The Peruvian ‘box balcony’: The use of drawn reading of archival documents for rescuing its old construction techniques

Abstract The “box balcony” was a transcendental element in the urban landscape of Spanish—American cities along the Peruvian coast, experiencing its heyday between the 16th and 18th centuries. Despite its importance, the study of the “box balcony” has predominantly revolved around formal styles, resulting in a notable gap in its construction analysis. Therefore, this paper specifically addresses the construction process of the “box balcony” on the Peruvian coast. Our approach entails a search and analysis of archival documents that referenced the construction characteristics of these balconies. Subsequently, we compare them with the architectural survey of balconies conducted in cities, such as Lima, Lambayeque and Trujillo. The primary aim is to use the historical information and translate it into graphics that would corroborate its alignment with the cases found. This in turn allowed us to determine the functioning of the “box balcony” pieces, trace the real evolution of these balconies over time and recover the knowledge of this ancient carpentry technique.

graphics that would corroborate its alignment with the cases found.This in turn allowed us to determine the functioning of the "box balcony" pieces, trace the real evolution of these balconies over time and recover the knowledge of this ancient carpentry technique.

Introduction
In the 17th century in Peru, construction contracts referred to the wooden construction projected outside of a building facade as "balcony box" (General Archive of the Nation-GAN, 1610) or "boxed" (DAC, 1676).These structures were not limited to the usual parapet but also included wooden studs and a ceiling.Today, they are locally known as "box balconies".
One notable characteristic of buildings during the Viceroyalty of Peru was the profusion of box balconies adorning their facades (Fernández Muñoz, 2007).This architectural feature has defined the profile of streets in Peruvian cities, with Lima, Lambayeque and Trujillo showcasing a remarkable presence of box balconies.These balconies manifested in a diverse array of designs corresponding to the different times in which they were built.Cobo (1882), referring to the architecture he witnessed in Lima in 1629, stated that ". . .people take great care in carving large and curious wooden balconies, and the number of them is very numerous . ..".
While some studies have been conducted on Peruvian box balconies (Chang, 2018;Fernández Muñoz, 2007;Fiol Cabrejos, 1987;Fuentes Huerta, 2017;Gasparini, 1992;Harth-Terré, 1959;San Cristóbal, 2003), these works have primarily focused on the stylistic characteristics.However, the examination of the construction elements of these balconies has remained a pending issue and has yet to receive sufficient attention.This paper seeks to precisely fill this gap through historical and construction analysis of box balconies created along the Peruvian coast between the 16th and 18th centuries.

Materials and methods
There are no balconies from the 16th century and very few from the 17th century because they were lost in the earthquakes that devastated the Peruvian coast during these periods.Consequently, our methodology was based on a search for documents from historical archives, which served as important primary sources explaining the carpentry techniques employed in constructing these balconies.For this purpose, we conducted an analysis of documents from the GAN and the Archive of the Ministry of Culture of Peru (AMC).The number of balconies found in archival documents, with descriptions of their construction elements, amounted to 7 from the 16th century, 29 from the 17th century and 7 from the 18th century.Furthermore, we carried out architectural surveys on existing balconies from the 17th and 18th centuries in the coastal cities of Lima, Lambayeque and Trujillo.These balconies are the few that have survived to the present day.The architectural survey had the objective of documenting the actual construction elements and comparing them with the previous examination carried out in the archival sources.This comparative analysis allowed the analysis and graphic-construction comparison of the different types of box balconies.

Stylistic and construction vision on the box balcony
The first studies on the Peruvian box balcony primarily focused on formal analysis, trying to determine an evolutionary sequence based on architectural styles (Fiol Cabrejos, 1987;Gasparini, 1992;Harth-Terré, 1959).These morphological studies led to the proposal for a stylistic periodisation of these balconies (Fernández Muñoz, 2007;Fuentes Huerta, 2017).
Departing from the stylistic-focused approach, San Cristóbal (2003) examined Peruvian balconies from a historical perspective by studying archival documents.The purpose of this approach was to verify the formal characteristics of the balconies in relation to the periods to which they have been assigned but without changing the stylistic paradigm in the analysis.
Unfortunately, very little has been written about the construction characteristics and their relationship with carpentry practices in the Viceroyalty of Peru.It is important to note that stylistically, a box balcony has four sectors that define its morphological style: the lower support, parapets, windows and finished roof (Fernández Muñoz, 2007;Fuentes Huerta, 2017).From a construction perspective, box balconies, as described by ancient carpenters and observed during the field survey, show three structural sectors defined by the cantilever platform, the structural body and the roof support.
The cantilever platform consists of elements that allow it to be attached to the building and the structuring of a wooden base to raise the balcony.The structural body features elements that define the vertical supports of the balcony and its horizontal braces at different levels.The roof support consists of elements that provide structural integrity at the top of the balcony and offer protection against atmospheric agents.Adjacent to each sector appear their respective nonstructural enclosure elements, such as boards, windows, partitions, mouldings etc.
It has been considered convenient to propose a temporal sequence related to the great earthquakes that devastated the coastal Peruvian cities because they resulted in the collapse of numerous buildings, including their balconies.During the subsequent reconstruction process, changes were introduced not only in the stylistic characteristics but also in the construction methods, adapting them to the telluric conditions of the Peruvian territory (Hurtado-Valdez, 2023).

