Architectural Archaeology Through Reverse Engineering: A Constructivist Perspective from Jordan

Overview

This study addresses the pedagogical gap between Jordanian archaeological conservation and architectural education by proposing a constructivist framework for integrating ancient engineering knowledge into architecture curricula. The research situates architectural reverse engineering as a mechanism for transforming architecture students into informed stewards of endangered masonry heritage across limestone, sandstone, and basalt structures in Jordan. The framework operationalizes both technical knowledge acquisition and value-laden professional advocacy through four conceptual domains: science-making, heritage-making, temporality-making, and advocacy-making.

Methods and approach

A mixed-methods experimental design was implemented with architecture students at Hashemite University. Participants engaged in structured deconstruction of ancient engineering techniques through digital documentation and structural simulation methodologies, followed by knowledge reconstruction exercises targeting contemporary architectural applications. The pedagogical intervention operationalized an object-laden epistemology (technical knowledge recovery) paired with a value-laden ontology (constructed professional advocacy). Data collection and analysis tracked transformations across the four-domain framework, examining how engagement with reverse engineering practices influenced students' conceptualization of archaeological heritage and professional responsibility.

Key Findings

Four primary transformative outcomes emerged from the pedagogical intervention. Science-making manifested as students recovering ancient engineering methodologies as legitimate technical knowledge domains rather than merely historical artifacts. Heritage-making processes transformed archaeological sites from passive objects requiring specialist intervention into active sites of contemporary practice and learning. Temporality-making outcomes revealed students establishing dialogic relationships between past and present knowledge systems, oscillating between presentist concerns and futurist professional applications. Advocacy-making demonstrated students adopting roles as custodian-transmitters, internalizing professional stewardship orientations toward endangered heritage.

Implications

Integration of architectural archaeology into foundational architecture curricula addresses regional knowledge gaps affecting community support for endangered heritage conservation. By positioning reverse engineering as epistemologically legitimate pedagogical practice rather than specialized training, the framework expands the constituency of architecturally trained heritage advocates beyond conservation specialists. This expansion has direct implications for regional capacity-building in countries where architectural education has historically prioritized technical training over engineering-historical literacy of extant sites. The curricular integration model demonstrates scalability across multidisciplinary architectural programs without requiring specialized heritage tracks or additional institutional infrastructure.
The framework maintains critical reflexivity regarding power dynamics and selection criteria embedded in archaeological discourse while proposing practical mechanisms for knowledge democratization. Institutional adoption requires reorientation of architecture curricula toward epistemic plurality, recognizing ancient engineering as recoverable technical knowledge accessible to generalist practitioners rather than exclusively specialist domains. This pedagogical reframing has implications for how architecture education conceptualizes the relationship between historical understanding and contemporary practice, particularly in regions with significant threatened heritage sites.
The custodian-transmitter model articulates a professional identity that bridges conservation advocacy and architectural practice, potentially addressing the noted disconnect between conservation imperatives and architectural education in Jordan and similar contexts. Long-term outcomes depend on sustained curricular integration and institutional commitment to recognizing architectural archaeology as foundational rather than supplementary knowledge for contemporary practitioners engaged with endangered built heritage.

Scope and limitations

This summary is based on the study abstract and available metadata. It does not include a full analysis of the complete paper, supplementary materials, or underlying datasets unless explicitly stated. Findings should be interpreted in the context of the original publication.