Areal Distribution of Ground Effects Induced by Strong ... · Key words: active tectonics, ground effects, historical seismicity, Italy, seismic hazard, seismic landscape, seismite,

AREAL DISTRIBUTION OF GROUND EFFECTS INDUCED BYSTRONG EARTHQUAKES IN THE SOUTHERN APENNINES (ITALY)

S. PORFIDO1, E. ESPOSITO1, E. VITTORI2, G. TRANFAGLIA3, A.M. MICHETTI4,M. BLUMETTI5, L. FERRELI2, L. GUERRIERI2 and L. SERVA2

1Istituto di Ricerca Geomare Sud - C.N.R., Via A. Vespucci, 9, 80142, Napoli, ItalyE-mail: [email protected]

2ANPA – Agenzia Nazionale per la Protezione dell’Ambiente, Via Vitaliano Brancati, 48, 00144,Rome, Italy

3Servizio Idrografico e Mareografico, Via Marchese Campodisola 21, 80133 Napoli, Italy4Dipartimento di Scienze CC.FF.MM, Universitá dell’Insubria, Via Lucini, 3, 22100, Como, Italy5Dipartimento Servizi Tecnici Nazionali - Servizio Sismico, Via Curtatone, 3, 00185, Rome, Italy

(Received 2 January 2002; Accepted 17 June 2002)

Abstract. Moderate to strong crustal earthquakes are generally accompanied by a distinctive patternof coseismic geological phenomena, ranging from surface faulting to ground cracks, landslides,liquefaction/compaction, which leave a permanent mark in the landscape. Therefore, the repetitionof surface faulting earthquakes over a geologic time interval determines a characteristic morphologyclosely related to seismic potential. To support this statement, the areal distribution and dimensionsof effects of recent historical earthquakes in the Southern Apennines are being investigated in detail.This paper presents results concerning the 26 July 1805 earthquake in the Molise region, (I = XMCS, M = 6.8), and the 23 November 1980 earthquake in the Campania and Basilicata regions (I= X MSK, Ms = 6.9). Landslide data are also compared with two other historical earthquakes in thesame region with similar macroseismic intensity. The number of significant effects (either grounddeformation or hydrological anomalies) versus their minimum distance from the causative fault havebeen statistically analyzed, finding characteristic relationships. In particular, the decay of the numberof landslides with distance from fault follows an exponential law, whereas it shows almost a rectilin-ear trend for liquefaction and hydrological anomalies. Most effects fall within the macroseismic area,landslides within intensity V to VI, liquefaction effects within VI and hydrological anomalies withinIV MCS/MSK, hence at much larger distances. A possible correlation between maximum distanceof effects and length of the reactivated fault zone is also noted. Maximum distances fit the envelopecurves for Intensity and Magnitude based on worldwide data. These results suggest that a carefulexamination of coseismic geological effects can be important for a proper estimation of earthquakeparameters and vulnerability of the natural environment for seismic hazard evaluation purposes.

Key words: active tectonics, ground effects, historical seismicity, Italy, seismic hazard, seismiclandscape, seismite, Southern Apennines

1. Introduction

Tectonic crustal structures capable of producing moderate to strong (surface wavemagnitude Ms > 5.5) earthquakes typically generate permanent environmentalchanges, by the occurrence of peculiar geomorphic features: surface faulting, uplift

Surveys in Geophysics 23: 529–562, 2002.© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

530 S. PORFIDO ET AL.

and subsidence, slope failures, drainage changes – including temporary or perman-ent damming, liquefaction, compaction and hydrogeological anomalies. Just aftera large crustal earthquake, these elements characterize the scenery as scattered “ir-regularities”; with time they become integrated components of the landscape. Therepeated occurrence of these features (which can be considered as seismites, sensuVittori et al., 1991), leaves a signature in the recent stratigraphy and topographyof an area (paleoseismic evidence), which is related to the potential magnitude andrepeat interval of the local seismicity and to the local geological framework. This isthe recently introduced concept of “seismic landscape” (Serva, 1995; Michetti andHancock, 1997), which postulates that, once the geodynamic and climatic envir-onments of an area have been properly taken into account, the geomorphologicalsetting is a reliable indicator of its level of seismicity, and must be included in theassessment of seismic hazard.

Therefore, a detailed characterization of permanent and temporary groundeffects, for documented earthquakes from selected sample areas with specific tec-tonic environments, is a basic tool to define the seismic landscape to be expectedfor a given region and level of seismicity. This also represents also a valid back-analysis tool for assessing the actual vulnerability of the environment, and forpredicting its future response to significant releases of seismic energy (Serva, 1994;Esposito et al., 1997a; Jibson et al., 1998; Parise and Jibson, 2000; Keefer, 2000,Wasowski and Del Gaudio, 2000), which is much needed for a proper definition ofland use codes and land planning in seismic areas.

Depending on the geological environment and the magnitude of the event, thescenery following an earthquake is distinctive. Significant recent examples comefrom the 17 January 1995, Kobe earthquake in Japan (body wave magnitude Mw =7.1, intensity X–XI MM – Mercalli Modified scale: EQE Summary report, 1995;Bardet et al, 1995; Sassa et al., 1996) and the 17 August 1999, Kocaeli earthquakein Turkey (Mw = 7.4, intensity X MM: USGS, 1999; EERI, 1999); these eventswere followed by a wide suite of primary (surface faulting) and secondary (mainlyliquefaction, soil settlement and landslides) effects clearly related to the distancefrom the ruptured faults. Particularly impressive was the coastal submergence inthe Goluck area, a common phenomenon along the coastal regions of eastern andcentral Mediterranean Sea (JSCE, 1999).

The detailed description of ground ruptures is a relatively common feature inthe historical reports of many destructive seismic events in Southern Italy (Figure1), such as the 1980 and 1930 Irpinia, the 1857 Basilicata, the 1805 Molise, the1783 Calabria, the 1694 Irpinia, the 1688 Benevento and the 1456 southern Italyearthquakes (Serva, 1985; Figliuolo, 1988; Porfido, et al. 1991; Michetti et al.,1997; Esposito et al., 2000). As an example, the February 1783 Calabria earth-quake (macroseismic magnitude M = 6.9, I = XI MCS – Mercalli Cancani Siebergmacroseismic scale) produced what has been called a “geomorphogenetic crisis”(Cotecchia et al., 1986a), changing for ever the geography of large part of theregion. Many landslides dammed valley floors producing at least 215 permanent

AREAL DISTRIBUTION OF GROUND EFFECTS INDUCED BY STRONG EARTHQUAKES 531

Figure 1. Historical earthquakes of Intensity ≥ IX MCS (from CPTI, 1999) and capable faults (fromITHACA database, Michetti et al., 2000c) in the Southern Apennines, superimposed on a digitalelevation model of the region showing an immature basin and range-like morphology.

or ephemeral lakes; many ground cracks and extensive liquefaction took place,followed by flood waves and eruptions of ground water with characteristic sandvolcanoes. As well, the other large historical earthquakes have left a clear markin the landscape, mainly, but not only, of their epicentral region. For all theseearthquakes, a detailed macroseismic field is available, essentially based on theamount of damages to buildings, according to the MCS or MSK scales (Postpischl,1985).

In order to search for regularities which may help in the interpretation of thecorrect size of the events and in the assessment of seismic hazard (e.g., the distri-bution of ground effects with respect to the causative fault), this paper analyzesthe characteristics and the spatial distribution of ground effects of events withcomparable magnitudes that occurred in the Southern Apennines in the last twocenturies. A detailed description is given for the Molise event of 1805 (macroseis-mic Magnitude M = 6.8), and the Irpinia–Lucania event of 1980 (Ms = 6.9), forwhich a wide collection of information is available. Some of these data are alsocompared with those existing for other well studied earthquakes in Southern Italy.


2. Methods

Knowledge the 1980 earthquake and the other strong earthquakes that occurredin Italy during the XX century basically comes from scientific and technical sur-veys. In contrast, the macroseismic data found in historical documents referringto earthquakes in some way are the best available sources of information on pastseismicity before the end of XIX century. Macroseismic intensities are assignedbased on distinct degrees of empirical scales, e.g., MCS and MSK; commonly, theuncertainty in intensity assignment is a half degree (Boschi et al., 1995). Thanks tothe progress of historical studies in the last two decades, the information on histor-ical seismicity in Italy and Europe has reached satisfactory levels of completenessand homogeneity, by means of procedures that allow verification of the researchpaths, the methods for data synthesis, and qualified elements for evaluating thedata reliability. Such procedures and results are well illustrated in Stucchi (1993),Boschi et al. (1995) and Guidoboni and Ferrari (1995). It is essential to considerthat macroseismic data, covering a wide time period, are influenced by the evolvingsocial and cultural environments; therefore, also when they represent the best pos-sible dataset, the description of the event may still be incomplete. Documents fromstate and local (church and municipal) archives (chronicles, letters, newspapersand reports by scientists and historians) provide two levels of information: general,giving information on the type, sometimes the size, and locality of the groundeffect, or detailed information (from technical reports, projects), that provides theprecise location (sometimes a map) and the size parameters, damage, occasionallyalso drawings or photographs, of the ground effect. Chiefly, sources contemporaryor chronologically close to the event are considered and, subordinately, second-hand documents. Often, the multiplicity of sources allows one to cross-check thedata. A reliability index defines the quality of each report.

The earthquakes described in this study have been the subjects of at least a dec-ade of researches and macroseismic analyses by the authors. In this way, numerousground effects, such as landslides, ground fractures, surface ruptures (interpretableas coseismic faulting), liquefaction, soil settlements, features related to springs(appearance and disappearance, variation of discharge, muddied water and gasemissions, have been identified and mapped. Whenever possible, the recorded phe-nomena have been classified as primary (coseismic faulting) or secondary (inducedby coseismic faulting or ground shaking) effects, based on air photo interpretation,field checking and paleoseismological analyses in trenches. The minimum distanceof each secondary effect from the causative fault has been measured. For the 1980event, this distance is the actual space between each effect and the closest pointof the surface trace of the ruptured fault, while for the 1805 event, as the actualearthquake fault trace is still not mapped in detail, the distance has been measuredfrom the fault scarp at the base of the Matese Massif in the Bojano basin, whichhistorical data and seismological and paleoseismological analyses have recognizedas the most likely source of that earthquake (Michetti et al., 2000a). In the fol-


lowing, all phenomena are named after the nearest village or town. Most locationsof effects are precise (errors always smaller than 100 m) for the 1980 earthquake,having been mapped at 1:5,000 to 1:100,000 scales, whilst location errors mayrange from several tens of meters at best to 1–2 km for the 1805 event.

The macroseismic field of the 1805 earthquake (Figure 2) was reconstructedby Esposito et al. (1987), based on the MCS scale. The coeval sources have beenpreferred, accessible in the state archives of Naples, Campobasso and Isernia, in-cluding reports by coeval scientists and priests, who directly witnessed this event(see Appendix I for the complete reference list).

