The mid-6th century AD enigmatic mega earthquake and tsunami in central Greece: a seismotectonic,archeological,and historical reexamination

Abstract

In AD 552 the area around the Gulf of Corinth, Central Greece, was reportedly hit by large destructive earthquakes. At the same time a tsunami supposedly hit Maliac Bay. The case calls for a realistic interpretation since earthquake scenarios failed to explain rationally the narration of the contemporary Byzantine historian Procopius, the only literary source. Scholars have some doubts about Procopius’ reliability since he frequently copied classical authors. We found impressive similarities between the texts of Procopius and those by classic authors regarding the 426 BC central Greece tsunamigenic earthquake. Very likely the AD 552 Maliac Bay tsunami is a fake event in mimic of the 426 BC one. Sixth-century seismic disasters in southern Greece, reported away from the Gulf of Corinth have been attributed as a deus ex machina to the AD 552 earthquake(s) due to the lack of supporting literary sources. After critical examination of the Procopius’ narration and of relevant geological, seismotectonic, and archeological evidence, we concluded with a scenario comprising two strong (magnitude ~6.5) earthquakes but without tsunami generation. The first earthquake perhaps happened in Boeotia, NE Corinth Gulf, as palaeoseismological evidence also indicates. The second earthquake, in Patras-Naupactus area, western Corinth Gulf, is supported by convincing archeological findings. However, seismic destruction horizons in southern Greece are interpreted by distinct sixth-century earthquakes independent from the Procopius’ ones.

Keywords

Central Greece earthquakes geological and archeological evidence Gulf of Corinth historical record tsunamis

Introduction

The Mediterrenean region is characterized by high seismicity, which is documented by a lot of instrumental and pre-instrumental earthquake records, such as geological and archeological observations, and literary sources. One of the most active areas in the Mediterranean region is central Greece, which hosts normal faults particularly along the tectonic rift of the Corinth Gulf (Figures 1 and 2). Famous archeological sites, such as those of Delphi, Olympia, Corinth, and Athens, are existent around that tectonic rift and exposed to the seismic hazard of the area. Therefore, this area attracts great interest among the geoscientific, historical and archeological communities. Pre-instrumental earthquake records are of significant value for better understanding the earthquake generation process and for assessing seismic hazard.

Figure 1.

Geography setting of the region studied. The two insets show the areas covered by Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2.

Geography of the study region and localities mentioned in the text. Key: AB = Alkyonides Bay, Al = Alopi, Ant = Antikyra, An = Ayios (St.) Andreas, Ar = Arachovitika, At = Athens, Ath = Ayios (St.) Thomas, CG = Corinth Gulf, Co = Corinth, De = Delphi, Ec = Echinus, El = Elis, Fi = Filiatra, Ga = Galaxidi, He = Helike, It = Itea, Ka = Katakolon, Kap = Kaparelli, Ky = Kynos, Kyp = Kyparissia, La = Lamia, Le = Lechaion, Li = Livanates, Me = Messene, Ms = Messolonghi, Ol = Olympia, Or = Orchomenos, Pe = Perachora, Ph = Pheia, Py = Pylos, RA = Rion-Antirrion strait, Sc = Scarphe, Sk = Skoutela, Ski = Skinos, Ti = Tithorea, Th = Thermopylae, Yp = Ypati.

Destructive earthquakes would have occurred in central Greece in AD 551/552. Texts of the contemporary Byzantine historian Procopius Caesareus are the only first-hand documentary sources available. Procopius narrated that the earthquakes caused human victims, great damage and co-seismic ground failures around the Corinth Gulf as well as a powerful tsunami in Maliac Bay, NW Evoikos Gulf (Figure 3) (an authoritative English translation of the relevant passages is included in Supplemental Material). However, it remains unexplained why the AD 552 earthquake activity was ignored by other competent Byzantine historians of the sixth century, with the only exception of Evagrius Scholasticus who just copied Procopius in brief.

Figure 3.

Seismotectonics of the the Gulf of Corinth and the North Evoikos Gulf (NEG). Primary and secondary faults, represented by thick and thin lines, respectively, are redrafted from Roberts and Jackson (1991), Armijo et al. (1996), Ganas et al. (1998), Moretti et al. (2003), Sakellariou et al. (2007), Zygouri et al. (2008), and Cundy et al. (2010). Arrows to the north of Gulf show GPS-based velocity vectors of crustal deformation (after Avallone et al., 2004; Briole et al., 2000; Clarke et al., 1997; Hollenstein et al., 2008): long arrow = 1.5 cm/year, short arrow = 1.0 cm/year. Star and the left-lateral strike-slip show the epicenter and the rupture mode associated with the strong (M_w 6.4) earthquake of 8 June 2008 in NW Peloponnese. Triangles in the easternmost side of the Gulf of Corinth show epicenters of the 1981 seismic sequence (Papazachos et al., 1984): solid triangle = mainshock of 24.2.1981, semi-solid triangle = large aftershock of 25.2.1981, open triangle = large aftershock of 4.3.1981 (Figure 4 plots a bit different epicentral locations determined by other authors for reasons of comparison). Large solid circles represent localities hit by the Procopius’ AD 552 earthquakes: PA = Patras, NA = Naupactus, CH = Chaeronia, CR = Coronia, SO = Schisti Odos. The two elliptical areas illustrate the suggested rupture zones associated with the AD 552 earthquakes with estimated magnitudes of ~6.5. Geography key: MB = Maliac Bay, At = Athens, Co = Corinth.

The Procopius’ earthquakes are of particular interest for several reasons. First is the the issue of the seismic and tsunami hazard assessment in central Greece. This area hosts Athens, the capital city of the country (Figure 3), other important cities and various critical infrastructures around the Gulf of Corinth, all being exposed to the seismic hazard.

Although some earthquake scenarios have been proposed so far (e.g. Galanopoulos, 1981; Guidoboni et al., 1994; Papazachos and Papazachou, 1997, 2003), the Procopius’s narration raises some important issues, which have not been adequately examined so far. Of substantial significance is to understand how many earthquakes occurred, also where and when they ruptured. Moreover, which earthquake caused the devastating tsunami in Maliac Bay? In addition, is the Procopius’ narration reliable? Is it supported by independent archeological and geological evidence? In this paper we first reexamine the AD 552 earthquakes and tsunami by focusing on the previous main issues. Then we conclude with a preferred seismic scenario based on archeological and geological evidence and on literary sources.

A thorough historical analysis (Evagelatou-Notara, 1987/1988; Guidoboni et al., 1994) showed that the earthquakes in question very likely occurred in AD 552. Quoting other authors who reported otherwise, for example AD 551, for example Papazachos and Papazachou (1997, 2003), we simply write “AD 551/552.”

Seismotectonic setting

The Gulf of Corinth is characterized by normal faults trending nearly E-W with an uplifted footwall in the south and a subsiding hanging wall with antithetic faulting in the north (Armijo et al., 1996; Jackson et al., 1982; Moretti et al., 2003; Sakellariou et al., 2007; Zygouri et al., 2008; Figure 3). The north Evoikos Gulf, between Greek mainland and Euboea (Evia) is dominated by nearly WNW-ESE trending normal faults (e.g. Cundy et al., 2010; Ganas et al., 1998; Roberts and Jackson, 1991). In the Gulf of Corinth, regional geodetic extension rates range from 1.0 cm/year up to about 1.5 cm/year (Avallone et al., 2004; Briole et al., 2000; Clarke et al., 1997; Hollenstein et al., 2008), which is consistent with seismic slip rates of ~1.0 cm/year (Ambraseys and Jackson, 1997; Papadopoulos, 1989). Extension strain rates of 250 nstrain/year (or 2.5 mm/year) have been estimated from GPS measurements (Hollenstein et al., 2008).

In central Greece, the upper earthquake magnitude bound, which is at M_w ~ 7.0, is controlled by the maximum length of fault segments being ~20 km (Ambraseys and Jackson, 1990; Roberts and Jackson, 1991; Valkaniotis and Pavlides, 2016). Earthquakes with estimated magnitudes not exceeding ~7.0 have been documented in various literary sources (e.g. Evagelatou-Notara, 1987/1988; Galanopoulos, 1981; Ambraseys, 2009; Ambraseys and Jackson, 1990, 1997; Guidoboni and Comastri, 2005; Guidoboni et al., 1994; Papadopoulos et al., 2000a; Papazachos and Papazachou, 1997, 2003; Stucchi et al., 2013). In the instrumental era, the Corinth rift experienced several strong earthquakes, for example on 24 February 1981 (moment magnitude M_w 6.4) that ruptured eastern gulf (Jackson et al., 1982) (Table 1 and Figure 4). In north Evoikos Gulf, a large earthquake (M_w 6.9) occurred on 27 April 1894, which was preceded by another strong earthquake (M_w 6.4) a few days earlier (Ambraseys and Jackson, 1990).

Table 1.

List of the strong shallow earthquakes that occurred in central Greece since AD 1850.

