Friday, June 26, 2009
Cypriot antiquities: Severis - salvage or sale?
Public and private Greek Cypriot collecting of looted antiquities has been defended as 'rescue', 'salvation' (Anagnostopoulou, 2000b: 25; 37), 'salvage' (Karageorghis, 2000b: 217), a way 'to curb the illegal exports of antiquities' (Hadjiprodromou, 2000: 141). But the sale and export of antiquities from the Severis Collection may undermine that defence.
Leto Severis's collection is in Cyprus; but some of its artefacts have been sold to antiquities dealer Eftis Paraskevaides, in Britain, and he has put them up for sale online - on either ArtAncient or BidAncient - on a first-come-first-served basis.
As I explained in an earlier post on collecting looted antiquities,
Marc Fehlmann worked out that '98.4% of the objects' in the Severis Collection 'have no provenance or previous owner at all'; Paraskevaides may have bought objects from the other 1.6%. But if he did, he chose to exclude the evidence of the artefacts' origins and previous ownerships.
The first Paraskevaides antiquity from the Severis Collection is for sale on ArtAncient (see fig. 1); the second and third are for sale on BidAncient (see figs. 2 and 3). The first, a "Cypriot Bronze age vessel", was 'Ex English Private Collection. Ex Christies London 2000. Ex. Leto Severis Collection, inventory number on the underside of the bowl.'
The second, an "Early Iron Age Cypriot Peace Bowl", was 'from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis.... English private collection; ex Christie's UK'. And the third, a "Large Early Bronze Age Burnished Olpe Jug", 'was from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis - no. LS 1061 written on the base.... English private collection; ex Christie's UK - lot 251 25 October 2007.'
There was no information about who found the objects where; no information suggested Severis bought any of the three from another collector. Apparently, when the objects first came to public knowledge, they were already in Severis's collection. That suggests that they had had no previous owners, and that they may have been looted.
Last year, informed by Paul Barford, David Gill listed four antiquities for sale on Eftis Paraskevaides's BidAncient website, which were 'from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis'. Now, the first three say only
At least David Gill's descriptions remain:
None of the three antiquities David Gill listed had any information about their discovery, or previous owners, either. Again, that suggests that those artefacts may have been looted. And if they were looted, their sale would undermine the defence for legalising collecting looted antiquities. The antiquities collectors would not have 'discharge[d] their duty to the homeland' (Karageorghis, 2000: 218).
Archaeologists let private collectors buy looted antiquities to "rescue", to "salvage" them for Cyprus. If those private collectors sold them abroad, to a private dealer, for that dealer to sell on to anyone, the private collectors would have betrayed the principles of the silent accord; they would have been in the same business that the archaeologists entrusted them to help to stop. The private collectors would not have "rescued" or "salvaged"anything [the sold antiquities].
They would havefeigned patriotism to get the opportunity to collect looted antiquities, and funded the looting of Cypriot cultural heritage with their purchases, then profited from the looted antiquities' sale (making a greater profit, because the Department of Antiquities had legalised their collections); they would also have denied other Cypriots access to their own inheritance.
And the entire process would have been enabled by the policy of the Department of Antiquities.
[I edited this post on the 10th of July 2009: I crossed-out judgemental language.]
Fig. 1: "Cypriot Bronze age vessel 2300 BC"
Fig. 2: "Early Iron Age Cypriot Peace Bowl 1000 BC"
Fig. 3: "Large Early Bronze Age Burnished Olpe Jug 1800 BC: Ex Severis Ex Christies UK"
Karageorghis, V. 1999b: "The Severis Collection of Cypriote antiquities". In Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection, 17-18. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 2000: "The repatriation of Cypriot antiquities (1974-1997)". In CPCHC (Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus), (Ed.). Cyprus: A civilization plundered, 214-221. Athens: The Hellenic Parliament.
Leto Severis's collection is in Cyprus; but some of its artefacts have been sold to antiquities dealer Eftis Paraskevaides, in Britain, and he has put them up for sale online - on either ArtAncient or BidAncient - on a first-come-first-served basis.
As I explained in an earlier post on collecting looted antiquities,
the Department of Antiquities at that time [1963/1964] decided to follow a policy of "silent accord", allowing Cypriots who had access to the Turkish enclaves to buy the "spoils" of looting so that these should remain in the country and not be exported abroad.And as I mentioned in a previous post on large private collections,
in his catalogue of 257 artefacts in the Severis Collection (Karageorghis, 1999a), [then Greek Cypriot antiquities director Vassos] Karageorghis stated that the whole collection of more than 2,500 artefacts 'was formed mainly during the.... "silent accord"' (1999b: 17).Now, I do not know whether the antiquities for sale on Paraskevaides's websites are ones Severis collected before 1963-1964. I am not accusing Paraskevaides of trading in illicit antiquities.
Marc Fehlmann worked out that '98.4% of the objects' in the Severis Collection 'have no provenance or previous owner at all'; Paraskevaides may have bought objects from the other 1.6%. But if he did, he chose to exclude the evidence of the artefacts' origins and previous ownerships.
