• 1 Walter Peters, Baukunst in Südwestafrika, 1884-1914: die Rezeption deutscher Architektur in der Ze (...)
• 2 Itohan Osayimwese, Colonialism and Modern Architecture in Germany, Pittsburgh, PA: University of P (...)

1With Kontaktarchitektur, based on research in Namibia before 2008 and drafted as a dissertation in 2018, Ariane Komeda proposes “contact architecture” as an alternative view of German colonial architecture in Namibia. Contributing to the limited body of research on German colonial construction activity, the author builds upon―and extends―the first overview of German colonial building in Namibia, compiled by Walter Peters in 1981.1 Komeda’s discussion of colonial architecture within the specific context of Namibia also complements Itohan Osayimwese’s more recent work on the relations between German colonialism, society, and architecture, by presenting new material and taking a social focus.2 Komeda links the translation of German architecture in Namibia to a limited number of German colonial intermediaries and delves deeper into the construction history of three buildings. Two of them are in Windhoek: the seat of the colonial government, known as the Tintenpalast; and the Christuskirche, a Protestant church. The third is the rural domicile of a settler colonizer couple. Each of these cases sheds light on different colonial relationships, allowing Komeda to make links to German colonial history and to demonstrate the possibility of exploring colonial practices through specific building projects (p. 53).

• 3 Komeda understands “translations” broadly, as deviations from the metropolitan normal. For separat (...)
• 4 For an explicit early example of the use of Bhabha’s notion of “hybridity” in architectural histor (...)

2At the same time, Komeda’s main ambition in contributing to the field of architectural history lies in her concept of Kontaktarchitektur as a tool for the systematic analysis of colonial architecture in general, beyond this particular German case. Kontaktarchitektur defines colonial building activity “between norm and translation”3 as expression and substance of transcultural overlaps and reciprocal influences (p. 51). Komeda’s concept of Kontaktarchitektur draws on a number of by now classic notions of postcolonial theory: Homi Bhabha’s “third space” and “translation,” Ella Shohat’s “situated practice,” and the “contact zones” as coined by Mary Louise Pratt. As a result, the buildings discussed in the book are presented as hybrid structures.4 This conceptual framework is enlightening. It has the merit viewing construction sites in a new way, as contact zones disputed by different actors. By relying on Bhabha’s notion of “third space,” Komeda’s analysis of buildings emphasizes the potential embedded in them―unequally structured as it may be―to negotiate the colonial situation. This view contrasts with the more conventional approach that would limit discussion to their hybrid architectural appearances.

• 5 Here, Komeda follows views on German imitated, improvised, and flexible colonialism. Russell A. Be (...)

3Using such a perspective, Komeda seeks to depart from the view that colonizers transformed colonial architecture and urban planning into a display of their hegemony, in a strictly dichotomous setting (p. 13). Instead, through the concept of “contact architecture,” she aims to grasp the subliminal dynamics within the colonial situation. German colonialism, she argues, lends itself especially well to such a perspective, as it was marked by improvisation and flexibility.5 According to Komeda, interaction between Germans and Namibians brought new expressions to German colonial building design and techniques. The resulting architecture was embedded in the regional environment and its flows of material, and bound to Namibian knowledge and labor. All in all, Komeda presents “contact architecture” as a framework to explore ideational, social, and material parameters within actions of architecture (Architekturhandeln).

• 6 In this respect, Komeda’s book is in tune with Osayimwese’s discussion, see Itohan Osayimwese , Co (...)

4Komeda’s conceptualization of “contact architecture” is bolstered by a discussion of building activities in metropolitan Germany as well, situated within a broad historical context. She highlights contemporary influences in German culture, pointing out that German colonial construction confronted such challenges as finding proper building techniques and styles. Suitability was linked to representation. Throughout her analysis, German colonial architecture appears to be closely tied to the broader intellectual currents of its time in Germany.6

• 7 For example, s.v. “Bauwesen,” in Heinrich Schnee (ed.), Deutsches Kolonial-Lexikon. URL: http://ww (...)

