CAPPADOCIA, AN UNDERGROUND DISRICT

7/27/2019 CAPPADOCIA, AN UNDERGROUND DISRICT

1/27

1 . U l u s l a r a r a s N e v e h i r T a r i h v e K l t r S e m p o z y u m u 5

ZET

Bu tarihi blgeye dalm olan yeraltnda kayaya oyulmu ve okeitlilie sahip yaplarn saptanmas, aratrlmas ve belgelenmesiamac ile Genova (talya)da yer alan Centro Studi Sotterranei (Yeral-t Aratrmalar Merkezi) tarafndan Kapadokyada 1991den 2000ylna kadar almalar yaplmtr. Bu alma kapsamnda tipolojikbir snflandrma ngrlm ve seilmi baz yerleimlerde kentselanalizler yaplmtr.

ncelemeler; aralarnda Erciyes Da, 3.916 m, Hasan Da, 3.268

m gibi 19 byk volkanik etmen ve yzlerce kk monogenetikvolkanik merkezin oluturduu volkanik kaya yapsnda olan yakla-k 25.000 kmlik bir alanda gerekletirilmitir. Bunlar, birka yzmetre kalnlnda salam bir tortu katman oluturmu ve snrlan-drlm birka noktada tarihncesi insanlar tarafndan kullanlanmaaralarn bulunduu kireta yata ortaya kmtr.

Blgedeki geni alana yaylm tfs tortularn en nemli zelliiyumuak olmasdr ve bu nedene bal olarak meteorolojik etkenler(erozyon, deflasyon, korozyon, kriyojenik hareket) tarafndan olduk-

a karakteristik biimlerde (kanyonlar, tanktepeler, falezler, dereler,tepeler) olumulardr. klim koullar ve tarihsel olaylarn etkisiyle,insanlar; evrenin litolojik ve morfolojik zelliklerinden yararlanarakyzyllar boyunca bu kayalarn ilerine farkl tiplerde odalar oymu-lar, bir negatif mimari (yeralt konutlar, alma alanlar, kiliseler,mezarlar, snaklar, hidrolik tneller) gelitirmilerdir.

KAPADOKYA, BR YERALTI YERLEM BLGES

CAPPADOCIA, AN UNDERGROUND DISRICT

Roberto BIXIO* - Vittoria CALIO** - Andrea DE PASCALE***

* Centro Studi Sotterranei - Via Avio 6/7 - 16151 Genova (Italy), e-posta:[email protected]** CRS Egeria - Roma - [email protected]*** Museo Archeologico del Finale, Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri sez. Finalese,

e-posta:[email protected]


2/27

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

6 1 . U l u s l a r a r a s N e v e h i r T a r i h v e K l t r S e m p o z y u m u

Yapm olduumuz aratrmalar, Kapadokyann yeralt blge-

sinin zelliklerini farkl alardan belirlememize olanak salam-tr. Bunlarn ilki, btn blgedeki yeralt yerleimlerinin corafi vealtimetrik dalmdr. Ardndan, antropik oyuklar (kaya ve yeraltoyuklar) doal maaralardan ayrmak amacyla, tipolojik adaneitlilikleri ele alnmtr. Ayrca yerlat mimarilerinin biimlerinde-ki dnmleri gsteren ara rnekler belirlenerek tanmlanmtr(avlu yerleimler ve atropik mdahalelere uram maaralar). Aynzamanda, eitli hipojelerin kullanm amalarndaki farkllklar gznne alnm; gerek sava snaklar ad altnda toplanabilecekbelirli yeralt yerleimlerinin, savunma amal dzenlemelerindeki

neden ve teknikler zerinde zel olarak durulmutur. Son olarak;derin erozyon vadilerinde tarma olanak salayan ve suyun tutulma-s, aktlmas ve tanmas amacyla oluturulmu ve gnmzde deilevini srdren su sistemleri aratrlarak tespit edilmitir.

Yeralt yerleimlerinin tarihlendirilmelerine ilikin tarihsel kaynaklarve arkeolojik bulgularn eksiklii dikkatimizi ekmektedir. Bunun-la birlikte; sz konusu yeralt yerleimlerinin kken ve geliimleri-ne ynelik olarak, farkl uygarlklarn (Hititler, Romallar, Bizansllar,Araplar, Seluklular) yzyllar boyunca birbirinin ardndan bu bl-geye yerletikleri gz nnde bulundurularak, tarafmzdan baz

hipotezler ortaya konulmutur. Bu balamda; Nevehir ArkeolojiMzesinden Halis Yenipnar ve Murat Glyazn da katklar ile, ve-riler, bir maarada bulduumuz arkeolojik kalntlar ve CatherineJolivet tarafndan kaya kiliselerdeki resim programlar zerine yap-lan nemli analizler ile karlatrlmtr.

