Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

It's still unclear whether the 'damage' and the 'damage from looting' were the same. Presumably, some of the buildings were damaged in the kinds of attacks that (partially or totally) destroyed the others.

I’ll tell you something you may not be aware of…

In those days those big black beams (“volitsia” we called them) used to make ceilings which formed the basis of the rooftops, were pretty expensive to buy so pinching those would’ve been a priority for looters and that would also explain why some abandoned houses ended up without a rooftop and not so much wear & tear!

my father's ancestral home was picked clean (presumably by neighbours); i found it disgusting, but now you may have given me an explanation...

anyway considering the pieces of shit on both sides there is no denying that this stuff happens given any excuse...when the households are "empty" for a while...

[Get Real!]

It's still unclear whether the 'damage' and the 'damage from looting' were the same. Presumably, some of the buildings were damaged in the kinds of attacks that (partially or totally) destroyed the others.

I’ll tell you something you may not be aware of…

In those days those big black beams (“volitsia” we called them) used to make ceilings which formed the basis of the rooftops, were pretty expensive to buy so pinching those would’ve been a priority for looters and that would also explain why some abandoned houses ended up without a rooftop and not so much wear & tear!

my father's ancestral home was picked clean (presumably by neighbours); i found it disgusting, but now you may have given me an explanation...

anyway considering the pieces of shit on both sides there is no denying that this stuff happens given any excuse...when the households are "empty" for a while...

Besides enosis & taksim, poverty also made people do crazy things and back in those days it was harsh for all…

[samarkeolog]

It's still unclear whether the 'damage' and the 'damage from looting' were the same. Presumably, some of the buildings were damaged in the kinds of attacks that (partially or totally) destroyed the others.

I’ll tell you something you may not be aware of…

In those days those big black beams (“volitsia” we called them) used to make ceilings which formed the basis of the rooftops, were pretty expensive to buy so pinching those would’ve been a priority for looters and that would also explain why some abandoned houses ended up without a rooftop and not so much wear & tear!

And we thought you wanted ENOSIS...It was our roof beams all along.....

We have a fetish... any left in London?

Not since 1666, I'm afraid.

I did acknowledge myself that lots of material would have been looted/recycled, so I don't know why you're saying it like I didn't. In fact, I had photographs of a building in Turkey that had had its roof timber taken (to show what happened to buildings in Cyprus), but they were on my camera when it was "confiscated".

But some of the attacked buildings would have been damaged, not destroyed, and some of those would look the same as buildings that had had things looted/recycled from them. That's all I was saying.

Here's what prompted me to write you about the beams...

Actually, Agios Sozomenos/Arpalik is a good example of how well mudbrick can survive without repair. All of the roofs have gone, but a lot of the walls are still standing, some of them two storeys high, some of them still with plaster on.

Okay, yeah, cheers...

I agree with you that 'poverty also made people do crazy things and back in those days it was harsh for all'. And poverty is also one of the things that drives nationalism.

It is possible that Agios Sozomenos's buildings' roof beams were looted/recycled. I do wonder, though, how many beams would have been recycled across the island. Wouldn't the recyclers need to use them quickly? (If they were unused, they would be exposed and rot.) So, were they building lots of new houses? If they were building lots of new houses, why didn't they just live in the empty houses that were already there? If they weren't building lots of new houses, what were they doing with the recycled wood? Using it for fire?

Again, I do agree that some things would have been looted/recycled for economic reasons (particularly from 1963-1964 onwards, and especially from 1974-1976 onwards). But many things were damaged and destroyed for nationalistic reasons. And despite the poverty, nationalists did things that were against their own, their families', their communities' economic interests. They destroyed homes that their own communities' refugees could have lived in. I don't think we can presume that most destruction was caused by recycling. Maybe most damage - lost doors, windows, tables, chairs, etc. - was caused by recycling, but not most destruction.

Still, sometimes it is difficult and possibly impossible to see whether somewhere was looted or whether it was attacked. Sometimes both things happened. Sometimes one place in the village was attacked, another place looted. Sometimes one place was destroyed and another decayed, but they look exactly the same now.

[Tim Drayton]

It's still unclear whether the 'damage' and the 'damage from looting' were the same. Presumably, some of the buildings were damaged in the kinds of attacks that (partially or totally) destroyed the others.

I’ll tell you something you may not be aware of…

In those days those big black beams (“volitsia” we called them) used to make ceilings which formed the basis of the rooftops, were pretty expensive to buy so pinching those would’ve been a priority for looters and that would also explain why some abandoned houses ended up without a rooftop and not so much wear & tear!

my father's ancestral home was picked clean (presumably by neighbours); i found it disgusting, but now you may have given me an explanation...

anyway considering the pieces of shit on both sides there is no denying that this stuff happens given any excuse...when the households are "empty" for a while...

