Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
An Introduction to the Issue of Preserving Cultural Heritage Carolyn V. Bachman The preservation of cultural heritage is an important underlying component of archaeology. In its formative years, archaeology was concerned with collecting artifacts. Little attention was paid to provenience systematic methods of excavation. Collecting artifacts was thought to be a mode of science and a means of increasing knowledge (Chase, Chase and Topsey, 1996: 31). During the Victorian period, the age of Empire and expansionism, those involved in early archaeology gained profit from their excavations, but more importantly, gained recognition as discoverers and enlighteners (Goring, 1988, 5). Museums believed that amassing artifacts would increase their prestige and so sponsored archaeological expeditions to collect large numbers of artifacts (Chase, Chase and Topsey, 1996: 32). These earliest expeditions succeeded in doing more pillaging and mutilating of archaeological sites than excavating. Not until the twentieth century did the issue of ownership and protecting cultural heritage gain attention. The subject of preserving cultural heritage has acquired the interest of archaeologists, museums and the United Nations. International laws dealing with such matters have been written and implemented with varying degrees of success, and incidents involving the looting and the illegal export of artifacts have generated the notice of the media. There have been many solutions proposed to prevent the illegal exportation and the continued looting of cultural heritage sites, but each of these solutions seemed to have counter arguments. Furthermore, if the illegal trade in artifacts is successfully obstructed, there is the definitive question of whom these artifacts belong to—the archaeologist who excavated them, the museums that buy them, or the country in which they were uncovered? The dilemma of ownership of cultural heriage property must be discussed with consideration for the archaeologist, for the museum, and for the country of origin. There is no single solution to preventing the looting and the illegal trading of cultural heritage prop-rty. Instead, each of these institutions must cooperate to curb the market for illegally excavated and exported artifacts. If those within the archaeological establishment and the countries in which they excavate can ever begin to come to agreement over restitu-ion, restriction and rights of ownership, it should be kept in mind that the past, and more specifically its remnants, are non-renewable resources. They cannot be replenished or replaced. It is debatable who owns artifacts from the past. Nevertheless, their preservation is the collective responsibility of all who are involved (Warren 1989: 19). The role of museums in the ethical concerns surrounding cultural property is of equal, if not more importance, than that of the archaeologist. After all, it is usually the museum that ultimately gains control over artifacts. In the 1980's the Cultural Property Repose Act was proposed in the United States Congress. It stated that any object held by a museum for two years would be protected from seizure or claims by foreign governments regardless of how the artifact was obtained (a later amendment stated that the aforementioned artifact had to be on display for those two years) (Shestack 1989: 93-94). Although this act obviously would have protected museum institutions, the Association of Art Museum Directors did not endorse it. This decision was evidence that museums were becoming more sensitive to the issues of looting and mutilating archaeological sites. Even so, museums are occasionally still subject to the temptations of the illegal antiquities trade. Alan Shestack, a former museum director himself, explained that museum directors, with millions of dollars to spend and at the mercy of the Board of Trustees, are often tempted to buy unprovenienced or possibly stolen objects. And even if they do not buy them, the artifacts would most likely just end up in another museum's collection (Shestack, 1989: 98). As Arlen Chase, Diane Chase and Harriot Topsey avowed, "Collecting is big business. Archaeology is not" (1996: 36). http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 1 van 8
Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
This is not to say that all museums dapple in the illegal antiquities trade. The International Council of Museums has an "Ethics of Acquisition" and a "Code of Professional Ethics" (Herscher, 1989: 119). Though not a museum, the Archaeological Institute of America has a similar code of ethics. Its popular magazine, Archaeology, accepts no ads for the sale of antiquities. Likewise, the American Journal of Archaeology will not publish articles on artifacts in collections acquired after December 30, 1973, unless their origin can be documented (Herscher 1989: 119). Such schoolarly institutions set a commendable example for museums.
Cultural Property: International Legal Efforts After World War II, more attention was paid to the international trade in antiquities and the looting and destruction of archaeological sites. In 1954, the Hague Convention of May 14 resolved to protect cultural property in the event of armed conflict (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 24). However, the most important, and probably the most well-known result of this recent interest was the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, which was adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on November 14, 1970. The Convention encouraged countries to protect their own cultural heritage in addition to joining the international efforts to assist other countries in the preservation of cultural heritage. In 1972 the Cultural Property Convention was ratified by the United States Congress, and was later signed by President Reagan in 1983 (Hingston 1989: 129-131). As a result, the United States was the first major art importing country to implement the UNESCO Convention (Koczka 1989: 195). However, the UNESCO Convention did not constitute a resolution to the problems of protecting cultural heritage. The prohibition of imports and exports is difficult to enforce, and sometimes seems to only create more of a black market for antiquities (Herscher 1993: 122).
The Republic of Cyprus: A Case Study in the Preservation of Cultural Heritage in Times of War UNESCO gave advice on the protection of cultural property to Greek Cypriot and Turkish combatants in Cyprus in 1974. But to fully understand the repercussions of the cultural property dilemma in Cyprus requires a brief history of the archaeology and political situation on the island. The political history of Cyprus is characterized by periods of foreign occupation. Cyprus had been a province of the Ottoman Empire since 1571. During this period, one of the Ottoman sultans in Turkey issued six edicts ordering the emigration to Cyprus of one tenth of the population of several Anatolian provinces. In addition, grants of land in Cyprus were made to Turkish officials for military service. Over time this land passed into the hands of the peasants, the descendents of whom are the Turks living in North Cyprus at present. In 1878 Cyprus became part of the British Empire (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 19-21). British rule continued as a precursor to the political distress that remains in Cyprus today. In 1960, the Republic of Cyprus was founded with Archbishop Makarios as President and Dr. Fazil Kucuk as Vice President. There had always been dissent between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, especially because of the Greek Cypriot movement to unite with mainland Greece. However, under the new Constitution of the Republic, Cyprus was forbidden to pursue union with Greece or partition into http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 2 van 8
Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
Greek and Turkish areas. President Makarios' proposal to revise the Constitution in 1964 was met with Turkish backlash and threats of invasion. The Green Line was established, separating northern Turkish Cyprus from the Greek-speaking south. Ten years later, on July 15, 1974, a Greek military coup d'etat took place, inciting the Turkish invasion that culminated with the Turks occupying 37.2 per cent of the island. In 1983 the Turks declared the independent "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus," an act that was condemned by the United Nations Security Council (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 22-23). Presently, Turkey is the only country that acknowledges the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" as a nation. The advent of each new foreign ruler had an effect on how the science of archaeology was approached in Cyprus. As A. Bernard Knapp stated, "By its nature, archaeology has always had an obvious political dimension and nationalism—like ethnic or cultural identity—makes manifest the character of archaeology as a social, historical and political enterprise" (1998: 14). The early days of archaeology in Cyprus were characterized by collectors, such as Sir Robert Hamilton and General Luigi Palma di Cesnola, who would fund "excavations" in order to assemble quantities of artifacts. Villagers who found antiquities would sell them to these collectors (Goring 1988: 7-8). Cesnola succeeded in amassing a collection of thousands of Cypriot artifacts, some of which he sold to private collectors and museums. The Metropolitan Museum of Art paid $60,000 for the remainder of his collection. In addition, Cesnola became the first director of the Met (Goring 1988: 18). The Ottoman Law of 1874 stated that all archaeological finds were to be divided up between the excavators, the owner of the land and the government. Following the advent of British rule in 1874, a ban was placed on unauthorized excavations by the British administration in 1878 (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 30). With the Ottoman Rule of 1874 still in place, the Cyprus Museum in Nicosia was founded in 1883 to house the governments' share of artifacts (Goring 1988: 18). Also in 1883 the Cyprus Exploration Fund was founded to support legitimate fieldwork By 1887 permits for excavation were given only to professional archaeologists who were backed by either a public or scientific institution. In 1935 the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus was created with an Irishman, A.H.S. Megaw, appointed as director. After the declaration of Cypriot independence in 1960, P. Dikaoios became the first Cypriot Director of the Department (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 30-31). In Cyprus, an antiquity is defined as, "Any object (movable or unmovable) that is a work of architecture, sculpture, graphic art, painting, produced, sculpted, inscribed or painted or made in Cyprus before 1850," as stated in the Antiquities Law of 1935, later amended in 1964 and again in 1973 (Prott and O’Keefe 1998: 60). For ecclesiastical or folk-art with specific archaeological importance, the date of creation must be before 1900. Export of any cultural property is only allowed with a license from the Director of Antiquities. All undiscovered antiquities become properties of the Republic of Cyprus. The attempted or aided export without a proper license from the Department of Antiquities may be punished by up to three years in prison, fines and forfeiture of the aforementioned antiquities (Prott and O’Keefe 1998: 60). After the Turkish invasion of 1974, the Turks began a campaign to eradicate all remnants of Greek heritage in the North. This involved the looting and mutilation of archaeological sites and churches. The looting and destruction of sites in North Cyprus can be interpreted as an example of "cultural cleansing” (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 29). Greek Orthodox churches have been mutilated and plundered for their priceless icons, wall paintings, and mosaics. Private collections have been stolen belonging to Greek Cypriots living in the North before 1974. Furthermore, many stories about illegally excavated Cypriot antiquities have appeared in the U.S. news. For example, recent stories have concerned the University of Virginia's acceptance of disputed antiquities from North Cyprus as gifts, and the sale of the Kanakaria mosaics to a dealer in Indiana. One of the first acts of the Turkish army after the military occupation was to transform the Church of http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 3 van 8
Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
Panagia Glykiotissa in Kyrenia into a mosque so that troops landing at the beach would have a place to pray. The army seemed to disregard the fact that there were already two mosques in Kyrenia at which the soldiers could have prayed. The conversion of this first church served to symbolize the victory of the Turkish army over the Christian Greeks and signified the beginning of the "Islamization" process in the North (Ionnides 1991: 177). Since 1974, the number of Greek Orthodox churches that have been converted into mosques, stables, cinemas, barracks, hospices, among others, varies, with some estimates at 59 and some at 79. Since it is against Muslim practice to pray in churches, the Turkish Muslims must remove or cover all Christian religious objects (Ionnides 1991: 178). This has resulted in the looting of more than 16,000 icons and mosaics from more than five hundred churches in the North (Hadjisavvas 2001: 136). The Archaeological Service of Cyprus had just cleaned many of the wall paintings and mosaics before 1974 (Anagnostopoulou 2000: 28). Christos Ionnides stated, "The Turkification of occupied Cyprus has also meant eradication all evidence of the history and culture of the Greek Cypriots who inhabited the area before the invasion� (Ionnides 1991: 184). Private collections belonging to Greek Cypriots, which were housed in the North before 1974 have also been the target of looting. In 1973, the Department of Antiquities of Cyprus amended the antiquities law and allowed a sixth month grace period for all antiquities of the private collection to be declared. The result was that more than 1,250 collections were added to the government's database after the amendment (Hadjisavvas 2001: 135). One of these collections belonged to Christakis Hadji prodromou, a resident of Famagusta before the invasion of 1974. Hadjiprodromou owned a collection of two thousand objects, many with "outstanding artistic and great archaeological value" (2000: 140). The objects were all kept in his home in Famagusta until the invasion, when they fell into the hands of occupying Turks. In 1976, seven objects from Hadjiprodromou's collection appeared for sale at Christie's auction house in London (one of the establishments that continues to auction Cypriot antiquities without provenience). With assistance from the Cypriot government and Interpol, the objects were returned to Hadjiprodromou. He has since repatriated forty objects. Presently, many of the artifacts from his collection are now displayed at the archaeological museum at the Apostle Barnabas Monastery in Famagusta. Hadjiprodromou has had much difficulty in procuring the rest of his collection from the Turks because the Turks consider these objects their property and part of their cultural heritage Hadjiprodromou 2000:140). The University of Virginia gained attention in the 1980's when they accepted a gift of antiquities from Turkish officials. The University's involvement with Turkish Cyprus began in the 1970's when the University helped build a psychiatric hospital in North Cyprus (Herscher 1983: 362). In October of 1982, in appreciation of the University's aid, the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus gave the University's Bayly Museum a gift of twenty pieces of ancient Cypriot pottery. After news of the donation spread, Cyprus' Director of Antiquities at the time, Dr. Vassos Karageorghis, went to Charlottesville, VA, to inspect the items of pottery. They appeared to date from the Early Bronze Age to the Byzantine Period in Cyprus. Dr. Karageorghis reminded the University administration that the export of antiquities from Cyprus is forbidden unless authorized by the legal authorities of the Republic of Cyprus. Since Turks from the North donated the artifacts, they were exported illegally. A committee of University of Virginia professors and administrators met to discuss the situation, and ultimately decided and reported to the University President that all twenty of the pots should be returned to the Republic of Cyprus. Instead, the President decided to return eighteen of the pots to the donors and two to the Republic of Cyprus. Thus, although all of the artifacts were returned, the Republic of Cyprus was still denied eighteen pieces of the ancient pottery. At that time, the UNESCO Convention had yet to be implemented in the United States (Herscher 1989: 363). If it had, the embarrassment experienced by the University of Virginia, and more importantly, the loss of those eighteen pieces of cultural heritage by the Greek Cypriots, could have easily been prevented.
