Review

Author(s): Mike Adler

Review by: Mike Adler
Source: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Winter, 1992), pp. 355-358
Published by: University of New Mexico
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3630444
Accessed: 31-12-2015 18:29 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Anthropological
Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:29:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOKREVIEWS 355

Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space: An Interdisciplinary

Cross-Cultural Study. Susan Kent, ed. New York:CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1990, iii + 192 pp. $49.50, cloth.

Susan Kent's newest edited volumefrom Cambridgeinvestigatesdomestic

architectureanduse of spacefroman anthropological perspective.The central
theme of the volumeis the relationship betweenhumanbehaviorandthe built
environment.Each authoraddresses the extent to whichculturalbehavior
shapesarchitectureand,relatedly,the degree to whichthe builtenvironment
influencesand reproducesthe culturalmilieu.There is an emphasison ar-
chaeologicalcase studies,but cross-cultural andethnographic case studiesdo
addan importantsynchronicviewpointto the volume.
The text is welleditedandcontainsa plethoraof figures,including over fifty
plandrawingsof historicandprehistoricarchitecture.The qualityof the figures
is somewhatinconsistent,varyingfromcrisp,readableplansto poorlydrafted
diagramswith undecipherable text. As with the entire "New Directionsin
Archaeology"series, the cost of the volumeis prohibitively highfor a book
thatis too thinto effectivelypropup a slideprojector.But on to the contents
of the volume.
The bookcontainsnine chaptersandan editor'sintroduction. Readerswill
be pleasedto findexplicitstatementsin each articlelayingout the rangeof
variablesthe authorbelieves are centralto the form, use, and meaningof
domesticarchitectural space. The explicitnatureof these statementsallows
realisticcomparisonsbetween the theory and data each contributoruses in
the volume. Eachcontributorhas madeeffortsto addressfindingsmadeby
otherauthorsin the volume.Thoughthisinternaldialoguemeets withvarying
levels of success, the volumecertainlycomesoffas morethanjusta compilation
of topicallyrelatedarticles.
Kent'sintroductory chapterpresentsa coherentbackground forthe research
topicsaddressedby the other contributingauthors.She outlinespastcritiques
of the cross-culturalapproach andincludesanextendedreplyto William Adams's
(1987) review of her earlierbook on ethnoarchaeological approachesto the
use of space (Kent 1984). Amos Rapoport'scontribution (Chapter2) stands
out as the most cogentchapterin the volume.Rapoport's lengthyinvolvement
in environmentalpsychologyhas produceda valuableset of theoreticaland
methodological tools for investigating"therelationshipbetweenactivitiesand
architectureas mediatedby culture"(p. 11). Most usefulis his summationof
"systemsof settings"and"systemsof activities,"conceptshe has developed
to get beyondthe simpleassertionthat architectureencloses behavior.His
lucidexplanations andapplications of hisobservationsto archaeologicalcontexts
are also of value.
The chapterson Betsilio(SusanKusandVictorRaharijaona, Chapter3) and
Swahili(LindaDonley-Reid,Chapter8) architecturefocuson the relationship
between domesticspace and socialmeaningswithinthese culturalcontexts.
Kus and Raharijaona presenta well-arguedperspectiveon the role domestic

