DEPTH OF THE SEISMIC FOCUS.
If the depth of the seismic focus amounts to several miles, one of the most serious objections to Mallet"s method lies in the varying refractive power of the different strata traversed by the earth-waves (p. 28). At present we have no way of meeting this objection, and all calculations of the depth of the focus are therefore more or less doubtful. A difficulty in practice has also been urged, depending on the widely differing inclinations of the fractures at any place; but the Italian observers found that the errors from this source were greatly reduced by avoiding all fissures in poorly-built houses, or which start from windows or other apertures, and selecting only those which occur in h.o.m.ogeneous walls directed towards the epicentre. The best angles of emergence thus measured by them are thirteen in number, all made at places lying within 5 and 23 miles from the centre of the epicentral area, and, with two exceptions, inside the meizoseismal zone (Fig. 19). The depths corresponding to the different wave-paths vary from 5.3 to 23.0 miles, the mean depth of the focus given by all thirteen observations being 7.6 miles.
The only estimate made by the French Commission--and it is one that they rightly regarded with considerable doubt--was based on a method devised by Falb. As the sound generally precedes the shock, Falb a.s.sumes that it travels with a greater velocity. If the velocities of both series of waves are known, and if they start at the same instant and from the same region, the interval that elapses between the arrivals of the sound and shock should give the distance traversed by them and consequently the depth of the focus. It is unnecessary to mention more than two of the serious objections to this method. The duration of the preliminary sound should increase rapidly with the distance from the focus, and of this there is not the slightest evidence. Moreover, the sound-vibrations that are first heard do not necessarily come from the same part of the focus as those which cause the shock, but, as will be seen in Chapter VIII., probably from its nearer lateral margin. The French Commission, finding the average duration of the fore-sound near the epicentre to be 5 seconds, estimate the depth of the focus at about 7 miles--a result which agrees remarkably with that obtained from the angles of emergence, but which is not, on that account, ent.i.tled to credit.
NATURE OF THE SHOCK.
In the nature of the shock, there was a singular uniformity throughout the whole disturbed area, the chief variation noticed being evidently dependent on the observer"s distance from the epicentre.
For instance, in the meizoseismal area (Fig. 19), at Ventas de Zafarraya, a loud sound like thunder was first heard, and before it ceased there came a violent subsultory movement preceded by a very brief oscillation, then a pause of one or two seconds, and lastly a more intense and longer series of undulations, the whole movement lasting 12 seconds. At Cacin, three phases were distinguished, the first a slight undulatory movement coincident with the sound, followed immediately by the subsultory motion, a pause, and stronger undulations, the total duration being 15 seconds. The variations noticeable in this zone seem to have been apparent only, sensitive observers perceiving a tremulous motion before the vertical vibrations, and in the pause between them and the concluding undulations. In both phases, the intensity increased to a maximum and then gradually decreased. The movement at Ventas de Zafarraya and Cacin is represented by Professors Taramelli and Mercalli by the curves _a_ and _b_ in Fig. 22.
In the second zone (Fig. 19), the same two phases were universally observed, but the subsultory movement was less p.r.o.nounced or the movement was partly subsultory and partly undulatory, and occasionally both phases are described as undulatory. The motion near Malaga is represented by the curve _c_ in Fig. 22.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 22.--Nature of shock of Andalusian earthquake. (_Taramelli and Mercalli._)]
Outside the ruinous zone, the first phase rapidly lost what remained of its subsultory form, and the pause between the two parts was noticeably longer than near the epicentre. Thus, at Seville and Cordova, two shocks were felt, separated by an interval of some seconds; the second according to some observers at Seville, terminating with vertical tremors. At Madrid, also, the two parts were perceived, the interval between them being 3 or 4 seconds in length; but, as a rule, outside Andalusia, only a single undulatory shock was felt, without any preliminary sound.
