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 epubs@scu.edu.au.

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artwork, unpublished letters), or to use any of the candidate‘s published work (e.g. journal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.