Search

In the above title "vernacular" suggests opposite geographic origins and setting than those ascribed "town". It is now generally accepted that the term "vernacular" is an applicable and appropriate way to cluster and organise a certain cultural phenomenon (architecture) and is used for both farm and urban architecture: "vernacular farm architecture" and "vernacular urban architecture". This paper will focus on the changes in the vernacular farm architecture in the Vredefort Dome area (near the present towns of Parys, Vredefort and Potchefstroom), that reflect cultural development processes associated with the history of settlement in the southern African rural areas from 1850 to 1950. For many years, the Vredefort Dome was known as a prestigious area of settlement. Extensive numbers of game attracted hunter-gatherer groups, pre-colonial Bantu-speaking groups and more recently, European pioneers entering the area from around 1836. From 1845, European pioneer farm occupation livestock and agricultural development expanded exponentially until recent times. After 1850, the farmers and settlers (European pioneers) on the southern and northern sides of the Vaal River erected more permanent buildings and structures (including rondavels and rectangular dwellings), constructed with stone and, more commonly, clay. The landowner became both the architect and builder, selecting the most affordable ways to construct structures. Consequently, stone walls, sod walls, rammed-earth walls, walls of raw or sundried bricks, and walls of burnt and fired bricks are characteristic of the different vernacular building traditions. By 1889, with the influx of miners and capital to the Vredefort and Potchefstroom diggings, a period of temporary economic prosperity ensued. Economics in the area evolved during this period through a combination of agriculture-based activities and mining-based activities. Gold and diamond mining stimulated the regional economy and played a significant role in the establishment and development of towns. This growth was reflected in the presence of typical late nineteenth century vernacular farm architecture, in particular the introduction of galvanised (corrugated) iron roofs. On the farms, two broad, generic architectural traditions existed: "designed" architecture (formal structures), and rural, vernacular "architecture" (structures erected without the assistance of professional architects), typically constructed with building materials obtained from the immediate environment. The availability of corrugated iron can be considered the most notable technological development in the vernacular architecture of the nineteenth century. Thatched roofs on rectangular dwellings were replaced with Victorian-style corrugated iron roofs. The "corrugated-iron style" became the "new-vernacular" architecture, and with the addition of verandas, veranda-room houses became a distinguishing characteristic of the period. During the first three decades of the twentieth century, poverty and an economic depression had a negative impact on the building environment and therefore on the building of homes. In the Dome area, there were few, if any, wealthy residents who could employ the services of an architect for the design of their private homes. Consequently, the houses were simple and "old-fashioned", resulting in the birth of sub-branches of vernacular building traditions that already existed. The process of change affecting homes after the Second World War (1939-1945) can be seen in the area. The improvement of technology related to running water and sanitation, and the presence of electricity, made life more comfortable and had a notable effect on patterns of internal space utilisation. Some household activities moved from the outside of the home to the inside. Consequently, time and energy were saved, since water was no longer fetched from a water source, and the distance between the service points shortened considerably. The fitting of pipes to provide water to the service spaces in the house (kitchen and bathroom) caused a change in the interior layout of the farmhouse and a change to lifestyles. Floor plans of urban dwellings were replicated, and the "patchwork" architectural tradition (additions and extensions added to the original pioneer core) became common. Household water consumption, the presence and location of the kitchen and the bathroom and the fitting of pipes for running water related to the prosperity of each household and differed from farm to farm. It is notable that these changes did not occur among the homes of the labourers, probably as their accommodation was considered temporary. The Vredefort Dome was listed as a United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Site in 2005. It is the oldest and largest known meteorite impact structure on earth, about 120 km southwest from Johannesburg, and represents a unique geological phenomenon formed about 2 023 million years ago. The Vredefort dome area also contains other well-preserved and outstanding cultural phenomena such as San rock art, Late Stone Age and Late Iron Age sites - including objects, the floor and wall remains of Sotho-Tswana hut structures, animal kraals and smelting-furnaces. The historic sites contain the remains of abandoned homesteads, outbuildings and other structures such as cattle kraals, water furrows, irrigated gardens, the orchards and graveyards of immigrant farmers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

History is a discipline of humanities which records and analyses past events. It is a narrative or chronicle of human endeavour and experience in time. Constant change is an intrinsic characteristic of all forms of history. Traditional cyclical views of history have long ago been replaced by a linear cognisance and presentation of past events in a chronological sequence, implying a beginning and an expected fulfilment. This means that previous individuals, societies and developments are unique. Consequently, the question arises whether it is of any use to acquire a thorough knowledge of past events and achievements. A qualified YES would be the appropriate answer. Change is a paradoxical idea. It is the notion of alteration combined with the notion of remaining the same. According to Michael Oakeshott change is nothing other than inherent continuity. One should distiguish between the past as such and written history. The historian must rely on multiple voices of the past, sometimes called representations of pastness. Such evidence of the past may be found in written documents, oral recollections and artefacts. The historian can never truly know the complete reality of the past. It is the historian's duty to reveal existing myths and to convey to the world what they discover about past reality in order to promote the legitimate use of history and check the abuse of this vital human science. From the explanation of historical scholarship mentioned above it seems unfair and unnecessary to ask whether South African history should be re-written at the commencement of the twenty first century. In the re-writing of South African history new issues, challenges and opportunities must always be addressed within the context of our particular time and environment in a responsible manner. In present day South Africa historians are faced with a complex, fragmented and heterogeneous rainbow nation. A truly South African identity is in continuous development. This requires constant re-interpretation, revision and re-writing of history, based on all available and accessible sources. Each generation is bound to write its own history. Today the wheel of history has undoubtedly turned, due to fresh and challenging questions asked by a new generation. During the previous century four distinct phases of South African history developed, namely English orientated liberal history, Afrikaner nationalistic history, Marxist radical history and Africanist nationalistic history. Today the re-interpretation of South African history demands a new perspective of the South African position within the global household. In a multi-cultural society each group will have to maintain its own particular or private history to appreciate its own identity. Such individual histories may subsequently contribute to a more general and balanced history of South Africa. During the past two decades van Aswegen's History of South Africa to 1854, Liebenberg en Spies' South Africa in the Twentieth Century and Giliomee and Mbenga's A New History of South Africa attempted to re-interpret our past. Such representative histories can never be final. The result will always remain open and incomplete. A multi-perspective approach to the past seems to be, however, the most acceptable and appropriate focus on the vast and intricate background of South Africa's unique population. A few guidelines may serve the purpose of achieving a comprehensive history of South Africa in our present situation. We need to take account of the different prevailing traditions and perceptions of past reality in our communities. We must avoid a tunnel vision in our research approach and appreciate the fact that South Africa is an integral part of the worm at large. In a truly democratic society historical consciousness and knowledge will provide essential qualities to a vibrant community life and responsible citizenship. The teaching of history at all levels must be promoted by well trained and enthusiastic teachers and lecturers. The reading culture of society must be supported by well stocked libraries and the availability of electronic media. Newspapers, radio and television must stimulate critical thinking about the past. Cultural museums and heritage sites must constantly remind people of their common roots and proud ancestors. Thus the history of South Africa will be constantly re-assessed and re-written, not because previous historians produced poor histories, but because the context within which their histories were written, has dramatically changed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The possible connection between architecture and morality is discussed. Morality would have to be translated into architectural terms for such a connection to be established. The Modernist argument that architecture has a moral duty to be true to functionality and structure is rejected because there are endless ways to address these essentials in a building; there is no one true way in architecture. A more indirect approach to the connection of architecture and morality is used. The argument is that creators (community, client, or architect) of buildings seldom build in bad faith. They build to express what is good. They build to impress, if users and viewers are not impressed the costly exercise of building would be negated. Six buildings are used as illustration to make the basic point that the morality that drives architecture changes with time: Parthenon, Pantheon, Chartres Cathedral, Villa Rotunda, Sagrada Familia and the Seagram Building in New York. What is good and beautiful is not constant. The illustrations confirm the argument without the necessity of language. It is there for all to see. (A lot of words have to be used for an obvious statement.) The illustrations underline the amazing extent of human creativity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]