December 17, 1750 Tsunami: Rijeka, Croatia

1750, December (September) 17 (1751, April). Adriatic Sea, north-eastern shore, zone of Dalmatia, 36 N 12.25 E, intensity VI. The earthquake destroyed three quaters of Fiume (Rijeka) including most of the shops, churches, other buildings. A series of underground shocks occurred in Pordenone, Rijeka, and Udine from November 27 till December 18. Five strong shocks occurred on December 17. In the middle of the earthquake, waves in the sea rose to such an extent they flooded a small island near Rijeka together with all its inhabitants. The next day the sea was completely calm. (reference #2130)

In November 1750, a series of earthquakes began at Rijeka, and the shaking continued until the following spring (Kispatic 1891–1895). According to Soloviev et al. (2000) [ref#2130], sometimes between September 1750 and April 1751 during the earthquake, ‘waves in the sea raised to such an extent that they flooded a small island near Rijeka together with all its inhabitants’. The information was drawn from Perrey (1850) and Ambraseys (1962) (Fig. 13). The two sources have significant discrepancy on the date of the event; the former refers to French contemporary journals and places it in the spring of 1751, while the latter relies on Radics (1902) and lists it under 17 September 1750. Let it be mentioned that in the text by Radics, no comments on sea effects can be found; furthermore, no earthquake events were noted in September 1750 by Kispatic (1891–1895). On the other hand, Xavierus Grazianus, a physician from Rijeka, described extensively in his book (Grazianus X. 1755: De usu mercurii, Viennae) the series of earthquakes and activity of people in the town (Kispatic 1891–1895); after the strongest shock, which occurred on 17 December 1750 (VII–VIII MCS) and damaged many shrines, in the next few days, people built a new wooden church in the port, just by the sea. In his account, Grazianus did not mention the flooding or the sea waves. Furthermore, it is highly improbable that a shrine would have been built near the sea closely after a destructive flooding. Hence, the report by Perrey (1850) seems very unreliable and does not provide evidence of a tsunami. (reference #9531)