This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Australasian palaeotsunamis — Do Australia and New Zealand have a sharedtrans-Tasman prehistory?

James Goff ⁎, Dale Dominey-HowesAustralian Tsunami Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 February 2009Accepted 16 September 2009Available online 27 September 2009

Keywords:Australasiapalaeotsunamievidencehistoryrisk

Palaeotsunami databases are now available for both Australia and New Zealand. They indicate that there is adistinct disjunct between relatively small historic events and their larger prehistoric counterparts. Historically,several tsunamis have affected both theAustralian andNewZealand coasts and itwould therefore seem logical toassume that larger, prehistoric events would leave a recognisable geological signal. A review of the two datasetsindicates up to five possible contemporaneous Holocene palaeotsunamis. Amore critical examination of some ofthe underpinning research however, indicates that there are significant differences between the approachesadopted for establishing the chronology of individual events, and also in the nature and extent of the physicalevidence used.We conclude that there are two key steps that need to be taken to ascertain whether or not theseHolocene events are contemporaneous. First, a consistent methodology for the calibration of radiocarbondates needs to be adopted across both datasets. Second, the physical characteristics used to define the Holocenepalaeotsunamis listed in the Australian database need to be critically reviewed. Once completed a moreconstructive investigation of possible contemporaneous trans-Tasman or Australasian palaeotsunamis can bemade that will help to shed light on the nature of the regional risk from tsunamis. Globally, similar precautionsshould be taken prior to attempting comparisons between any palaeotsunami databases.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1592. Palaeotsunami databases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

2.1. Possible synchronous events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1643. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

1. Introduction

The 2004 ‘Indian Ocean Tsunami’ (IOT) was catastrophic. It wasthe most lethal tsunami disaster the modern world has known.However, it was not a unique event (Dominey-Howes, 2007). Similarevents have occurred in the past and will happen again in the future.Although the source for the IOT was extremely large and the event waswidely devastating, its geological impact in the Australasian region wasminor. However, there are many other potential sources capable ofproducing far larger events in the Australasian region.

This statement is unlikely to comeasa surprise to researchers inNewZealand. The country has experienced at least four historic tsunamis

with runup heights of 10 m or more (de Lange and Healy, 1986). It isperhaps more unexpected for many Australian researchers. Tide gaugerecords fromAustralia show thathistorically, essentially only small, sub-metre tsunamis, have affected the coast (Rynn, 1994). However,geological evidence has been presented that purports to show theoccurrence of repeated megatsunamis many times larger than the IOTduring the Holocene (Bryant et al., 1992; Young et al., 1997; Nott, 1997;Bryant, 2001; Bryant and Nott, 2001). Hutchinson and Attenbrow(2009) provide a useful summary of the proposed megatsunami evi-dence. In essence, over the last two decades Bryant and others haveargued that the coastline of Australia, and New South Wales in part-icular, was repeatedly inundated by megatsunamis during the Holo-cene. Evidencewasbaseduponassemblages of anomalous erosional anddepositional features at elevations up to 130m above mean sea level,with a chronology established using numerous radiocarbon ages from

Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9385 4831; fax: +61 2 9385 6190.E-mail address: j.goff@unsw.edu.au (J. Goff).

0012-8252/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2009.09.003

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Earth-Science Reviews

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /earsc i rev

Author's personal copy

inferred deposits. Conversely, in New Zealand, while a story of multiplepalaeotsunamis during theHolocene is also evident, only a feware of thesameorder ofmagnitude as the IOT (Goff et al., 1998, 2001, 2004;Nicholet al., 2003).

When reviewing the data for both countries there appears tobe something of a ‘disjunct’ in the size of events between small his-torical tsunamis and large, infrequent ones in the prehistoric record(Dominey-Howes, 2007). This disjunct is more apparent in theAustralian data, although recent research is starting to reveal apalaeotsunami record at odds with the proposed megatsunami data

(Dominey-Howes et al., 2006). For example, it is suggested thatpalaeotsunamis along the New South Wales coast were much smallerand less frequent than the current megatsunami paradigm implies(Switzer et al., 2005, 2006).

