Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161 – 182

www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo

Large rock slope failures in the Highlands of Scotland:

Characterisation, causes and spatial distribution
David Jarman
Mountain Landform Research, Findon Cottage, Ross-shire, IV7 8JJ, Scotland
Accepted 24 June 2005
Available online 23 November 2005

Abstract

A comprehensive database of larger Rock Slope Failures (RSFs) has been compiled and characterised for a whole mountain
range, possibly for the first time apart from Iceland. Most RSFs in the Scottish Highlands occurred soon after deglaciation. A
threshold size of 0.25 km2 focuses on RSFs which contribute significantly to gross erosion in the glacial–paraglacial cycle, and
on the spatial concentration of this poorly recognised process. Database verification indicates that at least 90% of the total extant
population in the Highlands is covered. Standard mass movement typologies are broadly applicable, but require some refinement
to characterise RSFs in a passive-margin glaciated mountain range comprised mainly of ancient metasediments. Most larger RSFs
here are complex and difficult to categorise. A continuum from dcataclasmicT failures (including rock avalanches) through
arrested translational slides to almost in situ slope deformations is identified. The prevailing modes of large RSF are arrested
(short-travel) translational sliding and gravitational sagging. Cataclasmic failure is rare, and sub-cataclasmic outcomes are more
evident. A significant class of deformations exhibits compressional rather than extensional features, and may be responding to
localised glacio-isostatic rebound stresses. The large RSF population is widely but very unevenly distributed across the main
mountain areas: 65% are in seven main clusters, with the rest non-randomly scattered. Previous glaciological, lithological, and
seismotectonic explanations are insufficient to explain this spatial pattern, and overlook the basic engineering geology
prerequisites for failure. Massifs of similar relief and lithology can display intense or sparse RSF incidence. Geomorphological
appraisal suggests an association with recently active glacial breaches of main and secondary watersheds, with RSF being scarce
or absent in valleys inherited from Tertiary uplift, and in mountain groups away from the main watersheds. Valleys which adapted
early to ice discharge are seen as dstress-hardenedT, with their slopes unlikely to reach critical thresholds for failure after
subsequent reoccupations by ice. Concentrated erosion in the last glaciations is most likely to be found close to where breaches
are actively forming or enlarging. Such erosion in the slope foot and valley floor may have daylighted failure planes or generated
rebound stresses augmenting those from other endemic sources sufficiently to provoke widespread paraglacial RSF. Slope stress
models for deglaciated valleys and comparative studies in other glaciated mountain ranges are required to test this concept, and
may assist in geohazard assessments.
D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Rock slope failures; Slope deformations; Scottish Highlands; Landslide typologies; RSF clusters; Glacial breaches; Preglacial
watersheds

1. Introduction

The call for papers for this volume observes that

E-mail address: david.jarman914@virgin.net. dSome major aspects of large slope instabilities are still
0013-7952/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enggeo.2005.06.030
162 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182

insufficiently studied and debated, including their re-
gional distribution and relevance and their style of past
activityT. Indeed, there is a surprising dearth of system-
atic studies of the spatial incidence and character of
rock slope failure (RSF) over whole mountain ranges.
For example, there is no integrated overview of RSF for
any range in the British Isles or Scandes (Jarman,
2002). In the European Alps, both the pioneering
works of Heim (1932) and Abele (1974) and fully
comprehensive regional inventories such as that for
Lombardy (Frattini et al., 2003) stop short of interpret-
ing the spatial distribution. A rare exception is available

Fig. 1. Spatial distribution and character of large RSFs in the mainland Scottish Highlands. Nearly all are within the main mountain areas
with steep relief from glacial dissection (shown generalised). For RSF size, see Fig. 8. RSF is less common in granite, Torridonian sandstone,
and Lewisian gneiss mountain areas. It is also sparse in some mountain areas of metasedimentary lithology. Numbers indicate sites named
in text.
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 163