Initial period (1534-1586): The 'open' box balcony and the assimilation of Spanish carpentry
The period from the founding of the main cities on the Peruvian coast, such as Trujillo (1534), Lima (1535) and Lambayeque (1553), until the great earthquake of 1586 marks the initial period.During this time, the carpentry trade was basically carried out by Spaniards (San Cristóbal, 1993), who had regulations governing their professional performance as early as 1551 (Alruiz & Fahrenkrog, 2020).Subsequently, the guidelines of the Lima Carpenters Ordinance of 1575 were incorporated into these regulations, following a similar structure to Spanish guilds.
The minutes of the Town Council of Lima indicate that by 1555, two-storey houses were already present in Lima (Harth-Terré, 1959).These structures were constructed after the territory had been pacified from constant indigenous rebellions and warfare among different Hispanic military factions (Bartolome Diaz, 2021).It is probable that wooden balconies also began to be built around this time.These balconies were not limited to residential buildings but were also incorporated into institutional buildings, such as the Town Hall of Lima or the Archbishop's Palace.The ordinance of 1575 acknowledged a lack of master carpenters in the city, stating that ". . .since there are currently no more than three or four expert masters in the said trade, if they were absent or died there would be no one who could be in charge of necessary works . . ." (Alruiz & Fahrenkrog, 2020).Consequently, the training of local carpenters was considered necessary, adhering to the precepts of Spanish carpentry.Vargas Ugarte (1968) noted that the 1612 census recognised the existence of five indigenous carpenters in the viceroyalty, signifying the early diffusion of Spanish carpentry techniques previously unknown in the pre-Hispanic world.These techniques included the squaring of wood, the use of nails, assemblies and splices, turning and the use of tools for cutting, carving and assembling joints (Alonso & Fernández-Cabo, 2015).
The 1586 earthquake seriously damaged the buildings in Lima (Seiner Lizárraga, 2017), resulting in the collapse of many of the first balconies.Unfortunately, there are no examples of balconies from this period.However, some cases built after the earthquake maintained the original construction characteristics and are documented in archival documents (see Figure 1).
Testimony of what the first balconies were like can be found in a construction contract dated 1596 in which carpenter Juan Martín was obliged to construct " . . .a balcony . . .well carved with its turned balusters with two levels from the middle up and from the middle down carved with its boards . . ." (GAN 1596).This account refers to the structural body, with a parapet area featuring a board on which two levels of balustrades were placed up to the height of the open area.It is interesting to note that the baluster was used very early, possibly made with a hand lathe.
San Cristóbal (2003) suggested that the first balconies can be described as "open" because they were carved without any lateral enclosure above the parapet.However, by the end of the 16th century, completely "closed" balconies also began to be erected, using latticework in their openings.This marked the commencement of the construction of two primary variants of box balconies in Peru: the "open" and the "closed" balcony.
A contract signed by Francisco Ramírez in 1584 for the construction of two houses mentioned that two different balconies were to be built: "We will make two balconies . . .a balcony must be made of turned balusters from the floor to where it is parapets, and the other balcony must be latticework with tiny balusters on the lattice boards . . ." (GAN, 1584).According to this description, two types of balconies were being built simultaneously: in one house, an "open" box balcony with baluster parapets, while in the neighbouring house, a "closed" box balcony with boards and latticework.
Even though the initial balconies were destroyed by earthquakes, they continued to be constructed under the same premises in subsequent centuries, although in fewer numbers compared with the new designs.An image from the 17th century preserved in the Museum of the Inquisition of Lima illustrates the coexistence of "open" and "closed" balconies (see Figure 2).In the city of Lambayeque, evidence of "open" balconies has remained, although most correspond to the 18th and 19th centuries (see Figure 3).

Wood used
According to archival documents, box balconies constructed during the 16th century were typically crafted from cedar wood (Cedrela odorata L.) (GAN, 1610).This particular wood was sourced from Central America and was popular as a unique species due to its workability (Cobo, 1882).The importation of cedar wood became necessary due to several factors, including the low density of forests on the Peruvian coast, the prohibition of felling the few existing timber species and the difficulty of extracting wood from the Amazon region during that time (Díaz Palacios et al., 2016).Old images show these balconies in a bluish-green colour.This hue was likely a result of a protective solution applied to the wood to protect against xylophages.This solution was prepared using copper sulphate (CuSO 4 ), which gives this colouration.The presence of copper sulphate was detected in stratigraphic analyses conducted on more recent balconies (Isaval, 2018).

Average dimensions of the balconies
During the viceregal times, the standard unit of measurement used in carpentry was the Castilian "vara", which was equivalent to 0.84 cm.There were submultiples of the vara that were used to  determine the cross-sectional dimensions of the pieces, including "quarter" or "hand-span" (1/4 vara), "sixth" (1/6 vara) and "eighth" (1/8 vara).
The work contract carried out by Francisco Ramírez stated that "we will make two balconies . . .two and a half (2.09 m) high and seven hand-spans (1.46 m) wide . . .and each balcony must be twelve hand-spans (2.51 m) long . . ." (GAN, 1584,).Although these dimensions differed from those of the Lambayeque balconies, built in later centuries, they maintained the same width.The width of these balconies was specifically designed to accommodate a chair (GAN , GAN, 1596b), indicating a social purpose.

Cantilever platform
Cantilever beams like wooden corbels were utilised in the construction of box balconies.These corbels had a span length of seven hand-spans or 1 ¾ vara (1.46 m), and their cross-sectional dimensions were mainly based on "quarter and sixth" measurements (21 × 14 cm) (GAN, 1584).On top of the corbels, a board that was 2 fingers (3.5 cm) thick was positioned.The axis distance between the corbels was ¾ vara (62 cm) (GAN, 1620).

