# Resilience research in geoarchaeological investigations of Mediterranean urban sites

Rachel Kulick

► To cite this version:

Rachel Kulick. Resilience research in geoarchaeological investigations of Mediterranean urban sites. Quentin Borderie; Ferréol Salomon. Urban Geoarchaeology, CNRS Éditions, pp.401-415, 2024, 9782271149299. hal-04896222

HAL Id: hal-04896222

https://hal.science/hal-04896222v1

Submitted on 19 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Scientific editors:
Quentin Borderie and Ferréol Salomon

Urban Geoarchaeology

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
The global spread of urbanisation is having a profound impact on environments, climates and social lives. This gives rise to questions about the sustainability of urban areas, the management of soils and sediments and the socio-environmental construction of spaces. Archaeological investigations show that societies produced a wide variety of different urban forms throughout millennia and across continents. By focusing on human-environment interactions through the study of soils and sediments, geoarchaeological research provides new insights into the different ways of making and living in a city in the long term.

With twenty four contributions written by researchers from all over the world, *Urban Geoarchaeology* expands our knowledge of human-environment interactions and ancient urban lifestyles. This volume brings together substantial and comprehensive elements to understand past urban systems, using new interdisciplinary approaches, case studies of broad interest, and innovative techniques to answer historical questions. It shows how geoarchaeologists are producing and discussing new data on the transformation of landscapes through urbanisation. Processes of urban stratification over time are also better understood. The construction of urban spaces can be analysed from the large scale of the urban systems to the microscale of the soil formation, revealing ancient activities and lifestyles. Finally, *Urban Geoarchaeology* helps to connect the past, the present and the future of our cities.

Quentin Borderie is a field geoarchaeologist, based in Avignon (France), working on the urban environment for twenty years, giving courses at La Sorbonne University. He contributes to the research on urban Dark Earths, floor formation processes, and stratification dynamics in urban areas. He is attached to the CNRS laboratory UMR 7041-ArScAn, in the "Archéologies Environnementales" team.

Ferréol Salomon is a researcher in geoarchaeology at the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and based in the Laboratoire Image Ville Environnement at Strasbourg (UMR-7362). His research focuses on human-nature interactions between urban societies and deltaic environments over the last millennia. He studied different urban sites in south-west Asia and across the Mediterranean area.

Cover image:

From left to right: Sedimentary drilling in Ostia (Italy) within the Roman city; archaeological excavation in Beauvais (France) from the top of the 16th century cathedral showing Dark Earths and an 11th century church; star shaped vivianite crystal and a bone through optic microscope cross-polarised light; aerial view of Metz (France) and the Mosel River.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

9 782271 149299

69 € prix valable en France

ISBN : 978-2-271-14929-9

www.cnrseditions.fr
Urban Geoarchaeology

Scientific editors: Quentin BORDERIE and Ferréol SALOMON

CNRS ÉDITIONS

15 rue Malebranche - 75005 Paris
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>2.6. Ancient maps, geotechnical and (geo)archaeological data: GIS integration for the understanding of archaeological sites and for decision making in rescue archaeology</td>
      <td>241</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Hervé Tronchère-Cottet, Corentin Martinez, Catherine Pothier, Cyrille Ducourthial</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Section 3 – Building urban spaces: Social spaces, Activities and lifestyles</td>
      <td>261</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Short introduction: Quentin Borderie, Ferréol Salomon</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1. The geoarchaeology of urban ecclesiastical sites in coastal locations; Exeter, UK and Trondheim, Norway.</td>
      <td>267</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Richard Macphail, John Allan, Chris Carey, Ingeborg Sæhle</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2. Activities written in the house floors in urban space of Medieval Brno, Czech Republic.</td>
      <td>279</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Lenka Lisá, Antonín Zůbek, Marek Peška</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3. Late Antique Basilia – a fortified settlement on the cathedral hill in Basel (Switzerland). Changes in urban land use based on archaeological and geoarchaeological evidence</td>
      <td>291</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Christine Pümpin, Markus Asal, Philippe Rentzel</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4. Geoarchaeology in peri-urban environment: a soil micromorphological case study of the “Land of Aynadamar” in Nasrid, Granada (Spain), the northern outskirts of the last Islamic town in Iberia (13th – 16th centuries).</td>
      <td>307</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rowena Y. Banerjea, Guillermo García-Contreras, Marcos García-García, Luca Mattei, Aleks G. Pluskowski</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.5. Prelude to the urban – a study of the monumental earthen architecture of the pre- and early historic site of Arslantepe (Turkey).</td>
      <td>323</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Susanna Cereda</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.6. Urban garden soils – evidence of medieval and early modern horticulture in European towns</td>
      <td>341</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Jens Heimdahl, Mateusz Krupski</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Section 4 – Connecting the past, the present and the future of cities</td>
      <td>359</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.1. Climate changes, natural hazards and resilience of urban areas.</td>
      <td>361</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Short introduction: Ferréol Salomon, Quentin Borderie</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.1.1. The urban geoarchaeology of imperial China: A case study of the urban renewal and decline of two capital cities, Luoyang and Kaifeng.</td>
      <td>365</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Michael J. Storozum, Peng Lu, Panpan Chen, Hui Wang, Xiaolin Ren, Junna Zhang, Zhen Qin, Xiaotao Guo, Tao Liu, Sanying Wang, Qifeng Ge, Haiwang Liu</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.1.2. Fate of two cities built on sinking ground: slow and fast submergence at Thônis – Heracleion and Canopus, Nile River Delta, Egypt</td>
      <td>381</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Gilles Brocard, Jean-Philippe Goiran, Damian Robinson</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.1.3. Resilience research in geoarchaeological investigations of Mediterranean urban sites</td>
      <td>401</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Rachel Kulick</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.2. Urban geoarchaeology towards future cities.</td>
      <td>417</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Short introduction: Ferréol Salomon, Quentin Borderie</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.2.1. Urban geoarchaeology and local administration: methods and approaches. The case of the ancient port town of Fréjus (France).</td>
      <td>421</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Pierre Excoffon, Stéphane Bonnet, Grégory Gaucher</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.2.2. When urban geoarchaeology is explained to all types of audiences: the case of Lyon, France.</td>
      <td>431</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Stéphane Gaillot, Laurent Strippoli</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Geoarchaeology: towards new interdisciplinary challenges and opportunities in the understanding of urban environments</td>
      <td>443</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Ferréol Salomon, Quentin Borderie</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Urban Geoarchaeology and complexity</td>
      <td>447</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Denise Pumain</td>
      <td></td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Acknowledgements

We, the scientific editors, would like to thank all the contributors of this book for their work in preparing their excellent chapters and their quick and positive answers all along the preparation of this publication. We are also very grateful to all the anonymous reviewers that we contacted and who provided very helpful comments to improve all texts and figures of the contributions. A special thank you to the two anonymous reviewers contacted by the *Pôle d'appui à la publication* (Publication Support Service) of the University of Strasbourg that read the entire book, including main introductions and conclusions. They gave very good advice and suggestions to ameliorate the manuscript before the final submission to CNRS Editions. We also thank Prof. Denise Pumain for the conclusive remarks and Dr. Leah Holguin for the English proof-reading.

We would also like to thank CNRS Editions for publishing this book. Additionally, we thank the *Pôle d'appui à la publication* of the University of Strasbourg, Barbara Weisbeck and all members of the committee who evaluated and financially supported this publication.

This book would also not have been possible without the financial support of the *Département de Vaucluse*
(many thanks to Emilie Fencke, the Cheffe du Service Archéologie), the joint CNRS-Universities research units
of the *Laboratoire Image Ville Environnement* (https://live.unistra.fr/ – UMR-7362) and of *Archéologie et Sciences
de l'Antiquité - ArScAn* (http://www.arscan.fr/ – UMR-7041) especially the *Archéologies Environnementales*
team. We thank them a lot.
Resilience research
in geoarchaeological investigations
of Mediterranean urban sites

Rachel Kulick<fnref n="1" />

Abstract

A key focus of archaeological research on Mediterranean complex societies has been the processes of urbanism and environmental change that impact the resilience of socio-ecological systems over the longue durée. The various urban forms (cities, towns, villages, settlements, tells) of the Mediterranean region reflect diverse differences in urban landscapes and social practices within similar geographic areas and periods. Geoarchaeology is one approach that is increasingly used to investigate Mediterranean settlement sites from the Neolithic through the Medieval period. Geoarchaeological research methods applied to urban sites can provide micro-historical (diachronic) data and micro-regional (spatial) data towards answering broader questions on urbanism and environmental change, but the extent to which it has been utilized to answer questions of the processes that influence socio-ecological resilience has been limited. This chapter presents a systematic literature review aimed at identifying recent geoarchaeological studies conducted in the Mediterranean region, and assesses whether these studies have used geoarchaeological data from urban sites towards understanding the resilience of their respective socio-ecological systems. The results demonstrate that despite the large proportion of studies that obtained geoarchaeological data from Mediterranean urban sites (69%), relatively few studies (less than 7%) used this data to address questions of socio-ecological resilience.

**Keywords:** Mediterranean, geoarchaeology, resilience theory, cities, urban, urbanism, Greek, Roman

# 1. Geoarchaeology of urban sites in the Mediterranean

In the Mediterranean region (fig. 1), settlement or ‘urban’ sites are at the center of many research efforts to understand human actions. Cities have been the focus of Mediterranean research due to continuity of practice from historical research that has focused on the centers of classical Greece and Rome and the concentrated and continuous nature of past human activities that may be studied in such cities (Bini et al. 2018, p. 5). Cities, past and present, support a high density of people and – generally for Mediterranean history – the areas of administration, trade, and social interaction. Human actions may influence the physical forms of these urban centers and also impact broader social networks and landscape transformations. Some actions may not leave physical traces via architectural and material cultural evidence within towns and cities, but they may leave evidence as ecofacts and environmental changes in

and around sites (Adderley et al. 2010, 2018, Macphail and Goldberg 2018). Identifying these socio-ecological links and transformations beyond material objects and between major occupational phases or cultural periods is key to understanding the resilience of urban (social) and environmental processes, and geoarchaeology and proxy environmental techniques are capable of delivering this data (Butzer 2011, Bini et al. 2018, p. 7).

The Mediterranean has been a long-standing focus of geoarchaeological research (Butzer 2011). Tourloukis and Karkanas (2012) have provided a detailed review of geoarchaeological research in Greece based on the differing trends in the field that focused research on coastal sites, climatic versus anthropogenic change, and regional-scale geoarchaeology. Bini et al. (2018, p. 7, after Canti & Huisman 2015; Izdebski et al. 2016) summarize geoarchaeology studies as applied effectively to Mediterranean urban sites, and recognize that this is a recent phenomenon – from the last 20 years – attributable to advances in scientific techniques and methods. The premise of these methodological changes is based on both the availability of technologies that can provide higher resolution data that may answer questions about very specific site areas and on collaborative interdisciplinary efforts that integrate archaeological

<footnote n="1">1. University of Toronto
Aegean Material Culture (AMC) Lab
Department of Anthropology
19 Ursula Franklin St., Toronto, ON, M5S 2S2 Canada
rachel.kulick@utoronto.ca</footnote>
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

Figure 1: Mediterranean region with the locations of the study sites in the 17 journal studies mentioned in this paper that use geoarchaeology at urban sites to investigate resilience-related questions: 1. Wadi Al Gemal/Al-Qasr (AbdelMaksoud et al. 2020); 2. Rome (Brock 2022); 3. Negev (Elusa, Nessana, Shivta) (Butler et al. 2020); 4. Utica (Delile et al. 2019); 5. Southwest Corsica (Taravo and Sagone Valleys) (Ghilardi et al. 2017); 6. Methoni (Gkionis et al. 2020); 7. Jerash (Wadi Suf) (Holdridge et al. 2017); 8. Portus Cosanus (Jackson et al. 2017); 9. Orbetello (Jackson et al. 2017); 10. Baianus Sinus (Jackson et al. 2017); 11. Bay of Pozzuoli (Jackson et al. 2017); 12. Portus Neronis (Jackson et al. 2017); 13. Anzio (Jackson et al. 2017); 14. Portus Traianus (Jackson et al. 2017); 15. Ostia (Jackson et al. 2017); 16. Quarry near Fondi di Baia (Jackson et al. 2017); 17. Naples (Jackson et al. 2017); 18. Jutia Valley (Reyero et al. 2017); 19. Cádiz (Salomon et al. 2020); 20. Ostia (Salomon et al. 2018); 21. Sagalassos (Vandam et al. 2019); 22. Rome (Brock et al. 2021); 23. Arslantepe (Cereda and Draganits 2022); 24. Tegole di Bovino (Apulia) (Mariani et al. 2020); 25. Meuse terrace, Lomm (Zuidhoff and Bos 2017).

and geological approaches (Bini *et al.* 2018, p. 7). The ability of geoarchaeology to help answer urban archaeological questions encourages the integration of geoarchaeology into initial research design, particularly in areas with urban sites due to greater material density and the concentration of landscape transformations that can be directly related to human activities and phases of urban/site habitation.

Urban geoarchaeological investigations vary in their extent of area studied and in the resolution of the methodologies used (Butzer 2005, 2011, Kulick 2021). There are various definitions of what constitutes an ‘urban’ site in the Mediterranean, and not all urban centers are equal – cities, towns, villages, etc. are defined in various ways, varying by geographic region and period (Smith 2020). Based on the general timeline of Mediterranean populations establishing more permanent complex settlements in the Bronze Age (in the Mediterranean basin – Bini *et al.* 2018, p. 4; on Crete – Branigan 2001, McEnroe 2010, Letesson and Knappett 2017), urban geoarchaeology studies tend to focus on settlements from the Bronze

Age through Iron Age, Greco-Roman, Late Antique, and Medieval periods (Bini *et al.* 2018, p. 5). However, tell sites occupied in the eastern Mediterranean began earlier, in the Neolithic (e.g., in Turkey – Matthews *et al.* 1996; in Greece – Karkanas and Efstratiou 2009), and in order to understand questions of how urbanism arose, which is directly tied to the development of population-level resilience and adaptability, research must be expanded to encompass this broader temporal frame.

An urban site, typified by dense material and architectural evidence for habitation, can provide information on social, political, and economic relationships at the individual and community level (Smith 2010, Knappett 2011, p. 102-103; Kulick 2021, p. 64-65). Understanding these urban centers entails understanding their connections to the landscape and to other human manipulations of the landscape (e.g., terrace and water management systems, agropastoralism, and hydrogeological changes) expanding urban geoarchaeology projects to consider broader spatial and temporal frameworks. Additionally, urban sites
can provide other environmental data, which is a part of broader socio-ecological systems (Davies 2013, Kulick 2021, p. 65). Since urban sites are part of larger landscapes, adaptations may not necessarily occur in the urban zone, but rather in another part of its larger socio-ecological system. Geoarchaeological research can study both of these aspects.

Given the potential of urban geoarchaeological research in the Mediterranean to investigate socio-ecological systems, this study asks to what extent has Mediterranean archaeological research in the past five years used geoarchaeological data from urban sites to investigate the resilience of the respective socio-ecological systems associated with the sites, and what the nature (temporal and spatial scope) is of this research.

## 2. Resilience studies in archaeology and geoarchaeology

Resilience theory may be defined as “the theory of how capable a system is ‘to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks’” (Løvschal 2022, p. 196 after Walker et al. 2004; other definitions: Holling et al. 2002, Redman and Kinzig 2003). While resilience is a concept that developed in ecology, it has been applied to various disciplines, including archaeology (Bollig 2014, Løvschal 2022, p. 196).

### 2.1. Resilience theory in archaeology

The value of resilience theory in archaeology has often been to help explain causal links to systems collapse or continuity. This is inherently applicable to Mediterranean urban archaeology where cities are often the focus of studies of collapse (e.g., Middleton 2017). However, challenges appear in applying resilience theory in archaeology due to the type and resolution of data used to explain adaptive cycles and models. For example, Weiberg and Finné (2018) use resilience thinking to compare general socio-political trends that would put pressure on resources (changes in population density, infrastructure, and administrative evidence) in the Late Bronze Age Peloponnese to climate changes (mainly precipitation changes). Difficulties lie in comparing the long-term, regional climate records to understand specific ‘collapse’ events at sites in the Peloponnese. Researchers were unable to establish direct correlations between broader climate changes and ‘societal decline’, reasoning

that site-specific context is needed as well as more short-term climate data (Weiberg and Finné 2018, p. 596).

### 2.2. Data used in archaeological resilience studies

Urban archaeology is focused on site-specific studies. Research on the built environments of urban sites has provided insights into site functions, periods of occupation, and sometimes adaptation (e.g., in the eastern Mediterranean – Todd and Warren 2012, Letesson and Knappett 2017, Fisher et al. 2019). Recent analyses of built environments in relation to social transformations have been considered in case studies on Late Bronze Age Crete and Cyprus (Letesson and Knappett 2017; Whitelaw 2017; Fisher et al. 2019). These analyses provide snapshots of cultural material in specific contexts that may then be correlated with particular occupation, abandonment, and destruction events, and thus socio-ecological transformations ('snapshot' concept after Drennan and Peterson 2011, p. 80). Nevertheless, analyses of transitional periods between phases of occupation at urban sites, which could provide data on adaptation and resilience, are challenging to understand from materially-defined data alone.

