© W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2010 DOI 10.1179/175355210X12838583775301

conservation and mgmt of arch. sites, Vol. 12 No. 3, August, 2010, 197–208

EDITORIAL

Melaka and World Heritage StatusTim Williams

Melaka and George Town, Malaysia, were added to UNESCO’s World Heritage

List as the Historic Cities of the Straits of Malacca at the meeting in Quebec,

Canada, on 7 July 2008, becoming Malaysia’s fi rst cultural World Heritage Site

(WHS) property.

Melaka and George Town, historic cities of the Straits of Malacca have developed over

500 years of trading and cultural exchanges between East and West in the Straits of

Malacca. The infl uences of Asia and Europe have endowed the towns with a specifi c

multicultural heritage that is both tangible and intangible. With its government buildings,

churches, squares and fortifi cations, Melaka demonstrates the early stages of this history

originating in the 15th-century Malay sultanate and the Portuguese and Dutch periods

beginning in the early 16th century. Featuring residential and commercial buildings,

George Town represents the British era from the end of the 18th century. The two towns

constitute a unique architectural and cultural townscape without parallel anywhere in

East and Southeast Asia. (UNESCO, 2008)

The designation of Melaka is an interesting case study in the impact of the designa-

tion process on local management, and the very contrasting attitudes and approaches

that often exist between built heritage (above-ground archaeology) and below-ground

archaeology. I visited the site early in 2009, not long after designation, and was

interested by the contrasting approaches and efforts to these two aspects of heritage.

I specifi cally looked at two starkly contrasting cases: a model conservation project

at 8 Heeren Street, a restored shophouse; and the discovery, excavation, and recon-

struction of the A Famosa fort. Issues of authenticity and signifi cance come to the

fore.

The impact of the nomination process

This appears to be one of those occasions when WHS nomination and designation

had a very direct impact upon heritage management from the outset. Malaysia starte d

the process of gaining World Heritage status for Melaka in 1997. In support of this,

UNESCO advisory missions, in April and November 2000, set out a series of recom-

mendations to help the Malaysian authorities further their application.1 In 2004

Malaysia submitted nomination dossiers, but these were considered by UNESCO to

be incomplete, again giving them the opportunity to give a steer to the State Party on

198 TIM WILLIAMS

actions and requirements. One outcome of this process was the Malaysian authori-

ties’ clear desire to establish the perception of a conservation ethic within the town,

with conservation and rehabilitation projects under way at the time of nomination,

to create a sense of impetus for conservation in the historic urban landscape. One

might argue that it is at this pre-submission stage that UNESCO probably has the

greatest opportunity to infl uence the scale and approach to conservation manage-

ment: the State Party, by virtue of its necessary engagement with the nomination

process, is willing (indeed keen) to be seen as an active conservation force.

The built environment: 8 Heeren Street

An early response to the UNESCO advice was the development of a ‘model’ conser-

vation project, undertaken at 8 Heeren Street by Badan Warisan Malaysia (the

National Heritage Agency).

The model project is in response to the rapid loss of this particular building type in the

conservation zone of Melaka. It aims to demonstrate how early shophouses can be

restored to high levels of authenticity yet also be adapted successfully to new uses. It is a

direct response to Elizabeth Vines’ [UNESCO] report which specifi cally recommends that

a model project be initiated. It aims to be a positive contribution to Melaka’s bid for

World Heritage Listing. (Badan Warisan, 2002)

The restoration was completed in October 2002, although not offi cially opened until

2005, and the house is now used as an interpretation centre ‘for the local community

as well as visitors to the city’s historic core’ (according to a poster currently on

display in the building).

It is an excellent project.2 The conservation and restoration project explicitly

experimented with traditional materials to explore their character and performance.

Through this it developed a strong corpus of material for practice in the conservation

of historic buildings in the town. It was also hoped that it would act as an exemplar

for future work. The building is currently free to visit, and fantastic local guides give

informative tours, although there are clearly limited fi nancial resources to administer

the building and it is largely run on a volunteer basis.