On yl sren bu alma sonucunda elde ettiimiz verilerden yolakarak bir Kapadokya yeralt yerleimleri haritas ve alt blge-ye ayrlm 183 yerleimi gsteren bir liste ortaya koymu bulun-maktayz: Aksaray (59 yerleim); Kayseri (24 yerleim); Krehir (3yerleim); Nevehir (71 yerleim); Nide (22 yerleim); Yozgat (4

yerleim). leride yaplacak aratrmalarn bu listeyi daha da geni-leteceinden kuku duymuyoruz. Aslnda burada, Jolivetin kayakiliselerin saysnn 600den fazla fazla olduunu tahmin ettiini veCentro Studi Sotterraneinin bunlar aratrmalarn zellikle dndatuttuuunu belirtmek gerekmektedir. Bunu yapmamzdaki ama,almamzda, ayn neme sahip olan, fakat daha az bilinen yer-leimlere arlk vererek Kapadokyann kltrel ve doal mirasnndaha iyi anlalmasn salamaktr.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Yeralt ve Kaya Yerleimler, Tipoloji, KentselAnalizler


3/27

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi


ABSTRACT

From 1991 to 2000 the Centro Studi Sotterranei (Centre for Un-derground Studies), located in Genoa (Italy), performed every yearresearch campaigns in Cappadocia, with the aim of locating, exp-loring and documenting a large sample of underground and rockystructures scattered in this historical district. A typological classifica-tion has been proposed and an urbanistic analysis of some selectedunderground settlements has been performed.

The investigations developed in an area of about 25.000 sq. km,made-up mainly by rocks of volcanic origin produced by 19 great

volcanic apparatus, among which the Erciyes da, 3.916 m, andthe Hasan da, 3.268 m, and by hundreds of smaller monogeneticvolcanic centres. They originated a powerful deposit, few hundredmeters thick, from which, in few circumscribed points, the limes-tone bedrock emerges; here natural caves used by prehistoric menhave been found.

The most relevant feature of the district is given by the extendedtufaceous deposits that, thanks to their softness, have been deeplymodelled by meteorological agents (erosion, deflation, corrosion,

cryogenic action) in very characteristic shapes (canyons, buttes,cliffs, calanques, pinnacles). Inside these rocks man has dug, du-ring the centuries, rooms of several types, developing a negativearchitecture (underground dwellings, working spaces, churches,burials, shelters, hydraulic tunnels), exploiting the lithological andmorphological characteristics of the environment, pressed by clima-tic conditions or historical events.

The surveys allowed us to outline the features of the undergrounddistrict of Cappadocia according to different aspects. First, fromthe point of view of the geographic and altimetric distribution ofthe underground settlements all over the territory. Then, accordingto their typological variety, to distinguish anthropic cavities (rockyand underground cavities) from natural caves. Also, intermediatespecimens representing transition forms of underground architec-tures have been identified and described (courtyard settlementsand caves with anthropic interventions). At the same time, we tookinto account the differences in the destination of use observed inthe various hypogea; special attention has been given to the rea-sons and the techniques of the defensive organization of some par-ticular underground settlements that can be classified as real war-


4/27



shelters. Finally, we have studied and described the ancient hydric

systems of catching, draining and carrying water, still in function atpresent, to allow an agricultural use of deep erosion valleys.

With regard to the dating, we noted a shortage of historical sour-ces and archaeological evidence concerning underground settle-ments. Nevertheless, we proposed some hypotheses about theirorigin and development, which take into account the successionalong the centuries and the overlap on the territory of differentcivilizations (Hittites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabians, Seljucks), com-paring the data with the archaeological remains we found out in

one cave, in collaboration with Halis Yenipnar and Murat Glyazof the Archaeological Museum of Nevehir, and with the valuableanalysis of the painting cycles of the rocky churches elaborated byCatherine Jolivet.

Thanks to the data collected in ten years of activity we implementeda map of the underground sites of Cappadocia and a list of 183settlements, divided in six districts: Aksaray (59 sites); Kayseri (24sites); Krehir (3 sites); Nevehir (71 sites); Nide (22 sites); Yozgat(4 sites). We are sure that further investigations may substantiallyincrease this list. In fact, let us only mention the rocky churches that

Jolivet estimates to be more than six hundred, and that have beendeliberately excluded from the researches by Centro Studi Sotterra-nei, since we intended to devote more attention to less documen-ted, but equally crucial sites for a comprehensive understanding ofthe cultural and landscape heritage of Cappadocia.

Key Words: Underground and Rocky Structures, Typological Clas-sification, Urbanistic Analysis

1. Introduction

Cappadocia, in central Turkey (Figs. 1, 2), is one of the most interestingdistrict in a land, the ancient Anatolia, full of historical and artistic testi-monies since the Palaeolithic (Esin, 2000). In the 1990s years of the pastcentury the Centro Studi Sotterranei (Centre for Underground Studies),located in Genoa (Italy), has been performing research campaigns in theregion, riddled with underground and rocky structures of extreme inter-est, largely unknown both to scholars and to the public.

During our pluriannual activity in Cappadocia, started in 1991, we tendedto exclude from our investigations hypogea like rocky churches, whichwere already largely well documented: as a matter of fact, Jolivet (Jolivet-


5/27




6/27



Levy, 1997, p.6) estimates them to be more than six hundred, often of

very high artistic quality. We preferred to concentrate on the less docu-mented hypogea, equally crucial for a comprehensive understanding of


7/27



the cultural and landscape heritage of Cappadocia. Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,

10, 11, 12, 13, 14 show the map of the 183 underground sites that havebeen identified and explored in large part. We divided them in six dis-tricts, named after their main towns: Aksaray (59 sites), Kayseri (24 sites),Krehir (3 sites) Nevheir (71 sites), Nide (22 sites), Yozgat (4 sites). Wepoint out we are conscious we have located only a part of the huge ru-pestrian heritage of Cappadocia that, we believe, it might be wider thanthe double, not considering each single rocky church.

