Keywords

1 Introduction

Increased interest for heritage nowadays effects with varieties of perceptions covering different domains as a result of processes of positive cultural contaminations with the globalized phenomena. Related profoundly with the aspects of identity (national identity), heritage and culture are taking the main role to determine the mainstreams of any culturally mediated transformations in the societies today [2] (p. 74). Critical discourses very often point to heritage as a promising issue to varieties of cultures and their attributes today, but at the same time, it is perceived as an unstable and submissive category to influences from outside were not reliable and unable to give back the promised results by default. Mainly because of the threat that over-emphasized heritage can oppose to objective cultural realities, very often instead of having a feeling of deeply rooted belonging, heritage is criticized for creating virtual realities, instant results, attractive products almost equal to any market-based values [3].

Nowadays, distinctions of Cyprus heritage are opened to be discussed in different contexts. Being aware of the potentials of heritage if focused on common objectives of social and economic well-being, future moves can affect the perceptions of cultural differences and how the actual realities are intertwined with the Cyprus conflict [4]. Relating it to Cyprus as an inevitable point of further development, another positive concern is raised about “heritage as the space in which futures are assembled” [5]. This is occupying our intentions not only because the extended field of heritage recognizes how heritage is more about involvement of practices that designs the future instead of being attached to the past; Moreover, it gives another perspective about possible relations and conditions in which tangible and intangible traces of the past are going to create new reality with an outcome to constitute specific resource “in and for the future” [5]. It can be expected, that the threat of experiencing Cyprus heritage as over-attached to the past or over-sensitive to localizations of different kinds, can be avoided by acceptance of new standpoint: translating heritage with a meaning of conversation about the values of the past, into activism where heritage is re-conceptualized so to take responsibility for future.

Contemporary conditions show how it can be followed that both cultural and natural heritage are addressed with attention as part of global efforts to put a focus on them in the creation of any strategy related to future of community, society or culture. The ongoing tendencies show even establishment of new collaborative research programs focused on assembling alternative futures for heritage; it is becoming obvious that the field and domains of heritage practices are expanded in this search for modalities of caring for the future. [6, 2] So far, the broader context and meaning of heritage is probably starting to dissolve or to transform its social and complex ingredients that create concepts of culture in the second decade of 21st century. There was a serious shift in understanding the identity and formation of nation-states ethics, especially in the last decades behind. Usage of heritage in that process of maturing became of immense meaning and importance. Exactly that feature of heritage will bring this term to the front line of identity defense, or in many other cases, it will contribute to the profiling of national identity mainstreams. Past and history through this prism are getting new social and cultural positions: “Modern nation‐states use images of a chosen past to construct a national identity” [7].

At the other side, multiple challenges of various sources are changing the perceptions of heritage in contemporary cultures, mostly because of the shift in already achieved consensuses being unsustainable. In this transformative process, together with the evident progress in recognition, evaluation, and usage of tangible cultural heritage, goes a process of definitive loss of many aspects of the intangible, affecting the perceptions and experiences of the tangible heritage and participating in changing the definitions of cultural heritage identities and existence. Moreover, in the attempts to reorient and re-conceptualize heritage today, some researchers are willing to shift from the idea of the universal and inherent value of the heritage towards heritage as a collaborative, dialogical and interactive process. Through that understanding of relationships with heritage, it is becoming possible to open further domains and relationships of heritage, sustainability, resilience [6]. Enhancing the cultural dimensions of sustainable development further on, will be targeted in the definition of “cultural territorial systems” where the specific place-based approach is emphasizing the coexistence of efficiency and equity dimensions in development policy. Through the focus on minor historic centers and their natural and rural landscapes, heritage identity and cultural perspective are projected as a future of places and local populations [8]. Targeting the local sustainable development with a cultural perspective, heritage identity (together with natural resources) becomes significant ingredient and potential for economic development.