Structural body
There is no dimensional evidence regarding the wooden studs used in the 16th century or documentation regarding the use of glue to join them with the rest of the pieces.However, historical depictions of "open" balconies in old paintings align with the characteristics described in archival documents.These "open" balconies featured studs attached to a wooden bottom plate located on the cantilever beam, and they were joined using a "tenon and mortise" joint (GAN, 1599).The distance between the studs measured the equivalent of four corbels, that is, 188 cm in length.The lower part of the stud had a square section, while the second part, in the opening area, was carved with a circular section (see Figure 4).Three crossbars were strategically placed between the studs, allowing the balcony to be braced horizontally.Two of the crossbars defined the height of the parapet, placed at the level of the boards and balusters at approximately 94 cm from the wooden bottom plate.The second crossbar marked the position of the handrail.Positioned above the parapet, the third crossbar was separated from it by approximately one vara (84 cm) and marked the height of the roof's top, where a row of balusters was arranged (GAN, 1601).
The lower half of the parapet enclosure was made using flat boards, originally without carvings (GAN, 1584).However, in subsequent centuries, these boards were replaced with ones featuring incisions of squares.A balustrade was placed in the upper half until it reached the crossbar.Above the balustrade, no windows were placed, and the balcony was left open to the level of the wooden top plate.

Roof support
The studs were arranged to ensure a widening at the top to receive the top plate.The crosssectional dimension of this top plate was "eighth square" (10 × 10 cm) (GAN, 1584).According to the survey of "open" balconies built during the 18th and 19th centuries, it was observed that 10 × 10 cm section joists were arranged on the roof, with a separation of 42 cm between them.On top of the joists, boards were placed, followed by a 7 cm thick layer of mud.This last layer of mud was not visible from the outside because it was covered with a fascia board.

Second period (1587-1687): The 'closed' box balcony and the joinery assemblies
The second period, spanning from the reconstruction of coastal cities after the 1586 earthquake, characterised by the first development of local architecture according to seismic resistance criteria, to the great earthquake in Lima in 1687, marks a shift in architectural considerations towards the search for ductility in the structures.Concerning woodwork, carpentry assemblies and joints were favoured.Nails, which stiffened the joints, were replaced by more flexible elements like leather strips (Hurtado-Valdez, 2023).In addition, specialised local labour trained in the previous stage was incorporated into the carpentry work (Nieto Sánchez, 2018).Various carpentry joints from the Western tradition (Wulff Barreiro, 2010) were introduced during this era, including "tenon and mortise", "half-lap", "scarf joint", "dovetail" and "bolt of lightning", all of which were introduced to Peru by the Spaniards.Although "open" balconies continued to be carved in coastal cities, such as Lambayeque, it was in Lima and Trujillo that "closed" box balconies began to prevail, adopting a new configuration.The studs maintained the square cross-section throughout their length, and lattices were used to close their span openings (see Figure 5).
The considerations discussed previously applied to both new and repaired balconies that survived the 1586 earthquake (see Figure 6).In 1648, master Pedro Miguel considered it appropriate to place latticework on the balcony of a house during its repairs, specifying that ". . . it is a condition that I have to make all the latticework that is missing and dress up those that are broken, and, on the inside, I must cover the balcony parapet all that is missing" (GAN, 1648).

Wood used
During this period, box balconies were constructed using oak (Quercus rubra L.) sourced from Guayaquil, Ecuador (GAN, 1609, GAN, 1631b, 1631a, 1631c, GAN, 1652), replacing cedar (Cedrela odorata L.) for boards and lattice windows.The choice of oak over cedar may have been influenced by the costs associated with transporting the materials from a place as far as Nicaragua.The mouldings and balusters were made with Chilean pine (Araucaria araucana), commonly known as "yellow" (GAN, 1600).The contract signed by Diego de Mondragón and Juan de Egoaguirre mentioned that "the balcony stud will be carved according to and as are those of Antonio de Santillán with cedar boards and yellow balusters . .." (GAN, 1660).The description provided of the balconies by carpenters Juan del Castillo and Juan Pérez mentioned the elaboration of ". . .two balconies of the width that fit in the oak framework and cedar planks and yellow balusters . .." (GAN, 1654).Copper sulphate continued to serve as the base for the anti-xylophage protective paint, imparting a bluish-green hue to the wood (Fernández Muñoz, 2007;Isaval, 2018).

Average dimensions of the balconies
Once box balconies transitioned into the closed configuration, they took the shape of an almost blind box, larger than their predecessors.The dimensions of these closed balconies were provided by carpenter Francisco García in 1610 when he undertook to "make a box balcony . . . it must first be five varas long (4.18 m) and two and three-fourths varas high (2.30m) and must have two rows of yellow balusters on top of the lattices . .." (GAN, 1610).These dimensions allow for a width of approximately one vara (0.84 m) "that fits a chair inside" (GAN, 1596a).

