Maya Christians and Their Churches in Sixteenth-Century Belize

7. How to Tell a Church

167 seven How to Tell a Church In this chapter I remain within the remit of setting the Mendicant stage. As part of a discussion of the material culture of the mission experience, however , I consider the idea of a church. Because the excavated churches at Tipu and Lamanai served as the linchpins of our archaeological activity, it was important that I familiarized myself with church architectural terminology, with Spanish practice, and with what others before me had written about early churches in Yucatan and Mexico. I expected this process to be straightforward and to involve little more than a learning curve. The outcome, however, entailed a reevaluation of the implications of architectural typology. This chapter lays out my critical reassessment of the context and use of terms used to describe early colonial mission architecture.1 No term is more closely associated with the architecture of the mission experience in Mexico and Yucatan than the so-called open chapel, a term introduced by Toussaint for what was known in the sixteenth century as a capilla de indios (Indian chapel),2 and no term has been more misused. Although capilla de indios makes sense from the perspective of sixteenth- and seventeenth -century liturgical practices, the term “open chapel” makes no sense at all. The Existing Framework: Terms and Typologies No doubt we all think we know what a church is. Nevertheless, sorting through evidence of Maya and Spanish religious interaction at the time of early contact reveals a somewhat confusing picture of what have come to be called churches (iglesias) and chapels (capillas). Confusion arises in the terminology of both colonial Spaniards and modern architectural historians and + + 168 Maya Christians and Their Churches in Sixteenth-Century Belize archaeologists. The colonial Spaniards seem to be inconsistent when they call large edifices in towns capillas and small rural edifices iglesias.3 However, if one considers function rather than form to be of primary importance, then this apparent inconsistency actually makes more sense than an architectural typology based on form. The confusing picture of churches and chapels has multiple causes: existing typologies emphasize form rather than function; aspects of the history of use and the attendant implications for terminology have been overlooked; differences in environmental conditions (e.g., between central Mexico and Belize, or between central Mexico and Yucatan) have been minimized; the rationale behind researchers’ approaches4 is implicit rather than explicit; and analyses either have not detected or have chosen to gloss over Spanish colonial prejudices. Why are church architectural typologies important? In large part because the focus of archaeologists on material remains includes the remains of churches. Andrews reflects this archaeological perspective in his description of the chapels and churches of early colonial Yucatan and Belize: Designed and administered by Spanish friars, and built and used by the Maya, [chapels and churches] lie at the core of the initial process of acculturation that resulted in . . . Spanish domination. . . . These structures, often built with stone from Maya pyramids, became the new focus of the cultural and social life of native communities. . . . The chapels and churches were also the social hub of the communities, the locale for baptisms , weddings, fiestas, civic gatherings, and funerals. And, to complete the life cycle, the members of the community were often buried underneath these structures.5 It is therefore not unexpected that archaeologists would have interest in the details of church architecture and in church plans and their variations, because these details reflect aspects of community history or identity that are not always recorded in the documents.6 In places peripheral to the main economic thrust of Spanish colonialism, such as Yucatan and Belize, architectural detail may be all that is left to reflect the colonial experience. If I draw from typologies to describe the most important excavated building at Tipu as a ramada (thatched) church (fig. 7.1),7 or refer to the central room of the masonry-walled portion of one of the Lamanai churches as a presbytery (fig. 7.2),8 the terms help to provide the reader with an image of the building. They also have the potential to be adopted as standards in describing particular architectural elements. On the other hand, the same typologies can be problematic when an attempt is made to compare structures on a broader geographic basis in order to gain insight into how the buildings were used, or to achieve insight into Maya and Spanish religious experiences. The...