The 1138–1139 and 1156–1159 destructive seismic crises in Syria, south-eastern Turkey and northern Lebanon

Guidoboni, Emanuela; Bernardini, Filippo; Comastri, Alberto

doi:10.1023/b:jose.0000009502.58351.06

Cited by 22 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this interpretation is substantiated by a scientific question, we have to mention the cognitive limits of the historical sources of that period. Indeed, systematic analysis is not a key element in the 12th century world view: in that period the availability of day‐to‐day data on the shocks perceived is just an individual variable (see the accounts from Damascus of Ibn al‐Qalanisi on the seismic crises in Syria in the first half of the 12th century, as cited by Guidoboni et al [2004]. Taking account of the particular cultural picture which the coeval sources refer to, we have formulated two hypotheses: (1) that the identified effects can be interpreted as those of a single earthquake (in this case the parameters have been interpreted) or (2) that there were two strong earthquakes (in regard to this hypothesis the parameters cannot be calculated because the two areas are not easily differentiated and so there may well be zones with overlapping effects).…”

Section: Results Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From this point of view, the assertion of Meghraoui et al [2003] that the earthquakes of 1157, 1170, and 1202 represent a southward migrating sequence of shocks along three distinct segments of the Dead Sea fault (Apamea‐Ghab, Missyaf, and Yammouneh, respectively) turns out to be a little bit reduced. In our opinion, indeed, we cannot exclude that the 1170 event involved ruptures along both the Missyaf fault and one of the DSTFS segments which border the Ghab basin, while the 1157 earthquake (actually, a long sequence of earthquakes which struck western Syria in the 1156–1159 period [ Guidoboni et al , 2004]) probably saw the activation of another parallel fault segment (or other segments) in the Apamea‐Ghab area. This could explain the partial overlap of the worst hit areas in the 1156–1159 and 1170 events (cities and castles like Homs, Hama, Shayzar, Barin, Crac des Chevaliers, and Aleppo were either destroyed or seriously damaged twice in a span of 11–14 years [ Guidoboni et al , 2004]).…”

Section: Some Considerations Of a Seismotectonic Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to the 1170 earthquake, other significant seismic shocks had occurred in 551 [ Guidoboni et al , 1994], 1138–39 and 1157–59 [ Guidoboni et al , 2004], 1202 [ Ambraseys and Melville , 1988], 1408 [ Ambraseys and Melville , 1995], 1759 [ Ambraseys and Barazangi , 1989], and 1837 [ Ambraseys , 1997; Ambraseys and Jackson , 1998]. Moreover, the high seismic potential of northern DSTFS has also been recently confirmed by a number of field‐based paleoseismological studies [ Gomez et al , 2001; Meghraoui et al , 2003].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The large earthquake on 29 June 1170 (Syria, Lebanon, and central southern Turkey)

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] On 29 June 1170 a large earthquake hit a vast area in the Near Eastern Mediterranean, comprising the present-day territories of western Syria, central southern Turkey, and Lebanon. Although this was one of the strongest seismic events ever to hit Syria, so far no in-depth or specific studies have been available. Furthermore, the seismological literature (from 1979 until 2000) only elaborated a partial summary of it, mainly based solely on Arabic sources. The major effects area was very partial, making the derived seismic parameters unreliable. This earthquake is in actual fact one of the most highly documented events of the medieval Mediterranean. This is due to both the particular historical period in which it had occurred (between the second and the third Crusades) and the presence of the Latin states in the territory of Syria. Some 50 historical sources, written in eight different languages, have been analyzed: Latin (major contributions), Arabic, Syriac, Armenian, Greek, Hebrew, Vulgar French, and Italian. A critical analysis of this extraordinary body of historical information has allowed us to obtain data on the effects of the earthquake at 29 locations, 16 of which were unknown in the previous scientific literature. As regards the seismic dynamics, this study has set itself the question of whether there was just one or more than one strong earthquake. In the former case, the parameters (M e 7.7 ± 0.22, epicenter, and fault length 126.2 km) were calculated. Some hypotheses are outlined concerning the seismogenic zones involved.

show abstract

Section: Results Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Some Considerations Of a Seismotectonic Naturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The large earthquake on 29 June 1170 (Syria, Lebanon, and central southern Turkey)

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But progress is being made. Guidoboni et al [2004] have pointed out amalgamation errors in several earthquake catalogs, and they have docu mented the occurrences of two destructive seismic sequences or earthquake swarms, in 1138-1139 and 1156-1159 A.D., which occurred along the northern segment of the Dead Sea fault zone.…”

Section: Need For Historical Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Earthquakes and archeology: Neocatastrophism or science?

Kovach

Nur

2006

EoS Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent number of devastating, large earthquakes serve as a tough reminder that geophysicists remain unable, after decades of continuous and frustrating efforts, to predict not only where but also when and how big such events will be. These recent earthquakes include those in Pakistan (8 October 2005), Sumatra (26 December 2004, 3 March 2005), Iran (20 June 1990, 10 May 1997, 26 December 2003), India (29 September 1993, 26 January 2001), and Turkey (17 August 1999), and China (the 1976 Tangshan earthquake responsible for at least 300,000 fatalities). This difficulty in predicting earthquakes can be traced, in part, to the absence of sufficient temporal data about the occurrences of large past earthquakes. In this case, sufficient means a time period that spans, for a given area, several large events, typically over a period of several millennia or more. Written records can provide a more or less complete record only for the past several hundred years. Excavations across geologic faults can provide paleoseismic information but only in special geological settings. Archeological evidence for past catastrophic earthquakes has been emerging as a third important source of data that should be considered. The authors of this article have been pursuing this avenue of research for several decades.

show abstract

“…But progress is being made. Guidoboni et al [2004] have pointed out amalgamation errors in several earthquake catalogs, and they have documented the occurrences of two destructive seismic sequences or earthquake swarms, in 1138-1139 and 1156-1159 A.D., which occurred along the northern segment of the Dead Sea fault zone.…”

Section: Need For Historical Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union Volume 87, Number 32, 8 August 2006

2006

EoS Transactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The 1138–1139 and 1156–1159 destructive seismic crises in Syria, south-eastern Turkey and northern Lebanon

Cited by 22 publications

References 19 publications

The large earthquake on 29 June 1170 (Syria, Lebanon, and central southern Turkey)

The large earthquake on 29 June 1170 (Syria, Lebanon, and central southern Turkey)

Earthquakes and archeology: Neocatastrophism or science?

Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union Volume 87, Number 32, 8 August 2006

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About