It has been argued that “Maya buildings [functioned as]... symbolic devices for marking social status” (Fash 1998: 239). One way that status was expressed was in terms of varying degrees of elevation and accessibility within architectonic space. Maya elite architecture is identified by its restrictiveness. The elevated nature of many Maya building groups, combined with their small interiors, suggests that access was reserved primarily for the elite in Maya society (Cohodas 1973: 215). “Monumental stairways... [did] many things beyond allowing people to move up and down a building or platform. Icono-graphic and textual data show that stairways. . . display tribute, booty, and captives. By sitting at various levels the Maya establish or confirm relative social ranking” (Houston 1998: 522). In contrast to elite architecture, characteristics ofpublic architectural assemblages are their spaciousness, comparatively low elevation, and increased levels of accessibility. For example, wide entrances promote entry into plazas and participation in the activities (ritual or otherwise) once undertaken within those spaces (Cohodas 1973: 216).
In my investigation, Maya sculpture and other artwork were ranked according to locations on the access diagrams and were interpreted in terms of their public/common and private/elite accessibility. Examples of some of the sculptural types assigned to public and progressively private spatial contexts in Maya centres include stelae, piers, and altars (most often associated with open plazas); lintels and jambs (typically found at the entrances to structures); and panels, murals, and benches (most often found in the interior of buildings or building groups). On analysing all surviving sculpture associated with the Palace and Cross Group at Palenque, twenty-two generic themes were defined and found to correlate to a variety of spatial contexts; these themes were as follows: (1) Accession; (2) Ancestor Portraiture Solo; (3) Ancestor Portraiture with Attendants (4) Captive Display; (5) Text, Captive Display; (6) Cosmological Underworld; (7) Cosmological Terrestrial; (8) Cosmological Celestial; (9) God Portraiture Solo; (10) God Portraiture with Attendants; (11) Human Sacrifice; (12) Auto Sacrifice; (13) Mat Motif; (14) Portraiture Solo; (15) Sacrificial Dance; (16) Text, Cosmological; (17) Text, Historical; (18) Text, Mythological; (19) Text, Dedication; (20) Royal Audience; (21) Ritual Dance; and (22) Royal Portraiture Solo (see Chapter 2, Section 2.4.7, Some Categories for Thematic Analytical Investigation).
The presence of different sculptural themes at varying levels of accessibility in the early phases of the Palace (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 1, Section 4.3.2, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 2, and Section 4.3.3, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 3) suggests that different imagery was directed at different audiences at Palenque. More specifically, during the reign of K’inich Janab’ Pakal I, the shallow reception area of the Palace (i. e., the Early East Court) displays war propaganda themes, such as Captive Display (GR 58 [alfardas only], 59; Figures 4.46 and 4.28). At a deeper level, royal portraits (GR 24 and 25) and a “mat” pattern (GR 26) decorating the roof of the structure mark House B as a popol nah (“council house”). In addition, at this level of depth, pantheon style portraiture (GR 29; Figures 4.23, 4.24, 4.25, and 4.26) is represented located in the east gallery of House C. At a deeper level, Accession and Royal Audience (GR 5 and 80; Figures 4.13 and 4.6) themes are portrayed, followed by sculpture housed in the subterranean passages depicting Cosmological Underworld themes (GR7,78, and 79; see Figures 4.7 and 4.8). When considering the sculpture of the early phases of the Palace Group (Palace Phases 1,2, and 3), the three carved vaults (GR 7, 78, and 79) found in the south subterranean passages represent the deepest sculpture of the Palace from the perspective of the outsider. Located in transitional spaces, the East, West, and South Subterranean Passage vaults are also the least “integrated” (i. e., the most segregated from the perspective of Palace inhabitants) of all the surviving sculpture represented. As noted by Schele, the presence of these sculptures in the underground passages leading to the Subterraneos marked the corridors as entrances into the Underworld (Schele 1986: 122).
In apparent contrast to K’inich Janab’ Pakal I, with the closing of the northern end of the Palace with House
A-D by his son K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II, there was a shift in agenda as reflected in the placement of additional furniture and sculpture at low levels of accessibility. More specifically, high concentrations of sculpture in the shallower regions of the Palace at Phase 3 imply a change in the audience that K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II was seeking to address with his sculptural program. Most notably, the positioning of a throne in the north corridor of House A-D, combined with the Palace Tablet (GR 57; Figure 4.39), implies an increased concern for the addressing of the civic population. K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II’s objective in placing Royal Audience Accession imagery at a higher level of accessibility suggests an increased concern to legitimise his authority among the broader population at Palenque. As pointed out in Chapter 5, the significance of the Palace Tablet’s location is that it marks a point of demarcation between what was, first and foremost, the ruler’s domain (i. e., the Palace) and what was the domain of the civic population (i. e., areas outside the Palace complex). The installation of northern monumental stairs at Palace Phase 3 (while providing an impressive approach for persons permitted to ascend them) were built primarily to function as boundaries to more effectively segregate Palace occupants from the general population at Palenque. Furthermore, the presence of a throne just beneath the Palace Tablet suggests that the northern gallery of House A-D was probably used by K’inich K’an Joy Chitam II to address or observe people outside the Palace complex (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 3).
