Perishing Heritage:

Abstract

This statement by Lourdes Arizpe, the former assistant director-general for culture at UNESCO, is perfectly illustrated by the confiscation of a large amount of looted antiquities by German police from smuggler Aydin Dikmen in 1997. Many countries around the world have fallen victim, including his own, Turkey. The occupied territory in Cyprus was the easiest target and therefore the most productive. Today, no one doubts that the destruction of the archaeological heritage of Cyprus is primarily the result of the military occupation of the northern part of the island.Cyprus is a small island in the eastern Mediterranean which gained its independence from the United Kingdom in 1960; its history, however, goes as far back as the ninth millennium BCE. Perhaps no country on Earth the size of Cyprus can boast a past so ancient and a culture of such diversity and wealth. Cyprus has always rested at the crossroads of vital sea routes. From the time when Neolithic seafarers first crossed the narrow 43-mile strait from Anatolia to the northern coast of Cyprus for trade in obsidian, until the time of the Third Crusade when English galleys brought King Richard the Lionheart and his knights to the island, Cyprus was an intersection for a diversity of traditions. Surrounded by three continents and the world's earliest civilizations, the island was an important commercial center, a prize for conquerors, and a melting pot of cultures for millennia. Its small size and limited human resources made independence difficult for Cyprus, and, far too often, it became a vassal of the dominant powers of the surrounding seas (Hadjisavvas 2010: 15).The eleven-millennia-long habitation of the island has given the present generation a large number of archaeological sites, standing monuments, and cultural landscapes. Today, more than 1,500 sites and monuments, including three World Heritage sites, are protected by a law enacted in its present form in 1935. Once exposed, archaeological remains as well as standing monuments are not only attacked by the elements, but they also suffer from the impact of frequent visitation, military actions, neglect, and vandalism. What we examine here is the deliberate destruction of heritage as an instrument toward the obliteration of an identity of a people in the framework of ethnic cleansing.An overview of the destruction of the archaeological heritage of Cyprus was presented by me at a conference on the illicit trade of antiquities in 1999, organized by the McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research (Hadjisavvas 2001). The case of Aydin Dikmen (Figs. 1–2) was highlighted at the conference as it was “the talk of the day.” My overview covered the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the last decade of the twentieth century. It began with the American consul Luigi Palma di Cesnola as the protagonist in the first recorded systematic looting of Cypriot antiquities during the Ottoman period and ended with Dikmen, when 37 percent of Cyprus was under Turkish military occupation. Whether guided by the passion of discovery or the greed for profit, the result in both cases was destruction.Since that conference, a number of publications have appeared and much more evidence of destruction has come to light. The most thorough and well documented is Michael Jansen's War and Cultural Heritage: Cyprus after the 1974 Turkish Invasion (2005). Based on documents published by the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied territory, the book provides a comprehensive presentation of the destruction that occurred after the 1974 Turkish invasion. The events focused on cultural heritage are seen from a journalist's point of view through the eyes of the people who witnessed it as well as material published in newspapers and magazines.Another important contribution is Samuel Hardy's 2010 dissertation, Interrogating Archaeological Ethics in Conflict Zones: Cultural Heritage Work in Cyprus. He investigates the subject primarily from a legal point of view. Though well documented, Hardy's work is largely devoted to criticism of Jansen's publication and seeks to equate the organized destruction of Greek and Christian heritage in the north—executed by a foreign country—to vandalism and limited destruction of Islamic religious buildings in the area controlled by the Republic of Cyprus that occurred during the conflict at the hands of a small group of extremists. The mere fact that I reviewed Jansen's manuscript for mistakes in the archaeological information presented was taken by Hardy as an attempt by me to dictate to the author the official Greek points of view.1Yet, the complete story of the deliberate destruction of the island's heritage is told by one of the protagonists in this affair, namely Michel van Rijn, in connection to the removal of wall paintings from the medieval church of Agios Euphemianos at Lysi. In Chapter 6, under the title “Operation Attila,” he stated: “The attitude in the army is that the