An Overview of Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia

Written by:
Gayatri Indah Marliyani
San Diego State University, USA
Gadjah Mada University, Indonesia

INTRODUCTION
Merapi is a strato-volcano located in Central Java, Indonesia, about 30 km north
of Yogyakarta city which has more than one million inhabitants (Figure 1, Figure
2). It is part of the volcanic front of the Sunda-Banda magmatic arc produced by
subduction of the Australian plate under the Eurasian plate. The Indonesian
archipelago resulted from complex and diverse tectonic processes (Simandjuntak
& Barber, 1996, Wilson 1989, Hamilton, 1979). The present phase of orogenic
activity in Indonesia commenced in the mid-Miocene and is still in progress
(Simandjuntak & Barber, 1996). In westernmost Sumatra, it involves strongly
oblique convergence and major strike slip transcurrent fault movement within the
magmatic arc (Figure 3). Continuing to the east, in Java and Nusa Tenggara,
normal convergence produces an orogenic belt and Andean type subduction zone.
This subduction zone is characterized by trench, accretionary complex, forearc
basin and Quaternary active volcanoes built on the margin of the Sundaland
continent. Merapi is one of these volcanoes. Further to the north east,
convergences of oceanic plates set the Sangihe and Halmahera magmatic arc,
while in Sulawesi, it involves collision of microcontinental blocks with
subduction systems along the eastern margin of Sundaland. Moving to the south
of Sumba, it involves collision of the northern margin of the Australian continent
with the subduction system along the southern segment of the Banda Arc. A more
advanced stage of collision of the northern margin of the Australian continent with
a magmatic arc on the Philippine Sea plate forms the easternmost part of
Indonesia, Irian Jaya.

Having an average eruption frequency of once every 4-5 years with more
explosive and larger episodes every few decades, this volcano is considered one of
Indonesias most active volcanoes. Despite the danger of living close to a volcano,
many people occupy fertile land surrounding Merapi, risking exposure to
pyroclastic flow and possible larger explosive eruptions. For this reason, Merapi
was selected as one of the focus volcanoes during the International Decade for
Natural Disaster Reduction (Newhall et al. 1994).

In this writing, I describe Merapi based on published data and limited personal
field observation. This description includes morphological aspects, eruption type
and history, rock types, and also includes monitoring for hazard assessment and
recommendations.
Figure 1. Regional map of Merapi and its surroundings,
modified from Camus et al, 2000
 Figure 2. Morphology of modern Merapi, with Merbabu mountain behind, seen
from approximately 20 km south of Merapi (http://discover-
indo.tierranet.com/newsa.htm)

Figure 3. Map of the Indonesian subduction system shows general tectonic setting
and distribution of active volcanoes (marked as circles). Arrows indicate the
direction of movement (after Gertisser and Keller, 2003)

MORPHOLOGY
Merapi forms a bell-shaped topography that has a mean dip angle of 5 up to 1300
m and 15 up to the summit of 2911 m (Berthommier, 1990). The porphyric
nature of the lava and alternating deposits of lahars and pyroclastic flows forms an
un-compacted and highly porous material that is easily eroded. Merapis
morphology is characterized by steep erosional valleys of all sizes and radial
ridges (Mizutani, 1990).

There are two high temperature fumarolic fields near the Merapi summit, Gendol
and Woro, located 150 m and 250 m SE of the centre of the summit crater. The
maximum fumarolic temperatures in the Gendol field are greater than 800C,
while those in Woro are higher than 600C (Zimmer and Erzinger, 2003). The
SO2 gas is continuously discharging from the fumaroles and the lava dome.

ERUPTIONS
Merapi has behaved as a classical strato-volcano, with alternating phases of
effusion of lava flows and vertical vulcanian explosions that could generate scoria
flows (Camus et al, 2000). The major event that interrupted this behavior was a
sector collapse, with an inferred associated blast. Later, strong magmatic and
probably phreatomagmatic events occurred, preceding the present dome-building
phase.

