EVOLVING THE CRITERIA FOR WRITING NIGERIAN ARCHITECTURE HISTORY USING HISTORIOGRAPHICAL APPROACH

ABSTRACT

Since independence in 1960, notable works of Nigerian architecture scholars and practitioners have been recorded, but practically little progress has been made in the area of architectural knowledge documentation. Architectural knowledge encompasses a vast array of ideas, which are basically classified into architectural theory, history, criticism, technology, environmental conditions, and these (subcategories) culminate in the material culture of a people. This research focuses on architectural history. In Nigeria, non-scripting of architectural history with required content stems from the paucity of documentation of built environment occurrences. Although there are some works on traditional architecture in the country, all those studied do not possess sufficient historic content (as measured by architectural periods, styles and methodological principles of writing history) that makes a story to be considered a history in architecture. History of architecture is dominated by works from Western Europe and North America, but there are other notable works from the Asian and African continents. This underlines one need to evolve a global evaluation criteria or template. The present study was to determine a global historic-content or constituents of architectural history, and to use same as a template for appraising works on history of architecture in Nigeria. To identify a tentative template or a set of criteria for historic contents or constituents inherent in writing of architecture history in diverse ideological perspective (both Western and non-Western), test this tentative criteria on the selected works in order to ascertain their verity and consistency, apply the appraised criteria as bases for assessing and evaluating the existing works on architectural history in Nigeria, to highlight the strength or weaknesses of the works of architecture history in Nigeria and evolve a substantive and comprehensive criteria for writing history of Nigerian architecture. This study adopted the descriptive and explanatory design methods. It used historiography and cross-tabular analysis. Through purposive sampling method, 163 works established or well-known were selected, appraised and grouped in four sets described as Rubrics I, II, III and IV. Rubric I included four main works: (a) Yarwood (1987); (b) Cruickshank (1999); (c) Summerson (1991); and (d) Ching, Jarzombek, Prakash, (2011). Rubric II was from Attoe in Snyder J (1979). Rubric III included 157 papers from the third European Architectural History Network (EAHN) International Meeting in Turin edited by RossoMichela 2014and Rubric IV – African Traditional Architecture – An Historical and Geographical Perspective. A case study on the works were done, and through snow ball method, a tentative template for historic contents or constituents was identified. Eight Nigerian works on history of architecture that were subjected to historiographical study based on the appraised criteria were: (a) Awotona (1986); (b) Dmochowski (1990); (c) Chukwuali (1992); (d) Saad and Ogunsusi (1996); (e) Umar (2008); (f) Edem (2010); (g) Okonkwo et al (2012); and (h) Ahianba (2013). On using the appraised criteria as basis for appraising and evaluating the existing works, the strength and weaknesses were ascertained this means that they were common in all the Rubrics examined. These works did not have adequate historical contents, methodological principles and style focus as mentioned above to constitute history of architecture. This comparison was done using cross-tabular analysis in order to arrive at the substantive criteria. The result was evolving of substantive criteria with 24 constituents which now serve as scaling template for assessing the extent of historic content in works dealing with architecture history; in which those scoring between 0-30% are considered inadequate in content, 31-60% (adequate) and 61-above (excellent). From the foregoing, the substantive and comprehensive criteria for writing Architecture history in Nigeria should contain/encompass up to 31-60% of a minimum of the 24 criteria.

CHAPTER ONE

1.0       INTRODUCTION

1.1       BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

‗By 12,000BCE humans had proliferated across much of the globe, starting in Africa, they moved into West Asia, Europe, South and East Asia, Australia, North America, and finally, along the west coast of Americas to the southern tip of South America.

They eventually created societies of villages and hamlets near caves or along shores and streams that allowed for a combination of farming, hunting according to their understanding of the seasons but also of ways to hand down that knowledge from generation to generation…….Over a period, they developed other lifestyles which include building arts and use of materials available, religious and commercial purposes, crafts associated with buildings. Architecture, like civilization itself was born in our prehistory and much as other arts was plural from the beginning‘ (Ching, 2011: xvii).

The earliest written records of mankind began at about 3000 B.C. and were found in three places: in the Nile Valley, in Mesopotamia, and in the Indus Valley. (Ching, 2011: 17). Of these three forms of writing, only the first two could be read. Before 3000 B.C. archeologists could trace Man‘s story only by digging up the objects he has left behind: his tools and weapons, fragmentary remains of the houses he lived in, the vessels in which he stored his food, the bones of animals he hunted or domesticated, his ornaments and those of his womenfolk. Many such sites exist in the Middle East, especially in Mesopotamia and Syria. In some of these, occupation layers exist far below the level at which the earliest written documents had been found.

