more energy than a Category 5 hurricane cannot exist on Earth because
of physical restrictions (Holland, 1997; Landsea, 2000; Murname et al., 2000; Tonkin et
al., 2000; or Nott, 2003c, 2004). A reasonable approach to solving the problem of how
boulder transport by waves occurred may be to investigate exposed coastlines around the
world which are well-known for the occurrence of extreme wave heights in the open
ocean. If deep-water conditions exist close to coast in these areas, they may be places in
which there is a maximum potential energy for transporting sediments including very
large boulders. Unfortunately, studies of such areas are rare, so that most authors consider
the dislocation of boulders weighing as little as several tons during storms to be worth
publishing (e.g., Lorang, 2000, or Saintilan & Rogers, 2005).
87
Certainly, the west coast of Ireland is one of the most exposed coastlines of the world,
although the waves there are significantly less powerful than those in southern New
Zealand, Tasmania and some other regions (Brown 1991). Recent publications relating to
Irish sites and to the Scottish islands of Shetland and Orkney describe deposits containing
very large boulders (up to 250 tons) which are up to 50 m above the high-water mark.
These boulders are seen as having been transported by relatively recent strong storm
waves (Hansom, 2004; Williams, 2004; Williams & Hall, 2004; Hall et al., 2006, Hansom
& Hall, 2007, Hall et al., 2008). The storm-wave hypothesis has been supported by field
work and some absolute age data. We must keep in mind that for this hypothesis to be
correct, the storms along western Europe would have to be much more powerful than all
recent tsunamis, including the Andaman-Sumatra tsunami of 2004 (see discussion in
Bryant & Haslett, 2007a), and nearly all palaeo-tsunamis identified so far. With this in
mind, we have inspected coastal areas of Ireland and Scotland to gain our own impression
of the coarse deposits there. Because of the large amount of material and documents
accumulated, we present here only results from the central west coast of Ireland (Galway
Bay and Aran Islands), where we, like the authors mentioned above, found the largest far-
onshore deposits of coastal sediments in the British isles.
4.4 Regional setting and methods
On the central west coast of Ireland the V-shaped Galway Bay is protected by a chain of
islands which includes the Brannock Islands in the NW, the three Aran Islands (Inishmore
in the NW, and Inishmaan and Inisheer to the SE) and Crab Island (Fig. 1). The Brannock
and Aran Islands are a barrier against strong ocean waves. Crab Island is south of Doolin
Point, the promontory at the southern entrance to Galway Bay.
88
The widest break in this island barrier is 8–8.5 km gap in the NW between the Brannock
Islands and the coastline of Connemara. Between the Aran Islands themselves the
openings are only 1.6 km (Inishmore to Inishmaan) and 2.2 km (Inishmaan to Inisheer).
Another, wider opening of approximately 6.4 km can be found between Doolin Point/Crab
Island and Inisheer. All the islands are composed of Carboniferous limestone, gently
dipping (4–10°) to SW or SSW in the direction to the open ocean. The straight line of the
cliffs points to structural control. This can be seen nearly everywhere along the cliffs in
rectangular contours, determined by the NW–SE direction of main joints, and a NE–SW
direction of other joints. Along the south coast of Galway Bay, from Black Head in the
NE to Doolin Point, the same type of rock is present. Within the well-bedded limestone
some thin beds of shale or mudstone are developed, which − particularly if in reach of
wave splash − have led to undercutting of cliffs and the formation of coastal caves.
From the open sea the limestone has mostly been cut back in perpendicular cliffs up to 70
m high, or stepped coastal platforms (Fig. 2). The coastline of the inner part of Galway
Bay is lower, with boulder- strewn and rocky intertidal areas and low cliffs, some sandy
beaches or wide, sandy tidal flats with dunes, as in the case of Inishmore‘s eastern coast.
Along the mainland coast from Black Head to Doolin Point, cliffs are low and dominated
by rocky intertidal areas. Coarse-gravel ridges occur on long stretches of the coast (see
Fig. 4.1).
89
Fig. 4.1 Extraordinary coastal boulder deposits, extent of boulder ridges and numerical dating, from the Aran Islands and along the east coast of Galway Bay, central west coast of Ireland.
90
Fig. 4.2 Main types of cliff profiles along the exposed shorelines of the Aran Islands.
The Aran Islands chain is exposed to strong wave energy, which is shown by the long cliff
lines. These cliffs mostly plunge into water more than 5 m deep. The tidal range is 3.5 to
4.0 m, and the prevailing winds are from the SW and W.
The sea level here has been largely stable, or gently rising, during the last 5,000 to 6,000
years (Carter et al., 1987, 1989; Devoy, 1983; Lambeck, 1996; Peltier et al., 2002; or
Shennan et al., 2002). Williams (2004), referencing two Iron Age forts at cliff-top sites of
Inishmore (Dún Aonghasa and Dun Duchathair/Black Fort), argues that the average cliff
retreat in the Aran limestone has been about 0.4 m/year since the Iron Age, or
91
approximately 1 km in the last 2,500 years. Thus, all the cliff-top sediments must be very
young.
We have inspected all coastlines around the Aran Islands and Galway Bay on the ground
and from the air, using GPS technology and measuring distances and levelling of altitudes
above the high-water mark (using the continuous belt of the brown algae Fucus
vesiculosus as the upper limit of mean high water). We also measured the size of many
boulders. The catalogue of criteria for identifying coarse tsunami deposits (Bryant &
Haslett, 2007) has been used, and small trenches have been opened on the landward site of
boulder ridges. Besides good topographical maps, digital photos from the Coast Survey of
Ireland (made in 2004 in infrared false colour at a scale of approximately 1:4.000) were
highly useful tools during our field work. Some old maps could be compared with updated
records to gain a better understanding of the amount of environmental change since the
19th century. Samples were taken from marine organisms dislodged by waves f rom their
living environment (mostly boring bivalves in boulders) to determine the age of extreme
wave events by radiocarbon/accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) at Beta Analytic
Laboratories in Florida. To avoid confusion we use the English spelling of place names, as
they can be found (beside the Gaelic ones) on the topographical maps published by the
Ordnance Survey of Ireland.
4.5 Results
4.5.1 Boulders and boulder ridges
Although in several aspects we agree with the observations and conclusions of Williams
and Hall (2004), Hall et al. (2006), Hansom and Hall, (2007), and Hall et al. (2008), in
other respects our field work has led to different and even contradictory conclusions. Here
we summarize our findings:
92
Boulder ridges with large single clasts (weighing more than 20 tons) can be found not only
in exposed positions and close to deep water, but also in the shelter of the Aran Islands
along more than 11 km of the eastern shoreline of Galway Bay, along more than 6 km of
the north-facing leeward coasts of Inishmore (e.g., east of Red Lake, at Scalpadda, or on
both sides of Portoghill) and along the protected northern coasts of Inishmaan and
Inisheer. All in all, they occur along 33.4 km of the Galway area coastline. Figure 1a
shows the position of all these ridges and their altitude above high-water level. The
highest of these clasts are at least 48 m above the high-water level on the west coast of
Inishmaan (near Crummel).
Many ridges have a distinct back-barrier depression, commonly 1–3 m deep, but in the
cases of Poulsallagh on the mainland (Fig. 4.3), and on the northern coast of western
Inishmore east of Red Lake, the depressions are more than 6 m deep, with leeward slopes
of up to 30°. A characteristic feature of some ridges along the east coast of Galway Bay is
a landward section of well-rounded cobbles covered by a seaward ridge with large,
angular boulders. Some valleys which were once exposed to the open sea have been
closed by a huge boulder ridge more than 5 m high (Fig. 4.9). Sediments were not
transported into the valleys but were deposited only at their mouths, blocking all later
incursions into these valleys. The geomorphological results are single, but very high,
broad ridges. Whether these ridges were built up during a strong storm or tsunami in mid-
Holocene times, or whether they grew gradually in width and height over a long time, is
an open question. Today at these sites even the strongest storms do not reach the ridge
crests, and the deposits there are weathered and are hundreds of years old at least. Very
large boulders of the following sizes can be found: midway between Black Head and
93
Doolin Point nearly 120 t, with the longest axis being 9.3 m (Fig. 4.4); east of Doolin
Point, more than 30 t and 6.42 m in length; directly north of Doolin Point, about 50 t; at
the leeward coast (exposure to N) at Inishmore West, up to 100 t with many 30–60 t; near
the Wormhole at the SW coast of Inishmore, 250 t with the longest axis being 9.1 m; 1 km
to the east of this location, 50 t at +15 m above sea level (asl); east of Black Fort at +10 m
asl, 100 t; on the southern east coast of Inishmore up to 120 t at +1.5 m asl; on the west
coast of Inishmore north of the Brannock passage in a sheltered position and shallow
foreshore more than 50 t at +5 m asl; in an exposed area directly east of Crahallaun, up to
several hundred tons; on the SW coast of Inishmore in an exposed position, up to 100 t; at
the SW corner of Inisheer (Tonafeeney) more than 60 t close to sea level; and along the
SW coast of Inishmaan (Taunabruff) at 5–10 m asl, more than 9 m in length and weighing
more than 40 t (Fig. 4.5). The boulder ridges are commonly more than 3 m high, and along
the sheltered north coast of western Inishmore they are up to 8 m high at least 20 m wide
with some being more than 100 m wide. Most of the ridges consist of a chaotic mixture of
angular boulders of different sizes and mostly 0.5 to 5 t in weight. Inside the ridges, finer
material can be seen in places, in particular shell hash from Mytilus edulis, mixed with
some well-preserved Nucella lapillus. Along the east coast of Galway Bay, well-stratified
and well-sorted coarse sand, pebbles and cobbles occur at many meters above sea level.
These strata rarely exceed a combined thickness of 30-40 cm. The sediment character
points to early storm waves that reached 7 m or more above high-water mark but which
were not able to carry boulders to these sites. Imbrication is a common feature in the
seaward boulder ridge, sometimes with platy fragments of 50 t or more (Fig. 4.6). At
other sites, such as those around the south-western tip of Inishmaan (Taunabruff),
columnar boulders with lengths of 7 to 9 m and weights of up to 40 t, exhibit a chaotic
distribution with axes pointing in all directions. Along stepped rocky shorelines the clasts
94
have been quarried from the limestone strata of the supratidal zone. Only single fragments
can be found that were derived from mid-tidal or subtidal belts, containing borings of
bivalves or sea urchins, or vermetids attached. At the top of perpendicular cliffs,
fragments from the foreshore are much less common. Fresh scratch marks on the rock in
front of the ridges, as well as nests of rounded and light-coloured fresh limestone
fragments, document younger dislocations and impacts even at altitudes of more than 20
m asl. They occur only along the WSW coastlines of the three Aran Islands and even at
altitudes of less than 10 m asl they are restricted to gaps in the cliff. In many places,
sometimes at more than 30 m asl, some boulder ridges are asymmetrical in the sense that
the seaward slope is steeper due to the impact of storm waves, which take smaller
fragments out of the ridge front and transport them into the sea. The belts in front of the
ridges are normally free of any clasts (Fig. 4.7). This proves that most storms cannot
quarry fresh fragments from the limestone steps and cannot take clasts from the foreshore
to the shore. This conclusion is supported by the fact that along the most exposed rock
ledges in the surf belt no plucking or quarrying occurs. These areas have thick carpets of
barnacles (Chthamalus sp.), mixed with Mytilus and brown algae, and the higher sections
of the supratidal zone contain rock pools formed due to bioerosion by Melaraphe
neritoides and limpets (Patella sp.). These bioerosive and bioconstructive features need
many years, decades or (in the case of large rock pools) hundreds of years to develop,
pointing to a long period of stability in the rocky shores in these sections. Along
perpendicular cliffs, however, undercutting (in particular along shale and mudstone strata)
is common, with large overhangs of more than 20 m (Fig. 4.8). The prolonged stability of
the exposed rocky coast also is shown by the so-called Wormhole (Poll na bPéist) near
Port na gCapall on Inishmore, a delicate, rectangular puffing hole in the surf area (about
15 m by 11 m) as a collapsed roof of a large sea cave (Fig. 4.8). Photographs at least 50
95
years old show no change in its contours (see Feehan 1999, p. 34). Comparing the line of
the boulder ridges with that of the rocky shoreline, shows that in many places, they run in
different directions, pointing to a difference in age of these features. This means that the
ridges were deposited before the rocky tidal area changed its morphology. Lastly, the
possible tsunamigenic character of deposits is suggested by the occurrence of a chaotic
bimodal mixture of coarse sand and boulders (Fig. 4.9).
Fig. 4.3 a: Large ridge south of Poulsallagh at the east coast of Galway Bay, from the air. b: The same ridge from the landward side, here 6.6 m high. c: Profile across Poulsallagh ridge shows that it closes the opening of a small valley to the sea.
96
Fig. 4.4 a: Site of the largest wave-dislocated boulder inside Galway Bay north of Poulsallagh. b: Largest boulder, more than 9 m long and approximately 120 t in weight. c: Nearby boulder nearly 80 t in weight. d: Many very large boulders, which seem to have been deposited more recently.
Fig. 4.5 Long, columnar boulders at the south-western coast of Inishmaan north of Taunabruff.
97
Fig. 4.6 a–f: Imbrication is a typical phenomenon, mostly with platy and large boulders (a, south of Black Head; b, south of Black Fort on Inishmore; c, east of Doolin Point; d, SW corner of Inishmore [Crahallaun]; e, north of Doolin Point; f, sheltered NW coast of Inishmore N of Brannock passage).
98
Fig. 4.7 Seaward of the boulder ridges, in reach of waves from strong to very strong storms, no debris has been deposited; (a, SW corner of Inisheer [Tonafeeny]; b, Doolin Point; c, north of Doolin Point; d, east of Black Fort on Inishmore; e, SW coast of Inishmore; f, north of Doolin Point; g, eastern south coast of Inishmore).
99
Fig. 4.8 a: Stepped cliff section at the Wormhole SW of Gort na gCapall on Inishmore. b: The Wormhole seen from the cliff top.
Fig. 4.9: Unstratified coarse sand, mixed with shell and boulders SW of the Inisheer lighthouse
4.5.2 The relative age indicators for ridge and boulder deposition
As already mentioned by Williams and Hall (2004), some of the highest and furthest
inland parts of boulder ridges are covered by lichens. These include species of Ramalina
on boulders moistened by spray and fog, the tar-like black Verrucaria maura and the
orange Xanthoria parientina. The presence of these lichens may point to a stability of the
ridge fragments during recent decades. In contrast to former publications, however, we
identified signatures of a long weathering history of the landward parts of the ridges. This
evidence includes:
100
the limestone fragments show a fine roughness and pitting as well as micro-karren or
larger karst forms (Fig. 10a);
quartzite cobbles have lost their polished surfaces and have developed a kind of
sharkskin roughness, and sandstone cobbles show significant weathering (Fig. 10b);
a high content of organic matter is present in the leeward parts of the ridges;
vegetation covers boulders which are partly buried by soil or even by peat.
Older boulders with bioerosive rock pools have been tilted by dislocation and now
show initial or developed fresh flat-bottomed profiles (by rain-water solution).
Boulders used in the chevaux-de-frise (arrangements of sharp and platy boulders fixed
upright in fissures) around Iron Age forts or in their walls which were dislocated by
human activity about 2000 years ago, and boulders in the ridges show the same or
even more intense solution marks
At several places, such as west and east of the Black Fort or landward of the easternmost
puffing hole on Inishmore, more than one ridge has been formed,. At these sites, four (and
on Inishmaan up to five) ridges occur. The most landward ridges are invariably the
smallest (narrow and low) and have been weathered more than the seaward ridges.
Between the ridges, belts of soil and dense vegetation are typical, and, clearly, waves
never reached the landward ridges after deposition of the most seaward ones (Fig. 4.11).
Fig. 4.10a: Solution forms on old limestone boulders. b: Weathered sandstone cobbles in limestone ridges.
101
Fig. 4.11 a: Older landward ridge (left) and a younger and higher seaward boulder ridge north of Black Fort, the main wall of which can be seen in the distance, looking eastwards. b: Two ridges separated by a belt of soil and vegetation at the high west coast of Inishmaan. Inishmore can be seen to the west in the distance. c: The middle ridge inland of the puffing hole at the eastern part of Inishmore, looking from the younger seaward ridge.
Another relative age indicator may be derived from the relationship between the
easternmost puffing hole on Inishmore (Aill na nGlasog), which about 30 m asl and 33 m
from the cliff, and the three ridges to landward (Fig. 11). The position of these ridges as
half-moon forms landward of the puffing hole shows that they were deposited by waves
before the puffing hole existed. This hole is a large vertical opening (approximately 10 m
by 11 m) to a cave system, and the cave‘s roof must have collapsed into the puffing hole,
where deep water exists. Williams and Hall (2004) suggest that the indented cliff line
around the Black Fort on Inishmore is the result of storms which occurred after the
deposition of the ridges. Although these authors reached no definite conclusion, they
argue that the ‗Night of the Big Wind‘ in 1839 may have resulted in the extreme cliff
retreat west and east of the Black Fort Promontory (see Fig. 12). Older maps, however,
102
show that the cliff lines which existed at that time are similar to the cliff lines that exist
today.
Hall et al. (2008) give a new estimate of cliff retreat for a site in the Shetland Islands in
northern Scotland involving ignimbrite rocks at a very exposed site. Their estimate is 5–
6mm/year, which is in strong contrast to the 0.4 m mentioned by Williams (2004). The
relation of the ridge on the Black Fort promontory to the archaeological remains is not
clear. We found an age of 1290 cal years BC (AMS-dating by Beta Analytics, Florida) in
mollusc hash under large boulders seaward of the fort‘s main wall.
103
Fig. 4.12 a: Comparison of the coastal contours near the Black Fort of southern Inishmore from a survey in 1839 and a topographic map of 1975. b: Coastal configuration around the Black Fort in 2004.
4.5.3 Indicators of the numerical ages of large boulder ridges in western
Ireland
The only numerical data so far from the boulder ridges of the Galway and Aran areas are
three ages, gained from mollusc hash (Williams & Hall, 2004; Hall et al., 2006), and nine
more age determinations by Hansom and Hall (2007) from peat and molluscs. The oldest
104
date back to the 5th century and medieval times (800–1100 AD), and the younger ones to
the 19th century, including the ‗Night of the Big Wind‘ of January 1839 and the extreme
storm of 1703 in Great Britain. Absolute age dating of coarse deposits in an open setting is
a difficult task, and dating of the time of sedimentation is particularly difficult. The age of
the boulders themselves is irrelevant, but organisms attached to these boulders may be of
interest, especially if they have been killed by the dislocation process. This is if we find
barnacles, vermetids, bryocoae, calcareous algae, or boring bivalves typical of the
sublittoral or foreshore area. It is not possible to know whether boring bivalves died
during the dislocation or whether they died before the process began. And if they died
prior to dislocation, it is not possible to determine how long before. Therefore, their
numerical ages can be regarded as minimum ages. In the case of Western Ireland (and
some other sites), a lot of datable broken shells (mollusc hash) can be found within the
boulder ridges, in particular near their bases. In some cases this hash nearly fills all the
pore volume between the boulders. It is now being washed out by rain or storm waves.
This mollusc hash may be the result of the destruction of living shell organisms by the
same wave event (either a storm or a tsunami) that dislocated the boulders. In this case we
would have an exact age. It is possible that the mollusc hash was a sedimentary deposit in
the foreshore area which accumulated there over an unknown time span, and this may be
how the hash formed in the majority of cases. In such cases we would get maximum ages
for the dislocation. We cannot exclude, however, the possibility that mollusc hash was
incorporated into the wide pores of boulder ridges by subsequent wave events which were
not powerful enough to move the boulders. In all these cases, the calculated ages for
boulder dislocation may be too recent. In view of these problems, we believe that
numerical ages gained from the shells of boring bivalves found in onshore boulders may,
when calibrated, provide the most accurate data for boulder dislocation. However, we can
105
only use this method for limestone boulders like those in the Galway Bay and Aran
Islands areas (and to a minor extent for the Old Red Sandstone in NW Ireland, where
borings may be numerous as well). The distribution of bivalve borings in limestone
boulders on the Aran Islands and along the east coast of Galway Bay clearly depends on
the altitude of the deposits. This is the case in general for the altitudes of large boulders
(weighing more than 1 t) and for boulder ridges up to about 6 m above mean high water in
Galway Bay and up to about 20 m above mean high water along the south-western
shorelines of the Aran Islands, where exposure to the open ocean is greater. In higher
positions, boulders with borings are scarce or absent, because the boulders of these ridges
were derived mostly from the cliff walls and cliff tops, where no littoral organisms are
attached to the rocks. The highest borings we found are from about 35 m asl. But even if
borings are numerous, shells in them may be extremely rare, which reduces the chance of
finding material which can be dated. This is particularly the case at high altitudes. In Table
4.1 below we summarize 23 numerical radiocarbon/AMS ages (Beta Laboratories,
Florida) for boulders and boulder-ridge depositions, 16 from boring bivalves in boulders,
and 7 from mollusc hash found in ridges. The numerical ages span a wide range of the
Younger Holocene, from 2530 BC to 1720 AD, i.e., more than 4.000 years. This is proof
that the boulder deposits could not be the result of contemporary storms or of one or two
extreme storms of early historical times (e.g., 1703 AD or 1839 AD). The distribution of
these ages in several clusters, e.g., about 1650 to 1720 AD, 1420 to 1480 AD, 1170 to
1330 AD, 140 to 300 AD or 1290 to 1580 BC point to the fact that either these times were
extremely stormy periods or that events other than storms are responsible for the boulder
dislocation. Because the dislocated boulders are far too large to have been transported by
even the largest storm waves, and because ridges with large boulders exist even in
sheltered positions (Fig. 4.1), a tsunamigenic origin for the deposits becomes much more
106
plausible. The two oldest data of 2530 BC (2620-2440 BC) and 1580 BC (1670–1480 BC)
were from a landward cobble ridge near Black Head, where the seaward ridge consists of
large angular boulders with two age dates from boring bivalves of 1440 AD (1400–1480
AD) and 1480 AD (1440–1540 AD). Further south near Poulsallagh the big ridge shows
ages of high to late medieval times: 1170 AD (1060–1250 AD), 1330 AD (1290-1420
AD), 1440 AD (1390-1480 AD). Less than 1 km to the north, an age of 360 AD (260-440
AD) was determined. Age distribution along the exposed shorelines of the three Aran
Islands is remarkable in the sense that besides a very old age for an exposed site seaward
of Black Fort at 28 m asl with 1290 BC (1390–1190 BC) and two old data with ages of
300 AD (220-410 AD) on top of a platform at 18 m above asl at the SW corner of
Inishmore above Crahallaun (Fig. 4.13) and 140 AD (60–240 AD) near Blind Sound, all
other data span mid-medieval to younger times. A group of medieval ages, 1070 AD
(1020–1190 AD), 1230 AD (1150–1290 AD) and 1290 AD (1230–1330 AD) have been
determined from the SW coast of Inishmore, and nearly the same from sheltered positions
along the 10 m-high ridge at the north coast of that island: 860 AD (770-960 AD) and
1210 AD (1110-1280 AD). To the east a cluster of 15th century dates were 1420 AD,
1460 AD and 1470 AD as well as younger age of 1650 AD (1540–1690 AD) from
Inisheer, and 1680 AD (1640–1810 AD) from Inishmaan, and two dates of 1720 AD
(1670–1880 AD and 1690–1820 AD respectively) near the Black Fort, one from the
promontory to the east and the other from the promontory to the west, all from more than
25 m above high-water level. The datings which point to a 15th
century event are
documented not only at the exposed coasts of the Aran Islands but also near Poulsallagh
and Black Head in Galway Bay, i.e., in sheltered positions.
107
Fig. 4.13 Distribution of ridges around the SW corner of Inishmore (Cvahallaun) with some numerical datings.
108
Table 4.1:Numerical ages from boulder ridges of the Aran Islands and the east coast of Galway Bay, western Ireland, summarized in order from young to old. Calibration was done using IntCal 04 (no local Delta-R correction was applied). The regional distribution of ages is shown in Figure 1.
Lab.
no.
Beta
Location Material 13C/12C
ratio
14C
yrs BP
conv.
Cal. age
(IntCal
04)
Remarks
236709
Inishmore,
cape W
Black Fort
mollusc
hash –0.6
550 ±
40
1720 AD
(1690–
1820 AD)
landward slope of
seaward ridge, +28
m HW
236711
Inishmore,
cape E
Black Fort
mollusc
hash 0.0
550 ±
40
1720 AD
(1670–
1880 AD)
2nd ridge to
landward, +28 m
HW
233799 Inish Maan
S
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–2.1 610 ±
40
1680 AD
(1640–
1810 AD)
landward slope of
ridge at +5 m HW
233793 Inisheer,
SW
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–1.5 670 ±
40
1650 AD
(1540–
1690 AD)
+2 m HW, behind
large boulder ridge
233783 2 km S
Black Head
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
+0.6 830 ±
40
1480 AD
(1440–
1540 AD)
lower ridge +2 m
HW, from a
boulder of 3 t
233797 Inish Maan
S
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–0.3 850 ±
40
1470 AD
(1430–
1520 AD)
from single boulder
8–10 t on platform
+3 m HW
233798 Inish Maan
S
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–4.8 860 ±
40
1460 AD
(1420–
1520 AD)
250 m E from
above, landward
slope of ridge at +5
m HW
233784 2 km S
Black Head
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
+0.4 900 ±
40
1440 AD
(1400–
1480 AD)
lower ridge +2.4 m
HW, large platy
boulder
233786 6 km N
Doolin
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–0.7 910 ±
40
1440 AD
(1390–
1480 AD)
near crest of large
ridge at
Poulsallagh, at +6
m HW
236712
Inishmore
Puffing
Hole E
mollusc
hash –1.9
950 ±
40
1420 AD
(1330–
1460 AD)
second ridge over
Puffing Hole, +30
m HW
233787 6 km N
Doolin
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–10.0 1020 ±
40
1330 AD
(1290–
1420 AD)
landward upper
slope of large ridge
near Poulsallagh
233795 Inishmore
W end
boring
bivalves –1.0
1110 ±
40
1290 AD
(1230–
landward part of
boulder ridge with
109
in
boulder
1330 AD) 60 t boulders
233792
Inishmore,
E
Wormhole
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–0.2 1190 ±
40
1230 AD
(1150–
1290 AD)
ridge with large
boulders at +6 m
HW, 50 m inland
233790
Inishmore,
W Red
Lake
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–1.3 1210 ±
40
1210 AD
(1110–
1280 AD)
crest of large ridge
+4.5 m HW, 350 m
E of ridge end
233788 6 km N
Doolin
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–1.6 1250 ±
40
1170 AD
(1060–
1250 AD)
2 m under crest of
ridge, landward
slope at +5 m HW
233794 Inishmore
W end
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–1.4 1310 ±
40
1070 AD
(1020–
1190 AD)
ridge with boulders
>50 t, at +5 m HW
233791
Inishmore,
W Red
Lake
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–0.9 1540 ±
40
860 AD
(770–960
AD)
from crest of large
boulder ridge, +4.5
m HW
236713 6.5 km N
Doolin
mollusc
hash +3.1
2030 ±
40
360 AD
(260–440
AD)
near boulder of
>100 t, from brown
soil at +5 mHW
233796
Inishmore
SW, alt. 18
m
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–7.8 2070 ±
40
300 AD
(220–410
AD)
in platy boulders on
top of promontory
236708
Inishmore,
W Gort na
gCapall
mollusc
hash –0.2
2210 ±
40
140 AD
(60–240
AD)
W Blind Sound,
+18 m HW,
landward part of
small ridge
236710 Inishmore,
Black Fort
mollusc
hash +1.0
3370 ±
40
1290 BC
(1390–
1190 BC)
seaward ridge,
seaward slope,
under imbricated
boulders
233782 2 km S
Black Head
boring
bivalves
in
boulder
–1.9 3620 ±
40
1580 BC
(1670–
1480 BC)
seaward ridge of
large boulders,
from a boulder of
8 t at +4 m HW
236707 2 km S
Black Head
mollusc
hash +1.2
4340 ±
40
2530 BC
(2620–
2440 BC)
older large ridge 70
m landward, in
steep landward
slope
110
4.6 Discussion of previously published observations and data
A lot of useful observations have been published by Williams and Hall (2004), Hall et al.
(2006), Hansom and Hall, (2007) and Hall et al. (2008) but without field inspections along
the mainland coast of Galway Bay or the sheltered shorelines of the Aran Islands, we
summarize their findings and conclusions and will add our own, partly different
observations and conclusions to form a basis for discussion. Firstly, however, we need to
discuss the hypothesis of Williams (2004) regarding extreme cliff retreat (0.4 m/year on
average since millennia) for the southern Aran Islands, because this is a crucial point for
all conclusions on processes and ages of the coastal deposits there.
Based on models and tests of engineers at coastal sites in the Mediterranean, Williams
(2004) calculates the retreat of the limestone cliffs of the Aran Islands to be (as a
conservative value) 0.4 m/year on average, at least since the Iron Age (beginning about
2500 years ago). His argument is based partly on the existence of two Iron Age forts in a
cliff-top position along the seaward and exposed coastline of Inishmore. One is Dun
Aonghasa at 70 m above sea level (asl), with a semicircular system of stone walls ending
at a straight cliff line, and the other is Dun Duchathair, or Black Fort, about 28 m asl,
consisting of a 6 m-thick and 5.5 m-high stone wall that separates a narrow headland from
the main island. On both sides the wall ends very close to sheer cliffs. From the
semicircular shape of Dun Aonghasa, and a small knickpoint in the wall of the Black Fort,
Williams (2004) concludes that both forts were round in shape at the time of their
construction − like many hundreds inland − and that they appear now just by chance at the
cliff because of severe abrasion. A map in Williams (2004) shows the Iron Age cliff line 1
km seaward of the modern one. There is no doubt that abrasion has taken place during the
111
last millennia and centuries, and even in modern times, significantly at places with rock
falls after the undermining of cliffs. No one knows exactly how many forts, settlements or
other structures at coastal sites have vanished due to abrasion since mid-Holocene times,
or how many Iron Age ring forts at inland sites are now partly destroyed by abrasion. In
general, however, abrasion along rocky, high and steep coastlines must have been modest
and even negligible can be deduced from the following facts, observations, documents and
conclusions:
If cliffs are cut back by abrasion, at the level of the surf an abrasional platform or schorre
is formed on the rock, more or less sloping seaward, depending on rock resistance, strata,
exposure etc. (see for example Trenhaile 2001). This is the case along nearly all cliff sites
of western Ireland except for those with deep water such as along the Aran Islands. It
seems impossible that the back-cutting of cliffs would leave a kilometre-wide deep-water
section with depths of 20 or 30 m, and without any mark of the abrasional level in the surf
zone. Early settlers in Ireland lived along the coasts in large numbers during the Neolithic
period, a conclusion based on many archaeological remains and in particular large shell
middens close to the coastline. We are therefore convinced – because their modern
distribution is restricted only to about 100 m from the shoreline but mostly much closer –
that the location of the middens indicates a limited abrasion since Neolithic times, in the
order of 100 m or less. Archaeologists have established catalogues of Iron Age
promontory forts along the Irish coastlines (see Lamb 1980), dating from about 2500–
2000 BP. The topographical maps of the west coast of Ireland (scale 1:50,000) show 161
sites. Many of these promontory forts have certainly been destroyed by wave attack, and
many others, as can clearly be seen in the landscape, have been mostly cut away, but the
constructional design of forts attached to natural cliffs or headlands with narrow necks can
112
leave no doubt that today many of them can be seen at their original sites, so that we can
easily imagine their original purpose and constructional specifications. We therefore doubt
the conclusion of Williams (2004) that, because of a rate of abrasion on the order of 1 km
since Iron Age times, all of the visible so-called promontory forts are nothing more than
remnants of formerly inland ring forts. Looking into the recent history of the region, other
landscape structures or archaeological documents give hints for local and regional as well
as general calculations of possible abrasion rates. These structures include boathouses
from Viking times (e.g., at Skipi Geo in the N Orkneys or Doe of Vale in the W Shetlands;
compare Fig. 14a and b), and monasteries and castles from early Christian to late medieval
times, some of which were constructed on tiny rocky outcrops or islands in exposed
environments, and this limits the maximum possible rates of abrasion to metres or
decametres. Lastly, old maps and charts can give good information on former coastal
configurations and changes since then. There is, for example, a coloured topographical
map and chart, ‗Isles of Aran‘, at a scale of 1:45.000 (or 2.2 inches = 1 mile), surveyed by
Commander G.A. Bedford in 1849, engraved by G. & C. Walker and published in 1850 by
the Hydrographic Office of the British Admiralty. The map carries the number 2015.
Another map of Inishmore at a scale of 1 inch to 1 mile (approximately 1:63.000) from the
Ordnance Survey of Dublin was first surveyed and published by Colonel H. James in 1839
and revised and published in 1899 by Colonel Duncan A. Johnston. Both maps show the
cliff line around the Iron Age fort of Dun Duchathair (Black Fort) and the site of Nalhea
on Inishmore, which has been used as a main argument by Williams (2004) for significant
coastal abrasion, in the same shape as today (Fig. 12). Going back more than one century,
sketches (O‘Flaherty 1825) and even photographs exist of exposed archaeological sites
(Westropp 1902, 1910) and they, as well, do not document a significant cliff retreat. From
all these documents, evidence and conclusions, we are sure that the coastal landscapes
113
along steep and rocky shorelines do not differ much from those of thousands of years ago.
It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that wave processes (from storms or tsunamis)
during the second half of the Holocene Epoch have been active in a coastal environment
similar to that of modern times at each site. This can also be deduced from absolute age
dating of wave-displaced deposits.
Fig. 14a: Foundations of Viking boathouses at Skipi Geo, NW mainland, Orkney. 14b: Viking boathouse at Doe of Vale, west coast of mainland Shetland.
Williams and Hall (2004), Hall et al. (2006), Hansom (2004) and Hansom and Hall
(2007), using more examples from the Shetland and Orkney Islands of Scotland, describe
extraordinary coastal deposits mostly from selected sites along the south-western coast of
Inishmore (e.g., Blind Sound/Gort na gCapall and environs, and from the Black Fort – see
Fig. 1) to the south-eastern end of the island) as well as from single locations of Inishmaan
and Inisheer. They report cliff-top megaclasts and boulder ridges, which they found to be
1–6 m high and 3–35 m wide with clasts up to 7 m long. At sea level, boulders of up to
250 t have been moved, at +12 m others of up to 117 t, and even at +50 m, boulders of up
to 2.9 t (at the west coast of Inishmaan near Crummel), but the vertical or horizontal
transport distance of fragments is not mentioned in any of these sources. The density of
the limestone was found to be about 2.6 (we tested rocks having densities of 2.32 to 2.53).
Other typical aspects of the coastal cliffs are a separation of the ridges from the cliff top
114
by several metres or even decametres, and sub-horizontal platforms up to 200 m wide
seaward of boulder deposits, where nearly no detritus can be seen. At lower levels, clasts
are usually more rounded, and at higher levels more angular. Because of limited abrasion
the majority of the fragments certainly have not been rolled over the platforms, and impact
scars can be seen on the fragments and at the base of the ridges in some places.
Imbrication reflects the wave direction during emplacement. Up to three ridges have been
observed, the landward ones smaller and lower than the seaward ones. Where differences
in boulder orientation were found on neighbouring ridges, it was concluded that the
coastal configuration may have changed. As general conclusions, Williams and Hall
(2004) and Hall et al. (2006) emphasize that:
the upper and landward faces of ridges are the oldest, covered by lichens and partly by
soil and vegetation or even peat. Sometimes up to three parallel ridges could be found,
and Williams and Hall (2004, p. 106) write that ‗older ridges represent the results of
older and more extreme events formed on more distal locations when the cliff edge
was further seaward than the present day‘ (to which we agree)
the ridges have been reworked constantly and have shifted landwards during recent
storms to the same extent that the cliffs have been abraded (to which we do not agree,
because if this were so, the landward parts of the ridges would also be fresh, and older
landward ridges would have been incorporated into younger ones, which is not the
case)
the high position of ridges and boulders is not due to sea-level changes (i.e., during
deposition sea levels were no higher that they are now) (we agree with this)
most of the ridge boulders were derived from the recession of the cliff top and not
from the cliff front or cliff base (we cannot agree to this statement, because most of
115
the cliffs show vertical or even undermined profiles, showing that the upper parts of
the cliffs have not been destroyed more than the lower ones)
the extraordinarily high position of boulder ridges depends on exposure and the
presence of deep water directly in front of plunging cliffs. When these conditions are
present, boulder ridges show their greatest altitude above sea level and contain the
largest boulders (this statement is in general correct if only the seaward shorelines of
the Aran islands are considered. Extremely large boulders and high ridges also occur
along the sheltered side of the islands, inside Galway Bay and at shallow water, for
which explanations than storm waves must be found)
Williams and Hall (2004) and Hansom and Hall (2007) also find evidence of stronger
storms in recent times and deny a tsunamigenic influence on the grounds that there are ‗no
records of any tsunami activity in the North Atlantic during these events‘ (Williams &
Hall 2004, p. 115). To support their conclusions, these authors cite several cases of
dislocation of boulders during storms of the 19th and 20th centuries. If their argument is
correct, the 1839 ‗Night of the Big Wind‘ should have had a major effect on boulders
along the west coast of Ireland. However, the oldest radiocarbon ages for boulder
movement point to the 5th century and medieval times. To support the case for the storm-
wave transport of huge boulders at high elevations Williams and Hall conclude that:
In the case of the platforms of the Aran Islands forward wave velocities will be
increased progressively by crossing platform margins (steps) thus enhancing the
waves‘ capabilities for clast transport at progressively higher levels (2004, p. 115)
On the basis of experiments and models, saying that at platform steps (mini cliffs) the
flow velocity will accelerate up to 2.4 times the original wave velocity. Strong and
very high waves can have original velocities of 4–5 m/sec, and certainly not more
116
than 8m/sec in extreme cases. According to Williams and Hall (2004) and Hansom
and Hall (2007), at a first platform step the velocity should increase by more than 10
m/sec to more than 20m/sec, at a second step by more than 20 m/sec to 40m/sec and
so on. The possibility of such wave speeds being attained cannot be supported by
storm-wave observations and onshore swash, so far as our field experience and the
literature on storm-wave run-up are concerned.
EurOtop (2007) cites 5–8m/s as the maximum possible velocity. Williams and Hall (2004,
p. 115), referring to the equations of Nott (2003a) for wave heights needed to overturn
boulders, cite an example of a boulder 3.5 m long at 15 m asl on Inishmore, which needed
a wave height of at least 25 m above the 15 m-high platform to move this boulder – all in
all a wave of 40.28 m!
Based on our observations in the Galway Bay and Aran Islands region of western Ireland
of the conditions needed for the transport of very large boulders onshore and for the
deposition of long boulder ridges at high positions above sea level, we find some
agreement, but more disagreement, with the conclusions of Williams and Hall (2004), Hall
et al. (2006), Hansom and Hall (2007) and Hall et al. (2008). An important argument
against the storm hypothesis is that only 5% of the coast of western Ireland has the
exposed aspect and deep water that they claim are necessary for the dislocation of large
boulders by storm waves. Locations with these characteristics are concentrated in the,
which are concentrated in the Aran-Galway area and on the Annagh Peninsula in Mayo
County in the north (Scheffers et al., 2008). On the basis of the distribution of
archaeological indicators for coastal recession, such as shell middens from Neolithic
times, promontory forts from the Iron Ages, and younger constructions, we believe that
117
during the last millennia, abrasion rates with averages of more than millimetres or
centimetres per year have not occurred.
The degree of exposure of a site and the depth of the adjacent water certainly do affect the
weight and height of boulders which can be transported by storm waves, and these factors
also help determine the distance that boulders can be moved. However we need another
explanation for how large boulders came to be deposited in sheltered positions and
adjacent to shallow water. For example, at sites which have boulders weighing up to 120 t
that have been dislocated 5 m against gravity, such as south of Black Head in Galway
Bay, the water 500 m from the cliff is 20 m deep and is 10 m deep 400 m from the cliff.
The largest storm waves approaching the cliffs themselves cannot be higher than 4–6 m
without breaking, which is much too small to move very large boulders. Even along the
exposed Aran Islands coastlines, the water is only 20 m deep at a distance of 300 m from
the cliffs, and the highest waves to approach the cliffs unbroken may be in the order of 8–
9 m. As can be seen on the east coast of Galway Bay, storms older than the dated boulder
ridges deposited coarse sand and pebbles in well stratified terrace-like features about 5–6
m above high water, but were not able to carry boulders. Even at exposed deep-water sites
it is highly unlikely that storm waves would have enough energy to dislocate boulders of
50 t or more from cliffs, move them decametres against gravity, and deposit them inland.
This would be at odds with all we know so far from calculations of wave energy such as
the equations of Nott (2003a & 2003b, see also Imamura et al. 2008, or Benner et al.
2009). Nott found that waves able ‗to overturn a boulder in a joint-bounded situation‘
where the boulder weighed only 20 t would need to be 16.30 m high at the coast if the
boulder is a cube, 32.61 m if the boulder is a cuboid, and 40.76 m if the boulder has a
platy form. For cube, cuboid and platy boulders of 27 m³ (or roughly 67 t) the wave
118
heights calculated by Nott are 24.45 m, 40.76 m and 48.91 m, respectively. In discussions
with experts it is often pointed out that the contemporary position of a boulder does not
mean that it has been transported to that point in one step. This is correct; many steps (and
many waves) may have been responsible. But we must exclude this possibility if on bare
stepped slopes there are no boulders that are just ―on the way‖ to a final high position in
an exiting ridge, or in the case of vertical cliffs, since no step-by-step transport would be
possible. Hall et al. (2006) found that the water depth in front of the Aran Islands is 3 m to
18 m, that near Black Head in Galway Bay it is no more than10 m at a distance of 400 m
from the shoreline and that at Crab Island/Doolin Point the 20 m isobath is about 1 km
distant from the shoreline. This excludes the possibility of waves being more than 5–9 m
high at the cliffs. Evidently aware of these problems, Williams and Hall (2004, p. 115) as
well as Hall et al. (2008) refer to experiments showing that waves accelerate from step to
step as they move upwards and inland on a stepped coastal slope, and reach speeds up to
2.4 times the original wave velocity. Because of our field experience (e.g. during fast
inland flows on cliff coastlines during Category 5 hurricanes in the Caribbean), we cannot
agree with this hypothesis or with the accuracy of the models on which it is based. And
because of gravity and friction, we doubt whether waves or swash would have enough
energy to move large boulders inland and upwards. This possibility is also excluded by
physical calculations (see Benner et al. 2009 and the manual for coastal engineers,
EurOtop, 2007). What we have observed is the dislocation of small fragments to
seaward/downward from older ridges at altitudes of at least 30 m asl by water fountains
with backwash during extreme storms. This process is also responsible for the steep
seaward front slope of the ridges. Perpendicular and undermined cliffs show that in
general cliffs are not destroyed at their top to deliver clasts for the ridges (Hall et al. 2006,
p. 132). If this were the case, steep cliff forms would disappear and be transformed into
119
slopes, but along the seaward Aran Islands this has almost never happened. Because the
ridges normally show a lack of sorting and the boulders they contain are angular, we
should also exclude the possibility of a permanent reworking of the material by pushing
the ridges to landward. We only found that the landward parts of the ridges are the oldest,
that older ridges landward of the frontal ones have never been reached by waves since
deposition, and that at high elevations no soil or peat has been covered by landward
migration of ridge material. The increased number of absolute ages now available point to
large boulders being dislocated during several periods of high impact during the Younger
Holocene rather than by the strong storms that occur along the coastlines of West Ireland
several times in a century. Historical reports (see Lamb 1991 and Lamb & Frydendahl
1991), contain accounts of extreme storm impacts at the following times: 1588 (Armada
event), 1697 (outer Hebrides), 1703 (Great Britain), 1753 (Northern Scotland), 1825,
1829, 1839 (the ‗Night of the Big Wind‘), 1846, 1967 (West Ireland), 1968 (West Ireland)
and 1969 (West Ireland). All these accounts show that neither observations nor reports
support the hypothesis that these storm waves were responsible for the transport of
extremely large boulders up to extremely high positions, or that they caused the formation
of the long and high ridges. Reports mostly describe strong winds with destruction of
church towers and even rock walls as well as the drowning of cattle and people far inland,
but this must not be taken to imply extreme wave power at the coast (compare the
Netherlands flood of 1953 or the flood in Germany in 1962, where storm surge and
inundation caused problems, but not extreme waves). In their discussion of the age of
deposits, Williams and Hall (2004) and Hall et al. (2006) point to the presence of nylon
objects (plastics) firmly trapped under large boulders as evidence of very recent boulder
deposition. We also found these modern artifacts mixed with boulders, but as can be seen
in coastal constructions like tetrapod walls etc., this just proves that strong waves can
120
press deformable plastics into very narrow gaps in existing boulder ridges, and into joints
in solid rock. We found many styropor balls (from fishermen‘s nets) in these ridges, and it
is hard to imagine that these very light balls had been resting ashore amid breaking waves
during a storm until they were covered by a large boulder. As shown in Fig. 1, it is often
possible to reconstruct the direction of wave approach (and refraction) by the path which
large boulders have taken from their sources, or by imbrication trains. During the last
6,000 years or so, storms certainly have approached from all westerly directions, including
the main wind direction, which is SW (in the Galway area). Therefore it is difficult to
explain, using the storm hypothesis alone, why the north coast of Galway Bay does not
have any higher deposits or boulder accumulations of significant size. This can be seen by
the fact that megalithic tombs from Bronze Age times remain undisturbed at only 2 m
above mean high water and that accompanying cobble ridges of the same level remain
intact near the runway of Inveran Airport close to the bay‘s opening into the Atlantic
Ocean. This coast has never been affected by strong wave power, although the gap
between the Brannock Islands and the mainland coast is the widest at the opening of
Galway Bay. If storm waves are mainly responsible for boulder dislocation, it is also
difficult to explain why in the shadow (i.e. directly east) of Crab Island near Doolin Point
there is a gap in the boulder lines, although waves from the NW or SW will reach this part
of the mainland. Hall et al. (2006, p. 148) argue that because only three old tsunamis have
been detected in the North Atlantic (Storegga, Garth Event and Basta Voe Event, all on
the Shetland Islands), and because the remote Lisbon tsunami of 1755 and the Grand
Banks/Canada tsunami of1929 (see Heezen & Ewing 1952) ‗it seems unlikely that
tsunami are either frequent or large enough to have any substantive impact on coastal
processes in the study area‘. The observations and data presented here do not support this
121
hypothesis and they suggest that tsunamis are important agents in coarse littoral sediment
deposition.
