Giant Waves

--·- in .. -·- --··

Lituya Bay
. . . -----·~--- .. ·· ,.

Alaska
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354-C

n ,
'.,
Giant Waves in
Lituya Bay
Alaska
By DON J. MILLER
SHORTER. CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354-C

A timely account of the nature and possible

causes of certain giant waves, with eyewitness
reports of their destructive capacity

'
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC.E, WA:SHIN:GTON : 1960
 , n•
....

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

FRED A. SEATON, Secretary

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY
Thomas B. Nolan, Director

··~·

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington 25, D.C.
 CONTENTS

Page
Abstract------------------------------------------- 51 Giant waves-Continued
Introduction ____________ - _- _----------------------- 51 Waves on October 27, 1936-Continued
Acknowledgments ______ -------_--------------------- 53 Effects of the waves ________________________ _ 69
Description and history of Li tuya Bay _______________ _ 53 Nature and cause of the waves ______________ _ 70
Geographic setting _____________________________ _ 53 Sudden draining of an ice-dammed body of
Geologic setting _______________________________ _ 55 water ______________________________ _
71
Exploration and settlement _____________________ _ 56 Fault displacement _____________________ _ 71
Giant,vaves--------------------------------------- 57 Rockslide, avalanche, or landslide ________ _ 71
Evidence-------------------------------------- 57 Submarine sliding ______________________ _ 72
Wave on July 9, 1958--------------------------- 57 Movement of a tidal glacier front ________ _ 72
Setting and sources of information ___________ _ 57 Tsunami in the ocean __________________ _ 74
Eyewitness accounts _________ -_------------- 57 Other possible causes ___________________ _ 74
Account of Howard G. Ulrich ___________ _ 57 Waves between 1854 and 1916 ___________________ _ 74
Account of 'Villiam A. Swanson _________ _ 58 Eyewitness accounts _________ ~ _________ _ 74
Other observations on July 9----------------- 59 Other evidence ________________________ _ 74
0bservations of the writer on July 10 _________ _ 59 Dates--------------------------------- 75
Effects of the wave ________________________ _ 60 Effects of the waves ____________________ _ 75
Destruction of vegetation _______________ _ 60 Nature and cause of the waves __________ _ 75
Other effects _______________ ------------ 62 Wave in 1853 or 1854 __________________________ _ 76
Nature and cause of the wave _______________ _ 63 Eyewitness accounts _______________ ----- 76
Comparable waves in other parts of the Other evidence ________________________ _ 77
world _____ -- _____ -- ___________ -- ________ _ 67 Date---------------------------------- 77
·waves on October 27, 1936 _____________________ _ 67 Effects of the wave ____________________ _ 77
Setting and sources of information ____ -- ____ -- 67 Nature and cause of the wave ___________ _ 77
Eyewitness accounts ______ ------------------ 67 Possibility of future waves ______________________ _ 79
Account of Fred H. Fredrickson _________ _ 67 Summary and conclusions _________ ------ ____________ _ 79
Accounts of Bernard V. Allen and James References cited ___________________________________ _ 81
H uscroft ____________________________ _ 68 Index--------------------------------------------- 85

ILLUSTRATIONS

PLATE 2. Map of Lituya Bay area------------------------------------------------------------------------- In pocket

Page
3. View of Lituya Bay, 1954 and August 1958 ___ -- __________ ------ ________________________________ Facing 62
4. Gilbert Inlet and head of Lituya Bay, August 1958---------------------------------------------- Follows 62
5. A. South shore of Lituya Bay. B. Broken spruce tree at Harbor Point ____________________________ Follows 62
6. A. View west on Cenotaph Island. B. North shore of Lituya Bay, August 1958 _____________________ Facing 63
7. Spur southwest of Gilbert Inlet, August 1958---------------------------------------------------- Facing 72
8. Zones of denudation by giant waves and section of spruce tree from above 1936 trimline ______________ Follows 72
9. Destruction of forest by 1936 giant waves------------------------------------------------------- Follows 72
10. Section of spruce tree from above 1853-54 trim1ine----------------------------------------------- Facing 73

FIGURE 14. Map of part of southeastern Alaska, showing location and regional geographic setting of Lituya Bay__________ 52
15. Map of Lituya Bay showing setting and effects of 1958 giant wave________________________________________ 58
16. Detailed map of head of Lituya Bay__________________________________________________________________ 61
17. Map of Lituya Bay showing setting and effects of 1936 giant waves_______________________________________ 68
18. Map of Lituya Bay showing trimlines of one or more giant waves that occurred between 1854 and 1916_ ___ ___ 76
19. Map of Lituya Bay showing setting and effects of giant wave that occurred in 1853 or 1854_______________ ___ 78
20. Map of head of Lituya Bay, showing areas susceptible to sliding__________________________________________ 80

TABLE

TABLE 1. Data on localized giant waves generated by falling or sliding of solid masses------------------------------- 66

III
 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA

By DoN J. MILLER

ABSTRACT giant wave during one of the great earthquakes in September

Lituya Bay, on the northeast shore of the Gulf of Alaska, is 1899.
an ice-scoured tidal inlet with a maximum depth of 720 feet and The frequent occurrence of giant waves in Lituya Bay, as
a sill depth, at the narrow entrance, of only 33 feet. The north- compared to other similar bays, is attributed to the combined
eastward-trending stem of the T -shaped bay, 7 miles long and effect of recently glaciated steep slopes, highly fractured rocks
as much as 2 miles wide, transects the narrow coastal lowland and deep water in an active fault zone, heavy rainfall, and fre-
and foothills belt flanking the Fairweather Range of the St. quent freezing and thawing. These waves are likely to occur
Elias Mountains. The two arn1s at the head of the bay, Gilbert again, and should be taken into account in any future use of
and Crillon Inlets, are part of a great trench along the Fair- Lituya Bay. Other giant waves have been caused by sliding
weather fault. Gentle slopes border the outer part of the bay, of part of a mountain into Shimabara Bay in Japan; repeatedly
but the walls of the inner, flordlike part rise steeply to altitudes by falling or sliding of rock masses into Loen Lake, Tafjord, and
of 2,200 feet to more than 6,000 feet. Langfjord in Norway; by avalanching of a hanging glacier into
Until recently, little notice was taken of the giant waves that Disenchantment Bay in Alaska; and repeatedly by landslides
have rushed out from the head of Lituya Bay, leaving sharp into Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake in Washington.
trimlines to mark the upper limit of total or near total de-
struction of the forest along the shores. The dates of occur- INTRODUCTION
rence of 4 known and 1 inferred giant waves, and the maximum
altitudes of their trimlines are as follows: July 9, 1958-1,720 Lituya Bay iis an ice-scoured, nearly landlocked tidal
feet; October 27, 1936-490 feet; 1899 (?)-about 200 feet; about inlet on the northeast shore of the Gulf of Alaska (fig.
1874-80 feet; and 1853 or 1854-395 feet. 14). Most descriptions of Lituya Bay, including that
In 1958 about 40 million cubic yards of rock, loosened either of its discoverer La Perouse (1798), have dwelt at
by displacement on the Fairweather fault or by the accompany-
ing shaking, plunged into Gilbert Inlet from a maximum alti-
length on the hazards of the strong tidal current in the
tude of about 3,000 feet on the steep northeast wall. This narrow entrance, but until recently, little notice was
rockslide caused water to surge over the opposite wall of the taken of an even more remarkable and potentially more
inlet to a maximum altitude of 1,740 feet, and generated a dangerous hydraulic oddity of the bay-its propensity
gravity wave that moved out the bay to the mouth at a speed for developing enormous waves. At least four times
probably between 97 and 130 miles per hour. Two of three :fish-
ing boats in the outer part of the bay were sunk, and two per-
during a little more than a century giant waves have
sons were ldlled. The interpretation that water was primarily rushed out from the head of the bay, destroying the
responsible for destruction of the forest over a total area of 4 forest on the shores and leaving trimlines similar to
square miles, extending to a maximum altitude of 1, 720 feet those formed by glaciers. The latest and largest of
and as much as 3,600 feet in from the high-tide shoreline, is these waves washed out trees to a maximum altitude of
supported by eyewitness accounts of the survivors, by the
writer's field investigation, and by R. L. Wiegel's study of a
1,720 feet, more than 8 times the maximum recorded
model of Lituya Bay and his calculations from existing theory height of a tsunami breaking on an ocean shore ( Leet,
and data on wave hydraulics. 1948, p. 179).
The giant waves in 1936 were generated in Crillon Inlet. The writer became interested in the giant waves while
They were described by eyewitnesses at a point about midway studying the Tertiary rocks in Lituya Bay and adjoin-
along the bay as 3 waves of increasing height, in close succes-
sion and traveling about 22 miles per hour. Of the possible
ing area in 1952 and 1953, as a part of the U.S. Geolog-
causes considered here, movement of a tidal glacier front or sub- ical Survey's program of petroleum investigations in
marine sliding seems most likely but can be neither disproved the Gulf of Alaska region. The two trimlines then
nor conclusively supported from the information at hand. recognized were mapped and their approximate ages
The configuration of trimlines formed by giant waves in late determined, inquiries were made of residents and
1853 or early 1854 (dated by tree ring count) and about 1874,
suggests sliding from the south wall of Lituya Bay at Mudslide
former residents of the region, and a search was begun
Creek as a likely cause. A slide, fault displacement, or some for references to the origin of the trimlines in Lituya
other disturbance in Crillon Inlet may have caused an~ther Bay and to comparable features in other places. In a

51
52 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

134°

l
LITUYA BAY

0~

UNITED
STATES

CANADA

10 0 10 20 30 40 MILES
I I II tl I I I I

FIGURE 14.-Map of part of southeastern Alaska, showing location and regional geographic setting of Lituya Bay.

· paper read at geological meetings in Seattle, Wash. to any of several possible mechanisms that were sug-
. and Anchorage, Alaska, and published in abstract gested for setting the water in motion .
. (Miller, 1954) the trimlines in Lituya Bay were attrib- The investigation of the cause of the floods or waves
.uted to cataclysmic floods or waves of water moving out was laid aside, except for correspondenCe and the ac- ·
~from the head of the bay at high velocity. The infor- cumulation of additional references, until the spring of
mation then available did not give conclusive support 1958 when assignment to a field mapping project based
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 53
in Juneau afforded opportnnities to resume the search A. J. Mitchell, superintendent of the Sitka and
for loC'al sources of information. On July 9 much Glacier Bay National Monuments, in 1958 aided in
new information was provided in a dramatic and wholly gathering local information on the waves, provided
nnexpected way when a major earthquake centering logistic support and encouragement to the investiga-
near Lituya Bay was followed almost immediately by tion, and accompanied the writer on one flight to Lituya
a wave that denuded an area of about 4 square miles Bay. J.P. McKee, E. L. Henrickson, V.I. Mann and
in Lituya Bay, destroyed 2 of 3 fishing boats anchored Edward Berdusco of the Fremont Mining Co. provided
in the bay, and killed 2 people. The problem of the a valuable record of conditions in Lituya Bay immedi-
cause of the waves, until then mainly of scientific inter- ately preceding the 1958 wave and also called attention
est, became overnight a matter of general public to evidence for movement along the Fairweather fault
interest. near Lituya Bay. Part of the logistic support for the
The earthquake late in the evening of July 9 1 was 1958 field investigation was provided by the Geological
strongly felt on the U.S. Geological Survey power Survey's southeastern Alaska project barge and heli-
barge, Stephen R. Oapps, at anchor in Glacier Bay copter and by Seventeenth Coast Guard District air.:.
about 60 miles east of Lituya Bay. Rocks fell into the plane. Special thanks are due to pilot Kenneth Loken
water from steep cliffs nearby, causing small waves of Juneau for making it possible to inspect Lituya Bay
that broke with a height of not more than 2 or 3 feet shortly after the 1958 wave, despite adverse weather.
on the shores; no large waves were seen, however. Don Tocher of the University of California Seismo-
upon learning by radio on the following morning of graphic Station joined the writer in making a field
the destruction in Lituya Bay, the writer chartered a investigation of the effects of the 1958 earthquake, and
small pontoon-equipped airplane, and spent about 11;2 contributed valuable suggestions on the interpretation
hours flying over the bay at low altitude. Observation of the giant waves and on the preparation of this
and photography were hampered by low ceiling, rain, report. R. L. Wiegel of the Institute of Engineering
and fog, and no landings could be made in the debris- Research, University of California, 1nade a model study
choked bay. Early in August, when the power barge of the 1958 wave and generously contributed the result-
was anchored in Dixon Harbor about 30 miles southeast ing observations for quotation in tllis report. A. R.
of Lituya Bay, a helicopter was used for 11;2 days of Tagg of the U.S. Geological Survey made the photo-
ground and aerial observations and photography of grrunmetric measurements of trimline altitudes. ·The
the bay. In late August and early Septem:ber the writer is indebted to F. H. Fredrickson, Mr. and Mrs.
writer again photographed and examined Lituya Bay '\V. A. Swanson, and H. G. Ulrich for their cooperation
on several flights with fixed-wing aircraft, ·and _camped in providing eyewitness accounts of the waves. Photo-
for 3 days in the bay. graphs of Lituya Bay and information on the waves
were furnished by W. 0. Field, Jr., of the American
On August 29, 1958, a photographic mission of the
Geograpllical Society, Bradford Washburn, of the
U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey photographed the en-
Museum of Science, Boston, Mass., and Tom Smith,
tire Lituya Bay area with a 9-lens aerial camera, and
Trevor Davis and Robert De Armond of Juneau.
also made single-lens vertical photographs of the
Finally, many other persons not specifically mentioned
entrance.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS here have contributed suggestions as to the cause of the
waves, sources of information and methods of attacking
D. L. Rossman, George Plafker, R. C. Ellis, E. A. the problem, and helpful criticism of the manuscript.
1-Iainze, and Todd Nelson all assisted in the field at
DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY OF LITUYA BAY
times during the 1952-53 seasons. R. L. Velikanje,
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
C. L. Sainsbury, R. E. Marsh, Mrs. Caroline Jensen,
and L. I-I. Bayers in the Juneau office of the U.S. Geo- Lituya Bay is aT-shaped inlet that cuts through the
logical Sur~ey canvassed potential sources of informa- coastal lowland and foothills belt flanking the Fair-
tion by interview and letter. R. F. Taylor, forester in weather Range of the St. Elias Mountains, on the south
charge of the Alaska Forest Research Center in Juneau~ coast of Alaska (fig. 14, pl. 2).
gave advice on tree ring studies made in the field in 1953 . The entrance of the bay, at lat 58°36'45" N., long
and arranged for preparation of tree sections; R. M. 137°39'40" vV., is 122 miles west of Juneau and 99 miles
Godman of the same organization counted and inter- southeast of Yakutat. The main part of the bay, cor-
preted the growth rings. responding to the stem of the letter T, is 7 miles long
and ranges from three-fourths of a mile to 2 miles in
1 Morning of July 10, Greenwich clvll time ; Pacific standard time
(120° W. meridian time) 1s used throughout this report. width except at the entrance, which has a width of only
54 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