No	Year	Date	Time	φ_N	λ_E	M_s/M_w	I_max
1	1852	07 14	04:20	38.7	22.3	6.10	8
2	1853	08 18	08:30	38.3	23.2	6.50	8
3	1858	02 21	09:02	37.9	22.9	6.50	8
4	1861	12 26	06:26	38.25	22.16	6.6	10
5	1870	08 01	00:41	38.5	22.6	6.7	9
6	1887	10 03	22:53	38.1	22.9	6.4	8–9
7	1888	09 09	15:04	38.2	22.1	6.1	8–9
8	1889	08 25	19:26	38.3	21.7	6.8	8
9	1893	05 23	20:04	38.3	23.25	6.0	8–9
10	1894	04 20	17:16	38.6	23.2	6.4	9+
11	1894	04 27	19:45	38.7	23.0	6.9	9+
12	1909	05 30	06:14	38.25	22.20	5.9/6.0	8
13	1914	10 17	06:22	38.20	23.50	5.9/6.0	9
14	1928	04 22	20:14	38.08	23.12	6.5/6.3	9
15	1938	07 20	23:43	38.30	23.66	6.1/5.9	8
16	1965	07 06	03:19	38.37	22.40	6.4/6.2	7+
17	1970	04 08	13:50	38.34	22.56	6.2/6.0	7
18	1981	02 24	20:54	38.23	22.97	6.6/6.4	8+
19	1981	02 25	02:36	38.17	23.12	6.3/6.1
20	1981	03 04	21:58	38.24	23.26	6.4/6.2
21	1995	06 15	00:16	38.40	22.27	6.5/6.3	8
22	1999	09 07	11:57	38.12	23.58	5.9/5.8	9

Focal parameters (φ_N = geographic latitude, λ_E = geographic longitude, M_s = surface-wave magnitude, M_w = moment magnitude) have been adopted from Papadopoulos et al. (2000a; Pa), Ambraseys and Jackson (1997; AJ97), and Makropoulos et al. (2012) for the events numbered 1–9, 10–11, and 12–22, respectively. For the earthquakes of 1995 and 1999 specific studies have been published by Bernard et al. (1997) and Papadopoulos et al. (2000b; Pb) but their focal parameters determinations are not substantially different from the adopted ones. Estimates of maximum intensity, I_max, in the 12-grade modified Mercalli-Sieberg scale, have been adopted from Pa, AJ97, and Pb for the events numbered 1–9, 10–21, and 22, respectively. For the earthquakes numbered 19 and 20 reliable estimation of I_max has not been possible due to the cumulative effects of the earthquakes 18, 19, and 20. Epicenters of the earthquakes listed in this table are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Epicenters of strong earthquakes that occurred in the Gulf of Corinth (CG) and North Evoikos Gulf (NEG), central Greece, since AD 1850 (Table 1). Open and solid symbols represent earthquakes of surface-wave magnitudes ranging from 5.9 to 6.4 and from 6.5 to 6.9, respectively. Figures above symbols correspond to earthquake numbering in Table 1.

The tsunami rate in the Gulf of Corinth is remarkably high (Papadopoulos, 2007, 2009) due to that tsunami waves are caused not only by co-seismic fault dislocations but also by seismic and aseismic coastal and submarine landslides (Ambraseys, 1962, 2009; Antonopoulos, 1980; Galanopoulos, 1960; Galanopoulos et al., 1964; Kontopoulos and Avramidis, 2003; Kortekaas et al., 2011; Papadopoulos, 2007; Papadopoulos et al., 2014a; Papadopoulos and Chalkis, 1984). In Evoikos Gulf, however, the tsunami rate is much lower (Papadopoulos and Chalkis, 1984). A strong tsunamigenic earthquake documented in classical sources occurred either in 426 BC or alternatively sometime during the third century BC (Papaioannou et al., 2004).

Historical documentation

The documents

Procopius, who serviced in higher administrative positions in the imperial office, remains the most widely-read chronicler of the Justinian reign (Brown, 2008). He wrote three books: History of the Wars, Anekdota or Secret History, and On the Buildings. History of the Wars, consisting of eight books, very likely is dated to AD 551 or 552, with the exception of the eighth, which was published in ca. AD 554/557 (Brown, 2008). The majority’s opinion is that Procopius wrote Anekdota in ca. AD 550/551, that is 32 years from the accession of Justin in AD 518 (Greatrex, 1994, 2003; Haury, 1891). Anekdota remained unpublished until the Justinian’s death in AD 565. The book On the Buildings was written in AD 554 or possibly in ca. AD 560 (Brown, 2008).

Earthquake dating

Dating the Procopius’ earthquakes is inferred from historical events preceding and following the earthquakes. Mallet (1853) dated an earthquake in AD 552. However, many subsequent authors agreed that it happened in AD 551, for example Galanopoulos (1981), Papazachos and Papazachou (1997, 2003). Evagelatou-Notara (1987/1988), a careful historian, supported that the earthquake date was confused with that of the tsunamigenic AD 9 July 551 earthquake, that struck Lebanon and Palestine. The historian concluded convincingly that the Procopius’ earthquake(s) should be dated on May or June AD 552. Nevertheless, this does not match fully dating needs since Procopius speaks about “earthquakes,” that is about more than one seismic events. Besides, the Greek expression Ἐν τούτῳ δὲ τῷ χρόνῳ used by Procopius does not explicitly mean In that particular year but it may rather mean In that time period. This implies that the earthquakes may have taken place before or after AD May/June 552. Consequently, the earthquake dating issue remains open to some extent.

How many earthquakes occurred?

Earthquake dating is directly related to how many earthquakes happened. The plural term earthquakes used by Procopius is not amenable to an unequivocal interpretation. For example, a cluster of more than one separate mainshocks may have taken place in a short time window, say a few months or weeks. From seismological point of view this is absolutely realistic. Clusters of strong earthquakes occurring in such short time intervals have been recognized in many seismogenic areas of the world, including Greece (e.g. Papadopoulos et al., 2009). Alternatively, more than one strong earthquakes may have taken place, within a single foreshock-mainshock-aftershock sequence occurring in a short time interval. A characteristic example is the AD 1981 eastern Corinth Gulf sequence comprising three strong, destructive earthquakes (Jackson et al., 1982) (Table 1 and Figure 4).

Where the seismic sources have been located?

A reasonable reply to this issue may help in better understanding not only where the earthquake sources were possibly located but also how many strong earthquakes occurred.

Chaeronea-Coronea and Patras-Naupactus

The book on Wars provides information about the spatial distribution of the earthquake impact, which comprised loss of life, damage and ground failures. According to Procopius the earthquakes(s) affected the area around the Crissaean (Corinth) Gulf. However, from the countless towns and eight cities that were reportedly affected, Procopius named only four: Chaeronea and Coronea in Boeotia, Patrae (modern Patras), and Naupactus in western Corinth Gulf (Figure 3), where great loss of life was also reported. Due to the vicinity between Chaeronea and Coronea as well as between Patras and Naupactus, we may infer that destruction occurred mainly in two isolated spots.

Schisma

Procopius says that in the two towns around the so-called Schisma (Σχίσμα), the Cleft, a tremendous earthquake happened causing more loss of life than in all the rest of Greece. The locality of Schisma very likely was nothing else than the famous Σχιστή Οδός (Schisti Odos-the Cleft Road). Pausanias (second century AD; II, V.3 and II, 09596836221138330V.8) located it at the passage from Chaeronia to Delphi (Figure 3). In Sophokles’ tragedy Oedipus Tyrant (line 733), Schisti Odos was mentioned as the place where Oedipus killed his father. The narrow passage of Schisti Odos should be placed at the 137th–139th km of the modern Athens-Delphi road. This interpretation implies that Chaeronea and Coronea very likely were the two towns around Schisma, implying that Schisma should not be considered as an independent seismic source.

Procopius narrates that the ground was split open in many places with the formation of ground chasms. The appearance of co-seismic surface fault traces is a frequent ground failure in the epicentral areas of strong shallow earthquakes. In the Mediterranean, the ratio of shallow earthquakes with surface-fault trace increases with the earthquake size and approaches unity for magnitude ~7.2 (Konstantinou et al., 2005). The description that some of the ground openings “came together” implies fissures in loosed soil material that closed soon after the strong earth shaking. On the contrary, permanent openings may represent surface-fault traces similar to the ones observed in association with the 1981 seismic sequence.

Maliac Bay

According to Procopius, a sudden sea inundation happened in Echinus (Achinos) and Scarphe (Figure 2). As the wave penetrated inland, deluged the towns there and leveled them immediately, implying that important runup occurred. The mainland was flooded for a long time as far away as the mountains which rise there. Because of this, people were able to walk up to the islands in the bay since the sea water had abandoned its proper place. When the sea returned to its normal place fishes were left behind. The tsunami narration is realistic insofar as it describes features observed in many modern tsunami inundations. A puzzling issue, however, is that Procopius did not mention which of the earthquakes caused the tsunami.

Corinth

Although is generally thought that the AD 552 earthquakes damaged Corinth, there is no supporting evidence whatsoever to suggest that the city was really affected (Sanders, 2003 and references therein). Anekdota reports that Corinth was among the cities which at that time were overthrown by earthquakes. Procopius did not date the event but noticed that the earthquakes followed by a plague, which is dated in AD 542 (Downey, 1935). The earthquakes happened by the end of the period “when Justinian was administrating the Roman State of Regent, and later when he held the imperial office,” that is between AD 518 and 527 (Downey, 1935). Evagelatou-Notara (1987/1988) suggested that the Corinth earthquake happened very likely in AD 524/525. The Syrian Chronicle of Elias Nisibis says that an earthquake ruined large part of the Corinth walls in AD 543 (Guidoboni et al., 1994). However, Elias, when writing about a Corinthian earthquake, perhaps was thinking of the large earthquake that razed Cyzicus, Asia Minor, in AD 543.

Patras

Fallmerayer (1830) claimed that because of the AD 551/552 earthquake the New Corinth buried along with its inhabitants while the Isthmus fortress ruined, and in Patras 4000 citizens were buried under collapsing houses. This information was reproduced uncritically by later authors (Bon, 1951; Hertzeberg, 1902; Triantafyllou, 1995). However, Fallmerayer (1830) failed to document his claims.

