Monumental Inca remains and past seismic disasters: A relational database to support archaeoseismological investigations and cultural heritage preservation in the Andes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2021.103447Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Databases foster considerably the archaeoseismological fieldwork .

  • Seismic hazard assessment require innovative and cross-disciplinary approaches.

  • Mitigating the seismic risk is a huge challenge for Andean Heritage.

  • Archaeoseismological research has a role to play in Disaster Risk Reduction.

  • In emerging countries databases represent a low- and “right tech” monitoring device.

Abstract

As recent dramatic and numerous examples demonstrate, earthquakes still constitute a significant threat to cultural heritage (Bam 2003; L’Aquila 2009; Haiti 2010; Nepal 2015). By damaging the historical legacy, telluric phenomena affect economic and touristic incomes and alter regional identities and collective psyche. In the Andes, as in other emerging regions across the globe, deficient seismic hazard assessments, constant lack of resources, and inadequate maintenance programs are additional challenges for cultural heritage management. As part of our archaeoseismological investigation in the Cusco area (Peru), we developed a relational database, which seeks to identify, record and inventory seismic damage in pre-Columbian architecture. This work presents the main characteristics of the structure and design of the RISC (“Risque sismique, Incas et Société à Cusco”) database and its contribution in supporting the fieldwork organization and facilitating the data acquisition. The collected architectonical evidence constitutes the first large archaeoseismological dataset in South America and will provide valuable complementary data in Peru to regional seismic hazard studies. We here aim to demonstrate that an ergonomic and user-friendly interface has a role to play in supervising and preserving the cultural heritage in active seismic areas. By converting ad-hoc surveys into routine inspections, RISC could become an effective low-tech monitoring system, providing relevant support for disaster risk reduction plans in archaeological sites conservation. We stress the necessity of adopting cost-effective and easy-to-implement tools for cultural heritage monitoring in emerging countries through this case study. Our database may represent a relevant methodological background and template for further initiatives in both fields of archaeoseismology and cultural heritage protection.

Introduction

As a social, cultural and symbolic act, architecture and, more specifically, the built heritage is an integral part of the collective memories and traditions (Caimi, 2014; Garnier et al., 2013; Ortega et al., 2017). In 1972, during the General Conference of the UNESCO, State parties agreed on the necessity of “ensuring the identification, protection, conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of the cultural and natural heritage” (UNESCO, 1972, Art.4). To do so, the international organization proposed several guidelines related to seismic hazard mitigation (UNESCO, 2007, p. 173): “reducing risk through ensuring maintenance,” “strengthening buildings,” “improving earthquake warning systems” as well as “developing comprehensive earthquake plans.” The creation and development of monitoring systems thus represent a prerequisite to follow those preparedness guidelines correctly.

Identifying earthquake evidence and damage in archaeological remains has long been seen as a re-active investigation. Archaeoseismologists intervened “after” a seismic event with the objective to improve the seismic catalog and thus better assess the regional seismic hazard. Hence, ancient human settlements and monuments have turned out to be valuable markers of past seismic activity, providing complementary information to the traditional geomorphological and paleoseismological studies and filling the gap between prehistorical and instrumental seismology (Karakhanyan et al., 2010; Noller, 2001; Silva et al., 2005; Similox-Tohon et al., 2006). The recent shift from qualitative to (semi)quantitative methods not only strengthens the archaeoseismological methodology and its scientific basis (Ambraseys, 2006; Galadini et al., 2006; Sintubin, 2013) but also provides a great opportunity to connect the research field to pro-active strategies such as risk management and disaster risk reduction (DRR) programs in the context of cultural heritage protection (Jusseret, 2014; Sintubin, 2011). Indeed, the large-scale registration of Earthquake Archaeological Effects (EAE – Rodríguez-Pascua et al., 2011), the use of remote sensing tools (Lidar, photogrammetry – Forlin et al., 2018; Yerli et al., 2010) as well as the construction of seismic deformation simulation thanks to 3D models (Hinzen et al., 2013; Hinzen and Montabert, 2017; Pecchioli et al., 2018) constitute important steps towards monitoring strategies of archaeological remains. Addressing the impact of past earthquakes on cultural heritage has turned into an emerging priority, particularly in the Mediterranean area (e.g., Marchetti et al., 2017; Montabert et al., 2020; Remondino and Rizzi, 2010). However, in South America and across the High Andes, research is still at its early stage (Aguilar et al., 2015; Briceño et al., 2018; Noel et al., 2019). In Peru, considered as the most vulnerable country of the continent in terms of seismic hazard (Stillwell, 1992; World Bank, 2012), increasing the risk preparedness and resilience of built heritage requires innovative and multipurpose approaches. To fill this gap in the Cusco region, we propose the implementation of a new database designed to characterize the level of damage of the cultural heritage facing earthquake threats (or even broader natural disastrous events).

