## 5 Methodology  
Despite the existence of different approaches on archaeoseismological research, e.g., [2; 38; 39; 40; 41; 42; 43; 44; 45], the present study follows the guidelines of the oriented damage analysis in Earthquake Archaeological Effects (EAEs) by means of structural geology practices [41; 44; 45]. The studied site does not have the essential stratigraphic and tectonic characteristics to apply the most classical archaeoseismic geoarchaeological methodology [2], such as the analysis of fresh cut-slopes, modern excavations or close fault surface ruptures. On the contrary, the site has been excavated since the early 20 th century and an important graphic documentary research (analysis of old photos, drawings, maps, etc.) has been necessary to explore old excavations, cut-slopes and discriminate reconstructions or restorations to identify and validate the studied deformations (EAEs). The performed analysis applies the geological structural analysis of deformed elements in pavements, walls, arches, etc., to recognize a probable oriented damage (i.e., seismic origin) of the EAEs presently recorded in the archaeological site. In detail, some of the EAEs preserve sufficient elements to apply the field or mathematical approaches to unravel past ground motion, i.e., [38; 39], but most of them allow for the structural geology techniques by multiple compass measurements [43; 44; 45]. All the studied deformations are within the existing EAEs classification [41], and therefore subject to the proposed geological analyses. Eleven (11) different types of EAEs have been identified in this study: Collapsed key stones in arches (CKY), dropped key stones (DKY), directionally displaced columns (DDC), Block Extrusions in Walls (BEX), impact block marks (IBM), deformed and displaced vaults (DDV), tilted or folded walls (TFL), conjugated fractures in bricks-made walls (XFW), conjugated fractures on regular pavements (XFP), folds on regular pavements (FPV) and dipping broken corners in columns (DBC). These are distributed in 11 different sectors or buildings (Figure 4) and complete a dataset of 163 measured EAEs. The collected structural data were catalogued and classified following the existing EAEs classification [41] and grouped in homogeneous datasets for the each one 13 of the studied sectors or buildings. Each dataset was later analyzed by means of the structural geological analysis to obtain the maximum deformation orientations (ey structural strain data) and generate a rose diagram for each analyzed sector or building (ey structural strain orientation) [43; 44; 45]. This analysis of strain structures results in the maximum strain horizontal direction of the ground (e.g., SHmax) for each site and allows for identifing the occurrence (or not) of building oriented damage (BOD) [44; 45]. Once all the strain datasets defined by different EAEs within the studied site have been obtained, we proceed to plot the direction of SHmax trajectories on the map of the archaeological site. The obtained SHmax trajectories across the site can then be related to the mean direction of ground motion (oscillatory movement of the ground) generated by an earthquake, as checked for some ancient earthquakes (i.e., _Baelo Claudia_) [40; 42], but also proved for instrumental events [44; 45]. If the obtained strain orientation dataset (BOD) displays homogeneous trajectories with consistent overall orientation across a site, then seismic damage is feasible, since the damage may appear oriented in relation to the focal parameters of the causative earthquake as checked in instrumental events [43; 46; 47]. On the contrary, randomly or radially oriented strain data are normally indicative of a no seismic origin, and the concurrence of multiple processes in the deformation, destruction or ruin of a site can be addressed (e.g., explosions, assaults, etc., during a war: the \"_fitna_\" in our case) [41].