In this investigation, monumental sculpture assigned to private/elite spaces was compared and contrasted with sculpture positioned in public/civic spaces. Monuments and other iconographic media investigated included those that were/are positioned in areas classified as most-public and most-private as well as those that could be positioned along the “privacy gradient” in between (see Chermayeff and Alexander 1965: 121-126; Newman 1972: 9; Rapoport 1977: 290; Lang 1987: 155; Pearson and Richards 1994a: 40; Grahame 1997: 139-142). In my investigation, function and status were ascribed to Maya architecture by interpreting Maya monumental art and its spatial context. It is my proposal that public/civic and pri-vate/elite elements are present within sculpture and other media and therefore may be identified and interpreted. Furthermore, I argue that the content, behaviour, and symbolism as displayed in monumental art can be understood as behaviour restricted wholly or partially to these spaces and to certain individuals with status.
A premise underpinning my research was the view that “public space” and “private space” correspond to notions of “common space” and “elite space” in Maya society, where movement between these categories of space can be understood in terms of a gradient of accessibility. It is generally argued that “the demarcation of public/civic and private/elite precincts was. . . sharply and tangibly controlled by location and scale of features” (Jones et al. 1983: 165). The intention of the Maya elite, in the construction of specific building groups, was quite clear - the goal was to establish
... a hierarchy of spaces. . . where the individual open spaces and buildings were arranged in a continuous succession of solids and voids which move in a progression from most accessible and most public, to least accessible and most private. The progression is controlled by distance and height; the higher we are allowed to go and the further away we move from the open public spaces the closer we get to the realm. . . where only the privileged may enter (Andrews 1975: 67).
In accordance with Andrews (1975), Schele and Mathews (1998: 29) propose that “the Maya controlled access and channeled movement by the use of stairways, constricted or blind entrances, causeways and other devices that were part of the spatial design of buildings.” In addition, “progressive enclosure, additional doors, corridors, and rooms change the meaning of the space by making it more difficult to get to, so that openings and plazas go from unrestricted to claustral in their layout, perhaps with implications for the ever widening gulfbetween rulers and ruled” (Pendergast 1992: 62-63).
In line with the proposals just mentioned, it follows that fixed sculpture associated with distinct types of spaces (marked by controlled access, progressive enclosure, channelled movement, and changes in elevation) may also be sorted from most public to most private, whilst the scenes displayed on such media (whether portraying individuals, ritual activities, and/or cosmological imagery) may be characterised similarly. When attempting to discern intent in the configuration ofMaya architecture, it is clear that “some vehicles of information inherent in Maya built forms (e. g., painted, carved, and inscribed murals; lintels and plaques inside temples and palaces) would have been accessible only to elites” (Webster 1998: 35).
The objectives of the present investigation were achieved by employing various analytical techniques. These were as follows: (1) the construction of a comprehensive image database of monumental art obtained from a range of spatial contexts; (2) the adaptation and implementation of techniques in “access analysis”
(see Hillier and Hanson 1984; Foster 1989a, 1989b; Fairclough 1992; Moore 1992; Gilchrist 1994; Gra-hame 1995,1997; Gould 1999; West 1999; Liendo Stu-ardo 2003); and (3) thematic-analytical (Clarkson 1979; Farmington 2003) and reductionist-comparative inquiry of sculpture (Froskouriakoff 1950; Farmington 2003).
Applying the investigative techniques just mentioned, the various proposals that I wanted to test were as follows: (1) Sculpture marks the exclusivity of associated activity areas by its positioning and iconographic content, signalling both common and elite accessibility; (2) function and exclusivity of activity areas are reflected in the compositions of spatially associated monuments; (3) public sculpture and its positioning mark common ritual space; and (4) private sculpture and its positioning mark elite ritual space.
World History
