For debate in the Standing Committee see Rule 15 of the Rules of Procedure

Pour débat ŕ la Commission permanente – Voir article 15 du Rčglement

Doc. 9460

7 May 2002

Cultural heritage of Cyprus

Information report1

Committee on Culture, Science and Education

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

Contents       page

– Memorandum arising from the study-visit of November 2000 by Mrs Vlasta Stepová        2

– Report on a mission to Cyprus

by Josef Štulc, Ph.D., Director of the Czech State Institute for Monuments Care       9

– Draft Proposal for a Foundation for the Protection and Preservation

of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Cyprus       16

Memorandum arising from the study-visit of November 2000

by Mrs Vlasta Stepová (General Rapporteur)

A. Background

This memorandum is essentially based on the study-visit I made to Cyprus on 11-14 November 2000. The context is not political, but is the continuing Assembly concern for the cultural heritage of Cyprus as part of the European cultural heritage. The subject has been discussed at length in meetings of the Committee on Culture and Education (and Sub-Committee on the Cultural Heritage). Earlier study-visits have been made. In June 1989 Mr van der Werff (as General Rapporteur) visited both parts of the island and produced a detailed information report to the Assembly (Doc 6079). This led to discussion with representatives of the antiquities departments north and south and to a proposal for a European Foundation for the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus. Negotiations on this broke down in April 1991 over the question of ownership of religious property in the north. Although there has been in the meantime a series of protests about damage to religious property in the north, the Committee on Culture and Education’s attention was revived in May 1998 when attention was drawn to the possibility of tourist development of the Armenian Monastery of Sourp Magar. The site was then visited in June 1998 by Mr Staes (General Rapporteur) and again in September 2000 by myself. The Committee subsequently decided that the time had come for a wider study-visit to reopen the whole question of the cultural heritage of Cyprus.

B. The study-visit

My study-visit took place from 11 to 14 November 2000. I was accompanied by a consultant expert, Dr Josef Stulc, Director of the Czech State Institute for Monument Care, and by the secretariat, Christopher Grayson, Head of Division. The Czech Ambassador in Nicosia, Mrs Vera Jerabkova, greatly facilitated our visit.

Before going any further I should make it clear that in referring to the northern part of the island, and to the current Turkish Cypriot administration there, no recognition is made or implied of any political authority other than the Republic of Cyprus.

The programme is set out in the appendix to this memorandum. An increasing mass of documentation is available, including photographic records of the Assembly study visits. I do not however feel that it would be appropriate for me to venture judgements following such a brief visit. I should prefer to make a series of observations and proposals relating to future action.

C. Observations on the study visit itself

Objectives

The general objective of our discussion of this subject in the Committee on Culture and Education is protection of the cultural heritage of Cyprus. We are not condoning the undoubted destruction that took place in 1974, but we are interested in the present situation.

A major objective of my November study-visit was to re-establish the common basis of understanding that Mr van der Werff had established with political and technical authorities on both sides. I believe that we succeeded in doing this. I admire the courage shown, as it is not easy in particular for the Cypriots involved. I was sorry we could not meet the present Director of Antiquities, Mr Hadjisavas, but hope to do so in due course. Some degree of understanding and trust is essential if we are to make any real progress.

On the more technical level, the reason for the study visit was to gain an idea of the main problems affecting the cultural heritage, see what progress had been made since 1989, identify where international assistance might be relevant. I wanted the advice of an expert in integrated conservation of cultural heritage in difficult political situations and so was pleased that Dr Stulc could join us. I was also myself concerned at protecting heritage against the invasion of mass tourism hitting the north. I should make it very clear that my intention was not the promotion of tourism in the north.

The programme

The programme was drawn up by the authorities on each side. We intervened minimally (in the north to insert a visit to the Armenian Monastery at the last-minute request of the Greek Cypriot side and to add early-morning visits to Bellapais and Kyrenia; in the south to postpone early-morning protocol meetings). Despite the short time available (for which I was responsible) and in particular given the short period of winter daylight (for which we had not planned), we saw a great deal and discussed a lot more.

Arrangements proved relatively straightforward on this occasion thanks to the mutual co-operation of all involved.

In future however, I wonder if it will be necessary to retain the diplomatic balance of programme between north and south. This will be easier when the objectives of subsequent visits are more tightly focused. Clearly the main problems surround the cultural heritage in the north and it was on these that the exchange of views with officials of the Republic of Cyprus concentrated on 14 November.

My main observations and proposals concern the north. Nevertheless there are certain points about the south that are very relevant.

D. Observations relating to cultural heritage in the south: mass-tourism, new building, public awareness and religious funds

The south is a striking example of the threats posed by commercial prosperity and mass tourism to the survival of the cultural and natural heritage.

The contrast with the north should be instructive. Compare the march of concrete hotels along the beaches of southern Cyprus with the deserted sands in the north, or compare high-rise Nicosia South with the two-storey city-scape of Nicosia North out of which the Lusignan monuments still soar. Three million tourists travel per year to the south, while only 50,000 visit the north.

It is difficult to escape the masses in the south. We were ourselves privileged to visit two historic and delightfully peaceful monasteries in the Troodos mountains. Both were however controversially preparing for mass visitors (with a youth camp and new church).

A very busy main road ran through an unused mosque site under reconstruction in Tusla. It is difficult however to see how the site can ever retrieve its integral calm.

I should be interested to learn more of how the Republic of Cyprus is managing this problem and of whether plans are being made (unilaterally or with the UN) for when there is expansion of tourism into the north.

