JOINT ANALYSIS IN THE ROCK SETTLEMENTS OF

CAPPADOCIA

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES

OF

THE MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY

BY

GÖKHAN SEV ND

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE

IN

THE DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERING

DECEMBER 2003

Approval of the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Science

____________________________

Prof. Dr Canan ÖZGEN

Director

I certify that this thesis satisfies all the requirements as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

____________________________

Prof.Dr.Asuman TÜRKMENO LU

Head of Department

This is to certify that we have read this thesis and that in our opinion it is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a thesis for the degree of Master of Science.

____________________________

Assoc. Prof.Dr. Vedat TOPRAK

Supervisor

Examining Committee Members

Prof. Dr. Asuman TÜRKMENO LU ____________________________

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Gül ASATEKIN ____________________________

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Tamer TOPAL ____________________________

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Bora ROJAY ____________________________

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vedat TOPRAK ____________________________

iii

ABSTRACT

JOINT ANALYSIS IN THE ROCK SETTLEMENTS OF

CAPPADOCIA, TURKEY

Sevindi, Gökhan

M. Sc. Department of Geological Engineering

Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Vedat Toprak

December 2003, 74 pages

This thesis attempts to seek a relationship between the joints developed in the

ignimbrites and the rock settlements carved in the same units. Orientation of rooms,

directions of walls and joints (both in the rooms and in the field) are input data used in the

study. Two sites in Cappadocia (Eskigümü ler and Çanl kilise) are selected to investigate

the relationship. Both sites are carved within the same ignimbrite (K z lkaya) and are

located on the south-southeastern slopes of the ignimbrite scarp. Measurements taken

from 61 rooms of the former and 27 rooms of the latter are analyzed for the room and

joint directions, joint locations in the room and joint densities both in the rooms and in the

field.

Conclusions derived from the analyses are: 1) The rooms are oriented oblique to joint

strike to get the maximum sunlight, 2) Joint directions in the rooms strike in one single

direction and greatly differ from the field joint directions, 3) Density of the room joints is

less than the field joints indicating that joint spacing is an important factor in the selection

of sites, 4) Joints in the Eskigümü ler sites are concentrated towards the margins of the

room while an opposite observation is made for the Çanl kilise site, 5) Total length of

joints in the largest rooms are relatively shorter.

Key words: Rock settlement, ignimbrite (tuff), joint (fracture), Cappadocia, Turkey

iv

ÖZ

KAPADOKYA BÖLGES (TÜRK YE) KAYA YERLE MLER NDE EKLEM

ANAL Z

Sevindi, Gökhan

Yüksek Lisans, Jeoloji Mühendisli i Bölümü

Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Vedat Toprak

Aral k 2003, 74 Sayfa

Bu tez ignimbritlerde geli en eklemler ile ayn birimlerde aç lm kaya yerle imleri

aras ndaki ili kiyi incelemeyi amaçlar. Oda yönleri, duvar do rultular ve eklem

do rultular (odadaki ve arazideki) çal mada kullan lan verilerdir. Bu ili kiyi incelemek

üzere Kapadokyada iki yerle im (Eskigümü ler ve Çanl kilise) seçilmi tir. Her iki yerle im

de ayn ignimbritte (K z lkaya) aç lm olup ignimbrit falezinin güney-güneybat

yamac nda yer al rlar. Birinci alanda 61 odadan, ikinci alanda ise 27 odadan ölçülen

veriler oda ve eklem yönlerini, eklemlerin oda içindeki konumunu ve eklemlerin hem

odadaki hemde arazideki yo unlu unu belirlemek için analiz edilmi tir.

Analizlerden elde edilen sonuçlar unlard r: 1) Odalar eklem yönüne verev olarak

gün ndan en fazla yararlanacak ekilde yönlenmi tir, 2) Odalardaki eklemler belirli bir

yönde yo unla m olup arazi eklemlerinden büyük farkl l klar gösterir, 3) Odalardaki

eklemlerin yo unlu unun arazideki eklemlere göre daha az ç kmas , eklem aral n n yer

seçiminde önemli oldu unu gösterir, 4) Eskigümü ler yerle iminde eklemler odan n

kenarlar na do ru yo unla m ken Çanl kilise de bunun tersi bir gözlem yap lm t r, 5) En

büyük odalarda toplam eklem uzunlu u göreceli olarak daha azd r.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Kaya yerle imleri, ignimbirit (tüf), eklem (çatlak), Kapadokya, Türkiye

v

To Demet

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I express my sincere appreciation to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vedat Toprak for his guidance and

insight throughout the research.

To my sweet heart, Demet, I offer sincere thanks for her unshakable faith in me and

her supports and helps during the field study.

I would like to thank Nev ehir and Aksaray museums staff, particularly Murat Gülyaz and

Yücel Kiper, for their useful information provided on the rock settlements of the region.

To my parents, I thank them for their patience and understanding my problems.

To my friend, M. Tuna Kaskat , I thank him for his computer support.

To my friends, Erkin Yanyal , O uz çili, Cem Y ld r m, I thank them for their help during

the field study.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

ÖZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv

DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

LIST OF THE TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

LIST OF THE FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

CHAPTER

1. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.1. Purpose and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 1.2. Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3. Previous Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.3.1. General Characteristics of Ignimbrites . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3.2. Literature on the Cappadocian Ignimbrites . . . . . . . . . . 5 1.3.3. Literature on historical aspects of the sites . . . . . . . . . . 7

1.4. Method of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1.5. Organization of Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. REGIONAL GEOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

2.1. Geological Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.2. Rock Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2.3. Fault Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2.4. Origin and Age of Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. DATA AND MEASUREMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

3.1. Selection of Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 3.2. Data Measured in the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

3.3. Measurements at Eskigümü ler Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3.4. Measurements at Çanl kilise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4. ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.1. Directional Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 4.1.1. Eskigümü ler site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4.1.2. Çanl kilise site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

4.2. Spatial Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.2.1 Location in relation to entrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 4.2.2. Location in relation to center of room . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4.3. Density Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

viii

5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

5.1. General Aspects of Settlements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 5.2. Method Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 5.3. Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 5.4. Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

APPENDICES

A1. Eskigümü ler Room, Wall and Joint Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . 57

A2. Çanl kilise Room, Wall and Joint Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

B1. Eskigümü ler Joint Density Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66

B2. Çanl kilise Joint Density Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

C1. Eskigümü ler Field Joint Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

C2. Çanl kilise Field Joint Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

ix

LIST OF TABLE

TABLE

4.1. Joint densities in the field and in the room for both sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

x

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES 1.1.

Location map of Eskigümü ler and Çanl kilise sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

1.2. Models of eruption columns formed during ignimbrite volcanism . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

1.3. Columnar (cooling-thermal) joints developed within ignimbrites . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

1.4. General views of churches existing in the sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.1. Simplified geological map of Cappadocian volcanic province . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.2. Stratigraphic section showing ignimbrites identified in the area . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2.3. Plan view of cooling-joint pattern measured east of Derinkuyu . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

3.1. Flowchart showing the major steps applied in this study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

3.2. Location map of the rooms measured in Eskigümü ler site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.3 General views from Eskigümü ler site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.4. Plan views of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 1 to 15) . . . . . . . . .23

3.5. Plan views of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 16 to 30) . . . . . . . . 24

3.6. Plan views of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 31 to 45) . . . . . . . . 25

3.7. Plan views of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 46 to 61) . . . . . . . . 26

3.8. Area of joint field survey for Eskigümü ler site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.9. Location map of the rooms measured in Çanl kilise site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3.10. General views of Çanlikilise site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

3.11. Plan views of rooms measured at Çanl kilise site (Rooms 1 to 15) . . . . . . . . . 31

3.12. Plan views of rooms measured at Çanl kilise site (Rooms 16 to 27). . . . . . . . . 32

3.13. Pillars of Çanl kilise site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

3.14. Area of joint field survey for Çanl kilise site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

4.1. Rose diagram prepared from room axes for Eskigümü ler site . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

4.2. Rose diagrams prepared from measurements of Eskigümü ler site . . . . . . . . . . 37

4.3. Rose diagram prepared from room axes for Çanl kilise site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

4.4. Rose diagrams prepared from measurements of Çanl kilise site . . . . . . . . . . . .40

4.5. Method to measure the proximity of joints in relation to entrance . . . . . . . . . . . .41

4.6. Results of the location of joints in relation to the entrances in the sites . . . . . . . . 42

4.7. Method to measure the proximity of joints in relation to the center of room . . . . . . 43

4.8. Results of the location analyses of joints in relation to the center of rooms . . . . . . 44

4.9. Graphical representation of joint densities for both sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

4.10. Scatter plots of room area versus joint length for both sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

5.1. Two major types of rock settlements in Cappadocia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

5.2. Interpretation of room axes in relation to the ignimbrite scarp . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Purpose and Scope

Cappadocian region is characterized by settlements carved within the rocks. These

settlements, although currently not in use, are mostly located within the volcanic products

that are exposed in the area between Nev ehir, Kayseri, Ni de and Aksaray. Common

characteristics of the settlements in relation to rocks are as follows:

- Two major types of settlements are observed in the form of either underground cities

or cliff settlements depending on the local conditions existing at the site. Underground

settlements have a multi layer structure while the cliff settlements are composed of

an array of rooms aligned almost horizontal.

- Almost all of the settlements are confined to tuff (ignimbrite) layers that are

extensively exposed in the area.

- Both types of the settlements are composed of rooms carved irregularly rather than

in a systematic pattern. Size, shape of the rooms and the spacing between the rooms

(or the floors) change from place to place.

Ignimbrite layers, on the other hand, that host these settlements have following

characteristics:

- There are several ignimbrite layers each having a considerable amount of thickness.

Minimum thickness is about 5 m in the central part of Cappadocia where rock

settlements are common. Although the thickness can drop to cm at distal parts, it can

reach to a thickness of 80 m in Ihlara valley and in Selime village.

- Ignimbrites, in general, are intercalated with lacustrine sedimentary sequences, which

are not suitable for rock settlements. In some places, however, two or more

ignimbrites are deposited on top of each other forming a thick sequence with no or

minor sedimentary intercalation.

- All ignimbrites are characterized by cooling (thermal) joints that are developed

perpendicular to the layer. The pattern of the cooling joints is polygonal in plan view

2

ranging irregularly from 3 to 8 sides. The spacing between the joints range from a

fraction of m to tens of m.

- Almost all the ignimbrite layers in the area are horizontal. The joints within the

ignimbrites are, therefore, vertical.

Spatial distribution of the rock settlements in the area strongly suggests that there is a

genetic relationship between the settlements and the rock type. These rocks were

selected to host the settlements because they are suitable for carving. One unknown or

unclear point here is the role of the joints existing in the rocks on selection of the site and

style of carving.

The main objective of this study is to investigate a possible effect of the joints on the rock

settlements. Two major aspects of the settlements that will be questioned in this thesis

are: 1) whether the joint density plays a role on the selection of site, 2) are the joints

taken into consideration when the settlement is dig.

1.2. Study Area

Two ancient settlements are selected for the measurements in this study. These

settlements are Eskigümü ler (Ni de) and Çanl kilise (Aksaray). A set of criteria are

applied during the selection of the sites that will be mentioned in Chapter 3.1.

Location map of the settlements is given in Figure 1.1.

1.3. Previous Works

Previous works are organized under three sections. In the first section, general

characteristics of the ignimbrites with particular emphasis on the occurrence and eruption

sequence will be given. The second section summarizes studies carried out on the

ignimbrites in the Cappadocian Volcanic Province (CVP). In the last section available

literature on the historical aspects of the sites studied in this thesis will be given.

1.3.1. General characteristics of ignimbrites

Following review of the ignimbrites is mostly based on the work of Cas and Wright (1988).

The term ignimbrite is first used in 1935 and is one of the problematic and confused

volcanological definitions. The term is sometimes used as a lithological term that means

welded tuff and sometimes as a genetical term that means the rock formed from

pyroclastic flows . Pumice-flow deposits, ash-flow tuff and nuee ardente are other terms

used to define these deposits.

3

Figure 1.1. Location map showing settlements visited (above) and the detailed maps of selected sites (Eskigümü ler and Çanl kilise).

The most striking characteristic of the ignimbrites is their volume erupted during one

single eruption. Each eruption is believed to have a volume of more than 1000 km3 and

covers hundreds of square kilometers. Widespread ignimbrite occurrences are common

in the USA, Central and South America, northern Mediterranean belt, Iceland, Japan,

Indonesia and New Zealand.

Many of the voluminous ignimbrites are rhyolitic in composition and associated with large

calderas although small products can be erupted from strato-volcanoes.

4

A typical sequence of eruption involves following phases, ordered from bottom to top:

a) plinian phase producing a pumice-fall deposit (Figure 1.2-A).

b) pyroclastic flow phase producing ignimbrite and pyroclastic surges (Figure 1.2-B).

c) effusive phase producing lava.