Differences have been identified in how rulers chose to represent themselves in monumental art at Palenque. More specifically, public imagery (positioned in spaces where access is less controlled) tends to portray rulers authoritatively, whereas more private portraiture (appearing in more restricted spatial contexts) depicts rulers in a more understated manner, in some instances even as subordinates. For example, all three of the Cross Group tablets portray K’inich Kan B’alam II as a subordinate to the gods and the cosmological imagery represented at the centre of the monuments. The private character of the Cross Group sanctuaries, while signaled by the deep and elevated nature of the structures, is also implied by the understated appearance of the costumes worn by K’inich Kan B’alam II in all of the Cross Group tablets. In contrast, surviving sculpture appearing on the entablature and exterior piers of the Temple of the Cross and the Temple of the Sun indicates that elaborately dressed individuals once adorned the more public exterior of the buildings. Similar examples appear on the external piers of the Palace Group Houses A and D, where kings are portrayed authoritatively in the company of subordinate individuals (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 3, House A-D: Description and Sculpture). In accordance with this finding, public monuments tend to portray rulers as they would have appeared before large crowds or for important public occasions, whereas simpler dress is typically found in spaces where access to the monument’s viewing would have been restricted (Taylor 1983: 13-15).
A correlation was found between permeation gradient and shifts in the values calculated with increasing depth for the Cross Group. More specifically, as one moves progressively deeper into the Cross Group, spatial units become less integrated (i. e., more segregated) from the rest of the spatial system. Spaces displaying the greatest level of control over access to other spaces in the system are the rooms fronting the sanctuaries in each of the temples. These spaces were calculated to be controlling, because access to each of the temple’s inner sanctuaries, as well as the rooms flanking these sacred spaces, is provided exclusively from these rooms. The central plaza of the Cross Group is also a controlling space, as access to all three of the Cross Group temples requires passing through this space. In addition to occupying controlled spaces, the tablet of each of the inner sanctums is positioned in the least integrated spaces of the building group.
The most controlling spaces in access diagrams tend to be the most distributed of the system, marking their relatively high accessibility from the perspective of other spaces in local proximity. Throughout the evolution of the Palace complex (see Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Evolutionary Sequence of the Palace), spaces displaying the greatest level of control over access to other spaces include House J’s western terrace, the upper southeast platform of the Palace, and all four of the Palace courtyards. The restricted, confined, and undecorated appearance of House J marked the private character of the building. The Palace courtyards were consistently some of the most controlling spaces of the Palace Group over all six phases of development, functioning as semi-public and semi-private domains as well as spaces that could be used to regulate access to more restricted areas of the complex. Some of the other spatial units that held significant levels of control at various stages of the Palace’s development included the northern substructure’s southern terrace, the northern substructure’s northern terrace, the southern substructure corridors, the subterranean passages, and the first and second levels of the Tower. In contrast, some of the controlled spaces included the eastern and western galleries of Houses C and E, the northern and southern rooms of House B, as well as the Palace Toilets and Sweat Baths (see Chapter 5, Section 5.1, Access Analysis of Palace Phases 1-6).
Over the development of the Palace Group, sculptural themes assigned to controlling spaces included Capture Display, as well as Cosmological Underworld. Themes appearing in controlled spatial contexts included God Portraiture Solo, Ancestor Portraiture Solo, Ancestor Portraiture with Attendant, Human Sacrifice, Sacrificial Dance, God Portraiture with Attendants, Royal Audience, and Royal Audience Accession. (Note: Monuments displaying Royal Audience Accession themes as well as Dynastic Historical texts were identified in both controlling and controlled spatial contexts.)
Although some correspondence between spatial context and thematic variations in monumental art has been detected, analysis of the last three phases of the Palace (i. e., Phases 4,5, and 6) suggests that architectural embellishment became less important over time. This disparity is signaled not only by the absence of sculpture and other artwork at the later phases of the Palace, but also by the shifting accessibility of earlier artwork with the architectural modifications undertaken by subsequent kings. The largest proportion of decorative works, totaling some 52%, appeared during the reign of K’inich Janab’ Pakal I; this was followed by K’inich K’an Joy Chitam Il’s contribution of 30%. Over the remaining three phases of the Palace, K’inich Akul Mo’Nab’ III, U Pakal K’inich Janab’ Pakal II, K’inich Kan B’alam III, K’inich K’uk’ B’alam II, and Wak Kimi Janab’ Pakal III jointly added the remaining 18% (see Chapter 5, Section 5.2, Public and Private Sculpture of the Palenque Palace Group).
