Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205
www.elsevier.com/locate/rgg

Assessment of the tsunami hazard on the Russian coast based

on a new catalogue of tsunamis in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov
A.A. Nikonov a,*, V.K. Gusiakov b,c, L.D. Fleifel’ a
a
Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth, Russian Academy of Sciences, ul. B. Gruzinskaya 10, Moscow, 123810, Russia
b
Institute of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Geophysics, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences,
pr. Akademika Lavrent’eva 6, 630090, Russia
c
Institute of Computational Technologies, Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, pr. Akademika Lavrent’eva 6, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia
Received 23 December 2016; received in revised form 15 June 2017; accepted 4 July 2017

Abstract

We present the results of work on the compilation of a fuller and more comprehensive historical catalogue of earthquakes and tsunamis
in the basin of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, an area of primary importance for the Russian Federation. In the 20th century, there were
no significant tsunamis in the Black Sea; therefore, its coast was not considered tsunami-prone. A systematic search for new data sources, a
revision of earlier ones, and the use of new approaches to the identification of tsunamigenic events resulted in a more than doubling of the
number of known tsunamigenic events in this basin, bringing it up to 50. The total length of the new tsunami catalogue reached 3000 years,
which makes it the second longest after the Mediterranean tsunami catalogue (about 4000 years). Taking into account the seismotectonic
features of the Black Sea region, we processed data on historical tsunamis and analyzed the geographical and temporal distributions of their
sources. For all tsunamigenic events we performed a parameterization of available information about their sources and coastal manifestations,
evaluated the tsunami intensity based on the Soloviev–Imamura scale, and proposed a classification of tsunami and tsunami-like water wave
disturbances based on their genesis. Tsunami run-up heights, inland penetration, and damage were estimated with regard for the newly found
data. Among the identified historical events, there are devastating tsunamis with run-ups of 4–5 m, sometimes up to 6–8 m, which resulted
in disastrous consequences for several ancient cities (Dioscuria, Sebastopolis, Bizone, and Panticapaeum) and many coastal settlements. Expert
assessments of the most tsunami-prone areas of the coasts are given.
© 2018, V.S. Sobolev IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: natural disasters; earthquake sources; seismotectonics; tsunami; historical catalogues; tsunami hazard; tsunami zoning; inland basins; Black Sea; Sea
of Azov

Introduction records (Grigorash, 1959, 1972; Grigorash and Korneva, 1969,

Investigation of the tsunami hazard of any coast is based
on the information about tsunami presented in text descriptions
and parametric tsunami catalogues, which is then converted
into databases. Tsunamis on the Black Sea have been known
since ancient times, since the settlement of Greek colonies on
the coast in the 7th–6th centuries BC. However, due to the
scarcity of information and the impossibility of distinguishing
tsunami from other water wave disturbances, this phenomenon
has not attracted the attention of scientists for a long time.
The first publications of Grigorash on the Black Sea tsunamis
caused by the earthquakes of 1927, 1939, and 1966 were
devoted to the study of modern tsunamis based on tide gauge
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: nikonov@ifz.ru (A.A. Nikonov)
1068-7971/$ - see front matter D 201 8 , V . S. So bolev IGM, Siberian Branch of the RAS. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgg.2018.01.016
+
1972). The waves from them were weak and did not cause
significant damage comparable to the damage from the
earthquakes themselves. Ranguelov and colleagues (1983)
have done considerable work to find new records of Black
Sea tsunami, mainly on the western (Bulgarian) coast. The
first attempt to go beyond the instrumental period brought the
number of events to 9 and showed that tsunamis occurring in
the basin in the past far exceeded those of recent time in
strength and destructiveness (Dotsenko, 1994). A purposeful
search for additional sources (Nikonov, 1997) resulted in a
more than doubling of the number of historical tsunamis,
bringing it to 22. Among them were really dangerous events,
accompanied by the destruction of ancient cities. Tsunami-like
phenomena were also observed in the shallow Azov Sea.
The 2011 catalogue of tsunamis for the coast of Turkey
(Altinok et al., 2011) provides information on 134 tsu-
194 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205
namigenic events, of which only six had sources in the Black
Sea basin. In the same year of 2011, a specialized catalogue
of tsunamis in the Black and Azov Seas (Papadopoulos et al.,
2011) was published which includes brief descriptions and a
parametric list of 26 historical tsunamis occurring in the Black
Sea from the 1st century BC to 2007. The set of events and
the background information in it almost coincided with those
in (Nikonov, 1997); the discrepancies mainly concerned the
datings and estimates of the locations and types of the sources
of several ancient events. The Global HIstorical Tsunami
Database (NGDC/WDC..., 2016) contains information on 17
tsunamigenic events in the Black Sea basin during the period
from 50 BC to 2007.
Methodological aspects of cataloguing tsunamis
The main theoretical and methodological issues of studying
tsunamis occurring and spreading in the oceans and their
impact on ocean coasts with their specific features have been
developed for decades. The experience of studying tsunamis
and tsunami-like events in isolated or nearly isolated inland
basins is much more modest. Meanwhile, in addition to having
a much smaller spatial scale, inland basins have a number of
other features and differences, primarily related to the different
structural geodynamic setting in which earthquakes and other
tsunami-generating phenomena occur.
In contrast to the approach of specialists working on the
problem of tsunami and tsunami hazard assessment for the
Black Sea (Solov’eva and Kuzin, 2005; Solov’eva et al., 2004;
Yalciner et al., 2004), we worked not with epicenters, but with
sources in their scaled representation (in the form of projec-
tions on the surface and taking into account their size and
extent). Information on the tsunami sources is analyzed in
relation to the specific tectonic structure in the source and
near-source areas and the general geodynamic setting in the
region. This approach is the only possible way to estimate the
location of the sources of historical tsunamis that occurred in
the preinstrumental era, for which even rough quantitative
estimates of the source coordinates are often not available.
Within the Russian coast, the localization and delineation of
the sources of even previously known tsunami of seismogenic
origin was made anew based on a significantly more compre-
hensive and advanced version of the seismic catalogue for the
Crimean and Caucasian coasts of the basin (Nikonov, 2016c).
A new phase of the study of historical tsunamis in the Black
Sea has attempted to improve the approach applied earlier
(Nikonov, 1997) by including a larger number of primary
sources of different nature and supplementing them with a
number of accompanying natural manifestations at each site
and newly discovered historical data. The main points of the
approach were as follows: (1) use of a more diverse and broad
range of sources of primary information and their integrated
analysis; (2) supplementing data on tsunami with data on
geology, tectonics, geomorphology, endogenous and exoge-
nous processes and their consequences in water, underwater,
and air environments, in the biosphere (behavior of people),
and in the firm ground; (3) supplementing data (of different
accuracy and validity) on the coordinates of the epicenter and
the magnitude of the primary earthquake with data on the
strike, size, and kinematics of the seismogenerating fault and
the possible focal mechanism.
When cataloguing tsunamis, it is especially important to
classify events according to the type of source, i.e., to
determine its nature. To ensure consistency and compatibility
of the catalogue with international standards, the tsunami
sources were typified according to the new European tsunami
catalogue (Maramai et al., 2014), where 11 types are identified
and classified into four groups: seismogenic, landslide, vol-
canic, and meteorological. Of these, seven types are consid-
ered in the present paper, including the additional type U
(unknown) for sources of unknown nature (Table 1).
The second important task is to classify tsunamigenic
events in terms of total energy or the intensity of manifestation
on the coast. This classification is implemented in several
scales (for a review see (Gusiakov, 2009)), which, by analogy
with the scales used in seismology, can be classified into two
groups according to the magnitude and intensity scales. Until
now, there is no universally recognized tsunami magnitude
scale related to the tsunami source energy. In this work, the
energy level of Black Sea tsunamis was estimated in accord-
ance with the Soloviev–Imamura intensity scale (Soloviev,
1972) based on average wave run-up heights on the coast
nearest to the source. The main motive for using this particular
scale was the desire to bring the regional catalogue to a format
close to that used in global tsunami databases and to facilitate
the subsequent integration of new data on Black Sea tsunamis
in them. Given the scarcity of data on run-up heights for most
Black Sea tsunamis, the problem of their energy classification
was solved in a simplified formulation in which the identified
historical events were divided into groups corresponding to
integer-valued scores of the intensity scale. An analysis of the
collected data showed that events with an intensity of 4 (an
average run-up height of 8–10 m), i.e., truly disastrous
tsunamis destructively affecting the entire coast of the basin
did not occur in the Black Sea during the historical time. The
events of the catalogue were classified into four groups: 0
(weak), 1 (considerable), 2 (dangerous), and 3 (devastating).
The accuracy of the expert assessment of the intensity of
events of the preinstrumental period is approximately one
score. Nevertheless, this makes it possible to obtain statisti-
cally significant results for the basin as a whole.
The degree of validity of an event is estimated in scores
of the scale of validity V, which reflect the probability that an
event (unusual wave activity in the coastal zone or ashore) is
precisely a tsunami that occurred at a specified location at a
specified time. The validity scale has four scores: V = 4
correspond to valid events (nearly 100% probability), V = 3
to probable events (nearly 75% probability), V = 2 to possible
events (nearly 50% probability), and V = 1 to doubtful events
(nearly ≤25% probability). In addition, the score V = 0 is used
to characterize invalid messages. Inclusion of events with low
validity scores in the catalogue is dictated by the desire to
bring information about them to the widest possible range of
Table 1. Catalog of the identified tsunamigenic events in the basin of the Black and Azov Seas from 1000 BC to 2015
No. Date, time (UTC), Source M Imax I Hmax/Dmax CAU V Commentary (actual data on tsunamis, damage, and casualties; data sources)
and source area coordinates (N; E)

