Reassessing the Location, Magnitude, and Macroseismic Intensity Map of the 8 April 1893 Svilajnac (Serbia) Earthquake

Abstract

A devastating earthquake took place on 8 April 1893, close to the town of Svilajnac, central Serbia. Over the past decade, significant historical data on the effects of this earthquake has been collected from a variety of sources, including books, scientific publications, reports, newspapers, and coeval chronicles. Additionally, this earthquake was recorded 750 km from the epicenter at the seismological station Rocca di Papa in Rome, Italy. Based on critical review and analysis of the historical data, we demonstrate that the epicentral area of this earthquake was 531 km², and the macroseismic effects were recorded at epicentral distances up to 600 km towards the west (Vienna, Austria) towards the north, up to 500 km (Košice–Michalovce, Slovakia), towards the east up to 460 km (Brašov–Borsec, Romania); and towards the south up to about 300 km (Radoviš, North Macedonia). Finally, we show that the key parameters of the 1893 Svilajnac earthquake are as follows: (1) epicentral intensity, I₀ = IX EMS-98, (2) the estimations of the moment magnitude and focal depth based on the observed intensities, M_W = 6.8 and h = 13 km, respectively, and (3) the epicenter coordinates, 44.160° N and 21.354° E.

1. Introduction

The Republic of Serbia is situated in the central-western Balkans and is surrounded by the Rhodopes and Balkan Mountains to the south-east, the Carpathian Mountains to the north-east, the Dinaric Alps to the south-west, and the Pannonian Basin to the north-west (see Figure 1—top right). The depth of the Moho is around 25 km below the Pannonian Basin and around 45 km below the Dinarides. The epicenters of the 1900–2024 regional earthquakes with M_W ≥ 3.5, which were compiled by USGS [1], are displayed in Figure 1, bottom right. It can be seen that the entire territory of Serbia is seismically active. However, southern parts of Serbia are next to the Mediterranean-Trans-Asian belt, which is characterized by a comparatively high frequency of stronger seismic events, while in north Serbia, which is part of the Pannonian Basin, larger earthquakes are extremely infrequent. In addition to local seismic activity, Serbia is impacted by the Vrancea earthquakes, the epicenter of which is depicted in Figure 1—top right. Figure 1—bottom right, also shows epicenters of the two most catastrophic earthquakes to ever strike former Yugoslavia: the 26 July 1963, M6.0 Skopje earthquake and the 15 April 1979, M6.9 Montenegro earthquake, as well as the three most populous cities in Serbia (Belgrade, Novi Sad, and Niš). Figure 1, on the left, shows central Serbia and the epicenters of earthquakes with M_W ≥ 5.0, which were compiled by the Seismological Survey of Serbia for the period between 1456 and 2010 [2]. Epicenters of the most destructive earthquakes in central Serbia in the past 100 years are also shown. Neither USGS [1] nor Seismological Survey of Serbia [2] mention a single event with magnitude M_W larger than 6 in Serbia.

This study focuses on the two strongest earthquakes on the territory of the Republic of Serbia in the past three hundred years that occurred in its central part in the valleys of the Morava and Resava rivers, the first on 4 February 1739, and the second on 8 April 1893 (24 January 1739, and 27 March 1893, respectively, according to Julian calendar, which was in use in Serbia till 1919). According to the earthquake catalogs of the Seismological Survey of Serbia prior to 2013, the magnitudes of these two earthquakes, evaluated based on macroseismic intensities, were 6.0 and 6.5, respectively [3,4]. Approximately the same values were given in the catalog of Shebalin et al. [5], in which the two magnitudes (once again assessed on the basis of macroseismic data) were 6.1 and 6.6, respectively, while in the SHEEC catalog [6], the same value of 6.42 was given for both earthquakes. However, in the latest (2013) catalog of the Seismological Survey of Serbia [2], the magnitude values for the two earthquakes were reduced from 6.0 to M_W = 5.7 and from 6.5 to M_W = 5.8, respectively, without any references or explanation as to how they obtained these values.

The objective of this paper is to assess the relevance of the recent magnitude values provided by the Seismological Survey of Serbia. Moreover, studying historical earthquakes sheds light on real seismic potential in the valleys of the Morava and Resava rivers. We first analyze in detail the data of the earthquake of 8 April 1893. For this event, in addition to the existing 318 data, we managed to obtain, in the past ten years, another 220 data in the form of written reports on the earthquake effects. These data could be found in published reports, classic works of literature and ancient texts, chronicles, newspaper articles, scientific papers, monographs, and macroseismic maps. For all of the 538 data, the macroseismic intensity was assessed for each particular location using the EMS 98 scale [7]. The intensity values that were estimated for different locations were then shown on the geographic map, together with the isoseismals that were drawn for each intensity degree. Based on the isoseismal areas, we have estimated the magnitude, the hypocentral depth, and the location of the epicenter. By comparing the spatial distribution of the intensity values of IX and VIII degrees with the neotectonic map of Serbia, we have also defined the tectonic blocks and the faults along which the initial movement occurred, as well as the direction of the rupture.

Regarding the 4 February 1739 earthquake, it is necessary to note that it is a less-documented historical event. For this earthquake, we managed to obtain only 8 data—written reports on the effects of the earthquake (in or near the monasteries Dokmir, Rakovac, Ravanica-Vrdnik, and Savina, and in the cities Timisoara and Pečuj). For the same or nearby locations (save for the monastery Savina in Montenegro) there were reports from the 8 April 1893 earthquake as well. We have presented a map showing the estimated intensity values from both earthquakes (1739 and 1893) for the analyzed locations.

2. The 8 April 1893 Earthquake—Available Data

2.1. Overview of the Seismological Data from Various Sources

On 8 April 1893, just before 3:00 PM local time (one among various catalogs reports a different value for the minutes of the occurrence of the event; see Table 1), an earthquake struck near the town of Svilajnac, Serbia. Gaining widespread notice from both the general populace and professionals in the regions that comprised Serbia, Austria–Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and segments of the Ottoman Empire at that time, this earthquake drew significant attention owing to its formidable intensity and the consequential impact it had on individuals, structures, and the surrounding environment. Notably, Serbia and Hungary experienced pronounced effects from this seismic event. As a result, the Geological Institute in Serbia and the Earthquake Committee of the Hungarian Geological Society and Central Meteorological Institute carried out systematic data collection from the regions where the earthquake manifested itself with destructive effects on buildings.

In the 1893 issue of the Hungarian Nature Journal, we found a contribution by Ferencz Schafarzik [8], which included information that the Svilajnac earthquake was recorded in the seismological observatory of Rocca di Papa, located in the vicinity of Rome, Italy (unfortunately, this record is no longer available). According to Shafarzik, the suggested origin time is 14 h 43 m 20 s Roman time, that is, at 14 h 53 m 31 s Central European time. Bearing in mind that the Rocca di Papa seismological station is located about 750 km from the location of the epicenter and that at that distance, the P_n waves arrive first, we can estimate the travel time of the P_n wave from the epicenter to the location of Rocca di Papa to be 95.54 s or approximately 1 m 36 s, assuming the P_n wave velocity of about 7.85 km/s [9]. By subtracting the estimated travel time from 14 h 53 m 31 s, we obtain a time of 14 h 51 m 55 s. This time is very similar to the value of 14 h 52 m provided in the preliminary report on the earthquake written by Žujović and Stanojević [10] and, later, in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy [11]. Shebalin et al. [5] also reports this value (Table 1).

Table 1. Seismological data from various sources for the 8 April 1893 earthquake. The table also shows estimations of M_S and M_W from observed intensities and supposed depths.

Source	h	min	s	LAT, °N	LON, °E	Depth	I0, Radii of Isoseismal Areas [km]	Scale	MS	MW
UNESCO [12]	13	47	-	44.3	21.3	-	9, R9-2, R8-26, R7-55, R6-108, R5-160	-	-	-
Sikošek et al. [3]	-	-	-	(44° 16′) 44.267	(21° 17′) 21.283	18	9	MCS	6.5	-
Schebalin et al. [5]	13	52	-	44.12	21.30	13	9, R9-5, R8-26, R7-55, R6-90, R5-150, R4-280, R3-450	MSK-64	6.6	-
Stucchi et al. [6]	13	47	-	44.3	21.3	-	9	-	-	6.42
RSZS [2]	13	47	0	44.107	21.292	8	8	EMS-98	5.8	5.8

Table 1. Seismological data from various sources for the 8 April 1893 earthquake. The table also shows estimations of M_S and M_W from observed intensities and supposed depths.

Source	h	min	s	LAT, °N	LON, °E	Depth	I0, Radii of Isoseismal Areas [km]	Scale	MS	MW
UNESCO [12]	13	47	-	44.3	21.3	-	9, R9-2, R8-26, R7-55, R6-108, R5-160	-	-	-
Sikošek et al. [3]	-	-	-	(44° 16′) 44.267	(21° 17′) 21.283	18	9	MCS	6.5	-
Schebalin et al. [5]	13	52	-	44.12	21.30	13	9, R9-5, R8-26, R7-55, R6-90, R5-150, R4-280, R3-450	MSK-64	6.6	-
Stucchi et al. [6]	13	47	-	44.3	21.3	-	9	-	-	6.42
RSZS [2]	13	47	0	44.107	21.292	8	8	EMS-98	5.8	5.8

2.2. Data Collected by Serbian Authorities and Researchers

The Svilajnac earthquake of 8 April 1893, was the strongest earthquake that has occurred on the territory of Serbia in the past 300 years. Due to its strength and the macroseismic effects it caused on the entire territory of Serbia at the time, the Geological Institute of the Great School (predecessor of the University of Belgrade) held an assembly the next day, 9 April. At this assembly, it was decided: “1. that the Geological Institute of the Great School undertakes to collect and systematize all data on earthquakes; 2. that the Administrator of the Geological Institute writes a program for describing earthquakes, namely: (a) one for all literate Serbs and (b) for the telegraph authorities; 3. that J. M. Žujović and Đ. K. Stanojević goes, on behalf of the Geological Society, to examine the places affected by the earthquake in the valleys of the Morava and Resava rivers; and 4. that S. Urošević, Dr. Sv. A. Radovanović and P. S. Pavlović collect newspaper and private individuals’ data about the earthquake”. In addition, the Ministers of the Interior and the Economy were asked to hand over all official reports concerning the earthquake in Serbia to the Geological Survey for their use and to request a telegraphic report on the earthquake from all telegraph stations in Serbia according to the questionnaire which was prepared by the Administrator of the Geological Institute. The questionnaire contained the following questions: “1. what time of day, at which hour, minute, and, if possible, second did the earthquake occur?; 2. how was it felt, how long did it last, and how did it affect the telegraph station?; 3. did it affect telegraph equipment in any way?; 4. did it have any effect on the magnetic needle, how and for how long?; 5. did it affect the barometer, how and for how long?; 6. what was the weather like during the earthquake?; 7. during that period of time, was any peculiar sound heard apart from the noise of the house and the objects in it?”.

Thanks to the special efforts of the Ministry of the Interior, a significant number of telegraphic reports were received on 10 April 1893, just two days after the earthquake and on the second day of the Easter holidays. In light of the catastrophic effects of the main shock and the high frequency of aftershocks, and in order to engage as many individuals as possible in the task of gathering the data, a questionnaire with more detailed questions regarding the earthquake and its effects and consequences was created and sent to the public through the Serbian Newspaper on 14 April 1983 (Appendix A). Moreover, to obtain not only as many but also as many accurate answers as possible, the same questionnaire was sent to all teachers in Serbia. In this way, the Geological Institute received numerous data, even from the most remote parts of Serbia.

