Inscribed Devotion: Hagiographic Memory, Monastic Space, and Sacred Topography in Cappadocia’s Rock-Cut Churches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Well written and interesting article. Aims are clear, as is the overall discussion and conclusion. However, I have two general comments to make:

The first one regards the high number of direct quotes, especially in Ch. 1 and 4. The quotes are fine but direct quotes should only be used if the phrasing in them matters for the content. I am not convinced that his does not regard all of them, perhaps some. I one case a direct quote is not in context with the text, see p 11, lines 484-486. I think many of them needs to be rephrased. Most of the quotes are highlighted with yellow in the attached article.  

The second comment concerns the lack of maps and figures in the text. They can say so much.

Otherwise, the article is very good and I support a publication of it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The introduction would benefit from updated references and broader contextualization (e.g., comparative syntheses, conservation debates).
Response 1: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. References to Günay (2024) and UNESCO (2024) were added in Section 1 (Introduction, p. 2, ¶58–61). These additions highlight methodological plurality in the scholarship and emphasize current debates on conservation.

 

Comment 2: The discussion of the rock-cut landscape would be strengthened by including recent research on settlement and socio-political functions.
Response 2: We agree with this point. A reference to Öztürk Büke (2024) was added in Section 2 (Rock-Cut Landscape, p. 5, ¶166–167). This addition underscores how courtyard-based carved units integrated productive and representative functions within the same matrix.

 

Comment 3: The section on axial orientation and acoustics should incorporate more methodological detail and recent studies.
Response 3: We appreciate this observation. In Section 3 (Architectural Syntax of Devotion, pp. 9–10, ¶325–326, ¶341–342), references to Muratore et al. (2025) and Adeeb, Sü Gül, and Henry (2021) were added. These additions introduce a statistical perspective on axial orientation and support the acoustic analysis with in-situ measurement data.

Comment 4: The methodology, particularly in relation to acoustic analyses, requires clearer presentation.
Response 4: We agree with this concern. A new paragraph was added at the end of the Introduction (p. 4, ¶141–149). This paragraph specifies the parameters considered (EDT, T30, and STI) and cites representative case studies (Tokalı and Karanlık churches). It provides a clearer account of the data and methods used, directly addressing the request for greater methodological transparency.

Comment 5: The terminology for ‘sacred space,’ ‘sacred topography,’ and ‘devotional landscape’ is sometimes inconsistent.
Response 5: Thank you for noting this. A new paragraph was added in the Introduction (p. 3, ¶50–57) to clarify the distinctions and relationships between these terms. This clarification prevents ambiguity and ensures consistent usage throughout the article.

Comment 6: The introduction contains long, dense sentences that could be simplified for readability.
Response 6: We agree with this concern. In the Introduction and Conclusion, long and complex sentences were shortened or divided into two. These revisions improve readability while preserving conceptual density, directly addressing the reviewer’s stylistic request (p. 18, ¶831–846).

Comment 7: The conclusion could be expanded with stronger authorial reflection.
Response 7: In response, three additional reflective paragraphs were added to the Conclusion (pp. 18–19). Minor language adjustments were also made to ensure stylistic consistency. ¶820–822, 835-850)

Comment 8: Consider including additional figures or tables to support the iconographic and spatial analyses.
Response 8: We agree with this concern. We have carefully considered your important point regarding the lack of visual materials (maps and illustrations). We fully agree that such additions would have enhanced clarity and accessibility. Unfortunately, due to copyright restrictions, access limitations, and my own publication planning, it was not possible to include new images in this article. In a forthcoming study, however, We intend to integrate the theological and cultural framework developed here with a more architectural focus, incorporating architectural documentation, mapping, and visual analysis. In this way, the two publications will complement one another, combining visual evidence, spatial argument, and theological interpretation into a comprehensive whole.
To address the absence of visuals in this paper, We expanded the descriptive passages, particularly in the sections on iconographic and spatial analyses, in order to give readers a more concrete and vivid sense of the material. While this cannot replace the immediacy of figures, We hope it allows readers to imagine the sacred environments with clarity.
Finally, We would like to express once again my gratitude for your careful reading and for your thoughtful suggestions. If the inclusion of visual material is considered essential, We are fully prepared to incorporate figures at the stage of a second revision. Your acknowledgment of the article’s contributions, together with your constructive critique, not only strengthens this study but also provides valuable guidance for my future research.