Our aim was to locate, explore and document a substantial sample ofthese structures, in order to achieve an overview of their main character-istics. The main result of our investigations is a typological classificationof the structures, together with an urbanistic analysis of some selectedunderground settlements. A large corpus of photographic documenta-tion on historical sites, landscapes and present every day life accompaniesour study.

2. The Investigated Area And The Surveys

We covered an area of about 25.000 km2, at a height between 1.000and 1.500 m on sea level, mostly at about 1.200 m. The area is made-up

mainly by rocks of volcanic origin produced by 19 great volcanic appara-tus, among which the Erciyes da, 3.916 m, and the Hasan da, 3.268m, and by hundreds of smaller monogenic volcanic centres (Fig. 22). Theyoriginated a powerful deposit, few hundred meters thick, from which,in few circumscribed points, the limestone bedrock emerges; here natu-ral caves used by prehistoric men have been found (Managlia, Pagano,1992, p. 101). The most relevant feature of the district is given by theextended tufaceous deposits that, thanks to their softness, have beendeeply modelled by meteorological agents (erosion, deflation, corrosion,

cryogenic action) in very characteristic shapes (canyons, buttes, cliffs, ca-lanques, pinnacles). Inside these rocks man has dug, during the centu-ries, rooms of several types, developing a negative architecture (under-ground dwellings, working spaces, churches, burials, shelters, hydraulictunnels), exploiting the lithological and morphological characteristics ofthe environment, pressed by climatic conditions or historical events.

The surveys allowed us to outline the features of the underground dis-trict of Cappadocia from different points of view. First, from the pointof view of the geographic and altimetric distribution of the undergroundsettlements all over the territory. Then, according to their typological va-


8/27




9/27



riety, to distinguish anthropic cavities (rocky and underground cavities)

from natural caves. Also, intermediate specimens representing transitionforms of underground architectures have been identified and described(courtyard settlements and natural caves with anthropic interventions). Atthe same time, we took into account the differences in the destinationof use observed in the various hypogea; special attention has been givento the reasons and the techniques of the defensive organization of someparticular underground settlements, that can be classified as real war-shelters. Finally, we have studied and described the ancient hydric systemsof tapping, draining and carrying water, still in function at present, to al-

low an agricultural use of deep erosion valleys.3. Tipology Of The Settlements

In Cappadocia we can distinguish three category of underground spaces:

- Natural caves, developed by natural events, sometime with anthropicremains.

- Anthropized caves, that is natural caves partly modified by men. We canconsider this type of caves like a transition to artificial cavities.

- Anthropic cavities, that is artificial cavities fully excavated by men in theliving rock.

Natural caves are located in carbonates rocks. Enormous and only partiallyexplored karstic systems are inside the Ala Dalari, the limestone mountainssouth-east of Nide, just on the limit of the region. But small caves havebeen found also in small calcareous rocks, scattered in the heart of Cappa-docia, outcropping from the tufaceous deposits. The more important oneis the cave of Civelek, north of Glehir, where Centro Studi Sotterraneifound out prehistoric pottery remains, now in the museum of Nevehir.

In Cappadocia we know only one antropized cave. It is located in the vil-lage of Deirmenli, 20 km north-east of Nide, in the limestone depositsbordering on tufaceous territory. It is matter of a fully natural cave insidewhich there are some dry-stone built enclosures and, above all, thereare defensive devices, exactly the same as the ones defending the artifi-cial underground shelter (millstone doors, with slabs and pilasters) in thenorthern territory. We can consider this cave as an example of minimumhuman intervention .

Artificial cavities are, doubtless, the more developed and widespread cat-


10/27




11/27



egory. It concerns simple spaces (tombs, water-tanks, pigeon houses), or

more complicated artefacts (churches, monasteries, dwellings); but thecavities may reach the complexity of large villages in rocky walls, or de-velop the extraordinary labyrinths of underground shelters and towns,either horizontal or on various levels, down until 50 m below groundlevel, or hydric systems.

It is convenient to distinguish between rocky structures and undergroundstructures. The former ones are made up by rooms dug in the portion ofrock close to the exterior and above ground level, and are found on thewalls of canyons, buttes, pinnacles (rocky cones). The latter ones pen-

etrate deeply into the rock, either directly under ground level, or into abutte or a hillside.

3.1 Rocky Structures

Cone dwellings/villages.

Erosion has shaped the soft volcanic deposits in a large variety of shapes,among which very remarkable are the rocky cones locally known as peribacalar or fairy chimneys. Many of these have been dug to obtainhermitages, dwellings, stores. The various cone structures are connected

through an external net of roads (Greme).Cliff (or wall) dwellings/villages (Fig. 17).

