planning-2-module-2-september-10-2024.pdf

ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE...

ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS MODULE 2 On the Cultural Origins of Settlements INTRODUCTION This module 2 is a continuation of the previous lesson about urban planning which is an important part of the history of cities and urban planning which concerns human behavior. Through an examination of such behavior, with cultural and anthropological approach, we can begin to understand some of the bases for urban settlements. The cultural analysis in this chapter is valuable for illuminating concepts that are clearly seen in history yet not fully explained. This examination of the cultural origins of urban settlements allow us to make a more detailed exploration of an important aspect of history and understand more fully how human behavioral patterns resulted in subsequent urban settlement patterns. While this chapter deals only with settlement patterns, it is also enlightening about the boarder concepts and techniques of such evaluation. OBJECTIVE 1. To have further knowledge on the relationships of society and culture in the design of communities. 2. Identify and differentiate the various views about city and urban settlement. 3. Learn the process how ancient culture design and organize their settlement. 4. Present a case study based on local case. OUTLINE: MODULE 2- On the cultural origins of settlements by Amos Rapoport Lesson 1: The Origins of Cities 24 1.1 Different Views of Cities 1.2 Definitions of Cities 1.3 Organizing Functions Lesson 2: Design, Organization, and Schemata 27 2.1 Organization of Environment 2.2 Comparative Ordering System Lesson 3: Examples of Settlements 34 Lesson 4: Conclusions 36 See If You Can Do This! Activity 1 to 3 37 READ AND PONDER LESSON 1: THE ORIGINS OF CITIES The ability to make valid analysis and decisions depends on the existence of valid theory. So much has been written about cities and urbanism from all sorts of perspective that without theory no one can possibly absorb more than a small portion of it. The use of a theory allows vast amount of material on cities to be integrated into larger conceptual structures, providing better understanding of its value. Such integration can also result in knowledge becoming cumulative. Such a theory, however, must be based on a very broad sample in order to be valid. Much of what passes for theory in planning, urban design, architecture and even people-environment studies is based only on the high- design tradition. Yet by far the larger percentage of all built environments belong to this latter category. Moreover, even the high style components of cities the acropolises, agoras, plazas, avenue, axes and so on – can only be understood in the context of vernacular matrix, infill, or what is being organized by these elements. Finally, when looking at the time when settlement began, it is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the two traditions. The existing theories tend to be based on the Western Tradition, neglecting the many others- African, Middle Eastern, pre- Columbian and Latin America. They then also to base on recent development and to overlook the historical dimension - particularly the remote past in general and the recent past in the nonliterate and non- Western tradition. Thus, it is very important now to consider settlements through both time and cross- culturally. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 24  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 The trouble with concepts based on theMODULE 2: ONhigh-style Western, THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF tradition of SETTLEMENTS the recent past is that generalizations based on such a limited sample maybe invalid. The boarder of our sample- in space and in time- the more likely we are to be able to see regularities in apparent chaos and to understand better the significant differences, i.e., the more likely we are to see patterns and relationships. Being able to establish the presences of such patterns can help us deal with the problem of constancy and change and help us determine certain baselines to guide environmental design. Some of these baselines may be evolutionary1. If people as a species have certain characteristics, if human beings have done certain things for very long time. There may be very good reasons for these traditions 2. It is, therefore, important to understand constancies as well as change – particularly since our own culture stresses change to an inordinate degree. If apparent change and variability are actually an expression of invariant processes, i.e., if the reasons behind apparently different ways of doing things remain in the same, this too is extremely important. If we can understand these reasons and the processes they represent, we may find that apparently unrelated forms are in fact equivalent, in the sense that they achieve the same objectives, are the result of similar mental processes, or are transformation of each other. For example, consider three urban forms – a dense city of courtyards; a low-density urban fabric of widely scattered houses; and a city made u of urban villages of highly homogeneous populations with strong social links. These forms appear very different but they can all be shown to be mechanisms for controlling unwanted interaction, i.e., for reducing information overload, stress, and achieving desired level of privacy3. This kind of approach is most important in dealing with major disagreements and differing views about cities, including the very definition of city. 1.1 Different Views and Cities French newspaper and books often make the point that U.S. cities have no structure or form. Clearly, this is incorrect- they do have both4. The differences are in the nature of their order, their hierarchy (which places are important), and their morphology. The open-endedness and endlessness of U.S. cities are incomprehensible and disturbing, as are their sense of being unfinished and their process orientation. As both Sartre and Levi- Strauss have commented, the streets of American cities seem to lead into infinity. There is no sense pf containment as there is in European cities. The time dimension is also different: American cities do not age gracefully; they decay. All this, Europeans and American expatriates felt, leads to placelessness. Gertrude Stein’s famous description of Oakland, California, Illustrates the point: “When you get there, there is no there there.” This open- endedness and process orientation leads to the high value placed on mobility in U.S cities. As a result, Americans have trouble understanding foreign cities, and they say that those cities have no form of structure. For example, Americans have said this about Moslem cities. i.e., about cities that have a structure that is in fact highly articulated but is antithetical to the U.S. form. The Moslem organization, rather than maximizing movement and accessibility, limits it and controls behavior by restricting mobility. Such cities contain a large number of specific districts-ethnic, religious, trade, or use – which are district, and the inhabitants of each tend stay within it. The order pattern may be incomprehensible, to Americans, but are definitely not absent. 