New building is a real problem on an island that has been inhabited for so many thousands of years. The Parliament of the Republic of Cyprus is seeking a site for a new building in Nicosia, but Mr Hadjidemetriou set an example by rejecting building on a sensitive archaeological site that had been proposed during the time of our visit.

There is public debate on these issues both north and south. Whether this is motivated by political considerations (within and between the communities), the public is nevertheless definitely sensitive to the heritage dimension.

There seem to be substantial funds available from the Orthodox Church or related Foundations for Orthodox churches and monasteries, or from the Central Committee for funding restoration of Turkish Cypriot properties. We understood that the Armenian Orthodox Community is also keen to fund restoration of the monastery in the north.

One question therefore is whether these funds might be used to contribute to conservation of property in the north that formerly was in the hands of these religious communities.

E. Observations concerning the north

(a) Capacity of the Turkish Cypriot Department of Antiquities and Museums

It is difficult to arrive at a clear count of professional staff. In 1989 Mr van der Werff noted (Doc.6079 para 5.7)

Nicosia – 6 archaeologists, 2 architects, 2 civil engineers, 1 technical advisor

Famagusta – 4 archaeologists

Kyrenia – 2 art historians

Morphou – 2 archaeologists

Wardens – 60

We asked for the figures for 2000. The numbers have not changed much, though the balance has shifted. The following picture needs further confirmation

Nicosia – 2 archaeologists, 4 architects, 3 civil engineers, 2 art historians

Famagusta – 2 archaeologists, 1 art historian

Kyrenia – 1 archaeologist, 1 art historian

Morphou – 2 art historians

Wardens – ?

On several occasions it was pointed out to us in the north that this team was not adequate. It is difficult to evaluate precisely how.

The figures are in themselves not complete (what of technical or secretarial staff?). There was a perceivable lack of wardens/guards on sites and in museums. Text-book restoration principles are followed but not perhaps always effective techniques. There was an acknowledged lack of expertise for specific issues. Lack of archaeological expertise had apparently led to hiring a German imposter for operations on the Soli and Salamis sites. Publications, information material on sites, guides, postcards etc are rudimentary and the approach to presentation in general rather amateur. It was also clear that much necessary conservation work was not being done or was being done very slowly.

It would seem imperative (a) for an overall assessment to be made of priorities – of those buildings and sites requiring immediate attention, of those that can wait but must be protected and of those that can be entrusted for a period of time to other instances. This would in turn clarify (b) the professional requirements for the Department and permit identification of (c) areas where outside assistance is needed.

(b) Need for outside assistance and co-operation

One consequence of the current political situation is the isolation of the academics and professional conservation workers from international contact with colleagues other than those in Turkey. Lack of expertise in certain non-Turkish subjects such as Orthodox icons has been responsible for the loss or mismanagement of much of this material. It is only gradually being compensated by the training of younger Turkish Cypriot scholars (in Turkey but also more widely).

We should therefore appeal to the wider international academic and professional community for co-operation for example

- University training courses for Turkish Cypriot students

- Return of foreign archaeological schools to the sites in north Cyprus that they abandoned in 1974. In certain cases this may be the last chance to renew personal contact with the site and so ensure continuity.

- International professional assistance through Icom and Icomos.

- Invitations to international conferences. For example, it would also seem important to involve the Turkish Cypriot authorities in international debate on the re-use of historical religious buildings.

- Preparation of non-tendentious information material

There has been hesitation on this point in the past. If there are problems, they should be identified. If an intermediary body might avoid the problem of political recognition, this could be another of the tasks of the European Foundation proposed later in this section.

The possibility of direct co-operation between north and south should of course be particularly encouraged even if it is the most sensitive aspect.

It will be interesting to learn more of UN initiatives involving north and south. The Master Plan for Nicosia has permitted US funding to reach such projects as Arabahmet in Nicosia North, but the authorities there complain that the greater proportion of this US funding is going to the south which has less urgent need of it. Early in 2000 the UN announced a double project, involving restoration of Apostolos Andreas Monastery in the north and the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque in the south. We were assured in November that this was going ahead (the religious authorities having given their agreement), but have no more details. It will be very significant if experts from each side are to be involved in the work.

This is therefore a good moment to return to the idea of setting up a European mechanism for funding conservation work in the north. There appeared to be a positive reaction on both sides to such an initiative as long as no political or religious strings were attached. I suggest that the Committee on Culture and Education resumes discussion of this on the basis of the available drafts for a European Foundation. Such a foundation could concentrate on the relatively few specific cases where international responsibility is involved and local use is impossible (for example the Armenian Monastery and other isolated religious buildings, especially those in or near Turkish military installations).

Another area for invoking international assistance is in control of the illegal trade in cultural property from the north. Controversially I would ask if it is altogether fair that material stolen from the north be returned to the south. That was after all the fate of the mosaics taken from Kanakaria. It would seem preferable for those in the north (from authorities to private individuals) to be involved on equal terms in the struggle against art thefts.

(c) Budget for cultural heritage

In principle all work on identified cultural heritage sites (archaeological or built) is carried out by the Department of Antiquities and Museums. Funds come directly from the state budget, from Evkaf (for religious properties whether Muslim or those properties taken over by the state after 1974 – as in the south) and from tourism (by special legislation).

The budget was said by most of those we met in the north to be insufficient. We were not given figures (absolute or comparative). It was however clear that not much was being done, or being done quickly, by the Department.

We were shown examples of private sponsorship of restoration (of religious property in Ozankoy and Bellapais). This was carried out in conjunction with the Department. We would like to know more about how restoration of privately-owned secular property of heritage significance is funded. Is there state-private partnership?

(d) Control

The Department is vested with complete control over classified cultural heritage. In principle it should be effective. The limitation of the restoration of Sourp Magar to 18 rooms is a serious brake on potential tourist development of the site. However real questions surround whether sufficient staff is deployed to guard sites and museums or look out for unauthorised building.

Though the heritage classification system was inherited from preceding administration in 1974, certain additions have been made of secular architecture. It would seem that no general conservation order has been placed on the historic city-centres of Nicosia, Kyrenia and Famagusta, We would like to know more about the policy pursued and its extension into village architecture and natural heritage.

An unasked question was whether the Department was also responsible for control of illegal movement of cultural property. This should be taken up. The experience of my own country is that considerable effort of legislation, training and policing is necessary to tackle this problem.

(e) Relative importance of cultural heritage policy

F. The question of compensation

G. Preliminary conclusions

Our study visit in November 2000 re-established a working contact with the Turkish Cypriot community regarding the cultural heritage. Many areas are open for pursuing co-operation in the context of shared concern for protection of the cultural heritage of the island as a whole. I would emphasise here

- breaking down the academic and professional isolation of the north

- setting up a European Foundation for the cultural heritage of Cyprus (funding conservation of specific monuments, international contacts, inventory of losses etc)

- co-operation on illegal movement of cultural property.

Above all however I would stress the urgent need for accelerated concertation with the authorities of north Cyprus over the imminent impact of mass tourism and its effect on cultural heritage.

22 January 2001

APPENDIX : Programme of the study visit

Saturday 11 November 2000

03.05 Arrival at Larnaka airport and transfer to Hilton Hotel, Nicosia

Morning       Study visit to Agios Iannis Lampadistis Monastery and Byzantine Museum (Kalopanayiotis village) in the company of the Bishop of Morphou Neophytos

Afternoon       Study visit to Machairas Monastery in the company of the Abbot, Father Arsenios

Evening meeting with Czech Ambassador, Mrs Vera Jerabkova

Sunday, 12 November 2000

09.00 cross at Ledra Palace check point

Visits in Nicosia (Lefkosa)

Visits in the area of Morphou (Guzelyurt)

Visits on the coast west of Kyrenia (Girne)

Afternoon visit in the hills east of Kyrenia

Monday 13 November 2000

Visits around Kyrenia (Girne)

Return to Nicosia for talks with Mr Mustafa Akinci, Mr Ertugul Hasipoglu and Mr Mehmet Altinay

Further visits in Nicosia

14.30 cross at Ledra Palace check point

Afternoon study visits in the Larnaka area

Meeting with EU Head of Delegation, Ambassador Donato Chiarini

Tuesday 14 November 2000

Morning working meeting with experts chaired by Mr Takis Hadjidemetriou (Hilton Hotel)

Afternoon study visits in Nicosia

Wednesday 15 November 2000

04.15 Departure from Larnaka airport

Report on a mission to Cyprus

by Josef Štulc, Ph.D., Director of the Czech State Institute for Monuments Care

       On 10 to 15 November 2000 I accompanied the study-visit of Ms Vlasta Štěpová, General Rapporteur on the Cultural Heritage of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Dr Christopher Grayson, Head of the Division for Culture and Education, to the Republic of Cyprus, including the northern territories of the island, as their advisor. My mission consisted in objectively assessing, as far as possible, the state of conservation and the level of preservation of monuments in both parts of the country as a basis for possible initiatives to be taken by the Parliamentary Assembly.

       As the starting point for my investigation, the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus provided me with a number of materials verbally and photographically documenting the cultural losses incurred in the north. I also received the textually and photographically well-documented, aud graphically perfect publication Cyprus, a Civilization Plundered, compiled by a team of Cypriot and Greek authors and issued by the Hellenic Parliament in 1998. The photographs published there make any comment superfluous, but the text seems to be rather tendentious. In contrast, I would like highlight the scrupulous impartiality of the opinons, and the technical level, of the brilliant report by the eminent British expert on Byzantine art, Prof. Robin Cormack, drawn up after the visit he made in 1989 (PACE Doc. 6079, 6 June 1989). Most of his observations were fully confirmed by my own mission. Even now, after 11 years, his conclusions are valid and highly topical, as I may already state at the outset in this introduction.

       The choice of the sites we visited in both parts of the country did not depend on us, but was decided by our hosts. This in itself diminishes the objectivity and validity of any generalising judgments. Therefore, my report and its conclusions can only give what I hope is evidence of the state of cultural heritage in the specific places which I saw with my own eyes and of the qualifications and opinions of the experts with whom I actually spoke.

       In both parts of the country, the wealth of the material cultural heritage of Cyprus is extraordinary and varied. Due to its strategically important position between the Aegean area, the Levant and Egypt, the country, famous for its extraction of copper, has been a crossroads of cultures and civilisations since primaeval times. For more than three thousand years, it has been the home of the Greeks and a witness to their extraordinary creativity. Apart from the tremendous wealth of archaeological finds from the Late Neolithic age through the City Kingdoms to the Hellenic era and Roman domination, Byzantine architecture, continued by Orthodox ecclesiastical architecture, is the dominant element of the built heritage of the island. Alongside, the monumental works of French Gothic, brought there by the Lusignan kings, their Catholic clergy and French-speaking feudal peasants, were erected from the late 12th century. Important monuments of fortress architecture were added in the 16th century by Venetians, and the architectonic contribution of the Turkish Cypriot Community, settled on the island from the 17th century, is not negligible either. The syncretism of all these influences, which also has a specifically Cypriot character, is fascinating. The town-planning heritage of the island, as shown by old Nicosia, is also very original. The Byzantine or Gothic architectural styles of the churches, mainly transformed into mosques, mix with the predominant Turkish character of secular buildings. The island's picturesque landscape, very dramatic in its mountain parts, is quite unique.

       I have seen only a tiny fragment of this immeasurable wealth.

In this report, my intention is not to follow the chronological sequence of the individual sites which we visited. I shall discuss separately first the places visited in the southern part of the island and then those in the northern part. I shall focus more on town-planning and architectural heritage than on movable works of art and archaeological objects. I do not feel myself to be an expert on Byzantine mural or panel painting, therefore, in this sphere, I can only take over (and, as I have already said, confirm) Professor Cormack's expert judgments.

A. The southern part of the island

The monastery of Agios Iannis Lampadistis in Kalopanayiotis village (in the Troodos mountain range).

A set of buildings exceptionally valuable as a work of art, with three churches linked with each other, from the Byzantine and Lusignan periods (11 – 15 c.). Iconostases with important icons and a unique set of wall-paintings from several periods (from the beginning of the 13th to the 15th centuries) have been preserved in situ. The state of this item of cultural heritage is very good, maintenance is exemplary and presentation to visitors is provided for. The interiors are preserved in their full authenticity, neither the frescoes nor the wall paintings have been restored. Their cleaning is desirable but would require extreme care.

       Opened on the premises of the monastery in 1999, a museum of icons (from the 12th to the 18th centuries) is a great experience for the visitor. The icons are newly restored, without repaintings or other unsuitable interventions.

The only thing I missed, was captions showing the sites from which these works came.

The Monastery at Machairas

Our visit took place in evening light. Its main focus was a collection of icons, manuscripts and other sacred objects in the basement rooms. The overall impression of both the exhibits and the building was od a certain amount of "over-restoration", obviously a result of the prosperous economic situation of the monastery.

The Church of Panagia Angeloktistos at Kiti near Larnaca

An 11th-century Byzantine domed church incorporating the apse of an older church, destroyed in the 7th century by Arabs. A unique mosaic of the Virgin Mary attended by Archangels from the 6th century has been preserved in the apse and wall painting from the 13th century in the nave. The narthex comes from the 14th-century Lusignan period. The state of the church is very good. Paintings, mosaic and furnishings have been preserved in an authentic state, without inappropriate interventions by restorers.

The Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque near Larnaca, a monumental 17th-century domed building, is in good condition and is well kept.

The Tusla Mosque in Larnaca, originally a Gothic single-nave church from the Lusignan period. At present, it is being repaired (the roofs have already been completed, cleaning of stones, facelift of the ashlar masonry of the facade and archaeological exploration in the precincts of the church is still going on). The conservation work is being done in good quality. In my opinion, the degree of stone cleaning is superfluous.

Nicosia

Omeriye Mosque: originally this was an early 14th-century Gothic church of an Augustinian monastery. The nave of the church was deprived of its vaults in 1571 and has wooden ceilings on stone transverse arches. The state of the mosque is satisfactory, with small defects that can easily be removed.

The Archaeological Museum is also the seat of the Department of Antiquities. Fascinating collections from prehistoric times to the Roman period document the extraordinary culture and the high degree of development of civilisation on the island. The collections are well kept, their presentation to the visitors seems however somewhat conservative from today's point of view.

As a whole, Nicosia to the south of the Green Line, with the exception of an enclave at the southern arc of the Venetian city-walls, is a fairly modern "globalised" city with a number of high buildings made of concrete and glass. I missed quarters, or at least individual streets, with buildings preserved from the 19th century. Obviously new buildings have been substituted for them in the last 20 to 30 years. The consequences of excessive urbanisation, bringing purely commercial, architecturally uninteresting buildings, may also be seen in the countryside between Larnaca and Nicosia.

B.        The northern part of the island

Nicosia

Selimiye Mosque (originally St Sophia Cathedral). A monumental, Gothic building (from the 13th to 14th century) preserved almost intact with a cathedral-type layout, massive flying butresses and a vaulted open narthex. One of the most valuable monuments of French Gothic in the Eastern Mediterranean. The transformation into a mosque did not damage the building, but only added two characteristic minarets to it. The interior of the building has been whitewashed, some of the pillars unsuitably painted with oil paint. A set of Gothic tombstones has been gathered in the former sacristy. The monument has been preserved in its authenticity and is maintained continuously without inadequate interventions by restorers.

Bedestan, originally a 6th Century Byzantine church, then the Gothic St Nicholas' Church, located beside the cathedral, was used as a market-hall during the period of Turkish domination. This important Lusignan monument with plentiful sculpted detail in stone is now partially a ruin, but also very authentic. It suffered early earthquake damage to its foundations. The British were the first to begin consolidation (with architecturally unsuitable revetment of the pillars) Some of the vaults are at present supported by makeshift tubular scaffolding. The destructive processes do not seem to be continuing and consequently there is no immediate danger from delay.

Haydarpasha Mosque, originally the simple one-nave Gothic Church of St Catherine from the 14th century, is an outstanding example of Lusignan architecture. The building has been restored recently and will be used as a museum. During the repairs, the stone was not overcleaned and the building, including its later complements, has been preserved in its full authenticity.

Büyük Han, a caravansary, i.e. a roadside inn from the time of the beginning of the period of Turkish domination, is a late 16th-century, extensive four-wing building with an two-storey arcade round a square court. The building was used as a prison during the British administration and flats for paupers were arranged there subsequently. The overall conservation and rehabilitation of the badly damaged building, which will become the cultural centre of the city, is nearing completion. The conservation, combined with the reconstruction of the collapsed parts of the premises, is being carried out with good quality workmanship, original stone from collapsed parts being used in preference.

Lusignan House: Parts of a 15th-century Lusignan Gothic stone building combined with later elements of Turkish architecture (a half-timbered oriel). The renovation of the impaired structure of the building gives the impression of a certain "hardness" with beams cut by machine, but otherwise the rehabilitation of the heavily damaged building may be called a success.

The Dervish Pasha Mansion, a city palace (from the 17th to the 19th centuries) documents, in its typical composition and details, the architecture and life-style of a rich Turkish publisher. It was reconstructed on the whole successfully some 15 years ago and transformed into an ethnographic museum.

The Arabahmet Quarter with its characteristic housing consisting of Turkish buildings from the 17th to the early 20th centuries has been revitalised successfully to a large extent. Conservation of the houses and their modernisation were combined in this undertaking with preservation of their function as dwellings. The reconstruction was carried out with a good quality of workmanship and in a traditional spirit.

The town-planning structure of Nicosia. The view from the terrace of the only high-rise building (from the 1960s) in the centre of this part of the city shows an admirable degree of authenticity of the preserved city layout and the historical city tissue, still fully capable of salvation and reanimation in spite of its great decrepitude. The new districts in the north of the city are linked to it continuously, without any unorganic dividing line. Conversely, such a line is striking to the south of the Green Line, where fully cosmopolitan "globalised" housing begins with its substantially higher level.

The municipal plan of Nicosia, of which we were informed by a former mayor of the northern part of the city, is evidence of the collaboration between the two communities (the whole city, now divided, has for instance a common water-supply and sewerage system). This plan does not foresee any radical remodelling of the historic core of the city or the construction there of high-rise buildings.

Kyrenia

The castle has a complicated building history, with the Byzantine Church of St John and the Lusignan city-walls and palace transformed in the 16th century into a massive Venetian fortress guarding the port. The fabric of the buildings and fortifications are in a satisfactory state, continuously maintained and partly used as a museum. The irregular, and in places substantial, erosion of the limestone ashlars of the buildings and fortifications (with cavities as much as 15 centimetres deep) is a persistant if not dangerous problem. Special care is being taken of the famous "Kyrenean shipwreck" from the 4th century BC, raised from the sea 30 years ago and presented to the public in a climatized hall of the castle palace.

The port, a picturesque ensemble of historic buildings, piers and lighthouses, has been preserved in a relatively authentic state, without excessive disfigurement by kitsch shops and advertising, although it is now an important tourist attraction.

The monastery of Bellapais, a unique ensemble of Lusignan late Romanesque and Gothic architecture from the 13th and 14th centuries. As a conserved ruin, it is open to the public and continuously maintained in an exemplary way, including the arrangement of its precincts as a park. The church, Orthodox since 1570, has retained its historic furnishings, including an iconostasis and its icons. The fragmentary fresco in the head of the entrance portal of the church urgently needs restoration (parts of the plaster layer are detached from their foundation).

The Church of Panyia tou Potamou in Ozankoy village below the Bellapais monastery is an interesting example of the syncretism of 14th-century Lusignan Gothic architecture and Orthodox late-Byzantine fresco decoration. As a building, the small church has been preserved in an exemplary way, but the frescoes were secured very unprofessionally (allegedly before 1974). The unimpaired architectural part of the iconostasis was deprived of all icons in 1974. (I could not ascertain whether the paintings were taken away by Greek refugees or were deposited with the Turkish administration for protection or, as the case may be, stolen and exported from the country).

The Church of Ayios Mamas at Morphou. This unusually precious monument of medieval Orthodox architecture with Gothic elements and a later 18th-century dome has been preserved with its interior intact including a much decorated 16th-century iconostasis and the famous grave of the saint. The interior is so unbelievably authentic that it would almost be a pity to restore it. Alas, a number of paintings and wooden structures of the iconostasis require urgent preventive treatment (they are attacked by woodworms, the colour layers are becoming separated from their foundation, etc.). In the publication Cyprus, a Civilisation Plundered (1988), the church is described as burgled and deprived of its furnishings (p. 91).

Soli, an archaeological site. After the extensive exploration carried out by Canadian archaeologists (1964-74), the burning problem remained the securing of the uncovered foundations of a monumental 5th-century late-Roman five-aisle basilica with a particularly valuable set of mosaic floors. Given the rapid deterioration of their state, the site was covered in 1998 by a steel structure of a roof on concrete pillars. This solution seems to be effective.