Other cities

Several authors included other places around Corinth Gulf that supposedly hit by the AD 552 earthquake(s) (for localities see Figures 2 and 3). Ηowever, no relevant evidence has been provided. Brown (2008) included Delphi and speculated that “like the quake of 365 AD, it [the Procopius’ tsunami] may have flooded Lechaion, but it is unlikely to have destroyed the city.” However, Lechaion, situated to the west of Corinth, is not historically mentioned as being flooded by none of these tsunamis (Kolaiti et al., 2017). There is no plausible mechanism explaining how the AD 552 Maliac Bay tsunami would be capable to propagate up to Lechaion given that Maliac Bay is not physically connected to Corinth Gulf.

Allochthonous marine sediments intersecting quiescent harbor deposits combined with geoarchaeological destruction layers and extensive units of supposedly tsunamigenic beachrock were interpreted as representing a strong tsunami that destroyed Lechaion in association with the AD 521 or 552 earthquakes (Hadler et al., 2011). Such an interpretation, however, is highly speculative not only because of the questionable tsunamigenic nature of the beachrock but also since biostratigraphic analysis is lacking as a substantial indicator of the tsunamigenic origin of allochthonous marine sediments. Besides, neither geological observations nor historical documents support the generation of such a tsunami (Mourtzas et al., 2014)

The reliability issue

Procopius is generally considered as one of the most reliable Byzantine historians. An enigmatic point, however, is why such a series of tremendous earthquakes, like the AD 552 ones, escaped the attention of contemporary or later Byzantine historians, such as Agathias, Malalas, Theophanes, and Cedrenus. Per contra, they reported on other earthquakes occurring in the early Byzantine era and particularly during the sixth century. Evagrius was the only exception as pointed earlier. This historical paradox raised doubts about Procopius’ reliability (e.g. Cameron, 1985; Croke and Crow, 1983; Downey, 1947; Evans, 1970; Scott, 1985). Downey (1947) reported on Buildings as a panegyrical work of imperial propaganda. Cameron (1985) argued that Procopius must be read with extreme care, and his claims can be accepted only after thorough independent corroboration. Procopius introduced extensive credited and uncredited quotations from classical authors (Brown, 2008; Kaldellis, 2004), including Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, and Strabo. According to various scholars (e.g. Hunger, 1969; Morrisson, 2007), Procopius used to imitate classical authors. For example, regarding the bubonic plague of spring AD 542 that reached Constantinople, our best diagnostic of the desease comes from Procopius, who used Thucydides’ report of the Athenian plague of 431 BC as his literary model (Evans, 2000).

Scholars remain skeptical about the drastic change in the writing style of Procopius from Buildings, where he appeared as a warm supporter of Justinian’s governorship, to Anekdota, where Procopius’ support turned to strong accusation against the emperor who then was considered responsible even for the earthquakes and other calamities that hit the empire. In Buildings, Justinian is the ideal king. Since Thermopylae was the key to the defense of southern Greece, Procopius produced a grandiose report of Justinian’s defense works at that famous pass (Evans, 2000). However, ¹⁴C dating on lime mortar samples has shown that most of the monumental work at Thermopylae, credited to Justinian on Procopius’ authority, was built about a century earlier (Cherf, 1992). In the Byzantine empire the disintegration of the cities started in the sixth century and was caused by the combined action of invasions and natural disasters including earthquakes (Saradi, 2006). In Anekdota, Justinian is the tyrant and, far from being inspired by God, he is the king of the devils, who is responsible not only for high taxes and rapacious officials, but also for the natural calamities fell on the empire: “God, hating the works of this demon emperor, turned His face away!” (Evans, 2000: 164).

Features of unreliability and tendency to imitate classical authors can be found in the Procopius’ narration of the AD 552 earthquakes too. It has passed unnoticed so far that the Procopius’ text reminds in many points classical texts by Thucydides (3,89.1-5), Strabo (1,3,20), and Diodorus Siculus (XII, 59.1-2), which provide descriptions of another famous, tsunamigenic earthquake that hit central Greece in 426 BC (e.g. Guidoboni et al., 1994). According to Thucydides the earthquake activity very likely started during the winter of 427 BC when Athens, Euboea, and Orchomenos in Boeotia, were hit by the earthquake. A first coincidence is that Orchomenos (Figure 2) is situated very close to Chaeronea and Coronea, reportedly hit by the AD 552 earthquake as well. According to Strabo, at the very time of the 426 BC earthquake the Thesmophoria festivity was taking place. Strangely enough a similar celebration was also going on when the AD 552 earthquake(s) occurred. Procopius, however, failed to specify the locality and time of that incidence. We evaluate that it is of low likelihood for such coincidences to come true just by chance.

An additional point of strong doubt regards the Maliac Bay tsunami. According to classical authors, because of the 426 BC earthquake a tsunami inundated coastal zones in Maliac Bay. In AD 552 the coasts of Maliac Bay were also reportedly inundated, which is another impressive coincidence. Procopius narrates that dead fishes were left behind after the sea water retreat. This phenomenon has been experienced many times after historical and modern tsunami inundations. But neither Strabo nor Thucydides nor Diodorus included such a picture in their narrations of the 426 BC tsunami. Then, one may wonder how it was possible for Procopius to be aware of such a possibility unless a tsunami had really happened. However, in another passage of his book, Strabo (16, 2, 26) says that dead fishes left behind after a tsunami hit violently between Tire and Ptolemais in Phoenicia, Levantine Sea, around 138 BC (Triantafyllou et al., 2022). We consider that very likely no tsunami was generated in Maliac Bay in AD 552, Procopius just imitated classic authors.

Archeological evidence

Tithorea

The early Christian basilica of St John the Theologian (Figure 2) is dated to the middle years of the fifth century (Yalouri, 2004). The makeshift repair of the basilica, with the meager means available, can be dated to the second half of the sixth century and, therefore, we may not rule out that the basilica perhaps was damaged by the AD 551/552 earthquake (Yalouri, 2004).

Corinth

Archeological excavations revealed seismic destructions in two basilicas in Skoutela (Pallas, 1957) and in Kraneion (Pallas, 1978) close to Corinth (Figure 2). Therefore, Evagelatou-Notara (1987/1988) included Corinth in the damage zone of the AD 552 earthquake. However, this is not justified since the independent archeological evidence remains insufficient to date the seismic destruction. This is also the case of the earthquake that reportedly caused damage to the Isthmus wall. The book on Buildings asserts that Justinian rebuilt the old trans-Isthmus wall, the rebuilding belonging to the years after AD 550. Earthquake damage made reconstruction necessary, it appears, and it may have been the AD 551/552 earthquake that was responsible (Evans, 2000). On the other hand, numismatic findings in destruction horizons documented in field notebooks, reports and research publications (Adelson and Kustas, 1964; Broneer, 1926; Dengate, 1981; Scranton, 1957), indicated that Corinth was possibly destroyed by earthquakes around AD 580 and in the period from AD 597 to 601 (Evagelatou-Notara, 1987/1988). Summarizing, the archeological evidence available supports that the seismic destruction of Corinth was due rather to the earthquakes of AD 524/525, 543, 580, and 597–601 than to the AD 552 ones.

Antikyra

In northern Gulf of Corinth, the Antikyra town (Figures 2 and 3) was supposedly destroyed by the AD 552 earthquake. This is based on preliminary archeological evidence indicating a seismic destruction horizon in the early Christian settlement of modern Palatia (Koureda-Raptaki, 2004). However, the destruction episode is poorly dated and might be correlated to several seismic events: AD 524/525, 543, 552, 580, and 597–601. Besides, evidence based on numismatic dating indicates that Antikyra was still standing by the end of sixth century before its seismic destruction (Tsourti, 2004). Possibly an earthquake unknown from literary sources destroyed Antikyra likely after ca. AD 590. However, no evidence is available to support such a hypothesis. In the instrumental period of seismology, a strong earthquake (M_w 6.0) occurred in Antikyra on 8 April 1970 (Table 1).

Patras

In Patras area (Figure 3), excavation of a Roman building showed that it likely destroyed by an earthquake during the sixth century (Papapostolou, 1978). The ancient acropolis of Patras (Kastro) perhaps was destroyed by the same earthquake (Georgopoulou-Verra, 2002). The previous authors attributed these destructions to the AD 552 earthquake(s).

Again in Patras, a burial complex of early Christian date was excavated as part of the south-west cemetery of the ancient city (Koumousi-Vyenopoulou, 1996). The excavator supposed that the presence in the graves of marble closure slabs dated in the AD fifth century, presupposes the destruction and abandonment of the churches in the town from which they came, and the pairs of contemporary double burials points to a high death rate caused by some natural disaster that struck the town. Koumousi-Vyenopoulou (1996) concluded that the excavation associates the creation of the cemetery with the burial of the victims of the AD 552 earthquake. The archeologist reported on published evidence indicating destruction in Elis and Corinth, in NW and NE Peloponnese, respectively (Figure 2). Although the archeological evidence for a likely seismic destruction in Patras is rather convincing, the time window does not fit well the time of the Procopius’ earthquake(s).

In Palaeomonastiro of Arachovitika village, about 15 km to the NE of Patras (Figure 2), evidence was found that a palaeochristian building complex was destroyed by an earthquake during the AD sixth century, which possibly was the AD 551/552 one (Georgopoulou-Verra, 2004). In Ayios Ioannis (St John) area near Messolongi (Figure 2), where the ancient Alikyrna was situated, a complex of Roman Therme (baths) was destroyed by a strong earthquake, possibly the AD 551/552 one (Petropoulos, 2002). The seismic disaster dating appears secured since AD sixth century lamps were found at the baths’ ground.