The first Paraskevaides antiquity from the Severis Collection is for sale on ArtAncient (see fig. 1); the second and third are for sale on BidAncient (see figs. 2 and 3). The first, a "Cypriot Bronze age vessel", was 'Ex English Private Collection. Ex Christies London 2000. Ex. Leto Severis Collection, inventory number on the underside of the bowl.'
The second, an "Early Iron Age Cypriot Peace Bowl", was 'from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis.... English private collection; ex Christie's UK'. And the third, a "Large Early Bronze Age Burnished Olpe Jug", 'was from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis - no. LS 1061 written on the base.... English private collection; ex Christie's UK - lot 251 25 October 2007.'
There was no information about who found the objects where; no information suggested Severis bought any of the three from another collector. Apparently, when the objects first came to public knowledge, they were already in Severis's collection. That suggests that they had had no previous owners, and that they may have been looted.
Last year, informed by Paul Barford, David Gill listed four antiquities for sale on Eftis Paraskevaides's BidAncient website, which were 'from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis'. Now, the first three say only
Product Not FoundNot even a Google cache copy is available.
The product page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
At least David Gill's descriptions remain:
* jug. $590. Lable: LS N140. Stated to be from an English private collection: Christie's (King Street), October 25, 2007, lot 251.(The fourth antiquity David Gill listed was the third one I discussed above, an 'olpe. $580. Label LS 1061. Stated to be from an English private collection: Christie's (King Street), October 25, 2007, lot 251.')
* olpe. $220. Stated to be from an English private collection: Christie's (King Street), October 25, 2007, lot 251.
* olpe. $250. LS 2001. Stated to be from an English private collection: Christie's (King Street), October 25, 2007, lot 251.
None of the three antiquities David Gill listed had any information about their discovery, or previous owners, either. Again, that suggests that those artefacts may have been looted. And if they were looted, their sale would undermine the defence for legalising collecting looted antiquities. The antiquities collectors would not have 'discharge[d] their duty to the homeland' (Karageorghis, 2000: 218).
Archaeologists let private collectors buy looted antiquities to "rescue", to "salvage" them for Cyprus. If those private collectors sold them abroad, to a private dealer, for that dealer to sell on to anyone, the private collectors would have betrayed the principles of the silent accord; they would have been in the same business that the archaeologists entrusted them to help to stop. The private collectors would not have "rescued" or "salvaged"
They would have
And the entire process would have been enabled by the policy of the Department of Antiquities.
[I edited this post on the 10th of July 2009: I crossed-out judgemental language.]
Fig. 1: "Cypriot Bronze age vessel 2300 BC"
Ancient Cypriot Early Bronze Age red burnished ware hemispherical bowl, dating to approximately 2300 BC.
A striking piece of ancient Cypriot art, the heavy hand-made ceramic with perforated lug handle. Such pottery is characteristic of the Mediterranean island of Cyprus, whose bronze age potters, widely believed to be female, produced some of the most imaginative ceramics of antiquity.
Height: 4 inches.
Diameter: 6 1/4 inches.
Condition: Unrestored.
Provenance: Ex English Private Collection. Ex Christies London 2000. Ex. Leto Severis Collection, inventory number on the underside of the bowl. Severis was prolific collector of Cypriot antiquities whose collection numbered in the thousands.
$600.00
Fig. 2: "Early Iron Age Cypriot Peace Bowl 1000 BC"
You are considering a very attractive and rare Cypriot early Iron age round based Chalice or Bowl dating to around 1000 BC.
This outstanding iron age ceramic has an everted round mouth and a circular footbase.
Internally the vessel is painted with olive branches symbolizing Victory; the rim is also painted in black.
The Cypriot ancient ceramics showed immense diversity and style; their potters were probably the best in the world at that time.
This ancient ceramic originates from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis. Lito Severis was an amateur archaeologist and a prolific writer of childrens' books.
A charming momento from early antiquity.
English private collection; ex Christie's UK - lot 251 25 October 2007.
Intact; minor restoration to lip.
Height: 2 1/8 inches.
Diameter: 3 7/8 inches.
For similar example please see "Art Of Ancient Cyprus" by the well known Anthropologist and Author, Desmond Morris.
We only sell genuine guaranteed ancient art. If an expert or a TL test disputes this ceramic's authenticity, we will return your money and the cost of any TL test.
Our Price: $165.00
Fig. 3: "Large Early Bronze Age Burnished Olpe Jug 1800 BC: Ex Severis Ex Christies UK"
You are considering a large and very attractive Cypriot early bronze age burnished Jug with a stylized looped handle, dating to around 1800 BC.Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). 1999a: Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
This outstanding bronze age ceramic has an everted round mouth and a circular base which would have once stood in the sand; may well have served in a Temple as a votive vessel.
The Cypriot bronze age ceramics showed immense diversity and style; their potters were probably the best in the world at that time.
This ancient ceramic originates from the collection of Mrs Lito Severis - no. LS 1061 written on the base. Lito Severis was an amateur archaeologist and a prolific writer of childrens' books.
A charming momento from early antiquity.
English private collection; ex Christie's UK - lot 251 25 October 2007.
Intact; minor restoration to lip.
Height: 7 1/2 inches.
Diameter: 5 inches.