The total Merapi eruption volume is estimated between 100 and 150 km3
(Berthommier, 1990) with present rate of effusions at about 105 m3 per month
over the past 100 years (Siswowidjoyo et al., 1995). A strong uncertainty remains
concerning the beginning of its activity. If the effusion rate is assumed to be
constant since the beginning of its activity, Merapi could be between 8.300 and
125.000 years old (Camus et al, 2000). However the geological evidence, Camus
et al (2000) suggests that the rate of flow may have decreased during the evolution
of Merapi. Thick and long lava flows were progressively replaced by smaller
ones, then by slow dome extrusions. If so, Merapi is much younger. According to
Newhall et al (1995), Merapi shows evidence of over 7000 years of explosive
eruptions, and Charbonnier & Gertisser (2008) give an age around 40.000 years.

Figure 4. A pyroclastic flow referred to Merapi type nuee ardente at 08:54:37 on 7

June 2006 traveling down Merapis upslope region in a generally SE direction.
(The Research and Technology Development Agency for Volcanology-BPPTK,
Yogyakarta).

On the basis of field studies and geochronological data, Camus et al (2000)

divided its history into four periods: Ancient, Middle, Recent and Modern Merapi.
The Ancient Period may have begun around 40.000 y BP and lasted until 14.000 y
BP as the Middle Period begun. The Recent Period begun around 2200 y BP and
was replaced by the Modern Period after the eruption of 1786. During the Middle
Merapi stage, a St. Helens-type edifice collapse occurred. During the Recent
Merapi stage, two violent magmatic to phreatomagmatic eruptions interrupted the
growth of the volcano.
The older phreatoplinian deposits cover the entire cone; charcoal found within
these deposits gave 14C ages of 2200 and 1470 y BP (Camus et al, 2000). The
overlying ash deposits, referred to as Sambisari ash deposits, were emplaced by
violent pyroclastic surges directed towards the south, i.e. to the present location of
the town of Yogyakarta, burying the Shivaitic temple of Sambisari at the start of
the 15th century. Many other Shivaitic temples, such as Prambanan, Kadisoko,
Kedulan, (Figure 7) were found buried under thick volcaniclastic deposits south of
Merapi, indicating that the pyroclastic flow and surge deposits can reach as far as
25-35 km. It is believed that there are still many temples and other remains of
ancient civilizations still undiscovered under the deposits. This distance makes it
clear that Merapi produces not only dome-collapse pyroclastic flows, but also
pyroclastic flows related to moderate to large explosive eruptions (Camus et al,
2000).

Modern Merapi is characterized by the persistent growth of a summit dome,

known as Merapi-type activity, which is described as a semi-continuous
outpouring of viscous lava producing a summit dome, interrupted by periodic
gravitational dome collapse or total destruction triggering violent block-ash flows
and associated surges ardentes (Figure. The ash produce is referred to as Merapi-
type nues 4) (Escher, 1933, Voight et al., 2000). Sometimes, a more
exceptionally, fall-back St. Vincent type nues ardentes (scoria flows) occurs.

Figure 5. The excavation process of Kedulan temples that were buried under at
least 6 m thick volcaniclastic deposits approximately 25 km south of Merapi
(http://media.photobucket.com/image/candikedulan.jpg/noncy_2008/candikedulan
.jpg).

