Paredes Pedrosa Arquitectos

Roman Villa "La Olmeda"

The protection of an important archaeological find is included in that

number of interventions where antiquity confronts with modernity, and
the find is confronted with the landscape.
The transcription of the historical sign takes place through a series of
strategic phases whose main problem is the discontinuity between two
systems temporally far, and the correct adjustment of an architectonic
language that may suggest a dialectic relation without avant-garde
experiments. A language devoid of historic and vernacular comebacks,
consistent with a lawful genealogical process of superimposition of the
parts to be surveyed. In this respect, remarkably important is the
structural question of the use of extended roofs and regular elements that
may preserve the continuity of pre-existing traces. A special relevance has
the issues of the ground attachments, particularly in that "bonded" zone
that marks the outer limit between new old. This principle determines the
ways in which the discontinuous, new elements are to be laid on the preexisting ruins, with modalities of intervention that take into account the
most appropriate use of the different technologies and materials. Another
kind of sensibility is required for finding the best way to capture natural
light, to avoid a too marked dark-light contrast and obtain a more
homogenous lighting more suitable for a correct exposure of the finds.

Another aspect to be considered is the co-existence and participation of

the surrounding landscape; and lastly, the flexibility of the buildings, a
value that needs to be favoured in structures necessarily "open" to future
changes. In1968, the casual discovery of a bronze find of Roman epoch
marked the start of a digging campaign that brought to light the
archaeological site of the Olmeda. Among the scattered wall ruins, in a
site of immense value as far as the landscape was concerned, the
excavations brought to light the remains of a Roman building, more
precisely of a country-villa that dated back to the final period of the
Roman Empire, among the most complete and rich to be found in Roman
Spain.

Toward the half of the 90's, at the time that the site was being arranged,
the hypothesis was made of a more thorough work of preservation for the
whole complex. The valorisation program of the archaeological site
included the construction of a roof for the excavations, the protection of
the mosaics in situ, and building an exhibition and study centre for
tourists and archaeologists.

A
corten
steel slab with the recessed characters VRO placed in a curvilinear
pathway marks the access to the site. Leading to the entrance of the
archaeological area a row of poplar trees escort a linear parking lot, made
in such a way that it cant no longer be perceived once visitors have
entered the exhibition route. The more specific functional program
envisions the placing, inside the archaeological settlement, of four new
built elements that 'interfere' with the exhibition itinerary. These are four
wood-coated pavilions, much lower than the intrados of the general
roofing, whose making and material allude to the tree trunks of the
surrounding wood. The first two of these pavilions frame the gathering
place of the access vestibule comprehending the bookshop, the cafeteria,
rest rooms and offices, placed along the border of the villa. The other
pavilions wind along a route, which is slightly raised with respect to the
site's level. In the third pavilion the auditorium is placed, followed by the
exhibition hall, open to the finding. The fourth, next to the personnel's
side entrance, houses the restoration workshop.

The whole architectonic complex is protected by a wide metallic structure

of four vaulted roof modules and one lowered plane module that connects
with the restoration area. 110 pilasters and four freestanding pillars
support all the structure. The steel supports are arranged according to a
longitudinal mesh that follows the plan metric subdivision of the villa,
starting from the square impluvium. They are situated outside the
translucent facade in polycarbonate that provides the homogenous
lighting of the interior. The enwrapping rhomboidal roof structure is
situated in light contact with the upper vertical part of the facade on a
white concrete plinth enclosing the entire perimeter of the villa at the
visitors level. All the new volumes and the partially delimited
archaeological zones are joined by a raised floor made of wooden slats
that present paced connections. The outline of the itinerary gets narrow
and expands depending on the width of the mosaics to be observed, with
a disposition thought for an open display. On the outside of the building,
the upper part above the concrete plinth is surrounded by a folding
faade. These perforated cor-ten steel, that attenuates solar irradiation
and casts scattered shadows to the interior, are responding by scale and
appearance to the surrounding poplar tree cultivations. To sum up, the
architectonic operation as a whole consists of various intervention phases
that both altimetrically and planimetrically build a stratigraphic process of
superimposition of the parts.

