Article | Published:

Primary surface ruptures of the great Himalayan earthquakes in 1934 and 1255

Nature Geoscience volume 6, pages 7176 (2013) | Download Citation

  • An Erratum to this article was published on 31 January 2013

This article has been updated

Abstract

It is unclear where plate boundary thrusts generate giant rather than great earthquakes. Along the Himalayas, the source sizes and recurrence times of large seismic events are particularly uncertain, since no surface signatures were found for those that shook the range in the twentieth century. Here we challenge the consensus that these events remained blind and did not rupture the surface. We use geomorphological mapping of fluvial deposits, palaeo-seismological logging of river-cut cliffs and trench walls, and modelling of calibrated 14C ages, to show that the Mw 8.2 Bihar–Nepal earthquake on 15 January 1934 did break the surface: traces of the rupture are clear along at least 150 km of the Main Frontal Thrust fault in Nepal, between 85° 50′ and 87° 20′ E. Furthermore, we date collapse wedges in the Sir Valley and find that the 7 June AD 1255 earthquake, an event that devastated Kathmandu and mortally wounded the Nepalese King Abhaya Malla, also ruptured the surface along this stretch of the mega-thrust. Thus, in the past 1,000 years, two great earthquakes, 679 years apart, rather than one giant eleventh-century AD event, contributed to the frontal uplift of young river terraces in eastern Nepal. The rare surface expression of these earthquakes implies that surface ruptures of other reputedly blind great Himalayan events might exist.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Change history

  • 15 January 2013

    In the version of this Article originally published, in the last paragraph under the heading 'Rupture length and return time of M>8 events in Nepal' the third sentence should have read: "Damage caused by focused SmS seismic phase arrivals21 and widespread liquefaction diverted attention to the Ganges Plain". This has been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. The 2005 Mw 7.6 Kashmir earthquake: Sub-pixel correlation of ASTER images and seismic waveforms analysis. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 249, 514–528 (2006).

  2. 2.

    et al. Paleoseismic evidence for coseismic growth-fold in the 1999 Chichi earthquake and earlier earthquakes, central Taiwan. J. Asian Earth Sci. 31, 204–213 (2007).

  3. 3.

    et al. Surficial slip and rupture geometry on the Beichuan fault near Hongkou during the Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 100, 2615–2650 (2010).

  4. 4.

    et al. Coseismic reverse- and oblique-slip surface faulting generated by the 2008 Mw 7.9 Wenchuan earthquake, China. Geology 37, 515–518 (2009).

  5. 5.

    et al. The Himalayan frontal fault system. Ann. Tectonicae 6, 85–98 (1992).

  6. 6.

    in Tectonics of the Western Himalayas (eds L. L., Malinconico & Lillie, R.) 243–264 (Geol. Soc. of America, spec. Paper, 1989).

  7. 7.

    et al. Evidence for a great medieval earthquake (AD1100) in the Central Himalayas of Nepal. Science 307, 1302–1305 (2005).

  8. 8.

    et al. Paleoseismological evidence of surface faulting along the northeastern Himalayan front, India: Timing, size, and spatial extent of great earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 115, B12422 (2010).

  9. 9.

    et al. Paleoseismic evidence of great surface rupture earthquakes along the Indian Himalaya. J. Geophys. Res. 111, B03304 (2006).

  10. 10.

    , & Earthquakes—Himalayan seismic hazard. Science 293, 1442–1444 (2001).

  11. 11.

    et al. Convergence rate across the Nepal Himalaya and interseismic coupling on the Main Himalayan Thrust: Implications for seismic hazard. J. Geophys. Res. 117, B04403 (2012).

  12. 12.

    & Great himalayan earthquakes and the Tibetan plateau. Nature 444, 165–170 (2006).

  13. 13.

    Himalayan tectonic model and the great earthquakes: An appraisal. Nature Hazards Risk 1, 51–67 (2010).

  14. 14.

    & in Earthquake Prediction: An International Review (eds D. W., Simpson & P. G., Richards) 259–277 (Maurice Ewing Series Vol. 4, Am. Geophys. Un., 1981).

  15. 15.

    Les Siwaliks du Népal oriental. Presses du CNRS (Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1992).

  16. 16.

    Surface Rupture of the 1934 Bihar–Nepal Earthquake: Implications for Seismic Hazard in Nepal Himalaya (IPGP, 2011) unpublished PhD thesis.