5 One generation that cannot be applied cross-culturally is that of the city as a center of change. In the West it has been, but in China and Iran the city has been a center of stability. 6 Also invalid cross-culturally are generalization based on the U.S tradition that status goes up as we go outward from the center. In some cases, there is no relationship at all between status and city center, and in many others the relationship is the opposite; i.e., status goes down as one moves outward from the center. More generally, then, environments that appear confusing or disordered are not necessarily random but usually represent a structure based on specific schemata and social orders. 1.2 Definitions of Cities Traditional definitions of the city have been rather ethnocentric, based on the modern (i.e., medieval and later) Western city. For example, one classic definition states that a city is a ‘’relatively large, dense, and permanent settlement of socially heterogeneous individuals’’. Gordon Childe, who dealt with the origin of cities as the urban revolution, lists the criteria of urbanism as: a concentration of large numbers of people, craft specialization, a redistributive economic mode, monumental public architecture, developed social stratification, the use of writing, exact and predictive sciences, naturalistic art, foreign trade, and group membership based on residence rather than kinship. Yet, as we shall see, examples can be found of major settlements violating this criterion. Both Jericho and Catal Huyuk, as well as pre-Columbian settlements, predate writing. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 25  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 Hardoy uses 10 criteria to define a city: MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS 1. Large size and population for its time and place 2. Permanency 3. A minimum density for its time and place 4. Urban structure and layout as indicated by recognizably urban street and spaces 5. A place where people live and work 6. A minimum of specifically urban functions which may include a market, an administrative or political center, a military center, a religious center, or a center of intellectual activity with corresponding institutions 7. A hierarchical heterogeneity and differentiation of society 8. A center of urban economy for its time and place linking an agricultural hinterland and processing raw materials for a larger market 9. A center of services for neighboring areas 10. A center of diffusion, having an urban way of life for its time and place These kinds of definitions have led to major arguments as to whether or not Mayan complexes in pre- Columbian Meso-American were cities and whether or not precontact African settlements, such as those of Yoruba, were cities. Neither of these would fit the classic definitions, nor would major settlements in early China, Cambodia, Java, and Egypt; in pre-Chimu Peru; or in preclassical Greece. Moreover, in different cultures different elements have been used as the minimum necessary for a settlement to qualify as a city. For example, in the Hellenistic world, these include a theatre, gymnasium, and prytaneion; in medieval Islam, a Friday mosque, permanent market, and public bath; in Mesopotamia, Cambodia, or among the Mayans, a temple; in Europe fortifications, market a court enforcing its own laws, and autonomy; in Carolingian Europe, a keep, church, and market; in India, a temple, palace, and market; and in early China, an altar to the god of the soil, walls, and a temple to the ruler’s ancestors. In other words, what is regarded as a city varies in different cultures. In fact, the more one broadens one’s sample in space and time, the more difficult it becomes to apply the definitions derived from Western forms. However, working through this complexity eventually leads to an improved understanding of cities and urbanism so that a definition can be derived that can be applied to a larger range of settlements. Thus, a settlement can be defined as a city not in terms of particular morphological features, or even collections of features, but in terms of a particular function-that of organizing a region and creating effective space. This view now seems generally accepted. Any definition of a city, to have cross-cultural significance, must be in terms of a unit of settlement that in some way organizes a broader hinterland or region.’’ In this sense, ceremonial centers, such as in the Mayan area or elsewhere, qualify as cities, as do Yoruba settlements in Africa, and so on. In fact, the organization of the larger environments may occur before the development of those types of settlements westerners call cities. For example, the New Zealand Maori polity was hierarchical and organized yet had no dominant settlements. It is therefore likely that cities did not suddenly spring up. There was no urban revolution- they developed gradually as settlements gradually extended their organizing functions outwards. There is a progression from the house-settlement system to the settlement-settlement; and settlement-region systems. In other words, since human activities tend to occur in organized settings, these form a system with continuity and commonalities extending from dwelling to the region. Thus, in North America, in the Midwest (near the present city of St. Louis), Cahokia organized a very large region of about 400 square miles with smaller towns, villages and so on. It had an east-west axis of 3 miles and a north-south axis of 2 ¼ miles. There were 6 square miles of pyramids and mounds, habitations, graves, circles of wooden posts, and so forth. The central parts of the site were enclosed by walls. At its height, somewhere between the thirteenth and tenth centuries B.C.E. Cahokia had between 10,000 and 30,000 residents but organized a much larger population. 1.3 Organizing Functions It is useful to discuss the various views about the origin of the organizing functions. In general, they have been ecological (having to do with the setting; e.g., unusual fertility), demographic (having to do with populations; e.g., numbers) or differentiational or technological (having to do with the ability to do things.) None of these views seems adequate I itself, but they all play a role as aspects of increasing sociocultural ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 26  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE 2: ON THE complexity. This complexity related to social differentiation, hasCULTURAL ORIGIN OFinSETTLEMENTS been analyzed tracing the origins of urbanism. Included in the analysis have been considerations of trade and/or marketing irrigation, warfare, and religion. Of these it appears that religion may be the most important for the origin of cities is related to sacred symbols. In other words, the organizing function itself was symbolic, since religion and the sacred are central in all traditional cultures, which are the ones where cities and other settlements began. This approach does not of course, explain the need for such larger organizations, but this is not the central to the argument here. One view, often accepted, is that this need was a response to a common phenomenon-the increased complexity of settled life. But then, one could ask, why should people settle down? After all, the present view of hunter-gathered nomads is that they were the original affluent society and were better off than