In New Zealand, it has been inferred that a tsunami needs to havewave heights at least 5m high to leave any long-term, recognisable,sedimentary signature (Lowe and de Lange, 2000). This is a generalrule of thumb, but perhaps provides some explanation for a possibledisjunct since only larger tsunamis can leave a long-term physicalrecord. For example, in New Zealand there are several documented

Table 1Holocene Australian palaeotsunamis (modified from Dominey-Howes, 2007), refer to cited literature for details.

aNSW = New South Wales.bValidity (V) of the tsunami event (based upon the NOAA/NGDC Tsunami Database classification): 0 = Erroneously listed event, 1 = Very doubtful tsunami, 2 = Questionable tsunami,3 = Probable tsunami, 4 = Definite tsunami).cReference: A-Bryant et al. (1992); B-Bryant (2001); C-Bryant and Nott (2001); D-Switzer (2005); E-Switzer et al. (2006); F-Young et al. (1996); G-Young et al. (1997).

Notes to Table 2aBOP = Bay of Plenty; CI = Chatham Island, ENI = Eastern North Island, ESI = East South Island, HB = Hawke's Bay; HG= Hauraki Gulf; NI = North Island, NNI = Northern NorthIsland, NSI = Northern South Island, NZ = New Zealand, SSE = South/South East South Island, SI = South Island, SNI = Southern North Island, SW = South West South Island,SZ = Subduction Zone. Multiple? = One or more of sources such as the Tonga–Kermadec–Hikurangi trench, Cook Strait area, Bay of Plenty area, Pacific Islands, local submarinelandslide.bValidity (V) of the tsunami event (based upon the NOAA/NGDC Tsunami Database classification): 0 = Erroneously listed event, 1 = Very doubtful tsunami, 2 = Questionabletsunami, 3 = Probable tsunami, 4 = Definite tsunami).cReference: A-Bell et al. (2004); B1-Chagué-Goff and Goff (1999); B2-Chagué-Goff et al. (2000); B3-Chagué-Goff et al. (2002); C-Challis (1995); D-Cochran et al. (2005); E-de Langeand Moon (2007); F-Downes et al. (2005); G1-Goff (2003); G2-Goff (2008); G3-Goff and McFadgen (2004); G4-Goff et al. (1998); G5-Goff et al. (2000); G6-Goff et al. (2001); G7-Goff et al. (2004); G8-Goff et al. (2007); G9-Goff et al. (2008); H-Gordon (2001); I-Hartstein and Dickinson (2001); J-Horrocks et al. (2007); K-Irwin (2004); L-Lose and de Lange(2000); M-Marra (1997); N1-McFadgen (1994); N2-McFadgen (2007); N3-McFadgen and Goff (2003); N4-McFadgen and Goff (2007); O1-Nichol (1988); O2-Nichol et al. (2007a);O3-Nichol et al. (2007b); P-Phillips (2000); Q-Prickett (1990); S-Shepherd et al. (1997); T1-Wellman (1962); T2-Wellman and Wilson (1964).

160 J. Goff, D. Dominey-Howes / Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166

Author's personal copy

Table 2Holocene New Zealand palaeotsunamis, including one early historic event (modified from Goff, 2008), refer to cited literature for details.

(continued on next page)

161J. Goff, D. Dominey-Howes / Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166

Author's personal copy

deposits from historical tsunamis — most notably from eventsgenerated in South America in AD1868 and AD1960, and fromthe locally-generated AD1855 Wairarapa earthquake (Goff, 2008).These events generated waves of around 7.0, 4.0, and 10.0 m

respectively in some parts of New Zealand (de Lange and Healy,1986). The most poorly preserved deposit is from the AD1960tsunami that had a maximum wave height of about 4.0 m (Goff,2008).

