History of earthquake studies

RESUMEN En 1778 la ciudad de Granada se ve agitada por numerosos seísmos que preocupan a la pobla-ción. Directamente relacionado con la literatura generada desde el terremoto de Lisboa de 1755 en la ciudad surgen numerosas teorías que buscan explicar o justificar tales sucesos; varias de ellas apuntaban a la ceguera de una conocida céntrica sima-el Pozo Airón-como causa de los temblores. Así las autoridades locales decidieron contactar con la Real Sociedad de Amigos del País de Granada, en busca de axulio sobre la decisión de volver a abrir tal pozo. El resultado fue la publicación del texto el Dictamen sobre la utilidad, o inutilidad de la excavación del Pozo-Airón por parte del censor de la institución. Esta obra recogía la tradición científica previa y enta-blaba una conversación directa con las creencias más populares en la época. Palabras clave: pozo Airón, Granada, siglo xviii, terremotos, historia cultural ABSTRACT In 1778 the city of Granada was agitated by several earthquakes that worried the population. Directly related to the literature generated since the Lisbon earthquake of 1755 in the city numerous theories arise that seek to explain or justify such events; several of them pointed to the blindness of a well-known well-the pozo Airón-as a cause of the tremors. The local authorities decided to contact the Real Sociedad de Amigos del País de Granada, in search of help on the decision to reopen the well. The result was the publication of the text Dictamen sobre la utilidad, o inutilidad de la excavación del Pozo-Airón by the censor of the institution. This work gathered the previous scientific tradition and engaged in a direct conversation with the most popular beliefs at the time.

Il libro si pone a conclusione di una ricerca avviata già nella seconda metà degli anni Novanta e proseguita dopo il terremoto del 2009, in occasione del restauro del palazzo (lavori ultimati nel 2016).
Gli approfondimenti conoscitivi derivanti dalle osservazioni sui danni sismici e nel cantiere hanno portato a nuove riflessioni e interpretazioni; il presente lavoro intende documentare quanto compiuto e offrire un contributo di conoscenza da trasmettere al futuro, insieme alla ‘restituzione’ dell’edificio alla sua funzionalità e alla fruizione pubblica.
Il progetto e il cantiere di restauro del palazzo Carli Benedetti sono stati un’occasione preziosa per sviluppare e approfondire la conoscenza su diversi filoni di ricerca, che vanno oltre lo studio del singolo edificio. L’analisi delle fasi costruttive ripercorre la storia sismica del territorio, l’indagine storica è estesa alle trasformazioni di un settore urbano (dagli insediamenti medievali fino alle alterazioni più recenti), la ricostruzione della storia conservativa si confronta con le modalità di trasmissione del palazzo nei secoli.
Inoltre, la situazione di danno dopo il sisma ha consentito di osservare numerosi dettagli costruttivi e indizi di trasformazioni; l’osservazione attenta durante le fasi di lavorazione ha portato alla scoperta di apparati decorativi nascosti, a riconoscere le tracce di configurazioni precedenti e di altri dettagli di grande interesse per lo studio dell’architettura storica.

When considered in light of contemporary seismological and volcanolo-gical research, an abundance of literary, archaeological, and epigraphic information can illuminate the natural and historical circumstances marking a series of natural disasters that beset coastal Campania between 62 CE and the early 80s. During this time, towns extending from Neapolis east and south to Salernum suffered damage from several earthquakes. The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79 subjected the entire zone to damage as well, but outside the core pyroclastic zone the effects were variable. The quakes seriously affected Neapolis and its territory, yet the city survived and prospered due in part, it is argued, to an unusual and fortuitous antiseismic feature of its urban fabric. The volcanic eruption dealt a grievous blow to the local landscape and economy but Neapolis again demonstrated its resilience, providing assistance to the emperor's relief commission and refuge to many who escaped the eruption. In the aftermath of 79 this city may have undergone a mild form of colonization, selling the emperor agricultural land for future veteran settlement in areas where recovery could be expected and establishing a permanent suburban neighborhood, perhaps more than one, for refugees.

The earthquake that hit Zagreb on 9th November 1880 was one of the most important breakpoints in the history of architecture and urban planning of the city. It was estimated that in its epicenter, which was northeast of Zagreb, earthquake was of magnitude 6.2 on the Richter scale. Barely any building in the city remained undamaged, and many buildings had to be completely removed due to the danger of collapse. On third day after the tragic event, Zagreb photographers began photographing significantly damaged or destroyed buildings. Otto Dasch made the first photographs and was soon after followed by other esteemed Zagreb photographers: Hinko Krapek, Gjuro Varga, Hermann Fickert and Johann (Ivan) Standl. Photographers played a key role in disseminating visual information about the earthquake, which was the only event that enticed a rather great interest of the world press for the Croatian capital in the second half of the 19th century. Although the earthquake did not have catastrophic effects, early reports of the majority of German, Hungarian, French, Italian, English and Slovenian dailies were rather unreliable, and often replete with exaggeration. The news appearing after the primary fear toned down, was completely contrary to the previous reports in that they minimized the damage. The aforementioned photographers thus tried with their photos to contribute to the objective view of the situation. However, they shot almost only those buildings which were most severely damaged by the earthquake, not so much because they wanted to overemphasize the scale of the destruction but because such scenes were the most interesting for the audiences. That was the same reason illustrated magazines from different parts of the world published images showing the most damaged buildings. During 1881, three albums were made which showed photographs of the earthquake damaged buildings. Two of them contain works of Standl and Fickert respectively, while the third album is a collection of works by four photographers: Standl, Fickert, Varga and Dasch. Standl's album “Photographs of the Zagreb Earthquake“ is characterised by a great quality of photos. It contains 25 works which were mostly commissioned by the Yugoslav (today Croatian) Academy of Sciences and Arts where Standl worked as an official photographer. Academy's Institute for Mathematics and Physics started gathering information about the earthquake in mid-November, at the same time when Standl was commissioned to take photographs of damaged buildings. The aim was to keep memory on the earthquake and to facilitate its scientific research. Standl’s album has been preserved in a rather large number of copies in various public institutions (archives, museums) and in private collections. Contrary to Standl, Fickert created his album “Memories on the Zagreb earthquake on 9th November 1880“ through his personal efforts and initiative. Each buyer of the album could choose 15 photographs from Fickert's collection and thereby create his or her own album, which consequently led to the creation of several different compilations of Fickert's works. The album containing the works of all three photographs bears the title “Photos of the Zagreb Earthquake on 9th November 1888“. It was created most likely due to the efforts of a public institution, probably the Zagreb City Council. Its special value lies in the photographs taken by Gjuro Varga which show damaged buildings on Zagreb's main city square. The aim of this presentation is an analysis of the creation and content of the photos from the albums and an attempt to present the ways in which the photos influenced the formation of the event’s image.