Mission Statement
atalhyk is an example of the important Anatolian contribution to the development
of early societies. A site of this importance for Turkish and global heritage needs
careful conservation and presentation to the public. It poses problems of
conservation of mud brick and wall plaster, and problems of site management which
have a wider applicability to many sites in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Reconstruction drawing of a house or shrine excavated in the 1960s by James Mellaart

Excavated by James Mellaart in the early 1960s, the site has been widely
recognised as of unique international significance. The popular Collins guide to
Turkey is one of many that describe atalhyk as 'probably the most important
archaeological site in Turkey'. It is one of the first urban centres in the world (at
7400BC) and it has the first wall paintings and mural art. The spectacular art
provides a direct window into life 9000 years ago, and the site is an internationally
important key for our understanding of the origins of agriculture and civilisation.

View from outside the South Shelter.

View inside the South Shelter.

The aims of the current international project at atalhyk involve full-scale modern
archaeological excavation and conservation, and promotion of the site for visitor
access. Archaeological excavation and conservation by an international team started
in 1993 under the direction of Dr Ian Hodder of the atalhyk Research Project,
Stanford University, under the auspices of the British Institute of Archaeology at
Ankara, with a permit from the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism, and in close
collaboration with the University of California at Berkeley, London University, Istanbul
University, Selcuk University, and Poznan University. The work aims at extensive
uncovering of new areas of the site and the recovery, conservation and presentation
of paintings and sculpture. The work is planned to continue over 25 years.

View of the mound from the air in 1997

The ultimate aim is to provide the Turkish Ministry of Culture and Tourism with a well
planned heritage site. (For the Site Management Plan click here.) Visitors are able to
experience the site in a number of ways. A conservation laboratory has been built
and the latest techniques applied. The aim is that the conserved wall paintings,
sculptures, textiles, wooden and ceramic artifacts will be placed on display in a site
museum, enhanced by virtual reality techniques and interactive video. Replicas of
some of the paintings are being placed back in conserved houses on the site, under
a range of shelters. Part of the site is being covered so that the ancient houses are
protected and so that visitors can walk around a Neolithic village. An experimental
house has been built for tourist entry. By providing a range of visitor experiences the
full heritage potential of the site can begin to be exploited.

View of the dig house where team members live and work during the excavation season.

The main research direction is to place the paintings and symbolism within a full
environmental, economic and social context. Central questions concern the origins of
the site and its early development, social and economic organisation and variation
within the community, the reasons for the adoption and intensification of agriculture,
the social context for the early use of pottery, temporal trends in the life of the
community, trade and relations with other sites in the region.

Shelter over Building 5, on display for visitors.

The Protective Roof Over the Carsulae Excavation Area

One of projects of the San Gemini Preservation Studies Program is a

collaboration with the archaeologists excavating the Roman Baths in
Carsuale. Our main role will be the consolidation of the building structures
that are being excavated. The first major challenge we have faced is that
the structures emerging from the ground are very fragile: the old mortar,
after being buried for thousands of years, has lost much of its strength
and, when exposed to the surface weather, the old masonry walls and
floor mosaics quickly deteriorate.
It has become evident that the excavation area needs to be well
protected, in particular from the rain, at least during the excavation if not
permanently. After taking into consideration various factors we came up
with the solution of a large industrial galvanized steel roof covering the
central building containing the tepidarium and various ancillary spaces.
After exploring various options we chose to build an industrial type
structure: a light steel roof supported by long-span steel trusses. The
whole structure is made of galvanized steel and has a light gray
coloration. The advantages of this structure are the following:

The roof provides very effective protection of the whole central bath
structure from the rain and snow.

This structure had the lowest per square meter cost of all the
structures we considered. These types of structures are sold by the
kilo.

This type of structure is very efficient and allows long spans that can
span clear across the main excavation site with no intermediate

supports allowing the archaeologists

obstruction for several years.

to

work

without

any

The reduction in sunlight and water reduces the growth of

vegetation in the offseason.

The roof provides shelter for the archaeologists from rain and sun
during the excavation season.

The structure allows a clear view of the excavation site, allowing

easy use of optical instruments for alignment dimensioning and
imaging.

It allows visitors to view the whole excavation site.

The structure, though relatively large, has a profile that follows the
hill side without impacting the landscape of the archaeological park
in a substantial way.

Reversibility: the structure is a permanent one that can last many

years, however, it is easily disassembled and can be completely
removed, including the foundations.

