SEDIMENTARY

GEOLOGY

ELSFiVIER Sedimentary Geology 104 ( 1996) 243-247

Episodic event deposits versus stratigraphic sequences-

shall the twain never meet?
R.H. Dott Jr.
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. USA

Accepted 27 September 1995

Abstract

In the early half of the 20th century, questions were raised about different rates of deposition reflected in the stratigraphic
record and of small gaps or diastems. Even more discussion centered upon rhythms and cycles of deposition-at one
extreme were glacial varves and at the other were Carboniferous cyclothems. After World War II, interest in stratigraphic
cycles declined. Then the turbidity current revolution stimulated interest in event deposits, which interest has surged again
recently with a focus upon storm deposits. Meanwhile, the recent dramatic growth of sequence stratigraphy has rekindled
interest in both cyclicity and eustasy.
The two themes-events and cycles-should be better integrated, for there is considerable confusion about the
interpretation of high-frequency sequences. There is also a need to reconcile the current fad for Milankovitch-related
sedimentary cycles versus more or less random event deposits. The most familiar event deposits are turbidites in deep-water
and tempestites in shallow-water environments. More subtle are the diastems, which include non-depositional surfaces as
well as scoured surfaces. Other processes that can produce event deposits include avalanches and tsunamis. Potentially, any
type of event deposit could be mistaken for a sequence boundary. For example, submarine megabreccias could be formed
either by a seismic event unrelated to any sea level change, or by slope failure resulting from a eustatic fall associated with a
sequence boundary. To surmount the intellectual barrier to alternate interpretations requires careful attention to processes,
time resolution, and objective tests for periodicity.

1. Introduction the implications of these completeness tests and the

I .I. Episodic deposition
Episodic event deposits have received much atten-
tion during the past 15 years. For example, Ager
eloquently characterized the stratigraphic record as
“a lot of holes tied together with sediment” (1980,
p. 3.5). Sadler (1981) and Schindel (1982) presented
elegant completeness tests based upon apparent ac-
cumulation rates. Van Andel (1981) speculated about
book Cyclic and Event Stmti$cation (Einsele and
Seilacher, 1982) emphasized the importance of punc-
tuated deposition using diverse examples from the
stratigraphic record. I have also argued that much of
the sedimentary record reflects discontinuous or
episodic events, such as storms, more than continu-
ous, day-to-day processes (Dott, 1983, 1988). Aigner
and Reineck (1982) and Aigner (1985) documented
the importance of storm deposits in both modem and
ancient strata. More recently, Einsele et al. (1991)

0037-0738/96/$15.00 0 1996 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved

SSDf 0037-0738(95)00 I3 I -X
244 R.H. Dott Jr./Sedimentary
and Ager (1993) have produced second books stress-
ing the punctuated perspective of the stratigraphic
record. And Sadler (1993) has argued that apparent
average rates of unsteady processes decrease as
longer time spans are studied, which has important
implications for accommodation space and thus se-
quence stratigraphy.
The view that the stratigraphic record reflects
processes with greatly varying rates and frequencies
of recurrence is not new. Early in the century, Bar-
rell (1917) recognized a disparity between modem
depositional rates and ancient apparent accumulation
rates, which challenged a subtle implication of strict
uniformitarian thinking that most sedimentary rocks
reflect continuous, day-to-day processes. He pro-
posed, instead, that the ancient record must contain
many subtle breaks (Ager’s holes) with time values
of the order of years to decades; he coined diastem
for such intraformational breaks. Although Barrel1
was commonly cited, little further attention was given
to the issues he raised until the 195Os, when both
turbidity currents and the hundred-year flood concept
became well established. Then the question of
whether rare, large-magnitude or frequent, smaller-
magnitude processes leave a greater impact upon the
sedimentary record became a matter of lively debate.
Simpson (1952) and Gretener (1967) presented ele-
gant commentaries on the probability of rare events
in a geological context. The more recent stratigraphic
completeness analyses (e.g. Sadler, 1981; Schindel,
1982) built upon such stochastic arguments. More
recently, a symposium on ‘convulsive events’ (Clif-
ton, 1988) reinforced the concept of episodic deposi-
tion.
1.2. Periodic sequences
Meanwhile, another thread of stratigraphic think-
ing has been spun out during the past thirty years.
Large-scale discontinuous stratigraphic patterns were
being recognized during the 1950s when Sloss first
formally defined six widespread, unconformity-
bounded sequences across the North American cra-
ton @loss et al., 1949; Sloss, 1963). While these
original sequences (now sometimes termed superse-
quences) had time spans of the order of 10’ years,
later refinement emphasizes higher-frequency pack-
ages with time spans of the order of 105-IO6 years
Geology 104 (1996) 243-247
(Vail et al., 1977). Although Sloss has always at-
tributed the primary cause for sequences to tectonism
(e.g. Sloss, 1991), Vail and his associates at Exxon
Production Research Co. have always considered
eustasy to be the primary factor. Evidence from the
deep-sea record that Quatemary glacial-interglacial
events correlate well with the Milankovitch orbital
cycles gave strong impetus to a paradigm of period-
icity for many older stratigraphic patterns as well
(e.g. Fischer, 1981).
The notion of globally synchronous rhythms dates
back at least to the turn of the century and the
enormous influence of T.C. Chamberlin’s hypothesis
of diastrophic control of stratigraphy with its corol-
lary of periodic worldwide unconformities (Dott,
1992a). Between 1900 and 1950, rhythmic cycles of
all sorts were popular. Besides pulsations of the sea a
la Chamberlin, there were annual glacial lake varves,
climatic cycles, Carboniferous cyclothems, global
tectonic cycles, and evolutionary rhythms (Dott,
1992b). Periodic cycles were being discovered (or
invented) everywhere and books appeared with such
eloquent titles as Pulsation Theory (Grabau, 1940)
and Pulse of the Earth (Umbgrove, 1947). By 1950,
however, enthusiasm for periodic oscillations had
been largely damped out (e.g. Gilluly, 1949; Henbest,
1952; Moore, 1959). After nearly three decades in
eclipse, however, the concept of global rhythms has
returned to popularity again thanks to a large body of
evidence of global, sequence-bounding unconformi-
ties obtained by the petroleum industry with high-
resolution seismic profiles plus evidence from the
deep-sea record, which supports the importance of
the Milankovitch cycles for climate (Dott, 1992b).
2. Can event stratigraphy and sequence stratigra-
phy co-exist?
Presently, sequence stratigraphy controlled by pe-
riodic eustatic fluctuations seems to be the dominant
paradigm in sedimentary geology. Conversely, more
or less random episodic processes, which received so
much attention in the 1980s are being eclipsed. This
trend seems ill founded, however, and is bound to
produce serious errors of interpretation if left unchal-
lenged.
 R.H. Dott Jr./ Sedimentary Geology 104 (1996) 243-247
2.1. Event stratigraphy
Event deposits do exist and in large volumes in
many sedimentary basins. Consider, for example,
turbidites, which perhaps represent our finest exam-
ple of episodic deposition. Most of the sediment in a
succession of such deposits accumulated during only
a fraction of the total time represented by that suc-
cession. Suppose, for example, that 100 sandstone
turbidite beds averaging 20 cm thick alternate with
pelagic shale beds averaging 1 cm thick, all of which
accumulated during 100,000 years. Then 99% of the
total thickness would have been deposited by instan-