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 4 van 8
Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
The plundered Kanarkaria mosaics, dating to the sixth century C.E., were one of three examples of sixth century apsidal mosaics surviving in the island (Herscher 1989: 363). Megaw and Hawkins had previously published the mosaics in 1977 (Hofstadter 1992: 47). The iconography of the Kanakaria mosaics is unique in Byzantine ecclesiastical art. In the representation of the Virgin, she is surrounded by a mandorla, which denotes divinity. The mandorla is usually found surrounding Christ in scenes of His Transfiguation and Ascension. The Kanakaria mosaics are the only occurrence in Byzantine painting where the mandorla appears around the Virgin (Papageorgio 2000: 160). In 1979, the Kanakaria mosaics were reported stolen from the church at Lythrangomi (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 25). When the Greek Cypriot government discovered that the mosaics had been stolen, it publicized the theft to international organizations, museums and academic institutions (Leventis 2000: 146). In the 1980's, they appeared for sale on the international art market, and were bought by a novice American art dealer named Peg Goldberg (Hofstadter 1992: 36). Goldberg paid one million dollars for an assemblage of four of the early Christian mosaics, each about two feet square. Soon after, she brought them back to the United States, the Getty Museum came forward claiming that it had been offered fragments of the mosaics by a Geneva dealer in 1988. Goldberg, said the Getty museum, was in the possession of four of the mosaics, and was asking twenty million dollars for the sale (Leventis 2000: 146-47). Upon learning of this, a group of prelates from the Autocephalous Greek Orthodox Church came to Goldberg's home in Indiana arguing that the mosaics were stolen by the Turks in 1970's. They wished to repatriate the mosaics, a demand to which Goldberg refused. In a newsworthy move, the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus sued Goldberg in her hometown of Indianapolis, Indiana in 1989 (Hofstadter 1992: 36). Once the trial started, the true story surrounding the Kanakaria mosaics surfaced. The mosaics were illegally excavated from the rubble of a church in North Cyprus that was destroyed during the invasion of 1975 (Hofstadter 1992: 45). The looting was under the jurisdiction of Aydin Dikmen, a Turkish dealer who was notorious for removing frescoes and mosaic from churches in North Cyprus after 1974 (Hadjisavvas 2001: 136). The mosaics were then transported to Munich, Germany and from there they were sold to Goldberg (Hofstadter 1992: 45-46). Ironically, Goldberg could have avoided the legal mess. When considering buying the mosaics, she called various international customs offices and agencies to find out whether the mosaics had been stolen. She neglected, however, to call the Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot governments (Hofstadter 1992: 47). The Greek Orthodox Church won the lawsuit and the Kanakaria mosaics were returned to the Republic in 1991, where they are now on display at the Byzantine Museum in Nicosia (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 25). Because of such high-profile cases of the illegal exporting of cultural property, Cyprus has taken further steps to protect its artifacts and archaeological sites. The Cyprus police have established a specialized team to deal with stolen art and artifacts (Hadjisavvas 2001: 138). In addition to ratifying the UNESCO Convention, Cyprus has ratified the following: Protocol for Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (The Hague 1954), the Convention on the Museums of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (Paris 1970) and the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage Council of Europe (London 1969) (Government of Cyprus 1997: 85). Between the years of 1971 and 1992, the Government of the Republic of Cyprus brought seventy cases involving unlawful possession of Cypriot antiquities to district courts in Cyprus. This excludes international lawsuits, such as the Kanakaria suit. Such legal actions have been partially the result of the Department of Antiquities' efforts to repatriate stolen artifacts, with the economic support of the Levantis Foundation (Knapp and Antioniadou 1998: 26). The Republic of Cyprus has even submitted a request to the United States President to impose an emergency ban on the importation of Cypriot cultural property under Section 304 of the Cultural Property Implementation Act of 1982 in compliance with Article 9 of the UNESCO Convention (Government of Cyprus 1997: 85). In 1999, The United States and Cyprus signed a bilateral agreement prohibiting the import of any Byzantine http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 5 van 8
Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
