COMMUNAL MEMORY AND 
TURKISH CYPRIOT NATIONAL HISTORY, continued

Historical Memory and Communal/National Identity: The Turkish Cypriot Case

The modern, post-colonial history of Cyprus furbishes the researcher with an unusually cumbersome relationship between perception, historicisation and political utilisation of communal memory in the nation-building process. Differing historical accounts of the island's location in the map of world civilisations, and especially the different perceptions of the cultural heritage of its constitutive ethno-religious communities, form the foundational paradoxes of national identity in Cyprus. What different ethno-religious communities on the island regard as their habitat, and the history they each attach to their chosen national topos constitutes the basis upon which they each perceive distinct communal identities (Papadakis 1993, 1998, 1999; Killoran 1998 in Calotychos; Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis 1998 in Calotychos). At this point, yet again, one can run into a set of definitional problems. Is Turkish Cypriot national history a communal history or a national history? If it is a national history, especially since 1974, then why does it implicate a community rather than a nation? In the case of Cyprus, there are short-cut offering and politically expedient answers to these questions which point to the hegemonic status of 'motherland nationalisms' on the island and hence the inherent difficulty of identifying a Turkish Cypriot nation' despite the formation of Turkish Cypriot state. Notwithstanding the truth-value of such explanations, there is a more general set of problems that one needs to address when historical analysis concerns 'communal memory'. Far from being obvious, the distinction between national and ethno-religious/communal identities is perpetually blurred. And yet, the very delineation of the nation as a legitimate body politic still hinges upon the difference between ethno-religious communities and nations (Hayes 1931; Kohn 1967). Emphasising the difference between 'communal' and national identity, claims for nationhood are organised around a unique set of characteristics that the nation as an autonomous entity is assumed to possess (Kedourie 1960, 1970). A critical understanding of the qualities attributed to the modern nation requires a broad perspective, attending to both historical and geographical variations. Nonetheless, a number of common elements associated with the 'check-list' of nationhood persist in divergent contexts. Here, first the formal characteristics of nationhood will be alluded to, to be differentiated both from its ideological make-up and the specific historical circumstances of a given nation-building process. The legal/ procedural practice of the 'codification' of nationhood in international politics -the naming and legitimation of a nation- constitutes an essential part of nationhood. Quantitative knowledge about nation-state formation, such as demographic characteristics, economic resources, military strength, extent of bureaucratic centralisation of the concerned state, does shed significant light on the process of nation-state building (Tilly 1990). Meanwhile, on its own, what might be called the analysis of 'nation-state potential' does not reveal much about the premises of the conventionalised definition of a nation. Instead, it is the 'formal characteristics' of nationhood that provide the clearest entry into he discourse of nationalism. Although they do not reflect the individual history of a given 'nation', their apparent detachment from context-bound properties makes a generic definition of nationhood possible. In modern politics, what makes a conglomeration of people into a distinct political community called the nation inhabiting a clearly defined territory is primarily accounted for in a formal/procedural manner. In other words, nationhood does not solely depend on cultural, social and political uniqueness per se; the reasons for being identified as a nation, and not simply an ethno-religious community or a minority lie somewhere else.

Meanwhile, in modern politics, there is an overwhelming tendency to refer to subjective attributes such as language, religion, ethnicity, collective memory, a common sense of history and political destiny in common explications of nationhood as a distinct mode of political existence. Why a nation is a nation, or even whether it has always been a nation, is a question that more often than not finds an answer in genealogical terms which emphasise ascribed characteristics (Quaye 1991). Here, the aforementioned divide between national and ethno-religious identity assumes paramount importance. In order for each and every ethno-religious community with a distinct identity and political desire to be autonomous not to be referred as a nation, ethno-religious and/or ethno-linguistic uniqueness or the consciousness of that uniqueness must not suffice for a community to be recognised as a nation. Indeed, the genealogical/subjective approach to defining nationhood needs a qualifier to secure the separation of an ethnie from the Nation. In the same vein, the history/story of a nation requires a central theme, a rite of passage that transforms a given community into either a 'minority nation' or a 'nation proper'. The surprising self- sufficiency of nationalism as a discourse is revealed at its best when its circular logic dictates that the depictions of the rite of passage to nationhood are derived from the formal characteristics of nationhood. When applied to the Turkish Cypriot case, there appears a Turkish Cypriot national history after the establishment of a separate state. Before that, the Turkish Cypriots are identified, both by outsiders and from within, as a community. There is yet another dimension to this debate which is more of an internal issue of nationalism as a discourse. The nation, by virtue of the political potential it represents, is an all-encompassing formula for the formation of a legitimate political community. In the end, whether based on ethnic, civic or mixed principles, the nation is yet another kind of community. The availability of the resources and types of power under the dictate of the very nation-state do make the nation into a very privileged kind of political community. Also, especially in comparison to the kind of politics offered by the sphere of civil society, the nation as a political community tends to lose its currency. Yet, whether functional or not, the nation is prescribed by the definitional rules of a political community. In this sense, talking about 'communal memories' does not fall outside the realm of nationalism; on the contrary, it is a necessary part of understanding national identity formation.