Since the mid-1500s, eighty eruptions have been recorded and almost half have
been accompanied by the dome-collapse pyroclastic flow (Simkin and Siebert,
1994). About sixteen of Merapis past eruptions, including the latest eruption
episode in 2006, have caused fatalities (Charbonnier and Gertisser, 2008). Most
pyroclastic flows events in the 20th Century that were produced by collapse
domes produced limited amount of lava and traveled relatively short distances.
Occasionally, as in 1930, unusually large collapse related flows traveled 10 km
from the summit into populated areas. However, several studies on the older
deposits revealed that many eruptions during the 719th centuries A.D. were
substantially more violent and swept broad sectors of the volcano with explosion
type pyroclastic flows (Kemmerling, 1931; Neumann van Padang, 1931, 1933,
1936/1937; Escher, 1933; Hartmann, 1934, 1935). These eruptions, much larger
and more explosive and violent than any of the 20th Century, have occurred at
irregular intervals of several decades as identified in 1768, 1822, 1849, 1872, and
19301931. The 1872 eruption is the only one of a St. Vincent-type during the
Modern Period (Hartmann, 1934), but many deposits attest that it was a very
frequent type during the preceding periods. In 1872, all the flanks of the volcano
were covered by ash-and-scoria pyroclastic flows. An interesting fact quoted by
Hartmann (1934) is that the building up of the volcanic column was progressive,
and preceded by two days of spectacular events describes as roarings sounds,
intensive volcanic tremor and smaller explosions, which explains the small
amount of causalities recorded, since many inhabitants had left the danger zone
before the climax of the eruption.

In contrast, the 19301931 eruption, in spite of an exceptionally high lava output,

the eruption was quiet, without pyroclastic flows that last for 23 days. So, the
cataclysmal explosive phase was unexpected, explaining the great number of
fatalities. This unusual behavior was related to the opening of a vent at a place
lower than usual, which is at the foot of the older summit domes. This opening
can be caused by hydraulic fracturing, or by utilization of a pre-existing weak
zone, or both (Camus et al, 2000). It is important to recollect that the eruption
began after 11 months of increasing seismic activity. This type of sub terminal
eruption seems to be exceptional at Merapi. If this type of eruption would occurs
again, it could be on the same flank of the volcano, or on its south flank, where
there is a fractured zone with fumaroles and small solfataras, at about 300 m
below the summit (Camus et al, 2000).

The absence of large ignimbrite eruptions suggests both the absence of a large-
deep reservoir and of a long stage of volcanic rest (Camus et al, 2000). Inferred
from seismic observation, location of the magma reservoir which feeds the
eruptions is estimated to be at 1.5 km below the summit (Ratdomopurbo, 2000).

By observing the long recorded behavior of Merapi, the occurrence of explosive

eruptions during periods of less explosive dome growth and dome collapse is
more likely than the occurrence new open-vent eruptions. An average low level
activity of Merapi can be interrupted by a much larger explosive eruption and
there is no reliable evidence to assume that the future activity will be as benign as
that of the 20th century (Newhall, 2000).
CHRONOLOGY OF 2006 ERUPTION

To give a better understanding of the behavior of modern Merapi, I present here

the sequence of the latest eruption of 2006 includes its chronology and deposits.

The 2006 eruption of Merapi consisted of three eruption phases that produced a
complex sequence of block-and-ash flows directed mainly towards the south-
western (May 2006) and southern flanks (June 2006) of the volcano (Charbonnier
and Gertisser, 2008). After a dormant period of nearly five years, volcanic activity
at Merapi resumed in July 2005 with an increase in the number of volcanic tremor
and deformation of the summit area. This renewed episode of activity ended with
the extrusion of a new lava dome in March 2006. In contrast to summit lava
domes predating the 2001 eruption, which were mainly located inside the 1961
crater, the 2006 lava dome of Merapi was emplaced near the eastern rim of the
1931 crater, locally known as Gegerbuaya (Figure 6). The period of lava-dome
growth that started in March 2006 increased during April and was followed by
periods of multiple rockfalls and dome-collapse pyroclastic flows during May and
June 2006.

Due to the presence of a topographic barrier in the south-eastern sector of the

1931 crater (Gegerbuaya ridge; Figure 5), the rockfalls and dome-collapse
pyroclastic flows of the first eruption phase from May 527, were mainly directed
towards the southwestern flank of Merapi into the Krasak, Bedok and Boyong
River valleys, with runout distances of <4 km from the summit area.

