KAPADOKYA, BR YERALTI YERLEM BLGES CAPPADOCIA, AN UNDERGROUND DISRICT Roberto BIXIO* - Vittoria CALIO** - Andrea DE PASCALE***

ZET Bu tarihi blgeye dalm olan yeraltnda kayaya oyulmu ve ok eitlilie sahip yaplarn saptanmas, aratrlmas ve belgelenmesi amac ile Genova (talya)da yer alan Centro Studi Sotterranei (Yeralt Aratrmalar Merkezi) tarafndan Kapadokyada 1991den 2000 ylna kadar almalar yaplmtr. Bu alma kapsamnda tipolojik bir snflandrma ngrlm ve seilmi baz yerleimlerde kentsel analizler yaplmtr. ncelemeler; aralarnda Erciyes Da, 3.916 m, Hasan Da, 3.268 m gibi 19 byk volkanik etmen ve yzlerce kk monogenetik volkanik merkezin oluturduu volkanik kaya yapsnda olan yaklak 25.000 kmlik bir alanda gerekletirilmitir. Bunlar, birka yz metre kalnlnda salam bir tortu katman oluturmu ve snrlandrlm birka noktada tarihncesi insanlar tarafndan kullanlan maaralarn bulunduu kireta yata ortaya kmtr. Blgedeki geni alana yaylm tfs tortularn en nemli zellii yumuak olmasdr ve bu nedene bal olarak meteorolojik etkenler (erozyon, deflasyon, korozyon, kriyojenik hareket) tarafndan olduka karakteristik biimlerde (kanyonlar, tanktepeler, falezler, dereler, tepeler) olumulardr. klim koullar ve tarihsel olaylarn etkisiyle, insanlar; evrenin litolojik ve morfolojik zelliklerinden yararlanarak yzyllar boyunca bu kayalarn ilerine farkl tiplerde odalar oymular, bir negatif mimari (yeralt konutlar, alma alanlar, kiliseler, mezarlar, snaklar, hidrolik tneller) gelitirmilerdir.
* Centro Studi Sotterranei - Via Avio 6/7 - 16151 Genova (Italy), e-posta:roberto_bixio@yahoo.it ** CRS Egeria - Roma - vittoria.caloi@iasf-roma.inaf.it *** Museo Archeologico del Finale, Istituto Internazionale di Studi Liguri sez. Finalese, e-posta:depascale@museoarcheofinale.it

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

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

Yapm olduumuz aratrmalar, Kapadokyann yeralt blgesinin zelliklerini farkl alardan belirlememize olanak salamtr. Bunlarn ilki, btn blgedeki yeralt yerleimlerinin corafi ve altimetrik dalmdr. Ardndan, antropik oyuklar (kaya ve yeralt oyuklar) doal maaralardan ayrmak amacyla, tipolojik adan eitlilikleri ele alnmtr. Ayrca yerlat mimarilerinin biimlerindeki dnmleri gsteren ara rnekler belirlenerek tanmlanmtr (avlu yerleimler ve atropik mdahalelere uram maaralar). Ayn zamanda, eitli hipojelerin kullanm amalarndaki farkllklar gz nne alnm; gerek sava snaklar ad altnda toplanabilecek belirli yeralt yerleimlerinin, savunma amal dzenlemelerindeki neden ve teknikler zerinde zel olarak durulmutur. Son olarak; derin erozyon vadilerinde tarma olanak salayan ve suyun tutulmas, aktlmas ve tanmas amacyla oluturulmu ve gnmzde de ilevini srdren su sistemleri aratrlarak tespit edilmitir. Yeralt yerleimlerinin tarihlendirilmelerine ilikin tarihsel kaynaklar ve arkeolojik bulgularn eksiklii dikkatimizi ekmektedir. Bununla birlikte; sz konusu yeralt yerleimlerinin kken ve geliimlerine ynelik olarak, farkl uygarlklarn (Hititler, Romallar, Bizansllar, Araplar, Seluklular) yzyllar boyunca birbirinin ardndan bu blgeye yerletikleri gz nnde bulundurularak, tarafmzdan baz hipotezler ortaya konulmutur. Bu balamda; Nevehir Arkeoloji Mzesinden Halis Yenipnar ve Murat Glyazn da katklar ile, veriler, bir maarada bulduumuz arkeolojik kalntlar ve Catherine Jolivet tarafndan kaya kiliselerdeki resim programlar zerine yaplan nemli analizler ile karlatrlmtr. On yl sren bu alma sonucunda elde ettiimiz verilerden yola karak bir Kapadokya yeralt yerleimleri haritas ve alt blgeye ayrlm 183 yerleimi gsteren bir liste ortaya koymu bulunmaktayz: Aksaray (59 yerleim); Kayseri (24 yerleim); Krehir (3 yerleim); Nevehir (71 yerleim); Nide (22 yerleim); Yozgat (4 yerleim). leride yaplacak aratrmalarn bu listeyi daha da genileteceinden kuku duymuyoruz. Aslnda burada, Jolivetin kaya kiliselerin saysnn 600den fazla fazla olduunu tahmin ettiini ve Centro Studi Sotterraneinin bunlar aratrmalarn zellikle dnda tuttuuunu belirtmek gerekmektedir. Bunu yapmamzdaki ama, almamzda, ayn neme sahip olan, fakat daha az bilinen yerleimlere arlk vererek Kapadokyann kltrel ve doal mirasnn daha iyi anlalmasn salamaktr. Anahtar Kelimeler: Yeralt ve Kaya Yerleimler, Tipoloji, Kentsel Analizler