antiquity from Cyprus into the U.S. without a permit (Hadjisavvas 2001: 138). The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus was established in 1985. The objectives of the Committee were to inform the Greek and foreign public of the destruction and looting in North Cyprus, to locate stolen antiquities in the international market and to repatriate them; to secure free access to archaeological sites in North Cyprus and to continue scientific research there. The Committee produced a successful exhibition entitled "Cyprus: The Plundering of a 9,000 Year-Old Civilization," which traveled around Europe and published an accompanying catalogue (Anagnostopoulou 2000: 16). The Hague Convention of 1954 cited movable and immovable property as cultural heritage. This can even extend to places where movable property is kept an exhibited, such as museums and libraries (Economides 2000: 136). The Hague Convention applies to all cases of armed conflict. Article Five, Paragraph One states: Any High Contracting Party in occupation of the whole or part of the territory of another High Contracting Party shall as far as possible support the competent national authorities of the occupied country in safeguarding and preserving its cultural heritage. (Hofstadter 1992) According to this regulation, Turkey has an obligation to prevent the export of Greek Cypriot cultural property from the northern territory that it occupies, and a further obligation to return the cultural property that has been illegally exported from the North. Constantine Leventis avows, "In International Law, it is clearly Turkey, the occupying power, that bears full responsibility for all that takes place in the northern part of Cyprus" (Leventis 2000: 152). Nevertheless, it is impossible to track down each incident of cultural property being looted or destroyed in North Cyprus. Foreign archaeologists are encouraged and welcomed to excavate in the Republic, but presently archaeologists have no legal status to dig or to study in North Cyprus (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 16). This makes it extremely difficult for experts to assess the extent of the looting and the destruction. However, the Republic has done a superb job in educating the public about the destruction in the North by welcoming hundreds of college and high school students to dig in the South. The government of the Republic of Cyprus has even allowed the purchase of antiquities by Greek Cypriots. This is so that objects looted in the North would not be illegally exported, but would remain in the country, to be studied and to be published by the Department of Antiquities (Hadjiprodromou 2000: 140). However, Bernard Knapp and Sophia Antoniadou avowed that the archaeology of Cyprus "will never be politically innocent" (Knapp and Antoniadou 1998: 32). Tasoula L. Georgiou-Hadjitofi best testified to the irreparable damage done to Greek Cypriot cultural heritage in the North by saying, "As a Cypriot, a refugee from Famagusta, I speak for the people of Cyprus when I say that of all things we have lost since 1974, none is greater than the loss of our cultural heritage; it is tantamount to losing one's identity" (Georgiou-Hadjitofi 2000: 229). The destruction of cultural property in North Cyprus continues. The political situation on the island is still tense, which is not conducive to dialogue between the two sides of the island on matters of cultural heritage. The first necessary step is for the Turkish and Cypriot archaeologists to collaborate on the future of archaeological excavations in Cyprus. A select number of Greek Cypriot archaeologists should be allowed to excavate in the North, perhaps even in collaboration with Turkish archaeologists. Furthermore, to combat the looting and illegal export of Greek Cypriot art and artifacts, the Turkish Cypriot government must begin to acknowledge and respect the presence of Greek cultural heritage in the North.
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 6 van 8
Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
A Final Thought: The Role of the Archaeologist in Preserving Cultural Heritage Archaeologists, as the people most directly in contact with cultural heritage property, have the obligation to do anything in their means to preserve it. Contrasting with the description of early archaeology in the introduction to this paper, archaeologists today have more responsibilities than their predecessors. This includes publishing excavation results, giving lectures and presenting exhibits of artifacts in obligation to the public in return for funds (Chase and Topsey 1996: 34). This enlightens the public about the past and about issues of cultural heritage. In addition, preserving cultural heritage involves meticulous excavation. Archaeology is "controlled destruction." Whatever is unearthed must be carefully and thoroughly recorded because it can never be restored to its precise context (Chase and Topsey 1995: 33). Furthermore, a balance of international collaboration is needed between archaeologists from rich and poor nations to make sure that individual nation's issues of preserveing cultural heritage receive equal attention (McIntosh, McIntosh and Togola 1996: 192). Archaeologists unearth artifacts that may have been buried for thousands of years as testaments to the achievements of the past, and so are responsible for playing the role of custodians of cultural property.
References Anagnostopoulou, Maria. 2000. “Introduction.” Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered. The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus: The Hellenic Parliament. ___. 2000. “The Looting of Cyprus.” Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered. The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus: The Hellenic Parliament. Chase, Arlen F., Diane Z. Chase and Harriot W. Topsey. 1996. “Archaeology and the Ethics Of Collecting.” Archaeological Ethics. Ed. Karen D. Vitelli. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press, Economides, Constantine. 2000. “International Law and the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus.” Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered. The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus: The Hellenic Parliament. Georgiou-Hadjitofi, Tasoula L. 2000. “Cyprus: The Long Return Home.” Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered. The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus: The Hellenic Parliament. Goring, Elizabeth. 1988. A Mischevious Pastime. Edinburgh: National Museums of Scotland. Government of Cyprus. 1997. “Request of the Government of Cyprus for U.S. Import Restrictions to Protect Specified Cyprus Cultural Property in Accordance with Article 9 of the UNESCO Convention.” Nicosia, Cyprus. Hadjiprodromou, Christakis. 2000. “The Looting of Private Collections.” Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered. The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus: The Hellenic Parliament. Hadjisavvas, Sophocles. 2001. “The Destruction of the Archaeological Heritage of Cyprus.” Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World’s Archaeological Heritage. Eds. Neil Brodie, Jennifer http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 7 van 8
Brown Classical Journal
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
Doole and Colin Renfrew. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Herscher, Ellen. Fall, 1993. “Antiquities Market: University of Virginia Accepts Disputed Antiquities.” Journal of Field Archaeology 10, #3. ___. 1989. “International Control Efforts: Are There Any Good Solutions?” The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Ed. Phyllis Mauch Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Hingston, Ann Guthrie. 1989. “U.S. Implementation of the UNESCO Cultural Property Convention.” The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Ed. Phyllis Mauch Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Hofstadter, Dan. July 13, 1992. “The Angel on Her Shoulder.” The New Yorker Website of the International Council on Monuments and Sites. http://www.icomos.org/hague/HagueArts.html. Accessed May 2, 2002. Ionnides, Christos P. 1991. In Turkey’s Image: The Transformation of Occupied Cyprus into A Turkish Province. New Rochelle, NY: Aristide D. Caratzas. Knapp, A. Bernard and Sophia Antoniadou. 1998. “Archaeology, Politics and the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus.” Archaeology Under Fire. Ed. Lynn Meskell. London: Routledge. Koczka, Charles S. 1989. “The Need for Enforcing Regulations on the International Art Trade.” The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Ed. Phyllis Mauch Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Leventis, Constantine. 2000. “The Destruction of Cultural Heritage.” Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered. The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus: The Hellenic Parliament. McIntosh, Roderick J., Susan Keech McIntosh and Tereba Togola. 1996. “People Without History.” Archaeological Ethics. Ed. Karen D. Vitelli. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. Papageorgio, Athanasios Ph.D. 2000. “The Church of the Virgin Kanakaria at Lythrangomi.” Cyprus: A Civilization Plundered. The Committee for the Protection of the Cultural Heritage of Cyprus: The Hellenic Parliament. Prott, Lyndel V. and Patrick J O’Keefe. 1998. Handbook of National Regulations Concerning the Export of Cultural Property. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Shestack, Alan. 1989. “The Museum and Cultural Property: The Transformation of Institutional Ethics.” The Ethics of Collective Cultural Property. Ed. Phyllis Mauch Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Warren, Karen J. 1989. “A Philosophical Perspective on the Ethics and Resolution of Cultural Properties Issues.” The Ethics of Collective Cultural Property. Ed. Phyllis Mauch Messenger. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/bcj/15-07.html
Pagina 8 van 8