My parents lived in a small village in Limassol province for well over a decade. They always used to chuckle if you spoke about how crime-free Cyprus is, because they told me that petty pilfering was virtually a way of life in that village. People would regularly help themselves to things they needed from the garden or shed, and usually bring them back when they had finished with them. Sometimes these things would disappear for good.

Apparently, the situation was much worse with outhouses and smallholdings outside the village. My mother was on speaking terms with a fellow from town who set up a small henhouse close to my parents' house. This henhouse was unattended most of the time, and almost every time the owner visited something had been stolen. He finally had to get some large dogs and leave these to run loose around the building to keep thieves away. I don't know how typical this is of Cyprus as a whole, but I go for long walks in the countryside and know that almost every time you pass a remote smallholding, some very fierce looking dogs run out and bark at you from behind the wire fence as you pass.

Is it not plausible that in many cases deserted Turkish Cypriot villages suffered a similar fate? Over the years, people in nearby villages needed a door/window frame/bricks etc. and thought to themselves, "Let's see if we can find what we need in that deserted village. It won't hurt anybody. They are not going to return are they?" This is theft, and cannot be condoned, but this is also very different from a concerted and organised campaign to destroy these villages.

Why are we stuck with this paradigm that dictates

EITHER

you agree that hundresds of Turkish Cypriot villages were destroyed,

OR

you deny that anything bad ever happened to the Turkish Cypriots?

The truth very clearly, to my mind, lies between these two poles. If the claim that "hundreds of villages were destroyed" is untrue, then it can only serve to fan the flames of hatred and does not contribute to the process of peace and reconciliation on the island. Truth and reconciliation have to go hand in hand.

My humble opinion.

[BirKibrisli]

It's still unclear whether the 'damage' and the 'damage from looting' were the same. Presumably, some of the buildings were damaged in the kinds of attacks that (partially or totally) destroyed the others.

I’ll tell you something you may not be aware of…

In those days those big black beams (“volitsia” we called them) used to make ceilings which formed the basis of the rooftops, were pretty expensive to buy so pinching those would’ve been a priority for looters and that would also explain why some abandoned houses ended up without a rooftop and not so much wear & tear!

my father's ancestral home was picked clean (presumably by neighbours); i found it disgusting, but now you may have given me an explanation...

anyway considering the pieces of shit on both sides there is no denying that this stuff happens given any excuse...when the households are "empty" for a while...

My parents lived in a small village in Limassol province for well over a decade. They always used to chuckle if you spoke about how crime-free Cyprus is, because they told me that petty pilfering was virtually a way of life in that village. People would regularly help themselves to things they needed from the garden or shed, and usually bring them back when they had finished with them. Sometimes these things would disappear for good.

Apparently, the situation was much worse with outhouses and smallholdings outside the village. My mother was on speaking terms with a fellow from town who set up a small henhouse close to my parents' house. This henhouse was unattended most of the time, and almost every time the owner visited something had been stolen. He finally had to get some large dogs and leave these to run loose around the building to keep thieves away. I don't know how typical this is of Cyprus as a whole, but I go for long walks in the countryside and know that almost every time you pass a remote smallholding, some very fierce looking dogs run out and bark at you from behind the wire fence as you pass.

Is it not plausible that in many cases deserted Turkish Cypriot villages suffered a similar fate? Over the years, people in nearby villages needed a door/window frame/bricks etc. and thought to themselves, "Let's see if we can find what we need in that deserted village. It won't hurt anybody. They are not going to return are they?" This is theft, and cannot be condoned, but this is also very different from a concerted and organised campaign to destroy these villages.

Why are we stuck with this paradigm that dictates

EITHER

you agree that hundresds of Turkish Cypriot villages were destroyed,

OR

you deny that anything bad ever happened to the Turkish Cypriots?

The truth very clearly, to my mind, lies between these two poles. If the claim that "hundreds of villages were destroyed" is untrue, then it can only serve to fan the flames of hatred and does not contribute to the process of peace and reconciliation on the island. Truth and reconciliation have to go hand in hand.

My humble opinion.

