KAPADOKYA, BİR YERALTI YERLEŞİM BÖLGESİ

CAPPADOCIA, AN UNDERGROUND DISRICT

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

ÖZET
Bu tarihi bölgeye dağılmış olan yeraltında kayaya oyulmuş ve çok
çeşitliliğe sahip yapıların saptanması, araştırılması ve belgelenmesi
amacı ile Genova (İtalya)’da yer alan Centro Studi Sotterranei (Yeral-
tı Araştırmaları Merkezi) tarafından Kapadokya’da 1991’den 2000
yılına kadar çalışmalar yapılmıştır. Bu çalışma kapsamında tipolojik
bir sınıflandırma öngörülmüş ve seçilmiş bazı yerleşimlerde kentsel
analizler yapılmıştır.
İncelemeler; aralarında Erciyes Dağı, 3.916 m, Hasan Dağı, 3.268
m gibi 19 büyük volkanik etmen ve yüzlerce küçük monogenetik
volkanik merkezin oluşturduğu volkanik kaya yapısında olan yakla-
şık 25.000 km²’lik bir alanda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Bunlar, birkaç yüz
metre kalınlığında sağlam bir tortu katmanı oluşturmuş ve sınırlan-
dırılmış birkaç noktada tarihöncesi insanlar tarafından kullanılan
mağaraların bulunduğu kireçtaşı yatağı ortaya çıkmıştır.
Bölgedeki geniş alana yayılmış tüfsü tortuların en önemli özelliği
yumuşak olmasıdır ve bu nedene bağlı olarak meteorolojik etkenler
(erozyon, deflasyon, korozyon, kriyojenik hareket) tarafından olduk-
ça karakteristik biçimlerde (kanyonlar, tanıktepeler, falezler, dereler,
tepeler) oluşmuşlardır. İklim koşulları ve tarihsel olayların etkisiyle,
insanlar; çevrenin litolojik ve morfolojik özelliklerinden yararlanarak
yüzyıllar boyunca bu kayaların içlerine farklı tiplerde odalar oymuş-
lar, bir ‘negatif mimari’ (yeraltı konutları, çalışma alanları, kiliseler,
mezarlar, sığınaklar, hidrolik tüneller) geliştirmişlerdir.

* 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u 5
 Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

