Navigazione – Mappa del sito
Dossier : Paradoxical Southeast Asia

Colonial-Vernacular Houses of Java, Malaya, and Singapore in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries

Architectural Translations in the Rumah Limas, Compound House, and Indische Woonhuis
Imran bin Tajudeen

Abstract

Questo articolo riesamina la trasmissione formale e spaziale tra l’architettura indigena vernacolare e quella europea coloniale nella formazione e lo sviluppo di due forme d’abitazione di epoca coloniale, nel XIX secolo: innanzitutto la kampong, o Compound House, come era chiamata nei progetti, e la rumah limas, la forma equivalente a un solo piano sopraelevato della Malesia britannica (oggi Malesia Occidentale e Singapore); in secondo luogo le abitazioni Indies-style (Indische woonhuis), simili, ma distinte, alle più ampie case di campagna del XIII secolo (Indische landhuis) di Giava. Andando oltre le consuete osservazioni sull’adattamento climatico e lo stile, l’analisi prende in considerazione un certo numero di similitudini impressionanti tra la disposizione interna e la composizione formale di queste abitazioni coloniali-vernacolari e le costruzioni tradizionali malesi, sundanesi (Giava occidentale) e giavanesi, incluse le dimore delle aree urbane di Giava. Vengono inoltre riesaminate due forme chiave di trasmissione spaziale e formale e le definizioni architettoniche correlate: il portico neo palladiano in rapporto all’anjung/surong malese e il pringgitan giavanese – o terrazza di passaggio – in rapporto al voorgalerij. Grazie a queste considerazioni emergono diversi argomenti che arricchiscono e rendono più complesso lo sguardo che gli studi recenti portano sulla presenza europea nelle colonie.

Torna su

Testo integrale

This research was supported by nus moe acrf Start-up Grant R-295-000-096-133. Line drawings assisted by Hadi Osni.

Introduction: Colonial-Vernacular Houses, Beyond Climate and Style

  • 1 For example, see Andrew Ballantyne and Andrew Law, “Genealogy of the Singaporean black-and-white h (...)
  • 2 The two key exceptions that do consider the architectural typology of indigenous dwellings in the (...)

1Architectural scholarship on dwelling types in colonial-era British Malaya (today’s Malaysia and Singapore) and in the towns of Java (in Indonesia) have invariably reduced the interaction between “indigenous vernacular” and “European colonial” in the formation of new transcultural dwelling forms to the narrative trope of climatic adaptation, according to which the veranda and, in the Malayan context, the raised floor are the aspects of indigenous dwellings that were incorporated and assimilated into colonial building designs because of their appropriateness to hot and humid conditions.1 Indigenous house traditions were not treated as architectural systems that interacted with European traditions.2 Such glosses do not satisfactorily account for the development of the two nineteenth-century colonial-era house forms to be discussed in this essay. The first, called the Compound House, had an equivalent single story, raised-floor form, the Rumah Limas (figs. 1-2), and both versions were found predominantly in British Malaya (today’s Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore). The second house form is the Indies-style town residence (Indische woonhuis) (fig. 3), which is related to, but distinguishable from, the larger, eighteenth-century country house (Indische landhuis) in Java, and bears several points of comparison with Javanese houses, including the urban dwellings in merchants’ quarters (fig. 4).

  • 3 Helen Jessup, The Dutch Colonial Villa,” in Brian Taylor (ed.), Mimar Houses, Singapore: Concept (...)
  • 4 Ibid., p. 179.

2Helen Jessup observes that the “simple explanation” of climatic adaptation “[does] not fully account for the stylistic details” of the “Dutch Colonial” or “Dutch Indies” dwellings on Java.3 As one example of the “stylistic details” of the “neoclassical-indigenous amalgam” in Java, Jessup refers to the miniature classical columns on the front emperan or veranda of Javanese urban dwellings in the historic Kampung Wuwutan (Bubutan) neighborhood in Surabaya,4 but there are aspects of translation and adoption in the colonial-vernacular house models that go beyond the façade or stylistic features. In fact, and building upon Jessup’s point, it is necessary to move beyond “stylistic details” and the mimicry of European classical styles and consider a more precise typological perspective in the formation of the new “amalgams”—whether in the Javanese urban dwellings she referred to that are also found in other settings such as the merchant houses in the Kauman quarter of the royal cities of Yogyakarta and Surakarta in Central Java (fig. 4) or in the Indische woonhuis (fig. 3).

Figure 1: Single-story raised floor Rumah Limas and double story Compound House.

Figure 1: Single-story raised floor Rumah Limas and double story Compound House.

Top left (a): Rumah Limas with an anjong, the main house, and a kitchen house (1900, at Campong Java Road, for Osman); top right (b): six Compound Houses with surong and kitchen house (1884, at Jalan Sultan for Haji Drahman)—compare with plans of Indies-style houses in fig. 9. Above (c): Compound House, 1889 for Syed Aboo Baker, as an example of the frontal addition of layers of space to the house plan. Note: B = bedroom.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen, redrawn from Singapore Building Plans, 1884-1946, Singapore: Archives and Oral History Department [and] Government of the Republic of Singapore Government Micro-film Unit, 1984.

Figure 2: Rumah Limas, Rumah Gudang, and Compound House from Singapore.

Figure 2: Rumah Limas, Rumah Gudang, and Compound House from Singapore.

Top left (a): the simplest form of the Malay Kampung House with a basic Malay Plan of a pair of rooms with galleries in front and to the rear, and a raised floor (panggung). Top right (b): the double-story Compound House with a walled undercroft (kolong), here in a simple version of the warehouse-dwelling called the Rumah Gudang. Above left (c): drawings that record the conversion of a raised-floor Rumah Limas into a two-story Compound House. Above right (d): the conversion of sheltered front staircase into the front sitting room vestibule, the surong.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen, redrawn from Singapore Building Plans, 1884-1946, Singapore: Archives and Oral History Department [and] Government of the Republic of Singapore Government Micro-film Unit, 1984.

Figure 3: Javanese merchants’ houses.

Figure 3: Javanese merchants’ houses.

A and b: two nineteenth-century Javanese merchant’s houses in Kauman quarter, Yogyakarta, showing the front hall/gallery with its own hip roof that precedes the main house, analogous to the pringgitan. The example on the left is flanked by two side buildings or gandhok. Above c and d: Javanese merchant’s house in Kauman quarter, Surakarta, bearing the date 1838. The last image shows the timber structure of the sokowulu (eight-column) hip roof building that precedes the core house. Only four columns are needed in this example since brick walls at the sides have replaced the four columns that would have defined the sides of this front hall.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

Figure 4: Indische woonhuis with front halls/galleries resembling a small limasan-form pendopo/pringgitan (compare fig. 6).

Figure 4: Indische woonhuis with front halls/galleries resembling a small limasan-form pendopo/pringgitan (compare fig. 6).

Top: Indische woonhuis in Batavia (Jakarta), postcard photograph from 1905 with a front gallery with its own hip roof; an “outhouse” (bijgebouw) is visible to the right. Above: nineteenth-century Indische woonhuis in Cirebon, north coast (Pesisir) West Java.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

  • 5 Ibid., p. 181.
  • 6 Jacques Dumarçay, The House in South-East Asia, trans. and ed. Michael Smithies, Singapore: Oxford (...)
  • 7 Anthony King, Colonial Urban Development: Culture, Social Power and Environment, London; Boston, M (...)
  • 8 I have previously discussed some of these overlooked examples for Singapore and Melaka—see Imran b (...)

3Besides Jessup’s remarks on a “neoclassical-indigenous amalgam as a model for domestic architecture” in the Netherlands East Indies (today’s Indonesia),5 Jacques Dumarçay has also spoken of “a particular kind of Malay architecture” that was “under the inspiration of colonial architecture though separate from it,”6 in reference to the Rumah Limas house type (fig. 1a, 2a). Anthony King meanwhile identified the terms “compound” and “godown” as examples of hybrid terms from Malaya7—these terms lie at the heart of the Compound House (fig. 1b. 1c, 2c, 2d) and the associated Rumah Gudang (warehouse-dwelling) form (fig. 2b).8 These scholars have thus hinted at the intersections between indigenous and colonial architecture in the formation and spread of the urban vernacular dwelling types that form this article’s focus, though regrettably without offering further analysis.

  • 9 Anthony D. King. The Bungalow: Production of a Global Culture [rev. ed.], London: Oxford Universit (...)
  • 10 An image of Penang appears in the study, but British Malaya is otherwise omitted. Ibid., p. 62.
  • 11 Ibid., p. 52-58, 203-206.
  • 12 Ibid., plate 27.
  • 13 Ibid., p. 49-59, 218-223.
  • 14 Madhavi Desai, Miki Desai and Jon Lang, The Bungalow in Twentieth-Century India: The Cultural Expr (...)

4Anglophone scholarship on colonial-vernacular dwelling architecture elsewhere has attended to the study of architectural translations beyond climate and style narratives in different ways. King’s global study of the development of the bungalow is primarily focused on the adaptation and appropriation of the new dwelling form by British colonists in India beginning in the seventeenth century and its spread to Africa and the Anglophone world—Britain, North America, and Australia.9 However, British Malaya is omitted from this seminal study.10 The existence of “traditional urban dwelling types” and regional diversity of dwelling forms in India and Africa are acknowledged, but the development of new colonial-vernacular dwelling forms among Indians and Africans does not receive detailed exploration,11 though there is discussion on mimicry of “classical” elements on traditional dwellings by the “comprador merchant class,”12 emulation of British lifestyles and interiors by a new middle-class elite in India, and the consequences of the “PWD vernacular” of the colonial public works department for colonized populations.13 A more recent study on the development of new house forms in India derived from the colonial bungalow, while focusing on the twentieth century, gives a useful overview of specific instances of architectural translations in Indian urban vernacular dwelling forms from earlier periods.14

  • 15 Jay Edwards, “The complex origins of the American domestic piazza-veranda-gallery,” Material cultu (...)
  • 16 See note 34.