Now that the site is properly sheltered, excavation and consolidation can
proceed at an appropriate pace without having to rush any of the steps.
Once both these operations are completed, the Sovrintendeza
Archeological will have to decide what will be the final arrangements and
presentation of the site; whether to leave the site covered with the
present roof, replace it with another more architectural solution, or
remove the roof entirely and return to an open sky situation.
In general, the issue of sheltering archaeological structures from the
weather is an important one. As we can learn from what has happened in
recent times in Pompei, leaving ancient structures exposed to the
weather, without proper protection and maintenance, over time will
simply lead to their collapse. Often inorganic archaeological material will
last longer underground. Ironically, sometimes the best way to preserve a
site is to bury it again once the excavation is finished and protect it from
the weather. The decision to leave a site exposed should be considered
very carefully. Some type of structures can withstand the elements
reasonably well while others will deteriorate quickly. Various factors weigh
on this decision: the nature of the structure, costs of protecting, but also
a certain cultural expectation of what is the proper appearance of
archaeological sites. Protective structures can alter the appearance of a
site drastically and can render a site much less legible to the visitor. All
such factors must be carefully considered when deciding the final
arrangement of a site after excavation is terminated.

The planning, design and fundraising for the roof commenced in 2011.
The construction was done in the spring of 2012 by the steel fabricator
Umbria Grigliati. The work was a joint effort by various groups:
Valorizazione del Patrimonio Storico di San Gemini (Onlus)
San Gemini Preservation Studies
Valdosta State University Carsulae Archaeological Team
Comune di San Gemini
The design was done By:
Marco Corradi and The Studio Corradi Civil Engineers
Max Cardillo, Architect
Stefano Mosca, Civil Engineer
Sponsors of the Project:
CARIT Foundation of Terni
Leda & Massimo Violati
Luigi and Isabella Corradi
Special mention goes to Mr. Piero Zannori and Stefano Di Gianpietro of the
VPSSG for their special effort for making the whole project happen.

Protective Structures for the

Conservation and Presentation of
Archaeological Sites
Authors:

Zaki Aslan

Abstract
A critical review of the effectiveness of shelters or enclosed buildings as a
means of preserving in situ archaeological features is required. This paper
identifies some of the key problems related to site preservation and the
use of built structures, as well as an assessment of selected examples of
both shelters and enclosures. From these examples a range of problems,
from practical to aesthetic, are identified. The need to establish guidelines
and planning procedures for design and implementation for future projects
is highlighted and suggestions for future study and design modification
are given.
A paper presented at the workshop of the 'Contribution of Science and
Technology in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage in the Mediterranean
Basin', Tunis, June 1997

Introduction
My research at the Institute of Archaeology, University College London,
addresses the issue of conserving and presenting archaeological sites under
protective structures when these are considered to be the best in situ
measures for preventive conservation. Its aim is to develop methodologies and
approaches related to this issue. The research further aims at establishing an
information network to share experiences related to this issue and to make
available all adverse information relating to intervention projects, particularly in
the Mediterranean countries. A similar initiative has recently been undertaken
by the Instituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome, Italy. However, its aim is
confined to collecting and examining information on shelters built on Italian
archaeological sites.

The Problem
The deterioration of excavated sites would be inevitable if measures for
appropriate protection were not taken in exposed environmental conditions.
Archaeological remains that have reached a state of equilibrium in the buried

environment become vulnerable to weathering factors when they are

uncovered. Thus, various approaches and solutions have emerged to protect
excavated archaeological sites. Among these solutions, which range between
reburial and reconstruction, is the erection of permanent shelters or enclosures
on excavated areas. Sheltering or enclosing a site within a new structure is,
also, often considered as an advantageous measure in presenting the site and
making it accessible to the public. However, the range of problems in
conserving sites under protective structures varies widely.
Developing a methodology for shelter design has received little attention.
Indeed, there is a need for a methodology which primarily specifies protection
measures and requirements for the conservation of the various types of in situ
material remains, their setting, and the values held therein. In fact, the design
of a new structure on an archaeological site should be thought of as a research
process that aims at responding to the physical material conservation needs as
well as to the presentation requirements for visitors to the site. Therefore,
design should consider the enhancement of the physical and environmental
context, use and visitor understanding and, above all, improved and stable
environmental conditions for the archaeological materials and structures
themselves. Collectively, satisfaction of these conditions would ensure the
prevention or minimising of the decay of sites so as to prolong their life and
present them accessibly to the public. However, in practice this policy has not
proved to be an easy task to achieve.
The following selected examples will illustrate the growing need for a more
cautious approach that responds to all the requirements of site sheltering. In
fact, learning from previous experiences in this area is imperative in addressing
issues that have often been overlooked in the specification of the requirements
and design of individual protective buildings on archaeological sites. These
protective buildings may be open-air shelters or totally closed buildings
(enclosures).