It is a great model and an excellent resource, but how much impact it has had

on the approaches to built heritage conservation in Melaka is a moot point (see

below).

Archaeological site management: the fort of A Famosa

A Famosa is among the oldest surviving European architectural remains in Asia. Con-

structed under the Portuguese on the banks of the Melaka River between 1512 and

1550, with later Dutch additions, the fort was almost completely demolished by the

British in 1806. The only visible remains, until recently, were the famous Porta de

Santiago gate.

In November 2006 part of the fort, believed to be the Middelsburgh Bastion, was

‘unexpectedly’ uncovered during the construction of the Taming Sari revolving tour-

ist tower, a 24.5 million Malaysia Ringgits (US$7.5 million at today’s exchange rate)

project on Jalan Quayside, next to the Malacca River. The ‘unexpected’ element of

199EDITORIAL

this defi es belief, given the cartographic and documentary evidence for the layout of

the fort (for example, The map of the city and fort at Malakka, by P. Elias, dated

c. 17803).

Subsequently, the site was protected and the tourist tower was relocated, but that

was only the start of the problems.

Following the discovery, the Culture, Arts and Heritage Ministry proposed to reconstruct

the Malacca Fort, for which the Cabinet approved a fund of RM12.8 million three months

ago. The issue is the rebuilding of the fort, found in recent excavations. [. . .] Heading the

team is Heritage Commissioner Datuk Professor Zuraina Majid. ‘We are not aiming to

rebuild the whole fort, only about 50 per cent of the original. What is of primary concern

is the authenticity of our reconstruction’, says Zuraina. With only the foundations to

work with, her team will have to rely heavily on historic documents by authors like Tome

Pires and Emanuel Godinho de Eredia, drawings, paintings, as well as consultation with

experts familiar with the architecture of that era. (Choe, 2007: 30).

A massive scheme was envisaged:

‘About 350m of the buried walls of the fortress will be reconstructed stone by stone to its

original dimensions of 8m by 5m,’ said Commissioner of Heritage Prof. Datuk Dr Siti

Zuraina Abdul Majid. She said the completed structure would encompass the city’s 11.3ha

heritage site in Bandar Hilir. ‘When completed, the fort will be one of the nation’s pro-

minent historical structures and will completely transform Malaysia’s historical land-

scape. Visitors will literally be able to journey to the past and relive history.’ ‘It’s a very

exciting project for us to be able to reconstruct the wall. Once completed, the fort will

be able to impart the historical importance of that era,’ she said. ‘However, existing build-

ings and other structures will not be touched,’ she said. ‘We will excavate and expose the

southern side of the foundation of the fort’s walls and its six bastions before using later-

ite stones from Malacca’s Pulau Upeh to reconstruct the fort’, she added. [. . .] Dr Siti

Zuraina said the department had requested a special budget allocation from the Cabinet

as the project was expected to be costly. Presently, the department is using documents

and paintings of the fort dating back to 1512 to determine its dimensions and design, but

may require further documents from overseas sources. ‘We might study the Galle Fort,

which is fully intact in Sri Lanka, as it is a good example of how the fort would look like

because they both share a similar history,’ she added. (Mathews, 2007)

The scale of these proposals was terrifying: involving the reconstruction of a vast

area of the fort defences.4 Recently, plans for this extensive intervention have gone

quiet and one can only hope that this approach has been reconsidered. However,

reconstruction of the excavated Middelsburgh Bastion has gone forward.

Reconstruction, authenticity, and interpretation

Problems with the authenticity of any reconstruction were recognized early on:

This chequered history of the Melaka Fort thus calls for the preservation and restoration

of the fort to be based on archaeological and documentary evidence. [. . .] Archaeologists

and other experts may not be sure if interpretations or reconstruction based on artist

impressions may be the way to go. Even if laterite blocks were to be obtained from

200 TIM WILLIAMS

the outer islands or from surrounding hills, the nature of the original mortar needs

to be analysed and replicated and work done manually in the old way and under the

supervision of experts. (Koh, 2007: 4).

The idea of reconstructing the bastion sparked a number of local objections. A

petitio n to the Minister of Culture, Art and Heritage of Malaysia stated:

We sincerely appeal to you Ministry to re-consider the rebuilding of the Portuguese fort

ruin recently discovered at the bank of the Malacca River. The ruthless act of the colo-

nials had demolished part of our heritage and we strongly believe that the unnecessary

works carried out on the ruin will invariably cause further damage to it. As indicated

in your Ministry’s Mission ‘To preserve the country’s heritage whether tangible or

otherwise’, we hope that your Ministry would instruct the parties concerned to cease

all unnecessary currently carried out works at the ruin to preserve the status quo of

our national heritage.’ (Online petition from a ‘group of Malacca heritage lovers’, 22

November 20075)

Following the publication of the wonderful book Malacca: Voices from the Street by

Lim Huck Chin and Fernando Jorge in 2006, an interview with them in the Wall

Street Journal further revealed some of the shortcomings of this process:

After workers preparing the site in 2006 dug up more ruins of the area’s Portuguese fort,

[. . .] Malacca decided instead to build a replica of the fort there, and workers are now

cementing new bricks imported from Burma over the historical fi nd. ‘The whole issue of

authenticity just doesn’t seem to matter in Malacca’, says Mr Lim. ‘It’s all about history

for entertainment’. [. . .] City and state leaders continue to approve development projects

that leave heritage buffs aghast — such as a modern glass-and-chrome shopping mall at

the base of St Paul’s Hill. The mall, which opened early in 2007, bisects the core heritage

zone, sitting between the Dutch and Portuguese ruins and the river that fronts the old

town. When contractors began work on the mall in 2003, more ancient ruins from the

Portuguese fort were unearthed. That didn’t stop the mall, which sits fl ush up against

these ruins, giving McDonald’s patrons a view of partially unearthed pieces of the fort

wall. [. . .] On a recent visit to Malacca, Mr Jorge took photos of the wall. He shook his

head at the sight of plants and a fountain, added as decorative features; both will speed

erosion. Then he walked over to the second newly discovered part of the fort, and snapped

a photo of workers laying new bricks on top of it. ‘When you fi nd a ruin’, he said, ‘you

just keep the ruin.’ (Prystay, 2008: 13–14).

Nevertheless, the rebuilding of the Middelsburgh Bastion went ahead. The drive to

undertake the work was about tourism, and perhaps identity:

As a boost to its status as a Unicef [sic] World Heritage Site, Malacca will add another

tourist attraction when work to restore Middleburg Bastion [sic] and parts of the ancient

fort’s walls are completed [. . .] [Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Associate Professor Dr

Nordin Hussin said] ‘we would like to restore the bastion to its original form [. . .] It is

the soul of Malacca. We are attempting to bring the soul of Malacca to its original form.

This is what heritage is all about. It is not only about the buildings but also what life was

like for the cosmopolitan society of the city,’ he said, adding that the gallery would serve

as a window through the passage of time. (Lai, 2008)

201EDITORIAL

Original form? Was there suffi cient evidence to underpin such a claim? A local

Malacca-Dutch expert, Dennis De Witt, stated:

‘While it is good that proper archaeological and excavation work is being done to restore

the bastions, it must be done as accurately as possible and not merely be a representation

of what the walls were like,’ he said, adding that the walls of the fort might have been

more imposing and higher than what they were being restored to. Rather than restoration

work, he suggested that part the walls to be left in their ruined state so that locals and

tourists would appreciate what archaeology was about. ‘It will be better for some of

the allocation to be spent on creating a virtual walk through the fort and the ancient city

as this will give visitors a more complete understanding of the size of the fort,’ he said.

(Lai, 2008)

The reconstruction of the Middelsburgh Bastion is now complete and the site was

offi cially opened on 4 April 2010. The rebuilding is extensive — with large areas

rebuilt to ‘full height’ (Figure 1), while others have been left ‘as found’ (Figure 2). The

issue of authenticity seems an obvious one here: while the general form and outline

of the fort is well known from cartographic sources and the archaeological evidence,

historic representations of the fort’s superstructure are scarce and lack detail. The

level of conjecture here is extensive, and the wall certainly appears rather squat

in comparison with the historic representations and parallels — and none of the

former were suffi ciently clear to provide a level of detail to support the reconstructed

superstructure.

fi gure 1 Middelsburgh Bastion during reconstruction work, February 2009: reconstructed sections of the bastion replete with cannon.

202 TIM WILLIAMS

Although, admittedly, reconstruction work was not completed at the time of my

last visit, the problems are accentuated by a lack of interpretation (Figure 3). There

is no clarity about how archaeological (and other) evidence informed the reconstruc-

tion. Indeed, the relationship between the excavated town wall and the bastion

(Figure 4) is opaque at best; at worst, totally confusing.

fi gure 2 Middelsburgh Bastion during reconstruction work, February 2009: excavated areas left ‘as found’.

203EDITORIAL

There are numerous issues regarding the visitors’ ability to understand the authen-

ticity of this reconstruction, and while the materials are visually in keeping with the

excavated remains (Figure 4), this also raises issues as to the extent to which recon-

struction and historic fabric are distinguishable, especially after a little weathering.

However, the creation of a visitor destination is clear.

Buried archaeology: a valuable asset?

All this took place before WH listing and, more importantly, before the ICOMOS

Technical Evaluation Mission: 24–31 August 2007 (ICOMOS, 2008). No mention is

made of archaeology in the evaluation report (other than reference to its legislative

protection) and, once again, the contribution of below-ground archaeology to the

signifi cance of the area is ignored; there is an almost complete emphasis on standing

architecture. The existence and importance of the fort and the designation of the St

Paul’s Hill area as a heritage zone in 1988 are recognized in the evaluation report

(ICOMOS, 2008: 74–75), but there is no discussion of the archaeological signifi cance

of the area, or the appropriateness of current management; this is perhaps surprising

as the bastion and surrounding archaeological remains would have been hard to miss

in 2007, and the wider plans had already been announced.

This is a crucial issue for our discipline: why is the signifi cance of buried archaeo-

logical landscapes not an integral part of the process? Is the unseen less valuable

than the visible? It is as if WH status is a beauty competition. It is as if it is about

fi gure 3 Site interpretation: in 2009 the only signage at the site.

204 TIM WILLIAMS

visitor numbers and destinations, not about signifi cance. Tourism is a vital part of

the economy of Melaka, but only considering part of its historical assets, and only

managing those parts (for example, see UNESCO–Norway Cultural Heritage and

Tourism Project, 2001), is a short-sighted and divisive approach.

Protecting excavated archaeological remains

A new archaeological site, excavated in 2008, just across the road from the Middels-

burgh Bastion, revealed a continuation of the fort wall and a complex sequence of

repairs, modifi cations, and disuse (Figure 5). There appears to have been more cau-

tion as to how to tackle the presentation of these archaeological remains, perhaps as

a result of the objections raised to the bastion. However, the result is that they are

currently being left to rot instead.

Herein lies another dilemma: is reconstruction to ‘protect’ (the historic fabric is

presumably protected somewhere beneath the mass of modern masonry) and ‘use’ (in

the sense of providing a context for tourism, a destination) the remains the best way

forward; or can we rise to the challenge of protecting, managing, and interpreting

the archaeological remains themselves? The exposed remains are already deteriorat-

ing rapidly in the areas around the reconstructed elements (Figure 4) and it will

take considerable effort to protect (shelter?), manage, monitor, and interpret these

fi gure 4 The relationship between the town wall — left as an excavated feature in the foreground/right — and the reconstructed bastion is confused by the reconstruction work and not explained to the visitor.

205EDITORIAL

fi gure 5 The 2008 excavations (photographed in February 2009) revealed a complex sequence of repairs, modifi cations, and disuse. The site shows marked signs of deterioration in the year since excavation.

remains: will the resources for such activities match those that have been made avail-

able for questionably authentic reconstructions? If not, why not? Because we fail to

make such excavated remains engaging, educational resources that have the same

potential to draw in visitors and develop complex interpretations? Because such

206 TIM WILLIAMS

approaches require long-term maintenance, well beyond the scale of a reconstructed

block of masonry sitting in a grassy park with no signage? Perhaps, also, because

we have not integrated the signifi cance of archaeological landscapes into the wider

signifi cances of historic urban landscapes? And perhaps because tourism had been

prioritized over education, the international over the local?

Future directions at Melaka

There is no doubt that there are massive challenges in sustaining the built heritage in

Melaka.

[. . .] the city’s heritage is under pressure. Defying the conservation laws, private owners

and developers make unauthorized alterations, sometimes knocking buildings down

entirely, to cash in on mass tourism or alternative industries like lucrative bird-nest pro-

duction. Traditional tradesmen — like goldsmiths and blacksmiths — are moving out

after generations of passing building and craft from father to son, to be replaced by trin-

ket shops, pubs and karaoke bars. [. . .] between 2001 and 2004 alone, Badan Warisan,

the Heritage of Malaysia Trust, determined at that time that there were 68 complete and

partial demolitions in Malacca’s core heritage zone — and more than 60 traditional

tradespeople, including jewelers and herbal-medicine practitioners, moved out. (Prystay,

2008: 11–12)

The Heeren Street project was an excellent fi rst step in meeting this challenge to

sustaining an important urban landscape. It was very effective in developing techni-

ques and approaches, but it alone cannot sustain the approach to retaining economic

signifi cance in the face of a globalizing tourist demand. It is interesting to note some

of the comments in the UNESCO 2008 listing decision:

The integrity of the nominated areas in both towns is related to the presence of all the

elements necessary to express their Outstanding Universal Value. The properties have

retained their authenticity; listed monuments and sites have been restored with appropri-

ate treatments regarding design, materials, methodologies, techniques and workmanship,

in accordance with conservation guidelines and principles.

The protective measures for the properties are adequate. Both towns exhibit a gener-

ally acceptable state of conservation, although efforts are required to ensure the conser-

vation of shophouses. The management plans and structures are adequate, and can be

enhanced through the continuing conservation programs of the State Party.

Requests the State Party to:

a) submit a comprehensive conservation plan dealing with all the buildings and its

schedule for implementation in both cities;

b) develop measures for decreasing motor traffi c;

c) improve the defi nition of key indicators for monitoring the architectural heritage

components. (UNESCO, 2008)

These are worthy aims in the context of Melaka, although many of the claims regard-

ing authenticity and appropriate approaches hardly ring true when we examine the

buried archaeological resource and the excavated remains. The emphasis on the built

heritage in UNESCO’s statement is understandable, given the scale of potential change

207EDITORIAL

facing the urban landscape in the coming years. But will the buried archaeological

resources of this important settlement also get the attention they deserve?

* * *

In this issue we have three papers, exploring some very different aspects of archaeo-

logical conservation and management.

In the fi rst of these, Caroline Wickham-Jones explores ‘The management of sub-

merged terrestrial archaeology: an assessment of current awareness of the seabed

resource around Scotland’. This paper raises important issues regarding the informa-

tion available on the submerged terrestrial archaeological resource around Scotland.

Until recently, general management has been carried out through a system of ‘benign

neglect’, despite increasing threats. New legislation and guidance is welcomed, but

good management is being hampered by a lack of baseline data on the resource, and

a lack of awareness among those responsible. Caroline undertook an interesting ques-

tionnaire which raises a number of serious weaknesses in the current system, not least

a lack of awareness, local guidance, and relevant skills.

