Reconstructing anthropic coastal landscape of Campi Flegrei volcanic area (Southern Italy) during the Roman period from multi-technique surveys

Figures & data

Figure 1. Geological and geomorphological map of the study area (after Ascione et al., 2020).

Map of Campi Flegrei volcanic area representing the main geological and geomorphological features. In the upper-right corner, a location map of the study area is provided. Below the map, the legend is provided containing symbols for volcanic, coastal, structural, gravity-induced and anthropic landforms and the color associated with the main volcanic units. Coordinates and graphic scale are provided in the figure.

Figure 2. A. Map of the study area with the distribution of the different surveys carried out along each coastal sector with archaeological structures.

Map of Campi Flegrei representing the distribution of the surveys carried out along its coasts. The background of the map is represented by a shade-relief base map and the direct, indirect and ARGO surveys are represented by blu, orange and green-water squares, respectively. Coordinates and graphic scale are provided in the figure.

Figure 3. Photos of: A) Argo marine drone in action during a survey performed along the coastal sector around Castel dell’ Ovo; B) SSS transducer during the survey at Baia; C) Borehole drilled at Pozzuoli; D) Direct survey at Portus Julius.

A. photo from an ARGO survey carried out in the coastal sector at the foot of Castel dell’Ovo.; B. photo from a SSS survey where it is possible to see the instrument on the boat; C. photo of the storage box containing the stratigraphic sequence from one of the boreholes performed in Pozzuoli; D. photo from a direct survey performed at Portus Julius site where the remains of a fish tank are visibile.

Table 1. List of sea-level markers (SLMs) identified in the study area: SLM type (sea-level index point – SLIP or terrestrial limiting point – TLP; column 1); interpreted archaeological feature (column 2); Functional clearance (FC expressed in meters; column 3); Indicative Range (mean high water – MHW, mean low water – MLW, medium sea level – MSL; column 4); Examples of different markers identified through their ID-number which pictures are presented in the main maps (Map 1 – from Fusaro Lake to Nisida, and Map 2 – from Nisida to Municipio Plain; column 5).

Type	Feature	FC	IR	ID Maps
SLIP	Top sluice gate – fish tank	0.2	from MHW to MLW	#05 Map1
SLIP	Lower crepido – fish tank	0.2	from MHW to MLW	#01 Map1 #29 Map2
SLIP	Concrete change – pier	0.5	from MHW to MLW	#13 Map1 #18, #26 Map2
TLP	Pavement – building	above former MSL	above former MSL	#08, #10 Map1 #20, #23, #28 Map2
TLP	Top breakwater – infrastructure	above former MSL	above former MSL	#11 Map1

Table 2. Sea-level markers (SLMs) identified in the coastal sector ranging from Fusaro Lake to Miseno Cape: SLM ID (column 1); Age (expressed in ka BP, column 2); SLM type (sea-level index point – SLIP or terrestrial limiting point – TLP; column 3); interpreted archaeological feature (column 4); RSL and related uncertainty (expressed in meters, column 5); vertical displacement and related uncertainty (VD; expressed in meters, column 6); Source (column 7). Data from Mattei et al., 2022.

ID	Age	SLM	Feature	RSL ± 2σ	VD ± 2σ	Source
#01	2.00	SLIP	Top sluice gate - fish tank	−3.3 ± 0.29	−2.56 ± 0.46	New data
#02	2.00	TLP	Pavement − building	<−2.69 ± 0.07	−	New data
#03	2.01	SLIP	Lower crepido − fish tank	−3.20 ± 0.29	−2.47 ± 0.45	Mattei et al. (2022)

Table 3. Sea−level markers (SLMs) identified in the coastal sector ranging from Miseno Cape to Nisida: SLM ID (column 1); Age (expressed in ka BP, column 2); SLM type (sea−level index point − SLIP or terrestrial limiting point − TLP; column 3); interpreted archaeological feature (column 4); RSL and related uncertainty (expressed in meters, column 5); vertical displacement and related uncertainty (VD; expressed in meters, column 6); Source (column 7). Data from Mattei et al., 2022.

