Forum communication Comment on: “Macroseismic intensity assessment of 1885 Baramulla Earthquake of northwestern Kashmir Himalaya, using the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007)” by Ahmad et al., 2013 A.A. Shah Curtin University, Department of Applied Geology, CDT 250, 98009 Miri, Sarawak, Malaysia article info Article history: Available online 27 June 2014 Keywords: Kashmir Basin Active faults Historical earthquakes 1885 Baramullah Earthqauke abstract This comment raises some scientific concerns regarding one of a recent publications in Quaternary In- ternational entitled “Macroseismic intensity assessment of 1885 Baramulla Earthquake of northwestern Kashmir Himalaya, using the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI 2007)” by Amad et al., 2013 (Article in Press). The authors have allegedly re-evaluated the historical reports of the 1885 Baramulla Earthquake of NW Kashmir by conducting extensive field investigations on those sites where environ- mental effects from the historical earthquake were reported. Thus, both primary (surface rupture) and secondary effects were studied and an ESI intensity of X was estimated for the epicentral area. However, the presented primary effects, on which the core of the contribution stands, are taken from Neve, 1928 and Jones, 1885 (cited in the prose) and provided secondary effects are not supported by any evidence(s). In my opinion the authors have not produced any new evidence to contradict or support the historical data. Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. This comment raises some scientific concerns regarding a recent publication in Quaternary International entitled “Macroseismic intensity assessment of 1885 Baramulla Earthquake of north- western Kashmir Himalaya, using the Environmental Seismic Intensity scale (ESI, 2007)” by Ahmad et al., 2013. Ahmad et al. have reportedly re-examined the 1885 Baramulla Earthquake of NW Kashmir, wherein the past evidences, histor- ical reports, are analyzed. This was done primarily by visiting those sites where environmental effects from the historical earthquake were reported. Both primary (surface rupture) and secondary effects were investigated (landslides, gas eruptions, hydrological changes, ground cracks, liquefaction) and an ESI intensity of X was determined for the epicentral area. However, the presented primary effects, on which the crux of the paper stands, are directly taken from Neve (1928) and Jones (1885). The authors have not produced any new evidence to contradict or support the historical data. Although they claim to have detected and localized coseismic environmental effects of the 1885 earthquake, field evidence and photographs have not been pre- sented; the two photographs provided are taken from the pub- lished literature. The reported historical rupture locations are not adequately represented or related to the active fault scarps mapped earlier in the Kashmir Basin (e.g. Nakata et al., 1991; Madden et al., 2010, 2011; Meigs et al., 2010; Ahmad and Bhat, 2012; Shah, 2012, 2013a, 2013b; Ahmad et al., 2013). None of the above works are cited to contradict or to complement the new contribution in the area. One of the major outcomes of the paper is that the rupture length of the Baramulla Earthquake was about 54 km. However, this is based on the historical data presented. As geomorphic evidence of active faulting is clearly demonstrated in the area, the rupture length can be compared with the historical findings (Fig. 1). The inferred fault in Figure 2 of the paper is out of place, because the mapped active fault scarps are east and west of this line (Fig. 1) and, there is no other structure which could be related to this line. When the isoseismals of 1885 Baramullah Earthquake are overlapped on the active fault map of Shah (2013a), it becomes clear that most of the locations affected by this earthquake are located on the hanging wall block of the mapped fault scarps (Fig. 1). Thus, it is quite E-mail address: afroz.shah@curtin.edu.my. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Quaternary International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.04.064 1040-6182/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. Quaternary International 355 (2015) 172e174