Table 2 (continued)

162 J. Goff, D. Dominey-Howes / Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166

Author's personal copy

The largest tsunami in Australian history was the AD1977 SundaIsland event with a recorded wave height of 6.0 m at Cape Leveque(Gregson et al., 1978). This far exceeds its closest rivals of around 1.8 massociated with the AD1883 and AD1960 events. With the exception ofa thin, ephemeral deposit from the IOT in NW Australia (Prendergastand Brown, 2007), researchers have been unable to find any physicalevidence of inundation from historical events. Thus, the preservation ofextreme marine inundations identified by historic records indicate thatthe general rule of thumb that tsunamis <5 m do not leave long-termrecords may have some merit.

An important point to note here is that tsunami wave ‘runup’ isdifferent to tsunami wave ‘height’ (http://www.bom.gov.au/tsunami/glossary.shtml). Tsunami wave runup varies with local nearshorebathymetry and onshore topography, and can be 1–4 times that of thenearshore wave height as the wave “runs-up” onto the land (Synolakis,1987). Runup is generally defined as the difference between the ele-vation of maximum tsunami penetration inland and the sea level at thetime of the tsunami. In practical terms, runup is only measured wherethere is clear evidence of the inundation limit on land (Kaitoku, 2007).Tsunami wave height is normally based upon some estimate of theheight at or near the shore which sadly is of little to no use, and shouldnot be confused with runup. For example, the AD1977 Sunda Islandtsunami shows the difficulties faced by researchers dealing with pre-instrumented historical data. The NOAA/NGDC tsunami database(http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml) records a tsunamiwave runup of 6.0 m, whereas Gregson et al. (1978) indicate that thetsunami wave height was 6.0 m. It is possible that both were the same,but this seems unlikely since the Gregson et al. (1978) report is basedupon the lighthouse keeper's record of the offshore wave. Furthermore,the tsunami arrived close to low tide on a coast with a tidal range in theorder of 10 m. It is therefore likely there was no clear evidence of aninundation limit on land and as such no long-term physical evidencewould be expected to be preserved. Given these environmental con-ditions, it is perhaps not surprising that researchers that have studiedthe areahavenot found any physical evidence for the tsunami (Nott andBryant, 2003).

On face value, the most reasonable explanation for the historic–prehistoric disjunct would be that of magnitude and frequency. Thehistorical record only covers the past 150 (Australia) to 180 (NewZealand) years, whereas prehistoric data extend back as far as ~2.5 Ma(New Zealand) to ~3.47 Ga years ago (Australia) (Dominey-Howes,2007; Goff, 2008). With the relatively minor exceptions noted abovefrom New Zealand, no geologically significant tsunamis have affectedAustralasia in historic time.

De Lange (2003) stated that any tsunami with waves a metre ormore in height at the shoreline could be potentially catastrophic.Interestingly, the historical records of Australia and New Zealandindicate that they have shared several potentially catastrophictsunamis. The AD1868 (earthquake, central Chile), AD1883 (eruption,Krakatau), and AD1960 (earthquake, central Chile), all producedwaveheights above 1.0 m in several parts of Australasia (de Lange andHealy, 1986; Dominey-Howes, 2007). While not large enough to leavegeological evidence across Australasia or cause significant widespreaddamage in either country, the historical record demonstrates thatthere is at least a shared legacy of potentially catastrophic tsunamis.Since this is the case, it seems highly likely that a shared geologicalrecord should exist for larger events that occurred in prehistory. Weexamine this hypothesis by comparing the palaeotsunami records ofAustralia and New Zealand.

2. Palaeotsunami databases

The twomost comprehensive databases collated to date are those ofDominey-Howes (2007) andGoff (2008) for Australia andNewZealandrespectively. The data collated are not exhaustive, but represent athorough literature review which is unlikely to have overlooked any

existing records of significant palaeotsunamis. The Australian databasecurrently has records for 10 palaeotsunamis and the New Zealand data-base around 35–40 events. The uncertainty in the number of NewZealand palaeotsunamis is not only indicative of the wealth of datacontained in theNewZealanddatabase but also theproblems associatedwith establishing sufficiently well-constrained chronologies to be ableto differentiate betweenevents of similar ages, something critical for theprocess of investigating risk.

