Growth and Development of Vernacular Architecture of Assam

The human started its settlement in the Palaeolithic caves in around 35000 years ago, which were but nature created shelters in the bowels of earth. The region of Assam and North-East was a destination of the migrating peoples of different races since a very ancient time. Hence, there is every possibility that the region was also an ancient seat of prehistoric and Palaeolithic settlements though no precise evidence confirms the fact. However, there found some caves with traces of rudimentary painting and carvings in the Khasi-Jayantia Hills, Mikir Hills and North Cachar (Choudhury:1987), which hints to the possibility of existence of the prehistoric settlements in the region also. If these Palaeolithic evidences are dubious and needs proper corroboration, there are evidences in the form of stone celts, adzes etc. from different parts of the region, which indicate the extent of Neolithic culture in the region. Similarly, the specimens of pottery unearthed in the region also indicate the existence of the settlement of an early period.

Though the literary sources hint about the development of early settlements and civilization in the region, no remains of such early settlements or constructed houses are unearthed in Assam. The dearth of such excavated material of purely residential type in the region might be due to the extensive use of perishable materials such as wood, bamboo, thatch etc. in construction by the folk people. Literary source like “Arthashastra” by Chanakya mentions that there prevalent certain restrictions in India in regard to the construction of houses including restriction in the construction of the twostoried building by the common people. Similarly, the Assam Buranji also contains similar information, where it is said that nobody other than the King could construct brick house (Datta:2007). Due to such restrictions and ban, the residential architectures of the subject of the state were of temporary nature. Contrarily, the royal as well as the religious architectures extensively used permanent construction material, ensuring their presence till date. However, it is held that the temple architecture in India developed from the traditional residential architectures. This becomes evident when we examine the architecture the Draupadi Ratha of the famous temple complex at Mamallapuram known as the Rathas of Mamallapuram dating back to 7^th C A.D. These monoliths of the Pallava Period represent the origin and development of the Dravidian architecture. And the architecture of the Ratha in reference “with pilaster at the four corner and a thatched roof imitated in stone” (Lee:1978), which is “consist of a one–storey square cell surmounted by an overhanging, curvilinear roof, suggestive in its shape of the modern Bengali huts” (Rowland:301).

It can safely hold that the common and transitory residential architecture predates the elite and permanent architectures. Similarly, it was the residential shelters that facilitated the development of permanent settlement, enabling early men to stay united in one place for prolong period. This helped the gradual development of the culture and various socio cultural or socio religious or socio political institutions. In other words, the development of architecture sprouted the culture and civilization among the early permanent settlers. With the development of culture and various institutions, there gradually developed the necessity of different types of architecture to cater the diverse need of the people. Thus, out of the socio-political need, there developed the royal architecture for the protection, safety, and administration of society while architecture of temple developed to cater the religious need of the society.

However, it is a matter of speculation how people developed the idea of constructing a house to reside. Undoubtedly, the nature might have initially provided the feeling, necessity and the concept of a shelter. The initial idea, need, and advantage of a shelter struck the early men’s mind along the accidental entering of the nature fashioned caves or the hollow of a tree. However, till men constructed a shelter themselves, they might have preferred to climb a tree, subsequently developed a scaffolding and remain there aloof to protect themselves from the nocturnal animals. When there felt the necessity of protection from the rain or heat, they might have used to put tree leaves over their head. Gradually they might have had some arrangement of a roof into it to protect from the rain. This kind of house built high on the branches of a tree, like contemporary tree houses, was perhaps the first structure developed by the human. This proposition might be valid in respect to a region like Assam or NE India where cave is rare whereas forest and tree is abundant. This proposition get corroborated by the belief prevalent among the Wangsho people of the region that human used to live like the birds, constructing shelter above the tree, in bygone days (Elwin:2003).

A consecutive development of the tree house, perhaps, is the Tangi-ghar (watchtower), which is widely prevalent in the region. This architecture of considerable height, constructed of bamboo in the paddy field to guard and look after the cultivation from various wild enemies. This transitory residence is often constructed on the branches of a tree like the tree houses. This architecture was so much a part of the rural agrarian Assamese society that its mention is found in Assamese songs also. Thus, in one such composition by Keshab Mahanta and sung by Late Khagen Mahanta where it is asked to keep watch of the field by constructing Tangi-ghar above shal tree (Saikia:2015). The great height of such architectures makes it very functional for the watchman to scan and guard the distant horizon and remain aloof of the danger of the attack of wild animals or insects. The Tangi-ghar is still functional and prevalent even in contemporary time, for its appropriateness in areas with threat of wild animals, especially wild elephants.

Another form of architecture, similar in style and function is the boha, which is still much in prevalence in different parts of upper Assam. This tiny, transitory, single chamber stilt architecture, constructed amidst the paddy field, is often noticed in different place. The architecture, that contains a hearth, is used as a transitory residence during the days of cultivation and harvesting. The present boha architecture seems appears to be the abbreviated form of the chang-ghar and a practical evolution after the discovery of cultivation.

The Assamese term “chang-ghar” is combination of terms “chang” and “ghar” denoting respectively “a platform” and “a house or a family” thereby denoting “a platform house” or “a platform used as a residence”. The chang-ghar probably evolved from the tree house and from the subsequent effort of constructing a similar house (chang) in a place without a suitable tree. The dearth of suitable tree might have occurred due to clearing and opening of areas for the cultivation. Thus, the supports of tree or branches were replaced by embedded posts and subsequently constructed the structure and the platform. And around the cultivating area, a group of people probably lived together in such a chang.

Such practice of collective living in one structure or in a single chang was prevalent among the Mikirs or Karbis, which is learnt from some of the remarks of Waddell:

The Arleng or Mikirs are still somewhat in the early state of the wandering horde, without permanent villages. They are a shy mild race of forest nomads, clearing little patches in the dense semi-tropical forest … and moving on in a few years to fresh-clearing … the Mikirs reside within the plot which they are actually cultivating for the time. The fear of man-eating tigers and other nocturnal wild beasts infesting these forests is probably the reason, why the whole village of the Mikirs usually live in one single large house raised on tall posts, the access to which is only by a notched stick used as a ladder. Thus, in the same house, says Dalton, live sometimes as many as thirty married couples with their children, and the house is not divided into rooms. (Waddell:1975:30)

Rowney’s remark, “the buildings are always large, being made to hold some thirty or forty persons, often of different families…” (Rowney:1974:178) also corroborates Waddell.