Taking into account these complexities, the scope of my project envisaged the utilisation of two different kinds of sources. The first category is composed of interviews and collection of oral history accounts-i.e. what members of the Turkish Cypriot diaspora communities narrate as their communal history-, whereas the second category of my source-material is the formal/official expressions of Turkish Cypriot communal past. For the first part of the project, since September 1998 I have been conducting pre-interviews in London and initiated correspondence with a select number of Turkish Cypriots in Istanbul, Ankara, Vienna and Nicosia. For the second part of the project, thanks to the generous help provided by the staff at the Nicosia, Ankara and Istanbul Turkish Cypriot Cultural Centers, I acquired a collection of public statements, political treatise and history school- books that relate to Turkish Cypriot communal history. I chose to contact primarily members of the Turkish Cypriot diaspora for two reasons. First and foremost, although they would be exposed to official Turkish Cypriot nationalism during their own lifetime, they then moved out of their home country and were exposed to different life styles and different networks of social interaction and political convictions. This, I believe, provides them the advantage [from my point of view] of keeping some distance from the immediate nationalist rhetoric of the island's politics. Second, the members of the diaspora tend to be either old enough to have had a first-hand experience of inter-communal existence or, they were born into a community which had more contact with the outside world than the case was in Northern Cyprus. Therefore, especially the younger generation of Turkish Cypriots in the diaspora are exposed to a richer variation of views concerning the identity of Turkish Cypriots than their counterparts who were born and/or raised in divided Cyprus itself.

As indicated in the footnotes as well, this paper is not a conclusive summary of the research I have undertaken so far, but indeed it is a stock-taking exercise. And in that respect, it provides a much needed break for 'taking a step-back', re-evaluating my analytical framework as well as becoming more aware of my expectations and re-orienting my future direction for the completion of the project. When I started devising the interviews, I had high hopes of finding rejuvenating, liberating and definitely 'different from the official national rhetoric' accounts of Turkish Cypriot past. In order to ensure sufficient variation among the group of people who agreed to talk to me, I am making a conscious effort to include people from different socio-economic backgrounds, different age-groups and with different political affiliations. Shortly after I established some of my initial contacts, however, I began to feel uncomfortable if not bewildered about what I was encountering. There were a number of central themes, even expressions, which time after time appeared as the organising principles of the individual historical accounts and they were uncannily similar to the idiom of historical narration I came across especially in history school-books used in Cyprus since 1960s. At fist I thought it was due to the way I conducted the communication or structured the correspondence. To be more precise, I thought the answers I was getting were due to the questions I was asking. At that point, I decided to turn my attention to the organisation of historical events and narration of communal past in history books themselves before getting further with the interviews. In the following pages, I will present my findings from the initial set of personal communication I had with diaspora members and their convergences with the formal/official accounts of Turkish Cypriot history in history books. The reasons for these convergences constitute a subject matter that would require the writing of a separate paper and a different kind of analysis which addresses issues of inter-textuality, cultural politics and formation of memory among other topics. And I will not undertake this task here other than in a circumstantial manner. The communication I conducted so far was centered around three sets of questions, which in their full format constitute the base-material for formal interviews. The whole of the interview process aims at bringing to light how individual members of the Turkish Cypriot [diaspora] community related their ethno-religious identity with the historical background of their community of origin. The questions aim at both triggering individual memories of the islanders and inviting them to verbalise their general historical knowledge of the community. In this venue, the first set of questions mainly concern what differentiates a Turkish Cypriot from other ethno-religious communities that historically resided on the island of Cyprus. Meanwhile, they also address the highly problematic issue of what differentiates a Turkish Cypriot from a Turk living in Turkey. Then, the second set constitute an inquiry about the origins of the Turkish Cypriots and question the purity of the ethno-religious lineage of the community. The third and the final set of questions hope to reveal, in terms of both a common past and a common future, what makes one a Cypriot. With slight variations, of the 9 contacts I had so far, the answers to the first set of questions always emphasised the use of Turkish as mother-tongue, adherence to Islam and Turkish cultural character of the everyday-life practices of the members of the community. 

As far as these criteria are concerned, the common inter-communal definition of a Turkish Cypriot' easily fits the characteristic mold of ethno-religious identity. In other words, there was nothing unusual or even 'political' about the self-address of the interviewed members of the Turkish Cypriot diaspora. The complexities of the accounts began to appear with the second set of questions and reached an apex with the third set. However, around the topic of what makes one into a Turkish Cypriot as opposed to simply a Turk, the dilemmas around identity already began to surface. For the majority, it was a matter of being born in Cyprus and being an islander, having a slightly different dialect or cousine, and perhaps typical of the diasporadic communities anywhere, a sense of being better-educated, more- westernised, more-enlightened than the average Turk. When asked about Turkish Cypriot literature, poetry, artistic achievements, self-expression, etc., there was a general mode of appreciation and yet a hinting of the marginal status of anything Cypriot compared to anything Turkish. Regarding the second and third sets of questions, there appeared a growing problem of the use of a unitary idiom in the answers. Furthermore, the tone of the communication underwent a substantial change in almost each case. A highly political form of expression and the 'we' idiom began to prevail rather than citation of personal reasons. Virtually all the persons I talked to stated that their origins as Turkish Cypriots go back to the Ottoman Turks from Asia Minor and that each Turkish Cypriots family can indeed present a clear lineage of Muslim-Turk blood. The question of conversions from Christianity to Islam was regarded as an insignificant matter and the question of intermarriages was again overlooked as an unusual occurrence which tended to result in personal tragedies and isolation. The suggestion that there were mixed communities with heterodox religious beliefs and multi-lingual/multi-cultural life styles was either regarded as a myth produced by the Greek Cypriots to convince the world that all was well and fine before the arrival of the  Turkish army, or as something of a distant past within Cyprus itself. It is noteworthy that when the issue was of what differentiates a Turkish Cypriot from other Cypriots, Greek Cypriots were rarely mentioned whereas when the issue concerned the origins of Turkish Cypriots, that is, communal memories, the Greeks and Greek Cypriots became indispensable points of reference in the conversation. But all the more importantly for my purposes, the 'Ottoman Turks' became well and alive, they were spoken of almost as present-day nations, so close in time and space, so internal to the discourse of communal identity. They were the ones who built mosques, bridges, water canals, opened schools, constituted a model of good and fair governance on the island, believed to have protected both the Muslims and the Christians from the larger evils of the eastern Mediterranean. Their history on the island was hardly contested, the politics of successive Ottoman governors hardly questioned. The history that they presented was detailed and yet flawlessly smooth; in its vivacity, it delivered a stronger sense of reality than either the British colonial regime or the post-1974 Turkish Cypriot politics. The Ottoman/Turkish legacy on the island conveyed a type of immediacy to the historical memories of Turkish Cypriots that was only matched in the official national narratives of Turkish Cypriot history. The third set of questions furthered the self-protective tone of the answers and occasionally led to statements such as 'what makes one a Turkish Cypriot is the Ottoman/Turkish character of the island itself. In these respects, the remembrance process seems to have ended with the Ottomans. However, then, the really close-to-home events of inter-ethnic war, exodus, isolation, killings, fear and panic, loss and departure had to be talked about. These were, in the end, what determined the final answer to the question of what makes one a Cypriot. Cypriotness was equated with the response of the [Turkish Cypriot] community to the brutality and violence of enosis-oriented Greek Cypriot and Greek nationalist right. It could only find a defensive and self-protective address, local and perhaps even personal in its content and based on the knowledge of tragedies experienced, witnessed or learnt about. Compared to the narration of the origins of Turkish Cypriots, current Cypriot identity was defined according to very immediate and recent-i.e. post-1974-historical boundaries. The Ottomans were gone, the British modernised the island, and present-day Turkey was doing its best to keep the Turkish Cypriots going. There was the unspoken assumption of a clear break; a shared, diasporadic reading of Turkish Cypriot history that everything has changed in such a way that it triggered the dearture of thousands from the island with no real prospect of return. Ultimately, many claimed they did not leave the island to be away from Greek Cypriot violence per se but because life was not deemed liveable any more, everything has changed too much to be recognisable or adaptable, and there was very little prospect for change that would guarantee a better life. In these respects, it is no wonder that the Ottomans constitute a serious contender for both the British and the Greek Cypriot militia in terms of historical representation as actors shaping the communal past. Both the in-between period and the post1974 era of Cypriot history tend to a cohesive narrative. And that, despite my initial surprise, was also the case in history school-books used in Cyprus.

