Hypogea 2023

150 Castle of Gaziantep (Turkey) - Tunnels, Dwellings, Excavations and Earthquakes ferent trenches between 2003 and 2005 in the south corner of the castle. According to these findings, the mound dates to the Early Bronze Age (Kulakoğlu et al., 2004; Kulakoğlu, 2006). Although the upper layers yield finds starting in the Middle Ages, there are layers immediately below that date to the Early Chalcolithic Age and the Early Bronze Age. It is possible that the upper layers consisted of thick waste layers showing the various construction phases of the castle construction and medieval hillside settlements. Although many pottery fragments were found during the survey, settlement levels belonging to the 1st and 2nd millennia BC could not be identified during the excavations. During the excavations, it was understood that these cultural layers were cut and shaved during the first construction of the castle. Excavations carried out in 2004, starting from the level where the layers belonging to the latest phase of the Early Bronze Age are located, showed that there was a dense settlement in the mound dating to this period. The walls of a monumental building with storage jars can be seen with the naked eye along the southern slope of the mound. Various graves were found in almost every layer during the excavation. While some tombs contain few gifts, others are quite rich in finds. The excavations revealed that the earliest settlement levels in the mound belonged to the late Uruk period (BC 3400 to 3200). In some trenches, a depth of 8.50 m was reached until the bedrock was reached. Although the ground of the north and east of the hill where the castle is located is solid rock, this southern part of the mound is mostly Fig. 6 – Defence gallery at the southwest side of the hill (photo A. E. Keskin). Fig. 7 – Destruction and erosion at the east side of the castle after the February 6, 2023 earthquakes. Some of the dwellings can be seen at the foot of the hill (photo E. Ozihtiyar).

151 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa soil and is completely open to erosion. These excavations, which were carried out on a 35-40 degree incline, probably both increased the erosion and decreased the resistance of the castle walls above the trenches. Earthquakes The East Anatolian Fault (EAF) is an intra-continental strike-slip fault associated with the collision of the Arabian Plate with the Anatolian Plate. The EAF, with a length of more than 800 km from the Iskenderun Bay to Karlıova in the northeast, passes 70 km west of Gaziantep. EAF, one of the three biggest faults in Anatolia, has produced countless earthquakes throughout history (Köküm, İnceöz, 2018; Duman et al., 2020). In the earthquake that completely destroyed Zeitun and Elbistan in January 1544, Gaziantep also suffered great damage. Another earthquake that took place on January 21, 1626, is probably one of the biggest earthquakes that the entire Southeastern Anatolia has ever experienced. The sources of the period write that Gaziantep, Urfa and even Aleppo were completely destroyed, and thousands of deaths were recorded. Another earthquake that took place on October 13, 1760, although not as big as the previous one, was felt in the whole region from Gaziantep to Antakya, and its aftershocks continued for days (Ambraseys, Finkel, 1995). In the earthquake that took place in Gaziantep on October 22, 1822, many buildings in the city, as well as the places belonging to the Late Ottoman Period built inside the castle were destroyed. During the archaeological excavations, it was understood that the stones of these structures had collapsed in the direction of the entrance, and this was due to the inclination of the structures towards the entrance. Also, the tunnels and galleries of the castle, which were largely derelict after this earthquake, were filled in to prevent further destruction. The castle was largely destroyed again by two consecutive earthquakes of magnitude 7.8 and 7.4 on February 6, 2023 (fig. 7). Restorations Gaziantep Castle, which has been destroyed many times over the past centuries, was seriously damaged by the 1822 earthquake and the ensuing Independence War between 1920-1922 (fig. 8). The first repair of the castle was carried out by the municipality of its time in the 1950s With this restoration, the ruined outer walls and main walls of the castle were partially repaired, the trenches around the castle, the tunnels and rooms in the castle were filled. The second restoration of the castle was also made by the municipality at the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s. With these projects, the dilapidated gallery on the southwestern outskirts of the castle was collapsed and a symbolic gallery was built. The major walls which were not restored during the 1950 repair were completed, giving the castle a present-day appearance. Conclusion Gaziantep Castle, which has a history of more than a thousand years and has undergone countless wars and sieges, has been destroyed and rebuilt several times. On the other hand; February 6, 2023 earthquakes have done more damage to the castle than many wars. In our opinion, the main causes of this huge destruction can be summarized as; a) The ground on which the castle is built is loose. Although the north and east of the hill are partially rocky, other parts are soil. b) In addition to this soft ground, the bottom of the hill has been excavated from almost all directions. In other words, the hill on which the castle stands is hollow. c) The upper soil cover is open to erosion. Although many methods have been tried to find a solution to this problem over the years, none of them were sufficient. When you look at fig. 7, you can see how inadequate the surface coatings made to prevent erosion are. d) Old restorations were poorly made. The walls of the castle are not entirely rock-cut. Although the front and back coverings of the walls are rock-cut, the 90 cm gap between them is filled with rubble. This idle rubble move and hit the front and rear rock-cut structure during an earthquake, and causing it to collapse. Fig. 8 – A postcard of Gaziantep Castle dated 1941, showing the destructions of both the Independence War during 1920’s and the 1822 earthquake (photographer unknown).

152 Castle of Gaziantep (Turkey) - Tunnels, Dwellings, Excavations and Earthquakes Bibliography Ambraseys N., Finkel C., 1995, The Seismicity of Turkey, Eren Press, İstanbul. Andreasyan H., Dulaurer E., Yinanç H., 2019, Urfalı Mateos Vekayi-Nâmesi (952-1136) ve Papaz Grigor’un Zeyli (1136-1162), Türk Tarih Kurumu, Ankara. Cahen C., 1940, La Syrie du Nord, Paris. Duman T.Y., Elmaci H, Özalp S., Güldoğan Ç., 2020, Paleoseismology of the western Sürgü–Misis fault system: East Anatolian Fault, Turkey. Mediterranean Geoscience Reviews December 2020. Köküm M., İnceöz M., 2018, Structural analysis of the northern part of the East Anatolian Fault System. Journal of Structural Geology 114: 55-63. Kulakoğlu F., 2006, 2005 Yılı Gaziantep Kalehöyük Kazıları, pp. 471-480. 28. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Çanakkale. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. Kulakoğlu, F., Sertok M., Squadrone F., Güllüce H., 2004, Gaziantep Kale Höyük 2003 Excavations, pp. 291-302. In, 26. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı, Konya. Kültür ve Turizm Bakanlığı. Pococke R., 1743, A description of the East, and some other countries, vol. 2, London.

153 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 1 C.S.S. - Centro Studi Sotterranei, Genoa (Italy) 2   O’MAG - Obruk Mağara Araştırma Grubu, Istanbul (Turkey) *  Reference author: Roberto Bixio - [email protected] Underground Shelters in Cappadocia (Turkey) Roberto Bixio1,*, Ali Yamaç2 Abstract Structures carved in the rock for purposes of war or refuge are known all over the world and in every age. Cappadocia, in the middle of Turkey, is one of the places where such structures are most widespread and articulated, facilitated by very favourable geological and morphological conditions. The historical events that may have pushed the populations resident in this territory to dig this type of structures are numerous and distributed over a very large period of time. However, in view of a compelling set of clues listed here, the period that most justifies the expansion of a system of underground shelters is that of the Arab raids that afflicted the Byzantine territory between the middle of the 7th and early 11th centuries AD. The organization of all the shelters in Cappadocia seems to comply with a common design, then varied according to local needs. Each project includes a basic unit consisting of a residential or utilitarian part, and a composite set of devices for the defence of a more internal area in which are preponderant heavy stone doors in the shape of a millstone. The set of units can form well organized systems, which sometimes extend even for kilometres, corresponding to surface villages, or integrated in ancient rock-cut dwellings. Currently, these structures are locally called “underground cities”, regardless of their size and their actual function, but it would be appropriate to identify them as “underground shelters”, or more generically as “underground settlements”. Keywords: Cappadocia, underground shelter, underground settlement, underground city, yeraltı şehri. Introduction It is well known that people have used, and still use underground spaces everywhere, for thousands of years, not only as dwellings where to take cover from the adverse weather conditions, or worship reasons, but also to hide and defend themselves from hostile actions. The entrances to these shelters, dug into the rocky outcrops and underground, are almost always not easy to locate. Rooms of various sizes, connected by tunnels usually equipped with traps and doors, almost impossible to open from the outside, have turned these structures into defence centres, indispensable against all kinds of hostile events throughout history. Therefore, in many geographical areas, from Vietnam to France, there are today evidence of countless underground structures of this type (Triolet and Triolet, 1996; 2013). However, the first place that comes to mind is, in all likelihood, Cappadocia, located in the core of Anatolia (figs. 1, 2), consisting mainly of soft volcanic rocks, cliffs, canyons, badlands and eroded pinnacles. The two main reasons for this appeal are the huge number and density of underground settlements on this territory and the remarkable size and complex organization of some of them. Small or large, almost every village in Cappadocia has rock-cut or underground artificial structures of several types, including one or more equipped also for defence (shelters) (fig. 3). They are particularly concentrated in the provinces of Nevşehir, Kayseri and Aksaray, but are also present in the other neighbouring provinces (figs. 2, 4). We can note that on the rock-cut churches there is a very vast literature. Instead, investigations on manmade structures in the rock formations of the region that specifically concern the so-called “underground cities” or, better, “underground shelters”, begins only in the 1970s. The first study on this subject belongs to Martin Urban (1973a-b-c), followed by works of Yörükoğlu et al. (1989), the Triolet brothers (1993), and two officials of the Nevşehir Archaeological Museum (Gülyaz and Yenipınar, 1995). In 1991 a multi-year project started to systematically explore and map as many underground settlements as possible. The program was developed by researchers from Centro Studi Sotterranei (CSS) of Genoa (Italy), partner of National Artificial Cavity Commission, which is an organisation of the Italian Speleological Society. The investigations were carried out with the authorization of the Turkish Ministry of Culture (Bertucci, Bixio, and Traverso, 1995; Bixio, Castellani and Succhiarelli, 2002; Bixio, 2012). More recently, a systematic research project promoted by Kayseri Province and led by Obruk Mağara Araştırma Grubu (O’MAG) of Istanbul has started. At the same time a data collection and a cataloguing was carried out both on the sites explored and on those whose sources could be found. The two most complete inventories achieved so far are: “Cappadocia: Records of the Underground Sites” (Bixio, 2012), and “The Archaeological Settlements of Turkey” (Akyürek et al., 2015). Although more than 120 rock-cut and underground settlements are recorded in these two inventories, documentation and maps of only a small part of

154 Underground Shelters in Cappadocia (Turkey) these structures are available. However, thanks to the O’MAG and CSS teams, new and wider investigations are currently underway, with the result, among others, of having already updated the inventory, which will be soon published, geo-locating in total 364 sites with artificial cavities (fig. 4). Of these, at least 200 are structured with defence devices that allow us to identify them as real shelters. Historical background Cappadocia, from the second millennium BC, after being the centre of the Hittite Empire, with its capital Hattusa to the north (fig. 2), and then of the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Tabal (9th-8th centuries BC), later fell under the control of the Phrygian kingdom (8th-7th centuries BC). There were several Assyrian attacks in Cappadocia, in 718 BC and in the following years. Following the destruction of the Assyrian kingdom by the combined powers of Babylonians, Scythians, and Medes (612 BC), the latter and the kingdom of Lydia, in 590-585 BC, began another conflict in Cappadocia (Sevin, 1998). Later the region became a Persian satrapy: the name Katpat.uk-a first appears in 520 BC in an inscription by Darius reported by Herodotus (Kent, 1953: 107), but probably already mentioned as Katta-peda (Lower Land) in Hittite sources (Yakubovich, 2014). Later the region became Hellenized during the conquests of Alexander the Great (322 BC), and then in Fig. 1 – Cappadocia at the time of Strabo, about AD 14 (drawing modified by R. Bixio, after Jones, 1954). Fig. 2 – Central Anatolian Plateau. The current six provinces that we consider largely corresponding to historical Cappadocia. The dotted area corresponds roughly to the extent of the volcanic rock deposits, of about 20,000 square kilometres, where the investigations of underground settlements are still in progress (drawing R. Bixio).

155 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa the sphere of influence of Rome (about 190 BC); finally, in AD 17, it becomes a Roman province (fig.1) (Thierry, 2002: 25). The early rooting of Christianity occurs here immediately in the following period. In the second century Caesarea (before Mazaca Eusebia and now Kayseri), is already stabilized as a bishopric, despite the subsequent persecution of Valerian and Diocletian in the third century (Thierry, 2002: 62). At the beginning of the 4th century, the Emperor Constantine officially recognized the new religion, which expanded quickly, as witnessed by the construction of masonry churches and the excavation of countless churches in the rock, especially from the late 5th until the 13th century (Ousterhout, 2017: 5/13). In AD 314 Cappadocia was the largest province of the Roman Empire (Ramsay,1890). This territory corresponds to almost six provinces of today (fig. 2), with a total area of at least 58,000 sq km, which includes over 20,000 sq km of volcanic deposits (dotted area) where nearly all the rock-cut and underground sites are located (fig. 4). From the beginning of the 7th century, Cappadocia was a frontier land of the Byzantine Empire threatened by the armies of the Sassanid Persian Empire. During the occupation of Caesarea by the Persians in AD 611, the residents fled and the city was destroyed. Afterward, in 622 and 627, the Byzantine Emperor Herakleios, campaigned against the Persians in Anatolia, winning a string of battles. Between 628 and 632, a civil war greatly weakened the Sassanid Empire. The Arab armies took advantage of this situation and began to attack Anatolia. Rather than an invasion of the region, the Arab attacks consisted of a sort of “looting” that was repeated almost every summer and these raids continued for about 350 years (Mc Geer, 1991: 132-133). A century after the end of the Arab attacks, the region was faced with the Seljuk Turks’ raids. Their armies destroyed Melitene (today Malatya) in AD 1057 and Sebasteia (today Sivas) in 1059. In 1067 they conquered Caesarea (Runciman 1997: 54), burned it and massacred all the people. Four years later, in 1071, the Byzantine emperor Romanos IV arrived in the region with a large army to regain control of Cappadocia. After his defeat at the Battle of Mantzikert, the entire region was completely occupied by the Seljuk (Ash, 2006; Hild and Restle, 1981). Dating the Cappadocian underground shelters Generally, it is considered that all these underground shelters located in Cappadocia were dug by the local Fig. 3 – Bürüngüz underground settlement (Kayseri Province).The network of tunnels and rooms is carved into the rock below the masonry village of surface. The part explored so far extends for 1286 m, defended by 27 millstone-doors. It is thought that the structure is much larger, extending under the whole masonry village, with more entrances and defence devices (photo A.E. Keskin).

