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 E9 as the oldest unambiguous rupture recognized in the trench. The evidence is confined to the western part of the main fault zone, where a set of two faults at MM5 offsets the lower part of unit H. These faults can be followed upward only indistinctly, and their upper terminations are not sharply defined. However, the sandier beds higher in unit H, which alternate with finer material, are not offset. This indicates that the rupture horizon for E9 lies below those overlying sands and therefore in the lower part of unit H.

The interpretation of E9 rests mainly on this pair of faults and on its stratigraphic relationship to younger deformation. A tilted liquefaction conduit between MM5 and MM6 rises appreciably higher than the two E9 cracks, so it must postdate E9. Yet that conduit was itself tilted together with unit H during the later Event E8, which shows that E9 predates both the conduit- forming disturbance and the stronger deformation of E8. In this way, E9 marks the earliest recognized surface-breaking event in the lower trench sequence, before the Esupp2 and before the more substantial tilting assigned to E8.

Chronologically, E9 belongs to the broad prehistoric interval represented by the E8, Esupp2, and E9, which Klinger et al. (2015) place within a 2797-1245 BCE bracket. This age range was derived from a Bayesian model built from radiocarbon dates obtained on detrital charcoal. Because the lower part of the trench contains fewer chronological markers and because the contact between units H and G is erosional, E9 cannot yet be dated more narrowly. Klinger et al. treat E9 as part of an early seismic cluster, possibly paired with E8, in which two closely spaced prehistoric ruptures may record a broader episode of regional earthquake activity along the southern Dead Sea fault. However, because E9 is interpreted as one of the fault ruptures that likely terminated at the Yotvata extensional step, its proposed pairing with E8, which is inferred to have propagated through this step, is internally inconsistent.

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)