4.7 Conclusions
Large boulders in high altitudes and long ridges occur not only in limestone areas where
the rock is very suitable for boulder fracturing, but also on granite coasts, in sandstones
and quartzites, and in volcanic rocks like ignimbrite
The occurrence of extremely large boulders and high ridges in sheltered positions or
shallow waters alone excludes a pure storm hypothesis for western Ireland and the west
coast of the northern Scottish isles. Even steep limestone cliffs seem to have been rather
stable for more than a thousand years. There are no signs of repeated movements of
boulders in ridges, or of the transgression of the ridges themselves inland over soil and
peat. Older ridges landward to younger ones have never been affected after deposition.
The spatial and temporal distribution of areas where absolute ages have been determined
from ridges of high position and very large boulders does not support the hypothesis that
they developed as a result of storms. The lack of knowledge about tsunamis occurring
later than the Basta Voe event (1500 BP) on the Shetland Islands (Bondevik et al., 2005;
Dawson et al., 2006) is no reason to deny a tsunamigenic origin of high ridges and large
boulders. The scientific investigation of the Storegga slide and later tsunami events clearly
shows the potential of this mechanism for extreme deposits in the geological record in the
area of the British Isles. Haslett and Bryant (2007a, 2007b) and Bryant and Haslett (2007)
found evidence of a tsunami in the Bristol Channel, most probably in 1607 AD, and
another in North Wales before the 17th century. Delaney and Devoy (1995), saying that
no regional signal for storm frequency was detected in West Ireland, found sand strata
122
from extreme events in peat for the time frames of 3610 to 2970 BP, 1290 to 760 BP and
younger than 600 BP. Our absolute ages obtained from boulder deposits fit well within
these time spans. So far, however, we have not been able to locate accounts which
describe the impacts of large tsunamis on the west coast of Ireland (which might be
potential slides or slumps along the continental slope, compare Kerridge, 2005), or even
meteorite impacts into the Atlantic Ocean. We are aware, however, that many of our
colleagues firmly reject any suggestion that tsunamis may have moved large boulders
(even in Holocene times), even though there is evidence of several having occurred.
Hansom and Hall (2007) point to high values of Na+ in Greenland ice cores for the Little
Ice Age, congruent – as they deduce – with ―higher storminess‖ along the west coast of
Great Britain and Ireland. This congruence does not necessarily mean that these two
factors are related to each other. In order to establish whether there is a connection we
should answer several questions. First, we should define ―higher storminess‖: does it mean
more storms, or more severe storms, or one event of extreme energy? Secondly, we have
to explain how a higher storminess in the west wind drift will raise the Na+ in Greenland‘s
ice cores positioned to the west of the storms. Because Ireland lies to the west of
Greenland and in the West wind zone it is extremely unlikely that winds could transport
Na ions the east (against the predominant wind fields). It seems reasonable to argue that
there may be a connection between high Na+ in Greenland ice cores and large boulder
deposits during the Little Ice Age (LIA), but similar boulder dislocations have also been
dated for medieval times, the late Roman epoch and the Bronze Age (see Sommerville et
al., 2007). This does not support the theory that there was a causal connection between the
two phenomena. Third, if during Little Ice Age sea ice cover reached as far south as
southern Iceland, a significant part of the fetch for west European storms was lost, and the
123
sea ice cover would have stopped warm waters transporting energy into the atmosphere to
produce storminess. Lastly, our numerical data show that most ridges originated in high
and late Medieval times, when storminess was less and Na+ in Greenland ice was also
less.
Other open questions are: why have no onshore boulders so far been reported from the
high energy tsunami events at Storegga, Garth and Basta Voe? These tsunamis had run-
ups of 20 m and more, but the undated boulders present along the cliff tops of Shetland
and Orkney islands in the path of these events are all classified as coming from storms.
More dating and more trenches are necessary, as well as a systematic investigation of the
interrelation of soils/peat and ridges/boulders to identify more precisely the age clusters
and event data. Finally, research on the shelf and continental slope is necessary to look for
tsunami sediments or slides and impact features.
Acknowledgements
The German Research Foundation supported this work with a substantial grant. We like to
thank Annelene Behrens, Katrin Borgemeister, Ilka Dombrowski, Rainer and Richard
Gischus and Bärbel Kelletat for assistance during field work.
124
Chapter 5: Wave-emplaced coarse debris and mega-
clasts in Ireland and Scotland: a contribution to the
question of boulder transport in the littoral environment
5.1 Preface
This paper is the collaborative work of A. Scheffers, S. Scheffers, S., D Kelletat, and T.
Browne. Tony Browne contributed 25% of the concept, 25% of the research design, 30%
of the data analysis, 35% of the interpretation of the data and 20% of the graphics.
The paper examines extraordinary wave deposits along the coastlines of western Ireland
and the northern Scottish isles and discusses possible wave event types and time windows
of the processes responsible.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., Kelletat, D., Browne, T. 2009. Wave emplaced coarse debris
and mega-clasts in Ireland and Scotland: a contribution to the question of boulder
transport in the littoral environment. Journal of Geology 117 (5): 553 – 573.
125
5.2 Abstract
Many coastlines of the world, particularly those at higher latitudes and those located in
tropical cyclone belts, are regularly battered by strong storm waves. Drowning of low-
lying areas by storm surges and storm floods has been thoroughly recorded; however,
storm deposits at rocky shorelines or upon cliffs have been underrepresented in the
literature. This article presents observations of extraordinary wave deposits along the
high-wave energy coastlines of western Ireland and the northern Scottish isles and
discusses possible wave event types and time windows of the processes responsible. We
used archaeological, geomorphological and geochronological disciplines to compare with
earlier results published for these areas and to contribute to the debate on whether large
clasts found well above sea level and/or a considerable distance inland were deposited by
storms or by tsunamis.
5.3 Introduction
Until recently, coastal boulder deposits have not attracted any specific scientific interest,
entering into mainstream discussion only with the development of palaeo-tsunami field
research. The debate regarding transport processes involved (storm or tsunami waves)
therefore remains highly controversial. Coarse coastal deposits, including boulders of
limited size, have mostly been reported from hurricane impacts on coral reefs (Stoddart,
1974; Baines & MacLean, 1976; Hernandez-Avila et al., 1977; Scoffin, 1993; Bries et al.,
2004; Scheffers & Scheffers 2006; Scheffers et al., 2009a). However, during the last 20
years, tsunami boulder transport has been described, particularly for palaeotsunamis from
the late Holocene up to more recent times (Scheffers & Scheffers 2007; Bryant 2008;
126
Scheffers et al. 2008, 2009a, 2009b). Some researchers dispute these results (e.g., Morton
et al., 2006; Tappin, 2007) and argue that these deposits were generated by storm
processes. In general, information on boulder transport is scarce in review articles on
tsunami deposits (Dawson, 1996; Dawson & Shi, 2000; Dawson & Stewart, 2007).
Since the strong tsunamis of Nicaragua (1992), Papua New Guinea (1998), Peru (2001)
and the Indian Ocean (Andaman-Sumatra; 2004), task forces have inspected the effects of
boulder transport in near-time studies (Satake et al., 1993; Shi et al., 1995; Dawson et al.,
1996; Lavigne et al., 2006; McSaveney et al., 2000; Moore et al., 2006; Richmond et al.,
2006; Kelletat et al. 2007). Although most of the reports are entitled ―tsunami deposits,‖
they deal almost exclusively with fine-sediment transport. Large, freshly dislocated
boulders, however, can be seen in photographs from these publications and have been
described in modern tsunamis such as the Andaman-Sumatra event of 2004 (Kelletat et al.,
2007 Goto et al., 2007; Kleetat et al. 2007; Paris et al., 2007). Articles comparing tsunamis
and storm deposits (Nanayama et al., 2000; Goff et al., 2004; Tuttle et al., 2004) also
mostly lack a discussion on coarse deposits. This leads to the false presumption that
modern tsunamis have only moved fine sediments, and boulders moved by these tsunamis
are not preserved or recognised.
In the debate on storm versus tsunami transport of very large boulders (20-50 t and more),
the enigmatic deposits on coastlines of Ireland and Scotland play a key role. Here,
Williams (2004), Williams and Hall (2004), Hall et al. (2006; 2008), Hansom and Hall
(2007) and Hansom et al. (2008) have described deposits of megaclasts along steep,
elevated coastlines (up to 50 m a.s.l.), so-called cliff-top megaclasts. These authors
interpreted the deposits to be congruent with modern and historic storm processes. This
127
scenario is a key argument in the scientific debate supporting the storm hypothesis for
boulder deposits along various coastlines.
This article presents observations and results from coastal sites in western Ireland and the
west coasts of northern Scottish islands that highlight the extraordinary evidence of
onshore boulder deposits mentioned by previous investigators. It seems very likely that
these shorelines may hold the key to improving our understanding of megaclast transport
by waves, either from storms or tsunamis. This is not only an academic dispute; it has far-
reaching consequences regarding processes of coarse coastal deposits and natural-hazard
management in general. If the storm hypothesis for the deposition of large boulders at very
high altitudes along western European shorelines can be verified, then wave power there
must be by far greater than has been reported for nearly all modern and palaeotsunamis to
date. With an open-minded approach and without any preconceived bias, we present
observations on and discussion of boulder deposits found along the western coastlines of
both the northern Scottish isles and Ireland.
5.4 Regional setting and methods
Looking for deposits from extreme events implies that field research may be selectively
concentrated in special locations. To avoid this, our field survey was carried out in Ireland
and Scotland where sites were carefully selected to represent highly exposed areas as well
as sheltered areas along shallow waters (Fig. 5.1). Digital photographs from western
Ireland at a scale of 1:4000 allowed for a continuous check of the complete coastline from
southwestern to northeastern Ireland at a resolution of about 0.5 m. Many places were
investigated personally, and topographic maps at scales of 1:25000 and 1:50000 were
used. Further, old photographs, descriptions of archaeological or historical importance,
128
and maps and charts from the nineteenth century were used to gain insight into coastal
changes in more recent times. Field measurements included boulder axes (Table 5.1), GPS
orientation, and geologic and geomorphologic investigations of weathering state. Samples
(see Table 5.2) were collected to date the deposition of large boulders or the formation of
boulder ridges. However, this was mostly restricted to the limestone coasts of Aran and
Galway Bay where boring bivalves in dislocated boulders could be found in dislocated
boulders. These samples were dated by the accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS)
radiocarbon technique at Beta Analytic Laboratories in Florida. Additional samples
(mollusc hash, single shells or peat) were taken from coarse deposits. Open-ocean wave
data for the North Atlantic and Western Europe are available (Shields & Fitzgerald, 1989;
Draper, 1991; Lamb & Frydendahl, 1991; Dolan & Davis, 1994; Meeker & Mayewski,
2002; Clarke & Rendell, 2007), but data for wave heights at the coastline are rare. The
literature on the geomorphology of coastal areas of Ireland and Scotland is extensive
(e.g., Gray, 1977; Wright et al., 1982; Carter & Orford, 1984; 1993; Dawson et al., 2004),
as is that on sea level history (Carter et al., 1989; Lambeck, 1991; Gilbertson et al., 1999;
Shennan & Horton, 2002). Valuable information on the historical change in the coastal
environment since Neolithic times can be found in archaeological literature (e.g., Lamb,
1980; Renfrew, 1985; Ashmore, 1996; Ritchie, 1988; Wickham-Jones, 1998). The
development of the rural landscape of Ireland is also well documented in Aalen et al.
(1997, 2003). Given a tidal range of 3–4 m and sea level variations (at least in Ireland) of
no more than 3 m during the most millennium, it is possible to extrapolate the coast-
forming parameters from modern aspects of geology and rock type, degree of exposure,
bathymetry, coastal sloping, cliff height, and indicators for coastal changes by
archaeological evidence. With the exception of southwestern Ireland, one complicating
129
factor is the wide distribution of coarse clasts in the coastal environment left by the last
glaciation.
Fig. 5.1: Field sites visited along the west and north coasts of Ireland and Scotland, and the locations of extreme events with high and very high impact energy.
130
5.5 Results
5.5.1 Coarse coastal deposits and the intensity of abrasion
The exposed coastlines of the Scottish isles and western Ireland have many aspects in
common. Destructive wave forces are documented by the steepness and freshness of cliff
profiles (including undermining). In many places, archaeological remains from Neolithic,
Bronze Age or Iron Age fortifications and medieval castles and monasteries give
approximate data relating to coastline retreat. More precise wave impact data can be
gained from coastal deposits. Beach ridges built by pebbles, cobbles and small boulders
(Carter & Orford, 1984; 1993; Otvos, 2000; Fig. 5.2) mostly form a single crest that does
not show significant weathering or vegetation. Elevations are remarkably similar at coastal
locations hundreds of kilometres apart, mostly between 2.5 and 4 m above mean high
water (MHW). Differing from these average and widespread coastal settings, two types of
site clearly show the impacts of higher energy in destruction/abrasion and the deposition
of clasts. The first type of deposition consists of wide and smoothly formed beach ridges
with crests 5–8 m above MHW; these contain significantly older sections, particularly at
the landward margins, that are covered by dense lichen carpets, disappear under
vegetation, soil and even peat and certainly not moved from the seaside for centuries.
Clusters of small boulders were deposited on soil or peat on flat ground and terraces 5–6
m above the MHW mark and 20–100 m farther inland than the boulder ridges. The second
type clearly represents the strongest wave energy occurring along the western Scottish and
Irish coastlines and consists of single, very large boulders (some of > 100 t) or boulder
fields or ridges, extending for kilometres ranging from 6 to 50 m above MHW. These
exceptional deposits, however, are restricted to limited areas along the exposed coastlines
of the western British Isles, in particular along southern Galway Bay and the Aran Islands
(Fig. 5.3) of western Ireland, at the Annagh peninsula in County Mayo and in the north-
131
western corner of mainland Shetland around Grind of the Navir. Most of these locations
have been well described and mapped in detail by Williams and Hall (2004), and in
particular by Hansom and Hall (2007). Our dating observations and conclusions differ
from theirs in some respects, but comparisons can be made between their findings and the
conclusions presented from this study.
Fig. 5.2: A single, steep and active cobble beach ridge at the Annagh peninsula, north-western coast of Ireland.
Fig. 5.3: a) Large boulders about 100 m inland at the southwest corner of Inishmaan, Aran Islands, western Ireland. b) Boulder ridge at 12 m asl at the south coast of Inishmore, Aran Islands. c) Large boulders in chaotic setting at the southwest corner of Inishmore, Aran Islands.
132
For all the coastal features and deposits presented here, discussion is required regarding
the amount of abrasion (we use the term ―abrasion‖ rather than ―erosion‖ because the
latter is too general for wave destruction at cliffs by debris) that has occurred during the
most recent millennium. Williams (2004) argued that ―promontory forts‖ on Aran show
signs of typical ring forts and that their appearance at cliff-top positions today is only
incidental. He calculated the cliff retreat as 0.4 m/year on average, for a total of about 1
km since the Iron Age (2500–2000 yr ago). Evidence from our observations and
documentation suggests, however, that abrasion along steep coastlines must have been
modest or even negligible at many sites:
The World Heritage Sites of Skara Brae on the west coast of mainland Orkney and
Jarlshof, close to the southern tip of mainland Shetland, were occupied in Neolithic times
> 5000 years ago, as evidenced by mid-Holocene shell middens in and under the
settlements, the type of dwelling construction, and absolute data. As both coastal
settlements show only minor signs of abrasion, coastal retreat during the most recent
millennium here may be only on the order of 100–200 m.
The distribution of hundreds of shell middens close to sheltered and exposed shores in
western Ireland and Scotland, most of them even presented on the topographical maps at
1:25000 and 1:50000, also point to limited abrasion since Neolithic times, again on the
order of 100 m or less.
The dozens of Iron Age promontory forts constructed along the British and Irish coastlines
(Lamb, 1980) were attached to natural cliffs or headlands with narrow necks (Fig. 5.4) and
indicate that they are still in their original locations. Therefore the conclusion of Williams
133
(2004) – that coast has retreated on the order of 1 km since Iron Age times and that the
structures referred to as promontory forts to be nothing but remnants of former inland ring
forts – are questionable. Remnants from more recent historical times, such as Viking
boathouses, medieval monasteries and castles positioned on sheer cliffs, also indicated a
limited amount of abrasion.
Old maps and charts can give information on former coastal configuration such as the
1849 map of the ―Isles of Arran‖ by Bedford, or the 1839 map of Inishmore by James,
revised by Johnston in 1899. Both maps show the cliff line around the Iron Age fort of
Dun Duchathair on Inishmore, referred to in the main argument of Williams (2004) for
significant coastal retreat, in the same configuration as it has today. In addition, Hall et al.
(2008) measured and estimated cliff recession in hard rock (ignimbrite) on exposed
headlands in the special case of Grind of the Navir in north-western Shetland. Their
estimated rate of recession of 5–6 mm/yr is in agreement with our conclusions and such an
abrasion rate would result in a recession of only 10–15 m over the last 2000-2500 years.
Fig. 5.4: Remnant of an Iron Age promontory fort at Corraun peninsula, County Mayo, western Ireland. An earthwork with ditch is still preserved, whereas the main site (to the seaside at right) has been abraded.
134
5.5.2 Boulder deposits
At both exposed and sheltered sites, boulder deposits and ridges were present that, judging
from weathering and soil or peat cover, are at least partly not of recent origin. Following is
a description of such sites located from southern Ireland‘s west coast to the north and the
central part of the Shetland Islands of Scotland (Fig. 5.1).
1. Storm beach near Minard Castle, northern shoreline of Dingle Bay
This site has exceptional examples of perfectly rounded boulders of hard quartzitic
sandstone with lengths up to 1.5 m long and weighing > 2 t. These boulders form a 40–m-
wide ridge covered by lichens on the crest and displaying a light roughness indicative of
weathering. The 20 m isobath is 1.5 km away from the beach, and the 10-m isobath is at
least 250 m away.
We believe that a tsunami event could have moved the boulders onshore, but would have
been unable to abrade them in this perfect manner. Data for a strong wave event were
available from west of Minard Head, about 2 km from the boulder ridge, where a cliff
section exhibited a chaotic sand and shell layer with pebbles between peat strata. The
absolute age of the top of the lower peat was determined to be 1080 BC (calendar years;
sample 236961), and the base of the upper peat was dated as 780 AD (sample 236962;
Table 5.2). This ―sandwich dating‖ for a possible extreme-event deposit is only
approximate because the basal peat layer had been eroded by an unknown amount.
135
2. Boulder ridges west of Mallaranny, County Mayo
Along the inner Clew Bay‘s north coast, from the Mallaranny Pier to the west, a boulder
ridge about 3 m above MHW ran for a length of about 3 km. Red sandstone clasts are
mostly well rounded with diameters between 0.2 and 0.6 m; larger fragments are more
angular. Bivalve borings show that the clasts had been moved several metres upward from
the intertidal and sub-tidal belt. Rough surfaces resulting from weathering, dense lichen
carpets, and embedding in soil and peat at the landward side indicate significant age.
Storm waves can be excluded as the driving force for the movement of the large boulders
located on the crest or further inland because the water is shallow (~10 m deep at 700 m
seaward) and the ridges are exposed to the inner part of Clew Bay towards the southeast
and east.
3. Downpatrick Head, north coast of County Mayo (Fig. 5.5).
Along the north coast of County Mayo west of Downpatrick Head, a low, rocky shoreline
lies exposed to the northwest. On the rock platform in front of 1–3 m high cliffs, platy
granite boulders up to 4.5 m in length, > 2.5 m wide, 0.6–0.7 m thick, and up to 21 t had
been moved tens of metres. At the cliff, boulders up to 3 t appear under a thin stratum of
peat. Smaller boulders are distributed 40 m inland on and in peat. The dislocation of the
large boulders from the cliff occurred before 690 AD, and movement of smaller boulders
located on the vegetated cliff top occurred after that date, which was determined from the
peat layer at the head of the cliff section (sample 236736; Table 5.2). We believe that
storm waves today are not able to transport coarse sediments into this area about 4 m
above MHW because of the shallow water (10-m isobath ~400m seaward).
136
Fig. 5.5: a) Platy boulders dislocated onshore west of Downpatrick Head, north coast of Ireland. b) Boulders of up to 10 t rest on a low cliff in weathered drift material.
4. North coast of Gweebarra Bay (Crohy Head), west coast of central Donegal
North of the entrance to Trawenagh Bay in the inner part of Gweebarra Bay, the coast
inclines approximately 10° to the sea and is exposed to the south-southwest; the water is
shallow (20-m isobath at 4 km seaward). The granite boulders (corestones, Fig. 5.6) are
mixed with cobble-sized fragments of hard sandstone. The width of these ridges ranges
from 30 to 50 m with a thickness of mostly < 2 m, and the highest boulders found up to 10
m above MHW. To the northwest, where a small promontory offers shelter, partly
imbricated angular fragments weighing up to 20 t and >3 m long dominate. Those on
higher ground exhibit significant pitting and are covered by lichens.
Fig. 5.6: Well-imbricated, large granite boulders south of Crohy Head, west coast of Donegal, Ireland.
137
We believe that the weight of the boulders, the altitude of the deposit, and weathering may
provide evidence of impacts larger than can be produced by modern storm waves. This is
corroborated by the modelling of storm wave transport capacity in Benner et al. (2008).
5. Northwestern coast of Donegal, south of Bloody Foreland Head
Approximately 2 km south of Bloody Foreland in an exposure to the west, quartzite
cobble beaches appear on peat at up to 4 m above MHW, and large granite boulders
appeared at up to 5 m above MHW. A profile in the cliff shows two different phases of
onshore deposition after the formation of a podsol on till (Fig. 5.7). On top of this soil,
boulders up to 2 t settled in a chaotic dump deposit and were covered by a peat layer 10–
30 cm thick. On this peat, boulders of < 1 t occur in several chaotic deposits. These
deposits document strong events, with movement of large clasts in a shallow-water
environment.
Fig. 5.7: Large granite boulders south of Bloody Foreland rest chaotically on a podsol in drift material.
138
6. West of Fanad Head, northwestern coast of Donegal
At 2–3 km southwest of Fanad Head in western to northern exposures, another granite
coast covered with large boulders lies along a shallow-water (10-m isobath at ~500 m
seaward). Rounded granite fragments with single-boulder weights of up to 20 t and
maximum lengths of 4 m accumulated 4–5 m above MHW to form an imbricated ridge at
the top of a flat peat terrace (Fig. 5.8). The boulders are covered by lichens and exhibit
strong pitting. No signs of more recent movement or accumulation can be observed,
suggesting the occurrence of a single, strong dislocation event that occurred at least
several hundred years ago.
Fig. 5.8: Boulder ridge (granite) settled in and on peat at 5 m above MHW west of Fanad Head, County Donegal, Ireland.
7. Esha Ness, north-west coast of mainland Shetland
The Esha Ness area in northwest mainland Shetland exhibits signatures of most extreme
events, such as Grind of the Navir, but also deposits that document lesser wave impacts.
One such deposit (―The Burr‖) is a boulder ridge approximately 70 m wide and 4 m above
139
MHW that separates Croo Loch from the open ocean. The most elevated parts of the
barrier close to Croo Loch are deeply weathered and covered by vegetation which was
seemingly not been affected by more recent accumulations. In the small bay between Gill
Stacks and Burro Stacks, boulders are much larger (~ 10 t), weathered, and covered by
lichens (Fig. 5.9). Some large boulders are dislocated up to 60 m inland and ~6 m above
MHW. Along the more exposed coastline closer to the high ridges of Grind of the Navir,
the southwest-facing broad promontory at Head of Stanshi displays an old boulder ridge
up to 14–15 m above MHW, with the largest and most deeply weathered fragments
weighing ~1.5 t. Field evidence indicates the occurrence of a strong dislocating event
hundreds of years ago that has not been equalled by wave energy since.
Fig. 5.9: a) Topographical sketch of Esha Ness, northwest mainland Shetland. b) Strongly weathered ignimbrite boulders at 8 m asl near Stanshi Head, Esha Ness. c) Angular weathered boulders may form ridges along the northwest coast of Esha Ness up to at least 10 m asl. d: The highest weathered ignimbrite boulders near Stanshi Head at Esha Ness partly disappear under peaty soils.
140
8. Hamnavoe Bay on west Burra Island, Shetlands (Fig.10a-e)
West Burra is separated near Hamnavoe into two branches. The southern branch shows
evidence of extreme wave impacts (Fig. 5.10). In the south-southwest, between Biargar
and Pundsar, a nest of boulders accumulated up to 6–7 m a.s.l., but the main deposits form
a broad ridge partly on base rock between Pundsar and Fugla Ness up to 80 m wide and
steep along the seaward side because of the impact of surf during storms. In the southern
section, two parallel ridges can be identified, and in the northern section, as many as three
were identified. The highest parts of the ridge reach 5 m above MHW, with individual
boulders 2.6 m in length and weighing ~7 t. The crest and the leeward slopes are densely
covered by lichens, and the coarse granite was deeply pitted. The orientation of axes is
random, imbrication is not well developed, and some boulders are unstable and balance on
others. The deposit is undoubtedly old, only partly added to by the dislocation and
movement of smaller boulders at the seaward slope.
141
Fig. 5.10: a) Topographical features at Hamnavoe on West Burra Island, Shetland. b) The 6 m-high Hamnavoe barrier, seen from the east. c) Chaotic setting of large granite boulders at the leeward slope of the Hamnavoe barrier. d) Weathering and lichens are typical for the crest of the Hamnavoe barrier. e) Some boulders of many tons are nearly balancing on the crest of Hamnavoe Ridge.
9. Sumburgh peninsula, southern tip of mainland Shetland (Fig. 5.11)
The southern part of mainland Shetland is formed by two peninsulas approximately 3 km
long: the Sumburgh peninsula on the east and the promontory of Scat Ness on the west.
On the central west coast of Scat Ness, which is a deep-water environment with high
exposure, boulders were deposited up to ~5 m above MHW as well as in the bay (―West
142
Voe of Sumburgh‖) between the two peninsulas at the northwestern corner of Sumburgh,
where Jarlshof is located.. The strangest feature in this coastal landscape was a 5-0m high,
500-m-long, up to 200-m-wide tombolo of boulders on rocky outcrops at the northeastern
corner of the Sumburgh peninsula that links the rocky head of Scult of Laward with the
mainland at Grutness. The steeper side is exposed to the southeast, where storm waves
move smaller boulders up to a level of 3–4 m above MHW. The quartzite boulders are
well rounded which can result only from wave action, but the relatively shallow foreshore
and its sheltered position made it difficult to envisage a longer-lasting phase of wave
impacts at this site. Many of the boulders have diameters or longest axes of > 1 m (up to 2
m) with maximum weights of ~6 t. From evidence such as the onion-like foliation of
boulder surfaces, continuous lichen carpets, and dense vegetation with peat between
boulders from the crest to the leeward side, the ridge is undoubtedly ancient.
Fig. 5.11: a) Topographic features at the southern tip of mainland Shetland. b) Sumburgh Ridge as seen from the air. Open sea is to the left (south). c) Well-rounded, large quartzite boulders near the crest of the Sumburgh ridge at 5.5 m above. d) Sumburgh boulders covered up to 100% by lichens along the leeward (northern) slope.
143
5.5.3 Galway Bay and the Aran Islands, western Ireland
As demonstrated in more detail by Scheffers et al. (2008), Galway Bay and the Aran
Islands represent the most extreme wave impacted areas in Western Europe (also Williams
& Hall, 2004; Hall et al., 2006; 2008). Here, boulders of several hundred tons have been
dislocated, and those of >50 t up to at least ~15 m above MHW. In addition, boulder
ridges with very good imbrication extend >30 km, with the highest point near 50 m a.s.l.
These deposits, commonly weathered, karstified and covered by lichens, were dated by the
AMS method from boring bivalves in boulders, mollusc hash in ridges and peat (Table
5.2). Ages cluster around 1650–1720 AD, 1420–1470 AD, early and late medieval times
(1070–1290 AD), 140–300 AD, 1290BC, 1580 BC and even 2500 BC. Although the
highest deposits occur at sites with exposure to the open ocean along sections with deep
water, several others with ridges up to 10 m high and boulders of >100 t were found in the
shelter of the Aran Islands and inside Galway Bay (Fig. 5.12). Only two other sites with
coastal deposits point to similar wave-impact energy and boulder dislocation: Grind of the
Navir on the northwest coast of mainland Shetland (described in detail by Hall et al.,
2006; Hansom & Hall, 2007) and Annagh Head on the Annagh peninsula west of
Belmullet in County Mayo, northwestern Ireland, which has not yet been surveyed.
144
Fig. 5.12: Distribution of boulder ridges and numeric dating of coarse wave deposits on the Aran Islands and the east coast of Galway Bay, central west coast of Ireland (modified from Scheffers et al., 2008).
5.5.4 Grind of the Navir, Shetland
The west coast of Esha Ness (Fig. 5.9 a) exhibits individual sites of boulder deposits
(mostly ignimbrites) located at high altitudes, from nearly 30 m asl, south of Calder‘s Geo
lighthouse to 20 m a.s.l. at the Grind of the Navir. Grind of the Navir (Fig. 5.13a) as well
as the coastline north of it around Hamnavoe and at several sites on eastern Shetland
islands has been mapped in detail by Hansom and Hall (2007). It represents two headlands
with a gap between them. In this gap, a slot cave blow hole developed. Landward, a
depression with water depths of about 3 m (Fig. 5.13b) appeared, formed from plucked
rock and surrounded by a steep, high ridge of large boulders (Fig. 5.13c). This ridge has a
maximum relative height of ~4.5 m as a maximum and consists of angular and platy
boulders approximately 3 m long and weighing up to 6 t. Hansom and Hall (2007) mapped
eight ridges, one of which is an older, lower ridge which appeared inland at the highest
elevation (Fig. 5.13d). Unstable setting and imbrication are typical in the main ridge (Fig.
145
5.13e) where the setting of boulders seems to be chaotic. Although many of the boulders
look remarkably fresh (places of fresh plucking of rock could be seen between 10 and 12
m asl; Fig. 5.13e), the landward slope shows weathering and lichens in dense carpets,
indicating no movement for decades or even longer (Fig. 5.13f, 5.13g). For the lichen
cover, Hall et al. (2006) found that the black Verrucaria maura takes about 100 years to
cover rocks to between 50 and 100%. The site at Grind of the Navir is unique because of
the freshness of the rocks, and with the occurrence of the slot cave, the ridge may be the
result of a more recent event, probably related to the opening of the slot cave as a
funnelling process for large waves. Thus it is questionable whether this site can be used as
a general example to explain wave forces and their impacts on coastal deposition of
boulders in Western Europe. There is no doubt that at Grind of the Navir, storm waves
were able to quarry ignimbrite boulders near 15 m above MHW and dislocate them to the
seaward edge of the boulder ridge. Remaining debatable, however, is whether storm
waves could excavate the large pond as a closed depression at >10 m above MHW,
because as the pond is always filled with water, every boulder pushed in by waves would
be stopped in its motion immediately. Hansom and Hall (2007) compare documents of
changes in Grind of the Navir boulders over the past hundred years and cite extreme
storms in 1900, 1953, 1992, 1993 and 2005 in the Shetland area. However, these storms
affected some of the Grind boulders, but evidently did not affect the deposits north of
Stanshi Head and on the low barrier in front of Croo Loch, which were located < 1 km
north of Grind of the Navir. Contrary to this, Hansom and Hall (2007) state that relative
sea-level rise over the late Holocene together with present rates of sea-level rise led to
―increasingly frequent intervals as a consequence of nearshore deepening‖, but did the
effect of sea-level rising only some centimetres to 2-3 dm during the last century have
significant effects on increasing wave height and boulder deposition high above sea level?
146
Fig. 5.13: a) Schematic sketch and profile at Grind of the Navir, Esha Ness, northwest mainland of Shetland. b) Geo and rock base quarried by waves at Grind of the Navir, seen from the landward side. c) Seaward inner slope of the high ignimbrite ridge with some fresh boulders. d) Main ridge at Grind of the Navir, at about 15 m ASL, consists of at least three boulder hills. e) Sharp, angular boulders with imbrication at the inner slope of the ridge. F) The most landward boulders of the Navir ridge are clearly much more weathered and covered by lichens than the main ridge crest and seaward slope.
5.5.5 Annagh Head, western Ireland
West of Belmullet in County Mayo and exposed to the open ocean, the narrow Annagh
peninsula ends in the Annagh Head promontory up to 28 m a.s.l. (Fig. 5.14a). The Annagh
peninsula contains spectacular deposits due to extreme wave energy appearing at both
exposed and sheltered sites. Ramparts and boulder beaches exist dominated by angular
clasts partly weathered, covered with lichens and weighing as much at 40 t (particularly
in the north and northwest of the peninsula; Fig. 5.14b). The most striking deposits,
147
however, are boulder ridges comprised of schists and gneiss, one elevated up to 14 m and
exposed directly to the west on the north coast of the peninsula (Fig. 5.14c), with a back
slope of several meters to leeward, and two on the other side of the peninsula, at Port Point
and in the southern exposure of the promontory, with altitudes 10–14 m above MHW.
These deposits appear to be ancient, are deeply weathered and covered at least partly by
soil and vegetation, and disappear landward under a thick carpet of peat (Fig. 5.14d). With
their distribution even in sheltered places such as along the southern shorelines of Annagh
peninsula, the ridges have not been reached by waves for a considerable time. Peat
accumulation 1 m below the surface on the boulders of these ridges after their deposition
was dated at 2100–2040 years BC, limiting the minimum age for the boulder deposit
(Table 5.2).
148
Table 5.1: Dimensions of some boulders from selected coastal sites in Ireland and Scotland. Except for Esha Ness on Shetland and some parts of the Aran Islands of Western Ireland, all sites are in sheltered positions with wide shallow water in the foreshore. The Inishmaan boulders are inland up to 220 m from the cliff. Density of granite, gneiss, quartzite and limestone have been measured close to 2.6 g/cm³, density of ignimbite measured to a little less than 2.5 g/cm³. Boulder dimensions of 50 t and more are widespread at the Aran Islands and inside Galway Bay.
Location Rock
type
a-
axis
(m)
b-
axis
(m)
c-
axis
(m)
Volume
(m3)
Weight
(t)
Altitude
above
MHW
Imbrication
Shetland Islands (West Mainland and West Burra)
Esha Ness Ignimbrite 2.7 1.4 1.4 5.7 14 15
Esha Ness Granite 2.6 1.9 1.5 7.4 19 7
Hamnavoe Quartzite 2.6 1.2 0.9 2.8 7.3 5
Sumburgh Quartzite 2.0 1.1 1.1 2.4 6.2 4.5 seaward 29o
Northwestern Ireland
Dingle Bay Quartzite 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.5 > 2 4
Downpatrick
Head Granite 4.5 2.6 0.7 8.2 21 5 seaward 14
o
Crohy Head Granite 3.2 2.4 1.1 8.4 22 10 seaward 34o
Fanad Head Gneiss 4.0 2.0 1.2 9.6 24 5
Annagh Head Gneiss 3.1 3.0 1.1 10.2 26 11 seaward 29o
Annagh
Head Gneiss 4.2 2.7 1.3 14.7 38 3 seaward 22
o
Western Ireland, Galway Bay and Aran Islands
Inishmore
south coast Limestone 4.8 3.3 1.4 22 57 6 seaward 55
o
Inishmore
south coast Limestone 6.3 5.1 3.1 99 258 2
Inishmore
south coast Limestone 5.7 4.1 2.3 53 139 8
Inishmaan,
west coast Limestone 9.2 2.6 1.1 26 68 10 seaward 44
o
Inishmaan,
west coast Limestone 2.8 1.8 0.8 4 10.4 46
Galway Bay
east Limestone 4.3 2.2 2.0 18.9 49 7
Galway Bay
east Limestone 9.4 4.0 2.2 82.7 215 3
149
Table 5.2. Radiocarbon data from boulder deposits from the west coast of Ireland. All mollusc data were obtained by AMS-dating. According to IntCal04 (Fairbanks et al., 2005; Ascough et al.,
2006), the reservoir effect changes from about 38526 years for ages 4000 years BP to about
40125 years for ages 600 years BP. The peat samples dated were less than 2 cm thick.
Lab.-
No. Location
Material
dated
13C/
12C
Ratio
14C yrs
BP conv.
cal. Age
(IntCal
04)
Remarks
Part 1: Aran Islands and Galway Bay
236709
Inishmore,
cape W
Black Fort
mollusc
hash -0.6 550 ± 40
1720 AD
(1690-
1820 AD)
ridge, landward,
+28 m MHW
236711
Inishmore,
cape E
Black Fort
mollusc
hash 0.0 550 ± 40
1720 AD
(1670-
1880 AD)
2. ridge, +28 m
MHW
233799 Inishmaan S boring
bivalves -2.1 610 ± 40
1680 AD
(1640-
1810 AD)
ridge + 6 m MHW
233793 Inisheer, SW boring
bivalves -1.5 670 ± 40
1650 AD
(1540-
1690 AD)
behind large
boulder ridge, + 2
m MHW
233783
2 km S
Black Head,
Galway
boring
bivalves +0.6 830 ± 40
1480 AD
(1440-
1540 AD)
lower ridge, from
a boulder of 3 t at
+2 m MHW
233797 Inishmaan S boring
bivalves -0.3 850 ± 40
1470 AD
(1430-
1520 AD)
from single
boulder 8-10 t on
platform +3 m
MHW
233798 Inishmaan S boring
bivalves -4.8 860 ± 40
1460 AD
(1420-
1520 AD)
landward slope of
ridge at +5 m
MHW
233784
2 km S
Black Head,
Galway
boring
bivalves +0.4 900 ± 40
1440 AD
(1400-
1480 AD)
lower ridge, large
platy boulder at
+2.4 m MHW
233786 6 km N
Doolin
boring
bivalves -0.7 910 ± 40
1440 AD
(1390-
1480 AD)
large ridge, central
part with large
boulder at +6 m
MHW
236712
Inishmore
Puffing Hole
E
mollusc
hash -1.9 950 ± 40
1420 AD
(1330-
1460 AD)
second ridge over
Puffing Hole + 30
m MHW
233787 6 km N
Doolin
boring
bivalves -10.0
1020 ±
40
1330 AD
(1290-
1420 AD)
upper part of
landward old slope
of ridge at +6 m
MHW
233795 Inishmore boring -1.0 1110 ± 1290 AD
(1230-landward slope of
150
W end bivalves 40 1330 AD) ridge +6 m MHW
233792 Inishmore, E
Wormhole
boring
bivalves -0.2
1190 ±
40
1230 AD
(1150-
1290 AD)
50 m from sea,
large ridge 40 m
wide, large
boulders, + 6 m
MHW
233790 Inishmore,
W Red Lake
boring
bivalves -1.3
1210 ±
40
1210 AD
(1110-
1280 AD)
crest of large ridge
+4.5 m MHW
233788 6 km N
Doolin
boring
bivalves -1.6
1250 ±
40
1170 AD
(1060-
1250 AD)
landward slope of
large ridge at + 5
m MHW
233794 Inishmore
W end
boring
bivalves -1.4
1310 ±
40
1070 AD
(1020-
1190 AD)
ridge with
boulders > 50 t,
lichens,
imbricated, from
+5 m MHW
233791 Inishmore,
W Red Lake
boring
bivalves -0.9
1540 ±
40
860 AD
(770-960
AD)
crest of boulder
ridge +4.5 m
MHW
236713 6.5 km N
Doolin
mollusc
hash +3.1
2030 ±
40
360 AD
(260-440
AD)
from brown soil at
+5 m MHW
233796 Inishmore
SW
boring
bivalves -7.8
2070 ±
40
300 AD
(220-410
AD)
In platy boulder on
top of promontory
at +18 m MHW
236708
Inishmore,
W Gort na
gCapall
mollusc
hash -0.2
2210 ±
40
140 AD
(60-240
AD)
W Blind Sound,
landward part of
small ridge + 18 m
MHW
236710 Inishmore,
Black Fort
mollusc
hash +1.0
3370 ±
40
1290 BC
(1390-
1190 BC)
seaward ridge,
seaward slope,
under imbricated
boulders at +28 m
MHW
233782
2 km S
Black Head,
Galway
boring
bivalves -1.9
3620 ±
40
1580 BC
(1670-
1480 BC)
seaward ridge,
landward slope in
imbricated boulder
at +28 m MHW
236707
2 km S
Black Head,
Galway
mollusc
hash +1.2
4340 ±
40
2530 BC
(2620-
2440 BC)
boulder ridge 70 m
landward, from
steep landward
slope at +5 m
MHW
151
Part 2: Isolated locations at the west coast of Ireland
236726
Downpatrick
Head
Donegal
peat on
boulders - 690 AD +3.5 m MHW
236962 N Minard
Castle peat -28.5 1230±50
780 AD
(670-900
AD)
base upper peat at
+2.1 m MHW
236961 N Minard
Castle peat -28.4 2900±50
1080 BC
(1260-930
BC)
top lower peat at
+0.9 m MHW
236715
Annagh
Peninsula S,
Donegal
peat on
boulders - 3680±40
2100-
2040 BC
1 m under surface
at +10 m MHW
5.6 Discussion
Historical reports on extreme wave events are still scarce, and palaeoclimatology and
wave modelling of the open ocean do not give answers to questions relating to coastal
morphology and sedimentology (e.g., Shields & Fitzgerald, 1989; Draper, 1991; Lamb &
Frydendahl, 1991; Carter & Orford, 1993; Lozano et al., 2004). It is not enough to survey
selected sites with remarkable deposits and forms. To judge extraordinary signatures and
their sources, information from the wider environment, including the ―normal‖ or
―everyday‖ situation over a larger area, must be considered. Tsunamis may be restricted to
a single site or small area (good examples of the ―hit or miss‖ scenario are coral reefs
during the 2004 tsunami event in the Indian Ocean) whereas extreme storms cover a much
wider area even at landfall (e.g., for hurricane Katrina near New Orleans with storm
surges of 4–7 m occurred over 260 km measured in direct line), with very large waves
being the result of strong, long-lasting storms caused by significant depressions over a
longer time period. Therefore, these waves do not work selectively along similar coastal
geomorphologies, but impact wider coastal sections. For this to occur, however, deep
water at the coast is essential, because shallow water significantly diminishes the height
and energy of waves at a coastline (cf., e.g., Kirkgoz, 1992). Local conditions such as rock
152
type, exposure, inclination of coastal slopes, availability of sediments and so on must also
be considered. If such conditions are similar in areas that have differing geomorphology
and deposits, then the possible interpretations for these differences are restricted. If the
most extreme coastal deposits in Scotland and Ireland are believed to have resulted from
storms, western Ireland and Scotland represent the most extreme storm-wave impacted
coastlines around the world, because similar deposits are unknown elsewhere. In
addition, storms in these areas would then represent more energy than do nearly all known
modern and ancient tsunamis worldwide. The existence of enough strong evidence for
these conclusions (as argued by Williams & Hall, 2004; Hall et al., 2006; 2008; Hansom
& Hall, 2009), would undoubtedly have significant consequences for our knowledge of
coastal geomorphology. Interestingly, these authors give several hints that large cliff-top
megaclasts are different from normal storm deposits in several respects, stating that older
ridges ―represent the results of older and more extreme events formed in more distal
locations when the cliff edge was further seaward than the present day‖ (Williams & Hall,
2004, p. 105–106). This would indicate that in spite of rising storm energy, deeper water
at the cliff foot, and ongoing coastal erosion, the geomorphologic effects of modern or
historical storms are significantly surpassed by those from older events. Because physical
restrictions limit wave heights, wind speed and storm energy, it is surprising that tsunamis
have never been taken into consideration. Hall et al. (2006, p. 132) state that the
―angularity, lack of sorting and large size of the boulders . . . are not features commonly
associated with modern storm beaches.‖ They also found that during the extreme storms
in the Shetland Islands in 1992 and 1993, only small boulders were moved in the direction
of the seaward ridge fronts, and that formerly the storms must have been much stronger
than in modern times. What can be discounted now are storm surges and extremely high
153
spring tides during dislocation, because Shaw and Carter (1994) state that no storm surge
higher than 1 m may occur within 1000 years.
Evidence presented in this article does not support the argument that the most remarkable
deposits along the exposed coastlines of western Ireland and Scotland can be explained by
storms alone, in particular by storms from modern times or the past several centuries.
Older boulder ridges several metres or tens of metres landward of frontal ones have never
been affected by waves, although they are indisputably older than the front ridges by
>2000 years (Table 5.2). Under conditions of ongoing significant cliff retreat and strong
storm impacts, it should be expected that the frontal (i.e. most seaward) ridges have been
shifted to landward and have incorporated the material of the older deposits. Hall et al.
(2006) and Hansom and Hall (2007) regard plastic artefacts in the ridges as indicators of
recent events, but these also could have been entrained by wave pressure in gaps of an
existing ridge. It is difficult to understand how very high waves with extreme power could
dislocate large boulders and a light inflatable buoy at the same time and to the same place
(Hansom & Hall, 2009). Like floatable objects, mollusc hash can easily be entrained in old
ridges by recent storm events, which do not have the required wave power to move
boulders. Therefore, the reliability of their ages may differ from those materials found
attached to or even in boulders, such as boring bivalves.
Data from sites with very high wave energy indicate that only very few events of
extraordinary power have taken place in these areas during the recent Holocene, that is,
during the past several thousand years. These events may well have been combinations of
extraordinary wave energy from extraordinary storm events so rare that they would only
occur in a temporal distance of millennia (i.e. the ―perfect storm‖), but it is doubtful that
154
this explanation is correct for the deposits at sheltered sites. and the argument that large,
elevated deposits are the result of storms and that these extraordinary storms are quasi-
normal features along the exposed coastlines of Ireland and Scotland is in direct contrast
to historical and modern infrastructure at the coasts. For example, boathouses from Viking
times are preserved at 5–6 m above MHW as in Skipi Geo at the northwest corner of
mainland Orkney and at Voe of Dale along the southwestern coast of mainland Shetland;
on the west coast of the Orkney Islands (Ronaldsay) near Wind Wick, at exposed sites of
the Outer Hebrides on Lewis‘ west coast near the causeway from Harris to Eriksay and in
the northwest of South Uist, cemeteries still in use are situated at 5 m above MHW or
lower; and the new schoolhouse at the exposed west coast of Benbecula was constructed
without protective works at a level of about 3 m above MHW.