For similar example please see "Art Of Ancient Cyprus" by the well known Anthropologist and Author, Desmond Morris.
We only sell genuine guaranteed ancient art. If an expert or a TL test disputes this ceramic's authenticity, we will return your money and the cost of any TL test.
Our Price: $400.00
Karageorghis, V. 1999b: "The Severis Collection of Cypriote antiquities". In Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection, 17-18. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 2000: "The repatriation of Cypriot antiquities (1974-1997)". In CPCHC (Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus), (Ed.). Cyprus: A civilization plundered, 214-221. Athens: The Hellenic Parliament.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
UN poisoned, crippled and killed Kosovo Roma
I am absolutely appalled that this has continued. The Guardian has just reported a forthcoming Human Rights Watch report that will document Kosovo Roma crippled in the UN refugee camp in Mitrovica. Yet it is even worse than that: the BBC reported that, already in 2005, the World Health Organisation (WHO) had concluded that 'at least one child ha[d] died from lead poisoning', and the Kosovo Roma Refugee Foundation (KRRF) believed 27 had been killed.
In 2005, I had detailed the horrific story so far in a post on the Roma Mahalla/Fabricka Mahalla - the refugees' home neighbourhood, which Kosovo Albanian nationalist extremists burned in 1999 - on the Mitrovicë/Mitrovica: cultural heritage and community photo blog.
In case saying the UN poisoned, crippled and killed the Kosovo Roma refugees of Roma Mahalla sounds unfair, what follows is a repost from the 2005 Mitrovicë blog post, the development of the situation:
The UN was responsible for the ravaged and vulnerable community's protection and rehabilitation; but instead, it has poisoned, crippled and killed them.
[This note was also posted over on samarkeolog.]
In 2005, I had detailed the horrific story so far in a post on the Roma Mahalla/Fabricka Mahalla - the refugees' home neighbourhood, which Kosovo Albanian nationalist extremists burned in 1999 - on the Mitrovicë/Mitrovica: cultural heritage and community photo blog.
In case saying the UN poisoned, crippled and killed the Kosovo Roma refugees of Roma Mahalla sounds unfair, what follows is a repost from the 2005 Mitrovicë blog post, the development of the situation:
- for a long time, lead pollution had been an open secret;
- in 1997, there was a public report of lead poisoning;
- (therefore) in 1999, when the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) chose the site, it knew it was contaminated;
- (in fact) also in 1999, the United Nations itself, in the form of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS), noted that Kosovo's mining industry had caused "serious environmental degradation and impacts on the health of the local population";
- the UNHCR insisted on placing the camp there despite protests by its own Romani affairs advisor;
- in 2000, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission In Kosovo (UNMIK) found "blood lead concentrations exceeding the permissive limits" and recommended relocation;
- also in 2000, the then UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG) Bernard Kouchner stated that, "the people of Mitrovica are at risk because of this [Zvecan] smelter" and that, "as a doctor, as well as chief administrator of Kosovo, I would be derelict if I let this threat to the health of children and pregnant women continue for one more day"; and
- in 2004, the World Health Organisation insisted the situation was "urgent";
- and in 2005, the BBC reported that the World Health Organisation (WHO) had concluded that 'at least one child ha[d] died from lead poisoning', while the Kosovo Roma Refugee Foundation (KRRF) believed 27 had been killed.
The UN was responsible for the ravaged and vulnerable community's protection and rehabilitation; but instead, it has poisoned, crippled and killed them.
[This note was also posted over on samarkeolog.]
Friday, June 19, 2009
Cyprus, 1963-1974: large private collections of looted antiquities
This is a supplement to the previous, more important post, which was an estimate of the total number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974.
Those numbers may seem inconceivable, but it must be remembered that the large private collections had thousands of artefacts each. As previously mentioned, Karageorghis (1999b: 17) recognised the Pierides Collection, the Hadjiprodromou Collection and the Severis Collection as the most important ones formed through the silent accord and amnesty [during which, private collection of looted antiquities was first encouraged, then legalised].
It has not been possible to determine how many of the Pierides Collection's around 2,500 artefacts were looted antiquities, and how many of those were collected through the silent accord or legalised through the amnesty, because the collection has been built up by generations of the family, over the course of two hundred years.
But Hadjiprodromou (2000: 141) stated that his 2,000 artefacts were all collected during the silent accord (although he may have acquired some legal antiquities at the same time).
And in his catalogue of 257 artefacts in the Severis Collection (Karageorghis, 1999a), Karageorghis stated that the whole collection of more than 2,500 artefacts 'was formed mainly during the.... "silent accord"' (1999b: 17).
Corroborating the expectation that the vast majority of the artefacts collected during the silent accord were looted antiquities, archaeologist Marc Fehlmann (2008) used Gill and Chippindale's (1993) method for assessing Cycladic collections to assess Cypriot collections.
Fehlmann (2008) found that '98.4% of the objects' in Karageorghis's (1999a) catalogue of the Severis Collection had 'no provenance [find-spot] or previous owner at all'. Given the impact of the silent accord upon Cypriot cultural heritage, some might think it ironic that Leto Severis was the founder of the (Cypriot) Friends of Archaeology (Herscher, 1974: 2).