places are falling apart and anyway there are too many churches in Cyprus, so why not get rid of a few? But they warn us and we first take out the things that matter” (van Rijn 1993).In order to understand preservation policies related to the occupied territory of Cyprus, we should first investigate the political framework that led to the destruction of the rich cultural heritage of the island. In my preface to Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered, I repeatedly referred to the terror wrought by Turkish invading forces that led to the depopulation of Greek villages and towns (2000: 13). In recent history, with the exception of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, there are no examples of deliberate depopulation of compact areas including towns the size of Famagusta and an area more than one-third of the country. The Greek population fled as a result of the purposely publicized atrocities of the invading forces. The forced relocation of the Greek population to the south was the implementation of one of the five pillars of Nihat Erim's strategic plan for Turkey's aspirations on Cyprus. The plan was submitted in 1956 to then-Turkish Prime Minister Adnan Menderes in two separate reports (November 24 and December 22, 1956).2 By invading the island, the Turkish military enforced one pillar of Erim's “grand strategy,” namely the de facto partition of the island. What remained pending was the recognition of the partition, which began in 1983 with the creation of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”), a puppet state only recognized by Turkey. The final goal of this catastrophic plan was the request for self-determination, to only follow after the influx of hundreds of thousands of settlers to Cyprus from the Turkish mainland in order to change the demographic character of the island in favor of the Turkish population. This plan will inevitably result in control of the entire island by Turkey and the disappearance of an already diminishing Turkish-Cypriot population.In the occupied territories, the monuments and signs with Greek names remained silent witnesses of the past behind the “Attila line,” so called by Bülent Ecevit, prime minister of Turkey during the invasion. This policy of “ethnic cleansing” would only be accomplished with the destruction of both the tangible and intangible heritage of the original population through the obliteration of monuments and linguistic heritage. All of these acts were against the Geneva and the Hague Conventions,3 ratified by Turkey. Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions stipulates that civilian objects should not be the object of attack or reprisals, and attacks in war should be limited strictly to military objectives (Article 52, Paragraph 1). Furthermore, it is prohibited to commit any acts of hostility against historic monuments, works of art, or places of worship, which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples (Article 53). The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict emphasizes the protection of cultural property, preparing in times of peace for its safeguarding and undertaking to protect it from exposure to destruction or damage in the event of armed conflict. These obligations may only be waived in cases of military necessity (Articles 2–4).4 The 15th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) condemned the name change of Gallinoporni, noting that the erasure of the Greek name was part of the destruction of the intangible heritage of Cyprus (ICOMOS 2005: Article 7).Today, all of the names of occupied villages and places have been changed (Atun 2004). Important archaeological sites, such as Enkomi and Salamis, lie neglected and have been left at the mercy of the elements. Some 500 churches have been ill-treated, while others have been deliberately destroyed (Chotzakoglou 2008). Thousands of icons have been taken from churches all over the occupied territory and are now stored in damp and salty environments, such as the medieval galleries of the Kyrenia Museum right on the sea. Some 60,000 ancient and medieval artifacts were exported and sold on the international black market (Hadjisavvas 2001: 136).In 1974, UNESCO appointed an advisor for the cultural heritage of Cyprus to help with cultural property conservation and restoration. The advisor, a Canadian restoration architect named Jacques Dalibard, inspected a number of sites in both the occupied territory and the Republic of Cyprus in 1975 and submitted a heavily edited report, in accord with the “neutral” style of the United Nations (UN) in 1976. In the occupied territory, he only had limited access, and newly pillaged sites, such as the monastery of Antiphonitis, could not be inspected (Fielding 1976: 13). Dalibard's original report is kept highly secret by UNESCO. However, the decisions of various international courts and the acquisition of looted mosaics and wall paintings from the churches at Kanakaria, Antiphonitis, and Agios Euphimianos tell what really happened