A comparison between the two datasets acknowledges that theycover different lengths of time. Differences between the longevitiesof national historical databases create instances where a palaeotsu-nami in one country is an historical event in another. At present theearliest reliable historical record in Australia is from AD1858 while inNew Zealand it is from AD1826. This difference of 32 years may besmall in geological time but offers the possibility of finding a hybridevent (Goff, 2008). Internationally there are many examples, such asthe AD1700 Cascadia tsunami which is a palaeotsunami in NorthAmerica and an historical one in Japan (Atwater et al., 2005). Differentproblems are faced by comparing the records of older events coveredby both datasets. Firstly, geological data are more poorly preservedover time as ongoing physical and biological processes breakdownthe continuity of the evidence, a process termed the “taphonomy” of atsunami deposit (Horton et al., 2006). It therefore seems likely thatthe most useful comparisons will be achieved for Holocene events,and more specifically for those that have occurred since sea levelstabilised around 7000 years BP (Sloss et al., 2007). Secondly, the twocountries have contrasting tectonic settings. New Zealand sits astridethe boundary between two major tectonic plates, the Australian andthe Pacific. The boundary is marked by active volcanism and faultingalong the length and breadth of the country both on land and offshore.This activity not only provides numerous potential tsunami sourcesbut also causes rapid (in geological time) uplift and subsidence of thelandmass. Uplift exposes sediments to high rates of weathering anderosion while ongoing subsidence can remove all evidence of pastevents. Australia on the other hand, sits in themiddle of the Australianplate in a relatively inert tectonic setting.

The contrast in tectonics means that there are active (NewZealand) and passive (Australian) coastal margins facing each otheracross the Tasman Sea. Sedimentary evidence for many olderpalaeotsunamis in New Zealand may be entirely missing, whileconversely in some parts of the country deposits of a relatively recentHolocene age may well be moderately easily identifiable as each areseparated by a clearly defined, and well-dated, uplift event. In contrast,in Australia sedimentary evidence of multiple events may well besuperimposed upon each other at or near the coast, although possiblywith the most recent, large event, removing or reworking any earlierpalaeotsunami deposits. Bearing in mind that sea level has only been ator near its present level for parts of theHolocene and the last interglacialperiod, some 16,000 of the last 150,000 years (Voris, 2000), it is highlylikely that pre-Holocene palaeotsunamis will be hard to find in NewZealand, and potentially extremely difficult to separate from morerecent events in Australia.

These distinctly different physical settings may well be one reasonwhy there has been no previous attempt to compare the Australian andNew Zealand palaeotsunami records. Nevertheless the records of bothcountries do provide clear evidence to indicate distinct Australasian im-pacts from distantly sourced tsunamis in South America. The lack of anyprevious attempts to investigate a region-wideAustralasian perspectiveis perhaps surprising given that there is a growing body of evidenceshowing that New Zealand's west coast has been affected by numerousHolocene palaeotsunamis (Goff et al., 2001, 2004; Goff, 2007; Nicholet al., 2007a). Consequently, it would seem logical to assume that someformof evidence for these events could bepreserved on the east coast ofAustralia.

Given that tsunami geologists are becoming much better atrecognising tsunami deposits, the time is right to examine and review

163J. Goff, D. Dominey-Howes / Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166

Author's personal copy

existing palaeotsunami records, to critique their authenticity, andprovide recommendations for further work.

2.1. Possible synchronous events

Tables 1 and 2 summarise the Holocene palaeotsunamis recordedin each database. These databases represent the state of knowledge forevents at the time of their publication, but it should be recognised thatbecause of numerous confounding factors, not the least of which is theloss of physical evidence over time, they will always be incomplete. Itshould be noted that in this paper, the Holocene Australian palaeotsu-nami record is derived solely from sites along the New South Walescoast. This is largely because palaeotsunami research in Australia is in itsinfancy and the majority of research has been carried out along thiscoastline and because the other palaeotsunamis referred to inDominey-Howes (2007) affected areas not relevant to an assessment of trans-Tasman events. With incomplete records the possibility exists thatcontemporaneous Australasian events may be missed. While acknowl-edging this proviso, an initial scan of the two databases reveals severalpossible contemporaneous events, and also highlights some importantassumptions that have been made.