156 Underground Shelters in Cappadocia (Turkey) Christian population to defend themselves and survive in this troubled environment, between middle 7th and early 11th centuries, coinciding with the Arab raids. This opinion is supported by various researchers (Jerphanion, 1925; Kempe, 1988; Triolet and Triolet, 1993, 2002; Ousterhout, 2017). Indeed, we note that on the rocky walls of many underground settlements there are often engraved crosses and in several cases they are associated with churches. Moreover, we know that during the archaeological excavations of the underground shelters at Aydıntepe (Kayseri province), Kavlaktepe (Niğde province) and Oymalı (Konya province), exclusively fragments of Byzantine pottery were found (Faydalı, 1992, 1993; Özkorucuklu, 1992; Şahin, 1993; Erkmen, 1999; Bilici, 2003). In some cases, such as in the sites we investigated in Ağırnas and St. Mercurius (Kayseri province), the churches were carved right at the entrance of the underground settlements and the tunnels that extend from there are protected by millstone-doors. Therefore, the churches, used in normal times for religious functions, during the raids allowed people to hide and defend themselves in the inner part (Yamaç, Tok, and Filikci, 2014; Yamaç, 2017). However, other clues suggest the possibility of their use both in previous centuries and in later times, but without invalidate this hypothesis. Martin Urban proposes the hypothesis that Cappadocia, in the 8th and 7th centuries BC, could be considered a “buffer-zone” between the Phrygian and Assyrian kingdoms, thousand years before the Arab attacks (Urban, 1973c: 180-181). On this topic we point out that, although Urbans’ arguments seem to be plausible and may be worthy of further consideration, actually definitive archaeological and textual evidence has not yet be found. The fact then that, in at least three cases, in the close vicinity of some underground shelters (Topada, Karaburna and Sivasa) there are rock hieroglyphics inscriptions attributable to the Neo-Hittite kingdom of Tabal, and near the underground shelter of Filiktepe the remains of a walled city are being excavated, leads not to discarded the possibility, originally, of some sort of very ancient relationship. However, even in this case, no direct link has so far been established between them (Mora et al., 2017; 2020). Fig. 4 – Updated 2022 map of all anthropogenic sites identified in the current six provinces of historical Cappadocia (drawing A. Yamaç and R. Bixio).

157 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa Structural features of underground shelters Let’s see, in summary, what are the elements that define the underground shelters of Cappadocia. In figure 5 we have schematically represented the basic unit (module) that can be considered a structure intended for defence. It consists of a cavity [a] excavated in a rocky outcrop in the part closest to the surface, and used as storage, stable or even dwelling, or to serve a contiguous masonry house built outside. From the cavity [a] a corridor, protected by millstones (figs. 3, 9), leads to an internal compartment [d] (“redoubt”: term borrowed from military architecture).­­Almost always there is a small tunnel [e], also protected, used as an escape route or to surprise enemies behind. Stone doors [Md] were then normally supplemented by other passive and active defence devices (Bixio and De Pascale, 2015). The modules could be replicated and interconnected to form networks (systems - fig. 6), with even kilometrical extensions, with mutual defence. More in-depth investigation of some of them revealed, that their configuration followed a predetermined design that provided for the establishment of “isolating rooms” that could block the aggressors from whatever direction they came, and of “isolated rooms”, or “redoubts”, in which the defenders could retreat, reorganising the defence, and receive or give help to other sectors. The location of the underground shelters, their extension and their relationship with the ancient settlements are very varied according to the needs and dimensions of each local community and the morphology of the places. Recall that in Cappadocia highland Fig. 5 – Schematic module of an underground horizontal unit consisting of dwelling and redoubt (drawing R. Bixio). Fig. 6 – Schematic plan of a horizontal underground shelter. The system consists of several interconnected modules. For example, the Filiktepe system, consisting of about 20 modules, is 1673 m long, defended by 55 millstone-doors (drawing R. Bixio).

158 Underground Shelters in Cappadocia (Turkey) areas scattered with flat free-standing hills (buttes) alternate with volcanic cones, cliffs, ravines, gullies and pinnacles. Networks of tunnels dug in isolated buttes, without external dwellings, have been identified, but also complexes within rock elevations contiguous to surface villages have been documented. The most striking case is that of Derinkuyu. The underground network develops below the modern city to at least five overlapping levels; these reach a depth of about 45 m. The settlement is divided into sectors that we can consider “blocks”, with radial development (figs. 7, 8) that, today mostly inaccessible, are located under the masonry houses. All sectors are strongly defended, at various levels, by devices mainly consisting of a series of millstone-doors; these are more present in the tunnels leading to the lower floors, probably used as last defence (redoubt). The floors closest to the surface, instead, had, and in some cases still have utilitarian use to serve the dwellings above (Bixio, 2012; Yamaç and Tok, 2015). Naming the underground shelters Locally, the type of settlement described so far is improperly named “underground city”, in any case without distinction on the intended use or size. This term, in conformity with local custom, have been widely adopted by ourselves (Bixio, Castellani and Succhiarelli, 2002) and by every person who approaches the extraordinary rock-cut manifestations of Cappadocia, also because, actually, it is particularly evocative providing an immediate and suggestive image of its peculiar settlements (see, for example: Yörükoğlu et al., 1989; Triolet and Triolet, 1993; Ayhan, 2004; Gülyaz and Yenipınar, 2007). Nevertheless, Ousterhout, on the subject points out that “the so-called underground cities remain one of the great enigmas of the region, subject to wild speculation” and it is more likely to consider them a kind of “redoubt system” integrated with more extensive underground residences or “a system of underground shelters [...] combined with a village on the surface” (Ousterhout, 2017: 12/345- Fig. 7 – Diagram of the probable phases of radial excavation for the underground city and shelter of Derinkuyu: 1) excavation of shafts to extract the resulting material and for ventilation; 2) independent radial excavations conducted by each shaft to obtain rooms and tunnels on overlapping levels and wells to reach the aquifer; 3) connecting the rooms of different sectors and positioning of defensive devices (drawing R. Bixio). Fig. 8 – Schematic plans of two of the sectors, contiguous but not currently connected, of the underground city and shelter of Derinkuyu (elaboration R. Bixio).

159 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 346). Even the Triolet brothers (2022; 265-266), more recently they define them “un ensemble exceptionnel de gigantesques souterrains-refuges villageois”, that is, “rural underground-shelters” comparable to those of northern France. Indeed, only in a limited number of cases it is possible to recognise a conformation that can be considered a real urban organisation which, however, even in the most complex and extensive sites can make you think of a quarter or, at most, a - more or less large - village, but not a city. We believe that only two of these settlements (Derinkuyu and perhaps Kaymaklı) actually have the size and organization of real underground “urban” centres, although they are currently only partly explored and documented and have been reworked to make them accessible to the public. In particular, the “underground city” of Derinkuyu is crossed by an underground “road network” that, in the only two sectors for now better documented (fig. 8), has an extension of over 2.5 km, but the total development is certainly much greater. Conclusions In short, while respecting the local terminology of “yeraltı şehri”, we will call “underground shelters” the structures that present an articulated and integrated defensive organisation (fig. 6). We will instead use the term “redoubt” in case of units, of limited size (fig. 5), having the function of “last refuge” within a larger defensive system, or in the case of single protected areas within predominantly residential (konak - fig. 10) or monastic (manastır) rock-cut complexes. In the event that the type of structure does not have obvious defensive characteristics, or is not clearly determinable, or present mixed elements, we propose the more generic name of “underground settlement” or “rock-cut settlement” (depending on the location) instead of “underground city”, a denomination perhaps more evocative, but less appropriate. In addition to this basic distinction, as we have seen, the panorama of the types is quite varied in location and conformation of each underground structure as a result of the lithological and morphological characteristics of each locality and the specific needs of each community. However, the general organization of all the structures and their defensive elements seems to comply with a common and coherent design throughout Cappadocian territory. As for the dating of shelters, most opinions seem to agree that the time of the Arab raids between the 7th century and the end of the 10th / early 11th centuries is plausible, without excluding the possibility, at least in part, of other periods, prior or subsequent. Fig.  9 – Kuşcağız underground shelter (Kayseri Province). Millstone-door currently in open position. In case of attack it was rolled in the appropriate groove, visible in the opposite wall, to close and defend the tunnel (photo A.E. Keskin). Fig. 10 – Rock-cut settlement of Büyük Kale or Konak, close to Gülşehir (Nevşehir Province). It is a real village carved on several levels into the cliff that continues into the canyon behind. It is integrated by an underground shelter, equipped with millstone-doors, a horizontal trap and wells, that extends for 183 m in the innermost body of the rock, parallel to the face (photo R. Bixio).

160 Underground Shelters in Cappadocia (Turkey) Bibliography Akyürek E., Çömezoğlu Ö., Tiryaki A., Yamaç A., Karakaya N., Mimiroğlu M., Evcim S., 2015, Turkey Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri 8 - Bizans / Iç Anadolu, Ege Yayınları, Istanbul. Ash J., 2006, A Byzantine Journey, (2 ed.), Tauris Parke Paperbacks, London. Ayhan A., 2004, Geological and Morphological Investigations of the Underground Cities of Cappadocia Using GIS. (PhD), ODTU, Ankara. Bertucci G., Bixio R., Traverso M., 1995, Le città sotterranee della Cappadocia, Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna, 140 pages. Bilici M., 2003, Yeraltı Şehirleri Kazısı, proceedings 13. Müze Sempozyumu, Denizli 2002: pp. 51-60. T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara. Bixio R. (editor), 2012, Cappadocia. Records of the underground sites. British Archaeological Reports, International Series 2413, Archaeopress, Oxford, 278 pages. Bixio R., Castellani V., Succhiarelli C., 2002, Cappadocia, le città sotterranee, Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Roma, 319 pages. Bixio R., De Pascale A., 2015, Defensive devices in ancient underground shelters. Comparison among the sites of Aydıntepe, Ani, Ahlat and Cappadocia, in Turkey, proceedings Symposium on East Anatolia-South Caucasus Cultures, Erzurum, October 2012, vol II: pp. 461-480. Atatürk Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Erzurum and Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Cambridge. Erkmen M., 1999, Aydıntepe Yeraltı Şehri Çalışmaları, proceedings 9. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 1998 Antalya: pp. 313- 320. T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara. Faydalı E., 1992, Kavlaktepe Yeraltı Şehri Kurtarma Kazısı, proceedings 2. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 1991 Ankara: pp. 285-298. T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara. Faydalı E., 1993, Kavlaktepe Yeraltı Şehri Kurtarma - Temizlik Kazısı, proceedings 3. Müze Kurtarma Kazıları Semineri, 1992 Efes: pp. 365-372. T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara. Gülyaz M., Yenipınar H., 1995, Villes souterraines de Cappadoce, Mehmet Selami Küsmez ve Ortaklari, Nevşehir, 96 pages. Gülyaz M., Yenipınar H., 2007, Underground Cities of Cappadocia, Nevşehir. Hild F., Restle M., 1981, Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos), Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenshaften, Wien, 338 pages. Jerphanion G. de, 1925, Une nouvelle province de l’art byzantine. Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce, tome premier (première partie), Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, tome V, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris, 294 pages. Jones H.L. (editor) 1954, The geography of Strabo, vol V, Heinemman, London. Kempe D., 1988, Living Underground, Herbert Press, London, 256 pages. Kent R.G., 1953, Old Persian Grammar, Texts, Lexicon. New Haven. Mc Geer E., 1991, Tradition and Reality in the “Taktika” of Nikephoros Ouranos, in Dumbarton Oaks Papers, vol. 45: pp. 129-140. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. Mora C., Balza M., Bixio R., De Pascale A., 2017, A Link between “Ancient Words” and the “Underground World”: Cappadocian Landscape, Rock-cut Structures and Textual Evidence from Hittite Documentation, proceedings International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Caves “Hypogea 2017”, Cappadocia, Turkey, 6/10 March 2017: pp. 65-78. Mora C., Balza M., Bixio R., De Pascale A., 2020, Cappadocia, a “Hidden” Landscape: “Underground World” and Neo-Hittite Evidence, proceedings 11th ICAANE, 2018 Munich: pp. 481-496. Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden. Ousterhout R., 2017, Visualizing Community: Art, Material Culture, and Settlement in Byzantine Cappadocia, Vol. 46, Harvard University Press, Washington D.C., 532 pages. Özkorucuklu H.,1992, Aydıntepe Yeraltı Kenti, proceedings 2. Müze Semineri, 1991 Ankara: pp. 233-254. T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara. Ramsay W., 1890, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor, John Murray, London, 495 pages. Runciman S., 1997, Storia delle Crociate, vol. primo, Einaudi, Torino, 620 pages. Sevin V., 1998, MÖ I. Binyıl: Demir Çağı: Krallığın Koruyucuları, in M. Sözen (Ed.), Kapadokya,Ayhan Şahenk Foundation, İstanbul. Şahin S., 1993, Özlüce Yeraltı Şehri, proceedings 3. Müze Semineri, 1992 Efes: pp. 219-228. T.C. Kültür Bakanlığı, Ankara. Thierry N., 2002, La Cappadoce. De l’Antiquité au Moyen Âge, Bibliothèque de l’Antiquité Tardive, Brepols, Turnhout, 315 pages. Triolet J., Triolet L., 1993, Les villes souterraines de Cappadoce, DMI Editions, Torcy, 110 pages. Triolet J., Triolet L., 1996, Deux Conceptions du Grand Souterrain-Refuge Villageois Hiermont (Picardie - France) et Sivasa (Cappadoce -Turquie), in Subterranean 97 (Arche!ologie des Mondes Souterrains). Triolet J., Triolet L., 2002, L’organizzazione difensiva, in R. Bixio, V. Castellani, C. Succhiarelli (a cura di), Cappadocia. Le città sotterranee: pp. 253-264. Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, Roma. Triolet J., Triolet L., 2013, Underground refuges and war tunnels (France, Cappadocia, Afghanistan, Vietnam and Lebanon, in Opera Ipogea, 1-2013: pp. 49-58. Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna. Triolet J., Triolet L., 2022, Des monuments sortis de l’ombre. Les souterrains-refuges, Éditions Errance, Arles, 304 pages. Urban M.,1973a, Das Rätsel der unterirdischen Städte Südostanatoliens. Dritter Teil: Maginotlinie der Frühgeschichte, Vorland, 8: pp. 205-212. A. Beig Verlag, Pinnemberg. Urban. M., 1973b, Das Rätsel der unterirdischen Städte Südostanatoliens. Erster Teil: Der Befund, Vorland, 6: pp.150-153. A. Beig Verlag, Pinnemberg. Urban M., 1973c, Das Rätsel der unterirdischen Städte Südostanatoliens. Zweiter Teil: Geschichtlicher Rahmen und Deutungen, Vorland, 7: pp. 174-181. A. Beig Verlag, Pinnemberg. Yakubovich I., 2014, From Lower Land to Cappadocia, in Kozuk, M. et al. (Eds), Extraction and Control: Studies in Honour of Matthew W. Stolper: pp. 347-352. Oriental Institute, Chicago. Yamaç A., 2017, Underground Settlements and Cave Dwellings of Agirnas Village, Kayseri (Southeast Turkey), proceedings International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities “Hypogea 2017”: pp. 306-310. Cappadocia, Turkey. Yamaç A., Tok E., 2015, Surveying Some of the Touristic Underground Cities of Cappadocia (Turkey), proceedings International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities “Hypogea 2015”, Rome, Opera Ipogea 1/2015: pp. 86-91. Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna. Yamaç A., Tok E., Filikci B., 2014, St. Mercurius Underground City of Saratli (Aksaray-Turkey), Opera Ipogea, 2-2014: pp. 37-46. Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna. Yörükoğlu Ö., Sevil T., Tașçi Z., Türkmen K., Uysal V., 1989, Les sites souterrains de Cappadoce, Așik Ofset, Ankara, 80 pages.