1 (–1000) ± 200, 41.20; 29.11 (7) ± 0.7 (9–10) ± 1 2 (≥5 m) / – in the strait EM 4 Several large waves in the strait, probably with entry into the Black Sea and with an
SW BS (≥2–3m) / – on the effect on adjacent shores (Apollonius of Rhodes, 1964; Nikonov, 2017a).
(Bosphorus) shores
2 (–530) ± 20, 46.15; 31.9 (6.5) ± 0.5 (8) ± 1 2 (3–5 m) / – (EM) 2 Tendrovskaya Spit “Achilles easily cleansed the island: he raised the sea level and
Variant: ± 0.5 ± 0.5 (6.8) ± 0.5 thus cleansed the island of this (women and horses)” (Latyshev, 1948). Damage and
(–485) ± 15, (44.4); (33.2) (9) ± 0.5 casualties were very likely to occur.
NW BS ± 0.3 ± 0.3
3 –250 ± 50, 43.4; 28.2 – – 2–3 ≥2–3 m / – E 2 The city of Bizone (northern shore of Varna Bay) “went into the water,” and the
western BS coast ≤7–8 m / – cities of Apollonia (Sozopol) and Callatis (Mangalia) suffered greatly from the
(Varna Bay) earthquake, according to Posidonius and Strabo (Guidoboni, 1989).
4 –63, 45.3; 36.5 6.8 ± 0.3 9 ± 0.5 2.5 ≥5–7 m / – EM 4 The strongest earthquake that caused the “enormous destruction of cities and fields”
Kerch Strait ± 0.2 ± 0.1 and was undoubtedly accompanied by a significant tsunami. Great damage and
casualties were inevitable (Nikonov, 2016a,b).
5 –20 ± 20, 43.00; 41.00 – – 2–3 – / – E 3 The city of Dioscuria (Sukhumi). The Abkhazian legend says that “the sea
SE BS swallowed up the city” (Shervashidze, 1967). Archeo-seismic data. Damage and
(Sukhumi) casualties were likely to occur.
6 (49), 44.7; 35.5 (6.8) ± 0.5 9 ± 0.5 – (≥2–3) m / – (EM) 2 “A few of the ships—they were returning by sea—were carried on to the Taurian
Eastern Crimea ± 0.2 ± 0.2 coast and there surrounded by the barbarians, who killed the prefect of one cohort
(Sudak region) and many of the auxiliaries” (Tacitus, 1993).
7 (103) ± 5, 44.4; 33.2 (6.8) ± 0.5 (8) ± 0.5 1 – /(3–4) km (E) 3 At the coast of Chersonesos, the sea temporarily retreated 3–4 km from the shore of
SW Crimea ± 0.3; ± 0.3 the eastern end of the bay near Inkerman (in the valley of the Chernaya River)
(Chersonesos) (Nikonov, 1997).
8 235 ± 25, NE BS 44.7; 37.2 6.8 ± 0.5 9 ± 0.5 – (≥2–3) m/ – E 2 The sea disaster can be judged from the inscription on the stone slab in honor of the
(Anapa) ± 0.3 ± 0.3 god Poseidon in the ruins of Gorgippia (Anapa) (Kruglikova, 1980).
9 (330) ± 5, 42.80; 40.80 7.0 – 2 –/– E 2 The city of Sebastopolis (Sukhumi). The words “the sea swallowed up the city”
SE BS (Shevarshidze, 1967) may refer to this event. Archeo-seismic and geological data
(Sukhumi) (Nikonov, 1997). Damage and casualties were inevitable.
10 407.IV.01, 41.11; 29.06 – (8) 2 (≥3) m /– E 2 In Constantinople, “many ships were damaged and many dead bodies were thrown
SW BS, ± 0.1 ± 0.1 back on to the land” (Guidoboni, 1989).
(Bosphorus)
A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205

11 544/545, 43.1; 28.2 7.5 9 3 (2–4) m /5–6 km EM 4 “In the 18th year of the reign of Justinian I (527–656) Sea in Thrace intruded (in-
western BS land) for 4 miles and flooded (areas) in Odessos (Varna), Dionysopolis (Balchik),
(Varna, Balchik) and Aphrazion. Many people drowned in the water. Then, at God’s command, the
sea returned to its normal state” (Chronicles..., 1890). “In Thrace, the sea left its
bounds for 3 miles, destroyed many villages and estates, drowned an enormous
number of people, and then retreated” (Khristoskov and Typkova-Zaimova, 1979).
12 557, 41.4; 28.0 7.5 10–11 2 (3–5) m / 4.5 km E 4 “The sea came to Thrace for three miles and drowned many people and settlements”
SW BS (Chronicles..., 2000). In Thrace, the sea left the coast for 4.5 km, causing great
damage to the land and a lot of casualties (Guidoboni, 1989).
13 1292.I.30 (II.04), 44.6; 35.2 6.8 ± 0.3 8–9 ± 0.5 1 (≥2–3) m /– E 2 The city of Sugdeya. “The earth quaked.” Unclear tsunami information (Kondorskaya
Eastern Crimea, ± 0.3 ± 0.3 and Shebalin, 1977). “A furious squall came up, showered the Syrian ship with foam,
Sudak and the ship appeared as if covered with a white crust” (Legends..., 1998).

(continued on next page)

195
 196
Table 1 (continued)

No. Date, time (UTC), Source M Imax I Hmax/Dmax CAU V Commentary (actual data on tsunamis, damage, and casualties; data sources)
and source area coordinates (N; E)

