134

Adaptation and accentuation: Type transformation in vernacular Nusantarian mosque design and their contemporary signification in Melaka, Minangkabau and Singapore

Imran bin Tajudeen

National University of Singapore The vernacular mosque found in the Nusantara region – the insular portion of Southeast Asia – grew out of a tiered-roof, pavilion-on-plinth architectural idiom common in Java since at least the 13th century. This precedent became the ‘mental template’ upon which vernacular designs for the mosque throughout the region was based. Three periods are of interest in investigating type transformation: the 15th to 19th century development of the vernacular mosque, the late 19th to early 20th century period of dramatic change, and the 20th century, with numerous projects exhibiting a conscious signification of vernacular forms. Vernacular mosque forms that have evolved since the 15th century elaborated upon a basic type by incorporating local architectural practices. This gave rise to regional variations in formal expression, detailing and spatial articulation, which nevertheless shared several elements that mark them as Nusantarian. The popular, reductive notion of a single ‘archetype’ of the vernacular Nusantara mosque is rejected. Instead, the framework of typology and model variations is used to elucidate the manner in which structure and form in the vernacular Nusantara mosque are modified in accordance with material expediency and local symbolic motifs in different regions. Against this multitudinous backdrop of ‘tradition’, the late 19th and early 20th century witnessed the proliferation of mosque designs that were affected to varying degrees by the orientalist fantasies of ‘Saracenic’ mosques propagated by Dutch and British colonial architects and engineers. Meanwhile, mosques that retained vernacular typological characteristics underwent renovations that utilise new materials and building technology. The mosques from this period illustrate different responses to the incorporation of emerging material and construction contingencies that arose during the advent of new architectural practices. These responses were shaped by changing tastes and fashion, political-economic calculations and the means of adopting new formal vocabulary into the vernacular grammar. The 20th century, on the other hand, saw deliberate efforts to return to vernacular forms within the design of modern mosques. Such projects were underpinned by the signification of certain shape vocabularies which were perceived to be the ‘local vernacular’, or which were re-invented based loosely on certain vernacular precedents. These were often important civic undertakings, and were typically academic exercises in form language, refashioning vernacular design in ways reminiscent of the liberties of Neo-Classicism in appropriating its ancient Graeco-Roman precedents. The projects illustrate how contemporary (re)constructions of the ‘vernacular’ accentuate (perceived) distinctive features which are deemed instrumental in cultural identity construction. A study of the transformations across the three periods illustrates the mechanisms by which variations on type are generated. A distinction can be made between dissimilarities caused by ‘adaptation’ to local or temporal practice or contingencies, and differentiations arising from conscious regional ‘accentuation’ involving the display of identity markers. These two factors behind the variations form a dialogue with the continuities that arise from the ‘transmission’ of the vernacular mosque form across the Nusantara region, chiefly originating from Java, and its ‘inheritance’ by various local communities, giving rise to the rich variety of the Nusantarian mosque form.

Keywords: adaptation, accentuation, hybrids, regional variation, identity construction

