1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OUTLINE OF THESIS

The comparative study between Kerala and Minangkabau

architecture is proposed with regard to common social organization, tropical

environment and paddy-farming agriculture. Minangkabau is a traditional

name for an ethnic territory in Sumatra Island, Indonesia, West Sumatra and

Kerala is a name for a traditional territory and a state in South India.

Both name label a culture which is identified by its matrilineal

descent rule. Nagari1, kampung and rumah gadang in Minangkabau and

taravad and tara in Kerala are indigenous concepts of settlement and house

compound sharing the common trait of matrilineal kinship. The traditional

settlement concept is called nagari in Minangkabau and tara in Kerala. The

social spatial unit of maternal joint family compound in Minangkabau is

kampung while in Kerala is called taravad . The maternal joint family

compound is centered in ancestral house which is called veedu, in Kerala and

rumah gadang in Minangkabau. The building took a particular expression

which is described as courtyard house (nalukettu), house with two courtyards

(ettukettu) and house with four courtyards padinjarekettu in Kerala, and

rumah bagonjong or 'horn-like house” in Minangkabau. The core of the

1 The concept of Nagari as a social organization has been explored by Nakane, (in Hayley, 1969),

Kato (2005), Nasroen (1957), Mahmoed et al (1987) and Datoek (1987). Its spatial and

architectural concept has been discussed by Syamsul Asri (1996), Vellingga (2005), and

Waterson (1989)

2

settlement is the ancestral house, called rumah gadang in Minangkabau, and

taravad in Kerala. The navel of the ancestral house is a sanctified structure

manifested as a central post called tiang tuo in Minangkabau and courtyard

called nattumitam in Kerala. The comparative hierarchical organization of

settlement could be mapped as described in the Figure 1.1.

Minangkabau, West Sumatra Kerala, South India

Figure 1.1 Diagram of Common spatial hierarchy of Habitation

Source: Material is summarised from studies by Widiastuti (2007) for case

of Kerala, Alvarez (2009), and Kartikawening (2001) for case of

Minangkabau)

Both regions reveal common kind of ecology and architecture,

which can be mapped as Table 1.1.

3

Table 1.1 Comparative aspects of natural and environment profile of

both regions

Minangkabau Kerala

Boundary Riau Province in the east,Bengkulu in the south, and

Indian Ocean in the west

Karnataka State on the north andTamil Nadu State on the east

and Arabian Ocean in the West.

Location from the

District Head Quarter

15km towards south of

Palakkad town.

14 km from Pagaruyuang

kingdom

Latitude-longitude between 0o 54' North Latitude

and 3 o 30' South Latitude and

between 98 o 36' and 101

o 53'.

Between north latitudes 8°18'and 12°48' and east longitudes

74°52' and 72°22'

Area (sq. Kilometres) 42,297.30 38863

Distance from the River

or Sea (km) 81,5 km 58.80 km

Slopes (degree slopes) 66,9 57.17

Soil

is laterite in the hill and midland regions. That absorb water

well during rainy season

andasol. Made of vulcanicmaterials that is getting thinner

as moving outwrd because of

rain and illegal logging

Averages annual rainfall 2289 (75-150 inches) mm per-

year

2900 mm per-year

daily temperature (°C) 22 - 32 19.8 - 36.7

Density 104 persons per km² 819 persons per km²

Elevation from ocean 0-3000 m 63m-2652.3 m

Source: Official website of Palakkad and Tanah Datar Distric

Architecture of Southeast Asia and South India has been always

discussed as separate entities, whereas many facts indicate continuity of

design and form. In “Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of the World”

Southeast Asian vernacular architecture is not categorized under a single and

solid category, but based on environment characteristic and cultural-

resemblance. The discussion of has been broken down into two major

divisions, i.e. “Asia, East and Central” and “Australasia and Oceania”. The

division marked essential differences between the context of continental

environment and the archipelago environment. In the same way South India

vernacular architecture has been categorized under “Asia, East and Central”

4

too. It indicates that there are parts of South India and Southeast Asia which

share common characters. ”Paul Oliver (1997) categorized Minangkabau

architecture as the architecture of “Indonesia West” under the category

“Australasia and Oceania” and Kerala as “India South and Srilanka” under the

category “Asia, East and Central” category.

Figure 1.2 Map of architectural continuity between India and Indonesia

(drawing prepared by author)

In general, traditional architecture of both Kerala and Minangkabau

physically show shared general form characters which have been identified as

follow (Widiastuti 2005, 2007):

a) importance of grand ancestral house,

b) in-house granary and granary-house concept,

c) tropical architecture characteristic marked by overwhelming

roof design, occasional bent-roof and hip-gable roof, deep

eaves, and complex elaboration of rafters;

d) wooden architecture, and

e) ancient concept of special structures for assembly hall and

shelter for men (dormitories).

5

This research is aimed to identify the spatial and architectural

framework or concepts that can explain the commonality and difference of the

dwelling culture practicing matrilineal kinship in these tropical Asian regions.

This research is conducted with an assumption that settlement and

architecture are aspects of habitation that cannot be defined separately. A

domain of architectural discourses has been specifically established to discuss

frames and methodological tools to analyze the fundamental principle of

integrated settlement and architecture. Egenter (1992) developed a discourse

on “settlement-architecture” and established Antropo-Arch method.

Habraken, (1998) and Egenter (1992) attempted to conceptualize territorial

control to measure and analyze degree of integration in architecture and

settlement design.

There is a framework that moulds the constituents of settlement,

which comprise of matrilinel kinship system as the primary standpoint for this

research, tropical Asian environmental context and paddy-farming which is

the main occupation. The framework is described in the following Figure 1.3.

