At a Society of Architectural Historians annual meeting several years ago, two scholars sat in the hotel bar discussing a paper that had been delivered in a session that afternoon.1  After an intelligent critique of the paper, the conversation concluded when one said to the other, “That's not architectural history!” Their conversation and that statement stuck with me, not because it was so resoundingly intended as a condemnation-via-dismissal of a scholar's work, but because it called to mind the many conversations I have had with colleagues over the years who have, at times, questioned the relationship of my own scholarly efforts, and those of other scholars whose work I admire, to the field of architectural history. Indeed, what is and is not architectural history is a question I've considered throughout my career since I have consistently worked across at least two disciplinary boundaries, and since both my career and...

You do not currently have access to this content.