This antecedent period involving some thousand years or so was perhaps more fertile in fruitful inventions and discoveries than any period in human history prior to the sixteenth century A.D. Its achievements made possible that economic reorganization of society that is termed the ―Urban Revolution‖ (Childe, 1942).

Now, the earliest civilization in Europe to develop a high art form, to build palaces, harbours and towns, and produce a written language, was in Crete soon after 2000 BC. The means and knowledge to do this derived from Asia and Egypt, and were transmitted from about 2500 BC from the Bronze Age centres in the interior of Asia Minor to the coastal area of Troy and, from thence, to the islands of the Aegean and, later the mainland of the Peloponnese. In Troy, excavation has revealed extensive citadel building of the years circa 2700-1200 BC (Yarwood, 1987:6).

The prime feature of Greek architecture is its intellectual quality. The Greeks did not develop great variety in design, nor did they show exceptional structural inventiveness. They achieved- to an immensely high degree- a standard of perfection for the designs which they adopted, reaching a zenith in the fifth century BC. In affirmation of the main stylistic growth factor in Western architecture, Aniakor (1995) maintained that: “Indeed the historical development of Western architecture has from time been predicated on a series of adaptations from the preceeding forms of architecture. Its historical base is the Greeco-Roman architecture which has stimulated several revivalist movements through the ages until the International Style, encouraged by further industrialization and consumer society, it broke away from this tradition. This style’s evolution and development marked the first clean break with the past, in the same degree to which Cubism was a revolutionary break from previous art styles and movements in the West.

Now, ―ever since the early 20th Century when colonial urbanization (Mabogunje, 1968)

brought Western architecture (Macgregor, 1987) with clearly known elements and styles (Yarwood, 1987), no new theories of style have taken root in Nigeria. Because architects‘ works are preserved for reasons other than their historical or biographical significance, they often lose all extrinsic evidence of their historical position, so that no record survives of the architects‘ era, or locale which produced them. Without such evidence, in time and space, it is impossible to plot the graphs of consistency and change that are a prerequisite for the writing of any history. Subsequently, attempts by (Dmochowski, Aniakor, Onwuejoegwe, Saad, Chukwuali, to mention a few), hitherto, at historical documentation of architectural works in Nigeria have not only been seen to be deficient of bibliographical details but also are still patterned along two, but non-stylistic, clear divides: the pre-colonial or traditional period, and the colonial or modern period‖ (Okonkwo and Edem, 2010).

To understand the history of architecture in Nigeria, adequate knowledge of the traditional or indigenous architecture which existed before the arrival of colonialism is needed. With such a situation of dearth of bibliographical records, it is style that should actually provide the structures for a history of architecture. As held by the ―materialist school‖, the factors which dictate the course of architectural history are constantly underscored by the structures provided style (Ackerman, 1962; Cottrell, 1962) which emerge from the primary deterministic cultural referents of that creative assertion in space of the ideals of man in his environment (Aniakor, 1995). In the Nigerian case, these cultural referents could be traced or located in the traditional architecture with its manifestations in features such as:

(a)        That traditional architecture is a symbolic system since the house units of which human settlements are composed are the external symbols.

(b)        That traditional architecture refers to given process of building technology with immediate environment building materials transformed through skillful manipulation into three dimensional structures.

(c)        That the building construction techniques reflect a good understanding of the thermal properties of building materials as well as the modifying effects of ecology on the forms of house design. (Aniakor, 1995).

However, the evolution of these cultural referents over time, in Nigeria, was seemingly interrupted by the process of colonial development which commenced with the bombardment of Lagos in 1851 (Mabogunje, 1968: 107-108). Studies in modern Nigerian architecture show clearly that it is a product of direct borrowing from Western architectural tradition to the extent that it highlights and insists on the absence of alternative approaches to building plan-choice-designs and implementation. For example, the prevalence of Western architectural forms in Nigeria tends to create the false impression of the non-relevance of traditional architecture to modern architectural practices and development in urban housing,……. (Aniakor, 1995).

