COMMENTS

No clear evidence exists about the actual location and geometry of the source 
of the 1688 earthquake. The solution proposed is essentially that adopted by 
Boschi et al. (1995) with additional constraints from Massaro et al. (1996). The 
main features of this source are based on the following considerations: 

a) the strong asymmetry of the drainage network of the Tammaro River basin, 
which may suggest a landscape evolution driven by a NE-dipping normal fault
with a strike similar to the average strike of the Tammaro River;

b) the Tammaro basin as well as the surface projection of the source included in 
the Database fall about in the middle of the area where the surface effects of 
the 1688 earthquake (landslides, surface breaks) were strongest (see picture in 
Database);

c) the source boundaries can be defined based on two well-delineated transverse 
lineaments (Calore Line and San Giorgio Matese-Circello Line) and further 
constrained by well-located instrumental seismicity recorded by the ING seismic 
network between 1990 and 1997.


OPEN QUESTIONS

1) Is the Tammaro source truly responsible for the 1688 earthquake?

2) What are the relations between the 1688 and 1456 earthquakes? Were they 
generated by the same source, as suggested by the damage patterns, or by two 
different ones, as proposed by the Database?

3) Are the  faults described by Bousquet et al. (1993) and the linear fires 
described by Bulifon (1693) consistent with the 1688 source as included in the 
Database? Are they the a direct surface expression of the 1688 seismogenic 
source?

4) What does the ~7km gap between this source and the adjacent Bojano Basin 
source represent? Could it be evidence for the existence of an unidentified (and 
possibly underestimated because the two adjacent sources have been assumed to be 
too long) seismogenic source?

