Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
waves or the constitution of the earth; seismologists tracing the periodicity
of earthquakes; architects and engineers seeking “the rules to make human
constructions safe from seismic devastation”; and “many others still.” “Let
us not forget,” Forel cautioned his colleagues, “that the Catalog must be
able to be consulted by people who are not seismologists.” the bibliograph-
ical references would need to be complete enough to serve nonspecialists,
and a summary table would “certainly be greatly appreciated by the general
public.”
53
the inaugural 1903 catalog proved a disappointment, however. Some
critics complained of the two-year delay in publication. Others, like the
italian seismologists Agamennone and Palazzo, charged that the catalog
had been produced too quickly, without enough time for full studies of
individual earthquakes. the key question was how to balance discursive
detail with analytical convenience. Should the catalog be a chronicle or an
overview? August Sieberg, responsible for analyzing foreign macroseismo-
logical reports at the Strasbourg observatory, saw both sides of the issue: “in
order to allow others to verify the conclusions arrived at, it is indispensable
to publish the observational material in extenso, but not, as used to be
common, in long-winded descriptions, but rather in the concise and clearly
organized [
leicht übersichtlich
] form of tabular compilations.”
54
Following
Forel, Montessus advised that the catalog should not be a “dry enumeration
of observations,” but rather a “readable description.”
55
Not everyone at the
iSA saw the trade-offs so clearly. Palazzo recommended that future catalogs
restrict themselves to “the most interesting reports.” “in this way one could
immediately record the earthquake activity of the entire planet for a given
moment and the distribution of earthquakes in the various regions.” the
result would be a catalog “at a glance.”
56
however, the variability of earthquake reports undermined the iSA's
goal of producing a global seismic overview. Among the noninstrumental
reports arriving at Strasbourg, five different intensity scales were in use. in
some countries, no scale at all was employed, and “the observers instead at-
tempt to express themselves in quite general phrases, for which a standard
of comparison is lacking. in the reproduction of intensity determinations
of this last kind, we have adhered strictly to the descriptions of the sources,
even when these proved to be improbable or even incorrect. in order to
make it possible above all for the user of the catalog to form an indepen-
dent judgment of the degree of intensity of an earthquake, we have added
any comments on the effects of an earthquake according to the sources in
column 11 [of the table].”
57
the observers would still have their say.
in fact, Montessus anticipated that the progress of seismology would