Cantilever platform
Wooden corbels in a cantilever were placed perpendicular to the beams of the adjacent room (see Figure 7).Each corbel was secured in its central part with a wooden plate embedded in the facade wall, and at its non-cantilever end, it was connected to the closest beam inside the room by means of a half-lap assembly.This assembly prevented the turning of the corbel.In this regard, carpenter Juan de Rivas noted that in the balcony ". . . the corbel has to fly on the inside a vara and a half . . ." (GAN, 1612), that is, 1.25 m inside the room.The corbels were attached to a main beam, and the distance between their axes was typically ¾ vara (62 cm) (GAN, 1597a, GAN, 1603, GAN, 1641).
The cantilever span of the corbel measured 1 ½ vara (1.25 m), and its cross-section was primarily "quarter and sixth" (21 × 14 cm) (GAN, 1658).A bottom plate, with a cross-section of "sixth square" (14 × 14 cm), was placed around the perimeter and leaned on the corbels.This plate served to secure and tie the whole structure together, as corroborated in the architectural surveys.Tongue and groove boards, approximately 2 cm thick, were placed on top of the corbels.On some occasions, joists and a double decking were placed to align the balcony floor with the interior of the adjoining room (see Figure 8).

Structural body
A structural skeleton was made with studs anchored to the bottom plate using a "tenon and mortise" assembly.In the surveys, it was observed that the studs typically had a square and continuous section measuring 10 × 10 cm and were spaced apart from 1 vara (84 cm) to 1 ½ vara (125 cm).
Four crossbars were normally placed between the studs, bracing the balcony horizontally.These crossbars were joined using "half-lap" or "tenon and mortise" assemblies.The first crossbar was located ¾ vara (62 cm) from the bottom plate and corresponded to the panel sector.The second crossbar was located ¼ vara (21 cm) from the previous one to mark the area of the balusters (GAN, 1635b).Together, these two crossbars defined the height of the parapet.
On top of the second crossbar, the window was placed, typically measuring approximately 84 cm in length.Between the third and fourth crossbars, balusters were installed, and the space above them was closed off with a board that connected to the top plate (GAN, 1611, GAN, 1626b).The crossbars continued to maintain the same dimensions as those used in "open" box balconies, measuring 7 × 10 cm.To increase the ductility of the system, the studs were laterally joined to the wooden frameworks used in the construction of the building's facade on the second storey.This connection was achieved by using pins and ties of leather strips (see Figure 9) (Hurtado-Valdez, 2023).
The parapet enclosure was created using wooden panels decorated with incisions that formed geometric figures.In some cases, small perforations were added in the boarding to facilitate ventilation and prevent the accumulation of excessive humidity, typical of the climate of coastal cities.
The panels, which were one finger thick (1.8 cm), were placed under pressure in lateral recesses within the studs or sometimes placed in front of the studs.On the crossbar, the windows were placed, which had wooden frames measuring 3.5 × 7 cm in cross-section.These windows featured small slats arranged in intertwined patterns on two diagonals at 45°, forming a lattice (GAN, 1597a(GAN, , 1597b)).The windows were designed to open outwards, with hinges located at the top of the frame (see Figure 10).

Roof support
A top plate with a 10 × 10 cm cross-section, assembled with "tenon and mortise" joints, was placed on the studs.Joists, also measuring 10 × 10 cm cross-section, were supported by the facade framework and the balcony top plate.They were secured with a "half-lap" assembly and spaced at intervals of 42 cm between them.Notably, these joists had a small projection of approximately 10 cm outside the balcony.
Next, tongue and groove boards, which were 1 finger thick (1.8 cm), were placed on the joists.Over these boards, split reeds (Gynerium sagittatum) were applied, followed by a 7 cm thick layer of earthen cover.This layer served to protect the roof in case of drizzles, which were frequent in the winter on the Peruvian coast.The edge of this clay layer was not visible from the outside because it was hidden with a fascia board that formed the mouldings and profile of the cornice.

Third period (1688-1746): The 'closed' box balcony and the high-level carpenter carving
The third period encompasses the reconstruction of the city of Lima after the earthquake of 1687 and coincides with the consolidation of the baroque culture, which persisted until the great earthquake of 1746.The Lima and Trujillo balconies of this period adapted to the baroque society, characterised by pomp and ceremonies, constituting themselves as boxes towards squares or streets where public events and solemn festivities used to be held (Gisbert & De Mesa, 1988;Limpias Ortiz, 2011).Given the persistent threat of earthquakes in coastal cities, reconstruction efforts involved not only the construction of new box balconies but also the adaptation of the remains of the old ones to the new style.However, in Lambayeque, the old "open" box balconies continued to be developed.Consequently, in this third phase, the average dimensions of the new wooden balconies underwent changes, competing with the adapted ones that maintained the same dimensions of the previous century.The new balconies continued to grow, in addition to marking the search for an ornamental exuberance in the construction details.This was evident in the intricate carving of the structural elements, such as corbels and studs (see Figure 11) or in the incorporation of the "alfajor" decoration of crosses and squares on the sill boards (see Figure 12).This work was facilitated by the constant use of tools, such as the gouge, the carpentry axes, the adze and the saw, during this century (Esquivel Coronado, 2001).

Wood used
Several areas were exploited in search of timber sources, leading to the incorporation of other types of wood for the construction of balconies.Apart from cedar and oak, mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) from Ecuador was used for the main elements, and larch (Fitzroya cupressoides) from Chile was used for smaller pieces (Díaz Palacios et al., 2016).

Average dimensions of the balconies
The size of the balconies became larger, both in height, which approached the cornice of the facade from 4 1/8 varas (3.43 m) to 5 varas (4.13 m) (Fernández Muñoz, 2007), and in length, which covered the entire facade.The width of the balconies was highly variable, with cases ranging from 0.62 m (Fernández Muñoz, 2007) to 1.28 m (AMC, 2017b).

