Contributions Of Open Air Museums In Preserving Heritage Buildings:

Study Of Open-Air Museums In South East England

Zuraini Md Ali and Rodiah Zawawi,
Department of Building Surveying, Faculty of Built Environment, University Malaya

Abstract
Most open air museums were established to preserve and present a threatened aspect of regional or
national culture and to help forge a sense of identity and achievement. Britain's open air museums have
aroused controversy among both museum professionals and building conservationists. They have been
praised for spearheading innovative and vivacious approaches towards heritage interpretation and saving
neglected buildings, while some have criticised them for inconsistent standards of conservation especially
for taking buildings out of their original settings. Such architectural issues were strongly debated in the
1970s, while recent debates focus on popular approaches towards attracting the public to the past. This
paper describes the evolution of open air museums in Britain, their contribution in conserving unloved
buildings and how they have become an increasingly competitive tourist attraction. Observations and
lessons learned from interviews and visit to two open air museums in South East England provides some
insight about the importance of such museums. Operated as registered charity organisations, they have
played significant roles not only in saving various buildings and structures from demolition but also in
helping visitors to appreciate the rich heritage of these regions.

Keywords: Open Air Museums, Heritage, Conservation, Tourist Attraction

INTRODUCTION
Museums have played an important role in preserving and displaying heritage items. Started as an in-door
activity, later expanded to the idea of out-door display areas commonly known an open air museums. As a
phenomenon of the world’s repertoire of heritage (Young 2006) a majority of open air museums
concentrate on the collection and re-erection of old buildings on large out-door sites, usually in settings of
re-created landscapes of the past. Even though buildings are generally considered as ‘too big and complex
to acquire in the same way as objects’ (Young 2006), the range of building-like objects that have been
included within the limit of museum collections is enormous and the strength of the collecting impulse is
greater, despite cost and other difficulties. In this sense, the collection, past and present, of buildings into
museums of buildings, is almost unavoidable (Fitch 1990). Most of these concepts may therefore be justly
described as building museums. Open air museums have been known by various names according to their
specific focus: agricultural, folk, living history, heritage village (in Australia), museum village, living
farm, living or out-door architectural (in America) and eco-museum (in France).

BRIEF HISTORY AND EVOLUTION IN EUROPE

Open air museums in Europe originated in the 18th century as a development of indoor type of museums.
Precursors were the type of ‘exotic’ buildings found in its landscape parks (Hurt 1978). In 1799,
Bonstetten in Denmark proposed the idea of creating such museum (Hurt 1978, Pottler 1985). But only in
1867 did this idea materialise when Heftye, moved an old farm with a stave church onto his land at
Bygdoy, Oslo in Norway for their preservation and viewing (Hurt 1978). Later precursors were the real or
constructed peasant cottages; Norway and Sweden showed examples of their national architecture at the
Paris Exhibition (1867) and the Colonial Exhibition in Amsterdam (1873-1883) showed a display of
historic farm houses (Pottler 1985). The reconstruction of folk buildings was located only in 1894 at
Limborg, and later in 1896, a little Swiss village was erected. This action also inspired King Oscar II to
add upon his collection by transferring several farm buildings onto his estate near Oslo in Norway in 1881
and later incorporated into the Norsk Folkemuseum (Hurt 1978).
The earliest open air museum appeared in Scandinavia in the late 19th century and focused mainly on its
folk life which highlighted a change in interest to the everyday practicalities. Arthur Hazelius, started to
study old folk architecture with scientific documentation (Hurt 1978; Stratton 1979). Dissatisfied with
existing anthropological and ethnographic museum, Hazelius started on collecting buildings as a part of
the Nordiska Museet in Stockholm since 1885 (Fitch 1990). The growing awareness and enthusiasm of
folk life, many were convinced that industrialisation was destroying the cultural heritage of the pre-
industrial age (Hurt 1978). Later, the first elaborate open air museum was established in 1891 at Skansen
Hill, a branch of the Nordiska Museet. Hazelius emphasized the significance of preserving the rural
tradition in the face of an increasingly industrialised society and helped to secure farm buildings from
various parts of Sweden including other authentic interpretation of folk costumes, the keeping of live
animals, the revival of folk music and demonstration of daily activity of peasant life and culture (Hurt
1978).

