Fiema et al. (2001:18) argue that Phase II at the Petra Church ended with a seismic event, based on the nature of rebuilding activity observed in the subsequent phase. They note that construction activity in Phase III included “massive backfilling of certain spaces with material clearly originating from a demolition,” together with extensive reuse of architectural elements such as “doorjambs, drums, cornices and ashlars.” This pattern, they argue, “indicates that Phase II ended in disaster and was followed by a period of intense restoration and construction.” On the basis of this evidence, combined with available absolute dating, Fiema et al. suggest that “the earthquake of A.D. 363 is the best candidate for such a disaster.”

Further support for a post-seismic reconstruction phase is seen in the quantity of reused stone material incorporated into Phase III deposits. Fiema et al. observe that “one telling indication that Phase III was initiated after a devastating earth tremor is the amount of reused stone material, presumably readily available after the disaster.” In the stone-tumble layers excavated in the interiors of the northern rooms and courts, reaching depths of almost 4 m, “the number of reused doorjambs was simply astonishing,” with “275 complete stones or recognizable fragments” recovered from this area alone.

Chronological control for the end of Phase II is provided by sounding 30 at the foundation course of Wall I, which Fiema et al. (2001:18) state “certainly dates to Phase III.” Two coins were recovered from this context, “one unidentifiable, the other dated to A.D. 350–55,” providing a terminus post quem for the rebuilding activity and supporting a mid-4th-century seismic event as the trigger for the observed destruction and subsequent restoration.