Several records in the New Zealand palaeotsunami database haveoverlapping age ranges (e.g., Table 1: 7 N and 8 N, 10 N and 11 N) butare marked as separate events. They have been separated because ofthe nature and geographic extent of the physical evidence reported,and also themost likely source parameters for each event. This level ofdetail has not been possible with the Australian database and as aresult it has been difficult to clearly define event 2A. This has beensplit into events 2Ai and 2Aii because of differences in the estimatedage ranges, the possible overlap between 1A and 2Ai, and the nature of

physical evidence reported by two separate research groups eventhough much of the data was collected from the same embayment(Table 1).

Possible contemporaneous events have been colour coded(Tables 1 and 2, Fig. 1). These include:

Australia New Zealand

1. ~200–900 BP (2Ai+2Aii) ~265–725 BP (2 N−12 N)2. ~1600–1900 BP (3A) ~1700 BP (14 N)3. ~3000 BP (4A) ~2300−3200 BP (16 N+19 N)4. ~3800–4800 BP (5A) ~4100–4800 BP (21 N−22 N)5. ~6500 BP (6A) ~6300–6500 BP (27 N)

The apparent correlations between trans-Tasman events areintriguing. However, effective comparisons between the two databasescan only be achieved if the information they contain is compatible.Withthis inmind, we undertook a brief review of some of the original papersthat underpin these apparently contemporaneous events. There are twokeypieces of information that underpin the listingof these items in theirrespective databases — the physical characteristics of the deposit, andtheir estimated date or age range.

Numerous papers have been published in recent years detailing thephysical characteristics of bothhistoric andprehistoric tsunamideposits(e.g., Sawai et al., 2008; Hawkes et al., 2007; McFadgen and Goff, 2007;Atwater et al., 2005). Similarly, there are an increasing number ofresearchersmakingcomparisons between thephysical characteristics oftsunami and storm deposits (Switzer and Jones, 2008; Morton et al.,2007; Goff et al., 2004; Tuttle et al., 2004; Nott, 2003; Nanayama et al.,2000). This latter effort is highly relevant when considering the evi-dence contained within the Australasian palaeotsunami datasets. Many

Fig. 1. Site locations for apparently contemporaneous Australian and New Zealand palaeotsunamis summarised in Tables 1 and 2. The expandedmap of the section of NSW coast listslocations mentioned in Table 1, the small map of the same coastline is shown relative to New Zealand at latitude 35°S (Colour coding matches those shown in the tables — ChathamIsland sites not shown).

164 J. Goff, D. Dominey-Howes / Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166

Author's personal copy

of the events documented were studied prior to this more focussedconsideration of the differences between the physical characteristics ofstorm and tsunami deposits. In the light of this new research it is im-portant to reassess the veracity of all the event interpretations. In thecase of the New Zealand palaeotsunami database, this was undertakenby a peer reviewpanel during its collation. Summary details are given ofthe physical characteristics for each site and the veracity of the evidenceis assessed (Goff, 2008). The Australian palaeotsunami database on theother handwas established as part of a first order collation of Australiantsunamis that included historical events (Dominey-Howes, 2007). Thismerging of historical and palaeotsunami data represented the firstattempt to gather together all the available information without an in-depth critical review. It is therefore imperative that the validity ofthe physical characteristics of the Australian palaeotsunami events beassessed.

The bulk of the estimated date and age ranges are based uponradiocarbon analyses, although other additional chronological informa-tion is sometimes used, such as thermoluminescence (e.g., Bryant et al.,1997, tephra (e.g., Chagué-Goff et al., 2002), and tree ages (e.g., Goffet al., 2004). Calibrated radiocarbon ages reported in the databasesvariously use one (e.g., Young et al., 1997) or two (e.g., Nichol et al.,2007a) standard errors, and either allow for an oceanic correction (e.g.,McFadgen, 2007) or not (e.g., Bryant and Nott, 2001). In some cases,there appears to have been scant information provided about thematerial dated (such as species) and the sample's specific stratigraphiccontext (e.g., Young et al., 1997), thus impeding a reader's ability toeffectively assess the validity of the interpretationsmade. In other cases,material and context are included in a comprehensive assessment of asample's relevance as a maximum or minimum age for the event inquestion (e.g., McFadgen, 2007).