So, sensitive approach towards heritage issues in Cyprus has to be applied as multilayer installation. In this sense, the case of Cyprus deserves exceptional attention since its division produced varieties of side-effects, reflecting its reality in forms of existence that are unique by many different points. Even before historical events in Europe (and in broader context) in early 1990s that were marked with the enormous inner energy and the urge for instant change, division of Cyprus in 1974 precedes these events, taking its own mainstream (keeping it isolated and out of the main shifts till the recent serious political moves taken in a way to possibly re-unify the Island). In the light of such an approach, Cultural Heritage Technical Committee in Cyprus is established to respond to the newly developed mainstreams, supported with the belief that by recognizing intrinsic values especially in the architecture monuments recognized as important symbols for both communities it will be emphasized as a need and primary responsibility. In that sense protection of the endangered heritage of the island (considering its integral territory) points especially to its common recognition as “endangered”. Solving these issues has meant not only to both communities but for humanity too [9].

2 The Cultural Heritage of Cyprus

With a proper historical distance from the events that left evident scars in the tissue of cultural heritage on both sides of Cyprus, it is possible to give another light to the heritage realities by fading partially the previous concerns and dilemmas. Especially after 2003 and opening the checkpoints that brought back many people to their familiar spaces of memory, places of cultural or religious significance and importance, some aspects of heritage started to be developed more intensively in different directions [4]. Both political interests on one side and experts opinions on the other, will bring together the significant efforts of both communities confronted with the challenge of everyday life management. Overlapping the differences in understanding, interpreting and presenting cultural heritage concerns is showing wide differences and close similarities at the same time. All of it seems enough to create a questionable atmosphere where both sides are trying to cope with the challenges so to establish and accept the new global realities of the world they live in.

After it became possible to travel to both sides and visit spiritually significant places and buildings, the neglected, damaged heritage (being a kind of spiritual bond for both communities) became a more sensitive trigger for a series of public reactions. Well known by the generations before the conflict, and transmitted to the new generations in a different global spirit of cultural understanding, heritage started to give new impulse especially in the treatment and care of religious buildings. This change in the general attitudes and policies is clarifying the reality of heritage sites and especially religious buildings associated and belonging to the “other”, having consequences that will reveal some public and official anxieties [4]. Being emphasized mainly with different political agendas, there is an evident and constant pressure on both communities that additionally creates a specific platform on the struggle over heritage (and its identity) since the division of the island. Cultural matrix and changed social context of the territories after 1974 will directly affect the public (common) perception of heritage. In that sense, heritage becomes recognized as “divided” not by being a logical historical consequence or as territorial re-distribution but as real condition targeted by the impact of the ongoing political, cultural and social developments. At the other side of the ongoing processes of preservation and maintenance of the culturally significant historical buildings, there is a threat of this process being covered with multiculturalism and politics of tolerance presented to public (internationally and domestic) but not being efficient regarding some tendencies to bring back and to restore the function as well as the form of the buildings [4].

Which are the modalities of these restorations and how it can be understood in more complex social and cultural conditions today is difficult to be predicted. Following the fact of rapid change of the cities, landscapes and vernacular environments in Cyprus under influence of global trends, there is an evident shrink of the content of these items being recognized as specific “cultural containers” related to the cultural memory and identity formation. By using the term “container quality of the city” and underlying the necessity of witnessing its deterioration, this translation can be followed as a kind of alarm pointing to the evident rapid loss of authentic values [7]. We are recognizing the same concern about evident policies that are limiting the concept of heritage in a way of “monumentalization” of the buildings representing the past but far from being recognized as integrated with the everyday life and living culture. So it is becoming possible to recognize how the values of the cultural heritage need to be institutionalized, changed and culturally translated under such conditions and difficulties. Concern about possible “monumentalization by restoration” of some historical buildings, relates us to many historical assumptions of different kinds (used widely in the political rhetoric mainly). By confronting the consequences of the division with the heritage identity formation, both communities will be brought to the frontier where common cultural investment in the restoration of some particular sites of cultural significance becomes a real showcase of reconciliation efforts at many different levels [4]. Being confronted with the reality of the existence of the cultural heritage destructions that happened as a logical consequence of the turbulent history gives directions for possible solutions and future projects.