for Iceland (Whalley et al., 1983), but this is not a (Hall, 1991). They are a fragment of the Caledonides
typical orogenic belt. which extend into Scandinavia, Greenland and NE
In response to the call for a multi-disciplinary ap- America, and which were all extensively glaciated in
proach, this paper offers a geomorphological perspec- the Quaternary (Gordon and Sutherland, 1993; Gillen,
tive. RSF has been largely overlooked as a major 2003; Trewin, 2002).
landshaping factor in the mountain ranges of Britain A database of RSFs N 0.02 km2 in the Scottish High-
because it falls between the interests of engineering lands was generated from 1:16,000 air photos by
geology and geomorphology. Holmes (1984), and with additional records from Brit-
The benefits to be sought from whole-range RSF ish Geological Survey and other sources, the spatial
mapping and interpretation include: distribution of 500 sites has been published in dot-map
form (Ballantyne, 1986). Field investigations have
! identifying the overall incidence of different types of identified many additional sites, some very large; a
RSF; few entries have proved erroneous, including several
! validating standard RSF typologies and refining large ones (Jarman, 2003a,c).
them to differentiate regional varieties; However, this volume focuses on dlarge slope
! relating RSF incidence and type to geological struc- instabilitiesT for which a minimum size of 1 km2
tures and lithologies, to available relief, and to geo- has been suggested (Dramis et al., 1995). There are
morphological zones; only 17 such sites in the Scottish mountains, exclud-
! identifying underlying causes and triggering factors ing the extensive plateau rim collapses where Devo-
which may have varied spatially and temporally; nian and Tertiary lavas overlie incompetent strata. A
! assessing the gross contribution of extant and earlier lower size limit of 0.25 km2 is adopted here, which
RSF to erosion and landscape development; includes almost all of the more problematic, often
! analysing RSF patterns as a possible proxy for shifts poorly demarcated dslope instabilitiesT or deforma-
of zones of tectonic strain or of icecap centres (and tions. The database currently comprises a population
hence climatic changes); of 140 significant sites. Of these, 102 have been
! comparing results between glaciated (and non-glaci- verified in the field, and only 8 rely on a single
ated) mountain ranges, particularly as a guide to uncorroborated source. The large-RSF database is
geohazard risk appraisal. therefore considered to be substantially accurate, and
to cover at least 90% of the total extant population in
Definition: rock slope failure (RSF) is an umbrella the mountain areas of the mainland Scottish High-
term applied to a significant bedrock mass potentially lands (Table 1; Fig. 1). Technical data is available for
exposed to downslope gravitational movement which 26 sites (Appendix A).
has lost its structural integrity as a result of slope
stresses exceeding its rock mass strength (including
its pre-existing discontinuities), regardless of degree Table 1
Characteristic types of large RSFs in the Scottish Highlands
of dislocation or distance travelled. A pragmatic
lower-end cut-off size is 0.01 km2. RSF size 0.25–0.49 km2 64
0.5–0.99 km2 59
1.0–1.99 km2 14
2. The Scottish Highlands large RSF database 2.0–3.0 km2 3
all larger RSFs 0.25–3.0 km2 140
The mainland Scottish Highlands provide a rela-
tively compact (300  150 km) but geomorphologically RSF predominant mode
rockslides (all degrees of arrestment/disintegration) 51
diverse laboratory for comparative RSF research. They of which cataclasmic 2
are entirely comprised of dold hard rocksT, predomi- sub-cataclasmic 14
nantly Precambrian–Cambrian metasediments, with arrested short-medium travel 35
Devonian granites emplaced during the Caledonian slope deformations 89
of which extensional (sag and creep) 66
orogeny of 400 Ma BP which created all these moun-
compressional (rebound) incl. Cluanie hybrids 23
tains, except for those in ancient Lewisian gneiss and
Torridonian sandstone in the far NW beyond the Moine Association with glacial breaches (including tributary troughs)
Thrust (Fig. 1). They are an enduring tectonic dhighT, main watersheds 52
last uplifted in the early Tertiary to initiate down-wear- secondary watersheds 53
ing to their present summit elevations of 700–1300 m no close association 35
164 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182
3. RSF characterisation in the Scottish Highlands
3.1. RSF typologies
Holmes (1984) identified three broad types of RSF
in the Scottish Highlands:
! translational modes (plane and wedge sliding),
! toppling and complex modes (the toppling/sliding
mode of Watters, 1972),
! large-scale slope deformation (with antiscarp
development).
However neither he nor others have attempted to
classify more than a small random sample of sites
until Jarman (2003a,c) characterised two major con-
centrations. The toppling mode does not apply to
larger failures, at least in the sense of a toe-slide
triggering domino-toppling as was implausibly sug-
gested by de Freitas and Watters (1973) in respect
of Glen Pean [13], and by Holmes and Jarvis
(1985) at Beinn Fhada [4] (Jarman and Ballantyne,
2002) (note—sites in square brackets are located on
Fig. 1).
In the classification of Hutchinson (1988), the cate-
gories which apply to the population of larger Scottish
Highland RSFs are
! rock debris flows (sturzstroms),
! translational slides (planar slides, block slides,
wedge failures),
! sagging (sackung),
! creep (deep-seated, mass creep, pre-failure creep,
progressive creep),
! rebound (movements associated with naturally erod-
ed valleys).
Unfortunately, trying to assign the 140 RSFs to
these categories is frustrating, even with adaptations
for Scottish conditions. Each rechecking leads to
numerous reassignments and revisions of criteria,
and any attempt to be definitive is ultimately futile.
Some sites have several distinct components, but
many blend the characteristics of several catego-
ries—as in the compound and complex types of
Dikau et al. (1996). In many ways, the simple divi-
sion of Evans and Clague (1994) is refreshing—either
a site has failed completely (rock avalanche) or it is a
deep-seated slope deformation. All incompletely evac-
uated large failures in the Highlands are at some
point on a continuum from incipient with minimal
loss of integrity, through deformations and arrested
slides in various degrees of disintegration and shorter
or longer travel, to dsub-cataclasmicT failures which
have neared the slope foot but retain considerable
latent energy.
In characterising the population of larger Scottish
RSFs (Fig. 1), the aim is to draw out some distinc-
tive patterns which may shed light on their origins,
while recognising that each site is at its own unique
point in the matrix. The five categories proposed
(Table 1; Fig. 2) are variants of the five cited from
Hutchinson (1988), and emphasise morphology rather
than process, given the lack of evidence and analysis
for deformation processes in particular. They avoid
the terms dsturzstromT and dsackungT which have
become over-extended. They are presented as over-
lapping rather than mutually exclusive.
3.2. Cataclasmic and sub-cataclasmic RSFs
At the extreme end of the spectrum, dcataclasmicT
RSFs have substantially evacuated source cavities,
and most of the failed material has reached the
slope foot or beyond with minimal potential for re-
activation. This term is preferred to dcatastrophicT
since such usage should only apply where serious
damage to life or property has occurred (Blikra,
personal communication; Jarman, 2002). It defines
location rather than failure mode, and is thus comple-
mentary to drock avalancheT or ddebris flowT, where
travel could be part way down the slope or well
beyond it.
It is remarkable that only two large Scottish High-
land cases are definable as dcataclasmicT: the classic
Beinn Alligin rock avalanche [3] (Gordon and
Sutherland, 1993; Ballantyne, 2003), although even
this may not truly qualify as a sturzstrom (Davies,
Hutchinson, pers.comms.); and the sui generis 2 km
long debris pile in the floor of Strath Nethy [18]
(Hall, 2003). About 10% are broadly dsub-cat-
aclasmicT, that is disintegrated translational slides
where the toe has reached the slope foot but with
debris backed well up above, including Mullach
Fraoch-choire [21] (Fig. 3; Holmes, 1984), Mam na
Cloiche Airde [15] (Watters, 1972), and Ciste Dhubh
[9] (Jarman, 2003c).
3.3. Arrested slides versus slope deformations
Over the whole size range, the prevalent mode of
RSF in the Scottish Highlands is the semi-intact or
coherent, short-travel arrested translational slide (Jar-
man, 1999). Amongst larger RSFs, however, this mode
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 165

Fig. 2. Characteristic types of larger RSF identified in the Scottish Highlands. The plateau rim location is typical of less intensely dissected terrain.
In more acute relief, headscarps may daylight below or behind the crest, or split the ridge.

shrinks to about a quarter, e.g. Tullich Hill [20] (Jar-
man, 2003b) and An Sornach [2] (Fig. 4; Jarman,
2003d). Translational rockslides are typically described
as having disintegrated and travelled well down the
slope (e.g. Dikau, 2004), but in Scotland they tend to
have restabilised before gaining enough momentum to
do this.
The majority of larger RSFs are better considered
as slope deformations, embracing the sagging, creep
and rebound categories of Hutchinson (1988) and
going slightly wider than the ddeep-seated gravitation-
al slope deformationsT of Crosta (1996). They are less
amenable to analysis than slides, but documented
examples include:
– Druim Shionnach (Fig. 5; Jarman, 2003c),
– Beinn Fhada [3] (Watters, 1972; Holmes and Jarvis,
1985; Jarman and Ballantyne, 2002),
– the Fannich sackungen [12] (Holmes, 1984),
– A’Chaoirnich [1] (Jarman, 2004a).
166 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182
Fig. 3. Mullach Fraoch-choire, a sub-cataclasmic RSF in Precambrian
Moine schists. The debris lobe has reached the floor of a side trough
(450 m ASL) but has not interfered with the stream course. It extends
back up to the cavity mouth, with large levées. The cavity bites into
the 830 m ridge. The sub-cataclasmic element of 0.20 km2 is within a
1.1 km2 extensional slope deformation.
Carn na Con Dhu [8] is interpreted by Holmes (1984)
as a sag, but by Fenton (1991) as a dsliding slumpT,
illustrating the problems inherent in categorisation.
The main characteristics differentiating slides from
deformations are:
! slides have distinct source configurations with a
headscarp and one or two flank scarps, whereas
deformations have diffuse margins merging into
the surrounding slopes on some or all sides;
! slides have debris lobes or pronounced toe bulges
with evident dislocation, whereas deformations lack
extensively disintegrated debris, and any bulges re-
tain coherence;
! slides have few if any antiscarps (uphill-facing coun-
terscarps), and these are usually short and dislocated,
whereas deformations typically have antiscarps or
tension furrows, which are longer and relatively
unbroken.
Given that all these RSFs are now effectively
dfossilisedT, it is unclear whether slides are simply
deformations that had evolved further before consoli-
dating, or whether they reflect essentially different
causes or triggers.
Within the category of deformations, a distinction
may be made between extensional and compressional
types, while noting that all slopes combine both tensile
and compressive stresses:
! extensional deformations have distinct headscarps,
whereas compressional deformations have weak or
no headscarps;
! extensional deformations often have holes, fissures,
or grabens in the upper area, whereas compressional
are tight throughout;
! extensional antiscarps suggest relaxation in a des-
cending, forward-tilting mass, whereas compres-
sional antiscarps have up-thrusting dreverse-faultT
character, sometimes dissecting the slope in a
platy or lattice manner;
! extensional failed masses have irregular gravitational
sagging character, whereas compressional areas ap-
pear substantially coherent and often difficult to
distinguish from surrounding slopes, with any bulg-
ing rather smooth.
Benvane is a typical extensional deformation with
a spreading ridge (Fig. 6). Beinn Fhada (Fig. 7) is
predominantly compressional (Fenton, 1991), but dis-
plays a few local extensional features.
The factor most likely to control these differences
of expression is the extent to which a sliding surface
has developed (or conversely, the strength with which
the base of the failed area is supported). With clear-
cut translational slides, such surfaces will readily be
available from suitably orientated pre-existing joint
sets and schistosity planes. With slide/deformation
hybrids, the failed mass is assumed to move on a
crush zone (Mahr, 1977), or possibly a rather sticky
dslide planeT can invent itself from a staircase of joint
facets (cf. Watters, 1972; Holmes, 1984; Jarman,
2003d,e; Fig. 12 below). Both Watters (1972) and
Holmes (1984) found that some larger RSFs lacked
identifiable surfaces conducive to sliding, and in
nearly all cases, self-weight gravitational sliding
could not have occurred. Some force(s) augmenting
gravity are therefore required to trigger sliding, but in
the Scottish Highlands these are severely inhibited by
factors arresting sliding, or preventing it evolving
from the creep stage in the first place. These factors
may include inherent high rock-mass strength, widely
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 167

