AP°YPO¶OY§OY TELOS 30-01-08 11:04 ™ÂÏ›‰·194

The Role of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan

in Preventing the Illicit Trade of Cultural Heritage
Ahmad Alshami1, Naseem Haddad2 and Abeer Arafat2
1
Department of Antiquities, Jordan
2
Royal Scientific Society, Jordan
Department of Antiquities
P.O.Box 88
Amman - Jordan
Phone: (+96 26) 4644336
Fax: (+96 26) 4615848
e-mail: a.alshami@doa.jo.com

The Department of Antiquities (DOA) of Jordan recognized since 1976 the importance of setting a law on
cultural heritage protection, handling the problem of illegal trafficking of cultural treasures. This paper shall
illustrate, via case studies, the causes for increased infringements concerning antiquities, and the precaution-
ary procedures taken by DOA, to fight the illicit trade of cultural property and the smuggling of antiquities. It
will also highlight the role of security services in executing the archaeological security policy

Keywords: illicit trade, illicit excavations, prevention

1. INTRODUCTION

In Jordan antiquities are considered as one of the

main attractions for tourism and they are consequently an
important income source for the national economy. Since
Jordan is a country with limited resources and mineral
wealth, it is fortunate that it is rich in archaeological sites
that are found all over the country, varying in nature from
minor features such as cairns and caves, to forts and even
whole cities such as Jarash, Umm Qais and Petra [1]. It is
the responsibility of the Department of Antiquities
(DOA) to preserve all movable and immovable antiquities
in the country (Fig. 1), and to control them as per the Jor-
danian Law of Antiquities. DOA is one of the oldest de-
partments in the Jordanian government established in
1924, currently; it is part of the Ministry of Tourism and
Antiquities (Fig. 2). [6]
At the moment around 25000 archaeological sites are
officially registered in Jordan, but the actual number is ex-
pected to be over 100000 if Jordan is fully surveyed. Many
of these sites are in relatively remote areas where unem-
Figure 1 - Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan:
ployment is widespread and where many people are igno-
Map at the Middle of Levant
rant regarding the significance of the archaeological her-
itage. Additionally, there are various economic and politi-
cal problems that occurred throughout the 1980’s and 90’s
in the Middle East. The result was an increase of the
smuggling of antiquities and of the illicit trade of cultural
property. Due to the geographical location of Jordan as a
major crossroad for trade between Syria-Palestine, Egypt,
Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula throughout the ages there
were also many (modern) attempts at utilizing the country
for the illicit trafficking of antiquities [4]. Figure 2 - DOA at Jebel Amman next to Ammonites
Tower
194
AP°YPO¶OY§OY TELOS 30-01-08 11:04 ™ÂÏ›‰·195
The Role of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan in Preventing the Illicit Trade of Cultural Heritage
2. WHEN DID THE PROBLEM START?
Before 1976, it was legal to trade antiquities in Jordan
through an authorization issued and renewed annually by
DOA, even Jordanian Civil Law did not address illegal
trafficking of cultural treasures. But in 1976 a new law was
passed prohibiting the trade of antiquities (The Jordanian
Law of Antiquities for 1976 articles 8 and 23) while giving
the dealers a period of one and a half years to legitimate
their positions. Two provisions were made in order to re-
duce the loss placed upon the dealers:
ñ DOA would purchase a large proportion of their col-
lections. [7]; [8].
ñ DOA allows them to keep the remaining artefacts,
which were registered in certified records and authen-
ticated by DOA. [9].
After the adjustment period, trade in antiquities be-
came a violation of the law, and hence the problem start-
ed. The prices of antiquities increased, as they were no
longer available in shops. As a result, the new situation
and price increase encouraged some dealers and providers
of movable antiquities, to search more in urban sites. Be-
fore 1976 the foreign tourists and communities were al-
lowed to buy and export antiquities at reasonable prices.
On the other hand and under the new law, few members
of the diplomatic delegations misused the benefit of diplo-
matic immunity to smuggle antiquities in diplomatic
pouches. A number of these attempts were discovered
when boxes containing antiquities broke during loading
and freight, as well as by customs officials who suspected
certain packages, or informers who reported on them.[6]
Figure 3 - Disturb site in Jordan
195
Under the new situation, some “treasure hunters” re-
alized the high prices of antiquities, so they turned to rob-
bing antiquities from archaeological sites (Fig. 3 and 4).
The desire of the nouveau riche in the country to possess
antiquities, imitating what they saw in the houses of the
wealthy who acquired antiquities under license before
1976, also increased the demand on antiquities at any
price. Some of them also tried to bring in antiquities from
neighbouring countries such as Iraq and Turkey.
Figure 4 - Bulldozed Remains of Ottoman Fort called Al-
mudawra at Almudawra Border
DOA did not realize the problem when the law of pro-
hibition was issued in 1976. At this time the dealers had
still large stocks of antiquities in special warehouses which
they could use to fulfil the needs of their customers.
Therefore the prices of antiquities were kept on a low lev-
el, which did not encourage illicit excavations. After some
time, however, the stocks ran out and certain types of an-
tiquities became in demand, which pushed some dealers
to resume business with the old providers, paying them
higher prices and encouraging the resumption of illicit ex-
cavations (Fig. 5). [4]
Figure 5 - Archaeological Site Surrounded With Modern
Houses (Ammonites Tower -Iron age- at Amman)
DOA realized increasing problems concerning the de-
cline of the security of the archaeological sites and the ille-
gal possession of antiquities. By the end of 1996, DOA of-
fered a new opportunity to collectors of antiquities in Jor-
AP°YPO¶OY§OY TELOS 30-01-08 11:04 ™ÂÏ›‰·196

A. Alshami et al.

dan to register their possessions in an attempt to control These services are:

the illicit trade of cultural property, as well as to register
the private collections.
Despite all attempts, we notice that the problem is get-
ting worse all over the world, which induced several neigh-
bouring countries to make agreements for fighting the
smuggling of antiquities, to pass information concerning
the issue, and to repatriate smuggled antiquities to their
original countries. [1]
3. CAUSES FOR INCREASED INFRINGEMENTS
CONCERNING ANTIQUITIES
The causes for the increased infringements concerning
antiquities can be summarized as follows:
ñ The country had recently witnessed an increase in the
pace of construction that led to some inevitable de-
struction. Some of the destruction, however, is pur-
poseful and therefore appropriate precautions should
be taken (Fig. 6).
ñ War and unrest in neighbouring countries increased
the problem of smuggling antiquities to Jordan, or
through Jordan en route to other countries. There is a
clear increase in cases that deal with smuggled antiqui-
ties from neighbouring countries.
ñ The noticeable increase in the prices of antiquities en-
couraged some people to deal illegally, and smuggle
antiquities.
ñ The economic status and high unemployment pushed
some people to act illegally and to search for antiqui-
ties in order to fulfil their basic needs.
ñ The need to establish new foreign museums or expand
them, as well as the desire of some rich foreign collec-
tors to possess antiquities. [4]
ñ The Police Department represented by all police cen-
tres in the country as well as at the border checkpoints.
ñ The Desert Police and Border Guards.
ñ The Drug Control Department .
ñ The Customs Department with its branches and The
Smuggling Control Directorate.
5. THE ROLE OF SECURITY SERVICES IN EXE-
CUTING THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SECURITY
POLICY
The security services assist DOA in the execution of
the first phase of the archaeological policy, until the cases
reach the courts of law. The regional security centers ar-
rest the violators and help in passing relevant information
to DOA. They also help in the temporary guarding of
threatened sites till the executive role of DOA takes place
[6]. At the border checkpoints, the Security Forces play a
significant role in fighting the smuggling of antiquities.
Since 1996, the Police Department assigned the Drug
Control Directorate to fight the illicit trade of cultural
property and the smuggling of antiquities. As a result, an
antiquities branch was established at the Directorate to
control antiquities smuggling.
In coordination with DOA, the Customs Department
provides all information concerning the export and import
of cultural property, and passes on any suspicious infor-
mation. In addition, the Customs Department consults
with DOA in cases concerning “old objects”, investigates
the possessors, issues the confiscation papers and submits
violators to court in accordance with the Law of Customs
and the Law of Antiquities. [4]
Table (1) illustrates antiquities confiscated by the secu-
rity forces and currently in storage at DOA. This table
shows that due to regional fights and wars smuggling of an-
tiquities increased specially in the periods of 2001 to 2004.

NO. Year No. of No. of Confiscated

Cases Artefacts
1 1991 Several 1103
2 1992 3 26
3 1993 3 457
4 1994 6 1234
5 1995 6 897
Figure 6 - Increase of construction led to destruction (new
6 1996 4 45
city built above an old one at Bayt Ras north of Jordan).
7 1997 2 27
8 1999 7 4136
4. THE PRECAUTIONARY PROCEDURES TAKEN 9 2000 12 744
BY DOA 10 2001 15 3600
11 2002 13 4662
In order to control the problem, DOA increased the 12 2003 23 2247
number of guards at threatened archaeological sites. In 13 2004 19 4695
addition, several sites were fenced in order to protect 14 2005 5 272
them, and new antiquities offices were established to su- 15 2006 25 2178
pervise these sites and control them.
DOA also cooperated closely with the public security Table 1 - Antiquities confiscated by the security forces
services in order to preserve the archaeological sites. and currently in storage at DOA
196
AP°YPO¶OY§OY TELOS 30-01-08 11:04 ™ÂÏ›‰·197

The Role of the Department of Antiquities of Jordan in Preventing the Illicit Trade of Cultural Heritage

6. FIELD CASE STUDY

A large number of archaeological sites in Jordan are

looted for gold, ceramics, glass, tomb stones, etc. It is diffi-
cult to quantify the problem, however, due to the follow-
ing factors:
ñ Not all archaeological sites are known and registered,
most of them are still undiscovered.
ñ Most sites are discovered by chance, for example dur-
ing agricultural or construction activities.
ñ Most threatened sites are located in remote or unin-
habited areas, and therefore lack proper security and
supervision.
ñ Apart from being in remote or uninhabited areas,
most of the threatened sites are also cemeteries that
are still underground. The problem in Jordan, as in the
rest of the world, is that these cemeteries are discov-
ered by chance (Fig. 3) [2]
The examples of cemeteries are many, like the Site and
cemetery at Bayt Ras north Jordan, where there is a new city
built above an old one and some of people digging daily
looking for looting expensive object (Fig. 6) [3], [4]. Another
example is the cemetery at the Queen Alia International
Airport which was partly discovered in 1978 and then in
2000, and where salvage excavations took place prior to de-
struction. The cemetery was dated to the second to third
century AD. Other cases are the Byzantine cemetery at
Khirbat Al-Samra in Al-Mafraq, dated to the fifth to seventh
century AD, and the Byzantine cemetery at Finan in Wadi
‘Arabah where salvage excavations were conducted by the
Council for British Research in the Levant and Yarmouk
University [6]. There are also the southern sites in the Jor-
dan Valley at Ghawr al-Mazra‘a where Khirbat Qazzon is lo-
cated, near the southern edge of the Dead Sea. This ceme-
tery was exposed to mass destruction. It contains around
7,000 burials. During salvage excavations carried out by the
British Museum burials of the Nabataean and Roman peri-
ods were discovered with remains of textiles and leather
goods, dated to the second and third century AD. [11]
At Ghawr as-Safi, both the An-Naq‘ and the Fifa
cemeteries suffered destruction. The two cemeteries were
dated to the early Bronze Age, ca. 3000 BC. At An-Naq‘
there is also a Byzantine cemetery which is rich in glass
and ceramics. Hundreds of dunums (1dunum = 1000 m2)
had been totally destroyed there. [10 :628]. DOA conduct-
ed salvage excavations at the cemeteries, the first took
place at An-Naq‘ in 1994 and the second at both An-Naq‘
and Fifa in 2000 (Fig. 7).
As a result of the dire agricultural situation in the south-
ern part of the Jordan Valley, many people turned to loot-
ing these cemeteries and selling the artefacts to dealers at
low prices. For example, the Drug Control Directorate ar-
rested a dealer while trying to smuggle a load of 300 arte-
facts through the airport. The warehouses of that dealer in
Amman were searched and their contents of 3,500 artefacts
were confiscated. These artefacts belonged to the above-
mentioned cemeteries and they consisted of ceramic ves-
sels, sculptures, glass, basalt tools and other objects.
197
Figure 7 - Illicitly excavated from bronze age cemetery at
Naq` in Ghore Al-Safi.
At the beginning of 1996, DOA established large ware-
houses to store the artefacts discovered during excavations.
They contain an independent hall for the artefacts confiscat-
ed by the police, including those caught during smuggling op-
erations or illegal dealing. The warehouses hold hundreds of
ceramic objects, stone tools, glass vessels, bronze, silver and
gold coins, and sculptures, in addition to fakes that some
dealers tried to introduce into the local market or to smuggle
outside Jordan. There are also the files of the cases caught by
the Security Forces in coordination with DOA. Official
records of these artefacts, which are classified according to
type and date as well, include a precise description of each
artefact with a serial number attached to the artefact itself.
This work cannot be achieved by DOA efforts alone, due to
lack of funds and difficulties in covering the archaeological
sites which are spread all over the country. The importance of
cooperation and coordination with the security forces was
mentioned above. Also important is the coordination with
other Arab and foreign countries, represented by their em-
bassies in Jordan. For example a shipment containing 798
artefacts was returned to Jordan from Italy (Fig.8). The arte-
facts originally came from the cemeteries mentioned above
and the Italian government arrested the smugglers. [6]
Figure 8 - Part of the 798 artefacts returned to Jordan
from Italy, which were caught during smuggling
operations/illegal dealing.
In return, the Jordanian government represented by
DOA, returned hundreds of objects to the Iraqi govern-
ment, including sculptures, stamps and inscribed clay tablets.
In addition, a sculpture was returned to Egypt and another
sculpture to Syria. All these objects were recovered by the
security forces, who in turn handed them over to DOA.
AP°YPO¶OY§OY TELOS 30-01-08 11:04 ™ÂÏ›‰·198
A. Alshami et al.
These cases demonstrate the effectiveness of coordi-
nation between the Arab countries in preserving the cul-
tural heritage and fighting illicit trade. Also effective is the
exchange of information about smuggled objects and re-
turning them to their land of origin as stipulated by the
UNESCO agreements, and international coordination
and cooperation with the international organizations and
bodies that deal with the preservation of culture and an-
tiquities. In this domain, the role of UNESCO in preserv-
ing the cultural heritage is essential, through urging coun-
tries to join and sign agreements that adopt the protection
of cultural property and human civilization. [1]
7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
The question now is: how to solve the problem of illicit
trade of antiquities, and what measures should be taken to
protect archaeological sites. Is it the responsibility of only
one specific body such as DOA to provide the required
protection to the archaeological sites? The answer is that
DOA cannot fulfil this task alone. It may take some pro-
tective measures such as:
ñ Fencing the sites.
ñ Assigning guards.
ñ Open regional offices.
Such measures, however, are limited and insufficient.
For instance, the area of Ghawr as-Safi has the largest ceme-
teries in the Middle East; These measures reduced the illicit
excavations but did not totally stop them as the area is very
large, starting from the southern coast of the Dead Sea down
to Wadi Finan, and it is in need of continuous supervision.
ñ The establishment of a special unit within the Police
Force is also plausible. This unit would be responsible
for pursuing the theft and smuggling of antiquities and
a number of its members should hold degrees in ar-
chaeology.
ñ The Customs Department may assign employees, es-
pecially at airports and border points, who hold a de-
gree in archaeology and are given special training in
the identification of archaeological objects.
ñ The active participation by DOA in conferences, sym-
posia and workshops. Examples are the participation in
the meetings organized by UNESCO to establish the
basis for combating the illicit trade in antiquities. DOA,
in cooperation with the Italian Embassy in Amman, al-
so held a workshop dealing with the protection of antiq-
uities and works of art from theft and smuggling.
ñ Efforts should be made at the Ministry of Justice and
the judicial system to implement the punishments pos-
tulated by the Law of Antiquities.
ñ Active public awareness programs, aimed at present-
ing the importance of antiquities, should be carried
out through the media, exhibitions, lectures and semi-
nars. Such programs would serve towards developing
national and cultural values among citizens;
ñ Urge the Arab governments to tighten control over
the illicit trade and smuggling of antiquities;
198
ñ Establish the necessary basis for Arab and internation-
al cooperation aimed at limiting the theft and smug-
gling of antiquities.
Finally, is the trade in antiquities the real reason behind
the destruction of archaeological sites and the loss of ob-
jects, and if we were to ban trade in antiquities will this stop
the destruction due to the elimination of a market? Can we
reach the conclusion that the antique dealers are the cause
for the destruction of the sites or should we open the market
for trade in “selected recurring” antiquities within certain le-
gal constraints in coordination with international organiza-
tions and concerned Arab countries— while making punish-
ments for violators more severe? These questions are still
open for discussion in spite of their difficulties. [2]
REFERENCES
[1] Workshop organized by UNESCO, dealing with the il-
legitimate trade in cultural heritage. Beirut-Lebanon,
pp. 2-7 (2002).
[2] Alshami, A. “The Role of the DOA of Jordan to Stop-
ping the Illicit Trade in Archaeological Heritage,
ATHAR Magazine Vol. 5, pp 53-55 (2002),(in Ara-
bic).
[3] Alshami, A. “Bayt Ras Irbid Archaeological Project
2002, Annual of the Department of Antiquities of Jor-
dan (ADAJ), VOL.48, pp.11-22, (2004), (in Arabic).
[4] Alshami, A. “The Role of the Department of Antiqui-
ties of Jordan in Preventing the Illicit Trade in Cultur-
al Heritage”, A report presented to the Fourth Inter-
national Conference on Science and Technology in
Archaeology and Conservation , Queen Rania Insti-
tute of Tourism and Heritage, The Hashemite Univer-
sity, pp. 2-5 & 511 (2005).
[5] Alshami, A. “Anew Discovery at Bayt Ras / Capitolias,
Irbid”, ADAJ, VOL.49, pp.509-519, (2005).
[6] Alshami, A. “The Arab Cooperation against the traffic
of the Archaeological heritage”. The Conference of
Archaeology in Syria :Reality &Perspectives, Faculty
of Architecture- Aleppo University “, pp. 2-7 (2005).
[7] Jordanian Law of Antiquities, No.12, articles 8 and 23,
Published No. 2608, (1976).
[8] Jordanian Law of Antiquities,. No. 21, 1988 articles 23-
25. Published No. 3540 (1988)
[9] Jordanian Law of Antiquities, No. 21, 1988 articles 8,
23 to 25. Published No. 4662, (2004).
[10] Politis,K.D. “Survey and Rescue Collections in the
Ghawr As- Safi”. ADAJ, Vol. 42, pp. 627-634 (1988).
[11] Politis,K.D. “Rescue Excavations in the Nabataen
Cemetery at Khirbet Qazone”, ADAJ, Vol. 42, pp.
611-614 (1988).
[12] “Convention Concerning the Protection of the World
Cultural and Natural Heritage”, UNESCO, Adopted
by the General Conference at its seventeenth ses-
sion, Paris, 16 November 1972