That the changes observed in the shock were merely an effect of less or greater distance, will be obvious from Fig. 23, in which the intensity at any moment is that represented by the distance of the corresponding point on the curve from the different base-lines, the base-line _a_ corresponding to a place near the epicentre, and _b_, _c_, _d_, etc., to places at gradually increasing distances. Thus, at a place corresponding to the base-line _b_, the intensity of the tremors during the intervening pause (represented by the short line PN) was so slight that they frequently escaped notice, while the preliminary tremors observed by some near the epicentre were altogether imperceptible. At the places corresponding to the base-lines _c_, _d_, _e_, _f_, the duration of the whole shock and of each part gradually diminished, while the interval between the two parts increased owing to the gradual extinction of the final vibrations of the first part and of the initial vibrations of the second. At the farthest of these places (_f_) the first part was so weak that it sometimes pa.s.sed un.o.bserved. Lastly, at a place corresponding to the base-line _g_, the first part was imperceptible to all observers, and the shock consisted of a single series of horizontal undulations.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 23.--Diagram to ill.u.s.trate variation in nature of shock of Andalusian earthquake.]
_Origin of the Double Shock._--If the double shock were observed at only a few places, we should naturally look for some local explanation of the peculiarity. The second shock, for instance, might be a subterranean echo, the earth-waves being reflected at the bounding surface of two different kinds of rock. In the case of the Andalusian earthquake, such an explanation is precluded by the almost universal observation of the double shock, the greater intensity of the second part, and the longer period of its vibrations.
The Italian observers, who paid considerable attention to the double shock, give a more general explanation. They regard the two parts of the shock as corresponding in the main to longitudinal and transversal waves starting simultaneously from the same focus (see p. 13). The former vibrations would be vertical at the epicentre and would gradually become horizontal in spreading outwards; the latter would be horizontal at the epicentre and at a distance from it (_e.g._ at Seville) nearly vertical. Also, as the longitudinal waves travel more rapidly than others, the interval between the two parts of the shock would increase with the distance from the origin. Owing again, to the large size of the focus, the first part of the shock would at no place be instantaneous, and its later vibrations might coalesce with the earlier transverse vibrations, so that, within and near the meizoseismal area, the second part of the shock might be stronger than the first. A similar result might be produced in the same district if the transverse vibrations coincided with reflected longitudinal vibrations, and Professors Taramelli and Mercalli think that such reflection would occur from the old crystalline rocks of the Sierra de Almijara and possibly also from the calcareous and crystalline rocks to the south-west of Cartama.
Satisfactory as it seems to be in some respects, this explanation is open to serious objections, of which I will mention only two. The first is that, though the pause between the two parts of the shock does increase with the distance, it does not increase rapidly enough; at Seville, it should be two or three minutes, instead of "some seconds" in length. A more fatal objection, however, is that, if the explanation were correct, every earthquake-shock should consist of two parts, and this is only the case with a small minority.
On the other hand, if the velocities of the waves composing each part were the same, the slight increase in the length of the interval is readily accounted for, as we have seen, by the gradual extinction of its weak terminal vibrations. But in any case, the long interval that elapsed between the beginnings of the two parts at a place so near the epicentre as Ventas de Zafarraya, shows that each part was due to a distinct impulse; and, judging from the directions of the respective movements, it would seem that the focus of the first impulse was situated at a greater depth than the focus of the second. Whether the epicentres corresponding to the two foci were coincident or more or less separate is not clear from the nature of the shock; but it is probable that they were nearly or quite detached, and that a second epicentre was situated near the eastern focus of the ellipse bounding the meizoseismal area.
SOUND-PHENOMENA.
In the Neapolitan earthquake, the sound was only heard in a district of about 3,300 square miles immediately surrounding the epicentres, while the whole area disturbed by the shock was not less than 39,000 square miles. A similar limitation was noticed in the Andalusian earthquake. According to the Spanish Commission, the sound was heard at only one place (Cordova) outside the provinces of Granada and Malaga; and its audibility was a rule confined to the area within which buildings were damaged by the shock. It was compared at different places to the noise of a pa.s.sing train or a carriage heavily laden running on a paved road, of distant thunder, a great storm, or the discharge of heavy guns.