14 1423, (44.3); (34.3) 7.5 ± 0.3 (9) ± 0.5 2–3 ≥3–5 m / – EM 4 “Such great waves rose up from the water all over the Crimean coast that a lot of
SW Crimea ± 0.5 ± 0.5 jinn on the shore perished, and several coastal villages were completely washed
(from Foros away” (Legends..., 1998). The length of the shoreline where the tsunami was
to Ayu-Dag) recorded was 45 km.
15 1598, 40.60; 35.50 8.0 9 3 3–4 m / >1 mile EL 4 “In 1598 there was an earthquake in the Black Sea, ... the sea was driven back,
Central part of the drowning a few thousand people in towns and villages” (Ambraseys and Finkel,
northern coast of 1995, p. 58). “The sea advanced for a mile inland on the coast, drowning many
Turkey people” (Ergin et al., 1967).
16 1615.V.26, 44.7; 35.3 7.0 ± 0.3 9 ± 0.5 1 ≥2 m / – EM 4 “In 1064 (1615) ... on May 26, on Friday, there was an earthquake in the city of
SE Crimea, ± 0.2 ± 0.2 Kaffa: ... the earth quaked... the sea rose up, became agitated, and went back”
(Feodosia, Sudak) (Minor Chronicles..., 1951). Damage was quite likely to occur.
17 1650.IV.29, (44.7); (33.0) 7.0 ± 0.5 9 ± 0.5 2 ≥3 m /– in Sevastopol; EM 3 Geological traces of tsunamis in Sevastopol Bay (Nikonov, 1997). “The Sea of Azov
NW BS, ± 0.3 ± 0.3 (4–6) m / – in SA; spread inland, connected with Sivash, and then retreated from the coastal
western part (≥5–6) m / >10 km castles” (Czelebi, 1969). “The rivers reversed their courses,” “the sea spread over the
of the SA lower reaches area where the steppe was,” “many people were drowned, but many were carried
of the Dnieper, Bug, away alive ... by the sea” (Amfiteatrov, 2001).
and Dniester
18 1799.IX.15, 45.35; 37.39 n/d n/d 2 4m/– Vm 4 North of the Temryuk Village “The sea ... was so stormy that it was impossible to
SE SA swim in boats and the waves were two sazhens high.” This continued for 2 hours
(Pallas, 1883).
19 1802.X.26, 45.7; 26.6 7.6 ± 0.3 9.5 ± 0.5 1 –/– EL 4 “In Kezlov (Eupatoria) ... blue waves rose up in the sea as in a boiling cauldron,
Romania ± 0.5 ± 0.5 and all foundations of houses quaked...” (Sumarokov, 1803).
(Vrancea zone)
20 1821.XI.17, 45.7; 26.6 6.5 ± 0.5 7–8 ± 0.5 1 ≥0.5 m / – EL 4 “1821.XI.29. Odessa. The earthquake lasted 40 s, and the sea thus rose above the
Romania ± 0.5 ± 0.5 usual level” (von Hoff, 1841, p. 162).
(Vrancea zone)
21 1838.I.23, 45.7; 26.6 7.5 ± 0.2 9 ± 0.5 0 –/– EL 4 Odessa: “The earthquake of the 11th day (the old style) was felt on ships standing in
Romania ± 0.5 ± 0.5 the harbor; its effect on the sea is compared with the impact on the ship when it
(Vrancea zone) strikes an offshore shoal” (Northern..., 1838). “Many of the ships in the harbor
suffered from the great agitation of the sea” (Passek, 1963, pp. 243–244).
22 1869.XI.10, 44.7; 35.1 6.0 ± 0.3 (7–8) ± 0.5 0 1m/– EM 4 In Sudak, “the sea quickly retreated for a sazhen along the whole coast ..., and then
A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205

SE Crimea ± 0.2 ± 0.2 returned to the previous level.” “In Eupatoria, a short-term strong tidal wave up to 1
(Sudak) m in height appeared, which flooded the embankment” (Smirnov, 1931). “In the city
of Eupatoria, the wave damaged the wall of a house” (Polumb, 1933).
23 1875.VII.25, 44.4; 33.2 5.5 ± 0.5 8 ± 0.5 – (≥0.1) m / – EM 2–3 “In the sea near Sevastopol, the water was stirred up and appeared as if it was
SW Crimea ± 0.2 ± 0.2 foamed” (Polumb, 1933).
(Sevastopol)
24 1875.VIII.08, 44.8; 35.7 (5.4) ± 0.5 (8) ± 0.5 2–3 >5 m / – EM 3 Cape Ilya: “... a swell severalfold higher than the mast rolled on the ship... the
11.00 ± 1 h, ± 0.3 ± 0.3 rudder came off and the ship rushed by the will of the wind onto the cliffhanger”
SE Crimea (Feodosia) (Legends..., 1998).
25 1892.X.14, 44.58; 28.86 7.0 ± 0.5 7–8 (1) (≥2) m / – E 4 “On the Danube, huge waves rose up, as if in a storm” (Draghizenu, 1896; Nikonov
Northern BS coast and Nikonova, 1990).

(continued on next page)

Table 1 (continued)

No. Date, time (UTC), Source M Imax I Hmax/Dmax CAU V Commentary (actual data on tsunamis, damage, and casualties; data sources)
and source area coordinates (N; E)

26 1901.III.31, 43.40; 27.93 7.1 9±1 2 3m/– EM/ 4 A powerful earthquake which caused a tsunami. In Balchik, the run-up was 2.5 to
western BS coast (LC) 3.0 m (Rangelov et al., 1983, 2008). Damage and casualties were likely to occur.
(Balchik)
27 1905.X.04, 44.70; 37.40 5.1 ± 0.7 6–7 ± 1 1 ≥2–3 m / – E 3 “The waves that rose up in the sea were so strong that the steamer which stood
23:26 ± 0.2 ± 0.2 during the earthquake was thrown up.” “During the earthquake, which was at 23:26,
NE BS two or three strong waves on the sea formed.” (Kondorskaya and Shabalin, 1977;
(Anapa) Levitskii, 1907).
28 1909.IV.08, 0:30, 44.20; 38.10 – – – 4–5 m / – U 3 “1909. April, 8:30 a.m. Batumi. Seaquake in the form of three waves, each 4 to 5 m
NE BS high, near Idokopas Cape” (Byus, 1948). There is no information on the mpact on
the coast.
29 1919.XII.01 ± 45 (44.7); (35.6) (6.2) ± 0 (8) ± 0.5 0 –/– EM 2 A report on the seaquake experienced by the passengers of a steamer traveling from
days, ± 0.3 ± 0.3 Novorossiysk to Yalta on the section between Feodosia and Sudak at the end of
South coast 1919 (Vernadskii, 1994).
of the Crimea
30 1921.I.25, 42.5; 27.5 – – 1 –1.12 m / 40–50 m LM 4 In Burgas Bay, the sea level decreased by 1.12 m. The water receded 40–50 m from
western BS coast –0.75 m / – the shore. In Sofia, seismographs did not record the earthquake. On January 26,
(Varna, Burgas) there were spots in the sea. In Varna Bay, the water level was reduced by not less
than 0.75 m (Grozdev, 1970).
31 1927.VI.26, 11:20:45, 44.1; 34.0 6.0 ± 0.1 7 ± 0.5 1 (>1) m / – EM 4 Along the South coast of the Crimea, the sea slightly receded from the shore and its
South coast ± 0.5 ± 0.5 level dropped by 15–20 cm, and then it rolled as a small wave on the beach.
of the Crimea Balaklava: “the noise of huge swells in the sea at rocky cliffs” (Dvoichenko,
1928a,b).
32 1927.IX.11, 44.3; 34.3 6.8 ± 0.1 (9) ± 0.5 1 0.5–1 m /15 m EM 4 “Balaklava: the sea in the bay retreated 0.6–1.0 m, then rushed to the shore and
22:15:52 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 flooded a large space (15 m), rising by 0.5 m; two houses were destroyed”
western part (Dvoichenko, 1928a,b). Yalta: “fishing boats in places on the shore were moved”
of the South coast (Polumb, 1933). “During the first shock at night, the sea in the bay receded 7–8 feet
of the Crimea (2–2.5 m) from the coast” (Fedin, 1928). Mareogram (Grigorash, 1972).
33 1927.IX.12, 14:23:52, 44.3; 34.3 5.7 ± 1 6 (7) 1 (>1) m / – EM 3 Near Ayu-Dag at 16:15 p.m., the crew of the Gryada tug felt shocks of such
western part of the ± 0.5 ± 0.5 strength that it was difficult to remain standing in the engine room; the ship was
South coast of the carried into the open sea at that time (Nikonov, 2002).
Crimea
A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205

34 1927.IX.16, 08:21:58, 44.50; 33.60 4.9 5 – –/– EM 3 Balaklava: the water receded in the bay (Nikonov, 1997).
western part
of the South coast
of the Crimea
35 1939.XII.26, 39.77; 39.58 8.0 11 1 ≥2–3 m / – 50 m EL 4 The length of the Turkish coast where the tsunami was recorded, is 120 km. Near
23:57:23, the city of Fats, the sea retreated 50 m and then moved 20 m backward. In the
central part harbor of the city of Ordu, the sea, which was calm before, retreated 15 m and then,
of the northern coast in 10–15 min, returned to the original position (Altinok and Ersoy, 2000). At the
of Turkey city of Giresun, ~50 km east of the city of Ordu, the sea receded 50–60 m. Tide
gauges recorded a tsunami on the northern shore of the Black Sea (Grigorash and
Korneva, 1972).