Potres koji je pogodio Zagreb 9. 11. 1880. godine, čija se jačina procjenjuje na 6,1-6,3 stupnjeva prema Richterovoj ljestvici jedna je od najvećih prirodnih katastrofa koja je kroz povijest pogodila ovaj grad. U arhitekturi i urbanom razvitku Zagreba potres je odigrao iznimno značajnu ulogu. Cilj je ovoga teksta na prvom mjestu prikazati način na koji su hrvatske vlasti organizirale sanaciju građevina u Zagrebu neposredno nakon toga potresa, u studenom i prosincu 1880., s kojim su se financijskim i drugim ograničenjima suočavale te tko je konkretno bio angažiran na izvedbi i kontroli radova. Tekst se temelji na dokumentaciji središnjih organa vlasti Trojedne Kraljevine (Predsjedništva i Unutrašnjega odjela Zemaljske vlade) te vijestima iz onodobnih zagrebačkih novina, provladinih Narodnih novina i Agramer Zeitunga te opozicijskog Obzora.
Obnovu grada i okoline nadzirao je Građevni odsjek Unutarnjeg odjela hrvatske Zemaljske vlade, no bile su uključene i brojne druge institucije, na prvom mjestu Gradsko poglavarstvo Grada Zagreba tada na čelu s gradonačelnikom Matijom Mrazovićem (sa svojim Građevnim odjelom), zatim Zagrebačka županija te vlada tada još uvijek postojeće Vojne Krajine, na čelu s generalom barunom Franjom Filipovićem.
Iako je sustav javnih službi u Zagrebu bio vrlo složen zahvaljujući čemu je je velik broj građevinskih inženjera bio zaposlen u raznim institucijama i iako je u gradu djelovao cijeli niz raznih arhitekata, graditelja i drugih majstora, u cjelini gledajući Zagreb u tom trenutku nije raspolagao s dovoljno stručnoga osoblja niti s dovoljno radnika da se saniraju sve nastale štete.
U pomoć Hrvatskoj pritekle su tako vrlo brzo nakon potresa središnje institucije iz Beča, na prvom mjestu Ministarstvo rata iz Beča, jedno od rijetkih ministarstava nadležnih za cijelo područje Monarhije nakon Austro-ugarske nagodbe 1867. Uz blagoslov vladara u pomoć Zagrebu su stigle već 12. 11. dvije satnije – Inženjerska i Pionirska.
Obnovu javnih zgrada vodile su javne institucije u čijemu su se vlasništvu nalazile. Obnovu stambenih i stambeno-poslovnih, dakle privatnih zgrada, najčešće su vodili sami vlasnici, no nadzirale su ih gradske vlasti. Nakon što se neposredno nakon potresa u glavnim crtama dobila slika o razmjeru šteta, na sjednici Gradskog poglavarstva je 11. 11. 1880. formiran gradski Građevno-eksekutivni odbor na čelu s gradskim zastupnikom Josipom Siebenscheinom. Odbor je zasjedao u vijećnici, gdje je zaprimao molbe i raspoređivao povjerenstva za uviđaje, a vodio je računa i o osiguravanju potrebnih materijala za radove. Uz spomenuti Građevno-eksekutivni odbor Grad je formirao i odbor za pomoć stradalnicima u potresu kojemu je predsjedao Ivan Buratti.
Gradsko poglavarstvo je, nadalje, već dan nakon potresa kako bi pomoglo kućevlasnicima čije su zgrade bile oštećene i kako bi spriječilo špekulacije koje su se javile neposredno nakon potresa donijelo odredbu o ograničenju cijena građevinskog materijala i građevinskih radova.
Već prve odredbe Zemaljske vlade o popravcima nakon potresa pokazuju kako se kao ključan problem javio nedostatak sredstava. Ban je privremeno odlučio da će se troškovi sanacije podmirivati iz zaklada koje javnim institucijama stoje na raspolaganju s tim da je napomenuto da „što veću štednju pred očima imati valja.“
Ukupna šteta nastala potresom bila je procijenjena na 3,275.544 forinti, od čega se na Zagreb odnosilo 2,153.108 forinti. Kako je u tim godinama proračun Trojedne Kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije i Dalmacije tek počeo prelaziti 3,5 milijuna forinti, dok je proračun grada Zagreba u 1880. godini iznosio 586.453 for., hrvatske autonomne i zagrebačke gradske vlasti suočile su se s golemim izazovom s kojim sredstvima pokriti obnovu Zagreba i okolice.
Štete na građevinama u Zagrebu procjenjivale su se prema tadašnjoj metodologiji obzirom na njihov udio u ukupnim prihodima koje su zgrade godišnje donosile. Najveći dio stambeno-poslovnih građevina u Zagrebu činile su, naime, najamne zgrade, podignute kao investicija pojedinaca, obitelji ili tvrtki, koje su se potom donosile prihode od najamnina. Prema procjenama Građevnog odsjeka Gradskog poglavarstva u potresu je 845 zgrada u Zagrebu bilo toliko oštećeno da šteta nadmašuje njihov godišnji dohodak, preko 400 je bilo oštećeno preko 40% bruto godišnjega dohotka, dok je procijenjeno da na 400 kuća ima samo manjih šteta.
Obnovu Zagreba pomogla je financijski i Zemaljska vlada i ugarska vlada u Budimpešti. Ban je dodijelio iz hrvatskih autonomnih sredstava 50.000 forinti beskamatnog kredita, a toliko je dao i ministar predsjednik Ugarske István Tisza. Nadalje, Ugarski sabor je četiri mjeseca nakon potresa, sredinom ožujka 1881. godine, na osnovi zakonskog članka IX. odobrio milijun forinti zajma. Od toga je iznosa dodijeljeno 100.000 forinti u vidu beskamatnih zajmova, a ostatak su bili krediti s kamatama od 4% na različite rokove otplate (15, 20 i 30 godina).
Spisi Predsjedništva Zemaljske vlade otkrivaju da su u pomoć Zagrebu nakon potresa pritekli brojni građani gotovo svih dijelova Austro-Ugarske Monarhije, ali i ostatka Europe. Ukupno je bilo skupljeno nešto više od 235.000 forinti, što je bio golem iznos za onodobni Zagreb i Hrvatsku. Kako se moglo vidjeti iz prethodnog dijela teksta riječ je o gotovo 40% godišnjega proračuna grada Zagreba iz 1880., te o 7% iznosa na koji je procijenjena ukupna šteta od potresa.
Osim donacijama i kreditima građanima Zagreba nakon potresa država je pomogla i kroz porezne olakšice. Kućevlasnici su dobili oslobođenje od plaćanja poreza od 3 do 12 mjeseci u postotku ovisnom o stupnju oštećenja zgrada, a ban je uspio ishoditi od Ministarstva financija i da se oni zagrebački investitori koji se odluče na izgradnju novih zgrada 16 godina oslobode od poreza.
Usprkos nedostatku sredstava u samo mjesec dana od potresa završena je nužna obnova gotovo svih javnih zgrada, tako da su sve škole, zavodi i druge javne institucije mogle započeti s radom. I velik dio stambenih zgrada saniran je u dovoljnoj mjeri da se mogao koristiti za stanovanje. Predstojali su samo još veliki radovi na obnovi crkava, od kojih će neki biti završeni već tijekom 1881. (na crkvi svete Katarine), dok će na pojedinim građevinama trajati nekoliko desetljeća (na katedrali, franjevačkoj crkvi).