Fig. 4. An Sornach, an arrested translational slide RSF of darmchairT shape affecting 0.75 km2, unusually in a valley of preglacial origin. Darker
vegetation indicates slope disruption. Head and flank scarps (highlighted by snow patches) reach 40 m in height. The diagonal antiscarp 1–5 m
high may be of neotectonic origin. Below it there is progressive disintegration, while to the right slope deformation fades out with no clear
margin. Sub-vertical Moine schists strike parallel to the flank scarps, facilitating detachment. Incipient failure dislocates the 780 m crest, and the
toe is at 400 m ASL.

spaced joint sets tending to lock the slope up, lack of
extensive smooth planar discontinuities, or lack of
deep fissures to allow lubricating water penetration
and chemical weathering.
All the sagging model cross-sections of Hutchin-
son (1988) show a ddotted-lineT curved movement
surface or zone, but it is debatable whether this
actually exists in every case. Some models of
quasi-in situ slope deformation simply show re-
verse-fault antiscarps fading out at depth (Patton
and Hendron, 1974; Radbruch-Hall et al., 1976; Mol-
lard, 1977; Muir Wood, 1989). This may account for
the essential difference in character between the
dextensionalT and dcompressionalT variants. In the
extensional variant, there is a failed mass, however
weakly bounded and laterally restrained, with a ver-
ifiable transition to intact bedrock. The failed mass
has moved downslope, and even though the toe is in
compression, its antiscarps and surface ruckles are
deceleration products of an extensional event. In the
compressional variant, there is simply no definable
failed mass, merely an area within which deformation
features occur, and any slight downslope creep seems
a secondary consequence of the stress release adjust-
ments within the slope. Of course many such stress-
release events will have progressed to sagging or
sliding, as evident at An Sornach (Fig. 4; Jarman,
2003d).
3.4. Gravitational sagging versus rebound
This extensional/compressional dichotomy equates
to gravitational versus rebound slope deformation
modes. The gravitational mode has affinities with
the dsackungenT of Zischinsky (1966) and dsaggingT
of Hutchinson (1988); see Crosta (1996) for a full
discussion. The dreboundT mode of Hutchinson
(1988) invokes an initial upward force in the valley
floor and lower part of the slope due to the isostatic
differential, which re-equilibrates by rupturing the
slope. In the deglaciated Highlands, gravitational sag-
ging reflects debuttressing or decompression, while
168 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182

Fig. 5. Druim Shionnach RSF, a slope deformation of dCluanie hybridT type. The source is extensional, with a 25-m headscarp facing an exceptional
14 m antiscarp, with lesser antiscarps below (thin snow patches). However the failed mass shows no signs of disaggregation or downslope
movement, with a broad smooth bulge reaching 458, and a diffuse lateral margin on the left side. High-angle Moine schists strike parallel to the
trough-corrie side, facilitating constrained response to decompression in a side valley above a major breach of the main watershed. Failure affects
0.55 km2, encroaching onto an ~850 m shoulder and extending down to the slope foot springline at 500 m ASL.

rebound responds to glacio-isostatic differentials in incidence of inferred glacio-isostatic rebound RSF in

ice thickness and depth of erosion between valley
floor and summit ridge (Fenton, 1991; Stewart et
al., 2000; Jarman and Ballantyne, 2002). These forces
will of course interact and be augmented by other
slope stresses and factors triggering failure. They may
be exacerbated when the mountain is bulky (Gerber
and Scheidegger, 1969) leading to the dpagoda-ridgeT
antiscarp effects of Beck (1968) (Fig. 12 below),
though not to his oft-cited ridge foundering, which
is implausible in competent Highland lithologies at
least.
Debuttressing is essentially a gravitational effect
leading to extensional types of deformation and to
slope-parallel ruptures at depth which are conducive
to creep or slip. By contrast, glacio-isostatic recovery
of overloaded/overdeepened valley floors is essential-
ly a counter-gravitational effect leading to compres-
sional types of deformation and slope-normal ruptures
unconducive to creep or slip (eg. Fig. 12 below). The
the Scottish Highlands is relatively limited, but the
23 cases inventorised here include some of the larg-
est RSFs in Britain, with Beinn Fhada at 3.0 km2
being significant in global comparisons [4] (Fig. 7;
Jarman and Ballantyne, 2002). They also display the
boldest antiscarps, up to 700 m in length and 5–10 m
high (Appendix A); Druim Shionnach [11] is excep-
tional with a 14 m antiscarp at its head, and typifies the
dCluanie hybridT variant of deformation which has de-
veloped a tensional source but only a smooth over-
steepened bulge (Fig. 5; Jarman, 2003c).
This dlocalised glacial reboundT mode of RSF
(Firth and Stewart, 2000) is not listed by Dikau et
al. (1996), while Crosta (1996) treats gravity tecton-
ics as distinct from slope deformation, in Alpine
contexts of continuing uplift. Indeed neotectonic
fault scarps (Dehls et al., 2000) and the isolated
dfracturesT mapped by British Geological Survey
might be a limiting case of RSF. But where extensive
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 169

Fig. 6. Benvane RSF, an extensional slope deformation, the near side of which has progressed to a translational slide. A headscarp up to 7 m high
runs ~120 m behind the broad ridge crest, which has spread to the left creating a graben. The valley side displays slight bulging with a lattice of b3
m high antiscarps on three orientations, but with no clear lower or far-side boundaries. Dalradian schists dip into the slope. Failure affects 1.25 km2
and extends from 745 m down to 330 m ASL, below a mid-level breach of the Forth-Tay secondary watershed.

antiscarp arrays, often intersecting, occur across a tyne, 1986). The proportion NW of the Great Glen
slope then this may be seen as the earliest stage in remains identical at 40%. One dense group of mainly
a progression of failure modes from deep destructur- small RSFs disappears, around Loch Arkaig, and
ing through gravitational deformation to actual slid- another in Cowal-Ardgoil is much thinned. There
ing. The least developed case of deformation are two main and five lesser clusters of large RSFs,
admitted to the large RSF database is at Stob Coire each having a distinct topographical and geological
aV Chairn [17], where a triangle of intersecting frac- identity (Fig. 8):
tures and antiscarps surrounds a splitting summit
ridge. The inclusion of such sites also validates the Cluster 1. Affric-Kintail-Glen Shiel 29 sites
use of the umbrella term dRock Slope FailureT rather Cluster 2. Knoydart 8 sites
Cluster 3. Glen Roy-Loch Lochy 7 sites
than dmass movementT or similar, as this is able to Cluster 4. Glencoe-Mamores-Grey Corries 13 sites
include quasi-in situ manifestations. Cluster 5. Arrochar Alps-Cowal-Luss Hills 20 sites
Cluster 6. Loch Ericht-Gaick 7 sites
4. The uneven spatial distribution of large Cluster 7. Trossachs-Lochearnhead 9 sites
RSFs—previous explanations
TOTAL—seven clusters with 5 sites or more 93 sites

4.1. Clustered and scattered RSF

The remaining 47 sites are widely but not random-
Large-scale RSF is widely but irregularly distrib- ly scattered, with many small groups. There is no
uted across the Highlands of Scotland (Fig. 1). The discernible regional pattern in RSF size or mode
pattern essentially mimics that for all RSF (Ballan- (Figs. 1 and 8), although almost all the high-antiscarp
170 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182

Fig. 7. Beinn Fhada RSF, a predominantly compressional slope deformation, seen from the west across Gleann Lichd (floor 50 m ASL). Unbroken
antiscarps reach 700 m long on the 30–358 glacial trough side. Deformation extends for 3 km along the valley and onto the preglacial upland
surface, reaching the South Top (1000 m) in the background, and affecting 3.0 km2. Precambrian Moine schists dip into the slope.

(5 m+) cases are NW of the Great Glen (Jarman, Lomond Stadial was more of a valley-full glaciation
2003e). than an icecap, it is not surprising that most RSFs are
found on the steep valley sides which its upper limits
4.2. Deglaciation meltwater explanation follow.

In the only detailed attempt to explain the spatial
distribution of all RSFs, Holmes (1984) suggested a
correlation with the upper limits of the Loch Lomond
Stadial (Younger Dryas) glaciers, proposing that ele-
vated cleft-water pressures were generated at deglaci-
ation. Ballantyne (1997) reproduces his table showing
80% of a sample of 137 RSFs occurring within 600 m
of these limits. However, for both methodological and
geotechnical reasons, this explanation must be dis-
missed as insufficient and essentially self-correlating
(Jarman, 2003a). In short, while water is undoubtedly
a key factor augmenting gravity in triggering sliding
failure, there is no reason to associate it exclusively
with deglaciating valley sides, nor why it should have
been more abundant then than in periods of heavy
rain or rapid snowmelt now. The few RSFs to have
been dated show a significant time delay from degla-
ciation (e.g. Ballantyne, 2003). Given that the Loch
4.3. Lithological and structural explanations
As Ballantyne (1986) shows, almost all Scottish
Highland RSFs occur in metamorphic lithologies.
This is unsurprising since these underlie the greatest
part of the mountain ranges (Fig. 1). But large RSFs
also occur in Precambrian Torridonian sandstone (e.g.
Beinn Alligin—Ballantyne, 2003), and in granite (e.g.
Strath Nethy [18]—Hall, 2003). Certainly RSF is
scarce in the main granite massifs (Fig. 1), reflecting
their high rock mass strength and lack of tectonisation,
but where stresses are high, rebound fracturing (e.g. on
the Cluanie granite boss near Carn Ghluasaid [7]) and
sheet delayering (e.g. Etive in Cruachan-Blackmount)
can occur.
Within the metasediments, RSF occurs freely across
the weakest phyllites and the most indurated high-
grade schists, and across both pelites and psammites
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 171

Fig. 8. Spatial distribution and size of large RSFs in the mainland Scottish Highlands. RSF is clustered on main watersheds which have been
breached and displaced during the Pleistocene. It is scarce in ranges away from the watersheds, in the far north where ice cover was thinner, and in
the Eastern Grampians where glacial dissection is less intense.

(arenites). It also occurs equally freely where the dip both where the dip is low-angle, as in the Arrochar
of the schistosity surface is favourably inclined at 20– Alps, and where it is near-vertical, as in the Glen
408 out of slope, and where it is in-dipping; it occurs Shiel-Affric area. It occurs both in regular planar
172 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182
schists and in strongly folded and contorted schists.
The Mamores (Cluster 4) are in a zone of interlayered
quartzites and schists, and RSF is found across both.
The geomechanical analyses of Watters (1972) and
Holmes (1984) find failure occurring in the most and
least favourable structural contexts, on the schistosity
surface or joint sets if conducive, but across them if
not (Appendix A).
4.4. Seismotectonic explanation
RSF clusters have been taken as indicators of high-
magnitude (5–7 M) paleoseismic events (Ballantyne,
1997). This was first proposed for the special case of
catastrophic ice-dammed lake drainage at Glen Roy
(Cluster 3, Fig. 8) by Sissons and Cornish (1982),
although since these RSFs variously cut and are cut
by different Parallel Roads they cannot be the result of
a single event. Fenton (1991, 1992) applied the mag-
nitude-incidence model of Keefer (1984) to RSFs in
the NW Highlands, arguing that they were triggered by
basement faults reactivated during recovery from de-
glaciation. To adduce seismic magnitudes from an
inherited and undated RSF distribution is obviously a
fallacy of reverse induction (Jarman, 2003c), and Kee-
fer (personal communication) agrees that caution
should be applied in attributing past RSF to seismic
triggers. The principal claimed case of neotectonic fault
Fig. 9. (A) The inferred association of RSF with breach cutting and enlargement over repeated glacial/paraglacial cycles. (B) Typical locations for
RSF responding to exceptional deglaciation stresses directly and indirectly associated with glacial breaching.
reactivation in the mountain area, at Kinloch Hourn,
has been discredited (Firth and Stewart, 2000). Given
the density of major faults in the Highlands, most RSF
locations are within a few kilometres of one, and
conversely many RSFs are at maximum distances
from one (Fig. 1). The self-correlation between steep-
sided fault-controlled valleys and RSF will also be
apparent.
It is possible that some RSFs have been prepared
or triggered by seismic shaking, for example the Glen
Ample group of platy quasi-in situ deformations
along the Loch Tay Fault in Cluster 7. Direct evi-
dence is lacking, and in a passive-margin context
(Muir Wood, 1989), a scatter of moderate seismic
events may have triggered some failures on slopes
already close to critical limits. However the main
clusters identified are diverse in geomorphic character,
and are unlikely to be directly attributable to a few
high-magnitude events (Jarman and Stewart, 2004).
4.5. RSF clustering and sparsity in similar terrain
Large-scale RSF can only occur where there is
sufficient available relief for deep-seated stresses to
be generated. However, RSF is not prevalent in all the
mountainous terrain where steep slopes abound. Leav-
ing aside the granite massifs, large-scale RSF is
sparse in many metasedimentary ranges such as Ben
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 173

Alder and Ardgour (Fig. 1). Reference to the
1:250,000 topographical and geological maps reveals
no obvious differences of available relief, steep-sided
trough incidence, structure, or lithology between these
areas of sparsity and the areas of clustering.
Indeed, available relief is not a strong precondi-
tion. Although a few cases in Kintail occur on the
highest slopes in Britain, notably Sgurr na Ciste
Duibhe at 50–1027 m ASL [16] (Jarman, 2003c),
most large RSFs are on lesser mountains or in

Fig. 10. The SW Highlands, an area of intense RSF activity, including Clusters 5 and 7 (all RSF sizes shown). RSF is scarce or absent in main
preglacial valleys and some breaches of the main watershed, despite their slopes and geology being susceptible to it. Its paucity along the deep
breach trench of Loch Lomond is surprising. Note mini-clusters top centre and top right, where locally intense breaching occurs across main and
secondary watersheds (adapted and revised from Jarman, 2003a).
174 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182

upper valleys, with effective relief only in the order
of 400–700 m. Even the cataclasmic/sub-cataclasmic
cases have mainly below 600 m effective relief.
Some further explanation must therefore be sought
to account for the perplexing spatial distribution of
RSF.
5. Association of paraglacial RSF with watershed
breaches
5.1. Concentrated glacial erosion and stress release
All these larger RSFs occur on glacially modified
slopes, except for two in the east at Glen Tilt [14] and
Craig Maskeldie [10], which are undercut by fluvial
canyons of adjustment into glacial troughs; a few
reach down to or below sea level but are not regarded
as coastal RSFs. This is therefore a population of
paraglacial events generated by stress release as
slopes re-equilibrate after deglaciation (Ballantyne,
2002). These stresses are presumably attributable pri-
marily to the main icecap of the Last Glacial Maxi-
mum (LGM—peak ca. 20 000 ka BP), whether or not
sites fall within the limits of the brief Loch Lomond
Stadial (Younger Dryas—ca. 11 000 ka BP) valley
glaciation, which mainly affected the core western
mountain areas. Since the LGM icecap covered all
the mountain area save for some nunataks in the NW
(Ballantyne et al., 1998), the routine effects of glacial
loading and unloading on typical valley slopes are
insufficient to account for the present spatial inci-
dence of RSF.
In seeking factors which might generate excep-
tional rock mass stresses after the last main degla-
ciation, one possibility is where glacial erosion has
been unusually concentrated in recent glacial cycles.
This would augment the endemic glacio-isostatic
rebound stresses with localised rock-removal effects,
as observed in quarry-bursting (Hoek and Bray,
1981). It would also daylight additional slide planes
or creep zones near the slope foot. Concentrated
glacial erosion might result from shifts in ice cen-
tres or dispersal routes, especially if these involve
transfluence across preglacial watersheds (Fig. 9A).

Fig. 11. Locational context of Beinn Fhada RSF, the largest in the Highlands (3.0 km2), at a major breach of the preglacial watershed, ~4 km west of
the current divide. The compressional deformation is on the flank of a glacial trough-head 800 m+ deep. Antiscarps continue across 3 out of 4
anomalously dry gullies. All RSFs shown true to scale (adapted from Jarman, 2003e).
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 175

All but one of the clusters and many smaller
groups of RSFs are close to the main watersheds
(Figs. 8 and 10). Glacial breaching of these water-
sheds has been very extensive (Linton, 1949), and
some breaches appear relatively immature, for ex-
ample Strath Nethy (Hall, 2003) and Glen Shiel
(Jarman, 2003c).
5.2. Fresh and stress-hardened slopes
Detailed studies in the two largest clusters (Jarman,
2003a,c) show that RSF is sparse or absent in main
valleys of preglacial origin, and in the more mature
breaches. It is concentrated in or below dfresherT
breaches of main or secondary watersheds, and in
side troughs which are adjusting to new local base
levels set by these and earlier breaches (Figs. 9b and
10). The preglacial river valleys will have adjusted to
their function of efficient ice discharge during earlier
glacial cycles (aided no doubt by extensive RSF
activity), and are now dstress-hardenedT. The more
recently cut breaches and troughs will have experi-
enced the most severe re-equilibration stresses after
deglaciation. For example, the very large Beinn Fhada
RSF [4] (Fig. 7) is located just west of a breached
watershed, at the inferred locus of the preglacial
divide (Godard, 1965), and at a point where the
dpagoda effectT of Beck (1968) is maximised above
a deep trough (Jarman, 2003e; Figs. 11 and 12).
Indeed all but one of the main RSF clusters are at
points where the reconstructed preglacial watershed
has been displaced by 5–20 km as a result of breach-
ing (Linton and Moisley, 1960; Godard, 1965; Fig. 8).
They are also in mountain nexuses where domes with-
in the ice cap would be likely to have oscillated in
relation to the watershed, thus amplifying the breach-
ing process. The exception is Cluster 7 which is
however in an area of increasing dissection as N–S
transfluence breaches and displaces E–W secondary
divides (Jarman, 2003a). Conversely, many of the

Fig. 12. Beinn Fhada slope deformation in cross-section through main antiscarps: note absence of true headscarp, and continuous antiscarp array to
summit in nested section (A). Antiscarps are sub-parallel to main joint set, other discontinuities are not conducive to translational sliding. Any
failure boundary at depth is more likely to be an irregular fracture zone. Rebound is suggested in a primarily compressive context, with deep
fractures feeding slope-foot springs. This is a rare example of dpagoda ridgeT with the Plaide Mhor being the largest surviving preglacial surface
remnant in the W Highlands (adapted from Jarman, 2003e).
176 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182

mountain groups lacking in RSF are well away from
the main watersheds, and will thus have undergone
repeated unidirectional glacial grooming, rather than
fluctuating erosive pressures. This could account for
the lower RSF frequency on some granite massifs (e.g.
Cruachan) and on the peripheral Lewisian and Torri-
donian lithologies (Fig. 1).
In the northernmost ranges, RSF sparsity may
reflect thinning out of the ice cap (Godard, 1965;
Ballantyne et al., 1998) and lower precipitation; al-
though breaching is still evident, more recent cases
appear rather localised, e.g. around Ben Hee [6]. In
the eastern Grampians (Fig. 1), the situation was
more continental, with extensive high plateaux sup-
porting thinner cold-based icecaps, and troughs de-
veloping slowly by selective linear erosion. Here,
breaches are widely spaced, but many appear rela-
tively recent or even incipient, and have small groups
of larger RSFs associated with them. Within Cluster
6, at the transition between dissected ranges and
plateaux, RSF is completely absent from preglacial
valleys and plateau rims, and from the weak corries.
Its concentration in the major transectional breaches
offers an interesting pointer to where that process
may still be most active (Fig. 13; Hall and Jarman,
2004).
5.3. Nature of the breaching–RSF association
This glacial breaching–paraglacial RSF interaction
has not previously been identified, and is no more
than a partial association (Fig. 14). About 75% of
larger RSFs are within ~ 2 km of a breach (Table 1);
half of these are breaches of secondary watersheds,
which are equally significant as indicators of the
progressive dissection and isolation of mountain

Fig. 13. The Central Grampian Highlands, including Cluster 6 (all RSFs shown true to scale). RSF only occurs in or down-valley from breaches,
and is entirely absent from other valley sides and plateau rims. RSF concentrations in the Loch Ericht and Gaick Pass breaches may point to their
recent origin or enlargement; RSF absence from Drumochter Pass (main road/rail corridor) may indicate its earlier development (adapted and
revised from Hall and Jarman, 2004).
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182
Fig. 14. The nature of the association between paraglacial RSF and glacial breaching, suggesting why many breaches may lack RSF, and
acknowledging that not all RSFs can be attributed to breaching.
masses. Conversely, many breaches lack RSF, but
this may indicate that they developed earlier in the
Quaternary and have themselves become stress-hard-
ened. Indeed logically RSF would have been most
active during early cycles, as fluvial valleys adapted
to ice discharge, and also after the most powerful
mid-Quaternary glaciations (notably the Anglian/
Elsterian ca. 500 ka BP). The extant spatial distribu-
tion of RSF may thus be merely a pointer to its
earlier impact, as well as a valuable indicator of the
most recent shifts and ramifications of glacial dissec-
tion of the mountain area.
So far, this breaching association is only a broad
geomorphological interpretation of RSF spatial inci-
dence. To test it, a geotechnical model of all the
stresses acting on mountainous relief through the gla-
cial/deglacial cycle requires to be developed. This
needs to be at the scale of the individual ridge and
trough, building on work such as the whole-range
conceptual model of Muir Wood (1989) as refined
by Firth and Stewart (2000), and on mountain rock
mass analyses (e.g. Gerber and Scheidegger, 1969). If
the generic stresses applying to every deglaciated
slope are extracted, the key additional stress in con-
texts of recent breach incision and enlargement
appears to be isostatic rebound from bulk erosion of
the trough and lower slopes, augmented by enhanced
differential glacio-isostatic recovery between valley
and ridge/plateau. Daylighting of failure planes at
the excavated slope foot is not sufficient explanation,
witness the numerous postglacial fluvial gorges that
have not induced RSF.
177
6. Geohazard implications and European
comparators
There have been no truly dcatastrophicT RSF events
in recorded history in the mountain areas of Scotland:
Ballantyne (1986) lists some minor incidents. Fresh
signs of incipient failure such as torn turf and roots
are not uncommon but rarely progress; after slope-foot
spring outbursts in 1989 which triggered a large slump
in superficial deposits (Jarman and Ballantyne, 2002)
the lower antiscarps of Beinn Fhada showed no more
than decimetric fissuring (MacKenna, personal commu-
nication). Some RSFs may be of concern to the grow-
ing array of renewable energy installations, but the
prevalence of deformations and arrested slides over
the postglacial period suggests that new or reactivated
mass movements are more likely to be of nuisance
value.
In the cognate ranges of Scandinavia, RSF clustering
is also evident, notably in the gneiss of Sunnmøre
(Blikra and Anda, 1997), with catastrophic conse-
quences in the fiord communities (Bjerrum and Jørstad,
1968), and extensively in the schists of northern Troms
(Kverndal and Sollid, 1993). Here, despite the schists
being flat-lying and less tectonised than in Scotland,
greater available relief has promoted numerous cata-
clasmic failures, as well as incipient deformations;
glacial breaching is in its earlier stages of dissection
(Jarman, 2002).
In the Alps, creep and sagging modes of RSF are
strongly associated with the metamorphics, while
slides and collapses are prevalent on limestone and
178 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182
weaker sediments (Eisbacher and Clague, 1984; Wil-
son et al., 2003). Clusters of large deformations in
the schists of the central Italian Alps (Forcella et al.,
1982; Crosta and Zanchi, 2000) are also in areas of
glacial breaching and of the most intense ice dispers-
al by glacial streaming (Haeberli and Penz, 1985).
While catastrophic failures are common in the Alps,
the occurrence of arrested slides and deformations
both here and in Scandinavia suggests that available
relief is not the determining factor in style or fre-
quency of RSF, although clearly it influences its scale
and propagation.
7. Conclusions
For a small and relatively low mountain range, the
Scottish Highlands has a sizeable population of at least
140 large RSFs N 0.25 km2. Their prevalent character is
of slope deformations, but with considerable overlap
into short-travel translational slides. Cataclasmic and
sub-cataclasmic behaviour is much less common. This
tendency may reflect weak triggers (including seismic
shaking) and strong arresting factors (including high
rock mass strength). European comparisons indicate
that low available relief is not the main reason for
most RSFs not progressing far. A distinctive category
of virtually in situ compressional deformations is noted,
with marked antiscarp arrays but minimal downslope
movement. This suggests that the contribution of iso-
static rebound to RSF may be significant, and merits
further research.
The partly-clustered, partly-scattered spatial distri-
bution of large RSFs cannot adequately be explained
by hydrological, lithological, structural, seismotec-
tonic, or physiographic variables, although RSF is
scarce on granite. Recent thinking attributes RSF to
stress release as valley walls are debuttressed on deg-
laciation, but this is a generic effect that does not
account for the specific incidence of RSF. There is
a marked clustering of RSF along the main water-
sheds (present and especially preglacial). Many cases
are associated directly or indirectly with glacial
breaches of these watersheds, often of apparently
recent origin or enlargement. Major inputs of trans-
fluent ice through these breaches may have locally
intensified glacial erosion and ice loadings. These in
turn may have generated exceptional rebound stres-
ses on deglaciation, sufficient to overcome the gen-
eral stability of stress-hardened valley slopes and to
induce large-scale deformation and sliding. Testing
of this proposition will involve geotechnical investi-
gations, slope stress modelling, glaciological inputs,
and comparative geomorphological studies in other
ranges.
Although paraglacial RSF has been a significant
(if under-recognised) contributor to gross erosion and
mountain shaping over the Quaternary as a whole, in
the Scottish Highlands it appears to be essentially
exhausted. By contrast with the Alps and Scandinavia,
it has little geohazard significance under current condi-
tions. It is unclear what changes might reactivate the
numerous RSFs which have undergone only limited
progression, and occupy metastable positions on valley
sides.
Acknowledgements
Giovanni Crosta encouraged me to persevere. John
Hutchinson kindly looked over a draft and did not
discourage submission. Andrea Zanchi and another
referee made numerous valuable suggestions for
improvements both small and large, although the result
still falls well short of their expectations. Susan Graham
Design worked wonders with the figures, as ever. This
research owes much to the database created by Graham
Holmes.
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182 179

Appendix A. Large RSFs in the Scottish Highlands for which data is available

(Sites are listed from the north, with the Great Glen separating the NW Highlands from the Grampians)
RSF Ref Mode Area, Vol, Depth, H/S, A/S, Slide Comments
km2 M m3 m m m plane
Loch Vaich, 2 ext 0.5 N50 ? 2 J low Short-travel
Ross-shire def angle (50 m) slip,
forward
toppling on
60 8F.
Sgurr Bhreac, 2,3 ext 0.82 36 ? ? 30 sm ? Sackung with
Fannich def lattice of
fissures.
Beinn Alligin, 1,2 cata 0.52 3.5 200 60 – 428 Acute faulted
Torridon 20 #1 wedge in
sub-horizontal
sandstone.
Glenuaig, 2 ext 0.7 ? b5 b2 F 158+ Short-travel
Strathcarron def sliding slump
incipient
fissuring.
Sgurr na 2,6 sub-cata 0.35 150 2 F 30–408 Long-travel
Conbhaire, (150 m) slump
Monar onto lower slope.
Sgurr na 2 ext def 0.9 100 ? 2 yes F Short-travel block
Feartaig, slide.
Strathcarron
An Socach, 2 comp def 1.0 – 20 ? nil sm – 500 m long linear
Monar A/SS diffuse
margins—rebound.
Carn na 2,3 slide 1.46 61 ? 120 ? 12 2 not on Short-travel slide/
Con Dhu, 35 ? F/J slump, A/SS
Mullardoch b200 m long on
strike of J1 + J2.
An Sornach 2,3,4 ext def 0.75 13 ? 30 ? 42 3 not F/J Slip with A/S
Affric latticeN bulge
N collapse. rebound
5 m A/S.
Mullach 3 sub-cata 0.2 0.73 20 10 – J2,3 298 Slide tongue
Fraoch-choire, within 1.1 km2
Affric slope deformation.
Sgurr na Lapaich, 2,3 comp 0.3 7? 100 ? 10 – – Ridge crest failure,
Affric def poss. seismic/
rebound faulting.
Beinn Fhada, 2,3,4,6 comp 3.0 112 100 ? none 10 – ~8 sub-horiz
Kintail def #2 A/SS b700 m
long, main are
5–8 m high.
Sgurr na Ciste 5 ext 1.25 5–10 80 15 5 (11) not F/J Summit lowered
Duibhe, def #3 ~10 m N long-travel
Glenshiel slide in
deformation.
Sgurr aV 2 comp 0.7 100 ? 6 – Bulging slide,
Bhealaich def rebound A/SS
Dheirg, b200 m long.
Glenshiel
Ciste Dhubh, 5 sub-cata 0.46 7 80 30 2 ? Corrie floor source,
Affric toe reaches river
in breach glen.