The new lava dome deformation during the first phase dominated by rock
avalanche. Multi-phase earthquakes indicated that the dome was not yet stabilized
and that pressure accumulation inside was immediately followed by rock
avalanches as the conduit pressure ceased and deflation began (Merapi Volcano
Observatory BPPTK, 2006). The volume of the 2006 lava dome on May 22 was
estimated at ~2.3106 m3.

The second eruption phase was associated with a magnitude 6.3 earthquake on
May 27, whose epicenter was located 35 km south of Merapi (Fig. 1).
Immediately after this event, lava extrusion rates at Merapi increased to 0.1106
m3/day. On June 4, the summit lava dome reached a volume of >4.0106 m3 and
a height of 116 m above the summit peak (BGVN 32:02). Following partial
collapse of the eastern part of the Gegerbuaya ridge (Fig. 5), an increase in the
volume of successive pyroclastic flows and associated collapsed material was
observed. This succession of events allowed flows to take a different path and
travel down the southern and south-eastern flanks of Merapi, which were not
affected by pyroclastic flows for more than a century.

During the third eruption phase in June, the activity occurred in two distinct
periods. Between June 3 and 12, several dome-collapse pyroclastic flows affected
the southern and south-eastern flanks towards the Gendol River valley with runout
distances <4.5 km. On June 14, the activity peaked with two sustained dome-
collapse events that lasted over periods of tens of minutes produced at least two
pyroclastic flows with maximum runout distances in the Gendol River valley of 5
and 7 km. These flows caused two fatalities and partial burial of the village of
Kaliadem (Figure 6). This event was preceded by a high lava extrusion rate and
oversteepening, creeping and deflation of the lava dome (Merapi Volcano
Observatory BPPTK, 2006). After June 14, the number and frequency of
pyroclastic flows decreased until the end of the eruption in early July.

Figure 6. Ikonos satellite image of the summit area of Merapi on May 10, 2006. Lava domes and
viscous flows are labeled with the year of extrusion. The white dotted line corresponds to the 1931
crater rim. The Gegerbuaya ridge is formed by 1911 lavas (Charbonnier and Gertisser, 2008).
 Figure 7. Destroyed houses and dislodged ash and volcanic rocks from Merapi in the village of
Kaliadem (SE flank ~ 5 km from the summit) shortly after the 14 June 2006 pyroclastic flows
passed through the settlement. (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?
vnum=0603-25=&volpage=var#bgvn_3310)

ROCK TYPES

Most of the lavas of Merapi are calc-alkaline, high-K basaltic andesites, with a
restricted compositional range from 5257% SiO2 (Camus et al, 2000). Some
basalts and andesites occurred, but scarce, extending the compositional range to
49.560.5% SiO2 (Figure 8). The lavas are highly porphyritic, with phenocryst
and microphenocryst contents ranging from 2262% (Camus et al, 2000).

The mineralogy throughout Merapis history is generally very similar, and the
characteristic assemblage is plagioclase, clinopyroxene (augitesalite), brown
hornblende, olivine, titanomagnetite, and hypersthene (only in basaltic andesites),
embed in a clear to brown glassy matrix (Camus et al, 2000). The main accessory
minerals are apatite, which occur as microphenocrysts, alkali-feldspar and
tridymite as interstitial phases in the groundmass. The groundmass is partly
crystalline, with mainly microlites of plagioclase and pyroxenes.

Figure 8. Total alkalies versus silica diagram for Merapi volcanic rocks (Camus et
al, 2000). Fields represent the volcanic rock classifications of LeBas et al (1986).

The complex zoning of plagioclase, the wide compositional range of plagioclase

for a single sample and disequilibrium textures for amphibole and pyroxene,
suggest thermal and chemical disequilibrium (Camus et al, 2000). The additional
macroscopic and microscopic evidence for mixed glass indicates the occurrence
of a magma mixing process. Magma mixing may have buffered the compositions
of lavas at Merapi, resulting in the restricted range of whole-rock composition
(5257% SiO2). Typical phenocryst assemblage is plagioclase > clinopyroxene >
amphibole, orthopyroxene, olivine, titanomagnetite. A general trend toward more
evolved magmas, from Recent to Modern Merapi is recognized (Camus et al,
2000).

