UNIVERSITY OF MALTA

FACULTY for the BUILT ENVIRONMENT

MSc in Conservation Technology for Masonry Buildings
March in Architecture & Conservation Studies Year 2
Semester 1, October 2017 - January 2018

BLH 5003: Environment and Monitoring

Compiled by: Audrey Ann Attard

ID: 038888M
 Glossary Terms

 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation UNESCO

 Relative Humidity RH

 Percentage %

 Watts per square metre (W/M^2)

 Degrees Celsius ˚C

 Polytetrafluoroethylene PTFE

P a g e 1 | 35
Table of Contents

Table of Figures Page 4

Introduction Page 5

Condition and Deterioration Page 6

Role of Environmental Factors in the Deterioration of the Site Page 9

The reasons for the installation of the shelter, taking into Page 11

consideration the site, its condition, its location

Presentation of the environmental data provided, assessment Page 12

and interpretation, underlining the difference between the

data of sheltered and unsheltered areas.

Assessment of the beneficial and possibly not beneficial effects Page 17

of the shelter on the site

Suggestions for other possible passive and/or preventive Page 19

measures, if any, to be carried out at the site to control

environmentally-driven deterioration

References Page 22

P a g e 2 | 35
Appendix 1 Page 24

Appendix 2 Page 25

P a g e 3 | 35
 Table of Figures

Figure 1: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of picture 3 taken ........................................................... 6

Figure 2: South Orientation Facade - Hagar Qim – Photo Taken By Author .......................................... 6
Figure 3: (Zoom from Figure 2) Advanced alveolar weathering, Powdering, Flaking and white crust
resulting in loss of material - Photo Taken by Author ............................................................................ 6
Figure 4: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of picture 5,6 taken ....................................................... 7
Figure 5: North East Orientation Facade - Hagar Qim – Photo Taken By Author ................................... 7
Figure 6: A photo of an internal Apse of Hagar Qim showing walls with different orientations (red
and blue box) manifesting different deterioration stages. ..................................................................... 7
Figure 7: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of picture 8 taken ........................................................... 8
Figure 8: North/North West Orientation Façade displaying the voids in between the megaliths due to
loss of infill comprising its structural stability- Photo taken by Author.................................................. 8
Figure 9: North west/West Orientation façade displaying cracking at the upper part of the megalith 8
Figure 10: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of pictures 9,10,11 taken ............................................. 9
Figure 11: Previous cement repairs observed on site – Photo taken by Author .................................... 9
Figure 12: Pillars and Scaffolding supporting existing megaliths and dust accumulation on the
ground– Photo taken by Author ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 13: Walls built using modern techniques in order to support the megaliths of the temple ....... 9
Figure 14: Thermal Imaging in the south facing Megaliths of Hagar Qim - Readings taken in the
Summer Months. .................................................................................................................................. 10
Figure 15: Location of Data Loggers - Environmental Monitoring indicating monitoring Instruments
on site - April-May 2014........................................................................................................................ 13
Figure 16: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim to show location of interventions proposed .............................. 21

P a g e 4 | 35
 Introduction

The prehistoric site of Ħaġar Qim forms part of a series of extraordinary monuments built above
ground around the mid-fourth and mid-third millennium B.C. (Grima, 2008). These monuments are
referred to as the Megalithic Temples of Malta (Galea, M., DeBattista, R., Grima, M., Maccarelli, L.,
Borg, R., and Zerafa, C., 2015). In actual fact, in 1992 the UNESCO Committee decided to include Ħaġar
Qim with other four Megalithic temples in Malta in the existing property inscription of the Ġgantija
Temples (Centre, 2017).

The Temples of Ħaġar Qim are located along the south-western coast of Malta standing at the top of
an exposed ridge not more than 2 kilometres away from the village of Qrendi and 500m above the
temple of Mnajdra. The surroundings are mostly garigue landscape and with sloping ground on
different sides (Becherini et al., 2016). The orientation of Ħaġar Qim area faces south-east having
sunshine for even a longer period starting from early morning (Cassar, 2013).

The complex of Ħaġar Qim comprises of two small structures and a larger main structure built entirely
in Globigerina Limestone. After excavation in the early 19th Century before any records were kept it is
suggested that the temples used to be enclosed and to have lost their roofing structure leaving the
structures exposed directly to the environmental elements (Cassar, J., Galea, M., Grima, R., Stroud, K.,
and Torpiano, A., 2010).

