Thisintegrated process is made possible by the creation of an Archaeological Park[3].The Park should orient and coordinate the objectives, strategies and actionsimplemented by different institutions and actors, both public and private, inorder to produce knowledge, protection, conservation, enhancement anddevelopment in the Oasis territory.

Inthis perspective the Park should be an autonomous institution composed ofmembers of local and national institutions and should guarantee management,control and monitoring of the enhancement and development process[4].

Theformation of the Park depends on the initiative of a promoting subject/group[5],that will have to provide:

–   to identify the Park on the base of data related to geographical,environmental, cultural, historical and social aspects of the territory;

–   to involve the public and private actors operating in the territory,interested in participating in the process of development;

–   to identify the juridical-institutional form of the Park, according tothe opportunities of the existing legislation or appraising the possibilities ofa new specific provision;

–   to individualize the existing and/or potential financial resources forthe launch of the Park.

Thecreation and the management of the Park ask for specific tools to enhance thecultural resources, to improve the territorial resources and to develop thelocal economic system:

·        managementframework, necessary to ensure the functioning of the Park both in the phase ofconstitution and in the phase of ordinary management;

·        action plans:

– knowledge plan;

– protection/conservation plan;

– enhancement plan;

– development plan.

Themanagement framework of the Park will have to ensure the following functions:orientation and political-administrative coordination, technical-scientificsupport, consultation of the involved subjects. These functions can be developedby:

·        committeeof coordination,composed by the public actors competent on the territory, eventually presided bya representative of an institution of government level (Ministry, etc.);

·        technical-scientificcommittee, which,in close contact with the committee of coordination, attends to defining theplanning contents of the different plans necessary to provide information anddata for the subjects operating in the territory, with the purpose to ensure theachievement of the shared objectives;

·        organismof consultation,that is the space of the comparison and the sharing with all the public andprivate actors, as well as with the local community, involved in the process ofdevelopment, useful to communicate the initiatives and the choices of the Park,but also to listen to necessities and desires of the local population and thecivil society.

Theway of creation and development of the Park, as said, foresees thepredisposition of four different actionplans, purposely separated to promote its realization according to thearticulation of the competences of the involved public subjects, but conceivedin an integrated way for maximizing the synergies between the interventions andthe use of the available financial resources.

Thefour plans mentioned above will be expressed in terms of addresses, guidelines,actions and projects for:

·        protectionpolicies;

·        conservationand enhancement intervention programs;

·        cultural heritage management;

·        territorial andurban planning and management;

·        landscapeplanning and management;

·        economic andsocial intervention programs.

Theknowledge of the territory, the interpretation of its values and its identity,the evaluation of its points of weakness and its risks are at the base of anyprocess of local development that aims to the environmental sustainability andto the socio-cultural and economic compatibility of its initiatives. Also in thecase of the Jericho Oasis it is necessary to achieve a knowledge and anevaluation of the territorial realities that are the common base on which tofound the strategic choices of intervention. The Knowledge Plan has thefollowing contents:

–   characterization and interpretation of the territory according todifferent criteria (historical/cultural, landscape/environmental, etc.);

–   analysis and evaluation of the cultural and territorial resources (forinstance through the creation of a register/catalogue based on a Gis system);

–   evaluation of the risks and definition of the opportunities.

Inparticular, the evaluation can be carried out through the SWOT Analysis (Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) which allows to build an actual scenery,comparing points of strength and weakness, risks and opportunities of theresources and the territory taken into consideration, useful to have meaningfuldata and information to define choices and contents of the plans of protection,enhancement and development. In this sense, the register/catalogue can be usedto define the physical relationships and the relationships of sense between thecultural resources and the territory, but also to identify the relationshipsbetween the different resources and the uses of the territory, the regulatorysystem constraints, and it can be the basic of future town-planning schemes andlandscape planning of territorial actions compatible with the resources.

Theprotection and the conservation of the cultural resources, main asset of thePark, needs diversified actions at the level of the whole Park and at the levelof every resource/site, finalized to create the minimum conditions for theirenhancement:

·        for the whole Park:

– new protection law (national level): the present regulatory constraintsare not sufficient for the sites protection because no specific rules have beendeveloped until now;

– new land use and landscape master plan at Jericho Oasis (local level);

·        for each site/resource:

– definition of the protection area;

– conservation and restoration interventions;

– protection systems for archaeological and architectural remains (protectiveshelters, water drainage, etc.).