(continued on next page)

197
 198

Table 1 (continued)

No. Date, time (UTC), Source M Imax I Hmax/Dmax CAU V Commentary (actual data on tsunamis, damage, and casualties; data sources)
and source area coordinates (N; E)

36 1940.XI.10, 01:39:07, 45.71; 26.56 7.3 – 0 –/– EL 1 Insufficiently confirmed information about “an unusual swell-like wave in the pre-
Romania war time which approached the shore and stirred up the townspeople” on the
(Vrancea zone) beaches of Odessa (Nikonov and Fleifel’, 2015).
37 1959 ± 5, 45.22; 36.72 n/d n/d 0 >1 m / – U 1 “There was such a wave about 50–60 years ago” (Nikonov and Fleifel’, 2015). It
NW BS may be generated by a meteotsunami or a local landslide.
(Odessa)
38 1959, IX–X, 45.42; 36.77 n/d n/d 0 ≥0.5 m / (>50) m U 3 In 1959 on the eastern shore of the Kerch Strait near the Ilyich Village, the
Kerch Strait complete calm was suddenly shattered by the approach of a wave to the shore,
which increased in size and height to the size of a breaker and impinged on the low
coast and spread over it (Nikonov, 2001).
39 1962 ± 1, 43.37; 40.07 n/d n/d – ≥1 m / – U 3 “Suddenly, water began to come ... quite quickly. In approximately 5–10 min, the
(July–August) spit was completely immersed in the water ... After a while, the water began to go
NE BS away. In 15–20 min (after the beginning of the event), the sea level recovered”
(Gantiadi Village) (Nikonov, an oral report)
40 1966.VII.12, 44.7; 37.2 5.3 ± 0.2 7–8 ± 0.5 (1) 0.21 m / – EM 4 In the Black Sea, tsunami waves were recorded by tide gauges in Gelendzhik,
18:53:11.8, ± 0.2 ± 0.2 Tuapse, Yalta, Feodosia, Kerch, and Zhdanov. The most pronounced record was
NE BS obtained in Gelendzhik, where tsunamis started with a descent of the sea level
(from Anapa to Yalta) (Grigorash, 1972; Grigorash and Korneva, 1969).
41 1968.IX.03, 41.85; 32.43 6.2 – 1 3 m /12–15 m EM 4 In the harbor of Amasra, the water first drew back 1.5 m, but later the water rose
8:19:57.0, 3 m, coming up to houses at the coast and taking boats near a coffee house. At the
western part of the port, subsidence of ~25 cm occurred. Chakraz: the sea receded 12 to 15 m from the
northern coast of coastline and never returned entirely to its original level (Altinok et al., 2011;
Turkey (Amasra) Papadopoulos et al., 2011).
42 1969, 45.42; 36.77 n/d n/d 0 ~1 m / – U 3 Under the Ilyich Village in summer when the sea was absolutely calm, people sitting
Kerch Strait on a bench and pebbles near the water were suddenly washed own at the chest
level; the water spread far over the beach and then retreated. The phenomenon
turned out to be unexpected and incomprehensible (Nikonov, 1999).
43 1970.XII.04, 43.84; 39.34 5.1 ± 0.3 7–8 ± 0.5 (1) 0.45 m / – EC/LC 4 From 5:20 to 9:10 a.m., gauges recorded tsunami waves with periods of 12–28 min.
01:59:25, ± 0.1 ± 0.1 The tsunami began with a sharp drop in the level (wave speed of about 3 km/min or
NE BS 50 m/s) (Shebalin et al., 1997).
A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205

(Loo Village)
44 1987,IX 46.49; 30.72 n/d n/d 0 <1 m / – U 2 According to the recollections of residents in 2014 (Nikonov and Flefel’, 2015).
NW BS (Odessa)
45 1990.VIII.02, 45.47; 36.11 n/d n/d (1) 0.4 m / – U 3 Sudden impingement of waves 0.4 m high on the beach between Kazantip Cape and
SW SA Zyuk Cape in absolutely calm weather (Nikonov, 1997).
46 1994 ± 2, 45.22; 36.72 n/d n/d 0 0.5 m / – Vm 3 On the shore in Taman Village in windless weather with an absolutely smooth sea
Kerch Strait surface, “the water in the sea rose up like a dazzling white wall, we saw a flash of
(Taman Village) fire and heard the rumble of an explosion.” ... the first wave rushed to the shore.
After that, two waves 0.3–0.5 m high approached the shore one by one (Nikonov,
2001).

(continued on next page)

 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205 199

E, earthquake; EM, submarine earthquake; EL, inland earthquake; LC, coastal landslide; LM, submarine landslide; Vm, mud volcano; U, unknown source. Event validity scale: V = 4 corresponds to an authentic
Note. M is the magnitude, Imax is the maximum intensity of quakes in the epicentral area of the earthquake on the MSK-64 scale, I is the tsunami intensity (from the detected maximum) on the Soloviev–Imamura
scale, Hmax is the maximum run-up height, Dmax is the maximum run-up distance, CAU is the type of tsunami source, V is the validity score). BS, Black Sea; SA, Sea of Azov. Types of tsunami sources:
researchers and orient them to an additional search for

In the columns M, Imax, I, and Hmax/Dmax, the dash indicates no data, n/d indicates the impossibility of determining this parameter (for example, the magnitude M and intensity Imax of a landslide tsunami).
Extreme set-down. Sea level fluctuations reached 1.5 m. Then, after 30–40 minutes,
archival, archaeological, and geological data and, accordingly,

Small boats were thrown ashore, and others swirled in whirlpools. Weak damage
Zheleznyi Rog Cape (Taman Peninsula), the water receded 10 m from the shore.

Two waves on the shore from Chernomorka to Ilyichevsk (Nikonov and Fleifel’,

tsunami (nearly 100% probability), V = 3 to a probable tsunami (nearly 75% probability), V = 2 to a possible tsunami (nearly 50% probability), V = 1 to a doubtful tsunami (probability less than 25%).
platforms in the sea. The oscillations lasted up to 5 h (Ranguelov et al., 2008).
to increase the degree of validity or exclude such events from

It was observed in many coastal areas of length up to 150 km and on drilling

Commentary (actual data on tsunamis, damage, and casualties; data sources)

the number of tsunamigenic ones.

After a while, the water again rose to its normal position (Nikonov, 2001).
In absolutely calm weather and in the calm sea between Panagia Cape and

Seismicity and structural-dynamic features

the sea returned to its shores (Ryazantsev and Monin, 2017).

of the Black Sea region

Over the past quarter century, there has been a fundamental

revision of the concepts of the seismicity and seismic hazard
of the Russian Black Sea coast in the long term. This is not
due to the occurrence of any strong earthquakes in the region
during this period, but exclusively to the use of new ap-
proaches and methods for obtaining and processing various
kinds of source data on strong earthquakes of the historical
(Papadopoulos et al., 2011).

(the last 2.5 thousand years for this region) and prehistoric
periods. A new catalogue of strong earthquakes (M ≥ 5.5)
numbering a few tens (instead of a few units) of parametrized
seismic events for the entire Russian Black Sea coast was
compiled in (Nikonov, 2000, 2016c). Ten (instead of one to
two) large seismogenerating zones—seismolineaments—were
2015).

identified, and the maximum earthquake intensities Imax and

magnitudes M were redetermined. For each of them, long-term
expert assessments of the frequency of devastating events were
V

4
3

made (Nikonov, 2016c).

