Most of the after-shocks must have originated in the neighbourhood of Casamicciola, but it is worthy of notice that more than one centre was in action. Several were recorded at Ischia only. Others, as mentioned above, affected chiefly the south part of the island, and especially the small towns of Serrara and Fontana.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ISCHIAN EARTHQUAKES.
After the eruption of 1302, there succeeded a period of comparative repose in Ischia. The revival of activity dates from 1762, and, since that year, there have been four great earthquakes, namely, those of 1796, 1828, 1881, and 1883. In every respect but that of increasing intensity, these earthquakes were apparently identical; each, as Professor Mercalli says, was merely a replica on a different scale of those that preceded it. The principal features in which they resemble one another, and differ from the average tectonic earthquake, are the coincidence of the epicentres, the small depth of the foci, and the sudden onset of the principal shock.
1. Coincidence of Epicentres.—In Fig. 14, which is copied from Professor Mercalli's map, are shown the areas in which buildings were seriously damaged by these four earthquakes. The curves for 1796, 1828, and 1881 are approximately concentric. In 1796, the shock was disastrous only to the west of Casamicciola; in 1828, according to Covelli, "the ground most injured was not precisely the region of Casamicciola, but that which lies between the district called Fango and that known as Casamenella, situated to the west of Casamicciola, and a short distance from it."[26] The epicentres may have varied slightly in size, but, in position, it is clear that all four were nearly or quite coincident. The meizoseismal bands in 1881 and 1883 were also similar in form and elongated in the same direction.
In the last two earthquakes there was, as we have seen, very distinct evidence of a secondary meizoseismal area surrounding Fontana, and it is remarkable that this was also noticeable in the earthquake of 1828. "Besides the centre of vibration in the district of Fango," says Covelli, "another less powerful centre showed itself in the locality of Fontana; this made itself felt more heavily than in surrounding localities; as if another centre of movement had taken place from that part, independent of the former."
2. Small Depth of the Foci.—Mallet's method, as noted above, cannot be trusted to yield accurate estimates of the focal depth, or to indicate more than its order of magnitude. But it is remarkable that the depths calculated by Dr. Johnston-Lavis for the last two earthquakes are both only a little less than a third of a mile, and it is probable that the actual depth did not differ very greatly from this amount. The nature of the shock, vertical or nearly so close to the epicentre and horizontal at a short distance from it, is merely personal testimony of the same character as fissures in masonry, and of course points to the same result.
Fig. 18.—Diagram showing connection between depth of focus and rate of decline in intensity.[ToList]
But the most conclusive evidence on which we have to rely is the extraordinary intensity of the shock at the centre of a very small distributed area. In Great Britain, an earthquake felt over a district of equal size would hardly at the centre exceed the trembling produced in a station platform by a passing train. The curves in Fig. 18 show how the rate of decline in intensity depends on the depth of the focus. They are drawn on the supposition that the intensity at any point on the surface varies inversely as the square of its distance from the focus; the curves a, b, c corresponding to foci situated at depths of one-third of a mile, one mile, and two miles respectively, and the figures below the horizontal line denoting the distance in miles from the epicentre. Thus, the rapid decline of intensity from the epicentre outwards shows that, in each of the four great Ischian earthquakes, the depths of the focus must have been very small.