**Preface to "The November 23rd, 1980 Irpinia-Lucania, Southern Italy Earthquake: Insights and Reviews 40 Years Later"**

A little less than two months after 23 November 1980. While on 15 and 16 January 1981, the "Antonio Gramsci" Institute gathered together intellectuals from every sector in Avellino to define "Politics and culture for the reconstruction of the Mezzogiorno", the editor Einaudi published the report of the study group directed by Manlio Rossi-Doria on the Situazione, problemi e prospettive dell'area piu colpita dal terremoto del 23 Novembre 1980- Situation, problems and prospects of the ` area most affected by the earthquake of 23 November 1980'.

At the Avellino conference, Alberto Samona, Professor at the Faculty of Architecture of ` the Federico II University in Naples, gave a clear, precise presentation calling for analysis and accountancy of the dramatic events that occurred in the Belice area (Sicily), when it was hit by the earthquake on 15 January 1968; he urged that this case inform responsibility in urban planning and architecture; on the one hand, removing the tendency to be alienated by localised differences and, on the other, implementing a genuine form of participation in the choices to be made. In other words, not locking decisions into academic or professional alternatives between rebuilding towns and cities *where they were* and *as they were*, or building them from scratch, which is, after all, the forbidden dream of every architect.

"I believe that town planning and architecture would be completely powerless if they did not change their attitude", he warned, to invoke "completely different ways of expressing all the capacity for renewal that the situation requires in both practice and theory".

If I look up today and see the outline of the houses built in Bisaccia or Conza della Campania, in Teora or San Mango, and in the many other places in the epicentral area between Irpinia, north of Salerno and Basilicata at that time, I realize that Samona's appeal has gone tragically unheeded. `

Not only has respect for the spirit of the places been betrayed and the lesson of Christian Norberg-Schulz mortified, but what Vezio De Lucia described in a 30 September 1990 article for the Pci newspaper 'l'Unita': "I have seen architectural havoc, they have called it reconstruction". The ` heart of the southern Apennines had become a marginalized area, like a suburb without a metropolis.

The analysis by Rossi-Doria and his Center for Specialisation and Economic-Agricultural Research for the Southern Italy in Portici, instead, contained special indications of merit for planning development of the earthquake-affected territory, in timely accordance with vocations and within the framework of a more general economic development plan. "This requirement corresponds not only to a sort of moral commitment that the Nation has contracted with itself over the last month, but also to an objective situation", said Manlio Rossi-Doria, strongly emphasizing the work. The area had been divided into zones, and for each one there was a detailed description of the socio-economic situation, land structures, natural features, atmospheric and climatic conditions, and the extent of damages caused by the earthquake. I always go back and reread these reflections whenever there is a discussion about an agri-food prospect for Irpinia, about plans to revive a productive role for "the province of bone", a landscape enhancement to accommodate tourists: in comparison with what Manlio Rossi-Doria foreshadowed, with the meticulous care and passion in the approach by the Center's group, so much debate now seems to me an exercise in unbearable rhetoric, the tired and downright ritualistic ceremony of desires that inconsistency causes to degrade into wishful thinking and of plans that fade into utter inadequacy.

One should assign the reasons for the current state of Irpinia in the lack of response to that call for ideas in January 1981. The reasons for the state of Irpinia today should be sought in the failure to respond to the suggestions offered in January 1981. Four decades after the earthquake that destroyed it, progressively emptied of population and hopes, nailed to a marginality that preludes to irrelevance, I wonder why the content of those documents was not adequately taken into account when defining strategies and choices: why the suggestion of establishing the laboratory of a new and better South on the rubble of the earthquake soon gave way to the to the old politics of welfare and exploitation and the priority of a long vision that reconsidered the mistakes of the past was not affirmed and amended to gain a perspective for the future.

We should start from here and retrace the various events that have taken place, from judicial enquiries to political complaints, from scandals to controversies, from exploitation to convenience. Remembering in order to understand, in an in-depth examination—sincere and merciless—an examination of the reasons for the failure to implement the proposals presented in the conference of the "Gramsci" Institute and in the survey of the Manlio Rossi-Doria Center would lead to identifying the truths.

Forty years constitute the epochal threshold that Ian Assmann describes as "the moment when living memory is threatened with decline and the forms of cultural remembrance become problematic". For another, there is no event such as an earthquake that one wants to forget so quickly: it may be that this is the only way that one is able to calm the awareness that the ground on which one lives will inevitably suddenly begin to shake again, and then setting aside this certainty constitutes the only possibility of continuing to inhabit the places of catastrophes and tragedies. But it also happens, however, that earthquakes never come to pass, and that the aftermath, the consequences and reconstructions go hopelessly into a kind of temporal loop, almost as if they were on a Moebius strip that twists onto itself endlessly toward eternity.

113 years since Messina's earthquake on 28 December 1908, there was a measure to dismantle the shacks erected during the emergency and evidently inhabited by the successors of that enduring temporary status. And it comes as no surprise that there are still some funds being allocated for the reconstruction of private buildings destroyed or damaged in Campania by the 23 November 1980 earthquake, a residual expense 41 years after the enactment of Law 219, which has overcome the barriers of the euro, centuries, millennia, and modesty, entrusted by the Region to a paradoxical "Committee for the simplification and speeding up of bureaucratic procedures".

The past and present chase each other, the clock hands stop, and the course of history grinds to a halt.

In a paper written in 1992, "Sulle rovine", Ettore Sottsass states that "the present always has its tail in some form of the past".

According to Sottsass, the present and the past end up narrowing the perspective, taking away space from the future, and in this way, he adds, "there are few possibilities left. All we are left with is the present as a place to meet with existence; an ambiguous present, a curious present, an uncertain present, both for the projects of the future and for what we find when we enter the desert—or cemetery—of the ruins of the past". The Irpinia of the villages emptied by the new emigration and the towns of lunar architecture, the dismay of the generation of emptiness and the anger of those who have the stubbornness to want to remain, the nostalgia for an invented past and the struggle to reflect themselves in a sincere memory.

The text is collected in a valuable posthumous book with a title that seems to refer precisely to the inland areas of this time: "Di chi sono le case vuote? Whose empty houses are they?".

> **Generoso Picone Journalist, Writer**

### *Editorial* **40 Years Later: New Perspectives on the 23 November 1980, Ms 6.9, Irpinia-Lucania Earthquake**

**Sabina Porfido 1,2, Giuliana Alessio 2, Germana Gaudiosi 2, Rosa Nappi 2,\* and Alessandro Maria Michetti 2,3**


After more than forty years since the 1980 Irpinia-Lucania earthquake, with this Special Issue "The 23 November 1980 Irpinia-Lucania, Southern Italy Earthquake: Insights and Reviews 40 Years Later" we revisit this milestone geological and seismological event, bringing together the latest views and news on this earthquake, with the aim of improving the dissemination of wide-ranging information on this remarkable case history.

This earthquake struck Irpinia-Lucania region (Lucania is also called Basilicata; Southern Italy) on 23 November 1980 (Ms 6.9, Io X MCS) [1,2], and it is remembered in Italy not only for being the strongest earthquake recorded in the last 100 years causing devastation of entire regions and severe loss of human life, but also for the destruction of the cultural heritage in the epicentral area.

It was felt throughout Italy, from Sicily in the South, to Emilia Romagna and Liguria in the North (Figure 1) causing damage in over 800 localities spread in the regions of Campania and Basilicata with a total of 75,000 houses destroyed and 275,000 seriously damaged. The number of victims was about 3000, with 10,000 injured people [1–8].

**Figure 1.** Intensity felt reports of the Irpinia-Basilicata 23 November 1980 earthquake (modified by CPTI15 [2]).

**Citation:** Porfido, S.; Alessio, G.; Gaudiosi, G.; Nappi, R.; Michetti, A.M. 40 Years Later: New Perspectives on the 23 November 1980, Ms 6.9, Irpinia-Lucania Earthquake. *Geosciences* **2022**, *12*, 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/ geosciences12040173

Received: 9 March 2022 Accepted: 31 March 2022 Published: 15 April 2022

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

The earthquake also caused several striking effects on the natural environment, including extensive coseismic surface faulting which is still visible today (Figures 2 and 3), and was mapped in the following years for a total length of about 40 km [9–19].

**Figure 2.** The photos (**a**,**b**), taken in 2004, show the coseismic 1980 fault scarps along M.te Carpineta; the photo (**c**) shows a paleoseismological trench wall along the Piano di Pecore plain (Photos by Rosa Nappi).

**Figure 3.** The coseismic 1980 fault scarp along M.te Carpineta, 40 years later (Photos by Giuliana Alessio, October 2020).

Moreover, over 200 landslides occurred [20–24]; also, widespread soil fracturing was observed, and minor liquefaction effects [25,26]. Wide changes in water flow rate in some regional karst springs [27,28] were reported. In that extremely dramatic context for Italy, the national scientific community played an important role, through the Geodynamic Finalized Project of the National Research Council ("Progetto Finalizzato Geodinamica", PFG-CNR), that involved in the field many researchers, from different universities and research institutes, contributing to collect instrumental data, macroseismic surveys (Figures 4 and 5), geological fieldwork and mapping (Figures 6 and 7), and seismic engineering analyses, indispensable for the knowledge of the 1980 earthquake and for implementing a proper risk mitigation strategy [1,28–36].

**Figure 4.** First macroseismic study published about two months after the 23 November 1980, earthquake (January 1981), showing preliminary intensity assessment by PFG researchers [29].

In particular, during the emergency activity for urban reconstruction, preliminary seismic microzonation studies were carried out in collaboration with the Tuscany and Emilia-Romagna regions, involving 39 towns in the epicentral area of Campania and Basilicata, with the objective of providing technical maps, on a scale of 1:5000, with indications of areas with different geological characteristics and the most suitable areas for reconstruction [35]. Other two important publications edited by the CNR- PFG in the field of seismology were certainly the Atlas of Isoseismal maps of Italian Earthquakes, and the first modern Italian Seismic Catalogue (Figure 8) [1,36].

**Figure 5.** Macroseismic survey of the 23 November 1980 earthquake presented at the 7ECEE conference in Athens in 1982 [3].

The Irpinia-Lucania 1980 earthquake is still considered a crucial seismic event for the study of seismicity in Italy and abroad, and for the development of modern seismology, Quaternary geology and active tectonic studies, also including the emerging methodology of paleoseismology in Europe (Figure 2).

The recognition of the primary surface faulting due to the 1980 seismic event, and of its extent, was not obvious at all, for the limited technological tools, difficult environmental conditions and doubts of the scientific community; it required several months of field work by various researchers, and was firstly properly interpreted in 1984 by Rob Westaway and James Jackson [12] near Piano di Pecore, where a ca. 1 m high fault scarp was observed and mapped [11], then detected in the following months and in the neighbouring areas for over 40 km [12–17].

Paleoseismological studies, based on the excavation of trenches across the coseismic fault scarps detected on the surface, began in Italy only ten years later [15]. Thanks to these studies it has been possible to reconstruct the seismic history of the 1980 seismogenic fault, through the recognition of past earthquakes (historic and prehistoric) detectable by the faulted geological strata and the relative dating.

Forty years after the earthquake and with the introduction of modern scientific knowledge, it becomes important and fundamental to reconsider the many relevant and still open research lines that have been triggered by the Irpinia-Lucania earthquake.

**Figure 6.** Detail of the original 1:25,000 scale topographical map with the most important geological effects surveyed by Italian geologists immediately after the earthquake of 23 November 1980 (fractures, landslides, faults by Carmignani et al., 1981 [11], see also Supplementary Materials S1) right top corner, trace of the most relevant primary earthquake ruptures located at Piano di Pecore on Monte Marzano (see also Figure 2c; courtesy of Paolo Scandone, PFG).

**Figure 7.** Detail of the original 1:25,000 scale topographical map with the most important geological effects surveyed by Italian geologists immediately after the earthquake of 23 November 1980 (fractures, landslides, faults by Carmignani et al., 1981 [11], see also Supplementary Materials S1); note the trace of the most relevant primary earthquake ruptures located at Pantano di San Gregorio (courtesy of Paolo Scandone, PFG).

**Figure 8.** Some of the most important CNR-PFG publications; left, the volume of preliminary seismic microzonation studies for 39 locations severely affected by the 1980 earthquake [35]; center, the atlas collecting the isoseismal maps of the most important Italian earthquakes (1985, [36]); right, the catalogue of Italian earthquake from 1000 to 1980 of the CNR-PFG [37].

The Special Issue "The 23 November 1980 Irpinia-Lucania, Southern Italy Earthquake: Insights and Reviews 40 Years Later" contains 13 articles proposed by 44 researchers with different expertise, with a multidisciplinary approach that highlights the most important aspects of the earthquake from a seismological and geological point of view, without neglecting the reconstruction of cultural heritage, the resilience of the population, and the socioeconomic development of the internal areas of the Southern Apennines after the earthquake. No doubt, lessons learned from the Irpinia-Lucania event are relevant at the local level, for the whole Mediterranean region, and in similar seismotectonic and cultural environments around the world.

The volume is organised in five virtual sections in which the authors deal different features about the 1980 Irpinia earthquake: the historical-scientific framework, the geological and seismotectonic setting, the seismological framework, examples of applied geophysics, post-earthquake and resilience aspects.

The historical-scientific framework is represented by the papers of Lombardi [38] and Gizzi and Potenza [8]. The first paper introduces the "earthquake" topic by highlighting the far-reaching significance of this calamitous event not only in the social history of our country, but also and above all in the context of the various disciplines, from the scientific to the humanistic ones, giving a critical review of the academic debate that still exists today. According to the Author, this socio-historical vision can also support the demand for knowledge and risk mitigation coming from citizens and communities living in seismic areas, focusing on attention to social memory and awareness of seismic risk and natural risks.

The second paper by Gizzi and Potenza [8] can be rightly considered a milestone on the topic because it analyses about 640 papers with a tailored methodological approach, international and national (Italian) studies initiated and advanced since the earthquake occurred. They built and analyzed statistically two bibliographic databanks regarding the earthquake studies: (a) the international version of Irpinia Bibliographic database (IR\_BASE\_ENG), selecting and standardizing the pertinent scientific documents extracted from Scopus, Web of Science, and other databases and (b) the national version of the database (IR\_BASE\_IT) using the Google Scholar search engine to search for the most relevant papers in Italian. The review provides a rich and useful bibliography (123 papers) that includes studies on seismic source, environmental effects, seismic damage, seismic

microzonation, disaster response and recovery, disaster epidemiology, ground motion estimates, and other research. The results of their research confirm that the 1980 Irpinia-Lucania earthquake was a significant occasion for the scientific community to expand the knowledge on the seismic phenomena, as well as to learn lessons in view of setting up preventive actions to mitigate the seismic risk.

The section about geological and seismotectonic setting includes papers by Ascione et al. [39], Matano et al. [19], and Galli [18]. Three papers that provide a broad overview of new insights not only into the detailed geology and geomorphology of the area but also into the seismotectonic interpretation and post seismic deformation of the epicentral area through different methodologies: the analysis of PS-InSAR data, new stratigraphic, petrographic, structural data, paleoseismological and archaeoseismological evidence. In detail, Ascione et al. [39], analyzed eighteen years of PS-InSAR data after the earthquake, showing that in the past decades soil deformation has affected the 1980 earthquake epicentral area. The analysis showed that cumulative deformation is consistent with coseismic deformation inferred from both seismological data (rupture mechanisms of the three main shocks which occurred in a 40 s timespan), levelling data and coseismic surface faulting. It is also consistent with evidence of Late Quaternary active faults at the surface. The Authors identify continuing uplift of the footwall and subsidence of the hanging wall blocks of the two major faults activated by the 23 November earthquake; they also show that the region in the mid part between the main seismic structures is currently affected by slow uplift. Moreover, the results of PS-InSAR data show that postseismic deformation is still occurring 30 years after the earthquake.

Matano et al. [19] collected geological data from the studies for the excavation works of the Pavoncelli bis hydraulic tunnel, developing between Caposele and Conza della Campania, highly damaged during the 1980 earthquake and described the geology of the epicentral area of the 1980 earthquake with new stratigraphic, petrographic and structural data. Through a multi-disciplinary and updated datasets the Authors have achieved (1) new insights on the tectono-stratigraphic evolution and stratigraphic architecture of the southern Apennines foreland and basin system, as well as on the structural and stratigraphic relations of Apennines tectonic units (2) the timing of their kinematic evolution, (3) a better understanding of the relationships between internal and external basin units within the Apennine thrust belt and its tectonic evolution.

Galli [18] in his paper deals with both paleoseismological clues from the Monte Marzano Fault System (the structure responsible for the catastrophic, Ms 6.9, 1980 earthquake) and archaeoseismological evidence of settlements founded in its surroundings, in order to cast light on two poorly known earthquakes that occurred at the onset and at the end of the first millennium CE, likely in 62 and in 989 CE. The Author tried to demonstrate that both earthquakes should share the same seismogenic structure and the same power as the 1980 seismic event.

With regard to the seismological section, the papers presented by Festa et al. [40] and Piombino et al. [41] starting from the 1980 event, give precise information on the current seismicity. Festa et al. [40], provided detailed location and characterization of events of the 3–7 July 2020 Irpinia sequence (southern Italy) that occurred at the northern tip of the main segment that ruptured during the 1980 Irpinia earthquake. Using an autocorrelation technique, they detected more than 340 events within the sequence, with local magnitude ranging between 0.5 and 3.0. The Authors provided double difference locations, source parameter estimation, and focal mechanisms determination for the best quality events and found that the sequence ruptured an asperity with a size of about 800 m, along a fault structure having a strike compatible with one of the main segments of the 1980 Irpinia earthquake fault system, and a dip of 50–55 at depth of 10.5–12 km and 60–65 at shallower depths (7.5–9 km).

Piombino et al. [41] merged historical records of seismicity with new satellite techniques to allow for the precise determination of ground movements, and then derived physical dimensions, such as strain rate. In this way, the Authors verified that in Irpinia, the

occurrence of new strong shocks forty years after the 1980 event (one of the strongest known seismic events in the district) with Mw 6.8 is still a realistic possibility. They hypothesized that the reason for this is due to the fact that, since 1990, only areas characterized by high rates of deformation have hosted significant earthquakes, also confirmed by analyzing the historical catalog of events with seismic completeness for magnitude M 6 over the last four centuries. Moreover, they show that strong seismic events with magnitude M 6 generally occurred at a relatively short time distance between one another, with a period of 200 years without strong earthquakes between the years 1732 and 1930.

