Bronze age heritage up for grabs

Mosta residents breathed a great sigh of relief when, after many years of protest, the tomb area at Tal Wej currently lying in ruins was finally scheduled by the PA. Thanks goes to environmentalists who lobbied unsung and unaided for years, and they succeeded (so far) to protect this sacred burial ground in Mosta from the ravages of demolition and building works.

However, the building frenzy goes on unabated. In fact, a development permit was issued by MEPA for a site in Mosta in an area known as il-Wesgha tal-Gganti.

This site is on the road next to the Lidl supermarket, and just opposite the entrance to MCAST. The Superintendent of Cultural Heritage declared that the site itself had low archaeological value adding that he cannot afford to protect all areas in the approved development plan as this would be tantamount to classifying the entire spatial plan as “fossil” Malta. However, residents disagree, saying that if we ignore precautions and send in excavators to dig up tombs, dolmens and catacombs, we destroy our heritage and all this will eventually turn the island into a jungle of glass, steel and concrete structures – a soul less city.

The site, which has already been excavated, forms part of an area known as Tal-Qares and Misrah Ghonoq on the outskirts of Mosta. This is listed as “sacred land” in “Storja tal Mosta” – a book written by the famous historian E.B. Vella who points out the discovery of megaliths dating to the Neolithic period. Vella refers to earlier descriptions of the area on which Grognet commented, as well as other folkloric 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.

This saga begs the question: What is the cost of protecting our heritage from overzealous developers, and can the benefits of commercial exploitation of such land ever outweigh the loss of our patrimony? Speculators constantly tell us that it is only a derelict site regularly used as a dumping ground for discarded building materials but in truth the Tal Wej, TalQares and Misrah Ghonoq sites located on the outskirts of Mosta feature dolmens, cartruts, ancient quarries, shafts and chamber tombs. An argument has developed of late, as to who shall compensate developers who own land endowed with proven ancient artefacts, dolmens or remains of tombs.

Is the public expected to yield to pressure from developers who lament that their livelihood is threatened since the entire island is dotted with ancient ruins and archaeological remains? The dilemma often challenges the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage when asked to decide to veto development permits issued on certain sites.

Thankfully, the island is rich with sites showing traces of rare archaeological remains particularly from the Bronze age consisting of catacombs, shallow tombs dug in rock and sometimes the presence of complex megalithic structures which form an opulent legacy bequeathed by our ancestors. Sadly, in 2006, there was a substantial extension of the na- tional development plan which included ODZ land approved by Parliament and it is inevitable that such a land parcel contains archeologically rich artefacts. It is obvious that the owners of such land are now faced with a veto from the Superintendence of Heritage saying that the land cannot be developed.

Can the argument be won by saying that we cannot halt progress and building activity and blaming the fact that the island is so dotted with artefacts that one can selfishly brand it as a “fossil” island? How can we best protect such heritage when there are so many land parcels rich in garigue community replete with a network of rock pools and ancient tombs which archaeologists pompously list as areas of ecological importance? Dolmens used for burial purposes are also assigned to the Bronze Age, such as those found at the Misrah Sinjura in Mosta.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that developers or speculators question the value of heritage and relevance of preventive archaeology. Seeing it as a hindrance to their business plans, they persist in questioning its importance and lobby against its protection at the highest political level. Really and truly, preventive archaeology is not only about protecting our heritage, but also about the discipline of a true interpretation of archaeology based on a scientific knowledge of the past. In an island so rich in ancient patrimony, the topic unfortunately opens a multitude of varying interpretations, conflict of interests and fuels debate between various stakeholders such as archaeologists, historians, the business community and the general public.

Since Independence, developers where encouraged to invest in capital projects in the name of progress and to generate employment, with little attention that such work endangers the archaeological heritage. Ideally, such planning transgressions must not be excused by simply paying a fine to PA to sanction them.

With hindsight, nothing can outweigh the permanent loss of the archaeological heritage such as Bronze Age settlements, 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. Therefore, the onus lies squarely on the State – as an emanation of the community of citizens and not as an abstract entity – to intro- duce preventive measures apart from funding public research institutions responsible for defining national research programmes and eventually publishing the results of such excavations. Another glaring example of abuse was the excavation carried out close to archeologically sensitive area located next to an early Neolithic site in Tas-Srug, Xagħra, Gozo.

An investigation in 2012 rated the site to be at least 5,000 years old which led to the discovery of mud brick walls, ancient pottery and other remains. This prehistoric settlement at TasSruġ is now threatened by the development of two maisonettes, four apartments and a penthouse, including a communal pool. The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage registered no objection to the proposed development as long as the work was archaeologically monitored.

In conclusion, one could comment that thankfully, the economy has turned the corner and there is no shortage of well-paid jobs so there is no commercial justification (if ever there was) for speculation of historical sites. We cannot afford to sell our patrimony to those who only wish to build soulless concrete structures of doubtful architectural merit.