The eruption column height grows steadily until sudden collapse occurs. Pyroclastic flows

generated by the collapse of the column (Figure 1.2) can travel long distances. Maximum

traveled distance so far known belongs to Sapinero Mesa Tuff with a distance of 110 km.

Columnar joints are common characteristics of ignimbrites which are the main concern in

this thesis. The result of thermal stresses within the cooling ignimbrite (initially 500-800

C°) is the contraction of material that produces fractures propagating in a plane normal to

the direction of flow (Figure 1.3). These fractures bound multi-sided, polygonal columns

that develop perpendicular to the cooling surface. The columns, which vary from 5 cm to

>3 m in width, are typically straight and have parallel sides, but some may be curved.

400-600 m s3 -1PumiceFlow

(a) (b)

Wind

Figure 1.2. Models of eruption columns formed during ignimbrite volcanism. (a) plinian phase, (b) ignimbrite-forming phase (from Cas and Wright, 1988)

Figure 1.3. Columnar (cooling-thermal) joints developed within ignimbrites.

5

1.3.2. Literature on the Cappadocian ignimbrites

In this section the literature available on various aspects of the Cappadocian ignimbrites

will be discussed because these ignimbrites form the main theme of the study. Literature

on other geological features of the region is not dealt here considering the purpose of the

study. A geological overview of the area, however, will be given in the next chapter.

Pasquaré (1968) mapped Nev ehir area at 1/25.000 scale. This is the first study on the

stratigraphy and nomenclature of the ignimbrites in the region. He measured type

sections of all individual ignimbrites and suggested a depositional area for each of the

ignimbrites.

Innocenti et al. (1975) studied stratigraphy, chemical composition and geochronology of

the ignimbrites around Nev ehir. The volcanism in the region is determined to be

calcalkaline in nature. Age determinations from different ignimbrites indicate that the main

phase of volcanic activity is Middle-Late Miocene to Pliocene.

Pasquare et al. (1988) divided the volcanic activity within the volcanic province into three

main periods. Accordingly, first period is represented by a mostly andesitic effusive

activity. The second period is represented by the emplacement of numerous ignimbrites.

During the third period andesitic-basaltic strato-volcanoes and acid monogenic centers

are developed. They suggested that Çiftlik area (north of Melendiz mountain) is the

probable site of eruption for most of the Cappadocian ignimbrites.

Schumacher et al. (1990) discussed depositional characteristics of the ignimbrites

existing within the CVP and attempted to setup a stratigraphy for these deposits.

Le Pennec et al. (1994) established the stratigraphic succession of the ignimbrites for the

whole volcanic province. Various field data are collected and measured to locate the

source of ignimbritic eruptions. Accordingly, the source area for the major ignimbrites of

the Nev ehir plateau is inferred as Derinkuyu basin extending between Nev ehir and the

Melendiz Da volcanic complex.

Toprak (1994) stated that a major fault zone named as Central K z l rmak Fault Zone

defines the northern margin of Cappadocian volcanics. Most of the ignimbrites are

emplaced within the Ürgüp basin that extends to Ni de to the south.

Topal and Doyuran (1995) investigated the control of discontinuities (joints) on the

development of the fairy chimneys in Cappadocia. Engineering geological characteristics

6

of the tuffs of the Kavak member of the Ürgüp formation indicated that the size, shape

and the field alignment of the chimneys are mainly controlled by the spacing, aperture,

persistence, and strike and dip of discontinuities.

Toprak and Kaymakç (1995) analyzed slip-lineation data developed over the ignimbrites

along the Derinkuyu fault. The joints measured are originally the cooling joint formed

during the emplacement of ignimbrites. They concluded that there is not any direct control

of the main fault on the development of the reactivation of preexisting cooling joints.

Schumacher and Mues-Schumacher (1996) studied various aspects of K z lkaya

ignimbrite throughout Cappadocia. They propose that the eruption center of the ignimbrite

is located in the Misli plain (northeast of Ni de) as deduced from thickness, grain-size

variations, flow direction indicators welding patterns and certain types of xenolits. The

ignimbrite is composed of two flow units identified by local pumice enrichment in the

upper part of the lower unit.

Schumacher and Mues-Schumacher (1997) studied general characteristics of Akda -

Zelve ignimbrite for which the northeast of Kaymakl is suggested the location of the

eruption center. The ignimbrite comprises five stratigraphic layers totaling up to more

than 50 m.

Topal and Doyuran (1997) studied the material and mass properties of Cappadocain tuff

with a special emphasis on the conservation of cultural heritage. These properties are

evaluated for the assessment of rock durability. The discontinuity surveys revealed two

dominant joint sets, which not only controlled the formation but also control the structural

stability of the fairy chimneys.

Topal and Doyuran (1998) determined engineering geological and physico-chemical

characteristics of tuffs to contribute to the conservation studies of the historical heritage.

Temel et al. (1998) presented petrology and geochemistry of the ignimbrites in the area in

detail. The origin of the volcanic units is found to be related with fractional crystallization

of a mantle-derived magma. He modified stratigraphy of Pasquare (1968) with a main

focus on the ignimbrites.

Aydan and Ulusay (2003) investigated the physical and short-term mechanical

characteristics of Cappadocian tuffs in relation to the man-made underground structures

that exist in the area.

7

1.3.3. Literature on historical aspects of the sites

The ignimbrites exposed in the area are extensively carved for settlement and/or other

reasons. Erguvanl and Yüzer (1977) and Aydan et al. (1999) indicate the main reasons

for the use of ignimbrites under six headings as follows:

- severe daily and seasonal changes of temperature in the region,

- thermal isolation properties of the rock units covering the area,

- self-supporting behavior and construction opportunities in these rocks

- easily carved particularly soft pumice tuffs,

- provide hiding places and camouflage to provide a defensive advantage and safety

against enemy attacks,

- superior resistance and protection against natural disasters due to earthquake

and/or volcanic eruptions.

Two sites selected in this study (Figure 1.1) are two ancient rock settlements and are

attractive tourist localities. The reason for this is that both sites comprise churches known

as Eskigümü ler Monastery and Çanl Kilise (The Bell Church) (Figure 1.4). Most of the

available literature is concentrated on the churches rather than the rock settlements. Both

sites are briefly explained in various web sites if searched under the same title.

Literature on the Eskigümü ler site: No printed material is found about the site.

Following information is provided from several web pages particularly from:

- www.nigde.gov.tr

- www.atamanhotel.com/cappgumusler.html

- www.cappadociaonline.com/eskitr.html.

The rock-hewn monastery of Eski Gümü ler has a rock-cut passage with a large

courtyard surrounded by rock-hewn dwellings, crypts, a kitchen and refectory with deep

reservoirs for wine and oil. The crypt to the right of the entry passage has several

skeletons still in place. Across the courtyard another crypt, beneath protective covers of

wood and glass, holds a well-preserved and apparently undisturbed skeleton.

The main church, to the right off the courtyard, has the best-preserved Byzantine

coloured frescoes in Cappadocia, painted from the 7th to 11th centuries. The Virgin and

Child to the right of the altar-space is particularly affecting, with Mary given a Mona Lisa

smile. The frescoes of Two Saints and the Presentation are very nice. The church s

great columns are completely unnecessary, but were left when the rock was cut away to

mimic the appearance of a traditional temple. The crosshatch motif was favored during

the Iconoclastic period (AD 725- 842) when sacred images were prohibited and artists

resorted to geometries, a preference soon picked up by Islam.

8

The frescoes in the church are restorated by Michael Gough in 1964-1965. The church

is open to visit seven days a week during working hours.

A

B

Figure 1.4. General views of churches existing in the sites. A. Eskigümü ler Monastry B. Çanl kilise (The Bell Church)

9

Literature on the Çanl kilise: Endo ru and Kara (1998) reported a late Byzantine

church with burials. Among other finds a Byzantine text (of Bible?), ivory cross,

Byzantine pottery, glass and terracotta oil lamps of 8th-10th centuries AD are also

found in the site.

Wisseman et al. (1998) analyzed fresco pigments in the church as an attempt to clarify

painting phases within a single building. The pigment samples were taken in 1994 with

the permission of the Turkish Ministry of Culture. The 11th century church was

constructed in three phases: 1) the naos, 2) the south narthex and the north narthex,

and 3) the parekklesion. All four spaces were decorated with frescoes, which are now in

poor condition.

Ousterhout (1995) claimed that Çanl kilise is one of many Byzantine settlements in the

picturesque volcanic region of Capadocia in central Turkey. He is the first researcher who

mapped the settlement around the church. According to him the settlement includes

about twenty rock-cut living units. Most commonly, these consist of a series of rooms

organized around three sites of a courtyard cut into the slope of the hill. Many of the

rooms have distinctive plans and most preserve both church and a large, centrally

positioned hall.

Ousterhout (1997) measured coordinates of the settlement for preparation of contour plan

of the site using a total station EDM. The entire map of the site and the plans of all

sections are drawn through this study.

1.4. Method of study

This thesis is completed in three main stages.

The first step is the compilation of available data particularly on the distribution of

ignimbrites in CVP and the rock settlements in Cappadocia. Objective of the study is

clarified and the sites were selected after this step.

The second step is the collection of field data. Necessary data are collected at the sites

after several visits to the settlements. Directional data are measured with a Brunton

compass and 5 m long steel tape. Directions are initially measured in Quadrant format.

The third step involves analysis of the data collected in the field. Sketch diagrams,

histograms and rose diagrams are prepared using FreeHand v.08, Excell 2002 and

RockWorks 2000 softwares, respectively.

10

1.5. Organization of thesis

This thesis is organized into five chapters. A brief description of each chapter is as

follows:

The first chapter introduces the area and summarizes the literature available on the

subject.

Chapter 2 is a review of the geological characteristics of the study area compiled

from the literature. Regional setting, rocks units, fault systems and distribution of

ignimbrites are the main interest of this chapter.

Chapter 3 explains the data collected in the field. An initial visual interpretation of the

measurements is made in this chapter.

Chapter 4 deals with the analysis of data carried out for two sites. These analyses

are performed to seek a relationship between the joints and the carved rooms.

Chapter 5 discusses the results and gives the main conclusions reached in this

thesis.

11

CHAPTER II

REGIONAL GEOLOGY

2.1. Geological Setting

Cappadocian Volcanic Province (CVP) extends as a belt in NE-SW direction for a length

of 250-300 km situated in Central Anatolia (Figure 2.1). The volcanism of the CVP has

been investigated by several researchers who mainly concentrated on the chronology,

petrographical and geochemical characteristics, and ignimbrite emplacement (Pasquare,

1968; Keller, 1974; Innocenti et al., 1975; Batum 1978 a, b; Pasquare et al., 1988;

Schumacher et al., 1990; Ercan et al., 1990, 1992; Bigazzi et al., 1993; Aydar et al.,

1994; Le Pennec et al., 1994; Druitt et al., 1995). The CVP is a calc-alkaline volcanic

province whose formation is attributed to the convergence between Eurasian and Afro-

Arabian plates occurring in the eastern Mediterranean.

2.2. Rock Units

Rock units within the CVP can be grouped into four categories. These are Mio-Pliocene

volcaniclastics, Miocene-Quaternary volcanic complexes, Quaternary basalt and cinder

cone fields, and Plio-Quaternary continental clastics (Figure 2.1).

Mio-Pliocene volcaniclastic rocks are dominantly composed of tephra deposits

(ignimbrites) intercalated with the lacustrine-fluvial deposits. The sequence is named as

Ürgüp formation by Pasquare (1968) and has a thickness of more than 400 m around

Ürgüp.

Age, composition and distribution of ignimbrites are studied by several researches

(Pasquaré; 1968; Innocenti et al., 1975; Pasquaré et al., 1988; Schumacher, et al., 1990;

Temel, 1992; Le Pennec et al., 1994; Schumacher and Mues-Schumacher, 1996, Temel

et al., 1998). Accordingly, they are calc-alkaline in composition, ignimbritic activity

occurred between 11 and 1 Ma and they are observed in an almost circular area with a

diameter of 120 km.

12

Figure 2.1. Simplified geological map of Cappadocian volcanic province (CVP) (Toprak, 1998).

A stratigraphic section showing different ignimbrite layers is given in Figure 2.2.

Frequency, position and nomenclature of this section can slightly change among different

studies. The ignimbritic layer, which is the main interest of this thesis, is K z lkaya

ignimbrite that is located almost to the top of the sequence. The settlements analyzed in

this study are situated within this ignimbrite.

The first attempt to locate the vent for the ignimbrites is made by Pasquaré et al., (1988)

who proposed Quaternary Çiftlik Basin as Çiftlik caldera and an ignimbrite source for

the area (Fig 2.1). Later studies show that this basin is not a caldera and therefore the

source should be searched in other places (Göncüo lu and Toprak, 1992, Le Pennec et

al., 1994). Based on various field data the source area for the major ignimbrites of the

Nev ehir plateau is proposed as Derinkuyu basin (Fig 2.1) extending between Nev ehir

and the Melendiz Da volcanic complex (Le Pennec et al, 1994).

