Structuring structures

Public buildings, as is the case for other forms of architecture, are not passive reflections of culture, but are enmeshed in a reciprocal relationship between spatial order and social behaviours, political dispositions and ideologies (Lefebvre Reference Lefebvre1991; Low Reference Low2000). As Winston Churchill noted: “We shape our buildings and they shape us” (Hall Reference Hall1966: 106). In other words, they not only have the potential to serve as symbolic ideals and physical seats for the institutions of governments but are also ‘participants’ in how relationships of power are enacted and experienced by more than just those holding political titles of authority. Thus, public buildings (and any landscape configurations) are as much the constituting features of the political order as they are constituted of it (Ashmore Reference Ashmore2002; Smith Reference Smith2003; Kosiba et al. Reference Kosiba2020).

In drawing on the spatiality of governance, many archaeologists have been influenced by the work of Michel Foucault (Reference Foucault1977) in examining the ways in which spatial configurations of architecture were part and parcel of the making of political orders. Hierarchical viewsheds and systems of enclosures, for example, facilitated policing, self-surveillance and embodied political dispositions that reproduced ‘docile bodies’ in the modern era. Archaeologists have found that similar political-spatial dispositions may have been present earlier, among colonial slave plantations in the locations and viewsheds of buildings (Delle Reference Delle1999; Singleton Reference Singleton2001; Wilson Marshall Reference Wilson Marshall2022) and in the strategic positioning of military outposts in ancient imperial contexts (Friedman Reference Friedman2010; Marsh & Schreiber Reference Marsh and Schreiber2015).

Drawing on Foucault’s concept of discipline in more ancient societies, Inomata (Reference Inomata and Ruiz2001, Reference Inomata2006a) has argued that Classic Maya kingship was enacted as a theatrical spectacle with the aid of palace architecture and public plaza-building configurations. These spatial orders not only crystalised a tangible experience of community, they also placed rulers physically and metaphorically at the top of hierarchical relationships, facilitating a visibility that reiterated their supreme political, social and cosmological position in embodied spatial terms (see also Mongelluzzo Reference Mongelluzzo2011; Barrientos Reference Barrientos and Okoshi2021). In both ancient and contemporary political orders, physical structures help structure political dispositions, an aspect of governmentality (also known as the ‘conduct of conduct’) whereby power is distributed and experienced widely throughout the landscape (Foucault et al. Reference Foucault1991: 48, 87–104). However, not all Maya public buildings were a part of this apical ordering of a singular divine king (or queen) and their subordinates.

Ucanal and the making of a new Terminal Classic political order

The site of Ucanal, the capital of the K’anwitznal polity, is located in the Southern Maya Lowlands in Peten, Guatemala. Although it was a prominent political capital during the Late Classic period (c. AD 600–810) (Laporte & Mejía Reference Laporte and Mejía2002; Carter et al. Reference Carter2023), epigraphic data and recent archaeological findings suggest that Ucanal experienced a significant political rupture in the early ninth century, at the dawning of the Terminal Classic period, which was followed by a political and urban fluorescence. This pivot point in the politics of the site emerged with a fire event that involved the burning and destruction of human remains and jade and marine-shell ornaments from a Late Classic royal tomb and the deposition of this material in the construction of a new rebuilding of temple-pyramid K-2 in Plaza K—in an act that seemed to reject or destroy aspects of traditional dynastic rule at the site (Halperin et al. Reference Halperin2024). This event coincided with the emergence of a new leader, Papmalil (or Papamalil), a name foreign in origin, perhaps deriving from peoples along the Gulf Coast relating to the Putun or Chontal Maya (Martin Reference Martin2020: 290, 295–96). Papmalil ruled not with a royal title incorporating the K’anwitznal emblem glyph but as an ochk’in kaloomte’, a high title used by powerful overlords (Martin Reference Martin2020: 259–60, 290; Grube Reference Grube and Okoshi2021: 41–42). In the only known representations of him from monuments at Caracol, he is depicted side-by-side with other rulers in a horizontal rather than hierarchical spatial ordering despite being the more dominant figure (Figure 2) (Martin Reference Martin2020: 260).

Figure 2. Caracol Altar 12 depicting Papmalil of K’anwitznal (left) seated facing Caracol ruler, K’inich Toobil Yopaat (right), AD 820 (drawing by N. Grube).

Papmalil’s reign and the reign of those that came afterwards ushered in a renaissance at Ucanal. This flurry of activity included new public building constructions, such as a large ‘T’-shaped ballcourt and circular and semi-circular shrine buildings, as well as water infrastructure projects that benefitted, in particular, non-elite residents living in the lower topographic zones of the site (Laporte & Mejía Reference Laporte and Mejía2002; Halperin et al. Reference Halperin2019; Halperin Reference Halperin2020). In turn, non-elite and middle-status residences gained increasing access to imported goods (Halperin et al. Reference Halperin2020; LeMoine & Halperin Reference LeMoine and Halperin2021; LeMoine et al. Reference LeMoine2022), and architectural distinctions between elite and non-elite residences were reduced (Halperin & Garrido Reference Halperin and Garrido2019).

Ucanal Structure K-1

Another public building that was constructed during the Terminal Classic period was Structure K-1 (Figure 3). This building, a colonnaded open hall, is located on the eastern side of a large public plaza, Plaza K. It was built in two phases (Sub-1 and Sub-2), both during the Terminal Classic period, although the columned bases are clearly evident only for the second phase (Sub-1) (Figure 4) (Halperin & Gauthier Reference Halperin, Gauthier, Halperin and Ramos2025). The dating of both phases is based on ceramic analysis as well as a radiocarbon date from the fill of Sub-1 (cal AD 783–880, 1210±20 BP at 95.4% probability using OxCal v.4.4, UOC-26377, UCA32A-18-4-4368). Ceramic typology indicates that the fire-burning event and renovation of temple-pyramid Structure K-2 was slightly earlier than Structure K-1 (Sub-1 and Sub-2).

Figure 3. Plan of the site core of Ucanal showing the location of Structure K-1 at the south-east corner of Plaza K (figure by the Proyecto Arqueológico Ucanal).

Figure 4. Plan of excavations of the Terminal Classic Ucanal Structure K-1, Sub-1, and a 3D sketchup reconstruction of the structure (plan by L. Gauthier & C. Halperin; reconstruction by M. Voltaire).

The building orientation of Structure K-1, at 33–34° east of north, differs from architectural alignments in the underlying stratigraphy and from other public buildings throughout the site, which are oriented toward the cardinal directions. Beneath the open hall are the remains of a Late Classic causeway wall and floor features (Sub-3) oriented toward the cardinal directions (Figure 5). These cardinal orientations were returned to in the Postclassic period when three haphazardly built, east–west aligned platforms were constructed on top of the open hall (Structure K-1, Final).

Figure 5. Architectural features before and after the colonnaded open-hall form of Structure K-1 (Sub-1): a) Postclassic period final phase construction of three platforms; b) Late Classic causeway wall and Terminal Classic Sub-2 phase, western and eastern superstructure walls in vertical excavations are highlighted in orange (figure by C. Halperin & L. Gauthier).

The columned bases of Sub-1 were comprised of a low platform (perhaps no more than 0.25m in their original height) of small, neatly worked cut stones (0.15–0.20m in length) that served as the base for wooden or wooden and stuccoed columns approximately 0.80m in diameter. Since they were located near the ground surface, and as later Postclassic period activities were undertaken on the building, all the columned bases were highly disturbed by tree roots and subsequent use of the building. Nevertheless, a total of four columned bases that made the interior of the building visible to the public plaza could be discerned. This open configuration of the façade contrasts with a Terminal Classic temple on the summit of Ucanal Structure A-7, which possessed two circular columns flanking a more restricted entrance 3.5m wide (Perea Reference Perea, Halperin and Ramos Herandez2025). A small rectangular altar was also found inside Structure K-1, off-centre from the central building axis and preserved under later Postclassic construction. Early Postclassic incense burners were left on top of the altar before buried by rocks (Halperin & Gauthier Reference Halperin, Gauthier, Halperin and Ramos2025; Salas et al. Reference Salas, Halperin and Ramos2025). No evidence of masonry benches was identified, and the walls of the building were likely to have been made of perishable materials, with the base foundation and floor suggesting that the front of the building was open to the plaza below. Likewise, the building possessed a large upper frontal platform accessed by broad stairs that may have also been a stage for activities just in front of the colonnaded superstructure. Due to these features, we argue that it may have served as a popol nah or council house.

Council houses in the Maya area

Several scholars have argued that council houses date back to at least the Late Classic period, with most examples from northern Yucatan (Arnauld Reference Arnauld and Ciudad Ruiz2001; Gallegos Gómora Reference Gallegos Gómora2003; Nondédéo & Lacadena Gárcia-Gallo Reference Nondédéo and Lacadena Gárcia-Gallo2004; Bey III & May Ciau Reference Bey, May Ciau and Braswell2014; Becquelin & Michelet Reference Becquelin and Michelet2021) (Table S1). Political systems in northern Yucatan placed less emphases on the cult of divine kingship—both during the Classic period and afterwards, with fewer sites possessing stela monuments dedicated to named rulers and fewer elaborate tombs of supreme leaders buried within temple-pyramid complexes. Bey III and May Ciau (Reference Bey, May Ciau and Braswell2014) argue that in the Puuc region of northern Yucatan, popol nah were first constructed during the Late Classic period (c. AD 550–750), before the construction of large palace complexes. They suggest that these popol nahs, comprising long rectangular structures with thick masonry walls, became less important or integrated into palace compounds at the end of the Classic period (AD 750–950) coincident with the arrival of k’alomte’ rulers (overlords) from the Southern Maya Lowlands and the centralisation of kingly rule. Collective-ruling governments of segmentary polities then resumed during the Postclassic period, constructing open halls without interior room divisions.

Some purported popol nah in the Maya area are strikingly different from Ucanal Structure K-1 in that interior spaces were small and segmented with stone walls, impeding horizontal-level interactions (Figure 6). For example, the Late Classic Structure 10L-22A (Figure 6b), built c. AD 750 under the reign of the fourteenth ruler of Copan, was identified primarily by its pop (mat or knot design related to the seat of political authority) mosaics and stone glyphs that may have represented satellite political units in the Copan kingdom (Fash et al. Reference Fash1992; although see Stuart & Houston Reference Stuart and Houston1994: 72; Wagner Reference Wagner and Colas2000 for alternative interpretations). Similarly, archaeologists have argued that the Terminal Classic Yaxuna Structure 6F-68 from northern Yucatan also served as a council house due to its pop mosaic façade decorations and its long rectangular form (Figure 6a) (Ambrosino Reference Ambrosino2007: 39, 104–106). In both cases, their segmented and hierarchical internal spatial configurations were not conducive to facilitating neither the assembly of several leaders at once nor horizontal communication. Likewise, a rectangular Late Classic building from Comalcalco (Structure 4) is argued to have been a popol nah based on the pop designs on its façade and four seated sculpted figures at its base (Gallegos Gómora Reference Gallegos Gómora2003). This building does not, however, possess a colonnaded front nor does it open out to a large public plaza.

Figure 6. Late Classic masonry architecture with stone walls and roofs: a) Yaxuna Structure 6F-68 (drawing by L. Gauthier after Ambrosino Reference Ambrosino2007: fig. 3–8); b) Copan Structure 22A (drawing by L. Gauthier after Fash et al. Reference Fash1992: fig. 13); c) palace architecture, Central Acropolis, Tikal (drawing by C. Halperin after Harrison Reference Harrison and Christie2003: fig. 4.2).

In contrast, Ucanal Structure K-1 shares more features with the column-fronted public buildings labelled as open halls, and with the long masonry civic buildings with multiple doorways and single interior rooms also argued to have been council houses (Ruppert Reference Ruppert1952; Proskouriakoff Reference Proskouriakoff and Pollock1962; Cheek Reference Cheek2003; Bey III & May Ciau Reference Bey, May Ciau and Braswell2014). Differences in size are, however, apparent, with some Late Classic and Terminal Classic examples (‘super popol nahs’; Bey III & May Ciau Reference Bey, May Ciau and Braswell2014) longer than 50m (see Late Classic Copan Structure 10L-223 (phase D), Late to Terminal Classic Ek Balam GT-2, Dzibilchaltun Structure 44 (Figure 7a), Ek Balam Nohochna Structure 424). While the largest of these structures (110–130m long) may have made monumental statements about horizontality, they may have been too large for effective communication and consensus-building across their enormous interior space. The Late and Terminal Classic open halls from the Puuc region of northern Yucatan and elsewhere were also often constructed with thick masonry walls and roofs, similar to the gallery-like long structures that were attached to palaces or Acropolis complexes in Late Classic Southern Maya Lowlands sites (e.g. Aguateca’s M7-26; palace from Palenque see discussion in Arnauld Reference Arnauld and Ciudad Ruiz2001: 368–76). Due to their thick masonry walls, the visibility of interior activities from adjacent plazas was arguably limited.

Figure 7. Terminal Classic architecture from the Northern Lowlands: a) Dzibilchaltun Structure 44, a ‘super popol nah’ constructed with a masonry roof and wall (drawing by L. Gauthier after Arnauld Reference Arnauld and Okoshi2021: fig. 8.5c); b) Chichen Itza Structure 3E3 with sweatbath (drawing by L. Gauthier after Ruppert Reference Ruppert1952: fig. 50); c) Chichen Itza Structure 3D7 (drawing by L. Gauthier after Ruppert Reference Ruppert1952: fig. 41).

Maya builders incorporated new architectural features over time, allowing for more open façades and thus, possible inter-visibility between building interiors and public plaza space below. Terminal Classic to Early Postclassic colonnaded halls at some Puuc sites (Labna Structure 7) and at Chichen Itza were built with stone column drums (approximately 0.50–0.70m diameter rather than 1–2m diameter columns or pillars) with beam and mortar roofs (Ruppert Reference Ruppert1935, Reference Ruppert1952; Bey III & May Ciau Reference Bey, May Ciau and Braswell2014) (Figure 7b & c). These architectural features continued to be used in the Postclassic period in the Northern Maya Lowlands at Mayapan. At Chichen Itza, colonnaded buildings have such diverse forms (e.g., colonnaded rooms with square plans or colonnaded multiroom galleries) that they likely possessed varied functions and meanings.

In addition, Maya builders in Peten in the Maya Lowlands and in various regions of the Highlands began to build colonnaded open halls with wooden (or stucco and wooden) columns and walls that sat on masonry bases (between 0.20 and 0.60m high), which also may have allowed for more open façades. Of these, Ucanal Structure K-1 and Structure 90 from Yaxha (Hermes & Źrałka Reference Hermes, Źrałka, Źrałka and Koszkul2012) were among the earliest, dating to the Terminal Classic period (Figure 8). These buildings faced public plazas and were located perpendicular to shrines or temples in what Proskouriakoff (Reference Proskouriakoff and Pollock1962) referred to as ‘basic ceremonial groups’ or ‘temple assemblages’. As with the Terminal Classic open halls from Ucanal and Yaxha, Postclassic versions in the Central Maya Lowlands also possessed low altars set off-centre from the central axis of the building, as if part of the same architectural template (Figure 8c & e). In contrast, Postclassic versions from both the Highlands and Northern Lowlands tended to place their shrines or altars along the central axis at the back wall of the building.

Figure 8. Colonnaded open halls from the Central Maya Lowlands: a) reconstruction of Terminal Classic Ucanal Structure K-1 based on excavations (drawing by C. Halperin); b) Terminal Classic Yaxha Structure 90 (grey perishable wall added; drawing by L. Gauthier after Hermes & Źrałka Reference Hermes, Źrałka, Źrałka and Koszkul2012: fig. 10); c) Postclassic Structures 606A and 615 in Zacpeten Group A (drawing by L. Gauthier after Pugh & Shiratori Reference Pugh, Shiratori, Rice and Rice2018: fig. 12.13); d) Postclassic Structures B and F, Topoxté (drawing by L. Gauthier after Bullard Reference Bullard and Bullard1970: fig. 3); e) Postclassic Structure H12-4, Tipu (drawing by L. Gauthier after Graham Reference Graham and Thomas1991: fig. 15-1).

For the Postclassic Maya Highlands, scholars argue that the best candidates for council houses were colonnaded open halls that were between 20 and 35m long, had four to five columns and faced public plazas (Ichon et al. Reference Ichon1980: 24–39, 192; Arnauld Reference Arnauld and Breton1993; van Akkeren Reference van Akkeren and Laporte2006). These features share much in common with Ucanal Structure K-1 (Figure 9; Table S1). In contrast, the larger, colonnaded halls (usually with 8+ columns; e.g. A-12 from Kawinal) from Postclassic Highland sites may have served as nimja (large houses) with mixed administrative and residential uses (van Akkeron Reference van Akkeren and Laporte2006) or military functions (Arnauld Reference Arnauld and Breton1993). As at Mayapan (Proskouriakoff Reference Proskouriakoff and Pollock1962; Masson et al. Reference Masson2014), large Postclassic Highland centres had multiple monumental residential complexes, often of similar sizes, rather than an apical ordering of a single large palace or Acropolis complex that towered over all other residential complexes, as was common in many Classic period Southern Maya Lowland sites (Figure 6c).

Figure 9. Postclassic colonnaded open halls in the Guatemalan Highlands: a) Structures 2, 6, 7 and 10 as possible popol nah buildings (administrative, public) and Structures 12 and 13 as possible nimja (residential and administrative ‘big houses’), Kawinal, Group A (drawing by L. Gauthier after Ichon et al. Reference Ichon1980: fig. 5); b) Structure 4 North and South, Zaculeu (drawing by L. Gauthier after Trik Reference Trik, Woodbury and Trik1953: fig. 7); c) Structure 22, Iximché (drawing by L. Gauthier after Guillemin Reference Guillemin1967: 28).