Friday, September 28, 2007

Materials for the Study of Seismotectonics of Iran

Title book : Materials for the Study of Seismotectonics of Iran
Author : J.S. Tchalenko, N.N. Ambraseys, M. Berberian, M.H. Iranmanesh, A. Mohajer-Ashjai, M. Bailly and M. Arsovsky
Publisher : Geological survey of Iran
Publisher date : January 2007

Chapter title : HISTORICAL SEISMICITY OF NORTH-CENTRAL IRAN

Data title : COMMENTARY



COMMENTARY

4th Century BC


The earliest reference to a destructive earthquake in North-central Iran is given by Duris of Samos, the author of a History of Greece and Macedonia, who flourished circa 350 BC. He says that Rhaga or Rhagae, received its name “because the earth

about the Caspian Gates was rent by earthquakes to such an extent that numerous cities and villages were destroyed, and rivers underwent changes of various kinds” (Strabo:i.3.l9). Also, Poseidonius of Apameia, in his history, written in the middle of the 2nd century BC, refers to this earthquake, or earthquakes, in which he says many cities and 2,000 villages were destroyed in the district of Rhagae (Strabo:\\.9.\).
In classical Greek, the name Rhaga or Rhagae, spelled both in the singular and in the plural, has a root Rhag = Pay which means to break asunder, be rent, of the earth in an earthquake (Liddell-Scott, 1961). But as there is a much earlier old Per­sian reference to a city called Raga, it is very doubtful that this name was given to Rhagae because the place was rent by earthquakes. As a matter of fact, the Persian Raga is mentioned in the Behistun inscriptions of Darius belonging to the 6th century BC. In the Avesta too, there is reference to the Zarathustrian Raga which seems to have been founded long before Duris’s time, an especially holy city which is also men­tioned in the Apocryphal Old Testament as Ragau (Minorsky, 1931).
The question is, of course, whether the Rhagae of the Greeks is the same city as the old Persian Raga or Ragau. Apollodorus of Artemita, who was writing his Parthian History in the middle of the 1st century BC, tells us that Rhagae was founded, or rather re-founded, by Seleucus Nicator some time between 312 and 280 BC, and that by him it was named Europos, but by the Parthians, Arsacia.
Apollodorus does not mention an earthquake in connection with the re-founding of the city by Seleucus, but he places Rhagae about 500 stadia from the Caspian Gates, (Strabo:x.i.l3.6). He obviously refers to the same Rhagae as Duris since he places it in the vicinity of the Caspian Gates, a locality which a consensus of opinion would now seem to identify with the narrow Sar-Darreh valley, which cuts through Kuh-i-Namak near Ivan-i-Kay, just under 500 stadia from modern Shahr-Ray (Hansman, 1968).
The location of the old Persian Raga or Ragau is not absolutely certain. Ger-shevitch (1964) sought to distinguish between the Avestan Ragha and modern Shahr-Ray. He suggested that the name of the city was identical with a common noun “ragh”, meaning plain, hillside or “dasht”, and that it might therefore have been given to a number of early Persian places. But the fact is that there is no clear evidence for any other Ragha = Ray than the one near Tehran, the Rhagae of the Greeks and the ar-Ray of the Arabs.
There seems to be no compelling reason to doubt that the district and city ot Rhagae which were devastated by earthquakes in the 4th century BC are different from those of modern Shahr-Ray. As for Duris’s attempt to explain the name Rhagae in Greek as that of a place rent by earthquakes, it should be regarded simply as popular etymologizing, though of course no less significant because of that.
The region devastated by this earthquake should have extended for at least 60 km from old Shahr-Ray, a site slightly to the northeast of the modern town, to Ivan-i-Kay. According to Duris, it was about the Caspian Gates that the ground ruptured diverting the flow of rivers, while Poseidonius does imply that Shahr-Ray itself was involved in ground deformations.
As for his statement that 2,000 villages belonging to Rey were destroyed in this
earthquake, the figure he gives cannot be taken too literally, though of course it alludes to a major disaster in late Achaemenian times, the memory of which was kept in Greek annals.

743 Spring

Strangely enough, this earthquake is mentioned solely by Byzantine writers. The earliest, Theophanes: 351, who was writing early in the 9th century AD, places the event in the 3rd year of Constantine V the Copronymous, before the ascent of al-Walid-II, in the year 6235 of the Alexandrian era. These chronological elements are consistent with the period 25 March to 19 June 743.
Theophanes and later Byzantine writers refer to this earthquake in the Caspian Gates as one of the most notable events of the year 6235; they say that it was a major disaster but give no details. The Caspian Gates are the gates of Alexander’s passage and they are placed at the Sar-Darreh valley which connects the Varamin and the Khavar plains, not far from modern Ivan-i-Kay (Sykes, 1902:i.280; Hansman, 1968). Some modern writers erroneously place these gates in the Caucasus, at the pass of Dariel.

855

Contemporary writers place this earthquake in a.H.241 = 22 May 855 – 11 May
856 (Ibn al-Athir:vii.%Q). Apparently this earthquake caused very heavy damage in the dependencies of ar-Ray, some of which were totally destroyed. The city of ar-Ray also seems to have suffered considerable damage.

Razi Ghavami, in a poem lamenting for the lives lost in this earthquake, and most probably in the earthquake that followed in a.H.242, tells us that 35,000 people perished in the ruins, a figure naturally suspect but nevertheless indicative of the magnitude of the calamity.

856 December

This earthquake occurred in Sha’ban 242 = 3-31 December 856, and affected the province of Kumis, particularly the region of Damghan, where48,690 people were killed (ar-7b6ari:xii.l433). In the district of Damghan alone, 45,096 people perished in the ruins (Ibn al-Athir:vii.81); the cities of Damghan and Kumis (?) were almost totally destroyed, and Bistam suffered considerable damage. The shock was felt very strongly in Jurjan, at ar-Ray and to a lesser degree in Nayshabur; also it was felt throughout Tabaristan, at Kumm, Kashan, Isfahan and in some other parts of Pars. During that time the province of Kumis was shaken almost continuously by earth­quakes (MasudiJY\14).
This earthquake followed so closely the earthquake of the previous year at ar-Ray that some chroniclers treat and also date the two events as one, placing it in 241 a.H.(#amza:189).
As-Soyuti:2lb, who was writing much later, early in the 16th century, confuses Kumis with Tunis and places this earthquake in the Maghrib, saying that in 242 a.H. 45,000 people perished in Tunisia. As a matter of fact, with the exception of As-So-yuti, no other writer before him mentions Tunis in connection with an earthquake during the period 241 to 243 a.H. (Ambraseys, 1961, 1962a and b, 1968).
More recently Sieberg (1932:814), and after him other modsrn writers have con­fused Kumis with Kumm and they have placed this earthquake in the Jibal. In fact, Kumis was a city and also a district to which Damghan as well as Bistam belonged.
The location of the city of Kumis, madinah Kumis, is not known for sure. Arabs referred to ad-Damghan as Kumis, an instance of the common habit of the capital taking to itself the name of the province. They also referred to Bistam as Kumis. However, in some of the notices about the earthquake of 242 a.H., the location Kumis is mentioned in addition to either ad-Damghan or Bistam and it may be Shahr-i-Kumis, which was located recently near modern Qusheh (Hansman, 1968).
The ground deformations associated with this earthquake are described by almost all writers in much the same words; they place them in the region of Damghan and say that “mountains fell down, and that the ground itself subsided and in places the earth opened up so extensively that men could walk into it”.

859

As-Soyuti:2lbas well as Hadji Khalifa:5\ and later writers mention an earthquake in 245 a.H. = 8 April 859 – 29 March 860, which affected Khurasan and Tabaristan. Not found in contemporary writers, so most probably an erroneous entry.
864 January
Placed by all writers in Dhu’l-Hijya 249 = 15 January – 12 February 864 (at-Tabari, xii.1515; Ibn al-Athir:vii. 124). The earthquake destroyed a number of villages and a good part of ar-Ray, killing many people; the survivors fled their homes and stayed in the open for some time.
898
Hadji Kha!ifa:56 is the only source known which mentions this earthquake in 285 a.H. = 28 January 898-16 January 899.
He says that an earthquake of extraordinary violence ruined the district of Ghar and Tabaristan. According to Mustawfi.N:59, Ghar was one of the four districts of Ray in which there were 40 villages, including Tehran. The largest of these were Firuz-Bahram, Dawlatabad, Tihran, Imamzadeh, ‘Abd-Af Azim near Ray, Quhad and Shandur ( = Shanshat ?).
Hadji Khalifa makes no mention of ar-Ray in this notice, though he gives Tabaris­tan which borders Ghar on the north. Ghar is not the kind of locality that one would have expected to find in the Takwim al-tawarikh and had Ghar not been accompanied in the notice by Tabaristan one would have been inclined to suspect a copyist’s error for Ghur in eastern Khorassan, or Gur, modern Firuzabad in Pars.

912 May

According to MasudLM :viii.282, some time in Ramadan 299 = 21 April – 20 May 912, a disastrous earthquake in Kufah killed a large number of people. Later writers mention in passing that about 300 a.H., a mountain split at Dinawar, and streams of water gushed out from it, submerging many villages (as-Soyuti:2yd).
It is probable, however, that all these writers refer to the same earthquake in Dina­war, a city which after the Moslem conquest of Persia received the name of Mah-al-
Kufah or Kufah, because its revenues were apportioned to the payment of the state pensions of the inhabitants of al-Kufah in Iraq. For a time Kufah became the common name of Dinawar and of its surrounding territory (Yakubr.ni).
Today, Dinawar is in ruins; its site is near the village of Kargsar, about 25 km north of Bisitun.

