Post on 14-May-2023
Looting and vandalism around a WorldHeritage Site: Documenting modern damageto archaeological heritage in Petra’shinterland
Clive Vella1, Emanuela Bocancea1, Thomas M. Urban2, Alex R. Knodell3,Christopher A. Tuttle4, Susan E. Alcock1
1Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World, Brown University, 2Research Laboratory forArchaeology and the History of Art, University of Oxford, 3Department of Classical Languages, Carleton College,4Council of American Overseas Research Centers, Washington, D.C.
In 2012 the ancient city of Petra celebrated the 200th anniversary of its Western re-identification. The BrownUniversity Petra Archaeological Project (BUPAP) has sought to document the northern hinterland of Petrathrough a multi-component methodology that includes intensive field survey, feature documentation, andlimited test excavations. The iconic site of Petra has a long and storied history, and it is a site that presentsmany challenges to archaeologists and cultural heritage managers. During a series of test excavations,meant to ground truth locations earmarked by the overlapping intensive field survey and featuredocumentation, several patterns of looting were identified. These instances of looting were often paralleledby observed vandalism that defaced archaeological heritage, within and outside the Petra ArchaeologicalPark, with archaeological artifacts being sold to tourists at nearby shops. This study provides crucialdocumentation of these processes of vandalism and looting recorded over the last three years. We proposethat only through continued monitoring can local authorities be provided with ample evidence calling foradditional cultural heritage protection.
Keywords: Petra, Jordan, archaeology, looting, vandalism, illicit antiquities, cultural heritage
IntroductionLooting and vandalism remain ongoing problems
at archaeological sites in many parts of the world
(Atwood 2006, Gilgan 2001; Kersel et al. 2008; Kersel
and Chesson 2013a). In some countries looting is
exacerbated or brought on by tragic political conflicts
or turmoil (Atwood 2009). Financial troubles, stories
of ancient treasures, the antiquities trade (Renfrew
2000: 27), potential artifact recovery (Clewlow et al.
1971: 472), and a myriad of other factors are all
reasons for why people loot. During the course of
the Brown University Petra Archaeological Project
(BUPAP) extensive evidence of diachronic human
occupation and activity surrounding Petra was
observed (Alcock and Knodell 2012; Knodell and
Alcock 2011; Sinibaldi and Tuttle 2011; Urban et al.
2012; Urban et al. 2013; Urban et al. 2014; Vella et al.
2012), but unfortunately we also found evidence of
widespread looting and vandalism. While observing
such behavior during our fieldwork we found our-
selves asking: Are archaeologists effectively document-
ing such incidents? And what are the distinguishing
attributes of looting and vandalism? These thoughts
led us to ask what steps we (and others) could take
towards better protecting the cultural and archae-
ological heritage of the Petra region.
For the most part, scholars have discussed looting
and vandalism from the perspective of the illicit
antiquities trade (Bowman Proulx 2011; Renfrew
2000; Tijhuis 2006), or have identified the damage
caused by large-scale looting (Brodie and Renfrew
2005; Contreras 2010; Contreras and Brodie 2010a;
Contreras and Brodie 2010b; Donann et al. 1991;
Hollowell-Zimmer 2003; Kersel and Chesson 2013a;
Pendergast 1991). Yet despite the significant corpus
of archaeological literature that has emerged in recent
decades broadly addressing these topics, archaeolo-
gists have by and large given less specific considera-
tion to the documentation of looting and vandalism
during ongoing field research. There is a clear need
for the documentation of looting and vandalism in
Correspondence to: Clive Vella, Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology andthe Ancient World, Brown University, Box 1837, 60 George Street,Providence, RI 02912. Email: clive_vella@brown.edu
! Trustees of Boston University 2015DOI 10.1179/0093469015Z.000000000119 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 221
areas faced with military conflict or political unrest
which threaten the survival of cultural heritage. Yet
our research in Petra’s northern hinterland reveals
that even in what appears to be a politically and
militarily stable country and within an archaeological
park that is supposed to be legally protected, looting
and vandalism can still occur. We suggest that
only by explicitly identifying and documenting such
instances of damage to the archaeological record
during active fieldwork can archaeologists begin to
quantify and assess the full impact and nature of such
destructive activities on cultural heritage in any given
area. This then will form the baseline for creating a
plan to prevent and mitigate against such activities in
the future. There are important recent examples of
attention to this matter that represent clear ways of
moving forward in the Levant (Kersel 2006, 2008;
Kersel and Chesson 2013b).
Defining Looting and Vandalism at PetraAfter much discussion, we have defined looting as
observed in the BUPAP survey area as activities
that include illicit excavation by non-permit bearing
individuals, characterized by a variety of open holes
dug with tools such as picks, shovels, hoes, etc. There
has been substantial debate among the present authors,
however, regarding the actual nature of and motivation
behind such looting at different sites, as well as the
dating and chronology of such activities. These difficult
questions have thus far remained largely unanswered
and are beyond the scope of this article, which focuses
specifically on particular instances of looting observed
and documented by BUPAP between 2010 and 2013.
What we can say is that the economic potential of
archaeological material, which may have driven many
of the acts of looting we observed, was noted in several
instances, such as in the sale of artifacts to tourists
within the archaeological site of Petra and other nearby
sites. We propose that such economic motivations
need to be distinguished from quarrying activities, in
which individuals ‘‘loot’’ an archaeological site for the
purposes of removing and collecting ancient building
materials for modern reuse elsewhere. This distinction
allows us to fine tune our recognition of document-
ed processes of destruction, instead of grouping all
together as ‘‘looting activities.’’ In contrast to these
types of looting, vandalism is distinguished as a
deliberate act of destruction to the archaeological
record, which was not motivated by any discernible
economic potential and for which the underlying
motivation remains unclear. Unlike looting, we suggest
that vandalistic activities appear geared towards the
destruction of archaeological features without the
potential of recovering sellable artifacts.
Recent scholarly work has illustrated how publicly
available and continuously updated satellite imagery
can productively be used to document and track
damage from looting over time (Contreras and
Brodie 2010a, 2010b; Lasaponara and Masini 2010;
Parcak 2007; Stone 2008). This research rightly notes
that archaeologists have typically failed to record or
quantify looting evidence at archaeological sites in
any systematic fashion, and it offers satellite imagery
as a possible corrective (Contreras and Brodie 2010b:
102). While the technique is useful in some contexts,
not all forms of looting or vandalism can be recognized
using such data. In the absence of ground-truthing,
and with incomplete knowledge of the archaeological
potential at a given site, in many circumstances the
utility of a satellite-based approach would be very
limited (Kersel and Chesson 2013b). Indeed, at most of
the Jordanian archaeological sites and features dis-
cussed below, traces of looting were either covered
by accumulated sediment and/or were small-scale in
comparison to levels of damage documented elsewhere.
For instance, Contreras and Brodie (2010b: 109)
estimate that damage by looting at Bab adh Dhra’,
also in Jordan, encompasses an area of 74,377 sq m.
Moreover, the various acts of vandalism we encoun-
tered are not visible in satellite images or aerial
photography and were only confirmed through multi-
ple visits over several years.
Our efforts in documenting looting and vandalism
within Petra’s hinterland are meant to contribute to this
emerging discussion about the systematic documenta-
tion of modern threats to archaeological heritage, not
least by demonstrating the implications and potential
methods of documentation on a scale smaller than that
tackled by Contreras and Brodie (2010a). Collecting
quantitative and qualitative data by systematically
identifying and documenting instances of vandalism
and looting in the archaeological record can provide
insights into the nature and impact of these acts of
destruction on the archaeological heritage, which will
produce a baseline from which a plan for protection can
be proposed. The nature of such a plan and of any
efforts to combat looting and vandalism will depend on
the specificities of each situation, and it would be
shaped by particular patterns of looting and vandalism
identified and documented in each area. This article
presents our first attempt to document and identify
patterns of looting and vandalism at Petra, with the
hope that other researchers who work in the area can
build upon this data, and that this information can lead
to the development of a better protection plan for the
this World Heritage site. We defer from assigning blame
for these activities to any particular individuals or
groups, since our observations are based on material
documentation and not on any form of personal
observation or ethnography. However, in certain
instances discussed below we provide some speculative
motivations that are inferred through subjective onsite
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
222 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2
interpretation. Indeed, most illicit activities documented
by our research occurred between archaeological
seasons, and on some rare occasions, overnight during
our field season.