Yapmış olduğumuz araştırmalar, Kapadokya’nın “yeraltı bölge-

sinin” özelliklerini farklı açılardan belirlememize olanak sağlamış-
tır. Bunların ilki, bütün bölgedeki yeraltı yerleşimlerinin coğrafi ve
altimetrik dağılımıdır. Ardından, antropik oyukları (kaya ve yeraltı
oyukları) doğal mağaralardan ayırmak amacıyla, tipolojik açıdan
çeşitlilikleri ele alınmıştır. Ayrıca yerlatı mimarilerinin biçimlerinde-
ki dönüşümleri gösteren ara örnekler belirlenerek tanımlanmıştır
(avlu yerleşimler ve atropik müdahalelere uğramış mağaralar). Aynı
zamanda, çeşitli hipojelerin kullanım amaçlarındaki farklılıklar göz
önüne alınmış; gerçek savaş sığınakları adı altında toplanabilecek
belirli yeraltı yerleşimlerinin, savunma amaçlı düzenlemelerindeki
neden ve teknikler üzerinde özel olarak durulmuştur. Son olarak;
derin erozyon vadilerinde tarıma olanak sağlayan ve suyun tutulma-
sı, akıtılması ve taşınması amacıyla oluşturulmuş ve günümüzde de
işlevini sürdüren su sistemleri araştırılarak tespit edilmiştir.
Yeraltı yerleşimlerinin tarihlendirilmelerine ilişkin tarihsel kaynaklar
ve arkeolojik bulguların eksikliği dikkatimizi çekmektedir. Bunun-
la birlikte; söz konusu yeraltı yerleşimlerinin köken ve gelişimleri-
ne yönelik olarak, farklı uygarlıkların (Hititler, Romalılar, Bizanslılar,
Araplar, Selçuklular) yüzyıllar boyunca birbirinin ardından bu böl-
geye yerleştikleri göz önünde bulundurularak, tarafımızdan bazı
hipotezler ortaya konulmuştur. Bu bağlamda; Nevşehir Arkeoloji
Müzesi’nden Halis Yenipınar ve Murat Gülyaz’ın da katkıları ile, ve-
riler, bir mağarada bulduğumuz arkeolojik kalıntılar ve Catherine
Jolivet tarafından kaya kiliselerdeki resim programları üzerine yapı-
lan önemli analizler ile karşılaştırılmıştır.
On yıl süren bu çalışma sonucunda elde ettiğimiz verilerden yola
çıkarak bir “Kapadokya yeraltı yerleşimleri haritası” ve altı bölge-
ye ayrılmış 183 yerleşimi gösteren bir liste ortaya koymuş bulun-
maktayız: Aksaray (59 yerleşim); Kayseri (24 yerleşim); Kırşehir (3
yerleşim); Nevşehir (71 yerleşim); Niğde (22 yerleşim); Yozgat (4
yerleşim). İleride yapılacak araştırmaların bu listeyi daha da geniş-
leteceğinden kuşku duymuyoruz. Aslında burada, Jolivet’in kaya
kiliselerin sayısının 600’den fazla fazla olduğunu tahmin ettiğini ve
Centro Studi Sotterranei’nin bunları araştırmaların özellikle dışında
tuttuuğunu belirtmek gerekmektedir. Bunu yapmamızdaki amaç,
çalışmamızda, aynı öneme sahip olan, fakat daha az bilinen yer-
leşimlere ağırlık vererek Kapadokya’nın kültürel ve doğal mirasının
daha iyi anlaşılmasını sağlamaktır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Yeraltı ve Kaya Yerleşimler, Tipoloji, Kentsel
Analizler

6 1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

ABSTRACT
From 1991 to 2000 the Centro Studi Sotterranei (Centre for Un-
derground Studies), located in Genoa (Italy), performed every year
research campaigns in Cappadocia, with the aim of locating, exp-
loring and documenting a large sample of underground and rocky
structures scattered in this historical district. A typological classifica-
tion 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 dağı, 3.916 m, and
the Hasan dağı, 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 limes-
tone 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, du-
ring 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 clima-
tic 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 architec-
tures 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 rea-
sons and the techniques of the defensive organization of some par-
ticular underground settlements that can be classified as real war-

1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u 7
 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 sour-
ces and archaeological evidence concerning underground settle-
ments. 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), com-
paring the data with the archaeological remains we found out in
one cave, in collaboration with Halis Yenipınar and Murat Gülyaz
of the Archaeological Museum of Nevşehir, 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); Kırşehir (3 sites); Nevşehir (71 sites); Niğde (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 Sotterra-
nei, since we intended to devote more attention to less documen-
ted, but equally crucial sites for a comprehensive understanding of
the 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 interesting
district in a land, the ancient Anatolia, full of historical and artistic testi-
monies 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 inter-
est, 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-

8 1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u 9
 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 docu-
mented hypogea, equally crucial for a comprehensive understanding of

