Vernacular Architecture: Towards a Sustainable Future – Mileto, Vegas, García Soriano & Cristini (Eds) © 2015 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-02682-7 The house as a moving story: An ethnography of Andean domestic architecture J. Tomasi CONICET—Instituto Interdisciplinario Tilcara, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Tilcara, Jujuy, Argentina Red Iberoamericana PROTERRA, Argentina ABSTRACT: This presentation results from an ethnographic study we have been developing since 2004 on pastoral architectures and spaces in the Andean region, particularly in the community of Susques, in northern Argentina. The Andean pastoralists are characterized by the intense mobility of domestic groups. When we talk about “the house as a moving story” we are intending to synthesize two concepts. The first relates to pastoral settlement systems associated with mobility. Different households tend to move through more than five different settlements across the year which will be analyzed as part of a single domestic space. The second concept is oriented to the definition of the local notion of “house” that will be addressed in detail. From our perspective, the “house” is not just an object but rather a process, a “history in motion”, subjected to growth according to changes in domestic groups. 1 INTRODUCTION Ethnographic studies developed in different communities in the Andes have made possible to recognize the diversity of architectural concepts as well as the fact that this diversity is inseparable of a very dense significance framework that character-ized the societies that produce this materiality. This has been an important methodological contribution to disrupt the civilizational, exoticizing or romantic readings that emerge from the application of the interpretive frameworks associated with “western architecture”. In this presentation we propose two objectives. The first one is to reflect briefly on the possibilities offered by ethnographic research in the interpretation and recognition of different architectural conceptions and practices. The second is to explore the specific characteristics presented by the domestic architecture in the Andean highlands area, in northern Argentina, related to the particularities of the mobility of pastoralists. We aim to develop two important aspects: the formation of dispersed settlement systems of domestic groups and how the house is the result of a continuous process of construction over time. The results we are presenting here emerged from ethnographic research we have developed in the town of Susques in the province of Jujuy (Argentina) since 2004 (Fig. 1). This research has focused on the recognition of spatial and architectural conceptions of pastoral groups, and how they have been transformed in recent decades (Tomasi 2011) This fieldwork has involved a longstanding presence in this area, at different moments of the year, with ongoing participation in various activities, including concrete construction work. 1.1 An ethnographic approach Ethnography has been defined as a research method, as an approach and as a text. Its conceptualization as an approach assumes a conception of knowledge that “seeks to understand social phenomena from the perspective of its members” (Guber 2001:13). Ethnography allows us to place on the center of the stage the local points of view, the conceptions and definitions from the same people that exercise the studied practices. Ethnography is a process of interpretation rather than explanation (Clifford 1995). No attempts to capture a series of events that are outside of the existence of the researcher, instead the ethnographic experience involves the creation of a significant common universe. The ethnographic description is not a portrait supposedly objective, rather than a “thick description” (Geertz 2005) which seeks to consider the practices within the interpretive frameworks of its actors. This work involves an effort to call into question our own knowledge, to approach, and recognize, other possible conceptions. Indeed, one of the characteristics of ethnographic description is that it is “microscopic” (Geertz 2005). It seeks to understand local realities and practices, rather than global, through deep immersion in the field, through the extended stay in place and participant observation. 701 Figure 1. Location of the studied area, in the northwestern Argentina (Tomasi). 