In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Technology and Culture 43.2 (2002) 404-406



[Access article in PDF]

Book Review

Architectural Anthropology


Architectural Anthropology. Edited by Mari-Jose Amerlinck. Westport, Conn.: Bergin and Garvey, 2001. Pp. xv+213. $69.95.

This is a seminal work ushering in a new field of inquiry. More specifically, it finds its exceptional value in arguing that research into the relationship between culture and the construction of the built environment can be classified under the rubric of architectural anthropology. The book is less about outlining future directions for the field than about the editor's desire to tie together a scattered body of related work. Besides the editor, Mari-Jose Amerlinck, contributors include Amos Rapoport, Nold Egenter, Jay D. Edwards, Riva Berleant-Schiller, Hetty Nooy-Palm, and Denise Lawrence-Zuniga. Each offers a holistic image of architectural anthropology as not [End Page 404] only a field that considers the social, economic, and political forces that drive architecture, but also an area of interest that should remain self-reflexive.

Rapoport's and Berleant-Schiller's contributions are marked by this self-reflexivity. Rapoport argues that architectural anthropology would be of better service under the rubric of environmental and behavioral studies, and suggests that proponents are too ambitious in trying to create a separate field of inquiry. However, Rapoport's chapter is subject to the juggling of semantics that plagues any number of the social sciences with the stalling effects of circular arguments. Defining architecture and its constituent parts creates a constructive dialogue but, taken to the extreme, disavows the definition of architecture as a reactive entity subject to individuals and their cultures. The idea of architectural anthropology appears to make up for this difficulty by acknowledging that any study of architecture should take into consideration the people and groups that bear responsibility for its creation. This lesson is particularly poignant in Berleant-Schiller's essay on Mahican-Moravian mission settlements.

The remaining contributions by Edwards, Egenter, Nooy-Palm, and Lawrence-Zuniga are less about reflexivity in methods and theory than about describing informative prototypes of architectural anthropology in action. Most ambitious is Egenter's chapter, which is juxtaposed to Rapoport's critique. Egenter connects the biology and scientific methodology inherent in physical anthropology to a theory of architecture based on the interactions among evolution, signage, and symbols. In doing so, he clearly demonstrates the rich potential for the concept of architectural anthropology, notwithstanding Rapoport's misgivings.

Edwards's account of creolization in colonial architecture gives credit where credit is due. Instead of seeing this as the direct product of a mother country, he portrays colonial architecture as an amalgamation of colonial and regional vernacular traditions. He attempts to redefine colonial architecture by taking regional adaptations into consideration while pinpointing universalities in colonial architecture that result from a blend of vernacular and colonists' traditions.

Nooy-Palm's and Lawrence-Zuniga's contributions are similar in that both anchor architectural anthropology in case studies. Nooy-Palm's account of the ancestral homes of the Sa'dan Toraji exposes the underlying socioeconomic family identity and natural forces that influence the form of a tongkonan, which are described in relation to building materials and cosmological layout. Lawrence-Zuniga's account of the evolution of domestic architecture in the Portugese town of Vila Branca analyzes the underlying relationships among state, technology, tradition, and bourgeois etiquette. The process is messy, with townsfolk adopting, rejecting, and rationalizing contemporaneous and past conceptions of home design.

This book's anthropological perspective enables us to consider architecture as part of transactional processes. And, because it raises more questions [End Page 405] than it answers, it will prompt further explorations. The contributors do not claim to have reached definitive conclusions, nor do they even agree with one another on the nature of the subject, and this is bound to perpetuate a healthy and informative dialogue.

 



Nicholas Jay Watkins

Mr. Watkins is a graduate student in architecture and landscape architecture at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Permission to reprint a review published here may be obtained only from the reviewer.

...

pdf

Share