SW Peloponnese

The excavation of a palaeochristian basilica near St Kyriaki in Filiatra, Messenia province (Figure 2), showed that it was rebuilt after it had been partly ruined very likely by earthquakes (Pallas, 1962). Following Gardiner (1925), the excavator supported that a likely post quem terminus was determined from a similar case in Olympia and possibly in Patras occurring in AD 522 or in 551/552, while numismatic dating indicates AD 582–602 as the ante quem terminus for the basilica reparation. Themelis (2002) tentatively suggested that reparation works recognized in buildings of Messene town, SW Peloponnese (Figure 2), perhaps are related to the AD 522 and 550/552 earthquakes. Papadopoulos et al. (2014b) supported that earthquakes occurring around the Gulf of Corinth are uncapable to produce destruction in SW Peloponnese places situated as far as ~200 km away.

Geological evidence

Olympia

The classical archeological site of Olympia in Elis province, NW Peloponnese (Figure 2), has been extensively discussed as regards its possible destruction not only by earthquakes and other natural disasters but also by human actions. Such events were placed particularly during the AD sixth century. Αdler (1897) suggested that the Zeus Temple and other antiquities were destroyed by strong earthquakes in AD 522 and 551/552. The only reasoning was that these earthquakes were the only known from the AD sixth century period. Gardiner (1925) noticed the Peloponnese suffered from violent earthquakes in the years AD 522 and 551 but we do not know which of the two overthrew the columns of the Temple of Zeus.

Hermann (1962), Ashmole and Yalouris (1967), and Meyer (1979) just repeat Gardiner’s (1925) suggestion. A reappraisal of the earthquake destruction in Olympia was elaborated by Sinn (1992) who concluded that, evidence for damage and reparation in buildings dated around AD 270 should be attributed rather to serious seismic action than to the invasion of Heruli. Later on, during the fifth and sixth centuries a flourishing town was developed there but the active commercial life of the settlement ended with the “known earthquake,” which destroyed also the Zeus Temple. We suppose that the AD 552 earthquake was meant. Reicherter (2011), based on the domino-style fallen columns, supported that the Zeus Temple was destroyed by an early fourth century earthquake, although the possibility that the destruction could be correlated with either the AD 522 or the 551/552 earthquakes has not been ruled out.

Summarizing the Olympia case, we may conclude that certainly there is evidence of seismic damage imprinted on structural elements of the monuments. However, neither observational documentation, for example dating results, nor literary sources are available to specify individual earthquake event(s), for example the AD 552 ones, that may have caused damage.

Pheia

Pheia, the sea port of Olympia (Figure 2), is also of interest to our analysis since it was considered as being affected by the AD 551/552 earthquake. Based on a preliminary archeological survey in the sea bottom, Yalouris (1960) suggested that Pheia submerged and destroyed due to the AD sixth century strong earthquake that hit Patras, Olympia and the entire NW Peloponnese. We suppose that the Procopius’ AD 552 earthquake(s) is meant once more. Based on Yalouris (1960), Kraft et al. (2005) extended the hypothesis and claimed that the sixth century earthquake resulted not only in subsidence of the coastal portion of Pheia but comprised uplift of the flanking hill of modern Katakolon (Figure 2). Such a hypothesis, if valid, has the important consequence that the impact area of the AD 552 earthquake should not be placed in central Greece but in the coastal zone of Elis facing the Ionian Sea, in contradiction to the Procopius’ narration. An alternative would be that another strong earthquake occurring in Elis during the AD sixth century was responsible for the ubrupt co-seismic faulting. But this point of view stands as only a working hypothesis due to the lack of historical correlation. Besides, the suggested seismotectonic displacement in Katakolon has not been documented by palaeoseismological evidence, such as stratigraphic correlations.

Of relevance is the Olympia tsunami hypothesis introduced by Vött and Brückner (2011a) with the aim “to clarify the mystery of the rapid burial of Olympia under 4–6 m of sediments after the sixth century AD and subsequent erosion of the Kladeos River by 8–10 m down to the ancient flow level.” Based on detailed sedimentological, geophysical, geochemical, and microfaunal analyses, these authors concluded that the Kladeos River valley and Olympia (Figure 2) experienced at least four distinct phases of catastrophic high-energy flood events attributed to multiple tsunami impact. They put forward the hypothesis that the cult site of Olympia was rather destroyed by tsunami than by fluvial processes related to the Kladeos River. Since a charcoal fragment from a fining upward sequence out of sand and gravel deposited under high-energy conditions was ¹⁴C AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) radiocarbon dated to cal year AD 585–647, at the 2σ interval, Vött and Brückner (2011a) supported that this dating result fits the AD 551/552 earthquake.

The results per se do not yield evidence for the AD 552 earthquake. Moreover, the earthquake of AD 552 stands at time distance of 33 years from the lower limit of the radiocarbon tsunami dating window. From geological standpoint the tsunami is weakly documented and, therefore, Vött and Brückner (2011a) speaks only about a hypothesis. Besides, these authors recognized that there are no historical accounts on catastrophic flooding of Olympia. Eventually, it is highly questionable whether even an extreme tsunami would be capable to run such a long distance inland as to reach ancient Olympia and cause destruction there. Such an important issue could be met with numerical tsunami simulations which, however, fall beyond the scope of this paper. Today, the distance of Olympia to the closest shoreline is ~13 km. The argument does not change by considering that the ancient shoreline advanced by some 3 km to reach its present position due to the Alpheios River deposition (Kaupert and Dörpfeld, 1882; Yalouris, 1960).

In a more thorough study, Vött et al. (2011b) abandoned the Olympia tsunami hypothesis but presented detailed results to support that the coast of Pheia was inundated by three distinct tsunamis in the geological past. Based on geological and archeological observations those authors suggested that the most recent tsunami occurred in Byzantine to post-Byzantine period. To correlate the supposed tsunami with the AD 551/552 earthquake, Vött et al. (2011b) quoted Kraft et al. (2005) who, however, were based only on the Yalouris (1960) hypothesis without relevant documentation. Vött et al. (2011b: 262–263) stated that “The 551/552 AD earthquake is reported to have been related to a strong seismic sea wave which brought destruction to many coastal cities on the Peloponnese and the Greek mainland (Guidoboni et al., 1994).” However, one may find no such a statement in Guidoboni et al. (1994) who quoted carefully only the Procopius’ text which, as we have seen, does not speak about tsunami in Peloponnese but only in the Maliac Bay coast.

Such misunderstanding underlines the difficulty to interpret geological and/or archeological findings in the absence of supporting literary sources. Consequently, the time window for the occurrence of the supposed Byzantine to post-Byzantine tsunami in Pheia remains quite wide. In this context, the large tsunami of AD 365, which is a well-documented event from many points of view (see reviews in Ambraseys, 2009; Papadopoulos, 2011), remains as candidate for a possible interpretation of the tsunami traces found in Pheia. This has not been excluded by Vött et al. (2011b). However, they supported (p. 280) that “written sources are in favor of the year 551/552 AD when a seismic sea wave is reported to have hit the area,” which is not the case at all since no such reports are existent. Last but not least is whether the Pheia tsunami is geologically well documented. Examination of this issue goes beyond the scope of this paper but certainly should be examined thoroughly in the future by focusing on whether the sedimentary sequence in Pheia is of tsunamigenic origin or not.

A seismological approach

Past earthquake scenarios

Scenarios regarding the time, place and magnitude of the AD 552 earthquakes have been suggested by several authors in the past. Perrey (1848) and Mallet (1853), based on the chronological order of the historical events narrated by Procopius, dated the earthquake(s) in AD 552, thus distinguishing it from the AD 9 July 551 tsunamigenic earthquake that ruptured offshore Lebanon. Most of later authors, however, preferred to date these earthquakes in AD 551, with the exception of Evagelatou-Notara (1987/1988) who convincingly dated it again in AD 552. In early earthquake compilations one may also find earlier earthquakes dated in AD 521/522, alternatively in AD 524/525, as well as in AD 543 (e.g. Evagelatou-Notara, 1987/1988). Besides, numismatic evidence indicated the occurrence of earthquakes that hit Corinth in ca. AD 580 and 597–601 (Evagelatou-Notara, 1987/1988). Information about the earthquakes pre-dating and post-dating the AD 552 earthquakes is also useful for better understanding previous scenarios.

Earlier seismologists attributed the AD 552 seismic damage zone to a single earthquake megaevent (e.g. Galanopoulos, 1981; Mallet, 1853; Schmidt, 1879; Shebalin et al., 1974; Sieberg, 1932). This was followed by Guidoboni et al. (1994) who considered that a single tsunamigenic earthquake event occurred in AD 551/552 incorporating the entire region from Patras-Naupactus to Chaeronea-Coronea and to the Maliac Bay. Other authors interpreted Procopius’ text in the context of more than one events but no consensus has been reached so far. For example, Galanopoulos (1981) considered two separate events occurring in Patras-Naupactus area the first and in Boeotia the second. Papaioannou et al. (2004) added a hypothetical third earthquake in the Maliac Bay to account for the tsunami generation there. This approach was adopted by Papazachos and Papazachou (2003) who assigned earthquake magnitudes of 6.8 to the Maliac Bay and to the Chaeronea-Coronea earthquakes, and 6.5 to the Patras-Naupactus earthquake. However, magnitude assignment to hypothetical earthquakes is ungrounded. Ambraseys (2009) adopted also the occurrence of three earthquakes.

The various scenarios proposed suffer from two common problems. The first is that they ignore the geological and archeological evidence or make just a little use of it. The second is that those scenarios do not examine the reliability of the literary sources. In the next lines we evaluate critically the literaly sources and the various past seismic scenarios in the light of the seismotectonic regime of the region and in relation to the archeological and palaeoseismological findings particularly after the 1981 earthquake sequence in the eastern Corinth Gulf.