At every place where the sound was heard, it distinctly preceded the shock, frequently allowing time for escape from houses that were afterwards ruined. Its duration within the meizoseismal area was on an average about five or six seconds, rarely perhaps did it exceed ten seconds. At some places in the same area, it overlapped the beginning of the shock, but generally it was separated from the latter by a very short interval, estimated at a second. From this precedence of the sound, the Italian Commission conclude that the sound-waves travelled more rapidly than those which formed the shock, an inference that depends on the a.s.sumption that both waves started simultaneously from within precisely the same focal limits. A different explanation, not based on these a.s.sumptions, will be considered more fully in Chapter VIII, dealing with the recent earthquakes of Hereford and Inverness.
VELOCITY OF THE EARTH-WAVES.
If, in a highly-civilised country, the time-records of an earthquake vary within wide limits, it is not surprising that those given for the Andalusian earthquake should be wholly untrustworthy. Even the clocks in public buildings and railway stations differed by as much as 25 minutes in their indications. An interesting observation is, however, described in the French report and is worth repeating, though it does not lead to any accurate result. At the time of the princ.i.p.al shock, two telegraph-clerks were in communication, one at Malaga and the other at Velez-Malaga. The latter, surprised by the shock, suddenly stopped his message; and, about six seconds later, the arrival of the earth-waves at Malaga explained the interruption to his colleague. As, according to the French report, Velez-Malaga is 9 kms. (or about 5-1/2 miles) nearer than Malaga to the mean epicentral point, it follows that the velocity of the earth-waves must have been about 1.5 kms., or nearly a mile, per second.[34]
The only observations of any real value in determining the velocity are those given by the stopped clock at the observatory of San Fernando (Cadiz) and by the magnetographs at Lisbon, Parc Saint-Maur, Greenwich, and Wilhelmshaven. Taking the times at Cadiz, Lisbon, Greenwich, and Wilhelmshaven at 9.18, 9.19, 9.25, and 9.29 P.M.
respectively (Paris mean time) and the mean epicentral point as coinciding with Alhama, the French Commission estimates roughly the mean surface-velocity between Cadiz and Lisbon at 3.6 kms. per second, between Cadiz and Greenwich at 4.5 kms. per second, between Cadiz and Wilhelmshaven at 3.1 kms. per second, and between Greenwich and Wilhelmshaven at 1.6 kms. per second. Dr. Agamennone, however, notices that the distances from Alhama are not correctly measured, and subst.i.tutes for the above figures 4.83, 3.43, 2.82, and 1.75 kms. per second respectively.
These results apparently show a decrease in the velocity with the outward spread of the earth-waves, but, as Dr. Agamennone again points out, a comparatively small error in the time at Cadiz would neutralise the apparent decrease. It is not to be supposed that the astronomical clock at this observatory was wrong by more than a second or two, but the behaviour of clocks during an earthquake is so irregular--some stopping at once, others staggering on for some seconds before arrest--that the Cadiz time may differ from the true time by several seconds.
Besides this possible error, there is also considerable uncertainty in the records from the magnetic observatories, owing to the slow rate at which the photographic paper travels. At Parc Saint-Maur this rate is only 10 mm. per hour, and at the other observatories about 15 mm. per hour. Allowing, therefore, for an error of half-a-minute in the time-record at Cadiz, of one minute in those of Lisbon, Greenwich, and Wilhelmshaven, and of two minutes in that at Parc Saint-Maur, and taking the mean epicentral point as determined by the Italian observers, Dr. Agamennone, applying the method of least squares, finds the probable value of the velocity of propagation to be 3.15 kms. (or nearly 2 miles) per second, with a possible error of .19 kms. per second. This result agrees closely with the value found for the long slow undulations of more recent earthquakes.
MISCELLANEOUS PHENOMENA.
