Pedro Paulo Abreu Funari6

Copyright 2002 SAGE Publications (London,Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)Vol 3(1): 2345 [1469-6053(200302)3:1;2345;030097]

Journal of Social Archaeology A R T I C L E

23

Social archaeology of housing from a LatinAmerican perspectiveA case study

PEDRO PAULO A. FUNARI

Department of History, Campinas State University, Brazil

ANDRS ZARANKIN

Departamento de Investigaciones Prehistricas y Arqueolgicas, Dipa-Imhicihu-Conicet, Argentina

ABSTRACTThis 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 and 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. Capitalism tendsto individualize space, create private environments, restrictmovement and control movement in general and houses as material

02 Funari (JG/d) 25/10/02 8:35 am Page 23

24 Journal of Social Archaeology 3(1)

artifacts reflect these tendencies. We conclude that the study ofBuenos Aires housing enables us to note that there has been agrowing tendency to restrict circulation within the house, enforcing acontrolling, bourgeois way of 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 al., 2001) and particularly so for archaeology in Latin 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 Mxico (e.g.Politis, 2001), Spanish-speaking from Portuguese-speaking countries(Funari, 1995, 1997; Politis, 1995), or to stress the importance of local 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). Here, we consider Latin America as 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 world and at its center at the same time, is an ideal place forthe development of new social issues. The structuring of domination intoeveryday activities (Paynter and McGuire, 1991: 9; Podgorny, 1999) isstudied through private housing material culture, over a period of severalcenturies, and tries 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


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 timeand 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 what way artifactschanged over time. We consider that truths in our case legitimatedobjects are built through different practices among which we includemanipulation of the material world (Leone, 1984; McGuire and Paynter,1991; Miller, 1984).

If we consider housing as a part of architecture being itself a peculiartype of language (Fletcher, 1989; Grahame, 1995, 1997; Markus, 1993;Monks, 1992; Parker Pearson and Richards, 1994) through the analysis ofthe processes affecting housing, we will be able to understand the signifi-cance it has had over time. Human landscape is built and resisted by meansof a dialectical game of dominance and resistance (McGuire and Paynter,1991; Orser and Funari, 2001). Architecture as part of the same game can be considered a battlefield where social strata and their ideologies fightone 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 with people (cf. Blanton, 1994; Deetz, 1977, 1988;Glassie, 1975; Grahame, 1995, 1997; Hodder, 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



concerned with typology, but recent research is now discussing the relation-ship between the spacial-architectural structuring of sites and its socio-political connotations, concluding that manipulation of such elements canwork as a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of power relationshipsand 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 Pearson andRichards, 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 panoptical form (see Figure 1) is the best example ofthis controlling trend (Foucault, 1976: 204).

Grahame (1995) states 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 global ideology, shaping the minds of architects 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)



of construction (Eco, 1968: 365), satisfying peoples demands and atthe same time persuading them to live in a certain, controlled way (Eco,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 Bourdieu (1977) points out, socialization isdeeply rooted in domestic practices and sexual, social, economic and behav-ioral habits are shaped by the household itself. Habitus is thus directlylinked to buildings as an opus operatum (Bourdieu, 1977: 90) and socialpractices are structured by them (Giddens, 1979). Space is loaded withsymbolic elements expressing meaning and reproducing inequality (ParkerPearson and Richards, 1994).

Architecture, as one of the basic components of the human constructionof space, can be understood as technology of power (Foucault, 1976), aimedat having people docilely favor the reproduction of power relationships, butalso inevitably leading to resistance. Material culture in the form both ofarchitecture and portable artifacts is routinely read by the people andcontributes to the formation of their subjectivity (Austin and Thomas,1986: 46). In this case study, we deal with academic design, stressing thestrategies of domination embedded in housing design, even though we alsoacknowledge that resistance not mentioned in architecture has alwaysbeen an active part of housing use. In other words, our analysis is centeredon domination strategies, therefore the type of house designed by both thebuilder and 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 of Buenos 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(Markus, 1993). Middle-class housing is directly linked to capitalism and tothe control and the normative 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



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 analysis, we want to state that thereexists no general consensus among historians of Buenos Aires architectureon the morphological types of middle-class households built over time(Arbide et al., 1985; Arbide, 1991a; Diez, 1986; Iglesia, 1991; Torre Revello,1928, 1934, 1957). In this case, three basic models of mono-familiar houseswithin the Spanish tradition (Diez, 1986), which were widely spread amongthe Buenos Aires middle-classes, have been analyzed: colonial household,also known as viceroyalty house, (late eighteenth, middle nineteenthcenturies) chorizo house1 (late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries) andmodern 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 cases so as to identify basic repeated patterns which differenti-ate them from the rest. In other words, establishing an architectonic typeconsists of generating an ideal model representing many buildings madeaccording to those basic patterns we have isolated.