J. M. Žujović, the Administrator of the Geological Institute and professor of the Great School, Đ. M. Stanojević, also a professor of the Great School, and T. Milenković, head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, began their visit to the most affected areas in the Morava and Resava basins on 10 April. The findings of their investigation were presented at the XX Geological Assembly on April 22 under the title “Preliminary report on the earthquake”, and the text of the lecture was published in the Serbian Newspaper [10] and, later, in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy, Book XXXII, pp. 81–86 [11]. S. A. Radovanović, Ph.D., the state geologist, made a thorough inspection of the entire region where the largest number of quakes had occurred—the area close to the Resava River, the areas around the cities of Jagodina and Ćuprija, as well as the area near the Morava river close to the city of Požarevac. The task of the state geologist, Mr. Radovanović, was to gather information on the direction of the main earthquake and its intensity according to the consequences. The findings of his fieldwork were presented on 23 May 1893, at the XXI meeting of the Geological Society. The text of that presentation under the title “Data on the direction and strength of the main earthquake in the Pleistocene region” was published in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy, Book XXXII, pp. 86–94 [11]. In addition to these two reports with field data on the main earthquake and its consequences in the valleys of Morava and Resava rivers (in detail at the sites visited and in summary for the entire area), the Geological Institute received, from all across Serbia, reports from telegraph stations, railway stations, private individuals, subordinate organizations reporting to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, reports to the Ministry of Economy, reports from teachers and priests, and newspaper reports.

Finally, the data from the major earthquake and smaller earthquakes were reviewed, processed, and then chronologically systematized by the date and time of occurrence and displayed in alphabetical order of the places from which they were recorded in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy, Book XXXII, pp. 6–35, 81–94 [11]. The data that the Geological Institute obtained from what was then known as Old Serbia (Kosovo and Metohija), Macedonia, Bosnia, Croatia, and Slavonia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Austria were all processed in the same way and published in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy, Book XXXII, pp. 95–104 [11].

Table 2. Number of data by country/region given in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy, Book XXXII, pp. 6–35, 81–94 [11].

Country/Region	Number of Locations
then-Serbia (now central Serbia)	247
Ottoman Empire’s Old Serbia (now Kosovo and Metohija)	1
Ottoman Empire’s Macedonia (now North Macedonia)	2
then-Hungary (now northern Serbia, west and central Romania, southern Slovakia, northeast of Croatia, and Hungary)	11
then-Croatia and Slavonia (now Croatia without its coastal parts)	36
then-Bosnia (now Bosnia and Herzegovina)	15
Bulgaria	5
Austria	1
Total	318

shows the distribution of data (reports, direct or indirect) on the main earthquake by country/region.

Finally, for the additional two locations (two monasteries in Serbia), we found reports on the effects of the 1893 event on a webpage on the monasteries and churches belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church (https://www.manastiri-crkve.com, accessed on 3 September 2023).

2.3. Data Collected by Hungarian Researchers

According to Schafarzik [8], the 8 April, Svilajnac earthquake was felt on the territory of almost all of then-Hungary and had a destructive character in its southern regions. This prompted the Earthquake Committee of the Geological Society of Hungary to begin collecting data on the consequences of the earthquake. As Schafarzik states, in addition to newspaper reports and reports from state institutions and private companies, hundreds of letters from citizens with information about the earthquake arrived at the address of the Geological Society of Hungary. Also, the Geological Society of Hungary received reports on the earthquake effects in Serbia through the vice-consul of the Austrian-Hungarian embassy in Belgrade (Mr. János Szentmiklósy), the director of the railway-mining company Serbia-Timok (Mr. Lajos József Hirsch), and a civil engineer from the Budapest railway company (Mr. Jiráček Jován), who was in Jagodina during and after the earthquake. However, after carefully examining the data/reports on the earthquake’s effects from various locations that are provided by Schafarzik [8], we found that most of them were de facto obtained from Serbian sources and were already mentioned in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy, Book XXXII [11], while only a dozen data related to the locations in the then Hungary were new.

The reports on the effects of earthquakes for slightly more than two hundred places from the territory of then Hungary, originally published by the Earthquake Committee of the Geological Society of Hungary in 1893, can be found in the monograph by Réthly [13]. The monograph also mentions some areas and places where the earthquake was felt, but the reports from those areas and places are not given. Country-wise data quantities are presented in

Table 3. Number of data by country provided by Rethly [13].

Country (Today)	Number of Locations for Which Reports Exist	Number of Locations That Are only Mentioned	Total Number of Locations
Hungary	29	-	29
Serbia	39	25	64
Romania	141	4	145
Croatia	1	-	1
Slovakia	3	-	3
Bosnia and Herzegovina	-	4	4
Bulgaria	-	7	7
Austria	-	1	1
Total	213	41	254

.

Finally, by reviewing Bendefy’s paper from 1970 [14], as well as daily press in Budapest (“Pester Loyd”) and Vienna (“Neue Freie Presse” and “Die Presse”) for a period of one month from the day of the main shock of 8 April 1893, we discovered additional reports, which were not mentioned in the monograph by Rethly [13].

2.4. Final Dataset

Table 4. Number of locations-inhabited places by country/region for which there are written reports on the effects of the 8 April 1893 Svilajnac Earthquake.

Country/Region (Today)	Number of Data
Austria	1
Bosnia and Herzegovina	15
Bulgaria	9
Croatia	18
Hungary	33
North Macedonia	2
Romania	149
Serbia–Kosovo and Metohija	1
Serbia–Bačka	19
Serbia–Banat	22
Serbia–Srem	20
Serbia–Central Serbia	245
Slovakia	4
Total	538

provides the conclusive count of the number of earthquake reports used in this study for mapping macroseismic intensity and estimating earthquake magnitude and hypocenter depth, categorized by location and country. In Appendix B, we provide a list of all locations for which the macroseismic intensity of the 8 April 1893, Svilajnac Earthquake was assessed in this study. The list contains: (1) name of the town/village/monastery, (2) region/country, (3) selected source or sources from which the information about the effects of the earthquake was obtained for a particular site, (4) geographical coordinates, (5) the intensity values estimated in this study according to the EMS 98 scale [7], (6) whether or not ground fissures and liquefaction were noticed, and (7) the intensity values according to a previous study [4]. In Appendix B, we also provide maps of Central Serbia with the locations mentioned in

Table A1. List of all locations for which the macroseismic intensity of the 8 April 1893 Svilajnac Earthquake was assessed in this study. The list contains the following information: (1) name of the town/village/monastery, (2) region/country, (3) selected source or sources (SRA1896 [11], RET1952 [13]; BEN1970 [14]; NFP1893 [Newspaper “Neue Freie Presse”—a Viennese newspaper that existed between 1864 and 1939]; DPR1893 [Newspaper “Die Presse”—a Viennese newspaper that exists since 1848]; PLD1893 [Newspaper “Pester Loyd”—a German-language daily newspaper from Budapest, Hungary that existed between 1854 and 1945 (the publication resumed in 1994)]; SOC2024 [a webpage of the Serbian Orthodox Church on its churches and monasteries—https://www.manastiri-crkve.com (accessed on 3 September 2023)]) from which the information about the effects of the earthquake was obtained for a particular site, (4) geographical coordinates, (5) the intensity values estimated in this study according to the EMS 98 scale [7], (6) whether or not ground fissures and liquefaction (GF&L) were noticed (marked with “X”), and (7) the intensity values according to Vukašinović [4].

