29Glavcheva.qxd 705 ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, VOL. 47, N. 2/3, April/June 2004 Key words macroseismology – bulletins and cata- logues – supporting data set – site seismic histories – Bulgaria 1. Introduction The beginning of Bulgarian seismology dates back to 1891. At that time Spas Watzof, the director of Central Meteorological Station in Sofia, organized a network of correspondents for observation of felt earthquakes. To unify the collected reports, Watzof prepared and spread circulated throughout country a special «In- struction and program on the earthquakes ob- servation and documenting» (Watzof, 1902). All the reports coming to the Central Station were included in seismological compilations (Reports on the Earthquakes felt in Bulgaria). Thus, Watzof formed the proto-type of a macro- seismic bulletin in Bulgaria which contained: time of perceived shaking, locality, direction of impact, observed effects, intensity according to the volunteers’ (correspondents’) assessment by Rossi-Forel scale till 1912 or by Forel-Mercalli scale since then. The initial material on earth- quakes felt in Bulgaria in the period 1892-1927 is published in this manner. Going through the 17 annual volumes edit- ed by Watzof (1902-1923), one can find that even at his time Watzof was concerned with some important topics, now considered quite common: «seismic centre» location (now, epi- centre determination and source zones), density of observation points and territorial coverage (topics of great importance for both non-instru- mental and instrumental data acquisition), ac- cumulation of as many witness reports as possi- ble from a given locality (statistical nature of modern intensity scales), etc. The seismological survey employees com- ing after Watzof’s death (1928) carried on with the macroseismic data collection. As a result of their efforts the scientific world received annual reports on earthquake effects in Bulgaria in the course of 74 years. So these annual reports were issued until 1965, though in different formats. State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria Rumiana Glavcheva Geophysical Institute of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, Bulgaria Abstract This paper deals with non-instrumental seismology development in Bulgaria (the central-eastern part of the Balkan peninsula). The first steps and products of this scientific branch are discussed because they have traced the road of present-day historical seismology in this country. The sources of information on long-term seismicity are critically reviewed. Some recent studies, which contribute to an improvement of the supporting data sets, are al- so discussed. A special emphasis is laid on the rules adopted to solve different cases as well as on the aspects, by which our understanding of the seismogenesis throughout the present-day Bulgarian lands has been enhanced. Mailing address: Dr. Rumiana Glavcheva, Geophys- ical Institute, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Boncev-st. bl. 3, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria; e-mail: glavchev@geophys.bas.bg 706 Rumiana Glavcheva The successor of Watzof was Kirov. The first issue edited by Kirov (1931) was, however, the last annual seismological compilation in Bulgaria which included eyewitnesses’ descriptions. The presentation of data is organized by Kirov in the typical form of a classical macroseismic bulletin. Therein the main characteristics of the seismic impact are tabulated together with the effect strength uniformly assessed by a specialist. This style of macroseismic bulletin survived till 1966 when the last annual material on felt earthquakes was published. In 1952 the first isoseismal maps appeared (Il- eff, 1952). One can find macroseismic pictures of most of the Bulgarian XX century earthquakes with a M 4 or higher in the monographic work by Grigorova and Grigorov (1964) and in the atlases by Shebalin (1974) and Prohazkova and Karnik (1978). Isoseismal maps of some weaker or later events are published in a number of papers. Un- fortunately, the intensity data points are not al- ways shown in these maps and, though rarely, the intensity values assigned to individual localities had not been converted into the scale announced by the map’s legend. The main characteristics of the collections of records and products proceeding from this stage of the non-instrumental seismology in Bulgaria are summarized in table I. The non-in- strumental seismology in this country covers the earlier times as well (Sections 2 and 3 be- low). The first steps in both the regular system- atisation of the observations and searching for past earthquakes are the basis of historical seis- mology development in Bulgaria. 2. First Bulgarian investigations on long-term seismicity At the very beginning of Bulgarian seismolo- gy two Bulgarians went back to the earthquake history, and their compilations have supplied in- formation to the catalogues. That is why the read- er is to be acquainted with the sources of these compilations and to understand how fully and how far critically they have been exploited. Watzof was the first person in Bulgaria to pay attention to previous earthquakes. His findings re- fer to seismic events within the Balkans and are published in Supplements to the annual reports and in several papers (e.g., Watzof, 1908, 1912). These findings proceed from isolated records in- cluded in the works by 9th century Theophanes (De Boor, 1883) and by 11th cent. Symeon Mag- ister and Logothete (Bekker, 1838), as well as from some widespread secondary sources like the ones by Schmidt (1879), Mushketov and Orlov (1893), etc. As to Bulgaria, three destructive earthquakes which occurred prior to the begin- ning of the 19th century are roughly outlined in the material supplied by Watzof. ey n- he ata ed rth- Table I. Generalization on the sources of macroseismic information since the Bulgarian Seismological Sur- vey started operating. Time span Characteristic features Sources of macroseismic information 1965-1980 The descriptive initial reports are partly transferred into intensity-locality symbols Geophysical Institute’s archive and publications 1928-1965 Macroseismic bulletins for the entire time-span. The archive of initial reports is complete since the late 50s. Geophysical Institute’s archive since 1956; Macroseismic bulletins published (intensity-locality data plus some iso- seismal maps). 1891-1927 All the initial reports of the Bulgarian Seismological Survey correspondents are preserved (compiled ac- cordingto a special Instruction of how to observe and what to note during earthquakes) Reports on earthquakes felt in Bulgar- ia; published; Isoseismal maps in papers published later. 