Tradition, according to the 3rd Edition of Webster’s unabridged dictionary is the process of handing down information, opinions, beliefs, and customs mainly by word of mouth or by example: transmission of knowledge and institutions through successive generations with or without written instruction. It is therefore a ‘line of continuity and development’. Continuity suggests a set of attributes that are transmitted while development introduces the idea of change and innovation. “Tradition is fluid, it is always being reconstituted. Tradition is about change” (Sarup, 1996) To quote Waterson, “Tradition, like history, is something that is continually being recreated and remodeled in the present, even [though] it is represented as fixed and unchanging . .” (Crouch & Johnson, 2001:3). It is the dynamic process by which knowledge passes from generation to generation. It is not static; it is developmental.
In architecture, Noble posits that “the word traditional refers both to procedures and material objects that have become accepted as the norm in a society, and whose elements are passed from generation to generation, usually orally…” (Noble, 2007:xii). The vernacular however according to Lwamayanga is a complex term and is not easily defined though he concludes that processes and not static objects are the key to its understanding. This is in line with current thinking in the field where “In line with ideas prevalent in the contemporary fields of anthropology, cultural geography, history and archaeology, these studies have increasingly stressed the dynamic and processual nature of tradition.”
(Lwamayanga, 2008)
The vernacular attempts to define a common architecture of a people.
According to Oliver (2003) they are buildings which have not been
professionally designed. They are “buildings of the people”, by the people but not for the people “accommodating the values, economies and ways of life of the cultures that produce them”. It can be said that the traditional is what is
embodied in the transmission process while vernacular is the language used in the development of the traditions. “The terms traditional and vernacular meet where vernacular goes back to its Latin meaning as "things that are homemade, homespun, home-grown, not destined for the marketplace, but are for home use only” (Bourdier, 1989:40)
“The terms vernacular, regional, indigenous, and traditional are often used interchangeably but they have to be dealt with here with a degree of care particularly in the current era of globalization. Today, there are many vernacular forms that are not indigenous to a particular region or even place-bound. There are also vernacular forms that emerge in the crucible of specific building traditions but that quickly move outside of these traditions. Indeed in today's world, tradition can no longer be thought of as the static legacy of a past that is handed down from one generation to
another. Instead it is and must be always understood as a dynamic project for the reinterpretation of this past in light of the needs of a current present and a future” (Heath, 2009:xiii)
Crouch & Johnson (2001:2) write, “Traditional architecture is local history” and new buildings draw on ‘gene pools’ or what may be called
‘architectural memes’ combining them and mutating in ways that are ever new and yet related to tradition. This kind of architecture is thus alive and palpitating - ever changing and can be compared to a biological organism with a genetic code. It is therefore an organic architecture, producing a “living house” in contrast to what Le Corbusier would call “a machine to live in.” When traditions are seen as creative processes rather than static and unchanging dogmas, people are able to reinterpret them and incorporate them into their contemporary discourses. This removes the heated conflict and uncompromising stances of Lawino and Ocol where Lawino declares that “the pumpkin in the old homestead must not be uprooted!” and Ocol’s dismissive retort, “To hell with your
pumpkins and your old homesteads. To hell with the husks of old traditions and meaningless customs” (p'Bitek, 1989:41,126)
These two terms, “vernacular” and “traditional” are not properly synonymous. In essence they both refer to architecture whose traditions and skills change little and are handed down by local tradesmen and artisans without the involvement of professional architects and engineers - an architecture “of the people, and by the people, but not for the people” (Oliver, 2003:14)
Crouch & Johnson make a distinction between popular “everyday”
vernacular architecture and monumental vernacular. “Monumental buildings include palaces, many religious buildings, and some governmental buildings and are usually expensive, large, durable, and weighted with symbolism; columns, obelisks, and other structures whose only function is memorializing are also monumental architecture. Vernacular buildings include houses, markets, schools, depots, and other structures of everyday life, often with their own symbolism”
(Crouch & Johnson, 2001).
The everyday architecture is usually refereed as domestic or housing. See Boudier, Larson and Oliver. Amos Rapoport uses the terms ‘Monuments’ and
‘Folk’ to distinguish the two modes of cultural expression.
“We may say that monuments - buildings of the grand design tradition-are built to impress either the populace with the power of the patron, or the peer group of designers and cognoscenti with the cleverness of the designer and good taste of the patron. The folk tradition, on the other hand, is the direct and unself-conscious translation into physical form of a culture, its needs and values- as well as the desires, dreams, and passions of a people” (Rapoport, 1969:2)
10
Heath (2009) discusses what he calls the vernacular impulse as being driven by a collective rather than individual idiosyncratic impulses and therefore distinguishes what he calls idiosyncratic forms from vernacular forms that are collective cultural expressions. He argues that vernacular forms must go through a regional filter and that the resultant forms are therefore products of
geographical and cultural influences. When external influences are also blended into the melting pot they undergo a process of cultural weathering or a
hybridized local expression. This is because “Culture is transmitted geographically as well as chronologically, in space as well as in time, by contagion as well as by repetition,” (Bourdier, 1989:59). In this way the term regionalism then comes into play in the discussion of vernacular architecture. In architecture regionalism has been the term used in describing an architecture derived from a response to the contextual forces of society, culture and, climate.
In summary it would be safe to say that vernacular architecture is the process of assimilation and blending of architectural values from both internal and external influences into a distinctive living architectural tradition of a specific culture and locale, whereas traditional architecture is the process of transmission of largely the internal contents of a cultural heritage through mutation and adaptation into a distinctive living architectural tradition. It is therefore a question of degree of assimilation of external influences and thus the definitions remains pretty much two sides of the same coin. In the post-modern world of multiculturalism ushered in by the industrial revolution, it is debatable whether a traditional architecture based on the processes of internal contents exists anywhere any more but distinct vernaculars shaped by tradition, social-cultural, economic and environmental factors. In both cases architecture is seen both as process and product, both as the ideas that drive the culture and their manifestation. Tradition is the spirit of the age or zeitgeist while the vernacular is the product of the zeitgeist. The vernacular is the language of tradition.
In Mukurwe-ini it will be seen that various aspects of traditional architecture of the Kikuyu have been handed down and continue to manifest themselves in the vernacular architecture though in a transformed state while other aspects of the architecture have been inserted from various sources principally from European civilization and the modern industrial economy. The manner in which these transformations have come about and their resultant vernacular architecture is the subject of this thesis.
The study of vernacular architecture explains “how buildings emerge and are sustained through cultural processes” (Vellinga, 2006:e-book). Asquith argues that in this way vernacular architecture research has filled the biggest vacuum in architectural theory and education: the lack of laboratory conditions which has prevented the discipline from deriving valid and verified knowledge from cases and field studies. This has brought the practice of architecture closer to a science and legitimized professional intervention in the eyes of a world
guided more and more by the scientific paradigm. Vernacular architecture according to Asquith has now become “a mainstream academic activity using processes of objective analysis and evaluation” There is no better laboratory than that of time as the distillation of what is essential and necessary takes place through a process of negotiation. This traditional wisdom is what comes down and is scientifically transmitted through cultural practices – what Wanjohi calls traditional ‘logic’ or Kihooto world view among the Kikuyu (Wanjohi, 2008).
In terms of efficient resource management and sustainable living we need look no further than traditional living environments. By understanding the principles of traditional sustainable living environments we are able to formulate new ways of tackling the sustainability problems of today. While some of the allusions to tradition by architects have been merely superficial and external form referencing, the learning from traditional knowledge systems and principles has produced what Oliver calls “the recovery of much accumulated wisdom.”
He argues that the vanishing knowledge of traditional architecture is not merely collected for curiosity’s sake and for museums but is key to solving the
contemporary issues of housing, urbanization and resources management (Oliver, 2003:17).
A theory of architecture will be meaningful to the practice of modern architecture if it is anchored in the framework of tradition. This kind of theory will “remind architects, planners and engineers of the cultural embodiment of architecture, helping them to increase their understanding of local economies, values and practices and the bearing these have on pressing issues like resources management, technology transfer, conservation, planning regulations and building standards” (Vellinga, 2006:e-book)