02 funari 2003 social archaeology of housing from a latin ame

7/21/2019 02 Funari 2003 Social Archaeology of Housing From a Latin Ame

1/23

Copyright 2002SAGE Publications (Lond on, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)

Vol 3(1):2345 [1469-6053(200302)3:1;2345;030097]

Journal of Social Archaeology ARTICLE

23

Social archaeology of housing from a LatinAmerican perspectiveA case study

PEDRO PAULO A. FUNARI

R.Dr.Manoel de Paiva,60 Ed.San Diego,apt .13,05351-015,So Paulo,Brazil

ANDRS ZARANKINDepartment of Prehistoric and Archaeological Research,Argent ine National

Science Foundat ion (CONICET),Buenos Aires,Argent ina

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the structuring of domination in everyday life,studied through private housing material culture, over a period ofseveral centuries. Our case study deals with the processes of use ofspace and the changes in middle-class households in Buenos Airessince the late eighteenth century, highlighting both world and LatinAmerican contexts. We show how morphological a nd spatial changesin households are related both to the wider world capitalist contextand to local conditions, shaping peoples lives. We focus on thecontrolling features of housing, affecting not only the middle classes,but potentially the whole spectrum of social classes. Ca pita lism tendsto individualize space, create private environments, restrictmovement and control movement in general, and houses as material
http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/


2/23

24 Journa l of Social Archaeo logy 3(1)

artifacts reflect these tendencies. We conclude that the study ofBuenos Aires housing enables us to note that there has been a

growing tendency to restrict circulat ion w ithin the house, enforcing acontrolling, bourgeois way o f life.

KEYWORDSarchaeology of architecture control social archaeology SouthAmerica

INTRODUCTION

The challenge of understanding material culture in terms of social contextand lived experiences is a major one for archaeology in general (Meskellet a l., 2001) and particularly so for a rchaeology in Lat in America. Archae-ology in Latin America has many strands, with a wide variety of theoreti-cal underpinnings and practices. Sometimes, it is useful to differentiateSouth America from Central America, the Caribbean and Mexico (e.g.Politis, 2001), Spanish-speaking from Portuguese-speaking countries

(Funa ri, 1995, 1997; Po litis, 1995), or to stress the importa nce of loca l socialarchaeology developed in some countries as Latin American SocialArchaeology (Bate, 1998 and Fournier, 1999, with earlier bibliography) asopposed to the importation of interpretive frameworks from elsewhere(Funari, 1996, 1997). H ere, we consider La tin America a s an Iberian enter-prise (Wade, 1994: 59) resulting in societies inserted in the modern, capi-talist context, but also characterized by a series of patriarchal andhierarchical features, which have shaped unique social mixes (cf. Funari,1998, 1999).

In this context, Argentina offers the opportunity of a particularlyproductive case study, as Argentine society has for centuries been at thecrossroads of the most advanced capitalist and also the most traditionalpatriarchal influences (Zarankin, 1994; Senatore, 1995). Buenos Aires, atthe end of the w orld and a t its center at the same time, is an idea l place forthe development of new social issues. The structuring of domination intoeveryda y a ctivities (Paynter and McG uire, 1991: 9; Podgorny, 1999) isstudied through private housing ma terial culture, over a period of severalcenturies, a nd t ries to outline the main changes over time.

We aim to discuss several aspects related with the material constructionof social relationships (Funari, 1996), through the study of housing as thearchitectural creation of a particular cultural environment. We thusconsider that artifacts are active, dynamic and that they carry and create


3/23

25Funari & Zarankin Sociology of housing

meaning (Funari, 1986: 224), there being several studies that state therelevance of approaching material culture from such a critical perspective(Andrade Lima, 1999; Austin and Thomas, 1986; Funari, 1991, 2000;

Hodder, 1987; Leone, 1986; Miller, 1984; Tilley, 1989).We also consider whether material culture isolated from social contextlacks significance and whether it is only within a cultural system that itacquires an active and ideological dimension (Hodder, 1987). In thiscontext, we ask ourselves three main questions, as part of a system ofmeanings: how are artifacts constructed? How do they change over time,and which strategies make them legitimate? We are also interested inunderstanding the subjectivities contained and generated by materialculture (Warnier, 2001). In order to answer these questions we must studywhich references are used by artifacts, and understand in wha t wa y art ifactshave changed over time. We consider tha t t ruths in our case legitimatedobjects are built through different practices among which we includemanipulat ion of the material world (Leone, 1984; McG uire and P aynter,1991; Miller, 1984).

If we consider housing as a part of architecture being itself a peculiartype of langua ge (Fletcher, 1989; G raha me, 1995, 1997; Ma rkus, 1993;Monks, 1992; Parker Pearson and R ichards, 1994) through the analysis ofthe processes affecting housing, we will be able to understand the signifi-cance it has had o ver time. H uman landscape is built and resisted by means

of a dialectical game of dominance and resistance (McG uire and Paynter,1991; Orser and Funari, 2001). Architecture as part of the same game can be considered a ba ttlefi eld where social stra ta and their ideologies fi ghtone another. Our case study deals with the processes of the use of spaceand changes in middle-class households in Buenos Aires since the lateeighteenth century, highlighting both the world (Orser, 1996) and LatinAmerican (Zarankin, 1997, 1999a, 1999b) contexts.

ARCHAEOLOGY OF ARCHITECTURE:ARCHITECTURE ASTECHNOLOGY OF POWER

In recent decades, a new study field has been developing under the nameof archaeology of architecture (Stedman, 1996), offering new analyticalperspectives through which human environment can be approached.Constructions are viewed as active elements, i.e. cultural products inter-acting dynamically w ith people (cf. B lanton, 1994; D eetz, 1977, 1988;

G lassie, 1975; G ra ha me, 1995, 1997; H od der, 1984, 1994; Leone, 1977, 1984;Johnson, 1991, 1993; Kent, 1990; Markus, 1993; Parker Pearson andRichards, 1994; Rapoport, 1969, 1982, 1990a, 1990b; Samson, 1990, amongothers). In Argentina, as elsewhere in Latin America, most studies are


4/23


concerned with typology, but recent research is now discussing the relation-

ship between the spacial-architectural structuring of sites and its socio-political connota tions, concluding that manipulat ion o f such elements canwo rk as a vehicle for the creation a nd maintenance of power relat ionshipsand domination (cf. Acuto, 1999; Nielsen, 1995; Tarrag, 1987; Zarankin,1997, 1999a, 1999b, 2001, 2002).