However, after decades of inevitable common existence with a lot of efforts invested in between, it seems that finally, communities have a role in the development of initiatives that involve their heritage. This is how it becomes of great importance to have a cultural heritage in the agenda that supports their involvement aside from the possibilities of direct political influence. [5] But still, in some cases it is even impossible to match and to balance differences in perceptions of heritage realities having a negative understanding of some localized problems seen from distance.

Because of those almost virtual cultural distances, even precise academic discourses of cultural heritage discussions contain a threat of not being understood and perceived under these circumstances. This introduces discomfort and sometimes misunderstanding of the perceived and analyzed conditions in specific cultural environments: instead of being integrated through commonly applied theories, methodology and legislation, cultural heritage is getting local, isolated and difficult to compare features. There are many examples showing the difficulties of the ongoing political situations confronted with the existing (accepted) international legislation that creates serious difficulties in the attempts to preserve cultural heritage in contested lands [4, 5, 10, 11]. For the professionals on both sides appears a new challenge: to work not only on recognition and evaluation of historic sites and buildings from different periods, but on the sensitive and intangible layers of heritage-related with the social and spiritual dimension of them and the specific influence they had in the collective memory formation. In most of the cases, such an approach can solve the possible lack of empathy for the spiritual values of some relevant historical buildings, although it can be agreed about the high degree of professionalism in heritage management and conservation on both sides since 1974 [11]. The level of commitment in this domain can be confirmed by following the project developments of already mentioned institutions and committees [1, 9, 12,13,14].

3 Theoretical Discourses—Divided Heritage

Questioning cultural heritage in Cyprus in varieties of theoretical aspects is not new. Different studies, materials, comments, and publications of different kinds are going to be presented to the public following the reactions of both sides to their “own” cultural heritage. In some of them, examinations of the conflicts and politics of heritage within communities and across ethnic divided Cyprus will be done by considering some implications of project activities upon different layers of cultural heritage (religious, antiquarian and modern) [4]. Further on, we are confronted with the threats to cultural heritage in the Cyprus conflict encompassing many aspects of the destruction of cultural properties and considering possible damages done to cultural heritage during and after the conflict. These studies are giving some aspects of political violence even analyzing it from the point of Islamic cultural heritage vs. Christian cultural heritage both on North and South part of Cyprus, including even vernacular architecture in its focus [15].

Analyzing problems of archeological sites as an important factor of cultural heritage identity, other studies are showing and explaining the so-called “social geography of difference” having it explained as a contested cultural reality of Cyprus. At the same time, using the same rhetoric it will be emphasized how in contemporary and ongoing political processes the practice of archeology is becoming redefined as political expression and cultural representation [16]. Being influenced by the current sociopolitical context, this part of the cultural heritage agenda is considered as constantly being vulnerable to the mainstream of international or domestic policies. Specific dichotomy is witnessed in interpretations of the facts about cultural heritage being endangered as a result of the mainstreams of political agendas: some will accuse of the “loss of civilization” by destruction of cultural heritage in occupied Cyprus [17]; still others will comment about common heritage and reconciliation, recognizing architecture, built heritage and specific buildings as representing common heritage. Reconciliation, restoring the past, avoiding ignorance and healing a division of four decades is recognized as the highest standard of benefit for both communities [18].

This enormous production of different attitudes supported by recent political mainstreams and interpretations seems almost never-ending: recognizing threats in recent urban developments affecting archeological sites and endangering this sensitive part of cultural heritage, asking for long-term decisions that will affect the future of archeological remains [19]. Others will continue the criticism about the potential looting of cultural heritage in “occupied Cyprus” by recognizing illegal excavations in different districts [20] or commenting about the potentials of some endangered sites. These observations will bring in front suggestions and proposals for positive future impacts, especially because some signs in that direction are already on the way under the umbrella of Europa Nostra, a pan-European federation for cultural heritage [21, 22] and later the European Union’s Partnership for the Future Program implemented by the United Nations Development Program [9, 11, 12]. As a positive sign it can be stated that social and economic wellbeing is becoming the main common objectives based on co-operation between both communities all related to cultural heritage with common significance.