Nardone et al. [42], Forcellini [43] and Mina and Forcellini [44] provide a useful overview of applied geophysics investigating some specific cases, both real and theoretical on the seismic assessment, the site effects, the soil–structure interactions, the response of the cultural heritage, applying various numerical simulations. Nardone et al. [42], analyze the ground response in the Avellino town (Campania, Southern Italy) and its correlation with the effects caused by the 23 November 1980 Irpinia earthquake on the historical buildings with the aim to get some clues about the earthquake damage and the cause-effect relationship. They use the seismic hazard disaggregation for estimating the ground motion response for Avellino, where strong motion recordings are not available. For assessing the seismic ground motion, the authors use borehole data to build the lithological model. The results indicate that the complex subsoil layers influence the ground motion, particularly in the lowest period (0.1–0.5 s). Moreover, the comparison with the observed damage of the selected historical buildings and the maximum acceleration expected indicates that the damage distribution cannot be explained by the surface geology effects alone.

Forcellini [43] deals with the role of the water level, closely related to changes in the degree of soil saturation, in the assessment of seismic vulnerability for the 1980 Irpinia– Basilicata earthquake, performing several 3D numerical finite element modeling in order to consider the effects of soil–structure interaction (SSI) on a representative benchmark structure. The results show the importance of considering the water level for buildings on shallow foundations in terms of settlements, base shear forces and floor displacements.

Mina and Forcellini [44] present a systematic study of the effects caused by the strong earthquake that struck southern Italy on 23 November 1980 (Ms = 6.9) and affected the Campania and Basilicata regions. In detail the Authors study the response site effects by considering several soil free-field conditions and the assessment of the role of the soil– structure interaction (SSI) on a representative benchmark structure through the numerical simulations performed with the advanced platform Open Sees, which can consider nonlinear models for both the structure and the soil. The results show the importance of considering the SSI in the seismic assessment of soil amplifications and its consequences on the structural performance.

Last, but certainly not least, are the papers in the section relating generically to post-earthquake, but including papers on seismic risk and resilience of heavily earthquakedamaged villages. The paper of Wyss and Rosset [45], using the computer code QLARM, calculates the number of dead and injured in near-real time taking into account data from the 1980 earthquake. The results show that the number of casualties and injuries in large and major earthquakes in Italy can be estimated correctly within less than an hour by using QLARM, very important for definition of the seismic risk and for the civil protection actions to be prepared.

The paper by Moscaritolo [46] approaches the post-1980 earthquake reconstruction problem as a complex social process in which cultural backgrounds, expectations, and ideas of the future come into play, without neglecting geological, historical, legislative, economic, and political factors. Combining oral historical sources and archival records, the article shows the paths taken by two small towns among the most affected by the 1980 earthquake.

The last paper by Porfido et al. [7], aims to present, through a photographic reportage, the current state of rebuilding of the most devastated villages by the 1980 earthquake. Forty years after the seismic event, the photographs show villages almost completely rebuilt with modern techniques where reinforced concrete prevails. Only in few instances, the

reconstruction was carried out trying to recover the pre-existing building heritage, without changing the original urban planning, or modifying it. Even more than this, documenting the rebuilding process in a large epicentral area reveals the human legacy to the natural landscape, and our ability, or failure, to properly interpret the environmental fate of a site.

This volume, far from being exhaustive, is nevertheless intended to be an important point of reference for the new generations, who will be able to have a historical as well as a multidisciplinary vision a seismic event that some of the researchers involved in the drafting of the volume have experienced personally [7,47–55]. An event that, due to its catastrophic consequences, not only modified and conditioned the lives of many people, but whose effects are still felt today.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/ 10.3390/geosciences12040173/s1, File S1: Supplementary\_material\_Editorial\_Porfido et al\_2022.

**Author Contributions:** For this editorial all authors have contributed to the work reported. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The Guest Editors thank all the Authors, the "Geosciences" Editors, and the reviewers for their appreciable contributions and commitment to this Special Issue. Many thanks go "Geosciences" Assistant Editors, for their dedication to this project and their valuable collaboration in the setup, promotion, and management of the Special Issue. Special thanks to Paolo Scandone (1939–2016) who made available the topographic maps with the seismic-induced effects survey carried out immediately after the earthquake. We would like to take this opportunity to thank once again all the researchers who, despite the many difficulties of the moment, took part in the post-earthquake investigations organised by the PFG of the CNR.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


### *Article* **Irpinia Earthquake and History: A Nexus as a Problem**

**Giovanni Lombardi**

CNR—Institute for Studies on the Mediterranean (IsMed), 80134 Naples, Italy; giovanni.lombardi@ismed.cnr.it

**Abstract:** Forty years from the 23 November 1980, Irpinia-Basilicata earthquake date represents much more than a commemoration. It has been a fracture for the history of Italy. Important for many reasons, this earthquake has been a watershed for the studies and the public role of research. Historians have been solicited to work on the topic by scholars of the geological and seismological sciences: in the face of the repetition of disastrous seismic events in Italy, earthquakes remained 'outside the history'. However, the real difficulty of socio-historical science is not neglecting seismic events and their consequences, but rather the reluctance to think of 'earthquake' as a specific interpretative context. This means to deal with the discipline 'statute' as well as the public commitment of scholars. In this way, the circle earthquake-history-memory requires broad interdisciplinarity, which offers insights to work on historical consciousness and cultural memory: important aspects to understand the past as well as to favour a seismic risk awareness.

**Keywords:** earthquake history; memory

#### **1. Introduction**

Forty years from the 23 November 1980, much has been said about the Irpinia earthquake, and any socio-historical reading can be submerged by such vast records. Indeed, the event immediately focused the world's gaze on that little-known and remote land of Southern Italy; the concern was also shown by the generous chain of international solidarity. After all, the memory of this broad mobilization is alive and still visible in the place names, as in the case of the "Villaggio Italo-Canadese" of San Mango sul Calore built with the help of Canadians—or the "Bergamo condominium" of Lioni, funded by Bergamo's citizens (Northern Italy) [1]. Furthermore, the rescues on such a large-scale showed different visions of emergency management, exposing cultural barriers other than solidarity between peoples [2]. Several generations have been affected by the events or wrapped by their consequences over time. Volunteers who flocked as rescuers remained bonded to that memory. In a land branded by emigration, some came back to help; many others left, while the remittances from abroad supported the reconstruction. Some enriched themselves; others simply rolled up their sleeves to go on. The lobbies looked for business. Meanwhile, political struggle enhanced civil protection, seismic risk mapping and safe practices. Ultimately, interests of all kinds and new settlements upset the anthropic impact in the area, polarizing the national choices. In other words, territories and communities visibly changed along with institutions, which were urged to rethink themselves. The events involved scientists of every order and degree. First of all, who rushed to help and then to study: working on the field as well as on theoretical elaboration, they rewrote the history of earthquakes in Italy, generating tools and knowledge, nowadays patrimony of all. The Irpinia-Basilicata earthquake appeared, from the start, a fracture in the history of Italy.