5The Indische woonhuis and the larger landhuis on Java has also received little proper study. Referring to the “Dutch colonial house” in Batavia using an image of a landhuis or country house, Jay Edwards states that he has “not found a satisfactory account of the development of this important early colonial tradition,” despite his citing of descriptive catalogues on such houses.15 The study of the smaller Indische woonhuis presents even greater challenges, since it has invariably been conflated with its larger predecessor.16

  • 17 James Deetz, In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life [rev. and expanded e (...)
  • 18 Jay Edwards, “The complex origins of the American domestic piazza-veranda-gallery,” op. cit. (note (...)
  • 19 The Italian “piazza” appeared in the late seventeenth century, joined in the eighteenth century by (...)
  • 20 Jay Edwards, “The Evolution of a Vernacular Tradition,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, v (...)
  • 21 Jay Edwards, “Creole Architecture: A Comparative Analysis of Upper and Lower Louisiana and Saint D (...)

6The study of new, transcultural dwelling forms as outcomes of migration and colonial settlement is well-established in North America, and James Deetz has demonstrated the importance of considering the architectural contributions from non-Western building traditions in new building practices—for instance, West African elements were incorporated into the design of Chesapeake houses in the framing dimensions and methods of assembly as well as the porch or veranda, and the house frame was not a “distortion” of English structure as one scholar had mistakenly presumed.17 Jay Edwards’ investigations into “Creole architecture” and vernacular architecture in the United States and the western Caribbean involves looking into the multilingual nomenclature and considerations of the multiple origins of the North American “piazza-veranda-gallery,”18 which may be usefully compared with King’s clarifications on these terms19; detailed typological analyses of the grammar of house layout and formal composition20; and comparisons across present-day political boundaries for older colonial domains and migration links.21 These studies demonstrate the approaches and methods that account for complex architectural-cultural histories.

The Disciplinary-Categorical and Geographical Divide in Scholarship

  • 22 I have discussed these new models in Singapore and Melaka. Imran bin Tajudeen, “Beyond Racialized (...)
  • 23 Major region-wide surveys of Austronesian-speaking portion of Southeast Asia include Jacques Dumar (...)
  • 24 Malay and Javanese architectural traditions are detailed only in specialized monographs such as R. (...)
  • 25 For the house samples selected as definitive for different Malaysian states for the Mini Malaysia (...)
  • 26 K. F. Tang, Kampong Days: Village Life and Times in Singapore Revisited, Singapore: National Archi (...)

7The new dwelling models that circulated as shared forms among the diverse colonial society in Peninsular Malaysia, Singapore, and Java were in part informed by Malay and Javanese vernacular traditions on a number of aspects: spatial layout, formal vocabulary, and the grammar of configuration for additional house parts.22 However, scholarship on the dwelling architecture of British Malaya and Java is divided into two areas of specialization, which have both been unable to adequately address the complex formation of the new nineteenth-century colonial-vernacular house models that form the focus of this article. First, book-length treatments of “vernacular” or “traditional” houses and regional surveys in this mold have been the preserve of ethnographic and anthropological inquiry, which in the Southeast Asian context tends to focus on the careful documentation of rural, remote, or tribal traditions; consequently, the urban house traditions of indigenous diasporic groups such as the Malays and Javanese are neglected.23 Monographs on Peninsular Malay and Javanese architectural traditions likewise have not systematically documented or studied the diversity of house models of urban indigenous communities.24 State-supported scholarship on traditional vernacular or customary (adat) house architecture in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have also focused on fixing definitive types by Indonesian provinces and regions (daerah) or Peninsular Malaysian state (negeri) for nationalist open-air museum projects,25 or in the case of Singapore, on projecting stereotypes of rural hardship and primitive construction that are contrasted with modernist public housing programs.26

  • 27 Huib Akihary, Architecture en stedebouw in Indonesië 1870/1970, Zutphen: De Walburg, 1990; and Vic (...)
  • 28 For a critique of colonial racial bias in the study of urban form and architecture, see Imran bin (...)
  • 29 See for instance Norman Edwards, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 1), p. 16, 56, 66, 75, 96. Fo (...)
  • 30 This presumption is expressed through the restriction of discussions of “Malay influences” in Brit (...)
  • 31 See Joel Kahn, Other Malays: Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in the Modern Malay World, Honolulu, (...)
  • 32 Ansyah Girindra Wardhani and Moediartianto, “Kampung Melayu Semarang: the development of vernacula (...)

8Conversely, architectural historians have produced monographs on Netherlands East Indies colonial architecture,27 and on “colonial bungalows” as the definitive architectural culture of British colonial cities such as Singapore and Penang,28 but such works focus upon European settlers, and the transcultural dwelling forms of the indigenous urban communities fall outside their scope of interest; or they have assumed the indigenous to be exclusively confined to rural existence,29 and that native life and architecture remained static.30 Such myths have persisted in writing on colonial architecture despite the emergence of social-cultural histories of indigenous urban communities,31 as well as field documentation of their colonial-vernacular houses and historical neighborhoods.32

9Besides the dichotomy between “vernacular” and “colonial” in the scholarship on colonial-era dwelling architecture, the political division of the Straits region into Dutch and English spheres of colonial rule in 1824 has divided British Malaya and Java into two spheres of knowledge production. Two flows of interaction are severed by this division into separate colonial-linguistic domains: the older typological links between the plans of the core house in Malay and Pesisir Javanese dwellings, as well as nineteenth- and twentieth-century migrations and the movement of types and features across colonial boundaries. Scholars working on either side of the colonial-vernacular binary divide typically do not discuss the cross-cultural architectural interactions and translations between Malay or Javanese vernacular traditions and British or Dutch colonial design.

10As a result of the division of scholarship into distinct disciplinary-categorical and colonial-geographical domains, colonial-era houses in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore that typologically (rather than just stylistically) lie along a continuum between European academic/classical traditions and vernacular Malay, Javanese, and other local regional traditions are only partially understood in existing studies. This article discusses the translations and amalgams in colonial vernacular dwelling architecture through approaches that focus upon comparisons across the divides just mentioned, and deals with evidence from plans and spatial-formal configurations as well as nomenclature.

Typological Approach: The Language of the Plan

  • 33 Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 33; Jon Lim, The Penang House, op. cit. (n (...)

11The colonial-vernacular house types from British Malaya (Malaysia and Singapore) and the Netherlands East Indies that King, Edwards, and others referred to earlier can be studied from two sources: building drawings, as well as surviving urban vernacular dwellings. These provide a record of the construction activity of indigenous urban groups, though these house types were also widely shared. On the basis of their typological traits, the two house types from British Malaya and Java are, respectively: the single-story raised-floor Rumah Limas (fig. 1a, 5a, 11) and its two-story version called the Compound House (fig. 1b, 1c, 4c, 4d, 10) found in British Malaya and Singapore; as well as the Indische woonhuis found on Java (fig. 3, 7, 9b, 9c) and the urban Javanese houses and noble residences built during the nineteenth century. These became widespread by the middle of the century and were built into the middle of the twentieth century.33

12There are striking parallels between the typical plan and interior layout of the Indische woonhuis (fig. 7b, 7c, 9b, 9c), the Compound House/Rumah Limas (fig. 1, 4), and the customary vernacular houses of Peninsular and Sumatran Malays, Sundanese (West Java), and Javanese (fig. 6). The fundamental feature of the plans of these three-bay houses is a central hall or passage connecting a front gallery (Malay serambi; Sundanese tepas; Javanese serambah/jogosatru) and a rear gallery or the back door, flanked by one or more pairs of rooms.

  • 34 The plan of the core house and overall massing of the smaller, nineteenth-century “Indies-style re (...)
  • 35 Anthony D. King, The Bungalow, op. cit. (note 9), p. 27; Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit (...)

13Contrary to the gloss in existing studies, the eighteenth-century Indische landhuis (country house) did not possess the same interior layout;34 neither did the Georgian English houses and Anglo-Indian bungalows.35 The nineteenth-century Indische woonhuis and Compound House are distinct from these presumed precedents. It is unclear from available documentation and existing studies precisely when the plan for the Indische woonhuis and the Compound House assumed the standard layout just discussed, but a surviving house from the 1780s in Semarang (fig. 7c, 7d) provides an early example of the plan that became the definitive characteristic of the nineteenth-century Indische woonhuis and Compound House and is directly related to what Jacques Dumarçay calls the “Malay Plan” (fig. 6a).

Figure 5: Spatial-formal elaboration and extension of palaces and houses.

Figure 5: Spatial-formal elaboration and extension of palaces and houses.

Top a and b: Istana Kenangan (1930) and Istana Hulu (1898-1903), Kuala Kangsar, Perak, Malaysia. Above (c): Rumah Serambi Melaka, Malaysia, with the addition of a front vestibule (surong) with the new hip-roof form (limas) to the front of the front gallery (serambi) of the core house with traditional gable roof (perabung panjang). Compare this with the Rumah Limas in fig. 1a, 2d, and 11.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

Figure 6: The plan of the core units of Malay, Pesisir (north coast Java) and Inland Central Javanese traditional customary (adat) houses.

Figure 6: The plan of the core units of Malay, Pesisir (north coast Java) and Inland Central Javanese traditional customary (adat) houses.

Left to right: (a) Malay and Acehnese 16-column, 3-bay RumahSerambi core house, showing the basic Malay Plan (based on Jacques Dumarçay and Abdul Halim Nasir); (b) Sundanese (West Java) house from Ciamis (based on Thomas Nix); (c, d, e): the plans of three Pesisir (north coast) Javanese houses from 1800 and 1810 showing location of rooms in relation to the four core columns (based on Totok Roesmanto); right (f): the plan of an inland Javanese house. Note: B = bedroom; R = room.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

Figure 7: Indische woonhuis interior layout.

Figure 7: Indische woonhuis interior layout.

Top a and b: exterior and interior of the Indische woonhuis serving as the core house at Ambarrukmo royal residence, Yogyakarta, completed 1859. The view of the interior layout, looking from the inner front hall (binnengalerij) shows a central passage between two pairs of rooms leading to the rear door to the gadri (Javanese for dining gallery). Above c and d: exterior and interior of a rare extant early Indische woonhuis dating from circa 1780s in Semarang, north coast (Pesisir), Central Java, with a gable roof to the main and rear houses. The plan of the interior of the main house follows the indigenous vernacular plan with a central passage that connects a front and rear gallery and runs between a pair of rooms (see fig. 6).

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

  • 36 N. John Habraken, “Forms of understanding: thematic knowledge and the modernist legacy,” in M. Pol (...)
  • 37 On this consistency in the Compound House, see Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2) (...)
  • 38 These house plans can be studied in Revianto Budi Santosa, Omah, op. cit. (note 24); Ali Abdul Hal (...)
  • 39 On Peninsular Malay traditions see Roger N. Hilton, “The Basic Malay House,” Journal of the Malays (...)
  • 40 Roger N. Hilton, “Defining the Malay House,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 50-52.
  • 41 “One may write of STYLES of Malay house. The house that appears in these different styles can be r (...)
  • 42 Josef Prijotomo, (Re-)Konstruksi, op. cit. (note 39), p. 285.

14A caveat has to be inserted at the outset. The typological approach acknowledges that architectural articulation within a type has flexibility with specific, yet abstract rules on space, form, and structure.36 Consequently, while the plan and form of the Compound House and Indische woonhuis remained fairly consistent despite the variety of styles which may be applied to their façades, there are minor variations.37 Similarly, the plans shown in figure 1 for the customary vernacular house was typical, though there are permutations for internal partitions, such as the number of rooms.38 Further, while traditional house typology is defined in precise structural terms through the identification of core modules, their column formation, spatial layout, and roof form combinations,39 such definitions include regional model variations and the grammar of formal permutations;40 one scholar of Peninsular Malay traditional houses emphasizes that aspects of type are independent of style.41 The variety of Javanese customary building forms arising from structural format, tectonic articulation, and formal permutations are also recognized in indigenous construction manuals that were written in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries as a response to a perceived decline in knowledge on Javanese building and the infiltration of Dutch colonial architectural practices.42

  • 43 Jacques Dumarçay, The House in South-East Asia, op. cit. (note 6), p. 30; Dumarçay (p. 35) calls t (...)
  • 44 Thomas Nix, Bijdrage tot de vormleer van de stedebouw, op. cit. (note 2), p. 237. The simplest for (...)

15The “Malay Plan” cited by Dumarçay is based on the core house unit in Aceh, Indonesia,43 but this configuration of rooms and galleries is also found on Peninsular Malaysia and other Malay-culture regions of Sumatra and southern Borneo (Banjar), and there may be only one room to one side of the interior while a raised platform takes the place of the second room. In small Malay houses the rear gallery serves as the kitchen, but a separate kitchen building (Rumah Dapur) can be built, and the rear gallery serves as the private family room and the space for female guests. A formal model of the Sundanese house form possesses a pair of rooms in the tepas and another pair at the rear of the core house flanking a passage (gog) to the kitchen house beyond (fig. 6b).44

  • 45 Totok Roesmanto, “A Study of Traditional House of Northern Central Java: A Case Study of Demak and (...)
  • 46 Machi Suhadi, “Seven Old-Malay Inscriptions Found in Java,” in SEAMEO Project in Archaeology and F (...)

16The inland aristocratic Central Javanese residences (ndalem pangeranan) provide a notable exception: the passage to the rear is closed off by the shrine to the rice goddess Dewi Sri (pasrén/petanén) which sits between a pair of rooms (senthong; fig. 6f). Conversely, the layout of early examples of north coast (Pesisir) Javanese houses up to the early nineteenth century differs from the inland example (fig. 6c, d, e).45 In fact, the plan of these older Pesisir Javanese houses closely resembles the “Malay Plan.” This link between the plans of Malay and Pesisir Javanese houses’ core units is significant from the cultural historical perspective because the layout of later examples of Pesisir Javanese houses began to conform to that found in inland Javanese houses. The surviving early nineteenth-century plans therefore provide architectural corroboration for the epigraphic and literary evidence that Java’s north coast or Pesisir has been a contact zone between Malay and Javanese culture and language since at least the seventh century.46

17The rules of spatial elaboration and extension of the Malay and Javanese customary house forms, and of Malay palaces and Javanese noble residences (ndalem) also applied in the Indische woonhuis and the Compound House. Additional layers of spaces may be added in front of or behind the pair of rooms that make up the house core, rather than to the sides, and it is also possible to increase the number of paired rooms flanking a central passage to two or, more rarely, three (fig. 1). Additional building units and vestibules are also added to the back or front of the house. The front surong vestibule may be added to the customary house form called the Rumah Serambi Melaka (fig. 5c), and the same may be done to a Compound House (fig. 2d).

18The typological elaboration of the Malay and Javanese house to create larger residences is done by extending the core house by arranging successive building units along a front-to-back axis, rather than laterally to form an impressive, long façade. Thus, seen from the front, even very extensive traditional residences built in this mode appear rather modest. This principle is also seen in the Javanese ndalem (fig. 8), and in Malay palaces built entirely of tropical hardwood such as the eighteenth-century Istana Kuning, Kotawaringin, Borneo, Indonesia (1806-1811); Istana Tengku Long, Terengganu, Malaysia (1850; fig. 11d); and the temporary Istana Kenangan, Perak, Malaysia (1931) (fig. 5a). This form of building expansion was not applied in the larger civic residences built for the colonial authorities, which continued to emphasise long façades; but in the palaces for Malay rulers built in brick and ornamented after the fashion of European classicism, such as at Istana Hulu in Kuala Kangsar, Perak, Malaysia (1898-1903; fig. 5b), we find a succession of distinct, conjoined buildings extending to the back, in the traditional typological mode of creating larger residences. These latter examples of brick palaces were thus built according to the customary pattern for building layout and the configuration of a series of buildings, a “deep” aspect of architectural type that is outwardly masked by their European masonry façade expression and neoclassical ornamentation.

Thresholds: The Pringgitan/Voorgalerij and Seketheng

  • 47 Revianto Budi Santoso, personal communication, 1 Jul 2017.
  • 48 Naniek Widayati, Settlement of Batik Entrepreneurs in Surakarta, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, Indonesia (...)
  • 49 The Kalang are a group who were formerly woodcutters, carpenters and housebuilders, carriage owner (...)
  • 50 Ikaputra, Kunihiro Narumi and Takahiro Hisa, “Preserving traditional architecture: noble residenti (...)
  • 51 On the bungalow and its spread through India, Africa, North America, Australia, and Britain, and t (...)

19The spatial-formal character of the front gallery of the Indische woonhuis depends on the house’s roof orientation. In houses with a series of hip roofs oriented parallel to the house front (fig. 3), the front gallery (voorgalerij) possesses its own, separate hip roof. This spatial-formal attribute bears a correspondence with two types of Javanese front buildings. First, it replicates the limasan-form front hall (pendopo) of the smaller, compact houses of Javanese merchants in the old Muslim quarter, Kauman, of the royal cities of Surakarta and Yogyakarta (fig. 4),47 and in the merchants’ districts of Laweyan in Surakarta48 and in the sixteenth-century former royal capital of Kota Gede.49 Second, it resembles the pringgitan, a gallery with its own hip roof located between the front pavilion (pendopo) and core house or dalem ageng in the fully-developed Javanese ndalem (fig. 6f, 8a, 8d, 9a).50 Climatic adaptation does not provide a satisfactory explanation for why this typological feature, corresponding exactly with the Javanese limasan-form small pendopo or the pringgitan, should be reproduced for the front gallery/hall of the Indische woonhuis when a lean-to roof or a combined hip roof with the main house would have sufficed. This conspicuous spatial-formal characteristic distinguishes the voorgalerij of such examples of the Indische woonhuis as being derived from the Javanese pringgitan rather than the veranda of the British and French colonial bungalow traditions.51

  • 52 This is also the roof orientation of some Rumah Limas and Compound Houses, where we find a single, (...)
  • 53 Josef Prijotomo, (Re-)Konstruksi, op. cit. (note 39), p. 133-135.

20Alternatively, the Indische woonhuis may feature a single hip roof whose main ridge is perpendicular to the house façade (fig. 7a, 8b).52 In such examples, the front gallery is no longer housed under a separate hip roof. However, one such Indische woonhuis provides an interesting case of the articulation of the pringgitan space for a monarch’s residence in the Ambarrukmo buildings in Yogyakarta (fig. 8b). The house was built in 1857-1859 to serve as a royal lodge (pesanggrahan) and was subsequently supplemented by a front hall/pavilion (pendopo) with the customary tall peaked hip roofs (joglo) bearing the date 1897 (fig. 8b). With the addition of the pendopo, Ambarrukmo became a noble residence (ndalem), which, as reviewed earlier, comprises a sequence of spaces arranged along a front-to-back axis. A kind of “abbreviated” pringgitan was appended to the Indische woonhuis by the addition of a structural frame (pamidhangan) that reproduces the eight-column (sokowulu) structure of a hip roof (limasan) pringgitan building,53 here expressed by four columns with double beams connected to the front wall (fig. 8c). This articulation is repeated to produce a rear gallery, called the gadri in noble residences. Here, the addition of the teakwood structural frame to define a typological space may be read as an attempt at creating a facsimile of actual examples of a pringgitan constructed with the eight-column (sokowulu) hip roof (limasan) building. One example of a particularly large pringgitan is found in the Purwodiningrat noble residence (ndalem), Surakarta, built in the reign of Pakubuwana IV (r. 1768-1820; fig. 8d). The example of the Indische woonhuis at Ambarrukmo demonstrates how the grammar of house layout from Javanese tradition was not merely manifest as additional spaces, but through the precise architectonic structural-spatial articulation of the pringgitan and gadri whose significance can only be fully appreciated from a knowledge of Javanese domestic architecture.

  • 54 The difference is noted in Thomas Nix, Bijdrage tot de vormleer van de stedebouw, op. cit. (note 2 (...)

21Another aspect of the configuration of the Indische woonhuis that echoes the Javanese traditional layout is the distinctive configuration for ancillary buildings and the threshold wall that separates the front and inner compounds of the house. In Compound Houses the ancillary buildings are confined to the rear (fig. 1b, 1c, 2c, 2d), but those of the Indische woonhuis typically surround the core house in a C-plan formation, usually lining the perimeter of an inner, rear compound—and only the front ends of the side buildings, bijgebouwen, are visible from the street front beyond the compound threshold (fig. 2a, 9b, 9c). This configuration is distinct from that found in Dutch country houses (Nederlands buitenverblijf)54; and instead echoes the layout of the Javanese ndalem where side houses (gandhok) and the kitchen building (pawon) line the perimeter of the inner compound surrounding the core house (dalem ageng) (fig. 8a, 9a). Even in compact Javanese houses in the merchants’ quarters, gandhok are built flanking the core house for additional rooms (fig. 1).

Figure 8: Javanese noble residences with traditional building forms and with Indischewoonhuis.

Figure 8: Javanese noble residences with traditional building forms and with Indischewoonhuis.

Top a: Ndalemin Yogyakarta with tall peaked hip roofs (joglo) sheltering the front hall (pendopo) and the core house (dalem ageng), and an intervening transitional space pringgitansheltered by its own narrow hip roof; the threshold extends beyond the house to the compound as a boundary wall screening off the interior compound, visible to the right. Middle (b): Ambarrukmo buildings, Yogyakarta, Indischewoonhuisas core house completed 1859 and subsequently enlarged and supplemented by a front hall (pendopo), completed 1897. Bottom left (c): post-and-beam frame (pamidhangan) replicating the eight-column (sokowulu) building for a pringgitanin an 1859 IndischewoonhuisAmbarrukmo royal residence and resort, Yogyakarta. Bottom right (d): large eight-column (sokowulu) hip roof pringgitanbuilding of Purwodiningrat noble residence (ndalem), Surakarta, built in the reign of Pakubuwana IV (r. 1768-1820).

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

  • 55 This is beyond the scope of the present discussion. For images and descriptions, see Ali Abdul Hal (...)

22Examples of Indische woonhuis with this distinctive configuration of threshold wall and ancillary buildings may be seen in the Bintaran neighborhood of Yogyakarta (fig. 9d), where the threshold divides the house plot into a front yard into which the front gallery projects forward, and an inner compound beyond public view. Such thresholds (seketheng) demarcating the boundary between a public front and inner, private quarters of building and compound alike is a common feature in Javanese architecture—observable not only in the Javanese ndalem, where it is aligned with the pringgitan between the front pavilion and the core house (figs. 8a, 9a) but also in a number of fifteenth- to eighteenth-century Javanese palaces, mosques, and mausoleum complexes, and in eighteenth-century Malay palaces in the Riau Islands and the Peninsula.55 In compact Javanese town dwellings, the seketheng may be abbreviated as a “side door” to the tight compound, flanking the front pendopo (figs. 1a), and this feature may also be observed in the Indische woonhuis (figs. 2b, 7c). The shared grammar of the compound wall threshold observed across these examples indicate the translation of a fundamental aspect of Javanese vernacular spatial vocabulary into the layout of the new Indische woonhuis, marking the latter as a product of a distinctly Javanese architectural milieu. The urban Javanese dwellings of the early nineteenth and twentieth century also expressed this deep spatial characteristic, even as it increasingly sported European-style masonry articulation and columns, usually of the Doric order, on the front gallery (fig. 1).

Figure 9: Tresholds.

Figure 9: Tresholds.

Top left (a): the schematic layout of the typical Javanese residence or dalemshowing the location of the threshold between public front and private inner domains of the house and compound. Top middle and right (b, c): the location of similar thresholds in the basic Indische house form, and in more elaborate examples, for instance in the 1850 residence for the West Java Governor (now Jakarta City Hall) and for military officers’ housing from the same period. Above (d): map of a number of Indische houses, Javanese Ndalem and the palace of the minor prince of Yogyakarta, Pura Pakualaman, Yogyakarta, based on a map of 1925, showing the thresholds of the house compounds.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen; c) after Nix 1949; d) redrawn from a map of Yogyakarta 1925.

“Compound” and “Limas”: Nomenclature, etymology, and migration of ideas

  • 56 Anthony King, Colonial Urban Development, op. cit. (note 7), p. 73.

23In an early study of what he termed the “colonial third culture,” Anthony King noted how words used in the colonial setting can be divided into four categories: besides those adopted from the metropolitan culture, from the indigenous, and from the meeting of the two, a fourth category consists of words that are “diffused from the colonial third culture of other areas in the colonial territorial system.” He specifically points out terms “from South-East Asia, especially from Malaya,” citing “compound” as an example.56

  • 57 Whereas the English word “compound” already possessed a primary meaning of “put together, combine, (...)

24The second meaning of the word “compound,” denoting a morphological entity (viz. a house compound), is indeed recognized by linguists as etymologically derived from the Malay term “kampung” (spelled “kampong” and “campong” as English loan words); it is said to have entered English via earlier Portuguese and Dutch adoption, and spread across the British colonies to India and Africa.57 Several building plans from Singapore explicitly use the term “Compound House,” for instance in a set of drawings from 1884 to build “Six Compound Houses” for Hadjee Drahman (fig. 3b). The Malay origin of the key term in the name “Compound House” lends further credence to the architectural clues pointing to its earlier emergence before it appears in the late nineteenth-century drawing record.

  • 58 In Pesisir Java houses, the front and back of the limasan roof are extended by lean-to roofs at a (...)
  • 59 This term is still relatively alien in Malay. Thus, for instance, the authoritative study by Ali A (...)

25The terms limas (Malay) and limasan (Javanese) for the hip roof provide further clues. The Compound House, Rumah Limas, and Indische woonhuis invariably sported the hip roof. This roof form, the limasan, was part of the repertoire of Javanese tradition.58 In contrast, Malay (and Acehnese) houses traditionally used only the gable roof form (perabung panjang; see fig. 5c); the hip roof form was introduced with the adopted Javanese term limas (figs. 3a, 4),59 while the equivalent of the maligi variant form was called limas bungkus (see fig. 4a).

  • 60 Kelantan and Terengganu possess a model named Rumah Potongan Belanda (Dutch-style house), while Pa (...)
  • 61 Barbara Watson Andaya, Perak, the Abode of Grace: A Study of an Eighteenth-Century Malay State, Ne (...)
  • 62 The Rumah Limas also spread to the Sumatra coastal plantation belt around Medan, where it has toda (...)

26More importantly, specific names or qualifiers for the Rumah Limas houses in different Malay-speaking regions allude to origins in Perak and Riau and involve a connection with the Dutch (Hollanders, in Javanese, Wolanda, whence Malay Belanda)60; the names appear to preserve the memory of an earlier, eighteenth-century origin for the various Rumah Limas models connected with the Dutch presence in Riau and Perak,61 and possibly involving the agency of Perak Malays and Bugis planters in Riau preceding the division of the Straits of Melaka region in 1824 into Dutch and British colonial domains.62 In Perak, this roof form is simply called Limas Perak (see figs. 11a, b), while in Johor the same form is called Limas Riau. This older, Dutch-influenced Malay form, to which was applied the Javanese-derived term limas, may have been the precedent behind the earliest “Anglo-Malay” Compound Houses designed and constructed by British architects.

Figure 10: Early examples of the Compound House with surong.

Figure 10: Early examples of the Compound House with surong.

Top a: Sultan’s Palace (c. 1840) at Kampong Gelam, Singapore. Top b: Archbishop’s House (1859), Singapore. Above c: Alatas Mansion (1860), Penang, Malaysia. Above d: Istana Jahar (1855), Kota Bahru, Malaysia.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

Anjung/Surong as Palladian Portico?

  • 63 Julian Davison, Black and White, op. cit. (note 1), p. 62.
  • 64 Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim Haji Wan Teh, The Traditional Malay House, op. cit. (note 24), p. 1 (...)
  • 65 Roger N. Hilton, “The Basic Malay House,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 135.
  • 66 Both terms are also found in Minangkabau (West Sumatra) and Bugis (South Sulawesi) customary house (...)
  • 67 Chen Voon Fee, “Architectural Styles of the Planter’s Bungalow,” in Peter Jenkins and Waveney Jenk (...)

27A defining feature of the Compound Houses is the front sitting room vestibule called the surong in Malay. One author exclaims that “this so-called sitting verandah was arguably the definitive feature of the Singapore house for much of the colonial era” (fig. 3a, 3b, 10).63 Yet, remarkably, this prominent and definitive feature has no specific English name. The same central front vestibule defines the Rumah Limas, which, despite developing regional variations following its rapid assimilation into the Malay house repertoire,64 was invariably “characterized by a protruding reception room and a five-ridged roof” (fig. 11).65 The two Malay terms for this central projecting vestibule—the anjung and surong66—distinguishes between, respectively, front and side vestibules serving as entrance reception space, and sitting rooms that are situated independently from entrances (see figs. 3a versus 3b; fig. 11a versus 11b, 11c).By the middle of the nineteenth century, the front vestibule had become such a ubiquitous form on Rumah Limas that one scholar refers to the “typical Malay-style central anjung which leads directly to the serambi.”67

28The connection of this colonial building type to indigenous vernacular building culture extends beyond mere formal-spatial correspondences. Building drawings from Singapore record projects to convert the single-story raised-floor (panggung) Rumah Limas into the two-story form called the Compound House (see fig. 2c). Other drawings also show that the anjung or surong may be added to a house later rather than at the outset, thus conforming to the vernacular tradition’s system of house elaboration (see fig. 2d). The Rumah Limas and Compound House are therefore not merely localized versions of the early nineteenth-century Georgian, neo-Palladian house, since a processual perspective shows that the system of house addition and the function of vestibules in the house vocabulary of formal articulation is integrated with indigenous ideas about house construction and expansion.

Figure 11: Rumah Limas with anjung and surong.

Figure 11: Rumah Limas with anjung and surong.

Top a: RumahLimas Perak, with surongor front sitting room on the left; a side anjungwith the sheltered entrance stairs is seen in the foreground. Perak, Malaysia. Top b: RumahLimasPerak, with a front anjungwith the entrance stairs. The undercroft (kolong) has been walled in. Kuala Kangsar, Perak, Malaysia. Above c: Villa Sentosa (1923) in Kampung Morten, Melaka, Malaysia. Above d: Istana Tengku Long (1850, 1904), originally in Besut, Terengganu, Malaysia.

Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.

  • 68 Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 30-37.
  • 69Jendela” is a Luso-Malay term derived from the Portuguese janela, which is distinct from “French (...)

29The surong front vestibule on Compound Houses has typically been explained as a neo-Palladian portico, but this gloss is problematic: some examples do feature a colonnade topped by a pediment, but in numerous examples, the vestibule assumes a form departing completely from the Palladian Greek temple-front facsimile. Already in three early bungalows dating from the 1830s by the colonial architect G. D. Coleman at the Padang in Singapore, the “colonnade” is curtailed to the lower floor supporting an upper floor balcony above a porte cochère.68 In contemporary examples from the mid-nineteenth century, the form of the front vestibule in Compound Houses depart considerably from the Palladian portico and follow the Malay pattern of the anjong and surong. Thus, in place of the colonnade we find either an open balcony with balusters between corner pillars, which is typically called the balai peranginan—literally “pavilion for breezes”—or the projecting upper floor may be enclosed by walls punctured by large windows all around, forming a front room, typically a sitting room, called the surong (also spelled sorong; figs. 3b, 10). Full-length windows with internal balustrades, called the jendela,69 are a common feature of these surong (see figs. 2c, 2d, 5c, 10a, 10c, 11c). The roof form employed in many examples no longer sports a pediment, even in examples built for European clients. Early Rumah Limas and Compound Houses in Singapore include the Palace (Istana) built for the Sultan at Kampong Gelam (c. 1840); the Pondok Jawa (c. 1840, demolished), originally called Balai Karimun and intended as the admiral’s residence for Singapore’s Malay court; and the Archbishop’s House (1859) of the Cathedral of the Good Shepherd. An early example from Penang is the Alatas Mansion (1860), built for an Arab merchant from Aceh, Sumatra (fig. 10).

  • 70 Muhammad Haji Salleh (ed.), Sulalat Al-Salatin: Ya'ni Perteturun Segala Raja-Raja (Sejarah Melayu)(...)
  • 71 Virginia Matheson Hooker (ed.), Tuhfat al-Nafis, Kuala Lumpur: Fajar Bakti, 1997, p. 4.
  • 72 Mohamad Tajuddin Haji Mohamed Rasdi, Traditional Muslim Architecture in Malaysia, Skudai: Pusat Ka (...)
  • 73 Mubin Sheppard, “Terengganu and Kelantan,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 1-9.

30The front vestibule appears to have been referred to explicitly in two Malay texts in connection with royal restrictions on their use on ordinary houses, using the root words anjung, pebalai, or peranginan. The seventeenth-century Sulalatus-Salatin speaks of rumah peranjungan and peranginan,70 while the nineteenth-century Tuhfat al-Nafis refers to the rumah beperanginan and berpebalaian.71 These texts suggest that the front vestibule possibly predates the nineteenth-century British plantation house. The prestige attached to the anjung and surong in aristocratic circles may explain its early use in Malay royal residences, for instance in Istana Kampong Gelam (1840) in Singapore (fig. 10a); the Palace of Tengku Long (1850, 1904) from Besut (fig. 11d)72; Rumah Tengah (1890) in the palace complex in Kuala Terenganu73; and three structures from Kota Bharu, Kelantan, namely Istana Balai Besar with its octagonal porch (1842-1844); and Istana Jahar (1855; fig. 11d) and the former residence of the Chief Minister of Kelantan (1902), which both feature an octagonal surong.

  • 74 Parid Wardi Sudin, “The Malay House,” Mimar, no. 2, 1981, p. 62.
  • 75 Ibid., p. 62.

31In the nineteenth century, the former restrictions on the use of the anjung/surong seem to have been rescinded, as seen in the construction of Malay commoners’ houses with the anjung or surong (figs. 5c, 11a). Yet it appears to have retained its status as a mark of prestige or wealth.74 For example, two Rumah Limas with the surong that were built by headmen who were migrants from Sumatra—Villa Sentosa (1923) by Datuk Hj Hashim at Kampung Morten in Melaka Town (fig.  11c), and the house of Demang Abdul Ghani at Merlimau, Malaysia (1894-1914)—served to differentiate their status through this house form. In the former example, other residents of the urban village were not allowed to build their houses in this form, while in the latter case employed a triple anjung form.75

  • 76 N. John Habraken, “Type as Social Agreement,” paper presented at the Asian Congress of Architects, (...)

32The emergence of the central front vestibule is interesting from the perspective of both formal typological analysis and the etymology of its names. John N. Habraken has spoken of how “the names of these typological spaces are not functional”—instead, “they evoke architectural qualities.”76 Significantly, Habraken points to the serambi, the front gallery of the eponymous Rumah Serambi from Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore (figs. 5c-6a), the traditional Malay gable-roofed house (also known as Rumah Bumbung Panjang), as an example of a shared nomenclature that is independent of functional association. We may add that the information gleaned from the cultural etymology of the terms used should be read in relation to the social and historical contexts of complex multi-cultural encounters and the cross-fertilization of ideas.

  • 77 Ibid., p. 18.

33What are we to make of this transformation or translation of the portico/porte cochère into the anjung and surong? The incorporation of the front vestibule into the vernacular spatial inventory cannot be explained through function—and we have left the climate imperative far behind. The pre-existing traditional serambi and side anjung already serve the same purpose. The front anjung and surong constitutes what Habraken calls “systemic elaboration”—“the traditional hierarchies of spaces and forms are not reduced by modernization but strengthened in their architectural expression.”77 On the exterior, this front vestibule was the most visually prominent portion of the house (see figs. 10-11), while spatially this front room became the central showpiece for entertaining guests, well suited as it was for ostentation in a modern social setting with furniture. Some houses even feature both the older side anjung and the more formal front anjung (fig. 10a).

Reconsiderations on Agency and Chronology

34A number of reconsiderations on the nature of the interactions between European colonial and Malay and Javanese vernacular architectural traditions emerge from the preceding discussion on the Indische woonhuis, Rumah Limas, and Compound House. These are suggested by the chronology and specific attributes of the surviving examples and the available records.

  • 78 Peter Jenkins and Waverley Jenkins, The Planter’s Bungalow, op. cit. (note 67).
  • 79 Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 222-223.

35One survey of the plantation bungalows of European planters in British Malaya posited three stages in the adaptation of the traditional Malay dwelling, culminating in the “Developed Malay House”—a term coined for timber Rumah Limas with brick piers—by the 1860s,78 while another study on the “Singapore House” categorizes Malay-type houses as the “Early Bungalow” and coins the rather vague term “Modest Bungalows” for Compound Houses and brick versions of Rumah Limas, which are ascribed to circa 1910 to 1940.79 However, the examples from the 1840s and 1850s reviewed earlier, including houses built for indigenous clients, push the chronology for Compound Houses and the development of all-brick versions of the Rumah Limas far earlier.

  • 80 Djoko Soekiman, Kebudayaan Indis: dan gaya hidup masyarakat pendukungnya di Jawa (abad XVIII-medio (...)
  • 81 Thomas Nix, Bijdrage tot de vormleer van de stedebouw, op. cit. (note 2), p. 192, 194.

36Studies on the transition from the eighteenth-century Indische landhuis and the nineteenth-century woonhuis, meanwhile, have emphasized a shift in European settlers’ lives from country estates to urban or suburban settings,80 and a “degradation” in the façade style in the 1870s from the strict Neoclassicism of the early nineteenth-century “Empire Style.”81 Yet the surviving example of a 1780s colonial house in Semarang town and the extant Javanese merchant houses from the 1820s and 1830s from Surakarta’s Kauman quarter and elsewhere bearing adaptations of European classical moldings indicate that these assumptions need to be relooked.

37As the preceding examples have shown, presumptions of indigenous stasis are untenable, and the focus upon European society in the scholarship on colonial-era house forms needs to be tempered by the inclusion of examples built for indigenous clients, and the cognizance of the customary vernacular typological bases and spatial-formal translations in the formation of colonial-vernacular dwellings beyond a reliance on reductive tropes of climatic adaptation. More importantly, scholarship on indigenous building typology and colonial-era dwellings on Java and in British Malaya, which are currently separated by geographical-linguistic and disciplinary-categorical divides, can be simultaneously applied to the close reading of the compositional grammar, formal vocabulary, and layouts of these colonial-vernacular dwellings in order to reveal their correlations and understand their translations more meaningfully. A processual perspective on the development of the house forms, and a consideration of nomenclature and etymology, have indicated the potential of such approaches and directions for further investigations into the kinds of architectural interactions that took place in the colonial setting.

Torna su

Note

1 For example, see Andrew Ballantyne and Andrew Law, “Genealogy of the Singaporean black-and-white house,” Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, vol. 32, no. 3, 2011, p. 308, 311; Norman Edwards, The Singapore House and Residential Life 1819-1939, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1990; Julian Davison, Black and White: The Singapore House, 1898-1941, Singapore: Talisman, 2006, p. 15; Jon Lim, The Penang House: and the Straits Architect 1887-1941, Penang: Areca Books, 2015, p. 50; and Ronald Gill, “Country Houses in the 18th century,” in Gunawan Tjahjono (ed.), Indonesian Heritage. 6. Architecture, Singapore: Archipelago Press, 1988, p. 112-113.

2 The two key exceptions that do consider the architectural typology of indigenous dwellings in the context of a study of colonial houses in British Singapore and twentieth-century Dutch colonial era in Java are, respectively, Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House 1819-1942, Singapore: Times Editions, 1988; and Thomas Nix, Bijdrage tot de vormleer van de stedebouw: in het bijzonder voor Indonesië, Heemstede: De Toorts, 1949. However, both studies merely provide a sample of indigenous houses in isolation from the rest of the discussion.

3 Helen Jessup, The Dutch Colonial Villa,” in Brian Taylor (ed.), Mimar Houses, Singapore: Concept Media, 1987, p. 179.

4 Ibid., p. 179.

5 Ibid., p. 181.

6 Jacques Dumarçay, The House in South-East Asia, trans. and ed. Michael Smithies, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1986, p. 30-32.

7 Anthony King, Colonial Urban Development: Culture, Social Power and Environment, London; Boston, MA: Routledge & Paul, 1976, p. 89-90.

8 I have previously discussed some of these overlooked examples for Singapore and Melaka—see Imran bin Tajudeen, “Beyond Racialized Representation: Architectural Linguæ Francæ and Urban Histories in the Kampung Houses and Shophouses of Melaka and Singapore,” in Madhuri Desai and Mrinalini Rajagopalan (eds.), Colonial Frames, Nationalist Histories: Imperial legacies, architecture, and modernity, Farnham; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2012 (Ashgate studies in architecture), p. 213-252; and “Architecture of Houses and Mosques,” in Aileen Lau (ed.), Malay Heritage of Singapore, Singapore: Suntree Media, 2011, p. 70-83.

9 Anthony D. King. The Bungalow: Production of a Global Culture [rev. ed.], London: Oxford University Press, 1995.

10 An image of Penang appears in the study, but British Malaya is otherwise omitted. Ibid., p. 62.

11 Ibid., p. 52-58, 203-206.

12 Ibid., plate 27.

13 Ibid., p. 49-59, 218-223.

14 Madhavi Desai, Miki Desai and Jon Lang, The Bungalow in Twentieth-Century India: The Cultural Expression of Changing Ways of Life and Aspirations in the Domestic Architecture of Colonial and Post-colonial society, London; New York, NY: Routledge, 2016 (Ashgate studies in architecture).

15 Jay Edwards, “The complex origins of the American domestic piazza-veranda-gallery,” Material culture, vol. 21, no. 2, 1989, p. 37.

16 See note 34.

17 James Deetz, In Small Things Forgotten: An Archaeology of Early American Life [rev. and expanded ed.], New York, NY: Anchor Books; Doubleday, 1996, p. 227-228.

18 Jay Edwards, “The complex origins of the American domestic piazza-veranda-gallery,” op. cit. (note 15), p. 3-58.

19 The Italian “piazza” appeared in the late seventeenth century, joined in the eighteenth century by the parallel use of the term “veranda,” and finally the late eighteenth-century term “galerie” in the French Mississippi. Anthony D. King, The Bungalow, op. cit. (note 9), p. 266.

20 Jay Edwards, “The Evolution of a Vernacular Tradition,” Perspectives in Vernacular Architecture, vol. 4, 1991, p. 75-86.

21 Jay Edwards, “Creole Architecture: A Comparative Analysis of Upper and Lower Louisiana and Saint Domingue,” International Journal of Historical Archaeology, vol. 10, no. 3, 2006, p. 241-271. URL: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10761-006-0013-3.pdf. Accessed 4 September 2017. DOI: 10.1007/s10761-006-0013-3.

22 I have discussed these new models in Singapore and Melaka. Imran bin Tajudeen, “Beyond Racialized Representation,” op. cit. (note 8), p. 213-252.

23 Major region-wide surveys of Austronesian-speaking portion of Southeast Asia include Jacques Dumarçay, The House in South-East Asia, op. cit. (note 6); Roxana Waterson, The Living House: An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia, London: Thames and Hudson, 1997; and James J. Fox, Inside Austronesian Houses: Perspectives on Domestic Designs for Living, Canberra: ANU E Press, 2006 (Comparative Austronesian series). However, these works leave out the house traditions of the Malays and Javanese.

24 Malay and Javanese architectural traditions are detailed only in specialized monographs such as R. M. Ismunandar, Joglo, arsitektur rumah tradisional Jawa, Semarang: Dahara Prize, 1986; Revianto Budi Santosa, Omah: membaca makna rumah Jawa, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Yayasan Bentang Budaya, 2000; Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim Haji Wan Teh, The Traditional Malay House, Shah Alam: Fajar Bakti, 1996; and Lim Jee Yuan, The Malay House: Rediscovering Malaysia’s Indigenous Shelter System, Pulau Pinang: Institut Masyarakat, 1987.

25 For the house samples selected as definitive for different Malaysian states for the Mini Malaysia open-air museum (opened in 1986), see Abdul Halim Nasir, Pengenalan rumah tradisional Melayu Semenanjung Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur: Darul Fikir, 1985. For Indonesia, see the series bearing titles beginning with Arsitektur Tradisional Daerah, published by the Department of Education and Culture.

26 K. F. Tang, Kampong Days: Village Life and Times in Singapore Revisited, Singapore: National Archives, 1993.

27 Huib Akihary, Architecture en stedebouw in Indonesië 1870/1970, Zutphen: De Walburg, 1990; and Victor Ido van de Wall, Oude Hollandsche bouwkunst in Indonesië, Antwerp: De Sikkel, 1942 (Maerlantbibliotheek, 7).

28 For a critique of colonial racial bias in the study of urban form and architecture, see Imran bin Tajudeen, “Beyond Racialized Representation” and Imran bin Tajudeen, “Clients, Architects, and the Persistence of Type: A Review of The Penang House and the Straits Architect 1878-1941 by Jon Lim Sun Hock,” The Singapore Architect, no. 1, 2015, p. 96i-96iv.

29 See for instance Norman Edwards, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 1), p. 16, 56, 66, 75, 96. For a discussion of the colonial genesis and nature of such stereotypes, see Imran bin Tajudeen, “Beyond Racialized Representation,” op. cit. (note 8), p. 227-230, 236-239.

30 This presumption is expressed through the restriction of discussions of “Malay influences” in British Malaya to “the earliest houses.” For example, see Julian Davison, Black and White, op. cit. (note 1), p. 14-15; Norman Edwards, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 1), p. 56; and Jon Lim Sun Hock, The Penang House, op. cit. (note 1), p. 49.

31 See Joel Kahn, Other Malays: Nationalism and Cosmopolitanism in the Modern Malay World, Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press, 2006 (Asian studies association of Australia); and John Gullick, Malay Society in the Late Nineteenth Century: The Beginnings of Change, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1987.

32 Ansyah Girindra Wardhani and Moediartianto, “Kampung Melayu Semarang: the development of vernacular architecture on the vision of urban management,” in Vernacular Settlement in the New Millennium: Resistance and Resilience of Local Knowledge: February 16-17 2012, Proceedings, Depok: University of Indonesia, 2002; Seo Ryeung Ju, Saari Omar and Young Eun Ko, “Modernization of the vernacular Malay House in Kampong Bahru, Kuala Lumpur,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 11, no. 1, 2012, p. 95-102. URL: https://umexpert.um.edu.my/file/publication/00006065_90610.pdf. Accessed 4 September 2017; Risqi Cahyani, Lisa Dwi Wulandari, and Antariksa Antariksa, “Simetrisitas Sebagai Kosmologi Ruang Jawa Pada Rumah Kolonial Di Kampung Bubutan Surabaya (The Symmetricity of Colonial House as Javanese Space Cosmology at Kampung Bubutan Surabaya),” Tesa Arsitektur: Journal of Architectural Discourses, vol. 12, no. 2, 2014, p. 141-155; Imran bin Tajudeen, “Architecture of Houses and Mosques,” op. cit. (note 8).

33 Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 33; Jon Lim, The Penang House, op. cit. (note 1), p. 51; Adolf Heuken, Menteng: “Kota taman” pertama di Indonesia, Jakarta: Yayasan Cipta Loka Caraka, 2001, p. 9-12.

34 The plan of the core house and overall massing of the smaller, nineteenth-century “Indies-style residence” (Indische woonhuis) is distinct from the eighteenth-century country houses (landhuis/buitenplaats/buitenverblijf) of Batavia (Dutch colonial Jakarta); the two have been conflated in Adolf Heuken, Historical Sights of Jakarta [7th ed.], Jakarta: Cipta Loka Caraka, 2007, p. 256 and 314.

35 Anthony D. King, The Bungalow, op. cit. (note 9), p. 27; Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 33 and 42.

36 N. John Habraken, “Forms of understanding: thematic knowledge and the modernist legacy,” in M. Pollack (ed.), The Education of the Architect, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997, p. 267-293.

37 On this consistency in the Compound House, see Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 33, 42, 67. On the plan of the Indische woonhuis, see Heuken, Historical Sights of Jakarta, op. cit. (note 33), p. 255.

38 These house plans can be studied in Revianto Budi Santosa, Omah, op. cit. (note 24); Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim, The Traditional Malay House, op. cit. (note 24); and Lim Jee Yuan, The Malay House, op. cit. (note 24).

39 On Peninsular Malay traditions see Roger N. Hilton, “The Basic Malay House,” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society vol. 29, no. 3, 1956; Id., “Defining the Malay House,” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 65, no. 1, 1992, p. 262, 39-72; Mubin Sheppard, “Traditional Malay House Forms in Terengganu and Kelantan,” Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, vol. 42, no. 2, 1969, p. 1-9; Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim Haji Wan Teh, The Traditional Malay House, op. cit. (note 24); Phillip Gibbs, Building a Malay House, Singapore: Oxford University Press, 1987; Jacques Dumarçay, The House in South-East Asia, op. cit (note 6); and Lim Jee Yuan, The Malay House, op. cit. (note 24). On Javanese dwelling traditions see R. M. Ismunandar, Joglo, op. cit. (note 24); Revianto Budi Santosa, Omah, op. cit. (note 24); Josef Prijotomo, (Re-)Konstruksi arsitektur Jawa: griya Jawa dalam tradisi tanpatulisan, Surabaya: Wastu Lanas Grafika, 2006.

40 Roger N. Hilton, “Defining the Malay House,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 50-52.

41 “One may write of STYLES of Malay house. The house that appears in these different styles can be referred to as a Malay TYPE” (emphasis original). Roger N. Hilton, “Defining the Malay House,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 40.

42 Josef Prijotomo, (Re-)Konstruksi, op. cit. (note 39), p. 285.

43 Jacques Dumarçay, The House in South-East Asia, op. cit. (note 6), p. 30; Dumarçay (p. 35) calls the pair of rooms in the Acehnese model of the Malay house the “suite of rooms.”

44 Thomas Nix, Bijdrage tot de vormleer van de stedebouw, op. cit. (note 2), p. 237. The simplest form of the core Sundanese house of West Java possesses a “house center” (tengah imah) with one bedroom flanked by a front reception gallery (tepas) and a rear, kitchen gallery.

45 Totok Roesmanto, “A Study of Traditional House of Northern Central Java: A Case Study of Demak and Jepara,” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, vol. 1, no. 2, 2002, p. 220-222. URL: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jaabe/1/2/1_2_2_219/_pdf. Accessed 5 September 2017.

46 Machi Suhadi, “Seven Old-Malay Inscriptions Found in Java,” in SEAMEO Project in Archaeology and Fine Arts. Final report, Bangkok: SEAMEO, 1983, p. 67-81; Stuart O. Robson, “Java at the crossroads: aspects of the Javanese cultural history in the 14th and 15th centuries,” Bijdragen tot de taal-, land- en volkenkunde, vol. 137, no. 2-3, 1981, p. 259-292.

47 Revianto Budi Santoso, personal communication, 1 Jul 2017.

48 Naniek Widayati, Settlement of Batik Entrepreneurs in Surakarta, Bulaksumur, Yogyakarta, Indonesia: Gadjah Mada University Press, 2004.

49 The Kalang are a group who were formerly woodcutters, carpenters and housebuilders, carriage owners, jewelers, general merchants, and money lenders to the court. For a good illustration of a sampling of the Rumah Kalang, see Homeowner’s Conservation Manual: Kotagede Heritage District, Yogyakarta, Indonesia, Bangkok: UNESCO, 2007.

50 Ikaputra, Kunihiro Narumi and Takahiro Hisa, “Preserving traditional architecture: noble residential area development in Java,” in Planning for a Better Urban Living Environment in Asia, Anthony Gar-On Yeh and Mee Kam Ng (eds.), Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000, p. 297-320. The name pringgitan denotes the space for the screen for shadow puppets or wayang kulit (High Javanese ringgit) performances.

51 On the bungalow and its spread through India, Africa, North America, Australia, and Britain, and the veranda as one of its distinctive features, see Anthony D. King, The Bungalow, op. cit. (note 9), p. 265-267.

52 This is also the roof orientation of some Rumah Limas and Compound Houses, where we find a single, large hip roof with its ridge perpendicular to the house front (figs. 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 4d).

53 Josef Prijotomo, (Re-)Konstruksi, op. cit. (note 39), p. 133-135.

54 The difference is noted in Thomas Nix, Bijdrage tot de vormleer van de stedebouw, op. cit. (note 2), p. 193.

55 This is beyond the scope of the present discussion. For images and descriptions, see Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim Haji Wan Teh, Warisan seni bina Melayu, Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 1997, p. 75, 87; and Timothy E. Behrend, “Kraton, taman, mesjid: a brief survey and bibliographic review of Islamic antiquities in Java,” Indonesia Circle, no. 35, 1984, p. 29-55.

56 Anthony King, Colonial Urban Development, op. cit. (note 7), p. 73.

57 Whereas the English word “compound” already possessed a primary meaning of “put together, combine,” and so on (from Latin compōnere), it acquired a secondary spatial-morphological meaning from the Malay. The best reference for its etymological history is found in T. F. Hoad (ed.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993, which explains that “compound3” denotes “in the East, enclosure within which a (European) residence or factory stands,” having entered the language in the seventeenth century from Malay kampong via Portuguese campon or Dutch kampoeng, and that the Malay word denoted “enclosure, fenced-in space, quarter occupied by a particular nationality.”

58 In Pesisir Java houses, the front and back of the limasan roof are extended by lean-to roofs at a lower pitch, forming the maligi. Totok Roesmanto, “A Study of Traditional House of Northern Central Java,” op. cit. (note 45), p. 222.

59 This term is still relatively alien in Malay. Thus, for instance, the authoritative study by Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim Haji Wan Teh, The Traditional Malay House, op. cit. (note 24), p. 7, claims that the origin of the term “is difficult to determine” and cites a Malay builder from Perak surmising that comes from the word “lima” for five (ridges). Roger N. Hilton, “The Basic Malay House,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 135, however, clarifies that the term limas, which means a dipper of palm leaf, refers to the shape of the hipped roof, also known as perabung lima or “five ridges.”

60 Kelantan and Terengganu possess a model named Rumah Potongan Belanda (Dutch-style house), while Patani has a distinct variety called Blanor (dialect rendition of the standard Malay term Belanda, or Hollander). Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim Haji Wan Teh, The Traditional Malay House, op. cit. (note 24), p. 31, notes the influence on Johor’s Rumah Limas Riau of people from Malay-speaking territories that are today in Indonesia: Riau, Jambi, Javanese, and the Bugis.

61 Barbara Watson Andaya, Perak, the Abode of Grace: A Study of an Eighteenth-Century Malay State, New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1979; and Reinout Vos, Gentle Janus, Merchant Prince: The VOC and the Tightrope of Diplomacy in the Malay World, 1740-1800, Leiden: KITLV, 1993.

62 The Rumah Limas also spread to the Sumatra coastal plantation belt around Medan, where it has today come to be regarded as a signifier of tradition. See Mahyudin Al Mudra, Rumah Melayu: memangku adat menjemput zaman, Yogyakarta: Balai Kajian dan Pengembangan Budaya Melayu, 2004.

63 Julian Davison, Black and White, op. cit. (note 1), p. 62.

64 Ali Abdul Halim and Wan Hashim Haji Wan Teh, The Traditional Malay House, op. cit. (note 24), p. 112-119.

65 Roger N. Hilton, “The Basic Malay House,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 135.

66 Both terms are also found in Minangkabau (West Sumatra) and Bugis (South Sulawesi) customary houses, where they denote additional vestibule forms, but this lies beyond the scope of the present discussion.

67 Chen Voon Fee, “Architectural Styles of the Planter’s Bungalow,” in Peter Jenkins and Waveney Jenkins, The Planter’s Bungalow: A Journey down the Malay Peninsula, Singapore: Editions Didier Millet, 2007, p. 17.

68 Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 30-37.

69Jendela” is a Luso-Malay term derived from the Portuguese janela, which is distinct from “French windows.” There is no proper study of the origins or spread of this ubiquitous form.

70 Muhammad Haji Salleh (ed.), Sulalat Al-Salatin: Ya'ni Perteturun Segala Raja-Raja (Sejarah Melayu), Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, 2009, p. 60.

71 Virginia Matheson Hooker (ed.), Tuhfat al-Nafis, Kuala Lumpur: Fajar Bakti, 1997, p. 4.

72 Mohamad Tajuddin Haji Mohamed Rasdi, Traditional Muslim Architecture in Malaysia, Skudai: Pusat Kaji Alam Bina Dunia Melayu, 2003, p. 79.

73 Mubin Sheppard, “Terengganu and Kelantan,” op. cit. (note 39), p. 1-9.

74 Parid Wardi Sudin, “The Malay House,” Mimar, no. 2, 1981, p. 62.

75 Ibid., p. 62.

76 N. John Habraken, “Type as Social Agreement,” paper presented at the Asian Congress of Architects, Seoul, 1988, p. 14. The description Habraken gives appears to refer to the anjung/surong of the hybrid “modern vernacular” Malay house.

77 Ibid., p. 18.

78 Peter Jenkins and Waverley Jenkins, The Planter’s Bungalow, op. cit. (note 67).

79 Lee Kip Lin, The Singapore House, op. cit. (note 2), p. 222-223.

80 Djoko Soekiman, Kebudayaan Indis: dan gaya hidup masyarakat pendukungnya di Jawa (abad XVIII-medio abad XX), Yogyakarta: Bentang, 2000, p. 194-195.

81 Thomas Nix, Bijdrage tot de vormleer van de stedebouw, op. cit. (note 2), p. 192, 194.

Torna su

Indice delle illustrazioni

Titolo Figure 1: Single-story raised floor Rumah Limas and double story Compound House.
Legenda Top left (a): Rumah Limas with an anjong, the main house, and a kitchen house (1900, at Campong Java Road, for Osman); top right (b): six Compound Houses with surong and kitchen house (1884, at Jalan Sultan for Haji Drahman)—compare with plans of Indies-style houses in fig. 9. Above (c): Compound House, 1889 for Syed Aboo Baker, as an example of the frontal addition of layers of space to the house plan. Note: B = bedroom.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-1.jpg
File image/jpeg, 105k
Titolo Figure 2: Rumah Limas, Rumah Gudang, and Compound House from Singapore.
Legenda Top left (a): the simplest form of the Malay Kampung House with a basic Malay Plan of a pair of rooms with galleries in front and to the rear, and a raised floor (panggung). Top right (b): the double-story Compound House with a walled undercroft (kolong), here in a simple version of the warehouse-dwelling called the Rumah Gudang. Above left (c): drawings that record the conversion of a raised-floor Rumah Limas into a two-story Compound House. Above right (d): the conversion of sheltered front staircase into the front sitting room vestibule, the surong.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-2.jpg
File image/jpeg, 94k
Titolo Figure 3: Javanese merchants’ houses.
Legenda A and b: two nineteenth-century Javanese merchant’s houses in Kauman quarter, Yogyakarta, showing the front hall/gallery with its own hip roof that precedes the main house, analogous to the pringgitan. The example on the left is flanked by two side buildings or gandhok. Above c and d: Javanese merchant’s house in Kauman quarter, Surakarta, bearing the date 1838. The last image shows the timber structure of the sokowulu (eight-column) hip roof building that precedes the core house. Only four columns are needed in this example since brick walls at the sides have replaced the four columns that would have defined the sides of this front hall.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-3.jpg
File image/jpeg, 94k
Titolo Figure 4: Indische woonhuis with front halls/galleries resembling a small limasan-form pendopo/pringgitan (compare fig. 6).
Legenda Top: Indische woonhuis in Batavia (Jakarta), postcard photograph from 1905 with a front gallery with its own hip roof; an “outhouse” (bijgebouw) is visible to the right. Above: nineteenth-century Indische woonhuis in Cirebon, north coast (Pesisir) West Java.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-4.jpg
File image/jpeg, 199k
Titolo Figure 5: Spatial-formal elaboration and extension of palaces and houses.
Legenda Top a and b: Istana Kenangan (1930) and Istana Hulu (1898-1903), Kuala Kangsar, Perak, Malaysia. Above (c): Rumah Serambi Melaka, Malaysia, with the addition of a front vestibule (surong) with the new hip-roof form (limas) to the front of the front gallery (serambi) of the core house with traditional gable roof (perabung panjang). Compare this with the Rumah Limas in fig. 1a, 2d, and 11.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-5.jpg
File image/jpeg, 163k
Titolo Figure 6: The plan of the core units of Malay, Pesisir (north coast Java) and Inland Central Javanese traditional customary (adat) houses.
Legenda Left to right: (a) Malay and Acehnese 16-column, 3-bay RumahSerambi core house, showing the basic Malay Plan (based on Jacques Dumarçay and Abdul Halim Nasir); (b) Sundanese (West Java) house from Ciamis (based on Thomas Nix); (c, d, e): the plans of three Pesisir (north coast) Javanese houses from 1800 and 1810 showing location of rooms in relation to the four core columns (based on Totok Roesmanto); right (f): the plan of an inland Javanese house. Note: B = bedroom; R = room.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-6.jpg
File image/jpeg, 48k
Titolo Figure 7: Indische woonhuis interior layout.
Legenda Top a and b: exterior and interior of the Indische woonhuis serving as the core house at Ambarrukmo royal residence, Yogyakarta, completed 1859. The view of the interior layout, looking from the inner front hall (binnengalerij) shows a central passage between two pairs of rooms leading to the rear door to the gadri (Javanese for dining gallery). Above c and d: exterior and interior of a rare extant early Indische woonhuis dating from circa 1780s in Semarang, north coast (Pesisir), Central Java, with a gable roof to the main and rear houses. The plan of the interior of the main house follows the indigenous vernacular plan with a central passage that connects a front and rear gallery and runs between a pair of rooms (see fig. 6).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-7.jpg
File image/jpeg, 71k
Titolo Figure 8: Javanese noble residences with traditional building forms and with Indischewoonhuis.
Legenda Top a: Ndalemin Yogyakarta with tall peaked hip roofs (joglo) sheltering the front hall (pendopo) and the core house (dalem ageng), and an intervening transitional space pringgitansheltered by its own narrow hip roof; the threshold extends beyond the house to the compound as a boundary wall screening off the interior compound, visible to the right. Middle (b): Ambarrukmo buildings, Yogyakarta, Indischewoonhuisas core house completed 1859 and subsequently enlarged and supplemented by a front hall (pendopo), completed 1897. Bottom left (c): post-and-beam frame (pamidhangan) replicating the eight-column (sokowulu) building for a pringgitanin an 1859 IndischewoonhuisAmbarrukmo royal residence and resort, Yogyakarta. Bottom right (d): large eight-column (sokowulu) hip roof pringgitanbuilding of Purwodiningrat noble residence (ndalem), Surakarta, built in the reign of Pakubuwana IV (r. 1768-1820).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-8.jpg
File image/jpeg, 104k
Titolo Figure 9: Tresholds.
Legenda Top left (a): the schematic layout of the typical Javanese residence or dalemshowing the location of the threshold between public front and private inner domains of the house and compound. Top middle and right (b, c): the location of similar thresholds in the basic Indische house form, and in more elaborate examples, for instance in the 1850 residence for the West Java Governor (now Jakarta City Hall) and for military officers’ housing from the same period. Above (d): map of a number of Indische houses, Javanese Ndalem and the palace of the minor prince of Yogyakarta, Pura Pakualaman, Yogyakarta, based on a map of 1925, showing the thresholds of the house compounds.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-9.jpg
File image/jpeg, 128k
Titolo Figure 10: Early examples of the Compound House with surong.
Legenda Top a: Sultan’s Palace (c. 1840) at Kampong Gelam, Singapore. Top b: Archbishop’s House (1859), Singapore. Above c: Alatas Mansion (1860), Penang, Malaysia. Above d: Istana Jahar (1855), Kota Bahru, Malaysia.
Credits Source: Imran bin Tajudeen.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-10.jpg
File image/jpeg, 86k
Titolo Figure 11: Rumah Limas with anjung and surong.
Legenda Top a: RumahLimas Perak, with surongor front sitting room on the left; a side anjungwith the sheltered entrance stairs is seen in the foreground. Perak, Malaysia. Top b: RumahLimasPerak, with a front anjungwith the entrance stairs. The undercroft (kolong) has been walled in. Kuala Kangsar, Perak, Malaysia. Above c: Villa Sentosa (1923) in Kampung Morten, Melaka, Malaysia. Above d: Istana Tengku Long (1850, 1904), originally in Besut, Terengganu, Malaysia.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/abe/docannexe/image/3715/img-11.jpg
File image/jpeg, 120k
Torna su

Per citare questo articolo

Notizia bibliogafica digitale

Imran bin Tajudeen, « Colonial-Vernacular Houses of Java, Malaya, and Singapore in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries », ABE Journal [Online], 11 | 2017, online dal 05 octobre 2017, consultato il 05 août 2020. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/abe/3715

Torna su

Autore

Imran bin Tajudeen

Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, School of Design and Environment National University of Singapore, Singapore

Torna su

Diritti d'autore

Licence Creative Commons
La revue ABE Journal est mise à disposition selon les termes de la Licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.

Torna su
  • Logo INHA
  • Logo CNRS – Institut des sciences humaines et sociales
  • Logo In Visu
  • Logo DOAJ - Directory of Open Access Journals
  • OpenEdition Journals