PAT TERNS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF ARCHITECTONICSTRUCTURES

Once the types of domestic households have been determined, it isnecessary to define an appropriate pattern for the analysis of architectonic

Figure 2 An example of the application of the Gamma method of analysisby Hillier and Hanson.The diagram shows how four plants that seem similarare quite different structures (Hillier and Hanson, 1984: 150)



structures. Although there are different methods for comparing architec-tural structures (Blanton, 1994; Hage, 1979; Hillier and Hanson, 1984;Samson, 1990, among others) the indexes of Scale, Integration andComplexity, developed by Blanton (1994), with few adaptations to ourcase study, proved useful to our objectives and expectations (cf. Zarankin,2001, 2002). These require the application of the Gamma analysis,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 spatial configurations: distributive andnon-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 Gamma analysis picture. Therefore, on analysing a structure,it is necessary to make a general evaluation in order to categorize itsconfiguration as distributive or non-distributive. In the cases presented byHillier and Hanson structures B and C are distributive and A and D arenon-distributive.

Distributive structures show high figures of low connections, that is oneconnection every node, whereas distributive structures present high figuresof high connections, that 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 central aspect in this Gamma analysis 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 dowith the isolation and access difficulty of each space.

As Grahame points out (1995: 62), the application of Hillier andHansons pattern does not consist of a mere translation of designs intoschemes and graphics; on the contrary, it is a very delicate job, which



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 theplans in order to establish a morphological comparison.

The indexes set by Richard Blanton (1994), which require the appli-cation of the Hillier and Hanson pattern, help achieve a comparison of thedifferent architectural structures to one another, and can be summed up asfollows.

Scale index This consists of counting the number of nodes3 in the diagram(if possible, the surface of the area and the number of inhabitants shouldbe added) in order to get the measure of m2/person.

Integration index This index is linked to the circulation within the struc-ture and expresses the degree of restraint within it. It is the result of dividingthe number of nodes by the amount of doors or passages 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, Blanton refers to the functional variationof the usage of space. If the information of activities or specific functional-ity is scarce, the author proposes that calculations should be based on thedegree of accessibility or intercommunication of each node. In this way weknow not only the amount of connections in the structure, but also thedegree of accessibility and the circulation within each 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 = = amount of connections among nodes6

Complexity index B = accessibility of each node to the outside(number of spaces that need to be crossed)7

integration index =Amount of connections5

number of nodes

Scale index = number of nodes



The result allows us to compare qualitative and quantitative data among thedifferent types, and therefore to observe the changes in buildings over time.

The colonial house

The Spanish colonial system applied the pattern of the Roman-Pompeyancourtyard-house with very few structural modifications in Buenos Airesas well as in many other Latin American towns (Diez, 1986; Furlong, 1969;Nadal Mora, 1951; Torre Revello, 1928, 1934, 1957; Waisman, 1997). Thecolonial house consisted of one-storey, the front of 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 formal differences among the rooms wouldmark the function of each one. It was only through decoration, furnitureand spatial location that function and hierarchy could be inferred. A secondpassage opened onto a second yard 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



in the Roman impluvium and the Arab al jib, was the source of drinkingwater (Figure 3).

The structure shows a highly symmetrical plant. The integration andcomplexity indexes show the degree of 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 was 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 and slaves.

Both in this house and in the chorizo, function and status of the roomsand inhabitants are expressed by means of the location and the use ofobjects furniture, picture, cutlery mirrors, curtains and so on. This factshows that the choice of the function for each room is depended on itsinhabitants (Monks, 1992).

The Chorizo house

The chorizo house, or Gringos house, appears linked to the growth andconsolidation 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 patterns, which are familiar (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 reusing 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 atseparate places, and it might be considered as the survival of past traditions.

