The house and the commons, a symbiotic relationship
The commons and the individual, the forest and the orchards, two different parts of the same reality. Two parts of a symbiosis that represents the history of much of the agricultural systems in Galicia and the Barbanza Peninsula for centuries.
Agriculture, pastoralism, and forestry have historically been three parts of an intertwined system in Galicia, the result of a necessary relationship between communal and private spaces. The house is not only the building; it is also a micro-community with logics in decision-making, relationships of cooperation, and, of course, conflict. The public vs. private dichotomy is blurred through a network of dense socio-ecological relationships that go beyond the separation of individual vs. collective. The house and the communal forest are not separate islands, but are part of a system of interrelationships.
The house and the communal forest are not separate islands, but rather part of a system of interrelationships that underpinned a self-sufficient economy that sustained the population of the communities of the Barbanza Peninsula and Galicia.
The forest was a large area used for timber production or for the use of scrubland. Among the different types of scrubland, gorse (Latin: ulex) was particularly notable. Collected from the forest and dried, this was the bedding for the stable animals. When mixed with animal droppings, it became a fertilizer that provided extraordinary fertility to the poor soils found in Galicia in general, and Barbanza in particular.
The fact that the mountain system was a system for exploiting common resources in symbiosis with the private lands of each household allowed for agricultural intensification, making Galician agriculture highly productive without having to rely on the large quantities of imported fertilizers that sustain agricultural holdings today. The house and the commons formed the basis of a self-sufficient economy that sustained the population of the communities of the Barbanza Peninsula and Galicia.
If we look at the realities, we see cases such as Froxán, in the municipality of Lousame, the archetypal “coto redondo” (round coto); a village system in which the houses had stables below and orchards to the side, with the private land of each house surrounded by the common land that supported them.
On the other hand, Baroña (Municipality of Porto do Son), a more populated area near the sea, had a much closer relationship with the different villages. In this case, the common forest area is linked to the parish and not to each village, a fact explained by the diverse possibilities offered by the lands adjacent to each of the population units that made up the parish. In this case, the common territory that supported family economies was much larger, as were many more houses that used it.
But mountains were not the only communal spaces; there were other territories whose use was common and where governance prevailed. The community established a series of rules, and decision-making processes were carried out that spelled out distribution or collection systems among neighbors. And this also occurred in the Brañas de Laíño, in the municipality of Dodro, where the residents of the parishes of San Xoan de Laíño, Dodro, and Laíño complemented the use of the communal forest with these wetlands. They were a clear example of the exploitation of common resources for family economies, allowing for the harvesting of grass or the livestock use of the braña (wetland) itself.
The symbiotic relationship established between the house and the commons is bidirectional; the benefits were not only for the family, but also for the house. This fact is clearly reflected in the critique made by Anxo Angueira, a resident of Manselle, in the parish of Laíño, and interviewed for this project. He questions the concept of “total preservation without citizens,” considering that the abandonment of the braña has negatively altered the ecosystem by currently not allowing community use of the braña. According to him, the biodiversity valued today is also a product of human influence, so he questions what kind of world we want to see in the future. The preservation of ecosystems can be guaranteed through community management. These spaces, through sustainable use, can be less prone to fires and other environmental problems and can also become more biodiverse and multifunctional. The loss of the relationship between the home and the commons simultaneously leads to the loss of the multifunctionality of the territory.
The contributions of common spaces to homes also range from heat energy, provided by firewood, to construction materials, which save family budgets. Aurita Cao and Carmen Creo, residents of Froxán, in the parish of Vilacoba, explain this in this interview:
This symbiotic relationship of contribution to private economies and multifunctional use of common spaces even extended to the workplace outside of agroecosystems. A clear example of this is what happened in Baroña, where many people earned their living from the sea, which was also connected to the mountains. Ramón Vila Queiruga, from the town of Penas in the parish of Baroña, tells us in an interview how his wife’s family were “boureleiros,” who made fishing gear from cork from cork oak trees. But as Ramón Vila Queiruga points out, the sea was also a common space, providing homes with various types of seaweed. This biomass was used to fertilize the land, or, like the “carrouchas de mar,” seaweed was sold outside, as it had medicinal uses.
The preservation of ecosystems can be guaranteed through community management. These spaces, through sustainable use, can be less prone to fires and other environmental problems and also become more biodiverse and multifunctional. The loss of the relationship between the home and the commons also leads to a loss of the territory’s multifunctionality.
But the relationship between the home and the commons does not end there. The common elements that served as the backbone of community economic systems were not the only ones. Mills, threshing floors, wash houses, and fountains were other elements that were used and/or managed communally. What remains to be unraveled is the decision-making that took place in the home regarding the communal management of these spaces. Power imbalances also existed in the home. Throughout various texts, a debate will continue to unfold that impacts domestic issues, and that, too, is political.