The Australian tsunami database

Abstract

There has been a significant increase in the number of peer-reviewed publications, critical reviews and searchable web-based databases, since the first substantial tsunami database for Australia was published in 2007. This review represents a complete reorganization and restructuring of previous work coupled with the addition of new data that takes the number of events from 57 (including 2 erroneous events) to 145. Several significant errors have been corrected including mistaken run-up heights for the event of 19 August 1977, Sumba Island, Indonesia, that suggested it was the largest tsunami in Australia’s history. The largest historical event in the database is now the 17 July 2006, Java, Indonesia, tsunami that had a run-up height of 7.90 m at Steep Point, Western Australia. Although estimated wave heights of 40 ft (∼13 m) were noted for the 8 April 1911 event at Warrnambool, Victoria, no run-up data were provided. One of the more interesting findings has been the occurrence of at least 11 deaths, albeit for events that are generally poorly defined. Data gathered during the construction of this database were rigorously reviewed and as such several previous palaeotsunami entries have been removed and other potentially new ones discarded. The reasons for inclusion or exclusion of data are discussed, and it is acknowledged that while there has been an almost three-fold increase in the number of entries the database is still incomplete. With this in mind the database architecture has been brought in line with others in the region with the ultimate goal of merging them all in order to provide a larger, interrogatable and updatable data set. In essence, the goal is to enhance our understanding of the national and regional tsunami hazard (and risk) and to move towards an open-source database.

Keywords

Australia database deaths palaeotsunami South Pacific tsunami

I Introduction

Tsunami databases have been developed in many countries around the world, some in response to major events such as the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami (IOT) (e.g. Australia: Dominey-Howes, 2007; Bay of Bengal: Alam et al., 2012), others over a longer timeframe (e.g. Greece: Papadopoulos, 2000; Italy: Tinti et al., 2004) or with a more global focus (NGDC, 2013). The value of such data for hazard and risk assessment cannot be overstated, but equally it is important to recognize that all databases, be they for historical or palaeo-tsunamis or both, will always be incomplete and should be regularly reviewed and updated (Goff et al., 2010b). Of particular importance is the development of comprehensive databases that include both palaeo- and historical tsunamis in the same data set. This not only facilitates comparisons between the often short historical record and deeper time geological information, but also creates a focal point for researchers to improve and enhance the underpinning data for each event.

In most cases it is the palaeotsunami data that are the most expensive and time-consuming to gather. Furthermore, this information only started to become globally available from the late 1980s (e.g. Atwater, 1987). However, an increasing number of reports concerning evidence for palaeotsunamis are being published and a significant quantum of research now exists about the proxy evidence for past events (Chagué-Goff et al., 2011; Goff et al., 2012b). In addition to the more traditional sedimentological and stratigraphic criteria (Morton et al., 2007), there has been a rapid growth in our understanding of proxies, including micro-palaeontological (e.g. Sawai et al., 2008; Uchida et al., 2010), archaeological (Bedford, 2006; McFadgen and Goff, 2007), anthropological (King and Goff, 2010; King et al., 2007; Terrell et al., 2011), geochemical (Alpar et al., 2012; Chagué-Goff, 2010; Chagué-Goff et al., 2011, 2012), geomorphological (Goff et al., 2008, 2009; Terry and Goff, 2013), micro-morphological (e.g. Cuven et al., 2013), magnetic (e.g. Font et al., 2013; Wassmer et al., 2010) and contextual (Goff et al., 2012b) criteria. It is therefore important that the structural development of any form of comprehensive tsunami database should have the flexibility to take these and potential future developments into account (Goff et al., 2010b).

The importance of palaeotsunami data has become increasingly apparent over the past few years with the growing recognition that in many areas prehistoric events have been notably larger than anything reported in historical time, while in other regions they are at least of similar size to historical events (Goff et al., 2010c; Goto et al., 2011, 2012). What is perhaps surprising, though, is that to date little use has been made of such data for probabilistic and other types of tsunami hazard assessments (Goff and Chagué-Goff, 2012; Power et al., 2012). Exceptions include work from areas such as the Pacific Northwest, USA (Gonzalez et al., 2009), although here it is worth noting that the evidence for the magnitude and frequency of palaeotsunamis used to validate inundation modelling is largely based upon sandy deposits and will doubtless need to be revisited once finer sediment components have been studied (Chagué-Goff et al., 2012; Goto et al., 2011, 2012). Notwithstanding these issues, it is evident from the results of combined numerical modelling-palaeotsunami research that we are negligent if we ignore this deeper time record.

In recognizing that there is much work to be done to grow the palaeotsunami record around the world, let alone in Australia, there is also a separate problem faced when dealing with historical data. There is an almost default assumption that the historical record for any country is essentially complete perhaps with the exception of one or two small events. There is an almost seductive quality to the detail provided by instrumental data and this continues to improve as the distribution of DART buoys and other types of sophisticated monitoring equipment become more widespread. However, there are two key problems here. First, the majority of the historical data collated in any database consists of documented observations alone, many of which consist of a single line of evidence. This does not negate the importance of the record but rather its validity should be considered alongside that of more comprehensive instrumental data (Goff et al., 2010b). Second, historical records are onlyas good as the documentary evidence currently discovered. With the increasing availability of electronic newspaper records and other web-based material, the onus is on the researcher to undertake as comprehensive a search as possible.

The raised awareness generated by the 2004 IOT in Australia was further heightened following tsunami inundation up to 200 m inland and run-up of 7.90 m at Steep Point, Western Australia, as a result of the 2006 Java event (Prendergast and Brown, 2006, 2012). This precipitated two major lines of research in Australia. First, considerable effort went into understanding the offshore tsunami hazard for Australia (Geoscience Australia, 2013) with community-specific inundation modelling undertaken for some areas of Western Australia in particular (e.g. Horspool et al., 2010). Second, a database of the geological and historical records of tsunamis in Australia was developed (Dominey-Howes, 2007). A considerable amount of research has been carried out since these efforts, and in the light of the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami in Japan it is timely to review the database to determine whether additional information is now available.

This paper presents a revised database format (examples discussed in the text are listed in the revised format in Tables 1 and 2; a full list of database descriptors and proxy data are given in Tables 3 and 4; the abbreviated and comprehensive database with full reference list is provided in the Supplementary Data), as well as new data, and discusses exclusions from and errors in previous work.

II Development of the new database

The format adopted for the new database follows that developed by Goff (2008) and Goff et al. (2010b) for New Zealand (Table 3). Identical formats will permit the future merging of the Australian and New Zealand databases in order to produce an Australasian database of wider regional value. During the process of conversion to this new format, all of the 57 items detailed in the initial work of Dominey-Howes (2007) were reassessed. Like the 2007 version, much of the information included in the new database is fragmentary, and variable in quality and extent. In some cases, the evidence for an event is noted from numerous sources, while others rely upon a single newspaper article. The relative validity of each event is therefore shown in recognition of the reliability of the available data (Table 3).

The main datasets used are the NOAA/NGDC Tsunami Event Database (NGDC) and the digitized Australian and New Zealand newspapers of the National Libraries of Australia and New Zealand, respectively. In addition, two new Australian reports (New South Wales (NSW): Beccari, 2009; Tasmania: Morris and Mazengarb, 2009) now add immense value to our understanding of historical events, not only for their respective states but also as contextual evidence for other parts of the country and region. Numerous additional data sources have also been used and are cited in the full reference list in the Supplementary Data. Some of these relate to the evidence for tsunami sources as opposed to solely the record of the event in Australia. Where possible, records of events associated with Australian island territories are also included, although those locations most distant from Australia (Christmas Island: 10°29’S, 105°37’E; Cocos (Keeling) Islands: 12°10’S, 96°51’E; Heard Island: 53°05’S, 73°30’E) are not shown in Figure 1. Where the physical evidence of a deposit has been described, either for a historical or palaeotsunami, we have placed the relevant data under a separate worksheet entitled Proxy Data (examples are shown in Table 2 with a full dataset in the Supplementary Data). This worksheet contains the 30 categories (Table 4) used in the identification of palaeotsunamis (Goff and Chagué-Goff, 2012; Goff et al., 2012b) but in order to achieve a consistent comparison between historical and palaeotsunami data these proxies have also been noted for pertinent historically-documented events as well.