135

Introduction: tiered-roof mosques of the Nusantara and its transformations The architecture of the vernacular Nusantara mosque found across the region from Sumatra to Maluku can be studied as artifacts arising from sets of practices that result from the complex (and oft- ignored) intra-regional and extra-regional interactions which occurred in the milieu of maritime commerce. From the late 1800s, an eclectic form called the Indo-Saracenic style was introduced by European architects for several mosques built for royalty on both sides of the Melaka Straits region. However, this study focuses not on the prevalent Mughal/Persian/Moorish dome stereotype, but on the historic Nusantara mosque forms built before the Second World War, and on the deliberate attempts to return to this form since the late 20th century. The issue of pace or speed of changes to mosque typology is rarely discussed in works that document mosques in the archipelago. Regional variations are inadequately discussed, or are ignored or treated as curiosities within the analytical frameworks that assume a single overarching archetype for all vernacular Nusantara mosques. On another level, gradations between old vernacular traditions and hybrid and modern mosques are often glossed over, and binary categories of vernacular versus colonial or modern are often resorted to. This paper examines the continuity and transformation of the vernacular Nusantara mosque types, which had incorporated and assimilated various extraneous layers since the 17th century. These layers comprise the incorporation of corrugated iron, glass, concrete and other modern materials and construction methods, the infusion of elements of foreign Islamic design (the ‘Saracenic’), and the mark left by Chinese contractors. Simultaneously, this study rejects the popular notion of a single ‘archetype’ to the vernacular Nusantara mosque. The vernacular mosque design of Nusantara is based on several pre-existing hall and pavilion types whose historic provenance are attested in 8th and 13th century temple reliefs (FIG 1 & 2). Roofs that are massive in relation to the building mass is a feature found throughout Austronesia, as is the indication of monumental significance through the use of tiered roofs and the multiplication of elements in general. The formal expression, detailing and spatial articulation in old mosques of vernacular Nusantara design can be categorised into three distinct types based on both structure and form (FIG 3). The first comes from a grand Javanese-Sumatran tradition of great mosques or Masjid Agung dating from the 15th century, featuring multi-tiered pyramidal roofs, called tajug in Javanese. A second type features a gable roof, sometimes with extended ridges, atop one or two lower tiers of hipped roofs. This is an old form that can be seen temple reliefs of Central Java from the 8th century. A third type uses the hipped roof – the limas or perabung lima – which may also be tiered. These types share several features that mark them as Nusantarian. Three factors behind the changes in vernacular typology will be distinguished for analysis. Firstly, changes arise from regional variation, and manifest the processes of transplantation and localization which are shaped by local practices and materials. Secondly, changes may also result from adaptation to a newly emerging milieu, namely the introduction of colonial regulations, of the new fashion for a ‘Saracenic’ mosque design language, and of new builders under contract. Third, changes may also be due to the accentuation of vernacular features, in response to a perceived need to revive and intensify the presence of ‘tradition’ in a conservative, reified sense. This study will examine diachronic change and innovation as outcomes of social structural shifts, and at local variety as the result of the creativity and individual decisions of craftsmen. Focus will be given to the responses of craftsmen in meeting the encounter with availability of modern materials, the challenge of contractors and of modern practice, and of newly popularized in mosque forms, which gave rise to ‘adaptations’. Next the study will analyse how modern practice, with architects as designers, has attempted to meet the challenge of incorporating vernacular forms in modern designs to evoke tradition for various reasons, invariably giving rise to outcomes which are here termed ‘accentuations’.

Regional variation: types and models up to the 18th century This section provides a brief introduction to the three different Nusantara vernacular mosque types aforementioned. The survey concerns mosques which are the product of vernacular craft practice

136

before their interaction with modern architecture firms or the involvement of contract labourers for the construction of the building. The resilience of autonomous vernacular craft practice in the Nusantara is observed up to the 1930s. The first type is distinguished by the pyramidal roof in multiple tiers, called tajug in Javanese. The roof layers shelter a square plan for the main prayer hall. Since the 15th century, the majority of the royal mosques in Nusantara have taken this form. The key structural feature of the tajug mosques is the four central columns which support the uppermost roof layer or brunjung. These four core columns, arranged 2 by 2, are called soko guru in Javanese, tiang guru in Banjar, tiang seri in Malay, and tonggak tuo in Minangkabau. Typically, the roof over the prayer hall of the Nusantara mosques possesses between two and five tiers, with three layers being the most common. As a type, it has its origins in the pavilion-on-plinth prototypes for which the earliest evidence for the tiered pyramidal roofs – with as many as 11 tiers – are in sculptural reliefs on 13th century East Javanese temples. Such meru roofs, which are represented today in Balinese temple towers, are related to the tajug mosque, with a subtle structural difference. In meru construction, the four central columns support the second roof tier while subsequent upper layers are supported by posts that do not reach the ground, but rest on the beams spanning the roof layer below them. In contrast the four central columns in the tajug, as noted earlier, support the uppermost roof layer of the mosque – this construction specification is called teplok in Javanese typology (Ismunandar 109, 166; A Halim 34). The four ridges of the pyramidal roof each represents the body of a naga, the water serpent. The ridge ends in Javanese version of the tajug mosque are given either the elaborate makuta (crown) ornament or the simpler upward curl called the bungkak, which in Palembang’s multiple version is referred to as tanduk (horns) (FIG 4). The roof summit is decorated with a carved finial called mustoko in Javanese and kepala som in Malay. They are of elaborate foliated or bulbuous design, and are found at the top of the central kingpost, the tunjuk langit. At the bottom of the tunjuk langit is another ornament called lebah bergantung or ‘hanging bees’. The Javanese tajug type spread in many directions, where it acquired regional distinctions. In Palembang and Jambi, the uppermost roof had a neck rendered in plaster mouldings, while the roof ridges are ornamented with a series of tanduk (horn) ornaments. In other parts of Sumatra and in Melaka, the sulur bayung (creeping vine) ornament, carved in wood or rendered in coral, plaster or concrete, graced the ridge ends (see FIG 4). The tajug also spread to the east coast of the Malayan peninsula with the earliest examples in Kelantan’s Kampung Laut (1730s) and Terenganu’s Tok Tuan, Cukai, Kemaman mosques (1830s) (Nash 264 and KALAM2 pp19-22). While the tajug mosques from Java and Palembang sit on stereobates, those built in the rest of Sumatra and in the Malayan peninsula have raised timber floors. The special features of the distinctive Minangkabau mosque will now be described. The vernacular mosque in Minangkabau had the distinction of curved roof ridges and eaves, which, when built by craftsmen in timber, had corresponding horizontally curved, outward-slanting walls. The roof of the Minangkabau mosque also tended to be steeper (FIG 5). The Minangkabau mosque spread with its migrants to the eastern Sumatra hinterland and to the Malayan Peninsula in the state of Negri Sembilan. In these areas, the tiered pyramidal roof form possessed the curved ridges and eaves of Minangkabau construction. Although many Minangkabau mosques contain four principal columns, the single central column model is frequently encountered. This single principal column structure gave rise to a distinct tower-pavilion form in the 19th century, which will be discussed in the section on adaptation. Some Minangkabau mosques have a top tier consisting of extended gable elevations on all four sides, which is related to an old Austronesian form that is also seen in the Karo Batak rulers’ rumah anjung –anjung or sibayak and the ancestral skull house or geriten (latter comparison also made by O’Neill 1994:238; pic of geriten in Waterson 5). An example is the Lubuk Bauk mosque, built in 1915-1920 (FIG 6).