Deposits from the explosive phases of the Modern Merapi period can be classified
into three types (Kemmerling, 1832; Escher, 1933, Camus et al, 2000):
(1) Block and ash flow deposits of the Merapi type, commonly produced by dome
collapses (Figure 9). These deposits are characteristic of the Modern Merapi
Period and, to a certain extent, also occur in the Middle Period. They have not
been recognized as the products of the Ancient Period eruptions.
(2) Block and scoria flow deposits, produced by fall-back pyroclast of the Saint
Vincent type.
(3) Surge-like pelean deposits. Grandjean (1931) suggested that the 19301931
eruption could have generated violent pelean surges; deposits related to such
eruptive processes have not been described before 1994 at Merapi.

Figure 9. The 2006 block-and-ash flow deposits in the upper Gendol River valley
(http://www.esci.keele.ac.uk/merapi/about.htm)
 Figure 10. Detailed map of the June 2006 block-and-ash flow deposits on the
southern flank of Merapi. Typical longitudinal profile along the pre-2006
topographic surface with the distribution of individual lobe deposits is shown in
the inset. Contour heights are in meters (Charbonnier and Gertisser, 2008)

Surface particle assemblage analyses on 2006 block-and-ash flow deposits were

performed by Charbonnier and Gertisser (2008) as presented in Table 1. They
grouped the assemblages lithologically into six main types, which are
representative of the rock types found within the different flows generated during
this eruption period (Figure 10). The juvenile component is a porphyritic basaltic
andesite that can be divided into four main lithologies: (1) light grey scoria (2)
dark grey scoria, (3) light grey dense clasts, and (4) dense, prismatically jointed
clasts. These juvenile components range in density from 1.7 to 2.6 g/cm3 (mean
2.2 g/cm3, n=25). The two other components identified as hydrothermally altered
and oxidized clasts are lithologically distinct from the juvenile material and
represent accidental lithics which were incorporated into the flows. Their density
ranges from 1.8 to 2.4 g/cm3 (mean 2.1 g/cm3, n=20). These clasts represent the
old dome fragments and/or lava flows which constitute the south-eastern part of
the summit area as it has similarity with the material taken from Gendol solfatara
field and the 1931 crater wall.

MERAPI MONITORING
The institution that is responsible for monitoring the activity of Merapi is
Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (VSI). The monitoring encompasses these
parameters: seismicity, volcanomagnetism, deformation, geochemistry, visual
monitoring of summit morphology and dome evolution, and also lahar detection
during episodes of eruption.

Seismicity is considered the most important parameter for estimating the

probability of an eruption. The seismic signals observed at Merapi volcano are
classified as A-type, B-type, multiple phase events, long-period events, tremor and
rock fall (Ratdomopurbo, 1995). Currently, the network of eight seismographs
established around the volcano, allows volcanologists to accurately pinpoint the
hypocenters of tremors and quakes.

Geomagnetic monitoring in Merapi has been carried out since 1977 with a total of
four sensor stations established. Those sensors continuously measure the total
geomagnetic intensity with a sampling rate of one data sample/minute.

Geochemical monitoring of Merapi has been carried out since 1984. Several fixed
points are located at two main solfatara fields of Gendol and Woro for a
continuous sampling.

Since 1961, the only change in the morphology of the summit has taking place
inside the crater. Alternation of dome formation and dome collapse occurs
frequently. As the direction of pyroclastic flows depends strongly on summit
morphology and the condition and position of the dome, visual observation of the
summit and the dome is necessary. Detailed observations of the crater were
conducted by a team sent to the summit to take photographs of the crater and the
dome. From the successive photographs, the evolution of the dome can be
reconstructed.

The VSI also established six observation posts: Kaliurang, Ngepos, Babadan,
Jrakah, Krinjing and Selo. Every observation post is equipped with a telescope to
observe changes in the upper part of the volcano, including rock fall activity;
source, direction and distance traveled by avalanches, location of dome build up
and height of the volcanic smoke.