Figure 1.

Map of Australia showing the key states (ACT not discussed) and islands mentioned in the text.

During the review process we found recent work reporting on a number of potential tsunamigenic events such as subaerial and submarine landslides off the northeast coast of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef (Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2011) and the Australian territory of Heard Island in the southern Indian Ocean (Quilty, 2012), but no historical or palaeotsunami data have as yet been associated with them. Furthermore, even though it is tempting to link unusual wave activity on Cronulla and Manly beaches in 1943 (Event 100) and 1947 (Event 102), respectively, with potentially tsunamigenic submarine geomorphological features off the NSW coast, considerable work needs to be done in order to determine any possible associations (Anonymous, 1943, 1948; Boyd et al., 2010).

Many of the new inclusions in the database have been sourced from a comprehensive search of digitized newspaper records, and despite the fact that these have proven to be exceptionally rich data sources there is also much to be said for the old adage ‘don’t believe everything you read in the papers’. For example, in the 28 April 1875 issue of the Thames Star a report states that ‘News has been received that an earthquake and tidal wave at Liffe, Norfolk Island, caused loss of life and damage to property’ (Anonymous, 1875a).

If true, this would have represented the earliest known death(s) from a tsunami in Australia. However, there is no such settlement on Norfolk Island. This story is actually referring to the 28 March 1875 event that affected Lifou in New Caledonia (Sahal et al., 2010) and as such is not included in the database.

Numerous possible events have also been omitted from this new database because, in the opinion of the authors, they most probably relate to waves that were caused by storm activity offshore as opposed to tsunamis, and the data are not sufficiently convincing for them to attain equivocal status. For example, the following event was noted at Cooktown, Queensland, on 6 September 1875, but has not been included in the new database because a storm is implied and seems to be the most reasonable explanation:

the ebb was checked in a remarkable manner between the hours of 7 a.m. and 8 p.m., the tide gauge exhibited a rise and fall of fully fourteen inches repeated at intervals four successive times during the period of six hours. The effects of heavy weather at no great distance may in some measure have contributed to this anomaly. (Anonymous, 1875b)

In instances such as this, sufficient information is provided in the report to cast doubt on a tsunami origin; in others the presence of associated storm conditions could be more easily verified (e.g. 5 August 1858, Hobart, Tasmania: Anonymous, 1858) and these events were also excluded from the database. It is likely, though, that there are several events included in the new database that relate to storm-generated activity. This is particularly pertinent to long period waves generated throughout the Southern Ocean that could affect beaches along the western and southern coasts of Australia (Short, 2006). In other words, as with all collations of historical data, this database should be considered a work in progress with some entries to be deleted and others added over time, particularly within the equivocal validity category. However, in light of the recent events both in the Pacific and Indian Oceans and the advances in the identification of past tsunamis, it is timely to provide an update and review of the existing Australian Tsunami Database.

III Errors and questionable data

As with the development of any new database, the critical review of pertinent data is essential and the decision to include or exclude particular lines of evidence lies with the reviewer. While discarded data are normally not discussed, in the light of recent research findings our review of the Australian tsunami record has chosen to exclude several published papers referring to inferred palaeotsunami deposits. Some of these were included in the 2007 database, and others have only recently been published. Given the growing recognition of the significance of palaeotsunami data to understanding the full extent of the tsunami hazard (and risk) for a country, the exclusion or inclusion of such data warrants discussion. Equally, the opportunity exists to correct previous errors in the database. In both instances the validity of any event comes under scrutiny and needs to be evaluated with care.

1 Historical data

Unlike the earlier Dominey-Howes' (2007) database that included erroneous events, the basic premise for inclusion of an event for the present review is that it must attain at least an equivocal validity. This reflects an important philosophical change from the Dominey-Howes (2007) database in which he chose to retain erroneous events within the catalogue in order to show readers that a careful cross-check of the original sources had been completed. In our review we have excluded erroneous events such as the 1875 ones discussed above in order to avoid misunderstandings concerning the number of events in the historical record. The abstract for Dominey-Howes (2007) states ‘The catalogue contains entries for 57 tsunami events’ whereas, according to the table presented in that paper, two of these were erroneous and as such there were only 55 items. It is perhaps slightly ironic that following a thorough evaluation of all the available data being considered for inclusion into this new database, both the apparently erroneous events in the 2007 database now attain an equivocal status.

In reviewing the historically-documented entries from the 2007 database the significance of contextual information in helping to determine the validity of a possible tsunami became apparent. As a result, the general search for additional data served to clarify the status of several events reported in Dominey-Howes (2007).

a 12 August 1870 (Event 43 in Table 1 and the Supplementary Data)

This event was classified as erroneous with both the source and cause unknown. An erroneous classification is interesting given that details outlined in two newspaper reports, a New Zealand tsunami database entry and a building history report (respectively, Anonymous, 1912, 1914; Goff, 2008; New Zealand Historic Places Trust, 2013) point to a large event possibly occurring on 12 August 1870. In New Zealand, the event was responsible for the destruction of much of the early town of Westport on the West Coast (Anonymous, 1912, 1914), but these early accounts appear to have been largely dismissed in recent reviews because of confusion linking these reports to the 1868 Chilean tsunami (Goff, 2008), which was much smaller in Westport. Although the source of the 1870 event is still unknown, it seems possible that it might be related to a submarine landslide (Lord Howe Island?) since the observed wave heights in Westport were up to 40 ft (∼13 m) (Anonymous, 1912), but it was not noted anywhere else except on Sydney’s tide gauge record. While we have included this event in the database, it is classified as equivocal and further work is needed to establish the veracity of this possible tsunami.

Table 1.

Simplified database listing the age, location and relevant references for events discussed in the text (refer to the Supplementary Data for full details) (see Table 3 for database headings and column descriptors).

	Validity	Age/Year				Region														References
Event	Validity	(BP = cal. Yr.BP)	Month	Day	Single Site	NSW	VIC	QLD	SA	TAS	WA	NT	InT	NI	LHI	Deposit	Est. Run-up (masl)	Cause	Deaths	References
1	5	Undated	_	_	Cape Leveque											Reworked siliceous bedrock	_	u/k		Barham and O'Connor, 2007; Nott and Bryant, 2003
13	3	2.51 Ma	_	_	Melbourne											Reworked clastic-rich sediment	_	Asteroid		Goff et al., 2012a
14	5	3970-4218 BP	_	_	South Neck Beach											Sand and shell hash	2.50	u/k		Clark et al., 2011
15	3	3800-5340 BP	_	_	Dunmore											Tapering sand sheet	0.50	u/k		Switzer et al., 2005
16	4	3478-5891 BP	_	_	Long Beach											Tapering inland sand layer	–1.0	u/k		Courtney, 2012
17	3	2500-2900 BP	_	_	Old Punt Bay											Shelly sand layer	2.25	u/k		Switzer et al., 2011
20	3	200-800 BP	_	_	Killalea Lagoon											Tapering sand sheet with rip ups	1.60	EQ		Switzer and Jones, 2008; Switzer et al., 2006
43	5	1870	8	12	Sydney											None	_	u/k		Anonymous, 1912, 1914; Goff, 2008; New Zealand Historic Places Trust, 2013
64	2	1885	1	5	Geraldton											None	_	EQ		Anonymous 1885a
65	5	1885	1	6	N.Tasmania											None	_	u/k		Anonymous, 1885b
100	5	1943	5	19	Cronulla, Sydney											None	_	u/k		Anonymous, 1943
102	5	1947	12	31	Manly, Sydney											None	_	u/k		Anonymous, 1948
118	1	1977	8	19	_											None	_	EQ		Dominey-Howes, 2007; Gregson et al., 1978; Soloviev et al., 1992
130	1	2006	7	17	_											None	_	EQ		Dominey-Howes, 2007, and references therein; NGDC, 2013
131	1	2006	7	17	Steep Point											Sand sheet	7.90	EQ		Prendergast and Brown, 2006, 2012

Table 2.