137

The second type of Nusantara vernacular mosque can be seen in the earliest pictorial evidence available: bas reliefs on Borobudur, Prambanan and other candis of the 8th and 9th century depict large buildings with one or two tiers of roof, or raised pavilions on stereobate, with gable or hipped roofs. This Central Javanese evidence illustrates the piers and massive raised-floor architecture that was formerly a common feature throughout the Nusantara, but today is extant chiefly in Lampung, Pasemah, Batak, Minangkabau, Toraja. This type is also seen in the kalan in Cham temple complexes. Examples can be seen in the extant 18th century Patani mosque at Teluk Manok, in the expunged Masjid Besar of Kota Bahru, in the deyah or small mosques which function as religious schools in Aceh, and in small surau or prayer halls in Minangkabau (FIG 7). Most Java-centric accounts on the vernacular Nusantara mosque ignore this distinct type. The third type, featuring the hipped roof, called limas or perabung lima, is the simplest form. It may have roof tiers, typically two. However many examples have just a single layer hipped roof, especially the mosques found in small royal capitals in the late colonial era and in colonial ports – Penang, Daik in Lingga, the initial form in Penyengat, Riau before multiple domes were built, and the old mosque of Labuhan Deli before it was rebuilt by the Dutch. Several examples can be found in Singapore, built in the course of the early20th century by merchants through the endowment of land and property (FIG 8). A fourth type is found in small mosques or surau. It features a gable roof as its top layer. The lower tier or tiers may be hipped or lean-to roofs. An example from Melaka from the late 18th century is of this form (FIG 9). Regional variation is observable in several other additional features. Outside of Java, the mihrab or niche in the direction of Mecca is usually housed in a vestibule with its own small two-tiered atap meru roof (see Fig 5 and 10a), or in the case of Minangkabau this may be a dramatic gonjong roof (see FIG 6). Mosque space can also be augmented by an annexe called the serambi with its own limas or hipped roof (Fig 10b). The compound within which the mosque is found tends to be most complex in the mosque-and-tomb complexes of Java, with a sequence of walled, terraced courts with gateways. The mosque hall in Java is just one element within an overall assemblage. In Melaka, renovations and expansions in the course of the 19th century also resulted in complexes that included gateways, walls, minaret, ablution pool pavilions and graveyard (FIG 11). In Minangkabau, one finds instead luhak or pools for the breeding of fish, whose harvest is used for the upkeep of the mosque. For instance, Jami Taluk, built in 1860 by a Minang trader Abdul Majid, has 3 luhaks (FIG 12). In front of the mosque is the biggest pool, called Taluk. A religious school is located across the Taluk pool (Narliswandi 31).