Documents stored in the archive of the Financial Ministry have proved ex-tremely relevant, in particular the thick folder (more than 320 manuscripts) contain-ing the correspondence between the State Secretary Luigi dé Medici and GabrieleGiannoccoli, that we would call now “Ministry for Civil Protection” (“avvocatofiscale”), who, immediately after the quake, was sent by King Ferdinando IV tosurvey the affected territory. Giannoccoli mailed daily reports describing the areasvisited, the works in progress, and estimates of damage. He visited personally themost devastated area (about fifty localities), for the rest he based his reports on thedescriptions of trusted collaborators and local administrators. Especially valuablewas the work of the engineer, Luigi Marchese, who in addition to making surveysof damaged buildings and state of the road network, was also charged with makinga detailed study of the territory of San Giorgio la Molara (Benevento district) wherea large landslide had affected the land of the cardinal (Ruffo), destroying his mill.

Many men of letters and scientific academicians were interested in the effects ofthe earthquake. Among them, the noble Gabriele Pepe, Saverio Poli, commanderof the Royal Military Academy and member of the Royal Society of London,Pasquale Iadone, priest and professor of mathematics and philosophy, and Gi-useppe Capozzi, priest and Royal academician, wrote careful monographs on the1805 event (Iadone, 1805; Pepe, 1806; Poli, 1806; Capozzi, 1834), where manydata can be found to reconstruct the distribution of ground effects. These authorsdeclare to have seen mainly the effects which provoked astonishing wonder in thepeople, crossing the land preferentially along the main itineraries (royal roads).Poli and Pepe visited more than 100 localities in the districts of Isernia, Cam-pobasso, Avellino and Benevento, whereas Iadone described 28 localities in thedistrict of Caserta. In several cases these authors singled out the different phasesof occurrence of the effects (specially for the springs), before, during or after theseismic shaking. Numerous geological and hydrological effects were also faithfullyreported in drawings (Esposito et al., 1987; Esposito et al., 1991; Esposito et al.,1998). It is worth noting that at the time of this earthquake the territory was largelyowned by noblemen and religious orders. Occupation and exploitation of land, i.e.,agriculture and stock-raising, were higher than today. Nevertheless, although sig-nificant ground effects could hardly pass unnoticed, there cannot be any guaranteethat all of them were reported, especially when there was no damage to roads orvillages.


Figure 2. Geological-structural map of the study area (mainly after Mostardini and Merlini, 1986;Bonardi et al., 1988; Bigi et al., 1990, Michetti et al., 2000c). Legend: (1) Marine and continentalsedimentary deposits present along the Tyrrenian margin, inside the tectonic depressions of the Apen-nines and in the Bradanic foredeep (Upper Pliocene – Quaternary); (2) Volcanic deposits relatedto the activity of the Tyrrhenian margin (Upper Pliocene – Quaternary); (3) Carbonate platformsequences of the Apulian Foreland (Upper Jurassic – Upper Miocene); (4) External foredeep andpiggy-back deposits (Tortonian – Middle Pliocene); (5) Carbonate sequences of the Apennine plat-form structural unit (Upper Triassic – Miocene); 6) Carbonate-siliceous-marly deposits of the Moliseand Lagonegro units (Upper Triassic – Miocene); (7) Slightly metamorphosed and metamorphosedbasinal deposits and piggy-back deposits of the Internal units (Jurassic – Lower Miocene); (8) Qua-ternary normal fault; (9) Main overthrust; (10) Boundary of the allochthonous Apenninic units; (11)MCS Isoseismal lines of the 26 July 1805 earthquake (Esposito et al., 1987); (12) MSK isoseismallines of the 23 November 1980 earthquake (Postpischl et al., 1985); 13) Epicentres of the 1805 and1980 earthquakes. Boxes show the borders of Figures 3 and 8.

For the 1980 Irpinia event, a comprehensive revision of more than 100 pa-pers and reports somehow referring to the geological phenomena associated tothe earthquake (see reference list in Appendix I) and new specific studies onlandslides distribution by air photo interpretation and field surveys (Esposito etal., 1997; Esposito et al., 1998) were carried out. The large number of technicalsurveyors and the detail of mapping scale assure that only a limited number of


slides whose volumes exceeded a hundred cubic meters were left unnoticed. Theaccurate review, with new field surveys, air photo interpretation, geomorphologicalanalyses and interviews with local witnesses (Blumetti et al., 2002), of the originalunpublished field maps compiled during a field survey carried out immediatelyafter the event by Carmignani et al. (1981), allowed a new interpretation of someground breaks. As a matter of fact, these authors analyzed statistically the distribu-tion of ground cracks, without a specific study of the tectonic and/or geotechnicalsignificance of each fracture.

A statistical analysis was carried out on the categories of secondary effects ofthe 1805 and 1980 earthquakes with a significant number of events: landslides,hydrological anomalies and liquefaction features. Most of the mapped landslidescould be classified into four main types: rock fall, rotational slide, earth flow andslump-earth flow, according to Varnes (1978).

In order to analyze the distribution of ground effects with distance and verifythe occurrence of regularities, cumulative curves of the number of landslides, li-quefaction features and hydrological anomalies vs. distance from the earthquakefault were prepared. Distances from faults of hydrological anomalies and liquefac-tion features were also plotted against macroseismic intensities, in order to try tovisualize the relation between intensities, distance and number of effects.

Some of the resulting parameters have been compared with the outcomes ofcomprehensive studies on the effects of recent historical earthquakes, such as (a)Keefer (1984), who provides statistics on the distribution of various types of land-slides as a function of magnitude and maximum distance from the epicentre andthe ruptured fault trace, based on 40 historical earthquakes distributed worldwide,(b) Ambraseys (1988), who analyses the known cases of liquefaction, and (c)Rodriguez et al. (1999), who integrate the work of Keefer with new data.

3. Results and analysis

3.1. EARTHQUAKES AND GEOLOGICAL SETTING IN SOUTHERN APENNINES

The Apennines are a NW-SE-trending Neogene and Quaternary thrust and fold belt(Mostardini and Merlini, 1986; Patacca and Scandone, 1989; Doglioni et al., 1996).Since the Late Pliocene, following the opening of the Tyrrhenian sea (Cinque etal., 1991; Scandone et al., 1991), extensional tectonics progressively shifting tothe East has produced a number of deep tectonic basins, hosting mainly marinedeposits and volcanics on the Tyrrhenian side. In the inner sectors of the Apenninesmany intermountain basins have developed, typically as northwesterly elongatedfull graben, up to several tens of kilometers long, bounded by steep limestoneslopes cut by normal faults, and hosting thick Quaternary continental sediment-ation (e.g., in the study area, the Isernia, Bojano basins). The master faults dipprevalently South West, but North East in some basins, e.g., Bojano. A smoother


morphology characterises the eastern flank of the Southern Apennines, dominatedby softer Mesozoic to Neogene silico-clastic deposits (Figure 2).

Studies on active tectonics and paleoseismicity (Vittori et al., 1991; Pantosti etal., 1993; Michetti et al., 2000a; Michetti et al., 2000b) confirm that the present-daytectonic setting of the Southern Apennines is guided by a system of Quaternary nor-mal faults, which determine a still immature basin-and-range morphology. Thesefaults are responsible for frequent moderate to strong crustal earthquakes, withtypical hypocentral depths of 7–20 km (Amato et al., 1997). Their slip-rates areof the order of several tenths of a millimeter per year, in good agreement with thehistorical and instrumental seismicity.

3.2. THE 1805 EARTHQUAKE

A disastrous earthquake hit the Molise region on 26 July 1805, damaging morethan 200 localities and reaching its maximum destruction in Frosolone (Iserniadistrict) where the peak intensity reached XI MCS (M = 6.8); more than 5000people died (Esposito et al., 1987). Several earthquakes with intensity I ≥ X MCSaffected the area in historical times before the 1805 event (Figure 1), in the years1349, 1456 and 1688 (CPTI, 1999). While their causative faults are still unknown,recent studies (Cucci et al., 1996, Guerrieri et al., 1999, Blumetti et al., 2002)have identified the master fault of the Bojano graben North East-verging) as theseismogenic structure responsible for the 1805 event.

The Bojano basin is a tectonic depression (Figures 2 and 3) located between theMeso-Cenozoic Matese shelf-carbonatic ridge and pelagic carbonates and marls(Ferranti, 1994; Di Bucci et al., 1999; Guerrieri et al., 1999, and references therein);the basin is filled with more than 160 meters of lake, marsh, fluvial and alluvialfan sediments (GEMINA, 1963) overlying Neogene flysch deposits. Since the be-ginning of the Middle Pleistocene, the Bojano basin (and adjoining basins to theNorth West and South East) has been growing as a graben strictly related to theactivity of a NW-SE trending system of synthetic and antithetic segmented faultsdefining a 30–40 km long regional tectonic structure (Corrado et al., 2000). MiddlePleistocene to Late Glacial geomorphological features (Guerrieri et al., 1999) aresystematically displaced along bedrock fault scarps, suggesting a seismotectoniccontrol on landscape evolution due to the activity of normal faults with slip-ratesnot smaller than 0.5 mm/yr. Furthermore, recent trench investigations along thenorthwestern segment of the Bojano fault system (Blumetti et al., 2002) haveshown stratigraphic evidence of surface faulting in Holocene fan deposits relatedto at least two still undated seismic events, with Magnitude presumably above 6.

The chronicles of the 1805 event describe at least 60 localities, generally con-centrated within the area of VIII MCS (epicentral area), where the most significantground effects occurred (Esposito et al., 1987; Esposito et al., 1991; Michetti etal., 2000a). Mostly, ground fractures, landslides and hydrological changes wererecognized and classified, and only one case of liquefaction was registered.


Fig

ure

3.E

pice

ntra

lare

afo

rth

e26

July

1805

Mol

ise

even

t,sh

owin

gth

elo

cati

ons

ofru

ptur

edfa

ults

egm

ents

and

eart

hqua

ke-i

nduc

edgr

ound

effe

cts.


Several reports contemporary to the earthquakes (Fortini, 1806; Pepe, 1806;Poli, 1806; Capozzi, 1834) described extensive ground ruptures with vertical dis-placements up to 1–1.5 m, in at least two localities, Morcone (Benevento district)and Guardiaregia (Isernia district) (Figure 3). A field check in these areas hasrevealed that they were generally aligned along the southwestern margin of Pleis-tocene continental basins (the most important of which is the Bojano basin), andoccurred along prominent fault-generated mountain slopes, showing clear evidencefor Holocene fault activity. Therefore, these fractures probably represent the react-ivation of several northeast-dipping, Quaternary normal faults segments along thenortheastern flank of the Matese Massif, for a total end-to-end rupture length ofabout 45 km (Figure 3). These segments belong to the system of capable faults(sensu Vittori et al., 1991; i.e., those active faults displaying evidence for recentdisplacement at or near the ground surface) that controlled the Quaternary evolu-tion of the Bojano and nearby tectonically connected Isernia, Sepino and Morconebasins.

