underground space use in ancient anatolia: the cappadocia example

7/27/2019 Underground space use in Ancient Anatolia: the Cappadocia example

1/6

Underground Space Use: Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the Future Erdem & Solak (eds) 2005 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 04 1537 452 9

35

1 INTRODUCTION

Globalization enabled people to learn about the worldin which they live in than ever before in the past.

Todays global culture is determined by a rapidlygrowing communication network, expanding extendof knowledge and information and advancing tech-nologies. As a consequence, sustainability of localnatural environments and cultural heritages becomes aglobal issue, while local sites become learning groundsfor global communities.

Due to the recent debates on energy consumption,cost efficiency and sustainability, new architecturalstrategies and trends emerged in the last decades. Agreater awareness of energy efficient techniques in

building design has developed and have been applied.

Many alternative strategies have been adopted thatreflect an evolution towards a set of redefined valuesin construction, maintenance and utilization. This newarchitecture is usually determined by prefixes such assustainable, ecological, environmentally conscious orsymbiotic in the related discourse. Among these is adesign approach most commonly referred to as earthsheltered or subterranean architecture.

Although underground space use has historicalroots in many cultures, the reemergence of the phe-nomena in the western world has occurred for manydiverse and interrelated reasons. Usually the reasonsfor going underground is more than one: to conserveenergy, to overcome tight zoning regulations, to min-imize the entitys impact on historic buildings in the

vicinity, to enlarge open space capacity, RafaelMoneos recent expansion to the Prado Museum,Sverre Fehns Ivar Aasen Center in Orstad, RenzoPianos underground extension to the Morgan Library

in New York, Herzog and de Meurons media art facil-ity in California could be listed as prominent exam-

ples of this approach. Other examples may include anumber of works by David J. Bennett, Philip Johnsonsunderground art gallery in Connecticut, KevinRoches Winthrop Rockefeller Archaelogy Museumand I.M. Peis underground extension to Louvre.

1.1 Historical perspective

Through the course of time, one may find manyexamples of the situation where underground spaces

provided potentials to meet shelter needs of man.Protection from predators and climatic conditions,lack of building materials were among the reasons forgoing underground. In 4000 B.C. inhabitants of theBanpo site in China lived in semiunderground pitdwellings with A-frame roof supporting a thin layerof soil. The thermal advantages of the earths temper-ature moderation in a harsh climate, together with anability to create shelter with minimum materials,energy and mechanization consequented in the massconstruction of these caves to our day (Carmody &Sterling, 1985).

Between second and fifth centuries, Romansadopted a similar approach in Tunisia to overcome thedisadvantages of the extremely hot and arid climatic

Underground space use in Ancient Anatolia: the Cappadocia example

A. ErdemIstanbul Technical University, School of Architecture

Y. ErdemERER Engineering, Contracting and Consulting Company

ABSTRACT: Globalization enabled people to learn about the world in which they live in than ever before inthe past. Todays global culture is determined by a rapidly growing communication network and advancing tech-nologies.As a consequence, sustainability of local natural environments and cultural heritages becomes a global

issue, while local sites become learning grounds for global communities. As one of the best example of manssymbiotic relationship with nature Cappadocia, located in Central Anatolia, offers many possibilities and les-sons for underground habitation. This paper aims to discuss the ancient settlement of Cappadocia unique for itscreative subterranean space use. The focal points of discussion are the physical geography and dominatingforms of underground space use.


2/6

conditions. The outcome was the below-ground atriumdwellings constructed at Bulla Regia. Other examplesof the earth-integrated vernacular architecture in theMediterranean region exist in the Gaudix region ofSpain, in Sicily, and on the Isle of Santorini, Greece.Indian cliff dwellings of Mesa Verde, Colorado, subter-ranean houses of the central Australian desert andmined houses of South Australia set other examples.Among these examples the Cappadocia region inAnatolia is a valley dominated by cave buildings(Carmody & Sterling, 1985).

2 SUBTERRANEAN ARCHITECTURE OFCAPPADOCIA

As one of the best example of mans symbiotic rela-tionship with nature Cappadocia, located in Central

Anatolia, offers many possibilities and lessons forunderground habitation. It is very interesting to observea variety of answers to the question why go under-ground? dating back to the days of ByzantineCappadocia, 400 A.D. The terrain was transformedwithin the hands of its inhabitants who hollowed outthe soft rock into churches, houses and monasteries,evolving an entire architectural tradition from itsunique material. The outcome is fascinating to theeye; it is as if nature and man competed to create aspecial terrain, as Charles Texier stated in 1882, before descending from the plateau, which dominates

this territory, I paused for a while, amazed at thespectacle before me. I know of no other corner of theworld where there exists so striking and remarkable a

phenomenon. (Rifat, 2000).