Bibliography
Fehlmann, M. 2008: "Cyprus: Further looting – comment". Looting Matters [weblog], 21st August. Available at: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2008/08/cyprus-further-looting.html?showComment=1219316580000#c1061419035593363467
Gill, D W J and Chippindale, C. 1993: "Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures". American Journal of Archaeology, Volume 97, Number 4, 601-659.
Hadjiprodromou, C. 2000: "The looting of private collections". In CPCHC (Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus), (Ed.). Cyprus: A civilization plundered, 141-144. Athens: The Hellenic Parliament.
Herscher, E. 1974: Antiquities of Cyprus: The Severis Collection. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). 1999a: Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 1999b: "The Severis Collection of Cypriote antiquities". In Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection, 17-18. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
[The brief explanation of the silent accord and amnesty was added on the 22nd of June 2009; but it was already properly explained in the previous post on the estimate.]
Those numbers may seem inconceivable, but it must be remembered that the large private collections had thousands of artefacts each. As previously mentioned, Karageorghis (1999b: 17) recognised the Pierides Collection, the Hadjiprodromou Collection and the Severis Collection as the most important ones formed through the silent accord and amnesty [during which, private collection of looted antiquities was first encouraged, then legalised].
It has not been possible to determine how many of the Pierides Collection's around 2,500 artefacts were looted antiquities, and how many of those were collected through the silent accord or legalised through the amnesty, because the collection has been built up by generations of the family, over the course of two hundred years.
But Hadjiprodromou (2000: 141) stated that his 2,000 artefacts were all collected during the silent accord (although he may have acquired some legal antiquities at the same time).
And in his catalogue of 257 artefacts in the Severis Collection (Karageorghis, 1999a), Karageorghis stated that the whole collection of more than 2,500 artefacts 'was formed mainly during the.... "silent accord"' (1999b: 17).
Corroborating the expectation that the vast majority of the artefacts collected during the silent accord were looted antiquities, archaeologist Marc Fehlmann (2008) used Gill and Chippindale's (1993) method for assessing Cycladic collections to assess Cypriot collections.
Fehlmann (2008) found that '98.4% of the objects' in Karageorghis's (1999a) catalogue of the Severis Collection had 'no provenance [find-spot] or previous owner at all'. Given the impact of the silent accord upon Cypriot cultural heritage, some might think it ironic that Leto Severis was the founder of the (Cypriot) Friends of Archaeology (Herscher, 1974: 2).
Bibliography
Fehlmann, M. 2008: "Cyprus: Further looting – comment". Looting Matters [weblog], 21st August. Available at: http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2008/08/cyprus-further-looting.html?showComment=1219316580000#c1061419035593363467
Gill, D W J and Chippindale, C. 1993: "Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures". American Journal of Archaeology, Volume 97, Number 4, 601-659.
Hadjiprodromou, C. 2000: "The looting of private collections". In CPCHC (Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus), (Ed.). Cyprus: A civilization plundered, 141-144. Athens: The Hellenic Parliament.
Herscher, E. 1974: Antiquities of Cyprus: The Severis Collection. Nicosia: Zavallis Press Ltd.
Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). 1999a: Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 1999b: "The Severis Collection of Cypriote antiquities". In Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection, 17-18. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
[The brief explanation of the silent accord and amnesty was added on the 22nd of June 2009; but it was already properly explained in the previous post on the estimate.]
Cyprus, 1963-1974: looted antiquities collected - estimate
Here, I want to try to estimate the total number of looted antiquities collected in Cyprus between 1963 and 1974. It's important to do, first, simply, because it's been neglected until now; but second, because it warns of the dangers of the rhetoric and policy of the Department of Antiquities of the Republic of Cyprus.
Then Director of the Department of Antiquities, Sophocles Hadjisavvas estimated that the 'most serious disaster' for Cypriot cultural heritage was the Turkish invasion and occupation (2001: 135), in which, over the course of 25 years or so, 'more than 60,000 ancient artefacts' had been stolen in 'systematic and to some extent "official" looting, with the "blessing" of the occupation army' (2001: 136).
I believe my low estimate suggests that, in the course of the 10 years of intercommunal conflict, just the registered private antiquities collectors bought somewhere around 58,750 looted artefacts.
If the unregistered private antiquities collections were included, I believe an estimate of the total number of looted antiquities collected during the Troubles could be somewhere around 205,625.
If this is correct, the greatest disaster to strike Cypriot cultural heritage may have been between 1963 and 1974, and it may have been caused by the policies of the Department of Antiquities itself.
I'll briefly summarise the background of the illicit antiquities trade and more fully explain the method of estimating the number of looted antiquities collected, then present my best estimate; but any of the sections can be missed. (This is largely taken from the first draft of my thesis.)
Background of the illicit antiquities trade
In my research, examining the illicit antiquities trade in Cyprus, I have broken it into three main periods - looting between 1869 and 1958, looting between 1958 and 1974, and looting since 1974.
1958 was the first time the intercommunal conflict directly contributed to the illicit antiquities trade, but it was only with the explosion of violence in December 1963 that the conflict and the trade became one problem.