most peasants, in terms of total food intake, protein intake, and leisure time. Cities, then, in this view begin with a ceremonial center having symbolic meaning. Thus, the city can be seen as a particular type of cosmic symbol, powerful enough to organize larger areas. But the symbolism of the city, its meaning as an idea expressed in physical form, powerful enough to organize regions and states, is a subset of the larger concept that cities, or any built environments, are embodiments or expressions of cognitive schemata. This idea embodies not only the different definitions of the city, but also the discussion of the different views of cities and their apparent lack of order (which is related to incomprehensible schemata.) in fact, the purpose of our discussion was not to try and define cities or urbanism. Rather it was to show how by broadening the sample an apparently simple problem becomes more complex- but also much richer. Moreover, it makes it possible to include many different kinds of settlements in a discussion of this sort, avoiding the issue of whether they are cities or not. In fact, it is the settlement that we wish to discuss whether they are cities or not, and more particularly, how they are organized; and what can be learned by studying these organizational patterns. The question is really why people build environments, in order to understand built environments, one should understand how the human mind works. The human mind imposes an order on the world. The world is chaotic and disorderly; the human mind classifies, orders, and imposes cognitive schemata. Settlements, buildings, and landscapes are results of this activity. When the Neanderthals buried their dead with flowers, they were trying to impose an order reconciling life and death. The cave paintings of Europe mark complex ordering systems and define certain caves as sacred, humanized space. Symbolic notational systems-obviously efforts to impose a conceptual order on time and natural phenomena-existed remarkable early. Giving ideas physical expression is useful; encoding them makes them into mnemonic devices that reinforce behavior by telling people how to act and what is expected of them. One can, therefore, look at built environments, including settlements, as one way of ordering the world. In the case of traditional cultures this way of ordering, as we shall see, is primarily sacred. LESSON 2: DESIGN, ORGANIZATION, AND SCHEMATA Settlements, like all build environments, are designed in the sense that they embody human decisions, choices, and specific ways of doing things. Since there are now few places on this planet that human beings have not altered in some way, we could say that much of the earth is really designed. This tends to make us forget the original impact of a created environment contrasted with wilderness. Designed environments thus include places that have been cleared or planted, areas where rivers have been diverted, and fields that have been fenced in certain patterns. The placements of roads, buildings, and cities has been designed. Roadside stands and used-car lots are as much designed environments as office buildings or new towns. The work of a tribesman burning off and laying out a camp or village is as valid an example of design as the work of any modern architect or planner. In fact, many apparently commonplace activities have a greater impact on the earth than design in the traditional sense. The way cities, regions, and countries look depends, in the final analysis, on the design activity of many individuals and groups at different times. What all these activities have in common is that each represents a choice out of all possible alternatives. The choice made tends to be lawful according to the culture of the people concerned. One way of looking at cultures is in terms of the most common choices made. It is the lawfulness of choices that makes places recognizably different from one another. It also decides how people dress, what they eat, and how they behave. It affects the way they interact and the way they structure space and time. These consistent choices result in a certain style whether of built environments or life. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 27  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE Certain values, norms, criteria, and assumptions are2:used ON THE in CULTURAL ORIGIN OF making choices. SETTLEMENTS These are often embodied in ideal schemata. Built environments reflect and encode these schemata and order. The order expressed through the choice process, or the image that is to be encoded and given form, is a set of cognitive schemata and ideals. This means there is some vision of an ideal environment that built environments, however imperfectly, express. Such environments are conceptualized as settings for the kind of people a particular culture sees as normative and for the kind of life style that is regarded as typical of the group, distinguishing it from other groups. What we call culture can be seen in three mayor ways, the first two of which are included in above; (1) as a way of life that typifies the group; (2) as a system of symbols, meanings, and cognitive schemata; and (3) as a set of adaptive strategies for survival linked to ecology and resources. Thus, culture is about a group of people who have a set of values and beliefs and a worldview that embody an ideal. Their rules lead to systematic and consistent choices. Though settlements are determined by individual decisions and acts of numerous people, they become a recognizable whole of which one can say (it is familiar with the code and ordering system), this is Chinese or French city, a Peruvian or Indian landscape. Through such choices, habits, manners, roles, and behavior are formed as well as environments. They all should be mutually illuminating and should show regularities caused by the common underlying schemata. These schemata represent one product of what seems a basic process of the human mind: the attempt to give the world meaning, to humanize it by imposing an order on it - a cognitive order often achieved through classifying and naming. One could say that the order is thought before it is built, and consequently it is possible to show how people like the Australian aborigines, who build little impose an order through thinking it - i.e., conceptually, and through rituals. In this way aborigines, through ritual movement to various sacred sites, delimit, define, and order their territory. In what way, then, does their type of ordering differ from that proposed as typical of cities? First in the size of the group and the complexity of the system, second in the absence of a permanent physical expression of the ordering principle as a mnemonic which becomes necessary as population numbers and social complexity go up; and third, in that there is no single center dominating the system. For example, while both aborigines and Maya use ritual movement in their settlement pattern, Mayan movements are related to permanent ceremonials centers. In the case of the aborigines their rituals sites and even camps show organization, but the movement system is the most significant aspect, because there is no single center. In the case of the maya, we find a major and significant organization that also uses movement, but movement related to a powerful ceremonial