I Introduction

The tragedy of the Indian Ocean tsunami of Boxing Day 2004 made the world wake up to the dangers posed by tsunamis. From that day until the end of March 2005, some of the most intense earthquake activity of recent decades led to fault activity along a 1600 km length of plate with the first quake producing a tsunami that led to loss of life of more than 280 000 people. Evidence from history and prehistory, however, makes it clear that tsunamis are not only produced by offshore earthquakes; some have also been caused by underwater sediment slides, others by onshore landslides moving off the

flanks of oceanic islands into the ocean, still others by subsea volcanic explosions, while on rare occasions some have been caused by bolide (asteroid and cometary) impacts. With various tsunami threats now apparent along virtually every stretch of coastline in the world, there has been a recent upsurge in interest in tsunami studies. The clamour for assessments of tsunami risk for specific coastal zones has led to a dramatic acceleration in research into tsunami genesis and impacts, and led to an identifiable discipline: tsunami geoscience.

In the following sections, we summarize the progress recently made in various strands

Pacific. Underground nuclear detonations were considered highly likely to produce tsunamis and thus the tsunami risk to Poly-nesian coasts had to be addressed. Later, defence strategists in the United States considered tsunamis as a serious risk to its eastern seaboard owing to the possibility of hostile actions that involved the triggering of Atlantic megatsunamis as a result of the bombing of mountain slopes on the Canary Islands and landslide-generated tsunami. Tsunamis have thus had a variable press with the majority of commentators adding to the confusion by referring to tsunamis as ‘tidal waves’.

Popular accounts of ancient tsunamis abound in the literature. Perhaps the most famous relates to the flight of Moses from Egypt and the parting of the ‘Red Sea’. Many have alluded to links between these events and a tsunami generated by the eruption and collapse of the Santorini (formerly Thera) volcano in the eastern Mediterranean. One opinion is that the ‘Red Sea’ translates in Hebrew into the ‘reed sea’ and that such descriptions correspond well with the marsh-lands along the southern part of the Gaza Strip. Thus the parting of the waters is con-sidered equivalent to the drawdown of the sea prior to the arrival of Santorini tsunami waves and the drowning of the Egyptian soldiers in pursuit of Moses (Myles, 1985).

Long record of human occupation of the coastal zone of Mediterranean shores means that accounts of tsunamis are not rare in Europe either. Probably the most destructive event during historical times took place on 1 November 1755. An earthquake took place offshore c. 200 km WSW of Cape St Vincent, on the Gorringe Bank on the sea floor west of Portugal and attained a magnitude estimated at 8.5 Ms. The epicentre of the earthquake was in an area along the Azores–Gibraltar plate boundary that forms the western part of the lithosphere boundary between the Eurasian and African plates (Moreira, 1985).

The considerable destruction that took place in Lisbon, in addition to widespread

fires, was mostly attributable to three tsunami waves, estimated to be 5–13 m high, that took the lives of 60 000 people in Portugal alone. There are also numerous reports of severe tsunami flooding and fatal-ities along the Algarve coast, southern Spain, Morocco and Algeria. The tsunami waves travelled westwards across the Atlantic. An officer on a man-of-war ship The Warwick off Antigua described it thus: ‘from many of the islands we are informed of a very surprising motion of the sea the 1st of November, much at the same time amongst them all. The sea, twice in some islands, and thrice in others, rose from 8 to 12 feet perpendicular, and suddenly retired as much below its usual height. In some places where the plantations were near the sea, on low grounds, much damage was done, by drowning and washing away houses, cattle etc.’ (Scots Magazine, 1756: 41). Even in SW England, contemporary observations by Borlase (1755; 1758) describe the arrival of the tsunami in Mounts Bay, Cornwall: ‘the first and second refluxes were not so violent as the 3rd and 4th (tsunami waves) at which time the sea was as rapid as that of a mill-stream descending to an undershot wheel and the rebounds of the sea continued in their full-fury for fully 2 hours ... alternatively rising and falling, each retreat and advance nearly of the space of 10 minutes until 5 and a half hours after it began.’