Akhiropiitos monastery at Lambousa. A very remarkable ensemble of buildings from the 13th to the 17th centuries, at present without the possibility of public access or use, as it is located on the premises of Turkish army barracks. The church with two domes and a Gothic narthex is a graphic example of the fusion of Byzantine tradition with the Romanesque and Gothic elements of Lusignan architecture. Frescoes have been preserved in fragments in the eastern apse, remains of remarkable medieval pavements can be seen in the nave. The wooden architecture and sculpted decoration of the iconostasis have been preserved in situ, the icons are lost (allegedly already before 1974). The church and the monastery buildings, mainly medieval, are very authentic but urgently need preventive maintenance of roofs, the securing of paintings, the exploration of walls and floors, etc. This is also true of the interesting architecture of the nearby 15th(?) -century Church of St Eulalios, also derelict and without internal furnishings.

Sourp Magar Monastery, which has a beautiful location in the centre of mountain scenery but a difficult access, is historically speaking one of the most precious monuments of the Armenian community (being one of only three existant monasteries outside Armenia). The monastery was founded perhaps as early as the 4th century, but its present-day buildings probably come from the late Middle Ages, with a number of alterations made later. Approximately in the mid-20th century, the ensemble of buildings was reconstructed and rebuilt in a very insensitive manner (with excessive use of concrete, modern paving stones, iron girders, etc.), which substantially damaged its historical authenticity. At present, the monastery is in ruins, freely accessible, without being secured against further disintegration. The possibility of its adaptation to a hotel is being discussed. This seems to be extremely problematic given the religious importance of the place for the Armenians.

3.       THE STATE OF THE PRESERVATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE IN THE PARTS OF THE ISLAND VISITED AND ITS MAIN PROBLEMS

       In spite of the tremendous and irreparable losses after the violent events in 1974 and the following ethnic cleansing in both parts of the country, the wealth of the cultural heritage of Cyprus still remains extraordinary. Unfortunately, this heritage is permanently threatened. The reasons for this are diametrically different in the north and the south. The north lacks resources for the maintenance of a number of monuments and to prevent the outflow of movable cultural goods due to thefts and illegal export. In the south, the integrity of the historic settlements and the beautiful Cypriot cultural landscape are threatened by excessive urbanisation, in most cases discordant with the character of the environment (the environs of Larnaca, southern Nicosia and its surroundings).

       In Cyprus, the British prewar system has been taken over of a strictly selective protection of cultural goods and their division into Schedule A Monuments (188 in all, owned by the state) and Schedule B Monuments (947, all of them owned by the Churches or private persons). To these figures for the Republic of Cyprus, I should add that, following amendments to the Antiquities Law in the northern territory in 1975 and 1994, protection has been extended there to some 600 other secular buildings in Nicosia and 250 secular buildings in Famagusta. The degree of protection is not however adequate by present-day international standards and does not at all cover the real extent of the inherited cultural wealth in the two parts of the country (for instance, historic city-cores of world importance, such as Nicosia, Famagusta or Kyrenia, are not protected as conservation sites, and no protective zones have been set for archaeological sites as far as I was able to find out).

       In the Republic of Cyprus, the technical services of the state preservation of cultural heritage is staffed by qualified specialists. The country collaborates with international institutions (ICOMOS, ICOM, the World Heritage Committee) and foreign universities and, especially in the archaeological sphere, benefits from direct foreign aid. In the north, much poorer economically, the situation is much more complicated. This part of the country is isolated internationally. Sporadic technical (and perhaps even material) aid is given to it only by Turkey. The staff of the local service responsible for antiquities and museums with whom I spoke undoubtedly are self-sacrificing conservators, but they themselves emphasised the difficulties in acquiring qualification and experience and the unfavourable impact of the isolation of the country and of the absence of international cooperation or, as the case may be, of aid for conservation of its cultural heritage.

       As far as I can judge from the places visited, the level of architectural conservation is good in both parts of the country. Neither in the south nor in the north did I find any contradiction with the internationally acknowledged principles of the Charter of Venice and related documents. However, there is a substantial difference in the extent of conservation work actually carried out. In the south, all the Scheduled Monuments, including mosques, are maintained and restored systematically. Although conservation and restoration are correct, a trend to "over-restoration" is manifest especially in the case of the rich Orthodox monasteries.Excessive cleaning of the stone (and, in the case of the icons in museums, the treatment of their surfaces with brightly shining lacquers) is being done, which is not necessary in my opinion, instead of preventive interventions (adjustment of roofs, elimination of causes of disturbance etc.).

       Both parts of the country should pay increased attention to the protection of their town-planning heritage and cultural landscape. In the south, there is no time left for regulating the precipitous development of the tourist industry and saving this beautiful island from the destiny of Costa del Sol, Mallorca or Ibiza in Spain or Crete in Greece, whose coasts have sacrificed their beauty and genius loci to the architecturally worthless, purely commercial construction of hotels for tourists. Sooner or later, this process will also reach the poorer north of Cyprus, where the northern coast is now one of the most beautiful, still unspoilt landscapes in the whole Mediterranean. Therefore, preventive protective and regulating measures should be taken here too. If it is not possible to save the authentic historic housing in Nicosia (and no doubt also in Famagusta, which I was unable to see), this will be a cultural loss of a paneuropean dimension.

       The situation of movable cultural goods is radically different in the two parts of the island. In the south, I was not informed of any serious problems: there, the living Orthodox communities themselves prevent thefts in their churches. However, in the north, the situation continues to be tragic and alarming. The state of some abandoned Orthodox monasteries and churches which we visited confirms the complaints of the Republic of Cyprus. Their furnishings are lost and the buildings are not guarded or otherwise secured against further possible devastation. Obviously, in the first period after 1974, spontaneous destruction was involved or, as the case may be, the vengeance of the inhabitants chased away from their homes by ethnic cleansing (in both parts of the country). In contrast to the mosques with their ascetic interiors without furnishings, this spontaneous destruction hit hard the wealth of the furnishings of Orthodox churches with their iconostases and altars and, moreover, valuable mosaics and wall paintings. After the subsidence of this explosion of ethnic hatred, thefts in abandoned churches and illegal excavations on unguarded archaeological sites followed, often to orders from abroad. The artifacts stolen in this way were exported illegally to western art-markets. In the material issued by the Republic of Cyprus, the administration of the north is accused of intentionally and systematically supporting this process. The same administration is charged with the programmed intention of destroying historical memory by the gradual annihilation of all evidence of the continuity over more than 3000 years of Greek settlement and Greek culture in Cyprus. This interpretation is also supported by the various examples of alternative use of Orthodox churches, that is seen by Greek Cypriots as intentional desecration or outright violation of sacred places.

       This interpretation is not confirmed by my short visit to the north. Immense cultural losses have occurred there and perhaps still occur. However, the local Department for Antiquities and Museums certainly does not assist them, but tries to prevent them. Sincere disquiet about the impoverishment of the cultural wealth of the country (at least because of the diminishment of its attractiveness for foreign tourists) is also expressed by politicians and the press. However, the effective prevention of the illegal export of cultural goods is evidently not within the power of local northern administration (and perhaps not even among its priorities, given the relative poverty of the country and, therefore, its other more urgent needs).

For the sake of comparison, I allow myself to mention the experience of my own country, the Czech Republic. After the events known as "the Velvet Revolution", which led to the sudden opening of borders, more than 1,000 Catholic churches were raided and many of them burgled several times between 1990 and 1994, before the state was able to adopt effective measures. The stolen works of art were exported immediately, as also objects obtained by metal detection and illegal excavations on archaeological sites. The situation could only be improved by the adoption of a new, more severe law on the export of antiques and the introduction of immensely costly measures of several kinds: the technical training of the police and customs officers, accelerated detailed documentation of the interiors of churches and installation of detection equipment, and collaboration with Interpol. The thefts constrained the Catholic Church to withdraw the more valuable works from the churches and put them into guarded storerooms. From the hundreds of icons since detained at the frontier by now trained Czech customs officers, I would argue that the process of looting and smuggling cultural goods has reached a far more monstrous extent in Russia, the Ukraine and Byelorussia, than in the Czech Republic. Unfortunately, for economic reasons, these countries cannot allow themselves more effective measures against organised gangs of smugglers of antiques.

       This is as far as I should wish to comment on illegal export.

As to the conversion and adaptation of Orthodox churches to alternative uses, I must confirm that this has often been done insensitively and perhaps still is done so. This is a serious religious and ethical problem rather than a problem for conservators. As one of them, I cannot ignore the verified experience according to which any use of a historic building is usually better than its abandonment and gradual ineluctable doom. Not even the richest countries can allow themselves the total "musealisation" of monuments that have lost their living function. In this respect, considerable flexibility should be applied to respect as fully as possible human rights and religious feelings. I myself have seen not only museums and cultural centres, but also archives, book depositories, pensioners' clubs, tea rooms, shopping centres, flats and other facilities in the interiors of redundant churches in England, the Netherlands or Germany. I do not see any reason why this should not be the case in northern Cyprus too.

On the basis of my experience with some abandoned Catholic monasteries in my own country, I would not have objected a priori to the conversion of the Armenian Monastery into a hotel. However, in view of the historic importance of this monument (being one of only three Armenian monasteries preserved outside Armenia itself), unless it can be restored to its original function as the seat of an Armenian monastic community, a fair case can be made out for no other solution than its "musealisation", probably in the form of a secured maintained ruin open to visitors.

4.       CONCLUSIONS

       My visit to Cyprus was too short to enable me to acquire a deep knowledge of the situation of the very rich cultural heritage or to present definitive proposals. I would like however to make a general comment as far as the northern part of the island is concerned. It would appear that the built heritage is generally protected by a traditional conservation policy and by the lack of pressure for commercial (and especially tourist) development. There is a need for financial aid and for expertise in technical and art-historical terms. There will be more urgency should the north be exposed to international tourism.

22 January 2001

Draft proposal for a Foundation for the Protection and Preservation of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Cyprus

1. Introduction

This proposal is presented with a view to facilitating the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage of Cyprus, for the benefit of the people of the island as a whole, that is the Greek and Turkish Cypriot Communities and Armenian, Maronite and Latin Cypriot religious groups, as well as European civilisation in general. The core concept is to provide a mutually acceptable mechanism for the implementation of practical measures for the proper maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of the cultural heritage of Cyprus, that is consistent with international law, the European Convention of Human Rights, international conventions relating to the cultural heritage2, the rule of law, and the principles and resolutions of the Council of Europe.

The mechanisms proposed below are designed to be in line with these principles, but at the same time to allow 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. The aim being to establish a mechanism that is acceptable to all sides in Cyprus, and that will facilitate the protection and preservation of the island's rich and varied cultural heritage, through practical measures that will improve the situation throughout the island.

2. Establishment of a Foundation for the Protection and Preservation of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus

2.1. Council of Europe

The Council of Europe (COE) should undertake a permanent role in monitoring the situation with respect to the cultural heritage of Cyprus. It is proposed that the COE should establish a "Foundation for the Protection and Preservation of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus" either as an agency of the Council of Europe or as a separate legal entity. Whatever form the Foundation takes, its Board of Directors should be appointed by the Council of Europe or some other appropriate, and mutually agreed international body.