#### **2. About History and the Earthquake: An Interesting Relation**

A careful scholar noted that earthquake disasters happened in Italy on average every 4–5 years in the last 150 years, urging more attention from historians, regretting historiography with earthquakes "outside the history" and low memory of the risk [3]. The

**Citation:** Lombardi, G. Irpinia Earthquake and History: A Nexus as a Problem. *Geosciences* **2021**, *11*, 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/ geosciences11020050

Received: 1 December 2020 Accepted: 21 January 2021 Published: 27 January 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

reflection is reasonable. Nevertheless, the question invests the role of the humanities and, specifically, of history as a discipline. Science has gained sound knowledge, offering ideas, proposals and hard data on the "Irpinia earthquake". From the first days, the scientific community arose with an unprecedented mobilization, setting up coordination around the Vesuvius Observatory—the oldest in the world, founded in 1841. The observatory was historically an attractor for the scholars and was close to the disaster sites. Hence, it immediately became a reference point, hosting, just in the aftermath of the earthquake, the earlier operative meetings. [4–6] Certainly, historical disciplines' perspective is not quite the same as other sciences: events gain sense within the "historical" narration, and this process needs "time". Moreover, it depends on the contemporary viewpoint. That not for neglecting "objectivity"—destroyed towns are destroyed towns—but for how semiotic contexts shape the representation of the past [7]. It is interesting, for example, how the controversial concept of resilience—adaptive resilience, post-disaster resilience and so forth—can influence the historical interpretation in the light of present-time mechanisms may be showing the limits of the authoritarian/military emergency management and the marginalization of the communities from post-disaster choices [8]. Moreover even, it is enlightening how historical analysis can decode an interview, showing meanings materialized only with time. However, the "free will" of the scholars is both the pivot and matter for the discipline, judging what to highlight, transmit or leave out. Very roughly, the contemporary perspective shapes the past as history. These issues would lead us off-topic, but here it is just important to remember that these matters exist. Despite the instances of objectivation and measurement influence now strongly the social sciences, historians remain essentially anchored to holistic views.

Earthquakes come with Italian history; just to think of great twentieth-century disasters like those of Messina (1908), Marsica (1915), Belice (1968), Friuli (1976), Irpinia (1980); or the more recent of L'Aquila (2009) and the others happened all along the Appennini Mountain chain in the twentieth-first. The infinite seconds of any seism have marked the "land of the thousand bell towers". In addition to the pars destruens, all along the centuries, the earthquake has molded the forma urbis, as the recent case of L'Aquila has brought back to general attention [9]. Moreover, seismic events shaped the morphology of vast territories, scattered settlements, updated governing praxis, as has been shown by recent natural hazard studies [10]. Then the crucial issue remains how and if "earthquake" dwells in the memory of the country. No understanding, no safety plan, zoning, prevention, recovery or omission make sense without reference to "memory" [11]. Many events were "unexpected" due to a lacking narrative and also by psychological and emotional removal of disaster memory. Hence, the nexus earthquake-history-memory emerges as both a slippery and focal point.

The issue about the historians" attention does not concern the omission of disasters and their consequences. It rather concerns—looking at Italian historiography—a reluctance to think of "earthquake" as a special interpretative habitat in the critical context of general history. About the Irpinia earthquake, the historians had reflected on the social problems arisen due to "the worst Italian disaster from the Second World War"—as it was immediately recognized by international public opinion. The State institutions have been shaken, while the inadequacy and anachronism of the Italian ruling classes have been brought to light [12,13]. From the beginning, aid and reconstruction also meant conflict, criminality, material and moral ravage, and bloated investment for this endless "emergency". In this scenario, the historians adopted traditional approaches to studying the events. Ultimately, the related geological and environmental studies—and in general of hard sciences—were not really taken into account when elaborating historical analysis. Nowadays, after investigations and with the new generations, the scholars began to sense the interpretative limits of the "Irpiniagate"—to use a journalistic term—putting the earthquake of 1980 in the view of a slightly more comprehensive version of the general Italian history [14]. Moreover, recently, the earthquake–history connection as "disaster narrative" seems to revive the historiography, while new studies widen the discipline on the socio-anthropological side

and towards a sociology of disaster [15]. It sounds like an "earthquake" can shake even academic "resilience".

#### **3. Shaking Land, Shake the State**

The date of 23 November 1980 has been fixed in the collective memory by a jarred audiotape aired months later on radio, in which earthquake disturbingly rumbles over a folk music track. In 1970, a reference law had set an overall groundwork about "Rules on relief and assistance to disaster victims—Civil Protection" [16]: it concerned the emergency, the definition of "disasters", and the commitment of the state. A subsequent regulation should have ensured the law's application, but it was not made. However, that evening of November 1980 showed the absolute unpreparedness of the state, although only four years had passed since another terrible earthquake, namely that of Friuli (1976). The command chain was unclear. No information, no electricity, no telephone line, no coordination. After the one of Rome, the Turin fire department sent right away its firemen: many men came from the affected areas of South, and that helped the rescues. They camped in Avellino, the main city of the area, in harsh conditions and without food: all its 119 district municipalities were hit. Firemen most readily dealt with the difficulties of mountain localities, often unreachable, while the Italian army—at the time, a military force of conscription—took longer to arrive. Similar initiatives started everywhere, among the confusion and the incompetence of territorial authority. In the villages, local "carabinieri" and volunteers dig right away. Rescue vehicles, equipment and expertise, coffins were all missing. Food was scarce, and squads gave up their rations to the victims. Once again, the political agenda and social behavior had ignored the past experiences and environmental risk: the consequences were clear. On average, the earliest significant help arrived after more or less five days. On 23 November, the President of the Republic, Sandro Pertini, had just returned to Rome after an unofficial state visit to the Hellenic Republic. On the 24th, after having welcomed the UK PM Margaret Thatcher, he left for the disaster region. On 25th, Pertini reached the earthquake sites by helicopter, despite the contrariety of the PM Arnoldo Forlani, ministers and advisers. The next day, in a discourse to the nation, the President reported the desperate situation and denounced the political responsibilities; the coordination centers, planned in 1970, had never been realized [17]. That day, the historical newspaper of South Italy—"Il Mattino"—suggested 10.000 deaths: the front page had an international echo and soon became a symbol [1,18]. Everything happened under the sight of the world.