The relatively high frequency of Pacific tsunamis is due to the occurrence of severe earthquakes under or close to the seabed as a result of the subduction of oceanic crust adjacent to continental margins. Such geo-logical processes are a characteristic fea-ture of Japan where there is a long history of devastating earthquakes and tsunamis. Between 1596 and 1938 the Japanese islands were struck by no fewer than 15 major tsu-namis. For example, the Ansei-Nankai tsunami took place in western Japan in 1854 and led to the loss of life of around 3000 people. This tsunami is well-known in Japanese history in conjunction with the

where they reverse current direction. At this point, large volumes of sediment may be deposited out of the water column onto the ground surface. It is an important character-istic, and one that makes tsunamis distinctive from storm surges.

Recent studies of coastal sediments de-posited by palaeotsunamis have shown that tsunami sediment deposition is frequently associated with the deposition of sediment sheets that rise in altitude inland as tapering sediment wedges (Dawson, 1994; Nanayama et al., 2003; Cisternas et al., 2005). The high-est sediment accumulation always occurs below the upper limit of tsunami run-up. Similarly, in the Algarve, Portugal, tsunami deposits produced during the great Lisbon earthquake of AD 1755 locally occur as con-tinuous sheets of sediment inland from the coast, but farther inland are replaced by dis-continuous and eventually sporadic sediment lenses, until a point is reached when there is no sedimentary trace of the tsunami, despite historical observations that tsunami flooding took place to considerably higher altitudes (Hindson et al., 1996). Thus, the upper limit of sediment deposition is always less than the upper limit of run-up, therefore making it impossible to infer run-up levels from palaeotsunami deposits (Dawson, 1994).

The interpretation of any tsunami de-posit is complicated by episodes of sediment erosion during the passage of individual

waves. Successive waves may result in the erosion of pre-existing tsunami deposits and, on occasions, their complete removal. The pattern and processes of tsunami sedi-mentation is additionally complicated by the occurrence of episodes of backwash flow that move from landward to seaward and may cause additional fluvial erosion and sediment redeposition. Velocities of back-wash flow are, in turn, greatly influenced by the nature of the local coastal topography, and this factor may often play an important part in determining the nature and scale of backwash sediment transport and reworking. In addition, this process may introduce ter-restrial sediments including plant macro-fossils into the sediment assemblage, thus complicating palaeoenvironmental inter-pretation (Bondevik et al., 1997).

Another distinctive feature of tsunamis is their ability to erode, transport and deposit boulders of considerable size (Hearty, 1997; Kelletat and Schellmann, 2002; Scheffers and Kelletat, 2006; Kennedy et al., 2007; McMurtry et al., 2007) (Figure 2). Empirical evidence of coastal boulder deposition dur-ing the tsunami was provided by Yeh et al. (1993) in their study of the Flores (Indonesia) tsunami of December 1992, when blocks of eroded coral reef were recorded as having been transported by the tsunami and de-posited far inland. Bourrouilh-Le Jan and Talandier (1985) described areas of coral

reef in the Tuamoto archipelago, SE Pacific, where large numbers of giant boulders (up to 750 m³) appear to have been carried across the atoll rim and dumped in the lagoon. However, although palaeotsunamis have been considered in this case as a possible depositional agent, similar-sized boulders may also be deposited as a result of very high-energy storm surges. The case is well illustrated by Noormets et al. (2002) who identified on a shore platform in Hawaii a 96-tonne boulder deposited during the 1946 Aleutian Islands tsunami but later moved on two occasions by storm wave action.

Despite the possibility that accumulations of so-called megaclasts are the result of extreme wave activity during storms, littoral boulder fields have been observed elsewhere in the world and typically attributed to tsunamis, for example in Japan (Nakata and Kawana, 1993; Scheffers and Kelletat, 2006). In southern Portugal, Scheffers and Kelletat (2006) identified boulders deposited by the Lisbon tsunami of AD 1755. Similar observations have been made on the New South Wales coastline of Australia by Young and Bryant (1992).

