Visiting Malta's Past: Sustaining Archaeology and Tourism

Barrowclough,D.2009.VisitingMalta’sPast.

1

VisitingMalta’sPast: sustainingarchaeologyandtourism

DavidBarrowclough

IntroductionTherelationshipbetweentheneedtopreservearchaeologicalsitesandtheneedsofmass tourism has often proved problematic, as the various papers in this volumedemonstrate.Theaimofthischapter is to furtherrefinetheproblemandtoshowhowanintegratedapproach,whichcombinestherequirementsofbotharchaeologyandthetouristindustry,isbeingimplementedinMaltaforthepurposeofpromotingsustainablelocaldevelopment.The tension between the preservation of archaeological monuments and masstourism has to be understood within the larger context of sustainable localdevelopment.Thereareineffectthreecornerstothetriangle,aswaspointedoutbyAshworthandTunbridge(2003),eachofwhichhasitsownindividualproblemsandconcerns, and which combined create the problem for policy makers of how tobalance heritage protection with cultural tourism, so as to generate sustainableeconomicdevelopment.Malta is not alone in facing this problem. In common with other Mediterraneancountries it has a historywhich is ofmore than local importance, it has also, likeothercountries,seentheemergenceandgrowthofmasstourismoverthelastfiftyyears or so. In his history of package tourism Priestley (1995) gives a persuasiveaccountofMediterraneantourismwithreferencetotheSpanish‘costas’,whichwasechoed closely in Malta. Looking at Spain, Priestley identified several differentphases of development, beginning with the initiation of package holidays in the1950’sandfollowedbyaperiodofexplosivegrowth inthe1960’s.The1970’sand1980’ssawaperiodofcontinuedgrowth,whichreachedaplateauinthe1990’s.InMalta a similar pattern was followed, with the plateau being reached in 1992 atabout one million visitors. The effect has been to create a successful economyheavily reliant onmass tourism based on package holidays offering sun and sandsupplementedbycultural/historicalresources.TheMaltesearchipelago is situated in themiddleof theMediterranean (Figure1).The largest inhabited island in the archipelago is Malta itself, which lies 93km(58miles)southofSicilyand290km(180miles) fromNorthAfrica. InareaMalta is316 square km (22 square miles). There are no mountains, the landscape ischaracterisedbylowhillswithterracedfields,howevertheislandsareonlyabletoproduce20%oftheirownfoodasfreshwater is limited,andtherearenoriversontheisland.Economicallytheislandsaredependentonforeigntrade.Electronicsandtextiles are important, industry accounts for 23% of GDP compared to agriculturewhich accounts for only 3%, but it is tourism that drives the islands economyaccountingforbetweenathirdandaquarterofGDP(35%accordingtotheFT2002or24%accordingtoMangionandZammitTrevison2001).Thereareapproximately


2

Figure1LocationmapofMaltawiththemainarchaeologicalsitesmentionedinthetextmarked.Mapcourtesyofwww.embassyworld.com.32,000jobsassociatedwithtourism,whichisoveraquarter(27%)ofallemployment(MangionandZammitTrevison2001),with9,500peopleemployedinhotels5,000incateringand1,500inAirMalta(FT2002).TheProblemsThisisallunderthreatbylongtermtrendsintourism,twoofwhichthreatenMalta.First, ‘new’tourism,which isgearedtowardsspecial interestsand isplacespecific,maybeseenasamoveaway fromthe traditional ‘package’holiday.Secondly, themarket for ‘traditional’ mass tourism is now saturated with zero or low growthpredicted for sun and sand packages. Themassmarket is also highly competitive,with many traditional Mediterranean destinations, such as Spain, Cyprus and theformer Yougoslavian countries competing with each other and also with newerdestinations such as Turkey, which have invested heavily in order to enter themarket.ThustheproblemfortheMaltesetouristindustry,andthewidereconomy,isthatitisnolongergoingtogrowasitdidbefore,andasaconsequenceitcannotact as amotor to theMaltese economy in the future as it has in the past, unlesssome action is taken to develop the tourist industry in new ways (Ashworth andTunbridge2003,4).


3

Newtourismtendstoseekoutheritageandculturalexperiences,somethingwhichMaltahasinabundanceandwhichthetouristindustryiskeentoexploitaswhattheMalteseTouristAuthority(MTA)callsthe‘7000yearproduct’.Malta’sarchaeologicalheritage is evenmore remarkable than that of itsMediterraneanneighbours as isillustratedbythenumberandextentofUNESCOWorldHeritagesitesontheislands.The archaeological heritage of the islands is extensive taking in the Phoenician,Roman and Arab occupations of the islands and more recent historic eventsparticularly the siege of Malta during World War II. Most famously the islandsmonuments include the so‐called ‘Temples’ found throughout Malta and thehypogeum burial complex, which date to the Neolithic (3500 to 2500 BC). Thesesubstantialmegalithic structures are claimed to be the oldest free standing stonestructuresintheworld(Trump2004,69),predatingtheEgyptianpyramidsbyalmostathousandyears.Some thirty individual temples are known, and although there is an amount ofvariationbetween,theyfollowthesamebasictrefoilpattern.Outsidethestructurewasaforecourtleadingtoacentralentrancesetwithinacurvedfacadeofdressedstones built up using a dry stone walling technique, except that the stones weremuch larger, up to five metres in length with the heaviest weighing fifty tonnes.Within the temple the trefoil form created a sequence of chambers, or apses,connected by corridors, which appear to have been capable of being blocked bydoorsorcurtainssoastorestrictaccess.Withinthechamberswerewhathavebeeninterpretedasstonealtarsandniches,oftendecoratedwithelaboratecarving,andfound to contain ritual paraphernalia in the form of stone and ceramic statues,figurines, necklaces and large numbers of bowls. The basic trefoil form wasexpandedinmanycasestocreatealargernumberofapses.The most complex of the monuments was Tarxien where four separate temples,eachanexpandedversionof thebasic form,havebeen joined togethercreatingaseriesofinterconnectingcorridorsandchamberslavishlydecoratedwithcarvings.Inthesamelocality,atPaola,afewminutessouthoftheMaltesecapitalinVallettaisthe equally impressive underground burial complex, hypogeum, of Hal Saflieni.Tunnelledintothesoftlimestonerockbelowabusymoderntownisavastsystemofinterconnectingchambersseton threesubterranean levels.Manyof thewallsandceiling of the chambers were carved to resemble the architectural form of thetemples,andanumberstillretaintracesoftheoriginalredandblackpigmentsthatwereusedtodecorate themwithcomplexgeometricandspiralmotifs.Within thechambersexcavatorsdiscoveredthedisarticulatedbonesfromwhattheyestimatedwere forty thousand people. Although this figure may have to be treated with adegreeofscepticismthesiteremainsoneofthemostspectacularevertohavebeendiscovered.The proximity of Tarxien to the hypogeum and of both to Vallettamakes them apopularchoiceforvisitorswishingtoinvestigatethearchaeologyofMalta.AnotherpopularattractionisthetwintemplesiteofHagarQimandMnajdralocatedonthemoreremotewesterncoast,andyetstillwithinathirtyminutejourneyofValletta.HagarQimconsistsofasingletempleunitoriginallyformedfromafiveapsetemple


4

whichwas, inprehistoric times,elaborated so that it, uniquely,has twoentrancescreatinga lineof sight through themonument,withapses runningoffeither side.TuckedbelowHagarQimonacliffplatformliesthetempleofMnajdra.Itconsistsofthree temple units, a three and two four apse forms, all sharing the same largeforecourt. The cliff top location and spectacular views across the Mediterraneanmakethisthemostatmosphericofallthetemples.Togethertheseformthebasisfortheexamplesandcasestudiesthatfollow.Given the genuinely spectacular nature of the Neolithic megaliths archaeology isreasonably seen within the tourist industry as a potential resource, offeringpossibilities for commodification into tourist products (Ashworth and Tunbridge2003,4).Amongpackagevisitorsthedominantagegroupsarethe50‐54and45‐49years age groups; this is advantageous for policies aimed at encouraging heritagetourism. The ‘greymarket’ is a growingone inWestern Europe and it is themainconsumerofheritageattractions,itisalsorelativelyhighspendingandadventurousinseekingoutnewheritageproducts.InMaltathedivisionofresponsibility forheritagemanagement issimilartothat inother European countries with the national government taking the lead.Archaeologicalsitesandareasaredesignatedandmanagedatthenationallevelbythe Malta Environmental Planning Agency (MAPA), and detailed developmentcontrol is exercised by the Development Control Commissions. The 2002 HeritageActconsolidatedpreviouslegislationandcreatedatripartitesystemofcontrol.Thefunctions of restorationwere given to theMalta Centre for Restoration, those ofmanagement to Heritage Malta and those of superintendence to the NationalGovernment. These divisions could lead to possible confusion or duplication, butgivenMalta’ssmallsizeandhomogeneitythisdoesnotseemtobeaproblem,andneed not be so, so long as there is clear policy coordination (Ashworth andTunbridge2003).InthisrespecttheapproachadoptedbyMaltaisunique,withtheMTAhavingapivotalrole.TheMTA’scentralrolereflectstheimportanceoftourismtotheeconomyand its influenceonsomanyotheraspectsofculture,societyandgovernment. The MTA with its links to the tourist industry straddles the public‐private distinction and also has strong links to government. It is notable that theMTA has explicitly assumed responsibility for many heritage tasks beyond whatwouldbeexpectedelsewhereofatourismagency.TheMTA’sProductPlanningandDevelopmentDirectorate‘instigateshistoricalregenerationinitiatives’(MTA2002a,16)amongstitsothertasksandamongtheMTA’s‘progressindicators’isnumber7–‘Culture:heritage(includingprotectionissues)’(MTA2002a,44).FromtheviewpointofHeritageMalta,chargedwiththemanagementoftheisland’sarchaeological resources, the exploitation of archaeological sites by mass tourismleadstoincreasedcostsofpreservation,renovationandcontinuingmaintenance.Inrecent years a number of studies undertaken by them have identified significantthreats to the island’s ancientmonuments from both natural and human sourcescausingerosionofthestoneworkthathavecausedseriousconcernforthefutureofthese fragile sites. One solution to this problem is to strictly limit the number ofvisitorswhohaveaccess to the sites. In recentyears limitshavebeen imposedon


5

the number of tourists visiting the hypogeum of Hal Saflieni, whilst limiting theextent of further damage to a sensitive site, the effect has been to turn awaypotentialvisitorswhohadnotpurchasedtickets,whichonsomeoccasionsselloutmany days or even weeks in advance. Further implementation of visitor numberrestrictionsatotherNeolithicsiteswouldactasabreakonthefuturedevelopmentofculturaltourism,andforthisreasonisseenasalastresortbypolicymakers.There is therefore a tension between the need to developmass tourism and theneedtoprotecttheisland’sarchaeology.ThistensionisbestillustratedbythecaseoftheBugibbaNeolithicTemple.In1966Bugibba,onthecoastnorthofValletta,wasbeingdevelopedasoneofMalta’smain tourist resortswithplans foranextensivehighclasshotelcomplexintheareaoccupiedbytheremainsoftheBuggibaTemple,bringing the needs ofmass tourism and heritage conservation into direct conflict.The monument was protected by legislation from destruction and instead it wassubstantially restored and then incorporated into the swimming pool area of thehotelcreatingwhathasbeendescribedas‘acuriouspool‐sideconversationpiece,ormorelikelyarock‐gardeninthebackground’(Figure2,Stroud2007,21).From the point of view of policy makers and those in government Malta’sremarkable archaeological endowment has always imposed an equally remarkableburden of responsibility upon a small population. Since independence the cost ofprotectingvulnerablearchaeological siteshasbeenaheavyburden tobearby therelatively small populationof thearchipelago.Money spenton the islandshistoricsitesmeant lessmoneyforalternativeeconomicdevelopment,asaconsequenceasuccessionofhardpressedgovernmentsstarvedheritageofmoneythatwasbadlyneeded in favour of other, more pressing, economic and social priorities.Governmentswere,ontheotherhand,underpressuretogenerateasmuchincomeaspossiblefromtourism,andasaconsequencetheyencouragedtheexploitationofthe islands richhistorymarketing theNeolithicTemplesas touristattractions.Thisresulted ina fire fightingapproach to thearchaeological resourcewithworkbeingdoneonlywhenabsolutelyessentialandthenwithabiastowardsworksthatmadethemonumentsmore presentable to the public rather than purely on grounds ofconservation.Thismostlyconsistsofattemptstotackleerosionofthestonefacadesofthetemplesusingavarietyofmeanssuchastheapplicationofweatherresistantcoatings,cementrenderingandultimatelythereplacementofwornstoneswithnewcopies.In summary, it is proposed that three inter‐related problems can be identified: atourism problem, a heritage problem and a wider development problem. Thesuccessoftourismisthreatenedbymarkettrends,theisland’sremarkableheritageneeds substantial investment, whilst a new competitive advantage must supportfuture development of the island’s economy. These are problems found inMalta,but they are not exclusive to that island, rather they are common to manyMediterranean economies. My argument is that a fortuitous symbiosis can beshaped that brings together tourism, archaeology and development for mutualsupport and profit, and that just as the problem is not unique to Malta so the


6

solutionproposedheremayofferamodeltoothereconomieslookingforasolutiontotheirownproblems.

Figure2BuggibaPrehistorictempleincorporatedwithinthepoolareaoftheDolmenHotelin1968.


7

CulturalTourismAs we have seen tourism has a high priority inMalta.When the PrimeMinister,LawrenceGonzi, tookoffice inMarch2004,a fewweeksbeforeMalta’sentry intothe European Union on 1st May that year, he said that Malta should seize theopportunities afforded by its membership to boost tourism. In practice this hasrequiredacompleterethinkoftherelationshipbetweentourismandarchaeologicalheritageandtherelationshipthateachhastothewidereconomy.AsaconsequencetheMTA is currently engaged in a process it summarises as ‘The repositioning ofMalta’ as a destination for cultural tourism, within which ‘Malta’s unique valueproposition’, in practice its heritage centred or ‘enhanced’ tourism product, is a‘corporateobjective’ (MTA2002a34).Cultural tourismmaybedefinedas: tourismthat focuseson the culture and cultural environment, including landscapes, of thedestination,thevaluesandlifestyles,heritage,visualandperformingarts,industriesandleisurepursuitsofthelocalpopulationandhostcommunity.Aswehavealreadyseen,Maltaisrichlyendowedwithaworld‐classarchaeologicalheritage,whichmayformthebasisofthisrevampedtouristproduct.Thetrigger for thisshiftaway frommass tourismtowardsarchaeologicallycentredcultural tourism was the so‐called ‘crisis in tourism’ of 2006. There was alreadyconcern about declining visitor numbers with occupancy rates in Maltese hotelsfallingyearonyearfrom59%in1994,to54%in2001andthenfallingbelow50%in2003,butthiswasbroughttoaheadinlatespring2006,whenaftermanyyearsofdeclining visitor numbers, rumours were circulating on the island that one of themainUKtravelcompanieswasabouttowithdrawMaltafromtheir2007brochure.Within the tourist industryworry spread that otherswould follow and thatMaltawouldberelegatedfrommainstreamtonichetravelstatus,endingmasstourismonthe island, and bringingwith it the prospect of a severe economic downturn. Theshort term solution to the crisis was to open the airport to the low cost airlinesClickairandRyanairwhoestimatedthattheywoulddeliveranextra100,000visitorstotheisland.AtfirstsightitwouldappearthatthefutureofMaltacontinuedtorestwith the development of mass tourism, but the MTA tempered this mood ofoptimismbyremindingthe industry that: ‘The introductionof the lowcostairlinesflying to Malta will merely delay the long‐term decline of the island’s touristindustry. Unless money is spent on the infrastructure and improving theenvironmentforthetouristsgenerallythereisadangerthatalotofvisitorswillbeone‐off. If there’s a lesson to be learned in Malta that the government and heragencieshavefailedtograspitisthatsustainabletourismisbuiltonrepeatvisitors.’(MTA statement December 2006). In other words, introducing low cost airlinesbought time to put in place a new strategy for the islands, it did not solve theproblemoflong‐termdecline.A fundamental shift was therefore set in motion, where the ‘Malta product’ wasredefinedtorestonMalta’sdistinctivecompetitiveadvantage,awayfromthemoretraditional‘plainvanilla’sunandseaproducttoonewhichadds‘ourrichheritage’.ThepolicywasforMaltatoberepositionedasadifferenttypeofdestination,where‘everyvisitwouldbeauniqueexperience’(MTA2002a6).Inwhatcouldbetermedafortuitous symbiosis (Ashworth and Tunbridge 2003) from which other countries


8

may learn, tourism, archaeological heritage and development are being broughttogether formutual support andmutual profit. Thus direct earnings from tourismare used to defray some of the costs of conservation and maintenance of thearchaeological heritage, whilst indirectly the incorporation of archaeological siteswithinthenewculturetourismproductprovidesa justificationforpublicattentionand subsidy. In turn the status of the island’s archaeological monuments asmeasuredbythenumberofUNESCOWorldHeritageSites(7)hasanimportantroleto play in promoting the island as a tourist destination on a world stage offeringmarketing opportunities on a global scale. The advantage of World Heritage Sitedesignation is therefore twofold: internally, leveraging official funding, andexternally,inpublicityandintheconfirmationofthesignificanceofsuchsitesforthetourist.Tourism is thus seenasapotential solution toa seriousheritageproblem,whilearchaeologyisviewedasaresourcetobeutilisedaspartofasolutiontothetourismproblem.TheresultingsynergyprovidesthecompetitiveadvantageforlocaldevelopmentandthereinvigorationofMalta’seconomythathasthepotentialtobesustainableforthelongterm(AshworthandTunbridge2003).Inordertoexaminethefeasibilityofdevelopingheritagetourismasasolutiontothethree problems facing tourism, archaeology and thewider development ofMalta,weneedtoconsiderhowtheexistingtouristandheritageinfrastructureneedstobedeveloped. The traditional beach holiday is spatially concentrated and relativelystatic, confined toa single resortorevensinglehotel complexwhere touristsmayspend entire days, or even potentially their entire holiday. In contrast, especiallycomparedtobeachtourism,heritage tourismproductsarevery rapidlyconsumed.TheaveragelengthofstaybytouristsinValletta,themedievalcapitalofMalta,is4‐6hoursandthelengthofstayatasinglemuseum,monumentorarchaeologicalsiteisevenless,andmaybemeasuredinminutes,furthermorefewgeneratereturnvisits(Mangion and Zammit Trevison 2001). As a general rule the more unique theheritageexperience,thelesslikelyitistoberepeated,andthemoredifficultitistorenewandextendtheheritageproductsonoffer.Thisisaseriousconcerntothosewishingtoswitchfromamasstourismproductcentredaroundatraditionalsunandsandexperiencetowardadevelopedculturaltourismproduct.As, generally speaking, heritage tourists spend less time in a place than beachtourists it is necessary to develop a network of complementary attractions thattogether provide the tourist with sufficient cultural experiences to fulfil theirexpectations for the duration of their stay. The implication is that individual sitesneed to be combined within larger packages that form spatial networks, this isillustratedbythe‘CountrysideWalksInitiative’institutedbytheMTAasanattemptto open up some of the archaeological sites of the interior of Malta to tourists.Historically tourism was concentrated in a small number of coastal resortssupplemented by day excursions to Valletta,Mdina or to some of the larger andbetter knownNeolithic temples such as Tarxien and thehypogeum,orHagarQimand Mnajdra. For the most part tourists rarely investigated the interior of theislands,eventhoughmanyoftheNeolithicmonumentsthatsointeresttouristsweretobefoundthere.InordertodeveloptheculturaltourismsectoroftheeconomyaCountryside Walk was developed. The walk links sites of historic interest to


9

overnightaccommodationandrestaurantsprovidingthemoreindependentmindedtravellerwithanalternativetoapackageholidayexperience.Theadvantagesofthisformofwalkingholidayarethattheyspreadtheeconomicbenefitsoftourismmoreevenly acrossMalta, generating income for local businesses in the interior of thecountry. As theheritageexperience is taken‐inatwalkingpacethe lengthof timetakentovisiteachsiteisextendedconsiderablyaddressingoneofthekeyconcernsof cultural tourism, that heritage is consumed more rapidly than beach basedholidays.The strength of the Countryside Walks Initiative, that the Neolithic Temples aredispersedthroughoutthe islands interior, isalsoaweakness,astheypose intrinsicdifficulties of access and interpretation. An example of this is provided by thetemplesofTaHagratandSkorba located in the inlandvillageofMgarr. LikeHagarQimandMnajdra,andTarxienandthehypogeum,theyformapairseparatedbyatenminutewalk.Unlike theirmore famous andpopular cousins access is difficult.The site of Ta Hagrat is only open to the public between 9.30 and 11 am onTuesday’s and Skorba temples between 11.30 and 1pm the same day, anyonearriving outside these times or on a different day will find the sites locked andsurroundedbyanuninvitingwirefence.Itismuchtoaskthatanyoneconstructingawalkingtouroftheislandsshoulddevisetheiritineraryaroundsuchlimitedopeningtimes.Similarly,accesstoMgarrbypublictransportfromVallettawouldrequirethatthe visitormakes a un‐holiday like early start in order to arrive at TaHagratwithsufficienttimetoenjoythesite.ThisisnotaproblemuniquetoMalta;allarchaeologicalsitespresentdifficultiesofaccess, visitor management and interpretation. The nature of the archaeologyrendersthesitedirtyandpotentiallyhazardoustothevisitor,whilethevisitorisatbestadistractinghindrancetothescientificinvestigationofthesite,andatworst,apotentiallyunwittingthreat tothepreservationof themonument.Thequestionofaccess therefore needs to be addressed if cultural tourism is to become amainstream component of the Maltese tourist industry. A second problem thatneedstobeaddressedisthatofinterpretation.ForthetouristthevisitexperiencetotheNeolithicmonumentsmaybeunsatisfyingorevenconfusing. ThevisitorhasavaguernotionofthechronologyandsignificanceofthepeoplesandartefactsoftheNeolithic than ofmore recent history, and the processes of decay, erosion, stonequarrying, antiquarian investigation and more recent archaeological excavationleaves the site incomplete and partially ruined. The more easily presentedexcavated objects with which the visitor might empathise are generally collectedintoseparatemuseums,oftenoff‐site.Thevisitoristhereforelefttoimaginelivinginthe environs in the distant past with interpretation dependent upon verbalexplanations, graphics and reconstructions. At the major sites of Tarxien and thehypogeumthis isaproblemdealtwithbysympatheticsignage,butat theremotersites such as Ta Hagrat the visitor is left to fend for themselves with whateverguidebookstheybroughtwiththem,astherearenoon‐sitefacilities.Addressingthetwinissuesofaccessandinterpretationdemandsconsiderabletimeand investment. The Neolithic Temple sites are of international importance and


10

receive over 100,000 visits each year, and yet they have had virtually no on siteinterpretationandsufferbadlyfromthecorrosiveeffectofacidrain.Actionneedstobetakentoprotectthesitesandtomakethemaccessibletovisitorsbutanyworkonthesesitesrequiresgreatskillandsensitivity.WorkhasalreadybeencompletedattheHypogeumofHalSaflieni,themostfragileofthesites,toconstructanewvisitoraccessandinterpretationcentrewhilstatbothHagarQimandTarxienTemplesworkis underway and due to be completed by the end of 2009. These works on thetempleswillimprovethevisitorexperienceandencouragepeopletospendlongeratthesites.ThetwinsiteofHagarQimandMnajdra,onthelessdevelopedwestcoastofMalta,provides an opportunity for distributing tourist income more evenly across theisland. Themonumentshavebeenknownabout, and to someextentexploitedbytourists since the late eighteenth century. Jean Houel, engraver to King Louis thesixteenth, visited Hagar Qim in 1787 and his engraving of the site records theinteraction of early visitors with the site (Figure 2). It depicts figures holding upobjectsandothersengagedindeepconversation,suggestingthatthearchaeologicalremainswereafocusforcuriositytoearlytravellers(Stroud2007,16).SubsequentlythesitewasexcavatedbetweenNovember1839andJanuary1840(Vance1842)andthen again in 1885 by A. A. Caruanawho followed thiswith extensive restorationworkreconstructingthetempleashethoughtitwouldhavelookedinantiquity.Acombinationofacidrainandstrongwindshavetakentheirtollonthemonumentswhosesoftlimestoneconstructionshowssignsoferosion.Urgentactionwasneededtoprotectthemandin2003aninternationaldesigncompetitionwaslaunchedforamethodofprotectingthemonumentsandforavisitorcentre.Workonbothisdueto be completed at the end of 2009 with the E 4.6 million cost financed by theEuropeanRegionalDevelopmentFund2004‐6.Theaimwasthatboththeprotectingshelters and the visitor centre should have minimal impact on the landscape. Inordertoachievethislightweightsheltersthatresembletentshavebeendesignedtocover the templesprotecting them from theextremesof thewindand rainwhilstleaving the landscape vistas as open as possible. Plans for the visitor centrewerelikewise scaledbackso thatnothingwas larger than itneedbe. Itwasbuilt in theexistingcarpark,whichwaslargerthantheneedsofthesiteandsothatthecentredoes not break the skyline when viewed from the monument, ensuring that anyastronomicalphenomenawouldnotbealtered(Figure3).Theresultiscompromisedasa result,with theground floor the lowestacceptable (a tallpersoncanactuallytouch the ceiling). The new visitor centre addresses the problem of on siteinterpretation by including an auditorium containing an audio‐visual introductionandanexhibitionspace,displayingrelatedartefactsthatwerepreviouslyhousedoffsiteintheMuseumofArchaeologyinValletta.AsimilarprocesshasbeenundertakenatTarxienTemples.UnlikeHagarQimthesiteofTarxienislocatedinanurbanenvironmentontheedgeofthetownofPaola.Thelocation not only constrains the opportunities for building but also produceschallenges for those wishing to interpret the landscape context. It began inNovember2005whenanapplicationfortheconstructionofavisitors’centreat


11

Figure3TheconstructionofthevisitorcentreatHagarQimin2008.Tarxien Templeswas submitted. In tandemwent a process of public consultation,whichstartedbeforethesubmissionoftheapplication,andwhichwassteppedupwithan informativemediaeventheldat thesite.Duringtheevent, journalistsandreporters were introduced to the objectives of the Tarxien Temples Project andshown the design of the planned visitors’ center. The Tarxien Temples Visitors’Centre,wasdesignedbytheArchitectProfAlexTorpiano,andplannedtotakeintoconsideration the archaeological value and potential of the site as well as thesurrounding residential streetscape. The centre’s location, on the only availablepiece of land adjacent to the temple site was chosen in collaboration with theSuperintendenceofCulturalHeritageinordertominimisetheriskofdamaginganyarchaeological remains. The building itself is completely reversible, having noexcavated foundations it simply rests on the ground’s surface. The centre issupportedbyasystemofsteel ‘stilts’,whichhavebeenbeplacedaccordingtotheresultsofpreparatoryexcavations(Figure4).Inthismanner,thevisitors’centrenotonly protects the archaeological remains, but also safeguards the only area ofundevelopednaturallandscapethathassurvivedinthevicinityofTarxienTemples.Rather than construct the visitors’ centre from the local limestone materialscompletelydifferenttothoseoriginallyusedfortheTempleshavebeenchosensoasto make a clear visual distinction between the modern construction and theprehistoricmonument. Aswith the visitor centre atHagarQim the intention is toprovideadestinationforvisitorsthataffordsonsiteinterpretationofthesitewheresomeoftheartefactspreviouslypresentedintheNationalMuseumofArchaeologyinVallettacanbereturnedtothesite.Throughtheprovisionofacaféandgiftshopitisalsointendedtoextendthelengthoftimethatvisitorsspendatthesite.


12

Figure4ArchitectsplanofthenewvisitorcentreatTarxienTemples.DiscussionMaltaisnotaloneinseekingtousearchaeologicalsitestodevelopculturaltourism,muchoftheMediterranean,forexampleCyprus,TurkeyandTunisia,isinvestigatingthe possibility of combining heritage with beach tourism. They can all see thebenefits of reducingmany of the costs to the local environment of the impact ofmass tourism, while maintaining or increasing tourist revenues. They also seeculturaltourismasawaytomaintainandpromotearchaeologicalsites,artefactsandevents. The problem that faces these countries is how to go aboutmanaging thistransition,heretheexperienceofMaltaof implementingpoliciesandprojectsthatrealisethisaspirationmaybeanexampleforotherstolearnfromandtofollow.Thecase of Malta is particularly informative in the context of the coordination andmanagement of the cultural tourism product, responsibility for which was, as wehaveseen,assumedbytheMTA.The management of both tourism and archaeological heritage are tasks involvingmanyorganisations, institutions,agenciesandcompanies inthepublic,privateandvoluntarysectors.Thisorganisationalfragmentationisnotuniquetoeitherfieldbutintrinsic in both. The role of the MTA was originally limited to the promotion ofMaltaoverseas,this isstillamajorrole,butaswehaveseentheMTAincreasinglyhas a role in shaping and creating the tourismproduct itself. It involves selection,maintainingandpredictingeconomic and social behaviour trendsona continentalandglobalscale,toidentifypotentialproductstoservemarketsandalsohastobringtogether people capable of delivering the product. Given the embedding of bothtourismandarchaeologywithinsomanyotheraspectsofeconomicandsocial life,heritagetourismproductdevelopmentbecomespartofmoregeneralplanningandhasacoalitionbuildingrole(AshworthandTunbridge2003).The success of theMTA in adopting the lead role coordinating and directing thetransformationofthetouristindustrysuggeststhatothercountriesconfrontedwiththedifficulty of negotiating the transformationof their tourist industry frommasstourism towards cultural tourism should consider the possibility of tasking theirtouristassociationswiththeroleofcoalitionbuilding.


13

ReferencesAshworth, G. J. and Tunbridge, J. E. (2003) Malta makeover: prospects for therealignment of heritage, tourism and development. Urban and Regional StudiesInstituteReport304,Groningen.MTA.(2002)Malta:TheIslandattheHeartoftheMediterranean.Valletta,MTA,44MTA(2006)StatementDecember2006.Valletta,MTA.Mangion, M. L. and Zammit Trevison, C. (2001) The Significance of Valletta as aTourismProduct: Findingsof a TourismSurvey. Valletta: Research and InformationDivisionMTA.Priestley,G. K. (1995) Evolutionof tourismon the Spanish coast inG. J.Ashworthand A G J Dietvorst (eds) Tourism and Spatial Transformations. Wallingford: CABInternational,37‐54.Stroud, K. (2007) Of giants and deckchairs: understanding theMaltese megalithictemplesinDABarrowcloughandCMalone.CultinContext:ReconsideringRitualinArchaeology.Oxford,OxbowBooks,16‐22.Trump,D.H.(2004)Malta:PrehistoryandTemples(2nded).Valletta,MidseaBooks.Vance, J. G. (1842) Description of an Ancient Temple near Crendi, MaltaArchaeologia29,SocietyofAntiquariesofLondon,227‐240.

Documents

Visiting Malta's Past: Sustaining Archaeology and Tourism