Several recent studies have transcended the descriptive and the mereintention of highlighting aesthetic attributes in high-style buildings (e.g.Maestri, 2001; cf. Zarankin, 1999a, 2002). From a contextual perspective inarchaeology, architecture is to be interpreted as both symbolic and ideo-

logical, serving both practical and ideological purposes (Parker P earson a ndRichards, 1994). Foucault (1976) emphasizes that invisible strategies areused to discipline ordinary people and to form disciplined and useful indi-viduals, first and foremost by the use of space as a controlling device(Foucault, 1976). The pa nopt ical form (see Figure 1) is the best example ofthis controlling trend (Foucault, 1976: 204).

G rahame (1995) sta tes that architecture contributes to structure theway in which individuals meet physically in space, and the design of abuilding influences the possibilities of the relationships among its occu-

pants (cf. Hingley, 1999: 146). Eco points out that architectural designconnotes a globa l ideology, shaping the minds of a rchitects themselves, bymeans of rules and codes that regulate architectural production (Eco,1968). We move within a given building grammar, encoded in the science

Figure 1 Jeremy Benthams (1816) design project of a school (Bentham,UCL;Evans plan No.18)


5/23


of construction (Eco, 1968: 365), satisfying peoples demands and atthe same time persuading them to live in a certa in, controlled wa y (E co,1968: 367).

For a long time domestic architecture has been neglected as a way ofunderstanding social relations, but there is a growing tendency to believethat daily actions in a built environment are an important archaeologicalsubject (Samson, 1990). Housing is neither neutral nor passive, but activeand dynamic, and in itself a generator of meaning. The household is acomplex power structure, which not only shelters people and their belong-ings but also bears influence on them, especially during the socializationprocess (Zarankin, 1997). As B ourdieu (1977) points out, socialization isdeeply rooted in domestic practices, and sexual, social, economic andbehaviora l habits are shaped by the household itself. Habitusis thus directlylinked to buildings as an opus operatum(B ourdieu, 1977: 90) and socialpract ices are structured by them (G iddens, 1979). Space is loaded w ithsymbolic elements expressing meaning and reproducing inequality (ParkerPearson and Richards, 1994).

Architecture, as one of the ba sic components of the human constructionof space, can be understood a s technology of power (Foucault, 1976), aimedat having people docilely fa vor the reproduction o f pow er relationships, butalso inevitably leading to resistance. Material culture in the form both ofarchitecture and portable artifacts is routinely read by the people and

contributes to the formation of their subjectivity (Austin and Thomas,1986: 46). In this case study, we deal with academic design, stressing thestrategies of domination embedd ed in housing design, even though we a lsoacknowledge that resistance not mentioned in architecture has alwaysbeen an a ctive part of housing use. In other w ords, our a nalysis is centeredon domination strategies, therefore the type of house designed by both thebuilder a nd the system, leaving for further discussion all matters related toresistance tactics (de Certeau, 1980), or to opposition on the side of theoccupants.

BUENOS AIRES AS A CASE STUDY

We study middle-class households in the city o f B uenos Aires, from the lateeighteenth century to the end of the twentieth century, showing howmorphological and spatial changes in households are related to the widerworld capitalist context and to local conditions, shaping peoples lives

(Ma rkus, 1993). Middle-class housing is directly linked to capita lism a nd tothe control and the normat ive character of the modern world, playing a roleas a model for popular housing. Architects are constantly pulling downslums and shanty towns and building middle-class, bourgeois houses, such


6/23


as those studied in this article, so that we here focus on the controllingfeatures of housing that affect not only the middle classes but potentiallythe whole spectrum of social classes.

As regards the selection of cases for a nalysis, we w ant to sta te tha t thereexists no general consensus among historians of Buenos Aires architectureon the morphological types of middle-class households built over time(Arbide et a l., 1985; A rbide, 1991a; D iez, 1986; I glesia, 1991; Torre R evello,1928, 1934, 1957). In this case, three basic models of mono-familiar houseswithin the Spanish tra dition (D iez, 1986), which were w idely spread a mongthe B uenos Aires middle classes, have been a nalyzed: colonial household,also known as viceroyalty house (late eighteenth, middle nineteenthcenturies), chorizo house1 (late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries) a ndmodern house (from the mid-twentieth century).2 We must first bear inmind that a type is an abstraction in order to build, where we consider anumber of ca ses so as to identify basic repeated patt erns which differenti-ate them from the rest. In other w ords, esta blishing an a rchitectonic typeconsists of generating an ideal model representing many buildings madeaccording to those basic patterns we have isolated.

PATTERNS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTONICSTRUCTURES

Once the types of domestic households have been determined, it isnecessary to defi ne an appropriate pattern for the ana lysis of a rchitectonic

Figure 2 An example of the application of the Ga mma method o f ana lysisby Hillier and Hanson. The diag ram shows how four plants that seem similar

are quite different structures (Hillier and Hanson, 1984: 150)


7/23


structures. Although there are different methods for comparing architec-tura l structures (B lanton, 1994; H age, 1979; H illier and H anson, 1984;Samson, 1990, among others), the indexes of Scale, Integration and

Complexity, developed by Blanton (1994), with few adaptations to ourcase study, proved useful to our objectives and expectations (cf. Z ara nkin,2001, 2002). These require the a pplicat ion o f the G amma ana lysis,proposed by Hillier and Hanson (1984). Basically, the pattern establishedby Hillier and Hanson allows us to break down the plant of a building indifferent cells and to establish communication among these, in order toreach the structure of the building (Figure 2).

One of the aspects that interested Hillier and Hanson (1984) concernsthe connection characteristics presented by a given architectonic structure.Thus, they considered two types of spat ial confi gurations: distributive a ndnon-distributive.

Non-distributive spaces are those that you can reach or leave onlythrough one opening.

Distributive spaces are those that you can reach or leave through morethan one opening.

On studying this characteristic in one given structure in general weobserve that as many distributive as non-distributive spaces are likely toappear (see Figure 2). Therefore, on analysing a structure, it is necessaryto make a general evaluation in order to categorize its configuration asdistributive or non-distributive. In the cases presented by Hillier andHanson, structures B and C are distributive and A and D are non-distributive.