Section snippets

Research aim

The Cusco area stands out for its rich pre-Columbian and colonial heritage. While the area and its monuments were severely affected by past ground shaking episodes, the current seismic hazard remains poorly assessed and its implications in terms of heritage vulnerability sometimes even overlooked (Carlotto et al., 2007; Noel et al., 2019). In the framework of the archaeoseismological project RISC (“Risque sismique, Incas et Société à Cusco”), we developed a user-friendly database, whose aim was

Seismic risk in the Andes

Social vulnerability to earthquakes is a crucial challenge in the coming years, exacerbated by the constant and rapid urbanization processes (Jackson, 2006). The increasing exposure is probably even more acute in South America and especially all along the Andes. Actually, the mountain range that borders the western part of the continent concentrates an overwhelming majority of the current seismic strain and deformation rate (Costa et al., 2006; Dewey and Lamb, 1992). The Andean region is also

Overview of the RISC project

Famous worldwide for its cultural heritage, including notably the Cusco city and the Machu Picchu archaeological site inscribed both on the World Heritage List (last accessed July 06, 2021), the Cusco region (Peru) is less known for its recurrent and potentially destructive seismicity. As various Andean regions distant from the subduction trench and as explained in 3.1, the Cusco area suffers from a poor understanding of its crustal seismicity. The concise historical catalog (Silgado Ferro, 1978

Facilitating archaeoseismological survey

The archaeoseismological survey carried out within the Cusco area involved nine persons during two field campaigns. Those two campaigns of three months in total led to the inventory of more than 5000 architectural features in 17 archaeological sites (Fig. 1a). The implementation of a tailor-made database contributed to improving significantly the speed and efficiency of the fieldwork. Three semi-automatized and multifunctional entry processes were particularly useful: the creation of several

Conclusions

Despite the challenges and difficulties, there is an absolute necessity to involve more deeply science in risk assessment topics and better communicate results to the public and decision-makers (Stewart et al., 2018). Research methodologies and approaches may contribute notably to raise awareness about the seismic threat on cultural heritage and support adapted DRR programs. Monitoring archaeological site has turned to be a key stage in implementing pro-active measures to face the seismic

Author Statement

Andy Combey: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis and Writing. Agnès Tricoche: Methodology, Supervision. Laurence Audin: Supervision, Funding acquisition. David Gandreau: Supervision. Carlos Benavente Escobár: Resources. José Bastante Abuhadba: Validation, Resources. Hernando Tavera: Resources. Miguel Ángel Rodríguez-Pascua: Validation, Supervision.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work would not have been possible without the cooperation of the Decentralized Department of the Ministry of Culture from Cusco and the Geopark of Machu Picchu. We also thank Léo Marconato, Lorena Rosell, Peter Molnar, Sara Neustadt, Fabrizio Delgado and Xavier Robert for their precious assistance during the field campaigns. The authors would like to express their gratitude to Hélène Dessales for her enthusiasm in sharing her feedbacks on the ACoR database as well as to Philippe Garnier

References (93)

  • L. Pecchioli et al.

    Evidence of seismic damages on ancient Roman buildings at Ostia: an arch mechanics approach

    J. Archaeol. Sci.: Report

    (2018)
  • M.A. Rodríguez-Pascua et al.

    A comprehensive classification of Earthquake Archaeological Effects (EAE) in archaeoseismology: application to ancient remains of Roman and Mesoamerican cultures

    Quat. Int.

    (2011)
  • P.G. Silva et al.

    Archaeoseismic record at the ancient roman city of baelo claudia (cádiz, south Spain)

    Tectonophysics

    (2005)
  • D. Similox-Tohon et al.

    The identification of an active fault by a multidisciplinary study at the archaeological site of Sagalassos (SW Turkey)

    Tectonophysics

    (2006)
  • M. Sintubin

    Archaeoseismology: past, present and future

    Quat. Int.

    (2011)
  • F.M. Abed et al.

    Architectural and cultural heritage conservation using low-cost cameras

    Applied Research Journal

    (2017)
  • Z. Aguilar et al.
    (2017)
  • S. Agurto Calvo

    Estudios acerca de la construcción, arquitectura y planeamiento incas

    (1987)
  • F. Anichini et al.

    A database for archaeological data recording and analysis

    MapPapers

    (2012)
  • (2010)
  • C. Beauval et al.

    A new seismic hazard model for Ecuador

    Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.

    (2018)
  • C. Benavente Escobar et al.

    Neotectónica y Peligro Sísmico en la Región Cusco (No. Boletín No.55), Serie C Geodinámica e Ingeniería Geológica

    (2013)
  • E. Berg

    Using a GIS-based database as a platform for cultural heritage management of sites and monuments in Norway

  • G. Brando et al.