They consist mostly of dwellings dug into cliffs overhanging the valleys.The rooms inside communicate each other through horizontal tunnels orvertical shafts, and may be arranged on more than one level; rooms onthe external surface of cliffs may have small windows. The roads developoutside the settlements, and lead to the cultivated areas (Tatlarin, Acgl,Zelve). Sometimes the collapse of large portions of the soft tuff allows tohave a look at the interior of the settlements, as to form an architectural

cross section.Rocky Castle-villages.These settlements are similar to the wall villages, but with a special loca-tion. They are dug inside big rocky towers (Ortahisar, Uhisar), on overly-ing levels up to the top. Possibly, they were initially defensive structures.

Rocky Courtyard settlements.They are a particular form of rocky structure that we might consider asan intermediate model between the rupestrian and the underground set-tlements.


12/27




13/27



In the most common case, the settlements of this type are arranged

around a space bound on three sides by rocky walls, forming a naturalor partially dug enclosure inside a hill slope or cliff, open on the fourthside toward the valley (Bixio, 2002). They are often of religious charac-ters (churches, monasteries) as - just to name a few - the case of Hal-la Manastr in Ortahisar, Aynal Kilise in Greme, the several courtyardcomplexes known as Ak Saray near Glehir (Rodley, 2010, pp. 11-150)and those of anl Kilise in the district of Aksaray (Ousterhout, 2005, pp.79-114, 141-155), even though he believes most of them are civil andnot ecclesiastic settlements. Less common are the settlements excavated

around a courtyard enclosed on all the four sides, like a large shaft, ob-tained digging in the open from the flat top of a cliff, and going downvertically; a tunnel leads to the outside. We can recall Eski Gm nearNide (Bixio, 2002, p. 203; Rodley, 2010, pp. 103-118), Dulkadirli Inlimu-rat (Karyaka), in Krehir district (Bixio, 2002, pp. 201-202) and severalcases in Gllkkaya and Yaprakhisar, near Selime at the northern openingof the Peristrema/Ihlara valley (Kalas, 2005; 2006).

Rocky monasteries.Likely the most frequent structures in the region are the rocky settle-ments of religious character, covering a long period, from the fifth tothe thirteenth century, some of which remained in use till the sixteenthcentury (Jolivet-Levy, 1991). They are found inside the pinnacles, on thewalls of natural amphitheatres, or under ground level (De Jerphanion,1925-1942; Thierry, 1971; 1981; Jolivet-Levy, 1991; 2001). Let us remindthat, anyway, one finds also masonry churches built on the ground (De-rinkuyu, Viranehir, and so on). Generally, these settlements consist ofchurches (see later) and of facilities related to cenobitic life (kitchen, re-fectory, library, monastic cells, pilgrim accommodations). Burials may be

found in separated chambers or in graves dug under the pavement ofunderground rooms. Sometimes the monasteries are provided with in-terior areas protected by defensive devices (underground shelters, seelater), as many other underground settlements. The overall organizationof rocky monasteries offers a large variety of forms: most of them are ofrocky courtyard type.

Rocky churches.Churches and chapels may be found both in monasteries and isolated.They are often associated with cliff villages, underground shelters, under-


14/27



ground towns. The typical architectonic elements of masonry churches

are present, but of course as pure ornament and not as structural ele-ments; they can be quite complex, with columns, naves, domes, narthex,iconostasis, and decorated with frescoes and bas-reliefs.

Rocky tombs.In Cappadocia there are different types of tombs, of various ages: mounds,masonry tombs, rocky tombs. Rupestrian tombs, that is excavated in solidrock, are, in turn, of three types: chamber tombs, that is room-like exca-vated in the wall of cliffs or boulders; graves, or hole-tombs, excavatedin the horizontal surface of rocky outcrops and on the top of cliffs; floor-graves, excavated under the trampling level inside rupestrian buildings,like churches, chapels, hermitages.

Rocky pigeon-lofts (dovecotes).The number of pigeon-lofts dug into the valley slopes is large indeed, tes-tifying the past importance of pigeons in local economy. These structures,of small dimension, are mostly found in the canyons, close to the cultivat-ed areas (Glyaz, 2000). They are positioned high up above ground level,and generally present great difficulties of access, to protect doves from

predatory animals. The pigeon-lofts consist of a series of small windows,often painted with geometric, animal and plant - rarely human - stylizedpatterns of various colours over a white background; the ornaments ondovecotes, sometimes as carpet motives, represent an interesting exam-ples of Turkish-Ottoman popular paintings of the 18th - 20th century, madewith colours derived from mineral (iron oxide) and vegetable resources;they have a side door to allow inspection, a door that can be reachedthrough impervious footpaths or by means of foot-holds dug on the sur-face of the overhanging walls. The inside of rocky pigeon-lofts is made

of one or more rooms, sometimes overlying each other, dug up to mansheight. On the inside walls there are rows of small niches where pigeonsnest. From information collected locally, it seems that the main purposeof pigeon breeding was not to get food, but to collect guano. Given thedifficulty of reaching the pigeon-lofts, the doves manure (guano) wascollected only once or twice each year. Apparently, pigeon breeding cameto an end with the introduction of chemical fertilizers. Most of the Cap-padocian dovecotes are to be found in the valley around hisar andOrtahisar, in Gvercinlik Valley or at valley nearby Nevehir, in Soanlvalley in the boarders of Kayseri, in zengi Valley near rgp, sometimes


15/27



in close proximity to churches and monasteries (Giovannini, 1971; Tuna,

Demirdurak, 2010, pp. 160-165). A particular type of underground dove-cotes dug in the rock are documented in the Kayseri area in Gesi town.Here dozens of large tower stone structures are the access to cavities eachof which accommodates hundreds of niches for dove nests (Imamolu etal., 2005; Amirkhani et al., 2010, pp. 48-50).

