Archaeoseismic evidence for a destructive event in the early 2nd century CE at ez-Zantur in Petra is based on the stratigraphic and architectural history of a large residential mansion. The earliest phase of the structure was dated to the 20s CE on the basis of fragments of Nabataean fine wares dated to 20–70/90 CE, found embedded in the mortar beneath opus sectile floors in Rooms 1, 10, and 17, "as well as in the plaster bedding of painted wall decorations in Room 1" ( Kolb 2002: 260).

According to Kolb (2002: 260–261), "earthquake-induced structural damage led to a remodeling phase" dated to "the early decades of the 2nd century CE". This remodeling is constrained by a coin of King Rabbel II (r. 70–106 CE), found embedded in plaster in Room 212 of site EZ III, providing a terminus post quem of 103–106 CE ( Kolb 1998: 263).

Additional evidence for early 2nd-century destruction comes from a bronze workshop in Room 33, where Grawehr (2007: 399) described "a thick and seemingly undisturbed destruction layer, sealed by the debris of the room's arched roof". Grawehr provided a terminus post quem of 98 CE based on coin evidence found on the floors and associated the destruction with Schmid’s Phase 3b pottery found in the destruction level. Because no Phase 3c fine ware was present, the destruction likely occurred "at the end of the first or early in the second century AD".

Further support comes from Kolb and Keller (2002: 286), who reported a moderately severe earthquake in the late 1st or early 2nd century CE. They noted that "lamp and glass finds from the associated FK 3546 date homogeneously from the second century AD", and that "a thin layer of ash" confirmed "structural repairs observed in various places and the renewal of a number of interior decorations".

However, the chronology of this earthquake has been significantly challenged by a re-evaluation of the ceramic phasing at ez-Zantur. Erickson-Gini and Tuttle (2017) argued that the tripartite Phase 3 chronology—3a (20–80 CE), 3b (80–100 CE), and 3c (100–150 CE)—rests on a surprisingly small amount of securely datable material. They highlighted that the foundational chart used to establish these phases (Schmid 2000: Abb. 420) shows no coins for either Phase 3a or Phase 3c. Moreover, Phase 3a was notably underrepresented in the excavated contexts, while many loci assigned to Phases 3b and 3c were mixed or lacked clear stratigraphic isolation (ibid., 184).

This undermines the basis for confidently assigning the start and end dates for these sub-phases—particularly the commonly cited terminal date of 100 CE for Phase 3b. The few coins recovered from relevant contexts could date as late as 106 CE, and the imported fine wares from these same contexts often dated to a considerably later range. The reliance on a very limited sample of imported fineware, mostly Eastern Sigillata A (ESA), further weakened chronological precision. They emphasized that forms such as ESA Hayes 56 were present in both Phases 3b and 3c, yet this form is known to date to 150 CE and even beyond (Hayes 1985: 39).

In light of this reassessment, Erickson-Gini and Tuttle concluded that most of the fineware material attributed to the 1st and early 2nd centuries at ez-Zantur should instead be assigned to the later 2nd or early 3rd century CE. They proposed that the architectural repairs and destruction layers previously linked to an early 2nd-century earthquake may, in fact, correspond to a later seismic event. Their critique suggests that the widely cited early 2nd-century date may be an artifact of overly rigid phasing based on insufficient evidence, and that many features attributed to the postulated earthquake—such as damage, remodeling, and fineware deposition—may more accurately reflect a destructive event several decades later.