In retrospect, perhaps the questions concerning the origins of Turkish Cypriots triggered a defensive line of thought and remembrance process and thus culminated in a conversation which was centred around the theme of the Turkishness of the island. If the questions pertaining to the origins are asked after what makes one a Cypriot, it may be possible to come up with a different kind of response and more open-ended answers. However, perhaps the order in which they were posed so far provides precious clues regarding to formation of historical knowledge pertaining to communal identity, i.e., communal memories. And at this point, I think the organisational principles of historical knowledge presented in the main sources of history used in the Turkish Cypriot society since 1960s have to be brought into the picture.

Text-Book Histories of Turkish Cypriot Society: Memories of Memories

The opening sentence of Marc Bloch's well-known treatise, The Historian's Craft, is the question his son asked him: "Tell me, Daddy. What is the use of history?" (Bloch [1954] 1992, p. 3). This question not only occupies the inquisitive young minds and academic historians who chose to reflect on the inner-workings of their discipline, but has been and will remain one of the central questions of nation-state politics. With the standardisation and universalisation of education, history became the key subject that provides foundational material for the construction and perpetuation of nation l identity. Securing of a common understanding of national identity means guaranteeing legitimacy to the very state that devises, directs, funds and retains historical knowledge. In this context, history textbooks are seen as the very basis upon which a politically viable sense of the past can be constructed. This 'viable sense' relies upon the structuring of historical memory in an agreed-upon, given format so that only certain events and certain interpretations of these events would be brought forward in the process of remembrance. As I already argued, selectivity is a natural part of what is remembered. However, in the majority of the cases, what national education tries to achieve is to produce a particular kind of selectivity and therefore uniformisation of individual articulations of historical memory. This uniformisation is commonly undertaken in the name of communal memory. At the time of the arrival of the British to the island of Cyprus in 1878, the Turkish Cypriot educational system was composed of three types of schools: the Sbyans, Rstiyes and Medreses (Cavit 1994, p. 65). The administration of these schools were under the control of the Evkaf and their total number was around 70 (op. cit., p. 66). With the take over of the island's administration by the British, significant changes took place in the status of the Evkaf in that an English delegate began to accompany the Turkish delegate at the head of the organisation. As early as 1884, a Moslem Board of Education was established. Under this new Board, Idadi's-five-year institutions equivalent to present Lyces-were opened. In the meantime, British High Commissioner in Cyprus undertook their investigation of standards of education and started a debate about the teaching and use of English at schools. 