Rocky apiaries.The word apiary indicates an array of beehives. Only very recently theexistence of rocky apiaries has been recognized in Cappadocian valleys(Bixio et al. 2002; Bixio et al. 2004), in the area between rgp, hisar,Greme, Ortahisar and avuin (district of Nevehir), and in the valleyof hlara (district of Aksaray) and in the valley of Soanli (district of Kay-seri). Today are known more than 50 rocky apiaries, catalogued by GabyRoussel in 2006 and 2007 (ROUSSEL, 2006; 2008), each of them, despitehaving its own peculiarities, has general features (apiaries with room fullyexcavated into the rock), similar to the structures documented by CentroStudi Sotterranei in 2001 and 2003. The study of one of them, still in useeven if only partially, allowed to understand their functioning with somecertainty. As the rocky pigeon-lofts, they are generally, but not always, lo-

cated high up on rocky walls. From the outside, one sees vertical rows ofsmall holes (flight holes) and arrays of vertical slits, plus a small door. Fig-ure 21 shows the sketch of one of the most complex of the apiaries: onthe shelves, corresponding to the holes, the bees built their honeycombsdirectly, without others containers, while the compartments withoutshelves, corresponding to the slits, accommodated superimposed rows ofbaskets-shaped beehives. These latter ones, being movable, allowed tomove the beehives according to blooming. The bees entered the apiarythrough the holes and the slots. At least two of the apiaries - the bigger

ones - appear related to monastic settlements found in the neighbour-hood; others, smaller and simpler, were likely part of the economy of onesingle family.

3.2 Underground Settlements

As mentioned before, these are the structures dug directly under groundlevel or, sometimes, into a butte, a cliff or a hill slope, but extendingdeeply into the rock. They may develop on one level only or on overlyinglevels; in the latter case, all the entrances are found on the first level, theone close to the campaign level. The road network and all other facilities


16/27



are located underground, so that the various rooms are connected by

tunnels. A characteristic feature of underground settlements is given byspecial defensive devices, such as millstone-doors, which allowed toisolate and defend large sectors of the underground system. Accordingto their extension and destination, various types of underground struc-ture may be recognized: underground towns, shelters, monasteries andchurches, and the special case of underground hydraulic systems.

Underground shelters and underground towns.

At variance with the rocky structures described before, characteristic of

the environment of erosion valleys, these structures are generally locatedin open zones of the upland, where hiding places are not easily found.The first level may be dug directly under ground level (e.g., Derinkuyu) orinto low buttes rising over the ground (e.g., Filiktepe-Ovaren). Most ofthese structures are better defined as shelters rather than towns, a defini-tion deserved perhaps only by the extraordinary extension and complexityof the structures at Derinkuyu and Kaymakl.

Underground Shelters.

The underground shelter relative of Gstesin is adjacent to the village ofGstesin-Ovaren Ky, nearby Glehir, which lies close to the southernslopes of a modest butte (Castellani, 1995; 2002a). At ground level, vari-ous large hypogea are dug into the tuff, showing signs of use as store-houses and shelters for domestic animals. It is important to remind that inCappadocia winters are extremely rigid and summers are very hot, so theuse of rooms dug into the tuff appears well justified. But these hypogeashow the interesting features of narrow tunnels opening in the tuff, lead-ing towards the inside of the butte, and with the entrance always defend-

ed by one or more millstone-doors. The investigation of the undergroundsystem has shown the presence of a few independent sub-systems (Figs.15 and 18), each composed by an ensemble of rooms interconnected bytunnels, both defended by millstone-doors, as are defended by similardoors the openings on the outside. Various devices are implemented toreinforce the efficacy of the millstone-doors: right angles in the tunnels,sudden decrease in their height, etc. To be mentioned the presence ofwells that reach the water bed. The size of the whole hypogeum is muchsmaller than that of the so-called underground towns; the structure waslikely a temporary hiding place for a small group of humans and animals


17/27



during raids or transits of armies (Fig. 16).

The underground system at Filiktepe-Ovaren Ky (Glehir) appearsmuch larger and more complex than the one at Gstesin, with the puz-zling feature of not being apparently related to any local village (Castel-lani, Pani, 1995; Castellani, 2002b). The maps in Fig. 15 show the overallplan of the shelter, consisting of many sub-systems, as in the case ofFiliktepe. In each sub-system it is possible to distinguish an external layerof rooms, with many entrances, from which one enter a complex systemthat penetrates deeply into the butte. Many are the large rooms, some-times equipped to host domestic animals, sometimes with cavities on

the walls and on the floor that suggest their use as storage rooms; onefinds also many wells, and at least one of the sub-systems develops onmore than one level. The shelter develops beyond the limits of the butte,reaching the open fields. The millstone-doors are everywhere (at least 40of them) and present a variety of devices to face attacks from outsiders. Apossible interpretation of such a complex structure is that the communitylived in the more external rooms, stored food in the interior, and retiredinside the redoubt when peril appeared (Fig. 18).