13

Figure 2.2. Stratigraphic section showing ignimbrites identified in the area (Schumacher and Mues-Schumacher, 1997)

14

The sedimentary units within the Mio-Pliocene volcaniclastics are relatively poorly studied

compared to ignimbrites. These sedimentary units are characterized by volcanic

conglomerates and pelitic rocks at the base, by marls and fine-grained slightly tuffaceous

sandstones in the middle part and by clay minerals, marls and lacustrine limestones at

the top (Pasquare, 1968). Sedimentary content of the Ürgüp formation is named as

Bayramhac l member by Pasquare (1968) and Çökek member by Temel (1992). Six

fossil mammal deposits are recognized at different stratigraphic positions in the

sequence. The palaeontological data show an age between Maeotian (Late Miocene) and

Pontian (Late Miocene-Pliocene) times ( enyürek, 1953; Pasquaré, 1968). This age is

conformable with the radiometric ages of the associated ignimbritic units identified by

Innocenti et al. (1975).

Miocene-Quaternary Volcanic complexes correspond to the major eruptive centers in the

province and form huge topographic masses. Nineteen volcanic complexes are identified

within the province (Figure 2.1). Although some of the complexes are studied in detail,

most of them are still poorly known. Most of them are polygenetic volcanoes; others are

in the form of either a dome or a caldera. The complexes are aligned in NE-SW direction,

more or less, parallel to the long axis of the volcanic belt (Toprak, 1998). The dominant

lithologies of the complexes change from andesite, dacite, rhyolite, rhyo-dacite to basaltic

andesite.

Quaternary basalts and cinder cone fields are composed of monogenetic (parasitic)

eruptions and their associated lava flows. They are scattered throughout the study area

being concentrated in certain parts. Most of these volcanoes are in the form of cinder

cones although some exist as rhyolitic or andesitic domes and maars (Pasquare, 1968;

Keller, 1974, Batum, 1978a). The cinder cones have a basal diameter of a few tens of

meters to 1-1.5 kilometers with a height of a few ten meters to a few hundred meters.

They are all associated with basaltic lava flows and are Late Quaternary in age (Ercan et

al., 1990; 1992; 1994; Bigazzi et al., 1993). Rhyolitic domes are common around the

Ac göl caldera (no: 11 in Figure 2.1) and are characterized with the large basal diameters

reaching up to 5 km. They are Quaternary in age. Andesitic domes, on the other hand,

are mostly observed in the area between Nev ehir, Derinkuyu and Ye ilhisar. They range

in age from Late Miocene to Quaternary.

Plio-Quaternary continental deposits cover large areas within the CVP. These deposits

are exposed within isolated basins developed under the influence of tectonic and volcanic

structures existing in the area. Toprak (1996) distinguished 7 basins (Figure 2.1) and

classified them according to their modes of origin. The basins are all developed within the

15

main depression of the CVP and are filled with mostly fluvial clastics. The ages of these

depressions are assigned relative to the age of the youngest unit of Ürgüp Formation.

Accordingly, they have an age of Plio-Quaternary with minor variations from place to

place.

2.3. Fault Systems

Tectonic activity and volcanism are two processes that coexist within the CVP. Two fault

systems of different age and natures are recognized within the CVP (Toprak and

Göncüo lu, 1993). These are (1) Tuzgölü-Ecemi fault system, and (2) CVP fault system.

(1) Tuzgölü-Ecemi system is a fault swarm located between the conjugate Tuzgölü fault

in the west and the Ecemi fault in the east (Fig. 2.1). The Tuzgölü fault, with a length of

more than 150 km and a vertical offset of more than 300 m, defines the eastern margin of

the Tuzgölü basin (Uygun, 1981). Ecemi fault with a total length of about 600 km

Beyhan (1994) cuts across the CVP in its eastern part. Other major faults within this

system are Keçiboyduran-Melendiz (Toprak and Göncüo lu, 1993) and Derinkuyu

(Toprak and Kaymakç , 1995) faults.

(2) CVP faults strike NE-SW, parallel to the long axis of the CVP. Two major faults of this

system are Central K z l rmak (Toprak, 1994) and Ni de faults that define the northern

and southern margin of the volcanic depression, respectively (Fig. 2.1).

2.4. Origin and age of joints

As indicated in the statement of the purpose, the joints are the main elements of this

thesis. Brief information will be given here to explain the nature of the joints existing in the

area. Although a joint survey is carried out in both of the sites (Eskigümü ler and

Çanl klilise), their behavior to tectonic activity was not dealt in this study. The area,

however, is tectonically active and later modifications of the joints are expected.

Origin of joints: Joints in the rocks can develop in different ways. Some major causes

are 1) tectonic stress, 2) residual stress, 3) contraction, 4) pore-water pressure, 5)

release of overburden pressure, and 6) surficial movements (Secor, 1965; Billings, 1972;

Segall and Polard, 1983; Hancock, 1985; Thorpe and Brown, 1985).

Joints within the study are mostly developed by contraction due to rapid cooling of

ignimbrites when they are emplaced. The best evidence of cooling origin is the pattern of

the joints observed in the area (Figure 2.3). Later tectonic movements, however, can

reactivate these joints, since the area is tectonically active. Toprak and Kaymakç (1995)

illustrated that most of the cooling joints are reactivated and there is not a preferred

orientation for the reactivation.

16

Figure 2.3. Plan view of cooling-joint pattern measured on a horizontal surface over ignimbrites east of Derinkuyu (Toprak and Kaymakç , 1995).

Age of joints: Age of the joints in relation to the age of the settlements is an important

issue and should be considered in the analysis. It is believed that the joints measured in

the field are all older than the age of the settlement. Because, the joints measured are

either initial cooling joints of reactivated joints by later tectonic movements. In both cases

original age is equal to the age of ignimbrite that is about 5.4 million years for K z lkaya

ignimbrite.

Other joints or fractures formed by post-settlement, man-made activities are distinct in the

site by their fresh and irregular joint surfaces. Such joints are common particularly at the

entrance of the rooms and are easily distinguished.

17

CHAPTER III

DATA AND MEASUREMENTS

This chapter introduces the method of the study and explains details of each step related

to the data collection. A flowchart of the method is given in Figure 3.1

3.1. Selection of Sites

The first step in the study is the selection of sites. Criteria for the selection of the sites are

as follows:

1. More than one site should be selected for the analysis. The reason for this is that

the results should be compared with each other and the conclusions should not

be based just on one site.

2. The sites should be located within the same rock unit to keep the consistency in

the nature of the data. This in turn will affect the interpretation of the results.

3. The sites should correspond to an ancient settled area rather than randomly

distributed cave areas so that closely spaced rooms will be available for the

measurements. Widely spaced rooms would create problems since the distance

between the two end members increases.

4. The sites should be of the same type either as rock-settlement or underground

settlement because different human considerations might be applied to these

different settlement types.

5. The site should provide a suitable area for the field measurement of the fractures

next to the settlements in order to compare the fractures in the rooms with the

fractures in the vicinity.

Several field trips are organized to select the most appropriate sites. Information provided

from Nev ehir museum (by archaeologist Murat Gülyaz), Aksaray museum (by

archaeologist Yücel Kiper) and documentary material about Cappadocia played an

important role during these reconnaissance visits. After evaluation of the potential sites

the area was restricted to Nev ehir-Aksaray-Ni de triangle because the best exposures

of the ignimbrites are confined to this area. The type of the site was decided to be rock

settlement and therefore underground settlements were discarded.

18

Figure 3.1. Flowchart showing the major steps applied in this study.

19

The most promising sites are identified as the settlements around Zelve, Göreme, Gelveri

(Güzelyurt), Ürgüp, Selime, Yaprakhisar, Maz köy, Tatlarin, Goligoli, Eskigümü ler,

Çanl kilise, Uzunkaya, K z lkaya and Ihlara (Figure 1.1). All these sites are visited and

only two of them, namely Eskigümü ler and Çanl kilise are selected taking above-

mentioned requirements into consideration.

3.2. Data Collected in the Field

After selecting two sites for the measurements, the sites are visited to measure

necessary data. Four sets of data are collected in each site. These are:

1. Room measurements: Room measurements aim to locate the room with

respect the north that helps to prepare a sketch of the room. The direction of the

axis of the rooms with respect to the entrance is measured. Each room is

assigned a number and two data sets explained below (wall and joints) are stored

in the database linked to this room number.

2. Wall measurement: All the wall directions in the rooms and their lengths are

measured. Although, in general, the rooms are considered rectangular, directions

of all walls are measured separately. In the case of a curved wall, the wall is

segmented into 1 m intervals and the direction of each segment is recorded. Wall

measurements are coded in quadrant method in the field and later are converted

to dip-direction for the analysis.

3. Joints in the rooms: All the joints observed within the room are measured. The

measurements consist of direction, length and position of the joint. Direction of

dip is measured in quadrant format. Amount of dip is not measured because

almost most of the dips are vertical to sub-vertical. Length of the joint is

measured only within the room and is not followed further if it extends beyond the

room. Two reasons for this are: a) for the density analysis that will be carried

later, the total length of the joints within the room should be calculated, 2) the

same joint might cuts-across several rooms and can create confusion during the

measurements. Measuring its end members from certain reference planes such

as wall or next joint identifies the position of the joints.

4. Joint in the field: Joint survey is carried out in the close vicinity of the

settlement. The purpose of this survey is to compare the joints measured in the

rooms with the joints that exist in the region. For each site a rectangular area of

25 to 40 m is selected and all the joints observed in this area measured. The

measurements include direction and lengths of the joints.

20

The collected data are given in the appendices as six datasheets. Appendix A1 and A2,

show the room measurements for Eskigümü ler and Çanl kilise, respectively, each in

eight columns. These columns, from left to right, are: room number, direction of the room

axis, label of room, length of room, direction of wall, explanation of wall, direction of joint

and explanation of joint. Appendix B1 and B2 illustrates the room areas and joint lengths

for both sites. Appendix C1 and C2 lists the joints measured during the field survey.

3.3 . Measurements at Eskigümü ler Site

Eskigümü ler is situated about 8 km southeast of Ni de city center (Figure 3.2). The site

is accessible by a paved road to Yenigümü ler that is the new settlement close to the

site. Eskigümü ler site today is not settled and is famous with its monastery.

The rock unit exposed at the site is K z lkaya ignimbrite with a thickness of 7-8 m (Figure

3.3). Recent alluvial deposits surround ignimbrites; therefore, the base is not seen. The

upper surface of the ignimbrites, on the other hand, is exposed to the erosion. Erosion of

the ignimbrite produced a natural scarp all around the outcrop. The rooms are carved

along the southern and southwestern faces of this scarp. Therefore, the measurements

are taken along a curved line that strikes almost NW-SE at the western part and E-W at

the southern part of the settlement. Rock failure is a common process observed in the

vicinity of Eskigümü ler site. Large blocks of rocks topple and accumulate at the front of

ignimbrite scarp (Figure 3.3).

A total of 61 rooms are measured at this site. Although, there are more rooms than this

number in the site, some of them are ruined while some others are not accessible.

Diagrams illustrating plan views of these rooms are illustrated in Figures 3.4 to 3.7.

Following observations can be made on the room patterns basin on these diagrams:

The rooms are concentrated on the southern and southeastern slopes of

ignimbrite cliff suggesting a maximum benefit from the sunlight.

Height of the rooms is not the same everywhere and commonly ranges between

1.5 to 2.5 m.

Only 24 rooms have rectangular shapes with four ideal walls. Others are either

circular or elliptical in shape or composed of nested rectangular rooms.

Minimum and maximum room areas are 6 and 124.3 m2, respectively (Appendix

B1). Average room area is about 30.2 m2 (e.g. 5*6 m).

In 6 rooms cylindrical or rectangular columns (pillars) are observed (Rooms no:

15, 31, 52, 55, 58, 61) whereas in 3 rooms internal walls among the separate

rooms exist (Rooms no: 11, 31, 55).

21

Joints measured within the rooms vary in frequency, direction and pattern. Following

visual interpretations can be made on the joints with respect to the wall direction:

Total length of joints in all rooms is 493.1 m.

In three rooms no joints are detected (no: 38, 40 and 49).

In 22 rooms only one joint is observed (no: 8, 9, 16, 19, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 41,

42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 51, 53, 54, 56, 59 and 60).

Figure 3.2. Location map of the rooms measured in Eskigümü ler site

22

A

B

C

Figure 3.3

General views from Eskigümü ler site.

23

Figure 3.4. Plans of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 1 to 15). Thick lines are joints indicated by their strikes. Letters refer to wall segments (see Appendix). Dashed lines correspond to collapsed entrances. North is top of the page.

24

Figure 3.5.