10 1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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 dis-
tricts, named after their main towns: Aksaray (59 sites), Kayseri (24 sites),
Kırşehir (3 sites) Nevşheir (71 sites), Niğde (22 sites), Yozgat (4 sites). We
point 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 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 character-
istics. 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 documenta-
tion 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 appara-
tus, among which the Erciyes dağı, 3.916 m, and the Hasan dağı, 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 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 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, 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, 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 dis-
trict” 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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 war-
shelters. Finally, we have studied and described the ancient hydric systems
of 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 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 Dağlari, the limestone mountains
south-east of Niğde, just on the limit of the region. But small caves have
been found also in small calcareous rocks, scattered in the heart of Cappa-
docia, outcropping from the tufaceous deposits. The more important one
is the cave of Civelek, north of Gülşehir, where Centro Studi Sotterranei
found out prehistoric pottery remains, now in the museum of Nevşehir.
In Cappadocia we know only one antropized cave. It is located in the vil-
lage of Değirmenli, 20 km north-east of Niğde, 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 artifi-
cial 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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 de-
velop 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 pen-
etrate 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
bacaları» 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 (Göreme).
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, Acıgöl,
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 loca-
tion. They are dug inside big rocky towers (Ortahisar, Uçhisar), 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 as
an intermediate model between the rupestrian and the underground set-
tlements.

1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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 charac-
ters (churches, monasteries) as - just to name a few - the case of Hal-
laç Manastır in Ortahisar, Aynalı Kilise in Göreme, the several courtyard
complexes known as Açık Saray near Gülşehir (Rodley, 2010, pp. 11-150)
and those of Çanlı 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, ob-
tained 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 Gümüş near
Niğde (Bixio, 2002, p. 203; Rodley, 2010, pp. 103-118), Dulkadirli Inlimu-
rat (Karşıyaka), in Kırşehir district (Bixio, 2002, pp. 201-202) and several
cases in Güllükkaya 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 settle-
ments 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 (De-
rinkuyu, Viranşehir, and so on). Generally, these settlements consist of
churches (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 of
underground rooms. Sometimes the monasteries are provided with in-
terior 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 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 solid
rock, 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, excavated
in 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 (Gülyaz, 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 exam-
ples 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 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 man’s
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 dove’s 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 Cap-
padocian dovecotes are to be found in the valley around Üçhisar and
Ortahisar, in Güvercinlik Valley or Çat valley nearby Nevşehir, in Soğanlı
valley in the boarders of Kayseri, in Üzengi Valley near Ürgüp, sometimes

18 1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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 each
of which accommodates hundreds of niches for dove nests (Imamoğlu 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 Ürgüp, Üçhisar,
Göreme, Ortahisar and Çavuşin (district of Nevşehir), and in the valley
of İhlara (district of Aksaray) and in the valley of Soğanli (district of Kay-
seri). 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, lo-
cated 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. Fig-
ure 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 neighbour-
hood; 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 struc-
ture 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-Ovaören). Most of
these structures are better defined as shelters rather than towns, a defini-
tion deserved perhaps only by the extraordinary extension and complexity
of the structures at Derinkuyu and Kaymaklı.

Underground Shelters.
The underground shelter relative of Göstesin is adjacent to the village of
Göstesin-Ovaören Köy, nearby Gülşehir, which lies close to the southern
slopes 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 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, 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 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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

The underground system at Filiktepe-Ovaören Köy (Gülşehir) appears
much larger and more complex than the one at Göstesin, 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 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, some-
times 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 settle-
ments 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-con-
nections (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 (De-
rinkuyu = 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 destruc-
tion 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 un-
derground are located; in this section, no protective device, such as the
millstone-doors, is found: likely because the entrances were hidden in-
side the buildings of the village in the open. From here one goes down,
through descending corridors, to the second level, that may be consid-
ered 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 pres-
ence 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 envi-
ronment. 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 Kılıçlar 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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 sec-
tion 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 Cap-
padocia 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 Gümüş, Niğde) to
the north, in the province of Kırşehir. 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 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 de-
rives 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 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 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 Low-
er 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 Göllü Dağ in Niğde district, the longest open-air Palaeo-
lithic 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 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 Aşıklı Höyük (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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