161 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 1   NUACA Dr. of Arch., Professor of Geoecology 2 Bachelor degree of law, bachelor degree of theology, teacher of theology ([email protected]) 3 NUACA. MS student ([email protected]) 4   NUACA. BA student ([email protected]) 5 NUACA. BA student ([email protected]) *  Reference author: Samvel Shahinyan - [email protected] From Xenophon houses to Armenian rock-cut dwellings and sacristies Samvel M. Shahinyan1,*, Ashkhen Shahinyan2 , Nerses Varderesyan3 , Gayane Erkoyan4 , Ani Badasyan5 Abstract Historically, two types of dwellings stand out in the diversity of underground and cave dwellings in the territory of the Armenian Highland Abich H. V., 1878: the author of the name was the German geologist Otto von Abich and he meant the Mountainous Armenia sector of the Armenian biotope Mountainous geomorphological landscapes are characterized by rock cut houses built mainly in volcanic rocks (Abich, 1843). As a rule, this kind of dwellings consist of one room, with relatively fewer dwellings consisting of two and more room Bixio R., 2012. Niches cut in the walls are one of the characteristic features of these dwellings that are multifunctional or designed for particular functions. In the Middle Ages, or possibly earlier, this type of cave dwellings had outbuildings with characteristic features of the Armenian architecture, arched entrances and ornaments: Typical examples are Ani in Turkey, Khndzoresk in Syunik marz, Armenia and a few “melik” houses in Artsakh. The other type of residential houses was the earthen and rock-cut (soil, ground and bedrock) cube-shaped excavations, with unique covers over them, which are known by the name Hazarashen in the medieval manuscripts and in the works by T. Toromanyan (Toromanyan, 1942; 1947), (Tab. 1) as well as (Archbishop Sargis Jalalyan, 2014). In common parlance, the names kondatsatsk, soghomatsatsk, soghomashen, more often - gharnavooch are known (Bdoyan, 1947; Papukhyan, 1972): all these are types of the same form of roof. Xenophon’s Anabasis describes a traditional Armenian dugout, where the remnants of the Greek mercenary troop rested while retreating. Based on the scarce data from Xenophon’s book and the many studies by Armenian ethnographers, we have attempted to restore the appearance of the ancestral dugout house, taking into account functional details. This kind of houses were common in the entire mountainous plains and valleys of the Armenian biotope (Turkey), Ararat and Shirak valleys (Republic of Armenia), Akhalkalaki and Ninotsminda (Georgia), and Gyanja (Azerbaijan) (Bdoyan, 1947; Papukhyan, 1972; Vardanyan, 1959; Lalayan, 1896; 1897) (Tab. 1, 4, 5, 6). Keywords: Dugouts in ancient Armenia, Hazarashen-kondatsatsk, soghomatsatsk, soghomashen, more often – gharnavooch sacristies, Xenophon. Research methods Cyrus the Younger, Satrap of Lydia, Phrygia and Cappadocia, the brother of the Persian king Artaxerxes Mnemon, came out of Sardis with a large, multinational and mercenary army in BC. 401 determined to take the crown from Persia in the spring. Xenophon of Athens was also in that army. After the defeat of Cyrus, the Greek mercenaries had to return to their homeland through a different route, passing through Armenia. We are interested only in the sections 25-27 of the fourth book of Xenophon’s Anabasis. Xenophon writes: “/25/ The houses here were underground, the entrance was like the mouth of a well, and the lower part was spacious. While the entrance for the cattle was dug in the ground, people were using the stairs to go down. There were goats, sheep, oxen, chickens and their offspring. All animals were fed grass inside. /26/There was also wheat and barley and chaff, and wine made from barley in vats, on the surface of which barley grains were floating, and in the vats there were reeds, large and small. /27/ When thirsty, a person could put the end of that reed in his mouth and thus drink. And it was very strong if not mixed with water, but it was a very appetizing drink for an accustomed person.” (Xenophon, 1970) (Tab. 2, 3). The development and varieties of urban planning and architecture of country houses were formed under the influence of a number of factors. We distinguish 3 types of approaches for agrarian settlements throughout the entire territory of historical Armenia and throughout the Middle Ages until the middle of the 20th century; settlements and cities located on plateaus and mountain valleys, the main component of which are earthen houses with “Hazarashen” (Tab.5)

162 From Xenophon houses to Armenian rock-cut dwellings and sacristies Tab. 1 – Three variation of social-architecture construction Fig. 1 – The camion near Ani and anthropogenic caves Fig. 1.2 – Interior (Ani) Fig. 1.3 – Aghvanatun (dovecote) Fig. 2 – Fig. 2.1 – The Village Hin Khot, Syunic Region Fig. 3 – Shulukh Mush, 1909 Fig. 3.1 – Arinj, Mush, 1914 RAA Archive and Authors

163 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa type of roof , above-ground tribal houses with mostly flat roofs (Toramanian, 1947; Vardanyan 1959; Papukhyan, 1972; Bdoyan, 1947), (Tab. 6) and the underground cities, which were mainly dug in layers of volcanic rocks and were located on plains and slopes with a slight slope of the landscape (Ghipshidze, 1972; Bixio, 2012; Shahinyan, 2005) (Tab.1, figs. 1, 2, 3). This classification is not complete because the residential houses created in humid climatic conditions are not represented here, the plan structure of which also includes the barn, and the roof is not flat, but is tiled with a significant slope (Lori, Tavush regions) and also the settlements formed near the fortresses are not described. We also do not discuss here the architecture of non-agricultural cities and fortress cities formed in the Middle Ages. A typical example is Mardin, Ani, Kars (Turkey), Bakhaberd, Kouash, Kakavaberd, Loryberd (RA), Tigranakert (Artsakh). Xenophonian houses In Xenophon’s description of the dwelling house, he is impressed about the comfort and functionality of the house, and these are the two main components of architecture from Vertruvius to the Palladians famous Greek and Italian architects whose professional books have not lost their value to this day. The third characteristic of architecture is durability. and up to the present day. This can be considered very important assessment, because Xenophon was not only an aristocrat, a soldier and a commander, but also a multifaceted intellectual. There is lots of data about underground houses in the materials of Armenian historians, literary experts, and in the memories of travelers. Hovh Mamikonyan wrote “I poured the money into the ditch in my house”. Tovma Artsruni mentions, “There were many treasures hidden in a jar in the dugout house.” Zakaria the Deacon tells in his testimony that when someone was leaving Etchmiadzin for Yerevan with his mule, he was confused “when the mule got out of the house, the house was ruined, and he and the mule fell into the house.” This means that in the 17th century there were still underground or semi-underground houses in Armenia. Parpetsi and Cretacimentioned also such men-dwellings in their writings. Thus, we are convinced that this type of rural residential house has been in continuous use in the Armenian Highlands for more than two millennia. Another example of this fact. Language and linguistic thinking are essential parameters for those scientists who study the history of the origin and development and/or evolution of culture and the people who speak that language. Many dialects of Armenian language have preserved a number of names related to the functional division of rural houses: head house, bakery, tonratun, oda, gom, etc. It is also noteworthy that many names have been preserved for the construction and interior appearance of the hemispherical ceiling. For example: wood dome, guppa,, kubbe, khup, khub, ghup, ochork, sogomakagh, sogomashen, kondatsatsk, darnavush, ghanpun and many other names (Toramanian, 1947; Vardanyan, 1959). Most likely, the dome cover had different and many constructive solutions in different provinces. Among the words used for the roof there are also words of Persian and Turkish origin. This fact highlights once again that such houses are ancient (Tab. 1, 2, 3, 4). Floor plan and structural details With Xenophon’s brief description and many features of the architecture of Armenian folk houses, let’s try Tab. 2 – Plan of the house described by Xenophon: 1) living room (glkhatun), 2) bakery (hatsatun), 3) food storage (maran), 4) barn (gom), 5) sheep pen (parakh), 6) oven (tonir), 7) nishes as selves, 8) stairs, 9) stream, 10) bedroom of head of family, 11) weat and barley granary (ambar) and bed for babies, 12) bedroom for adults.

164 From Xenophon houses to Armenian rock-cut dwellings and sacristies Tab. 3 – Plan of Cuts of Xenophon’s house: 1) A-A profile, 2) B-B profile, 3) C-C profile, 4) plan.

165 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa to restore the appearance of the traditional Armenian dugout house. Based on the materials of the RA Museum of Architecture and other archives, it can be concluded that the Xenophon house was intended for a dynastic family, where the patriarch (nahapet) lived, his sons with families and possibly their grandchildren. This circumstance implied functional separation of resiTab. 4 – the three types of Xenophon’s house (general planning): Fig. 1 – 1) living room (glkhtun), 2) food-storage (maran), 3) barn (gom), 4) oven (tonir), 5) bedroom of head of family, 6) weat and barley granary (ambar) and bed for babies, 7) bedroom for adults, 8) niches as selves, 9) stairs, 10) manger (msurq). Fig. 2 – 1) living room (glkhtun), 2) bakery, 3) barn (gom), 4) sheep pen (parakh), 5) oven (tonir), 6) bedroom of head of family, 7) weat and barley granary (ambar) and bed for babies, 8) bedroom for adults, 9) niches as selves, 10) manger (msurq), 11) stream. Fig. 3 – 1) living room (glkhtun), 2) bakery, 3) barn (gom), 4) food-storage (maran), 5) oven (tonir), 6) bedroom of head of family, 7) weat and barley granary (ambar) and bed for babies, 8) bedroom for adults, 9) niches as selves, 10) stairs, 11) manger (msurq).

166 From Xenophon houses to Armenian rock-cut dwellings and sacristies dential and economic areas and these were the bedrooms, the dining room, the kitchen, which together made up the main house. Another important part was the barn. The house also had a pantry and warehouse, which were in functional connection with the main part of the house – the kitchen. Such “crowded” houses were not preserved from the 19th-20th centuries in Akhlkalak (Georgia), Sevan Lake basin, Kanaker (Republic of Armenia), Bayazet (Turkey) based on the results of the research of the author’s group. The problem here is the constructive evolution of dugout houses, based on two main principles, with the first one being the need for comfort & risk reduction, means for living and the second principle based on various forms of public administration of different periods: slavery, feudal, military-feudal, religious, industrial-technological, liberal-social systems, etc. The entire history of humanity is the history of risk reduction in all areas of life. In Xenophon’s time, the existence of much greater risks led to the emergence of large human social groups living together. Representatives of 4 generations lived in one dugout family house with great grandfather, sons, grandsons, great-grandsons. From the 17th century Tab. 5 – The construction and form of dome: Figs. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11 – Balkho, Akhalkalaki. Fig. 2 – Gandzak, Arjesh. Fig. 7 – Gyulistan, Shahumyan province. Fig. 8 – Mets Samsar (Great Samsar), Akhalkalaki (RAA archive).

167 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa Tab. 6 – Capital, pillar and base of pillar: Figs. 1, 2 – Karapnar, Kars region. Fig. 3 – Kumurdo, Akhalkalaki. Figs. 4, 5 – Balkho, Akhalkalaki. Fig. 6 – Vardanyan (1959) and Papukhyan (1972). Fig. 7 – Tsar, Karvajar.

168 From Xenophon houses to Armenian rock-cut dwellings and sacristies onwards we see patriarchal houses - large families with a minimum of 3 generations. Until the 60s of the 20th century, families with 6 to 8 children were quite common in USSR, especially in rural areas. This was another way of coping with risks and preserving the genes for a nation that had seen constant massacres, 3 wars, famines and epidemics in the last 50 years. Consequently, considering the aforementioned and based on the plans and construction structures of dugout houses, a number of conclusions can be drawn. Tab. 7 – Different constructions of Hazarashen (Vardanyan, 1959).