956

From Ibn a/-/4f/H>:viii.518 we learn that in 345 a.H. = 15 April 956 – 3 April 957, “there was a severe earthquake in Hamadan and Asterabad (?) and its district; many people were killed under the debris of their houses and the walls of Kasr-i Shirin were cracked because of a thunderbolt”. This information agrees roughly with that given by other chroniclers who, however, omit Asterabad. They say that in Hamadan many houses collapsed including the Divan-Khaneh, and that in the district of Hamadan “an incalculable number of people perished in the ruins of their houses” (as-Soyuti: 24a; Sani, 1919). They also confirm that the cause of damage to the walls of Kasr-i Shirin was a thunderbolt.
The damage to “Astrabad”, as Ibn al-Athir writes it, is problematical. He says quite clearly that both Hamadan and Astrabad were damaged in 345 a.H. by the same earthquake. But this is not possible; the nearest Astrabad to Hamadan is 600 km away, and the next Astrabad (= Asadabad, Mustawfi.N: 189/172) is 1,400 km away in Marv. It is very probable therefore that instead of Astrabad we should read Asad­abad, which was a populous town very close to Hamadan.
Streck (1227:EI:805), on the authority of Ibn al-Athir (ed. Tornberg, viii, 388), maintains that the walls of Kasr-i Shirin, by that time a ruined and abandoned site, were cracked by the same earthquake of 345 a.H. But I can find no mention of it in Ibn al-Athir.

957

Contemporary writers agree that the year 346 a.H. = 4 April 957 – 24 March
958 was marked by many strong earthquakes in the province of Jibal which were felt as far as Baghdad and Hulwan (Miskawaihi: 168). Of these earthquakes, a series lasting intermittently for 40 days caused heavy damage in the district of Kumm where many people were killed (as-Soyuti :24a).

958 February 23

This was a major disaster in North-central Iran. According to Miskawahi:l61 it occurred in 346 a.H. in the region of ar-Ray and the neighbourhood, causing vast numbers of deaths and great destruction. Ibn al-‘Amidabu al-Fadl, a contemporary, relates that in Ruyan the earthquake “caused two mountains to collide and tumble down; the debris of the collision blocked the course of the rivers which ran between them, and the waters of the rivers receded and formed a lake” (al-Siruni.T: 48/20). The exact date of the event is given by Ibn al-Athir:viii.521, on the 1st Dhu’l-Hijja 346 = 23 February 958; he says that much of the city of ar-Ray was destroyed where many people perished; and in Talikan and its surroundings the damage was equally heavy. The earthquake is also noticed by Nisibinus:39r/2l6 who places it at Ray in a.S. 1268. The year is inaccurate; a.S. 1268 ended in September 957, but as he describes both, the earthquake at Ray together with that of the previous year in Baghdad, he may have shown the year of the latter.
All writers agree that this was a major earthquake. Much of the city of ar-Ray together with 150 villages of its district was totally destroyed, and in places the ground sank. The town and region of Talikan were also devastated, and there escaped of its inhabitants only about 30. A mountain in ar-Ray “was cleft asunder and a village with its inhabitants was suspended and was swallowed up gradually; the earth was rent in mighty chasms and fetid waters came forth with volumes of smoke; also at Talikan, the ground was rent and in places sunk” (Ibn al-Djawzi).
According to Abu’I Faradj. Ch. 183/165, many people were suffocated beneath the overthrow in the mountains of Dailomaye and Kashan (?). Elsewhere, he mentions the ruin caused at Deisan and Kashaa, events which he postdates by one year in 347 a. H.
A few decades later, Ibn Hawkal:265 and Mukaddasr.WQ speak of Ray as already much gone to ruin.
The boundaries of the regions affected by this earthquake have, during historical time, undergone many changes, and their position is difficult to determine at the present day. In the 10th century, Ruyan meant the country between Rustamdar and Kasran, near the mountains of Ray, and it was reached via Ray. The limits of Rustamdar were Si-Sagan or the Manhir river to the east and Malat to the west. To the south it extended to the crest of the Elburz mountains whose rivers flowed into the Caspian, Marashi. Thus, Ruyan occupied the southern slopes of the Elburz and it was limited to the south by Kasran.
Al-Kasran was one of the districts of Ray with the towns of Dizah and Kusin (Ibn Hawkal:21G). According to Mustawfi. N. 54/59, the castle of Tabarak was on the north side of Ray at the foot of the mountain, and the district of Kasran was behind that mountain. The small town and fort of Dizah-e-Kasran, presumably the Deisan and Kashaa of Abu’I Faradj. Ch. 183, was one day’s journey from Ray Ibn Hawkal:21). Kasran was probably the name of the valley of the Jajrud river and the Dizah of Kasran was perhaps situated near the castle of ‘Ali ibn-Kama, Rabino (1928:155).
The Talikan nearest to Ray was a mountain region lying to the east of Kazwin with many forts but few villages. Of its districts, Karkh, Kan, Kuhpayah, Jarud and Saranrud were the most important, the rivers Karaj and Shahrud rising in the Talikan (Mustawfi.N.65/70~). The site of the town of at-Talikan in this region is not known.

985

Adjami.vm. 12a refers to a shock in Jurjan caused by the impact of a meteorite in 375 a.H. =24 May 985 – 12 May 986.

1008 April

According to Ibn al-Djawzi:\n.23S, in Sha’ban 398 = 11 April – 9 May 1008, there was a great earthquake which destroyed very many buildings in the city of Dinawar. In all, 16,000 people were brought out from under the ruins of their houses and buried, besides those who remained beneath the debris and those which the earth
swallowed up when it was rent open (Ibn al-Athir:i\.2Q$). There is strong evidence alluding to faulting of the ground (Abu11 Faradj.ch.204/183).
The number of people killed in this earthquake varies according to the writer, the lowest figure of 10,000 being given by as-Soynti:24b. Also, later writers write Dinar for Dinawar (Hadji Khal!fa:68) and modern writers confuse the place with Deinar in Iraq (Mallet, 1852:17), or with Dijala (sic) which Sieberg( 1932:804) places at Ctesiphon, modern Madaiu south of Baghdad.

1058 December 1

In the night of Tuesday, 10 Shawwal 450 = 1 December 1058, there was a major earthquake in Kurdistan which was felt over an area of 250,000 km2 (Ibn al-Aihir\\*. 651). The shock was felt very strongly in Hamadan where it caused panic (as-Soyuti:25b).

1066 May

The facts about this earthquake are not clear. Ibn al-Dja\vzi says that in Jumada-IT 458 = 30 April – 28 May 1066, there was an earthquake in Khorasan; mountains were split, and many villages sank under the inhabitants; some people saved themselves by taking refuge in ths open fields. He then gives a copy of the document which was sent to Baghdad on this occasion; the document says that the earthquake “caused the mountains to split; it cleft hills, overturned towns together with their inhabitants, and it levelled them to the ground in such a way that but few people escaped; most buildings lay in ruins, and it is impossible to ascertain the number of those who per­ished”. Ibn al-Athir.x.52 adds that this earthquake occurred in Khorasan and Jibal and that it lasted intermittently for several days.

1068

Chardin, who was in Kazwin in 1674, makes mention of two earthquakes which caused heavy damage in Kazwin in 460 a.H. (1068) and 562 a.H. (1167).
He says that in the year 364 a.H., part of the walls of the city fell to ruin and they, were restored by “Saheb Calife Ismael”, prime minister to “Ali-e-Facre-Daulet”. He then goes on to say that the “History of Kazwin” mentions two other instances in which the walls of the city were damaged by earthquakes and needed repair. The first earthquake, he maintains, occurred in 460 a.H., and overturned all the walls and a third of the buildings of Kazwin; these were restored by Prince Kehnon the Saljuk three years later in 463, the Sign of Gemini being in the ascendant. The second earthquake, which he says did not do as much mischief as the first, occurred in 562 a.H. (1167), and the damage this time was repaired by “Mahamed son of Abdalla-el-Megare”, who rebuilt with red kiln brick the parts of the walls that collapsed (Chardin, 1711 :ii. 198).
That all these events mentioned by Chardin are chronologically inaccurate and historically confused, is clearly shown by Muitawfi, who describes his native city early in the 14th century.
Mustawfi:T:83l attests that the building of the inner city of Qazwin was begun in the month of Ayyar, in the year 463 of Alexander by Sapor-II; the Sign of Gemini,
he says, was in the ascendant when the city was built. In 373 a.H. (983), the walls fell to ruin again and they were repaired by Sahib Isma’il ibn Abad, Wazir to Fakhr-as-DawIah the Buyid. Then, in 572 a.H. (1176) the walls of Kazwin were again rebuilt in part by Muhammad ibn ‘Abd-Allah Lik of Maraghah, the Wazir of Alp Arslan the Saljuk, who used burnt bricks to face the new construction (Mustawfi.N:56).
It may be that Chardin did not understand his source, which would explain why he produces such a confusion of facts and events; the reading of the Alexandrian year 463 backwards is indeed interesting. About “The History of Kazwin” to which he refers, we know nothing.