(With reference to the timeline of previous interventions at Ħaġar Qim – refer to Appendix 1)

P a g e 5 | 35
 Condition and Deterioration

All the Megalithic Temples in Malta are currently undergoing a series of complications at various
stages, associated with structural stability and material deterioration. These complications are
resulting in loss of material and structural collapses both occurring at a fast rate (Rothert et al., 2007).

Upon visual inspection of Ħaġar Qim, material and structural damage was observed at different
stages and in all parts of Ħaġar Qim (Cassar, 2002). With respect to material damage megaliths,
manifest signs of cracking, powdering, flaking and advanced stages of alveolar weathering leading to
back weathering (Cassar et al., 2010).

From past studies the main cause for material damage, is the presence of salts inside the stone. One
of the most common salts is Sodium Chloride (Halite) (Cassar et al., 2010). The main mechanism for
the introduction of chlorides is exposure to a marine environment. In actual fact southerly façades in
this case are exposed to the marine environment and are observed to be more severely deteriorated
than facades that have other orientations (refer to figure 2, 3 and 5). For another example observed
refer to figure 6 were southern orientation facades exhibit more severe powdering, flaking and
alveolar weathering when compared to northern one.

Figure 1: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of picture 3 taken

MSA Cultural Tours. (2012). The Hagar Qim Complex. Retrieved from
http://msaculturaltours.com/MALTA/

Refer to Fig. 3

Figure 2: South Orientation Facade - Hagar Qim – Photo Taken By Author

Figure 3: (Zoom from Figure 2) Advanced alveolar weathering, Powdering,

Flaking and white crust resulting in loss of material - Photo Taken by Author

P a g e 6 | 35
 Figure 4: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of picture 5,6 taken

MSA Cultural Tours. (2012). The Hagar Qim Complex. Retrieved from http://msaculturaltours.com/MALTA/

Figure 5: North East Orientation Facade - Hagar Qim – Photo Taken By Author

SW Orientation NE Orientation

Figure 6: A photo of an internal Apse of Hagar Qim showing walls with different orientations (red and blue box) manifesting
different deterioration stages.

–Photo Taken by author

During the site inspection cracks most probably related to salt action and possibly to structural stability
issues could be observed in different parts of the temple (Cassar, 2002). Examples of cracking in some
parts of the complex are displayed in figure 9. Furthermore, to that apart from material damage, the
temples are also suffering from structural damage, where parts of its infill were lost with time,
compromising its structural stability. In general loss of infill can be observed all aorund the temple, an
example portrayed in figure 8 (Cassar et al., 2010).

P a g e 7 | 35
 Figure 7: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of picture 8 taken
MSA Cultural Tours. (2012). The Hagar Qim Complex. Retrieved from http://msaculturaltours.com/MALTA/

Gaps between the

Megaliths.

Figure 8: North/North West Orientation Façade displaying the voids in between the megaliths due to loss of infill
comprising its structural stability- Photo taken by Author.

Subsequent effects after loss of infill are loss of stability, resulting in collapses as discussed in the
brief introduction to the site (Cassar et al., 2010). During the site inspection structural interventions
could be observed in different parts of the temple. Most probably these were previous attempts at
restoring the temples (refer to Appendix 1), also mentioned in the introduction to the site. Observed
interventions were:
- Repairs using most probably Portland cement (refer to image 10)
- Metal scaffolding and pillars to support megaliths (refer to image 11)
- Construction of walls using modern techniques (refer to image 12)
- Vandalism that has been reported in the past (Cassar et al., 2010).
Apart from material damage and structural damage, other aspects that were noted on site, were
the substantial dust accumulation in certain areas inside the temple (refer to figure 12) (Becherini,
F., Cassar, J., Galea, M., and Bernardi, A., 2016).

Signs of Cracking

Figure 9: North west/West Orientation façade displaying cracking at the upper part of the megalith

– Photo taken by Author

Author

P a g e 8 | 35
 Figure 10: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim - Location of pictures 9,10,11 taken
MSA Cultural Tours. (2012). The Hagar Qim Complex. Retrieved from http://msaculturaltours.com/MALTA/

Structural Repair

Figure 11: Previous cement repairs observed on site – Photo taken by Author

Structural Intervention

Dust Accumulation
Figure 12: Pillars and Scaffolding supporting existing megaliths and dust accumulation on the
ground– Photo taken by Author

Modern Technique
Intervention

Dust Accumulation

Figure 13: Walls built using modern techniques in order to support the megaliths of the temple

P a g e 9 | 35
 Role of Environmental Factors in the Deterioration of the Site

Main Environmental Factors:

 Rain Fall
 Solar Radiation
 Wind
 Humidity (Grima, Stroud and Torpiano, 2011).

One common factor throughout the temple, mentioned in the previous section is the loss of infill in
between the megaliths. Direct rainfall through previous research has been considered as one of the
main agents responsible for the deterioration process effecting the site (Lino Bianco Associates and
Heritage Malta, 2004). With reference to the exposed nature of the Temples, rubble and soil infill
used for structural stability were gradually depleted or washed away, creating stability problems to
the structure. In addition to that, heavy downpours, gave rise to water pooling in certain areas of the
temples leading to capillary action (Becherini et al., 2016). Capillary action and Rainfall Infiltration
are one of the mechanisms of how salts are introduced in the megaliths (Charola, 2000). During a
past analysis done in almost all weathered samples from Ħaġar Qim, soluble salts were detected in
high concentrations, including large amounts of chlorides, sulphates and nitrates. Salts are
considered as being one of the main initiators of material damage in Ħaġar Qim. (Cassar and
Vannucci, 2001).

It was found that the prevailing wind direction for Ħaġar Qim goes from south-westerly to north-
westerly, confirming that the sites were almost never without wind. Wind speeds reaching high
velocities play an important role in deterioration cycles. Transportation of sea salt aerosol, dust and
other pollutants and causing of damage in the form of abrasion on the stone surface are processes
driven by this element (Cassar et al., 2010).

The mechanism of salt crystallisation that is the main deterioration process caused by the presence
of soluble salts occurs with a combination of wind erosion and direct solar radiation (Bonazza, A.,
Sabbioni, C., Messina, P., Guaraldi, C., and De Nuntiis, P., 2009). Solar radiation measurements,
recorded high values including high surface temperatures on the megaliths (refer to figure 14).
Exposure to direct solar radiation aggravates thermal stress on the megaliths causing
‘thermoclastism’ (Cabello Briones and Viles, 2016). Differential expansion and contraction of the
surface and subsurface of the stone due to temperature fluctuations causing material damage
(Bonazza et al., 2009).

Figure 14: Thermal Imaging in the south facing Megaliths of Hagar Qim (Bonazza, Sabbioni, Messina, Guaraldi & De
Nuntiis, 2009) - Readings taken in the Summer Months.

P a g e 10 | 35
The most common salts found are mostly effected by microclimatic conditions (Becherini et al.,
2016). Apart from the direct damages done through extensive solar radiation exposure,
temperature fluctuations can cause variations in the degree of moisture content in the material and
the saturation of water vapour in the air (Cabello Briones, 2015).

Material moisture content may lead to material damage through wetting and drying cycles that is a
mechanism that causes stress in between the different layers of the stone. Relative Humidity (RH)
fluctuations play a very important role in relation to the moisture content inside the stone. When
the RH fluctuates near the equilibrium level it is the level were most probably salts crystallise, every
time it crosses that level. Thus material damage either through efflorescence or subflorescence may
occur (Becherini et al., 2016). Whilst efflorescence result in mainly a superficial aesthetical effect,
subflorescence resulting in the crystallisation of salts inside the pores may lead to severe material
damage (Cabello Briones, 2015).

P a g e 11 | 35
 The reasons for the installation of the shelter, taking into consideration the
site, its condition, its location

With reference to the previous section confirming previous studies the environmental factors
identified as being the main sources of deterioration are High solar radiation, rainfall, wind and
relative humidity fluctuations. Deterioration mechanisms are believed to have aggravated in
frequency directly after the excavation, due to their increased exposure to the elements (Grima,
Stroud and Torpiano, 2011).

Due to the increased exposure to the elements an open shelter to serve as a protection and shading
device for the temples was seen as the best solution until further research could be carried out
(Cabello Briones and Viles, 2016). Although the introduction of the shelters on archaeological sites is
not specifically clear to what the total effects will be, the shelters were seen as a way to mitigate solar
radiation, rainfall effects, wind impact, prevent leaching of infills and reduce vegetation growth
(Cassar et al., 2010). The installation of a shelter is seen as much less intrusive as direct interventions
on the elements and aim to provide an improved condition for the preservation of remains (Cabello
Briones, 2017).

The shelter was in actual fact built in 2009 in fibreglass and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) membrane
having an expected life span of 25 till 30 years (Cabello Briones, 2015).

