Recent theoretical debates on the sources of architectural knowledge tend to dissect architecture into a set of atomized disciplines, or else define it as a multidisciplinary matter. Such are for instance the most recent debates held by the EAAE on the issue of architectural theory between 2006 and 2010. However, as Pedro Vieira de Almeida (2005) and other theoreticians – i.e. Alexander Tzonis, Liane Lefaivre – have long claimed, architectural theory – here considered a part of architectology – has its own knowledge sources within architecture itself. Despite its lacking a clearly defined corpus which may let us establish clear boundaries, architectural theory does not belong to science, history, social studies, philosophy or aesthetics. All these fields have their own requirements and means to articulate a universal discourse of their own, not always or often coincidental with that of architecture. Thus it seems easier to define what architectural knowledge is not than to establish what it is in fact. Architectural knowledge does not own ‘the’ truth, but rather it is constructive in the terms described by Popper (1934), Kuhn (1962) or Bourdieu (1967). Architectology draws from the example of cousin disciplines like music – where it is but a natural, almost inherent consequence – or that of the ‘French school’ – where architectural theory is a discipline in its own right, established as such since 1968 – this article aims to claim the right of architecture to own a global process of its own through which to understand architectural knowledge as a whole. It is constituted as a system of subbodies of knowledge central to the major field of architecture. All of these are considered as timely contributors of knowledge to this field, and therefore having played a central role throughout times, to the present moment. Architectology comes to adopt all of the methods needed in architectural research and knowledge construction