taneous currents that occurred only once per 1000
years on the average.
Tsunamis (Coleman, 1968) and major storms pro-
duce similar sedimentary records, which are difficult
to distinguish in ancient strata, but storms have
received much more attention. Consider the real
world of hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico. The
statistics of hurricane frequency suggest that any
portion of the northern coastline of the Gulf of
Mexico should be crossed by an average of one
storm per century (Tannehill, 1969). Although rare
from the average human’s perspective, phenomena
like Gulf Coast hurricanes, the 500-year flood of the
upper Mississippi River in 1993, and tsunamis, as
well, must be regarded as common in a geological
context. Nonetheless, all of these episodic processes
are very different from fairweather, day-to-day ones,
but whether such rare, energetic or the common,
mild process leaves the greater imprint upon the
sedimentary record is not always clear.
I have suggested that we should distinguish be-
tween positive and negative deviations from the norm
for any given environment. Thus storms, volcanic
eruptions, landslides, tsunamis, and asteroid impacts
are much greater than the norm in intensity both of
energy and of sediment accumulation. Conversely,
the slowing or cessation of deposition and stunting
or annihilation of organisms obviously fall below
normal intensities of energy and accumulation. Posi-
tive deviations tend to produce either erosion sur-
faces due to sediment removal (e.g. Barrell’s di-
astems) and/or abnormal volumes or coarseness of
deposits; chaotic textures, as in landslides, may also
result. Negative deviations tend to produce con-
densed sections, hardground and firmground sur-
245
faces, and possibly skeletal depauperate or death
assemblages. Besides physical events, which are the
main subject of this symposium, purely chemical
events also may produce important episodic deposits.
For example, an oxygen crisis might be reflected by
a widespread fossil death assemblage, whereas a
brief salinity crisis could be reflected by a skeletal
death assemblage associated with a basinwide evap-
orite stratum.
The preservation potential of episodic event de-
posits must be considered, for if such deposits are
commonly removed or obscured after deposition,
then their importance may seem of little more than
theoretical interest. In some very dynamic environ-
ments, such as a volcanically active region, repeti-
tion of high-energy episodic events may remove the
record of most earlier events, thus distorting our
impression of the frequency and total importance of
such events. Bioturbation also has great potential for
obscuring the record, as is evidenced by the almost
complete obliteration by animals of the famous 1961
Hurricane Carla storm sand layer in the northern
Gulf of Mexico (McGowan, oral communication,
1981). Diagenetic changes after burial also have the
potential to obscure the records of event deposition.
In summary, there is a danger of underestimating the
true importance of event deposition because of post-
depositional modification or removal of some of its
record. Very careful field examination is necessary
to minimize this danger.
2.2. Sequence stratigraphy
Valid stratigraphic sequences certainly do exist,
as well, and are especially clear at the larger scale of
supersequences and sequences. It is at the scale of
parasequences that conflicts among genetic interpre-
tation may arise. Without going into detail, consider
the following five scenarios for potential misinterpre-
tation.
(1) Scoured surface (diastem) and/or an abrupt
textural change. Episodic interpretation: a random
storm or tsunami event. Sequence interpretation:
parasequence boundary with eustatic fall.
(2) Thin intraclast conglomerate layer. Episodic
interpretation: random storm or tsunami event. Se-
quence interpretation: flooding surface with eustatic
rise.
246 R.H. Dott Jr./ Sedimentary Geology 104 (1996) 243-247
(3) Carbonate-clast megabreccia stratum. Episod-
ic interpretation: platform failure by earthquake or
storm. Sequence interpretation: lowstand deposit due
to eustatic fall.
(4) Hummocky interval within a coarsening-up-
ward succession. Episodic interpretation: storm de-
position below fairweather wave base within a pro-
grading package during a sea level stillstand. Se-
quence interpretation: storm deposition in a trans-
gressive systems tract.
(5) Thin marine shelly sandstone abruptly overly-
ing eolian sun&tone. Episodic interpretation: coastal
flooding by storm surge or tsunami. Sequence inter-
pretation: transgressive flooding by eustatic rise.
Periodicity tends to be a tacit assumption of most
sequence stratigraphy interpretations, and one or
more of the Milankovitch cycles is soon invoked as
the driving control for the inferred sequences. Peri-
odicity, however, is not an inevitable logical corol-
lary of sequences. Although there are good reasons
for expecting some periodic phenomena to be
recorded in the rock record, it is inescapable that
geologists have an excessive passion for periodic
