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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

286 Annegrete Hohmann-Vogrin Figure 122: General map of Tikal by Carr and Hazard (Carr and Hazard 1961).
Space Syntax in Maya Architecture 287 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
Page 1 and 2: Space Syntax in Maya Architecture A
Page 3 and 4: Space Syntax in Maya Architecture 2
Page 7: Space Syntax in Maya Architecture 2

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?