对东南沿海1067年和1574年两次地震的分析

ANALYSIS OF THE TWO HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES OF 1067 AND 1574 IN THE SOUTHEAST COASTAL REGION OF CHINA

地震目录给出的 1067年广东潮汕地震的参数不能合理解释历史记载中该地震的震害分布。文中将这次地震与 1918年南澳大地震在相同地点的震害记载进行了对比,发现几乎相同,进而论证了这两次地震属发生在同一震源的特征地震事件的可能性,认为 1067年地震的震中很可能位于南澎列岛西侧,其震级可达 71 /4。鉴于目前对 1574年福建东北沿海 53 /4级地震事件有不同的认识,文中重新分析了该地震的破坏区与有感区的分布,并与 1906年厦门海外地震进行了比较。结果认为, 1574年地震的震中更有可能位于福州—莆田以东的海域,且震级可能达到 61 /4。文中还认为:史料中有关 1574年浙江庆元地震的记述所指的可能不是发生在当地的破坏性地震,而更可能就是同年发生在福州—莆田以东海域的那次地震。1067年和 1574年地震可能都发生在NE向的滨海断裂带上。

The parameters given by the available earthquake catalogs for the 1067 AD Chaoshan, Guandong, earthquake can't be used to explain reasonably the geographical distribution of the earthquake damages recorded in the historical documents. Comparing the recorded damages caused by this event with those caused by the 1918 AD Nan-ao large earthquake at the same places, we find that they are almost the same, and prove that these two earthquakes should be the characteristic earthquakes occurred on the same source. These imply that the 1067 earthquake should be located at just west of the Nanpeng Islands, and its magnitude should be up to 71/4. In view of that there have been diverse recognitions of the 1574 AD earthquake occurred in the coastal region of northeastern Fujian, we have reanalyzed the distributions of the damaged and felt areas of this event, and made a comparison with that of the 1906 AD earthquake off-shore of Xiamen. As a result, it is confirmed that the epicenter of the 1574 AD earthquake should be located at the sea area east of the shore between Fuzhou and Putian, but its magnitude is possibly up to 61/4. Moreover, it is believed that the 1574 Qingyuan, Zhejiang, earthquake recorded in relevant historical document is unlikely a destructive earthquake that occurred at Qingyuan, but more probably is just the one occurred at the sea area east of the shore between Fuzhou and Putian in the same year. Both the 1067 and the 1574 earthquakes were produced possibly along the NE-trending Off-shore Fault zone.