Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) identified archaeoseismic evidence in the Roman Camp that they associated with one or both of the 363 CE Cyril Quakes. Erickson-Gini (2010: 97) noted that it was observed that the [Roman] camp was nearly demolished by the earthquake in 363, and according to Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019), this earthquake damaged the Roman Camp, the Fort, and the Bathhouse. The camp was subsequently reconstructed and remained in use until sometime in the sixth century CE. In Room 45, Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) reported collapsed arches and a possibly fallen wall (W785). They also noted further archaeoseismic evidence in Room 53 (the underground Treasury Vault), where 1994–1995 field notes by Area E supervisor Y. Kalman record that the room was filled with collapsed debris, stone slabs that were used for roofing, arch stones and other building stones. They suggested that this structure probably collapsed in the 363 CE earthquake.

Coins beneath the collapsed arches in Room 45 provided a terminus post quem of 324 CE, while coins above an associated floor dated from the late 3rd or early 4th century to the early 6th century CE. Erickson-Gini (2010: 97–99) observed that chronological reconstruction at En Haseva was complicated by secondary deposition , where in the case of the cavalry [Roman] camp, a large amount of soil containing earlier material was used in its reconstruction after the 363 earthquake. She added that the majority of loci at the site contain finds from more than one occupational period, with rare exceptions such as finds of in situ pottery from the destruction layer of 363 CE in the fort, which was sealed and covered by the next occupational phase, post-dating the earthquake.

Erickson-Gini and Moore Bekes (2019) also recorded evidence for post-363 CE rebuilding. Wall W587 (an extension of W785) appears to have been constructed after the earthquake, indicating that the original gatehouse was blocked, probably after it was damaged in the earthquake, and the entrance to the camp was moved to a different location. Finally, Erickson-Gini (2010: 129) stated that the Cavalry (Roman) Camp suffered greater damage than the Roman Fort because its walls were constructed on shallow foundations in soil, whereas the Roman Fort was founded on the walls of earlier buildings on the tell.