#	Name	Region/Country	Source(s)	Lat. [° N]	Lon. [° E]	Int.	GF&L	Int. Vukaš.
1	Aleksandrovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.440	21.207	VIII		VIII
2	Aleksinac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.538	21.705	VII		VI
3	Aranđelovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.304	20.556	VII		VI
4	Arilje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.752	20.091	Felt
5	Bagrdan	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.067	21.174	VIII		VIII
6	Badavinci	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.785	19.369	Felt
7	Badnjevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.137	21.001	VII		VII
8	Bajina Bašta	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.969	19.567	Felt
9	Baroševac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.393	20.368	VII
10	Batalage	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.521	19.865	V
11	Batočina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.152	21.076	VIII–IX		VII
12	Begaljica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.626	20.690	VII
13	Bela Palanka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.218	22.307	Felt		V
14	Beli Potok	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.535	22.076	Felt
15	Beljajka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.056	21.439	VIII		VIII
16	Belgrade	Central Serbia	SRA1896; NFP1893	44.812	20.466	VII		V
17	Bobovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.224	21.271	VIII		IX
18	Boljevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.825	21.952	V–VI
19	Borič	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.956	20.604	Felt
20	Bošnjane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.889	21.475	VIII		VII
21	Braljina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.652	21.460	Felt
22	Bračin	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.769	21.501	VII		VII
23	Brđani	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.969	20.418	V–VI		VII
24	Brza Palanka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.467	22.450	VI–VII
25	Brzohode	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.367	21.273	VIII		IX
26	Brestovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.037	22.076	Felt
27	Brestovačka Banja	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.067	22.050	VI–VII
28	Brus	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.384	21.034	V–VI
29	Bukovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.117	21.468	IX
30	Valakonje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.868	21.974	VI–VII
31	Valjevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.274	19.891	VII
32	Varvarin	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.718	21.370	VI–VII		VII
33	Velika Kamenica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.533	22.500	VI–VII
34	Velika Lešnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.599	19.354	Felt
35	Velika Plana (northern)	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.334	21.077	VII–VIII	X	VIII
36	Velika Plana (southern)	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.319	21.438	Felt
37	Veliki Popović	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.117	21.356	IX	X	VIII
38	Veliki Šenj	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.100	20.733	Felt		VII
39	Veliki Šiljegovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.517	21.525	VI–VII		VII
40	Veliko Gradište	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.754	21.508	VII–VIII		VII
41	Veliko Selo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.489	21.292	VIII	X	VII
42	Vidrovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.267	22.488	VI
43	Vinča	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.756	20.619	VI
44	Višnjica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.831	20.548	VI
45	Viča	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.725	20.302	IV–V
46	Vlasotince	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.958	22.121	V
47	Vlaška	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.491	20.686	VII–VIII
48	Vojska	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.087	21.209	VIII	X	VIII
49	Vranje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.554	21.897	IV–V
50	Vrbica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.709	22.259	V
51	Vražogrnac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.956	22.320	V
52	Vrčin	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.668	20.590	VI–VII
53	Vrćenovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.426	21.669	VI
54	Dobra Voda	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.104	21.289	VIII	X	VIII
55	Glogovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.120	22.268	Felt
56	Gložane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.168	21.185	VIII	X	VIII
57	Godačica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.776	20.853	V–VI		VII
58	Golubac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.650	21.626	VII
59	Gornjane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.255	22.058	IV–V
60	Gornji Milanovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.033	20.450	V		V
61	Grkinja	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.205	21.990	IV–V
62	Grocka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.670	20.717	VII
63	Guberevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.952	22.023	V
64	Guča	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.773	20.222	VI
65	Despotovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.089	21.441	VII		VII
66	Dvorane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.501	21.406	Felt		VI
67	Dvorište	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.092	21.504	VII–VIII		VIII
68	Divljane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.173	22.303	IV–V
69	Dobrača	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.067	20.717	Felt		VII
70	Donja Badanja	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.487	19.457	Felt
71	Donja Mutnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.843	21.554	VII–VIII		VII
72	Donja Bela Reka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.068	22.201	Felt
73	Donja Sabanta	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.954	20.964	VII–VIII		VIII
74	Donje Vidovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.801	21.367	VII–VIII	X	VIII
75	Donja Livadica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.350	21.138	VIII	X	IX
76	Donji Milanovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.462	22.153	Felt		V
77	Drača	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.033	20.800	Felt		VII
78	Drenovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.000	20.794	VI–VII		VII
79	Drenovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.867	19.706	IV–V
80	Dubnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.271	21.322	VIII	X	IX
81	Duboka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.069	21.271	VIII	X	VIII
82	Dupljane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.300	22.467	V–VI
83	Đunis	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.584	21.504	VII
84	Đurinac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.234	21.355	IX	X	IX
85	Žabare	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.253	20.725	VII
86	Žabari	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.354	21.209	VIII	X	IX
87	Žagubica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.191	21.789	V–VI
88	Zaječar	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.904	22.285	V		IV
89	Zasavica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.951	19.501	IV
90	Zdravinje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.491	21.443	VI–VII		VII
91	Ivanjica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.575	20.225	V–VI
92	Sveta Petka Monastery	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.854	21.588	Felt		VII
93	Jablanica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.834	21.859	Felt		VII
94	Jagodina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.981	21.262	IX	X	VIII
95	Jasenovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.150	21.306	IX		IX
96	Jelašnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.040	22.005	V–VI
97	Jošanica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.723	21.771	Felt
98	Junkovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.256	20.760	V–VI
99	Kamenac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.889	20.816	V–VI
100	Kladovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.604	22.607	V–VI
101	Kladurovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.439	21.538	VIII		VII
102	Kladušnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.625	22.570	V–VI
103	Klenovnik	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.688	21.175	VI		VI
104	Klenja	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.804	19.434	Felt
105	Kloka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.293	20.787	VI
106	Knjaževac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.568	22.258	VI–VII		VI
107	Kovilje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.417	20.153	VI–VII
108	Kolari	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.584	20.901	VII
109	Konjuh	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.640	21.175	VII		VII
110	Koprivnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.050	22.318	IV–V
111	Koraćica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.451	20.619	VII–VIII
112	Kosjerić	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.991	19.904	V
113	Kragujevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.014	20.912	VII–VIII		VII
114	Kraljevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.717	20.683	VI–VII		V
115	Krivi Vir	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.822	21.749	VI–VII		VII
116	Kruševac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.583	21.327	VII		VII
117	Kruševica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.991	22.173	IV–V
118	Kula	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.507	21.374	VIII		VII
119	Kulina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.423	21.609	Felt
120	Kupinovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.205	21.325	IX		IX
121	Kuršumlija	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.141	21.268	V–VI
122	Kusadak	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.393	20.802	V		VIII
123	Kutlovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.050	20.750	V–VI		VII
124	Kučevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.473	21.669	V–VI		VII
125	Kušiljevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.276	21.204	VIII		IX
126	Lazarevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.374	20.258	V–VI		VI
127	Lazac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.741	20.479	Felt
128	Lapovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.183	21.100	VIII		VII
129	Lebane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.921	21.736	IV–V
130	Leskovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.998	21.946	V		VI
131	Lešnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.651	19.306	VI
132	Loznica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.534	19.221	V
133	Luka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.170	22.175	IV–V
134	Lukovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.222	21.236	VIII		IX
135	Lužnice	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.117	20.817	VII–VIII		VII
136	Ljubovija	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.187	19.373	Felt
137	Ljupten	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.422	21.574	V–VI
138	Majdanpek	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.421	21.935	V
139	Malajnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.295	22.386	VI
140	Mali Požarevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.558	20.653	Felt
141	Mali Popović	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.051	21.290	VIII	X	VIII
142	Malča	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.326	22.024	VII
143	Manasija Monastery	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.101	21.469	VII–VIII
144	Masloševo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.183	20.667	V–VI
145	Markovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.234	21.104	VIII	X	VII
146	Medveđa	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.151	21.339	IX	X	IX
147	Mladenovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.436	20.693	VII		VI
148	Međulužje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.406	20.687	VI–VII
149	Metriš	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.136	22.374	VI–VII
150	Mirijevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.434	21.269	VII–VIII		IX
151	Mačvanska Mitrovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.959	19.592	Felt
152	Nakučani	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.601	19.668	IV–V
153	Natalinci	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.251	20.802	VII–VIII
154	Negotin	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.223	22.525	VII		IV
155	Nemenikuće	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.491	20.591	VIII
156	Niš	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.325	21.903	V–VI		VI
157	Noćaj	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.923	19.554	IV
158	Obrenovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.652	20.200	V
159	Oraovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.873	22.069	IV–V
160	Veliko Orašje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.367	21.086	VIII	X	VIII
161	Osipaonica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.538	21.052	Felt		VII
162	Ostrovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.309	22.121	IV
163	Orid	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.708	19.801	V
164	Smederevska Palanka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.365	20.959	VII–VIII		VIII
165	Panjevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.125	21.523	Felt
166	Paraćin	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.856	21.405	VII–VIII		VII
167	Petkovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.659	19.437	IV
168	Petrovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.373	21.418	VIII	X	VII
169	Pirot	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.152	22.585	V–VI
170	Plažane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.140	21.409	IX		VIII
171	Požarevac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.609	21.176	VII–VIII		VII
172	Požega	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.841	20.038	V
173	Porodin	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.308	21.221	IX		IX
174	Prilipac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.819	20.122	V
175	Mačvanski Pričinović	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.842	19.634	Felt
176	Prokuplje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.234	21.586	V		V
177	Prćilovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.508	21.684	Felt
178	Ravanica Monastery	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.972	21.497	VIII		VIII
179	Ražanj	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.670	21.543	VI–VII		VII
180	Rajković	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.221	20.009	IV–V
181	Ramaća	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.083	20.683	VII		VII
182	Rasnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.118	22.526	IV
183	Rača	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.228	20.979	VII
184	Raška	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.286	20.609	Felt
185	Rgotina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.007	22.267	V–VI
186	Rekovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.857	21.091	VII		VII
187	Resnik	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.117	20.950	VI		VII
188	Ribare	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.003	21.286	VIII	X	VIII
189	Ripanj	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.636	20.519	VI
190	Rogljevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.121	22.567	VI–VII
191	Roanda	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.170	21.374	IX		IX
192	Robaje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.219	19.973	VI–VII
193	Rudnik	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.133	20.517	VI–VII		VII
194	Rumska	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.570	19.572	IV–V
195	Ruplje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.837	22.223	IV
196	Salakovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.586	21.271	VIII		VII
197	Salaš	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.106	22.310	V–VI
198	Saranovo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.250	20.850	Felt
199	Svilajnac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.224	21.192	IX	X	IX
200	Sedlare	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.191	21.301	IX	X	IX
201	Senjski Rudnik	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.988	21.604	VIII		VIII
202	Senje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.959	21.483	VIII		VIII
203	Sibnica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.783	21.050	Felt		VII
204	Sikirica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.773	21.418	VII–VIII		VIII
205	Sićevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.338	22.084	Felt
206	Slavkovica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.167	20.242	VI
207	Slepčević	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.751	19.568	V
208	Smederevo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.667	20.933	VII		VI
209	Soko Banja	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.639	21.869	V
210	Stalać	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.673	21.408	VII		VII
211	Staro Selo	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.289	21.090	VIII	X	VII
212	Stragari	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.150	20.667	V–VI
213	Studena	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.968	22.506	Felt
214	Stupčevići	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.701	20.108	Felt
215	Subotica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.474	19.773	V
216	Subotica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.170	21.336	IX	X	IX
217	Sumrakovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.937	22.035	VI–VII		VII
218	Surdulica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.688	22.169	V
219	Tekija	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.684	22.409	VI		IV
220	Topola	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.253	20.676	VII
221	Troponje	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.159	21.286	IX		IX
222	Trstenik	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.617	21.000	Felt		VII
223	Trnjane	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.219	22.354	VI
224	Ćuprija	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.923	21.369	VIII	X	VIII
225	Ub	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.454	20.071	V–VI
226	Užice	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.856	19.841	V