Although the sedimentary signatures of tsunamis are relatively well established, relatively few investigations have been undertaken on the microfossils contained within tsunami deposits. Those studies that have explored this aspect (eg, Hemphill-Haley 1995a; 1995b; 1996; Cisternas et al.,

2005; S. Dawson, 2007) show that brackish-marine diatoms within tsunamiites can be used not only to identify provenance but also to delimit the greatest inland extent of inundation, owing to the fact that certain assemblages occur beyond the landward limit of tsunami-deposited sands and silts. Likewise the occurrence of marine plankton in coastal freshwater lakes located beyond the reach of storms can be used to identify former incursions of tsunami waters. The character of the diatom assemblages within sediments can also imply a tsunami origin due to high percentages of broken species of Paralia sulcata (Dawson et al., 1996). Like diatoms, foraminifera also provide a useful means of identifying former tsunami deposits, especially where species typical of deep-water environments are contained within coastal deposits (Dominey-Howes et al., 1999).

VI Can tsunami and storm deposits be distinguished?

Tsunami deposits are distinctive in that they are frequently associated with the deposition of continuous and discontinuous sediments sheets across large areas of the coastal zone, reflecting the tendency for tsunamis to be constructive as they approach their land-ward limit (Nott, 1997; Morton et al., 2007). Also, they frequently consist of deposits of sand containing isolated boulders, and on occasions such boulders exhibit evidence of

having been transported inland from the near-shore zone. Finally, microfossil assem-blages of diatoms and foraminifera within sand sheets may provide information of onshore transport of sediment from deeper water. But are these attributes diagnostic enough to distinguish tsunamiites from storm-related deposits, so called tempestites?

In fact, hurricane deposits are quite differ-ent. For example, Scoffin and Hendry (1984) used coral rubble stratigraphy on Jamaican reefs to identify past hurricane activity, while Perry (2004) used storm-induced coral rubble in reef facies from Barbados to identify epi-sodes of past hurricane activity. Similarly, in coastal Alabama, USA, a series of hurricanes during historical time has resulted in the deposition of multiple sand layers in low-lying coastal wetlands, but never as extensive as tsunami sediment sheets. By contrast, the overwash fans along the New England coastline used by Donnelly et al. (2001) to reconstruct a 700-year record of hurricane activity have analogues with similar tsunami-deposited fans (Andrade, 1992; de Lange and Moon, 2007; Nanayama et al., 2007). While it is accepted that storm surges result in the deposition of discrete sedimentary units, it is argued that tsunamis, in contrast to storm surges, generally result in deposition of sediment sheets, often continuous over relatively wide areas and considerable dis-tances inland. For example, sediment sheets in the Algarve, Portugal, produced by the AD 1755 tsunami occur in excess of 1 km inland (Dawson, 1994).

VII Tsunami marine processes

Whereas the majority of the literature concerned with tsunami sedimentation has focused attention on the coastal zone, relatively little attention has been given to tsunami depositional processes both in the near-shore zone and in the deep ocean (Dawson and Stewart, 2007). To a large ex-tent, this is because tsunami sediments are readily identifiable and easy to study along coastlines. Yet the fact that each incoming

tsunami wave is associated with strong back-wash flow from the coast into the sea high-lights the strong possibility that sediments picked up by tsunamis may also drape the sea floor, a consequence of the cumulative depositional effect of each backwash flow associated with the train of tsunami waves (Einsele et al., 1996). During this phase, pulses of tsunami backwash may generate turbidity currents that move seaward to-wards the abyssal zone via submarine gullies and canyons (Bralower et al., 1998).

The literature on marine tsunami deposits is surprisingly sparse. Bailey and Weir (1932) speculated that an enigmatic ‘boulder bed’ in the late Jurassic rocks of northern Scotland may have been produced as a result of tsu-nami activity, but thereafter there have been few published accounts of marine palaeo-tsunami deposits. Bailey (1940) highlighted the contemporary debate concerning pos-sible links between turbidity-current activity and the evolution of submarine canyons, recognizing that individual turbidity-current ‘events’ may have played an important role in canyon development. Coleman (1968: 269) noted that tsunamis have an ‘off-surge cap-acity’ of sediment transport and envisaged that this off-surge (backwash) ‘rolls in a turbid flow along the sea floor and as it loses energy drops its load progressively. The bulk of deposition may take place either in shallow water within a few kilometres of the coast or, paradoxically, in the deeper offshore, even bathyl water, beyond the shelf.’ Coleman stressed the important process links between tsunami sediment transport, turbidity-current flow and the long-term evolution of sub-marine canyons, adding that tsunami-driven sediment flows moving towards deeper water would be capable of transporting particles with a wide range of grain sizes resulting in the deposition of poorly sorted sediment ‘literally slopped forth in turbid masses relatively close to the shore’ (Coleman, 1968).

