It is time to revise policies meant to protect our heritage and ensure the Superintendence of Cultural Heritage enjoys autonomy akin to that of the Office of the Ombudsman, archaeologists and an eNGO are urging.

Moved by the recent developments about the Tal-Qares area in Mosta, part of which will be hosting a showroom and apartments, the Archaeological Society Malta and Din l-Art Ħelwa are voicing concerns about the general protection of archaeological heritage in Malta.

Read: Superintendent for Cultural Heritage explains controversial Mosta decision

Superintendent Anthony Pace said last year that the site in Tal-Qares earmarked by AX Holdings for development had been extensively surveyed in 2013 and no archaeological features were found. As a result, no monitoring of works was deemed necessary.

But the ASM, in the knowledge that the area along that ridge is replete with archaeological remains, including several megalithic structures, remained confident that this field fits into a broad band of ancient remains.

The society’s interest in the site persisted until it finally had the Superintendence’s 2014 report about the area in hand. Tal-Qares site is split in four main fields and according to this report, the one hosting the proposed development features a rubble wall containing large ashlar blocks that are of archaeological importance, they explained.

Watch: Historic site blasted to make way for Mosta showroom, PD warns

The field which contains the largest amount of archaeological features hosts remains of silo pits, foundation walls of ancient structures, kiln remains probably dating to early Roman times, and ancient water cisterns among others.

ASM was informed that the development will not be touching the protected rubble wall. The ASM was also assured that there would be no rock cutting in any of the fields, meaning that any vine trenches or other archaeological features would be retained, it added.

Superintendence should have autonomy akin to the Ombudsman

However, according to photos that ASM and DLĦ have in hand, which were taken in December, “any agreement about no rock cutting has since been breached”.

Read: Controversial Mosta construction site sprayed with anti-PA slogans

As a consequence, neither ASM nor DLĦ hold out much hope that heritage protection measures will be adhered to if and when planning applications are filed for the other three fields in the area.

Both feel that the “site was doomed from the moment it was included in the ODZ rationalisation plan of 2006 and deserted by those who failed to revise it.”

The Tal-Qares fields should never have been even contemplated as areas open to development, they said, insisting that there was a myriad of archaeological and environmental reasons backing this up. The Tal-Qares case symbolises the “vulnerability” of the Maltese landscape and character, which is being “systematically annihilated through frenzied construction activity”.

“We are sure that other environmentally conscious organisations will agree that it is time to revise the policies that are behind the protection of our heritage. We must ask ourselves, whether it is acceptable to consider a protected wall as preserved, when it is hidden behind a large building and deprived of its context. Is it acceptable that archaeological finds are briefly investigated only to be buried under new developments and the outcome of such investigations archived out of sight,” they asked.

Read: The great detachment - Kristina Chetcuti

The two insisted that according to the law, the mission of the Superintendence was to ensure the protection and accessibility of cultural heritage.

If the Superintendence felt that it was being put in the position of having to compromise between the developers’ rights and the protection of historic sites, it should, as an institution, be freed of those pressures and made independent of them, ASM and DLĦ said.

“We should strive for autonomy of the Superintendence akin to that which the Office of the Ombudsman enjoys. We need to be sure that the Superintendence is provided with the necessary human and technical resources to ensure that reports are written and published regularly and in a timely manner, so that the public can understand the issues inherent in both our cultural and natural heritage.”