ID	Age	SLM	Feature	RSL ± 2σ	VD ± 2σ	Source
#04	1.97	SLIP	Top sluice gate − fish tank	−4.20 ± 0.29	−3.49 ± 0.45	Aucelli et al. (2021)
#05	2.01	SLIP	Top sluice gate − fish tank	−4.00 ± 0.29	−3.27 ± 0.45	Aucelli et al. (2021)
#06	2.02	SLIP	Top sluice gate − fish tank	−4.20 ± 0.29	−3.30 ± 0.44	Aucelli et al. (2021)
#07	2.05	TLP	Top breakwater − infrastructure	<−5.80 ± 0.07	−	Mattei et al., (2022)
#08	1.84	TLP	Pavement − building	<−6.10 ± 0.07	−	Mattei et al., (2022)
#09	1.87	SLIP	Top sluice gate − fish tank	−6.90 ± 0.29	−6.22 ± 0.43	New data
#10	1.90	TLP	Pavement − building	<−5.30 ± 0.07	−	Mattei et al., (2022)
#11	2.25	TLP	Top breakwater − infrastructure	<−7.00 ± 0.07	−	New data
#12	1.96	SLIP	Top sluice gate − fish tank	−3.10 ± 0.29	−2.40 ± 0.44	Aucelli et al. (2020)
#13	1.98	SLIP	Concrete change − pier	−3.10 ± 0.29	−2.38 ± 0.45	Aucelli et al. (2020)
#14	2.02	TLP	Pavement − building	<−5.20 ± 0.05	−	Aucelli et al. (2020)
#15	1.84	TLP	Pavement − building	<−4.50 ± 0.07	−	New data
#16	1.84	TLP	Pavement − building	<−4.00 ± 0.07	−	New data
#17	1.97	TLP	Concrete change − pier	<−3.00 ± 0.07	−	New data

Table 4. Sea−level markers (SLMs) identified in the coastal sector ranging from Nisida to Municipio coastal plain: SLM ID (column 1); Age (expressed in ka BP, column 2); SLM type (sea−level index point − SLIP or terrestrial limiting point − TLP; column 3); interpreted archaeological feature (column 4); RSL and related uncertainty (expressed in meters, column 5); vertical displacement and related uncertainty (VD; expressed in meters, column 6); Source (column 7). Data from Mattei et al., 2022.

ID	Age	SLM	Feature	RSL ± 2σ	VD ± 2σ	Source
#18	1.95	SLIP	Concrete change − pier	−3.10 ± 0.21	−2.40 ± 0.39	Mattei et al. (2018b)
#19	1.95	SLIP	Top sluice gate − fish tank	−3.00 ± 0.28	−2.29 ± 0.44	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#20	1.97	TLP	Pavement − building	<−4.40 ± 0.07	−	Aucelli et al. (2018)
#21	1.97	SLIP	Concrete change − pier	−4−4 ± 0.50	−3.68 ± 0.60	Aucelli et al. (2018)
#22	1.95	SLIP	Concrete change − pier	−2.90 ± 0.50	−2.19 ± 0.60	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#23	1.95	TLP	Pavement − building	<−3.20 ± 0.07	−	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#24	1.95	SLIP	Concrete change − pier	−2.0 ± 1.00	−1.30 ± 1.05	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#25	1.95	SLIP	Concrete change − pier	−2.40 ± 1.00	−1.69 ± 1.05	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#26	1.97	SLIP	Concrete change − pier	−5.0 ± 1.00	−4.29 ± 1.05	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#27	1.95	TLP	Pavement − building	<−3.5 ± 0.07	−	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#28	1.97	TLP	Pavement − building	<−4.5 ± 0.07	−	Aucelli et al. (2019)
#29	2.00	SLIP	Lower crepido − fish tank	−2.2 ± 0.21	−3.78 ± 0.35	Pappone et al. (2019) Mattei et al., (2020b)

Figure 4. A. Semi-submerged archaeological remains of Vatia Villa at Torregaveta; B. detail of the fish-tank complex remains at Lucullus Villa along the western side of Miseno Cape; C. View from the south of Torregaveta Promontory; D. View of the sea cliffs of Monte di Procida.

A. Photo of the partially-submerged remains of Vatia Villa (Torregaveta Promo ntory) in the foreground. The beach and several coastal facilities and buildings are visible in the background. B. Photo of the archaeological remains related to the Lucullus villa where the vaulted ceilings of the fish tanks complex are visible above sea level. C. View of Torregaveta Promontory and its tuffaceous sea cliff in the foreground. The northern low coast is visible in the background. D. Photo of the tuffaceous sea cliffs of Monte di Procida characterized by the presence of debris at their foot.