(continued on next page)

180 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182

Appendix A (continued)
RSF Ref Mode Area, Vol, Depth, H/S, A/S, Slide Comments
km2 M m3 m m m plane
Druim Shionnach, 5 comp 0.55 – 150 ? 25 (14) 3 – Top A/S is outer
Cluanie def half of graben
N Cluanie bulge.
Meall Buidhe, 6 ext def 0.5 40 ? 30 7? J1,2 Broad slump
Knoydart b448 zone.
Mam na Cloiche 6 sub-cata 0.26 40 20 – 358 Semi-intact masses
Airde, Knoydart N slope debris N 58
flow slide.
Glen Pean, 6 comp 2.5 – 60 ? J1 28–488 A/S array on strike
Knoydart def of F/J2, cataclasmic
slide to W.
Streap, 6 slide 0.25 25 75 (10) J1 368 Long-travel arrested
Glenfinnan sub-cat, summit
has lost top ~15 m,
seismic trigger?
GREAT GLEN
Beinn an 6 ext 0.34 15 ? b5 b2 F 20–308 Thin undeveloped
Lochain W, def slide, upper tier
Arrochar beside.
The Cobbler SW, 4 slide 0.62 8–10 30 28 (10) 6 not F Four-panel
Arrochar short-travel
disintegrated slip.
Hell’s Glen, 3,6 ext 0.52 1.75 (+) 60 15 (15) 5 J2 40–508 Topple block
Cowal def slips and
collapses in
broad slump.
Mullach Coire aV 3 slide 0.57 9.6 ? 20 50 (12) 2 F + J2 Part-collapsed
Chuir, Cowal sliding topple on
stepped surface.
Meallan Sidhein, 6 slide 0.75 70 40 F 25–328 Slip in phyllite,
Loch Striven effective F dip
208, equals RFA.
Tullich Hill 4 slide 1.25 40 8 not F Short-travel
W+E multi-phase
slump complex.
Ref: sources are (1) Ballantyne, 2003; (2) Fenton, 1991; (3) Holmes, 1984; (4) Jarman, 2003b,d,e, 2004b; (5) Jarman, 2003c; (6) Watters, 1972.
Mode: cata = cataclasmic; sub-cata = sub-cataclasmic; ext def = extensional deformation (sag, creep); comp def = compressional deformation (re-
bound).
Area: RSF size is here taken as the gross area including source cavity, since most cases are incompletely evacuated. British Geological Survey
mapping of RSF is variable and incomplete, but recent sheets only map as dlandslipsT disturbed ground, thus excluding both source areas and semi-
intact slope deformations. The gross area best indicates the geomorphic impact of RSF, but clearly requires adjustment when volumetric calculations
are made.
Volume and maximum depth should be seen as broad estimates, and are marked b?Q where the depth cannot readily be assessed.
#1 depth figures are for cavity (ref. 2) and debris tongue (ref. 1).
#2 volume (ref. 3) assumes there is a failed mass with a boundary at ~ 100 m, no volume can be calculated if the failure partly dissipates at depth.
#3 volume and depth are for main cavity within larger deformation.
H/S = headscarp (rear scarp, source scarp) maximum height.
A/S = antiscarp (obsequent scarp, counterscarp, uphill-facing scarp) maximum height—figures in brackets are graben trenches or uphill faces of
large slipped masses.
Slide plane: F = foliation or schistosity surface, J = joint sets (in order of significance), RFA= residual friction angle.
Note the disproportionate number of large RSFs studied:
(a) NW of the Great Glen, where F is rarely as conducive to sliding as in the S Highlands.
(b) which are either (sub)cataclasmic or slope deformations, rather than conventional arrested slides.
 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182
References
Abele, G., 1974. Bergstürze in den Alpen-ihre Verbreitung, Morpho-
logie und Folgeerscheinungen. Wissenschaftliche Alpenvereins-
hefte 25.
Ballantyne, C.K., 1986. Landslides and slope failures in Scotland: a
review. Scottish Geographical Magazine 102, 134 – 150.
Ballantyne, C.K., 1997. Holocene rock-slope failures in the Scottish
Highlands. In: Matthews, J. (Ed.), Rapid Mass Movement as a
Source of Climatic Evidence for the Holocene Paläoklima-
forschung. vol. 19, pp. 197 – 205.
Ballantyne, C.K., 2002. Paraglacial geomorphology. Quaternary Sci-
ence Reviews 21, 1935 – 2017.
Ballantyne, C.K., 2003. A Scottish Sturzstrom: the Beinn Alligin
rock avalanche, Wester Ross. Scottish Geographical Journal
119, 159 – 167.
Ballantyne, C.K., McCarroll, D., Nesje, A., Dahl, S.O., Stone,
J.O., 1998. The last ice sheet in NW Scotland: reconstruction
and implications. Quaternary Science Reviews 17, 1149 – 1184.
Beck, A.C., 1968. Gravity faulting as a mechanism of topographic
adjustment. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 11,
191 – 199.
Bjerrum, L., Jørstad, F.A., 1968. Stability of rock slopes in Norway.
Norwegian Technical Institute, Publication 69.
Blikra, L.H., Anda, E., 1997. Large rock avalanches in Møre og
Romsdal, western Norway. NGU-Bulletin 433, 44 – 45.
Crosta, G., 1996. Landslide, spreading, deep seated gravitational
deformation: analysis, examples, problems and proposals. Geo-
grafia Fisica e Dinamica Quaternaria 19, 297 – 313.
Crosta, G., Zanchi, A., 2000. Deep seated slope deformations: huge,
extraordinary, enigmatic phenomena. In: Bromhead, E., Dixon,
N. (Eds.), Landslides in Research, Theory and Practice, Proc. 8th
Int. Symp. on Landslides, Cardiff. Thomas Telford, London,
pp. 351 – 358.
de Freitas, M.H., Watters, R.J., 1973. Some field examples of toppling
failure. Géotechnique 23, 495 – 514.
Dehls, J.F., Olesen, O., Olsen, L., Blikra, L.H., 2000. Neotectonic
faulting in northern Norway; the Stuoragurra and Nordmannvikda-
len postglacial faults. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 1447 – 1460.
Dikau, R., 2004. Mass movements. In: Goudie, A.S. (Ed.), Encyclo-
paedia of Geomorphology. Routledge, London, pp. 644 – 653.
Dikau, R., Brunsden, D., Schrott, L., Ibsen, M.-L., 1996. Landslide
Recognition. Wiley, Chichester.
Dramis, F., Farabollini, P., Gentili, B., Pambianchi, G., 1995. Neo-
tectonics and large-scale gravitational phenomena in the Umbria-
Marche Apennines, Italy. In: Slaymaker, O. (Ed.), Steepland
Geomorphology. Wiley, Chichester, pp. 199 – 209.
Eisbacher, G.H., Clague, J.J., 1984. Destructive mass movements
in high mountains. Geological Survey of Canada, Paper 84-16.
Evans, S.G., Clague, J.J., 1994. Recent climatic change and cata-
strophic geomorphic processes in mountain environments. Geo-
morphology 10, 107 – 128.
Fenton, C.H., 1991. Neotectonics and paleoseismicity in NW Scot-
land. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Glasgow.
Fenton, C.H. (Ed.), 1992. Neotectonics in NW Scotland. A Field
Guide. University of Glasgow.
Firth, C.R., Stewart, I.S., 2000. Postglacial tectonics of the Scottish
glacio-isostatic uplift centre. Quaternary Science Reviews 19,
1469 – 1493.
Forcella, F., Gallazzi, D., Montrasio, A., Notarpietro, A., 1982. Note
illustrative all’ evoluzione neotettonica dei fogli 6–8, 17–19.
181
Contributo conclusivi per la realizzazione della Carta Neotetto-
nica d’Italia. Publi. n. 513 del Progetto Finalizzato Geodinamica,
pp. 239–288.
Frattini, P., Crosta, G.B., Ceriani, M., Fossati, D., 2003. Inventario