Plans of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 16 to 30). Thick lines are joints indicated by their strikes. Letters refer to wall segments (see Appendix). Dashed lines correspond to collapsed entrances. North is top of the page.

25

Figure 3.6.

Plans of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 31 to 45). Thick lines are joints indicated by their strikes. Letters refer to wall segments (see Appendix). Dashed lines correspond to collapsed entrances. North is top of the page.

26

Figure 3.7.

Plans of rooms measured at Eskigümü ler site (Rooms 46 to 61). Thick lines are joints indicated by their strikes. Letters refer to wall segments (see Appendix). Dashed lines correspond to collapsed entrances. North is top of the page.

27

In 21 rooms two joints are identified (no: 5, 7, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27, 29, 33,

34, 39, 45, 47, 50, 52, 55 and 58).

The number of joints in the rest 15 rooms is three or more. The maximum number

of joints is 6 in room 61).

In three rooms the joint is either tangential to or partly observed in the corner (no:

42, 43 and 51).

The entrance is fully controlled by joints in 6 rooms. In these rooms the entrance

(or the front wall) is parallel to the joint planes (no: 2, 18, 20, 22, 33 and 36).

In 22 rooms a total of 24 walls, other than the front wall, exactly juxtapose at or

very close to joint planes (no: 1, 2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 27, 28,

30, 32, 34, 45, 52, 57, 58 and 61).

Four of the pillars (out of 6) are closely located to joint planes. One face of these

pillars is controlled by joint planes (no: 15, 52, 55, 58).

Rectangular rooms generally have regular joint sets. Typical examples are rooms

no: 6, 18, 39, 47, 50, 52 and 57). Circular or arched rooms, on the other hand,

generally comprise more complicated joint patterns such as in room no: 2, 5, 7,

15 and 24.

Field joint survey of the Eskigümü ler site is carried out directly at the top of ignimbrite

layer within which the rooms are carved. A suitable area of 25*40 meters is selected to

measure the joints (Figure 3.8). Some parts of the area are covered by soil or vegetation

that corresponds to almost one tenth of the total area. The net area of the section is

therefore 885 m2. The joint pattern in this area is illustrated on a section of 5*5 meters in

Figure 3.8.

A total of 190 joints are measured during this survey (Appendix C1). The minimum and

maximum joint lengths are 0.4 and 8, respectively. Total length of the joints is 309.9 m.

3.4. Measurements at Çanl kilise

Çanl kilise site is situated southeast of Aksaray, approximately 10 km away from the city

center. The name of the site is derived from the church (Bell church) next the rock

settlement. The site today is not settled and the closest village is Çeltek approximately 2

km at the east.

The site is located on the upper part of Tuzgölü fault scarp close to the top of a

mountainous area. It is facing south and southwestern direction similar to Eskigümü ler

site (Figure 3.9 and 3.10). Hasanda mountain (and strato-volcano) that constitutes the

highest peak of the region is clearly visible almost from all rooms of the site.

28

Figure 3.8. Area of joint field survey for Eskigümü ler site. Survey is carried out at an area of 25*40 m partly covered by vegetation. Small square shows the details of joints measured in this survey.

Figure 3.9. Location map of the rooms measured in Çanl kilise site. The map is prepared by Ousterhout (1997). Number indicate residential areas. The measurements are taken along the solid black line.

29

Figure 3.10. General views of Çanlikilise site

A

B

C

30

The rooms in the sites are excavated within K z lkaya ignimbrite that has a thickness of

4-5 m. The ignimbrite is capped by lacustrine limestone; therefore the upper surface of

the ignimbrite is not exposed at the site.

Intensity of the natural destruction at this site is more than Eskigümü ler as indicated by

extensive rock fall and talus deposits. Some of the rooms are buried beneath these talus

deposits while some others are partly exposed to the surface. This destruction can be

attributed to the activity of the Tuzgölü fault.

Number of the rooms measured at Çanl kilise site is 27. The rooms carved within another

ignimbrite lying beneath the K z lkaya ignimbrite are not measured to keep the

consistency. Some other the rooms are collapsed by later events and buried under talus

like deposits (Figure 3.10-C). Therefore, only limited amount of numbers are available at

this site for the measurements. Plan views of the rooms and the joints measured in these

rooms are illustrated in Figures 3.11and 3.12.

Following observations are made on the rooms at Çanlikilise site:

The rooms are concentrated on the southern and southeastern slopes of

ignimbrite cliff, an observation similar to Eskigümü ler site, suggesting a

maximum benefit from the sunlight.

Height of the rooms ranges between 1 to 2.5 m.

13 rooms have rectangular shapes with four ideal walls. Others are either

circular or elliptical in shape or composed of nested rectangular rooms. Minimum

and maximum room areas are 10 and 146 m2, respectively (Appendix A2).

Average room area is about 40,6 m2 (e.g. 5*8 m)

In 3 rooms cylindrical or rectangular columns (pillars) are observed (Rooms no: 1,

3, 6) (Figure 3.12) whereas in one room internal walls separate nested rooms

(Rooms no: 11).

Following observations are made on the joints in the Çanl kilise site:

Total length of joints in all rooms is 282,1 m.

In 8 rooms only one joint is observed (no: 1,4 ,5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 27)

In 9 rooms two joints are identified (no: 1, 2, 3, 14, 16, 17, 23, 25, 26).

The number of joints in the rest 10 rooms is three or more. The maximum number

of joints is 4 in room 11.

In 2 rooms, joint is either tangential to or partly observed in the corner (no: 4, 8).

3 of the pillars (out of 4) are closely located to joint planes. One face of these

pillars is controlled by joint planes (no: 1, 3, 11) (Figure 3.13).

31

Figure 3.11. Plans of rooms measured at Çanl kilise site (Rooms 1 to 15). Thick lines are joints indicated by their strikes. Letters refer to wall segments (see Appendix). Dashed lines correspond to collapsed entrances. North is top of the page.

32

Figure 3.12. Plans of rooms measured at Çanl kilise site (Rooms 16 to 27). Thick lines are joints indicated by their strikes. Letters refer to wall segments (see Appendix). Dashed lines correspond to collapsed entrances. North is top of the page.

Field survey of the Çanl kilise site is carried out about 150 m north of the site, because

lacustrine sediments cover ignimbrite at the site. In the area selected (25*40 m), top of

ignimbrite is exposed on a flat barren surface (Figure 3.14). Some parts of the area are

covered by soil or vegetation that corresponds to almost one tenth of the total area. The

net area of the section is therefore 935 m2. The joint pattern in this area is illustrated on a

section of 5*5 meters in Figure 3.14. A total of 132 joints are measured during this survey

(Appendix C2). The minimum and maximum joint lengths are 0,4 and 9 m, respectively.

Total length of the joints is 355.7 m.

33

Figure 3.13. Pillars of Çanl kilise site.

34

Figure 3.14. Area of joint field survey for Çanl kilise site. Survey is carried out at an area of 25*40 m partly covered by vegetation. Small square shows the details of joints measured in this survey.

35

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSES

This chapter presents the analysis made on the data explained in the previous chapter.

Three analyses made are directional analysis (directions of rooms and joints), spatial

analyses (position of the joints in the room) and density analysis (comparison of joints in

the rooms and the field).

4.1. Directional Analyses

Directions of data collected at the sites are analyzed based on their strike measurements.

In each site four sets of data exist, namely, room entrance directions, wall directions, joint

directions in the rooms; and joint directions in the field. Rose diagrams prepared for these

data are as follows:

- one diagram for the room entrance

- two diagrams for wall directions (non-weighted and weighted)

- two diagrams for joints in the rooms (non-weighted and weighted)

- two diagrams for joints in the field (non-weighted and weighted)

For each site, therefore seven rose diagrams are explained. Interpretations of these

diagrams are made below for two sites separately.

4.1.1. Eskigümü ler site

Direction of room entrance: The direction of the room is the axis for that room in

relation to the entrance. Rose diagrams prepared from these axes are illustrated in Figure

4.1. Two diagrams are prepared based on the direction of ignimbrite scarp. The western

part of the scarp is oriented in N70W direction and 25 rooms are located in this section

(Figure 3.2). Eastern part of the scarp, on the other hand, has an orientation of N30E with

36 rooms. Both diagrams indicate that most dominant direction is N00-10E / S00-05W

with a concentration of 35 %. This is followed by minor concentrations at different

directions.

Considering the direction of the scarp, therefore, it could be concluded that selection of

south-facing entrances is not a natural result of the exposure, but rather a preference

made by the people.

36

Rooms: 01-25

Scarp direction: N70W Rooms: 26-61

Scarp direction: N30E

Figure 4.1.

Rose diagram prepared from room axes for Eskigümü ler site.

The walls: Rose diagrams prepared from the directions of walls are illustrated in Figure

4.2. A total of 235 walls are measured during the analyses. There is almost no major

difference between the non-weighted and weighted rose diagrams. A small difference,

however, is that in the non-weighted diagram the randomly distributed minor directions

tend to concentrate in NW-SE direction.

Two dominant wall directions are observed (N05E-S05W and N85W-S85E) that have

exactly the same density (20 %). The main implications of these diagrams are:

- Each direction corresponds to a pair of facing walls in the room. Accordingly the

rooms are rectangular in shape. It should be noted that, circular to elliptical rooms

are put into the analysis as segments of linear structures.

- Comparison of the room axis and wall direction suggest that N-S oriented

directions represent the side walls and the E-W oriented direction represent the

front and back walls of the room.

Joints in room: Rose diagrams of joints measured within the rooms do not display any

major difference between non-weighted and weighted analyses (Figure 4.2). A dense

concentration is observed in N10-60W and N00-10E directions. The density of each 10-

degree interval is 10-13 %. The pattern of rose diagrams indicates that:

- The joints in the rooms have certain trends represented by a swarm.

- There is an obvious angular relationship between the wall and joint directions.

This angle makes an acute angle of 30-35° with the sidewalls of the rooms.

- There is no or only minor joint concentrations in NE-SW and E-W directions.

37

Non-weighted Weighted

Wall

N=235 N = 984

Joints in

room

N=110 N=477

Joints in field

survey

N=212 N=706

Figure 4.2. Rose diagrams prepared from measurements of Eskigümü ler site. (N is number of measurements)

Joints in field: Rose diagrams of the joints measured in the field survey show several

differences compared to joints measured in the room (Figure 4.2):

- The first difference is in the patterns of non-weighted and weighted rose

diagrams. The reason for this is that, most of the field-joints are longer than the

room-joints that affect frequency during segmentation. The room-joints are

38

observed only in a limited area depending on the size of the rooms and do not

show significant change when it is segmented.

- In both non-weighted and weighted diagrams, there is not a definite pattern of the

joints as indicated by their multi directional nature. Therefore, both diagrams

indicate typical directional pattern for cooling joints as expected to develop in

almost all directions.

- An important difference between room-joints and field-joints is that, the most

commonly observed field-joint direction (NE-SW) is absent in the rooms.

4.1.2. Çanl kilise site

Direction of room entrance: Rose diagram prepared from the room entrance directions

for Çanl kilise site is illustrated in Figure 4.3. The diagram indicates that the most

dominant direction is N20E-S25W with a concentration of 32 %. Other concentrations of

about 8-9 % are observed in different directions. The scarp of the ignimbrite at this site,

similar to the scarp of ignimbrite at the Eskigümü ler site is facing south and southwest.

At this site, however, southwest and west facing scarps are longer than south facing

ones. Therefore, the directions observed in the rose diagram indicate that western

direction is avoided and that southeastern direction is preferred.

Rooms: 01-27 Scarp direction: N09W

Figure 4.3. Rose diagram prepared from room axes for Çanl kilise site.

The walls: Rose diagrams prepared from the directions of walls are illustrated in Figure

4.4. A total of 135 walls are measured at Çanl kilise site. There is almost no major

difference between the non-weighted and weighted rose diagrams. The only difference is

that smaller concentrations in NW-SE direction observed in non-weighted diagram are

gathered to concentrate in a certain trend in weighted one.

39

The walls are carved in two dominant directions, as averages, in N15E-S15W and N65W-

S65E. Densities of both directions are about 14 %. The main implications of these

diagrams are:

- Rectangular shape of the rooms at Çanl kilise site is under question. The average

angle between two wall directions is approximately 80°. This might be due to the

circular or irregular rooms existing in this site.

- The rooms are slightly oblique (about 10°) with respect to the entrance.

- Comparison of the room axis and wall direction suggests that NE-SW oriented

walls are side walls and the NW-SE oriented direction represent the front and

back walls of the room.

Joints in room: Rose diagrams of joints measured within the rooms for the Çanl kilise

show following characteristics (Figure 4.4):

- Non-weighted and weighted analyses do not display any major difference. The

maximum concentration is about N40W-S40E with a density of 13-15 %.

- The range of the joint direction compared to Eskigümü ler site is very narrow.

- Minor concentrations of 4 % are observed in NE-SW direction.

- The angle between wall and joint directions is about 45-50°.