Petra’s Modern StakeholdersThe situation surrounding the World Heritage site of
Petra is particularly complex and affected by at least
four interdependent factors: the tourism industry,
local Bedouin tribes, the designation of the Petra
Archaeological Park, and multiple abutting commu-
nities whose economies rely in part on engagements
with the site. Petra became a UNESCO World
Heritage site in 1985, and in 2012 celebrated the
200th anniversary of its Western re-identification by
the Swiss explorer Johann Ludwig Burckhardt
(Burckhardt 1822; Tuttle 2012, 2013: 1–3; Urban
and Tuttle 2014) (FIG. 1). A politically stable country
with a rich archaeological and cultural heritage,
Jordan has rightly touted Petra as one of its most
Figure 1 Map showing the extent of the BUPAP survey area (white dotted line) and density of modern material found in
individual survey units. Locations of test excavations, Bedouin-operated tourist camps, archaeological sites, modern
communities, and topographical features are also indicated. Map by A. Knodell.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 223
important tourist attractions for numerous reasons
(Shoup 1985: 297), not least of which was the site’s
recent designation as one of the ‘‘New 7 Wonders
of the World’’ (Anonymous 2013). Unsurprisingly,
additional tourist pressure and significant infrastruc-
tural impositions (such as damage to archaeological
sites through unchecked visitor flow) (Comer 2012:
12–13), have followed the announcement of this new
title with variable effects on the archaeological
heritage of the region.
The World Heritage site of Petra is also experien-
cing a growth of local Bedouin populations (mainly
the Bdul, Ammarin, and S‘eediyeen tribes) in its
immediate vicinity. The Bdul tribe actually lived
within ancient Petra until they were relocated in 1984
to the nearby village of Umm Sayhun (Fuleihan 2011:
95; Shoup 1985: 283–284) (FIG. 1). The previous
residential connection between the local inhabitants
and the site of Petra has not, however, been erased.
On the contrary, their interest in Petra has intensified,
since many Bedouins continue to rely on tourism as
an important source of revenue (Fuleihan 2011: 101–
102; Shoup 1985). Employment opportunities for
Bedouins are directly related to the archaeological
park, including running food and beverage conces-
sions and souvenir stalls, tour guiding, participating
in seasonal archaeological digs as hired laborers, and
providing donkey and camel rides. Clearly, many of
these opportunities offer only temporary employment
conditions, and depend heavily on the seasonally
variable presence of visitors. Although the Bedouins’
relationship to Petra’s monumental city center has
changed in the wake of resettlement, local interaction
with the landscape surrounding Petra has not
changed to the same extent. Some Bedouin family
groups (mostly Bdul, Ammarin, and S‘eediyeen) still
live in seasonal camps within Petra’s hinterland
where they continue to graze flocks of sheep and
goats and farm grains and produce. They are now,
however, offering tourists the chance to sleep under
the desert sky or in Bedouin tents in various forms of
‘‘ecotourism.’’ Unfortunately, most of these camping
experiences in the Petra Archaeological Park hinter-
lands constitute a ‘‘rogue’’ tourism activity without
government permission. This means that there is no
oversight entity checking the impact of these activities
on the Petra Archaeological Park resources.
Around the same time that the Bdul relocated to
Umm Sayhun in the mid-1980s the Ammarin tribe
settled in the village of Bayda (Bille 2012) (FIG. 1).
Not as involved in the Petra city center as the Bdul
tribe, the Ammarin Bedouins live in the vicinity of
other important, yet less frequently visited, archae-
ological sites including the Neolithic site of Bayda
(Byrd 1989, 2005; Kirkbride 1968), the nearby early
Islamic Bayda village (Sinibaldi and Tuttle 2011), the
Nabataean ritual complex of Little Petra (Akrawi
and Shekede 2010; Bikai et al. 2008: 495–406) and an
array of scattered Nabataean remains (Bikai et al.
2008). While archaeological remains have been
documented by BUPAP and other archaeological
projects throughout the Petra region, it appears that
a significant concentration of multi-phased archae-
ological sites overlap with several of the areas
presently being utilized for activities ranging from
agriculture and grazing to social gatherings and
camping by the Ammarin tribe—a matter discussed
below.
Since the Jordanian government formally estab-
lished the Petra Archaeological Park (Paolini et al.
2012: 53), the archaeological site of Petra has gone
through over forty years of heritage management and
monitoring (Akrawi 2012: 31). In addition to the local
stakeholder involvement, there is also the long-stand-
ing issue of defining an enforced and protected buffer
zone beyond the borders of the park. The importance
of establishing a buffer zone beyond the fixed borders
of a World Heritage site is necessary to assure the
latter’s protection; the archaeological heritage of the
region outside the Petra Archaeological Park limits is
under constant threat of development. In particular,
the ever-growing settlement sprawls of Wadi Musa and
Umm Sayhun—already beginning to encroach on
archaeological remains—will only continue to nibble
away at the archaeological record. The Wadi Musa
Salvage Excavation Project through their efforts in the
1990s observed this rapid intrusion (‘Amr et al. 1997).
For these reasons, UNESCO and the Jordanian
Department of Antiquities (DOA) have sought to
establish an appropriate buffer zone that would restrict
development activities for a certain perimeter outside
of the formal park boundaries. This is an ongoing
process that has proven contentious and to date has
not yet been finalized (Paolini et al. 2012: 49).
Between 2010 and 2013 BUPAP significantly added
to the corpus of archaeological data both within and
outside the present limits of the Petra Archaeological
Park. However, in addition to archaeological data
collection, BUPAP has also sought to document the
effects and extent of activity and land use in the ‘‘lived-
in’’ archaeological landscape north of Petra. Working
in this particular high profile, dynamic area,
we rapidly became aware that, in addition to the
collection of archaeological data, members of the
BUPAP team should take pains to observe and record
any negative impact or threats to that landscape as
well. In the following account we present three
overlapping aspects of our work: BUPAP’s integrative
method for documenting modern damage to archae-
ological heritage (mainly looting and vandalism) in a
lived-in landscape; the extent and nature of the
damage to archaeological heritage that we have
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
224 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2
identified; and a preliminary discussion of the effects
of looting, vandalism and the illicit antiquities trade
with regards to cultural heritage management.
Intensive Survey and the Lived-inArchaeological LandscapeThe Brown University Petra Archaeological Project
(BUPAP) sought to comprehensively document the
region immediately north of the Petra city center
(FIG. 1), including archaeological elements that have
been largely overlooked or examined only in isolation
(Knodell and Alcock in press, 2011: 489–492). Be-
tween 2010 and 2012 BUPAP undertook a systematic,
intensive pedestrian survey (the Petra Area and Wadi
Silaysil Survey [PAWS]) covering ca. 600 ha of
territory to the north of Petra. This survey area
encompassed a kind of natural basin, bounded to the
north by the Namala pass, to the east by the Shara
Mountains, to the south by Umm Sayhun and the
elevated ranges separating Petra from its northern
hinterland, and to the west by the steep escarpment to
the Wadi ‘Araba at Ras al-Silaysil. All territory in this
area deemed ‘‘walkable’’ was divided into survey units
(generally some 50 m wide and ca. 100 m long) and
covered by a team of five fieldwalkers, who inspected
the ground surface while walking side-by-side, spaced
10 m apart, systematically recording, mapping, count-
ing, and collecting artifacts as they went (Knodell and
Alcock 2011: 492–495). Areas not suitable for such
methods (such as rock formations or deep wadis) were
examined through extensive survey methods, which are
primarily meant to record any visible surface features
without any artifact collection in order to make
coverage as close to comprehensive as possible. While
such intensive methods have become widespread in the
Mediterranean over the last few decades (Alcock and
Cherry 2004), they remain relatively rare in Jordan and
the Middle East (Banning 2001: 634; MacDonald
2007). Our project demonstrates the potential of such
methods in Jordan through detailed recording and
mapping of extensive lithic scatters (ranging from
Lower Paleolithic to Bronze Age), ceramic densities
(from Bronze Age to Late Islamic), and archaeological
features (of which over 1000 have been recorded,
mapped, photographed, and drawn). In addition to the
ancient artifacts and features, we also recorded all
modern material, almost exclusively refuse, found
across the landscape (Alcock and Knodell in press;
Knodell and Alcock 2011; Brown University Petra
Archaeological Project 2013).
