USGS ScienceSearch

USGS · 70022386

A volcano in North Carolina? A closer look at a tall tale

Abstract

The legacy of the 1811-1812 New Madrid, Central United States, earthquakes is one of tremendous enigma. We are left with just enough contemporary information to provide a measure of constraint on the isoseismal contours and therefore magnitudes of the three principal events ( Nuttli, 1973 ; Street, 1982 ; Johnston, 1996 ; Hough et al., 2000 ), yet given the sparse population density and limited documentation of effects, our interpretations will always be plagued by a significant degree of uncertainty. Although the magnitudes of the three principal New Madrid main shocks will likely never be established with precision, all contemporary analyses (see above references) obtain magnitudes upward of 7 for all three events—large enough to produce perceptible ground motions as far away as the Atlantic seaboard. One enduring and interesting bit of folklore concerning the New Madrid earthquakes of 1811-1812 involves the tale of a volcanic eruption in North Carolina at the time of the first main shock on 16 December 1811. The site of this supposed volcano was approximately 750 km east of the main shock and 40 km northwest of Asheville, North Carolina, at an area known in the early 1800's as “the springs” or “the warm springs” ( Figure 1 ). I will henceforth refer to the location by the name of the town that exists there now: Hot Springs. The tale has merited a brief mention in some modern treatises on the New Madrid sequence. For example, Penick ( 1981 ) mentions the 1812 letter by Asheville, North Carolina resident John Clarke Edwards that described the supposed eruption. Penick ( 1981 ) goes on to note that the letter was quickly discredited as a hoax.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 35.8670736393499° to 35.9271466638429° latitude; -82.88017272949219° to -82.78026580810547° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Susan E. Hough. 2000. A volcano in North Carolina? A closer look at a tall tale. https://doi.org/10.1785/gssrl.71.6.704

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Digitizer Suite: The Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory Digitizer Testing Suite

Laboratory testing of digitizers and seismometers helps ensure that prior to deployment the instrumentation can produce high quality data and is operating within specifications. In this work we detail the software package called: the Albuquerque Seismological Laboratory (ASL) Digitizer Test Suite. This Java software package provides several algorithms to verify various performance parameters of digitizers commonly used for recording analog seismic instruments. The goal of these tests is not to be exhaustive, but to identify common failures that could compromise the integrity of seismic data being recorded on the digitizer. For example, Sandia National Laboratories (e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2018) routinely do comprehensive testing of digitizers for various monitoring missions. While these tests reports are valuable for comprehensively characterizing a recording system, it would be resource intensive to conduct such tests on every seismic recorder used in a network. We focus on tests that include ways to estimate the sensitivity, timing, self-noise, and clip-level of the digitizer, as well as the fidelity of the signal being recorded. The software is publicly available and provides a way for the community to verify the integrity of a digitizer using a minimum amount of outside equipment.

Seismological Research Letters

The digital archivist: Automating legacy macroseismic data processing using large language models

Macroseismic data are a key resource to investigate shaking and damage from preinstrumental and early instrumental eras. However, data are often stored as inconsistently formatted reports describing observed shaking and damage, making manually parsing and interpreting accounts labor‐intensive. We introduce a novel workflow using Google’s Gemini 2.5 Pro large language model (LLM) to automate the extraction and structuring of macroseismic observations from summary reports. We apply this workflow to the 22 March 1957 M 5.3 Daly City, California, earthquake as a case study. We used Gemini to extract addresses, originally assigned modified Mercalli intensity values, and descriptions from each report. To address coordinate precision limits, addresses were geocoded via Google’s Geocoding application programming interface. This workflow yielded over 2300 geocoded intensity reports for the Daly City earthquake. We use the geocoded accounts, with the original report intensity assignments, to develop a shaking intensity map that in some respects rivals modern Did You Feel It? Maps. We also extract and present data for the 9 February 1971 M L 6.7 Sylmar, California, earthquake. Our results demonstrate the potential of LLMs for reliably extracting and analyzing large, unstructured macroseismic datasets. LLMs offer a scalable solution for rapidly digitizing macroseismic archives, enabling their broader use to constrain ground‐motion models in modern seismic hazard analysis and to improve our understanding of site effects in urban areas. The concepts explored here may also be applied to the handling of other legacy seismological and earth science data.

Seismological Research Letters