Doc. 9301

18 December 2001

Cultural aspects of the Ilisu Dam Project, Turkey

Information report 1

Committee on Culture, Science and Education

General Rapporteur on the Cultural Heritage: Mrs Vlasta Stepová, Czech Republic, Socialist Group

1. Introduction

1.1 The plan to construct a dam at Ilisu on the River Tigris is part of a large scale project for the socio-ecomomic development of SE Anatolia. A number of dams are involved in this area that once formed part of ancient Mesopotamia, but those which have attracted attention because of their impact on the cultural heritage are the Birecik Dam on the Euphrates, which led in 2000 to the flooding of Zeugma from which spectacular mosaics have been retrieved, and the Ilisu Dam on the Tigris, which involves most crucially the impressive site of Hasankeyf, a major city on the ancient silk route in the 11th-13th centuries.

1.2 The aim of this report is limited to reviewing the possible impact of the Ilisu Dam on the cultural heritage in the area affected by its reservoir. It is based on a fact-finding visit to Ankara and the region of the dam in early November that I carried out together with Christopher Grayson, Head of the Assembly Secretariat for Culture, Science and Education (appendix 2). We have also been able to draw on wider contacts and on the considerable amount of literature that has been generated by the controversy surrounding the project (appendix 1).

1.3 I should like to express my thanks to the Turkish Parliament, and in the first place to my colleague Mehmet Saglam, for preparing the fact-finding mission and also to the State Hydraulic Works (DSI – Devlet Su Isleri) for facilitating our visits. I should also like to thank the many officials and other persons who have kindly helped in the gathering of information.

1.4 Just as the report was being finalised the news came that the major partner in the international consortium set up to build the dam, the UK firm Balfour Beatty, had decided to withdraw. This development does not affect the conclusions reached here. It does however reinforce the urgency for due consideration to be given to cultural heritage in whatever project goes ahead for the very necessary socio-economic development of the area.

2. The wider context

2.1 The Turkish Government has since 1954, when its modern plans for the area began, realised the need for action to develop SE Anatolia. Once the cradle of civilisation, this area of Mesopotamia also known as the “fertile crescent” between the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates, has become in modern times an abandoned backwater. The local cultural traditions are largely Kurdish and the region was only recently the focus of Kurdish nationalism. Matters have greatly improved, but security still remains a consideration in parts of the area (and we were given a full military escort when driving down to the village of Ilisu).

2.2 It is impossible not to see development of the area as a priority both in terms of social and economic conditions but also as a means of reinforcing peace and security in the region.

2.3 This opinion is reflected today at all levels of the local population from the regional governors we met (Diyarbakir, Mardin and Batman) to the local mayors (Ilisu and Hasankeyf). The dilemma for those caught in the area of the Ilisu Dam reservoir is that while the future of that dam is in question, nothing is done. There has been no investment in the area since 1985.

2.4 In broader national terms, the area is of significance to Turkey as a whole in what it can provide in terms of irrigated land and energy. The Ilisu Dam is a hydroelectric power plant aimed exclusively at the production of energy (other dams have already been built upstream for irrigation or to control the Tigris water flow). Most experts seem to agree on water as the best energy resource in this context (renewable, cleaner alternative to Turkish fossil fuel, claimed to be safer than nuclear as the area is subject to seismic disturbance, and cheaper than imported gas and oil).

2.5 The impact of the dam has also implications wider than the cultural dimension, on which this report will concentrate. The problems of compensation for lost lands, of the relocation of families, or of the rebuilding of communities have also to be taken into account in a project of this scale. The fact finding missions of the UK parliament and related reports have covered this wider picture (appendix 1). The Kurdish question in particular has been evoked in Assembly Doc 8975 and by certain international NGOs (including the World Archaeological Congress see again in appendix 1). It is important to note that these and other social aspects are being currently investigated by the Assembly Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography. Indeed a study visit for that committee on the displaced Kurdish population of Turkey by my Irish colleague John Connor passed through the same area of SE Anatolia only days before my own visit.

2.6 The broader socio-economic development project in SE Anatolia is known as GAP (Guneydogu Anadolu Projesi). In 1989 the GAP Regional Development Administration was set up to ensure overall coordination (its board being run by the Minister of State for GAP). Resettlement and related arbitration is handled by the State Planning Organisation. Technical matters relating to water management are the sole responsibility of the State Hydraulic Works (DSI) itself set up in 1954.