My analysis of the architectural sequencing of the Palace at Palenque identified a major shift in the configuration of the building group after Phase 2, from what was an acropolis-type arrangement (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.1, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 1, and Section 4.3.2, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 2) to one that conforms more precisely to a Palace-type configuration (see Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 3, Section 4.3.4, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 4, Section 4.3.5, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 5, and Section 4.3.6, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 6) as described by Andrews (1975) and Cohodas (1973: 215). In accordance with Andrews’s (1975: 67) definition ofan Acropolis Group archetype, the combined effect of the Palace platforms at Phases 1 and 2 provided a progressive change in elevation from the perspective of someone entering via the Northern Galleries, which I have previously argued functioned as a form of gateway structure controlling access into the Palace Group interior. Such shifts in structural form, from one building group configuration to another, have been noted for Group A-5 at Uaxactun. Like the Palenque Palace, Group A-5 was the result of gradual architectural modification that occurred over the reigns of successive kings. Eight phases of construction of Group A-5 have been documented, illustrating how a building complex can change dramatically over time, in this case from what was once a triadic Temple Group design to a series of complex multichambered galleries (see Miller 1999: 30).
The effect of the overall increase in number of access routes between spatial units over successive phases of the Palace was to increase the level of integration expressed by the plan of the building group. Presently, it remains unclear why the Palace shifted from what was once a deeper, less integrated plan at Phases 1 and 2 to a gradually more integrated design at the remaining architectural phases. The shift away from monumental construction to the blocking and segmenting of existing Palace architecture would have been due to a range of factors, some of which may have been: (1) declining access to the necessary raw materials, such as limestone and wood used in building and stucco production; (2) the loss and/or absence of the artistic and/or engineering skills required to undertake larger construction programs;
(3) dwindling control over the necessary labour force to implement more ambitious construction projects; and
(4) increasing pressure to protect and preserve the privacy of an ever-growing population of Palace inhabitants from outsiders. Maya palaces often changed in their spatial configuration “since they grew organically to suit the needs of an expanding elite in residence” (Cohodas 1973: 216).
The increase in the number of route options between spaces, although enhancing accessibility and reducing effective control in some of the systems, may have also been used as a strategy of avoidance. More specifically, in spatial systems where control over movement does not need to be enforced (e. g., in the home, where rules of movement are acknowledged and abided by), alternate routes through a network of spaces provides a means of moving unobserved between points. Therefore, rather than increasing levels of accessibility, integrated spatial systems may also have been used to enhance privacy in the sense that certain spaces do not have to be encroached upon when accessing others. In contrast, limiting the number of path options between spaces may be used in instances where the regulation of movement needs to be enforced, as spaces ordered consecutively with no alternative routes between points provide no means of avoidance. Such a spatial configuration is apparent in the Cross Group and the earlier phases of the Palace, where there are fewer route options between spaces in the shallower regions of the Palace complex (see Chapter 4, Section
4.3.1, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 1, and Section
4.3.2, The Buildings of the Palace Phase 2).
One of the objectives of the many architectural amendments undertaken in the Palace was to reconfigure the complex in terms of accessibility and control. It seems, however, that the Palace Group at Palenque was configured not only to enhance or preserve the privacy of inhabitants with respect to the encroachment of visitors, but to also more effectively segregate inhabitants from other inhabitants. “Privacy... [operates] in two dimensions: one that relate[s] to the public world of strangers to the private world of inhabitants, and a second which relate[s] the inhabitants to one another” (Grahame 1997:143-144). Changes in the levels ofinte-gration and control displayed by the Palace houses at each phase of construction suggest that activities associated with these buildings may have become increasingly hidden from, or exposed to, the observances of others occupying the different areas of the Palace complex. Due to the structural amendments at Palace Phases 5 and 6, the Southeast Court and the Tower Court of the Palace became substantially smaller, indicating that the activities and social encounters occurring within these spaces were becoming more intimate. It has been proposed that “architectural settings... reflect the modes of ritual communication that occurred in those spaces” (Moore 1996: 789). Among these modes of communication are “distinct spatial ranges... [which] reflect general limits to modes of interpersonal communication” (Moore 1996: 791; see also Hall 1959,1966). These modes of communication have been referred to as “intimate” (occurring at zero distance between participants), “personal” (0.451.20 meters), “social” (1.20-3.60 meters), and “public” (3.60-7.50+ meters; see Chapter 2, Section 2.1, Public versus Private Space, Public versus Private Art).
At Phases 2, 3, 4, and 5, the Palace complex comprises four quadrants marked by the presence of the four Palace courtyards. The more open and decorated northeastern, northwestern, and southwestern quadrants ofthe Palace Group were configured to signal, among other things, wealth, ancestry, and ascendancy of the king to inhabitants and outsiders permitted to enter the complex. In contrast, the closed and understated character of the southeastern quarter (see Chapter 5, Section 5.1.5, Analysis of the Palace Phase 5, and Section 5.1.6, Analysis of the Palace Phase 6) suggests that it was not intended for general admittance, but rather it functioned as a private domain where Palace inhabitants withdrew to either retire or avoid being observed. The large size and shallow positioning of the East Court (as well as the relatively low level of integration displayed by the court space) is consistent with the view that the northeast quadrant of the Palace functioned as an interface between inhabitants and visitors permitted to enter the Palace complex. In support of this proposal, House C (the building that defines the east boundary of the northeast quadrant) is described as the yet nah (“companion house”) on the structure’s Hieroglyphic Staircase.
World History