Proxy data identified for tsunami and palaeotsunami deposits discussed in the text (see Table 4 for explanation of individual proxies; refer to the Supplementary Data for a full list of events with proxy data) (after Goff et al., 2012b).

Proxy (refer to Table 4 for details)
Event	Geological										Chemical			Biological						Archaeological					Anthropological	Geomorphological		Contextual
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30
1
13
14
15
16
17
20

b 6 January 1885 (Event 65 in Table 1 and the Supplementary Data)

This was noted as an erroneous entry for an event in Western Australia. However, a magnitude 6.6 earthquake was recorded offshore of Geraldton at 10.30 pm on 5 January and a drop in sea level of around 3 ft occurred over the next 15 minutes (Anonymous, 1885a: Event 64 in Table 1 and the Supplementary Data). It is plausible that these disturbances may have continued on 6 January. Furthermore, this event in Western Australia may be linked to an incident reported from northern Tasmania around 2.30 pm on 6 January (Event 65) where a ‘tidal wave’ of up to 4 ft was recorded in several bays (Anonymous, 1885b). Further work is needed to clarify the details of this event(s) and also whether tsunami travel times from Geraldton to Tasmania make this a plausible linkage. Event 64 on 5 January in Geraldton is noted as having a good validity but Event 65 in Tasmania has been included as an equivocal observation.

c 4 November 1953

According to the comments and descriptions in Dominey-Howes (2007), this tsunami was recorded at 4 pm EST, 26 hours after a severe earthquake near the Solomon Islands. An extensive search of historical records has failed to find any evidence for an earthquake in the region at that time and, as such, until this tidal anomaly has been explored in more detail, it has been removed from the database.

d 19 August 1977 (Event 118 in Table 1 and the Supplementary Data)

Recent published work reporting on research carried out within a week of the 17 July 2006 Java tsunami at Shark Bay, WA (Prendergast and Brown, 2006, 2012), indicates that it is currently the largest historically-documented event in Australia. These data were not available at the time the previous database was published in 2007, and so the 19 August 1977 Sumba Island (Indonesia) tsunami was assigned the maximum run-up for a historically-documented event in Australia. This is unfortunate because the apparent run-up heights used (up to 6 m at Cape Leveque, WA; 4 m at Point Sampson, WA; 2 m at Dampier Harbour, WA) actually relate to observed offshore wave heights, not run-up (Gregson et al., 1978; Soloviev et al., 1992).

For example, at Cape Leveque ‘a wave six m high was observed about 1750 hours WST by the lighthouse keeper according to a report from the Bureau of Meteorology’ and at Point Sampson ‘Samson Fisheries reported that at 1745 WST, six to eight large waves about 5 m high were observed travelling south’ (Gregson et al., 1978). Little or no run-up on land was reported since at most locations the waves arrived towards low tide causing sea levels to rise to about the half-tide mark on a coastline with a tidal range of up to 10 m. In an attempt to avoid these issues in the future, every effort has been made in this review to ensure that the database differentiates between run-up, wave height and instrumental tide gauge elevations (refer to the Supplementary Data).

Table 3.

Database headings with detailed column descriptors (after Goff et al., 2010b) (note that the full list of headings is only used in the Supplementary Data, not Table 1).

Heading		Descriptor
Event		Database Reference No.
Nature of Evidence		P (Primary): Sedimentary/archaeological, S (Secondary): Geomorphic response (no Australian event), C (Cultural): Anthropological interpretation, H (Historical): Written record of event
Veracity/Validity		Based upon: i) Nature of evidence, ii) Tsunami criteria, iii) Published/unpublished data, iv) Context of site with regards to other sites of similar year/age: 1: Excellent, 2: Good, 3: Moderate, 4: Poor, 5: Equivocal
Site Status		1: Deposit present, 2: Unknown, 3: Deposit absent (none in the Australian database), n/a = Not applicable
Age/Year		Undated = Unknown age, BP (years Before Present (1950)), Historical dates are for the year only
Month, Day		Listed where available for historical events
Location	Single Site	Site name recorded here when an event is only recorded in one place
	Region (NSW, VIC, QLD, SA, TAS, WA, NT, InT, NI, LHI)	NSW: New South Wales, VIC: Victoria, QLD: Queensland, SA: South Australia, TAS: Tasmania, WA: Western Australia, NT: Northern Territory, InT: Indian Ocean Territories, NI: Norfolk Island, LHI: Lord Howe Island
	Lat. (S)/Long. (E)	Site co-ordinates
Deposit	Physical Characteristics	Brief description of deposits if present
	Max. Thickness (m – est.)	Estimate of maximum deposit thickness where present – variable accuracy depending upon site reports
	Min. Inland limit (m – est.)	Minimum inland limit of the deposit from the present shoreline (estimated Mean High Water Spring) at time of inundation
Water Elevation	Est. Run-up (masl)	In metres above mean sea level: For palaeotsunami deposits, this is a proxy for estimated run-up height
	Min. Inland Inundation (m)	Minimum inland limit of the water from the present shoreline (estimated Mean High Water Spring) at time of inundation. For palaeotsunami deposits, the sediment is a proxy for estimated run-up height minimum inland limit
	Est. Max. Wave Height (masl)	Height estimates based upon observed waves, in some instances waves were observed but no estimate given (ob = waves observed)
	Tide gauge (m)	Tide gauge readings provided from instrumental recordings (0.00 = Negligible)
Source	Location	The tsunamigenic source area. l = local? and is inferred from the details provided in the reference material (u/k = Unknown)
	Certainty	Certainty of tsunamigenic location. 1: Known, 2: Inferred
	Approx. Lat. (S)/Long. (E)	Approximate co-ordinates of source area (u/k = Unknown)
	Cause	Possible nature of propagating event (u/k = Unknown)
Evidence		1H: Physical evidence - Water movement observed, 2H: Physical evidence - Debris/sediment, 3H: Instrumental - Tide gauge (? = Data unclear)
Deaths		Number recorded for each event
References		One or more of: Published, Unpublished, Personal communication
Comments		Short notes detailing key points in reference material

2 Palaeotsunami data

Palaeotsunami research has developed significantly over recent years and this is evident in the increased number of events recorded in this new database (refer to the Supplementary Data). There are now also several notable omissions of events previously cited in the Dominey-Howes' (2007) database that have been excluded following recent critical reviews. Equally, critical reviews of several events proposed in recent (post-2007) publications have led us to exclude them as well. However, while not included in the current database because they fail to attain an equivocal status, they are discussed below. If more comprehensive palaeotsunami research is carried out in the future, allowing their status to be raised, then they can be reconsidered for possible inclusion at a later date. Perhaps the most important point to bear in mind here is that when studying possible evidence for palaeotsunamis it is essential to use as extensive a range of proxy data as possible, in order to convincingly propose a tsunami origin, because there are no underpinning historical data on which to anchor any interpretation (Goff et al., 2012b). Furthermore, the more extreme a proposed event appears to be, the more extensive and comprehensive the use of proxy data needs to be in order to provide a convincing argument.