Palaeoerthquakes in the Eastern Corinth Gulf

The seismic sequence of 1981 has increased interest regarding the recurrence of strong earthquakes in the area. Predecessors of the 1981 (Table 1 and Figure 4) earthquakes were investigated particularly in the sites of Skinos and Kaparelli (Figure 3), where surface-fault traces were observed after the 24 February 1981 (M_w 6.4) and 4 March 1981 (M_w 6.2) earthquakes, respectively.

In Skinos, evidence for up to six past earthquakes was found in three palaeoseismological trenching sites (Collier et al., 1998; Pantosti et al., 1996). One of them was dated in a time window incorporating the AD sixth century. Combined calibrated Mean Residence Time (MRT) and AMS dating results, at 2σ, yield an age of AD 390–1015 and possibly in the time interval AD 590–1015. Other palaeoearthquake events postdate AD 670. In Kaparelli fault, at least three palaeoearthquakes were determined in trenches opened there (Kokkalas et al., 2007). The most recent was ¹⁴C dated at 2σ calibrated age of AD 560–690 (1390–1260 BP). Considering the results of Collier et al. (1998), Kokkalas et al. (2007) concluded that at least the most recent event may have ruptured both the south dipping Kaparelli fault and the north dipping Skinos fault (Figure 3) synchronously, resembling the 1981 earthquake sequence. These results, however, contradict the ones obtained by Benedetti et al. (2003), who performed ³⁶Cl cosmic ray exposure dating in 4–5-m high limestone surface at two sites about 50 m apart in the Kaparelli fault scarp. They found that the Kaparelli fault ruptured three times prior to 1981 at 20 ± 3, 14.5 ± 0.5, and 10.5 ± 0.5 ka BP, with slip amplitudes between 0.6 and 2.1 m, and concluded that the fault has been inactive for 10,000 years prior to the 1981 event.

At the northeast edge of the Corinth Gulf, the 12-km-long Corini normal fault near Coronea (Figure 3), striking roughly NE-SW and dipping toward SE, crops out along the south slope of the Elikon Mountain (Ganas et al., 2018). This structure, which resembles similar kinematics with the active faults of the south coast of the Gulf of Corinth, perhaps is younger than 1 Ma years but no association has been established with strong historical earthquakes in the area (Ganas et al., 2018). Several earthquake horizons were revealed by mapping visual weathering features and cosmogenic ³⁶Cl dating in Pisia fault (Figure 3) that was activated with the 1981 seismic sequence (Mechernich et al., 2018). At least six events with 0.25–1.1 m of coseismic displacement ruptured the Pisia fault within the last 7.3 ± 0.7 kyr but not later than ~2.0 kyr BP. The estimated moment-magnitudes of these events ranged from 6.2 to 6.7 (Mechernich et al., 2018).

Elevated shorelines representing co-seismic uplift were identified in Perachora peninsula and in Lechaion, eastern Corinth Gulf (Morhange et al., 2012; Pirazzoli et al., 1996; Figures 2 and 3). In Perachora, uplift of amplitude not exceeding 1.1 m were ¹⁴C dated at 1σ cal. age of AD 290–560. In Lechaion, the Roman harbor of Corinth, an uplift of over 1.2 m were ¹⁴C dated at 1σ cal. age of AD 442–657. The uplift amplitude at both Perachora and Lechaion is on the order of the 1981 co-seismic displacement. However, it has not been fully understood how such uplifts could be interpreted in the frame of the extentional tectonics that dominates Corinth Gulf. A possible explanation is that uplift partly occurred in the footwall of some faults of the area, while the rest is due to “regional” isostatic uplift independent of fault slip (Turner et al., 2010).

In summary, the radiodated time windows of the suggested co-seismic deformation recognized in Skinos, Perachora, Kaparelli, and Lechaion, are too wide to correlate with individual historical seismic events, such as the AD 552 one(s). Besides, the area of Boeotia, which according to Procopius’ text was hit by those earthquake(s), is situated well to the north from the eastern Corinth Gulf. This is an additional obstacle for possible correlations.

Seismological evaluation

The earthquake scenario for a single megaevent (e.g. Guidoboni et al., 1994) does not fit the literary source since Procopius clearly speaks about earthquakes. In addition, the main spots of damage, ground failures and tsunami occurrences, all considered as effects produced by a single megaevent, imply a quite large seismic rupture zone, with major axis extending from Patras-Naupactus to Maliac Bay at distance of more than 90 km (Figure 3). Empirical relationships between earthquake magnitude and seismic fault length, L, indicate that for L = 90 km the magnitude ranges from 7.2 to 7.6 (Table 2). This clearly exceeds the restriction of observed maximum magnitude, which in central Greece was found at 7.0 due to the relatively short fault segments (Ambraseys and Jackson, 1990; Roberts and Jackson, 1991; Valkaniotis and Pavlides, 2016). From the palaeoearthquake research as well as from the historical accounts (Table 1) no evidence for earthquake magnitude larger than M_w 7.0 has been found. Besides, no seismogenic structure as long as ~90 km is known in central Greece.

Table 2.

Empirical relationships used to estimate historical earthquake magnitudes from fault length.

No.	Relationship	Data set	Application range	Reference
1	M_w = 4.86 + 1.32·logL	Worldwide, normal faults	5.2 < M_w < 7.3	Wells and Coppersmith (1994)
2	M_w = (logL + 1.49)/0.47	Mediterranean, all fault types	5.5 < M_w < 7.5	Konstantinou et al. (2005)
3	M_s = (logL + 0.69)/0.35	Mediterranean, all fault types	5.8 < M_s < 7.2	Konstantinou et al. (2005)
4	M_s = 5.48 + 0.90·log SRL	Aegean and adjacent areas, all fault types	5.7 < M_s < 7.2	Pavlides and Caputo (2004)

Key: M_w = moment magnitude, M_s = surface-wave magnitude, L = length of subsurface seismic fault in km, SRL = length of surface rupture in km. For seismic fault length of 90 km considered in Section Seismological Evaluation, we calculated M_w = 7.4, M_w = 7.3, M_s = 7.6, and M_s = 7.2 from (1), (2), (3), and (4), respectively.

The seismotectonics dominating the Gulf of Corinth is clearly controlled by normal faults of about E-W direction (Figure 3). However, a single megaearthquake may have ruptured from southwest, at Patras-Naupactus area, to northeast at Maliac Bay. The single megaearthquake scenario with rupture zone striking SW-NE leaves without explanation the heavy damage reportedly caused in the Chaeronea-Coronea area, since this area is situated at considerable distance from a hypothetical seismic fault lineament connecting the Patras-Naupactus area with the Maliac Bay.

The single megaearthquake scenario becomes worst if one includes the archeological hypothesis that several spots in the provinces of Elis and Messenia, western Peloponnese, were also hit by the megaearthquake of AD 552. Then, the size of the candidate seismic impact zone, extending from Maliac bay to Messene, exceeds ~200 km, which is completely out of any seismotectonic reality for the region. Besides, Procopius did not name at all localities in Elis and Messenia provinces as being affected by the AD 552 earthquake(s). A consequence is that the seismic destruction horizons in those provinces should be interpreted by earthquake occurrences independently from the Procopius earthquakes. The lack of documentary sources, however, is a serious obstacle in the effort to determine specific seismic events, which could be considered as candidates for the realistic interpretation of the geological and archeological findings in those provinces.

The scenario involving two seismic sources, one in Boeotia and another in Patras-Naupactus, better fits the Procopius’ narration. This scenario covers the areas named by Procopius as being hit by the earthquakes. However, Maliac Bay is named as being affected only by a tsunami, the generation mechanism of which is hardly explainable with the seismic rupture zones in Boeotia and Patras-Naupactus. Consequently, a third local seismic source is needed to better explain the tsunami generation. But Procopius does not mention a local earthquake in Maliac Bay. One may not exclude that Echinus and Skarfia, in either sides of Maliac Bay, were destroyed by a local earthquake only a few minutes before the tsunami arrived. Thus, the destruction caused by the earthquake, if any, was masked by the destruction caused by the subsequent tsunami. However, no relevant evidence is in place.

The geomorphological change produced in Maliac Bay by the rapid deposition in the Spercheios river delta should not be ignored when considering the potential for tsunami generation. From the era of Persian wars, during the fifth century BC, up to the present time, the river deposition advanced the land for about 4–5 km (Perissoratis et al., 1997), which results in 1.5–2 km advancement of land from the Persian wars until the sixth century AD, if a uniform sediment deposition rate is roughly considered. Besides, the sea depth in Maliac Bay gradually decreased due to river sediments accumulation at the sea floor. Today, the maximum sea water depth in Maliac Bay does not exceed 24 m (Perissoratis et al., 1997). Due to the drastic decrease of both the sea surface and the thickness of the sea water column, the potential for strong tsunami generation in Maliac Bay was significantly low about 1000 years after the 426 BC tsunami.

A preferred scenario

Based on the previous analysis we consider that at all evidence the Maliac Bay tsunami was very likely an artifact in Procopius’ narration, just a mimic of the 426 BC tsunami. Besides, a tsunami inundation in the Maliac Bay coast is not supported by archeological or geological findings. On the other hand, from the available literary, archeological and geological evidence we consider as a likely scenario that in AD 552 two strong earthquakes, but without tsunami generation, ruptured the Gulf of Corinth, in the areas of Boeotia (Chaeronia-Coronea) and of Patras-Naupactus (Figure 3). The Patras-Naupactus earthquake case is supported by independent archeological findings, at least in Patras and its environs. However, the Boeotia earthquake case is less documented as compared to the Patras-Naupactus case. Apart from the Procopius’ narration we found no archeological evidence to support the earthquake case in Boeotia, with the exception of the little evidence from a damaged basilica in Tithorea. Yet, palaeoearthquakes identified in the eastern Corinth Gulf where the 1981 seismic sequence occurred, do not account adequately for a AD 552 Boeotia strong earthquake. The reason is that the palaeoearthquake trenching positions do not geographically fit the Chaeronia-Coronea area. However, we may not rule out that this area suffered some damage by a sixth century strong earthquake occurring to the south in the area of the 1981 seismic sequence.