From geological-structural and geodynamic point of view,
CAU

LM
LM

LM

EM

the Black Sea basin is a new deep deflection of the Earth’s

crust between the folded Anatolian (Pontic and Taurian)
Mountain Range and the northern edge of the Arabian Plate
in the south and the Scythian Plate and the East European
Platform in the north. The basin in plan has a nearly oval
–0.5 m / –
Hmax/Dmax

1.2 m / –

1.5 m / –

shape with a latitudinal elongation. The greatest bottom depths

2m/–

of the basin reach 2.0–2.2 km. The basin is surrounded by

vast shelf areas. The continental slope is quite pronounced and
serves as the area of discharge of benthic sediments to depth
(1)
0

–
0
I

in the form of submarine landslides and turbidity flows along

submarine canyons.
The main geodynamic factor which operates since the
Imax

n/d
n/d

n/d

beginning of the epoch of recent activation and determines the

morphology and structural framework of the region as well as
the main seismogenic features in the form of strong earth-
n/d
n/d

n/d

quakes is the general lateral compression in the NS direction,

M

–
coordinates (N; E)

whose current velocity is on average 1–3 mm/year (see

(Nikonov, 2016c) with an extensive list of references).
45.12; 36.70

46.32; 30.67
43.10; 28.60

The specific geological conditions of the basin are deter-

mined by the enormous thickness of the sedimentary cover
Source

(up to 13–18 km) in the basin itself as well as on the adjacent

coasts. Accordingly, the sources of earthquakes with M ≥ 6.0
–

are located deeper, in the consolidated basement, where elastic

(Balchik, Kavarna,

2014.VI.27, 10:37,
No. Date, time (UTC),

stresses accumulate longer and release in the form of strong

western BS coast
and source area

(Volna Village)
Table 1 (continued)

events occurs less frequently. This also predetermines the

2017.VII.19,
2007.V.07,

frequency of occurrence of strong tsunami, which are much

(Odessa)
NW BS

NW BS

more rare than, e.g., in active subduction zones. Another

2000,

etc.)

AM

important factor determining the distribution of tsunami

sources in the region is the large fault zones located on the
47

48

49

50

coasts and within the shelf. All sources of strong earthquakes

200 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205

Fig. 1. Map of the main seismogenic zones (seismic lineaments) in the Black Sea basin. 1,group of zones longitudinal with respect to the main tectonic elements:
3, Yalta; 6, South Azov; 9 and 11, Pre-Caucasian; 14, North Anatolian; 16, Pre-Anatolian; 18, Tracian; 2, group of zones transverse to the main tectonic elements:
1, West Crimean (Sevastopol); 2, Simeiz; 4, Sudak; 5, Feodosia; 7, Kerch; 8, Anapa; 10, Sochi; 12, Sukhumi; 13, Adzharian; 15, Central Anatolian; 17, Bosphorus;
19, Varna; 20, Dobrudzha; 3, Vrancea zone of deep-focus earthquakes (21). The years of events with detected tsunami are in white and their numbers are given in
parentheses (Table 1).