Palaeotsunami hypotheses have been proposed for many unusual deposits consisting of large clasts and coarse sedimentary units around Australia, particularly along the west and east coasts (summarized in Bryant, 2008; S. Scheffers et al., 2008). It is worthy of note, though, that in discussing palaeotsunami research in Western Australia, Nott (2004) pointed out that these are indeed simply hypotheses to be tested and debated in the literature with evidence of substance. This point is well taken especially since many of the reported deposits have been assigned to palaeo-megatsunamis along coastlines that are also exposed to extremely high-energy storm events. As such, when investigating large clasts and coarse sedimentary units, we are faced with what is essentially a case study in equifinality that demands the rigorous use of widely accepted palaeotsunami proxy data in order to help unravel the mystery. Otherwise, the origin of large clastic deposits on coasts may be misinterpreted (Terry and Etienne, 2011). On the other hand, it has been argued by many proposing giant Australian palaeotsunamis that these types of events produce unique signatures that are dominated by erosion morphologies (Courtney et al., 2012) and therefore accepted proxies do not apply. In this instance, though, even if extreme erosional coastal features could be proven, it is still necessary to account for the entrained finer material deposited farther inland and to date no such evidence has been reported (Courtney et al., 2012). This is not to say that smaller palaeotsunami inundations have not been reported and actually several are now included in the new database.

With respect to the limited lines of evidence used for palaeo-megatsunamis, the main items cited include unusual coastal features such as wide ridges comprised of sand, shell and clasts (including coral fragments) at elevations up to around 30 m asl and enigmatic, high-elevation, cliff-top boulders (e.g. Bryant, 2008; A. Scheffers et al., 2008; S. Scheffers et al., 2008). In reality, this work is therefore still at the stage of observation and description with many more proxies needing to be investigated, especially in areas where storm waves can also be extreme. Much of the developing concept of possible palaeo-megatsunami impact on coastal evolution and change is built upon the work of Bryant et al. (1992) and later studies that focused on possible evidence for Late Quaternary events affecting the coast of New South Wales. It is this body of research that underpins the bulk of subsequent palaeo-megatsunami literature (Courtney et al., 2012). However, these concepts and interpretations are not without their detractors, with international peer-reviewed critiques essentially casting serious doubt on almost the entire range of purported evidence (e.g. Courtney et al., 2012; Felton and Crook, 2003; Felton et al., 2000, 2006; Goff et al., 2003, 2010b; Hall et al., 2008; McKenna et al., 2011). A thorough review by Courtney et al. (2012) of all lines of alleged evidence and critiques indicated that there was a body of robust research indicating that the coast of New South Wales has probably been struck by several ‘small’ palaeotsunamis (e.g. Switzer et al., 2005, 2006, 2011; Switzer and Jones, 2008: (Events 15, 17 and 20 in Table 1 and the Supplementary Data), but no palaeo-megatsunamis. As such, given the use of SE Australian palaeo-megatsunami indicators to underpin studies globally, it is likely that a re-examination of sites beyond SE Australia is also required.

The above statement is pertinent to subsequent work carried out in Western Australia (e.g. A. Scheffers et al., 2008). Apparent evidence is strongly linked with the earlier SE Australian research (e.g. there is a key focus on enigmatic boulders and high-elevation sand deposits) with interpretations suggesting bolide impact sources. An additional line of apparent evidence discussed is that of sinuous dune structures termed ‘chevrons’ (A. Scheffers et al., 2008; S. Scheffers et al., 2008). While large clasts, coarse sedimentary units and distinct geomorphological features can be used as proxy data for palaeotsunami deposits, they are (depending upon where they are located in relation to past sea levels and coastlines) in essence the first key pointers to indicate material that might have been deposited by a high-energy marine inundation (Goff et al., 2012b). They are not the end point of the research.

Notwithstanding the poor use of proxy tools, there have also, once again, been international peer-reviewed critiques of key elements of the evidence used, with Bourgeois and Weiss (2009) providing an in-depth assessment of chevron structures indicating that they are not related in any way to megatsunami deposition.

It is noteworthy that many international researchers have responded to Nott’s (2004) comments that these palaeotsunami hypotheses need to be tested and debated in the literature with evidence of substance. As a result of these debates, we felt it prudent to remove some previously ‘questionable tsunamis’ recorded in 2007 (Dominey-Howes, 2007) for SE Australia (105 ka, 8700–9000 BP, ∼6500 BP, ∼3000 BP, 1600–1900 BP, 500–900 BP, 200–250 BP) from the new database. In addition, the fundamental issue with regards to work in Western Australia (e.g. A. Scheffers et al., 2008; S. Scheffers et al., 2008), is that the existing evidence presented in these and related papers is inconclusive. There has been insufficient use made of the proxy toolkit and as such no reasonable evidence has been produced to differentiate the material studied from extreme tropical cyclone deposits along the same coastline. Therefore, the proposed events in Western Australia have not been included in the database because they fail to attain an equivocal status.

Table 4.

Proxy data used in the study of palaeotsunamis and adopted for summarizing information concerning all tsunami deposits in the new database (after Goff et al., 2012b).