Bradtmöller et al. (2017, p. 6, 8) demonstrate how some archaeological studies discussing vulnerability, resilience, and sustainability use archaeological periods (i.e., materials) as “[a]ttributes for classifying the AC [adaptive cycle] stages.” Various internal or external drivers then cause the “release impacts” (i.e., the changes to an adaptive cycle) (Bradtmöller et al. 2017, p. 7). Issues with quantifying archaeological material, however, whether due to dealing with qualitative data or poor-resolution data, prevent comprehensive and quantitative studies of resilience because they cannot equally observe slow and rapid, qualitative and quantitative changes (Løvschal 2022, p. 200-201 after Fitzhugh et al. 2019, Manning et al. 2020, p. 2).

### 2.3. Urban geoarchaeological data in resilience studies

While some archaeological models using resilience theory are dependent on material (human-made) evidence, geoarchaeology can provide physical evidence of shifts and impact beyond material culture. Urban geoarchaeology can provide quantitative, semi-quantitative, and qualitative data on activities taking place between cultural periods and phases of site-use, on maintenance processes, and broader socio-ecological changes, despite use or destruction
of buildings at sites. For example, geoarchaeology has been used successfully between the Roman period and Middle Ages in western European towns and dark earth formations to determine site-use during otherwise undocumented periods of activities (Macphail 2013; Nicosia et al. 2013; Borderie et al. 2015; Wouters et al. 2017). Nicoll and Zerboni (2020) present the utility of geoarchaeology in understanding resilience to change by its ability to assist in identifying transitions through the “concept of hydroclimate driven effects on societies” (Nicoll and Zerboni 2020, p. 120, after Butzer 1982, 2012):

> "Notions of resilience in context with geoarchaeological and cultural observations critiques and expands environmental determinism, as well as the centrality of disasters and depopulation in models of societal 'collapse' as a linear process. Although the material record of human society is known to be problematic for reconstructing populations and political systems of the past, particularly during prehistory (Cowgill, 1975; Boone, 2002), geoarchaeology can provide valuable insights about long-term" (Nicoll and Zerboni 2020, p. 121).

In studies of urban sites, micro-scale and micro-morphological analyses of urban contexts have been able to identify the temporal and depositional nature of evidence indicative of occupation activities (e.g., site maintenance, storage, food processing/ cooking, and industrial activities)—which are not readily visible at the macro-scale—through analyses of occupational features of building constructions (floors, roofs, and walls) and open urban spaces (middens and gardens), as well as transitional features (abandonment sequences and collapse sequences) (Courty et al. 1989; Gé et al. 1993, Matthews and Postgate 1994; Matthews 1995, Matthews et al. 1996, Karkanas 2007, Nodarou et al. 2008, Shillito et al. 2011, Karkanas and Van de Moortel 2014, Karkanas and Goldberg 2018, p. 199-221, 138-148). While macro-scale research has focused on particular features of purposefully constructive human activity (active building construction/maintenance and creation of urban activity areas), the in-depth micro-scale analysis of negative human activity (via collapse debris, building decay, animal management, etc. that subsequently form dark earth and other transitional features) supplies valuable information on transitional and site formation processes, as well as allowing for new possible understanding and interpretations of the broader environment once human manipulation of it is removed (e.g., Matthews et al. 1996, Karkanas and Goldberg 2018, Kulick 2019).

Geoarchaeological research in Mediterranean cities is currently characterized by more tightly interconnected archaeological and geological

methodologies. While not discussing resilience theory outright, Bini et al. (2018, p. 3) collate nine case studies on "how specific cities of the Mediterranean adapted to natural catastrophes, economic concerns, and climate change and its environmental ramifications, as well as administrative challenges during various periods in each city's evolution." When attempting to make comparisons between single-site studies, however, it may be necessary to reconsider not only the cities adapting, but the processes at work in other cities and in larger socio-ecological systems.

## 3. Systematic Review Methodology on Urban Mediterranean Geoarchaeology

Due to most archaeological research projects that produce novel data or introduce innovative techniques being published in peer-reviewed journals, rather than as book chapters or appendices in excavation volumes, which tend to summative content, this review analyzes journal publications on recent (within the past five years) Mediterranean archaeological studies using urban geoarchaeological data to investigate socio-ecological resilience at their respective sites. The aim is to assess the general trends in Mediterranean urban geoarchaeological research on socio-ecological resilience, while recognizing that the search database may inherently omit some recent research.

### 3.1. Search Methods

Using the Web of Science search database, search parameters were entered for publications related to geoarchaeology and Mediterranean studies in the past five years (January 1, 2017 – October 1, 2022) with the following search criteria for either ‘title’ OR ‘Abstract’: (micromorphology OR geoarchaeology OR geoarchaeological) AND (Mediterranean OR Greek OR Greece OR Cyprus OR Crete OR Cypriot OR Turkey OR Anatolia OR Roman).<fnref n="1" /> Of the 220 results produced, 154 of the studies directly relate to Mediterranean geoarchaeology. Most false

<footnote n="1">1. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/f28be257-b3df-456d-8677-12b2ee36e2e5-54956d5f/relevance/1 Due to spatial limitations of this chapter, and the focus of this review on studies of urban geoarchaeology that consider resilience, specific citations are not provided for each of the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology studies analyzed. These references may be found via the Web of Science query link provided.</footnote>
positive results were studies that reviewed plant and seed micromorphology in the Mediterranean. The restriction of the search criteria to include in either 'title' OR 'Abstract' (sustainability OR sustainable OR resilience OR resilient OR adapt) yielded only 17 geoarchaeological studies (tab. 1).<fnref n="1" />

## 3.2. Data Organization and Considerations

In reviews of geoarchaeological research (Goldberg and Macphail 2006, Tourloukis and Karkanas 2012, Karkanas and Goldberg 2018), there are many ways that studies can be categorized based on temporal or spatial foci, methodology, research focus, etc. Here, search results were categorized according to factors that are significant in differentiating between spatial criteria (i.e., macro-scale versus micro-scale geoarchaeological studies) and temporal criteria (i.e., diachronicity), which are important considerations in resilience studies. Categories are comprised of (1) study focus (e.g., environment, human activity, editorial/review, etc.) (2) sample site location of data samples (site, off-site, material/geology, site and off-site, and N/A); (3) site sample size (single site, regional, multiple); (4) period studied; and (5) site type (e.g., agropastoral, city, coastal, settlement, etc.).

Since the focus of this review is to specifically consider those studies that focused on socio-ecological resilience, the discussion section will focus on the 17 journal studies that included mention of resilience-related keywords in their titles or Abstracts. This may exclude other studies that discussed resilience in their research text, and which did not have these terms in their Abstracts or research titles.

# 4. Results

## 4.1. Diachronic and single period studies

Periods of settlements studied range from Pleistocene/Paleolithic to modern. Approximately half (71/154, 46.1%) of the studies were diachronic in nature, covering more than one cultural period (which could be as large as the Neolithic and as small as Classical Greece, for example) (tab. 2). There were difficulties in chronologically separating studies that focused only on urban geoarchaeology from diachronic studies because studies often covered larger time frames than a particular population group (e.g., Neolithic to Roman). The other half of the studies (73/154, 47.4%) were focused on single periods. Several studies (10/154, 6.5%) were excluded because they were methodological or editorial in nature (tab. 3). Of the sites that focused on single periods (Neolithic, Bronze Age, Classical Greece, etc.), most studies focused on Bronze Age (23%) and Roman sites (32%) (fig. 2).

## 4.2. Urban and non-urban sites

136 of the research articles focused on particular types of sites or landscapes; the excluded cases were review or editorial, methodological, or material-based studies (tab. 4). 53 studies presented research on settlement-type sites, which were habitation sites not explicitly designated as cities, towns, or other site types. 32 studies presented research specifically on cities. As mentioned earlier, qualifying studies as geoarchaeological studies on 'urban' sites is challenging based on varying definitions for urban sites

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: Distribution by period and site type of the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology journal articles. between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022, according to Web of Science database.</figcaption></figure>

<footnote n="1">1. https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/summary/
ff23eb0e-b359-426b-a5be-c286824d5931-5494c5cd/relevance/1</footnote>
<table><caption>Table 1: Geoarchaeological journal articles published on the subject of Mediterranean geoarchaeology and resilience between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022, according to Web of Science database (based on title and Abstract search).</caption><thead><tr><td>Reference</td><td>Study Focus</td><td>Sample Location</td><td>Site Sample Size</td><td>Period Studied</td><td>Site Type</td><td>Article Title</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>AbdelMaksoud et al. 2020</td><td>environment</td><td>off site</td><td>multiple</td><td>Egyptian to Roman</td><td>settlement</td><td>A Unique Coincidence of Geomorphological, Geological, and Gearchaeological Features in the Valley of Camels (Dakhla Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt)</td></tr><tr><td>Brock 2022</td><td>environment</td><td>off site</td><td>regional</td><td>Roman</td><td>city</td><td>Urbanizing the Eternal City: How did the ancient Romans transform and adapt to Rome's riverine landscape?</td></tr><tr><td>Butler et al. 2020</td><td>human activity</td><td>site</td><td>single</td><td>Byzantine to Early Islamic</td><td>agropastoral</td><td>Byzantine-Early Islamic resource management detected through micro-gearchaeological investigations of trash mounds (Negev, Israel)</td></tr><tr><td>Delile et al. 2019</td><td>environment</td><td>off site</td><td>single</td><td>Classical Greece</td><td>city (lake/delta)</td><td>Economic resilience of Carthage during the Punic Wars: Insights from sediments of the Medjerda delta around Utica (Tunisia)</td></tr><tr><td>Ghilardi et al. 2017</td><td>environment</td><td>off site</td><td>single</td><td>Bronze Age</td><td>settlement (plain/ valley)</td><td>Recording extreme events and reconstructing past landscapes within the Taravo and Sagone lower fluvial valleys (Western Corsica, France) during the Mid-to Late Bronze Age: a geoarchaeological perspective</td></tr><tr><td>Gkionis et al. 2020</td><td>environment</td><td>site</td><td>single</td><td>Roman to modern</td><td>settlement and town (port/harbour)</td><td>A marine geoarchaeological investigation for the cultural anthesis and the sustainable growth of Methoni, Greece</td></tr><tr><td>Holdridge et al. 2017</td><td>environment</td><td>off site</td><td>single</td><td>Hellenistic to Islamic</td><td>city</td><td>City and wadi: exploring the environs of Jerash</td></tr><tr><td>Jackson et al. 2017</td><td>human activity</td><td>material/geology</td><td>multiple</td><td>Roman</td><td>city (port/harbour)</td><td>Phillipsite and Al-tobermorite mineral cements produced through low-temperature water-rock reactions in Roman marine concrete</td></tr><tr><td>Nicoll and Zerboni 2020</td><td>editorial/review</td><td>N/A</td><td>N/A</td><td></td><td></td><td>Is the past key to the present? Observations of cultural continuity and resilience reconstructed from geoarchaeological records</td></tr><tr><td>González Reyero et al. 2019</td><td>human activity</td><td>off site</td><td>regional</td><td>Iron Age</td><td>agropastoral</td><td>Agrarian landscapes in the Iberian Iron Age: Mountain communities and land use in southeastern Iberia</td></tr><tr><td>Salomon et al. 2020</td><td>environment</td><td>off site</td><td>single</td><td>Holocene</td><td>city</td><td>High-resolution late Holocene sedimentary cores record the long history of the city of Cadiz (south-western Spain)</td></tr><tr><td>Salomon et al. 2018</td><td>human activity and environment</td><td>site and off site</td><td>single</td><td>Bronze Age to Roman</td><td>city</td><td>Geoarchaeology of the Roman port-city of Ostia: Fluvio-coastal mobility, Check for urban development and resilience</td></tr><tr><td>Vandam et al. 2019</td><td>human activity and environment</td><td>off site</td><td>regional</td><td>Achaemenid to Roman</td><td>agropastoral</td><td>"Marginal" Landscapes: Human Activity, Vulnerability, and Resilience in the Western Taurus Mountains (Southwest Turkey)</td></tr><tr><td>Brock et al. 2021</td><td>human activity and environment</td><td>site and off site</td><td>single</td><td>Archaic Roman</td><td>city</td><td>On the Banks of the Tiber: Opportunity and Transformation in Early Rome</td></tr><tr><td>Cereda and Draganits 2022</td><td>human activity</td><td>site</td><td>single</td><td>Bronze Age</td><td>tell</td><td>Lived monuments: A microarchaeological study of monumental architecture in the tell-site of Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey)</td></tr><tr><td>Mariani et al. 2020</td><td>human activity and environment</td><td>site</td><td>single</td><td>Neolithic to Bronze Age</td><td>settlement</td><td>The Enolithic/Bronze Age Transition at Tegole di Bovino (Apulia): Geoarchaeological Evidence of Climate Change and Land-Use Shift</td></tr><tr><td>Zuidhoff and Bos 2017</td><td>environment</td><td>off site</td><td>single</td><td>Holocene</td><td>settlement</td><td>Sedimentation and vegetation history of a buried Meuse terrace during the Holocene in relation to the human occupation history (Limburg, the Netherlands)</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>Table 2: Distribution of periods covered in diachronic geoarchaeology studies from the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology journal articles published between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022 according to Web of Science database.</caption><thead><tr><th>Periods covered in diachronic geoarchaeology studies</th><th>Count</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Achaemenid to Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Archaic Greece to Late Antique</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Bronze Age to Classical Greece</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Bronze Age to Hellenistic</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Bronze Age to Iron Age</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Bronze Age to Medieval</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Bronze Age to Phoenician to Roman</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Bronze Age to Roman</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Byzantine to Early Islamic</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Byzantine to modern</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Classical and Hellenistic Greece</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Egyptian to Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Epipaleolithic to Eneolithic</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Graeco-Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Greenland Stadial (GS) 2.1 to Greenland Interstadial (GI) 1</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Hellenistic to Islamic</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Hellenistic to Roman</td><td>3</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Hellenistic to post-Antiquity</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Holocene</td><td>17</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td>Iron Age to Medieval</td><td>3</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Neolithic to Bronze Age</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Neolithic to Iron Age</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Neolithic to Islamic</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Neolithic to Medieval</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Neolithic to modern</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Neolithic to Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Palaeolithic to Roman</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Phoenician-Punic and Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Pleistocene to Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Pliocene to Holocene</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Roman and Anglo-Scandinavian</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Roman to Late Antiquity</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Roman to Medieval</td><td>4</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Roman to modern</td><td>9</td><td>13%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>71</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 3: Distribution of periods covered in single period geoarchaeology studies from the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology journal articles published between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022 according to Web of Science database.</caption><thead><tr><th>Periods covered in single period geoarchaeology studies</th><th>Count</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Archaic Greece</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Archaic Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Bronze Age</td><td>17</td><td>23%</td></tr><tr><td>Classical Cyprus</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Classical Greece</td><td>7</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>Iron Age</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Late Antiquity</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Mauretanian (Hellenistic)</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>modern</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>Neolithic</td><td>9</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>Palaeolithic</td><td>4</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>Pleistocene</td><td>2</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td>post-Byzantine</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>post-Roman</td><td>1</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td>Roman</td><td>23</td><td>32%</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>73</strong></td><td><strong>100%</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Table 4: Distribution by site type of the geoarchaeology studies from the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology journal articles published between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022 according to Web of Science database. *The excluded cases were review or editorial, methodological, or material-based studies.</caption><thead><tr><th>Site Type</th><th>Count</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>agropastoral</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>burial site</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>cave or rockshelter</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>city</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>coastal</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>lake</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>open-air</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>production</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>ritual/religious</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>settlement</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td>tell</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>town</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>town (road)</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>village</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Total</strong></td><td><strong>136*</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>
(categorized in this study as urban, town, village, settlement, tell, or city). 106 studies focused on sites that may be qualified as urban (urban, town, village, settlement, tell, or city) (fig. 3).

### 4.3. Site, multi-site, and regional research

Of the 154 studies, 80 covered geoarchaeological studies that directly sampled settlement sites or material from settlement sites, 29 involved sampling at multiple sites, and 39 involved sampling on a regional scale without samples from clearly delimited settlement sites (tab. 5). For studies that sampled single sites with results applicable on a regional-scale, 'single' site sample size were entered.

<table><caption>Table 5: Distribution of site sample size among geoarchaeology studies from the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology journal articles published between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022, according to Web of Science database.</caption><thead><tr><td>Site Sample Size</td><td>Count</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>multiple</td><td>29</td></tr><tr><td>N/A</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>regional</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>single</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>154</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 4.4. Research focus – human activities and/or environment

Each Abstract was analyzed to determine whether the research focus delineates that the main results would provide information on human activities or the environment, or a combination thereof. 78 studies concentrated on obtaining environmental information, 31 studies on human activity, and 28 on both human activity and environmental information (tab. 6).

<table><caption>Table 6: Distribution of study focus among geoarchaeology studies from the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology journal articles published between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022, according to Web of Science database.</caption><thead><tr><td>Study Focus</td><td>Count</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>animal husbandry</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>animal husbandry and environment</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>editorial/review</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>environment</td><td>78</td></tr><tr><td>human activity</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>human activity and environment</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>methodology</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>non-academic</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td>154</td></tr></tbody></table>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Distribution of the 106 urban sites (categorized in this study as urban, town, village, settlement, tell, or city) out of the 154 Mediterranean geoarchaeology articles published between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2022, according to Web of Science database.</figcaption></figure>
## 4.5. Resilience theory research focus

Of the 17 sites that mentioned terms related to resilience theory in their title or Abstract, 7 focused on city sites, 5 on settlement sites, 1 on a tell site, 3 on agropastoral sites, and 1 was an editorial/review piece (tab. 1). Of the 13 urban (city, settlement, and tell) studies, 6 studies obtained geoarchaeological samples directly from sites and were also single-site studies, except one, which obtained samples from multiple sites. Each of the 5 studies that obtained samples directly from single urban sites covered a different temporal phase (Archaic Roman; Bronze Age; Neolithic to Bronze Age; Bronze Age to Roman; and Roman to modern). The other 7 urban (city, settlement, and tell) geoarchaeological studies obtained samples solely from off site, and were both single-period and diachronic studies. Of these 7 studies, 6 were single-site studies while the other one sampled multiple sites or obtained samples regionally. Of all of the 17 resilience-related studies, 10 urban (city, settlement, or tell) studies focused on sampling at a single-site area, and 3 urban (city, settlement, or tell) studies sampled at multiple or regional areas.

# 5. Discussion

The following discussion assesses how these approaches to single-site, regional, and multi-site studies and sampling methods contributed to understandings of resilience of urban sites and settlements in their broader socio-ecological systems. Additionally, it considers these studies in the context of other resilience-related research, the current challenges and contributions of these studies, and the future potential of Mediterranean geoarchaeology in resilience research.

## 5.1. Single-site geoarchaeology studies

10 urban studies that considered issues of resilience focused on single sites. Five of these 10 single-site studies took samples from directly on-site, or both on-site and off-site, and thus are implementing techniques of urban geoarchaeology.

For example, Salomon et al. (2018) conducted sampling inside the main city walls and in the harbor zone of Ostia, Italy, a Roman port city, primarily to understand environmental processes, specifically fluvio-coastal erosion relating to the Tiber River and coastline, impacting the urban site from the Bronze Age (3rd millennium BCE) to the Roman Republican period (1st century BCE). By analyzing

semi-quantitative palaeoenvironmental data from sediment cores, and interpreting this data in context with qualitative archaeological and textual evidence for building construction and trade, the authors were able to assess the resilience of the city's inhabitants who were able to maintain their overall port city function in the face of fluvio-coastal transformations (Salomon et al. 2018, p. 280).

In another study, Gkionis et al. (2020) ran a marine geoarchaeological study off the coast of the town of Methoni, Greece, where urban remains are present underwater on the seabed. The main study aims were identifying changes in environmental processes over time and the “monitoring of local sediment transport processes and coastal erosion/accretion patterns” (Gkionis et al. 2020, p. 159). Using hydrographic survey and high-resolution bathymetry techniques to obtain geoarchaeological survey data directly from the underwater archaeological site area, the study was able to identify “both short- and long-term trends in the nearshore distribution of sediments” (Gkionis et al. 2020: 168). Based on this geoarchaeological data, connections to resilience and sustainability are considered in terms of modern cultural heritage preservation, rather than the adaptive capabilities of the ancient city dwellers (Gkionis et al. 2020, p. 169).

While both of these case studies (Gkionis et al. 2020 and Salomon et al. 2018) are significant in providing diachronic, quantitative and semi-quantitative data that can be applied in building resilience models, one aspect that both studies require to further explain causal links of their changing socio-ecological systems is data from other regional sites. Comparisons are made by Salomon et al. (2018, p. 280-281) to other examples of urban resilience or lack thereof, but none of these studies are local to Italy or contemporary to Ostia, to no fault of their own. Gkionis et al. 2020 (p. 168) also noted other non-local underwater museum projects that account for sustainable growth and tourism, but specific data on regional climate change and other factors influencing local socio-ecological systems is needed. Both studies (Salomon et al. 2018, Gkionis et al. 2020) recognize that local sites (and their socio-ecological systems) are interconnected, and these individual sites and site networks are also tied to broader socio-ecological processes.

## 5.2. Regional geoarchaeology studies

Only one of the urban studies that considers issues of resilience used an approach of regional sampling. This study (Brock 2022) discussed samples taken only from off-site (or near-site) contexts, rather than directly from among urban structures.
Brock (2022) relays a case study on Rome's urban development with the main purpose of demonstrating the value of historical examples for modern sustainability practices. Through the description of geoarchaeological data from deep coring surveys in Rome's central river valley in conjunction with archaeological observations and textual evidence, the conclusion is drawn that the inhabitants of Rome made intentional adaptations to changing palaeoenvironmental conditions involving riverine flooding and sedimentation. While this study demonstrates that geoarchaeological samples may be strategically taken outside of a specific urban zone in order to answer a particular research question, the connection of the core study (the geological data) is not readily apparent in connection to the material evidence discussed as implicating resilience (Brock 2022, p. 4). For example, flood deposits from the cores are dated to the 6th century BCE, when urban development was increasing, concurrently when buildings were constructed at higher elevations (Brock 2022, p. 5). While demonstrating broader landscape and socio-environmental system changes, the order of operation for these changes, and their causal links – whether due to climate or something else – remains to be determined.

## 5.3. Multi-site geoarchaeology studies

Only two urban studies involved sampling at multiple 'urban' contexts; neither of these studies applied resilience theory to understanding ancient socio-ecological systems but rather modern concerns of resilience in geological park zones (AbdelMaksoud et al. 2020) and in developing more resilient cement materials (Jackson et al. 2017). Neither study sampled geoarchaeological sediments on-site, but Jackson et al. (2017) conducted a multi-site study of Roman marine concrete structures (geoarchaeological materials) from specific Roman ports to test their durability and mineral fabrics.

Despite this finding, it is likely that other geoarchaeological studies in the Mediterranean are using multi-site studies to consider issues of resilience but are simply not using this terminology in their publication titles or Abstracts, or are publishing in alternative formats. These multi-site studies have the potential to provide diachronic data and micro-regional spatial data (more specific than regional, off-site data) and connect to understanding of larger socio-ecological systems.

For example, preliminary research published by the author in a recent book chapter describes the multi-site approach of taking geoarchaeological samples directly from on-site urban contexts at two Late Bronze Age sites on Cyprus and the potential of comparing the results to constitute a multi-site study (Kulick 2021).

With high-resolution micromorphological data from two urban sites, local geoarchaeological data can indicate practices of local adaptation as well as be compared between the sites to begin to understand site networks and broader socio-ecological processes. For example, geoarchaeological data that may indicate site formation and post-depositional processes connected to changes in urban forms, landscape management, or climate at Maroni Vournes may be compared to processes occurring at Kalavasos Ayios Dhimitrios, a few kilometers away, thus providing a bottom-up approach to understanding local environmental and climatic changes and local socioeconomic practices.

Another example of a multi-site urban study missing from the journal search considering resilience, is that by Vermeulen et al. (2018) who analyze two specific abandoned towns, Potentia and Trea, approximately 30 km apart, near the Adriatic coastline in Italy. The research is able to provide, through non-invasive survey and invasive hand augering (geoarchaeological data) information on site-specific formation processes and connections “between anthropogenic, cultural, and biopedological processes as well as the geological depositional (sedimentary) and/or post-depositional factors that are so important in abandoned Roman towns” (Vermeulen et al. 2018: 96). While providing specific, high-resolution data on Iron Age to Medieval (diachronic) transformations at each respective site, the study additionally has the potential to show local socio-ecological processes at work in a particular regional zone – the Central Adriatic Potenza Valley – where it demonstrated the micro-regional impact of erosion and the accumulation of alluvial and colluvial material in post-Roman times (Vermeulen et al. 2018, p. 90, 95-96).

## 5.4. Current challenges and contributions of urban geoarchaeology to resilience research

Identifying the broader impacts on, and of, socio-ecological systems has been challenging in current studies, and in some of the 17 aforementioned geoarchaeological studies, because studies often focus on differentiating (rather than viewing as codependent) “natural ecosystems and anthropogenically altered ecosystems” (LaFreniere 2007, p. 18, Descola 2013, Løvschal 2022). This focus on separating social and natural systems is often necessary in order to obtain the archaeological and geological data to analyze them, but generally a futile exercise when attempted on the macro-scale level: “...the entire Mediterranean basin, including maquis (stunted forest), garrigue (low brush) and steppe (grasslands), is essentially a human artifact produced over thousands of years of
selective hunting and gathering, herding, burning, and farming" (LaFreniere 2007, p. 18).

Broader macro-scale environmental processes unite every archaeological site in the Mediterranean region, yet each site does also possess unique, local patterns. While researchers of Mediterranean environments have largely established that major landscape changes have occurred in the Mediterranean region throughout the Quaternary period (Krahtopoulou 2000, Wainwright and Thornes 2004, p. 11), historical records, climatological analysis, and modern fieldwork demonstrate the high degree of variability and unpredictability of regional, as well as local, environmental trends that characterize and affect settlements in the Mediterranean region (e.g., Horden and Purcell 2000, Wainwright and Thornes 2004, Finné et al. 2011, 2019, Vermeulen et al. 2018, Kearns 2019, Manning 2019). As noted in regards to the gearchaeological study by Brock (2022), untangling and correlating these physical landscape and climatic events which blend local and broader regional changes from local human-induced changes in urban settings is necessary, however, to distill the processes of adaptation to external change.

Establishing the social and natural features of each system requires that these features be considered on a finer scale than that of the pan-Mediterranean, or even regional scale (e.g., Kearns 2019) but not with the goal of complete differentiation between natural and anthropogenic. Anthropogenic features, such as agricultural practices (terracing, plowing, etc.), pastoralism (animal husbandry, fire regimes, etc.), and building construction, do not exist in isolation but are integrated with features of their surrounding environment. Through geoarchaeological and micro-scale analyses of archaeological sites, archaeologists can view both of these systems together, as socio-natural or socio-ecological systems (after Gallopin 1994, p. 19), rather than polarizing social and natural systems, and, in doing so, can assist in establishing the significance of broader social and environmental processes on specific socio-ecological systems.

As discussed above, Salomon et al. (2018) and Gkionis et al. (2020) were able to assess geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental data on this smaller, single-site scale towards understanding socio-ecological resilience at their respective urban sites. In another of the 17 resilience-related studies, using micro-geoarchaeological sediment analyses on off-site trash mounds, Butler et al. (2020) were able to investigate spatial and temporal differences among agropastoral socio-ecological systems and resource management practices towards understanding community-level changes at three Byzantine and Early Islamic sites in the Negev.

## 5.5. Future applications of Mediterranean geoarchaeology to resilience research

Løvschal’s (2022, p. 199-202) recent review of resilience theory in archaeology points out reasons to be skeptical of resilience-related research: (1) the maintenance of the nature-culture dichotomy; (2) issues in quantifying archaeological material to use in modeling; (3) issues of temporal resolution; (4) issues with a systematic approach being able to account for different scales of change and variable outcomes; (5) failure to incorporate ‘political economy and inequality’ into models. Indeed, other studies have noted these issues in applications of resilience theory in archaeology (Redman and Kinzig 2003, Marston 2015, Weiberg and Finné 2018, Fitzhugh et al. 2019). Similarly, challenges of separating and subsequently integrating material and geological data (Brock 2022), quantifying semi-qualitative geoarchaeological data (Salomon et al. 2018, González Reyero et al. 2019, Vandam et al. 2019), and working with data across different spatiotemporal scales (Butler et al. 2020) are apparent in recent Mediterranean urban geoarchaeology studies noted here.

Despite these challenges, archaeological studies have used geoarchaeological data to employ resilience concepts to analyze social adaptation strategies. Vandam et al. (2019, p. 444-446) are able to consider how humans adapted to the area around Sagalassos, Turkey, before and after key site occupations in the Achaemenid and Roman periods, and conclude that Iron Age habitation and agropastoral practices were unsustainable since they caused severe soil erosion, in contrast to sustainable Late Antique practices which promoted a resilient system. Even without geoarchaeological data, some archaeological studies have also attempted to employ resilience theory to aid in understanding how societies adapt to changes and mitigate risk (after Løvschal 2022, Bradtmöller et al. 2017). For example, Marston (2015) applies resilience theory to analyze the reasons for changes to unsustainable agricultural practices, from the Middle Bronze Age to the Roman period, around the urban site of Gordion, central Turkey.

In order to better apply resilience thinking in archaeology, Løvschal suggests that one of the resilience-related approaches that archaeological research consider is “landesque capital”, which “captur[es] temporalities of change that were not directly planned by humans” (Løvschal 2022, p. 205). Landesque capital incorporates both (1) niche construction theory, which “emphasizes the relentless creation of anthropological and nonhuman domains” (Løvschal 2022, p. 203) and (2) adaptive capacity and mitigation, which emphasizes “the abilities pertaining to societies’ adaptational strategies
and pathways” (Løvschal 2022, p. 204). The utility of landesque capital is explained through the example of “soils being an inherited resource” (Håkansson and Widgren 2014, Løvschal 2022, p 205). For example, “[m]odifications [of soil] reflect intergenerational landscape practices, increasing their adaptive capacity and hence resilience” (Løvschal 2022, p. 205). It is here that geoarchaeology can be used to provide such data, whether relating to changes in technology, diversity of techniques used in construction, and/or subsistence (agricultural trends).

## 6. Conclusion

Due to the lack of geoarchaeological studies explicitly mentioning resilience theory or related terms in their titles and Abstracts, a search with different combinations of keywords related to socio-ecological systems and a more thorough literature assessment is needed to obtain a full understanding of how geoarchaeology can effectively be used to collect data useful for resilience research. Already apparent in the examples provided from single, regional, and multi-site research, geoarchaeological data has the capability of providing the temporal and spatial resolution needed to connect urban studies within larger socio-ecological systems. While many more publications on urban geoarchaeology and resilience may be available in non-journal formats and/or are discussed more subtly in the manuscripts themselves, the unique nature of each urban site and research question may preclude a standardized vocabulary being used to discuss phenomena related to resilience.

Given these terminological and methodological considerations, it is perhaps apt that, despite the large number (106/154, 69%) of recent eastern Mediterranean geoarchaeology studies focused on urban sites (urban, town, village, settlement, tell, or city), few of these additionally focused on topics related to resilience (10/154, 7%) as determined through their titles and Abstracts. Analyses of the 10 urban and resilience-focused studies demonstrated that combining single-site studies into multi-site studies can provide micro-historical (diachronic) data and micro-regional (spatial) data that may be used in considerations of urban and social networks, adaptation, and resilience.

## Acknowledgements

For their introduction and guidance in urban archaeological research on Cyprus, which inspired the

multi-site geoarchaeological approach mentioned in this chapter, I am grateful to Sturt Manning, Kevin Fisher, Catherine Kearns, and Francesco Berna. Since my introduction to urban geoarchaeology and resilience theory was formed during my PhD research on urban geoarchaeology on Crete, thanks are also due to Carl Knappett, Edward Banning and Dimitri Nakassis, for their previous discussions and suggestions. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions, which have improved this paper.

## References

ABDELMAKSOUD K.M., ELFEKY H., RUBAN D.A., ERMOLAEV V.A. 2020 – A Unique Coincidence of Geomorphological, Geological, and Geoarchaeological Features in the Valley of Camels (Dakhla Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt), *Geoheritage*, 12 (4), p. 81.

ADDERLEY W.P., WILSON C.A., SIMPSON I.A., DAVIDSON D.A. 2010 – Anthropogenic features, in Stoops G., Marcelino V., Mees F. (eds.), *Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths*, Elsevier, p. 569-588.

ADDERLEY W.P., WILSON C.A., SIMPSON I.A., DAVIDSON D.A. 2018 – Anthropogenic Features, in Stoops G., Marcelino V., Mees F. (eds.), *Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths*, Elsevier, p. 753-777.

BINI M., FABIANI F., PAPPALARDO M., SCHULDENREIN J. 2018 – Special issue of Geoarchaeology: Urban geoarchaeology in the Mediterranean Basin, *Geoarchaeology*, 33 (1), p. 3-12.

BOLLIG M. 2014 – Resilience – Analytical Tool, Bridging Concept or Development Goal? Anthropological Perspectives on the Use of a Border Object, *Zeitschrift für Ethnologie (ZfE) / Journal of Social and Cultural Anthropology* (JSCA), 139 (2), p. 253-279.

BOONE J.L. 2002 – Subsistence strategies and early human population history: an evolutionary ecological perspective, *World Archaeology*, 34, p. 6-25.

BORDERIE Q., DEVOS Y., NICOSIA C., CAMMAS C., MACPHAIL R.I. 2015 – Dark Earth in the geoarchaeological approach to urban contexts, in N. Carcaud, G. Arnaud-Fassetta (dir.), *La géoarchéologie française au xxt siècle*, CNRS Éditions, p. 245-255.

BRADTMÖLLER M., GRIMM S., RIEL-SALVATORE J. 2017 – Resilience theory in archaeological practice – An annotated review, *Quaternary International*, 446, p. 3-16.

BRANIGAN K. (dir.) 2001 – *Urbanism in the Aegean Bronze Age*, Sheffield Studies in Aegean Archaeology nº 4, London: New York, Sheffield Academic Press.

BROCK A.L. 2022 – Urbanizing the Eternal City: How did the ancient Romans transform and adapt to Rome’s
riverine landscape?, *World Development Perspectives*, 26, p. 100426.

BROCK A.L., MOTTA L., TERRENATO N. 2021 – On the Banks of the Tiber: Opportunity and Transformation in Early Rome, *Journal of Roman Studies*, 111, p. 1-30.

BUTLER D.H., DUNSETH Z.C., TEPPER Y., ERICKSON-GINI T., BAR-OZ G., SHAHACK-GROSS R. 2020 – Byzantine—Early Islamic resource management detected through micro-geoarchaeological investigations of trash mounds (Negev, Israel), *PLOS ONE*, 15 (10), p. e0239227.

BUTZER K.W. 1982 – *Archaeology as Human Ecology: Method and Theory for a Contextual Approach*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

BUTZER K.W. 2005 – Environmental history in the Mediterranean world: cross-disciplinary investigation of cause-and-effect for degradation and soil erosion, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 32 (12), p. 1773-1800.

BUTZER K.W. 2011 – Geoarchaeology, climate change, sustainability: A Mediterranean perspective, in *Geological Society of America Special Papers*, Geological Society of America, volume. 476, p. 1-14.

BUTZER K.W. 2012 – Collapse, environment, and society, *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 109 (10), p. 3632-3639.

BUTZER K.W., BUTZER E., LOVE S. 2013 – Urban geoarchaeology and environmental history at the Lost City of the Pyramids, Giza: synthesis and review, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 40 (8), p. 3340-3366.

CANTI M., HUISMAN D.J. 2015 – Scientific advances in geoarchaeology during the last twenty years, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 56, p. 96-108.

CEREDA S., DRAGANITS E. 2022 – Lived monuments: A microarchaeological study of monumental architecture in the tell-site of Arslantepe (Malatya, Turkey), *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 41, p. 103318.

COURTY M.-A., GOLDBERG P., MACPHAIL R.I. 1989 – *Soils and Micromorphology in Archaeology*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

COWGILL G.I. 1975 – On causes and consequences of ancient and modern population changes, *American Anthropologist*, 77, p. 505-525.

DAVIES M.I.J. 2013 – Environment in European and North American archaeology, in Davies M.I.J., M'Mbogori F.N. (dir.), *Humans and the environment: new archaeological perspectives for the twenty-first century*, Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 3-25.

DELILE H., PLEUGER E., BLICHERT-TOFT J., GOIRAN J.-PH., FAGEL N., GADHOUM A., ABICHOU A., BEN JERBANIA I., FENTRESS E., WILSON A. I. 2019 – Economic resilience of Carthage during the Punic Wars: Insights from sediments of the Medjerda delta around Utica (Tunisia), *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences*, 116 (20), p. 9764-9769.

DESCOLA P. 2013 – *Beyond nature and culture*, Chicago; London, The University of Chicago Press, 463 p.

DEVOS Y., NICOSIA C., WOUTERS B. 2020 – Urban geoarchaeology in Belgium: Experiences and innovations, *Geoarchaeology*, 35 (1), p. 27-41.

DRENNAN R.D., PETERSON C.E. 2011 – Challenges for Comparative Study of Early Complex Societies, in Smith M.E. (dir.), *The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies*, Cambridge University Press, p. 62-87.

FINNÉ M., HOLMGREN K., SUNDQVIST H.S., WEIBERG E., LINDBLOM M. 2011 – Climate in the eastern Mediterranean, and adjacent regions, during the past 6000 years – A review, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 38 (12), p. 3153-3173.

FINNÉ M., WOODBRIDGE J., LABUHN I., ROBERTS C.N. 2019 – Holocene hydro-climatic variability in the Mediterranean: A synthetic multi-proxy reconstruction, *The Holocene*, 29 (5), p. 847-863.

FISHER K., MANNING S.W., URBAN T. 2019 – New Approaches to Late Bronze Age Urban Landscapes on Cyprus: Investigations at Kalavasos-Ayios Dhimitrios, 2012–2016, *American Journal of Archaeology*, 123 (3), p. 473.

FITZHUGH B., BUTLER V.L., BOVY K.M., EТNIER M.A. 2019 – Human ecodynamics: A perspective for the study of long-term change in socioecological systems, *Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports*, 23, p. 1077-1094.

GALLOPIN G. 1994 – *Impoverishment and Sustainable Development: A Systems Approach*, Winnipeg, Canada, International Institute for Sustainable Development.

GÉ T., COURTY M.-A., MATTHEWS W., WATTEZ J. 1993 – Sedimentary formation processes of occupation surfaces, in Goldberg P., Nash D. T., Petraglia M. D. (dir.), *Formation Processes in Archaeological Context*, Monographs in World Archaeology n° 17, Madison, Prehistory Press, p. 149-164.

GHILARDI M., DELANGHE D., DEMORY F., LEANDRI F., PÊCHE-QUILICHINI K., VACCHI M., VELLA M.-A., ROSSI V., ROBRESCO S. 2017 – Recording extreme events and reconstructing past landscapes within the Taravo and Sagone lower fluvial valleys (Western Corsica, France) during the Mid-to Late Bronze Age: a geoarchaeological perspective, *Géomorphologie : relief, processus, environnement*, 23 (1), p. 15-35.

GKIONIS P., PAPATHEODOROU G., GERAGA M., FAKIRIS E., CHRISTODOULOU D., TRANAKA K. 2020 – A marine geoarchaeological investigation for the cultural anthesis and the sustainable growth of Methoni, Greece, *Journal of Cultural Heritage*, 42, p. 158-170.

GOLDBERG P., MACPHAIL R. 2006 – *Practical and Theoretical Geoarchaeology*, Malden, MA, Oxford, Blackwell Pub.

GONZÁLEZ REYERO S., SÁNCHEZ-PALENCIA F.J., LÓPEZ-SÁEZ J.A., PÉREZ-DÍAZ S., RUIZ-ALONSO M., ROMERO PERONA D., VALLÉS IRISO J., ÁLVAREZ-AYUSO E. 2019 – Agrarian landscapes in the Iberian Iron Age: Mountain communities and land use in southeastern Iberia, *Geoarchaeology*, 34 (3), p. 252-271.
HÅKANSSON N.T., WIDGREN M. 2014 – *Landesque capital: the historical ecology of enduring landscape modifications*, London, Routledge.

HOLDRIDGE G., KRISTIANSEN S.M., LICHTENBERGER A., RAJA R., SIMPSON I.A. 2017 – City and wadi: exploring the environs of Jerash, *Antiquity*, 91 (358), p. e7.

HOLLING C.S., GUNDERSON L.H., LUDWIG D. 2002 – In quest of a theory of adaptive change, in Gunderson L.H., Holling C.S. (dir.), *Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems*, Washington, D.C., Island Press, p. 3-22.

HORDEN P., PURCELL N. 2000 – *The Corrupting Sea*, Oxford, Blackwell.

IZDEBSKI A., HOLMGREN K., WEIBERG E., STOCKER S. R., BÜNTGEN U., FLORENZANO A., GOGOU A., LEROY S. A. G., LUTERBACHER J., MARTRAT B., MASI A., MERCURI A. M., MONTAGNA P., SADORI L., SCHNEIDER A., SICRE M.-A., TRIANTAPHYLLOU M., XOPLAKI E. 2016 – Realising consilience: How better communication between archaeologists, historians and natural scientists can transform the study of past climate change in the Mediterranean, *Quaternary Science Reviews*, 136, p. 5-22.

JACKSON M.D., MULCAHY S.R., CHEN H., LI Y., LI Q., CAPPELLETTI P., WENK H.-R. 2017 – Phillipsite and Al-tobermorite mineral cements produced through low-temperature water-rock reactions in Roman marine concrete, *American Mineralogist*, 102 (7), p. 1435-1450.

KARKANAS P. 2007 – Identification of lime plaster in prehistory using petrographic methods: A review and reconsideration of the data on the basis of experimental and case studies, *Geoarchaeology*, 22 (7), p. 775-796.

KARKANAS P., EFSTRATIOU N. 2009 – Floor sequences in Neolithic Makri, Greece: micromorphology reveals cycles of renovation, *Antiquity*, 83 (322), p. 955-967.

KARKANAS P., GOLDBERG P. 2018 – *Reconstructing archaeological sites: understanding the geoarchaeological matrix*, Hoboken, NJ, John Wiley & Sons, 1 p.

KARKANAS P., VAN DE MOORTEL A. 2014 – Micromorphological analysis of sediments at the Bronze Age site of Mitrou, central Greece: patterns of floor construction and maintenance, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 43, p. 198-213.

KEARNS C. 2019 – 9. Discerning « Favorable » Environments Science, Survey Archaeology, and the Cypriot Iron Age, in Kearns C., Manning S.W. (dir.), *New Directions in Cypriot Archaeology*, Cornell University Press, p. 266-294.

KNAPPETT C. 2011 – *An Archaeology of Interaction: Network Perspectives on Material Culture and Society*, Oxford, New York, Oxford University Press, 251 p.

KRAHTOPOULOU A. 2000 – Holocene Alluvial History of Northern Pieria, Macedonia, Greece, in Halstead P., Frederick C. (dir.), *Landscape and Land Use in Postglacial Greece*, Sheffield Studies in Aegean

Archaeology, London, Sheffield Academic Press, p. 15-27.

KULICK R. 2019 – Urban micromorphology: A microecological narrative of a Neopalatial neighborhood at Bronze Age Palaikastro, Crete, *Geoarchaeology*, 34 (4), p. 430-447.

KULICK R. 2021 – Urbanism from the Ground Up: Investigating the Socio-Environmental Dynamics of Bronze Age and Iron Age Cyprus using soil and sediment micromorphology, in Amadio M. (dir.), *Archaeology in the Smallest Realm: Micro analyses and methods for the reconstruction of early societies in Cyprus*, Rome, Artemide, p. 61-80.

LAFRENIERE G.F. 2007 – *The decline of nature: environmental history and the Western worldview*, Bethesda, Md., Academica Press, 457 p.

LETESSON Q., KNAPPETT C. 2017 – Introduction—Minoan Built Environment: Past Studies, Recent Perspectives, and Future Challenges, in Letesson Q., Knappett C., *Minoan Architecture and Urbanism*, Oxford University Press.

LØVSCHAL M. 2022 – Retranslating Resilience Theory in Archaeology, *Annual Review of Anthropology*, 51 (1), https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-041320-011705.

MACPHAIL R.I. 2013 – Reconstructing past land use from dark earth: examples from England and France, in Lorans E., Rodier X. (dir.), *Archéologie de l'espace urbain*, Presses universitaires François-Rabelais, p. 251-261.

MACPHAIL R.I., GOLDBERG P. 2018 – Archaeological Materials in Interpretation of Micromorphological Features of Soils and Regoliths, Elsevier, p. 779-819.

MANNING S.W. 2019 – 3. Environment and Sociopolitical Complexity on Prehistoric Cyprus: Observations, Trajectories, and Sketch, in Kearns C., Manning S.W. (dir.), *New Directions in Cypriot Archaeology*, Cornell University Press, p. 99-130.

MANNING S.W., LORENTZEN B., WELTON L., BATIUK S., HARRISON T.P. 2020 – Beyond megadrought and collapse in the Northern Levant: The chronology of Tell Tayinat and two historical inflection episodes, around 4.2ka BP, and following 3.2ka BP, *PLOS ONE*, 15 (10), p. e0240799.

MARIANI G.S., MUNTONI I.M., ZERBONI A. 2020 – The Eneolithic/Bronze Age Transition at Tegole di Bovino (Apulia): Geoarchaeological Evidence of Climate Change and Land-Use Shift, *Quaternary*, 3 (2), p. 14.

MARSTON J.M. 2015 – Modeling Resilience and Sustainability in Ancient Agricultural Systems, *Journal of Ethnobiology*, 35 (3), p. 585-605.

MATTHEWS W. 1995 – Micromorphological characterization and interpretation of occupation deposits and microstratigraphic sequences at Abu Salabick, Iraq., in Barham A.J., MacPhail R.I. (dir.), *Archaeological Sediments and Soils: Analysis, Interpretation and Management*, London, Institute of Archaeology, p. 41-74.
MATTHEWS W., FRENCH C.A.I., LAWRENCE T., CUTLER D.F., JONES M.K. 1996 – Multiple surfaces: the micromorphology, in Hodder I. (dir.), *On the Surface: Çatalhöyük 1993-95*, Cambridge, The McDonald Institute for Research and British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, p. 301-342.

MATTHEWS W., POSTGATE J.N. 1994 – The imprint of living in a Mesopotamian City: questions and answers, in Luff R., Rowley-Conwy P. (dir.), *Whither Environmental Archaeology*, Monographs n° 38, Oxford, Oxbow, p. 171-212.

MENENDE J.C. 2010 – *Architecture of Minoan Crete: Constructing Identity in the Aegean Bronze Age*, Austin, TX, University of Texas Press.

MIDDLETON G.D. 2017 – *Understand collapse: Ancient History and Modern Myths*, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

NICOLL K., ZERBONI A. 2020 – Is the past key to the present? Observations of cultural continuity and resilience reconstructed from geoarchaeological records, *Quaternary International*, 545, p. 119-127.

NICOSIA C., DEVOS Y., BORDERIE Q. 2013 – The contribution of geosciences to the study of European Dark Earths: A review, *European Journal of Post-Classical Archaeologies*, 3, p. 145-170.

NODAROU E., FREDERICK C., HEIN A. 2008 – Another (mud)brick in the wall: scientific analysis of Bronze Age earthen construction materials from East Crete, *Journal of Archaeological Science*, 35, p. 2997-3015.

REDMAN C.L., KINZIG A.P. 2003 – Resilience of Past Landscapes: Resilience Theory, Society, and the Longue Durée, *Conservation Ecology*, 7 (1), p. 14.

SALOMON F. *et al*. 2020 – High-resolution late Holocene sedimentary cores record the long history of the city of Cádiz (south-western Spain), *Scientific Drilling*, 27, p. 35-47.

SALOMON F. *et al*. 2018 – Geoarchaeology of the Roman port-city of Ostia: Fluvio-coastal mobility, urban development and resilience, *Earth-Science Reviews*, 177, p. 265-283.

SHILLITO L.-M., MATTHEWS W., ALMOND M.J., BULL I.D. 2011 – The microstratigraphy of middens: capturing daily routine in rubbish at Neolithic Çatalhöyük, Turkey, *Antiquity*, 85 (329), p. 1024-1038.

SMITH M.E. 2010 – The archaeological study of neighborhoods and districts in ancient cities, *Journal of Anthropological Archaeology*, 29 (2), p. 137-154.

SMITH M.E. 2020 – Definitions and Comparisons in Urban Archaeology, *Journal of Urban Archaeology*, 1, p. 15-30.

TODD I.A., WARREN P. 2012 – Islandscapes and the built environments: the placing of settlements from village to city state (third to first millennia BC) in Cyprus and Crete, in *Parallel Lives: Ancient Island Societies in Crete and Cyprus*, British School at Athens Studies, volume. 20, p. 47-59.

TOURLOUKIS V., KARKANAS P. 2012 – Geoarchaeology in Greece: A review, *Journal of the Virtual Explorer*, 42, https://doi.org/10.3809/jvirtex.2012.00304.

VANDAM R., KAPTIJN E., BROothAERTS N., DE CUPERE B., MARINOVA E., VAN LOO M., VERSTRAETEN G., POBLOME J. 2019 – “Marginal” Landscapes: Human Activity, Vulnerability, and Resilience in the Western Taurus Mountains (Southwest Turkey), *Journal of Eastern Mediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies*, 7 (4), p. 432-450.

VERMEULEN F., PINCÉ P., WEEKERS L., DE DAPPER M. 2018 – Geoarchaeological study of abandoned Roman urban and suburban contexts from central Adriatic Italy, *Geoarchaeology*, 33 (1), p. 85-99.

WAINWRIGHT J., THORNES J.B. 2004 – *Environmental issues in the Mediterranean: processes and perspectives from the past and present*, Routledge studies in physical geography and environment n° 1, London, New York, Routledge, 479 p.

WALKER B., HOLLING C.S., CARPENTER S.R., KINZIG A.P. 2004 – Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems, *Ecology and Society*, 9 (2), p. 5.

WEIBERG E., FINNÉ M. 2018 – Resilience and persistence of ancient societies in the face of climate change: a case study from Late Bronze Age Peloponnese, *World Archaeology*, 50 (4), p. 584-602.

WHITELAW T. 2017 – The development and character of urban communities in Prehistoric Crete in their regional context: a preliminary study, in Letesson Q., Knappett C. (dir.), *Minoan architecture and urbanism: new perspectives on an ancient built environment*, New York, NY, Oxford University Press.

WOUTERS B., DEVOS Y., MILEK K., VRYDAGHS L., BARTHOLOMIEUX B., TYS D., MOOLHUIZEN C., VAN ASCH N. 2017 – Medieval markets: A soil micromorphological and archaeobotanical study of the urban stratigraphy of Lier (Belgium), *Quaternary International*, 460, p. 48-64.

ZUIDHOFF F.S., BOS J.A.A. 2017 – Sedimentation and vegetation history of a buried Meuse terrace during the Holocene in relation to the human occupation history (Limburg, the Netherlands), *Netherlands Journal of Geosciences*, 96 (2), p. 131-163.