Protecting the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus:

Abstract

The aim of this essay is to highlight the difficulties of doing fieldwork in North Cyprus and being subjected to sanctions, due to the problematic 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. We would like to concentrate on these difficulties and elucidate the problems we have dealt with when trying to protect the cultural heritage of the island. As will be emphasized, the ongoing political situation and the currently accepted interpretation of the Hague Convention and other international treaties make any attempt to preserve cultural heritage in contested lands or in times of conflict extremely difficult. We will also explore how the lack of research in the northern part of the island has prevented the development of a truly island-wide archaeology as well as how most accusations directed toward the northern authorities are politically biased and serve a political agenda rather than aiming to preserve the island's rich cultural heritage. Last but not least, we will provide some examples of cooperation between the two sides of Cyprus, which have proven that changes in attitudes can be constructive and positive in the protection, preservation, and research of cultural heritage on the island.It is not our primary aim here to discuss the legality or illegality of the de facto state in the northern part of the island, but rather to point to the challenges experienced by those working in the fields of archaeology and cultural heritage management. The current interpretation of international law and the stubborn stance of the political parties involved actually harm cultural heritage—in most instances—instead of protecting it, which is the intent of the Hague Convention.The vast subject of the Hague Convention and its various interpretations, specifically its use and misuse of Cypriot politics to limit or justify fieldwork, have been discussed by Samuel Hardy (2011; see pp. 25–54 for a discussion of just the convention). The main problem facing the preservation, protection, and conservation of cultural heritage and archaeological fieldwork in the northern part of the island has been the political judgment of local as well as international communities concerning who the real authority is after military intervention and partitioning by Turkey in 1974.1 The northern part of the island was declared as having been “invaded” by Turkey (thus becoming “occupied territory”) through many resolutions by the United Nations (UN) Security Council.2 This matter was further complicated by the declaration of independence/secession of the northern part of Cyprus as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) in 1983. The UN Security Council resolutions following this action called on the member states of the UN to not recognize this “secession,” thus categorizing the TRNC as an illegal entity.3It may be best to examine some of the issues and problems arising from the Hague Convention as discussed in Hardy's work (2011: 92–94), which probably remains the most balanced and objective study on this subject. [The 1999 Second Protocol] has stated that the 1954 (Hague) Convention … required that powers “occupying territory must preserve cultural property in that territory.” Yet in the relevant clause of the 1954 Hague Convention … the Intergovernmental Conference on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict only required an occupying power to “support the competent national authorities” cultural property protection, and to conserve war-damaged sites “in close co-operation with such authorities” (ICPCPEAC 1954a: Ch. I, Art. 5).4 The Convention did not explicitly allow the occupying power to work independently. So, the national authorities of an occupied territory could refuse to do any cultural heritage work in the occupied territory, and then argue that international law prohibited the occupying power from doing even emergency work. In [the] New Delhi Recommendation, UNESCO urged an occupying power to “refrain from carrying out archaeological excavations” (1956: Art. 32).5 The 1956 Recommendation explicitly banned an occupying power from conducting archaeological site preservation, which the 1954 Convention had implicitly required. So, the occupying power could not do emergency archaeological work… . [T]he Hellenist archaeological community … used the letter of the 1954 law and 1956 guideline, rather than their spirit, in order to shut down all archaeological activity and most heritage work in northern Cyprus. Since 1999, the ICPCPEAC's Second Protocol to the Hague Convention has more judiciously required occupying powers to “prohibit and prevent … any archaeological excavation, save where this is strictly required to safeguard, record or preserve cultural property,” and that cultural heritage work “shall, unless circumstances do not permit, be carried out in close co-operation with the competent national authorities.” (Hardy 2011: 92–94) It may be argued that the scant archaeological work carried out in the north since the partition of the island aimed to “preserve cultural property in that territory” and that since “the circumstances do not permit” (i.e., the reluctance of the authorites of the Republic of Cyprus due to purely political reasons), this work cannot be “carried out in close co-operation with the competent national authorities” (Second Protocol, Article 9).6 One could also argue that in order to “preserve cultural property in that territory,” fieldwork, including excavations and surveys, is sometimes of absolute necessity. Years ago, Şevketoğlu proposed a more widespread survey program in North Cyprus, she also pointed out the necessity of conducting underwater surveys: The survey projects mentioned above will not be limited to land surveys. The sea surrounding the island of Cyprus is rich in ancient harbours and shipwrecks. The recording and planning of these sites will be the initial stage of their protection. (2000: 54) Perhaps one of the most important words from the Second Protocol to the Hague Convention is “co-operation,” which, in military or political matters, may be impossible. Many scholars have pointed out that the impracticality of some aspects of the Hague Convention arise from this, where the protection of cultural heritage is a poor second to the primary concern of furthering a particular political agenda (Boylan 1993; Kila 2012; 2013; Rjoob 2009).The issue of long-term occupation or non-recognition was discussed in 2005 at the Euromed Heritage conference in Amman, Jordan, entitled “Cultural Heritage Management in Times of Armed Conflict.” Patrick Boylan, chair of the third workgroup, “Cultural Heritage Conservation and Protection before, during and after Conflicts: Logistics and Measures to Secure the Cultural Heritage,” communicated the following recommendations:7The poor state of cultural heritage in Cyprus, particularly in the north, has been mainly due to problems arising from the overly extended duration of the anomalous situation, the lack of financial resources in the north because of embargoes, and the complicated political situation. These problems have been further exacerbated by the reluctance of all sides to cooperate, despite the fact that this has been possible in other areas (see below). Vilification campaigns by both sides have also created an atmosphere of mistrust between the two communities.In line with the various interpretations of the international laws outlined above, another dominant factor that has hindered the protection and preservation of cultural heritage on Cyprus has been the distrust felt by both sides, fueled by constant accusations and counter-accusations concerning the destruction of cultural heritage. First and foremost among these accusations is the destruction of religious heritage, such as churches, icons, and mosques. Holding the scepter in hand as the “legal political authority,” the Greek-Cypriot bureaucrats and some scholars have done everything in their power to vilify the “pseudo-state” in the north while emphasizing that they were doing everything they could to preserve the cultural heritage of the island (e.g., Chotzakoglou 2008; Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus 1999; Miltiadou and Michael 2008; Stavrou 1985). The Turkish-Cypriot side retaliated in kind (e.g., TRNC 1986; 2006). Since the Greek-Cypriot administration is the only internationally recognized government on the island, its voice has been much stronger than the feebler Turkish-Cypriot administration; thus, the latter has been either not taken seriously or simply not heard.The accusations of the Greek-Cypriot bureaucrats and authorities do not just target the post-1974 destruction of cultural heritage, but go back to the years prior to the military intervention of Turkey (1955–1974). In fact, two former directors for the Department of Antiquities in the Republic of Cyprus have written about looting in Turkish enclaves by Turkish Cypriots, resulting in the looted artifacts being bought by Greek Cypriots who were encouraged to do so by their government (Hadjisavvas 2001: 135)! In a recent study concerning the illicit trade of antiquities during the years of intercommunal conflict in Cyprus, Hardy suggests that both the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities looted archaeological sites (2014).Lately, research has also concentrated on the sociology of practices and allegations concerning the protection and manipulation of cultural heritage as well as how these decisions help define its role in the construction of ethnicity on Cyprus (Constantinou and Hatay 2010; Constantinou, Demetriou, and Hatay 2012; Hardy 2013). Despite statements by both sides that they were not actively or systematically involved in the destruction of cultural property, these studies clearly show that no side is as innocent as it claims. Thus, the deterioration and/or destruction of the “other” side's cultural heritage in the territory it controlled meant that its own heritage—defining its own identity—stood out, making the island more “Greek” or more “Turkish” and serving each side's political agenda.Embargoes against undertaking archaeological research in the northern part of Cyprus and publishing the results have been debilitating for Cypriot archaeology in general. Rescue excavations carried out by Şevketoğlu have been deemed “illegal,” although it is clearly stated in the Hague Convention that rescue excavations are permitted as long as they are to protect and preserve cultural heritage. While performed within the spirit of the law, any attempts to publish the results in international journals have been curtailed.8What deserves attention is the fact that some scholars were allowed to publish the results of their work from the north in prestigious journals such as the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (Harpster 2008) and the Journal of Maritime Archaeology (Harpster 2009). Publishing is crucial to the preservation of cultural heritage, and archaeologists working in the north have been blocked unnecessarily for decades.In fact, its strict adherence to the word and not the spirit of the Hague Convention and the resulting archaeological inactivity in the north has meant the destruction or deterioration of the cultural heritage of Cyprus. This has created an imbalance in the amount of data available for analysis and has lead to an incomplete picture of the archaeological record for the entire island.It is not our intention to lay blame on one side or the other, but merely to demonstrate that no one side can claim that they have done an admirable job in preserving or protecting the entire heritage of the island. To the contrary, both sides are responsible (save some notable exceptions) for ignoring or just turning a blind eye to the destruction of each other's (mainly religious) cultural heritage. As argued below, cooperation between the two communities in matters such as cultural heritage, city planning, ecology, and humanitarian issues have demonstrated that excellent results can be achieved if both sides cooperate with goodwill and abandon the long-practiced act of vilifying each other's efforts.Since the partitioning of the island, the UN Development Programme has been trying to create joint programs where both communities cooperate. As its website declares, “[t]he core areas of UNDP work in Cyprus are: peace and reconciliation, confidence building, cultural heritage preservation and