Figure 1: A view at the Skansen Open Air Museum (photo by Peter Blundell-Jones 2000)

The Skansen formula was highly successful and was taken up by other northern European countries
anxious to reinforce their cultural identity (e.g. the Norwegian Folk Museum (1894), the Danish
Frilandsmuseet (1897) and The Netherlands Open Air Museum at Arnhem (1912)). Europe has more than
450 open air museums of various types. Though small, these museums have been responsible for savings
thousands of farm buildings from demolition (Hurt 1978; Stratton 1979; Fitch 1990), while stressing the
peasant culture on the assumption that the preservation of the rural life provides important information for
ethnological study (Hurt 1978). Skansen eventually became the prototype model to the rest of the world.

OPEN AIR MUSEUMS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

In the United Kingdom, indoor museums have existed for more than two centuries with increasing number
in the late 20th century (Yale 1991). As the interest in the past increased, open air museums became not
simply a modern by-product of improved leisure time (Stratton 1979). Although not typical, some
museums such as the Castle Museum in York, have a re-erection of a stone-built watermill, to
complement their indoor display (Stratton 1979). In early 20th century several relocations of timber-
framed buildings were undertaken, e.g. in Cadbury's garden suburb, Bournville, Birmingham, and in the
Cotswold village of Stanton, Gloucestershire (Stratton 1979). The first in-situ open air museum was
established on the Isle of Man in 1938, based round a series of buildings set within an original traditional
village as a Cregneash Folk Museum. Later, the Welsh Folk Museum established at St Fagans near
Cardiff was the first to draw more directly on Scandinavian precedent, in 1951 (Stratton 1979), opened to
the public as a part of the National Museum of Wales (Armstrong 1975).
During the 1950s, British historians, who had initially dismissed industry for its destruction of rural
England, turned to study the landscapes of the West Midlands and the northern textile regions. Public
interest was heightened by concern at the loss of major monuments in London such as the demolition of
the Euston Arch in 1962, followed by threats to St Pancras Station and to Albert Dock in Liverpool. The
same combination of inventiveness and regional and national pride propelled the rapid development of
other open air museums devoted primarily to industrial preservation (Stratton 1979). Their founders drew
on the precedent of such museums, but also simulated strong working ties with teams of local volunteers
(Armstrong 1975). The growth of interest in social history reveals consciousness of history from the
bottom up, known as heritage, a development of a more professional form of historical commemoration
throughout the world (Young 2006). In the 1960s, these new ventures reflected a growing interest in
vernacular and in folk-life (Pottler 1985), and in particular traditional timber-framed architecture, at a time
of major threats to their survival (Stratton 1979). Multi-phase buildings, with their early timber structure
obscured by later brick or plaster, were rarely listed. If threatened, their only hope might be removal and
re-erection in an open air museum. Early rebuilding projects gave architects and curators a much fuller
understanding of timber-framed buildings. Ulster gained its folk museum was founded in 1961 also a part
of the national museum. A clutch of regionally based museums were established in England during this
decade as independent museums as listed in Table 1.

Table 1: List of Establishment of Open Air Museums in the United Kingdom

Year Name Location Type of Buildings
1938 Cregneash Folk Museum Isle of Man Vernacular
1951 St Fagan Welsh Folk Museum Cardiff, Wales Vernacular
1958 Beamish Open Air Museum County Durham, Industrial
1961 Ulster Folk Museum Cultra, Northern Ireland Vernacular
1963 Ryedale Folk Museum Hutton-le-Hole, North Vernacular
Yorkshire
1965 Museum of East Anglian (Rural Life) Stowmarket, East Anglia Vernacular
1967 Avoncraft Museum of Historic Buildings, Boomgrove, Vernacular
Worcestershire
1968 The Ironbridge Gorge Museum Blist Hills Industrial
1969 The Weald and Downland Open Air Museum Singleton, Chichester Vernacular
1975 The Black Country Living Museum Dudley, Industrial
1979 The Chalk Pits Museum (Working Museum) Amberly, South Sussex Industrial

Later, this concept was adapted by industrial archaeologists as a means of saving and presenting artefacts
and processes made redundant by the closure of canals, railways and traditional print-shops, foundries and
blacksmiths. It has a nostalgic affection for the rural, most of the pioneers in industrial preservation had
been too independent of mind and obsessed with wanderlust to be limited by the boundaries and pedantry
of museums (Stratton 1979). Industrial museums were later established with their charitable status (as
listed in Table 1), gave them a dynamic image a world apart from the dusty exhibitions and corridors of
most contemporary national and local museums (Stratton 1979).

According to Harris(2007), there were many proposals for open air museums in England following the
European models before the war; the threat to heritage that gave the final push. These buildings were
abandoned or about to be demolished, but had been rescued by a group of individuals that had a strong
belief that they needed to be saved. The open air museum became the last resort to save the buildings from
demolition, a graveyard of unwanted buildings, but then it gradually developed into an attractive place for
visitors to enjoy (Stratton 1979). In line with the development of the Tourism Act in 1969 that enabled the
English Tourist Board to provide financial help to tourism ventures (Yale 1991), museums in general,
open air museums specifically became tourist attractions as a part of heritage tourism especially in 1980s,
when ‘heritage was its touristic equivalent’ (Yale 1991) with the commercial world.

CASE STUDIES: INTRODUCTION

The growing interest in non-elite, vernacular and popular culture established a new rationale for
preserving humble houses, rural outbuildings an industrial production sites (Young 2006). The Weald and
Downland Open Air Museum is a good reflection. Modern social history museums such as the Amberly
Working Museum in England were created, reflecting the trend towards learning the history of everyday
living, rather than politics, wars and monarchs (Stratton 1979). These examples of unique open air
museums in South East England are discussed because they provide an interesting comparison between
vernacular and industrial represented its regional collections.

Figure 2: Location map of both open air museums case studies at South East England (Singleton Visitor’s
brochure 2007)

CASE STUDY 1: WEALD AND DOWNLAND OPEN AIR MUSEUM AT SINGLETON,

CHICHESTER
Singleton was launched by a small group of enthusiasts led by Dr. J.R. Armstrong. In early 1960s, during
the survey of pre-19th century buildings in development of Crawley New Town, Armstrong discovered
that one of the farm-houses still had a core that was a well preserved 14th century (Armstrong 1975). The
initial effort to save them in-situ, through the Society for Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) and the
Ministry was disappointing as the order to preserve was later reversed and development of the site was
more revealing. The Development Corporation offered them the timber, but it was impossible to do so
without any organisation support for financial and storage areas. They watched these buildings being
burnt on site. This had inspired Armstrong to find out other alternative way (Armstrong 1990). A
promotion committee were organised in September 1966. Only in August 1967 that the Trustees of
Edward James give a favourable site on the West Dean Estate. First site plan was prepared by architect
and planner, J. Warren (Leslie 1990). As buildings gathered at West Dean, there was no financial in hand
and planning permission granted, since no proper administrative organisation was set up. The site next to
West Dean Village was a controversial site as the villagers insisted alternative. Then a site was at
Singleton was recommenced with the Edwards James Foundation. But only in December 1968, that
outline planning permission for a site granted by West Sussex County Council. In January 1969 Weald
and Downland Open Air Museum Limited incorporated as a company with only seven founder-
subscribers, officially established the museum, and later in February, the charitable status was granted by
Charity Commissioners. In April 1968, that re-erection of ‘Winkhusrt’ started at the museum, followed by
another six buildings. The first director was J. Lowe. At last, only on 5th September 1970, the museum
had its first public opening.
Figure 3: The lay out map of Singleton (Singleton Visitor’s brochure 2007)

Started as a private initiative, the principle aim of the founding group was to establish a centre that could
rescue representative examples of vernacular buildings from the region to generate an increased public
awareness and interest in the built environment. Singleton's foundation coincided with a growing national
interest in historic buildings and this general public interest has resulted in strong support for its
establishment. Singleton promotes the retention of buildings on their original sites unless there is no
alternative, and encourages an informed and sympathetic approach to their preservation and continuing
use. There are 45 buildings currently located in the museum collection as a part of traditional village
and a small town market square (Weald & Downland Open Air Museum 2003). Now, Singleton
offers advice to people involved in the conservation of buildings and illustrating the history of original
building styles and types where it has good collections representing country crafts and industries, building
trades and agriculture. These collections continue to be developed. As a Registered Charity, Singleton
receives no regular grants or subsidies. A large number of volunteers contribute to its daily running and
many organisations have helped financially (Harris 2005).
 Figure 4: A view of Singleton (www.wealddown.co.uk 2007)