1119 December 10

Ar-Rqfia in his Kitab Kazwin mentions a very violent earthquake in Kazwin which occurred on Wednesday night, on the 5th of Ramadan 513 = 10 December 1119. He says that shocks continued for a whole year, and that the damage was considerable. As-Soyuti:28a. says that Qazwin was destroyed and that the earthquake returned the following year precisely at the same time, i.e. on the 28th November 1120.
It is not improbable that Chardin (1711: ii. 198) refers to the same event.

1130 March 8

Ibn al-Athir:x. 666 mentions an earthquake in Iraq (Jibal) which was felt in Mosul and in al-Jazirah in Rabi-I 524, causing much destruction. Also, Ibn al-Djawzi men­tions this event which, he says, was damaging in Baghdad. Abu’l Faradj.ch.255/2S9 places the damage in Baghdad on the 8th Adhar 525.
It is not known which parts of the Jibal were affected.

1135Jw/>>25

On Thursday, 11th Shawwal 529 = 25 July 1135, a violent shock was felt in Bagh­dad (Ibn al-Djawzi). The shock was equally strong in Jibal, Iraq, and in Mosul where many people were killed (Ibn al-Athir:xi.34). Shocks continued, five or six each day, till the 17th of Shawwal = 31 July (Abu’l Fardj.ch.259/294), and they were felt in Baghdad. Djuwaini:2l8 makes mention of these shocks, which he says were being felt about the time of the capture of Caliph Mustarshid near Hamadan in 529 a.H. However, it is not known which parts of the Jibal they affected most.

1140 c.

Djuwaini:2Q8 mentions an earthquake at Girdkuh which occurred some years after the death of the ra’is Muzaffar Mustawfi of Damghan. He had expended large sums of money on repairing the castle and he had dug a well in the solid rock on the ramparts of Girdkuh; but having gone down 300 ells without reaching v/ater, he abandoned it. Years after his death there was an earthquake, and a spring of water gushod out in “the well.
Girdkuh, called also Diz-i-Gumbadan, lies three farsakhs from Damghan, and in its neighbourhood are the castles of Mansurabad, Muhat and Rustak (MustawfiiN: 161/158). According to Yakut :ii. 539, Girdkuh was one day’s journey from Damghan, up in the mountains, and visible from the town.

1176

Ibn al-Athir:x.Ia33 makes mention of a destructive earthquake whose effects ex­tended from Kazwin to Ma-wara-r-Ray; it occurred in 571 a.H. — 22 July 1175 — 9 July 1176 and caused the d~ath of a large number of people, and the ruin of many houses. He adds that most of the destruction occurred in Kazwin and Ray and that the shocks were felt throughout Ireq, Adjami, and beyond ar-Ray to the east.
Tt is perhaps this earthquake that occasioned the restoration of the walls of Kazwin in a. H. 572 (Musfawfi. N:58/63).
Sani (1919) erroneously places this earthquake in Ma-wara-n-Nahr = Marv-ar-Rud in Transoxania. Also, it is probable that this is the earthquake in Kazwin referred to by Chardin (1686:382) which he says was the second destructive shock in 562 a.H.

1167

Chardin (1686:382) on the authority of the “History of Kazwin” mentions an earth­quake in Kazwin in 562 a.H. =28 October 1166 – 16 October 1167, which he says did not do as much mischief as the first in 460 a.H. Wilson (1930:105) shows 562 a.H. = 1169.

1301

There is some evidence that in 700 a.H. = 16 September 1300 – 5 September 1301, an earthquake destroyed Firrim together with the villages of Kaklu,Bula,Kuhne-deh, and Makhrub-Assas (Banafati).
The exact location of the district of Firrim or Perim is unknown. According to Mustawfi.N:l62/]58 it was often counted either as a dependency of Kumis or of Sari, lying on the borders of Kumis. A group of villages called Banafat (or Niyaft, Rabino 1928:57) belonged to Firrim together with the existing villages of Aliabad, Pandar, Vav-darreh, Taravok, Sholdareh, Margabin and Rasktin (Mazanderani, 1965:97). Thus, although the position of Firrim is not exactly given in any of the itineraries, it presumably occupied the region between Lajim and Polvar, about 40 to 50 km south of Sari. Le Strange (1905:372) says also that the exact location of Firrim is unknown, but on the map opposite page 185 he shows Firrim located about 40 km south of Amol. In fact Firrim still exists as a “dehistan”, some 20 miles due east of Pol-i Safid on the Firuzkuh road to the Caspian. Dr A.D.H. Bivar drew my attention to the remains of an ancient site near Kuhnehdeh, called now Khish-tistan, said to be the debris of the mediaeval town of Firrim. As so often, the name of an ancient, ruined town has been given to the general district of which it was once capital when the original name of the town had been forgotten.
Sani (1919) mentions an earthquake in Hamadan in 725 a.H. = 18 December 1324-7

December 1325.

1367

Marashi alludes to an earthquake in 768 a.H. = 7 September 1366 – 27 August 1367 which destroyed the house of Amira Masur ibn Nuh Pasha at Kujafhan or Ku-chasfan in Gilan, killing his father; see also Rabino (1949:328).
1390 c.
In Bostan-ar-Rey we find an allusion to an earthquake which destroyed ar-Rey
shortly before the arrival of Teymour; it is based on the Manam Teymour-e Jahagosha, a piece of history of doubtful authenticity (Karimian, 1970:237).

14CO

Kutb ed-Din Lahidji mentions an earthquake in Gilan which caused some damage in Kutam, old Rudsar.

1403

Sani (1919) makes mention of an earthquake in 806 a.H. = 21 July 1403 – 8 July 1404, which was strongly felt at Hamadan and Wasit.

1485 August

For this earthquake we have a trustworthy account preserved in Mar’ashi: 453 which is that of an eye witness who was himself involved in the administration of the province of Biapish, the area worst hit by the earthquake.
The earthquake, he says, occurred after the afternoon prayer on Sunday the 3rd of Sha’ban 890 a.H. In some districts of Biapish it was more severe than else­where. For instance a number of villages in Shakavar were ruined and 70 people were killed; in Karjiyan and Golaijan 106 people were killed, and many people perished in Rudbarat; the number was not known exactly. In the castle of Palisan in Talekan, 78 of the occupants were killed. In Tonakabon, palaces, tombs and baths were de­stroyed; some which did not completely collapse were damaged beyond repair. In Ranekuh, Lahijan, Guke, Kisom, Pashija and Lashteneshah there was a severe shaking but no one was killed and the damage was not very serious. In Dailaman many old buildings collapsed without casualties. The old Hashtpar at Ranekuh partly collapsed. In many places in Dailamistan great rocks rolled down from the mountains and brought destruction to numerous cattle. At Jenda Rudbar in Karjiyan, a pig, terrified by the earthquake, jumped off the top of a hill, fell in the river and died. The Sardabasar palace in Karjiyan, a solid building, was levelled to the ground; two men employed there as guards were killed. Shocks continued once or twice each day so that people left their homes for the open ground. Until the end of Ramadan = 10th October, every day the earth trembled. Since the district of Karjiyan had suffered enormous damage, Mar’ashi was ordered to go there, inform the court of the situation and set about repairing the damage.

1549 February

Sani (1919) mentions an earthquake in Muharam 956, saying it destroyed five villages in the region of Kazwin. In fact, it affected the region of Kayin(/?ww/M:155).

1555

According to Sani (1919) there was an earthquake in Kashan in 962 a.H. = 26 November 1554 – 15 November 1555; he quotes no reference.
1574
Reza Guli Khan :vm.\41 makes mention of an earthquake in 982 a.H. = 23 April 1574 – 11 April 1575 which killed 1,200 people in the region of Kashan. The village of Fin and its surroundings was totally destroyed and 3,000 houses were ruined.
It is probable that this is the earthquake placed by Sani (1919) in 962 a.H.

1639

Sani (1919), without quoting an authority, mentions an earthquake in 1049 a.H. = 4 May 1639 – 22 April 1640, which killed 12,000 people in the region of Kazwin.
1665 June
In Dhu’l-Hijja 1075 = 15 June – 13 July 1665, a destructive earthquake in Ma-zanderan, particularly in Damavand and in the region about the town, demolished many settlements and caused the death of many people. This is mentioned by Sani (1919), who does not quote his source.
1678 February 3
Kutb ed-Din Lahidji mentions an earthquake which occurred at dawn on Wednes­day the day of Kurban Bairam 1088 = 3 February 1678. It destroyed at Lahijan the Mesdjid-i-Djame and its minarets, together with many sanctuaries, public baths, bridges and a very large number of houses. Shocks continued for ten hours.

1709

Mentioned by Rabino (1917:69); it occurred in 1121 a.H. = 13 March 1709 -11 April 1910, at Rasht; he gives no details.

1713

Another earthquake at Rasht, in 1125 a.H. = 28 January 1713 = 16 January 1714, given by Rabino (1917:69) without details. Bell (1763:134) who visited Rasht in 1717 does not mention any visible damage to the city.

1755 June 7

The Gazette de Prance (no. 45; 8th November 1755) reports an earthquake in Kashan which occurred on the 7th June 1755 and which destroyed 600 houses in the town, killing 1,200 people; it adds that the caravanserai of Kashan was seriously damaged. Berryat (1761:627), in passing, mentions this earthquake, in which, according to him, 6,000 houses were destroyed in Kashan. Seyfart (1756:139) indicates that the earthquake occurred either on the 7th June or July and that it affected the region from Tabriz to Kashan, including Harm (?) and Isfahan; in Kashan alone, 600 houses collapsed. In fact, he refers to two distinctly different earthquakes; one in Tabriz and another in Kashan.
Later writers exaggerate the casualties to 40,000 (Wilson, 1930:117).