_Connection between Geological Structure and the Intensity of the Shock._--While a great part of the injury to buildings must be attributed to their faulty construction, the connection between the nature of the underlying rock and the amount of damage was very clearly marked. Other conditions being the same, houses built on alluvial ground suffered most of all; and the destruction was also great in those standing on soft sedimentary rocks such as clays and friable limestones. On the other hand, when compact limestones or ancient schists formed the foundation-rock, the amount of damage was conspicuously less than in other cases.
The members of both the French and the Italian Commissions agree in ascribing the peculiar form and relative positions of the isoseismal lines to geological conditions. To the east of the epicentre, the schists and crystalline limestones form a deep, uniform, and compact ma.s.s; while, to the west, the old crystalline rocks are covered by jura.s.sic, cretaceous, and eocene formations, const.i.tuting a less h.o.m.ogeneous and less elastic ma.s.s, in which the intensity of the shock would fade off much more rapidly, with the result that the epicentre occupies the western focus of the elliptical boundary of the meizoseismal area (Fig. 19).[35]
That mountain-ranges have an important influence on the form of isoseismal lines is evident from both maps (Figs. 19 and 20), but especially from that published by the French Commission (Fig. 20).
The resistance offered by the Sierra Nevada to the propagation of the earth-waves is shown in the former map by the approximation of the first and second isoseismals at the east end, and in the latter by the great bay in the third isoseismal line. Whichever interpretation of the evidence is the more accurate, the action of the mountainous ma.s.s is clearly to lessen rapidly the intensity of the shock--an effect which is probably due to the abrupt changes in the direction and nature of the strata encountered normally by the earth-waves. On the opposite side of the epicentre, the waves meet the Sierra de Ronda obliquely. In traversing this range, the shock lost a great part of its strength, while it continued to be felt severely along its eastern foot, thus giving rise to the south-westerly extension of the third isoseismal in Fig. 20, and, though to a less extent, that of the second in Fig. 19.
_Fissures, Landslips, etc._--The earthquake resulted in many superficial changes, such as fissures, landslips, and derangement of the underground water-system--all changes of the same order as the destruction of buildings--but, so far as known, in no fault-scarps or other external evidence of deep-seated movements.
Some of the fissures were of great length. One of the most remarkable occurred at Guevejar, a village built on the south-west slope of the Sierra de Cogollos. It was in the form of a horse-shoe, and was about two miles long, from ten to fifty feet wide, and of great depth. In its neighbourhood, innumerable small cracks appeared, some perpendicular and others parallel to the great fissure. The ground within, a bed of clay resting on limestone, also slid down towards the river. Houses near the centre of the fissured tract were shifted as much as thirty yards within the first month, and others near its extremity about ten feet; while the acc.u.mulation of the material at the south end of the fissure resulted in the formation of a small lake, of about 250 to 350 square yards in area and about 30 feet deep.
All streams within the fissured zone disappeared, and the spring, which provided the drinking-water of the village, ceased to flow.
The underground water-system was generally affected throughout the central area. In some places, mineral springs disappeared; in others, new springs broke out or old ones flowed more abundantly. At Alhama, the increased flow was accompanied by a permanent rise in temperature from 47 to 50 C., and by a marked change in character.
AFTER-SHOCKS.
Frequent after-shocks are a characteristic of the earthquakes of Southern Spain. After the Cordova earthquake of 1170, they continued for at least three years. The Murcian earthquake of 1828 was followed by 300 minor shocks during the next twenty-four hours, and for more than a year slight tremors were often felt. For some time after the great earthquake of 1884, the movements of the ground were extremely numerous in the immediate neighbourhood of the epicentre, farther away they were rarer and of less intensity, and outside the area of damaged buildings they were nearly absent.