The singularity of the forms and deposits found on the Shetland Islands at Grind of the
Navir or in Ireland near Annagh Head, in the outer Galway Bay, and on the Aran Islands
(Fig. 5.12) raises serious questions about the displacement of boulders by storm events.
No calculations of possible storm wave heights, storm wave physics, or ages of the
deposits and no descriptions of extraordinary storms, are sufficient to explain these
displacements. Hansom et al. (2008), however, describe experiments showing extreme
velocities of bore flow conditions at cliff tops, with up to 2.4 times the velocity of the
incoming waves, and also that at several steps this kind of acceleration may repeat (see
also Williams & Hall, 2004). Taking into account that extremely high waves (12–15 m) at
plunging deep-water cliffs may have a maximum velocity of 8–9 m/s, an acceleration of
2.4 or several such accelerations would produce flow conditions of far more than 100
km/h with sufficient energy to transport even the largest boulders to extreme altitudes. The
question, however, is whether these conditions are in harmony with natural scale
155
processes. Over decades of coastal research and observations during tropical and
extratropical storms, we have never observed flow velocities on cliff tops higher than 9
m/s, and EurOtop (2007) gave only 5–8 m/s for this process as a maximum. The only
logical conclusion for the dislocation of extreme large boulders up to extreme altitudes is
the impact of wave events with much more power than extreme storms.
Another main argument for the storm hypothesis in the previous articles is that big waves
affect only the upper section of the cliffs, from which they break the boulders to form
cliff-top megaclast ridges, and that it is not necessary to imagine that storm waves have
lifted large boulders far against gravity. If this is a sound explanation, it is difficult to
explain why boulders with boring bivalves, bore holes of these bivalves, sea urchin
erosional marks or attachments of calcareous algae and vermetids, can be found at as high
as 30 m a.s.l. Another argument against the hypothesis that only the upper section of cliffs
is affected is the fact that the best-developed and highest continuous ridges, with very
large boulders in very high altitudes, can be found along perpendicular or even
overhanging cliffs with undermining of up to 20 m at their base, such as those along most
of the southwest coast of Inishmore and the west coast of Inishmaan, and along the east
coast of Galway Bay along the east coast (Figs 5.3 and 5.15).
156
Fig. 5.15a-d: Typical vertical and undermined cliffs with heights of 20 -30 m above MHW and cliff-top megaclasts in the form of boulder ridges (examples from the south coast of Inishmore, Aran Islands, central west coast of Ireland
Undoubtedly, arguing tsunami impacts along the coastlines of Western Europe is crucial.
Only 20 years ago in the coastal sciences, nearly all researchers would have excluded
tsunamis in the North Atlantic, except for the Grand Banks event of 1929 AD near
Newfoundland and the Lisbon event of 1755 AD, neither of which had significant
imprints in our research area. With the detection of the Storegga slide (Bugge et al., 1988;
Dawson et al., 1988), the picture changed dramatically. Now tsunamis of extreme size and
far-reaching consequences in the European Atlantic region can no longer be excluded.
More recent research of this event, initially dated ~8000 yr BP, has shown that ~5500 yr
BP (the Garth event, at the east coast of mainland Shetland) and ~1500 BP (the Basta Voe
event on Yell Island; also Bondevik et al., 2005; Dawson et al., 2006) tsunamis occurred
in the same area, leaving significant signatures in the geological record. The latest results
are reported by Bryant and Haslett (2003; 2007), Haslett (2008) and Haslett and Bryant
(2005; 2007a, 2007b; 2008) for the Bristol Channel area where they found deposits that
can be explained only by a tsunami event reaching far inland, most probably in 1607 AD,
157
and from North Wales more evidence for times before the 17th
century has been published
(Haslett & Bryant, 2007a, 2007b). Therefore, because of their extension into extreme
altitudes with extremely large boulders even in sheltered positions and the lack of any
signatures directly from neighbouring coasts such as the northern coast of Galway Bay, at
least the Annagh Head features in County Mayo and those from the Galway Bay and the
Aran Islands are the result of tsunami impacts. At Annagh Head, these events would have
occurred >4000 years ago. In the Galway area, the data show more events (Table 5.2), and
these time clusters are in general agreement with the occurrence of three to five ridges
found at several locations.
We believe that large boulders may be the best markers in the geological record. Bryant
and Haslett (2003; 2007), Haslett (2008) and Haslett and Bryant (2007a, 2007b; 2008)
found boulders on higher ground a considerable distance inland from the Bristol Channel
and in North Wales. Boulders from the Storegga slide and later tsunamis (the Garth event
and the Basta Voe event) have never been described, although these tsunamis occurred
over very large areas, from southwestern Norway to the Shetland and Orkney Islands as
well as along the north and east coasts of mainland Scotland. Is it possible that these
extraordinary events, with run-up heights of >20 m (sea level was about –20 m at the time
of the main Storegga event, 8,000 BP) did not dislocate boulders? Or is it possible that the
undated cliff-top megaclasts on the Shetland and Orkney Islands (in eastern exposures to
the North Sea) described by Hall et al. (2006) are, at least partly, signatures of one or
another tsunami event in this part of the North Atlantic Ocean? Coastal scientific research
can only partially precisely discern between storm and tsunami deposits. Modern tsunamis
(e.g., the Sumatra-Andaman event of 2004) have shown that with regard to fine sediments,
nearly all aspects of the deposits may be typical for either storm waves or tsunami waves
158
(see contributions in Shiki et al., 2008). Therefore, coarse deposits hold the evidence for
reasonable discrimination and boulder deposits can be defined as tsunamigenic, if the
following conditions (also the most significant characteristics in Scheffers et al. 2008) are
met:
The size and weight of boulders are far beyond what can be moved by storm waves,
based on modern modelling and physical calculations (Nott, 2003a; Imamura et al.,
2008) as well as direct observations of boulder movement and the expertise of coastal
engineers (EurOTop, 2007). The threshold maybe on the order of 10–20 m³;
Evidence suggests that large boulders have been moved onshore along coastlines with
very shallow water (e.g., fringing reefs), where wave heights, even during strong
storm surges, are very limited;
The transport of boulders is much farther inland than inundation by extreme storm
waves;
The height of deposition is far above the reach of strong storm waves and transport
capacity by water against gravity;
In areas with regular strong storm impacts. large boulders can be found within old
vegetation, soil or even peat, which exclude the possibility of storm waves for many
centuries;
Dating of boulder deposits within the past 6000 years lacks any regularity in intervals
known for extreme historical storms, that is, if these deposits are definitely rarer than
so called thousand year storms events.
In addition, the lack of accumulations of large boulders along deep-water coasts in
areas hit by category 5 cyclones as well as along very extended coastlines with winter
storm impacts, where boulders are available for transport in large numbers, indicates
159
that that onshore dislocation of boulders of extreme size forming long and high ridges
is not a typical indicators of storm waves.
Hansom and Hall (2009) have also compared their data with indicators of greater
storminess in the North Atlantic determined from Greenland ice cores which exhibit a
marked rise in Na+ during the Little Ice Age (LIA) from about 1450 AD onward (see also
Sommerville et al., 2003; 2007). This method, however, is not flawless. First, it is not
clear that high Na+, which suggests more storms, reflects either a greater number of large
storms or extreme wave heights, both of which are necessary to explain the boulder
deposits found in the western British Isles (Hansom & Hall, 2009). Second, how higher
storminess in the west-wind drift could raise the Na+ in Greenland‘s ice cores, positioned
to the west of the storms, must be explained. A relationship between high Na+ in
Greenland ice cores and extremely high and large boulder deposits during LIA seems
plausible, but similar boulder dislocations have also been dated for medieval times, the
late Roman epoch and the Bronze Age (Table 5.2; Fig. 5.12; Sommerville et al., 2007).
This does not support the theory of combining the ice core and boulder deposit archives
for an explanation. If sea ice cover was more extended during LIA, fetch would have been
reduced as well. Therefore, the combination of higher Na+ and more extensive sea ice
would not enhance storminess in the eastern North Atlantic. Being aware of the
uniqueness of cliff-top megaclasts (Hansom & Hall, 2009), we believe that the debate on
their origin, in particular at sheltered sites with shallow water where storm waves are
limited in height and energy, is well worth continuing.
160
5.7 Conclusions
To date no evidence – such as observations or indisputable documents – exists for storm-
wave dislocation of very large boulders (> 50 t) near the shoreline or smaller boulders
found at altitudes of >20 m asl. Calculations of boulder transport by Nott (2003) and
Imamura et al. (2008) clearly exclude this as well. Sedimentary evidence along the
shorelines of western Ireland and Scotland, where an explanation of recent storm wave
origin for extended boulder ridges on the Aran Islands, inside Galway Bay and along
Grind of the Navir on mainland Shetland has been presented by Williams and Hall (2004),
Hall et al. (2006; 2008) and Hansom and Hall (2009), requires reassessment. Because of
the uniqueness of these sites with respect to the amount of coarse deposits and their
position in both limited areas exposed to strong waves and very sheltered sites, alternative
explanations such as tsunamis, should be considered. To define an exact source,
submarine surveys of potential areas of slides at the shelf edge are necessary, as are
absolute data gained from deep trenches in the most extended ridges and the relation of the
boulder deposits to peat and soil development before and after the event. The question
remains of whether cliff-top megaclasts on the eastern coasts of Scottish isles may be
connected to sand layers from younger tsunamis such as the Garth or Basta Voe events.
All of this may help to support or disprove the exclusive storm wave hypothesis.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungs-
gemeinschaft) for funding this project.
161
Chapter 6: Boulder transport by waves: progress in
physical modelling
6.1 Preface
This paper is a collaborative work by R. Benner, T. Browne, H. Brueckner, A. Scheffers,
and D. Kelletat. Tony Browne contributed 30% of the concept, 30% of the research
design, 10% of the data collection, and 50% of the data analysis and interpretation. He
wrote 50% of the original draft and contributed all the graphics.
The paper discusses apparent inadequacies in calculations pertaining to boulder transport
by storm and/or tsunami waves in previously published work and attempts to quantify the
wave sizes and forces required to move boulders.
Benner, R., Browne, T., Brueckner, H., Scheffers, A. and Kelletat, D., 2010. Boulder
transport by waves: Progress in Physical Modelling. Annals of Geomorphology, 54 (3):
127-146.
162
6.2 Abstract
This paper presents apparent shortfalls in calculations pertaining to boulder transport by
storm and/or tsunami waves in previously published work. These shortfalls have been
addressed by analyzing the momentum forces required to shift single boulders from their
pre-transport environments. Original formulae have been recalculated using a reduced
mathematical approach in combination with simplified assumptions. Differences in
boulder size and geometry, as well as fluid flow dynamics and differences in transport
movement between storm and tsunami waves, have been scrutinized in an attempt to
clarify the potential size of the waves and the magnitude of force(s) required to cause
movement of boulders.
Keywords: Tsunami waves, storm waves, boulder transport, physical modelling,
mathematical approach
6.3 Introduction
The impact of forces generated by tsunami or storm waves that attack a single boulder can
only be calculated with any degree of accuracy using computational fluid dynamics
programs which are able to calculate transient flow phenomena. However, there are
notable problems with modelling: (i) boulder geometry, (ii) complex cliff structure, and
(iii) the manifold boundary conditions, as they are determined by the local parameters.
Due to these difficulties there is a need for a model which uses a reduced mathematical
approach with simplified assumptions in order to make well-founded estimations
concerning the effective forces, energies and conditions that must be fulfilled to enable
boulder transport. In 1997 and 2003, Jonathan Nott published such an approach. After
163
initial discussion of this approach, this paper addresses the application of the elementary
rules of conservation of energy and momentum in order to present idealized situations in
which maximum uplift by wave energy occurs for any given boulder. By comparison with
empirically derived current velocities and wave heights it is possible to ascertain the cause
of the displacement (storm or tsunami). A state-of-the-art discussion presented by
Imamura et al. (2008) is very important as it presents a best estimate of the processes that
occur in nature. Imamura (pers. comm. email 14 Sept. 2008) emphasizes the large variety
of local conditions which may influence potential boulder transport. As such, observations
are very much needed to check if the theoretical assumptions and calculations are right.
Consideration must also be given to the fact that the maximum size of boulders moved
onshore does not necessarily represent the maximum transport capacity of a storm wave or
a tsunami flow, but may only be indicative of the maximum size of available clasts.
Therefore even a field of large boulders located onshore may only give an approximation
minimum wave or flow energy. Further, in a reefal environment, most authors refer to
large boulders as ―coral boulders‖, which implies that they consist purely of coral texture
and structure. ―Coral boulders‖, ranging from tens to hundreds of tons in size, however,
are not common features, as coral colonies of the required size are extremely rare (and
extremely old, which gives rise to the question: ―Why have they never been broken off
and transported inland during a less energetic event?‖). A more accurate term is ―reef rock
boulders‖, which indicates that pore spaces have been filled with cemented sand
(calcarenite), and that the density, and therefore the resistance against wave transport, is
much greater than that of a coral colony.
Note: All symbols and terms used in this paper are listed in 6.8 Appendix: Register of
mathemeatical symbols.
164
6.4 J. Nott’s approach
6.4.1 General remarks
By identifying three different boulder settings in the coastal environment (submerged,
subaerial, joint bounded), Nott (2003) has made significant progress in the discussion of
boulder movement by waves upon which improvements are based in order to be more
representative of natural processes. For example, the energy needed to move a joint-
bounded boulder remains uncertain because its exact position before a wave hit it is
unknown. What can be deduced in many cases, however, is the former position of a
boulder in relation to sea-level if:
the boulder was submerged (boring organisms or attached bioconstructions may be
present)
the boulder was derived from the infra-littoral fringe (remnants of a notch may be
visible, e.g. Scheffers 2002, p. 107, fig. 116)
the boulder was derived from the supratidal zone (typical rock pools may be
preserved, e.g. Scheffers 2002, p. 113, fig. 127 and p. 137, fig. 164).
6.4.2 Nott’s formulas
Nott (1997, 2003) proposes an equation for the calculation of the transport of boulders that
were dislocated from a coral reef or a cliff by storm or tsunami wave(s). His fundamental
theory is that a boulder can be overturned if there is a balance between the momentums to
which it is exposed. He calculates all forces impacting the boulder and the points at which
they work. Although neither of Nott‘s publications has figures showing the position of the
descriptive parameters assigned to the boulders, it is evident that ― a ‖ is the axis parallel to
the coastline and represents the length of the boulder, ― b ‖ is its width, and ― c ‖ its height.
Nott calculates the momentums created by the forces with lever arms, referring to point
―P‖ at the bottom edge of the side in the lee of the flow. In the following, the reworking of
165
the equations is based on the parameters described in Figure 6.1. In his 2003 paper, Nott
writes:
D L m rF F F F (1a)
where F represents the momentums. DF and LF
are momentums from surface forces
( D = Drag, L = Lift), rF(restraining force) and mF
(inertia force) (Figure 6.1).
Therefore, it is proposed that the following equation would be more accurate:
0FD FL Fm FrM M M M (1b)
Fig. 6.1 Forces acting on a submerged boulder. Assumption: constant velocity of current.
b (width of boulder), c (height of boulder), u (velocity of current), Fr (restraining force), Fm (inertia force), FD (force of drag), FL (force of lift), s (centre of boulder), P (point of overturning).
As 0M , this signifies that all left and right turning momentums are equal and we get
an equilibrium of momentums. A small increase of flow velocity causes M to become
different from zero, creating an unstable situation. A small increase in flow velocity may
cause transport to occur by rolling, sliding or even saltation (cf. Imamura et al. 2008). This
momentum approach is reasonable from the point of physics; however, it does not give
any information as to the further transport of the boulder. For uplift or shift to occur,
additional energy is required. Nott presents different equations for the calculation of the
166
wave heights necessary to overturn boulders, as well as different values for the coefficient
of drag ( DC) and boulder density ( sρ ). Due to some discrepancies, these equations need
adjustment.
In the 2003 paper, in equation (1) momentums and forces are added; however, this is in
contrast to the accepted laws of physics. mF in Nott‘s equations (cf. Nott 2003a, equation
4) is a force, but the lever arm is missing in the equation. According to Nott, mF shall
include the acceleration of the water (ü ) around the boulder when the wave hits it.
Therefore, 2c represents the lever arm. There is also a discrepancy in the calculation
of LF: The wave hits the boulder at its front face ac and then submerges it. The dynamic
uplifting force LFmust be calculated with the size of the upper area ab , instead of bc .
Therefore, the equation
20.5 ( ) 2L LF u bc C bρ (2a)
must be improved and should be replaced by
20.5 ( ) 2L LF u ab C bρ (2b)
If Nott‘s equation is accepted then the dynamic uplifting force LFwould be independent of
the length of the boulder ― a ‖, but from physics we know that all dynamic forces will
depend on the dimensions of the boulder. Therefore, in reality LF increases proportionally
to ― a ‖, in the same way as drag force DF . A linear growth of the terms which are
dependent on DF and mF with boulder length ― a ‖, while LFremained constant, leads to an
error in the final equation for the wave heights. In the corrected equation, the terms of the
167
denominator LFincreases with boulder width ―b ‖, and DF increases with boulder height
― c ‖. This is physically sound. Therefore, the corrected equations are as follows:
2 2 2 2D L r mF c F b F b F c (3)
2 20.5 2 0.5 2 2 2w D w L s w s mu C cac u C b gabcb abcC cabρ ρ ρ ρ ρ ü (4)
2 2 2 2 2 / 2 /D L s w w m s wC u c a C u b a abcgb abcC cρ ρ ρ ü ρ ρ (5)
2
2 2
2 / /s w w m s w
D L
abc bg C cu
C c a C b a
ρ ρ ρ ü ρ ρ (6)
2
2 2
2 / /s w w m s w
D L
bc bg C cu
C c C b
ρ ρ ρ ü ρ ρ (7)
2u gHδ 4 Tsunami, =1 Stormδ δ (8)
2 2
2 / /s w w m s w
D L
bc bg C cgH
C c C b
ρ ρ ρ ü ρ ρδ
(9)
2 2
0.5 /s w w s m w
TSU
D L
bc b C c gH
C c C b
ρ ρ ρ ρ ü ρ (10)
2 2
2 /s w w s m w
storm
D L
bc b C c gH
C c C b
ρ ρ ρ ρ ü ρ
(11)
Nott (1997, 2003) integrates two totally different physical processes in a single equation.
One process calculates the effect of a uniform current on a completely submerged boulder,
whilst the other process calculates the effect of the impact of a wave on a subaerially
exposed boulder. Attempting to combine these processes leads to contradictions. In the
case of a subaerial boulder hit by a sudden impact of a wave,F
and LF should not be
calculated with the abovementioned equation because it does not recognize that there is no
dynamic uplifting force LF and no Archimedes force AF
. Therefore, the two situations
need to be determined separately. Further, it can be argued that it is not reasonable to
168
calculate LC= 0.178, since every value between 0.05 and 0.2 is possible. In the equation
for a stationary steady state current, Nott uses DC= 1.2 or 2 or 3. This is not supported by
observations. Cuboids with angular edges have a DCvalue of between 1.0 (cube) and 2.0
(prism) (Sigloch 2008). Since boulders in nature are mostly not square stones with
rectangular flat sides, DCcould more accurately be assigned a range of 0.8 to 1.2. Nott
argues for the high value with results that are determined when a wave hits the boulder.
But at that moment it is a non-stationary flow regime. Nott (1997, 2003) differentiates
between storm-generated waves (in the surf zone) with
0.5u gH
and tsunami-generated
waves with
0.52u gH
. Depending on the wave velocity ( u ), he uses these equations to
calculate the wave height which is necessary to get the boulder into an unstable position.
Other equations show that propagation and energy of the wave depend on wave length (L )
and water depth (d ) (Albring 1978; Oumeraci 2008).
The following calculations are reworked versions of Nott‘s equation. They may be applied
when a boulder is submerged deeply enough for it to remain submerged in the trough of
the wave. It is assumed that the speed of the current is constant. Three boulder sizes given
by Nott (1997) are used in the calculations: a very big boulder (Cow Bay, Table 1, page
197, case 2), a cube-like boulder (Oak Beach, Table 1, page 197, case 5), and a rather flat
boulder (Taylor Point, Table 1, page 197, case 3).
169
Scenario 1: Submerged boulder
Water height above the boulder must be at least equivalent to the height of the boulder
― c ‖, so that the dynamic uplifting force LF is generated.
3 -3 -22.7 10 kgm 1.2 0.15 1ms 1s D L mC C Cρ ü
Table 6.1: Condition of movement: Heights of waves must be higher than calculated above to overturn the boulders.
(1) Very big boulder
6.6 m; 6.3m; 2.2 ma b c
3Mass : 247 10 kgρ
Bl sm abc
Weight : 2423G
F mg KN
2 2
0.5 6.3 2.2 6.3 2.7 1 /1 2.7 1 1 2.2 / 1 9.81
1.2 2.2 0.15 6.3TSUH
(2) Cube-like boulder
3.4m;
3.2m;
3.1m
a
b
c
391 10 kg
Blm
893G
F KN
(3) Flat boulder
3.8 m;
3.8 m;
0.95 m
a
b
c
337 10 kg
Blm
363G
F KN
6.0 mTSU
H
24 mstorm
H
For these cases, Nott had calculated:
11.2 mTSU
H
173mstorm
H
1.7mTSU
H
6.8 mstorm
H
2.1m
TSUH
32 mstorm
H
3.5m
TSUH
13.8 mstorm
H
9.5mTSU
H
145mstorm
H
The following is given:
The term inert force ( mF ) has only a minor influence (5–15 %).
If the boulder is flat (case 3), then the contribution of the uplifting force LF is significantly
higher. For storm waves, where 0.51,and ( )u gHδ , it is calculated that wave heights
four times greater than for a tsunami are necessary in order to create an unstable situation
from the balance of momentums.
170
6.5 Approach based on the momentum force
6.5.1 Calculation of momentum force and friction force
In the following, momentum force is calculated in order to estimate vertical and horizontal
movement from the impact of a water mass hitting the front of the boulder.
Fig. 6.2: Forces acting at a boulder during wave impact.
FI (force of momentum), FR (force of friction), Fm (inertia force), FG (force of gravity).
Scenario 2: boulder is subaerially exposed or lies in shallow water
During the impact of a wave, water flow is not continuous, as assumed in Nott‘s approach
(see above). Rather, waves hit the boulder repeatedly in short time periods. Between these
strikes, during the phases of the wave troughs, the water withdraws so that the boulder is
at least partly exposed. This means that velocity is not constant as the wave strike is
sudden and non-stationary. For such cases, estimates can be made of the maximum
momentum force as the wave strikes the boulder. Further, some simplified assumptions
are made: (i) that the boulder is loosely positioned on a horizontal granular substratum; (ii)
that the boulder is being attacked by water with uniform velocity at its front face ― ac ‖;
(iii) that the water mass ( wm) is being deviated by the boulder perpendicularly. At the
moment of the wave strike, the momentum force ( IF) can be summarized with the
following equation:
171
2/I w wF m t acu uρ (12)
The equilibrium of forces 0F determines if movement of the boulder occurs. If the
momentum force is higher than the friction force ( RF), then a boulder lying loosely on the
substratum will be shifted. The friction force depends on the weight ( GF):
R GF Fμ (13)
The coefficient of friction is 0.6μ (tested with bulk materials) or 0.65 0.8μ
(concrete over gravel) (Oumeraci 2008).
2 2
I w w wF m u t u A acuρρ
G Bl BlF m g gabcρ
6.5.2 Estimation of the movement of subaerially exposed boulders
The velocity of a wave breaking at the coast depends on: wave type (deep or shallow
water wave, i.e. storm or tsunami wave), friction force (which diminishes velocity in the
shallow foreshore), friction force at the boulder as well as surface conditions, and the
gradient of the foreshore environment. Observations and calculations from the 2004
Indian Ocean Tsunami and the Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki Tsunami (Prakhammintara 2007;
Titov & Synolakis 1997) indicate a tsunami wave velocity of between 10 ms-1
and 20 ms-
1. Measurements derived from video documentation taken at Phuket during the 2004
Indian Ocean Tsunami indicates a velocity of only 8 ms-1
as the tsunami wave passed the
coastline (Kelletat et al., 2006). According to Dally (2005), extreme velocities of very
large waves in the open ocean of more than 70 to 80 kmh-1
(19.4–22.2 ms-1
) will be
reduced to about 35 % (6.8 –7.8 ms-1) on a slope with a gradient of 1:30. EurOtop (2007),
a manual for coastal engineering, gives maximum values of between 5 ms-1
and 8 ms-1
for
the overtopping velocity of a large wave. With the assumption of velocities of 8 ms-1
, 16
172
ms-1
and 20 ms-1
at the impact of the wave, the following can be calculated for the
abovementioned three boulders:
Assumption 1: Velocity of wave attack u 8ms-1
and 0.65μ
Table 6.2: Conditions for movement of boulders. It is only possible if forces of momentum are stronger than forces of friction.
(1) Very big boulder
6.6m; 6.3m; 2.2ma b c
2423GF KN
0.65 2423 1575RF KN
21000 6.6 2.2 8 930IF KN
I RF F
No movement
(2) Cube-like boulder
3.4m; 3.2m; 3.1ma b c
893GF KN
589RF KN
674IF KN
I RF F
Movement
(3) Flat boulder
3.8m; 3.8m; 0.95ma b c
363GF KN
236RF KN
231IF KN
I RF F
No movement
Result: With a velocity of u 8 ms-1
only the cube-like boulder can be moved due to its
large front face. In reality, the momentum forces are smaller than the ones given here,
which are calculated under idealized conditions. Due to the normally subangular shape of
boulders, water masses are not rotated through 90°. As such, the real momentum forces
will be smaller, probably by 30 % or more. According to observations (EurOtop 2007;
Dally 2005; Kelletat et al. 2006), storm waves at the coast with velocities higher than 8
ms-1
seldom occur; therefore, cube-like boulders weighing more than 80 t or flat boulders
weighing more than 30 t (with the calculated density) cannot be moved by momentum
forces caused by the impact of storm generated waves. Tsunami waves hitting the coast,
however, may have velocities of 16 ms-1
to 20 ms-1
(Prakhammintara 2007; Titov &
Synolakis 1997). In such cases, the momentum forces, which increase by the square of
velocity, are much higher. When u 16 ms-1
or 20 ms-1
, all three boulders are moved.
173
Assumption 2: Velocities of wave attack u 16 ms-1
and 20 ms-1
; 0.65μ
Table 6.3a: Relationship between wave velocity, forces of momentum and movement of boulders. High velocities and therefore high forces of momentum move even very large boulders.
(1) Very big boulder
6.6m; 6.3m; 2.2ma b c
116ms 3717I Ru F KN F
120ms 5808I Ru F KN F
Boulder moves in both cases.
(2) Cube-like boulder
3.4m; 3.2m; 3.1ma b c
2700I RF KN F
4216I RF KN F
Boulder moves in both cases.
(3) Flat boulder
3.8m; 3.8m; 0.95ma b c
924I RF KN F
1444I RF KN F
Boulder moves in both cases.
The acceleration of a boulder for a split second during a storm wave attack that moves it
along a horizontal surface can be calculated with the equilibrium of forces 0F .
I R m Bl BlF F F m a (14)
( )Bl I R Bla F F m (15)
Table 6.3b: At the moment of wave impact high acceleration occurs (which then decreases quickly).
Velocity
Boulder 1
Boulder 2
Boulder 3
116msu 23717 15758.67 ms
247Bla
22700 58923.2ms
91Bla
2924 23618.6ms
37Bla
120msu 217.1msBla
240msBla
232msBla
With velocities of 16 ms-1
and 20 ms-1
, it is remarkable how rapidly boulders weighing
many tons can be accelerated in a split second when struck by a wave. It is known from
measurements that this initial momentum rapidly decreases after 0.2 s because the boulder
starts to move with growing velocity (w ). Since the momentum force is calculated from
the difference between the velocities of water and boulder, it decreases.
174
2( )IF A u wρ (16)
Further, there is a need to derive an equation that calculates the minimum velocity
necessary for movement of boulders according to particular values of density, size and
friction. Since , ,ρ μ Blu f b
, and from the equilibrium of IFand RF
results in the
following equation:
0.5
Bl
w
u bgρ
μρ
(17)
For each value of density Blρ, coefficient of friction (μ ) and size of the boulder it is
possible to calculate the limit of velocity at which dislocation of boulders can begin.
6.5.3 Estimation of the way of transport by wave impact
Transport at a horizontal coast
In order to calculate the maximum distance that a subaerially exposed boulder lying on a
horizontal coast can be transported by the momentum force generated by a single wave
attack, the equations are:
220
ρρ μ μ
ρ I R m Bl Bl Bl Bl Bl
Bl
uF F F m a acu m g a g
b (18)
Due to the dependence on tw, the calculation should really be carried out with
infinitesimal calculus. To avoid such difficulty, calculations may be carried out using
finite time steps of 0.1 s each. For these steps, acceleration and velocity are calculated in
addition to the transport distance of a boulder on a flat surface without allowances for
special conditions of friction. This leads to the following results.
With a velocity u 12 ms-1
, the big boulder ( m 247 t) ceases movement after 2 s with a
maximum horizontal transport distance of X 2.3 m. If u 16 ms-1
, X 13 m after 3 s.
175
With a velocity u 10 ms-1
, the flat boulder ( m 37 t) ceases movement after 1 s with
X 1 m. If u 12 ms-1
, after 2 s, X 4 m; if u 16 ms-1
, X 10 m after 3 s.
These maximum displacement results are only of academic interest, because one may
argue that during long storms a lot of waves can move the boulders step by step.
Moreover, completely horizontal coasts are very rare and the velocities there are much
diminished by friction. Of interest are the results we get for coasts with inclines where the
boulders are uplifted so that following waves cannot push them higher step by step.
Transport over a coast with an incline
In the case of a coast with a gradient of 10 % (α = 5.7°), where the boulder is uplifted as
well as transported, the maximum transport distance can be estimated, using the following
equation:
cos cos sin 0I R m GF F F Fα α α (19)
2
sinBl
Bl
ua g
b
ρμ α
ρ
(20)
If velocity u 16 ms-1
, the big boulder ( m 247 t) will be transported within 1 s to a
distance of X 1.3 m and uplifted vertically by Y 0.13 m; within 2 s to X 3.6 m and
Y 0.36 m; and after 3 s it stops at X 6 m and Y 0.6 m.
It is important to understand that all of these results are only theoretically possible
maximum values, caused by the impact of a single wave. In reality, these calculated
distances will be much lower because the attacking mass of water will not be completely
perpendicularly deviated as there is a three-dimensional flow around the boulder, causing
the momentum force IF to be much smaller. In addition, velocity ( u ) also decreases
during the initial few (1–2) seconds after wave attack as the water flows all around the
boulder.
176
6.5.4 Predicting the movements of submerged boulders
If a boulder is submerged in shallow water at a depth which is nearly equal to its height, it
will probably be subaerially exposed during the trough phase of the wave. In situations
like this, the conditions are comparable to the cases discussed previously. However, if the
boulder is deeply submerged, additional problems arise. The impact of the wave will be
less than in the previous case, resulting in the flow regime being more complex as the
inertia of the mass of water around and behind the boulder must be overcome. Only the
reduction of weight due to the Archimedes force and the effect on the force of friction can
be calculated easily. Because movement is dependent on the density ( Blρ), results change
as follows:
(1) Boulders with a low density of Blρ 1.5 gcm
-3 will be moved by significantly lower
current velocities than in the case of subaerial exposure.
(2) If density Blρ 2.7 gcm
-3, only a slightly greater dislocation can be expected. For
example: If the big boulder ( m 247 t), with Blρ 2.7 gcm
-3, is submerged, then RF
991 KN instead of 1575 KN. Therefore, the boulder will not be moved by a wave velocity
of u 8 ms-1
, but will be moved by a wave velocity of u 12 ms-1
.
(3) If coral density Blρ 1.5 gcm
-3 is given, then RF
is reduced to 290 KN, and the
boulder will be moved somewhat.
For example:
Big boulder ( m 247 t), velocity at impact u 12 ms-1
, ac constant, 2.7 gcm-3
(granite), 1.5 gcm-3
(coral):
subaerial exposure submerged
density ( Blρ) 2.7 gcm
-3 1.5 gcm
-3 2.7 gcm
-3 1.5 gcm
-3
displacement (X ) 2.3 m 5.1 m 4.2 m 8 m
177
Submerged boulder movement is also difficult to calculate for another reason. While it is
possible to calculate the movement of a subaerial and even of a joint-bounded boulder
sitting horizontally (i.e. on a horizontal surface), this is not possible for a submerged
boulder as it has to be moved from below sea level to above sea level (i.e. against gravity).
In other words, no formerly submerged boulder now located on land could have been
transported without a significant lift. In addition, if a submerged boulder is not subaerially
exposed in the trough of the incoming wave or, if the boulder is situated at such a depth
that the seaward orbital movement in the wave base impacts the boulder with forces acting
in a seaward/downward direction, this would result in the submerged boulder being far
more difficult to move onshore (in contrast to subaerial and joint bounded boulders).
Estimates using the theorem of the conservation of energy:
E constant. The application of the theorem of the conservation of energy offers
another possibility of estimating transport methods of boulders. Because energy cannot be
created or destroyed but only transformed, for processes in fluid dynamics the sum of the
different fluid energies must be calculated as follows:
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) constantkin etic pot ential h eight tot alE E E E (21)
After the impact of the wave against a boulder the situation around the boulder changes to
a continuous flow: Once the boulder is submerged, velocity ( u ) becomes increasingly
constant. This is especially the case with tsunamis, where submersion results in the
condition of stationary flow because the water streams continuously inland for several
minutes. Estimates can be made of the amount of kinetic energy of this mass of floating
water. In order to simplify calculations, a constant velocity is assumed over the whole
time period (and only the energy of that mass of water is acting at the boulder, that passes
an area ― ac ‖.)
178
2 20.5 0.5kinE mu acutu ρ (22)
The kinetic energy is transformed into vertical energy (relevant to height) when the
boulder is uplifted for a height H . Further, it must also counteract the energy loss due to
friction since the boulder is transported along the beach at the same time.
force distanceh G w Hub Bl Bl w HubE F F H V gHρ ρ (23)
( )f riction R G w Bl Bl wE F X F F X V gXμ μ ρ ρ (24)
constant, kin h fE E E E (25)
30.5 ( ) ( ) ( ) 1sin
G w Hub G w G w HubAu t F F H F F X F F Hμ
ρ μα
(26)
sin HubH
Xα
30.5
1sin
Hub
G w
acu tH
F F
ρ
μ
α
(27)
Assuming a constant current lasting for 15 seconds and moving perpendicular to the coast
with a gradient of 1:10, the displacements shown in Table 6.4 occur.
Y
(HHub) α
X (transport
along the
gradient)
179
Table 6.4: Height of uplift and transport distance of boulders during a tsunami wave with constant speed, lasting 15 s, on a gradient of 1:10.
boulder weight wave
velocity
u = 8
ms-1
u = 12
ms-1
u = 16
ms-1
u = 20
ms-1
u = 25
ms-1
boulder 1
m = 247 t (H) 5 m 16 m 40 m 75 m 150 m
(X) 50 m 160 m 400 m 750 m 1.5 km
boulder 2
m = 91 t (H) 10 m 32 m 75 m 150 m 290 m
(X) 100 m 320 m 750 m 1.5 km 2.9 km
boulder 3
m = 37 t (H) 8 m 27 m 65 m 125 m 250 m
(X) 80 m 270 m 650 m 1.2 km 2.5 km
Once again it must be mentioned that these are theoretical maximum values for a one-
dimensional flow. A three-dimensional flow around the boulders reduces the net forces
acting upon the boulder. The same is true for the decreasing velocity ( u ). The real values
may be assumed to be roughly half (or less) of the given maximum. However, transport
distances are considerably different under tsunami wave conditions as compared to the
impacts triggered by a single storm wave.
180
6.6 Another approach to calculating the energy of single waves
and their effect on boulders
Oumeraci (2008) offers another approach for calculating the energy of the wave. This
equation calculates the energy of a wave using wave length (L ) and wave height (H ).
20.125waveE gH Lρ (28)
1: Energy per metreof wavefront kJmwaveE
As before, wave energy is transformed into vertical energy when the boulder is uplifted,
and used to overcome friction when the boulder is also transported.
( ) ( )h G w h Bi w hE F F H m m gH
( )f R G w Bl wE F X F F X m m gXμ μ
sin HubH
Xα
If the boulder is exposed subaerially, calculations must consider the full weight of the
mass Blm g
. If the boulder is submerged the force of reduced weight redm g
is needed,
where:
red Bl wm m m(masses always calculated per 1 m edge length)
20.125 1sin
red Hub red red HubgH L m gH m g s m gHμ
ρ μα
(29)
20.125
1sin
Hub
red
gH LH
m g
ρ
μ
α (30)
With this equation it is possible to calculate the maximum horizontal and vertical
displacements of boulders by wave energy for varying slope angles (α )
calculation wave heights and lengths must be known. They depend, among other factors,
181
on water depth (d ). When calculating wave velocities and wave lengths, a distinction
must be made between deep water and shallow water conditions (technically speaking the
ratio d L ). Deep water conditions are said to exist if 0.5d L and shallow water
conditions are said to exist if 0.05d L . Therefore, the transition area is 0.5 0.05L d L .
According to classical wave theory based on the pioneering work of Stokes, wave velocity
and wave length can be calculated as follows (see also Albring (1978) and Eck (1988,
1991)):
Transition area:
2tanh
2
Lg du
L
π
π
(31)
23 34
0
0
2tanh
dL L
L
π
(32)
Deep water:
0
2
gLu
π (33)
2
02
gTL
π / , wave periodT L u (34)
Shallow water: u gd
(35)
Due to extreme wave lengths of up to 500 km, tsunami waves in the open ocean are to be
regarded as shallow water waves. Their velocities can be calculated according to equation
(35) (cf. Albring, 1978). For example, if the water depth is 3000 m then u 173 ms-1
.
Close to the coast, Nott (2003) calculates with
0.52u gH
, apparently assuming H d .
Calculations for a subaerially exposed boulders
The following example uses a cube-like boulder (see Table 6.2):
3.4m; 3.2m; 3.1ma b c ) 391 10 kgBlm
Example 1: Wave height: 3 m, water depth: 3 m, time ( t ) = 6.5 s
182
12 9.81 66 2 3tanh tanh 105 0.28 5.37 ms
2 2 66
gL du
L
π π
π π
2
0 66m2
gTL
π
23 34
0
0
2tanh 34.1m
dL L
L
π
2 2 10.125 0.125 1000 9.81 3 34.1 376kJmwaveE gH L ρ
376
893 0.651 1
sin 3.4 sin
waveHub
Bl
EH
mg
a
μ
α α
Gradient of the coast
3 0.1mvertically(Y), and X = 2malong the gradientHubHα
10 0.3mvertically(Y), andX =1.7malong the gradientα HubH
Example 2: Wave height sH= 6 m, water depth d = 6 m, time ( t ) = 9 s
1 1 1
0 129m 67.4m u = 7.56ms 7.47ms 2975kJmcorrected waveL L u E
Gradient of the coast
3 0.8m(Y), and X =16mHubHα
10 2.4m(Y), and X =14mHubHα
Example 3: Data for the North Sea, after 17 hours of a storm with 46 kts winds in 66 m
deep water.
6m10.3m 215m 11.7s 88msH L T L
1 118.3ms 7.4m 11790kJmcorrected waveu u E
Gradient of the coast
3 3.3m(Y), and X = 64mHubHα
10 9.5m(Y), and X =50mHubHα
183
When a boulder is submerged, the values calculated are about 40% higher than those used
for subaerially exposed boulders (but compare remarks above for the submerged
situation). It must be emphasised that all these results are theoretical maximum values
which will never occur in nature. These calculations have been carried out as if the total
wave energy impacts the boulder, either directly during wave attack or as kinetic energy of
a velocity, resulting from a transformation without any energy loss in the zone where the
wave breaks. Reduction of flow velocity of more than 60 %, and hence energy losses
during the breaking of the waves, are reported by Dally (2005). The impact of the waves is
in any case strongly dependent on the bathymetry and the geometry of the beach face.
The statistics of the BSH (Federal Maritime Hydrographic Agency, Germany) show that
in the northern North Sea, wave heights sH> 8 m hardly ever occurred between 2004 and
2007. One example shows that after 18 hours of wind with a velocity of 40 kts and a water
depth of 55 m, maximum values were: wave height maxsH= 8.3 m, wave length L = 181 m,
velocity u 16.6 ms-1
. Near the coast with a water depth of 10 m, wave length decreased
to L = 102 m and therefore u 9.4 ms-1
. Without any loss, this wave energy could uplift
the given boulder for H = 3.3 m and transport it for a maximum of 50 m at a slope with a
gradient of α = 3°. But since the height of the boulder is 3.1 m, presumably less than 30 %
of the energy will impact it. Moreover, due to the three-dimensional water flow around the
boulder and the de facto energy loss, uplift will most probably be much lower. During the
storm surge of December 3rd, 1999, pressure sensors at the jetty of Helgoland measured a
wave-generated pressure increase of 250 to 350 hPa (Kunz, 2008). This implies velocities
of 8 –9 ms-1
and a wave length of about 100 m. At an altitude of 3 m above sea level the
sensor showed a rise to 700 hPa 0.2 seconds after wave attack, and after another 0.2
184
seconds, a fall to 300 hPa which then remained constant for about 3 seconds. With that
energy, the maximum uplift for the given boulder would be 2 m.
6.7 Conclusion
The study of the relationships between waves and dislocation of boulders led to the
following assessment:
Calculations should differentiate between the very short impact of a storm wave and
the subsequent flow regime with steady constant velocity.
In a split second, the impact of a wave triggers a huge momentum force which
accelerates the boulders. For a subaerially exposed boulder weighing 90 t this only
occurs if wave velocities exceed 10–12 ms-1
.
Storm waves with heights of 3–6 m and, therefore, a velocity of less than 9 ms-1
, do
not have the necessary force to uplift a 90 t cube-like boulder lying in 3–6 m deep
water vertically by 1 m.
Storm waves with heights of 10 m in deep water are extremely rare; however, they
can theoretically uplift boulders of 90 t that are lying subaerially up to 9 m vertically
and dislocate them inland for 50 m, or boulders of 250 t up to 0.6 m vertically and 6 m
inland. In reality, the values are rather close to 0 m due to the energy loss by friction
and due to the three-dimensional flow regime.
If the boulder is submerged and a constant flow velocity occurs over a long enough
time period, the hydraulic forces DF and LF can develop adding to the dislocation of
the boulder. However, since extreme wave lengths of storm waves are usually not
longer than 100–150 m, the wave period will typically be shorter than 10–12 s. Half
of the time of the wave period (this is the time of forward current) is not sufficient
185
time for the development of a uniform flow velocity and hence for continuous forces
DF and LF to develop.
As previously mentioned, the fact that the boulder is normally below sea level does
not mean that it is completely submerged when the wave hits. This is due to the
withdrawal of the water before the wave hits. If submergence is limited (i.e. in
shallow water), the boulder will be moved in a subaerial context; however, if it is
submerged in deeper water and will not be exposed by the water withdrawal in front
of the wave, it will be positioned in the depth of the wave trough where water
movement is directed seaward and downward because of the orbital tracks, and
landward movement by storm waves may be impossible to achieve.
Cube-shaped boulders are more readily moved than other forms.
The energy required to uplift a boulder for 2 m is nearly the same as is required to
transport the same boulder horizontally for 20 m.
Under constant conditions of friction the doubling of a slope angle against which a
boulder will be moved needs approximately 20% extra energy
The friction for movements on loose pebbles or gravel is much easier to calculate than
friction conditions on rough rocky slopes because of the many irregularities of such
terrain
When comparing storm and tsunami waves, there are many differences that need to be
taken into consideration
Tsunami water massed flow with nearly constant velocity towards the shore whereas
storm waves ebb and flow
Tsunami waves have much greater wave lengths and velocities at the coast than storm
waves (velocities of 16 ms-1
, 20 ms-1
or even more are reported (Titov & Synolakis
1997, Prakhammintara 2007). Thus, the energy stored in a tsunami wave is many
186
times higher than that in a storm wave, and as such, high kinetic energies can develop.
Thus, tsunami waves are theoretically able to uplift big boulders for more than 70–
150 m and transport them for more than 3 km inland. In reality, uplift heights may
reach about 30–70 m with transport distances exceeding 1 km.
This study aimed to estimate – with simplified mathematical tools – the extent of vertical
and horizontal displacements of big boulders. There is a remarkable difference between
the potential uplift and horizontal movement for storm waves and tsunami waves. The
results are maximum values only, mostly calculated under the assumption of a one-
dimensional stationary flow, without considering any energy loss. In reality, fluid
processes are much more complex and as such, they can only be deciphered numerically
by calculations with computational fluid dynamics models. In this context, the excellent
work by Imamura et al. (2008) must be mentioned as their attempts at finding a solution is
significantly closer to reality than anything that precedes it. Their approach integrates
different methods of transport, including the possibility of saltatory movements of the
boulder, by using a variable and time-dependent coefficient of friction.
6.8 Appendix: Register of mathematical symbols
, ,D L rF F F only in eq (1) are momentums (as at Nott‘s paper)
mF Inertia force mC
mass coefficient
DF Drag force
D dC C coefficient of drag
LF Lift force
L lC C coefficient of lift
RF Friction force μ coefficient of friction
G rF F Force of gravity g gravitational constant
187
AF archimedic uplift force stormH
height of storm wave
IF force of momentum or impact TSUH
height of Tsunami wave
, ,a b c 3 dimensions of boulder waveE energy of a wave
BlV Volume of the boulder hE
energy of height
Blm mass of the boulder kinE
kinetic energy
,ρ ρBl s density of the boulder fE energy of friction
,ρ ρw density of water potE potential energy
wm mass of water
HubY H vertical transport of boulder
u speed of water flow X transport distance along the shore
w speed of moving boulder α gradient of the shore
ü instant. flow acceleration L length of a wave
αBl acceleration of boulder 0L length of wave in deep water
H height of a wave d depth of water
T wave period correctedu correction for transition area of water depth
FDM momentum caused by drag force
FLM momentum caused by lift force
FmM momentum caused by inertia force
FrM momentum caused by restraining force
r GF F Fr = FG
188
Chapter 7: Concluding discussion
7.1 Introduction
It is surprising that the knowledge and experience of coastal engineers, who are
responsible for protection works against strong waves, and whose understanding is based
upon centuries of practical experience, have not been utilised more by the coastal sciences.
