Article

The fortified city of Johor Lama and the use of archaeological evidence. {In Papers on Johor Lama and the Portuguese in Malaya, 1511–1641

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

The fortified city of Johor Lama and the use of archaeological evidence. {In Papers on Johor Lama and the Portuguese in Malaya, 1511–1641

G. de G. Sieveking, Paul Wheatley, and C. A. Gibson-Hill published this 1954 field report documenting the first systematic archaeological investigations at Johore Lama, the former capital of the Johor Sultanate (c. 1540–1587) on the Johore River in southern Malaya. The authors demonstrate that the site comprises two distinct archaeological contexts — a sixteenth-century fortified city and a continuously occupied village — and that the available material evidence, while suggestive of early trade connections, does not yet support claims of pre-seventeenth-century settlement.

Summary

The report opens with a near-contemporary Portuguese account by Diogo do Couto describing the fortified city’s layout, defences, and artillery, providing a textual baseline against which the archaeological evidence is assessed. The 1953 fieldwork, initiated by the late P. D. R. Williams-Hunt in March and continued by Sieveking in August, focused on two areas: the kampong and the fort on Tanjong Batu hill. Williams-Hunt’s preliminary survey collected potsherds from the village surface, identifying Swatow blue-and-white crackle ware with reign marks ranging from Hsuan Te (1426–35) to Wan Li (1573–1619), alongside Sawankalok ware and stamped pottery (p. 224).

The August expedition concentrated on the fort and three old boat remains in the kampong. Sieveking excavated a gun embrasure and a section of the seaward rampart, revealing masonry of Older Alluvium on the outer courses and reef coral on the inner courses (pp. 227–228). A previously unknown northern defensive system was uncovered, including a ditch up to ten feet deep and a fortified salient projecting along the coast (p. 225). The boat investigations yielded no evidence of a sewn-hull Malay vessel: Boat “A” was a non-sewn hull of uncertain origin, tentatively identified as a Perahu (Sampan) Pukat dating c. 1750–1850; Boat “B” was a Chinese Twakoo with a second skin of red seraya planks, likely beached 50–100 years before 1953; and Boat “C” was a modern Malay kolek johor, no more than thirty years old (pp. 229–230).

The authors conclude that the stamped pottery previously cited as evidence of early settlement is of undemonstrated antiquity and explicitly “valueless as evidence of the age of a settlement” (p. 233). They argue that the fort and the kampong must be treated as separate sites in any comprehensive interpretation of Johore Lama.

Key Findings

  • Potsherds from the village surface consisted mostly of Swatow blue-and-white crackle ware with reign marks from Hsuan Te (1426–35) to Wan Li (1573–1619), mixed with Sawankalok ware and stamped pottery (p. 224).
  • The seaward rampart was constructed of Older Alluvium (felspar and quartz in a ferruginous chloritic matrix) on the outer courses and reef coral on the inner courses (pp. 227–228).
  • A previously unknown northern defensive system was uncovered, comprising a ditch up to ten feet deep, an earth rampart, and a fortified salient projecting along the coast (p. 225).
  • Boat “A” had a non-sewn hull with dowel-pegs and flat wooden strips, indicating a construction technique “far in advance of the sewn hull of the Pontian boat”; it was tentatively identified as a Perahu (Sampan) Pukat, c. 1750–1850 (pp. 229–230).
  • Boat “B” was a Chinese Twakoo, originally c. 35 feet long and 15–16 feet beam, with a second skin of machined red seraya planks attached by iron nails, suggesting it was beached no more than 50–100 years before 1953 (p. 230).
  • The authors explicitly reject the antiquity of the stamped pottery found at the site, stating it is “valueless as evidence of the age of a settlement” (p. 233).

Conclusion

The authors’ definitive historical takeaway is that Johore Lama must be understood as two separate archaeological sites — the sixteenth-century fortified city and the continuously occupied village — and that the material evidence available in 1953 does not support claims of a pre-seventeenth-century settlement at the kampong. The stamped pottery, previously invoked to argue for early occupation, is dismissed as undatable, and the boat remains, while interesting, do not provide the sewn-hull evidence that had been anticipated from earlier observations by Evans and Winstedt.

Context

  • The report was published as part of the JMBRAS’s annual section on recent archaeological discoveries in Malaya, continuing a series begun by the late P. D. R. Williams-Hunt.
  • The site had previously been visited by G. B. Gardner and H. G. Quaritch Wales in the 1930s, but both had confined their attention to the kampong and ignored the fort (p. 224).

References