Underground towns.By far the most complex and articulated among the underground settle-ments is the site of Derinkuyu. A complete investigation of this structureis not yet available, due to its size, depth, number of levels and inter-con-nections (Demir, 1990; Triolet, 1993; Bixio, 1996; Bixio, Castellani, 2002a;Okuyucu, 2007). A first feature appears evident: the site is composed bymany satellite system (Fig. 19). The best known of these systems is theone open to the public (Derinkuyu 1 in our notation), that develops ina sort of helicoids around a central shaft, intercepted various times ondifferent levels. By the way, the shaft gives the name to the complex (De-

rinkuyu = deep shaft). According to Demir (1990), it reached the waterbed, while now it is partially filled by the debris deriving from the worksof adaptation in the tourist section. Other three systems appear built in asimilar way around a central shaft (Fig. 19), but occlusions and destruc-tion prevent a safe conclusion. According to information collected locally,the various systems were connected each other through tunnels, nowpartially destroyed.

An organization of this type allows to move easily from one point tothe other, in case of conquest of a section by the enemy, as well as to


18/27


19/27



It is possible to follow the main collector from the valley head to its end,

for about 3.5 km. All along, one meets, inside the collector, the mouthsof many smaller tunnels that drain rainwater from the side valleys. Thewhole complex system gives an idea of the quality and the dimension ofthe impressive work performed by the population to rescue the valleys foragricultural purposes (Castellani, 2002c).

Tanks to some very impressive evidences of deepening of the original sec-tion of the tunnels, from 180 cm of height up to 4 metres, we note thaterosion must have been working for a very long time, suggesting quite an

old age for the system, perhaps Byzantine, perhaps older.As a concluding remark, we notice that the incentive for such a complexand hard work of water regulation likely came from the harsh winterclimate and scarcity of water in surface. The valleys, protected from thewinds and supplied of water through tunnels tapping the water table,allowed a flourishing agriculture, otherwise impossible, probably since avery long time.

4. Defensive Devices

A characteristic feature of (almost) all the underground settlements in Cap-padocia are the massive stone doors placed as defensive devices both atthe entrances and at selected points in the interior, independently of thesize of the structure (Bixio, Castellani, 2002b). The most common device isthe mill-stone door, found from the south border (Eski Gm, Nide) tothe north, in the province of Krehir. The largest shelters (Derinkuyu, Filik-tepe) have mill-stone doors strategically distributed in the whole system,but also modest systems composed by few rooms exhibit one or more ofthese devices. This occurrence confirms that underground settlements and

stone doors are part of a cultural and technical inheritance common to allthe population of the Cappadocia region (Triolet, Triolet, 2002).

The door consists of a stone cylinder, with a diameter (100 to 160 cm)about six times the thickness (20 to 30 cm). Once placed vertically, it canbe rolled on the floor as a wheel, to block an entrance. Their names de-rives from their resemblance to mill-stones. These doors appear, in a lotof cases, cut into a material substantially harder than the room wherethey are placed. So, the builders of the underground structures had tolook for a suitable quarry for their doors and had to carry them inside


20/27



many underground systems, showing how important were these devices

for the safety of the shelters. At the same time, the good matching ofthe door diameter and the size of the tunnels suggests again that thewhole enterprise of building an underground structure was the result ofaccurate planning.

The handling of the millstone-doors required the space necessary to rollthe doors in a safe position, that is, such to avoid an easy overturning. Tothis purpose, the stone doors, once closed, have to be blocked. This canbe achieved in various ways, the most common ones being by means ofsockets in the walls and pillars and/or slabs. The millstone-doors are gener-ally located either along a tunnel or where a tunnel enters in a larger room.

With few exceptions, the millstone-doors have a central hole with a di-ameter between 10 and 20 cm, on the average. This hole allowed thedefenders to keep under control the tunnel and to repel the besiegersby means of arrows and spears. A few millstone-doors have been foundwithout the hole: in this case there are other defence devices, like smallholes in the ceiling to allow the defender to stab easily the enemy as soonas he approached the millstone-door. In other cases, the absence of the

hole seems to imply a situation of imminent danger and lack of time tocomplete the defensive works.

Other closing systems may be found, such as shield-doors - stone slabsinlaid in frames along a tunnel or on top of shafts - and wood doors.

5. Dating The Underground Structures

The long history of human presence in Cappadocia goes back to Low-er and Middle Palaeolithic Age, with assemblages in good context inKaletepe Deresi 3 (Slimak et al. 2004; 2008), a few kilometers on the

eastern slopes of Gll Da in Nide district, the longest open-air Palaeo-lithic sequence excavated in Turkey, as well as the first in situ Acheuleanindustry documented in Anatolia with a succession of deposits includingmicrotephra from multiple eruptions, the lowermost of which likely dat-ing to the Lower Pleistocene (780.000 years ago) (Tryon et al. 2009).