D istributive structures show high figures of low connections, tha t is oneconnection every node, whereas distributive structures present high figures

of high connections, tha t is two or more connections every node.In those structures defined as distributive, power and control are dist-

ributed homogeneously, therefore they are of more democratic character(Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Markus, 1993). On the other hand, non-distributive structures concentrate power and control heterogeneously,giving priority to some spaces over others so as to rank them hierarchicallyA further centra l aspect in this G amma ana lysis is related to the degreeof access to spaces within a given structure. Accessibility is consideredaccording to the remoteness of spaces to the outside. The result has to do

with the isolat ion and access difficulty of ea ch space.As G rahame points out (1995: 62), the application o f H illier andHansons pattern does not consist of a mere translation of designs intoschemes and graphics; on the contrary, it is a very delicate job, which


8/23


involves both the decisions made by the researcher and the statement ofthe criteria he used in this process. In our case, these decisions imply thegeneration of a model, which will allow us to make a basic reading of the

plans in order to esta blish a morphological compa rison.The indexes set by Richard Blanton (1994), which require the appli-cation of the Hillier and H anson pat tern, help achieve a comparison of thedifferent architectural structures to o ne ano ther, and can be summed up asfollows.

Scale index This consists of counting the number of nodes3 in the diagra m(if possible, the surface of the area and the number of inhabitants shouldbe added) in order to get the measure of m 2/person.

Integration index This index is linked to the circulation within the struc-ture and expresses the degree of restra int within it. I t is the result of dividingthe number of nodes by the number of doors or pa ssages in the structure.4

One (1) is the smallest possible figure, because a room has at least oneconnection. Then, the highest restraint figure is 1, and it decreases as theintegration index increases. A way of achieving integration is creatingalternative circuits so that many potential routes go from one place toanother.

Complexity index In his model, B lanton refers to the functiona l variat ionof the usage o f space. If the informa tion of activities or specific functional-ity is scarce, the author proposes that calculations should be based on thedegree of a ccessibility or intercommunicat ion of ea ch node. In this way weknow not only the number of connections in the structure, but also thedegree of accessibility a nd the circulat ion w ithin ea ch node.

Finally, taking the plans of each house as a basis, we generate a gammadiagram to which we apply the scale, integration and complexity indexes.

complexity index A = number of connections among nodes6

complexity index B = accessibility of ea ch node to the outside(number of spaces tha t need to be crossed)7

integration index =number of connections5

number of nodes

scale index = number of nodes


9/23


The result a llows us to compare qualita tive and quantitat ive dat a among thedifferent t ypes, and therefore to observe the changes in buildings over time.

The colonial house

The Spanish colonial system a pplied the patt ern of the R oma n-Pompeya ncourtyard-house with very few structural mod ifica tions in B uenos Airesas well as in many other Latin American tow ns (D iez, 1986; Furlong, 1969;Na da l Mora , 1951; Torre R evello , 1928, 1934, 1957; Waisman, 1997). Thecolonial house consisted of o ne-storey, the front o f which looked onto thestreet. The entrance consisted of a large door opening to a passage. Thispassage led to the first yard, which was surrounded by the main rooms inthe building. Nevertheless, no forma l differences among the rooms wouldmark the function of each one. It was only through decoration, furniture

and spat ial locat ion that function a nd hierarchy could be inferred. A secondpassage opened onto a second ya rd surrounded by the kitchen, the pantry,the bathroom and the maids quarters. In one of the two yards there wasan aljibe, or cistern, which gathered the water from the roofs and, just as

Figure 3 The colonial house


10/23


in the Roman impluviumand the Arab al ji b, was the source of drinkingwater (Figure 3).

The structure shows a highly symmetrical plant. The integration and

complexity indexes show the degree o f interconnection and communicationof spaces with one another. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that theaccessibility average complexity index B for this house is 3.3 nodes; thatis to say it wa s necessary to go through 3.3 nodes or spaces in order to reachthe street. This result is probably linked to the existence of a back part ofthe main structure, far away from the outside, which was meant to givehousing to servants a nd slaves.

B oth in this house and in the chorizo, function and sta tus of the roomsand inhabitants are expressed by means of the location and the use ofobjects furniture, pictures, cutlery, mirrors, curtains and so on. This factshows that the choice of the function for each room is dependent on itsinhabitants (Monks, 1992).

The chorizohouse

The chorizo house, or G ringos house, appears linked to the growth a ndconsolidation of industrial capitalism during the nineteenth century and thefirst half of the twentieth century. Several researchers trace its origins tothe colonial house; therefore rooms, corridors and yards and their distri-

bution in the house structure repeat pa tterns, which are fa miliar (Lecuona ,1979; Moreno, 1997).

The chorizo house used to be built over the remains of previousconstructions in those places where there was a previous structure re-using part of the foundations and some walls (Zarankin et al., 1998). Theyard was still the central axis of the building as all the rooms open onto it(Lecuona, 1979). Nevertheless, the yard no longer bore the function ofworking area, since at that time people already lived and worked atsepara te places, a nd it might be considered a s the survival of past tra ditions.

As a rule, the entrance door is located to one side of the front of thebuilding which generates an asymmetric pattern. The idea shown by thedesign is that of a n indefinite number of rooms, equal to one another, whichare placed following a longitudinal axis. An open-roofed corridor is incor-porated as a standard element in this kind of house. The kitchen and thetoilet are still placed a t the end of the structure.

As was the case in the colonial house, the chorizohouse was aconsistently popular building type over several decades and was used as amodel in the design of many multifamiliar houses built a t the beginning of

the tw entieth century (Arbide, 1991a, 1991b; A rbide et a l., 1991; D iez,1986).Unlike the colonial house, the chorizohouse (Figure 4) had an asym-

metric plant. Nevertheless, when analyzing the results of the gamma


11/23


pattern, it can be seen that the structure is still relatively symmetrical.There, meantime, exists a process of reduction in the integration andcomplexity indexes, leading to a higher degree of node isolation whencompared with the colonial house. Nevertheless, this house still presents asignificant degree of communication of space, evidenced in the integrationindex (1.4, meaning that each node has almost one and a half connections

with other spaces).Some of the readings suggest that this house legitimates itself through

the use of elements borrow ed from previous shapes, included in both designand building: on the one hand, central yards and structuring axes aroundwhich rooms are placed and on the other, re-use of pre-existing structuresin the building of the new house. The presence of these features in boththe colonial and the chorizohouse can be explained as validation of thenew orders by repossession of previous traditions from differentapproa ches, bea ring new meanings.

We believe that this asymmetric plant is related to the increasing socialdifferentiation of the period and above all to the segregation of living andworking places (home and factory). The asymmetry becomes a symbol ofdivision.

