I don’t know how to really express this well in writing, but when I visited the country, I was surprised and interested to learn that all of the A’s in “Panama” are pronounced differently.
Not directly relevant, but maybe somebody will find it interesting.
Doesn’t American English already do this?
Pen uh maw
These shelters have nothing in them. Whether they’re quick shelters set up by refugees, or abandoned with everything of value taken, or something else, this doesn’t look like it’s part of a traditional community.
Considering the context of who would be out there taking pictures of Panama in the 1920s, this, combined with the label of “traditional shelters”,this may be white supremacist/colonial propaganda.
Looking up San Blas on wikipedia, there is this picture of people from San Blas in traditional clothes, with in the background what may well be traditional housing. From what little can be seen in the picture, it’s already clear the quality of construction is much better.
These shelters have nothing in them.
Another angle
Whether they’re quick shelters set up by refugees, or abandoned with everything of value taken, or something else, this doesn’t look like it’s part of a traditional community.
This notion that a traditional community automatically implies a high level of complexity in all work really has to die. Not only is high complexity not always desirable given certain conditions and ways of life, but people in the past are much the same as people in the present - existing in a broad selection of economic and personal conditions that affect how they live apart from their cultural preferences or even the regional standard for quality of life.
For that matter, nothing seems to imply that the simplicity of these shelters is in some way detrimental.
Considering the context of who would be out there taking pictures of Panama in the 1920s, this, combined with the label of “traditional shelters”,this may be white supremacist/colonial propaganda.
what.
Looking up San Blas on wikipedia, there is this picture of people from San Blas in traditional clothes, with in the background what may well be traditional housing. From what little can be seen in the picture, it’s already clear the quality of construction is much better.
Cuna Molas are themselves 18th century introductions by Spanish clothing styles, and the notion that shelters which resemble the general form of structural standards of old world housing is automatically a higher quality of construction is itself deeply chauvinist.
Look, I’m not saying they should be living in longhouses or anything, let alone something as unsuited for the climate as European housing.
But where is the irrigation ditch or raised mound foundation to protect stuff inside from getting wet when it rains? Where would they sleep, and what do they use as a wind break if there’s an annoying (relatively) cold breeze in that spot? Where do they cook? What do they do if a hurricane storm surge cause a flood? San Blas is a bunch of sand bank and reef islands, the elevation is not going to save them.
Each of these improvements at most increases the amount of effort into building a shelter like this by as much as already went into it, and they quickly improve quality of life.
Compare other tropical housing, and you’ll usually find stilts and wind-breaking walls.
I don’t recognize the objects visible in the different angle shot. They look strewn about; ransacked, or incomplete. Do you know what they might be?
They are also specifically from one of the three huts, so what were the other two used for?
But where is the irrigation ditch or raised mound foundation to protect stuff inside from getting wet when it rains?
There are historical European shelter designs which lack those features in environments where they would nonetheless be beneficial. The labor and time required to establish those features is not always considered worth the benefit provided. Not only that, but there is a visible raised mound in the second photo.
Where would they sleep,
… under the shelter, one presumes.
Single-room households were the norm for much of human history and prehistory.
and what do they use as a wind break if there’s an annoying (relatively) cold breeze in that spot?
In tropical environments, the breeze is usually considered a benefit rather than drawback. All the same, I would presume temporary rather than permanent dividers would be raised in case of need, with the same spirit one closes curtains or tent flaps.
Where do they cook?
Outside, as is the norm in many pre-modern cultures which lack widespread inflammable architecture available and have immensely flammable structures?
What do they do if a hurricane storm surge cause a flood?
Rebuild. Most pre-modern architecture is not particularly flood-resistant. Shit, most modern architecture doesn’t fare too well against hurricanes. Why bother reinforcing something that’s going to need a total rebuild anyway?
Compare other tropical housing, and you’ll usually find stilts and wind-breaking walls.
How many examples do you want of traditional indigenous housing in the tropics without both?
I don’t recognize the objects visible in the different angle shot. They look strewn about; ransacked, or incomplete. Do you know what they might be?
Containers, tools, and furniture, I would presume.
They are also specifically from one of the three huts, so what were the other two used for?
The same, presumably? You can see furniture in one of the other huts, and the other two huts (of which I think the rightmost is the one with the alternate angle provided) aren’t at an angle at which much of the inside can be seen at all.