Cappadocia also retain important findings of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic pe-riod with Akl Hyk (Aksaray), a densely clustered settlement type withintramural burials and many burial gifts (Esin, Harmankaya, 1999; 2007).Furthermore are well documented Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age


21/27


22/27



result equally fragile. Similarly, the possibility of relations with Phrygians

and Assyrians rests on uncertain interpretations of a document on thewar among the two powers (Urban, 1986).

Among ancient documents, the Anabasis by Xenophon (around 400B.P.E.) gives important information on underground structures, even ifnot directly related to Cappadocia settlements. The Greek historian de-scribes underground dwellings in Anatolia which, from a reconstructionof the march of the 10.000 Greek warriors back to their homeland, ap-pear located in Armenia (Urban 1973b), we think near the ancient Ani

or modern Kars. These dwellings are described as having an entrance onthe soil that looks like a shaft, but with wide rooms inside; men enter bymeans of ladders, animals through special passages; water and variouscereals are stored in appropriate containers. From the text, the dwellingsappear as permanent and not as temporary shelters. Let us remind thatnear Ani are present still today numerous structures dug into the rocks,even if not of the type described by Xenophon. Before, on their trip to-wards Babilonia, the Greek army passed close to the southern border ofCappadocia but no reference is made to underground structures. A fact

to be stressed is that, when Xenophon meets with underground shelters,he recognizes and mention them (in the country of the Taochi and of theChalybes or Chaldoi, tribes of proto-Georgians).

The important point to be inferred from this document is that the tech-nique of digging underground or rocky dwellings was well established in400 B.P.E. in a region, Armenia, next to Cappadocia, with similar geologicand climatic conditions. Perhaps it is not too bold to assume this date asa plausible term ante quem for the most ancient underground Cappado-cian systems. Underground structures are mentioned by other Greek and

Roman authors. Varro (116 - 27 B.P.E.) reports of granaries, genericallydescribed as in underground cavities, existing in Cappadocia and Thrace(De re rustica, 1, I.57); the fact is mentioned also by Pliny the Elder (Natu-ralis Historia, III.18). Always Pliny, speaking of pigments, also refers ofthe red lands of Cappadocia, effusa e speluncis, that means extractedwithin the caves (Naturalis Historia, XXXV.13).

Oddly enough, Strabo (63 B.P.E. - 25 P.E.) gives an ample descriptionof Cappadocia, including volcanoes, salty lakes, underground rivers (Ge-ography, 12.2.3; 12.2.5; 12,2,7), but without any mention not only of


23/27



underground structures, but also ignoring the characteristic and often ex-

traordinary landscape of so many places in the region. On the other hand,it is also true that, of all the sites in the heart of Cappadocia, he mentionsonly the temple dedicated to Zeus near Venasa (Avanos), ignoring manyothers that, at his time, surely were of some importance (Malagobia-De-rinkuyu, Enegobi-Kaymakl, Zoropassos-Glehir, Topada- Acgl).

More accurate chronological information come from the studies per-formed by several specialists on paintings and plasters of the rockychurches of the region, which number is considered beyond 600 units

(Jolivet, 1997, p. 6). In particular Thierry and Jolivet think the more an-cient paintings in rocky churches date back to sixth and seventh centuryand go on the whole Byzantine time until the thirteenth century, i.e. be-yond the conquest of Cappadocia from the Seljuks, occurred at the endof eleventh century. It is an exception Ylanl kilise of Soanl which paint-ings date until sixteenth century (Thierry, 1971), therefore in full Ottomantime. We believe that in this long period the greater development of thestructures excavated in the rock happened, with special concentration,with regard to underground shelters, between eighth and tenth centu-

ries. During this period the Cappadocian region, even though remainingalways inside the Byzantine empire, was subject to continuous raids fromArabian bands with a cadence of two, three times in a year (Canard,1983) coming from the nearby Cilicia, that they tore away from Byzan-tines since the year 703.

During the second half of tenth century, Leo the Deacon write, with regardto the expedition of Nicephorus Phocas emperor against the Arabs: Nice-phrus [...] arrived in Cappadocia: [people of this region] were then calledtroglodytes because they went in holes, in clefts and in the labyrinths, as

well as in caves and in shelters (L. Diacre, quoted by Triolet, 1993).

In any case, leaving out of consideration the scarcity and vagueness ofspecific sources about the origin and evolution of the settlements exca-vated in the mountains, it is evident that: Cappadocia has been seat of acomposite rocky civilization, that had not comparison in the Mediterraneanbasin, today testified by the presence in the region of a huge number ofunderground structures, differentiate in types and widely scattered on theterritory, such as to represent a phenomenon sole in the world for size, withrelevant historical and urbanistic interest. (Bixio, De Pascale, 2009, p. 133).


24/27



Bibliography

Akyrek E., 2000, Fourth to Eleventh Centuries, in Szen M. (ed.), Cappado-cia, Istanbul, Ayhan ahenk Foundation, pp. 227-395.

Amirkhani A., Okhovat H., Zamani E., 2010, Ancient pigeon houses: remark-able example of the Asian culture crystallized in the architecture of Iranand central Anatolia, in Asian Culture and History, Vol.2, n.2, Toronto,Canadian Center of Science and Education, pp. 45-57.

Bixio R., 2002, Gli insediamenti a corte. Un modello di passaggio, in BixioR., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotterranee,Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 191-206.