Tarik Moujoud, Mohammed Al Jattari and Abdessalam Zizouni explore issues

in developing practice in their paper ‘Site conservation in Morocco: the emergence of

a practice at Aghmat’. It highlights that it is still normal for archaeological excava-

tions in Morocco not to include site conservators in their projects. Sadly, Morocco

is not alone in this. Their case study, conducted mainly by a Moroccan team at

the impressive medieval bath complex at Aghmat, demonstrates how archaeological

conservators, advising the archaeological team during excavation and undertaking

urgent interventions, have contributed to the preservation of the physical integrity of

the excavated structures. This opportunity for Moroccan archaeological conservators

to be involved in condition assessment, planning, and provision of conservation

activities to preserve the bath complex provides a useful model of interdisciplinary

working.

Knud Botfeldt, in a paper entitled ‘Preservation condition of prehistoric amber in

the agrarian landscape’, presents the results of part of a wider programme launched

by the Danish Research Council which examined the infl uence of urbanization, agri-

culture, and forestry on cultural heritage in agrarian landscapes. The case study uses

amber to examine degradation, and concludes that only oxidation affects the degra-

dation pattern. This has important consequences for the management of sites in the

modern agrarian landscape, including the issues raised by long-term ‘preservation in

situ’ strategies.

Notes1 These reports are not widely available.2 To get a sense of the atmosphere, see a video made

to support the WHS nomination process, including

a feature on shophouses and some footage of

Hereen Street, available at: <http://www.youtube.

com/watch?v=u68NPnL_Dgg&feature=related>

[Accessed 25 June 2010]

3 Dutch National Archives. [Accessed 15 August

2010] Available at: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

File:Stad_en_Kasteel_Mala cca.JPG>4 For the hideous scale of the proposed reconstruction

see <http://www.tourism-melaka.com/melakafortress.

pdf> [Accessed 15 August 2010]5 <http://www.petitiononline.com/Newfort/> [Accessed

15 August 2010]

208 TIM WILLIAMS

Bibliography

Badan Warisan. 2002. Model restoration project in Malacca. Badan Warisan website [accessed 24 May 2010].

Available at: <http://www.badanwarisan.org.my/conservation/8heeren.php>

Choe, T. 2007. Rise of the great fort. New Straits Times, 3 June, pp. 29–30.

Chin, L. H. & Jorge, F. 2006. Malacca: Voices from the Street. Singapore: Lim Huck Chin.

ICOMOS 2008. Melaka and George Town (Malaysia). Advisory Report No. 1223 [online] [accessed 25 May

2010]. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/1223.pdf>

Koh, A. J. 2007. The Old Melaka Fort. Bulletin Warisan: 3–4 [online] [accessed 10 May 2010]. Available at:

<http://www.badanwarisan.org.my/buletins/apr_june07a.pdf>

Lai, A. 2008. For a walk down historic Malacca. The Star [online], Monday, 6 October [accessed 25 May 2010].

Available at: <http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?fi le=/2008/10/6/southneast/2178204&sec=southneast>

Mathews, E. 2007. A’Famosa to be rebuilt. The Star [online], Monday, 29 January [accessed 24 May 2010].

Available at: <http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fi le=/2007/1/29/nation/16709097&sec=nation>

Prystay, C. 2008. The Memory Keepers. Saving Malacca: The Elusive Goal of Two Architects. The Wall Street

Journal Asia [online], 27–29 June: 10–14 [accessed 10 May 2010]. Available at: <http://online.wsj.com/public/

resources/documents/WSJ_Vanishing_Asia062708.pdf>

UNESCO 2008. Decisions adopted at the 32nd session of the World Heritage Committee (Quebec City, 2008).

WHC-08/32.COM/24 [online] [accessed 25 March 2010]. Available at: <http://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/

1486>

UNESCO–Norway Cultural Heritage and Tourism Project 2001. Report on the Implementation of the Action

Plan of Melaka, Malaysia. In: Cultural Heritage Management and Tourism: Models for Co-operation among

Stakeholders. Case Study: Melaka Historic City, Malaysia. Presented at Lijiang, China, 8–18 October 2001

[accessed 25 May 2010]. Available at: <www.unescobkk.org/fi leadmin/user_upload/culture/Tourism/7.pdf>