	Palaeotsunami criteria
Geological	1. Particle/grain sizes range from boulders (may be 750 m³ or larger) to fine mud. A tsunami will usually transport whatever size ranges are available – it is sediment source dependent
	2. Sediments generally fine inland and upwards within the deposit, but can also have a coarsening upwards component associated with deposition from a traction carpet. Deposits generally rise in altitude inland and can extend for several km inland and 10s or 100s of km alongshore
	3. Each wave can form a distinct sedimentary unit and/or there may be laminated sub-units
	4. Distinct lower and upper sub-units representing runup and backwash can sometimes be identified. This is unlike storm or anthropogenic deposits
	5. Lower contact is usually unconformable or erosional
	6. Can contain intraclasts (rip-up clasts) of reworked material
	7. Sometimes associated with loading structures at base of deposit – and can be associated with liquefaction features on the ground surface caused by earthquake groundshaking
	8. Micro-scale features can include micro-rip-up clasts, millimetre-scale banding, organic entrainment, fining-up sequences and erosive contacts that may be visible in thin section but not in field stratigraphy
	9. Measurement of anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility combined with grain size analysis provides information on hydrodynamic conditions ‘typical’ during tsunami deposition. Essential when no sedimentary structures are visible. Magnetic properties of minerals (inc. magnetic susceptibility) provide information about depositional environment
	10. Heavy mineral laminations often present but source-dependent. Normally near base of unit/sub-unit but not always. Composition and vertical distribution of heavy mineral assemblage may change from the bottom to top of the deposit (e.g. often more micas at the top)
Chemical	11. Increases in elemental concentrations of sodium, sulphur, chlorine (palaeo-salinity indicators, including element ratios), calcium, strontium, magnesium (shell, shell hash and coral), titanium, zirconium (associated with heavy mineral laminae if present) occur in tsunami deposits relative to under- and overlying sediments. Indicates saltwater inundation, and/or high marine shell/coral content, and/or high energy environment (heavy minerals, source-dependent). Preservation issues to be considered in particular for salt (downward leaching), but uptake and preservation in wetlands/soils
	12. Possible contamination by heavy metals and metalloids (source-dependent, inc. water depth source)
	13. Geochemical (saltwater signature) and microfossil evidence often extends farther inland than landward maximum extent of sedimentary deposit
Biological	14. Individual shells and shell-rich units are often present (shells are often articulated and can be water-worn). Often more intact shells as opposed to shell hash. A wide range of shell ages is indicative of greater reworking by a tsunami as opposed to storm or anthropogenic deposits. Small, fragile shells and shellfish can be found at or near the upper surface of more recent palaeotsunami deposits
	15. Shell, wood and less dense debris often found ‘rafted’ at or near top of sequence (increase in organic content determined by loss on ignition, and sometimes moisture content)
	16. Often associated with buried vascular plant material and/or buried soil and/or skeletal (non-human) remains
	17. Generally associated with an increase in abundance of marine to brackish diatoms – often a greater percentage of reworked terrestrial diatoms near the upper part of the deposit. Large number of broken valves often observed, reflecting turbulent flows. Variations in diatom affinities often indicative of source areas and magnitude of event
	18. Marked changes in foraminifera (and other marine microfossils, such as dinoflagellates, nannoliths) assemblages can occur. Deeper water species are introduced – this is unlikely in storm or anthropogenic deposits, and/or increase in foraminifera abundance and breakage of tests. Composition relates to source (nearshore versus offshore). Foraminifera size tends to vary with grain size
	19. Pollen concentrations are often lower (diluted) in the deposit because of the marine origin and/or include high percentage of coastal pollen (e.g. mangroves). Pollen changes above and below the deposit are often indicative of sustained environmental change, a critical ecological threshold has been crossed – e.g. infilling or shallowing of coastal wetland
Archaeological	20. Archaeological sites – a sediment layer separating, underlying or overlying anthropogenic deposits/occupation layers
	21. Archaeological middens: changes in shellfish species/absence of expected species indicate sudden change in onshore and nearshore palaeo-environmental conditions
	22. Archaeological structures show structural damage by water to buildings/foundations at a site
	23. Archaeological burial sites have been reworked, often recognisable as ‘culturally inappropriate’ burials
	24. Replication – coastal archaeological occupation layers and shell middens are often separated or extensively reworked at several sites along coastline giving a regional/national signal of inundation
Anthropological	25. Traditional Environmental Knowledge (oral traditions) from the locality/region
Geomorphological	26. Acquired palaeo-geomorphology indicates tsunami inundation – a tsunami geomorphology is present that could include evidence of: (i) uplift or subsidence/compaction of site/locality; (ii) scour/erosion/reworking of sediments at site/locality – altered dune morphology; (iii) sand sheet or other similar deposits such as gravel deposition/gravel pavements
	27. Palaeo-geomorphology at the time of inundation indicates low likelihood of storm inundation
Contextual	28. Known local or distant tsunamigenic sources can be postulated or identified
	29. Known local and regional palaeo-environmental drivers indicate low likelihood of storm inundation
	30. Replication – similar contemporaneous coastal deposits are found regionally giving a regional signal of inundation

An interesting example of inclusion in the new database is that of the work by Nott and Bryant (2003) from the cliffs at Cape Leveque, Western Australia. The title of their paper, ‘Extreme marine inundations (tsunamis?) of coastal Western Australia’ acknowledges the uncertainly of their findings. Indeed, little was known about intense tropical cyclone inundation of this coast at the time their paper was published. Recently, the lead author has acknowledged that intense tropical cyclone waves have undoubtedly overtopped the cliffs at Cape Leveque (Nott, personal communication, 2013). The work of Nott and Bryant (2003) went beyond the relatively simple recording of enigmatic high-elevation boulders, observing a channelled landscape suggestive of erosion associated with waves overtopping the cliff. This evidence was also associated with fractured and overturned siliceous rocks partially buried in the weathered soil of the cliff-top. Dating of shells in the vicinity produced ages that were interpreted as indicating that major inundation events occurred here about every 500 years. More recent archaeological work at the site indicates the presence of undisturbed archaeological material both on and behind the cliff-top indicating a long period of stability (>800 years) (Barham, personal communication, 2007; Barham and O’Connor, 2007). In essence, if any event(s) occurred here, it must be older than the archaeological material. Boulder evidence from the adjacent shore platform presented by Nott and Bryant (2003) as evidence for palaeotsunami inundation has also been discounted with post-2003 storm activity remobilizing some of the blocks (Barham and O’Connor, 2007). However, while the dating has been proven incorrect and the boulder evidence discounted, the erosional channels and disturbed siliceous rocks warrant further research – could these be evidence for a palaeotsunami as opposed to a palaeostorm? The event, be it a palaeostorm or a palaeotsunami, could conceivably be much older than human occupation at the site. Importantly, the work here has gone some way beyond a simple review of high-elevation deposits and identified potentially equivocal information and we have therefore included this item in our database (Event 1, Table 1 and the Supplementary Data).

A comprehensive literature review inevitably uncovers some unusual data and this exercise was no different. In this instance, there appears to be a consistent but low level of background commentary concerning purported bolide impacts and their associated tsunamis. This body of work, promulgated primarily by the Holocene Impact Working Group (HIWG, http://tsun.sscc.ru/hiwg/hiwg.htm) consists mostly of conference abstracts professing to identify impact crater sites and associated tsunami deposits at various locations to the west, north and east of the country (e.g. Abbott et al., 2003, 2007, 2010). Regrettably, an absence of any cogent peer-reviewed publications and the discounting of much of the apparent evidence (e.g. chevrons – see discussion by Bourgeois and Weiss, 2009; Mahuika comet – see discussion by Goff et al., 2010a) mean that these data are anecdotal at best.

IV Significant findings

Several significant findings, over and above the correcting of errors in the previous database, have come to light during our research. It is worth noting, though, that although this review represents a far more comprehensive dataset than has previously been collated, it is undoubtedly incomplete. Findings include an almost three-fold increase in the number of events identified from 55 (+2 erroneous) to 145, up to 11 possible deaths, and match-ups between palaeotsunami data in Australia, New Zealand and the wider Pacific. Figures 2 –4 provide summaries of some of the key data including the number of events per state and island, and the causes and validity of the tsunamis. Even without attempting any complex data comparisons, there are some interesting observations.

Figure 2.

Summary tsunami database statistics: number of events and deaths (based on data shown in Table 1 with full details given in the Supplementary Data). (The colour code applies to Figures 2 –4.).

The database contains 145 individual tsunamis, although the total when considering all events recorded per state comes to 195 (Figure 2). This reflects not only the multi-state effects of distantly-generated events such as the 1868 and 1960 South American tsunamis, but also the ability of recent instrumental recordings to capture the record of smaller waves that would not have previously been observed. The database is still dominated by historically-documented events with only 20 palaeotsunamis on record, six of which are equivocal (refer to the Supplementary Data) primarily because of insufficient data. A review of the palaeotsunami data shows that there are three distinct groupings: undated, earlier than 2.5 Ma, and post ∼5000 yrs BP. While recognizing that the palaeotsunami record for Australia may not be expected to be as extensive as other more tectonically active countries such as its Indonesian or New Zealand neighbours, it is still exposed to tsunamis generated by those countries. As such, one would expect to find similar deposits to those recorded elsewhere, albeit complicated by the sedimentary evidence for more frequent tropical cyclone and storm inundations. The recent 2004 IOT and 2006 Java tsunami have tended to focus research efforts in Western Australia, but historical data indicate that the three eastern states of Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania have recorded the most events (Figure 2). This is hardly surprising given that it is the Pacific region that has recorded ∼85% of all historically-documented events (NGDC, 2013) and it is therefore on the densely populated eastern coast of Australia that more palaeotsunami research should probably be carried out.