center that can organize large regions and populations. Thus, settlements not only impose an order on the larger domain but are themselves organized. There is an ordering system both in the settlement, ceremonials center, or whatever, and at the larger scale; there are systems within systems. While all settlements (and all buildings-in fact, all environments) are ordered and organized, cities are distinguished by their organizing of larger and more complex areas. Among settlements in traditional cultures, one can sometimes find differing orders according to the degree of sacredness. Thus, among the Gururumba in the highlands of New Guinea, one finds both living villages and ceremonial villages. The former consists of 25 to 30 circular houses arranged linearly, along a path, with the men’s houses on the other side of the path. Secred villages are arranged around an open space; one side consisting of a long shedlike, noncompartmentalized structure with many hearths and also a fenced enclosure which has religious significance. This ceremonial village is thus more complex than the living village, and it organizes the larger domain through rituals. 2.1 Organization of the Environment Cities and other settlements are specific examples of built environments. One view of the organization of the built environment is that it is the organization of four things: 1 Space 2 Meaning 3 Communication 4 Time Planners and designers have always dealt with space organization. Space can be thought of in many different ways. This can be illustrated briefly by recalling that designers and the public have repeatedly attached different meanings to the concept of space, and that the build space of traditional cultures is scared space rather than the geometric space of technological cultures. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 28  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 The environment can be seen as a series ofMODULE 2: ON THE relationships CULTURAL among ORIGINand elements OF SETTLEMENTS people (between things and other things, things and people, people and other people). These relationships are orderly i.e., they have patterns and structure. The environment is not a random assemblage of things. These types of relationships are primarily spatial. But not exclusively, objects and people are related through various degrees of spatial separation. The above-mentioned city of courtyards is fundamentally different from a city where houses face and are related to, streets. Such kinds of organization can also be seen as physical expressions of domains. In fact, design and planning, from landscapes of regions to the furniture arrangements of rooms, can be seen as the organization of space for different purposes, according the various rules that reflect the culture of the groups or individuals involved. These designs and plans embody ideal images and represent the congruence (or lack of it) between physical space and social space. Thus, we recall the example of status and its relation to the center or periphery. This relationship is also an example of the organization of meaning, and the two can be separated conceptually. The same urban form can have three different meanings in this case: location close to center may indicate either high or low status, or it may have no special significance. 17 While space organization itself does express meaning and has communicative and symbolic properties, meaning is often expressed through signs, materials, colors, forms, landscaping, and the like. Meaning may coincide with space organization - and usually did in most traditional settlements, so when we discuss them we will be able to concentrate on space organization. It may, however, also represent a separate symbolic system through which different settings become indicators of social position; a way of establishing social identity, and a way of indicating expected behavior. One example is the variable in planting, mailboxes, decoration and levels of maintenance in Westchester. Other examples are the analyses of Las Vegas and Boston, which show that in modern U.S. cities neon lights, signs, pictorial and verbal messages, and the like may represent a meaning system independent of spatial organization. But spatial organization still communicates meanings (although to a lesser extent than in a traditional settlements), and moreover, meanings are clearest and strongest when there is high redundancy, when spatial organization, activities, and other meaning systems are congruent and therefore reinforce each other. Such congruence is important because the meanings conveyed by the environment and by settings within it, can help social communications, among people (whereas meaning is communication for environment to people). Thus environments, spatially and through meanings, influence and reflect the organization of communication. Who communicates with whom, under what conditions, how, when, where, and in which context, are important ways in which the built environment and social organization are linked and related. Environments reflect and are ways of controlling interaction: its nature, intensity, rate, and direction. This control occurs through spatial organization of meaning when people notice and understand cues in the environment that signal to them how to behave appropriate, i.e., when the context is established. Of course, they must also be prepared to act accordingly. If the cues are not noticed or not understood, appropriate behavior is impossible, and the examples already given of misunderstood urban orders illustrate this. Finally, the environment is also temporal and can be seen as the organization of time i.e., as reflecting and influencing behavior in time. This idea may be understood in two ways. The first concern large-scale, cognitive structuring of time it refers to concepts such as linear flow versus cyclic time; future orientation versus past orientation; and value of time, and hence, how finely it is subdivided into units. The latter concept relates to the second way in which the organization of time can be considered- the tempos and rhythms of human activities. Tempo refers to the number of events per units of time, and rhythm to the distribution of activities in time. It is possible to distinguish among groups in modern cities on the basis of their tempos and rhythms. For example, think of the work schedules of a university professor and factory worker. The former has very irregular and flexible time use. He or she comes and goes at different times of day, works at home, attends conferences, spends long periods away during the summer or on sabbatical, and works evenings and weekends. The factory worker has a highly routinized and regular schedule, with specific starting and ending times, and work and leisure rhythms quite different from those of the professor. Their temporal signatures are different. Tempos and rhythms may be congruent or incongruent with each other. People may be separated in times as well as, or instead of, in space, so that groups with different rhythms that occupy the same space may never meet. Clearly, spatial and temporal aspects interact and influence one another, and one should probably speak of space- time. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 29  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 Once again, many of our assumptions about MODULE these 2:variables ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN are based on a OF SETTLEMENTS very limited sample. If we look at traditional settlements, we find much greater uniformity of temporal organizations, based on natural cycles, whether of day and night or seasons, or on the ritual religious calendar accepted by most people. In terms of meanings, there was much greater sharing of the symbols and cues that communicated them. Most people agreed about them, and the environment and meaning congruence was strong and clear. Space organization was clearly related to meaning. Communication was much more predictable, being fixed and prescribed, and related to membership in various groups. Such membership was easily read from clothing, hair, styles, language, and place of residence. Today it is far more difficult to place people in social space. 19 hence, communication becomes more difficult and paradoxically, certain aspects of the environment more critical. In the case of traditional settlements, it is possible, however, to concentrate on special organization as reflecting and influencing all the other types of organization to a much greater extent than is true currently in modern cities. This is fortunate since much of our evidence regarding early settlement is archeological; i.e., it is largely in terms of space organization as revealing ordering systems. 2.2 Comparative Ordering Systems To recapitulate: built environments represent physical expressions of ordering systems. The ordering systems are the result of a universal property of human mind, the need to impose order on the world and make it meaningful; the individual forms of ordering are culturally specific. All built environments, and hence all settlements, show this ordering, but some settlements typically order extensive domains, and they can be defined as cities. The organization of the environment is more than spatial, but, when dealing with traditional settlements, spatial organization is the most useful concept (and often the only one in evidence). Finally, in traditional settlements, since religion and ritual are central, the organization is often based on the sacred, and it has been suggested that cities began as ceremonial centers. There is a major element of the sacred in all traditional settlements. If settlements are thought of humanized environments, then for most traditional people they must be, by definition, sacred or sanctified environments. Why should this be? Different reasons can be given, but two seem most likely. First, the world view of traditional societies is religious, so that inevitably environments that encode world views and ideals must be encode the sacred, since it represents the most significant meaning. A second, more pragmatic, view is that the sacred and the accompanying ritual can be most effective in getting people to do things, in legitimizing things. In other words, cities as organizing elements work most efficiently when seen as sacred and hence, of high legitimacy. Thus, this interpretation of cities makes sense also in a larger anthropological perspective. Ritual is a powerful way of both legitimizing and preserving culture. Physical elements help in this process by reminding people of ritual, providing settings for it, being supportive of ritual, and expressing both ritual and its underlying schemata and cosmologies in permanent, and often impressive, form. It is interesting to note how many cities have encoded the center of the world, navel of the world, world axis, etc. and have also used this for the name of kings, e.g., in ancient Iran the royal title was “axis of the world.” Any traditional culture will show a sacred order extending from the dwelling to the settlement and to the whole landscape. Thus, understanding traditional settlements requires that they be considered as physical expressions of sacred space. The Roman city was an earthly representation of a heavenly image incorporating the world axis and the division of the world into four based on Rome. The city was sacred and set out in a definite way, with appropriate and rather complex rituals. A most important act was a plowing of the outline, i.e., a purifying enclosure of land, its division into four parts and a bringing of these divisions together again by formula and gesture. The town was born when the site was purified and made sacred. This important act was purified the boundaries sharply. The most important part of the whole ceremony was the initial furrow made by the founder, using a bronze plow, a white ox, and a cow, starting at the southwest corner of the site, and moving in procession in a counterclockwise direction. The walls were sacred and reflected in the details of the plowing. In effect, the settlement was made habitable and existed as a fully constituted entity at the end of the rituals. Once the sacred furrow Figure 1, The idea of the center of the world in urban form (based on Muller, 1961; Rykwert, 1976). ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 30  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 defining the city was plowed, the essential city wasMODULE there-it 2: ON THE CULTURAL remained ORIGIN only to build it.OF SETTLEMENTS The sacred space had been created in the image of the sacred model, and giving it physical form was a less important act. This same belief applied to Etruscan cities, which were also primarily religious. founding - was a recapitulation of a divine instituting of a center of the world. The ancient Chinese city has been described as a “Cosmomagical symbol”. The layout, gates, walls, street pattern, location of center and its nature all were an aspect of astrobiology. In this view, only the sacred is real, and certainly only the sacred is safe. Settlements (and buildings) imitate celestial archetypes. Before a place can be inhabited it must be made sacred, and this is done through allowing communication among heaven, earth and the underworld. Cities are then both devices for maximizing this communication and machines for achieving it. Typical of such models of the universe are axiality cardinal orientation, centrality, and a wall that is often more important as a sacred symbol than a defense mechanism. Obviously, one cannot understand settlements of this type in terms of geometric space but see them as instances of sacred space; i.e., one must first understand the underlying paradigm. In China, there were certain differences between the north and south. In the north the city walls were defined first and people moved in over time. The city and its rectangular form represented a self-sustaining cosmic symbol. In the south commercial and residential areas were established first, and the outer walls built later. They lacked the tradition of cosmic significance. Thus, while the cities looked similar, their meaning were different. In both cases, however, the wall was very important. The same word stood for wall and city, and a proper city could not exist without a wall. Within the city, position was related to social organization, so different neighborhoods housed different groups. At different periods, degree of mobility and communication allowed varied greatly. In Han cities, the space was subdivided by walls with gates which were closed at night and illegal movement was severely punished. During