169 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa The houses described by Xenophon (he also described houses & their customs occupied by the commander of the Greek army, Cheirospos) were essentially not only a sufficient environment to meet the needs of a large family, but also Xenophon had not described any inconvenient feature present in such houses. In addition, in the Anabasis there is no mention about the center of the house called ojakh, which is traditionally placed (built) under the oath hole so that the smoke escapes quickly. Based on this we can assume that the bakery is an adjacent structure with a milled (hazarashen) roof. So we’re making an attempt here to visually restore the houses described by Xenophon based on the calculations, economic system, the necessary functional environment and the comfort of life of its inhabitants. Until the 50’s of the last century, wheat was being stored in granaries and not in the pantry. The barns on 20-25 cm. foundation were being constructed at a height of a maximum of 100 cm in height, 120 cm in width and 160 to 200 cm in length. A small door on the barn deck was adapted for storing and removing grain. One or more such barns were lined up side by side under the wall, with a carpet or rug spread over them on the deck, which served as bed for younger children. The necessary tools, such as aghorick, sand and khank were stored in the bakery, when it was a separate structure. Other tools such as the chaff, kal & khop were being kept in the barn, not in the shed, and the small agricultural tools were kept in the pantry, along with wine, oil, beer, cheese, oil, honey, and agricultural products and fruits. The pantry was usually dug next to the bakery. Bedding and linens, as in cave dwellings in alcoves were being stored into the wall. The main house and the oven used various constructions of spherical dome or millstone, and for the pantry & barn, the ceiling was constructed flat. For the strength and stability of the hazarashen construction, pillars were used - logs with a diameter of 20 to 40 cm, the number of which depended on the number of the family members. With the square drawing of hazarashen, the beam was placed at 4, or 8, in some rare cases, 10 columns. A slab was placed under the pillars, and at the head of the log was a cap, in some cases with a beautiful carving (Tab. 5, 6, 7). Conclusions According to Xenophon, the architecture, structure and comfort of dugout houses was already perfect for those times (5th century, BC), which probably also contained guarantees of durability for this type of construction. However, in order to reach such an evolutionary level and obtain the necessary qualities, even by our minimal calculations, at least 5-6 hundred years were required. (Tab. 2, 3). The very existence of such houses shows the perfect harmony of human-nature relationship. Firstly, heat resistance in such houses was relatively high, temperature fluctuations were small – it was cooler in summer and there was a moderate heating requirement during winters. Moreover, since such houses were widespread in pre-alpine and alpine mountain zones, or in dry semi-desert steppes, for example in the Ararat valley, there were no forests surrounding these houses. Dung mixed with slag was used as heating material for houses and the ashes from burning were transported to the fields to fertilize the soil. According to T. Toramanyan, until the 15th century the roofs of churches were assembled based at the hazarashen principle. There are very rare cases described throughout the history of architecture, when the design of sacred structures, details and even complete construction forms are borrowed from the architecture of folk houses (Tab. 5, fig. 7). Summary Armenian folk houses were formed and got their final shape for almost a millennium and then continuously maintained both the style and the form for over 2,500 years. There were deviations from the classics in the cases of changes in social formations and the need for operating areas based on the number of family members, or the lack of need for these areas. Bibliography Abich H. V., 1843, Ueber die geologische Natur des armenischen Hochlandes, Dept Publishing, Venice. Abich H. V., 1878, Geologische Forschungen in den kaukasischen Landern I. Eine Bergkalkfauna aus der Araxesenge bei Djoulfa in Armenien. Artsruni T., 1852, History of the House of Artsrunik, Publishing House of Boghos Arapian Apuchekhtsi, Constantinople, 343 p. Bdoyan V. H., 1947, Armenian Ethnography, University Publishing, Erevan, 286 p. Bixio R., 2012, Cappadocia: records of the underground sites. British Archaeological Report (BAR), International Series, 2413. Archaeopress, Oxford, 10-20.

170 From Xenophon houses to Armenian rock-cut dwellings and sacristies Deacon Z., 1870, Historiography, Publishing House of Mother see of Holy Echmiadzin, Vagharshapat, 272 p. Ghipshidze D., 1972, Caves of Ani, Kipshidze, Пещеры Ани (1972) Academy of Sciences of Armenia 196 p. Kretatsi А., 1870, History of his Times and Nadir, Shah of Persia, Publishing House of Mother see of Holy Echmiadzin, Vagharshapat, 129 p. Lalayan E., 1896, Ethnographic Journal, Book A, Javakheti, Publishing House of Avag M. Mahtesi-Jacobeants, Tiflis, 124 p. Lalayan E., 1897, Ethnographic Journal, Book B, Varanda, Publishing House of M. D. Rhotineants, Tiflis, 134 p. Lalayan E., 1904, Ethnographic Journal, Book XI, Nakhichevan province, Publishing House of M. Martiroseants, Tiflis, 336 p. Mamikonyan H., 1989, History of Taron, Soviet Writer Publishing House, Erevan, 176 p. Papukhyan N. Ts., 1972, Folk Architecture of Syunik, ArmSSR AS, Erevan, 168 p. Parpetsi Gh., 1933, History of the Armenians, Letter to Vahan Mamikonian, Publishing House of San Lazzaro, Venice, 676 p. Shahinyan S., 2005, The caves of Armenia, V1, Zangak, Yerevan 172 p. Shahkhatunyants (bishop) H., 2014, The Five Provinces of Ararat. Study of A. Ter-Stepanyan, Publishing House of Mother see of Holy Echmiadzin, Vagharshapat, 560 p. Toramanyan T., 1942, Armenian Architecture, Armfan, Yerevan, 403 p. Toramanyan T., 1948, Armenian Architecture, ArmSSR AS (in Armenian), Yerevan, 308 p. Vardanyan S. V., 1959, Architecture of Armenian Folk Houses, State Publishing House of Armeni, Erevan, 129 p. Classical sources Xenophon, 1970, Anabasis, ArmSSR AS, Erevan, 282 p.

171 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 1 Centro Studi Sotterranei, Genoa (Italy) 2   Obruk Cave Research Group, İstanbul (Turkey) *  Reference author: Roberto Bixio - [email protected] Intended use and dating of rock-cut dovecotes in Cappadocia (Turkey) Andrea Bixio, Roberto Bixio1,*, Andrea De Pascale1 , Ali Yamaç2 Abstract Cappadocia is a historical land, located in the centre of Turkey, over time inhabited by different populations, from the Hittites to the Romans and the Byzantines, for centuries attached by Arabs, after the 11th century conquered by the Seljuk Turks, and then by the Ottomans. This land is known worldwide for its volcanic landscape shaped into extraordinary tuff morphologies and, above all, for its ancient settlements carved into the rock, consisting of shelters, churches and dwellings and, of course, rural facilities, including thousands of rock-cut pigeon houses. Their conformation has been documented, analyzed and described in various articles, to which we refer. Here we want to consider the information gathered from historical and oral sources on the past intended use of these structures, now almost completely abandoned, designed for the breeding of pigeons, mainly for the purpose of collecting their droppings to be used as fertilizer for crops. It seems, they were sometimes included in the marriage dowry. Assumptions about other uses, considered here, are not documented with certainty. It is also considered the possibility, still open to debate, that part of the dovecotes originated from burial chambers of Roman times to receive the ashes of the dead. We try also to provide information and suggestion about the possible epoch of their excavation and use. Keywords: Cappadocia, artificial cavities, dovecotes, columbaria. Cappadocia region and its rock-cut structures Cappadocia is an historical region of Turkey, today corresponding to the territory of more or less six provinces whose main town is Kayseri, located in the centre of the Anatolian Plateau (fig. 1). It was inhabited by many populations, from the Hittites in 2nd millenium BC, followed by Frigians, Persians, Romans, Byzantines, to name the most significant. From the 7th to the early of the 11th century AD the country has been the subject of several seasonal Arab raids each year, until the conquest of the Seljuk Turks at the end of 11th century, then the Ottomans. Mainly during Byzantine times thousands of rock-cut and underground structures were carved in an area of about 20,000 sq. km of volcanic rocks, at an average altitude between 1000 and 1500 m a.s.l. Nowadays, in the cliffs, buttes, gullies, canyons and pinnacles of soft tuff, there are remains of ancient rock-cut dwellings, churches, shelters, water systems and their rural rock-cut service facilities, most of which consist of dovecotes. They are associated with settlements excavated in the rocks or built on the surface, but they are spread mostly in the canyons, near the cultivated areas. Today this pigeon houses are abandoned and very often collapsed and open in the rocky faces of much of the territory of Cappadocia (fig. 2). They are essentially of three types: cliff dovecotes, usually carved into the vertical rock faces, at half height (fig. 3); dovecotes of reuse (fig. 4), obtained in pre-existing structures, with entrances generally at ground level, originally intended for different purposes; tower dovecotes (fig. 5), consisting of rooms carved underground and topped by small towers built on the surface. Obviously, each with its own peculiarities, in size, shape, type of entrance and flight windows for pigeons, niches for nesting and perches, decorations. The matter is widely discussed in a paper presented at this same congress (Bixio et al., 2023). Fig. 1 – Turkey. Location of the historical territory of Cappadocia and the city of Kayseri, capital of one of its six provinces (drawing R. Bixio).

172 Intended use and dating of rock-cut dovecotes in Cappadocia (Turkey) Intended use Cappadocian dovecotes were made with the main purpose of collecting the excrement of birds to be used as fertilizer (koğa, in Turkish), in order to obtain more crops from the land available to farmers, in particular to improve the fertility of orchards and vegetable gardens, frequently obtained by terracing and draining the waters of small plots on the bottom of the canyons. Actually, pigeon droppings are not as rich in nitrogen as real guano (i.e., seabirds droppings and their dead bodies deposited along the rainy poor coasts and isles of South America). “It is nevertheless fine quality fertiliser, containing 20-25% organic materials, 1-2% nitrogen, and 0,50-1,596 phosphoric acid” (Gülyaz, 1998: 552). According to Demenge (1995: 46) pigeon droppings, after being collected, were mixed with the manure of sheep and, above all, donkeys. “Cela permit de s’affranchir de la jachère (EdN., set aside in rotation of an agricultural land to replenish fertility) et même dans certains cas d’obtenir par repiquage deux récoltes par an”. A possible employ of droppings as a component of the “Greek fire”, which the Byzantines used, is the subject of research by Tolga Uyar of Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli University, Byzantine Studies (personal communication). In Ottoman times it seems that koğa was used in the production of gunpowder (Imamoğlu et al., 2005, quoted in Tok and Yamaç, 2015). According to some researchers, it turns out that after farmers had smoothed the rock around the small flight windows that allowed pigeons to enter, the egg white mixed with lime plaster was applied to the outer walls of the dovecotes (fig. 3) to make the surface slippery to predators such as martens, foxes, weasels and the like (see, for example, Gülyaz and Yenipınar, 1997; Gülyaz,1998; Amirkhani et al., 2010). We point out that the use of egg white mixed in the socalled “Khorasan mortar” type is attested “...in Ottoman buildings as early as the 15th century. In general, such mortars were used by the Romans, Byzantines, Seljuks, and Ottomans in the construction of wells, cisterns and baths...” (Işıkdağ and Topçu, 2013). It is believed that Mimar Sinan, born in Kayseri-Cappadocia in 1489, have used Khorasan mortar in Süleymaniye Mosque, in Istanbul (see, for example, https://www. bursaarena.com.tr). However, we do not know whether egg white from Cappadocia has been used to produce, in general, Khorasan mortar or, in particular, in the construction of buildings in this region. Instead, the use of egg white (or yolk, as well) as a binder for paintings decorating the interior of rock-cut churches (fig. 4) is uncertain. In this regard, experts working on the ICCROM project for the conservation of wall paintings of churches in Göreme, leave an area of uncertainty, arguing that “(in Tokalı Kilise) the pigments were applied on the dry plaster using a proteinaceous material as the binder, possibly casein” (Schwartzbaum, 1995: 194) and “(in Karanlık Kilise) the paint is gradually applied with casein and eventually other binding media” (Dangas, 1995: 174). On the other hand, experts of the team of Department of Cultural Heritage Sciences, University of Tuscia (Viterbo, Italy), write that “The in situ observation and documentation of the painted surfaces revealed the use of the a secco technique for the wall paintings probably by a proteinaceous binder [...] the results of a first survey of eleven Cappadocian churches are reported and discussed. It must be stressed that these results will need further integration and research in order to characterize the organic binders of the paintings...” (Pelosi et al., 2013: 100/106). As regards the use of meat or eggs as food, while the sources show that in the first century BC, and at least until the time of Diocletian (3rd century AD), in the area of Rome “dall’allevamento si ricava un notevole vantaggio economico, dato che il piccione, che si mangia bollito o arrosto, era piuttosto ricercato…” (Quilici, 1981: 111), for the Cappadocia we have no reliable information: “textual sources furnish little evidence of Fig. 2 – Göreme. Cluster of collapsed dovecotes showing internal niches for nesting arranged on overlapping rows (photo A. De Pascale). Fig. 3 – In several Cappadocian localities entire rock faces host clusters of dovecotes, outside identified by whitened small windows (photo A. De Pascale).

173 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa pigeons being used as food item [...] the consumption of pigeon meat was not a tradition common to the Christian faith, due to its attributed sanctity, and it therefore remains unclear whether common people partook in its consumption” (Germanidou, 2015: 34-35). Gülyaz (1998: 549) also argues that “...most Muslim communities hold them sacred (EdN, the pigeons) as bringers of good fortune, and do not eat”. But according İnceköse (2020: 6) “Information from interviews with local people shows that birds were also a source of food for humans”. According to Tok and Yamaç, 2015 (quoting Imamoğlu et al., 2005) “their feathers were used as filling material in home textile products as they are strong insulators”. In addition, pigeons were useful because they fed on insects harmful to crops. Özen (2012, quoted in Tok and Yamaç, 2015), points out that some sources suggest that both the Seljuks and the Ottomans used pigeons to send messages (“carrier pigeons”). According to Murat Gülyaz, it seems that pigeons, at least in Ottoman times, were the object of trade and, sometimes, were also included in the marriage dowry. With the arrival of chemical fertilizers, in the 20th century, almost all rock-cut dovecotes in Cappadocia have gradually fallen into disuse. In addition, offseason hunting and excessive use of pesticides that eliminated insects, contributed to reduce the number of pigeons (Gülyaz, 1998: 556). The abandonment of the collection of excrement would have led to the suspension of the maintenance of dovecotes, an event that may have accelerated the phenomena of degradation of decorations, consumption of external footholds, and collapse of the structures themselves that today overlook in great number on the valleys from the high overhanging rocks (fig. 2). Fig. 5 – Gesi, in the eastern part of the Değirmendere Valley (Kayseri). At the centre a collapsed dovecote, with triangular niches, contiguous to a tower-dovecote, still standing on the right, with its entrance at the base of the low crag. Some alleged underground columbaria are in the same district (photo A. Yamaç). Fig. 4 – Reuse of rock-cut church of St. Eustachius (Göreme). Pigeonholes (niches) and holes for perches (pegs) partially intercept the zoomorphic frieze at the springing of the painted vault. Even the square bowls carved into the seat of the stone bench are considered nests (photo A. De Pascale).