2.2.       Objectives

The proposed objectives of the foundation could be as follows:

(a)       To protect, preserve and facilitate the preservation (including research, study and survey) of the cultural heritage of Cyprus.

(b)       To monitor the situation with respect to the cultural heritage in Cyprus, and prepare regular reports on the situation, for submission to the Council of Europe (COE), the Parliamentary Assembly Committee on Culture, Science and Education, UNESCO, the United Nations, the Advisory Committee (see 2.3 (c)) and other appropriate bodies on the island. Where appropriate the reports should include proposals for improving the situation.

(c)       To respond to requests on specific cases or issues relating to the cultural heritage, and where appropriate to make suggestions for improving the situation.

(d)       To find practical solutions to problems relating to the cultural heritage, following

consultation with the owners, affected religious groups, institutions or local communities, and any other persons or bodies that may be necessary to facilitate the solution of the problem.

(e)       To raise funds for the preservation of the cultural heritage of Cyprus, including the financing of specific projects.

(f)       To undertake expenditure and assign work to appropriately qualified consultants, specialists, building contractors or skilled workmen in order to preserve, monitor, investigate, maintain, repair, and rehabilitate the cultural heritage of Cyprus.

(g)       To provide and publish information on the cultural heritage of Cyprus.

2.3.       Structure

The structure proposed for the Foundation is as follows:

(a)       A Board of Management consisting of seven persons, well qualified on issues relating to the protection and preservation of the cultural heritage, and appointed by the Council of Europe. Citizens of Cyprus, Greece and Turkey would be barred from appointment to the Board. The Board's function would be to determine the foundation's policy, methods, and plan of operation in line with the articles of association and terms of reference of the Foundation, to seek donations and determine the budget, appoint staff and suitable consultants/specialists, and generally to supervise the activities of the Foundation.

(b)       Establishment of an Administration/bureau to implement the policies of the Board of Management. A director and a small staff will be required, while most specialists may be engaged on an "as required" basis.

(c)       An Advisory Committee consisting of seven persons, as follows: two members of the Board, the President of the Committee on Culture, Science and Education of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the director, and three Cypriots. The three Cypriots should serve and be appointed in their personal capacities only, and in accordance with the established ratio in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (two Greek Cypriots and one Turkish Cypriot). The role of the Advisory Committee would be the discussion of all the issues relating to the cultural heritage that are before the Foundation, and the submission of proposals for investigation or other action by the Foundation. In addition, the Advisory Committee could discuss and put forward suggestions on dealing with practical problems encountered. The views of the Advisory Committee should not be binding on the Foundation, but it should be consulted on all projects and allowed to examine drafts of reports prior to finalsation.

2.4.       Terms of Reference

The terms of reference proposed for the Foundation are as follows:

(a)       The Foundation should monitor and undertake action for the protection and preservation of the Cultural Heritage throughout Cyprus.

(b)       The cultural heritage for which the Foundation will be concerned, includes immovable property, movable items and artefacts, and the enjoyment of their cultural heritage by the people of Cyprus. In accordance with the 1972 Convention on the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage the definitions adopted are as follows:

Article 1

For the purpose of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "cultural heritage":

Monuments: architectural works, works of monumental sculpture and painting, elements of structures of an archaeological nature, inscriptions, cave dwellings and combinations of features, which are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;

Groups of buildings: groups of separate or connected buildings which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science;

Sites: works of man or the combined works of nature and man, and areas including archaeological sites which are of outstanding universal value from the historical, aesthetic, ethnological or anthropological point of view.

Article 2

For the purposes of this Convention, the following shall be considered as "natural heritage":

Natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic point of view;

Geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation;

Natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty.

(c)       Definitions from Conventions of the Council of Europe and other international conventions should be adopted where appropriate. The Foundation should always act within the scope of its articles or association (or deed), the laws of the country of incorporation, international law, the European Convention of Human Rights, international conventions relating to the Cultural Heritage, and the resolutions and principles of the Council of Europe.

(d)       The Foundation must always consult with the owners of properties and religious groups and other bodies concerned, and obtain their approval for improvement works and the uses of property. Development works that are appropriate for properties, or are likely to be insulting to religious beliefs, must be avoided.

(e)       The Foundation may consult with any individual or body to further its objectives, without implying any recognition of legal or political status.

(f)       In no case will rights to property, whether movable or immovable, be transferred to the Foundation.

(g)       The Foundation may undertake research, studies and surveys in order to be able to monitor the situation in general, and assess the state and requirements of any particular location, monument or artefact.

(h)       The Foundation may engage consultants, con tractors, workmen or any other person qualified for tasks consistent with the aims and objectives of the foundation and its terms of reference.

(i)       The Foundation may disseminate information on the cultural heritage of Cyprus, and publish books and pamphlets on the cultural heritage.

(j)        The Foundation may organise displays/exhibitions of the cultural heritage.

3.       Financial Resources

The Foundation could be financed by funds or donations from the COE, European Union, international bodies, states as well as private donations. Donations may relate to operating costs or to specific projects.

1 Approved by the committee on 25 April 2002

2 For the purpose of this proposal whenever “cultural heritage” is mentioned it has the meaning as defined by Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, which includes both cultural and natural heritage (see 2.4 below)