Meanwhile, the 1895 Education Law introduced two separate boards of Education, one Christian and one Muslim. It is believed that the history education in Cyprus has been effected by the legacy of this separation in 1895 until this very day (Hasan 1969; Cavit 1994). Back in 1884, the first elected Moslem Board of Education in Nicosia decided to supply textbooks and other teaching material for the Turkish Cypriot schools from Istanbul, Turkey. Hundred years later, despite the many changes in political administration, the approach remains more or less the same to Turkish Cypriot education, and in particular to the conduct of history education. Within this context, in 1895, Ziver Bey's Kbrs Tarihi [printed in Nicosia] was published in 1895 as the first Ottoman book on the history of the island. The book apparently was written despite the fact that the author, born in Lesbos and also known for his History of Rhodes, has never been to the island itself. Then in 1906, lbrahim Hakk Bey of the Department of Education and Chief Inspector of Turkish Cypriot Schools, published a book of geography [Muhasr Kbrs Cografyas, printed in Nicosia] for Turkish Cypriot elementary schools. This book's second print was made in 1931 (op. cit., p. 67). With the total annexation of Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire in 1914 and the 1923 acknowledgement of Cyprus as a crown colony, a new era started for Turkish Cypriot education system. In 1920, a new Education Law was enacted to 're-organise' schools other than those serving the Greek-Christian community. According to the new law, the appointment of teachers to Turkish Cypriot schools came under the power of the Turkish Board of Education', although they were to be confirmed by the High Commissioner. And second, half of the expenditure of the schools were guaranteed by the Government. Then came the new education law of 1923 aiming at centralising the whole of the education system on the island, which caused much resentment among the Greek Cypriot population. In the immediate aftermath of these developments, in 1926, the first short history of Cyprus [Muhtasar Kbrs Tarihi, published in Nicosia]  written by a Turkish Cypriot teacher, Mustafa Midhat, was published (op. cit., p. 68). The same author also published, with Ismail Hakk, the geography of Cyprus [Muhtasar Kbrs Cografyas, published in Istanbul] in 1920. The second print of this geography book came out in 1930 and a third one in 1932, both published in Nicosia. Meanwhile, at the background, the Administrative Committee for Turkish Schools decided to appoint history and geography teachers for Turkish Cypriot schools directly from Turkey and to adopt the textbooks used in Istanbul for the teaching of these subjects on the island. This decision led to the use of Latin alphabet instead of  the traditional Arabic one in Turkish Cypriot schools in accordance with the changes in the educational system of the young Turkish Republic itself. Such freedom of choice came to an end with the Greek-Cypriot risings of 1931 since by 1933, the British administration finalised the plan for the wholesome centralisation of the education system on the island. According to the new Education Law of 1933, textbooks were to be determined and supplied by the Ministry itself, Education Board members were to be appointed by the government and the Greek and Turkish Cypriot Boards were reduced to consultative bodies only. As a result, a new curriculum was prepared and put into effect, starting with the Elementary Schools, by the 1935-36 education year. The importation of textbooks from Turkey was banned and the teaching of Turkish history and Kemalist principles were deemed as undesirable. Meanwhile, it is argued that the same principles were not applied to Greek Cypriot educational system and their books continued to be supplied from Greece (op.cit., pp. 69-70). In this comparative context, the Cyprus Turkish Lyce in Nicosia became the centre of anti-British and pro-Turkish activities in the 1930s. This period coincided with one of the Turkish Cypriot teachers of the Lyce, Halil Fikret Alasya's, publication of The History of Cyprus (B.C. 1450-A.D. 1878) and Its Main Antiquities in 1939. The name of the school was first changed to Islamic Lyce in 1937 and then it became the Turkish Lyce in 1950 and accepted Turkish national days as school holidays. The school finally became the Kbrs Maarif Koleji. Despite all these name changes, the school established its own legacy as the educational grounds for Turkish Cypriot elite and its reputation as such continues today.

In 1949, the Education Law of 1935 was amended and new regulations for the curriculum were introduced. At the time, Alasya had already emigrated to Turkey. However, new teachers were brought from Turkey to the Lyce and the British headmaster retired in 1950 to be replaced by Turkish Cypriot educationists. In 1951, another Cypriot teacher, Fikri  Karayel published Halk ve Cocukiara Resirnii Kbrs Tarih Bilgisi (Illustrated Cypriot History for Children and the General Public) to be used at schools. In the meantime, the Department of Education began to publish monthly school magazines, Pictorial Education and Children's Journal, in both Greek and Turkish. By 1955, the Turkish-Cypriot Board of Education decided the abolish the policy of no-textbooks for Turkish Cypriot history. Books and educational material once more began to be supplied from Turkey. The Board also decided that Greek would no more be taught at Turkish Cypriot Schools. In response to these new developments, British Director of Education W.B. Tudhope announced a policy of partnership between Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities for the creation of a new curriculum. This new curriculum was to be under extensive control of Community Education Boards, although there was emphasis on the future development of inter-communal schools and institutions.

Starting from 1958, Turkish Board of Education minutes were not longer kept in English and Turkish, but only in Turkish (op.cit., p. 71). April 23 was declared, as in Turkey, a public holiday for elementary schools and in 1959, the Turkish flag began to be raised every weekend at the schools with a ceremony. In these respects, at the end of the British rule, the Turkey-oriented structure of the Turkish Cypriot educational system was already under establishment. The 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus then transferred all the authority in education, cultural and teaching matters to the Turkish Cypriot Communal Chamber. The first Turkish Cypriot textbook of history published after the 1963 intercommunal clashes was written by a Turkish Cypriot teacher Vergi Bedevi, From the Early Beginning upto Our Time, The History of Cyprus (published in Nicosia in 1966). It was approved by the Turkish educational authorities in Turkey and accepted by the Turkish Department of Education as an ancillary text-book. The book was published by the Cyprus Turkish History Association. Then in 1970, a new History of Cyprus was published by the president of the Cyprus Turkish History Association, Vehbi Zeki, under the title History of Cyprus. This books was approved by the Cyprus Turkish Directorate for Education in 1971 and became the textbook for History lessons in Turkish Cypriot secondary schools. The books had more than 10 reprints and it is  still in use as a textbook. In Turkish Cypriot Lyces, on the other hand, there is another book in use as history text-book on Turkish Cypriot history. It is written by Vehbi Zeki Sorter and Czan Zeki Fikretoglu, the title being History of the Struggle of the Turkish Cypriots (1878-1981). The original of this book was a three volume treatise written by Dr. Sorter only, and it was accepted by the directorate of Education in 1973 as an ancillary text-book for the lessons of History of Turkish Revolution (Cavil 1994, p. 75). Then, the shorter and co-authored version was approved in 1982 as the standard text-books for Turkish Cypriot Lyces. A much shorter book by Sorter is also accepted as the textbook for History of Cyprus for the Secondary Schools. In 1995, a new history text-book titled Milli Tarih [National History] was accepted as a textbook for the Elementary Schools in Cyprus. The authors listed in the front page are Prof. Dr. Erdogan Meril, Prof. Dr. Ismet Miroglu, Prof. Dr. Yusuf Halaoglu and Yrd. Do. Dr. Zerrin Gnalden.

