Renovations carried out during Phase III, dated to the early 2nd century CE, may represent a response to seismic damage, much of which could have been removed or obscured during rebuilding activities. The re-use of architectural elements may reflect such post-earthquake repair practices, although these elements could alternatively derive from other nearby structures. One possible source is the nearby Great Temple, where Joukowsky and Basile (2001:50) report evidence for an early 2nd-century CE earthquake affecting Phase VI, suggesting that seismic damage in this period may have had broader urban consequences.

Chronological constraints for Phase III are provided by ceramic evidence. Bedal (2003:74) estimated an early 2nd-century CE terminus post quem for the beginning of Phase III based on pottery associated with multiple renovated structures. Drawing on the refined ceramic sequence from ez-Zantur, Bedal notes that type 3c Nabataean painted ware was produced only briefly, “between ca. 100 and 106/114 CE,” allowing the floor bedding—and by direct association the bridge—to be assigned a TPQ in the early 2nd century CE.

The dating is further refined by the presence of a single rim sherd embedded in the floor mortar, which may correspond more closely to a type 4 painted bowl from ez-Zantur dated post-106/114 CE (Schmid 1996:166, 208, abb. 704). If this attribution is correct, the Phase III renovation activity in the Pool-Complex must post-date the annexation of Petra into the Roman Empire, placing the rebuilding episode firmly within the early Roman period. In this context, the coincidence of renovation, material reuse, and regional evidence for early 2nd-century seismic activity raises the possibility that an earthquake acted as a catalyst for the observed architectural modifications, even if direct destruction evidence was largely removed during subsequent repairs.