1.2 Ethnographic studies and architecture Concerning architectural studies, ethnography gives us at least two possibilities. First, is a privileged method to avoid ethnocentric interpretations that made invisible local ways of producing, conceiving and living architecture, to locate the architectural and construction practices in the interpretative frameworks within which are developed. The second is that it allows us to transcend the purely material analisys to achieve more holistic comprehensions, incorporating architecture into specific ways of understanding the world, certain symbolic universes and social, economic practices and territorialities. As Oliver proposed (1978), it is necessary that architects transcend our own conceptions to consider the values assigned to buildings in each society. This means that we have to recognize that the notion of house, as we define it, may have very little in common with which it means to other societies. Ethnography, as architectural research methodology, appears as an unavoidable way for both habitat improvement projects as well as those related to the architectural conservation. There are numerous projects in which the proposed solutions are never adopted by communities in the long term. This is the result of that in many cases local views and the responses that communities generated from their practices and conceptions are not considered. Instead, it intends to apply universal solutions based on a international development agenda. In regards to architectural conservation occurs something similar, because in many cases, local values and meanings associated with historical and current constructions have been ignored. Although several authors have drawn attention to the lack of interest of anthropology in the study of architecture (Humphrey 1988, Carsten & Hugh-Jones 1995, Vellinga 2005), many of the most significant and inspiring examples of ethnographic interpretations have been developed from anthropology, expanding the possibilities of archi- tectural analysis (Hugh-Jones 1979, Bourdieu 2007, Waterson 1990, Bloch 1995). It should be noted, however, that these studies often tend to ignore the physical dimension of architecture, focusing on its social and symbolic implications, depriving it of one of its defining features. For the Andean highlands there have been significant ethnographic studies of the architectural practices of indigenous societies, also largely developed by anthropologists (Palacios Ríos 1990, Arnold 1998, Nielsen 2000, Delfino 2001, Göbel 2002). These studies have characterized morphologically and constructively the domestic architecture in the Andes, and have allowed us to recognize the symbolic density of the native notion of house, its territorial dimension and its role in shaping the households over time. In this sense, Arnold (1998) suggested that within the process of building a “house”, elements of social organization become spatialized, through a number of complex rituals instances. According to Palacios Rios, in the house are embodied some of the main “structural principles” of the Andean conception of the world. Meanwhile, Göbel (2002), with a different theoretical approach, stated that in the house the whole system of spatial occupation of pastoral groups were synthesized. A feature shared by their research, which links this paper with that tradition of studies, is an abso-lutely dynamic conception of architecture. Buildings that we try to understand are the result, never defini-tive, of a process of construction over time, which involved different generations. When considering architecture as a static object, we are removing some of your deepest senses, which link people with their buildings in a shared history. 2 SUSQUES AND THE PASTORALISM IN THE ANDEAN HIGHLANDS Pastoralism can be defined as a form of production based on the use of environmental resources through different mobility strategies that involve both, people and animals (Galaty & Johnson 1990, Khazanov 1994) However, this is not a purely economic activity but it models different aspects of people’s social life, and defining specific spatialities marked by seasonal movements. In regards to the Andean case, extensive pastoralism is based on an affective relationship between animals and people, with a flexible management of herds and a cyclic seasonal mobility based on the presence of repetitive places (Nuñez & Dillehay 1995). However, beyond the existence of shared aspects, ethnographic descriptions show a significant variability over the Andes, based on environmental differences, the conformations of the herds and households, land rights and the activities associated with grazing. 702 If we focus on the case of Susques, we must consider the existence of a hundred households that manage mixed herds (llamas, goats and sheep) in a community territory of about 130,000 hectares deployed around the town of Susques. These territories are located at an altitude that oscillates between the 3500 and 4200masl. These households are made up of three generations of people linked by kinship. While historically all members of the household were engaged directly in raising animals, today only one or two persons remain in the countryside, while the others cooperate with them based on the income earned in Susques or in other cities. Unlike what happens in other Andean pastoralist groups, in the case of Susques each household controls a specific territory with clear borders, recognized within the community, which have usage rights that are transmitted across generations. Domestic grazing territories may be subjected to change, but their conformation tend to be stable over time. Each of these territories is often composed by two characteristic environments, which differences are exploited through mobility. On the one hand the “campo” (countryside), the lowest and open sectors, and, on the other, the “cerros” (hills), the areas at higher altitudes and most rugged. Mobility can then be synthesized as a circular and cyclic movement between “campo” and “cerros”. Households remain in “campo” during the Figure 2. An example of a pastoral territory, with the different domestic settlements and the movility along the year (Tomasi). summer (December to March), in the rainy season, and then move continuously between places in the “hills” in the colder and drier months, when temperatures can drop below -20 ° C. Inside these territories, each of the households has a certain number of settlements that are used throughout the year within the cycle mobility, and that are located in places of significance for the history of the group (Fig. 2). Mobility we try to highlight not only refers to the travel required to reach a destination but it is a significant social practice itself. It is a conception that expresses in multiple dimensions of everyday life and involves a particular form of appropriation of time and space. As we will see, when walking through the grazing lands, people hold their belonging to those places through the link with the history of those who built them. 3 A SINGLE DOMESTIC SPACE WITH MULTIPLE PLACES Ethnographic studies over the Andes have shown some recurrence in the use of multiple settlements along the year by pastoralist households. Each of these settlements tend to be located seeking to exploit different ecological conditions based on different altitudinal variations. Another feature mentioned in existing research in Peru, Bolivia, northwestern Argentina and northern Chile, is that one of the settlements within these systems is established as the principal not only based in its architecture but also associated with the role it has as spatial reference of the household within the community. While there are some cases where the main settlement is located in a town, it is more frequent that they are scattered throughout the community territory, while households have another residence in the villages. In the case of Susques what we have recorded is that each household can have between two and ten different settlements, with an average of five. In any case, they normally do not use more than four or five throughout the year. Using this number of settlements may involve up to ten changes of residence within an annual cycle, as some places can be used more than once. However, in recent decades there has been an increasing in urban residence, and related to this a decreasing in the intensity of the journeys made by the domestic units (Tomasi 2011). A central issue about Susques is that the totality of settlements are located within the grazing territories of each of the households, and not scattered at different points in the community territory, as may occur in other areas of the Andes. Thus, the characteristic of property rights is important for the definition of the territorial distribution of settlements. 703 Figure 3. Panorama of an “estancia” built using an slope (Tomasi). Among the settlements of the households we must distinguish between “domicilio” (domicile) and “estancias” or “puestos”. While the first one is the main settlement of the group and it is used during the summer (December to March), the “estancias” are located in “cerros” (hills) among the rocks, and the shepherds visit each along the year, and they could stay between fifteen days to three months. “Estancias” are distributed in domestic territories looking to access different sections of pasture at different times of the year. In this sense, the territorial arrangement of the “estancias” is inseparable from grazing strategies and preferences in the management of herds by the domestic units. The architectural features of the “estancia” present interesting aspects for analysis because its definition is linked to the topography of the places where they might be located. In fact, the architectural design begins with the material appropriation of topography, through the use of eaves, rock walls, slopes or small gorges (Fig. 3). These topographies are incorporated in the spatial definition and complemented with partial stone walls. The walls are usually made using “pirca seca” (stones without mortar) and covered with crossing branches, in some cases with mud (Fig. 4). In general, the “estancia” consist of a compound intended for people, sometimes roofless, an outdoor kitchen, and at least two corrals nearby. The location of the “estancia”, and also the “domicilio” is linked to the herd management, but this is not the only logic that determines it. All these settlements are located in places that have a historical significance for the domestic group, being the same spaces that were appropriate by their ancestors. The location of the “estancia” contributes to the maintenance of the territorial rights and the affirmation of the person belonging to a particular line of descent. Thus, mobility among “estancias” throughout the year is not only spatial, but involves a temporal journey through the history of the domestic group. Figure 4. Detail of one of the rooms in an “estancia”, built with “pirca seca” (Tomasi). 