RUMAH GADANG IN THE CORE OF THE MINANGKABAU AREA

Architectural Institute of Japan

NII-Electronic Library Service

Arohiteotural エnstitute 　 of 　 JapanF

【カテゴリー1】　　　日本建築学会計画系論文集　第 531号，149−156．2000年．5 月

J・A 「chit ・？lann・En噸n・．E ”g・・叩，　N ・・531・　149’156・￥・￥・20°0

STUDY．ON 　ORIENTATION 　OF ‘RUMAH 　GADANG ’

　　IN 　THE 　CORE 　OF 　THE 　MINANGKABAU 　AREA

　　Village　compositioh 　based　on 　housing　lay−out 　analysis 　　　、

　　　　　　　　　　　of　pariangan　and 　Baruah　Bukik

　　ミナンカバウの居住地域におけるルマガダンの方位の研究

バリアンガン ζバコ，レアブキクでの民家配置の分析に基づく集落の構成原瑾

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　Selma　IVAKAMURA ＊

　　　　　　　　　　　　　．引

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　ナカムラセルマ

　This　paper　aims 　to　clarify 　th』subjects　6ftraditi6nal　orientatio”．of 几 tmtth　gaclang（customary 　houses，　abbr．　RG ｝，　vinage 　spatial　f（｝rmation ，　as

幽

we 旺as　RG 　s重yles　in　the　Minangkabau　heartl母nd，　in　SumatrE」 Indonesia．　It　starts 　with 　a　bibliographical　reView ，　pOinting　limitations　on 　the　picturepresented　by　most 　au 山ors ，　espeoially 　concerning 　RG 　styles 　and 　its　traditional　orientation ．［t　shows 　concrete 　exampl6s 　of 　RG 　cotlected　f吟m

different　bibliographical　so 丗 c，es　and 　also　fU）m 　my 　own 　field　work ，　describing　main 　arch 虻eGtural ．chqra じteristics　of　these　buildings．羽beseexamples 　of　RG 　show 　that．styles　yary　even 　inside　the　same 　village．　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　

．”

　The　paper　next　describes　and 　compares 　．main 　spatial　characteristics　oftwo 　ViLLages，　Pariangan　and 　Baruah　Bukik．　giving　speeia1　accent 　to　the

subject　ofRG 　erienfatiOti　and 　local　oTu1 　rules 　which 　aT ： believed　tO　d¢ fine　this　orientatiorn ．　It　shows 　that　oral 　rules 　of 　orientation 　of 　the　RG 　vary

丘om 　vnlage 　tg　village ，　In 重he　end ，　it　presentS　the．rcsult 　ofanalysis 　about 　the　orien重ation　ofRG 　in　30　Mim 皿gkabau　villages，　Ridgepoles　ofthe

RG 　d「e　u・ualty　p・・aji・ゆ・a・h ・th… φi脚 b ・ d … 「i・・rf・）．・pd・・ry・fU・’P・i・血 9

’脱 m ・皿蜘・ t・p・　　　　　　　

・

κ卿 ρo 鴻：Min．angkab 硼 1ρr’e π1α猷oη 那皰鵬即 η6ぬ9呻 μηぬ ηe5 v9 厂nacu ’σr 卿海f’ectUre・　 v”lage　stiucta 厂e．　　　　　

’

　　　　　　　　　　　　ミナンカバウ族，方位システム．ルマガダン．

　 1．OBJECTIVES 　AN1）BACKGROUND 　OF　RESEARCH ：

　　Bukit　Barisa皿 chain 　of 　mountains 　layS　close　tt） the　weStern 『oast 　of

　Sumatra，　Lndonesia．　The　equatbT 　Iine　crosses 　the　middle 　of　the　island，　and

　 my 　research 　area 　is　situated 　in　West 　Sumatra　ProVince，　in　the　heartland　 of

　thc　Minangkabau 　ethnica ］gμ〕up 　lgcated　in　the　Barisan　mountains （f設｝m

E100°20’t°Eloe°45’1°ngitude 岬佇゜m　SOpO5’t°

　Sl°OO’

　lltitt’de）・

　　”Minangkabau

”is　 the　 name 　 Qf 　bOth　 the　 ethnical　 gtoup　 and 　 the

　geographical　area　they，occupy ．　The 川毋α面gψ （custornary 　houses）are

血em ・st　imp・r t　mdit 孟・mal　byildingS　f・r　them・They　were 　used 　f・r

　domestic　and 　ceremonial 　purposes　in　the　pasちand ．　many 　ntmah 　gadOng

　（abbr．　RG ）can 　still　be　f｛）und 　in　the　heartla皿d　nσwadays ．

　　 This　paper　aims 　to　 clarify　 abOut 　trzditional　 orientation 　 of 　RG ，　 viHagc

　 spatial｛fomlation，　as　well 　as　about 　RG 　styles　in　the　Minangkabau　heartla皿 d．

　It　will　start　wi廿田 bibliographica1．reView 　on 　the　subject 　of 　orie孕吟tion　and．

‘・ty1・s

’・fRG ・lt・will ・・Xt　p・e・e ・ t・・… ete ・・a ・tipl… fRG 肋 m 　di飩・ent 、

　 villages ，　 in　 different　 areas 　 in ．重he　 Minangl［abau 　 With　 plans　 and nt

　 elevations 　compiled 　ffOm　the　eXiSting　bibliography　and 　also　adding 　my 　ewn

　fieldwork　data；　We 　WM　see 山 at　RG 　styles　v毋y m 　village　tO　villEge　or

　eve 皿 inside　the　same 　vMage ，　although 　a　domimnt　Style　can 　be　de監erm ed

　fbr　each 　village，　lt．witl　the卩 prcsent尹 critical　view 斧bOut　the　usual

　classification　ofRG‘styles

’discussed　by　most 　authors 　until 出e　present　day．

　　NeXt，　i　 wM 　 briefly　6xplain　 main 　 spatial　 charac 重eristics 　 of 　2　Villages，・Pariangan　 and 　Baruah　Bukik，　pointing　5imilarities　 and 　contrastS 　in　 their

　 spatiat　 organizatien ．　 We 　 will 　 see 　 that 　 the　 RG 　ridgepOle　 orientation 　 in

　Pariangan　is　different　from　that　in　Baruah　Bukik．．Villagers’be］iefs　on

　erierttation　omens』partially　explain 　RG 　ridgept｝Le　orientation．．Hewever，　one

インドネシア．ヴァナキュラー

建築．農村稱成

sbould 　be　cafefUI 　and 　distinguish’oral　s重ated　rules

’and 　

tfactual　rules

，，　oncc「idear

．and

「practice

’are 　quhe 　different　things　in山 e　Minangkabau 　 culture

and 　ds◎ourse ・We 　will 　see 　that　ora1’orientation 　rules 　also 　va 置y 恥 m 　vmag 『

tO　Village．　We 噛illじ onclude 　 that　 all　 authors 　 who 　 spoke 　 about・a 　 singl と

general　coordinate 　rule　for　atl 血e　Minangkabail　probab【y　oonsidered 　oraI

data　cQllected　fU）m 　fie【d．work 　ofasing 【e　vmage （or　few　villages），　and　that

none 　of 出ese　rules　can 　b『applicable 　b 　all　Mina kabau　vinages ．　This　was

preved　after　1　qnalyzcd　the　RG 　orie嘸 tiop　in　30　villages．　We　wiH 　disgover

some 　co on 　oHen 蝋 ion　ch 罅噸 cs　v 組id國 Mll 曙 es　in　the　s ple，

despite｝ al 　variations 　of 　oral 　mles 　of 　o “entadon ・Iwill　give　in　the　end

Sbrne　chronologica 【dimensions　for　orientation 　tOwards 　mountains 　under 　the．light　of 　recent 　archaeQlogical 　excavations ，　explain 　briefly　how 　orien 倣 ion

of 　the　RG 　is　declded　mwadays 　by ，common 　agreement’and 　to　finalize　the

texちIwiU 　make 　a　summary 　ofthe 　basic　conclusions 　ofthjs 　p叩 er．

2．REVtEVVOF 　BOOKS．

2．1．Concemi ［且g 　systems 　oforientation 　and 　cosmologies

S・yth… t　A ・iと坤・・cei・・d　m ・・y　1・y・「d　gf・ul噸 l　i・fl・・n。… ffOm・itS

pre−lndianLzed　background，　it　Was廿亘巳n 　influ巳nced 　by　India　in　the　beginning

of 　the 　Christian　era （govemmental 　 sphere 　 and 　Hindu・Buddbist　 religien ｝，

1atcゆ y　Islarn　 or　 Chri5tianity，　 and 　 finally　 by　 Wes 跏 Golon 圃 on ．

Orientation　 systems 　have　also　changed 　With　history（Waterson　l990：9牛

5，ll2）．　Tliere・are ・tWo・different・views ・on ・the・s呵 ect：one 　that　rein亅brces！he

Hindu 　background　in　many 　Solitheast　Asian　s ial　groups（Blust　1980；220）

and 　 ano 血 er 　that　 stresses 　the　pre−Hindu じosmological 　systent （Waterson

l990：94）．　Orien戯 ion　of　houses　and 　vi1lages 　in　Austronesian　sociedesL

usuaUy 　・fc）nows　a　variety 　of　coordina 艇｝s　according 　to　I a夏　ge6graphic

率Graduate　Student，　Graduate 　School　of 　Science　and 　Technology ，　KyotG 　Institute　of

