What criteria should be used to inform architectural heritage and protection? Jordan’s Antiquities Law defines heritage by a 1750 CE cut-off date, a colonial inheritance that excludes Ottoman-era vernacular villages from protection. This chronological boundary severs communities’ living connections to ancestral places. Drawing on decolonial critiques of time and Giles Deleuze’s philosophy of multiplicity, this study examines five abandoned villages in Jordan where residents sustain alternative temporalities through memory, practice and intergenerational attachment. Thematic analysis of interviews (n = 42) reveals five dimensions of vernacular temporality: layering, absence, adaptation, differentiation and potential, demonstrating that heritage value accrues through ongoing cultural connection rather than chronological distance. These villages function as Deleuzian assemblages in which past and future coexist, the virtual persists alongside the actual, and becoming defines the heritage experience. The findings challenge the 1750 cut-off as an instrument of temporal colonisation that privileges European-connected antiquities while erasing the Ottoman presence. Policy reforms should amend the Antiquities Law to enable post-1750 protection through participatory criteria that recognise intangible significance, institutionalise community-led heritage management, support adaptive reuse initiatives, and direct heritage policy towards the envisioned futures communities. These changes advance ‘temporal justice’: valuing heritage by cultural connection rather than by arbitrary chronology. POLICY RELEVANCE This research demonstrates that Ottoman-era vernacular villages hold profound cultural significance through memory, practice and intergenerational attachment—values entirely unrecognised by current Jordanian law. Policy reforms should: (1) amend Antiquities Law No. 21 for 1988 to enable post-1750 protection through provisions recognising cultural significance beyond chronological age; (2) establish participatory criteria for heritage significance that incorporate intangible dimensions, including memory practices and ongoing relationships; (3) institutionalise community-led methods for heritage documentation, management and decision-making; (4) support community heritage initiatives that activate sites’ potential through adaptive reuse and sustainable tourism; and (5) direct heritage policy towards the future by creating spaces for communities to envision alternative futures rooted in the past. These changes would advance ‘temporal justice’, valuing heritage by cultural connection rather than by arbitrary chronology.
Rama Al Rabady (Thu,) studied this question.