The absence of comprehensive chronological information createsproblems when attempting to make comparisons between databases.For example, depending upon species type and sample context, thecalibrated radiocarbon age range for event 1A (and by association,event 2A), could overlap with 1 N (AD1826) creating a hybrid tsunami(Tables 1 and2). It is evident fromthesewidely varied approaches to thetreatment of radiocarbon data alone that a consistent methodologymust be applied to all the dates before any useful comparisons can bemade between the two datasets. This is not a simple task.

Fortunately, McFadgen (2007) comprehensively outlined the stepsthat need to be taken to date catastrophic events using radiocarbon.Wesuggest that the methodology and philosophy adopted by McFadgen(2007) represents the most reasonable and transparent first step thatneeds tobe taken toclarify the chronologies of theseapparently contem-poraneous events. Once this step has been completed the consistencyand relevance of other chronological techniques can be assessed. Conse-quently, the veracity of those revised events may then be more con-fidently applied to the process of regional risk assessment.

3. Conclusions

The recent publication of Australian and New Zealand palaeotsu-nami databases raises the possibility of establishing a record ofAustralasian (and specifically, trans-Tasman) events — those sharedby both countries. An initial analysis of the databases revealed up tofive possible contemporaneous Holocene palaeotsunamis. However,further investigations indicated that there are significant disparitiesbetween the two datasets, the most significant of which relate to thedetermination of tsunamigenesis through the physical characteristicsof each deposit, and the techniques used to estimate the date or agerange of an event.

We conclude that themost reasonable and transparentfirst step is tocritically review the physical characteristics used to define Holocenepalaeotsunamis listed in the Australian database to bring the informa-tion into linewith theNewZealand record. A subsequent, second step, isto apply a consistentmethodology for the calibration and interpretation

of radiocarbon dates across both datasets to determine whether or nottsunami inundation associated with recognised deposits was contem-poraneous along the shorelines of both countries. Radiocarbon is themost common form of dating used for the events in question and acrossthe entire Holocene record, and once a reliable dataset has beenestablished the veracity of other dating techniques can be assessed.Once these two initial steps have been completed amore critical reviewof possible contemporaneous Australasian palaeotsunamis can bemadeand questions of regional risk assessment be addressed.

Similar issues have arisen and will arise for comparisons betweenother palaeotsunami databases. With the growing demand tounderstand the risks posed from various tsunami sources, therewill be an increasing need to compare and contrast national andregional palaeotsunami databases. We recommend that precautionssimilar to those discussed above are taken prior to attempting suchcomparisons.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council grant# DP0877572.

References

Atwater, B.F., Musumi-Rokkaku, S., Satake, K., Tsuji, Y., Ueda, K., Yamaguchi, D.K., 2005.The orphan tsunami of 1700 — Japanese clues to a parent earthquake in NorthAmerica. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1707, p. 133.

Bryant, E.A., 2001. Tsunami: The Underrated Hazard. Cambridge University Press,London. 320 pp.

Bryant, E.A., Nott, J., 2001. Geological indicators of large tsunami in Australia. NaturalHazards 24, 231–249.

Bryant, E.A., Young, R.W., Price, D.M., 1992. Evidence of tsunami sedimentation on thesoutheastern coast of Australia. Journal of Geology 100, 753–765.

Bryant, E.A., Young, R.W., Price, D.M., Pease, M.I., Wheeler, D.J., 1997. The impact oftsunami on the coastline of Jervis Bay, southeastern Australia. Physical Geography18, 441–460.