With regard to the dislocation of large clasts (both natural and artificial ones), much useful
knowledge could have been used as a basis for a worldwide catalogue of the wave forces
and flow energy of tsunamis. There is also an anomalous lack of observations of pre- and
post-event situations regarding boulder movement by storm waves. This is despite the fact
that many strong winter storms with high, long-period waves and surges meters tall occur
regularly in the higher latitudes annually, with numerous tropical cyclones (hurricanes and
typhoons) occurring in the lower latitudes. Reports on changes to the natural environment
caused by these events are rather rare while those concerning their impact on coastal
infrastructure are numerous. In modern times thousands of picture and video/movie
documents have been made which provide objective presentations of the results of
extreme wave events. This is a fantastic database, but in relation to the question of large
boulder transport (that is boulders of 10 m³, >20 ton) this database contains very little
information. Many educated people, geoscientists and environmentalists, are well trained
observers of these processes but so far have not contributed to our knowledge of boulder
transport to any significant extent. Their contribution is limited to a few articles providing
quantitative data to the boulder transport problem – almost all without exact
189
measurements. However, despite this lack of data, hundreds of papers still maintain that
the largest boulders known have been moved by storm waves alone.
In contrast, observations and proofs for boulder dislocation by modern and old tsunamis
are more numerous. Any objective assessment of the literature would conclude that even
the strongest storms do not normally move large boulders. Unfortunately, the task forces
established to identify the changes caused by recent strong tsunamis – consisting of
geologists and sedimentologists – have focussed exclusively upon traditional fine-
sediment distribution and setting character. The conventional view has been that for fine
sediments, a large range of transport methods and terms exists, and that by examining the
character and inner structure of fine sediments, the processes involved in their transport
and the energies released, can be detected and analysed. As the ongoing debate on the
character and discrimination of storm and tsunami deposits has shown, this is not the case.
General statements published since the beginning of the 1990s which claim to specify
which characteristics of fine sediments conclusively point to particular modes of transport,
have been shown to be erroneous (see Shiki et al., 2008).
7.2 Source of boulders
Large clasts or boulders have been excluded from coastal research and transport
interpretation because they generally lack a stratigraphic context, which makes it difficult
to judge the time of dislocation and other circumstances of their movement. Nevertheless,
the origin of large clasts and boulders is in most cases clear. Some of them come from
glacial drifts, rock falls, or down-slope creeping and some are remnants of former high
reliefs. If we exclude all these, we can be reasonably sure that in nearly all remaining
190
cases they were transported inland by the sea. In particular this is the case in flat coastal
environments and coral reef terraces, especially where the boulder material itself has
additional indicators such as marine borings or the attachment of littoral organisms and/or
their signatures (including calcareous algae, vermetids, tube worms, barnacles, sea urchin
perforation and sponge borings). These indicators can in most cases be used to date the
last transport process out of the marine or littoral environment as the death of these
organisms brings the radiocarbon clock to stop, allowing accurate measurement.
7.3 Problems of modelling
The transport processes of fine sediments in swash, waves or tsunami flow can be tested in
the laboratory by experiments restricted to either saltation or movement in suspension,
which is possible with slow water movements of less than 2 metres/sec. Understanding the
transport processes of boulders, however, is much more complicated, and requires a higher
number of variables to be taken into account. It also is extremely difficult to construct or
model tsunami transport because it involves long-lasting flows of high velocities. Many
attempts have been made using small-scale models. So far, good results have been
obtained regarding wave movements, refraction, deformation and velocity as influenced
by bathymetry and coastal topography. Models for tsunami-approach towards an existing
coastline, however, lack the most important basic data, which is bathymetry. Charts
mostly show bathymetry up to the 10m-isobath, where larger ships can navigate, but they
almost never show bathymetry closer to the shore in shallow water. Bathymetric
conditions are critical for predicting inundation, run-up and flow velocity – parameters
which affect natural coastal features, infrastructure and life along the coastlines.
191
For short journeys of boulder fragments it may be acceptable to use calculations with
fixed assumptions about the basic constants affecting transport. However, as conditions
may vary more over longer distances, all assumptions regarding parameters are certainly
over-simplified. As with most models As with most models which involve a large number
of variables (or which fail to consider enough variables) over-simplification leads to
results which may differ widely from actual processes. This is certainly true for boulder
transport modelling. In addition to these problems, wave movements can be replicated in a
laboratory but tsunami flows cannot, as the parameters cannot be reduced to approximate
natural conditions at these small scales. Also, whereas physical conditions of wave
movements are rather well analysed in nature and the laboratory, those during tsunami
flows are not widely known. This is due to a of lack of direct observations, and therefore a
lack of experience of all possible situations.
7.4 Questions of boulder size and density
Besides the important question of boulder volume – which may be difficult to calculate in
the case of a significant sculpting without three-dimensional laser scanning – the
estimation of boulder mass needs several more steps during field work. Large boulders
cannot be transported to the lab for automatic detection and most coastal boulders consist
of unhomogenous rock (such as reef rock from a Pleistocene coral reef). The only way to
calculate mass accurately is to find out the constituents of the boulder and their quantities
as a percentage of volume. The combined density of all of these constituents may then be
determined via Archimedean principles. Values ranging from less than 2.0 to more than
2.5 g/cm³ are typical. Of course the question arises whether it is important to know the
exact weight of a boulder which evidently has a volume of far more than 50 m³ and
192
therefore a weight of more than 100 tons. When found at a higher altitude (say 200 metres
from the coastline), these figures alone exclude any transport by storm waves, whether
density is low (1.8 g/cm³), or high (2.6 g/cm³).
7.5 Boulder forms
Even the simple form of a boulder itself presents several unsolved problems – is it a cube,
cuboid or a plate (angular or spherical)? The three different geometrical forms alone
dramatically influence the transport physics – even for boulders of identical volume and
mass. Some scientists argue that a platy boulder (z-axis very short against a-axis) needs
the highest energy to dislocate, while others claim, based on observation, that these forms
may be lifted more easily by overflow, in a manner akin to the upward pressure on the
wing of an aircraft.
7.6 Transportation mode
Apart from a boulder‘s form, its setting and mode of transport play a significant role. Is
the surface rough, smooth, solid or flexible? Is the movement upwards, oblique or
horizontal?. These factors are only significant if the boulder is pushed forward scratching
the surface, or if it is rolling with ongoing contact with the substrate. In most models and
calculations pre-set theoretical numbers, or numbers experimentally determined from a
long run of experiments, are used. These figures, however, are much less important if a
boulder is saltating, or transported above-ground in a rapidly moving swash of water. The
latter conditions have only been considered in the last few years, although evidence exists
of large boulders being broken into fragments by being smashed down repeatedly during
transport.
193
7.7 Gaps in the knowledge about important parameters
For tsunami transport and water movement models we lack other types of information that
are important for calculating wave height, flow depth, inundation and transport energy.
They are: near-shore sea bed bathymetry and form, sediment type, suspension load (flow
or wave). It is apparent that much more information is needed to precisely calculate what
happens within a tsunami flow and during boulder transport by a tsunami.
7.8 The need for integrative solutions
It may be possible to overcome the above problems by adopting a large-scale concerted
multidisciplinary approach Ideally, modellers and physicists as well as field geographers
and geologist should work together and contribute their exact observations, measurements
and facts. This would improve calculations, and the formulation of theoretical
explanations and solutions to problems. Of equal importance is the need for ―pure‖
scientists to take into account the practical experience and modelling results of coastal
engineers, based on hundreds of years of expertise all over the world and in every natural
setting. Unfortunately this has not been the case so far.
Schools which favour different methods compete with each other rather than work
together. Inductive conclusions following objective field data are regarded as being of
minor importance compared to so-called exact physics and mathematics and the models
based on them. Too often, the result is that important field observations are neglected for
many years before they are taken into consideration in the development of theoretical
analyses. To ameliorate this problem, field workers like Anja Scheffers have introduced a
new series of ―International Tsunami Field Symposia‖. These were begun in 2006 on
194
Bonaire in the Caribbean), and continued in 2008 in southern Italy and western Greece.
Symposia will be held in Japan in 2010 and in Hawaii in 2012. These meetings of
scientists working with different methods and in different settings (field, computer, and
laboratory) bring all ―schools‖ and methodologies into contact with each other to discuss
all relevant problems. Additionally, historical accounts of displacement events can help
clarify what caused large boulders to be displaced can help to clarify what happened when
large boulders were displaced. We make further progress in this direction by using not
only scientific reports but also old myths and legends about extreme events on coastlines
around the world. In some cases an interpretation (as to whether the accounts were of
storms or tsunamis) has been possible or plausible, and in some cases it has been possible
to deduce dates for singular events which occurred thousands of years ago.
7.9 New interpretations of old data
The above outline may sound rather pessimistic regarding the likely time frame for finding
solutions to the main problems of boulder transport by forces from the ocean. However
there is hope if one accepts that traces of tsunamis from former times may be detected in
sediments. An example is the discovery in 1987 of the Storegga Slide in the North Sea
between Norway and Scotland. The Storegga Slide triggered an enormous tsunami about
8000 years ago. Another example is that since the year 2000 a growing number of sites are
being discovered worldwide with large and therefore possibly tsunamigenic boulders
onshore. As a result more scientists are looking to their old data and sediment archives to
test for a tsunamigenic origin. Geo-archaeologists now include tsunamis in their
reconstructions of former coastal environments as another possible explanation landscape
transformation. Every year new sites with palaeo-tsunami evidence are found. The 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami catastrophe with over 225,000 fatalities certainly triggered an
195
interest in tsunami research in general and coastal risk analysis in particular. This has
improved the chances of financing tsunami research and has increased the opportunities
for international collaboration and exchange of data. Since the 2004 event, old sites about
which researchers have had disputed interpretations have been investigated again with at
least 50 new sites of palaeo-tsunamis detected worldwide.
7.10 Desiderata for future research on the boulder transport
problem
The overall aim when studying sediment transport at the shoreline must be to find the
threshold and capability of storm waves to transport boulders of certain sizes. In some
cases it will not be clear whether boulders were transported by storm waves or tsunamis,
although my wish is that elaboration of approximate figures of boulder size for practical
use in field geology and geomorphology may be developed. Future research on tsunami or
palaeo-tsunami deposits should incorporate all sizes of sediments (including boulders).
Task forces which aim to inspect modern tsunami sites should also use the boulders
transported to draw conclusions about wave energy (flow depth, flow velocity, suspension
load etc.). Engineers may help to identify the energy necessary to destroy artificial
structures at different altitudes and distances from the shoreline. Only by using an
approach which draws on multiple sources of information will we be better able to answer
the open questions of tsunami and palaeo-tsunami research – including a more precise risk
calculation for onshore structures and a more secure base for protection measures. As a
final statement I would like to express my conviction that the problems of boulder
transport by storm waves or tsunami flow in nature have not been finally resolved – only
that significant steps have been achieved to combine physics and mathematics to closer
model the natural conditions.
196
Appendix A: References focussing on the Indian Ocean
Tsunami, 26.12.2004
Ammon, J.C.Ji, C., Thio, H., Robinson, D. Ni., S., Hjortleifsdottir, V., Kanamori, H., Lay, T., Das,
S., Helmbeger, D., Ichinose, G., Polet, J. & Wald, D. (2005): Rupture process of the 2004
Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. – Science, 308: 1133-1139.
Anandan, C. and Sasidhar, P. (2008): Assement of the impact of the tsunami of December 26,
2004 on the near-shore bathymetry of the Kalpakkam coast, east coast of India. - Science of
Tsunami Hazards 27,4: 26-35.
Bahlburg, H. & Weiss, R. (2006): Sedimentology of the December 26, 2004, Sumatra tsunami
deposits in eastern India (Tamil Nadu) and Kenya. – Intern. Journ. Earth Science 96 (6): 1195-
1209.
Baird, A.H., Campbell, S, Anggoro, A.W., Fadli, N, Herdiana, Y, Katawijaya, T, Legawa, R,
Mahyiddin, A, Mukminin, A, Pratchett, M.S., Rudi, E, Siregar, A.M., Trilestari, S, 2005,
Acehnese reefs in the wake of the Asian tsunami: Current Biology, v. 15, p. 1926-1930.
Bapat, A. & Murty, T. (2007): Field Survey of the December 26, 2004 Tsunami at Kanyakumana.
– Science of Tsunami Hazards 27, 3: 73-…
Benzoni, F., Basso, D., Giaccone, T., Pessani, D., Capelletti, F.S., Leonardi, R., Galli, P.,
Choowong, M., di Geronimo, S. & Robba, E. (2006): Post-tsunami condition of a local coral
reef in Leam Pakarang (Andaman Sea, Thailand). – Int. Soc. Reef Studies European Meeting,
Bremen, Germany: 194.
Bishop, P., Sanderson, D., Hansom, J. & Chaimanee, N. (2005): Age-dating of tsunami deposits:
lessons from the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Thailand. – The Geogr. Journal, 171 (4): 379-
384.
Bondevik, S. (2008): The sands of tsunami time. – Nature, 455:1183-1184.
Borrero, J.C. (2005 a): Field data and satellite imagery of tsunami effects in Banda Aceh. –
Science 308: 1596.
197
Borrero, J.C. (2005 b): Field Survey of northern Sumatra and Banda Aceh, Indonesia and after the
Tsunami and Earthquake of 26 December 2004. – Seismol. Res. Letters 76(3): 309-317.
Borrero, J. (2005 c): The Great Sumatra Earthquake and Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 26,
2004. Field Survey of Northern Sumatra. Report #2 EERI Special Earthquake Report, March
2005.
Borrero, J.C., Synolakis, C.E. & Fritz, H. (2006): Northern Sumatra field survey after the
December 2004 Great Sumatra earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra
22 (S3):S3-S19.
Brown, BE, 2005, The fate of coral reefs in the Andaman Sea, eastern Indian Ocean following the
Sumatra earthquake and tsunami, 26 December 2004: The Geographical Journal, v. 171, p.
369-386.
Chadha, R.K., Latha, G., Yeh, H., Peterson, C. & Katada, T. (2005): The tsunami of the great
Sumatra earthquake of M 9.0 on 26 December 2004 – Impact on the east coast of India. –
Current Science, 88: 1297-1301.
Chavanich, S., Siripong, A., Sojisuporn, P. & Menasveta, P. (2005): Impact of tsunami on the
seafloor and corals in Thailand. – Coral Reefs, 24 (4): 353.
Cho, Y.-S., Lakshumanan, C, Choi, B.-H & Ha, T.-M. (2008): Observations of Run-Up and
Inundation Levels from the Teletsunami in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands: A Field Report.
– Journal of Coastal Research, 24(1): 216-223.
Choi, B.H. (o.J.): Analysis and modeling of the distribution functions of runup heights of the
December 26, 2004 earthquake tsunami in the Indian Ocean. –
http://wave.skku.ac.kr/tsunami_survey_data/KEERC.report.pdf).
Choi, B.H., Hong, S.J. & Pelinovski, E. (2006): Distribution of runup heights of the December 26,
2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Geophys. Res. Letters, 33: L13601.
Choowong, M. (2005): December 26, 2004 Tsaunami Sediments Study from Andaman coast:
Applications and Analysis. – Regional Symposium on the 2004 Tsunami Event, 21-22
November 2005, Bangkok, Extended Abstract, 4 pp.
198
Choowong, M. (2006): 2004 Tsunami Event. Geological Guide Book from the Andaman Coast
southern Thailand. – Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University,
Bangkok, Thailand: 24 pp.
Choowong, M., Charusiri, P., Murakoshi, N. Hisada, K. Daorerk, V. Charoentitirat, T.,
Chutokosikanon, V., Jankaew, K., & Kanjanakayont, P. (2005): Initial report on tsunami
deposits from Phuket and adjacent areas of Thailand induced by Sumatra earthquake of 26
December 2004. – Journal Geol. Soc. Japan, 111, No. 7: XVII-XVIII.
Choowong, M., Charusiri, P., Charoentitirat, T., Chutakositkanon, V., Jankaew, K. &
Kanjanapayont, P. (2005): 26 December 2004 tsunami sediments from the Andaman coast of
Thailand: Preliminary analysis and interpretation. – Intern. Conference on Geology,
Geotechnology and Mineral Resources of Indochina, 28-30 Nov. 2005, Khon Kaen, Thailand:
540-541.
Choowong, M., Murakoshi, N., Hisada, K., Charusiri, P., Doarerk, V., Charoentitirat, T.,
Chutakositkanon, V., Jankaew, K. & Kanjanapayont, P. (2007): Erosion and Deposition by the
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Phuket and Phang-nga Provinces, Thailand. – Journal of
Coastal Research, 23 (5): 1270-1276.
Choowong, M., Murakoshi, N., Hisida, K., Chaoentitirat, T., Charusiri, P., Phantuwongraj, S.,
Wongkok, P., Choowong, A., Subsayjun, R., Chutakositkanon, V., Jankaew, K. &
Kanjanapayont, P. (2008): Flow conditions of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand,
inferred from capping bedforms and sedimentary structures. – Terra Nova, 20: 141-1149.
Choowong, M., Murakoshi, N., Hisida, K., Charusiri, P., Chaoentitirat, T., Chutakositkanon, V.,
Jankaew, K., Kanjanapayont, P. & Phantuwongraj, S. (2008): 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
inflow and outflow at Phuket, Thailand. – Marine Geology, 248: 179-192.
Choowong, M., Phantuwongraj, S., Charoentitirat, T., Chutakositkanon, V., Yumuang, S. &
Charusiri, P. (2008): Beach recovery after 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami from Phang-nga,
Thailand. – Geomorphology, doi:101016/j.geomorph.2008.08.007.
Cochard, R., Ranamukhaarachchi, S.L., Shivakoti, G.P., Shipin, O.V., Edwards, P.J., & seeland,
K.T. (2008): The 2004 tsunami in Aceh and Southern Thailand: A review on coastal
199
ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. – Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and
Systematics, 10 (1): 3-40.
Cummins, P. & Leonard, M. (2005): The Boxing Day 2004 tsunami – a repeat of 1833? –
Geoscience Australia, AUSGEO news, Issue 77.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Jayatissa, L.P., Di Nitto, D., Bosire, J.O., Lo Seen, D. & Koedam, N. (2005):
How effective are mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami? – Current Biology, 15
(12):443-447.
Danielsen, F., Sorensen, M.K., Olwig, M.F., Selvam, V., Parish, F. Burgess, N.D., Hiralshi, T.,
Karunagaran, V.M., Rasmussen, M.S., Hansen, L.B., Quarto, A. & Suriyadiputra, N. (2005):
The Asian tsunami: a protective role for coastal vegetation. – Science, 310: 643.
De Silva, M.P. (2006): Impacts on Coastal Ecosystems with Special reference to Vegetation in the
Hambantota District. – In: Domroes, M. (ed., 2006): After the Tsunami. Relief and
Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka. – Mosaic Books, New Delhi: 155-164.
Domroes, M. (ed., 2006): After the Tsunami. Relief and Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka. – Mosaic
Books, New Delhi, 222pp.
Domroes, M. (2006): The Tsunami Catastrophe in Sri Lanka – Its Dimensions, Relief and
Rehabilitation. – In: Domroes, M. (ed.): After the Tsunami. Relief and Rehabilitation in Sri
Lanka. – Mosaic Books, New Delhi: 1-34.
Doocy, S., Rofi, A., Moodie, C., Spring, E., Bradley, S., Burnhama, G. & Robinson, C. (2007):
Tsunami mortality in Aceh Province, Indonesia. – Bull World Health Organization, 85: 273-
278.
Edirisinghe, G. (2006): Observations on the Impact of the Tsunami on the Environment in the
Matara District. – In: Domroes, M. (ed., 2006): After the Tsunami. Relief and Rehabilitation
in Sri Lanka. – Mosaic Books, New Delhi: 165-169.
Fagherazzi, S. & Du, X. (2008): Tsunamigenic incisions produced by the December 2004
earthquake along the coasts of Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. – Geomorphology, 99:120-
129.
200
Fernando, H.J.S., McCulley, J.L., Mendis, S.G. & Perera, K. (2005): Coral poaching worsens
tsunami destruction in Sri Lanka. – EOS 86: 301-304.
Fine, I.V., Rabinovich, A.B. & Thomson, R.E. (2005): The dual source region for the 2004
Sumatra tsunami. – Geophys. Research Letters, 32: L 16602.
Foster, R., Hagan, A., Perera, N., Gunavan, C.A. et al. (2005): Tsunami and earthquake damage to
coral reefs of Aceh, Indonesia. – Reef Check Foundation, Pacific Palisades, California, USA,
85 pp.
Fritz, H.M. & Borrero, J.C. (2006): Somalia Field Survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra 22 (S3).
Fritz, H., Borrero, J., Synolakis, C. & Yoo, J. (2006): 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami flow velocity
measurements from survivor videos. – Geophys. Res. Letters, 33: L24605,
doi:10.1029/2006GL026784.
Fritz, H.M., Synolakis, C.E. & McAdoo, B.G. (2006): Maldives field survey after the December
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra, 22 (S3).
Fuchs, H.-J. (2006): Tsunami – A Global Review of Past and Present Occurences. – In: Domroes,
M. (ed.,): After the Tsunami. Relief and Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka. – Mosaic Books, New
Delhi: 34-60.
Fujino, S., Naruse, H., Suphawajruksakul, A., Jarupongsakui, T., Murayama, M. & Ichihara, T.
(2008): Thickness and Grain –Size Distribution of Indian Ocean Tsunami Deposits at Khao
Lak and Phra Thong island, South-western Thailand. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. &
Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. – Elsevier: 123-132.
Galapatti, J., Epitawatta, S. & Samarakoon, R.J.I. (eds.): Damage to coastal ecosystems and
associated terrestrial environments in Sri Lanka by the tsunami of 26th December 2004.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and UN Environment Program, Colombo, Sri
Lanka, Final Report: 1-57.
Gandhi, M.S., Solai, A. & Mohan, S.P. (2007): Benthic foraminifera and its environmental
degradation studies between the tsunamigenic sediments of Mandapam and Tuticorn, South
East coast of India. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 26 (2): 115-139.
201
Gelfenbaum, G., Jaffe, B., Morton, R. & Moore, A. (2008): Variations in tsunami deposit
thickness: the role of pre-existing topography. GI² S Coast Research Publication, 6: 39-40.
Gelfenbaum, G., Vatvani, D., Jaffe, B. & Dekker, F. (2007): Tsunami inundation and sediment
transport in vicinity of coastal mangrove forest. – Proc. Coastal Sediments 07 May 2007, New
Orleans, LA: 1117-1128.
Ghoborah, A., Saatcioglu, M. & Nistor, I. (2006): The impact of the 26 December earthquake and
tsunami on structures and infrastructure. – Engineering Structures, 28: 312-326.
Gibbons, H. & Gelfenbaum, G. (2005): Astonishing wave heigth among the findings of an
international tsunami Survey Team on Sumatra. Sound Waves, March 2005.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2005/03/.
Goff, J., Liu, P.L.-H., Higman, B., Morton, R., Jaffe, B.E., Fernando, H., Lynett, P., Fritz, H.,
Synolakis, C. & Fernando, S. (2006): Sri Lanka Field Survey after the December 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra, 22: 155-172.
Goto, K., Chavanich, S.A., Imamura, F., Kunthasap, P., Matsui, T., Minoura, K., Sugawara, D. &
Yanagisawa, H. (2007): Distribution, origin and transport process of boulders deposited by the
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami at Pakarang Cape, Thailand. – Sedimentary Geology, 202: 821-
837.
Goto, K., Imamura, F., Keerthi, N., Kunthsasap, P., Natsui, T., Minoura, K., Ruangrassamee, A.,
Sugawara, D. & Suphraratid, S. (2008): Distribution and Significance of the 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami Deposits: Initial Results from Thailand and Sri Lanka. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji,
Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds., 2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. –
Elsevier: 105-122.
Greenhough, B., Jazel, T. & Massey, D. (2005): Introduction: geographical encounters with the
Indian Ocean tsunami. – In: The Indian Ocean tsunami: geographical commentaries one year
on. – The Geogr. Journal, 171 (4): 369-371
Gunatillake, D. (2007): The 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka: destruction and recovery. – Geography,
92(3): 285-293
202
Hawkes, A., Bird, M., Cowie, S., Grundy-Warr, C., Horton, B.P., Shau Hwai, A.T., Law, L.,
Mcgregor, C., Nott, J., Eong Gong, J., Rigtg, J., Robinson, R., Tan-Mullins, M., Tiong Sa, T.,
Yasin, Z. & Wan Aik L. (2007): Sediments deposited by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami along
the Malaysia-Thailand Peninsula. – Marine Geology, 242: 169-190.
Hawkes, A.D. & Horton, B.P. (2008): 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami sediment characteristics along
the Malaysia-Thailand Peninsula. – Research on Tsunami Deposits II: Posters, T43B-02.
Hori, K., Kuzumoto, R., Hirouchi, D., Umitsu, M., Janjirawattikul, N. & Patanakoanog, B. (2007):
Horizontal and vertical variation of 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami deposits: an example of two
transects from the western coast of Thailand. – Marine Geology, 239: 163-172.
Huntington, K., Bourgeois, J., Gelfenbaum, G., Lynett, P., Yeh, H., Jaffe, B. & Weiss, R. (2007):
Sandy signs of a tsunami´s onshore depth and speed. – EOS, Transactions Amer. Geophys.
Union, 88 (52): 577-578.
ICMAM (Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management)(2005): Preliminary Assessment of
Impact of Tsunami in Selected Coastal Areas of India. – Chennai, India: Department of Ocean
Development. Post Tsunami Field Report.
Inoue, S., Wijeyewickrema, A.C., Matsumoto, H., Madurapperuma, M. & Sekiguchi, T. (2007):
Field Survey of Tsunami Effects in Sri Lanka due to the Sumatra-Andaman Earthquake of
December 26, 2004. – Pure and Applied Geophysics, 164 (2-3): 395-411.
Ioualalen, M., Asavanant, J., Kaewbanjak, N., Grille, S.T., Kirby, J.T. & Watts, P. (2007):
Modeling the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: case study of impact in Thailand. –
Journ. Geophys. Res. Oceans, 112 (C7): C07024.
Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H. & Vidal, J.E. (2005): Extent, duration and speed of the 2004
Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. – Nature 435: 933-936.
Jackson, L.E., Barrie, J.V., Forbes, D.L., Shaw, J., Manson, G.K. & Schmidt, M. (2005): Effects
of the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in the Republic of Seychelles. Report of the
Canada-UNESCO Indian Ocean Tsunami Expedition, 19 January-5 February 2005, Geol.
Survey of Canada, Open File 4539.
203
Jaffe, B.E., Borrero, J.C., Prasetya, G.S., Dengler, L., Gelfenbaum, G. Hidayat, R., Higman, B.,
Kingsley, E., Lukiyanto Mc Adoo, B., Moore, A., Morton, R., Peters, R., Ruggiero, P., Titov,
V., Kongko, W. & Yulianto, E. (2006): The December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in
Northwest Sumatra and Offshore Islands. – Earthquake Spectra, 22, S3: S105-S136.
Jaffe, B.E., Borrero, J.C., Prasetya, G.S., Peters, R., McAdoo, B., Gelfenbaum, G., Morton, R.,
Ruggiero, P., Bretwood, H., Dengler, L., Hidayat, R., Kingsley, E., Kongko, W., Lukijanto,,
Moore, A., Titov, V.V. & Yulianto, E. (2006): Northwest Sumatra and offshore islands field
survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra 22 (S 3).
Jaffe, B.E. & Gelfenbaum, G. (2007): A simple model for calculating tsunami flow speed from
tsunami deposits. – Sedimentary Geology, 200: 347-361.
Jankaew, K., Choowong, M., Charoentitirat, T. et al. (2007): A pre-2004 tsunami deposit in
Thailand. – EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 88: 23.
Jankaew, K., Atwater, B.F., Sawai, Y., Choowong, M., Charoentitirat, T., Martin, M.E. &
Prendergast, A. (2008): Medieval forewarning of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Thailand.
– Nature, 455: 1228-1231.
Jayakumar, S., Ilangovan, D., Naik, K.A., Gowthaman, R., Tirodkar, G., Naik, G.N., Ganeshan, P.,
Mani Murali, R., Michael, G.S., Ramana, M.V. & Bhattacharya, G.C. (2005): Run-up and
inundation limits along southeast coast of India during the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami. – Current Science, 88: 1741.
Kamataki, T. & Nishimura, Y. (2005): Field survey of the 2004 off-Sumatra earthquake tsunami
around Banda Aceh, northern Sumatra, Indonesia. – Journal of Geology, 114: 78-82.
Karima, M.F., Royb, G.D., Ismaila, A.I.M. & Meaha, M.A. (2007): A shallow water model for
computing tsunami along the west coast of peninsula Malaysia and Thailand using boundary –
fitted curvilinear grids. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 26 (1): 21-41.
Kathiresan, K. & Rajendran, N. (2005): Coastal mangrove forests mitigate tsunami. – Estuarine,
Coastal and Shelf Science, 65: 601-606.
204
Kathriresan, K. & Rajendran, N. (2006): Reply to ―comments on Kerr et al. on ―Coastal mangrove
forests mitigated tsunami (Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 65, 2005: 601-606. – Estuar., Coast. and
Shelf Science, 67: 542.
Keating, B., Helsley, C., Wafreed, Z. & Dominey-Howes, D. (2005): 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
on the Maldives islands: Initial observations. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 23(2): 19-70.
Kelletat, D. (2005 a): Tsunami traf die Menschen – Natur kam glimpflich davon. – Campus
Report, Univ. Duisburg-Essen, 1/05: 22-25.
Kelletat, D. (2005 b): Zwei Monate danach – Impressionen einer Reise in den Westen Thailands. –
Thailand-Rundschau, 18(2): 59-62.
Kelletat, D. & Scheffers, A. (2005): Ergänzende Informationen zum Sumatra-Andaman-Tsunami
vom 26.12.2004. – Geographische Rundschau, 9/2005: 64-65.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S. & Scheffers, A. (2006): Learning from the SE-Asian Tsunami:
Examples from Thailand‘s West Coast. – Geographische Rundschau International, 1: 4-9.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R. & Scheffers, A. (2007): Field Signatures of the SE-Asian Mega-
Tsunami along the West Coast of Thailand Compared to Holocene Palaeo-Tsunami from the
Atlantic Region. – Pure and Applied Geophysics, 164: 413-431.
Kench, PS, McLean, RF, Brander, W, Nichol, SL, Smithers, SG, Ford, MR, Parnell, KE and
Aslam, M, 2006, Geological effects of tsunami on mid-ocean atoll islands: The Maldives
before and after the Sumatran tsunami: Geology, v. 34, p. 177-180.
Kench, P.S., Nichol, S.L., Smithers, S.G., McLean, R.F. & Brander, R.W. (2008): Tsunami as
agents of geomorphic change in mid-ocean reef islands. – Geomorphology, 95: 361-383.
Kerr, A.M., Baird, A.H. & Campbell, S.J. (2006): Comments on ―Coastal forests mitigate
tsunami‖ by K. Kathiresan and N. Rajendran (Estur. Coast. Shelf Sci., 65, 2005: 601-606. –
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67(3): 539-541.
Kongko, W., Lavigne, F. & Paris, R. (2008): Investigation on colliding wave of tsunami run-ups in
December 26th 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. GI2 S Coast Research Publication 6: 55-56.
205
Kuriann, P., Pillaia, P., Rajith, K., Muralikrishnan, B.T. & Kalairasan, P. (2006): Inundation
characteristics and geomorphological impacts of December 2004 tsunami on Kerala coast. –
Current Science, 90(2): 240 – 249.
Lavigne, R., Paris, R., Wassmer, P., Gomez, C., Brunstein, D., Grancher, D., Vautier, F.,
Sartohadi, J., Setiawan, A., Syahnan, T.G., Fachzial, B.W., Mardiatno, D., Widagdo, A.,
Cahyadi, R., Lespinasse, N. & Mahieu, L. (2006): Learning from a Major Disaster (Banda
Aceh, December 26th, 2004): A Methodology to Calibrate Simulation Codes for Tsunami
Inundation Models. – Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl. Bd. 146: 253-265.
Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C.J., Nettles, M., Ward, S.N., Aster, R.C., Beck, S.L., Bilek, S.L.,
Brudzinski, M.R., Butler, R., Deshon, H.R., Ekstrom, G., Satake, K. & Sipkin, S. (2005): The
great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 December 2004. – Science, 308: 1127-1133.
Liu, P.L.-F., Lynett, P., Fernando, H., Jaffe, B.E., Fritz, H., Higman, B., Morton, R., Goff, J. and
Synolakis, C. (2005): Observations by the International Tsunami Survey Team in Sri Lanka. –
Science, 308: 1595.
Loveson, V. J., Angusamy, N., Gujar, A. R., Chandrasekar, N., Rajamanickam, G. V. (2008):
Observed inferences from sudden changes in the sedimentological processes during the
December 26, 2004 tsunami along the east coast of India. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 27,
3: 43- 52.
Marris, E. (2005): Tsunami damage was enhanced by coral theft. – Nature, 436: 1071
Matsutomi, H., Sakakiyama, T., Nugroho, S. & Matsuyama, M. (2006): Aspects of inundated flow
due to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. – Coastal Engineering Journ. 48: 167-195.
Matsuomi, H. Takahashi, T. Matsuyama, M., Harada, K., Hiraishi, T., Suparatid, S & Nakusakui,
S. (2005): The 2004 off Sumatra earthquake tsunami and damage at Khao Lak and Phuket
Island in Thailand. – Annual Journal of Coastal Engineering, JSCE, 52: 1356-1360.
Meilianda, E., Dohmen-Janssen, C.M., Maathuis, B.H.P., Hulscher, S.J.M.H. & Mulder, J.M.P.
(2007): Beach Morphology at Banda Aceh, Indonesia in Response to the Tsunami on 26
December 2004. – Coastal Sediments, May 13-17, New Orleans, 14 pp.
206
Merrifield, M.A. et al. (2005): Tide gauge observations of the Indian Ocean Tsunami, December
26, 2004. – Geophys. Research Letters, 32: L09603.
Monecke, K. (2006): Sedimentary characteristics of the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami
deposit and the potential of a long tsunami record in the ridge and swale region between
Meulaboh and Calang, Northern Sumatra. – 2006 Philadelphia Annual Meeting, Paper No. 87-
18, Geol. Soc. America, Abstracts with Program, Vol. 38, No. 7:229.
Monecke, K., Beitel, J., Moran, K. & Moore, A. (2008): Sedimentary characteristics of the 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami in Ban Talae Nok, southwestern Ranong province, Thailand. –
Palaeotsunami Research Posters – Palaeoceanography and Palaeoclimatology, PP43B-1240.
Monecke, K., Finger, W., Klarer, D., Kongko, W., McAdoo, B.G., Moore, A.L. & Sudrajat, S.U.
(2008): A 1,000-year sediment record of tsunami recurrence in northern Sumatra. – Nature,
455: 1232-1234.
Moore, A., Nishimura, Y., Gelfenbaum, G., Kamataki, T. & Triyono, R. (2006): Sedimentary
deposits of the 26 December tsunami on the northwest coast of Aceh, Indonesia. – Earth,
Planets and Space, 58: 253-258.
Morton, R.A., Gelfenbaum, B. & Jaffe, B.E. (2007): Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy
tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. – Sedimentary Geology, 200: 184-207.
Morton, R.A., Goff, J.R. & Nichol, S.L. (2008): Hydrodynamic implications of textural trends in
sand deposits of the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka. – Sedimentary Geology, 207(1-4): 56-64.
Narayan, J.P., Sharma, M.L. & Maheshwar, B.K. (2005a): Run-up and Inundation pattern
Developed During the Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 26, 2004 Along the Coast of
Tamilnadu (India). – Gondwana Research, 8(4): 611-614.
Narayan, J.P., Sharma, M.L. & Maheshwar, B.K. (2005b): Effects of Medu and coastal
topography on the damage pattern during the recent Indian Ocean tsunami along the coast of
Tamilnadu. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 23 (2): 9-18.
Okal, E.A., Fritz, H.M., Raveloson, R., Joelson, G., Pancoskova, P. & Rambolamanana, G. (2006):
Madagascar field survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. – Earthquake
Spectra, 22 (S3).
207
Okal, E.A., Fritz, H.M., Synolakis, C.E., Raad, P.E., Al-Shijbi, Y. & Al-Saifi, M. (2006): Oman
field survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra, 22 (S3).
Okal, E.A., Sladen, A. & Okal, A.A.-S. (2006): Rodriguez, Mauritius, and Réunion Islands field
survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra 22 (S3).
Papadopoulos, G.A., Caputo, R., McAdoo, B., Pavlides, S. Karastathis, V., Fokaefs, A.,
Orfanogiannaki, K. & Valkaniotis, S. (2006): The large tsunami of 26 December 2004: field
observations and eyewitnesses accounts from Sri Lanka, Maldives Is. and Thailand. – Earth,
Planets and Space, 58 (2): 233-241.
Paris, R., Lavigne, F., Wassmer, P., & Sartohadi, J. (2007): Coastal sedimentation associated with
the December 26, 2004 in Lhok Nga, west Banda Aceh (Sumatra, Indonesia). – Marine
Geology, 238: 93-106.
Paris, R., Poizot, E., Fournier, J., Cachao, M., Etienne, S., Morin, J., Lavigne, F. & Wassmer, P.
(2008): Modelling sediment transport and deposition by the 2004 tsunami in Sumatra
(Indonesia). – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 93-96.
Paris, R., Wassmer, P., Sartohadi, J., Lavigne, F., Barthomeuf, B., Desgages, E., Grancher, D.,
Baumert, Ph., Vaultier, F., Brunstein, D. & Gomez, Ch. (2008): Tsunamis as geomorphic
crisis: lessons from the December 26,2004 tsunami in Lhok Nga, west Banda Aceh (Sumatra,
Indonesia). – Geomorphology, in press.
Park, J., Song, T.A., Tromp, J., Okal, E., Stein, S., Roult, G., Clevede, E., Laske, G., Kanamori,
H., Davis, P., Berger, J., Braitenberg, C., Camp, M.V., Lei, X., Sun, H., Xu, H. & Rosat, S.
(2005): Earth´s free oscillations excited by the 26 December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman
earthquake. – Science, 308: 1139-1144.
Pennisis, E. (2005): Powerful tsunami´s impact on coral reefs was hit and miss. – Science, 307:
657.
Phongsuwan, N. & Brown, B.E. (2005): The influence of the Indian Ocean tsunami on coral reefs
of western Thailand, Andaman Sea, Indian Ocean. – Atoll Research Bulletin 544:
http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/arb/544/04.pdf.
208
Polngam, S. (2005): Remote sensing technology for Tsunami Disaster along the Andaman Sea. 3rd
Intern. Workshop on Remote Sensing for Post-Disaster Response, Chiba, Japan, 16 pp.
Prabakaran, K. & Anbarasu, K. (2008): Modelling of tsunami inundation for the coastal regions of
Tamilnadu, India. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 109-111.
Prakhammintara, P. (2007): The correlation between tsunami run-up height and coastal
characteristics index of Phang Nga and Phuket provinces, Thailand. – Thai Meteorological
Department, 6 pp.
Rabinovich, A. (16. 7.2005): December 26, 2004 and March 28,2005 Indian Ocean Tsunami
Events. http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/projects/tsunami/tsunamiasia_e.htm.
Rachlewicz, G., Szczucinski, W., Tepsuwan, T., Saisuttichai, D. & Tatong, T. (2005): Post-
tsunami field survey report (Preliminary version) – Ao Patong region (Kho Pukhet), Khao
Lak, Kho Koh Khao, Southern Thailand, 03.02-20.2.2005, Bangkok, 56 pp.
Rahed, K.A.A., Das, V.K., Revichandran, C., Vijayan, P.R., & Thottam, T.J. (2006): Tsunami
impacts on morphology of beaches along South Kerala coast, West coast of India. – Science of
Tsunami Hazards, 24 (1): 24-34.
Rajamanickam, G.V. (2008): Distribution of sediments during pre- and post-tsunami of 26th Dec.
2004 along the central coast of Tamil Nadu, east coast of India. – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 115-118.
Ramachandran, S., Anitha, S., Balamurugan, V., Dharanirajan, K., Vendhan, K.E., Divien, M.I.P.,
Vel, A.S., Hussain, I.S. & Udayaraj, A. (2005): Ecological impact of tsunami on Nicobar
Islands (Camorta, Katchal, Nancowry and Trinkat). – Current Science, 89(1): 195-200.
Ranamamurthy, M.V., Sunadramoorthy, S., Ari, Y., Ranga Rao, V., Mishra, P., Bhar, M., Usha,
T., Venkatesan, R. & Subramanian, B.R. (2005): Inundation of seawater in Andaman and
Nicobar islands and parts of Tamil Nadu coast during 2004 Sumatra tsunami. – Current
Science, 88 (1): 1736-1740.
Raheed, K.A.A., Das, V.K., Revichandran, C., Vijayan, P.R. & Thottam, T.J. (2006): Tsunami
impacts on morphology of beaches along South Kerala coast, West Coast of India. – Science
of Tsunami Hazards, 24 (1): 24-34.
209
Rhodes, B., Jankaew, K. & Kirby, M. (2007): Mangroves, coral, and the search for a
palaeotsunami deposit along the Andaman coast of Thailand. – EOS Trans. Am. Geophys.
Union, 88: 23.
Rhodes, B., Jankaew, K., Kirby, M., Schmidt, J., Choowong, M. (2008): A Possible Palaeotsunami
Deposit at Thap Lamu, Southern Thailand. – Palaeotsunami Research Posters –
Palaeoceanography and Palaeoclimatology, PP43B-1239.
Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G. & Morton, R.A. (2006): Geologic Impacts of the
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami on Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives. – Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie, NF Suppl. Bd. 146: 235-251.
Sanderson, D.C., Bishop, P., Hansom, J., Curry, G. & Chaimanee, N. (2008): Luminescence
dating of tsunami sediments: Residual Signal Levels in Sediments from the 26th December
2004 Indian Ocean Event in Thailand. – Research in Tsunami Deposits II: Posters, T43B-03.
Satake, K., Okamura, Y., Shishikura, M., Aung, T.T. & Fujima, K. (2005): Tsunami field survey
along Thai coast from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. – Annual Report on Active
fault and Palaeoearthquake Researches, Geol. Survey of Japan(AIST), No. 5: 161-188.
Satake, K., Okamura, Y., Shishikura, M. & Fujima, K. (2005): The December 26, 2004 Sumatra
Earthquake Tsunami, Tsunami Field Survey around Phuket, Thailand,
http://www.drs.dpri.kyoto u.ac.jp/sumatra/thailand/phuket_survey_e.html.
Satake, K., Aung, T.T., Sawai, Y., Okamura, K., Win, S., Swe, W., Swe, C., Swe, T.L., Tun, S.T.,
Soe, M.M., Oo, T.Z. & Zaw, S.,H. (2006): Tsunami heights and damage along the Myanmar
coast from the December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. – Earth Planets Space, 58: 243-
252.
Satake, K. (ed.) (2005): Tsunamis: Case Studies and Recent Developments. Springer: 43-56.
Schmidt, J.R., Kirby, M.E., Rhodes, B.P. & Jankaew, K. (2008): Searching a Holocene coastal
lagoon for palaeotsunami deposits: Kamala Beach, Phuket, Thailand. – Palaeotsunami
Research Posters – Palaeoceanography and Palaeoclimatology, PP43B-1238.
Searle, M. (2005): Co-seismic uplift of coral reefs along the western Andaman Islands during the
December 26th 2004 earthquake. – Coral Reefs, 171: 372.
210
Singarasubramanian, S.R., Mukesh, M.V., Manoharan, K., Murugan, S., Bakkairaj, D. & Peter,
A.J. (2006): Sediment characteristics of the M9 tsunami event between Rameswaram and
Thoothukudi, Gulf of Mannar, southeast coast of India. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 25 (3):
160-172.
Siripong, A. (2006): Andaman seacoast of Thailand field survey after the December 2004 Indian
Ocean tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra 22:187-202.
Siripong, A., Choi, B.H., Vichiencharoen, C., Yumuang, S. & Sawangphol, N. (2005): The
changing coastline on the Andaman seacoasts of Thailand from Indian Ocean tsunami. – In:
Choi, B.H., & Imamura, F. (eds): Proceedings of the Special Asia Tsunami Session at APAC
2005. Hanrimwon Publishing Co., Ltd., Seoul:21-31.
Srinivasalu, S., Thangadurai, N, Switzer, A.D., Ram Mohan, V. & Ayyamperumal, T. (2007):
Erosion and sedimentation in Kalpakkam (N Tamil Nadu, India) from the 26th December
2004 tsunami. – Marine Geology, 240: 65-75.
Stein, S., & Okal, E.A. (2005): Global reach of the Sumatran tsunami. – Nature 434: 581-582
Synolakis, C.E., Okal, E.A. & Bernard, E.N. (2005): The megatsunami of December 26, 2004. –
The Bridge, 35(2): 26-35.
Synolakis, C. and E. Bernard (2006): Tsunami science before and beyond Boxing Day 2004, Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. A (2006) 364, 2231–2265, doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1824.
Synolakis, C.E. & Kong, L. (2006): Runup Measurements of the December 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra, 22 (S.3): S67-S91.
Szczucinski, W., Chaimanee, N., Niedzielski, P. et al. (2006): Environmental and geological
impacts of the 26 December 2004 Tsunami in coastal zone of Thailand – overview of short
and long-term effects. – Pol. Journ. Environm. Studies, 15: 793-810.
Tanaka, N.Y., Sasaki, M.I.M, Mowjood, K.B., Jindasa, S.N & Samang Homuchuen (2007):
Coastal vegetation structures and their function in tsunami protection: experience of the recent
Indian Ocean tsunami. – Landscape and Ecological Engineering, 3 (1): 33-45.