1,000 feet at low tide. Cenotaph Island divides the away from the beach at rates ranging from 100 feet in
central part of the bay into two channels, two-fifths and a horizontal distance of 6,000 feet, near Fish Lake, to
four-fifths of a mile in width. Gilbert and Crillon 540 feet in a horizontal distance of 1,200 feet at The
Inlets extend northwestward and southeastward, re- Paps (pl. 2). Around the head of the bay the walls
spectively, from the head of the bay to form the upper are steep and fiordlike, rising to altitudes between 2,200
part of the T, which in 1958 was about 3 miles long. and 3,400 feet in the foothills immediately to the north
The name "Lituya," according to Emmons ( 1911, p. and south, and to more than 6,000 feet in the Fair-
294), is a compound word in the Tlingit language weather Range less than 2 miles from the shore of
meaning "the lake within the point," in reference to the Crill on ·Inlet. The submarine contours, based on
nearly landlocked nature of the bay. soundings made in 1926 and 1940 (U.S. Coast and
Lituya Bay was aptly described by Dall ( 1883, p. Geodetic Survey, 1942), show a pronounced U-shaped
204) as "a Yosemite Valley, retaining its glaciers and trench with steep walls and a broad, flat floor sloping
with its floor submerged six or eight hundred feet." gently downward from the head of the bay to a maxi-
The bay fills and slightly overflows a depression only mum depth of 720 feet just south of Cenotaph Island,
recently occupied by a piedmont glacier lobe and its and rising again toward the outer part of the bay.
tributary valley glaciers, of which the present Lituya, The minimum depth in the entrance is 33 feet at mean
Cascade, and North Crillon Glaciers are remnants lower low water; hence the bay has a closure of at least
(pl. 2). The maximum stand of the Lituya Glacier 687 feet. The tide in the bay is diurnal, with a mean
system is clearly recorded by the arcuate end moraine range of 7 feet and a maximum range of about 15 feet
that forms La Chaussee Spit and is continuous with (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1957). The tidal
lateral moraines and trimlines rising gradually to an current in the narrow entrance attains a velocity of 12
average altitude of about 1,800 feet at the head of the knots (U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1952), or
bay (pl. 3 .A..). The Solomon Railroad (pl. 2), a part about 13.8 statute miles per hour.
of the end and lateral moraine north of the bay, rises Weather records for the 2 stations nearest Lituya
abruptly like a railroad emhankment to a sharp, even Bay, at Cape Spencer 47 miles to the southeast and
crest standing as much as 600 feet above the adjoining at Yakutat 99 miles to the northwest (U.S. Weather
lowlands. Bureau, 1958), indicate that the total annual precipita-
Lituya and North Crillon Glaciers, each about 12 tion ranges from 111 to 134 inches and the mean annual
miles long and 1 mile wide, originate in ice fields at temperature ranges from 39° to 41 o F. in this coastal
altitudes of 4,000 feet and higher near the crest of the area. Because of the heavy precipitation and mild cli-
Fairweather Range. Both glaciers flow southwestward mate at low altitude, the lower slopes (from the high-
down the flank of the Fairweather Range and make tide line to an altitude of 1,700 to 2,000 feet) where
nearly right-angle turns into the northwestward-trend- not overly steep or poorly drained, normally are covered
ing trench· between this range and the foothills. In by a dense growth of trees and brush. Reforestation
the summer of 1958 about 1,600 feet or one-third of of land newly exposed by the retreat of glaciers or the
the total width of the front of North Crillon Glacier sea, or, as in Lituya Bay, denuded by waves, under
was tidal at the head of Crillon Inlet. The surface of present climatic conditions at this latitude takes place
this glacier near the front was mostly debris covered in the following succession : dense stands of alder
and relatively smooth. Just prior to the earthquake (Alnus) and willow (Salia:J) grow within a few years,
and wave in 1958 about 3,000 feet of the front of Lituya but are soon exceeded in height by cottonwooo (Pop-
Glacier was tidal. The surface of this glacier near
ulus trichocarpa) ; Sitka spruce ( Picea sitchensis) next
the front was rough, with little debris cover except
dominates but gradually· becomes mixed with hemlock
along the southwest margin and at a narrow medial
moraine near the northeast margin. At the end of (Tmga heterophylla anii T. mertensiana); rund finally
August 1958 almost the entire front of Lituya Glacier Ala.ska cedar ( Ohamaecyparis nootkatensis) appears.
was tidal, and deeply crevassed. Cascade Glacier is At the time of the 1958 wave, forests of five distinct
about 4 miles long and very steep. Its terminus in ages were growing on or near the shores of Lituya Bay.
recent years has been low and largely debris covered. These zones, as identified on plate B.A., are: mixed alder,
At the end of August 1958 only a small part of the willow, cottonwood, and spruce with a known maximum
glacier terminus reached the high-tide shoreline at the age of 22 years (shore to h) ; 2 bands of mixed spruce
head of Lituya Bay. and cottonwood with maximum ages of about 84 years
The shores around the outer part of Lituya Bay are ( h-j) and of 105 years (j-k') ; mixed spruce and hem-
mainly bouldery beaches, the adjoining land rising lock with an estimated age of 400 years or more (H~) ;
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 55
and mixed spruce, hemlock, and cedar probably more of Cenotaph Island and from a point 41h miles inside
than 1,000 years old (above m). the entrance on the south shore around the head of Lit-
uya Bay to a point 51h miles inside the entrance on the
GEOLOGIC SETTING
north shore. The rocks are largely hard schist on the
Lituya Bay lies near the ,southeast end of and tran- northeast shore of Gilbert and Crillon Inlets. Diorite
sects a geologic province in which sedimentary rocks and slightly metamorphosed volcanic rocks, slate, and
of Tertiary age are exposed or inferred to underlie low- graywacke are exposed on the southwest shore of Gil-
land areas (Gryc, Miller, and Payne, 1951, p.159-162). bert Inlet and the adjoining north shore of the bay, on
The two arms at the head of Lituya Bay are part of a the southwest shore of Crillon Inlet, and on the south
great trench that extends for many miles to the north- shore of the bay as far as the mouth of Coal Creek.
west and southeast .along the southwest front of the Bedded sedimentary and volcanic rocks of Tertiary age
Fairweather Range and the southern part of the St. are exposed on Cenotaph Island and on the south shore
Elias Mountains (fig. 14). Mertie (1931, p. 123) first west of Coal Creek. Around most of the outer part of
recognized this trench as the topographic expression the bay boulder till is exposed at the surface or lies
of a major fault, named more recently the Fairweather under a thin soil.
fault (Miller, 1953). Field investigations by the Field observations in 1952 and 1953 indicated that the
writer and by D. L. Rossman (written communication, forest inside the moraine enclosing the outer part of
l957) indicate that the Fairweather fault from the Lituya Bay, but above the highest trimline, is distinctly
vicinity of Lituya Bay southeast to Palma Bay is verti- younger than the forest growing along the coast outside
cal or dips steeply to the northeast. Along this fault of the moraine. Although no tree ring counts were
the crystalline rocks exposed on the northeast side are made, the writer noticed that there was much less dead•
inferred to have moved up relative to less altered and fall in the forest inside the moraine, and that the spruce
in part younger rocks exposed in the low land and foot- and hemlock trees were smaller inside the moraine.
hills belt on the southwest side. St. Amand (1957, p. Moreover, Alaska cedar trees as much as 3 feet in di-
1357-1359) suggested, however, that the fault is of ameter were found growing up to the outer edge of the
lateral or oblique habit, and cited as evidence some of moraine, but not even small cedars were seen inside the
the effects of the 1899 earthquakes in Y a.kutat Bay. moraine. This evidence of a post-Wisconsin advance
Instrumental and field observations point to move- of ice to the mouth of Lituya Bay is now corroborated
ment along the Fairweather fault as the cause of the by evidence newly exposed by the 1958 giant wave. An
earthquake immediately preceding the 1958 wave in ice-sheared stump, rooted in a humus-rich soil just be-
Lituya Bay. Tocher and ~1iller (1959) studied the low the surficial till on the south shore near the entrance
surface breakage where the trace of the fault is exposed of the bay (fig. 15, loc. A), has a radiocarbon age of
near Crillon Lake, 6 to 10 miles southeast of Lituya 6,060 ±200 years B. P. (Meyer Rubin, written com-
Bay. At one point the southwest side moved north- munication, U.S. Geological Survey lab. no W-800 re-
westward at least 211h feet and up 31h feet. Slides and port, May 26, 1959).
other evidence of strong shaking observed elsewhere The evidence indicates that ice stood at or near the
along lmown or inferred trace of the Fairweather fault mouth of Lituya Bay within the time required for
from Palma Bay to the latitude of N unatak Fiord near growth of a climax forest in this region, possibly less
Yakutat Bay, indicated tearing along the fault prob- than 1,000 years ago. However, the ice fronts were
ably for 115 miles or more. The instrumental epicenter farther back when the La Perouse expedition visited
of the earthquake, as determined by the U.S. Coast and Lituya Bay in 1786 than at the present time. The map
Geodetic Survey (Brazee and Jordan, 1958, p. 36), is made under the direction of La Perouse ( 1798, opposite
lat 58.6°N., long 137.1 °W., a point in the Fairweather p. 146; also Klotz, 1899) shows two tidal glaciers at the
Range about 71h miles east of the surface trace of the head of each inlet, which indicates tl1at the ice fronts
Fairweather fault and 13 miles southeast of the head of had retreated to positions beyond the points where the
Lituya Bay. A later determination from a larger num- Lituya and North Crillon Glaciers enter the trench at
ber of stations (vVilliam Stauder, written communica- the head of the bay. The combined length of Gilbert
tion, paper given at Tucson meeting of Geol. Soc. and Crillon Inlets then was about 9 miles. By 1894
America; oral communication, Apr. 29, 1959) places both Lituya and North Crillon Glaciers had readvanced
the epicenter farther southeast but nearer the assumed nearly to their present positions (Klotz, 1899). Prior
surface trace of the Fairweather fault. to the 1958 wave low deltas of gravel had built out into
Bedrock is exposed or lies beneath only a thin veneer Gilbert Inlet at the southwest and northeast margins
of soil, glacial drift, or talus at water level around most of the Lituya Glacier front, and into Crillon Inlet
532776-60-2
56 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL ·GEOLOGY

across about two-thirds of the width of the North small part of the clan lived ·in Lituya Bay, :for the
Crillon Glacier front (fig. 15). These deltas formed French and Russian expeditions in 1786 and 1788
after 1894, and they may be, or may have been, in part reported that the main village was northwest of the
underlain by ice projecting from the glacier fronts be- bay.
low sea level. A U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey party entered
Lituya Bay in 1874 to make geodetic observations and
EXPLORATION AND SETTLEMENT
to revise the La Perouse chart of the outer part of the
A.vailable records of the exploration and settlement bay (Dall, 1878, p. 158; 1833). No natives were then
of the northeastern Gulf of Alaska coast afford only a living in the bay and the village on. the south shore
sketchy history of Lituya Bay beginning in 1786. seemed to have been abandoned for a long time. In
Little information has been found for the period 1788- 1894 a topographic map of the region adjoining Lituya
1874, during which time at least one destructive wave Bay was made by a Canadian party of the International
oc.curred and Indian settlements in the bay were aban- Boundary Survey (U.S. Congress, 1904; International
doned, perhaps as a direct result of a wave. Records Boundary Commission, 1952, p. 254) ; observations on
of visits to or settlement in the bay after.1874, including the glaciers at the head of the bay were later published
the accounts of geographic surveys and scientific inves- by IGotz (1899, p. 524-526, maps). The bay was vis-
tigations, contain few references to the occurrence of ited by field parties of the U.S. Geological Survey for
large waves. · 3 days in 1906 (Wright, F. E., and Wright, C. W. in
The French explorer La Perouse (1798, p. 115-169) Reid, 1908, p. 53; in Buddington and Chapin, 1929,
is generally credited with the discovery of Lituya Bay, p. 269...:.270) and in 1917 (Mertie, 1931), and for 5 days
which he named Port des Fran~ois. In the course of a in 1943 ·(Kennedy and Walton, 1946, p. 67-72). Sur-
projected trip around the world La Perouse took his veys of the bay were resumed by the U.S. Coast and
ships La Boussole and L'Astrolabe into Lituya Bay on Geodetic Survey in 1926 and 1940, resulting in the cur-
July 2; 1786. During a stay of nearly a month the ex- rent navigation chart on a scale of 1: 20,000 (U.S. Coast
pedition mapped Lituya Bay on a scale of 1: 50,000, and Geodetic Survey, 1942). In 1926, and during part
traded wl.th the Indians then living in and near the bay, ·of each summer from 1930 to 1934, expeditions engaged
and recorded observations on the native culture and the in rrwuntain climbing or geographical and geological
plant and animal life in the vicinity. Twenty-one men exploration "Were based in or near Lituya Bay ( Carpe,
were drowned when three small boats engaged in ·a sur- 1931; Washburn, 1935, 1936; Goldthwait, 1936). Ex-
vey of the entrance were swept into the tidal bore and cept for the brief mention of "evidence of flooding or
.two were wrecked. In July 1788 Ismailof and Bech- washing to a height of at least 10 feet," which Dall
arof entered Lituya Bay on the ship Three Saints to ( 1883, p. 203) attributed to damming of the entrance
claim the land for Russia and to induce the natives to by ice during the winter, none of the reports on the
accept Russian rule (Shelikof, 1812, p. 108-112). The expeditions just described contain any reference to the
lack of any reference to waves within the bay in either giant waves in Lituya Bay.
of these early accounts, together with the mention of Placer mining of the gold in the sands along the
trees and native dwellings near the shore, are indirect ocean beach adjacent to the mouth .of Lituya Bay was
evidence that no giant waves had occurred in Lituya begun by the Americans in 1890 ( Boursin, 1893, p.
Bay for some time prior to 1788. 230) and continued intermittently at least until 1917
(Mertie, 1931, p. 133) ~ Since Lituya Bay served as a
For the remainder of the period of Russian rule and
port for this operation, during this period it was prob-
the early years of American rule, until 1874, the litera-
ably occupied or at least visited frequently. One man,
ture examined contains only brief mention of explora- James Huscroft, lived on Cenotaph Island in Lituya
tion in Lituya Bay: in connection with an expedition Bay almost continuously from 1917 to about 1940.
of the Russian ship Orel to obtain sea otter skins in H uscroft and another man were on the island, and two
1796 (Bancroft, 1886, p. 356-357) ; the reported dis- men were in a boat nearby, at the time of the 1936
covery and mining of gold placer deposits on the waves. Their eyewitness accounts, the observations of
beaches in the vicinity of Lituya Bay by the Rus- Tom Smith and others who visited the bay only a few
sian censuses of the Tlirngit tribe give the population days later, and the observations of J. P. Williams
American whaling ships (Dall, 1883, p. 202). Rus- nearly a year later, led to the earliest known pub-
sian censuses of the Tlingit tribe give the population lished references to the unusual "waves or floods" of
of the Lituya clan or settlement as 200 in 1835, and 590 water in Lituya Bay (Alaska Daily Press, 1936;
in 1861 (Petroff, 1884, p. 96, 99). Perhaps only a Williams, 1938).
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 57.
Lituya Bay was incorporated in the Glacier Bay at this latitude and time of year; the weather was
National Monument when the boundary was extended clear, with hig4 scattered clouds, and the head of the
in 1939 to include the coastal area from Cape Spencer bay was clearly visible from boa,t level at the outer
north to Cape Fairweather (fig. 14). No one has lived part of the bay. The tide was ebbing and at about plus
permanently either in or near the bay since Huscroft 5 feet (U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1957) or less
died, but in recent years the bay has come into increas- than a :foot above mean tide stage in the bay. The fol-
ing use as an overnight anchorage and refuge in bad lowing eyewitness accounts are abstracted from articles
weather for the trolling boats of the fishermen who ply published in newspapers and a magazine (Daily Alaska
the adjoining waters of the Gulf of Alaska during the Empire, 1958a; Ulrich, 1958 ; Alaska Sportsman, 1958) ,
summer and early fall. from a personal interview with W. A. Swanson (oral
communication, July 16, 1958) and correspondence
THE GIANT WAVES with H. G. Ulrich (written communication, Oct. 24,
EVIDENCE 1958).
EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS

Two kinds of evidence testify to the occurrence of ACCOUNT OF HOWARD G. ULRICH

at least four giant waves in Lituya Bay : (a) direct
observation of the waves, including the published, writ- Mr. Ulrich and his 7-year-old son, on the Edrie,
ten, or oral accounts of eyewitnesses and possibly tidal entered Lituya Bay about 8 :00 p.m. and anchored in
gage records frmn elsewhere in the Gulf of Alaska; about 5 fathoms of water in a small cove on the south
(b) effects that remain for later observation, Inainly shore (fig. 15). Ulrich was awakened by the violent
the destruction and transportation of vegetation, but rocking of the boat, noted the time, and went on deck
also the erosion and transportation of unconsolidated to watch the effects of the earthquake-described as
deposits, destruction of marine life, and the destruction violent shaking and heaving, followed by avalanching-
of works of man. The wave on July 9, 1958, and the in the mountains at the head of the bay. An estimated
waves on October 27, 1936, are documented beyond any 2V2 minutes after the earthquake was first :felt a dea:fen-
doubt by both types of evidence. At least 1 and pos- ing crash was heard at the head o:f the bay. According
sibly 2 waves between 1854 and 1916 are indicated by ~u~~ .
trimlines shown on photographs taken from 1894 to The wave definitely started in Gilbert Inlet, just before the
1929. These trimlines were largely destroyed by the end of the quake. It was not a wave at first. It was like an
explosion, or a glacier sluff. The wave came out of the lower
1936 wave, and were entirely gone after the 1958 wave. part, and looked like the smallest part of the whole thing. The
An oral report placing one of these waves in 1899 has wave did not go up 1,800 feet, the water splashed there.
not been substantiated. A wave in 1853 or 1854 is
Ulrich continued to watch the progress o:f the wave
recorded in a trimline and a band of even-aged trees
until it reached his boat about 21h to 3 minutes after it
that was examined and mapped on the ground and
was first sighted. Being unable to get the anchor loose,
dated by tree ring cotmts in 195.2 ·and 1953. Possible
he let out all o:f the chain (about 40 :fathoms) and
references to the 1853-54 wave in Indian legends have
started the engine. Midway between the head of the
not been confirmed.
bay and Cenotaph Island the wave appeared to be a
WAVE ON JULY 9, 1958 straight wall o:f water possibly 100 :feet high, extending
:from shore to shore. The wave was breaking as it came
SETTING AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION
around the north side of the island, but on the south
Three trolling boats, each about 40 feet long and side it had a smooth, even crest. As it approached tl~e
with two persons aboard, were anchored in the outer E drie the wave :front appeared very steep, and 50 to
part of Lituya Bay at the time of the wave on July 9 75 :feet high. No lowering or other disturbance o:f the
(fig. 15; pl. 3B). The Edrie rode out the wave inside water around the boat, other than vibration due to the
the bay; the Badger was ca-rried across La Chaussee earthquake, was noticed before the wave arrived. The
Spit and wrecked on the outside; the Sunmore, under anchor chain snapped as the boat rose with the wave.
way near the entrance, was swamped by the wave and The boat was carried toward and probably over the
went down with her occupants. The wave reportedly south shore, and then, in the backwash, toward the
was first sighted within 3 minutes after the earth- center o:f the bay. The wave crest seemed to be only 25
quake was first felt, or, using the instrumentally deter- to 50 :feet wide, and the back slope less steep than the
mined origin time for the earthquake of.06h15m51 8 G.c.t., :front.
July 10 (Tocher and Miller, 1959), between 10:16 and After the giant wave passed the water sur:face
10: 19 p. m. on July 9, local time. This is about sunset returned to about normal level, but was very turbulent,
58 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

137'40'

i2s7 ·····················-..:6oo:·.
Trimline (upper limit of destruc-
. tion of forest by water), show·
ing approximate altitude abo~·e
mean sea level
I nc/inedfigures measured by altim-
eter; upright figures measured b11
p/wtogrammetric methods

Windrow of felled trees

NOTE; Deltas and glacier fronts Delta

shown approximately aa
they were immediately pre-
ceding the earthquake and £85
Approximate locations of fishing
boats at onset of wave

CONTOUR INTERVAL 1000 FEET. A

DATUM IS AP~~OXIMATE MEAN SEA LEV~L Location of wave-eroded scarp

FIGURE Hi. Map of Lltuya Bay showing. setting and effects of 1958 giant wave.

with much sloshing back and forth from shore to shore and noted the time on the clock in the pilot house. A
and with steep, sha~p waves up to 20 feet high. These little more than a minute after the shaking was first
waves, however, did not show any definite movement felt, but probably before the end of the earthquake,
either.toward the head or the mouth of the bay. After Swanson looked toward the head of the bay, past the
25 to 30 minutes the bay became calm, although float- north end of Cenotaph Island and saw what he thought
ing logs covered the water near the shores and were to be the Lituya Glacier, which had "risen in the air
moving out toward the center and the entrance. After and moved forward so it was in sight. * * * It seemed
the first giant wave passed Ulrich managed to keep the to be solid, but was jumping and shaking * • * Big
boat under control, and went out the entrance at 11 :00 cakes of ice were falling off the face of it and down into
p.m. on what seemed tq be a normal ebb flow. the water." After a little while "the glacier dropped
back out of sight and there was a big wall of water
ACCOUNT OF WILLIAM A. SWANSON
going over the point" (the spur southwest of Gilbert
Mr. and Mrs. Swanson on the Badger entered Lituya Inlet). Swanson next noticed the wave climb up on
Bay about 9 :00 p.m., first going in as far as Cenotaph the south shore near Mudslide Creek. As the wave
Island and then returning to Anchorage Cove on the passed Cenotaph Island it seemed to be about 50 feet
north shore near the entrance, to anchor in about 4 high near the center of the bay and to slope up toward
fathoms of water near the Swnmor'e (fig. 15). Mr. the sides. It passed the island about 21h minutes after
Swanson was. wakened by violent vibration of ~he boat, it was first sighted, and reached the Badger about 11h
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 59
minutes later. No lowering or other disturbance of that the waves at Sitka were generated by fault dis-
the water around the boat was noticed before the wave placement or some effect of the resulting earthquake
arrived. at a point of origin other than Lituya Bay. Such
The Badger, still at anchor, was lifted up by the wave waves were observed within a few minutes after the
and carried across La Chaussee Spit, riding stern first earthquake at Dixon Harbor 45 miles southeast of
just below the crest of the wave, like a surfboard. Lituya Bay (William Brammer, oral communication,
Swanson looked down on the trees growing on the spit, July 10, 1958) and at Yakutat 99 miles northwest
and believes that he was about 2 boat lengths (more (Brazee and Jordan, 1958, p. 38), as well as on inland
than 80 feet) above their tops. The wave crest broke waters in Glacier Bay 60 miles to the east (observed by
just outside the spit and the boat hit bottmn and foun- the writer) .
dered smne distance from the shore. Looking back 3 to 4
OBSERVATIONS OF THE WRITER ON JULY 10
minutes after the boat hit bottom Swanson saw water
pouring over the spit, carrying logs and other debris. About 11h hours were spent over Lituya Bay in a
l-Ie does not know whether this was a continuation small airplane ·on the morning of July 10, beginning
of the wave that carried the boat over the spit or a about 12 hours after the wave had passed through the
second wave. Mr. and Mrs. Swanson abandoned their bay. Observations made at this time on the more
boat in a small skiff, and were picked up by another ephemeral phenomena associated with the earthquake
fishing boat about 2 hours later. and wave are described separately here because they
bear particularly on the interpretation of the eyewitness
OTHER OBSERVATIONS ON JULY 9
accounts and on the nature and sequence of events in
So far as is known to the writer, no other persons Lituya Bay on the day of 'the wave. The observations
were near enough to Lituya Bay to see the wave, and were recorded on a map, and by means of notes, still
no photographs were taken. A party of eight moun- photographs, and movies. l{enneth Loken, pilot of the
tain climbers was camped in tents on the shore of airplane, had flown over Lituya Bay on July 7 and was
Anchorage Cove, at the base of La Chaussee Spit, until able to make an on-the-spot comparison of conditions
about 8:00 p.m. on July 9, when they left in an am- before and after the July 9 earthquake and wave.
phibious airplane only a little more than 2 hours before On the morning of July 10 Gilbert and Crillon Inlets
the w·ave washed over their campsite. They did not and the upper part of the main trunk of Lituya Bay for
notice any unusual noises or disturbance of the water a distance of 21h miles from the head were covered by
in the bay, nor any foreshocks of the earthquake up to an almost solid sheet of floating ice blocks. Many of
the time they left (Paddy Sherman, written communi- the blocks were much larger than are normally seen in
cation, Oct. 20, 1958). At least one foreshock of the the bay, with exposed dimensions, as estimated from
earthquake was felt on the morning of July 9 on boats oblique photographs, of as much as 50 by 100 feet.
between Lituya Bay and Cape Spencer (William Nearly all of the larger blocks had flat upper surfaces
Swanson, oral communication, July 16, 1958), and on and were heavily debris laden, and many had scattered,
land as far away as Juneau (E. L. l{eithahn, written loose, large rounded boulders on their exposed surfaces.
communication, Apr. 3, 1959). Only scattered small pieces of ice, in normal abunda:nce,
Minor anomalous waves which may have been a were floating in the outer part of the bay beyond Ceno-
direct result of the giant wave in Lituya Bay were taph Island. Only on the northeast shore of Gilbert
recorded on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey tide and Crillon Inlets and on the large delta at the south-
gage at Sitka, on Sitka Sound, 137 miles southeast of east end of Crillon Inlet was any great amount of ice
the entrance of Lituya Bay. The waves began at 11: 25 left stranded on the beach above the high-tide line. The
p.m., July 9, with a height of about 0.1 foot, and con- absence of stranded ice blocks on the spur southwest of
tinued for many hours. The maximum wave height of Gilbert Inlet is especially significant as an indication
about 0.3 foot occurred at about 2 :40 a.m., July 10 that the glaciers were not involved in the generation of
(H. A. l{aro, written communication, May 20, 1959). the initial splash or surge of water at the head of the
The first wave an·ived at Sitka approximately 65 min- bay.
utes after the giant wave washed over the entrance of The front of Lituya Glacier on July 10 was a nearly
Lituya Bay into the sea; the indicated average speed of straight, vertical wall almost normal to the trend of the
about 126 miles per hour, assuming a nearly straight valley. Comparison of oblique photographs taken by
line route of travel through Salisbury Sound and the the writer on July 10 and by Edward Berdusco on July
narrow waterways east of l{ruzof Island, is comparable 7 indicate that during the earthquake and wave as much
to the observed velocities of tsunamis. It is possible as 1,300 feet of ice had been sheared off of the glacier
60 15HORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