cycles. This tendency undoubtedly follows from the
universal experience of natural rhythms, such as
diurnal, tidal and seasonal cycles. It also may reflect
millennia of influence of the Aristotelian Greek view
that all of nature is cyclic, but it mostly reflects the
human passion for order and simplicity. Moreover,
because periodicity provides both order and simplic-
ity, it also resonates nicely with time-honored uni-
formitarianism. The danger is that such subconscious
predilections may so deceive us that we invent peri-
odic order for which there really is no hard evidence.
3. Conclusions
Although episodic and periodic eustatic explana-
tions of sedimentary phenomena have both received
much attention during the past 15 years, there is a
growing tendency to interpret most stratigraphic pat-
terns in sequence terms with little consideration of
alternatives. Because periodicity and eustasy are so
susceptible to circular reasoning, this is a dangerous
trend. It should be incumbent upon all to test any
hypothesis of periodic eustatic changes as rigorously
as possible (with ever-finer dating, Markov analysis,
spectral analysis, etc.) and to consider other explana-
tions, such as random or episodic causes like storms
or tsunamis.
References
Ager, D.V., 1980. The Nature of the Stratigraphic Record. John
Wiley, New York, 122 pp.
Ager, D.V., 1993. The New Catastrophism. Cambridge, 23 1 pp.
Aigner, T., 1985. Storm Depositional Systems. Lecture Notes in
Earth Sciences 3, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 122 pp.
Aigner, T. and Reineck, H.E., 1982. Proximality trends in modem
storm sands from the Helgoland Bight (North Sea) and their
implications for basin analysis. Senckenb. Mar., 14: 183-215.
Barrell, J., 1917. Rhythms and the measurement of geologic time.
Geol. Sot. Am. Bull., 28: 745-904.
Clifton, H.E. (Editor), 1988. Sedimentologic consequences of
convulsive geologic events. Geol. Sot. Am. Spec. Pap., 229,
157 pp.
Coleman, P.J., 1968. Tsunamis as geologic agents. J. Geol. Sot.
Aust., 15: 267-273.
Dott, Jr., R.H., 1983. Episodic sedimentation-how normal is
average? How rare is rare? Does it matter? J. Sediment.
Petrol., 53: 5-23.
Dott, Jr., R.H., 1988. An episodic view of shallow marine elastic
sedimentation. In: P.L. DeBoer et al. (Editors), Tide-In-
fluenced Sedimentary Environments and Facies. Reidel, Dor-
drecht, pp. 3-12.
Dott, Jr., R.H., 1992a. An introduction to the ups and downs of
eustasy. In: R.H. Dott, Jr. (Editor), Eustasy: the Historical Ups
and Downs of a Major Geological Concept. Geol. Sot. Am.
Mem., 180: pp. I-16.
Dott, Jr., R.H., 1992b. T.C. Chamberlin’s hypothesis of dias-
trophic control of worldwide changes of sea level: a precursor
of sequence stratigraphy. In: R.H. Dott. Jr. (Editor), Eustasy:
the Historical Ups and Downs of a Major Geological Concept.
Geol. Sot. Am. Mem., 180: 31-41.
Einsele, G. and Seilacher, A. (Editors), 1982. Cyclic and Event
Stratification. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 536 pp.
Einsele, G., Ricken, W. and Seilacher, A. (Editors), 1991. Cycles
and Events in Stratigraphy. Springer-Verlag. Berlin, 955 pp.
Fischer, A.G., 1981. Climatic oscillations in the biosphere. In:
Biotic Crises in Ecological and Evolutionary Time. Academic
Press, New York, pp. 103-131.
Grabau, A.W., 1940. The Rhythm of the Ages. Henri Vetch,
Peking, 561 pp.
Gretener, P.E., 1967. Significance of the rare event in geology.
Bull. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol., 51: 2197-2206.
Henbest, L.G., 1952. Significance of evolutionary explosions for
diastrophic division of earth history-introduction to the sym-
posium on distribution of evolutionary explosions in geologic
time. J. Paleontol., 26: 299318.
Moore, D., 1959. Role of deltas in the formation of some British
Lower Carboniferous cyclothems. J. Geol., 67: 522-539.
Sadler, P.M., 1981. Sediment accumulation rates and the com-
 R.H. Dott Jr./Sedimentary
pleteness of the stratigraphic section. J. Geol., 89: 569-584.
Sadler, P.M., 1993. Time scale dependence of the rates of un-
steady geologic processes. Gulf Coast Section SEPM Founda-
tion, 14th Annual Research Conference Proceedings, pp. 22 I-
228.
Schindel, D.E., 1982. Resolution analysis: a new approach to the
gaps in the fossil record. Paleobiology, 5: 340-353.
Simpson, G.G., 1952. Probabilities of dispersal through time. Am.
Mus. Nat. Hist. Bull., 99: 163- 176.
Sloss, L.L., 1991. The tectonic factor in sea level change: a
countervailing view. J. Geophys. Res.. 96: 66096617.
Geology 104 (1996) 243-247 247
Sloss, L.L., Krumbein, W.C. and Dapples, E.C., 1949. Integrated
facies analysis. Geol. Sot. Am. Mem., 39: 91- 124.
Tannehill, I.R., 1969. Hurricanes. Greenwood Press, New York.
257 pp.
Vail, P.R., Mitchum, Jr., R.M. and Thompson, III, S., 1977.
Seismic stratigraphy and global changes of sea level, Part 4.
Global cycles of relative changes of sea level. In: C.E. Payton
(Editor), Seismic Stratigraphy-Applications to Hydrocarbon
Deposition. Am. Assoc. Pet. Geol. Mem., 26: 83-98.
Van Andel, Tj.H., 1981. Consider the incompleteness of the
geological record. Nature, 294: 397-398.