Comment 9: The manuscript contains a high number of direct quotations, especially in Chapters 1 and 4. While quotations are acceptable, they should be used only when the exact phrasing is essential to the argument. I am not convinced this applies to all cases. In one instance (p. 11, lines 484–486), a direct quotation appears out of context. Many of the highlighted quotations could instead be paraphrased.
Response 9: Thank you for this careful assessment. Out of concern for academic integrity, we initially relied on direct quotations wherever possible. Following your feedback, we carefully reviewed all the passages highlighted in yellow and made 17 changes. In places where the exact wording was not essential, the text was paraphrased; in cases where precise phrasing carried conceptual weight, the quotations were retained. Since these adjustments were primarily minor textual revisions rather than substantial content changes, no red highlighting was applied.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an outstanding study that deserves wide recognition for the sophisticated and multidisciplinary way it reads monasteries cut into Cappadocian caves. This is very rare for me to give unqualified praise in this way. The only thing I missed was visual illustration of specific monasteries and a map where they are to be found. The reader was forced to imagine what was being described in very vivid fashion. There was a level of generality in that the focus were these monastic churches in general. Perhaps a specific example might be added near the beginning, ideally with an illustration. I appreciated comments about the entanglement of space, devotion and theology in these sanctuaries.The writing is at times quite poetic, "it is a world where ash and silence, pigment and path, all conspire to enact belief". We get a model of how "geological constraint" might interact with theological intentionality. I appreciate the argument about commorative and communical functions of these spaces, as their capacity for nurturing chant and prayer. This is indeed visual theology. At the same time I appreciated the (rather brief) comments about local economy and ecology, namely of viticulture. Perhaps this broader economic context came in a little too briefly unannounced, when it might have been signalled earlier in the paper. But in many ways this is an excellent paper, whose ideas deserve to be extended to more classic built sacred environments, able to be published as it is. At the same time, a picture or two would be helpful to get its message across more fully.

Author Response

Comment 1:
This is an outstanding study that deserves wide recognition for the sophisticated and multidisciplinary way it reads monasteries cut into Cappadocian caves. This is very rare for me to give unqualified praise in this way. The only thing I missed was visual illustration of specific monasteries and a map where they are to be found. The reader was forced to imagine what was being described in very vivid fashion. There was a level of generality in that the focus were these monastic churches in general. Perhaps a specific example might be added near the beginning, ideally with an illustration.

Response 1:
I sincerely thank you for your generous and thoughtful evaluation of my article. Your recognition of both the interdisciplinary scope and the poetic dimension of the writing is deeply encouraging. This work is the product of nearly a year of intensive research and the consultation of a wide range of sources, and your remarks confirm that this effort has been worthwhile.
I have also carefully considered your important point regarding the lack of visual materials (maps and illustrations). I fully agree that such additions would have enhanced clarity and accessibility. Unfortunately, due to copyright restrictions, access limitations, and my own publication planning, it was not possible to include new images in this article. In a forthcoming study, however, I intend to integrate the theological and cultural framework developed here with a more architectural focus, incorporating architectural documentation, mapping, and visual analysis. In this way, the two publications will complement one another, combining visual evidence, spatial argument, and theological interpretation into a comprehensive whole.
To address the absence of visuals in this paper, I expanded the descriptive passages, particularly in the sections on iconographic and spatial analyses, in order to give readers a more concrete and vivid sense of the material. While this cannot replace the immediacy of figures, I hope it allows readers to imagine the sacred environments with clarity.
Finally, I would like to express once again my gratitude for your careful reading and for your thoughtful suggestions. If the inclusion of visual material is considered essential, I am fully prepared to incorporate figures at the stage of a second revision. Your acknowledgment of the article’s contributions, together with your constructive critique, not only strengthens this study but also provides valuable guidance for my future research.

Comment 2:
The paper would benefit from more explicit attention to the socio-economic dimensions of the monastic landscape. The discussion of settlement and environment is strong, but the relationship to local economy and practices such as viticulture could be developed further.

Response 2 (¶61–64; ¶820–822):
Thank you for this valuable suggestion. To address this point, we added a sentence in the Introduction (¶61–64) noting that Cappadocia’s monastic landscape was closely interwoven with local economic and ecological practices, including agriculture and viticulture. In addition, a sentence was added in the Conclusion (¶820–822) to emphasize how the interweaving of sacred architecture with local economies and ecological systems reinforced both spiritual and material forms of continuity. Together, these revisions highlight the integration of sacred, social, and economic dimensions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf