Various studies have been carried out and various theories have been proposed on the Maltese prehistoric temples, such as what the buildings were used for, what rituals were carried out in them, the methods used in their construction, their decoration, their alignment, the type of roofing they may have had, the society that built them, and so on. However, during this presentation we shall be taking a step back from these studies to look at the actual monuments themselves and how much we know about the physical remains we are using as evidence for these prehistoric studies.

Each generation of archaeologists, curators, conservators and restorers has left their mark on the temples so these monuments have changed through time. Therefore the prehistoric monuments we see today consist of the original prehistoric structures as well as the various elements that were introduced in them as part of past conservation and restoration interventions. Therefore, in trying to understand the temples, we have to take into consideration that their story does not end with their burial or abandonment; but that they underwent drastic changes after their discovery and excavation, and that they are still undergoing changes today. We have to take into consideration that the temples are dynamic; they change, not only in the way we understand and perceive them, but even physically.

Hagar Qim was first mentioned in literature in 1647 by Giovanni Francesco Abela in his Della Descrittione di Malta where the sheer size of temple ruins led to their being attributed to giants.

The first graphic depiction of Hagar Qim on the other hand, by Jean Houel, engraver to King Louis XVI of France, was published in 1787. This drawing shows that the majority of the site was buried at the time but that the main larger megaliths were visible. These megaliths would have obviously attracted attention to the site and this is how it came to be excavated in 1839.

The excavation was carried out under the supervision of J. G. Vance, officer of the Royal Engineers. Lt. Foulis drew up a plan of the site on completion of the excavation, however, the only record of these excavations is a short description published in the Malta Times in 1840 and a slightly more detailed account of the finds with some views of the remains by Basire in 1842.

The first restoration work on the site may have been carried out at this time as indicated in the lithographs by Basire and a photograph published in 1901. Here modern pillars seem to have been inserted to support three broken table slabs within the temple.

An extensive restoration programme was launched by Dr A. A. Caruana in 1885, with the view that “some of these imposing works of Cyclopean art might be made, with a little skilful restoration, to look almost as complete as when they were originally constructed”.

This is quite contradictory since we are not sure what these monuments originally looked like to this very day; however, this was the approach that was adopted for the prehistoric monuments at the time.

Part of these works included extensive clearance of the area in front of the façade as indicated when comparing photographs of the site taken in 1868 and 1901.

Drawings of the remains by Vassallo were published in Caruana’s report in 1886. The colour-coding on the plan he produced shows the areas that were excavated at the time, areas that were restored and other parts of the monument that Caruana suggested still needed to be restored, but were not restored at the time.

The plan in fact shows that a number of megaliths were re-erected. Elevation drawings also produced by Vassallo indicate for example that a wall at the rear of the external niche at Hagar Qim was reconstructed in small rubble, while the tapered slab inside this niche was re-erected.

Vassallo’s plan of the whole site shows that rubble walls were constructed enclosing the forecourt and rear court of the temple. According to Caruana these were constructed over the remains of ancient foundations.

In 1910, the British School at Rome, under the direction of Dr Thomas Ashby, conducted excavations as well as extensive restoration works at the site.

Slabs lying in front of the entrance were lifted to form the top horizontal course of the façade

The large slab in the same area, believed to be the lintel of the main entrance of the temple, was repaired and lifted on pillars

The three table-slabs previously supported on pillars by Vance, were repaired with cement and the pillars were replaced by ones in modern Globigerina blocks, still visible on site today

A number of megaliths were also re-erected, (most of which according to Caruana’s suggestions) and numerous repairs were made in cement.

Ashby’s report does not include details on all the interventions carried out and no information is available regarding the materials used but since the majority of the repairs still exist today, it seems evident that Portland cement was widely employed in these interventions.

Between 1948 and 1950 large-scale restoration works were carried out by Dr Baldacchino, then Director of the Museums Department.

In 1948, clearing in front of the façade brought to light some stone blocks resting against the base of the uprights

In 1949 the slab that was restored by Ashby was placed above the doorway forming the lintel. However by 1958 this lintel had developed cracks and had to be repaired with bronze cleats. This same lintel has now developed new cracks.

Two courses of masonry were also rebuilt on the façade. The origins of these blocks is not clear but they may have been found in the collapsed area of the façade

The corner-stone of the façade was reconstructed using cement mixed with Globigerina powder

A number of uprights forming the façade were also re-erected during these works

The rubble walls built by Caruana on what he said were the original foundations, were removed at this time since excavations conducted by Ashby showed that this was not in fact the case

The Museums Department annual report for 1984 mentions “important restoration works” but does not provide further information on what these works consisted. An article written by an Italian author, Sergio Vannucci, on the conservation of the temple sites, mentions that restoration works being conducted at Hagar Qim at the time and that these are repairs in a lime-based mortar on the door-jambs of the temple and two other megaliths. On-site observation indicates that cement was used for these repairs.

This really illustrates how difficult it is to put together the whole picture of interventions carried out on the site when we have poor records, and sometimes even conflicting information. It is in fact a pity that we don’t have records of interventions that took place in such recent years.

In 1993 further restoration works were carried out in one of the apses of Hagar Qim:

One involved the replacement of an iron rod that was inserted to hold two parts of a megalith together with bronze dowels. Hydraulic lime was also used to repair the megalith – Bronze rather than iron was used since it does not damage the megalith, and hydraulic lime rather than cement was used since its properties are closer to those of stone than cement and therefore causes less damage to the remains.

One other megalith in this apse was repaired in the same manner while a collapsed slab was re-erected and lead wedges were inserted beneath it to secure its stability.

In November 1998, following a severe rainstorm, the wall between apses three and five collapsed. Following a study of the manner in which the collapse occurred the replacement of the dislodged megaliths to their original positions was possible, however a pillar constructed out of modern globigerina blocks had to be inserted in the place of a megalith that had completely disintegrated.

One general problem in tracing this part of the site’s history is the lack of records kept of these interventions, which sometimes makes it difficult to identify what is original and what has been restored, and also how true to the original any restoration work was. Luckily, we do have graphic records for the site, such as paintings and photographs which are invaluable in identifying restoration interventions and their extent. Nonetheless, it has become apparent that a study of the more recent history of the prehistoric temples is essential in understanding the most substantial material evidence for our prehistory, the prehistoric monuments themselves.

This paper was presented on 4 November at the three-day International Conference on Maltese and Mediterranean Prehistory “A New Look at The Old Temples” as part of the Festival Mediterranea. Ms Stroud’s dissertation for her MA (Archaeology) degree was entitled “The Conservation of Hagar Qim and Mnajdra Temples” and in it she traced the history of conservation, restoration and management interventions on the two sites, showing how they changed and developed from their first excavation to today