211
Tanioka, Y., Yudhicara, Kususose, T., Kathiroli, S., Nishimura, Y., Iwasaki, S.-I. & Satake, K.
(2006): Rupture process of the 2004 great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake estimated from
tsunami waveforms. – Earth Planets Space, 58: 203-209.
Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J.E., Sinsakul, S. & Panapitukkul, N. (2006): Coastal erosion and
mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. – Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 68: 75 –
85.
Thanawood, C., Yongchalermchai, C. & Densrisereekul, O. (2006): Effects of the December 2004
Tsunami and Disaster Management in Southern Thailand. – Science of Tsunami Hazards,
24(3): 206-217.
Titov, V., Rabinovich, A.B., Mofjeld, H.O., Thomson, R.E. & Gonzalez, F.I. (2005): The global
reach of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra tsunami. – Science 309: 2045-2048.
Tobita, M., Kaizu, M., Murakami, M., Tsuzawa, M., Imakiire, T., Yarai, H., Suito, H., Fukuzaki,
Y., Kato, M., Fujiwara, S., Itabashi, A. & Nakai, H. (2005): Coastline change and tsunami
inundation area of Northern Sumatra Island inferred from satellite synthetic apreture radar
images. – Abstract for the 2005 Japan Earth and Planetary Science Joint meeting, J113-009.
Tsuji, Y., Namegaya, Y., Matsumoto, H., Iwasaki, S.-I., Kanbua, W., Sriwichai, M. & Meesuk, V.
(2006): The 2004 Indian tsunami in Thailand: Surveyed runup heights and tide gauge records.
Earth Planets Space, 58:223-232.
Tsunami Thailand – One Year Later (2006): o.V. – National Response and Contribution of
International Partners, UN, Bangkok: 118 pp.
Tun, K., Oliver, J. & Kimura, T. (2005): Summary of preliminary rapid assessments of coral reefs
in affected southeast Asian countries following the Asian tsunami event on December 26
2004. – Worldfish Center/GCRMN/Government of Japan.
Umitsu, M., Tanavud, C. & Patanakanog, B. (2007): Effects of landforms on tsunami flow in the
plains of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and Nam Khem, Thailand. – Marine Geology, 242: 141-153.
UNEP (2005): After the Tsunami. Rapid Environmental Assessment. – UNEP. Bangkok: 140 pp.
212
USGS Western Coastal & Marine Geology (2005): The December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami: Initial Findings on Tsunami Sand Deposits, Damage and Inundation in Sri Lanka. –
http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/srilanka05/index.html.
Varmel, K.K. & Hussain, A.S. (2007): Refraction of tsunami waves of 26 December 2004, along
southwest coast of India. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 26 (1)
Wassmer, P., Baumert, P., Lavigne, F. & Sartohadi, J. (2007): Les transfers sédimentaires associés
au tsunami du 26 décembre 2004 sur le littoral Est de Banda Aceh à Sumatra (Indonésie). –
Géomorphologie 2007(4):335-346.
Wassmer, P., Schneider, J.-L., Lavigne, F. / Paris, R. (2008): Sedimentary signature of the
December 26th 2004 tsunami along the north eastern shore of Banda Aceh: anisotropy of
magnetic susceptibility (AMS) contribution to a better understanding of the tsunami wave
train dynamic. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 171-174.
Yalciner, A.C., Ghazali, N.H. & Abd Wahab, A.K. (2005): Report on the December 26, 2004,
Indian Ocean Tsunami. Field Survey on July 09-10, 2005 North West of Malaysia, Penang and
Langkawi Islands. – http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr-
tac2005/pdf/scr-tac2005-all.pdf.
Yanagisawa, H., Koshimura, S., Goto, K., Imamura, F., Miyagi, T. & Hayashi, K. (2006):
Tsunami inundation flow in the mangrove forest and criteria of tree damages – field survey of
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Khao Lak, Thailand. – Ann. J. Coast. Eng., JSCE 53: 231-
235.
Yasuda, M. & harada, K. (2005): Sumatra Earthquake tsunami disaster in December 26,2004. –
Journ. Nat. Disaster Science, 23: 603-615 (in Japanese, with English Abstract).
Yeh, H., Francis, M. Peterson, C., Katada, T., Latha, G., Chadha, R.K., Singh, J.P. & Raghuramna,
G. (2006): Southeast India coast field survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami.
– Earthquake Spectra, 22 (S3).
213
Appendix B: Publications in Tsunami Research after the
Indian Ocean Tsunami
Part I: Publications discussing already known Palaeo-Tsunamis
Armigliato, A., Tinti, S., Tonini, R., Pagnoni, G., Gallazzi, S., Manuci, A., Zaniboni, F.,
Mastronuzzi, G.., Pignatelli, C. / Sanso, P. (2008): The 20th February 1743 tsunamigenic
earthquake in Apulia, Italy: investigation on the source from numerical tsunami modelling
and geological evidences. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 9-11.
Atwater, B.F., Musumi-Rokkaku, S., Satake, K., Tsuji, Y., Ueda, S. & Yamaguchi, D.K. (2005):
The orphan tsunami of 1700 – Japanese clues to a parent earthquake in North America. –
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. paper 1707: 133.
Billi, A., Funiciello, R., Mindelli, L., Faccenna, C., Neri, G., Orecchio, B. & Presti, D. (2008): On
cause of the 1908 Messina tsunami, Southern Italy. – Geophysical Research Letters, 35: 35,
L06301, doi:10.1029/2008GL033251.
Bondevik, S., Lovholt, F., Harbitz, C., Mangerud, J., Dawson, A. & Svendsen, J.I. (2005): The
Storegga slide tsunami: comparing field observations with numerical simulations. Marine.
Petrol. Geol. 22: 195-208.
Bondevik, S., Mangerud, J., Dawson, S., Dawson, A. & Lohne, O. (2005 b): Evidence for three
North Sea tsunamis at the Shetland Islands between 8000 and 1500 years ago. – Quaternary
Science Reviews, 24: 1757-1775.
Bryant, E. (2008): Tsunami – The Underrated Hazard. – 2nd ed., Springer, 325 pp.
Dawson, A., Dawson, S. & Bondevik, S. (2006): A late Holocene tsunami at Basta Voe, Yell,
Shetland Isles. – Scottish Geogr. Journal, 122 (2): 100-108.
Dawson, A.G. and Stewart, I. (2007): Tsunami deposits in the geological record. – Sedimentary
Geology, 200:166-183.
214
Dawson, A.G. & Stewart, I. (2008): Offshore Tractive Current Deposition: The Forgotton
Tsunami Sedimentation Process. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds).
(2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. – Elsevier, 153-162.
Dawson, S. (2007): Diatom biostratigraphy of tsunami deposits: Examples from the 1998 Papua
New Guinea tsunami. – Sedimentary Geology, 200: 238-335.
Didenkulova, I. & Pelonovsky, E. (2008): Analysis and modelling of the 1883 Krakatao volcanic
tsunami. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 27-28.
Dominey-Howes, D.T.M., 2007. Geological and historical records of tsunami in Australia. Marine
Geology. 239, 99-123.
Dominey-Howes, D.T.M., Humphreys, G.S., Hesse, P.P., 2006. Tsunami and palaeotsunami
depositional signatures and their potential value in understanding the late-Holocene tsunami
record. The Holocene 16 (8), 1095-1107.
Dominey-Howes, D., Cummins, P. & Burbridge, D. (2007): Historic records of teletsunami in the
Indian Ocean and insights from numerical modelling. – Natural Hazards, 42:1-17.
Goff, J. (2008): Local, regional, and nationwide palaeotsunamis – a comprehensive database
refocuses ongoing and future palaeotsunami research (New Zealand). – GI²S Coast Research
Publications, 6: 45-47.
Goff, J., Dudley, W.C., deMaintenon, M.J., Cain, G. & Coney, J.P. (2006): The largest local
tsunami in 20th century Hawaii. – Marine Geology, 226: 65-79.
Goff, J.R., Hicks, D.M. & Hurren, H. (2007): Tsunami geomorphology in New Zealand. – NIWA
Technical Report No. 128, 67 pp.
Gracia, F.J., Alonso, C., Benavente, J. Anfuso, G. & Del-Rio, L. (2006): The different coastal
records of the 1755 Tsunami waves along the Atlantic Spanish Coast. – Zeitschrift f.
Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.-Bd. 146: 195-220.
Graziani, L., Maramai, A., Tinti, S. & Brizuela, B. (2008): Four tsunami events in the Euro-
Mediterranean region: analysis and reconstruction of effects. – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 49-50.
215
Guidoboni, E. & Comastri, A. (2008): Catalogue of Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the
Mediterranean Area from the 11th to the 15th Century. – Ist. Naz. Geol. Applicata e
Vulcanologia, Bologna: 1037 pp.
Gutscher, M.A. (2005): Destruction of Atlantis by a great earthquake and tsunami? A geological
analysis of the Spartel Bank hypothesis.- Geology; August 2005; v. 33; no. 8; p. 685-688;
DOI: 10.1130/G21597AR.1.
Higman, B. & Bourgeois, J. (2008): Deposits of the 1992 Nicaragua Tsunami. – In: Shiki, T.,
Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications.
– Elsevier, 81-104.
International Tsunami Information Center (2008): Tsunami database.
http://ioc3.unesco.org/itic/categorie.php?category_no=72.
Jaiswal, R.K., & Rastogi, B.K. (2008): Tsunamigenic Sources in the Indian Ocean. – Science of
Tsunami Hazards, 27 (2): 32-53.
Jordan, B.R. (2008): Tsunamis of the Arabian Peninsula - A Guide of Historic Events. – Science
of Tsunami Hazards, 27 (1): 31-46.
Kelletat, D. & Scheffers, A. (2005): Tsunami relics on the Coastal Landscape West of Lisbon,
Portugal. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 23 (1): 3-16.
Mörner, N.-A., Laborel, J. & Dawson, S. (2008): Submarine ―Sandstorms‖ and Tsunami Events in
the Indian Ocean. – Journal of Coastal Research, 24, 6: 1608-1611.
Morton, A.R., Gelfenbaum, G. & Jaffe, E.B. (2007): Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy
tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. – Sedimentary Geology, 200: 184-207.
Moya, JC, and Mercado, A, 2006, Geomorphologic and stratigraphic investigations on historic and
pre-historic tsunami in northwestern Puerto Rico: in Mercado-Irizarri, A and Liu, P, eds.,
Caribbean Tsunami Hazard: Proceedings of the NSF Caribbean Tsunami Workshop, Puerto
Rico, World Scientific Publishers, p. 149-177.
Nanayama, F. (2008): Sedimentary Characteristics and Depositional Processes of Onshore
Tsunami Deposits: An Example of Sedimentation Associated with the 12 July 1993 Hokkaido-
216
Nansei-oki Earthquake Tsunami. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds).
(2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. – Elsevier, 63-80.
Nanayama, N. & Shigeno, K. (2006): Inflow and outflow facies from the 1993 tsunami in
southwest Hokkaido. – Sedimentary Geology, 187: 139-158.
National Geophysical Data Center (2008): Tsunami Data at NGDC.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml.
NGDC (1997): World-Wide Tsunami 2000 BC to 1990. National Geophysical Data Center. World
Data Center A for Solid Earth Geophysics, Washington, DC.
NGDC (2001): Tsunami Data at NGDC, URL: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/tsu.shtml.
Okal, E.A. & Synolakis, C.E. (2008): Far-field tsunami hazard from mega-thrust earthquakes in
the Indian Ocean. – Geophys. J. Intern., 172: 995-1015.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Imamura, F., Minoura, K., Takahashi, T., Karakatsanis, S., Fokaefs, A.,
Orfanogiannaki, K., Daskalki, E. & Diakogianni, G. (2005): The 9 July 1956 large tsunami in
the South Aegean sea: compilation of data basis ands re-evaluation. – Proc. 22nd IUGG Intern.
Tsunami Symposium, Chania, Crete: 173-180.
Pelonovsky, E., Choi, B.H., Stromkov, A., Didenkulova, I. & Kim, H.S. (2005): Analysis of tide-
gauge records of the 1883 Krakatoa tsunami. Tsunamis: case studies and recent developments.
- Advances in Natural and Technological Hazard Research, 23: 57-77.
Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G. & Dudley, W.C. (2008): Recent Tsunami and Storm
Wave Deposits, SE Hawaii. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 131-132.
Sanso, P., Bianc, F., Cataldo, R. & Vitale, A. (2008) A web site for historical tsunami of Salento
(Apulia, Italy). – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 149-150.
Tappin, D.R., 2007. Sedimentary features of tsunami deposits – Their origin, recognition and
discrimination, An introduction. Sedimentary Geology 200, 1-4.
Tinti, S., Maramai, A. & Graziani, L. (2007): The Italian tsunami catalogue (ITC), Version 2.
Yu, K.-F., Zhao, J.-X., Shi, Q & Meng, Q.-S. (2008): Reconstruction of storm/tsunami records
over the last 4000 years using transported coral blocks and lagoon sediments in southern South
China Sea. Quaternary International, doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2008.05.004.
217
Zahibo, N- & Pelinovsky, E. (2006): Tsunamis in the Lesser Antilles. Caribbean Tsunami Hazard
(Ed. Mercado-Irizarry, A. & Liu, P.), World Scientific, Singapore: 244-254.
Zahibo, N., Pelinovsky, E., Didenkulova, I. & Nikolkina, I. (2008): Tsunamis in the French West
Indies, Lesser Antilles, Caribbean. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 179-180.
Zhou, Q & Adams, W.M. (1986): Tsunamigenic earthquakes in China, 1831 BC to 1980 AD. –
Science of Tsunami Hazards, 4:131-148.
218
Part II: Publications presenting new evidence for palaeo-
tsunamis
Abbott, D.H.; Masse, W.B.; Burckle, L.H.; Breger, D.; and Gerard-Little, P. 2005. Burckle
Abyssal Impact Crater: Did this Impact Produce a Global Deluge? Atlantis 2005
Conference, Milos, Greece, Conference Proceedings.
Abbott, D.H.; Martos, S.; Elkinton, H.; Bryant, E.F.; Gusiakov, V.; and Breger, D. 2006. Impact
craters as sources of megatsunami generated chevron dunes: Abstract. Geological Society
of America, Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abbott, D.H., Tester, E.W. and Meyers, C.A., 2007. Impact ejecta and megatsunami deposits from
a historical impact into the Gulf of Carpentaria. Geological Society of America, Abstracts
with Programs, 39:
Alasset, P.J., Hébert, H., Maouche, S., Calbini, V. & Meghraoui, M. (2006): The tsunami induced
by the 2003 Zemmouri earthquake (Mw=6.9), Algeria): modelling and results. –
Geophysical Journal International, 166 (1): 213-226.
Bahlburg, H., Spiske, M., Amijaya, H., Weiss, R. & Piepenbreier, J. (2008): Sedimentological
characteristics of the July 17, 2006 tsunami in South Java. – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 13-14.
Becker-Heidmann, P., Reicherter, K. & Silva, P.G. (2007): 14C dated charcoal and sediment
drilling cores as first evidence of Holocene tsunami sediments at the southern Spanish
coast. – Radiocarbon, 49 (2): 827-835.
Belousov, A. & Belousova, M. (2008): Deposits and effect of tsunamis generated by the 1996
underwater explosive eruption in Karymskoye Lake, Kamchatka, Russia. – GI²S Coast
Research Publications, 6: 15-17.
Benner, R., Browne, T., Brückner, H., Kelletat, D. ,Scheffers, A. (2009): Boulder Transport by
Waves: Progress in Physical Modelling. – Submitted to Earth an Planetary Science Letters.
Blakeslee, S. 2006. Ancient Crash, Epic Wave. The New York Times, Nov. 14th, 2006.
219
Bourrouilh-Le Jan, F.G., Beck, C. & Gorsline, D.S. (2007): Catastrophic events (hurricanes, next
term tsunami and others) and their sedimentary records: Introductory notes and new concepts
for shallow water deposits. – Sedimentary Geology, 199 (1-2): 1-11.
Bork, I., Dick, St., Kline, E.,& Müller-Navarra, S.H. (2007): Tsunami - Untersuchungen für die
deutsche Nordseeküste. – Die Küste, 72: 65-105.
Boman, A., Bozzano, F., Chiocci, F.L., & Mozzanti, P. (2006): The 1783 Scilla tsunami:
evidences of a submarine landslide as a possible (con?)cause. – Geophysical Research
Abstracts, 8, 10558, EGU.
Bozzano, F., Chiocci, F.L., Mozzanti, P., Bosman, A., Casalbore, D., Giuliani, R., Martino, S.,
Prestininzi, A. & Scarascia Mugnozza, G. (2006): Subaerial and submarine characterization of
the landslide responsible for the 1783 Scilla tsunami. – Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol.
8, 10422, EGU.
Bruins, H.J., Macgillivray, J.A., Synolakis, C.E., Benjamini, C., Keller, J., Kisch, H.J., Klügel, A.
& van der Pflicht, J. (2008): Geoarchaeological tsunami deposits at Palaikastro (Crete) and the
late Minoan eruption of Santorini. – Journ. Archaeol. Science, 35: 191-212
Bryant, E.A. & Haslett, S.K. (2007): Catastrophic Wave Erosion and Boulder Transport in the
Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary, UK – Impact of Tsunami? -Journal of Geology 115: 253–
269.
Bryant, E.A., Walsh, G., Abbott, D., 2007. Cosmogenic mega-tsunami in the Australia region: are
they supported by Aboriginal and Maori legends? In: Piccardi, L. & Masse, W.B. (eds.), Myth
and Geology. Geological Society, London, Spec. Publ., 273, 203-214.
Bryant, E., Haslett, S., Scheffers, S., Scheffers, A. & Kelletat, D. (2008): Tsunami Chronology
supporting Late Holocene Impacts. – Presentation for the 2008 Tunguska Conference, Russia,
6 pp., 4 figs.
Cita, M.B. (2008): Deep-Sea Homogenites: Sedimentary Expressions of a Prehistoric
Megatsunami in the Eastern Mediterranean. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. &
Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. – Elsevier, 185-202.
220
Collins, G.S., Melosh, H.J. and Marcus, R., 2005. Earth Impact Effects Program: A Web-based
Computer Program for Calculating the Regional Environmental Consequences of a Meteoroid
Impact on Earth. Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 40: 817-840.
Costa, P., Andrade, C., Freitas, M.C., Oliveira, M.A., Taborda, R. & da Silva, C.M. (2008): High
energy boulder deposition in Barranco and Furnas lowlands, western Algarve (south Portugal).
– GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 19-22.
Dahanayake, K. & Kulasena, N. (2008): Geological Evidence for Palaeo-Tsunamis in Sri Lanka. –
Science of Tsunami Hazards, 27 (2): 54-73.
De Lange, W.P., de Lange, P. & Moon, V.,2006. Boulder transport by waterspouts: An example
from Aorangi Island, New Zealand. Marine Geology, 230: 115-125.
De Martini, P.M., Burrato, P., Pantosti, D., Maramai, A., Graziani, L. & Abramson, H. (2008):
Identification of tsunami deposits and liquefaction features in the Gargano area (Italy):
palaeoseismological implication. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 23-26.
Donato, S.V., Reinhardt, E.G., Boyce, J.I., Rothaus, R. & Vosmer, T. (2008): Identifying tsunami
deposits using bivalve shell taphonomy. – Geology, 36 (3): 199-202.
Enet, F., & Grilli, S.T. (2005): Tsunami landslide generation: Modelling and experiments. – Proc.
5th Intern. Conf. on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis, WAVES 2005, Madrid, Spain,
IAHR, Paper N0.88.
Enet, F. & Grilli, S.T. (2007): Experimental study of tsunami generation by three dimensional
rigid underwater landslides. – Journ. Waterways, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering-ASCE,
133 (6): 442-454.
Engel, M., Brückner, H., Kelletat, D., Schäbitz, F., Scheffers, A., Vött, A., Wille, M., &
Willershäuser, T. (2008): Traces of Holocene extreme events within sediment traps along the
coast of Bonaire (Netherlands Antilles). – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 29-31.
Federici, P.R. & Rodolfi, G. (2008): Traces of an ancient tsunami event on the Archangelos coast
(Southern Peloponnesos, Lakonia, Greece). – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 37-38.
Fichaut, B. & Suanez, S. (2008): Les blocs cyclopéens de l´ile de Banneg (Archipel de Molène,
Finisterre): accumulations supra tidales de forte énergie. – Géormorphologie, 1: 15-32.
221
Fisher, M.A., Geist, E.L., Sliter, R., Wong, F.L., Reiss, C. & Mann, D.M. (2007): Preliminary
analysis of the earthquake (MW 8.1) and tsunami of April 1, 2007, in the Solomon Islands,
southwestern Pacific Ocean. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 26 (1)
Freundt, A., Kutterolf, S., Wehrmann, H., Schmincke, H.U. & Strauch, W. (2006): Eruption of the
dacite to andesite zoned Mateare Tephra, and associated tsunamis in lake Managua,
Nicaragua. Journ. Volcanol. And Geothermal Research, 149: 103-123.
Fujiwara, O. (2008): Bedforms and Sedimentary Structures Characterizing Tsunami Deposits. –
In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and
Implications. – Elsevier: 51-62.
Fujiwara, O. & Kamataki, T. (2007): Identification of tsunami deposits considering the tsunami
waveform: An example of subaqueous tsunami deposits in Holocene shallow bay on southern
Boso Peninsula, central Japan. – Sedimentary Geology, 200: 295-313.
Gerardi, F., Barbano, M.S., De Martini, P.M. & Pantosi, D. (2008): Discrimination of tsunami
sources (earthquake and landslide) on the basis of historical data in Eastern Sicily and
Southern Calabria. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 41-44.
Gilmour, J.P., Smith, L.D., 2006. Category 5 cyclone at Scott Reef, northwestern Australia. Coral
Reefs 25(2), 200.
Goff, J., Dudley, W.C., de Maintenon, M.J., Cain, G.F. & Coney, J.P. (2006): The largest local
tsunami in 20th century Hawaii. – Marine Geology 226: 65-79.
Goto, K. (2008): The Genesis of Oceanic Impact Craters and Impact-Generated Tsunami Deposits.
– In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features
and Implications. – Elsevier, 277-298.
Gutscher, M.-A., Roger, J., Baptista, M.-A., Miranda, J.M. & Tinti, S. (2006): Source of the 1693
Catania earthquake and tsunami (southern Italy): new evidence from tsunami modelling of a
locked subduction fault plane. – Geophysical Research Letters, 33: 1-4: L08309.
Hall, A.M., hansom, J.D., Williams, D.M. & jarvis, J. (2006): Distribution, geomorphology and
lithofacies of cliff-top storm deposits: Examples from the high-energy coasts of Scotland and
Ireland. – Marine Geology, 232: 131-155.
222
Haslett, S.K. & Bryant, E.A. (2007a): Reconnaissance of historic (post-AD 1000) high-energy
deposits along the Atlantic coasts of southwest Britain, Ireland and Brittany, France. – Marine
Geology, 242: 207-220.
Haslett, S.K. & Bryant, E.A. (2007 b): Evidence of historic coastal high-energy wave impact
(tsunami?) in North Wales, United Kingdom. – Atlantic Geology, 43:137-147.
Imamura, F., Goto, K, Ohkubo, S., 2008. A numerical model for the transport of a boulder by
tsunami. J. Geophys.. Res. 113, C01008, doi:10.1029/2007JC004170, 2008.
Jovanelly, T. & Moore, A. (2005): Tsunami origin for a 1,100-year-old enigmatic sand sheet in
Lynch Cove, Puget Sound, Washington, USA. – GSA Abstracts with Programs, v.37, n.7: 65.
Keating, B.H., Wanink, M. & Helsley, C.E. (2008): Introduction to a Tsunami-Deposits Database.
– In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features
and Implications. – Elsevier, 359-382.
Kelletat, D., 2005. Neue Beobachtungen zu Paläo-Tsunami im Mittelmeergebiet, Mallorca und
Bucht von Alanya, türkische Südküste. Schriften des Arbeitskreises Landes- und Volkskunde
Koblenz (ALV) 4, 1-14.
Kelletat, D. (2008): Comments to Dawson, A.G. and Stewart, I. (2007), Tsunami deposits in the
geological record. − Sedimentary Geology 200, 166-183.
Kelletat, D. (2008): Tsunami und Tsunamiforschung . – Mitteilungen Geogr. Gesellschaft für das
Ruhrgebiet, 2: 57-71.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, A. & Scheffers, S. (2005): Holocene tsunami deposits on the Bahaman
Islands of Long Island and Eleuthera. – Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, 48 (4): 519-540.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, A. & Scheffers, S. (2005): Tsunami – eine unterschätzte Naturgefahr? -
Geowissenschaftliche Mitteilungen: 5-13.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, A., & Scheffers, S.R. (2005): Palaeo-tsunami Relics on the Southern and
Central Antillean island Arc (Grenada, Sat. Lucia and Guadeloupe). Journal of Coastal
Research, 21 (2): 263-273.
223
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R. & Scheffers, A. (2007): Field Signatures of the SE-Asian mega-
tsunami along the West Coast of Thailand Compared to Holocene Palaeo-tsunami from the
Atlantic Region. – Pure and Applied Geophysics, 164: 413-431.
Kelletat, D., Whelan, F., Bartel, P. & Scheffers, A. (2005): New Tsunami Evidences in Southern
Spain – Cabo de Trafalgar and Mallorca Island. – In: Sanjaume, E & Matheu, J.F. (eds.):
Geomorfologia Litoral I Quarternari, Homenatge al professor Vincenç M. Rosselló I Verger. –
Universitat de València, Spain: 215-222.
Kelsey, H.M., Nelson, A.R., Hemphill-Haley, E. & Witter, R.C. (2005): Tsunami history of
Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the Cascadian subduction
zone. – Geol. Soc. America Bull., 117: 1009-1032.
Kerridge, D., 2005. The threat posed by tsunami to the UK. Dep. Env. Food and Rural Affairs,
HMSO, London, 123 pp.
Kortekaas, S. & Dawson, A.G. (2007): Distinguishing tsunami and storm deposits: An example
from Marthinal, SW Portugal. – Sedimentary Geology, 200: 208-221.
Kulikov, E.A., Rabinovich, A.B. & Thomson, R.E. (2005): Estimation of tsunami risk for the
coasts of Peru and northern Chile. – Natural Hazards, 35: 185-209.
Lario, J., de Luque, L., Zazo, C., Goy, J.L., Spencer, C., Cabero, A., Dabrio, C., Borja, F., Civis,
J., Gonzales-Delgado, J.A. & Borja, C. (2008): A review of the high energy events in the Gulf
of Cadiz: tsunami vs. storm surges. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 57-60.
Lavigne, F., Gomez, C., Giffo, M., Wassmer, P., Hoebreck, C., Mardiatno, D., Prioyono, J. &
Paris, R. (2007): Field observations of the 17 July 2006 Tsunami in Java. – Natural Hazards
and Earth System Sciences, 7: 177-183.
Lehfeldt, R., Milbradt, P., Plüß, A. & Schüttrumpf, H. (2007): Propagation of a Tsunami Wave in
the North Sea. – Die Küste, 72: 105-124.
MacInnes, B.T., Bourgois, J., Pinegina, T.K. & Kravchunovskaya, E.A. (2008): A comparison of
sediment eroded vs. deposited by the 15 Nov. 2006 Kuril Island. – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 61-63.
224
Maouche, S., Morhange, C. & Meghraoui, M. (2008): Large boulder accumulation on the Algerian
Coast evidence catastrophic tsunami events in the Western Mediterranean. – GI²S Coast
Research Publication, 6: 65-66.
Maramai, A., Graziani, L. & Tinti, S. (2005): Tsunamis in the Aeolian Islands (southern Italy): A
review. – Marine Geology, 215: 11-21.
Maramai, A., Grazini, L., Alessio, G., Burrato, P., Colini, L., Cucci, L., Nappi, R., Nardi, A. &
Viardo, G. (2005): Near- and far-field survey report of the 30 December 2002 Stromboli
(Southern Italy) tsunami. – Marine Geology, 215: 93-106.
Marsico, A. & Pignatelli, C. (2008): Laser Scanner survey to rebuild large boulder accumulated by
extreme events in Torre Squillace (Southern Apulia-Italy). – GI²S Coast Research Publication,
6: 67-68.
Martin, M.E. & Bourgeois, J. (2008): Candidate tsunami deposit near Seattle, Washington state,
USA. – GI² S Coast Research Publication, 6: 69-71.
Martos, S.N., Abbott, D.H., Elkinton, H.D., Chivas, A.R. and Breger, D., 2006. Impact spherules
from the craters Kanmare and Tabban in the Gulf of Carpentaria. Geological Society of
America, Abstracts with Programs, 38: 299-300.
Masse, W., 2007. The Archaeology and Anthropology of Quaternary Period Cosmic Impact. In:
Bobrowsky, P.T. and, Rickman, H (Editors): Comet/Asteroid Impacts and Human Society.
Springer, Berlin, 25-70.
Masse, W.B., Bryant, E., Gusiakov, V., Abbott, D., Gerard-Little, P., and Burckle, L. 2006.
Holocene Indian Ocean cosmic impacts: The megatsunami chevron evidence from southern
Madagascar. Abstract, American Geophysical Union, Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA,
USA.
Mastronuzzi, G., Pignatelli, C. & sanso, P. (2006): Boulder Fields: A Valuable Morphological
Indicator of palaeotsunami in the Mediterranean Sea. – Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF
Suppl. Bd. 146: 173-194.
225
Mastronizzi, G., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P. & Selleri, G. (2007): Boulder Accumulations Produced
by the 20th of February, 1743 Tsunami Along the Coast of Southeastern Salento (Apulia
Region, Italy). – Marine Geology, 242: 191-205.
Mastronuzzi, G., Sanso, P., Brückner, H., Vött, A., Pignatelli, C., Caputo, R., Coppola, D., Di
Bucci, D., Fracassi, U., May, S.M., Milella, M. & Selleri, G. (2008): Palaeotsunami imprints
along the coasts of the Central Mediterranean Sea. – 2nd International Tsunami Field
Symposium, Puglia-Ionian Islands 2008, Field Guide. GI² S Coast Research Puclications,
7:193 pp.
Mastronuzzi, G., Caputo, R., Di Bucci, D., Fracassi, U., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P., Selleri, G.
(2008): Morphological data and the definition of tsunamogenic areas between Apulia (Italy)
and Ionian islands (Greece). – GI²S Coast Research Publications, 6: 73-76.
May, S.M., Vött, A., Brückner, H. & Brockmüller, S. (2008): Evidence of tsunamigenic impact on
Actio headland near Preveza, NW Greece. – Coastline Report, 9: 115-125.
Meyers, C.A., Abbott, D.H., Tester, E.W. and Breger, D., 2007. Impact-affected marine
microfossils from the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northwestern Australia. Geological Society of
America, Abstracts with Programs, 39: in press.
Mhammdi, N., Medina, F., Kelletat, D., Amahmou, M. & Aloussi, L. (2008): Large BOULDERS
ALONG THE RABAT COAST (Morocco); POSSIBLE Emplacement by the November, 1st,
1755 A.D. Tsunami.– Science of Tsunami Hazards, 27(1): 17-30.
Milella, M., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P. & Saracino, S. (2008): Extreme events frequency and
associated coastal damages along the coast of Salento (Southern Italy). – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 77-79.
Molfetta, M.G., Petrillo, A.F., De Girolamo, P., Pratola, L., Di Risio, M., Bellotti, G., Aristodemo,
F. & Panizzo, A. (2008): Three-dimensional large scale experiments on tsunamis generated by
landslide along the coast of a conical island. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 81-83.
Monaco, C. & Tortorici, L. (2007): Active faulting and related tsunami in eastern Sicily and south-
western Calabria. – Bollettino di Geofisica Teoretica e Applicata, 48 (2): 163-184.
226
Monaco, C., Scicchitano, G., Tortorici, L., 2006. Large boulder accumulations by tsunami waves
along the south-eastern coast of Sicily. Marine Geology 238 (1-4), 75-91.
Monecke, K., Finger, W., Klarer, D., Kongko, W., McAdoo, B.G., Moore, A.L. & Sudrajat, S.U.
(2008): A 1,000-year sediment record of tsunami recurrence in northern Sumatra. – Nature,
455: 1232-1234.
Monserrat, S., Vilibic, I. & Rabinovich, A.B. (2006): Meteotsunamis: atmospherically induced
ocean waves in the tsunami frequency band. – Nat. Haz. Earth Syst. Sci., 6: 1035-1051.
Morhange, C., Marriner, N., Pirazzoli, P.A., 2006. Evidence of Late-Holocene tsunami events
from Lebanon. Z. Geomorphol., NF Suppl.-Bd. 146, 81–95.
Morton, R.A., Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E. & Gelfenbaum, G. (2006): Reconnaissance
investigation of Caribbean extreme wave deposits-preliminary observations, interpretations,
and research directions. – Open-file report 1293, USGS, 46 pp.
Morton, RA., Gelfenbaum, G, Jaffe, BE., 2007, Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy tsunami
and storm deposits using modern examples, Sedimentary Geology, 200: 184-207
Nishimura, Y., Nakagawa, M., Kuduon, J. & Wukawa, J. (2005): Timing and scale of tsunamis
caused by the 1994 Rabaul eruption, East New Britain, Papua New Guinea. – In: Satake, K.
(ed.): Tsunamis: Case Studies and Recent Developments. Springer: 43-56.
Nishimura, Y. (2008): Volcanism-Induced Tsunamis and Tsunamiites. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y.,
Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. –
Elsevier, 163-184.
Noda, A., Katayama, H., Sagayama, T., Suga, K., Uchida, Y, Satake, K., Abe K. & Okamura, Y.
(2007): Evaluation of tsunami impacts on shallow marine sediments: an example from the
tsunami caused by the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake, Northern Japan. – Sedimentary Geology,
200: 314-327.
Nott, J. (2004): The tsunami hypothesis – comparison of field evidence against the effects, on the
Western Australian coast, of some of the most powerful storms on Earth. – Marine Geology,
208: 1-12.
227
Nott, J, 2006, Tropical hurricanes and the evolution of the sedimentary coast of northern Australia:
Journal of Coastal Research, v. 22, p. 49-62.
Nott, J. & Bryant, E.A. (2003): Extreme marine inundation (tsunamis?) of coastal Western
Australia. – Journal of Geology, 111: 691-706.
Obura, D and Abdulla, A, 2005, Assessment of tsunami impacts on the marine environment of the
Seychelles: CORDIO-IUCN report, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Okada, K., Goto, K., Imamura, F. & Shinozaki, T. (2007): Field observation and the applicability
limit of the model for Boulder Transport by the Tsunami (BTT-model) based on hydraulic
experiment. – P.Coast. Eng., JSCE, 54: 231-235.
Oliveira, M.A., Andrade, C., Freitas, M. & Coasta, P. (2008): Using historical record and
geomorphological setting to identify tsunami deposits in the southwestern coast of Algarve
(Portugal) – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 85-88.
Pantosti, D., Barbano, M.S., Smedile, A., De Martini, P.M., Gerardi, F. & Pirrotta, C. (2008):
Geological evidence of palaeotsunamis at Torre degli Inglesi (northeastern Sicily). – GI²S
Coast Research Publication, 6: 89-92.
Pantosti, D., Barbano, M.S., Smedile, A., & De Martini, P.M. (2008): Geological Evidence of
Palaeotsunamis at Torre degli Inglesi (bortheast Sicily). – Geophys. Res. Letters, 35.
Pareschi, M.T., Boschi, F., Mazzarini, F. & Favali, M. (2006): Large submarine landslides
offshore Mt. Etna. Geophysical Research Letters 33.
Pignatelli, C., Damato, B. & Mastronuzzi, G. (2008): A terrestrial laser scanner method to assess a
tsunami wave inland penetration. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 97-100.
Pignatelli, C., Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S.R. and Mastronuzzi, G. (2008): Evaluation of tsunami
flooding from geomorphological evidence in Bonaire (Netherland Antilles).- GI²S Coast
Research Publication, 6: 101-104.
Pinter, N., & Ishman, S.E. (2008): Impacts, megatsunami, and other extraordinary claims. – GSA
Today, January 2008, 37 pp.
Pranowo, W. & Kongko, W. (2008): Modelling of the Bengkulu ;minor tsunami event, September
12, 2007, West of Sumatera, Indonesia. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 113-114.
228
Regnauld, H., Planchon, O. & Goff, J. (2008): Relative roles of structure, climate, and of a
tsunami event on coastal evolution of the Falkland archipelago. – Géomorphologie, 1: 33-44.
Reicherter, K. & Becker-Heidmann, P. (2008): Tsunamites in lagunas: remains of the 1522
Almeria earthquake (western Mediterranean). – GI² S Coast Research Publication, 6: 127-129.
Regnauld, H., Suanez, S. & Fichaut, B. (2008): Storms or tsunamis? The case of boulder
accumulations on the coasts of Brittany, western France. – GI²S Coast Research Publication,
6: 119-121.
Reicherter, K., Fernadéz-Steeger, T., Koster, B., Vonberg, D., Baer, S. & Grützner, C. (2008): The
sedimentary inventory of the 1755 Lisbon tsunami along the Gulf of Cádiz (southwestern
Spain). – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 123-126.
Reinhardt, E.G., Goodman, B.N., Boyce, K.I., Lopez, G., van Henstum, P., Rink, W.A., Mart, Y.
& Raban, A. (2006): The tsunami of 13 December A.D. 115 and the destruction of Herod the
Great´s harbor at Cesarea Maritima. Geology, 34 (12): 1061-1064.
Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G., Watt, S. & Morton, R.A. (2008): Spatial
Characteristics of Coarse-Clast Deposits, Boca Olivia, NE Bonaire. – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 133-134.
Robinson,E., Rowe, D.-A.C., Khan, S., 2005. Geological evidence for palaeotsunami events on the
coast of Jamaica. In: Mitchell, S., (ed). Geological Society of Jamaica 50th Anniversary
Conference, Dec. 1-4, 2005, Programme, Abstracts and Field Guide, 16.
Robinson, E., Rowe, D.-A.C., Khan, S., 2006. Wave-Emplaced Boulders on Jamaica´s Rocky
Shores. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd. 146, 39-57.
Rodriguez-Vidal, J., Ruiz, F., Cáceres, L.M., Abad, M., Carretero, M.I. & Pozo, M. (2008):
Morphosedimentary features of historical tsunamis in the Guadalquivir estuary (SW of Spain).
– GI²S Coast Research Publication 6; 139-141.
Rössler, S., Reicherter, K., Papanikolaou, I., Roger, J., Mathes-Schmidt, M. & Grützner, C.
(2008): In search of the 479 BC Tsunami and its sediments in the Thermaikos Gulf area
(northern Greece). – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 143-146.
229
Rowe, D.-A.C., 2005. Boulders on Caymanian Shorelines. Internal Report to the Marine Geology
Unit, University of the West Indies, December 2005.
Rowe, D.A., Degg, M., France, D. & Miller, S. (2008): Tsunami hazard mapping, SW Jamaica. –
GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 147-148.
Saintilan, N. & Rogers, K. (2005): Recent Storm Boulder Deposits on the Beechcroft Peninsula,
New South Wales, Australia. – Geographical Research, 43(4): 429-432.
Satake, K. (ed.) (2005): Tsunamis: Case Studies and Recent Developments. Springer, 343 pp.
Satake, K., Okal, E.A. & Borrero, J.C. (2007): Tsunami and its hazard in the Indian and Pacific
Oceans: Introduction. – Pure & Applied Geophysics, 164 (2-3): 249-259.
Sawai, Y., Fuji, Y., Fujiwara, O., Kamataki, T., Komatsubara, J., Okamura, Y., Satake, K. &
Shishikura, M. (2008): Marine incursions of the past 1500 years and evidence of tsunamis at
Suijin-numa, a coastal lake facing the Japan Trench. – The Holocene, 18 (4): 517-528.
Scheffers, A., 2004. Tsunami imprints on the Leeward Netherlands Antilles (Aruba, Curaçao and
Bonaire) and their relation to other coastal problems. Quaternary International 120(1), 163-
172.
Scheffers, A., 2005. Coastal Response to Extreme Wave Events: Hurricanes and Tsunami on
Bonaire. Essener Geographische Arbeiten 37, 1-96.
Scheffers, A., 2006. Argumente und Methoden zur Unterscheidung von Sturm- und Tsunamischutt
und das Problem der Datierung von Paläo-Tsunami. Die Erde 136(4), 413-429.
Scheffers, A., 2006 a. Sedimentary Impacts of Holocene Tsunami Events from the Intra Americas
Seas and Southern Europe, A Review. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd. 146, 7-
37.
Scheffers, A. (2006 b): Ripple Marks in Coarse Tsunami Deposits. – Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.-Bd. 146: 221-233.
Scheffers, A. (2006 c): Coastal Transformation During and After a Sudden Neotectonic Uplift in
Western Crete (Greece). – Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.-Bd. 146: 97-124.
Scheffers, A. (2007): Tsunami. – In: Glade, T. & Felgentreff, C. (Hrsg.) Naturrisiken und
Sozialkatastrophen. – Spektrum (Elsevier).
230
Scheffers, A. (2008): Tsunami Boulder Deposits.– In: Shiki, T. et al. (eds.): Tsunamiites.–
Elsevier: 299-318.
Scheffers, A. & Scheffers, S., 2007. First significant tsunami evidence from historical times in
western Crete (Greece). Earth and Planetary Letters, 259 (3-4): 613-624.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D. & Browne, T. (2008): Wave-emplaced coarse debris and mega-clasts in
Ireland and Scotland: a contribution to the question of boulder transport in the littoral
environment , - GI² S Coast Research Publication, 6: 151-153.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., 2005. Tsunami Relics in the Coastal Landscape West of Lisbon,
Portugal. Sci. Tsu. Haz. 23, 3-16.
Scheffers, A and Kelletat, D, 2006, Recent Advances in Palaeo-Tsunami Field Research in the
Intra-Americas-Sea (Barbados, St. Martin and Anguilla): in Mercado-Irizarri, A and Liu, P,
eds., Caribbean Tsunami Hazard: Proceedings of the NSF Caribbean Tsunami Workshop,
Puerto Rico, World Scientific Publishers, p. 178-202.
Scheffers, A. & Kelletat, D. (Eds., 2006): Tsunamis, Hurricanes and Neotectonics as Driving
Mechanisms in Coastal Evolution. – Proceedings of the Bonaire Field Symposium, March 2-6,
2006, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplementband 146, 265 pp.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., 2006. Tsunami- and Palaeo-Tsunami Research, Where are we now and
where do we go? - Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd. 146, 1-5.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R., Bryant, E.A. (2008): The Holocene Palaeo-Tsunami
History of West Australia. – Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 270: 137-146
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R. and Haslett, S.K. (2009): Coastal Boulder Deposits in
Galway Bay and the Aran Islands, Western Ireland. – Annals of Geomorphology, accepted.
Scheffers, SR, Scheffers, A., Browne, T. & Haviser, J., 2008. Tsunamis and hurricanes and their
effects on coral reefs and pre-historic human populations. Quaternary International, doi:
10.1016/j.quaint.2008.07.016l.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Vött, A., May, S.M. and Scheffers, S.R. (2008): Late Holocene tsunami
traces on the western and southern coastlines of the Peloponnesus (Greece).- Earth and
Planetary Science Letters 269:271-279.
231
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., 2006. Documentation of the impact of Hurricane Ivan (2004) on the
coastline of Bonaire (Netherlands Antilles). J. Coast. Res. 22, 1437-1450.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S.R., 2007. Tsunami deposits on the coastline of west Crete (Greece).
Earth an Planetary Science Letters, 259: 613-624.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., Kelletat, D., 2005. Palaeo-Tsunami Relics on the Southern and
Central Antillean Island Arc (Grenada, St. Lucia and Guadeloupe). J. Coast. Res. 21, 263-273.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., Kelletat, D. (2007): Extreme Wave Events from Cape Range to
Albany – A Contribution to the Tsunami History of Western Australia. – XVII Congr.
INQUA, Cairns, August 2007. Abstract in: Quat. Intern., Vols 167-168, Suppl. 2007.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R., Abbott, D. H., and Bryant, E.A. (2008): Chevrons –
Enigmatic Sedimentary Coastal Features. - Annals of Geomorphology, 52 (3). doi
10.1127/0372-8854/2008.
Scheffers, SR, Scheffers, A, Kelletat, D, Radtke, U, Staben, K and Bak, RPM, 2006, Tsunami
trigger long-lasting phase-shift in a coral reef ecosystem: Annals of Geomorphology, NF,
Supplement, v. 146, p. 59-79.
Schielein, P., Zschau, J., Woith, H. & Schellmann, G. (2008): Tsunamigefährdung im Mittelmeer
– eine Analyse geomorphologischer und historischer Zeugnisse. – Bamberger Geographische
Schriften, 22: 153-199.
Scicchitano, G., Monaco, C. & Tortorici, L. (2007): Large boulder deposits by tsunami waves
along the Ionian coast of south-eastern Sicily (Italy). – Marine Geology, 238 (1-4): 75-91.
Scicchitano, G., Costa, B., Di Stefano, A., Longhitano, S. & Monaco, C. (2008): Tsunami deposits
in the Siracusa coastal area (south-eastern Sicily). – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 155-
156.
Scicchitano, G., Monaco, C. & Tortorici, L. (2007): Large boulder deposits by tsunami waves
along the Ionian coast of south-eastern Sicily. – Marine Geology, 238: 75-91.
Shiki, T. & Tachibana, T. (2008): Sedimentology of Tsunamiites Refrecting Chaotic Events in the
Geological Record – Significance and Problems. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. &
Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. – Elsevier, 341-358.
232
Shiki, T., Tachibana, T., Fujiwara, O., Goto, K., Nanayama, F. & Yamazaki, T. (2008):
Characteristic Features of Tsunamiites. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K.
(eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. – Elsevier, 319-340.
Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and
Implications. – Elsevier, 411 pp.
Shiki, T. & Cita, M.B. (2008): Tsunami-Related Sedimentary Properties of Mediterranean
Homogenites as an Example of Deep-Sea Tsunamiite. – In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T.
& Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and Implications. – Elsevier, 203-216.
Smedile, A., Barbano, M.DS., De Martini, P.M., Pantosti, D., Del Carlo, P., Gerardi, F., Guarneri,
P., Pirrotta, C. & Cosentino, M. (2007): In search of tsunami deposits along the eastern coast
of Sicily (Italy). – IUGG XXIV 2007, Perugia, July 2-13.