Cantilever platform
The balconies continued to be supported on corbels, which were arranged perpendicular to the ceiling beams.These corbels were presented in various formats, from the simple ones whose edges were concealed with a fascia board to the profusely carved ones with scrolls, vegetal motifs and allegorical figures.The section of the corbels was 21 × 21 cm, ensuring increased support on the wall.The distance between the axes of the corbels increased, reaching 1 ¼ vara (1.05 m) (AMC, 2018).Another bracket was placed under the corbel to enlarge the support surface.Finally, a 10 × 14 cm bottom plate was placed on the corbels, delimiting the perimeter of the balcony.

Structural body
The wooden framework was constructed with 10 × 10 cm cross-section studs, which were embedded in the bottom plate by means of a "tenon and mortise" assembly.The studs were braced horizontally, with crossbars placed at windowsill height and over the spans (see Figure 13).
The architectural survey shows a parapet with boards carved with figures of squares and crosses called "alfajor".The lattice windows were designed to open outwards, with hinges located in the upper part of the windows.On the upper crossbar, one or two rows of balusters were placed, which fit into holes made in the crossbars.

Roof support
A 10 × 10 cm top plate, assembled with "tenon and mortise" joints, was placed on top of the studs.Joists, measuring 10 × 10 cm, were placed on the top plate.These joists had a projection of 40 cm from the facade and their edges were designed to conform to the reliefs of the cornice.On top of the joists, boards were placed, followed by a crushed cane mat (Gynerium sagittatum) and an earthen covering.

Fourth period (1747-1800). The glazed box balcony and the mechanisation of carpentry
The fourth period corresponds to the period from the reconstruction of Lima after the earthquake of 1746, with the introduction of the new aesthetic canons promoted by the Bourbon Enlightenment in the coastal cities (Walker, 2004), to the beginning of the 19th century, with the development of carpentry mechanisation.
A novelty is incorporating glass into the vertically sliding "guillotine" windows, curving the corners of the box and adding decorative elements to the central fields of the parapet panels (see Figure 14).The size of the balconies increased significantly, covering almost the entire secondstorey of the facades, both in length and in height.It is interesting to note that the different elements of the balcony were produced modularly and in series to lower costs.In addition, nails were used extensively as elements to join the wooden pieces (see Figure 15).

Wood used
Cedar and oak continued to be used in the construction of balconies, but the use of mahogany decreased due to its high cost.Eventually, the United States pine (Pinus ponderosa) was also incorporated into the construction of balconies along the Peruvian coast.The wood used for  constructing these structures was still sourced from outside, increasing costs.At the end of the 18th century, the possibility of planting Andean cedar (Cedrela fissilis Vell.) in some coastal valleys was considered (Herrera, 1936).In the 19th century, the commonly used wood preservative was replaced by other solutions, such as creosote, giving the typical dark brown colour, called "Republican", to the balcony (Isaval, 2018).

Average dimensions of the balconies
On average, the width of the balconies was standardised at 1.25 m.The balconies took up the entire front of the facade, and if the property was on the corner, the balconies usually turned, forming the finish of the two facades towards each street.This led to a considerable increase in the lengths, reaching 58.90 m (Fernández Muñoz, 2007).The balcony height was very close to the height of the second storey, measuring between 4.06 m (AMC, 2017a) and 4.45 m (Fernández Muñoz, 2007).

Cantilever platform
In the cases observed, it was detected that the corbels continued to be perpendicular to the beams of the immediate room.The beam cross-section also maintained a constant 21 × 21 cm (AMC, 2019), spaced at intervals of 0.84 cm.A perimeter bottom plate and joists were placed on top of the corbels, all of which served as support for the decking and the studs (see Figure 16).Sometimes, additional joists were placed, supported perpendicular to the corbels.The corbels were hidden by means of tongue and groove boards placed below them, which were nailed.Furthermore, the edges of the beams were hidden with a fascia board, serving as moulding.

Structural body
The structural body was constructed with 10 × 10 cm studs, which were braced with two crossbars, one on the parapets and the other on the openings.Wooden slats were placed as a frieze with classic-style mouldings.For efficient mass production, the parts were made modular with square boards, while in the lower part of the studs, small planks that imitated pedestals were placed.The windowsill area was reduced in size, decreasing its height.
The enclosure in the openings was made up of glass (AMC, 2019) and thin wooden slats, which act as partitions for the windows.In some cases, arches were employed as a finish above the openings.The window opening system, called the "guillotine", slid from bottom to top, with a central channel carved on the studs (see Figure 17).

Roof support
A perimeter top plate was placed, which received the 8 × 10 cm joists with a half-lap assembly.On top of the joists, boards were placed, followed by a layer of mud (see Figure 18).The edge of the joists and the roof was hidden with a fascia board and wooden slats that formed the finishing mouldings.