174 Intended use and dating of rock-cut dovecotes in Cappadocia (Turkey) Dovecotes vs Columbaria It seems appropriate to recall that, according to some recent research (Yamaç and Gilli, 2016; Gilli, 2017; Yazlık, 2019), in Cappadocia there are structures carved into the rock, at the site of Golgoli (ÜrgüpNevşehir), and in the valley of Koramaz (Kayseri), very similar to dovecotes, or transformed into dovecotes, which originally may have had the function of “columbaria” (fig. 6). But the debate is still open, “anche in considerazione della scarsa diffusione che ebbe in queste regioni (orientali) la cremazione” (Quilici, 1981: 118-119). Columbarium is the term with which, in Roman times (until the 1st century, and partly to the 2nd century AD), were called the groups of niches (named “loculi”), placed in structures built on the surface or in rooms carved into the rock, where urns with the ashes of the deceased were kept. The word evidently derives from the niches arranged in the same way and similar in shape, used for the nesting of pigeons (columba in Latin), more precisely called columbaries. However, the (funerary) columbaria, usually, had larger loculi (up to 60 cm) and no small flight windows for bird access, unless a subsequent transformation took place. In Italy, in the area of Tuscia, between Rome and Orvieto, there are over 300 rock-cut structures, originally identified as columbaria, but recent studies have established that most of them had no sepulchral functions: they are, instead, real dovecotes (or pigeon houses) (fig. 7), term today more commonly used, as said, instead of columbaries (Quilici, 1981; De Pascale, 2014). Considerations on dating According to archaeologists of the Nevşehir Museum, most of the rock-cut dovecotes of Cappadocia date from the 19th/early 20th centuries, while only a few would date back to the 18th century (Gülyaz and Yenipınar, 1997: 164). This opinion is also reported by Amirkani et al. (2010: 48) who, in turn, quote İşçen (2008). Of course, this information refers to the use of dovecotes in the Ottoman times. In addition, we point out that there is evidence that some dovecotes were obtained in relatively recent times by transforming abandoned churches, for example in Göreme, in the early 1900s (Jerphanion, 1932: VI). For considerations of exterior decoration, see Bixio et al., 2023. However, it would be surprising if their origin were not much older, dating back at least to the Byzantine times, if not to the Roman, that is, implemented by a population with a long sedentary tradition and agricultural practices consolidated for centuries. On the other hand, the shape of the niches of some rock-cut dovecotes of Cappadocia has remarkable similarities to those of some pigeon houses carved into the rocks of Tuscia (central Italy), mentioned above (compare fig. 7 with fig. 2, and also with the dovecote at Gülşehir/Cappadocia in Bixio et al., 2023: fig. 5). The Tuscia dovecotes are generally attributed to medieval times, but for some of them is not excluded an earlier date, related to the late republican and imperial period, probably referring to chamber tombs reused (Quilici, 1981; 113-116). In Cappadocia, the antiquity of some dovecotes is also witnessed by the remains of groups of nesting niches brought to light by ancient collapses of underground rooms and rendered mere “ghosts” by the prolonged action of meteoric agents. As for the sources, Sophia Germanidou mentions one of the Fathers of the Church of Cappadocia, of the 4th century AD: “one of the most distinct and early accounts alluding to the practice [of the domestication of birds, including pigeons] can be quoted from saint Basil of Caesarea’s Hexaemeron (377/8)”. Then she adds: “the practice of pigeon domestication spread particularly throughout many parts of central and east Anatolia [...]. A sole reference from Byzantine hagiography asserts the significance of this specific feature of pigeon breeding to the development of local primitive farming, even for small-scale gardening. A passage from Fig. 6 – Great dovecote at Ağırnas, Koramaz Vadisi (Kayseri). According to Yazlık (2019) it was originally a columbarium, that is, a burial chamber where the ashes of the dead were kept in urns located in niches (loculi), later transformed into niches for the brooding (pigeonholes) of a dovecote (photo R. Straub). Fig. 7 – “Columbarium 73” at San Lorenzo, Viterbo/Lazio (Italy). Actually, it has recently been established that it is a dovecote (photo Germani, archive of Centro Ricerche Sotterranee Egeria - after Galeazzi, 2011: 47). We note that it has remarkable similarities with the arrangement of niches in fig. 2.

175 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa Fig. 8 – Rendering of a Cappadocian underground shelter with an internal entrance for people to a dovecote that could also be used as a last refuge in the case of raids. In the Mimar Sinan shelter (Kayseri), and Mucur (Kırşehir), the flight windows for pigeons open into the ceiling (chimney) instead of in the vertical wall (drawing R. Bixio).

176 Intended use and dating of rock-cut dovecotes in Cappadocia (Turkey) version (A) of saint Athanasios Life (EdN., founder of Great Lavra monastery at the Mount Athos, c. AD 1000) demonstrates the use of various animal waste as garden fertilisers, collected annually or biennially and mixed with other domestic mammal’s guano” (Germanidou, 2015: 34). Geoponika, a 10th century Byzantine treatise on agronomy, includes extracts from Greek and Roman literature dedicated to the construction techniques of the dovecotes, although not specifically to those of Cappadocia, including plastering and coating with plant substances on the external walls, around the flight windows, to protect pigeons from predators. It is thus attested that Byzantine literature on agro-pastoral issues followed the tradition inherited from the late Roman treaties (Germanidou, 2015: 37). Indeed, already Varro (Res rusticae, 30 BC) and Columella (De re rustica, 1st century AD) described the characteristics of the dovecotes, as we can see in those carved into the rock of Cappadocia: a single door for operators, small and narrow windows for the flight of pigeons, smoothed and plastered walls, nests carved side by side for each pair of pigeons. “Cappadocian dovecotes display the common features with their Roman ancestors” (Germanidou, 2015: 45). We also report the opinion of Demenge (1995: 46) which, referring to the frequent Arab raids (two or three times a year), historically documented between the 7th and 10th centuries AD, argues that: “les paysans s’adaptèrent, disparaissant à la première alerte dans les villes souterraines qui doublaient leurs villages, en s’enfermant dans le roc de leurs châteaux perchés et...en aménageant des pigeonniers presque inacessibles” (fig. 8). Bibliography 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, Asian Culture and History 2/2: pp. 45-57. Canadian Center of Science and Education, Toronto. Bixio A., Bixio R., De Pascale A., Yamaç A., 2023, Rock-cut dovecotes in Cappadocia: elements in comparison, proceedings International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities “Hypogea 2023”, Genoa, 2023, Opera Ipogea, Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna. Dangas I., 1995, Conservation of mural paintings of the Karanlık church, Göreme (Turkey), proceedings International Seminar “The safeguard of the rock-hewn churches of the Göreme valley”, Ürgüp, September 1993: pp. 171-180. ICCROM, Rome. Demenge G., 1995, Pigeonniers et ruchers byzantins de Cappadoce, Archéologia n° 311: pp. 42-51. Editions Faton, Quetigny. De Pascale A., 2014, Piccioni trogloditici, (rubrica “L’ordine rovesciato delle cose”), Archeo n°6 (352): pp. 106/107. My Way Media, Milano. Galeazzi C., 2011, L’antico insediamento di San Lorenzo (Viterbo - Lazio), Opera Ipogea 1/2-2011: pp. 45-50. Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna. Germanidou S., 2015, Dovecotes from Roman and Byzantine Periods: an Overview, HEROM (Journal on Hellenistic and Roman Material Culture), vol. 4, issue 1: pp. 33-52. Leuven University Press. Gilli E., 2017, From Columbaria to Dovecotes: Two Thousand Years of Use of Cave Dwellings in Ağırnas (Kayseri, Turkey, in Parise M., Galeazzi C., Bixio R., Yamaç A. (eds), proceedings International Congress of Speleology In Artificial Cavities “Hypogea 2017”, Cappadocia, March 2017: pp. 446-453. Gülyaz M., 1998, Dovecotes of Cappadocia, in Sözen M. (ed.), “One thousand and one facts of Cappadocia”: pp. 548-559. Ayhan Sahenk Foundation, İstanbul. Gülyaz M., Yenipınar H., 1997, La Cappadoce, Gouverneur de Nevşehir-Direction du Tourisme Kaptid, Nevşehir, 168 pages. Imamoğlu V., Korumaz M., Imamoğlu Ç., 2005, A fantasy in central Anatolian architectural heritage: dove cotes and towers in Kayseri, METU JFA, vol. 22(2): pp. 79-90. İnceköse Ü., 2020, Dovecotes in Kayabağ village: an assessment of landscape and architectural characteristics, Journal of Architectural Conservation, 26/1: pp. 1-21. Routledge, Abingdon-on-Thames (Oxford). İşçen Y., 2008, Cappadocia pigeon cotes, http://www.turkishtumblers.com/Capadociacotes.htm (November 6, 2009). Işıkdağ B., Topçu B., 2013, Improvement of Khorasan mortar with fly ash for restoration of historical buildings, in Journal of Science and Engineering of Composite Materials, 21(3): pp. 359-367, De Gruyter. Jerphanion, G. de, 1932, Une nouvelle province de l’art byzantine. Les églises rupestres de Cappadoce, tome premier (deuxième partie), Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, tome V, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris, 611 pages. Özen R., 2012, Bird Shelters in Turkey: Birdhouses and Dovecotes, Kafkas Üniversitesi Kars, vol. 18 (6): pp. 1079-1082. Pelosi C., Agresti G., Andaloro M., Baraldi B., Pogliani P., Santamaria U., 2013, The rock hewn wall paintings in Cappadocia (Turkey). Characterization of the constituent materials and a chronological overview, presentation at the 10th International Conference of the Infrared and Raman Users Group (IRUG) in Barcelona, 28-31 March 2012, in e-PRESERVATIONSciences: pp. 99-108. Morana RTD. Quilici-Gigli S., 1981, Colombari e colombaie nell’Etruria rupestre, Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale d’Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte, S.III, IV: pp. 105-175. INASA, Roma. Schwartzbaum P., 1995, The ICCROM project for conservation of mural paintings in the rock churches of the Göreme valley (1971-1983), Seminar “The safeguard of the rock-hewn churches of the Göreme valley”, Ürgüp, September 1993: pp. 187- 202. ICCROM, Rome. Tok E., Yamaç A., 2015, Dovecotes and cave dwellings of Gesi-Kayseri (Turkey), proceedings International Congress of Speleology in Artificial Cavities “Hypogea 2015”, Rome 2015. Opera Ipogea 1/2015: pp. 77-81. Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna. Yamaç A., Gilli E., 2016, Underground shelters of Golgoli, Opera Ipogea 1/2016: pp. 33-40. Società Speleologica Italiana, Bologna. Yazlık B., 2019, Koramaz Vadisi Columbarium Mezarları, Turkish Studies, 14 (3): pp. 669-733. International Balkan University, Ankara. Online sources https://www.bursaarena.com.tr/doga-bilim/bakanlik-harekete-gecti-istanbul-depremine-karsi-horasan-h49771.html, read in 2023: Bakanlık harekete geçti_ İstanbul depremine karşı ‘Horasan harcı’ önlemi alınacak.

177 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 1   Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Hamburg, Germany - [email protected] Underground living spaces in the Chinese loess Constantin Canavas1 Abstract A particular group of cave-like constructions on the Loess Plateau across the Huanghe (Yellow River) in North-Central China is known under the Chinese name yáodòng. This group includes caves in a lateral cliff, built extensions of such cliff caves, but also underground caves around a sunken yard, and even standing-alone cave-like constructions. In some texts, these constructions are characterised as examples of vernacular troglodytic architecture. The typical soil that practically enables these constructions, loess, originates from yellow-grey wind-carried sediments and is highly subdued to erosion processes. Human use of the soil has a long tradition documented e.g. in Neolithic sites with “pocket-form” shelters dug in the loess. Digging or cutting dwellings in the loess continues in several forms and regions along the valley of the Yellow River till nowadays. The present study focuses on a certain type of these constructions – the sunken courtyard (or pit cave) dwelling in an approach combining perspectives of history of technology and social anthropology. It can be shown that the traditional processes of construction and maintenance of these underground dwellings presuppose specific forms of societal participation and labour organisation. Moreover, the present approach enables new modes of understanding e.g. the collective engagement of the community in the process of digging pits in the loess soil or of constructing rammed-earth walls from loess as mise-en-matière of collective memory. Further, the historical perspective shows how the specific construction of a living space has emerged in and is sustained by specific social conditions, as well as forms of land use (e.g. agriculture). Whereas in the past, images of “dwellings below and fields upstairs” were used for arguing in favour of the particular construction system, the rapid mechanisation of agriculture has turned against these underground constructions. Thus, current planning priorities of local and provincial authorities, as well as new societal orientations are unfavourable towards the construction of new sunken courtyards; moreover, they eventually undermine the preservation of existing ones. Even if cliff caves have entered into the focus of restoration and preservation projects, sunken courtyards are more exigent in technical support and more vulnerable when left out of use. It is precisely for these reasons that the sunken courtyards as examples of tangible cultural heritage are severely threatened. Without enacting the processes of construction, maintenance and use, the materialisation of collective memory in the sunken yáodòng practically loses its major witnesses. Keywords: Loess, North-Central China, troglodytic architecture, sunken courtyard. The Loess Plateau across the Yellow River in North-Central China and the cave dwellings (yáodòng) A particular geological formation of aeolian origin known under the term loess is found at several regions of the globe covering ca 10% of the Earth surface. The formation may follow a wide range of patterns (Pye, 1995) and can be found in areas such as the Danube plain in Europe (Evlogiev, 2007), in North America (Mississippi Valley), North Africa (Tunisia), Central Asia, and China. In North-Central China the formation is called huángtuˇ (“yellow earth”) in Mandarin-Chinese, and originates from processes involving yellow-grey sediment sand presumably carried by dry winds from the adjacent desert regions of Gobi and Mongolia. Beside the aeolian deposit model further explanations have been proposed which account for secondary loess production through alluvial depositing or flooding (Pye, 1995). The beginnings of the formation of North-Central Chinese loess should go back to the Pleistocene epoch, the earliest stage of the Quaternary geological period. The formation process as such is still going on (Golany, 1992a: 14-18). The material has proven particularly valuable for dwellings because of its thermic characteristics, as well as its solidity under dry weather conditions and the hard crust it forms under the influence of dry wind. This hard crust is just a surface quality. More important is the quality of the loess ground as being highly subdued to erosion processes. This feature contributes to the relative easiness with which loess can be dug out in comparison to rocky soil – an aspect that has significantly facilitated activities of digging in loess and constructing dwellings known in (Mandarin) Chinese under the name yáodòng (pit, cave dwelling). although several other Chinese terms are used to specify variations of the construction, as will be discussed later on.1 Geographically the loess aria and the distribution of yáodòng dwellings cover the Provinces Shanxi, Shaanxi, Gansu, Henan, as well as the autonomous Region Ningxia following a large part of the valley of Yellow River in North-Central China. In these re1 Several Western scholars (e.g. J.-P. Loubes) use the term “troglodyte” or “troglodytic” architecture.

