A Study of Recent EarthquakesPOSITION OF THE EPICENTRE.
In determining the position of the epicentre, Mallet's method was closely followed. Fissures in buildings were used for the most part, in two out of every three cases; and occasional measurements were made from objects overthrown, projected, or shifted, and also from the personal experiences of observers. The attempt to apply the method was, however, fraught with difficulties. The heterogeneous structure of the island was no doubt responsible for many divergent azimuths; the irregularity of the buildings both in form and material and their variety of site furnished other sources of error; even the smallness of the area was a disadvantage in lessening the number of trustworthy records.
Measurements were made at 55 places altogether, but in most cases they were the results of isolated observations, not the means of several at each place. On this account, I have not reproduced in Fig. 15 the azimuths shown in Dr. Johnston-Lavis's map of the earthquake. A large number of them clearly converge towards an area lying to the west of Casamicciola; and, from their arrangement, Dr. Johnston-Lavis concludes, though the evidence does not seem to me quite strong enough for the purpose, that they emanated from a fracture running from a little west of north to a little east of south.
This conclusion is, however, justified by other evidence. In the centre of the injured district, Dr. Johnston-Lavis has traced a meizoseismal band, in which the shock must have been nearly or quite vertical. "The damage inflicted on buildings included within this band was," he says, "very characteristic of the nature of the shock; the walls having received but slight injury, whilst almost every floor and ceiling had been totally destroyed. In fact," he adds, "many houses would have required no other repairs than the replacing of the divisions between the different storeys." The shaded central area in Fig. 15 represents this band, pa.s.sing in a nearly north and south direction from a point midway between Campo and the upper part of Lacco on the north, through the west part of Casamenella and Campo, to a point near Fra.s.so on the south; the length of the band being thus about two-thirds of a mile.
If the central line of this band is produced towards the south, as indicated by the dotted line, it grazes the west side of Fontana, where, as we have seen, there was a second meizoseismal area, much smaller than the other and surrounded by a district in which houses were almost uninjured. That the shock in this town was vertical or nearly so, is shown by the nature of the damage (p. 52) and also by the testimony of the inhabitants. I will give Dr. Johnston-Lavis's explanation of this detached meizoseismal area when discussing the origin of the Ischian earthquakes; but the evidence seems to me to favour either the existence of two distinct foci or, more probably perhaps, the extension of the fissure to the south with an increased impulse beneath the centre of Epomeo.
DEPTH OF THE SEISMIC FOCUS.
At nine places, Dr. Johnston-Lavis was able to make measurements of the angle of emergence, in every case from fissures in buildings, and therefore liable to sources of error already referred to. On the other hand, owing to the small depth of the focus, there would probably be less general refraction of the wave-paths than in the Neapolitan earthquake. The depths indicated by these observations vary between about 615 and 2,885 feet, a difference that is no greater than might be expected, as the size of the focus was no doubt comparable with that of the district in which observations were made. The mean depth Dr. Johnston-Lavis finds to be about 1,700 feet, or a little less than one-third of a mile.
NATURE OF THE SHOCK.
The limited depth of the focus is also evident from the nature of the shock. It was only within the actual meizoseismal band that the shock was subsultory or vertical throughout; at a short distance from the epicentre, the movement was both subsultory and undulatory; while near the third isoseismal, and in most of the region outside, the movement was entirely undulatory or lateral. An observer at Perrone (which lies 1-2/3 miles east of the epicentre) gives the following account of the shock:--"I was standing on my balcony (this faces Casamicciola) admiring the scene ... when I felt the house rock, feeling at the same time as if something was rolling along beneath the ground. This movement was accompanied by a sound like this, b.o.o.b, b.o.o.b -- b.o.o.b -- -- b.o.o.b -- -- -- b.o.o.b -- -- -- -- b.o.o.b. Both noise and movement seemed to come from Casamicciola.... In a few seconds, in the distance over the town arose a terrific cloud of white dust, so that I imagined the town on fire.... I felt hardly any, if any, subsultory movement, but as I leant upon the balcony rails, I was alternately pressed against them and then drawn away."
At Fontana, however, the undulatory shock was replaced by a vertical one. This was the universal experience, though one or two persons felt a slight lateral movement immediately after. At Valle (near Barano) and Piejo, both places about a mile from Fontana, the vertical component was also perceptible.
AFTER-SHOCKS.
The after-shocks were few and of slight intensity. Dr. Johnston-Lavis gives the following dates: March 7th, 12.5 A.M. and midday; March 11-12, 15-16, 17-18, 27 (?), April 5th and 6th, and July 18th, 8.30 P.M. The only shock of the series marked as strong occurred at midnight on March 15-16 at Casamicciola. The last of all, that of July 18th, consisted of a rumble and slight shock, and was most perceptible at Fango.
EARTHQUAKE OF JULY 28TH, 1883.