Assuming that a strong earthquake occurred in Boeotia, regardless of the little support it takes from archeological and geological field observations, we may not exclude that Corinth was also damaged by such an event. However, this is only speculative since Procopius did not name Corinth among the cities affected by the AD 552 earthquakes.

Earthquake size

The estimation of magnitude, M, of historical earthquakes is usually based on the conversion of maximum seismic intensity, I_max, to M through empirical M/I_max relationships obtained from data sets of instrumental earthquakes (e.g. Ambraseys and Jackson, 1997). From Greek instrumental data sets, Papadopoulos (2011) established empirical M_s/I_max relationships for inland, coastal and offshore earthquakes; M_s is surface-wave magnitude, which for the magnitude range considered in this study is nearly equivalent to M_w. Two alternatives are appropriate for application in our case:

\begin{array}{l} M_{s} = 4.125 (\pm 0.256) + 0.250 (\pm 0.033) I_{\max} (1) \\ (coastal earthquakes) \end{array}

\begin{array}{l} M_{s} = 3.367 (\pm 0.507) + 0.334 (\pm 0.060) I_{\max} (2) \\ (inland earthquakes) \end{array}

To estimate the magnitude of the AD 552 earthquakes we first followed the Procopius narration (see Supplemental Material) in order to assess the I_max level. Procopius says that “. . .cities were leveled to the ground. . . the earth was rent asunder in many places and formed chasms. . . there was a tremendous earthquake which caused more loss of life than in all the rest of Greece.”

Since the narration implies extensive destruction we assumed that the intensity I_max in Chaeronea-Coronea and in Patras-Naupactus ranged from IX to X in MMI (Modified Mercalli) intensity scale. Then, magnitude M_s = 6.4 and 6.6 was calculated from (1), while M_s = 6.4 and 6.7 was obtained from (2). This implies that earthquake magnitudes of M_s ~ M_w = 6.5(±0.2) might be adopted for each one of the two strong earthquakes in our preferred scenario. However, the magnitudes determined remain quite uncertain since the information available about the impact of the AD 552 earthquakes is limited.

Conclusions

The text of the contemporary Byzantine Procopius is the only first-hand source available on the strong earthquake occurrences in central Greece during AD 552. We found that the Procopius’ narration is in many points similar or even coincident to earthquake descriptions by Strabo and Thucydides. A characteristic example is the 426 BC tsunamigenic earthquake in central Greece. The Procopius’ description is likely exaggerated as regards the incident that so many people supposedly killed during a festivity event as exactly happened in 426 BC. Perhaps this is nothing more than an imitation of classical authors from the side of Procopius. The Procopius’ story about the destructive tsunami that inundated Maliac Bay, northern Evoikos Gulf, is not convincing at all, very likely being a fake, just a mimic of the one of 426 BC. At all evidence, Procopius’ narration is an amalgamation of real contemporary earthquake events, of exaggerated earthquake effects, and of fake “events,” the last being only mimises of classic authors.

Although Procopius reported that eight cities were hit, he named only Chaeronea-Coronea in Boeotia and Patras-Naupactus in the eastern and western Corinth Gulf, respectively. In view of the reliability issue regarding the Procopius’ narration, presented in a previous section, our preferred scenario includes two separate strong earthquakes but without tsunami generation. These earthquakes, with magnitudes estimated at ~6.5, may have ruptured the areas of Chaeronea-Coronea and Patras-Naupactus.

The Procopius’ narration is supported by convincing archeological evidence only in the area of Patras and its environs. However, no evidence was found for the claim of modern authors that 4000 victims were caused there, although archeological findings indicate massive death toll.

The scenario for a strong earthquake in Boeotia is poorly supported by archeological findings. Palaeoearthquakes identified geologically in the eastern Gulf of Corinth perhaps fit chronologically that scenario. However, such palaeoearthquake episodes should be placed to the south of Chaeronea-Coronea, thus weakening the case.

Our preferred scenario does not rule out that more than one strong earthquakes may have occurred either in Boeotia or in Patras-Naupactus or in both. However, there is no historical, archeological or geological evidence to support further such a hypothesis.

Corinth possibly experienced damaging earthquakes in AD 524/525, in 580 and from 597 to 601. An earthquake dated AD 543 is tentatively added in this list since it may have occurred in Cyzicus, Asia Minor, instead of Corinth. Nevertheless, we found no trustable literary, palaeoseismological or archeological evidence that Corinth was also affected by the AD 552 earthquake.

Several seismic and/or tsunami destruction horizons, identified in localities of western Peloponnese, including Olympia and Pheia in Elis province, as well as in Messene, Pylos and Filiatra in Messenia province, have been attributed to the AD 552 earthquakes. We concluded that such a link has been introduced rather as a deus ex machina perception, due to the lack of relevant literary sources, than as a documented interpretation. In several cases, however, the archeological findings are convincing as seismic destruction indicators and, therefore, need interpretation. From seismological point of view, a reasonable explanation would be that during the AD sixth century at least two earthquake events occurring in western Peloponnese, one in Elis and another in Messenia provinces, but independently from the Procopius’ earthquakes of AD 552, caused the seismic destructions found in those provinces. This approach is applicable to the case of Antikyra as well, north side of Gulf of Corinth, where an independent earthquake may have caused the archeologically determined seismic destruction which, however, remains poorly documented so far.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-hol-10.1177_09596836221138330 – Supplemental material for The mid-6th century AD enigmatic mega earthquake and tsunami in central Greece: a seismotectonic, archeological, and historical reexamination

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-hol-10.1177_09596836221138330 for The mid-6th century AD enigmatic mega earthquake and tsunami in central Greece: a seismotectonic, archeological, and historical reexamination by Gerassimos A Papadopoulos, Ioanna Triantafyllou and Andromachi Vassilopoulou in The Holocene

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

IT and GP contributed to the European Cooperation in Science and Technology COST project (2018-2023) “AGITHAR-Accelerating Global science In Tsunami HAzard and Risk analysis.” We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and corrections which contributed in improving the initial submission. Thanks are due to Mrs Antonia Papageorgiou for her assistance with the production of Figures 1 to 3 with the Generic Mapping Tools (GMT) software by Wessel and Smith (1991). Figure 4 was created using ArcGIS^® software, version 10.8 by Esri.

Authors’ contributions

GP contributed with the conceptualization of the paper and collected literary sources. IT collected and evaluated earthquake and seismotectonic data and geological evidence, AV collected and evaluated historical and archeological evidence. All authors participated in the design of the study and drafted the manuscript, discussed results, reviewed the manuscript text, and gave final approval for publication.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Two authors (GP, IT) disclosed receipt of the following partial financial support: EU-FP7 research project ASTARTE (Assessment, STrategy And Risk Reduction for Tsunamis in Europe, 2013-2017), grant agreement no: 603839/2013.

Data accessibility

The datasets supporting this article are included in the paper.

ORCID iD

Gerassimos A Papadopoulos

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Adelson

HLA

Kustas

(1964) A sixth century hoard of Minimi from the western Peloponnese. American Numismatic Society (Museum Notes) 11: 159–205.

Αdler

(1897) Geschichte des Untergangs der Baudeknmäler zu Olympia. In: Curtius

Adler (Hrsg.)

(eds) Die Ergebnisse der von Ddem Deutschen Reich Vveranstalteten Ausgrabung. Textband I, Topographie und Geschichte. Berlin: Verlag von A. Asher & Co, p.96.

Ambraseys

(1962) Data for the investigation of the seismic sea-waves in the Eastern Mediterranean. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 52: 895–913.

Ambraseys

(2009) Earthquakes in the Mediterranean and Middle East, A Multidisciplinary Study of Seismicity Up to 1900. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ambraseys

Jackson

(1990) Seismicity and associated strain of Central Greece between 1890 and 1988. Geophysical Journal International 101: 663–708.

Ambraseys

Jackson

(1997) Seismicity and strain in the Gulf of Corinth (Greece) since 1694. Journal of Earthquake Engineering 1: 433–474.

Antonopoulos

(1980) Data for investigation on seismic sea-waves events in the eastern Mediterranean from the birth of Christ to 1980 AD (six parts). Annali di Geofisica 33: 141–248.

Armijo

Meyer

King

GCP

, et al. (1996) Quaternary evolution of the Corinth Rift and its implications for the Late Cenozoic evolution of the Aegean. Geophysical Journal International 126: 11–53.

Ashmole Yalouris (1967) Olympia, the Sculptures of the Temple of Zeus. London: Phaidon Press.

10.

Avallone

Briole

Agatza-Balodimou

, et al. (2004) Analysis of eleven years of deformation measured by GPS in the Corinth Rift laboratory area. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 336: 301–311.

11.

Benedetti

Finkel

King

, et al. (2003) Motion on the Kaparelli fault (Greece) prior to the 1981 earthquake sequence determined from ³⁶Cl cosmogenic dating. Terra Nova 15(2): 118–124.

12.

Bernard

Briole

Meyer

, et al. (1997) The Ms=6.2, June 15, 1995 Aigion earthquake (Greece): Evidence for low angle normal faulting in the Corinth rift. Journal of Seismology 1: 131–150.

13.

Bon

(1951) Le Péloponnèse Byzantin Jusqu' En 1204. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.

14.

Briole

Rigo

Lyon-Caen

, et al. (2000) Active deformation of the Corinth rift, Greece: Results from repeated global positioning system surveys between 1990 and 1995. Journal of Geophysical Research 105(B11): 25605–25625.