The sense that it is towards the eastern states that research needs to focus is made even more forcefully by the discovery of historical documents indicating that up to 11 possible tsunami-related deaths have occurred in Australia (Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania: Events 61, 78, 99, 106) since 1883 (Figure 2, Supplementary Data). What makes this more remarkable is that its tsunami-prone neighbour, New Zealand, has recorded only one death in 1868 (de Lange and Healy, 1986; Nichol et al., 2010). It is tempting to draw conclusions about the relative tsunami awareness and preparedness suggested by these numbers – is Australia lagging behind its neighbour? However, since the most recent death occurred in 1953 (Morris and Mazengarb, 2009), such a comparison serves little purpose. This statistic may, though, now provide a useful tool for future education and awareness initiatives (acknowledging that the four events for which deaths are recorded are either of a poor or equivocal validity: Supplementary Data).

Perhaps the most significant finding concerning the causes for events noted in the database is that there are so many unknown (n = 64) and so few landslide (subaerial or submarine) generated events (Figure 3). The high number of unknown causes largely reflects the observational nature of much of the historical documentation. Early historical observations rarely considered a cause but focused on recording the effects of the event in question. It seems unlikely that many of these unknown causes will be clarified, but it is possible that the answer lies in the paucity of recognized landslide-generated events. Recent bathymetric work along the east coast of Australia alone has revealed a wealth of previously unknown submarine mass movements (Boyd et al., 2010; Puga-Bernabéu et al., 2011), although, as discussed above, linking any of these with observed events may prove challenging.

Figure 3.

Summary tsunami database statistics: cause of events by state and offshore island (based on data shown in Table 1 with full details given in the Supplementary Data). (See Figure 2 for colour code).

Figure 4.

Summary tsunami database statistics: validity of events by state and offshore island (based on data shown in Table 1 with full details given in the Supplementary Data). (See Figure 2 for colour code.).

It is hardly surprising that the bulk of the most valid events (Validity 1 = excellent) occur in the instrumental record with all of the equivocal (n = 44) ones occurring prior to 1955 (Figure 4, Supplementary Data). The other major grouping of Validity 1 events is found in the ancient bolide impact sites where a tsunami and its cause are easier to tie together than in smaller events some distance from their possible generating mechanism.

V Beyond Australia

The value of this database lies not only in what it says about Australia, but also what it contributes to our understanding of the tsunami hazard for the trans-Tasman and wider Pacific regions. As discussed above, this value has already been proven ‘in reverse’ with New Zealand data providing additional information concerning the 12 August 1870 (Event 43) tsunami recorded on the Sydney tide gauge. While this appears to be the only significant addition to our understanding of historically-documented events throughout the region, palaeotsunami data are potentially more intriguing. In 2009, up to five possible trans-Tasman palaeotsunamis were identified (Goff and Dominey-Howes, 2009) using the databases of Dominey-Howes (2007) and Goff (2008), and prior to a rigorous peer-review of the NSW data by Courtney et al. (2012). A re-evaluation using our updated Australian data and additional New Zealand palaeotsunami information (Goff et al., 2010c, 2012a; King and Goff, 2010) indicates that there are probably four potentially contemporaneous events recorded on either side of the Tasman Sea: 2.51 Ma (Event 13); 4100–4600 years BP (Events 14–16 sit within this age range); ∼2900 years BP (Event 17); and ∼mid-15th century (Event 20). Interestingly, a wider, regional comparison with additional Pacific Island data (Goff et al., 2011, 2012c, 2012d) produces a similar result with the exception of the 4100–4600 years BP event (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

Detail of SW Pacific region highlighting similar-aged trans-Tasman and Pacific-wide events. Circles: 2.51 Ma (after Goff et al., 2012a, and references therein). Crosses: 4100–4600 years BP (after Clark et al., 2011; Courtney, 2012; Goff, 2008; Goff and Dominey-Howes, 2009; Switzer et al., 2005). Squares: ∼2900 years BP (after Goff et al., 2010c; 2011; 2012c; 2012d; Nichol et al., 2003; Switzer et al., 2011). Stars: ∼mid-15th century (after Goff et al., 2011, 2012d, and references therein). Pp = Pukapuka; W&F = Wallis and Futuna; TKT = Tonga-Kermadec Trench; PSZ = Puysegur Subduction Zone.

In acknowledging that this is a moderately small dataset, it gives an indication of the value of combining palaeotsunami data for a region. Possible sites for the 2.51 Ma Eltanin asteroid impact event are summarized in Figure 5, but are listed in full in Goff et al. (2012a). This event, however, requires a considerable amount of further research to clarify the nature and extent of possible related palaeotsunami deposits. The spatial extent of the ∼2900 years BP and ∼mid-15th-century palaeotsunamis appears similar, albeit with far fewer sites identified for the earlier event. Earlier work tentatively associated both events with large (Mw 9.3+) TKT fault ruptures (Goff et al., 2010c, 2011, 2012c, 2012d; Nichol et al., 2003) and the additional information contained in our Australian database does not contradict these findings. What appears to be a smaller, trans-Tasman event around 4100–4600 years BP is the least convincing. Age ranges at all of the sites tentatively linked to this event are poorly constrained (e.g. New Zealand estimates are based upon inferred sedimentation rates – Goff, 2008) although it is tempting to use their geographical spread to infer a tsunamigenic source in the Puysegur Subduction Zone region, SSW of New Zealand (Figure 5). There are undoubtedly too few, poorly constrained, data points to draw any firm conclusions at present, but this region-wide perspective helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing palaeotsunami dataset.

VI Conclusions

A comprehensive search of web-based databases and peer-reviewed literature has seen the Australian tsunami database grow almost three-fold. There have been significant increases in the number of both historical and palaeotsunamis, with the former augmented by a considerable number of newspaper accounts and the latter seeing many previous entries deleted and a critical review of a range of more recent findings. While much tsunami research has been focused on Australia’s western coastline, the geographical spread of events and deaths continues to point towards a more significant hazard being faced by the east coast. This probably reflects not only the greater number of tsunamigenic events in the Pacific region but also that an event will more likely be noted along the more densely populated coastline.

In studying the palaeotsunamis of the Pacific Islands, Goff et al. (2011) stated that:

Each Pacific Island Country represents a point source of information in the Pacific Ocean and this would allow their palaeotsunami records to be treated akin to palaeo-DART^® (Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) buoys. Contemporaneous palaeotsunamis from local, regional and distant sources could be identified by using the spatial distribution of island records throughout the Pacific Ocean in conjunction with robust event chronologies. (Goff et al., 2011)

The new Australian database adds both historical and palaeotsunamis to a growing Pacific data set and, although it is likely that future research will better define the spatial and temporal extent of past tsunamis, this is a significant stepping stone to gaining a better understanding of the tsunami hazard for Australia and the Pacific region. As further evidence for past events becomes available and new tsunamis occur, the database will need to be updated. In the absence of an existing web-based database, it is recommended that this peer-reviewed record be revisited within the next decade.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been as comprehensive as it is without the considerable assistance of Steve Hutcheon, Astronomical Association of Queensland. We thank him for his sustained research over the past few years that contributed numerous new entries to the database. We also acknowledge the constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Supplemental material

The online data supplements are available at

References

Abbott

Bryant

Gusiakov

. (2010) Largest natural catastrophes in Holocene and their possible connection with comet-asteroid impacts on the Earth. 6th Alexander von Humboldt International Conference on Climate Change, Natural Hazards, and Societies, Merida, Mexico, abstract AvH6-13.

Abbott

Matzen

Bryant

. (2003) Did a bolide impact cause catastrophic tsunamis in Australia and New Zealand? Abstract. Geological Society of America 35(6): 168.

Abbott

Tester

Meyers

. (2007) Sediment transport, mixing, and erosion by an impact generated tsunami: Gulf of Carpentaria, Australia. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, abstract OS13B-07.

Alam

Dominey-Howes

Chagué-Goff

. (2012) Tsunamis of the northeast Indian Ocean with a particular focus on the Bay of Bengal region – a synthesis and review. Earth-Science Reviews 114 (1–2): 175–193.