Lahar is one of the important secondary hazards in Merapi. In 1975, lahar in the
Krasak River destroyed the bridge on the main road connecting the provinces of
Yogyakarta and Central Java. On December 5, 1996 at Boyong River, 14 mining
trucks were buried under the lahar flow. The measurement of the lahar volume
based on estimates of the volume of loose material at the slope. Some detectors
also placed near some river channels as an early warning system. A lahar event is
usually triggered by heavy rainfall, and so the system must be more alert under
conditions in which the volume of material reaches a threshold and there has been
rainfall of around 50-mm/hour.
All of the data is sent directly to the base station of Merapi Volcano Observatory,
Volcanological Survey of Indonesia (MVO-VSI) which is located in Yogyakarta
City. The data is processed to maintain the alert level of the volcano on a daily
basis. The MVO-VSI is also responsible for producing a volcano hazard map of
Merapi and for revising it when necessary.

DISCUSSION
There are more than one million inhabitants endangered by Merapi. The
prominent hazards of this volcano come from the direct and secondary effects of
the eruptions. The direct effect is related to block and ash pyroclastic flow and
associated surges that are produced by gravitational dome collapses. Secondary
effects include laharic flow produced by mixing of its loose material with water
and by aerial and water pollution. The areas expected to experience the effect of
eruption are mapped by the MVO-VSI. This map divides the area surround the
volcano into several zones based on susceptibility to danger from future eruptions.
This prediction is largely based on the present morphological condition of Merapi.

In addition, predicting the eruption hazards of Merapi must be estimated not only
based on the eruptions observed during the Modern Period, which are relatively
small, but also from the much larger eruptions that preceded it. There is a broad
spectrum of scenarios describing the large eruptions of the past. The prediction of
future eruptions must take this into account, bearing in mind that the scenario
likely will differ. For example, the location of the vent could change, or a new
dome be created with associated pyroclastic flows going in different direction
from eruptions in the past.

Many villages and towns around Merapi are built on deposits of Merapis large
explosive eruptions. At least 80,000 and perhaps as many as 100,000 people live
inside the so-called Forbidden Zone defined by Pardyanto et al (1978). This area
lies roughly within a 10 km radius of the summit, mainly on the west and south
sides of the volcano. Several hundred thousands more live just a few kilometers
outside that zone. The residents are familiar with small dome-collapses but not
many realize that their homes and schools are built on deposits of much larger,
relatively young, lethal explosive eruptions.

There is no assurance from the geologic record that Merapi will remain as quiet in
the next century as it was during the 20th Century. Rather, it is suspected that a
major explosive eruption will occur within the coming decades. Large numbers of
people, both within and beyond the Forbidden Zone will be at serious risk. Public
education and discussion of the intent of the Forbidden Zone, a willingness among
all parties to accept some false alarms, and an ongoing search for precursors of a
larger explosive eruption are needed to limit the risk.