178 Underground living spaces in the Chinese loess gions human working with this particular soil has a long tradition documented e.g. in Neolithic sites with “pocket-form” shelters dug in the loess. The role and the typology of yáodòng dwellings in China has been an issue of the archaeological research since the beginnings of the 20th century. The most prominent finds till now are certainly those at the Neolithic village of Banpo, located to the east of Xi’an city, capital of Shaanxi, and attributed to the Yangshao culture that can be traced back to 6,000/5,000 – 3,000 BCE (Handbook 1994/2001: 92-106). A part of the dwellings excavated on the site are dug belowground, whereas others are built aboveground. Similar, perhaps even earlier belowground constructions were found also in other archaeological sites in the Yellow River Valley; they include vertical as well as pocket-form pits (Bodolec, 2005: 218-219; Golany, 1992a: 2-6). Although no vertical or pocket-form pits (as described in archaeological records) are in use as dwellings anymore, the archaeological record has considerably influenced the terminology perspective of looking on present-day yáodòng dwellings. Typology of traditional and contemporary Yáodòng dwellings The typology of yáodòng cave dwellings appears more or less standardised in the literature (e.g. Golany, 1992a: 66, Fig. 4.1; Canavas, 2021: 42-43). The cliffside (lateral) cave dwelling (kàoyáyáo) is a type of artificial cave cut into cliffs with a balconytype flat yard that might link several dwellings dug in the cliff one beside the other (Golany, 1992a: 66, Fig. 4.1b). In several cases a roofed extension is added outside the cliff cave. Furthermore, such balconies can be found in a stare case arrangement one above the other, both in traditional as well as in contemporary constructions. The focus of the present study regards the sunken courtyard (or pit cave) dwelling (dìkēngyáo). This construction comprises a roof consisting of existing soil – or made artificially – and a group of cave dwellings dug at the lateral surfaces of the pit (Golany, 1992a: 66, Fig. 4.1a). In several cases the ground morphology could permit variations of a semi-belowground dwelling, with the entrance giving to the balcony yard and one or two walls in the soil (Golany, 1992a: 66, Fig. 4.1d). Hooped (independent) dwellings (gūyáo) constitute a category of yáodòng dwellings built away of cliffs or pits. They are mostly based on a more or less sunken fundament. The reason for which these alone-standing buildings are considered as yáodòng is related to the construction material and to the forming of the inner space. Their walls are built with bricks of rammed loess earth. Their characteristic outlook (Golany, 1992a: 66, Fig. 4.1c) is related to their hooped roof made of loess soil or rammed earth, generally structured by wooden beams. Their specific architecture includes arcs constructed with bricks or/and stones. Generally, there is no cliff in their neighbourhood; however, the way of forming the inner space is considered to simulate a cave – therefore several authors call them “constructed caves”. Finally, several combined constructions are encountered, in which architectural types mentioned above are combined, or other extensions are added – eventually in a later phase – to an initial yáodòng dwelling (figs. 1, 2). The dwelling types described above are mostly found agglomerated in villages. Typical formations include cliffside villages built (actually dug) into the slopes of terraced cliffs, as well as pit villages consisting of several sunken courtyards (Golany, 1992b: 151-162). Evolutionary approaches and ideological discourses The discussion on the history of yáodòng as underground dwellings has been occasionally dominated (especially in the Chinese discourse in the 1950s and 1960s) by ideological premises that considered the historical emerging from the ground towards less deep pits, up to the semi-subterranean and, eventually, the aboveground constructions, as linear civilisation process (understood as civilisation progress). Such claims were proposed – among others – by the Chinese architect and historian of Chinese architecture Liu Dunzhen (1897-1968), who embedded them in “fundamental” valorisations regarding the alleged unity of Chinese architecture (see e.g. Liu 1957/1980, 42-43). Alternative approaches suggesting parallel evolutionary models, or indicating inverse evolutionary directions have also been proposed as interpretations of more recent archaeological evidence (see e.g. Loubes 1988, 30). Critical approaches regarding the linear evolutionary model imply an explicit or implicit re-evaluation of the role of the soil. Moreover, closer observation of the process of construction itself imply that experiences with certain types of yáodòng should have been incorporated into the concepts of constructing more elaborate ones, e.g. the sunken courtyard. A discussion on such issues has been summarised elsewhere (Canavas, 2021). Social organisation of construction Whatever generic models for the development of the dwellings known as yáodòng might be claimed as valid, the processes of construction and maintenance of these underground dwellings presuppose specific forms of societal participation and labour organisation. This condition is met by the collective character of construction. In his monumental treatise Science and Civilisation in China. Vol. 4, Part III, 28: Civil Engineering Joseph Needham has reproduced a historical drawing from a later copy of the Erh Ya, Chapter 2, p. 6b (Literary Expositor), a dictionary with a long history of

179 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa transmission, probably stabilised in the 3rd century BCE, enlarged and commented in ca. 300 CE. In this drawing a group of men are represented schematically during a process of constructing a wall using rammed (tamped) earth (pisé) (Needham 1971, 39, Fig. 719). Two men are preparing the material, the other two are depicted ramming the material as it is filled in the wooden moulds. Comparing this illustration with a recent photograph by J.-P. Loubes (Loubes, 1988: 45, Fig. 8) depicting a similar procedure in a village in the region of Xi’an, Shaanxi Province, one can’t but notice the increased number of persons involved in the contemporary representation (seven instead of four, in a similar frame). This phenomenon of large social presence during works associated with loessrelated structures (repairing walls, brick fabrication) was also observed by the author of this study during a recent field study in northern Shaanxi (Shaanbei) in September 2019. J.-P. Loubes has made the point that the process of constructing rammed-earth walls from loess can be regarded as a specific social act – a kind of mutual communitarian help (Loubes, 1988: 44). In a later work, he refers the design of yáodòng to “old Chinese cosmology” adopting a generalising regard on urban and rural, royal, noble and villagers’ architecture (Loubes 2003: 18ff., 76ff.). In our reading of the visual evidence, the work with the loess organises a social space in a way in which the actors fulfil symbolical functions beyond necessary operations in the construction procedure. In this approach the process of constructing rammed-earth walls from loess can be read as mise-en-matière of the collective memory of the given community. Thus, the process of construction can be seen as a procedure in which the depositing of material (loess) enacts the participation of a large number of community members in a project of strengthening the collective memory of rural earth dwelling. Such aspects of current public perception and re-valorisation of yáodòng become visible and audible in the documentary video by E. Brosseau and C. Bodolec on repairing works regarding existing yáodòng in Shaanbei/North Shaanxi (Brosseau and Bodolec, 2012). Contemporary considerations and the heritage issue The above claim that the process of yáodòng construction or maintenance engenders forms of collective memory or collective experience does not necessarily correspond to the current public perception of yáodòng dwelling culture by an external observer. Abandoned caves and buildings, or yáodòng constructions not Fig. 1 – Combination of cliff cave and sunken courtyard yáodòng in northern Shaanxi (photo by the author, 24.09.2019).

180 Underground living spaces in the Chinese loess used for dwellings any more form an essential part of the yáodòng landscape in Shanxi and Shaanxi. From the perspective of interested visitors the guide words “abandonment” or “ephemeral buildings” have become popular classifications. In fact, numerous internet sites are named under these classifiers (e.g. http://ignition.eg2.fr/2016/04/30/ephemeral-buildingsperpetual-architecture-shanxi-yaodong/). This perception is supported also by the fact that in many cases the old yaodong dwellings are not officially registered as “houses”; they are considered just as “caves” with no certificates of use, and that may also be one reason why they are not maintained and preserved by some village authorities. In 1992 Golany reported that “construction of new pit cave dwellings was officially forbidden and currently only aboveground structures are being approved as new dwellings (Golany, 1992a, 51). Recently, new cave dwellings have been built in yáodòng style as annexes to the traditional ones that have been partially abandoned or adapted to the needs of modern dwelling (Genovese, 2019). This re-discovery or re-activation of rather some yáodòng patterns than the tradition itself has several reasons. Beyond the re-valorisation of the character of vernacular dwellings, issues of environmental adaptation, thermal properties, and re-evaluation of earth-sheltered architecture have become focus of many recent studies and on-going local, national, and international projects – including projects of touristic development (see e.g. Cao 2013, Genovese, 2019). Following national and local law and regulations, a large number of projects intending to protect the value of built vernacular earthen heritage are initiated. In order to permit to the people to continue living in the site, however, the changing of social needs becomes increasingly an important issue taken explicitly into consideration. Thus, the architectural character or singular aspects of the yáodòng construction (fig. 3) are eventually modified during recent rehabilitation works (Frenda, 2016). Combining current social needs with traditional issues as they are incorporated into the official heritFig. 2 – Sunken courtyard complex (Wikimedia Commons).

181 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa age discourse concerning the Chinese yáodòng has several faces. Some yáodòng constructions, especially some belonging to the independent hoopedroof type (“constructed caves”), are already part of ensembles listed by the UNESCO as tangible world heritage such as small fortified towns, e.g. Pingyao, listed since 1997 (Bodolec, 2005: 269). On the other hand, the collective memory mentioned above can be a very ambiguous issue in a specific historical context. The mainstream national Chinese narrative on yáodòng is connoted with the historical focus directed upon sites around Yan’an in Shaanxi, where the communist leaders under Mao Zedong had installed their headquarters and living spaces during the period 1935–1948 in local yáodòng (Golany 1992a: 52- 53). This scenery constitutes currently a major touristic attraction in a region which is marked by still on-going coal mining. An increasingly important aspect that influences the current debates on yáodòng is the land use for agriculture and its relation to the specific form of sunken courtyard (or pit cave) dwelling. Whereas in the past, images of “dwellings below and fields upstairs” were used for arguing in favour of this particular yáodòng type, the rapid mechanisation of agriculture and the tremendously increasing demand for (new) cultivation areas in the Yellow River valley constitute arguments against these underground constructions and explain the reluctant or rejecting attitude of local and central authorities towards this particular type of yáodòng. Indeed, current planning priorities of local and provincial authorities, as well as new societal orientations are unfavourable towards the construction of new sunken courtyards. Moreover, in some cases they eventually undermine the preservation of existing ones. Even if cliff caves have entered into the focus of restoration and preservation projects, sunken courtyards are more exigent in technical support and more vulnerable when left out of use. A crucial prerequisite for constructing and inhabiting sunken yards was the social solidarity among the constructors and dwellers which is necessary for organising the collective work of construction and maintenance, as well the everyday-life in a strongly shared space. In times when large families with their strong relation networks were typical for rural North-Central China, this condition was easily fulfilled. The politically organised rural society after 1949 could still support necessary collective works for maintenance. However, the structure of the individual small families inhabiting nowadays the cave dwellings around the sunken yard is not comparable to that of the past. Social mobility, especially mobility of labour accompanying the rash urbanisation trends in 21st century China, affect crucially the social conditions of living and working in a sunken yard yáodòng in ways that render its maintenance as well as its adaption to the needs of the evolving society a great challenge – if not an overambitious vision. Fig. 3 – The new generation of Yaodong cave dwellings, Loess plateau (Wikimedia Commons).

182 Underground living spaces in the Chinese loess Conclusions It is a fact that traditional yáodòng ensembles still continue to serve as living, working, or depositing space for over millions of people in the PR of China, and – because of certain advantageous ecological features (e.g. thermal isolation) – they become increasingly a source of inspiration for modern constructions and large-scale projects. However, the social changes and the economic-political priorities mentioned above constitute reasons for which the sunken courtyards as examples of tangible cultural heritage are severely threatened. Without enacting the processes of construction, maintenance and use, the materialisation of collective memory in the sunken yáodòng practically loses its major witnesses. In this context comparisons with similar geomorphological situations in other regions and countries become increasingly interesting. Regarding the debates on sunken courtyard (or pit cave) dwellings a comparison with the considerations on the vertico-lateral cave dwellings in Haddej, Guermessa and Matmata in Southeast Tunisia could sharpen the analytical views on social organisation induced by such dwellings, and could yield new insights into possibilities and potentials of heritage preservation and geotourism (Boukhchim, Ben Fraj and Reynard, 2018; Boukhchim, 2020). Bibliography Boukhchim, N., Ben Fraj, T. and Reynard, E., 2018, Lateral and “Vertico-Lateral” Cave Dwellings in Haddej and Guermessa: Characteristic Geocultural Heritage of Southeast Tunisia, in The European Association for Conservation of the Geological Heritage, Geoheritage 10: pp. 575-590. Springer. Boukhchim, N., 2020, Matmata (Sud-Est tunisien): peuplement et habitat troglodytique, Al-Sabîl: Revue d’Histoire, d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Maghrébines N°9: pp. 1-28. Bodolec, C., 2005, L’architecture en voûte chinoise – un patrimoine méconnu. Paris, Maisonneuve et Larose. Brosseau, E. and Bodolec. C., 2012, Yaodong, petit traité de construction. (Video) Paris: EHESS. Canavas, C., 2021, Cutting in the Chinese Loess, in Sciuto, C. et al., Carved in Stone, BAR Publishing, Oxford. Cao, Y.. 2013, The Renovation of Traditional Cave Housing in China - New Ecological Design for Old Yaodong. Milano: Politecnico di Milano, Facolta di Architettura. Evlogiev, Y., 2007, Evidence for the Aeolian Origin of Loess in the Danubian Plain, Geologica Balcanica, 36. 3-4: pp. 31-39. Sofia. Frenda, A., 2016, Earthen architecture in the agri-cultural heritage system: sustainable development, restoration and continuity of tradition, J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 7 (10): pp. 3614-3622. Genovese, L., Varriale, R., Luvidi, L. and Fratini, F., 2019, Italy and China Sharing Best Practices on the Sustainable Development of Small Underground Settlements. Heritage, 2, 53: pp. 1-13. Golany, G., 1992a, Chinese earth-sheltered dwellings: indigenous lessons for modern urban design, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Golany, G., 1992b, Yachuan Village, Gansu, and Shimado Village, Shaanxi: Subteranean Villages, in Knapp, R. K. (ed.) Chinese Landscapes: The Village as Place: pp. 151-162. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Handbook (no author), 1994/2001, Handbook of Xi’an. Xian. Knapp, R. G., (1990), The Chinese House: Craft, Symbol, and the Folk Tradition. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Liu, D., 1957/transl. into French 1980, Zhōngguó zhùzhái gāishuō/La maison chinoise. Paris: Berger-Levrault. Loubes, J.-P., 1988, Maisons creusées du Fleuve Jaune. L’architecture troglodytique en Chine. Paris: Créaphis. Loubes, J.-P., 2003, Voyage dans la Chine des cavernes. Paris: Arthaud. Pye, K., 1995, The nature, origin and accumulation of loess, Quaternary Science Reviews, vol. 14: pp. 653–667. Needham, J., 1971, Science and Civilisation in China. Vol. 4, Part III, 28: Civil Engineering; Hydraulic Engineering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