sites represented by several mounds such as Alişar Höyük (Yozgat), Acem-

höyük (Aksaray), Köşkhöyük (Niğde), Kültepe (Kayseri) (Esin, 2000) and
the cave of Civelek (Gülşehir) (Managlia, Pagano, 1992; Gülyaz, 2010,
p. 8).
Well documented are the following historical periods with the presence
in Cappadocia of findings related to the Hittites, Phrygians and Assyr-
ians, Cilicians, Romans and Byzantines (Equini Schneider, 1994; Akyürek,
2000; Darga, 2000; Tekin, 2000; Gülyaz, 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 exam-
ple, some archaeological findings in the rocky monastery of Eski Gümüş
(Niğde) were discovered and studied almost fifty years ago, when medi-
eval 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 Niğde with few other
finds (Faydalı, 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 in-
formation 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 cen-
turies, 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 un-
derground systems: Gökçetoprak (the ancient Sivasa), Ağıllı (near Acıgöl,
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 sur-
roundings. Some more remarks of this kind could be mentioned, but they

1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü 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 de-
scribes underground dwellings in Anatolia which, from a reconstruction
of 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 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 to-
wards 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 tech-
nique 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 Cappado-
cian 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 (Natu-
ralis 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 (Ge-
ography, 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

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 mentions
only the temple dedicated to Zeus near Venasa (Avanos), ignoring many
others that, at his time, surely were of some importance (Malagobia-De-
rinkuyu, Enegobi-Kaymaklı, Zoropassos-Gülşehir, Topada- Acıgöl).
More accurate chronological information come from the studies per-
formed 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 an-
cient paintings in rocky churches date back to sixth and seventh century
and go on the whole Byzantine time until the thirteenth century, i.e. be-
yond the conquest of Cappadocia from the Seljuks, occurred at the end
of eleventh century. It is an exception Yılanlı kilise of Soğanlı which paint-
ings 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 centu-
ries. 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 Byzan-
tines 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: ‘Nice-
phrus [...] 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 exca-
vated 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 ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u 27
 Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

Bibliography
Akyürek E., 2000, “Fourth to Eleventh Centuries”, in Sözen M. (ed.), Cappado-
cia, Istanbul, Ayhan Şahenk 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 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 città sotterranee,
Roma, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 191-206.
Bixio R., Castellani V., 2002a, “Derinkuyu, una città nel sottosuolo”, in Bixio
R., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le città 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 città 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, Società Speleologica
Italiana, pp. 17-28.
Bixio et al., 2004 = Bixio R., Bologna G., Traverso M., 2004, “Cappadocia 2003.
Gli apiari rupestri dell’Altopiano Centrale Anatolico (Turchia)”, in Opera
Ipogea, 1/2004, Bologna, Società Speleologica Italiana, pp. 3-18.
Bixio R., De Pascale A., 2009, ‘Archeologia delle cavità artificiali: le ricerche del
Centro Studi Sotterranei di Genova in Turchia’, in Archeologia Medievale,
XXXVI, All’insegna del Giglio, Firenze, pp. 129/154.
Canard M., 1983, ‘Bisanzio e il mondo musulmano alla metà dell’XI secolo’,
in Storia del Mondo Medievale, vol. II, L’espansione Islamica e la nascita
dell’Europa 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 Göstesin (NE 20)”, in Ber-
tucci G., Bixio R., Traverso M. (eds.), Le città sotterranee della Cappadocia,
Genova, Erga edizioni, pp. 41-52.
Castellani V., 1999, Civiltà dell’Acqua, Roma, System Graphic Ed.
Castellani V., 2002a, “Il sistema di rifugi di Göstesin”, in Bixio R., Castellani V.,
Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le città sotterranee, Roma, Istituto Pol-
igrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 209-224.
Castellani V., 2002b, “Filiktepe: una fortezza sotterranea”, in Bixio R., Castellani
V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le città sotterranee, Roma, Istituto
Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 225-242.