Undeterred by the experience of 1881 or by the warnings of seismologists, Casamicciola was rebuilt, only to suffer more complete disaster. On July 28th, 1883, at 9.25 P.M., occurred the most destructive earthquake of which we have any record in Ischia. The shock lasted about fifteen seconds, and before it was over clouds of dust were rising above the ruins of Casamicciola, Lacco, and Forio; 1,200 houses were destroyed, 2,313 persons were killed, nearly 1,800 in Casamicciola alone, and more than 800 seriously wounded. "No better idea," says Dr. Johnston-Lavis, "of the absolute destruction of buildings could be conceived than what was actually realised at Casamicciola and Campo. Looking, on the following Monday, over the field of destruction, I could discover (with few exceptions) the wall-stumps only remaining."
Dr. Johnston-Lavis again spent about three weeks in the island, examining the effects of the new shock with equal zeal and wider experience. His monograph is now our chief work of reference on Ischian earthquakes. Inquiries were also made by several Italian seismologists, among others by Professor M.S. de Rossi, the organiser of earthquake-studies in the peninsula; by Professor L. Palmieri, the founder of the Vesuvian observatory; and especially by Professor G.
Mercalli, whose valuable memoir supplements the report of Dr.
Johnston-Lavis in some important particulars.
PREPARATORY SIGNS.
The interval between July 18th, 1881, when the last shock of that year was felt, and July 28th, 1883, was one of almost complete quiescence.
Early in March 1882, a few slight shocks were noticed at Casamicciola.
On July 24th, 1883, a watch hanging from a nail in a wall was seen to swing at 6 A.M. and 9 A.M., and, on the same morning, at about 8.30, a slight shock, accompanied by a rumbling sound, was felt at Casamicciola. Again, on the 28th, about a quarter of an hour before the great shock, one observer at Casamicciola states that an underground noise was heard, and that some persons in consequence left their houses.
Many a.s.sertions have been made with regard to variations witnessed a day or two before the shock in the hot springs, such as an increase of flow or temperature and changes in their volume and purity. Fumaroles are alleged to have burst out with violence, and even flames to have been seen. The statements, though widely quoted, can hardly be said to rest on satisfactory evidence. On the other hand, Dr.
Johnston-Lavis arrived in the island within twenty-four hours after the shock, and, before another day had elapsed, he had examined most of the places where the phenomena were said to have occurred, but could find no remarkable change nor any signs of such having taken place. It is also known, as he remarks, that the temperature of the Ischian springs and fumaroles sometimes varies considerably without any earthquake following, that of the water of Gurgitello occasionally changing by as much as 30 or 40. We may therefore, I think, conclude that, except for one or two shocks and underground noises too slight to cause general alarm, there were no decisive heralds of the great earthquake.
ISOSEISMAL LINES AND DISTURBED AREA.
The curves in Fig. 16 represent the isoseismal lines as drawn by Dr.
Johnston-Lavis. As in the earthquake of 1881, they bound respectively the areas of complete destruction, partial destruction and slight damage to buildings, the course of the outer line being to a great extent conjectural owing to the small extent of land traversed by it.
The first isoseismal is about 2-1/2 miles long, 1-1/2 miles broad, and 3 square miles in area; the second about 4 miles long, 3-1/2 miles broad, and 11 square miles in area; and the third about 6-1/2 miles long, 6 miles broad, and 30 square miles in area. The curve drawn by Professor Mercalli (Fig. 14) coincides nearly with the second of these lines.
At Fontana, the damage exceeded that in the surrounding country, though the difference was of course less marked than on the previous occasion.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 16.--Isoseismal lines of the Ischian earthquake of 1883.]
Outside Ischia, the shock was felt distinctly in all the island of Procida and in Vivara; on the mainland, by some as far as Pozzuoli and by several persons in Naples, which is twenty miles from Casamicciola. The seismograph at the university of this city registered two small shocks, the first at 9.10 P.M., and the second and stronger at 9.25 P.M.; and De Rossi states that at about 9.30 P.M.
the seismographs at Ceccano, Velletri, and Rome recorded a shock consisting of very slow undulations. There are again no materials for estimating the size of the disturbed area, but there can be no doubt that it was much less than that of a moderately strong British earthquake.
POSITION OF THE EPICENTRE.
Owing to the limited size of the disturbed area, time-observations, even had they been available, would not have sufficed to determine the position of the epicentre, and both Dr. Johnston-Lavis and Professor Mercalli therefore had recourse to Mallet's method, the former relying chiefly, as before, on fissures in damaged buildings, and the latter on the overthrow or displacement of columns and other objects.
Dr. Johnston-Lavis measured the azimuth of the wave-paths at sixty-five places, and at about one-third of these was able to make two or more observations. The azimuths converge towards the same region as in 1881, but the area covered by their intersections is larger. The meizoseismal band of maximum vertical destruction indicated by shading in Fig. 16 is also of the same form and slightly greater extent, reaching from the upper part of Lacco to a little south of Fra.s.so, and being therefore nearly a mile in length. The centre of maximum impulse was in the same position as in 1881, or possibly a little more to the south.