Chagué-Goff, C., Dawson, S., Goff, J.R., Zachariasen, J., Berryman, K.R., Garnett, D.L.,Waldron, H.M., Mildenhall, D.C., 2002. A tsunami (c. 6300 years BP) and otherenvironmental changes, northern Hawke's Bay, New Zealand. Sedimentary Geology150, 89–102.

de Lange, W.P., 2003. Tsunami and storm surge hazard in New Zealand. In: Rouse, H.L.,Goff, J.R., Nichol, S. (Eds.), The Coast of New Zealand: Te Tai O Aotearoa. DunmorePress, Wellington, pp. 79–95.

de Lange, W.P., Healy, T.R., 1986. New Zealand tsunamis 1840–1982. New ZealandJournal of Geology and Geophysics 29, 115–134.

Dominey-Howes, D., 2007. Geological and historical records of tsunami in Australia.Marine Geology 239, 99–123.

Dominey-Howes, D., Humphreys, G., Hesse, P., 2006. Tsunami and palaeotsunami depo-sitional signatures and their potential value in understanding the late-Holocenetsunami record. Holocene 16, 1095–1107.

Goff, J.R., 2007. Palaeotsunami, archaeological and cultural data better define NewZealand's West Coast tsunami sources. Quaternary International 167–168, 143.

Goff, J.R., 2008. The New Zealand Palaeotsunami Database. NIWA Technical Report 131,p. 124. + Appendix.

Goff, J.R., Crozier,M., Sutherland, V., Cochran, U., Shane, P., 1998. Possible tsunami depositsof the 1855 earthquake, North Island, New Zealand. In: Stewart, I.S., Vita-Finzi, C.(Eds.), Coastal Tectonics, pp. 353–374. Geological Society Special Publication No. 133.

Goff, J., Chagué-Goff, C., Nichol, S., 2001. Palaeotsunami deposits: a New Zealandperspective. Sedimentary Geology 143, 1–6.

Goff, J.R., McFadgen, B.G., Chagué-Goff, C., 2004. Sedimentary differences between the2002 Easter storm and the 15th Century Okoropunga tsunami, southeastern NorthIsland, New Zealand. Marine Geology 204, 235–250.

Gregson, P.J., Paull, E.P., Gaull, B.A., 1978. The Indonesian earthquake of 19 August 1977:effects in Western Australia. Department of National Resources, Bureau of MineralResources, Geology and Geophysics Record 1978/19, p. 27.

Hawkes, A.D., Bird, M., Cowie, S., Grundy-Warr, C., Horton, B.P., Hwai, A.T.S., Law, L.,Macgregor, C., Nott, J., Ong, J.E., Rigg, J., Robinson, R., Tan-Mullins, M., Sa, T.T., Yasin,Z., Aik, L.W., 2007. Sediments deposited by the Indian ocean tsunami along theMalaysia–Thailand peninsula. Marine Geology 242, 169–190.

Horton, B.P., Hawkes, A., Engelhart, S., Bird, M., Cowie, S., Eong Ong, J., Tan ShauHwai, A., Law, L., MacGregor, C., Tiong Sa, T., Yasin, Z., 2006. The taphonomy ofsediments deposited by the Indian Ocean tsunami Along the West Coast of theMalay–Thai Peninsula. American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2006, abstract#PP43B-1237.

Hutchinson, I., Attenbrow, V., 2009. Late-Holocenemega-tsunami in the Tasman Sea: anassessment of the coastal archaeology record of New South Wales. Holocene 19,599–609.

Kaitoku, T., 2007. Tsunami classification in: IOC Tsunami Glossary. http://ioc3.unesco.org/itic/contents.php?id=19 (Accessed 18 July 2008).

165J. Goff, D. Dominey-Howes / Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166

Author's personal copy

Lowe, D.J., de Lange, W.P., 2000. Volcano-meteorological tsunamis, the c. AD 200Taupo eruption (New Zealand) and the possibility of a global tsunami. Holocene 10,401–407.

McFadgen, B.G., 2007.Hostile Shores: Catastrophic Events inPre-HistoricNewZealand andtheir Impact on Maori Coastal Communities. Auckland University Press, Auckland.298 pp.

McFadgen, B.G., Goff, J.R., 2007. Tsunamis in the archaeological record of New Zealand.Sedimentary Geology 200, 263–274.