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

ABSTRACT From 1991 to 2000 the Centro Studi Sotterranei (Centre for Underground Studies), located in Genoa (Italy), performed every year research campaigns in Cappadocia, with the aim of locating, exploring and documenting a large sample of underground and rocky structures scattered in this historical district. A typological classification has been proposed and an urbanistic analysis of some selected underground 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, and the Hasan da, 3.268 m, and by hundreds of smaller monogenetic volcanic centres. They originated a powerful deposit, few hundred meters thick, from which, in few circumscribed points, the limestone bedrock emerges; here natural caves used by prehistoric men have been found. The most relevant feature of the district is given by the extended tufaceous deposits that, thanks to their softness, have been deeply modelled by meteorological agents (erosion, deflation, corrosion, cryogenic action) in very characteristic shapes (canyons, buttes, cliffs, calanques, pinnacles). Inside these rocks man has dug, during the centuries, rooms of several types, developing a negative architecture (underground dwellings, working spaces, churches, burials, shelters, hydraulic tunnels), exploiting the lithological and morphological characteristics of the environment, pressed by climatic conditions or historical events. The surveys allowed us to outline the features of the underground district of Cappadocia according to different aspects. First, from the point of view of the geographic and altimetric distribution of the underground settlements all over the territory. Then, according to their typological variety, to distinguish anthropic cavities (rocky and underground cavities) from natural caves. Also, intermediate specimens representing transition forms of underground architectures have been identified and described (courtyard settlements and caves with anthropic interventions). At the same time, we took into account the differences in the destination of use observed in the various hypogea; special attention has been given to the reasons and the techniques of the defensive organization of some particular underground settlements that can be classified as real war-

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

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

shelters. Finally, we have studied and described the ancient hydric systems of catching, draining and carrying water, still in function at present, to allow an agricultural use of deep erosion valleys. With regard to the dating, we noted a shortage of historical sources and archaeological evidence concerning underground settlements. Nevertheless, we proposed some hypotheses about their origin and development, which take into account the succession along the centuries and the overlap on the territory of different civilizations (Hittites, Romans, Byzantines, Arabians, Seljucks), comparing the data with the archaeological remains we found out in one cave, in collaboration with Halis Yenipnar and Murat Glyaz of the Archaeological Museum of Nevehir, and with the valuable analysis of the painting cycles of the rocky churches elaborated by Catherine Jolivet. Thanks to the data collected in ten years of activity we implemented a map of the underground sites of Cappadocia and a list of 183 settlements, divided in six districts: Aksaray (59 sites); Kayseri (24 sites); Krehir (3 sites); Nevehir (71 sites); Nide (22 sites); Yozgat (4 sites). We are sure that further investigations may substantially increase this list. In fact, let us only mention the rocky churches that Jolivet estimates to be more than six hundred, and that have been deliberately excluded from the researches by Centro Studi Sotterranei, since we intended to devote more attention to less documented, but equally crucial sites for a comprehensive understanding of the cultural and landscape heritage of Cappadocia. Key Words: Underground and Rocky Structures, Typological Classification, Urbanistic Analysis

1. Introduction Cappadocia, in central Turkey (Figs. 1, 2), is one of the most interesting district in a land, the ancient Anatolia, full of historical and artistic testimonies since the Palaeolithic (Esin, 2000). In the 1990s years of the past century the Centro Studi Sotterranei (Centre for Underground Studies), located in Genoa (Italy), has been performing research campaigns in the region, riddled with underground and rocky structures of extreme interest, largely unknown both to scholars and to the public. During our pluriannual activity in Cappadocia, started in 1991, we tended to exclude from our investigations hypogea like rocky churches, which were already largely well documented: as a matter of fact, Jolivet (Jolivet-

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

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

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

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 documented hypogea, equally crucial for a comprehensive understanding of

10

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

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 have been identified and explored in large part. We divided them in six districts, named after their main towns: Aksaray (59 sites), Kayseri (24 sites), Krehir (3 sites) Nevheir (71 sites), Nide (22 sites), Yozgat (4 sites). We point out we are conscious we have located only a part of the huge rupestrian heritage of Cappadocia that, we believe, it might be wider than the double, not considering each single rocky church. Our aim was to locate, explore and document a substantial sample of these structures, in order to achieve an overview of their main characteristics. The main result of our investigations is a typological classification of the structures, together with an urbanistic analysis of some selected underground settlements. A large corpus of photographic documentation on historical sites, landscapes and present every day life accompanies our study. 2. The Investigated Area And The Surveys We covered an area of about 25.000 km2, at a height between 1.000 and 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 apparatus, among which the Erciyes da, 3.916 m, and the Hasan da, 3.268 m, and by hundreds of smaller monogenic volcanic centres (Fig. 22). They originated a powerful deposit, few hundred meters thick, from which, in few circumscribed points, the limestone bedrock emerges; here natural caves used by prehistoric men have been found (Managlia, Pagano, 1992, p. 101). The most relevant feature of the district is given by the extended tufaceous deposits that, thanks to their softness, have been deeply modelled by meteorological agents (erosion, deflation, corrosion, cryogenic action) in very characteristic shapes (canyons, buttes, cliffs, calanques, pinnacles). Inside these rocks man has dug, during the centuries, rooms of several types, developing a negative architecture (underground dwellings, working spaces, churches, burials, shelters, hydraulic tunnels), exploiting the lithological and morphological characteristics of the environment, pressed by climatic conditions or historical events. The surveys allowed us to outline the features of the underground district of Cappadocia from different points of view. First, from the point of view of the geographic and altimetric distribution of the underground settlements all over the territory. Then, according to their typological va-