P a g e 12 | 35
 Presentation of the environmental data provided, assessment and
interpretation, underlining the difference between the data of sheltered
and unsheltered areas.
Monitoring for the Megalithic temples is being carried out through the installation of data loggers
recording air temperature, relative humidity, dew point temperature and solar radiation (refer to
figure 15 for location of data loggers).

Table 1: Sample Readings Analysed

Year 2014
Time Period 9th April – 7th May
Frequency of Readings 15 minute intervals

Table 2: Limitations Noted:

No Surface Temperature Loggers
Loggers located only at the central parts of the Temples (none at the periphery)
Limited Period of time to analyse – 29 days

Figure 15: Location of Data Loggers - Environmental Monitoring indicating monitoring Instruments on site - April-May
2014 (Becherini et al., 2016)

P a g e 13 | 35
 Solar Radiation Analysis (T- RH sun)
In Graph 1, solar radiation for sheltered and unsheltered areas is plotted for the whole 29 day
period 9th April – 7th May:

Table 3: Comparison between Solar Radiation maxima and minima readings before and after
sheltering of Ħaġar Qim (done by author).

T(RH) Ħaġar Qim W/m² Sheltered Un-Sheltered

T (Max) 156.9 W/m² 1215.6 W/m²
T (Min) 111.9 W/m² 669.4 W/m²

Table 4: Showing average radiation ranges for sheltered and unsheltered readings (done by
author).

Average range for Radiation Values for unsheltered values vary from: 0 – 1150 W/m²
Average range for Radiation Values for sheltered values vary from: 0 – 150 W/m²

With respect to Graph 1, an evident reduction in radiation values is observed, with the radiation
range decreasing by 1000W/m². With reference to Radiation fluctuations, the day were the highest
Maxima was recorded was analysed in further detail (refer to Table 5,6).

Table 5: Radiation fluctuation throughout the day– Non-Sheltered Readings (done by author).
Date/ Time – 5th May Solar Radiation W/m²
00:00:03 0.6
06:18:36 11.9
12:33:36 1215.6
19:48:36 5.6
23:48:36 0.6
Table 6: Radiation fluctuation throughout the day – Sheltered Readings (done by author).
Date/ Time – 5th May Solar Radiation W/m²
00:00:03 0.6
06:33:36 10.6
14:18:36 151.9
19:48:36 11.9
23:48:36 0.6

Table 5 and 6 portray the evident reduction in fluctuation readings when comparing the sheltered to
the non-sheltered readings.

P a g e 14 | 35
 Air Temperature Analysis (T- surface)
In Graph 2, Air temperature for sheltered and unsheltered areas is plotted for the whole 29 day
period 9th April – 7th May:

Table 7: Comparison between Air Temperature maxima, minima and average readings before and
after sheltering of Ħaġar Qim (done by author).

T(Surface) Ħaġar Qim ˚C Sheltered Un-Sheltered

T (Max) 23.80˚C 22.50 ˚C
T (Min) 10.69 ˚C 09.83 ˚C
T (Avg.) 16 20˚C 16.00 ˚C
With respect to air temperature range (refer to table 7) when comparing sheltered to non-sheltered,
it was noted there was a slight increase in the sheltered readings. However on a general scale the
temperature range remained quite constant throughout the whole 29 days staying in between 12 ˚C
and 24 ˚C except for a slight exception between the 16th and 19th April.

With reference to Temperature fluctuations, the periods of 29th - 30th April and 3rd - 4th May was
analysed in further detail (refer to Table 8).

Table 8: Temperature Fluctuations from Maxima and Minima (done by author).

Date/Time Sheltered Un-Sheltered
th th
29 – 30 April Max 19.650 ˚C 18.370 ˚C
th th
29 – 30 April Min 14.098 ˚C 14.070 ˚C
Date/Time Sheltered Un-Sheltered
3rd -4th May Max 18.842 ˚C 18.224 ˚C
rd th
3 -4 May Min 13.66 ˚C 13.66 ˚C
With reference to Table 8 and Graph 2, apart from a slight air temperature increase for the sheltered
readings, temperature fluctuations have remained quite similar.

In graph 3 and 4, air temperature readings correlated with solar radiation for selected days
throughout the 29 day period were plotted to analyse ambiguities noted in graphs 1 and 2.

Graph 3: Plotting readings 16th -23th April – A slight drop in readings was observed

Graph 4: Plotting readings 4th - 7th May – The highest reading was obtained

The main points to note were:

- The substantial reduction in solar radiation range of values and fluctuations.

- The slight average temperature increase for the sheltered readings.
- Similar air temperature fluctuations.