Again in 1995, Ahmet C. Gazioglu's Kbrs Trk Tarihi-Trk Dnemi-[Cypriot Turkish History-Turkish (Ottoman?) Period] was accepted as an ancillary textbook to be used at Lyces. The rest of the history text-books taught at Turkish Cypriot schools are imported from Turkey and for the most part, Turkish Cypriot schools adopted the curriculum of schools in Turkey. These include titles like Trkiye Cumhuriyeti Inkilap Tarlhi ve Atatrklk [History of the Turkish Revolution and Kemalism] by G. Sennver and S. Keskin, Genel Trk Tarihi [General Turkish History] by E. Meril and Z. G. den, Milli Tarih [(Turkish) National History] by Niyazi Aksit and Trkiye Cumhuriyeti Inkilap Tarihi [History of the Turkish Revolution] by A.Mumcu. Among the list of approved history text-books cited so far, here I will concentrate on the contents of Alasya's Tarihte Kbrs [The History of Cyprus (B.C. 1450-A.D.1878) and Its Main Antiquities], Bedevi's Kbrs Tarihi [History of Cyprus], Gazioglu's KbrsTrk Tarihi [Turkish Cypriot History], Sorter and Fikretoglu's Kbrs Trk Mcadele Tarihi [History of the Struggle of the Turkish Cypriots], and Sorter's Kbrs Tarihi [History of Cyprus]. Of these history textbooks, the first two are remembered by the pre-1974 generation of Turkish Cypriots whereas the rest is primarily remembered by the younger generation of Turkish Cypriots under 30. Fikret Alasya's Cyprus in History (1988 ed.) starts with Rauf Denktas's Introduction to the book. Accordingly, Alasya's expertise lies in his linkage of Ottoman Turkish history of Cyprus and the latest developments on the island. Alasya's own introduction then states that "I accepted writing about our national problem, the Cyprus problem, always as a national duty." He then dedicates his work to the Turkish national leader Atatrk. In this introductory text appears a quote from Atatrk, which is commonly cited in Introductions to history books on Cyprus: "Sirs, pay attention to the island of Cyprus. This island is of importance to us." Alasya's book is based on original Ottoman sources as well as a series of current political treatise, history books and many of his pre- vious publications. In an unusual format for a history book, his text incorporates many footnotes. Of the 332 pages of his history of Cyprus, a total of 20 is devoted to pro-Ottoman history of Cyprus. The topic headings in this section include the origins of the name of the island, the geographical location of Cyprus, Cyprus in pre-history (half a page), Cyprus under the ancient Egypt, the Hittites, the Greek diasporas, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Persians, Great Alexander, Rome, Christians and Jews in Cyprus (half a  page), origins of Islam in Cyprus, Cyprus under English rule, under Lusignan rule, under Genovese rule (each heading half a page), under  Mernluk and finally under Venetian rule.  In the sections on Ottoman Cyprus, close to 40 pages is devoted to the war between Ottomans and  Venetians, another 40 pages or so to the characteristics of the Ottoman rule  in Cyprus during the Empire's Golden Age. These sections are followed by an account of social and political unrest during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the various uprisings against the corruption of the Ottoman  rule on the island, socio-economic changes on the island and list of Ottoman administrators that served in Cyprus. The Third Chapter of the Book is on the British Rule in the island (70 pages), which is primarily a summary account of political history. The fourth chapter is on the Republic of Cyprus (40 pages) while the fifth one is on the 1974 Bars Harekat (40 pages). The final, sixth chapter is on historical monument of Cyprus, which is primarily composed of Ottoman administrative, public buildings, mosques, towers and fortifications, tombs and fountains. On the character of Turkish Cypriot population, Alasya plainly states an argument of racial continuity between mainland Turks and Turkish Cypriots. Meanwhile, the Christian population of the island is characterised as a mix with blurred pedigree, and as a reference Churchill's rejection of the island's Greek character in 1907 is readily provided. Alasya clearly states that the Christian population of the island does not constitute a nation (p. 137). What strikes the reader most is the amount of detail provided for the Ottoman history on the island almost exceeds the details pertaining to the modern history of the island. Names, dates, population figures, even financial transactions and place names reflect a kind of immediate memory of the island's Ottoman past. Considering the possibility of diverse interpretations of the events and processes cited by Alasya in the field of historical scholarship, Alasya's work is indeed a major individual undertaking which presents a flawless totality. In comparison, Vergi Bedevi's Kbrs Tarihi (1966 edition) is much less direct in terms  of delivering a national message. The book is dedicated to the author's teachers and wife in a very personal note. Although the organisational principles of the book are quite similar to Alasya's, of of the 214 pages of text, 10 pages are devoted to pre-history of Cyprus and another 70 or so pages to pre-Ottoman history of Cyprus. This means, practically half of Bedevi's account of the history of Cyprus is devoted to non-Turkish history of the island. 