Nevertheless, the compounding issue here is the apparent inability of traditional architecture to have evolved into more or higher stylistic manifestations even on the basis of its Western influence as the historical reality, of architecture in Nigeria, has as earlier pointed out, remained that of significantly two important periods: the pre-colonial (traditional) and post-colonial (modern), with the latter predominating in both the urban and rural built environments of the country. At this stage, one of the questions to be addressed is whether the foregoing blunts any

prospects in intellectual and materialistic adaptation of traditional architecture to further stylistic evolution in Nigerian architecture? This becomes more pertinent when it is known, for example, that the high level of classicism associated with the formal integrity of Greek architecture had its origins in the archaic phase of Greek civilization, which in the Nigerian context, may be said to have been their traditional architecture (Aniakor, 1995 ). The limitations of the International Style gave way to Post Modernism with its tendency to return to the past of Western architecture. The ability of Post Modernism to return to the use of ornament, eclectic forms and alignment of building design projects to the reality of the pre-existing architectural environment is a phenomenon yet to be seen in Nigeria. Some of the outstanding publications (Onwuejogwu, 1970; Aniakor, 1978; Denyer, 1978; Dmochowski, 1990; Haruna, 1990; Aniakor, 1992) on Nigerian traditional architecture are seen not to be more involved in analysis of its inherent stylistic evolution possibilities.

Now, from the experience of the Nigerian modern architecture, the evolution of discernible stylistic traits, even on theoretical basis, has thus been steadily hampered. According to Odum (1996:34), the problem emanates from cultural dichotomy and continued incursion of foreign influences which have affected the local life style; coupled with the unprecedented preference and excessive reliance on imported materials and technology used in creating the type of architecture most often considered symbol of progress. Today, modern architecture and advanced technology are seen as symbols of advancement. This trapping puts Nigerian architects under pressure in making their choices of materials and also deter them from making the required input towards developing indigenous materials and technology in order to provoke an investigation into the potentials of traditional architecture for style growth process. Modern technology has as such posed more problems (to style evolution) than it has solved in Nigerian cities (Macgregor, 1987); and their architecture has continued to be predominantly modern.

―History is to a people what memory is to the individual. A people with no knowledge of their past would suffer from collective amnesia, groping blindly into the future without guide-posts of precedence to shape their course. Only a thorough awareness of their heritage allows them to make their public decisions as they make their private ones (Fafunwa, 1974). For possible and sustainable architectural education, practice and development in Nigeria, reflection on previous events and policies will assist considerably in elaborating any future course of action in the country. ―In the final analysis, it is the citizen of a country who should write its history, because it takes an indigenous historian to glimpse the historical past of his people and to express it in a language that his people will appreciate and in a manner that will create deeper understanding and a sense of identity with the cultural heritage of his people‖ (Fafunwa, 1974).

So while architecture focuses on formal and spatial ideas of its product, it also intends to

symbolize and emphasize the importance of the social, political, or economic aspects of the society or a people. In their monographic study: Ibibio Architecture, Edem and Okonkwo (2010) presented architecture as a material culture of a place and a people and stated that right from antiquity, the history of architecture as such has raised more dust than it has settled at the time of assignation of value or identity (symbol or language) to such architecture. ―In his essay In Search of Cultural History, Gombrich (1996) discusses the role of the art historian within the context of cultural studies, and in doing so sets out some of the historiographic principles which form the basis of his work. Though he is primarily concerned with the history of painting, these principles apply, mutatis mutandis, to architecture, as a cultural phenomenon and a system of aesthetic representation‖ (Colquhoun, 1921:35). This work will attempt to discuss some of the principles or criteria from Nigerian authors and their implications, using the chosen extract, amongst others, as a methodological example.

This work tries to focus, therefore, on broadening and scientifically enriching the knowledge quality and understanding of architectural history in Nigeria. It did so through organized and systematic inquiry into the essential and fundamental principles (scientific criteria) of the works of some indigenous authors on the subject. It thus explored a wide array of works, that are solutions, on architectural history developed elsewhere (foreign authors) over the course of human development and it used the scientific elements and principles, therefrom, as a basis of validation of the level of adherence of indigenous authors‘ works on history of architecture in Nigeria.

This work attempted to discuss some of these principles or criteria and their implications (on

writing of architectural history in Nigeria); using the chosen extract, amongst others, as a methodological example, underscored by theory and criticism. Thus ascertaining their verity

and consistency and to highlight the strength or weakness of the works of architecture history in the country.