15.

Broneer

(1926) Excavations at Corinth 1925: Area North of Basilica. American Journal of Archaeology 30: 49–57.

16.

Brown

(2008) The City of Corinth and Urbanism in Late Antique Greece. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

17.

Cameron

(1985) Procopius and the Sixth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press.

18.

Cherf

(1992) Carbon-14 chronology for the late-Roman fortifications of the Thermopylai frontier. Journal of Roman Archaeology 5: 261–264.

19.

Clarke

Davies

England

, et al. (1997) Geodetic estimate of seismic hazard in the Gulf of Korinthos. Geophysical Research Letters 24(11): 1303–1306.

20.

Collier

REL

Pantosti

D'Addezio

, et al. (1998) Paleoseismicity of the 1981 Corinth earthquake fault: Seismic contribution to extensional strain in central Greece and implications for seismic hazard. Journal of Geophysical Research 103(B12): 30001–30019.

21.

Croke

Crow

(1983) Procopius and Dara. The Journal of Roman Studies 73: 143–159.

22.

Cundy

Gaki-Papanastassiou

Papanastassiou

, et al. (2010) Geological and geomorphological evidence of recent coastal uplift along a major Hellenic normal fault system (the Kamena Vourla fault zone, NW Evoikos Gulf, Greece). Marine Geology 271: 156–164.

23.

Dengate

(1981) Coin hoards from the Gymnasium area at Corinth. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 50: 147–188.

24.

Downey

(1935/2004) Introduction-procopius buildings. In: Henderson

(ed.) Procopius VII LCL 343, the Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge & London: Harvard University Press, pp.IX–XIX.

25.

Downey

(1947) The composition of Procopius De aedificiis. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 78: 171–183.

26.

Evagelatou-Notara (1987/1988) Kai ta polla tis Peloponnisou seismou gegonasi paranaloma. In: Proceedings of the third conference on Peloponnesian studies, Kalamata, Greece, pp.427–448.

27.

Evans

JAS

(1970) Justinian and the historian Procopius. Greece and Rome 17(2): 218–223.

28.

Evans

JAS

(2000) The Age of Justinian-the Circumstances on Imperial Power. London & New York: Routledge.

29.

Fallmerayer

JPH

(1830/2002) Geschichte der Halbinsel Morea während des Mittelalters. Erster Theil. Athens: Megali Poreia (transl. in Greek by Softzoglou

30.

Galanopoulos

(1960) Tsunamis observed on the coasts of Greece from antiquity to present time. Annals of Geophysics 13: 369–386.

31.

Galanopoulos

(1981) The damaging shocks and the earthquake potential in Greece. Annales Geologic Pays Hellenic 30: 648–724.

32.

Galanopoulos

Comninakis

Delibasis

(1964) A tsunami generated by an Earth slump set in motion without shock. Annales Geologic Pays Hellenic 16: 93–110.

33.

Ganas

Roberts

Memou

(1998) Segment boundaries, the 1894 ruptures and strain patterns along the Atalanti fault, Central Greece. Journal of Geodynamics 26: 461–486.

34.

Ganas

Spina

Alexandropoulou

, et al. (2018) The Corini active fault in southwestern Viotia region, central Greece: Segmentation, stress analysis and extensional strain patterns. Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 40: 297–308.

35.

Gardiner

(1925) Olympia-Its History and Remains. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

36.

Georgopoulou-Verra

(2002) I proti oikodomiki phasi tou Kastrou tis patras. In: Themelis

Konti

(eds) Acts of the Internat. Sympos. Early Christian Messene and Olympia-Urban and Agrarian Area in the Western Peloponnese. Athens: Society of Messenian Archaeol. Studies & Institute for Byzantine Res./NHRF, pp.161–173.

37.

Georgopoulou-Verra

(2004) Un unknown Palaiochristianic Complex in Arachovitika Achaias. Thorakion-A Volume dedicated to P. Lazaridis. Athens: Ministry of Culture (in Greek with Engl. Abstr.), pp.75–86.

38.

Greatrex

(1994) The dates of Procopius’ works. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 18: 101–115.

39.

Greatrex

(2003) Recent work on Procopius and the composition of WarsVIII. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 27: 45–67.

40.

Guidoboni

Comastri

(2005) Catalogue of Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Mediterranean Area From the 11th to the 15th Century. Rome-Bologna: INGV-SGA.

41.

Guidoboni

Comastri

Traina

(1994) Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area Up to the 10th Century. Rome-Bologna: ING-SGA.

42.

Hadler

Vött

Koster

, et al. (2011) Lechaion, the ancient harbour of Corinth (Peloponnese, Greece) destroyed by tsunamigenic impact. In: 2nd INQUA-IGCP-567 international workshop on active tectonics, earthquake geology, archaeology & engineering, Corinth, Greece.

43.

Haury

(1891) Procopiana. Augsburg.

44.

Hermann

(1962) Reallexicon Für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann-Erdbeben.

45.

Hertzeberg

(1902) Istoria Tis Ellados (Transl. by P. Karolides). Athens: P.D. Sakellarios.

46.

Hollenstein

Müller

Geiger

, et al. (2008) Crustal motion and deformation in Greece from a decade of GPS measurements, 1993–2003. Tectonophysics 449: 17–40.

47.

Hunger

(1969) On the imitation (MIMHSIS) of antiquity in byzantine literature. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 23: 15–38.

48.

Jackson

Gagnepain

Houseman

, et al. (1982) Seismicity, normal faulting, and the geomorphological development of the Gulf of Corinth (Greece): The Corinth earthquakes of February and March 1981. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 57: 377–397.

49.

Kaldellis

(2004) Procopius of Caesarea: Tyranny, History, and Philosophy at the End of Antiquity. Philadelphia.

50.

Kaupert

Dörpfeld

(1882) Olympia und Umgegend: Zwei Karten und ein Situationsplan. Berlin.

51.

Kokkalas

Pavlides

Koukouvelas

, et al. (2007) Paleoseismicity of the Kaparelli fault (eastern Corinth Gulf): Evidence for earthquake recurrence and fault behavior. Bollettino della Societa Geologica Italiana 126(2): 387–395.

52.

Kolaiti

Papadopoulos

Morhange

, et al. (2017) Palaeoenvironmental evolution of the ancient harbor of Lechaion (Corinth Gulf, Greece): Were changes driven by human impacts and gradual coastal processes or catastrophic tsunamis? Marine Geology 392: 105–121.

53.

Konstantinou

Papadopoulos

Fokaefs

, et al. (2005) Empirical relationships between aftershock area dimensions and magnitude for earthquakes in the Mediterranean Sea region. Tectonophysics 403: 95–115.

54.

Kontopoulos

Avramidis

(2003) A late holocene record of environmental changes from the Aliki lagoon, Egion, North Peloponnesus, Greece. Quaternary International 111: 75–90.

55.

Kortekaas

Papadopoulos

Ganas

, et al. (2011) Geological identification of historical tsunamis in the Gulf of Corinth, Central Greece. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 11: 2029–2041.

56.

Koumousi-Vyenopoulou

(1996-1998) Excavation “evidence” for the AD 552 earthquake at patras. Athens Annals of Archaeology 29(31): 51–56.

57.

Koureda-Raptaki (2004) Palaeochristianiki in Antikyra, a first approach. Thorakion- A Volume dedicated to P. Lazaridis:109-122. Athens: Greek Ministry of Culture.

58.

Kraft

Rapp

Gifford

, et al. (2005) Coastal change and archaeological settings in Elis. Hesperia The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens 74(1): 1–39.

59.

Makropoulos

Kaviris

Kouskouna

(2012) An updated and extended earthquake catalogue for Greece and adjacent areas since 1900. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 12: 1425–1430.

60.

Mallet

(1853) Third report on the facts of earthquake phenomena. Rep. 22nd Meeting British Association for the Advancement of Science. London. pp.1–176.

61.

Mechernich

Schneiderwind

Mason

, et al. (2018) The seismic history of the Pisia fault (eastern Corinth rift, Greece) from fault plane weathering features and cosmogenic ^{36 Cl dating}. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 123: 4266–4284.

62.

Meyer

(1979) Olympia. Der kleine Pauly Lexikon der Antike. Band 4. München, pp.279–287.

63.

Moretti

Sakellariou

Lykousis

, et al. (2003) The Gulf of Corinth: An active half graben? Journal of Geodynamics 36(1–2): 323–340.

64.

Morhange

Pirazzoli

Evelpidou

, et al. (2012) Late Holocene tectonic uplift and the silting up of lechaion, the Western Harbor of Ancient Corinth, Greece. Geoarchaeology 27: 278–283.

65.

Morrisson

(2007) Le Monde Byzantin: I, L' Empire Romain d' Orient (330-641). Athens: Polis.

66.

Mourtzas

Kissas

Kolaiti

(2014) Archaeological and geomorphological indicators of the historical sea level changes and the related palaeogeographical reconstruction of the ancient foreharbour of lechaion, East Corinth Gulf (Greece). Quaternary Internat 332: 151–171.

67.

Pallas

(1957) Excavation in Old Corinth. Prakt. Archaeol. Etair 1954: 210–218.

68.

Pallas

(1962) Excavation near Filiatra (Triphylia). Archaeol. Delt 16: 122–125.

69.

Pallas

(1978) Excavation of the Basilica in Kraneion, Corinth. Prakt. Archaeol. Etair. 1976, Teux. A΄. pp.163–195.

70.

Pantosti

Collier

D'Addezio

, et al. (1996) Direct geological evidence for prior earthquakes on the 1981 Corinth fault (Central Greece). Geophysical Research Letters 23(25): 3795–3798.

71.