1778

Abu’l Hasan Mustawfi makes mention of a destructive earthquake in 1192 a.H. = 30 January 1778 – 18 January 1779 in Kashan and in the region around that city. The shock destroyed all important buildings in Kashan together with the city walls and its towers, killing, in Kashan alone, 8,000 people.
The survivors fled the city in despair. The earthquake occurred during the last year of the reign of Karim Khan Zend who dispatched from Shiraz technical staff and financial assistance for the reconstruction of the city. Under the guidance of the governor of Kashan, Abdul Razagh-Khan-e-Kashi, the reconstruction and the repairs
continued for ten years. First the city walls and towers were rebuilt, and thereafter were reconstructed the bazaar and those public buildings and mosques which survived the earthquake (Naraghi, 1971).
Hatafe Isfahani, Sabahi-e-Bidgoli, and Azareh Shamlu, narrate in verses the misery caused by this earthquake to the people of Kashan.
Abd al-Rahitn Kalantari, who was writing just before 1287 a.H., says that about 100 (lunar) years ago, at midnight, an earthquake occurred in Kashan. For four days before the earthquake there were heavy rains which kept people indoors. Kashan, at that time, had a population of about 45,000 people, out of which two-thirds, or about 30,000, were killed by the earthquake, apart from those who were left buried in the ruins and those found dead later. Elsewhere, he says that half the population of Kashan perished and that almost all houses were either destroyed or damaged beyond repsir. He adds that aftershocks continued for a month, two to three evetyday.
Hadji-Husain (1959) places this earthquake in 1193 a.H., and says that Kashan was almost totally destroyed.

1794 March 14

Without details, Memorial de Chronologic (1796:ii.932) mentions a destructive earthquake which ruined Kashan on 14th March 1794. The same event we find in ‘Abd al-Razzak, who places it one year too early, in 1207 a.H. = 19 August 1792 – 8 August 1793.

1802

According to Morier (1818:355), nine years before his visit to Damavand, earth­quakes were so violent and repetitive there that many villages in Mazanderan were totally destroyed. Morier was in Damavand in June 1811.
Wilson (1930:117), on the authority of Morier (1818:355) maintains that in this earthquake 70 villages and towns in all were destroyed and that Damaghan and Sam-nan were heavily damaged. But this is inaccurate, for it is not Morier but Watson (1866:257) who mentions these events, and in connection with the earthquake of 1830.

1805

An inscription in the Masjid-i-Djami in Barfurush records that the structure vvas destroyed by an earthquake and that it was rebuilt in a.H. 1220 — 1 April 1805 – 20 March 1806 by Mir Muhammad Husa’in in the reign of Path’ Ali Shah, Rabino (1928: 46). According to Stahl (1911:4.v.6) this earthquake was strongly felt at Ashraf and Damavand.

1808 October 10

Rabino (1917:69) mentions an earthquake in Gilan which occurred in 1223 a.H. = 28 February 1808 – 15 February 1809 and was particularly severe at Rasht. This shock was apparently the one felt by Jatibert (1821:419) in the night of 9 to 10 October 1808; at the time Jaubert was in Mazanderan.

1808 December 16

The shock was experienced by Dupre (1819:ii.l87) who says that on the 16th
December 1808 violent shocks were felt,each lasting nearly 30 seconds; they devastated Kazwin, and other places in Mazanderan, but caused little damage in Tehran.
Morier (1812) who was in Kazwin in 1810 says that the town was almost a mass of ruins; an earthquake within no distant period had thrown down buildings and made cracks in almost every wall. A large mosque built by the Abbasides was rent in many places in its thick walls and totally ruined.


1809 December 7

• According to Sani (1919), on Friday afternoon, the last day of Shawwal
1224 = 7 December 1809, there was a great earthquake in Mazanderan which de­stroyed a number of important buildings. As a result of the earthquake, the ground opened up and in places ejected mud. Earthquakes continued for many months.
This earthquake caused much destruction at Sari. The Gunbad-i-Salm-wa-Tur, a solid structure that had resisted many earthquakes was shattered by the shocks of
1225 a.H. and it was pulled down by order of the governor of Mazanderan, the Mulk-Ara (Rabino, 1928:54). The Imamzadeh Ibrahim, near the Barfurush Gate of Sari, was thrown down in 1810 by the shocks (Rabino, 1928:55). In Amol the damage was equally heavy; the Masjid-i-Djami near Sabz-Maydan, an old structure, had its western part destroyed by the shocks and was rebuilt by Aka’ Ali Ashraf Masha’i in 1225 a.H. (Rabino, 1928:37).

1811 June 20

Whilst residing at Damavand, Morier (1818:355) experienced a strong earthquake in June 1811.
1815
Stahl (1911:4.v.6) makes mention of an earthquake in Damavand in 1815; he gives no details.

1820

According to Rabino (1928:44), two arches of the bridge built by Muhammad Hasan Khan Khajar over the Babol just below its junction with the Ab-i-Harun, which comes from the west, were destroyed by an earthquake about the year 1820 and were rebuilt shortly afterwards.
1824
Shirvani (1959:356) refers to an earthquake in 1239 a.H. = 7 September 1823 – 25 August 1824, which caused heavy damage in Mazanderan, where many people were killed; he quotes no authority.
1830 April
Watson (1866:257) reports that the year 1830 was marked in Persia by the occur­rence of a series of earthquakes. In the month of April the towns of Semnan and Damghan, together with the villages in the neighbourhood, suffered great damage, and, in all, 70 towns and villages are said to have been partially destroyed. He adds that in the same month there was an earthquake in Damavand.
It is very probable that the villages of Kasha or Kharabdih, i.e. Zardavan, Varzan
and Kaleh, which are situated about 20 km northeast of Damghan, were ruined by the same earthquake (Rabino, 1928:163).
Wilson (1931 :104) quotes Fraser (1825:314) in connection with the ruin of the 70 towns and villages in the Damghan region. But I can find no mention of it by that author; indeed, as Fraser left Persia in 1822, he could not possibly have experienced this earthquake, Fraser was in Damghan on 29th December 1821 ; he says that the town was in ruins and that the minaret of one of the two mosques had been damaged by lightning and its top destroyed. In a footnote he mentions an earthquake in 242 a.H. = 856 which destroyed the town.

1830 May 9

Press reports mention a number of earthquakes which began on 9 May 1830, “as a result of which the town of Tehran suffered much” (Preuss. Slaatszeitung, 1830: nr. 174, 1320). These earthquakes were referred to by Watson (1866 :257\ who places them in April 1830 (old style). He says that the town of Damavand was heavily da­maged and not less than 500 persons were buried under the ruins of the houses which were over thrown.

April 23

Perrey (1845:1448) makes mention of a destructive earthquake in Adharbayjan which ruined Mianeh; half the town was destroyed and a considerable part of the population perished in the debris of the houses which collapsed. The damage was equally heavy at Aghkend, Armaghan-Khaneh and Nenghian.
Perrey apparently believed that these were the results of the same earthquake which caused some damage at Isfahan (in fact a different shock which occurred two weeks later), and dates both events to 12 May. The earthquake in Adharbayjan oc­curred on the 4th of Rabi-II 1260 = 23 April 1844, and it was strongly felt at Rasht (Rabino, 191 7:69).

1844 May 11
According to Mirza Ahmad’s narrative, on a Saturday afternoon, between the 20th and 30th Rabi-II 1260, the region of Kashan was shaken by a destructive earth­quake. The main shock occurred during an imminent thunderstorm and it caught the people indoors. The small districts of Kamsar, Kuhrud, Kamu and Kushian were totally ruined and the village of Chukan in Kushian was levelled to the ground; of its 103 inhabitants only three survived.
In the village of Kamsar, all houses were either destroyed or damaged beyond repair; even garden walls were thrown down. In all, the earthquake killed 1,500 people, and triggered landslides and rockfalls, particularly in the mountains of Kamsar, which added to the destruction. Shocks continued for two weeks causing damage in the region of Kamsar.
The only two Saturdays during the period 20 to 29 Rabi-II 1260 fell on the llth and 18th May 1844. The 30th Rabi-II is excluded because Rabi-II has 29 days.
Perrey (1845:1448), on the basis of newpaper reports, mentions an earthquake which was strongly felt at Julfa and, in Isfahan, ruined a number of buildings inclu­ding the Masjid-i-Shah. This event he places on the 12th May 1844. As a matter
and Kaleh, which are situated about 20 km northeast of Damghan, were ruined by the same earthquake (Rabino, 1928:163).
Wilson (1931 :104) quotes Fraser (1825:314) in connection with the ruin of the 70 towns and villages in the Damghan region. But I can find no mention of it by that author; indeed, as Fraser left Persia in 1822, he could not possibly have experienced this earthquake, Fraser was in Damghan on 29th December 1821 ; he says that the town was in ruins and that the minaret of one of the two mosques had been damaged by lightning and its top destroyed. In a footnote he mentions an earthquake in 242 a.H. = 856 which destroyed the town.

1830 May 9
Press reports mention a number of earthquakes which began on 9 May 1830, “as a result of which the town of Tehran suffered much” (Preuss. Slaatszeitung, 1830: nr. 174, 1320). These earthquakes were referred to by Watson (1866 :257\ who places them in April 1830 (old style). He says that the town of Damavand was heavily da­maged and not less than 500 persons were buried under the ruins of the houses which were over thrown.