Most objects found that were not made of ceramic
or stone were of modern date, and were counted in
four categories: glass, metal, plastic, and other (such
as clothing, diapers, etc). These were then added
together to show the overall density of detritus. The
distribution patterns of modern material were not
entirely unexpected, and reflect very clearly the
locations, types, and intensities of modern uses of
this landscape. In analyzing the PAWS data, the
types of places where trash appears fall into three
broad categories: locations of general discard, for
example by the roadside; permanent or semi-perma-
nent locations of habitual occupation, for example
living or work places; and temporary camp or
picnicking sites.
Modern trash discard sitesWe found heavy concentrations of material along the
paved road that runs between the modern settlements
of Umm Sayhun and Bayda, then past Bayda to the
Namala pass that eventually descends into Wadi
‘Araba. Most of this is simply trash accumulation
that happens as the result of things being thrown out
of vehicle windows, or dropped by people walking or
riding animals as part of their daily routine. People
accessing the villages and locations within the BUPAP
survey area, such as Little Petra and Bayda use this
road frequently. There is also a fair amount of tourist
traffic between the site of Petra (via Umm Sayhun) and
Little Petra. The finds are what one would expect from
a roadside assemblage—mostly food and beverage
containers, along with a wide and often random
variety of other garbage.
Semi-permanent occupation sitesPlaces of habitual occupation, whether for work (such
as farming, tending animals, or guiding tourists) or
living, also tend to accumulate rather large amounts of
modern material. There are numerous semi-permanent
campsites throughout the BUPAP study area, occu-
pied by Bdul, Ammarin, or S‘eeyideen Bedouin, who
often also have houses in either Umm Sayhun, Bayda,
or another neighboring community, but choose to
spend much of their time within traditional tent
encampments in the desert. These campsites are often
located in areas of archaeological interest, especially
tombs or other cave-like locations that can provide
shelter or storage) that made the Petra city-center
so popular among the Bdul (Bienkowski 1985;
Bienkowski and Chlebik 1991; Ohannessian-Charpin
1986; Russell 1993). At the time of recording, several
of the feature complexes observed by PAWS were used
for animal pens, storage, semi-permanent campsites,
or other activities.
The areas in which such habitual occupation is best
represented are Areas a and d, indicated through
patterns of trash. The ‘‘Rock of Shamasa’’ (Lindner
and Gunsam 2002) (FIG. 1) is the site of an often-
occupied camp, and a rock-cut cave, most likely a
Nabataean tomb, which is currently used as a storage
area, and secured by a metal door with a lock. A
similar pattern of accumulated modern trash at
archaeological remains is apparent some half a
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 225
kilometer north-northeast of Shamasa on a rock
formation at the intersection of two dirt tracks that
diverge from the main paved road. Among the high
densities of modern material is a complex set of
archaeological features including two tombs, other
rock and structural remains, and a large pressing
installation. A group of Bedouin regularly occupies
this place. Other inhabited places include the area
southwest of Islamic Bayda (in the immediate vicinity
of feature/site c66) (FIG. 1), where people store food
in cisterns and presses, and pen their animals in the
tombs and quarries cut in the nearby rock forma-
tions. The distribution of modern material culture
(especially trash) consistently correlates with the
location of archaeological remains. Thus it is clear
that ancient sites are being widely used by the local
communities today for a variety of reasons—from
temporary camping and social gathering, to perma-
nent dwelling, to farming and animal husbandry.
Tourist camps are another subcategory of habi-
tually occupied areas; we found four in the BUPAP
study area: the Seven Wonders Bedouin Camp and
the Desert Camp—both opened since the 2007 New 7
Wonders designation—and the much longer estab-
lished Little Petra Bedouin Camp and Seven Stars
Bedouin Camp (FIG. 1). A fifth camp, called The
Rock, was recently established just north of our
survey area, near the archaeological site(s) of Ba‘ja.
These camps are fairly well kept, though there is a
general trend of small (at the Ammarin Camp) to
large (at the Little Petra Camp) increases in the
amount of trash in the surrounding areas. Finally,
potential tourist attractions (ranging from archae-
ological sites such as Little Petra to features
documented in detail by the BUPAP team) draw a
fair amount of activity from visitors, as well as from
locals, leading to the presence of trash. The density of
modern material reflects rather clearly what one
would expect based on the amount of contemporary
activity.
Overnight sitesThe final category of modern landscape use with clear
material correlates constitutes incidental picnicking
or camping events. Some locations are very popular
for such gatherings, which has resulted in ‘‘hot spots’’
of modern material, but generated for different
reasons than the distributions resulting from living
or working spaces as discussed above. PAWS recorded
several clear camping/picnicking locations throughout
the survey area. Areas easily accessible from the road
were by far the most popular for this type of activity.
Plateaus along the road in the southern part of the
survey area, as well as in various locations nestled
among the rock formations east of Shamasa, were also
identified as overnight sites. The final area where this
type of activity is best represented is the northernmost
extent of the survey area, just to the west of the road
leading from Bayda to the Namala pass via Siq al-
Hayran.
The overall spatial patterns here are clear, and the
type of activity, whether casual littering, living/
working, or incidental picnicking/camping, is rela-
tively easy to discern on the ground through the
recording of modern material. But who is responsible
for these material signatures? It is the movement by
local people (mostly linked to tourism) who move
through and inhabit this landscape who create this
modern material record. The final category, of
incidental events that have taken place in the land-
scape, comprises the activities of the widest range of
individuals and groups. Some of this is clearly derived
from locals having weekend barbeques or campouts
away from their more permanent homes in nearby
towns and villages. Yet some of these areas are also
frequent locations for more large-scale events: includ-
ing local wedding parties and other festivities that
receive no official sanction, as well as commercial
events sponsored by local tour agencies and hotels
which receive official permits from the Petra Archaeo-
logical Park. This is no surprise, given the spectacular
nature of the environmental settings. The attraction of
these spaces are multivalent and, as we see below, such
locations can become places of abuse or contention,
especially due to their condition as sites of archae-
ological importance. Indeed, the placement of modern
Bedouin sites, identified best through discarded trash,
indicate their awareness of archaeological remains and
provides an opportunity for looting and vandalism of
cultural heritage.
Looting and Vandalism in Petra’s HinterlandThe continued and protracted human use of this
lived-in landscape means that anthropocentric effects
can be expected widely across the survey area. Most
worryingly, between 2010 and 2012 the BUPAP
intensive survey and feature documentation team
recognized numerous instances of anthropogenic
damage—at 13 features and in 11 survey units. At
some sites, looting was only identified through
clearing and excavation since most archaeological
features in the landscape have continued to be
routinely visited and used up to the present. During
the 2012 season a ‘‘test squares’’ method was
introduced to produce multiple types of data,
including an assessment of the archaeological poten-
tial of ancient material remains exposed in the
surface. Such on-the-ground assessment was under-
taken with two goals in mind. First, it can be used to
illustrate and justify the further investigation of any
given site in the near future. Through careful
excavation and documentation such an evaluation
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
226 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2
reveals the archaeological stratigraphy of the site,
which includes the identification of modern intrusions
that are often the results of looting and illicit digging.
Such illicit digging, which we broadly distinguish as
either economically-motivated looting or quarrying
for building materials, are here identified as disturbed
areas with often irregular dimensions, lack of backfill,
and no known published mention of excavations at
the examined site.
We focus on six particular instances of sites that
produced ample evidence of looting, a number that
is representative of the abundance of destructive
activities in Petra’s hinterland. Of the ten features we
examined in 2012 through test excavations (FIG. 1),
six features had already been looted prior to the start
of our investigation (a45, e207, e143, f56, b55, and
c66). To better comprehend the level of impact
and type of intrusion observed at these sites, our
archaeological excavations thoroughly documented
the extent of looting and its effects on both surface
and subsurface features.
Feature a45Feature a45 is a rock-cut shrine near the Nabataean
settlement of Shamasa (Lindner and Gunsam 2002).