Much has been written on the political struggle, the interests, the dreams and the betrayal, the outputs due to the Irpinia 1980 [14]. To have an idea, the dossier of Deputy House of 2009 reported, for the quake of 23–24 November 1980, around 200 municipalities affected in Campania and Basilicata regions, about 60 of that severely damaged, 2.914 deaths, 8800 injured, 280,000 displaced/homeless, 150,000 buildings to rebuild, 47.5 billion euro (currency evaluation at 2008) for the reconstruction of disaster areas, excluding other costs like mortgages and tax benefits, and 17.5 billion for Naples—the last funds were related to the earthquake, but linked to specific law 219/1981, urged by the social tension of the city [19]. Still, the so-called "Milleproroghe Act" (2017, art. 9) included the renewal of the commissioner for ongoing issues related to the Irpinia earthquake (considering the period 1980–1981), pointing to long-run implications. After all, several municipalities still report sites for prefab housing that survived here and there—as in Avellino province—sometimes used, mostly abandoned. In some localities, "temporary" housings still exist [1,20].

Different parameters about damages may touch up some estimates, but the key figures are clear. The Irpinia-Basilicata earthquake was the strongest seismic event (Mw 6,9) in Italy in the last 100 years. Felt throughout the peninsula, particularly affected the regions of Campania and Basilicata—the last also named Lucania—harming more than 800 locations. Fifteen municipalities in the Avellino, Salerno and Potenza districts were almost destroyed. Even damages to the natural environment and the hydrogeological instability were huge, although the emergency needs of the populations focused for a long time on the urban settlements [21].

On the historical horizon, the dynamics between disaster and institutions—or emergency and institutions—can conceal recurrent patterns. The symbolic universe of the dominion over nature/territory concerns the bases itself of the institutional power: not by chance, in Ancien Régime, royal gardens ruled the reluctant nature showing, metaphorically, the sovereign order over chaos. In a long-run historical perspective, symbolic and social schemes can be repeated. One of these concerns the need to reaffirm the government authority—shaken by the crisis and the impotence in the face of nature—and to offer a narrative of the events. In addition, the naming of governing commissioners to deal with an emergency, as an adaptive response, is a recurrency in history; in the past, as a step of the state-building, in 1980 as a lack of consideration of the seismic risk in an ordinary state commitment.

Overall, the new perception of the risk improved institutions and approaches. One of the most visible examples was the enhancement of the civil protection department. However, above all, there was impressive enforcement of the public role of science. A grassroots mobilization involved scholars of all kinds, from students to academics. Practically, a generation of young graduates—among the first rescuers or subsequently involved in assistance, studies and reconstruction—participated in the events and remained tied to this experience also as experts and professionals. This social adherence gathered around a scientific network in full reorganization. Just before the first Irpinia-Basilicata shock, earthquake studies were a task of various institutions, including the Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica (ING, now known as INGV). At the time, the National Research Council (CNR) had a section for the study on the territory, involving seismic and volcanic risk [22] and, from 1976 (year of Friuli earthquake), it was carrying out the "Progetto Finalizzato Geodinamica" (PFG). Many scholars—often students and young researchers—had known the Irpinia area through this project as well as the Progetto Finalizzato Energetica, both promoted by CNR. Immediately after the earthquake, the Vesuvian Observatory took on the coordination of the "geodynamics" network and the scientific mobilization: the historical volcanology observatory became a leading reference [6,23]. In the following years, the scientific network was renewed; expertise and practices were improved, thanks to an extraordinary collaboration among such research institutions, universities and other organizations. It is noteworthy the strengthen of seismic mapping and historical seismology, as shown by the catalog of strong earthquakes in Italy [24]; inquiring geological settings linked to ground deformation and infrastructure matters [25]; zoning and building laws; the long-run studies on seismic fragility for Italian RC buildings [26]; the evolution of paradigms and incubators involving academy and public administration [27]; the update of financial strategies. In short, the Irpinia earthquake prompted processes that have influenced and daily influence the lives of millions of people beyond their awareness of these processes.

#### **4. Memory: A Complicated Matter**

Conza della Campania suffered seismic disasters in 1466, 1517, 1694 and 1732, yet the old country was still there when, in 1980, 90% of the houses collapsed; only then people decided to abandon the ancient settlement. It was 9 km away from the epicenter, made by buildings with often no foundations and leaning against each other on two unstable hills. San Mango del Calore suffered a destructive earthquake in 1732, but it was there that night of 23 November to be destroyed, with its inadequate housing and its landslides. The nearby Calitri was struck by the shock and by following incidents including a slump-earth flow that moved 23 million cubic meters of land, but similar things had already happened with the earthquakes of 1694 (X MCS), 1805, 1910 (IX MCS) and 1930 [28]. "Histoire événementielle" is not enough to explain such resilience or to avoid such recurrent exposition to the natural hazard.

Nonetheless, the nexus history-memory came out of the Irpinia earthquake with force, and it is crucial to understand events and behaviors. Beyond the scientific and technical

assumption for the reconstruction, the communities had to look back to their own historical identity. That followed many ways: the "narration" went from a reconstruction as a continuum with the origin up to breaking the link with the past in the name of brave choices. In this range, terms such as *Genius loci*, memory/oblivion, tradition/shock acquired real meaning. Among the most known cases, San Mango sul Calore and Calitri were rebuilt on-site, Conza della Campania was relocated. San Mango, reusing emergency wooden buildings as touristic resources, embraced the grief shaping within a more truthful and accepting narrative that goes beyond the practical outcomes. Conza—where the temporary village has been quite abandoned—focalized its origin on the archaeological site discovered on the ancient settlement—*Compsa*, ancient Roman city—nowadays elevated to a symbol of city and tourist resource. While the old village stays similar to the immediate after quake time, the new town shows contradictory urban and architectural signs. Moreover, the cemetery stays as a barycenter between the old hit hamlet and new town, like a memorial with the graves of the victims. The new industrial facility is near, displaying the territorial policies that occurred with the reconstruction. This view shows the fragmentation of historical memory and how the meaning of the places can change [29].