Professor Mercalli's observations were made at forty-eight places, and in only six cases were they the same as those used by his predecessor.
He also notices that most of the azimuths converge towards Casamenella, and intersect within an elongated area. This area runs in the same direction as Dr. Johnston-Lavis's meizoseismal band, but is less elongated, and situated a short distance farther to the south, though on the whole the agreement between the two areas is remarkably close.
There was again apparently a second epicentre at Fontana. In this town, according to Dr. Johnston-Lavis, there were two distinct types of damage. As in 1881, there was evidence of a vertical blow, the only one that absolutely ruined houses; but, in addition, there was another independent set of fissures, quite as widely distributed as the others, though evidently caused by a less violent movement. These indicated a wave-path with a low angle of emergence coming from between north and north-north-west, or almost exactly in the line of meizoseismal band. To the south of Fontana, however, there is a group of places, including Panza, Serrara, Barano, etc., where the azimuths diverged rather widely from the epicentre at Casamenella. These azimuths are twelve in number, and it is worthy of notice that they all intersected the crater of Epomeo, while half of them pa.s.sed within a few hundred yards of Fontana.
DEPTH OF THE SEISMIC FOCUS.
Measurements of the angle of emergence were made by Dr. Johnston-Lavis at twenty-four places, and in every case from fissured walls. The greater part of the diagram on which his results are depicted is reproduced in Fig. 17. The horizontal line, as in Fig. 13, represents the level of the sea, the longer vertical line one pa.s.sing through the epicentre, and the shorter another through Fontana. The short lines on the left of the former show the incipient wave-paths to places lying east of the epicentre; those on the right, with one exception, represent the wave-paths to places west of the same meridian. Small horizontal marks are inserted on the vertical lines to show the depth in tenths of a mile below the level of the sea.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 17.--Diagram of wave-paths at seismic vertical of Ischian earthquake of 1883. (_Johnston-Lavis._)]
The six angles of emergence that would give the greatest depth below the epicentre were all measured at places in the south of the island close to the line joining Panza and Barano, and it will be noticed that five of these apparent depths are much greater than those obtained from the other wave-paths. Excluding these observations, the remaining eighteen give depths ranging from about 450 to about 3,350 feet, and a mean depth of 1,730 feet,[24] or nearly one-third of a mile, that is, almost exactly the same as the mean depth found from the earthquake of 1881.
The six exceptional angles of emergence come from the district of divergent azimuths to the south of Epomeo. Three of the corresponding azimuths pa.s.s within one-quarter of a mile from the centre of Fontana, and none of the other three more than three-quarters of a mile from the same point. Though disbelieving in a subsidiary focus below this town, Dr. Johnston-Lavis has calculated its mean depth, supposing it to exist, and found it to be about 1,560 feet below the sea level, a result which is remarkably close to the calculated mean depth of the focus near Casamenella.
NATURE OF THE SHOCK.
In the meizoseismal band, preliminary tremor and rumbling sound were alike absent. So sudden, indeed, was the onset of the earthquake, that the survivors generally found themselves beneath the ruins of their houses before they were conscious of any shock. The destruction, practically instantaneous, was wrought by four or five vertical blows, so powerful that, according to some observers, Casamicciola seemed to jump into the air. Then followed undulations, not noticed by all, that appeared to come from every direction. The shock lasted altogether fifteen seconds or more,[25] and was accompanied by a rumbling noise, in the midst of which were detonations as of thunder or of great blows given upon an empty barrel.
In the immediate neighbourhood of the meizoseismal area, at Perrone, Pennella, and Lower Lacco, the subsultory movement was still the more prominent; but, farther away, as at Panza, Testacchio, Barano, Ischia, and Bagno, the subsultory motion was followed by distinctly horizontal undulations, while outside the island of Ischia only slow undulatory movements were perceptible.
LANDSLIPS.
The dotted areas in Fig. 16 indicate the sites of the only landslips of importance that were precipitated by the earthquake of 1883. Two of these occurred on the north slope of Epomeo, and the third on the west flank of Monte Rotaro. The materials of the Epomean landslips had evidently been separated for some time by shallow fissures from the adjoining rock, for the surfaces of the fissures were discoloured by fumarolic action. Immediately after the earthquake a cloud of dust was seen to rise from the spots; the ma.s.ses, already detached laterally, were merely set in motion by the shock; and they continued to slide down during the following days either through the action of the after-shocks or of the heavy rains that followed.
All over the island, however, fissures and minor landslips occurred.
At two places on the north coast the steep cliffs of incoherent tufa were so much damaged that, according to Dr. Johnston-Lavis, "large quant.i.ties of their materials were thrown into the sea. The water then sorted out the pieces of pumice, which in many cases were of very large size, and were seen floating about in the neighbourhood for some days," giving rise to the supposition that a submarine eruption had taken place to the north of the island.
AFTER-SHOCKS.