Located in a secluded spot between two bedrock
outcrops and accessed by several rock-cut steps
leading over a natural dip between the outcrops, the
shrine is marked by a baetyl (sacred stone) carved
into a large niche next to a ritual water collection
basin designed to catch run-off from the bedrock
(FIG. 2). These two rock-cut features are on a vertical
surface of the east-facing bedrock outcrop, and only
become visible when one climbs into the enclosed
space. According to Lindner and Gusman (2002:
232–234), this feature was possibly a shrine to the
Nabataean deity Dushara based on the character-
istics and presence of a formalized natural depres-
sion, the baetyl and water basin, as well as its
relationship to a ‘‘well-trodden’’ pathway (2002: 234).
In a portion of our test trench (463 m), located at
the base of the bedrock outcrop directly below the
carved baetyl niche and water collection basin, we
found a flagstone floor comprised of large ashlar
limestone blocks (FIG. 2). Unfortunately in the
remainder of the test trench, most of this floor had
been torn up and disturbed by a large looting pit,
which over time had become filled in and completely
concealed by aeolian and fluvial sediments. The
location of this disturbance in the stratigraphic
record, right at the base of the main baetyl niche,
indicates that looters may have deliberately targeted
what they saw as the most important part of the
shrine, which was also picked up by an earlier
geophysical survey of the feature (FIG. 3). Indeed,
these individuals appear to have been ambitious,
since they dug through the paved limestone floor
(lifting and removing many large flagstones) and
continued all the way down to virgin soil. There is no
evidence from the intensive survey that the pilfered
floor was relocated elsewhere within the shrine’s
immediate vicinity, but we cannot dismiss the possi-
bility that the limestone pavers were removed (‘‘quar-
ried’’) and transported some distance for reuse.
Through photography and archaeological illustration
of the stratigraphic profile we observed that the
looting pit appears to have been succeeded by
numerous campfires that included plastic and other
Figure 2 The ‘‘Dushara shrine’’ (a45) excavation trench
(view towards the north), showing the flagstone floor and the
location of the looting trench. Photograph by E. Bocancea.
Figure 3 A ground-penetrating radar (GPR) profile view of feature a45 with various indications of disturbance from modern
trash and evidence of looting. Image by T. Urban.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 227
modern materials as it filled in over time, implying the
pit’s relatively recent occurrence and infilling.
Although the potential looting activity that we
uncovered during excavation at feature a45 occurred
possibly a decade or more ago as suggested by
Lindner and Gunsam (2002: 233), the current and
ongoing threat was made abundantly clear to us
when we returned to the site several days after having
completed the excavation. To our dismay, we
discovered a freshly dug pit in the corner of our
back-filled trench where looters had excavated
through the backfill all the way down to the flagstone
floor below, seemingly abandoning their efforts when
they found no artifacts or objects of value. In the
summer of 2013 we returned to feature a45 and
observed that the old looter’s trench identified during
excavations in the previous year (which archaeological
work had buried with selected backfill) was partly re-
excavated and a part of the flagstone floor destroyed.
In this instance, it was clear that it was our presence
and excavations at the site had prompted the looters to
target this particular location, a pattern that has been
identified globally in other archaeological fieldwork
(Bowman Proulx 2011a, 2011b; Hanna 2013; Kersel
and Chesson 2013a; Kersel et al. 2008; Roosevelt and
Luke 2006; Smith 2005).
Features e207, f56, and e143More recent looting pits, which had not yet been filled
in by sediment, were observed at more remote and
elevated sites, including features e207 and f56. These
two archaeological sites, loosely identified as outlook
posts, seem to have been largely occupied during the
later Nabataean to early Roman period. Typically
made up of a large room with a small side chamber, the
material culture of these outlook posts consists of
utilitarian ceramics, and almost no other types of
artifacts. Despite such mundane (yet archaeologically
important) finds, systematic looting of these sites was
observed in the form of rectangular trenches that were
typically placed within spaces that looters interpret as
potential doorways or interior corners. Feature e207,
for example, showed visible surface disturbance from
illegal excavations in the doorway of the small side
room (FIG. 4), and another looter’s trench was found in
the corner of a room in f56 (FIG. 5). Similarly, evidence
of past looting was also noted in the entrance to a
collapsed circular building, e143, which might have
been a silo or some other type of agricultural storage
structure. The strategic location of these trenches and
the lack of evidence for quarrying of blocks for reuse
point to an economic motivation underlying these
instances of looting.
Feature c66Feature c66 comprises the remains of a square
platform built of large unusually high-quality lime-
stone ashlar blocks. Based on its morphology,
architectural features, and associated ceramics, we
identified this monument as possibly a Nabataean
open-air platform. Located in a field immediately
south of and across a wadi from the Islamic Bayda
village, the platform’s placement appears to have
been deliberately chosen to highlight a visual
relationship to Siq al-Amti (FIGS. 1, 6), near Little
Petra. Siq Al-Amti contains the remains of a large
Nabataean monumental ashlar complex for ritual
Figure 4 Profile view of a looter’s trench in e207 (indicated
by white line), which was excavated into a side-room
doorway. Photograph by C. Vella.
Figure 5 Looting trench (indicated by white line) and
leftover spoil heap (indicated by a black line) in a corner of
a room within structure f56. Photograph by E. Bocancea.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
228 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2
and agricultural activities (Bikai et al. 2008: 464) and
towards which the structure is directly oriented. This
platform is located in plain view of and in close
proximity to the very impressive Nabataean Hall,
located on an elevated massif (a displaced mass of
crustal material forming a relief feature) about half a
mile northeast of feature c66. This hall features an
elaborate series of Hellenistic monumental structures
and architectural decoration, which are also visible
from the platform (Bikai et al. 2008). Sadly, it was
almost entirely disturbed by looting activities that
were most visibly focused on quarrying well-made
blocks. The majority of the structure’s interior and
large portions of its perimeter were disturbed, with
some of the perimeter ashlar blocks seen strewn
about the fields in the vicinity. Some blocks had been
reused in nearby terrace walls, but most of the
missing blocks were seemingly taken elsewhere for
reuse.
The primary damage was particularly evident on
top of feature c66, where the vast majority of the
ashlar blocks comprising the structure’s surface were
missing, especially in the north, east, and central
parts. Some of the blocks from the southeastern
corner were repositioned and combined at some point
with unhewn fieldstones along the exterior of the
southern wall to form an abutting semicircular
feature that may have been intended as a mih. rab (a
niche, typically in a mosque, indicating direction of
Mecca). Only a few blocks from this top course were
still in situ in the southwestern corner. Part of the
looting cut in this corner had been refilled and re-
leveled with fieldstones at some later date, possibly
related to later repurposing. Abutting the exterior of
the platform’s western side was a mound of soil and
rubble, and a test trench revealed that below the
topsoil it contained a large concentration of uncon-
solidated rubble and stone fragments of all sizes was
found. This rubble was identified as the waste dump
from the looting of the platform. Within this dump
were several noteworthy fragments of architectural
elements including bits of cornice and several block
pieces with incised parallel lines suggesting that the
structure was originally adorned to reflect its func-
tional purpose. Given that we found no evidence of
decorated architectural elements anywhere else in
our exploration of this feature, this looter’s dump
effectively preserved our only trace of such material,
albeit within a disturbed, secondary context.
Feature b55The archaeological site of Ras al-Silaysil is located
north of Petra (FIG. 1), at the end of a major wadi.
The site can be identified from extensive surface
remains as a multi-zoned settlement that spans the
uneven bedrock between a High Place (a naturally
elevated location probably used for ritual and cultic
purposes) (Lindner and Gunsam 1995) and scattered
buildings to the immediate east and south. The site at
Ras al-Silaysil has experienced numerous events of
looting and vandalism. Lindner and Gunsam (1995:
271–272) noted such an incident during their visit in
1992, which included the destruction of the ritual
High Place at Ras al-Silaysil.
On a smaller scale, but nevertheless disconcerting,
we noted the presence of several looting trenches
(some more recent, others older) upon arrival at the
site where we investigated two structures in particu-
lar. One of these, b55, is a large structure located to
the immediate east of the High Place, situated on the
eastern side of a small wadi. Drawing on the results
of BUPAP’s 2010 initial survey of the area, we
decided to excavate in this location for three reasons.