Morton, R.A., Gelfenbaum, G., Jaffe, B.E., 2007. Physical criteria for distinguishing sandytsunami and storm deposits using modern examples. Sedimentary Geology 200,184–207.

Nanayama, F., Shigeno, K., Satake, K., Shimokawa, K., Koitabashi, S., Miyasaka, S., Ishii,M., 2000. Sedimentary differences between the 1993 Hokkaido-naisei-oki tsunamiand the 1959 Miyakojima typhoon at Taisei, southwestern Hokkaido, northernJapan. Sedimentary Geology 155, 129–145.

Nichol, S.L., Lian, O.B., Carter, C.H., 2003. Sheet-gravel evidence for a late Holocenetsunami run-up on beach dunes, Great Barrier Island, New Zealand. SedimentaryGeology 155, 129–145.

Nichol, S., Lian, O.B., Horrocks, M., Goff, J.R., 2007a. Holocene record of gradual,catastrophic, and human-influenced sedimentation from a backbarrier wetland,Northern New Zealand. Journal of Coastal Research 23, 605–617.

Nott, J., 1997. Extremely high-energy wave deposits inside the Great Barrier Reef,Australia: determining the cause-tsunami or tropical cyclone. Marine Geology 141,193–207.

Nott, J., 2003. Tsunami or storm waves? — Determining the origin of a spectacular fieldof wave emplaced boulders using numerical storm surge and wave models andhydrodynamic wave equations. Journal of Coastal Research 19, 348–356.

Nott, J., Bryant, E., 2003. Extreme marine inundations (Tsunamis?) of Coastal WesternAustralia. Journal of Geology 111, 691–706.

Prendergast, A., Brown, N., 2007. WA tsunami deposits. Quaternary International 167–168, 330.

Rynn, J., 1994. Tsunamis and their effect on Australia. Bureau of MeteorologyNational Tsunami Workshop, Brisbane — 25th August 1994. Unpublished Report.pp. 20–24.

Sawai, Y., Fujii, Y., Fujiwara, O., Kamataki, T., Komatsubara, J., Okamura, Y., Satake, K.,Shishikura, M., 2008. Marine incursions of the past 1500 years and evidence oftsunamis at Suijin-numa, a coastal lake facing the JapanTrench.Holocene18, 517–528.

Sloss, C.R., Murray-Wallace, C.V., Jones, B.G., 2007. Sea-level change on the southeastcoast of Australia: a review. Holocene 17, 999–1014.

Switzer, A.D., Jones, B.G., 2008. Large-scalewashover sedimentation in a freshwater lagoonfrom the southeast Australian coast: sea level change, tsunami or exceptionally largestorm? Holocene 18, 787–803.

Switzer, A.D., Pucillo, K., Haredy, R.A., Jones, B.G., Bryant, E.A., 2005. Sea-level, stormsor tsunami; enigmatic sandsheet deposits in sheltered coastal embaymentfrom southeastern New South Wales Australia. Journal of Coastal Research 21,655–663.

Switzer, A.D., Bristow, C.S., Jones, B.G., 2006. Investigation of large-scale washover of asmall barrier system on the southeast Australian coast using ground penetratingradar. Sedimentary Geology 183, 145–156.

Synolakis, C., 1987. The runup of solitary waves. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 185, 523–545.Tuttle, M.P., Ruffman, A., Anderson, T., Jeter, H., 2004. Distinguishing tsunami from

storm deposits in eastern North America: the 1929 Grand Banks Tsunami versusthe 1991 Halloween Storm. Seismological Research Letters 75, 117–130.

Voris, H.K., 2000. Maps of Pleistocene sea levels in Southeast Asia: shorelines, riversystems and time durations. Journal of Biogeography 27, 1153–1167.

Young, R.W., Bryant, E.A., Price, D.M., Dilek, S.Y., Wheeler, D.J., 1997. Chronology ofHolocene tsunamis on the southeastern coast of Australia. Transactions of theJapanese Geomorphological Union 18, 1–19.

166 J. Goff, D. Dominey-Howes / Earth-Science Reviews 97 (2009) 159–166