Reches and Hoexter (1981) identified Event B in the central Dir Hagla trenches (3, 4, 5), which were excavated across the Jericho fault. Within Unit B, deformation is expressed by bowl-shaped depressions, open and closed cracks, vents, filled fissures, and small faults with minor displacement (< 10 cm). Unlike Event A, these features are dominantly extensional and lack significant vertical throw, suggesting deformation without measurable vertical offset in the trench exposures. The structures terminate near the top of Unit B and are commonly filled with mixed sediments, indicating formation during or shortly after deposition of the unit and supporting a seismic origin despite the absence of clear fault scarps. The cracks and fissures may be diagnostic of a relatively larger left-lateral component during Event B.

Reches and Hoexter (1981) dated Event B using a distinctive assemblage of pottery sherds from Unit B, indicating a Late Byzantine to Early Islamic age. At various points in their paper, they bracket this age to 600–800 CE (7th–8th centuries CE) or 700–900 CE. They further correlated this event with nearby structural damage observed at Hisham’s Palace, where deformation patterns were interpreted as consistent with sinistral horizontal shear. However, more recent scholarship by Whitcomb (1988) and Alfonsi et al. (2013) has reassigned most of the damage at Hisham’s Palace to the earthquakes in 1033/4 CE. In light of this reassessment, the original archaeoseismic interpretation linking the trench evidence directly to the palace damage is weakened, and the kinematic correlation should be treated with caution. While the observed deformation is broadly compatible with regional fault motion, the association is not uniquely diagnostic and may reflect more complex or multi-phase structural histories. Based on combined archaeoseismic and historical data, Reches and Hoexter (1981) proposed that Event B most likely corresponds to one of the mid-8th century CE earthquakes, although the 659/660 CE Jordan Valley Quake(s) also remain a plausible candidate. Thus, while a mid-8th century CE attribution is probably correct, the uncertainties in the archaeoseismic correlation—particularly the misattribution of damage at Hisham’s Palace— introduce a degree of caution into the event assignment.

Figure 9 - Generalized sections of the main fault zone in Trench 3, with the structures that formed during past earthquakes. Two major events can be distinguished. For more details compare with Figs. 7 and 8 - click on image to open in a new tab - Reches and Hoexter (1981)