fl~(mt, but that the southwest margin had changed very EFFECTS OF THE WAVE

little (fig. 16). The delta on the northeast side of Gil- DESTRUCTION OF VEGETATION
bert Inlet had completely disappeared, and the delta on
the southwest side was much smaller. It is possible The trimline (upper limit of total or near total
that ice projected beyond the subaerial part of the destruction by water of the forest and other vegetation)
along the shores of Lituya Bay is plotted on figutre 15
glacier front, beneath the inner parts of these deltas
and is illustrated by severaJ photographs (pis. 3B, 4B,
and that these projections are the source of the large
debris-laden blocks of ice floating in the bay on July 10. 5.A., 6B, 7 .A. and B). The altitude at the highest point
on the trimline and at other critical points was m~as­
The glacier surface for several hundred feet from the
ured by means of an altimeter that was set at mean sea
front was severely crevassed, probably more· so than
level, carried up to the trimline, and read again at s~a
normal ; beyond this terminal zone, however, the glacier
made within a period of 1 hour or less. The horizontal
as far up as the partly subglacial lake near the sharp
level. At most stations the series of three readings was
bend in Lituya Glacier (pl. 2) showed no evidence of
position of the trimline was plotted by transferring its
any unusual movement. The level of the lake, accord-
tr~ce by inspection from the oblique photographs taken
ing to Loken, may have lowered as much as 100 feet
by the writer in 1958 to vertical photog1..;aphs taken in
since he had seen it 2 days earlier.
1948, and thence to the 1naj of the bay. Additional alti-
The front of North Crillon Glacier and the adjoining tudes were detennined photogrammetrically from the
large delta showed no indications of any significant for- 1948 vertical photographs and from the 1958 U.S. Coast
ward movement of the glacier or of any other disturb- and Geodetic 'Survey single-lens vertical photographs
ance except effects of washing by the component of the covering the outer mile of the bay. Prints of some 9-
wave that had moved southeastward into Crillon Inlet. lens photographs taken ·after the 1958 wave were ob-
The front and lower part of Cascade Glacier similarly tained in February 1959. Since suitable photogrammet-
showed no effects other than of washing by the wave, ric equipment was not available, they could be used only
which had exposed a narrow tongue of nearly clear ice to add details to the trimlines in areas of low relief
extending to the shoreline. around the outer part of the bay. A map of Lituya Bay
The most striking change at the head of Lituya Bay, on a scale of 1 :10,000, with a 50-foot contour interval,
aside from the new trimline, was the fresh scar on the has been compiled from the 9-lens photographs by the
northeast wall of Gilbert Inlet, marking the recent posi- U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (H. A. l(aro, written
tion of a large mass of rock that had plunged down the communication, Apr. 28, 1959).
steep slope into the water (fig. 16; pl. 4A). Loose rock The tri1nline formed by the 1958 wave extended to a
debris on the fresh scar was still moving at some places, n1aximmn height of 1,720 feet above mean sea level, on
and small masses of rock still were falling from the the spur southwest of Gilbert Inlet, (pl. 4B). Its
nearly vertical rock cliffs at the head of the scar. The maximum horizontal distance was about 3,600 feet from
"fresh scar is not present on an oblique photograph the high-tide shoreline, in the vicinity of Fish Lake.
taken by Edward Berdusco on July 7. This evidence, Along a 1-mile segment midway between the head and
as well as illrich's account, indicates almost certainly entrance of the bay the band of destruction on the north
that the rockslide was triggered by the earthquake on and south shores averages 1,200 feet in width and
July 9. The rockslide is described in greater detail on extends to an average altitude of about 110 feet. The
page 65. total area between the trimlines and the high-tide shore-
Floating logs and other vegetation formed a nearly lines in the bay is about 4 square miles. This figure
continuous raft as mu6h as 1,200 feet wide along the includes small lakes and small areas of steep slopes and
outer 3 miles of the north shore of the bay. Small rafts beaches where little or no vegetation was growing, but
of logs and individual logs were evenly distributed it is a meast1.re of the total area over which the wave
throughout the rest of the bay, beyond the limits of the was capable of felling a large proportiO'll of the trees.
ice, and over a fan-shaped area of the sea as much as 5 The total area inundated by the wave is still larger,
probably at least 5 square miles.
miles from the entrance of the bay.
One of the most in1pressive aspects of the 1958 wave
· Water was still dripping from the wave-washed is the thoroughness of ~ts destruction of the forest
slopes around the shore of the bay as high as the new ·nearly extending to the upper limit of inundation;
trimline on the morning of· July 10. The volume of this can best be conveyed. by photographs. In most
water in streams flowing from Fish Lake and other places the trees were washe~ out and carried a way,
lakes reached by the wave on both the north and south leaving bare ·ground (pl. 5A) .. In some places, mostly
shores was much larger than normal. on steep slopes where the roots were anchored in bed-
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, A~~SKA 61

J
N
<~
~":?>c.-
~ ~

......
......... .r ,;'
~
~ ...
7-/'
-"'
•
-~
\....' - ·{-,J I . •••••• /""' .

..
lo - •••• /
:\ .• I
:\
' I.
··-=

EXPLANATION
........................
,,( . .f··
. .

Trimline (upper limit of de.struction of

forest by water)

July 7, 1958 July 10, 1958

Approximate. configuration· of shoreli.Ii~, 0 1 MILE
deltas, and glacier fronts

:::-::.-=-=<rll) 0 5000 FEET

Slides inferred to be contemporaneous with

July 9 earthquake ·
Dashed line outlines entire area of fresh scar; CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 FEET
shaded area.is main s~n~:rce of slide debriiJ DATUM IS APPROXIMATE ~EAN SEA LEVEL

Ftoua:m 16.-Detniled map of bend of Lltuya Bny, showing slides, changes in the shoreline and glacier fronts, and trimlines result-
ing from the 1958 earthquake and giant wave.
62 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

rock, the trunks were twisted or broken off just above probably at only a few points along the shore of the
ground level. At Harbor Point a living spruce tree bay are measurements made or photographs taken
was broken off cleanly about 3 feet above the root sys- before 1958 sufficiently detailed to allow more than a
tem, where it measured 4 feet in minimum diameter rough estimate. From the effect on the vegetation an
(pl. 5B). At a few places, mainly at the edge of the average minimum thickness of a foot of soil almost
trimline, trees were pushed over but not washed out certainly was removed over the entire area between the
(pl. 7B, .lower. left); Only ·along the outer mile of td.mline and the shore. This alone represents a volume
the bay were clumps of trees left standing within the of more than 4 million cubic yards. Cut banks 1 to
trimline.. The . forest was left standing to the high- 3 feet high were seen along the trimline at some places
tide line at only. two points, on the south· shore 0.4 in the bay.. At the small rounded projection of the
mile from the entrance and on the no:rth shore 1.4 miles south shore, 1.7 miles east of Harbor Point (fig. 15
from 'the entrance (fig. 15) ; The wave's competency · loc. A) , the wave cut a nearly vertical cliff about 25
is shown also by the sharp trimline and by the narrow feet high into till and underlying stratified sand and
channels cut through the trees on Cenotaph Island (pl. gravel. Large areas of bedrock were newly exposed
6A) , into' a small lake east .of Fish Lake and into the and left as bare and clean as though washed down with
lakes east of Harbor Point. On steeper slopes .from a hose on the spur west of Gilbert Inlet, along n1ost of
Cenotaph Isl~nd toward the heard of the bay the water the steep south shore from Crillon Inlet to a point 1
had washed into the forest generally not more than 10 mile west of ·Coal Creek, and around much of the shore
to 20 .feet vertically above and 30 to 100 feet horizon- of Cenotaph Island.
tally beyond the trimline. On low slopes in the outer Marine plants attached to rocks and marine inverte-
part pf the . bay, however, the water· rat some places brates ~ttached to rocks or burrowed in niud or sand
flowed through the forest for much greater distances, were largely destroyed by the wave, at least down to
probably as much as a quarter of a mile, beyond the mean lower low water level. On Cenotaph Island and
trimline. Salt poisoning of some bushes and plants was on the south shore of Lituya Bay near the entrance,
indicated by the brown tone of the foliage just above where in 1952-53 barnacles and mussels almost com-
the trimline; this was particularly noticeable on steep pletely covered the rocks in the intertidal zone, and
slopes at the head of the bay in late August. The larger many edible clams were dug, not one living shellfish was
trees showed no effects of the brief submergence in seen in August 1958. At these localities even the basal
salty water, althoug~1 the ~ower trunks of many trees attachment plates of most of the barnacles had been re-
borde~ing the trimlines were· i.njured by impact with moved from the rocks. The shells of clams, barnacles,
other tree~ felled or transp9rted by the wave (pl. 6A). and crabs were scattered along the shore above the
Many of· the trees ..fell.ed by the 1958 wave were high-tide line and a few were seen at or near the upper
reduced to bare stems, with.tl).e· limb~, roots; and even limit reached by the water on Cenotaph Island and at
the bark removed_ (pl. 61!). ·Removal of the projecting several other places in the outer half of the bay. Failure
limbs.and roots was duetogrinding.action as the trees to find the remains of any fish or deep-water shells sug-
were rotated in the turbulent· water. On many. of the gests that the wave had little immediate effect on the
trees, however, the ·cambium layer·was still smooth or larger swimming vertebrates and did not bring up
even slippery and showed little evidence of abrasion, bottom-dwelling invertebrates from a depth of more
suggesting that water ·under· high· pressure or moving than a few tens of feet. The writer had no opportunity
at high velocity stripped ·off the bark by a·process analo- to examine closely the forest adjoining the trimlines
gous to that used for. peeling logs· ·in plywood and near the entrance of the bay, however, where the water
pulpmills. flowed out through the trees and where stranded fish
Along much of .the north shore of Lituya Bay and would most likely be found. Probably _many bottom-
for short. distances along the south shore and on Ceno- . dwelling invertebrates in deep water were killed in
taph Island part of the felled timber is concentrated place by settling of sediment eroded and transported
in poorly defined to well-defined windrows at variable by the wave. Some fresh-water organisms probably
heights above the high-tide line. · ·The· more conspicu- were also killed by the invasion of salt water into Fish
ous of the windrows are shown on figure 15. The· .Lake. and smaller lakes and ponds along the shores of
longest continuous· line of debris can be traced, for· the. bay, but these bodies of water were not examined..
about 2 miles aloiig· the north shore.' Few works of man existed in Lituya Bay at the time
OTHER EFFECTS of. the 1958 wave, but judging from the effects on the
No attempt was made to measure accurately the vegetation and the boats, the wave would have wreaked
amount of erosion accomplished by the 1958 wave, and enormous destruction on ordinary buildings and on
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354 PLATE 3

A. VIEW OF LITUYA BAY, 1954

Trimlines of the 1936 giant waves (g) and the 1853- 54 giant wave (k). Lateral moraines (m) and the end moraine in the right and left foreground record a recent advance
of ice to the mouth of the bay. Mount Crillon, altitude 12,726 feet, is the highest peak on the skyliue

A giant wave generated on July 9, 1958, by a rockslide from the cliff (r) at the head of the bay destroyed the forest over the light areas to a maximum altitude of 1,720 feet
at d and to a maximum distance of 3,600 feet in from the high-tide shoreline at Fish Lake (F). A fishing boat anchored in the cove at b was carried over the spit in the
foreground; a boat under way near the entrance was sunk and a third boat, anchored at e rode out the wave
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354 PLATE 4

Shows scar of rockslidc. Head of slide, at about 3,000 feet altiLUde, was just below snowfield in upper cen ter. Front of Lituya Glacier at lower left corner

Large rockslitle plunged into Gilbert Inlet at lower right corner, shearing off part of the front of Lituya Glacier and causing water to surge over the spur opposite. The trim-
line slopes down to right, across scars of slides that occurred before the 1958 ear thquake
. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354 PLATE 5

A. View west from Coal Creek, on sou Lh shore of LiLuya Bay, August 1958. Trimline at left margin is at an altitude of about 180 feet, and is 1,000 feet in from the high·Lidc
shoreline

Lump of living spruce tree broken oJI by the 1958 giant wave at llarbor Point, mouth of Lituya Bay. Brim of hat is 12 inches in diameter
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354 PLATE 6

Shows channel cut Lhrough forest by Lhc 1958 giant wave.

View is 2 miles from entrance, August 1958; forest as dense as that in the upper parl of view formerly extended nearly to the shoreline. Width of zone of desLrucLion by Lhc
1958 giant wave is about 1,700 feet at right margin of photograph. ote trees with limbs and bark removed, in foreground
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 63
shore structures such as docks. At the foundation sites, July 9, 1958, wave in Lituya Bay are interpreted as
no trace could be found of the well-constructed cabin on follows: ·
the west or lee side of Cenotaph Island, used by the Beginning at about 10:16 p.m. the southwest side
writer as a base camp in 1952 and 1953, or of the light- and probably most of the bottom of Gilbert and Crillon
house mounted on concrete piers at Harbor Point. A Inlets moved northwestward and possibly up relative
few cut pieces of wood and some metal utensils from the to the northeast shore at the head of the bay, on the
cabin on Cenotaph Island were found several hundred opposite side of the Fairweather fault. Observations
feet from the former site. of the surface breakage along the Fairweather fault
Equipment left by a mining company at an intended 6 to 10 miles southeast of Crillon Inlet indicate that the
campsite near the south shore was washed away (Hen- displacement occurred in several pulses a.nd that the
rickson, 1959, p. 18). Monuments marking U.S. Coast total movement was about 21 feet horizontally and
and Geodetic Survey triangulation points at Harbor 3 feet vertically (Tocher and Miller, 1959). Intense
Point and several other stations along the north and shaking in Lituya Bay continued for at least 1 minute
south shores of the bay are believed to have been washed according to the account of William A. Swanson, and
out or moved. Station "Ice," marked by a bronze disk possibly as much as 4 minutes according to Howard
set in a large boulder on the shore at the head of the G. Ulrich. Slides and avalanches started in the moun:-
bay was found py the writer and apparently had not tains at the head of the bay within a minute after the
moved. Markers set in bedrock on the north and south shaking w.as first felt. Not less than 1 minute nor more
shores just west of the two arms at the head of the bay, than 2% minutes after the earthquake was first felt a
and one marker set in a concrete post on La Chaussee large mass· of rock slid from the northeast wall of Gil-
Spit seem, from study of photographs, to have remained bert Inlet. The initial n1ovmnent · of this rock mass,
in place also. with attendant clouds of rock dust and avalanching
With regard to the destructiveness of the wave, R. L. snow and ice, may account for the "moving glacier"
Wiegel (written communication, Mar. 31, 1959) com- observed by Swanson. The impact of the large rock-
mented as follows: slide on the surface of the water caused the "deafening
The method by which the wave broke and uprooted trees is crash" heard by Ulrich and caused a huge sheet of
easily explained using existing theory and data on wave-induced water to surge up ·over the spur on the opposite side
forces (Wiegel and Beebe, 1956 ; Wiegel, Beebe, and Moon, of Gilbert Inlet. The sudden displacement of a large
1957); Wiegel and Skjei, 1958). For example, taking a con-
servative estimate .of wave height and water depth, the total volume of water as the rock mass plunged into Gilbert
moment about the bottom of a tree 50 feet high with an effective Inlet set in motion a giant' gravity w.ave with a steep
dense crown diameter of 20 feet and trunk diameter of 2 feet front, traveling at high velocity and with its greatest
was computed to be of the order of 25 million foot-pounds, which force directed initially about due south. The gravity
is far in excess of the conservative 300,000 foot-pounds neces- wave, probably supplem~nted by the surge of water
sary to snap the tree or uproot it (Fons and Pong, 1957).
The problem of peeling the bark off a tree is a little more over the spur southwest of Gilbert Inlet, struck first
difficult. It may be due to the high water particle velocities in against the steep cliffs on the south side of the bay
the waves. A solitary wave 100 feet high moving in water 400 in the vicinity of Mudslide Creek; the maximum force
feet deep will have a horizontal component of water particle of the wave was then reflected and refracted toward
velocity in excess of 100 feet per second just under the wave
crest. This, combined with the observation in the model that the north shore a little farther out the bay, and again
the wave crest along the edges of the bay moved at the same back to the south shore near Coal Creek. Variations
velocity as the wave in the center of the bay, indicates that a in the height and intensity of the gravity wave as it
water particle velocity of this magnitude would have existed
over a substantial portion of the forested slope. The shear
moved out the bay, a.s recorded in the trimlines, may
stress on the bark due to this velocity and extreme h;rdraulic have been caused also by the interaction of diagonally
roughness of the bark might have been adequate· to .strip the refracted waves, by. seiche wave motion, an~ hy reflec-
bark from the trees, especially as cracks probably formed in tion of waves from the narrow entrance. Estimates
the barl< as the trees were being bent prior to breaking.
The water particle. velocities along the edges of Cenotaph by uirich and Swanson of the time elapsed from the
Island would have been great also, and this might explain the first sighting of the wave front until it reached their
stripping of barnacles from the rocks. · · boats indicate that the crest of the gravity wave moved
The water particle velocities at the bottom of the main por- out the bay at an average speed between 97 and 130
tion of the bay would have been much lower.
miles per hour. After the giant wave passed, the water
NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE WAVE in the bay was set into turbulent wave motion and
From the foregoing evidence the nature, sequence, continued to surge from shore to shore for 25 minutes
and approximate time of events associated with the or more.
ri32776-60-8
64 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL. GEOLOGY

