22.07.2015 Views

habitat rupestre.pdf - Società Friulana di Archeologia

habitat rupestre.pdf - Società Friulana di Archeologia

habitat rupestre.pdf - Società Friulana di Archeologia

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

CAVE FACADES OF CAPPADOCIAN CHURCHES: MORPHOLOGICAL ANALYSIS AND EXCAVATION TECHNIQUESCRHIMA-CINP project7. Monumental facades and marked entrancesThe territory of Selime is characterized by a particular typologywith a marked entrance. In this kind of façade a smallroom covered by a semicircular vault is excavated in front ofthe main door.8. Facades excavated in the deep pitsThe last typology of facades we consider is realized on a wallof a deep pit. The most interesting example is the monasticcomplex of Eski Gumus.Fig. 22 Facade of the monastic complex of Eski Gumus. In the centre thereis the main entrance of the church, on top nine arches decorate the facades.The original pilasters covered the entire surface.Fig. 23 An example of erosion and wrong human intervention in Selime.Fig. 24 Facade of the Church of Eski Gumus.9. Erosion and human interventions as destructive elementsof the external architectureOne of the main problems of the conservation of the Cappadocianrupestrian heritage is related to the slow erosion in whichthe churches are dug into.The first mechanism of degradation is due to the rain thaterodes the rock multiplying its action trough the transportationof sand and debris. Another mechanism is due to the frosterosion: water expands when it freezes and the expansion isaccompanied by great outward pressure. This pressure can affectexposed facades braking the rock into small fragments byfreezing water expan<strong>di</strong>ng in its joints. Finally the phenomenonof corrosion produces a mechanical erosion of a rock surfacecaused when materials are transported across it by wind. Besidesthe natural action another destructive element is relatedto human interventions. The continuous excavations of therock produced an increasing number of the hairline fracturesand the reduction of the façade thickness. Two actions thatreduced the stability of the external walls.10. Formal <strong>di</strong>fferences with the Apulian examplesIn Puglia and in the area of Matera the facades of rupestrianChurches are characterized by simple stylistic characters(fig.27). Most Churches only have a quadrangular entrancesurmounted by lunettes in which we often find decorated surfaces.In the case of S. Marco in Massafra (n.7) a frame is usedto delimit the high part of the main entrance, in the example ofS. Barbara in Matera there are two columns on each side of theentrance (d). In S. Vito Vecchio <strong>di</strong> Gravina, the main entranceis characterized by two small windows (c). Very articulated isthe façade of the Lama Antico in Fasano (b) which imitates inits shape an Egyptian cross decorated, on top there are twoarches, below there is a small stair. Finally in S. Barbara inGinosa (a) the main entrance is locate behind a deep arch.The <strong>di</strong>fferent cultures and the <strong>di</strong>fferent environments makecomplex a typological comparison with the Cappadocian Examples.This work realized by the Archeogruppo of Massafra is partof a campaign of research and promotion of the Cappadociansites launched thanks to the European project called “CHRI-MA CULTURAL RUPESTRIAN HERITAGE IN THE CIR-CUM-MEDITERRANEAN AREA: Common Identity – NewPerspective”. The research group “Cappadocia 2011” was coor<strong>di</strong>natedby Franco dell’Aquila, the members were: BeniaminoPolimeni, Domenico Caragnano, Umberto Ricci, PinoFazio and Antonio Laselva. Photos are by Umberto Ricci.volumeRicerca_OK_2012-11-15.indd 228 16/11/2012 15:03:40

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!