Wednesday, October 7, 2026
They Buried
We Dug It Up
⌕ Search
InvestigationDeep History

The Guidebooks Stop At Eight Levels. Two Resistivity Lines Found Voids At 141 Metres.

Derinkuyu's published depth is eighty-five metres because that is where a municipal water trench stopped digging in 1965. Resistivity lines run this month image structure to a hundred and forty-one, and a gallery leaving south.

A months-long reporting project. Documents cited below are held in The Vault and available to readers.

The two survey lines, laid over the town's street plan. Line A crosses the ticketed entrance; line B crosses nothing anybody has ever excavated. Engraved for They Buried

The published depth of the underground city is eighty-five metres.

That number comes from a water pipe.

Street level, Derinkuyu, 1,300m above sea level0Levels 1–8, open to visitorsLit, ticketed, walked by about twohundred thousand people a year.−55mLevels 9–18, surveyed 1967, closedMapped and gated. Standing waterbelow 78 metres in most years.−85mFloor of the 1965 municipal water trenchThe origin of the published depth.The trench stopped here because−85mContinuous low-resistivity structure beginsBoth processors image it. Spacingof the responses is regular to−96mDISPUTEDFurther responses to the limit of the arrayOne processor images them. Thesecond calls them a depth artefact−141mDISPUTEDThe gallery, entered at 62m, bearing 191°3.4m wide, gradient 0.4 per cent,followed 2.1km before our access−62mDISPUTEDAnything cut rather than dissolvedNobody has seen a worked surfacebelow the closed gate. Neither−141mIN NO PUBLISHED RECORD
Depths as imaged on 11 and 12 August against the published record. Everything above 85 metres is in the literature. Everything below it has been described, until this month, as 'no evidence of further development' — a phrase that entered the record in 1967 and has been copied since. They Buried, from two independent processings of our field data

Where eighty-five metres came from

The town archive holds the waterworks file for 1963 to 1971. It costs forty lira to copy and nobody asked us why we wanted it.

In 1965 a municipal trench for a new main was cut down the eastern side of the town and broke into the complex at three points. The trench log records its own floor at 85.0 metres and stops, because the pipe it was carrying stops.

Two years later a survey adopted that figure as the base of the excavated complex and added the phrase "no evidence of further development below". Both statements were true of what had been dug.

Neither was ever a statement about the rock. By about 1980 the distinction had gone, and the eighty-five metres had become the depth of the city — in the literature, on the interpretation boards, and in four stories in this newspaper's own archive.

What the lines show

Dr. Naciye Ergüven-Kaltenbach ran the survey and we sent her data to a second processor with the locations stripped off.

They agree down to 118 metres: continuous structure, responses spaced regularly to within 1.2 metres, of a kind neither of them would expect from dissolution alone.

Below 118 they split. Ergüven-Kaltenbach stands behind responses to the limit of the array at 141 metres. Dr. Solvej Aygün-Radich calls them a depth artefact and says she can make them appear or vanish by changing one inversion parameter, and she demonstrated this for us twice.

We are not going to settle that by picking the one we like.

The gallery

At 62 metres, on both lines, there is a linear low-resistivity feature 3.4 metres across, running on a bearing of 191 degrees and holding a gradient of 0.4 per cent.

We followed it with a third profile for 2.1 kilometres before the ground we could legally stand on ran out at a field boundary. On that bearing, Kaymaklı is 8.8 kilometres away.

Every guidebook in the province mentions the tunnel between the two cities and calls it a tradition. We are not claiming it arrives. We are reporting that something 3.4 metres wide leaves Derinkuyu heading south and does not deviate for two kilometres, which is not what water does.

The man who was fined

In 1994 Tahsin Örsel-Weber went through a collapse in a private cellar and came out below the closed gate.

He describes four chambers, the last of them large and dry, reached by a passage that turned twice. He kept a notebook, he has no photographs, and he was fined 2,400 lira.

His described position for the fourth chamber sits within twenty metres of our strongest anomaly. He gave us the position before he saw our lines. That is the single most persuasive thing in this story and it rests on one man's memory of one afternoon thirty-two years ago, which is why it is in the fourth section and not the first.

What this desk takes from it

There is more under this town than has ever been published, and the reason it was never published is not a ministry and not a committee.

It is a plumber's trench, a true sentence about it, and sixty years of people copying the sentence without going back to see what it was measuring.

The reason nobody has gone down since is better than that, and the site director sets it out below at greater length than we asked for. Thirty-four thousand people drink from those levels. A borehole into them is not an excavation, it is a water supply, and she is the one who would have to sign.

We would have liked a more interesting villain. We got a hydrogeology report. </content> </invoke>

Sources & Method

Two 420-metre dipole–dipole resistivity lines and one seismic refraction profile, run on 11 and 12 August across public ground with the municipality's knowledge, then processed twice by people who did not know of each other and who were sent the data with the site locations removed. The 1965 trench logs and the 1967 survey correspondence came from the town archive, which charges forty lira a copy. The field data, both processings and the disagreement between them are filed in The Vault.