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 an 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 at the end of the structure.

As was the case in the colonial house, the chorizo house was aconsistently popular building type over several decades and was used as amodel in the design of many multifamiliar houses built at the beginning ofthe twentieth century (Arbide, 1991a, 1991b; Arbide et al., 1991; Diez,1986).

Unlike the colonial house, the chorizo house (Figure 4) had an asym-metric plant. Nevertheless, when analyzing the results of the gamma



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 connectionswith other spaces).

Some of the readings suggest that this house legitimates itself throughthe use of elements borrowed 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 chorizo house can be explained as validation of thenew orders by repossession of previous traditions from differentapproaches, bearing 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 chorizo house



The modern house

The morphology of modern houses shows a radical fracture with previousarchitectural designs. Based on rational and functional conceptions,(Benton and Benton, 1975) such elements as concrete, iron and glass areused in their building (Moreno, 1997). In the facades of such houses thebuilding 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, stating 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 for the modernhouse. Furthermore, if we consider aesthetic aspects, there seems to be aninfinite number of houses that are completely different from one another.

Figure 5 The modern house



Nevertheless, on studying their structure we realize a repetition og commonelements. Among these general features, which can be identified in mostof modern houses, are mono-functional rooms, distribution halls andpassages, high reaching construction, spaces hierarchically ranked becauseof their specific characteristics or location, grouping of people according toage, sex and family 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 bear 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. Notwithstanding the fact that facades may be madeof brick, concrete, stone or tile, that rooms may be round, rectangular ofsquare, or that decoration may be completely different, under this apparentheterogeneity, the same basic principles of spatial organization are alwayspresent. Underlying an alleged freedom of choice, there is a greater controlover individuals. In the modern house, spaces and their functions are prede-termined, for example dining room, bedroom, garage and so on. The spatialand morphological characteristics of each room make it difficult to give aspace a different function according to ones 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 naturalcategories.

The increase in control over people is achieved by means of the intro-duction of restrictions both in space and activities. Thus, more control 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, discipline is derived basically from the distribution of individualsin 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 in as many units as bodies or elements to be allottedthere are . . . (1976: 1456).



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 orher place inside the structure, by the amount of space, and by the type ofmaterial objects and comfort inside it. Everybody knows that the best room;the one with an adjacent bathroom or the largest, should be used by theparents. A similar differentiation exists among siblings according to vari-ables, such as age and sex. Thus, this is a mechanism through which theideas of inequality are made explicit. Individuals are taught to accept andrespect the place that has been pre-established for them. Another ideaunderlying this message is that one day they will be occupying the high rankin the hierarchy, as long as they follow the set rules.

On considering the changes as regards to accessibility in leave and reachthe room and inter-room communication, there is a clear tendency to non-distributive patterns. In the last examples there is only one door per room,notwithstanding the fact that the modern house has the greatest number ofrooms.

CONCLUSION

Capitalism as a totalizing system is a formation, the structures of which gointo and can be found in most of the aspects of social, cultural and 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.

Every house type makes sense if we analyze it within the historical andregional context within which it was developed. Therefore, the colonialhouse of the end of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries is relatedto a mercantile capitalism, during which a well-to-do merchant class flour-ished; the chorizo house is related 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,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 trends, which have lasted over time,may be observed:

First, there is a tendency to make spaces cellular (Foucault, 1976).This means that there are more spaces related to the number ofoccupants (in a house the average is 2 or 3 rooms per person).Furthermore, these spaces tend to have specific pre-established



Social context Social context Social contextMercantile capitalism Industrial capitalism Cybernetic capitalism

Period18th-century and first End of the second half Second half of the 20thhalf of 19th century. of the 19th century and century and most

beginning of the 20th notably from the 1970s.century.

Historical context1776 creation of the Consolidation of the Increasing specialisation Viceroyalty of La Plata. industrial pattern based of products and Trade based on buying on industrial production. professionals.cheap to selling Growth and consolidation Expansion of expensive. of the proletariat. multinational companies Trade monopolised Populationgrowth. 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.origins. (Greater Buenos Aires). Unequal competition.Importance of smuggling. Arrival in the country of Spreading of Importance of the large numbers of information technology.harbour. European immigrants. Development of the

Industrial impulse to the mass media and means country soon after the of transport.world wars. Concentration of venerits Importance of the port and power in hands of a and railway. reduced technocrat elite.

Increase in social inequality and social exclusion of poor strata,cast out of the economic system.

FamilyExtended family Extended family Nuclear family, usually comprising dependants comprising several composed of parents and centred around a nuclear units belonging and two to three patron. to the same lineage. children.Patriarchal-organization.Hierarchical organisation based on family origins rather than in money,old stock privileges.

Table 1 Mercantile, industrial and cybernetic capitalism.The basicsocioeconomic aspects of each period



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

Second, there is a reduction in the integration index over time. Thisclearly shows a restriction in connection of spaces with one another.Thus: (1) alternative circuits of inside circulation disappear; (2) somerooms (halls of distribution) become unavoidable.

Third, the decrease in access to, or increase in remoteness from, theoutside that each of the different rooms in the house have 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 general rule, the number ofoccupants of the houses studied tended to diminish over time.Several social scientists relate this process which can be seen inWestern societies at a world wide scale to the economic, politicaland ideological needs of the system (Lawrence, 1990).

Thus, the design trends observed show an increase in the restrictive aspects,as a means of materializing the control criteria; among which the isolationof activities and individuals is particularly noteworthy. This is achieved bymeans of different mechanisms, such as the addition of new spaces or sub-division of those existing. The relationship between the growth of controlelements and architectonic design, in the modern house, is materializedthrough fixed elements such as walls, semi-fixed ones such as pieces of furni-ture and non-fixed ones such as behaviors (Monks, 1992). In the case ofcolonial and chorizo houses 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 legitimization and formalizationof the inequality principles. From a structural point of view, these changesreflect the increase in complexity and in social differentiation among indi-viduals groups and classes in society (McGuire and Schiffer, 1983).

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

Karl Marx once said that the architect builds the cell in his mind beforehe constructs it in wax (Marx, 1867/1976: 284) and the minds of architectsare shaped by ruling ideas: also der Verhltnisse, die eben die eine Klassezur herrschenden machen, also die Gedanken ihrer Herrschaft [hence ofthe relations which make the one class the ruling one, therefore, the ideasof its dominance] (Marx, 1847/1976).

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 (Bourdieu, 1989), disciplining people into social life.



Changes in world capitalism are directly reflected in academic housingpatterns and increasingly, the family household can be considered as a disci-plining device (Foucault, 1976; Grahame, 1995). As Donley-Reid (1990) hassuggested, it is possible to relate morphological changes in household plantsto changes in society at large, especially to global capitalism.

From this perspective, the changes along time in middle-class, familiarhouseholds are sending messages linked to the handling and exercising ofpower. They have also worked as a self-disciplining strategy of the bour-geois, which has been later expanded (as real and universal truths) to therest of society. Following this approach, the familiar household may beconsidered as a disciplining/taming element of the system, which usesaspects linked to feeling and every day life to achieve its goals.

Disciplining, not in the sense of an obligation forced down on theindividual, but kept through a symbolic domination which tends to be amore effective and in some sense a more brutal oppression. (Bourdieu,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 category. In this sense, the familiarhousehold plays a fundamental role as a taming/disciplining element of thesystem, the ideological effect of which, once internalized, will be presentalong the whole of every individuals life. Foucault said, referring to theeffect of prison architecture over convicts (1976: 204): prisoners are in apower situation, being themselves agents of their own submission . . ..

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

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following colleagues: David Austin, Luis Felipe Bate,Mark Grahame, Richard Hingley, Matthew Johnson, Mrio Maestri, RandallMcGuire, Lynn Meskell, Charles E. Orser, Jr, Irina Podgorny, Gustavo Politis, ColinRichards, Amalia Sanguinetti de Brmida, Mara Ximena Senatore, Peter G. Stone,Peter Wade, as well as five anonymous referees. The ideas presented here are ourown, for which we are therefore solely responsible. We must also acknowledge theinstitutional support of the So Paulo State Science Foundation (FAPESP), theBrazilian Science Foundation (CNPq), the Argentine Science Foundation(CONICET) and the University of Campinas (UNICAMP). Finally, particularthanks to Lorena Connolly for her help in the translation of sections of this articlefrom Spanish into English.



Notes

1 This type was adapted for different social strata using the number of rooms,differences in ornamentation and location as variables.