CASE STUDY 2: THE AMBERLY WORKING MUSEUMS AT WEST SUSSEX

It is a 36 acre open-air museum dedicated to the industrial heritage of the region. The site was once a
large and busy chalk quarry and lime works, and its buildings and kilns are now preserved alongside
buildings. It was formerly owned by John Pepper and his son (known as Pepper and Son Limited), the
sole producer as a working quarry and mining operation from the end of 19th century up till the late 1960s
(Beard et al 2003). In 1968, when the site became derelict, a group of local people, headed by Mr. Roland
Puttock initiated the idea by forming ‘the Southern Industrial History Trust’ (currently known as the
Amberly Museum Trust) with the view of saving the existing buildings as an historic site. They negotiated
with the county council who also supported this idea and bought the site in 1974. The existing original
quarry buildings were scheduled as ancient monuments became the basis of the museum, had been
conserved in its original and in its actual architectural context as no further development can take place. It
was opened on 26th May 1979 to the public known as the Amberly Chalk Pits (Beard et al 2003). A 99-
year lease from the county council to the Trust with a very minimum rent was set up for the benefit of the
heritage that has been entrusted.

Figure 5: The lay out map of Singleton (Amberly Visitor’s brochure 2007)

Specifically in this region, according to Seymour (2007), Amberly has shown how changes in technology
have affected people's lives. Staffed largely by volunteers, it contains a wide range of exhibits, ranging
from transport-based collections, such as the Southdown bus collection & the village garage, from radio to
industry-based collections, such as the Print Workshop & Wheelwrights and home to a number of resident
craftspeople, who work to traditional methods. Amberly is not set in a particular period of time, but
contains exhibits buildings that had been untouched from about 150 years ago up to the present day. It is a
registered charity and operated by a small number of paid staff, a team of highly skilled craftspeople, and
a huge army of dedicated volunteers (The Amberly Working Museum 2007).
Figure 6: Views in Amberly (www.amberlymuseum.co.uk 2007

Table 2: Comparative Summary

Element The Singleton Museum The Amberly Museum
Building Design Pre-industrial Vernacular with farms house Industrial Buildings with Working
and Typology and its life style Industrial environment
Period / Time Range from 13th to 19th Century About the last 150 years
Founders Effort of Individuals headed by Dr. Joint effort of the community headed by
Armstrong Mr. Roland Puttock
Reason of Action taken to save the buildings from Action taken to save its from derelict
Establishment demolition.
Site Relocated buildings to a new site Mainly Preserve In situ, and few
Relocated buildings
Materials and Materials used were original parts of the Materials used were original parts of the
Design actual house and design where repairs of actual house and design where repairs of
the old materials are taken place the old materials are taken place
Statutory Act Not a listed building or scheduled Scheduled as Ancient Monuments and
Monuments, but in July 1998 awarded Listed buildings
"Designated Status" of outstanding
Collection
Managed by Registered Charity with Trustees Registered Charity with Trustees
Visitors’ number: More than 5 and half million visitors up till 60, 000 per year
School Children now
2500 per annum

FINDINGS
Principle and Approach
One obvious criticism against the open air museum concept is the realisation that dismantling is
destruction. Therefore, historic buildings should be moved only destruction is inevitable and if there is a
sure prospect for immediate rebuilding. It should neither be an excuse for the mere convenience of a local
authority to allow redevelopment of site. Dismantling a building should be approached as destructive
archaeology whereby standards of investigations, recording, understanding, and publication should be
comparable to the best in underground archaeology. Apart from this, there will be also criticism on several
other aspects such as cost in recreating the physical condition of its former setting. On the other hand,
there is the unquestionable intrinsic value and even tourist attraction of leaving and restoring a building
in-situ.

According to Harris (2007), one can argue that moving buildings into a museum is always unsatisfactory.
Although, a building is not always uniquely tied to its environment, nevertheless transferring it from one
environment to another does lose some of its context and always considered as second best or the rescue
homes of last resort (Earl 2003).
Figure 7: Before and after one of the buildings dismantled and relocated to current site at Singleton.

Harris (2007) explained that the process of taking a building apart is a way of finding out building’s detail
that has developed and changed over time. This is a new knowledge and experience in building
conservation. An archaeological approach of discovering different layers of development enhances the
understanding of material culture (physical aspect of the buildings) as well as social history (its builders
and occupants). Inevitably, when a building is still standing, one can only know its history by observation
or learned from any available documents that had been produced to erect it (which is hardly found in
traditional building. Harris (2007) added that it also has an advantage of being able to create a new setting
than preserving an individual building in-situ, when the actual environment has lost it real context. This
preserves the ‘sense of place’ in its new site. On the other hand, museum out of a surviving settlement
may be limited to what can be shown; based on the existing buildings that were available. Thus,
relocating buildings does give flexibility to the museums’ collection in term of type, number and variation
of collection as well as the layout of the site.

Seymour (2007) stated that the approach taken at Amberly in saving neglected and derelict historic
buildings was through in-situ preservation.

Figure 8: One of the main buildings at Amberly before and after it was conserved

Only 12 out of the total 43 buildings were existing buildings, but the rest were added later as either as
rescued listed buildings. They were carefully dismantled and erected in their original form using the
original materials as much as possible. The buildings are taken in only as a rescue mission from
demolition. In fact the museum has been offered buildings that were not to be demolished. However, the
museum has refused to do so, as in-situ preservation should always be the first priority. Due to the large
area of the site, it has more to offer for the benefit of the community and the history of the quarry
industry. By adding the omnibus trust and other collections enhanced the historical value of the region.
Amberly is preserving historic buildings, ideally in their original settings, and making them available to
the benefit of today and future generations.

Tourist attraction
Tourists are not only attracted to the physical aspects of the buildings but also to the life experience in
addition to the forgotten traditional social experience as well as the enjoyment of being in the beautiful
park. In Britain and Europe as a whole, people do visit museums and do it as a part of their culture. This
increases the rate of local tourism and local economy.

At the beginning of it establishment, according to Harris (2007), Singleton was perceived as a new way of
exhibiting buildings, different and unusual to normal museums. Open air museums are able to offer the
‘sense of place’ that help people to have experience that have been denied to them. Domestic farm
animals and garden are available where people can get close up to the animals and vegetation. This is very
crucial where such places are no longer available or located remotely elsewhere. It combines the interest
of indoor museums with the enjoyment of being in a public park due to beauty of the site and its high
quality. It also relates to human desire (inherited psychology) for certain kinds of experience, such as
senses of ritual, culture and belonging. These universal human needs can, to a certain extent, be satisfied
in such museum. Many people want to have some kind of memorial in the museum after they die. They
come regularly to some seasonal events which involve ritual processions as they enjoy the traditions and
ritual events. For example, by watching a group fully dressed up in the 16th century preparing and cooking
traditional meals at the ‘Winkhurst, and by participating in the seasonal festival, visitors may recall a past
traditional social life. These may satisfy people’s needs and provide something that especially in the
developed societies is very hard to find as explained by Harris (2007).

According to Seymour (2007), Amberly has 40 different types of exhibitions and ranges across those
historic buildings which allow visitors to experience the 19th industrial working life. By riding the old
train and buses, experiencing hand on craftsmanship of making crafts (pottery, bricks, walking sticks),
watching the quarry’s manual work and producing prints out of the old equipment, do give a true picture
of what was the actual scenario in the past. Combination of both preservation of the existing buildings and
appropriate relocation of other buildings has given the museum a much greater advantages in terms of
being able to retain the site authenticity as well as the historic buildings.

Education and Training

From the beginning the role of open-air museums has also differed from that of organizations involved in
the preservation of monuments, where the building itself comes first and foremost. The buildings are
preferably provided with furniture and tools as originally marking the time of the building with local
impressions of the social class of people that lived in or used the building. Parts of the contents of the
museum can be explained through demonstration of old working procedures and manual works and
performances on the lawn and the experience of the rides, to show the occasional festive and hard
labour situations in old community, or social life. The open air museums have a far reaching obligation
to share with everyone, experience to be gained from their vast material. It is an opportunity of making
history come alive and to teach people the enjoyment of beautiful houses and functional working
buildings. It also sheds light on a way of life under different economic and social conditions.

Both museums have contributed effort in educating visitors and providing awareness of heritage of
regional values. According to Harris (2007), Singleton started with exhibition of the physical aspect of
vernacular buildings. However, it later developed a deeper sense of understanding of material culture as
well as social history. The social history interpretation has been popularly practised that for the last twenty
years. Due to flexibility of relocating approaches, buildings were regrouped and presented as an evolution
of buildings in 15th and 16th century in a closer range. The permanent collection of artefacts, books and
documents also help the museum in educating the public. Singleton exhibits the value of its material
culture to the public by sharing their experience about its social culture in an advanced and innovative
way. It provides a better understanding of representation and interpretation of buildings, in social history
and material history. Visitors can learn about materials that the buildings had been built of and the
traditions that govern that, as well as social aspects of people life and working arrangement. Visitors can
learn through informal ways (guidebooks and volunteer’ explanation) and formal learning visits (class or
guided tours including adult courses and activities for school children). Volunteers are local people and
members of Friends of the Museum, a volunteer society that helps the museum.