Alpar

Unlu

Altmok

. (2012) New approaches in assessment of tsunami deposits in Dalaman (SW Turkey). Natural Hazards 63: 181–195.

Anonymous (1858) High tide. Hobart Town Daily Mercury 6 August: 2e. Available at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article3249786.

Anonymous (1875a) Sydney. Thames Star volume VII, issue 1970: 2. Available at: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=THS18750428.2.12.2&e=-------10--1----0--.

Anonymous (1875b) Cooktown and the Palmer. The Brisbane Courier 15 September: 3c. Available at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article1381684.

Anonymous (1885a) Severe shock of earthquake at Geraldton. The West Australian 7 January: 3g. Available at: nla.gov.au/nla.news-article2994034.

10.

Anonymous (1885b) A tidal wave. The Sydney Morning Herald 17 January: 9c. Available at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article13577608.

11.

Anonymous (1912) Interesting reminiscences. Evening Post volume LXXXIV, issue 37, 12 August: 2. Available at: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&srpos=1&cl=search&d=EP19120812.2.15&e=-------en--1----0beauchamp+nees-all.

12.

Anonymous (1914) The old days. Evening Post, volume LXXXVII, issue 8, 10 January: 9. Available at: http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=EP19140110.2.101.

13.

Anonymous (1943) Wave engulfs 6 at Cronulla. Army News 19 May: 3. Available at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article38334342.

14.

Anonymous (1948) Giant wave takes bathers’ clothes. The Mercury 1 January: 1. Available at: http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article26443678.

15.

Atwater

(1987) Evidence for great Holocene earthquakes along the outer coast of Washington state. Science 236: 942–944.

16.

Barham

O’Connor

(2007) Archaeological site stratigraphies as geoarchives for testing models of tsunami event periodicity during the Holocene – case studies from Western Australian shorelines. XVII INQUA Congress, Cairns, Queensland, Australia. Quaternary International 167–168, Supplement: 24.

17.

Beccari

(2009) Measurements and impacts of the Chilean tsunami of May 1960 in New South Wales, Australia. Report, NSW State Emergency Service, File no. 08/0576.

18.

Bedford

(2006) Pieces of the Vanuatu Puzzle: Archaeology of the North, South and Centre. Terra Australis 23. Canberra: ANU E Press.

19.

Bourgeois

Weiss

(2009) ‘Chevrons’ are not mega-tsunami deposits – a sedimentologic assessment. Geology 37: 403–406.

20.

Boyd

Keen

Hubble

. (2010) Southeast Australia: A Cenozoic continental margin dominated by mass transport. In: Mosher

Shipp

Moscardelli

, et al. (eds) Submarine Mass Movements and Their Consequences: 4th International Symposium. Advances in Natural and Technological Hazards Research Series 28. Dordrecht: Springer, 491–502.

21.

Bryant

(2008) Tsunami: The Underrated Hazard, second edition. Chichester: Springer-Praxis Publishing.

22.

Bryant

Young

Price

(1992) Evidence of tsunami sedimentation on the southeastern coast of Australia. Journal of Geology 100: 753–766.

23.

Chagué-Goff

(2010) Chemical signatures of palaeotsunamis: A forgotten proxy? Marine Geology 271: 67–71.

24.

Chagué-Goff

Andrew

Szczuciński

. (2012) Geochemical signatures up to the maximum inundation of the 2011 Tohoku-oki tsunami – implications for the 869 AD Jogan and other palaeotsunamis. Sedimentary Geology 282: 65–77.

25.

Chagué-Goff

Schneider

J-L

Goff

. (2011) Expanding the proxy toolkit to help identify past events – lessons from the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and the 2009 South Pacific Tsunami. Earth-Science Reviews 107: 107–122.

26.

Clark

Cochran

Mazengarb

(2011) Holocene coastal evolution and evidence for paleotsunami from a tectonically stable region, Tasmania, Australia. The Holocene 21: 883–895.

27.

Courtney

(2012) Holocene palaeoenvironmental reconstruction of four coastal sites in southern New South Wales, Australia: Implications for the Australian megatsunami hypothesis. PhD thesis, University of New South Wales, Australia.

28.

Courtney

Dominey-Howes

Goff

. (2012) A synthesis and review of the geological evidence for palaeotsunamis along the coast of southeast Australia: The evidence, issues and potential ways forward. Quaternary Science Reviews 54: 99–125.

29.

Cuven

Paris

Falvard

. (2013) High-resolution analysis of a tsunami deposit: Case-study from the 1755 Lisbon tsunami in southwestern Spain. Marine Geology 337: 98–111.

30.

de Lange

Healy

(1986) New Zealand tsunamis 1840–1982. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 29: 115–134.

31.

Dominey-Howes

(2007) Geological and historical records of tsunami in Australia. Marine Geology 239: 99–123.

32.

Felton

Crook

KAW

(2003) Evaluating the impacts of huge waves on rocky shorelines: An essay review of the book ‘Tsunami – the underrated hazard’. Marine Geology 197: 1–12.

33.

Felton

Crook

KAW

Keating

(2000) The Hulopoe Gravel, Lanai, Hawaii: New sedimentological data and their bearing on the ‘giant wave’ (mega-tsunami) emplacement hypothesis. Pure and Applied Geophysics 157: 1257–1284.

34.

Felton

Crook

KAW

Keating

. (2006) Sedimentology of rocky shorelines: 4. Coarse gravel lithofacies, molluscan biofacies, and the stratigraphic and eustatic records in the type area of the Pleistocene Hulopoe gravel, Lanai, Hawaii. Sedimentary Geology 184: 1–76.

35.

Font

Veiga-Pires

Pozo

. (2013) Benchmarks and sediment source(s) of the 1755 Lisbon tsunami deposit at Boca do Rio Estuary. Marine Geology 343: 1–14.

36.

Geoscience Australia (2013) Offshore tsunami hazard for Australia. Available at: http://www.ga.gov.au/hazards/tsunami/offshore-tsunami-hazard-for-australia.html.

37.

Goff

(2008) The New Zealand palaeotsunami database. NIWA Technical Report 131. Wellington: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.

38.

Goff

Chagué-Goff

(2012) A review of palaeo-tsunamis for the Christchurch region, New Zealand. Quaternary Science Reviews 57: 136–156.

39.

Goff

Dominey-Howes

(2009) Australasian palaeotsunamis – do Australia and New Zealand have a shared trans-Tasman prehistory? Earth Science Reviews 97: 159–166.

40.

Goff

Chagué-Goff

Archer

. (2012a) The Eltanin asteroid impact: Possible South Pacific palaeomegatsunami footprint and potential implications for the Pliocene–Pleistocene transition. Journal of Quaternary Science 27: 660–670.

41.

Goff

Chagué-Goff

Dominey-Howes

. (2011) Palaeotsunamis in the Pacific Islands. Earth-Science Reviews 107: 141–146.

42.

Goff

Chagué-Goff

Nichol

. (2012b) Progress in palaeotsunami research. Sedimentary Geology 243–244: 70–88.

43.

Goff

Chagué-Goff

Terry

(2012c) The value of a Pacific-wide tsunami database to risk reduction: Putting theory into practice. Geological Society, London, Special Publications 361: 209–220.

44.

Goff

Dominey-Howes

Chagué-Goff

. (2010a) Analysis of the Mahuika comet impact tsunami hypothesis. Marine Geology 271: 292–296.

45.

Goff

Hulme

McFadgen

(2003) ‘Mystic Fires of Tamaatea’: Attempts to creatively rewrite New Zealand’s cultural and tectonic past. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 33: 1–15.

46.