2.7 There were two consortia and one joint venture initially taking part in the Ilisu project. Electromechanical: Sulzer Hydro (Switzerland – sold to Austrian VA Tech in 1999) and ABB Alstom Power (Switzerland – sold to Alstom France in March 2000). Engineering and consultancy services: Binnie Black and Veatch (UK) Dolsar (TR). Civil works joint venture: Balfour Beatty (UK – withdrew Nov 2001) Impregilo (Italy - also withdrew Nov 2001) Skanska (Sweden - withdrew Sept 2000) Kiska (TR) Nurol (TR) Tekfen (TR).

3. The cultural significance of the area

3.1 The area between the Tigris and Euphrates was one of the river valleys in which human civilisation first developed. Called by the Greeks “Mesopotamia” (the land between the rivers), this region was the seat of the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires. It was also an area where Near Eastern and Anatolian cultures met and influenced each other. It was a passage way for Alexander’s armies and Greek civilisation to the east and for trade in silk and spices to Europe.

3.2 Much of the archaeological heritage area in the upper valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates and of their tributaries has not yet been investigated. Preliminary surveys have been made but the majority of the sites remain to be studied (excavated, inventoried, published). The dam projects have however led to far greater attention over recent years and this attention has in turn generated welcome possibilities for research.

3.3 In the Euphrates valley public attention focused on the unexpected splendour of the Greco-Roman site of Zeugma as the waters of the Birecik dam rose to threaten its mosaics. We do not know and cannot now recover what else was lost. Much in the upper Tigris valley threatened by the Ilisu Dam is at present an equal, but explorable, mystery. The area has so far only been very superficially surveyed. However the site of Hasankeyf has already attracted sufficient national and international attention to serve as a focus point for opposition to construction of the dam.

3.4 The scientific significance of the unexcavated parts of Hasankeyf, as of the other 200 sites identified in the affected area, could well be enormous, given the historical importance of this region of upper Mesopotamia. The latest UK House of Commons report drew attention to a number of unexplored sites such as Gre Dimse (first recorded early Iron Age painted vessel) and Zirayet Tepe (Assyrian period border town). But the real significance of such sites cannot yet be quantified.

3.5 Not much either is known or documented of the traditional culture of the local population. Kurdish settlements can be traced after a migration from Western Persia around 2,500 years ago. Carpet weaving (there appears to be a local Hasankeyf style) and the traditions of the Arab minority (in the area since mediaeval times) have also to be documented. The relocation of local populations would mean the loss of such traditional knowledge no less irrevocable that the loss of the underground archaeological heritage to the flood waters of the dam. Work is however being done in this area. A local coordinating archaeologist told us of an interesting project to investigate the antecedents of local mud brick architectural techniques.

3.6 There was no open response however to the questions we put in Ilisu and Hasankeyf on what recent heritage locals might wish to preserve.

4. The significance of Hasankeyf

4.1 The history of Hasankeyf (Aramaic and Arabic for “rock fort”) has been traced back to the 7th century BC. In the early mediaeval period (4th-6th centuries AD) it was one of the oldest Christian congregations in the eastern world and then became the first part of Anatolia to be affected by Islam (8th century). It alternated with Diyarbakir as capital of the Artukid Sultanate (11th-12th centuries). Its golden period was 1100-1236. The settlement began to deteriorate from the end of the 16th century. The present village is of some 5000 persons.

4.2 The main monuments are the ruined piers of the ancient silk-road bridge (first constructed in the 7th century and rebuilt in the 12th), mosques of the 12th to 15th centuries (only two with minarets and mihrabs preserved), the Citadel (12th century gate), the Zeyn el-Abdin Mausoleum (with unique inlay 13th), the Abdullah Mausoleum (14th) and the ubiquitous cave constructions. Only the upper part of the citadel is not to be flooded, and there are fears that even that will eventually crubmle (see appendix 5 - the height of the reservoir water is around 500m)

4.3 As any visitor will however confirm, the main significance of Hasankeyf is its imposing location. We visited the site and climbed up to the top of the citadel to look down over the Tigris in the flat river bed below. The site is far more than the sum of its parts. But as the UK Select Committee on Trade and Industry concluded (May 2001) “the Ilisu Dam would mean the end of Hasankeyf and the loss of that part of the Turkish national heritage”.