Figure 5. A. The southern side of the Island of Punta Pennata and one of the three Roman tunnels that pass through it; B. View from the north of Baia Castle; C. View from the south of Punta Epitaffio; D. View from the sea of Rione Terra in Pozzuoli.

A. Photo of the SE sector of Punta Pennata Island in which is possible to observe the presence of a tunnel carved in Roman Time. B. Photo of Baia Castle where it is possible to see the small sandy beach located at its foot and the lighthouse on the left side. C. Panoramic photo of Punta Epitaffio and its sea cliff in the foreground, while Pozzuoli's strongly-urbanized coast is visible in the background; D. Photo of the high coast of Rione Terra where the presence of the seventeenth-century buildings is perfectly visible on the top of the sea cliff.

Figure 6. A. View from NE of Nisida Island; B. View from the sea of Posillipo coast with the famous palazzo degli Spiriti in the center; C. View from the sea of Posillipo sea cliffs with part of Rosebery Villa built on the top; D. View from the sea of Castel dell’ Ovo.

A. Photo of the NE side of Nisida Island with its sea cliffs and harbor structures. Miseno Cape and Procida Island are visible in the background. B. photo of the sea cliff of Posillipo hill. It is possible to observe the presence of numerous modern buildings testifying the intense human occupation of the area and the presence of the semi-submerged Palazzo degli Spiriti, a witness of the Roman coastal occupation. C. Photo of the external part of Rosebery Villa and the sea cliff on which it was built. D. Panoramic photo of Megaris Island and Castel dell’Ovo, constructed on its surface. The city of Naples is visible in the background.

Ascione, A., Aucelli, P. P. C., Cinque, A., Di Paola, G., Mattei, G., Ruello, M., Russo Ermolli, E., Santangelo, N., & Valente, E. (2020). Geomorphology of Naples and the Campi Flegrei: Human and natural landscapes in a restless land. Journal of Maps, https://doi.org/10.1080/17445647.2020.1768448

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mattei, G., Caporizzo, C., Corrado, G., Vacchi, M., Stocchi, P., Pappone, G., Schiattarella, M., & Aucelli, P. P. C. (2022). On the influence of vertical ground movements on Late-Quaternary sea-level records. A comprehensive assessment along the mid- Tyrrhenian coast of Italy (Mediterranean Sea). Quaternary Science Reviews, 279, 107384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2022.107384

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aucelli, P. P. C., Mattei, G., Caporizzo, C., Cinque, A., Amato, L., Stefanile, M., & Pappone, G. (2021). Multi-proxy analysis of relative sea-level and paleoshoreline changes during the last 2300 years in the Campi Flegrei caldera, Southern Italy. Quaternary International, 602, 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.03.039

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aucelli, P. P. C., Mattei, G., Caporizzo, C., Cinque, A., Troisi, S., Peluso, F., Stefanile, M., & Pappone, G. (2020). Ancient Coastal changes due to ground movements and human interventions in the Roman Portus Julius (Pozzuoli Gulf, Italy): Results from photogrammetric and direct surveys. Water, 12, 658. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12030658

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mattei, G., Troisi, S., Aucelli, P. P. C., Pappone, G., Peluso, F., & Stefanile, M. (2018b). Sensing the submerged landscape of Nisida Roman Harbour in the Gulf of Naples from integrated measurements on a USV. Water, 10(11), 1686. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111686

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aucelli, P. P. C., Cinque, A., Mattei, G., Pappone, G., & Rizzo, A. (2019). Studying relative sea level change and correlative adaptation of coastal structures on submerged Roman time ruins nearby Naples (southern Italy). Quaternary International, 501, 328–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.10.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Aucelli, P. P. C., Cinque, A., Mattei, G., Pappone, G., & Stefanile, M. (2018). Coastal landscape evolution of Naples (Southern Italy) since the Roman period from archaeological and geomorphological data at Palazzo degli Spiriti site. Quaternary International, 483, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2017.12.040

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pappone, G., Aucelli, P. P. C., Mattei, G., Peluso, F., Stefanile, M., & Carola, A. (2019). A detailed reconstruction of the Roman landscape and the submerged archaeological structure at “Castel dell’Ovo islet” (Naples, Southern Italy). Geosciences, 9(4), 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/geosciences9040170

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

Data available within the article or its supplementary materials.