Bixio R., Castellani V., 2002a, Derinkuyu, una citt nel sottosuolo, in BixioR., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotterranee,Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 243-252.

Bixio R., Castellani V., 2002b, Dispositivi di difesa nei sotterranei cappadoci,in Bixio R., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotter-ranee, Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 265-278.

Bixio et al., 2002 = Bixio R., Dal Cin F., Traverso M., 2002, Cappadocia: un api-ario rupestre, in Opera Ipogea, 2/2002, Bologna, Societ SpeleologicaItaliana, pp. 17-28.

Bixio et al., 2004 = Bixio R., Bologna G., Traverso M., 2004, Cappadocia 2003.

Gli apiari rupestri dellAltopiano Centrale Anatolico (Turchia), in OperaIpogea,1/2004, Bologna, Societ Speleologica Italiana, pp. 3-18.

Bixio R., De Pascale A., 2009, Archeologia delle cavit artificiali: le ricerche delCentro Studi Sotterranei di Genova in Turchia, inArcheologia Medievale,XXXVI, Allinsegna del Giglio, Firenze, pp. 129/154.

Canard M., 1983, Bisanzio e il mondo musulmano alla met dellXI secolo,in Storia del Mondo Medievale, vol. II, Lespansione Islamica e la nascitadellEuropa feudale (Gwatkin et al. editors), Garzanti Editore, Milano, pp.273/311.

Castellani V., 1995, Human underground settlements in Cappadocia: a topo-

logical investigation of the redoubt system of Gstesin (NE 20), in Ber-tucci G., Bixio R., Traverso M. (eds.), Le citt sotterranee della Cappadocia,Genova, Erga edizioni, pp. 41-52.

Castellani V., 1999, Civilt dellAcqua, Roma, System Graphic Ed.

Castellani V., 2002a, Il sistema di rifugi di Gstesin, in Bixio R., Castellani V.,Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotterranee, Roma, Istituto Pol-igrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 209-224.

Castellani V., 2002b, Filiktepe: una fortezza sotterranea, in Bixio R., CastellaniV., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotterranee, Roma, IstitutoPoligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 225-242.


25/27


26/27



Glyaz M.E., 2010, Cappadocia. Patrimonio mondiale, Istanbul, Digital Dnyas.

Imamolu V., Korumaz M., Imamolu ., 2005, A fantasy in Central Anatolianarchitectural heritage: dove cotes and towers in Kayseri, in Middle EastTechnical University Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol.22-2, An-kara, METU Publications, pp. 79-90.

Jerfanion = see De Jerfanion

Jolivet-Lvy C., 1991, Les glises byzantines de Cappadoce, Paris, dition CNRS.

Jolivet-Lvy C., 1997, La Cappadoce, memoire de Byzance, Paris, dition CNRS.

Jolivet-Lvy C., 2001, La Cappadoce mdivale, Saint-Lger-Vauban, Zodiaque.

Kalas V., 2005, The 2003 Survey at Selime-Yaprakhisar in the Peristrema Valley,Cappadocia, in 22. Aratrma Sonular Toplants, vol.2, Ankara, Kltrve Turizm Bakanl, pp. 59-70.

Kalas V., 2006, The 2004 Survey of the Byzantine Settlement at Selime-Yapra-khisar in the Peristrema Valley, Cappadocia, in 23. Aratrma SonularToplants, vol.1, Ankara, Kltr ve Turizm Bakanl, pp. 253-266.

L. Diacre (Leonis Diaconis), Patrologiae Cursius Migne, tome 117.

Managlia R., Pagano A., 1992, Una grotta tra i vulcani, in Speleologia, 27,Bologna, Societ Speleologica Italiana, pp. 100-101.

Okuyucu D., 2007, Derinkuyu Yeralt ehri (Derinkuyu Underground City), Mas-

ter Thesis, Atatrk niversitesi - Erzurum, Sosyal Bilimler Enstits, SanatTarihi Anabilim Dal, Erzurum.

Ousterhout R., 2005,A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia, Washington D.C.,Dumbarton Oaks.

Roussel G., 2006, Dcouverte de vieux ruchers en Cappadoce, in CahiersdApistoria n5 A, pp. 39-46.

Roussel G., 2008, Ruchers de Turquie, in Cahiers dApistoria n 7 A, pp. 37-44.

Slimak L., Roche H., Mouralis D., Buitenhuis H., Balkan-Atl N., Binder D., Ku-zucuolu K., Grenet M., 2004, Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turquie). Aspects ar-

chologiques, chronologiques et palontologiques dune squence Plis-tocne en Anatolie centrale, in Comptes Rendus Palevol de lAcademiedes Sciences de Paris, 3, pp. 411-420.

Slimak L., Kuhn S., Roche H., Mouralis D., Buitenhuis H., Balkan-Atl N., BinderN., Kuzucuolu C., Guillou H., 2008, Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turkey): archaeo-logical evidence for early human settlement in Central Anatolia, inJour-nal of Human Evolution, 54(1), pp. 99-111.

Tekin O., 2000, The Kingdom of Cappadocia during the Hellenistic and RomanTimes, in Szen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan ahenk Founda-tion, pp. 195-227.


27/27

Documents

CAPPADOCIA, AN UNDERGROUND DISRICT