Meanwhile, as mentioned by Seymour (2007), Amberly is not only preserving the history and heritage but
also interpreting them for the benefit of school children and people who are interested. It is a reminder
that this type of industry did take place in the region. The focus is not only on the physical aspects of the
buildings and equipments, but also the relationship of the material culture within the social contact.
Information about the building will include the date and its structural and material construction, but more
important is the human story associated with the building that helps bring the building to life (e.g. oral
history recording of people who used to work there). This social aspect does attract more visitors to come.
According to Seymour (2007), in linking to the national education co-curriculum, school children are
taught through experience about a number of aspects including the worker’s life and manual works in the
quarry and other different collections as well. Keeping the heritage alive and also passing it on to the
youngsters in a way that the children will be inspired and added to their history knowledge of this
particular region Visitors are well informed about the buildings’ history and its social aspects by reading
its guide books and attending guided tours by the staff and volunteers. Amberly has about 400 volunteers
from very supportive local communities. They are people retires, from working in the quarry industry, in
the printing or at the wheel riding, who volunteer to teach their skill to the new generation and learn new
skill as well. They become members of Friends of the Museum.

Link with higher education

Armstrong, the founder of Singleton, was an adult tutor at Southampton University and since then
Singleton has continued connections with academic universities. According to Harris (2007), a formal link
with the department of Archaeology at Bournemouth University, Singleton has developed a strong
programme in improving its staff teaching ability as well as bringing people and students to the site. The
University also validates a higher level course and does help the Singleton in adult formal programme.
Singleton also helps and collaborates with the National Heritage Training Programme (NHTG) and the
English Heritage in their training programme. Meanwhile, Amberly only has an informal link with the
West Dean College for the last 5 years. As a part of the college’s building conservation course, their
students and tutors used this museum and related objects for their studies by looking at the buildings and
activities while the museum staff provide information regarding building conservation. However,
Seymour (2007) expressed her view that Amberly is looking forward to more formal links with other
organisations in the near future since its educational facility has started organising talks for adult visitors.
Thus, the link with higher education can help and useful to the organisation and improves their skilled in
both respects. However, Seymour (2007) also emphasized that it does not mean that such link is
necessary. There are many small museums without higher education, but still managed to be leading
museums.

Building Conservation
Singleton has developed specialised physical techniques of conservation: a practical technique in
documenting, repairing, transferring and erecting buildings. Since Singleton comprise mainly of the pre-
industrial vernacular traditional buildings, the traditional craft skill, is very important. However, Harris
(2007) emphasized that building conservation is not all about traditional skill but it also a matter of
specialised conservation skill. Building which need conservation will not be given to repairer but to a
conservator. This is what they are trained and specialist with.

Due to its statutory status as Grade 1 buildings, the Amberly’s original quarry buildings were conserved in
its original and actual architectural context of the quarry buildings in the late 19 th century. Seymour
(2007) explained that the office block roof used specialist concrete tiles that had been conserved as a part
of its architectural history and conservation. It also shows history of the local building and its production.
Similarly to the rescued listed buildings that had been re-erected onto the sites such as the Arundel Gin
building is preserved for both its specific purpose and its architectural detailing.

ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

Orientation and communication

At Singleton, according to Harris (2007), the biggest challenge is visitors’ ‘orientation’ where visitors
arrive at the museum not really knowing what they coming to. To overcome this issue, Singleton has to
intensify the use of digital resources without neglecting the written books and people communication at
the site. By improving physical reception and technical resources; setting up a department of
interpretation, employing more interpreters and created training material and programmes for interpreters
then our volunteers will help to accomplish its mission and improve quality in terms of better
interpretation on site. Collaboration from all people to improve communication to the public is vital.

For the last 25 years, Amberly’s expertise is gradually built up and the enthusiasm and skill of members
(trustees and staff) help maintain the buildings. It is considered as a learning process at most of the time
to look after the building and interpret them for the public as well as listen to the visitors’ feedback. It is
not just preserving this heritage but what have been done with them by interacting and communicating the
values of experience and knowledge to the visitors added Seymour (2007).

Financial or other organisation support

As registered charity organisations, both museums are independent, which rely on the money coming
through from the visitors and the business activities. They have a schedule of annual opening times with
various activities according to the seasons and during holidays to attract more visitors for financial
support. These museums are constantly sourcing financial support to look after the buildings within their
exhibitions. Unlike Singleton, Amberly is legible to receive financial support from English Heritage Fund
or Heritage Lottery Fund for its historic buildings upon approval of application. The English Heritage
(EH) also provides maintenance support and advice. The day-to-day maintenance was carried out
internally by the site manager while the specialist areas come from specialist contractors as approval by
the EH or related organisations.

Theme park issue

In both museums, it could be a disadvantage by confusing visitors about the history of the actual site and
its context. Both museums are very careful not to go down to the theme park route because in the sense
that it might be devaluing the historic items and the artefacts in the museums. There is a crucial need to be
very clear as to the type of experience that is been offered to the visitors. At Amberly, trains and buses are
historic vehicles are exhibited in a right manner, and not similar to that in a theme park. The similar
approach is also shown in Singleton, as horses are used for manual works such as pulling the timber or a
chart as they were normally used in 500 years ago. Thus theme parks have their places, but need to be
separated from museums (Harris 2007).

POSSIBILITY OF ADAPTING THE CONCEPT

Open air museums could have a role in developing societies in focusing people’s attention and interest on
the traditions that they inherit. Harris (2007) stated that in societies that are completely traditional such as
a young undeveloped country, obviously an open air museum may not be appropriate because things
inside the museum are similar to what is outside the museum. It also depends on time and circumstances.
In such period of rapid development, it is important to gather information and to take full documentation,
when the buildings are still available. Failure to do that, one will never be able to keep memories of the
culture before the culture disappears. In times of prosperity when demolition abounds, it is definitely
urgent to evaluate existing building-stock in general, to determine which structures are worthy of
attention and require attention.

Research and documentation are practical support for conservation; accurate and thorough recording of
present status is an essential tool (Mohamad Tajuddin Rasdi et al 2005). According to Harris (2007), in
a country where the indigenous architecture has already declined in use and where records and survival
of examples become a matter of urgency, a policy of preservation is much in need and meaningful. When
the development has taken placed and these heritage are becoming forgotten and destructed, and then
decision of having an open air museum is viable. After nearly 4 decades of establishment, the Singleton
has proven that its establishment did provide advantages to the society. Earl (2003:134) stated that
‘But museums of buildings, like those at Singleton…, do raise issues of immediate relevance to the
conservator. These places are rescue homes of last resort…Before adopting such a radical course of
action, however, we must be satisfied that there is absolute no alternative to removal and that the
receiving agency has the financial means, the scholarship and the craft skills to deal with the building
in a proper manner’.

Particularly in England, most of the listed buildings are in private hands. Government protects most of its
architectural history by having an agent like English Heritage and the local council as custodians of the
heritage. As an open air museum (similarly as done by the English Heritage and National Trust), the
public can benefit and learn the history as well as provide firsthand experience from the buildings
collection, this is not available if the historic building belongs in private ownership. Being under statutory
protection, it is also required approval from the right bodies before any action taken. The need to have the
right environment and government that the country should have to protect heritage is vital in supporting
the establishment of such museum. In very large or diverse countries, the concept of single
comprehensive national museum of architecture is probably not appropriate instead the regional museum
is more desirable (Fitch, 1990). A clear purpose of setting up a museum is very important if any concept
to be adapted. It also depends on type of museum’s collection (i.e. the Iron-bridge museum started with
the beautiful iron-bridge as example of this industry). A vision is crucial by appropriate type of collection
based upon regional or specific culture either mono or multi-cultures. It is vital especially in completing
or conjecturing things because it needs to address this issue in both material culture and social history.

Location is another important factor to be considered. Both museums are located in beautiful areas at
South East England, and do attract visitors. There are some museums, very worthy in this country, but are
a little hidden by being off the track. In addition, a very good business plan (not only the enthusiasm but
also the financial support and business reality) does contribute to the success of this museum. Both
museums manage do promote information about the buildings and their history to be more accessible and
widely available. It requires a good marketing and advertising strategy in attracting different people. It is
effective as well by including several special activities for school children and special events over the
weekend and throughout the year via internet and publications. Both museums have easily accessible on-
line websites that give comprehensive overview of the museums. Singleton also published its own bi-
annual in-house magazine since 1975. These magazines are very useful in providing the information
regarding the museum development and related events and news, are also accessible on-line.

CONCLUSION
Open air museums are common in Europe at late 19th century which gave an invaluable picture of a great
heritage. Manifestations of social history in heritage practice were a surge in open air museums either
from vernacular (traditional folk culture) or demotic culture (industrial or later era values). There was a
realization that valuable heritage of anonymous and traditional building has been decimated . The
coming of destruction in the name of progress with often more through mere ignorance, where a large
number of buildings of quality, but not satisfy historic interest to be scheduled for preservation, have
rumbled to the ground and demolished. Several efforts either as a group or individual tried to
recognise the significance and values of the disappearing traditional and industrial buildings.
Encouragingly it is a process which has been accelerating in end of 1960s in the United Kingdom. Even
so, Britain's open air museums have aroused disagreement among both museum professionals and
building conservationists. They have been admired for fronting innovative and lively approaches towards
heritage interpretation and saving neglected buildings while recent debates focus on popular approaches
towards attracting the visitors to the past.

Looking briefly at the two approaches to the preservation of traditional buildings and industrial heritage in
South East England may offer some useful examples of the range of solutions that are currently available.
Singleton offers a rescuing approach that is carried out to save some buildings that are otherwise destined
for demolition, by picking up the pieces that are left and displaying them in some meaningful manner. The
Amberly’s community effort that to make the existing buildings of the site as scheduled ancient
monuments is a remarkable initiative, but to proceed with the open air museum is an additional advantage.
After being protected, such industrial buildings will be a great educational and heritage to the generation
ahead of having to witness the life of the workings society in the late 19th century. Amberly complements
the existing historic buildings with other listed buildings and a display collection to narrate the local
history in an effective manner. Both attempts by taking difficult decision years ago, in resolving a
problem of ensuring the future life, either in-situ or removed, for a derelict buildings which was almost at
the brink of collapse, had been worthwhile as the museums become not only tourist attractions and but
also educational references for younger generation. A graveyard of unwanted buildings is no longer
considered as an isolated site of forgotten era but a place to visit reminding us the wonders of the past
world. This would be an alternative solution that has been applied in various other parts of the world
including Malaysia. However, questions such as how much such application was implemented in the
appropriate manner by the founders of such museums and how it was appreciated and understood by
visitors requires further studies.

REFERENCES
Armstrong, J. R. (1975). The Singleton Museum- A Policy For the Future. House Magazine No. 5.

Armstrong, R. (1990). Why I Founded the Open Air Museum. Weald and Downland Open Air Museum:
The Founding Years 1965-1970. L. Kim. Chichester, Weald and Downland Open Air Museum.

Beard, J., S. Freed, et al. (2003). Amberly Working Museum Guide, Amberly Working Museum.

Earl, J. (2003). Building Conservation Philosophy, DonHead Publication.

Fitch, J. M. (1990). Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. Charlottesville and
London, The University Press of Virginia.

Harris, R., Ed. (2005). Weald & Downland Open Air Museum Guide Book. Chichester.

Hurt, R. D. (1978). "Agricultural Museums: A Frontier for the Social Sciences." The History Teacher
11(3): 367-375.

International Council of Museums (ICOM) (1969). The International Council of Museums (ICOM):
Names and Statutes http://icom.museum/statutes.html#2 2007.

Leslie, K., Ed. (1990). Weald and Downland Open Air Museum: The Founding Years 1965-1970.

Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi, Kamaruddin Mohd Ali, et al. (2005). The Architectural Heritage of
the Malay World: The Traditional Houses. Johor Darul Ta'zim, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

Pottler, V. H. (1985). Osterreichisches Freilichtmuseum Vierte, erweiterte Auflage.

Stratton, M. (1979). Open air and industrial museums: window onto a lost world or graveyards for
unloved buildings. Preserving the Past: The Rise of Heritage in Modern Britain. M. Hunter.
Gloucestershire, Alan Sutton Publishing Limited: 156-176.

The Amberly Working Museum (2007).http://www.amberleymuseum.co.uk/index2.html. Amberly, West

Sussex. 2007.

Weald & Downland Open Air Museum (2003). The Weald & Downland Open Air Museum.
http://www.wealddown.co.uk/home-page-english.htm. 2007.

Yale, P. (1991). From tourist attractions to heritage tourism. Huntingdon, ELM Publications.
Young, L. (2006). "Villages that never were: The Museum Village as A Heritage Gentre." International
Journal of Heritage Studies 12(4): 321-338.

Interviews list:
Harris (2007) by Zuraini Md Ali on 26 March 2007 and 12 June 2007
Seymour (2007) by Zuraini Md Ali on 18 May 2007.