Goff

Lane

Arnold

(2009) The tsunami geomorphology of coastal dunes. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 9: 847–854.

47.

Goff

McFadgen

Chagué-Goff

. (2012d) Palaeotsunamis and their influence on Polynesian settlement. The Holocene 22: 1067–1069.

48.

Goff

McFadgen

Wells

. (2008) Seismic signals in coastal dune systems. Earth-Science Reviews 89: 73–77.

49.

Goff

Nichol

Kennedy

(2010b) Development of a tsunami database for New Zealand. Natural Hazards 54: 193–208.

50.

Goff

Pearce

Nichol

. (2010c) Multi-proxy records of regionally-sourced tsunamis, New Zealand. Geomorphology 118: 369–382.

51.

Gonzalez

Geist

Jaffe

. (2009) Probabilistic tsunami hazard assessment at seaside, Oregon, for near- and far-field seismic sources. Journal of Geophysical Research 114: C110232.

52.

Goto

Chagué-Goff

Fujino

. (2011) New insights of tsunami hazard from the 2011 Tohoku-oki event. Marine Geology 290: 46–50.

53.

Goto

Chagué-Goff

Goff

. (2012) The future of tsunami research following the 2011 Tohoku-oki event. Sedimentary Geology 282: 1–13.

54.

Gregson

Paull

Gaull

(1978) The Indonesian earthquake of 19 August 1974: Effects in Western Australia. Department of National Resources, Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics, Record 1978/19.

55.

Hall

Hansom

Jarvis

(2008) Processes, patterns and rates of erosion by stormwaves on hard rock headlands: The Grind of the Navir, Shetland, Scotland. Marine Geology 248: 28–46.

56.

Horspool

Griffin

Van Putten

(2010) Tsunami modelling validation: The impact of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami on Geraldton, Western Australia. Geoscience Australia Record 2010/01.

57.

King

Goff

(2010) Benefitting from differences in knowledge, practice and belief: Maori oral traditions and natural hazards science. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 10: 1927–1940.

58.

King

Goff

Skipper

(2007) Māori environmental knowledge and natural hazards in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 37: 59–73.

59.

McFadgen

Goff

(2007) Tsunamis in the New Zealand archaeological record. Sedimentary Geology 200: 263–274.

60.

McKenna

Jackson

DWT

Cooper

JAG

(2011) In situ exhumation from bedrock of large rounded boulders at the Giant’s Causeway, northern Ireland: An alternative genesis for large shore boulders (mega-clasts). Marine Geology 283: 25–35.

61.

Morris

Mazengarb

(2009) Historical accounts of tsunamis in Tasmania. Tasmanian Geological Survey Record 2009/04. Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, Mineral Resources Tasmania.

62.

Morton

Gelfenbaum

Jaffe

(2007) Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy tsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. Sedimentary Geology 200: 184–207.

63.

National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) (2013) Global Historical Tsunami Database. Boulder, CO: NGDC. Available at: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml.

64.

New Zealand Historic Places Trust (2013) Bank of New South Wales (former). Available at: http://historic.org.nz/TheRegister/RegisterSearch/RegisterResults.aspx?RID=1706.

65.

Nichol

Chagué-Goff

Goff

. (2010) Geomorphology and accommodation space as limiting factors on tsunami deposition: Chatham Island, southwest Pacific Ocean. Sedimentary Geology 229: 41–52.

66.

Nichol

Lian

Carter

(2003) Sheet-gravel evidence for a late Holocene tsunami run-up on beach dunes, Great Barrier Island, New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology 155: 129–145.

67.

Nott

(2004) The tsunami hypothesis – comparisons of the field evidence against the effects, on the western Australian coast, of some of the most powerful storms on earth. Marine Geology 208: 1–12.

68.

Nott

Bryant

(2003) Extreme marine inundations (tsunamis?) of coastal Western Australia. The Journal of Geology 111: 691–706.

69.

Papadopoulos

(2000) Historical Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Corinth Rift, Central Greece. NOA Publication 128. Athens: Institute of Geodynamics, National Observatory of Athens.

70.

Power

Wallace

Wang

. (2012) Tsunami hazard posed to New Zealand by the Kermadec and Southern New Hebrides subduction margins: An assessment based on plate boundary kinematics, interseismic coupling, and historical seismicity. Pure and Applied Geophysics 169: 1–36.

71.

Prendergast

Brown

(2006) The impact of the 2006 Java tsunami on the Australian coast: Post-tsunami survey at Steep Point, West Australia. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, abstract OS43C-0669.

72.

Prendergast

Brown

(2012) Far-field impact and coastal sedimentation associated with the 2006 Java tsunami in West Australia. Natural Hazards 60: 69–79.

73.

Puga-Bernabéu

Webster

Beaman

. (2011) Morphology and controls on the evolution of a mixed carbonate–siliciclastic submarine canyon system, Great Barrier Reef margin, north-eastern Australia. Marine Geology 289: 100–116.

74.

Quilty

(2012) Extreme physical events in the Sub-Antarctic. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 146: 1–8.

75.

Sahal

Pelletier

Chatelier

. (2010) A catalog of tsunamis in New Caledonia from 28 March 1875 to 30 September 2009. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 342: 434–447.

76.

Sawai

Fujii

Fujiwara

. (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: 517–528.

77.

Scheffers

Kelletat

Scheffers

. (2008) Chevrons – enigmatic sedimentary coastal features. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie N.F. 52: 375–402.

78.

Scheffers

Kelletat

. (2008) The Holocene paleo-tsunami history of West Australia. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 270: 137–146.

79.

Short

(2006) Australian beach systems – nature and distribution. Journal of Coastal Research 22: 11–27.

80.

Soloviev

ChN

Kim

KhS

(1992) Catalog of Tsunamis in the Pacific, 1969–1982. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 208 pp. Translated from Russian by Amerind Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, India, 1988 (originally published in Russian in 1986).

81.

Switzer

Jones

(2008) Large-scale washover sedimentation in a freshwater lagoon from the southeast Australian coast: Sea-level change, tsunami or exceptionally large storm? The Holocene 18: 787–803.

82.

Switzer

Bristow

Jones

(2006) Investigation of large-scale washover of a small barrier system on the southeast Australian coast using ground penetrating radar. Sedimentary Geology 183: 145–156.

83.

Switzer

Mamo

Dominey-Howes

. (2011) On the possible origins of an unusual (mid to late Holocene) coastal deposit, Old Punt Bay, South-East Australia. Geographical Research 49: 408–430.

84.

Switzer

Pucillo

Haredy

. (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.

85.

Terrell

Pope

Goff

(2011) Context and relevance. In: Terrell

Schechter

(eds) Archaeological Investigations on the Sepik Coast, Papua New Guinea, Fieldiana Anthropology 42: 21–28.

86.

Terry

Etienne

(2011) ‘Stones from the dangerous winds’ – reef platform mega-clasts in the tropical Pacific Islands. Natural Hazards 56: 567–569.

87.

Terry

Goff

(2013) One hundred and thirty years since Darwin: Reshaping the theory of atoll formation. The Holocene 23: 613–617.

88.

Tinti

Maramai

Graziani

(2004) The new catalogue of the Italian tsunamis. Natural Hazards 33: 439–465.

89.

Uchida

J-I

Fujiwara

Hasegawa

. (2010) Sources and depositional processes of tsunami deposits: Analysis using foraminiferal tests and hydrodynamic verification. Island Arc 19: 427–442.

90.

Wassmer

Schneider

Fonfrège

A-V

. (2010) Use of Anisotropy of Magnetic Susceptibility (AMS) in the study of tsunami deposits: Application to the 2004 deposits on the eastern coast of Banda Aceh, North Sumatra, Indonesia. Marine Geology 275: 255–272.