Figure 4 The chorizohouse


12/23


The modern house

The morphology o f modern houses shows a rad ical fra cture with previousarchitectural designs. Based on rational and functional conceptions(B enton a nd B enton, 1975), such elements as concrete, iron and glass areused in their building (Moreno, 1997). In the faades of such houses the

building materials appear uncovered. This fact is related to the conceptionof international style, which considers that decorative elements work asmasks covering the building and calling observers attention to irrelevantaspects of the building (Frampton, 1980). Another important aspect to beconsidered is that this architecture proposes a complete fracture withprevious models, sta ting the need for a compromise with modernity and thefuture. According to these ideas, architecture must be not only a witnessbut also an agent in the creation of a new society, pleading for a uniqueecumenist style (Nuttgens, 1983).

Notwithstanding the fact that these principles rule logic in thismovement, there does not exist a single typological pattern fo r the mod ernhouse. Furthermore, if we consider aesthetic aspects, there seems to be aninfinite number of houses that are completely different from one another.

Figure 5 The mod ern house


13/23


Nevertheless, on studying their structure we realize a repetition o f commonelements. Among these general features, which can be identified in mostmodern houses, are mono-functional rooms, distribution halls and

passages, high reaching construction, spaces hierarchically ranked becauseof their specific characteristics or location, grouping of people according toage, sex and f amily position, rooms presenting varied comfort and morphol-ogy, and a markedly asymmetric plant.

The modern house (Figure 5) shows a completely asymmetric plant andstructure. It is designed across different floors, each one having a differentfunction and presenting a high number of rooms of varied morphology.Circulation inside the house is achieved by means of distribution halls,which are control sectors only through which the different rooms in thehouse can be reached. When considering the high integration index thesehouses have, we must bea r in mind that this result is influenced by the exist-ence of these halls: the high interconnection of these halls hides the factthat most of the rooms only have one door or connection.

In the modern house, the traditional yard has been replaced by thegarden, although there exist cases in which this structure can still be foundas a roofed yard in the center of the house, which helps the airing andlighting of inside rooms. Notw ithsta nding the fact that faa des may be madeof brick, concrete, stone or tile, that rooms may be round, rectangular ofsquare, or that decorat ion may be completely different, under this apparent

heterogeneity, the same basic principles of spat ial organization a re a lwayspresent. U nderlying an a lleged freedom of choice, there is a greater contro lover individuals. In the modern house, spaces and their functions are prede-termined, for example dining room, bedroom, gara ge and so on. The spat ialand morphological characteristics of each room make it difficult to give aspace a different function a ccording to o nes own needs. Therefore, occu-pants are restricted and conditioned at the time of decision making. Thisdialectical difference, that is to say between what it is and what it seems,makes individuals internalize the inequalities in the system as natural

categories.The increase in control over people is achieved by means of the intro-

duction of restrictions both in space a nd a ctivities. Thus, more contro l leadsto greater restriction. The hierarchical ranking of spaces is another signifi-cant variable, since it is closely related to pre-established functionality.Rooms that are smaller and smaller and at the same time more hetero-geneous keep house occupants away from one another. According toFoucault, d iscipline is derived ba sically from the d istribution of individua lsin space. An effective strategy consists in decomposing collective implan-

tations, avoiding grouping and localizing each individual in one place:every individual in his place. In the authors own words: disciplinary spacetends to be divided into as many units as there are bodies or elements tobe a llotted . . . (1976: 1456).


14/23


In the design and use of buildings, power may eventually be distributedor concentrated in order to produce asymmetry (Markus, 1993: 23). Thus,inside a house, every members hierarchy and role is represented by his or

her place inside the structure, by the amount of space, and by the type ofmaterial objects and comfo rt inside it. E verybody knows that the best room the one with an ad jacent ba throom or the largest should be used by theparents. A similar differentiation exists among siblings according to vari-ables such as age a nd sex. Thus, this is a mechanism thro ugh which the idea sof inequality are ma de explicit. Individuals are ta ught to a ccept and respectthe place tha t ha s been pre-esta blished for them. A nother idea underlyingthis message is that one day they will be occupying the high rank in thehierarchy, as long as they follow the set rules.

On considering the changes with regard ing to accessibility in leaving andreaching the room and inter-room communication, there is a clear tendencyto no n-distributive patterns. In the last examples there is only one door perroom, notwithstanding the fact that the modern house has the greatestnumber of rooms.

CONCLUSION

C apita lism as a t ota lizing system is a fo rmat ion, the structures of which gointo a nd can be found in most of the a spects of social, cultural a nd economiclife (Johnson, 1993, 1996). From this perspective, changes in architecture in this case in familiar households and the development of the capitalistsystem can be related to each other.

E very house type makes sense if we a nalyze it within the historical a ndregional context within which it was developed. Therefore, the colonialhouse of the end o f the eighteenth a nd the nineteenth centuries is relatedto a mercantile capita lism, during which a well-to-do merchant class flour-ished; the chorizohouse is relat ed to industrial capitalism; and the modernhouse to monopolistic-cybernetic capitalism (as defined by the authorsfollowing Forrester, 1996, 2000). The basic socio-economic aspects of eachperiod can be observed in Table 1.

Transformations taking place in aspects such as space segmentation,asymmetry in plants and building structures, hierarchical space allocation,and institutionalization of pre-established functions, among others ifconsidered as non-verbal communication models (Fletcher, 1989) allowus to interpret the deep structures present in architectural language. Thus,comparing the results obtained, certain t rends, which have lasted over time,

may be observed:

First, there is a tendency to make spaces cellular (Foucault, 1976).This means tha t there a re more spaces related to the number ofoccupant s (in a house the average is two or three rooms per person).Furthermo re, these spaces tend to have specific pre-established


15/23


Social context Social context Social context Mercant ile capitalism Indust rial capitalism Cybernet ic capitalism

Period

18t h cent ury a nd first End of t he seco nd ha lf Second ha lf of t he 20t h

ha lf of 19t h cent ury. of t he 19t h cent ury a nd cent ury a nd mo st

beginning of the 20th notably from the 1970s.

century.

Historical context

1776 creat ion of the Consolida tion of the Increasing specializat ion

Viceroyalty of La Plata. industrial pattern based of products and

Trade ba sed on buying on industrial production. professionals.

cheap to selling Growth and consolida tion Expansion of

expensive. of the proletariat. multinational companies

Trade monopolized Populat ion growth. and take-overs of small

and controlled by Spain. Expansion of the city of and medium-sized

Settlement and growth Buenos Aires and companies.

of merchants of diverse surrounding areas Monopolies.

orig ins. (Greater Buenos Aires). Uneq ual competition.

Importa nce of smugg ling. Arrival in the country of Spread ing ofImporta nce of the large numbers of information techno log y.

harbour. European immigrants. Development of the

Industrial impulse to the mass media and means

country soon after the of transport.

world wars. Concentration of benefits

Importance of the port and power in hands of a

and railway. reduced technocrat elite.

Increase in social

inequa lity and socialexclusion of poor strata ,

cast out of the economic

system.

Family

Extend ed family Extended family Nuclear family,usually

comprising dependa nts comprising several composed of parents

and centered around a nuclear units belonging and two to three

patron. to the same lineage. children.

Pat riarchal organizat ion.Hierarchical organization

ba sed on family origins

rather tha n on money,

old stock privileges.

Table 1 Mercantile, industrial and cybernetic capita lism.The ba sicsocioeconomic aspects of each period


16/23


functions (laundry room, dining room, bedroom, study, etc.) as wellas different degrees of comfo rt.

Second , there is a reduction in the integra tion index over t ime. This

clearly shows a restriction in connection of spaces with one another.Thus: (1) a lterna tive circuits of inside circula tion disappear; (2) somerooms (ha lls of distribution) become una voidable.

Third, the decrease in access to , or increase in remoteness from, theoutside for each o f the d ifferent rooms in the house needsconsideration. This is clearly seen in modern houses, which presenthigh complexity indexes and panoptic structures.

Finally, the composition of the family occupying the houses understudy should be considered. As a genera l rule, the number of

occupants of the houses studied tended to diminish over time.Severa l social scientists rela te this process which can be seen inWestern societies on a widespread scale to the economic, politicaland ideological needs of the system (La wrence, 1990).

Thus, the design trends observed show an increase in the restrictive aspects,as a means of ma terializing the contro l criteria, a mong which the isolationof activities and individuals is particularly noteworthy. This is achieved bymeans of different mechanisms, such as the a ddition of new spaces or sub-divisions of those existing. The relationship between the growth of control

elements and architectonic design, in the modern house, is materializedthrough fixed elements such as walls, semi-fixed ones such as pieces offurniture and non-fixed ones such as behaviors (Monks, 1992). In the caseof colonial and chorizohouses this relationship could only be measured bymeans of the second and third categories. The use of fixed elements inmodern houses may be interpreted as the legitimizat ion and forma lizat ionof the inequality principles. From a structural point of view, these changesreflect the increase in complexity and in social differentiation a mong indi-viduals groups and classes in society (McG uire and Schiffer, 1983).

Summarizing, this comparison makes evident a continuous process oftransformation aimed at a non-distributive, restrictive and asymmetricmodel of house, of which the mo dern house is the clearest example.

Karl Ma rx once said that the a rchitect builds the cell in his mind beforehe constructs it in w ax (M arx, 1867/1976: 284) and the minds of architectsare shaped by ruling ideas: also der Verhltnisse, die eben die eine Klassezur herrschenden machen, also d ie G edanken ihrer H errschaft [hence ofthe relations which ma ke the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideasof it s dominance] (Marx, 1847/1976: 182).

The household is central for the reproduction of the social system andthe symbolic power associated to it strongly contributes to the internaliza-tion of social rules (B ourdieu, 1989), disciplining people into social life.Changes in world capitalism are directly reflected in academic housing


17/23


patterns and, increasingly, the family household can be considered as adisciplining device (Fouca ult, 1976; G rahame, 1995). A s D onley-R eid(1990) has suggested, it is possible to relate morphological changes in

household plans to changes in society at large, especially to global capi-talism.From this perspective, the changes over time in middle-class, familial

households are sending messages linked to the handling and exercising ofpower. They have also worked as a self-disciplining strategy of the bour-geoisie, which ha s been later expanded (as real a nd universal truths) to therest of society. Following this approach, the familial household may beconsidered as a disciplining/ta ming element of the system, which usesaspects linked to feeling and everyday life to achieve its goals.

D isciplining, not in the sense of an obligation forced dow n on t heindividual, but kept through a symbolic domination w hich tends to b e amore effective and in some sense a more bruta l oppression. (B ourdieu,in Funari, 1991: 124)

It is clear that in order to guarantee the working and reproduction of thecapitalist system, the idea of inequality among individuals should beaccepted as a natural, unquestionable truth. In this sense, the familialhousehold plays a funda menta l role as a taming/disciplining element of thesystem, the ideological effect of which, once internalized, will be present

along the whole of every individuals life. Foucault said, referring to theeffect of prison architecture on convicts (1976: 204): prisoners are in apower situat ion, being themselves agents of their own submission . . ..

Finally, we can say that a social archeology of housing can play a majorrole both in future archaeological research in Latin America and in con-tributing to enga gement with society in order to empower and ema ncipatepeople (Funari, 1993, 1994, 2002; Miller and Tilley, 1996: 11). We aresatisfied if this article is a step in this direction.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the following colleagues: David Austin, Luis Felipe Bate,Mark G rahame, R ichard H ingley, Matthew Johnson, Mrio Maestri, R andallMcG uire, Lynn Meskell, Charles E . Orser, Jr, Irina Podgorny, G usta vo Politis, Co linR ichards, Ama lia Sanguinetti de B rmida, Mara Ximena Senatore, Peter G . Stone,and Peter Wade, as well as five anonymous referees. The ideas presented here areour ow n, for w hich we are therefore solely responsible. We must also acknow ledgethe institutional support of the So Paulo Sta te Science Foundat ion (FAP E SP), theBrazilian Science Foundation (CNPq), the Argentine Science Foundation

(CONICET) and the University of Campinas (UNICAMP). Finally, particularthanks to Lorena C onnolly for her help in the tra nslation of sections of this articlefrom Spanish into English.


18/23


Notes

1 This type wa s adapted for different social stra ta using the number of rooms,differences in orna mentation and location as va riables.

2 For this we built an idea l model of ea ch using those elements whichcharacterize them.3 B y number of nodes we understa nd the number of circumscribed physical

spaces, defined within an a rchitectural structure. Contra ry to B lanto n (1994:52), we do no t consider outside spaces as nodes.

4 In our case, and due to the examples ta ken, it is useful to d ivide the number ofconnections by the number of nodes.

5 In this case, it comes from the addition of ea ch connection.6 The number of connections among nod es comes from the ad dition of number

of connections.

7 The work is done w ith the a verages of the a ddition of the outside dista nce a ndits division among the number of nodes.