Adaptations: the ‘hybrid vernacular’ This section traces the ways by which Nusantara mosque design as artifacts of craft practice gradually incorporated modern means and materials and foreign form vocabularies, giving rise to new amalgamative vernacular traditions. The vernacular mosque can be studied as a special artifact – it is often a repository of architectural layers since it is prone to re-buildings and extensions. Vellinga, after Upton, has proposed a dynamic approach to the study of the vernacular, as opposed to the conservative or defensive approach which seeks to represent the vernacular as pristine and unchanging. The dynamic nature of vernacular traditions that is revealed in the preceding regional survey indicates that ‘tradition’ in the case of vernacular architecture is not at all static, but should instead be understood “as a conscious and creative adaptation of past experience to the needs and circumstances of the present” (Vellinga 83, 88). ‘Adaptation’ refers to changes that occur in vernacular tradition in adjusting to new circumstances. The term ‘hybrid vernacular’ is used here to indicate how these mosques are the outcomes of adaptation to new influences brought about by two processes prevalent in mosque construction of the late 19th and early 20th century. Firstly, the old core of mosques were often added to, renovated, or

138

rebuilt while retaining certain structural elements and spatial principles of the old vernacular type. In the second process, new mosques are built using modern methods, often with concrete construction and by contractors who work alongside craftsmen and community. The physical result retains the key physical articulation and underlying principles of the vernacular type. Thus, form eclecticism and layering can be observed within mosques built by these two processes – by successive renovations and expansions resulting in accretions of several design languages, or by the involvement of both traditional and professional actors in a process of complementary construction. The term ‘hybrid’ applied here thus refers to amalgamation at either or both levels: construction process and resultant form. In the aspect of construction process, the hybrid vernacular mosques lie at the intersection between vernacular practices and modern professional practice. There is communal work in the collection of raw building materials and in the involvement of several craftsmen from various social groups; simultaneously, new layers are added due to the incorporation of modern construction practices and materials by these craftsmen, as was the case with the Minangkabau mosques at Rao-rao (FIG 14a) and Lubuk Bauk. Sometimes contractors are employed for part of the work, as was the case in hybrid vernacular Melaka mosques. At the level of form, the hybrid vernacular is the outcome of the encounter of the vernacular vocabulary of forms with three categories of ‘foreign’ design languages. The first category was introduced by Chinese builders who were professionally organized and became important in the 18th century. The second arose from the encounter with aspects of European Neo-Classical architecture (especially mouldings and ornamentation). The third comprises the Saracenic forms initially introduced and propagated by colonial architects. In the case of overhauls, renovations and expansions to a pre-existing building, the layers of different design languages are discernible. The compromises made to accommodate these new forms into the retained vernacular elements are of interest. Colonial building regulations required brick and tile construction, and often the cheapest option was invariably found in hiring Chinese and European firms to construct vernacular type buildings. Thus, when a mosque is modified with extensions, an eclectic mix can be found on the same building, usually of Chinese and European inspiration. These Chinese and Dutch/European construction influences will be discussed in turn. Certain new features first arose from material and construction expediency, but subsequently became emulated, thus forming a new tradition of the 18th and 19th century. In Melaka the influence left by Chinese contractors employed for renovations is especially evident, spawning a new hybrid style for roof ornamentation incorporating the Malayo-Javanese mustoko finial and sulur bayung ridge end ornaments with the Chinese ridge form. The Chinese ridge form was first introduced in the renovation of three old timber mosques in Melaka town in the late 19th century and was integrated with the mustoko and sulur bayung. The mustoko finial ornaments were built by craftsmen using coral stone collected by the community. The rebuilding and renovation projects were for the mosque for the Tamil Muslim community at Kampung Keling in 1872; for Melaka’s State Mosque at Tengkera in 1890 and again in 1910; and for the mosque of the Malay community at Kampung Hulu in 1892. The hybrid roof ornamentation subsequently became an accepted part of the form vocabulary for the ‘Melaka style’ mosque. Kampung Keling had Corinthian columns and a ‘Chinese pagoda’ square minaret of concrete, which was perhaps meant to approximate Chulia (Tamil) minarets. Tengkera mosque’s sulur bayung ornaments are in the form of timber affixes attached to the end of the Chinese ridges, while an octagonal pagoda-like concrete minaret was built in 1910 (FIG 4b & 11). Kampung Hulu’s minaret was an octagonal tapered tower, topped by a pavilion with arches. In addition to Chinese details, pseudo-Classical embellishments were also often grafted onto the formal vocabulary and structure of vernacular typology. Arches and mouldings, Corinthian and Doric columns, and gables are some common elements adopted in mosques in Melaka, Palembang and