Joints in field: Rose diagrams of the joints measured in the field survey for Çanl kilise

site are illustrated in Figure 4.4. It should be noted that the field survey was carried out

away from the site because there was no exposed surface in the close vicinity. Following

observations are made on the rose diagrams of these joints:

- Non-weighted and weighted rose diagrams do not display great differences. In

both diagrams similar directions get maximum density values.

- The joints are regularly concentrated in two directions, namely, N-S and WSW-

ESE, which is an observation not usual for cooling joints. One reason for this

might be the location of the site very close to Tuzgölü fault, so that, earlier cooling

joints are reactivated and become dominant in certain directions. Presence of

abundant striated surfaces at this site can be an evidence for this.

- An important difference between room-joints and field-joints is that, the most

common field-joint directions are absent in the room-joints.

40

Non-weighted Weighted

Wall

N=135 N = 655

Joint in

room

N=60 N= 272

Joint in

survey

N=132 N=316

Figure 4.4. Rose diagrams prepared from measurements of Çanl kilise site. (N is number of measurements)

4.2. Spatial analyses

Spatial analysis aims to locate position of joint within the room. If the position of the joint

can be quantified, that can help to understand how the joints are dealt then the room is

carved. Two methods of quantifying position of the joints are proposed here. Details of

each method are explained below and applied for both sites

41

4.2.1. Location in relation to entrance

Some joints are visible at the outcrops surface before the rooms are carved. Particularly if

the direction of the joint is parallel to the axis of the room, this joint is expected to expose

to the surface. The direction of the joint, on the other hand, if is parallel to the front wall

(or back wall) this joint will be encountered during the digging of the rooms. Aim of

location analysis in relation to the entrance is to measure the distance of the joint from

entrance in order to investigate how the joints are dealt when they are faced interior of

the room while the carving operation is continuing.

The method of measuring location of joints is shown in Figure 4.5. The joints are

assigned a number in the range of 0 to 100 % depending on their distance from the

entrance. Accordingly, the closest joint gets a value of 0 % (front wall) and the farthest

joint a value of 100 % (back wall).

Figure 4.5. Method to measure the location of joints in relation to entrance.

Several problems may arise during the assignment of the value for a joint. To avoid

confusion and keep the consistency, following rules are applied during scoring:

- If the joint is parallel to the axis of the room, it is suggested to be visible at the

outcrop face; therefore, it gets a value of 0 %.

- If the joint is parallel to the front (or back) wall, its distance is measured from the

scale given in the diagram. The distance, in this case, will be the same on both

sidewalls from the entrance.

42

- If the joint is oblique than the distance to the entrance will be different on both

sidewall. In this case, the position of the entrance can be used to select the most

appropriate sidewall. However, in most cases either the whole front wall forms

the entrance or the location of the entrance is not next to one of the sidewalls. To

avoid the complexity, therefore, it is decided to measure the distance along the

central axis of the room.

All the distances are measured and converted to the scale to get the values in terms of

percentages. The results are shown in the histograms in Figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6. Histograms showing results of the location analyses of joints in relation to the entrances in the sites.

Histograms for two sites show different characteristics:

- In the Eskigümü ler site the distance from the front wall to back wall gradually

decreases (from 25 to 5 %). The most populated interval is the fist one that

corresponds to immediate distance at the entrance. This suggest that majority of

the joints were visible before the room was carved.

- In the Çanl kilise site the pattern is almost opposite to the first site. Frequency of

the joints, which are away from the entrance gradually, increases with a break

almost at the center of the room.

43

- In both sites the pillars (columns) and internal walls are not taken into the

consideration. These structures should be in a way put into the calculations that

can lead to more meaningful results.

4.2.2. Location in relation to center of room

This analysis aims to detect if the joints are concentrated at the central part of the room

or at the periphery. A method for this purpose is proposed which is illustrated in Figure

4.7. Similar to the previous analysis the distance of each joint is assigned a number in the

range of 0 to 100. This number is 100 if the joint passes exactly from the center of the

room; it is zero if it is along one of the walls. Rectangular boxes in the figure represent

scale lines for every ten percent interval. These boxes will be used if the room is

rectangular. In the case of circular rooms these boxes should be converted to circles.

Figure 4.7. Method to measure the location of joints in relation to the center of room.

Following rules are applied during assignment of the values:

- If the joint is parallel to any wall of the room, the percentage will be directly read

from the scale.

- If the joint is oblique to the room walls than the shortest distance from the center

of the room to the joint be measured.

The results of this analysis for both sites are shown in the histograms in Figure 4.8.

Following observations can be made on these diagrams.

44

- In the Eskigümü ler site the distance from the margins of the rooms towards the

center gradually decreases (from 35 to 6 %). The most populated interval is the

fist one that corresponds to the periphery of room. Therefore, the frequency of

the joints that cuts across the room is low. It is not possible to understand from

the diagram, to which wall the joint is closer. This diagram, together with Figure

4.6, however, suggests that the closest wall is the front wall.

Figure 4.8. Histograms showing results of the location analyses of joints in relation to the center of rooms.

- In the Çanl kilise site the pattern of the histograms implies an opposite case

compared with the Eskigümü ler site. Frequency of the joints that are closer to

the center of the room gradually increases from 7 to 17 %. There are two breaks

almost at 35 and 65 % distances.

- Similar to the Eskigümü ler site, position and frequency of pillars and internal

walls are not considered in these calculations.

45

4.3. Density Analysis

Density analysis aims to investigate the relationship between the joint lengths versus the

area of the rooms. This analysis is carried out in two steps.

The first step is to compare the densities of the joints measured in the room and in the

field. Table 4.1 shows total measurements for both places in both sites. The field joints

have densities of 0.35 and 0.38 m/m2 for Eskigümü ler and Çanl kilise sites, respectively.

Room joints, on the other hand, have densities of 0.27 and 0.38 m/m2 for the same sites

(Figure 4.9).

Table 4.1. Joint densities in the field and in the room for both sites.

Total joint lenght (m)

Total area (m2)

Density (m/m2)

Eskigümü ler Room 493.1 1840.35 0.27

Field 309.9 885 0.35 Çanl kilise Room 282.1 1096.85 0.26

Field 355.7 935.0 0.38

Figure 4.9. Graphical representation of joint densities for both sites.

Two main implications of these results are:

1) Room and field densities are almost the same among themselves,

2) Room densities are less than field densities.

46

The second step is to plot room area versus joint length measured in the sites. Scatter

plots of this analysis (Figure 4.10) indicate that:

1) The room area increases as the joint length increases. The best-fit line illustrating

this relationship suggests that the larger rooms are carved in relatively small joint

lengths.

3) The density of

the Çanl kilise is slightly greater than that of Eskigümü ler. This

might be due to the close vicinity of the site to the Tuzgölü fault zone.

Figure 4.10. Scatter plots of room area versus joint length for both sites.

47

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The study carried out in this thesis will be discussed under four separate headings that

focus on 1) general aspects of the settlements, 2) the method applied, 3) the

interpretation of results obtained, and 4) recommendations for further studies.

5.1. General Aspects of Settlements

Rock settlements are highly affected from certain characteristics of joints and hosting

ignimbrites. These characteristics play an important role in the selection of site and the

design of the settlement. Three of these characteristics are thickness of ignimbrites,

morphology formed along the ignimbrites and attitude of ignimbrites.

Thickness of the ignimbrites: Most of ignimbrites have thickness ranging from 5 to 80

m (Schumacher et al., 1990; Le Pennec et al., 1994; Schumacher and Mues-

Schumacher, 1996; 1997). Although this thickness gradually decreases to cm at distal

parts, they have their maximum thickness in the area between Ni de, Nev ehir and

Aksaray where most of the rock settlements are located. This thickness forms a suitable

medium for the development of columnar joints (Cas and Wright (1988). Therefore, the

settlements and the joints are genetically related and in all rock settlements presence of

columnar joints should be expected. The spacing and the length of joints, however, can

change from place to place depending on the local conditions existing at the site. Zelve,

Selime and Yaprakhisar rock settlements, for example, are carved within ignimbrites with

widely spaced joints.

Morphology formed by ignimbrites: Most of the rock settlements in Cappadocia (other

than underground cities) are carved within the steep slopes formed along the ignimbrites.

These slopes are commonly observed in two forms as valleys and cliffs (Figure 5.1).

Examples of valley type settlements are Zelve, Göreme, Gelveri (Güzelyurt) and So anl .

Two settlements selected in this study are examples of cliff type settlements. Other

examples are Selime, Yaprakhisar, Uzunkaya and Tatlarin.

48

Since the study is carried out in cliff type settlements, certain results such as orientation

of the room axes are consistent in this study. In valley type settlement, however, the

rooms will be located on both sides of the valley and the room orientations might indicate

different directions.

Figure 5.1. Two major types of rock settlements in Cappadocia.

Attitude of ignimbrites: All the maps prepared in the area indicate that the ignimbrites

are almost horizontal except some in local regions close to the faults. A horizontal

ignimbrite implies vertical joints since the joints are developed perpendicular to flow

direction (Cas and Wright, 1988).

Two settlements selected in this study are located within almost horizontal layers.

Therefore, the joints are vertical which can control in same cases the margin of a room. In

an inclined layer, on the other hand, the joints will also be inclined that will be oblique to

the room wall. Similar study carried out in inclined strata can show how people dealt with

such inclined joints.

5.2. Method applied

Algorithm of the method proposed in this study is given in Figure 4.1. The method

attempts to seek relationship between joints and the rock-hewn settlements. Analyses

made from the data collected test:

- effect of joint orientation on the design of the room,

- position of the joints within the room,

- effect of joint density on the selection of site,

- effect of joint density on the size of the room.

49

There is no assumption made during the analyses. All data are processed using common

PC-softwares and the outputs are provided in the form of rose-diagram, histogram or

scatter plot. In this case, the method is simple and straightforward. The only necessary

requirement is the availability of data related to joints both in the rooms and in the field.

To increase accuracy of the results, however, several other analyses can be added to the

method. Two important analyses that are missed here are volume calculations and

consideration of pillars.

Volume refers to the 3D recognition of the room. All the rooms measured in this study are

represented in plan views and show only 2D nature of the data. The volume of the room,

on the other hand, can modify the results obtained for the joint densities.

Pillar refers to the column left-behind when the ignimbrite is carved. The supportive use

of the pillar can be quantified in relation to joints. The number of the pillars in this study (6

for Eskigümü ler, 3 for Çanl kilise sites) was not enough to carry out a statistical analysis.

5.3. Interpretation of Result

Following conclusions are derived from the present study:

1) Room axes for both sites concentrate at certain directions. These directions are

approximately N05E-S05W for Eskigümü ler and N25E-S25W for Çanl kilise site.

The direction of the ignimbrite scarp along which the rooms are aligned is different in both

sites. At Eskigümü ler site the scarp has is composed of two segments with distinct

orientations, namely, N70W and N30E (Figure 5.2). Expected room orientations,

therefore, should be in N20E and N60W, respectively if the room is carved perpendicular

to the scarp. The observation made in the field, however, indicates that the rooms are

oriented in almost N-S direction that is oblique to the scarp.

A similar observation is made in Çanl kilise site. The scarp of ignimbrite is in N09W

direction at this site. Accordingly, the average room axis direction is expected to be at

N81E direction that is the trend perpendicular to the scarp. An oblique relationship,

however, of about 55 degrees is detected in the analysis.

The difference between the scarp direction and the room axes in both sites as make use

of maximum sun light during the configuration of the rooms.

50

Figure 5.2. Interpretation of room axes for both sites in relation to the ignimbrite scarp. Rose diagrams indicate the room orientations shown in Figures 4.1 and 4.3.

2) Wall directions at both sites are represented by two dominant directions consistent with

the room axis direction. The angle between two wall directions suggests almost

rectangular rooms for the Eskigümü ler site. The angle in the Çanl kilise site, on the other

hand, is about 80 degrees. This deviation might be due to the segmentation of the wall in

circular/elliptical rooms.

3) Joints measured in the rooms and in the field display different characteristics. Room

joints are dominantly in the same direction while the field joints have a multi directional

nature. The room joints in both sites have a distinct angle with the directions of the walls.

Position and location of the pillars should be utilized to further quantify this analysis.

51

4) Proximity analysis carried out to locate position of the joints in the room display

different characteristics. In the Eskigümü ler site the joints are closer to the margins of

the room, particularly to the front wall, suggesting a design that considered the joints

during the settlement was carved. In the Çanl kilise site, this observation is not clear and

suggests almost a different configuration.

5) Density analysis yields three important conclusions. First of all, the field joints have a

larger density in both sites compared to the rooms. That means the rooms have less

joints than the field. This implies that frequency of joints is considered during the selection

of sites, and areas of fewer joints are identified. Secondly, density gradually decreases,

as the size of the room gets larger. This implies that if the room is not jointed they tend to

enlarge the room as much as possible. The last conclusion is that, the density of the

Çanl kilise site is slightly greater than Eskigümü ler. Although the difference is negligible

a logical explanation can be the distance of the sites to active fault zones. The closet

active fault zone to both sites is Tuzgölü fault zone (Figure 2.1). The distance however is

about 25 km to Eskigümü ler and 1-2 km to Çanl kilise site. This difference can imply the

fact that recent earthquakes might affect Çanl kilise site more than the Eskigümü ler site

and some of the joints can be produced during such activities.

5.4. Recommendations

Recommendations made here aim to contribute to further studies carried out in similar

subjects to increase reliability of results and to extract more information.

- The shape characteristics of the rooms are ignored in this study. Although

most of the rooms have rectangular shapes, other irregular or elliptical forms

also exist in the sites. Some rooms are even nested or more complicated.

The relationship between the joint data and the room geometry should be

tested in further studies. The main reason not to carry out these analyses in

this study is the number of the rooms in this study, which is not enough for

such an analysis.

- This study is based on two-dimensional analyses of the data. The third

dimension (height of the room) is ignored here. If the height were considered

in the calculations, this would lead to investigate the relationship between the

joint density and room volume rather than the room area. Most of the rooms,

however, have arc-shaped roof that complicates data collection which, in

turn, would lead in misinterpretation of the results.

52

- For this reason, it is recommended to carry out these analyses in the sites

where such details are available.

- Only direction and the length of the joints are considered in this study. Other

parameters, if available, such as aperture, should be included into the

method. A further classification of the joints based on these parameters can

better explain why certain directions are observed in the rooms although

other directions also exist in the field.

- Pillars are not investigated in detail in this study. The main reason is that only

a couple of pillars are observed in the rooms. There should be, however, a

relationship between the location of pillar and the room size or joint density. A

study carried out in a site with abundant pillars can clarify this relationship.

- Similar investigations should be carried out in the underground cities

commonly observed in the area. The main difference between cliff

settlements and the underground settlements is that an underground city is

multi-story structure and the joint characteristics can change as the depth

changes.

53

REFERENCES

Aydan, Ö., and Ulusay, R., (2003) Geotechnical and geoenvironmental characteristics of man-made underground structures in Cappadocia, Turkey, Engineering Geology, 69, 245-272.

Aydan, Ö., Ulusay, R., Yüzer, E., and Erdo an, M., (1999) Man-Made Rock Structures in Cappadocia, Turkey and Their Implications in Rock Mechanics andRock Engineering, International Society for Rock Mechanics, 6, 1, 63-73.

Aydar, E., Gündo du, N., Bayhan, H. and Gourgaud, A., (1994) Volcano-structural and petrological investigation of the Cappadocian Quaternary volcanism, TUBITAK Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 3: 25-42 (In Turkish with English abstract)

Batum, I., (1978)) a. Geology and petrography of Ac göl and Göllüda volcanics at southwest of Nev ehir Central Anatolia - Turkey), Yerbilimleri, 4, 1-2: 50-69 (In Turkish with English abstract).

Batum, I., (1978) b. Geochemistry and petrology of Ac göl and Göllüda volcanics at southwest of Nev ehir Central Anatolia - Turkey), Yerbilimleri, 4, 1-2: 70-88 (In Turkish with English abstract).

Beyhan, A., (1994) Stratigraphic outline and neotectonics of the Sulucaova-Koval segment of the Ecemi fault zone, Ms. Thesis, Middle East Tech. University, Ankara, 109 p.

Bigazzi, G., Ye ingil, Z., Ercan, T., Oddone, M. and Özdo an, M., (1993) Fission track dating obsidians of central and northern Anatolia, Bull. Volcanology, 55: 588-595.

Billings, P.B., (1972) Structural Geology, Prentice Hall, Third Edition, New Jersey, 606 p.

Cas, R.A.F., and Wright, J.V., (1988) Volcanic Successions Modern and Ancient, Allen & Unwin; London, UK; 528 p.

Druitt, T.H., Brenchley, P.J., Gökten, Y.E. and Francaviglia, V., (1995) Late Quaternary rhyolitic eruptions from the Ac göl complex, central Turkey, Journal of Geological Society, London, 152: 655-667

Endogru M. and Kara D., (1998), Aksaray Akhisar Köyü Canli Kilise Kurtarma Kazisi (Rescue Excavation at Canli Church at Village Akhisar at Aksaray). VIII. Müze Kurtarma Kazilari Semineri. 7-9 Nisan 1997. Kusadasi. T. C., Kultur Bakanligi, Anitlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlügü. [Kültür Bakanligi Yayinlari, 2006/An tlar ve Müzeler Genel Müdürlügu Yayinlari, 55.] Ankara, Kultur Bakanligi Milli Kutuphane Basimevi, [ISBN 975-17-1875-9] 585-606.

Ercan, T., Fujitani,T., Matsuda, J.I., Tokel, S., Notsu, K., Ul, T., Can, B., Selvi, Y., Y ld r m, T., Fi ekçi, A., Ölmez, M. and Akba l , A., (1990). The origin and evolution of the Cenozoic volcanism of Hasanda -Karacada area (Central Anatolia), Jeomorfoloji Dergisi, 18: 39-54 (In Turkish with English abstract)

54

Ercan, T., Tokel, S., Matsuda, J., Ul, T., Notsu, K. and Fujitani, T., (1992). New geochemical, isotopic and radiometric data of the Quaternary volcanism of Hasanda -Karacada (Central Anatolia), TJK Bülteni, 7: 8-21 (In Turkish with English abstract)

Ercan, T., Tokel, S., Matsuda, J., Ul, T., Notsu, K. and Fujitani, T., (1994). Erciyes Da (Orta Anadolu) Pliyo-Kuvaterner volkanizmas na ili kin yeni jeokimyasal, izotopik, radyometrik veriler ve jeotermal enerji aç s ndan önemi, Türkiye 6. Enerji Kongresi Bildiriler Kitab , 208-222 (in Turkish).

Erguvanl , A.K., and Yüzer, E., (1977) Past and present use of underground openings excavated in volcanic tuffs at Cappadocia area, Rock Storage, Oslo, 15-20

Göncüo lu, M.C. and Toprak, V., (1992). Neogene and Quaternary volcanism of central Anatolia: a volcano-structural evaluation, Bulletin de la Section de Volcanologie, Soc. Géol. France, 26: 1-6.

Hancock, P.L., (1985) Brittle microtectonics: principles and practice, Journal of Structural Geology, 7, 437-457.

Innocenti, F., Mazzuoli, G., Pasquare, F., Radicati Di Brozolo, F. and Villari, L., (1975). The Neogene calcalkaline volcanism of Central Anatolia: geochronological data on Kayseri-Ni de area, Geol. mag., 112 (4): 349-360.

Keller, J., (1974). Quaternary maar volcanism near Karap nar in Central Anatolia, Bulletin Volcanologique, 38-2: 378-396.

Le Pennec, J., L., Bourdier, J.-L., Froger, J.-L., Temel, A., Camus, G. and Gourgaud, A., (1994). Neogene ignimbrites of the Nev ehir plateau (central Turkey): stratigraphy, distribution and source constraints, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 63: 59-87.

Ousterhout, R., (1995) An examination of a Byzantine settlement in Cappadocia, Design for the environment: The Interdisciplanr Challenge, ASCA, WCRC95, 13-19.

Ousterhout, R., (1997) Survey of the Byzantine settlement at Çanl kilise in Cappadocia: Rtesults of the 1995 and 1996 seasons, 301-306.

Pasquaré, G, Poli, S., Vezzoli, L. and Zanchi, A., 1988. Continental arc volcanism and tectonic setting in central Anatolia, Tectonophysics, 146: 217-230.

Pasquaré, G., (1968). Geology of the Cenozoic volcanic area of Central Anatolia, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei, 9: 53-204.

Schumacher, R., and Mues-Schumacher, U., (1996) The K z lkaya ignimbrite

an unusual low aspect ratio ignimbrite from Cappadocia, central Turkey, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 70, 107-121

Schumacher, R., and Mues-Schumacher, U., (1997) The pre-ignimbrite (phreato) plinian and phreatomagmatic phases of the Akda -Zelve ignimbrite eruption in central Anatolis, Turkey, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 78, 139-153.

Schumacher, R., Keller, J. and Bayhan, H., (1990). Depositional characteristics of ignimbrites in Cappadocia, central Anatolia, Turkey, in: M.Y. Sava ç n and A.H. Eronat (eds), Proceedings of the International Earth Science Congress on Aegean Regions (IESCA 1990), vol. 2: 435-449.

55

Secor, D.T., (1965) Role of fluid pressure in jointing, American Journal of Science, 263,

633-646.

Segal, P., and Pollard, D.P., (1983) Joint formation in granitic rock of the Sierra Nevada, Geol. Soc. Am. Bull., 94, 563-575.

enyürek, M.Z., (1953). List of localities of Mammalian fossils of Pontian age in the vilayet of Kayseri, Ankara Univ., D.T.C.F. Dergisi, XI, 1-2-4: 171-176.

Temel, A, Gündo du, N.N., and Gourgaud A., (1998) Petrological and geochemical characteristics of Cenozoic high-K calc-alkaline volcanism in Konya, C. Anatolia, Turkey, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85, 1-4, 327-354

Temel, A., (1992) Kapadokya eksplozif volkanizmas n n petrolojik ve jeokimyasal özellikleri, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Geological Engineering, Hacettepe University (in Turkish)

Thorpe, R., and Brown, G., (1985) The field description of Igneous rocks, Geological Society of London Handbook Series, Open University Press, 154 p.

Topal, T. and Doyuran, V., (1998) Analyses of deterioriation of the Cappadocian tuff, Environmental Geology, 34/1, 5-20.

Topal, T., and Doyuran, V., (1995) Effect of Discontinuities on the Development of Fairy Chimneys in the Cappadocia Region (Central Anatolia-Turkey), TUBITAK Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 4, 49-54.)

Topal, T., and Doyuran, V., (1997) Engineering geological properties and durability assessment of the Cappadocian tuff, Engineering Geology, 47, 175-187.

Toprak, V. and Göncüo lu, M.C., (1993). Tectonic control on the development of the Neogene-Quaternary Central Anatolian volcanic province, Turkey, Geological Journal, 28: 357-369.

Toprak, V. and Kaymakç , N., (1995). Determination of stress orientation using slip lineation data in Pliocene ignimbrites around Derinkuyu fault (Nev ehir), TÜB TAK Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 4: 39-47.

Toprak, V., (1994). Central K z l rmak fault zone: northern margin of the Central Anatolian volcanics; TÜB TAK Turkish Journal of Earth Sciences, 3: 29-38.

Toprak, V., (1996). Origin of the Quaternary basins developed within Neogene Cappadocian volcanic depression, Central Anatolia, Proceedings of the 30th Anniversary Symposium, Trabzon, Turkey, 327-339 (In Turkish with English abstract)

Toprak, V., (1998), Vent distribution and its relation to regional tectonics, Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 85, 1-4, 55-67.

Uygun, A., (1981). Tuzgölü havzas n n jeolojisi, evaporit olu umlar ve hidrokarbon olanaklar , ç Anadolunun Jeolojisi Simpozyomu, TJK, Ankara, 66-71. (in Turkish)

56

Wisseman, S., Sarin, P., Ousterhout, R., De Sena, E., Williams, W., (1998), Fresco pigments from byzantine Cappadocia, Part II, In Proceedings of the 1998 International Symposium on Archaeometry, Budapest,

Online References:

www.nigde.gov.tr

www.atamanhotel.com/cappgumusler.html

www.cappadociaonline.com/eskitr.html.

57

APPENDIX A1

Eskigümü ler room wall and joint measurements

ROOM WALL JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

1 N-S A 8 N-S Side N85W (B)

B 4.5 N85W Rear N70W Mid.

C 5 N-S Side N40W Mid.

D 2 N45W Sub. Wall N45W (D) 2 N-S A 10 E-W Front E-W (A)

B 4 E-W Rear N80W

C 5 N-S Side (curved) N15W (D1)

D 5 N-S Side (curved)

C1 2,5 N-S Side (2.part)

D1 2,5 N-S Side (2.part) 3 N-S A 5 E-W Front E-W Mid:

B D: 9 Curved 4 N-S A 6 E-W Front

B D:6 Side (curved)

N20W

C 2.5 N20W Side (1.part) N70E 1.part (B)

D 2 N70E Rear (1.part)

E 2 N20W Side (1.part)

N30E F 2 N30E Side (2.part) N40W 2.part

G 2.5 N75W Rear (2. part) N80E 2.part

H 2 N30E Side (2.part) 5 N40W

D:15 Curved N80W Mid.

N40W Front

N50W Mid. 6 N80E A 7 N10W Front N30W Rear

B 12 N80E Side N40W Mid:

C 7 N05W Rear (curved) N20W Front

D 12 N85E Side 7 N50E A D:5 Side (curved) E-W Diag.

B 3 N30W Rear N60W (E-W)

C D:5 Side (curved) 8 N30E A 5 N25E Front N30W Mid.

B 3 N60W Side

C 5 N25E Rear

D 3 N60W Side 9 N10E A N80W Front N20E (D)

B N10E Side

C N80W Rear

D N10E Side

58

ROOM WALL JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

10

N-S A 9 E-W Front N80W Rear

B 4 N-S Side

C 5 E-W Rear

E-W D 3 E-W Side (1.part) E-W 1.part

E 3 N-S Rear (1.part) N60W 1.part

F 3 N10W Side (1.part)

N40W

G 3 N40W Side (2.part)

H 3 N45E Rear

I 3 N40W Side 11

N-S A 9 E-W Front E-W Mid.

B 4 N-S Side (1.part) N35W Corner

C 4 E-W Rear (1.part)

D 3 N-S Side (1.part)

E 4 N-S Side (2.part)

F 3 E-W Rear (2.part)

G 5 N-S Side (2.part) 12

N10E

A 3 N80W Front N20E (D)

B 8 N10E Side N80E Mid.

C 3 N75E Rear N60E Mid.

D 8 N10E Side 13

N10E A 3 N80W Front N20E (D)

B 8 N10E Side N80E Mid.

C 3 N75W Rear N60E Mid

D 8 N10E Side 14

N70E A 7 N-S Front N80E (N20W)

B 4 E-W Side N30W Front

C 7 N-S Rear N20W Rear

D 3 E-W Side 15

N70E

D:4 Curved N30W (N70W)

N20W (N70W)

N70W 16

N-S A 3 E-W Front (ruined) N-S (B)

B 2 N-S Side

C 3 E-W Rear

D 2 N-S Side 17

N40E A 1.5 N55W Front N60W Mid.

B 3 N40E Side (curved) N20W (N60W)

C 3.5 N65W Rear

D 4 N45E Side (curved) 18

N40E A 4 N50W Front N50W (A)

B 2 N40E Side

C 4 N60W Rear N60W (C)

D 2 N40E Side 19

N50W

A 5 N45E Front N50W (B)

B 4 N50W Side

C 5 N40E Rear

D 4 N55W Side

59

ROOM WALL JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

20

N40W

A 3 N70E Front N20W (C )

B 3 N40W Side N70E (A)

C 3 N70E Rear

D 3 N20W Side 21

N-S A 5 E-W Front N40W Diag.

B 7 N-S Side N60W Front

C 5 E-W Rear

D 7 N-S Side 22

N60E A 7 N50W Front (open) N50W (A)

B 3 Curved

C 3 Curved N60E (F)

D 3 N60E Side

E 3 N50W Rear

F 3 N60E Side 23

N25E A 2 N60W Front (ruined) N80W 1.part

B 3 N25E Side (1.part) N50W 1.part

C 3 N25E Side (1.part)

D 4 N25E Side (2.part)

E 4 N50W Rear

F 4 N25E Side (2.part) 24

N-S A 2 N80W Side N80W (A)

B D:2.5 Circle N35W Side

N50W Side 25

N25W

A 3 N50E Front N-S

B 3 N20W Side

C 2.5 N15E Side

D 2 N25W Side

E 2 N-S Side

F 1.5 N15W Side (2.part) N30E

G 1.5 N50E Rear (2.part)

H 1.5 N10W Side (2.part) 26

N15E D: 2 Circle N70W 27

N-S A 3 N75E Front N40W (B-C)

B 3 N05E Side N70E ©

C 2 N70E Rear (sub.)

D 2 N80W Rear

E 3 N-S Side (ruined) 28

N30W

A 2.5 N55E Front N20W (B)

B 2.5 N20W Side N10E (A-D)

C 3 N50E Rear N10E (D)

D 2.5 Side(curved) 29

N-S A 5 N65W Front N-S Front

B 3 N15E Side N60W Front

C 5 E-W Rear

D 2.5 N20W Side

E 3 N15E Front2

60

ROOM WALL JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

30

N-S A 5 E-W Front (ruined) N-S (F)

B 9 N-S Side

C 2 E-W Rear 1

D 3 N-S Side 2

E 3 E-W Rear 2

F 5 N-S Side 31

N-S A 2 E-W Front (runed)

B 3 N-S Side (circle) N40W (D-E)

D 2 N-S Side 2

E 2 E-W Rear 2

F 4 N-S Side 2 32

N80W

A 4 N-S Front N80W (D)

B 7 E-W Side N20W (B-C)

C 4 N-S Rear N60W (B-C)

D 7 E-W Side 33

N60E A 4 N20W Front N15W (A)

B 5 N60E Side N70W Diag.

C 4 N35W Rear

D 5 N55E Side 34

E-W A 5 N-S Front N70W (D)

B 5 E-W Side N40W (A-C)

C 5 N-S Rear

D 5 E-W Side 35

E-W A 4 N-S Front (ruined) N30W (B-D)

B 6 E-W Side

C 4 N-S Rear

D 6 E-W Side 36

N60E A 3 N30W Front N30W (A)

B D:3 Side (circle) 37

N40W

A 5 N70W Front N30E (A-C)

B 4 N40E Side

C 4 N30W Rear

D 2.5 N30E Side 38

N-S A 3 N-S Front

B 2 E-W Side

C D:1,5 Circle Rear

D 3 Side 39

N-S A 3 E-W Front (curved) N-S ©

B 3 N-S Side (curved) N-S (B)

C 3 E-W Rear (curved)

D 4 N-S Side (curved) 40

N-S A 5 E-W Front

B 9 N-S Side

C 4 E-W Rear 1

D 3 N15E Side 1

E 4 E-W Rear 2

F 5 N-S Side 2

61

ROOM WALL JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

41

N-S A 4.5 E-W Front N40W (C-D)

B 9 N-S Side

C 4.5 E-W Rear

D 9 N-S Side 42

N50W

A 1 N30E Front (ruined) N30W (D)

B 2 N50W Side

C 1 N35E Rear

D 2 N50W Side 43

N-S A 7 E-W Front N40W (B)

B 2 N-S Side 1

C 1.5 E-W Rear 1

D 2 N-S Side 2

E 5 E-W Rear 2

F 4 N-S Side 44

N60W

A 8 N50E Front N-S (B-C)

B 12 N60W Side

C 8 N45E Rear

D 12 N60W Side 45

N80W

A 6 N-S Front N80W (B)

B 5 N80W Side N-S (C)

C 6 N-S Rear

D 6 E-W Side 46

N-S A 3 E-W Front (ruined) N50W (B-C)

B 5 N-S Side

C 3 E-W Rear

D 5 N10W Side 47

N-S A 6 E-W Front (ruined) N60W Mid.

B 2 N-S Side (curved) N20W (C)

C 5 E-W Rear

D 2 N-S Side (curved) 48

N-S A 3 E-W Front (ruined) N60W (D)

B 3 N60W Side)

C 5 N20E Rear

D 2 N30E Side 49

N30E A 4 N50E Front (ruined)

B 3 N30W Side)

C 4 N45E Rear

D 3 N30W Side 50

N-S D:10 Circle N-S Mid.

N30W 51

N25W

A 3 N75E Front (ruined) N80W (C-D)

B 4 N30W Side)

C 3 N70E Rear

D 4 N30W Side 52

N40W

A 5 N55E Front (ruined) N15W (A-C)

B 3 N40W Side) N40W (B)

C 5 N60E Rear

62

ROOM WALL JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

53

E-W A 1,5 N-S Front (ruined)

N50W (A-D)

B 2 E-W Side)

C 1,5 N-S Rear

D 2 E-W Side 54

N50W

A 4 N25E Front N30W (A-C)

B 5 N50W S de

C 4 N30E Rear

D 5 N55W S de 55

N40E A 3,5 N35E Frontt N20E (B-D)

B 9 N55W S de N-S (A-D)

C 3,5 N40E Rear

D 5 N50W S de

E 6 N50W Side(2.part)

F 2,5 N25E Rear (2.part)

G 9 N55W 56

N65W

A 5 N20E Front N45W (A-C)

B 4 N70W S de

C 5 N20E Rear

D 4 N75W S de 57

N25E A 3 N70W Front N65W (A)

B 7 N15E S de N30W (B-D)

C 3,5 N70W Rear N60W

D 7 N20E S de 58

N40W

A 3 N45E Front N15W Mid.

B 5 N40W S de N40W (B)

C 3 N45E Rear

D 5 N40W S de 59

N70W

A 5 N20E Frontt N45W

B 4 N70W S de

C 5 N20E Rear

D 4 N70W S de 60

N50W

A 3 N35E Frontt N30W (B-D)

B 7 N50W S de

C 3 N40E Rear

D 7 N55W S de 61

N80E A 8,5 N80E Front N55W

B 3,5 N20W S de N20E

C 4 N25W Side N15W

D 4 N35E Rear

E 4 N35W Side N50E

F 4 N75E Rear N30W

G 4 N35W Side N20E

63

APPENDIX A2

Çanl kilise room wall and joint measurements

ROOM WALL JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

1 N70E A 6.5 N10W Front N20E (B-D)

B 9.5 N70E Side N60W (B-D)

C 6.5 N10W Rear

D 9.5 N70E Side 2 N25W

A 5 N55E Front N60W (C-D)

B 8 N25W Side N20W (A-C)

C 5 N55E Rear N60E N20W

D 8 N25W Side 3 N-S A 3 E-W Front

B 5 N-S Side N30W (A-B)

C 1.5 E-W Rear N60W (A-B)

D 5 N-S Side 4 N20W

A 5 N65E Front N50W B

B 4 N20W Side

C 5 N65E Rear

D 4 N20W Side 5 N-S A 4 E-W Front N10W (D-E)

B 2 N-S Side (curved)

C 2 N-S Side (curved)

D 3 E-W Rear

E 4 N-S Side 6 N50W

A 7 N30E Front (open) N30W (A-D)

B 7 N50W Side

C 5 N30E Rear

D 7 N50W Side 7 N25E A 15 N55W Front N05W 3.part

B 5 N25E Side N25W 2.part

C 3 N50W Rear1 N15W 3.part

D 5 N20E Side2 (2.part)

E 5 N50W Rear2 (2.part)

F 5 N20E Side3 (2.part)

G 2 N55W Rear

H 5 N25E Side4 (3.part)

I 5 N55W Rear 4

J 7 N20E Side5 (3.part)

K 2 N50W Rear (main)

L 4 N20E Side5 (4.part)

M 4 N55W Rear5 (4.part)

N 4 N25E Side6 (4.part)

64

ROOM WALL

JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

8 N05W

A 5 N80E Front (ruined) N10W (C-D)

B 2 N05W Side

C 5 N80E Rear (curved)

D 2 N05W Side 9 N20E A 7 N40W Font (ruined) N25W 2.part

B 2 1.part (circle) N25W 2.part

C 3 2.part (circle) N40W 1.part

D 2 3.part (circle)

E 2 N50E Side 10

N50E A 5 N45W Front (ruined) N40W (B-D)

B 3 N50E Side N70W (B-D)

C 5 N40W Rear N05W Small part

D 3 N50E Side 11

N20E A 5 N65W Front (ruined) N40W (B-D)

B 5 N20E Side N50W (B-D)

C 5 N65W Rear

D 5 N20E Side

E 7 N65W Rear N15W (C-D)

F 5 N20E Side N45W D-N15W 12

N30E A 10 N65W Front (ruined) N15E (A-C)

B 4 N30E

C 10 N65W

D 4 N25E

E 2 N30E Side N65W Diag.

F 2 N60W Rear N40W Paral.