The intercommunal conflict and the antiquities trade changed again (together) in 1974, after the Greek coup and the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus; but the structure of the antiquities trade since 1974 was established during the intercommunal conflict between 1963 and 1974.
When the intercommunal conflict exploded in December 1963, it prevented the authorities suppressing the illicit antiquities trade. 25,000 Turkish Cypriots retreated into enclaves, guarded by the paramilitary TMT, and surrounded by Greek Cypriot National Guard or paramilitaries.
The poverty-stricken enclaved Turkish Cypriots made some money by looting antiquities in the enclaves and selling them into the free areas, either to Greek Cypriot or international collectors. Whether TMT passively "taxed" the sale of looted antiquities, or actively smuggled and sold antiquities, it profited from the illicit antiquities trade.
The Greek Cypriot administration claimed that it "rescued" Cypriot cultural heritage by buying the looted antiquities and reaching a "silent accord" with private Greek Cypriot collectors, through which they were allowed to collect looted antiquities (Karageorghis, 1999b: 17); but the silent accord incidentally funded TMT, and actually fuelled and funded increased looting and destruction of Cypriot cultural heritage.
The total number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974 may be staggering. On top of the established antiquities collectors, who used the amnesty to build their collections with looted antiquities, there were the more than 1,250 greedy people who only registered as private antiquities collectors in order to collect looted antiquities (Hadjisavvas, 2001: 135).
One private antiquities collector who created his (albeit exceptionally large) collection through the silent accord and the amnesty, Christakis Hadjiprodromou (2000: 141), collected more than 2,000 archaeological artefacts - and, as Hadjisavvas (2001: 135) reminded, 'all antiquities acquired [through the amnesty] were illegal' because 'all came from illicit excavations'.
Method of the estimation
Luckily, there is one source of information that enables an estimate of the number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974: after the Turkish invasion, the Turkish Cypriot administration took private antiquities collections into protective custody.
The Turkish Cypriot administration published a 1975 inventory of private antiquities collections found in the Greek Cypriot Varosha/Maraş suburb of Famagusta town; it listed 5,903 archaeological and ethnological artefacts in 56 collections, 'of which only 15 were registered by the Greek Cypriot Administration' (TRNCMFADSCS and TRNCMNECDAM, 1986: 5).
It is important to be careful with the numbers. (As a basic, preliminary precaution, I will round down any fraction in any calculation to the nearest 0.5.)
Some of the collections, or some of the antiquities in them, would have been acquired before 1963, so not all of the artefacts in the Turkish Cypriot inventory of Varosha collections had been collected under the silent accord or the amnesty. Yet Hadjisavvas (2001: 135) dismissed the number of collections begun before 1963 (across the island) as 'insignificant'.
Those previously collected artefacts that were accidentally included in the inventory would have been more than compensated for by the 'many' artefacts that disappeared from the collections before the making of the inventory, some 'illegally exported abroad', and some taken 'south with the Greek Cypriot refugees' (van der Werff, 1989: 12).
Moreover, I will exclude the 874 inventoried artefacts of Christakis Hadjiprodromou's collection (Cormack, 1989: 30) – which was even larger, but was partly looted – so that the estimate will be a low estimate, based upon only the small collections.
(And the theft of more than half of Hadjiprodromou's collection is indicative of how low the estimate from the small collections' remaining artefacts will be.)
In addition, there were not separate counts of the archaeological and ethnological objects in the collections; but I will work upon the assumption of a half-and-half split between archaeological and ethnological objects, and base my estimate upon half of the total number of objects in the Turkish Cypriot inventory of Varosha collections.
Despite the unscientific nature of the presumption of a 50:50 split, it again lowers the estimate for the number of looted antiquities collected: for example, Hadjiprodromou (2000: 141) counted his archaeological and his ethnological objects separately, and had 2,000 archaeological artefacts, but just 250 ethnological objects, so he had 89 archaeological artefacts for every 11 ethnological objects.(1)
Also, there were not separate counts of the numbers of antiquities in registered collections and in unregistered collections, and the unregistered collections might have artificially increased or decreased the average, depending upon whether the unregistered collections were commercial or hobby; the existence of both types of collection may cancel out each type's influence.
Despite these caveats, there is one basic, good reason to accept the estimates of looted antiquities collected: the registered collections had been established solely to collect as many looted antiquities as possible in the time available.
So, even if all of the unregistered collections had been commercial ones, they would probably not have been able to increase significantly the total average number of artefacts in each collection above the average number of artefacts in each registered collection.
Estimate of the total number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974
Even if the 874 inventoried artefacts of Christakis Hadjiprodromou's (even larger, but partly looted) collection were excluded from the total of 5,903 artefacts in 56 collections in Varosha (leaving 5,209 in 55), and even if half of the remaining artefacts were excluded as ethnological (leaving 2,604.5 in 55), the average collection would have had about 47 archaeological artefacts in it.(2)
From the Turkish Cypriot inventory, it appears that there were 2.73 unregistered collections for every registered one (so, in calculations of estimates, just 2.5; thus, 3,125 unregistered collections, and a total of 4,375 registered and unregistered collections).