soon after the Turkish invasion, the period covered by Dalibard's mission.Dalibard suggested the establishment of a permanent UNESCO presence on Cyprus for the protection of its cultural heritage. Instead, under pressure from the Turkish side, the UNESCO advisor was sent home, and a Turkish Cypriot puppet administration passed a law on antiquities to protect monuments and regulate development at archaeological sites.5 These laws, however, are contrary to the Antiquities Law of the Republic of Cyprus6 and grant “governments” the right to change the decisions of the “TNRC's Supreme Monuments Committee,” supposedly acting “on behalf of past and future generations” (Jansen 2005: 27).On July 2, 1989, the general rapporteur of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Ymenus van der Werff, presented his “Information Memorandum” on the cultural heritage of Cyprus after visiting the island in June 1989 (van der Werff 1989: 5). Information given by him shows UNESCO's actions prior to his 1989 mission: 3.2. Unesco. Unesco has been regularly informed on Assembly involvement. The question has been raised with the Director General, Mr Mayor, and contact exists at Secretariat level. The Government of Cyprus reports regularly to Unesco on damage to the cultural heritage through its permanent representative, Mr Leventis, who is also on the Executive Committee of Europa Nostra. Despite expressions of concern and good will, Unesco seems unable to make any official move with regard to the northern part of the island. Even the report commissioned from the Canadian expert, Mr Jacques Dalibard, who made several visits there in 1975, has not been published. Unesco is accused both by the Turkish Cypriots of having “repeatedly refused the many calls of the Turkish Cypriot Government (sic) for aid” and by the Greek Cypriots of ineffectiveness and of using the excuse of needing the approval of “both sides.” Although the General Assembly of Unesco decided in 1980 on sending permanent observers and a budget line exists, no action has been taken. It appears that the only way Unesco could in fact intervene is on condition of recognizing the government in the north, which no UN organisation is able to do. On the other hand Unesco might be able to act indirectly outside Cyprus for example through its 1970 Convention in preventing the sale of illegally exported works of Cypriot art in other parts of the world. An observer from Unesco attended part of the Indianapolis court hearings on the Kanakaria mosaics. It would be interesting to know what further action might result. (van der Werff 1989: 6) In another point of his report, van der Werff presents his observations on destruction. 5.1. Damage to immovable cultural property. Most of this damage has occurred in the north and is the result of looting. It is difficult to say that this was professionally done (though the removal of the Kanakaria mosaics was certainly an acrobatic feat) but it was evidently linked to the highly professional international market in illegally exported art. After early opportunist raids during the unsettled period following 1974, more organised looting of selected targets seems to have taken place between 1977 and 1982. (van der Werff 1989: 11) In Section 5.6 of his report, van der Werff only superficially touches on the change of geographical names as a deliberate attempt to destroy historic, cultural, and linguistic heritage. He states that “this point needs further examination as it was only brought up in detail at the end of our study visit” (van der Werff 1989: 14).In his conclusion, van der Werff points out the lack of communication between the two sides and limited recourses as the main obstacles for the preservation of cultural heritage in northern Cyprus. His report was supplemented by another more detailed one on the condition of the island's cultural heritage and relevant recommendations submitted by consultant expert Robin Cormack. As the main points of this report were integrated into van der Werff's report, I present here some of his concluding remarks: The threats to the cultural heritage in the north and south are in the main the same ones: climate, the risk of earthquake, the need to prevent the deterioration of the fabric and decoration of old buildings, the pressures of tourism and development and the threat of international art thieves. The knowledge and experience of the Department of Antiquities in the south has equipped them far better to cope with these factors. The inexperience, lack of expertise and lack of funds in the north is in part responsible for the losses of material which have occurred since 1974. We noted that the archaeologist in Famagusta lacked the necessary library support for a full catalogue of the private collections.