April 23
Perrey (1845:1448) makes mention of a destructive earthquake in Adharbayjan which ruined Mianeh; half the town was destroyed and a considerable part of the population perished in the debris of the houses which collapsed. The damage was equally heavy at Aghkend, Armaghan-Khaneh and Nenghian.
Perrey apparently believed that these were the results of the same earthquake which caused some damage at Isfahan (in fact a different shock which occurred two weeks later), and dates both events to 12 May. The earthquake in Adharbayjan oc­curred on the 4th of Rabi-II 1260 = 23 April 1844, and it was strongly felt at Rasht (Rabino, 191 7:69).

1844 May 11
According to Mirza Ahmad’s narrative, on a Saturday afternoon, between the 20th and 30th Rabi-II 1260, the region of Kashan was shaken by a destructive earth­quake. The main shock occurred during an imminent thunderstorm and it caught the people indoors. The small districts of Kamsar, Kuhrud, Kamu and Kushian were totally ruined and the village of Chukan in Kushian was levelled to the ground; of its 103 inhabitants only three survived.
In the village of Kamsar, all houses were either destroyed or damaged beyond repair; even garden walls were thrown down. In all, the earthquake killed 1,500 people, and triggered landslides and rockfalls, particularly in the mountains of Kamsar, which added to the destruction. Shocks continued for two weeks causing damage in the region of Kamsar.
The only two Saturdays during the period 20 to 29 Rabi-II 1260 fell on the llth and 18th May 1844. The 30th Rabi-II is excluded because Rabi-II has 29 days.
Perrey (1845:1448), on the basis of newpaper reports, mentions an earthquake which was strongly felt at Julfa and, in Isfahan, ruined a number of buildings inclu­ding the Masjid-i-Shah. This event he places on the 12th May 1844. As a matter
relatively slow swinging motion of the ground accompanied by a deep rumbling sound. Doors and windows were forced open and roof beams and ceilings creaked. Nothing collapsed in Ardabil but almost all houses were cracked. The damage was particularly heavy 20 to 30 versts (21 to 31 km) NE of Ardabil (read SE). Half the village of Ir (Hir) was destroyed and 108 people were killed. At Arali (Aghali) a boy and 300 ani­mals perished; at Nouraz-Kendy two persons and 150 animals were killed; at Nouchar (Nowshahr) five persons and many beasts of burden were buried in the ruins and at Kban-Kichljak (Khaneh Kislaq) many camels and other beasts of burden were also destroyed (Musketov, 1893:385).
Another letter from the Russian consul in Tabriz to the chancellor of Tbilisi adds that the earthquake occurred on 22 December (old style) and that it devas­tated the region of Ardabil. The villages ol Guert (Ghert), Kankyschlak (Khaneh Kislaq), Nouschar (Nowshahr) and Nyar (Niar) were totally destroyed and 500 people were killed. In Ardabil the shock was felt very strongly but caused no serious damage. Aftershocks continued for some time (Perrey, 1965:209).
The date of the earthquake given in the second letter is inaccurate. It is very probably, as in many other cases, the product of a confusion between the date of the event and the date on which the letter was written, and it should read 18 December (old style). That the earthquake occurred on 18 December is confirmed independently by the fact that it was recorded at Lenkoran at 21:48 on 30 December (new style). It lasted 8 seconds and consisted of three shocks, the second being strong enough to cause walls to vibrate visibly and pendulum clocks to stop; hanging lamps were forced to swing with an amplitude of two feet mainly in a north-south direction. The earthquake, which was the strongest experienced since 1852, caused no damage in Lenkoran, allegedly because of the timber construction of the houses in the town. The shock was also felt in Prishib, about 45 km to the north of Lenkoran (Musketov, 1893:385). Aftershocks continued, about ten per day, till 8 February.

1864 January 2
A violent aftershock in the region of Bulgavar, on 21 December 1863 (old style), caused the ruin of a mill and the death of its owner. The ground near the mill opened up to a depth of 12 archini = 8.5 m, Perrey (1865:211).
1868 January 20
An earthquake shock was felt at Alhak; it caused no damage, Fuchs (1886:480).
1868 August 30
Sanii (1919) mentions an earthquake on 11 Jumada-I 1285 = 30 August 1868, about midnight, which was strongly felt in Tehran, Firuzkuh, Kum and Kashan. He gives no details.

1872 June
Fuchs (1886:484) mentions a devastating earthquake in Hamadan which took place in June 1872; he gives no details.
1872 September 16
Schmidt (1879:310) makes mention of an earthquake in Persia which in September
1872 caused great disasters. Fuchs (1886:484) adds that the earthquake occurred in the region of Sonkor where 1,500 people were killed.
1879 March 22
From contemporary Russian newspaper reports we learn that at sunrise, on the 10th March 1879 (22 March new style), a destructive earthquake in the region of Ardabil ruined the villages of Karashiran, Meshkidjik, Dashanli, Saganchi, Nir (Niar), Dursun-Hadjali, Hadili, Armudag, Sarugamish, Tiark (Tark), Engidjeh, Dizeh, and caused considerable damage to Mianeh. Old people in the region could not remember such a destructive earthquake. The main shock was preceded by a few minutes by a strong foreshock which warned people in Ardabil who ran out in the streets; the earthquake ruined a number of houses there, roofs and walls, and killed three persons.
In a letter to Amir-zadeh Manushahr-mirza, the Makhsavan says that of the set­tlements belonging to Najaf-Choli-Begh, the large village of Karashiran was totally destroyed; the brother of the owner, Haji-Taran, was killed together with his heir, the commander Loftfulla-Khan and his family and 100 villagers. The village of Mesh­kidjik was also totally destroyed and all the inhabitants were killed, as were Mahmud-rbrahim-Begom, the son of the owner of the village, and his family; in all 1,000 sheep, 100 horses and 50 camels perished in the village. The settlements of Dashanli and Saganchi were also demolished by the shock and about 100 people were killed. Armudag, in the Germrud, was totally destroyed and its 150 houses were demolished; of its inhabitants only two survived. The village of Sarugamish was levelled to the ground and none of its inhabitants escaped. The same happened at Tark, where many people were killed by landslides.
In the villages of Engidjeh. Dizeh and in the town of Mianeh, more than 1,000 people were killed. Half of Nir, Dursun-Hadjali and Hadili were ruined and many people were killed and injured. The letter adds that this great loss of life was mainly due to the bad quality of building materials, adobe brick, rubble masonry and heavy roofs covered with earth (Musketov, 1893:471).
Official casualty and damage reports give 21 villages totally destroyed and 54 heavily damaged; 922 people killed together with 2,660 sheep, 1,125 oxen, 124 horses and 55 camels.
The most severe damage occurred along the south and east slopes of Bozghush mountain, and two villages Tark and Manan (Manak) off the road, 4 farsakhs from Mianeh, were totally destroyed and over 500 and 600 people were killed respectively. In Mianeh, several strongly built houses were thrown down and in others large cracks were made in the walls (Anonymous, 1879).
The main shock occurred at 03:42 and lasted 12 seconds. Tt was strongly felt in Tabriz and Zenjan where it caused panic but no damage (Anonymous, 1879). At Lenkoran, the shock was felt at 04:00; three shocks caused great panic and chimneys vibrated visibly. At Belyasuvar, the first shock was strongly felt at 03:50 and lasted 12 seconds; other shocks followed at 04:00, 09:00, 17:00 and 21:00. At Ordubad, the main shock was felt at 03:15; it lasted 7 seconds and was followed by four more, which caused some cracks to appear in a number of houses. The earthquake was also felt at Shusha at 04:00 (Musketov, 1893:473).
This earthquake was experienced by Dr Jellisef on the evening of 28th June (old style); the noise of the shocks was so loud that he was awakened from his sleep, and in a few minutes several houses in Tash fell down together. Others had great cracks in their walls. Many people rushed into the fields; most of those who remained in the houses were killed. Large blocks of rock are said to have burst asunder (Anony­mous, 1890).
According to Musketov (1891:58), all villages on the Shahrud road about 84 versts (90 km) from Asterabad were totally destroyed and 120 people were killed. In Asterabad the damage was less serious, but nearly all houses were somewhat damaged, and many of them, including the residence of the Russian consul, had to be abandoned.
Shocks continued up to the 19th August (31 August new style); in all, 60 shocks were felt in Asterabad (Musketov, 1891:6), of which 34 occurred during the first nine days up to the 8th of July (20 July new style).
This earthquake is noted by Spesivcheva (1933:43), who places the epicentre at 36.5°N – 55.0°E and assigns to it an intensity VIII. Sieberg (1932:815) dates the earthquake to the night of 27-28 June 1890 and adds that at Tash the earthquake was associated with ground fractures and rockfalls. Rezanov (1959) and Rustanovich (1967:14) on the authority of Sieberg and of the manuscript earthquake catalogue of V. Popov place this earthquake on the 27-29 July (style ?). To this perhaps they have been misled by a misprint in Musketov (1891:46) who gives 29 July.
The shock was felt 600 km away in Baku and in Chikishliar (150 km), but it was not felt at Semirichi.
1890 july 11 01:33 aftershock felt in Asterabad




01:47 Mild shock “ “
12 - Many weak aftershocks
13 - Eleven shocks
14 07:22 Weak
10:25 Strong
15:00 Weak
15 04:45 Strong
20 Weak
16 - Many weak shocks
17 14:55 Strong,followed by weaker shock
15:05 Strong
16:10 Weak
17:10 Weak
july 18 00:45 Very strong
03:00 Weak
05:00 Weak
05:45 Weak
06:45
09:00
11:05
23:00

