By: Thomas Davis, Professor of Archaeology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
“Here’s another little baby Queen Victoria has got,
Another little Colony, although she has got a lot.
Another little Island, very wet and very hot,
Whatever will she do with little Cyprus?”
“What shall we do with Cyprus?” E.V.Page, 1879 (Varnava 2009: 285).
The weakness of the Ottoman Empire in the nineteenth century attracted the covetous eyes of the Great Powers. Cyprus, as an ‘offshore’ possession, was particularly attractive in a time of enhanced naval rivalry. Britain acquired de facto rule over the island in 1878 from the Ottomans primarily to prevent Russia or France from absorbing it. Ostensibly taken to protect access to India (via Mesopotamia) Cyprus had no fundamental strategic raison d’etre in the Empire once Britain dominated Egypt after 1882.
But the acquisition of a “classical” colony sparked the interest of the British intelligentsia. In keeping with the prevailing social and academic milieu was the establishment of the Cyprus Exploration Fund and the involvement of the British Museum in numerous tomb excavations. Despite its geographical proximity to the Asian mainland, the interpretive framework for the archaeology of Cyprus centered on Greece, and classical archaeologists dominated research. Cyprus has had a museum since the late nineteenth century; a new structure was built in the Edwardian period that still houses the primary archaeological museum of the island. The appointment of British architect George Jeffery as Curator of Ancient Monuments in 1903 (a position he held until his death in 1935) laid the groundwork for management of the island’s archaeological resources.
Oddly, despite the involvement of the Ottoman and British Empires on opposing sides, World War I did not directly impact the island. The oft-discussed, but never realized, British landing in Alexandretta in Mediterranean Turkey would have used Cyprus as a base, a move designed to once again thwart Russian influence, and became impossible after the disastrous Gallipoli campaign. As one military memorandum in late 1917 summarized “we have made little use of Cyprus for military purposes.” Cyprus’s main contribution was logistical: the island supplied the British Army with provisions, donkeys for transport, and 13,000 volunteers to serve as mule drivers.
George Jeffery’s diaries provide an interesting insight into the impact (or lack thereof) of the war upon Cypriot archaeology. The war’s beginning is noted in a laconic entry for August 7: “Beginning of the Great War.” Throughout the war, Jeffery visits sites, churches, and deals with building construction. The bureaucracy of antiquities administration continued throughout; on Nov. 26, 1915, Kyrenia Castle was declared an ancient monument. Occasional references to the effect of the conflict appear amidst the minutiae of management. For example, he went to witness the arrival of wounded ANZAC soldiers after Gallipoli, and records on August 25, 1915 “Great exodus of young men to war.” The final mention of the war is on October 3, 1918: “news of the break up of the infernal war.”
The indirect impact of the war was profound. Two events, caused by the war, had repercussions for Cyprus which continue into the twenty-first century. On November 5, 1914, Jeffery records the administrative change that would lead to modern Cypriot Archaeology in the following words: “Annexation of Cyprus.” Britain had directly annexed the island, along with Egypt and Sudan.
The second event (or rather, nonevent) is recorded in this way on November 1, 1915: “During this week occurred the remarkable offer by the Brit Gov of the island of Cyprus to Greece and of its refusal by the Greek government.” The British government had offered Cyprus to Constantine I of Greece on the condition that Greece enter the war on the Allied side. Unwilling to make the commitment, Greece refused. Cyprus became a British crown colony in 1925.
The annexation of Cyprus by the British, contrasted with the recognition by Britain of a desire on the part of the Greek Cypriot population (80% of the island) to unite with the perceived homeland. This created irreconcilable tension that ultimately led during the 1950s to civil war between the Greek majority and Turkish minority, a protracted violent uprising against Britain, and Cypriot independence in 1960.
Direct Colonial rule placed Cyprus “on the map” for international travelers in the 1920s. Increased visibility of the island generated increased interest in its rich history and the government quickly grasped the potential tourism benefits. In turn, archaeological interest in the island increased. For the first two decades of rule the British maintained the Ottoman antiquities laws, adopting their own only in 1905. Later, a politically important Cypriot lobbied for change in the laws to allow for the export of archaeological material, with the intention thereby of encouraging international expeditions to come to the island and bring economic development in their wake.
After World War I, the British colonial government based its 1925 Antiquities Laws on the laws introduced by the British Mandatory Government of Palestine in October 1920. The archaeological permit process was much simpler than the old Turkish Firman system and the government retained the power to expropriate land for excavation. The law was strengthened further in 1935 and the Department of Antiquities was established.
The Swedish Cyprus Expedition exemplified the international response to the colonialist modifications of the more restrictive Ottoman policies. Although scores of crates of material were shipped off-island to Stockholm, the major archaeological contribution of Einar Gjerstad and his colleagues was to refine and codify the Cypriot ceramic sequence, an achievement that still today forms the basis of Cypriot ceramic chronology. Consequently, Cypriot pottery could now be used to provide a source for crucial cross-dating of sites in Palestine and Syria. This major contribution to Levantine archaeology can be seen as a direct result of the political changes introduced by World War I on Cyprus.
Thomas Davis is Professor of Archaeology and Biblical Backgrounds at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.
For Further Reading
2004. Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical
Archaeology, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
1979. A Political and Administrative History of Cyprus 1918-1926 with a survey of the Foundations of British Rule. Nicosia: Cyprus Research Center.
Gjerstad, E., Lindros, J., Sjokvist, E., and Westholm, A.
1934. The Swedish Cyprus Expedition, Vol. 1: Finds and results of the Excavations in Cyprus 1927–1931. Stockholm: The Swedish Cyprus Expedition.
Holland, R. and Markides, D.
2006 The British and the Hellenes: Struggles for the Mastery in the Eastern Mediterranean 1850–1960. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2009 George Jeffery: His Diaries and the Ancient Monuments of Cyprus. Vol 1
and Vol 2. Nicosia: Department of Antiquities.
2009 British Imperialism in Cyprus, 1878–1915: The Inconsequential
Possession. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Department of Antiquities of Cyprus
Cyprus American Archaeological Research Institute (CAARI)
If you liked this article please sign up to receive The Ancient Near East Today via email! It’s our FREE monthly email newsletter. The articles will be delivered straight to your inbox, along with links to news, discoveries, and resources about the Ancient Near East. Just go here to sign up.
All content provided on this blog is for informational purposes only. The American Schools of Oriental Research (ASOR) makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this blog or found by following any link on this blog. ASOR will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information. ASOR will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information. The opinions expressed by Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of ASOR or any employee thereof.