Although beyond the scope of this study, the possible relationships between submarine-canyon development and tsunami sediment

offshore sediment slide or earthquake activity. One caveat is that while there is a physical limit to the size of the subsea fault displacement, which given the inherent strength of the rocks ensures that vertical displacement in even great seismic jolts cannot exceed ~10 m, there is no such limiting factor for subsea landslides. Consequently, palaeotsunamis whose reconstructed run-ups are exceptionally large may require a non-seismic generating mechanism, such as a submarine slope failure. The only diffi-culty is that there are other mechanisms that can produce such anomalously huge inundations.

2 Tsunamis generated by submarine slides

The advances in the exploration of the ocean floor have revealed a multiplicity of submarine slides that present a real tsunami risk (Driscoll et al., 2000; Ward and Day, 2001). For example, the Hawaiian island chain is flanked by at least 20 large underwater slides. Moore (2000) maintains that, on the island of Molokai, marine strata located on hillslopes up to c. 70 m above sea level are most likely to have been deposited by a single tsunami caused by one of these slides. Moore (2000) rules out deposition in association with higher sea levels since the oceanic islands associated with the hot-spot island chain of the Hawaiian islands are likely to have experienced long-term subsidence rather than uplift.

The debate concerning alleged marine sediments located at high altitudes (eg, >300 m above sea level) on the flanks of several ocean island hillslopes has been wide-ranging. Thus, whereas Moore and Moore (1988) interpreted such deposits on Lanai, Hawaii, as the product of an ancient tsunami, Keating and Helsey (2002) and Felton (2004) maintain that parts of the lithological assem-blage (which contains limestone clasts as well as basalt) are alluvial in origin. By contrast, others have argued that there is stratigraphic evidence for formerly higher sea levels on

Lanai up to 190 m above sea level and no evi-dence for past tsunamis at higher altitudes. McMurtry et al. (2004) maintain that there is good sedimentary evidence for a former tsunami dated to the last interglacial (marine isotope stage 5e) having flooded up to 60 m above sea level on the flank of the Kohala volcano on Hawaii.

That underwater slides are capable of producing large tsunamis is demonstrated by the 1998 tsunami that struck Papua New Guinea, causing widespread loss of life. Here a tsunami with run-up values in excess of 8 m was triggered by a landslide with a volume of 4 km³ located in a water depth of 550m (Heinrich et al., 2001).

Perhaps the most intensively studied tsunami triggered by a submarine slide is the well-known one that struck North Atlantic coastlines c. 8000 years ago as a result of one of the world’s largest underwater slides, the Storegga Slide, off western Norway (Figure 3). Along the coasts of the northern North Sea, Norwegian Sea and the north Atlantic Ocean, a very prominent sand layer, first thought to have been deposited by a storm surge, has more recently been attri-buted to a large tsunami (Dawson et al., 1988; Haflidason et al., 2004; Smith et al., 2004). The detail with which the tsunami is known is considerable. Several studies have exam-ined the sedimentology of the deposit, in-cluding its particle size, microfossil content and even the time of year it occurred. The diatom ecology of the layer has been exam-ined and over 100 ¹⁴C dates on biogenic material both within the layer and from adjacent horizons have been obtained (Smith et al., 2004). Numerical modelling of the slide by Harbitz (1992) concluded that a landslide velocity of 30 m s^–1 provided the closest approximation to the estimated run-up values based on geological data. How-ever, the weakness in this argument is that the geological data provide only minimum estimates of likely flood run-up and there-fore the related numerical models of the

Minoan Santorini volcanic eruption that took place in the eastern Mediterranean c. 3500 yr BP. Part of the key evidence for this tsunami is a mud-rich sedimentary unit (described as a ‘homogenite’) on the floor of the Aegean Sea, together with turbidites that are considered to have been deposited as a result of the passage of a large tsunami (cf. Cita et al., 1996; Cita and Rimoldi, 1997; Cita and Aliosi, 2000). The onshore legacy of this wave has been extensively sought in the surrounding coastal zones, and some sus-pected tsunami deposits of the appropriate age have been documented (eg, Minoura et al.. 2000). However, the general paucity of sedimentary deposits attributable to this apparently cataclysmic volcanic tsunami has led some workers (eg, Dominey-Howes et al., 1999; Dominey-Howes, 2004) to pro-pose that that the principal phase of caldera collapse may have taken place much earlier (during the last glacial maximum c. 20 Kyr BP) and that the Minoan tsunami may have been a far smaller event than generally believed.