139

Minangkabau. They were used both in renovations or extensions, and in newly-built mosques of the 19th and 20th centuries. An early indication of the absorption of European form and ornamentation by Nusantara craftsmen can be seen from the 17th and 18th century ‘Malay’ plasterwork for Dutch gables in Cape Town homesteads by people from Java and Sumatra exiled there by the Dutch, “skilled Malay slaves who were to make such an important contribution to the evolution of Cape Dutch architecture”, and who produced “the increasingly elaborate gables, the plasterwork and the decorations” as well as “the beautifully-finished woodwork and metalwork which featured in these homes” (Kench 11). It was noted that “some of those shapes they put in [on the gables] looked as if they belonged on a temple on the Islands of Spice” (Kench 17). Masonry and plaster free-standing minarets were a feature of mosques in Melaka and Minangkabau. An example is the Jami Taluk minaret of 1860 by a trader Haji Abdul Majid (Yulianto 477) (FIG 12). These minarets featured European construction and mouldings, with local tendrils and festoon ornamentation. The eclecticism introduced to the renovations of Melaka mosques also included pseudo-Classical elements integrated onto the tajug mosque type. In the early 20th century new minarets were built which were octagonal, tapered, and typically had two parapets and a top pavilion with arches supporting a steeply pitched summit capped by the mustoko ornament. These minarets vaguely resembled those of Cairo, but were rendered with pseudo-classical mouldings and were somewhat akin to cathedral towers. Besides Melaka, similar minarets could also be found in mosques in Penang’s Malay Quarter and in the Jami’ Singaraja, north Bali. The extremely hybrid repertoire of forms comprising the ‘Melaka-style’ masonry mosques was replicated in many examples within Melaka state during the course of the 19th and 20th centuries. It enjoyed a continuity to the last ‘traditional mosque’ in 1964 (A Halim 35), while up to the 1930s, the four principal columns of new mosques were always of ulin or belian hardwood imported from Borneo (A Halim 34). This new hybrid vernacular tradition also spread to neighbouring areas. Singapore’s old masonry Sultan mosque, built in 1824, was akin to the ‘Melaka style’ with its pronounced sulur bayung (FIG 10a). A ‘Melaka style’ mosque was depicted in an engraving of a riverfront settlement in upper Perak in the 1870s. Two other examples were also built in the neighbouring state of Negri Sembilan in 1915 and 1924. In numerous cases timber mosques that were renovated to masonry also adopted this eclectic style by default. Eclecticism achieved its most dynamic expression and integration in Minangkabau mosques which incorporated pseudo-classical mouldings and Dutch gables into designs that comprised several variations which were embedded in cultural nuances of the region. Its hybrid vernacular mosque tradition generated highly distinctive designs. Although the structural principle of the soko tunggal (single principal column) exists in Javanese pavilion tradition and in Javanese tajug mosques, the Minangkabau version became very distinct. The single central column model provided the basis for the development of a new Minangkabau tower-pavilion mosque in the 19th century. A massive central trunk supports a pavilion tower at the pinnacle of the multi-storied tiered roof structure. This pavilion, typically octagonal, is built with glass windows and an octagonal Mughal-style dome made of corrugated iron sheets – in this manner, a minaret is integrated to the top of the sole central column in the core structure. A particularly dramatic example is Limo Kaum mosque (Five Clans), the Friday mosque in Singkarak cooperatively built by five clans in the 19th century (O’Neill 228) (FIG 13a). It features 68 timber columns around a massive central trunk that soared to the apex of the 5-tiered roof more than 20 metres high. A spiral staircase led to the pavilion at the top (O’Neill 238). The eclectic combination of European features – pseudo-Corinthian columns and Dutch gables – with Minangkabau roofs can be seen in three mosques of the same model: Rao-Rao Batusangkar (1918); Muara Labuh, which closely resembles Rao-rao; and Gurun (Sa’adah) Batusangkar (FIG 14). These mosques feature a four-gonjong tier topped by an octagonal pavilion. The roofing material was originally ijuk or black fibrous thatch from the areca palm (O’Neill 238), later replaced by corrugated iron sheets. A related example, without the European features, is found in Lubuk Bauk (1915-1920) –

