In the east complex (Sector 6000 aka Secteur 6), Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) identified 3 main phases of construction and occupation, two main occupation periods (Nabatean and Late Roman/Early Byzantine - 3rd-5th century CE), and two destruction episodes, probably both seismic; the first ending Phase 2 and the second ending the occupation in Phase 3. Phasing is summarized below:

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) acknowledged difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction but suggested that the southern Cyril Quake of 363 CE was responsible.

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) encountered difficulties in dating this presumed seismic destruction and suggested that the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE or a later earthquake was responsible.

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) did not list much in the way of direct archaeoseismic evidence for the destruction at the end of Phase 2 and the destruction appears to be largely inferred from rebuilding evidence such as strengthening of walls and blocking of doors in Phase 3 construction.

The modifications in Phase 3 indicate that some parts of the enclosing walls might have collapsed and that the stability of reconstructed walls was of major concern. A new (?) system of roof support was also introduced. If pavement 6011 was already in situ (partially or in its entirety) during Phase 2, which is a distinct possibility, some of its flagstones appear to have been titled, caved in, cracked or replaced. Of course these phenomena might relate to the destruction at the end of Phase 2 and/or at the end of Phase 3.

While the spatial extent of the structure did not change, the door in wall 6002 was blocked, two arch-supporting pilasters were constructed on each side of the blocked door, the flagstone pavement was laid out (or partially re-laid or vide supra) inside and a small "banquette" 6015 was inserted in the corner space between wall 6000 and the eastern pilaster. The combined walls 6000 and 6001 were raised up by constructing a section 6027 on their preserved tops. Furthermore, a large support, locus 6007, was constructed on the exterior and abutting wall 6000. While being practical measures to strengthen the overall design of the structure, these changes also bear a somewhat haphazard, makeshift appearance; perhaps reflecting some kind of impoverishment of the site.
...
Pilasters for transversal arches running NW-SE were installed on each side of the blocked door. The NE pilaster, locus 6013, is 0.59 x 0.27 m and of the preserved height of 0.79 m (three courses high; masonry featuring stretcher, stretcher and 2 headers). It appears as if integrating with wall 6002 but in fact it is "pushed" into the southern face of this wall, perhaps indicating that wall 6002 was indeed damaged in the destruction ending Phase 2.
...
On the exterior, the combined line of walls 6000 and 6001 was reinforced by a very poorly constructed superstructure, locus 6027, which is currently the uppermost course (ca. 0.55-0.67 m wide and ca. 0.30-0.35 m high) for both walls in the outer face and 2-3 uppermost courses in the inner face (See Fig. 10). Very irregular and often broken stones of varying sizes were used for this purpose. Again, this indicates that these walls suffered at the end of Phase 2 but it is also possible, although much less likely, that the reinforcement took place after the final collapse (i.e., a casual re-occupation?).

Fiema in Tholbecq et al (2019) described seismic effects as follows:

The structure had suffered a massive destruction at the end of Phase 3, which bears strong features of tectonic origins. Both arches collapsed on the floor, the eastern one preserving the original pattern of several voussoirs.
...
At locus 6004 was the main, very dense, stone tumble (Fig. 15

Figure 15

The main stone tumble, locus 6004. View from SE. By N. Paridaens

Tholbecq et al (2019)

), the other loci mentioned in this section were also parts of the overall collapse and differed from each other only by the intensity and the slightly varying color of soil matrix. There is no reason to suggest that there was more than just one collapse but the uppermost layers (6003, 6005) may also have resulted from the gradual decay and the further deterioration of the walls.

Of the two arches, the southern portion of the eastern one had collapsed in an uniform row at the end of Phase 3 and the remains of the western one were also evidenced on the southern side of the pavement (Fig. 11

Figure 11

Remains of both arches as collapsed on pavement 6011. Walls 6000/6001 and superstructure 6027 on the left side. View from the NW. By Z.T. Fiema

Tholbecq et al (2019)

)

• Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
  Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
  
  Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
  of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

• Earthquake Archeological Effects chart
  Earthquake Archeological Effects (EAE)
  
  Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)
  of Rodríguez-Pascua et al (2013: 221-224)

Effect	Description	Source	Location	Intensity
Collapsed Arches	Both arches collapsed on the floor Figure 11 Remains of both arches as collapsed on pavement 6011. Walls 6000/6001 and superstructure 6027 on the left side. View from the NW. By Z.T. Fiema Tholbecq et al (2019)			VI+
Collapsed Walls	At locus 6004 was the main, very dense, stone tumble (Fig. 15 Figure 15 The main stone tumble, locus 6004. View from SE. By N. Paridaens Tholbecq et al (2019) )			VIII +

Tholbecq, L., et al. (2019). Mission archéologique française à Pétra. Rapport des campagnes archéologiques 2018-2019.

FOURNET & PARIDAENS 2018 T. Fournet & N. Paridaens, « Les Bains du Jabal Khubthah. La campagne d'octobre 2017 », In L. Tholbecq (Ed.), Mission archéologique française à Pétra (Jordanie). Rapport des campagnes archéologiques 2017-2018, Bruxelles, Presses de 1'ULB, p. 93-116.

Tholbecq, L., et al. (2014). "The “high place” of Jabal Khubthah: new insights on a Nabataean-Roman suburb of Petra." Journal of Roman Archaeology 27: 374-391.