2 For this we built an ideal model of each using those elements whichcharacterize them.

3 By amount of nodes we understand the number of circumscribed physicalspaces, defined within an architectural structure. Contrary to Blanton (1994:52), we do not consider outside spaces as nodes.

4 In our case, and due to the examples taken, it is useful to divide the amount ofconnections by the amount of nodes.

5 In this case, it comes from the addition of each connection.6 The amount of connection of nodes comes from the addition of amount of

connections.7 The work is done with the averages of the addition of the outside distance and

its division among the amount of nodes.

References

Andrade Lima, T. (1999) El Huevo de la Serpiente: Una Arqueologa del Capi-talismo Embrionario en el Rio de Janeiro del Siglo XIX, in A Zarankin and F.Acuto (eds) Sed Non Satiata; Teora Social en la Arqueologa LatinoamericanaContempornea, pp. 189238. Buenos Aires: Del Tridente.

Acuto, F. (1999) Paisaje y Dominacin: La Constitucin del Espacio Social en elImperio Inka, in A. Zarankin and F. Acuto (eds) Sed Non Satiata; Teora Socialen la Arqueologa Latinoamericana Contempornea, pp. 3376. Bueonos Aires:Del Tridente.

Arbide, D. (1991a) Tipologa Arquitectnico; La Tcnica del Anlisis Tipolgico:la Casa Cajon, in D. Arbide (ed.) De Tipos y Tipologas en la Vivienda Popular,pp. 1425. Concepcin del Uruguay: Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo.

Arbide, D. (1991b) La Vivienda Popular en Buenos Aires en la Dcada de 1930,in D. Arbide (ed.) De Tipos y Tipologas en la Vivienda Popular, pp. 69.Concepcin del Uruguay: Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo.

Arbide, D., R. Arteca and G. Romero, eds (1985) De Tipos y Transformacionesde la Casa Chorizo a la Casa Cajn, in Documentos de Arquitectura Nacional yAmericana, 20: 2931. Buenos Aires: Instituto Argentino de Investigaciones enHistoria de la Arquitectura.

Arbide, D., G. Aspiazu and J. Garcia (1991) La Casa Chorizo: Una Tipologa parala Ciudad, in D. Arbide (ed.) De Tipos y Tipologas en la Vivienda Popular, pp.15. Concepcin del Uruguay: Facultad de Arquitectura y Urbanismo.

Austin, D. and J. Thomas (1986) The Proper Study of Medieval Archaeology: aCase Study, in D. Austin and L. Alcock (eds) From the Baltic to the Black Sea,Studies in Medieval Archaeology, pp. 4478. London: Unwin Hyman.

Bate, L.F. (1998) El Proceso de Investigacin en Arqueologa. Barcelona: Crtica.Benton, T. and C. Benton (1975) Form and Function. London: Crosby Lockwood

Staples.Birdwell-Pheasant, D. and D. Lawrence-Zuiga (1999) HouseLife; Space, Place and

Family in Europe. Oxford: Berg.



Blanton, R. (1994) Houses End Households. New York: Plenum Press.Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Bourdieu, P. (1989) O Poder Simblico. Ro de Janeiro: Bertrand Brasil.De Certeau, M. (1980) La Invencin de lo Cotidiano; 1 Artes de Hacer. Mxico:

Universidad Iberoamericana.Deetz, J. (1977) In Small Things Forgotten. New York: Anchor Books.Deetz, J. (1988) Material Culture and the Worldwide in Colonial Anglo-America,

in M. Leone and P. Potter (eds) The Recovery of Meaning, pp. 21033. Washing-ton DC: Smithsonian.

Diez, F. (1986) Buenos Aires y Algunas Constantes en las TransformacionesUrbanas. Buenos Aires: Editorial de la Universidad de Belgrano.

Donley-Reid, L. (1990) A Structuring Structure: the Swahili house, in S. Kent (ed.)Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. New Direction in Archaeology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Eco, U. (1968) La Estructura Ausente. Barcelona: Lumen.Fletcher, R. (1989) The Messages of Material Behaviour: a Preliminary Discussion

of Non-verbal Meaning, in I. Hodder (ed.) The Meaning of the Things, pp. 339.London: Harper Collins.

Forrester, V. (1996) El Horror Econmico. Mxico: Fondo Econmico de Cultura.Forrester, V. (2000) Una Extraa Dictadura. Mxico: Fondo Econmico de Cultura.Foucault, M. (1976) Vigilar y Castigar. El Nacimiento 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 Arqueologa Latinoamericana Contempornea, pp.1732. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Del Tridente.

Frampton, K. (1980) Modern Architecture: A Critical History. London: Thames andHudson.

Funari, P. (1991) El Mito Bandeirante: Elite Brasilea, Cultura Material e Inden-tidad, Boletn de Antropologa Americana 24: 11221.

Funari, P.P.A. (1986) Arqueologia. So Paulo: tica.Funari, P.P.A. (1993) Memria Histrica e Cultura Material, Revista Brasileira de

Histria 13(25/26), (set.92/ago.93): 1731.Funari, P.P.A. (1994) Rescuing Ordinary Peoples Culture: Museums, Material

Culture and Education in Brazil, in P.G. Stone and B.L. Molineaux (eds) ThePresented Past, Heritage, 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 Archaeology, A World Perspective, pp. 23650. Routledge:London.

Funari, P.P.A. (1996) Historical Archaeology in Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina,World Archaeological Bulletin 7: 5162.

Funari, P.P.A. (1997) Archaeology, History, and Historical Archaeology in SouthAmrica, International Journal of Historical Archaeology 1(3): 189206.

Funari, P.P.A. (1998) A Herana Medieval do Brasil: Mentalidades, Usos eCostumes Feudais, Resenha de Luis Weckmann, La Herencia Medieval delBrasil, Locus 6: 13743.



Funari, P.P.A. (1999) Historical Archaeology from a World Perspective, in P.P.AFunari, M. Hall and S. Jones (eds) Historical Archaeology, Back from the Edge,pp. 3766. London: Routledge.

Funari, P.P.A. (2000) Comment to A Critical Archaeology Revisited, by L.A.Wilkie and K. Bartoy, Current Anthropology 41(5): 7645.

Funari, P.P.A. (2001) Public Archaeology from a Latin American Perspective,Public Archaeology 1: 23943.

Funari, P.P.A. (2002) Class Interests and Struggle in Brazilian Archaeology, Inter-national Journal of Historical Archaeology (in press).

Furlong, G. (1969) El Transplante Social. Buenos Aires: TEA.Giddens, A. (1979) Central Problems in Social Theory: Action Structure and Contra-

diction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan.Glassie, H. (1975) Folk Housing in Middle Virginia. Knoxville: University of

Tennessee Press.Grahame, M. (1995) The House of Pompeii: Space and Social Interaction, unpub-

lished PhD thesis, Faculty of Arts, Department of Archaeology, SouthamptonUniversity, UK.

Grahame, M (1997) Public and Private in the Roman House: the Spatial Order ofthe Casa del Fauno, Journal of Roman Archaeology 22: 13764.

Hage, P. (1979) Graph Theory as Estructural Model in Cultural Anthropology,Annual Review of Anthropology 8: 11536.

Hillier, B. and J. Hanson (1984) The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Hingley, R. (1999) The Imperial Context of Romano-British Studies and Proposalsfor a New Understanding of Social Change, in P.P.A Funari, M. Hall and S.Jones (eds) Historical Archaeology, Back from 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) Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. (1987) The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. New Direction inArchaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hodder, I. (1994) Architecture and Meaning: The Example of Neolithic Housesand Tumbs, in M. Parker Pearson and C. Richards (eds) Architecture and Order;Approaches to Social Space, pp. 7386. London: Routledge.

Iglesia, R. (1991) Identidad Cultural y Construccin del Habitat: Orientndose en elLaberinto. Buenos Aires.

Johnson, M. (1991) The Englishmans Home and its Study, in R. Samson (ed.) TheSocial Archaeology of Houses. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Johnson, M. (1993) Housing Culture: Traditional Houses in and English Landscape.Washington DC: Smithsonian.

Johnson, M. (1994) Ordering houses, creating narratives, in M. Parker Pearsonand C. Richards (eds) Architecture and Order, 1707. London: Routledge.

Johnson, M. (1996) An Archaeology of Capitalism. Oxford: Blackwell.Kent, S. (1990) Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space. New Direction in

Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lawrence, R. (1990) Public Collective and Private Spaces: a Study of Urban

Housing Switzerland, in S. Kent (ed.) Domestic Architecture and the Use of



Space, pp. 7391. New Direction in Archaeology. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Lecuona, D. (1979) Vivienda Poscolonial, Documentos de Arquitectura Nacionaly Americana 8: 44-51.

Leone, M. (1977) The New Mormon Temple in Washington D.C., in L. Ferguson(ed.) Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things, SpecialPublication Series (2): 4361. Arizona: Society for Historical Archaeology.

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

Leone, M.P. (1986) Symbolic, Structural and Critical Archaeology, in D.J. Meltzer,D.D. Fowler and J.A. Sabloff (eds) American Archaeology, Past and Future,pp. 41538. Washington DC: Smithsonian.

Maestri, M. (2001) O Sobrado e o Cativo. A Arquitetura Urbana Erudita no BrasilEscravista. O Caso Gacho. Passo Fundo: Universidade do Passo Fundo.

Markus, T. (1993) Buildings and Power; Freedom and Control in the Origin ofModern Buildings Types. Oxford: Blackwell.

Marx, K. (1847/1976) The German Ideology. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Marx, K. (1867/1976) Capital: a Critique of Political Economy, Vol. 1. Hard-

mondsworth: Penguin.McGuire, R. and R. Paynter (1991) The Archaeology of Inequality. Oxford: Black-

well.McGuire, R. and M. Schiffer (1983) A Theory of Architectural Design, Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 2: 277303.Meskell, L., C. Gosden, I. Hodder, et al. (2001) Editorial statement, Journal of

Social Archaeology 1(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 University Press.

Miller, D. and Tilley, C. (1996) Editorial, Journal of Material Culture 1: 514.Monks, G. (1992) Architectual Symbolism and Non-verbal Communication at

Upper Fort Garry, Historical Archaeology 26(2): 3757.Moreno, C., ed. (1997) La Vivienda Familiar, in El Diario Intimo del Pas. Buenos

Aires: La Nacin.Nadal Mora, V. (1951) Estetica de la Arquitectura Colonial y Poscolonial Argentina.

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

in J. Skibo, W. Walker and A. Nilsen (eds) Expanding Archaeology. Utah:University of Utah Press.

Nuttgens, P. (1983) Historia de la Arquitectura. Madrid: Ediciones Destino.Orser, C.E., Jr (1996) A Historical Archaeology of the Modern World. New York:

Plenum Press.Orser, C.E., Jr and Pedro Paulo A. Funari (2001) Archaeology and Slave Resist-

ance and Rebellion, World Archaeology 33: 6172.Parker Pearson, M. and C. Richards (1994) Architecture and Order; Approaches to

Social Space. London: Routledge.Paynter, R. and R. McGuire (1991) The Archaeology of Inequality: Material



Culture, Domination, and Resistance, in R. Paynter and R. McGuire (eds) TheArchaeology of Inequality pp. 127. Oxford: Blackwell.

Penrose, J. (1992) Essential Constructions? The Cultural Bases of NationalistMovements, Nations and Nationalism 1: 391417.

Podgorny, I. (1999) Arqueologa de la Educacin. Textos, Indicios, Monumentos.Buenos Aires: Asociacin Argentina de Antropologa.

Politis, G. (1995) The Socio-politics of the Development of Archaeology inHispanic South America, in P.J. Ucko (ed.) Theory in Archaeology, A WorldPerspective, pp. 197235. London: Routledge.

Politis, G. (2001) On Archaeological Praxis, Gender Bias and Indigenous Peoplesin South America, Journal of Social Archaeology 1(1): 90107.

Rapoport, A. (1969) House Form and Culture. London: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Rapoport, A. (1982) The Meaning of Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communi-

cation Approach. California: Sage.Rapoport, A. (1990a) Systems of Activities and Systems of Settings, in S. Kent

(ed.) Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space, pp. 920. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Rapoport, A. (1990b) History and Precedent in Enviroment Design. New York:Plenum Press.

Samson, R., ed. (1990) The Social Archaeology of Houses. Edinburgh: EdinburghUniversity Press.

Senatore, M.X. (1995) Tecnologas Nativas y Estrategias de Ocupacin Espaola enla Regin del Ro de La Plata. Columbia: The University of South Carolina.

Stedman, S. (1996) Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyondthe Foundations, Journal of Archaeological Research 4(1): 5193.