First, it happens to be one of the only discernible
structures built with semi-dressed sandstone ashlar
masonry in the area. Second, b55 is a larger structure
than most, containing a series of sub-room divisions
that are partially covered by extensive collapse.
Furthermore, it became clear to us that this structure,
like other prominent buildings in the Ras al-Silaysil
area that has been specifically targeted by looters. We
identified several recent looter’s pits that were located
throughout the structure and appear to have been
excavated using hoes. The material removed by the
looters was dumped in a pile next to the illegal
trenches. In this case, two possible reasons underlie
the looting of this particular location: the fact that it
is conspicuously ‘‘nicer’’ in its construction technique
than all the surrounding structures, and the fact that
we (and other previous archaeological teams) have
paid significant attention to the site of Ras al-Silaysil
over the years.
The Selling of Looted ArtifactsAlthough we have found evidence for looting and
quarrying at archaeological sites throughout the
Figure 6 View of the altar platform (c66) looking northwards
facing Siq al-Amti. Note how much of its northern, eastern,
and southern portions are disturbed and/or missing.
Photograph by E. Bocancea.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 229
BUPAP survey area, it is difficult for us to say what,
if anything, of value was recovered by those
responsible. It seems that with the exception of the
reuse of large ashlar blocks from the Nabataean
platform (feature c66), most of the looting activity
was likely aimed at discovering artifacts worthy of
sale. This preliminary interpretation returns to our
earlier definition of looting as an activity that is
largely motivated by hope of economic gain. Sadly,
the economic downturn and military conflicts pre-
sently being experienced in the Middle East have
fueled both the local and international antiquities
market(s) (Farchakh-Bajjaly 2008: 135; Kersel 2007;
Nicky 2013; Politis 2002: 267). Around Petra, we
witnessed these effects through the conspicuous
selling of artifacts to tourists visiting the area
(Comer 2012: 181–182), many of whom simply do
not realize, or willfully ignore, the ethical implica-
tions of purchasing an ancient coin or lamp (FIG. 7).
At the same time, we were surprised to discover
firsthand that sellers see archaeologists as potential
buyers. This observation was indeed made by several
of us when dealing either with some locals who work/
worked in archaeological projects or with their
relatives, who on at least two occasions tried to sell
us illegally acquired artifacts. During our field seasons
within the Petra region, we have observed many
occasions where ancient artifacts were, to different
degrees, publicly advertised for sale. Some vendors
who are stationed within frequently visited archae-
ological sites offer passersby ancient coins, which are
typically hidden from view and only offered when the
occasion arises. In other cases, the illicit goods are even
more blatantly presented (FIG. 7 and 8).
At a smaller and relatively less visited site very
close to Petra (here nameless for site protection),
vendor stalls positioned right beside the visitor
parking lot advertise an array of local handcrafted
goods and tourist trinkets. During a visit in July
2012, we observed genuine and high-quality Natufian
and Neolithic stone tools for sale, in piles on tables
within full view of everyone passing by (FIG. 8). After
some of the authors showed a visible interest in the
lithics, the proprietor exclaimed ‘‘Neolithic stone
knife!’’ as he simultaneously pulled out a large
cardboard box filled with even more lithics, offering
us the largest tools for 3 Jordanian Dinar (JD) and
the smaller ones for 1.50 JD ($4.20 USD and $2.10
USD). This low asking price financially equated a
perfect Neolithic blade with a can of Coca-Cola,
though this low price may reflect the context of a less
visited tourist destination. To see many intact
Neolithic blades and other prehistoric lithics being
displayed for sale surprised us, particularly consider-
ing the fact that we had found only limited quantities
of similar type and caliber during our systematic
pedestrian survey around nearby Neolithic Bayda
and in the wider landscape. The existence of such a
large collection of stone tools would seem to strongly
indicate that local collecting and/or looting efforts
might have marginally compromised our observed
lithic distribution patterns in this area.
It is noteworthy that vendors at this site were
aware that at least one of those to whom he was
speaking was an archaeologist working in the area,
but this did not seem to deter the efforts to sell us
artifacts (in fact, quite the opposite). Yet requests to
photograph the lithics, saying we wanted to show them
to a friend of ours, led to their removal from sight, and
our presence rapidly became unwelcome. This reac-
tion, and the general manner in which these events
unfolded, indicated to us that—at least in this
instance—the individuals involved in selling these
artifacts were knowledgeable about the local archae-
ology (citing a known prehistoric site in the vicinity)
and were also clearly aware of the problematic (even
Figure 7 An observed tourist stall in the main Petra city
center, which aside from typical souvenirs included an array
of Nabataean painted ceramic shards, coins, and oil lamps.
Photograph by E. Bocancea.
Figure 8 Booth selling tourist souvenirs outside of the Petra
city center. Note the pile of lithics, which are being collected
and sold illegally within the limits of the Petra Archaeological
Park. Photograph by E. Bocancea.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
230 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2
illegal) nature of their actions. At present we are
gathering a preliminary portrait of the economics and
ethics of the situation on the ground, which will
require further investigation to understand such
practices, and what might be done to ameliorate them
within the particular circumstances and contexts of the
Petra Archaeological Park and its environs.
The Vandalism of Archaeological Heritage inPetra’s HinterlandAlthough the looting and selling of artifacts in the
Petra area is troubling, we have also observed
deliberate acts of vandalism (including the defacement
and destruction of ancient architectural remains and
rock-cut features) wrought upon sites and features in
the landscape with no apparent motivation. Based on
our observations in the BUPAP survey area, it appears
that such destructive acts at archaeological sites
potentially occur in relation to two particular scenar-
ios. First, vandalism was carried out by unidentified
individuals on archaeological features that are ‘un-
lootable’, or which in no way offer the possibility of
buried artifacts of financial value. We cannot identify
with certainty the perpetrators of these acts. We also
do not presently know or understand the reason(s) or
intent(s) that may underlie these incidents of inten-
tional damaging of visible, unmovable features. Such
motivations could range from complex to simplistic
(see Chokhani 1979; Kersel 2013; Nickens 1991). A
complex example, that specifically involves the local
populations, could potentially include the intentional
destruction of heritage features in order to ensure that
the Jordanian government does not appropriate
private land for annexation to the archaeological
park. A more simplistic example is that visitors or
locals execute such damage out of simple boredom or a
lack of awareness of intrinsic values—a widespread
human phenomenon that is known to affect all built
and created environments, whether ancient or modern.
An example of such vandalism of damage can be
seen on a large baetyl (feature d60) carved into a
bedrock outcrop within the bounds of the Petra
Archaeological Park that lies not far from the
modern road between the villages of Umm Sayhoun
and Bayda (Wenning 2001). Our initial identification
and documentation of this feature during the 2011
pedestrian survey noted evidence of damage to its
surface done prior to our first visit (the sandstone
exposed by those previous acts having gained a
patina from weathering over time) (FIG. 9). During
revisit to the site in 2012, however, the figure
displayed significant and recent damage, including
fresh tool or stone marks.
A second type of vandalism results from the careless
use and abuse of features in the archaeological
landscape around Petra. One particularly shocking
example is a well-preserved and unique Nabataean
rock-cut structure containing two rooms, located on
private land outside the Petra Archaeological Park
boundary that was initially recorded during pedestrian
Figure 9 Photograph of damage observed over one year at baetyl d60. Photograph by C. Vella.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 231
survey in 2011. At the time, we noted the presence of
large amounts of accumulated garbage within the
interior, indicating a significant amount of modern
activity at the site. A revisit in 2012 revealed both a
large looting pit in the corner of the structure’s main
room (dug all the way down to the bedrock), and the
fact that the entire structure had been turned into an
ad hoc public bathroom. This usage was confirmed by
several new instances of graffiti inscribed on the
outside wall, in English and Arabic, which (among
other things) stated ‘‘WC’’ (water closet); it is common
knowledge that human waste, particularly urine, is
deeply detrimental to the soft sandstone of Petra. In
this instance, the looting of a unique archaeological
feature and its conversion into a public bathroom is an
unfortunate example of the intersection between
ancient and modern land-use within the Petra region.
These illustrative examples are just two of the
vandalism incidents that have been recorded through-
out the BUPAP study area in the northern hinterland
region of ancient Petra. During the preparation of this
article another severe incidence of vandalism occurred
at a monument that also has a historic association with
Brown University. The Petra ‘‘Great Temple’’ com-
plex located in the ancient city center was excavated,
restored, and presented during a project (1993–2009)
directed by Martha Sharp Joukowsky (1998, 2007;
Sharp Joukowsky and Basile 2001), now Professor
Emerita of Brown University. In antiquity, this
building complex included colonnades in which the
columns were crowned by unique capitals with
elephant heads in place of volutes on the corners.
During this project a complete exemplar of one of
these elephant-headed capitals was consolidated and
emplaced on an engaged pilaster so that visitors would
be able to see and understand the uniqueness of these
architectural elements (FIG. 10). In April 2013 this
restored elephant head was severely damaged when
visitors to the site repeatedly threw multiple stones at
the artifact, smashing away the animal’s trunk.
Although the Petra Archaeological Park staff recov-
ered most of the fragments, and it appears likely that
the artifact can be repaired and restored again to its
position, it is tragic that it will never again be seen in
the original state of preservation in which it was
originally found.
Discussion: Reacting to an Imminent RiskThe circumstances and activities outlined above
inevitably lead us back to our initial question: How
can we better protect the cultural and archaeological
heritage of the region around Petra? This question,
much debated amongst the present authors and many
of the project’s participants, has yielded many
potential answers but little practical consensus. On
the most basic level, cultural heritage throughout
Petra’s hinterland is under constant threat from
ongoing and expanding settlement and utilization of
the area, including a growing regional population,
pressure from tourism, the attraction of potential
economic gain to local poverty-stricken communities,
and differing local perceptions about the importance of
archaeological heritage and its protection. As we face
an intensification of looting and vandalism at archae-
ological sites throughout the Petra Archaeological
Park (and beyond), we feel strongly about the need to
document this destruction and protect as much as
possible the remaining archaeological heritage of the
broader region. This is especially urgent considering
the fact that most of the landscape that BUPAP has
been surveying, documenting, and excavating in
Petra’s northern hinterland had not been previously
studied or properly recorded. While the Petra city
center continues to receive the bulk of archaeological
attention, the hinterland also has a vast archaeological
potential. It is thus sobering to consider all the sites and
features, which have been or are being destroyed before
we even have the chance to learn about them or to
record them for future generations. BUPAP has sought
to do its part in this respect since 2010 through the
detailed documentation of Petra’s northern hinterland,
in which over 1000 archaeological features have now
been recorded.
Indeed, we feel that the ongoing debate regarding
the enforcement of an archaeological buffer zone is
an extremely important matter (Paolini et al. 2012:
67–74), to which BUPAP has added a significant
corpus of information over the past three years. The
data gathered from our pedestrian surveys, feature
documentation, geophysical investigations, and test
excavations within a large area north of Petra has
been shared with both the Jordanian Department of
Antiquities and UNESCO. We believe that our
results thus far demonstrate the existence of intense
long-term human occupation both within, and most
Figure 10 The well-preserved elephant head capital at the
‘‘Great Temple’’ complex in the Petra city prior to (left) and
after vandalism (right). Photographs by Qais Tweissi and C.
Tuttle.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
232 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2
importantly, outside the present boundaries of the
Petra Archaeological Park, making a strong argu-
ment in favor of establishing and enforcing a broad
buffer zone in light of the growing negative human
impact on this landscape. Closely related to the issue
of modern occupation and its impact is the presence
of vandalism. Typical conversations with our local
friends, hosts and colleagues make it clear that
cultural heritage is widely understood as the main
source of economic potential for the Petra region.
However, looting and vandalism are still observable,
which surely requires an updated grass roots educa-
tion, locally-driven heritage management, and com-
munity engagement strategies that are specific to this
place in this time (Abu-Kafajah and Al Rabady 2013;
Comer 2012; Damick and Lash 2013; de Vries 2013;
Fagan 1993: 239; Kersel 2006; Pendergast 1991;
Simmons and Najjar 2013; Tuttle 2013, 2012).
ConclusionThe intersection of cultural heritage, modern settle-
ment, and land use is not bereft of unhappy situations.
In numerous developing countries, the lack of
economic prosperity coupled with global and local
antiquities collecting often leads to the looting of
archaeological sites. It is, however, rare for archae-
ological projects to conduct on-the-ground systematic
documentation and assessment of the damage to
archaeological heritage. BUPAP’s ongoing research
in Petra’s northern hinterland has revealed the
presence of an intensely occupied landscape from the
Lower Palaeolithic into modern times. The long-term
occupation of this region extends beyond the present
confines of the Petra Archaeological Park, which is
currently a protected zone. Thus, if modern damage to
important archaeological sites can be observed both
inside and outside this park, the need for an updated
protection plan, which includes both regulation and
measures to and make them meaningful, is indispu-
table. In the meantime, it appears that the economic
downturn experienced in the past few years is having a
considerable and negative effect on Petra’s archaeol-
ogy (Nicky 2013), and thus on our ability to under-
stand this UNESCO World Heritage site and new
‘‘Wonder of the World.’’
AcknowledgmentsThis research was generously supported by the Curtiss
T. and Mary G. Brennan Foundation, the Platt
Fellowship (American Schools of Oriental Research),
and the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology and the
Ancient World at Brown University. Dr. Emad
Hijazeen and Eng. Tahani al-Salhi from the Petra
Archaeological Park and Akram Atoom from the
Department of Antiquities of the Hashemite Kingdom
of Jordan played a considerable role in the project,
while often also acting as generous hosts to their
country’s heritage. The Weidenfeld Research Fellow-
ship at the University of Oxford also supported
geophysical investigations. The Brown University
Petra Archaeological Project survey, feature docu-
mentation, and test excavations were supported by a
considerable group of dedicated individuals whose
commitment is greatly appreciated by the present
authors. We are also indebted to our many friends
amongst the Bdoul and Ammarin for their unwavering
hospitality over the years. We would also like to thank
the anonymous reviewers whose comments signifi-
cantly improved this paper.
Clive Vella (M.A. 2009, University of Malta) is a
Ph.D. candidate at the Joukowsky Institute for
Archaeology and the Ancient World at Brown
University. He has undertaken years of rescue archae-
ology in Malta, as well as fieldwork in Italy, Gibraltar,
and Jordan. Since 2011 he has been responsible for
processing stone tools collected by PAWS and was a
co-director of the excavations program conducted in
2012 on behalf of the Brown University Petra
Archaeological Project (BUPAP).
Emanuela Bocancea (M.A. 2009, University of
Alberta) is a Ph.D. candidate at the Joukowsky
Institute for Archaeology and the Ancient World at
Brown University. She has conducted archaeological
fieldwork in Greece, Romania, Spain, Montserrat
(British West Indies), and Jordan. Since 2010 she
has been a senior researcher with the Brown University
Petra Archaeological Project (BUPAP). She co-
directed both the 2012 test excavation program and
the study of the Wadi Baqa’ runoff farming system
north of Petra.
Thomas M. Urban (M.Sc. 2010, University of Oxford)
is a Fellow at the Research Laboratory for Archaeology
and the History of Art, Oxford University, Visiting
Scholar at the Institute for Archaeology and Material
Studies, Cornell University, and formerly a research
scientist for the Environmental Geophysics and
Hydrology Group, Brown University. He has conducted
field research at more than 200 sites in the Americas,
Europe, and the Middle East.
Alex R. Knodell (Ph.D. 2013, Brown University) is
Assistant Professor at Carleton College. He conducts
archaeological research and fieldwork in Greece and
Jordan. He serves as Field Survey Director for the
Brown University Petra Archaeological Project in
Jordan.
Christopher A. Tuttle (Ph.D. 2008, Brown University)
is Executive Director of the Council of American
Overseas Research Centers. Between 2006 and 2014
he was the Associate Director of the American Center of
Oriental Research (ACOR) in Amman, Jordan. He is
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 233
the director of the Temple of the Winged Lions Cultural
Resource Management Initiative (TWLCRM), co-
director of the Brown University Petra Archaeological
Project (BUPAP), manager of other CRM projects for
ACOR, and consults on Petra with academic and media
projects.
Susan E. Alcock (Ph.D. 1989, University of
Cambridge) is Director of the Joukowsky Institute for
Archaeology and the Ancient World and Joukowsky
Family Professor in Archaeology at Brown University.
A classical archaeologist, with interests in the material
culture of the eastern Mediterranean and western Asia,
particularly in Hellenistic and Roman times, much of her
research to date has revolved around themes of land-
scape, imperialism, sacred space, and memory. She is
presently co-directing the Brown University Petra
Archaeological Project (BUPAP).
ReferencesAbu-Khafajah, S., and R. Al Rabady. 2013. ‘‘The ‘Jordanian’
Roman Complex: Reinventing Urban Landscape to Accom-modate Globalization,’’ Near Eastern Archaeology 76: 186–192.
Akrawi, A., and L. Shekede. 2010. ‘‘A Unique NabataeanWall Painting in Petra: Conservation in Situ,’’ Studies inConservation 55: 214–219.
Akrawi, A. 2012. ‘‘Forty-four years of Management Plans inPetra,’’ in D. Comer, ed., Tourism and Archaeological HeritageManagement at Petra: Driver to Development or Destruction?New York: Springer Science, 31–75.
Alcock, S. E., and J. F. Cherry, eds. 2004. Side-by-Side Survey:Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World.Oxford: Oxbow.
Alcock, S. E., and A. R. Knodell. 2012. ‘‘Landscapes North ofPetra: The Petra Area and Wadi Silaysil Survey (BrownUniversity Petra Archaeological Project, 2010–2011),’’ in L.Nehme and L. Wadeson, eds., The Nabataeans in Focus:Current Archaeological Research at Petra. Papers from theSpecial Session of the Seminar for Arabian Studies Held on 29July 2011. Supplement to the Proceedings of the Seminar forArabian Studies 42. Oxford: Archaeopress, 5–16.
‘Amr, K., S. Al-Nawafleh, and H. Qrarhi. 1997. ‘‘A PreliminaryNote on the Wadi Musa Salvage Excavation 1996,’’ Annual ofthe Department of Antiquities of Jordan 41: 469–473.
Anonymous. 2013. ‘‘The Official New 7 Wonders of the World,’’World of 7 New Wonders. (http://world.new7wonders.com/new7-wonders-of-the-world-finalists/petra-9-b-c-40-a-d-jordan/).
Atwood, R. 2006. Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, andthe Looting of the Ancient World. New York: Macmillian Press.
Atwood, R. 2009. ‘‘To Catch a Looter,’’ The New York Times. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/opinion/13atwood.html?src5tp).
Banning, E. B. 2001. ‘‘Archaeological Survey in Jordan,’’ in B.MacDonald, R. Adams, and P. Bienkowski, eds., TheArchaeology of Jordan. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,631–638.
Bienkowski, P. 1985. ‘‘New Caves for Old: Bedouin Architecture inPetra,’’ World Archaeology 17: 149–160.
Bienkowski, P., and B. Chlebik. 1991. ‘‘Changing Places:Architecture and Spatial Organization of the Bedul in Petra,’’Levant 23: 147–180.
Bikai, P. M., C. Kanellopoulos, and S. L. Saunders. 2008. ‘‘Beidhain Jordan: A Dionysian Hall in a Nabataean Landscape,’’American Journal of Archaeology 112: 465–507.
Bille, M. 2012. ‘‘Assembling Heritage: Investigating the UNESCOProclamation of Bedouin Intangible Heritage in Jordan,’’International Journal of Heritage Studies 18: 107–123.
Bowman Proulx, B. 2011a. ‘‘Organized Criminal Involvement inthe Illicit Antiquities Trade,’’ Trends in Organized Crime 14: 1–29.
Bowman Proulx, B. 2011b. ‘‘Drugs, Arms and Arrowheads: Theftfrom Archaeological Sites and the Dangers of Fieldwork,’’Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 27: 500–522.
Brodie, N., and C. Renfrew. 2005. ‘‘Looting and the World’sArchaeological Heritage: The Inadequate Response,’’ AnnualReview of Anthropology 34: 343–361.
Brown University Petra Archaeological Project (BUPAP). 2013.(http://proteus.brown.edu/bupap/Home).
Burckhardt, J. L. 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. 2 vols.London: Murray.
Byrd, B. F. 1989. The Natufian Encampment at Beidha: LatePleistocene Adaptation in the Southern Levant. Aarhus: JutlandArchaeological Society Publications.
Byrd, B. F. 2005. Early Village Life at Beidha, Jordan: NeolithicSpatial Organization and Vernacular Architecture. TheExcavations of Mrs. Diana Kirkbride-Helbæk. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.
Chokhani, P. 1979. ‘‘Destruction on Public Lands: A Closer Lookat Vandalism,’’ Our Public Lands 29: 9–11.
Clewlow, Jr., C. W., P. S. Hallinan, and R. D. Ambro. 1971. ‘‘ACrisis in Archaeology,’’ American Antiquity 36: 472–473.
Comer, D. C., ed. 2012. Tourism and Archaeological HeritageManagement at Petra: Driver to Development or Destruction?New York: Springer.
Contreras, D. A. 2010. ‘‘Huaqueros and Remote Sensing Imagery:Assessing Looting Damage in the Viru Valley, Peru,’’ Antiquity84: 544–555.
Contreras, D. A., and N. Brodie. 2010a. ‘‘The Utility of Publicly-Available Satellite Imagery for Investigating Looting ofArchaeological Sites in Jordan,’’ Journal of Field Archaeology35: 101–114.
Contreras, D. A., and N. Brodie. 2010b. ‘‘Shining Light onLooting: Using Google Earth to Quantify Damage and RaisePublic Awareness,’’ SAA Archaeological Record 10: 30–33.
Damick, A., and A. Lash. 2013. ‘‘The Past Performative: Thinkingthrough the Azraq Community Archaeology Project,’’ NearEastern Archaeology 76: 142–150.
de Vries, B. 2013. ‘‘Archaeology and Community in Jordan andGreater Syria: Traditional Patters and New Directions,’’ NearEastern Archaeology 76: 132–141.
Donnan, C. B., W. M. Sudduth, P. E. Dietz, and R. E. W. Adams.1991. ‘‘Archaeology and Looting: Preserving the Record,’’Science 251: 498.
Fagan, B. 1993. ‘‘The Arrogant Archaeologist,’’ Archaeology 46(6):14–16.
Farchakh-Bajjaly, J. 2008. ‘‘Will Mesopotamia Survive the War?The Continuous Destruction of Iraq’s Archaeological Sites,’’ inP. G. Stone and J. Farchakh-Bajjaly, eds., The Destruction ofCultural Heritage in Iraq. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 135–142.
Fuleihan, L. 2011. ‘‘Urban Nomads of Petra: An AlternativeInterpretation of the Bedoul Bedouin’s Relationship withHistory and Space,’’ Consilience: The Journal of SustainableDevelopment 6: 91–112.
Gilgan, E. 2001. ‘‘Looting and the Market for Maya Objects. ABelizean Perspective,’’ in N. Brodie, J. Doole, and C. Renfrew,eds., Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The Destruction of the World’sArcheological Heritage. Cambridge: McDonald Institute forArchaeological Research, 73–87.
Hanna, M. 2013. ‘‘What Has Happened to Egyptian Heritage afterthe 2011 Unfinished Revolution?,’’ Journal of EasternMediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1: 371–375.
Hollowell-Zimmer, J. 2003. ‘‘Digging in the Dirt: Ethics and ‘Low-End Looting’,’’ in K. J. Zimmerman, K. D. Vitelli, and J.Hollowell-Zimmer, eds., Ethical Issues in Archaeology.Lanham: Altamira Press, 46–56.
Kersel, M. M. 2006. ‘‘From the Ground to the Buyer: A MarketAnalysis of the Trade in Illegal Antiquities,’’ in N. Brodie, M.Kersel, C. Luke and K. W. Tubb, eds., Archaeology, CulturalHeritage and the Antiquities Trade. Gainesville: UniversityPress of Florida, 188–205.
Kersel, M. M. 2007. ‘‘Transcending Borders: Objects on theMove,’’ Archaeologies: Journal of the World ArchaeologicalCongress 3: 81–98.
Kersel, M. M. 2008. ‘‘The Trade in Palestinian Antiquities,’’Jerusalem Quarterly 33: 21–38.
Kersel, M. M. 2013. ‘‘Vandalism,’’ in Neil Asher Silberman, ed.,The Oxford Companion to Archaeology. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press, 339–342.
Kersel, M. M., C. Luke, and C. H. Roosevelt. 2008. ‘‘Valuing thePast: Perceptions of Archaeological Practice in Lydia and theLevant,’’ Journal of Social Archaeology 8: 298–319.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
234 Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2
Kersel, M. M., and M. S. Chesson. 2013a. ‘‘Looting Matters: EarlyBronze Age Cemeteries of Jordan’s Southeast Dead Sea Plainin the Past and Present,’’ in S. Tarlow and L. Nilsson Stutz,eds., The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Death andBurial. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 677–694.
Kersel, M. M., and M. S. Chesson. 2013b. ‘‘Tomato Season in theGhor es-Safi: A Lesson in Community Archaeology,’’ NearEastern Archaeology 76: 159–165.
Kirkbride, D. 1968. ‘‘Beidha: Early Neolithic Village Life South ofthe Dead Sea,’’ Antiquity 42: 263–274.
Knodell, A. R., and S. E. Alcock. in press. ‘‘Brown UniversityPetra Archaeological Project: The 2011 and 2012 Petra Areaand Wadi Silaysil Survey,’’ Annual of the Department ofAntiquities of Jordan 57.
Knodell, A. R., and S. E. Alcock. 2011. ‘‘Brown University PetraArchaeological Project: The 2010 Petra Area and Wadi SilaysilSurvey,’’ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 55:489–508.
Lasaponara, R., and N. Masini. 2010. ‘‘Facing the ArchaeologicalLooting in Peru by Using Very High Resolution SatelliteImagery and Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics,’’ inD. Taniar, O. Gervasi, I. Murgante, E. Pardede, and I. O.Apduhan, eds., Computational Science and Its Applications–ICCSA 2010. Berlin: Springer, 254–261.
Lindner, M., and E. Gunsam. 1995. ‘‘The Unique Nabataean HighPlace of Ras Slaysil Northwest of Petra and its TopographicalContext,’’ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 39:267–280.
Lindner, M., and E. Gunsam. 2002. ‘‘A Fortified Suburb ofAncient Petra: Shammasa,’’ Annual Department of Antiquitiesof Jordan 46: 225–242.
MacDonald, B. 2007. ‘‘Archaeological Site Surveying in Jordan:The North American Contribution,’’ in T. E. Levy, P. M.Michele Daviau, R. W. Younker, and M. Shaer, eds., CrossingJordan: North American Contributions to the Archaeology ofJordan.. London: Equinox, 27–36.
Nickens, P. 1991. ‘‘The Destruction of Archaeological Sites andData,’’ in G. S. Smith and J. E. Ehrenhard, eds., Protecting thePast. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 83–92.
Nicky, A. 2013. ‘‘Jordanian Treasure Hunters Ruin AncientArtifacts,’’ The Huffington Post. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/jordan-treasure-hunters-ruin-artifacts_n_3676581.html).
Ohannessian-Charpin, A. 1986. ‘‘L’utilisation actuelle par lesBedouins des grottes archeologiques de Petra,’’ Annual of theDepartment of Antiquities of Jordan 30: 385–395.
Paolini, A., A. Vafadari, G. Cesaro, M. S. Quintero, K. van Balen,O. Vileikis, and L. Fakhoury. 2012. Risk Management atHeritage Sites: A Case Study of the Petra World Heritage Site.Amman: Rafidi Print.
Parcak, S. 2007. ‘‘Satellite Remote Sensing Methods forMonitoring Archaeological Tells in the Middle East,’’Journal of Field Archaeology 32: 65–81.
Pendergast, D. M. 1991. ‘‘And the Loot Goes On: Winning SomeBattles, but Not the War,’’ Journal of Field Archaeology 18: 89–95.
Politis, K. D. 2002. ‘‘Dealing with the Dealers and Tomb Robbers:The Realities of the Archaeology of the Ghor es-Safi inJordan,’’ in N. Brodie and K. W. Tubb, eds., Illicit Antiquities:The Theft of Culture and the Extinction of Archaeology.London: Routledge, 42–57.
Renfrew, C. 2000. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The EthicalCrisis in Archaeology. London: Duckworth.
Rooosevelt, C. H., and C. Luke. 2006. ‘‘Mysterious Shepherds andHidden Treasures: The Culture of Looting in Lydia (WesternTurkey),’’ Journal of Field Archaeology 31: 185–198.
Russell, K. W. 1993. ‘‘Ethnohistory of the Bedul Bedouin ofPetra,’’ Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 37:15–35.
Sharp Joukowsky, M. 1998. Petra Great Temple Volume I: BrownUniversity Excavations 1993–1997. Providence: Brown University.
Sharp Joukowsky, M. 2007. Petra Great Temple Volume II:Archaeological Contexts of the Remains and Excavations.Providence: Brown University.
Sharp Joukowsky, M., and J. J. Basile. 2001. ‘‘More Pieces in thePetra Great Temple Puzzle,’’ Bulletin of the American Schoolsof Oriental Research 324: 43–58.
Shoup, J. 1985. ‘‘The Impact of Tourism on the Bedouin of Petra,’’The Middle East Journal 39: 277–291.
Simmons, A. H., and M. Najjar. 2013. ‘‘Joint Custody: AnArchaeological Park at Neolithic Ghwair I, Jordan,’’ NearEastern Archaeology 76: 178–185.
Sinibaldi, M., and C. A. Tuttle. 2011. ‘‘The Brown University PetraArchaeological Project: 2010 Excavations at Islamic Bayda,’’Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan 55: 431–450.
Smith, K. L. 2005. ‘‘Looting and the Power of ArchaeologicalKnowledge in Northern Peru,’’ Ethnos: Journal ofAnthropology 70: 149–170.
Stone, E. C. 2008. ‘‘Patterns of Looting in Southern Iraq,’’Antiquity 82: 125–38.
Tijhuis, A. J. G. 2006. Transnational Crime and the Interfacebetween Legal and Illegal Actors: The Case of the Illicit Art andAntiquities Trade. Leiden: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Tuttle, C. A. 2012. ‘‘Protecting, Preserving, and PresentingCultural Heritage in Petra: The Temple of the Winged LionsCultural Resource Management Initiative,’’ ASOR Blog. (http://asorblog.org/?p53311#more-3311).
Tuttle, C. A. 2013. ‘‘Preserving Petra Sustainably (One Step at aTime): The Temple of the Winged Lions Cultural ResourceManagement Initiative as a Step Forward,’’ Journal of EasternMediterranean Archaeology and Heritage Studies 1: 1–23.
Urban, T. M., S. Alcock, and C. Tuttle. 2012. ‘‘Virtual Discoveriesat a Wonder of the World: Geophysical Investigations andAncient Plumbing at Petra, Jordan. Antiquity 85: 331.
Urban, T. M., E. Bocancea, C. Vella, C. Tuttle, and S. Alcock.2013. ‘‘Investigating Ancient Dams in Petra’s NorthernHinterland with Ground Penetrating Radar,’’ The LeadingEdge 32.
Urban, T. M., and C. Tuttle. 2014. ‘‘Petra, the Archaeology of,’’ inC. Smith, ed., Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. New York:Springer.
Urban, T. M., C. Vella, E. Bocancea, C. A. Tuttle, and S. E.Alcock. 2014. ‘‘A Geophysical Investigation of a NewlyDiscovered Early Bronze Age Site near Petra, Jordan,’’Journal of Archaeological Science 42: 260–272.
Vella, C., T. M. Urban, E. Bocancea, C. A. Tuttle, and S. E.Alcock. 2012. ‘‘Discovery of an Early Bronze Age settlement ofJabal al-Qarn near Petra, Jordan,’’ Antiquity. (http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/vella334/).
Wenning, R. 2001. ‘‘The Betyls of Petra,’’ Bulletin of the AmericanSchools of Oriental Research 324: 79–95.
Vella et al. Documenting modern damage to archaeological heritage in Petra’s hinterland
Journal of Field Archaeology 2015 VOL. 40 NO. 2 235