707 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria Watzof’s most important contribution to past seismicity knowledge consists in gathering data from newspapers and journals in the Na- tional Library, Sofia. This data concerns Cen- tral Balkan earthquakes occurring during the second half of the 19th century (the first Bul- garian newspaper «Tzarigradski Vestnik» ap- peared on 3rd January 1848). Recently per- formed thorough investigation through the 19th century periodicals (Babachkova and Rizhiko- va, 1993) added not too many new pieces of in- formation: a couple of weak (4 MSK) earth- quakes in Kyustendil (SW Bulgaria); two local earthquakes in the vicinity of Tutrakan at the Danube river; some new information connected with the Sofia series in 1858-1859, and with the 1875 NE Bulgaria earthquake (Imax = 7 MSK); finally, several weaker events. Thus, the latter study verifies the good quality of Watzof’s in- vestigation through the periodicals. Staiko Staikoff was the second to rummage for unknown earthquakes through ancient and recent literature, catalogues, periodicals, etc. His compilation (1930), based on findings in Central European libraries, covers 375 earth- quakes or clusters occurring all over the Balka- ns and in Asia Minor, rarely in Italy, during the time period 3th century B.C.-1885. The earth- quake records are ordered chronologically. A reference is attached to each entry, unfortunate- ly not always supplying the source title or the year of publication. The extracted description is sometimes accompanied by the author’s comment. It is rather probable that some of the sources cited by Staikoff have not been exploit- ed directly but through the 19th century seis- mological compilations by von Hoff (1840), Mallet (1853), Schmidt (1879), etc., and some of them are known as second-hand sources (like most of Perrey’s regional works, 1850). Despite being very laconic and presumably considering isolated localities, Staikoff’s initial sources are not at a low level. When the outputs proceeding from Staikoff’s findings and from the rather richer information in coeval sources, provided by Ambraseys and Finkel (1991, 1995) and Guidoboni et al. (1994) are juxta- posed, it turns out that the Bulgarian compila- tion results in nearly the same epicentral area and dates of the earthquake occurrence shifted by about 0-1 to 10-20 years (Glavcheva, 1996). That is why the compilation by Staikoff (1930) still serves as a starting point towards the data set improvement for some Balkan and East Mediterranean earthquakes. 3. Bulgarian earthquake catalogues with preference for macroseismic data The annual issues on seismic effects in Bul- garia and the seismological compilations consid- ered above became the basis toward earthquake catalogues compilation. The first Bulgarian cata- logue (Kirov et al., 1960) is of a mixed descrip- tive-parametric type, presenting the earthquake occurrence time, summarized description of max- imum effects, epicentral or maximum intensity, epicentral geographical coordinates for earth- quakes in Bulgaria or the geographical region of most likely epicentre location for foreign events, and the focal depth roughly assessed. It covers 344 events, which have caused effects of mini- mum 5 MSK (5 MCS then) in Bulgaria during the time-period 1892-1958. The first parametric catalogue was com- piled by Grigorova and Rizhikova (1966). It refers to the time interval 1961-1964. Therein, the instrumental magnitude based on records by the Wiechert seismograph appears. Later on, the joint Balkan earthquake catalogue (Shebalin et al., 1974), noted further by SHA74, was pre- pared, and was the first to deal with the long- term seismicity of Bulgaria. It covers most of the then known Bulgarian events (of a magni- tude M ≥ 4) since ancient times till 1970. The primary material on this is extracted from the above considered Bulgarian compilations (part 2) and the annual macroseismic reports (part 1) according to Grigorova (1973). The last Bul- garian catalogue which also gives preference for macroseismic data lists medium-size and strong earthquakes in the 70ies (Sokerova et al., 1982). The study of any impressive present-day earthquake could be the reason for preparing a detailed historical earthquake catalogue of a certain portion of the country. Aiming at updating the seismic zoning in Bulgaria, a revised catalogue was compiled at the end of the 1970s (Grigorova et al., 1978), noted 708 Rumiana Glavcheva further by GRA78. As a result of applying the principles and techniques already examined when creating the Balkan catalogue, the new catalogue presents more than 1400 entries within the territo- ry enclosed in 40-46°N, 20-30°E. About 930 of them correspond to earthquakes occurring in the present-day Bulgarian territory: 86.5% are sup- ported by respective datasets and the rest come from other parametric catalogues. Two peculiari- ties of this catalogue should be noted: it does not fix the lowest earthquake size, and the intensity assessments are not unified. Later, Christoskov and Samardjieva (1980) published the main rules accepted for accuracy assessment in GRA78. It was postulated that the degree of cultural devel- opment was unambiguously related to the elapsed time. Proceeding from this, two ideas were sug- gested: 1) the earlier historical sources represent only quite strong or catastrophic earthquakes, and 2) going back in time the descriptions become more laconic, incomplete and less reliable. And the maximum uncertainty of the param- eters is established as: ± 100 years in occurrence time, ± 200 km in epicentral coordinates, ± 2 de- grees in epicentral intensity for the old times. The first suggestion above can lead to a system- atic overestimation of the earthquake size, espe- cially when the information is poor. Concerning the second point, that the information reliability is directly connected with the period when the earthquake record was produced, this is rather simplified. It has been proved many times that the reporter’s social responsibility, the reporter’s atti- tude to natural events, the stress s/he puts on the political circumstances in the earthquake epoch, are crucial factors for reliability of the report. Actually, the accuracy of earthquake param- eters depends to a great extent on the quality of the data set from which the earthquake parame- ters are evaluated (the so called supporting dataset). The supporting dataset quality in Bul- garia has been improved in the course of time, although the intensity data points number has not been changed significantly. For instance, more than 50% of the earthquakes in Bulgaria which occurred before 1892 still are supported by a single locality report. The next section is dedicated predominant- ly to various means of improving in the sup- porting datasets. 4. Historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria since the last 20th century decade At the beginning of the last decade of the 20th century, just a century after the pioneering efforts of Spas Watzof, a new search for earth- quakes in the past was commenced through dif- ferent kinds of compilations (historical sources, marginal notes, memoirs, inventories of Greek, Bulgarian, Slavonic and other manuscripts, etc.) thanks to serious support by the National Li- brary, Sofia. This thorough work fulfilled by Babachkova and Rizhikova (1993) led mainly to first hand sources on unknown weak earthquakes in Bulgaria and to additional data on some strong earthquakes in the neighbourhood. At that time, I chanced to find a traveller’s account (Galt, 1812) which pointed to an earthquake series re- alized near Plovdiv, South Bulgaria, in 1809- 1811; the case was discussed together with other problematic seismic events in the XXIV ESC General Assembly (Glavcheva, 1994). Consider- ing the importance of supplying a qualitative input information for solving the seismic haz- ard and risk connected topics, the historical seismology in Bulgaria focussed efforts on the following two tasks: 1) to examine again the circumstances related with some key catalogue events, starting from the original information; 2) to clarify the threat to some important sites often subjected to seismic impacts, i.e. to make the data on experienced effects as complete as possible. Figure 1 is an illustration of the cases developed below in connection with these two tasks. 4.1. Flexibility of «the rules» supporting data set improvement The improvement of some datasets, con- nected with key-events, has become the goal of Bulgarian seismologists since the 1990s. Case A – A transfrontier felt area: overcome disagreement by the very primary information. Twelve solutions, independently found, be- longed in the early Nineties to the 14 October 1892, Balkan earthquake. The epicentres were 709 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria spread over more than 200 km. Such a disagree- ment is shown to have been produced mainly by fragmentary use of the initial data (Glavcheva and Radu, 1994). The seismic intensities at 155 localities (previously being 95) are evaluated only on the basis of first-hand sources applying the same scale. After improving the supporting dataset in such a way, the so-called «Watzof’s intensity assessments», actually intensity values assigned by the local reporters, have been avoided for the territory of Bulgaria. As the Ro- manian territory is concerned, the second hand sources have been omitted at solving this case. The earthquake main parameters have been de- rived, as accurately as possible, from the inten- sity distribution: seismic source location in South Dobrodja at a depth of a minimum 35 km, epicentral intensity 8 MSK, the corresponding magnitude up to 7. Case B – The catalogue solution provides matters of uncertainty due to the careless read- ing of a record. The following account exists in the Balkan Earthquake Catalogue SHA74: «1759, June 26 or 29, the towns Thessaloniki and Plovdiv suf- fered great damage, epicenter in the Pirin mountains or in Struma valley (9?; 41N, 24E); 40 3/4N, 23E, 8; two shocks?, according to Staikoff (1930), Montandon (1953), Galano- poulos (1961)». Thus, the catalogue provides a matter of uncertainty. The case needs contemporary reports. And the report has been found. The Collection Acad- emique (Guéneau de Montbéliard, 1761), among its descriptions on an earthquake se- quence near Thessaloniki, wrote: «La Ville de Phillipolis dans le voisinage de Salonique, a beaucoup souffert de ce meme tremblement.» So it became clear that the original Phillipolis had been replaced by Philippopolis (Plovdiv) in the classical compilations by von Hoff (1840), Perrey (1850), Mallet (1853). The erroneous reading was inherited by Milne (1911), Mon- tandon (1953) and finally was entered in the Fig. 1. Map of Bulgaria and cases of study. The rectangles denote the regions; the crosses mark the strong key events. 710 Rumiana Glavcheva Balkan Catalog SHA74. After analyzing the in- formation from the earthquake time, the follow- ing conclusions are drawn by Glavcheva (2000a). i) An earthquake series occurred during June-September 1759 in the Thessaloniki sur- roundings. The activated space was most likely somewhere in the narrowest part (the «neck») of the Halkidiki Peninsula, where the great 1902 activation would take place. The strongest earth- quake (or two earthquakes) of the series might have a magnitude ranging between 6.6 and 7. ii) In the area of Phillipoe a strong local shock occurred simultaneously with the Thes- saloniki series. iii) The Bulgarian town of Plovdiv was in- volved in the 1759 earthquake sequence due to a careless reading of the initial record. Thus, the suspicious 1759, «9 [MSK]?, 41N, 24E» event in the border Greece-Bulgaria region must be dropped from the earthquake catalogues. Case C – An «energy» catalogue evidences seismic precursory features. An impressive seismic activity developed in the transfrontier region of SW Bulgaria-Macedo- nia during 1904-1906. The seismic sequence start- ed on 4 April 1904 with two catastrophic earth- quakes within 23 min (MLH = 7.1 and 7.8 in SHA74, Ms = 6.9, 7.2 by Ambraseys (2001). Re- cently Glavcheva (2000b) compiled an «energy» catalogue of the sequence; an excerpt for the first 100 minutes is plotted in fig. 2b. For this purpose two problems had to be solved when processing the initial data (Watzof, 1902-1923): interruption of data flow coming from the damaged area (epi- central distance up to about 50-80 km) and accu- mulation of damage. To overcome difficulties, re- ports from localities at epicentral distance more than 50 km, outside the area most damaged by the first severe earthquake, are mainly taken into ac- count. To distinguish separate events, the «relative time differences» [tM(i) – tA(i)] are used, as shown Table II. Problems and ways of achieving results in cases C and D. Case Roots Intensity data set creation – influence taken into ac- count Dataset processing C Watzof (1905-1907) – interruption of recordings from the epicentral area; – damage cumulation Occurrence time determination tA(abs) = tM(abs) – [tM(i) – tA(i)] (*) Magnitude evaluation (Glavcheva, 1997) M = 2.36 logR3 (**) r = 0.90 (45 events; M up to 7.2); M = 2.45 logR4 + 0.49 r = 0.92 (55 events; M up to 7.8). D Watzof (1902-1923); Kirov (1931); Mihailovic (1932); local press – observation network geometry; – observational points speci- ficity; – conditions at the moment of recording Interpreted four sorts of quality of the macroseismic field (*) tM(i) and tA(i) are times of the main shock and of a concrete aftershock reported from the same locality «i»; tM(abs) is the actual time of the main earthquake; tA(abs) is the true time of a given event A; [tM(i) – tA(i)] is the «relative time difference». (**) R3 and R4 are the mean isoseismal radii of 3 and 4 MSK respectively. 