The (W)Hole Picture: Responses to a Looted Landscape

Abstract

How do archaeologists, governments, law enforcement, and a local non-governmental organization react to a hole in the ground-a hole that is the direct result of archaeological site looting? Whatever the response, the aim is the same: the protection of Jordanian cultural heritage through a curtailing of archaeological looting. New to the standard suite of responses are unpiloted aerial vehicles (UAVs). A comprehensive approach to the landscape, which includes UAV flyovers, ground truthing, oral interviews, collaborative efforts with the Jordanian Department of Antiquities and local cultural heritage organizations, is essential to safeguarding and documenting what remains of a series of Early Bronze Age sites (3600-2000 bc) along the Dead Sea Plain in Jordan. This is an examination of the (w)hole picture-individual and institutional responses to looters' holes-diverse reactions with the common goal of preserving and protecting Jordanian cultural heritage.

The Black Desert Drone Survey: New Perspectives on an Ancient Landscape

“…This is a common problem for archaeological sites around the world, but it is nevertheless disappointing to find significant damage at such remote sites. Although there is less damage here than in many of the well-documented and more easily visited sites in Jordan (see, for instance, [66,67]), the level of destruction in this relatively inaccessible area is concerning, continuous, and particularly devastating to the more easily destroyed prehistoric remains.…”

Monitoring Looting at Cultural Heritage Sites: Applying Deep Learning on Optical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Data as a Solution

“…While drones (UAVs) are widely used for security and monitoring for looting, the use of automated approaches has rarely been used for heritage. This can become a problem if those who provide security on sites are not trained to identify looting or to more easily count new looted features; the automated approach such as the one presented can be used to demonstrate discrepancies from previous observations by indicating if new or additional damage is evident (Kersel and Hill 2019).…”

“…Furthermore, economic loss from heritage damage or looting could make it difficult for communities to recover and create employment opportunities, particularly those that had greatly depended on heritage for income (Brodie, 2010). Looted items from cultural heritage sites also generate illicit revenue, often for criminal gangs (Kersel and Hill 2019; Brodie & Renfrew, 2005). A relatively recent UNESCO-sponsored estimate has stated that sales of heritage items amounts to over $50 billion USD, with a large percentage of this likely being illegal sales.…”

Exploring the Nature of Authority Over, and Ownership of Data Generated by Archaeological Lidar Projects in Latin America

“…Broadly situated in earlier literature on the socio-politics and philosophy of archaeological practice (Conkey & Spector, 1984 ; Gero, 1985 ; Trigger, 2006 ; Wylie, 2002 ), meta-archaeological analyses have examined, for example, who is awarded major research funding (Goldstein et al, 2018 ), sexual and other forms of harassment within the field (Clancy et al, 2014 ; Meyers et al, 2018 ; Voss, 2021a , 2021b ), who is publishing in archaeology (Bardolph, 2014 ; Heath-Stout, 2020 ; Tushingham et al, 2017 ), and where they are publishing (Beck et al, 2021 ). Within geospatial archaeology, studies have assessed the number of overall publications in terms of geographical origin and topic (Agapiou & Lysandrou, 2015 ; McCoy, 2021 ), and ethical considerations in remote sensing (Cohen et al, 2020 ; Davis & Sanger, 2021 ; Fernandez-Diaz et al, 2018 ; Kersel & Hill, 2019 ). In general, these studies support the observation that geospatial tools and publications are most associated with wealthy countries and universities, especially in European contexts (see also Bevan, 2015 ; Opitz & Herrmann, 2018 ).…”