Nevertheless, even if only the 1,250 registered private antiquities collections were used, an estimate for the number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974 would be about 58,750.
If the unregistered private antiquities collections were included, an estimate of the total number of looted antiquities collected during the Troubles would be 205,625.
These numbers are based on a sample of 55 from a population of 1,250. According to a sample size calculator, even if I only had a sample of 41, there would be a 95% probability of these estimates being true, to within 15%.
So, if I didn't make any mistakes in my method (and rounding down fractions to a number of "whole" artefacts), there's a 95% chance that registered collectors bought between 49,937 and 67,562 looted antiquities; and there's a 95% chance that together, registered and unregistered collectors bought between 174,781 and 236,468 looted antiquities.
I've also written a (far shorter) follow-up post on the large private collections of looted Cypriot antiquities.
Cormack, R. 1989: "Appendix II: Report". In Van der Werff, Y, (Ed.). 1989: Information report on the cultural heritage of Cyprus (Doc. 6079), 20-34. Brussels: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Gill, D W J and Chippindale, C. 1993: "Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures". American Journal of Archaeology, Volume 97, Number 4, 601-659.
Hadjiprodromou, C. 2000: "The looting of private collections". In CPCHC (Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus), (Ed.). Cyprus: A civilization plundered, 141-144. Athens: The Hellenic Parliament.
Hadjisavvas, S. 2001: "The destruction of the archaeological heritage of Cyprus". In Brodie, N J, Doole, J and Renfrew, C, (Eds.). Trade in illicit antiquities: The destruction of the world's archaeological heritage, 133-139. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). 1999a: Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 1999b: "The Severis Collection of Cypriote antiquities". In Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection, 17-18. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
TRNCMFADSCS and TRNCMNECDAM (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence Social and Cultural Section and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of National Education and Culture Department of Antiquities and Museums). 1986: Cultural heritage of northern Cyprus: Its protection and preservation. Lefkoşa: TRNCPIO (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Public Information Office).
Van der Werff, Y. 1989: Information report on the cultural heritage of Cyprus (Doc. 6079). Brussels: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Then Director of the Department of Antiquities, Sophocles Hadjisavvas estimated that the 'most serious disaster' for Cypriot cultural heritage was the Turkish invasion and occupation (2001: 135), in which, over the course of 25 years or so, 'more than 60,000 ancient artefacts' had been stolen in 'systematic and to some extent "official" looting, with the "blessing" of the occupation army' (2001: 136).
I believe my low estimate suggests that, in the course of the 10 years of intercommunal conflict, just the registered private antiquities collectors bought somewhere around 58,750 looted artefacts.
If the unregistered private antiquities collections were included, I believe an estimate of the total number of looted antiquities collected during the Troubles could be somewhere around 205,625.
If this is correct, the greatest disaster to strike Cypriot cultural heritage may have been between 1963 and 1974, and it may have been caused by the policies of the Department of Antiquities itself.
I'll briefly summarise the background of the illicit antiquities trade and more fully explain the method of estimating the number of looted antiquities collected, then present my best estimate; but any of the sections can be missed. (This is largely taken from the first draft of my thesis.)
Background of the illicit antiquities trade
In my research, examining the illicit antiquities trade in Cyprus, I have broken it into three main periods - looting between 1869 and 1958, looting between 1958 and 1974, and looting since 1974.
1958 was the first time the intercommunal conflict directly contributed to the illicit antiquities trade, but it was only with the explosion of violence in December 1963 that the conflict and the trade became one problem.
The intercommunal conflict and the antiquities trade changed again (together) in 1974, after the Greek coup and the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus; but the structure of the antiquities trade since 1974 was established during the intercommunal conflict between 1963 and 1974.
When the intercommunal conflict exploded in December 1963, it prevented the authorities suppressing the illicit antiquities trade. 25,000 Turkish Cypriots retreated into enclaves, guarded by the paramilitary TMT, and surrounded by Greek Cypriot National Guard or paramilitaries.
The poverty-stricken enclaved Turkish Cypriots made some money by looting antiquities in the enclaves and selling them into the free areas, either to Greek Cypriot or international collectors. Whether TMT passively "taxed" the sale of looted antiquities, or actively smuggled and sold antiquities, it profited from the illicit antiquities trade.
The Greek Cypriot administration claimed that it "rescued" Cypriot cultural heritage by buying the looted antiquities and reaching a "silent accord" with private Greek Cypriot collectors, through which they were allowed to collect looted antiquities (Karageorghis, 1999b: 17); but the silent accord incidentally funded TMT, and actually fuelled and funded increased looting and destruction of Cypriot cultural heritage.
The total number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974 may be staggering. On top of the established antiquities collectors, who used the amnesty to build their collections with looted antiquities, there were the more than 1,250 greedy people who only registered as private antiquities collectors in order to collect looted antiquities (Hadjisavvas, 2001: 135).
One private antiquities collector who created his (albeit exceptionally large) collection through the silent accord and the amnesty, Christakis Hadjiprodromou (2000: 141), collected more than 2,000 archaeological artefacts - and, as Hadjisavvas (2001: 135) reminded, 'all antiquities acquired [through the amnesty] were illegal' because 'all came from illicit excavations'.