G 2 N25E Side 13

N55E A 5 N50W Front N50W Front

B 4 N55E Side

C 5 N50W Rear

D N50E Side 14

N70E A 3 N10W Front (ruined) N50W (A-D)

B 5 N70E Side N40E (C-D)

C 5 N10W Rear

D 5 N70E Side 15

N15W

A 5 N70E Front (ruined) N65W (C-D)

B 5 N15W Side

C 5 N75E Rear

D 5 N15W Side 16

N45E A 4 N40W Front (ruined) N40W (A)

B D:4 Side (circle) N55E 17

N-S A 10 N-S Front N05E (A-B)

B 5 E-W Side N70W (A-C)

C 10 N-S Rear

D 5 E-W Side 18

N40E A 6 N60W Front N60W (D-B)

B 5 N40E Side N20W

C 6 N60W Rear N-S (A-B)

D 5 N40E Side

65

ROOM WALL

JOINT

No

Axis Type

Lenght

Direction

Explanation Direction

Explanation

19

E-W A 8 N-S Front N40W (B-D)

B 12 E-W Side N30E (B-D)

C 8 N-S Rear

D 12 E-W Side

E 4 N-S Front

F 6 E-W Side N50W (A-C)

G 4 N-S Rear

H 6 E-W Side 20

N80W

A 6 N-S Front N05W (B-D)

B 12 N80W Side N30E (B-D)

C 6 N-S Rear N10W (D)

D 12 N80W Side

E 3 N-S Rear

F 4 N80W Side

G 4 N80W Side 21

E-W A 6 N-S Front (ruined) N50W (B-C)

B 7 E-W Side N50E (C-D)

C 6 N-S Rear N45E (B-D)

D 7 E-W Side 22

N60E A 5 N40W Front (ruined) N20E (A-B)

B 5 N60E Side N50W (B-D)

C 5 N40W Rear

D 5 N60E Side

E 6 N40W Front (entry) N50W (B-D)

F 3 N60E Side

G 6 N40W Rear

H 3 N65E Side 23

N25E A 5 N70W Front N30W

B 5 N25E Side N80W

C 5 N65W Rear

D 5 N30E Side 24

N30E A 4 N60W Front (ruined) N80W (B-D)

B 5 N30E Side N40W (B-D)

C 4 N65W Rear N20E (N40W)

D 5 N30E Side 25

N20E A 4 N70W Front N55E (A-C)

B 4 N25E Side N20W (C-D)

C 4 N70W Rear

D 4 N25E Side 26

N20W

A 4 N65E Front (ruined) N40W (A-B)

B 5 N20W Side N60W (C-D)

C 4 N70E Rear

D 5 N30W Side 27

N20E A 3 N55W Front (ruined) N60W (B-D)

B 4 N20E Side

C 3 N65W Rear

D 4 N20E Side

66

APPENDIX B1

Eskigümü ler joint density measurements for rooms

NO ROOM AREA (m2) JOINT LENGTH (m) DENSITY 1 31.6 18 0.57 2 124.3 18.3 0.15 3 19.6 4.2 0.21 4 30.6 6.5 0.21 5 44.2 12.5 0.29 6 84 23.3 0.28 7 20 8.4 0.42 8 28.2 9 0.32 9 49.5 13.5 0.28 10 39 11.2 0.29 11 27.2 15.2 0.56 12 32.5 16.5 0.51 13 35.9 22.2 0.62 14 24.5 16 0.65 15 50.3 13.5 0.27 16 6 2 0.33 17 52 8 0.15 18 32 13 0.41 19 27.8 9 0.32 20 35 10 0.28 21 45.2 13.5 0.3 22 21.2 4.3 0.2 23 30 10 0.33 24 19 5 0.26 25 12 2.5 0.21 26 11 4.5 0.41 27 8 4 0.5 28 15 8 0.53 29 35 5 0.12 30 18 4.5 0.25 31 28 13.5 0.48 32 20 10 0.5 33 23 11 0.48 34 24 5 0.21 35 9.6 2 0.02 36 24 3 0.125 37 12 0 0 38 20 11 0.55 39 56 0 0 40 30 2.8 0.1 41 12 0.5 0.04

67

NO ROOM AREA (m2) JOINT LENGTH (m) DENSITY 42 20 0.5 0.025 43 77 6 0.078 44 22.5 9 0.4 45 15.75 2.5 0.16 46 10.5 3.5 0.33 47 13.5 0 0 48 56 3.5 0.06 49 60 11 0.18 50 37 10.5 0.29 51 20 7.5 0.4 52 3.5 2 0.057 53 35.5 13.5 0.38 54 20 5 0.25 55 22 4.5 0.20 56 26.4 11 0.41 57 20 5 0.25 58 20 4 0.5 59 20 6.7 0.34 60 39 7.5 0.2 61 34.5 9.5 0.28

TOTAL 1840.35 493.1

68

APPENDIX B2

Çanl kilise joint densities

NO ROOM AREA (m2) JOINT LENGTH (m)

DENSITY

1 57 14 0,26 2 40 12,5 0,31 3 12 6,2 0,52 4 20 1 0,05 5 22 4 0,19 6 35 7 0,2 7 146 17 0,12 8 35 2,5 0,07 9 20 5,3 0,27

10 22 11,6 0,53 11 48 16 0,33 12 61.95 11.8 0,2 13 22 5 0,23 14 15 7 0,47 15 24,8 4,5 0,19 16 53,2 13,5 0,25 17 50 13 0,26 18 30 9,5 0,31 19 120,5 25 0,21 20 111 35 0,32 21 27,2 11,5 0,42 22 41,2 14 0,34 23 25 8,5 0,34 24 20 11,5 0,58 25 16 8,2 0,51 26 10 4,5 0,45 27 12 2,5 0,21

TOTAL 1096,85 282,1

69

APPENDIX C1

Eskigümü ler Joint Measurements at the Field

No Lenght (m) Direction No Lenght (m) Direction

1

1.5 N30E

34

4 N05E 2

0.4 N70W

35

1 N55W 3

0.7 N80E

36

2.5 N65E 4

2.5 N80E

37

0.6 N50E 5

1 N-S

38

2 N20E 6

0.7 N15E

39

0.5 N80W 7

0.5 N60W

40

2 N15E 8

3 N25W

41

1 E-W 9

1 N60E

42

1.5 N40E 10

1 N20W

43

0.7 N30E 11

2 N40W

44

0.6 N65W 12

1.5 N70E

45

2.5 N20E 13

1.5 N70E

46

3 N35W 14

1.5 N50E

47

1 N45E 15

2.5 N15W

48

2 N-S 16

2 N50W

49

4 N30W 17

1 N20E

50

4 N85W 18

3 N75E

51

1 N05W 19

1.5 N55E

52

2 N05E 20

0.4 N40W

53

2 N65E 21

3 E-W

54

1.5 N10W 22

0.4 N30W

55

4 N40W 23

1 N10E

56

0.8 N50E 24

2 N-S

57

0.7 N70E 25

1 N20W

58

0.6 N65W 26

1 N05W

59

2 N60E 27

1 N10E

60

2.5 E-W 28

2.5 N75E

61

2 N50E 29

4 N70W

62

1.5 N50W 30

1 N25W

63

2 N60W 31

1.5 N50E

64

2 N20W 32

1 N35W

65

5 N45W 33

1 N50W

66

0.8 N80W

70

No Lenght (m) Direction

No Lenght (m) Direction

67

3 N60W

107

2.5 N75E

68

2 N05E

108

1.5 N75E

69

2 N40E

109

2.5 N05W

70

4 N10W

110

1 N85E

71

0.6 N60W

111

1 N35W 72

1.5 N65E

112

0.8 N20E 73

3 N65E

113

1 N20E 74

3 N20E

114

1 N65E 75

1 N55E

115

1 N25W 76

2 N25E

116

0.4 N85W 77

0.6 N45W

117

2 N60W 78

0.8 N55E

118

1 N70W 79

0.5 N55W

119

1 N60W 80

1.5 N40E

120

0.8 N60W 81

0.6 N40E

121

0.5 N20E 82

1 N50W

122

0.5 N15W 83

2.5 N50W

123

1 N-S 84

1 N15E

124

0.5 N-S 85

2 N55W

125

0.4 N70W 86

1.5 N50W

126

0.4 N75E 87

1 N40E

127

1 N40W 88

1.5 N-S

128

0.6 N10E 89

2 N25E

129

1.5 N60E 90

2 N50E

130

3 N35W 91

0.5 N20E

131

2 N60E 92

1.5 N30E

132

3 N20W 93

0.4 N70W

133

2.5 N45E 94

1 N50E

134

0.5 N80E 95

1.5 N50W

135

2 N-S 96

2 N45E

136

0.8 N20E 97

0.5 N60W

137

1.5 N40W 98

0.4 N10W

138

1 N60W 99

0.4 N10W

139

1 N60W 100

0.6 N60E

140

1 N20W 101

0.5 N40W

141

2 N50W 102

0.4 N55E

142

1 N20E 103

1.5 N40E

143

1 N70E 104

0.3 N45W

144

1 N35W 105

1.5 N55W

145

6 N10W 106

2 N-S

146

11 N55E

71

No Lenght (m) Direction No Lenght (m) Direction

147

4

N60W

169

3

N30W

148

8

N70W

170

1.5

N35W

149

2

N60E

171

2

N55W 150

2.5

N20W

172

1

N35E 151

1.5

N-S

173

3

N50E 152

1.5

E-W

174

0.6

N20E 153

1.5

N65E

175

2.5

N35W 154

1.3

N50E

176

2.7

N60E 155

0.8

E-W

177

1

N30W 156

0.9

N20E

178

1.8

E-W 157

0.8

N60W

179

1.5

N60E 158

1

N50E

180

3

N35W 159

1

N40E

181

2

N60E 160

1.5

N50W

182

3

N20W 161

0.6

N40E

183

2.5

N45E 162

2.5

N55E

184

0.5

N80E 163

0.8

N50E

185

2

N-S 164

1

N50E

186

0.8

N20E 165

1

N50W

187

1.5

N40W 166

0.6

N60W

188

1

N60W 167

1.5

N40W

189

1

N60W 168

2

N60W

190

1

N20W

72

APPENDIX C2

Çanl kilise Joint Measurements at the Field

No Direction

Lenght (m) No Direction

Lenght (m)

1 N85W 1,7

34

N10WE 3 2 N60W 1,5

35

N20W 3 3 N70W 2,5

36

N80W 1,5 4 N10E 0,6

37

N10WE 1,5 5 N10E 3

38

N35E 3 6 N80W 3,3

39

N20WE 2,5 7 N05E 3,5

40

N80W 7 8 N85E 2,3

41

N05E 3,5 9 N50E 2

42

N05E 3,5 10 N65W 3

43

N40E 2 11 N20E 3,5

44

N85E 5 12 N70W 4

45

N05E 2 13 N15E 2,5

46

N30E 2,5 14 N30E 1,5

47

N80W 5 15 N40E 1,3

48

N75W 3,5 16 N25E 2,5

49

N25W 2,5 17 N15W 1,4

50

N10E 3 18 N85W 2,5

51

N20E 3 19 N25E 1,5

52

N75W 1 20 N85W 2,5

53

N-S 2 21 N05W 2

54

N-S 0,8 22 N50E 2

55

N75W 0,8 23 N75E 2

56

N65E 1,5 24 N45E 2

57

N80W 1 25 N65W 1,7

58

N50W 2 26 N20W 3

59

N75W 1,5 27 E-W 1

60

N40E 2 28 N85W 1,3

61

N80E 2,5 29 N65W 1

62

N10W 3 30 N60E 1,4

63

N75W 3,5 31 N20E 0,5

64

N80E 4 32 N80W 1

65

N20W 5 33 N40WE 2,5

66

N15W 2

73

No Direction Lenght (m) No Direction Lenght (m)

67

N10E 2,5

100

N50E 2

68

N85E 3

101

N70W 2

69

N75W 5

102

N50W 3

70

N70W 3

103

N70W 3 71

N05E 3

104

N10E 1,5 72

N10W 5

105

N10E 2,5 73

N45W 3

106

N10E 3 74

N10E 5,5

107

N15E 2 75

N70W 5,5

108

N20W 2 76

N10W 4

109

N40E 4 77

N55E 1,5

110

N75W 2,5 78

N40W 3

111

N20W 8 79

N35E 2,5

112

N80E 2,5 80

N60W 4

113

N80W 1 81

N50E 1

114

N70W 2 82

N30W 2

115

N25E 1,8 83

E-W 2,5

116

N60W 3 84

N15W 2

117

N65W 2,5 85

N80W 2

118

N-S 5 86

N25E 3

119

N60E 1,8 87

N10W 3

120

N40W 2 88

N80W 3

121

N75E 0,5 89

N40E 2,5

122

N20E 2 90

N75W 9

123

N80E 2,5 91

N85W 6

124

N85E 1,5 92

N75E 4

125

N60E 2 93

N-S 3

126

N80E 2 94

N65W 5

127

E-W 7 95

N30W 0,5

128

N20W 4 96

N25E 4

129

N80W 4 97

N65W 1,5

130

N-S 1,5 98

N70W 4

131

N20W 1 99

N80E 3

132

N-S 1,5

74

GLOSSARY

This section defines some terms used in this thesis to help the reader who is not familiar

to the terminology.

Ignimbrite: Ignimbrite is a volcanic rock used as a synonymous for tuff in this study and

is defined as consolidated volcanic ash.

Joint: Joint is the fracture developed within the rocks along which there is no movement.

Other terms that can refer to such structures are fracture , rupture or crack .

Rose diagram: It shows the directions (wall, room axis, joint etc.) and their intensities

(radial histogram).

Room: In this study, it refers to all spaces (living room, kitchen, church, shelter etc.).

Length weighted/non-weighted diagram: It means that the intensities are taken into the

consideration with a scale, in other words, a joint, 4-meter in length, and another joint, 1-

meter in length, are not the same in weighted diagram, intensity of the former is four

times greater than that of latter, if the scale is 1m (in length).

Room axis: It refers to the direction of the room entrance.

Aperture: It means the opening of the joint surfaces.