REFERENCES
Berthommier, P., 1990. Etude volcanologique du Merapi (Centre-Java).
Tphrostratigraphie et Chronologie. Mcanismes ruptifs. Thse Doct. III me
cycle, Univ. Blaise Pascal, ClermontFerrand, 115 pp
Camus, G., Gourgaud, A., Mossand-Berthommier, P.-C. and Vincent, P.M., 2000.
Merapi (Central Java, Indonesia): an outline of the structural and magmatological
evolution, with a special emphasis to the major pyroclastic events. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res. 100, pp. 139163.
Charbonnier, S.J. and Gertisser, R., Field observations and surface characteristics
of pristine block-and-ash flow deposits from the 2006 eruption of Merapi Volcano,
Java, Indonesia, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 177 (2008), pp.
971982.
Escher, B.G., 1933. On a classification of central eruptions according to gas
pressure of the magma and viscosity of the lava. On the character of the Merapi
eruption in central Java. Leidsche Geol. Meded. VI 1, pp. 4558.
Gertisser, R. & Keller, J. (2003): Trace element and Sr, Nd, Pb and O isotope
variations in medium-K and high-K volcanic rocks from Merapi Volcano, Central
Java, Indonesia: evidence for the involvement of subducted sediments in Sunda
Arc magma genesis. Journal of Petrology, 44: 457-486.
Hamilton, W, 1979. Tectonics of the Indonesian regions. U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof.
Pap. 1078.
Hartmann, M., 1934. Die Vulkanische Tatigkeit des Merapi Vulkanes (Mittel
Java) in seinem ostlichen Gipfelgebiete zwischen 1902 und 1908. De Ingenieur in
Nederlandsch Indie, IV. Mijnbouw en Geologie 1ste Jaargang (5), 6273.
Hartmann, M., 1935. Die Ausbruches des Gunung Merapi (Mittel Java) bis zum
Jahrey 1883.
Kemmerling, G.L.L., 1931. Beshouwingen over de hernieuwde werking van den
Merapi der Vorstenlanden van December 1930. Tijdschr. Kon. Ned. Aarddr.
Genoot. 48 (2), 712743.
Mizutani, T., Longitudinal profiles of radial valleys on the Merapi Volcano in
central Java, Indonesia, Geographical Reports of Tokyo Metropolitan University,
25, 183-194, 1990.
Neumann van Padang, M., 1936. Die Tatigkeit des Merapi-Vulkans (Mittel Java)
in den Jahren 18831888. Z. Vulkanol. 17, 93113.
Neumann van Padang, M., 1931. Der ausbruch des Merapi (mittel Java) im jahre
1930. Z. Vulkanol. XIV, 135148.
Neumann van Padang, M., 1933. De Uitbarsting van den Merapi (mittle Java) in
de Jahren 19301931. Vulk. en Seis. Med. 12, 1117.
Pardyanto, L., Reksowigoro, L.D., Mitromartono, F.X.S., Hardjowarsito, S.,
Kusumadinata, 1978. Volcanic hazard map, Merapi volcano, Central Java (1/100
000). Geol. Surv. Of Indonesia, Bandung, II, 14 (reed. 1982).
Ratdomopurbo, A., Poupinet, G., 1995. Monitoring a temporal change of seismic
velocity in a volcano: application to the 1992 eruption of Mt Merapi (Indonesia).
Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 775778.
Simkin, T. and Siebert, L., 1994. Volcanoes of the World (2nd ed.), Geoscience
Press, Tucson, AZ 349 pp.
Simandjuntak, T.O. and Barber, A.J., 1996, Contrasting tectonic styles in the
Neogene orogenic belts of Indonesia, Geological Society, London, Special
Publications; 1996; v. 106; p. 185-201; DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1996.106.01.12
Siswowidjoyo, S., Suryo, I. and Yokoyama, I., 1995. Magma eruption rates of
Merapi volcano, Central Java, Indonesia, during one century (18901992). Bull.
Volcanol. 57 2, pp. 111116.
Voight, B., Constantine, E.K., Siswowidjoyo, S., Torley, R., 2000. Historical
eruptions of Merapi Volcano, Central Java, Indonesia,17681998. J. Volcanol.
Geotherm. Res.100, 69138.

Wilson, M., 1989. Igneous Petrogenesis: a Global Tectonic Approach, Unwin

Hyman, London.
Zimmer, M.; Erzinger, J., Geochemical Monitoring on Merapi Volcano, Indonesia,
1st Merapi-Galeras-Workshop, Potsdam, 25 June 1998, DGG Special Issue, 1999.

Website references
Global Volcanism Program-BGVN,
http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/volcano.cfm?vnum=0603-
25=&volpage=var#bgvn_3310
Keele University Merapi Research http://www.esci.keele.ac.uk/merapi/about.htm
The Research and Technology Development Agency for Volcanology-BPPTK,
Yogyakarta http://portal.vsi.esdm.go.id
http://discover-indo.tierranet.com/newsa.htm