<p>This paper explores the human response to questions of mobility and permanence in vernacular architectural design as the key to understanding the differences between nomadic architectures which are built afresh at each camp and thus are carried between camps purely as memory, and the productions of the nomads who produce mobile dwellings such as tents, in which the physical embodiment of their architectures is carried as they migrate between camps, such that the dwelling exists as temporary spaces within a constant materiality. In the former, the design pattern has a lineage, which may be thousands of years old, while the buildings themselves rapidly decay, in the latter, the process of constant repair and renewal means that the tents themselves may be hundreds, or even thousands of years old. It is suggested that in both it is the underlying design that persists as a continuum so it is to the design rather than the physical fabric that attention needs to be given if an effort is to be made to understand, and thereby conserve, these important traditions. Other more subtle similarities and differences are further explored as complex relationships are uncovered between the architectures and their occupant creators. The paper draws on 16&#xa0;years of fieldwork undertaken by the author in which buildings have been surveyed using techniques developed for use in the recording of historic buildings, coupled with the tools of enquiry typically used by an architect within the design process, in order to derive a multi-level record that represents the physical structures, the patterns of occupation, and the cultural values that the nomadic peoples assign to their buildings.</p>