According to R. L. Wiegel (written communication, vations in Lituya Bay on. July 12, 1958 first attributed
Mar. 31, 1959), the wave speed as calculated from the the destruction of trees at high altitude on the spur
estimated time elapsed is in good agreement with the southwest of Gilbert Inlet to "earthslide" (paper read
theoretical speed as calculated from the formula at Alaska Science Con£., Sept. 2; 1958), but on reexam-
ination of his photographs he found a few trees stripped
o=-vg(d+H) of bark high on the slope and now believes that this
where g is the acceleration due to gravity, dis the' depth damage .to the trees is more likely due to action of high-
of water below sea level, and H is the height of the velocity water than to slide action alone (written com,-
wave above ·sea level. He states : munication, Apr. 6, 1959). ·
If the water depth averaged between 400 and 500 feet and After examining the area of the high trimline again
the wave height averaged between 200 and 300 feet the wave from the air and on the ground later in the summer, it
would travel at a theoretical speed of about 100 miles per hour. is still the writer's conclusion that water was primarily
If the water depth were taken as a conservative .400 .feet
and the wave height at a conservative 100 feet the theoretical
responsible for destruction of the forest cover. Exam-
wave speed would be about 86 miles per hour. ination on the ground confirmed that trees just above
From evidence observed and photog~aphed from an the highest point on the trimline, at 1,720 feet altitude
airplane on July 10, the writer with Kenneth Loken as as remeasured by· a hand-carried altimeter, had been
pilot, concluded that water had risen to a height of washed out and overturned by ~ater. At this point
about 1,800 feet on the spur southwest of Gilbert Inlet on the crest of the spur the water rose about 2·0 feet
and caused destruction of the forset to the· sharp trim- higher than the highest overturned trees and. flowed
line across this spur (Daily Alaska Empire, 1958b; across the ridge and at least a quarter of a mile down
Seismol. Soc. An1erica Bull., 1958, p. 406). This con- the opposite side into .the forest, leaving rocks and
clusion was based on the following evidence : (a) The driftwood on the moss. It is true that rockslides either
"~ashed" appearance of ~he b~drock below the trimline accompanied or closely followed the earthquake on
on the spur; (b) the sharp and even appearance of the the northeast side of the spur. ·Cracks trending par-
trimline, and its similarity to and continuity with the 'allel to the scar were seen in the foi~est on the crest of
trimline known to have been caused by water action the spur, just above the trimline. Comparison of the
farti?.er out the bay ; (c) at the highest point on the 1958 oblique photographs taken after the earthquake
trimline, where the 1,800-foot altitude was estimated with the 1948 vertical photographs. show, however, that
from the airplane altimeter, a~out 30 .large trees were the 1958 sli.des occurred ·mainly in old landslide or
turned upslope and back into the forest. The roots rockslide scars, and that the volume of. new sliding was
of. some of the upturned trees were bare and white, as small. .Moreover, the trimline which ..the writer be-
though they had been washed out rather than merely lieves was formed by water, cuts across the tracks of
pulled out of the soil (pl. 7A) . these slides (pl. 4B) . After the water had dashed over
·The initial report of wave damage to 1,800 feet above the spur there was minor .sliding from the unstable
a water surface was widely doubted both on theoretical scarp at ,the trimiine. The conspicuous stre~ks of
grounds and on the basis ot aerial observations 'and debris left by small .slides on the .otherwise washed,
study of photographs by others. This· figure is more bare bedrock surface of t~le south west face of the spur
than 8 times the mraximum height attributed to a (pl. 7B) provide further convincing evidenGe against
179) · and nearly 8 times the maximum height reached landsliding or avalanchi:rig· ..as the primary cause of
by the largest of the slide-generated waves in Norway. the destruction· here. Also, along the margin of the
Brazee and Jordan (1958), from study-of aerial photo- trimline on th~ southwest' face of the spur frqm the low
graphs and evaluation of reports of field obsennations, point to an altitude of about. 700 feet the trunks of
including those of the writer and Don Tocher, con-. many large trees knocked down but not washed out by
eluded that the spur southwest of Gilbert Inlet "has the· water are oriented parallel. to the trimline, with
be.en denuded to a height of 1,800 feet either by ava- their tops turned to the west (pl. 7B) . These trees, if
lanche, wave action or a combination of the two.". Jor-
felled ~y avalanching 'or sliding, should pe p~feren­
dan later stated (written communication, Dec. 29, 1958).
tially oriented parallel to the gradient of the surface.
"More information is now available and it seems that
landsliding is the major activity for any elevation above Small slides OCCl;l.lTed; presumablya,t the time of the
300 feet or so," and this view is expressed also in an •an- earthquake, on the south side of Lituya Bay between
nouncement of plans for a field investigation of Lituya Mudslide Cr.eek and Crillon Inlet~, The area affected
Bay by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (Daily by new slides is much smaller than is shown by Brazee
Alaska Empire, 1959). T. N. Davis, from aerial obser- and Jordan (1958, fig. 3). The trimline formed by
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 65
the wave continues across this area, between· slide scars, ture on similar waves elsewhere in the world, and the
at altitudes ranging from 500 to 600 feet (fig. 16). model studies made by Wiegel all have c'ontributed to
The large mass of rock that plunged into Gilbert the writer's present acceptance of the rocksl1ide as the
Inlet from the northeast" wall during the 1958 earth- major, if not the sole cause of the 1958 giant wave.
quake is referred to as a rockslide in this report, al- Among the arguments against fault displacement as an
though it is near the borderline between roc~slide and imp'ortant contributing mechanism to the generation of
rockfall as defined in •two classifications of landslides this wave, the following seem most significant: (a)
(Sharpe, 1938, p. 76;78; Varnes in Eckel, 1958, p. Eyewitness reports of a lapse of 1 to 21;2 minutes
20-32 and pl. 1) . This rockslide as stated on page between the onset of the earthquake and the first sight-
63 probably. caused the 1958 giant wave •at Lituya Bay. ing of the wave at the head of the bay: (b) The pre-
The rockslide occurred in an area of previously active dominantly horizontal movement along the Fair-
sliding and gulleying to an altitude of about 3,000 feet weather fault, as indicated by ground breakage a few
on a slope averaging 40°. The rocks in this area, as miles southeast of Lituya Bay. If the fault trace lies
mapped by D. L. Rossman (written communication, near the northeast side of Gilbert and Crillon Inlets,
1957), are mainly amphibole and biotite schists; bed- nearly the entire area under water at the head of the
ding and schistosity strike about N. 50° W. and dip bay moved relatively northwestward and possibly up;
steeply northeastward, into the slope. wave motion resultJing from this displacement should
· The new slide area on the northeast wall of Gilbert be directed toward the northwest and southeast side of
.Inlet, as shown pn figure 16, was plotted by trans- the bay and (or) toward the head of the bay. (c) V erti-
ferring the outer limits of the new scar by inspection cal displacement of the bottom of the bay along the
from oblique photographs taken nft~r July 9, 1958, to Fairweather fault probably would generate waves as a
the v~rtical photographs taken in 1948, and thence by line source. An eyewitness account and the configura-
photogrammetric methods to the map. The dimensions tion of the trimlines, however, indica.te radial propa-
of the slide on the slope nre reasonably accurate, but the gation from a point source in Gilbert Inlet.
thickness of the slide ·mass normal to the slope can be The comments of R. L. 'Viegel on the nature and
estimated only roughly from the data and photographs cause of the wave follow (written communication,
now available. The main mass of the slide, as outlined Mar.31,1959):
on figure 16, is a prism of rock that is roughly triangu- It is ~ well documented fact that waves with large energy
lar in cross section, '~ith dimensions of 2,400 feet and content are generated impulsively by such varying mechanisms
3,000 feet along the ·slope, a maximum thickness of as underwater seismic disturbances, islands exploding, atomic
-about 300 feet normal to. the slope, and a. center. of bombs, and large masses of water added suddenly to a body
'gravity at about 2,00,0 feet altitude. From these di- of .water. The characteristics of waves generated by such
mechanisms depend upon the disturbing force and the rate at
mensions and an assumed .specific gravity of 2.7, the which it is applied. The resulting waves may be oscillatory
volume and weight of the rock mass are, respectively, in character, nearly solitary in form, a complex multicrested
40 million cubic yards;and 90 million tons. It is highly non-linear wave existing entirely above the initial undisturbed
probable that this entire mass plunged into Gilbert water surface, or a bore (Prins, 1958a, 1958b).
The size of the slide, the water depth, and the general dimen-
Inlet as a unit at the ~ime of the earthquake, although sions of Lituya Bay indicated that a wave similar to a solitary
the only known fact is that it fell between about noon wave should form, but with a complex "tail" to the wave. A
·On July 7 and about 10 a.m. on July 10. . rough model was constructed at the University of California,
; The writer went to r. ituya Bay in 1958 with a strong at a 1 :1,000 scale. Motion pictures were taken of the model
belief that· fault displacement was the most likely tests and measurements were made of the water surface time
histories at two points. Observations of the effects of various
mechanism for generating the giant waves originating types of slides in the model indicated that the prototype must
in the fault zone at the head of Lituya Bay. The mag- have fallen almost as a unit, and very rapidly. If the slide
nitude of the s]ide on the northeast wall of Gilbert occurred rapidly then a sheet of water washed up the slope
Inlet was not fully realized from the aerial inspection opposite the landslide to an elevation of at least three times
on July 10, ·and it was first considered to ·be •only a the wa,ter depth. At the same time a large wave, several hun-
dred feet high, moved in a southerly direction, causing a peak
minor factor in the· generation of the 1958 wave. rise to occur in the vicinity of Mudslide Creek. This same
To~her (written comnumication, Aug. 1, 1958), how- wave swung around into the main portion of Lituya Bay, due
·ever, suggested avalanching 1Qf rock or ice from the to refraction and diffraction. The movements of the main
northeast wall of Gilb~rt Inlet as a possible generating wave and the tail were complicated within the bay due to
mechanism before he was informed that a rockslide had reflections and due to the effect of bottom hydrography. One
further wave characteristic was noticed when large waves were
occurred there. Arguments advanced by Tocher, infor- obtained, and this was that the crest appeared to move at a
mation obtained later in the field and from the litera- nearly uniform velocity across the bay even though the water
66 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

TABLE 1.-Data on localized giant waves generated by falling or sliding of solid masses

Location, date, and time of Generating mechanism Nature of water body, velocity Effects of waves References
occurrence and height of waves·
----------------------l-----------------------1-----------------------l----------------------l----------------------
Japan
Shimabara Peninsula, Kyu- During period of intense earth- Shimabara Bay, length about 60 Trees as much as 9ft in diameter Omori (1907); Ogawa (1924, p,
shu Island, May 21, 1792, quakes and volcanic activity miles, average width 10 miles, felled, buildings destroyed. 219-224, pls. 6, 7).
about8 p.m. about 700 million cu yds of maximum depth 210 ft near the More than 15,000 people were
rock and soil to a maximum slide; opens into East China killed, most of them by the
altitude of 1,700 ft on the east Sea at southwest end. At Shim- waves. Wave destruction ex-
flank of Maye-yama slid 1% ahara 3 waves in rapid succes- tended about 50 miles along
miles down a slope averaging sion, the second and largest wave the shores of the bay.
10°, and plunged into the sea rising on land to a maximum
along a front 3 miles wide. height of about 33ft.
Norway
Langfjord, Feb. 22, 1756. __ _ About 15.7 million cu yds of bed- Langfjord (fiord), length about 20 Vegetation, soil, buildings, and J~rstad (1956).
rock and soil to a maximum miles, average width 1.5 miles, boats destroyed, 32 people
altitude of 1,312 ft on the fiord maximum depth about 1,100 ft; killed. Effects of the waves
wall at Tjelle slid down a slope opens in to N orddalsfj ord to west. were noticed as much as 25
averaging 25° or more, and Three waves observed, rising to miles from slide.
plunged into the fiord. Land- a maximum height of 130ft on
slide may have been triggered shore opposite the slide.
by heavy rainfall.
· Loen Lake, Jan. 15, 1905, About 450,000 en yds of bedrock Loen Lake, length 7 miles, aver- Vegetation, soil, buildings, and Holmsen (1936, p. 173-177, figs.
about 11 p.m. and talus to a maximum height age width 0.6 mile, maximum boats destroyed; iron steam- 2, 3); Bugge (1937, especially
of 1,640 ft on Ravnefjell depth 436 ft. Wave 10 ft high boat 48 ft long was carried 820 figs. 1, 8, and 10); Brigham
(Raven Mountain) fell and in middle of lake; rose to maxi- ft and stranded 56 ft above (1906); Holtedahl (1953, p.1044-
slid down a slope averaging mum height of 131 ft on shore lake level; 61 people killed. 1045).
65°, and plunged into lake. opposite the slide and to 19 ft
at the far end of the lake, 4.8
miles from the slide.
Loen Lake, Sept. 13, 1936, About 1.3 million en yds of bed- Loen Lake, see above. Wave ap- Vegetation, soil, buildings, Holmsen (1936, p. 183-186, photo-
5a.m. rock to a maximum height of peared 3-6 ft high in center of boats and bridges destroyed, graph opposite p. 176); Bugge
2,625 ft on Ravnefjell fell at the lake; it rose to a maximum 73 people killed. Remains of (1937, figs. 8 and 10, p. 357);
same locality as the 1905 slide. height of 230 on shore opposite stranded steamboat carried Holtedahl (!953, p. 1045-1046).
Slide about 1,300 ft wide at the slide, and to 50 ft at the far on up to 164 ft above lake
lakeshore. end of the lake. level.
Loen Lake, Sept. 21, 1936, Rockslide or rockfall from Loen Lake, see above. Wave rose Boats used for rescue work were Hoimsen (1936, p. 186).
in evening. Ravnefjell. to maximum height of 49 ft on damaged.
shore.
Loen Lake, Nov. 11, 1936, Rockslide or rockfall from Loen Lake, see above. Wave rose Nothing left to destroy __________ Holmsen (1936, p. 190), supple-
at night. Ravnefjcll; volume as large as to about the same height as on ment, in German.
that on Sept. 13, 1936. Sept. 13.
Tafjord, April 7, 1934, 3 Overhanging rock mass of nearly Tafjord (fiord), length about 5.6 Vegetation, soil, buildings, and Kahldol and Kolderup (1937);
a.m. 2 million en yds volume fell miles, average width 0.7 mile, boats destroyed, 44 people Holmsen (1936, p. 177-183, figs.
from maximum altitude of maximum depth 700 ft; opens killed along fiord within 2 4 and 5); Bugge (1937, espe-
2,395 ft on fiord wall with an into Norddalsfjord to west. miles of the slide; extensive cially figs. 4, 5 and 6); Holtedahl
average slope of 45°, and Three waves of increasing height damage to boats and docks as (1953, p. 1046).
plunged into the fiord along a were observed at several places. much as 31 miles from the
front 750 ft wide. Rockfall Water rose to maximum height slide.
triggered by melting of ice in of 204 ft about 650 ft from the
fractures. slide margin, to 122 ft on shore
opposite the slide, and to 3 ft
above normal high-tide line
about 31 miles from the slide.
Approximately measured veloci-
ties range from 13.4 to 26.8 mlles
per hour.
N orddalsfjord, across from Landslide from Skafjell. N orddalsfjord (fiord), Three Not described in reference. J,Jrstad (1956, p. 330). Incidental
Strands, 1938. waves reported. mention only; no detailed de-
scription found.
United States
Disenchantment Bay, Fallen Glacier, a hanging gla-
about 10 miles; average width 3 ub~b~~ug:;:~~~Js~~s ;!'~~he:ci
Disenchantment Bay, length Tarr (1909, p. 67-68). According
Alaska; July 4, 1905. cier about 3,500 ft long and to Indian legend falling glaciers
1,200 ft wide, avalanched from miles, maximum depth 942 ft; out; area uninhabited. in this area generated similar
an altitude of 1,000 ft down a opens into Yakutat Bay to waves at . least twice before;
slope averaging about 16°, and south and into Russell Fiord to reportedly 100 Indians were
plunged into bay along a front east. Waves 15-20 ft high ob- killed by a wave about 1845.
0.5 mile wide. served for half an hour on Rus-
sell Fiord 15 miles from the ava-
lanche; water rose to maximum
height of 115 ft about 2.5 miles
from the avalanche.
Reed Terrace area near Landslides in terrace scarps Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, Vegetation destroyed, uncon- F. 0. Jones and W. L. Peterson
Kettle Falls, Columbia underlain by bedded uncon- average width 5,000 ft, maxi- solidated deposits eroded; (written communications,
River valley, Washing- solidated deposits. Narrow mum depth 160 ft at slide area. barges and boats broke loose Mar. 16 and May 7, 1959);
ton; from April 8, 1944, to segments of the scarp on Waves were generated by at from dock 6 miles from slide Jones in Eckel (1958, figs. 31,
Aug. 19, 1953. slopes averaging about 23° least 11 different slides; the area. 32, p, 40-41).
suddenly gave way and slid largest wave rose to maximum
into the lake. Debris came height of 65ft on opposite shore,
down from maximum height and was observed 6 miles up the
of 210 ft above water level. lake. Observed velocity of one
series of waves was about 45
miles per hour.
Mouth of Hawk Creek near Landslide in terrace scarp under- Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake, in Trees knocked down. F. 0. Jones and W. L. Peterson
LincolnJ.9olumbia River lain by bedded unconsoli- bay about 1,200 ft wide and 120 (written communications,
valley, washington, July dated deposits. A narrow ft deep at slide area. Wave Mar. 16 and May 7, 1959).
27, 1949. segment of the scarp on a slope rose 65 ft on shore opposite the
averaging about 31° suddenly slide.
gave way and slid into the
Jake. Debris came down from
maximum height of 340 ft
above lake level.
East side of Columbia River Debris slide in bedded uncon- Franklin D. Roosevelt Lake. Not described in references. Jones in Eckel (1958, fig. 23 on p.
valley north of Kettle solidated deposits and talus 33); W. L. Peterson (written
Falls, Washington, Feb. from maximum height of sev- communication, May 7, 1959).
23, 1951. eral hundred feet above lake
level.
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 67
depths at the edge were considerably less than the water Larsen and F. H. Frederickson were on a 38-foot
depth in the center of the channel. It is believed that this phe- trolling boat The Mine. Larsen and Frederickson, who
nomenon is associated with the phenomenon studied by Per-
roud (1957).s The model study movies showed that the wave had entered Lituya Bay on October 26, anchored their
elevation was higher along the edges of the bay than in the boat first near the north shore south of Fish Lake and,
center. after the first wave was sighted, moved to the west shore
The action of the wave over the center of Cenotaph Island of the island near the cabin. According to the most
and at La Chaussee Spit are due to shoaling effects which detailed accounts, there were three giant waves in close
have not been studied in detail for solitary, or similar, waves.
The energy in a solitary wave 100 feet high in water 400 succession, beginning at about 7 :00 a.m., about 'an hour
feet deep with a channel width of 8,000 feet can be computed before sunrise. According to Frederickson the weather
using an equation given by Ippen and Mitchell (1957). It is was clear but it was too dark to see much at the head
about 6 X 1012 foot-pounds. The potential energy of the land- of the bay; moreover, after The "Aline was moved to the
slide was about 3.5 X lOu foot-pounds. Hence, only about 2 per- lee of Cenotaph Island, the head of the bay was hidden
cent of the potential energy of the slide went into the main
wave. This is of the same order of magnitude as obtained by from aU four observers. The tide at the time of the
model studies of a similar type of disturbance ('Wiegel, 1955). waves was flooding and about at mean tide stage (U.S.
Coast a.nd Geodetic Survey, 1935).
COMPARABLE WAVES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE
WORLD Two nearly identical articles based on an oral report
by Allen (called to the writer's attention by Robert De
Waves similar to the 1958 giant wave in Lituya Bay Armond, oral communication, July 22, 1958) were pub-
have been generated by the sliding of part of a moun- lished in newspapers soon after the waves occurred
tain into Shimabara Bay in Japan, by the sliding or (Alaska Daily Press, 1936; Alaska Weekly, 1936).
falling of large masses of rock into a lake and several Information related by Huscroft about a year later
fiords in Norway, by the avalanching of a hanging was incorporated in an article on Lituya Bay by Wil·
glacier into a bay in Alaska, and by landslides into a Iiams (1938). De Armond also recalled seeing another
lake in Washington. References and significant data account in a Ketchikan newspaper, based on the oral
on several such localized waves that have come to the report by Larsen and Frederickson, but attempts to
writer's attention are summarized on table 1. An ex- find this article have failed (L. H. Bayers, written
haustive search of the literature no doubt would reveal communication, Apr. 7, 1959). The eyewitness account
many other such occurrences in parts of the world of F. H. Frederickson is abstracted from his· recollec-
where steep or unstable slopes are adjacent to bodies of tions as related to the writer in a telephone conversation
water. Earthquakes acted as a triggering mechanism and a letter in September 1958.
for the slide in Japan, but no earthquake was reported
at the time of the 1905 wave in Alaska or at the time EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
of any of the large waves in Norway and Washington. ACCOUNT OF FRED H. FREDRICKSON
Some waves that accompanied earthquakes in uninhab-
ited or sparsely inhabited areas and were attributed to During the night of October 26-27, 1936, The Mine
tectonic movement, as for example the 1899 wave in was anchored near the north shore of Lituya Bay, a
Y alnitat and Disenchantment Bays and Russell Fiord mile due west of the cabin on Cenotaph Island (fig. 17).
in Alaska (Tarr and Martin, 1912, p. 46-47) may About 2 hours before sunrise on October 27, at about
have been generated instead by slides or avalanches 6 :20 a.m. local time, a loud, steady r0ar was heard. It
triggered by the earthquakes. On the other hand one seemed to be coming from the mountains beyond the
interpretation of the April2, 1868 tsunami on the south head of the bay, but, although the weather was clear,
coast of the Island of I-Iawaii as the result of a mud:flow it was too dark to see much there. No shaking was felt
(Omori, 1907, p. 144) is not correct, according to G. A. on the boat. The roar continued until about 6 :50 a.m.,
Macdonald (written communication, Apr. 15, 1959 )". at which time a large wave was first seen in tl1e narrow
part of the bay, just west of the two arms at the head .
.WAVES ON OCTOBER 27, 1936
The wave at this position appeared as a steep wall of
SETTING ·AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION water extending from shore to shore and possibly 100
Four men were in Lituya Bay on October 27, 1936. feet high. On first sighting the wave the men raised
James Huscroft and B. V. Allen were in a cabin on the anchor and started the boat toward the Cenotaph
the west shore of Cenotaph Island (fig. 17) and Nick ISland; an estimated 10 minutes later, when the first
wave arrived, the boat had reached a position about
II Perroud, P. H:, 1957, The solltnry wave reflection along a straight 1,300 feet northwest of the cabin, in the water at least
vertical. wall at obllque Incidence: Calif. Unlv., [Berkeley], Ph.D.
thesis. 93 p, 70 feet deep. No lowering or any other unusual dis-
68 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL ·GEOLOGY

l
EXPL~NATION
13
\. ............. 220
/.
Trimline (upper limit of destruc-
tion of forest by water), show-
ing approximate altitude above
mean sea level· ·
Indinedftgures measured b!l altim-
eter; upriqhtftgures measured btl
photoqrammetric methods ·

'~~
Delta
M-1 M-2
Initial and final positioM of fish-
ing boat The Mim, as described
i!ltext

NOTE: Position and shape of deltas ·Location of sectioned tree

and glacier fronts in 1936
are inferred from photo- I MILE
graphs taken in '1934.
CONTOUR INTERVAL 1000 FEET
DATUM IS APPROXIMATE MEAN. SEA LEVEL

Figure 17. Map, of Lltuy_a Bay showing setting and effects· of 1936 giant waves.

turbance of the water surface was noticed up to this ACCOUNTS OF.BERNARD V. ALLEN AND JAMES HUSCROFT

time: The more complete of. two newspaper articles based

.. The first wave raised The Mine abo.ut 50 :feet above on the account of Allen (Alaska Daily Pre5s, 1936)
normal water level; out of the lee of the island, to the ·states that he and Huscroft were awakened at 7 :00 a.m.
north and south, the wave was possfbly 50 feet higher. :on October 27, 1936, by a roar like "the drone o:f 100
Immediately after the passing of the· first wave the airplanes at low altitude," to find the water already up
water surface fell below normal level. Huscroft's sein:. to their cabin on Cenotaph Island. As seen from a
ing boat, anchored nearby in 48 feet of water, touched -higher, safer point on the island, the water is described
bottom. The first wave was followed at estimated 2- by Allen as sweepi:U:g over the shore in 3 wave8 of in-
minute intervals by the second and third waves, each
creasing altitude, at an estimated velocity of about 20
larger than the preceding one~ The water surface
knots ( 23 miles per hour) . In the published account
receded below normal level after each of these waves
also .. Smaller waves continued for about half a~ hour the maximum height of the waves is given at '250 feet,
after the third large wave passed. The direction of _but in ·a shorter account recorded in the log book of·Osa
wave movement was always toward the mouth of the Nolde (Caroline Jensen, written communication, Dec.
bay; ther.e was no sloshing of the water back and forth 23, 1958) Allen stated that ·the waves reached a height
in the bay. Floating logs and ice appeared around the of from 150 to 200 feet. These accounts agree in most
boat about half an hour after the third large wave respects with the recollections of Fredrickson; in the
passed. log book, however, Allen described the weather in
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY,- ALASKA 69
Lituya Bay on October 27, 1936, as cool, with rain, hail, larly damaged trees found along the trimline of the
thunder, and lightning. 1958 wave (pl. 6..4.). · ·
The observations attributed to Huscroft by Williams The trimline of the 1936 waves has a maximu~
( 1938) differ from the other accounts in the following height of 490 feet or more above sea level on the north-
respects: Huscroft was preparing breakfast in his east wall of Crillon Inlet (pl. 9..4.) .. The exact upper
cabin at the tiine the roar was first heard; the water limit of wave destruction could not be determined by
rushed toward the entrance in a single "1nountainous field ~xamination in this area in 1953, due to the scanty
tidal wave" follo~ed by an immense "back wave," and growth of trees on the steep slope and to the possibility
then by waves that surged and resurged over the length that the alinement of trees at the position tentatively
of tlie bay a number of times. This was on a morning mapped as the trimline was accidental. . The position
in the fa.ll of 1936, during a period of unusually heavy inapped in the field was later confirmed by an aerial
rtiirifall. photograph taken in 1937 by Bradford 'Vashbu:r;n,
EFFECTS OF THE WAVES on which the slope below the trimline is virtually bare
The observations attributed to Huscroft by Williams of vegetation. Destruction of the forest extended to a
of Lituya Bay by the 1936 waves, as shown on figure 17, maximum distance of 2,000 feet frmn the shoreline
wns mapped from field observations made by members in the reentrant northeast of Cenotaph Island. Along
of U.S. Geological Survey field parties in 1952-53, from a 1-mile segment midway along the bay-the same
single-lens vertical photographs at a scale of about reference interval cited for the 1958 wave on page 60-
1: 40,000, taken in 1948 by the U.S. Navy, and from an the band of destruction on the north and south shores
oblique aerial photograph taken in 1937 by Bradford averages 50 feet in width and extends to an average
Washburn. The upper limit of wave destruction altitude of 10 feet. The total area between the trim-
around much of the i1u1er part of the bay is readily lines of the 1936 waves and the high tide shoreline
seen on the 1948 vertical aerial photographs due to the is about 0.8 squar~ mile. · ·
difference in tone, texture, and average height of the Much of the evidence of dest~uction by the 1936
vegetati9n growing above and below the trimline. waves was oqliterated by the wave in 1958. Short
Around the outer part of the bay and on some steep segments of the 1936 trimline still :r;emained above
slopes near the head of the bay, however, field examina- the _1958 trimline from Cascade Glacier northwest
tion was required to determine the effects of the 1936 a~out 1,500 feet and about 3,000 feet along the north-
wave. At several places on st_eep slopes in the upper east wall of Crillon Inlet.
part of the bay the upper limit of wave destruction was The total destruction of the forest up to a sharp trim-
no longer recognizable even in the field, due to the line by the 1936 waves is mentioned in all of the avail-
scarcity of large trees. The altitude of the trimline was able eyewitness accounts and is recorded in photo-
measured at 14 points by means of a hand-carried graphs taken during the latter part of 1936 by r,~m
al_tiineter, aild at other -p~ints using the 1\::elsh plo~ter. Smith. One of these photographs is r'eproduced as
. The identity of the trimline with the known 1936 plate 9B. Allen (Alaska Daily Press, 1936).reported
wa v~ was confirmed by tree ring counts in two ways: that trees and shrubs were cleared away to a maximum
(a) sections cut in 1953 from the largest trees among altitude of 400 feet. Th~ same article· reported that
the three principal typ~s growing below the trimline within a few days uprooted trees had drifted along the
on the northwest shore near point h (fig. 17), showed beach a.s much as 50 _miles south of Lituya Bay. Fred-
the following ages: cottonwood, 17 years; alder, 1.5 rickson (written communication, Sept. 1958) said th~t
years; spruce, 14 years; (b) a section cut from a tree although not many trees were felled in the outer part
just above the trimline at point h (fig. 17, pl. SA) , of the bay, .the water .. flowed .for some 9-istance out
showed, on the side toward the bay, an injury believed through the forest. Crabs and clams were found a~
to have been caused by debris carried by the waves much ·as half a mile back from the beach north of the
(pl. 8B). The section showed 17 annual growth rings mouth of the bay. According -to Fredrickson most
outside the injury. The tree-ring counts were made by of the trees felled by the waves were washed out -by
R. M. Godman of the Alaska Forest Research Center the roots but still had roots, limbs and bark attached
R. F. Taylor, written communications, Oct. 26 and after the waves had passed. This difference in. the
Nov. 20, 1953). The second method (see page 77), was damage caused by the 1936 waves, as compared to that
used to date the oldest known trimline in Lituya Bay. caused by the 1958 wave is ·confirmed also by other
The assumption that the injuries were caused by the eyewitness accounts and by th~ photographs taken ·by
waves was convincingly confirmed by the many simi- Smith.
·70. SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

One of the accounts attributed to Allen (Alaska The time required for the first wave to travel from
Daily Press, 1936) describes the 1936 "flood" as "cut- near the head of the bay to the west side of Cenotaph
ting a new bank from the soil and stone, and hurling Island, as estimated by one observer on the boat, gives
rocks and trees." vVilliams (1938, p. 18), either from a speed of about 22 miles per hour. Evidence pre-
information furnished by Huscroft or from his own served in the trimlines indicates that the waves were
observations in 1937, states that "corrasion was com- generated at or near the head of Criilon Inlet, where
plete down to bedrock, including. all forest growth and at least one of them dashed up on the valley wall to a
even boulders 10 feet or more in diameter." This was height of 490 feet or more. The maximum height of
not true in all areas below the trimline, for the photo- the trimlines near Cenotaph Island is 24 feet, suggest-
graphs taken by Smith show stretches northwest of ing that the observers' estimates of the height of the
Cascade Glacier and along the north shore of the bay waves at this position in the bay is too large.
where many trees were left lying at or near their Possibly significant in the consideration of the origin
original positions. Even after the 1958 wave the bed- of the 1936 waves is the fact that they occurred "during
rock was not exposed at many places touched by the a period of unusually heavy rainfall" ('Villia.n1s, 1938,
1936 waves. In 1952-53 scarps as much as 4 feet high p. 18). Although two eyewitness accounts differ as to
were seen at a few places along the 1936 trimline; at the weather on the day of the waves, the weather rec-
most places, however, evidence indicated removal of ords at other places in southeastern Alaska do indi-
not more than a thin soil layer containing the root cate that the occurrence of these waves was preceded
systems of the trees. The erosive power of the 1936 by heavy rainfall (U.S. Weather Bureau, 1938). At
waves, even at the head of the bay, was much less than the two coastal stllitions nearest Lituya Bay-Sitka (fig.
that of the 1958 wave. 14), and Cape St. Elias, about 260 miles northwest of
The 1936 waves (only the third wave according to Lituya Bay-precipitation averaged 45 percent above
Fredrickson and to one account by Allen) washed normal for the entJire month of October 1936, and 150
into Huscroft's cabin on the west shore of Cenotaph percent above normal for the 6-day period preceding
Island without causing much damage, but destroyed at October 27. At the three nearest inland stations-
least two small frame buildings nearby. Two tri- Juneau, Haines, and Skagway (fig. 14)-precipitation
angulation stations established, by the U.S. Coast and averaged 42 percent ·above normal for the month of
Geodetic Survey in 1926 could· not be found in 1940 October, and 111 percent above normal for the 6-day
(U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey "Lithographic List period preceding October 27. These departures are
of Descriptions of Triangulation Stations, Alaska No. based on weather records through 1957 (U.S. Weather
57," not dated). One was on the north shore near Bureau, 1958).
Cenotaph Island marked by bronze disks set in boulders Allen, in both the published account (Alaska Daily
and one was on the south shore at Coal Creek marked Press, 1936) .and in the account related to Nolde (Jen-
by concrete bloQks. Don Tocher ('oral communication, sen, Caroline, written communication, Dec. 23, 1958),
Sept. 2, 1958) suggested that these markers may have attributed the 1936 destructive "flood" and waves in
been carried away or moved by the 1936 waves. Lituya Bay to the sudden draining of an ice-dammed
NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE WAVES
lake in the basin of North Crillon Glacier. Williams
(1938, p. 18) presented this hypothesis in detail, show-
All eyewitness. accounts agree that the 1936 waves ing in a diagram the supposed course followed by the
were preceded by or accompanied by a loud noise, and w,all of water as it rushed down the surface of the gla-
the two most detailed accounts agree that there cier. and into the head of Crillon Inlet; Williams (writ-
were three waves of increasing size in the vicinity of ten communication, Mar. 3, 1954) stated that when he
Cenotaph Island, _with estimates of maximum height visited Lituya Bay after the "flood" · (in 1937) he
ranging from 100 to 250 feet. The a<;c,<;>unt of one of climbed along. the sides of the Crillon Glacier and no-
the men on the boat, in a better position for observation ticed the highwater marks there..
than the men on the island, indicates that the roaring Floods due to the sudden draining of ice-damme~
noise from the head of the bay was heard as much lakes are a frequent -and well-known phenomenon in
as half an hour before the first wave was sighted. This southern A}aska, and it is understandable that tllis
account also indicatesthat the waves were spaced about hypothesis wa:s proposed and generally accepted as the
2 minutes apart, and were followed by recession of the cause of the destruction in Lituya Bay in 1936. In
water below normal level. One observer on the island papers given ~rally in 1954 the writer presented evi-
estimated the rate of wa.ter movement (not necessarily dence opposing the ice-dammed lake hypothesis as fol-
the speed of the waves) at about 23 miles per hour. lows: North Crillon Glacier is an actively moving,
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 71
much crevassed stream of ice that has an average gradi- Also, if the chamber were very high in the glacier, as
ent of about 500 feet per mile; its drainage basin, now would be required to obtain a substantial hydraulic
mapped from vertical aerial photographs ·and well head, it seems unlikely that the water could have jetted
la1own from aerial and ground observations (D. L. out rapidly enough to generate giant waves. (b) A
Rossn1an, written communication, 1957), lacks any partly subglacial lake is present now, and existed in
topographic configuration in which a large body of 1936 in the trench tributary to Gilbert Inlet, just north-
water could be ponded, tmless it is a chamber con- west of the sharp bend in the Lituya Glacier (pl. 2).
cealed beneath the glacier. An aerial photograph Aside from the probability of relatively slow drainage
taken by Bradford Washburn in June 1937, less than from this lake, it is also unlikely that drainage from
a year after the supposed "flood," shows no derange- beneath the Lituya Glacier would set up waves that
ment of the surficial moraine patterns on the surface rose highest at the opposite end of the trough forming
of the lower part of North Crillon Glacier, such as the head of Lituya Bay.
certainly should have occurred if water had flowed
FAULT DISPLACEMENT.
down over the surface of the ice as inferred by Wil-
liams. The high-water marks mentioned by Williams In 1954, displacement along the Fairweather fault
may have been the scars of fresh rockslides. was suggested as a possible cause of the 1936 "flood
Crillon Lake, intJo which the South Crillon Glacier wave," although evidence of an earthquake was lacking
discharges (pl. 2), has been mentioned also as the lake (Miller, 1954). Through the eyewitness accounts that
that drained at the time of the 1936 waves. Seismic were obtained since then, the date and approximate
investigation by Goldthwait (1936, p. 508), indicates, hour of occurrence of the 1936 waves are now known
however, that the bedrock sill on the divide beneath and it is possible to state definitely that no earthquake
the drainage of North Crillon Glacier into Lituya Bay was felt in Lituya Bay and that no earthquake with
and South Crillon Gl'acier into Crillon Lake is about at an epicenter near Lituya Bay was recorded at that
the same level as the surface of the lake. time on seismographs at Sitka, Alaska, or more dis-
The writer, after reviewing the evidence available tant stations (Tocher, Don, written communication,
in 1954, concluded that serious objections could be Aug. 1, 1958). Perry Byerly (oral communication,
raised against many of the possible causes of the 1936 Jan. 22, 1954) believes that fault displacement suf-
waves that had been suggested until then, and that ficiently large to cause the waves could not fail to
~onclusive support could not be marshaled for any of have caused an earthquake that would have been felt
the1n. Despite the additional evidence obtained since in the bay and recorded at seismographic stations more
then about the 1936 waves and despite the wealth of distant than Sitka. Therefore, it seems that fault dis-
information gained from the 1958 wave, this opinion placement can be ruled out as a cause for the 1936
is still held as this report is written. It is necessary waves.
therefore, as in 1954, to present several possible causes, ROCKSLIDE, AVALANCHE, OR LANDSLIDE
some more convincing than others, but none definitely
The roaring sound reported by three eyewitnesses
proven. to the 1936 waves and said by one of the observers
SUDDEN DRAINING OF AN ICE-DAMMED BODY OF WATER to have come from the head of the bay and to have
The writer has already given convincing arguments preceded the waves, suggests a rockslide or avalanche.
opposing the hypothesis of surface drainage from an Some of the observed differences between the 1936 and
ice-dammed lake in the North Crillon Glacier basin, 1958 waves, particularly the occurrence of three waves
although this hypothesis perhaps best explains the of increasing size in 1936, and the much higher velocity
roaring sound heard before the waves were seen. of the 1958 wave, might be advanced as an argument
Two other variations of this hypothesis w,arrant con- against a common origin. On the other hand, these
sideration: (a) The water could have been ponded differences in the wave patterns might be due to dif-
in a chamber within or beneath the North Crillon ferences in the location of the sliding or falling rock
Glacier, or on the divide separating the drain- mass and the manner in which it entered the water.
age of the North and South Crillon Glaciers, then This was demonstrated in 1934 in Tafjord, Norway,
suddenly released beneath the glacier or through an where a rockfall generated waves of about the same
ice tunnel below sea level in the tidal front of North height and velocity as the 1936 waves in Lituya Bay,
Crillon Glacier. This might account for the sudden and where three waves of increasing height were ob-
upwelling immediately in front of the glacier. How- served (Kaldhol and Kolderup, 1937; table 1, this
ever it seems unlikely that a chamber of sufficient report). Three waves reportedly were generated also
size could form in a glacier as active as North Crillon. by two other landslides into Norwegian fiords, Lang-
72 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