227	Umka	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.674	20.303	V
228	Umčari	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.584	20.734	VI
229	Carina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.290	19.537	IV–V
230	Crkvenac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.191	21.185	VIII	X	VIII
231	Crna Bara	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.871	19.390	V
232	Crna Trava	Central Serbia	SRA1896	42.810	22.299	IV
233	Malo Crniće	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.554	21.285	VIII	X	VII
234	Čajetina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.750	19.717	IV
235	Čačak	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.888	20.343	V–VI		VII
236	Četereže	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.368	21.239	VIII		IX
237	Čitluk	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.639	22.017	VI
238	Čokešina	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.652	19.388	IV–V
239	Čumić	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.150	20.783	VII–VIII		VI
240	Šabac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.756	19.694	V–VI
241	Šarbanovac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.957	22.084	V
242	Šavac	Central Serbia	SRA1896	43.838	21.355	Felt	X	VIII
243	Ševarice	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.867	19.656	Felt
244	Štubik	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.289	22.351	VI
245	Moštanica	Central Serbia	SRA1896	44.012	21.350	VIII
246	Priština	Kosovo and Metohija	SRA1896	42.664	21.165	V–VI
247	Ada	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.801	20.122	V
248	Apatin	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.667	18.983	IV–V
249	Bački Petrovac	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952; PLD1893	45.361	19.592	VI
250	Bezdan	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.850	18.933	V
251	Crvenka	Serbia–Bačka	PLD1893	45.658	19.456	V
252	Futog	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.238	19.706	VI
253	Palić	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	46.105	19.767	VI
254	Subotica	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	46.100	19.664	VI
255	Bačko Gradište	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952; PLD1893	45.533	20.033	V–VI
256	Titel	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.204	20.290	VI–VII
257	Novi Sad	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893	45.255	19.845	VI
258	Bogojevo	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.533	19.133	Felt
259	Mali Stapar	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.700	19.318	Felt
260	Mol	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.759	20.125	V
261	Bačka Palanka	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.251	19.389	V
262	Bečej	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952; PLD1893	45.614	20.047	V–VI
263	Srpski Miletić	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.556	19.205	Felt
264	Senta	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.927	20.079	Felt
265	Sombor	Serbia–Bačka	RET1952	45.774	19.112	VI
266	Deliblato	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	44.839	21.041	VII
267	Bela Crkva	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	44.899	21.420	VII–VIII		VI
268	Jasenovo	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	44.926	21.289	V–VI
269	Kovin	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	44.747	20.976	Felt
270	Bašaid	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.638	20.409	V–VI
271	Botoš	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.305	20.635	Felt
272	Dobrica	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.209	20.843	V
273	Konak	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.309	20.908	Felt
274	Ravni Topolovac	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.455	20.568	Felt
275	Rusko Selo	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.758	20.570	VI
276	Mokrin	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.935	20.404	Felt
277	Zrenjanin	Serbia–Banat	RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	45.381	20.391	VII
278	Kikinda	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.824	20.459	V
279	Banatsko Aranđelovo	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	46.067	20.250	V
280	Pančevo	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	44.871	20.648	VI–VII		VI
281	Vladimirovac	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.026	20.858	VI–VII
282	Ivanovo	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	44.736	20.701	VII–VIII
283	Hetin	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.657	20.788	VI–VII
284	Novi Bečej	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.593	20.135	Felt
285	Novi Kneževac	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	46.045	20.093	V
286	Vršac	Serbia–Banat	RET1952	45.117	21.302	VII–VIII		VI
287	Mesić Monastery	Serbia–Banat	SOC2024)	45.104	21.393	VII–VIII
288	Bežanija	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.833	20.391	VI
289	Golubinci	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.984	20.068	V
290	Grgurevci	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	45.103	19.641	VI
291	Deč	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.835	20.109	V–VI
292	Erdevik	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	45.117	19.404	V
293	Zemun	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896; NFP1893; DPR1893	44.842	20.413	VII
294	Inđija	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	45.043	20.074	V
295	Irig	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	45.101	19.855	V
296	Klenak	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.786	19.706	V
297	Kupinovo	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.703	20.042	VII
298	Sremska Mitrovica	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.973	19.607	VII
299	Morović	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.992	19.206	Felt
300	Novi Banovci	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.953	20.276	IV–V
301	Ruma	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	45.005	19.820	VI
302	Stara Pazova	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.984	20.156	V
303	Stari Slankamen	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	45.139	20.254	VI
304	Šimanovci	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.870	20.088	V
305	Hrtkovci	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	44.874	19.769	VII
306	Čerević	Serbia–Srem	SRA1896	45.218	19.659	V
307	Ravanica-Vrdnik Monastery	Serbia–Srem	SOC2024	45.129	19.784	VI–VII
308	Košice	Slovakia	RET1952	48.720	21.258	V
309	Michalovce	Slovakia	BEN1970	48.755	21.913	Felt
310	Tekovské Lužany	Slovakia	RET1952	48.100	18.542	V
311	Bratislava	Slovakia	RET1952; BEN1970	48.144	17.110	IV
312	Vienna	Austria	SRA1896; NFP1893; DPR1893; RET1952; BEN1970	48.200	16.367	V
313	Bijeljina	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.757	19.216	V
314	Bosanski Brod	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	45.146	18.006	IV–V
315	Brčko	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.870	18.810	IV–V
316	Višegrad	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	43.782	19.288	V
317	Vlasenica	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.184	18.946	V
318	Bosanska Gradiška	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	45.133	17.250	IV–V
319	Zvornik	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.387	19.103	IV–V
320	Kladanj	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.226	18.690	IV–V
321	Prnjavor	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.867	17.660	IV–V
322	Bosanska Rača	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.881	19.346	IV–V
323	Rogatica	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	43.800	19.002	IV–V
324	Sarajevo	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	43.867	18.417	IV–V
325	Tešanj	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.613	17.986	IV–V
326	Donja Tuzla	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	44.539	18.675	V
327	Bosanski Šamac	Bosnia and Herz.	SRA1896	45.067	18.467	IV–V
328	Byala Slatina	Bulgaria	SRA1896	43.467	23.933	IV
329	Vidin	Bulgaria	SRA1896; RET1952	43.985	22.876	V
330	Vraca	Bulgaria	SRA1896	43.200	23.550	IV–V
331	Lom	Bulgaria	SRA1896; RET1952	43.817	23.233	IV–V
332	Nikopol	Bulgaria	RET1952	43.700	24.900	Felt
333	Orahovo	Bulgaria	RET1952	43.737	23.958	Felt
334	Ruse	Bulgaria	RET1952	43.848	25.954	Felt
335	Sofia	Bulgaria	SRA1896; NFP1893; RET1952; BEN1970	42.697	23.323	IV–V
336	Svištov	Bulgaria	RET1952	43.619	25.344	Felt
337	Slavonski Brod	Croatia	SRA1896; BEN1970	45.167	18.017	V
338	Vukovar	Croatia	SRA1896	45.345	19.001	V
339	Dalj	Croatia	SRA1896	45.490	18.985	IV–V
340	Đakovo	Croatia	SRA1896	45.310	18.410	VI
341	Darda	Croatia	RET1952	45.625	18.689	V
342	Zagreb	Croatia	SRA1896; BEN1970	45.817	15.983	V
343	Velika Kopanica	Croatia	SRA1896	45.156	18.394	IV–V
344	Kula	Croatia	SRA1896	45.382	17.893	IV–V
345	Kutijevo	Croatia	SRA1896	45.420	17.880	IV–V
346	Našice	Croatia	SRA1896	45.495	18.095	IV–V
347	Nijemci	Croatia	SRA1896	45.140	19.036	V–VI
348	Nova Gradiška	Croatia	SRA1896	45.258	17.384	V
349	Osijek	Croatia	SRA1896; NFP1893	45.555	18.696	V–VI
350	Petrijevci	Croatia	SRA1896	45.617	18.533	IV–V
351	Petrinja	Croatia	SRA1896	45.443	16.277	IV–V
352	Privlaka	Croatia	SRA1896	45.183	18.833	V
353	Podravska Slatina	Croatia	NFP1893	45.704	17.698	IV–V
354	Strošinci	Croatia	SRA1896	44.916	19.065	V
355	Baja	Hungary	RET1952; BEN1970	46.183	18.954	Felt
356	Buzsák	Hungary	BEN1970	46.643	17.585	Felt
357	Kecskemét	Hungary	BEN1970	46.907	19.692	Felt
358	Mezöcsokonya	Hungary	BEN1970	46.432	17.646	Felt
359	Mohács	Hungary	SRA1896; RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	45.996	18.680	VII
360	Pécsvárad	Hungary	SRA1896; RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	46.158	18.422	VII
361	Mecseknádasd	Hungary	SRA1896; RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	46.224	18.464	VII
362	Újpetre	Hungary	SRA1896; RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	45.937	18.363	VII
363	Németboly	Hungary	RET1952	45.967	18.518	V
364	Dunaszekcső	Hungary	RET1952	46.082	18.759	Felt
365	Békés	Hungary	RET1952	46.777	21.125	IV–V
366	Pusztaszenttornya	Hungary	RET1952	46.621	20.679	Felt
367	Szarvas	Hungary	RET1952	46.864	20.557	Felt
368	Apátfalva	Hungary	RET1952	46.174	20.579	V
369	Kunágota	Hungary	RET1952	46.430	21.050	V
370	Nagylak	Hungary	RET1952	46.167	20.750	V–VI
371	Csongrád	Hungary	RET1952	46.711	20.140	V
372	Hódmezővásárhely	Hungary	RET1952	46.430	20.319	V–VI
373	Sándorfalva	Hungary	RET1952	46.367	20.100	V
374	Szentes	Hungary	RET1952	46.652	20.257	V–VI
375	Szöregh	Hungary	RET1952	46.213	20.194	V–VI
376	Szeged	Hungary	SRA1896; BEN1970; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	46.255	20.145	VI–VII
377	Ercsi	Hungary	RET1952	47.250	18.891	IV–V
378	Adony	Hungary	RET1952	47.119	18.865	III
379	Székesféhervár	Hungary	RET1952	47.189	18.414	IV–V
380	Hajdúböszörmény	Hungary	RET1952	47.673	21.508	IV–V
381	Debrecin	Hungary	RET1952; BEN1970	47.530	21.639	IV–V
382	Erdőkürt	Hungary	RET1952; SRA1896	47.773	19.457	IV
383	Budapest-Lipótmező	Hungary	RET1952; SRA1896	47.531	18.975	III–IV
384	Budapest	Hungary	RET1952; BEN1970	47.498	19.041	V
385	Kalocsa	Hungary	RET1952; BEN1970	46.533	18.986	V
386	Barcs	Hungary	RET1952; BEN1970	45.959	17.467	V
387	Szombathely	Hungary	RET1952; BEN1970	47.230	16.605	IV
388	Radoviš	North Macedonia	SRA1896	41.638	22.465	IV
389	Skopje	North Macedonia	SRA1896; BEN1970	41.998	21.435	IV–V
390	Borsec	Romania	BEN1970	46.967	25.570	III
391	Craiova	Romania	BEN1970	44.333	23.817	IV
392	Satu Mare	Romania	BEN1970	47.790	22.890	III
393	Turnu Severin	Romania	BEN1970; RET1952	44.633	22.656	V
394	Turnu Rosu	Romania	BEN1970	45.642	24.299	IV
395	Bechet	Romania	RET1952	43.783	23.950	Felt
396	Calafat	Romania	RET1952	43.971	22.944	Felt
397	Corabia	Romania	RET1952	43.774	24.503	Felt
398	Abrud	Romania	RET1952	46.274	23.063	IV–V
399	Abrud-Sat	Romania	RET1952	46.285	23.063	IV–V
400	Vințu de Jos	Romania	RET1952	45.993	23.486	IV–V
401	Blaj	Romania	RET1952	46.175	23.914	III–IV
402	Bărăbanț	Romania	RET1952	46.099	23.585	III–IV
403	Buzd	Romania	RET1952	46.137	24.413	IV
404	Uioara de Jos	Romania	RET1952	46.371	23.839	III–IV
405	Alba Iulia	Romania	RET1952; PLD1893	46.067	23.570	V
406	Cuci, Mureș	Romania	RET1952	46.464	24.156	IV
407	Ighiu	Romania	RET1952	46.144	23.518	III–IV
408	Sânbenedic	Romania	RET1952	46.314	24.050	IV–V
409	Ocna Mureș	Romania	RET1952	46.383	23.850	III–IV
410	Aiud	Romania	RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	46.312	23.729	IV–V
411	Armeni	Romania	RET1952	45.966	23.975	III
412	Teiuș	Romania	RET1952	46.200	23.683	III–IV
413	Oiejdea	Romania	RET1952	46.158	23.634	III–IV
414	Roșia de Secaș	Romania	RET1952	46.057	23.889	III–IV
415	Roșia Montană	Romania	RET1952	46.306	23.131	III–IV
416	Vingard	Romania	RET1952	46.013	23.747	III–IV
417	Ocna Sibiului	Romania	RET1952	45.882	24.061	III–IV
418	Zlatna	Romania	RET1952	46.109	23.222	V
419	Arad	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	46.167	21.317	V
420	Ineu	Romania	RET1952	46.426	21.837	V–VI
421	Sântana	Romania	RET1952	46.347	21.503	V–VI
422	Bocsig	Romania	RET1952	46.417	21.950	V–VI
423	Lipova	Romania	RET1952	46.092	21.692	IV–V
424	Miniș	Romania	RET1952	46.136	21.606	V–VI
425	Grăniceri	Romania	RET1952	46.517	21.300	V–VI
426	Bârzava	Romania	RET1952	46.107	21.994	V
427	Beiuș	Romania	RET1952	46.668	22.349	V–VI
428	Beliu	Romania	RET1952	46.493	21.986	VI
429	Drăgești	Romania	RET1952	46.900	22.128	V–VI
430	Aleșd	Romania	RET1952	47.057	22.397	VI
431	Ceica	Romania	RET1952	46.858	22.167	V
432	Marghita	Romania	RET1952	47.342	22.331	V–VI
433	Tinca	Romania	RET1952	46.777	21.933	V–VI
434	Oradea	Romania	RET1952	47.072	21.921	V
435	Brașov	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970	45.650	25.600	V
436	Crizbav	Romania	RET1952	45.815	25.467	V
437	Făgăraș	Romania	RET1952	45.845	24.974	IV
438	Baraolt	Romania	RET1952	46.075	25.600	IV–V
439	Hăghig	Romania	RET1952	45.838	25.593	IV–V
440	Băița	Romania	RET1952	46.031	22.893	III–IV
441	Cristur	Romania	RET1952	45.825	22.943	V–VI
442	Deva	Romania	RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893	45.872	22.912	VI
443	Certeju de Sus	Romania	RET1952	45.974	22.970	IV
444	Hărău	Romania	RET1952	45.901	22.959	IV
445	Hațeg	Romania	RET1952	45.608	22.950	III–IV
446	Baia de Criș	Romania	RET1952	46.174	22.715	IV
447	Lupeni	Romania	RET1952	45.360	23.238	III
448	Șoimuș	Romania	RET1952	45.917	22.890	V
449	Râu de Mori	Romania	RET1952	45.498	22.854	V–VI
450	Săcărâmb	Romania	RET1952	45.974	23.039	V
451	Almașu Mare	Romania	RET1952	46.098	23.129	V
452	Petroșani	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970	45.412	23.373	VI–VII
453	Simeria	Romania	RET1952	45.850	23.010	V–VI
454	Poiana	Romania	RET1952	46.086	23.055	IV
455	Călan	Romania	RET1952	45.736	23.009	IV
456	Reea	Romania	RET1952	45.580	22.913	IV–V
457	Romos	Romania	RET1952	45.841	23.276	IV–V
458	Orăștie	Romania	RET1952	45.850	23.200	VI–VII
459	Hunedoara	Romania	RET1952	45.756	22.906	V–VI
460	Dumbrăveni	Romania	RET1952	46.228	24.576	V
461	Cetatea de Baltă	Romania	RET1952	46.248	24.172	IV
462	Seuca	Romania	RET1952	46.331	24.329	V
463	Aruncuta	Romania	RET1952	46.733	23.968	III
464	Jucu de Sus	Romania	RET1952	46.855	23.793	III
465	Gheorghieni	Romania	RET1952	46.714	23.688	III
466	Cătina	Romania	RET1952	46.845	24.164	III
467	Cojocna	Romania	RET1952	46.748	23.833	V
468	Kluj-Napoca	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970; PLD1893	46.767	23.583	V
469	Mănăştur	Romania	RET1952	46.755	23.557	Felt
470	Urmeniș	Romania	RET1952	46.771	24.357	III
471	Mociu	Romania	RET1952	46.797	24.031	III
472	Cămărașu	Romania	RET1952	46.792	24.126	V
473	Baziaş	Romania	RET1952; NFP1893	44.816	21.391	VII
474	Berzasca	Romania	RET1952; NFP1893; DPR1893; PLD1893	44.647	21.954	VI–VII
475	Drencova	Romania	RET1952	44.638	21.972	VI–VII
476	Băile Herculane	Romania	RET1952	44.879	22.414	Felt
477	Iablanița	Romania	RET1952	44.951	22.314	V
478	Grădinari	Romania	RET1952	45.121	21.594	VI–VII
479	Caransebeș	Romania	RET1952	45.421	22.222	VI–VII
480	Carașova	Romania	RET1952	45.198	21.863	V–VI
481	Lugoj	Romania	PLD1893	45.686	21.901	VI–VII
482	Mehadia	Romania	RET1952	44.905	22.367	VI
483	Moldova Nouă	Romania	RET1952	44.725	21.621	Felt
484	Bocșa	Romania	RET1952	45.375	21.711	VI–VII
485	Ogradena Nouă	Romania	RET1952	44.674	22.318	V
486	Oravița	Romania	RET1952; PLD1893	45.040	21.685	VI–VII
487	Mina Oravița	Romania	RET1952	45.060	21.717	VI–VII
488	Orșova	Romania	RET1952	44.725	22.396	VII
489	Reșița	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970	45.300	21.890	V
490	Sfânta Elena	Romania	RET1952	44.677	21.711	VI–VII
491	Rusca Montană	Romania	RET1952	45.567	22.458	VII
492	Teregova	Romania	RET1952	45.148	22.282	VII–VIII
493	Valea Mare	Romania	RET1952	45.503	21.805	Felt
494	Vărciorova	Romania	RET1952	45.327	22.352	VI–VII
495	Jupalnic	Romania	RET1952	44.725	22.396	VI–VII
496	Târgu Mureș	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970	46.550	24.560	IV
497	Șincai	Romania	RET1952	46.655	24.390	V–VI
498	Reghin	Romania	RET1952	46.776	24.708	IV–V
499	Bărcuț	Romania	RET1952	45.998	24.921	III–IV
500	Dacia	Romania	RET1952	46.009	25.151	IV
501	Moșna	Romania	RET1952	46.092	24.396	IV–V
502	Mercheașa	Romania	RET1952	46.066	25.336	III
503	Baia Mare	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970	47.657	23.574	V
504	Câlnic	Romania	RET1952	45.887	23.659	V–VI
505	Apoldu de Sus	Romania	RET1952	45.851	23.828	V
506	Cisnădie	Romania	RET1952	45.713	24.151	V
507	Sibiu	Romania	RET1952	45.796	24.152	V–VI
508	Zalău	Romania	RET1952	47.191	23.057	Felt
509	Tisza-Kürt	Hungary	RET1952	46.885	20.126	V
510	Brestovăț	Romania	RET1952	45.873	21.682	Felt
511	Buziaș	Romania	RET1952	45.650	21.600	V–VI
512	Deta	Romania	RET1952	45.395	21.226	IV–V
513	Sacu	Romania	RET1952	45.575	22.117	VI
514	Lipova	Romania	RET1952	46.092	21.692	V
515	Recaș	Romania	RET1952	45.801	21.513	IV–V
516	Săcălaz	Romania	RET1952	45.759	21.111	V
517	Stamora-Germană	Romania	RET1952	45.282	21.249	VI–VII
518	Timișoara	Romania	RET1952; BEN1970; NFP1893; PLD1893	45.760	21.230	VII
519	Dumbrăviţa	Romania	RET1952	45.799	21.294	VI
520	Bădeni	Romania	RET1952	46.489	23.736	III
521	Unirea	Romania	RET1952	46.402	23.811	IV
522	Războieni-Cetate	Romania	RET1952	46.413	23.871	IV–V
523	Lunca Mureșului	Romania	RET1952	46.429	23.908	IV–V
524	Câmpeni	Romania	RET1952	46.363	23.046	III–IV
525	Turda	Romania	RET1952	46.571	23.779	V
526	Rimetea	Romania	RET1952	46.454	23.567	V
527	Colțești	Romania	RET1952	46.421	23.560	III–IV
528	Biled	Romania	RET1952	45.886	20.962	VI
529	Grabaț	Romania	RET1952	45.878	20.744	IV–V
530	Horvátkécsa	Romania	RET1952	45.751	20.829	V–VI
531	Kécsa	Romania	RET1952	45.753	20.836	V–VI
532	Sânnicolau Mare	Romania	PLD1893	46.072	20.629	Felt
533	Periam	Romania	RET1952	46.045	20.869	V
534	Checea	Romania	RET1952	45.754	20.835	V
535	Vinga	Romania	RET1952	46.016	21.216	V–VI
536	Voiteg	Romania	RET1952	45.469	21.239	V
537	Jebel	Romania	RET1952	45.555	21.214	V–VI
538	Jimbolia	Romania	RET1952	45.792	20.722	V–VI