July 19 01:30
03:00
08:18
08:23
25 23:56 Very strong at Asterabad
27 13:28 Very violent at Asterabad
August 2 11:53
6 03:00
11 11:40
11:42
14 13:30
16 08:52
13:30
17 08:24
18:20 Very strong
21:30
19 13:30
16:00
20 00:30
03:00
23 02:15
02:30
05:00
24 13:30
26 20:25
27 02:00
06:42
31 17:18


1895 December 24
Lysakowski (1906:48) mentions an earthquake on the 24th December 1895 which was particularly strong in Tehran . He says that as a result of this earthquake many horses and other animals were killed in the city (Lysakowski, 1910:47). He quotes no authority .
1896 January 2
A destructive earthquake in the district of Khalkhal. The shock was not felt outside the district but completely destroyed the large village of Zanjabad (Sanjabad ) and partly destroyed several other villages , where 300 people were killed (Anonymous, 1896). Contemporary newspaper reports add that the region devastated by this earthquake , which occurred at midnight of the 2nd to the 3rd January (new style), lies to the north of Mianeh ; they write Janjabad for Sanjabad( Neologos Constantinoupoleos, 17 January issue , p.2 The Times) .
Agamennone (1900:121) improves upon the information in Neologos and places the village destroyed at Gandjabad , on the foothills of mount Sahend ,about 100 km west of Sanjabad, a locality which is neither in the district of Khalkhal nor to the north of Mianeh .
On the 5th of January another earthquake caused heavy damage at Khoi, killing 800 people . Wilson (1930:123)confuses the two earthquakes and dates both of them .

Fig. 15. Historical seismicity of North central Iran. A:Area of earthquake destroction b: Area of damage . Filled circles: Towns destroyed by earthquakes.
(Present-day names or spellings known to differ from those used in this paper are shown on this figure in parentheses .)



to the 2nd of January, suggesting that the area affected extended from Khoi to Gang-abad (Sanjabad).
1898 January 15
A strong earthquake caused some damage at Asterabad; the shock was felt in Chikiislar 150 km away (Rezanov, 1959:200).

-Genel Başkan Baykal Kanal D anahaberde, M.Ali Birand’ın AKP’nin yeni Anayasası ile ilgili sorularını yanıtlarken, uyardı, yol gösterdi..


-1-“Bu getirilen taslak Atatürk adını ve Atatürk düşüncesini tasfiye etmeyi amaçlayan bir taslaktır. Bu doğrultuda çok gözü kara bir atılım yapmaktadır. Atatürk referansı kısmen korunmaktadır. Ama bu bir zorunluluk olarak asgariye indirilmiş bir şekilde tutulmaktadır. Yani Atatürk’e sırtını dönen bir Anayasa sözkonusudur”

-2-“Bu anayasa laikliğin içini boşaltan bir anayasadır. Bu getirilen anayasadan sonra dini baskı ve tarikat ağırlığı toplumsal yaşamda, eğitimde ve devlet düzeninde çok açık bir biçimde ortaya çıkacaktır”

-3-“44. madde Türkiye’nin eğitim dilini Türkçe dışında dillere de açan bir madde olarak düzenleniyor. Bunun bizi getireceği nokta, Türkiye’de ulusal birliğin, ulusal bütünlüğün parçalanmasıdır. Bu bizim Sevr’den sonra Lozan’da elde ettiğimiz ulusal bütünlüğümüzü 84 yıl sonra bir anayasayla geri vermemiz sonucunu doğuracaktır”

-“Dördüncü bir temel nokta, Yargı artık bağımsız olmaktan çıkacaktır”

-“Bizim anayasamız 175. maddesinde yeni bir Anayasa yapılmasını değil, anayasanın nasıl değiştirileceğini düzenlemiştir. Yeni bir anayasa yapmak demek, eski anayasayı iptal etmek demektir. Böyle bir yetkimiz bizim yoktur”

-“Anayasalar ancak kurucu iradeyi yansıtan bir oluşumla yenilenir. Bir kurucu meclis eliyle yenilenir. Kurucu meclisin nasıl kurulacağı da gene anayasada düzenlenir”

-“Hükümetin yapması gereken anayasayı yenileme, eski anayasayı iptal etme iddiasından vazgeçerek, Anayasada değiştirmek istedikleri noktalardaki taleplerini açıkça ortaya koymaları ve o konularda bir değişiklik arayışına girmeleridir”

-“Eğer bazı acil anayasa değişikliği hissettikleri noktalar varsa bunun gereğini birlikte yaparız. Buna biz açığız. Bunu somutlaştırmaları lazım. Hayır bizim derdimiz belli bir somut ihtiyaca cevap verecek anayasa değişikliği değil. Biz anayasanın ruhundan, anayasanın özünden, tarihi kimliğinden rahatsızız. Bunu ortadan kaldırmak, bunu yok etmek, bunu iptal etmek istiyoruz diyarlarsa, bunu bugünkü meclis içinde bunların yapması mümkün değildir”

-“Türkiye’nin şuana kadar bu yapılan taslak çalışmalarına verdiği tepki iktidar bakımından çok uyarıcı olmalıdır. Umarım bunu değerlendirirler Hayır biz inadımız inat işte %46 oy aldık, biz kendi kafamıza göre bir anayasayı Türkiye’ye dayatacağız ısrarı içine girerlerse ve hele bu anayasa içinde laikliğin gerçekten içini boşaltacak düzenlemeler, Türkiye’nin ulusal bütünlüğünü ortadan kaldıracak, eğitim dilini yerel etnik eğitim dillerine de yayacak bir anlayışta ısrar edecek olurlarsa buna Türkiye çok ciddi tepki gösterir. Biz bu tepkiye elbette kol kanat gereriz, sahip çıkarız ve bu tepkiyi düşüncemizle, halkı, milleti ikna etmeye çalışarak ve bu konudaki anlayışımızı, toplumsal direncimizi sergileyerek çok net bir şekilde ortaya koyarız”

Birand’ın sorularına Genel Başkan Baykal’ın verdiği yanıtların...

İletişim Koordinatörlüğü (Ankara) – Genel Başkan Deniz Baykal Kanal D anahaber’e konuk oldu ve gazeteci-yazar M.Ali Birand’ın AKP’nin yeni Anayasası ile ilgili sorularını şöyle yanıtladı;

Mehmet Ali BİRAND- Tartışmanın en önemli isminde. Ana muhalefet lideri Deniz Baykal’da. Deniz Baykal hoşgeldiniz, çok teşekkürler bize vakit ayırdığınız için. En çok üstünde durduğunuz kıyametler kopuyor anayasa konusunda. TÜSİAD açıklama yapıyor, rektörler konuşuyor, Başbakan kızıyor. Ama şimdiye kadar siz konuşmadınız. Bu taslak bildiğimiz kadarıyla şuanki duruma göre siz nasıl görüyorsunuz? Sizin bakışınız son derece önemli. Siz nasıl görüyorsunuz ve nereye doğru gidiyoruz?

Deniz BAYKAL- Çok teşekkür ederim Sayın Birand. Bu anayasa taslağı Türkiye’yi birden bire çok üzüntü verici bir tartışma ortamının içine çekti. Her çevreden değerlendirmeler ifade ediliyor. Anayasanın hazırlanış biçimiyle, içeriğiyle ilgili söylenen çok söz var. Bunları tabi kendi zemininde konuşacağız. Ama ben bir haber bülteninin çerçevesi içinde çok kısaca bazı temel noktalara dikkati çekmek istiyorum. Bu anayasanın karakteri ne? Niteliği ne? Daha önceki anayasayla bu anayasa arasında şimdi yapılmak istenen anayasa arasında ne gibi farklar ortaya çıkacak bunu hiç maddeler arasında dağılmadan kısaca ifade etmek isterim.

Bir; bu getirilen taslak Atatürk adını ve Atatürk düşüncesini tasfiye etmeyi amaçlayan bir taslaktır. Çok açık, çok net. Bu doğrultuda çok gözü kara bir atılım yapmaktadır. Atatürk referansı kısmen korunmaktadır. Ama bu bir zorunluluk olarak asgariye indirilmiş bir şekilde tutulmaktadır. Yani Atatürk’e sırtını dönen bir Anayasa sözkonusudur. Bu birinci nokta. Bundan sonraki gelişmeler açısından da bu yön verici, ışık tutucu bir noktadır diye düşünüyorum.

İki; bu anayasa laikliğin içini boşaltan bir anayasadır. Bu anayasanın getirdiği yeni anlayış içinde din, devlet ilişkisi yeniden düzenlenecektir. Din eğitim ilişkisi yeniden düzenlenecektir. Ve yaşam tarzı, yaşam biçimi, yaşam sembolleri toplumda yepyeni bir noktaya gelecektir. Bu getirilen anayasadan sonra dini baskı ve tarikat ağırlığı toplumsal yaşamda, eğitimde ve devlet düzeninde çok açık bir biçimde ortaya çıkacaktır. Bunu öngören, bunu amaçlayan bir yasadır.