  17. 17.

    Prehistoric Cultures in Nepal. Harrassoeitz Verlag Wiesbaden 1, 239–246 (2007).

  18. 18.

    A step toward a historical seismicity of Nepal. Adarsa 2, 29–60 (2002).

  19. 19.

    & The distribution of intensity of the Bihar–Nepal earthquake of 15 January 1934 and bounds on the extent of the rupture zone. J. Nepal Geol. Soc. 5, 22–44 (1988).

  20. 20.

    & Magnitude calibration of north Indian earthquakes. Geophys. J. Int. 159, 165–206 (2004).

  21. 21.

    & Site response of the Ganges basin inferred from re-evaluated macroseismic observations from the 1897 Shillong, 1905 Kangra, and 1934 Nepal earthquakes. J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, 773–782 (2008).

  22. 22.

    & Seismic moments of major earthquakes and the average rate of slip in Central Asia. J. Geophys. Res. 82, 2945–2969 (1977).

  23. 23.

    et al. Current shortening across the Himalayas of Nepal. Geophys. J. Int. 157, 1–14 (2004).

  24. 24.

    et al. Plate motion of India and Interseismic Strain in the Nepal Himalaya from GPS and DORIS measurements. J. Geod. 80, 567–589 (2006).

  25. 25.

    & Active folding of fluvial terraces across the Siwaliks Hills, Himalayas of Central Nepal. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 5735–5770 (2000).

  26. 26.

    & Modeling mountain building and the seismic cycle in the Himalaya of Nepal. J. Geophys. Res. 105, 13389–13407 (2000).

  27. 27.

    et al. IntCal09 and Marine09 radio’carbon age calibration curves, 0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51, 1111–1150 (2009).

  28. 28.

    Deposition models for chronological records. Quat. Sci. Rev. 27, 42–60 (2008).

  29. 29.

    & Review of tropospheric bomb C-14 data for carbon cycle modeling and age calibration purposes. Radiocarbon 46, 1273–1298 (2004).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research was principally funded by EOS (NTU, Singapore), with contributions from CEA/DASE and Project PAKSIS (ANR Cattel) in France. We thank M. Goh (EOS) for technical assistance with the Lidar data acquisition and processing, N. Shrestha (Kathmandu) for total station topographic surveying, and G. Cook (SUERC Radiocarbon Dating Laboratory, University of Glasgow, UK) for the charcoal samples analyses. We are grateful to the young men of Cheru for refreshing and cleaning the river-cut cliff and trench walls. We also thank the Department of Mines and Geology in Kathmandu, Nepal, for constant logistical support, and F. Perrier and B. N. Upreti for excellent guidance during a first exploratory field trip. We are particularly indebted to F. Perrier for having inspired this study from the start. S. Wesnousky and T. Rockwell provided thoughtful, constructive comments that helped improve the original manuscript. This is EOS/NTU contribution number 40.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. National Seismic Center, Department of Mines and Geology, Lainchaur, Kathmandu, Nepal

    • S. N. Sapkota
    •  & D. Tiwari
  2. CEA, DAM, DIF, F-91297 Arpajon, France

    • L. Bollinger
  3. Univ. Paris Diderot, UMR 7154 CNRS, F-75005 Paris, France

    • Y. Klinger
    •  & Y. Gaudemer
  4. Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore

    • P. Tapponnier

Authors

  1. Search for S. N. Sapkota in:

  2. Search for L. Bollinger in:

  3. Search for Y. Klinger in:

  4. Search for P. Tapponnier in:

  5. Search for Y. Gaudemer in:

  6. Search for D. Tiwari in:

Contributions

The data and results presented in this paper are part of Som Sapkota’s PhD thesis (Institut de Physique du Globe, Paris, France). P.T. led the project. All authors contributed to the fieldwork and sampling. S.N.S., Y.K., L.B. and P.T. contributed equally to the logging and interpretation of the river-cut face and trench wall. S.N.S., Y.K. and P.T. drafted the original logs shown on Figs 3 and 4, and P.T., L.B. and S.N.S., the original maps of Figs 1 and 2. L.B. directed the dating effort, performed the Oxcal modelling, and drafted the final versions of the figures. P.T., L.B. and S.N.S. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Bollinger.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1669

Further reading