Concerning the rupture length, a mutual triggering of consecutive fault seg-ments is suggested by the occurrence, after the main shock at 21:01 GMT(Greenwich Mean Time), of two strong aftershocks before midnight. One had itsepicentre in the village of Morcone (Benevento district); it produced moderatedamage to the houses (I = VII MCS) and was felt in an area between Iser-nia and Naples. The second aftershock mainly affected the northeastern area ofIsernia, with the maximum damage (I = VIII MCS) recorded in the village ofPescolanciano (Isernia district); it was felt over a large area between Rome andNaples.

Definitely, the small number (26) of landslides identified and classified (TableI) cannot allow us to take this dataset as being complete. However, the earth-quake occurred in July, which is normally a very dry period in peninsular Italy;in addition, coeval sources never mention rain, as commonly found in historicaldescriptions when rain preceded or followed an earthquake. This may contributeto explain the small number of triggered landslides compared to events of similarmagnitude, such as the 1980 event and earthquakes in other regions of the world(Keefer, 1984). As stated above, given that landslides damaging roads or villageswere certainly reported and the territory was much more densely inhabited at thattime than today, the distribution of these effects in the epicentral area should bestill usable for comparisons with other earthquakes. The main types were rock fallsand rotational slides (Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Iadone, 1805, Pepe, 1806; Poli,1806; Esposito et al 1987; Esposito et al., 1991; Esposito et al., 1998). A largeearth flow (several km2) occurred at Acquaviva d’Isernia (Isernia district), where awhole forest was destroyed (Pepe, 1806). Another big earth flow (about 5.5 km2)occurred in San Giorgio La Molara (Benevento district): it caused severe damage tosome buildings and dammed a river valley, producing a temporary lake (Archiviodi Stato di Napoli, 1805) (Figure 4).


Fig

ure

4.M

apof

the

land

slid

ein

duce

dby

the

1805

eart

hqua

kein

San

Gio

rgio

laM

olar

a,dr

awn

just

afte

rth

eev

ent

byan

engi

neer

.T

hedo

cum

ent,

date

d18

06an

dlo

cate

din

the

Sta

teA

rchi

veof

Nap

les,

prov

ides

the

prec

ise

loca

tion

and

dim

ensi

onof

the

land

slid

e(3

.7km

long

and

1.5

kmw

ide)

.


TABLE I

Distribution of documented landslides by type for the earthquakes of 1805 and1980, compared with landslides distribution of 1857 and 1930 earthquakes.

Type of slope failure 1805 1857 1930 1980

earthquake earthquake earthquake earthquake

(26 data) (39 data) (26 data) (199 data)

(%) (%) (%) (%)

Rock falls and topples 38.5 50 7.7 47.2

Rotational slides 19.2 30 – 20.1

Earth flows 11.6 2.5 23 3.5

Slump-earth flows 3.8 7.5 19.2 20.1

Undefined 26.9 10 50 9.1

The distribution of the cumulative number of landslides vs. the minimum dis-tance from the earthquake fault is given in Figure 5A. Most of the landslides(88.5%) occurred within a distance of 30 km; the rest of them took place within adistance of about 80 km.

In particular, six slides (23.0% of the total, mostly rock falls) occurred in theepicentral area (0–10 km), distributed along the zone of coseismic faulting, and65% were between 10 and 30 km. Most landslides concentrated inside the intens-ity VII–X MCS isoseismal area. The maximum distance of a landslide from theepicentre was 114 km, and 82 km from the fault zone (town of Calitri, Avellinodistrict), in a zone particularly susceptible to seismic shaking, as suggested by theregular occurrence of landslides after major earthquakes in the Southern Apennines(Porfido et al., 1991).

In the surroundings of Cantalupo, within the Bojano basin (Figure 3), sometypical signs of soil liquefaction, like small sand volcanoes, were also described inthe historical sources (Poli, 1806). However, no other report of liquefaction featuresis available.

Hydrological phenomena were numerous inside the macroseismic field (Figure3). They included increases in discharge rate of both springs and wells, muddiedwater, drying up of springs, or even new springs. Some variations in chemicalparameters of the waters (temperature, colour, taste and smell) were observed atseveral locations, both inside and outside the epicentral area (Iadone, 1805; Poli,1806; Pepe, 1806).

Significant hydrological variations (positive increase in discharge) were ob-served in Bojano (Campobasso district), where the Biferno spring flooded thevillage for about twenty days. This dramatic increase in the spring discharge ratehas been interpreted by King and Muir-Wood (1993) as evidence of the deforma-


Figure 5. Cumulative number of landslides vs. minimum distance from earthquake fault (see Table I).(A) 1805 earthquake: three landslides (11.5%) occurred at a distance >30 km. (B) 1857 earthquake:only one landslide occurred at a distance > 30 km. (C) 1930 earthquake: four (15.3%) landslidesoccurred at a distance > 30 km. Rotational slides were mapped as generic slides: a detailed study isin progress to better classify these slides. (D) 1980 earthquake: 35 landslides (17.5%) occurred at adistance > 30 km.

tion of major tectonic blocks. Most of the recorded hydrological phenomena werelocated in the Matese Massif, SSW of the epicentral area, which seems in goodagreement with a causative earthquake fault dipping North East (King and Muir-Wood, 1993). This is also suggested by the location of many coseismic groundruptures close to recent northeast-facing bedrock fault scarps. To the North Westand South East of the ruptured fault segment, diminishing discharge and evendrying up of springs were observed (Esposito et al., 1987; King and Muir-Wood,1993).

A scatter plot of intensity vs. distance from the earthquake fault for the 48identified hydrological variations (from 30 localities) is given in Figure 6A. Hydro-logical anomalies did not occur for intensities less than VI MCS. The cumulativedistribution of the percentage of hydrological anomalies vs. the distance from theearthquake fault is shown in Figure 7A. The resulting trend is almost rectilinearup to a distance of 40 km, within which 87.5% of the effects took place. The restof them were distributed out to a maximum distance of about 70 km (a well inNaples).


Figure 6. Hydrological anomalies: scatter plot of local macroseismic intensities vs. minimumdistance from earthquake fault. (A) 1805 earthquake; (B) 1980 earthquake.

3.3. THE 1980 IRPINIA–LUCANIA EARTHQUAKE

The 1980 earthquake took place in the Irpinia-Lucania region, one of the most seis-mically active areas of the Southern Apennines. The structural setting of this regionis characterised by a horst structure, made of two limestone blocks, Mt. Cervialto(1809 m a.s.l.) and Mt. Marzano (1530 m), split by the North-South trending upperSele valley (Cinque et al., 1991). This horst is bounded to the North by the Ofantovalley graben, through a system of active normal faults dipping NNE and SSW(Michetti et al., 2000b). Such faults separate some minor horst structures from


Figure 7. Cumulative number of hydrological anomalies vs. minimum distance from earthquakefault. (A) 1805 earthquake; (B) 1980 earthquake.

the main range front, i.e., the Muro Lucano, Castelgrande and Santomenna ridges,reactivated during the 1980 event (Blumetti et al., 2002). The intermountain basinsare filled with alluvial and lake deposits (e.g., Lioni basin), locally interleaved withthe volcanic products of the now extinct Vulture volcano (0.8–0.5 ma) (Figures 2and 8).

Unequivocal evidence for recent faulting has been proven only for a few Qua-ternary normal fault segments in this area. Most of them still await a detailedpaleoseismic trench investigation. For instance, small tectonic depressions inside


the main limestone blocks, e.g., the Pantano di San Gregorio, connected to thefault strands reactivated during the 1980 earthquake, have provided paleoseismicevidence for repeated prehistoric seismic events (Pantosti et al., 1993). Holoceneslip-rates at these sites are of the order of 0.2–0.4 mm/yr. However, this valueshould be considered as a minimum for the Irpinia seismogenic fault system, whichhas been the source of numerous disastrous events with intensity I ≥ X MCSduring historical times, in 989, 1694, 1930 and 1962 (Figure 1). Because theseevents are not recorded along the causative fault of the 1980 event (Pantosti et al.,1993), their tectonic sources still await positive identification, and their slip-ratesshould be added to that of the 1980 fault.

The Irpinia–Lucania earthquake of 23 November 1980 (Ms = 6.9 NEIC-National Earthquake Information Center, and seismic moment M0 = 26 × 1018

Nm, Westaway, 1993; epicentral intensity I0 = IX–X MSK – Medvedev SponheuerKarnik scale, Postpischl et al., 1985) was the first event in the Apennines to undergoa systematic field and remote sensing mapping of seismically induced ground ef-fects by independent investigators. The main shock took place at latitude 40.724◦N± 1.4 km and longitude 15.373◦E ± 1.4 km, its nucleation point was at 10–12km of depth (Westaway, 1993). The earthquake was a complex event, involving atleast three distinct rupture episodes on different fault segments in a time span ofapproximately 40 s. The focal mechanisms suggest normal slip along North West-South East striking planes, in good agreement with field evidence (Westaway andJackson, 1987; Bernard and Zollo, 1989; Bernard et al., 1993).

The earthquake heavily damaged more than 800 localities, mainly in theCampania and Basilicata regions, killing about 3,000 people (Postpischl et al.,1985). It induced a widespread suite of geological effects including tectonic sur-face ruptures, soil cracks, landslides, deep-seated gravitational deformations andhydrological anomalies (Figure 8).

Most of the many surface fractures were located within the area enclosed bythe intensity VIII MSK isoseismal line, especially concentrated in the epicentralarea (Carmignani et al., 1981). The surface fault ruptures, with mean strike NorthWest-South East, dip 60◦ to the North East, and vertical offset ranging from 40to 100 cm (Westaway, 1993; Pantosti and Valensise, 1993), were related to the 0and 20 s sub events. More difficult was the identification of the fault responsiblefor the 40 s event, notwithstanding the comparable magnitudes (Mw = 6.2–6.5, 6.4and 6.3 for the 0, 20 and 40 s events, respectively, Westaway, 1993). This faulthas been recently associated by Blumetti et al. (2002) with the ruptures (up to 20cm of normal slip, dip to South West) that occurred between Santomenna (Salernodistrict) and Muro Lucano (Potenza district), mapped just after the event as groundcracks by Carmignani et al. (1981).

In total, 199 landslides were classified. Although there is no guarantee that sucha database includes all the landslides that occurred because of the Irpinia seismicsequence (specially the small ones, without damage to houses or other infrastruc-ture), it can be considered complete for phenomena having volumes of several


Fig

ure

8.E

pice

ntra

lare

afo

rthe

23N

ovem

ber1

980,

even

t,sh

owin

gth

elo

cati

ons

ofru

ptur

edfa

ults

egm

ents

and

eart

hqua

ke-i

nduc

edgr

ound

effe

cts

(mod

ified

afte

rE

spos

ito

etal

.,19

98).


hundreds of cubic meters or more. The careful review of about 100 scientific papersconcerning slope failures following the 1980 event and new specific studies (Es-posito et al., 1998, and Appendix I) have permitted us to identify and characterizein detail most of the landslides in terms of type, location, dimension and dam-age. Many landslides were abrupt reactivations of already active or dormant slidesand/or happened along slopes marked by preexisting events, making it difficultsometimes to discriminate their triggering earthquake mechanism. Some of theselandslides had, and still have in some cases, dramatic effects on urban settlements(e.g., Agnesi et al., 1983; Carrara et al., 1986; Cotecchia, 1986; D’Elia et al., 1986;Del Prete, 1993).

