A cost benefit analysis on ‘fossil’ Malta

An argument has surfaced of late regarding the cost to protect our heritage particularly certain unbuilt sites scheduled for development but which contain archaeological remains.

The dilemma has often tested the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage when asked to decide whether to block development on certain sites. Not surprisingly, there are many sites in the approved development zones showing traces of rich archaeological remains particularly from the Bronze Age period consisting of catacombs, shallow tombs dug in rock and sometimes the presence of complex megalithic structures which form a rich legacy bequeathed by our ancestors. Such areas are common in Malta and, unfortunately, some of these are the result of the extension of the national development plan in 2006 approved by Parliament where such land included archeologically sensitive areas.

Can the argument that we cannot halt progress and building activity because the island is so dotted with artefacts that one may indifferently brand it as a “fossil” island? How can we protect such heritage when there are so many areas rich in garigue containing a network of rock pools and ancient tombs which archaeologists lovingly list as an area of ecological importance? Experts warn us that the transformation of archaeology from almost purely academic discipline to a discipline with increasing and statutory participation in everyday spatial planning inevitably requires strict protection by regulators and heritage agencies. Thus, it should come as no surprise that unscrupulous developers or investors question the value of heritage and relevance of preventive archaeology, and continue questioning this and lobby against its protection at the highest political level.

Consequently, preventive archaeology is not only about protecting our heritage, but also about the discipline of interpreting archaeology and knowledge of the past. This topic in an island so rich in ancient history unfortunately opens conflict of interests, negotiations and debate between various stakeholders such as archaeologists, NGOs and the business community. Over the years since Independence, there have been a number of developers whose projects have been primarily designed to make money and who do not care that their ambitions endanger our archaeological heritage. This is why they cannot be justified by simply paying an application fee to MEPA since nothing can compensate the permanent loss of archaeological heritage such as Bronze Age set- tlements, Phoenician sanctuaries and rock-cut tombs, Roman villas in the countryside and by the sea, not to mention late Roman and Byzantine Catacombs, and Islamic burial grounds.

It is, therefore, the State – as the representative of the community of citizens and not as an abstract entity – which must organize these preventive excavations by funding public research institutions responsible for defining national research programmes and publishing the results of the scientific excavations. One glaring excavation example of abuse close to an archeologically sensitive area is that of a planned development next to an early Neolithic site in Tas-Sruġ, Xagħra, Gozo. This is rated to be at least 5,000 years old since an investigation in 2012 resulted in the discovery of mud brick walls, pottery and other remains. This prehistoric settlement at Tas-Sruġ is threatened by the development of two maisonettes, four apartments and a penthouse, including a communal pool. The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage noted that ground disturbance in the area could uncover cultural heritage features that would mean the amendment of approved plans.

However, he registered no objection to the proposed development provided that work was archaeologically monitored.

Last May, a development permit in Mosta was issued by MEPA for a building site in an area known as il-Wesgha talGganti, in the road next to the new Lidl supermarket, and just opposite the entrance to MCAST. The applicant was granted development permission for a four-storey block consisting of a showroom, five maisonettes, seven apartments, four penthouses and 18 basement garages. The Superintendent of Cultural Heritage declared that the site itself had low archaeological value. He cautioned that we cannot afford to protect all areas in the approved development plan as this will be tantamount to classifying the entire spatial plan as “fossil” Malta. But residents disagree, saying that if we ignore precautions and send steamroller in to dig up ancestor’s tombs and catacombs, we destroy our heritage and all this frenzy will just render the island a jungle of glass and concrete structures – a soulless city.

The field which is being currently excavated by heavy machinery forms part of an area known as Tal-Qares and Misrah Ghonoq on the outskirts of Mosta. This land is listed as sacred in “Storja tal Mosta” in a book written by the famous historian E.B. Vella who points out the discovery of megaliths dating to the Neolithic period. Vella also makes reference to earlier descriptions of the area by Grognet, as well as folktale references, which suggest the presence of more complex megalithic structures. The authors describe the sacred burial land as containing two depressions cut in the rock, one small and one much larger. The existence of a hypogeum in the area known as Tal-Ghammariet or Tal-Qares is unique. This is not the only area in Mosta that needs protection. At present, the rocky site is currently being excavated using the destructive might of 10 ton JCB blades poised to cut open the sacred rock to make way for building foundations.

In another site in Mosta, residents breathed a sigh of relief that after so many years of protest the tomb area at Tal Wej currently lying in ruins was finally scheduled by Mepa. All this thanks to the environmentalists who lobbied unsung and unaided for years to protect this sacred burial ground in Mosta from the ravages of demolition and building works. This begs the questions. What is the cost of protecting our ancestral heritage from overzealous developers? Can the benefits of commercial exploitation of such land ever outweigh the loss of our heritage? Speculators constantly tell us that it was a derelict site, which served as a dumping ground for discarded building materials but in truth the Tal Wej, Tal-Qares and Misrah Ghonoq sites on the outskirts of Mosta feature dolmens, cartruts, ancient quarries, shaft and chamber tombs.

Having turned the corner and registered a surplus in our budget, surely the country can afford not to sell its heritage to speculators who in turn wish to build ugly concrete structures of doubtful architectural merit. Can we expect that more funds are made available to our university to study more archaeological sites resplendent with artefacts and underground structures which our forefathers have left us to enjoy and cherish. Even the European Commission has recognised the urgent need that we need to upgrade our common legacy of archaeological treasures. Finally, one appreciates that the Cultural Heritage Act 2002 defines ‘cultural heritage’ as “movable and immovable objects of artistic, architectural, historical, archaeological, ethnographic, paleontological and geological importance and includes information or data relative to cultural heritage pertaining to Malta or to any other country”.