Similar to Alasya's work, the text is supported by extensive footnotes and a bibliography as well as several prints of archaeological remnants and later, political and journalistic photographs. The detailed account of pre-Ottoman Cyprus, however, does not have a specific reference to the Christian populations of the island. And again reminiscent of Alasya'a history of the island, the chapters on Ottoman rule are written in consideration of the smallest details, names, places, dates with days and extensive quotations from original Ottoman documents. On the origins of Turkish Cypriots, however, Bedevi has a more open-ended approach. He refers to the first groups of Moslem settlers as 'srgn kafileleri'  [groups that come with  exodus]. Their original place of residence, as well as socioeconomic, professional and even tribal background is presented in detail, and yet he does  not make general statements which present the Turkish settlers as a nation and the  Christians as a mix of peoples with no clear history. Meanwhile,  the same over-emphasis  on the details of the Ottoman administration can also be found in Bedevi's book; there are  60 pages devoted to the details  of Ottoman rule and only 10 pages on the post-1963 history of Cyprus.  In contradistinction to Alasya and Bedevi's classical historical accounts read as History  books, recent productions of Sorter, Sorter and Fikretoglu as well as Gazioglu are written  in a textbook format. They do not include  footnotes or a bibliography and each chapter  begins with the questions answered in the text. They are also substantially smaller in size  compared to  the earlier genre of history textbooks. Finally, compared to the previously examined history-books, the only pictures presented in the book are those  of massacred bodies during the inter-communal clashes, Rauf Denktas' smiling portrait from his youthful  years, maps of Cyprus and the odd picture  of a castle or a mosque on the island. To start  with, Ahmet Gazioglu's Kbrs Trk Tarihi-Trk Dnemi- [Turkish Cypriot History-Turkish Period-] is  devoted to the presentation of the Ottoman rule on the island in its totality. At the  back cover of the book is the Tugra of the Ottoman Sultan and in  capital letters, one reads  the following message: "This book is prepared for our students at technical schools and  lyces to learn about the facts of the  Turkish period of Cypriot history in a truthful and comparative manners." The most striking characteristic of Gazioglu's presentation of history is  that  although the whole of the book is about the Ottomans, virtually all references to the  Ottoman period are made for the 'Turkish period' and the  'Turks'. Therefore, the text reads  as 'the settlement of Turks in Cyprus, or 'The Characteristics of the Turkish administration', which can indeed be rather confusing if it was put into the context of a long-term or modern history of Cyprus. Secondly, contrary to both Alasya and Bedevi's accounts,  there  is no criticism of the Ottomanrule, and hardly any mention of the decline of the Ottoman  Empire. Meanwhile, whole sections are devoted to  the explications of Turkish virtues: Section Seven is on the Good Will and Understanding of the Turkish Conquerors and Section Ten of the book is devoted to the 'Proofs of Turkish Tolerance".

Vehbi Sorter's Kbrs Tarihi [History of Cyprus] is in many respects a small replica of Alasya's treatise. The books is divided into three sections. The first section is on prehistory of Cyprus as well as the island's medieval history; the second section is on 'Venetian and Turkish rule", and the third and final section is devoted to "The Turkish Cypriot's Struggle for Survival [i.e., modern Turkish Cypriot History]". In proportional terms, half of the book is devoted to post-Ottoman history of the island, 40 pages to its pre-Ottoman history and another 40 pages to the Ottoman rule on the island. Throughout the book, although the word 'Ottoman' is used with reference to historical monuments or historical periods, all the references to Turkish Cypriots are made as Turks' and all the references to Greek Cypriots are made as 'Rum'. Significantly different from other accounts of Ottoman history, Sorter's presentation of the Ottomans is highly superficial, and half of the section is devoted to description of mosques and tombs left from the Ottomans. On the other hand, the political aspects of post-1960 history of Cyprus are presented in minute detail and are accompanied with extensive interpretation. The totality of the modern history, however, reads like a football match between the teams 'Rumlar' and 'Trkler'. In this context, Vehbi Sorter and Zeki Fikretoglu's Kbrs Trk Mcadele Tarihi (1871-1981) [Turkish Cypriot History of Struggle] reads almost like an Appendix to Sorter's History of Cyprus. In fact, the book's sub-title is "Mehmet ik ve Kbrs Trk" and the cover itself is a photograph of a young mother, smiling and extending a little boy in her arms to a young, friendly Turkish soldier in combat gear. As the dates in the title of this book suggest, the totality of the post-Ottoman history of Cyprus is presented as a struggle to re-establish as a community and to re-gain independence as a nation. There is 10 pages of very brief information on British rule and only another 10 pages on the post-1974 history of Turkish Cypriot society.