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

11

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

12

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

riety, to distinguish anthropic cavities (rocky and underground cavities) from natural caves. Also, intermediate specimens representing transition forms of underground architectures have been identified and described (courtyard settlements and natural caves with anthropic interventions). At the same time, we took into account the differences in the destination of use observed in the various hypogea; special attention has been given to the reasons and the techniques of the defensive organization of some particular underground settlements, that can be classified as real warshelters. Finally, we have studied and described the ancient hydric systems of tapping, draining and carrying water, still in function at present, to allow 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 anthropic remains. - Anthropized caves, that is natural caves partly modified by men. We can consider this type of caves like a transition to artificial cavities. - Anthropic cavities, that is artificial cavities fully excavated by men in the living rock. Natural caves are located in carbonates rocks. Enormous and only partially explored karstic systems are inside the Ala Dalari, the limestone mountains south-east of Nide, just on the limit of the region. But small caves have been found also in small calcareous rocks, scattered in the heart of Cappadocia, outcropping from the tufaceous deposits. The more important one is the cave of Civelek, north of Glehir, where Centro Studi Sotterranei found out prehistoric pottery remains, now in the museum of Nevehir. In Cappadocia we know only one antropized cave. It is located in the village of Deirmenli, 20 km north-east of Nide, in the limestone deposits bordering on tufaceous territory. It is matter of a fully natural cave inside which there are some dry-stone built enclosures and, above all, there are defensive devices, exactly the same as the ones defending the artificial underground shelter (millstone doors, with slabs and pilasters) in the northern territory. We can consider this cave as an example of minimum human intervention . Artificial cavities are, doubtless, the more developed and widespread cat-

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

13

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

14

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

egory. It concerns simple spaces (tombs, water-tanks, pigeon houses), or more complicated artefacts (churches, monasteries, dwellings); but the cavities may reach the complexity of large villages in rocky walls, or develop the extraordinary labyrinths of underground shelters and towns, either horizontal or on various levels, down until 50 m below ground level, or hydric systems. It is convenient to distinguish between rocky structures and underground structures. The former ones are made up by rooms dug in the portion of rock close to the exterior and above ground level, and are found on the walls of canyons, buttes, pinnacles (rocky cones). The latter ones penetrate deeply into the rock, either directly under ground level, or into a butte 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 peri bacalar or fairy chimneys. Many of these have been dug to obtain hermitages, 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 or vertical shafts, and may be arranged on more than one level; rooms on the external surface of cliffs may have small windows. The roads develop outside the settlements, and lead to the cultivated areas (Tatlarin, Acgl, Zelve). Sometimes the collapse of large portions of the soft tuff allows to have 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 location. They are dug inside big rocky towers (Ortahisar, Uhisar), on overlying 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 as an intermediate model between the rupestrian and the underground settlements.

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

15

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

16

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

In the most common case, the settlements of this type are arranged around a space bound on three sides by rocky walls, forming a natural or partially dug enclosure inside a hill slope or cliff, open on the fourth side toward the valley (Bixio, 2002). They are often of religious characters (churches, monasteries) as - just to name a few - the case of Halla Manastr in Ortahisar, Aynal Kilise in Greme, the several courtyard complexes 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 and not ecclesiastic settlements. Less common are the settlements excavated around a courtyard enclosed on all the four sides, like a large shaft, obtained digging in the open from the flat top of a cliff, and going down vertically; a tunnel leads to the outside. We can recall Eski Gm near Nide (Bixio, 2002, p. 203; Rodley, 2010, pp. 103-118), Dulkadirli Inlimurat (Karyaka), in Krehir district (Bixio, 2002, pp. 201-202) and several cases in Gllkkaya and Yaprakhisar, near Selime at the northern opening of the Peristrema/Ihlara valley (Kalas, 2005; 2006). Rocky monasteries. Likely the most frequent structures in the region are the rocky settlements of religious character, covering a long period, from the fifth to the thirteenth century, some of which remained in use till the sixteenth century (Jolivet-Levy, 1991). They are found inside the pinnacles, on the walls of natural amphitheatres, or under ground level (De Jerphanion, 1925-1942; Thierry, 1971; 1981; Jolivet-Levy, 1991; 2001). Let us remind that, anyway, one finds also masonry churches built on the ground (Derinkuyu, Viranehir, and so on). Generally, these settlements consist of churches (see later) and of facilities related to cenobitic life (kitchen, refectory, library, monastic cells, pilgrim accommodations). Burials may be found in separated chambers or in graves dug under the pavement of underground rooms. Sometimes the monasteries are provided with interior areas protected by defensive devices (underground shelters, see later), as many other underground settlements. The overall organization of rocky monasteries offers a large variety of forms: most of them are of rocky 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-

