Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1484591
maltatoday | SUNDAY •20 NOVEMBER 2022 9 INTERVIEW Atlantis? It all boils down to probabilities is always going to be more glam- orous, than what is much likeli- er to be the truth. It gives them something more interesting to write home about, as it were. Academics and scientists, on the other hand, don't have that luxury. They have to be more careful to always back up their claims with solid evidence. For while, at the end of the day, everything that we know - or think that we know - about pre- history, is almost always going to be 'speculative' in nature; there are different degrees of percentual probabilities. To give you an example: there is nothing in the archaeological record, to suggest that human beings ever settled in Malta before the Ghar Dalam phase: which, until recently, was dated to around 5,000BC. Now: the fact that the same site has also yielded animal fos- sils from long before that date - including dwarf elephants, hippopotami, etc.: which could only have come to Malta when it was still geographically con- nected to Sicily – also suggest that human beings COULD have come here at an earlier stage; just like those other ani- mals did. However, the earliest evidence of human activity, dating back to the Ghar Dalam phase, coin- cides with the fossil remains of much later animals: including domesticated animals such as cattle and goats, which humans brought with them themselves. So when you examine the ev- idence from this phase, in its proper context – including the material culture; the associa- tion with other animal remains, and so on – it gives us a gauge with which to measure the ear- liest signs of human activity on the island. Another thing to mention is that, so far, no one has ev- er identified any tools, from any prehistoric Maltese site, as being typically 'Paleolithic' in nature: as would be found, for instance, in sites dating back to 10,000BC on mainland Europe. There is in fact, nothing in the local archaeological record that goes back further than the Ne- olithic. Having said this, though: it only means that the scientific consensus is that Malta's earli- est inhabitants must have come here in the Neolithic, and that they were already farmers. And in fact, a recent study [Frasgus] has already pushed back the earliest known date [of human occupation] from 5,000BC, to 5,800BC. To be honest, this had been suggested even earlier by a team of Italian archaeologists, back in the 1980s. But at the time, they didn't have enough material ev- idence to prove it. Even now, some archaeologists occasionally try to push it back farther still, to 6,000BC – even just to give themselves a round figure – but either way, the sci- entific consensus is that Malta was first inhabited towards the end of the fifth millennium BC. And it is fully supported by all the available evidence. So to disregard all that, and extend the age of Ggantija - or any other Maltese temple - all the way back to 10,000BC, with no evidence at all: in the scale of probabilities, it's just a bit too much of a stretch, really…. At the risk of playing the Dev- il's advocate, though: Hancock is not merely pushing back the age of Malta's temples… but also, the earliest emer- gence of human civilization. His theory proposes a 'lost' civilization actually flourished 5,000 years earlier than the oldest known existing ones: at a time when the rest of Europe was still in its hunter-gatherer phase. Given that any evidence of such a civilization would have been (very conveniently, it must be said) 'destroyed in the deluge'… who's to say that Hancock is wrong, anyway? Well, the first problem I see with that idea is that: if Mal- ta's neolithic culture really was the survivor of an earlier 'lost civilization', that once existed somewhere between Sicily and Malta… why are there no com- parable remains in Sicily? Why did such an advanced social structure – which was capable of producing complex megalithicism, and such refined art – seem to have evolved on- ly here in Malta; but not on a much larger territory, that was also (according to Hancock's theory, anyway) within reach of overland travel? Now: to be fair, it's a question that can always be asked, even when applied to the consensus view of prehistory. Why did this complex society, with its dis- tinct cultural features, flourish only here, on such a small is- land… and not, it seems, any- where else? To me, however, the more probable answers are far more interesting, than fanciful, 'pseu- do-sientific' theories. For in- stance, it could be that the rise of Malta's megalithic culture was not just more 'possible', on a small island; but maybe even more likely… because when you have a confluence of so many new ideas, in isolation, the re- sult is often similar to a 'green- house effect'… You mean, like the sudden ex- plosion of culture in Greece, during the Classical Age? Perhaps. But then, judging by what happened a few thousand years after the megalithic peri- od: Greek culture had no diffi- culty expanding out of Greece, and taking root - and flourish- ing quite extensively - in Sicily, either. So there is no real reason to suppose that a similar civili- zation would not have been able to flourish just a successfully there, as in Malta, during pre- history as well. The fact remains, however, that – while there is plenty of evidence of contact in the form of trade, between Malta and communities in Sicily – there is no evidence of any comparable temple-building culture present on that island, or anywhere else, at that time. I don't want to make a circular argument of it, of course; but it remains a flaw with Hancock's theory, that 'Malta was the rem- nant of an earlier civilization'… I take it's not the only flaw you've identified, with the whole 'Malta is Atlantis' theo- ry? Well, now that you mention it: I haven't watched the TV series, but I did see a small clip which featured a 'reconstruction' of what Ggantija may have looked like, when still in use. In that clip, the external walls appear to be very cleanly cut into squares, separated by straight, deeply-cut grooves: a bit like the Pyramids of Egypt, really. But Hancock makes a basic mistake here. He doesn't dis- tinguish between two different types of stone. Hagar Qim, for instance, is made up of blocks of Globegerina Limestone: which has deteriorated, but not by that much, through exposure to the elements. The exterior envelope of Ggantija, on the other hand, is made from Coralline Lime- stone. I have it from a scientist colleague of mine – and this can be independently confirmed, by anyone who knows the prop- erties of Coralline Limestone – that the stones that went into the outer envelope of Ggantija, have remained more or less the same, in appearance, ever since. That rugged, 'Swiss-cheese' like effect does not come from erosion; it's how the stones would originally have looked, even at the time when they were first quarried. All of which leads me to question what sort of re- search that 'reconstruction' was based on, in the first place. Lastly, if you don't mind anoth- er 'personal' question: from the perspective of an archae- ologist who has dedicated his entire career to promoting the more scientifically-estab- lished view of prehistory… is it frustrating, to witness the widespread popular success of 'pseudoscience'? It is, up to a certain extent. However, to be honest, in my career I don't remember any students ever coming up with such ideas themselves; or even being particularly interested in them, when they are proposed by others. I think they might have been educated enough, before reaching University, to enter the mindset of archaeo- logical thinking, for themselves. And that is, at the end of the day, what we try to impart here, from the very beginning.