Mitias (1994) similarly stated that: ―The traditional aesthetic attitude of a viewer viewing an object should be balanced by seeing that in architecture the object shapes and facilitates our activities with a view to our functions and goals, which are not limited to the aesthetic realm. Great works of architecture may slip out of the category of works of art as they work for other human purposes… If architecture is challenged as an art because of its primary social service, then it may yet make its place in the art of living. It contributes to and expresses the shaping values of people and cultures. It may do this as symbol or as language. Communities often affirm their identity and vitality through architectural works that they take to heart, the Pyramids-Egypt, the Taj Mahal-India. The Acropolis-Athens, the Capitol-Washington, the Eiffel Tower-Paris and the Dome-Hiroshima.

Architectural works in history; they endure, even when altered and ruined, and they become invested with changing communal significance. While history does things to them, and with them, works of architecture also have a hand in the making of history. Events take shape around buildings‖ (Mitias, 1994).

In a part of his essay: Architecture: East and West, on ‗A Reflection of Society‘, Yamasaki

(1974:64) says that: ―Throughout history, the architecture of a particular society has reflected the beliefs and life of that society. The historically and artistically significant architectures were images of the life that went on within the walls, and reflected the particular beliefs of the society. The Greek architecture that we so admire was the product of the democratic belief of Greek civilization. Egyptian architecture reflected the absolute power of the Pharaohs and the enslavement of the people. The pompous, superficial life of the French Renaissance monarchs can be well seen in their palaces. Yet, in England, the Renaissance expressed the beginnings of the dignity, the pride, and the humanity that is the great heritage of the English-speaking people today. The architecture of our society must be consistent with our ideals and our way of life. Though the obvious purpose of architecture is to house the complex activities of man, its more positive attribute is to elevate the spirit of humanity and be sympathetic and integrated with its idealism. If we believe in freedom for the individual and in the dignity of man, then the qualities needed to implement these beliefs must include love, gentleness, joy, serenity, beauty, and hope‖ (Yamasaki, 1974:65).

Now, ―if we accept that the word history denotes equally what happened and the narrative of what happened‖ (Veyne, 1985:352), ―then we must also accept that there are a number of narratives-that is, a number of histories-that present the same series of events in very different ways‖ (Tournikiotis, 1999:221-222). ―History is not static: it is dynamic. The past cannot be disentangled either from the present or the future; in fact, past, present, and future are all part of a single, irreducible process…. The historian, like the artist, is imbued with the spirit of his age (Tournikiotis, 1999:45). ―The historian has to give insight into what is happening in the changing structure of his own time…‖ (Giedion, 1957:56). ―The historian‘s duty is thus to recognize the sources of things and demonstrate their continuity by disclosing all of their hidden aspects. This is the discovery in the past of the elements that constitute the beginning of the future‖ (Giedion, 1957:1).

From the foregoing and as presented by Attoe (1979): ―Theory and history have always been essential to the study and understanding of architecture. Theory in architecture deals with what architecture is, what it should do, and how to design it. History, highly related, deals with theories, events, design methods, and buildings. Their combined impact on the future of architecture cannot be underestimated. However, as the process and record to the built environment, criticism relates directly to both theory and history; in fact, history can be considered as a form of criticism…. In a sense history may be called a subcategory of criticism, for it employs depictive and interpretive techniques in accounting for achievements and changes in architecture over time… There are three aspects of history of architecture worth noting here. One is its content (what material is deemed worthy of inclusion); a second is method (how is the material formulated and presented); and the third, what impact a knowledge of history should‖ (Attoe, 1979:21).

―The analogy may be made that one must know and understand the alphabet before words

can be formed and a vocabulary developed; one must understand the rules of grammar and syntax before sentences can be constructed; one must understand the principles of composition before essays, novels, and the like can be written. Once these elements are understood, one can write poignantly or with force, call for peace or incite to riot, comment on trivia or speak with insight and meaning‖ (Ching, 2007:ix)

―Ever since the early twentieth century when colonialism brought Western architecture with clearly known elements and styles, no new theories of style have taken root in Nigeria……………..attempts hitherto, at historical documentation of architectural works in Nigeria are still not only patterned along two, but non-stylistic, clear divides: the pre-colonial or traditional period, and the colonial or modern period, but also are influenced by diversified territorial typological differences‖ (Okonkwo, Edem, Agbonome, Ogwu, 2013).

The colonial era proper constituted the division between these two predominant periods as it imposed a new way of creative assertion of spaces based on the colonial political, economic and settlement systems‖ (Okonkwo, 1993; Aniakor, 1995). Today, the colonial architecture and urban structure still determine major characteristics of Nigerian architectural events and urban development pattern and character as they are themselves rooted in Western values, ecology and socio-economic development (Aniakor, 1995).

―Tournikiotis (1999) argues that the history of modern architecture tends to be written from the present, projecting back onto the past our concerns, so that the ‗beginning‘ of the story really functions as a ‗representation‘ of its end‖. In this way, the buildings are the quotations, while the texts are the structure in writing the history of modern architecture; the historian or interpreter‘s challenges includes not only what the architect did (the product) and what he was thinking about (the process) when he did what he did, but also what the environment (contextuality) of what he thought allowed him to do. In successive readings, Tournikiotis (1999) arrived at the conclusion that, over and above the explicit shifts in the meaning and object of the histories of modern architecture, there is also a kind of common denominator that weaves the fabric of a distinctive discourse. This thesis adopts the proposals on historiography on works as asserted by Panayotis Tournikiotis, 1999: 3-7. Theory and history are both based on a single, cohesive structure that consists simultaneously of (1) a belief about history (that is, a philosophy of history), and consequently a view about the history of architecture as a whole; (2) a social vision stemming from a conviction that social and architectural change are inextricably linked; (3) a thesis about the essence of architecture projected onto a grid of exemplary components through which are formulated, on the one hand, the fabric of the historical interpretation and, on the other, the rule for architectural production in time future. It follows that the histories project the terms for the architecture-which-is-coming, identifying research into the past with theoretical thought.

Setting out from these thoughts, the work attempted to identify and demonstrate the individual features of the texts that were written by historians of architecture and laid claim to a historical character. On the one hand, the work attempted to define what these texts are not, seeking for the measure of their deviations from the common object – a discourse that sometimes tends to establish the foundations of the modern movement and sometimes to call its significance into question; and on the other, the work attempted to define what the texts are, juxtaposing their implicit intentions against their explicit aims so as to determine their true status. In other words, to seek out what is constant and what is variable from one author to another, examining the rules by which their knowledge is produced. The work wished to reveal the discursive structures that articulate the historical texts and establish their typology; thus evolving criteria for the writing of architecture history.

Here, the work dealt only with written architecture, and only from the point of view of the historian: texts called history (and more rarely also theory), texts that place that foundation for the architecture of the future in a historical interpretation of the present and the recent past. As a result, this work certainly does not propose the true history of the modern movement; it does not even propose the history of the histories of the movement. The constant aim was to escape from the superficial content of the texts and capture the essence of their structure so as to cast some light into their darker depths (that is, what was being said in what was written), using three different directions that make up the grid of the reading: history, society, and architecture. The work has attempted to reconstruct an invisible text that fills in the gaps in the written text. It shall thus not be conducting a linguistic analysis of meaning, nor is it the aim to write the history of the referent. The wish is simply to examine the discourse of the historians of modern architecture, a historical discourse which, paraphrasing Foucault, is taken to be a discursive practice that systematically forms the objects of which it speaks.

Similarly, the works have removed the general and specific context of processes from within which our histories emerged. It will not examine the histories as functions of the cultural, economic, or political conditions in which they were written, or as functions of the actual production of built space. The work is not interested in personalities or in the specific activities of individuals in the field of architecture or town planning. The protagonists in this work are not the authors, and so it will not attempt to elucidate their thoughts by referring to their biographical details or the real environment in which the books were written. That is why there are no photographs of the authors in the pages that follow, and why a bare minimum of biographical information has been consigned to the latent field of the notes. Still more emphatically, there is no intention of examining the connections; that may be between the historical texts and the real spaces, the material existence of the architecture to which they refer. It shall confine to an analysis of the historical discourse as shall be read in the space of the texts selected for the corpus. And that is why the illustrations do not show buildings in the real world: they reproduce the pages of books. The buildings are quotations, with all the familiar defects of the techniques of second-hand reproduction.

However it is open to criticism over this deliberate removal of the social, economic, and cultural context, of the technical conditions involved in the process of construction, and – above all – of the main actors, the historians themselves with all the weight of affinities and influences they drag with them. It is certainly not on intention to underplay the decisive role those parameters played in the birth of modern architecture and in the production of the texts in which that fact was recorded. The histories can never be understood outside the context that guided the author‘s hand. Nonetheless, the context (whether it be the rise of fascism or postwar reconstruction) and the personalities (whether they be German Jews who fled as refugees to Britain or Italian democrats engaged in the fight for the social future of their country) have nothing to tell us about the nature of the written discourse per se, about all the threads which, as we read, go into our construction of a reliable explanation of the how and why of the texts themselves, which will evolve comparative extracts and criteria for the writing of history of architecture.

The analysis stands on a different level. To examine texts that could be said to have been recognized as authoritative, over and above time and place, focusing attention on the time at which it was read. The work regards them as written projects that have been released from the hand of the author and the impact of the environment, as objects that are accessible to us regardless of the conditions in which they were written. Here, the important factor is the relationship that develops between the text and its readers: the significant element is the reading context. Meaning is produced by the shifting reception of the histories, which are converted into objects and play their part in the continuous process of a contemporary architecture far removed from the original conditions in which the texts were composed. Although it would be possible to propose a historiography of modern architecture that would focus its attention on the causes of the geographical, temporal, or cultural proliferation of the histories, The work has chosen to work on the plane of a differential reading of them, digging out the meaning they produce when placed all together on the table of the reader today – on our table, towards evolution of criteria for the writing of history of architecture by comparison of texts, identification of common or repeated facts or texts, arranging them in any pattern for use by scholars.

From the foregoing, a study of 163 works from Western Europe, North America, Asian and African continents were made. These works were grouped in four sets described as Rubrics I, II, III and IV. Eight Nigerian documentations on history of architecture were studied too. This underlines one need to evolve a global evaluation criteria or template with historic contents and constituents.

1.2       STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The need for this research work could be better emphasized by the problems associated or created by the seemingly nebulous intellectual climate around the development of knowledge in architecture history both in Nigeria and in other parts of the world.

It has been stated earlier that ever since the end of colonialism in the country, no new style of

architecture has emerged or evolved notwithstanding the steady growth in scientific and technological knowledge in architectural history, theory and criticism.

Like the evolution of pattern of Greek architecture from antiquity or its traditional nature and

principles, in Nigeria, traditional architecture has not evolved beyond what it was in the pre-colonial era. Equally, various authors are in agreement on this situation; and also on the fact that there has not been sufficient and remarkable differentiation in nature, elements or character within the modern architecture which predominates built environment development in Nigeria since the post-colonial period. In its manifestation, the architecture of this period in Nigeria, is yet to produce any discernible products capable of being identified or classified as modern Nigerian architecture.

The prevailing situation in Nigerian architectural history becomes more problematic when it is a common knowledge, amongst architecture scholars, that even within massive works of classical architecture in Europe it is possible to speak of English, German or Greek Renaissance, Gothic, Baroque, to mention a few; because in each of these countries,

indigenous architects have been able to evolve, produce and introduce, within the same period, architectural factors and features which are at once consistent enough to be distinguishable as the architecture of such place and people; a phenomenon yet to be noticed in the Nigerian case.

Nevertheless, the need for this research work is made more obvious by the compounding

situation:

(a)        Okonkwo, Agbonome, Ogwu, Ilo, (2012), in an inquiry into the emergence of new concepts in architecture, confirm the problematic conceptual situation created by the gradual but steady incursion into architecture, as a process and product, by other professionals.

(b)        Equally noted in their exercise was the stagnation or rather non-expansion of the knowledge content of architecture, by the Nigerian Institute of Architects (NIA), as the knowledge around architecture as such continues to grow and expand.

(c)        Moneo (2004), paints the international dimension of the situation even better. When it is realised that Nigerian architects still draws more inspirations and materials from elsewhere the position of Moneo (2004) becomes more preoccupying.

In his revisit to eight authors whose works had been regarded, fundamentally, as outstanding theories, Moneo (2004) was able, on the basis of historiographic revalidation inquiry to say that those works could not be classified as being purely theoretical genre. Rather, he classified them as theoretical anxieties; in which case, they are near theories of architecture.

(d)       The foregoing is equally confirmed by Hearn (2003) when he posited that ―…………Thus the confusion or mixture of the three genres – History, theory and architecture.

There are fragmented documentations on the history of Nigerian Traditional architecture. Non of these documentations could be adopted as a framework or basis for scripting and presenting the ―History of Nigerian Traditional Architecture‖ or ―The Nigerian Architecture History‖ of the entity called Nigeria. There is need therefore to conduct an integrated historiographical enquiry into these works towards isolating criteria for scripting and presenting the history of Nigerian Traditional architecture or the Nigerian Architecture History.

1.3       AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study is to evolve a criteria for appraising works on history of architecture in Nigeria.

1.3.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:

(a)        To identify a tentative template or a set criteria for historic contents or constituents inherent in writing of architecture history in diverse ideological perspective (both Western and non-Western).

(b)        Test the tentative criteria on the selected works in order to ascertain their verity and consistency.

(c)        Apply the appraised criteria as bases for assessing and evaluating the existing works on architectural history in Nigeria.

(d)       To highlight the strength or weakness of the works of architecture history in the country.

(e)        Evolve substantive and comprehensive criteria for writing history of Nigerian architecture.

1.4       RESEARCH QUESTIONS

To guide the research the following questions were asked:-

·          There are many features in the existing authors works; to what extent do they collectively or separately describe the contents of history worthy of usage as the basis for the production of the Nigerian Architecture History of comparable world standards?

·          If the existing works are appraised and highlighted, to what extent will their strength and weaknesses be?

·          To what extent the existing documentations of architecture in Nigeria are, do they contain or describe many considerations that are verifiable and consistent as those documented elsewhere in the world?

·           Of the many existing authors‘ works, are there any paradigms for scholars to avail themselves with towards the production(s) of further works on history of architecture?

·          Are there any substantive and comprehensive criteria that has been in use for writing history of Nigerian architecture?.

·          To what extent does the existing Nigerian authors write the history of Nigerian architecture in their documentation(s) on traditional architecture with contents that describe architectural movements, period, style, architects involved, building materials used, construction techniques, influences to mention a few. as Western and non-Western authors books have?

1.5       SCOPE OF THE STUDY

In the purposive sampling method adopted, 163 works of authors from Western Europe, North America, Asian and African continents were selected and appraised. The text in the books, findings, assertions, theoretical focus, propounded histories as well as influences and recommendations, as contained in the various documentations on history of architecture published and unpublished, were studied and by snowball method, possible criteria and sub-criteria were identified. With the same purposive sampling method, documentations by Nigerian authors were selected for purpose of historiographical enquiries on the works. Even though a lot of other books and documentations have been and were studied. The scope of the thesis study was within the selected Western, non-Western and eight Nigerian authored books and documentations respectively.

1.6       SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The country Nigeria had independence in 1960; the same year the Nigerian Institute of Architects came into existence. This professional body has brought together many architects trained abroad and in Nigerian Universities making them to become professionals and consultants. The architects in practice, in universities, and polytechnics have developed as sound academia involved in many research works and involved in publications of many diverse works in architecture. But it is surprising that since Nigeria existed no comprehensive book or publication by Nigerian author can be compared with the global authors‘ books or publications in terms of historical content, period, style, background, influence, architects involved, construction techniques, documentations, and movements, to mention a few (which are the criteria for history to be history) of the many diverse rich architecture currently in existence in the country.

Obviously it has been observed that most of the researches hitherto carried out in Nigeria by

Nigerian authors towards the writing of the history of Nigerian Traditional Architecture have

concentrated only on some tribes such as- (Saad, 1984; Dmochowski 1990, Aniakor, 1995; Saad and Ogunsusi, 1996; Odum, 1996; Okonkwo, 2012; Edem, 2010 and Ahianba 2013). All these works do not have much to do with architectural movements describing styles, periods which are some of the bases for the writing of history of Nigerian Traditional Architecture since the dearth of documentation in Nigeria. This implies that Nigeria still remains a country with no comprehensive history of traditional architecture or a history that can be described as The History of Nigerian Architecture.

The first impression of Nigerian traditional architecture is its great variety-(Dmochowski 1990). It becomes inconclusive to elaborate the history of Nigerian architecture as one or sole history; but through academic collation of variant historical facts from all parts of the country, backed with theories, principles – methodologies of architectural history in line with this thesis criteria for writing history of Architecture, the history of Nigerian architecture can be found and be documented in periods- movements.

₦5,000.00 – DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT DOWNLOAD FULL PROJECT Added to cart

---

---

---

---

Related Project Topics :