As a consequence of the political and territorial division of Cyprus, the sum of “heritage” is divided: intangible facilitated by migrations of people, tangible and immovable by being neglected in artificially created environments and not being attached to it logically. Since the intangible cultural heritage presents a fundamental element of the identities of the ones who create them, it refers to a further examination of the relevant implications in terms of human rights [23, 24]. Relations between cultural heritage and human rights present another field of specific and profound examinations exploring especially the impact of globalization on cultural heritage. This marks Cyprus on the list of such explorations not only because of the richness of the heritage: a witnessed struggle of the communities to survive their cultural identity and their way of life as part of their heritage is evident resistance against negative processes of cultural globalization. So far, it is evident that the richness and uniqueness of this heritage raise awareness and defines communities and societies, but at the same time, it is a potential cause of conflict [23]. That’s why more profound touch into this matter (cultural heritage and human rights), will bring in front relations of the political aspects of heritage preservation and management relating it to human rights. Since the heritage is necessary for the preservation of the cultural identity, any progress towards a further display of heritage monuments can be on the way to balance minorities and majority. As a consequence, this is questioning the right of free expression (on one side) and further preservation of cultural heritage (on the other), together with the possibility of articulating and protecting that right [23]. However, with the scope of this research, the issue of heritage and human rights will not be examined in detail, although as part of this methodology, some of the relevant and shared questions about: possibilities of heritage to divide or unite; alternatives of control, defining and benefiting from heritage etc. will be opened and discussed in other contexts.

One of the important theoretical discourses considering heritage that is based on the fear and danger about maintenance and transmission of heritage in the future is especially targeting religious heritage and separate monuments, being aware the unpredictable mobilization of heritage for possible unknown purposes [25] (p. 7). As already mentioned in the text, monuments detached from their localized and spiritual existence are quite unstable in their real cultural impact to the communities; moreover, it is even more vulnerable by being dependent on varieties of political moves (local and international) distancing the real heritage problems to the unsafe ground.

Especially with Cyprus, after the last circle of political negotiations being postponed to undefined term, it is becoming obvious that even world is divided regarding the answers to be given to various global challenges within the separate heritages. In that sense, a division is not possibly recognized at the level of territories, people and identities only; it is referring also to the heritage being divided or detached by force from its origins. Being divided from its native environment, heritage becomes representative of negative rather than positive trends and mainstreams, with a risk to be managed in a utilitarian way [25] (p. 7).

Regarding this shift in understanding monuments, in the general discussion about the uses of heritage, for example, some interesting discourses about the period after the dissolution of communist countries in Europe will be opened referring to the general rejection and anxiety for the monuments as they were marking territories [25] (p. 7). With the Cyprus case, can this be indicating some of the unwanted consequences of the so far promoted use and understanding of the heritage emphasizing buildings and monuments rather than cultural heritage in general (without any attempt of direct analogy)? More specifically, in the case of Cyprus, it is becoming interesting to follow: how the logical shift from architectural to cultural (heritage) was successfully done worldwide, still in Cyprus case, what we can observe is that conservation is still about (separate) monuments and still trapped in architectural heritage conservation, having cultural heritage conservation without strong and influencing position for the society. Are these projects creating emergencies for the heritage of unique nature and character by reversing the process: instead of conservation dealing with the complexity of cultural heritage, it might be perceived as conservation of separate monuments, without expected serious impact on re-defining the cultural matrix of acceptance of this heritage and culturally balancing both communities? Conservation projects and accompanying developments are becoming new, undefined and difficult category/typology/of risk. Evaluation and management of these risks are probably new issues that need special care and attention.

