Space Syntax in Maya Architecture Annegrete Hohmann-Vogrin ...

Space Syntax in Maya Architecture 

Annegrete Hohmann-Vogrin 

Graz University of Technology, Austria 

hohmann@stdb.tu-graz.ac.at 

Abstract 

This contribution focuses on the built environment of the Ancient Maya, and explores the 

possibility and advantages of adapting space syntax methods to their realm. Maya culture 

flourished in the south and southeast of Mexico, in Guatemala, Belize, Salvador, and the 

northern part of Honduras from the first millennium B.C. until the Spanish conquest in 

the 15th century A.D. The sites discussed in this contribution reached their final stages 

in the late classic period (550 A.D. - 850 A.D.) and were more or less abandoned in the 

following decades. 

One of the advantages of studying the cultures of Ancient America is the fact that these 

cultures presumably developed independent of the Old World, and that any interpretation 

that relies on knowledge directly deduced from our own inherited culture is therefore 

doomed to failure. This may help us to overcome prejudices, if we distrust the terms of 

understanding that immediately come to mind. We realized, especially in the context of 

the built environment, that its specific geometric relations remain hidden behind our conception 

of a Euclidian space, because we prefer to think of spatial structure as something 

three-dimensional with rectangular coordinates. As an example, let us take a look at the 

maps and plans of Tikal, a late classic site in the rainforest of Guatemala, drawn up by 

an early explorer, Theobert Maler (figure 117): On these maps, everything is drawn rectangularly, 

in contrast to the real shape of the buildings as shown in the plan published in 

the recent comprehensive Tikal Report of the University of Pennsylvania (figure 118; Coe, 

1990). But this is nothing compared to the attributes assigned to Maya sites by different 

scholars, archaeologists, and art historians; ranging from regular, symmetric layouts according 

to the cardinal directions (Kubler, 1985) to complete randomness - depending on 

a higher or lower estimation of that culture. 

A closer inspection reveals that Maya architecture is different to such a degree that even 

the terminology in use does not describe a single element in an adequate manner. Most 

termini are borrowed from old world architecture, like the terms pyramid, temple, palace, 

stele and altar, despite the fact that practically no ideas as to the function of specific 

buildings, or reports on the ideas or thoughts of their builders, have been transmitted to 

us, except what may be deduced from the built architecture itself.Therefore, the focus has 

to lie solely on its shape and configuration. 

The lack of comprehensive maps and plans of most Maya sites once forced Hasso 

Hohmann and the author to start the mapping project of the site core of Copan in Honduras, 

using terrestric stereo -photogrammetry in order to determine the exact position 

and shape of all buildings, including those structures that had not been cleared at that 

time. The intention was to get a complete picture of the site (Hohmann and Vogrin, 1982). 

Even though buildings or faces of buildings frequently changed over time through demolition 

or overbuilding, continuously altering the way in which they confine the open space,

280 Annegrete Hohmann-Vogrin 

Figure 117: Map of the central Part of Tikal, drawn by Teobert Maler between 1895 and 

1904

Space Syntax in Maya Architecture 281 

Figure 118: The same part of Tikal, the North Acropolis and the Great Plaza, mapped by 

the University of Pennsylvania (Coe, 1990)


everything that can be seen now was actually there at one point. This is the only stage 

we can reconstruct to represent the whole area (figure 119). The difficulties in describing 

the agglomerations of structures that are the results of frequent overbuilding soon led to 

the realization that monumental building groups, which can be found in the core areas 

of ancient Maya cities, are among the best examples to demonstrate or understand the 

space-creating function of architecture, and that the description has to focus on the spatial 

configuration. Plazas, courtyards and causeways, platforms and terraces, were defined 

as the principal constituent elements (figure 120). Adequate documentation and analysis 

shall cover not only their specific spatial context, but also the structure of the continuous 

space thus created. On that basis, an interpretation may focus on different aspects, for 

instance on aspects concerning physical control, or on aspects of cultural symbolization, 

as long as the analysis was not designed to answer only one question. 

Physical control addresses the reaction of the built environment to the specific environmental 

conditions: heat or cold, flora and fauna, heavy rains, water supply, transportation 

resistances, and availability of building materials. It has been shown that, to 

a certain degree, the specific shape and layout of Maya settlements could be explained 

only through these facts (Hohmann-Vogrin, 1998). In the same way, the built environment 

can also be an expression of cultural symbolization, representing the specific worldview 

of the Maya (Hohmann-Vogrin, 2000). Both approaches explore the intentions behind the 

way the Maya built their world, and how they are reflected in the ultimate configuration 

of that world. In this field, my conclusions were drawn mainly on the basis of structural 

similarities supported by other archaeological, ethnographic, and epigraphic sources. 

The other - intimately related - questions address the effect of the built environment 

on human beings, i.e. how it could have been perceived at the time when it was in use, 

and whether this can tell us something about the functional frame and the social milieu 

it generated. 

We may assume that it is again the overall configuration that determines: -functional 

possibilities of a specific area, as this definitely depends on its position in the fabric as a 

whole, and - the social milieu, as this is constituted by the potential of space to generate 

mutual awareness and encounters. 

Most likely, the attempt to answer these questions still seems rather ambitious. I 

already tried to approach the first question in my dissertation, published later in “Die 

Architektur von Copan” (Hohmann and Vogrin, 1982). I sought to determine the centrality 

of the different areas in the Main Group in Copan, of plazas or courtyards, in comparison 

with their accessibility (Hohmann and Vogrin, 1982, p. 91), based on a method proposed 

by Norman Hammond in his work on Lubaantun (Hammond, 1975, p. 78-83). This was a 

rather simple and rough approach. 

Since the publication of “The social Logic of space” (Hillier and Hanson, 1984), my plan 

had been to apply space syntax concepts to Maya urbanism. At first sight, especially the 

concept and definition of “convex space” was appealing and suitable in the context of Maya 

towns, but differences turned out to prevail. Hillier and his colleagues have investigated 

mainly the old European cities, or what he and we would designate as “normal cities”, 

defined as variations of the following: 

“Buildings are arranged in outward-facing blocks so that building entrances continuously 

open to the space of public access. The space of public access is arranged in a series 

of intersecting rings that are regularized by a greater or lesser degree of linearization of 

space to form the - more or less deformed - grid of the town. Through this linearization 

the larger-scale structure of the town is made intelligible both to the peripatetic individual


Figure 119: Map of the central Part of Tikal, drawn by Teobert Maler between 1895 and 

1904


Figure 120: Perspective drawing of the Maingroup of Copan by H. Hohmann (Hohmann 

and Vogrin, 1982) 

moving about within the town and to the stranger arriving at its edges. The linear structure 

links the building entrances directly to a pattern of space, which also links closely 

to the edges of the town. The effect of this control of the linear organization of space is 

to create a structure in the ‘axial map’ of the town, that is a distribution of local and 

global ‘integration’, which becomes the most powerful functional mechanism driving first 

the pattern of movement and, through this, the distribution of land uses, building densities 

and larger-scale spatial and physical elements such as open spaces and landmarks.” 

(Hillier, 1996, p. 215). 

I presume that there is no need to explain space syntax theory in detail here, but to 

recollect the definition of “normal cities” it is essential to explain the differences. He then 

concludes: “The essence of urban form is that it is spatially structured and functionally 

driven. Between structure and function is the notion of intelligibility, defined as the degree 

to which what can be seen and experienced locally in the system allows the large-scale 

system to be learnt without conscious effort. Structure, intelligibility and function permit 

us to see the town as social process, and the fundamental element in all three is the linear 

spatial element, or axis.” (Hillier, 1996, p. 215) 

Hillier then compares these cities or towns with others that he designates as “strange 

towns” - cities or towns which do not conform to the rules defined for “normal towns” 

- including amongst them the cities of the Ancient Maya. He arrives at the conclusion, 

that in “strange towns”, axes are not instruments but symbols, the spatial configuration 

therefore being rather more symbolic than functional (Hillier, 1996, p. 222). He refers 

inter alia to Teotihuacan with its single axes lined by monumental building complexes 

including the Pyramid of the Sun and ending at the Pyramid of the Moon. The isolated 

axes can only be seen as symbols expressing social power through domination, and not 

as instruments intended to guide movement into the adjacent, more profane parts of the 

city. He links the occurrence of this type of axis to societies. “where the needs of social


Figure 121: Central part of Teotihuacan drawn by A. Hohmann-Vogrin after Millon (Millon, 

1973) 

reproduction are dominant over the needs of social production” (Hillier 1996, p. 232). 

He also addresses the Maya towns or “proto-towns” - following earlier scientific concepts. 

Here, things are even more confusing from his point of view. No global spatial 

organization seems to be present at all. He refers to the map of Tikal (figure 122) by 

Robert F. Carr and James Hazard (Carr and Hazard, 1961), which indicates only the 

remains of stone buildings floating on the undulating terrain, shown by means of contour 

lines - a rough ground plan. For “normal towns”, a ground plan might be enough to analyze 

the spatial structure, as people usually move at street level, as in a system of channels 

confined by vertical elements. For Maya towns, the use of a ground plan alone is far too 

superficial, as will be shown later. Maya sites are like landscapes, resembling mountains, 

hills, valleys and plains. Open spaces are constituted by plazas, courtyards, terraces and 

platforms on different levels, while interior space is relatively limited. In some cases, access 

to higher levels was obviously restricted. The stairways become narrower nearer to the 

top, sometimes they were even blocked off by overbuilding. Step by step, terraces and 

platforms become smaller. Sights and views are determined by the altitude of the respective 

terrace or platform. On the lowest level, the view is limited by walls and platforms 

taller than the viewer, at least in the smaller courtyards. The field of vision is widened by 

access to higher levels. On the highest level - presumably never reached by the average 

person - the view becomes unlimited, so to speak. Here, social hierarchy is demonstrated 

literally. This is both functional and symbolic (figure 119, figure 120). 

As stated above, there are wide causeways in many places that mutually connect groups 

of monumental architecture - as is shown in the central part of the map of Tikal (figure 

123). These causeways never form a main axis, as is the case in Teotihuacan, though they 

connect groups of monumental structures, the more everyday buildings adjacent to, but 

not directly linked with the causeways. They are mostly not confined by walls or buildings 

that might close off the view, defining lines of visibility. Therefore, they do not necessarily 

guide movement visually. In effect, in Maya towns or cities, there are no linear spatial 

elements to be represented through axes, the main constituents of “normal towns”, so


Figure 122: General map of Tikal by Carr and Hazard (Carr and Hazard 1961).


important for Hillier’s analysis. 

Can the concept of “space syntax” then be productive at all How can we start an analysis 

of these towns that aims at detecting the constituents of spatial order, and at drawing 

further conclusions regarding functional possibilities or aspects of the social milieu 

Addressing the question of functional possibilities, we may simply ask for the integration 

values of the different areas defining convex maps with an appropriate tessellation to 

take into account the varying dimensions of the spatial elements (Hillier, 1996, p. 96). It 

would also be necessary to consider their different levels. In order to do this, the procedure 

would need to be extended by adding a value for getting from one level to the next. As 

stated above, in analyzing the spatial structure of Copan, the author has already made 

an attempt to define accessibility and centrality of the different areas in the Main Group 

in Copan in a much simpler way (Hohmann and Vogrin 1982, p. 91). A more detailed 

and reliable distribution of integration values for the different areas could give us better 

indications for the more public or more private character of specific areas, and whether 

they were designed to be accessible to everybody or to a minority. These are the main 

constituents for determining function in general. 

As explained above, Maya towns do not show linear spatial elements, so important 

for the orientation in “normal towns”. The horizontal axis guiding the flow of people in 

“normal towns” was not relevant at all in this context It can be recognized without any 

detailed analysis that orientation and resulting physical movement in Maya towns are 

obviously guided by the altitude of monumental structures that could be seen from afar. 

Intelligibility of the overall pattern was also easy to assume, as these structures or groups 

of monumental structures usually showed different faces on each side and, interestingly 

enough, despite the absence of symmetry in spatial arrangements, these faces or facades 

are often symmetrical, emphasizing verticality. In most cases, the height of the main 

groups is the result of frequent overbuilding. Overbuilding also needs more space at the 

base of the structures and may have required the extension of the plazas at the front 

to retain an adequate field of vision. The causeways may have had a similar function. 

The growth of a site may therefore have started out as a random process, or from the 

topological configuration of small housemound groups, but then had to follow regularities 

leading to a more geometric order. These observations are quite general, made without 

a comprehensive analysis or further proof. But they already allow us to state that the 

obvious randomness of structures as shown here in the ground plan of Tikal (figure 122) 

and Copan (figure 124) will be relativized, adding the 3rd dimension. Even the “paradox 

of centrality” (“maximizing internal integration also maximises external segregation”), 

and consequently the “paradox of visibility” (“arranging a series of urban areas in a line 

maximises the mean trip length and maximises also visibility”) are presumably not valid 

in configurations where different heights are the main constituents. 

Integrating the 3rd dimension will therefore be essential in the analysis in order to get 

relevant results in this context. A spatial model of visibility will be necessary for expanding 

space syntax to include these spatial cultures. 

Starting from the model of “all line visibility” (Hillier, 1996, p. 345), we must state 

that the lines are not lines in reality. A line shown in the plan is the intersection of a 

vertical plane with the horizontal plane of representation, in most cases the ground plan, 

the vertical plane containing all possible lines of sight therein. In the 3-dimensional model, 

that vertical plane intersects the elevation of structures, and as these structures in “normal 

cities” are mostly vertical, the intersection line of the two planes is vertical, shown as a 

point in the ground plan. This is not the case in the context of Maya architecture. The


Figure 123: Part of the general map of Tikal by Carr and Hazard (Carr and Hazard, 1961)


vertical planes are intersecting low structures in the foreground, with higher structures 

behind them, and all of them have stepped-back facades. It will not be easy to reduce these 

intricate limits of visibility to get at a practicable model.Furthermore, a comprehensive 

mapping of the sites to be studied would be necessary, at least equal to our maps of Copan, 

as spatial analysis requires the complete coverage of the built-up area in question. 

As our work on Copan has shown, there are strong indications that this could be 

rewarding. A careful analysis of the site map (figure 124) has shown that there are interesting 

spatial relations to be found, based mostly on visual alignments, which means that 

facades, vertices or centrelines of structures or monuments are coordinated by the same 

vertical plane. In the ground plan, this plane is shown as one line, the intersection line. 

Centre lines or symmetry axes ordering the monumental facades or faces of structures are 

often emphasized through alignments with the edges of massive buildings in front of them. 

As an example, I would like to point out some of these relations in Copan: - the edge of the 

western ball court building, Structure 9, is aligned with the symmetry axis of the facade 

of Structure 11; - the edge of Structure 7 with the symmetry axis of the Hieroglyphic 

Stairway, Structure 26; - the southern edge of Platform 3 with the centre line of Structure 

4; - the west court also shows interesting alignments between Structure14 and Structure 

12, rather a stage but called the “Reviewing Stand”, and - the front wall of Structure 

11 is in line with the centre line of Structure 8 and that of the small building adjacent 

to Structure 21. Lines of sight are often established by significant edges of structures or 

elements of structures, but also by symmetry axes or centre lines. 

Alignments were recognized in Copan at different levels and are obviously present in 

many other Maya sites. In the Main Group of Copan, they occur in the layout of the courts 

and the positioning of the elements forming the respective space boundary, and they occur 

in the positioning of stone monuments in the main plaza, where the monuments of the 

13th ruler of Copan seem to be set in line with monuments of some of his predecessors 

(Hohmann-Vogrin, 1989) 

Alignments are also suitable to anchor buildings in the cosmic realm: Aligning buildings 

to the rising or setting points of the sun or other celestial bodies also means that the 

building is related to a special day in the respective cycle. There is some evidence for this 

practice in Copan and at other Maya sites. 

It is also interesting to point out that ordering along straight lines or aligning is a 

very basic operation that does not require knowledge of abstract concepts of space. It is 

therefore a very flexible way of establishing meaningful relations in the built environment. 

In addition, the alignment of elements is a suitable method for governing the ordering 

of successive building phases that produced the aggregations of Maya centres. With the 

help of alignments, a new building or the new face of a building can be put in relation to 

existing architecture, the landscape, and even to the cosmic realm - and thus communicate 

intention and meaning (Hohmann-Vogrin, 2000). This also belongs to the realm of symbolic 

representation. But the obvious intentionality of these relations is a strong indication that 

visibility was a main concern in the creation of Maya architecture and urbanism, and that 

therefore a spatial model of visibility would be most rewarding. It would inter alia reveal 

more about the interaction of different strata of Maya society. 

Going back to the example of Teotihuacan and the notion of the merely symbolic 

function of its long single axis indicating a society governed by cultural reproduction, I 

would like to point out that I prefer to see Teotihuacan as a special case of Mesoamerican 

urbanism, with a single, extremely elongated plaza defined by monumental structures 

and surrounded by a densely built-up area containing a great variety of compounds with


Figure 124: Significant alignments in the Main Group of Copán (Hohmann-Vogrin)


very different properties (Millon, 1992; Pastory, 1997). This would indicate that cultural 

production as well as cultural reproduction was present here. 

Concluding, I may state that a configurational analysis following the ideas of Hillier’s 

space syntax seems very promising in the field of Maya urbanism. Determining spatial 

laws for that particular culture would be a big step towards a general theory of built 

space. But the procedure of the analysis must be extended significantly; for their “spatial 

culture” is, as can now be seen, truly different, in every respect. 

Literature 

Carr, R. F., and Hazzard, J. (1961) Map of the Ruins of Tikal, El Peten, 

Guatemala, Tikal Report, No. 11, Philadelphia, University Museum, University of 

Pennsylvania. 

Coe, M. D. (1998) The Maya, 5th edition, London, Thames and Hudson. 

Coe, W. R. (1990) Excavations in the Great Plaza, North Terrace and North Acropolis 

of Tikal, Tikal Report No. 14., Philadelphia, The University Museum, University of 

Pennsylvania. 

Fash, W. L., (1998) Dynastic Architectural Programs: Intention and Design in Classic 

Maya Buildings at Copan and Other Sites in: Housten, S. (ed.) Function and Meaning 

in Classic Maya Architecture, in: A Symposium at Dumbarten Oaks, 7th and 

8th October 1994, Washington, D.C.. 

Hammond, N.,(1975) Lubaantun, A Classic Maya Realm. Peabody Museum Monographs 

No. 2, Cambridge, Mass, Cambridge University Press. 

Harrison, P. D. (1999) The Lords of Tikal, Rulers of an Ancient Maya City, London, 

Thames and Hudson, p. 180-191. 

Hillier, B.,(1996) Space is the Machine, A Configurational Theory of Architecture, 

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 

Hillier, B. and J. Hanson (1984) The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge, Cambridge 

University Press. 

Hohmann-Vogrin, A.M. (1989) The spatial relationships of monuments at Copán and 

Quiriguá, in: In de la Garca, M. (ed.) Memorias del Segundo Coloquio Internacional 

de Mayistas, Vol. I, México D.F., Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 

Hohmann-Vogrin, A.M. (1998) Siedlungsform und Klima in den frühen Kulturen 

Mesoamerikas Nachrichtenblatt der Archäologischen Gesellschaft Steiermark 

(AGST), 1998(1), p. 49-58. 

Hohmann-Vogrin, A.M.(2000) Lubaantun, El espacio estructurado y la visión del 

mundo, in: Arquitectura e ideología de los antiguos Mayas: Memoria de la Segunda 

Mesa Redonda de Palenque México D.F., Conaculta INAH, México. 

Hohmann-Vogrin, A.M. (2001) Unity in Space and Time, the Maya Architecture, in: 

Grube, N. (ed.), Maya Divine Kings of the Rainforest, Köln, Koenemann. 

Hohmann, H. and Vogrin, A.M. (1996) Die Architektur von Copán (Honduras), 

Vermessung, Plandarstellung, Untersuchung der baulichen Elemente und des räumlichen 

Konzepts, A Configurational Theory of Architecture, Graz, Akademische 

Druck und Verlagsanstalt. 

Kubler, G. (1985) The Design of Space in Maya Architecture, in: Reese, T. (ed.), Studies 

in Ancient American and European Art, The Collected Essays of George Kubler, 

New Haven and London, Yale University Press.


Millon, R. (ed.),(1973) The Teotihuacan Map, in: Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico 

(ed.), Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Vol. 1, Austin, University of Texas 

Press. 

Millon, R. (1992) Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1990 and Beyond Dumbarton 

Oaks, Washington, D.C. 

Pasztory, E. (1997) Teotihuacan, An Experiment in Living, Norman, University of Oklahoma 

Press. 

Sharer, R. J., (1994) The Ancient Maya, 5th edition, Stanford, Ca, Stanford University 

Press.

Space Syntax in Maya Architecture Annegrete Hohmann-Vogrin ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?