Reply to comment by B. S. Sukhija et al. on 'Interpreting the style of faulting and paleoseismicity associated with the 1897 Shillong, northeast India, earthquake: Implications for regional tectonism'

摘要

Sukhija et al. [2006] question the conclusions of Rajendran et al. [2004], mainly on three counts. One, the suggestion of Brahmaputra fault (BF) as the causative structure of the 1897 earthquake; two, contention that the return period of great earthquakes in the region is ～1200 years; and three, that we negated their inference on a large/great earthquake, reported to have occurred near the Shillong Plateau, between A.D. 1450 and 1650. The authors are also concerned that we have ignored "the 'precise' parameters inferred from triangulation data and 'revised' intensity data and the 'published' C-14 chronology of available liquefaction features," They further contend that our article "includes speculations based on 'indirect evidence,' limited field and laboratory measurements (chronology constraints), supported by the 'selective and misleading presentation of sparse seismological and gravity data'" (single quotes added). We contest all these arguments and further believe that their comment has not brought forth any new evidence that could serve to counter any of our conclusions.