Introduction:
Global Positioning System-based convergence rate between India
and southern Tibet is estimated as 20 �3 mm=yr (Larson
et al., 1999). Despite this fast convergence, the seismicity rate
of the Himalaya has been remarkably low, as only ∼50% of
this plate boundary has ruptured during the last 200 years.
This long-lived deficit in seismic productivity has led many
to believe that the region holds potential for more than one
magnitude ≥8:0 earthquake (Ambraseys and Jackson, 2003).
The Himalaya plate boundary has generated three great earthquakes
during the last century; however, since the 1950 Assam
earthquake (Mw 8.0), there has been quiescence, with the gap
in time and space particularly noted on its central segment.
Khattri (1987) proposed that the region comprising the
Garhwal and Kumaun provinces and the western parts of
Nepal falls in a seismic gap. Referred to as the “Central Gap,”
this region covers ∼600 km length of the Himalayan arc, and
it arguably represents an unruptured segment between the
sources of the 1905 Kangra M 7.8 and 1934 Nepal–Bihar
M8.0 earthquakes (Fig. 1). However, the extent to which older
earthquakes might have filled the gap is contested on various
counts. The uncertainties in locations and magnitudes of pretwentieth
century earthquakes; in particular the 1803 and
1505 events, are also being debated (Ambraseys and Douglas,
2004; Rajendran and Rajendran, 2005, 2011). Considering the
large and densely populated regions that are likely to be affected,
reconstructing the seismic history of the Himalaya is
a key issue in the seismic-hazard assessment.
The history and cultural heritage of the regions within the
central gap is much longer than the currently estimated interseismic
interval of ∼500 years for great earthquakes; and, therefore,
it provides opportunity to interrogate these issues. For
example, the state of the Hindu temples built as early as
fifth–sixth century A.D. is suggestive of the events that might
have affected them. Thus, we regard the heritage structures
of the Kumaun–Garhwal Himalaya as archeological seismic
sensors that can be used to assess the history of damaging
earthquakes. We are not aware of any studies on the seismic
performance of the temples in the Garhwal Himalaya, but
models of the performance of similar multistoried structures
in Nepal show a fundamental time period less than 0.6 s (Jaishi
et al., 2003). Because this is within the range of natural period
of a wide variety of soils, there is a high probability for such
structures to approach a state of partial resonance during large
earthquakes. The spatial distribution of damage, response of
specific structures, and models based on their structural elements
could lead to the location and magnitude of pre-twentieth century
earthquakes.
The architectural style showed only minor variations between
different clans and their rulers, and the constructions
generally consist of a common plan, which used large and heavy
rock units arranged on top of each other, without mortar
(Fig. 2). As a society whose social milieu revolved around
the temples for ages (>1000 years), the temple archives carried
through generations serve as an important and often the only
source of information on its history including the impact of
major natural calamities. Interpretation of such records is,
however, challenging due to biases in reporting, inconsistencies
in the calendars, errors in translating scripts, shifting of the
province capitals, and renaming of towns and cities. Further,
the historical structures have often been affected by territorial
wars, vandalism, and other nondocumented reasons. Despite
these interpretational limitations, we believe that the historical
archives provide useful clues for isolating time windows for
potential earthquake-related damage (e.g., Rajendran and
Rajendran, 2002). In this paper we use the historical background
and the present state of some of the heritage structures
to obtain spatial and temporal constraints on three significant
earthquakes: A.D. 1255, 1505, and 1803. The 1803 earthquake
is used as a calibration event because its effects on heritage
structures are well evidenced even in the Gangetic plains.
Observations from the 1991 Uttarkashi (Mw 6.8) and the
1999 Chamoli (Mw 6.6) earthquakes provide additional comparative
constraints (Figs. 1 and 3 for locations).