References

Acuto, F. (1999) Paisaje y D ominacin: La C onstitucin del Espacio Social en elImperio Inka, in A. Z ara nkin and F. Acuto (eds) Sed non Satiata: Teora Socialen la A rqueologa L atinoamer icana Contempornea, pp. 3376. B uenos Aires:D el Tridente.

Andrade Lima, T. (1999) El Huevo de la Serpiente: Una Arqueologa del Capi-

talismo E mbrionario en el Rio de Ja neiro del Siglo XI X, in A Z ara nkin and F.Acuto (eds) Sed non Satiata: Teora Social en la A rqueologa L atinoamer icanaContempornea, pp. 189238. B uenos Aires: D el Tridente.

Arbide, D . (1991a) Tipologa A rquitectnica; L a Tcnica del A nlisis Tipolgico:la Ca sa Ca jon, in D . Arbide (ed.) D e T ipos y T ipologas en la Vi vienda Popu lar,pp. 1425. Concepcin del Uruguay: Facultad de A rquitectura y U rbanismo.

Arbide, D . (1991b) La Vivienda Popular en B uenos Aires en la D cada de 1930,in D. Arbide (ed.) D e T ipos y T ipologas en l a Vi vienda Popu lar, pp. 69.Concepcin del Uruguay: Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo.

Arbide, D ., R . Arteca a nd G . Romero , eds (1985) D e Tipos y Transformaciones

de la C asa C horizo a la C asa C ajn, in D ocumentos de A rquitectura Nacional yAmeri cana, 20: 2931. B uenos A ires: Instituto Argentino de I nvestigaciones enHistoria de la Arquitectura.

Arbide, D ., G . Aspiazu and J . G arcia (1991) La C asa C horizo: U na Tipologa parala C iudad, in D. A rbide (ed.) D e T ipos y T ipologas en l a Vi vienda Popu lar, pp.15. C oncepcin del U ruguay: Facultad de Arq uitectura y U rbanismo.

Austin, D . and J . Thoma s (1986) The P roper Study of Medieval Archa eology: ACase Study, in D . Austin and L. Alcock (eds) From the Baltic to the B lack Sea,Studies in M edieval A rchaeology, pp. 4478. London: Unwin Hyman.

B at e, L.F. (1998) E l Pr oceso de I nvestigacin en A rqueologa. Barcelona: Crtica.

Benton, T. and C. Benton (1975) Form and Function. London: Crosby LockwoodStaples.

B irdwell-Pheasant, D . and D . Law rence-Z uiga (1999) H ouse L if e. Space, Place andFamily in E urope. Oxford: Berg.


19/23


B lanto n, R . (1994) H ouses and H ousehol ds. New York: Plenum Press.B ourd ieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.B ourd ieu, P. (1989) O Poder Simblico. R o de Janeiro: B ertrand B rasil.

D e C ertea u, M. (1980) L a Invencin de lo Cotidiano: 1 A rtes de H acer. Mxico:Universidad Iberoamericana.

D eetz, J . (1977) I n Small Things Forgotten. New York: Anchor Books.D eetz, J. (1988) Ma terial C ulture and the Worldwide in Co lonial Anglo-America,

in M. Leone a nd P. Po tter (eds) The Recovery of M eaning, pp. 21033. Washing-ton, D C: Smithsonian.

D iez, F. (1986) Buenos A ir es y A lgunas Constantes en las Tr ansformacionesUrbanas. Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Universidad de Belgrano.

D onley-R eid, L . (1990) A Structuring Structure: The Sw ahili house, in S. K ent(ed.) D omestic A rchi tecture and the Use of Space. New D irections in A rchae-ology. Cambridge: Ca mbridge U niversity P ress.

E co, U . (1968) L a Estructura A usente. Barcelona: Lumen.Fletcher, R . (1989) The Messages of M aterial B ehaviour: A P reliminary D iscussion

of Non-verbal Meaning, in I. Hodder (ed.) The M eaning of T hings, pp. 339.London: HarperCollins.

Forrester, V. (1996) El H orror E conmico. Mxico: Fondo E conmico de Cultura.Forrester, V. (2000) Una Extr aa D ictadura. Mxico: Fondo E conmico de C ultura.Foucault, M. (1976) Vi gilar y Castigar. El Nacim iento de la Prisin. Mxico: Siglo

XXI .Fournier, P. (1999) La Arqueologa Social Latinoamericana: Caracterizacin de

una Posicin Terica Marxista, in A. Zarankin and F. Acuto (eds) Sed nonsatiata. Teora Social en la A rqueologa L atinoamericana Contempornea, pp.1732. B uenos Aires: E diciones D el Tridente.

Fra mpto n, K . (1980) M odern A rchitecture: A Cr itical H istory. Lond on: Thames andHudson.

Funari, P. (1991) E l Mito B andeirante: E lite B rasilea, Cultura M aterial e I nden-tidad, Boletn de A ntropol oga Americana24: 11221.

Funa ri, P.P .A. (1986) Arqueologia. So P aulo: tica.Funari, P.P.A. (1993) Memria Histrica e Cultura Material, Revista Br asil eir a de

H istria13(25/26): 1731.

Funari, P.P.A. (1994) Rescuing Ordinary Peoples Culture: Museums, MaterialCulture and E ducation in B razil, in P.G . Stone and B .L. Molineaux (eds) ThePresented Past: H er itage, Museums and Education, pp. 12036. London: Rout-ledge.

Funari, P.P.A. (1995) Mixed Features of Archaeological Theory in Brazil, in P.J.Ucko (ed.) Theory in A rchaeology: A Wor ld Perspective, pp. 23650. London:Routledge.

Funari, P.P.A. (1996) H istorical Archaeology in B razil, U ruguay and Argentina,Worl d A rchaeological B ulletin7: 5162.

Funari, P.P.A. (1997) Archaeology, History, and Historical Archaeology in South

Amrica, I nternational Journal of H istori cal A rchaeology1(3): 189206.Funari, P.P.A. (1998) A Herana Medieval do Brasil: Mentalidades, Usos e

Costumes Feudais, Resenha de Luis Weckmann, La Herencia Medieval delBrasil, L ocus6: 13743.


20/23


Funari, P.P .A. (1999) H istorical A rchaeology from a World P erspective, in P.P.A .Funari, M. H all and S. Jones (eds) H istorical A rchaeology: Back from the Edge,pp. 3766. L ondo n: R outledge.