Figure 1.3 Diagram of Social-Cultural Framework of Dwelling Culture

6

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

1.2.1 Architecture and Culture in Holistic Perspective

The relations of architecture and culture have been discussed by

scholars from various disciplines, since early 1960’s. Various disciplines,

such as anthropology, behaviorism, sociology, linguistic, natural science,

economics, social sciences, political sciences, and engineering, have been

adopted in enhancing the analytical tools to infer architecture in holistic

framework. Architect scholars used those properties and critical thoughts on

culture to suffice themselves with analytical tools to explore architecture as an

integrated entity of culture.

Preference for "Structural-functionalist" that dominated the social

sciences in the 1950s in America sets anthropologists and sociologists to

elaborate properties of and metaphors for culture, such as culture as

“institution” and “language” (Claude Lévi Strauss in Srivatsava. 2005); social

structure as “pattern of relations” (A.R. Redcliffe Brown and Bronislaw in

Srivastava,2005); and 7 culture universal” comprising belief system, art,

system of knowledge, occupation, tools of living, technology and language as

properties to study culture (Kluckhone 1952).

Referring to anthropological and behavioral studies Amos Rapoport

specified the modifier of dwelling culture and shelter in “typical explanation

of house form” as: climate and the need for Shelter, materials, construction

and technology, site, defense, economics and religion (Rappoport 1969). He

complemented the principles with socio-cultural factors, such as: socio-

cultural forces, criticality and choices, basic needs, relationship between

house and settlement, conditions of the sites and choice, states of constancy

and change.

7

Preferences for Phenomonology and Post Structuralism tended to

establish critical reorientation toward the defining factors of culture itself2.

Generally they had been critical toward the act of cutting up culture down into

parts, and preferred to focus on ontological questions against mainstream

understanding on culture. Heidegger (1962) metaphysically discussed

settlement by exploring the concept of “dwelling” as the fundamental human

activity when it coexists with place and space3. It was obtained by preserving

the state of primal oneness of the “fourfold aspects of dwelling” i.e. earth and

sky, divinities and mortals-belong together in one. The notion of primal

oneness pervaded dwelling in its whole range, and it could be manifested

from house to larger scale habitation, like settlement. Anthropologist also use

house as their analytical unit for an integrated culture. The idea of “House-

Society” of Levi Strauss (1979-1991), in Hugh-Jones and Carsten (2005)

explained how family kinship was not to be always fully understood by

mainstream category of kinship but determined by dwelling culture.

However, consideration of integrated culture is not always

successful to define holistic dwelling culture. In 1995, Victor Papanek

attempted to advance Rapopport’s theory by adding new properties, with

regards to considerations on historical continuity between traditional and

modern context in existence of changing of patterns and types along history;

geographically shared Expression; and aspects of Play of ornaments and

aesthetic. Hugh-Jones and Carsten and Waterson (2005) pointed out problem

on “House Society” of Levi-Strauss for its minimum discussions on physical

reflections on architecture and the limited scope of theoretical applicability

only for society with ranking. Nold Egenter took this as an indication as

2 In various discourse this critical reorientation has been done by Heidegger (1962, 1971) with

regards of “dwelling”, Schultz (nd) with regards to meaning of architecture, Kessing (1974) with

regards to culture and Clifford Geertz(1963) with regards to his critique against environmental

determination in definition of culture.3 The understanding of “dwelling” related to hermeneutic studies of Heidegger on the word

“building” that root on the word “bauen” in Heideger as reviewed by Seamon, D and written by

Max van Manen, 2002 (2002)

8

methodological problem due to the fact that any new conceptual or theoretical

advancement had always based on borrowed disciplines, where architecture is

never taken as the core-discipline. As consequence the studies only came up

with micro-theories and unending attempts to complete the holistic properties

but did not lead to establishment it a solid architectural theory4.

Recent author, Hugh-Jones and Carsten (2005) and Nold Egenter

(1992) similarly suggested that in establishing theory, architecture should

ideally stand as a broader framework than the borrowed disciplines. Hugh-

Jones and Carsten (2005) proposed a alternative term” House-based society”

for “House-Society” of Levi-Strauss enabled them to consider other aspects

than kinship in social-organization and brought more emphasise on

architectural attributes to the house. Nold Egenter established Antropo-Arch

method for architectural design and research based on holistic framework of

culture and architecture, where settlement was understood as result of the

evolution of dwelling culture.

The above-mentioned critical observations immediately raise the

question about what the fundamental principle of integration is, in

understanding settlement and architecture as a holistic system. In answers

some scholars suggested there should be an alternative term that potentially

generates relevant tools to analyse aspects of culture and space in both levels

of settlement and house. Scholars proposed some other approaches, i.e:

concept of habitation (Egenter 1992), controlled teritory (Egenter 1992,

Habraken 1998) and settlement-architecture (Egenter 1992).

In his elaboration on Anthropo-Architecture Nold Egenter

conceptualised “settlement architecture” as a higher, horizontally structured

unity of a territorially controlled area assembling several elements of semantic

4 Nold Egenter (1992) concluded this in his critique on Muhlman works on anthropology.

9

and/or domestic architecture. It emphasized the concept of habitation. Those

instances pointed to the important characteristic of 'controlled territory’ in

outlining integrated character for habitation in various scales with the

identified social organization. In the same line, a structuralist-architecture

theorist Habraken (1998) described settlement not as object and components

but as an inter-scale process of design. He stated that even in the context of

small scale designed room, each architectural element could invite small acts

of settlement, by which a territorial zone is created within the large rooms.

1.2.2 Kinship, House and Territory

Kinship and descent rule is an organization established by a network

of social roles based on blood relations. Descent refers to a principle or rule

arising out of a series of affiliations. It characterizes types or degree of

residence after marriage, communal and centrifugal characters of community

and their habitation concept, kinship and descent rule established by network

of social roles based on blood relations. Kinship refers to the network of

relationships created by genealogical and marriage ties or both. Many

societies have the kinship group larger than the family, which are exogamous

e.g. clans. Another society tends to perform marriage with another member of

the kin, e.g. endogamous. Descent refers to a principle or rule arising out of a

series of affiliations such as parent-child link. There are three kind of

affiliations: patrilineal; matrilineal , and cognatic descent rule. Domestic

group, marriage, kinship and descent- all comprise together to make a kinship

system.

Patrilineal and matrilineal descent traces one sex-linked chain, and

therefore is called unilineal and non-unilineal descendants. It establishes a set

of primary kinship ties through one’s mother in a matrilineal society, or one’s

father in patrilineal society. There is another structuring principle of kinship

which is distinguished by trait of cross-cousin marriage. It mingled affinal and

10

consanguinal kin, therefore uncle and father or children and nephews were

indistinct to each other. It was discovered in Dravidian speaking people by

Thomas R Trautmann (2000, pp.564). Outside India it existed in Srilanka,

traditional America, Oceania and part of Southeast Asia. It did not appear in

Africa and Europe. This structure is called Dravidian because Trumann had

explored this phenomenon in India. Residence after marriage would follow

descent system.

Anthropologically, Jefrey M Page discovered that residence and

kinship have profound impact to characterize polity making, particularly in

stateless society, based on the fact that the organization was centered in

residence5. In his elaborations on territorial making based on matrilineal

descent rule, he discovered that integrity of kinship in society practicing

unilineal descent rule, both matrilineal and patrilineal, is more sustainable

than in bilateral society so that they could yield tribe (Paige 1974).

Descent rule is more sustainable in unilineal society, because single

reference toward one line of ancestor, female (matrilineal) or male

(patrilineal) could be established and yield solid reference for inheritance and

social organization. It generates hierarchical order among families based on

remoteness to the referred ancestor, by which importance and role of each

family in the community would be governed. On the other hand in bilateral

community descent rules is weaker than the unilineal because single reference

to ancestor is absent. Therefore solidarity of society would generally decrease

after a certain generations. The loose notion of ancestor and origin makes

residential rule significant and environmental integrity assumed importance

for assuring and maintaining society coherence. As a consequence bilateral

society tended to build their residence in close proximity. In unilineal society,

since descent rules could by itself guarantee the cohesiveness of social

5 The rule of descent and residence in organizing society is discussed at length by Jeffrey M Paige

(1974)

11

network their habitation could be organically scattered in landscapes without

failing the kinship integrity.

Paige (1974) as well as Bernard Barber (1975) discovered that

matrilineal kinship tend to demonstrate communal characters while patrilineal

kinship demonstrated factional characters6. But the differing feature is not the

kinship itself but what he called as “fraternity interest”. Paige conceptualized

the role of “patriliny actors” as a trigger of factional characters. Social

groupings of patrilineal units by patrilineal actors tended to be more cohesive

than matrilineal. In matriliny, the patriliny actors tend to have less interest in

expressing or symbolizing the cohesiveness of social groupings. Therefore it

is safe to say that the higher degree of fraternity interest leads to more

articulate spatial, formal and territorial specification and concretization and

less of centrifugal distribution and less communal characters.

1.2.3 House as a Social Organization

The unilineal kinship and descent rule create what is termed as

corporate descent group, which means individuals who trace descent from a

common ancestor believed to be the founder of the group, either real and

mythical (Fox,1967). It yield four kinds of basic groups as: lineages, Clans,

phratries and moities. It enables a group of individuals to act under a common

name in carrying one or more related enterprise. Nevertheless, kinship could

not be seen as single variable of social-spatial organization. Levi-Strauss was

the first to discover the insufficiency of kinship to explain dwelling culture.

He discovered that the dwelling culture itself could yield pattern kinship. He

links the transitional quality of houses as a social form with the claim that

they ‘subvert’ the language of kinship (1987:187) by using it to naturalize

rank differences and competitions over wealth and power. However

6 The thorough discussion regarding Centripetal and Centrifugal Types of Organization in descent

rules and kinship is done by Bernard Farber (Nov., 1975)

12

according to Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh7, Levi-Strauss discussion only

explain the dynamic concept of kinship with regard to houses. It did not

further explain the house itself as a solid organization, where kinship is the

only factor. Carsten and Hugh (1995) and Waterson (1995) proposed the

term “House-Based-Society” as alternative term of “house society” to

conceptualize house as the dominant focus of social organization.

Carsten and Hugh-Jones suggested an alternative language of the

house, a language that relate to the human body, house and settlement or

landscape in one bound. and emphasized that blood was not the ultimate

ontology. Anthropologically Morton H. Fried (1957) and Evelyn Blackwood

(1997) also observed that the constituent of unilineal descent rule can be

sociologically or biologically defined. Freid conceptualized hypergamy in

the Nayar community as a technique for maintaining familial hierarchical

status in the face of increasing members and more complex scheme of

estate management of the clan. Evelyn Blackwood (1997) showed a situation

where in Minangkabau kinship was not necessarily consistent toward

bloodline. Tenancy was justified by the tenant’s kinship relation with the

landowner, and kinship itself was not justified by bloodline but through a

formality that authorized someone to be “adopted-nephews” (anak-

kemenakan) of the landowner. Therefore they would be bound to

responsibility toward the land-enterprises and household of the maternal-joint

family unit. This premise is in line with Daryll Forde (1948), and Fried (1957)

who conceptualized the one characteristic of unilineal descent rule as having

been more than just developing family ties but for accomplishing cohesive

corporate unit for estate management.

7 The scope and limitation of “House-Society” of Levy Strauss (1984, 1987) has been critically

reviewed at length by Carsten, and Hugh-Jones at al (1995)

13

1.2.4 Agriculture Space and Agriculture Territory

In this way, other aspects of culture, including ecological conditions

could be coupled with operation kinship. It could yield a varying degree of

territorially controlled entities which at the end define settlement and

architecture. Besides agriculture is an enterprise that also has spatial

characteristics. Ludden (2002) explained that agriculture is an enterprise that

had spatial consequence, because it formed an institution and network that

bound the society that worked and depended on it and established their

position in space, i.e. landowner, farmers and consumers, and its market

networks. The domain of agricultural had a spatial dimension that define

territories, such as settlements, preserved natural sources and cultivated

lands. The functional importance of agricultural land was sustained

institutionally through concretization of integrity that was maintained by

kinship, inheritance, symbolization of ancestors (previous land owners as

primus interpares) and physical demarcations. The advancement of

agriculture enterprise could yield spatial extensions or shrinkage of

agriculture corporate and network.

Due to the process, Luden in his attempt to define social unit and

organization of Southern Indian community make a difference between

agrarian space and agrarian territory8. Agrarian space was area in which all

the various elements combined in agriculture circulated geographically. They

could be described but cannot be mapped. Agrarian territory is part or feature

of agrarian space under some human control. It needed a boundary - cultural

and physical. David Luden (2002) elaborated this phenomenon to explain

several concepts of habitation in South India, such as Nadu, -ur, sabha and –

mandalam; ecological clusters system called Tinai. Based on this argument

he suggested Kerala and Srilanka were culturally and socially more intimately

8 The concept of spatial impact on agriculture enterprises has been discussed by geographer David

Luden (2002)

14

connected to southern Pandya country during pre-modern times rather than

northern Tamil country. Similarly in Sumatra, Leonardo Andaya (2002)

explained that the Bataknese people were originally dispersed settlements of

discrete populations surrounding lake Toba. The origin of Batak as an ethnic

name appears in the 16th

century AD as “ethnicization “ for people who were

geographically accumulated in North Sumatra. The term appeared as a

consequence of people sharing interest in agrarian industry and its trade

networks, rituals, kinship and justified legends of origin from lake Toba and

their local religions. Djamaris, Edwar (1991) explained that the writing of

Tambo Alam Minangkabau (poetry of Minangkabau land) was an expression

of need to define dispersed people and culture as an integrated within territory

of Minangkabau. Administratively at present Minangkabau is confined in

West Sumatra province, Indonesia, and the people is called Minang.

Ludden’s argument finally concluded that urbanization was not the

making of urban centers confined in a city, but an agglomeration of big and

small towns and hamlets in close proximity, in order to achieve the integrated

structure of an agrarian enterprise. The spatial integrity of agrarian space and

territory is defined by the equilibrium of stabile functioning of it of agents.

This integrity would be disturbed when the functioning agents were disrupted,

manipulated or transformed and freedom for making options and ability and

possibility to advance the available meansis stoped9. Ludden further

explained that the common anti-climax sequence took place in 18th

Century

AD where the dynamic agrarian space had been disturbed by rigid

formalization of colonial administrative purpose. After the Pacific War during

the second half of 20th Cent. AD the economic development focus in Asia

shifted to import-substitution industrialization directed by nationalist

economic policies. The sense of dynamic spatial integrity was dismantled and

9 The concept of “Agrarian Involution” has been explored at length by Clifford Geertz using

comparative case of the rain-fed agriculture in Sumatra and irrigated agriculture in Java.

15

traditional territories lost its urban dynamic. Paradoxically it became secluded

and therefore he called it as process of “ruralization”. Ambler (1988)

concluded that before colonial rule Minangkabau village, the nagari, had been

essentially autonomous. However, after their first conquests in West Sumatra,

the Dutch began creating a superstructure of administration which radically

departed from the model of the autonomous nagari.

1.2.5 Principles of Social Organization, Control and Territory

Kinship and social spatial organization manifests in space. Social-

spatial organization is an ordering principle or orientation that is created by

simultaneous interrelation of social organization, spatial form and

configuration. Social Organization is the complex of roles, right and duty that

institutionalized a particular society and culture. It describes how people

interact, the kinship systems, marriage residency patterns, how they divide up

the various tasks that need to be completed, who has access to specific goods

and knowledge, and what ranking strategy is being used10

. In architecture,

Amos Rapoport explained Social Organization as factor of “Socio-cultural

forces to house form”. In geography Yi-Fu Tuan explained that spatial

organization refers to the arrangement of physical and human objects on the

Earth's surface. Points, lines, areas and volumes were the four geometric

features with which spatial organization can be easily described. Only later

when the order of complexity developed, formal institutions would be formed

from which instructions was yielded. Therefore kinship could be

conclusively regarded as a mechanism that establishes social organization

functionally, geometrically, and culturally along with other social mechanism.

With regards to relation between spatial organization and social

organization, Yi-FuTuan opined that spatial meaning and organization could

10 It is explained in http://archaeology.about.com/od/sterms/g/socialorg.htm

16

transcend beyond particularities and heterogeneity of cultures because the

fundamental principle of 'spatial organization’ was to be found embedded in

human mind itself. It was embedded in the posture and structure of human

body, and the relations among human beings11

. The role of space and place

could be so intense that it could transcend its functional and orientational

purpose and further shape belief system. Therefore Yi-Fu Tuan (1988)

conceptualized space and place as an abstract framework and consciousness

for cultural operation. Myth and local history of distant and remote places

indicated that navigation skill had been embedded in human minds and

applied as or means for spatial orientation, when the physical characters of

earth had not been discovered until 16th century.

Therefore social-spatial organization can be concluded as an

ordering principle or orientation that is created by simultaneous interrelation

of social organization, spatial form and configuration. This definition also

accords with several concepts and theories. Rapopport explained that cultural

unity is manifested in geographical or ecological coherence, or populations

within certain administrative boundary (Rapoport referring to Brown and

Malinowski)12

. Egenter’s presupposes a wide experimental field, where man

with their complex of cultural and pragmatic activities structured his vital

environment spatially and thus developed techniques and forms which later

manifest 'shelter' as the fundamental term for domestic architecture, and

'habitat' as the fundamental term for settlement. It could appear as an

identified spatial and territorial unit as well as, economic, cultural, social, and

temporal unit . This coexist with Yi-Fu Tuan's explanations on myth, as the

evidence of sense and used navigational skill on space to map assumptions on

man and his environment. Close to Bolnow’s psycological understanding

Tuan identified two principal kinds of space: one, fuzzy area of defective

11 The spatial and configurationally aspects of Spatial Organization has been studied thoroughly by

Yi-Fu Tuan (1977)12 Amos Rapoport (1969; 47 – 88) had referred to Brown and Malinowski to establish this concept

17

knowledge surrounding the empirically known; it frames pragmatic space ;

conceptual extension of the familiar space given by direct experience; and the

other one, spatial component of space of world view.

Social-spatial organization when taking place would take up a

certain extent of space or territory. N. J. Habraken's used the term “controlled

territory” to elaborate notion of spatial integrity in a configuration13

, while

Egenter (1992) used the term “territorial control” to describe the extent of of

integration in the unit of settlement. Territory is space controlled by one party,

which must have the capability to keep things. The structure of territory

reflects pattern of inhabitations and their hierarchy 14

. Territorial boundaries

are determined by control, and although it has been convenient to mark them

with walls, fences, or corner posts, this needed not be the case. From a

methodological point, it is an independent variable relative to the physical

arrangement it inhabit.

However Egenter differs from Habraken in defining the position of

human in the scope of controlled territory. Habraken's definition of controlled

territory did not include the state of wellbeing of its inhabitants, because

according to him ultimately what matters was the spatial configuration itself.

His theory put more emphasis on concept of hidden order beyond the visual

expression. On the other hand, Egenter’s premise on domestic architecture,

conceptualized buildings as offering internal space for protection of objects,

animals and humans therefore implying human wellbeing as the main

consideration in establishing an controlled territory. For this research

Habraken’s standpoint is useful to analyze the objective state of the integrated

habitation. Egenter’s standpoint could be useful to evaluate the

correlativeness of habitation and the inhabitants.

13 N. J. Habraken, Jonathan Teicher (1998) have dealt at length this discussion14 A special discussion has been exposed by Habraken in separated paper journal (1987), "Control

of Complexity" Places/ Volum 4, Number 2

18

Therefore territorial control is a measure to examine the mechanism

and operation of the holistic system in Settlement and architecture. Control

does not imply ownership. In defining control Habraken suggests that

understanding environmental structure is a must. The elements and

configurations must be designated in ways that are related to the actional

agents. Factors he purposed to examine and identify the ordering system

within a controlled territory are:

i) Identifications of agent: Agents are identified with regards to

the configuration they control, their interest and personal

qualities. Agents in control must interact, communicate,

negotiate, bargain and cooperate to keep built environment to

remain in stasis.

ii) Dominance and Dependence are circumstances that yield

levels manifesting asymmetrical relationship among elements

of configurations. There is dominance imposed by form, and

by behavior. Dominance must follow certain rule. Multi

dominance should appear and be reflected in form. If not it

will became unstable.

iii) Control distribution demonstrates that different distribution of

control can take place as horizontal control occurs in a single

level. Vertical control involves distribution over a number of

dominance and dependence levels.

iv) Territorial structures reflect patterns of inhabitation. It is of

the most general expression of use and function. It interprets

the given context in a manner similar to the way a lower level

arrangement interprets it functionally.

19

Habraken also suggested that the concept of territorial structure was

not only applicable for inhabitation but for territorial division of designers

professionally. Division of designer’s responsibility correlated closely with

the expected territories of use. Similarly, Yi-Fu Tuan stated that, the

specialized professional architect was one of the sequential part of the making

of an institution. Constructed form had power to heighten the spatial

awareness.

What Habraken elucidated has been in horizontal and vertical space

of present time. He suggested factors to examine the ordering system within a

controlled territory in order to identify the mechanism of control that operated

in a given time. Nold Egenter (1992) suggested territorial control to manifest

through an evolution of sedentary establishment. He elaborated it in the four

classes of architecture and its concept through which he demonstrated that

“habitation processes” was an ontology that took a different mechanism in

different scale, context, and timeframe spanning from prehistoric time to

present time. The category could be re-interpreted as follows:

i) Sub-Human Architecture, where habitation process appear as

evolution of nest building

ii) Semantic Architecture, where habitation process is

establishment of spatial orientation and organization in space

and form

iii) Domestic Architecture, where habitation process is the

projected semantic architecture on elementary plan with

‘place and gate markers’ articulated by a constructive process

iv) Settlement Architecture, where habitation process is the

achievement of territorial control and sedentary life.

v) Urban and Imperial Architecture, where habitation process is

the process of monumentalisation.

20

1.3 REVIEW ON METHODOLOGY

1.3.1 Ethnographic Approach for Architecture

Ethnography is used as a method because in architectural studies it

has been commonly used to enquire man and his culture to infer holistic state

if culture. Ethnography15

seeks to answer central anthropological questions

concerning the ways of life of living human beings. Paul Oliver listed

Ethnographical approach and Diffusionist approach, as two among the three

architectural approaches16

of enquiry bearing ethnographic and

anthropological perspectives which are relevant for vernacular architecture

research amidst other 18 approaches of verifying vernacular architecture

outlined in “Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture of The World”. The

range of analytical activities could be outlined as follow:

i) Ethnographical approach that suggests architecture as part of an

integrated body of culture. It emphasizes importance of general

terms such as place, environments, landscape and replaces the

partial functionalist terminology of architecture in studies about

architecture. This is outlined by Nold Egenter (Oliver1997)

ii) Ethnographical approach that examines impact of cultural

exchanges on architecture and how they could be

geographically mapped to allow identification of regularities.

This was called Diffusionist Approaches, outlined by Reimar

Schefold (Oliver1997)

iii) Another Diffusionist approach examines phenomena” of “the

spread in place” with regards to local forms, regardless of

15 The definition of Ethnography and Ethnology and its relation with Linguistic Anthropology,

Archeological Anthropology, Physical Anthropology, and Cultural anthropology is referred from

Srivastava (2005). .16 The approach has been elaborately discussed in Encyclopedia of Vernacular architecture in the

world by Oliver et al (1997)

21

whether it is, or is not combined with interpersonal or inter-

group transmission. Ratzel (Oliver 1997) termed it as ‘circles

of genetic relationship’.

iv) Comparative studies on archaeological evidence of certain

cultural traits, focuses investigation on the question of how the

house underwent changes after diffusion into the environment.

Ethnographic method is used as approach to detail elements of the

holistic state of culture. The aim of this method is to discover how the

social-spatial organization based on matrilineal descent rule based would

manifest in a controlled territory and define a habitation framework which

could be conceptualized as settlement or house. The comparative nature of

ethnographic inquiry provides mode of cross-cultural enquiry for discovering

regularities of forms or processes which will show a functional relationship

in habitation framework. James Fox (1992) and Roxana Waterson (1990)

with their fellow scholars discovered distinct characteristic of Southeast Asian

architecture by corroborating its anthropological aspects so that it became

architecture-oriented. The works of Gaudenz Domenig (1980) after his

research in Sumatra, Sulawesi, Japan and Polynesia, outlined essential

tectonic principles found typically in Dongson prototypical roof construction

so as to theorize “The Great Sunda Tectonic Principles” as common building

tradition shared by scattered regions in Asia Pacific. It is the case of

architectural data collection which used the logic of cross-cultural

ethnography.

1.3.2 Anthropo-Arch Approach and “control hierarchies in complex

artifacts”

Anthropo-Arch method is an ethnographic method formulated by

Nold Egenter (1992) as an attempt to establish holistic framework and multi-

22

disciplinary approach to architecture. It took habitation or dwelling culture as

the analytical framework for both architecture and culture and is used because

of its basic premise to study settlement and architecture as habitation process

or a social-process that manifests as built-form in space and place. It

comprised two stages of research: Anthropology and Habitat Research.

i) Architectural Anthropology is a field of research that put

architecture as its concept and approach.

ii) Habitat Research is a field of research that interprets human

conditions past and present not in the isolated sectors of

conventional disciplines, but basically in their environmental

totality.

In this method, features generated by borrowed disciplines should

be seen as correlating factors, that could narrate the process of habitat

development from the remote scale like space or object to the widest scale,

settlement and urban setting; from the past to present. Nold Egenter

underlined the possible importance for this method to unravel the “self-

generating characters” of designs. It potentially reveals primordial framework

or sense of space and form of present design.

The term Habitat becomes the fundamental term of this new

method, because “habitat” appear as a spatial, territorial, economic, cultural,

social, and temporal unit. Habitat implies objectively demarcated space,

therefore closely related to material culture where tectonic forms or buildings

are of as of primary importance, functionally and ideo-genetically. Socially,

the terms habitat and settlement favor a group-view of man and his

predecessors.

Ultimately Nold Egenter used the term Topo-Semantic to ideally

explain “self-generating characters” of cultural agents thus it perform

23

continuum of traceable morphological logic of creations from the most

primitive form to the most sophisticated form. He introduced it as resembling

architectural ontology, which practically meant to outline a larger framework

for defined aspects that resulted from Habitat research. The ontological result

appear as: tacit geometry as ‘ontological proportion’; identification of

primordial framework of sense of space or formed object and discoveries of

more tacit concept of the available canon. Their integrity depends on the

equilibrium of network of social organization and territorial units. Their

sustainability depends on the critical flexibility of the social-spatial

organizations to maintain its stability. In developing the methods Egenter

referred to several researches on architecture that managed to infer habitation

process using architectural approach and reached ontological result of space

and form.17

However, the Anthropo-Arch method is still too broad and needs

further detailing. Habrakken (1998) elaborated the analytical frames, “control

hierarchies in complex artifacts” to examine territorial concept in architecture

which analytically helps to distinguish aspects within a controlled territory

such as agents, configuration, moves, assembly hierarchy, dominance,

dependence and shape, control distribution, and how as a whole those factors

establish territorial boundaries18

. In another article, he proposed analytical

tools like types and typology as tools to observed control. For the second

stage of Anthropo-Arch method, Habraken’s method is used to detail Habitat

research.

Therefore to detail the inquiry on Anthropological-Architecture

Research the field work guidelines of IRRS (Indian Research for Rural

Settlement) established by Nold Egenter is used. To detail the assessment on

territorial control for Habitat Research analytical frames of Habrakken (1998,

1987) is utilized.

17 Egenter (1992) refer to research works of Hans Soeders, ; Walter Andrae, ; Vittorio Carpaggio18 The subject has been elaborated by NJ Habraken (1987)

24

1.3.3 Comparative Analysis

The distinctiveness of Anthropology lies in its use of comparative

methods. In anthropology, comparative study is used to reconstruct the

history of people of specific regions; second is to compare the social life of

different peoples prove that the foundation of their cultural development are

remarkably uniform (Frans Boas 1888). In the pursuit of these studies the

same custom same the same ideas could possibly occurs among peoples

without any historical connection. The agreement and difference that occur

could possibly yield independent architectural knowledge free from historical

or political interest and could explain the contextual situation that trigger

variations.

1.4 SUMMARY

This research compares architecture between two regions which

have been generally observed in two discrete categories, India and Indonesia,

South India and Sumatra, Kerala and Minangkabau. This research is

conducted with an assumption that there are common principles with regards

to architecture and settlement of both places which should appear as

knowledge that transcend geo-political boundary.

The common ground for understanding the shared principles is

social-spatial organization of society with matrilineal kinship system.

Literature reviews in anthropology and geography referring to Paige (1974),

Freid (1975), Barber (1975) and Ludden (2002) show spatial aspects of

kinship and specific characters of matrilineal society. Paige (1974), Freid

(1975), and Barber specifically show characters of matrilineal society such as

communal character, centrifugal characters and importance in descent rule

under common ancestors in developing their habitation. Literature review in

architecture and kinship referring to Levi-Strauss (1988), Hugh-Jones and

25

Carsten (1995), Freid (1975) and Forde (1948) shows complex relationship

between kinship and architecture which confirm that the basic importance of

bloodline relationship could be supplemented by various other aspects,

including environmental character, agricultural enterprise and common and

local social histories.

The research uses terminologies and tools that maintain view of

architecture and culture in the holistic framework. Settlement and house are

seen as an integrated unit therefore the term settlement-architecture and

habitat of Nold Egenter (1992) are utilized. “Territorial control” is the

ultimate character to be identified to measure degree of integrity and to justify

habitation process by which the state of integrity is achieved, maintained or

transformed.

Methodologically architectural and spatial aspects of settlement and

architecture and other ethnographic aspects are equally taken as frame of

analysis. Anthropo-Arch architecture Method (Nold Egenter, 1992) and

principles of “control hierarchies in complex artifacts” (Habraken 1995) are

utilized as methods to verify the architectural and ethnographic findings.

Comparative analysis is applied to justify the agreement and difference in the

architectural and ethnographic findings, from which a larger framework of

dwelling culture would be formulated.

This larger framework is meant to disclose cross-cultural

architectural knowledge inherited in traditional society practicing common

cultural trait, for which matrilineal descent rule is the primary concerns.

26

1.5 RESEARCH DESIGN

1.5.1 Premise

Vernacular settlement and residential architecture in Minangkabau,

West Sumatra, Indonesia, and Malabar, Kerala, South India, located in

tropical Asian region demonstrate a spatial manifestation with commonalities,

such as spatial importance given to female and communal character. However

variations are manifested in the spatial configuration of settlement and

architecture. The research is designed to discover whether this commonality

and variations are attributed to local conditions and contextual aspects, or is

there a larger concept of habitation generated by matrilineal descent rule trait,

by which the commonality and diversity could be systematically explained.

1.5.2 Objectives

i) to identify contextual aspects that make each region yield

specific design characters;

ii) to identify the common comparable principle of settlement-

architecture based on matrilineal descent rule and interpret how

the principles generate meaning and design for houses; and

iii) to interpret the agreement and difference of settlement and

architecture design, with regards to cross-cultural relations

between West Sumatra province and Kerala state.

1.5.3 Research Questions

i) Is there any continuum of the spatial configuration of

settlement and landscape due to social organization of

settlement?

27

Ii) Does the ancestral house in both regions still preserve the idea

of kinship and relations to origin?

iii) Has there been any external influence that triggers difference

and specific design of settlement and architecture?

iv) Is there any conceptual framework that can be derived from

social organization based on matrilineal descent rule and its

relation to origin, and can be used to explain the variety?

1.5.4 Methodology and Procedure of research

This research utilizes Anthropo-Arch methods formulated by Nold

Egenter (1992) with some modification. It comprised two stages of research:

Anthropology and Habitat Research. Anthropo-Arch methods are methods for

research that combines ethnographic approach and architecture in terms of

habitat. The term “habitat” and “habitation” is underlined to frame the multi-

dimension aspects of the holistic. The term ‘habitat’ becomes a fundamental

term, because it represents spatial, territorial, economic, cultural, social, and

temporal aspects of the settlement unit and architecture. To detail the

“Habitat Research” with more rigorous analytical frames to examine the

territorial concepts in a habitation, principle of “control hierarchies in

complex artifacts” of N.J Habrakken (1998) is incorporated. The application

of these methods is elaborated in stages outlined:

Stage 1. Architectural Anthropology

Anthropological Architecture research for 5 cases in Minangkabau

and Kerala is designed to obtain anthropological architecture profile of both

cases. This field work guideline inquiry is later detailed by adopting the field

work guidelines IRRS (Indian Research for Rural Settlement) established by

Nold Egenter. The interview and observation guidelines are as shown in

28

Appendix 1.

Stage 2. Habitat Research

Habitat Research is done by analyzing the pattern-relations that

could explain controlled territory of the settlement-architecture. For this stage

Habraken’s theory on controlled territory is aggregated to construct an

integrated structure of the habitation or settlement-architecture.

Stage 3. Comparative Analysis

Comparative analysis on settlement and architecture is done by

identifying the agreement and difference of the result of Habitat Research of

both Minangkabau and Kerala, in terms of conceptual similarity and

dissimilarity, formal similarity and dissimilarity; or both; complete

similarity and dissimilarity, and partial similarity and dissimilarity.

Stage 4. Interpretation and Conclusion

Framing the larger concept of habitat with respect to the 5 cases.

This is a process to interpolate some possible or logical explanations for the

agreement or/and difference that took place.

Figure 1.4 Diagram of Procedure of research

29

1.5.5 Data Base

1.5.5.1 Data

Object of research is 5 vernacular settlements and 20 house

compounds in Kerala (South India) and Minangkabau (West Sumatra),

namely Chittur town, Mathur Panchayath, and Alathur Panchayath, in

Palakkad, Kerala; and Nagari Sungayang, and Nagari Rao-Rao, in Tanah

Datar district, West Sumatra. The unit of Analysis is outlined as:

i) Social historical aspects settlement : tara and nagari

ii) Spatial historical aspects settlement: tara and jorong

iii) Maternal Ancestral House Compound: kampung and taravad

Characteristic of Data:

i) Spatial Configuration

‚ Object of inquiry: topography, environmental character, scope

of traditional settlement unit, administrative unit, sphere of

sacred landscape, house compound, buildings, locations of

assembly building, and network of settlements.

‚ Source of inquiry: field survey by observation

‚ Goal of inquiry: to obtain how functions, objects and space are

spatially managed and reveal pattern of distribution, dispersion

and concentration; and determinant factors that can modify

human activities

ii) Social Organization

‚ Object of inquiry: Populations character, Social organization of

matrilineal kinship system, social structure (clan, class, caste,

marriage system, assembly), and Construction

30

‚ Source of inquiry: literature study, secondary data and field

survey to interview local inhabitants

‚ Goal of inquiry: To identify agents and their distributions of

roles in modifying the spatial configuration and how their

activities are determined by their environment

iii). History, Myth and Legend

‚ Object of inquiry: About the place, ancestor, migrations, and

festival calendars

‚ Source of inquiry: literature study, secondary data and field

survey to interview local informants and experts

‚ Goal of inquiry: To obtain sufficient logic of spatial

morphology of settlement and various dimension of space

which may include both pragmatic space and space of world of

view

1.5.5.2 Source of Data

Literature study about the cases; a) Secondary data from written

local authority, manuals, maps, and archives; and b) Field Survey, which uses

3 types of inquiry, namely: Form A for settlement units, Form B for house

compound, and Form C for building construction. Each form comprise of

two parts: a) Interview for gaining social and historical data; and b)

Observation for gaining spatial and architectural data

1.5.5.3 Study area

Both Tanah Datar District in Minangkabau and Palakkad District in

Kerala reveal similar ecology and architecture, distance toward equator, area,

31

and distance from ocean, average rainfall and slopes toward ocean. The

significant difference is that the population density of Kerala is four times

bigger and Minangkbau is situated on higher ground.

1.5.6 LIMITATION AND SCOPE (IDENTIFICATION OF CASES)

1.5.6.1 Scope

Ethnography and comparative study is by nature interpretative.

There is not much research about the comparative study on the anthropology-

architecture of both regions. Available studies on architecture of both regions

are mostly concentrated on buildings, while most ethnographic and historical

studies do not include architecture. This research would empirically rely on

the conditions of settlement today. Therefore, cases concentrated in the region

of Palakkad district Malabar area in Kerala and Tanah Datar district are taken

to minimize the problem of reliability of data, because the locations represent

the most traditional regions. The number of cases is limited to enable rigorous

inference of the ethnographic data.

1.5.6.2 Limitation

i) Comparative study of 5 cases of settlement in the two countries

covers the descriptive aspects with regards to the concept of

social spatial organization in depth, and limits discussion on

detail of building and construction.

ii) Due to limitation of reliable inhabitants and architectural cases

on the site, the selections of cases were taken on basis of the

most optimum and reliable inhabitants, which is determined

mainly by the availability of original kin of the house and

expression of the house, although the physical conditions of the

house compound may not be of the best case.

32

iii) Unit of Analysis is limited to territorial units of Tara and

jorong/Koto and Rumah Gadang and Courtyard Mansion

(nalukettu, patinjarukettu and ettukettu), although some of

them may have extended property outside the territory.

1.5.6.3 Summary

Chapter 1 contains the theoretical principles regarding kinship,

social spatial organization of nagari and tara, holistic views on settlement and

house, principles of social organization, control and territory, and of reviews

Anthropo-Arch Approach methodology; and outlines explanation on this

research design.

Chapter 2 contains description of the basic environmental and social

profile of both regions and concludes the comparative aspects of both

architectural and ethnographic aspects based on literature and earlier work.

Chapter 3 contains assessment on Anthropological Architecture

research and Habitat research on Kerala, and Chapter 4 outlines the same on

Minangkabau. It covers analysis on the aspects of settlement and architecture

such as structure, development and hierarchy of controlled territory.

Chapter 5 outlines the result of Comparative Analysis. The

discussion explains several finding by which framework of settlement and

architecture with regards of matrilineal kinship could be established.

Chapter 6 outlines the final findings and conclusion that focuses on

framing idea of the larger concept of habitat.

Chapter 7 is a reflection on the result of research with regards to its

possible follow up for initiating discourses on blending characters of

architecture in South India and to advance analytical tools for examining

architecture in holistic perspective.