Well said,Tim...Truth and reconciliation has to go hand in hand...
I know of four TC villages that lie in ruins in Paphos...My own,Istinjo,and the surrounding villages of Melandra,Sarama and Zaharga....My grandfather had a relatively new house he built for guests next to his own...His own house had completely disappeared,and the visitors house just had the walls of one room standing....There is no way these two houses would ahve turn to dust from simple neglect...They were obviously looted and stripped,as there was no sign of any furniture or roof beams or door or windows....Now,people from the surrounding GC villages,or actual refugees from the North might have decided to help themselves,given that they had lost everything...It is understandable...What is not acceptable is the total denial that any maltreatment was involved...That is insult to one's intelligence and sense of propriety...Truth has to come out,on both sides,if any reconciliation is to be achieved...

[samarkeolog]

Is it not plausible that in many cases deserted Turkish Cypriot villages suffered a similar fate? Over the years, people in nearby villages needed a door/window frame/bricks etc. and thought to themselves, "Let's see if we can find what we need in that deserted village. It won't hurt anybody. They are not going to return are they?" This is theft, and cannot be condoned, but this is also very different from a concerted and organised campaign to destroy these villages.

It is plausible - it is certain - that there was spontaneous, individual theft. But there was also organised, group destruction.

That organised destruction could probably be split into two main groups: stuff done by isolated nationalist extremist groups within communities, probably limited to the destruction of the other communities' homes to prevent their return (like Maroni); and stuff done by state or parastate organisations, probably including the destruction of whole villages (like Goshi). (Then there would be all of the other groups, like destruction by Turkish Cypriots to prevent Turkish settlement.)

I think one of the underlying problems is the lack of concrete information, which creates open questions where each side is insulted by the interpretation they feel is most critical of them (even though it should be limited to criticism of the nationalist extremists and "their" community should want to criticise them, too). It also enables mistakes to become rumours. Thus, the statement that "most of the 103 villages abandoned by Turkish Cypriots were burned" becomes "the 103 villages abandoned by Turkish Cypriots were burned" becomes "the 130..." and so on.

Another, sadly, is a refusal to accept the tragic realities of the Cyprus Problem, where instead of recognising other Cypriot communities as fellow victims, people feel that they are the only or primary victims and feel that the others are trying to find advantage or escape punishment by claiming to be victims (even though, again, it should be the nationalist extremists whom are punished, not "their" community, which they terrorised as well as the others). That just makes each side angrier and more defensive of the (uncertain and possibly incorrect) claims, because they assume that the other side's questioning is an attempt to find advantage or escape punishment...

If the claim that "hundreds of villages were destroyed" is untrue, then it can only serve to fan the flames of hatred and does not contribute to the process of peace and reconciliation on the island. Truth and reconciliation have to go hand in hand.

Again, I agree; but the obsession with the untruth of surreal Turkish propaganda without recognition of the true suffering of the Turkish Cypriot community does not contribute to the process of peace and reconciliation either. Sadly, generally, there isn't much criticism by each community of its own administration's/nationalist extremists' propaganda.

[Tim Drayton]

Sadly, generally, there isn't much criticism by each community of its own administration's/nationalist extremists' propaganda.

Generally speaking, yes, but the following recent book is one definite exception. It contains a lot of unsubstantiated allegations, but the author (whose regular column appears in Afrika) totally rejects the conventional view of the past epoused by Turkish Cypriot partitionists.

ISBN : 978-9963-9580-0-9

[zan]

It's still unclear whether the 'damage' and the 'damage from looting' were the same. Presumably, some of the buildings were damaged in the kinds of attacks that (partially or totally) destroyed the others.

I’ll tell you something you may not be aware of…

In those days those big black beams (“volitsia” we called them) used to make ceilings which formed the basis of the rooftops, were pretty expensive to buy so pinching those would’ve been a priority for looters and that would also explain why some abandoned houses ended up without a rooftop and not so much wear & tear!

my father's ancestral home was picked clean (presumably by neighbours); i found it disgusting, but now you may have given me an explanation...

anyway considering the pieces of shit on both sides there is no denying that this stuff happens given any excuse...when the households are "empty" for a while...

My parents lived in a small village in Limassol province for well over a decade. They always used to chuckle if you spoke about how crime-free Cyprus is, because they told me that petty pilfering was virtually a way of life in that village. People would regularly help themselves to things they needed from the garden or shed, and usually bring them back when they had finished with them. Sometimes these things would disappear for good.

Apparently, the situation was much worse with outhouses and smallholdings outside the village. My mother was on speaking terms with a fellow from town who set up a small henhouse close to my parents' house. This henhouse was unattended most of the time, and almost every time the owner visited something had been stolen. He finally had to get some large dogs and leave these to run loose around the building to keep thieves away. I don't know how typical this is of Cyprus as a whole, but I go for long walks in the countryside and know that almost every time you pass a remote smallholding, some very fierce looking dogs run out and bark at you from behind the wire fence as you pass.

Is it not plausible that in many cases deserted Turkish Cypriot villages suffered a similar fate? Over the years, people in nearby villages needed a door/window frame/bricks etc. and thought to themselves, "Let's see if we can find what we need in that deserted village. It won't hurt anybody. They are not going to return are they?" This is theft, and cannot be condoned, but this is also very different from a concerted and organised campaign to destroy these villages.

Why are we stuck with this paradigm that dictates

EITHER

you agree that hundresds of Turkish Cypriot villages were destroyed,

OR

you deny that anything bad ever happened to the Turkish Cypriots?

The truth very clearly, to my mind, lies between these two poles. If the claim that "hundreds of villages were destroyed" is untrue, then it can only serve to fan the flames of hatred and does not contribute to the process of peace and reconciliation on the island. Truth and reconciliation have to go hand in hand.

My humble opinion.

We have a UN report to go by that has been posted several times....It lists the damage that was done at the time.....Perhaps those that used it should have said that homes in hundreds of villages were destroyed but the fact remains they were. Then take the fact that it would have been TC homes that were deserted then you can make up your own minds. Trying to explain the whole lot by confusing looting with the hope that these homes were damaged so the TCs could not return and that that was not the intention and the game plan of EOKA is just irresponsible and will fuel the hate even more. You think you are doing good or are in the mindset of the GC admin to damage limitation.......Where were you Tim when the lies that NO TC homes were damaged was being banded about......You guys all seem to think you are in the middle (Sensible) ground but swing so far to the right hat it makes no difference....Scared of being called a traitor like Tony Angastiniotis??? Lets have more truths from your side and then we will not feel so threatened as to hang on to every story we hear. We have had lies about the number of missing and the number killed by the coupists blamed on the Turks and other lies.......Are you going to go after the lies of the "RoC" as diligently as you are going after this story so as to calm the flames of hate.....Lets hope so...You will be in a very small club if you do....Good luck.

[halil]

Lets to hear another version of the left TC's Villages in 1963 ..........

TURKISH CYPRIOT ATTEMPTS TO RETURN TO THEIR VILLAGES


destruction of Turkish Cypriot property, recorded by the UN in 1964, went
on throughout the decade. Turkish Cypriot homes were looted and destroyed, their
lands laid waste or used by Greek Cypriots without any payment and their flocks,
agricultural implements, tractors, lorries and cars taken over ......

8 December 1967, the UN Secretary-General
reported that :
“The refusal of the Greek Cypriot authorities to allow the Turkish
Cypriot refugees to return to their homes in conditions of safety,
effectively frustrated persistent Turkish efforts to rehabilitate them.
They also obstructed attempts to improve their living conditions.”
One of the most important developments which occurred in January 1969 and to
which, according to Mr Glafcos Clerides,
“unfortunately, the Greek Cypriot side responded too cautiously (!)
to the request by the Turkish Cypriot leadership that the Turkish
Cypriots, who had left their villages should be allowed and assisted toreturn to them.”

He had been informed by Mr Rauf Denktaş, as the President of the Turkish
Communal Chamber, that the Turkish Cypriot side intended to take steps to
encourage the return to their villages of all the Turkish Cypriot refugees from twenty
villages around the island.

Mr Denktaş had also told him that :
“This action we hope, if successful, will be conducive to the return of
all remaining refugees to their villages in a short time. Much, of
course, will depend on the reception these people will receive from
the Greek inhabitants of the area to which they will be returning. We
also hope that this action will dispel, from some Greek quarters, the
mistaken belief that the Turkish side is concentrating its population in
certain areas with a view to partitioning the island!
I shall be grateful to know whether without prejudice to the final
settlement of any question of compensation etc., your side is ready
and willing to render assistance to these villages or villagers in thefof (i) allocating to us immediately agreed sums of money for re-building
or repairing all the houses, schools, mosques etc., which have been
destroyed in these villages;
(ii) providing us with funds for destroyed or stolen movables of these
villages with a view to enabling them to settle in their houses without
delay (furniture, clothing, household utensils etc.);
(iii) rehabilitation assistance i.e. long term credit facilities at
minimum rates of interest and financial help through cooperatives for
acquiring seeds, fertilizers, flocks etc.;
(iv) a mixed committee of experts may visit these villages with a view
to ascertaining what is needed.
Time factor is important as we have to decide for the final
rehabilitation of these people as early as possible.”
The UN had prepared a plan for the return of Turkish Cypriot refugees to theirformer
villages through a gradual, steady process of resettlement and re-adaptation. It
made clear that an essential factor for the success of the resettlement plan was
housing, which included not only the repair of all buildings but the erection of new
ones (schools, mosques, recreation centres, etc.). It suggested that Turkish Cypriot
refugees could be granted bank loans, according to the size of the family, for living
essentials (furniture, working implements, working capital, etc.), and that a fund for
their rehabilitation could be established. The UN plan finally said that :
“The present plan aims at two important objectives: first, to integrate
the resettled Turkish Cypriots into the economy of the island as a
whole and, second, to attempt to re-establish between the two ethnic
groups a level of trust and mutual confidence, which unfortunately
does not yet exist, for close and loyaI co-operation between the two
segments of the island’s population.”
According to Mr Clerides:
“The Greek Cypriot side at first took the position that the Turkish
Cypriots could not return to certain sensitive areas such as Neapolis
and Omorphita. With regard to other areas it stated that it would
welcome the return of the Turkish Cypriots to their homes, but took
no further action, despite the fact the UN had prepared a plan for the
resettlement of the Turkish Cypriots in their homes.
Makarios accepted the views of the hawks. i.e. that such a
development was premature, and that it would ease the economic
problem the Turkish side was facing. I strongly disagreed with that
view. I believed that the Greek Cypriot side had committed an
enormous error which would adversely affect future developments.
For the first time since 1963, an opportunity was offered by the
Turkish side to have the Turks return to their villages in areas under
the control of the (Greek Cypriot) government… In other words we
deliberately dragged our feet and eventually shelved a process which
would have led to the dispersal of Turkish Cypriots from an artificially


(!) created concentration in the north of the island to their native
villages throughout Cyprus.
The paradox was that, although we were rejecting groupings of
Turkish villages for the purposes of local government, even if they
had no geographical cohesion, out of fear that Turkish areas may thus
be created, when they were offering to deconcentrate from the North
and resettle in their villages, we did not respond eagerly and in a
positive manner.” (Glafcos Clerides, Cyprus: My Deposition)
Mr Clerides, while lamenting on the fanaticism of the “hawks” in the Greek Cypriot
camp, carefully evades his own responsibility during those dark years. But one has to
recall that it was Mr Clerides himself who said in July 1965:
“We the Greek Cypriots are in full control of the government. All the
ministers are Greeks. Our government is the one recognized
internationally – why should we bring the Turks back in? The Turks
control only three percent of the land. They have no rich resources
and they are living through difficult times from an economic point of
view. They will ultimately have to accept our point of view – or go.”

[samarkeolog]

Here's what prompted me to write you about the beams...

Actually, Agios Sozomenos/Arpalik is a good example of how well mudbrick can survive without repair. All of the roofs have gone, but a lot of the walls are still standing, some of them two storeys high, some of them still with plaster on.

But my point was that, if (some of) Agios Sozomenos's mudbrick buildings are still standing, why aren't other villages' mudbrick buildings? (And why are some of Agios Sozomenos's buildings standing, and others half-disappeared, and others completely gone?)

Naturally, there will always be some differences, but if Agios Sozomenos's abandoned buildings have decayed but are still standing, so other villages' abandoned buildings would have decayed but should still be standing.

So, it suggests that something unnatural happened to the buildings that disappeared. (Freak natural events, like earthquakes, mudslides, etc., will have damaged or destroyed some places, but not all places.)

Recycling might explain the loss of doors and windows and roofs - and even stone walls - but not mudbrick walls. If weather didn't destroy Agios Sozomenos's mudbrick walls, it didn't destroy other villages' mudbrick walls.

It suggests that, when there is nothing left of a mudbrick building (not even decaying walls), someone deliberately destroyed them. Similarly, people might recycle stone from abandoned buildings, but they would not recycle all of the stone from a whole neighbourhood, or a whole village. When there is nothing left, something more than recycling happened.

I went to some of the villages in Paphos District, where Greek Cypriot environmentalists were rebuilding some of the houses. They told me that other people had taken and recycled some of the stones from the houses they were rebuilding. They explained that, often, only the best stones were taken, but, because they were the ones in the corners of the buildings, eventually, the walls would fall down. (Goats damage low stone walls, too.) But the walls were still half-a-metre, or a metre, or two metres tall, and you could still see the buildings.

The smashed buildings and piles of stone in Kios (Istinjo(?)), Mansoura, Sarama and Zacharia are not the remains of recycled buildings. They are the remains of destroyed buildings.