Üçüncü bir temel nokta fevkalade önemli. Kamuoyumuzun dikkatinden kaçıyor. O nedenle özellikle herkesin duyarlılığını rica ediyorum. 44. madde Türkiye’nin eğitim dilini Türkçe dışında dillere de açan bir madde olarak düzenleniyor. Yani artık Türkiye’de çocuklarımız ilkokulda, ortaokulda, lisede, üniversitede eğitim dili olarak devlet kurumlarında sadece Türkçe eğitim görmeyecekler, etnik dillerde de eğitim görmek imkanını bulacaklar. Yani bu şu demektir; tarih dersini kendi etnik dilinde Kürtçe ya da Gürcüce, Çerkezce, Arapça devlet okulunda öğrenme imkanını elde edecektir. Tarih dersini, coğrafya dersini, tabiat bilgisi dersini, biyoloji, fen dersini eğitim Türkçe dışında bir dilde de yapılmaya başlanacaktır. Bunun bizi getireceği noktada, Türkiye’de ulusal birliğin, ulusal bütünlüğün parçalanmasıdır, dağılmasıdır. Eğer bu bilinçli olarak amaçlanmışsa ne yaptığını bilerek oraya birileri koymuşsa bu gerçekten büyük önem taşıyor. Eğer bunu fark etmeden oraya tesadüfen koymuşlarsa ki buna kesinlikle ihtimal vermiyorum. Çok şaşırtıcı bir tablodur. Yani nasıl olmuştur da Türkiye’nin yeni anayasa taslağına eğitim dilini etnik dillerde yapmayı öngören bir madde girmiştir. Bu bizim ancak Sevr’den sonra Lozan’da elde ettiğimiz ulusal bütünlüğümüzü, Lozan’da elde ettiğimizi bir anlaşmayla elde ettiğimizi 84 yıl sonra bir anayasayla geri vermemiz sonucunu doğuracaktır. Vahim bir tablodur buna dikkati çekmek istiyorum.
Dördüncü bir temel nokta şu Sayın Birand. Yargı artık bağımsız olmaktan çıkacaktır Türkiye’de yargı Başbakanın hegemonyası altına girecektir. Anayasa yargısından Hakimler Savcılar Yüksek Kuruluna yargı mesleğine girecek olan gençlerin seçimine kadar her konuda hükümet ağırlığı açık bir biçimde ortaya çıkacaktır. Yani sosyal haklara yönelik bir düzenleme yoktur. Toplumsal haklarla ilgili bir düzenleme yoktur. Sendikal sorunlarla ilgili bir açılım yoktur. Kişi hak ve özgürlüklerini genişletiyoruz diyorlar 82 anayasasında yargıçların ve savcıların dernek kurma özgürlüğü vardır. Bu anayasada, yeni getirilen taslakta ortadan kaldırılacaktır. Yani kişi hak ve özgürlükleri bakımından da, yargı bağımsızlığı bakımından da üzüntü verici bir tablo çıkmaktadır. Bu Türkiye’yi ciddi sıkıntılara sokacak bir taslak olarak gözüküyor.
Mehmet Ali BİRAND- Peki Sayın Baykal, şimdi bu durumunda kurtulma, bunlar sizin kırmızı çizgileriniz besbelli. Bu kırmızı çizgilerin altını çiziyorsunuz. Peki ne yapmak gerekiyor? Yeni bir anayasamı? Bu Anayasayı kim yapmalı? Burada da bir çözümünüz var mı?

Deniz BAYKAL- Evet. Şimdi bizim anayasamız 175. maddesinde yeni bir Anayasa yapılmasını değil anayasanın nasıl değiştirileceğini düzenlemiştir. Yani bizim anayasamızda anayasanın değiştirilmesine yönelik düzenleme vardır. Ama yeni bir anayasa yapılmasına yönelik bir düzenleme yoktur. Bu şu demektir? Biz hepimiz var olan anayasanın bir ürünüyüz. Yani hükümette, muhalefette, iktidarda muhalefette, parlamentoda hepimiz var olan, bu yok sayılmak istenen anayasanın bir ürünüyüz. Şimdi bizim anayasayı yenileyeceğiz dememiz eski anayasayı iptal edeceğiz anlamına gelmektedir. Yeni bir anayasa yapmak demek eski anayasayı iptal etmek demektir. Böyle bir yetkimiz bizim yoktur. Bizim anayasamızın 175. maddesinde anayasamızın bazı maddelerini değiştirme, ortadan kaldırma olanağımız olabilir. Konuşulması gerekende budur.

Şimdi anayasalar nasıl yenilenir eğer yenileme ihtiyacı varsa. Anayasalar ancak kurucu iradeyi yansıtan bir oluşumla yenilenir. Bir kurucu meclis eliyle yenilenir. Kurucu meclisin nasıl kurulacağı da gene anayasada düzenlenir. Demokratik süreçte bu iş böyledir. Avrupa’daki pek çok ülke anayasasını 2. dünya savaşından sonra değiştirme gereğini duymuştur. Ama onlar bunu kurucu meclisler eliyle ve kendi anayasal süreçleri içinde yapmışlardır.

Şimdi bizim anayasamızın içinde böyle bir madde yok. Var olan tablo karşısında hükümetin yapması gereken anayasayı yenileme, eski anayasayı iptal etme iddiasından vazgeçerek bence anayasayı değiştirmek istedikleri noktalardaki taleplerini açıkça ortaya koymaları ve o konularda bir değişiklik arayışına girmeleridir. Eğer bunları belirlerse bu konuda bir toplumsal uzlaşma arayışı gerçekleştirilebilir.

Mehmet Ali BİRAND- Sizin üstünde durduğunuz nokta anladığım kadarıyla yeniden bir anayasa yazmayı bırakalım. Gelin bu anayasanın üzerinde değişiklik önerileriniz varsa gelin biz hazırız, gelin onu tartışmaya hazırız diyorsunuz.

Deniz BAYKAL- Evet. Birincisi bu Sayın Birand. Eğer bazı acil anayasa değişikliği hissettikleri noktalar varsa bunun gereğini birlikte yaparız. Buna biz açığız. Bunu somutlaştırmaları lazım. Hayır bizim derdimiz belli bir somut ihtiyaca cevap verecek anayasa değişikliği değil. Biz anayasanın ruhundan, anayasanın özünden, tarihi kimliğinden rahatsızız. Bunu ortadan kaldırmak, bunu yok etmek, bunu iptal etmek istiyoruz diyarlarsa bunu bugünkü meclis içinde bunların yapması mümkün değildir.

Anayasanın değiştirilemez maddeleri vardır. Başlangıçta ilk 4 maddesi bu niteliktedir. Anayasamızın, devletimizin, cumhuriyetimizin kimliğini, karakterini belgeleyen o maddeler değiştirilemez. Şimdi hükümet diyor ki, bugün sizin haberinizde de vardı. Sayın Adalet Bakanı diyor ki, bunları değiştirmekten vazgeçtik diyor. Bunları değiştirmekten vazgeçtiklerini söylüyorlar ama o 4 maddeden ikincisi anayasanın, şuandaki anayasanın başlangıç bölümünde bulunan temel ilkelere referans yapıyor. Başlangıçtaki temel ilkeler esas alınarak diye o maddeler yorumlanıyor. Şimdi getirilen taslakta başlangıç bölümünün anayasa dışında olduğu ilan edilmiştir. Var olan başlangıç bölümü de bir tek paragrafa indirgenmiştir. Yani 4 maddenin özü ortadan kaldırılmıştır. Bu çok ciddi bir hukukilik problemi doğurur. Eğer tümünü değiştirmeye kalkarsanız bu açmazdan nasıl kurtulacağınızı ortaya koymak durumundasınız. Ve bu ciddi zorluklarla karşı karşıya bırakır. Bakınız Meclis Başkanı Sayın Köksal Toptan anlaşılıyor ki bütün bu açmazların farkında olduğu içindir ki, bu hukuk krizinin farkında olduğu içindir ki, kurucu meclis gerekir diyor. Türkiye’de bir kurucu meclise ihtiyaç var. Kurucu meclis nasıl oluşur? Anayasa kurucu meclisle ilgili bir düzenleme yapar. Şuandaki anayasamızda var mı? Yok. Yapılması gereken odur. Eğer bu konuda bir ortak çalışma arayışına girerse hükümet Türkiye olarak hepimiz Türkiye’nin büyük bir anayasacılık birikimi var. Yani 100 yılın üzerinde bir anayasacılık tarihine sahibiz. Ve Türkiye’de çok değerli, seçkin, bu işe katkı verecek insanlar var. Ve onlar bir araya gelerek anayasamızın 175. maddesine yeni bir anayasayı hangi organı nasıl yapacağıyla ilgili bir düzenleme koyar ve o düzenlemenin gereği yerine getirilir. Bugünkü meclis çalışmasına devam ederken o öneri doğrultusunda, o kurucu meclis oluşumu sağlanır. Kurucu meclis yeni anayasa çalışmalarını götürür. O anayasa sonuçlanır, o anayasa referanduma sunulur. O anayasa yürürlüğe girdiği anda artık eski meclis ve eski anayasaya dayalı olarak ortaya çıkmış olan meclisin ömrü biter. Yeni anayasaya göre yeni seçim yapılır.

Yani bizim hem bize vücut veren anayasayı iptal edip, hem kendi varlığımızı sürdürmeye kalkmamız bir çelişkidir. Bunu aşmanın yolu anayasayı yenileme iddiasından vazgeçip anayasa değişikliğine yönelmek. Ya da anayasa yenileme konusunda iddialı isek toplumu kucaklayacak bir kurucu meclisin nasıl oluşacağını bugünkü anayasamıza yerleştirmek ve o mekanizmayı işletmek olmalıdır.