    Structural survey and empirical seismic vulnerability assessment of dwellings in the historical centre of Cusco, Peru

    Int. J. Architect. Herit.

    (2019)
  • C. Briceño et al.

    Seismic vulnerability assessment of a 17th century adobe church in the Peruvian Andes

    Int. J. Architect. Herit.

    (2018)
  • J. Cabrera et al.

    Surface rupture associated with a 5.3-mb earthquake: the 5 april 1986 cuzco earthquake and kinematics of the chincheros-qoricocha faults of the high Andes, Peru

    Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.

    (1998)
  • A. Caimi

    Cultures constructives vernaculaires et résilience: entre savoir, pratique et technique: appréhender le vernaculaire en tant que génie du lieu et génie parasinistre

    (2014)
  • C. Cancino

    Damage Assessment of Historic Earthen Buildings after the August 15, 2007 Pisco, Peru Earthquake

    (2011)
  • P. Canuti et al.
  • R. Caputo et al.

    Archaeo- and palaeoseismological investigations in Northern Thessaly (Greece): insights for the seismic potential of the region

    Nat. Hazards

    (2006)
  • V. Carlotto et al.

    La Geología en la conservación de Machupicchu, serie I Patrimonio y Geoturismo No1

    (2007)
  • C.H. Costa et al.

    An overview of the main quaternary deformation of south America

    Rev. Asoc. Geol. Argent.

    (2006)
  • R. Das et al.

    A probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of southern Peru and Northern Chile

    Eng. Geol.

    (2020)
  • C. Davis et al.

    Identifying archaeological evidence of past earthquakes in a contemporary disaster scenario: case studies of damage, resilience and risk reduction from the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake and past seismic events within the Kathmandu Valley UNESCO World Heritage Property (Nepal)

    J. Seismol.

    (2019)
  • V. Despotaki et al.

    Evaluation of seismic risk on UNESCO cultural heritage sites in europe

    Int. J. Architect. Herit.

    (2018)
  • H. Dessales

    The Villa of Diomedes, the Making of a Roman Villa in Pompeii

    (2020)
  • H. Dessales et al.

    Un database per studiare le riparazioni post-sismiche

  • H.K. Dhonju et al.

    Feasibility study of low-cost image-based heritage documentation in Nepal

    Int. Arch. Photogram. Rem. Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci.

    (2017)
  • D. Díaz Fuentes et al.

    Seismic vulnerability and risk assessment of historic constructions: the case of masonry and adobe churches in Italy and Chile

  • P. England et al.

    Uncharted seismic risk

    Nature Geosci, Commentary

    (2011)
  • G.E. Ericksen et al.

    The Cusco, Peru, earthquake of may 21, 1950

    Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am.

    (1954)
  • B.M. Feilden et al.

    Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites

    (1998)
  • S.B.M. Feilden

    Between two earthquakes

    Cultural Property in Seismic Zones

    (1987)
  • F. Ferrigni et al.

    ATLAS of local seismic cultures (supplement in Stop Disasters)

    The United Nations International Decade for Natural Disasters Reduction Newsletter

    (1993)
  • F. Galadini et al.

    Archaeoseismology: methodological issues and procedure

    J. Seismol.

    (2006)
  • J. Gamboa

    Archaeological heritage at risk: preservation, destruction and perspectives for pre-columbian sites from the periphery of trujillo, Peru

    Complutum

    (2016)
  • Cited by (6)

    • Reassessing the seismic hazard in the Cusco area, Peru: New contribution coming from an archaeoseismological survey on Inca remains

      2022, Quaternary International
      Citation Excerpt :

      In archaeoseismology, an unequivocal characterization and quantification of such evidence turn out to be, a key step in proving or ruling out the occurrence of a seismic event (Rapp, 1986; Stiros, 1996; Ambraseys, 2006). In the framework of this research, we rely on the well-established “Earthquake Archaeological Effect” (EAE) classification established by Rodríguez-Pascua et al. (2011) and adapted to the Inca context by Combey et al. (2021). In 2019, we carried out a large and unprecedented archaeoseismological survey of Inca sites in the Cusco region (Combey et al., 2021).

    • Introductory paper of the 8th International Symposium on Andean Geodynamics (ISAG) special number

      2022, Journal of South American Earth Sciences
      Citation Excerpt :

      When these infrastructures are pre-Columbian historical monuments, their conservation in the face of a seismic hazard is a particular challenge. Combey et al. (2021) have developed a database, RISC (”Seismic Risk, Incas and Society in Cusco”), which makes it possible to inventory the damage created by earthquakes on the pre-Columbian architecture in the Cusco area. This database is intended to become a reference tool to monitor this damage in the future and facilitate conservation actions.

    View full text