140

it features a particularly large octagonal pavilion sitting atop an equally massive four-gonjong roof tier (FIG 6). Pavilion-topped mosques are seen in the two marketplace mosques of the coastal ports of Pariaman and Padang, which both incorporated European-style columns and verandah extensions, and are graced by beautiful European patterned floor tiles (FIG 15). Perhaps the most spectacular pavilion-topped mosques are those found along the shores of Maninjau Lake. Their interiors, like the one of Pariaman mosque, feature the eclectic mock-Classical masonry elements, done in an entirely original style and rendered in foliage ornamentation from the Minangkabau decorative repertoire (FIG 16). Examples of mosques in colonial towns, built by the private initiative of traders and colonial civil servants, illustrate the continuity of certain elements of the vernacular Nusantara mosque into the early 20th century even in ‘non-traditional’ cultural settings. Singapore is a case in point: the original Sultan Mosque building, built in masonry in 1824, featured a 4-tiered roof and had pronounced sulur bayung ride ends. Masjid Bahru, built in the 1870s, likewise conformed to the tajug typology (FIG 10). Haji Muhd Salleh mosque (1903) and Khadijah mosque (1920) were both built by philanthropists (FIG 8). The former mosque features mock-Corinthian principal columns. One of the most interesting examples is the 1901 Mosque at Kling (Tamil) Cemetery, Singapore (FIG 17). It comprises a three-tiered pyramidal roof over a square plan but without the four principal columns. The roof has pronounced sulur bayung and Malay carved barge board or papan tumpu kasau ornaments. The building is provided with a parapet and mini-minarets following the Tamil Muslim mosque style, similar to Khadijah mosque. However, since the late 20th century, the use of new manufactured components appears to have had a profoundly negative impact on the quality of new additions and renovations to old buildings. Material expediency in the indiscriminate use of generic ‘keramik’ wall tiles and other commercially-available mass-produced finishes have had a detrimental impact on earlier wood, terracotta and plaster details and on previous layers of European colour tiles which have become part of the new heritage of the 19th century hybrid vernacular Nusantara mosque. While traditional roofing materials of ijuk and atap have been replaced during the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries by corrugated iron sheets, and a purist may lament this displacement of natural materials, it is clear from the examples of such changes in the Minangkabau mosques, with their curved ridges and eaves, that the Minang craftsmen of this period were successful in shaping the sheets to the graceful curved profiles of the original ijuk roofs. However, 21st century renovations of these mosque roofs with tiles have, in contrast, been far from successful. As can be seen in the examples of the mosques of Mandiangin and Jami Taluk Bukittinggi, the new tiled roofs have lost the grace of the original curves, and often fail to faithfully reproduce the right roof pitches – aspects which earlier corrugated iron versions have managed to retain (FIG 5b and 12). Corrugated iron sheets have also been used since the 19th century to fashion octagonal domes. The technically ingenious manipulation of corrugated iron to create pseudo-Mughal domes, at times complete with chhatri, can be seen on numerous Minangkabau examples, embellishing the entrance vestibules and ‘minaret-porches’ (see FIG 7b, 13a, 14). Since the mid-20th century, however, ready-made stainless steel domes have appeared and are available on roadside stalls throughout Indonesia, and their use have had a somewhat less salubrious effect, as seen in the use of one such dome to replace the old summit of the minaret of Jami Taluk (FIG 12b).

Accentuation: the ‘pseudo-vernacular’ The mechanisms and agents outlined in the preceding section for ‘adaptation’ can be clearly differentiated from those associated with ‘accentuation’. Typological change that occurs in the accentuation mode gives rise to the ‘pseudo-vernacular’ – the physical simulation of the vernacular. This is a global phenomenon of the late 20th and early 21st century, wherein selected forms from vernacular architecture have been reified as identity markers, and their accentuation are part of efforts at cultural ‘revivalism’ and the exercise of identity politics. It is reminiscent of the neo-Classical and Revivalist trends in European architecture in the preceding centuries. In the case of the