711 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria in table II. The earthquake magnitudes have been assessed by the distant felt area sizes, applying in- tensity attenuation relations from SHA74. The list of events has been controlled by the continuous earthquake recording supplied by two meteorolog- ical stations in Rila Monastery and Borovetz. These uninterrupted records guarantee complete- ness of the seismic events listing, i.e. of the «ener- gy» catalogue, at a lower threshold M 4.5. According to this catalogue, the seismic source maximal activity turns out to have been in the interval between the two largest earth- quakes. This very period, unfortunately the most slightly known one until late 1990’s, pres- ents the most curious stage of the rupture process. Indeed, the national catalogue GRA78 shows that the energy release pattern is quite monotonous (fig. 2a), while the sample derived from the new catalogue discloses precursory time variations of the energy release mode, more precisely – a seismic activity decrease starting in the middle of the interval between the two largest shocks (fig. 2b). Case D – An overall picture of a catalogue revision. The Maritza seismic zone in Central South Bulgaria is well known with the 1928 catastroph- ic earthquakes (M 6.8 and 7.0 according to the catalogue SHA74) because they caused two sur- face coseismic ruptures, each of them several tens of kilometers in length, and much loss as well. The current dense population and industry con- centration require better knowledge of the former seismogenesis in the zone. A thorough review of Fig. 2a,b. Energy release at the start of the 1904 seismic activation in Bulgaria - Macedonia (Case C): according to the last Bulgarian earthquake catalogue (a) and after the initial records reassessment at fixed regulations (b). Note the significant decrease in the mean energy released per single event before the second catastrophic earthquake (the arrow). a b 712 Rumiana Glavcheva T ab le II I. E ar th qu ak es p ri or t o th e S ei sm ol og ic al S ur ve y es ta bl is hm en t. A bb re vi at io ns a s fo ll ow s: D s = d at a so ur ce ( S D = S ta ik of ( 19 30 ), W S 02 = W at zo f (1 90 2) , JM ih = M ih ai lo vi c (1 93 2) , In S = I ni ti al S ou rc e ci te d in D s (N P / N P s = n ew sp ap er , -s ; H ID = h id de n, i. e. un kn ow n) ; A x = a re a of m ax im um i m pa ct o r of t he r ep or t’ s si te ; N m o = n um be r of m ac ro se is m ic o bs er va ti on s; I x = m ax im um o bs er ve d in te ns it y (5 /7 = 5 t o 7 de gr ee ); E p = e pi ce nt er . T he v al ue s in b ra ck et s ar e un ce rt ai n. D at e T im e D s In S A x N m o Ix E M S C oo rd in at es R em ar ks G ri go ro va et a l. (1 97 8) Y r M o D ay H r M in °N °E av ai la bi li ty 17 50 10 S D N P s P lo vd iv - M ar it sa 1 + a re a ar ou nd (9 ) 42 .1 24 .8 m or e in fo rm at io n ne ce s- sa ry Y es 18 11 01 18 /1 9 G al t E ye - w it ne ss P lo vd iv 1 + a re a 6 42 .1 5 24 .7 5 tw o ye ar s fo rm er a ct iv it y; D at e by O .S t. N o 18 55 04 03 S D V er ol lo t P lo vd iv 1 5/ 7 42 .1 5 24 .7 5 «s ev er al s tr on g sh oc ks » 2 ev en ts 18 58 09 10 S D P er re y P lo vd iv 1 4 42 .1 5 24 .7 5 Y es 18 59 06 15 S D P er re y P lo vd iv 1 + a re a 6 42 .1 5 24 .7 5 Y es 18 59 07 25 S D P er re y P lo vd iv 1 7 42 .1 5 24 .7 5 «q ui te a l ot o f da m ag e» Y es 18 61 01 09 21 55 S D R it te r P lo vd iv 1 ≥ 5 42 .1 5 24 .7 5 Y es 18 62 01 09 21 55 S D R it te r P lo vd iv 1 ≥ 5 42 .1 5 24 .7 5 «t hr ee s ho ck s» 2 ev en ts 18 63 09 S D P er re y U pp er T hr ac ia 1 + a re a 5/ 7 A re a «s tr on g an d fr eq ue nt sh oc ks » 2 ev en ts ea rl y S ep t. R ho do pe s B al ka n 42 .2 25 .0 18 80 12 22 S D F uc hs P lo vd iv 2 + a re a 6/ 7 A re a «t w o m or e sl ig ht er s ho ck s af te r th at » 1 ev en t; R ho do pe s 42 .0 24 .9 di ff er en t E p 18 82 06 10 01 15 W S 02 JM ih N P H ID P lo vd iv 12 6 42 .1 5 24 .7 0 is os ei sm al m ap a va il ab le di ff er en t E p 18 84 12 09 13 W S 02 JM ih N P H ID P lo vd iv 8 4 42 .2 0 24 .7 5 is os ei sm al m ap a va il ab le di ff er en t E p 18 90 05 10 10 05 W S 02 JM ih N P H ID P lo vd iv 11 6 42 .2 5 24 .8 0 is os ei sm al m ap a va il ab le di ff er en t E p 18 91 06 27 04 W S 02 JM ih N ps H ID P lo vd iv 10 5 42 .2 5 24 .8 0 is os ei sm al m ap a va il ab le N o 713 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria the supporting datasets for the earthquakes prior to 1928 has been carried out. Different sorts of primary records corresponding to the earthquake «epoch» are involved in processing these events. For the time prior to the Bulgarian Seismolog- ical Survey, the supporting datasets are predomi- nantly extracted from the works by Staikoff and Watzof presented above. They correspond mostly to contemporary earthquake reports. The resulting revised catalogue (table III; fig. 3, plot II) has the following advantages compared to the latest Bul- garian catalogue (fig. 3, plot I). It 1) leads to two more main events (14 in total); 2) shows the site intensity and geographic coordinates of the re- port’s locality without fabricating any epicentre (the first 9 cases in the table), in a case of initial da- ta deficiency; 3) indicates the availability of ac- companying shocks; 4) contains some entries be- ing specified after adding a new source. For the time following till the severe earth- quakes in April 1928, primary documentation of a good quality (Watzof, 1902-1923; Kirov, 1931) has come to us. It has been used as a basic source for the catalogues up to now (fig. 3, plot III). Re- cently, new pieces of information were found (table II) and the catalogue revision became nec- essary (Glavcheva et al., 2000). When compiling the supporting intensity data set, three important factors have been considered: the influence of the observation network geometry, the observational point’s specificity (systematic or occasional