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

17

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

ground towns. The typical architectonic elements of masonry churches are present, but of course as pure ornament and not as structural elements; 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 solid rock, are, in turn, of three types: chamber tombs, that is room-like excavated in the wall of cliffs or boulders; graves, or hole-tombs, excavated in the horizontal surface of rocky outcrops and on the top of cliffs; floorgraves, 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, testifying the past importance of pigeons in local economy. These structures, of small dimension, are mostly found in the canyons, close to the cultivated 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 - stylized patterns of various colours over a white background; the ornaments on dovecotes, sometimes as carpet motives, represent an interesting examples of Turkish-Ottoman popular paintings of the 18th - 20th century, made with colours derived from mineral (iron oxide) and vegetable resources; they have a side door to allow inspection, a door that can be reached through impervious footpaths or by means of foot-holds dug on the surface of the overhanging walls. The inside of rocky pigeon-lofts is made of one or more rooms, sometimes overlying each other, dug up to mans height. On the inside walls there are rows of small niches where pigeons nest. From information collected locally, it seems that the main purpose of pigeon breeding was not to get food, but to collect guano. Given the difficulty of reaching the pigeon-lofts, the doves manure (guano) was collected only once or twice each year. Apparently, pigeon breeding came to an end with the introduction of chemical fertilizers. Most of the Cappadocian dovecotes are to be found in the valley around hisar and Ortahisar, in Gvercinlik Valley or at valley nearby Nevehir, in Soanl valley in the boarders of Kayseri, in zengi Valley near rgp, sometimes

18

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

in close proximity to churches and monasteries (Giovannini, 1971; Tuna, Demirdurak, 2010, pp. 160-165). A particular type of underground dovecotes 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 each of which accommodates hundreds of niches for dove nests (Imamolu et al., 2005; Amirkhani et al., 2010, pp. 48-50). Rocky apiaries. The word apiary indicates an array of beehives. Only very recently the existence 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 valley of hlara (district of Aksaray) and in the valley of Soanli (district of Kayseri). Today are known more than 50 rocky apiaries, catalogued by Gaby Roussel in 2006 and 2007 (ROUSSEL, 2006; 2008), each of them, despite having its own peculiarities, has general features (apiaries with room fully excavated into the rock), similar to the structures documented by Centro Studi Sotterranei in 2001 and 2003. The study of one of them, still in use even if only partially, allowed to understand their functioning with some certainty. As the rocky pigeon-lofts, they are generally, but not always, located high up on rocky walls. From the outside, one sees vertical rows of small holes (flight holes) and arrays of vertical slits, plus a small door. Figure 21 shows the sketch of one of the most complex of the apiaries: on the shelves, corresponding to the holes, the bees built their honeycombs directly, without others containers, while the compartments without shelves, corresponding to the slits, accommodated superimposed rows of baskets-shaped beehives. These latter ones, being movable, allowed to move the beehives according to blooming. The bees entered the apiary through the holes and the slots. At least two of the apiaries - the bigger ones - appear related to monastic settlements found in the neighbourhood; others, smaller and simpler, were likely part of the economy of one single family. 3.2 Underground Settlements As mentioned before, these are the structures dug directly under ground level or, sometimes, into a butte, a cliff or a hill slope, but extending deeply into the rock. They may develop on one level only or on overlying levels; in the latter case, all the entrances are found on the first level, the one close to the campaign level. The road network and all other facilities

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

19

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

are located underground, so that the various rooms are connected by tunnels. A characteristic feature of underground settlements is given by special defensive devices, such as millstone-doors, which allowed to isolate and defend large sectors of the underground system. According to their extension and destination, various types of underground structure may be recognized: underground towns, shelters, monasteries and churches, 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 located in 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) or into low buttes rising over the ground (e.g., Filiktepe-Ovaren). Most of these structures are better defined as shelters rather than towns, a definition deserved perhaps only by the extraordinary extension and complexity of the structures at Derinkuyu and Kaymakl. Underground Shelters. The underground shelter relative of Gstesin is adjacent to the village of Gstesin-Ovaren Ky, nearby Glehir, which lies close to the southern slopes of a modest butte (Castellani, 1995; 2002a). At ground level, various large hypogea are dug into the tuff, showing signs of use as storehouses and shelters for domestic animals. It is important to remind that in Cappadocia winters are extremely rigid and summers are very hot, so the use of rooms dug into the tuff appears well justified. But these hypogea show the interesting features of narrow tunnels opening in the tuff, leading towards the inside of the butte, and with the entrance always defended by one or more millstone-doors. The investigation of the underground system has shown the presence of a few independent sub-systems (Figs. 15 and 18), each composed by an ensemble of rooms interconnected by tunnels, both defended by millstone-doors, as are defended by similar doors the openings on the outside. Various devices are implemented to reinforce the efficacy of the millstone-doors: right angles in the tunnels, sudden decrease in their height, etc. To be mentioned the presence of wells that reach the water bed. The size of the whole hypogeum is much smaller than that of the so-called underground towns; the structure was likely a temporary hiding place for a small group of humans and animals

