<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Pirazzoli, P.</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Evelpidou, N.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Comment on &quot;Relative sea level change in western Istria (Croatia) during the last millennium&quot; by Sanja Faivre, Eric Fouache, Matthieu Ghilardi, Fabrizio Antonioli, Stefano Furlani and Vladimir Kovacic.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Quaternary International</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2012</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">271</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">130-131</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;div&gt;The paper Faivre et al. (2011) presents an interpretation of&amp;nbsp;results deduced from two coastal cores that are trying to date the&amp;nbsp;period of formation of a slightly submerged tidal notch often&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;reported from the coasts of Istria.&amp;nbsp;The development of a tidal notch in carbonate coasts is usually&amp;nbsp;made possible by intertidal bioerosion processes during periods of&amp;nbsp;relative sea-level stability (Pirazzoli, 1986). The inward depth of the&amp;nbsp;tidal notch profile, that in Istria is often of about half a meter, may&amp;nbsp;be used for a rough estimation of the duration of the period of&amp;nbsp;relative sea-level stability, with assumptions on the bioerosion&amp;nbsp;rates, that in the Mediterranean have been reported to vary&amp;nbsp;generally between about 0.2 and 1.0 mm/y (Evelpidou et al., 2012).&amp;nbsp;The profile of the Istrian tidal notch shows a well preserved roof,&amp;nbsp;evidence that the notch was submerged by a rapid subsidence,&amp;nbsp;probably coseismic (Evelpidou et al., 2011a, 2011b).&amp;nbsp;Several publications, some of them co-signed by the same&amp;nbsp;authors for the area between Porec and Zadar (Fouache et al., 2000;&amp;nbsp;Faivre and Fouache, 2003), have reported, from correlation with&amp;nbsp;archaeological remains, that the submerged notch corresponds,&amp;nbsp;more or less, to the sea level in Roman times. Other data by Faivre&amp;nbsp;et al. (2010), mention a tidal notch submerged by 0.5e0.7 m and&amp;nbsp;a sea level rise from the first century AD that cannot have highly&amp;nbsp;exceeded 1.0 m. Finally according to Fouache et al. (2011), the sea&amp;nbsp;level rise indicated by archeological remains can be estimated at&amp;nbsp;1.0+-0.48 m since Roman times.&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Faivre et al. (2011) provide a new interpretation from the two&amp;nbsp;cores, which is in complete contradiction with previous results,&amp;nbsp;suggesting that the notch formed much later, between 1000 and&amp;nbsp;1500 AD. These two dates correspond to radiocarbon ages of two&amp;nbsp;shells collected by the cores. However, apart from the depth of&amp;nbsp;sampling, that nearly coincides to the base of the notch, not before&amp;nbsp;but after its submergence, there is no clear evidence that the dated&amp;nbsp;shells are really related to the sea level at which the notch developed&amp;nbsp;before its submergence. Also, the assertion that the sample&amp;nbsp;from one core would have been deposited at the beginning of the&amp;nbsp;notch formation, while the sample at the same depth from the&amp;nbsp;other core would just have preceded the coseismic subsidence,&amp;nbsp;seems unconvincing. In fact, after the rapid subsidence of the area,&amp;nbsp;the relative sea level became several decimeters higher in the areas&amp;nbsp;of the Mirna River valley and of the Santa Marina Cove, permitting&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;div&gt;an acceleration in marine sediment deposition at the levels where&amp;nbsp;they have been recently cored.&amp;nbsp;In addition, the period between 1000 and 1500 AD seems too&amp;nbsp;short for the development of the tidal notch considered, more&amp;nbsp;specifically that this period seems very unfavorable to tidal notch&amp;nbsp;development because the global sea-level rise that occurred until at&amp;nbsp;least 1350 AD, at a rate of 0.6 mm/y (Kemp et al., 2011), has probably&amp;nbsp;limited the possibilities of local bioerosion.&amp;nbsp;Seismic evidence in the period around 1500 AD is also missing. If&amp;nbsp;the rapid subsidence had a coseismic origin, the event is likely to&amp;nbsp;have produced a tsunami in the northern Adriatic. It is hardly&amp;nbsp;believable that a tsunami occurring about 1500 AD could escape&amp;nbsp;notice in Venice and in the other lagoons and harbors of the&amp;nbsp;western coast of the Adriatic. In short, a late Roman date, e.g. 361&amp;nbsp;AD, as suggested by Benac et al. (2004), seems more likely than&amp;nbsp;a date around 1500 AD.&amp;nbsp;As to the relative sea level stability necessary for the notch&amp;nbsp;formation, it could have occurred in a period of balance for relative&amp;nbsp;sea level changes between the eustatic, isostatic and tectonic factors&amp;nbsp;(Pirazzoli, 2005), i.e. before and during Roman times, possibly in&amp;nbsp;accordance with relative sea-level variations of the type of those&amp;nbsp;predicted with the modelm-2byAntonioli et al. (2007, Fig. 9C or 9D).&lt;/div&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>