Looting and vandalism around a World Heritage Site: Documenting modern damage to archaeological...

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: [email protected]

! 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.


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



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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.



Looting and vandalism around a World Heritage Site: Documenting modern damage to archaeological...

Documents

Transcript of Looting and vandalism around a World Heritage Site: Documenting modern damage to archaeological...