delle frane e dei dissesti della regione Lombardia: analisi statistica
e probabilistica per una valutazione preliminare della pericolositá.
Atti I8 Congresso Nazionale Associazione Italiana Geologia
Applicata e Ambientale, Chieti, 19–20 Febr. 2003, Rendina,
pp. 427 – 448.
Gerber, E., Scheidegger, A.E., 1969. Stress-induced weathering of
rock masses. Eclogae Geologicae Helveticae 62, 401 – 415.
Gillen, C., 2003. Geology and Landscapes of Scotland. Terra,
Harpenden.
Godard, A., 1965. Recherches de Géomorphologie en Écosse du
Nord-Ouest. Université de Strasbourg, Publications de la Faculté
des Lettres, Fondation Baulig.
Gordon, J.E., Sutherland, D.G. (Eds.), 1993. Quaternary of Scotland.
Chapman and Hall, London.
Haeberli, W., Penz, U., 1985. An attempt to reconstruct glaciological
and climatological characteristics of 18 ka BP ice-age glaciers in
and around the Swiss Alps. Zeitschrift fur Gletscherkunde und
Glazialgeologie, 351 – 361.
Hall, A.M., 1991. Pre-Quaternary landscape evolution in the Scottish
Highlands. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Earth
Sciences 82, 1 – 26.
Hall, A.M. (Ed.), 2003. Cairngorms Landscape Website—Contribu-
tion by D. Jarman on Rock Slope Failures, http://www.fettes.com/
Cairngorms/index.htm.
Hall, A.M., Jarman, D., 2004. Quaternary landscape evolution—plateau
dissection by transfluent glacial breaching. In: Lukas, S., Mer-
ritt, J., Mitchell, W. (Eds.), Central Grampian Highlands—Field
Guide. Quaternary Research Association, London, pp. 26 – 40.
Heim, A., 1932. Bergsturz und Menschenleben. Fretz und Wasmuth,
Zurich.
Holmes, G., 1984. Rock-slope failure in parts of the Scottish High-
lands. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Edinburgh.
Holmes, G., Jarvis, J.J., 1985. Large scale toppling within a Sackung
type formation at Ben Attow, Scotland. Quarterly Journal of
Engineering Geology 18, 287 – 289.
Hoek, E., Bray, J.W., 1981. Rock Slope Engineering, 3rd edition. Inst.
of Mining and Metallurgy, London.
Hutchinson, J.N., 1988. General report: morphological and geotech-
nical parameters of landslides in relation to geology and hydro-
geology. Proceedings 5th Int. Symposium on Landslides,
Lausanne, vol. 1. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 3 – 35.
Jarman, D., 1999. Rock Slope Failure in Scotland and Scandinavia.
69 pp. Privately circulated. Available by email from
the author.
Jarman, D., 2002. Rock slope failure and landscape evolution in the
Caledonian Mountains, as exemplified in the Abisko area, north-
ern Sweden. Geografiska Annaler 84A, 213 – 224.
Jarman, D., 2003a. Paraglacial landscape evolution—the significance
of rock slope failure. In: Evans, D.J.A. (Ed.), Western Highland
Boundary—Field Guide. Quaternary Research Association, Lon-
don, pp. 50 – 68.
Jarman, D., 2003b. Tullich Hill rock slope failures, Glen
Douglas. In: Evans, D.J.A. (Ed.), Western Highland Bound-
ary—Field Guide. Quaternary Research Association, London,
pp. 200 – 208.
Jarman, D., 2003c. The Glen Shiel rock slope failure cluster. In:
Tipping, R. (Ed.), Glen Affric and Glen Shiel—Field Guide.
Quaternary Research Association, London, pp. 165 – 184.
182 D. Jarman / Engineering Geology 83 (2006) 161–182
Jarman, D., 2003d. The An Sornach rock slope failure. In: Tipping, R.
(Ed.), Glen Affric and Glen Shiel—Field Guide. Quaternary
Research Association, London, pp. 63 – 74.
Jarman, D., 2003e. Beinn Fhada—the context for large-scale slope
deformation. In: Tipping, R. (Ed.), Glen Affric and Glen Shiel—
Field Guide. Quaternary Research Association, London,
pp. 149 – 158.
Jarman, D., 2004a. Rock slope failure in the Gaick breach. In:
Lukas, S., Merritt, J., Mitchell, W. (Eds.), Central Grampian
Highlands—Field Guide. Quaternary Research Association, Lon-
don, pp. 103 – 111.
Jarman, D., 2004b. The Cobbler—a mountain shaped by rock slope
failure. Scottish Geographical Journal 120, 227 – 240.
Jarman, D., Ballantyne, C.K., 2002. Beinn Fhada, Kintail: a classic
example of paraglacial rock slope deformation. Scottish Geo-
graphical Journal 118, 59 – 68.
Jarman, D., Stewart, I.S., 2004. What Role Have Paleoseismic Shocks
Played in Triggering Large Paraglacial Slope Instabilities in the
Mountains of Western Europe? Abstract, European Geophysical
Union, Nice. NH 3.06.
Keefer, D.K., 1984. Landslides caused by earthquakes. Geological
Society of America Bulletin 95, 406 – 421.
Kverndal, A.I., Sollid, J.L., 1993. Late Weichselian glaciation and
deglaciation in NE Troms, north Norway. Norsk Geografisk Tids-
skrift 47, 163 – 177.
Linton, D.L., 1949. Watershed breaching by ice in Scotland. Transac-
tions Institute of British Geographers 15, 1 – 15.
Linton, D.L., Moisley, H.A., 1960. The origin of Loch Lomond.
Scottish Geographical Magazine 76, 26 – 37.
Mahr, T., 1977. Deep-reaching gravitational deformations of high
mountain slopes. IAEG Bulletin 19, 121 – 127.
Mollard, J.D., 1977. Regional landslide types in Canada. Reviews in
Eng. Geol., vol. 3. Geol. Soc. of America, pp. 29 – 56.
Muir Wood, R., 1989. Extraordinary deglaciation reverse faulting in
northern Fennoscandia. In: Gregersen, S., Basham, P.W. (Eds.),
Earthquakes at North Atlantic Passive Margins: Neotectonics and
Postglacial Rebound. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp. 141 – 173.
Patton, F.D., Hendron, A.J., 1974. General Report on Mass
Movements, Int. Ass. Eng. Geol. 2nd Int. Congress, vol. 5,
pp. GR1 – GR57.
Radbruch-Hall, D.H., Varnes, D.J., Savage, W.Z., 1976. Gravitational
spreading of steep-sided ridges (bsackungQ) in western United
States. Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering
Geology 14, 23 – 35.
Sissons, J.B., Cornish, R., 1982. Differential isostatic uplift of
crustal blocks at Glen Roy, Scotland. Quaternary Research 18,
268 – 288.
Stewart, I.S., Sauber, S., Rose, J., 2000. Glacio-seismotectonics: ice
sheets, crustal deformation and seismicity. Quaternary Science
Reviews 19, 1367 – 1389.
Trewin, N.H. (Ed.), 2000. The Geology of Scotland, 4th edition. The
Geological Society, London.
Watters, R.J., 1972. Slope stability in the metamorphic rock of
the Scottish Highlands. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of
London.
Whalley, W.B., Douglas, G.R., Jonsson, A., 1983. The magnitude and
frequency of large rock slides in Iceland during the postglacial.
Geografiska Annaler 65A, 99 – 109.
Wilson, A.J., Petley, D.N., Murphy, W., 2003. Down-slope variation
in geotechnical parameters and pore fluid control on a large-scale
Alpine landslide. Geomorphology 54, 49 – 62.
Zischinsky, U., 1966. On the Deformation of High Slopes, Int.
Soc. Rock Mechanics 1st Congress, Proc., vol. 2, pp. 179 – 185.