.

3. Macroseismic Intensity Maps of the 1893 Main Shock

Although one hundred and thirty years have passed since the Svilajnac earthquake of 8 April 1893, we have not been able to find a single cross-border map in the literature that shows the effects of this earthquake on the territories of today’s Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Austria, and Slovakia. In the following, we will first chronologically present and discuss each of the macroseismic intensity maps that we were able to find in the literature. After that, in Section 4, we will present the map we created by analyzing all of the gathered data (Table 4) using the EMS-98 scale.

3.1. 1893 Map by Schafarzik

Schafarzik’s map of the effects of the main shock from 1893 (shown in Figure 2) was formed on the basis of only a partial number of data obtained on the territories of then central and northern Serbia and then southern Hungary. In Figure 2, according to Schafarzik [8], the solid line is the border of the area of greatest destruction, and the broken line is the border of the area where the earthquake caused damage to buildings. The shape of the first zone is distinctly elliptical, with the center above the city of Jagodina (and slightly west of the village of Veliki Popović). The major axis of this ellipse runs in the direction NNW-SSE (following the course of the river Velika Morava), from Svilajnac in the north to Jovac in the south, with a length of about 45 km, while the minor axis has a length of about ½ that of the longer axis, in the Bagrdan–Medveđa direction. The shape of the second zone is also close to an ellipse, which is deformed towards the west and has a longer axis extending in the NE-SW direction (Kornia–Kraljevo). In reference to the center of the inner ellipse, the center of the larger ellipse is eccentrically shifted (~50 km) to the NE. The shape of the second zone indicates that the energy of the earthquake was directed mostly towards the north, slightly less towards the east and west, and the least towards the south.

3.2. 1952 Map by Rethly

Figure 3 shows the map of the effects of the main shock of 8 April 1893, compiled by Rethly [13]. The map shows an area from about 43° N to about 51° N latitude and from about 14° E to about 26° E longitude, which covers almost the entire territory of the then Austria–Hungary, part of the territory of the then Serbia (the central part and the northern part up to the then border with Austria–Hungary on the Sava and Danube rivers), the then territory of the northeastern part of Bulgaria, and the then territory of the southeastern part of Romania. According to the translation of the Hungarian text beneath the map in Figure 3 [13], the area where the earthquake produced destructive and damaging effects is depicted with cross lines and covers an area of nearly 11,000 km². The area bounded by the dotted line indicates the territory where the ground shaking was accompanied by underground noises and is estimated to be around 23,000 km². Finally, the thick solid line delineates an area of about 190,000 km², inside which the earthquake was still noticeable.

3.3. 1970 Map by Bendefy

The map based on Bendefy’s study is shown in Figure 4 [14]. As the author states, he derived the map by compiling Schafarzik’s and Rethly’s maps of the effects of the main shock of 8 April 1893. In Bendefy’s map, unlike the previous two maps shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, the effects of the earthquake are expressed with macroseismic intensities but without any indication according to which macroseismic scale the intensity was evaluated. The author located the epicenter of the earthquake in Jagodina and rated the effects in the epicentral area with intensity I = VIII (“catastrophic”). Other intensities marked on the map are I = VII (“very strong earthquake”), I = VI (“heavily shaken area”), and I = V (“the limit of acoustic underground tones”). The thick solid line represents the limit of earthquake observations that can still be recorded accurately. From the shape of the isoseismals, we suggest that the energy of the earthquake was directed mostly towards the north and northwest, slightly less towards the northeast, significantly less towards the south, and the least towards the east and west.

3.4. 1967 Map by Vukašinović

Figure 5 shows the isoseismal map of the main earthquake of 8 April, 1983, which was compiled by Vukašinović [4]. Vukašinović used the MCS (Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg) scale to determine the macroseismic intensity based on the data provided in the Registry of the Serbian Royal Academy [11]. The map was created for only a portion of what was then central Serbia, based on about 200 of the 247 data points in then Serbia and only 3 of the 71 data points from the then neighboring countries—for the cities Pančevo, Vršac i Bela Crkva (for the last one, in the picture it is mistakenly written “Beli Manastir”). The range of rated intensities goes from I = IX to I = IV degrees. In contrast to Bendefy’s map (Figure 4), in which the earthquake epicenter is in the city of Jagodina (which is not even shown in Vukašinović’s map) with the epicentral intensity of I = VIII, Vukašinović places the epicenter northeast of Svilajnac in the I = IX zone. We have georeferenced and overlapped Vukašinović’s map with the digital map of Serbia to read the intensity values for the same locations for which we assessed intensity in this study (see Table A1 in Appendix B) and to estimate the (approximate) location of the earthquake epicenter according to Vukašinović [4]. From the georeferenced map, we have determined that the epicenter of the earthquake is near the village of Viteževo (coordinates 44.27830° N, 21.25451° E). These coordinates are close to the ones given in the 1982 seismological catalog of the Seismological Survey of Serbia [3] (see Table 1). We made an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the original data utilized by Vukašinović for the creation of his map from the Seismological Survey of Serbia. From the georeferenced map, we were only able to accurately define the locations for 115 out of the approximately 200 sites that can be seen in Vukašinović’s map (depicted by dots in Figure 5). In the next Section, we show how for some locations Vukašinović misassigned the intensity value to a different village with the same name. However, for all locations that fall into IX, VIII, and VII isoseismals in the Vukašinović’s map, we managed to define locations, and all these values are given in Table A1 together with the values for some locations (mostly the towns and cities shown in Figure 5) for which Vukašinović assigned intensities VI, V, and IV.

Because Schafarzik [8], Réthly [13], and Bendefy [14] did not use familiar intensity scales to depict the effects of the 1893 earthquake, in Table A1, we are able to show only the 115 Vukašinović’s intensity values. Thus, these 115 intensity data are the only ones we have from previous studies.

4. Intensity Map Derived in This Study

For a thorough evaluation of intensity at a specific location, it is imperative that earthquake reports accurately depict the impact on living beings, objects, structures, and the natural environment. However, it is rare to find such well-written reports that cover every category of data about the effects of an earthquake. This is particularly true for reports on historical earthquakes, as they often come from a time when neither the knowledge nor training of regular people was at the needed level. As a result, most of the reporters of historical earthquakes mention only some of the data that are necessary and important for a reliable assessment of the earthquake intensity.

In Appendix C, we show a few examples of reports from the 8 April 1893, Svilajnac Earthquake for several locations in Serbia. By using these examples, we will demonstrate the significance of beginning each research study with original data rather than reusing the data interpreted by earlier researchers and thus introducing their possible mistakes into the current study.