20

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

during raids or transits of armies (Fig. 16). The underground system at Filiktepe-Ovaren Ky (Glehir) appears much larger and more complex than the one at Gstesin, with the puzzling feature of not being apparently related to any local village (Castellani, Pani, 1995; Castellani, 2002b). The maps in Fig. 15 show the overall plan of the shelter, consisting of many sub-systems, as in the case of Filiktepe. In each sub-system it is possible to distinguish an external layer of rooms, with many entrances, from which one enter a complex system that penetrates deeply into the butte. Many are the large rooms, sometimes equipped to host domestic animals, sometimes with cavities on the walls and on the floor that suggest their use as storage rooms; one finds also many wells, and at least one of the sub-systems develops on more than one level. The shelter develops beyond the limits of the butte, reaching the open fields. The millstone-doors are everywhere (at least 40 of them) and present a variety of devices to face attacks from outsiders. A possible interpretation of such a complex structure is that the community lived in the more external rooms, stored food in the interior, and retired inside the redoubt when peril appeared (Fig. 18). Underground towns. By far the most complex and articulated among the underground settlements is the site of Derinkuyu. A complete investigation of this structure is not yet available, due to its size, depth, number of levels and inter-connections (Demir, 1990; Triolet, 1993; Bixio, 1996; Bixio, Castellani, 2002a; Okuyucu, 2007). A first feature appears evident: the site is composed by many satellite system (Fig. 19). The best known of these systems is the one open to the public (Derinkuyu 1 in our notation), that develops in a sort of helicoids around a central shaft, intercepted various times on different levels. By the way, the shaft gives the name to the complex (Derinkuyu = deep shaft). According to Demir (1990), it reached the water bed, while now it is partially filled by the debris deriving from the works of adaptation in the tourist section. Other three systems appear built in a similar way around a central shaft (Fig. 19), but occlusions and destruction prevent a safe conclusion. According to information collected locally, the various systems were connected each other through tunnels, now partially destroyed. An organization of this type allows to move easily from one point to the other, in case of conquest of a section by the enemy, as well as to

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

21

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

counter-attack through hidden exits. Schematically, Derinkuyu develops on three levels (with intermediate levels), down to a depth of about 50 m. In the first one, just below ground level, all the entrances to the underground are located; in this section, no protective device, such as the millstone-doors, is found: likely because the entrances were hidden inside the buildings of the village in the open. From here one goes down, through descending corridors, to the second level, that may be considered as the residential section. It is most extended and complex of the system, defended by millstone-doors, sometime multiple ones. Here are found large spaces free from defending devices, shelters for animals, wells for water supply. At a lower level, the deepest section, connected to the previous one by a long, steep and narrow passage, with sudden changes in direction and provided with multiple closing devices: perhaps the last refuge (redoubt) of the besieged. Hydraulic systems. The investigations in the territory of Cappadocia have revealed the presence of other ancient underground structures that testify, as much as the underground settlements, the intelligence and the determination of the population in the exploitation of all the opportunities offered by the environment. Along the walls of many valleys, a large number of entrances to tunnels have been observed, whose origin was unknown to local people. The morphology of the tunnels appear very similar to that of the well known ancient hydraulic tunnels, so common in the volcanic territory in Central Italy (Castellani, 1999). It was decided to perform a thorough study in two of the largest valleys, the Meskendir vadisi and Kllar vadisi (Fig. 20). The first part of each valley consists of a deep canyon, dug by the running waters; advancing in the valley, the bottom does not show any sign of a river bed: it is made up by terraces mostly cultivated with fruit trees. Watering is achieved through small tunnels, dug into the side walls, that reach the water table. A first hydraulic system is given by the main underground channel (main collector), that gathers rainwater and carries them inside tunnels along the walls, keeping them far from the valley bottom. This intervention has cleared the valley floor from running water and from floods, allowing cultivation. The second system is formed by the numerous small tunnels opened inside the walls to tap water from the water table: many of these are still working.

22

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

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 mouths of many smaller tunnels that drain rainwater from the side valleys. The whole complex system gives an idea of the quality and the dimension of the impressive work performed by the population to rescue the valleys for agricultural purposes (Castellani, 2002c). Tanks to some very impressive evidences of deepening of the original section of the tunnels, from 180 cm of height up to 4 metres, we note that erosion 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 complex and hard work of water regulation likely came from the harsh winter climate and scarcity of water in surface. The valleys, protected from the winds and supplied of water through tunnels tapping the water table, allowed a flourishing agriculture, otherwise impossible, probably since a very long time. 4. Defensive Devices A characteristic feature of (almost) all the underground settlements in Cappadocia are the massive stone doors placed as defensive devices both at the entrances and at selected points in the interior, independently of the size of the structure (Bixio, Castellani, 2002b). The most common device is the mill-stone door, found from the south border (Eski Gm, Nide) to the north, in the province of Krehir. The largest shelters (Derinkuyu, Filiktepe) have mill-stone doors strategically distributed in the whole system, but also modest systems composed by few rooms exhibit one or more of these devices. This occurrence confirms that underground settlements and stone doors are part of a cultural and technical inheritance common to all the 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 can be rolled on the floor as a wheel, to block an entrance. Their names derives from their resemblance to mill-stones. These doors appear, in a lot of cases, cut into a material substantially harder than the room where they are placed. So, the builders of the underground structures had to look for a suitable quarry for their doors and had to carry them inside

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

23

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

many underground systems, showing how important were these devices for the safety of the shelters. At the same time, the good matching of the door diameter and the size of the tunnels suggests again that the whole enterprise of building an underground structure was the result of accurate planning. The handling of the millstone-doors required the space necessary to roll the doors in a safe position, that is, such to avoid an easy overturning. To this purpose, the stone doors, once closed, have to be blocked. This can be achieved in various ways, the most common ones being by means of sockets in the walls and pillars and/or slabs. The millstone-doors are generally 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 diameter between 10 and 20 cm, on the average. This hole allowed the defenders to keep under control the tunnel and to repel the besiegers by means of arrows and spears. A few millstone-doors have been found without the hole: in this case there are other defence devices, like small holes in the ceiling to allow the defender to stab easily the enemy as soon as 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 to complete the defensive works. Other closing systems may be found, such as shield-doors - stone slabs inlaid 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 Lower and Middle Palaeolithic Age, with assemblages in good context in Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Slimak et al. 2004; 2008), a few kilometers on the eastern slopes of Gll Da in Nide district, the longest open-air Palaeolithic sequence excavated in Turkey, as well as the first in situ Acheulean industry documented in Anatolia with a succession of deposits including microtephra from multiple eruptions, the lowermost of which likely dating to the Lower Pleistocene (780.000 years ago) (Tryon et al. 2009). Cappadocia also retain important findings of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic period with Akl Hyk (Aksaray), a densely clustered settlement type with intramural burials and many burial gifts (Esin, Harmankaya, 1999; 2007). Furthermore are well documented Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age

24

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

sites represented by several mounds such as Aliar Hyk (Yozgat), Acemhyk (Aksaray), Kkhyk (Nide), Kltepe (Kayseri) (Esin, 2000) and the cave of Civelek (Glehir) (Managlia, Pagano, 1992; Glyaz, 2010, p. 8). Well documented are the following historical periods with the presence in Cappadocia of findings related to the Hittites, Phrygians and Assyrians, Cilicians, Romans and Byzantines (Equini Schneider, 1994; Akyrek, 2000; Darga, 2000; Tekin, 2000; Glyaz, 2010, pp. 10-18). Instead, no historical data are available on the underground settlements in Central Anatolia (Urban, 1973b), not even in relation to the relatively recent Byzantine settlements (Thierry, 1989; Jolivet, 1997). For example, some archaeological findings in the rocky monastery of Eski Gm (Nide) were discovered and studied almost fifty years ago, when medieval archeology was in its infancy and many pottery classes were not still clearly defined (Gough, 1964; 1965), and only a most recent work was performed twenty years ago by the Museum of Nide with few other finds (Faydal, 1991; 1992). Today new studies and reviews of materials already known are really necessary. We are left with the archaeological evidence, a useful tool for rocky churches, whose paintings and dedicatory inscriptions give reliable information on the epoch of construction. Unfortunately, no such hints are available for underground settlements, completely empty except for minor finds: few Byzantine ceramic fragments, few jars still in the floor, stone mortar, some animal bones. The underground systems show no deposit to be investigated and have been left totally unguarded for centuries, after the end of their attendance. Since nothing meaningful is found inside the settlements, we can resort to finds in the surroundings. Even in this case, not much can be safely concluded. Three Hittite inscriptions have been found near as many underground systems: Gketoprak (the ancient Sivasa), All (near Acgl, formerly Topada) and Karaburna. Urban (1973a; 1973b; 1973c; 1986) considers possible a connection with these systems, but it is to be noticed that the inscriptions apparently make no mention of the artificial cavities to which they should be related. Again Urban suggests a relation among a few underground structures and the remains of archaic forts in the surroundings. Some more remarks of this kind could be mentioned, but they

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

25

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

result equally fragile. Similarly, the possibility of relations with Phrygians and Assyrians rests on uncertain interpretations of a document on the war among the two powers (Urban, 1986). Among ancient documents, the Anabasis by Xenophon (around 400 B.P.E.) gives important information on underground structures, even if not directly related to Cappadocia settlements. The Greek historian describes underground dwellings in Anatolia which, from a reconstruction of the march of the 10.000 Greek warriors back to their homeland, appear located in Armenia (Urban 1973b), we think near the ancient Ani or modern Kars. These dwellings are described as having an entrance on the soil that looks like a shaft, but with wide rooms inside; men enter by means of ladders, animals through special passages; water and various cereals are stored in appropriate containers. From the text, the dwellings appear as permanent and not as temporary shelters. Let us remind that near Ani are present still today numerous structures dug into the rocks, even if not of the type described by Xenophon. Before, on their trip towards Babilonia, the Greek army passed close to the southern border of Cappadocia 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 the Chalybes or Chaldoi, tribes of proto-Georgians). The important point to be inferred from this document is that the technique of digging underground or rocky dwellings was well established in 400 B.P.E. in a region, Armenia, next to Cappadocia, with similar geologic and climatic conditions. Perhaps it is not too bold to assume this date as a plausible term ante quem for the most ancient underground Cappadocian systems. Underground structures are mentioned by other Greek and Roman authors. Varro (116 - 27 B.P.E.) reports of granaries, generically described as in underground cavities, existing in Cappadocia and Thrace (De re rustica, 1, I.57); the fact is mentioned also by Pliny the Elder (Naturalis Historia, III.18). Always Pliny, speaking of pigments, also refers of the red lands of Cappadocia, effusa e speluncis, that means extracted within the caves (Naturalis Historia, XXXV.13). Oddly enough, Strabo (63 B.P.E. - 25 P.E.) gives an ample description of Cappadocia, including volcanoes, salty lakes, underground rivers (Geography, 12.2.3; 12.2.5; 12,2,7), but without any mention not only of