Smedile, A., De Martini, P.M., Barbano, M.S., Bellucci, L., Del Carlo, P., Gerardi, F., Pantosti, D.,
Pirrotta, C., Gasperini, L. & Polonia, A. (2008): Palaeotsunami deposits in the Augusta bay
area (Eastern Sicily, Italy): combining onshore and offshore data. – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 157-160.
Song, Y.T. (2007): Detecting tsunami genesis and scales directly from coastsl GPS stations. –
GRL, 34, doi:10.1029/2007GL03168(2007)
Spiske, M., Piepenbreier, J., Benavente, C., Kunz, A. & Bahlburg, H. (2008): Historical tsunami
events along the coast of Peru – sedimentology and dating. – GI²S Coast Research Publication
6: 161-162.
Stefatos, A., Charalambakis, M., Papatheodorou, G. & Ferentinos, G. (2006): Tsunamigenic
sources in an active European half-graben (Gulf of Korinth, Central Greece). – Marine
Geology, 232: 35-47.
Sugawara, D., Minoura, K. & Imamura, F. (2008): Tsunamis and Tsunami Sedimentology. – In:
Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and
Implications. – Elsevier,:9-50.
Supharatid, S. (2008): Assimilation of real-time deep sea buoy data for tsunami forecasting along
Thailand`s Andaman coastline. – Science of Tsunami Hazards 27 (3): 30-47.
233
Switzer, A.D. (2008): 20 years of palaeotsunami studies on coastal sandsheets: a review. – GI²S
Coast Research Publication, 6: 163-166.
Switzer, A.D., Bristow, C.S. & Jones, B.G. (2006): Investigation in large-scale washover of a
small barrier system on the southeast Australian coast using ground penetrating radar. –
Sedimentary Geology, 183: 145-156.
Switzer, A.D. & Jones, B.G. (2008): Large-scale washover sedimentation in a freshwater lagoon
from the southeast Australian coast: tsunami or exceptionally large storm. – The Holocene, 18
(4): 633-649.
Switzer, A.D., Pucillo, K., Haredy, R., Jones, B.G., Bryant, E., 2005. Sea level, storm or tsunami:
enigmatic sand sheet deposits in a sheltered coastal embayment from southeastern New South
Wales, Australia. J. Coast. Res. 21, 655–663.
Synolakis, C. and E. Bernard, 2006, Tsunami science before and beyond Boxing Day 2004, Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. A (2006) 364, 2231–2265, doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1824.
Tinti, S., Maramai, A., Armigliato, A., Graziani, L., Manucci, A., Pagnoni, G. & Zaniboni, F.
(2005): Observations of physical effects from tsunamis of December 30, 2002 at Stromboli
volcano, southern Italy. – Bull. Volcanology, 68 (5): 450-461.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., May, M., Lang, F., Brockmüller, S., 2007. Late Holocene tsunami imprint
on Actio headland at the entrance of the Ambrakian Gulf (NW Greece). – Méditerranée 108,
43–57.
Vött, A., May, M., Brückner, H., Brockmüller, S., 2006 a. Sedimentary evidence of late Holocene
tsunami near Lefkada Island (NW Greece). Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd.
146, 139-172.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., Georg, C., Handl, M., Schriever, A. & Wagner, H.-J. (2007 a):
Geoarchäologische Untersuchungen zu holozänen Landschaftswandel der Küstenebene von
Palairos (Nordwestgriechenland). – Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1: 191-213.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., Brockmüller, S., Handl, M. May, S.M., Gaki-Papanastassiou, K., Herd, R.,
Lang, F., Maroukian, H., Nelle, O., Papanastassiou, D., 2007 b. Traces of Holocene tsunamis
across the Sound of Lefkada, NW Greece. Global and Planetary Change (submitted).
234
Vött, A., Brückner, H., Handl, M. & Schriever, A. (2006 b): Holocene palaeogeographies and the
geoarchaeological setting of the Mytikas coastal plain (Akarnania, NW Greece). – Zeitschrift
für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd. 141: 85-108.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., Handl., M. & Schriever, A. (2006 c): Holocene palaeogeographies of the
Atakos coastal plain (Akarnania, NW Greece). – Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, 239: 126-146.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., May, M., Lang, F., Herd, R., Brockmüller, S., 2007 c. Strong tsunami
impact on the Bay of Aghios Nikolaos and its environs (NW Greece) during Classical-
Hellenistic times. Quaternary International, 181:105-122.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., May, M, Lang, F., Brockmüller, S., 2007 d. Late Holocene tsunami imprint
on Actio headland at the entrance of the Ambrakian Gulf. Méditerranée 108, 43-57.
Vött, A., May, S.M., Masberg, P., Klasen, N., Grapmayer, R., Brückner, H., Bareth, G.,
Sakellariou, D., Fountoulis, I & Lang, F. (2008): Tsunamite findings along the shores of the
Eastern Ionian Sea – the Cefalonia case study (NW Greece). – GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 167-170.
Weiss, R., Wünnemann, K. & Bahlburg, H. (2006): Numerical modeling of generation,
propagation and run-up of tsunamis caused by oceanic impacts: Model strategy and technical
solutions. – Geophys. Journ. Int., 167: 77-88.
Weiss, R. & Wünnemann, K. (2007): Large waves caused by oceanic impacts of meteorites. – In:
Kundu, A. (ed.): Tsunamis and Nonlinear Waves. Springer, Berlin: 235-260.
Weiss, R. & Bourgeois, J. (2008): ―Chevrons‖ are not mega-tsunami deposits – a sedimentologic
assessment. – GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 175-178
Whelan, F. & Kelletat, D. (2005): Boulder Deposits on the Southern Spanish Atlantic Coast:
Possible Evidence for the 1755 AD Lisbon Tsunami. – Science of Tsunami Hazards, 23 (3):
25-38.
Whelan, F. & Kelletat, D. (2006): Tsunamis. – In: Gebhard, H., Glaser, R., Radtke, U. & Reuber,
P. (eds.): Geography – Physische Geographie und Humangeographie. München, Spektrum
Akademischer Verlag: 1046-1047.
235
Williams, D.M. & Hall, A.M. (2004): Cliff-top megaclast deposit of Ireland, a record of extreme
waves in the North Atlantic – storms or tsunamis? – Marine Geology, 206: 101-117.
Williams, H., Hutchinson, I. & Nelson, A.R. (2005): Multiple sources for late-Holocene tsunamis
at Discovery Bay, Washington State, USA. – Holocene, 15: 60-73.
Yamazaki, T., Shiki, T., Minoura, K. & Tsuji, Y. (2008): Bibliography of Tsunamiite. – In: Shiki,
T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. & Minoura, K. (eds). (2008): Tsunamiites. Features and
Implications. – Elsevier: 383-404.
236
References
Aalen, F.H.A., Whelan, K. and Stout, M. 1997. Atlas of the Irish rural landscape. Cork
University Press, Cork.
Aaronson, R.B., Macintyre, I.G., Precht, W.F., Murdoch, T.J.T., Wapnick, C.M., 2002.
The expanding scale of species turnover events on coral reefs. Ecological
Monographs 72, 233–249.
Abbott, D.H., Martos, S., Elkinton, H., Bryant, E.F., Gusiakov, V. and Breger, D. 2006.
Impact craters as sources of megatsunami generated chevron dunes: Abstract.
Geological Society of America, Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abbott, D.H., Masse, W.B., Burckle, L.H., Breger, D. and Gerard-Little, P. 2005. Burckle
abyssal impact crater: did this impact produce a global deluge? Atlantis 2005
Conference, Milos, Greece, Conference Proceedings.
Abbott, D. H., Matzen, A., Bryant, E. A. and Pekar, S. F. 2003. Did a bolide impact cause
catastrophic tsunamis in Australia and New Zealand? Geological Society of
America, Abstracts with Programs, 35/6, 168.
Abbott, D.H., Tester, E.W. and Meyers, C.A. 2007. Impact ejecta and megatsunami
deposits from a historical impact into the Gulf of Carpentaria. Geological Society
of America, Abstracts with Programs, 39
Acropora Biological Review Team, 2005. Atlantic Acropora status review document:
Report to National Marine Fisheries Service, Southeast Regional Office.
Adey, WH. 1978. Coral reef morphogenesis: a multidimensional model. Science v. 202, p.
831-837.
Adjeroud, M., Chancerelle, Y., Schrimm, M., Perez, T., Lecchini, D., Galzin, R. and
Salvat, B. 2005, Detecting the effects of natural disturbances on coral assemblages
in French Polynesia: A decade survey at multiple scales. Aquatic Living Resources,
v. 18, p. 111-123.
Alasset, P.J., Hébert, H., Maouche, S., Calbini, V. and Meghraoui, M. 2006. The tsunami
induced by the 2003 Zemmouri earthquake (Mw=6.9), Algeria: modelling and
results. Geophysical Journal International 166 (1): 213-226.
Albring, W., 1978. Angewandte Strömungslehre. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Ammon, J.C.Ji, C., Thio, H., Robinson, D. Ni., S., Hjortleifsdottir, V., Kanamori, H., Lay,
T., Das, S., Helmbeger, D., Ichinose, G., Polet, J. and Wald, D. 2005. Rupture
process of the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. Science 308: 1133-1139.
Anandan, C. and Sasidhar, P. 2008. Assement of the impact of the tsunami of December
26, 2004 on the near-shore bathymetry of the Kalpakkam coast, east coast of India.
Science of Tsunami Hazards 27, 4: 26-35.
Aqua-Fact International. 2002. Wave climate study for the Skerd Rocks, Outer Galway
Bay, Galway, Part 2. Aqua-Fact International Series, Galway.
Armigliato, A., Tinti, S., Tonini, R., Pagnoni, G., Gallazzi, S., Manuci, A., Zaniboni, F.,
Mastronuzzi, G., Pignatelli, C. and Sanso, P. 2008. The 20th February 1743
tsunamigenic earthquake in Apulia, Italy: investigation on the source from
237
numerical tsunami modelling and geological evidences. GI²S Coast Research
Publication 6: 9-11.
Ashmore, P.J. 1996. Neolithic and Bronze Age Scotland. Historic Scotland and BT
Batsford, London.
Atwater, B.F., Musumi-Rokkaku, S., Satake, K., Tsuji, Y., Ueda, S. and Yamaguchi, D.K.
2005. The orphan tsunami of 1700 – Japanese clues to a parent earthquake in
North America. U.S. Geol. Survey Professional paper 1707: 133.
Ascough, P.L., Cook, G.T., Church, M.J., Dugmore, A.J., Arge, S.V., McGovern, T.H.
2006. Variability in North Atlantic narine radiocarbon reservoir effects at c. AD
1000. The Holocene 16(1): 131-136.
Baines, G.B.K., McLean, R.F., 1976. Sequential studies of hurricane deposit evolution at
Funafuti atoll. Marine Geology 21, 1–8.
Baines, G.B.K., Beveridge, P.J., and Maragos, J.E. 1974. Storms and island building at
Funafuti Atoll, Ellice Islands: in Proceedings 2nd International Coral Reef
Symposium, p. 485-496.
Bahlburg, H., Spiske, M., Amijaya, H., Weiss, R. and Piepenbreier, J. 2008.
Sedimentological characteristics of the July 17, 2006 tsunami in South Java. GI²S
Coast Research Publication 6: 13-14.
Bahlburg, H. and Weiss, R. 2006. Sedimentology of the December 26, 2004, Sumatra
tsunami deposits in eastern India (Tamil Nadu) and Kenya. International Journal
of Earth Science 96 (6): 1195-1209
Baines, G.B.K. and McLean, R.F. 1976, Sequential studies of hurricane deposit evolution
at Funafuti atoll. Marine Geology v. 21, p. M1-M8.
Baird, A.H., Campbell, S, Anggoro, A.W., Fadli, N, Herdiana, Y, Katawijaya, T, Legawa,
R, Mahyiddin, A, Mukminin, A, Pratchett, M.S., Rudi, E, Siregar, A.M. and
Trilestari, S. 2005, Acehnese reefs in the wake of the Asian tsunami. Current
Biology, v. 15, p. 1926-1930.
Bak, R.P.M.. 1975. Ecological aspects of the distribution of reef corals in the Netherlands
Antilles, Bijdrage Dierkunde, v 45:181-190
Bapat, A. and Murty, T. 2007. Field survey of the December 26, 2004 Tsunami at
Kanyakumana. Science of Tsunami Hazards 27, 3: 73-…
Becker-Heidmann, P., Reicherter, K. and Silva, P.G. 2007. 14C dated charcoal and
sediment drilling cores as first evidence of Holocene tsunami sediments at the
southern Spanish coast. Radiocarbon 49 (2): 827-835.
Belousov, A. and Belousova, M. 2008. Deposits and effect of tsunamis generated by the
1996 underwater explosive eruption in Karymskoye Lake, Kamchatka, Russia.
GI²S Coast Research Publications 6: 15-17.
Benner, R., Browne, T., Brückner, H., Kelletat, D. and Scheffers, A. 2009. Boulder
transport by waves: progress in physical modelling. Submitted to Annals of
Geomorphology.
Benner, R., Browne, T., Brückner, H., Kelletat, D. and Scheffers, A. 2009. Boulder
transport by waves: progress in physical modelling. Submitted to Earth and
Planetary Science Letters.
238
Benner, R., Browne, T., Brueckner, H., Scheffers, A. and Kelletat, D., 2010. Boulder Transport by
waves: Progress in Physical Modelling. Annals of Geomorphology, 54 (3), 127-146.
Benzoni, F., Basso, D., Giaccone, T., Pessani, D., Capelletti, F.S., Leonardi, R., Galli, P.,
Choowong, M., di Geronimo, S. and Robba, E. 2006. Post-tsunami condition of a
local coral reef in Leam Pakarang (Andaman Sea, Thailand). Int. Soc. Reef Studies
European Meeting, Bremen, Germany: 194.
Billi, A., Funiciello, R., Mindelli, L., Faccenna, C., Neri, G., Orecchio, B. and Presti, D.
2008. On cause of the 1908 Messina tsunami, Southern Italy. Geophysical
Research Letters, 35: 35, L06301, doi:10.1029/2008GL033251.
Bishop, P., Sanderson, D., Hansom, J. and Chaimanee, N. 2005. Age-dating of tsunami
deposits: lessons from the 26 December 2004 tsunami in Thailand. The
Geographical Journal, 171 (4): 379-384.
Blakeslee, S. 2006. Ancient crash, epic wave. The New York Times, Nov. 14th, 2006.
Blanchon, P., 2005. Comments on ‗‗Corrected western Atlantic sea-level curve for the last
11,000 years based on calibrated 14C dates from Acropora palmata framework
and intertidal mangrove peat‘‘ by Toscano and Macintyre [Coral Reefs (2003)
22:257–270]. Coral Reefs 24, 183–187.
Blanchon, P. and Jones, B. 1997. Hurricane control on shelf-edge-reef architecture around
Grand Cayman. Sedimentology, v. 44, p. 479-506.
Blanchon, P., Jones, B., Kalbfleisch, W. 1997. Anatomy of a fringing reef and shoreline
around Grand Cayman: storm coral debris, not coral framework. Journal of
Sedimentary Research v. 67, p. 1-16.
Blanchon, P. and Perry, C.T. 2004. Taphonomic differentiation of Acropora palmata
facies in cores from Campeche Bank Reefs, Gulf of Mexico, Sedimentology v. 51,
p. 53-76.
Boman, A., Bozzano, F., Chiocci, F.L., and Mozzanti, P. 2006. The 1783 Scilla tsunami:
evidences of a submarine landslide as a possible (con?)cause. .Geophysical
Research Abstracts 8, 10558, EGU.
Bondevik, S. 2008. The sands of tsunami time. Nature 455:1183-1184.
Borrero, J.C. 2005a. Field data and satellite imagery of tsunami effects in Banda Aceh.
Science 308: 1596.
Borrero, J.C. 2005b. Field Survey of northern Sumatra and Banda Aceh, Indonesia and
after the Tsunami and Earthquake of 26 December 2004. Seismol. Res. Letters
76(3): 309-317.
Borrero, J. 2005c. The great Sumatra earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami of December
26, 2004. Field Survey of Northern Sumatra. Report #2 EERI Special Earthquake
Report, March 2005.
Borrero, J.C., Synolakis, C.E. and Fritz, H. 2006. Northern Sumatra field survey after the
December 2004 great Sumatra earthquake and Indian Ocean tsunami. Earthquake
Spectra 22 (S3):S3-S19.
Bondevik, S., Lovholt, F., Harbitz, C., Mangerud, J., Dawson, A. and Svendsen, J.I. 2005.
The Storegga slide tsunami: comparing field observations with numerical
simulations. Marine. Petrol. Geol. 22: 195-208.
239
Bondevik, S., Mangerud, J., Dawson, S., Dawson, A. and Lohne, O. 2005a. Evidence for
three North Sea tsunamis at the Shetland Islands between 8000 and 1500 years
ago. Quaternary Science Reviews, 24: 1757-1775.
Boelens, R.G.V., Maloney, D.M., Parsons, A.P. and Walsh, A.R. 1999. Ireland’s marine
and coastal areas and adjacent seas: an environmental assessment. Marine
Institute, 388 pp.
Bork, I., Dick, St., Kline, E.,and Müller-Navarra, S.H. (2007): Tsunami - Untersuchungen
für die deutsche Nordseeküste. Die Küste, 72: 65-105.
Bourrouilh-Le Jan, F.G., Beck, C. and Gorsline, D.S. 2007. Catastrophic events
(hurricanes, next term tsunami and others) and their sedimentary records:
Introductory notes and new concepts for shallow water deposits. Sedimentary
Geology, 199 (1-2): 1-11.
Bourrouilh-Le-Jan, F.G. and Talandier, J. 1985. Sédimentation et fracturation de haute
énergie en milieu récifal: tsunamis, ouragans et cyclones et leurs effets sur la
sédimentologie et la géomorphologie d‘un atoll: Motu et Hoa, à Rangiroa,
Tuamotu, Pacifique SE. Marine Geology 67: 263-333.
Bozzano, F., Chiocci, F.L., Mozzanti, P., Bosman, A., Casalbore, D., Giuliani, R.,
Martino, S., Prestininzi, A. and Scarascia Mugnozza, G. 2006. Subaerial and
submarine characterization of the landslide responsible for the 1783 Scilla tsunami.
Geophysical Research Abstracts, 8, 10422, EGU.
Brayne, M. 2003. The greatest storm; Britain’s night of destruction, November 1703.
Sutton Publishing, Stroud, Pennsylvania, USA, 235 pp.
Bries, JM., Debrot, AO. and Meyer DL. 2004. Damage to the leeward reefs of Curaçao
and Bonaire, Netherlands Antilles from a rare storm event: Hurricane Lenny,
November 1999. Coral Reefs, v. 23, p.297-307.
Brown, BE. 2005. The fate of coral reefs in the Andaman Sea, eastern Indian Ocean
following the Sumatra earthquake and tsunami, 26 December 2004. The
Geographical Journal, v. 171, p. 369-386.
Brown, E.P.M. 1991. Wave Power Measurements in New Zealand. ‗Coastal Engineering
− Climate for Change‘. 10th Australasian Conference Coastal and Ocean
Engineering, Auckland, 2-6 Dec. 1991: 79–84.
Bruins, H.J., Macgillivray, J.A., Synolakis, C.E., Benjamini, C., Keller, J., Kisch, H.J.,
Klügel, A. and van der Pflicht, J. 2008. Geoarchaeological tsunami deposits at
Palaikastro (Crete) and the late Minoan eruption of Santorini. Journal of
Archaeological Science 35: 191-212
Bryant, E. 2001. Tsunami − the underrated hazard. Cambridge University Press.
Bryant, E. 2008. Tsunami – the underrated hazard. 2nd ed., Springer.
Bryant, E.A. and Haslett, S.K. 2003. Was the AD 1607 coastal flooding event in the
Severn Estuary and Bristol Channel (UK) due to a tsunami? Archaeology in the
Severn Estuary 13: 163-167.
Bryant, E.A. and Haslett, S.K. 2007. Catastrophic wave erosion and boulder transport in
the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary, UK − impact of tsunami? Journal of
Geology, 115: 253-269.
240
Bryant, E., Haslett, S., Scheffers, S., Scheffers, A. and Kelletat, D. 2008. Tsunami
chronology supporting Late Holocene impacts. Presentation for the 2008 Tunguska
Conference, Russia.
Bryant, E.A., and Nott, J., 2001. Geological indicators of large tsunami in Australia.
Natural Hazards 24, 231–249.
Bryant, E.A., Walsh, G. and Abbott, D. 2007. Cosmogenic mega-tsunami in the Australia
region: are they supported by Aboriginal and Maori legends? In: Piccardi, L. and
Masse, W.B. (eds.), Myth and geology. Geological Society, London, Spec. Publ.,
273, 203-214
.Bugge, T., Belderson, R.H. and Kenyon, N.H. 1988. The Storegga Slide. Philosophical
Transactions Royal Society of London, Ser. A, 325: 357-388.
Bush, DM. 1991. Impact of Hurricane Hugo on the rocky coast of Puerto Rico. Journal of
Coastal Research v. 8, p. 49-67.
Carr, P. 1993. The night of the big wind. Belfast, White Row Press.
Carter, D.J.T. 1993. Estimating extreme wave heights in the NE Atlantic from geosat data.
HSE Offshore Technology Report, HMSO, London.
Carter, R.W.G. 1982. Sea level changes in Northern Ireland. Proceedings Geological
Association London 93: 7-23.
Carter, R.W.G. 1986. The morphodynamics of beach-ridge formation: Magilligan,
Northern Ireland. Marine Geology 73: 191–214.
Carter, R.W.G., Devoy, R.J.N. and Shaw, J. 1989. Late Holocene sea-levels in Ireland.
Journal Quaternary Science 4: 7-24.
Carter, R.W.G., Johnston, T.W., McKenna, J. and Orford, J.D. 1987. Sea level, sediment
supply and coastal changes: examples from the coast of Ireland. Progress in
Oceanography 18: 79-101.
Carter, R.W.G. and Orford, J.D. 1984. Coarse clastic barrier beaches: a discussion of their
distinctive dynamics and morpho-sedimentary characteristics. Marine Geology 60:
377-389.
Carter, R.W.G. and Orford, J.D. 1993. The morphodynamics of coarse clastic beaches and
barriers: a short and long-term perspective. Journal Coastal Research, Special
Issue, 15: 158-179.
Chadha, R.K., Latha, G., Yeh, H., Peterson, C. and Katada, T. 2005. The tsunami of the
great Sumatra earthquake of M 9.0 on 26 December 2004 – impact on the east
coast of India. Current Science 88: 1297-1301.
Chavanich, S., Siripong, A., Sojisuporn, P. and Menasveta, P. 2005. Impact of tsunami on
the seafloor and corals in Thailand. Coral Reefs 24 (4): 353.
Cho, Y.-S., Lakshumanan, C, Choi, B.-H and Ha, T.-M. 2008. Observations of run-up and
inundation levels from the Teletsunami in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands: a
field report. Journal of Coastal Research 24(1): 216-223.
Choi, B.H. (o.J.): Analysis and modeling of the distribution functions of runup heights of
the December 26, 2004 earthquake tsunami in the Indian Ocean.
http://wave.skku.ac.kr/tsunami_survey_data/KEERC.report.pdf).
241
Choi, B.H., Hong, S.J. and Pelinovski, E. 2006. Distribution of runup heights of the
December 26, 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean. Geophysical. Res. Letters, 33:
L13601.
Choowong, M. 2005. December 26, 2004 tsaunami sediments study from Andaman coast:
applications and analysis. Regional Symposium on the 2004 Tsunami Event, 21-22
November 2005, Bangkok, Extended Abstract, 4 pp.
Choowong, M. 2006. 2004 Tsunami event. geological guide book from the Andaman coast
southern Thailand. Department of Geology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn
University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Choowong, M., Charusiri, P., Charoentitirat, T., Chutakositkanon, V., Jankaew, K. and
Kanjanapayont, P. 2005. 26 December 2004 tsunami sediments from the Andaman
coast of Thailand: Preliminary analysis and interpretation. Intern. Conference on
Geology, Geotechnology and Mineral Resources of Indochina, 28-30 Nov. 2005,
Khon Kaen, Thailand: 540-541.
Choowong, M., Charusiri, P., Murakoshi, N. Hisada, K. Daorerk, V. Charoentitirat, T.,
Chutokosikanon, V., Jankaew, K., and Kanjanakayont, P. 2005. Initial report on
tsunami deposits from Phuket and adjacent areas of Thailand induced by Sumatra
earthquake of 26 December 2004. Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 111,
No. 7: XVII-XVIII.
Choowong, M., Murakoshi, N., Hisada, K., Charusiri, P., Doarerk, V., Charoentitirat, T.,
Chutakositkanon, V., Jankaew, K. and Kanjanapayont, P. 2007. Erosion and
deposition by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in Phuket and Phang-nga Provinces,
Thailand. Journal of Coastal Research 23 (5): 1270-1276.
Choowong, M., Murakoshi, N., Hisida, K., Chaoentitirat, T., Charusiri, P., Phantuwongraj,
S., Wongkok, P., Choowong, A., Subsayjun, R., Chutakositkanon, V., Jankaew, K.
and Kanjanapayont, P. 2008. Flow conditions of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in
Thailand, inferred from capping bedforms and sedimentary structures. Terra Nova
20: 141-1149.
Choowong, M., Murakoshi, N., Hisida, K., Charusiri, P., Chaoentitirat, T.,
Chutakositkanon, V., Jankaew, K., Kanjanapayont, P. and Phantuwongraj, S. 2008.
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami inflow and outflow at Phuket, Thailand. Marine
Geology, 248: 179-192.
Choowong, M., Phantuwongraj, S., Charoentitirat, T., Chutakositkanon, V., Yumuang, S.
and Charusiri, P. 2008. Beach recovery after 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami from
Phang-nga, Thailand. Geomorphology, doi:101016/j.geomorph.2008.08.007.
Cita, M.B. 2008. Deep-sea homogenites: sedimentary expressions of a prehistoric
megatsunami in the Eastern Mediterranean. In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T.
and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. features and implications. Elsevier,
185-202.
Clarke, M.L., Rendell, H.M. 2007. The impact of North Atlantic storminess on western
Europe coasts: a review. Quaternary International (in press).
Cochard, R., Ranamukhaarachchi, S.L., Shivakoti, G.P., Shipin, O.V., Edwards, P.J., and
Seeland, K.T. 2008. The 2004 tsunami in Aceh and southern Thailand: a review on
coastal ecosystems, wave hazards and vulnerability. Perspectives in Plant Ecology,
Evolution and Systematics 10 (1): 3-40.
242
Collins, G.S., Melosh, H.J. and Marcus, R., 2005. Earth impact effects program: a web-
based computer program for calculating the regional environmental consequences
of a meteoroid impact on earth. Meteoritics and Planetary Science, 40: 817-840.
Connell, JH, 1973, Population ecology of reef corals. In Jones. OA and Endean, R, (eds.),
Biology and geology of coral reefs, Vol. 2. Biology 1: New York, Academic Press,
p. 205-245.
Connell, JH. 1978. Diversity in tropical rainforests and coral reefs. Science v. 199, p.
1302-1320.
Connell, J, Hughes, TP, and Wallace, CC. 1997. A 30 year study of coral abundance,
recruitment and disturbance at several scales in space and time. Ecological
Monographs, v. 67, p. 461-488.
Cummins, P. and Leonard, M. 2005. The boxing day 2004 tsunami – a repeat of 1833? –
Geoscience Australia, AUSGEO news, Issue 77.
Costa, P., Andrade, C., Freitas, M.C., Oliveira, M.A., Taborda, R. and da Silva, C.M.
2008. High energy boulder deposition in Barranco and Furnas lowlands, western
Algarve (south Portugal). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 19-22.
Dahanayake, K. and Kulasena, N. 2008. Geological evidence for palaeo-tsunamis in Sri
Lanka. Science of Tsunami Hazards 27 (2): 54-73.
Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Jayatissa, L.P., Di Nitto, D., Bosire, J.O., Lo Seen, D. and Koedam,
N. 2005. How effective were mangroves as a defence against the recent tsunami?
Current Biology 15 (12):443-447.
Dally, W.R., 2005. Surf zone processes. In Schwartz, M.L. (ed.). Encyclopedia of coastal
science 929-935. Dordrecht.
Danielsen, F., Sorensen, M.K., Olwig, M.F., Selvam, V., Parish, F. Burgess, N.D.,
Hiralshi, T., Karunagaran, V.M., Rasmussen, M.S., Hansen, L.B., Quarto, A. and
Suriyadiputra, N. 2005. The Asian tsunami: a protective role for coastal vegetation.
Science 310: 643.
Dawson, A.G. 1994. Geomorphological effects of tsunami run-up and backwash.
Geomorphology 10: 83-94.
Dawson, A.G. 1996. The geological significance of tsunamis. Zeitschrift Geomorphologie,
Supplement, 102: 199-210.
Dawson, A., Dawson, S. and Bondevik, S. 2006. A late Holocene tsunami at Basta Voe,
Yell, Shetland Isles. Scottish Geological Journal, 122: 100-108.
Dawson, A.G., Foster, I.D.L., Shi, S., Smith, D.E. and Long, D. 1991. The identification
of tsunami deposits in coastal sediment sequences. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 9:
73-82.
Dawson, A.G., Long, D. and Smith, D.E. 1988. The Storegga Slides: evidence from
eastern Scotland for a possible tsunami. Marine Geology 82: 271-276.
Dawson, A.G. and Shi, S. 2000. Tsunami deposits. Pure And Applied Geophysics, 157:
875-897.
Dawson, A.G., Shi, S., Dawson, S., Takahashi, T., Shuto, N. 1996. Coastal sedimentation
associated with the June 2nd and 3rd, 1994 tsunami in Rajegwesi, Java.
Quaternary Science Reviews, 15: 901-912.
243
Dawson, A.G. and Stewart, I. 2007. Tsunami deposits in the geological record.
Sedimentary Geology 200: 166-183.
Dawson, A.G. and Stewart, I. 2008. Offshore tractive current deposition: the forgotton
tsunami sedimentation process. In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura,
K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and implications. Elsevier, 153-162.
Dawson, S. 2007. Diatom biostratigraphy of tsunami deposits: examples from the 1998
Papua New Guinea tsunami. Sedimentary Geology 200: 238-335.
Dawson, S., Smith, D.E., Jordan, J., Dawson, A.G. 2004. Late Holocene coastal sand
movements in the Outer Hebrides. Marine Geology, 210: 281-306.
Delaney, C. and Devoy, R. 1995. Evidence from sites in Western Ireland of late Holocene
changes in coastal environments. Marine Geology, 124: 273-287.
De Lange, W.P., de Lange, P. and Moon, V. 2006. Boulder transport by waterspouts: An
example from Aorangi Island, New Zealand. Marine Geology 230: 115-125.
De Martini, P.M., Burrato, P., Pantosti, D., Maramai, A., Graziani, L. and Abramson, H.
2008. Identification of tsunami deposits and liquefaction features in the Gargano
area (Italy): palaeoseismological implication. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6:
23-26.
De Silva, M.P. 2006. Impacts on coastal ecosystems with special reference to vegetation
in the hambantota district. In: Domroes, M. (ed.), 2006. After the Tsunami. Relief
and Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka. Mosaic Books, New Delhi: 155-164.
Devoy, R.J.N. 1983. Late Quaternary shorelines in Ireland: an assessment of their
implications for isostatic land movements and relative sea level changes. In Smith,
D.E. and Dawson, A.G. (eds.). Shorelines and isostasy. London. Academic Press
227-254.
Didenkulova, I. and Pelonovsky, E. 2008. Analysis and modelling of the 1883 Krakatao
volcanic tsunami. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 27-28.
Doocy, S., Rofi, A., Moodie, C., Spring, E., Bradley, S., Burnhama, G. and Robinson, C.
2007. Tsunami mortality in Aceh Province, Indonesia. Bull World Health
Organization, 85: 273-278.
Dolan, R., Davis, R.E. 1994. Coastal storm hazards. Journal of Coastal Research, 12:
177-187.
Dollar, SJ, 1981, Storm stress and coral community structure in Hawaii: The Reef and
Man. Proc. Of Fourth Intern. Coral Reef Symp. 1981: 214.
Dollar, SJ and Tribble, GW. 1993. Recurrent storm disturbance and recovery: A long term
study of storm disturbances in Hawaii. Coral Reefs v. 12, p. 223-233.
Dominey-Howes, D.T.M. 2007. Geological and historical records of tsunami in Australia.
Marine Geology. 239, 99-123.
Dominey-Howes, D., Cummins, P. and Burbridge, D. 2007. Historic records of
teletsunami in the Indian Ocean and insights from numerical modelling. Natural
Hazards 42:1-17.
Dominey-Howes, D.T.M., Humphreys, G.S. and Hesse, P.P. 2006. Tsunami and
palaeotsunami depositional signatures and their potential value in understanding
the late-Holocene tsunami record. The Holocene 16 (8), 1095-1107.
244
Domroes, M. (ed.), 2006 After the tsunami. Relief and rehabilitation in Sri Lanka. Mosaic
Books, New Delhi, 222pp.
Domroes, M. 2006. The tsunami catastrophe in Sri Lanka – its dimensions, relief and
rehabilitation. In: Domroes, M. (ed.) After the tsunami. relief and rehabilitation in
Sri Lanka. Mosaic Books, New Delhi: 1-34.
Donato, S.V., Reinhardt, E.G., Boyce, J.I., Rothaus, R. and Vosmer, T. 2008. Identifying
tsunami deposits using bivalve shell taphonomy. Geology 36 (3): 199-202.
Done, TJ. 1992. Effects of tropical cyclone waves on ecological and geomorphological
structures on the Great Barrier Reef. Continental Shelf Research, v. 12, p. 859-872.
Draper, L. 1972. Extreme wave condition in British and adjacent waters. Proceedings 12th
Conference on Coastal Engineering, 1: 157-165.
Draper, L. 1991. Wave climate atlas of the British Isles. Offshore Technical Report OTH
89-303, HMSO, London.
Eck, B., 1988. Technische Strömungslehre I: Grundlagen.. 9th edn., Springer-Verlag,
Berlin. 242 pp
Edirisinghe, G. 2006. Observations on the impact of the tsunami on the environment in the
Matara District. In Domroes, M. (ed.), 2006 After the tsunami. Relief and
Rehabilitation in Sri Lanka. Mosaic Books, New Delhi: 165-169.
Emanuel, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the last 30 years.
Nature v. 436, p. 686-688.
Enet, F. and Grilli, S.T. 2005. Tsunami landslide generation: Modelling and experiments.
Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Ocean Wave Measurement and
Analysis, WAVES 2005, Madrid, Spain, IAHR, Paper N0.88.
Enet, F. and Grilli, S.T. 2007. Experimental study of tsunami generation by three
dimensional rigid underwater landslides. Journal of Waterways, Port, Coastal and
Ocean Engineering-ASCE, 133 (6): 442-454.
Engel, M., Brückner, H., Kelletat, D., Schäbitz, F., Scheffers, A., Vött, A., Wille, M., and
Willershäuser, T. 2008. Traces of Holocene extreme events within sediment traps
along the coast of Bonaire (Netherlands Antilles). GI²S Coast Research
Publication 6: 29-31.
EurOtop 2007. Wave overtopping of sea defences and related structures: assessment
manual. Die Küste, Heft 73: 178 pp.
Fagherazzi, S. and Du, X. 2008. Tsunamigenic incisions produced by the December 2004
earthquake along the coasts of Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka. Geomorphology
99:120-129.
Fairbanks, R.G., Mortlock, R.A., Chiu, T.-C., Cao, L., Kaplan, A., Guilderson, T.P.,
Fairbanks, T.W., Bloom, A.L., Grootes, P.M. and Nadeau, M.-J. 2005.
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired
²³°Th/²³4U/²³8U and 14C dates on pristine corals. Quaternary Science Reviews 24:
1781-1796.
Federici, P.R. and Rodolfi, G. 2008. Traces of an ancient tsunami event on the
Archangelos coast (Southern Peloponnesos, Lakonia, Greece). GI²S Coast
Research Publication, 6: 37-38.
245
Feehan, J. 1999. The geology of the Aran Islands. In Waddell, J., O‘Connell, J.W. and
Korff, A. (eds.) The book of Aran. Aran Islands, Co. Galway: 17-34.
Felton, E.A. 2002. Sedimentology of rocky shorelines: 1. A review of the problem, with
analytical methods, and insights gained from the Hulopoe Gravel and the modern
rocky shoreline of Lanai, Hawaii. Sedimentary Geology 152: 221-245.
Fernando, H.J.S., McCulley, J.L., Mendis, S.G. and Perera, K. 2005. Coral poaching
worsens tsunami destruction in Sri Lanka. Eos Trans 86: 301-304. Fichaut, B. and
Suanez, S. 2008. Les blocs cyclopéens de l´ile de Banneg (Archipel de Molène,
Finisterre): accumulations supra tidales de forte énergie. – Géormorphologie 1: 15-
32.
Fine, I.V., Rabinovich, A.B. and Thomson, R.E. 2005. The dual source region for the
2004 Sumatra tsunami. Geophysical. Research Letters 32: L 16602.
Fisher, M.A., Geist, E.L., Sliter, R., Wong, F.L., Reiss, C. and Mann, D.M. 2007.
Preliminary analysis of the earthquake (MW 8.1) and tsunami of April 1, 2007, in
the Solomon Islands, southwestern Pacific Ocean. Science of Tsunami Hazards 26
(1)
Focke, JW. 1978. Limestone cliff morphology and organism distribution on Curacao
(Netherlands Antilles), with special attention to the origin of notches and
vermetid/coralline algal surf benches (―cornices‖, ―trottoirs‖). Zeitschrift fuer
Geomorphologie 22, p. 329-349.
Foster, R., Hagan, A., Perera, N., Gunavan, C.A. et al. 2005. Tsunami and earthquake
damage to coral reefs of Aceh, Indonesia. Reef Check Foundation, Pacific
Palisades, California, USA, 85 pp.
Freundt, A., Kutterolf, S., Wehrmann, H., Schmincke, H.U. and Strauch, W. 2006.
Eruption of the dacite to andesite zoned Mateare Tephra, and associated tsunamis
in lake Managua, Nicaragua. Journ. Volcanol. and Geothermal Research 149: 103-
123.
Fritz, H.M. and Borrero, J.C. 2006. Somalia Field Survey after the December 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami. Earthquake Spectra 22 (S3).
Fritz, H., Borrero, J., Synolakis, C. and Yoo, J. 2006. 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami flow
velocity measurements from survivor videos. Geophysical. Research Letters 33:
L24605, doi:10.1029/2006GL026784.
Fritz, H.M., Synolakis, C.E. and McAdoo, B.G. 2006. Maldives field survey after the
December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Earthquake Spectra 22 (S3).
Fuchs, H.-J. 2006. Tsunami – a global review of past and present occurences. In Domroes,
M. (ed.,): After the tsunami. Relief and rehabilitation in Sri Lanka. Mosaic Books,
New Delhi: 34-60.
Fujino, S., Naruse, H., Suphawajruksakul, A., Jarupongsakui, T., Murayama, M. and
Ichihara, T. 2008. Thickness and grain-size distribution of Indian Ocean tsunami
deposits at Khao Lak and Phra Thong island, south-western Thailand. In Shiki, T.,
Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and
implications. Elsevier: 123-132.
246
Fujiwara, O. 2008. Bedforms and sedimentary structures characterizing tsunami deposits.
In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites.
Features and implications. Elsevier: 51-62.
Fujiwara, O. and Kamataki, T. 2007. Identification of tsunami deposits considering the
tsunami waveform: An example of subaqueous tsunami deposits in Holocene
shallow bay on southern Boso Peninsula, central Japan. Sedimentary Geology 200:
295-313.
Galapatti, J., Epitawatta, S. and Samarakoon, R.J.I. (eds.) Damage to coastal ecosystems
and associated terrestrial environments in Sri Lanka by the tsunami of 26th
December 2004. Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources and UN
Environment Program, Colombo, Sri Lanka, Final Report: 1-57.
Gandhi, M.S., Solai, A. and Mohan, S.P. 2007. Benthic foraminifera and its environmental
degradation studies between the tsunamigenic sediments of Mandapam and
Tuticorn, South East coast of India. Science of Tsunami Hazards 26 (2): 115-139.
Gardner, TA. Coté, IM, Gill, FA. Grant, A. and Watkinson, AR. 2004. Hurricanes and
Caribbean coral reefs: impacts, recovery patterns, and role in long-term decline.
Ecology v. 86, p. 174-184.
Gascoigne, J., Lipcius, R.N., 2004. Allee effects in marine systems. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 269, 49–59.
Gelfenbaum, G. and Jaffe, B. 2003. Erosion and sedimentation from the 17 July, 1998
Papua New Guinea tsunami. Pure and Applied Geophysics 160: 1969-1999
Gelfenbaum, G., Jaffe, B., Morton, R. and Moore, A. 2008. Variations in tsunami deposit
thickness: the role of pre-existing topography. GI² S Coast Research Publication,
6: 39-40.
Gelfenbaum, G., Vatvani, D., Jaffe, B. and Dekker, F. 2007. Tsunami inundation and
sediment transport in vicinity of coastal mangrove forest. – Proc. Coastal
Sediments 07 May 2007, New Orleans, LA: 1117-1128.
Gerardi, F., Barbano, M.S., De Martini, P.M. and Pantosi, D. 2008. Discrimination of
tsunami sources (earthquake and landslide) on the basis of historical data in
Eastern Sicily and Southern Calabria. GI²S Coast Research Publication 6: 41-44.
Ghoborah, A., Saatcioglu, M. and Nistor, I. 2006. The impact of the 26 December
earthquake and tsunami on structures and infrastructure. Engineering Structures,
28: 312-326.
Gibbons, H. and Gelfenbaum, G. 2005. Astonishing wave heigth among the findings of an
international tsunami survey team on Sumatra. Sound Waves, March 2005.
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2005/03/.
Gilbertson, D.D., Schwenninger, J.L, Kemp, R.A., and Rhodes, E.J. 1999. Sand-drift and
soil formation along an exposed North Atlantic coastline: 14,000 years of diverse
geomorphological, climatic and human impacts. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 26: 439-469.
Gilmour, J.P. and Smith, L.D., 2006. Category 5 cyclone at Scott Reef, northwestern
Australia. Coral Reefs 25(2), 200.
Gischler E, 2006. Comment on ‗Corrected western Atlantic sea-level curve for the last
11,000 years based on calibrated 14C dates from Acropora palmata framework and
247
intertidal mangrove peat‘ by Toscano and Macintyre. Coral Reefs 22:257–270
(2003), and their response in Coral Reefs 24:187–190 (2005)
Gierloff-Emden, H.G. 1980. Geographie der Meere. 2 Vol., 1310 pp., de Gruyter, Berlin-
New York.
Glynn, PW, 1973, Aspects of the ecology of coral reefs in the western Atlantic region, p.
271-324. In: Jones, OA and Endean, R (eds.) Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs,
Vol. 2. Biology 1, Academic Press, New York, 480 p.
Glynn, PW, Almodovar, LR and Gonzalez, JG, 1964. Effects of Hurricane Edith on
marine life in La Parguera, Puerto Rico. Caribbean Journal of Science, v. 4, p.
335-345.
Glynn, PW. Lirman, D. Baker, AC and Leyte Morales, GE. 1998, First documented
hurricane strikes on eastern Pacific coral reefs reveal only slight damage. Coral
Reefs, v. 17, p. 368.
.Goff, J. 2008. Local, regional, and nationwide palaeotsunamis – a comprehensive
database refocuses ongoing and future palaeotsunami research (New Zealand). –
GI²S Coast Research Publications, 6: 45-47.
Goff, J., Dudley, W.C., de Maintenon, M.J., Cain, G.F. and Coney, J.P. 2006. The largest
local tsunami in 20th century Hawaii. Marine Geology 226: 65-79.
Goff, J.R., Hicks, D.M. and Hurren, H. (2007): Tsunami geomorphology in New Zealand.
– NIWA Technical Report No. 128, 67 pp.
Goff, J., Liu, P.L.-H., Higman, B., Morton, R., Jaffe, B.E., Fernando, H., Lynett, P., Fritz,
H., Synolakis, C. and Fernando, S. (2006): Sri Lanka Field Survey after the
December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra, 22: 155-172.
Goff, J., McFadgen, B.G. and Chague-Goff, C. 2004. Sedimentary differences between
the 2002 Easter storm and the 15th-century Okoropunga tsunami, southeastern
North Island, New Zealand. Marine Geology, 204: 235-250.
Goto, K. 2008. The genesis of oceanic impact craters and impact-generated tsunami
deposits. In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008.
Tsunamiites. Features and implications. Elsevier, 277-298
Goto, K., Chavanich, S.A., Imamura, F., Kunthasap, P., Matsui, T., Minoura, K.,
Sugawara, D. and Yanagisawa, H. 2007. Distribution, origin and transport process
of boulders deposited by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami at Pakarang Cape,
Thailand. Sedimentary Geology 202: 821-837.
Goto, K., Imamura, F., Keerthi, N., Kunthsasap, P., Natsui, T., Minoura, K.,
Ruangrassamee, A., Sugawara, D. and Suphraratid, S. 2008. Distribution and
significance of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami deposits: initial results from
Thailand and Sri Lanka. In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K.
(eds.) 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and implications. Elsevier: 105-122.
Goto, K., Chavanich, S.A., Imamura, F., Kunthasap, P., Matsui, T., Minoura, K.,
Sugawara, D., and Yanagisawa, H. 2007. Distribution, origin and transport process
of boulders deposited by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami at Pakarang Cape,
Thailand. Sedimentary Geology, 202: 821-837.
248
Gracia, F.J., Alonso, C., Benavente, J. Anfuso, G. and Del-Rio, L. 2006. The different
coastal records of the 1755 Tsunami waves along the Atlantic Spanish coast.
Zeitschrift f. Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.-Bd. 146: 195-220.
Gray, J.M. 1977. Low-level shore platforms in the southwest Scottish Highlands: altitude,
age and correlation. Transactions Institute of British Geographers, NS-3: 151-164.
Graziani, L., Maramai, A., Tinti, S. and Brizuela, B. 2008. Four tsunami events in the
Euro-Mediterranean region: analysis and reconstruction of effects. GI²S Coast
Research Publication, 6: 49-50.