The Peruvian 'open' box balcony and the construction influences of the Canaries
Due to their geographical location, the Canary Islands played an important commercial role between Spain and Latin America (De Paz, 2006).According to the Ordinances of Carpenters of Lima of 1575, Spaniards carpenters brought Spanish construction techniques (Gil Crespo, 2011a), as well as the institutionality of work in guilds (Marrero Alberto, 2017).Lozoya (1944) stated that the box balconies found along the Peruvian coast were similar to those built in the Canary Islands.From our visit to Las Palmas and Tenerife in the Canary Islands, it was possible to verify that their balconies had a cantilever platform made not only with corbels but also with under brackets (see Figure 19).These corbels were a continuation of the beams in the adjoining room like a cantilever part, or in some cases, as Dorta León ( 2022) noted, they appeared as elements attached to the main beams.In the Peruvian case, it was only at the end of the 17th century that the under brackets were used for the "closed" box balconies.
The Canary balconies had a wooden perimeter bottom plate and a boarding placed on the cantilevered pieces, (see Figure 20) similar to the "open" box balconies of Lima and Trujillo in Peru.The structural body was developed with studs anchored to the bottom plate, which is assembled with "tenon and mortise" or "half-lap" timber joints.Adjacent to that were an opaque low sector (boards) and a visually permeable high sector (balustrade), which were elements also found in Peruvian box balconies.Another similarity was that the studs changed from square to circular sections once they passed the level of the parapets.The Canary balconies under observation for this study were all "open" and lacked enclosures (see Figures 21 and 22).Although, some have been found with lattices, they appeared extemporaneous additions to the original designs due to the lack of harmony between the lattices and the other elements of the balconies.In the Canary balcony roof, inclined rafters formed the base of the boarding.On this, a three-pitched roof was supported to protect the structure in case of rain.
The roof support was made up of wooden capitals (see Figure 23), improving the support of the perimeter top plate and preventing the stud from punching into it.The Peruvian "open" box balcony did not have wooden capitals but employed studs that were arranged to ensure a widening at the top to receive the top plate.
The Canary balcony was quickly incorporated into the carpentry of the Spanish-American cities (Gil Crespo, 2011b).Thus, like the Canary typology, "open" balconies appeared on the facades of houses in the Caribbean area, as in San Juan in Puerto Rico or in Havana in Cuba (Gasparini, 1992;Gil Crespo, 2011b, 2012).These American balconies were supported by a cantilever platform constructed with corbels and under brackets.Above the platform, there was a structural body made up of square-section studs that extended to accommodate the boards and balusters of the parapet.For the open bays, the studs featured a circular section.The studs, connected through capitals, supported the roof, which was made up of a perimeter top plate, joists and roof tiles, featuring both front and side pitched roof elements (Dorta León, 2022;Gil Crespo, 2011b).
Carpentry techniques spread southward, from the cities of the Caribbean to the coastal cities, such as Cartagena de Indias in Colombia (Tellez Castañeda, 2007) and Santiago de Chile (Comas Chaparro, 2019;Gil Crespo, 2011b).Such diffusion was accompanied by their respective  particularities, which are the result of the adaptation of the carpentry to the environment and to the existing timber species.
In the case of Cartagena de Indias, it was possible to verify that for the conformation of the cantilever platform, wooden corbels, which projected outside the facade as a continuation of the interior beams, were placed, sometimes along with under brackets.According to Covo Torres (1988), there were also corbels affixed to the bottom wall plate, which were arranged to one side of the interior beams.These corbels have a section of 13 × 20 cm, very similar to the 14 × 21 cm section of the corbels used in Peruvian balconies (GAN, 1658).A boarding rested on the corbels (see Figure 24), unlike in the case of the Peruvian and Canary balconies, which used a bottom plate before the decking.Sometimes, a fascia board hid the edge of the corbels.The structural body was made with squaresection studs anchored to the bottom plate using a "tenon and mortise" joint.The studs rotated at an angle of 45°.At the parapet level, this cross-section changed into a circular or polygonal section by chamfering the corners.Finally, the closing of the parapet was carried out only with balusters.
Normally, there was no type of enclosure in the upper part between the studs, leaving the balcony "open".For the roof support, wooden capitals of different lengths were arranged on the studs.Furthermore, there was a perimeter top plate that provided support for inclined rafters, on which the deck rested.The set ended with a roof designed to protect the structure from rainfall (see Figure 25).The average height of the "open" balconies in Cartagena was 4 "varas" (Covo Torres, 1988) similar to the height of the "open" balconies popular in Peru during the 17th century.
The use of separate parapets in an opaque zone composed of boards and a translucent zone consisting of balusters, followed by studs with a curved outline, establishes a consistent element in defining Canary and Peruvian balconies.The balconies in Cartagena differ from the previous ones by adopting a 45° turn of the studs (see Figure 26).
Despite the similarity of the wooden elements and their unions, there were some differences between the Peruvian balconies and the Canary and Caribbean ones.For example, while in the Canary Islands and the Caribbean, corbels were a part of the interior beams that projected out of the facade, the Peruvian balconies placed the corbels perpendicular to the interior ceiling joists by using a "half-lap" joint.Comas Chaparro (2019) also stated that the wooden balconies in Bogotá featured corbels that extended from the interior beams, creating a five-foot (139 cm) cantilever.Apparently, this was the most common approach due to the orientation of the adjoining rooms in a direction parallel to the facade.Conversely, in Peru, this orientation was reversed.
Furthermore, in the Peruvian coast, flat roofs with a mud finish were popular due to the absence of rainfall in the region, whereas in the Canaries and the Caribbean, sloped roofs were predominantly used.The Caribbean and Cartagena de Indias balconies have an open space between the parapet and the pavement, in addition to being provided with a slope, for the evacuation of water during rainfall.These features were absent in the Peruvian cases (see Figure 27).
In addition, differences were observed in the capitals arranged on the studs.The balconies in Tenerife and Las Palmas, as well as in Cartagena de Indias, used big capitals to prevent the studs from punching on the top plate.In Peru, the encounter between the top plate and the stud was resolved with a widening of the latter.

The stylistic imaginary of latticework and construction techniques
After a morphological analysis of the Peruvian balcony, many scholars have come to associate it with the North African mashrabiya, mainly due to the use of latticework (Chang, 2018;Fiol Cabrejos, 1987;Fuentes Huerta, 2017) (see Figure 28).However, the use of latticework was found in Peruvian balconies only during the 17th century and partially in the 18th century.
There is an ongoing debate about the reason for the closure of the box balconies in Peru, which did not occur in other Latin American contexts.Some argue that the presence of the lattices was due to the city of Lima being located in a desert area.Considering its geographical situation and the North African climate, latticework seemed to help deal with the heat and offer great natural lighting (Gil Crespo, 2011a;Gisbert & De Mesa, 1988;Singh Madan & Saxena, 2021).However, Lima is a city with high cloudiness and humidity.The Humboldt marine current that carries icy waters from the Southern Pacific Ocean in front of the Andes Mountain range causes a thermal inversion and a dark environment, with occasional drizzles and cold weather.However, it would be inappropriate to place lattices in rooms that naturally have little light and high humidity.In such conditions, the use of iron was avoided ". . .because with the humidity of the air they take on mould, they become dull and even fall apart" (Cobo, 1882).For this reason, balusters were placed in the upper part to allow for ventilation and the entry of light (GAN 1603).After analysing the environmental characteristics of the closed balcony in Lima, Agüero León (2009) concluded that this enclosure did not substantially improve the comfort factors of the rooms.Gisbert and De Mesa (1988) argued that the enclosure was linked to a fashion of reproducing naval architecture, mainly of the ships that arrived at the port of Callao.The stern area of these ships used to have windows closed with latticework, in addition to the oscillating mode for opening those windows.Buschiazzo noted that the latticework, seen as an object of fashion brought from China or India through the commercial routes of the Manila galleon, was incorporated into the viceroyalty balconies (Bonialian, 2015;Limpias Ortiz, 2011).Unfortunately, all these assertions are still in the field of hypotheses.
Others suggested that the balcony enclosure came with the arrival of many Moors, mainly women, in Peru since the beginning of the Spanish conquest (Cáceres Enriquez, 1995).However, it is a fact that the initial balconies were open and were enclosed with latticework only half a century after the city of Lima was founded.By then, the number of Moors had diminished due to the arrival of more Spaniards and the vegetative growth of the local population (Bartet, n.d.).
Since its foundation, Lima had a large presence of friars and nuns, to such an extent that members of the clergy and the civil population coexisted in practically equal numbers.This is reflected in the high density of convents and monasteries, which dominated the urban panorama during the first centuries.Friar Reginaldo de Lizárraga (1605) stated, "I don't think there has been a city in the world that in such a short time has grown in number of monasteries or equals the religious who serve there . ..".The cultural environment was marked by religious fervour, indicating that the possible reason for closing the balconies could be linked to a culture of monastic modesty present in the Lima and Trujillo societies than to the orientalism of those cities.
Apart from the latticed enclosure, there were not many common characteristics between the North African and the Peruvian balconies.Indeed, the cantilever platform used in North African balconies was constructed using big stones or wooden corbels placed at the ends of the balconies and securely embedded in the wall (Singh Madan & Saxena, 2021).Supported on these corbels were thick squared or round wooden beams positioned parallel to the plane of the facade, on which a board was placed.The vertical structuring was developed with square-section studs anchored to the wooden beams at the base.Between the studs, there were frames with latticework that served as parapets and windows.The lateral fittings of the windows enabled them to be tilted open, which was different from the Peruvian opening system.
Unlike the Peruvian lattices that rotated at an angle of 45°, these lattices were formed using a horizontal and vertical slat grid and, in more elaborate cases, exhibited various geometric designs (Ashour, 2018).A perimeter top plate, followed by joists, was placed directly above the stud, with a large cantilever to provide shade and support for the roof boards.In regions with seasonal rains, shingles were added to the roof structure.All these elements were unconventional in the conformation of the Peruvian box balcony.
Moreover, the average dimensions of the mashrabiyas do not usually align with the dimensions of the first box balconies made in Peru.In this regard, Bagasi et al. (2021) reported that the mashrabiyas were on average 2.40-2.80m long, 2.70-3.50m high and 0.40-0.60m wide, while the "open" Peruvian balconies have a very variable length, with 2.09 m in height and 1.46 m in width, outside North African standards.Although the closed lattice balcony became popular in the cities of Lima and Trujillo, it did not constitute a unique architectural type.

Development of carpentry techniques on balconies
According to archival documents, the first balconies that were "open" tended to use simple joints through half-lap assemblies.It is interesting to note that after the first earthquakes, carpenters began to use more complex assemblies and joints, such as "tenon and mortise", "half-lap", "scarf joint", "dovetail" and "bolt of lightning", avoiding nails and incorporating leather strips to reinforce the joints.The reason for adopting these complex assemblies and joints was possibly the frequent earthquakes, leading to a search for ductility in the construction system.Although wood normally has some flexibility, nails tend to stiffen the joints and when subjected to lateral loads, they tend to tear the wood in the direction of the fibre (Hurtado-Valdez, 2023).However, it is interesting to note that at the end of the 18th century, nails began to be used extensively in the construction of balconies.Nails offered cheaper solutions and allowed the balconies to be built in a short time while using modular pieces of wood, which the mechanisation of the time allowed.
In Lima and Lambayeque, the initial balconies were "open", so the studs only had a square section up to the height of the parapet, above which they became a circular section.This trend has also been observed in Tenerife and Las Palmas in the Canary Islands and in Cartagena de Indias, indicating the diffusion of similar carpentry techniques.Even after "closed" balconies began to be constructed, the usage of studs continued.These studs have a continuous quadrangular section throughout their entire length as it allowed the different pieces of wood to come together better.
In the beginning, the parapets were simple and divided into two sectors, the boards and the balusters.By the 17th century, the boards became increasingly opaque and the balusters area smaller.The opening area went from having no windows and being an open format to having lattice windows and being completely closed.At the end of the 18th century, the lattice windows were replaced by large-format glass.
In the 18th century, boards were placed in the lower and upper part of the balcony, enlarging its dimensions until it acquired the structure of a large entablature.Additional boards were nailed to create various neoclassical decorations.In contrast, from the beginning of the 16th century to the end of the 18th century, the roofs have had practically no transformations.
In the beginning, the shape of the structural parts was usually simple.For example, corbels provided support along the entire length of the section, concealing its front surface with the use of a fascia board.Subsequently, they would undergo a more complex finishing process, involving the filling of scrolls and extensive decoration.Finally, a simple approach would be employed to reduce costs.

Conclusion
The method of using historical archives to transform text written in ancient languages into contemporary drawings has made it possible to correlate them with the analysis of real cases.Thus, valuable information gained from this endeavour helped fill the gaps in the constructive analysis of historical elements, such as Peruvian balconies.This methodology can be employed to help understand other historical construction systems, allowing for the recovery of old construction practices in different places and temporal contexts.
With the help of the drawn and comparative reading methodology, it was determined that the structural system of a "box balcony" in general comprised the cantilever platform, the structural body and the roof support, registering transformations only in the joints, decoration or closing elements and establishing an invariant in the crafting of these balconies.
Contrary to what is commonly thought, the initial balconies that were built on the Peruvian coast were not "closed" but "open".The Peruvian balconies were influenced by the Canary balconies.As evidenced in historical documents, this influence can be seen not only in their form but in the organisation of the pieces of wood.With the advent of new fashion in Lima and the development of their art among local carpenters, the balconies began to feature windows closed with latticework.However, beyond the existing hypotheses, it remains to be established in future research the reason why balconies were closed with latticework, showing similarities in shape with North African balconies.
The architectural survey established that, unlike the Canary Islands balconies, the Peruvian "closed" balconies incorporated greater complexity in their joints, giving the structure greater ductility.This could also possibly be due to the adaptation of the construction techniques to the seismic activity of the region.In this regard, it is recommended to pursue future research to confirm the seismic performance of the joints with leather strips.Such research can greatly impact construction practices in seismic zones and the restoration of ancient buildings.

Figure 1 .
Figure 1.An 'open' box balcony in Lambayeque showing similar characteristics to the balconies built in the 16th century.

Figure
Figure 2. Inquisition ceremony held in the main square of Lima in the 17th century, where 'open' and 'closed' box balconies can be seen coexisting.

Figure
Figure 3.An 'open' box balcony in Lambayeque, although with later modifications that removed the boards from the parapets.

Figure 4 .
Figure 4.An isometric drawing showing the construction characteristics of the 16th-century 'open' box balcony.

Figure 5 .
Figure 5.An isometric drawing showing the construction characteristics of the 17th-century 'closed' box balcony.

Figure 6 .
Figure 6.A 'closed' box balcony with boards covering the original balusters and a corbel covering the original cantilever beam, indicating later repairs.

Figure 7 .
Figure 7. Corbels that form the crucial support structure for the cantilever platform.

Figure 8 .
Figure 8.The double decking with joists: to level the balcony floor with that of the adjoining room.

Figure
Figure 9. Leather strips at the joints of the beams that form the wooden top plate.

Figure 11 .
Figure 11.Details of the profuse carving of the corbels.

Figure 12 .
Figure 12.Panels on the parapet with 'alfajor' carving on the balconies from the mid-18th century.

Figure
Figure 13.A model that recreates the structural body with the position of the balcony studs.

Figure
Figure 14.An isometric drawing showing the construction characteristics of the 'closed' box balcony from the end of the 18th century.

Figure 15 .
Figure 15.View of the facade pieces, produced in series to form the decoration of a balcony from the end of the 18th century and fixed by nails.

Figure
Figure 16.A balcony model from the end of the 18th century, showing a cross-section with the constituent pieces of wood.

Figure
Figure 18.Earthen covering layer on the roofs of Peruvian balconies.

Figure 20 .
Figure 20.Details of the cantilever platform of the 'open' balconies in Las Palmas in the Canary Islands, Spain.

Figure
Figure 21.'Open' balconies in Tenerife in the Canary Islands, Spain.

Figure
Figure 22. 'Open' balconies in Las Palmas in the Canary Islands, Spain.

Figure 24 .
Figure 24.Details of the corbels that structure the cantilever platform of a 'open' balcony in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia.

Figure 25 .
Figure 25.Roof and capital of an 'open' balcony in Cartagena de Indias, Colombia.

Figure 27 .
Figure 27.Open space left in the lower part of the balconies of Cartagena de Indias for draining rainwater.

Figure
Figure 28.Model showing a type of lattice of a North African mashrabiya.