Patrimonios coloniales y republicanos. Caracterización de sus técnicas y materialidades en la provincia de Jujuy (Argentina)

Abstract

El patrimonio colonial y republicano temprano del noroeste argentino ha sido sumamente valorado, tanto por los ámbitos institucionales como académicos, a lo largo del siglo XX y al día de hoy. En este contexto, si bien se trata de arquitecturas eclesiásticas, institucionales y domésticas construidas con tierra, el foco de sus estudios y valoraciones ha estado puesto sobre todo en sus rasgos estéticos y morfológicos. Esto ha dejado de lado la complejidad de sus técnicas constructivas, asociadas a saberes y prácticas que son constituyentes de ese mismo patrimonio y de su vínculo con las comunidades locales que las sostienen a lo largo del tiempo. En este artículo se recorrerán cuatro casos en la Quebrada de Humahuaca, y en la Puna de la provincia de Jujuy, desde los que se analizará la densidad de las técnicas empleadas, atendiendo a las continuidades y en particular a la variabilidad que se presenta en cada caso en torno a las características intrínsecas de las materialidades y las técnicas desarrolladas. Para ello, se llevará a cabo un análisis comparativo de los casos, basado en la articulación entre el trabajo de campo y el estudio de suelos en laboratorio.

The technical and the social: challenges in the conservation of earthen vernacular architecture in a changing world (Jujuy, Argentina)

“…Tabladitas is also a chapel with a single nave open to the east that is 17 m long and 7 m wide and has a small lateral enclosure, the sacristy, to the right (Gisbert and De Mesa 1997;Tomasi and Barada 2020). At the front, the church has an open chapel, a very characteristic element of chapels in the region, where the projection of the side walls and the roof generates a semicovered space linked to religious rituality (Fig.…”

“…Constructively, it has stone and mud foundations with adobe walls up to 1 m wide that were historically plastered with mud. The roof has A-frame trusses with a lower tensor, over which cane weaving was deployed and then finished with the mud roof technique, as in the Church of Uquía (Barada and Tomasi 2020).…”

“…In this framework, a striking issue found through the archival research in dialogue with the fieldwork with local communities (Barada and Tomasi 2020) is the existence of a postcard since 1971 featuring both the Casa del Marqués and the Church of Yavi, each of which has a red tile roof. While the church retains this feature at the present time, the roof of the house was reconverted to mud soon after.…”

“…In this sense, these roof tiles constituted a materiality that influenced the construction of the senses of the colonial buildings based on certain urban architectures. This implies a bias towards the complex realities of other areas, mostly rural, where earthen building techniques maintained an enormous presence in colonial buildings, even though they were part of profoundly asymmetrical power relations (Barada and Tomasi 2020). Far from considering these processes to be unidirectional, we must look with caution at the impact that these readings have had on local communities.…”

“…Any problematisation of cultural significance necessarily involves looking at the various temporalities associated with architecture and its durability and thus how the concept of change is analysed (Jones and Yarrow 2013). This is a particularly important issue for earthen heritage in relation to the durability of this material and the need for periodic intervention to ensure its proper maintenance (Correia 2007;Tomasi and Barada 2020).…”