Should the anthropology of space be confined to a mere description of scenes? Should it not focus on the facts relating to intentional space planning (what are the meanings of scenes produced by cultures and topological arrangements they are made up of?) as well as in morphology (what are its rules of arrangements?); in extension (what diversity within the society?); and in temporal or historical dynamics? It does not really matter whether one embraces this discipline within the anthropology of space or more specifically as “social topology.” Although societies have shown proof of their great imagination and creativity in the field, they are challenged by no less essential topological laws, and their modus operandi is the object of science: how do cultures extensively build meaningful places, that is, ways of relating the subject with its environment, and “moments” of practice; how do they organize these places, how do they practice them, how do they offer these places architectural features which make them efficient? Why should a theory of spatiality remain impossible or prohibited? It is time to correct this and build a “social topology.”