Thus, during the night of December 25-26, 110 after-shocks were counted at Jatar, from 14 to 17 at Alcaucin, Ventas de Huelma, Motril, Cacin, Durcal, Malaga, etc.; about 11 at La Mala and Albunuelas; 9 at Velez-Malaga and Lenteje; and from 5 to 7 at Frigiliana, Riogordo, and Cartama. The strongest of these shocks occurred at 2.20 A.M., and, though none was violent, several helped to complete the ruin of many houses that had been damaged by the princ.i.p.al shock.
From this time, after-shocks occurred almost daily until the end of May, after which they became much less frequent. According to the list given in the Italian report, which closes at the end of January 1886, 237 shocks were felt, 23 up to the end of December, 30 in January 1885, 25 in February, 27 in March, 46 in April, and 43 in May. In June 1885, only three are recorded, and the average number during each of the following seven months lies between five and six. This list, however, does not include the very weak shocks,[36] for nearly all those contained in it were felt as far as Malaga or its neighbourhood.
The shocks varied considerably in intensity as well as in frequency, five of them being much more violent than the rest. One that occurred on December 30th was felt strongly in all the damaged area, two others on January 3rd and 5th caused fresh injury to buildings, a fourth, on February 27th, disturbed an area bounded roughly by the second isoseismal of the princ.i.p.al earthquake (Fig. 19), while the fifth and strongest, that of April 11th, was felt over a large part of the zone beyond.
At places within and near the meizoseismal area, earth-sounds were sometimes heard without any sensible shock; occasionally, also, tremors were felt with no attendant sound; but, as a rule, the shocks were accompanied by sound, and in every such case, as in the princ.i.p.al earthquake, the sound preceded the shock, or at most was partly contemporaneous with it.
Several of the after-shocks resembled the princ.i.p.al earthquake in their division into two parts separated by an interval of rest or weaker movement from half a second to a second in length, though the whole duration of the shock itself in no case exceeded five or six seconds. Occasionally, the likeness was still closer, in the succession of sound, subsultory motion and concluding horizontal undulations.
GEOLOGY OF THE MEIZOSEISMAL AREA AND ORIGIN OF THE EARTHQUAKES.
The meizoseismal area and surrounding zones lie in the midst of the mountainous region that separates the basin of the Guadalquiver from that of the Mediterranean, the essential structure of which, according to the geologists of the French Commission, is outlined in Fig. 24. In this sketch-map, the lightly-shaded bands correspond to an upper series of crystalline schists, and the cross-shaded bands to the lower series of mica-schists and dolomites that form the anticlinal folds of the Sierra de Ronda, the Sierra de Mijas, and the Sierra Tejeda.
In addition to the faulting and intense folding in the direction of their strikes, these rocks are also intersected by three nearly parallel transverse faults of post-Tria.s.sic age, which, aided by subsequent denudation, have cut up the whole range into a number of distinct sierras. They are represented by the broken lines in Fig. 24.
[Ill.u.s.tration: FIG. 24.--Structure of meizoseismal area of Andalusian earthquake. (_Fouque, etc._)]
One of these faults, that which pa.s.ses near Motril, traverses the meizoseismal area, whose boundary, as laid down by the French Commission, is indicated by the dotted line on the sketch-map.[37] In the neighbourhood of Zafarraya, the fault intersects the broken anticlinal fold of the Sierra Tejeda, and the epicentre is thus situated in one of the most disturbed tracts of the whole region. The evidence, both seismic and geological, is insufficient to support any precise view as to the origin of the earthquake, but there can be little doubt that it was closely connected with movements along one or more of the system of faults that intersect not far from Zafarraya.
REFERENCES.
1. AGAMENNONE, G.--"Alcune considerazioni sui different metodi fino ad oggi adoperati nel calcolare la velocita di propagazione del terremoto andaluso del 25 dicembre 1884." Roma, _R.
Accad. Lincei, Rend._, vol. iii., 1894, pp. 303-310.
2. ---- "Velocita superficiale di propagazione delle onde sismiche in occasione della grande scossa di terremoto dell" Andalusia del 25 dicembre 1884." _Ibid._, vol. iii., 1894, pp. 317-325.