community building” (UN Development Programme 2013a). Starting in 1977, the UN Development Programme has successfully coordinated the Nicosia Master Plan with the involvement of both the Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot mayors of the city.9 The main preoccupation of the cultural heritage protection portion of the program has been the restoration of monuments and buildings (primarily churches and mosques) on the island.Opening the borders in 2003 was a very important step in many ways, but particularly for cultural heritage. As crossings became possible, sites and monuments were visited, and memories of the past and the realities of the present became clearer. Cultural heritage has become much more tangible rather than a dim memory for both communities. It still took five years for the advisors of both communities to create a bi-communal Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage. In 2009, an Advisory Board for the Preservation, Protection and Restoration of the Immovable Cultural Heritage of Cyprus was set up in order to “facilitate the protection and preservation of the immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus. The mechanism allows for the practical aspects of preservation to be considered in a non-political manner so that practical measures can be taken to improve the situation on the ground” (UN Development Programme 2013b). The committee serves as one of the most important confidence-building measures between Cypriots.Another important example of collaboration is the Committee on Missing Persons, which was established by the leaders of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities, under the auspices of the UN in 1981. Although it remained inactive for long periods of time, since 2006 it has involved archaeologists from both communities,10 working together to recover the remains of those who went missing during the years of conflict (Hardy 2011: 118).Except for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), neither the European Union nor other foreign-funded projects in cultural heritage protection and preservation sought out local experts to employ or lend their experience to such projects. USAID successfully carried out capacity-building training in areas of urgent need, such as conservation training on stone, mosaics, and wood under SAVE (Supporting Activities that Value the Environment). Their diplomatic skills have led to an agreement by both the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot mayors to work together on many projects, such as the restoration of the Church of Panagia Pergaminiotissa in Akanthou (Figs. 1–2) and the Church of Saints Peter and Paul in Famagusta, and the mosaics of the Soli basilica in Morphou (Figs. 3–4), which received emergency preservation, as well as the conservation of the iconostasis and ciborium at the Church of St. Mamas. These are exceptional examples and proof that with skilled diplomacy and adequate funding by a third party, determination by all sides concerned, and the right explanations to persuade the politicians, saving heritage is possible. The example of work carried out on Cyprus between 2005 and 2010 with USAID funds should be taken into consideration for future projects. Its success in creating numerous conservation projects as well as training programs in which Greek-Cypriot/Turkish-Cypriot professionals work together with an international team is certainly unique in its collaborative efforts to involve professionals and bureaucrats from both communities.There is no doubt that collaborative efforts between archaeologists would benefit all parties involved. Archaeology is an area where academic success does not guarantee employment, especially in a country such as Cyprus where funds are limited and the population small. Collaborative efforts would expand the horizons of archaeologists from both communities and result in the sharing of expertise and experience for those young professionals who want to work and practice their profession in their own country.It is clear that while both sides agree to cooperate under the aegis of the UN and the UN Development Programme or other foreign bodies, such as USAID and the European Union, they nevertheless fail to do so without such a body to negotiate the terms of cooperation. What is surprising is that while the study and preservation of cultural heritage is listed as one of the main projects organized by the UN Development Programme, there is no mention of archaeology, even though it also aims to study and preserve the past.We have tried to demonstrate that the current interpretation of the Hague Convention as well as the constant vilification of the “other” is not helping to preserve the cultural heritage of the island and is actually making matters worse by fueling mistrust and anger between the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities. Since the beginning of hostilities on the island, both sides have used the destruction of each other's cultural heritage as a means of defining their identity and aiming to play down the other's. Both sides have also blamed each other for being just an onlooker to the destruction of the other's cultural heritage while they both had an equal part in the process.Recently, even the religious leaders of both communities have come together on a regular basis and given hope for dialogue and understanding. This has been crucial as many of the accusations stressed the manner in which religious monuments and items were treated by “the other.”As for cultural heritage, it is hoped that the examples provided above demonstrate that it is indeed possible to work together to preserve, restore, and study cultural heritage. Restoration and preservation also surely need the approval of the “legitimate authority” (as pointed out above, a disputed entity at least between the two communities on the island) in order to be carried out, and such work has been ongoing for a long time. Since this can be done, why does archaeological work in the northern part of the island remain such a taboo? This question demands, but fails to receive, a plausible answer.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 10 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.