fjord in 1746 and Norddalsfjord in 1938 (J$:Srstad, required to generate the 1936 waves, then 1andsliding
1956, p. 326, 330-331). . . or avalanching may virtually be eliminated as a possible
By analogy with the 1958 wave, a falling mass that cause.
caused the 1936 waves in Lituya Bay should have come SUBMARINE SLIDING

from the southwest wall of Crillon Inlet, opposite Submarine slides (submarine "landslides") have
the high point on the trimline. None of the previously long be~n included among two or more hypothetical
published eyewitness accounts mention ·any' evidence causes of tsun~mis in the oceans. For example, Guten-
that a large mass of rock or ice had fallen into Lituya berg ( 1939), and Shepard, Macdpnald and Cox ( 1950, p.
Bay at the time of the 1936 waves, and Fredrickson 394--395) , offer opposing viewpoints. The tsunami as-
(written communication, Sept. 1958)' states that he did sociated with the 1908 earthquake in the Straits of Mes-
not notice any such evidence when he went to the head sina has been attributed to a turbidity current
of the bay a short time after the waves had occurred. originating in a submarine slump (Heezeri, 1957). Re-
Comparison of the trilens photographs of Lituya Bay cent laboratory experimental work indicates that sub-
taken -in 1929 by the U.S. Navj with the 1948 vertical marine slides are capable of generating tsunamis
photographs indicate that sliding had occurred on the (Wiegel, 1955).
valley wall above and just south of the front' of North Soundings in Crillon and Gilbert Inlets indicate
Crillon Glacier at some time between 1929 and 1948. slopes of as much as 28°, through vertical distances of
This slide scar, however, is directly above the delta nearly 500 feet. Unconsolidated material was avail-
that formed in front of North Crillon Glacier before able in 1936 in the deltas built out from the fronts of
1929 and some evidence of a large slide in 193·6 should both North Crillon and Lituya Glaciers, and may have
hav~ been preserved on the delta and should be visible been present in substantial thickness at other places
in the 1948 photographs. The 1929 and 1948 photo- around the head of the bay. Submarine slides could
graphs show scattered large blocks of rock on the delta also have occurred in bedrock. Perhaps one of the
surface, also small talus cones along the base of the most attractive aspects of submarine sliding as a pos-
cliff, suggesting that sliding in this area has taken sible cause of the 1936 waves is that it cannot be defi-
place frequently but in small increments. nitely disproved because the evidence, if any, is hidden
Elsewhere on both walls of Crillon Inlet the corre- beneath the bay. Considering the magnitude of the
spondence between the 1929 and 1948 photographs is slopes available and the. probability that a large sub-
so close, even as to individual trees, gulleys, and other marine slide would involve material at least partly
distinctive patterns, a~ to definitely eliminate the pos- above water, submarine sliding seems unlikely as the
sibility that a large slide occurred during this interval. cause of the 1936 waves, howe1rer. Unless two or more
Small fields of· permanent snow and ice are on the slides occurred in close su.ccession, OI_' the .waves were
northeast wall of Crillon Inlet above 3,400 feet alti- reflected at the head of the bay, it is difficult to account
tude, but these. too shmv clo.se correspondence in shape for the observed fact that the third w:ave, rather than
and size on·photographs taken by Bradford Washburn the first, was the largest.
in 1934 and 1937, eliminating the possibility of a large
MOVEMENT OF A TIDAL GLACIER FRONT
avalanche. There is a possibility that a rockslide or
avalanche of ice fell on the North Crillon Glacier The trimlines at the head of Lituya Bay show clearly
causing movement that was transmitted through the that at least the largest of the· 1936 waves was gener-
glacier to the tidal front. This possibility may be ated at or near the tidal front of North Crillon Glacier,
eliminated at least for the lower 2 miles of the glacier and attained maximum height on the northeast wall
by inspection of the 1937 photographs; it seems un- of Crillon Inlet within 3,500 feet of the glacier front.
likely that· any· movement higher. on the glacier would This evidence, reinforced by the known generation of
be transmitted to the front. waves at the fronts of other glaciers that discharge
The photographs indicate the occurrence of small into· water, lends strong support to some kind of move-
rockslides ihto Gilbert· Inlet from both the southwest ment- of the Crillon Glacier front as the cause of the
and northeast sides, and into Lituya Bay between Mud-' 1936 waves. Three types of movement must be consid-
slide Creek· and Crillon Inlet, at some time .betwee:t:J. ered: (a) calving of ice from the subaerial part of a gla-
1929 and 1948, but these locations are all incompatible cier front into the water; (b) ealving and sudden
with the triniline p:;tttern ·of the 1936 waves. ·If the surfacing of ice from a submarine projection of a gla-
writer's interpretations of · the photographs are cor- cier front; and (c) almost instantaneous forward move-
rect, and falling or sliding of a mass of a size. greater ment of a glacier front. One aspect of the 1936 wave
than a few thousand cubic yards into Crillon Inlet is pattern, the occurrence _.of three waves of increasing
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354 PLATE 7

A. Trees washed out and turned upslope by water at altitude of 1,720 feel. Small slides occurred on steep slope at right during the 1958 earthquake, but destruction of forest
in middle and lower left part of view is due mainly to water

B. West side of spur; note washed appearance of bedrock at lower right, in contrast to slide area just below trimline at t. Height of view, from bay at lower left to upper right
corner, is about 1,200 feet
SPUR SOUTHWEST OF GILBERT INLET, AUGUST 1958
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIO AL PAPEJ"(. 354 PLATE 8

A Tor rh shore of Lituya Bay between Cenotaph Island and Gilbert Inlet, sbowu1g forests of different ages in zone denuded by 1936 giant waves (shore to h), in upper part of
zone denuded by giant wave about 1874 (h. to j), in upper part of zone denuded by giant wave in 1853 or 1854 (j to k), in upper part of recently glaciated zone (k tom),
and above lateral moraine atm. Phorograph raken in 1953

B. Se<'tion eut in 1953 from spruce tree growing just above trimline of 1936 giant waves (Joe. h, in A and in fig. 17). There are 17 growth rings outside injury on dght
GIWLOGIUAL SUlWEY PLl.Ol!'ESSIONAL PAPER 3!34 PLAT!~ 9

A. Crillon Inlet and head of Lituya Bay in 1952; Trimline begins above tidal front of North Crillon Glacier; altitude 490 feeL aLi. Front of Cascade Glacier at left margin

DESTRUCTIO OF FOREST BY 1936 GIA T WAVES

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 354 PLATE 10

0 61nches

SECTION CUT IN 1953 FROM SPRUCE TREE GROWING JUST ABOVE TRIMLINE OF 1853-54 GIANT WAVE
There are 100 growth rings outside injury on right. Locality (L), on fi gure 19
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 73
I !:

height in the vicinity of Cenotaph Island, could be ex- raised a wave to a height much greater than the height
plained either by repeated movements of any of these of the front. C. C. Bates (written communication,
three types, or by interference, refraction or reflection Apr. 7, 1955) suggested that although ice falling from
of waves near the point of generation at the head of the the front of North Crillon Glacier n1ight provide only
bay. Calving frmn an ice front could have caused the about 10 percent of the necessary volume increment, the
roaring sound reported by eyewitnesses, although it remainder of the rise indicated by the trimline on the
seems unlikely that calving could have occurred con- northeast shore of Crillon Inlet might come from up-
tinuously for as much as half an hour before the first rush or local refraction effects.
wave was sighted. Submarine calving from the glacier front was sug-
No photographs showing the North Crillon Glacier gested as a possible cause of the 1936 waves by W. 0.
front shortly before or shortly after the occurrence of Field, Jr. (written communication, Dec. 5, 1952). Evi-
the 1936 waves are available, but oblique aerjal photo- dence of ice projecting below water level as much as
graphs taken by Bradford Washburn in the summer of 1,000 feet beyond the subaerial part of glacier fronts
1934 and in June 1937 show little change in the position has been reported for glaciers in the Yakutat Bay area
and configuration of the northeast half of the front. (Russell, 1891, p. 101-102; Tarr, 1909, p. 31-32). Field
The delta and southwest half of the front on Crillon states that waves 25 feet or more in height are formed
Inlet are not shown on the 1937 photographs. Based by calving of projecting submarine ice masses at the
on the photographs taken in 1934, and assuming little front of Muir Glacier in Glacier Bay. The configura-
change in the following 2 years, the tidal front of tion of the submarine parts of the tidal ice fronts in
North Crill on Glacier at a time just preceding the Lituya Bay is not known. The possibility that the
occurrence of the 1936 waves was a nearly vertical wall deltas in front of the Lituya Glacier may have been
of ice about 2,700 feet long and 200 to 300 feet above underlain by ice was mentioned on page 60. In the
water level, extending across about half of the total few hours that either or both the North .Crillon and
width of Crillon Inlet (fig. 17). If the ice front Lituya Glacier fronts were in sight during the 1952,
extended to the bottom of the inlet, as semns likely, its 1953, and 1958 field investigations, the writer did not
maxim.um height below water level was about 290 feet. see any calving of submarine ice. The appearance of
Calving of subaerial ice into water has been observed the delta in front of North Crillon Glacier in the 1948
at the fronts of many glaciers discharging into lakes, vertical photographs does not give evidence of disturb-
rivers, bays, and even into the open ocean in Alaska, ance by the sudden rise of an ice mass beneath it, and
as well as in many other parts of the world. From the remaining tidal part of the glacial front seems to
observation or indirect evidence such calving has be too small to provide ·a mass of sufficient size to gen-
formed waves capable of eroding as much· as 5 feet erate the 1936 waves.
above high tide a mile or more from the ice front (Tarr, Slippage of a.n ice· mass over its floor is generally
1909, p. 33-34), but according to available data no accepted by glaciologists as a major mechanism of
waves even approaching the magnitude of the 1936 movement for glaciers on slopes (Sharp, 1954, p. 826).
waves in Lituya Bay have resulted· from glacier calv- However, an instantaneous advance of a glacier front
ing in Alaska. If calving were the cause of the giant of more than a few inches has not been proven. Pros-
waves in 1936, such waves should occur with ·greater pectors in .Disenchantment Bay reported that during
frequency, not only in Lituya Bay but also at the fronts the largest of the Yakutat Bay earthquake shocks, on
of many other tidal glaciers in Alaska. This would be September 10, 1899, the tidal front of the Hubbard
true unless, as suggested by C. C. Bates (written com- Glacier advanced or was thrust forward from one-half
munica,tion, Apr. 7, 1955), simultaneo'us calving from to three-quarters of a mile, but Tarr and Martin ( 1912,
two or more glacier fronts is a further requirement. p. 16) believed this to be an erroneous interpretation
In the course of the model study of Lituya Bay, of the enormous calving of ice from the glacier front.
R. L. ·vviegel and Don Tocher found that rotational It seems likely that forward movement of the Crillon
fall of a partly submerged weight with a flat face, sim- Glacier front of a few feet or even a few tens of feet
ulating the Crillon Glacier tidal front, formed wave ~vould be required to raise a wave to the height indi-
traces that compare closely in configuration to the trim- cated by the 1936 trimline in Crillon Inlet. Such
lines on the walls of Crillon Inlet. The ina.Ximum 1novement of the glacier front should have disrupted
height reached by the wave in the model, however, was the surface of the glacier for some distance above the
about equal to the height of the face of the weight above front to such an extent that the changes should be evi-
water level. This gives some basis for doubting that dent on photographs taken in 1937 and later. An
ice falling from the Crillon Glacier front could have oblique aerial photograph taken by Bradford Wash-
74 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

burn in June 1937 shows no unusual crevassing or dis- was living on Cenotaph Island. Others reported that
ruption of the surficial moraine patterns on North both floods occurred after sharp earthquakes. It lis
Crillon Glacier. clear now that these accounts referred at least in part
TSUNAMI IN THE OCEAN
to the 1936 and 1853-54 waves, but the 1nention of dates
1890-99, of earthquakes, and of a saltery near the
Perry Byerly and J. P. Eaton (oral communicati?n, mouth of the bay suggest the occurrence of another
Jan. 22, 1954) offered the suggestio~ that wave m~twn wave of intermediate age. In 1958 James Betts of
from a tsunami generated at sea might be transmitte~ Ano-oon, Alaska reported that his grandfather had
either through the narrow entrance or through the spit exp~rienced a flood or wave in Lituya Bay in 1899
at the mouth of Lituya Bay, causing a seiche wave or (Tom Smith, oral comn1unication, Aug. ~958). ~he
some other type to form inside the bay. In further writer has been unable to obtain further InformatiOn
support of this suggestion Byerly (written communi- on this report.
cation Feb. 1 1954) called attention to the following OTHER EVIDENCE
'
statement by 'McNown (1952, p. 163): "It has been
amply proved that the motion produced in a port can Possible evidence for the occurrence of at least one
have an amplitude not only equal to but even a number giant wave in Lituya Bay betwe?n the 1~53-54 wave
of times greater than the amplitude of the wave that and the 1936 waves was first noticed dunng the 1953
produces it. :Furtherinore, from theoretical cons.idera- field investigation, on the north shore near th~ mouth
tions, this amplitude can occur equally well with an of the creek draining from :Fish Lake. At this local-
entrance width that is extremely small." ity, in a narrow belt midway between the 1936 and
1853-54 trimlines the spruce and hemlock trees
Accordino- to tide-gage records (Neuman, 1938, p. 26) ' smaller in average size tha~ In .
no tsunami ~ccurred in the northeastern Pacific Qcean appeared to be a ]~ttle
in October 1936. It is difficult, also, to understand how the forest adjoining and just below the 1853-54 trim-
wave motion introduced at the mouth of Lituya Bay line. This impression was not tested at the time by sec-
could have been transmitted without any obvious sur- tioning the trees. In the course of later study of
face effects to the head of the bay, there to be amplified ground photographs taken in 1917, photographs of the
into three giant waves that traveled out the bay at high north shore of the bay between Cenotaph Island and
velocity. Gilbert Inlet· ( J. B. Mertie, nos. 604, 605, 619, and 620,
OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES U.S. Ge·ologiaal Survey Photolibrary, Denver) showed
not only the 1853-54 trimline but also, in the interval
For the sake of completeness several other agents
about 0.8 to 1.8 miles west of Gilbert Inlet, a probable
capable of generating w.aves are mentioned, although
lower trimline that had about the same height and con-
there is little or no evidence to recommend them as pos-
figuration as the 1936 trimline in the same area. ~his
sible causes of the 1936 waves in Lituya Bay. Subma-
seo-ment can be identified with certainty as a tnm-
li:e 0n ·a photograph taken in 1894 by a Canad~an
rine volcanic .activity is known to have given rise to large 1

tsunamis in the sea, as, for example, the destruction of

Boundary Survey party (~1:cArthur no .. 128; print
Krakatoa in 1883 (Williams, 1941, p. 255-256, 261).
loaned by W. 0. Field, Jr., Mar. 3, 1959). The low~r
Waves caused by tidal action and by wind are well
trimline in this area shows faintly on the 1929 tn-
known. As examples of water waves set in motion by
lens photographs and ·on these can be. traced ~est­
air waves, Press (1956) cited a sea wave with .a 2-foot ward alono- the north shore, with decreasing certainty,
amplitude that followed the Krakatoa exploswn, and
to the locality of the field observation near Fish Lake.
a 10.:.foot wave at Chicago in 1954. Finally, Olaf
The eastward extent of this trimline near Gilbert Inlet
I-Ioltedahl (oral communication, 1957) suggested that
is also uncertain. It probably falls to or near the
a falling meteorite be added to the list of possible causes. shoreline, as shown on figure 18, but the photograph
WAVES BETWEEN 1854 AND 1916
taken in 1894 suggests that it may rise eastward to
or nearly to the 1853-54 trimline in this area.
EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS
Possible trimlines that may be -at least in part
When the writer first visited Lituya Bay in 1952 younger than the definitely identified trimline on the
stories of ''floods" were. heard from several fishermen north sh'ore are shown in ground photographs taken
who anchored their boats in the bay. One described
catastrophic floods caused by breaking of a glacial lake in 1916 by Trevor Davis (oral communication, July
near the head of the bay in 1890 and again in 1928. 1958) near Cascade Glacier and on the spurs south-
Another mentioned a flood about 1899 that destroyed west of Gilbert and Crillon Inlets, and in photographs
a native village and a fish saltery near the mouth of of the north shore of Anchorage Cove taken in 1917
the bay, and a second· flood about 1928, when Huscroft (Mertie nos. 98, 99). The supposed trimline at Cas-
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 75
cade Glacier is recognizable on the 1929 trilens phot~­ or more along the north shore. A maximum altitude
graphB and can be projected about a mile to the south- of 80 feet and a maximum width of 2,100 feet back
east as an irregular lower limit of scattered clumps from the high-tide line were measured for this trim-
and groves of spruce trees. A few scattered spruce line. The younger wave destroyed vegetation to a
trees of about the same size are standing below this maximum altitude of about 200 feet on the northeast
line, however. None of these supposed trimlines shore of Crillon Inlet and to lesser heights on the spurs
shown on 1916 and later photographs can be recognized southwest of Gilbert and Crillon Inlets, and possibly
on the few copies of 1894 photographs that are avail- to a height of a few feet on the north shore of Anchor-
able, but because of incomplete coverage and the poor age Cove. On the south shore of Lituya Bay, west of
quality of some of the prints, their existence at that Mudslide Creek, destruction of vegetation by either
time cannot be disproved. wave, if any, must have been limited to a narrow zone
bordering the beach. The total area of substantial de-
DATES
struction of vegetation below all of the tentatively iden-
The lower trimline definitely identified in a photo- tified trimlines in less than 0.4 square mile. Most of
graph of the north shore of Lituya Bay taken in 1894 the evidence of destruction by the waves between 1854
indicatElS that at least one giant wave occurred before and 1916 was removed by the 1936 wave and any re-
this date but later than the 1853-54 wave. The stage of maining evidence was wiped out by the 1958 wave.
vegetation growth below the lower trimline, as shown
on the photograph, suggests that the trimline was NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE WAVES

formed about midway in the interval 1854 to 1894.

Photographs taken in 1894 by McArthur (nos. 105-A,
Hence the "evidence of flooding and washing" n·oted
128) show fresh, bare surfaces on the upper slopes
in 1874 by Dall (1883, p. 203) may have resulted from
of the northeast wall of Gilbert Inlet and the valley
this ~ave.
of ~{udslide Creek, suggesting that slides had occurred
The other possible trimlines shown on 1916-17 in these areas not long before. It is doubtful that the
photographs, on the basis of the previously mentioned older wave was generated by a slide from the north-
unsubstantiated eyewitness account and on the basis east wall of Gilbert Inlet, because McArthur's photo-
of the stage of vegetation growth, are ·attributed graphs do not show a trimline on the opposite shore
tentatively to a wave occurring in 1899. The occur- of Gilbert Inlet. By analogy with the 1958 wave,
rence during that year of the great Yakutat Bay earth- destruction of vegetation should have been greatest
quakes and the report of a great amount of drift there. A slide in the valley of Mudslide Creek could
timber and muddy water in the oc~an between Cape account for the maximum known destruction obliquely
Fairweather and Yakutat 2 days after the largest of opposite on the north shore of the bay, and also for
the earthquake shocks (Tarr and Martin, 1912, p. 79) the absence of a conspicuous trimline in the inlets at
are further evidence for this date. The absence of the head of the bay.
any reference to Lituya Bay among the many reports The trimline of the wave inferred to have occurred
of those who experienced the Yakutat Bay earthquakes about 1899, as reconstructed from photographs, com-
probably means either that no report was received by pares most closely in magnitude .and configuration with
Tarr and Martin (1912, p. 65-68) or that no one the trimline of the 1936 waves .. It seems likely, there-
was in Lituya Bay -at that time, because the shocks fore, that the 1899 ( ~) wave was generated in Crillon
were felt throughout a large area in southern Alaska Inlet, possibly by the same unlmown mechanism that
and adjacent Canada. caused the 1936 waves. However, if a wave did occur
EFFECTS OF THE WAVES at the time of one of the great earthquake shocks in 1899,
displacement .along the Fairweather fault warrants con-
The tri1nlines plotted on :figure 18 were reconstructed. sideration as a possible cause. By analogy with the 1958
mainly from the 1916 photographs by Davis and the wave, a rockslide into Crillon Inlet must also be con-
1929 trilens photographs. Altitudes on the trimlines sidered. St. Amand (1957, p. 1357-59) suggested that
were obtained by transferring points by inspection to at least one of the earthquakes in 1899 resulted from
the 1948 vertical photographs, from which the approxi- movement on the Fairweather fault. Evidence in sup-
mate height above water level was then estimated or port of this suggestion was found by Tocher and Miller
measur~d photogrammetrically. Trimlines formed by ( 1959) ·after the 1958 earthquake. New surface breaks
two different waves were tentatively identified. The were seen from the air near the scarps on N unatak
older wavn apparently destroyed all or nearly all vege- Fiord described by Tarr and Martin (1912, p. 37-40);
tation up to a sharp trimline for a distance of 4 miles along the Fairweather ·fault southeast of Lituya Bay
76 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

137°40'

EXPLANATION

_ s~~ _ _/_:o~
Possible triinlines of 1899(?) wave,
showing approximate altitude
above mean sea level
Inclined figures r.st.imatefl or mea:~·
und by altimeter; upright figure
measured by photogrammetrir
methods

-~?.-:, __ ,....... ..r.:~~--

Trimline (upper limit of destruc-
tion of forest) of wave that
occurred about 1874, showing
approximate altitude above
mean sea level
bu:linedfigure measured by altim·
NOTE: Deltas and glacier fronts cler; uprightjtgure meaRured by
shown approximately as photogrammetric methods
they were mapped and.pho-
tographed in .1894.

