Ghiath Nasser, Attorney at Law
In 2025, an unusually large group of declarations of archaeological sites was published across the West Bank. An examination of the notices published by the Civil Administration shows 30 declarations of new sites in 2025, alongside two correction notices. Each notice was accompanied by a map delineating the site. By comparison, the same collection contains no declarations of new sites in 2024.
The number alone does not tell the whole story. A comparison of the full polygon of each declaration with the village land boundaries displayed in the Civil Administration’s mapping system identifies the lands on which the 30 newly declared sites are located: Khirbet Haya, Khirbet Sharab and Al-Sharraba on the lands of Awarta; Khirbet al-Bab and Khirbet Jabal al-Bad on the lands of Burqa; Khirbet al-Sheikh Ahmad al-Ta‘ban and Khirbet al-Salib on the lands of Burin; Al-Sheikh Salman al-Farisi on the lands of Asira al-Qibliya; Khirbet Halas principally on the lands of Madama, with a very small overlap with the lands of Asira al-Qibliya; Khirbet Ghanam, Al-Nabi Nun and Elevation Point 474 on the lands of Yanun; Ras al-Zeid on the lands of Huwwara; Khirbet al-Najma on the lands of Jurish; Khirbet al-Sawiya, Eli (1) and Khirbet Kamuniya on the lands of al-Sawiya; Khirbet Najmat Khanifis, Khirbet Birkat al-Qasr and Khirbet al-Sarra, South on the lands of Jalud; Sheikh Bilal on the lands of Azmut; Elevation Point 775 on the lands of Salim; Khirbet al-Marjam and Wadi al-Daba Cave on the lands of al-Mughayyir; Ein al-Kabira on the lands of Deir al-Hatab; Elevation Point 432 (5) on the lands of Aqraba; Bir al-Battin on the lands of Sinjil; Iraq al-Za‘ (3) on the lands of Beit Furik and Yanun; Ras al-Janna on the lands of Huwwara and Awarta; and Mount Ebal Altar on the lands of Asira al-Shamaliya.
In addition to the 30 new declarations, two correction notices were published: Khirbet al-Karwa, whose delineated area extends over the lands of Yatma, Qabalan and Beita; and Khirbet al-Aqil in the Sebastia area, whose delineated area extends over the lands of Sebastia and Burqa. Some of these notices concern extensive areas, most notably approximately 1,474 dunams at Khirbet al-Aqil and approximately 213 dunams at Elevation Point 432 (5). The notices themselves do not state on which village’s lands each site is located. Determining this required comparing their accompanying maps with the village land boundary layer—an exercise landowners should not have to undertake to discover that a declaration may affect their land.
On its face, the Civil Administration is exercising a power to protect antiquities. Yet the declarations, viewed alongside subsequent decisions to acquire ownership and take possession of land, point to an additional mechanism for taking Palestinian land: first declaring an archaeological site, then expropriating the land and dispossessing its Palestinian owners. The land may subsequently be used to establish or expand settlements. The declarations examined do not show that landowners were given a hearing beforehand. Nor do the notices disclose the professional basis for the boundaries selected or explain what alternatives were considered to preserve the antiquities while protecting the owners’ rights.
Areas Not Yet Declared and the Change in the Civil Administration’s Mapping System
The wave of notices published in 2025 is not the end of the process. Additional polygons appear in the Civil Administration’s mapping system in the al-Khader area and elsewhere in the West Bank. In screenshots saved before I wrote to the authorities, some of these polygons were labelled “Archaeological Site Area—Preparation for Declaration.” That wording distinguished an area whose declaration was still being prepared from a site that had already been declared. To date, I have not located published declarations concerning these areas in al-Khader.
On 19 September 2026, I wrote to the Civil Administration and its legal advisers requesting the information underlying the proposed declarations in the al-Khader area. I also requested a hearing before any decision was made or declaration published. Among other matters, I asked how the polygon boundaries had been determined and what procedure had been followed under the Antiquities Law applicable in the area.
After my letter, I noticed a change in the wording displayed in the mapping system. The later screenshots read “Archaeological Site Area”: the words “Preparation for Declaration” had been removed. On 25 September, I wrote to the authorities again, noted that my request had not been answered, and demanded an explanation for the change. Screenshots from before and after my letter document the difference in the labels displayed for the polygons examined.
The change could have significant practical consequences. A person consulting the system may understand the new label to mean that the area has already been declared an archaeological site, although my request for the procedural documents and a prior hearing remains unanswered. Changing a map label cannot substitute for a decision and publication as required by law. I have not been informed whether a declaration decision was made for any of these areas, when it was made, where it was published, or which signed map establishes its boundaries. The timing of the change, so soon after my letter, calls for an explanation from the authorities.
Sebastia: Advance Notice Followed by Expropriation
Sebastia illustrates how an antiquities procedure can lead to the expropriation of land on a considerable scale. A declaration concerning an archaeological site was signed on 4 May 2025 and published later, on 10 August 2025, with the other notices. On 12 November 2025, the Civil Administration published a notice of intent to expropriate land in order to “preserve and develop the site and open it as a site receiving the general public.” The notice concerned the lands of Sebastia and Burqa. It allowed a written response within 14 days, but framed that opportunity as an expression of consent to the expropriation request and the proposed works, rather than as a clear invitation to submit a reasoned objection.
Subsequently, on 11 February 2026, a decision was signed to acquire ownership and take possession of approximately 2,068 dunams. By contrast, the visible remains visited today—including the acropolis, Roman theatre, forum and colonnaded street—are concentrated in a much smaller area. Even a broad estimate of less than 200 dunams amounts to less than one tenth of the area expropriated. A substantial part of the land covered by the decision consists of privately owned agricultural land and olive groves belonging to residents of Sebastia and Burqa. The considerable gap between the area of visible antiquities and the extent of the private land expropriated indicates misuse of the Antiquities Law to take control of a vast area of Palestinian owners’ land.
Herodion: Two Decisions to Acquire Land, with No Prior Notice of Intent Located
The second case is Herodion, on the lands of Arab al-Ta‘amra. The documents examined include two expropriation decisions signed on 25 May 2026. The first, Decision H/03/26, provides for the acquisition of ownership and taking of possession of 300 dunams for the preservation, development, accessibility and regulation of the site. The second, Decision H/05/26, provides for the acquisition of ownership and taking of possession of 17.4 dunams for the excavation, preservation and development of the archaeological site.
It should be noted that, before these expropriation decisions, no notice declaring the area an archaeological site was published. Nor was a notice of intent to expropriate published.
This is a significant difference from Sebastia. In Sebastia, an advance notice of intent to expropriate was located. No comparable advance notice was located among the Herodion documents examined; instead, two decisions to acquire ownership and take possession were found. In practice, no hearing was held before the declaration of an archaeological site, if such a declaration was made at all, or before the decisions to expropriate.
The Declaration Itself: Where Are the Landowners in the Process?
The right to be heard should not arise only when the authorities decide to expropriate. Designating an archaeological site and defining its boundaries can already affect a person’s ability to use and cultivate land, build on it and protect their rights. The military administration must safeguard the rights of the protected population and prevent unlawful interference with their property. An administrative authority seeking to declare an archaeological site, and later to expropriate land, must provide rights holders with full information before making a decision and allow them to present their position—including why their land should not fall within the site’s boundaries.
The 2025 notices present determinations by the archaeology officer, the apparent agreement of the competent Civil Administration official, and signed maps. They do not show that landowners received individual notice, were given access to the archaeological material, or had an opportunity to challenge the boundaries before the decisions were made. In practice, the landowners whose land falls within the declared areas were given no opportunity to be heard in opposition to those declarations.
A further defect concerns Section 6 of Jordanian Antiquities Law No. 51 of 1966. That section established a mechanism requiring consultation with an advisory council before an archaeological site is declared, and it was not repealed by the military legislation. It remains unclear which body, if any, now performs the role of the Jordanian advisory council, whether such a body was established, and whether it was consulted before the 2025 declarations. No records of such consultation or archaeological expert opinions have been published to explain why a declaration was needed for each site and why the particular boundaries shown on the maps were chosen. An archaeological site cannot be declared on the basis of an unsupported assertion, particularly when the declaration encompasses private land and extensive areas. The Civil Administration must identify the body it consulted, disclose the professional opinions placed before it, and explain the boundaries selected. Without these materials, there is serious doubt as to whether the conditions for exercising the power to declare archaeological sites were met.
Why Not Preserve the Site Without Expropriating the Land?
Even where there is a justification for protecting an archaeological site, it does not automatically follow that the land must be expropriated. Section 11 of the Jordanian Antiquities Law sets out a sequence of options to be examined with landowners: reaching an arrangement with the owner for the work needed to protect the site, followed by the possibilities of leasing or purchasing the land by agreement, before resorting to expropriation. A finding that a place merits designation as an archaeological site therefore does not mean that expropriation must be the outcome. The land can remain with its owners under an arrangement for preserving the antiquities. Only if an arrangement cannot be reached may the authority proceed through the other alternatives—lease, consensual purchase and, as a last resort, expropriation.
The military administration appears to be attempting to bypass the stages established by the Jordanian Antiquities Law. The expropriation decisions concerning Sebastia and Herodion cite Jordanian Land Acquisition for Public Purposes Law No. 2 of 1953 and the military orders governing its application in the area. They do not cite the Antiquities Law as the source of the power to acquire ownership. That choice raises a legal question: when the stated purpose of acquiring land concerns an archaeological site, may the authority use a general land acquisition procedure to bypass the sequence and alternatives prescribed by the Antiquities Law? It may not. The Antiquities Law establishes a detailed sequence for dealing with owners of private land before expropriation can even be considered, and only if no other option remains.
In practice, none of those stages under the Jordanian law was followed with the Palestinian landowners before these expropriations were carried out. That failure bears directly on the authority to issue the expropriation decisions.
Zibdeh: Work on the Land Before an Archaeological Declaration
The case of Zibdeh, in the Ni‘lin area, presents an earlier and even more troubling stage. A polygon was marked in the area in connection with an intended archaeological site declaration, but according to the information available to me, I have not located a lawfully published declaration concerning the land in question. Nevertheless, excavation, land clearing, grading and demolition work began there in preparation for the establishment of the settlement known as “Zibdeh.”
This indicates that the apparent concern for archaeological sites conceals a different purpose: establishing a new settlement on private land. The area is marked as an archaeological site being prepared for declaration, while substantial destructive work is already being carried out there for the settlement. If the stated purpose is to preserve antiquities, it is unclear how that purpose is consistent with building a settlement on the site. These circumstances indicate that the objective is to dispossess Palestinians of their land by eventually expropriating it and transferring it to state ownership, through a manifestly unlawful misuse of the Antiquities Law. On 24 September 2026, I wrote on behalf of a Ni‘lin resident demanding an immediate halt to work being carried out on his private land.
Protecting Antiquities Requires Respect for the Law
The 2025 figures show an unusual concentration of archaeological site declarations. The maps in the al-Khader area show additional areas under consideration, alongside an unexplained change in the description displayed to the public. Sebastia and Herodion show how the treatment of a site proceeds to immediate decisions to acquire land without prior examination of the alternatives provided by the Jordanian Antiquities Law. Zibdeh raises the question of work being carried out on private land even before a declaration has been published.
Those directing the military administration appear to believe that antiquities law can be turned into a shortcut for expropriating land and dispossessing Palestinians of it.