Shelters
Shelters are preventive conservation measures of immediate effect. They are
usually concerned with keeping water away from the site materials, primarily in
an attempt to prevent moisture from causing physical damage problems.
Simple shelters are usually metal structures, timber constructions, or tensile
structures. Corrugated steel/fibreglass sheets or ceramic tiles are common
roofing materials for these structures. Such shelters are usually built simply to
protect the site from rain and sunlight. Many of them were built for temporary
purposes but have turned out to be permanent buildings on site. In addition,
maintenance is required for these types of shelters because of their
vulnerability to natural damage. Damage caused due to lack of maintenance
can be illustrated by examples of shelters in Crete: Niro Khani (Figure 1) and
the recently dismantled shelter at Villa Dyouisos in Knossos (Figure 2). The
latter, which caused damage to the gypsum and mosaics underneath it, due to
water leakage in the roof, is to be replaced by a newly designed shelter.

Figure 1: A shelter at the site of Niro Khani, Crete.

Figure 2: The site of Villa Dyouisous in Knossos.

A newly built shelter on the site of the Byzantine church in Petra, in Jordan, is
composed of an advantageous light-weight space-truss construction. However,
this new shelter can be recognised in the cultural landscape from a great
distance and was therefore criticised for its intrusive impact on the surrounding
environment (Figure 3).

Figure 3: The shelter at the Byzantine church in Petra, Jordan.

At the 94 million years old palaeonotological site of Lark Quarry in Australia, a
flat pentagonal steel roof with central skylight was erected in 1979 with the
aim, again, of keeping the site dry. The shelter did not prevent wind-driven rain
from flooding the site, and, being open on the side, it did not prevent dust from
exacerbating the cracking of fossil remains. Additionally, the shelter did not
prevent thermal shocks during summer rain storms. Further damage to the
fossil bed resulted from the 12-support columns set in a concrete foundation.
Also, prior to the later fencing of the site, animals such as kangaroos affected
the surface by scratching and leaving droppings and corrosive urine. In
addition, prior to the erection of a walkway under the roof, visitors had walked
on the surface itself. In every aspect of the design of the shelter, as in many
shelters of this type, there were deficiencies which could have been anticipated
in the design phase. Solutions to problems which should have been foreseen
were formulated, too late, at a later stage after damage had occurred.
Another example of a simple shelter in the Middle East is at the presargonic
palace site in Mari, Syria (Figure 4), where a covering of modular elements of

plastic on metal elements was erected with the base mounted on parts of the
original structure using concrete blocks. Problems there included the rapid
drying of the interior walls of the palace which in many parts turned into sand;
drainage; and the passage of children and animals on the roof. Therefore, very
regular maintenance was much required.

Figure 4: The site of Mari, Syria.

It could be said that most of the shelters described above were, conventionally,
erected from a felt need to 'provide a roof' over a site. There has been a more
recent attempt in shelter design which has adopted a more rational, reasoned
approach to design. The Getty Conservation Institute aimed to develop a
lightweight modular shelter which was easy to erect and could be temporary if
desired - the 'Hexa shelter.' The Hexa shelter was developed in Paphos, Cyprus,
and has also been further tested at Fort Selden in New Mexico (Figure 5). The
framework is of aluminium tubes and the fabric of tri-laminated PVC with openknit aero-textile panels for the sides. The evaluation of its effectiveness was
undertaken in 1991 on the Fort Selden Site. There, protective indices were
determined by structuring meteorological parameters and temperature
variability on two identical adobe test walls inside and outside the shelter.
Although the design of the shelter proved to be aesthetically low profile and
neutral in colour, it did not provide complete environmental protection. Despite

the fact that footings on the surface do not require subgrade excavation and
can be cast in situ , structural movement at the Fort Selden site occurred when
the soil underneath the footings was wet and slippery. The Hexa shelter could
also be affected by lifting with high wind which necessitated additional
reinforcing bars in the structure. Moreover, this type of shelter cannot stand
vertical loading resulting from snow in cold climates.

