Archaeological discoveries at Mdina and Marsa

The letter Uncovered Ruins That Remain Buried by Paul Pace (August 16) reflects a poor understanding of the role of the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage with regard to the archaeological discoveries made recently at Mdina and Marsa.

Mr Pace also shows a poor understanding of the circumstances surrounding these recent discoveries, in spite of having information from "reliable sources". Rather, Mr Pace chose to launch an attack on me by presenting a fragmented version of what he purports to be factual.

He should note that the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is not responsible for either the Mdina paving project or for the Marsa flood relief project.

The first is the responsibility of the Mdina Rehabilitation Committee and the project coordinator, Ray Bondin. The Marsa project is being developed by the Ministry of Infrastructure and Resources. Common to both projects are a number of factors. Foremost among these is archaeology. But equally important are the urgent social and economic constraints that surround these projects.

In the case of Mdina, a great deal of information was gathered by the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage by means of archaeological excavations prior to the start of the paving works.

In 2000 archaeological excavations were carried out in connection with the laying of new public utilities. These were the first large-scale archaeological investigations to be carried out in Mdina.

Since then further research excavations have been opened up by the Superintendence in other areas of the old capital. The most prominent of these was an extensive investigation, earlier this year, that reached down several metres in Mdina's Cathedral Square. This trench once again provided useful information on Mdina, which we now know to have been established some time around 1500 BC, if not earlier.

Mr Pace rightly states that the Mdina paving project has been underway for almost three years. What he fails to say, however, is that neither Mepa nor the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage was presented with proposals for the adequate public display of these recently discovered archaeological remains in Cathedral Square.

Such proposals should have been forthcoming from the Mdina Rehabilitation Committee and its architects. To date I have not received any planning or design proposals for such solutions.

The priority of the Superintendence was therefore to recover archaeological information and to protect the archaeological remains in a totally reversible manner, and which would offer a cheap and sustainable conservation solution.

In conformity with long-standing professional practice followed locally by the University of Malta, the University of Cambridge, the Missione Archaeologica Italiana a Malta, the former Museums Department and the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage, it was decided that in the unfortunate absence of a project proposal from the Mdina Rehabilitation Committee, the archaeological discoveries would be protected by controlled back-filling.

If, and once, an alternative cover is designed for these archaeological remains, the back-filling can be easily removed in a matter of days and with significantly less disruption than those created by current paving works.

Leaving archaeological remains exposed to the elements without providing prompt conservation treatment is very hazardous to their preservation. Such remains must also be regularly maintained and funds must be provided for their adequate display and protection. This may imply, by way of example, the construction of roofed structures over the remains for long-term protection. Such conditions are not as yet present at Cathedral Square.

The danger of such uncontrolled situations was recently demonstrated by the stretch of monumental ancient Roman remains that were exposed in Mdina, at Villegangnon Street, since 2001. Without proper conservation treatment, these remains rapidly turned a vivid green in colour due to algae infestation. Other problems noted at these sites were localised collapse of earth sections and pollution by urban refuse. Matters were so bad that the Mdina Rehabilitation Committee itself eventually carried out the re-burial of these remains.

Scientific re-burial of unattended archaeological remains is after all a practice totally in line with the recommendations of the Council of Europe Valletta Convention (1992) on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage and of the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (1990).

The Marsa flood-water relief project presents a different scenario. The Superintendence was informed by the architects of the Works Department that the new water channel is essential in order to avert extensive damage to industry located in the Marsa area, as a result of annual flooding. The same architects also stated categorically that the trench could not be relocated to another geographic location due to overriding topographic reasons.

In spite of this, the Superintendence took immediate steps to halt the development in order to safeguard the emerging archaeological remains and Works Division was asked to design mitigating measures. The proposed mitigation measures include a realignment of the channel's rout.

As a result of this re-alignment, a large portion of this development has now been moved away from the archaeological remains. However, a certain amount of overlap still exists along part of the amended rout. For this reason, the Works Division was also asked to reduce the total depth of the proposed water channel to avoid physical contact with the ancient remains.

These remains lie about two metres below the present surface level. A final feature of the redesigned project is the total reversibility of the structural elements of the water channel itself. Such reversibility will allow the complete removal of the channel construction should future circumstances so permit.

The redesign of the trench has been possible because of extensive archaeological recording that is being carried out on site. This recording was a pre-condition to further development proceeding on site.

The fieldwork also ensured that the extent of the visible archaeological remains could be identified in order to better re-align the proposed channel.

Admittedly, identifying a solution at Marsa has not been easy due to the direct conflict of national interests over this site. This notwithstanding, the newly discovered archaeology at Marsa has been safeguarded from destruction and has been made available for further scientific research, even in the near future. This is a positive outcome, which could not have been possible in the years preceding the enactment of the Cultural Heritage Act in 2002.

The Superintendence of Cultural Heritage is still active at Marsa, monitoring works and negotiating heritage preservation and research issues with the developer. This continued presence of the Superintendence is our best guarantee that the site will not be damaged and will be saved to culture and science.

Contrary to Mr Pace's assertions, the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage has done its utmost to ensure the protection of the archaeological heritage in difficult circumstances. The adopted solutions provide a compromise between allowing development to proceed while protecting archaeological remains. It is therefore most unfortunate that Mr Pace has chosen to penalise a group of dedicated professionals who have worked hard to conduct much needed research and protection of heritage assets in the face of development.

Mr Pace is Superintendent of Cultural Heritage

www.culturalheritage.org.mt