28 1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

Castellani V., 2002c, “I condotti idrici della valle di Meskendir”, in Bixio R., Cas-
tellani V., Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le città sotterranee, Roma,
Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 279-290.
Castellani V., Pani G., 1995, “Filiktepe: a step toward undergrond towns”, in Ber-
tucci G., Bixio R., Traverso M. (eds.), Le città sotterranee della Cappadocia,
Genova, Erga edizioni, pp.53-67.
Darga M., 2000, “Second Millennium B.C.: Middle and Late Bronze Age”, in
Sözen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan Şahenk Foundation, pp. 125-
169.
De Jerfanion G., 1925-1942, Une nouvelle province de l’art Byzantine. Les églises
rupestre de Cappadoce, Paris.
Diacre = see L. Diacre
Equini Schneider E., 1994, “Classical Sites in Anatolia: 1993, Archaeological Sur-
veys in Cappadocia”, in 12. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, Ankara, Kültür
ve Turizm Bakanlığı, pp. 15-33.
Esin U., 2000, “Palaeolithic Era to Early Bronze age: Prehistoric Cappadocia”,
in Sözen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan Şahenk Foundation, pp.
63-123.
Esin U., Harmankaya S., 1999, “Aşıklı”, in Özdoğan M., Başgelen N. (eds.), Neo-
lithic in Turkey. The Cradle of Civilization New Discoveries, Istanbul, Arke-
oloji ve Sanat Yayınları, pp. 115-132.
Esin U., Harmankaya S., 2007, “Aşıklı Höyük”, in Özdoğan M., Başgelen N.
(eds.), Anadolu’da Uygarlığın Doğuşu ve Avrupa’ya Yayılımı Türkiye’de
Neolitik Dönem Yeni Kazılar, Yeni Bulgular, Istanbul, Arkeoloji ve Sanat
Yayınları, pp. 255-272.
Faydalı E., 1991, “Eski Gümüş Manastırı 1989 Yılı Kurtarma Kazısı”, in I. Müze
Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (19-20 Nisan 1990 Ankara), Ankara, Kültür
Bakanlığı, pp. 225-234.
Faydalı E., 1992, “Niğde-Eski Gümüş Manastırı Kurtarma Kazısı”, in II. Müze
Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri (29-30 Nisan 1991 Ankara), Ankara, Kültür
Bakanlığı, pp. 255-264.
Giovannini L., 1971. “Il territorio e gli ambienti rupestri”, in Giovannini L. (ed.),
Arte della Cappadocia, Gènéve, Les Éditions Nagel, pp. 67-80.
Gough M., 1964, The monastery of Eski Gümüş. A preliminary report, in Anato-
lian Studies, 14, pp. 147-161.
Gough M., 1965, The monastery of Eski Gümüş. Second preliminary report, in
Anatolian Studies, 15, pp. 157-164.
Gülyaz M., 2000, “Dovecotes of Cappadocia”, in Sözen M. (ed.), Cappadocia,
Istanbul, Ayhan Şahenk Foundation, pp. 548-559.

1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u 29
 Roberto BIXIO - Vittoria CALIO - Andrea DE PASCALE

Gülyaz M.E., 2010, Cappadocia. Patrimonio mondiale, Istanbul, Digital Dünyası.