The rest of the historical account is on the conflict between Greek and Turkish Cypriots based on themes of unfairness, violence and unreasonableness of the 'Rums'. In conclusion, neither the pre-1974 nor the post-1974 history textbooks engage in a critical presentation of the Ottoman rule on the island, ever mention inter-communal relations other than those of conflict and brutal violence, or highlight the position of Turkish Cypriots either under English rule or in their current dependency to Republican Turkey. But what matters most for my purposes is the vivacity with which the Ottoman rule on the island is narrated, especially in the earlier history books. In these books, one hardly comes across pictures or names of British, Greek or Greek Cypriot historical figures or political leaders, but the portraits of Ottoman Sultan's or administrators, pictures of Ataturk and the generic figure of Mehmetik the heroic Turkish soldier constitute the sine qua non of every Turkish Cypriot school children's cultural capital today. Parameters of Communal Remembrance in Turkish Cypriot Society There are multiple layers of conversion between the official writing of history and either individually or collectively remembered history. It is true that cannonised history text-books constitute a prime site for observing these convergences between private and public modes of remembering. At this point, however, a caveat is needed. Collective memories are a composite of narratives and putting isolated emphasis on the textbook-history component of this composite would not only be an inefficient but in fact a misleading form of historical analysis. Regarding the formation of collective memories, the weaving together of various narratives and multiple notations of reasoning is more important than each one of the constitutive parts. Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean Sea. It is located 200 kms northeast of Israel, 380 kms north of Egypt, 800 kms west of the Greek mainland and 40 kms south of Turkey. From a comparative perspective, the Cyprus problem can be evaluated as a case of ethno-religious conflict within a weak state convoluted by three factors: i) colonial [British] background of the bifurcation of society along ethno-religious lines according to the needs of the colonial administration; ii) extended 'motherland interventionism' in the island's affairs exercised by both Greek and Turkish nation-states-including the drafting and imposition of the very 1960 constitution"; iii) the status quo-oriented approach to conflict resolution in international politics which led to the overlooking of the effects of  large-scale population displacements and crisis of political legitimacy on the island since 1963. Then, there is of course the additional albeit largely overlooked dimension to the 'Cyprus problem': the radically different perceptions of the island's and its inhabitants' history entertained by the de jure Cypriot state and the Greek Cypriot society on the one hand, and the de facto Turkish Cypriot state and the Turkish Cypriot society on the other. Throughout history, Cyprus appears as a central figure in the conflict between East and West in the Eastern Mediterranean (Adams and Cottrell 1968). It is true that both East and West are elusive concepts, nonetheless they do carry forward the clear meaning of a fault-line, of cultural and civilisational difference (Canefe 1998). As demonstrated by the case of Cyprus, this difference is not limited to the Islam versus Christianity debate. It extends back to pre-Christian times, when the indigenous population of the island was part of the network of Greek and Phoenician colonies. The  island was then brought under the domain of the Persian Empire. However, as opposed to the Aegean colonists, in Western and also [Greek] Cypriot history the Persian Empire symbolised the East and their domination of Cyprus meant the 'Easternisation' of it. According to this logic, with Alexander the Great, Cyprus is brought back to the 'Western domain' under the influence of ancient Hellenic culture. With the Roman occupation and conversion to Christianity, the inhabitants then became subjects of the Byzantine Greek Orthodox Church (Jennings 1993). In the expansionist age of Islam, Cyprus was one of the frequent targets of the Arab raids and was therefore subjected to 'Eastern' influences again. By the Middle Ages, however, the rule of the island decisively passed back onto the 'West': on the third Crusade of Richard I, the island was occupied by the English forces. This was followed by the French rule under Guy de Lusignan's lead. Cyprus remained under the Lusignan family until 1489, at which time it passed under Venetian control. For the Venetians, as it was for the Phoenicians, Cyprus was a crucial trading entrepot. It was also the Venetian outpost against the 'Eastern force' of the Ottoman Empire, as it had been an outpost for Greeks  against the Persians, for the Byzantines against the  Arabs, or for the Crusaders against  the Saracens due to its strategic closeness to Anatolian and Eastern Mediterranean littorals. In this context, in [Greek] Cypriot and Western histories, it is commonly argued that in  1571, the 'West' lost Cyprus to the 'East' when the island was captured by the  Ottomans  (Kitromilides 1990). It is also suggested that under the Ottoman occupation, the island lost  its privileged status as a central entrepot, a  strong center of culture or a crucial military  outpost. Instead, the conviction goes, under the exacting and corrupt Ottoman rule, Cyprus was  colonised and repopulated by Muslim settlers from Asia Minor who diluted the  island's Western heritage.  

Meanwhile, it is easily forgotten that Cyprus was not a nation-state or even an independent political entity at the time of the Ottoman conquest, or in fact during much of its history. The Ottomans 'took' the island from the Venetians, as Venetians did before from the French, and so on. Furthermore, the rich background of interaction between societies, cultures and religions in the Mediterranean that led to the formation of the 'Western Civilisation' as defined by the post-Enlightenment history of the world is overlooked. Cypriot history indeed constitutes a classic example for the fertile form of cross-cultural and cross-civilisational interaction characteristic of pre-modern times. Therefore, the citation of modern Cypriot history around the theme of occupation of a central part of Hellas by the barbaric Turk does not necessarily correspond to the island's complex history reflecting the rich cultural heritage of the Eastern Mediterranean. Furthermore, such purification oriented convictions cast a dark shadow on the Muslim or Turkish Cypriot population of the island in terms of their own historical identity and sense of belonging. If they are identified quintessentially as the children of barbaric invaders who are doomed to remain alien to the island's historico-cultural heritage, the difficult question lingers in one's mind as to what room there is for the construction of a shared future between Greek and Turkish, or Christian and Muslim Cypriots. With the advent of pan-Hellenic Cypriot irredentism, as one part of the Cypriot society was identified with intrusion, lack of culture and foreign-ness, the effects proved undoubtedly to be in favour of the development of a defensive ethnic-nationalism among the alienated community (Nairn 1979; Kitromilides 1979; Papadakis 1993; Loizos 1994; Mavratsas 1996).

The Turkish Cypriots, by virtue of religion, language or ethnic affiliation, do differ from the majority population. Due to the terms and conditions of the growth of Greek Cypriot nationalism and its identification of Greek Cypriots as the sole fighters for Cyprus' independence from British colonial rule, this difference eventually made the community feel as 'outsiders' of the Cypriot political community or history between 1963 and 1974. The antagonism and alienation then led to the construction of a solid line of Ottoman-Turkish history of Cyprus that can accommodate the Turkish' Cypriots among the island's rightful residents. Under the conditions of what might be called the 'bi-polarisation' of national history, both motherland Turkish and island-based Turkish Cypriot nationalisms write the island's .history as more or less beginning with the Ottoman conquest and the embrace of Islam on the island. That history, however, tends to override much of what matters for the Greek Cypriot society, that is, the island's Hellenic culture, its Christian heritage and its significance in the western topography of ancient civilisations. These, in turn, are the characteristics which qualify the Greek Cypriots to comfortably consider themselves as 'Europeans' as opposed to 'Middle Easterners'.