Mehmet Ali BİRAND- Deniz bey son, peki bunlar olmadığı takdirde ne yapmayı planlıyorsunuz? Bir eylem planınız var mı? Mesela örneğin diğer muhalefet liderleriyle görüşüp ortak bir tutum, ortak bir yaklaşım önünüzdeki neyi görüyorsunuz? Mücadele etme açısından soruyorum.

Deniz BAYKAL- Umut ediyorum iktidar toplumun gösterdiği bu tepkiyi doğru değerlendirecektir. Yani biz yüksek sesle konuşmuyoruz, sükunetle izliyoruz. Ama Türkiye’nin şuana kadar bu yapılan taslak çalışmalarına verdiği tepki iktidar bakımından çok uyarıcı olmalıdır. TÜSİAD’dan Türkiye İşveren Sendikalarına kadar toplumun değişik kesimleri, baroları, üniversiteleri tepkilerini ortaya koymuşlardır. Her gün gazetelerde pek çok yazarımız, düşünürümüz düşüncesini ifade ediyor. Bunlar yok sayılacak şeyler değildir. Çok ciddi hukuk krizlerine doğru sürükleniyorlar. Umarım bunu değerlendirirler ve yeni bir durum değerlendirmesiyle yeni bir politika içine girerler. Bu sağlanırsa bundan memnuniyet duyarım. Hayır biz inadımız inat işte %46 oy aldık, biz kendi kafamıza göre bir anayasayı Türkiye’ye dayatacağız ısrarı içine girerlerse ve hele bu anayasa içinde laikliğin gerçekten içini boşaltacak düzenlemeler, Türkiye’nin ulusal bütünlüğünü ortadan kaldıracak, eğitim dilini yerel etnik eğitim dillerine de, dillere de yayacak bir anlayışta ısrar edecek olurlarsa buna Türkiye çok ciddi tepki gösterir. Biz bu tepkiye elbette kol kanat gereriz, sahip çıkarız ve bu tepkiyi düşüncemizle, halkın milleti ikna etmeye çalışarak ve bu konudaki anlayışımızı, toplumsal direncimizi sergileyerek çok net bir şekilde ortaya koyarız. Yani Türkiye çok ciddi tartışmaların içine sürüklenir. Umarım bunu değerlendireceklerdir, yeni bir anlayışın içine gireceklerdir.

Mehmet Ali BİRAND- Deniz Baykal çok çok teşekküler. Sevgili seyirciler Deniz Baykal Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi lideri son derece önemli noktalara parmak bastı. Özellikle üstünde durduğu bırakalım yeni bir anayasa yazmayı gelin bugünkü anayasada değişiklikler yapalım. Onu da görüşmeye hazırız dedi ve bunu yapacak mekanizmanın başında da kurucu meclis olduğunu söyledi Deniz Bey. Çok teşekkür ederim.

Monday, September 24, 2007

Iran : une troisième voie, pour éviter la catastrophe, par Prince Reza Pahlavi


Avec l'aggravation de la crise iranienne, un tumulte sans précédent s'empare de la sphère diplomatique et déborde sur la scène médiatique. Ces derniers jours, les déclarations du ministre français des affaires étrangères, homme doté d'une longue expérience des crises, notamment lorsqu'il fut en charge de la province du Kosovo mandaté par les Nations unies, ont ravivé les débats.

Lors de la campagne présidentielle en France, les orientations du futur président sur sa politique étrangère préfiguraient déjà l'acuité de la crise iranienne. Elles ont été confirmées, le 27 août, par le discours du président français devant la Conférence des ambassadeurs. La question est la suivante : sommes-nous en face de deux options catastrophiques - "la bombe iranienne ou le bombardement de l'Iran", selon les termes de M. Sarkozy - ou existe-t-il une troisième voie ? De mon point de vue, cette troisième voie existe effectivement.

Je le dis avec une conviction largement partagée par nombre de dissidents à l'intérieur du pays, le problème essentiel du peuple iranien n'est ni la poursuite de l'enrichissement d'uranium ni l'aventurisme du régime sous quelque forme que ce soit. L'aspiration profonde de la grande majorité des Iraniens est la liberté, les droits de l'homme, la laïcité, la prospérité, l'emploi et la sécurité.

Si l'occasion s'offrait à ce peuple de s'exprimer librement, la pertinence de cette conviction serait démontrée aux yeux du monde entier. Comme d'autres qui l'ont vécue avant nous à travers l'histoire, les Iraniens, pris sous la répression d'une dictature théocratique, n'ont pas la possibilité de s'exprimer en ce sens. Cependant, le contexte global peut nous aider. L'inflexion de la politique étrangère de la France ces derniers mois semble indiquer une nouvelle prise de conscience de la part des décideurs français quant à la réalité iranienne aujourd'hui.

C'est pour mieux refléter cette réalité que je m'efforce de porter à l'attention du monde les voix réprimées à l'intérieur. Mon énergie se concentre sur la concrétisation d'un vaste mouvement d'union nationale axé sur la désobéissance civile. En Iran comme ailleurs dans un passé proche, en Afrique du Sud sous le régime d'apartheid, ou dans l'ancien bloc soviétique en Europe centrale, un tel mouvement nécessite le soutien de la communauté internationale. Aguerrie par les "rebuffades" de ceux qui ne cherchent qu'à gagner du temps pour sécuriser leur régime, celle-ci doit autant se préoccuper de la gravité de la crise nucléaire que de celle de la violation quotidienne des droits de l'homme. D'autant plus que cette question est appelée à s'inscrire comme "la priorité de l'action diplomatique de la France dans le monde".

Loin de la guerre, ce que le peuple iranien demande à la France, berceau de la démocratie et de la défense des droits de l'homme, c'est d'exercer à l'encontre de la République islamique d'Iran des sanctions ciblées et étendues allant jusqu'à la rupture des relations diplomatiques et économiques et l'interdiction des déplacements des envoyés du régime à l'étranger.

Nous avons besoin du soutien de la communauté internationale dans cette lutte pour la liberté. Je me réjouis de la politique de fermeté adoptée par la France. Cependant, j'ajoute que la guerre serait une catastrophe, dont les victimes seraient le peuple iranien et la démocratie.

Cette troisième voie s'impose. Je ferai de mon mieux pour en porter le flambeau avec conviction et détermination, et continue plus que jamais mon combat pour une démocratie véritable en Iran. Il appartiendra à mes concitoyens de décider de l'avenir institutionnel du pays. D'ici là, mon devoir consiste à trouver les mécanismes d'une sortie de crise et d'une transition, la moins coûteuse possible.

LE MONDE | 21.09.07

Friday, September 21, 2007

VATAN / Baykal:Anayasayı din devleti için değiştirecekler



-CHP lideri Deniz Baykal, yeni anayasa çalışmalarını böyle değerlendirdi.

-CHP lideri Baykal, yeni anayasa çalışmalarını ‘Kendi hayallerini gerçekleştirerek din devleti kurmak istiyorlar’ diye yorumladı.


Deniz Baykal, yeni anayasa taslağına ilişkin çalışmaları, AKP�nin �din devleti kurma aracı� olarak değerlendirdi. Partisinin önceki akşam yapılan MYK toplantısında konuşan CHP lideri Baykal, �Bunlar kendi hayallerini gerçekleştirip, din devleti kurmak için anayasayı değiştirmek istiyorlar. Oysa toplumda anayasanın değişmesi yönünde bir talep yok� dedi. CHP liderinin Türkiye�nin gündemine oturan AKP�nin anayasa taslağı çalışmaları konusundaki değerlendirmeleri şöyle oldu:


AMAÇ DİN DEVLETİ KURMAK: Bunlar kendi hayallerini gerçekleştirip, din devleti kurmak için anayasayı değiştirmek istiyorlar. Toplumda anayasanın değişmesi yönünde bir talep yok. Ama amaçları farklı. Dertleri başka. Özellikle eğitim dilini düzenleyen 44. madde endişe vericidir. Resmi dil Türkçe, eğitim dili olmaktan çıkartılıyor. Türkçe�nin dışında başka dillerde eğitime izin verilmesi sakıncalıdır.


TÜRKİYE YUGOSLAVYALAŞTIRILMAK İSTENİYOR: Eğitim dilinin değiştirilmesiyle Türkiye Yugoslavyalaştırılır. Yugoslavya böyle bölündü. Önce okul ister, sonra öğretmen isterler. Herkes farklı dillerde eğitim alırsa, ulusal bütünlüğü sağlamak mümkün olmaz.
SEVR BENZETMESİ: Anayasa değişikliği sadece içerden değil dışardan da bağlantılı. Sevr�de yapamadıklarını bu şekilde yapmak istiyorlar. Lozan ile verdiklerini anayasa ile almaya çalışıyorlar. Biz bunun karşısında dimdik ayakta duracağız. Her zeminde mücadelemizi yürüteceğiz.

CHP de taslak hazırlayacak

MYK toplantısında Anayasa Komisyonu kurulması kararı da alındı. Anayasa taslağı netleştikten ve AKP hükümeti tarafından açıklanmasından sonra CHP de anayasa hukukçularından oluşan bir komisyon kurarak, çalışmalar yürütecek. CHP milletvekillerine anayasa ile ilgili konuşma yasağı da getirdi. CHP anayasanın uzmanlık gerektiren bir konu olduğunu, bu nedenle de konuşacak tüm isimlerin anayasaya hakim olması gerektiği görüşünde birleşti.