26

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

underground structures, but also ignoring the characteristic and often extraordinary 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 mentions only the temple dedicated to Zeus near Venasa (Avanos), ignoring many others that, at his time, surely were of some importance (Malagobia-Derinkuyu, Enegobi-Kaymakl, Zoropassos-Glehir, Topada- Acgl). More accurate chronological information come from the studies performed by several specialists on paintings and plasters of the rocky churches of the region, which number is considered beyond 600 units (Jolivet, 1997, p. 6). In particular Thierry and Jolivet think the more ancient paintings in rocky churches date back to sixth and seventh century and go on the whole Byzantine time until the thirteenth century, i.e. beyond the conquest of Cappadocia from the Seljuks, occurred at the end of eleventh century. It is an exception Ylanl kilise of Soanl which paintings date until sixteenth century (Thierry, 1971), therefore in full Ottoman time. We believe that in this long period the greater development of the structures excavated in the rock happened, with special concentration, with regard to underground shelters, between eighth and tenth centuries. During this period the Cappadocian region, even though remaining always inside the Byzantine empire, was subject to continuous raids from Arabian bands with a cadence of two, three times in a year (Canard, 1983) coming from the nearby Cilicia, that they tore away from Byzantines since the year 703. During the second half of tenth century, Leo the Deacon write, with regard to the expedition of Nicephorus Phocas emperor against the Arabs: Nicephrus [...] arrived in Cappadocia: [people of this region] were then called troglodytes 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 of specific sources about the origin and evolution of the settlements excavated in the mountains, it is evident that: Cappadocia has been seat of a composite rocky civilization, that had not comparison in the Mediterranean basin, today testified by the presence in the region of a huge number of underground structures, differentiate in types and widely scattered on the territory, such as to represent a phenomenon sole in the world for size, with relevant historical and urbanistic interest. (Bixio, De Pascale, 2009, p. 133).

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

27

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

Bibliography
Akyrek E., 2000, Fourth to Eleventh Centuries, in Szen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan ahenk Foundation, pp. 227-395. Amirkhani A., Okhovat H., Zamani E., 2010, Ancient pigeon houses: remarkable example of the Asian culture crystallized in the architecture of Iran and 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 Bixio R., 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 Bixio R., 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 sotterranee, Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 265-278. Bixio et al., 2002 = Bixio R., Dal Cin F., Traverso M., 2002, Cappadocia: un apiario rupestre, in Opera Ipogea, 2/2002, Bologna, Societ Speleologica Italiana, pp. 17-28. Bixio et al., 2004 = Bixio R., Bologna G., Traverso M., 2004, Cappadocia 2003. Gli apiari rupestri dellAltopiano Centrale Anatolico (Turchia), in Opera Ipogea, 1/2004, Bologna, Societ Speleologica Italiana, pp. 3-18. Bixio R., De Pascale A., 2009, Archeologia delle cavit artificiali: le ricerche del Centro Studi Sotterranei di Genova in Turchia, in Archeologia 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 nascita dellEuropa feudale (Gwatkin et al. editors), Garzanti Editore, Milano, pp. 273/311. Castellani V., 1995, Human underground settlements in Cappadocia: a topological investigation of the redoubt system of Gstesin (NE 20), in Bertucci 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 Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 209-224. Castellani V., 2002b, Filiktepe: una fortezza sotterranea, in Bixio R., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotterranee, Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 225-242.