re- porting, complete or partial descriptions of ef- fects, detailed or laconic records), and the specif- ic recording conditions (day-time, season popula- tion activity, saturation of people’s sensitivity). Finally, depending on the macroseismic field quality, four groups of cases have been solved: 1) many intensity data points (IDP) and areas with different degrees of effects; 2) many points of the same intensity in the distant part of the macro- seismic field and known felt area size; 3) few IDP with a different intensity degree (this case is re- duced to case 1, the solution being of lower ac- curacy); 4) few IDP with the same intensity de- gree and surrounding settlements without any other information except being a regular contrib- Fig. 3. Past seismicity of Central South Bulgaria (Case D): prior to the Seismological Survey establishment ac- cording to the catalogue GRA78 (plot I) and this study interpretation (plot II, see also table III); since 1892 un- til the 1928 catastrophic earthquakes according to GRA78 (plot III) and results from (Glavcheva et al., 2000) (plot IV), the latter plot evidences a good coverage of the region by observation sites. 714 Rumiana Glavcheva utor of data on felt earthquakes; the territorial dis- tribution of such settlements favours the macro- seismic area outlining (analogous with case 2; lower accuracy). The manner of the earthquake main parameters determination is that applied in the Balkan catalogue SHA74. The new catalogue includes 46% more events than the latest Bulgar- ian catalogue GRA78 (fig. 3, plot IV). Addition- ally, a settlement – intensity (MSK) database has been developed for each event and the intensity data points plotted on a map. Case E – False warnings in the latest Bulgar- ian catalogue. This case shows how the unreasonable com- bination of two pieces of information: «6 De- cember 1866: strong shock in Thessaloniki» (Fuchs,1886; Staikoff, 1930) and «A heavy shock damaged some old houses and poor walls at Sofia» (Watzof, 1902) has led to the fabrica- tion of the destructive 1866 earthquake in SW Bulgaria listed in three catalogues: of the Balkan Region, Bulgaria and Greece. The steps of data processing for this false event were: setting the epicenter in the mid-point between the two re- ported localities; solving an elementary puzzle by the corresponding intensity attenuation rela- tion and, in result, surprisingly high epicentral intensity – 8 or more MSK (!?). The catalogue entries preceded are: «December? A heavy shock damaged some old houses and poor walls at Sofia (Watzof, 1902); Grigorova gives I = VI- II for the region of the Struma valley; incomplete information» in Karnik (1971); «6 December 1866? old houses and walls damaged in Sofia, epicentre in the Struma valley (8°?), strong in Thessaloniki, according to Fuchs, 1886; Karnik, 1971; Grigorova, 1973» in Shebalin et al. (1974); «18 December 1866 [?], 16h 25min UT, 42.0N, 23.0E, H = 40, Mms = 7.1» in Grigorova et al. (1978); «6 December 1866 16:25 42.0 23.0 H = normal M = 7.0 Bulgaria (Sofia 7°)» in Comninakis and Papazachos (1982). The following facts argue against assigning the 6 December 1866. earthquake to the middle Struma valley: 1) Such an earthquake has not been mentioned by authoritative catalogues as these by Schmidt (1879), Milne (1911), Sieberg (1932), Montandon (1953) or Galanopoulos (1960); 2) No record from Skopje, Tatar- Pazardjik, Plovdiv – important transport and trade centres then, which should have been concerned by a magnitude 7 earthquake in SW Bulgaria – can be found; 3) The most signifi- cant arguments may be found in the primary documentation of later strong earthquakes that occurred in the same region. The well developed interpretation of the da- ta concerning four later earthquakes in the mid- dle Struma valley has been summarised in table IV. Twelve localities situated at a distance of no more than 100 km from the above supposed 1866 epicentre are shown in the table (columns 1 and 4). After considering the intensity attenu- ation according to relations published in SHA74, it turns out that in each of the consid- ered localities (Dupnitsa is the only exception), the 1866 earthquake should have caused inten- sity (column 5) of one to two degrees higher than the maximum intensity experienced during the four later earthquakes (column 3). However, the quoted phrases (column 2) extracted from the reports on the later earthquakes in 1894, 1903 and 1904 (Watzof, 1902, 1904, 1905) completely reject the possibility of a stronger former event. Unfortunately, the town of Dup- nitsa remains the exception according to the re- sults of the comparative analysis here. Several records of shocks occurring around the end of 1866, along and near the Struma Riv- er, exist in the 19th century documentation. One of them is the excerpt of the Fuchs’s catalogue (Staikoff, 1930), according to which the occur- rence of an earthquake in Thessaloniki on 6 De- cember 1866 is irrefutable. Watzof’s volume on the 19th century earthquakes in Bulgaria (Wat- zof, 1902) also supplies data (newspaper «Vre- mya», issues 14, 16, 17, 21) thanks to which we learn two essential things. First, several not very impressive shocks had occurred: 14 November 1866, [N.St.], a slight shock in Samokov, about 4 MSK; 26 November 1866, an earthquake in Sofia which had caused some damage, 6 MSK most likely, the same shock was also felt in Dupnitsa, 4 to 5 MSK; 1867, first half of Janu- ary, Sofia, 5 to 6 MSK. Second, the only ques- tionable entry in table IV, Dupnitsa, is proven not to have experienced even 7 MSK. Thus, the available 19th century documentation gives strong evidence that no severe shock occurred in the middle Struma valley in the late 1866. 715 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria Table IV. Data for checking the authenticity of an earthquake in 1866 in the middle Struma valley. The reports from the national seismological network (Watzof, 1902, 1904, 1905) have been used. Calibrating earthquakes The false event 1866 in GRA78 6 Dec 1866 16:25 42.0N 23.0E H = 40 M = 7.0 N Date Time Coord. H Io M Root 1 25 Nov 1894 22:30 42.2 23.0 15 6-7 4.9 GRA78 2 26 Nov 1894 01:40 42.2 23.2 15 7 5.3 GRA78 3 25 Nov 1903 23:16 42.1 23.2 5-10 8 5.5 GRA78 4 4 April 1904 10:02 41.8 23.0 15-30 9-10 7.1 GRA78 Locality Data for the calibrating earthquake Data for the 1866 event Name Number (N) of the calibrating event and information about former seismicity in the same region Ii ob- served MSK locality/ epicentre distance Ii calculated 1 2 3 4 5 Kotcherinovo 1-2 PT (**) «very strong, even the oldest people do not remember a similar event» 7 10 ≥ 85 Boboshevo 3 SnT (**) «Old people say they have never felt such an earth- quake» TPO (**) «People say that such a strong and long lasting earthquake has not been felt till now» 7 15 ≥ 8 Smolitchane 3 PT «very strong, people do not remember another similar event.» 