Kanari et al. (2020) report that Trench T3 intersects the active Avrona Fault in Elat Sabkha and that Event E2 postdates Event E1 in the western part of the trench. Kanari et al. (2020) interpret the trench sequence to record faulting during Event E1, deposition of younger units U1B and U1A and other overlying sediments in accommodation space created by down-to-the-west faulting during Event E1, and a second faulting event, E2, on faults F6/F7 and/or F8–F10. Using charcoal samples and an OxCal Bayesian age model, they estimate that Event E2 occurred after 1294 CE. Because deep agricultural plowing removed the upper part of the section, the event lacks a securely dated capping horizon, so its upper age limit remains poorly constrained.

Kanari et al. (2020) interpret Event E2 as a younger surface-rupturing earthquake superimposed on an already faulted and partly tilted stratigraphy. In contrast to Event E1, which they associate mainly with faults F1–F5, Event E2 is inferred from faults F6/F7 and/or F8–F10, where younger units U1B and U1A are offset. West of F5, these younger beds dip about 5–10 degrees to the west, which Kanari et al. (2020) interpret as tectonic tilting or folding during Event E2 rather than primary depositional dip. They note an apparent vertical offset of 12 cm across F8 in U1B and U1A, while faults F9–F10 disturb still younger beds. As with Event E1, the observed separations may reflect predominantly strike-slip motion with some apparent or real normal-slip component, but the precise amount of vertical motion remains uncertain because lateral changes in sediment thickness and original fluvial stratigraphy could mimic some of the apparent offsets.

Kanari et al. (2020:12–14) suggest that Event E2 best correlates with either the 1458 CE earthquake or the 1588 CE earthquake, but they are unable to distinguish between them because of the poor upper age constraint. They note that Klinger et al. (2015) did not identify evidence for 1588 CE surface rupture at the Qatar Trench, and that historical reporting of damage in Aqaba is absent for 1458 CE, leaving the correlation ambiguous. However, two nearby sand blows (SB1 and SB2) in Trench T3, interpreted as earthquake-induced liquefaction, are modeled to have formed after 1287 CE and possibly before 1550 CE. Because these paleoliquefaction features may have formed in the same earthquake as Event E2, they lend cautious support to correlation with 1458 CE rather than 1588 CE, though Kanari et al. (2020) emphasize that the evidence is inconclusive.

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)

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)