Delta
CONTOUR INTERVAL 1000 FEET
DATUM IS APPROXIMATE MEAN SEA LEVEL

FIGURE 18.-Map of Lttuya Bay, showing trimllnes of one or more giant waves that occurred between 1854 and 1916.

much of the new breakage had taken place along old entrance and who, with his assistant, caused tidal waves
scarps. The few oblique photographs taken at the head by grasping the surface of the water and shaking it as
of Lituya Bay at the turn of the century are not ade- if it were a sheet. De Laguna (written communication,
quate to either prove or disprove the occurrence of Nov. 19, 1957) was told a story about a flood in Dry
a rockslide in Crlllon Inlet. Bay that killed a great many people, possibly between
WAVE IN 1858 OR 1854
1850 and 1860, and also the story of a village near Dry
Bay that was abandoned about 1850 because eight canoe
EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS loads of men from the village were lost in Lituya Bay
Williams (1938, p. 19) related the formation of the when their canoes tipped over. W. A. Soboleff (oral
oldest trimline in Lituya Bay to an old Indian story communication, June 7, 1958) was unable to find any
about the catastrophic destruction of a village near the specific information about Lituya Bay among the
entrance. The source of this legend was not cited. people of Tlingit origin in the Juneau area, other than
Emmons (1911, p. 294-298) and de Laguna (1953, p. that the Indians had left the bay for an unknown reason
55) were told the story of the meeting between La and at an unknown date. These stories may indeed
Perouse and the Tlingit in Lituya Bay in 1786 by refer to the giant wave that formed a trimline in Lituya
natives living at Yakutat, near Juneau, and at Angoon. Bay in 1853 or 1854,- but some of the stories might also
Emmons (1911, p. 295) also recorded the Tlingitlegend refer to incidents related to the treacherous tidal cur-
about a mo.nster who dwelt in Lituya Bay near the rent in the entrance or to an earlier or later wave.
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 77
None of these stories are of any value for determining Field examination in 1953 indicated that on the
the nature and cause of the 1853-54 wave or f~r dating spur southwest of Gilbert Inlet the trimline sloped
the wave more accurately. down, and also became gradually less well defined
toward the east. This is confirmed by McArthur's
OTHER EVIDENCE
photograph (no. 128), taken in 1894. No evidence of
The only positive evidence now known for the occur- the trimline was found, either in the field or on the
rence of a giant wave in Lituya Bay in 1853-54-the photographs, along the walls of Gilbert and Crillon
destruction of vegetation along the shores-is clearly Inlets or on the south shore between Crillon Inlet and
recorded on many photographs taken between 1894 and Mudslide Creek. This could be due to the scarcity of
1954. The evidence was also studied in the field in large trees on these steep slopes, but probably the wave
1952-!)3. Only two segments of the 1853-54 trimline, had little effect at the head of the bay or along the '
totaling about a mile in length, remain on the north south shore at Mudslide Creek.
shore of the bay since the 1958 wave. Destruction of the forest on the shores of Lituya Bay
DATE by the giant wave in 1853 or 1854 extended to a maxi-
mum height of 395 feet .above mean sea level and to a
An approximate date of late 1853 or early 1854 for maximum horizontal distance of 2,500 feet inland from
the occurrence of the oldest known giant wave in Lituya the high-tide shoreline, a total area of at least 1 square
Bay was obtained from a tree ring count using the mile. In the 1-mile long segment used as a reference
second method described on page 69. A section cut for comparison with the other waves (p. 60, 69) the
by Rossman and Plafker from a large spruce tree grow- band of destruction on the north and south shores aver-
ing just above the oldest trimline at point L on figure ages about 620 feet in width and about 80 feet in alti-
19 showed ·an injury on the side toward the bay (pl. tude. Scarps as much as 25 feet high were seen at a
10). According to R. L. Godman of the Alaska Forest few places along the trimline of the 1853-54 wave.
Research Center (R. F. Taylor, written communica- These scarps, plus the evidence of the effects on the
tion, Oct. 26, 1953) the injury occurred after the end forest, indicate that the erosive power of the giant wave
of the 1853 growing season and before the beginning in 1853 or 1854 was comparable to that of the 1958
of thn 1854 growing season, or between mid-August wave, although it did not affect as large an area. Part
and the early part of May. Rossman and Plafker of the trees remained standing at the sites of the native
estimn,ted the age of the largest spruce tree seen in the dwellings shown at the shore near the entrance of the
forest below the trimline at this site in 1953 to be about bay on the map of La Perouse (1798, opposite p. 146).
92 yen.rs. However, the water almost certainly inundated these
EFFECTS OF THE WAVE
sites and may have destroyed the village, as indicated
Tho trimline formed by the 1853-54 wave, as shown by native legend and by the observations in 1874 by
on figure 19, was mapped from field observations in Dall ( 1883, p. 203) .
195-2 and 1953, and from the single-lens verticle photo- NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE WAVE
graphs taken in 1948. The altitude of the trimline was
measured on the ground at 12 points with an altimeter, At the present time ( 1959) the only basis for specula-
and at other points with a Kelsh plotter. Destruction tion on the nature and cause of the 1853-54 wave is a
of th3 forest by the 1853-54 wave seems to have been comparison of its effects on the vegetation with. the
compXete up to a sharp trimline that is easily seen effects of the two most recent giant waves in Lituya
on tho 1948 vertical photographs and on oblique photo- Bay. In extent and thoroughness of its destruction, the
graphs (pl. SA) of the north shore west of Gilbert Inlet, 1853-54 wave compares most closely with the 1958
around Cenotaph Island, and from Coal Creek west wave. From the configuration of its trimline the
on the south shore. These trimlines seem to intersect 1853-54 wave probably w.as generated at or near
the beach about 11h miles inside the entrance, on the the head of the bay, but either at a different point
north shore, and about 2 miles inside the entrance on or by a different cause than the 1958 wave.
the south shore. A trimline to a maximum height of A rockslide from the steep wall on the south side
18 feet was identified by field examination in 1953 of Lituya Bay at the present position of or just east
for a short distance along the steep slope north of The of Mudslide Creek (fig. 19) seemingly would best ac-
Paps. In 1953, along both shores in the outer part of count for the ·maximum known height of destruction
the bay, and on La Chaussee Spit, spruce trees older almost directly opposite on the north shore of the bay.
than 100 years were found growing to the edge of the It would also account for the minimum destruction or
forest above the beach. total lack of destruction of vegetation on the south
78 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

137°40'

!.~;:.. ..............,_..... .
120
Trimline (upper limit of destruc·
tion of forest by water), show-
ing approximate altitude ahO\·e
mean sea level
mea~ured hy altim·
lnr.l.inedfigure.'i
eter; upn'ghtfigure.'i memmred by
phutogran~mefrir. methutl~

v
Site of Indian village in 1786
NOTE: Positions of glacier fronts (after La Perouse)
at this time are inferred L
(rom observed positions in
1786 and 1894.
Location of sectioned tree
1 I MILES
L ~~~~----~==-J
.;QNTOUR INTERVAL 1000 FEET
DATUM IS APPROXIMATE MEAN SEA LEVEL

FIGURE 19.-l\fap of Lituya Bay showing setting and effects of giant wave that occurred in 1853 or 1854.

shore in the vicinity of Mudslide Creek, in Gilbert Inlet done in the upper part of the bay. Hence a comparison
and in Crillon Inlet. The valley of Mudslide Creek, of these maps gives no information on the possible oc-
and particularly the east wall of the valley, is an area currence of a large slide at Mudslide Creek between
of active sliding at the present time, and sliding in the 1786 and 1874. The modern U.S. Coast and Geodetic
past probably played an important part fu the forma- Survey chart of Lituya Bay (no. 8505) shows a more
tion of the valley. Photographs taken in 1894 by pronounced bulge in the shoreline at Mudslide Creek
McArthur (nos. 105A and 128) show that the shape than does the La Perouse map. The difference is slight
of the Mudslide Creek valley was similar to that shown and, fu view of the small scale and que8tionable ac-
on the 1948 vertical photographs,.so any major sliding curacy of the La Perouse map, only suggests but does
must have occurred before 1894. The sketch map of not prove that a large slide occurred there sometime
Lituya Bay made in 1874 and issued in 1875 as U.S. after 1786.
Coast Survey Chart 742 is almost identical to the La No major ~arthquakes in the region adjoining Lituya
· Perouse map in the part of the bay east of Cenotaph Bay are known to have been reported between 1847
Island, indicating that little or no resurveying was (Dall, 1870, p. 342) and 1862 or 1863 (Musketov and
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY, ALASKA 7Q
Orlo"l', 1893, p. 349, 386). The paucity of records for the Glacier Bay National Monument, under normal
this period in Alaska, however, cannot be taken as proof circumstances, would result in steadily increasing use
that no earthquake occurred in conjunction with the of Lituya Bay as a harbor for small boats and land-
1853-54 wave.in Lituya Bay. ing place for amphibious aircraft and, eventually, in
permanent settlement. Before the 1958 wave the U.S.
POSSIBILITY OF FUTURE W A. VES
National Park Service was considering Lituya Bay
Giant waves have occurred in Lituya Bay at least as a site for a ranger station, for, despite the then
four tlimes, and possibly five times within 105 years, or known hazard of the entrance and the somewhat vague
on the average, once every 21 to 26 years. Hence, history of earlier waves, the bay is advantageously
based on the historical record only, the odds against located on the coastline of the Glacier Bay National
one of these waves occurring on any single day spent Monument and affords the only protected anchorage
in thH bay are comfortably large (about 9,000 to 1). for many miles in either direction along the coast
The writer believes that the odds 1nay be much less (Mitchell, L. J., written communication, Mar. 13,
than this at the present time because of a larger than 1959). The giant waves thus have increased the diffi-
average potential for slides resulting frmn (a) shak- culty of providing safe access to this part of the
ing ·and ground breakage associated with the 1958 National Monument, but at the same time they have
earthquake; (b) removal of vegetation and uncon- greatly enhanced the interest in the bay and its value
solidated deposits by the 1958 wave. Areas especially for recreational and scientific purposes.
susceptible to sliding are outlined in figure 20. The SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
rockslide on the northeast wall of Gilbert Inlet in 1958
created new unstable slopes at the head of the slide A rockslide triggered either by movement on the
scar and along its southeast margin. Planes of weak- Fairweather fault or the accompanying shaking, on
ness parallel to bedding or schistosity in the upper part July 9, 1958 plunged into Gilbert Inlet, causing water
of the 1958 rockslide area continue southeastward to surge over the opposite wall of the inlet to an alti-
toward Cascade Glacier; Tocher, in August 1958 (oral tude of about 1,740 feet and generating a gravity wave
communication) from the air noticed open fractures that moved out from the head of Lituya Bay at a speed
along some of these planes just southeast of the slide of about 100 miles per hour. Field investigation indi-
scar. In the field during the same month the writer cates that this surge and the giant water wave were
found many open fractures above and generally paral- primarily responsible for the nearly total destruction
lel to steep slopes -at altitudes ranging from 1,700 to of the forest up to a sharp trimline that has a maxi-
2,500 feet along the crests of the spurs southwest of mum altitude of about 1,720 feet opposite the rockslide
Gilbe1t and Crillon Inlets. Destruction of vegetation and extends along the shores of the bay to the mouth.
by th(} 1958 wave will result in accelerated erosion of This conclusion is supported by R. L. Wiegel's study
unconsolidated deposits by running water for some of a model of Lituya Bay and his calculations from
time to c'Ome, and therefore in further undermining existing theory and data on wave hydraulics.
of steep ·and unstable slopes. The giant waves that rose to a maximum height of
Further movement along the Fairweather fault, par- 490 feet in Lituya Bay on October 27, 1936 were gen-
ticularly of the magnitude of the 1958 movement, could erated in Crillon Inlet by some disturbance other than
cause new slides from steep slopes around the head the previously reported flood of water from an ice-
of Lituya Bay. Slides could also be started by freezing dammed lake in the basin of North Crillon Glacier.
and thawing of water in the open fractures during The waves of 1936 were not associated with an earth-
the spring or fall, by unusually heavy rainfall, or quake, and evidence is lacking that a large subaeri'al
merely by rock or soil failure without any triggering slide into Crillon Inlet caused them. Among other
mechanism. In addition to the subaerial slides there possible causes, movement of a tidal glacier front or
may be at least one other mechanism, not yet identified, submarine sliding seem the most plausible, but none
that has generated one or more giant waves in Lituya are conclusively supported by the information at hand.
Bay in the past and might do so again in the future. Further study of a hydraulic model of Lituy.a Bay will
Whatever the odds against their occurring during probably be the most fruitful method of solving the
any given short period of time, the giant waves prob- problem of the origin of the 1936 waves. However,
ably will occur in Lituya Bay in the future; this poten- the necessary clue or clues may be found in contem-
tial danger should be known to those who enter the porary photographs or observations not available in
bay. Steady increase in the permanent and transient the present investigation, or in the literature on similar
popula~tion of Alaska, as well as the development of waves elsewhere.
80 SHORTER CONTRIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

-~

0 1 MILE

CONTOUR INTERVAL 1000 FEET

DATUM .IS MEAN SEA LEVEL.
DASHED CONTOURS APPROXIMATELY LOCATED IN
1958 SLIDE SCARS

EXPLANATION

.• a a a a ... aD a aD

Open fractures seen or photo- Areas belived to be especially Delta

graphed in August 1958 susceptible to sliding
Fxouam 20.-Map of head of Lituya Bay, showing open fractures and areas believed to be especially susceptible to sliding.
 GIANT WAVES IN LITUYA BAY~ ALASKA 81
Unsubstantiated oral·accounts, and a possible trim- zones, and of plant life in the recently denuded zone
line shown on photographs taken in 1916 and later, ·above the shoreline.
suggest that a wave 200 feet high may have been gen-
erated by a disturbance in Crillon Inlet at the time of REFERENCES CITED
one of the great earthquakes in 1899. Alaska Daily Press, 1936, 250-foot wave sweeps shore of Lituya
A t:rimline having a maximum altitude of about 80 Bay; 4 men endangered: Alaska Daily Press, Juneau, v. 39,
no. 2437 (Nov. 5), p. 5.
feet on the north shore of Lituya Bay, shown clearly in Alaska Sportsman, 1958, Where hell breaks loose: Alaska
photog-raphs taken in 1894, records a giant wave that Sportsman, Juneau, v. 24, no. 10 (October), p. 6-10.
occurred after 1854 and is tentatively dated about 1874. Alaska Weekly, 1936, Wall of water sweeps Lituya; bay region
The eonfiguration of the trimline, as partly recon- hit by wave 250 feet high; much damage reported: Alaska
structed from photographs, suggests sliding in the Weekly, Seattle, Wash,; v. 39, no. 35 (Nov. 27), p. 3.
Bancroft, H. H., 1886, History of Alaska : San Francisco, Calif.,
vicinity of Mudslide Creek as the cause of this wave. 775 p.
A trimline having a maximum height of 395 feet on Boursin, Henry, 1893, Mining and other industries of Alaska, in
the north shore records the earliest known giant wave Report on population and resources of Alaska at the elev-
in Lituya Bay. Based on a tree-ring count, this wave enth census, 1890: Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, p. 229-241.
occurred in late 1853 or early 1854. Configuration of Brazee, R. J., and Jordan, J. N., 1958, Preliminary notes on
the trimline suggests sliding in the vicinity of Mud- southeastern Alaska earthquake: Earthquake Notes, v. 29,
slide Creek as the cause. No major earthquakes are no. 3, p. 36-40.
known to have occurred in southern Alaska during 1853 Brigham, A. P., 1906, A Norwegian landslip: Geog. Soc. Bull.
or 18!>4. Philadelphia, v. 4, p. 292-296.
Buddington, A. F., and Chapin, Theodore, 1929, Geology and
Th1~ fact that giant waves have occurred more fre- mineral deposits of southeastern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Sur-
quently in Lituya Bay than in other seemingly similar vey Bull. 800, 398 p~
bays may be. due to the following factors in combina- Bugge, Arne, 1937, Fjellskred fra topografisk og geologisk syn-
tion: (a) Presence of an active fault under water at spunkt: Norsk geog. tidsskr., Oslo, v. 6, no. 6, p. 342-360,
14 figs.
the head of the bay; (b) presence of recently glaciated, Carpe, Allen, 1931, The conquest of Mount Fairweather : Lon-
steep slopes on highly fractured and sheared rocks don, Alpine Jour., v. 43, p. 221-231.
along the fault zone; (c) presence of deep water imme- Daily Alaska Empire, 1958a, Earthquake kills three ; Idaho
diately below the steep slopes in and near the fault Inlet couple missing; comparable to 'Frisco quake (by
zone; (d) heavy rainfall and frequent freezing and Assoc. Press): Daily Alaska Empire, Juneau, v. 92, no.
14,008 (July 10), p. 1.
thawing. The glaciers discharging into the head of --1958b, Lituya Bay shoreline stripped clean by huge tidal
the bay along the fault zone may also contribute to wave, ice slides: Daily Alaska Empire, Juneau, v. 92, no.
generation of the waves, but little direct evidence is 14,009 (July 11), p. 1.
n.vailable now to support this. - - 1959, Survey teams to study Lituya Bay earthquake
area: Daily Alaska Empire, Juneau, v. 93, no. 14,227
The potential for generation of localized but enor- (Mar. 31), p. 1. ·
mously destructive waves by the falling or sliding of Dall, W. H., 1870, Alaska and its resources : Boston, Mass.,
solid masses into water deserves wider recognition by Lee and Shepard, 627 p.
geologists, by engineers concerned with the planning --1878, Report on Mount St. Elias, Mount Fairweather,
of dams and reservoirs, and by anyone concerned and some of the adjacent mountains (Alaska), in U.S.
Coast Survey Rept. 1875: U.S. 44th Cong., 1st Sess., H. Ex .
.with the safety or permanency of structures or Doc. 81, p. 157-188.
equipment near the water level in lakes or bays -.--1883, in U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Pacific Coast
that adjoin steep slopes. Many of tlie fiordlike in- Pilot, Alaska, pt. 1, p. 202-204.
land waterways of southeastern Alaska, for example, de Laguna, Frederica, 1953, Some problems in the relationship
have the necessary topographic and hydrographic between Tl.ingit archaeology and ethnology: Soc. Am.
Archaeology, Mem. 9 (supp. to Am. Antiquity), v. 18, no. 3,
requirements and seemingly are susceptible to the oc- pt. 2, p. 53-57.
currence of localized waves comparable in magnitude Eckel, E. B., ed., 1958, Landslides and engineering practice:
to those in Lituya Bay, although much less frequently Highway Research Board Spec. Rept. no. 29 (NA8--NCR
Pub. 544), 232 p.
than in Lituya Bay. Emmons, G. T., 1911, Native account of the meeting between
The 1958 giant wave in Lituya Bay affords geolo- · La Perouse and the Tlingit: Am. Anthropoiogist, n. ser.,
gists. and biologists an example of catastrophic de- v. 13, ],.1. 294-298.
struetion of plant and animal life, and also an Fons, W. L., and Pong, W. Y., 1957, Tree breakage character-
istics under static loading; ponderosa pine: U. S. Dept.
opportunity to study the rate and nature of reestablish- Agriculture, Div. Fire Research, Forest Service, Interim
ment of marine life in the intertidal and nearshore Tech. Rept. AFSWP-867, 51 p.
82 SHORTER CON';I'RIBUTIONS TO GENERAL GEOLOGY

Goldthwatt, R. P., 1936, Seismic soundings on South Crillon Neuman, Frank, 1938, United States earthquakes, 1936: U.S.
and Klooch Glaciers: London, Geog. Jour., v. 87, p. Coast and Geod. Survey Pub. no. 610, 45 p.
496-517. Ogawa, Takuji, 1924, Notes on the volcanic and seismic phe-
Gryc, George, Miller, D. J., and- Payne, T. G., 1951, Possible nomena in the volcanic district of Shimabara, with a report
future petroleum provinces of North America ; chapter on the earthquake of December 8th, 1922: Kyoto Imp.
on Alaska : Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v. 35, Univ., Mem. Con. Sci., ser: B., v. 1, p. 201-254.
p.lol-168. Omori, F., 1907, Note on the eruptions of the Unsen-dake in the
Gutenberg, Beno, 1939, Tsunamis and earthquakes : Seismol. 4th year of Kansei (1792) : Imp. Earthquake Inv. Com-
Soc. America Bull., v. 29, p. 517-526. · mittee Bull., Tokyo, v. 1, p. 142-144.
Heezen, B. D., 1957, 1908 Messina earthquake, tsunami, and Petroff, Ivan, 1884, Report on the population, industries, and
turbidity current [abs.]: Geol. 'Soc. America Bull., v. 68, resources of Alaska: Tenth Census of the United States,
.p. 1743. v. 8,189 p .
Henrickson, E. L., 1959, Alaskan adventure: Voice [Carleton Press, Frank, 1956, Volcanoes, ice, and destructive waves: En-
Alumni], v. 24, no. 4 (Jan.), p. 14-19. gineering and Science, v. 20, no. 2 (Nov.), p. 26-28, 30.
Holmsen, Gunnar, 1936, De siste bergskred i Tafjord og Loen, Prins, J. E., 1958a, Characteristics of waves generated by a
Norge: Svensk geog. Arsbok, Arg 12, p. 171-190, 5 figs., 1 local disturbance: Am. Geophys. Union Trans., v. 39, p.
pl., Lund. 865-874.
Holtedahl, Olaf, 1953, Norges Geologi: Norges Geol'Ogiske - - - 1958b, Water waves due to a local disturbance: Proc.
Undersokelse, no. 164, v. 2, p. 1044-1048, figs. 461-462. 6th Conf., Coastal Engineering, Council Wave Research,
International Boundary Commission, 1952, Joint report upon Eng. Found., Berkeley, Calif., p. 147-162.
. the survey and demarcation of the boundary between Can- Reid, H. F., 1908, The variations in glaciers, XII: Jour. Geology,
ada and the United States from Tongass Passage to Mount v. 16, p. 46-:-55.
·st. Elias: U.S. Dept. State, Washington, 365 p. Russell, I. 'C., 1891, An expedition to Mount St. Elias: Natl.
Ippen, A. T., and Mitchell, M. M., 1957, The damping ofthe soli- · G~og. Mag., v. 3, p. 53-204.
tary wave from boundary shear measurements : Mass. Inst. Seismological Society of America Bulletin, 1958, Seismological
Tech. Hydrog. Lab. Tech. Rept. no. 23, 50 p. notes: Seismol. Soc. America Bull., v. 48, p. 403-407.
J~rstad, F. A., 1956, Fjellskredet ved Tjelle; et 200-ars minne: Sharp, R. P., 1954, Glacier flow : a review: Geol. Soc. America
Naturen Arg 80, no. 6, p. 323-333. Bull., v. 65, p. 821-838.
Kaldhol, H. and Kolderup, N.H., 1937, Skredet i Tafjord 7. april Sharpe, C. F. S., 1938, Landslides and related phenomena: New
1934: Bergens Museums Arbok 1936, nat. rekke, v. 2, no. 11, York, Columbia Univ. Press, 137 p.
15 p., 4 figs., map. Shelikof, G. I. [Shelekhof], 1812, Voyages: St. Petersburg;
Kennedy, G. C., and Walton, M". S., 1946, Geology and associ·ated [English translation by Ivan Petroff], Bancroft Library,
Calif. Univ.
mineral deposits of some ultrabasic rock bodies in south-
eastern Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 947-D, p. 65-84. Shepard, F. P., Macdonald, G. A., and Cox, D. D., 1950, The
tsunami of April 1, 1946 : Scripps Inst. Oceanography Bull.,
Klotz, 0. J., 1899, Notes on glaciers of southeastern Alaska and
v.5,no.6,p.391-528.
adjoining territory: Geog. Jour., v. 14, p. 523-534.
St. Amand, Pierre, 1957, Geological and geophysical synthesis
La Perouse, J. F. de G., 1798, The voyage of La Perouse round
of the tectonics of portions of British Columbia, the Yukon
the world in the years 1785, 1786, 1787, and 1788, arranged
Territory, and Alaska: Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 68,
by M. L.A. Milet-Mureau: London, printed for John Stock-
p.1343-1~70.
dale, v. 1, Al-A-4, p. 1-290. (English translation of the
Tarr, R. S., 1909, The YaklJ,tat Bay region, Alaska: Physiogra-
1st ed. in French, Paris, Imprimerie de la Republique, 1897.
phy and glacial geology: U.S. Geol. Survey Prot. Paper
The section on Alaska is reproduced also in Le voyage de
64,pt.l,p. 1-144.
LaPerouse sur les cotes de 1'Alaska et de la Californie
Tarr, R. S., and Martin, Lawrence, 1912, Earthquakes at Yaku-
(1786), avec une introduction et des notes par Gilbert
tat Bay, Alaska, in September, 1899, with a preface by G. K.
Chinard: Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins Press, p. 1-144,
Gilbert: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 69, 135 p.
1937).
Tocher, Don, and Miller, D. J., 1959, Field observations on effects
Leet, L. D., 1948, Causes of catastrophe: New York, McGraw-
of Alaska earthquake of 10 July, 1958: Science, v. 129,
Hill, 232 p.
no.3346,p.394-395.
McNown, J. S., 1952, Waves and seiche in idealized ports, in Ulrich, Howard, [as told to Haynes, Vi], 1958, Night of terror:
Gravity Waves, a symposium: Natl. Bur. Standards Circ. Alaska Sportsman, v. 24, no. 10 (October), p. 11, 42-44.
521, p, 153-164. U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, 1935, Tide tables, Pacific Coast
Mertie, J. B., Jr., 1931, Notes on the geography and geology of and Indian Ocean .for the year 1936 : ser. no. 576, p. 65.
Lituya Bay, Alaska: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull. 836-B, p. --1942, Chart 8505, Lituya Bay.
117-135. ---1952, Coast Pilot, Southeast Alaska, p. 474.
Miller, D. J., 1953, Preliminary geologic map of Tertiary rocks ---1957, Tide tables, West coast of North and South America~
in the southeastern part of the Lituya district, Alaska : 1958, p. 120, 182.
U.S. Geol. Survey open-file report. U.S. Congress, 1904, Proceedings of the Alaskan Boundary Tri-
---1954, Cataclysmic flood waves in Lituya Bay, Alaska bunal: U.S. 58th Cong., 2d Sess., Doc. No. 162, atlas, pt. 3~
(abs.) : Geol. Soc. America Bull., v. 65, p.1346; 5th Alaskan sheet no. 16.
Sci. Conf., Anchorage, Sept. 7-10, 1954; Proc., 1957, p. 56-57. U.S. Weather Bureau, 1938, Climatological data, Alaska, sum-
.~usketov, I., and Orlov, A., 1893, Catalog of earthquakes of the mary for 1936: v. 22, no. 13, p. 69-79.
Russian Empire: Contr. Russian Geog. Soc., in general - - - 1958, Climatological data, Alaska, summary for 1957:
geography. v. 26,582 p. v.43,no.l3,p.204-215.
 GIANT WAVES IN LI',I.'UYA BAY, ALASKA 83
Washburn, Bradford [H. B., Jr.], 1935, The conquest of Mount Wiegel, R. L., and Sl\:jei, R. E., 1958, Breaking wave force pre-
Cr:illon: Natl. Geog. Mag., v. 67 p. 361-400. diction: Jour. Waterways Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engineers,
- - - 1936, The Harvard-Dartmouth Alaskan expeditions: v. 84, no. WW2, paper 1573, 14 p.
London, Geog. Jour., v. 87, p. 481-495. Williams, Howel, 1941, Calderas and their origin: Calif. Univ.
Wiegel~ R. L., 1955, Laboratory studies of gravity waves gen- Pub., Bull. Dept. Geol. Sci., v. 25, p. 239-346.
ernted by movement of a submerged body: Am. Geophys. Williams, Jay [J. P.], 1938, Lituya the bewitcher: Alaska
Union Trans., v. 36, p. 759-774. Sportsman, v. 2, no. 2 (February), p. 6, 18-19, incorporated,
Wiegel, R. L., and Beebe, K. E., 1956, The design wave in shallow with little change in Williams, J. P., 1952, Alaskan Adven-
water: Jour. Waterways Div., Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, v. ture: Harrisburg, Pa., Stackpole Co., p. 133-138.
82, no. WW1, paper 910, 21 p. Wood, H. 0., 1914, On the earthquake of 1868 in Hawaii:
Wiegel, R. L., Beebe, K. E., and Moon, James, 1957, Ocean wave Seismol. Soc. America Bull., v. 4, p.169-203.
forces on circular cylindrical piles: Jour. Hydrol. Div.,
Ara. Soc. Civil Engineers, v. 83, no. HY2, paper 1199, 36 p.
 INDEX

Page PaKe
Acknowledgments----------------------------------------- 53 Glacier BaY-------------------------------------------- 53,59,73
Aerial observations------------------------ 53, 59, 64, 65·, 69, 75, 79 Glacier Bay National Monument-------------------------- 53, 57, 79
equipment for---------------------------------------- 53 GuU of Alaska----------------------------------------- 51,56,57
Aerial photographs, evidence for giant waves----------------- 53,
57,59,60,64,69,71,77,79,81 Haines, Alaska-------------------------------------------- 70
Age determinations, radiocarbon---------------------------- 55 Harbor Point--------------------------------------------- 62,63
Alaska Forest Research Center-------------------------- 53,69,77 History of area------------------------------------- 51,53,55,56
Allen, H. V., account bY----------------------------------- 67, 68 Hubbard Glacier, tidal fronL------------------------------- 73
AnchorageCove------------------------------------- 58,59,74,75 Huscroft, James, account bY-------------------------------- 67, 68
Angoon, Alaska------------------------------------------- 74,76 Ice blocks, floating, dimensions------------------------------ 59
Bouts In area of giant waves, Badger__________ :._ __________ 57, 58, 59 Ice-dammed lakes-------------------------------------- 70, 71, 79
Ed1ie------------------------------------------------
L'Astrolabe-------------------------------------------
57
56
Juneau, Alaska---------------------------~------------- 53,70,76
La Bou.ssole------------------------------------------ 5·6 Ketchikan newspaper-------------------------------------- 67
Steven R. OappB-------------------------------------- ~3 Kruzof Island--------------------------------------------- 59
S·rt1~mo1·e--------------------------------------------- 57, 58
Boulder till---------------------------------------------- 55 La Chaussee Spit--------------------------------- 54,57,59,63,77
La Perouse expedttion---------------------------------- 51,5~56
Calving of iCC-------------------------------------------- 72,73 ·map and chart------------------------------------- 56,77,78
C:ape Fairweather----------------------------------------- 75 Lituya Bay, geographY------------------------------------- 53, 61
Cape Spencer--------------------------------------------- 54,59 laboratory model-------------------------------------- 73,79
Cape St. EliaS-------------------------------------------- 70 location---------------------------------------------- 53
Cascade Glacier---------------------------- 54,60,61,69, 70,74,79 Lituya Glacier, dimensions--------------------------------- 54, 59
Cenotaph Island ______ 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 67, 68', 70, 74, 77, 78 location------------------------------------------- 55,61,71
Coal
CrlllonCreek--------------------------------------
Glacier _________________________________________ 55·, 62, 63, 70, 77
70, 72, 73 movement----------------------------------- 58,59,60,72,73
origin------------------------------------------------ 54
Crlllon Xnlet------------------------------------------- 54,55, 59,
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81 Metamorphic rocks, diorite--------------------------------- 55
Crlllon Luke---------------------------------------------- 55,71 schist------------------------------------------------ 55, 65
~ate------------------------------------------------- 55
Destruction by waves, marine invertebrates----------------- 62, 69 ~roraines------------------------------------------- 54,55,71,74
vegetntion ______________________ 57, 60, 62, 69, 75, 77, 79; pl. 5·A Mudsllde Creek ______________________ 58, 61, 63, 64, 72, 75, 77, 78, 81
works of man---------------------------- 6~6~7~7~7~77 ~luir Glacier---------------------------------------------- 73
Disenchantment BuY--------------------------------------- 67, 73
Dixon Harbor-------------------------------------------- 53,59 North Crillon Glacier __________ 54, 55, 56, 60, 61, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74,79
Dry BUY------------------------------------------------- 76 Number of waves, evidence---------------------------------- 57
Nunatak Fiord-------------------------------------------- 55,75
Eurthqu uke, epicenter------------------------------------- 55
on July 9, 1958------------------------ 53,55, 57,58, 59,64,79 Palma BaY----------------------------------------------- 55
origin----------------------------------------------- 55, 57 Petroleum investigations----------------------------------- 51
Earthquakes, between 1847 and 1862 or 1863--------------- 78, 81 Photogrammetric methods---------------------------- 60, 65, 75, 77
in Japan--------------------------------------------- 67 Placer gold----------------------------------------------- 56
in NorwaY------------------------------------------- 67 Precipitation---------------------------------------- 54, 69, 70, 81
in \Vashington---------------------------------------- 67
Reforestation, sequence------------------------------ 54, 55, 69, 75
Yul:utut Buy, 1899------------------------------------ 55, 75
Erosion, unconsollduted deposits------------------------- 57, 69, 79 Rockslides, cause------------------------------------ 67,75, 78,79
wave of 1936----------------------------------------- 70 Crillon lnleL----------------------------------------- 72, 76
Exploration of urea, American______________________________ 56 Gllbert Inlet-------------------- 60,61,63,64,65,72,75,76,79
Mudslide Creek------------------------------------ 75, 77, 8•1
French ---------------------------------------------- 55, 56 volume ---------------------------------------------- 65, 72
Ru€~Un---------------------------------------------- 56
Eyewitness accounts _______ :_ _______________ 56, 57, 58, 59, 67, 68, 76
Sallsbury Sound------------------------------------------ 59
Fairweather fault, displacement_ _______________ 55, 63, 65, 71, 75, 79 Sedimentary rocks, age------------------------------------ 51,55
graywacke------------------------------------------- 55
relo,th•e movemenL------------------------------------ 53, 55· Seiche, wave motion-------------------------------------- 63, 74
Fu~weuther Runge------------------------------------- 53,5~55 Sitka, Alaska--------------------------------------- 53,59,70,71
F~ld observations----------------------------- 55,5~64,6~7~79 Sitka National MonumenL--------------------------------- 53
Fish Lake--------------------------------------- 54, 60, 62, 67, 74 Sitka Sound---------------------------------------------- 59
Fot·est, ages---------------------------------------- 54, 55, 57, 77 Skagway, Alaska------------------------------------------ 70
Fredrlclcson, F. H., eyewitness account_ ______________________ 67, 68
Future wu ves, susceptible areas ______________________________ 79, 80 Solomon Rallroad----------------------------------------- 54
South Crlllon Glacier-------------------------------------- 71
St. Elias MountainS--------------------------------------- 53, 55
Geography of aren----------------------------------------- 53,54 Submarine contours--------------------------------------- 54
Geologie setting------------------------------------------- 55
Submarine sllding----------------------------------------- 12
Giant waves, inter,pretatlon ________________________ 53, 63, 64, 65, 67
Gilbert '[nleL_ 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79; pl. 4B Swanson, W. A., account bY-------------------------------- 58, 59
Glacial draft---------------------------------------------- 55 Temperature--~------------------------------------------ 54
Glaciation, post-Wisconsin------------------------------------ 55 Tertiary rocks-------------------------------------------- 51,~5
85
86 INDEX

Page Pag~

The Paps------------------------------------------- 54,77;pl.2 U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, aerial observations___________ 53
Tidal current, velocitY------------------------------- 5·2, 54, 57, 76 soundings bY----------------------------------------- 54
Tidal glacier front, movement-------------------------- 72, 79, 81
Tlinglt tribe, language------------------------------------ 54 Wave on July 9, 1958, cause-------------------------- 53, 59, 63, 79
legend----------------------------------------------- 76,77 effect on tide gage------------------------------------ 57,59
population ------------------------------------------- 56 erosive effect----------------------------------------- 62
Trees, generic and specific names--------------------------- 54 height-------------------------------------- 57,58,59,64,79
Alnus, SP-------------------------------------------- 54 progress--------------------------------------------- 57
Ohamaecyparis nootkatensis---------------------------- 54 sources of information--------------------------------- 57
Picea sitchensis__·------------------------------------- 54 velocitY--------------------------------------- 57, 59, 63, 79
Wave on October 27, 1936, causes _________________ 71, 72, 73, 74, 79
Populus trichocarpa----------------------------------- 54
Sali:D, SP--------------------------------------------- 54 erosive effect----------------------------------------- 70
Tsuga heterophylla------------------------------------ 54 height----------------------------------- 68,69,70,71, 73,79
velocity ____________ ..: _____________________________ 68, 70, 71
mertensiana-------------------------------------- 54
Wave in 1853 or 1854, age ________________ .:_________________ 77
Trimlines, age _____________________________ 51, 52, 55, 57, 69, 74, 75
altitude----------·----- 51, 53, 54, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 75, 77, 79, 81 cause------------------------------------------------ 77
as evidence of waves---------------------------------- 5.7 Waves in other parts of the world--------------------------- 66, 67
cause------------------------------------------------ 52 Wiegel, R. L., quoted----------------------------------- 63, 64, 65
definition --------------------------------:...----------- 60
Tsunan1ls--------------------------------------- 59,64,67,72,74 Yakutat, Alaska------------------------------------- 53,54,59,75
Turbidity currents---------------------------------------- 72 Yakutat BaY-----------------------------------~--- 55,67,73,75

Ulrich, H. G., account bY----------------------------------- 57, 58 Zones of denudation ___________________ :_ ____ 54, 60, 62, 64, 65 ; pl. 8