[7] In particular archaeologists in the north have been trained at Ankara in Ottoman antiquities and Classical Antiquities, but have little knowledge of Christian antiquities of the Middle Ages, whether Orthodox or Catholic. This lack of knowledge means that they have found it difficult to decide any priorities for guarding and protecting churches.There have been serious losses in the north. But, from the art historical point of view, the priority is to prevent further theft and ensure the survival of what remains (such as Trikomo, St Chrysostomos and the remaining decoration of Antiphonitis). This must involve new ways of funding the work and supplying expert advice (both for technical matters of conservation and the protection of buildings, and for such general problems as the selection of icons for conservation). In this context it would be highly desirable that some communication will be established between the antiquities departments of the north and south, where the monuments are often closely related in art historical terms and face many of the same problems of conservation. (Cormack in van der Werff 1989: 36) Today, 40 years after the Turkish invasion and the establishment of a “Department of Antiquities” in the occupied territories, looting continues to flourish. I personally observed recent large-scale looting in the necropolis of Agia Irene in northwest Cyprus (Figs. 3–4). Two fragments from the wall paintings that once adorned the twelfth-century walls of the monastic Church of Panagia Apsinthiotissa near Kyrenia were exhibited this past December at the United Kingdom's House of Lords in London after being donated by an anonymous Canadian collector who acquired the paintings illegally from the international black market (Proto Thema2014).The first example of good practices is the preservation of the medieval walls at Nicosia. In 1994 photogrammetry was used to survey the medieval fortifications of Nicosia on both sides of the Green Line. The work was commissioned by the UN Development Programme and performed by the Bulgarian National Institute for Monuments of Culture. In the northern part of Nicosia, the project was under the auspices of UN Office for Project Services. To facilitate the work of the engineers, a considerable amount of cleaning and weeding was undertaken at the entire site, reaching some 5 km. For the first time after 1974, a shared effort was made for a single monument situated on both sides of the barbered wire. The survey was followed by a five-year conservation project generously funded by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.The second example is the Roccas Bastion. Following heavy rains during the first weeks of December 2001, part of the bastion collapsed. In danger of complete degradation, the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus took some measures for its protection by supporting the stone revetment covering the earthen core of the walls. As it lies within the buffer zone and due to the presence of military installations that most probably caused the collapse, the Turkish army asked UN forces in Cyprus to stop the intervention. At the time, I was in Helsinki attending the World Heritage Committee meeting and had the chance to discuss the problem directly with Mounir Bouchenaki, assistant director-general for culture at UNESCO. On his suggestion, we wrote to the director-general of UNESCO while our Ministry of Foreign Affairs contacted the UN secretary general, emphasizing his responsibility as the buffer zone fell within UN jurisdiction. The timing was perfect because of the long discussion both in the UN and the 31st Session of the UNESCO General Assembly about the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan (Petzet 2002: 189–92). Intervention acceptable to those involved was agreed on by the program manager of the UN Office for Project Services and the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus. The restoration work was carried out by specialized craftsmen from the Department of Antiquities and laborers from the Turkish-Cypriot sector of Nicosia. Although the technical and scientific responsibility laid with the Department of Antiquities, the implementing agency was the UN Office for Project Services, which financed the whole project (Hadjisavvas 2003: 65–66). It was the first time since the Turkish invasion and the division of Cyprus that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots worked together for the restoration of a monument. This successful undertaking gave an optimistic message for future settlement of the Cyprus problem and encouraged all of us to continue the conservation work of the walls in the remaining part of the buffer zone (Hadjisavvas 2003: 64).In April 2008, bi-communal working groups and technical committees were established to help prepare for direct talks between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot leaders. Under this, the TCCH was formed by the then-leaders of the island, Demetris Christofias, president of the Republic of Cyprus, and Mehmet Ali Talat, president of the “TRNC.” Members of the TCCH operate on a voluntary basis and act independent of governments and other institutions. The mandate of the committee includes issues for the protection of the immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus. The dominant concern shared by the members of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage is that the passage of time is a major risk factor threatening the integrity, physical condition and quality of the monuments that testify to the richness and diversity of the cultural heritage of Cyprus. Equally strong concern is the belief that actions for the protection, restoration and preservation of important monuments are urgently needed and cannot wait until the solution of the Cyprus Problem. This is the main perspective within which the Committee works. Confidence within the Committee has long been established, as evidenced by the numerous decisions taken over the past two years. (an internal joint statement of the TCCH from March 2011) One of the primary decisions of the committee was the establishment of an Advisory Board for the Preservation, Physical Protection and Restoration of the Immovable Cultural Heritage of Cyprus. The Advisory Board is composed of archaeologists, architects, art historians, and town planners from both communities. All its decisions are in line with the mandate of the TCCH. Site visits for the evaluation of the preliminary list of monuments were undertaken during 2009 by members of the TCCH and the Advisory Board.After long discussions and the allocation of funds by the European Commission, a mechanism for the actual intervention and conservation of monuments was agreed on by the TCCH. It works as follows with the Advisory Board acting as a steering committee: Donations through the TCCH go to the UN Development Programme special fund. ↓The UN Development Programme invites participants, who are selected with TCCH involvement. Participants consist of one Greek Cypriot and one Turkish Cypriot. ↓The program is implemented. An initial list of 40 sites in need of emergency intervention and conservation was prepared and approved by the two leaders of the island. A priority list of 10 monuments was selected, based on their need for emergency intervention. Another program for small project activities, focusing on minor interventions for monuments requiring low-cost, small-scale tasks able to produce early results, is being implemented at 10 sites including mosques and churches throughout the island.Under the present program, 20 monuments of mostly the Orthodox and Muslim faiths have been structurally supported, physically protected or restored, or are currently undergoing restoration. Another group of four monuments, including the monastery of Agios Pandeleimonas and the Venetian fortifications of Famagusta, are under study and will benefit from similar intervention in the near future.In 2009, the TCCH agreed to compile a study of the immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus in the form of an inventory. This European Union-funded study was realized in 2010 thanks to the support of UN Development Programme's Partnership for the Future and the active participation of the Advisory Board. The study resulted in the listing of 2,300 sites, the production of 700 inventory charts, and the technical assessment of the 121 most important sites in the occupied territory. It is regretful that this costly—both in terms of funding and human effort—study is not published due to the negative attitude of the Turkish Cypriots, who disagree with the use of certain words such as “vandalism” in descriptions supplied by international experts. Many attempts by the Republic of Cyprus, international scholars, and even the UN Development Programme to discuss new wording remain unanswered.9Since 2012, approximately €5.3 million (just over $6 million) in funds have been provided by the European Commission to implement priority projects throughout the island. The European Union has also allocated another €2.8 million ($3.2 million) for a new project cycle. For the restoration of the monastery of Apostolos Andreas, not initially included in the program of TCCH activities, the Cyprus Foundations Administration (EVKAF) and the Church of Cyprus shared the cost of the first phase estimated to be €5 million ($5.67 million). For the Kyrenia shipwreck conservation project, supported by the United Kingdom-based Honor Frost Foundation, the TCCH sought to match the foundation's donation. The project is under the aegis of the TCCH. All of the funds are channeled through the UN Development Programme's Partnership for the Future, as the “TRNC” is not a legal entity and cannot spend the money, although it decides on the distribution of funds to various projects.The church in the village of Klavdia was converted into a mosque in 1571. As the Turkish Cypriot population fled to the north in 1974, Greek-Cypriot refugees moved into the area. The medieval church, although fully restored to its original form by the Department of Antiquities, remains a mosque with all its paraphernalia, while the Greek Cypriots use a pre-fabricated structure for their religious needs. Within the mihrab of this church/mosque, a few Christian