P a g e 15 | 35
Dew Point, RH and Air Temperature Analysis (T-RH)

- In Graph 5, dew point vs air temperature vs RH for sheltered and unsheltered areas is
plotted for the whole 29 day period 9th April – 7th May.
- In Graph 5a, dew point vs air temperature for sheltered and unsheltered areas is plotted
for the whole 29 day period 9th April – 7th May.

One of the main salt mechanisms that induces material damage is condensation, being either
surface condensation and/or capillary condensation (Charola, 2000). With reference to the Graph 5,
when the RH readings start to exceed the 90% level, it is noted that dew point temperature and air
temperature record quite similar readings. In fact when RH is near 100% if the air temperature drops
further, condensation is most likely to occur (Cabello Briones, 2015).

Therefore Graph 5a was plotted in order to look into more detail to were the similarity of readings is
occurring. (Ref to Graph 5a) Throughout these 29 days the dew point temperature fluctuated mostly
from 8 ˚C to 16˚C. The lowest dew point readings recorded were on the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th April
ranging between 3˚C till up to 8˚C. Whilst the highest dew point readings were recorded on the 9th of
April reaching approximately 16˚C.

The dates in the graph 5a were the dew point temperature readings fluctuated relatively near to the
air temperature were noted: 10th, 13th, 16th, 18th, 26th April and 6th May.

Table 9: Detail analysis of 10th April Readings

Date/Time Temp Dew Point Temp Dew Point
Sheltered ˚C Sheltered ˚C Unsheltered ˚C Un sheltered ˚C
04/10/14 02:48:36.0 14.074 12.91 13.18 14.146
04/10/14 04:03:36.0 13.834 13.08 13.22 13.714
04/10/14 05:03:36.0 13.618 12.90 13.05 13.594
04/10/14 06:03:36.0 13.594 12.84 12.95 13.449
04/10/14 07:03:36.0 13.57 12.65 12.85 13.570
04/10/14 08:03:36.0 14.29 12.99 13.21 14.146

Table 10: Detail analysis of 26th April Readings

Date/Time Temp Dew Point Temp Dew Point
Sheltered ˚C Sheltered ˚C Unsheltered ˚C Un sheltered ˚C
04/26/14 00:03:36.0 15.557 14.46 14.53 15.845
04/26/14 00:18:36.0 15.724 14.63 14.69 15.605
04/26/14 00:33:36.0 15.891 14.71 14.82 15.700

With respect to the detailed analysis of the reading on the 10th and 26th April it was noted that points
were Dew Point Temperature readings and Air temperature readings are less than 1 ˚C difference
have decreased slightly for the sheltered section when compared to the non-sheltered. Confirming
that the slight increase of the air temperature might have slightly affected the rate of condensation
(Becherini et al., 2016).

P a g e 16 | 35
  Relative Humidity Analysis (T-RH)
In Graph 6, Relative Humidity for sheltered and unsheltered areas is plotted for the whole 29 day
period 9th April – 7th May:

 The % range of relative humidity does not go lower than 40% or at least just slightly lower on
the 16th April and the 1st May, but generally the range is between 40% till 100% (RH).
 In between the 16th of April till the 23rd one can again note a change in the pattern of
fluctuations that is more or less noted in all the other three recordings
 The highest RH reading is observed on the 16th approximately reaching 98.9% (RH)
 The lowest reading is observed on the 1st of May approximately 37.1% (RH)

With reference to the most common salts detected in previous studies; being chlorides and
sulphates, table 11 was done to show their equilibrium threshold. (Becherini et al., 2016)

Table 11: RH Equilibrium Threshold

RH Equilibrium Threshold at 25˚C.
Halite 75.3%
Epsomite 88.3%
(Becherini et al., 2016)
With reference to Table 11, the section were RH fluctuations pass through the range of 75% and 90%
were observed. However with respect to the frequency of fluctuations passing through that range,
no major difference was noted, so the rate at which the salt crystallise was not significantly altered.
However a slight decrease similar to the dew point temperature readings was observed in the
maxima and minima of RH fluctuations (refer to Table 12- taking two days from the data sample).

Table 12: RH Maxima and Minima Fluctuations for Sheltered and Un- Sheltered
T(RH) Ħaġar Qim ˚C Sheltered Un-Sheltered
th
RH (Max) 16 April (04:30) 98.1% 98.8%
RH (Max) 1st May (15:30) 95.3% 95.5%
th
RH (Min) 16 April (04:00) 39.4% 41.1%
RH (Min) 1st May (16:00) 36.5% 37.0%

P a g e 17 | 35
 Assessment of the beneficial and possibly not beneficial effects of the
shelter on the site
The critique with respect to the installation of the shelters is discussed below with reference to the
pre-established main sources of deterioration by Grima, Stroud & Torpiano (2011) (refer to table
13).

Table 13: Main Sources of deterioration

- High Solar Radiation
- Direct rainfall
- Wind dynamics
- Relative Humidity fluctuations (Grima, Stroud and Torpiano, 2011).

Discussion:

The first three substantial gains after conducting an overview analysis of the site, academic research
of past studies and data analysis were the reduction in:

-Solar radiation values

-Wind velocity dynamics

-Direct Rainfall Impact

As displayed in graph 1 an approximately 80% reduction of the radiation values could be observed
Confirming that the use of the PTFE material as a parasol for the shelter although slightly achieving
varying results from what was stated in its original specifications, it has still obtained the expected
reduction (Becherini et al., 2016). Therefore reducing the resulting thermal expansion and stresses
the stones were undergoing when exposed (Cabello Briones, 2015).

Wind Dynamics were a key factor that needed to be mitigated. With the introduction of the shelters
although it has resulted in increased dust accumulation on the inside of the temples, the reduction
of the wind velocity when passing through the temples was reduced considerably (Farrugia and A.
Schembri, 2012).

Another ability of the shelter is the shielding of the temples from direct rain fall, particularly heavy
downpours that were causing repeated collapses inside the temples (Cassar et al., 2010). Moreover
it is reducing the risk of water pooling inside the temples after heavy rain that was leading to
capillary action within the stone has been stopped after the installation of the shelters (Becherini et
al., 2016).

Referring to Capillary action, as discussed earlier it is one of the main mechanisms of salts
introduction inside the megaliths (Charola, 2000). Salt weathering is confirmed to be the main
source of deterioration to the Ħaġar Qim temples, therefore if reduced through capillary action, the
other two ways of introducing salts as discussed by Charola (2000), is through surface condensation
and exposure to the marine and pollution aerosols. With respect to salt weathering cycles caused by
RH fluctuations both the sample of graph readings and previous studies note that the presence of
the shelters have aided slightly in reducing the risk for condensation and crystallisation or
dissolution of salts.

P a g e 18 | 35
Author notes other Points discussed in Literature in relation to Shelters:
- Enhanced Victor’s experience
- Aesthetic Impact on surroundings
- Bird Droppings (Becherini et al., 2016).

With respect to the critique above, and referring back to the purpose of the shelter a positive
outcome seems to have been achieved with reference to the pre-set objectives set by the Scientific
committee (Becherini et al., 2016).

P a g e 19 | 35
 Suggestions for other possible passive and/or preventive measures, if any,
to be carried out at the site to control environmentally-driven
deterioration

Following the principles set by the Scientific Committee that of being

- A reversible intervention to not impact the surrounding landscape

- To shield the temple from the environment until the long term plan is set-up

By keeping the landscape in mind and the sources discussed earlier of the deterioration processes at
the temples, one might suggest an organic passive measure in order to avoid more impact to the
surroundings.

A possible passive measure would be the planting of bushes or trees at specific locations around the
temples. The author notes that the bushes or trees chosen are to be compatible with the marine
environment and to not spread their roots over a widespread area that could affect the temples.

In order to protect the Temples from the Marine environment, the planting of trees and bushes is
suggested to be in front of the southern façade, area marked in green in figure 16 - Zone A. The
location of these bushes/trees would most probably provide shade and protection against winds
coming from the north east direction.

Another point mentioned was the funnelling exhibited after the installation of the shelter refer to
figure 16 from point B to C from east to south east, wind is entering from the main entrance facing
southeast (Farrugia and A. Schembri, 2012). In order to mitigate the wind funnelling occurring from
B to C, planting of trees or shrubs is proposed in (figure 16) Zone D as a shielding effect.

Moreover, since the environment has already a rural feel the introduction of vegetative elements to
shade specific parts of the temples from environmental process could be the most sensible solution
without the need of large financial investment or monitoring.