Papadopoulos

(1989) Seismic and volcanic activities and aseismic movements as plate motion components in the Aegean area. Tectonophysics 167: 31–39.

72.

Papadopoulos

Baskoutas

Fokaefs

(2014b) Historical seismicity of the Kyparissiakos Gulf, western Peloponnese, Greece. Bollettino di Geofisica Teorica e Applicata 55: 389–404.

73.

Papadopoulos

Plessa

Vassilopoulou

(2000a) A new tsunami catalogue of the Corinth Rift: 373 B.C.-A.D. 2000. In: Papadopoulos

(ed.) Historical Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Corinth Rift, Central Greece. Athens: Institute of Geodynamics, National Observatory of Athens, pp.121–126.

74.

Papadopoulos

Drakatos

Papanastassiou

, et al. (2000b) Preliminary results about the catastrophic earthquake of 7 September 1999 in Athens, Greece. Seismological Research Letters 71: 318–329.

75.

Papadopoulos

Gràcia

Urgeles

, et al. (2014a) Historical and pre-historical tsunamis in the Mediterranean and its connected seas: Geological signatures, generation mechanisms and coastal impacts. Marine Geology 354: 81–109.

76.

Papadopoulos

(2007) Tsunami Hazard in the Eastern Mediterranean: Strong earthquakes and tsunamis in Cyprus and the levantine Sea. Natural Hazards 40: 503–526.

77.

Papadopoulos

(2009) Tsunamis, chapter 17. In: Woodward

(ed.) Physical Geography of the Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.493–512.

78.

Papadopoulos

(2011) A Seismic History of Crete: Earthquakes and Tsunamis, 2000 BC-AD 2010. Athens: Ocelotos Publishing.

79.

Papadopoulos

Chalkis

(1984) Tsunamis observed in Greece and the surrounding area from antiquity up to the present times. Marine Geology 56: 309–317.

80.

Papadopoulos

Karasthathis

Charalambakis

, et al. (2009) A storm of strong earthquakes in Greece during 2008. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union 90(46): 425–426.

81.

Papaioannou

Papadopoulos

Pavlides

(2004) The earthquake of 426BC in N. Evoikos Gulf Revisited: Amalgamation of two different strong earthquake events? Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece 36: 1477–1481.

82.

Papapostolou

(1978) Excavation in street Trion Navarchon kai Maizonos 209-211. Archaeological Deltion 33(B1): 89–91 (in Greek).

83.

Papazachos

Comninakis

Papadimitriou

, et al. (1984) Properties of the February-March 1981 seismic sequence in the alkyonides Gulf of central Greece. Annales Geophysicae 2(5): 537–544.

84.

Papazachos

Papazachou

(1997) The Earthquakes of Greece. Thessaloniki: Ziti Publishing.

85.

Papazachos

Papazachou

(2003) The Earthquakes of Greece. Thessaloniki: Ziti Publishing.

86.

Pavlides

Caputo

(2004) Magnitude versus faults’ surface parameters: quantitative relationships from the Aegean Region. Tectonophysics 380: 159–188.

87.

Perissoratis

Zacharaki

Zimianitis (1997) Contribution of marine geology to enginnering projects: Maliakos submerged tunnel and Aegion harbor. In: Marinos

, et al. (eds) Engineering Geology and the Environment. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp.2845–2850.

88.

Perrey

(1848) Mémoire sur les tremblements de terre ressentis dans la peninsule Turco-Hellenique et en Syrie. Académie Royale des Sciences, Belgique 23: 40.

89.

Petropoulos

(2002) Roman thermes near Messolonghi. In: Second international historical & archaeological congress on Aetoloakarnania, Agrinio.

90.

Pirazzoli

Laborel

Stiros

(1996) Earthquake clustering in the Eastern Mediterranean during historical times. Journal of Geophysical Research 101(B3): 6083–6097.

91.

Reicherter

(2011) Frontiers of earthquake archaeology: the Olympia and Samicum cases (Peloponnese, Greece). In: Second INQUA-IGCP-567 international workshop on active tectonics, earthquake geology, archaeology & engineering, Corinth, Greece.

92.

Roberts

Jackson

(1991) Active normal faulting in central Greece: An overview. In: Roberts

Yielding

Freeman

(eds) The Geometry of Normal Faults, vol. 56. London: Geological Society London Special Publications, pp.125–142.

93.

Sakellariou

Lykousis

Alexandri

, et al. (2007) Faulting, seismic-stratigraphic architecture and Late Quaternary evolution of the Gulf of alkyonides basin?east Gulf of Corinth, Central Greece. Basin Research 19: 273–295.

94.

Sanders

GDR

(2003) Recent developments in the chronology of byzantine Corinth. In: Williams

Bookidis

(eds) Corinth-The Centenary: 1896-1996, vol. 20. Athens: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens, pp.385–399.

95.

Saradi

(2006) The Byzantine City in the Sixth Century-Literary Images and Historical Reality. Athens: Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies.

96.

Schmidt

(1879) Studien Über Erdbeben. Leipzig: Carl Scholtze.

97.

Scott

(1985) Malalas, the Secret History, and Justinian’s propaganda. Dumbarton Oaks Papers 39: 99–109.

98.

Scranton

(1957) Mediaeval Architecture in the Central Area of Corinth, Results of Excavations Conducted by the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, vol. xi. Princeton, NJ: American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

99.

Shebalin

Karnik

Hadzievski

(eds) (1974) Catalogue of Earthquakes, Part II, Prior to 1901, UNDP/UNESCO Survey of the Seismicity of the Balkan Region. Skopje, pp.69.

100.

Sieberg

(1932) Untersuchungen über Erdbeben und Bruchschollenbau im östlichen Miettelmeersgebiet. Denkschriften der Medizinisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena 2: 184–224.

101.

Sinn

(1992) Bericht über das Forschungsprojekt «Olympia während der römischen Kaiserzeit».I. Die Arbeiten von 1987-1992. Nikephoros 5: 75–84.

102.

Stucchi

Rovida

Gomez Capera

, et al. (2013) The SHARE European Earthquake Catalogue (SHEEC) 1000–1899. Journal of Seismology 17: 523–544.

103.

Themelis

(2002) Ysteroromaiki kai Protobyzantini Messene. In: Themelis kai

P.G.

Konti

(eds) Protobyzantini Messene kai Olympia, Astikos kai Agrotikos Kosmos sti Dytiki Peloponnisso. Soc. of Messenian Archaeol. Studies & Inst. for Byzantine Res./NHRF: 20-58. Athens.

104.

Triantafyllou

Katsiyannis

Papadopoulos

(2022) Historical earthquakes, tsunamis and comets in the eastern Mediterranean and the Sinai sub-plate: Evidence from two little known Greek documents. Natural Hazards. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-022-05736-7, in press.

105.

Triantafyllou

(1995) A historic lexicon of Patras. B. Patras, p.2294.

106.

Tsourti

(2004) Antikyra in Boeotia-A numismatic testimony. Thorakion- A Volume dedicated to P. Lazaridis. Athens: Ministry of Culture, pp.123–128.

107.

Turner

Leeder

Andrews

, et al. (2010) Testing rival tectonic uplift models for the lechaion Gulf in the Gulf of Corinth rift. Journal of the Geological Society of London 167: 1237–1250.

108.

Valkaniotis

Pavlides

(2016) Late quaternary and Holocene faults of the northern Gulf of Corinth Rift, Central Greece. In: Bulletin of the geological society of Greece, Proceedings of the 14th internatinal congress, vol. L, Thessaloniki.

109.

Vött

Bareth

Brückner

, et al. (2011a) Olympia’s harbour site Pheia (Elis, western Peloponnese, Greece) destroyed by tsunami impact. Die Erde 142(3): 259–288.

110.

Vött

Fischer

Hadler

, et al. (2011b) Sediment burial of ancient Olympia (Peloponnese, Greece) by high-energy flood deposits- The Olympia tsunami hypothesis. In: Second INQUA-IGCP-567 international workshop on active tectonics, earthquake geology, archaeology & engineering, Corinth, Greece.

111.

Wells

Coppersmith

(1994) New empirical relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area, surface displacement. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 84: 974–1002.

112.

Wessel

Smith

WHF

(1991) Free software helps map and display data. Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union 72(41): 441–446.

113.

Yalouri

(2004) Early Christian basilica beneath the church pf St John the Theologian at Tithorea in Phokis. Thorakion-A Volume dedicated to P. Lazaridis. Athens: Ministry of Culture (in Greek with Engl. Abstr.), pp.87–100.

114.

Yalouris

(1960) Pheia. Archaeologikon Deltion 16(B): 126.

115.

Zygouri

Verroios

Kokkalas

, et al. (2008) Scaling properties within the Gulf of Corinth, Greece: Comparison between offshore and onshore active faults. Tectonophysics 453: 193–210.

116.

Diodorus Siculus, Library of History XII, Books 33–40, Loeb Classical Library 423, 1967 (transl. Walton ): Harvard Univ. Press.

117.

Procopius VII, Buildings IV, ii.23–28, Loeb Classical Library 343, 2002 (transl. by Dewing ). London England & Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

118.

Procopius VII, Buildings IV, ii.28-iii.6, Loeb Classical Library 343, 2002 (transl. by Dewing ). London England & Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

119.

Procopius VIII, History of the Wars VIII.xxv, 16–23, Loeb Classical Library 217, 1928 (transl. by Dewing ). London England & Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

120.

Procopius VI, Secret History or Anekdota xviii. 41–45, Loeb Classical Library 290, 2004 (transl. by Dewing ). London England & Cambridge Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press.

121.

Strabo, Geographica, ed., Paris 1966-89;

122.

Thucydides, Epitome historiarum, ed., Oxford 1942.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB