The architectural remains exemplifying the early Maya culture are
scattered over a wide region, roughly between 87 and 94 degrees of west
longitude, and between 14 and 22 degrees of north latitude. The western
portion of the area consists of the high plateau, intersected with
river-valleys, and distinguished by much relatively open country. Over
this ground various tribal migrations have passed, but the ruins do not
show a culture of so high a type as those of the country further east.
Between the plateau and Yucatan, buildings of the highest type are
found, in low-lying alluvial country, densely forested, in which stone
is, practically speaking, only procurable where the hills approach
the rivers. In Yucatan, material for architectural construction was
ready to hand in the soft limestone of which the peninsula is formed,
and the action of the underground streams in causing the land-surface
to collapse in places, had broken up the limestone into slabs of all
sizes, almost as if to suit the convenience of the builder. But the
Yucatec buildings belong on the whole to a later date than those of the
central region, and though technically they may equal the latter, yet
signs of artistic decadence make their appearance in over-luxuriant
conventionalization, and indications of foreign influence are seen at
certain sites, notably at Chichen Itza.
In a book intended mainly as an introduction to the study of Mayan
archæology a full description of the many ruined sites is out of the
question, and this chapter will be limited to a consideration of
the main points of Mayan architecture, with illustrations taken from
the chief groups of remains. Those who desire fuller details may be
referred to the magnificent plates of Maudslay, and the extremely
valuable and illuminating descriptions of Palenque, Chichen Itza, Uxmal
and Mitla (besides Monte Alban and Teotihuacan) of Holmes. Spinden’s
monograph on Maya art should also be studied, as well as Seler’s book
on the ruins at and around Chacula.
The sites to which especial reference will be made are the following:
In the Usumacinta valley, Palenque, Piedras Negras and Menché; in the
level country near the British Honduras border, Tikal, Naranjo and
Seibal; on either side of the Guatemala-Honduras frontier, Quirigua
and Copan; and in Yucatan Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Sayil and Tulum. Some
allusion will also be made to remains in British Honduras, notably at
Santa Rita, and to the district of Huehuetenango in western Guatemala.
[Illustration: FIG. 73.--Examples of Maya terraces
and pyramids (buildings omitted).
_a-e._ Most common forms.
_f._ “El Castillo” at Chichen Itza.
_g._ “Governor’s Palace,” Uxmal.
_h._ “Temple of the Magician,” Uxmal.
_i._ Ball-court temple, Chichen Itza.
(_After Holmes_)]
[Illustration: FIG. 74.--Transverse section of a
typical Yucatec building.
_a._ Lower wall with doorway.
_b._ Doorway.
_c._ Wooden lintels.
_d._ Communication doorway.
_e._ Inner face of arch.
_f._ Capstones of arch.
_g._ Lower string-course.
_h._ Decorated entablature.
_i._ Upper string-course.
_j._ Flying façade with ornament (sometimes added).
_k._ Cornice of last.
_l._ Roof-crest with ornament (sometimes substituted for
_j_).
(_After Holmes_)]
[Illustration: FIG. 75.--Examples of Maya buildings.
_a._ Single-chambered building.
_b._ Multiple-chambered building.
_c._ The round tower at Chichen Itza (restored).
_d._ Building at Chichen Itza with sloping entablature of
Palenque type.
_e._ Palenque type of temple.
_f._ The square tower at Palenque (restored).
(_After Holmes_)]
One of the principal features of Mayan architecture, as also Mexican,
is the fact that all buildings of importance are constructed on
raised foundations, varying in form from low platform mounds, often
of irregular shape, to lofty pyramidal structures (Fig. 73). The two
are not infrequently found combined, and a platform-mound sometimes
supports a group of pyramids on which temples were erected. The
sides of the platform-mound are sometimes given a steep slope, or
are sometimes built vertical or nearly so, the latter form being
characteristic rather of Yucatan. The pyramids are usually of the
stepped variety, and the risers of the steps are frequently sloped;
they are provided with a main stairway on one face, and sometimes
with supplemental stairways on the other faces, as in the case of the
so-called “Castillo” at Chichen Itza, which can be seen to the left
of Pl. XXVIII; p. 348. In this building, and also at Copan, the
stairway is furnished with ornamental balustrades, those at Chichen
being carved in the form of two monstrous snakes of which the heads
are extended on the ground at the foot of the pyramid. Practically
all pyramid-mounds served as the support for buildings, though a
certain number, without stairways, have been found which are simply
burial-mounds. An exception occurs at Tikal (according to Tozzer), and
perhaps in other places, where high pyramids with stairways appear to
have had no crowning structures, and were possibly used as sites for
offerings made in the open air. The material of which such structures
are built is earth and rubble, and they have usually been faced with
stone dressed with more or less accuracy, any imperfections being
concealed with stucco. In some cases, notably at Copan, excavation
has revealed the presence of a cement layer at some depth beneath
the surface. This is probably an indication that the pyramid at some
period has been enlarged, and it may be said that similar evidence of
the practice of adding to existing structures is found elsewhere in
the Maya area. The buildings which crown the foundation-mounds vary
in type from simple, single-chambered edifices to elaborate complexes
such as are found at Palenque and Menché, but as a matter of fact
the construction is essentially the same throughout. The form of the
typical Maya building was to a great extent conditioned by the fact
that the primitive architect was ignorant of the principle of the true
arch. It is possible that some buildings may have been furnished with
flat roofs by means of wooden beams, but if so the beams have decayed
and the buildings have fallen in; such structures as have survived
were built as follows (Figs. 74 and 77; pp. 323 and 329): The walls,
built very thick, were carried vertically up to the desired height,
and then the mason commenced to build inwards at a very wide angle,
allowing successive courses to overlap, until those on opposite walls
approached near enough for the space to be bridged by single slabs.
Meanwhile the outer faces of the walls were carried up vertically or at
a slope, and the exterior of the roof was finished off flat or with a
very slight gable respectively. The distance between the spring of the
vault and the apex was considerable, and this gave to the exterior face
of Maya buildings a very deep entablature (Fig. 74, _h_) which
afforded a magnificent space for ornament. The entablature is separated
from the wall proper, which is usually unornamented, by a projecting
cornice or “string-course” (Fig. 74, _g_), the design of which
varies according to locality, and in some of the Chichen buildings the
lower portion of the wall is battered. The form of vault limited the
width of the chamber to ten feet or so, but placed no restrictions
upon its length, and at Palenque we find long corridor-like chambers,
with frequent doorways, built upon this principle. In Yucatan the
entablature is nearly always perpendicular (Fig. 74, _h_), at
Tikal and Menché it slopes slightly backward, and at Palenque the slope
is considerable (Fig. 77; p. 329); but these are inessential details,
and it may be said that the typical Maya building is a solid, box-like
structure containing a narrow chamber vaulted as described above.
Even the more complex edifices are nothing more than an agglomeration
of such chambers, and the type holds good for the whole of the Maya
region. The nature of the Maya vault embodies the principle, in the
words of Spinden, of “the downward thrust of a load on over-stepping
stones,” and this thrust was often increased by the addition of a
superstructure, usually known as a “roof-comb” (Figs. 74, _l_,
and 75, _e_). This addition reached its greatest dimensions at
Tikal, where it usually resembles a very high-pitched stepped mound,
sometimes solid, sometimes enclosing one or more very narrow blind
chambers (Fig. 76, 9, _a_, and 11). The roof-comb was present
also at Menché and probably at Naranjo and Piedras Negras (though not
at Copan or Quirigua), but attains its greatest artistic development
at Palenque (see Pl. XXVII; p. 342), where it is a light and airy
structure, pierced with open-work, and elaborately ornamented with
stucco reliefs. In Yucatan the roof-comb, where found, differs from
those of the central Maya area in consisting, not of two inclined
walls, but of a single vertical wall (Fig. 74, _l_), and it is
often replaced by an elaborate false front, (Fig. 74, _j_), rising
above the vertical entablature, the ornament of which it carries up
to a greater height. But though the roof-comb may by its weight have
assisted in giving stability to the Maya building, it was by no means
essential, the thick walls and solid roof were constructed of stones
freely mixed with mortar, and the result was a structure which was
practically a monolith; in fact, the Maya built caves, the exterior
surfaces of which they faced with a veneer of dressed slabs, often,
especially in Yucatan, carved and arranged to form elaborate mosaic
decoration. Their method of building was extremely wasteful of space,
and Holmes says of the so-called “Governor’s Palace” at Uxmal, figured
on Pl. XXX; p. 358, “We find by a rough computation that the structure
occupies some 325,000 cubic feet of space, upwards of 200,000 of which
is solid masonry, while only about 110,000 feet is chamber-space.
If the substructure be taken into account, the mass of masonry is
to the chamber-space approximately as 40 to 1.” In the case of the
buildings at Tikal, the proportion of chamber-space is considerably
less (see Fig. 76, 11). In some cases at any rate the connection of the
superimposed building with the foundation-mound on which it rested is
emphasized by the fact that the walls of the former continue downwards
into the heart of the latter (according to Holmes), possibly even to
the ground-level. The doorways by which these buildings were entered
are for the most part simple. In the more massive structures, such
as Tikal and Copan, a single doorway seems to have been the rule;
but at the sites which display greater architectural advancement,
such as Palenque, the front is often broken by a series of doorways
so close together that the wall becomes little more than a series of
square pillars (Fig. 75, _d_). Round columns are found only in
Yucatan, especially at Chichen Itza, associated with those buildings
which are attributed to a later date (Pl. XXIX). It is interesting to
note that, while in the Old World the column is based for the most
part on vegetal forms, in this country the animal world has been
laid under contribution. The Chichen columns are carved to represent
feathered serpents, with their heads upon the ground and their tails
elevated in the air, exactly similar to the columns which have been
found at Tulan in Mexico. Stone was employed for lintels, especially
at Menché, where they are elaborately carved, but wood was used almost
more frequently. The carved lintels of Tikal (see Fig. 48; p. 225),
of the durable zapote wood, are among the finest examples of Maya
art, and have survived owing to the solidity of the buildings and
their single doorways. At Palenque and in Yucatan the wooden lintels,
being less well protected, have vanished, and their decay has often
contributed to the downfall of the structure; at the same time the
fact that many of the buildings have not suffered to any extent from
the removal of the lintels emphasizes the monolithic character of the
Maya building. Windows are practically non-existent, though openings
in the walls between chambers are common, especially at Palenque (Fig.
77; p. 329). As stated above, the typical Maya building is a simple
rectangular chamber, as shown in the plan, Fig. 76, 1. But it was
capable of considerable elaboration, and the succeeding plans show
some of the variations produced by the addition of subsidiary chambers
and the breaking of the wall by means of doorways. The highest degree
of complexity is seen at Palenque, where the main building contains a
specially-built cell, furnished with a separate roof, to enshrine the
mural tablet which probably served as an object of worship (Fig. 77).
[Illustration: FIG. 76.--Ground-plans and elevations
of Maya temples.
1. Single-chambered building (Fig. 75, _a_).
2. „ „ wall broken by doorways.
3. Two-chambered building.
4. „ „ with circular columns.
5. Temple “El Castillo” at Chichen Itza.
6. Temple of Palenque type (Fig. 77).
7. Temple at Menché.
8. Temple at Piedras Negras.
9. Temple at Tikal.
9_a_. Elevation of 9.
10. Temple at Copan.
11. Temple at Tikal with single chamber and hollow roof-crest.]
[Illustration: FIG. 77.--Section through the Temple
of the Cross, Palenque (lintels restored): see Fig. 76, 6.
_a._ Stairway.
_b._ Pillar (restored).
_c._ Vestibule.
_d._ Doorway to inner side chamber.
_e._ Large doorway to inner main chamber.
_f._ Doorway to shrine.
_g._ Shrine.
_h._ Original position of mural tablet.
_i._ Masonry arch-brace.
_j._ Capstones of doorway arch.
_k._ Partition-wall.
_l._ Steps for ascending roof-crest through middle floor.
_m._ Middle floor and roof of roof-crest.
(_After Holmes_)]
[Illustration: FIG. 78.--Plans and section of
building at Santa Rosa Xlabpak.
A. Plan, ground floor. C. Plan, second floor.
B. „ first floor. D. Section.
(_After Spinden_)]
The methods of the Maya builder, and in particular his ignorance of the
true arch, rendered the construction of an edifice of more than one
storey (apart from the roof-comb) a matter of considerable difficulty.
Nevertheless buildings of two, and even three tiers of chambers
are known, though the plan on which they were erected was extremely
wasteful of material and space. Usually the higher or highest tier was
supported on a solid construction, around which the chambers of the
lower tier or tiers were grouped (Fig. 78). The whole edifice thus
resembled in the main a huge stepped mound, with rooms built in each
of the steps. Sometimes the outer chambers of a superior tier would
overlap those of an inferior to some extent, but in such cases the
floor of an upper chamber was almost always supported on the dividing
wall of two of the lower. The cave-like structure of Maya buildings is
particularly evident in such architectural monstrosities. However, many
of the sites do not include buildings of more than one floor (apart
from the roof-comb). In some cases, as at Tikal, the upper tiers must
have been reached by ladders, as no stairway leads to them, and it is
interesting to note in this connection that more than one stela at
Piedras Negras represents a god seated in a niche to which a ladder
gives access from below (Pl. XX; p. 224). The finest example of a
three-tiered building is found at Santa Rosa Xlabpak (Fig. 78), but in
this case a broad stairway leads from the ground to the highest tier.
Two remarkable buildings of more than one storey call for mention, if
only as exceptions to the general rule. These are the square tower at
Palenque, and the circular edifice known as the “Caracol” at Chichen
Itza. The first (Fig. 75, _f_) had originally at least three
floors, as well as two intermediate blind storeys, the chambers of
which are grouped around a square core of masonry in which is built
a staircase. The second (Fig. 75, _e_), which has two storeys,
is constructed round a circular core, in which is a very small spiral
stairway. The essentials of construction are the same, the chief
differences lying in the facts, firstly, that whereas the chambers of
the Caracol are all vaulted, those of the Palenque tower are in some
cases furnished with flat ceilings of beams, and secondly, that while
the upper storey of the Caracol is considerably less in diameter than
the lower, the square tower retains the same diameter throughout.
Architecturally the latter is considerably superior to the former, but
the shape of the Caracol is interesting since it is the only circular
construction now existing in the Maya country, though Landa states that
a circular temple to Kukulkan was built at Mayapan, and further remarks
that this shape of building was particularly related to this god. It
will be remembered that circular temples, according to tradition, were
erected to Quetzalcoatl, his counterpart, in Mexico.
The Maya architects did not attempt to handle large masses of stone in
the construction of their buildings; no blocks comparable in size with
the great lintels of Mitla enter into the composition of Maya temples
and in the art of masonry the Maya were far behind the megalithic
builders of the Peruvian and Bolivian highlands. The only attempt at
stone building, where regularly squared blocks are laid in rows with
due attention to the breaking of courses and the bonding of corners,
is found at Copan, and that too in only a very small proportion of the
ruins of that site. Elsewhere no regard is paid to these two important
architectural points, and this fact has contributed in some degree
to the downfall of many of the buildings. However, the fault is the
less serious owing to the extreme solidity of the stone-and-mortar
hearting. As stated above, Maya buildings were faced with a veneer of
blocks dressed on the exterior surface; these were usually cut away to
some extent behind, so that the mortar in which they were set extended
in tongues nearly to the outer face of the wall, just as at Mitla;
but in many cases the tenon-like backs of the surface-blocks were not
sufficiently prominent, and in consequence they have fallen away from
the core of stone and mortar, leaving the latter exposed. This method
of facing enabled the builders to ornament their temples with the most
elaborate mosaic designs, which are seen in their greatest complexity
in Yucatan (Pls. XXIX, 2, and XXX; pp. 350 and 358). The designs here
fall roughly into two classes, geometrical patterns, which often appear
to be based upon textile art, and grotesque representations of the
human face (e.g. Fig. 86, _g_; p. 356). The latter is particularly
characteristic of the region, and represents probably the face of the
god B, the counterpart of the Mexican Tlaloc, whose nose is frequently
prolonged into a regular trunk (see Pl. XXIX, 2). Some of the
geometrical patterns are produced by the regular repetition of a small
element, and these naturally were easier of construction since they
are composed of similarly carved blocks; but many of the designs are
formed of blocks each of which has been carved to fit the particular
place which it occupies in the whole scheme of ornament, and this fact
not only bears witness to a vast amount of patient labour, but implies
also that the architect was working in accordance with a definite
plan prepared beforehand. In Chichen Itza grotesque masks are found in
some of the buildings, composed of details which do not fit into the
scheme, a fact which proves that the Maya mason was not above utilizing
material gleaned from the ruins of former buildings, besides affording
evidence that such structures are of later date. It has already been
mentioned that circular columns are peculiar to Yucatan, and it may be
added that a variety of ornament derived from them was also applied to
the outer surface of buildings, in the form of series of pilasters,
such as are found at Sayil, and Labna and elsewhere (Pl. XXV, 1; p.
332).
[Illustration:
_PLATE XXV_
_Photo. Col. F. H. Ward_
1
_Photo. Dr. A. P. Maudslay_
2
MAYA
1. BUILDING AT SAYIL, YUCATAN
2. TEMPLE AT TIKAL, GUATEMALA]
Mortar, obtained by burning the local limestone, besides being used in
great quantities for the hearting of buildings, was also employed for
flooring, and, as stucco, for making up defects in wall-surfaces and
designs. Besides this it was extensively used for moulded decoration
at certain sites, notably Palenque. Here the limestone is of a very
hard variety, and difficult to work with such tools as the Maya
possessed; as a result, the art of modelling in relief attained a great
development, and some of the finest works of Central American art are
those produced by the stucco-workers of Palenque. Where the relief is
low, the stucco has been employed alone, but where bold effects were
desired, as on the roof-combs, a regular skeleton of the design has
first been prepared, of limestone blocks, over which the stucco has
been applied and moulded to the requisite form.
Colour formed an important aid to Maya ornament, and was frequently
applied to stone carvings. It seems to us rather barbarous to cover
fine stone reliefs with a coat of coloured stucco, but the Maya artist
had no scruples on this score, and reliefs have been found at Palenque
to which several layers of the above have been applied at different
times. Many of the stelæ, especially at Piedras Negras, still show
evident traces of colour, and it must be remembered that when the
details were picked out in different tints the designs appeared far
less complicated than in monochrome. But apart from the colouring of
reliefs, fresco designs in a variety of hues were commonly applied
to the interior walls of buildings, and their graceful and flowing
lines prove that the Maya was no mean artist with the brush. This form
of ornament has been observed at Menché, where a design of scrolls,
leaves, flowers and figures of men and animals is painted on the walls
of one of the chambers, in two reds, two blues, yellow and dark brown.
At Chichen Itza the art of fresco was highly developed; not only
were the columns, doorposts and interior reliefs painted in colours,
but many chambers were elaborately ornamented with coloured designs.
According to Miss Breton, who has made a careful study of these
frescoes, two different hands may be traced in the method of execution.
One artist employed outlines but sparingly, and carried out the greater
part of his work in dry colour, sometimes superimposing one tint on
another to obtain the desired effect. The other drew all his figures
in outline and added the principal colour masses while the plaster was
still damp, putting in the details subsequently in dry colour. The hues
include two reds, two blues, four greens, yellow, white, black and
purple. The practice of ornamenting wall-surfaces with painted designs
extends into British Honduras, where a building with very important
frescoes has been discovered under peculiar circumstances. This is at
Santa Rita, and the building in question was found buried in a large
mound, which had been heaped over it, apparently with intention. The
frescoes are painted on the walls below the cornice, and had been
shielded from the earth by protecting walls built about an inch from
them to meet the cornice. The colours include red, pink, blue, yellow,
grey and black, and the design represents a number of human or divine
figures accompanied by date-glyphs in the Maya style. Among the figures
the Maya gods B and K of the manuscripts may be easily recognized,
while one with bird and serpent attributes may well be Kukulkan (Fig.
79). At the same time one figure is shown with black paint around the
eye, exactly as worn by the Aztec Mixcoatl and other stellar gods,
while other details peculiar to Mexican art appear, such as a frieze
of star-eyes, very similar to that of Mitla (compare Fig. 80), and
sun-discs in Mexican style. Many of the figures are represented with
bound hands, and in one place a sacrificial scene is depicted. It is
possible that the fresco commemorates some victory, but the occasion,
as well as the reason of the burial of the building, remains a mystery.
[Illustration: FIG. 79.--Detail of fresco at Santa
Rita, British Honduras.
(_After Gann_)]
Apart from the buildings reserved for ceremonial or residential
purposes, tlaxtli-courts are found in the Huehuetenango district, at
Rabinal, and again in northern Yucatan, though not in the central
area. These courts have the floor and walls carefully plastered, and
the stone rings which project, one from each wall, are usually well
carved. The court at Chichen is the largest known, and is associated
with a special temple with serpent columns in the style of Tulan (Pls.
XXVIII and XXIX, 1; pp. 348 and 350). The western courts resemble very
closely those of the Zapotec area. The question of the introduction of
the game into the Maya area has already been discussed on p. 302.
[Illustration: FIG. 80.--Details from frescoes.
A. Santa Rita, British Honduras.
B. Mitla, Oaxaca.]
Living as they did in a climate with an abundant rainfall, the Maya
were not under the necessity of constructing elaborate irrigation
works as were the ancient inhabitants of Peru. One watercourse alone
is known, and that appears to be rather in the nature of a drain to
carry off superfluous water than an aqueduct. This is at Palenque, and
consists of a stone-lined subterranean channel, roofed with the typical
Maya vault.
As regards the arrangement of buildings it is impossible to discuss
in detail the ground-plans of the various sites, but attention may
be called to the prevailing tendency to group the most important
structures round square or rectangular courts. Beyond this, little
community of plan is observed, and indeed in the central area the
builders were often obliged to suit their arrangement to the exigencies
of the site. Thus Palenque and Copan, being built in river-valleys,
exhibit less regularity of arrangement than such sites as Tikal, where
the country is more or less of a plain. There is evidence too that
many of the cities grew by accretion beyond the limits intended by the
first builders, and this fact will explain much of the irregularity
observable in plan. But throughout, the assemblage of buildings round
a court is a prominent feature, and the court would seem to have been
the unit of growth (see Pl. XXVI, 2; p. 338). It is a noticeable
fact that none of the sites in the east and centre of the Maya area
exhibit any defensive qualities. The courts are open at the corners,
and the sites selected for building are evidently not chosen with
any strategic insight. In the west, however, the case is somewhat
different, and we find settlements, such as Iximché and Utatlan, built
as it were on peninsulas almost surrounded by inaccessible barrancas
and connected with the “mainland” only by a narrow neck which could be
easily defended by a mere handful of men. This fact goes far towards
indicating that the ruins in the centre were centres of religious and
ceremonial life rather than cities in the modern sense of the word.
The question as to how far Maya buildings were definitely oriented is
rather complex. On the whole far fewer indications of the practice
occur in the Maya region than in the Mexican. To speak generally the
sites at Seibal and in southern Yucatan, as far as surveyed, are
more carefully oriented than in northern Yucatan and elsewhere. The
buildings at Copan are not oriented, but here and at such sites as
Palenque, the surrounding hills and forests obscure the true horizon,
and the arrangement of courts may yet be found to square with the
apparent point of rising of certain heavenly bodies. An accurate survey
of Tikal would throw a good deal of light upon the problem, since the
situation of the ruins in comparatively level country, combined with
the great height of the pyramids, would have enabled the inhabitants to
obtain a far truer horizon than at most sites.
Though the Maya did not for the most part use large masses of stone
for building, yet they were able to handle monoliths of considerable
size, as may be seen from the number of carved stelæ which constitute
so important a feature of many of the ruined sites. These stelæ consist
of monolithic pillars, approximately rectangular and decorated with
relief carving, usually on all sides. The largest of these are found
at Quirigua, but the art of the neighbouring site of Copan (Pl. XXI;
p. 236) is the finer, since many of the stelæ here are carved in such
bold relief as to approximate to sculpture in the round. At these two
sites most of the stelæ present on their principal faces a human or
divine figure, usually represented _en face_, and holding the
sky-bar (occasionally replaced at Quirigua by the ceremonial axe).
At Tikal, Naranjo (Pl. XXIII; p. 302), and Menché (Pl. XXII; p. 294)
the relief is less bold, and the figures are usually therefore shown
in profile, at any rate as far as the face is concerned. At Seibal
and Piedras Negras profile figures predominate, but a few occur shown
_en face_ (Pl. XX; p. 224), among them the figures seated in
niches already mentioned as characteristic of the latter locality.
At Palenque only one stela has been found, but on the other hand
comparatively little stone-carving occurs here, though the deficiency
is amply supplied by the quality of the magnificent mural tablets in
relief which constitute the chief feature of the site. The sky-bar
does not appear on the stelæ of Piedras Negras, though the ceremonial
axe is occasionally seen. Both emblems occur at Naranjo, Tikal, Seibal
and Menché. A few stelæ have been found in Yucatan, e.g. at Sayil; but
they are confined to the northern portion of the district and even
here are rare and poorly carved. The exact purpose of the stelæ is
problematical. In the large majority of cases they stand in definite
relation to certain buildings, in fact all at Naranjo, Seibal, Menché
and Piedras Negras are connected with temples. At Copan and Quirigua
some appear to be independent. They are usually found situated in the
courts, though at Piedras Negras a series exists arranged along the
lower terrace of a foundation-mound. Many are furnished with altars in
front of them (Fig. 81), and they appear to have been the objects of
some cult. A most important point in connection with them lies in the
fact that so many of them bear dates in the long count as described in
chapter X, and this fact, combined with the statements of early authors
that the historical Maya were wont to mark the passage of a katun by
setting up a “stone,” lends colour to the opinion that the early Maya
followed a similar practice. Many of the dates mark quarter katuns,
but many again do not, and though we may conclude that they were in
some way commemorative monuments, it is impossible at present to define
their use more exactly. As stated before, many of the stelæ were
painted in colours, and plain stelæ occur at Tikal and elsewhere, which
probably once bore some painted design. The evident relation which Maya
sculpture bears to wood-carving renders it probable that many wooden
stelæ may once have existed, especially in the earliest times. It is
worth noting that at Copan the stone foundations which support the
stelæ enclose small cruciform vaults, reproducing in miniature the
souterrains found in connection with some of the buildings at Mitla.
[Illustration:
_PLATE XXVI_
_Photo. Col. F. H. Ward_
1
_After Maudslay_
2
MAYA
1. SCULPTURED MONOLITH P., QUIRIGUA, GUATEMALA
2. PLAN OF RUINS AT COPAN, HONDURAS]
[Illustration:
FIG. 81.--Stone altar (Q) at Copan.
(_After Maudslay_)]
At present the attention of most archæologists has been confined to
the ruins themselves, and little search has been made for the sources
whence the building-material was obtained. Quarries however have been
located in the neighbourhoods of Naranjo, Copan and Quirigua, and the
presence at the last site of canal-like excavations suggests that the
blocks were conveyed thither by water. A thorough investigation of such
quarries as can be discovered would be most valuable in casting much
light upon the process of working stone among the early Maya.
In the east of the central area the most important site is that of
Tikal; the ruins are extensive, and suggest that the place was long
an important centre. The dates attached to the monuments are of great
interest (for the comparative dating of the monuments, see Appendix
III), since they range from an early period, and the extreme solidity
of the buildings as compared with those of other sites seems to hint
that they were the work of more primitive architects than those of
Palenque for instance. The pyramids are of interest, since they present
a far steeper pitch than those of any other locality (Pl. XXV, 2; p.
332). Certain of the stelæ and inscriptions are of a rather rude and
archaic character, but the wood-carvings (Fig. 48; p. 225) are of
particular merit, and are very similar in style to the stone lintels
in low relief of Menché. The fact that the wooden lintels have been
preserved here while they have for the most part decayed at other
sites, is no argument against the antiquity of Tikal, for they are
situated well within the buildings, which are, as remarked above, of
very solid construction, and furnished with small single doors, besides
being raised far above the ground on lofty foundation-mounds. On the
whole I think that the architectural and artistic evidence supports
the early dates which appear on the stelæ, and I should place Tikal
as perhaps the earliest Maya site of which we have definite knowledge,
though it is evident that it was inhabited well on into later times
when the Maya had become far more expert in stone-carving than when the
first buildings were erected there. The neighbouring site of Naranjo
bears certain similarities in plan to that of Tikal, and the reliefs
are in very similar style. The dating of the monuments falls into
two well-defined periods, the western court being earlier than the
eastern; both however are considerably later than the earlier buildings
of Tikal, of which Naranjo was probably an offshoot, outlasting the
mother city by more than half a century. Seibal, where the ruins are
far less extensive, is evidently a related site, though the reliefs are
comparatively clumsy in style, and probably represent a decadent and
“provincial” form of art. It is interesting to note that the earliest
date at this site falls about the same time as the last of Tikal, the
latest recording the same katun as the latest at Naranjo.
Menché, like Copan, is built upon the bank of a river, and the physical
character of the site prevented anything like symmetrical arrangement.
The courts do not correspond one with another in position, and careful
investigation would be necessary before it could be stated that any
of the pyramids were so placed as to provide for the observation of
the rising of a planet over the surrounding hills. The dates would
make Menché later than Tikal as far as its foundation is concerned,
and the less massive nature of its architecture and the high quality
of its relief-carving would imply the same. But it is noticeable that
the most numerous reliefs consist of sculptured lintels, and though
these are of stone, and not of wood as at Tikal, the technique is that
of wood-carving, and the style is very similar to that of Tikal. The
artistic quality of the Menché sculptures is relatively very high, and
the lintels, one of which is figured on Pl. XXII, 2; p. 294, are some
of the finest examples of low-relief carving found in the Maya area,
ranking with the bolder sculptures of Copan, and not far behind the
stucco work and still lower reliefs of Palenque. Further features of
this site will be mentioned in connection with Palenque.
Copan (Pl. XXVI, 2; p. 338) and Quirigua evidently bear a close
relation one to the other, and are differentiated from all other
sites by the size and workmanship of the stelæ. Unfortunately but few
traces of buildings remain, and it is impossible to determine their
exact type. All that can be said is that the walls were thick, and
that both in this respect and in the ground-plan (see Fig. 76; p.
327) the buildings probably represent a stage of development midway
between Tikal and other sites. With this placing the dates on the
Copan monuments agree, but Quirigua was a later site, almost certainly
founded from Copan, though it flourished alongside of it until both
records cease at the end of the ninth cycle. The monuments of Quirigua
show a certain technical superiority over those of Copan, the stelæ are
larger, and often ornamented with far greater wealth of detail. The
broader treatment of the Copan carvings (Pl. XXI and Fig. 81; pp. 236
and 339), however, gives a nobler effect to the stelæ of that site,
though Quirigua cannot in any sense be regarded as decadent, as witness
the magnificent monster with a human figure in its jaws shown on Pl.
XXVI, 1; p. 338.
[Illustration:
_PLATE XXVII_
_Photo. J. Cooper Clark_ 1 2 3
MAYA
RUINS AT PALENQUE, CHIAPAS
1. THE “TEMPLE OF THE SUN”
2. THE “PALACE”
3. THE “TEMPLE OF THE CROSS”]
Piedras Negras is a site of great interest. On the one hand the stelæ
manifest a very great range of quality, on the other the dates commence
early, though not so early as Tikal, and end in the same katun as those
of that city. The rudest stelæ bear a rather interesting resemblance to
the Huaxtec sculptures of the Panuco valley (Pl. X, 1; p. 108), while
the best are of a type peculiar to this locality. The latter represent
a figure _en face_, seated in a niche to which a ladder gives
access, and before which a priest is sometimes represented standing
(Pl. XX; p. 224). It may be noted in passing that the board, or, more
likely, cloth with the footsteps marked on it, laid upon the ladder,
is paralleled in the Dresden MS. by the streamer with similar markings
attached to the tree which represents the god (see Fig. 58; p. 264,
lower register). The exact relations of Piedras Negras are difficult to
determine. On the one hand certain points in connection with costume,
notably the voluminous turban-like head-dresses seen on many of the
figures, recall the art of Copan (e.g. Fig. 81); on the other hand many
of the flatter reliefs bear a distinct resemblance to those of Naranjo,
without attaining the perfection of those at Menché. An interesting
fragment represents a figure seated in profile with a colossal jaguar
towering behind him; unfortunately only the feet and legs of the latter
remain, but sufficient to show that the whole scene must have been
almost a replica of one of the wooden lintels of Tikal. Jaguar figures,
or men with jaguar masks and claws, or claws alone, also occur on stelæ
at Seibal and Quirigua.
[Illustration:
FIG. 82.--Stone relief; Temple of the Sun, Palenque.
(_After Maudslay_)]
Palenque stands alone. Architecturally it is by far the most advanced
of the cities of the central area, while the artistic qualities of
the stucco reliefs, and the low-relief stone carvings (Figs. 49 and
52), the technique of which appears to be based on stucco-work, place
them in a category by themselves. It was, in fact, only at Copan and
Quirigua that the Maya showed anything like mastery over stone. The
deficiency lay no doubt not so much in the artistic faculties of the
mason, as in the lack of suitable tools, but it is a fact that only
at the southern sites he displayed definite signs of modifying the
technique borrowed from wood-carving to suit a less tractable material.
Even the fine reliefs of Menché are wood-carvings translated into
stone, and the same applies to the reliefs at other sites, except
perhaps to the figures in niches at Piedras Negras, which in other
respects noted above display a certain similarity to the Copan
sculptures. When the Maya artist began to develop the art of modelling
in stucco he showed that the quality of his work depended to a great
extent upon the plasticity of his material, while he had gained much in
technique from his experience in stone. A peculiar feature of Palenque
is the comparative restraint exhibited by the artist. That he still
loved complexity of detail is shown by such reliefs as Fig. 61 (p.
297), but he no longer feared the vacant space, and appreciated its
value as a background. The dates on the monuments do not assist us in
any way to determine the epoch which saw the rise of Palenque. The
initial series in the temples give dates relating to the first cycle
or even before, that is to say more than 3000 years B.C., and
as such they must be regarded as purely legendary. It is impossible
to believe that the site was of early foundation compared with the
others. It would be against all experience to suggest that the people
who built Palenque could at a subsequent period have adopted the clumsy
and unnecessarily laborious architecture of Tikal. On the other hand,
the site of Palenque bears a certain similarity to that of Menché,
including the presence at both of buildings with underground passages
and chambers, though the “palace” at Palenque is a far more elaborate
construction than the analogous building at Menché, being in fact a
complex of associated buildings. All the evidence seems to point to the
conclusion that Palenque is the latest of the central Maya sites, and
that it is most closely associated with Menché. In further proof of the
latter supposition I might mention the so-called “crosses,” surmounted
by birds, held by the figures in more than one of the Menché reliefs,
which have their counterparts in the “crosses” of Palenque alone. The
significance of these I have already discussed on p. 257.
I think, then, that the various dates found on the monuments may be
taken as a fair indication of the relative periods at which the various
cities flourished, except of course those at Palenque. Arguments based
upon the style of decoration alone are apt to be misleading, especially
as far as the lesser sites are concerned, since it is only natural that
at these the workmanship should be of an inferior and “provincial”
character. Allowance too must be made for the varying capacity of
local artists, and above all for the relative tractability of the
local materials. The evidence of architecture is more valuable, and,
to speak generally, supports the dates as given by the glyphs, though
the possibility of greater conservatism at some sites, as compared with
others, must not be overlooked. On the whole the best results must
necessarily accrue from a careful consideration of all three, with due
allowance for a natural tendency to quote dates relating to past and
often mythical history.
With respect to certain similarities presented by the attributes of
the figures depicted at certain sites, allusion has been made above to
the hand appearing as part of the head-dress at Copan, Piedras Negras
and Palenque (p. 227), to the jaguar-man at Tikal, Seibal, Piedras
Negras and Quirigua (p. 343), and to the fish and flower, also shown
as a head-dress, at Naranjo, Palenque, Chichen Itza and on the Nebaj
vase (p. 310). Attention will be called later to a peculiar interlaced
ornament, also borne on the head, by figures at Copan, Piedras
Negras, Menché and Naranjo, and found again at Xochicalco, Teayo
and in the Mexican valley (p. 355). One more may be mentioned, the
head-dress representing a heron with a fish or frog in its beak, seen
at Palenque (Fig. 61; p. 297) and twice at Seibal, an ornament which
recalls the Quiché legend of how they sent eastward to a country, most
probably to be identified with the Usumacinta valley, to obtain royal
_insignia_, and received amongst other objects the plumes of the
heron.