Method of the estimation
Luckily, there is one source of information that enables an estimate of the number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974: after the Turkish invasion, the Turkish Cypriot administration took private antiquities collections into protective custody.
The Turkish Cypriot administration published a 1975 inventory of private antiquities collections found in the Greek Cypriot Varosha/Maraş suburb of Famagusta town; it listed 5,903 archaeological and ethnological artefacts in 56 collections, 'of which only 15 were registered by the Greek Cypriot Administration' (TRNCMFADSCS and TRNCMNECDAM, 1986: 5).
It is important to be careful with the numbers. (As a basic, preliminary precaution, I will round down any fraction in any calculation to the nearest 0.5.)
Some of the collections, or some of the antiquities in them, would have been acquired before 1963, so not all of the artefacts in the Turkish Cypriot inventory of Varosha collections had been collected under the silent accord or the amnesty. Yet Hadjisavvas (2001: 135) dismissed the number of collections begun before 1963 (across the island) as 'insignificant'.
Those previously collected artefacts that were accidentally included in the inventory would have been more than compensated for by the 'many' artefacts that disappeared from the collections before the making of the inventory, some 'illegally exported abroad', and some taken 'south with the Greek Cypriot refugees' (van der Werff, 1989: 12).
Moreover, I will exclude the 874 inventoried artefacts of Christakis Hadjiprodromou's collection (Cormack, 1989: 30) – which was even larger, but was partly looted – so that the estimate will be a low estimate, based upon only the small collections.
(And the theft of more than half of Hadjiprodromou's collection is indicative of how low the estimate from the small collections' remaining artefacts will be.)
In addition, there were not separate counts of the archaeological and ethnological objects in the collections; but I will work upon the assumption of a half-and-half split between archaeological and ethnological objects, and base my estimate upon half of the total number of objects in the Turkish Cypriot inventory of Varosha collections.
Despite the unscientific nature of the presumption of a 50:50 split, it again lowers the estimate for the number of looted antiquities collected: for example, Hadjiprodromou (2000: 141) counted his archaeological and his ethnological objects separately, and had 2,000 archaeological artefacts, but just 250 ethnological objects, so he had 89 archaeological artefacts for every 11 ethnological objects.(1)
Also, there were not separate counts of the numbers of antiquities in registered collections and in unregistered collections, and the unregistered collections might have artificially increased or decreased the average, depending upon whether the unregistered collections were commercial or hobby; the existence of both types of collection may cancel out each type's influence.
Despite these caveats, there is one basic, good reason to accept the estimates of looted antiquities collected: the registered collections had been established solely to collect as many looted antiquities as possible in the time available.
So, even if all of the unregistered collections had been commercial ones, they would probably not have been able to increase significantly the total average number of artefacts in each collection above the average number of artefacts in each registered collection.
Estimate of the total number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974
Even if the 874 inventoried artefacts of Christakis Hadjiprodromou's (even larger, but partly looted) collection were excluded from the total of 5,903 artefacts in 56 collections in Varosha (leaving 5,209 in 55), and even if half of the remaining artefacts were excluded as ethnological (leaving 2,604.5 in 55), the average collection would have had about 47 archaeological artefacts in it.(2)
From the Turkish Cypriot inventory, it appears that there were 2.73 unregistered collections for every registered one (so, in calculations of estimates, just 2.5; thus, 3,125 unregistered collections, and a total of 4,375 registered and unregistered collections).
Nevertheless, even if only the 1,250 registered private antiquities collections were used, an estimate for the number of looted antiquities collected between 1963 and 1974 would be about 58,750.
If the unregistered private antiquities collections were included, an estimate of the total number of looted antiquities collected during the Troubles would be 205,625.
These numbers are based on a sample of 55 from a population of 1,250. According to a sample size calculator, even if I only had a sample of 41, there would be a 95% probability of these estimates being true, to within 15%.
So, if I didn't make any mistakes in my method (and rounding down fractions to a number of "whole" artefacts), there's a 95% chance that registered collectors bought between 49,937 and 67,562 looted antiquities; and there's a 95% chance that together, registered and unregistered collectors bought between 174,781 and 236,468 looted antiquities.
I've also written a (far shorter) follow-up post on the large private collections of looted Cypriot antiquities.
- So, if all of the 55 small collections' 5,209 artefacts had been Hadjiprodromou's:
- about 4,636 of them would have been archaeological artefacts, rather than my working assumption of about 2,604.5;
- the average number of artefacts per small collector would have been about 84, rather than 47;
- the number of looted antiquities in registered collections would have been about 105,000 (89,250-120,750), rather than 58,750; and
- the total number of looted antiquities in registered and unregistered collections would have been about 367,500 (312,375-422,625), rather than 205,625.
- Possibly reassuringly, a Turkish Cypriot inventory of Turkish Cypriot collections registered in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recorded 64 '[a]ntique [c]ollectors' having 2,423 'artefacts' altogether, or about 38 artefacts each, which is quite similar to the average of the Turkish Cypriot inventory of the Varosha collections (TRNCMFADSCS and TRNCMNECDAM, 1986: 14).