5. Protection, archaeology and conservation

5.1 In 1978 Hasankeyf was declared a first degree protected site by the Turkish High Commission for the Preservation of Cultural Entities and Monuments. 22 monuments were entered on the Turkish cultural inventory list in 1981 (see appendix 5). When the Ilisu Dam project became known to the Ministry of Culture (1985) archaeological salvage excavations were begun at Hasankeyf in 1986 under Prof Olus Arik.

5.2 In 1987-1990 Prof Algaze (University of California) carried out the first major survey of the areas to be flooded by the Tigris and Euphrates dams. Over 200 sites were identified in the Ilisu area.

5.3 All archaeological operations in the area were interrupted by “security problems” from 1991 to 1998.

5.4 In 1998 a protocol was signed between the Turkish Ministry of Culture, the State Hydraulic Works (DSI) and the Middle East Technical University of Ankara (METU) to set up a salvage project for the archaeological heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam reservoirs. This project, known as TAÇDAM, is run by a steering committee currently chaired by Dr Numan Tuna whom we met in Ankara.

5.5 Priority was first given to archaeological work on the Carchemish Dam (as to be completed first) but now full attention is switching to the Ilisu area. The results are impressive. In 1998 10 Carchemish and 4 Ilisu sites were excavated and published in Turkish and English (367pp) by TAÇDAM, in 1999 14 Carchemish and 9 Ilisu sites (854pp). Turkish archaeologists have been joined by those from American, German, Italian, Japanese and Spanish universities together with the American, German and French scientific institutions active in Turkey. But these foreign experts are relatively few in number in the Ilisu area and permits to excavate are not easy to obtain from the authorities.

5.6 TAÇDAM has produced a master plan for rescue archaeology of these sites.

5.7 Excavation of the site of Hasankeyf itself has however remained the exclusive responsibility of Prof Olus Arik. In 1998 he resumed work. The excavations of 1998 and 1999 are summarised in TAÇDAM Activities 1999 pp 797-803. The reports for 2000 and 2001 are not yet available. We saw impressive dry stone walls built around the excavated sites but no activity or sense of urgency, though in principle there are only seven years to go before the area is flooded. Apparently “up to now less than 5% of the site has been excavated”.

5.8 One condition laid down in December 1999 by the UK Government for ECGD backing for the dam project was production of “a detailed plan to preserve as much of the archaeological heritage of Hasankeyf as possible”. No master plan for the rescue of the site of Hasankeyf has apparently yet been produced. Prof Olus Arik, contacted subsequent to our fact-finding mission, continues to hope that the site will not be flooded. He is planning a general publication of his excavations of the site, to come out in June 2002. He estimates that it will take some 20 years to excavate the site fully to bedrock at the present rate, or 5 years if excavation is maintained throughout the year. As responsible for the site, he insists on competent archaeological procedure.

6. Observations

6.1 on archaeology

The Turkish archaeological approach has been properly prepared and is in general being carried out with a high degree of competence. We must however note

- incompatibility between the treatment of Hasankeyf and other sites in the area to be affected by the Ilisu Dam (separate funding, lack of master plan, resources spent on building protective stone walls and an excavation hostel etc)

- absence of a clearly defined budget

- management confusion (DSI, GAP and Ministry of Culture seem all involved but with no one body in overall control)

- heritage destruction is continuing as a result of lack of controls; much of the Lower City in Hasankeyf was lost by the construction of the modern road, bridge and housing in the 1960s; more (as much as 30%) is being lost through continuing agricultural activity on the site; historical material is reused by the present inhabitants

- lack of conservation: the rock face in Hasankeyf is crumbling excavated and exposed ruins are disintegrating

- lack of policing of archaeological sites in general

6.2 on the relative importance of heritage

In terms of evaluating the relative importance of the heritage, we would note

- the significance of the location of Hasankeyf; the site as a whole is more than the sum of its parts; this should be taken into consideration when considering relocation; only the relocation of certain unique elements such as the Zehn el-Abdin Mausolem might justifiably be considered

- archaeological excavation inevitably entails removal of all traces to bedrock; if such excavation is carried out, studied and published, there can be little reason to oppose subsequent flooding of the site

- rather negative assessments have been made of the value of the visible heritage at Hasankeyf: Ms Patricia Hewitt (UK Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, HC debate initiated by Mr Mcnamara on 15 February 2000) “much of that archaeological heritage is not in good condition and several experts have expressed the view that if the dam were not to be built, much of it would continue to decline and disappear”; on the other hand much has yet to emerge from the unexcavated mounds that might prove as unexpectedly exciting as what was found at Zeugma

- further damage can be expected when the flood waters rise; archaeological sites cannot be protected underwater (such attempts failed at Zeugma) and any surviving structures risk being undermined (despite talk of consolidating the cliff)

6.3 on technical questions on the Ilisu dam and cultural heritage.

6.3.1 Can alternatives be found to avoid flooding Hasankeyf or at least reduce the level of the resulting lake? Apparently Ilisu is the best available site and the level cannot be reduced as a certain minimum height is needed for the required energy production. We have not yet been able to check these assertions.

6.3.2 A serious criticism is the shortness of the expected operational life of the dam on account of its silting up. This proved to be a major problem with the Aswan dam in Egypt. For Ilisu, estimates range around 30-40 years. Another problem is the high degree of energy loss on the current Turkish electricity network (30%). The DSI officials we met were aware of these problems and that solutions have still to be found

6.4 on administration and funding

We were introduced to a series of institutions responsible for coordinating the Ilisu Dam project: the State Hydraulic Works (DSI), the Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP), the Ministry of Culture and the Steering Committee of TAÇDAM METU. No coherent picture emerged of overall coordination or control. In particular there appears to be no set budget for archaeological activity and none for conservation and display. The State Hydraulic Works (DSI) was itself funding present activity (independently it would seem to METU and to Prof Arik) and made vague promises to assure any necessary future funding once a protocol can be established with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the external consortium. Other funding seems to come from foreign or non-governmental resources (such as Mardin Museum) directly to specific excavations.

6.5 on international awareness

The Ilisu Dam issue is now in the public domain. Interest in the region has been stimulated by TV films and campaigns both for (GAP) and against (KHRP etc) the dams. Cultural tourism is beginning and most recently the cover of the Turkish prestige art magazine “Cornucopia” announced a 32-page feature on “The wild east: a journey to Anatolia’s Arabian frontier”. The decision of Balfour Beatty to withdraw from the project led to immediate headlines on BBC and CNN (13 November).

Advantage should be taken of this public interest while it lasts.

7. Conclusions

7.1 On balance, we would conclude that those concerned for the cultural and archaeological heritage have rather more to gain than lose from the construction of the Ilisu Dam on the terms set out in December 1999 by the UK Government:

- It is a tremendous incentive for archaeology in the area and for archaeologists throughout the world specialising in the various historical fields involved.

- Were the Ilisu Dam project not to go ahead, it is far from clear that present levels of international public interest and government funding for the cultural investigation of the area can be maintained

- The area is remote and facilities for tourism are limited.

- Formal conservation of the site of Hasankeyf would bring local life to a standstill. At present the use of the site as a summer resort for locals from nearby Batman (45 minutes drive) is tolerated (with cafes on the river bank and shops in the Upper Town and Citadel). We heard the argument that in principle the site as whole should be conserved as a museum..

- The legal status of the site of Hasankeyf should be clarified. As it is classified as a conservation site its flooding can be argued illegal (and the case has been made by the Istanbul-based lawyer Murat Cano). This could act as a deterrent to foreign investment in the dam

- The funding and management of the salvage operation should be coordinated as a whole.

7.2 We would further recommend on a more technical level

- emphasis on survey; European cooperation could be sought for refining prospection techniques (aerial photography, ground metal detection etc)

- greater involvement of foreign archaeologists and institutions; the Council of Europe and EU might both be able to assist once the overall parameters have been defined; the Turkish authorities should facilitate projects by qualified foreigners

- imaginative fund-raising involving the local population

- all dams in the area should give rise to archaeological survey, rescue etc and not just the most obvious

- a programme should be designed to document as much as possible the traditional knowledge of the local people

- effective policing of designated conservation areas.

7.3 Given the withdrawal of Balfour Beatty from the international commercial consortium for the Ilisu Dam project, we urgently recommend that these observations are kept in mind by the Turkish Government in future negotiations for the project. Amongst the reasons given for withdrawal are the “substantial extra work and expense” in meeting the conditions set by the export credit agencies (appendix 4). It is essential that the contract is not given to contractors who will ignore these conditions and not respect conservation of the cultural heritage. In our contacts with DSI it was quite clearly asserted that the Ilisu Dam project would go ahead.

7.4 It is important however that a decision is rapidly taken on the building of the dam. The area is dying from uncertainty. Its heritage lies exposed.

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Bibliography

EIAR (Environmental Impact Assessment Report on Ilisu and HEPP by the Ilisu Engineering Group April 2001

Executive summary 20pp and full report (for heritage see Section 3 pp 37-51 and photos) access by ECGD site

ETH Zurich. Case study by Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Feb 2001. Find on River Net http://www.rivernet.org/turquie/welcome.htm

Grant, Linda. “Before the deluge” The Guardian 19 Feb 2000

Icomos: Heritage at risk: Turkey www.international.icomos.org/risk/turkey_2000.htm

Ilisu Dam Campaign (website www.ilisu.org.uk) Cultural Heritage analysis of EIAR Sept 2001 22pp

KHRP (Kurdish Human Rights Project) web site www.khrp.org with reports on missions in Nov 1999 “A human rights disaster in tye making” and Oct 2000 “If the river were a pen”

Kitchen, W and Ronayne, M. Ilisu Dam EIAR Review (7 September 2001)

Tuna, Prof Dr Numan. TAÇDAM Activites 1998 and 1999

UK House of Commons

WAC (World Archaeological Congress) correspondence from President Martin Hall May 2001. The site is http://www.wac.uct.ac.za/whd/Ilsu.htm

Appendix 2 – Programme of the fact-finding visit of Mrs Stepova (1-4 November 2001)

Wednesday, 31 October 2001

Evening

– Arrival in Ankara and transfer to Hotel Hilton

– Talk with Hilton General Manager, Martin Voskam

– Meeting with Czech Ambassador Josef Braun

Thursday, 1 November 2001

– Meeting at the State Hydraulic Works (DSI) with Deputy Director General, Dogan Yemisen, and Deputy Dept Head, Cansen Akkaya

– Meeting with Prof. Dr. Numan Tuna, Department of Architecture, Middle East Technical University and Chairman of TAÇDAM

– Meeting with GAP Vice President Kaya Yasinok

– Working lunch in TBMM with MPs Cevdet Akçali, Huseyin Kalkan and Mehmet Saglam

Afternoon

– Meeting at the British Institute of Archaeology with Director Hugh Elton

– Meeting at the Ministry of Culture with Deputy DG of Monuments and Museums, Aykut Ozet

– Talk with GAP Director General, Mumtaz Turfan

Evening

Flight from Ankara to Diyarbakır and transfer to Hotel Dedeman

Frıday, 2 November 2001

Morning

– Visit to DSI Regional Directorate and meeting with Regional Director, Baki Mete, and officials

– Minibus to Mardin

– Meeting with the Governor of Mardin Temel Koçakla

– Visit to Dayr-ül Zafaran Monestery

– Visit Mardin

Afternoon

– Minibus to Ilisu village

– Meeting with local Muchtar and other villagers

Evening return to Diyarbakir

Saturday, 3 November 2001

Morning

– Visit of Diyarbakir

– Meeting with the Deputy Governor of Diyarbakir, Huseyin Nailatay

– Minibus to Batman

– Meeting with the Governor of Batman, Isa Parlak and lunch

Afternoon

– Minibus to Hasankeyf

– Visit of the village, ancient citadel and archeological sites in the company of Hasankeyf Mayor, Vahop Kusen, and the local Prefect

Evening return to Diyarbakir

Sunday, 4 november 2001

Departure via Istanbul

Mrs Stepova was accompanied by Christopher Grayson, Head of the Assembly Secretariat for culture, science and education and by Eda Dizdar and Ahmet Ezicioglu, Turkish Delegation Secretaries.

Belgin Dolay was interpreter for the meetings on 2-3 November

Appendix 3 - conditions for credit set out by the UK Government in December 1999

On 21st December 1999, Stephen Byers, the UK Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, published two Government-commissioned reports examining the issues surrounding the proposed Ilisu hydroelectric dam in Turkey.

In releasing the reports, Mr Byers said:

"I have carefully considered both reports and I am minded to grant export credit. This will be conditional on the Turkish authorities agreeing to address the concerns we have about the environmental and social impact of the projec

A copy of both reports has now been given to representatives of the Turkish Government and other Government export credit agencies considering support for the project. We are currently discussing with them the details of the areas where changes would be required before the British Government could consider export credit support.

These are the need to:

Appendix 4 - statement issued by Balfour Beatty on withdrawing from the Ilisu Dam project

(13 November 2001)

“No clear prospect of resolution of environmental, commercial and social complexities”

Balfour Beatty, the international engineering, construction and services group, announces today that it has decided not to pursue its interest in the Ilisu Dam project in Turkey. The decision follows a thorough and extensive evaluation of the commercial, environmental and social issues inherent in the project. With appropriate solutions to these issues still unsecured and no early resolution likely, Balfour Beatty believes that it is not in the best interests of its stakeholders to pursue the project further.

Commenting on the decision, Balfour Beatty Chief Executive Mike Welton said:

“Our determination to consider this project in a thorough and professional manner has remained consistent since we were first invited to become involved. We have followed all the appropriate steps to evaluate its viability and have not been deflected from proper, professional processes.

“The urgent need for increasing generating capacity to meet Turkey’s development needs and for social and economic development in the region remains. We have, however, clearly reached a point where no further action nor any further expenditure by Balfour Beatty on this project is likely to resolve the outstanding issues in a reasonable timescale”.

The complex environmental and social issues which the project involves have been the subject of intensive study. A comprehensive environmental impact report, funded by the contractors and involving many months of intensive investigative work, was completed and published earlier this year. This study was carried out by a team of international experts to the best available international standards as defined by the US Ex-Im Bank and the OECD.

The report details the principal social and environmental issues associated with the dam’s development and construction and offers recommendations to the dam’s proponents, the Turkish General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI). Its recommendations set clear benchmarks which require substantial actions on the part of the customer and other Turkish government departments and agencies.

Commercial discussions between the DSI and the consortium of which Balfour Beatty is a part have also been under way for a considerable period. The parties have, however, been unable to agree in some areas and a number of commercial issues remain unresolved.

Given the substantial difficulties which remain to be addressed, including meeting the four conditions set by the Export Credit Agencies, Balfour Beatty believes the project could only proceed with substantial extra work and expense and with considerable further delay. Accordingly, in concert with its international partner in the civil engineering joint venture, Impregilo of Italy, it has decided to withdraw from the project.

Appendix 5 - Inventory of cultural heritage at Hasankeyf

Cultural Inventory list of the Turkish Ministry of Culture: source EIAR 3-49

Reservoir water height may reach 500m.

    Name

Type

Century

River

bank

Ground

elevation

[m]*

Height

[m]

Bridge

Bridge and road

12th

Left and

right

460

45

El-Rizk Mosque

Mosque with minaret

13th

Right

480

40

Building

?

?

Right

   

Sultan Süleyman

Mosque

Mosque with minaret

14th

Right

500

40

Koç Mosque

Mosque

15th

Right

502

7

Religious school

School

15th

Right

502

?

Kizlar Mosque

(now Eyyubi Mosque)

Mosque

13th

Right

499

3

Cemetery

Graveyard

?

Right

490

1

Zeynel Abidin

Turbesi

Mausoleum

13th

Left

470

8

Türbe

Mausoleum

?

?

 

?

 

Imarn Abdullah Turbesi

Mausoleum

14th

Left

480

20

Building

Baths?

16th

Left

465

8

Cemetery

Graveyard

14th

Left

490

1

Shops (caves)

 

12th

Right

490

3

Castle gate No. 1

Fort entrance

12th

Right

490

?

Castle gate No. 2

Fort entrance

12th

Right

510

7

Castle gate No. 3

Fort entrance

12th

Right

550

6

Little Palace

 

13th

Right

540

15

Man-made caves

Houses

12th

Right

510

3

Big Palace

King residence

12th

Right

550

5

Türbe

Mausoleum

13th

Right

500

?

Büyük Mosque

Mosque with minaret

12th

Right

550

5

Appendix 6 – Location maps and photos

UK House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry

Sixth Report (9 March 2000)

Ilisu Dam reservoir area and archaeological sites investigated in 2000 (source: METU)

Hasankeyf       Hasankeyf

Hasankeyf       Hasankeyf

Ilisu       Ilisu


1 Approved by the Committee on 11 December 2001