5Komeda shows how practical expertise and awareness of local conditions were valued by representatives of German colonial building both in the colonies and the metropole, by tracing such issues in various colonial publications and in the positions of German intermediaries, such as Heinrich Schnee.7 Furthermore, Komeda convincingly presents the networks and conditions for the use of specific materials and techniques. For example, Namibia’s scarcity of lumber for building was in conflict with its role as Germany’s most important settler colony. Air-dried bricks were among the few locally produced building materials. However, small companies based in the colonies also produced building blocks from sandstone or marble (p. 206), as well as artificial stone, although it often proved deficient. Komeda’s research also suggests that prolific construction companies like Sander & Kock could be further investigated. The fact that vocational training of local workers was banned only in Namibia and not in other German colonies reflects how construction knowledge was treated as an exclusive domain of the colonizer in the settler colony.

• 8 All three cases are discussed in Peters’ work; Itohan Osayimwese, Colonialism and Modern Architect (...)

7The first case is the government seat in Windhoek, an edifice of 1913, which has been subject of previous scholarly work.8 Komeda recapitulates the design process resulting in a building that stylistically projected contact in its translated form of power representation. She particularly focuses on the prominent colonnade and veranda as well as the overall clarified design of the so-called Tintenpalast, or “ink palace.” To Komeda, the building stands for adopting the principle of locale (Lokusprinzip), with the civil servant and architect Gottfried Redecker, born in the colony, acting as the decisive intermediary between metropolitan and local knowledges.

• 9 Between 1904 and 1907, the German colonial state waged a genocidal extermination war against the H (...)
• 10 Here, Komeda makes use of archival sources to move beyond Peters’ research and also makes a contri (...)

8The second case study discussed is the Protestant Christuskirche in Windhoek. It constituted an important landmark for the colonial settlers as well as for the Prussian state church. Again, we encounter Gottfried Redecker as the designer of the project. Apart from his gable designs which resemble Dutch building styles in the Cape Colony, Komeda discerns little architectural translations and adaptions in the project. Central in her discussion is the interrupted construction history of the church, due to financial and supply problems and the use of Nama and Herero forced labor following the genocidal war.9 Engaging with the question of the extent to which labor relations turned the construction site into a contact zone, she proposes this case as an exemplification of the principle of contact (Kontaktprinzip).10

• 11 For a number of sources taken from Margarethe von Eckenbrecher’s autobiography, see Walter Peters, (...)

9The third case study deals with the rural domicile of the colonizer couple Eckenbrecher and opens the perspective to a more private contact zone. The cubical building with its dominant porticus and veranda speaks of the couple’s negotiation of their architectural ideals and local requirements. Furthermore, Komeda describes the informal layers and contacts occurring in what was a negotiated and improvised construction process: While the proprietor laid the corners of his home himself to guarantee linearity, workers of the local Damara ethnic group were involved by producing the clay tiles or laying the floor in locally common ways. To fend off termites, the window frames were executed in brick and not wood.11 (p. 303-315).

• 12 Christoph Kamissek and Jonas Kreienbaum, “An Imperial Cloud? Conceptualising Interimperial Connect (...)

15One way of expanding Komeda’s research could be to open up the perspective beyond the strict connectivity between German colonizers and the metropole. While Komeda mentions on various occasions the influence of international architectural currents, her discussion would have benefitted from extending such observations to the relations with the neighboring Cape Colony in more profound ways. For it is not only possible to identify stylistic and ideational influences, but also links in networks of professional knowledge, labor, and supply (p. 271, 485, 504). Not least, in correspondence with the authorities in Berlin, German settlers compared the planning of their towns unfavorably to South Africa (p. 226). Elaborating on these connections that are currently mentioned only in passing would make it possible to link the Namibian case to discussions about trans-imperial cooperation and competition within a shared colonial framework. Such discussions are thriving in current global history-scholarship, and could serve to highlight trans-imperial learning beyond views of German imitative colonialism.12