But it is not clear whether they were only archaeological artefacts, or whether they were archaeological and ethnological, in which case the unscientific assumption of a 50:50 split in the collections would give an estimate of just 19 archaeological artefacts each.
Furthermore, that Turkish Cypriot inventory listed its data by district, revealing that, while there had been 15 registered Greek Cypriot antiquities collectors in Varosha suburb of Famagusta town, there were only 12 registered Turkish Cypriot antiquities collectors in all of Famagusta district (TRNCMFADSCS and TRNCMNECDAM, 1986: 14).
This appears to affirm Turkish Cypriots' relative exclusion from the culture of antiquarianism and archaeology, which began with British colonial antiquarianism and archaeology's institutionalisation of Philhellenism.
Cormack, R. 1989: "Appendix II: Report". In Van der Werff, Y, (Ed.). 1989: Information report on the cultural heritage of Cyprus (Doc. 6079), 20-34. Brussels: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Gill, D W J and Chippindale, C. 1993: "Material and intellectual consequences of esteem for Cycladic figures". American Journal of Archaeology, Volume 97, Number 4, 601-659.
Hadjiprodromou, C. 2000: "The looting of private collections". In CPCHC (Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus), (Ed.). Cyprus: A civilization plundered, 141-144. Athens: The Hellenic Parliament.
Hadjisavvas, S. 2001: "The destruction of the archaeological heritage of Cyprus". In Brodie, N J, Doole, J and Renfrew, C, (Eds.). Trade in illicit antiquities: The destruction of the world's archaeological heritage, 133-139. Cambridge: McDonald Institute.
Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). 1999a: Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
Karageorghis, V. 1999b: "The Severis Collection of Cypriote antiquities". In Karageorghis, V, (Ed.). Ancient Cypriote art in the Severis Collection, 17-18. Athens: Costakis and Leto Severis Foundation.
TRNCMFADSCS and TRNCMNECDAM (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence Social and Cultural Section and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Ministry of National Education and Culture Department of Antiquities and Museums). 1986: Cultural heritage of northern Cyprus: Its protection and preservation. Lefkoşa: TRNCPIO (Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus Public Information Office).
Van der Werff, Y. 1989: Information report on the cultural heritage of Cyprus (Doc. 6079). Brussels: Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Goshi: abandoned village, destroyed
During a visit to a church in northern Cyprus, I met a refugee from the abandoned village of Goshi/Koşşi. He told me how 'Goshi was emptied. It was destroyed'(1) in 1974, by 'Makarios's [soldiers]' (2008: Pers. Comm.). Greek Cypriot National Guard laid waste to the place.
Later, I visited and photographed it, before the Greek Cypriot National Guard base near the village called the police. Greek Cypriot police took me away to the local police station, under threat of false charges.
They immediately gave up any pretence of having a just cause for my detention. They questioned me, searched me and my car, searched my research materials, and questioned me again; then they searched my camera, and warned me not to return to Goshi.
Luckily, they didn't recognise some of the photos, dismissing them as 'ancient stuff'(2), and they scanned through some others too quickly for the digital camera's preview screen to display them properly.
It's now used as a farm, but it's a Greek Cypriot refugee family's farm, and they are utterly blameless. The village had already been destroyed when they arrived, and since then, they have used corrugated iron goat pens. Generally, they do not use the ruins of the Turkish Cypriot homes, and when they do, it's because it's unavoidable in the village. The farmers are other victims of the conflict.
Cynics might wonder whether the guilty parties in the conflict wanted to keep the refugee farmers in Goshi, and elsewhere, economically dependent - and economically dependent upon the reuse of the abandoned villages - so that their activities contributed to the decay and disappearance of the destroyed places, the destruction of the evidence of the guilty parties' crimes.
I've finally got round to posting them on a photo blog, Goshi: cultural heritage and community.
Later, I visited and photographed it, before the Greek Cypriot National Guard base near the village called the police. Greek Cypriot police took me away to the local police station, under threat of false charges.
They immediately gave up any pretence of having a just cause for my detention. They questioned me, searched me and my car, searched my research materials, and questioned me again; then they searched my camera, and warned me not to return to Goshi.
Luckily, they didn't recognise some of the photos, dismissing them as 'ancient stuff'(2), and they scanned through some others too quickly for the digital camera's preview screen to display them properly.
It's now used as a farm, but it's a Greek Cypriot refugee family's farm, and they are utterly blameless. The village had already been destroyed when they arrived, and since then, they have used corrugated iron goat pens. Generally, they do not use the ruins of the Turkish Cypriot homes, and when they do, it's because it's unavoidable in the village. The farmers are other victims of the conflict.
Cynics might wonder whether the guilty parties in the conflict wanted to keep the refugee farmers in Goshi, and elsewhere, economically dependent - and economically dependent upon the reuse of the abandoned villages - so that their activities contributed to the decay and disappearance of the destroyed places, the destruction of the evidence of the guilty parties' crimes.
I've finally got round to posting them on a photo blog, Goshi: cultural heritage and community.
- 'Koşşi boşaltın. Yıkıldı.'
- 'Τα αρχαία'. I think that's the translation anyway; maybe it's 'ancient places'.