[Illustration: FIG. 83.--The “Monjas” at Chichen
Itza, showing how the original structure has been enlarged.
(_After Holmes_)]
[Illustration: FIG. 84.--Caryatid figure, Chichen
Itza.]
Of the Yucatec sites the most important is that of Chichen Itza. The
remains here are considerable, though they conform to no definite
plan save that the same arrangement of building round rectangular
courts prevails. The buildings themselves are typically Maya, though
structurally they exhibit a certain advance upon those of the central
area, and Maya glyphs are found throughout, with certain important
exceptions. Of the peculiarities which distinguish the architecture
of Yucatan from that of the last region, many have already been
mentioned, including the mosaic ornament with which the façades of
buildings are decorated. But another important feature remains to be
recorded. Throughout the whole of Yucatan only two dates in the long
count have been discovered, and one of these is at Chichen Itza. The
site is interesting as providing evidence of more than one stage of
construction. One of the finest buildings, the so-called Monjas, shows
plainly that a considerable addition was made to the foundation at a
time later than the original building (Fig. 83). At the same period an
additional storey was added, and one of the chambers in the earlier
structure was filled solid with masonry to support the weight. Certain
annexes were also built (Pl. XXIX, 2; p. 350), in the decoration of
which ornamental fragments from the façades of previous “palaces”
were included, but the inscriptions are in regular Maya characters,
though no date in the long count is included. Other buildings in the
immediate neighbourhood are in similar style and belong presumably
to the same epoch. But further north is a large group of structures
of an entirely different character of ornamentation. These include
the famous ball-court and attached temples (Pl. XXVIII; p. 348), the
Castillo (also seen in Pl. XXVIII), a large structure of which only the
numerous square sculptured columns remain, and the so-called “Temple of
the Tables.” On these buildings neither Maya glyphs nor mosaic masks
are found, while the Castillo and upper ball-court temple are furnished
with serpent-columns similar to those of Tulan. In the lower temple
attached to the ball-court is an elaborate relief showing figures,
exhibiting no signs of cranial deformation, armed with spears and
spear-throwers, assisting, so it would seem, at the obsequies of some
personage in the centre who is distinguished by a huge feathered snake
which overshadows him. Many of the figures are accompanied by glyphs
which are distinctly Nahua in type, while their ornaments and dress
combine both Nahua and Maya characters; further, a sun-disc in Nahua
style occurs at the top of the relief. In the Castillo are atlantean
figures carved in relief in similar style, and in the Temple of the
Tables were found a number of slabs supported by small caryatides (Fig.
84), carved in the round, exactly similar to some which have been
found at Tlaxcala. Finally, several stone recumbent figures supporting
vases, of the type shown on Pl. VIII, 2; p. 74, have been discovered
buried in the neighbourhood.[8] The buildings themselves, as far as
preserved, present, architecturally speaking, Maya characteristics,
except the large site with the numerous square columns, which probably
supported a flat roof laid on transverse beams. To the west and south
of the buildings first described are many unexplored mounds,
probably the remains of the earliest settlement of all, and it is in
one of these that a slab bearing a date in the long count, but later
than any in the central area, has been discovered. Thus we appear to
have three, or possibly four, periods represented at Chichen Itza,
the first by the mounds where the initial date was found, the second
and possible third by the Monjas group with its reconstructions in
typical Yucatec style, the last by the northern group with its definite
“Toltec” affinities. It is to be noted that this corresponds in a most
remarkable manner with the Tutul Xiu tradition. The first settlement
would be that of which they heard when they were yet at Balcalar, the
second and doubtful third periods would represent their own occupation
and reoccupation, while the last would illustrate the result of the
Nahua influx which brought about the fall of the league of Mayapan.
The other date in the long count which has been found in the Yucatec
area is at Tulum. This is a very early date, in the sixth katun of the
ninth cycle, and may possibly relate to some event in past history.
At any rate it supports the evidence furnished by Chichen Itza that
the Maya peoples who reckoned by the long count and built the cities
of the central area had penetrated into Yucatan before the arrival of
the Tutul Xiu. Tulum has not yet been satisfactorily explored, but the
buildings there are neither imposing nor richly decorated; the site
however presents one feature of interest in so far as it is surrounded
on three sides by a wall, the fourth being protected by the sea.
[Illustration:
_PLATE XXVIII_
_Photo. C. R. Waite_
MAYA
THE TEMPLE OF THE BALL-COURT (LEFT) AND THE “CASTILLO,”
AT CHICHEN ITZA, YUCATAN. (_See Plate XXIX, 1_)]
Uxmal, which, according to the Tutul Xiu account, was founded from
Chichen Itza, shows, as regards the majority of its buildings, a very
close correspondence with the Monjas group of the latter site. Most of
the buildings exhibit the true Yucatec character, including the mosaic
masks with projecting “trunks,” and pilastered ornament is also found.
A few however do not show these characteristics to the same degree,
and present abnormal varieties of cornice, while others display signs
of alteration and modification which imply at least that the site was
inhabited for a considerable period. The most striking buildings,
perhaps the finest in the true Yucatec style which exist, are the
so-called “House of the Governor” (Pl. XXX; p. 358), the “Temple of the
Magician,” peculiar in its oblong pyramid with rounded corners (Fig.
73, _h_; p. 321),[9] and the “House of the Doves,” distinguished
by a vandyked roof-comb ornamented with open-work tracery. Lack of
space forbids allusion to the many other Yucatec sites, such as Labna,
Sayil, Kabah, and so forth, but it may be said that they embody similar
forms of decoration such as the grotesque mosaic mask, and geometrical
and pilastered ornament (Pl. XXV, 1; p. 332), though the structures can
hardly be said to compare with those of Chichen Itza and Uxmal.
As regards British Honduras, mention has already been made of the
interesting building at Santa Rita, decorated with frescoes somewhat
akin in style to those at Mitla, though rather nearer the true Maya
in type. It is difficult not to see in this art an extension of
the “Toltec” influence so evident at Chichen Itza, combined with a
stronger element of the local Maya art. But buildings in this region
are few, though the substructures of former edifices are common. On
the Colombia branch of the Rio Grande is found an extensive two-tiered
foundation-mound, supporting a number of stepped pyramids, which recall
to some extent the site of Uxmal, in so far as the corners of most
are rounded. Both mound and pyramids are faced with cut stone, and
quantities of brick are also found which appear to have been used as
hearting and paving material.