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:29:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
356 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
architecture provides forthemanipulation andnegotiation oftraditional culture
among the Betsilio of Madagascar. Betsilio domestic space embodies and re-
the
produces metaphysical aspects ofthe the
largersocietythrough integration
of directionality,
height,anda complexzodiacal systemin theirarchitecture.
Thesuccessofthecontribution emerges in its specificity.Thediscussion does
notpretendto go beyondthelimitsof the dataor theoretical perspective.
Somewhat moreproblematical is Donley-Reid's contribution, in whichshe
a
presents counterargument to MarkHorton's(1987)proposalthatSwahili
settlementswerefoundedby indigenous Africans. Donley-Reid's solidappli-
cationof Anthony Giddens's conceptof "structuration" to Swahili architecture
is compromised by herassertionthatthe meanings andsettingsof historical
Swahilihousingare directlyapplicable to the interpretation of coastalEast
Africanarchitectural remainsdatingto the eightandninthcenturiesA.D.
Donley-Reid's description of Swahili cultureas a complexproduct of a millen-
niumof migration, integration withnativeEastAfrican populations, andslave
tradingdoesnotlendsupportto herdirecthistorical approach.
The arguments andanalysesby Richard Wilk(Chapter 4) andRoderick
Lawrence (Chapter 6) rest on firmerground.Ina comprehensive discussion
of variability
in Kekchihousing,Wilkproposesthathousingbe viewedas a
consumer goodthatis partof a largernexusof economic decisions.Hisem-
phasison economic decisionmaking in Kekchihousingprovidesa contrastto
the "formandsocialmeaning" perspective followed by severalotherauthors
in the volume.Lawrencepresentsa usefuldiscussion of the form-function
argument in his treatment of one hundred years changein Swissurban
of
housing. Lawrence notes an interesting trend in the gradual phasingoutof
domesticactivities inSwiss"collective " this
areas, attributing changeto official
housingregulations designed to neutralize the common areas.Especially val-
uableis hisutilization of multiple levelsof interpretation in hisexplanation of
domesticarchitecture.
Architecturalremainswithmuchgreatertimedepthareinvestigated inthe
threearchaeological studiesof domesticarchitecture andbuiltspace.These
includediscussions ofEarlyBronzeAgesettlements onCrete(Donald Sanders,
Chapter5), Greekcity-states(Michael Jameson,Chapter 7), andprehistoric
Peruvian household structure (Garth Bawden,Chapter 10).Eachcontribution
is comprehensive initstreatment ofthesubject matter,andtheauthors present
worthwhile discussions of use of spaceandstructural variability through time.
Butin the finalanalysis,it seemsthe archaeological approaches attempttoo
much,particularly whencompared to the analysesfoundin the ethnographic
case studies.
Lacunae inourknowledge of prehistoric architecture arenotthefaultofthe
authors.Questions surrounding construction andabandonment sequencesface
allarchaeologists whoinvestigate architectural contexts.Butwe shouldalso
accept the limitationsthat go with these lacunae.For example,in Sanders's
discussionof EarlyBronzeAge householdson Crete, we readthatmost walls
"standto onlya few courses (0.50-0.60 m)"(p. 54), andassignmentof room

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:29:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 BOOKREVIEWS 357

functionis based upona smallnumberof artifactsfoundacross three archi-

tecturalblocks.Sanders'sproposition thatwe candiscern"smell-zonesectors"
and"reachzones"experiencedby the prehistoricinhabitants requiresa stretch
of the imagination thatgoes beyondthe availabledata.
The contributions by bothBawden(northernPeru)andJameson(Greekcity-
states) considerrelationships betweendomesticarchitecture andthe economic
andideologicalorganization of the surrounding communities. Thisfocuson the
largercommunityis welcome,but can be problematic,for it requiresa large
samplesize of structural remainsbothwithinandacrosscommunity boundaries.
WhileJamesonpresents voluminousdatafromClassicalGreekcity-statesin
his discussionof genderandactivitydifferentiation, Bawdendrawson a quite
limitedset of excavatedarchitectural remainsin his consideration of pre-Co-
lumbiandomesticspace in northernPeru. Significantly, neitherauthorsub-
scribes to Kent's cross-culturalfindings(Chapter9) relatingthe degree of
segmentation of spaceto sociopoliticalcomplexity, butone mustwonderwhether
the samplesize of architectural remainshas any appreciableeffect on their
conclusions.
Kent'scontribution to the volume(Chapter9) utilizesa largecross-cultural
sampleof seventy-threesocieties to investigatewhy some culturesexhibit
morepartitioning in theiruse of spacethanothers.She proposesthatsocieties
with greatersociopolitical complexityalso utilizedomesticspaces with more
physicalpartitioningand spatialsegregationof specializedactivities.Kent's
broadthesis meets withmixedsuccess. Definitional problemsandthe lackof
quantifiable documentation of "segregation" and "differentiation"of activities
leave some of her interpretations to
open question. The primary criteriain her
five-levelclassificationof sociopolitical complexity include "social and political
organization,economicspecialization, and divisionof labor"(p. 129). Based
uponthese criteria,it makessense thatthe "amountof segmentation. . as
measuredby the frequencyof functionally restrictedcomparedto multipurpose
activity areas"(p. 148) does increaseas societiesbecomesociopolitically more
complex, since economic specialization and division of labor are defined and
identifiedby spatialandtemporaldifferentiation of varioustypes of activities.
Some quantification of her results wouldalso be useful. If the correlationof
sociopoliticalcomplexityandarchitectural segmentationis real, we stilldo not
knowhow we applyher observationsto a set of archaeological contexts.Just
how segmentedis a "highlysegmentedculture"?
Also, Kent states that "thesocialcomplexity(andspecificallythe sociopo-
liticalcomplexity)of a society determinesthe organization of space and the
builtenvironment" (p. 127). But she does not documentwhy such a deter-
ministiccausalarrowpointsin this direction.Thereis littlediscussionof what
role(s) the majorinfluencesso often cited in the developmentof complexity
(i.e., populationincrease,productionof surplus,craftspecialization,conflict
and coercion)playin alteringthe segmentationof space anddifferentiation of
activities. Carneiro(1967) raised some of these same questionsover two
decadesagoin a cross-cultural studyof sociopoliticalcomplexityandpopulation

