Conference on Sustainable Building South East Asia, 5-7 November 2007, Malaysia

A TYPOLOGICAL STUDY ON THE CREATIVE NUCLEUS OF MALAY HOUSES

Y.R. CHEN

Department of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan No.1, University Road, Tainan City 701,Taiwan

Syed Iskandar Ariffin1, M.H. WANG2 1 Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia UTM Skudai, Johor, 81310, Malaysia 2 Department of Architecture, National Cheng Kung University, Taiwan No.1 University Road, Tainan City 701, Taiwan

Abstract

Cultural sustainability can benefit from re-learning traditional houses that require systematic studies. This study attempts to explore the creative nucleus of Malay houses by a typological methodology. More than 200 cases were studied through the following operations: i). Encoding by typological description, ii). Finding variations in house-building, iii). Formulating typological rules, iv). Proposing “generating mechanism” and “screening mechanism” as the creative nucleus embedded in Malaysian architectural traditions.

In respond to the current urge of sustainable development, these studies highlights the heritage of Malay houses and the creative applications of its typological potentials in the contemporary context.

Keywords: Malay house, creative nucleus, typological study, house type.

1. Introduction

Paul Ricoeur, world reknowned philosopher, said in 1961 that universalization brought progress of human beings on one hand, and the destruction of creative nucleus of some great cultures on the other hand. This statement is particularly alarming in this century of globalization, in which we all experienced the dark side as well as the bright side of the universality. With this regards, this paper addresses the issues related to the notion of creative nucleus by presenting a typological method to the study, and the future development of Malay houses.

The house types in Southeast Asia, although lack no commonality such as raised footing, boat image, decorative gables, etc. (Waterson, 1990), have some obvious disparities, such as big roof vs. small roof, heavy wood vs. light wood construction, multi-family single building vs. detached houses etc. Within these various house types of Southeast Asia, the houses in Peninsula Malaysia exhibit some distinctive characteristics: the stilts footing, non-boat image, small roof, and light wood construction (as compared to Batak Karo and Tongkonan houses), and compound buildings with central main house for single family.

The main house (rumah ibu), the distinctive built volume in Malay houses, is always located at the front. The ridge of the main house is usually parallel with the street and perpendicular to the entry gate. The main house has largest volume and highest roof that constructed with two different slopes. Behind the main house locates one or more sub-houses with descending roof heights. The floor heights also decrease from the main house, sub-houses, to the kitchen (dapur), which is usually on the ground (Teh, 1996). There are three major spaces in Malay houses: serambi (reception area), rumah ibu (core space), and dapur. The spatial sequence in Malay houses is clear and strict: from outside to the inside in the order of serambi, rumah ibu, and dapur. Guests are only invited to serambi, while relatives can enter rumah ibu. Dining with the guests also takes place in serambi. Usually, the front half of the house (front yard and serambi) is the living space for male, and the back part (back yard and dapur) for female (Ariffin, 2001).

1

Chen, Ariffin & Wang

Spatial form and construction language are considered two fundamental aspects for house type studies. The two interact in various ways. Spatial form is deeply embedded in the culture while the construction language may travel from one culture to another. The change of spatial form, as results of the change of life demands or outside environments, may require transformations of construction languages accordingly, which may reciprocally entail related changes in spatial form. It is hypothesized that each culture has its house genotypes from which many typological varieties are derived (Wang, 2002). The methodological goal of the typological study is to formulate a set of rules that can account for all possibilities as well as existing houses of the culture under study. These typological rules may reveal the wisdoms that are congenial to the notion of creative nucleus of the culture.

2. Materials and Method

There are two sources of data in this study. One is KALAM Centre (Pusat Kajian Alam Bina Dunia Melayu, Centre for the Study of Built Environment in the Malay World) at the architecture department of Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM), whose architectural research, surveying and mapping have been collected for decades. The other is the field survey on Peninsula Malaysia conducted in 2005 and 2006 by National Cheng Kung University group from Taiwan.

The house type data of the Peninsula Malaysia are classified into three groups: Group 1: Kelantan and part of Terengganu, Group 2: Kedah and Perlis, Group 3: Other than those mentioned in Group 1 and 2. Group 1 features the special courtyard space (jemuran) in Malay houses, and the combination of the derivative space and volume. Group 2 is a longitudinal longhouse which deserves a new category. Group 3 contains large number of cases, including the houses in Perak in the mid-north, Pahang, Selangor, Negeri Sembilan, Melaka in the middle, and Johor in the south. The paper focuses on the cases in the vast areas of the mid- north, middle, and south of Peninsula Malaysia in Group 3. (Map 1)

Group 2 Group 1

Group 3

Map 1. Groups of Malay houses in Peninsula Malaysia

3. Malay House Types

There are two major methodological components in this typological study: 1). the descriptive system to encode all features significant to Malay houses, and 2) the generating mechanism capable of producing all possible cases of Malay house.

3.1. Descriptive System

A descriptive system is formulated for the Malay houses under study. The system addresses three aspects of the house type: house grouping, spatial structure, and construction. Shorthand names are used in the description.

3.1.1. House Grouping. “Twelve-column house (rumah tiang dua delas)” is the first and the main unit which has two spans in the front and 3 in depth. This 12-column form is considered to be the prototype of Malay house. In order to meet the needs of families of various scales and to show the characteristics of diverse

482

Chen, Ariffin & Wang regions, the extension of main house is essential during the derivation of Malay houses. The types of extension include increasing the span number in depth (E1), decreasing the span number in depth (E2) increasing the span number in width (E3), increasing floors (E4), increasing anjung (the extruding quantity in the front of the main house) (E5), increasing the width of serambi (E6), expanding rumah tangga (the staircase space at the entrance) (E7) (Lim, 1987). The sub-house unit, conceivably built after the main house, has independant structural system and is usually but not necessarily a single building. Attchment (At) is the structure that can be attached to the main or sub-houses but cannot exist alone (Fig.1).

There are connections between main house and sub-house, sub-house and sub-house, or house and attachment that are positioned in four different ways: 1). Eave to eave (C1): Connecting a gap between parallel eaves, with a gutter to drain rainwater out, forming a part of interior space. 2). Pelantar (C2): The separation of parallel eaves forms an outdoor space like an indoor courtyard. 3). Selang (C3): A corridor built by adding a longitudinal roof upon the larger distance between two roofs, serves as indoor or semi- outdoor space. 4). Attached shelter (C4): attach to the main unit or sub-houses. In addition, three possible locations of the joints: at central back (@p1), at side of back (@p2), at side (@p3). (Fig.2)

At H1 c4@P2 Hm c1@P3 E4 H1 E3 H1 @P3 Hm Hm c3@P1 c1@P2 E6 c2@P2 E5 @P3

E7

Fig.1 Extensions of main house Fig.2 Connections of houses

3.1.2. Spatial structure. In addition to afore mentioned serambi (S), rumah ibu (RI), and dapur (D), other interior spaces that feature the Malay house type are as follows: bilik tidur (bedroom), rumah tengah (rumah ibu), selang (corridor), pelantar (inner courtyard), anjung, rumah tangga (stairway space). The spaces are positioned according to the following arrangement rules: 1). the main house is originally composed of serambi, rumah ibu, and bilik tidur. 2). serambi, anjung, and rumah tangga are located in the front of the house. 3). selang and pelantar are both connecting space. 4). dapur are located in the back.

3.1.3. Construction. Basically there are two types of construction.

Construction 1 (Cons.1): The original “six-column house (rumah tiang enam)” contains three columns at two sides, each with a flat-beam (beam with flat rectangular section) on top, and another 3 vertical flat- beams (level 2) at the 3 pairs of columns on top of these two parallel flat-beams (level 1). Locate the post in the middle of the three flat-beams (level 2) and put the oblique beams at the two terminals of the post and the flat-beam to form the prototype of the oblique roof (Fig. 3). In case of extension, one (3 columns) or two rows (6 columns) of columns parallel to the house ridge are added to expand one or two more spans. This is a technical way of building the attachment. The oblique beam that supports the roof of the attachment is connected to the added column, level 1 flat-beam or columns on the main house. The main house of such style contains the pitch roof with double slope, composed of one “six-column house” and “two attachments” and forms “twelve-column house” (rumah tiang dua delas). The roof in the middle of the house is more slanting than those of the sides. The preceding description is about the constructional prototype of the Malay houses.

483

Chen, Ariffin & Wang

Cons.1 Cons.2

Fig.3 Construction of Malay houses

Construction 2 (Cons.2): This construction is without parallel flat-beams. The columns surrounding the house support the beams around. Horizontal beams are supported by the rows of columns, and the post on top of the beams supports the spinal beam. Because of the beams around, an oblique rafter can be put on each roof of elevation to connect the surrounding beams and spinal beams and form the hip roof. But this technique excludes the roof variation of double slope and adopts smaller slope, not resembling the image of the main house in Malay house prototype. (Fig. 3)

The middle, mid-northern, and southern parts of Peninsula Malaysia are the three main areas where the Malay house types are studied. From each of the following states one house is selected to demonstrate the typological features as analyzed above: Negeri Sembilan, Melaka, Pahang, Perak, and Johor. (Table 1)

Table 1. Descriptions of Malay houses. (grey parts represent the house volumes; white, the attachments)

Negeri Sembilan Hm ( E3,E5,E6 ) 【C1@p2】 H1 【C4@p2】 At _Rumah Dato’muda

Haji Omar Bin Cons.1 Lajim_1747

Hm (E3,E6,E7) 【 C1@p1 】 H1 【 C2@p3 】 H2 Melaka_Rumah Encik 【C4@p1】At Husin Be_1900 Cons.1

Pahang_Rumah Hm (E3,E4) 【C1@p1】H1 Hajjah Zaleha BT. Haji Mat_1895 Cons.1

Hm (E2,E3,E5,E7)【C3@p1】H1【C4@p2】At Perak_Rumah Haji Mohamad Jali Cons.2

At1 【 C4@p3 】 Hm (E3,E5,E7,E8) 【 C3@p2 】 H1 Johor_Rumah Haji 【C4@p1】 At2 Ahmad_1918 Cons.2

484

Chen, Ariffin & Wang

3.2. Capacity of Variations

The main house unit can enjoy the freedom of enlarging and reducing through the rules from E1 to E7. The sub-house and attachment can be increased or reduced according to their position rules. There also exists flexibility for grouping different house units as vindicated by three places for connection (@P1, @p2, @P3) by four ways (C1~C4). Rumah ibu is a multi-functional interior space which is recognized by the free plan arrangement. As for construction, both Cons.1 and Cons.2 have their own technical freedom. In Cons.1, the main columns under the flat-beams can be put in the front or back to allow the column spans in the main house be adjusted flexibly. So are the column spans in the sub-houses. Observably, the roof structure of equilateral triangle will be maintained while the rafters can be placed freely. The slope of roof can be changed as free as the height of the floors.

In Cons.1, there are four components, columns, oblique beams, roofing, and floors, that can be placed in various ways. In Cons.2, only two principles are applied: the exterior columns outline the house with beams on top, and the interior and exterior columns support the roof structure collaboratively. In this way, the top of the roof structure defines the house ridge. Rafters are located between the roof ridge and the surrounding beam. With the same slope, various kinds of hip roof can be constructed. The placing of columns, roofing, and floors is quite free as the principles allow. In addition, various materials can be used. For instance, wooden boards, woven bamboo stripes, and palm leaves (atap) can apply both to the wall and roofing systems. Galvanized corrugated iron sheets often replace the palm leaves as the roofing material.

3.3. Typological Rule

Three main formal features can be identified in Malay houses: 1) the composition of space serambi, rumah ibu, and dapur as a generic whole; 2) the parallel flat-beams are adopted in Cons.1; 3) the double-slope pitch roof is designed to constitute a strong image of main house. These features can be viewed as typological rules which govern the production of Malay houses. Rules are layered to reveal their varieties in application.

From all the cases under study, it is found that the “S, RI, D composition” is the fundamental rule shared by Malay houses without exception. The second-level typological rules are “Cons.1 or Cons.2” and “main-house image”. For instance, Perak houses, while complying with the “S, RI, D composition” rule, adopt “Cons.2” and produce the “main-sub-house integrated image” as result. The rule regarding “back or side extension and connection” also belongs to the second-level. The constructors of Negeri Sembilan houses prefer the sub-houses to be in alignment with the sides. The sub-houses in Melaka can exceed the left or right side lines of the main house. The selang of Perak houses are connected with mid-back of the main house. The above arrangements, as spatial interpretations of “back or side extension and connection”, constitute the category of the third-level typological rules. Negeri Sembilan houses have Minangkabau-style bull-horn ridge, which are the result of applying “Cons.1” and “main-house image”. Minangkabau’s roof can also be considered as an instance of the third-level rules. The 3-bay façade of Perak houses with middle bay elaborated by anjung method is another case of the third-level rules. (Table 2)

In Johor area, there are houses as generated by the second-level typological rules of “Cons.1”and “main- house image” resemble those in the middle area. There are also Johor houses as produced by the second- level rules of “Cons.2” and “integrated main-sub-house image” resemble those in the Perak area. Nevertheless, ruang tangga, a special attachment to the sides of Johor main houses, represents the third- level typological rules. The short stilts of Johor houses can also be considered as the third-level rules.

485

Chen, Ariffin & Wang

Table 2. Typological rules 1st-level rule 2nd-level rules 3rd-level rules Spatial hierarchy of S, RI, D Back or side extension and connection Sub-houses exceeding the side line of the Cons.1 with main-house image main house Sub-houses in alignment with one side Minangkabau’s roof

Back or side extension and connection Selang connected at central bay Cons.2 with main-sub-house integrated Anjung at front central bay image Ruang tangga at main house’s side Low stilts

4. Generating Mechanism

Malay houses have endowed with great capacity of variations by 4 different classes: the house grouping, the spatial layout, the construction methods, and the building materials. Each class has certain alternative choices, and all together can generate multiple combinations. The combination possibilities can be calculated in greater detail by the following parameters from X1 to X6:

x1= E1~E7, main house extension;

x2= C1~C4, connecting way of main house, sub-house and attachment;

x3=@p1, ~@p3, connecting position;

x4= more than 9 spatial elements;

x5= column, obligue beam, roofing, floor (construction elements);

x6=materials.

These 6 parameters constitute the generating mechanism of Malay house variations. The generating process of a Malay house may begin with the prototype, rumah ibu, also known as the main house, which triggers the generating processes to produce great amount of house groupings through the parameters, x1, x2, and x3. The selected house grouping offers many spatial layout possibilities through the arrangements of different spatial elements as defined by parameter x4. Each layout plan can be built by alternative construction systems as prescribed by the parameter x5. Then, various materials as described by the parameter x6 can be applied to complete the house.

Fig.4 is a demonstration of possible variations of Malay house by manipulating only parameter X3: @p1, @p2, @p3, i.e. three different eave-to-eave connecting positions, under Cons.1 while fixing all other parameters. This demonstration shows only the tip of iceberg of all possibilities when the generating mechanism reveals its full power.

486

Chen, Ariffin & Wang

Fig.4 Generated cases by eave to eave connection at p1, p2, p3

In Fig.4, black diagrams represent existing cases, grey ones represent speculation cases which do not exist as yet either in literature or in field. Conceivably, a sort of screening mechanism may exist to prohibit certain variations from emerging, though they are admitted by the generating mechanism. What is the structure of this screening mechanism is a question that beyond this investigation and capacity. However, we can speculate that it might relate to two cultural factors: one is that there are certain inherent forbidden rules in the building process to exclude some variations. The other may be called ‘system bias’ or tradition preference which encourage only some variations rather than others.

5. Conclusion: Creative Nucleus of Malay Houses

Every Malay house has an innate genotype, which is basically described by the first-level typological rule. Houses are not Malay house if the first-level rule is violated. The various combinations of the second- and third-level typological rules can lead to different sub-types of Malay house. Take Acehnese house as an example. It conforms to the first-level rule but not the second- and the third-level rules, therefore, it becomes another sub-type of Malay house.

As observations turned away from Peninsula Malaysia, some interesting findings emerge. A domestic house at Kakunodate, Akida, Japan, as shown in Fig.5a, shares some characteristics of Malay house. By the afore mentioned Descriptive System, this Japanese house can be coded as a main house extension with Hm(E1, E3, E5, E7), five sub-houses (H1~H5), three attachment (At1~At3), four connecting ways (C1~C4), and three kinds of connecting points (@p1~@p3), as shown in Fig.5b.

487

Chen, Ariffin & Wang

5a 5b 5c

Fig. 5 Japanese house presented with the descriptive system of Malay house

Fig.5c shows the way of coding the Kakunodate house as those shown in Fig.4. By comparing these two codings, i.e. Fig.5b and Fig.5c, it is interesting to find that the Japanese house can qualify to be another type of Malay house if add three revisions to the descriptive system of Malay houses:

1). Change linear connection into network connection.

2). Define connecting positions more specific.

3). Selang may connect the houses perpendicularly and also in parallel as the veranda in Japanese house.

This example has no intention to compare the similarities and differences between Malay house and Japanese house, nor to search for the origins of these houses, although we may speculate their evolutionary relevance. This serves to demonstrate the productivity of the generating mechanism of Malay house, from which many variations can be generated even beyond our wild imaginations.

In respond to the current urge of sustainable development, this paper concerns not only the heritage of Malay house but also the creative applications of its typological potentials in the contemporary context. It is expected that more original researches will continue along this line to improve and refine the current findings. Hence the creative nucleus of the Malay house is opened for further discovery and exploration.

Acknowledgements

Appreciation is especially dedicated to the professors and professionals of KALAM Centre and Department of Architecture, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, and the architectural students working on numerous measured drawings of traditional Malay houses. This study has been made possible with their consistent contribution since 1975.

References

A. H. Nasir & W. H. W. Teh, (1996), The Traditional Malay House, Penerbit Fajar Bakti SDN.BHD, Kuala Lumpur.

Lim, J. Y. (1987), The Malay House：Rediscovering Malaysia’s Indigenous Shelter System, Institut Masyarakat, Pulau Pinang.

S. I. Ariffin, (2001), Order in Traditional Malay House Form, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Malaysia.

488

Chen, Ariffin & Wang

Wang, M. H. & Wang, W. J. (2002), The Evolution Theory of House Types in Taiwan-Fujian Area, National Science Council, Taipei.

Waterson, R. (1990), The Living House, Thames and Hudson, London.

Yoshida, K., (1988), Exploration of Japanese Block System , Shokokusha, Tokyo.

489