4 Tsunamis generated by bolide impacts

Tsunamis triggered by bolide impacts pre-sent an almost separate set of issues. Several bolide impacts are believed to be associated with past tsunami activity, the oldest being an impact during the middle Devonian which is considered to have resulted in the depos-ition of an angular breccia deposit across NW Russia and Belarus (Masaitis, 2002). It has been argued that another impact, during the late Jurassic, generated a tsunami that deposited an erosional conglomerate across what is now northern France (Dypvik et al., 2003), while a Late Eocene impact is widely seen as being responsible for a breccia unit identified across Chesapeake Bay (Poag et al., 1992; Poag, 1997). For the Quaternary period, the only known bolide-tsunami is that associated with a south Pacific impact at 2.51 M yr and linked to possible tsunami deposits in Chile (Hartley et al., 2001). Per-haps the best-known bolide-tsunami is that associated with the K/T boundary event

(Takayama et al., 2000; Bourgeois et al., 1988). Smit et al. (1992), in a discussion of K/T tsunami deposits in Mexico, drew atten-tion to the presence within the deposit of wood debris and argued that sediment de-position occurred as a result of tsunami-induced gravity flows.

IX Constructing tsunami chronologies

For the majority of the geological record, lithological units attributable to tsunami (tsunamiites) are rare. Unfortunately, there-fore, the rock record provides no information on tsunami recurrence history. The same is true for the majority of the Quaternary, al-though in this case the dating of individual submarine slides together with ages obtained for individual tsunami deposits provide us with knowledge that several large tsunamis have taken place through the various glacial-interglacial cycles. The most information on tsunami history is for the Holocene, where the use of buried and uplifted sand layers, inferred to represent past episodes of extreme marine flooding, have been used to construct age-constrained tsunami chronologies. To date, the most complete records have come from Chile, Japan and Kamchatka and to a lesser extent the Pacific coast of the United States.

In Kamchatka, Pinegina and Bourgeois (2001) and Bourgeois et al. (2006) identified a series of peat sequences in which are re-presented up to 28 inferred tsunami sedi-ment sheets, the ages of which are partly constrained by well-defined tephra horizons. These authors attribute the majority of the tsunamis to offshore earthquake sources during the Holocene but are careful to recog-nize that some of the palaeotsunamis may have been generated by other mechanisms (eg, submarine slides, volcanic flank collapse). In Chile, Cisternas et al. (2005) have iden-tified a sequence of marine sand units attri-butable to past tsunamis intercalated with buried soil horizons, the position of the latter due to episodes of coseismic subsidence contemporary with palaeoearthquakes. Cisternas et al. (2005) identified for the Rio

spreads, although many studies are still hin-dered by difficulties in understanding which boulders are storm deposits and which were transported by tsunamis. Real progress has been made in the construction of tsunami chronologies for specific regions, with the pioneering research of Atwater, Pinegina, Cisternas and Bourgeois providing us with new perspectives on the Holocene history of tsunamis across the Pacific basin.

In terms of understanding tsunami sedi-ment deposition at the coast, field meas-urements and records of stratigraphy have shown numerous ways in which tsunami sediments can be distinguished from those of storms. But we are still a long way away from understanding precisely how tsu-namis transport and deposit sediment across the coastal zone. There is a clear need for hydraulic modelling of tsunami sediment transport and deposition and how onshore surge and backwash currents lead to such distinctive massive sand and silt complexes. In addition, it needs to be borne in mind that many tsunamis do not strike the coastline at right angles; many tsunamis strike coastlines obliquely, some even moving subparallel to the coastal edge.