Visual cesura labeled some localities [1]. Bisaccia, in the province of Avellino, has a background of earthquakes and landslides: destroyed by the 1694 seism, devastated by those of 1732, 1930, 1980. After the last one, the municipality rebuilt the town on a safer site—so-called "piano"—identified in a master plan related to the 1930 event. Nowadays, two Bisaccia exist, the medieval hamlet that clings to the castle and the new city. The last is mostly rebuilt according to the urban plan of a renowned architect, Aldo Loris Rossi. Many people criticize the new urban spaces far from local uses, the otherness of its architectonic-urban codecs, the harsh contrast with a landscape dotted by wind turbines [30]. Nonetheless, some appreciate the radical changes based on anti-seismic criteria and unordinary ideas. On everything, it hovers a sense of suspended lives, perceivable at the sight of uncompleted and run-down public housings. The last scene is common in several post-quake localities. Moreover, beyond the cases, it coincides with a trend of the Apennine mountains range: between 1946 and 2000, in a context of depopulation of mountains, 3.5 new buildings were erected for every lost inhabitant, with an impressive rate of unoccupied dwellings [14,31]. Contrasting hydrogeological instability and seismic risk with non-essential buildings is quite a contradiction. Moreover, if the "semantization" of the sites depends on the community, which community we are talking about is a real question referring to holiday presences, migration and many more "absent" actors. The "quality" of the community influenced the decision-making process as well as the leading values of the reconstruction. These are matters that historians generally leave out, especially in the light of globalization: when, after all, there are the turbines to characterize the new skyline of Bisaccia.

Indeed, identity memorials are never just tangible but often related to a system of territorial relationships. In the case of Sant'Angelo dei Lombardi, the self-perception of its role in the region—having, before the events, a Hospital, a Court and other public services for the zone—worked as an ideal starting point, likewise to the wrecked medieval core. Hence, people considered its lost role as a reference and recalled this feature by setting up hosting camps, reconstruction commissions and offices. Social studies took on board these aspects, checking local archives and recovering interesting accounts [32]. Moreover, here and there appeared a "resilience" to change the balance between towns, an aspect that is both related to practical interests and the need to hold onto their identity.

People affected by the Irpinia earthquake had shaped the agrarian and mountain landscape as well as the urban scenery. Their way of life improved biodiversity, gave semantic sense to the environment and played a part in the dynamics of the natural hazard. This puts delicate questions upon subjects, languages and contexts of the "memory". Melito Irpino had suffered earthquakes and landslides during the twentieth century and before, and it had been already relocated in 1980: the earthquake just accelerated the demolition of the ancient site. An elderly inhabitant—a "privileged eye-witness" of the urban changes

and keeper of important pictures and cinematographic patrimony—said: "In my heart, there is that beautiful country that you do not see, but I feel" [33]. This speech reflected the fracture among generations that did not share the same experience/imagination of the place: the bricks crumbled, but their meaning too; material marks go together with the gazes that give sense to them.

Very roughly, the bonds commonly collected under the concept of "memory" show how the earthquake–history nexus could be problematic, not because simply unclear, but because it is fundamentally open, dynamic and debatable. Yet, the semantization of the events, the explanation of settlements and landscapes, the self-understanding of a community, all these depend on it.

We can sum up the issues on two levels. The first concerns the commitment of historians on the study on the earthquakes, and this case of the Irpinia earthquake. As mentioned, we begin to include earthquakes in a more general Italian history [14]. However, the difficulty of considering earthquakes as interpretative spaces with characteristics, and developing approaches and languages for them, remains; not simply to add suggestions and records. In this regard, it is interesting how a great part of the literature about the Irpinia earthquake is fundamentally linked to memorials, experienced journalism, literary production. In a way, it could not be otherwise for the impact of this seismic event: this narrative expresses a collective need. On the other side, this production has not been accompanied by an equivalent historical reflection. The wide use of the term "crater" to indicate the area of the 1980 earthquake, as well as the reception of simple interviews as *tout court* expression of oral history, are just two examples of semantic slip from a calibrated lexicon; these simplifications introduce confusing elements, but also testify the disengage of the historians from a disciplinary narrative. The second—but not secondary—level concerns the contribution of the historical studies to the disaster memory and then to the cultural memory [34]. Without dwelling on the classification details, that "memory" is an expression of the communities/groups/individuals and how they process traumatic events. It can keep knowledge about natural hazards and inspire adaptive behaviors regarding risk. As long-term and future-oriented memory, it needs to be fed or/and reinvented, using every kind of tool, such as museums, acting and narration, festivals and commemorations. In this perspective, they also become basic communication, exercises, education and games—especially involving young people—to raise awareness of the risk and consciousness of history/fragility of the communities [35]. That implies working for an intergenerational memory too and, indirectly, for the social cohesion around shared values. Ultimately, the cultural memory appears at the same time prelusive, inclusive and consequent of any educational process to promote a seismic risk awareness.

#### **5. Sweeping the Past, Reshaping the Past**

Forty years means a generation shift. Moreover, in the areas affected by the earthquake of 1980, that change went along with an astonishing modification of the landscapes too. In visual culture terms, it is not just an esthetic matter but rather a semiotic issue. The Irpinia earthquake hit mostly mountains and rural areas with little towns, low urbanization and people of reserved customs. Their "well-known landscape" was not a frame around the communities but an expression of the human presence. Its springs have been poles of life for centuries; its country lanes age-old routes; its square were crossroads of active awaiting and encounters; its biodiversity came from centuries of hard-working lives. Briefly, the landscape expressed ways of life. After the earthquake, the changes were deep and fast. The urban and the rural landscape mirrored the historical fracture caused by the quake, widespread anomie and the revolution of the social and economic structures. In this context, the self-understanding of the communities concerning the environment, and the meaning of the places themselves, were fragmented. The migration, which already was part of a longer-term trend [14], favored the alienation from the settlements.

Pressed by harsh social issues, the major cities used their political weight to get as much as possible by the emergency funds; mainly Naples and its hinterland, where the earthquake had struck, but, above all, inflamed housing problems [36]. A trivialization of the core-periphery paradigms as a spot-refrain accompanied the investments. Hence, demographic and political poles worked as spending outposts, fostering top-down economic models on those interior and "periphery" areas which had been the main victims of the disaster. The "emergency" catalyzed political-economic interests and changed the spending centers. The involvement of crime upset the life of the whole country. It became necessary a parliamentary anti-mafia committee face and stopped corruption and territorial mafia organizations from an extraordinary social penetration, the main one being "Camorra" [14,37]. Among the consequences, they influenced regional planning. The law 219/1981 was about rebuilding, but it favored demolition and urban reconstruction rather than the recovery of boroughs of historical and architectural value. A sort of general amnesia facilitated the loss of cultural heritage, compounded by expropriations pursued by foreigners economically stronger than residents or/and in agreement with local ruling classes. The same law made room for infrastructures and industrial facilities—many short-lasting while some became important for the territory—that branched out in a rural world. Industrialization involved areas like San Mango sul Calore, Guardia dei Lombardi, Nusco, Morra de Sanctis as well as the highway Ofantina-bis.

After forty years, some settlements are dependent on migrant remittances, exposing the inadequacy of development models. In particular, "High Irpinia" seems a marginal system for the general socioeconomic process; some localities come across as out of general time. Nonplace, the disappearance of historical landmarks without a coherent rewriting of the rural and urban landscape, poor territorial planning and urban sprawl, all that are now debated among scholars [29]. Useless to list the cases with pros and cons. Our focus is that the earthquake of 23 November 1980 unleashed a powerful change, but that was accompanied by the disorientation of the memory, a disorder of the community references. Top-down decisions, experiments, speculations and successful choices concerned a land shocked in both seismic and metaphorical sense. Induced from the outside, some models of economic growth seem currently outdated. Therefore, there is a need for a new participatory regional planning that would take into account comparative studies [29].

There is undergoing a recomposition of the cultural memory driven by wider civil participation, reinventing traditions and reshaping the past. High-quality agro-food production linked to ancient anthropic presence—for example, Irpinia has got fine grapes varieties—rural tourism, festivals, biodiversity promotion, reflect the effort to recompose its history, processing the trauma. These trends related to the territories hit by the Irpinia earthquake can be transposed in an international context of studies on heritage and identity [38].

Just like the current pandemic shakes the use/meaning of the spaces, the connection earthquake-history-memory stimulates a reflection on those used, forgotten or provisory places that marked the post-quake Irpinia territory. Between the disorder and bureaucratic reconstruction, they are interstices of the disaster memory. As previously mentioned, in San Mango, the provisional recoveries have been converted in a touristic hypothesis. Use and reuse of these cabins, beyond the practical implications, recall the wish of the community to metabolize the past and, eventually, to produce storytelling. The case of San Mango is not isolated [1]. Romagnano al Monte—gold medal for civil merits: an honor earned for its reconstruction effort—has been rebuilt far from its former millennial settlement. Metaphorically, the wooden provisory houses signed the passage to the new village from the old one; the last, it is now a closed ghost town. Except for some houses used by the local families, they are now available for tourists or migrants returning to the country for a while. Beyond the logistic solution and the economic aspects, the safekeeping of this temporary landscape is a meaningful symbol of a shared past. There is extensive iconological documentation on the days of the earthquake and those of the reconstruction [1]. We would like to dwell on some aspects of a temporary nature that deal with the disaster memory. For example, in San Potito Ultra, the local administration set thermo-igloos provided by the Sicily Region—i.e., dome houses in expanded polystyrene. This solidarity pattern is recurrent in

Italian history, a sign of national unity. The igloos were inhabited for over twenty years and dismantled in 2015 [39]. There was a consistent flow of families that occupied them one after the other. This was a common phenomenon in the first decades after the Irpinia earthquake and reached challenging moments in the not far city of Naples. The footprint of past lives dots the "residual" spaces of the rural and urban landscape, as well as the material ruins of abandoned workplaces. Just recently, scholars have tried to read the landscape of the earthquake areas as a semiotic and anthropological scenery, with an eye to the symbolization of the space evoked by Marc Augé and to the so-called *délaissé* places by Gilles Clément [40]. These sites mirrored the new hierarchies of poverty, the contrasts and the solidarities between inhabitants, the succession of the generations. They were part of the social recomposition. In this sense, reused or not, restored or degraded, these sites are symptoms of a complicated memory and pieces of the post-earthquake dynamic landscape. Tangible and intangible signs have been swept away or reinterpreted by the consequence of the disaster. Moreover, within all these things, we can see the processing of the trauma and a reshaping of the cultural memory. The Irpinia-Basilicata earthquake was not just a fracture in a linear story—of course, it was too—but the beginning of a more overall rethink of the local and national history. In this sense, it involves the historians' role and their interpretative approaches.

#### **6. Conclusions**

When the Irpinia-Basilicata earthquake struck, the trauma of the disaster was immediately associated with the vivid memory of Belice (1968) and Friuli earthquakes (1976). The two events had deeply affected the country. Furthermore, the last one had coincided with the renewal and reorganization of the studies on earthquakes and their impact [6,23,41]. Nevertheless, because of the energy released, the highest number of victims, the responsibilities and the consequences, the Irpinia earthquake immediately appeared in the international press as the worst Italian disaster from the Second World War [12,13], grabbing more attention due to the deaths, the slowness of rescue, the villages erased by maps [42]. There is a before and an after the earthquake of 23 November 1980. Italy changed, painfully, and the disaster acted as the detonator, starting processes whose consequences are still visible. The commemoration of the 40 years since this event may be an opportunity to reflect, not only on the history of the earthquake itself but—it is the focus of this paper—on the problematic connection between the Irpinia earthquake and historical discipline. The challenge for historians is to overcome disciplinary fences, considering the "earthquake" as an interpretive space, both specific and complex. In this view, the reference earthquakehistory-memory became, essentially, a hermeneutical circle. This attitude can shed light on the Irpinia earthquake as well as on aspects closely connected to historical understanding. Memory, landscape, identity, participation, processing trauma, disaster narrative are some of many interpretative focuses. It is not just about approaching earthquakes as part of the general history. It is about grabbing the insights that come from the study of the earthquake to refine the disciplinary tools. This also questions the role of history and historians in this regard.

In this view, social-historical studies can also support the demand for knowledge and mitigation of the risk that comes from citizens and communities living in seismic areas. This means paying attention to social memory, the consciousness of the seismic risk and natural hazard, without forcing the historical discipline towards distant topics or teleological instances. We have touched just some points to reflect.

"Don't worry. She's the Earth cradling you" is a common saying to calm the children in some South American countries, a tender metaphor that makes "comprehensible" the events. Pacha Mama Andine culture is far away from postmodern society yet, the need to accept the earthquake as a possibility of life, perhaps through an inclusive narration, is an instance sharable everywhere, in any culture.

**Funding:** This research was funded by CNR—Institute for studies on the Mediterranean (IsMed).

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Acknowledgments:** I'd like to thank the anonymous reviewers. Their suggestions accompanied me in improving the writing and clarifying the topics. Their questions led me to deepen several aspects, learning a lot from their advice and this interdisciplinary reflection. All that has opened new horizons for me; one more reason to thank.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.

#### **References**


*Review*