Already with the first example for Aleksandrovac (a village 15 km south of the Serbian city of Požarevac), given in Appendix C under number 1, we can see from the first two reports what a bad and a good report mean for the same place. Based on the first report, the things we know are that “the earthquake occurred at 2:42 p.m.; it was felt from the eastern side and lasted approximately 40–45 s”. There is no information about the effects on people, objects, and the very building where the telegraph station was located. Neither information is given as to how the earthquake itself was felt: weak, moderate, strong, very strong, fierce, etc., except that it lasted about 40–45 s. While the second report is commendable, there is a minor issue with the data. Based on the given description that “many houses made of hard material cracked”, we cannot find out the type and extent of the cracks. The intensity could be I = VII (EMS-98: cracks in many walls) or I = VIII (EMS-98: large and extensive cracks in most walls). Therefore, we may estimate the intensity value as I = VII–VIII. At this juncture, we should mention that intermediate intensity values are pure artifacts that have been introduced to suggest a resolution that is not actually achievable, as pointed out recently by Panza [15]. In this Section and Section 7, as well as in Table A1 in Appendix B, we use intermediate intensity values for all locations for which the available information was not conclusive enough for us to reliably assess only one discrete value. However, in Section 6, we will use only discrete intensity values for our calculations and estimation of the 1893 earthquake’s seismological parameters.

The third report for Aleksandrovac, found in the Serbian newspaper “Odjek” from 13 April 1893 [11], contains information that “an unprecedented strong earthquake occurred at 2:40 PM in the west direction; lasted 40 s”. Similar effects of the main shock occurred in places around Aleksandrovac, for which we estimated intensities I = VII–VIII and I = VIII (for example, Žabari (VIII), Malo Crniće (VIII), Velika Plana (VII–VIII), Veliko Selo (VII–VIII)). In Vukašinović’s 1967 map, the estimated value of intensity was I = VI, but we found that it was attributed to the wrong location of another village with the same name (Aleksandrovac), which is located almost 100 km to the south, near the city of Kruševac.

The next example refers to the village of Vlaška (number 2 in Appendix C). This village is located between Mladenovac and Sopot (about 64 km NNW from the epicenter). Yet again, Vukašinović [4] erred by incorrectly assuming the location of the village of Vlaška. Namely, Vukašinović [4] assumed that the village of Vlaška is the one with the same name, only located east of Jagodina (about 19 km SE from the epicenter). Two pieces of information from the report helped us to determine which of the two villages is the right one. The first one is about the reporter, priest Petar Popović, who was the parish priest in the village of Vlaška near Mladenovac at the time of the earthquake. The second one, explicitly written in the report, is that the Vlaška church building was a wooden log cabin, in contrast to Vlaška near Jagodina, where there was no church at all. From the report, we can also learn that the brick houses were damaged: “My house, as well as that of many neighbors, was heavily cracked, and in many places, the chimneys fell” (EMS-98: chimneys fracture at the roof line, I = VIII), and that “church itself swayed in that direction”. Based on the quoted report, we adopted the value of intensity I = VIII. Vukašinović likewise assigns the intensity I = VIII, but to the wrong Vlaška village, while he evaluates the effects in the right Vlaška with I = VI, based on an unknown report. Another important piece of information in this report is that, unlike the brick houses that cracked and the chimneys fell from them, the wooden church did not suffer any damage.

The third example is given for Batočina (number 3 in Appendix C). Although it does not give a level for the strength of the earthquake, it very well describes the damage to the buildings: “Nearly all chimneys fell”; “Masonry cracked in almost all directions, bricks were falling out of the masonry in some places”; “Church unable to serve anymore”; “The school is closed the entire month of April, because the repairs are extensive”. Hence, for this location, we estimated the intensity with an interval value of I = VIII–IX degrees. Also, in the report for 8 April and the following report for 9 April, it is explicitly stated that “the direction is always from NW to SE” and that “the cracks from the first tremor were only widened by subsequent earthquakes”.

The fourth example refers to Lapovo (number 4 in Appendix C) and it shows that reports given for aftershocks can help us in a good assessment of the intensity of the main shock. Thus, apart from the information that “there was a strong earthquake” (I = V according to EMS-98), there is no other data on the basis of which we could estimate the approximate value of the intensity of the main shock. However, in the report from the railway station dated 13 April (the fifth day after the main shock), it is stated that “there was no damage” and that “the old cracks (from the main shock) are getting wider”. We can conclude that cracks did appear on the station building during the main shock, which leads us to rate the intensity in Lapovo as I = VII–VIII. Since the nearby locations were rated I = VIII and I = VIII–IX, we finally rated the intensity in Lapovo with I = VIII.

The same was the case with the location of Velika Plana, which is about 17 km north of Lapovo (see example number 5 in Appendix C). In the first report from the railway station in Velika Plana, after the main shock, there is no mention at all that the station building was damaged. We learn about its damage only from the report dated 22 April 1893, which says that “the station building is increasingly damaged”. Since the type and extent of the damage were not specified, we rated the intensity with I = VII–VIII.

The next-to-last example we give here refers to the village of Četereže (see example 6 in Appendix C), which is mentioned in the report for the nearby village of Brzohode. This report states, “at the church in Četereže, murky water flowed from the fountain for 2–3 s”. It is very difficult to determine the intensity with this information only. Bearing in mind that Četereže is located between the towns of Žabari in the west and Brzohode and Petrovac in the east, and as we have in the report for Žabari the information that “In Žabari the church is badly cracked and damaged, especially the vault and the north side under the tower” and in the report for Petrovac that “the vaults of the church were severely cracked”, it seemed logical that something similar happened with the church in Četereže. Finally, in the book “Church of the Municipality of Žabari” by Lazić et al. [16], p. 16, we found the following information: “somewhat later, as a result of the devastating earthquake that apparently occurred at the end of the 19th century, the original semi-round stone vault over the nave of the temple collapsed, while only a part of the semi-calotte above the altar apse remained”. This information helped us to estimate the intensity value for Četereže, as well as for the surrounding places, to be I = VIII.

The final example we provide is for the city of Jagodina (see example 7 in Appendix C) and may be rated as outstanding since it includes all the information required for a reliable assessment of the intensity value. In Appendix C, we present only several characteristic reports for Jagodina, while there are many more reports and descriptions of earthquake effects in Jagodina that can be found in Ref. [8], [11] (pp. 16, 17, 38, 85, 88), and other sources. Based on the compilation of data from all available reports, we rated the intensity value as I = IX. Before proceeding to analyze the 1893 earthquake’s effects in Jagodina, it is very important to understand that in 19th-century Serbia most private houses in rural areas were built as wooden log cabins (typically in mountainous regions) and wooden frames with infills. The infill was either made of thatch covered by mud mortar (the so-called “bondruk” houses) or of unburnt clay (the so-called “ćerpič”). Sometimes, the walls were built with woven brushwood with a clay infill (the so-called “čatmara” houses). In that historical period, only state-owned buildings and just a few private houses (belonging to the richest families) were made of brick.

The reports for Jagodina are crucial for the reevaluation of the intensities and magnitude of the 8 April 1893 earthquake. The fourth report states that “most of the brick buildings were badly damaged, and the building of the telegraph station almost entirely collapsed”. The fifth report states that “all state buildings and more important and beautiful houses are completely unusable. The schools and the church are all ruined”. The sixth report further states that “all the buildings made of hard material were significantly damaged”.

The last report on the effects of the 1893 earthquake in Jagodina was found in the paper by Schafarzik [8], and it was taken from the diary of construction engineer Mr. Jovan Jiráček, who lived and worked in Jagodina at the time of the earthquake. Mr. Jiráček mentions that “in particular, one-story houses with solid masonry were the most damaged”. This is very useful information, as it confirms that the behavior of solid brick buildings (mostly state-owned) was different than most of the private houses (of “bondruk” type). For example, the fourth report mentions that (a private, “bondruk”) “house was swaying”, while it was only the chimney that collapsed, and the “roof was disturbed”.

The reason for the better behavior and less damage to a wooden structure (log cabins and “bondruk” houses) than a solid masonry one (stone, brick, etc.) during the same earthquake is that the former has a lower mass (resulting in significantly lower inertial forces) and greater ductility compared to the latter. Radovanović and Petronijević [17] analyzed various building types in Serbia and came to similar conclusions as well. Surprisingly, good behavior of log and “bondruk” houses was also observed after the M_W = 5.5 3 November 2010, Kraljevo earthquake, when a hundred-year-old “bondruk” building was left intact right next to a seriously damaged modern masonry building [18].

Based on the descriptions of the structural behavior and damages to buildings in Jagodina, it is obvious that the “bondruk” houses cannot be treated on the same level as the masonry ones. They are rather wooden structures and, therefore, cannot be classified as vulnerability class B but as vulnerability class D (or minimum C), according to the EMS-98 intensity scale [7]. The former director of the Seismological Survey of Serbia, Jelenko Mihajlović, came to similar conclusions at the beginning of the 20th century and mentioned this while describing his Modified Mercalli scale in the newspaper “Politika” from 18 May 1927, no. 6845, year XXIV, Belgrade.

Our reevaluated macroseismic intensities of 8 April 1893, Svilajnac earthquake are illustrated in Figure 6. The map was created on the basis of the currently available 538 data for various locations in 9 different countries (Serbia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Austria, and Slovakia). The inset in Figure 6 shows a physical map in which a bounding square indicates the territory from which the reports on the manifested effects of the 8 April 1893, Svilajnac earthquake were observed. Our estimate of the location of the epicenter is also shown.

The locations depicted in Figure 6 were given integer intensities (e.g., I = IX, VIII, VII, etc.) when we were confident that we had sufficient descriptive data to reach a reliable intensity assessment. When the data were such that we could not decide on one or the other intensity degree, we marked the intensity with an interval value (e.g., I = VIII–IX, VII–VIII, VI–VII, etc.). Finally, when there were reports with insufficient information to assign any intensity, or when it was data taken from the literature without an accompanying report on the effects of the earthquake, we also entered them into the map and marked them with an empty black circle, indicating an undefined intensity degree at those locations. In this way, the map shows all the locations where there were reports that the earthquake was felt.

Based on the estimated intensity values, we defined the isoseismal lines to separate the areas with different intensities. Figure 6 shows isoseismals for the intensity degrees IX to V. By a simple visual comparison of the macroseismic map with the relief map, our preliminary conclusion is that the shape of the isoseismals is defined by geological formations, namely by the spatial arrangement of the deep geological sediments that are present in the Pannonian plain and the rocks of the mountain regions (Dinaric Alps, Hellenides, Rhodopes, Balkan Mountains, and Carpathian Mountains). The latter (spatial distribution of mountains and plains, i.e., deep geological rocks and sediments) was, in our opinion, most probably the reason why the maximum effects of the earthquake were directed towards the northwest, north, and northeast, less towards the west and east, and least towards the south. The effects of the regional geological formations on the spatial distribution of different earthquake intensity degrees have recently been observed also for the strongest earthquakes in Vrancea (Romania) [19].

5. Assessment of the Fault Line, Dislocation Direction, and the Epicenter

Based on a large number of local reports on the direction of swaying of objects and walls [11], our preliminary conclusion is that the rupture propagation direction was SE-NW or SSE-NNW. Furthermore, in the reports from the epicentral and wider area where the earthquake buildings collapsed and were damaged, it is emphasized that the walls positioned in the SE-NW and SSE-NNW directions were dominantly damaged by oblique and cross cracks, while the walls perpendicular to them showed predominantly horizontal cracks and vertical cracks, as well as deflection or collapse in the SE-NW and SSE-NNW direction. Local reports also state that chimneys from houses and objects in houses fell predominantly in the SE-NW and SSE-NNW directions.

In the report of Žujović and Stanojević [10], which was written after visiting the most severely affected area in the basins of Morava and Resava rivers, it is stated that “the center of the earthquake is not one point, but a larger, mostly elliptical space between Morava and Resava. The big axis of that elliptical space runs in the direction NW to SE, almost parallel to the course of the Resava River north of Svilajnac, and its position lies closer to the Resava River. In length, that axis extends from Svilajnac to across the village of Beljajka (from NW to SE). The small axis, which intersects the large axis near the village of Medveđa, is approximately one-third the length of the large axis”.

The macroseismic map with the isolines of intensity degrees IX and VIII is shown in Figure 7 on the left. All locations where ground fissures and liquefaction were noticed are also depicted with a yellow symbol. We attempted to assess macroseismic intensity values using the ESI-2007 scale (Environmental Seismic Intensity Scale) [20,21] in addition to the EMS 98 scale. The ESI-2007 scale is based on coseismic environmental effects, both primary and secondary. Primary effects include tectonic uplift/subsidence and surface faulting. Secondary effects include liquefactions, landslides, rockfalls, displaced boulders, hydrological anomalies, ground cracks, etc. In

Table A2. bserved types of secondary coseismic effects [20,21] (marked with “X”) for the sites that fall into this study’s estimates of the IX and VIII isoseismals (see Figure 7).

No. (from Table A1)	Name	Ground Cracks	Liquefactions	Slope Movements (Rockfalls, Displaced Boulders)	Hydrological Anomalies
15	Beljajka				X
20	Bošnjane				X
25	Brzohode				X
29	Bukovac			X
35	Velika Plana (northern)	X	X
37	Veliki Popović	X	X		X
41	Veliko Selo	X	X
48	Vojska	X	X
54	Dobra voda	X	X
56	Gložane	X	X		X
74	Donje Vidovo	X	X		X
75	Donja Livadica	X	X		X
80	Dubnica	X	X
81	Duboka	X	X
84	Đurinac	X	X
86	Žabari	X	X		X
92	Sveta Petka Monastery				X
94	Jagodina	X	X		X
125	Kušiljevo				X
141	Mali Popović	X	X
143	Manasija Monastery				X
145	Markovac	X	X
146	Medveđa	X	X		X
150	Mirijevo				X
160	Veliko Orašje	X	X
165	Panjevac				X
168	Petrovac	X	X
188	Ribare	X	X
199	Svilajnac	X	X		X
200	Sedlare	X	X	X	X
211	Staro Selo	X	X		X
216	Subotica	X	X		X
221	Troponje				X
224	Ćuprija	X	X		X
230	Crkvenac	X	X
233	Malo Crniće	X	X
236	Četereže				X
242	Šavac	X	X

(Appendix D), we present an overview of the most important types of secondary coseismic environmental effects that have been observed at the sites that belong to the IX and VIII isoseismals (see Figure 7). We intend to provide a more thorough examination of the coseismic environmental effects of the 1893 earthquake in our future research. Here, we will just note that our preliminary estimates of the ESI-2007 scale [20,21] intensities match our estimates of EMS-98 intensities quite well for the first three isoseismals (IX, VIII, and VII).

The neotectonic map of the wider epicentral area, the pleistoseist area (the area inside the isoline of degree IX), and our estimate for the location of the epicenter are shown on the right. The tectonic structure of the epicentral area is very complex and the possibility for the initiation of the earthquake can be attributed to at least two fault lines. The first one lies between the Zlatovo–Bobova Block (ZBB) and Resava–Despotovac Graben (RDG), and the other is between RDG and Crni Vrh Horst (CVH). In order to determine on which of the two fault lines the initial movement occurred (and in which direction), we superimposed our intensity map over the neotectonic map of Serbia—see Figure 7 (right side). Details about the geology and the seismotectonic features of the area under investigation can be found in [22,23], thus we will not go into too much depth here. We will just shortly note that many faults have been activated during the Quaternary in the bordering zone of the uplifted morphostructures of the Dinarides and the Carpathians and the Pannonian Basin, in the area of flexural transition from a thick crust towards a thinned one, i.e., from a rigid towards a weakened lithosphere [23]. Marović et al. [23] found that three factors were necessary for a model of Quaternary tectonic activity in the Serbian part of the Pannonian Basin and its southern margin: (1) compressive stress, which was generated in the border zone of the Adriatic plate and Dinaridic orogene; (2) crust thickness and lithosphere-wide rheological features; and (3) extension in the Aegean domain. In central Serbia, while reverse and sometimes normal faulting is also evident, strike-slip faulting predominates [22,23].

We can see in Figure 7 that the locations with maximum intensities I = IX and VIII are concentrated around two fault lines: the first, strike-slip, at the intersection of ZBB and RDG and the second, reverse, at the intersection of RDG and CVH. From north to south, the most severe consequences of the earthquake occurred in the villages of Subotica, Medveđa, and Veliki Popović. We positioned the epicenter about 15 km SE of Svilajnac on the first fault line. This is supported by the fact that the strongest foreshock on 13 March 1893, was felt most powerfully in Medveđa, close to the first of the two analyzed faults (the ZBB-RDG line). Hence, our estimates for the epicenter coordinates are 44.160° (44°09′36″) N and 21.354° (21°21′14″) E.

In Figure 7 (right side), we see that the major axis of the ellipse formed by the IX-degree isoline almost coincides with the fault line between ZBB and RDG, which suggests the conclusion that the earthquake occurred as a horizontal movement along the ZBB-RDG fault.

From the shape of the I = IX isoseismal, which has a symmetric elliptical shape, we cannot estimate the direction of the fault movement. However, isoseismals of degrees VIII and VII, which are elliptical in shape but with the SE-NW direction of the larger axis (see also Figure 6), indicate that the movement of the fault was in that direction. The eccentric position of the estimated epicenter in relation to the I = VIII and VII isolines indicates that the seismic energy was mostly directed north, northwest, and northeast due to the SE to NW movement of either ZBB or RDG tectonic blocks.

Finally, our preliminary conclusion is that the shape of the I = IX isoseismal is defined by the fact that the initial movement was along the ZBB-RDG fault and from SE to NW. Of course, we cannot be absolutely sure about this and plan to use alternative ways in our future studies to get to the geometry of the causative fault and to the main seismological parameters of the earthquake [24,25]. As the Kingdom of Serbia was relatively uniformly populated throughout its territory at the time of the earthquake, our preliminary conclusion is that the shapes of the I = VIII and VII isoseismals can be attributed to the effects of topography and deep geological site surroundings, as well as to the movement along the RDG-CVH fault, rather than to the presence or absence of inhabited centers.

6. Evaluation of Seismological Parameters from the Re-Evaluated Isoseismal Map

In the previous Section, we first estimated intensity values and showed them on a map, and then defined isoseismals of individual degrees of intensity I_i (see Figure 6). In this Section, we will use the areas A_i circumscribed by the isoseismal lines I_i to calculate the magnitude of the 8 April 1893 earthquake, using the following three macroseismic field equations:

(1)

the equation from UNESCO [12], developed for former Yugoslavia, Romania, Albania, Central, and Western Bulgaria, and Southwestern Turkey, “normal” foci—10 km < h < Ha (Ha—depth of the upper boundary of the asthenosphere channel, Ha = 50–100 km)

$$I_i=1.5\cdot M_{LH}-4.5\cdot \log \sqrt{r_i^2+h^2}+4.5,$$

(1)

$$I_0=1.5\cdot M_{LH}-4.5\cdot \log h+4.5,$$

(2)

where I_i is the intensity degree (MSK-64) of the i-th isoseismal and I₀ is the epicentral intensity, M_LH is the magnitude defined by Karnik et al. [26], h is the hypocentral depth (in km), and r_i (in km) is the equivalent radius of i-th isoseismal area, calculated as

$$r_i=\sqrt{\frac{A_i}{\pi }},$$

(3)

(2)

the equation proposed by Schebalin et al. [5], developed for Europe south of 47° N, also with the intensity degrees in MSK-64 scale:

$$I_i=1.5\cdot M_S-4.0\cdot \log r_i+3.8,$$

(4)

$$I_0=1.5\cdot M_S-4.0\cdot \log h+3.8,$$

(5)

(3)

the equation we developed specifically for this study, derived from a database of recent earthquakes in Serbia for which there were instrumentally determined epicenter locations, focal depths, earthquake magnitudes (M_W), and the intensity values estimated according to the EMS-98 scale:

$$I_i=1.443\cdot M_W-3.310\cdot \log \sqrt{r_i^2+h^2}+3.136,$$

(6)

$$I_0=1.443\cdot M_W-3.310\cdot \log h+3.136.$$

(7)

As for the hypocentral depth, h, we will use the equation suggested for Serbia by Sikošek et al. [3]:

$$h=3.25\cdot \sqrt{A_2^2+A_3^2}$$

(8)

where A₂ and A₃ (in km²/1000) are the areas circumscribed by the second and the third isoseismal lines (in our case, these are the isoseismal lines for intensities VIII and VII, respectively).

By using Equations (1)–(7), the magnitude of the analyzed earthquake is obtained as the median value for all analyzed isoseismal lines. The macroseismic magnitudes calculated by Equations (1) and (2) were then converted to M_W using Scordilis’ [27] equations. The M_S magnitudes calculated by Equations (3) and (4) were converted to M_W using Markušić et al.’s [28] equations.

Table 5. Magnitude of the 8 April 1893 earthquake, calculated by using five different estimates of isoseismal areas and three different empirical intensity-magnitude relations (Equations (1)–(7)). The hypocentral depth, h, is estimated by using equation of Sikošek et al. [3] (Equation (8)).

I0, Radii of isoseismal areas [km]	UNESCO [12]	Schebalin et al. [5]	This Study’s Lowest Estimates	This Study’s Medium Estimates	This Study’s Highest Estimates
	9, R9-2, R8-26, R7-55, R6-108, R5-160	9, R9-5, R8-26, R7-55, R6-90, R5-150, R4-280, R3-450	9, R9-10, R8-27, R7-57, R6-130, R5-255, R4-456	9, R9-12, R8-32, R7-66, R6-130, R5-255, R4-456	9, R9-13, R8-36, R7-74, R6-168, R5-336, R4-516
MW, Equations (1) and (2) (UNESCO [12]) *	6.9	6.8	7.1	7.2	7.5
MW, Equations (4) and (5) (Schebalin et al. [5])	6.6	6.5	6.9	7.0	7.2
MW, Equations (6) and (7) (This study)	6.7	6.5	6.7	6.8	7.0
Hypocentral Depth [km], Equation (8)	11	13 *	12	13	15

* This was the only value of hypocentral depth that was not calculated by Equation (8) but rather directly taken from Ref. [5].

shows the final estimates of both magnitude M_W and hypocentral depth h (calculated using Equation (8)) for five different sets of the equivalent radii of isoseismal areas. The first two sets are those we found in the available literature ([12] and [5], respectively), while the last three represent our lowest (the most conservative), medium, and highest estimates. For the estimation of the isoseismals, we used only discrete intensity values. As for the interval intensity values shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7 and in Table A1, we defined our lowest isoseismal estimate (the fourth column in Table 5) using only lower interval values, our medium isoseismal estimate (the fifth column in Table 5) using the values we determined to be more likely (based on the intensity values assigned to nearby locations), and our highest isoseismal estimate (the last column in Table 5) using only higher interval values.

At this juncture, it is interesting to note that the area comprising locations with reported ground fractures and liquefaction (see Figure 7) is similar to our highest estimate of I = VIII isoseismal area, which is 4164 km² and also extends 45 km to the north (Malo Crniće), 40 km to the south (Donje Vidovo), 25 km to the east (Petrovac na Mlavi), and 30 km to the west (Velika Plana) from the epicenter.

Furthermore, by comparing the neotectonic map and the spatial distribution of the largest estimated intensities (Figure 7, right side), the rupture length of the 1893 main shock can be estimated as approximately 36 km. Wells and Coppersmith’s [29] equation for strike-slip faults gives a magnitude range of M_W = 6.62–7.18 when one standard deviation is taken into account and the mean magnitude estimate of M_W = 6.9 for the surface rupture length of 36 km. This supports our conclusion that the value M_W = 6.8, which we obtained for our medium estimates of isoseismal areas, is realistic for the 8 April 1893 event.