and seismogenic tsunami known to date were spatially and
genetically associated with them. Figure 1 shows the author’s
map of the seismogenerating zones of the Black Sea basin,
which are subdivided into longitudinal and transverse zones
relative to the main tectonic elements on each of the coasts
(according to the countries of the world). The figure also gives
an indication of the years of the occurrence of major tsunamis
following strong earthquakes in accordance with the data of
the table. The seismotectonic movements involved mainly
reverse fault-overthrusts (underthrusts) in longitudinal zones
and faults, often with a strike-slip component in transverse
zones.
The following active seismogenerating zones along the
margin of the Black Sea basin have been fairly clearly
identified.
1. The North Anatolian fault is a near EW trending fault
(convex northward) stretching 80–130 km south of the
southern coast of the Black Sea. The main kinematic charac-
teristic is right-lateral sip under NS compression.
2. A series of faults (fault zones) along the entire extension
of the NW trending Caucasian coastline with transverse zones.
The kinematics is a combination of underthrusts beneath the
Caucasus Range, the overthrust of the latter onto the Black
Sea Basin, and strike-slip faulting in transverse zones.
3. The WSW–ENE trending Crimean southern coastal zone,
mainly on the shelf and on the continental slope, with
transverse and oblique zones. The kinematics is reverse-fault
overthrusting and underthrust movement in a near NS direction
along the main zone and strike-slip faulting in the transverse
zones.
4. A series of major faults along the western (Bulgarian)
and partly Romanian coastline and across its strike with a
predominance of normal fault displacements.
It is in these zones that most of the sources of the identified
historical tsunamis of the Black Sea region are located.
New version of the tsunami catalogue for the Black
Sea region
The new version of the tsunami catalogue for the Black
and Azov Seas prepared by the first author on the basis of
numerous newly found historical, archaeological, and geologi-
cal records on Black Sea tsunami which are first introduced
for scientific use is presented in the table. For each event, the
 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205
Fig. 2. Map of the sources of tsunamigenic events in the Black and Azov Seas. The size of the circles is proportional to the magnitude of the source; the gray-tone
density reflects the tsunami intensity on the Soloviev–Imamura scale. The numbers at the circles correspond to the event number in the table; n/d means not
determined.
table gives its main parametric data (date, time, location,
magnitude, and type of tsunami source, maximum run-up
heights and distances) and estimates of the tsunami intensity
and event validity with brief (if necessary) comments on the
pattern of a particular tsunami. The authors have full descrip-
tions, quotations, comments, parametric data sets, and a
bibliography for each event, which are planned to be published
in the printed version of the new full descriptive catalogue of
Black Sea tsunami. Many events of the catalogue were the
subject of separate papers (Nikonov, 1986, 1989, 1991, 1994,
1995, 2001, 2012, 2016a,b, 2017a; Nikonov and Fleifel’, 2015;
Nikonov and Nikonova, 1990).
In this version, the catalogue includes 50 tsunamigenic
events, 45 of which originated in the Black Sea and 5 in the
Sea of Azov. Compared to previously published catalogues,
the number of detected and parameterized tsunami waves in
the basin increased by a factor of 2.5 and the period covered
increased severalfold.
The location of the sources of historical tsunamis is shown
in Fig. 2, from which it follows that a tsunami can occur in
almost all areas of the Black Sea coastline, although to varying
degrees. The largest number of events was found for the
Crimean and Anapa zones, which is certainly due to the larger
number of historical data on these areas. We have found only
fragmentary information about tsunami manifestations on the
Caucasian coast, despite its high seismic activity. The same
201
is true for the lengthy northern coast of Turkey. On the western
coast of the Black Sea, the Varna–Burgas region stands out
as an area for which there is information on three historical
and two modern tsunamis. On the northwestern coast, weak
tsunami-like phenomena have been reported only from the
beginning of the 19th century. Moreover, some of them are
related to sources far away from the Black Sea basin, namely,
deep-focus earthquakes of the Vrancea zone in Romania.
The temporal distribution of the events is extremely
inhomogeneous (Fig. 3). With an overall length of the
catalogue of 2500–3000 years, its median date dividing the
events in the catalogue into two equal parts falls on the year
of 1875. There is a significant time gap in the data—the lack
of information even about strong tsunamigenic events—from
the 6th to the 12th centuries. Data on weak tsunami appear in
the catalog only from the first quarter of the 18th century,
when a system of hydro-meteorological observations began to
be developed for the Navy of the Russian Federation (Nichik,
2009).
Another version of the temporal distribution of the cata-
logue events (in the form of a histogram of the number of
events per century) is presented in Fig. 4, which shows the
distribution of tsunamis detected in the basin per century
according to the catalogue of 1997 and the new version—
20 years later. The increase in the number of tsunamis from
the 13th to the 20th century (7 events in the 19th century and
202 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205
Fig. 3. Temporal distribution of the events of the Black Sea tsunami catalog. The
vertical axis shows the tsunami intensity on the Soloviev–Imamura scale. The
size of the circles is proportional to the earthquake magnitude (according to the
legend in Fig. 2).
22 events in the 20th century) should not be considered as an
index of activation and increased hazard because this situation
is rather typical of many other regions and is associated
exclusively with the growth in the population and the level of
economic development of the coast, as well as with the
beginning of instrumental recording of even weak tsunamis
which remained unnoticed before.
In the Black Sea basin, almost all known types of tsunami,
except for volcanic ones and meteotsunami, have been
recorded, and, additionally, the type of volcanic mud tsunami
has been detected. Tsunami waves with seismogenic sources
are dominant events (66%), and their percentage among
tsunamis with hazardous consequences is up to 90%. Particular
attention should be given to the possibility of tsunami
occurrence due to submarine landslides. Only a few cases of
such tsunamis are known to date, but this is most likely due
to the difficulty of recording them in submarine conditions.
Tsunami hazard in the Black Sea
In expert assessments of tsunami hazard in inland basins
such as the Black Sea, it is appropriate to use not only
information on historical tsunamis but also other data. The
latter include primarily the location of the sources (epicentral
zones) of large (M ≥ 6) earthquakes along the entire margin
of the basin (on land and sea) known for millennia, as well
as the major zones and belts of active faults, longitudinal and
transverse, identified in some way in the coastal area, on the
shelf, and on the continental slope, taking into account not
only their spatial distribution, but also the kinematic charac-
teristics of each lineament in the total stress field and the
geodynamic system of the entire region (Fig. 1).
Inclusion of even several newly found ancient and medieval
events (Nikonov, 1989, 1991, 2016a,b, 2017a) in the new
Black Sea tsunami catalogue is of great significance for
tsunami zoning, because this makes it possible to specify the
frequency of occurrence of strong and very strong events
(information about which has come down to us from time
immemorial) making a major contribution to the tsunami
Fig. 4. Distribution of the identified tsunami events in the Black Sea basin over
the centuries. 1, events included in the previous catalogue (Nikonov, 1997);
2, events introduced into the catalogue in this paper; 3, erroneous event ex-
cluded from the catalogue.
hazard assessment. Before the beginning of research on
paleotsunami in the region, there was no other way to identify
such ancient.
Expert assessments of tsunami frequency in this study are
based on the intensity on the Soloviev–Imamura scale, the
most important parameter, which reflects the average run-up
height (determined by measurements or derived from verbal
descriptions). However, historical descriptions are more often
used to determine the maximum run-up height. In these cases,
in assessing the tsunami intensity, we took into account the
length of the coast affected by tsunamis, which is usually well
correlated with the intensity.
Among the tsunami waves qualified as hazardous events
which were identified and included in the new version of the
catalogue, the number of events with intensity I ≥ 2 is 16, of
which three or four are defined as having the most devastating
consequences. Most of these events were recorded before the
Christian era and in the first six centuries AD. Three to four
hazardous events are established for the last six centuries (in
1423, 1650, 1875, and 1939). Hazardous tsunamis with I ≥ 2
occurred on the western shores of the Black Sea (Ten-
drovskaya Spit and Varna Bay), on the eastern shore (Sukhumi
Bay), on the northern shores (South Coast of the Crimea,
Sudak–Feodosia coast), and in the south (eastern Turkish
coast). Particularly noteworthy is the event of 1650, for which
additional data were collected (Table 1). According to three
independent sources, this event is established on three coasts
distant from each other, namely, in Sevastopol Bay near the
