“We are what we build and how we build.”— 7ICCH（Lisbon, 2021）

The 7th International Congress on Construction History (7ICCH) held in Lisbon (Portugal) in 2021 intended to make a milestone on the Construction History discipline. It emphasized that the study of construction history should not be limited to the understanding of technical challenges or the process of construction, but extend to engage with people, as well as their culture of building. Indeed, this was the original contribution of the congress, which was also reflected in its theme: “The History of Construction Cultures”.

Numerous authors have so far discussed the definition and scope of Construction History. The introductory section of the 7ICCH presented the most recent interpretation: “The study of construction cultures entails the analysis of the transformation of a community’s knowledge capital expressed in the activity of construction. As such, construction history is a broad field of knowledge that encompasses all of the actors involved in that activity: collective actors (contractors, materials producers and suppliers, schools, associations, and institutions) and individual actors (engineers, architects, entrepreneurs, craftsmen). In each given location and historical period, these actors build using particular technologies, tools, machines, and materials. They follow specific rules and laws, and they transfer knowledge on construction in a certain way. Their activity has an economic value and belongs to a particular economic context, and they organize themselves following a set of social and cultural models.”

This interpretation sounds closer to the concept of “the historical landscape of building world,” proposed in the mid-1980s by Sir John Summerson, one of the founding members of the British Construction History Society (CHS). This vision calls attention to the past and present construction communities, thereby exploring how people in different periods and regions materialize their buildings. The approach gives heed to neglected clues in the current reading of construction history, thus giving birth to new arenas of knowledge by connecting the Construction History discipline with other fields such as anthropology and philosophy. Therefore, the idea of a “Philosophical History of Construction” brought forward by Cesar Daly in the nineteenth century seems not to be far from reality.

The very different cultures that Asian societies benefit from make a line of demarcation between ACHN and other similar institutions in the western world. ACHN aims to include and indeed represent such different perspectives towards history and cultural heritage. In this respect, the observations by David Lowenthal, the American historiographer of cultural heritages, reveal the challenges associated with studying construction history in an Asian building culture such as China: “Cultural heritage stresses words over things above all in China, where esteem for tradition goes hand in hand with recurrent demolition of material remains. […] The Chinese heritage is not imperishable monuments but imperishable words.” (Lowenthal, David. “The Heritage Crusade and Its Contradictions” (quoted in Giving Preservation a History: Histories of Historic Preservation in the United States, edited by Max Page and Randall Mason, 12–29. New York: Routledge, 2004.). The aforementioned perspective explains why the study and survey of contemporary constructions/restorations are considered beneficial for the understanding of construction history in some Asian societies. Although these projects cannot serve as hard evidence for a reliable history of construction, they provide valuable insights into people, their evolving building cultures, as well as the living building traditions. In the same vein, some East Asian researchers try to blend oral history and craftsmen to understand more about the past, simply because of the nonexistence of formal evidence such as archival material. Given the fact that today’s perspectives and methodologies of the construction history discipline are Western in leadership, ACHN intends to enrich “the history of construction cultures” through a broader analysis of different concepts of construction and history in Asia.

The essence and scope of questions associated with the model of “historical landscape of building world” is beyond the history of technology or architectural styles. To answer them, construction historians need to draw upon the interaction of different perspectives, including those derived from other fields such as the history of structural design, the history of building practice, the history of professions, the history of social changes or tensions, the history of engineering experience/knowledge, the history of economy and capitalism, labor history, development theory, and urban history. Not to mention that the present building industry that is evolving rapidly is also influential in this process. This necessitates a sort of “cross-border” research and “matrix thinking” that is complicated and ventures beyond the boundaries of architectural disciplines. Thus, the transdisciplinary perspectives and research methods employed by construction historians have blended the engineering sciences, natural sciences, and the humanities together, and will potentially do more with mathematics and medicine. Some of the most common methods comprise:

• -

  Geometric analyses to hypothesize about or trace the original ideas and construction strategies employed by historic architects

• -

  Life-size reconstruction, and small-scale or virtual modelling to hypothesize about construction process in historical times

• -

  Archaeometric and chemical analyses for studying the composition and characterization of historical materials

• -

  The use of X-ray images and laboratory tests, combined with on-site, meticulous study of work traces to understand the manufacturing/construction process

• -

  Mathematic modelling, structural calculations, graphic statics, tensile/shear tests, and 3D scanning to understand the stability of historic buildings

• -

  Archival research, historical survey, and literary study of written and oral sources that shed light on the transformation of construction methods

• -

  Economic and statistical analyses (e.g. price, contract, purchase, etc.) for the study of material supply in historical times

• -

  Evaluation of artistic trends, regulatory frameworks, and socio-economical parameters to understand the public taste or social preferences

The biggest advantage of drawing upon a transdisciplinary approach in the study of the built environment is that it offers multiple angles for the cognitive understanding of construction in the past. It also presents significant potential for a global understanding of present local construction traditions and cultures. Moreover, the transdisciplinary nature of Construction History may raise novel questions at the crossroads of the aforementioned disciplines and increase the research potential in academia. For example, a point of departure of ACHN stands in the de-facto debates between different approaches to addressing the relationship between technology and culture in construction activities. On the one hand, as Professor Tom F. Peters, one of the founding members of the emerging “technological thinking” trend in the construction history discipline noted, “Construction” should be regarded as a culture (such as political science or sociology), and thus it has its unique “bias”. He argues that the mainstream of Construction History should always direct attention to the simultaneous development of technology and human creativity, whereas avoiding the “politicization” of technological discourse or being held hostage by other disciplines. Otherwise, it becomes counterproductive to the development of the discipline of Construction History. Peters also points out an excessive attention to the social aspect of technology that “reduces” the field of Construction History to a social history that only bears the name of construction. On the other hand, research attention to social aspects has never been absent in the construction history but is increasing. For instance, construction historians know that social hierarchies of professional communities in the building industries of different European countries have had undeniable yet different impacts on decision-making of real projects, thereby representing different ways of practice (or cultures of doing). As the construction history discipline often focuses on the advent and evolution of technological cultures in a specific geographical region and time period, we intend to enrich such debates through transdisciplinary development and through advancing the studies about Asia.