　Technology京都工芸繊維大学大学院工芸科学研究科　博士課程

一 149一

N 工工一Eleotronio 　Library 　



ArchitecturalInstitute of Japan

features or eardinal points (Waterson 1990:94). Most often, though, what

we find is a cembined system ef orientation with more than one set of

superimposed coordinates (Waterson 1990:93-4) 2.

Tabte 1 presents a bibliographical compilation conceming erientation ef

RG in the Minanghabau. All rules together are contradictory. Only

Syamsidar uied to giye a general oonclusion. He concluded that in fact, RG

cannet giye its back to the mountain (Syamsidar 1991 :S9). He did not prove

hew such conclusion was taken.

Table 1: Rtdles o orientedon aceotdin to some authers

R"te A-thor

RGshonldfboeeast Raajta Manggis 1971,22 in Kato1982:S2'C istrano1997/3ptl'

RG shoudd face the ncrrii windsS amsidar tg91:S8RGhaveitsbacikfhcin thestteetReenenlg96a:171;Samsida[1991:58;RG faces the stteetst aths Lai1993/60'Vellin 1994:leO

RG riagepoles are erierited in a Kato1999:8S;Lai1993/60;

north-southaxils

RG should fonow ari east-west axis S amsidar 1991:59RG should faoe the mountain Pal[ L9g7,IIIg' S amsidar 1991/58RG chould fhce uphiIL never Capistrano 1997/ 30-1; SyurnsidardcrwnhM 1991:59

No auther pointed about possibte tegional yariations ef orientation

systems, especially conceming oral rules. Two authors recognized

superimposition between [ocat geographie eoordinates and cardinal

direction coordinates (Syamsidar and Capishano), Hcrweyer, they did not

pointthissuperimpgsitionasbeingatypicalAustronesiancharacteristic.

2.2.Concerningruntdegadengstylesandregiona]variations

Regional variations ef RG are ackncrwledged by Kawashima C19S9:122-

9), Vellinga {1994:45), Capistiano (1997:48-69) and Kato (1999:gS),although ne one sbowed different exarnples in different iurgari (villages)concretely, except for KawashimL His comp{latien of drawings covered

mainty one single valLey in the Minaiigkabau cal1ed Agarn (19S9:125-9),

providing us with one house plan (Fig.2, RGIO) and some exterior views.

Tsble2: Finriaiionso s leo

Kawashima shewed only one example in Tanah Datar valley (p.123), which

I recognized as being the house of Dt. Bandaro Kuniang {n Limokaum, with

S bays (Fig 2, RG7)3and ancFther single exainple in the SoLok-Singkarak

valley lp,l24), with no plan. Hipped & gabted rvofs (the styte called

[in'mcya'

in Japanese) are shown very bequently by the author.

Concerning RG styles, a bibliographical review is presented on Tahle 2.

Some authors believe that there are 2 "political" divisions of lareh (lit.

`hannery')

in Minangkabau, which affect RG styles: some vi11ages would

belong to lareh BC (Bodi Caniago), which is more `democratic'

and

consequently houses are theughr to haye a Level flcor. Other villages would

belong to ltueh KP (Koto Piliang), thought to be more autocratic;

consequently with floor levels raised at the ends, in tiers calted `ajung'

(Table 2). Some bel{eve there is a diyision of styLes connected to different

valleys in the Minanglcaball. Each valley would have its ovnt single sty!e of

RG. Others speak of different numbers of bays and wicfth as a way to

classify the RG. No author shorved hovv these conclusions were taken, They

were very probably based on oral infbnnation. Therefore, these conciusions

aJe clearly limited as we will see later in this paper 4.

3. METHODOLOGY & OUTLINE OF FIELDWORK

The Minanglzaball heart1and is composed of 4 valleys, each close to at

1east one vo]canic mourrtain: Tanah Datar yallcy close to Mt. Merapi; Agam

valley, to Mt. Singgalang; Limapuluh Keto valley, to Mt. Sago and Solok-

Singharak vallcy, to Mt. Talang (Debbin 1983:2-3). Villages in the

M{nanghabau were called nagan'. which was in fact a confederation of

settIements.

This study is based on direct fieldwork, bibliographical research, and

unpub]ished reports on Minanghabau architecture which were mainly done

by Bung lhtta University (BHU) during the last 14 years. I basically used

oniy the visual data ffom these reports (sketebes, dTtnvings and maps).

RGaccorzfih todi erentauthors

Pistorius(1871)Maass(l910)

Navis(19SS

Syamsidaf

(1991)

Usman(1985}

Lai (199S

Capistrano (199DCellto(1"op

3 st-wide

Z,HBC RBf LPK

llI.t

././ t./i'tt .1･dw･

BCtLPK titt

,n/L 't-

'"

"L'

"

BCl/.

.'H'ttt 't lt.' /t k ,.

LPK?IINP

l.. , .T.,,,,;.,t'V'/'/'].;/.

t .ttdee w.

4 t-widert,''L--"

KP SU TD':'･i,i,gei''

f,itllig

'

KPtTD

lkii$.T.thshig;lilee'

xu'i-'--V

i.l..igi=LiNl.as..wwl,.til, ,//.xD?mp

"' /''1' 11 't't'f,,,

,.ffk.tw,k'

5 st-wide

------

BC SPI A

c･- }･-, ,-t",,.H 4

-] H

eel.t 'l ,.

Paserek/AF.t-･-... I.･l･> ..

-t ,1,,

s

A?BC)

i' Jt

"'-1"' ",･'i

)t t/t

ewtw

6 t-wide

rl,iL rr.l.t

u i' ll iL"-;

KP-BC

t`

KP ra'a

Note: "Paserek" is a rtame ef a style, according to Syamsidar; "aja"

means "king".

Legend: KP: larebl style Koto Piliang; BC: ldrebl style BodiCaniagr); LNP: Lareh nan PaJljang; RB: Rajo Babandiartg; SL: Sitiniau Laut; SP: Surambi Papek; TD: Tanah Datar valley; LPK: Limaputuh Koto

valley; A: AgEJn yalicy

-150-

NII-Electronic




T'vvo viltage.s wcre chosen for initiat fieldwork:

1)Pariangart:considered.thecradleoftheMinanglcabagcivilization;

2) Baruah･Bukik: chosen because it was fhr ffom Pariangan and had a

.differentRGorientation. , - ,- ,

liie objeptives of field-work i.n these 2 vi11ages rverd:

1) to draw maps of both villages with their clan divisions, RG ridgepole

orientatipnsaJldtypesofbuiLdings; , .2) to draw a few RG plans arLd elevations; these RG were ghosen for being

typical or eld; in Pariangan, I drew 4 RG and in Baruah Bukik, 2 RG;

3) to interview vi11age experts (including carpen!ers) and cemrnen vi11agers)

cencerning orientati,on of RG, use of space.

Other vitlages were chosen for fieldyork yisits to provide a'larger picture.

I yisited mainly TD vi]lages, but also LPK, A and SS vi11ages 5. The rnain

collectien ef data was/to draw or correct virlage maps, to collect data on

rituals Jvhich involved a particular orientation ･inside

the RG. and to

deterrnine the upstrdan] and dewnstream direetions ef the RG, During these

field visits, I became avvare about RG diffbient styles, did simp]e sketches

'efa few houses and took many phetographs.