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:29:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
358 OFANTHROPOLOGICAL
JOURNAL RESEARCH
size. Nonetheless, Kent'scross-cultural approachis both an interestingand
innovativeinvestigation of spatialsegmentationanddifferentiation of activities.
The recurringmessage in this collectionof papersis that multiplelines of
inquirymust accompanyany understanding of the use of architecturalspace.
The interplaybetweeneconomy,landscape,meaning,tradition,resourceavail-
ability,andintercultural influencesdoes not lend itself towardany simpleex-
planations of architectural
patterningor variation.But such is the case with
any anthropological questionworthasking.As a whole, this corpusof papers
is certainlya valuablecontributionto researchonthecreation,use, andmeaning
of the builtenvironment.

REFERENCESCITED

Adams,W.,1987,ReviewofAnalyzingActivity Areas:AnEthnoarchaeological
Study
of theUseofSpacebySusanKent.HistoricalArchaeology21(1):105-7.
Carneiro,R., 1967,OntheRelationship
betweenSizeofPopulation
andComplexity
of SocialOrganization.
Southwestern of Anthropology
Journal 23(2):234-43.
Horton,M., 1987,TheSwahiliCorridor.Scientific
American(September):86-93.
Kent,S., 1984,Analyzing
ActivityAreas:AnEthnoarchaeological
Studyof theUse
of Space.Albuquerque: of
University New Mexico Press.

MikeAdler
Southern
Methodist
University

The Savage Within:The Social History of British Anthropology,1885-

1945. HenrikaKuklick.New Yorkand Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press, 1991, ix + 352 pp. Pricenot indicated,cloth.

Scarcelymorethanten yearsago, the questionwhetherethnologywas a social

"science"or not was considereda somewhatextraneousdiversionin post-
graduateseminars:a rathermoot worrywhichevoked a quizzicallysmiling,
"Itdepends."Muchhas happenedsince, andthe question,oftenrephrasedin
the Kuhnianmold (Kuhn1970), now forms part of the staple diet even of
undergraduate students.The Kuhnianrephrasingcaneasilytake the edge off
the questionitself:who careswhetherwe are scientistsif "normal"scienceis
merelysome structuredsocialactivitydevotedto fillingin the blanksof con-
ventionalcrosswordpuzzlesknownas paradigms?
Yet indirectly,Kuhn'sideasaffordsome eye-openingvistas of our subject,
as is demonstratedin Kuper'srecent Inventionof PrimitiveSociety,which
tracesa century'sworthof anthropological
theorybuildingto anentityinvented
by Morgan and Maineand rather
elaborated, thanquestioned,by a series of

This content downloaded from 132.239.1.230 on Thu, 31 Dec 2015 18:29:09 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions