Response to new temple shelters 'very positive'
Photo: Chris Sant Fournier
Public response to the new shelters at Ħaġar Qim and Mnajdra has been "very positive", according to Heritage Malta's senior curator for prehistoric sites.
Reuben Grima, who gathered feedback from all walks of life and claims to have a good feel of the situation, said even those who arrived on site with a critical mindset, apprehensive of the shelters' visual impact on the temples, changed their views after the visit.
He said the "overwhelming majority" commented favourably. "And I can confidently say that, apart from material conservation benefits, the shelters have also changed the visitor's experience, considerably improving the reading of the site."
The simple fact that visitors are now in the shade and protected from the elements too is among the spill-over benefits of the shelters, Dr Grima said.
"It was hard to spend more than 15 minutes in Ħaġar Qim without the shelters. Now, simply being shaded and comfortable has increased the length of stay and the enjoyment of the sites."
Moreover, the "respect" with which the megalithic monuments are approached has also changed, according to Dr Grima, who has spent much time chatting with visitors.
"Now, they have the sensation that they have arrived at something important, even if they do not know much about the temples. I have heard visitors comment it is like entering a cathedral and they actually lower their voices, also because the acoustics have changed.
"People are shouting less and even tourist guides have said they need to raise their voices less than in the past as they are being helped by the acoustics."
The shelters have also left their positive impact on the astronomical alignments at Mnajdra and Ħaġar Qim. Apart from being designed not to obstruct them, they have resulted in less light spillage, allowing for a more distinct contrast between the areas lit up by the sun and those in the shade during the astronomical phenomena observed on the first day of each season.
The uniform, diffused light, as opposed to the usual glare, is now ideal to read the details, Dr Grima said.
The shelters were completed in June, bar minor finishing touches and some pipe work for rainwater run-offs.
Both sites were open to the public, following closure that was limited to the minimum time necessary and never at both temples simultaneously, Dr Grima said.
The shelter project was completed about six months after the deadline but no EU funding was lost despite the fact that it was a condition to be eligible for it.
Dr Grima said "100 per cent of the structural funds allocated to the project have been absorbed".
He maintained it was "more important to get it right and done safely for the site, the workers and the public than to stick to a deadline and put any of these at risk".
The completion of the visitors' centre, located in the car park and originally scheduled for the end of 2008, has also been delayed, but was in the final stages and should be ready before the end of the year, Dr Grima said.
The landscape surrounding the centre was also considered to be delicate and delays were related to the investigation of the area to ensure no archaeological remains would be impacted and to redesign issues.
But mostly they were caused by the building contractor, who made good for them by paying penalties that ran into tens of thousands of euro.
Again, Dr Grima said, it was more important to "get it right" and balance the various constraints rather than stick to a deadline.
The decision to install the shelters goes back to 2000 following an intensive study on the problems that threatened the monuments.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
Petrol price up 6c
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
23 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Isabelle Vella Gregory
Aug 26th 2009, 17:44
@T. Vella: as it states in the article, you now in fact get a *better* experience of the solstice. It's really worth going when the event is next organized. Awesome experience.
T Vella
Aug 26th 2009, 16:15
Hagar Qim and Mnajdra are situated in a place where erosion can eat them up fast, so the idea to cover them was/is a very good one. My only question is: is this goodbye to the viewing of the equinox phenomenon?
L Debono
Aug 26th 2009, 13:46
When looking at the recent history, these historic structures have only been excavated a couple of centuries ago or around that. The prime question is, "How long will they last now that we have exposed them from the ground and changed the elements in these modern days?"
I am really disappointed to hear people complaining about the fees. I know that we all want to save money but stop being cheap and grow up! Discrimination against the tourist will only cause a rebound and decline in visits. How about charging you extra for visiting a historic site overseas?? I personally never heard of anything like that any where but ....................
An improvement that will go nicely with this shelter, are paintings and illustrations of related historic objects and scenes of the same era, on the ceiling of the shelter.
Simon J. Aquilina
Aug 26th 2009, 13:40
I like it! What are we going to do about Ggantia now? Left as it is, Ggantia is falling little by little. It needs to be preserved considering "Ġgantija is the earliest al all the temples"!
John Abela
Aug 26th 2009, 13:28
@Mike Grech
As usual, the Maltese have a tendency to believe their opinion is king. A lot of people (such as myself), do, in fact, completely and totally agree with this structure and I can unhesitatingly state that in my opinion, this is one of the best moves Heritage Malta has ever done. Heritage Malta has been working in leaps and bounds in the past few years, and their efforts are very, very much appreciated - someone is finally caring about our culture and our heritage and caring about it.
Thumbs up, Heritage Malta. You're doing a great job, and we appreciate your efforts!
Joe Xuereb
Aug 26th 2009, 13:21
The protective structures are commendable. It is all very well to wax lyrical about the temples being allowed to be in the open in all their glory. But the elements are there, doing their worse. To start comparing structures such as the Parthenon, the Colesseum, the Pyramids, etc. and proposing how ridiculous these would be under a tent.....fortunately Malta's temples are much smaller so such a tent is practical and feasible.
To the non-connoisseur, the Maltese temples are just a pile of rubble. They are much more. The structures will facilitate the temples' deeper meaning, bring them alive, be a learning experience for all. They will last longer, benefitting future generations. The knowledge thus gained will fire the imagination and encourage people to seek other sites, in the Maltese archipelago and elsewhere. Without the protective structure, to the lay person, the temples would have remained a pile of stones, visited, misunderstood, desecrated and quickly forgotten. And quickly destroyed by indifferent tramplings and the elements. Bring on the protective structures.
John C. Betts
Aug 26th 2009, 13:12
The stone of which the temples are built is friable - that is, brittle and prone to fracture. The climatic conditions - heat, rain, and wind - create an extremely aggressive environment, and reducing direct sunlight and the impingement and pooling of rain greatly improves the survivability of these locations. The local situation is very different from that in the UK; and furthermore, Stonehenge is constructed of much more durable material. Even if the solution selected is unique (and it is not - there is, I believe, a similar structure over part of the remains of ancient Troy), if that is what it takes to safeguard the very existence of the temples, it is the correct decision, even if the aerial view is lost.
Critics of this solution should perhaps propose an alternative one, complete with a scientific basis. Saying 'it is not done elsewhere' is no argument - our temples are unique, and so is their survivability. Accepting the loss of the temples is not a choice. And if you have any doubt on the deterioration of the megaliths, please do visit the temples and take a good look at the clearly eroded appearance of the material.
Mike Grech
Aug 26th 2009, 13:01
Not sure who Reuben Grima has been speaking to but most people I know think that these circus-tent structures are horrible - they really ruin the feel of the place. As we are at it why don’t we cover up Mdina?
D Vella (Blazan)
Aug 26th 2009, 12:59
@ F Chini
Actually the British HAVE thought of sheltering Stonehenge . . . on several occasions. On more than one occasion the reason why the respective project was not implemented was due to lack of sufficient funds! Moreover, the geology of Great Britain is different to our own and Malta's temples, apart from being much older than Stonehenge, are far more susceptible to environmental damage due to exposure to the elements because of the nature of the materials they are constructed from.
You may also wish to follow developments related to the unearthed remains of Pompeii which was buried less than two thousand years ago by the pyroclastic flow from a major eruption of Vesuvius. The Italian Authorities are at their wits end to try and halt the dramatic deterioration which is destroying the remains at an alarming rate since they were excavated and exposed to the public.
What is wrong with creating shelters to preserve ancient monuments and slow down their inevitable deterioration and destruction? Would you want this to happen to ancient monuments which are acknowledged to be amongst the oldest built standing structures in the world???
N.Calleja
Aug 26th 2009, 12:49
Do we still remember the disapproval raised when the project was announced? Now the vast majority is in favour!! The small minority are now complaining that the tent is spoiling the temples' image from above. They are complaining that places like Stonehenge are not covered. Are these the same moaners that are against a roofless theatre in Valletta' s project?
John Micallef
Aug 26th 2009, 12:47
with all due respect to Mr Grima. I will not beleive that the Public response to the new shelters at Ħaġar Qim and Mnajdra has been "very positive".
Make this as an april fool next time!
What getting right!!! come on
j n ebejer
Aug 26th 2009, 12:34
The argument comapring Maltese sites- erected with the type of stone in the atmospheric conditions they are in etc. - with those in other countries, like Stonehenge, is grossly shortsighted. There is no such site which has the same conditions and characteristics as the Maltese temples.
The management of sites requires huge resources and it is sad to have Maltese citezens paying entrance fees to see sites outside Malta but reluctant to pay to visit sites in Malta. Even when these offer a good value for money spent, these are hardly ever visited.
Museums and sites abroad are supported by huge sums of money coming from private entities, foundations or universities and voluntary work. Sadly, here in Malta, this is not the case. On the contrary, any effort to safeguard heritage is hardly appreciated or supported finacially or by voluntary work.
If all the persons who write in papers commenting on the management or mismanagement had to get involved directly in some organisation or other, the situation would be far more better.
Isabelle Vella Gregory
Aug 26th 2009, 12:32
Frankly, I care not a jot whether the UK covers Stonehenge or not (although I point out that there is an ongoing, raging debate over its preservation). And the Coliseum is in fact facing huge conservation problems. A tent is not always a solution for conservation, but in this case it was the right solution. Simple fact is that the temples were in danger of being lost. This *was* an expert solution, chosen after much thought, debate and many designs. Please do go have a look yourselves before being so negative. As you walk down to the temples you will notice that the tents' impact is actually very low, and once inside it's a really pleasant experience. You can now appreciate many features that were perhaps previously overlooked.
P. Bonnici
Aug 26th 2009, 12:32
Heritage Malta should know our Heritage and should have built a visitors centre based on Franka stone not made from pure concrete. I have talked to tourists and the new visitors centre is a real eye sore and they would have prefered a traditional Maltese Building. From my knowledge heritage malta has stopped flats being built near historical sites but then Meritage Malta makes worst mistakes than others.
J. Borg
Aug 26th 2009, 12:16
When our children will one day find the money and more imagination....
they will possibly construct a more blending glass structure and surely remove the great eyeshore of the "visitors' centre" - which the above pic completely avoids.
In the meantime, instead of a white tent, why not print a photo of sunrise over the same temple on it - surely better than this pale white tent.
F.Chini
Aug 26th 2009, 12:06
Would the British ever think of sheltering Stonehenge? Or would the Italians think of sheltering the Coliseum? Or the Greeks the Parthenon?
Actually I cannot think of any significant ancient site that has been covered up in such way.
Seeing a pre-historical site wrapped in a modern architectural infrastructure takes away all the magic of experiencing a site the way it has been for the past 5000 years.
In the picture above, what do you see, a megalithic structure built between 3600 and 3200 BC or a giant white umbrella sheltering some old rubble?
Let’s hope a similar mistake is not done also in Ggantija.
J Farrugia
Aug 26th 2009, 12:05
Covering world heritage temples?!?!?! Any one heard of the british covering their stonehenge relics or the easter islands covering all those faces? Only in Malta.
D Zahra
Aug 26th 2009, 12:00
I pass by the area quite regularly as it is in my jogging route. Thumbs up for the effort in trying to conserve one of the gems our country is endowed with. But my opinion is that the structures put up don't complement the natural ladscapes around the temples and i really think they an aesthetic eyesore. Especially the visitor's centre. Another Magic Kiosk affair!
Joe Fenech
Aug 26th 2009, 11:46
Yes, this preserves them, but so does putting them in a box, or covering them in plastic!!!
This destroys most interesting part of the temples ie the aerial view and all the symbolism these shapes convey.
This is just a cheap and non-expert way of doing things! Imagine Stonehenge or other stone places in the Middle East covered by circus tents!!!
Mark Xerri
Aug 26th 2009, 11:43
Well done for those involved. Any plans to install something similar to the Ggantija Temples in Xaghra? If the temples in Malta required a shelter to safeguard them from the elements, I guess the same damage is being done to Ggantija. And the visitor can understand this straight away as most of the temples are surrounded by an ugly scaffolding, therefore they are not free standing any more. As usual, Gozo is a seperate republic!
J. Agius
Aug 26th 2009, 11:30
I fully agree with what R. Borg has written. Heritage Malta should be promoting visits by locals to increase awareness of our heritage. The fee for locals should therefore be nominal, NOT the same as for tourists, to make frequent visits a possibility . In many cases a local couple, with no children, would have to pay half a day's wage to visit the site. I believe wage earners deserve much more consideration by those setting the entrance fees.
Incidentally is entrance still free once a month? For locals only or for tourists as well?
Robert Borg
Aug 26th 2009, 11:15
I agree with the article. However I find it injust that I (as a Maltese citizen), have to pay 9 Euros to visit both temples. Why is it that instead of promoting the historical sites amongst locals by having such places fee-free, we enforce a fee?
Carmelo Nenu Aquilina
Aug 26th 2009, 11:05
Prositt lill kull min kien involut f'din l-idea brillanti u lill min wettaq din il-ħidma biex jiġi imħares dan il-wirt dinji f'Malta. dan huwa mudell eċċellenti biex jiġu imħarsa u preservati iktar siti ta' wirt kulturali f'Malta. KEEP IT UP SINJURI!