This work sheds light on one of the most important earthquakes in Venezuelan history. At 16:07 on Holy Thursday, 26 March 1812, Caracas and the surrounding province of Venezuela suffered a very destructive earthquake. The earthquake occurred at a time of great political, economic, and social upheaval, with the beginning of the republican revolution and the Spanish royalist military response. Within this historical context of conflict, documentary information may be biased and subjective. This chapter is a methodological and epistemological analysis of the 1812 earthquake damage from letters and manuscripts and an interpretation of the social impact of the earthquake within ideological, subjective, and political context. The widespread destruction of the city of Caracas was heterogeneous in its distribution. Damage was determined largely by the differences in the construction style and quality and by the maintenance status of the building. Based on analyses of three funeral books from the era, the number of earthquake victims in Caracas in 1812 may have been close to 2000. This value is lower than regional estimates of the death toll.

The margin of northern Venezuela is a complex zone representing the orogenic events from basement formation to subsequent subduction and exhumation during transpressional collision. This boundary zone has six east-west–trending belts that each record a different segment of its development. This geologic complexity requires radiometric ages to unravel, and we herein provide 48 new ages including U-Pb (4), Rb-Sr (2), 40 Ar/ 39 Ar (24), zircon and apatite fission-track (17), and 14 C (1) ages to constrain the evolution of three of these belts. These three belts are the Cordillera de la Costa, Caucagua–El Tinaco, and Serranía del Interior belts. In the Cordillera de la Costa belt, U-Pb geochronologic data indicate portions of the basement igneous and metaigneous rocks formed in the Cambro-Ordovician (513–471 Ma). New 40 Ar/ 39 Ar data from Margarita Island indicate that some of the subduction complex was rapidly cooled and exhumed, whereas other portions indicate slower cooling. This contrasts with new 40 Ar/ 39 Ar data from the Puerto Cabello portion of the subduction complex that has Eocene to Oligocene (42–28 Ma) cooling ages. New fission-track data imply the entire Cordillera de la Costa belt from Puerto Cabello to La Guaira (∼150 km) was uplifted at the same time. In the Caucagua–El Tinaco belt, the oldest 40 Ar/ 39 Ar amphibole ages from the Tinaquillo ultramafic complex are Jurassic (190 Ma). Additional amphibole 40 Ar/ 39 Ar cooling ages are older than previously recorded in either the Tinaco or Tinaquillo complex. One amphibole 40 Ar/ 39 Ar cooling age for the Tinaco complex is similar to previous U-Pb results. New apatite fission-track results from the Serranía del Interior foreland fold and thrust belt are synchronous with exhumation in the Cordillera de la Costa belt. In addition, several zircon fission-track ages in the Serranía del Interior belt are older than their fossil ages, indicating a Cretaceous minimum provenance age for Miocene beds. Significant new findings from these geochronologic studies include (1) several igneous and metaigneous bodies that may be correlated with orogenic events in the Appalachians occur within the subduction mélange; (2) the Tinaquillo complex may record Jurassic rifting; (3) Cretaceous source rocks for the Serranía del Interior sedimentary strata; (4) exhumation of the subduction complex is segmented because two regions have significantly different cooling histories, with Margarita Island exhumed in the Cretaceous, whereas to the west, the Puerto Cabello region has widespread Paleogene cooling and exhumation ages; and (5) earthquake activity in 1812 caused uplift as recorded by exposure of Recent corals.