epicenter of a massive earthquake, h ≥ 3 m, on the Perekop
Isthmus, in Sivash Bay, and the adjacent part of the Sea of
Azov, h = 4–6 m, and on the northwestern coast of the Black
Sea, h ≥ 5–6 m, in a wide and long strip, where it became a
true disaster for the population.
The currently collected, obviously incomplete data for
2.5–3.0 thousand years provide the following expert assess-
ments for the frequency of tsunamis with I = 2–3: on average
once every 300–800 years in the Yalta, Anapa, and Sukhumi
regions; once every 1000–3000 years in the Sevastopol and
Kerch regions, in the Bosphorus Strait, near the Tendrovskaya
 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205
Spit, on the Bulgarian coast near Varna, and on the European
side of Turkey. The data collected on the Caucasian coast
south of the city of Gelendzhik are obviously insufficient,
which is undoubtedly a consequence of the low level of land
use and occupancy of the Caucasian coast of the Black Sea
from ancient times to the middle of the 19th century. The
identified, though insufficiently parameterized, data on strong
earthquakes in the adjacent part of the Black Sea area
(Nikonov, 1989), tsunami on the coast between the cities of
Sochi and Sukhumi could occur more than once in the last
thousand years. Detailed geological and geomorphological
data collected in the Imereti lowland area near Sochi allow
some features to be interpreted to correlate with repeated
strong local tsunami occurring here during the last 5 thousand
years. However, this information has not been analyzed at the
required level.
Compared to the Russian Pacific coast where hazardous
(with I ≥ 2) tsunamis occur on average once a decade
(Gusiakov, 2016), the frequency of these events in the Black
Sea is substantially lower (1 or 2 events per century). This,
however, should not be regarded as a reassuring factor, since
the tsunami risk level on the Black Sea coast is much higher.
The beginning of the 21st century was marked by tsu-
namigenic events with a very low frequency of occurrence but
with extremely grave consequences. This is primarily the
devastating December 26, 2004 tsunami in Indonesia, which
was caused by a megaearthquake with Mw = 9.1 (expected
frequency of 400–600 years based on geological data) and the
March 11, 2011, Tohoku, Japan tsunami of similar scale
(frequency of 1000–1100 years).
In the basin considered, tsunamis had catastrophic effects
on some settlements when they occurred as a result of
seismotectonic local graben faults. This is a special subtype
of dangerous tsunami in inland seas (Nikonov, 2017b), which
manifests itself in the Black Sea, e.g., in a portion of Sukhumi
Bay and near the Herakleian Peninsula in southwestern Crimea
(Nikonov, 1989, 1991).
Finally, there is danger of tsunamis generated not only
directly by earthquakes, but by earthquake-induced submarine
and coastal landslides and rock avalanches on some parts of
the Black Sea coast, e.g., on the northern shore of Varna Bay
in Bulgaria, in some portions of the Caucasian coast, and on
the South coast of the Crimea, where large block landslides
aged three thousand years have been identified (Nikonov,
1981). According to the seism geodynamic model of the
Crimean region (Nikonov, 2016), the next strong seismic
events in the north of the basin should be expected in the
Sevastopol and Kerch focal areas, i.e., in strategically impor-
tant areas.
In general, from the results of analysis of the new extended
catalogue of tsunamis, the potential tsunami hazard, in par-
ticular, in the Russian Black Sea coast, is much higher than
previously thought. Given the high population density, espe-
cially during the holiday season, the establishment of a
tsunami warning service for the coast of the Crimea and the
Krasnodar Territory is considered a necessary measure.
203
Conclusions
The new attempt to extend and improve the tsunami
catalogue for the Azov–Black Sea basin has led to a doubling
of the number of parameterized tsunamigenic event, bringing
it to up 50, and has increased the time interval of the catalogue
to almost three thousand years. The improved version of the
catalogue shows that the Black Sea basin has a long and rich
history of tsunamis, including devastating events that led to
the flooding and destruction of coastal towns and villages,
resulting in great material and human losses.
When compiling the catalogue, we found and used a large
number of new sources, including nonconventional sources of
primary information about earthquakes, tsunamis, and tsu-
nami-like phenomena in the Black Sea basin. These sources
include historical documents, literary works, folklore, reports
and notes of travelers, archaeological and geological materials,
the previous catalogues, data of instrumental observations of
seismicity and sea level. For all events included in the
catalogue, we determined (with varying degrees of accuracy)
the date of occurrence, the location of the primary sources of
the events, and the types of tsunami sources (according to the
adopted classification) (Table 1). The most common type of
sources of tsunamigenic events were strong (M = 6–7)
submarine and coastal earthquakes. Submarine landslides,
including seismogenic ones, would rank second, but it has not
been possible to collect representative data on them. Expert
assessment of the tsunami intensity on the Soloviev–Imamura
scale makes it possible to compare events in their energy
scales and provides the opportunity to include data in the
global tsunami database.
Analysis of the spatial distribution of the identified events
indicates that tsunamis can occur (with different probabilities
and intensities) on almost all coasts of the Azov–Black Sea
basin. The knowledge of the geological structure, regional
geodynamics, and history of strong earthquakes accumulated
over 2.5–3.0 thousand years suggests that the sources of the
most active seismogenic tsunami are associated with longitu-
dinal and transverse geological and tectonic fault structures on
the periphery of the basin and with basement areas at a depth
of more than 15–18 km. Tsunamis caused by landslides and
eruptions of mud volcanoes have also been identified.
A salient feature of the region is the possibility of
generation of tsunami and tsunami-like phenomena by seismic
sources far away from the Black Sea basin. Among these is
the strong (M = 8) earthquake on the North Anatolian Fault
in 1939 with the source on the adjacent land at a distance of
100 to 120 km from the coast. The strong tsunami caused by
this earthquake at the Turkish coast spread in attenuated form
to the northern shores of the basin. An unusual source of weak
water disturbances in the Black Sea basin (mainly in the gulfs
and bays of its northwestern part) are strong deep-focus
earthquakes in the Vrancea zone.
When assessing the average frequency of tsunami occur-
rence in the Black Sea, one should take into account the
considerable temporal heterogeneity of the catalogue. It covers
a total period of 2500–3000 years, but the median date that
204 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205
divides in half the number of detected events is at around
1875, when small events began to be recorded. Therefore,
whereas the average frequency of devastating and strong
tsunamis is about 1 to 2 events per century, weak tsunamis in
the Black Sea occur, on average, once every 4 to 5 years.
Data on tsunami victims in the Black Sea are limited and
vague. We can only talk about some events (e.g., the tsunamis
of 543, 557, 1443, and 1650) accompanied by casualties,
sometimes numerous. Documentary evidence of tsunami vic-
tims on its coasts in the 20th century are not available.
However, since the active development of large coastal areas
began only in the second half of the 20th century, the tsunami
hazard level has increased greatly compared with historical
time. Many regions of the Black Sea coast, including almost
the entire Russian coast, are areas of continuous residential,
recreational, and industrial development and are of defense
and/or strategic importance, which is why the tsunami-hazard
level has increased and will, of course, increase in the future.
The “threshold of sensitivity” to the tsunami effects on the
Black Sea coast is much lower than that on the Russian Pacific
coast. In the Russian Federation, even a one-meter tsunami
can be dangerous for many recreation locations, and a
three-meter tsunami can have catastrophic effects (e.g., on the
Sochi, Anapa, Kerch, and Sevastopol coasts).
We are grateful to T.V. Kalashnikova for her help on the
manuscript, tables, and graphics, and to the anonymous
reviewers for helpful suggestions for improving the manu-
script.
This work was supported by the Russian Science Founda-
tion (Project No. 14-17-00219) (the main part of the work),
the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant No. 16-05-
00450) (the assessment of the intensity of Black Sea tsunamis
and conversion of the catalogue to the database), and partly
by a grant from the Russian Foundation for Basic Research
(05-16-00727).
References
Altinok, Y., Alpar, B., Özer, N., Aykurt, H., 2011. Revision of the tsunami
catalogue affecting Turkish coasts and surrounding regions. Nat. Hazards
Earth Syst. Sci., No. 11, 273–291.
Altinok, Y., Ersoy, S., 2000. Tsunamis observed on and near the Turkish
Coast. Nat. Hazards, No. 21, 185–205.
Ambraseys, N.N., Finkel, C.F., 1995. The Seismicity of Turkey and Adjacent
Areas. A Historical Review, 1500–1800. Istanbul.
Amfiteatrov, A.V., 2001. Collection of Works, Vol. 3: Willow [in Russian].
Intelvak, Moscow, pp. 645–651.
Apollonius of Rhodes, 1964. Argonautica [Russian translation and commen-
tary by Tsereteli, G.F.]. Metsniereba, Tbilisi.
Byus, E.I., 1948. Seismic Conditions in Transcaucasia [in Russian]. Izd. AN
GRuzSSR Tbilisi, Part. 1.
Chronicles of Avraamka: Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles [in
Russian], 2000. Yazyki Russkoi Kul’tury, Moscow, Vol. XVI.