Tarrag, M. (1987) Sociedad y Sistema de Asentamiento en Yocavil, Cuadernosdel Instituto Nacional de Antropologa 12: 17996.

Tilley, C. (1989) Interpreting Material Culture, in I. Hodder (ed.) The Meaning ofthe Things, pp. 18594. London: Harper Collins.

Torre Revello, J. (1928) Aporte Para el Conocimiento de la Casa Urbana y Rsticaen la poca Colonial, Boletn del Instituto de Investigaciones Histricas, pp.3208. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Investigaciones Histricas, FFyL, UBA.

Torre Revello, J. (1934) Arquitectura Virreinal, Estudios y Documentos para laHistoria del Arte Colonial. Buenos Aires: Instituto de Investigaciones Histri-cas, FFyL, UBA.

Torre Revello, J. (1957) La Vivienda en el Buenos Aires Antiguo: Desde losOrgenes Hasta los Comienzos del Siglo XIX, Anales del Instituto de Arte Amer-icano, FADU-UBA 10: 84125.

Wade, P. (1994) Representation and Power: Blacks in Colombia, in G.C. Bond andA. Gilliam (eds) The Social Construction of the Past, Representation as Power,pp. 5973. London: Routledge.

Waisman, M. (1997) Arquitectura Colonial Argentina, Buenos Aires: Summa.Warnier, J.P. (2001) A Praxeological Approach to Subjectivation in a Material

World, Journal of Material Culture 6(1): 524.Zarankin, A. (1994) Arqueologa Histrica en Santa Fe la Vieja. Columbia: The

University of South Carolina.Zarankin, A. (1997) Vivienda Familiar y Sistema Capitalista: Una Lectura Arque-

olgica, unpublished Masters thesis (FADU-UBA), Buenos Aires.



Zarankin, A. (1999a) Casa Tomada: Sistema, Poder y Vivienda Familiar, in A.Zarankin and F. Acuto (eds) Sed non Satiata. Teora Social en la Arqueologa Lati-noamericana Contempornea, pp. 23972. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Del Tridente.

Zarankin, A. (1999b) Arqueologa de la Arquitectura: Another Brick on the Wall,in P.P.A. Funari, E.G. Neves and I. Podgorny (eds) Anais da Primeira Reuniode Teoria Arqueolgica na Amrica do Sul, pp. 11928. So Paulo:MAE/USP/FAPESP.

Zarankin, A. (2001) Paredes que Domesticam: Arqueologia da ArquiteturaEscolar Capitalista: o Caso de Buenos Aires, unpublished PhD Thesis,UNICAMP, Campinas.

Zarankin, A. (2002) Walls of Domestication: Archaeology of Architecture ofCapitalist Elementary Schools. The Case of Buenos Aires, in P.P.A. Funari, A.Zarankin and E. Stovel (eds) Archaeological Theory in Action (in prep).

Zarankin, A., M.X. Senatore, S. Guillermo, et al. (1998) Arqueologa Histrica deBuenos Aires; Informe de los resultados del Proyecto Casa Mnima, Barrio deSan Telmo, Palimpsesto 5: 193202.

PEDRO PAULO A. FUNARI is Professor of Historical Archaeology atthe Campinas State University and research associate of the Illinois StateUniversity, University of Barcelona and University of So Paulo. He haspublished nine books in Brazil and four abroad, as well as more than 200articles, a quarter of them abroad. He is co-editor with Martin Hall andSin Jones of Historical Archaeology, Back from the Edge (London and NewYork: Routledge, 1999). His research interests are the archaeology ofhistorical societies and public archaeology. He is committed to fosteringarchaeological engagement with society and is now senior SouthAmerican representative at the Executive of the World ArchaeologicalCongress (19942002) and from January 2002 acting WAC Secretary.[email: [email protected]]

ANDRS ZARANKIN is currently a postdoctoral researcher at theArgentine National Science Foundation (CONICET). He is co-editor withFlix Acuto of Sed non satiata. Teora Social en la Arqueologa Latinoamer-icana Contemporanea (Sed non satiata. Social Theory in ContemporaryLatin American Archaeology). His main research interests include thearchaeology of architecture and archaeological theory.[email: [email protected]]


Documents

Pedro Paulo Abreu Funari6