Who we spoke to

  1. Dr. Naciye Ergüven-Kaltenbach, Near-surface geophysicist, Ankara. Commissioned by this newspaper; ran both dipole–dipole lines and the refraction profile in person 11–12 August 2026 Stands behind the responses to 141 metres and says so in her report, which we publish whole.
  2. Dr. Solvej Aygün-Radich, Second processor; worked the same field data blind. Sent the raw data with the locations stripped; had no contact with the first processor before or during August 2026 Reproduces the structure to 118 metres and rejects everything below it as a depth artefact. Her objection is quoted at length.
  3. Tahsin Örsel-Weber, Caver; descended below the closed gate in 1994. Interviewed three times, twice in person and once on the site; supplied the fine notice and his 1994 notebook July–August 2026 His described position for a fourth chamber sits within twenty metres of our strongest anomaly. He has no photographs.
  4. Municipal waterworks file, 1963–1971, Trench logs, levels and the 1967 survey correspondence. Copied at the town archive for forty lira; nobody asked why we wanted it August 2026 Contains the sentence that became the published depth, and the memorandum that turned it into one.
  5. The site directorate, Derinkuyu. Written questions 5 August; a full answer received 20 August and printed unedited under Right of Reply August 2026

What we could not confirm

  • Whether anything below eighty-five metres is cut rather than dissolved. Resistivity distinguishes a void from rock. It cannot distinguish a chamber from a cavity, and this is volcanic tuff, which makes cavities on its own.
  • Everything between 118 and 141 metres. Our two processors split there and we are not going to resolve a disagreement between two better-qualified people by choosing the one whose answer we prefer.
  • Where the gallery goes. We followed it 2.1 kilometres on a constant bearing and a constant gradient, and then stopped at a field boundary whose owner declined us, politely, twice.
Disclosure. This newspaper paid €4,100 for the survey and the two processings. The field data are published in full and may be reprocessed by anyone, including by a third person who thinks both of ours are wrong.

How Others Covered This

The same events, as reported elsewhere on the same day. We list what each outlet had that we did not, as well as what we had that they did not — including where we come off worse. Why we print this.

  1. The Meridian Telegraph
    EIGHTEEN LEVELS? THE REAL NUMBER IS FORTY

    Multiplied our deepest response by the average level spacing and printed the quotient as a finding.

    Had that we did not

    The 141-metre figure, correctly transcribed.

    Left out

    That one of our two processors will not stand behind anything below 118 metres, which is in the seventh paragraph of our own story and in the caption of our own diagram.

  2. Aperture
    The Vertical Imagination

    Four thousand words on what it means that a civilisation dug down rather than up.

    Had that we did not

    A genuinely good passage on the tuff, and an interview with a stonemason nobody else found.

    Left out

    The survey. The essay was commissioned before it and published after it and does not mention that anybody went and looked.

  3. They Buriedthis newspaper
    The Guidebooks Stop At Eight Levels. Two Resistivity Lines Found Voids At 141 Metres.

    Went to the town archive and asked where the number eighty-five came from.

    Had that we did not

    Both processings, including the one that disagrees with us, and the field data entire.

    Left out

    Our own archive holds four stories about Cappadocia written between 2019 and 2024, and not one of them asks who measured the depth. We have been quoting a plumber's trench for seven years. — V. Ashcombe-Doyle, standards editor

Right of Reply

They Buried contacted Müzeyyen Alkan-Dorough, director of the site Sent the full draft, both processings and the field data; given fifteen days. Answered in writing and asked that nothing be cut, including the last paragraph. Printed unedited.

Your story is careful and I am going to answer it carefully, which means starting with the part where you are right.

The figure of eighty-five metres does come from the waterworks. I did not know that until your questions arrived and I went and looked, and I have now read the 1967 memorandum, and it says what you say it says. The number describes the deepest point anyone had dug to. It was never a statement about the rock. Somewhere between 1967 and about 1980 it stopped being one measurement and became the depth of the city, and no one alive did that on purpose. That is worth printing and I am not going to pretend otherwise.

Now the rest.

You have found voids. This is a volcanic tuff plateau. It is full of voids. It makes them by itself, constantly, and it has been making them for nine million years, and if you run a resistivity line anywhere in this province you will find some. Your own second processor tells you this in your own source list. What you have not found — and I want to be exact, because your readers will not be — is one worked surface, one tool mark, one course of blocking stone, one potsherd. Not one.

On the question you did not quite ask: no, we did not refuse you a permit. You did not apply for one, because you had worked out that a survey line on a public street does not need one. That was clever and I do not resent it. I would have granted it.

What I will not grant, and I want the reason in your newspaper rather than in a rumour, is a borehole. Below about seventy metres those levels are not an archaeological site. They are the aquifer. The town and eleven villages, some thirty-four thousand people, drink from them. In 2019 a private well four kilometres from here was drilled into a void nobody had imaged and a house came down over three days. Nobody died. It was luck, and I have the photographs on my wall so that I remember it was luck.

So I am the obstacle, and I would like your readers to see the obstacle clearly rather than imagine a better one. It is not a ministry. It is not a committee that never meets. It is one woman with a hydrogeology report and thirty-four thousand people on the mains.

And since you asked me for something, here it is: I am going to publish the 1967 survey. All of it, the closed levels included. It has never been published and when I looked for a reason not to, the only ones I could find were reasons I would not want to read in a newspaper. You may hold me to it. Your public editor appears to hold you to things, which is why I have written this at length instead of sending you two sentences.

Published unedited under our right-of-reply guarantee.

How was this story?

We publish the result, whatever it is. Reader verdicts appear on the front page and in our newsroom metrics.

2,834 verdicts · 78.0% loved it

Readers' Letters 0

Printed at once under the name you give and read by the desk afterwards; anything unfit is removed, with a note saying so, and nothing else is ever deleted — only corrected. Letters that changed something in the story carry a mark saying so, and there are 5 of those across the archive.

  1. No letters yet on this story. Yours would be the first.

Write to the desk