Figure 5: The Hexa shelter in Paphos, Cyprus.

In summary, in many of these open-air shelters, it is likely that their benefits
are more psychological than actual.
Enclosures
Enclosures, in contrast to shelters, have taken several forms. Among temporary
structures on ongoing excavations are pneumatic forms which, in spite of their
relative complexity, prove efficient where short term protection is required. A
pre-formed continuous membrane of plastic sealed around its base and with air
locked entrances can be kept inflated by small gasoline or electrically powered
fans with balanced ventilation (Weaver 1973) . Simpler methods of temporary

enclosures made of polythene sheets and wooden frameworks can be achieved

in such cases too.
Several Madaba Churches in Jordan were enclosed in order to present mosaic
remains to the public. Protective enclosures were built in such a way as to give
the impression of traditional church architecture (Figure 6). The building over
the Apostles church site, which cannot now be distinguished from the original
remains, consists of a concrete structure with traditional stone cladding. It is
easy to comment critically on this practice since it does not conform with the
concept of distinguishibility set by known conservation charters and ethics.

Figure 6: The shelter (under construction) over the Madaba church in Jordan.
At the temple of Apollo Epikourious at Bass, Greece (Theolakis 1993) , thermal
fluctuations affected the argillios veins of the limestone causing cracking and
damage. Therefore, in 1987, a canopy with anti-seismic scaffolding to protect
the site from weather conditions and earthquakes was erected and the
measurement and assessment of environmental environmental factors
proceeded to control the microclimate. Recording of the temperature and

relative humidity data were taken. The site has been monitored since then, and
improvements to the conservation conditions have been achieved.
Preventive measures in enclosed structures are usually concerned with
controlling the relative humidity and temperature around the archaeological
materials. Unlike artefacts within museums or in the interior of existing
buildings, controlling the environment of exposed archaeological remains is
complex. One may note the proposal of Eurocare Eurobuild for a protective
building to cover the Hammar Cathedral in Norway (Apeland 1993) . At
Hammar, among other climatological factors, the major problem was caused
by frost damage to the historic stone material. The aim, there, was to develop a
method for simplifying the design methodology of protective enclosures.
Projects of this type are important to the development of preventive
conservation measures in this area, but their study results are often not
disseminated. Another project with similar scope was the erection of a
protective air-conditioned shell over the column of Marcus Aurilius in Rome
(Bruno 1987) due to the polluted environment. There, the control of relative
humidity and temperature was also essential. In these examples, glass panes
technology was an essential element of the research programme. The research
further considered cleaning equipment and technical solutions for the antireflective glass panels. Again, information on results of this study are not made
available to practitioners.
The Fishbourne site near Chichester in England (Figure 7) is a classic example
where important Roman mosaics were presented in an enclosed modern
display that formed part of the restored subterranean foundations, lined out at
ground level in the archaeological park. Elevated walkways with carefully
located footings were designed for visitors, and the displays are highly
effective. Problems developed later and included rising damp and biological
growth due to ground water. The lowering of the ground water table by dry
wells or other means was not desirable because of the deferential settlement

potential of the foundations. This situation illustrates that even when sites are
presented in a carefully controlled environment, they are not exempt from
further deterioration problems that arise later. It further illustrates that constant
monitoring is important.

Figure 7: Fishbourne site, England.

At the Peterborough rock art site in Ontario, Canada (Bahn et al. 1995) , an
enclosure built in 1984 has received several criticisms in recent years. Major
issues included the uncertainties in the planning phase both about the function
of the enclosure and in identifying potential causes of deterioration. Damage to
the rock art surface has resulted from carbon dioxide from precipitation and
human visitation. This has caused the dissolution of the calcitic surface. In the
beginning, however, conservators thought that acidity of rain water alone was
the cause of this deterioration. Other problems were related to the materials
used in the new construction and the effects of condensation. This case is
notable for it includes not only the technical aspects of presentation and
environmental control but also ethical problems concerned with enclosing rock-

art sites in a manner that relegates them to the status of museum objects and,
so, might alter their cultural meaning indelibly.
Piazza Armerina in Sicily (Minissi 1961) is an example of a structure, the first of
its kind, which has been currently reviewed. In the 1950s, a modern 'abstract'
structure enclosed rooms of the mosaic villa around a courtyard. Elevated
metal walkways were installed over the ancient walls. Translucent panels of
plastic, attached to metal framing, were built, with louvres in wall areas for
ventilation. In some areas, suspended panels of plastic created flat ceilings to
reduce heat transformation and glare. These, however, proved to be insufficient
to control solar radiation and heat. Discoloration of the panels and material
failure of the exterior sheathing occurred due to sunlight. Additionally, summer
visitors complained about high temperatures despite the ventilation design.
At the Montreal Museum of Archaeology and History in Quebec, Canada (Figure
8), remains of an excavated crypt area were left in-situ and form part of the
display at Pointe--Calliere. A complete structure has been built on all sides to
ensure its long-term preservation. This structure is itself enclosed in the
museum building. Although temperature remained stable, there was a
fluctuation in relative humidity which enhanced the formation of salts, which,
upon crystallisation, were disintegrating the surface of the crypt. Relative
humidity is well below that at which sodium chloride, the major existing salt,
crystallises from solution, so a major problem was presented as a never-ending
migration of salts. Options included stopping the water migrating to the surface
and keeping the required relative humidity above 75%, which might be too
high for visitor comfort and could also introduce biodeterioration. This last
option, however, was implemented in a similar situation at the Archaeological
Museum at Vergina in Greece in order to protect mural paintings
(Dimacopoulos 1995) .

Figure 8: The archaeological remains in the crypt of the Montreal Museum for
History and Archaeology.
Another example of a pre-designed controlled environment is the Roman Bath
Museum in Heerlen, Holland (Boekwijt 1985) . Condensation and, mainly, a salt
problem of 'harmless' calcium sulphate (gypsum) occurred later and was
merely an ethical problem that had to be removed chemically using EDTA
paste. Fortunately, there was an easy solution to this salt problem.
Nevertheless, this case shows that environment control measures did not take
conservation needs into account and that, as a result, condensation and salt
formation could not be prevented at this site.
A more high-tech example of an enclosure is the intervention at the Cathedral
of Atri in Italy (Scichilone 1985). It consists of four oversized showcases offering
a strictly controlled environment on and around excavated remains that are
permanently displayed to the public. Laminated glass panes use a
thermostatically controlled system that can heat the glass electrically to
prevent condensation. PVC pipes provide for ventilation through filters, so
preventing contamination. A programmed timer in the panes was installed to

operate anti condensation. Lighting of low voltage fluorescent lamps was

provided for the visitor display. This case has proved to be successful so far.
And, as a final example, the Church of Our Lady in Bruges, Belgium (De Witte
1985) . Here environmental parameters were controlled and mirrors to help
visitors to have a complete view of the paintings were arranged with spot
lighting of standard chromatic index and UV range. This is another successful
example which considered responses to conservation and interpretation needs.
It can be seen that the design, performance, and maintenance of enclosures
are very site specific. However, learning from previous experiences, such as
those mentioned above, is very essential. The examples further illustrate the
necessity, in the early design phase of these structures, to allocate a
considerable part of the conservation budget to continuous maintenance and
to necessary modifications.

Conclusion
Despite the fact that conservation is case-specific, these examples illustrate
that for the benefit of future projects, it is important that the experiences
gained be documented and assessed. They further illustrate the need for a
thorough scientific methodology that will serve architectural approaches to the
design of shelters and enclosures on archaeological heritage sites. Planning for
a long-term commitment to mitigate the effects of time is essential as is the
commitment at the very early planning stages to maintain and monitor the site
and structure. Additionally, we have seen that the impact of protective
structures on archaeological sites is not always beneficial. This, too, requires
documentation.
This research programme further intends to develop guidelines and planning
procedures which consider the unique environmental qualities of archaeological
sites. It is hoped that it will help practitioners in assessing requirements and site

management options in the different climatic regions. It will create an empirical

base for future strategies in archaeological site management which can deal
with protection as a preservation measure and a presentation issue at the
same time.

Acknowledgements
The study is supported by the Conservation and Restoration Centre in Jordan, a
centre which was under establishment in Petra by the Jordanian Government
and the German Technical Co-operation (GTZ), and which has lately been
patronised by HRH Crown Prince Hassan.
I am grateful to Dr. Clifford Price of the Institute of Archaeology for his
continuous support and advice and to Dr. Paulette McManus for her help in
discussing this paper and advising consistently on the research.