In the Qatar Trench, oriented perpendicular to the Arava Fault within the Yotvata Playa and just south of the Yotvata extensional step, Klinger et al. (2015) identify Event E5 as a relatively modest rupture in the middle part of the trench sequence, younger than E6 and older than E4. Evidence is restricted to the western fault zone of the trench and is most clearly expressed at MM3, where faults terminate at the top of unit E and are sealed by unit D. Because unit D is a yellowish, compact, fine sand layer with sharp boundaries, it provides a particularly clear marker for separating successive ruptures. On this basis, E5 is defined as a distinct event that deformed unit E but did not break unit D. In contrast to larger events in the sequence, E5 is characterized by limited deformation rather than major warping or broad vertical offset. The distinction between E5 and E4 depends heavily on the stratigraphic role of unit D. At MM5, faults that cut unit D and stop just above it cannot belong to E5 and are instead assigned to the younger event E4. This makes unit D an important separator between the two ruptures and removes ambiguity about whether the observed deformation represents one event or two. Klinger et al. emphasize that the presence of this distinct marker layer demonstrates that E5 and E4 are separate earthquakes, even though their cracks terminate within only a short vertical distance of one another in the trench wall.

Structurally, E5 appears as a crack- and fault- dominated event with relatively minor expression. Unit E can be traced across the trench, but no cracks related to E5 are visible east of MM8, which indicates that the event was either limited to the western part of the main fault zone or else too weakly expressed farther east to be recognized. Unlike E4, which produced major subsidence of the eastern compartment and substantial deformation, E5 left only a modest set of fault terminations. In the broader discussion of the trench sequence, Klinger et al. therefore regard E5 as an event of smaller magnitude at the site, or alternatively as a more distant earthquake that triggered only limited cracking in the trench exposure.

Chronologically, E5 forms a closely spaced pair with E4. Klinger et al. (2015) place the E4-E5 sequence within a 671-845 CE time window derived from a Bayesian model of radiocarbon dates derived from detrital charcoal. Within that interval, they discuss correlation with the 8th-century CE seismic crisis.

Figure 5 - Trench log of the southern wall. The full resolution photomosaic of the wall is available in Fig. S1. The different stratigraphic units are indicated by letters A to H located in the synthetic stratigraphic section. Conservative position of event horizons are indicated with a dashed line, including for event Esuppl unambiguously visible in the eastern fault zone only. E8 is indicated for reference, although the dashed line corresponds to E7 event horizon (see discussion in text). Esupp2, between E8 and E9 is not indicated. Meter Marks (MM) are indicated above the trench. Dated ¹⁴C samples are indicated by star. To the west, a few samples have been collected up to 2 m outside the gridded wall, where the layers could be traced horizontally. Samples are indicated at the corresponding depth and stratigraphic position. - Click on Image to open in a new tab - Klinger et al (2015)