Inthe Jericho Oasis the valorization of the cultural heritage aims: to favour theusability, the knowledge and the understanding of the resources; to support therelationship among the material and immaterial resources; to facilitate thecommunication of the intrinsic meanings to the cultural heritage; to arouse thegrowth of the identity sense of affiliation of the cultural heritage to theterritory and the communities in the present; to increase the ability ofattraction of tourism. Also the Enhancement Plan has to operate according toactions related to the whole Park and to the single resources:

·        for the whole Park:

– improvement actions of accessibility and usability of the territory;

– organization of the visiting routes and transports according to aspecific project of knowledge of the territory and its cultural heritage;

– promotion of activities aimed to maintain and to strengthen the differentforms of immaterial cultural heritage;

– realization of the new visitor and information centre of the Park;

– communication and cultural activities promotion (publishing, medias,schools, etc.);

·        for each site/resource:

– improvement actions of accessibility and usability;

– organization and improvement of visiting pathways;

– presentation tools aimed to know and understand the site;

– services and facilities for visitors.

TheDevelopment Plan has the task to create the conditions of territorial andsocio-economic context able to favour the full valorization of the culturalheritage and to increase its benefits to the advantage both of the visitors and,above all, of the local economic system and the inhabitants.

Theactions and the projects foreseen in the Development Plan concern on the onehand the improvement of the territory and of its infrastructures and equipments,on the other hand the development of the local economic system, and theinvolvement and the qualification of the existing human capital.

Themain actions for the development of the territoryand of the city of Ariha are:

–   urban renewal and buildings rehabilitation;

–   improvement and equipment of urban public spaces;

–   increase, qualification and differentiation of the reception andwelcoming facilities for tourism and commerce;

–   increase, qualification and differentiation of the facilities for leisuretime and sport;

–   increase, qualification and differentiation of the territorial service (healthcare,education, public centres, administration and institutional office, etc.).

Themain actions for the development of the localeconomic system, the human capitaland the forms of participation are:

–   marketing and social enjoyment and tourism promotion on the Park (organisationof tracks, itineraries, information facilities, etc.);

–   integration and development of the economic strands that are involved orcan be involved in the enhancement process;

–   creation of opportunities to attract new economical activities;

–   increase training for the local population in the field of culturalheritage, research, conservation, tourism, etc.;

–   interventions for local contractors (empowerment, capacity building,incentives for local entrepreneurship, etc.).

Thewhole of the actions of the four plans represents the operational translation ofthe joint integrated strategy which is at the base of the process ofvalorization and development that is possible to start in the Jericho Oasisthrough the constitution of the Archaeological Park.

Theactions, as said, will have to set up addresses and orientations for every actorpresent on the territory who, according to his own competences and tools, iscalled to bring his contribution through the definition and realization of theinterventions included in every action (for instance, UNESCO; Ministry ofTourism and Antiquities; Local Government; Municipality of Ariha; privateeconomic businessmen; etc.)

Theactions and the related interventions that today appear priority for thecreation of the Park of the Jericho Oasis (pl.2) and the start of the process of valorization and development, from thedifferent competent subjects, are the followings:

·        for protection:

– implementation of landscape-environmental and historical-archaeo-logicalregulatory system constraints through: geographical definition oflandscape-environmental constraints and definition of historical-archaeologicalprotected areas (constraints of territorial uses);

·        for accessibility:

– improvement of accessibility and mobility of the territory through:improvement of main roads; definition and organization of the accesses to thePark; improvement of relations between heritage resources; definition andrealization of a new road system around the site of Tell es-Sultan;

·        forconservation and enhancement:

– increase environmental, historical and archaeological researches;

– increase restoration activities of remains;

– realization of visit pathways;

– realization of visitors services and facilities;

·        for territorydevelopment (urban renewal of Ariha town):

– rehabilitation and improvement of public buildings and social services;

– rehabilitation and restoration of historical buildings;

– improvement of public spaces;

– rehabilitation of Ariha central square;

– realization of Archaeological Park visitor centre and tourist servicesand facilities;

– realization of commercial and reception facilities;

– realization of Park transport system;

·        for management:

– cooperation and coordination among territory and heritage managers toprogram and plan the integrated development process of the Park;

– definition of territorial integrated actions compatible with theenvironmental and archaeological resources (territorial urban planning schemeand landscape planning).

Amongthe priorities of the program for the formation of the Park of the Oasis thearchaeological site of Tell es-Sultan has a primary position. Main resource andtourist destination of the territory, the ancient city needs a specificintegrated project that allows it to fully develop, and in a state of effectiveprotection and conservation, the role of historical-cultural centrality andimage of the foreseen Park. The integrated Telles-Sultan Project, as it will be seen in detail below, will have to faceparticularly the following themes:

–   definition of interventions for the protection and the rehabilitation ofthe neighbouring areas to the site (territorial and landscape context of thesite);

–   historical-archaeological research;

–   organisation of accessibility from outside (displacement of road betweenthe site and ‘Ain es-Sultan);

–   restoration of archaeological remains (with particular attention forKenyon’s Trench I and the finds brought to light by the excavations of Rome“La Sapienza” University);

–   organization of the accessibility and the usability inner to the site(new main entrance, new pathways, safety devices, etc.);

–   improvement of the equipments for the visitors (site presentation tools,visitor centre, museum, bookshop, etc.).

Withinthe proposal of institution and launch of the Archaeological Park of the JerichoOasis, the archaeological site of the ancient city of Jericho requires, as said,a particular care and attention both for its historical-cultural value, notcompletely disclosed if we keep in mind the information that still miss forreconstructing its history (related, for instance, to the real dimensions of thecity in the period of its maximum expansion or to the exact location of thecity-gates), and for the problems of protection and conservation that itsmaterial structure (it deals with very ancient archaeological remains above allin mud-bricks placed inside trenches of very friable earth) and its immediateterritorial context (urbanized areas characterized by the constant settlementgrowth of residences and equipments for tourists, as well as the road thatcrosses the archaeological site cutting the tellon its oriental slope) set to any serious initiative of interventions of searchas well as of restoration and valorization[6].

Forthese reasons it is necessary that the Project for Tell es-Sultan faces in ageneral and integrated way all the matters and the existing and potentialproblems through the contribution of the different involved disciplines (archaeology,urban planning, archaeological restoration, architecture, cultural heritagemanagement, etc.) of the different competent public actors (Department ofAntiquities, Department of Tourism, Local government, Municipality, etc.) andthe potential public and private financiers, in order to realize anarchaeological site able to act at the same time as “place of the culture”but also chance for the rehabilitation and the development of the territory.

Inthis vision, the Tell es-Sultan Project is finalized to guarantee the protectionof the archaeological site in its largest extension, to increase itshistorical-archaeological knowledge, to ensure its conservation and valorization,to develop its accessibility and availability, to do of it an occasion oflandscape rehabilitation and socio-economic development for the whole Oasis, aswell as the centre of the proposed Park. It appears therefore useful, beforeillustrating possible solutions, to point out some main matters and prioritiesthat inevitably characterize and direct the definition of the present guidelinesfor the Project and that, for this reason, are expressed in very operationalform.

Tosum up, the main themes for the Project and its interventions are:

·        research

– limited knowledge of the archaeological site (for instance the city gatesand the temple remain undiscovered);

·        protection

– from “human action” (construction of buildings and roads next to thesite; conditions of degrade of the context; the current applied law protectsjust inside the physical borders of the site; there is no law or regulatorysystem constraints to protect the overall site or the environment and therelationship of the site with the outside);

– from natural action (atmospheric agents: constant sunlight, wind action,rainfalls, water erosion);

·        conservation

– the uniqueness and vulnerability of the materials (different kinds ofmud-bricks: variety of physical-chemical characteristics, different mix, etc.);

– the uniqueness of the “monuments” to preserve (deep trenches ofexcavation; high archaeological earthen section; mud-bricks wall; stone wall;etc.);

– lack of conservation, restoration and conservation interventions;

·        enhancement

– visitors’ difficulty to understand the archaeological remains;

– need of visitors’ pathways and presentation tools;

– need of visitors’ services;

– need of structures and panels for archaeological materials and objectsconservation and valorization (pottery, stone objects, etc.);

– need of visitors’ and workers’ safety devices;

·        management

– cooperation among the different site managers;

– cooperation and organisation among site managers and the differentinstitutions working in the territory (central and local government;municipality).

Accordingto these main themes it is possible to point out some priority actions whichconstitute the base of the program of interventions of the Tell es-SultanProject and that can be indifferently inserted inside the two options related tothe reorganization of the territorial setting of the site, that will beillustrated below.

Accordingto the action-lines already mentioned, these priority actions are:

·        research

– increase historical and archaeological investigations, researches andexcavations (research activity is basic for the site understanding, conservationand development, also for attracting public interest);

– increase analysis and research activities for mud-brick restoration;

·        protection

– definition of protected archaeological area and rules of regulatorysystem constraints;

– definition of land use and territorial constraints of the areasimmediately surrounding the site;

– displacement of the road in both sides of the site (the road to Nablusand Jenin cuts the eastern slope of the site and has created physical separationbetween Tell es-Sultan and the spring of ‘Ain es-Sultan);

·        conservation

– definition of restoration interventions type and methodology;

– restoration of the mud-brick and stone structures which have been broughtto light;

– Kenyon’s Trench I coverage and accommodation of the area to visit andunderstand the archaeological complex;

·        enhancement

– accommodation and equipment of the new main entrance to the site;

– realization visit pathways whit safety devices (they have to be bothflexible and reversible closely following the progress in excavation);

– realization of presentation tools for visiting and understanding the site(panels, brochures, informative stations, etc.);

– realization site office, site information centre, museum and restorationlaboratory, tourist police office and visitors’ services (services, bookshop,etc.);

– improvement of the ‘Ain es-Sultan area in direct connection with thesite;

·        management

– co-operation and co-ordination between site’s managers;

– co-operation and co-ordination among site’s managers and territory andland use managers for urban and landscape planning, development policies andactions for the economic local system, etc.

Inorder to build the minimum conditions to start the Project it is priority toclearly define the real extension of the archaeological site, that forarchaeological evidence and historical reasons has to include the area of ‘Aines-Sultan, as well as to individualize a buffer zones of protection to submit tocultural heritage regulatory system constraints and to rehabilitate and toassign to compatible uses and/or services for the same archaeological site. Thisinvolves on the one hand to get the availability of the neighbouring areas (whereasthey are private ownership), but, above all, to remove the road for Nablus-Jenin,that separates the site from ‘Ain es-Sultan, defining an alternative by-passpassage to east of the site.

Theshift of the road would allow to widen the protected area of the archaeologicalsite and, together with a series of interventions of improvement of the roadsand of the existing crossroads to south, west and north of the tell, to organize the accessibility from the outside to the sitethrough the creation of new green areas of parking lot and the establishment ofthe main entrance to the site with services for the visitors.

Thetwo solutions proposed in this place, as it concerns the alternatives of roadby-pass and the consequent enlargement of the archaeological site, can alsorespectively represent a background of brief-middle period (pl.3 and fig. 1) and a background of long period (pl.4 and fig. 2), according to the administrative, legislative and financialpossibilities that will be available during the process of formation andrealization of the projects of the Archaeological Park and of Tell es-Sultan.

Solution1 (pl. 3 and fig. 1) foresees the shift of the road through an eastern by-passmainly to existing roads, that joins again to the road to Nablus-Jenin to thenorth-eastern corner of the tell. Theboundary of the archaeological site could be widened, in this way, to includethe area of ‘Ain es-Sultan to be retrained and to be equipped with servicesfor the visitors. At the same time, without the separation caused by the road,it would be possible to reorganize the access to the site in the same positionof the exiting entrance.

Solution2 (pl. 4 and fig. 2) also foresees the shift of the road with an eastern by-passthat joins again to the road to Nablus-Jenin to the north of the tell,and the reunification to the east with ‘Ain es-Sultan, but, above all, itproposes the enlargement of the archaeological site in the areas to the west ofthe same tell delimited by the existing viability. The new areas included inthe archaeological site would guarantee a best physical and landscape protectionof the site itself, offering new spaces for archaeological investigations and,according to the results of these last investigations, for services andequipments of the archaeological site. In particular, it would be possible tolocate the new main entrance to Tell es-Sultan in axis to Kenyon’s Trench Iand to the Neolithic tower, with undeniable advantages from the point of view ofthe accessibility and the organization of the visits, as well as of thesuggestive image that the visitors would have of the site entering it. In bothcases, according to the differences just described, the actions to be foreseenin the Tell es-Sultan Project have to consider interventions of different natureboth inside the archaeological site and in its immediate proximities (pls.3-4).

Asit concerns the surroundings areas, besides the definition of specific rules ofrestraint of the transformations and uses of the territory also for thelandscape-environmental protection of the archaeological site, it is necessary,for instance, to foresee interventions of rehabilitation of the refugee campimmediately to north of the site and rehabilitation of the free areas as greenareas eventually equipped for the site (parking areas), as well as improvementof the existing roads.

Asit concerns the archaeological site, interventions are finalized at the sametime to the conservation of the finds, to the accessibility and usability of thesite, to the understanding of the visible archaeological remains, to thecommunication and divulgation of the cultural contents, to the comfort and thesafety of the visitors, to the endowment of services and equipments (museum,bookshop, offices, laboratories of restoration, etc.), to the best organizationand management of the cultural activities of the site itself.

Besidethe whole of the general interventions (parking areas, entrances, pathways,information view points, services and equipments of the site, etc.) there arefive priority projects concerning the main areas of the site, that need aspecific planning of integrated actions of conservation, restoration andpresentation of the archaeological finds (pls. 3-4). The most important contentsfor these projects are pointed out:

1.  Kenyon’s Trench I

– creation of the new site main entrance (only in the case of the describedSolution 2);

– restoration of the Neolithic tower;

– regularization of the trench excavation limits;

– realization of water drainage system;

– realization of roof-covering the whole area;

– fixing the archaeological sections;

– realization of pathways with safety devices and presentation structures.

2.  Kenyon’sTrench II

– continuation of the archaeological research;

– restoration of the existing Early Bronze Age city-wall section;

– realization of water drainage system;

– fixing the archaeological sections;

– realization of pathways with safety devices and presentation structures.

3.  Kenyon’s Trench III

– continuation of the archaeological research (stone wall rampart);

– restoration of the mud-bricks structures;

– realization of water drainage system;

– fixing the archaeological sections;

– realization of pathways with safety devices and presentation structures.

4.  Early Bronze Age residentialquarter (Area F)

– restoration of the mud-bricks structures;

– realization of water drainage system;

– fixing the archaeological sections;

– realization of pathways with safety devices and presentation structures.

5.  Eastern slope and ‘Ain es-Sultan

– continuation of the archaeological research on the removed road;

– rehabilitation of the removed road area;

– direct pathway connection between site and ‘Ain es-Sultan;

– realization of presentation structures;

– rehabilitation of ‘Ain es-Sultan area with visitors facilities.

Fig.1 – The Tell es-Sultan Project. Solution 1: the new eastern by-pass road and thenew accessibility to the archaeological site.

Theproposals, outlined in this paper, for the creation of the Archaeological Parkof the Jericho Oasis and the preparation of a specific Project for Telles-Sultans, want to be an operational contribution to the reflection on thenumerous issues and hierarchies involved in the realisation of the Park, whichenvisages the active cooperation among the interested administrations andinstitutions.

Thearrangement of a way of sustainable development for the Jericho Oasis, in fact,has to pass through a careful and integrated scheduling and planning of theconservation, valorization and development of the existing resources. Thesuccess of these proposals depends, anyway, on some conditions that can not begiven up:

–   the sharing of the objectives and choices of development amongadministrations, institutions and local civil society;

–   the shared definition of the interventions of the Plan for theArchaeological Park and the interventions of the Tell es-Sultan Project;

–   the cooperation, collaboration and coordination among the actors involvedin the scheduling, planning and realization of the interventions;

–   the search of public and private financings for the arrangement of thePlan of the Park and of the Tell es-Sultan Project;

Nigro,F.

1998           “Il Parco Archeologico per la conservazione e la valorizzazione di Telles-Sultan, antica Gerico”, in N. Marchetti– L. Nigro (eds.), Scavia Gerico, 1997. Relazione preliminare sulla prima campagna di scavi eprospezioni archeologiche a Tell es-Sultan, Palestina(Quaderni di Gerico 1), Roma 1998, pp. 205-229.

2000 “The 1998 season at Tell es-Sultan: measures for protection anddevelopment of the site. A project for the ancient Jericho”, in N. Marchetti– L. Nigro (eds.), Excavationsat Jericho, 1998. Preliminary Report on the Second Season ofExcavations and Surveys at Tell es-Sultan, Palestine(Quaderni di Gerico 2), Rome 2000, pp. 287-295.