4 Challenges of Identity (Memory and Heritage Identity)

As it can be perceived from the complexity of on-going processes in the domain of cultural transformations influenced by the current political mainstreams in Cyprus, we are introducing specific challenges that profile our perspectives on identity, culture, memory, heritage identity, cultural identity. Through identity as part of cultural heritage meanings and importance and the complex set of phenomena associated with, we are eligible to open discussion about culture and contemporary contexts within. Identity is referring to collective memories, nourished by the communities on both sides as contemplative, emotional input into contemporary cultural settings. A great part of newly defined emergencies in the domain of cultural heritage lies exactly in this part of identity understanding. This is even more complicated nowadays in the light of the status-quo political situation of Cyprus. Having in mind the historical necessities emerging from the actual situations in the newest history of Cyprus, it can be questioned about the possibility how to create more tangible feeling about the new landscapes and environments (including all aspects of heritage) and which are the possible mechanisms of making them new social interaction points for the new communities? Is it possible to keep the meaning of them to the level of personal identification and creation of new identities? Many different disciplines are going to profile the meaning of the term of identity and its sense, mainly because this abstract phenomenon is capable of change within the scope of any separate research and according to the changing parameters through time [26].

Introducing heritage in realization and conduction of various and recent socio-cultural developments is challenging us with a complex set of theoretical and practical mainstreams. Accordingly, in the frame of this research, some “emergencies” will appear as logical consequences of the gradual transformation and understanding of identity applied in various manners depending on the required contextual explanations. Referring to the cultural identity (identities) makes it feasible to easily recognize values of cultural traditions, contributing to better understanding of those aspects of the heritage which can bring improvement of lifestyles in different cultural environments [2] (p. 75–77). Thus, the case of Cyprus can be seen as an exceptionally interesting phenomenon, but observation of the profile of the cultural identity applied upon the integral territory of Cyprus can be seen as an extremely important and sensitive category. Referring to possible changes in the attitudes towards heritage, this also refers to the urgent necessity to understand the real dimensions and to determine the adequate cultural values within all aspects of its material and spiritual existence in the course of their turbulent historic development.

We can also argue that as a sequence in the understanding globalized world, conservation of identity appears as a special key for accepting the sum and varieties of localized values especially its historical, physical, socio-cultural and many other characteristics [26]. Some authors will question identity together with a place, landscape and heritage by arguing the possibilities of approaching to the phenomenon of identity; it is referring to varieties of discourses such as recognizing differences, place-making, reacting to traditions and representations [27] (p. 8). However, since these discourses belong to the field of social theory (social identity) it is becoming evident how new horizons are opened towards an understanding of landscape, place, and heritage, where heritage is getting in special relation to identity. Heritage identity, as it was mentioned before, is proving to have real potential for further economic development firmly rooted in places and local populations [8].

In this specific follow-up, when the politics of identity leads to petrified and non-negotiable issues, then culture, identity, and past are becoming non-negotiable leading to different divisions and formed boundaries, instead of unifying with co-existence. In that sense, people, things, places, buildings are being “monumentalized” as active creators of identity.

In other analysis, a phenomenon of “memory” will be perceived as extremely important and dangerous at the same time. But memory is related to specified cultural environments, where architecture (monuments) represents just one side of the coin; in the cases when the environment and even territories are changed (divided, contested), monuments lose their charming seduction already witnessed in part of their place-time existence. Exactly at this point, we are concerned about already mentioned shift from cultural to architectural, to “monuments”. Identification at the level of cultural recognition is always difficult in confronted situations and complex historical transmissions giving an outline to our problem of defining emergencies in the light of the active ongoing processes. In contemporary conditions of globalized culture transmission of values, new generations are witnessing the past as a complex reflection of “time” and “place”; since the monuments are presenting the past, they are transmitting significant energy already mediated by several generations [28] (p. 75), [25] (p. 7).