other dynasties other schemata obtained, and there was less rigid control and more liveliness and mobility. In the layout of northern cities (which are the earlier), we find geomantic precautions, axiality and cardinal orientation, the symbolism of the center, and a coincidence of microcosmos and macrocosmos. The microcosmos of the city represented an ordered and consecrated world separated by a wall from the disorderly and profane world beyond. As in Rome the act of founding was most important and consisted of complex rituals. The first and essential act was the definition. The walls were the first thing built, and thus the most sacred part of towns was built before there was anything to defend. After the walls, the ancestral temple and the altar of the earth were erected, all in accordance with prescribed rituals. A Chinese royal city had to have walls, proper orientation, a square shape, and 12 gates representing the 12 months. The four quadrants of the heavenly vault were reflected in the four directions. Each side of the square was related to the four seasons and to position of the sun in very complex ways. The two sacred places, the royal ancestral temple and the altar of the earth, were on either side of the main street, and the royal palace, residence, and audience hall were enclosed at the center. The royal complex dominated the city and thus the universe. The palace also separated the center of profane activity (the market, on the north of the inner enclosure) from the centers of religious activity-the Figure 2 ancestral temple and the altar of the earth. The ruler faced south in the audience hall, with his back literally to the market. The main street ran from the south gate of the city to the south gate of the palace and was an expression of the celestial meridian and polar star. The symbolism could be further elaborated, but the main point is that the city was to reflect cosmological beliefs, and the physical expression was to get as close as possible to the sacred beliefs. The city, was founded as a religious act, ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 31  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 enclosed within its walls a model of cosmic order MODULE and 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS Figure 3 civilization, i.e., predictable and ordered life. The Chinese city was in effect, a machine for capturing cosmic forces and distributing them to the country Yoruba cities (figure 3) in Africa can only be properly understood as reflecting sacred schemata. The natural and supernatural worlds are isomorphic, the former reflecting the later. Here again the center and the palace located there, the crossing of roads and the walls are only meaningful to the extent that they adequately reflect the cosmic order pervading all of traditional Yoruba life and culture. The persistence of these various forms can be quite striking. Thus, the Aztec pattern used at Tenochtitlan (see figure 4 diagram) at the very large scale of an imperial capital (population 70;000 to 300,000 on 1,875 acres), is found in the village of Tlayacapan today. Tenochtitlan, on an island in the middle of a lake and linked to the shore by cause-ways, was centered on the sacred temple compound, emperor’s palace, and market, surrounded by residences of nobles. The two principal north-south and east-west axes intersecting at that center organized units (at least 69 of them) called calpulli. These were residential clusters of related groups; they were the basic units of Aztec society, comprising a social unit, kin unit, and territorial property unit. Each unit had its own chapels. This system also existed at the level of the smaller towns, villages, and the state. The social organization also related to these different scales-the emperors at the center, with the nobles around him, military chiefs in the quadrants and elected chiefs in the calpulli. Conception of time and space conformed to this Figure 4 cultural model of the clan-like groups of the calpulli. The image of society was that of a truncated, quadrilateral pyramid of seven levels. It is still visible in Tlayacapan, where there are chapels that reflect the original elaborate neighborhood and chapel complex traceable to the calpulli. This village, Tenochitlan, and the Aztec state were based on the same model at different scales. The system connected space, time, meaning, and communication. At its base were Aztec religious beliefs and rituals based on 26 clans arranged in a system of 7 facing 7 and 6 facing 6. The god Omete Clihtli gave birth to four sons who became the gods of the four world quarters. Time coordinates with this spatial dimension in a complex pattern. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 32  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS Schemata are basic to all settlements, and people design, react to, and experience environments primarily in terms of meanings and associational qualities rather than perceptual qualities. What changes are the meanings and the schemata in which they are encoded. One can therefore use this notion to study cultural change in settlements or to Compare indigenous and colonial components of cities in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere and show the very different schemata they express even though they are on the same site and in the same climate. One can look at French, English, Dutch, German, Portuguese, and Spanish colonial cities and see how the various cultural schemata produce very different towns. In the case of traditional, especially early, settlement, the schemata are primarily (although not exclusively) sacred. Only sacred places are meaningful, habitable, and humanized, and only they are places. When outside, one is in a profane, dangerous, nonhuman domain realm. The specific ordering systems vary, but the approach does not. This distinction between sacred and profane and, hence, humanized and dangerous, or inside and outside, is a cognitive dichotomy that is crucial to an understanding of both settlements and buildings in traditional cultures. This system of binary oppositions is regarded as very basic by many scholars (for example, Levi-Strauss and other Structuralist, and other structuralist, and cognitive anthropologists). In reference to environments, one can conceptualize many such binary distinctions: Sacred - profane Center - periphery Inside - outside Town - winderness Front - back Public - private Men - women Adults - children Us - them Underlying a number of them, it has been suggested is a very basic distinction between culture and nature. Houses and villages belong to culture, to people, whereas the forest belongs to nature. It is interesting to note that cultivated fields represent an intermediate term, and extensions of the cultural domain of nature are accompanied by ritual. A similar middle term is found in the case of the Fang village (figure 5) in Africa, where the settlement is the domain of culture and is itself subdivided into men’s and women’s domains, fields are the middle term, and the bush is nature - the profane and dangerous realm. This distinction with a mediating term is found among the Zapotec Indians of Mexico, and probably in many other cases, but it is always related to philosophy and cosmology, so that settlements express belief systems of cultures (see diagram in figure 6) Figure 5 Figure 6 A useful way, therefore, to study settlements and other environments is in terms of the schemata imposed on the world and given expression, the domains define, the particular models used and the way they are given expression, and the ordering system that distinguish and differentiate built environments. For example, dense, nucleated settlements relate the various domains very differently from diffuse settlements, where ritualized movement plays a major role in linking and integrating the system. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 33  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS LESSION 3: EXAMPLES OF SETTLEMENTS We do not accept the view that cognitive ordering schemata show a developmental sequence, that they get more sophisticated through time. We can say that the technological and economical aspects of modern industrial states are at the most complex stage of development of any culture. Yet in terms of the ideology of belief systems, modern industrial societies are at a rather simplistic level compared to the Australian aborigines, the Temne of Africa, and many other peoples. The various schemata used in ordering settlements thus were not simpler in the past, but merely different; they emphasized other values related to the particular ideology. Understanding landscapes, settlements or buildings involves understanding the underlying schemata in which the important elements are encoded It is certainly true that through time settlements show an increase in scale and extent of organization. (Recall that settlements can be defined as cities when they begin to organize relatively large areas.) However, the sophistication and conceptual complexity do not really show development. The following examples illustrate the different organizations of early settlements and the belief that from the earliest settlements known organizing schemata have existed. In fact, one cannot conceive of a settlement, or any built environment, without an underlying cognitive schema. Some template must exist so that a form can emerge. Such forms always represent some level of congruence between physical space organization and social space organization. All settlements, like all built environments, essentially involve the making of places. Each place is a differentiated portion of the earth’s surface of previously undifferentiated space, a portion that both is distinguishable from other such portions and has a specific meaning. Recall that places can be defined purely cognitively and that a nomadic camp is a place, or an ethnic domain. What makes a place is always some schema, some ordering principle, which varies in different cultures. In most traditional cultures these schemata are related to the sacred so that a place is differentiated from the profane undifferentiated space around it. Other types of schemata also exist. However, in all cases the purpose of places is to create a space that is habitable and usable in terms acceptable to the culture. At what point in history do we begin our study? One of the discoveries common to recent research on all topics is that everything had its beginnings earlier than was once thought. Sizable settlements go back quite a long time. Even if we disregard nomadic camps, which do not show organization and the presence of underlying schemata, whether social or ritual, the antiquity of settlements is quite remarkable. It is important to remember that settlement size and density are relative; i.e., they must be seen in terms of overall population in an area and its density. Antiquity also is relative, not absolute. Aborigines lived in Australia for over 30,000 years without developing permanent settlements. In the Middle East, large settlements go back at least 10,000 years, whereas it was believed until recently in the Americas that they only go back about 2,000 years. But even this date is being pushed back. Recent excavations Figure 5 in Ecuador suggest the presence of formally planned ceremonial centers, such as the one at Real Alto, by 3,000 B.C.E., and it is unlikely that Real Alto is the earliest. Thus, very early we find lavishly constricted and carefully maintained public spaces for rituals. In Ecuador, villages tended to be circular, and this form was so important that as long as there was any vitality to the culture it was maintained-as late as 1924, in fact. The large ceremonial center, however, was strongly rectangular. Thus, in terms of the overall developmental sequence, relatively large and complex settlements occur as early in the Americas as in the Old World. The following examples are therefore not arranged chronologically, in order to avoid the idea of development. Neither are they ordered geographically. (note:other examples were remove) ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 34  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS Figure 6 Dolni Vesconice, Czechoslovakia, 25,00 years ago. This settlement had a population of 80 to 125; comparable settlements in the area had populations up to 250. This was the winter settlement of people who were nomadic in the summer. Thus, there were probably migratory routes and territories arranged to reduce aggression; i.e., they were organized. Within the living compound there was a pit burial of a female with a crooked face, similar to statuettes. Burial within the compound suggests elements of ritual and the sacred (based on Klim, 1962, 1963). Figure 7 Lepenski Vir, Yugoslavia, 6,500 to 5,600 B.C.E. the whole settlement, the marketplace, and the houses all have the same trapezoidal form, as if it “were the formula and essence of the universe.” The organizing form is clearly essential and was retained over a period of 900 years, through six successive settlements. The settlement is conceived as the interior of a gigantic house related to the river; it is oriented and ordered by a system that has mathematical quality. It shows evidence of careful choice (based on Srejovic, 1974). ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 35  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS LESSON 4: CONCLUSIONS What we have seen is that the human mind has a need to order the universe, and one manifestation of this is the ordering of the environment. All cultures have environmental ordering system; i.e., they communicate symbolically through their environmental orders. All environments have meaning and communicate the schemata, priorities, preferences and culture of the creators. Thus, it is possible to compare all settlements, traditional and modern, indigenous and colonial. In addition, schemata change over time and vary among cultures. Though they increase in scale, they do not necessarily follow a developmental sequence. The schemata and ordering systems of Australian aborigines are as sophisticated, in their own way, as those of modern peoples; in some ways they are more sophisticated. We also saw that the ordering of the environment began earlier than was once thought and its beginning is constantly being pushed back even further in time. In traditional cultures, those with which we are primarily concerned in considering the cultural origins of settlements, the ordering was sacred. Its basic purpose was to order the earthly chaos by replicating an ideal order-the heavenly order and harmony. Even though we have