2.1 Geographical conditions and topographyof the region

Cappadocia, characterized by the natural features andsubterranean architecture has been proclaimed aworld heritage site by UNESCO in 1985. The story ofthis unique region covering almost 10000 hectares

goes back far in time to Neocene, around 25 millionyears ago (Tuncel, 1998). The forces inside the earthstarted to form the cracks in the crust, through whichmolten magma came out, thus creating the volcanicmountains in the vicinity. They continued to erupt,

producing the layer of volcanic tuff which graduallyerupted into the unique landscape of our time. Volcanicemissions of lava and solid material buried the entireregion under horizontal layers of widely diverse hard-ness, color and depth. Wind and rain then set to workto sculpt the rock, creating the strange pinnacles withtheir caps of more durable rock. This is how fairychimneys were formed (Tuncel, 1998).

There exists a variety of shapes and sizes, but it isnot only the diverse shapes of these formations that

are unique to the region. The diversity of color is noless remarkable, ranging from white, yellow and pinkto grey and black, depending on the varieties of rockin each area. Where white rhytolitic tuff is abundant,and in the absence of a surface covering hard rock, theresult is badlands topography, determined by sharp orrounded ridges forming white waves over large areas.Yellowish white columns occur in areas of rhytolitictuff where red and pink columns in areas of red rhy-tolitic tuff. When man started to settle in the area,they took their cue from the wind and water and

began sculpting the soft tuff to create shelter. Therock cones formed practical and versatile houseswhen the inside was carved.

2.2 The Byzantine times

The Byzantine period of Cappadocia starts in 395 A.D.when the region was inherited by the Eastern RomanEmpire.The fame of Cappadocia today rests to a largeextend on its Byzantine period rock churches andchapels. The volcanic terrain enabled a unique subter-ranean architecture carved from the soft tuff cliffs and

pinnacles of the region. But although the carver mas-ters adopted a different method of construction, theycreated spaces simulating the interiors of buildingsconstructed with stone and mortar. They modeledcolumns, vaults, arches and other architectural ele-ments of their time. These elements did not have anystructural function but were mere symbolic elements.

Instead of the classical definition of architecture asthe creation of spaces for determined functions by

36

Figure 1. Pinnacles of Cappadocia.


3/6

enclosure with structural elements, here the interiorspace is created within solid matter by hollowing itout (Akyrek, 1998).

A large space could be completed in a couple ofmonths, while the carver masters or architects did notrequire the complex knowledge required by theircounterparts. The only limitation for the carver archi-tect was the size of the rock mass that he was carvingto form the spaces (Kostof, 1972).

2.3 Dominating typologies

In Cappadocia, one may find a variety of typologicalentities that differ in size and complexity: hermitscells, dwellings, churches, monasteries and connectedunderground settlements. Inner rooms and spacesalso vary in shape. The main idea is to carve out spaceswithin the limits of the pinnacles and stones, thus mod-ifying the plans to fit the shape of the stones to becarved were a common practice among the carver mas-ters. Consequently, each of the rock building wasunique and none conformed to strict formal standardsof Byzantine architecture.

The carving methods enabled Cappadocian mastersto imitate the decorative elements of structural archi-tecture by carving them along with the interior space.

Although most of the buildings display no architec-tural features from the exterior, the interior spaces aredecorated by frescoes or sculptured ornaments.

2.3.1 Hermits cellsThe simplest architectural form in the region is that ofcells where hermits lived a reclusive existence. Thesecarved cells or chambers contained niches to serve avariety of functions. They are usually devoid of decora-tions. The rocks which formed the landscape becamedwellings for the monks when hollowed out.

2.3.2 ChurchesAlthough there is a number of surviving subterraneanarchitecture examples in the region, the highest per-centage consists of religious buildings. In Cappadociait is possible to find examples of religious buildingsfrom early Christian to late mediaeval periods.However the architectural tradition flourished throughthe course of time and most of the existing churcheshighly decorated with frescoes date from the latetenth and early eleventh century. There are five maintypes of church in Cappadocia, single nave churches,double nave churches, basilicas, cruciform churches,and cross-in-square plan churches (Akyrek, 1998).

37

Figure 2. Monk Symeons cell, Zelve (Akyrek, 1998).

Figure 3. Monk Symeons Cell, Zelve. The small cell con-nects to an upper room. There is also a chapel on the lowestlevel (Akyrek, 1998).


4/6

Single nave churches consist of a nave and a largeapse. The main space is rectangular in plan androofed by a barrel vault. Access to the churches isthrough a single door in the shorter west wall. Theapses are usually higher than the nave, and delineated

by a screen carved from the rock. There exists a rec-tangular rock altar in the apse.

Double nave church plan was widely implementedduring the Byzantine Empire. The plan type is com-mon for both rock and structural churches of the era.The naves are separated by a series of small openingsor arcades of pillars and arches.

Basilicas have rectangular plans that are dividedinto three or more aisles by a series of columns. Themiddle aisle is usually the widest and highest, endingwith a semicircular apse. The basilica plan was usedin early rock architecture in Cappadocia for cathedralsand important monastery churches. Carving the par-

ticular plan scheme was relatively difficult and so wasreserved for religious entities of higher importance.

Cross-in-square plan type is typical of medievalByzantine architecture. Following the tradition of theGreat Palace in Constantinople, this plan spread allover the empire. The dome over the square centralarea is supported by four columns, and vaults on foursides of the dome form a cross plan roof.

There are also churches with irregular or amor-phous plans which were probably dictated by the rockstructure of the site.

2.3.3 MonasteriesFrom seventh century on, vast number of monasteriesand chapels were formed in the Cappadocia terrain.Monasteries of Cappadocia are complex structuresincluding refectory, dormitory and church all carvedinto the stone. The monasteries were comparativelysmall edifices, largest having a capacity for fifteen totwenty monks at a time. The monasteries were uniquein their organizations as well: they combined the con-cept of a collective life under the lavra system uniqueto the East, and the more orthodox idea of individual-ity and isolation from others. This principle was

reflected in the plan schemes as well. There are allo-cations both for private cells and spaces for commu-nal functions.

2.3.4 TombsThe sacral buildings of Cappadocia were frequentlyused for burials, a custom that has its roots inmedieval Byzantine times. The dead were buried ineither church floor or the wall niches in the narthex.

2.3.5 HousesThe housing tradition of Cappadocia goes beyond theByzantine era. It is not easy to estimate the start of thesubterranean architecture. The inhabitants of the terraindiscovered the means of dealing with the rock before

the Christian era. For them, carving out houses waspreferable to ordinary construction methods. Thehouses created provided better inner climatic condi-tions and easy to maintain. They were also easy todefend in times of war or civil unrest.

2.3.6 Multistory settlementsBesides churches and monasteries constructed in thevicinity, there are also multistory settlements created

by the Byzantine carver masters. These settlementsare entirely underground and formed by uniting orlinking a series of underground rooms or chambers.The plan schemes resemble complex labyrinths.Although there are a number of such settlements, themost impressive ones are at Derinkuyu and Kaymakli(Ousterhout, 1995). Like their above ground counter-

parts these settlements also contain a series of func-tional spaces allocated for residential, religious,

administrative and public functions.

3 CONCLUSIONS

Many societies exist with their codes and customs,just as are transitory sorts of places. Architecture doesnot only build to shelter communities, it also builds

powerful means of expression and communication. InCappadocia, one does not only experience a powerfularchitectonic existence but also the cultural messageconveyed through the transformation of a natural set-

ting to a sound habitat. Remarkable identity of thesetting is the consequence of a very strong symbioticrelation. Not only the formation of architectonic enclo-sures by working with the physical and material

potentials of the terrain but also the realization of adichotomy between private and public/religious life

possess lessons for future developments.Cappadocia sets a unique example of subterranean

settlement with its dominating architecture and spec-tacular landscape. The carver architects or masters ofthe region adopted Byzantine forms and features butredefined them while creating the unique spaces of

the dominant architecture. One may find architecturalspaces in a variety of scales ranging from singlerooms to totally integrated subterranean cities. Thespaces that could survive till our day have attributesthat provide lessons to contemporary practitioners aswell: the spaces provide sound insulation againstexcessive weather conditions, the inner climatic con-ditions of the caves and their low levels of humidity

provide perfect storage potentials for agriculturalproducts and wine, the caves are also possess higherpotentials to withstand earthquakes. Moreover, theunderground architecture of Cappadocia sets a uniqueexample for mans symbiotic relation with nature,while constituting a prominent example of highlightinglocal values and creating environmentally conscious

38


5/6

settlements and spaces. In a way, analysis of theprecedent provides many lessons for the future.

REFERENCES

Carmody, A. & Sterling, R. 1985.Earth Sheltered HousingDesign. New York: Van Nostrand Rheinhold Company

Rifat, S. 1998. Cappadocia through the eyes of the travelers.In M. Szen (ed), Cappadocia: 486496, Istanbul: AyhanSahenk Foundation Publications.

Tuncel, M. 1998. A landscape in the making. In M. Szen(ed), Cappadocia: 1643, Istanbul: Ayhan SahenkFoundation Publications.

Akyrek, E. 1998. Fourth to eleventh centuries: ByzantineCappadocia. In M. Szen (ed), Cappadocia: 194225,Istanbul: Ayhan Sahenk Foundation Publications.

Kostof, S. 1972. Caves of God: The Monastic Environmentof Byzantine Cappadocia. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Ousterhout, R. 1995. Historical design in the environment:

examination of a Byzantine settlement in Cappadocia. InProceedings at 1995 ASCA West Central regionConference: 1319, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Agacinski, S. 1995. Architectonic enclosure. In C.C. Davidson(ed),Anyplace: 2431, New York: The MIT Press.

http://www.subsurfacebuildings.com

39


6/6

underground space use in ancient anatolia: the cappadocia example

Documents