Table3:Sourcesotintaasedinthisr

Visited?Students,Maporothervillsgo'psumberTepOns

'sl[etch?bboksor

efda sources?1yes(31} yes maP '1yes(12) yes maP Basri(94)3 yes(2) ' map Basri(94)4 yes(5) ym mapIniC93&9S)

s yes(2) ys rnap '6 yes(o ' map -7 yes(3) yes shetch 's yes(2)

'ymsketch -

9 yesfl) ys maP '10 ' - - Reenen(96a)lt ycs(T) - ' T12 yes(1) ' L L13 ycsCt) ' - IAi(9S)14 yes(3}

'ymrnap -

IS yes(2) yes skcteh '16 ' '' rmnp '17 - . maP 'IS ' yes･'' '19yes(2) yes maP '

,mo ' yss map '21 -

yes map '22yes(2) yes map

''est.' ' mapVelSinga(94)

24 Lyesmap(smal])

-25ycsCO 'rnap(srnal])Ng{93)26yes{2) - map -

･27yes{1) . map T2S - ' sketchBeckmam{79)

29 yes(t) - ' 'soyes(1) ' maptuz'

31yos(1) - ' -31 2 - - -

Villages: 1. desa.PariaTigEri (TD); 2. desa Baruah Bukik (TD); 3. desa Andaleh CTD);4. nagari Balimbing <dustm Koto Tuo) (TD); 5, desa Kinawai CTD}; 6, desa Gudarn,Balai Tariggah &' Balai Janggo CID); 7. nagari Limokaum (desa Koto Gedis & Balai

Bfftu) CTD); g. ìesa Talang Tangal) (Il]); 9. nqguri Batipuh Ateh (TD); 1O. nqguriRao-Rac CTD); 1l. etesa Galo Gandang CID}; 12. ragaii Sungai Patai (rD); 13. desaSulit Air CrD); 14. desa Galanggang Tangah, nqgari Sungayang,CTD); 15, desa BalaiTat,uelh & Balai Bung uagtLri Ta[ijung CID); 16. hagari Buo CID); 17. Kurnanis (TD);18. desa Balai Gadans nogtui Sungayang CTD); 19. n4gari Sungai Jambu {TD); 20.nagari Tiumang

"Dusun

Sipanglma'i (Savvahlunto); 21. desa Pulai; 22. nqguri

Surnanialc (desa'PMang & desa HLiang Sani) ,(TD);

2]. desa Balai Talang (LPK); 24.

kelurahan Balai Kaliki, nagari Koto nan Gadang a.PK}; 2S. kelarahan Balai Cacmignagari Koto nan (tadang (LPK); 26. heinrahan Payobasung keaamatan ?a)ralaJrTtbuhTimur (LPK); 27. naguri Batagak (A); 28. nngari Candung Koto Lavveh {A); 29.nqgari Cupak (SS); 30. desa Selaye Bam, nagari Selayo (SS); 31. desu Padang-Par!iangdesaGuguk,desaSikaladi(nageeariangan-PadangPailjang)CTD)

11rne schedule.for fieldFvork: 1996

(6 weeks: A'uglSep):

recognition

trip,

choosing vitlages, contacting the loeat unlyerstty (BHU); 1997 (6 weeks:

OcttNov): doing main field work at desa Pariangan (drawing its rnap and'

doing main in-depth interviews), searching for a second, village for

fieldwork; 1998 (7 weeks: OctfNov): finishing data co11ectio4 at Pariangan

and doing fieldwork in Baruah Bukik,(map and data co11ectiori); 1999: (3

weeks: JullAllg): cDlleeting extra informatien about RG internai erierrtation,

Tota1 number of villages wbich vvere visited: 37 villages: (3 .in SS, 25 in

･ID,4in A,4in LPK,1in the rantau),

FoT cotrespondent numbers, see legend'ofTable 3.Figl. Above: the MinaJighabau heauland with its four valleys and 4mpuntains.

Below:

detaited

rnap

with

ofv,

i'llFges

arvund

Mt.

\erapi. ,

4. RtijlfAH GADAIVC (RG) IN THE MINANCKABAU

According to the previous bibtiographica] review (item 2.2 & Tahle 2),

classification efRG stytes given by the authors invoLved: a) a heuse-breath

classification, where RG were classified by.the number oflatera1 bays; b) a

lczreh classificEtion. where each vi]Jage would have one single ''lareh-style"

of RG; c) a valley classificatien, wtiich meahs 'one

yalley, one style'.

Ail three types ofclassifications present certain problerns. -

a) h6use-breath classification: Fig.2 shows some models of existing RG in

different villages. All of therp,are 4 bays 1videiThis shows that if in the

pasg such classification could, have been .yalid, it sEems of li"le. u, se at the'

preseng according to this sampte.

b) tureh classification:'mariy authors support the theory of RG folrowing a

'styLe' Bodi-Caniago (BC) or Koto-Piliang {KP). There are rnapy reasons to

believe that this dicbotomy into 2 lneh is n6t well grounded 6. Besides,

,there is no single Minangkabtiu village'in the 'so-called

kp style (mean,ingall RG with

àiijung') '.'It

is rnore prudent tiot to apply this lueh theory for

the classification of RG styles. .'

cj valley classi'ficalion: none of the authors kuppo4ing this view gave

conerete and systematic examples to prove such classification.

To better show limitations ef such 'yalley

ctassificatien', t will rnake an

analysiS'of Fig.2, a smatt sample of RG 1 coliected fum aiikrentbibliographical sources and also fivm my own field werkL This srnall

sample shows that gtibled roofs are the corrrrnopesg while ìrimoya'

(hipped& gabled) roofs are present enty in Agany!.(RGg.9,1.0). All pther RG are

-151-

NI,I-Electronic




gabledS. The niunber ofgonjong S can vary a 1at. 11)e rnest cornmon number

in the sample is 4 'O.

Main entrances yary in pesitioning and numbers 'i.

Mbst RG have only one main entrance irt the middle of the ffont favade or

laterally. Another important feature is the `bandua' or

`tingicah' (regional

variation of names), an elevated dais in thc main room (30-50cm high). ks

position and shape yary frern vi11age to village i2.

Bcpidita positioned in

front of sma]1 slbeping charnbers are the cornmonest (RG 3,4,5,7,11,12).

Lengtb can also be an impertant characteristic (in the case of RG 1&2) tS.

Concerning the plan, sleeping charnbers are usua1ly laid in the back part ef

the house. RG9 in Batagak has though a yery diffbrent plan '`.

All these

descriptions show that RG architectural characterisdcs do vary inside each

valley. as best exemplified in TD (RG 2.5,7,12) 'S.

Even inside the satne

naguri, styles do vary i6.

But it has to be remarked that akhough stytes rnay

vary inside eacb turguri, a dorninant styLe can be easily detemined in each

nqguri or village.

it is certain that categories for distinguisbing styles ]ike `prcsence of

anpmg or not' and `shape

ef the rooP which aJe commonly used for

explaining the dicbotomy between BCiKP are not enough to categorize

distinguishingtypesofRGarchhectura11y".

5. PARIANGAN AND BARUAH BUKIK VILLAGES

Pariar}gan is situated at the southern slopes of Mt. Merapi (860maltitude). It is part of the ncrgari Pariangan-Padang PaJlj ang, composed of 4

yBlages, one of which is PadarTgan. It is considered the first Minangkabau

vil[age by the rnajority. It is believed that original irthal)itants fforn

Pariangan slowly populated the whote Minangl[abau area (see Fig.1) 'S.

Baruali Bukik is situated on the slopes of rtrt. Sqgo (800m attitude), being

past of nagari Andaleh-Baruah Bukile According to orat traditions, origiaal

inhabitants also carne ffom Pariangan.

5.1. Spatial features of Pariangan and Bstuab Bukik

Both vi]lages are laid on mountain ridges, having the main centra1 street

pm--.....-..-......-....----.....'-.

t.NagAbeiSangir'

exactly en the ridge. There are small rivers nearby both vi11ages, and the

main street is parallel to these riyers. There is a `center'

in each vi11age with

the mesque, an office representing the administTation of the vi11age (Kepa]aDesa Oence), the balai crelat (oouncit hal1 or KAN office) and a schooS(s).

Differences aie: Pariangan has a hot spring, a soccer field and rnest surau

are in the center, white Baruah Bukik has no hot spring at atl, the soccer

field is aboye the built-up area and suratt are spread in the built-up area.

Main aJ=hacolegical rernnants are inside the built-up area in Pariangan

(Mejan Tinggi. Balai Saruang, the old cemetery) while io Baruah Bukik

they are above the buiLt-up area eatu Jarangan, the oldest eernetery).