The volumes of the landslides were generally in the range of hundreds to mil-lions of cubic meters (one of the largest was in Calitri, Avellino district, where 23million cubic meters of rock slid down, caused enormous damage to the town).Big rock falls, occurred in the epicentral area, having volumes ranging from 100to 10,000 m3 (Carrara et al., 1986). Most of the landslides were caused by theinertial forces induced by seismic shaking. Table I shows the distribution of massmovements by type. Rock falls were the most numerous and typically occurredduring seismic shaking inside the epicentral area. Only a limited number of rota-tional landslides occurred outside the VI MSK isoseismal; these were within theV MSK out to a distance of about 100 km (97 km in the case of Ailano, Casertadistrict), and 91 km from Ferrandina, Matera district, due to conditions of pre-existing precarious equilibrium and were delayed up to 240 hours after the mainshocks (Del Prete et al., 1992).

The mapped landslides were distributed over an area of 22,000 km2 (Esposito etal., 1997b). Such an area fits well the curve for magnitude proposed by Rodriguezet al. (1999). However, the number of slides vs. this surface area is low comparedto other earthquakes in the world (Keefer, 1984; Rodriguez et al., 1999). The land-slide distribution vs. distance from the ruptured fault segment (Figure 5D) showsthat most of them (81.4%) occurred within a distance of 30 km; the percentageof mapped landslides (13%) decreases very rapidly with distance between 30 and60 km. Isolated phenomena (5%) were observed up to distances of nearly 100 km.For comparison, after the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake (Ms = 7.1), rock fallsand other highly disruptive landslides larger than about 100 cubic meters wererestricted to distances not exceeding 10 km from the fault (Keefer and Manson,1998).

Concerning liquefaction, 21 phenomena (in 16 localities) were recognized andclassified (Galli, 2000). The relationship between number of events and the dis-tance from earthquake fault segment (Figures 9A, B) shows that 80% of themoccurred within 30 km, and 20% between 30 and 60 km. No events occurred morethan 60 km from the fault. No liquefaction cases were reported in areas of intensityless than VI MSK.

To evaluate the hydrological effects produced by the earthquake within the mac-roseismic field, the variation of water level in 9 selected wells, about 50 stream flow


Figure 9. Liquefaction cases induced by the 1980 earthquake: (A) Cumulative number of liquefactioncases vs. the distance from earthquake fault; (B) Scatter plot of local macroseismic intensity vs. theliquefaction distance from earthquake fault.

gauging stations and 70 important (discharge rate > 55 l/s) springs was analyzed,identifying 35 anomalies (Esposito et al., 2001). All the river gauging stations re-gistered a distinct increase in water flow. As a rule, the overall period of hydrologicanomaly did not exceed 48–72 h.

Eight springs, mainly located in the Upper Sele Valley and in the Mt. Mateseregion, displayed a distinct hydrological anomaly. On the whole, a general increaseof discharge was observed for a period of 6 to 12 months after the event (Cotecchiaet al., 1986b; Onorati et al., 1994; Esposito et al., 1999).


Figure 10. Plot of the maximum distances from the fault of the three main types of landslide inducedby the 1805, 1857, 1930 and 1980 earthquakes. All the values are in good agreement with theupper-bound envelope curves proposed by Keefer (1984).

A scatter plot of local macroseismic intensity vs. distance from the earthquakefault for the 35 identified hydrological variations (from 34 localities) is given inFigure 6B. Hydrological anomalies occurred for intensities as low as IV MSK.The cumulative distribution of the percentage of hydrological anomalies vs. thedistance from the earthquake fault is shown in Figure 7B. The resulting trend isalmost rectilinear up to a distance of about 130 km, within which 87.5% of theeffects took place. The remainder are distributed out to a maximum distance of187.5 km. Therefore, the 1980 Irpinia earthquake activated several major hydro-geological structures, corresponding to the main Apenninic carbonate massifs fromthe Abruzzo-Molise (North West) to the Basilicata (South East) regions.


4. Discussion

The 1805 Molise and 1980 Irpinia–Lucania earthquakes were accompanied bycoseismic dip-slip surface faulting and a large number of secondary geologicaleffects, including landslides, ground cracks, liquefaction and variations in the dis-charge rate of major carbonate springs. Historical data and paleoseismologicalanalyses have allowed mapping only short segments of the actual earthquake faulttrace of the 1805 event, which are located along the fault at the base of the north-eastern slope of the Matese Massif in the Bojano-Morcone basin (Michetti et al.,2000a). Thus, the portion of this fault running from just North of Isernia (Mir-anda) to at least Morcone (Figure 3) is the most likely source of this earthquake.The path of the main 1980 fault rupture (dipping North East) at first surprisedgeologists for its poor morphological evidence, but was later traced in detail byWestaway and Jackson (1987) and Pantosti and Valensise (1993), who recognizedthe repetition of several coseismic faulting events during the Holocene. Anothersurface rupture (dipping South West) accompanied the 40 s event (Blumetti et al.,2002). Surface fault ruptures of both events followed the traces of already existingQuaternary capable normal faults with distinctive geomorphic expressions, such asPleistocene intermountain basins in their hanging walls (1805 event and likely 40 sevent in 1980), fault-generated carbonate slopes, bedrock fault scarps and recenttectono-karstic basins (Michetti et al., 2000c).

Both earthquakes were characterized by complex rupture mechanisms, in-volving the reactivation of several segments aligned WNW-ENE within a veryshort time interval. The total rupture length, based on a field survey for the 1980event and historical sources and modelling for the 1805 event, was in the rangeof 40 km, which is in good agreement with the worldwide data for that range ofmagnitude (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994; Esposito et al., 1997a).

The types of landslides triggered by these earthquakes were primarily controlledby the stratigraphy and tectonic setting of the areas struck. In general, landslidesoccurred on slopes typically showing evidence of recurrence of similar phenomena,and were represented mainly by rock falls, rotational slides and slump-earth flows,and rapid earth flows. Rock falls were widespread (47.2%) for the 1980 event(Table I), due to the rugged topography in the epicentral area, with steep slopesmade of highly fractured carbonate rocks. Regarding the 1805 event, although thenumber of recorded phenomena is much smaller (26), this has presented a uniqueopportunity to study the types of slides for an event that occurred two centuriesago and to compare their distribution with that of the well studied 1980 event inthe same tectonic environment. The percentages of landslide types are comparable(Table I); rock falls were widespread (38.5%), probably because the North Eastsector of the epicentral area includes relatively soft silico-clastic deposits (Figure2).

The landslide distribution is quite similar to the general pattern of the isoseis-mal distribution, showing a concentration of the mass-movements in the areas of


greatest intensity, and their progressive reduction in density with distance from theepicentre. Most of the slides were confined within an area of about 15,000 km2

for the 1805 event, and about 22,000 km2 for the 1980 event. This agrees withthe relationship between area affected by landslides and earthquake magnitudeproposed by Rodriguez et al. (1999), especially for multiple seismic events, whichpredicts an area slightly larger than that proposed by Keefer (1984).

Figures 5A and 5D show the cumulative distribution of landslides vs. the dis-tance from the causative fault for the 1805 and 1980 events. For the latter, more than50% of landslides occurred within a distance of 10 km, whereas for both events80% of landslides occurred within a distance of 20 to 30 km. The distances of thefurthest landslides for the 1805 and 1980 events were 82 and 97 km, respectively.The area of maximum density overlaps that of maximum damage, classified asintensity VII to X MCS. It is interesting to note that the best fit exponential curvesfor these two earthquakes have similar exponents. For comparison, also the dataavailable for the earthquakes of 1857 in Val d’Agri (I= X–XI MCS, M = 6.9;CPTI, 1999) and 1930 in Irpinia (I = X MCS, M = 6.7; CPTI, 1999) are shownin Figures 5B and 5C and in Table I. The numbers of known landslides are 39and 26, respectively (Esposito et al., 1998; Esposito et al., 2000). The cumulativecurves show a similar distribution of percentages with distance, but no phenomenaare known beyond about 50 km. The exponents of the best fit exponential curvesare a little higher in absolute value than those of A and D. It should be noted thatthe 1930 event occurred in a relatively dry period and its epicentral area was at theeastern border of the Apennines, where the relatively soft materials are less proneto rock falls, the most common type of slope failure in the epicentral area of theother events.

It is also noteworthy that the maximum distances from the fault of the threemain types of mapped landslides (rock falls, coherent slides and earth flows) forthe four earthquakes fall within the envelope curves for magnitude proposed byKeefer (1984).

The liquefaction data for the 1980 event well fit the maximum epicentral dis-tance vs. magnitude envelope curves of Keefer (1984), Ambraseys (1988) andRodriguez et al. (1999) (Figure 11). Most liquefaction events occurred withinthe isoseismal VIII MSK. The maximum distance from the fault was 55 km andminimum intensity VI MSK (Galli, 2000).

The graphs of the cumulative percentage of hydrological anomalies vs. theminimum distance from the fault (Figure 7) display both an almost linear decayfor nearly 90% of the data, the 1805 earthquake up to a distance of 40 km, andthe 1980 event up to a distance of nearly 130 km, with an abrupt flattening of thecurves at higher distances. The farthest recorded anomaly occurred 187 km awayfrom the 1980 fault, where the surface shaking was almost negligible, suggestingthat the rupture mechanism had a strong influence on deep circulation. Accordingto King and Muir-Wood (1993), the mechanisms causing the observed hydrologicalchanges in both earthquakes depended essentially on the style of faulting. In partic-


Figure 11. Maximum epicentral distance of spreads and flows as function of magnitude Ms. Thesolid line shows the upper bound envelope curve obtained by Keefer (1984); the dashed line showsthe liquefaction bound proposed by Ambraseys (1988). The data for the 1805 and 1980 earthquakesare compared with 15 more events proposed by Rodriguez et al. (1999): 1– Irpinia 1980 Italy; 3 –Borah Peak 1983 USA; 4 – Nagoken-Seibu 1984 Japan; 7 – San Salvador 1986 El Salvador; 9 –Edgecumbe 1987 New Zealand; 18 – Loma Prieta 1989 USA; 20 – Luzon 1990 Philippines; 21 –Valle de la Estrella 1991 Costa Rica; 22 – Erzincan 1992 Turkey; 24 – Suusamyr 1992 Kyrgyzstan;26 – Hokkaido-Nansei 1993 Japan; 29 – Klamath Falls 1993 USA; 30 – Northridge 1994 USA; 31 –Paez 1994 Colombia; 33 – Hyogu-ken Nanbu 1995 Japan.

ular, the type and distribution of hydrological variations fit well a normal faultingmechanism. Data on hydrological anomalies are more abundant and widespreadfor the 1805 earthquake than for the 1980 one (Figures 3 and 8). Nevertheless, the1980 event affected aquifers about 200 km away from the fault, and the 1805 eventabout 70 km away (Figures 6 and 7). Even taking into account the better accuracyof the research conducted after the 1980 event, such a strong influence of the Irpiniaearthquake on the hydrogeological structure of the Southern Apennines still needsa satisfactory explanation.

5. Conclusions

The three main types of ground effects considered in this study focused in theepicentral-macroseismic areas of the 1805 and 1980 earthquakes; these effects oc-curred at different minimum thresholds of intensity and out to different distances:landslides for intensities as low as V MCS/MSK and distances out to 100 km,liquefaction for minimum intensity VI MSK and shorter distances (55 km at Sca-


fati, Salerno district). By contrast, hydrological changes occurred almost 200 kmaway from the fault zone, where the intensity was about IV. This may suggest thataquifers are more sensitive to seismic shaking than other effects. Nevertheless, itwould probably be necessary to better explore this susceptibility to earthquakesfurther, and the seismotectonic deformation of aquifers hosted in wide carbonatebodies apparently far from each other (Kresic, 1997; Ingebritsen and Sanford,1999).

The modern, relatively well-studied, 1980 earthquake and the historical, 1805earthquake show striking analogies, both in the overall pattern of coseismic geo-logical phenomena and in the details of ground effects. It can be observed thatthe distances of surface effects of these two strong earthquakes from the causativefault did not exceed 4 times the length of the ruptured fault zone for hydrologicalanomalies and three times the length for landslides and liquefaction.

The study of the geological phenomena induced by great earthquakes providesbasic information for the characterization of seismic hazards (USGS, 1999). Evenif the type and relevance of surface effects strongly depend on the local geo-morphological setting, their characterization allows for a realistic estimation ofthe earthquake source parameters, and for a proper evaluation of the vulnerabil-ity of the environment in the presence of significant releases of seismic energy.The satisfactory results of this study encourage a continuation of the search forrelationships among ground effects, intensities and fault parameters, starting fromother historical strong earthquakes in the Southern Apennines, within the samelithologic, geomorphic and tectonic environment. During strong historical earth-quakes in the Southern Apennines, primary and secondary ground effects tend toconcentrate within Pleistocene to Holocene intermountain tectonic basins. As amatter of fact, because primary and secondary ground effects are typical morpho-genetic components of the seismicity of an area, such a study will be fundamentalfor properly assessing the characteristic seismic landscapes (sensu Serva, 1995;Michetti and Hancock, 1997) and, therefore for forecasting the most likely futureseismic magnitude and pattern of geological effects for the different “seismicallyhomogeneous” sectors of the Apennines.

Acknowledgments

We are indebted to the editors of this Special Issue and the two anonymous refereesfor their careful reading of the manuscript and their many suggestions.


Appendix I

SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS ON 23 NOVEMBER 1980EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED LANDSLIDES

Abbate, E., Borrelli, V., Cornaggia, F., Ferrini, G., Pandeli, E., Pranzini, G., Principi, G.: 1983,Comune di Rocca S. Fe1ice (AV). Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39centri abitati della Campania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFGPubbl. 492.

Agnesi, V., Carrara, A., Macaluso, T., Monte-Leone, S., Pipitone, G., Sorriso-Valvo, M.: 1982, Os-servazioni preliminari sui fenomeni di instabilityà dei versanti indotti dal sisma del 1980 nell’altaValle del Sele, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XVII, 79–93.

Autori vari: 1983, Indagini di Microzonazione Sismica – Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati dellaCampania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG Pubbl. 492.

Baldassarre, G.: 1981, Effetti geologici del sisma del 23-11-80 nella periferia dell’abitato di Atella(PZ) (Basilicata), Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XVI.

Baldassarre, G., Radina, H.: 1982, Note sulle condizioni di instabilità di alcuni tracciati stradali inBasilicata, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XVII, parte I, 385–404.

Battista, C., Pennetta, L., Romenazzi, L.: 1986, A preliminary analysis of failures around the built-uparea of Calabritto, Irpinia, activated by the earthquake of November 23, 1980, Geologia Applicatae Idrogeologia XXI, parte II.

Biasini, A., Landini, B.: 1981, Dissesti in atto e potenziali da aerofotografie del 1979 Monti Picentini(Campania), Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4, 151–154.

Bollettinari, G., Carton, A., Salmi, M., Esposito, E., Panizza, M., Petrini, V.: 1983, Comune diS.Gregorio Magno (SA). Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitatidella Campania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG Pubbl. 492.

Bollettinari, G., Esposito, E., Gasperi, G., Panizza, M., Rizzo, V., Petrini, V., Solmi, M.: 1983,Comune di Balvano (PZ) – microzonazione sismica preliminare. Indagini di microzonazione sis-mica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG Pubbl. 492.

Bousquet, J.C., Oars, O., Lanzafame, O., Philip, H.: 1983, Ruptures de surface d’origine grav-itationnelle lors du seisme de l’Irpinia (23-11-1980; Italie Meridionale), Geologia Applicata eIdrogeologia XVIII, parte I, 427–435.

Bozzano, F., De Pari, P., Gambino, P.: 1995, Instabilità dei versanti nell’area di S. Angelo deiLombardi–Alta valle del F. Ofanto, IV Conv. Naz. dei Giovani Ricercatori: Gruppo Nazionaledi Geol. Appl, Riccione, 18–21 Ottobre 1994, Quaderni di Geologia Applicata (CNR-GNDCI) I,Pitagora Editrice, Bologna.

Budella, P., Calcaterra, D., De Riso, R., Santo, A.: 1990, Geologia e Fenomeni franosi dell’alta valledel Fiume Ofanto (Appennino Meridionale), Memorie Società Geologica Italiana 45, 309–324.

Budetta, P.: 1982, Geologia e frane dell’ Alta Valle del F. Sele (Appennino Meridionale), Memorie eNote dell’Istituto di Geologia Applicata Napoli XVI.

Calcagnile, G., Canziani, R., Del Gaudio, V., Guerricchio, A., Melidoro, G., Ruina G.: 1983, Indaginigeologico-geofisiche in alcune aree franose di Avigliano e di Stigliano (Basilicata), GeologiaApplicata e Idrogeologia XVIII, parte I.

Calcagnile, G., Canziani, R., Del Gaudio, V., Ruina G., Ziccarelli, L.: 1985, Indagini geofisiche inalcune aree interessate dal sisma del 23 Novembre 1980 (indagini preliminari), Geologia Applicatae Idrogeologia XX, parte 11, 449–452.

Calcagnile, G., Melidoro, G., Panza, G.F., Salviola, O.: 1978, Studio introduttivo alla correlazionefra movimenti franosi e attività sismica nell’ Appennino Centro-Meridionale, Geologia Applicatae Idrogeologia XIII, 159–184.


Cantalamessa, G., Dramis, F., Pambianchi, G., Romeno, A., Santoni, A. M., Tonnetti, G.: 1981,Fenomeni franosi connessi con attività sismica nell’area compresa tra S. Giorgio La Molara eBisaccia, Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4, 467–469.

Cantelli, C., Ferrari, G., Postpischl, D., Raffagli, A., Torri, G., Zarri, F.: 1983, Comune di Vietridi Potenza (PZ). Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati dellaCampania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980’, CNR-PFG Pubbl. 492.

Carulli, G.B., Migliacci, A., Onofri, R., Porfido, S.: 1981, Indagini geologiche ed ingegneristiche inprospettiva sismica a S. Michele Di Serino (AV), Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4, 161–164.

Carulli, G.B., Migliacci, A., Onofri, R., Porfido, S.: 1983, Comune di Solofra (AV). Indagini dimicrozonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campania e Basilicata colpitidal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG Pubbl. 492.

Catenacci, V.: 1992, Il dissesto geologico e geoambientale in Italia dal dopoguerra al 1990, Memoriedescrittive della Carta Geologica d’ltalia XLVII, Ist. PoI. E Zecca dello Stato, Rome.

Cestari, G.: 1986, Effetti del sisma del 23-11-80 sulla stabilityà dei versanti del Cilento Settentrionale(1◦ nota), Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXI, parte I, 37–52.

Cherubini, C., Guerricchio, A., Melidoro, G.: 1981, Un fenomeno di scivolamento profondo delleargille grigio-azzurre Plio-Calabriane nella Valle del T. Sauro (lucania) prodotto dal terremoto del23 Novembre 1980 – nota preliminare, Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4, 155–159.

Chiocchini, U., Cherubini, C.: 1986, Seismic microzoning of the Lioni village destroyed by theNovember 23rd 1980 earthquake (Irpinia, Campano-Lucano Apennine), Geologia Applicata eIdrogeologia XXI, parte III.

Chiocchini, U., Cipriani, N.: 1986, Seismic microzoning to rebuild Caposele village destojed bythe November 23, 1980 earthquake (Irpinia, Campano-Lucano Apennine), Geologia Applicata eIdrogeologia XXI, parte III.

Cotecchia, V.: 1981, Relazione sui problemi geomorfologici, idrogeologici e geotecnici evidenziatisinel territorio colpito dal sisma Campano-Lucano del 23 Novembre 1980 e proposte di interventodel Sottoprogetto “Fenomeni Franosi” P.F. “Conservazione del Suolo” del C.N.R) per lo studiodelle situazioni d’instabilità dei versanti, finalizzato all’opera di ricostruzione e di utilizzazionedell’area disastrata’, CNR P.F. “Conservazione del suolo”, Univ. di Bari, gennaio 1981.

Cotecchia, V.: 1981, Considerazioni sui problemi geomorfologici, idrogeologici e geotecnici evid-enziatisi nel territorio colpito dal sisma Campano-Lucano del 23 Novembre 1980 e possibilitàdi intervento del Progetto Finalizzato “Conservazione del Suolo” del CNR, Rendiconti SocietáGeologica Italiana 4, 73–102.

Cotecchia, V.: 1982, Phenomena of ground instability produced by the earthquake of November 23,1980 in Southern Italy, 4th International Congress I.A.E.G., 10–15 Dec., New Delhi, India, theme6, 1–14.

Cotecchia, V.: 1984, Note sui fenomeni d’instabilità del territorio e sulla loro rappresentazione conparticolare riguardo agli eventi sismici. Lineamenti di geologia regionale e tecnica delle aree colpitedal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, FORMEZ-Napoli, 207–290.

Cotecchia, V., Del Prete, M.: 1984, Reactivation of large flows in the part of Southern Italy affectedby the earthquake of November 1980, with reference to evolutive mechanism, IV Int. Symp. onLandslides, Toronto.

Cotecchia, V., Del Prete, M.: 1986, Some observations on stability of old landslides in the historiccentre of Grassano after the earthquake of 23 November 1980, Geologia Applicata e IdrogeologiaXXI, 155–167.

Cotecchia, V., Del Prete, M., Federico, A., Fenelli, B.G., Pellegrino, A., Picarelli, L.: 1986, Studiodi una colata attiva in formazioni strutturalmente complesse presso Brindisi di Montagna Scalo(Potenza), Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXI.


Cotecchia, V., Del Prete, M., Tafuni, N.: 1986, Effects of earthquake of 23 November 1980 on pre-existing landslides in the Senerchia area (Southern Italy), IV Int. Symp. on Engineering geologyproblems in seismic areas, Bari, pp. 177–198.

Cotecchia, V., Del Prete, M., Tafuni, N.: 1986, Effects of earthquake of 23 November 1980 on pre-existing landslides in the Senerchia area (Southem Italy), Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXI,parte IV, Bari.

Cotecchia, V., Lenti, V., Salvemini, A., Spilotro, G.: 1986, Reactivation of large “Buoninventre” slideby irpinian earthquake of 23 November 1980, I.A.E.G., Proceeding of the International Symposiumon “Engineering Geology Problems in Seismic Areas”, Bari, 13–16 Aprile, 3.

Cotecchia, V., Luongo, G., Pagliarulo, R., Salvemini, A., Santagatti, G., Ventrella, N.A.: 1986,Excursion Guidebook (Post Symposium Tecnical Tour) I.A.E.G., Proceeding of the InternationalSymposium on “Engineering Geology Problems in Seismic Areas”, Bari, 13–16 Aprile, 6.

Cotecchia, V., Monterisi, L., Salvemini, A.: 1986, Effects of the November 23, 1980 earthquakeon the Conza della Campania Dam and on its supplemental structures, Geologia Applicata eIdrogeologia XXI, parte IV, 363–393.

Cotecchia, V., Monterisi, L., Salvemini, A., Ventrella, N.A.: 1986, Analysis of mass movement thatoccurred during construction of Conza Dam (Avellino – Southem Italy) on Ofanto River, GeologiaApplicata e Idrogeologia XXI, parte IV, 199–216.

Cotecchia, V., Nuzzo, G.: 1986, Hydrological study of the upper valleys of the Sele and OfantoRivers struck by the November 23, 1980 earthquake. Historical period of the survey: 1928–1979.Reference years: 1980–1981, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXI, parte IV, 65–95.

Crescenti, U., Dramis, F., Gentili, B., Praturlon, A.: 1984, The Bisaccia landslide: a case of deepseated gravitational movement reactivated by earthquake, Centre de Rechearches en GeographiePhysique de l’Environnement – Association Francaise de Geographie Physique, Mouvements deterrains, Communications du Colloque, 22–24 Mars, Caen, 14–21.

Dalla Giovanna, G., Marchetti, G., Corsanego, A., Papani, G., Petrucci, F., Tellini, C., Vernia, L.,Augusti, V., Capurro, M., Stura, D., Logiudice, E., Sorriso-Valvo, M.: 1983, Comune di Caposele(AV). Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campania eBasilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

D’Elia, B.: 1983, La stabilità dei pendii naturali in condizioni sismiche, A.G.I. XV ConvegnoNazionale di Geotecnica 4–6 Maggio Spoleto, 125–135.

D’Elia, B.: 1992, Dynamic aspects of a landslide reactivated by the November 23, 1980 Irpiniaearthquake (Southern Italy), Proceedings of the French-Italian Conference on slope stability inseismic areas, May 14–15, Bordighera (Imperia), Italy, pp. 25–32.

D’Elia, B., Federico, G., Pescatore, T., Rippa, F.: 1986, Occurrence of a large landslide (Andretta –Italy) reactivated by the November 23, 1980 earthquake, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXI,365–381.

Del Prete, M.: 1981, Alcuni problemi geologici e geotecnici per la ricostruzione nelle zone colpitedal sisma del 23-11-1980, Atti e Relazioni dell Accademia Pugliese delle Scienze XXXIX, parte II,3–12.

Del Prete, M.: 1981, La frana del centro storico di Grassano: meccanismo, età, effetti del terremotodel 23-11-1980, Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4, 169–172.

Del Prete, M.: 1990, Examples of mudslides hazard in southern Apennines (Italy), Atti Convegno“Irpinia dieci anni dopo”.

Del Prete, M.: 1992, Frane per colamento e loro effetti nelle aree dell’appennino centro-meridionale’,In A. Vallario, 1992, Frane e territorio Liguori Editore, Napoli.

Del Prete, M., Bentivenga, M., Favia, E., Modugno, L., Summa, V.: 1990, Movimenti franosi nellearee sismiche della Basilicata, della Puglia e dell’Irpinia, Atti del Convegno GNDT I, 435–442.

Del Prete, M., Chiocchini, V., Palmentola, G.: 1981, Excursion Guidebook, Atti della ConferenzaInternazionale sulle zone sismiche dell’area mediterranea, Matera, 373–386.


Del Prete, M., Trisorio-Liuzzi, G.: 1981, Risultato dello studio preliminare della frana di Calitri(AV) mobilitata dalla scossa sismica del 23.11.80, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XVI, parteII, 153–166.

Esposito, E., Luongo, G., Marturano, A., Porfido, S.: 1989, Terremoti ed effetti superficiali. Esempidi ricorrenze sistematiche. Conferenza annuale scientifìca sulle attività di ricerca dei dipartimenti,Università di Napoli Dip. Geofisica-Vulcanologia, 126–127.

Faccioli, E., Siro, L.: 1983, Comune di Muro Lucano (PZ) – microzonazione sismica prelimin-are. Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campaniae Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

Faccioli, E., Siro, L.: 1983, Comune di Castelgrande (PZ) – microzonazione sismica preliminare.Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campania eBasilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

Faccioli, E., Siro, L.: 1983, Comune di Pescopagano (PZ). Indagini di microzonazione sismica.Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

Fenelli, G.B., Picarelli, L., Silvestri, F.: 1992, Deformation process of a hill shaken by the Irpiniaearthquake in 1980, Proceeding of the French–Italian Conference on Slope Stability in SeismicAreas, May 14–15, Bordighera (Imperia), Italy, 47–62.

Genevois, R., Prestininzi A.: 1982, Deformazioni e movimenti di massa indotti dal sisma del 23-11-1980 nella media Valle del F. Tammaro (BN), Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XVII, 305–317.

Grassi, D., Merenda, L., Sdao, F.: 1988, Esempi di fenomeni gravitativi di diverso tipo nell’Appennino Campano-Lucano, Memorie Società Geologica Italiana 41, 897–904.

Guelfi, G., Monforti, E., Bozzo, E., Gallianai, Plesi, O.: 1983, Comune di Conza della Campania(AV) – microzonazione sismica preliminare. Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento ur-gente in 39 centri abitati della Campania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980,CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

Guerricchio, A., Melidoro, G.: 1981, Movimenti di massa pseudo-tettonici nell’ Appenninodell’Italia Meridionale, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XVI, 251–294.

Guerricchio, A., Melidoro, G.: 1982, New views on the origin of badlands in the Plio-Pleistocenicclays of Italy, Proceedings 4th International Congress. I.A.E.G., 10–15 Dec., New Delhi, India, II,theme I: 227–236.

Guerricchio, A., Melidoro, G.: 1988, Fenomeni franosi dell’ abitato di Stigliano (Basilicata),CNR-GNDCI, linea 2, Riunione sul monitoraggio dei fenomeni franosi e sulle tecniche dirappresentazione cartografica, Bologna, pp. 43–63.

Guida, M., Iaccarino, G.: 1984, Evoluzione dei versanti e franosità, Ricerche e Studi FORMEZ 36,75–98.

Hutchinson, J. N., Del Prete, M.: 1985, Landslides at Calitri, Southern Apennines, reactivated by theearthquake of 23rd November 1980, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XX, parte I, 9–38.

Iaccarino, G., Ianniello, G.: 1993, Carta delle frane del Comune di Tito, Carta inedita allegata alPiano Regolatore Generale del Comune di Tito.

Iaccarino, G., Paparo Filomarino, M., Pellegrino, A., Picarelli L.: 1986, Bisaccia hill and its stability,Int. Symp. on Engineering Problems in Seismic Areas, Bari.

Lazzari, S.: 1986, Criteri e tecniche di intervento per la tutela e la protezione dei centri urbanidella Basilicata interessati da movimenti franosi, A.G.I. XVI Convegno Nazionale di Geotecnica,Bologna 14–16 Maggio, pp. 91–100.

Lazzari, S., Annovi, A., Martini, E.: 1988, Il problema del consolidamento e del trasferimento degliabitati instabili in Italia, CNR-GNDCI, linea 2, Riunione sul monitoraggio dei fenomeni franosi esulle tecniche di rappresentazione cartografica, Bologna, pp. 87–120.

Maggiore, M.: 1981, Evidenze di movimenti connessi col terremoto del 23-11-1980 lungo fagliepreesistenti nel territorio di Albano di Lucania (Potenza), Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4,131–134.


Maggiore, M., Walsh, N.: 1980, Ground displacements: local effects of the 1980 Irpinia earthquakeand problems of engineering geology, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXI, parte II, 305–316.

Maugeri, M., Motta, E.: 1985, A note on the residual strength in a landslide induced by the 1980Italian earthquake, Proc. XI I. C. S.M.F.E., San Francisco, pp. 37–41.

Maugeri, M., Motta, E., Sorriso Valvo, M.: 1982, The Senerchia landslide triggered by the 23 Novem-ber 1980 earthquake, 4th International Congress I.A.E.G. 1–6 Dec. New Delhi India theme 6.3,I–II.

Nardi, R., Pochini, A., Puccinelli, A.: 1985, Contributo all’ analisi del territorio interessato dal sismadel 23 Novembre 1980: 1 – Cartografia geologica e geomorfologica di dettaglio dei centri abitati diBalvano, Muro Lucano e S. Gregorio Magno. 2 – Aree ad elavata franosità potenziale del territoriodel comune di Balvano, Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XX, parte II, 591–593.

Ortolani, F.: 1981, Principali effetti geologici di superficie del terremoto del 23-11-1980, RendicontiSocietà Geologica Italiana 4, 71.

Ortolani, F., Pagliuca, S., Toccaceli, R.: 1990, Pericolosità geologica delle aree interessate dal ter-remoto del 23 Novembre 80 proposta di revisione della classificazione sismica vigente, MemorieSocietà Geologica Italiana 45, 245–246.

Ortolani, F., Torre, M.: 1981, Guida all’escursione nell’area interessata dal terremoto del 23-11-1980,Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4, 173–214.

Pagliuca, S., Toccaceli, R. M.: 1992, Carta geomorfologica della comunità montana “FortoreBeneventano” (Appennino Campano), Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XXVII, 101–110.

Pellegrino, A.: 1994, I fenomeni franosi nell’area metropolitana napoletana, In Rischi naturali ed im-patto antropico nell’area metropolitana napoletana, ClRAM. Centro Interdipartimentale di RicercaAmbientale. Università Federico Il, Napoli.