There has also been a rapid growth in the number of studies that address the relation-ships between submarine slides and tsunami generation, as well as the consideration of the process links between oceanic island hill-slope mass movement events and tsunami generation. Both of these research areas are likely to grow in future. In respect of under-water slides, new geological surveys of areas of ocean floor are likely to discover new slides and to date others. Similarly, the dating of tsunami deposits along the flanks of oceanic islands, as well as the identification and dating of relict slides that have moved from land into the ocean, are also likely to improve our understanding of tsunami history. In conclusion, the subject of tsunami geoscience is highly interdisciplinary, involving an under-standing of the interrelationships between

geology (onshore and offshore), sedimen-tology, seismology, tectonics, volcanology, geomorphology, oceanography and hydraul-ics. The most significant scientific advances in the future for tsunami geoscience will un-doubtedly lie at the various crossroads be-tween these disciplines.

Acknowledgements

This paper is a contribution from the Scottish Alliance for Geoscience, Environment and Society (SAGES). The authors would like to thank, for providing information, Genevieve Cain (Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, Hawaii), Alison Sandison and Jenny Johnston (for cartographic support).

References

Andrade, C. 1992: Tsunami generated forms in the Algarve barrier islands. In Dawson, A.G., editor, European Geophysical Society 1992 Tsunami Meeting, Science of Tsunami Hazards 10, 21–34.

Atwater, B.F. 1992: Geologic evidence for earth-quakes during the past 2000 years along the Copalis River, Southern Coastal Washington. Journal of Geophysical Research 97(B2), 1901–19.

Atwater, B.F. and Yamaguchi, D.K. 1991: Sudden, probably coseismic submergence of Holocene trees and grass in coastal Washington State. Geology 19, 706–709.

Bailey, E.B. 1940: Submarine canyons. Nature 370, 493.

Bailey, E.B. and Weir, J. 1932: Submarine faulting in Kimmeridgian times: east Sutherland. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 57, 429–67.

Bondevik, S., Svendsen, J.I., Johnsen, G., Mangerud, J. and Kaland, P.E. 1997: The Storegga tsunami along the Norwegian coast, its age and runup. Boreas 26, 29–54.

Borlase, W. 1755: Letter to the Rev Charles Lytteton.

Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 49, 373–78.

— 1758 (reprinted 1966): Observations on the Islands of Scilly. Newcastle upon Tyne: Frank Graham.

Bourgeois, J., Hansen, T.A., Wiberg, P.L., Kauffman, E.G. 1988: A tsunami deposit at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary in Texas. Science 241, 567–70.

Bourgeois, J., Pinegina, TK., Ponomareva, V. and

Zaretskaia, N. 2006: Geological Society of America Bulletin 118, 449–63.

Bourrouilh-Le Jan, F.G. and Talandier, J. 1985: Sedimentation et fracturation de hautes energie en milieu recifaltsunamis, ouragans et cyclones et leurs

New Guinea event. Geophysical Journal International

145, 97–111.

Hemphill-Haley, E. 1995a: Diatom evidence for earthquake induced subsidence and tsunami 300 years ago in southern coastal Washington. Geological Society of America Bulletin 107, 367–78.

— 1995b: Intertidal diatoms from Willapa Bay, Washington: application to studies of small-scale sea-level changes. Northwest Science 69, 29–45.

— 1996: Diatoms as an aid in identifying late-Holocene tsunami deposits. The Holocene 6, 439–48.

Hindson, R.A., Andrade, C. and Dawson, A.G.

1996: Sedimentary processes associated with the tsunami generated by the 1755 Lisbon earthquake on the Algarve Coast, Portugal. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 21, 57–63.

Holmes, A. 1944: Principles of physical geology. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1288 pp.

Keating, B.H. and Helsley, C.E. 2002: The ancient shorelines of Lanai, Hawaii, revisited, Sedimentary Geology, 150, 3–15.

Kelletat, D. and Schellmann, G. 2002: Tsunamis on Cyprus – field evidence and 14C dating results.

Zeitschrift fur Geomorphologie NF 46(1), 19–34.

Kennedy, D.M., Tannock, K.L., Crozier, M.J. and

Rieser, U. 2007: Boulders of MIS 5 age deposited by a tsunami on the coast of Otago, New Zealand.

Sedimentary Geology 200, 222–31.

Kortekaas, S. and Dawson, A.G. 2007: Distinguishing tsunami and storm deposits: an example from Martinhal, SW Portugal. Sedimentary Geology 200, 208-221.

Lay, T., Kanamori, H., Ammon, C.J., Nettles, M., Ward, S.N., Aster, R.C., Beck, S.L., Bilke, 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, 1127–33.

Masaitis, V.L. 2002: The middle Devonian Kaluga impact crater (Russia): new interpretation of marine setting. Deep-Sea Research II 49, 1157–69.

Masson, D.G. 1996: Catastrophic collapse of the volcanic island of Hierro 15 ka ago and the history of landslides in the Canary Islands. Geology 24, 231–34.

McMurtry, G.M., Fryer, G.J., Tappin, D.R., Wilkinson, I.P., Williams, M., Fietske, J., Garbe-Schoenberg, D. and Watts, P. 2004: Megatsunami deposits on Kohala volcano, Hawaii, from flank collapse of Mauna Loa. Geology 32, 741–44.

McMurtry, G.M., Tappin, D.R., Sedwick, P.N., Wilkinson, I., Fietzke, J. and Sellwood, B.

2007: Elevated marine deposits in Bermuda record a late Quaternary megatsunami. Sedimentary Geology 200, 155–65.

Minoura, K., Imamura, F., Kuran, U., Nakamura, T., Papadopoulos, Takahashi, T. and Yalciner,

A.C. 2000: Discovery of Minoan tsunami deposits. Geology 28, 59–62.

Moore, A.L. 2000: Landward fining in onshore gravel as evidence for a late Pleistocene tsunami on Molokai, Hawaii. Geology 28, 249–50.

Moore, G.W. and Moore, J.G. 1988: Large-scale bedforms in boulder gravel produced by giant waves in Hawaii. In Clifton, H.E., editor, Sedimentologic consequences of convulsive geologic events, Geo-logical Society of American Special Paper 229, 101–10.

Morton, R.A., Gelfenbaum, G. and Jaffe, B.E.

2007: Physical criteria for distinguishing sandy tsu-nami and storm deposits using modern examples.

Sedimentary Geology 200, 184–207.

Moreira, V.F. 1985: Seismotectonics of Portugal and its adjacent area in the Atlantic. Tectonophysics 117, 85–96.

Murty, T.S. 1977: Seismic sea waves: tsunamis.

Bulletin of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada

198, 335 pp.

Myles, D. 1985: The great waves. New York: McGraw Hill.

Nakata, T. and Kawana, T. 1993: Historical and prehistorical large tsunamis in the southern Ryukus, Japan. In Tsunami ’93, Proceedings of IUGG/IOC Uinst, Tsunami Symposium, Wakayama, Japan, 23–27 August, 297–307.

Nanayama, F., Furukawa, R., Shigeno, K., Makino, A., Soeda, Y. and Igarashi, Y. 2007: Nine unusually large tsunami deposits from the past 4000 years at Kiritappu marsh along the southern Kuril Trench, Sedimentary Geology 200, 26–274.

Nanayama, F., Satake, K., Furukawa, R., Shimokawa, K., Atwater, B.F., Shigeno, K. and Yamaki, S. 2003: Unusually large earthquakes inferred from tsunami deposits along the Kuril trench. Nature, 424, 660–63.

Nichol, S.L., Goff, J.R., Devoy, R.J.N., Chague-Goff, C., Hayward, B. and James, I. 2007: Lagoon subsidence and tsunami on the West Coast of New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology 200, 248–62.

Nisbet, EG, and Piper, D.J.W. 1998: Giant submarine landslides. Nature 392, 329–30.

Noormets, R., Felton, E.A. and Crook, K.A.W.

2002: Sedimentology of rocky shorelines: 2 shoreline megaclasts on the north shore of Oahu, Haaii – origins and history. Sedimentary Geology 150, 31–45.

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.

Pararas-Carayannis, G. 2002: Evaluation of the threat of mega-tsunami generation from postu-lated massive slope failures of island stratovolcanoes on La Palma, Canary Islands, and on the island of Hawaii. Science of Tsunami Hazards 20, 251–77.