4 THE CHANGING HOUSE This settlement system we have described briefly, is locally conceived as a unit rather than as a sum of parts. In this sense, we should think of it as a single discontinuous domestic space. Although the group at given time is installed in a “estancia” in particular, continue to hold the relationship with the rest of their places. This view changes our scale of analysis with which we normally define domestic architecture, since it forces us to consider the territorial dimension of architectural design, and a different way of thinking about the spatial unit. In the context of this perspective, the “domicilio” is established as the axis of all domestic spatial definition, which is expressed in various annual rituals, and this way is the principal house of the household (Tomasi 2011). Unlike the “estancias”, the “domicilios” are not in the “cerros” but are located in the “campo”, the most open places, at lower altitudes than the average “estancias” (about 3500 masl). Households are recognized within the community by the name of the place where the “domicilio” is established, and there is where they received the visits in different celebrations throughout the year, such as the carnival. In this sense, these main houses are a major reference in social terms and contribute to the recognition of group membership within the community. In terms of the spatial configuration, the “domicilios” differ substantially from the “estancias”, since they have not the same relation to the topography and have a greater number of compounds built for different uses. In just the simplest terms, the “domicilios” are configured from a certain amount of compounds that are arranged around a courtyard (Fig. 5). These compounds vary, depending on the age of the house, between two and more than ten years, with an average of four. These compounds are mostly rectangular, with a width of about 3 m and a length of between 4 and 6 m. The disposition around the courtyard is usually U or L, prevailing orientation towards the east and north 704 (Fig. 6). In addition to spaces for people, “domicilios” have two or three corrals where the main ceremonies intended to herd are performed. The constructional techniques are based on the use of mud. The walls are usually made of adobe with stone foundations, or entirely of stone in the oldest “domicilios” (Fig. 7). In roofs, the wooden structure is tied with leather cords. Over these woods commonly people place a first layer of straw also tied with leather, and upon this, two techniques can be used for the upper layer: the “torteado”, which consists in performing two complete layers of clay, or “guayado”, consisting of overlapping rows of straw with mud (Tomasi 2013). As elsewhere, in recent years has significantly increased the use of industrial materials. The patio is the spatial axis of the “domicilio”, the main field of everyday domestic activities and the shared place for the household, but it is necessary to understand the architectural conception of this space. The patio exists since the beginning of construction of the house in conceptual terms, but not in its morphology. It is not a patio that has a predefined shape modeling the arrangement of the compounds. The organizing principle is the opposite: the delimitation of the patio results from the place where the different compounds are located, and thus is subject to constant change in mor- phology. This has social implications because the household is not a static concept but is transformed in time, and the house is the material expression, never passive in this process. Interventions in the “domicilios” are made over time, in a process of continuous construction. As new couples are formed within the households, new compounds are added around the courtyard. Thus, in each generation new buildings are incorporated continuing the historical project of the “domicilio”. This implies that in the configuration of the “house” are present, acting, multiple temporalities within the history of the domestic group. In fact, the everyday life of being at home, brings the experience of the history of the people as part of a line of descent. This is linked to an aspect that allows us to better understand the meaning of this domestic architecture. The “domicilio” is also a “casa” (house) and so it is called as well. At the same time, each of the compounds of the “domicilio” is also called “casa”. That is, a “casa” consists of “casas”, and actually refers persons to their “domicilio” as “casa” in the singular, and “casas” in the plural. This issue in architectural and spatial designations has profound implications. Each of the compounds, “casas”, is a part of the “domicilio”, but simultaneously is a totality itself. The “casa” is a part and a whole, since each Figure 5. General view of a “domicilio”, with the corrals (Tomasi). Figure 7. Detail of a roofed kitchen in a “domicilio” (Tomasi). Figure 6. Sketch of a “domicilio”, near Susques, including some of the different spaces involved (Tomasi). 705 compound concentrates the full sense of the notion of house. This implies a radical difference from the Western conception of architecture in which has some importance undivided character of the whole. 