Greenhough, B., Jazel, T. and Massey, D. 2005. Introduction: geographical encounters
with the Indian Ocean tsunami. In: The Indian Ocean tsunami: geographical
commentaries one year on. The Geogr. Journal, 171 (4): 369-371
Grigg, RW and Dollar, SJ, 1990, Natural and anthropogenic disturbance on coral reefs: In
Dubinsky, Z (ed) Ecosystems of the world, 25, Coral Reefs. Elsevier, 439-452.
Gunatillake, D. (2007): The 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka: destruction and recovery.
Geography, 92(3): 285-293
Guidoboni, E., A. Comastri, and G. Triana (1994). Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in
the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th
century. Instituto Nazionale di Geofisica,
Rome
Gutscher, M.A. 2005. Destruction of Atlantis by a great earthquake and tsunami? A
geological analysis of the Spartel Bank hypothesis. Geology August 2005; v. 33;
no. 8; p. 685-688; DOI: 10.1130/G21597AR.1.
Gutscher, M.-A., Roger, J., Baptista, M.-A., Miranda, J.M. and Tinti, S. 2006. Source of
the 1693 Catania earthquake and tsunami (southern Italy): new evidence from
tsunami modelling of a locked subduction fault plane. Geophysical Research
Letters, 33: 1-4: L08309.
Hall, A.M., Hansom, J.D., Williams, D.M. and Jarvis, J. 2006 Distribution, morphology,
and lithofacies of cliff-top storm deposits: Examples from the high-energy coasts
of Scotland and Ireland. Marine Geology, 232: 131-155.
Hall., A.M., Hansom, J.D. and Jarvis, J. 2008. Processes, patterns and rate of erosion by
storm waves on hard rock headlands: The Grind of the Navir, Shetland, Scotland.
Marine Geology, 253(1-2): 36-50.
Hall, A.M., Hansom, J.D., and Jarvis, J. 2008. Patterns and rates of erosion produced by
high energy wave processes on hard rock headlands: The Grind of the Navir,
Shetland, Scotland. Marine Geology, 248 (1-2): 28-46.
Hall, A.M., Hansom, J.D., Williams, D.M., and Jarvis, J. 2006. Distribution,
geomorphology and lithofacies of cliff-top storm deposits: examples from the
high-energy coasts of Scotland and Ireland. Marine Geology, 232: 131-155.
Hansom, J. 2004. The impact of extreme waves on the Atlantic Coast of the British Isles.
International Geographical Congress, Glasgow, Aug. 17th, 2004.
Hansom, J.D. and Hall, A.M. 2007. Magnitude and frequency of extra-tropical North
Atlantic cyclones: A chronology from cliff-top storm deposits. Quaternary
International 95(1-2): 42-52.
249
Hansom, J.D., Barltrop, N., and Hall, A. 2008. Modelling the processes of cliff-top
erosion and deposition under extreme storm waves. Marine Geology, 253 (1-2):
36-50. doi:doi:10.1016/j.margeo.2008.02.015.
Harbison, P. 1992. Guide to national and historic monuments of Ireland. (3rd
edn.) Dublin,
Gill and Macmillan.
Harmelin-Vivien, ML, 1994, The effects of storms and cyclones on coral reefs: a review:
Journal of Coastal Research v. 12, p. 211–231.
Harmelin-Vivien, M and Laboute, P. 1986. Catastrophic impact of hurricanes on atoll
outer reef slopes in the Tuamotu (French Polynesia). Coral Reefs, v. 5, p. 55-62.
Haslett, S.K. and Bryant, E.A. 2007a. Reconnaissance of historic (post-AD 1000) high-
energy deposits along the Atlantic coasts of southwest Britain, Ireland and
Brittany, France. Marine Geology, 242: 207-220.
Haslett, S.K. and Bryant, E.A. 2007b. Evidence of historic coastal high-energy wave
impact (tsunami?) in North Wales, United Kingdom. Atlantic Geology, 43:137-
147.
Haslett, S.K. 2008. 400 years on! Report of a public conference commemorating the 400th
anniversary of the 1607 flood in the Bristol Channel and Severn Estuary, UK.
Archaeology in the Severn Estuary, 18: 115-118.
Haslett, S.K., Bryant, E.A. 2005. The AD 1607 coastal flood in the Bristol Channel and
Severn Estuary: historical records from Devon and Cornwall. Archaeology in the
Severn Estuary, 15: 81-89.
Haslett, S.K., Bryant, E.A. 2007a. Evidence of historic coastal high-energy wave impact
(tsunami?) in North Wales, United Kingdom. Atlantic Geology, 43: 137-147.
Haslett, S.K., Bryant, E.A. 2007b. Reconnaissance of historic (post-AD 1000) high-energy
deposits along the Atlantic coasts of southwest Britain, Ireland and Brittany,
France. Marine Geology, 242: 207-220.
Haslett, S.K., Bryant, E.A. 2008. Historic tsunami in Britain since AD 1000: a review.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 8: 587-601.
Haviser, JB. 1987. Amerindian cultural geography on Curaçao. Natuurwetenschappelijke
Studiekring voor Suriname en de Nederlandse Antillen, no. 120, Amsterdam.
Haviser, JB. 1991. The first Bonaireans. Reports of the Archaeological-Anthropological
Institute of the Netherlands Antilles, No. 10, pp. 266, Curaçao.
Haviser JB. 2001 New data for the archaic age on Curaçao. In, Proceedings of the 19th
International Congress for Caribbean Archaeology, p. 110-123, Aruba.
Hayne, M and Chapell, J, 2001, Hurricane frequency during the last 5000 years at Curacoa
Island, North Queensland, Australia. Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology
Palaeoecology, v. 168, 207-219.
Hawkes, A., Bird, M., Cowie, S., Grundy-Warr, C., Horton, B.P., Shau Hwai, A.T., Law,
L., Mcgregor, C., Nott, J., Eong Gong, J., Rigtg, J., Robinson, R., Tan-Mullins, M.,
Tiong Sa, T., Yasin, Z. and Wan Aik L. 2007. Sediments deposited by the 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami along the Malaysia-Thailand Peninsula. Marine Geology,
242: 169-190.
250
Hawkes, A.D. and Horton, B.P. 2008. 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami sediment characteristics
along the Malaysia-Thailand Peninsula. Research on Tsunami Deposits II: Posters,
T43B-02.
Hearty, PJ, 1997, Boulder deposits from large waves during the last interglaciation on
North Eleuthera Island, Bahamas. Quaternary Research, v. 48, p. 326-338.
Hearty, P.J., Neumann, A.C., 2001. Rapid sea-level and climate change at the close of the
Last Interglaciation (MIS 5e): evidence from the Bahama Islands. Quaternary
Science Reviews 20, 1881–1895.
Hearty, P.J., Tormey, B.R., Neumann, A.C., 2002. Discussion: palaeoclimate significance
of co-occurring wind- and water-induced sedimentary structures in the last
interglacial coastal deposits from Bermuda and the Bahamas (Kindler and Strasser,
Sedimentary Geology, 131, 1–7). Sedimentary Geology 147, 429–435.
Heezen, B.C. and Ewing, M. 1952. Turbidity currents and submarine slumps, and the
1929 Grand Banks earthquake. American Journal of Science, 250: 849-873.
Hernandez-Avila, ML, Roberts, HH and Rouse, LJ, 1977, Hurricane-generated waves and
coastal boulder rampart formation: in Taylor, DL, ed., Proceedings 3rd
International Coral Reef Symposium, v. 2. p. 71-78, University of Miami, Miami.
Hickey, K.R. 2003. The storminess record of Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland,
1796-1999. Weather, 58: 28-35.
Highsmith, RC, Riggs, AC and D‘Antonio, CM, 1980. Survival of hurricane-generated
coral fragments and a disturbance model of reef calcification/growth rates.
Oecologia, v. 46, p. 322-329.
Higman, B. and Bourgeois, J. 2008. Deposits of the 1992 Nicaragua tsunami. In: Shiki,
T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features
and implications. Elsevier, 81-104.
Holland, GJ, 1997, The maximum potential energy of tropical hurricanes. Journal of
Atmospheric Science, v. 54, p. 2519-2541.
Holland, G, and McBride, J. 1997. Tropical cyclones. In Webb, E. (ed.), Windows on
meteorology: Australian perspective, Collingwood, SCIRO Publishing. p. 200-
216.
Hori, K., Kuzumoto, R., Hirouchi, D., Umitsu, M., Janjirawattikul, N. and Patanakoanog,
B. 2007. Horizontal and vertical variation of 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami deposits:
an example of two transects from the western coast of Thailand. Marine Geology,
239: 163-172.
Hubbard, DK, 1988, Control of modern and fossil reef development: Common ground for
biological and geological research: Proceedings 6th International Coral Reef
Symposium, Townsville, v. 1, p. 243-252.
Hubbard, DK, Parsons, KM, Bythell, JC and Walker, ND. 1991. The effects of Hurricane
Hugo on the reefs and associated environments of St. Croix, US Virgin Islands: a
preliminary assessment. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 8, p. 33-48.
Hubbard, DK, Gill, IP, Burke, RB and Morelock, J. 1997. Holocene reef backstepping ,
south-eastern Puerto Rico shelf: Proceedings 8th International Coral Reef
Symposium, Panama, v. 2, p. 1779-1784.
251
Hughes, TP. 1989. Community structure and diversity of coral reefs: the role of history:
Ecology v. 70, no. 1, p 275-279.
Hughes, TP. 1994. Catastrophes, phase shifts and large-scale degradation of a Caribbean
coral reef. Science, v. 265, p. 1547-1551.
Hughes, TP and Connell, JH. 1999. Multiple stressors on coral reefs: a long-term
perspective. Limnology and Oceanography, v. 44, p. 932-940.
Huntington, K., Bourgeois, J., Gelfenbaum, G., Lynett, P., Yeh, H., Jaffe, B. and Weiss,
R. 2007. Sandy signs of a tsunami´s onshore depth and speed. EOS, Transactions
Amer. Geophys. Union, 88 (52): 577-578.
ICMAM (Integrated Coastal and Marine Area Management) 2005. Preliminary
assessment of impact of tsunami in selected coastal areas of India. Chennai, India:
Department of Ocean Development. Post Tsunami Field Report.
Imamura, F., Goto, K. and Ohkubo, S. 2008. A numerical model for the transport of a
boulder by tsunami. Journal of Geophysical Research, 113, C01008, doi:
10.1029/2007JC004170, 2008.
Inoue, S., Wijeyewickrema, A.C., Matsumoto, H., Madurapperuma, M. and Sekiguchi, T.
2007. Field Survey of tsunami effects in Sri Lanka due to the Sumatra-Andaman
Earthquake of December 26, 2004. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 164 (2-3): 395-
411.
International Tsunami Information Center 2008. Tsunami database.
http://ioc3.unesco.org/itic/categorie.php?category_no=72 .
Ioualalen, M., Asavanant, J., Kaewbanjak, N., Grille, S.T., Kirby, J.T. and Watts, P. 2007.
Modeling the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami: case study of impact in
Thailand. Journal of Geophysical Research Oceans, 112 (C7): C07024.
Ishii, M., Shearer, P.M., Houston, H. and Vidal, J.E. 2005. Extent, duration and speed of
the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake imaged by the Hi-Net array. Nature 435:
933-936.
Jackson, J.B.C., 1977. Competition on marine hard substrata: the adaptive significance of
solitary and colonial strategies. American Naturalist 111, 743–767.
Jackson, JBC. 1977. Competion on marine hard substrata: the adaptive significance of
solitary and colonial strategies. American Naturalist, v. 111, p. 743-767.
Jackson, L.E., Barrie, J.V., Forbes, D.L., Shaw, J., Manson, G.K. and Schmidt, M. 2005.
Effects of the 26 December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in the Republic of
Seychelles. Report of the Canada-UNESCO Indian Ocean Tsunami Expedition, 19
January-5 February 2005, Geol. Survey of Canada, Open File 4539.
Jaffe, B.E., Borrero, J.C., Prasetya, G.S., Dengler, L., Gelfenbaum, G. Hidayat, R.,
Higman, B., Kingsley, E., Lukiyanto Mc Adoo, B., Moore, A., Morton, R., Peters,
R., Ruggiero, P., Titov, V., Kongko, W. and Yulianto, E. 2006. The December 26,
2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami in northwest Sumatra and offshore islands.
Earthquake Spectra, 22, S3: S105-S136.
Jaffe, B.E., Borrero, J.C., Prasetya, G.S., Peters, R., McAdoo, B., Gelfenbaum, G.,
Morton, R., Ruggiero, P., Bretwood, H., Dengler, L., Hidayat, R., Kingsley, E.,
Kongko, W., Lukijanto,, Moore, A., Titov, V.V. and Yulianto, E. 2006. Northwest
252
Sumatra and offshore islands field survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami. Earthquake Spectra 22 (S 3).
Jaffe, B.E. and Gelfenbaum, G. 2007. A simple model for calculating tsunami flow speed
from tsunami deposits. Sedimentary Geology, 200: 347-361.
Jaiswal, R.K., and Rastogi, B.K. 2008. Tsunamigenic sources in the Indian Ocean. Science
of Tsunami Hazards, 27 (2): 32-53.
Jankaew, K., Atwater, B.F., Sawai, Y., Choowong, M., Charoentitirat, T., Martin, M.E.
and Prendergast, A. 2008. Medieval forewarning of the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami in Thailand. Nature, 455: 1228-1231.
Jankaew, K., Choowong, M., Charoentitirat, T. et al. 2007. A pre-2004 tsunami deposit in
Thailand. EOS Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 88: 23.
Jayakumar, S., Ilangovan, D., Naik, K.A., Gowthaman, R., Tirodkar, G., Naik, G.N.,
Ganeshan, P., Mani Murali, R., Michael, G.S., Ramana, M.V. and Bhattacharya,
G.C. 2005. Run-up and inundation limits along southeast coast of India during the
26 December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Current Science, 88: 1741.
Jones, B, and Hunter, IG, 1992, Very large boulders on the coast of Grand Cayman: The
effects of giant waves on rocky coastlines. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 8, p.
763-774.
Jordan, B.R. 2008. Tsunamis of the Arabian Peninsula. A Guide of Historic Events.
Science of Tsunami Hazards, 27 (1): 31-46.
Jovanelly, T. and Moore, A. 2005. Tsunami origin for a 1,100-year-old enigmatic sand
sheet in Lynch Cove, Puget Sound, Washington, USA. GSA Abstracts with
Programs, v.37, n.7: 65.
Kamataki, T.and Nishimura, Y. 2005. Field survey of the 2004 off-Sumatra earthquake
tsunami around Banda Aceh, northern Sumatra, Indonesia. Journal of Geology,
114: 78-82.
Karima, M.F., Royb, G.D., Ismaila, A.I.M. and Meaha, M.A. 2007. A shallow water
model for computing tsunami along the west coast of peninsula Malaysia and
Thailand using boundary – fitted curvilinear grids. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 26
(1): 21-41.
Kathiresan, K. and Rajendran, N. 2005. Coastal mangrove forests mitigate tsunami.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 65: 601-606.
Kathriresan, K. and Rajendran, N. 2006. Reply to ‗comments on Kerr et al. on ―Coastal
mangrove forests mitigated tsunami (Estuar. Coast. Shelf Sci., 65, 2005: 601-606.
Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 67: 542.
Keating, B.H., Wanink, M. and Helsley, C.E. 2008. Introduction to a tsunami-deposits
database. In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008.
Tsunamiites. Features and implications. Elsevier, 359-382.
Keating, B., Helsley, C., Wafreed, Z. and Dominey-Howes, D. 2005. 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami on the Maldives islands: Initial observations. Science of Tsunami Hazards,
23(2): 19-70.
Kelletat, D. 2005a. Tsunami traf die Menschen – Natur kam glimpflich davon. Campus
Report, Univ. Duisburg-Essen, 1/05: 22-25.
253
Kelletat, D. 2005b. Zwei Monate danach – Impressionen einer Reise in den Westen
Thailands. Thailand-Rundschau, 18(2): 59-62.
Kelletat, D. 2005c. Neue Beobachtungen zu Paläo-Tsunami im Mittelmeergebiet,
Mallorca und Bucht von Alanya, türkische Südküste. Schriften des Arbeitskreises
Landes und Volkskunde Koblenz (ALV) 4, 1-14.
Kelletat, D. 2008. Comments to Dawson, A.G. and Stewart, I. (2007), Tsunami deposits in
the geological record. Sedimentary Geology 200, 166-183.
Kelletat, D. 2008. Tsunami und Tsunamiforschung . Mitteilungen Geogr. Gesellschaft für
das Ruhrgebiet, 2: 57-71.
Kelletat, D. and Scheffers, A. 2005. Tsunami relics on the coastal landscape west of
Lisbon, Portugal. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 23 (1): 3-16.
Kelletat, D, Scheffers, A and Scheffers, SR. 2004. Holocene tsunami deposits on the
Bahaman islands of Long Island and Eleuthera. Annals of Geomorphology, v. 48,
p. 519-540.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, A. and Scheffers, S. 2005. Tsunami – eine unterschätzte
Naturgefahr? Geowissenschaftliche Mitteilungen 5-13.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, A. and Scheffers, S.R. 2005. Palaeo-tsunami relics on the southern
and central Antillean island arc (Grenada, Sat. Lucia and Guadeloupe). Journal of
Coastal Research, 21 (2): 263-273.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S. and Scheffers, A. 2006. Learning from the SE-Asian Tsunami:
Examples from Thailand‘s west coast. Geographische Rundschau International, 1:
4-9.
Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R. and Scheffers, A. 2007. Field Signatures of the SE-Asian
mega-tsunami along the west coast of Thailand compared to Holocene palaeo-
tsunami from the Atlantic region. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 164: 413-431.
Kelletat, D. and Schellmann, G. 2002. Tsunamis on Cyprus - field evidences and 14C
dating results. Zeitschrift Geom. NF 46, 19–34.
Kelletat, D., Whelan, F., Bartel, P. and Scheffers, A. 2005. New tsunami evidences in
southern Spain – Cabo de Trafalgar and Mallorca Island. In Sanjaume, E and
Matheu, J.F. (eds.) Geomorfologia Litoral I Quarternari, Homenatge al professor
Vincenç M. Rosselló I Verger. Universitat de València, Spain: 215-222.
Kelsey, H.M., Nelson, A.R., Hemphill-Haley, E. and Witter, R.C. 2005. Tsunami history
of Oregon coastal lake reveals a 4600 yr record of great earthquakes on the
Cascadian subduction zone. Geol. Soc. America Bull., 117: 1009-1032.
Kench, PS, McLean, RF, Brander, W, Nichol, SL, Smithers, SG, Ford, MR, Parnell, KE
and Aslam, M. 2006. Geological effects of tsunami on mid-ocean atoll islands: The
Maldives before and after the Sumatran tsunami. Geology, v. 34, p. 177-180.
Kench, P.S., Nichol, S.L., Smithers, S.G., McLean, R.F. and Brander, R.W. 2008.
Tsunami as agents of geomorphic change in mid-ocean reef islands.
Geomorphology, 95: 361-383.
Kench, PS, McLean, RF, Brander, W, Nichol, SL, Smithers, SG, Ford, MR, Parnell, KE
and Aslam, M. 2006. Geological effects of tsunami on mid-ocean atoll islands: The
Maldives before and after the Sumatran tsunami. Geology, v. 34, p. 177-180.
254
Kerr, A.M., Baird, A.H. and Campbell, S.J. 2006. Comments on ‗Coastal forests mitigate
tsunami‘ by K. Kathiresan and N. Rajendran (Estur. Coast. Shelf Sci., 65, 2005:
601-606. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 67(3): 539-541.
Kerridge, D. 2005. The threat posed by tsunami to the UK. Department of Environment
Food and Rural Affairs, HMSO, London, 123 pp.
Kirkgoz, M.S. 1992. Influence of water depth on the breaking wave impact on vertical and
sloping walls. Coastal Engineering, 18(3-4): 297-314.
Kjerve, B, Magill, KE, Porter, JW and Woodley, JD, 1986. Hindcasting of hurricane
characteristics and observed storm damage on a fringing reef in Jamaica, West
Indies. Journal of Marine Research, v. 44, p. 119-148.
Knowlton N, Lang JC, Rooney MC, Clifford PA, 1981, Evidence for delayed mortality in
hurricane-damaged Jamaican staghorn corals. Nature 294:251-252
Knowlton, N. 1992. Thresholds and multiple stable states in coral reef community
dynamics. American Zoologist, v. 32, p. 674-682.
Kongko, W., Lavigne, F. and Paris, R. 2008. Investigation on colliding wave of tsunami
run-ups in December 26th 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. GI2 S Coast Research
Publication 6: 55-56.
Kortekaas, S. and Dawson, A.G. 2007. Distinguishing tsunami and storm deposits: An
example from Marthinal, SW Portugal. Sedimentary Geology, 200: 208-221.
Kulikov, E.A., Rabinovich, A.B. and Thomson, R.E. 2005. Estimation of tsunami risk for
the coasts of Peru and northern Chile. Natural Hazards, 35: 185-209.
Kunz, C. 2008. www.baw.de/vip/abteilungen. Website accessed 27 November 2008.
http://www.baw.de/vip/en/departments/department_k/projects/helgoland/wwwhel-
en.html
Kuriann, P., Pillaia, P., Rajith, K., Muralikrishnan, B.T. and Kalairasan, P. 2006.
Inundation characteristics and geomorphological impacts of December 2004
tsunami on Kerala coast. Current Science, 90(2): 240 – 249.
Lamb, H. and Frydendahl, K. 1991. Historic storms of the North Sea, British Isles and
northwest Europe. Cambridge University Press, 204 pp.
Lamb, R. 1980. Iron age promontory forts in the British Isles. Brit Archaeol Rep 79.
Lambeck, K. 1991. Glacial rebound and sea-level change in the British Isles. Terra Nova
3, 379–389.
Lambeck, K. 1996. Glaciation and sea-level change for Ireland and the Irish Sea since late
Devensian/Midlandian time. Journal of the Geological Society of London 153,
853–872.
Lander, JF, Whiteside, LS, and Lockridge, PA, 2002. A brief history of tsunami in the
Caribbean Sea. Science of Tsunami Hazards, v. 20, p. 57-94.
Landsea, C. 2000. Climate variability of tropical cyclones: past, present and future. In:
Pielke, R. Jr. and Pielke, R. Sr. (eds.) Storms. New York (Routledge), 220–241.
Lario, J., de Luque, L., Zazo, C., Goy, J.L., Spencer, C., Cabero, A., Dabrio, C., Borja, F.,
Civis, J., Gonzales-Delgado, J.A. and Borja, C. 2008. A review of the high energy
events in the Gulf of Cadiz: tsunami vs. storm surges. GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 57-60.
255
Lavigne, F., Gomez, C., Giffo, M., Wassmer, P., Hoebreck, C., Mardiatno, D., Prioyono,
J. and Paris, R. 2007. Field observations of the 17 July 2006 Tsunami in Java. –
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 7: 177-183.
Lavigne, R., Paris, R., Wassmer, P., Gomez, C., Brunstein, D., Grancher, D., Vautier, F.,
Sartohadi, J., Setiawan, A., Syahnan, T.G., Fachzial, B.W., Mardiatno, D.,
Widagdo, A., Cahyadi, R., Lespinasse, N. and Mahieu, L. 2006. Learning from a
major disaster (Banda Aceh, December 26th, 2004). A methodology to calibrate
simulation codes for tsunami inundation models. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie,
NF Suppl. Bd. 146: 253-265.
Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C.J., Nettles, M., Ward, S.N., Aster, R.C., Beck, S.L.,
Bilek, S.L., Brudzinski, M.R., Butler, R., Deshon, H.R., Ekstrom, G., Satake, K.
and Sipkin, S. 2005. The great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake of 26 December
2004. Science, 308: 1127-1133.
Lehfeldt, R., Milbradt, P., Plüß, A. and Schüttrumpf, H. 2007. Propagation of a tsunami
wave in the North Sea. Die Küste, 72: 105-124.
Lennon, G.W. 1963. The identification of weather conditions associated with the
generation of major storm surges along the west coast of the British Isles.
Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society. 89, 381–394.
Lirman, D and Fong, P. 1997. Susceptibility of coral communities to storm intensity,
duration, and frequency: Proceedings 8th International Coral Reef Symposium, v.
1, p. 561-566.
Liu, P.L.-F., Lynett, P., Fernando, H., Jaffe, B.E., Fritz, H., Higman, B., Morton, R., Goff,
J. and Synolakis, C. 2005. Observations by the International Tsunami Survey
Team in Sri Lanka. Science, 308: 1595.
Lorang, M.S. 2000. Predicting threshold entrainment mass for a boulder beach. Journal of
Coastal Research 16, 432–445.
Loveson, V. J., Angusamy, N., Gujar, A. R., Chandrasekar, N. and Rajamanickam, G. V.
2008. Observed inferences from sudden changes in the sedimentological processes
during the December 26, 2004 tsunami along the east coast of India. Science of
Tsunami Hazards, 27, 3: 43- 52.
Lozano, I., Devoy, R.J.N., May, W., and Andersen, U. 2004. Storminess and vulnerability
along the Atlantic coastlines of Europe: analysis of storm records and of a
greenhouse gases induced climate scenario. Marine Geology 210, 205–225.
Lugo, AE Rogers CS and Nixon, SW. 2000, Hurricanes, coral reefs and rainforests:
resistance, ruin and recovery in the Caribbean. Ambio v. 29, p. 106-114.
MacInnes, B.T., Bourgois, J., Pinegina, T.K. and Kravchunovskaya, E.A. 2008. A
comparison of sediment eroded vs. deposited by the 15 Nov. 2006 Kuril Island.
GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 61-63.
MacIntyre IG, Glynn PW, Toscano MA, 2007. The demise of a major Acropora palmata
bank–barrier reef on the southeast coast of Barbados, West Indies. Coral Reefs
DOI 10.1007/s00338-007-0259-1
McCook, L, Jompa, J, and Diaz-Pulido, G, 2001, Competition between corals and algae
on coral reefs: a review of evidence and mechanisms. Coral Reefs, v. 19, p. 400-
417.
256
McKee, ED. 1959. Storm sediments on a Pacific Atoll. Journal of Sedimentary Petrology,
v. 29, no. 3, p. 354-364.
McSaveney, M.J., Goff., J.R., Darby, D.J., Goldsmith, P., Barnett, A., Elliott, S., and
Nangkas, M. 2000. The 17 July 1998 tsunami, Papua New Guinea: evidence and
initial interpretation. Marine Geology, 170: 81-92.
Madin, JS. 2005. Mechanical limitations of reef corals during hydrodynamic disturbances.
Coral Reefs, v. 24, p. 630-635.
Mah, AJ and Stearn, CW, 1986. The effect of Hurricane Allen o the Bellairs fringing
reefs, Barbados. Coral Reefs, v. 4, p. 169-176.
Maouche, S., Morhange, C. and Meghraoui, M. 2008. Large boulder accumulation on the
Algerian Coast evidence catastrophic tsunami events in the Western
Mediterranean. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 65-66.
Maragos. J, Baines, G and Beveridge, P. 1973. Tropical hurricane Bébé creates a new land
formation on Funafuti Atoll. Science, v. 181, p. 1161-1164.
Maramai, A., Graziani, L. and Tinti, S. 2005. Tsunamis in the Aeolian Islands (southern
Italy): A review. Marine Geology, 215: 11-21.
Maramai, A., Grazini, L., Alessio, G., Burrato, P., Colini, L., Cucci, L., Nappi, R., Nardi,
A. and Viardo, G. (2005): Near- and far-field survey report of the 30 December
2002 Stromboli (Southern Italy) tsunami. Marine Geology, 215: 93-106.
Marris, E. 2005. Tsunami damage was enhanced by coral theft. Nature, 436: 1071
Marsico, A. and Pignatelli, C. 2008. Laser scanner survey to rebuild large boulder
accumulated by extreme events in Torre Squillace (Southern Apulia-Italy). GI²S
Coast Research Publication, 6: 67-68.
Martin, M.E. and Bourgeois, J. 2008. Candidate tsunami deposit near Seattle, Washington
state, USA. GI² S Coast Research Publication, 6: 69-71.
Martos, S.N., Abbott, D.H., Elkinton, H.D., Chivas, A.R. and Breger, D., 2006. Impact
spherules from the craters Kanmare and Tabban in the Gulf of Carpentaria.
Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 38: 299-300.
Marcinek, J., Rosenkranz, E., 1989. Das Wasser der Erde. Harry Deutsch, Thun und
Frankfurt/Main, 318 pp.
Masse, W. 2007. The archaeology and anthropology of quaternary period cosmic impact.
In Bobrowsky P.T. and Rickman H (Eds) Comet/asteroid impacts and human
society. Springer, Berlin, 25-70.
Masse, W.B., Bryant, E., Gusiakov, V., Abbott, D., Gerard-Little, P., and Burckle, L.
2006. Holocene Indian Ocean cosmic impacts: The megatsunami chevron evidence
from southern Madagascar. Abstract, American Geophysical Union, Annual
Meeting, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Massel, S.R. 2005. Ocean surface waves: their physics and prediction. Adv. Series Ocean
Eng. 11, World Sci. Pub., 491 pp.
Massel, SR, and Done, TJ, 1993. Effects of hurricane waves on massive coral assemblages
on the Great Barrier Reef: meteorology, hydrodynamics and demography: Coral
Reefs, v. 12, p. 153-166
257
Masselink, G., 2005. Waves. In Schwartz, M.L. (ed.) Encyclopedia of coastal science:
1069-1074. Dordrecht.
Mastronuzzi, G., Caputo, R., Di Bucci, D., Fracassi, U., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P., Selleri,
G. 2008. Morphological data and the definition of tsunamogenic areas between
Apulia (Italy) and Ionian islands (Greece). GI²S Coast Research Publications, 6:
73-76.
Mastronuzzi, G., Pignatelli, C. and Sanso, P. 2006. Boulder fields: a valuable
morphological indicator of palaeotsunami in the Mediterranean Sea. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie, NF Suppl. Bd. 146: 173-194.
Mastronizzi, G., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P. and Selleri, G. 2007. Boulder accumulations
produced by the 20th of February, 1743 tsunami along the coast of southeastern
Salento (Apulia Region, Italy). Marine Geology, 242: 191-205.
Mastronuzzi, G., Sanso, P., Brückner, H., Vött, A., Pignatelli, C., Caputo, R., Coppola, D.,
Di Bucci, D., Fracassi, U., May, S.M., Milella, M. and Selleri, G. 2008.
Palaeotsunami imprints along the coasts of the central Mediterranean Sea. 2nd
International Tsunami Field Symposium, Puglia-Ionian Islands 2008, Field Guide.
GI² S Coast Research Puclications, 7:193 pp.
Mastronuzzi, G., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P. 2006. Boulder fields: a valuable morphological
indicator of palaeotsunami in the Mediterranean Sea. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie. NF 146, 173–194.
Mastronuzzi, G. and Sanso, P. 2000. Boulder transport by catastrophic waves along the
Ionian coast of Apulia, Southern Italy. Marine Geology 170, 93–103.
Mastronuzzi, G., and Sanso, P. 2004. Large boulder accumulations by extreme waves
along the Adriatic coast of southern Apulia (Italy). Quaternary International 120,
173–184.
Mastronuzzi, G., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P. 2006. Boulder fields: a valuable morphological
indicator of palaeotsunami in the Mediterranean Sea. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie.. NF 146, 173–194.
Matsutomi, H., Sakakiyama, T., Nugroho, S. and Matsuyama, M. 2006. Aspects of
inundated flow due to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Coastal Engineering
Journal. 48: 167-195.
Matsuomi, H. Takahashi, T. Matsuyama, M., Harada, K., Hiraishi, T., Suparatid, S and
Nakusakui, S. 2005. The 2004 off Sumatra earthquake tsunami and damage at
Khao Lak and Phuket Island in Thailand. Annual Journal of Coastal Engineering,
JSCE, 52: 1356-1360.
May, S.M., Vött, A., Brückner, H. and Brockmüller, S. 2008. Evidence of tsunamigenic
impact on Actio headland near Preveza, NW Greece. Coastline Report, 9: 115-125.
Meeker, L.D., Mayewski, P.A. 2002. A 1400-year high-resolution record of atmospheric
circulation over the North Atlantic and Asia. The Holocene, 12: 257-266.
Meilianda, E., Dohmen-Janssen, C.M., Maathuis, B.H.P., Hulscher, S.J.M.H. and Mulder,
J.M.P. 2007. Beach Morphology at Banda Aceh, Indonesia in response to the
tsunami on 26 December 2004. Coastal Sediments, May 13-17, New Orleans.
Merrifield, M.A. et al. 2005. Tide gauge observations of the Indian Ocean Tsunami,
December 26, 2004. Geophys. Research Letters, 32: L09603.
258
Meyers, C.A., Abbott, D.H., Tester, E.W. and Breger, D. 2007. Impact-affected marine
microfossils from the Gulf of Carpentaria, Northwestern Australia. Geological
Society of America, Abstracts with Programs, 39: in press.
Mhammdi, N., Medina, F., Kelletat, D., Amahmou, M. and Aloussi, L. 2008. Large
boulders along the Rabat coast (Morocco); possible emplacement by the
November, 1st, 1755 A.D. Tsunami. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 27(1): 17-30.
Milella, M., Pignatelli, C., Sanso, P. and Saracino, S. 2008. Extreme events frequency and
associated coastal damages along the coast of Salento (Southern Italy). GI²S Coast
Research Publication 6: 77-79.
Milne, GA, Long, AJ and Bassett, SE. 2005. Modeling Holocene relative sea-level
observations from the Caribbean and South America. Quaternary Science Reviews,
v. 24, p. 1183-1202.
Mitchell, G.F., Stephens, N. 1974. Is there evidence for a Holocene sea-level higher than
today on the coasts of Ireland? Coll. Int. Centre Nat. Recherches 219, 115–125.
Molfetta, M.G., Petrillo, A.F., De Girolamo, P., Pratola, L., Di Risio, M., Bellotti, G.,
Aristodemo, F. and Panizzo, A. 2008. Three-dimensional large scale experiments
on tsunamis generated by landslide along the coast of a conical island. GI²S Coast
Research Publication, 6: 81-83.
Mollison, D. 1982. Ireland´s wave power resource. National Board for Science and
Technology and Electricity Supply, Dublin: 32 pp.
Monaco, C. and Tortorici, L. 2007. Active faulting and related tsunami in eastern Sicily
and south-western Calabria. Bollettino di Geofisica Teoretica e Applicata, 48 (2):
163-184.
Monaco, C., Scicchitano, G., Tortorici, L., 2006. Large boulder accumulations by tsunami
waves along the south-eastern coast of Sicily. Marine Geology 238 (1-4), 75-91.
Monecke, K., Finger, W., Klarer, D., Kongko, W., McAdoo, B.G., Moore, A.L. and
Sudrajat, S.U. 2008. A 1,000-year sediment record of tsunami recurrence in
northern Sumatra. Nature, 455: 1232-1234.
Monserrat, S., Vilibic, I. and Rabinovich, A.B. 2006. Meteotsunamis: atmospherically
induced ocean waves in the tsunami frequency band. Natural Hazards and Earth
System Sciences 6: 1035-1051.
Monecke, K. 2006. Sedimentary characteristics of the December 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami deposit and the potential of a long tsunami record in the ridge and swale
region between Meulaboh and Calang, Northern Sumatra. – 2006 Philadelphia
Annual Meeting, Paper No. 87-18, Geol. Soc. America, Abstracts with Program,
Vol. 38, No. 7:229.
Monecke, K., Beitel, J., Moran, K. and Moore, A. 2008. Sedimentary characteristics of the
2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Ban Talae Nok, southwestern Ranong province,
Thailand. Palaeotsunami Research Posters – Palaeoceanography and
Palaeoclimatology, PP43B-1240.
Monecke, K., Finger, W., Klarer, D., Kongko, W., McAdoo, B.G., Moore, A.L. and
Sudrajat, S.U. 2008. A 1,000-year sediment record of tsunami recurrence in
northern Sumatra. Nature, 455: 1232-1234.
259
Moore, A., Nishimura, Y., Gelfenbaum, G., Kamataki, T. and Triyono, R. 2006.
Sedimentary deposits of the 26 December tsunami on the northwest coast of Aceh,
Indonesia. Earth, Planets and Space, 58: 253-258.
Morhange, C., Marriner, N., Pirazzoli, P.A., 2006. Evidence of Late-Holocene tsunami
events from Lebanon. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie.. NF Suppl.-Bd. 146, 81–95.
Mörner, N.-A., Laborel, J. and Dawson, S. 2008. Submarine ‗sandstorms‘ and tsunami
events in the Indian Ocean. Journal of Coastal Research, 24, 6: 1608-1611.
Morton, R.A., Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E. and Gelfenbaum, G. 2006. Reconnaissance
investigation of Caribbean extreme wave deposits-preliminary observations,
interpretations, and research directions. Open-file report 1293, United States
Geological Survey 46 pp.
Morton, RA., Gelfenbaum, G, Jaffe, BE., 2007, Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy
tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples, Sedimentary Geology, 200:
184-207
Morton, RA., Richmond, BM, Jaffe, BE, Gelfenbaum, G, 2006, Reconnaissance
investigation of Caribbean extreme wave deposits – preliminary observations,
interpretations, and research directions. Open-File Report 2006-1293, U.S.
Department of the Interior (2006), U.S. Geological Survey.
Morton, R.A., Gelfenbaum, B. and Jaffe, B.E. 2007. Physical criteria for distinguishing
sandy tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. Sedimentary Geology,
200: 184-207.
Morton, R.A., Goff, J.R. and Nichol, S.L. 2008. Hydrodynamic implications of textural
trends in sand deposits of the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka. Sedimentary Geology,
207(1-4): 56-64.
Morton, A.R., Gelfenbaum, G. and Jaffe, E.B. 2007. Physical criteria for distinguishing
sandy tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. Sedimentary Geology,
200: 184-207.
Moya, JC, and Mercado, A. 2006. Geomorphologic and stratigraphic investigations on
historic and pre-historic tsunami in northwestern Puerto Rico. In Mercado-Irizarri,
A and Liu, P, (eds.) Caribbean Tsunami Hazard: Proceedings of the NSF
Caribbean Tsunami Workshop, Puerto Rico, World Scientific Publishers, p. 149-
177.
Murname, R.J., Barton, C. and Collins, E. 2000. Model estimates hurricane wind speed
probabilities. Eos 81, 433–438.
Mylroie, J.E., 2008. Late Quaternary sea-level position: evidence from Bahamian
carbonate deposition and dissolution cycles. Quaternary International 183, 61–75.
Nanayama, F. 2008. Sedimentary characteristics and depositional processes of onshore
tsunami deposits: an example of sedimentation associated with the 12 July 1993
Hokkaido-Nansei-oki Earthquake Tsunami. In: Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T.
and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and implications. Elsevier, 63-
80.
Nanayama, N. and Shigeno, K. 2006. Inflow and outflow facies from the 1993 tsunami in
southwest Hokkaido. Sedimentary Geology, 187: 139-158.
260
Nanayama, F., Shigeno, K., Satake, K., Shimokawa, K., Koitabashi, S., Mayaasaka, S.,
Ishii, M. 2000. Sedimentary differences between 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki
tsunami and 1959 Miyakijima typhoon at Tasai, southwestern Hokkaido, northern
Japan. Sedimentary Geology, 135: 255-264.
Narayan, J.P., Sharma, M.L. and Maheshwar, B.K. 2005a. Run-up and inundation pattern
developed during the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 26, 2004 Along the coast
of Tamilnadu (India). Gondwana Research, 8(4): 611-614.
Narayan, J.P., Sharma, M.L. and Maheshwar, B.K. 2005b. Effects of Medu and coastal
topography on the damage pattern during the recent Indian Ocean tsunami along
the coast of Tamilnadu. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 23 (2): 9-18.
National Geophysical Data Center. 2008. Tsunami Data at NGDC.
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml.
Nishimura, Y., Nakagawa, M., Kuduon, J. and Wukawa, J. 2005. Timing and scale of
tsunamis caused by the 1994 Rabaul eruption, East New Britain, Papua New
Guinea. In Satake, K. (ed.) Tsunamis: case Studies and recent developments.
Springer: 43-56.
Nishimura, Y. (2008): Volcanism-induced tsunamis and tsunamiites. In: Shiki, T., Tsuji,
Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and
implications. Elsevier, 163-184.
NGDC 1997. World-wide tsunami 2000 BC to 1990. National Geophysical Data Center.
World Data Center A for Solid Earth Geophysics, Washington, DC.
NGDC 2001. Tsunami data at NGDC, URL:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/tsu.shtml.
Noda, A., Katayama, H., Sagayama, T., Suga, K., Uchida, Y, Satake, K., Abe K. and
Okamura, Y. 2007. Evaluation of tsunami impacts on shallow marine sediments:
an example from the tsunami caused by the 2003 Tokachi-oki earthquake,
Northern Japan. Sedimentary Geology, 200: 314-327.
Nott, J., 1997. Extremely high-energy wave deposits inside the Great Barrier Reef,
Australia; determining the cause – tsunami or tropical cyclone. Marine Geology
141, 193-207.
Nott, J. 2003a. Waves, coastal boulders and the importance of the pre-transport setting.
Earth and Planetary science Letters 210, 269–276.
Nott, J. 2003b. Tsunami or storm waves? Determining the origin of a spectacular field of
wave emplaced boulders using numerical storm, surge and wave models and
hydrodynamic transport equations. Journal of Coastal Research 19, 348–356.
Nott, J. 2003c. Intensity of prehistorical tropical cyclones. Journal of Geophys. Research
108, 4212–4223.
Nott, J. 2004. The tsunami hypothesis - comparison of field evidence against the effects,
on the Western Australian coasts, of some of the most powerful storms on Earth.
Marine Geology 208, 1–12.
Nott, J. 2006. Tropical hurricanes and the evolution of the sedimentary coast of northern
Australia. Journal of Coastal Research, v. 22, p. 49-62.
Nott, J. and Bryant, E.A. 2003. Extreme marine inundation (tsunamis?) of coastal Western
Australia. Journal of Geology, 111: 691-706.
261
Oak, L. 1984. The boulder beach: a fundamentally distinct sedimentary environment.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74, 71–82.
O‘Flaherty, J.T. 1825. A sketch of the history and antiquities of the Southern Islands of
Aran. Transactions of the Royal Irish Academy. 14, 79–140.
Obura, D and Abdulla, A, 2005, Assessment of tsunami impacts on the marine
environment of the Seychelles: CORDIO-IUCN report, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Okada, K., Goto, K., Imamura, F. and Shinozaki, T. 2007. Field observation and the
applicability limit of the model for Boulder Transport by the Tsunami (BTT-
model) based on hydraulic experiment. P.Coast. Eng., Journal of Structural
Engineering (Japan), 54: 231-235.
Okal, E.A., Fritz, H.M., Raveloson, R., Joelson, G., Pancoskova, P. and Rambolamanana,
G. 2006. Madagascar field survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami.
Earthquake Spectra, 22 (S3).
Okal, E.A., Fritz, H.M., Synolakis, C.E., Raad, P.E., Al-Shijbi, Y. and Al-Saifi, M. 2006.
Oman field survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. Earthquake
Spectra 22 (S3).
Okal, E.A., Sladen, A. and Okal, A.A.-S. 2006. Rodriguez, Mauritius, and Réunion
Islands field survey after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Earthquake
Spectra 22 (S3).
Okal, E.A. and Synolakis, C.E. 2008. Far-field tsunami hazard from mega-thrust
earthquakes in the Indian Ocean. Geophysical Journal International, 172: 995-
1015.
Oliveira, M.A., Andrade, C., Freitas, M. and Coasta, P. 2008. Using historical record and
geomorphological setting to identify tsunami deposits in the southwestern coast of
Algarve (Portugal). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 85-88.
O‘Loughlin, KF and Lander, JF. 2003. Caribbean tsunamis: a 500-year history from 1498-
1998: Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research, v. 20.
Orford, J.D. 1977. A proposed mechanism for storm beach sedimentation. Earth Surface
Processes and Landforms 2, 381–400.
Ostrander, GK, Armstrong, KM, Knobbe, ET, Gerace, D and Scully, EP. 2000. Rapid
transition in the structure of a coral reef community: the effects of coral bleaching
and physical disturbance: Proceeding National Academy Sciences, v. 97.
O‘Sullivan, P., Godwin, N. 1976. A world of stone. Dublin.
Otvos, E.G. 2000. Beach ridges – definitions and significance. Geomorphology 32, 83–
108.
Otvos, E.G. 2005. Beach ridges. In Schwartz, M.L. (Ed.). Encyclopedia of coastal science,
Springer, 172–177.
Oumeraci, H., 2008. www.lwi.tu-bs.de, Küsteningenieurwesen, Musterlösungen.
Pandolfi, JM, and Jackson, JBC. 2001. Community structure of Pleistocene coral reefs of
Curaçao, Netherlands Antilles. Ecological Monographs, v. 71: 49-67.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Caputo, R., McAdoo, B., Pavlides, S. Karastathis, V., Fokaefs, A.,
Orfanogiannaki, K. and Valkaniotis, S. 2006. The large tsunami of 26 December
262
2004: field observations and eyewitnesses accounts from Sri Lanka, Maldives Is.
and Thailand. Earth, Planets and Space, 58 (2): 233-241.
Papadopoulos, G.A., Imamura, F., Minoura, K., Takahashi, T., Karakatsanis, S., Fokaefs,
A., Orfanogiannaki, K., Daskalki, E. and Diakogianni, G. 2005. The 9 July 1956
large tsunami in the South Aegean sea: compilation of data basis ands re-
evaluation. Proc. 22nd International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics Intern.
Tsunami Symposium, Chania, Crete: 173-180.
Pantosti, D., Barbano, M.S., Smedile, A., De Martini, P.M., Gerardi, F. and Pirrotta, C.
2008. Geological evidence of palaeotsunamis at Torre degli Inglesi (northeastern
Sicily). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 89-92.
Pantosti, D., Barbano, M.S., Smedile, A., and De Martini, P.M. 2008. Geological evidence
of palaeotsunamis at Torre degli Inglesi (bortheast Sicily). Geophysical Research
Letters 35.
Pareschi, M.T., Boschi, F., Mazzarini, F. and Favali, M. 2006. Large submarine landslides
offshore Mt. Etna. Geophysical Research Letters 33.
Paris, R., Lavigne, F., Wassmer, P. and Sartohadi, J. 2007. Coastal sedimentation
associated with the December 26, 2004 in Lhok Nga, west Banda Aceh (Sumatra,
Indonesia). Marine Geology, 238: 93-106.
Paris, R., Poizot, E., Fournier, J., Cachao, M., Etienne, S., Morin, J., Lavigne, F. and
Wassmer, P. 2008. Modelling sediment transport and deposition by the 2004
tsunami in Sumatra (Indonesia). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 93-96.
Paris, R., Lavigne, F., Wassmer, P., and Sartohadi, J. 2007. Coastal sedimentation
associated with the December 26, 2004 in Lhok Nga, west Banda Aceh (Sumatra,
Indonesia). Marine Geology, 238: 93-106.
Paris, R., Wassmer, P., Sartohadi, J., Lavigne, F., Barthomeuf, B., Desgages, E., Grancher,
D., Baumert, Ph., Vaultier, F., Brunstein, D. and Gomez, Ch. 2008. Tsunamis as
geomorphic crisis: lessons from the December 26,2004 tsunami in Lhok Nga, west
Banda Aceh (Sumatra, Indonesia). Geomorphology, in press.
Park, J., Song, T.A., Tromp, J., Okal, E., Stein, S., Roult, G., Clevede, E., Laske, G.,
Kanamori, H., Davis, P., Berger, J., Braitenberg, C., Camp, M.V., Lei, X., Sun, H.,
Xu, H. and Rosat, S. 2005. Earth´s free oscillations excited by the 26 December
2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. Science, 308: 1139-1144.
Pelonovsky, E., Choi, B.H., Stromkov, A., Didenkulova, I. and Kim, H.S. 2005. Analysis
of tide-gauge records of the 1883 Krakatoa tsunami. Tsunamis: case studies and
recent developments. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazard Research,
23: 57-77.
Peltier, W.R., Shennan, I., Drummond, R., Horton, B. 2002. On the postglacial isostatic
adjustment of the British Isles and the viscoelastic structure of the Earth.
Geophysical Journal International 148, 443–475.
Pennisis, E. 2005. Powerful tsunami´s impact on coral reefs was hit and miss. Science,
307: 657.
Perkins, RD and Enos, P. 1968. Hurricane Betsy in the Florida-Bahama area; geologic
effects and comparison with Hurricane Donna. Journal of Geology, v. 76, p. 710-
717.
263
Phongsuwan, N. and Brown, B.E. 2005. The influence of the Indian Ocean tsunami on
coral reefs of western Thailand, Andaman Sea, Indian Ocean. Atoll Research
Bulletin 544: http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/faculty/duffy/arb/544/04.pdf.
Pignatelli, C., Damato, B. and Mastronuzzi, G. 2008. A terrestrial laser scanner method to
assess a tsunami wave inland penetration. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 97-
100.
Pignatelli, C., Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S.R. and Mastronuzzi, G. 2008. Evaluation of
tsunami flooding from geomorphological evidence in Bonaire (Netherland
Antilles). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 101-104.
Pinter, N., and Ishman, S.E. 2008. Impacts, megatsunami, and other extraordinary claims.
– GSA Today, January 2008, 37 pp.
Polngam, S. 2005. Remote sensing technology for tsunami disaster along the Andaman
Sea. 3rd Intern. Workshop on Remote Sensing for Post-Disaster Response, Chiba,
Japan, 16 pp.
Power, ME, Tilman, D, Estes, JA, Menge, BA, Bond, MJ, Mills, LS, Daily, G, Castilla,
JC, Lubchenco, J and Paine, RT. 1996. Challenges in the quest for keystones:
BioScience, v. 46, no. 8, p. 609-620.
Prabakaran, K. and Anbarasu, K. 2008. Modelling of tsunami inundation for the coastal
regions of Tamilnadu, India. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 109-111.
Prakhammintara, P. 2007. The correlation between tsunami run-up height and coastal
characteristics index of Phang Nga and Phuket provinces, Thailand. Thai
Meteorological Department, 6 pp.
Pranowo, W. and Kongko, W. 2008. Modelling of the Bengkulu minor tsunami event,
September 12, 2007, West of Sumatera, Indonesia. GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 113-114.
Rabinovich, A. 2005 December 26, 2004 and March 28, 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami
events. http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/projects/tsunami/tsunamiasia.htm.
Rachlewicz, G., Szczucinski, W., Tepsuwan, T., Saisuttichai, D. and Tatong, T. 2005.
Post-tsunami field survey report (Preliminary version) – Ao Patong region (Kho
Pukhet), Khao Lak, Kho Koh Khao, Southern Thailand, 03.02-20.2.2005,
Bangkok, 56 pp.
Rajasuriya, A., 2005. The status of coral reefs in Sri Lanka in the aftermath of the 1998
coral bleaching event and the 2004 tsunami. In: Souter, D., Linden, O. (Eds.),
Coral reef degradation in the indian ocean (CORDIO): Status Report 2005.
CORDIO, University of Kalmar, Kalmar, Sweden, pp. 83–96.
Radtke, U, Schellmann, G, Scheffers, A, Kelletat, D, Kromer, B and Kasper, HU. 2003.
Electron spin resonance and radiocarbon dating of coral deposited by Holocene
tsunami events on Curaçao, Bonaire and Aruba (Netherlands Antilles): Quaternary
Science Reviews v. 22, p. 1305-1317.
Rahed, K.A.A., Das, V.K., Revichandran, C., Vijayan, P.R., and Thottam, T.J. 2006.
Tsunami impacts on morphology of beaches along South Kerala coast, West coast
of India. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 24 (1): 24-34.
264
Raheed, K.A.A., Das, V.K., Revichandran, C., Vijayan, P.R. and Thottam, T.J. 2006.
Tsunami impacts on morphology of beaches along South Kerala coast, West Coast
of India. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 24 (1): 24-34.
Rajamanickam, G.V. 2008. Distribution of sediments during pre- and post-tsunami of 26th
Dec. 2004 along the central coast of Tamil Nadu, east coast of India. GI²S Coast
Research Publication, 6: 115-118.
Ramachandran, S., Anitha, S., Balamurugan, V., Dharanirajan, K., Vendhan, K.E., Divien,
M.I.P., Vel, A.S., Hussain, I.S. and Udayaraj, A. 2005. Ecological impact of
tsunami on Nicobar Islands (Camorta, Katchal, Nancowry and Trinkat). Current
Science, 89(1): 195-200.
Ranamamurthy, M.V., Sunadramoorthy, S., Ari, Y., Ranga Rao, V., Mishra, P., Bhar, M.,
Usha, T., Venkatesan, R. and Subramanian, B.R. 2005. Inundation of seawater in
Andaman and Nicobar islands and parts of Tamil Nadu coast during 2004 Sumatra
tsunami. Current Science, 88 (1): 1736-1740.
Rasser, MW and Riegl, B. 2002. Holocene coral reef rubble and its binding agents. Coral
Reefs, v. 21, p. 57-72.
Regnauld, H., Planchon, O. and Goff, J. 2008. Relative roles of structure, climate, and of a
tsunami event on coastal evolution of the Falkland archipelago. Géomorphologie,
1: 33-44.
Regnauld, H., Suanez, S. and Fichaut, B. 2008. Storms or tsunamis? The case of boulder
accumulations on the coasts of Brittany, western France. GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 119-121.
Reicherter, K. and Becker-Heidmann, P. 2008. Tsunamites in lagunas: remains of the
1522 Almeria earthquake (western Mediterranean). GI² S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 127-129.
Reicherter, K., Fernadéz-Steeger, T., Koster, B., Vonberg, D., Baer, S. and Grützner, C.
2008. The sedimentary inventory of the 1755 Lisbon tsunami along the Gulf of
Cádiz (southwestern Spain). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 123-126.
Reinhardt, E.G., Goodman, B.N., Boyce, K.I., Lopez, G., van Henstum, P., Rink, W.A.,
Mart, Y. and Raban, A. 2006. The tsunami of 13 December A.D. 115 and the
destruction of Herod the Great´s harbor at Cesarea Maritima. Geology, 34 (12):
1061-1064.
Renfrew, A.C. 1985. The prehistory of Orkney. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.
Rhodes, B., Jankaew, K. and Kirby, M. 2007. Mangroves, coral, and the search for a
palaeotsunami deposit along the Andaman coast of Thailand. EOS Transactions of
the American Geophysical Union, 88: 23.
Rhodes, B., Jankaew, K., Kirby, M., Schmidt, J., Choowong, M. 2008. A possible
palaeotsunami deposit at Thap Lamu, Southern Thailand. Palaeotsunami Research
Posters – Palaeoceanography and Palaeoclimatology, PP43B-1239.
Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G. and Morton, R.A. 2006. Geologic impacts
of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives.
Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl. Bd. 146: 235-251.
265
Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G. and Dudley, W.C. 2008. Recent tsunami
and storm wave deposits, SE Hawaii. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 131-
132.
Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G., Morton, R.A. 2006. Geologic impacts of
the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and the Maldives.
Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl. Bd. 146: 235-251.
Richmond, B.M., Jaffe, B.E., Gelfenbaum, G., Watt, S. and Morton, R.A. 2008. Spatial
Characteristics of Coarse-Clast Deposits, Boca Olivia, NE Bonaire. GI²S Coast
Research Publication, 6: 133-134.
Riegl, B, 2001, Inhibition of reef framework by frequent disturbance: examples from the
Arabian Gulf, South Africa and the Cayman Islands. Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology v. 175, p. 79-101.
Riegl, B and Luke, KE. 1998. Ecological parameters of dynamited reefs in the northern
Red Sea and their relevance to reef rehabilitation. Marine Pollution Bulletin, v. 37,
p. 488-498.
Ritchie, A. 1988. Scotland BC. Historic Scotland, Edinburgh, 80 pp.
Robinson, E, Rowe, DA, Khan, S, 2006. Wave-emplaced boulders on Jamaica‘s rocky
shores. Annals of Geomorphology, NF Supplement, v. 146. p., in press.
Rogers, CS. 1993. Hurricanes and coral reefs: The intermediate disturbance hypothesis
revisited. Coral Reefs, v. 12, p. 127-137.
Robinson,E., Rowe, D.-A.C., and Khan, S., 2005. Geological evidence for palaeotsunami
events on the coast of Jamaica. In: Mitchell, S., (ed). Geological Society of
Jamaica 50th Anniversary Conference, Dec. 1-4, 2005, Programme, Abstracts and
Field Guide, 16.
Robinson, E., Rowe, D.-A.C. and Khan, S. 2006. Wave-emplaced boulders on Jamaica´s
rocky shores. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd. 146, 39-57.
Rodriguez-Vidal, J., Ruiz, F., Cáceres, L.M., Abad, M., Carretero, M.I. and Pozo, M.
2008. Morphosedimentary features of historical tsunamis in the Guadalquivir
estuary (SW of Spain). GI²S Coast Research Publication 6; 139-141.
Rössler, S., Reicherter, K., Papanikolaou, I., Roger, J., Mathes-Schmidt, M. and Grützner,
C. 2008. In search of the 479 BC Tsunami and its sediments in the Thermaikos
Gulf area (northern Greece). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 143-146.
Rowe, D.-A.C., 2005. Boulders on Caymanian Shorelines. Internal Report to the Marine
Geology Unit, University of the West Indies, December 2005.
Rowe, D.A., Degg, M., France, D. and Miller, S. 2008. Tsunami hazard mapping, SW
Jamaica. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 147-148.
Rouse, I., and J.M. Cruxent. 1963. Venezuelan archaeology. Yale University Press, New
Haven.
Rouse, I, and Allaire L. 1978. Caribbean, in Taylor RE, and Meighan C (ed.),
Chronologies in New World archaeology: 431- 81, New York, Academic Press.
Rull, V. 2000. Holocene sea level rising in Venezuela: a preliminary curve. Boletin de la
Sociedad Venezolana de Geólogos; URL: http://www.ecopal.org/sealevel.htm.
266
Saintilan, N., Rogers, K., 2005. Recent storm boulder deposits on the Beechcroft
Peninsula, New South Wales, Australia. Geographical. Research 43, 429–432.
Satake, K. (ed.) 2005. Tsunamis: case studies and recent developments. Springer, 343 pp.
Satake, K., Okal, E.A. and Borrero, J.C. 2007. Tsunami and its hazard in the Indian and
Pacific Oceans: Introduction. Pure & Applied Geophysics, 164 (2-3): 249-259.
Satapoomin, U., Phongsuwan, N., Brown, B.E., 2006. A preliminary synopsis of the
effects of the Indian Ocean tsunami on the coral reefs of western Thailand. Phuket
Marine Biological Center Research Bulletin 67, 77–80.
Sawai, Y., Fuji, Y., Fujiwara, O., Kamataki, T., Komatsubara, J., Okamura, Y., Satake, K.
and Shishikura, M. 2008. Marine incursions of the past 1500 years and evidence of
tsunamis at Suijin-numa, a coastal lake facing the Japan Trench. The Holocene, 18
(4): 517-528.
Sanderson, D.C., Bishop, P., Hansom, J., Curry, G. and Chaimanee, N. 2008.
Luminescence dating of tsunami sediments: Residual Signal Levels in Sediments
from the 26th December 2004 Indian Ocean Event in Thailand. Research in
Tsunami Deposits II: Posters, T43B-03.
Sanso, P., Bianc, F., Cataldo, R. and Vitale, A. 2008. A web site for historical tsunami of
Salento (Apulia, Italy). GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 149-150.
Satake, K. (ed.) 2005. Tsunamis: case studies and recent developments. Springer: 43-56.
Satake, K., Okamura, Y., Shishikura, M., Aung, T.T. and Fujima, K. 2005. Tsunami field
survey along Thai coast from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake. Annual
Report on Active fault and Palaeoearthquake Researches, Geol. Survey of
Japan(AIST), No. 5: 161-188.
Satake, K., Okamura, Y., Shishikura, M. and Fujima, K. 2005. The December 26, 2004
Sumatra Earthquake Tsunami, Tsunami Field Survey around Phuket, Thailand,
http://www.drs.dpri.kyoto u.ac.jp/sumatra/thailand/phuket_survey_e.html.
Satake, K., Aung, T.T., Sawai, Y., Okamura, K., Win, S., Swe, W., Swe, C., Swe, T.L.,
Tun, S.T., Soe, M.M., Oo, T.Z. and Zaw, S.,H. 2006. Tsunami heights and damage
along the Myanmar coast from the December 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake.
Earth Planets Space, 58: 243-252.
Satake, K., Bourgeois, J., Abe, K., Tsuji, Y., Imamura, F., Iio, Y., Katao, H., Noguera, E.,
Estrade, F. 1993. Tsunami field survey of the 1992 Nicaragua earthquake. EOS
(Transactions, American Geophysical Union), 74(13): 145, 156-157.
Scheffers, A. 2002. Palaeotsunamis in the Caribbean: field evidences and datings from
Aruba, Curaçao and Bonaire. Essener Geographische Arbeiten, v. 33, 181 pp.
Scheffers. A. 2004. Tsunami imprints on the Leeward Netherlands Antilles (Aruba,
Curaçao and Bonaire) and their relation to other coastal problems. Quaternary
International, v. 120, p. 163-172.
Scheffers, A. 2005. Coastal response to extreme wave events. hurricanes and tsunami on
Bonaire. Essener Geographische Arbeiten, 37: 96 pp.
Scheffers, A. 2006a. Coastal response to extreme wave events: hurricanes and tsunami on
Bonaire. Ess. Geogr. Arb. 37, 96 pp.
267
Scheffers, A. 2006b. Ripple marks in coarse tsunami deposits. Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.-Bd. 146: 221-233.
Scheffers, A. 2006c. Coastal transformation during and after a sudden neotectonic uplift in
western Crete (Greece). Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie,. Suppl. 146, 97–124.
Scheffers, A. 2006d. Argumente und Methoden zur Unterscheidung von Sturm- und
Tsunamischutt und das Problem der Datierung von Paläo-Tsunami. Die Erde
136(4), 413-429.
Scheffers, A. 2006e. Sedimentary impacts of Holocene tsunami events from the Intra
Americas Seas and Southern Europe, A Review. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie,
NF Suppl.Bd. 146, 7-37.
Scheffers, A. 2007. Tsunami. In Glade, T. and Felgentreff, C. (Hrsg.) Naturrisiken und
Sozialkatastrophen. Spektrum (Elsevier).
Scheffers, A. 2008. Tsunami boulder deposits. In Shiki, T. et al. (eds.): Tsunamiites.
Elsevier. 299-318.
Scheffers, A and Kelletat, D. 2003. Sedimentologic and geomorphologic tsunami imprints
worldwide – a review. Earth Science Reviews, v. 63, p. 83-92.
Scheffers, A, and Kelletat, D. 2004, Bimodal tsunami deposits – a neglected feature in
palaeo-tsunami research. Coastline Reports, v. 1, p. 67-75.
Scheffers, A. and Kelletat, D. 2005. Tsunami relics in the coastal landscape west of
Lisbon, Portugal. Science of Tsunami Hazards . 23, 3–16.
Scheffers, A and Kelletat, D, 2006, Recent Advances in Palaeo-Tsunami Field Research in
the Intra-Americas-Sea (Barbados, St. Martin and Anguilla): in Mercado-Irizarri,
A and Liu, P, eds., Caribbean Tsunami Hazard: Proceedings of the NSF Caribbean
Tsunami Workshop, Puerto Rico, World Scientific Publishers, p. 178-202.
Scheffers, A. and Kelletat, D. (Eds.). 2006. Tsunamis, hurricanes and neotectonics as
driving mechanisms in coastal evolution. – Proceedings of the Bonaire Field
Symposium, March 2-6, 2006, Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supplementband
146, 265 pp.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R., Abbott, D. H., and Bryant, E.A. 2008.
Chevrons –enigmatic sedimentary coastal features. Annals of Geomorphology, 52
(3). doi 10.1127/0372-8854/2008
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Scheffers, S.R., Bryant, E.A. 2008. The Holocene palaeo-
tsunami history of West Australia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 270: 137-
146
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Vött, A., May, S.M. and Scheffers, S.R. 2008. Late Holocene
tsunami traces on the western and southern coastlines of the Peloponnesus
(Greece). Earth and Planetary Science Letters 269:271-279.
Scheffers, A and Scheffers, SR. 2006, Documentation of the impact of Hurricane Ivan on
the coastline of Bonaire. Journal of Coastal Research, 22, 1437–1450
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S.R. 2007. Tsunami deposits on the coastline of west Crete
(Greece). Earth an Planetary Science Letters, 259: 613-624.
268
Scheffers, A, Scheffers, S and Kelletat, D. 2005. Palaeo-Tsunami Relics on the Southern
and Central Antillean Island Arc (Grenada, St. Lucia and Guadeloupe). Journal of
Coastal Research, v. 21, no. 2, p. 263-273.
Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D. and Browne, T. 2008. Wave-emplaced coarse debris and mega-
clasts in Ireland and Scotland: a contribution to the question of boulder transport in
the littoral environment, GI² S Coast Research Publication, 6: 151-153.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., Kelletat, D., Browne, T., and Haslett, S., 2009. Coastal
boulder deposits in Galway Bay and the Aran Islands, Western Ireland. Annals of
Geomorphology, accepted.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., Kelletat, D., 2005. Palaeo-Tsunami Relics on the Southern
and Central Antillean Island Arc (Grenada, St. Lucia and Guadeloupe). J. Coast.
Res. 21, 263-273.
Scheffers, A., Scheffers, S., Kelletat, D. 2007. Extreme wave events from Cape Range to
Albany – A contribution to the tsunami history of Western Australia. – XVII
Congr. INQUA, Cairns, August 2007. Abstract in: Quaternary International Vols
167-168, Suppl. 2007.
Scheffers, S. R., Haviser, J., Browne, A., Scheffers, A. 2008. Tsunamis, hurricanes, the
demise of coral reefs and shifts in pre-historic human populations in the Caribbean.
Quaternary International 195, 69-87; DOI: 10.1016/j.quaint.2008.07.016.
Scheffers, SR, Scheffers, A., Browne, T. and Haviser, J., 2008. Tsunamis and hurricanes
and their effects on coral reefs and pre-historic human populations. Quaternary
International, doi: 10.1016/j.quaint.2008.07.016l.
Scheffers, S., Scheffers, A., Kelletat, D., Bryant, E. 2008. The holocene palaeo-tsunami
history of West Australia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 270: 137–146,
(doi.10.1016/j.epsl.2008.03.027).
Scheffers, SR, Scheffers, A, Kelletat, D, Radtke, U, Staben, K and Bak, RPM. 2006.
Tsunamis trigger long-lasting phase-shift in a coral reef ecosystem. Annals of
Geomorphology, NF, Supplement, v. 146, p. 59-79.
Schielein, P., Zschau, J., Woith, H. and Schellmann, G. 2008. Tsunamigefährdung im
Mittelmeer – eine Analyse geomorphologischer und historischer Zeugnisse. –
Bamberger Geographische Schriften, 22: 153-199.
Scicchitano, G., Monaco, C. and Tortorici, L. 2007. Large boulder deposits by tsunami
waves along the Ionian coast of south-eastern Sicily (Italy). Marine Geology, 238
(1-4): 75-91.
Scicchitano, G., Costa, B., Di Stefano, A., Longhitano, S. and Monaco, C. 2008. Tsunami
deposits in the Siracusa coastal area (south-eastern Sicily). GI²S Coast Research
Publication, 6: 155-156.
Scicchitano, G., Monaco, C. and Tortorici, L. 2007. Large boulder deposits by tsunami
waves along the Ionian coast of south-eastern Sicily. Marine Geology, 238: 75-91.
Schellmann G, Radtke U, Scheffers A, Whelan F., and Kelletat D, 2004, ESR dating of
coral reef terraces on Curaçao (Netherlands Antilles) with estimates of Younger
Pleistocene sea level elevations, Journal of Coastal Research, 20:947-957
Schmidt, J.R., Kirby, M.E., Rhodes, B.P. and Jankaew, K. 2008. Searching a Holocene
coastal lagoon for palaeotsunami deposits: Kamala Beach, Phuket, Thailand. –
269
Palaeotsunami Research Posters – Palaeoceanography and Palaeoclimatology,
PP43B-1238.
Schubert, C, 1994, Tsunami in Venezuela: Some observations on their occurrence. In
Finkl, CF, (ed.), Coastal hazards: perception, susceptibility, and mitigation:
Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue, v. 12, p. 189-195.
Schubert, C and Valastro, S, 1976, Quaternary geology of La Orchila Island central
Venezuelan offshore, Caribbean Sea. Geological Society of America Bulletin, v.
87, p. 1131-1142.
Scoffin, TP. 1993. The geological effects of hurricanes on coral reefs and the
interpretation of storm deposits. Coral Reefs, v. 12, p. 203-221.
Searle, M. 2005. Co-seismic uplift of coral reefs along the western Andaman Islands
during the December 26th 2004 earthquake. Coral Reefs, 171: 372.
Shaw, J., Carter, R.W.G. 1994. Coastal peats from north-west Ireland: implications for
late-Holocene relative sea-level change and shoreline evolution. Boreas, 23: 74-91.
Shennan, L., Horton, B.P. 2002. Holocene land-and-sea-level changes in Great Britain.
Journ. Quaternary Science 17: 511-526.
Shennan, I., Peltier, W.R., Drummond, R., and Horton, B. 2002. Global to local scale
parameters determining relative sea level changes and the post-glacial isostatic
adjustment of Great Britain. Quaternary Science Review 21, 397–408.
Shi, S., Dawson, A.G., Smith, D.E. 1995. Coastal sedimentation associated with the
December 12th, 1992 tsunami in Flores, Indonesia. Pure and Applied Geophysics,
144(3/4): 525-536.
Shields, L., Fitzgerald, D. 1989. The ‗Night of the Big Wind‘ in Ireland, 6–7 January
1839. Irish Geogr. 22, 31–43.
Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds) 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and
implications. Elsevier: 411 pp.
Shiki, T. and Tachibana, T. 2008. Sedimentology of tsunamiites refrecting chaotic events
in the geological record – significance and problems. In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y.,
Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and
implications. Elsevier, 341-358.
Shiki, T., Tachibana, T., Fujiwara, O., Goto, K., Nanayama, F. and Yamazaki, T. 2008.
Characteristic features of tsunamiites. In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and
Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and implications. Elsevier, 319-
340.
Shiki, T. and Cita, M.B. 2008. Tsunami-related sedimentary properties of Mediterranean
homogenites as an example of deep-sea tsunamiite. In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y.,
Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites. Features and
implications. Elsevier, 203-216.
Sigloch, H., 2008. Technische fluidmechanik. 581 pp., 6th edition, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin.
Simkin, T., Fiske, R.S., 1983. Krakatau, 1883: The volcanic eruption and its effects.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Washington, DC, 464pp.
270
Singarasubramanian, S.R., Mukesh, M.V., Manoharan, K., Murugan, S., Bakkairaj, D. and
Peter, A.J. 2006. Sediment characteristics of the M9 tsunami event between
Rameswaram and Thoothukudi, Gulf of Mannar, southeast coast of India. Science
of Tsunami Hazards, 25 (3): 160-172.
Siripong, A. 2006. Andaman seacoast of Thailand field survey after the December 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami. Earthquake Spectra 22:187-202.
Siripong, A., Choi, B.H., Vichiencharoen, C., Yumuang, S. and Sawangphol, N. 2005.
The changing coastline on the Andaman seacoasts of Thailand from Indian Ocean
tsunami. In Choi, B.H., and Imamura, F. (eds): Proceedings of the Special Asia
Tsunami Session at APAC 2005. Hanrimwon Publishing Co., Ltd., Seoul:21-31.
Smedile, A., Barbano, M.DS., De Martini, P.M., Pantosti, D., Del Carlo, P., Gerardi, F.,
Guarneri, P., Pirrotta, C. and Cosentino, M. 2007. In search of tsunami deposits
along the eastern coast of Sicily (Italy). International Union of Geodesy and
Geophysics XXIV 2007, Perugia, July 2-13.
Smedile, A., De Martini, P.M., Barbano, M.S., Bellucci, L., Del Carlo, P., Gerardi, F.,
Pantosti, D., Pirrotta, C., Gasperini, L. and Polonia, A. 2008. Palaeotsunami
deposits in the Augusta bay area (Eastern Sicily, Italy): combining onshore and
offshore data. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 157-160.
Sommerville, A.A., Hansom, J.D., Sanderson, D.C.W., Housley, R.A. 2003. Optically
stimulated luminescence dating of large storm events in Northern Scotland.
Quaternary Science Reviews, 22: 1085-1092.
Sommerville, A.A., Hansom, J.D., Sanderson, D.C.W., Housley, R. 2007. Optically
stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating of coastal aeolian sand accumulations in the
Orkney Islands, Scotland. The Holocene, 17(5): 627-637.
Song, Y.T. 2007. Detecting tsunami genesis and scales directly from coastsl GPS stations.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, doi:10.1029/2007GL03168(2007)
Song, Y.T. 2007. Detecting tsunami genesis and scales directly from coastsl GPS stations.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, doi:10.1029/2007GL03168(2007)
Spiske, M., Piepenbreier, J., Benavente, C., Kunz, A. and Bahlburg, H. 2008. Historical
tsunami events along the coast of Peru – sedimentology and dating. GI²S Coast
Research Publication 6: 161-162.
Srinivasalu, S., Thangadurai, N, Switzer, A.D., Ram Mohan, V. and Ayyamperumal, T.
2007. Erosion and sedimentation in Kalpakkam (N Tamil Nadu, India) from the
26th December 2004 tsunami. Marine Geology, 240: 65-75.
Steers, J.A. (Ed.), Applied coastal geomorphology. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 155–
197.
Stefatos, A., Charalambakis, M., Papatheodorou, G. and Ferentinos, G. 2006.
Tsunamigenic sources in an active European half-graben (Gulf of Korinth, Central
Greece). Marine Geology, 232: 35-47.
Stein, S., and Okal, E.A. 2005. Global reach of the Sumatran tsunami. Nature 434: 581-
582
Stephens, N. 1970. The coastline of Ireland. In Stephens, N., Glasscock, R.E. (Eds.), Irish
Geographical Studies in Honour of E. Estyn Evans, The Queen‘s University,
Belfast, 125–145.
271
Stoddart, DR., 1963, Effects of Hurricane Hattie on the British Honduras reefs and cays,
Oct. 30-31, 1961. Atoll Research Bulletin, v. 95, p. 1-142.
Stoddart, DR, 1965, Catastrophic storm effects on the British Honduras reefs and cays.
Nature, v. 196, p. 512-515.
Stoddart, DR, 1971. Coral reefs and islands and catastrophic storms. In Steers, JA, (ed.),
Applied coastal geomorphology. Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
Stoddart, D.R. 1974. Post hurricane changes on the British Honduras reefs: resurvey of
1972. Proc. 2nd Int. Coral Reef Symposium, Brisbane, 2: 473-483.
Sugawara, D., Minoura, K. and Imamura, F. 2008. Tsunamis and tsunami sedimentology.
– In Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites.
Features and implications. Elsevier,:9-50.
Supharatid, S. 2008. Assimilation of real-time deep sea buoy data for tsunami forecasting
along Thailand`s Andaman coastline. Science of Tsunami Hazards 27 (3): 30-47.
Switzer, A.D. 2008: 20 years of palaeotsunami studies on coastal sandsheets: a review. –
GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 163-166.
Switzer, A.D., Bristow, C.S. and Jones, B.G. 2006. Investigation in large-scale washover
of a small barrier system on the southeast Australian coast using ground
penetrating radar. Sedimentary Geology, 183: 145-156.
Switzer, A.D. and Jones, B.G. 2008. Large-scale washover sedimentation in a freshwater
lagoon from the southeast Australian coast: tsunami or exceptionally large storm.
The Holocene, 18 (4): 633-649.
Switzer, A.D., Pucillo, K., Haredy, R., Jones, B.G., and Bryant, E. 2005. Sea level, storm
or tsunami: enigmatic sand sheet deposits in a sheltered coastal embayment from
southeastern New South Wales, Australia. Journal of Coastal Research. 21, 655–
663.
Synolakis, C. and Bernard, E. 2006. Tsunami science before and beyond Boxing Day
2004, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2006) 364, 2231–2265, doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1824.
Synolakis, C.E. and Kong, L. 2006. Runup Measurements of the December 2004 Indian
Ocean Tsunami. – Earthquake Spectra, 22 (S.3): S67-S91
Synolakis, C.E., Okal, E.A. and Bernard, E.N. 2005. The megatsunami of December 26,
2004. The Bridge, 35(2): 26-35.
Szczucinski, W., Chaimanee, N., Niedzielski, P. et al. 2006. Environmental and geological
impacts of the 26 December 2004 Tsunami in coastal zone of Thailand – overview
of short and long-term effects. Pol. Journ. Environm. Studies, 15: 793-810.
Taggart, BE, Lundberg, JL, Carew, L, and Mylroie, JE, 1993. Holocene reef-rock boulders
on Isla de Mona, Puerto Rico, transported by a hurricane or seismic sea wave:
Geological Society of America, Abstracts with Program v. 25, no. 6, p. 61.
Tanaka, N.Y., Sasaki, M.I.M, Mowjood, K.B., Jindasa, S.N and Samang Homuchuen
2007. Coastal vegetation structures and their function in tsunami protection:
experience of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. Landscape and Ecological
Engineering, 3 (1): 33-45.
272
Tanioka, Y., Yudhicara, Kususose, T., Kathiroli, S., Nishimura, Y., Iwasaki, S.-I. and
Satake, K. 2006. Rupture process of the 2004 great Sumatra-Andaman earthquake
estimated from tsunami waveforms. Earth Planets Space, 58: 203-209.
Tappin, D.R., 2007. Sedimentary features of tsunami deposits – Their origin, recognition
and discrimination, An introduction. Sedimentary Geology 200, 1-4.
Thampanya, U., Vermaat, J.E., Sinsakul, S. and Panapitukkul, N. 2006. Coastal erosion
and mangrove progradation of Southern Thailand. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf
Science, 68: 75 – 85.
Thanawood, C., Yongchalermchai, C. and Densrisereekul, O. 2006. Effects of the
December 2004 Tsunami and disaster management in southern Thailand. Science
of Tsunami Hazards, 24(3): 206-217.
Tinti, S., Maramai, A. and Graziani, L. 2007. The Italian tsunami catalogue (ITC),
Version 2.
Tinti, S., Maramai, A., Armigliato, A., Graziani, L., Manucci, A., Pagnoni, G. and
Zaniboni, F. 2005. Observations of physical effects from tsunamis of December
30, 2002 at Stromboli volcano, southern Italy. Bulletin of Volcanology, 68 (5):
450-461.
Titov, V., Rabinovich, A.B., Mofjeld, H.O., Thomson, R.E. and Gonzalez, F.I. 2005. The
global reach of the 26 December 2004 Sumatra tsunami. Science 309: 2045-2048.
Titov, V.V., and Synolakis, C.E., 1997. Extreme inundation flows during the Hokkaido-
Nansei-Oki Tsunami. Geophysical Research Letters. 24, 1315–1318.
Tobita, M., Kaizu, M., Murakami, M., Tsuzawa, M., Imakiire, T., Yarai, H., Suito, H.,
Fukuzaki, Y., Kato, M., Fujiwara, S., Itabashi, A. and Nakai, H. 2005. Coastline
change and tsunami inundation area of Northern Sumatra Island inferred from
satellite synthetic apreture radar images. Abstract for the 2005 Japan Earth and
Planetary Science Joint meeting, J113-009.
Tonkin, H., Holland, G.J., Holbroook, N., Henderson-Sellers, A. 2000. An evaluation of
thermodynamic estimates of climatological maximum potential tropical cyclone
intensity. Monthly Weather Review, American. Meteorological. Soc., 128, 746–
762.
Toscano MA, Macintyre IG, 2003. Corrected western Atlantic sea-level curve for the last
11,000 years based on calibrated 14C dates from Acropora palmata framework and
intertidal mangrove peat. Coral Reefs 22: 257-270
Toscano, MA and MacIntyre, IG, 2005. Blanchon P, Comment on Toscano MA and
Macintyre IG 2003. Corrected western Atlantic sea-level curve for the last 11,000
years based on calibrated 14C dates from Acropora palmata framework and
intertidal mangrove peat. Coral Reefs 22:257–270
Toscano, MA and MacIntyre, IG, 2006. Reply to Gischler E, Comment on Toscano and
Macintyre (2005): corrected western Atlantic sea-level curve for the last 11,000
years based on calibrated 14C dates from Acropora palmata framework and
intertidal mangrove peat Coral Reefs 22: 257–270 (2003), and their response in
Coral Reefs 24:187–190 (2005)
Treml, E, Colgan, M, Keevican, M. 1997. Hurricane disturbance and coral reef
development: a geographic information system (GIS) analysis of 501 years of
273
hurricane data from the Lesser Antilles: Proceedings 8th International Coral Reef
Symposium, v. 1, p. 541-546.
Trenhaile, A.S. 2001. Rock coasts, with particular emphasis on shore platforms.
Geomorphology 48, 7–22.
Tsuji, Y., Namegaya, Y., Matsumoto, H., Iwasaki, S.-I., Kanbua, W., Sriwichai, M. and
Meesuk, V. 2006. The 2004 Indian tsunami in Thailand: Surveyed runup heights
and tide gauge records. Earth Planets Space, 58:223-232.
Tsunami Workshop, Puerto Rico, World Scientific Publishers, p. 178-202Tsunami
Thailand – One Year Later (2006): o.V. – National Response and Contribution of
International Partners, UN, Bangkok: 118 pp.
Tun, K., Oliver, J. and Kimura, T. 2005. Summary of preliminary rapid assessments of
coral reefs in affected southeast Asian countries following the Asian tsunami event
on December 26 2004. Worldfish Center/GCRMN/Government of Japan.
Tuttle, M.P., Ruffman, A., Anderson, T., and Jeter, H. 2004. Distinguishing tsunami from
storm deposits in eastern North America: the 1929 Grand Banks tsunami versus
the 1991 Halloween storm. Seismological Research Letters, 75: 117-131.
Umitsu, M., Tanavud, C. and Patanakanog, B. 2007. Effects of landforms on tsunami flow
in the plains of Banda Aceh, Indonesia, and Nam Khem, Thailand. Marine
Geology, 242: 141-153.
UNEP 2005. After the tsunami. Rapid environmental assessment. UNEP. Bangkok: 140
pp.
USGS Western Coastal and Marine Geology 2005. The December 26, 2004 Indian Ocean
Tsunami: Initial Findings on Tsunami Sand Deposits, Damage and Inundation in
Sri Lanka. – http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/tsunami/srilanka05/index.html.
Varmel, K.K. and Hussain, A.S. 2007. Refraction of tsunami waves of 26 December 2004,
along southwest coast of India. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 26 (1)
Verneer, DE, 1963, Effects of Hurricane Hattie, 1961, on the cays of British Honduras:
Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, v. 7, no. 4, p. 332-354.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., Handl, M. and Schriever, A. 2006a: Holocene palaeogeographies
and the geoarchaeological setting of the Mytikas coastal plain (Akarnania, NW
Greece). Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd. 141: 85-108.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., Handl., M. and Schriever, A. 2006b. Holocene palaeogeographies
of the Atakos coastal plain (Akarnania, NW Greece). Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 239: 126-146.
Vött, A., May, M., Brückner, H., and Brockmüller, S. 2006a. Sedimentary evidence of late
Holocene tsunami near Lefkada Island (NW Greece). Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie, NF Suppl.Bd. 146, 139-172.
Vött, A., May, M., Brückner, H., Brockmüller, S. 2006. Sedimentary evidence of late
Holocene tsunami near Lefkada island (NW Greece). Zeitschrift für
Geomorphologie Suppl. 146, 139–172.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., Georg, C., Handl, M., Schriever, A. and Wagner, H.-J. 2007a.
Geoarchäologische Untersuchungen zu holozänen Landschaftswandel der
Küstenebene von Palairos (Nordwestgriechenland). Archäologischer Anzeiger, 1:
191-213.
274
Vött, A., Brückner, H., May, M., Lang, F., Herd, R. and Brockmüller, S., 2007b. Strong
tsunami impact on the Bay of Aghios Nikolaos and its environs (NW Greece)
during Classical-Hellenistic times. Quaternary International, 181:105-122.
Vött, A., Brückner, H., May, M, Lang, F., Brockmüller, S., 2007c. Late Holocene tsunami
imprint on Actio headland at the entrance of the Ambrakian Gulf. Méditerranée
108, 43-57.
Vött, A., May, S.M., Masberg, P., Klasen, N., Grapmayer, R., Brückner, H., Bareth, G.,
Sakellariou, D., Fountoulis, I and Lang, F. 2008. Tsunamite findings along the
shores of the Eastern Ionian Sea – the Cefalonia case study (NW Greece). GI²S
Coast Research Publication, 6: 167-170.
Waddell, J. 1999. The archaeology of Aran. In Waddell, J., O‘Connell, J.W., Korff, A.
(Eds.): The book of aran. The Aran Islands, Co. Galway,Galway, 75–136.
Waddell, J., O‘Connell, J.W. and Korff, A. (Eds.) 1999. The book of aran. The Aran
Islands, Co. Galway, Galway, 334 pp.
Wassmer, P., Baumert, P., Lavigne, F. and Sartohadi, J. 2007. Les transfers sédimentaires
associés au tsunami du 26 décembre 2004 sur le littoral Est de Banda Aceh à
Sumatra (Indonésie). Géomorphologie 2007(4):335-346.
Wassmer, P., Schneider, J.-L., Lavigne, F. / Paris, R. 2008. Sedimentary signature of the
December 26th 2004 tsunami along the north eastern shore of Banda Aceh:
anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) contribution to a better understanding
of the tsunami wave train dynamic. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 171-174.
Webster, PJ, Holland, GJ, Curry, JA and Chang, HR. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone
number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, v. 309 no.
5742, p 1844-1846.
Weiss, MP, 1979, A saline lagoon on Cayo Sal, Western Venezuela. Atoll Research
Bulletin, v. 232, p. 1-25.
Weiss, R., Wünnemann, K. and Bahlburg, H. 2006. Numerical modeling of generation,
propagation and run-up of tsunamis caused by oceanic impacts: Model strategy
and technical solutions. Geophys. Journ. Int., 167: 77-88.
Weiss, R. and Wünnemann, K. 2007 Large waves caused by oceanic impacts of
meteorites. In: Kundu, A. (ed.) Tsunamis and nonlinear waves. Springer, Berlin:
235-260.
Weiss, R. and Bourgeois, J. 2008. ‗Chevrons‘ are not mega-tsunami deposits – a
sedimentologic assessment. GI²S Coast Research Publication, 6: 175-178
Westropp, T.J. 1902. The ancient forts of Ireland: being a contribution towards our
knowledge of their types, affinities, and structural features. Trans. Royal Irish
Academy 31, 579–730.
Westropp, T.J. 1910. A study of the early forts and stone huts in Inishmore, Aran Islands,
Galway Bay. Proceedings Royal Irish Academy 28C, 174–200.
Whelan, F. and Kelletat, D. 2005. Boulder deposits on the Southern Spanish Atlantic
Coast: possible evidence for the 1755 AD Lisbon tsunami. Science of Tsunami
Hazards, 23 (3): 25-38.
275
Whelan, F. and Kelletat, D. 2006. Tsunamis. In Gebhard, H., Glaser, R., Radtke, U. and
Reuber, P. (eds.) Geography – Physische Geographie und Humangeographie.
München, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag: 1046-1047.
Wickham-Jones, C.R. 1998. Orkney, a historical guide. Birlinn, Edinburgh.
Williams, D.M. 2004. Marine erosion and archaeological landscapes - a case study of
stone forts at cliff-top locations in the Aran Islands, Ireland. Geoarchaeology 19,
167–175.
Williams, D.M. and Hall, A.M. 2004. Cliff-top megaclast deposit of Ireland, a record of
extreme waves in the North Atlantic – storms or tsunamis? Marine Geology, 206:
101-117.
Williams, H., Hutchinson, I. and Nelson, A.R. 2005. Multiple sources for late-Holocene
tsunamis at Discovery Bay, Washington State, USA. Holocene, 15: 60-73.
Williams, ID, Polunin, NVC, Hendricks, VJ. 2001. Limits to grazing by herbivorous
fishes and the impact of low coral cover on macro-algal abundance on a coral reef
in Belize. Marine Ecology Progress Series, v. 222, p. 187-196.
Woodley, JD. 1992. The incidence of hurricanes on the north coast of Jamaica since 1870:
are the classic reef descriptions atypical. Hydrobiology, v. 247, p. 133-138.
Woodley, JD, Chornesky, EA, Clifford, PA, Jackson, JBC, Kaufman, LS, Knowlton, N,
Lang, JC, Pearson, MP, Porter, JW, Rooney, MC, Rylaarsdam, KW, Tunnicliffe,
VJ, Wahle, CM, Wulff, JL, Curtis, JSG, Dallmeyer, MD, Jupp, BP, Koehl, MAR,
Neigel, J, and Sides, EM. 1981. Hurricane Allen's impact on Jamaican coral reefs:
Science 214: 749-755.
Wright, L.D., Short, A.D., and Nielsen, P. 1982. Morphodynamics of high energy beaches
and surf zones: A brief synthesis. Coastal Studies Unit, University of Sydney, Rep.
82(5), 64 pp.
Yalciner, A.C., Ghazali, N.H. and Abd Wahab, A.K. 2005. Report on the December 26,
2004, Indian Ocean Tsunami. Field Survey on July 09-10, 2005 North West of
Malaysia, Penang and Langkawi Islands.
http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr-tac2005/pdf/scr-
tac2005-all.pdf.
Yamazaki, T., Shiki, T., Minoura, K. and Tsuji, Y. 2008. Bibliography of tsunamiite. In
Shiki, T., Tsuji, Y., Yamazaki, T. and Minoura, K. (eds). 2008. Tsunamiites.
Features and implications. Elsevier: 383-404.
Yanagisawa, H., Koshimura, S., Goto, K., Imamura, F., Miyagi, T. and Hayashi, K. 2006.
Tsunami inundation flow in the mangrove forest and criteria of tree damages –
field survey of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami in Khao Lak, Thailand. Annual
Journal of Coastal Engineering, JSCE 53: 231-235.
Yasuda, M.and Harada, K. 2005. Sumatra earthquake tsunami disaster in December
26,2004. Journal of Natural Disaster Science, 23: 603-615 (in Japanese, with
English Abstract).
Yeh, H., Imamura, F., Synolakis, C., 1993. The Flores tsunami. EOS, Transactions
American Geophysical Union 74, 369–373.
276
Yeh, H., Francis, M. Peterson, C., Katada, T., Latha, G., Chadha, R.K., Singh, J.P. and
Raghuramna, G. 2006. Southeast India coast field survey after the December 2004
Indian Ocean tsunami. Earthquake Spectra, 22 (S3).
Yu, K.-F., Zhao, J.-X., Shi, Q and Meng, Q.-S. 2008. Reconstruction of storm/tsunami
records over the last 4000 years using transported coral blocks and lagoon
sediments in southern South China Sea. Quaternary International,
doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2008.05.004.
Zahibo, N., Pelinovsky, E.N., 2001. Evaluation of tsunami risk in the Lesser Antilles.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 1, 221–231.
Zahibo, N and Pelinovsky, E. 2006. Tsunamis in the Lesser Antilles. In Mercado-Irizarry,
A. and Liu, P (Eds.) Caribbean Tsunami Hazard World Scientific, Singapore: 244-
254.
Zahibo, N., Pelinovsky, E., Didenkulova, I. and Nikolkina, I. 2008. Tsunamis in the
French West Indies, Lesser Antilles, Caribbean. GI²S Coast Research Publication,
6: 179-180.
Zhou, Q and Adams, W.M. 1986. Tsunamigenic earthquakes in China, 1831 BC to 1980
AD. Science of Tsunami Hazards, 4:131-148.
Zahibo, N, and Pelinovsky, EN. 2001. Evaluation of tsunami risk in the Lesser Antilles.
Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, v. 1, p. 221-231.
Zucchi, A. 1973 Prehistoric Human Occupations of the Western Venezuelan Llanos.
American Antiquity 38 (2), p.182-190.