At the level of socio-economic developments, there are similar patterns of demarcation and points of disjunction regarding the self-presentaion of Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities and what is accepted as the island's post-colonial history. The common argument on the socio-economic development of Cyprus is that since 1960-that is, independence from British colonial rule, Cyprus has been transformed from a backward, agricultural society to a modern society with a thriving economy based more and more on manufacturing, service sector, tourism and finance. The liberal economic policies of the Cypriot government as well as the new institutional framework are accounted for these positive changes (Mavratsas 1992). The missing detail here is that the majority of the agricultural land was owned and worked by Turkish Cypriot populations whereas the majority of manufacturing facilities, tourism-related as well as financial developments were ran by Greek Cypriots (Dood 1993, 1995). In other words, there appears to have been a demarcation of sectorial employment along ethno-religious lines. In turn, this demarcation had a direct influence on each ethno-religious community's self-perception, self-presentation and the collective remembrance of Cypriot history.

Economic prosperity is commonly recorded in terms of high growth rate, continual increase of domestic exports and, low inflation and unemployment rates. According to these measures, the post-colonial success story of Cyprus comes to an 'abrupt end' by the Turkish invasion of the northern part of the island in 1974. The dispute is believed to have' led a third of the island's population into economic as well as socio-political chaos. Meanwhile, caution must be exercised here since the commonly cited figures are mainly based on the losses of the Greek Cypriots. In other words, the long-term effects of the gradual demographic homogenisation of the island prove to have had a much larger economic effect than is commonly estimated when the losses of internally displaced Turkish Cypriots are taken into consideration (Oberling 1982). According to the official narrative of the Greek Cypriot recovery, the people of Cyprus, 'crushed but determined', began the task of reconstruction with courage and zeal. The economy recovered, tourism bounced back despite the occupation and therefore loss of the most-prized lines of hotels along the coast of Famagusta, infrastructure was mended and ultimately a new economic boom was experienced. The crisis in Lebanon also significantly helped the [Greek] Cypriot economic rejuvenation. The package of attraction for international business included extensive tax incentives, an advanced telecommunications system, mild climatic conditions and easily affordable living conditions, an international air transport system, low paid and relatively well-educated and low paid labour force. As a result of these developments, by 1996, the per capita income of Greek Cypriot section of the Island became one of the highest in the Mediterranean (US $ 14, 000 per annum). With the envisaged accession to the European Union within the next few years, the restructuring and modernisation of the economy is likely to continue and the local population will benefit from the ensuing prosperity. For the [Greek] Cypriot society and economy, the only remaining problem thus appears to be the uncertainty and instability caused by the presence of Turkish troops on the island and the continuing division of the island along ethnic lines. Meanwhile, despite the de facto division of the island, in virtually all international publications on Cyprus issued by the [Greek] Cypriot government, the island is identified as culturally Greek. In this sense, there is only a veiled or partial acknowledgement of the current status of the socio-political problems on the island. There remains a strong sense of Cypriotness, albeit ambiguously defined, and undefiable claim of ownership of the whole of the island as well as the whole of its history.

In comparison, in addition to the socio-political crises, the Turkish Cypriot society experienced a gradual decline in economic terms since the community's retreat to Turkish Cypriot enclaves during early 1960s. By and large, due to international sanctions and embargos resulting from the continuing presence of the Turkish Army on the island, today's Turkish Cypriot livelihood primarily depends on the investments and financial backing of the neighbouring Turkish state. In many ways, the best characterisation of this situation is that of a vicious circle. The more the Turkish Cypriots feel deprived and cut-off, the more they turn to Turkey as the last resort. Similarly, the more Turkish nationalism and military presence strengthens its position on the island, the less likely it is for Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot societies to achieve integration, federation or any other solution that could break the present dead-lock. Compounding the Turkish Cypriot dependency on Turkey is the departure of more than 40, 000 - 60, 000 Turkish Cypriots from the island due to socio-economic crises and the settlement of 60, 000 - 80,000 Turkish people on the island from mainland Turkey (Dodd 1992; Ioannides 1992; Calotychos 1998 in Calotychos). In fact, many sources indicate that at present, the Turkish Cypriots are becoming a minority on the Turkish Cypriot part of the island. The sense of isolation, lack of a legitimate, international identity other than the one recognised by Turkey, as well as the lingering of memories of expulsion and not being wanted on the island, furthers the insecurities of the Turkish Cypriot minority. The remedial move, with whatever investment available, towards the alleviation of such long-term insecurity has been the accentuation of the Ottoman-Turkish lineage of the Turkish Cypriot community at different levels of political discourse. The most observable of these is the history text-books. The least observed and recorded is the private accounts of communal history.

Conclusion

In a recent article titled "Unreliable Memories? The Use and Abuse of Oral History", Alistair Thomson suggests that the unreliability of what is remembered by individual, lay producers of historical accounts should not be seen as a problem for historical research but as a resource which highlights the complexities involved in the making and perception of historical realities. But can Thomson's diagnosis be applied to cases whereby too much is 'remembered' in too vivid a detail and all that belonging to an 'un-lived' past? It is true that for the study of national and/or communal memory, oral history constitutes a rich source with immense political significance. It allows for the recovery and recording of aspects of historical reality which do not easily appear in other forms of recalling of the past.

However, when one resorts to oral history in order to explicate what is remembered of the history of a history, i.e., communal history, the immediacy of the lived-experience implicated by oral histories cannot be deciphered unless additional interpretative tools are put to use. Oral history, in such cases, is not simply the 'voice of the past', it is the living record of how past was, and still is, understood, recorded and canonised. If the historian's craft includes deciphering the significance of the past for the understanding of the present, and visa-versa, the relationship between public and private histories provides a prime location upon which one can undertake this task. In this sense, perhaps Thomson's diagnosis is applicable across the board after all, not only for oral history but for various other genres of remembrance as well, including the quintessential, now age-old, national histories.