Pescatore, T.S.: 1984, Lineamenti di geologia tecnica delle aree colpite dal terremoto del 23Novembre 1980, Ricerche e Studi FORMEZ RS 36.

Picarelli, L.: 1988, Modellazione e monitoraggio di una colata in formazioni strutturalmentecomplesse, Conv. CNR-GNDCI Cartografia e monitoraggio dei movimenti franosi, Novembre1988, Bologna.

Radina, B., Vignola, N.: 1981, Prime osservazioni e considerazioni sugli effetti del terremoto del 23Novembre ’80 nell’abitato di Grassano (prov. Matera), Rendiconti Società Geologica Italiana 4,165–168.

Restaino, L.: 1983, Carta delle frane del Comune di Caggiano, Carta inedita allegata al PianoRegolatore Generale del Comune di Caggiano.

Rolandi, G.: 1986, Carta delle frane del Comune di Bella, Carta inedita allegata al Piano RegolatoreGenerale del Comune di Bella.

Samuelli-Ferretti, A., Siro, L.: 1983, Comune di Calitri (AV). Indagini di microzonazione sismica.Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

Samuelli-Ferretti, A., Vignola, N.: 1983, Comune di Torella dei Lombardi (AV) – microzonazionesismica preliminare. Indagini di microzonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitatidella Campania e Basilicata colpiti dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

Sorriso-Valvo, M., Lo Giudice, E., Corsanego, A.: 1983, Comune di Valva (SA). Indagini di micro-zonazione sismica. Intervento urgente in 39 centri abitati della Campania e Basilicata colpiti dalterremoto del 23 Novembre 1980, CNR-PFG, Pubbl. 492.

Urciuoli, G.: 1989, Contributo alla caratterizzazione geotecnica delle frane dell’ Appennino, Collanadel GNDCI, n. 384.


SUMMARY OF CONTRIBUTIONS ON 26 JULY 1805 EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED

LANDSLIDES

Archivio di Stato di Campobasso, Intendenza di Molise (1806/1860).Archivio di Stato di Isernia, Catasto Fabbricati (1877/1961).Archivio di Stato di Isernia, Catasto Provvisorio (1816/1955).Archivio di Stato di Isernia, Mappe Nuovo Catasto Edilizio Urbano (1939/1965).Archivio di Stato di Isernia, Sotto-Prefettura di Isernia, Atti Amministrativi (1861/1885).Archivio di Stato di Isernia, Stato Civile (1809/1865).Archivio di Stato di Isernia, Tribunale di Isernia, Atti Diversi (1862/1923).Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Archivio Borbone, 690.Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Ministero delle Finanze, fascicoli 2478 e 2479.Archivio Storico del Comune di Isernia (1363/1934) Biblioteca Comunale “M. Romeno”, Isernia.Baratta, M.: 1901, I terremoti d’Italia, Torino (ristampa anastatica, Bologna, Forni, 1979).Bonito, M.: 1691, Terra tremante, Napoli (ristampa anastatica, Bologna, Forni, 1980).Colletta, P.: 1951, Storia del Reame di Napoli, a cura di N. Cortese, Napoli, Libr. Scient. Ed., Voll.

2.Croce, B.: 1967, Storia del Regno di Napoli, Bari, Laterza.Esposito, E., Laurelli, L. and Porfido, S.: 1999: Calamità e politiche emergenziali durante la prima

restaurazione:il terremoto di S. Anna, Rivista storica del Sannio 12, anno VI, 177–216, Napoli.Masciotta, G.: 1981–1985, Il Molise dalle origini ai nostri giorni, Rist., Campobasso, Lampo, voll.

4.Mattei, A.M.: 1978, Storia d’Isernia, Napoli, Athena Mediterranea, voll. 3.Perella, A.: 1892, Effemeride della provincia di Molise, Isernia.Spadea, M.C., Vecchi, M., Gardellini, P., Del Mese, S.: 1985, The Barandello earthquake of July

1805, In D. Postpischl (ed.), Atlas of isoseismal maps of Italian earthquakes. Quaderni della ricercascientifica CNR-PFG 114, 2a, Bologna.

Valente, F.: 1982, Isernia. Origine e crescita di una città, Campobasso, pp. 400.Viti, A.: 1972, Note di diplomatica ecclesiastica sulla Contea di Molise dalle fonti delle pergamene

capitolari di Isernia, Napoli, Arte Tipografica.

References

Agnesi, V., Carrara, A., Macaluso, T., Monteleone, S., Pipitone, G., and Sorrivo-Valvo, M.: 1983,Elementi tipologici e morfologici dei fenomeni di instabilityà dei versanti indotti dal sisma del1980 (alta Valle del Sele), Geologia Applicata e Idrogeologia XVIII(I), 309–341.

Amato, A., Chiarabba, C., and Selvaggi, G.:1997, Crustal and deep seismicity in Italy (30 yearsafter), Annali di Geofisica 11(5), 981–993.

Ambraseys, N.N.: 1988, Engineering seismology, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics17, 1–105.

Bardet, J.P, Oka, F., Sugito, M., and Yashima A.: 1995, The great Hanshin earthquake disaster, theJanuary 17, 1995 South Hyogo Prefecture earthquake, Preliminary Investigation report. Dep.Un. South California, Los Angeles.

Bernard, P. and Zollo, A.: 1989, The Irpinia (Italy) 1980 earthquake: detailed analysis of a complexnormal faulting, J. Geophys. Res. 94(B2), 1631–1647.

Bernard, P., Zollo, A., Trifu, C., and Herrero, A.: 1993, Details of rupture kinematics and mechanismsof the Irpinia 1980 earthquake: new results and remaining questions, Annali di Geofisica 36(1),71–80.


Bigi, G., Cosentino, D., Parlotto, M., Sartori, P., and Scandone, P.: 1990, Structural model of Italy,CNR-PFG, 3–114.

Blumetti, A.M., Esposito, E. Ferreli, L., Michetti, A.M., Porfido, S., Serva, L., and Vittori, E.: 2002,Ground effects of the 1980 Irpinia earthquake revisited: evidence for surface faulting near MuroLucano, in F. Dramis, P, Farabollini, and P. Molin (eds), Large-scale vertical movements andrelated gravitational processes, Studi Geologici Camerti, special issue, Int. Workshop Camerino-Rome, June 21–26, 1999, in press.

Bonardi, G., D’Argenio, B., and Perrone, V.: 1988, Carta geologica dell’Appennino meridionale,CNR-DST Università Napoli, SELCA (FI).

Boschi, E., Ferrari, G., Gasperini, P., Guidoboni, E., Smriglio, G., and Valensise, G.: 1995, Catalogodei forti terremoti in Italia dal 461 a. C. al 1980, ING-SGA 1–973.

Capozzi, G.: 1834, Memoria sul tremuoto avvenuto nel Contado di Molise nella sera de 26 Lugliodell’anno 1805, Benevento.

Carmignani, L., Cello, G., Cerrina Feroni, A., Funiciello, R., Kalin, O., Meccheri, M., Patacca, E.,Pertusati, P., Plesi, G., Salvini, F., Scandone, P., Tortorici, L., and Turco, E.: 1981, Analisi delcampo di fratturazione superficiale indotto dal terremoto campano-lucano del 23/11/1980, Rend.Soc. Geol. It. 4, 451–465.

Carrara, A., Agnesi, V., Macaluso, T., Monteleone, S., and Pipitone, G.: 1986, Slope movementsinduced by the Southern Italy earthquake of November 1980, IAEG 2, 237–250.

CPTI – Catalogo Parametrico dei Terremoti Italiani: 1999, ING, GNDT,SGA, SSN, Bologna, pp 1–92.Cinque, A., Patacca, E., Scandone, P., and Tozzi, M.: 1991, Quaternary kinematic evolution of the

Southern Apennines. Relationship between surface geological features and deep lithosphericstructures, Annali di Geofisica 36(2), 249–260.

Corrado, S., Di Bucci, D., Naso, G., and Valensise, L.: 2000, The role of pre-existing structures inQuaternari extentional tectonics of the Southern Apennines, Italy, J. Czech Geol. Soc. 45(3–4),271.

Cotecchia, V.: 1986, Ground deformation and slope instability produced by the earthquake ofNovember 1980 in Campania-Basilicata, IAEG 5, 31–100.

Cotecchia, V., Guerricchio A., and Melidoro G.: 1986a, The geomorphogenetic crisis triggered bythe 1783 earthquake in Calabria (Southern Italy), IAEG 6, 245–304.

Cotecchia, V., Nuzzi, G., Salvemini, A., and Ventrella, N. A.: 1986b, Sanità spring at Caposele (Avel-lino, Southern Italy): hypotheses on flow changes caused by the 23 November, 1980 earthquakeand boundary barrier stability problems, IAEG 2, 317–331.

Crescentini, L., Amoruso, A., and Scarpa, R.: 1999, Constraints on slow earthquake dynamics froma swarm in Central Italy, Science 286, 2132–2134.

Cucci, L., D’Addezio, G., Valensise, G., and Burrato, P.: 1996, Investigating seismogenic faults inCentral and Southern Apennines (Italy): modeling of fault-related landscape features, Annali diGeofisica 34(3), 603–618.

D’Elia, B., Esu, F., Pellegrino, A., and Pescatore, T.S.: 1986, Some effects on natural slope stabilityinduced by the 1980 Italian earthquake, Proc. XI Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and FoundationEngineering, San Francisco, pp. 1943–1949.

Del Prete, M. Giaccari E., and Trisorio-Liugi G.: 1992, Rischio da frane intermittenti a cinematicalenta nelle aree montuose e collinari urbanizzate della basilicata, CNR-GNDCI, Reports.

Del Prete, M.: 1993, Example of mudslide hazard in Southern Apennines (Italy), Annali di Geofisica36(1), 271–276.

Di Bucci, D., Corrado, S., Naso, G., Parotto, M. and Praturlon, A.: 1999, Evoluzione tettonicaneogenico-quaternaria dell’area molisana, Boll. Soc. Geol. It. 118, 13–30.

Doglioni, C., Harabaglia, P., Martinelli, G., Mongelli, F., and Zito, G.: 1996, A geodynamic modelof the Southern Apennines accretionary prism, Terra Nova 8, 540–547.

EERI: 1999, The Izmit (Kocaeli), Turkey Earthquake of August 17, 1999, Special Earthquake Report,October 1999, pp. 1–4.


EQE: 1995, The January 17, 1995 Kobe Earthquake, Summary Report, April 1995, pp. 1–6.Esposito, E., Luongo, G., Maturano, A., and Porfido, S.: 1987, Il Terremoto di S. Anna del 26 luglio

1805, Mem. Soc. Geol. It. 37, 171–191.Esposito, E., Luongo, G., and Porfido, S.: 1991, Il terremoto del 26 luglio 1805 nella diocesi di

Caiazzo, Ass. Stor. Caratino 8, 95–106.Esposito, E., Porfido, S, Mastrolorenzo, G., Nikonov, A.A., and Serva, L.: 1997a, Brief review and

preliminary proposal for the use of ground effects in the macroseismic intensity assessment, inVSP ed. Proc. 30th Int. Geol. Congr. 5 Netherlands, pp. 233–243.