P a g e 20 | 35
 C

Marine
Environment

B
D
A
Figure 16: Aerial Shot of Hagar Qim to show location of interventions proposed
MSA Cultural Tours. (2012). The Hagar Qim Complex. Retrieved from http://msaculturaltours.com/MALTA/

P a g e 21 | 35
 References

Becherini, F., Cassar, J., Galea, M., & Bernardi, A. (2016). Evaluation of the shelters over the
prehistoric Megalithic Temples of Malta: environmental considerations. Environmental
Earth Sciences, 75(14), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-5875-z

Bonazza, A., Sabbioni, C., Messina, P., Guaraldi, C., & De Nuntiis, P. (2009). Climate change
impact: Mapping thermal stress on Carrara marble in Europe. Science Of The Total
Environment, 407(15), 4506-4512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.04.008

Cabello Briones, C. (2015). The effects of open shelters on the preservation of limestone
remains at archaeological sites (Ph.D). University of Oxfors.

Cabello Briones, C. (2017). How to evaluate shelters for archaeological sites: Some
recommendations based on the use of exposure trials. Ge-Conservación, 1(11), 34-41.
Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318583535_How_to_evaluate_shelters_for_arc
haeological_sites_Some_recommendations_based_on_the_use_of_exposure_trials

Cabello Briones, C., & Viles, H. (2016). IS THE SHELTER AT HAGAR QIM IN MALTA EFFECTIVE
AT PROTECTING THE LIMESTONE REMAINS?. In Proceedings of the 13th International
Congress on the Deterioration and Conservation of Stone (p. 696). Paisley: University of the
West of Scotland. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307632527_Is_the_shelter_at_Hagar_Qim_in_
Malta_effective_at_protecting_the_limestone_remains?enrichId=rgreq-
38b1bcefbe4b84ea06f83dbcc9478122-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMwNzYzMjUyNztBUzo0MDMwMzY0MTQ0NjQwMDBA
MTQ3MzEwMjc3NzU1OQ%3D%3D&el=1_x_3&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

Cabello-Briones, C., & Viles, H. (2017). Evaluating the Effects of Open Shelters on Limestone
Deterioration at Archaeological Sites in Different Climatic Locations. International Journal Of
Architectural Heritage, 11(6), 816-828. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15583058.2017.1300710

P a g e 22 | 35
Cassar, J. (2002). Deterioration of the Globigerina Limestone of the Maltese Islands.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 205(1), 33-49.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.2002.205.01.04

Cassar, J. (2013). Seasonal changes in the spatial distribution of flora in the Ħaġar Qim area.
(Undergraduate). University of Malta.

Cassar, J. (2016). The Historic and Archaeological Heritage: Pollution and Non-Urban Sites.
In P. Brimblecombe, Urban Pollution and Changes to Materials and Building Surfaces (5th
ed., pp. 274-276). London: Imperial College Press.

Cassar, J., & Vannucci, S. (2001). Petrographical and chemical research on the stone of the
megalithic temples. Malta Archaeological Review, (5), 40-45.

Cassar, J., Cefai, S., Galea, M., Grima, R., Stroud, K., & Torpiano, A. (2013). Preserving the
Megalithic Temples of Malta - the interdisciplinary approach. Built Heritage 2013
Monitoring Conservation Management, 147-155.

Cassar, J., Galea, M., Grima, R., Stroud, K., & Torpiano, A. (2010). Shelters over the
Megalithic Temples of Malta: debate, design and implementation. Environmental Earth
Sciences, 63(7-8), 1849-1860. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0735-8

Centre, U. (2017). Megalithic Temples of Malta. Whc.unesco.org. Retrieved 20 December

2017, from
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/132?cid=31&l=en&id_site=132&&msg=session_timeout

Charola, A. (2000). Salts in the Deterioration of Porous Materials: An Overview. Journal Of

The American Institute For Conservation, 39(3), 327. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3179977

Farrugia, S., & A. Schembri, J. (2012). Wind funnelling underneath the Hagar Qim protective
shelter. Malta Archaeological Review, (9), 51-58.

Galea, M., DeBattista, R., Grima, M., Maccarelli, L., Borg, R., & Zerafa, C. (2015). Pollution
Monitoring for Sea Salt Aerosols and Other Anionic Species at Hagar Qim Temples, Malta: A
P a g e 23 | 35
Pilot Study. Conservation And Management Of Archaeological Sites, 17(4), 315-326.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2016.1191890

Grima, R. (2008). Landscape, Territories, and the Life-Histories of Monuments in Temple

Period Malta. Journal Of Mediterranean Archaeology, 21(1), 35-56.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/jmea.v21i1.35

Grima, R., Stroud, K., & Torpiano, A. (2011). The protective shelters at Ħaġar Qim and
Mnajdra : impacts, dilemmas and values. In R. Borg, Challenges in conservation of
architectural heritage (pp. 3-14). Malta: Kamra tal-periti. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Reuben_Grima/publication/264776036_The_Protecti
ve_Shelters_at_Hagar_Qim_and_Mnajdra_Impacts_dilemmas_and_values/links/53ee7a710
cf26b9b7dcb592f/The-Protective-Shelters-at-Hagar-Qim-and-Mnajdra-Impacts-dilemmas-
and-values.pdf

Lino Bianco Associates and Heritage Malta. (2004). Hagar Qim and Mnajdra Temples
Conservation and Interpretation Project (pp. 22,23,39). Retrieved from http://www.lino-
bianco.com/pds/images/2_hagar_qim/PDS.pdf

Llop, E., Alvaro, I., Gomez-Bolea, A., Marine, M., & Sammut, S. (2013). Biological crusts
contribute to the protection of NeolithicHeritage in the Mediterranean region. Science And
Technology For The Conservation Of Cultural Heritage, 33-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b15577-9

Rothert, E., Eggers, T., Cassar, J., Ruedrich, J., Fitzner, B., & Siegesmund, S. (2007). Stone
properties and weathering induced by salt crystallization of Maltese Globigerina Limestone.
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 271(1), 189-198.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1144/gsl.sp.2007.271.01.19

Sammut, S. (2016). Lichen communities responses to a changing environment: A case study

of Ħaġar Qim and Mnajdra Temples. Tesserae, (2), 78-85.

P a g e 24 | 35
Appendix 1

P a g e 25 | 35
 Analysis of previous interventions at Ħaġar Qim
Following the initial excavations, extensive conservation and restoration work was conducted with a
philosophy of understanding how the temples looked like originally.

1) 1839 - Ħaġar Qim was excavated (Cassar et al., 2010).

2) 1885 – Attempts to reconstruct façade to its presumed original position (Cassar et al., 2010).
3) 1910 - stability issues were addressed using what is presumed to be Portland cement and in
certain cases even metal inserts to hold the broken megaliths (Cassar et al., 2010).
4) 1949 - Certain parts of the temple were so deteriorated that cement mixed with globigerina
chippings was used to consolidate these areas (Cassar et al., 2010).
5) 1960 - Erection of a boundary wall in close proximity to the temple (Lino Bianco Associates
and Heritage Malta, 2004).
6) 1998 – A less intrusive fence was introduced to create a buffer zone (Lino Bianco Associates
and Heritage Malta, 2004).
7) 1994 and 1998 - Mnajdra and Ħaġar Qim respectively suffered two major structural collapses
(Cassar, J., Cefai, S., Galea, M., Grima, R., Stroud, K., and Torpiano, A., 2013)
8) 1999 - A timber walkway was built inside the temple of Ħaġar Qim (Lino Bianco Associates and
Heritage Malta, 2004).
9) 2001 - Restoration works including the construction of pillars to support specific megaliths
(Cassar et al., 2010).
10) 2009 – The temporary protective shelters were erected (Sammut, 2016).

P a g e 26 | 35
 Appendix 2
Note: Unless otherwise Indicated all the photos were taken by the Author

P a g e 27 | 35
 External Photographic Survey
Note: Unless otherwise Indicated all the photos were taken by the Author
Figure 1: Ħaġar Qim Plan - External Photo Survey (MSA Cultural Tours, 2012)

Figure 2: East/North East Façade Ħaġar Qim – Photo A

Figure 3: North East/ North Façade Ħaġar Qim - Photo B

P a g e 29 | 35
Figure 4: North/North West Façade Ħaġar Qim - Photo C

Figure 5: North West/ West Façade Ħaġar Qim - Photo D

Figure 6: West Façade Ħaġar Qim - Photo E

P a g e 30 | 35
 Figure 7: West Façade Ħaġar Qim - Photo F

Figure 8: West/South West Façade Ħaġar Qim – Photo G

Figure 9: South West Façade Ħaġar Qim – Photo H

Figure 10: South West Façade Ħaġar Qim – Photo I

P a g e 31 | 35
Figure 11: South Facade Hagar Qim - Photo J

P a g e 32 | 35
 Internal Photographic Survey
Note: Unless otherwise Indicated all the photos were taken by the Author

P a g e 33 | 35
Figure 12: Ħaġar Qim Plan - Internal Photo Survey (MSA Cultural Tours, 2012)

Figure 13: Internal Apse – Photo 1

Figure 14: Internal Apse – Photo 2

P a g e 34 | 35
Figure 15: Internal Apse – Photo 3

Figure 16: Internal Apse – Photo 4

P a g e 35 | 35