7. The 4 February 1739 Jagodina Earthquake

Once we have determined the key seismological features of the 8 April 1893 earthquake, we shall look into whether this was an isolated incidence or if there were other earthquakes in the past that could have been caused by the movement of the same tectonic blocks. In this Section, we will analyze the earthquake of 4 February 1739, which had approximately the same epicenter as the 8 April 1893 earthquake.

Table 6. Seismological data from various sources for the 4 February 1739 earthquake. The table also shows estimations of M_S and M_W from observed intensities and supposed depths.

Source	h	min	sec	LAT, °N	LON, °E	Depth	I0, Radii of Isoseismal Areas [km]	Scale	MS	MW
Schebalin et al. [5]	-	-	-	44.0	21.30	16	8 R3.5-220, R3-340	MSK-64	6.1	-
Stucchi et al. [6]	-	-	-	44.0	21.30	-	9	-	-	6.42
RSZS [2]	-	-	-	44.0	21.30	16	-	EMS	5.7	5.7

shows the seismological data, arranged chronologically, as given for this event in three different catalogs ([5], [6], and [2]).

The reasons for the non-existence, loss, or destruction of possible written sources about the effects of the earthquake of 4 February 1739, should be sought in the following facts. First, the earthquake occurred during the Austro-Turkish War of 1737–1739, when many cities, villages, churches, and monasteries in today’s Serbia were destroyed and looted. Second, simultaneous to the conflict, there was a plague epidemic, from which the people suffered greatly, as well as a great famine, which added to the people’s daily struggle for survival. As a result, in a practically empty and devastated land, few people thought about the earthquake and described its effects.

The only information we have managed to find so far about the 1739 earthquake effects in what was then Serbia is for the Dokmir monastery (Appendix F, example number 1). The Dokmir monastery is located about 15 km northeast of the town of Valjevo. We found this information in the book “Travels in Serbia” from 1902 [30]. In 1826, the author of the book, Mr. Joakim Vujić, visited churches and monasteries in Serbia. On page 65 of his book, Vujić mentions that “the church was heavily damaged in an earthquake on January 4, 1739”. The text does not say what kind of damage the temple of the Holy Virgin suffered, but it gives information about the money for the repair and the duration of the repair, which was 39 days (“The priest gave 344 forints for the reconstruction. It started on Bright Monday and ended on Ascension Day”). Please note that in the Eastern Orthodox Church, Bright Monday is the name of the first Monday after Easter, while Ascension Day is celebrated exactly 40 days after Easter. The only dispute in the text is the date and month in which the earthquake occurred. In our opinion, number 2 was omitted by mistake before number 4 since the earthquake occurred on 24 January according to the old calendar, or 4 February, according to the new calendar. However, as we will see from the records from the Serbian monastery of Ravanica (Vrdnik), which at that time was located on the territory of Austria, the date of the earthquake was definitely 24 January 1739, according to the old (Julian) calendar.

Considering that the Ravanica (Vrdnik) monastery, which is at a greater distance (about 165 km) from the epicenter of the earthquake than the Dokmir monastery (about 115 km), reportedly suffered damage from the 1739 earthquake, we can assume that the damage to the Dokmir monastery was at least of the same level. That is why we can take I = VI–VII as a minimum intensity range for the Dokmir monastery, the same as the one we estimated for the Ravanica (Vrdnik) monastery. With the same range of I = VI–VII, we assessed the effects of the 1893 earthquake in nearby Valjevo, which was located about 117 km from the epicenter of the 8 April 1893 earthquake, and during which the church in Valjevo was damaged.

The following two reports about the 1739 earthquake (Appendix F, under serial number 2) are for the Ravanica (Vrdnik) monastery, which is located on the Fruška Gora Mountain. We found these records in the book: “Old Serbian Records and Inscriptions” from 1903 [31]. The first contains the information that: “everything in the temple shook, and it seemed to us that everything was collapsing from the many shaking; the earth shook three times, and we all ran outside for fear of a lot of destruction”. The second report confirms the date and time of the event, as well as that there were several aftershocks and that during the mainshock: “all the people fell with their faces to the ground for fear of God”. Based on these two reports, we assigned the interval value I = VI–VII for this location.

For the same monastery, there is information regarding the harmful effects of the 8 April 1893 earthquake, which we found on its website: “Renovations of the church and the lodge were recorded in 1885, as well as in 1898, after being devastated in the earthquake (1893)”. We can infer from this short text that the church was damaged in the earthquake of 8 April 1893, but there is not enough data to assign a particular value of intensity. We believe we can assign a possible interval value of I = VI–VII for this location.

In the report from the Paragovo Forest (Appendix F, also under serial number 2), which is also located on the Fruška Gora mountain, we can learn that the earthquake was felt by a monk who happened to be in the forest in the vicinity of the village of Paragovo, about 5.5 km NE of the monastery (Rakovac) where he lived. From this information alone, we cannot rate the intensity value. Here, we should note that the reporter was in a forest during the earthquake and that for Ravanica (Vrdnik) monastery, which is only about 10 km southwest of Paragovo, we assessed the effects of the earthquake with I = VI–VII.

The third report (Appendix F, example number 3) we managed to find is for the Savina monastery, located near the city of Herceg Novi in today’s Montenegro: “the earth shook in the month of January on the 24th day at noon or in the afternoon”. From this short text, we can estimate the intensity at the location of the Savina monastery with I = IV–V. It should be noted that this monastery is located 288 km SW from the epicenter of the 1739 earthquake. Unfortunately, we have not found any records from this monastery or nearby villages or cities reporting the 1893 earthquake to compare the effects of the 1739 and 1893 earthquakes.

Four reports from Timișoara, Romania, are given in Appendix F under serial number 4. The first, the third, and the fourth contain only the information that there was a strong earthquake in Timisoara. However, in the second one, we find that the earthquake was: “violent enough that the clock bell on the Jesuit tower struck the hammer rising above it, and distinct chimes were heard. The tremors lasted so long that the “English salute” (a church song) could be prayed almost twice”. The reports for the same city (Timișoara) after the 1893 earthquake were described in more detail and also included information about the “cracks on the walls of the railway guardhouse”. We finally rated the 1739 earthquake intensity in Timișoara with I = VI and the 1893 event with an interval value of I = VI–VII.

The last example is given for Pécs, Hungary (Appendix F, records numbered 5). In this report, we find that “the two huge tremors either broke or at least damaged the walls and chimneys of the convent and farm buildings.” Therefore, we used an interval value of I = VI–VII to estimate the intensity. We do not have a report from Pécs for the 1893 earthquake, but we do have reports from the nearby cities of Mohács, Pécsvárad, Nádasd, and Rácpetréről, which we rated as I = VII.

In summary, a comparison of the rated intensities for the 1739 and 1893 earthquakes is as follows. The intensity range for the Ravanica (Vrdnik) monastery from both earthquakes is I = VI–VII, as well as for the Dokmir monastery (for which we use a report in the nearby Valjevo to make a comparison). For Pécs in Hungary, we estimated the intensity of the 1739 earthquake as I = VI–VII. For Pécs there are no data for the 1893 event, however for nearby Pécsvárad, Nádasd, and Rácpetréről the intensity of the 1893 earthquake was rated as I = VII. Paragovo Forest, 10 km from the Ravanica (Vrdnik) monastery, has no comparisons with the Savina Monastery in Montenegro. For Timișoara, Romania, the effects of the 1739 earthquake are estimated with I = VI, while the intensity of the 1893 earthquake was estimated within the interval value of I = VI–VII.

In Figure 8, we show a map with the estimated intensity values for the locations for which we found reports on the effects of the earthquake of 4 February 1739. We also show the isoseismals and the epicenter location from Figure 6, assessed for the earthquake of 8 April 1893.

As shown in Figure 8, for all locations, the assessed intensities for the 1739 earthquake agree with the corresponding isoseismals calculated based on the data from the 8 April 1893 earthquake. We may conclude that the consequences of both earthquakes were quite similar and that the earthquake of 4 February 1739, most likely had the same size, focal depth, and epicenter location as the earthquake of 8 April 1893.

8. Conclusions

For a reliable assessment of seismic hazards in a given area, it is crucial to have a thorough understanding and accurate quantification of historical earthquakes. However, all that is usually known about earthquakes that occurred prior to the instrumental period is contained in qualitative descriptions of their effects on people, objects, buildings, or nature. These effects are then quantified using various intensity scales. Consequently, it is essential to accurately evaluate the macroseismic intensities of significant historical earthquakes since it is from these (intensities) that the seismological parameters required for the analysis and computation of the seismic hazard for the place of interest, country, or region are determined.

The two strongest earthquakes in Serbia in the past three hundred years occurred in the valleys of the Morava and Resava rivers, the first on 4 February 1739, and the second on 8 April 1893. According to various earthquake catalogs prior to 2013, the 1893 event had a magnitude of 6.5 or 6.6. However, in the latest (2013) earthquake catalog of the Seismological Survey of Serbia [2], this earthquake was assigned a magnitude of M_W = 5.8. However, there is no explanation provided for this choice. In the past ten years, after going through numerous published reports, classic literature and ancient texts, chronicles, newspaper articles, scientific papers, monographs, and macroseismic maps, we managed to compile a database of 538 written reports on the effects of the great 8 April 1893, Svilajnac earthquake. After a careful review and analysis of the compiled database, we came to the conclusion that the pleistoseist area of this earthquake was 531 km², corresponding to I = IX° EMS-98. The next isoseismal area (I = VIII° EMS-98) closely corresponds to the area encompassing locations with recorded ground fractures and liquefaction, which is roughly 4000 km² and which extends 45 km from the epicenter to the north (Malo Crniće), 40 km to the south (Donje Vidovo), 25 km to the east (Petrovac na Mlavi), and 30 km to the west (Velika Plana). As for the boundaries of the total area where the 1893 earthquake was felt, the data show that it was felt on almost the entire territory of former Yugoslavia (there is no data only from Montenegro and Slovenia), whose total area was ~250,000 km². It also affected the territory of all of modern-day Hungary, with an area of ~93,000 km², and all of Transylvania and Wallachia (parts of today’s Romania with a total area of ~238,000 km²). In Wallachia, Rethly [13] mentions the cities of Turnu Severin, Calafat, Craiova, Bechet, and Corbia; the earthquake was probably also felt in Bucharest because it was felt in Brašov, which is 100 km north of Bucharest. The earthquake was probably also felt in other cities in Wallachia because it was felt even as far as Ruse on the Danube in Bulgaria. It was most likely felt on the half the territory of Bulgaria, whose total area is 100,000 km², in parts of Slovakia, whose total area is 49,000 km², and parts of Austria, whose total area is 84,000 km². This all adds up to at least 700,000 km², which is consistent with our estimations of its intensity. Our lower and upper bounds for the areas where the earthquake was at least felt are 625,000 and 837,000 km², respectively.

The obtained results of the analysis of the 1893 earthquake are as follows: (1) epicentral intensity, I₀ = IX EMS, (2) estimations of the moment magnitude and focal depth based on the observed intensities, M_W = 6.8 and h = 13 km, respectively, and (3) the epicenter coordinates, 44.160° (44°09′36″) N and 21.354° (21°21′14″) E (about 15 km SE of Svilajnac, between Subotica and Medveđa villages).

By comparing the reports from the 1893 and 1739 earthquakes for same or nearby locations, we have shown that the effects of both earthquakes at those locations were very similar. Our conclusion is that the earthquake of 4 February 1739, had approximately the same magnitude value, focal depth, and the location of the epicenter as the earthquake of 8 April 1893. This points to a preliminary estimation that the Svilajnac earthquakes with magnitudes greater than 6.5 (the lowest estimate in Table 5) have a recurrence interval of approximately 150 years. This indicates that an earthquake of a magnitude greater than 6.5 could occur in the Morava-Resava valley around 2040.