2 ms·

No - the earthquake was strong enough to send a tsunami to Japan. Its epicentre was on the west coast: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake

• cperciva 3y ago
  Oops! You're quite right of course. I remembered Japan because that's where we had the written records of the event.
• dclowd9901 3y ago
  Doesn’t it seem like an earthquake of that magnitude would have corresponding lore from natives basically among the entire western region of North America? Why only the PNW tribes?
  • elgenie 3y ago
    1. There might be, just with those accounts not having been encountered due to the relative sizes of the groups involved. 2. Take a look at the map of where the epicenter is estimated to be and it’s fairly clear how the kink point in the California coastline where it switches from running N-S to NW-SE would “catch” (probably not the correct term) the tsunami with land and prevent it from going further. 3. An examination of the topography of the areas near the Pacific coast in what’s now SW Oregon and NW California shows why few Native groups would have chosen to live there in 1700 and why a tsunami would be less likely to leave an impact big enough to be remembered: it’s mountainous and inhospitable, with the elevation rising rapidly and the population low to this day. A unexpected middle of the night quake (estimated to have been around 9pm local plus the hours for the water to travel) washing away a couple fishing boats while everyone in a tiny tribe was asleep would be a small misfortune, not enough to make up legends about fighting gods over.