Funari, P.P.A. (2000) Comment to A Critical Archaeology Revisited, by L.A.

Wilkie and K. Bartoy, Cur rent A nthropology41(5): 7645.Funari, P.P.A. (2001) Public Archaeology from a Latin American Perspective,

Publ ic A rchaeology1: 23943.Funari, P.P.A . (2002) C lass Interests and St ruggle in B razilian Archaeology , Inter-

national Journal of H istori cal A rchaeology(in press).Furlong, G . (1969) E l T ransplante Social. B uenos Aires: TE A.G iddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: A ction , Structure and

Contr adiction in Social Analysis. London: Ma cmillan.G lassie, H . (1975) Folk H ousing in M iddle Vir ginia. Knoxville: University of

Tennessee Press.

G raha me, M. (1995) The H ouse of Pompeii: Space and Social Interaction , unpub-lished P hD thesis, Faculty of A rts, D epartment of A rchaeology, SouthamptonU niversity, U K.

G rahame, M. (1997) Public and P rivate in the R oman H ouse: The Spatial O rderof the Casa del Fauno, Journal of Roman A rchaeology22: 13764.

H age, P. (1979) G raph Theory a s a Structural Model in Cultural Anthropology,A nnual Review of A nthropology8: 11536.

H illier, B . and J. H anson (1984) The Social L ogic of Space. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

H ingley, R . (1999) The Imperial C ontext of R oma no-B ritish Studies and P roposa ls

for a New Understanding of Social Change, in P.P.A. Funari, M. Hall and S.Jones (eds) H istori cal A rchaeology: Back fr om the Edge, pp. 13750. London:Routledge.

Hodder, I. (1984) Burials, Houses, Women and Men in the European Neolithic,in D. Miller and C. Tilley (eds) I deology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge:Cambridge U niversity P ress.

Hodder, I. (1987) The A rchaeology of Contextual M eanings. New D ir ections inA rchaeology. Cambridge: Ca mbridge U niversity P ress.

Hodder, I. (1994) Architecture and Meaning: The Example of Neolithic Housesand Tombs, in M. Parker Pearson and C . R ichards (eds) A rchitecture and Order:

A ppr oaches to Social Space, pp. 7386. L ondo n: R outledge.Iglesia, R . (1991) I dentidad Cul tural y Construccin del H abitat: Or ientndose en el

L aberi nto. B uenos Aires.Jo hnson, M. (1991) The E nglishmans H ome a nd its Study , in R . Samson (ed.) The

Social A rchaeology of H ouses. E dinburgh: E dinburgh U niversity P ress.Johnson, M. (1993) H ousing Cul ture: Tr aditional H ouses in an English L andscape.

Washington, D C : Smithsonian.Johnson, M. (1994) Ordering Houses, Creating Narratives, in M. Parker Pearson

and C . R ichards (eds) A rchitecture and O rder, pp. 1707. L ondo n: R outledge.Johnson, M. (1996) A n A rchaeology of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kent, S. (1990) D omestic A rchi tecture and the Use of Space. New D irections inA rchaeology. Cambridge: Ca mbridge U niversity P ress.

Lawrence, R. (1990) Public Collective and Private Spaces: A Study of UrbanHousing in Switzerland, in S. Kent (ed.) D omestic A rchi tecture and the Use of


21/23


Space, pp. 7391. New D irections in A rchaeology. Cambridge: CambridgeU niversity Press.

Lecuona, D. (1979) Vivienda Poscolonial, D ocumentos de A rquitectura Nacionaly Ameri cana8: 4451.

Leo ne, M. (1977) The New Mormo n Temple in Washington D .C ., in L. Ferguson(ed.) H istori cal A rchaeology and the Impor tance of M ateri al Thi ngs, SpecialPublicat ion Series (2): 4361. Tucson, A Z : Society fo r H istorical Archaeology.

Leone, M. (1984) Interpreting Ideology in Historical Archaeology: The WilliamPaca G arden in Annapolis, Maryland, in D . Miller and C . Tilley (eds)I deology, Power and Prehistory, pp. 2535. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Leo ne, M.P. (1986) Symbo lic, Structural and Critical Archaeo logy, in D .J. Meltzer,D.D. Fowler and J.A. Sabloff (eds) Ameri can A rchaeology, Past and Future,pp. 41538. Washington, D C : Smithsonian.

Maestri, M. (2001) O Sobrado e o Cativo. A A rqui tetura Urbana Erudi ta no B rasilEscravi sta. O Caso Gacho. Passo Fundo: Universidade do Passo Fundo.

Markus, T. (1993) Buil dings and Power: Freedom and Control in the Ori gin ofM odern Buildi ngs Types. Oxford: Blackwell.

Marx, K . (1847/1976) The German I deology. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Marx, K . (1867/1976) Capital: A Cr itique of Political E conomy, Vol. 1. Harmonds-

worth: Penguin.McG uire, R . and R . Paynter (1991) The A rchaeology of I nequality. Oxford: Black-

well.McG uire, R. a nd M. Schiffer (1983) A Theory o f A rchitectural D esign, Journal of

A nthropological A rchaeology2: 277303.Meskell, L ., C. G osden, I. H odder, et al. (2001) E ditorial statement, Journal of

Social A rchaeology1(1): 512.Miller, D. (1984) Modernism and Suburbia as Material Ideology, in D. Miller and

C. Tilley (eds) Ideology, Power and Prehistory, pp. 3749. Cambridge:Cambridge U niversity P ress.

Miller, D . a nd C . Tilley (1996) E ditoria l, Journal of M ateri al Culture1: 514.Monks, G . (1992) Architectual Symbolism and Non-verba l Co mmunication a t

U pper Fort G arry, H istorical A rchaeology26(2): 3757.Moreno, C ., ed. (1997) La Vivienda Familiar , in E l D iari o I ntimo del Pas. B uenos

Aires: La Nacin.Nada l Mora , V. (1951) Estetica de la A rqu itectura Colonial y Poscolonial A rgentina.

Buenos Aires: El Ateneo.Nielsen, A. (1995) Architectural Performance and Social Reproduction of Power,

in J. Skibo, W. Walker and A. Nielsen (eds) Expanding A rchaeology. Salt LakeCity: University of Utah Press.

Nuttgens, P. (1983) H istoria de la A rqui tectura. Mad rid: Ediciones D estino.Orser, C.E., Jr (1996) A H istorical A rchaeology of the M odern Wor ld. New York:

Plenum Press.Orser, C.E ., Jr and Pedro P aulo A . Funari (2001) Archaeology a nd Slave R esist-

ance and R ebellion, Worl d A rchaeology33: 6172.Parker Pearson, M. and C. Richards (1994) A rchitecture and Order: A pproaches to

Social Space. London: Routledge.Paynter, R . and R . McG uire (1991) The Archaeology of Ineq uality: Material


22/23


Culture, D omination, and R esistance, in R . Pa ynter and R . McG uire (eds) TheA rchaeology of Inequality, pp. 127. O xford: B lackwell.

Penrose, J. (1992) Essential Constructions? The Cultural B ases of Na tiona listMovements, Nations and N ationalism1: 391417.

Podgorny, I. (1999) A rqueologa de la Educacin. Textos, Indicios, M onumentos.B uenos Aires: Asociacin A rgentina de Antropologa.

Po litis, G . (1995) The Socio-politics of the D evelopment o f A rchaeology inHispanic South America, in P.J. Ucko (ed.) Theory in A rchaeology: A Worl dPerspective, pp. 197235. London: Routledge.

Politis, G . (2001) O n A rchaeological Pra xis, G ender B ias and Indigenous Peoplesin South A merica, Journal of Social A rchaeology1(1): 90107.

R apoport, A. (1969) H ouse Form and Culture. London: P rentice-H all, Inc.Rapoport, A. (1982) The M eaning of the Built E nvironment: A Nonverbal

Communication Approach. B everly H ills, CA : Sage.

Rapoport, A. (1990a) Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings, in S. Kent(ed.) D omestic A rchi tecture and the Use of Space, pp. 920. Cambridge:Cambridge U niversity P ress.

Rapoport, A. (1990b) H istory and Precedent in Envir oment Design. New York:Plenum Press.

Samson, R., ed. (1990) The Social A rchaeology of H ouses. E dinburgh: E dinburghUniversity Press.

Senatore, M.X. (1995) Tecno logas Nativas y Estrategias de Ocupacin Espaola enla Regin del Ro de L a Plata. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Stedman, S. (1996) Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond

the Founda tions, Jour nal of A rchaeological Research4(1): 5193.Tarrag, M. (1987) Sociedad y Sistema de Asentamiento en Yocavil, Cuadernos

del I nstituto Nacional de A ntropologa12: 17996.Tilley, C. (1989) Interpreting Ma terial C ulture, in I. H odd er (ed.) The M eaning of

Things, pp. 18594. London: HarperCollins.Torre R evello, J. (1928) Aporte para el Conocimiento d e la Casa U rba na y R stica

en la poca Colonial, Boletn del I nstituto de Investigaciones H istr icas, pp.3208. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Investigaciones Histricas, FFyL, UBA.

Torre Revello, J. (1934) Arquitectura Virreinal, Estudios y D ocumentos para laH istoria del A rte Coloni al. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Investigaciones Histri-

cas, FFyL, UBA.Torre R evello, J . (1957) La Vivienda en el B uenos Aires Antiguo: D esde los

Orgenes H asta los Comienzos del Siglo XI X , A nales del I nstituto de A rte Amer-icano, FAD U -U B A 10: 84125.

Wade, P. (1994) R epresentation a nd Pow er: B lacks in Colombia, in G .C. B ond a ndA. G illiam (eds) The Social Construction o f the Past, Representation as Power,pp. 5973. L ondo n: R outledge.

Waisman, M. (1997) A rqui tectura Colonial A rgentina. B uenos Aires: Summa.Warnier, J.P. (2001) A Praxeological Approach to Subjectivation in a Material

World, Journal of M aterial Culture6(1): 524.

Zarankin, A. (1994) A rqueologa H istrica en Santa Fe la V ieja. Columbia:U niversity of South C arolina P ress.

Z ara nkin, A. (1997) Vivienda Familiar y Sistema Capitalista : U na Lectura A rque-olgica, unpublished Ma sters thesis (FAD U -U B A), B uenos Aires.


23/23


Z ara nkin, A. (1999a) Casa Toma da: Sistema, Pod er y Vivienda Familiar, in A .Z ara nkin and F. Acuto (eds) Sed non Satiata: Teora Social en la A rqueologa L ati-noameri cana Contempornea, pp. 23972. B uenos A ires: Ediciones D el Tridente.

Z ara nkin, A. (1999b) Arqueologa de la A rquitectura: Another B rick on the Wall,

in P.P.A. Funari, E.G . Neves and I. Podgorny (eds) A nais da Pr imeira Reuniode Teoria A rqueolgica na Amrica do Sul, pp. 11928. So Paulo:MA E /U SP /FAPE SP.

Zarankin, A. (2001) Paredes que Domesticam: Arqueologia da ArquiteturaE scolar Ca pitalista: o C aso de B uenos Aires, unpublished PhD Thesis,U NICA MP, Campinas.

Z ara nkin, A. (2002) Walls of D omestication : Archaeology of Architecture ofCapitalist E lementary Schools. The Case of B uenos Aires, in P.P.A. Funa ri, A.Zarankin and E. Stovel (eds) A rchaeological Theory in A ction(in prep).

Z ara nkin, A., M.X. Sena tore, S. G uillermo, et al. (1998) Arq ueologa H istrica de

B uenos Aires; Informe de los resultados del P royecto C asa Mnima , B arrio deSan Telmo, Palimpsesto5: 193202.

PEDRO PAULO A. FUNARI is Professor of Historical Archaeology atthe Campinas State University a nd research associate o f the Illinois Sta te

University, the University of Barcelona and the University of So Paulo.He

has published nine books in Brazil and four abroad, as w ell as more tha n

200 articles, a q uarter of them ab roa d. He is co-editor with Martin Hall

and Sin Jones of Historical Archaeology: Back from the Edge (Lond on and

New York: Rout ledge, 1999). His research interests a re the archaeolog y o f

historical societies and public archaeo log y.He is committed to fosteringarchaeological engagement with society and is now senior South

American representa tive at the Executive of the World Archaeolog ical

Cong ress (19942002) and from Ja nua ry 2002 acting WAC Secretary.

[ema il: ped [email protected]]

ANDRS ZARANKIN is currently a postdoctoral researcher at theArgent ine Nationa l Science Found ation (CONICET). He is co-edito r with

Flix Acuto of Sed non Sat iata: Teora Social en la Arqueologa Lat ino-

americana Contemporanea. His main research interests include thearchaeology of a rchitecture and archaeological theory.

[email: [email protected]]

02 funari 2003 social archaeology of housing from a latin ame

Documents