Özet: Bu makale 19 Nisan 1938 tarihinde meydana gelen Kırşehir depreminin etkisini, felaketin ardından alınan tedbirleri ve sonrasında yapılan çalışmaları, arşiv belgeleri, süreli yayınlar ve ilgili literatür kullanarak incelemektedir. Kırşehir başta olmak üzere Yozgat, Ankara, Çorum, Kayseri gibi illerin kapsayan depremin birinci derecede etkili olduğu alanın genişliği 226, ikinci derecede etkili olduğu alanın genişliği ise 1550 kilometrekaredir. Çok sayıda kişinin hayatını kaybettiği bu deprem sonrası yaraların sarılabilmesi, yıkılan evlerin yeniden inşa edilebilmesi için hükûmet vakit kaybetmeksizin çalışma başlatmıştır. İlk etapta alınan sağlık ve güvenlik tedbirlerinin yanı sıra bölgeye gönderilen inceleme heyetlerinin raporları doğrultusunda faaliyetler sürdürülmüştür. Bunun dışında yurdun dört bir tarafında yardım kampanyaları düzenlenmiş, halk felaketzedelere destek vermek için âdeta seferber olmuştur. Abstract: This article examines the Kırsehir earthquake of April 19, 1938 along with its impact and the recovery work took place after the disaster in light of archival documents, periodicals, and secondary literature. The Kırsehir-epicentered earthquake was felt in the neighboring cities of Yozgat, Ankara, and Corum, and Kayseri and its primary impact zone stretched to 226 sequare kilometers while its secondary impact zone streched to 1550 square kilometers. After this deadly eathquake, which claimed large numbers of lives, the government immediately started working on recovery and rebuilding efforts. Beyond emergency healthcare and security needs, the government acted according to the reports of government observers. Moreover, a nationwide disaster relief campaigns mobilized people to help the victims of earthquake.

In 1982, in Smolenice, Czechoslavakia, and in the wake of the 1970 energy crises, ICOHTEC decided to focus on ‘energy in history’ at its 1984 symposium. The meeting in Lerbach, Germany, inaugurated energy as a subject of interest in successive symposia, with sessions regularly addressing energy resources, production, transportation and use. Tangentially, a closely related interest in the environment emerged at ICOHTEC symposia, and technology and the environment appeared as a subject in its own right. In 2000, these related topics all came together in Prague, where the symposium theme was ‘technological landscapes: energy, transport and environment.’ That same year, ICOHTEC members joined with historians of technology in the American Society for the History of Technology and with environmental historians to form Envirotech, a new organisation ‘bridging the histories of environment and technology’, and books and articles on the subject emerged from the work of ICOHTEC scholars. Subsequently, energy, technology and the environment continues to be an important and on-going subject of discussion at ICOHTEC symposia.

Take advantage of disaster. Habsburg intervention in Ragusa earthquake (1667).
On 6 April 1667, an earthquake destroys Ragusa, the current Croatian city of Dubrovnik, while the Eastern Mediterranean attends the last period of the conflict between the Ottoman Empire and the Republic of Venice, best-known such as the Cretan War (1645-1669). During the Early Modern Age, Ragusa faces a peculiar situation on the international setting, because it is an independent republic, but also an enclave surrounded by the territories of the sultan, to who its government pays a tribute. At the same time, Ragusa maintains a commercial relationship with the Turk’s greatest enemy: the Habsburgs. The essay focuses on the gathering and transmission of news by the viceregal court of Naples and the Hispanic embassy in Venice on the earthquake with the aim of influencing the strategy of the Crown within the Adriatic region.
Keywords: Environmental history, disasters, Ragusa, secret news, Levant.

The paper analyses news from the Zagreb press and the archival
sources (from institutions of the Croatian Provincial
Government and the City of Zagreb) on how the damaged
buildings were repaired immediately after the earthquake
that struck Zagreb on November 9, 1880. The focus is on the
intensity of construction activity and the issues that arose
in relation to the construction and urban planning shortly
after the natural disaster, during 1881.
As it was a strong earthquake, with a magnitude of 6.1–6.3
on the Richter scale, and as Zagreb was a small town with
28,360 inhabitants, almost no buildings were left undamaged
and a considerable number of buildings had to be torn down
partially or completely.
Due to the fear of new earthquakes, the damaged buildings
were repaired primarily so as to strengthen them. Iron clasps
were installed in walls and roofs, the intense use of iron
beams, and the construction of thicker firewalls and gable
walls, reinforced with pylons, was recommended. In addition
to iron, concrete was now increasingly used in architecture.
Numerous alterations and additions to the existing buildings,
frequently of poor quality, were declared the main
culprit for the collapse of parts of buildings in the earthquake,
as their structures could not withstand the weight
of the added floors.
Floating staircases, which largely collapsed or became dangerous
to use, proved to be a great problem, so after the
earthquake they were reinforced with various types of iron
beams or pillars, or were completely rebuilt. Another problem
were the vertical decorations on the roofs of buildings,
pedestals, sculptures, and balustrades, especially if they
were not firmly attached with iron clamps to the structural
parts. Although it was recommended to use them less, such
decorations remained a specificity of Zagreb’ s architecture
in the coming decades.
Part of the intellectual elite of Zagreb and Croatia, specifically
the politician and first Croatian art historian Iso Kršnjavi and
Josip Juraj Strossmayer, Bishop of Đakovo, realized that the
natural disaster that had struck Zagreb was also an extraordinary
opportunity for quality reconstruction and the future
flourishing of the city. They believed that the earthquake had
further emphasized the need to restore Zagreb’ s medieval
monuments. Kršnjavi encouraged the use of decorations
attached to the construction, i.e. the construction of fronts
made of façade bricks and wooden ceilings inside buildings
that were uncovered with plaster, but his incentives had only
limited success.
After the basic rebuilding of the city was completed by the
end of 1880, during 1881 major repairs of the damaged
buildings continued, along with new constructions. A large
number of lavish residential and residential-commercial
buildings were erected, of which the Baumgärtner and Prister
houses in the central city square, Ban Jelačić Square, and
the Vranyczany house on today’ s Strossmayer Square stand
out. The construction of the Baumgärtner house raised the
issue of designing the northern side of Ban Jelačić Square,
where the construction of two- and three-storey buildings
with variously shaped fronts was planned.
The earthquake also raised the issue of urban transformation
of the old part of the city, widening its streets and squares,
and correcting the street routes, but due to lack of funds,
only minor interventions (removal of individual buildings)
were carried out during 1881.
Although many plans remained unrealized, the earthquake
of November 9, 1880 served as a catalyst for change in the
history of Zagreb’ s architecture and urban planning.

Članak govori o oštećenjima građevina Srpske pravoslavne crkvene općine u Zagrebu, osobito Preobraženjskog hrama i zgrade u Ilici 7. Tekst na latinici priložen je na kraju PDF-a.
(The article talks about the damages caused by  the March 22, 2020 earthquake to the architectural heritage of the Serbian Orthodox Church Municipality in Zagreb, especially the Transfiguration Church and the building in Ilica 7)

SOMMARIO: L'articolo analizza le procedure di gestione dell'emergenza adottate dalle istituzioni del Regno di Napoli all'indomani dei maggiori eventi sismici del XVII secolo. Attraverso il confronto tra sei diversi casi, si ipotizza che la risposta all'emergenza non si riducesse al semplice alleviamento del carico fiscale e alla richiesta di soccorso divino, come tradizionalmente ritenuto, ma fosse più complessa e articolata.

espanolEn 1778 la ciudad de Granada se ve agitada por numerosos seismos que preocupan a la poblacion. Directamente relacionado con la literatura generada desde el terremoto de Lisboa de 1755 en la ciudad surgen numerosas teorias que buscan explicar o justificar tales sucesos; varias de ellas apuntaban a la ceguera de una conocida centrica sima —el Pozo Airon—como causa de los temblores. Asi las autoridades locales decidieron contactar con la Real Sociedad de Amigos del Pais de Granada, en busca de axulio sobre la decision de volver a abrir tal pozo. El resultado fue la publicacion del texto el Dictamen sobre la utilidad, o inutilidad de la excavacion del Pozo-Airon por parte del censor de la institucion. Esta obra recogia la tradicion cientifica previa y entablaba una conversacion directa con las creencias mas populares en la epoca. EnglishIn 1778 the city of Granada was agitated by several earthquakes that worried the population. Directly related to the literature generated since t...