Another diffleTence is that Pariangan has 4 balai, while BanJah Buldik has

only one balai tdo building. Only the KAN office in Parlangan is a

building, but atl other `balai'

arejust formed by stones, laid en an open

fietd. contrury to what is the `irnage' of balai for most authors.

Each cLan occupies one hanlputrg, a deiimited area with territorial and

geographic meanings inside thc built-up tissue. Ideally, each konrpung

should have at least one RG Out many are preferable), ene surau {building

for bcrys to sleep and prayer heuse), and one burial place.

5.2. Conclusions sbo"t spEtial features of Parisngan & Baruah Bukik

.Both are laid en an elevated mountain ridge, exactly in betwecn 2 river

yalleys. Ihe centTal street was laid exagtly en the ridge, being parallel to

adjacentriveTs.

e Ridgepole orientation of RG in bcvth vi11ages is difTlerent: in Pariangan

ridgepoles are parullel to the strein while in Baruah Bukik. they are

perpendicular to it. But beth present clustering ofbuildings in kmnpung.

. There is a notion ef vi11age

`center'

in both vi11ages representefl by the

`public'institutions･

e It is usually believed that each Miear]gl[abau vi11age has only ene single

meeting plaee, a building called balai culai. in fact, Pariangan has S such

meeting spaces {onty one is a building). All crther 4, which are rnore

i'i'"E..i･4.llil//i･'L,{:or-wt ,

i..,;/.tu:...;,.LL.x.i

)Ntl)s--.･,-"tliifgeee.geS.-ge3.

im

---tm.mp

lati-

-.'-.'-

'tua.

5.

o4 dn-tftdF4---

----

t

,--

--

"mp.estas,kSA"

mure"en'bei'gg

ww- t

taVeege"eErHrkditrgj(N

t4KotomaneedortgILPK)

tm

btue

---e-ll-

,lt-,e,H..a,o{m)ttskitetHi

t2.hlagwn(TD)

Fig 2. Different examples of ramah gmbng in the Minangl[abau (Valleys: "SS"/

Solok-Singi[arak; `'TD"/

Tanah Datar; "LPK",

Limapululi Koto; "A":

Agam)

thurces: 1, Vellinea (1997) & auther; 3. Ng (1993) & autho; S. Brudle]r in Lai (1993); 7. Cqpistrano <1997> & authog S. ATsitektur Hijan (19S8); 1O. Kawashiina (1g89); 11,

Reenen (1996b); 2, 4, 6, 9, 12: by the aiithor. Al1 eriginal drawings were modified. to fit into the plamV faeadc elcvation scherne.

tVbte/ Kawashirna (1989,128-9) forgot to show the kitehen ofRGIO; therefore. I could net dravv it in the elevatien.

-152-

NII-Electronic




ancient, are formed by sitting stones oc `menhir'-like

stones laid on an open

field.6.

0RIENTATION OF THE RMId/AH Gt4DAiVG

6.1. 0rientation of the RG in Pariangan and Baruah B"kik

Geographically the two villages ate very mucP similarly Iocated with

sirnitar main elements. H6wever, RG ridgepoles fforn bariangan are parallel

to the riyertstreet, while Baruah Bul[ik has rnost of its RG with ridgepoles

perpendicular to the streetfriver. Pariangan has some `experts'

of tradition

whg provided me with sorne dafa conce"iing orientation ef RG as shown in

Table 5. Baruah Bukik villagers had less to say conceming orientation of

RG (Table 4).

As segn in TabLes 4&5, oral rules stated by Pariapgan and BanJah Buklk

vi11agers were confirmed in reatity. Orientatien rules fforn Pariangan cannot

be applied to Baruah Bukik and neither the epposite, except for the rule

concerning alignrnent of ridgepoles. ThiS proves that regional variations

also occur for ora] rules oforientatio4. All data presented in TabLe 1 taken

ftom different bibliographica] sources looked contTadictory because "eywgre pTobably based on or.al data coming ffom different viIIages and were

mistakenly thought' to be valid for all Minanglcabau ".. Syamsidar (199 1:59)

conside.red ora1 inforrnation "wTeng'.,This

is also false, once ruLes work

vvell within vi!lage borders, as seen in Pariangan and B. Bukik.

lt is clear that systerns,of orientatien in ny(inarigl[abau are Austronesian,

with supeimposition of coorainates (using both LocaVgcogmphic

coordinates arid cardinal

'points). These superimpesed coordinates are

biased though, at least foT PariaTigan. wnen there is contTadiction in th'e

rules, cardinal points are discarded and Loca]/geogrephic coord{nates

mainta{ned . This is seen in the example of the RG of Dt. Rajo Gagak,

which was originally built facirpg to the easg but giying its back to the street.

To fhce east is considered `good' but 't6 give its back to street', bad. Due to

problems of lineage continuity and fighis in the faini]y, the RG inhabitants

decided to change the positien ef the fagade. Nowadays (t fboes the street.

Other 3 houses in the same condition had Flso giyen'priority to the

locaUgeegraphicrule"(seeFig.'3}. ･ '

6.2. 0rientation of mmah gudong ln other viltages

'

In order to give a Larger picture concprning the Minanghabau system 'of

orientation, l decided to check whether other vi1]ages also fo]lewed a

local/geographic orientation toward elements like rivers, streets and

mountains. `StTeet',

`river'

anq `mountain'

weTe bequently ched by

vilLagers and by the previous bibliographicat review as erientation elements.

Tlterefore, I cornpiled a table with RG orientations in 30 vMages (Table 6).

According to Tabte 6, we can concLude that:

1) RG are paratlel to gach other. but many viUages'present 2 rnain

directiens of RG orientation: S2% of yilLages have a singlc ridgepole

direction (catled Dir.1 in Table 6), while "% of villages pFesent 2 RG

ridgepote directions (called Dir, l & Dir2), . ,2) RG are usua]ty paralleL to the rnain street. Dir.1 (the mairt R9 ridgepole

direction in a viNage) is paraLLeL to the street in 94% of cases. Only 8% of

cases show that ridgepoles are perpendicular to the streeg like in Baruah

Bukik. [[1)eTefore, Baruah Bukik is an exceptiona] case.

3) RG ridgepoles are also parallel to the ctosest river(s): Dir.1 is paraLLeL to

a river in 80% of the yMages; in 20% of viLLages, it is perpendicular. to iL

4) ln all cases when the Dir. r of a village tied perpendicular to a river, it

L, epstrean"i' i'u

"rD'ab1aiilpmgReio-pisling･

.Betnig. t

ean"amsl

A itver

,',

'r'-;7;

X7-mny1 rpinam:x>v:

;tKatag -.Kto

1hee'k S

ptkeop:--":

'ome

ny･ , li y'÷ipt

-N

[)esa Pdriajpn St

,iiIX

pmem

Xes

)li s s 1' l

-.-l

st '7'

es2-

" 4-.

3- n-

8 ℃!･ ¢t nthiJ

skectt,1

100,

t

s t dwntuth

-m

il

dlll iie i,;

'j " , e,

,6 ･A

℃.taio,*l5･

lli.9ii'e'

e{' ll

t '; '

lthtaV

I l simintrg

Sbi SY,

t

s-gB

Ege･･--

gE･e･--.

8g=::-

;il

VlieetbmtaRts:t.nospa;2.KANoS$oeueutaFleadettreti#ageo"ice;4.sdwa;5.masprk-etseccetfield;sueorpaptshmme)8.aviertptuthtS.ingeemveleortaopsnfididtsclalathstttrigstorms

Fig 3: Map of Paiarvori di) ds mtinatemAents GRG eriatagan

tEGE"e

ehamhgadang. etrance--- tiueretuur-Lpefca

Btetg:'SrLthr

ti"/

ix"l･ikiikmm'

opabvm7,' ca l itt

,6

eras uet:?tt/ T- -7

ttt t 2.

tl rioe ' 3-

.

.tlssbu

"<Eb

a-'"6

e6

de,ds ¢ .6

.`

.,

o6g6 6,- .-

M6--- 66 7. 7.

C!K!, 666

6

6 6･earvehButdeE56M X.bma.

bM

useMtreesA

t -s!g!!ts.t

rt,er ntbeestiEiilT ELEuATIDnAA

uSeMtmstm

e--s- :

E･ e

Ese--

za:pg:-

irl lfsap

eamehgedtng. orrtma?ee--

rilier

eli-eetsmS:t.rrpspa;2.KANotiee[-rih-taisQt3.tfEa:oftrveheaddltteiftrege;aschoot;6.swerbeU;7.suevlpthm1;e.anha:bgd3the;s,taysepmFig

4: tsmp ot eaneeli evrk uitn ts mcinetements 8 its RG uterteticm

-153-




was revealed that these ridgepoles are, in fact, atigned to a mountain top, tt

seems that orientation respecting a riyer coordinate was discarded in order

to cope with an orientation towards the top ef a mountain earuah Bukik

also belengs also to this case 2i).

5) The main RG ridgepole orientation (Dir.1) usually points to a mountain

top･

The curiois fhct is that no one in the bibliography or in rny field work

referred specifically about `ridgepoles

pointing to the mountaln' !Z,

but enly

`fhcingthemeuntain',whichisverydifTerent".

Baruah Bukik (TD), Andaleh (TD), Galo Gandang (TD). Koto nan '

Gadang (LPK), Candung Koto Lawas (A) all had perpendicular erientationtowards the closest rivers (Table 6). In all those cases, ridgepoles pointed to

)vlt. Merapi instead ef fo11owing the aligrmient to the ctosest river. This

strongly suggests that Bamualt Bukik vi11agers, in the distant past. chose to

bu{ld their R{] with ridgepoles pointing not to the cLosest rnountaing which

was Mt. Sago, but to a fmher mountain, Mt, Merapi, ffom where thcir

aJicestors were belieyed to have been originated from.

63. Cbronological dimensions of erientation te-rsrds the moumtain

The oldest site which had been found in West Sumatra is that of Mahat

(1,OOO BC to e, according to Jacob 1992:156). It is a burial site, with rnore

than 300 rnenhires. All ef them, which were excavated by Haris Sukander,

were pointing to Mt Sago's top (Surya Helmi 1998). Orientation towarT}s

the mountain is therefore an ancient prqctice in the Minar]glcabau area.

Recent gTaves, though, all have orientation towards Mecca due te Islarnic

influence.

in Batipuli (TD), at the Gunung Bungsu she, one aan find grEves with the

oLd mountain orienption but also graves oriented to Mecceg according to

reeent excayations (MgKinnon l993:30-6), In Pariangan, otd menhires are

said to point to Meceag but whenIchecked them.Isaiv that they in fhet

point to Mt. MeTapi (grarrqyard at Batai Saruang, Mejan Tinggi and

Kaburan Pajang), not to Mecca,

ln Batipuh Ateh (TD) there is a ritual counting of rice yields which is said

to be `facing a direction in between Mt. Merapi and Meeca'. Mecca is to

the wesg Mt. Merapi exactly to the nomb, so villagers face in between, to

the NW while counting the rice yie]ds (BHU reports). This shows that some

Tabte 6: thientation ofRG riagepoles in 30 Minatrghabatt vUILrges

mmArenemara)GEsMePeEeFnc ies.ne:"s:.'mrc.'osumK*'ram.wa.'tF':-mm-an.'.;

PEMorZeFasflesmaneHmua-D-Cl

roactrmrmexSTptTTEmaE?M-nweIUXEmuewDZ2melmeRRmp

mm mmmue"

!?mpael

ms1escmptcoIteszzrEsres VESe-orapt1

2+oR-2NflLL]orstcvsuonmTenffEFempenmmeweop)

3.oR-2sttza1}esscssxoxm,tsnTsmemspaampt]manevap.

,mo4za(zaLlmstewmsPnvL

IESFma5s･IVEmstt-muSaeol

5.OR.2fi[mizzsu'exmsms 1.DR2S

sms1te(M)teevzzommsms etpatbMcrePl

Tmstepossery-)tcetsonen-" m

sms1as[M)tcasenzzYESrEs pm1

s.eR-2fi[za1;e2atasonmerEs ua1

s+OR-2-'-lom-- h\Tzpaeisls

tl+OR-2ptorrSldivoxnrasveSmaOles"tsaj]

t2+OR-2 zzssscox ms nores

B+OR-Nust-m-'msms o

t4ms1orEALUtavsomuxmsms mo

sms1M[aptaxomesms no

tsmstMfne3taxosonmsms mspm

tl+OR.2n[mpmsesonmsmsvespm,#etcu

is+OR-iTHrwt-ewmatox-ny--veseisaj1

ts+OR.2"{ua]9Slsuzzmsms vepmtapt1

mms1sutll]torntcuesmsres -

+OR-

TES,TO

M t13[PU]lmaones ESetins'inpa-h-HER

nmst tco)cuesmsrEs o"ms`rema;1coScucumsms ny

esNrm1asY-twxom msms･]

1rlsms1Ym1asonomMT5perm.IEs trEselazptl

16n+oR.2T"nvasscumsms resptorig]

N+OR.2 S9sc"tommsms mo

z+ORJ2 nvmomM,TSmmms ma"itDM2iSmp)

ts+OR.IeH-are-----ms--

nVS1tstasonanmsmsMOtnl-ntiutstc)tstt

nt

ffor vi11age nurnbers, refer to Table 3; ''DIR.1"/ main direetion ofRG ridgepblesin a village;

"D[R.2i'; seconda[y direction of RG ridgepetes in a village;

"RG":rwvtali gadong;

"peroent.", peroentage;

"ridges"/ same as ridgepole)

Tabte4.RulesoforientationaccordintoBaruahBukikinhabitantsandresultseffieldworkcheckinthevatidioftheseruIes

RutesoforientationBukik InforinaDts Checkinthevalid'oftheseru]es1.Ridgepolescannotpointdownwards Jamal Indeed.21RGofatotalof24areperpendieulartostreet,net

followinthestreetdownwards.Tbreear=am11eltostreets.2.RGridgepolesshollldbeplacedsidebyside,with

rideolesasacontinuoustine

Jarinan lndeed,closeRGareallaLigtred

3.RGshouldfacethemountain Almasna&Jarinan21RGfaceMt.Sao;onl3donot.

Table5.RulesoforientationaccerdintoPariaiianinhabitantsandTesultsoffieldworkcheckinthevalidieftheserutes

RulesoforientationPariallD Informants Checkintheyalidioftheserules1.RGfacadescanneveropcntothenortitorsouthinfactNWorSE

Dt.Mangkuto Indeed,noRGfacadesopeneithertenortliorsouth(nortoNWorSE

2.RGfacadesrnustopentotheeast(infaegma

Dt.Mangtuto&GarangOf3SRG,27(770fo)opentotheteast'andonty8(2301o)opentethetweSt'･

3.Ridgepolesshouldbeparalleltoariyeror'"vers

Dt.Mangkttto,Suri

Dira'e&GaranIndeed.all35RGareapproximatelyparalleltethe2riversthatrun

toeachsideefthevi11ae4.Ridgepolesshouldneverbeperpendiculartothemainstreegbutrnustrunara11eitolt

Dt.Manglcuto,SuriDira'e&Garan

Indeed.noneofthe3SRGareperpendiculartothernainstreet

S.rudgepolesffommanyRGwhichareaLignedareaoodarranementcalled`sinobasiek'M.Garang

Ofthe35RG,13(4601o)areaLignedingroupsof2or3RG;6(2501o)aremoreortessalied'S2901oarenotalied7areisolate

6.Bedrooms(biliak)canneverfacethemainstreet

Dt.GaransS.Dhajo&kSati

lndeedthereisnosingleRGonwhichbedreomsfacethemainstreet

-154-




Minangkabau vMagers try to oombine older rules {n ordcr to fit into a nevier /system ef orientation, in this cake, with Islain..lt sgems though, when they tt 'fhee contradictory rules which are opposite and ne conciliation cah possibly ' ttbe rnade,

villagers

choose

what

thq)[

think,

is best{

which

in

the

case

of

Pariangan, is related to locaVgeographic coordinates and not te cardinal

pomts.6.4.

0rientatiop decided by common agreement

The orientation of RG is decided by common ,agreement even today, in

Sungai Jarnbu (T[D), a vi11agef decided to isuild, his RG with its ridgepole

perpendicular to Mt. Merapi a few Years ago, contrary to the great maj ority

of other RG. His -ptinishment',

accoTding te a viltager, was that he became

excluded frorn all village most important activities arrd decisions. There was

no council meeting that decided his 'punishment';

it was decided by'common

sense'r according to an inft)rniant. in Baruah Bukik, in oase a

villager would'1ikp to change orientation of his RG, he has to ask the

permission of the counpil, agcording t6 another inforrnanL ln Pariangan,

there is ne need to haye a formal councii meeting for deciding a RG

orientatlon because this affair is seen as a private prebterp of each

sublineage, But yi11age.rs sti11 maintain

'obedience'

towatd certain rules as'it

was seen in this paper, ･with fear that brcaking them weuld cause bad

consequences tp their fimilies like.lack of fertility, failure of rice crops,

sickness and other negative facts.

7. CONCLUSIONS

1) This paper clarified about the mistaken concept of F division of RG

styles into lareh or into valleys.

2) lt concretely showed difTerent modeLs of RG ffom a few villages in the

Minangkabau heartland, and explained main archhectural features which

seem important for chafacterizing a RG. ,

3) It etarified basic spatial characteristics of twg yMages. Pariangan and

Baruah Bukik.

4) It clarified that orat rules of orientation vary regienally. It concLuded that

all data fouhd in the bibliographical review concerning orientation in the

Minangl[abau looked contradict6ry for the fhort that they vveTe probably

based on ora] information ftom d{fferent villages and were thistaken]y

thought to be valid fpr all Minangkabau. '

5) Minangkpbau has a typical Austrongsian system of orientation with

superirnbosed' sets of rules. This paper clarified about

'the nature of

s?perimposition Oreference,,, t6r loctiVgcographic ,ooordilites instead of

cardinal directions; merging of old and new `hely'

directions such as ' t t`rnountain'and`Medca'directions).

･ '

'

6)'it showed that thefe,are certainly c'ommon orientatiort rules which are

valid for at least 3e Minangilabau villages, independent'of regiena]

variations of oraL ru]es. These are: a) RG aie v$ually pam11el to nearby

rivers; b) streets are laid paral161 to rivers, therefore, RG ridgepoles are

usually parallel to streets, but not aLways; c) RG ridgepoles very often point

exact]y - or c]ose to - the imaginary axis which links the RG to a mountain

top･7)

lt suggested that the reason for the strange orientation of RG ridgepoles

in Baruah Bukik is retated to probable ancient worship of the mountain CMt.Merapi).

Limitations of this' paper were: srnall samples of RG for the discussion of

architectural features and lack of analysis about intenna} orientation of RG.

NOTES:

''

'1. M{Ist of the social groups found in indonesi.a speak Austronesian lariguage's.

'

2. For instanoe, Toajan housies always' fhce nonh, i, direction associgted with ijyer sourees (WaterSon 19po:94). Karp Batak houses arc belieyed to be aligned to the

points of the compass by Karo'vi11agers (Domenig 1980/127). Go £ s sfiowed they afe

in fact aligned according.to upstream and downsmeam (Goes 1992/12), In BalL in

thg Bali Aga type of vi11age, there is a clear superimpdsition of `kaja'

(upstm) and

`nomb' in the orientation ofvi11ages and houses earirnin 19g6). Another exqmple is

Pura Suranadi in Lombok island which points to the top of Mt. Rajani (Wakita 1996:1OO), although al1 otherlnea in the island follows the cardinal points.3. Kawashima (1989/123) though, preseTited e wrong plarL for this hovsc, with'9 bays ' instead ofS, which was probably the plah of the imous museum in Bukittinggi, fict

.thehouseofDt.BandaroKuniang. '

'

' '

''

'4. Benida.Beckrnann (1979,92-3} pointed inat, at least Dn matters of law in the Minmigkaha- a considerable distmce between 'ideal'

and bractice' does occur: what

people say is not neoessarily. correspondertt to the practice. This is also the case

ocrncerning diffeTerit RG styles/ 'ideal'

divisions of style and 'actual'

divisioris do not

necessarily comspond when checked in reality. a fact whieh I found lp my field work. Oral data can be used only as a 1imited too1, not as the only source for taltiing oonclusions, as it-probably was the case for the allthors cited in Tables 1&2.5. Through tiris paper, I will call the Minanghaball valleys as

tM]'

Cranah Datar valley>,

'A'

(Agan] valley), LPK' (Limapuluh Koto valley) and `SS`

(SolokSingl[aTak yalley).

6, First the nature of the lareh itself was always obscure, lacking histarical proog according to BeekrTiaim (1979/58.-59). Second some vi11ages like' Paiangaii and

Balimbing do not beleng to either BC noF KP, but to a third lareh, called Lareh nan

Pajang . A vi11age called Rao.-Rad pteenen 1 996a:71 -4) has elernents of the 3 lareh

BC, KP mid Lareh nan ?mijm]g altogether. Thirq the political divisien of vil1ages

into BCt KP soerns to have vveakened after the begirming ef the 19di oe[itury (Dobbin ]987).7.It

is also questionable wfietiier i,n the pgst there cguld have been whele villages

exclusively made er RG with anjung, once these buildines are more complgx to be

built, dernandmg much more resontces. (labor, cqpital, building materials}.

Nowadays, it is common to find a RG with 2 aojueg iSblated in the middle of many

RG with no anjtetg at al1, aceording to my fieldwork trips.

8. This shows a different pidwre from the one shown by Kawdshima (1989). whe

showed the great Tmajerity of buildings as being irimop (with hipped & gal)1ed roofs).9.

Fof al1 tnknown .words, refu to the glossary in the end of this paper. Variatioms on

the nuinber ofgonjongt ftom 4 e6 3,5,8,1O), te 6 paG7) to 20 ptGl).1O.

'Goajong beranda' op be laid over entrances 1ike ip RG 2&7.

11. RG2 {Sulit Air) has 4 entranoes. although it is an exeeption. RG5 ealimbirig) has 2

entrances. RG in Batagak have their rnain entrarice from the back side (RG8. 9).12. in Abai Sangh, the tingkah is to the left side (RGl).The btmdhah shape rnay vary/

see, for instance, the U-shaped.handua of RG6. RG 8&9 frem Batagak have no bandua; neither RG2 (Sulit Air) nor RG1O (Agam), al1 with oniy tevel floors.13. Sulit Air RG2 is citect as the IaTgest MinaT,gl[abau house (Kalo 1982/53-4 with 20 roofns and 64 meteTs long (Watersoh 1989/491), although at least one 1argeq house

exists ptGl, in Abai SangiT). RGI is 70 meters 10ng with 21 'fooms

(VeSlinga 1997/1,10) Besides the Sulit Air exarnpte BG2) is exoeptional once it was built by

4 different c]ans, whiIe the RG of Abai Sangh vvas bui]t for a single clan, qu usual in Minangl[abau (altheugh it is located in the rantau).'14. RG9 eatagak) has sloqping charnbers spread te alL 4 Obrners of the plan.15. Navis (1985), Syarnsidar (1991) mid Capistrano (1997) wrongly support the theery

'onevaltcy,,onestyle'.

' ,

16. ln Batagalq RG 8&9 haye very difftrent plans. .ln Balimbing RG S&6 haye a different shape of benLina and posuions of the mam entrance. ln Limokaum, RG7

has anjuang tp both sidds alinough many other RG with no anjuang do exis!,in the sarne vi11age according to rny fietd visits thewever, these we;e riot shown in Fig.2).17. For instance, the bo,mditaltinglph is a very important etement defining use. o'f space

and its symbolic in'eanings. Tliese am very similar to the tarijung'

Qf RG7, But the.

baridmiingiph is totally ignored in the classification done by most authors. RG6 has

alse dn eleyated floor to its 1ateral si4es (a U-shaped bandhaa). The left room ofRG]

is also called 'arijung'

(in RG4. it is called `ajung').

Excessi-e attention ,has beed

given to the 'mijung' }ike it appears in RG7, but other types of anjag, njuagt tingkq.h

haveboentota]IYignored.18. The Tambo (tradhional legends) ofPariangan explains hovv the first ancestor of the

Minanghaha- while tmetting by bbaj ssw the rdp of Mt. Merapi, which was smal1,

1ike an egg in the middle ,of the ocean. When he smpped'on'the isLand. the whbers

receded. He then descended from the mountain tep downwards, unti1 he found a hot

spring where he decided to make a seulement. Pariangan yi11age was then created,19. The ruLe RG should faoe eastd is approximalely valid in Pariangan (the real,,

direction is NE thoueti}, but not Teally yalid in Baruah Bukilk (10 RG face NE, 2

ESE, but 12 others aTe imretated to the E). No RG in the two villages fhees exactly to

the E. Conoerning the N direction, Syamsidar alTirTned that tRG

should faee the N

white in Pa[iangan the mule is `it should not fhce the Ni. This rule is not'valid in

Pariangan, but it soems valid in Barual1 Bukik {1O RG face NE, 1 t faoe NNE, oniy 3

faee diffetently). Ihe rude `facing

thle streetsi giving back to the simts:, although

very much belicved in Pariangan (RG camot give.iys back to the streets), has no

influence in Barueli Bukik (no RG seems Io be orieTited in re1ation to streeis there).

Conoerning the ruae 'iming

uphM,"or `facing

the mountain', it is valid fbr Baniah

Bukik in relation to Mt. Sago. tut net valid for Pariangan in relation to ML MerapL.

,

-155-



Arohiteotural エnstitute 　 of 　 Japan

20．In　Ba川旦h　Buk嵐 sudl 　oontra面Ctory　rules　we 【e　not 　ibund，　No 　one　coUld　explain 　to

　 me 　v／hy　o ロ1y　3　houses　weTe 　pa 【訓1el　to血 e　street　w 丗 e 田10血 ∋were　perpendicular　 ω 瓧．21．Syamsu直Asri’s　papor（1996）誌a皿 exoeptian．副lthough　be　never 　made 盻ロce　to　血：ridgepole．　We 　can 　see 血飢 wh 飢 he　mcant 　was 衄山e　ddgepole

’po 面

1敦》山e

　mountain 　only 血 ough 　some 　of 血 c　draw血gs　in血じ paper．　n 丘e　work 　ofBa 訂 i（1994）魄 B 踟曲 B戯曲 o 皿脚嘸田山。u 帥血 e　map 　of 山 e 晩 e　h皰

　an　i且co【贓　orie皿ta面αn　and　he　had　no重　ref圃　SPeCifically　to　「ridgepole

　 oden 甌螂「．

22．Reasons　for臘呵 be　’loss　of　ornl　truditions

，．　Another　reason 凶　山 e　fact血 at

　 woTshipP 血 g　an 轍 1sphjts　of 血e 　mountains 　is　not 　we 皿 seen 　by　islarn　se 　some

　villagers 　prefer　to　hide　their　beliefS　fピom 血 e　public．

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSτhis【esearch　wou ■d　mt 　be　accomp1 均bed　wi血 1血 c　fhla轟cing　support 　of 山 e　JapanScimce　Foundatio4　field　wotk 　s血 oriZation　frorn重he　LIPI 皿 d　thc　imnense　supPort舳 n　Bung　Hatta　University，　Dept　of 　ArchiteetLuc　staff 　and 　students ．　W 正thout　endless副（sWith 　Hannaini　Darwis，　the　idea飴r 血is　paper　wouldhave 　never 踟 m　maU 鵬．

GLOSSARY−anJ’m 蓼g 　ti団肥d　fioers議 bo山 sidcs（or ω ¢ side）ofaRG−hσtai：P且ace 　fbr　oo 竃mcil 　mee 血 gs　or 　o血町魄面百oロal　meedngs

−balaiα面 ‘；oomcil 　h朗1−handha ： eleva 団 dais　of30 −50 inside　d』e　RG−desa　a　vi 【置age　Ond曲 stTative　unit ）−Dt 二abbTeviation　fbr幽敏 ahonorific 　title　fbr　I eage　chiefs−go脚 8 呻血 g繭 ofaMi 鰰鋤 … ［Os騨・1山 e f−gonjong　berancin：90噸0 π書跏 ve 伽e

「veranda 一亘繭（ol　p肛 t（calledserambt）一か肋の砌；bipped　and 　gab塵ed 　mof （at 町 m wed 　fセom 　Jap孤 ese ）−kmnpang： arca 　within 出e　v皿 age 」 with ω亘al　and 　geographic otations

・IC4N 　ofice ：Kerapa 血 i　Adat 　Nag 　r ｛o『五〇e （an 　o 伍 cia 】p■a 石Dr　adat 　mee 血 gs），kecamamn：subd的面 cI一舵「〃伽；pohtiじal　d ct　adm 血isl cd 　by血e ’u厂助（v 皿age 　chief ）一初 ‘o ：a 曝 or 　fortificffbed　vMage 曹蜘； c皿膕 on 　of 瞭（ofkOto ）一如励；hピ h団 mOny

’，an 　’associaion1 　of 　Villages　er 　clmis ；　Or 　a 　palitical　party

−nagU7il 　oanfbdetation 　ofvillages ／seui 6一

用 η’α翼：dlo 灯 Cgolo血 edl　te前 ories　by山e　M 匐 b鋤）曹manah 　gadon9 ：customary 　he　sse

N ＆ Cecilia　l993．’°R 樋sing 山 e　House 　 PosI　amd 　FeediT〕g 血 e　Husband・Givers：創heSpatial　Ca釦巳gories　of　Social　Reproduotion　amo 重he　M angk伽 u

”，血恥 ∫漉

．Austronesim　HoiLses．　Can NUAPak 　Ok−kyung1997．

「iM血 angkabaiL 　Suma昿 E’7　in　Enの，ctopedia　q厂レ

’enmctrlar

A’c ゐ’‘eettcre げ the 物厂跏［．　Ed ．　by　Pan101ivcr，　Vol．2，　l　l　I7−Ill9．？iStorius，　A．　vedcerk、　1871、　∫ η　aver 　de　in’α泌 o 海ε　Huishozading　’π　depmbngsche 　Boventand ．　Z跏 mmel ：Joh 　N m み箔 n 血 Capistrano　1997

Parim血，　Ardi　p．1986」『肱加θ毋如 ’∫ o 〃加的，　Fomation　ef 　lsland陏侮g ε」

Envirenmentat 　Hierarcly　Ofthc厂ed−P ’ofane 　Concept　in　84 ’ヴ．0 跖 ka　Univ．二 doctoralthesis．駄asj 旧 M 皿n 咥男醸，　M ．1971、舶

．hangkOhau ．’Sedjarah　Ring肱四伽．4必呵肱 p磁 mg ：sri

Dha皿 a 血 K 威 01982 ．Ro 巳囮 e囮，」．　van ．1996a．　CentralPillars　qゾ伽月

’euse ．　CNWS 　Public．　L £ id ．− 1996b．　P叩 er 山a 飛 fbr血e　wo 【ks p

“Traditional　dwellings　in　Westem　ihdonesia”，Leiden．Surya　Helmi、1998．血 tervicw　 at　Suaka　P ggalan　S句arah　dan　Purbakala　Sum

dan　Riall，　NormberSya皿 sidar ，　 B．　 A．1991．！lrs’tekezar　7｝’tidisiono ’ Daerah　∫吻：αtera　Barat．　 Dep、P 血d止 an 　dm 　Kebud町班 m ，　Proyek　Inv sasi 　dan　P b 理 m 　Nil師一Nilai　BudayaSym 釦 l　Asri．1996．”The 　Changing　pattern　ef 　the　M 血aog bau　S 1 鱈 around

MI．　M 脚 i”，　WorkShop　Tr組曲 mahons 　 of 　Houses　 and　Se団鵬血 W t

hldo皿 esi 糺 L£ idcn　Unjv．Usm 叫 Ibenz洫．1985 （1979 ）R 跚 αゐG α加冨オ悶惚伽厂 7｝磁吻 ua ’Minanghabau ．Proyek 　SasanaBudayaJakartaVo■lin呂8．　M 肛 cel．1994．丿〜ta，，ah 　Gatlang　Minangkahau．’Venzacular！4rchitecturejiem砌！dnthropologiα d　Perspec伽 8．　M 醜 r　thes蛉，　R噂ks皿 ive［she 虻L 已id 一 1997．‘V｛ouses ，　Stams　and 　Change　in　a　Milangkal）an 　V丗 age ：Tlle　Case　of 　AbaiS田げ，pal矧 r　presented　fbr 〃 brshop 　7ン呻 η ησ ’ion 【ゾHouses 　arzd 　Settle刀昭雌肋

Meste〃 1ルidonesia．　Leid Wakita，　 Yosh 血 sa　et 詛．1996．“Od 囲 oロ oF 　Holy　Plac 巳s　and 　 Se随i 彰s　of 血e

Ba重血 ese．跏 d　the　Sasak血 L 厘bok　Is d，1皿do煕 sia

”洫 AU ，　No ．489，97−102，　Nbv．

W 鰰 r 弸，Rox躙 a 　1989，　nMigTatio4　T 甜 on 　and 　Cha ¢ in　Some　Vem 踟

Arohh 加1es 　of dσn巳sial° BOURD 田 R、　Jea皿 pPau己ed虻i（叫 1）wellings 　SettiementS

a ノ轟ゴTrdiaation．　La畝 London：IASTE，　pp．447−501一韮ggo，翫乙醒 House’ an 　Anthropalogy己ゾ！lrchitecture切踊一East ！「5’a．Oxford　universityPress：S血 gapore

一：h。 use 　fer　praying　and 　sl鵯 used 　by　unm 矼「iedrnen　and 　male 　adolescerrts

尸tthrgkah：same 　as　bandt砌

Abbr 巴 ▼血 t諭 ns ： A ： Agam 　 v田1ey； BC ： iareh　 Bodj −Caniage ／ BHU ： B 皿 g　 HaUa

U血 versity；KP ：lmeh　Ko電o　P田mg ；LPK ：L apuluh　Kotav2皿ey；RG ；nenah 　gadUngSS： So］okSing arak 　va 皿oメ TD ：Tanah　Da血 vaUey ；E ： c 眼 W ： wes 馬 N ： north ，　S ：

SOU 肛阨：n劇詛 dSOon 、

REFERENCES ＆ SOURCESA 闘肚ek 血 r　Hij麗乢 198＆ EkSpedtSi勉砌ゐ Minang．　Bandung： Universitas　K 叙 olik

Parahyanga11．BEsrL　Hasan．1994．　Kebe厂伽跏 R婢昭ゐ．Gmbng 　Datam　rataπ臧刎 MinangkObau．Master 　dissertation．　Yogyakarta 　UGM

Beコds・鱈 k匹 1朋 o，　Franz　v ．1979．　Prope厂ty 肋 Socin’α 励面瞬 The　Hague；

Martinus　NljhoffB ■us ち　Rob 巳比　L980．1，E 蹴 ly　AustrorTesian　 soG 副　ergmlization ：血c　 eVid 巳n 　of

罫 e”in　Curre翩 η伽脚吻 21No ．2 ；205 −247

Bueg 　Hatts　UntVersity〔BHU ）；1996　onwardS．　reports 丘um 　s重ud ts（based　on　dheCtfie【d　work ）

Cap no ．皿血　1997．　RecongtruCting 　f舵 Past ’ 伽蜘 ‘ion げ Tractitionゴn　PMest

SzamanranArchitecim ，〃 91・ノ99ノ．PhD 　dissertation，　C。 b罰血v醜，Cou ‘o，　Nasba y．1998．ル臼肋 α 面伽ロ厂一Unsur　Fiszaal　puala　Bangu 砌 η Tredisionat

MinangkubaUt　Stiatu　Kとび吻 5診那 ∫α 沈 M 直Ster　djsso血韮ion．　nB ，　Bm 血田6Dobbio ，　 Christ血 e．1987．　 lstamic 品 2v 庁vα’ism　跏 α C加 πg7

『 Peasan’ 亙 oo 躍o醒 y．

Londvn　and 　Malmo ：Sc 跏 dinavi徂 ln虹恤 te　ofAsi 田 i　StUdies　Monograph （1鑓

ed ．1983）

Do 皿 on 嬉 Gaud巳nz．【980．　TektOnik　im　P广’叨 ’〃陀 ηD ロ‘hbau．　Z 叮 ich：．Goes，　Boa血iz　van 　dじτ、1992．『KUa ：血e　K 賍 o　Ba慮ak 　Vmage 　as　a　Cultutal　Ccmsロucti

of 血s　Ecological　Sur ［oundingS”h】 5動〃nbotiC 　Meaning 加 Traditioua’Habitat陛Vol．42．

瞰 ¢ 且¢ y：IAESTE

jscob，　T ku」 992．ηM 加 sia 　Malayu　Kuno’「h】翫励惚 5匂’ψ伽漉伽 κ跚 o　by

PerTler血帥 D翻 T血gka【lJambし 151−157K 飢 o，TStl）Toshi 」 982．ルfatritiay　and 　Migrat’on ；Evaining　Minangkahau　Tradi‘ions肋lhdOnesia．　Iim 　Orme 皿university　Press．− 1999，“00 aI 。　no 　H鈎 m 肥

”in　StaVla’所鰯 0麗．．Kyo！0 ：肋 gei

ICawash血 a，　Ch巳両L　I989．　AJ’ia　no 　Minku ．　T啣 o ；SoubO　ShobOuMcK 血 no 皿，　Edward　e1　 aL 　1993．　Penel’ご勧 rrediSiルfega枷た di　G 泌娚 g 　BWigst4Ttnmah　D ロ如厂，∫ 伽．　B 衂口 gkar

Lat　Chee　Ki¢ n．1993．し‘DeduCing 　from 　Balimb 血 B： Measuring 　a　M 血 angkabau 　Hous ♂

血！望厂ch ’tecturv　JournaL　S 9鄲：NUS− 1995．＆ ψ and 　kOoX 　 Constnrct’0腐 of 　BOWtdSpace 跏 ∫な ∫繊ロα ご厂σ 躍 House

Forms．　Vol　1，　MasterIhesiS，　National　U血versity　efS 血8aporo．Maass．　A 量fied．乳910．　Durch 　k 加尸atStm ：atra ．　Ber ；Behr　in　C叩 iStrano　1997Na▼醸，　A．1985．∠ TerkOmbtUT9　Jadi　G 珮 AdUt　c吻η κε鰤 π MinangkOba翼．亅田鰕 Pu 曲 Gra丘直P （苴984：first　edi 虹on ）．

和文要約

本稿は、インドネシア国西スマトラ州のミナンカバウ族の居住地域における伝統

的な家屋・ルマガダンをとりあ吠家屋形式と農村氣落の構成を明らかにする目的が

ある。既往研究でのルマ ”ダンの分類は次のような方法であった。　 a ）「ラル t と呼はれる区域での分類（たとえはラル

・ボディ’チャニアゴやラル・

コト・ビランと呼はれる2っの「ラル」における分類方法）；「ラル」とは政治的ねまとまりを意味する現地語で，

”herm。nジと駅されている。

　ゆ導の流域での分類（1つの流域に摯つのルマ刀ダンの形式があるとする分類）

　本稿では、集落の区分での分類や流域ごとの区分による以上 2つの分類方法の問題

点を取り上げている。そこで、ミナンカバウ地域の幾つかの村からルマガダンを具体

的に抽出し家屋形式の分類を行い、ルマガタンを特敞づける重要な幾つかの形態的な

特色を示した。　次に、パリンガンとバルアブキクの 2つの集落におけるルマガダンの特色を、家屋の配置状況、地形の特徴、集落の建築的な構成要勦、ら分折した。　調査の結果、□伝によるルマガダンの棟の方向のル

ールは地域性による変化を示す

車が分かった。ミナンカバウの方位に閲するあらゆる既往研究では、事実とは異なる

ような結論が出されている。つまり、データは．おそらく異なる集落間での囗伝の

データーから採取されたものであり、それらの［コ伝のデーターは全てのミナンカバウ

に対して当てはまるという、間違った捉え方をしている。ミナンカバウ族は典型的なオスト囗ネンアの方位システムを使う。つまり、ミナン

カバウ族はいろいろな方位シスデムルを重ねあわせて建築などに用いている．本稿は

この重ねあわせの性質を明らかにしている。基本的には地方性・地理注のル

ールと方

位システムを同時に使うが、矛盾が生じる場合がある。その時は、地方性のルールが

基本的な方位システムより強く現れる。また，山頂へ向かう古い聖なる方向と新し

い He 8 への聖なる方向とが重ね合わされて用いられる燭合もある。少なくとも 3〔のミナンカバウの村には、ロ伝のル

ールの地域による変化とは別に、

確実な共通の方位のルー

ルがある。それは以下のとおりである。　 a） 1 つの集落において、ルマガダンの棟は概ね近くの川に対して平行に配置される。　b）集落中央の街路はこの川に平行なので、ルマガダンの棟は殆どが街路に平行に

なる。c）ルマガダンから山へ至る軸があリ、ほとんどのルマガダンの榛は山頂方向に向い

ている。このことから、バルアプギクでのルマガダンの棟の方位の特性に古代の山岳偲仰と

の関連性があることを示すことが出来る．

（1999年 6月 10 日原稿受理，1999年 12月 9 日採用決定〕

一 156一

N 工工一Eleotronio 　Library 　

RUMAH GADANG IN THE CORE OF THE MINANGKABAU AREA

Documents

Transcript of RUMAH GADANG IN THE CORE OF THE MINANGKABAU AREA