6 25 ≥ 8 Dupnitsa 4 TPO «Nobody remembers such an earthquake» 8 25 ≥ 8 Palatovo 3 PT «Old people say they have never observed such a strong earthquake» 6 30 ≥ 75 Tcherven breg 3 PT «...such a strong earthquake that old people do not re- member to have had happened before...» 6 35 ≥ 75 Ovtcharci 3 PT «Old people do not remember such a strong earthquake in their life» 6 35 ≥ 75 Delyan 3 PT «Nobody remembers such a strong earthquake» 5/6 40 ≥ 75 Dren 3 MnC «Everybody says that such a strong earthquake has not been felt till now» 5/6 40 ≥ 75 Rayovo 3 PT «Such a strong earthquake has never happened here be- fore» 6 50 ≥ 7 Bossilegrad 3 TPO «Such a strong earthquake has never happened here be- fore» 5/6 75 ≥ 65 Trin 4 RS «Such an earthquake has never happened before» 5 100 ≥ 6 (**) PT = People’s teacher; SnT = Senior teacher; TPO = telegraph-post office; MnC = Municipal clerk (secretary); RS = Rain-gauge station.; Ii = intensity at a site. 716 Rumiana Glavcheva 4.2. On the site seismic history The time seismic histories of two regions, Sofia and SE Bulgaria, have been studied in order to widen the acquaintance with the long- term seismic influence on them. This has been done in the following succession: i) retrieval of all eyewitnesses earthquake records, or sci- entific summaries on them, i.e. compiling of the maximum complete set of initial data for seismic effects on concrete places; ii) intensi- ty reassessment of the effects; iii) identifying the causal seismic events; iv) calculating the site intensity in case of description deficiency after normalizing the intensity-distance atten- uation to some well compiled macroseismic pictures. The two regions are separately considered because of their specific problems. Case F – Sofia seismic history. Prior to the 19th century Sofia was a small town, deeply inside the Ottoman Empire, and only few reports on earthquakes felt therein could be mentioned. For this reason, the strength of excitation on Sofia has mainly been deter- mined by analogy with some recent well solved events. Later, most of the seismic effects are doc- umented and the intensity is possible to assess. Thus, in the period since the early 19th century to date, seismic influences on Sofia which have been identified (fig. 4a-c), are: a) from nearly a hundred local earthquakes, without taking into account the long-lasted sequences in 1818 and 1858, and b) twice more than the previously Fig. 4a-c. Time seismic history of the Sofia city (Case F): a) frequency of seismic impacts from both the external zones (44 times excited by 1904 Bulgaria-Macedonia earthquakes) and the local ones (the rest highest bars); b) strongest impacts per annum corresponding to available records (19th-21th century) or to the most likely intensity value (17th-18th century); c) regions (rounded rec- tangles, numbering as in table V) from where Sofia have experienced seismic impacts in the time peri- od 1892-2002; intensity of the strongest impact and the corresponding earthquake magnitude are marked. a c b 717 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria known effects, caused by distant earthquakes. Some details on damaging effects at Sofia in this period are given in table V. Case G – Seismic impact on SE Bulgaria. Part of the significant seismic effects near the Bulgarian state borders comes from the neigh- bouring areas. Such effects are not to be neglect- ed, especially when the seismogenic zones are rapidly deformed and, consequently, show essen- tial activity. For example, the SE territory of Bul- garia is under damaging influence from the Mar- mara Sea region more frequently than from local and nearly local origins. The long-term record of seismic effects on the south-eastern territory of Table V. Distribution of damaging seismic effects (Imin = 5 EMS) on Sofia during the period of regular seis- mological observations in Bulgaria, 1892-2002. The seismogenic regions are shown in fig. 4a-c, plot C (here: numbering in brackets). Seismic impact source region Relative amount of effects, % Maximum intensity in Sofia Magnitude caused Imax [study (*)] Event causing maximum effect Area of R ≤ 30 km centred at Sofia (1) 40.0 7 5.1 [GRA78] 18 October 1917 Struma valley and Rila Mt. (5) 32.5 6/7 7.2 [AMB01] 4 April 1904 Maritsa valley (7) 4.0 6 7.0 [GRA78] 18 April 1928 Vrancea (12) 4.5 5/6 7.2 [COR79] 4 March 1977 Macedonia (4) 5.0 5 6.7 [SHA74] 8 March 1931 NE Bulgaria (11) 2.5 5 7.0 [GRA78] 14 June 1913 Turkey (10) 4.5 5 7.3 [SHA74] 9 August 1912 Unknown epicentre 7.0 5 – 4 April 1904 Generalized 100 7 6/7 Local source: 5.1 External source: 7.2 1917 1904 (*) SHA74 = Shebalin et al. (1974); AMB01 = Ambraseys (2001); COR79 = Cornea and Radu (1979). Table VI. Time changes of knowledge in the earthquakes felt in the southeastern Bulgarian territory. Time period All events affected SE Bulgaria Events in Turkey only Amount % 5th cent. B.C.-19th cent. Before the Bulgarian Seismological Survey establishment 113 63 55.7 5th cent. B.C.-11th cent. 34 29 85.3 12th cent.-1891 79 34 43.0 After the Bulgarian Seismological Sur- vey establishment (since 1892) 19th cent.-21th cent. (incl. aftershocks of strong events in local zones, Maritsa valley, SW Bulgaria & Halkidiki) 177 36 20.3 (1991, 1995) and Guidoboni et al. (1994) was used. The strength of excitation in Bulgaria is calculated combining these catalogue parame- ters with the intensity attenuation based on well documented macroseismic patterns. Around 290 seismic effect observations on south-eastern Bulgaria have been identified for the time span since 5th century B.C. till now. The systemati- zation in table VI clearly shows: a) poor infor- mation about the earthquake sequences in Bul- Bulgaria has never been studied in detail. The forthcoming gas transmission via this territory and the importance of this area because of con- centration of industrial and tourist sites in it en- couraged this investigation. For the time before the beginning of 20th century, catalogues of the other Balkan coun- tries have been applied. For effects from Turkey, a catalogue sketched on the basis of coeval de- scriptions derived by Ambraseys and Finkel 718 Rumiana Glavcheva Fig. 5a-d. Time seismic history of the southeastern territory of Bulgaria, since the 5th B.C. (Case G): frequen- cy of impacts from all earthquake sources (a); maximum strength (intensity) per