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.