183 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 1   Ardahan University - [email protected] A cave settlement in Ardahan (Turkey): Harosman Göknil Arda1 Abstract The Kura (Kura) River is closely related to the region’s economic, political, and security dynamics and hydropolitics. The ArasKür (Kura) river system is the largest river basin in the Southern Caucasus. The Kura (Kura) River flows 185 km in Turkey, then passes into Georgia and Azerbaijan, and empties into the Caspian Sea, collecting all surface waters throughout its basin. Located in the Eastern Anatolian Region of Turkey, Ardahan borders Georgia. Harosman Caves is the place that caused us to survey “Settlements, Caves and Rock Settlements in the Ardahan-Kür River Basin (2019-2022)”. Harosman Caves, in the Kür (Kura) River basin within the borders of the Hanak District of Ardahan Province, where we made the first documentation studies in 2018, are located approximately 22 km northeast of Ardahan. The pyroclastic rock commonly observed south of Hanak and around the Harosman Caves is ignimbrite. This rock type is much more challenging to excavate than the soft tuff found in Cappadocia. While some places in the Harosman caves range, shaped by human hands, were chosen as living areas and places of residence, some of them are places of worship. Some of these places of worship are arranged as rock churches. These caves, which attract attention with their strategic location as well as being on the edge of Çot Suyu, a branch of the Kür (Kura) River, have been the scene of more intense use since prehistoric times, but especially in the pre-Christian and post-Christian periods. The Harosman caves are part of similar cave and rock settlements in the Kür (Kura) River basin, which continues to flow in Turkey and beyond. Keywords: Harosman, Ortakent, cave, rock-cut church. Introduction The documentation work that we started in the Harosman Caves in 2018, with the permission of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, turned into a survey project the following year. Since 2019, with the permission of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums, we have continued our survey on “Settlements, Caves, Rock Settlements in the Ardahan-Kür River Basin”. The Aras-Kür (Kura) river system is the largest river basin in the Southern Caucasus. The Kür (Kura) River flows through Turkey for about 190 km, then passes into Georgia and then Azerbaijan, and flows to the Caspian Sea, collects all surface waters throughout its basin and is the largest river in the region. The Kura River, which takes its source from the mountains in the south of Ardahan Göle District, continues to flow in an east-west direction from Ardahan to Kaşlıkaya Village after flowing in a large semi-circle from its source to the west. From this point, it changes direction towards the north. As in most of the basin, the river flows in deep canyons in Ardahan. In this region, where the age of volcanism is relatively young (approximately 3.8 - 1.8 Ma), the fact that the river bed developed in volcanic rocks is so deep can only be explained by the continuous uplift of the region. It is thought that the formation of these deep canyons, whose wall heights vary between 150 and 300 m in places, is caused by tectonic movements formed by two critical faults in the northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast directions in the north and east of the river and as a result, the region rises regionally from east to west. The fact that the canyons to the west of the Kür (Kura) River are deeper than the canyons to the east is probably another result of this rifting. Depending on this regional elevation, plateaus were formed on the northern and southern sides of the Kura River at an altitude of 1750 -1850 m. Almost all of the rock formations observed in the region are very young volcanic. All the rocks outcropping in a vast region starting from the west of Ardahan to the Georgian border are the product of the volcanic activity observed in the Upper Miocene - Lower Pleistocene (approximately 3.8 - 1.8 my) range in this region (Duru & Keskin, 2014). Two different rock formations are observed in the research area and its surroundings. The first of these is about 10 km east of Ardahan, starting from the level of Altaş Village and outcropping on both slopes of the Kura River up to the Georgian border, from the valley floor to the uppermost parts, and following the river with a bandwidth of 4-5 km on the upper plateau. The Kura Volcanites cover a large part of the study area (Aktimur et al., 1991). As a result of the analysis, the age of the unit was determined as Upper Miocene-Lower Pliocene (3.8 – 3.6 my), and it is the oldest rock formation detected so far in the region (Innocenti et al., 1982). On top of the Kura Volcanites, which are the first phase of volcanism in the Kura Valley, comes the Pliocene aged (3.6 – 2.6 my) Öncül Volcanite, which represents the second phase of volcanism in the region (Duru & Keskin, 2014).

184 A cave settlement in Ardahan (Turkey): Harosman Harosman Caves Harosman Caves in the Kür (Kura) River basin within the borders of the Hanak District of Ardahan Province are located in the Çot Stream locality, approximately 22 km northeast of Ardahan Province (fig. 1). Çot Stream is one of the water sources feeding the Kür (Kura) River. The pyroclastic rock commonly observed south of Hanak and around the Harosman Caves is ignimbrite. This rock type is much more difficult to Fig. 1 – Location map showing Harosman Caves (after Google Maps - elaboration A. Yamaç).

185 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa excavate than the soft tuff found in Cappadocia. Harosman Caves is the place that caused us to conduct a survey on “Settlements, Caves and Rock Settlements in the Ardahan-Kür River Basin (2019-2022)”. Harosman Caves, located in the northwest-southeast direction and their facades in the southwest direction, are not natural but were carved into a steeply inclined tuff rock formation by humans. The northwest end of the chain of caves is at an altitude of 1805m, and the southeast end is at an altitude of 1763 m. The rock on which these caves are located is approximately 236 meters long, 25 meters high and has an average slope of 14% (figs. 2-4). The interior spaces of the caves grow towards the middle parts of the range from the southwest direction and become smaller-sized cave settlements towards the northwest. It can be thought that the caves in the southwest direction were mainly used for worship, and the cave settlements in the northwest side were arranged in smaller spaces so that they might have Fig. 2 – Harosman Caves (photo A. O. Turan). Fig. 3 – Harosman Caves (photo A. O. Turan).

186 A cave settlement in Ardahan (Turkey): Harosman been used for shelter or residence. It is observed that almost all of the caves, which were also used as animal shelters until a few years ago, were covered with a dense layer of soot caused by the fire lit for heating and lighting in the period from the first period to the present day. One of the most essential parts of the cave complex is the place arranged as a rock church (fig. 5). It has been used as an animal shelter until recently. The part of this cave, that we think is the only entrance gate, has been partially destroyed for natural reasons. In this section, an unoriginal entrance is seen between a wall and a rock built with coarse stones similar to the limestone type collected from the environment during the recent cave use. Although traces of a thick layer of white plaster were found on the surfaces of some walls of the cave, it was impossible to get an idea whether the other walls were plastered due to the thick oily soot and soot layer on the other walls of the building. The naos is in the west, and the apse is in the east. To the south of the apse, there are sections belonging to Pastohorion. It is understood from the grooves opened in channels on the floor, side-upper walls and ceiling that these parts of the rock church were closed and separated from the naos part by piers/ plates. Except for the apse part, culverts were opened along the northern wall of the cave. There is also a marytyrion part in this rock church. Unfortunately, it has been understood from the illegal excavations made here that there are graves under the place of worship. It was determined that more than one individual was buried in the grave, both inside the illicit excavation pit and on the church floor, from the pieces of human bone that were thrown together with the illegal excavation soil and building stones that may belong to the graves. One or more burial chambers carved into the rock structure under the ground were destroyed. In addition, an incised cross (Khatchk’ar) motif was found on the outer surface of one of the upper floor caves on the upper side of this rock church. The spatial arrangement of another cave within the cave complex is particularly noteworthy. The entrance to this cave is through a carefully opened doorway. The cave has two rooms; The first is the section where the entrance is located, and there is an altar in the middle of the opposite wall, a niche on the side wall and a window opening on the riverside in a small area in the form of an apse, which is reached by two steps on the east side. The second room is accessed through a rectangular-shaped door. The sacrificial/votive/offering pits and some of the associated channels opened on the floor of this place were, especially from the facade of the cave facing the river. We interpret this situation as a ritual held in the cave in question and its relationship with a river cult. Fig. 4 – Map of Harosman Caves (drawing E. Tok, M. Ocakdan, A. Yamaç)

187 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa The second floor of these caves, carved into the rocks, is reached by tunnel passages opened through another cave, which first continue vertically and then horizontally. This cave is arranged in three spaces and looks like a minor example of the large church below. Among the Harosman Caves, one detail that we encounter only in this cave is remarkable: The arrangement made by carving the rock into the northwest wall of one of the places resembles a mihrab form, and the part with a step next to it resembles a pulpit structure. However, the direction of both structures does not support this. Some of the table-like rock arrangements that may have been used as altars/altars in some caves are intact; on the other hand, a large part was destroyed, or only the lower parts resting on the ground remained intact. In addition, arrangements made as places for offerings in the caves were also identified (fig. 6). While some of the caves are carved into the rock mass consisting of a single space, it has been determined that most have 2-3 rooms, and the number of these places is more than 3 in some caves. The transitions between the spaces are provided through doors and stairs opened properly into the rock. It was understood that some of the caves were the spaces of a single cave, which looks like two or three separate cave entrances on the façade but is connected from the inFig. 5 – Harosman Caves, inside the rock-cut church (photo G. Arda). Fig. 6 – Harosman Caves, votive place (photo G. Arda).

188 A cave settlement in Ardahan (Turkey): Harosman side. Channel-shaped cavities and stepped formations on the sills of some cave entrances are traces of mechanisms used in door closing (fig. 7). There are culverts or lighting holes in the northern part of the caves and on the facades facing the river, and almost all of them have shafts. Seating benches, small and large niches on the walls and hollows used as shelves can be seen in almost all the spaces built into the rock. In addition to the single-storey ones, caves and places with two and three floors were also identified. Also noteworthy is a cave that has begun to be worked on but has not been completed. The side walls of the room after the cave entrance were partially worked out; unfinished chipped work can be seen on one wall and traces of an incomplete shaft creation can be seen on another wall. In our study in the area where the Harosman Caves are located, the remains of structures related to these were found in the southeast of this rock mass, in front of the caves, just at the foot of them and just southwest. Rows of worked stones were identified in the southeast, but the integrity of a building could not be fully understood due to seasonal conditions and the high grass cover of the land. At the foot of the caves, the wall made of processed stones that we found on the side of the road leading to the caves has survived to the present day, partially preserved. We also determined that a road formed by shaping a natural rock in the form of a ladder was used to reach the caves in the front level to the ones on the upper level. A few pottery fragments among the heaps of soil belonging to illegal excavators show Chalcolithic and medieval characteristics and provide evidence for using caves in pre-Christian times. Conclusion During our work in the field, some local people informed us that these caves were used as residences and animal shelters until recently and that many people have made and continue to do illegal excavations in these caves for a long time. This cave complex has experienced more destruction by human elements than by nature. There are intense illegal excavations on the floors and walls at every point the caves can reach. This heavy destruction, made by human hands, continues even today in the caves, causing the loss of culture to be experienced very quickly. Since prehistoric times, the Harosman Caves have been chosen and arranged as sacred places because they have both a place of residence and places of worship. These places were used primarily for religious purposes in the pre-Christian and early Christian periods. These structures, shaped by carving into the rock, especially the rock churches, are one of the most suitable places as hermitages and worship places for the small religious communities, monks and priests living in the region, and are suitable for protection and concealment due to their location. After Christianity was recognized as a free religion at the beginning of the 4th century, separate buildings of worship were built in the immediate vicinity of these rock churches. However, some of the Christian population continued to use these secluded rock churches and associated spaces just to be tested. The Harosman Caves are part of the similar cave and rock settlements of the Kür (Kura) River basin, such as Vardzia in Georgia. Bibliography Aktimur H. T., Tekirli M. E., Yurdakul M. E., Keçer M. Tuncay T., Ürgün B.M., Can B., Gürbüz M., Aktimur S., Yaşar T., 1991, KarsArpaçay ve Çıldır Dolayının Jeolojisi. (MTA Derleme Yay.No.9257), Ankara, MTA Genel Müdürlüğü Jeoloji Etüdleri Dairesi. Duru O., Keskin M., 2014, Kars Volkanik Platosu’nun Çıldır (Ardahan ili) Kuzeyindeki Bölümünün Volkanostratigrafisi, Petrografisi ve Magmatik Ayırımlaşma Süreçleri. İstanbul Yerbilimleri Dergisi, 27(1), pp. 17-38. Innocenti F., Mazzuoli R., Pasquare G., Radicati Di Brozolo F., Villari L., 1982, Tertiary and Quaternary volcanism of the ErzurumKars area (Eastern Turkey). Geochronological data and geodynamic evolution. Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 13, pp. 223-240. Fig. 7 – Harosman Caves, entrance (photo G. Arda).

189 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 1   Arkeologist, Lecturer in Istanbul Technical University, Turkey 2   Speleologist, member of Galeri Mağara Araştırma Grubu (Galeri Cave Research Group), Turkey 3   Undergraduate Student of Architecture, Yıldız Technical University, Turkey 4   Speleologist, member of İTÜMAK - İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Mağara Araştırma Kulübü (Istanbul Technical University Cave Research Club), Turkey 5   Speleologist, member of UMAST - Uludağ Üniversitesi Mağara Araştırmaları Spor Topluluğu (Uludag University Cave Research Sports Club), Turkey *  Reference author: Özlem Kaya - Talimhane Sokak, 25, Şişli, İstanbul, 34377, Turkey - [email protected] Discovery and documentation of the underground structures of Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey) Ali Hakan Eğilmez1,2, Özlem Kaya3,4,*, Barkın İren2 , İrem Kapucuoğlu4 , Eylül Horoz4 , İrem Güzel4 , Tuğçe Nur İlbaş4 , Burcu Cavdar2 , Kadir Gürses5 Abstract Hagia Sophia, an iconic world known monument of Late Roman-Early Byzantine architecture, is located at the heart of Istanbul and holds great importance in world architectural history. To fully comprehend its significance, it is crucial to examine the structure from all angles. The underground structures of Hagia Sophia have been investigated many times before. The first exploration and documentation attempt took place by cavers in 1986. Later, extensive studies were carried out by different caving groups and a total of 548 m of underground passages were mapped and documented. In February-July 2020, our project began with the aim of creating a 3D documentation of Hagia Sophia’s underground structures. The project was led by the faculty members of the Department of Architecture at Fatih Sultan Mehmet University and Galeri Cave Research Group. Laser scanners such as Leica Blk 360 and Faro Focus 150 S were used to carry out the documentation process. Mapping of the newly discovered tunnels and the ones with level differences from the existing tunnel system was done using traditional methods due to the very narrow passages. The project led also to the discovery, mapping, and photography of new tunnels and underground structures. Consisting of 388 meters. Thus, total length of underground structures of Hagia Sophia reached to 936 meters. Keywords: Hagia Sophia, underground structures, Byzantine. Introduction The underground structures of Hagia Sophia have been researched, mapped, and drawn many times until today. However, each research covers different places as the entrances that could used varied depending on the time. At the request of the Hagia Sophia museum administration, cavers entered the underground structures for the first time in 1985, 86 and 87. However, they did not publish their research in the form of drawings. We can see the photographs in the Hagia Sophia archives, and we also have the opportunity to observe several sketches works from Mehmet Altun’s archive. Another study was conducted by a team from ASPEG Cave Research Group, led by Dr. Çiğdem Özkan Aygün. Most of the underground structures of Hagia Sophia were investigated and extensively documented by this team. However, the drawings also had missing tunnels and spaces. Subsequent studies were conducted in the following years by the Boğaziçi University Cave Research Club, but this map only covered a smaller portion (Kurt B., 2013). As it can be seen, the underground structures of Hagia Sophia have been repeatedly measured and mapped by cavers. With each study, new discoveries regarding the structures were made. Indeed, this monument holds great significance in architectural history, making it a valuable learning ground for everyone. Our project was carried out under the supervision of the General Directorate of Cultural Heritage and Museums of the Republic of Turkey, with the leadership of academics from the Department of Architecture at Fatih Sultan Mehmet University, namely Prof. Hasan Fırat Diker, Assoc. Prof. Mine Esmer, Dr. Alidost Ertuğrul, and Ali Hakan Eğilmez from the Department of Fine Arts at Istanbul Technical University. The fieldwork of the project was conducted with a large team of cave explorers consisting of members from Galeri Cave Research Group, Istanbul Technical University Cave Research Club and Uludag University Cave Research Sports Club. Survey and photography teams entered the structure multiple times. The project started on January 27th, 2019. In FebruaryMarch, explorations were conducted to determine the methodology. Measurements of previously unmapped and unexplored tunnels were taken using traditional methods. Due to the global impact of COVID-19, the