orthodox icons were placed by Greek Cypriots, embodying the hope that the two beliefs could coexist (Figs. 5–6).The work of the TCCH is considered a success story, especially in light of the absolute failure of all efforts to solve the Cypriot territorial conflict. During its first years, the committee operated in good faith, shying away from publicity and political intrigues. However, this did not last, and the TCCH stepped into the spotlight as problems with the restoration of the monastery of Apostolos Andreas arose in 2013 (Fig. 7). This project was not included in the initial list agreed to by the two leaders as it had created numerous problems among the Greek-Cypriot society in the past. It was included in the TCCH's program only after the “Ministry of Tourism” of the “TRNC” decided to include it in a project to possibly attract hundreds of thousands of Russian and local Orthodox visitors. The intention of the Turkish side to implement this project was proudly announced to the committee by the Turkish-Cypriot team leader who read a statement by the “presidency” of the “TRNC” declaring their readiness to undertake the entire cost of restoration. It was an apparent attempt to extort Greek Cypriots into contributing funds, which in fact they did through the Church of Cyprus to the tune of €2.5 million ($2.83 million) in order to maintain some control in the monastery's restoration.Despite my best efforts as a member of the TCCH for the past six years and my best efforts, I could not include a single important archaeological site in its conservation program. Even in one agreed case, namely the remains of the Neolithic site of Agios Epiktetos-Vrysi, included in the priority list for 2009, nothing has happened due to the negative attitude of the “Department of Antiquities” of the occupied territory (Fig. 8). The constant refusal by the Turkish-Cypriot side of my proposal for urgent intervention to save the important Late Bronze Age site of Enkomi—even made after the submission of a technical assessment by an international expert assigned by the UN Development Programme—failed with the excuse that jurisdiction over the site was transferred to the University of Ankara along with the site of Salamis. All of these excuses related to archaeological sites give the impression that the Turkish side only cares about the conservation of sites included in their political road map and not those listed in the Antiquities Law of the Republic of Cyprus. For example, the same department was happy with the restoration of the Othello Tower and the fortifications of Famagusta, though listed in the Antiquities Law of the Republic of Cyprus, as they form part of their established road map for the promotion of cultural tourism.The conservation of a few churches of small historical or artistic value in the occupied territory of the island provides a showcase for the unlawful regime in order to satisfy the European Parliament, who votes on funds for the preservation of the island's perishing heritage. Such is the case with the Church of Panagia at Trachoni, the first to be conserved and restored (Fig. 9). The TCCH could have done better if the Greek-Cypriot members, who are in the majority—irrelevant to cultural heritage conservation practices—insisted on the preservation of monuments with archaeological and historical value.I would like to close with a positive view for the future. With respect to the observations by Cormack (see above) about the lack of well-trained archaeologists in the north, I saw young Turkish-Cypriot archaeologists who really care about our common heritage. What they actually lack is specialization in fields not available at Turkish universities and some practical experience. This expertise could easily be acquired in the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus if a formula for communication could finally be reached. Some collaboration already exists on a personal level at the Advisory Board, but this should be expanded to include institutions and professionals in fields relevant to cultural preservation and management. Whatever the outcome of this, the only solution to the problem of heritage conservation in the north is a lasting resolution of the political problem, which will lead to unification of the island and the management of a common heritage under a single federal government.I began with the Aydin Dikmen case, and it is appropriate to close with the latest developments. The Munich Court of Appeal decided on March 18, 2014, to only repatriate 173 out of 246 objects seized to the Republic of Cyprus. For the remaining antiquities, though of Cypriot origin, the court has asked for additional proof of ownership, which is almost impossible under the circumstances. After a hearing in early December 2014, the Court of Appeal reviewed scientific evidence for the remaining 85 objects provided by two German experts and proposed a last attempt at extrajudicial settlement by February 13, 2015. The court will issue its final verdict by March 16, 2015.