argued that ordering systems show no development, there still remains the question: what marks the development of those forms of settlements that can be called urban? One possible answer has been given: when they begin to order larger territorial units in certain ways. Another answer is also possible. If we consider traditional cultures, there seem to be two major ordering systems. These are not mutually exclusive; in fact, they are often related. First is a geometric order related to the sacred and to cosmology, and second is an order related to social relationships, as in! Kung bushman, M’Buti pygmy, or Australian Aboriginal camps. In these camps, ritual grounds or centers are often separate, as is the cognitive ordering of the larger environment. However, there is still some correlation with the larger order through the intimate relationship between the social order and the sacred, so that even spatial relationships have more than social meaning. Generally, such camps lack the strong cosmic significance of other settlements. The transition from the camps to settlements of cosmic significance is important and probably marks the beginning of those types of settlements that in some way can be seen as becoming urban. In authentic traditional urban settlements, we can see both these orders closely coexisting, so that one additional, very important purpose of the sacred order is to establish, stress, and reinforce the social order. The cognitive elements in settlements both reflect and reinforce the social order. In some way the development of modern urban settlement can be seen as a process whereby sacred ordering systems are, once again, replaced by social ones, so one can relate certain spatial and social orders in different cultures and show how they differ. For example, we can compare the very different character of Italian, English, French, U.S., and Japanese urban orders. More recently, one can see the replacement of both by technological orders related to lifestyle and preferences, but out of control and at odds with human needs. We have already briefly addressed the question of the value of looking at the broadest range of environments in order to generalize validly and to trace patterns. There is another reason for doing so. There is still today a bewildering variety of cultures, subcultures, lifestyles, and cognitive styles. In order to design valid settings for them it is necessary to know how environments relate to these specifics. If underlying the differences there were regularities and constancies, we could reduce the degree and zone of variable elements and generalize the constants for Homosapiens. This would make it much easier to analyze and understand, as well as to design, valid environments that are culture-supportive. There is an interesting question with which to end our discussion of settlements: is there any relationship between constancy, variability, and scale? It could be suggested that whereas at the urban, metropolitan, and megalopolitan scales new patterns apply, at smaller scales there may still be lessons to be learned from the past. Perhaps we must go back to the dawn of settlements, to that remote past when people first imposed a visible physical order on the land to reflect their conceptual order, to fix that order, and to remind people of how they should act in settings. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 36  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 GROUP WORK MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS ACTIVITY 2: APPLYING WHAT YOU LEARNED Direction: For activity 2, Write your answer/drawing requirements on the assigned format. For your drawing, you can use either computer generated drawing, hand drawing or a combination of the two. PLATE 2 Research Requirement 1. Assigned Group work Group of 3 students will do a case study about ancient settlements in Zamboanga City. Provide necessary information, tables, maps, plans, pictures as supporting data. This Plate exercise is an application of what had discussed in this module. 2. Title of the Project: Cultural Origins of Settlements in Zamboanga City 3. Problem Description: History to colonization of the city gave great influences on city development and urbanization. To understand more about the urban planning of Zamboanga City, one should examine the cultural origins of urban settlements on how culture and people as bases for urban settlement pattern even some are still existing today. This case study exercise is to examine one ethnic group, the original dweller of Zamboanga. Explain and describe their belief, ritual, way of life and physical expression on how they built their settlement and architecture. The following items below are required: 1. DESCRIPTION: All answers should be in your own words 2. PHYSICAL PLAN/s: if no picture or illustration is available, you are allowed to draw, in freehand, to depict the way the reference describe the character of the settlement. 4. IMPORTANT: Below are references/sources for your reading guide: For the sources 1 to 6, please refer to the google drive shared folder or in the google classroom assigned folder that I will make. Please wait for any announcement about this. 1. CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art, Vol.3, Philippine Architecture * The Evolution of communities 2. CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art, Vol.3, Peoples of the Philippines * Subanon 3. CCP Encyclopedia of Philippine Art, Vol.3, Peoples of the Philippines * Samal 4. Zamboanga Hermosa, Memories of the Old town by Antonio Orendain II * The Moro Tapestry 5. Roots of Zamboanga Hermosa, by tony Orendain 6. Master Development Plan 1996 -2012 by UP Planades 5. Mode of Submission *Submit your requirement in A3 size paper 6. Mode of checking *checking of plates will be based on the rubric criteria. 7. Date of submission: September 17, 2024 8. Drawing Requirements and Format *All JPEG files or drawings in A3 size paper with 1 cm margin all around and 3 cm thick title block * Inside the title block: A B C D E with 5 blocks covers half of paper length A -rating; B- name/s, college, school; C-plate no, title, subject name, teacher name; D- date given, date due, date submitted; E-page no. F with 2 blocks occupies half of paper length F criteria for assessments. Different rubric format will be used in different set of design/plate requirement. ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 37  ARC 141 PLANNING 2 URBAN DESIGN MODULE 2 ON THE CULTURAL ORIGINS OF SETTLEMENTS WMSU-ISMP-GU-001.00 AND COMMUNITY ARCHITECTURE EFFECTIVE DATE: 7-DEC-2016 MODULE 2: ON THE CULTURAL ORIGIN OF SETTLEMENTS 9. You will be graded based on the following rubric criteria Criteria 100 75 50 25 points 1. Explanation Gave complete Gave good solid clear Explanation is Missed key points (30%) explanation with explanation unclear details 2.Demonstrated Showed complete Showed substantial Showed little Showed lack of knowledge understanding of the understanding of the understanding of understanding of (30%) research work research work the research work the research work 3. Graphics/ Showed complete & Showed substantial, Showed some & No Maps (40%) correct map correct pictures/map unclear graphics/pictures information information maps/pictures ARC 141 PLANNING 2 IMs BY M TATEL CARCH WMSU SY 2024-25 38 

Show More Show Less