Outlines of a constructive human pastBy Nold EgenterThis short report was published in `InternationalSemiotic Spectrum - a Publication of the Toronto Semiotic Circle Nr. 14{Sept. 1990} under the title `Architectural Anthropology`. An overall view of the concept of `Architectural Anthropology` is given in `Architectural Anthropology - Research Series vol. 1; in 3 languages {English, German, French}. See also contents vol. 1-8: English, German, FrenchAt the end of the sixties, in the course of the so-called `crisis ofmodern architecture` a movement of architectural theoreticians greatlystimulated by Amos Rapoport`s `Built Form and Culture` {1969} began towiden their horizon into the ethnology of architecture. This movementhas produced very valuable studies, but now finds itself confrontedwith methodological problems due to the accumulation of uncoordinatedknowledge from all parts of the world {Bourdier/Alsayyad 1989, Saile1986}. The main problem lies in the fact that architectural researchhas not yet developed its own method {with the possible exception ofCataldi`s worldwide typology {1986, 1988} which, however, limits itselfto construction and form}. Most of the studies borrow concepts andapproaches from established disciplines like religion, psychology,social anthropology, structuralism, semiotics etc. and thus import notonly the theoretical difficulties that arise within thesemother-disciplines, but also create new problems by adapting approachesfrom one field to another.In this context another field of research is gaining weight whichconcentrates on architecture itself. It interprets the termarchitecture as a generic term in analogy to `zoon` in zoology anddefines the field anew in the widest sense of anthropology. In this waytwo essentially new types of architecture have been discovered, whichmay make architectural research a valuable member of the circle ofanthropological disciplines. Together with the conventional these newtypes have been grouped into a scheme of four types: subhuman architecture {nestbuilding behaviour of the higher apes: chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan} semantic architecture {`non-domestic buildings` or buildings not related to the human body with semantic, social and ideological functions} domestic architecture {buildings which offer internal space for protection of objects, animals and humans} settlement architecture {higher, horizontally structured unity assembling several elements of semantic and/or domestic architecture}Semantic architecture refers to a dia- and synchronically widespreadtype of building which has conventionally been classified and describeddifferently. What is implied by semantic architecture was historicallytermed `life tree` and is widespread in ancient cultures. Over thecourse of Christianisation history `semantic architecture` was calledby ethnologists `fetish`, `idol` {idolatry!} etc. in a derogatorysense, because the veneration of material objects, and particularlycult signs made primitively with vegetable materials at hand could notbe understood from the theological standpoint of `higher` religion.Accordingly it was thought to be an expression of `primitive creed` or`superstition`, but the objects were not researched, neither in regardto form, nor from the perspective of social relations or spatialconditions. Recent ethnographic studies {Egenter 1980, 1982, 1995} showa quite different situation. Semantic architecture of this type appearswithin a semantic system handed down locally in stereotype form sinceprehistoric times. With the formation of sedentary agrarian societiesit must have become important for its territorial, social andideological functions. It has been preserved in favourablecircumstances {e.g. non-Christianised regions of Asia, such as Japan}from protohistoric times to the present as a script-less `archive` oft
home.worldcom.ch/~negenter/031AA_Tx_E.html