141

pseudo-vernacular, form nuances that came with certain traditional materials are lost, in contrast to their successful retention by traditional craft builders in the transition to modern materials like corrugated iron sheets and concrete during the ‘adaptation’ process. There is also now a complete reliance on manufactured materials and contract labour during construction, with neither craft nor community involvement. There is thus no hybridity in either process or form; there is instead mere simulation of vernacular shapes and features. The accentuation mode of change is a form of ‘hyper-adaptation’ – one that fulfils the perceived contemporary need to recreate or revive ‘tradition’ in architecture while building in an increasingly more grandiloquent, monumental scale. In places where a distinctive local tradition of the hybrid vernacular mosque had developed, accentuation may also be a response to codify these disparate, hybrid practices into architectural displays which provide ‘identity enhancement’ by embodying a return to perceived ‘origins’ in the form of a landmark embodying a ‘local style’. These forms, however, are re-presented in eclectic combinations or are sometimes entirely (re-)invented. The case of Melaka’s trend of grandiose pseudo-vernacular mosques shows how reductivism in the reinterpretation of ‘traditional features’ can be writ large in the name of cultural patriotism (FIG 18 & 19). The hybrid Sino-Malay roof ridge and its ornaments, depicted in a stylized and simplified manner, are exaggerated and magnified beyond proportion in bold, thickset renditions, as seen in the new State Mosque Of Melaka, constructed from 1984 to 1990, as well as in Simpang Kerayong mosque (2003). The latest examples now feature four corner towers, as seen in Al-Ghaffar mosque (2006). Two spectacular examples of pseudo-vernacular mosques come from Minangkabau. The first, Bayur Great Mosque, is a reinvention of the pavilion-tower mosque form found in a number of old mosques on the shores of Lake Maninjau, where the mosque is located – except that here, the pavilion roof is multiplied with a vengeance (FIG 20a). The second example is the Padang Panjang Great Mosque, which does not allude to the special features of the Minangkabau mosque but instead to the monumentality of symmetry and the liberal use of tajug roofs (FIG 20b). Although a few mosques of the vernacular tajug type were built in Singapore in the 19th and early 20th century, all of these have been demolished. As such there is no comparably evocative notion of local architectural identity based on any particular historic mosque. There are three pseudo-traditional mosques in particular, designed by the local Housing and Development Board, for which claims to being a reflection of ‘tradition’ has been made (“Mosques Directory”). They are Darul Aman mosque (1986) which was “nominated for the prestigious Aga Khan Award in 1989 as an excellent example of tropical architecture”, Al-Amin (1991) which claims to be “inspired by Sumatran Minang architecture”, and Kampung Siglap mosque (1992) built around a very small historic mosque from 1912, for which it was claimed that “Architects responsible for the design of this masjid built under Phase Two of the Mosque Building Fund have succeeded in preserving the architecture and ambience of a kampung [a traditional neighbourhood]” (FIG 21).

Conclusion This study has sought to move beyond assumptions on ‘style’ that have tended to delineate an artificially sharp break between the ‘vernacular’, the ‘colonial’ and the ‘modern’ mosque. It is suggested that there is instead a continuum of varying degrees of hybrid accommodation and assimilation between vernacular and other form vocabularies, and various combinations in the use of different materials such as timber, masonry, stone, and concrete; and thatch, ironwood shingles, corrugated iron sheets, and terracotta tiles. The ‘hybrid vernacular’ artifactual outcomes of the 18th to early 20th centuries are invaluable signposts in the journey to rediscover how change has enriched and shaped the architecture that have today come to be considered ‘traditional’.

The survey of regional types and their multifarious model variations through time highlights how change is inherent in vernacular practice by craftsmen, and especially how it has undergone adaptation to incorporate newly emerging construction practices and the popular form vocabulary of

142

its time. Variation in tradition, as Bronner has noted, is thus part of a continuous negotiation, and the reference to a precedent, a mechanism that is commonly seen as the hallmark of the vernacular, is never ‘fixed’, but works around a core of concepts upon which, in the process of ‘adaptations’ to changing circumstances, changes and innovations have been multifold. Tradition, then, “is not equal to ‘rule’, and in fact, implies unwritten or even unconscious codes of doing things that foster variation” (Bronner 25).

However, this dynamic aspect of the vernacular appears compromised in the attempts at an accentuation of traditional features in pseudo-vernacular buildings. In these new projects, certain physical forms are selectively amplified, while other forms are invented to produce a certain ‘mock-traditional’ mannerism. The preoccupation with the imitation and re-presentation of certain forms that are deemed significant have thwarted a real interaction between construction process and the creative amalgamation of form vocabularies that were the strengths of the hybrid vernacular.

It is hoped that this brief survey can stimulate some reconsiderations on binary assumptions regarding the connections between tradition, change and the mechanisms by which extraneous influences have been assimilated in ‘adaptation’. Specifically, there is a need to reflect on why certain aspects and elements of tradition have been retained, while others have been altered, in the examples of ‘hybrid vernacular’ Nusantara mosque traditions, and to compare these insights with the design decisions that are being made with regard to the forms of the ‘pseudo-vernacular’ mosques that have been spawned of late. Works Cited Abdul Halim Nasir. Mosques of Peninsular Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: Berita Publishing, 1984. Bronner, Simon J. “Building tradition: control and authority in vernacular architecture.” Vernacular architecture in the twenty-first century: theory, education and practice. Ed. Lindsay Asquith and Marcel Vellinga. London; New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. 23-45 Ismunandar K., R. Joglo: arsitektur rumah tradisional Jawa. Semarang: Dahara Prize, 1986. Kench, John. Cape Dutch homesteads. Cape Town: C. Struik, 1984. M Jeffri Razali. Friday Series: A journey through Time. 22 Jul. 2005. Fotopages. 3 Oct. 2007. <ambig.fotopages.com>. “Mosques Directory.” Portal for mosques in Singapore. 9 Oct. 2006. MUIS. 3 Oct. 2007. <http://www.muis.gov.sg/cms/services/MosqueLSummaryDL.aspx>. Narliswandi, H.M.S. Hasbie, Ichsan Sanuha and Sutrisno Murtiyoso, eds. Historic mosque in Indonesia. Masjid-Masjid Bersejarah di Indonesia. Majlis Ulama Indonesia. Jakarta: Jayakarta Agung Offset, 1994. O’Neill, Hugh. “South-East Asia.” The mosque: history, architectural development & regional diversity. Ed. Martin Frishman and Hasan-Uddin Khan. New York: Thames and Hudson, c1994. 225-240. Vellinga, Marcel. “Engaging the future: vernacular architecture studies in the twenty-first century.” Vernacular architecture in the twenty-first century: theory, education and practice. Ed. Lindsay Asquith and Marcel Vellinga. London; New York: Taylor & Francis, 2006. 81-94.

143

FIG 1a & b: Two relief panels from Prambanan temple, Central Java, 8th century showing four types of buildings (left to right): a raised floor pavilion sheltered by a gable roof with extended ridge, a hipped roof pavilion with a stereobate, and a two-storey extended ridge gable-roofed building on stereobate; as well as a two-storey raised floor building with an extended ridge gable roof on the upper floor and a hipped roof on the lower floor. (Source: Author)

FIG 2: Relief from Jago temple, 1343 showing various types of tiered pyramidal roof and hipped roof pavilions. (Source: Author)

FIG 3: Schematic representation of the basic profiles of some vernacular Nusantara mosque types and models.

144

FIG 4a & b: Symbolic roof ornaments on the tajug mosque: Ridge ends and roof summit. Left: the mahkota ornament on the royal mosque of Pontianak, west Borneo. Right: the roof of Tengkera Mosque, Melaka, where the timber sulur bayung ornaments are affixed to the Chinese swallow-tail ridge ends (Source: Author)

FIG 5 a & b: Pariangan mosque, considered the ‘ancestral’ mosque of the Minangkabau, with its pool in the foreground and several small clan surau (prayer halls) to the left. The skilful use of corrugated iron sheets to create the curved profiles of the roofs can be contrasted with the graceless effect of the contemporary use of tiles in the mosque of Mandiangin , in the picture on the right. (Source: Author)

145

FIG 6: Lubuk Bauk mosque, Minangkabau (Source: Author)

FIG 7a & b: Minangkabau suraus (Source: Author)

FIG 8a & b: Haji Muhammad Saleh, 1903; Khadijah ,1920, restored 2001, Singapore (Source: Author)

146

FIG 9: Surau and Madrasah Kampung Melayu, 1700s, Melaka (Source: Author)

FIG 10a & b: Sultan Mosque of Singapore as seen in 1846; Bahru mosque, built in the 1870s, Singapore. Both buildings are expunged. (Source: Author)

FIG 11: Tengkera Mosque, 1728, rebuilt in masonry 1890, minaret 1910. This is the former State Mosque of Melaka. (Source: Author)

147

FIG 12a & b: Jami Taluk, near Padang Luar. Old photograph displayed at the Padang Panjang Museum, and restoration and renovations as of 2006. Note the stainless steel prefabricated dome which now caps the minaret. (Source: Author)

FIG 13 a & b: Limo Kaum and a mosque in the Sungai Puar region, Minangkabau. (Source: Author)

148

FIG 14 a & b: Rao-rao and Muara Labuh mosques, Minangkabau. (Source: Author)

FIG 15a & b: Marketplace mosques of the ports of Pariaman and Padang, Minangkabau. (Source: Author)

FIG 16a & b: Interior of Pariaman mosque; Gasang mosque, the oldest at Lake Maninjau, Minangkabau. (Source: Author)

149

FIG 17: Mosque at Kling (Tamil) Cemetery, 1901, Singapore. Compare with FIG 8b

FIG 18 a & b: Al-Azim State Mosque Of Melaka, 1984, completed 1990; Simpang Kerayong mosque, 2003, Melaka. (Source: M. Jeffri)

FIG 19: Al-Ghaffar mosque, 2006, Jasin, Melaka (Source: M. Jeffri)

FIG 20 a & b: Bayur Great Mosque and Padang Panjang Great Mosque, Minangkabau. (Source: Author)

150

FIG 21 a & b: Darul Aman, 1986; Kampung Siglap, 1991, Singapore. (Source: “Mosques Directory”)