[Illustration:
_PLATE XXIX_
1
_Photo. Dr. A. P. Maudslay_
2
MAYA
1. RESTORATION OF THE BALL-COURT TEMPLE AT CHICHEN ITZA,
YUCATAN; AFTER MAUDSLAY. (_See Plate XXVIII_)
2. BUILDINGS OF THE “MONJAS” GROUP, CHICHEN ITZA,
YUCATAN]
One of the most interesting ruins of British Honduras consists of a
huge mound near Benque Viejo, sixty feet high and built of limestone,
which supports a three-storeyed stone building. This is surrounded
by three others of similar type, at the foot of each of which is a
plain stone monolith, recalling the plain stelæ mentioned above, which
doubtless were once ornamented with painted designs. The ruins of this
site probably belong to the same series as Tikal, Naranjo, Seibal,
etc., and though more excavation, combined with accurate surveying, is
necessary before we can speak with confidence regarding the monuments
of British Honduras as a whole, we may assume that they fall into two
classes, viz. ruins connected with the early central Maya area, those
to the north of British Honduras at Tulum being in part a “provincial”
extension of the early culture,[10] and later edifices which owed their
birth to Toltec influence filtered southward through Yucatan.
In the west of the Maya area, the remains, though plentiful, are
inferior in quality, and have not attracted the attention of explorers
to the extent which their importance, as indicating the spread of Maya
culture, and its relation to that of Oaxaca, deserves. Sacchana and its
neighbourhood is a site of great interest, since Seler has discovered
there two stone slabs bearing initial dates in the Maya style, falling
just each side of the date at Chichen Itza, which is otherwise the
latest known. The style of these slabs is rude and decadent, but they
are of the highest importance as indicating that the early method of
reckoning time had spread as far west at least as the department of
Huehuetenango. Otherwise the remains of this district are rude and
coarsely built, of unsquared blocks usually without mortar; but mortar
is found in some cases, notably in the tlaxtli-courts, which, as well
as the pyramidal mounds, bear a very close resemblance to those of
Quiengola in Oaxaca (p. 175). A feature of this district is constituted
by the number of cave-temples, which again recall the last-named
province of Mexico. It is perhaps worthy of mention that a tendency
appears in this neighbourhood to arrange temple-mounds in groups of
three, in a straight line from north to south, with the stairways
facing west. The western position of pyramid stairways, which implies
that the worshippers faced east, has already been observed in Oaxaca
and Mexico. An account of certain ruins at Utatlan, Iximché and Rabinal
is given in the works of Maudslay, but they cannot compare with those
of the central Maya area, and seem rather to resemble those of the
district of Huehuetenango.
The Maya appear to have resorted occasionally to caves as
dwelling-places, and certain investigations have been made in caverns
at Copan and Loltun (immediately south of Uxmal), in Yucatan. The
remains however do not imply that their occupation was of early date,
and it is probable that the caves served as places of temporary refuge
in times of war. This chapter would be incomplete without some mention
of the peculiar bottle-shaped subterranean structures found at certain
sites in Yucatan. These are known as “chultunes,” and, since they
invariably occur at places remote from rivers, may almost certainly
be regarded as cisterns for preserving a supply of water, though in
some cases they have served the secondary purpose of burial chambers.
They are lined with dressed stone or a coat of stucco, and the mouth
is furnished with a stone ring which is closed by a slab. Careful
exploration of the chultunes at Labna has been made by Thompson and
reported in the “Memoirs” of the Peabody Museum.
[Illustration:
FIG. 85.--Stone gargoyle, Copan.
(_After Gordon_)]
It will be unnecessary to enter into a discussion of Maya art, since
the subject has been fully treated by Spinden in a monograph which was
published only a week or so before this chapter was written, and,
moreover, much may be gathered from the preceding pages supplemented by
the illustrations. The kinship of the stone reliefs with wood-carving,
except at Copan and Quirigua, has already been indicated, and the
symbolic nature of Maya ornament is too obvious to need especial
mention. Attention may be called to the use of glyphs, extremely
ornamental in themselves, to give balance to a design, and to the
_horror vacui_ which appears in all reliefs except those of
Palenque. Though bound by convention, the result in a large measure
of the symbolic nature of his designs, the Maya artist occupies a
relatively high plane amongst barbarous peoples. In particular the
quality of his line is excellent, even in stone, and in certain
respects, notably foreshortening (especially in the treatment of
feathers, for which see Figs. 61 and 87; pp. 297 and 367), he was
superior to the sculptor of Egypt or Assyria. One peculiarity of Maya
art lies in the fact that the artist was obsessed by the motive of
the serpent (rattle-snake) head. In nearly all its essentials this
design appears in the remarkable gargoyle from Copan shown in Fig.
85. We have here the exaggerated upper jaw, the front fang, and the
curl at the corner of the mouth. One detail is lacking, viz. the
nose-ornaments which were usually added to the reptile. Maudslay has
shown how derivatives of this design, often modified almost beyond
identification, are constantly applied to every form of ornament,
such as the edges of girdle-flaps and so forth, and the point has
been elaborated by Spinden. Most interesting is the almost invariable
occurrence of the serpent-motive on the wings of birds (e.g. Figs. 48
and 49; pp. 225 and 230), the combination no doubt expressing the high
god Kukulkan, who, among the early Maya, seems to have been represented
only in this indirect way (see p. 226). In the later art, especially
that exhibiting Toltec affinities, we have a more direct delineation
of the deity in the shape of a human figure whose face is surrounded
by the jaws of a serpent, but who is provided with wings carved in the
best Maya style (Fig. 87). The foreshortening of feathers has already
been mentioned, but it may be added that perhaps no people has shown
in its art such an appreciation of this form of ornament as the Maya,
and for sheer beauty the feather-motive shares the honours with the
plant-design (see Fig. 60; p. 289), often shown in combination with
fishes and grotesque masks, which appears not only on the sculptures,
but also in the frescoes.