A burial complex dating from the Roman period, discovered years ago during excavation works in Manikata, will be surrounded by a block of over 20 apartments and seven penthouses. The walled-up site contains the already despoiled ancient burial complex possibly used for domestic purposes or for keeping animals in the post-Roman period.
The development has sparked outrage among environmental NGOs. They regard modern encroachment on any heritage site – especially the development of modern apartment blocks – with utter disdain and as an “act of disrespect towards our cultural heritage”.
It appears that this site was granted a development permit six years ago. At the time, no archaeological features had been discovered (although, since Manikata is an important archaeological area, it might have been thought prudent for some precautionary conditions to have been introduced).
When the archaeological features were discovered, work on-site was stopped by the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage and Mepa. A new application was submitted by the developer, taking due account of the Roman burial complex. This was accepted in 2011, subject to an archaeologist monitoring the site, and it was agreed that the new apartment block would be built around the burial site, which would remain accessible.
The case at Manikata highlights a quandary that has faced Malta for centuries. Due to our extraordinary, 7,000-year history, we have, after Rome, the largest number of monuments and historic sites per square mile worth saving. Many of these enjoy worldwide recognition. What therefore should take precedence when progress and modern development come up against ancient and important archaeological sites?
The classic instance is the discovery of the World Heritage site of the Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum, which only came to the attention of the authorities after a number of ordinary dwellings had already been constructed on the monument. A few years ago, the outstanding Ġgantija temple site was similarly threatened, but good sense prevailed.
The future guardianship of these sites rests with all of us: heritage NGOs as well as developers. Given the intrinsic tension between construction development and conservation, how do we find the right balance? A country’s cultural heritage cannot be frozen in aspic.
The extremely difficult decisions on where to draw the line fall ultimately on the shoulders of the Superintendent of Cultural Heritage, who finds himself inevitably doing battle with an increasingly pro-development Mepa.
Under the Cultural Heritage Act, the Superintendent’s overriding mission is to ensure the safeguarding of Malta’s cultural heritage. He has to weigh the importance of a specific cultural heritage site against the need for modern development and accommodation. Although Malta is grossly overdeveloped and over-housed, that is not his consideration. His responsibility is to protect what is culturally important.
Occasionally, it is inevitable that he is faced with decisions impossible to resolve without selecting the lesser of two evils. At Manikata, he chose to preserve, rather than see destroyed, an important burial site – albeit one surrounded by an aesthetically unbecoming modern apartment block. Given the circumstances, this was probably right.