Chronicles of Theophanes of Byzantium [Russian translation], 1890. Moscow.
Czelebi, E., 1969. Ksiega Podrozy Ewliji Czelebiego (Wybor). Warszawa.
Dotsenko, S.F., 1994. Black Sea tsunamis. Fizika Atmosfery i Okeana 30 (4),
513–519.
Draghizenu, M., 1896. Les Tremblements de Terre de la Roumanie et des
Pays Environnants. Bucarest.
Dvoichenko, P.A., 1928a. Earthquakes in 1927 in the Crimea. Krymgosizdat,
Simferopol.
Dvoichenko, P.A., 1928b. Black Sea earthquakes in 1927 in the Crimea.
Priroda, No. 6, 523–542.
Ergin, K., Guclu, U., Uz, Z., 1967. Turkiye ve Civarinin Deprem Katalogu,
ITU, Maden Fak. Arz Fizigi Entstitusu, Yayin, No. 24. Istanbul.
Fedin, K., 1928. In Yalta on September 12. Writers to the Crimea, in: Literary
Almanac. Moscow, pp. 157–166.
Grigorash, Z.K., 1959. Propagation of tsunami 1927 in the Black Sea. Trudy
MGI AN SSSR 18, 113–116.
Grigorash, Z.K., 1972. Review of remote tide gauge records of some tsunamis
in the Black Sea, in: Trudy SakhKNII, SahKNII. Far East Scientific
Center, USSR Academy of Sciences, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, pp. 271–278.
Grigorash, Z.K., Korneva, L.A., 1969. Tsunami waves that accompanied the
July 12, 1966 Anapa earthquake. Okeanologiya 9 (6), 988–995.
Grigorash, Z.K, Korneva, L.A., 1972. Tide gauge data on tsunamis in the
Black Sea caused by Turkish earthquake in December 1939. Okeanolo-
giya 12 (3), 417–422.
Grozdev, D., 1970. Extreme characteristics of the Black Sea level along the
Bulgarian coastline. Bulgarsko Geofizichno Spisanie 1–3 (9), 31–36.
Guidoboni, E. (Ed.), 1989. I Terremoti Prima del Mille in Italia e Nell’area
Mediterranea. Archeologia. Sismologia. SGA/Istituto Nazionale di
Geofisica Storia—Geofisica—Ambiente, Bologna.
Gusiakov, V.K. 2009. Tsunami history—recorded, in: Robinson, A., Ber-
nard, E. (Eds.), The Sea, Vol. 15: Tsunamis. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, USA, pp. 23–53.
Gusiakov, V.K., 2016. Tsunami on the Russian Pacific coast: historical
perspective and contemporary issues. Russian Geology and Geophysics
(Geologiya i Geofizika) 57 (9), 1259–1268 (1601–1615).
Khristoskov, L., Typkova-Zaimova, V., 1979. Possible tsunamigenic earth-
quake on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Bulgarsko Geofizichno Spisanie
5, No. 4, 98–100.
Khristoskov, L., Typkova-Zaimova, V., 1979. Possible tsunamigenic earth-
quake on the Bulgarian Black Sea coast. Bulgarsko Geofizichno Spisanie
5, No. 4, 98–100.
Kondorskaya, N.V., Shabalin, N.V., 1977. New catalogue of strong earth-
quakes on the Territory of the USSR from ancient times [in Russian].
Nauka, Moscow.
Kruglikova, I.T. (Ed.), 1980. Gorgippia (Proceedings of the Anapa Archae-
ological Expedition) [in Russian]. Krasnodarskoe Knizhnoe. Izd., Krasno-
dar.
Latyshev, V.V., 1948. Ancient writers about Scythia and Caucasus. Vestnik
Drevnei Istorii, No. 2, 215–314.
Legends and Stories of the Crimea [in Russian], 1998. Renome, Simferopol.
Levitskii, G.V., 1907. Bulletin of the Permanent Central Seismic Commission
for 1905 [in Russian]. Printing of the Imperial Academy of Sciences,
St. Petersburg.
Maramai, A., Brizuela, B., Graziani, L., 2014. The Euro-Mediterranean
tsunami catalogue, in: Annals de Geophysics, 57 (4), S0435-S0461,
doi:10.4401/ag-6437.
Minor Chronicles of the 13th–18th centuries [in Armenian], 1951. Yerevan,
Vol. 1.
NGDC/WDS GHTDB (Global Historical Tsunami Database), 2000BC to
present, 2016. NOAA National Geophysical Data Center, Boulder, USA,
2016, http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazard/tsu_db.shtml.
Nichik, Yu. M., 2009. Hydrometeorological Service of the Black Sea Navy
Fleet. Appendix to the book Notes on Hydrography No. 277 [in Russian].
Izd. GUNiO MO RF, St. Petersburg.
Nikonov, A.A., 1981. Old landslides of the Crimea. Priroda, No. 10, 119.
Nikonov, A.A., 1986. Earthquakes of the 17th century in eastern Crimea. Izv.
Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Fizika Zemli, No. 6, 79–83.
Nikonov, A.A., 1989. Unknown catastrophic earthquakes on the Eastern Black
Sea coast: an experience in archaeoseismic reconstructions, in: Proc.
Symp. Europ. Seismol. Commiss. XXI General Assembly. Sofia, pp. 101–
111.
Nikonov, A.A., 1991. Disappearance of ancient Dioscuria and Sebastopolis
(Colchis, Black Sea Coast) as an engineering-geological and paleoseis-
mological problem, in: Int. Interdisciplinary Meeting “Earthquakes in
 A.A. Nikonov et al. / Russian Geology and Geophysics 59 (2018) 193–205
Archaeological Records: Palaeoseismological and Archaeological As-
pects,” pp. 30–32.
Nikonov, A.A., 1994. Strong earthquakes and seismic potential of the Western
Crimea (Sevastopol) source area. Fizika Zemli, No. 11, 20–31.
Nikonov, A.A., 1995. Unknown earthquake in the Crimea. Priroda, No. 8,
88–93.
Nikonov, A.A., 1997. Tsunami occurrence on the coasts of the Black Sea and
the Sea of Azov. Fizika Zemli, No. 1, 86–96.
Nikonov, A.A., 1999. Tsunami on the coasts of the Black and Azov seas: a
generalization of information and a hazard assessment, in: Fundamental
and Applied Problems of Monitoring and Prediction of Natural Disasters.
Nature-1999. Abstracts Int. Sci. Techn. Workshop. SINEKO, Sevastopol,
p. 27.
Nikonov, A.A., 2000. Seismic potential of the Crimean region: a comparison
of regional maps and parameters of identified events. Fizika Zemli, No. 7,
53–62.
Nikonov, A.A., 2001. Fundamental and Applied Problems of Monitoring and
Prediction of Natural Disasters. Nature-2001. Abstracts Int. Sci. Techn.
Workshop. SINEKO, Sevastopol, pp. 33–37.
Nikonov, A.A., 2002. Crimean earthquake of 1927: Unknown phenomena on
the sea. Priroda, No. 9, 13–20.
Nikonov, A.A., 2012. The Yalta devastating earthquake of the 15th century.
Priroda, No. 11, 24–34.
Nikonov, A.A., 2016a. Powerful tsunamis. Priroda, No. 5, 29–38.
Nikonov, A.A., 2016b. Powerful tsunamis ... in the Kerch Strait. Priroda,
No. 7, 30–40.
Nikonov, A.A., 2016c. The main features of geodynamics, stress state, and
propagation of strong earthquakes in the Azov–Black Sea region, in: Proc.
Fourth Tectonophys. Conf. [in Russian]. IPE RAS, Moscow, Vol. 1,
pp. 493–501.
Nikonov, A.A., 2017a. Argonauts on the way to the Pontus: ordeal by tsunami.
Priroda, No. 2, 38–45.
Nikonov, A.A., 2017b. Seismotectonic graben faults in the Mediterranean
basin as a specific phenomenon of the development of recent continental
depressions, in: Proc. XLIX Tectonic Meeting “Tectonics of Modern and
Ancient Oceans and Their Margins” [in Russian]. GEOS, Moscow,
pp. 39–42.
Nikonov, A.A., Fleifel’, L.D., 2015. Tsunami in Odessa: Natural or man-made
phenomenon? Priroda, No. 4, 36–43.
Nikonov, A.A., Nikonova, K.I., 1990. Seismic hazard of the Danube River
delta from data on historical earthquakes, in: Problems of Engineering
Seismology [in Russian]. Nauka, Moscow, Issue 31, pp. 126–134.
Pallas, P.S., 1883. A trip to the interior of the Crimea along the Kerch
Peninsula and the Island of Taman (continuation) [Russian translation].
Zapiski Imperatorskogo Odesskogo Obshhestva Istorii i Drevnostei.
Odessa, Vol. 13, pp. 35–107.
205
Papadopoulos, G., Diakogianni, G., Fokaefs, A., Ranguelov, B., 2011.
Tsunami hazard in the Black Sea and the Azov Sea: a new tsunami
catalogue. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., No. 11, 945–963.
Passek, T.P., 1963. From Distant Years. Recollections [in Russian]. Gosizdat,
Moscow, Vol. 2.
Polumb, A., 1933. A Review of Crimean Earthquakes [in Russian]. Gosizdat
Crymskoi ASSR, Simferopol.
Ranguelov, B., Spassov, E., Dotsev, N., 1983. Single model of tsunami
generation by Bulgarian Black Sea earthquake centers and prediction of
their possible effects. Bulgarsko Geofizichno Spisanie IX (4), 91–99.
Ranguelov, B., Tinti, S., Pagnoni, G., Tonini, R., Zaniboni, F., Armigliato,
A., 2008. The nonseismic tsunami observed in the Bulgarian Black Sea
on 7 May 2007: Was it due to a submarine landslide? Geophys. Res. Lett.
35, L18613, doi:10.1029/2008GL034905.
Ryazantsev, G.B., Monin, V.L., 2017. Minitsunami in the Sea of Azov, in:
System “Planet Earth” [in Russian]. Mosk. Gos. Univ., Moscow, pp. 86–
89.
Pallas, P.S., 1883. A trip to the interior of the Crimea along the Kerch
Peninsula and the Island of Taman (continuation) [Russian translation].
Zapiski Imperatorskogo Odesskogo Obshchestva Istorii i Drevnostei.
Odessa, Vol. 13, pp. 35–107.
Shebalin, N.V., Dobrychenko, A.V., Zaraiskii, M.P., Vandysheva, N.V., 1997.
Sochi swarm of 1969–1971 earthquakes, in: Strong Earthquakes [in
Russian]. Izd. Akademii Gornykh Nauk, Moscow, pp. 129–140.
Shervashidze, L.A., 1967. Tale of a City Taken by Waves [in Russian].
Alashara, Sukhumi.
Smirnov, M.V., 1931. Catalogue of Earthquakes in the Crimea [in Russian].
Izdanie Obshchestva po Izucheniyu Kryma, Simferopol.
Soloviev, S.L., 1972. Frequency of earthquakes and tsunamis in the Pacific
Ocean, in: Trudy SakhKNII [in Russian]. SakhKNII, Far East Scientific
Center, USSR Academy of Sciences, Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, No. 29, pp. 7–
47.
Solov’eva, O.N., Kuzin, I.P., 2005. Seismicity and tsunami of the northeastern
part of the Black Sea. Okeanologiya 45 (6), 826–840.
Solov’eva, O.N., Dotsenko, S.F., Kuzin, I.P., Levin, B.V., 2004. Tsunamis in
the Black Sea: historical events, seismic sources, and propagation patterns.
Okeanologiya 44 (5), 679–685.
Sumarokov, A.P., 1803. The Leisure of a Crimean Judge or the Second Trip
to Tauris. Pt. 1 [in Russian]. Imperial Printing House, St. Petersburg.
Tacitus, C., 1993. Works in Two Volumes, Vol. I: Annals: Minor Works
[Russian translation]. Ladomir, Moscow.
Vernadskii, G.V., 1994. The Crimea [in Russian]. Krymskii Arkhiv, No. 1,
28–46.
von Hoff, K.E.A., 1841. Chronik der Erdbeben und Vulkan-Ausbrüche. Gotha,
Justus Pethers 2.
Yalciner, A., Pelinovsky, E., Talipova, T., Kurkin, A., Kozelkov, A.,
Zaitsev, A., 2004. Tsunamis in the Black Sea: Comparison of the
historical, instrumental, and numerical data. J. Geophys. Res. 109, C12023.
Editorial responsibility: I.S. Novikov