Event E1 in Trench T3 Open this page in a new tab

Kanari et al. (2020) report that Trench T3 intersects the active Avrona Fault in Elat Sabkha and that Event E1 ruptured units U2–U8 in Trench T3, expressed along faults F1–F5 and possibly F11. Four charcoal samples—three above the event horizon and one below—were dated by radiocarbon and modeled using a Bayesian model to estimate that Event E1 occurred between 897 and 992 CE ( ). However, three samples that yielded laboratory-calibrated (but not modeled) ages as old as 661 CE and as recent as 1248 CE were rejected as outliers, indicating that the actual time window for this event may be broader than 897–992 CE.

Kanari et al. (2020) interpret Event E1 in Trench T3 as a surface-rupturing earthquake expressed across a ~9 m wide fault zone. The event is characterized by distributed deformation across multiple fault strands, including slight push-up geometry in an antiform flower structure on F1–F4 and apparent down-to-the-west vertical separation on several other strands. Kanari et al. (2020) interpret mismatch of layer thickness across the fault traces as evidence for predominantly strike-slip motion, while the consistent west-side-down apparent offsets could indicate an additional normal-slip component. However, they note that such apparent vertical offsets may also result from originally irregular fluvial stratigraphy or variations in layer thickness, and therefore the presence and magnitude of a normal-slip component remain uncertain.

Kanari et al. (2020:12–13) suggest that the 1068 CE earthquake "best correlates" with Event E1. They further correlate Elat Sabkha Event 1 with Event E3 in the Qatar Trench, located ~35 km to the north, as well as with events at Avrona Playa (Zilberman et al. 2005). Noting that Klinger et al. (2015) "suggest that the surface rupture of the 1068 CE earthquake terminated somewhere close to the Yotvata Sabkha and their Qatar trench site," Kanari et al. (2020:12–13) calculate a minimum rupture length of ~37 km and estimate a magnitude of M = 6.6–7.1 using a scaling relationship from Wells and Coppersmith (1994).



Figure 5a - Trench T3 log of the fault zone: The top 80 cm of the trench were disturbed by farming (marked by white dashed boundary). U1-U8 are stratigraphic units and F1-F11 are interpreted fault strands (see text for detail). Yellow hexagons mark charcoal samples locations; dated samples have adjacent radiocarbon age determinations presented. E1 and E2 are the interpreted event horizons which represent the faulting events (see text for detail). (a) detailed blow-up of the 3–5 m faulted strata in the fault zone - click on image to open in a new tab - Kanari et al (2020)




Figure 5b - Trench T3 log of the fault zone: The top 80 cm of the trench were disturbed by farming (marked by white dashed boundary). U1-U8 are stratigraphic units and F1-F11 are interpreted fault strands (see text for detail). Yellow hexagons mark charcoal samples locations; dated samples have adjacent radiocarbon age determinations presented. E1 and E2 are the interpreted event horizons which represent the faulting events (see text for detail). (b) The complete 0–7 m fault zone log; blue rectangle marks the area of panel (a); The presented log is simplified for clarity of the figure; a high-resolution more detailed log is available in the supplementary material SM1 - click on image to open in a new tab - Kanari et al (2020)


By Jefferson Williams