habitat rupestre.pdf - Archeomedia

R. Caprara
Economy? It was principally a rural economy, with poor commercial
activity (especially as it regards the Early Middle Age)
and craft. Once again, as everywhere. Sometimes the inhabitants
of rupestrian villages developed activities that also open
minded experts could not expect. This is the case of the steelworks
that Caprara and Dell’Aquila have discovered through
the fi nding of slag in the village of Madonna della Scala (Massafra).
Political organization? The small rupestrian villages of the
Greek and Roman eras were structured as the other villages
of those civilizations.
The rupestrian villages under Byzantium were choria or castra
(if they were fortifi ed) and they paid taxes to the central
government, as the cities did. For instance, this is documented
for the rupestrian village of Old Palagiano (today called Palagianello).
Social organization? It was exactly the same “rural civilization”
of the suburban villages.
So, this presumed “rupestrian civilization” is only characterized
by the choice of living in caves instead of building
houses. This is very little to characterize a “civilization”. It is
like a “skyscraper civilization”, or a “terraces civilization” in
opposition to a “roof tile civilization”, which should be also
divided in a “pantile civilization” and an “interlocking tile
civilization”.
More, the medieval stage of “living in caves” is not the only
one. Apart from Prehistory, rupestrian villages were common
in the great ancient civilizations in the Mediterranean area, as
well as in the Near and in the Far East, in America, and wherever
geology allowed that kind of settlement.
We respect the deep and meaningful sense of that word, which
does not deserve such a degradation and misuse (like “wine
civilization” and “car civilization”, which are as well questionable
as the “rupestrian civilization”, since their meanings
are so limited to become meaningless).
We have never surrendered to the easy fashion of the archaeological
meaning of “rupestrian civilization”; we have always
preferred the idea of rupestrian churches and settlements, as
the serious archaeologists have always done.
The choice of living in ravines never constituted an autonomous
civilization, but it was only one possibility of living
throughout the ages in many different civilizations all over
the world.
The concept of “rupestrian civilization” can be accepted in
Fig. 3 Gravina Rivolta, Est side. Ginosa (TA).
village fairs, but not in real experts, which have to abandon it
to avoid the risk of future generations’ scorn.
In the early seventies of the past century (that is forty years
ago, a very long period during which other studies have been
accomplished) the most “cultured” exeprts had only read the
books on rupestrian churches in Cappadocia by De Jerphanion
and the ones on our rupestrian churches by Diehl and Bertaux.
We knew nothing about similar settlements in France, Spain,
Northern Africa, Armenia and Balkans. Today we know all
those settlements: this makes speaking of “rupestrian civilization”
ridiculous.
If Franco dell’Aquila discovers (and publishes) Christian
churches, mosques and a synagogue in a small Libyan area,
are those episodes of “rupestrian civilization” or “rupestrian
episodes” of Byzantine, Arab and Hebraic civilizations in that
area?
If I fi nd an abandoned mosque beside twelve unedited churches,
are those documents of Cappadocian “rupestrian civilization”
or “rupestrian documents” of the Byzantine and Islamic
civilizations, which followed each other and lived together in
Cappadocia?
When Aldo Messina publishes a rupestrian mosque in Sicily,
is that an episode of Sicilian “rupestrian civilization” or a rupestrian
episode of Islamic civilization, which dominated Sicily
for centuries?
Our colleagues from Genoa report the results of their Armenian
mission, which implement the previously collected data
on subterranean places of worship in the area of Ahlat. The result
is a wider and more diversifi ed picture than before. Those
works are not limited to Christian structures, but to those of
different religions too.
Evidently, the use of the subsoil was inspired by geographic,
climatic and morphological characteristics of the territories
and by the lithology of the places, which induced populations
and Civilizations to get their buildings in the rock, leaving
their religious faith aside. The most evident proof is the presence
of a Buddhist temple in the cliff of Eski Kale, in the district
of Harabeşehir. It has been attributed to the Mongol domination,
and it was recognized by prof. Nakış Karamağaralı.
This is the most western Buddhist temple known.
The presence of a mescit (a very small mosque) in the area of
Sultan Seyyid is very meaningful. It is constituted by a set
of ancient underground rooms, which are partly ruined. The
site is halfway between the Buddhist temple and the Christian
volumeRicerca_OK_2012-11-15.indd 15 16/11/2012 15:00:42
15