5 CONCLUSIONS Throughout this paper we have aimed to approach what might be considered an Andean pastoral logic of architecture and space, which puts us in evidence the existence of different conceptions of those usually considered as universal. In this context, the ethnographic method gives us a way to recognize these other ways of doing and thinking about architecture, who tend to be made invisible. This concept and practice present a relationship between the definition of domestic architecture and territoriality. We have proposed that mobility between “estancias” implies a spatial and temporal displacement. The same could be raised regarding the “casas” (houses) that make up the “domicilio”, built over multiple generations. Thus, the “domicilio” is presented as an integration of different times coexist in the same space. Something similar can be considered regarding the understanding of the senses of the totality. Each of the “estancias” is a whole, with relative independence, but at the same time is one of the parts that make up this unique pastoral dispersed domestic space. We have already referred the relationship between the “casas” within the “domicilios”. Certainly these architectures and territorialities, are embedded in the way in which domestic groups are conformed. The main notion that we have tried to establish in this paper has been mobility. A mobility that involves displacements and connections both in time and space. This idea confronts us with an architectural practice that is inherently dynamic, in which change and transformation are a defining feature. When working with such constructions, whether to study or intervene them, the starting point should be the understanding of a production process rather than a resulting object. REFERENCES Arnold, D.Y. 1997. Using ethnography to unravel different kinds of knowledge in the Andes. Journal of Latin American Studies: Travesia 6(1): 33–50. Arnold, D.Y. 1998. La casa de adobe y piedras del Inka: Género, memoria y cosmos en Qaqachaka. In Arnold, D.Y., Jiménez, D. & Yapita, J., Hacia un Orden Andino de las Cosas. La Paz: Hisbol/ILCA. Bloch, M. 1995. The resurrection of the house amongst the Zafimaniry of Madagascar. In Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. About the house. Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. Bourdieu, P. 2007. El sentido práctico. Buenos Aires: Siglo veintiuno editores. Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S. 1995. Introduction: about the house—Levi-Strauss and Beyond. In Carsten, J. & Hugh-Jones, S., About the house. Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge University Press. Clifford, J. 1995. Dilemas de la cultura. Antropología, literatura y arte en la perspectiva posmoderna. Barcelona: Gedisa. Delfino, D. 2001. Las pircas y los límites de una sociedad. Etnoarqueología en la Puna (Laguna Blanca, Catamarca, Argentina). In Kuznar, L. (Ed.) Ethnoarchaeology of Andean South America. Michigan: International Monographs in Prehistory, Ethnoarchaeological Series. Galaty, J.G. & Johnson, D.L. 1990. Introduction: Pastoral Systems in Global Perspective. In Galaty, J.G. & Johnson, D.L. (Eds), The World of Pastoralism. Herding Systems in Comparative Perspective. New York: The Guilford Press. Geertz, C. 2005. La interpretación de las culturas. Barcelona: Gedisa Editorial. Göbel, B. 2002. La arquitectura del pastoreo: Uso del espacio y sistema de asentamientos en la Puna de Atacama (Susques). Estudios Atacameños 23: 53–76. Guber, R. 2001. La etnografía. Método, campo y reflexividad. Buenos Aires: Editorial Norma. Hugh-Jones, C. 1979. From the Milk River: Spatial and Temporal Processes in Northwest Amazonia. Cambridge University Press. Humphrey, C. 1988. No Place Like Home in Anthropology: The Neglect of Architecture. Anthropology Today 4(1): 16–18. Khazanov, A. 1994. Nomads and the outside world. The University of Wisconsin Press. Nielsen, A. 2000. Andean caravans: an ethnoarchaeology. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. University of Arizona. Nuñez, L. & Dillehay, T. 1995. Movilidad giratoria, armonía social y desarrollo en los Andes Meridionales: Patrones de Tráfico e interacción económica. Antofagasta: Universidad Católica del Norte. Oliver, P. 1978. Cobijo y Sociedad. Madrid: Blume ediciones. Palacios Ríos, F. 1990. El simbolismo de la casa de los pastores Aymara. In Flores Ochoa, J. Trabajos presentados al simposio rur 6. El pastoreo altoandino: origen, desarrollo y situación actual”. Cuzco. Tomasi, J. 2011. Geografías del pastoreo. Territorios, movilidades y espacio doméstico en Susques (provincia de Jujuy). Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Universidad de Buenos Aires. Tomasi, J. 2013. Cubiertas con tierra en el área puneña. Acercamiento a las técnicas y prácticas contemporáneas en Susques (Jujuy, Argentina). In 13 Seminario Iberoamericano de Construcción con Tierra (SIACOT). Valparaiso: Red Iberoamericana PROTERRA. Vellinga, M. 2005. Anthropology and the challenges of sustainable architecture. Anthropology Today 21(3): 3–7. Waterson, R. 1990. The Living House. An Anthropology of Architecture in South-East Asia. Oxford University Press. 706