5 Conclusions

The uniqueness in the approach towards divided heritage in Cyprus is related with important guidelines and dilemmas in a condition where common, utilized understanding of the values and identities of cultural heritage is grounded in a setting of the constant presence of the territorial and cultural division. The controversy appears with the listing of the monuments and hierarchy for interventions done by the Technical Committee: are they becoming interested in achieving harmony and balance between communities, rather than prioritizing the real heritage conservation demands? Is it possible that real hierarchy of needs for interventions are becoming intangible and not related to the objective condition of the heritage by fostering common and mutual understanding?

The decision of bringing monuments in the front line might be seen as a limited possibility in the given conditions, but in another way, it makes a distance from the more deep and profound definition of cultural heritage. In this sense, if insisted in the wrong direction, is it possible under (virtually) created circumstances to have the same expected “integrating” heritage in a different role: to divide, to mark, to determine? This is a possible risk and threat where conservation projects can produce “monuments” rather than “common spots for cultural identification”.

Following the given methodological mainstreams of the TCCH, especially after it was established in April 2008, we can perceive that the Committee goal was to provide a “mutually acceptable mechanism for the implementation of practical measures for the proper maintenance, preservation, physical protection and restoration (including research, study, and survey) of the immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus.” [1]. Further on, it is expected that fostering, cooperation and confidence building between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots will be provided under the umbrella of UNDP PFF as leading coordinator. Since the establishment of the TCCH in 2008, it is clarified that its mission is directed to the immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus [12].

The follow up of these events and establishment of the methodologies leads to the next source of our questioning: In the Phase 1 (Support to cultural heritage monuments of great importance for Cyprus) is emphasized that project aims at “contributing to the confidence-building process through the preservation of Cypriot cultural heritage and the implementation of emergency measures on a list of high importance monuments island wide according to the strategy of the Technical Committee on Cultural Heritage”. Later in this document, it is emphasized the usage of the Study on Cultural Heritage in Cyprus and its completion is a prerequisite for the further actions [12]. Purpose of this study is to give light to the condition and estimated costs of restoring the immovable cultural heritage of Cyprus in order to contribute to its protection and preservation [13]. Again, instead of the sum of values and components of cultural heritage by the scope of the term, only partial actions are underlined as important considering immovable cultural heritage, and following inconsistent list of monuments, built heritage, cultural heritage, restoration, conservation, preservation, physical protection etc.Footnote 1

So, opening new possibilities by leaving “open doors” for interpretations and giving legitimacy to the division as one of the alternatives, somehow shows that even in divided communities, things can be quite normal and acceptable making division durable. These notions are giving an appropriate framework to establish the genuine of the “emergencies” originality seen from inside. But being considered as an integral entity, cultural and natural heritage, including living culture of Cyprus, have to be evaluated for further developments throughout varieties of activities. In this process, it is of great importance to follow and create systematization and processing of relevant studies and projects (including ongoing and recent). Field research of different profile applied on the integral territory of the island can open different subjects of observation and inventory through an already established set of values. By bringing this data to the public, it is expected to become more effective in changing the attitude towards the heritage, in view of their activation through various activities. Profound re-direction of the mainstreams can probably participate in setting new directions for further developments, relying on a good and effective application of the entire know-how.

In this complex process of dealing with the layers of a divided heritage of Cyprus, intentional “balance” of the interests given by experts from both communities is surely good ground reflected through an affirmed term of “common heritage”. But, is it possible in such environment to arrange and apply such evaluation that will be based on well known, established methodologies and theories, so to prioritize really those heritage units that urgently need experts touch, attention, and action? At the same time, all of the conservation projects to be done with a lot of emphasis on professionality expertizes and high expectations about the possible feedback of the communities as a direct response of the whole of heritage in new conditions (after restoration and conservations are done). Special evaluation methodology needs to be established to measure this impact of projects on the real life. This urge is the point that refers to the new emergencies understanding. However, it is already witnessed how heritage objectively infiltrates people’s lives, becoming a language that expresses their appreciation of objects, places, and practices. Through critical and a creative engagement with the various fields of study, further approaches should involve in critical heritage studies for the future [6].