“…Eventually, as listed in the following, there might be some important challenges of using this method solely as a paleoseismological technique: - Since the carbonate bands may not be uniform along the entire fracture (Brogi & Capezzuoli, ), one crosscut of a vein could be insufficient for reconstructing the whole paleoseismic history of an area.
- Even if the fluid discharge and related carbonate precipitation start simultaneously with the earthquake (Brogi & Capezzuoli, ; Montgomery & Manga, ; Muir‐wood & King, ), the time it takes a coseismic band to reach its maximum thickness depends on several variables (Altunel & Karabacak, ; Karabacak et al, ; Mesci et al, ). Therefore, it is important that dating should be performed from the closest section of each band to the fracture wall (i.e., the plane where the precipitation first starts; Williams et al, ; Capezzuoli et al, ).
- Although each alternate band in a vein is in close relation with repeated fault reactivation, each vein may not record all seismic releases around the region. First, for a good coseismic carbonate record to be created the earthquake must have an intensity (I > VI, like our 1430 AD peak) to allow the opening of the planar fracture and second, have a close epicenter ( d < 200 km, unlike 1668 AD and 1939 AD events) that will allow permeability enhancement (Parvin et al, ; Shi et al, ).
…”