Esposito, E., Gargiulo, A., Iaccarino, G., and Porfido, S.: 1997b, Analisi dei fenomeni franosi in areead elevata sismicità in Appennino meridionale’, Atti Acc. Naz. Lincei 134, Rome, 65–72.

Esposito, E., Gargiulo, A., Iaccarino, G., and Porfido S.: 1998, Distribuzione dei fenomeni franosiriattivati dai terremoti dell’Appennino meridionale. Censimento delle frane del terremoto del1980, Proc. Conv. Int. Prevention of Hydrogeological Hazards: The Role of Scientific Research1, CNR-IRPI, Alba, pp. 409–429.

Esposito, E., Pece, R., Porfido, S., Tranfaglia, G., and Onorati, G.: 1999, Effetti dei terremotidell’Appennino meridionale sulle acque superficiali, Atti Acc. Naz. Lincei 154, Rome, 91–96.

Esposito, E., Porfido, S., Iaccarino, G., and. Tranfaglia, G.: 2000, Terremoti e centri storicidell’Irpinia: gli effetti del terremoto del 1930, Proc. GeoBen 2000, CNR-GNDCI 2133, 477–484.

Esposito, E., Pece, R., Porfido, S., and Tranfaglia, G.: 2001, Hydrological anomalies connected toearthquakes in Southern Apennines (Italy), Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, EGS 1,137–144.

Ferranti, L.: 1994, Le strutture del bordo meridionale del massiccio del Matese (Appenninomeridionale): elementi di tettonica compressiva e distensiva, Boll. Soc. Geol. It. 113, 157–171.

Figliuolo , B.: 1988, Il terremoto del 1456, Ed. Studi Storici Meridionali, 2 volumes.Fortini, P.: 1806, Della cause de’ terremoti e loro effetti. Danni di quelli sofferti dalla città di Isernia

fino a quello de’ 26 luglio 1805, Copia anastatica del manoscritto del 1806. in T. Sardelli (ed.),1984, Isernia, pp 65.

Galli, P.: 2000, New empirical relationships between magnitude and distance for liquefaction,Tectonophysics 324, 113–134.

GEMINA: 1963, Il bacino del Tammaro, Ligniti e torbe dell’Italia continentale, Ed. a cura dellaGEMINA-Geomineraria nazionale, Torino, pp. 123–125.

Guerrieri, L., Scarascia Mugnozza, G., and Vittori, E.: 1999, Analisi stratigrafica e geomorfologicadella conoide tardo-quaternaria di Campochiaro ed implicazioni per la conca di Bojano in Molise,Il Quaternario 12(2), 237–247.

Guidoboni, E. and Ferrari, G.: 1995, Historical cities and earthquakes: Florence during the last ninecenturies and evaluations of seismic hazard’, Annali di Geofisica 38(5-6), 617–647.

Iadone, P.: 1805, Relazione dettagliata di tutto ciò che ha rapporto all’accaduto per causa del tremuotodella sera de’ 26 luglio corrente anno 1805, in questa città di Cajazzo, e sua diocesi, conform-emente all’istruzione ricevute per tal’oggetto con dispaccio di 5 agosto. Colloquio sulle scienzedella terra in onore di Nicola Covelli, Ass. Storica del Caiatino 8, 33–66.

Ingebritsen, S.E. and Sanford, W.E.: 1999, Groundwater in geologic processes, Chap. 8, Earth-quakes, Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–245.

Jibson, R.W., Harp, E.L., and Michael, J.A.: 1998, A method for producing digital probabilisticseismic landslide hazard maps: an example from the Los Angeles California area (Open FileReport), in Open File Report 98-113, USGS.

JSCE: 1999, Kocaeli (Turkey) earthquake, Chap 12, PDF 12 Liquefaction, round subsidence andslope failures, pp. 1–13.

Keefer, D.K.: 1984, Landslides caused by earthquakes, Bulletin of the Geological Society of America95, 406–421.


Keefer, D.K. and Hanson, H.W.: 1998, Regional distribution and characteristics of landslides gener-ated by the earthquake, in D.K. Keefer (ed.), The Loma Prieta California Earthquake of October17, 1989 – Landslides: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1551-C, pp. 7–32.

Keefer, D.K.: 2000, Statistical analysis of an earthquake-induced landslide distribution-the LomaPrieta, California event, Engineering Geology 58, 231–249.

King, G.C.P. and Muir-Wood, R.: 1993, Hydrological signature of earthquake strain, J. Geophys.Res. 98(B12), 22035–22068.

Kresic, N.: 1997, Quantitative Solutions in Hydrogeology and Groundwater Modeling, LewisPublishers, New York,

Michetti, A.M., Blumetti, A.M., Esposito, E., Ferreli, L., Guerrieri, L., Porfido, S., Serva, L., and Vit-tori, E.: 2000a, Earthquake ground effects and seismic hazard assessment in Italy examples fromthe Matese and Irpinia areas, Southern Apennines, Active Fault Research for the New Millennium,Proceedings of the Hokudan Symposium and School on Active Faulting, pp. 279–284.

Michetti, A.M., Ferreli, L., Esposito, E., Porfido, S., Blumetti, A.M., Vittori, E., Serva, L., andRoberts, G.P.: 2000b, Ground effects during the September 9, 1998, Mw = 5.6, Lauria earthquakeand the seismic potential of the aseismic Pollino region in Southern Italy, Seismological ResearchLetters 71(1), 31–46.

Michetti, A.M., Ferreli, L., Serva, L., and Vittori, E.: 1997, Geological evidence for strong historicalearthquakes in an “aseismic” region: the Pollino case (Southern Italy), J. Geodyn. 24(1–4), 67–86.

Michetti, A.M. and Hancock, P.L.: 1997, Paleoseismology: understanding past earthquakes usingquaternary geology, J. Geodyn. 24, 3–10.

Michetti, A.M., Serva, L., and Vittori, E.: 2000c, ITHACA, CD-Rom, ANPA, Rome.Mostardini, F. and Merlini, S.: 1986, Appennino centro meridionale: Sezioni geologiche e proposta

di modello strutturale, Mem. Soc. Geol. It. 35, 177–202.Onorati, G., Pece, R., Tranfaglia, G., and Zollo, A.: 1994, Sismicità e regime delle falde acquifere

nell’Appennino meridionale, Atti 13◦ Conv. Naz. GNGTS, Rome, pp. 895–906.Pantosti, D., Schwartz, D.P., and Valensise, G.: 1993, Paleoseismology along the 1980 surface rup-

ture of the Irpinia fault: implications for earthquake recurrence in Southern Apennines, Italy, J.Geophys. Res. 98(B4), 6561–6577.

Pantosti, D. and Valensise, G.: 1993, Source geometry and long-term behavior of the 1980, Irpiniaearthquake fault based on field geologic observations, Annali di Geofisica 36(1), 41–49.

Parise, M. and Jibson, R.W.: 2000, A seismic landslide susceptibility rating of geologic units based onanalysis of characteristics of landslides triggered by the 17 January, 1994 Northridge, Californiaearthquake, Engineering Geology 58, 251–270.

Patacca, E. and Scandone, P.: 1989, Post-Tortonian mountain building in the Apennines. The roleof the passive sinking of a relic lithospheric slab, The Lithosphere in Italy, Acc. Naz. Lincei 80,157–176.

Pepe, G.: 1806, Ragguaglio historico-fisico del tremuoto accaduto nel Regno di Napoli la sera de 26luglio 1805, Ed. S. Giacomo, Napoli, 174 pp.

Poli, G.S.: 1806, Memoria sul tremuoto de’ 26 luglio del corrente anno 1805, Ed. Orsino, Napoli,225 pp.

Porfido, S., Esposito, E., Luongo, G., and Maturano, A.:1991, Terremoti ed effetti superficiali: esempinell’Appennino meridionale, Proc. Studi Centri Storici Instabili, CNR-Regione Marche, pp. 225–229.

Postpischl, D.,:1985, Atlas of isoseismal maps of Italian earthquakes, CNR-PFG 114(2B), 152–157.Postpischl, D., Branno, A., Esposito, E., Ferrari, G., Maturano, A., Porfido, S., Rinaldis, V., and

Stucchi, M.: 1985, The Irpinia earthquake of November 23, 1980, in Atlas of Isoseismal Maps ofItalian Earthquakes, CNR-PFG 114(2B), 152–157.

Rodríguez, C.E., Bommer, J.J., and Chandler, R.J.: 1999, Earthquake-induced Landslides: 1980–1997, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 18, 325–346.


Sassa, K., Fukuoka, H., Scarascia-Mugnozza G., and Evans, S.G.: 1996, Earthquake-inducedlandslides: distribution, motion and mechanisms, Special Issue of Soil and Fundations, 53–64.

Scandone, R., Bellucci, F., Lirer, L., and Rolandi, G.: 1991, The structure of the Campanian Plainand the activity of the Neapolitan volcanoes (Italy), J. Volcan. Geotherm. Res. 48, 1–31.

Serva, L.: 1985, The earthquake of June 5, 1688 in Campania, Atlas of Isoseismal Maps of ItalianEarthquakes, CNR-PFG 114(2B), 44–47.

Serva, L.: 1994, Ground effects in intensity scales, Terra Nova 6, 414–416.Serva, L.: 1995, Criteri geologici per la valutazione della sismicità: considerazioni e proposte, Atti

Conv. Terremoti in Italia, Accademia Lincei 122, 103–116.Stucchi, M.: 1993, Historical Investigation of European earthquakes, Materials of CEC project.

Review of Historical Seismicity in Europe, CNR 1, 1–258.USGS: 1999, Implications for Earthquake risk reduction in the U.S. from the Kocaeli, Turkey,

earthquake, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1193, 1–64.Varnes, D.J.: 1978, Slope movements types and processes, in R.L. Schuster and R.J. Kriziek (eds.),

Landslides: Analysis and Control, Washington Transport Research Board Special Report 176,National Science Academy, pp. 12–33.

Vittori, E., Sylos Labini, S., and Serva, L.: 1991, Paleoseismicity: review of the state of the art,Tectonophysics 193, 9–32.

Wasowski, J. and Del Gaudio, V.: 2000, Evaluating seismically induced mass movement hazard inCaramanico Terme (Italy), Engineering Geology 58, 291–311.

Wells, D.L. and Coppersmith, K.J.: 1994, New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupturelength, rupture width, rupture area and surface displacement, Bull. Seism. Soc. Am. 84(4), 974–1002.

Westaway, R.: 1993, Fault rupture geometry for the 1980 Irpinia earthquake: a working hypothesis,Annali di Geofisica 36(1), 51–69.

Westaway, R. and Jackson J.: 1987, The earthquake of 1980 November 23 in Campania-Basilicata(Southern Italy), Geophys. J. R. Astr. Soc. 90, 375–443.