Imamoğlu V., Korumaz M., Imamoğlu Ç., 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, An-
kara, METU Publications, pp. 79-90.
Jerfanion = see De Jerfanion
Jolivet-Lévy C., 1991, Les églises byzantines de Cappadoce, Paris, Édition CNRS.
Jolivet-Lévy C., 1997, La Cappadoce, memoire de Byzance, Paris, Édition CNRS.
Jolivet-Lévy C., 2001, La Cappadoce médiévale, Saint-Léger-Vauban, Zodiaque.
Kalas V., 2005, “The 2003 Survey at Selime-Yaprakhisar in the Peristrema Valley,
Cappadocia”, in 22. Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı, vol.2, Ankara, Kültür
ve Turizm Bakanlığı, pp. 59-70.
Kalas V., 2006, “The 2004 Survey of the Byzantine Settlement at Selime-Yapra-
khisar in the Peristrema Valley, Cappadocia”, in 23. Araştırma Sonuçları
Toplantısı, vol.1, Ankara, Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı, 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, Società Speleologica Italiana, pp. 100-101.
Okuyucu D., 2007, Derinkuyu Yeraltı Şehri (Derinkuyu Underground City), Mas-
ter Thesis, Atatürk Üniversitesi - Erzurum, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Sanat
Tarihi Anabilim Dalı, Erzurum.
Ousterhout R., 2005, A Byzantine Settlement in Cappadocia, Washington D.C.,
Dumbarton Oaks.
Roussel G., 2006, “Découverte de vieux ruchers en Cappadoce”, in Cahiers
d’Apistoria n°5 A, pp. 39-46.
Roussel G., 2008, “Ruchers de Turquie”, in Cahiers d’Apistoria n° 7 A, pp. 37-44.
Slimak L., Roche H., Mouralis D., Buitenhuis H., Balkan-Atlı N., Binder D., Ku-
zucuolu K., Grenet M., 2004, “Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turquie). Aspects ar-
chéologiques, chronologiques et paléontologiques d’une séquence Pléis-
tocène en Anatolie centrale”, in Comptes Rendus Palevol de l’Academie
des Sciences de Paris, 3, pp. 411-420.
Slimak L., Kuhn S., Roche H., Mouralis D., Buitenhuis H., Balkan-Atlı N., Binder
N., Kuzucuolu C., Guillou H., 2008, “Kaletepe Deresi 3 (Turkey): archaeo-
logical evidence for early human settlement in Central Anatolia”, in Jour-
nal of Human Evolution, 54(1), pp. 99-111.
Tekin O., 2000, “The Kingdom of Cappadocia during the Hellenistic and Roman
Times”, in Sözen M. (ed.), Cappadocia, Istanbul, Ayhan Şahenk Founda-
tion, pp. 195-227.

30 1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u
 Kapadokya, Bir Yeraltı Yerleşim Bölgesi

Thierry N., 1971, “Le chiese rupestri”, in Arte della Cappadocia, Gènéve, Les Édi-
tions Nagel, pp.129-171.
Thierry N., 1981, “Monuments de Cappadoce de l’antiquité romaine au moyen
âge byzantine”, in Le aree omogenee della Civiltà Rupestre nell’ambito
dell’Impero Bizantino: la Cappadocia, Galantina (Lecce), Congedo Editore.
Thierry N., 1989, “Eski Gümüş, monastère 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, “L’organizzazione difensiva”, in Bixio R., Castellani V.,
Succhiarelli C. (eds.), Cappadocia. Le città sotterranee, Roma, Istituto Pol-
igrafico e Zecca dello Stato, pp. 253-264.
Tryon C.A., Logan M.A.V., Mouralis D., Kuhn S., Slimak L., Balkan-Atlı 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 Rätsel der unterirdischen Städte Südostanatoliens. Erster
Teil: Der Befund”, in Vorland, 6, Pinneberg (Hamburg), A. Beig Verlag, pp.
150-153.
Urban M., 1973b, “Das Rätsel der unterirdischen Städte Südostanatoliens. Zweit-
er Teil: Geschichtlicher Rahmen und Deutungen”, in Vorland, 7, Pinneberg
(Hamburg), A. Beig Verlag, pp. 174-181.
Urban M., 1973c, “Das Rätsel der unterirdischen Städte Südostanatoliens. Dritte
Teil: Maginotlinie der Frühgeschichte”, in Vorland, 8, Pinneberg (Ham-
burg), A. Beig Verlag, pp. 205-212.
Urban M., 1986, Geschichte unter der Erde, Jahresschrift des Arbeitskreises für
Erdstallforschung, Heft 12, Roding, Drukerei Johann Premm.

1 . U l u s l a r a r a s ı N e v ş e h i r Ta r i h v e K ü l t ü r S e m p o z y u m u 31