28

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

Castellani V., 2002c, I condotti idrici della valle di Meskendir, in Bixio R., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotterranee, Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 279-290. Castellani V., Pani G., 1995, Filiktepe: a step toward undergrond towns, in Bertucci G., Bixio R., Traverso M. (eds.), Le citt sotterranee della Cappadocia, Genova, Erga edizioni, pp.53-67. Darga M., 2000, Second Millennium B.C.: Middle and Late Bronze Age, in Szen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan ahenk Foundation, pp. 125169. De Jerfanion G., 1925-1942, Une nouvelle province de lart Byzantine. Les glises rupestre de Cappadoce, Paris. Diacre = see L. Diacre Equini Schneider E., 1994, Classical Sites in Anatolia: 1993, Archaeological Surveys in Cappadocia, in 12. Aratrma Sonular Toplants, Ankara, Kltr ve Turizm Bakanl, pp. 15-33. Esin U., 2000, Palaeolithic Era to Early Bronze age: Prehistoric Cappadocia, in Szen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan ahenk Foundation, pp. 63-123. Esin U., Harmankaya S., 1999, Akl, in zdoan M., Bagelen N. (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization New Discoveries, Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar, pp. 115-132. Esin U., Harmankaya S., 2007, Akl Hyk, in zdoan M., Bagelen N. (eds.), Anadoluda Uygarln Douu ve Avrupaya Yaylm Trkiyede Neolitik Dnem Yeni Kazlar, Yeni Bulgular, Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat Yaynlar, pp. 255-272. Faydal E., 1991, Eski Gm Manastr 1989 Yl Kurtarma Kazs, in I. Mze Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri (19-20 Nisan 1990 Ankara), Ankara, Kltr Bakanl, pp. 225-234. Faydal E., 1992, Nide-Eski Gm Manastr Kurtarma Kazs, in II. Mze Kurtarma Kazlar Semineri (29-30 Nisan 1991 Ankara), Ankara, Kltr Bakanl, pp. 255-264. Giovannini L., 1971. Il territorio e gli ambienti rupestri, in Giovannini L. (ed.), Arte della Cappadocia, Gnve, Les ditions Nagel, pp. 67-80. Gough M., 1964, The monastery of Eski Gm. A preliminary report, in Anatolian Studies, 14, pp. 147-161. Gough M., 1965, The monastery of Eski Gm. Second preliminary report, in Anatolian Studies, 15, pp. 157-164. Glyaz M., 2000, Dovecotes of Cappadocia, in Szen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan ahenk Foundation, pp. 548-559.

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

29

Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

Glyaz M.E., 2010, Cappadocia. Patrimonio mondiale, Istanbul, Digital Dnyas. Imamolu V., Korumaz M., Imamolu ., 2005, A fantasy in Central Anatolian architectural heritage: dove cotes and towers in Kayseri, in Middle East Technical University Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, vol.22-2, Ankara, 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, Kltr ve Turizm Bakanl, pp. 59-70. Kalas V., 2006, The 2004 Survey of the Byzantine Settlement at Selime-Yaprakhisar in the Peristrema Valley, Cappadocia, in 23. Aratrma Sonular Toplants, 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), Master Thesis, Atatrk niversitesi - Erzurum, Sosyal Bilimler Enstits, Sanat Tarihi 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 Cahiers dApistoria 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., Kuzucuolu K., Grenet M., 2004, Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turquie). Aspects archologiques, chronologiques et palontologiques dune squence Plistocne en Anatolie centrale, in Comptes Rendus Palevol de lAcademie des Sciences de Paris, 3, pp. 411-420. Slimak L., Kuhn S., Roche H., Mouralis D., Buitenhuis H., Balkan-Atl N., Binder N., Kuzucuolu C., Guillou H., 2008, Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turkey): archaeological evidence for early human settlement in Central Anatolia, in Journal of Human Evolution, 54(1), pp. 99-111. Tekin O., 2000, The Kingdom of Cappadocia during the Hellenistic and Roman Times, in Szen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan ahenk Foundation, pp. 195-227.

30

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

Kapadokya, Bir Yeralt Yerleim Blgesi

Thierry N., 1971, Le chiese rupestri, in Arte della Cappadocia, Gnve, Les ditions Nagel, pp.129-171. Thierry N., 1981, Monuments de Cappadoce de lantiquit romaine au moyen ge byzantine, in Le aree omogenee della Civilt Rupestre nellambito dellImpero Bizantino: la Cappadocia, Galantina (Lecce), Congedo Editore. Thierry N., 1989, Eski Gm, monastre du Vieil Argent, in Ulysse, 8, Paris, pp. 16-18. Triolet J., Triolet L., 1993, Les villes souterraines de Cappadoce, Editions DMI, Torcy Triolet J., Triolet L., 2002, Lorganizzazione difensiva, in Bixio R., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le citt sotterranee, Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 253-264. Tryon C.A., Logan M.A.V., Mouralis D., Kuhn S., Slimak L., Balkan-Atl N., 2009, Building a tephrostratigraphic framework for the Paleolithic of Central Anatolia, Turkey, in Journal of Archaeological Science, 36, pp. 637-652. Tuna T., Demirdurak B., 2010, Cappadocia, Istanbul, BKG Publications. Urban M., 1973a, Das Rtsel der unterirdischen Stdte Sdostanatoliens. Erster Teil: Der Befund, in Vorland, 6, Pinneberg (Hamburg), A. Beig Verlag, pp. 150-153. Urban M., 1973b, Das Rtsel der unterirdischen Stdte Sdostanatoliens. Zweiter Teil: Geschichtlicher Rahmen und Deutungen, in Vorland, 7, Pinneberg (Hamburg), A. Beig Verlag, pp. 174-181. Urban M., 1973c, Das Rtsel der unterirdischen Stdte Sdostanatoliens. Dritte Teil: Maginotlinie der Frhgeschichte, in Vorland, 8, Pinneberg (Hamburg), A. Beig Verlag, pp. 205-212. Urban M., 1986, Geschichte unter der Erde, Jahresschrift des Arbeitskreises fr Erdstallforschung, Heft 12, Roding, Drukerei Johann Premm.

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

31