Mandailing built heritage: A Purview
by Abdur-Razzaq Lubis

To date, there have been four studies of Mandailing built heritage in Indonesia over a period of 27 years. In the first study, it was noted that: "The style of Mandailing forms a bridge between that of the northern Batak areas and Minangkabau in the south. Many aspects however are unique..". The report thereby recommended that "...a deeper study of this architecture should be made". The report on Mandailing traditional building forms which included 8 pages of write-up, photos and drawings. More extensive coverage was given to the "northern Batak" groups, namely, the Toba, Simalungun, Dairi, Pak-Pak & Angkola, although this categorization is also arbitrary and discriminatory.

The Mandailings are one of the least studied ethnic groups in Indonesia as well as Malaysia. Having been defined by colonial social-engineering and nation-state building as Batak-Mandailing in Indonesia and Malay-Mandailing in Malaysia, they are reduced to an appendix to Batak and Malay studies respectively. Administrative ethnic cleansing has almost completely wiped out their cultural identity. Misrepresented, the unique features of Mandailing built forms are ignored. Instead characteristics associated with the Bataks or Minangkabau building traditions are emphasized in Indonesia, whereas, in Malaysia, they are are associated with Malay building tradition. The net result -- Mandailing built form is seen as a copy of something else, with no originality of its own.

There was a lapse of more than two decades before a second study of Mandailing architecture was made. The author wrote that a study of Mandailing customary buildings is "very important" in introducing and identifying local culture, adding that it was an integral part of cultural heritage of the Indonesian nation.

Thus far, there have been no attempts at making a comparative study between the Mandailing built forms found in Malaysia as well as in Mandailing, Sumatra. The findings by both sides ignore the cultural borrowings and exchanges through Mandailing migration that continued well into the 20th century. Interrupted only by Japanese Occupation (Second World War), the Indonesian Independence Revolution, Social Revolution and the Konfrantasi (Indonesian confrontation against the formation of Malaysia).

All the Indonesian studies are in agreement that the best surviving collections of the Mandailing built form are found mainly in Mandailing Julu (Upper Mandailing), the mountainous and largely forested part of the Mandailing homeland. Upper Mandailing represents the treasure trove of Mandailing built heritage, which remains relatively intact to this day because of the relatively low development pressure.

Mandailing built heritage can also be found in Peninsular (West) Malaysia, introduced through Mandailing migration in the first decades of the 19th century. Most of the Mandailing built heritage are concentrated in the states of Perak and Selangor. In the last few years, there have been several studies, reports and measured drawings done by both Indonesian and Malaysian universities on Mandailing building tradition.

The current surge in interest in things Mandailing is very much the work of Sumatra Heritage Trust, of which the author is the Malaysian representative. Research funding from The Toyota Foundation has also contributed significantly in academically enhancing this growing appreciation. The author is the project leader of The Toyota Foundation research grant. The Mandailing Inventory conducted by Sumatra Heritage Trust (Badan Warisan Sumatra) was jointly carried out with the Architecture Study Program of North Sumatra University, and funded by a small grant from the World Bank. Recently, academics from the North Sumatra University has set up a Mandailing Studies Centre to plan and chart Mandailing studies.

Another striking similarity in all these studies is that they are a historical This is unfortunate as history as an evolutionary process shapes social values and institutions, which in turn impinges on built forms. Any study that ignores the historical evolution is bound to lose the context of the form. By history, we do not mean the conventional view of history that relies heavily on text, but a view of history that includes elements of social anthropology, environmental history, geography, mythology, and the built heritage itself. Historical records should not be taken as given fact; instead they should be read critically with an awareness of prejudices of the conditioned modern mind. History is ideology, and therefore, definition should be questioned and reexamined. By context, we mean that information on the mode of construction should not be divorced from, but located within, the traditions of living that are inextricably linked to the natural environment. In other words, the relationship of the buildings under scrutiny and the materials used for its construction should be examined in the light or milieu of the geographical, historical, socio-economic and political environment.

The next logical step would be to fund actual comprehensive conservation work in Mandailing Julu. Conservation as such should not be confined to or monopolised by architects alone but should include historian, geographers, social scientists, anthropologists, and relevant parties as part of a multi-disciplinary team. Otherwise, conservation will be seen as conserving the physical form alone and serving the purpose of tourism and consumerism, and not the living traditions of people in the face of the ever encroaching and pervasive globalization.