year in Site 1 - the strongest im- pacts come from local origins (b), in Site 2 - the strongest impacts being from the western Marmara Sea region (c), and in Site 3 - either from the western Marmara Sea or Edirne area (d); Site 1 to Site 3 are marked in fig. 1. a b c d 719 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria garia before the establishment of the National seismological survey, and b) a good knowledge on damaging historical earthquakes in Turkey, especially since the 18th century. The effects on three different sites (marked in fig. 1) are shown in fig. 5a-d. Intensity not ex- ceeding 7 MSK is noticed there. Consequently, there is no reason to preserve intensity 9 MSK by the Bulgarian Code in the territory adjacent to Turkey. Bearing in mind the contemporary growth of the urban and industrial settlements and hence the increased density of population, the value of maximum 8 MSK might be the most realistic one. 5. Comments and conclusions The development of non-instrumental seis- mology in Bulgaria has been reviewed. Tracing the history of previous earthquake catalogues and isoseismal maps, the main sources of initial de- scriptive information are discussed. It is conclud- ed that these sources are qualitative enough but not uniform through the centuries. For instance, the new pieces of information on domestic events, recently disclosed, cover the time after the Bul- garian Renaissance started in the second half of the 18th century. They proceed from Greek, Bul- garian, Slavonic sources but not from Ottoman ones. Concerning the five-century Ottoman dom- ination especially, the historian Gradeva (1999) concludes: «The Ottoman sources of local is- suance or keeping are rather a poor source for the reconstruction of seismic activity in the Balkans through the centuries». How difficult it is to have successful searching for Bulgarian earthquakes in Ottoman sources, proceeds from the impressive efforts of Ambraseys and Finkel (1999): «... of some 500 earthquakes known from non-Ottoman sources for the Balkans during 1500-1800, only 41 were found in Ottoman sources but none in Bulgaria or Macedonia». The time before the 18th century has been too slightly known by the seismology of Bulgaria. Another important topic is how fully and how far critically the information sources have been exploited. In this connection, the macroseismic materials have been inspected; it is concluded that: 1) the final macroseismic products – bul- letins, catalogues, isoseismal and other intensity distribution maps – have not been prepared under clear requirements, and 2) some of the macro- seismic materials have been used directly as sup- porting datasets. That is why the historical earth- quake investigation since the last 20th century’s decade has been directed to the supporting dataset improvement. The cases considered above are developed on reappraisal of first-hand primary information and for long-term dataset completing, the regional intensity attenuation features are seldom applied to the catalogue en- tries of strong past earthquakes (cases F, G). When interpreting and processing the initial records, they are managed in a specific way from case to case. The lessons we have learnt are: – To avoid mixtures of first- and second- hand information sources, or of different inten- sity scales; – To read the primary records many times and very carefully; – To distinguish events of a series by the «relative time of occurrence»; – To prefer records from distant sections of the felt area in cases after a strong earthquake occurrence; – To check the authenticity of strong cata- logue events, especially of those proceeding from a very poor dataset. Generalizing, (1) the main factors, which might contribute to the improvement of the supporting dataset, turn out to have been: i) flexibility of the initial information manage- ment; ii) applying techniques recently in- volved in the historical seismology, or devel- oping of new ones; iii) borrowing experience from the instrumental seismological monitor- ing, and (2) after supporting dataset improve- ment, the consecutive upgrading of knowledge can be achieved in two aspects: i) the key events and the overall seismicity of the region (cases C, D); ii) understanding of to what ex- tent a certain territory is risky. Acknowledgements This work has been accomplished thanks to the helpful discussions within the framework of the ESC Working Group «Historical Seismolo- 720 Rumiana Glavcheva gy». The author is grateful to the referees for their reasonable suggestions. REFERENCES AMBRASEYS, N.N. (2001): The Kresna Earthquake of 1904 in Bulgaria, Ann. Geofis., 44 (1), 95-117. AMBRASEYS, N.N. and C. FINKEL (1995): The Seismicity of Turkey and Adjacent Areas (EREN, Istanbul), pp. 240. AMBRASEYS, N.N. and C. FINKEL (1999): Unpublished Ot- toman archival information on the seismicity of the Balkans during the period 1500-1800, in Natural Dis- asters in the Ottoman Empire, edited by E. ZACHARI- ADOU, Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Halcyon Days in Crete III, a Symposium Held in Rethymnon (Greece), 10-12 January 1997, 89-107. AMBRASEYS, N.N. and C. FINKEL (1991): Long-term seis- micity of Istanbul and of the Marmara Sea region, Ter- ra Nova, 3, 527-539. BABACHKOVA, B. and S.RIZHIKOVA (1993): New data con- cerning the historic seismicity of Bulgaria, Bulg. Geo- phys. J., XIX (4), 83-100. BEKKER, I (Editor) (1838): Symeon Magister: Chrono- graphia, Berlin. CHRISTOSKOV, L. and E. SAMARDJIEVA (1980): Possible sources for completing the historical part of an earth- quake catalog – estimation and use, Bulg. Geophys. J., 6 (4), 44-53. COMNINAKIS, P. and B.C. PAPAZACHOS (1982): A Catalogue of Historical Earthquakes in Greece and Surrounding Area: 479 B.C.-1900 A.D. (Univ. of Thessaloniki, Geo- phys. Lab., Thessaloniki), pp. 24. CORNEA, I. and C. RADU (Editors) (1979): Cercetari Seis- mologice Asupra Cutremurului Din 4 Martie 1977. Comitetul de stat pentru energia nucleara (Institutul central de fizica, Centrul de Fizica pamintului si seis- mologie, Bucuresti), 732-736, 737-751. DE BOOR, C. (Editor) (1883): Theophanes: Chronographia, Leipzig. FUCHS, C.W.C. (1886): Statistik der Erdbeben von 1865- 1885, Sitzungber. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss., Math. Na- turewiss. Kl. (Wien), 92 (1-5), 279-313. GALANOPOULOS, A.G. (1960): A Catalogue of Shocks with I0 ≥ VI or M ≥ 5 for the Years 1801-1958, Athens, pp. 119. GALANOPOULOS, A.G. (1961): A Catalogue of Shocks with I0 ≥ VII for the Years prior to 1800, Athens, pp. 18. GALT, J. (1812-1987): Voyages and Travels, in the Years 1809, 1810 and 1811; containing Statistical, Commer- cial, and Miscellaneous Observations on Gibraltar, Sar- dinia, Sicily, Malta, Serigo and Turkey (London), 308- 366, in English Travel Notes for the Balkans, edited by M. TODOROVA (Science and Art, Sofia), p. 520. GLAVCHEVA, R. (1994): To what extent is acceptable the for- malization of epicentre location on a few intensity da- ta points. In: ESC XXIV Assembly, Athens, Sept. 19-24, 1994, p. 135 (abstract). GLAVCHEVA, R. (1996): On the Worth of Staiko Staikof’s Collection in Historical Seismology, Bulg. Geophys. J., 22 (2), 27-35. GLAVCHEVA, R. (1997): Macroseismic area size and magni- tude for the earthquakes in Bulgaria: empirical rela- tions, Bulg. Geophys. J., 23 (1-2), 96-106. GLAVCHEVA, R. (2000a): How Plovdiv became involved in the 1759 Thessaloniki earthquake series and on the series itself, in Geodynamic Investigations on the Ter- ritory of Bulgaria - Investigations of the Chirpan- Plovdiv Region Related to the 1928 Earthquake (monograph), Warsaw Univ. of Technology, Inst. of Geodesy and Geodetic Astronomy, Reports on Geo- desy, 3 (48), 43-50. GLAVCHEVA, R. (2000b): On the seismic energy release in the transfrontier region of SW Bulgaria - Macedonia at the beginning of the 20th century, in Geodynamic In- vestigations on the Territory of Bulgaria - Investiga- tions of the Krupnik-Kresna Region Related to the 1904 Earthquake (monograph), Warsaw Univ. of Technolo- gy, Inst. of Geodesy and Geodetic Astronomy, Reports on Geodesy, 4 (49), 13-21. GLAVCHEVA, R. and C. RADU (1994): The earthquake of Oc- tober 14th, 1892 in Central Balkans: a transfrontier case, in Historical Investigation of European Earth- quakes, Materials of the CEC project «Review of His- torical Seismicity in Europe», edited by P. ALBINI and A. MORONI (CNR, Milano), vol. 2, 215-223. GLAVCHEVA, R., I. TZONCHEVA and SV. MASLINKOVA (2000): Seismicity spatiotemporal organization before the 1928 catastrophic earthquakes in Bulgaria, in Geody- namic Investigations on the Territory of Bulgaria - In- vestigations of the Chirpan-Plovdiv Region Related to the 1928 Earthquake (monograph), Warsaw Univ. of Technology, Inst. of Geodesy and Geodetic Astronomy, Reports on Geodesy, 3 (48), 29-38. GRADEVA, R. (1999): Ottoman and Bulgarian sources on earthquakes in Central Balkan lands, in Natural Disas- ters in the Ottoman Empire, edited by E. ZACHARI- ADOU, Institute for Mediterranean Studies, Halcyon Days in Crete III, a Symposium Held in Rethymnon (Greece), 10-12 January 1997, 55-65. GRIGOROVA, E. (1973): Catalogue of the earthquakes in Bul- garia before 1900, Sofia, Manuscript to Balkan Earth- quake Catalogue. GRIGOROVA, E. and B. GRIGOROV (1964): Epicentres and Seismic Lines in P.R. of Bulgaria (Publishing House of Bulg. Acad. Sci., Sofia). GRIGOROVA, E., CHRISTOSKOV, L., SOKEROVA, D., RIZHIKO- VA, S., ROGLINOV, A. (1978): Catalogue of earthquakes in Bulgaria and the nearby territories during the period 1st cent. B.C.-1977, Archives Geophys. Inst., Bulg. Acad. Sci., Sofia. GRIGOROVA, E., and S. RIZHIKOVA (1966): Tremblements de Terre en Bulgarie au Cours de 1961 a 1964 (Editions de l’Acad. Bulg. Sci., 105, Sofia). GUÉNEAU DE MONTBÉLIARD (Editor) (1761): Liste chronologique des éruptions de volcans, de tremble- ments de terre,... jusqùen 1760, Collection Académique, Partie Etrangère, t.VI, pp. 488-681. GUIDOBONI, E., A. COMASTRI and G. TRAINA (Editors) (1994): Catalogue of Ancient earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th century (ING, Ro- ma, SGA, Bologna), pp. 504. HOFF, K.E.A. VON (1840): Chronik der Erdbeben und Vulcan- Ausbrüche, I. Theil (Justus Perthes, Gotha), pp. 470. ILEFF, N. (1952): Les tremblements de terre en Bulgarie 721 State-of-the-art of historical earthquake investigation in Bulgaria ressentis pendent les annees 1946-1950, in: Annual issue of Directorate of geological and mine investiga- tions (Sofia) 5, 442-491 (in Bulgarian, resume in French). KARNIK, V. (1971): Seismicity of the European area, Part II (D. Reidel Publ. Comp., Dordrecht, Holland), pp. 218. KIROV, K. (1931): Tremblements de Terre en Bulgarie Ressentis Pendant les Annees 1917-1927, Sofia (in Bulgarian, abstract and tables in French). KIROV, K., E. GRIGOROVA and N. ILEFF (1960): Contribution to the seismicity of Bulgaria. Izv. Geophys. Inst., Bulg. Acad. Sci., 1, 137-183 (in Bulgarian). MALLET, R. (1853): Catalogue of recorded earthquakes from 1606 B.C. to A.D. 1850, Brit. Ass. Rep., 1853, 1-176. MIHAILOVIC, J. (1932): Data on South Bulgarian Seismicity 1749-1931, Spomenik Srb. Kr. Akad., LXXVIII (17), pp. 153. MILNE, J. (1911): A Catalogue of Destructive Earthquakes A.D. 7 to A.D. 1899, BAAS (London), pp. 92. MONTANDON, F. (1953): Les tremblements de terre destruc- teurs en Europe (Genève), pp. 195. MUSHKETOV, I.V. and A.P. ORLOV (1893): Catalogue of earth- quakes in Russian Empire, 26, p. 582 (in Russian). PERREY, A. (1850): Memoire sur les tremblements de terre ressentis dans la peninsule Turco-hellenique et en Syrie, in Memoires Couronnes et Memoires des Sa- vants Etrangers, Acad. R. Sci. de Belgique, Bruxelles, 23 (1), p. 50. PROCHAZKOVA, D. and V. KARNIK (Editors) (1978): Atlas of Isoseismal Maps for Central and Eastern Europe (Geophys. Inst. Czechosl. Acad. Sci., Prague). SCHMIDT, J. (1879): Studien ueber Vulkane und Erdbeben, II, Leipzig. SHEBALIN, N.V. (Editor) (1974): Atlas of isoseismal maps, UNDP-UNESCO Survey of the Seismicity of the Balkan Region, Part III, Skopje, 275 maps. SHEBALIN, N.V., V. KÁRNÍK and D. HADZIEVSKI (Editors) (1974): Catalogue of earthquakes of the Balkan region, UNDP-UNESCO Survey of the Seismicity of the Balkan Region, Part I and Part II, Skopje, pp. 600. SIEBERG, A. (1932): Die Erdbeben, in Handbuch der Geo- physik, edited by B. GUTENBERG (Berlin), vol. IV. SOKEROVA, D., S. RIZHIKOVA and R. GLAVCHEVA (1982): Catalogue of earthquakes in Bulgaria during the period 1970-1980, in National Report of Bulgaria, UNDP/UNESCO and UNDRO Project RER/79/014 Earthquake Risk Reduction in the Balkan Region, Working Group A: Seismology, Seismotectonics, Seis- mic Hazard and Earthquake Prediction, Final Report, Athens, December 1982, A47-A49. STAIKOFF ST. (1930): Materiel sur la seismographie de la Bulgarie, la Thrace et la Macedoine, J. Bulg. Acad. Sci., XLII, Sofia, pp. 15-45. WATZOF, S. (1902, 1903,..., 1923): The earthquakes in Bul- garia. Report on the earthquakes felt in XIXc., and dur- ing 1901, 1902,..., 1913-1916, Centr. Meteorol. Inst., (Sofia), 1-17 (in Bulgarian, in French). WATZOF, S. (1908, 1912): Materials about the seismogra- phy of Bulgaria. Information on previous centuries earthquakes, Spisan, BAN, 127-134, 225-228.