190 Discovery and documentation of the underground structures of Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey) work was postponed until June-July of the same year. Throughout the month of July, both scanning and traditional measurement techniques were employed. The data collected was then compiled and drawn in November 2019. Purpose of the Research The aim of the research was to explore, examine, and document the underground structures of Hagia Sophia. Through surveying, drawing and taking photographs, the goal was to create a detailed inventory and enhance the understanding of the architectural and archaeological significance of this historical site. Additionally, the investigation of previously unknown or poorly documented tunnels aims to contributed to new discoveries and scientific studies. Method of the Research During the phase to the determine the methodology of the documentation study, several trials were conducted. Photogrammetry modeling was attempted, but due to the narrowness of the tunnels and the timeconsuming nature of the modeling process, it was decided to use laser scanning. The Faro Focus S 150 Terrestrial Laser Scanner and Leica BLK360 Camera Laser Scanner were utilized in the project. Due to its size, the Faro Focus S 150 was not suitable for scanning narrow tunnels, so most of the tunnels were documented using the BLK360. The BLK360 is capable of scanning in narrow, wet, and muddy areas. With its small and lightweight design, it proves to be quite useful for scanning underground structures and tunnels. However, there were tunnels where neither scanner could be used, and measurements in such parts were conducted solely using traditional methods. Discovery and Documentation of the Underground Structures of Hagia Sophia The wide underground spaces of Hagia Sophia were scanned using the Faro Focus by academics Assoc Prof. Mine Esmer and Prof. Hasan Fırat Diker. The Fig. 1 – Underground Structures of Hagia Sophia. The plan was created using two measurement methods, the areas shown in red were surveyed with laser scanner, while the areas shown in yellow were surveyed by cave explorers using traditional methods. The superstructure indicated in white on the plan had been documented by Calabria University.

191 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa narrower tunnels, where cave explorers could navigate, were scanned by KRM Cartography employees and cave explorers (fig. 2). Throughout the project, a total of 936 meters of underground structures were survey and documented. Out of this, 668 meters were surveyed using the laser scanner, while 268 meters were surveyed using traditional methods (fig. 1). The large space under the inner narthex, the tunnels leading to the northwest and southwest piers, the tunnels in the east and west directions with the Hipoje and the tunnel progressing under the “Güzel Kapı” in the south had been previously measured and drawn by the ASPEG team (Ali Yamaç, Murat Eğrikavuk) as part of Dr. Çiğdem Özkan Aygün’s project. (Aygün, Fig. 2 – Leica BLK360 Camera Laser Scanner scanning in the tunnel (photo Özlem Kaya). Fig. 3 – Section 1-1: North-south cross-section of the passage under the exonarthex (graphics Prof. Hasan Fırat Diker and Assoc. Prof. Mine Esmer).

192 Discovery and documentation of the underground structures of Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey) 2010) When we compare their measurements with our scanning data, it becomes apparent how high-quality and accurate their work was. The careful and meticulous traditional measurement method aligns closely with the scanning data. Scanning of the previously drawn tunnels allowed us to obtain significant number of cross-sections from the model, providing us with the opportunity to establish the relationship between the underground structures and the superstructure (fig. 3). This enabled us to create a more comprehensive understanding of the interplay between the underground tunnels and the overall architectural design. There is a comprehensive study by Prof. Hasan Fırat Diker Fig. 4 – Spoliated column at the western entrance of the channel under the northwestern buttress (photo Özlem Kaya). Fig. 6 – Brick arrangement in the tunnel (photo Özlem Kaya). Fig. 5 – Roots of chestnut tree and the underground structure (photo Özlem Kaya).

193 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa and Assoc. Prof. Mine Esmer on this subject (Diker et al., 2021). In the previous studies, a preliminary investigation had been conducted on a tunnel (previously unexplored) located beneath the garden of Hagia Sophia, oriented along the northeast-southwest axis at a lower level of other known tunnels. In our study, traditional measurement methods were used in this tunnel because the tunnel had been filled with in centuries filling material. Measuring of this narrow and occasionally widening sections of this tunnel proved to be quite challenging. In fact, during this measurement process, a measuring tape (tape measure) was used. During our research, a new narrow tunnel extending from the inner narthex towards the northwest pier was discovered to open into a space filled with archaeological fill and rubble. To ensure the continuity, cavers had to widen the passage by pushing the sedimented mud to some extent, thus connecting these two tunnels. This passage, which was quite narrow, was approximately one and a half times the length of a human body. The tunnel that progresses just below the northwest buttress of Hagia Sophia was blocked by a reused column made of Marmara marble (fig. 4). However, afterwards it was determined that the tunnel was continuing beyond that point. In the following days, the survey and mapping studies showed out that it was connecting to the area identified through the entrance from the stone artifact storage. The access to large underground spaces, previously known by the employees of Hagia Sophia Museum, was made possible due to the landscaping work carried out in the area. The chestnut tree located above the underground structures had penetrated the solid vaulted structure, causing damage to the underground structure. This spacious area was filled with archaeological fill material and contained connections to previously tunnels (fig. 5). One of the tunnels was opening up to another large space at a higher level. Moreover, the arrangement of bricks in one of the tunnels was quite remarkable (fig. 6). Another tunnel documented for the first time during our research was the one that was extending from beneath the madrasa building and was exhibiting features of the Ottoman era (fig. 7). The measurements of Fig. 7 – A tunnel exhibiting Ottoman-era characteristics (photo Ali Hakan Eğilmez).

194 Discovery and documentation of the underground structures of Hagia Sophia (Istanbul, Turkey) this tunnel were conducted using traditional methods. Access to the tunnel was discovered during the recent reconstruction of the madrasa building. In fact, there were open sections within the tunnel at various points. Conclusions The research conducted on the underground structures of Hagia Sophia involved a comprehensive documentation process using different scanners and traditional measurement methods. During the research process, previously undocumented tunnels were discovered, and their measurements were taken to establish their connections with the existing structures. Thus, total length of underground structures of Hagia Sophia reached to 936 meters. These studies have provided an opportunity to gain a more detailed understanding of Hagia Sophia’s underground structures and their relationships with the aboveground structure. Additionally, the influence of natural elements was observed in the discovered underground chambers, particularly the damage caused by the roots of a chestnut tree that penetrated the vaulted structure. Our findings emphasize the importance of considering impacts on the structures and implementing appropriate conservation measures. In conclusion, this extensive research on Hagia Sophia’s underground structures represents a significant step in documenting and correlating these structures with the overall site. The data obtained will contribute to a better understanding and preservation of these historically and archaeologically significant structures. Bibliography Aygün, Ç. Ö., 2010, New Findings on Hagia Sophia Subterranean and its Surroundings in Bizantinistica: Rivista di Studi Bizantini e Slavi, pp. 55-77, Spoleto (Italy), Fondazione CISAM - Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo. Diker H. F., Esmer M., Ertuğrul A., Eğilmez A.H., Kaya Ö., İren B., Korkut R., Yıldırım R., Uluköylü E., Ulaş A., 2020, Ayasofya Yer Altı Yapılarının Üç Boyutlu Görüntülenmesi ve Belgelenmesi [The Three Dimensional Visualization and Documentation of the Underground Structures of Hagia Sophia], in Proceedings of the International Hagia Sophia Symposium, pp. 737-775, Istanbul, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Vakıf University Press. Diker H. F., Esmer M., 2021, Preliminary Evaluation of the Terrestrial Laser Scanning Survey of the Subterranean Structures at Hagia Sophia, PDT&C 2021, 50(2), pp. 65-84. Kurt B., 2013, Ayasofya, Bümak Delta 8, (2004–2011), pp. 25-26.

Underground religious and cult structures

Roberto Bixio, 2006 Thousand + Thousand Current evidence of medieval Byzantine monastic communities in the pinnacles of Cappadocia (Turkey). Icon of the full original painting. (Computer graphics, 20×20 cm)

197 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa 1   University of Bari - Department of Humanistic Research and Innovation 2   University of Foggia - Department of Humanistic Studies 3   A.S.S.O. - Third Sector Organisation 4   HYPOGEA - Research and enhancement of Artificial Cavities 5   National Cave Diving School of the Italian Speleological Society 6   Artificial Cavities Commission of the Italian Speleological Society *  Reference author: Mario Mazzoli, mobile +39 3351330791 - [email protected] St. Euphemia’s cave inscriptions: ancient navigation, beliefs and devotion (Vieste, Italy) Giuliano De Felice1 , Danilo Leone2 , Mario Mazzoli3,4,5,6,*, Maria Turchiano2 , Giuliano Volpe1 Abstract The paper will refer to the ‘sacred’ dimension of navigation, which has developed over the centuries and in which it is difficult to distinguish the clear separation between religion, superstition, and beliefs, also testified by the number of cults and deities linked to travelling by sea, from Poseidon to Aphrodite, to the Dioscuri, later replaced by Christ, Mary and Christian saints. The paper will mention this aspect of the navigation, focusing on the lower Adriatic coastal landscape marked by the presence of landings connected to places of worship, sometimes true ‘coastal maritime sanctuaries’. Reference will be made to the coastal shrines that mark the Apulian and Albanian shores, in particular to the Venere Sosandra cave at Vieste (Apulia), where a wide archaeological project is underway, carried out by the Universities of Bari and Foggia. Keywords: cave inscriptions, ancient navigation, Vieste, St. Euphemia. Introduction There is now substantial agreement in the scientific community in identifying Vieste with the ancient Uria. The various discoveries made over time, the collation of materials and documents and, above all, recent archaeological investigations have increased our knowledge of this Gargano settlement, located on a fundamental stretch of Adriatic navigation in every era (Lippolis, 1984; Petrone, 1984; Ruggieri, 1989; Mazzei and Volpe, 1998; AA.VV., 1998; D’Ercole, 2015). For some years now, an archaeological team from the Universities of Bari and Foggia, in collaboration with the Rome-based A.S.S.O. and the support of the Municipality of Vieste, the ESAC-Euro Mediterranean Seascapes Archaeology Centre, the Apulia Region and the company ArcheoLogica, as part of a broader research project on the archaeology of Adriatic coastal and underwater landscapes, The Sea and the Sacred. Landings of men and gods, has launched an investigation on the islet of St. Eufemia, overlooking the city and dominated by the 20th-century lighthouse (fig. 1). It was the historian and epigrapher Angelo Russi who first drew attention, in the 1980s, to the rich epigraphic heritage engraved on the walls of two artificial cavities excavated along a rocky ridge of the islet, among which stand out some inscriptions mentioning Venus Sosandra, datable between the 2nd and 1st centuries BC (Russi, 1971; 1992; 1998a; 1998b). The archaeological investigations, which began in 2019, were carried out under a concession from the Soprintendenza Archeologia, Belle Arti e Paesaggio di Foggia. The intervention strategy followed a global approach, which included the survey of the islet and the cavities, the investigation of the shoreline and the opening of some stratigraphic excavation sectors and made it possible to identify important traces of a large and articulated rock system developed along the rocky ridge (De Felice et al., 2020a; 2020b) (fig. 2). Fig. 1 – The islet of St. Eufemia (photo M. Potenza).

198 St. Euphemia’s cave inscriptions: ancient navigation, beliefs and devotion (Vieste, Italy) Archaeological investigations (2021-2022) After several preliminary investigations conducted in 2019, the two excavation campaigns of 2021 and 2022 (a third campaign will take place in June 2023) provided for the opening of distinct areas, located both in the caves and at certain points on the surrounding plateau, and made it possible to define the characters, nature, and duration of the frequentation of the context and to analyse its articulation and transformations in detail. The first peculiarity of the context highlighted by the archaeological investigations is the intense and prolonged use of the entire island for the extraction of stone blocks, which it is easy to imagine began in antiquity to obtain material for use in the buildings of Uria but continued until recent times, including for the construction of the lighthouse. In particular, the excavation carried out under the modern floor of the underground cavities made it possible to identify the presence of a stone quarry at a lower level and to date the quarrying activity to before the construction of the cavities themselves (fig. 3). Excavation in the external sectors confirmed that the inner plateau in front was a large quarry, both cave and open pit. Deep cuts in the vertical rock faces, straight or circular grooves, flat grooves, alignments of freshly hewn blocks left in situ and other indicators of such quarrying activities are still clearly legible on the outcropping limestone surfaces and provide good evidence of a quarrying practice that continued at least until modern times on other slopes of the rocky ridges as well. Finally, the numerous partially worked millstones found during the survey along the islet’s shoreline, reused as mooring bollards, can be linked to the same mining activity. In addition to the traces of mining activity, the excavations outside the caves have revealed the presence of other structures that can be traced back to a second characteristic that determined the strategic role of the islet over the centuries, namely the presence of fresh water. In particular, the excavation of the rock wall between the two caves, near a staircase cut into the rock to connect the access plateau to the upper level where the lighthouse was built, led to the discovery of two structures excavated in the rocky bank, which can be identified as the remains of two ‘bellshaped’ cisterns and a network of open-air catchment channels (fig. 4). It is possible that the cisterns were used for a very long time, before being transformed, by cutting away part of the walls, into tanks for washing or, more likely, for storing and processing fish. In addition to the rainwater collected in the cisterns, the availability of fresh water on the islet was also ensured by some underground springs: the exploration - conducted by ASSO speleologists - of a well loFig. 2 – The entrance to the main cavity on the side of the rocky bank (photo G. Volpe).

199 Fourth IC of Speleology in Artificial Cavities Hypogea 2023 - Genoa Fig. 3 – The interior of the main cavity: note the two excavation sectors below the modern floor (photo G. Volpe). Fig. 4 – The cisterns dug into the rocky bank and the system of channels for collecting rainwater (photo G. Volpe).