... For this reason, a normal procedure adopted in archaeoseismology is the exclusion of possible causes of destruction other than those associated with seismic solicitation (e.g., Stiros, 1996;Galadini et al., 2006;Marco, 2008;Hinzen et al., 2010;Stiros and Pytharouli, 2014). Looking for maximum consistency with earthquake damage/destruction, most archaeoseismological works are based on: 1) the evidence of geological co-seismic effects in archaeological sites, mainly surface faulting and sudden areal vertical motion (e.g., Pirazzoli et al., 1992;1996;Hancock and Altunel, 1997;Galadini and Galli, 1999;Akyüz and Altunel, 2001;Stiros and Papageorgiou, 2001;Marco et al., 2003;Galli and Naso, 2009;Altunel et al., 2009;Schweppe et al., 2021); 2) the areal approach based on the correlation of destruction layers, i.e., horizons in the archaeological stratigraphy showing evidence of sudden destruction caused by human and/or natural agents (Galadini et al., 2006;Sintubin, 2013), throughout a territory or an archaeological area (e.g., Guidoboni et al., 2000;Stiros and Papageorgiou, 2001;Galli and Bosi, 2002;Galadini and Galli, 2004;Ceccaroni et al., 2009;Galadini et al., 2022); 3) the estimation of the consistency of the damage by seismic actions through structural evaluations or modelling ground motion and structural response (e.g., Korjenkov and Mazor, 1999a;1999b;Hinzen, 2005;Rodrìguez-Pascua et al., 2011;Hinzen et al., 2013;Kázmér and Major, 2015). In some cases, the different approaches have also benefitted from attempts to quantify the reliability of the seismic hypothesis by using a plausibility matrix or summarizing the consistency of alternative causes of destruction (e.g., Hinzen et al., 2013;Galadini et al., 2018;Albrecht and Döring-Williams, 2023). ...