Читать книгу Miscellaneous Investigations in Central Tikal--Great Temples III, IV, V, and VI - H. Stanley Loten - Страница 13

II

Great Temple IV

Structure 5C-4

As seen from the doorway of Str. 5D-I (Great Temple I), looking W, the superstructure of Str. 5C-4 rises above the forest canopy to the right of Str. 5D-2 (Great Temple II; Fig. 1a,b). Removal of intervening forest would show the two Great Temples (I and IV) as the E and W limits of the plateau occupied by the monumental structures and plazas of epicentral Tikal. Beyond this complex, contours fall away and set the center of the city apart from the less intensive development around it. This effect is heightened by the massiveness of the largest structures. Structure 5C-4, for example, rises approximately 67 m above its sustaining surface, at the junction of the Tozzer and Maudslay Causeways.

Three of the five great temples (II, III, and IV) are located so that from Great Temple I, looking W, all are visible frontally. They are sited so that each stands on a unique axial line. This is true even for Great Temples I and II, located on opposite sides of the Great Plaza. Such obvious separation of axial lines must have been intentional. One possible argument for intentional separation of axes is that each one may have embodied iconographic significance specific to each structure. A consideration such as this may have influenced the site selection of Str. 5C-4 relative to the other great temples. Harrison (1999:fig. 123), noting that 5C-4, 5D-5, and 5D-1 form a right-angle triangle, proposes a different account for the Str. 5C-4 location, not incompatible with the conjecture presented above.

The 5C-4 Pyramid, on top of its basal platform (Fig. 2a,b), measures 88 m across the front (Fig. 3). Height (62 m) appears dominant, despite being less than the width by the ratio of 62:88 or 1:1.42. These proportions give the structure a quality of massiveness and solidity particularly appropriate to its site at the W edge of epicentral Tikal.

When newly built, and while in use, its proximity to the Great Plaza would have been much more apparent than it is now. Intervening forest currently makes 5C-4 seem more remote. A continuous paved surface, the Tozzer Causeway, once extended from the East Plaza through to 5C-4 the size and proportions of which are calculated to match the scale of the causeway, probably not an accident. Indeed, the quality of monumentality is very strongly developed in this structure, both by its own properties and by its position.

The Maudslay Causeway leads from a corner of Str. 5C-4 to the North Group and completes a circuit that returns via the Mendez Causeway to the East Plaza (see TR. 11:Temple IV Sheet). Structure 5C-4 is a major node along this circuit. The wide, plaster-paved, wall-lined avenues seem set up for processional ceremonies. Presumably Str. 5C-4 would have acted as one station-point in ceremonial proceedings staged on the causeways.

A series of quarries is located immediately to the E of Str. 5C-4 and behind it. Stone from these workings might have been part of the fabric of 5C-4; proximity of such a resource surely would not have been ignored. Two groups of small structures adjacent to the quarries (see Haviland, TR. 20A) may have housed the workmen and their families.

Excavations at Str. 5B-6 and 7 (ibid.) reveal Manik and Imix occupation in the area of intensive quarrying. These structures appear to have been continuously occupied from ca. 700 to ca. 869 AD. Occupants may have worked on Str. 5C-4, but that would not have been their only project.

The basal platform and pyramid of 5C-4 required enormous amounts of material (see the estimates, below). Land previously occupied nearby may have been cleared to bedrock for quarrying. This may explain the paucity of housemounds in the vicinity. Residential trash and demolition debris could have been used in the basal platform. For stability, it seems more likely that quarried stone would have been used for the pyramid.

Not surprisingly, Str. 5C-4 is represented in early investigations at Tikal. Teobert Maler designated the structure as Great Temple IV, cleared it of large trees, and provided photos (Maler 1911:pl. 1, 5) showing vegetation rooted even on the face of the roofcomb, as was still the case years after the inception of the Tikal Project (Fig. 1). This vegetation was removed in 1965 for stabilization (Fig. 4). The foreground in Maler’s print shows a tangle of old-growth tree trunks felled to open up vistas for his views of the major structures. These scenes reveal both the extent of forest growth resisted by the architecture over a span of a thousand years and the speed of its subsequent recovery. Although the Peabody Museum did not receive Maler’s site map in time for the 1911 publication, Tozzer provided one (1911:fig. 41). It shows a pyramid of nine terraces, probably by analogy with Str. 5D-1. Although higher than 5D-1, which has nine terraces, 5C-4 has only seven.

On-floor debris in the rooms was examined and cleared early in Tikal Project investigations (Op. 5A, 1957). Selective clearing to determine plan lines and terrace profiles was conducted primarily on E and N faces of the pyramid and basal platform terraces (Op. 5B, 1965). An axial tunnel penetrated a short distance into core material at the base of the main stair (Op. 5C, 1965), but did not encounter anything other than construction material.

Wilbur Pearson did the architectural recording in 1965. At that time, the consolidation program had already begun (Fig. 4). For this work, the super-structure was cleared of all debris but the pyramid was left undisturbed except for removal of large trees near the top. Root systems of plants covering basal platform and pyramid terraces have been left intact to maintain stability of masonry facings pending future consolidation.

Construction Stages

The condition of the site prior to construction of Str. 5C-4 is not known. Earlier structures may have been present or the site may have been undeveloped. This latter option seems unlikely given the relatively late date of 5C-4 construction. Hence the kind of work needed to prepare for construction is unknown. The quarrying operation, mentioned above, may have extended over the area covered by the structure.

A hard plaster sustaining surface (see below) on 0.20 m of ballast (small stones) runs under facing masonry at the N corner of the basal platform stair side (Fig. 5a:1). This surface appears to be paving of the Tozzer/Maudslay Causeway. How far W it extends under Str. 5C-4 remains uncertain. The extant surface disintegrates rapidly with distance E from the terrace foot.

PRECINCT WALL

Surface profiles on the site map (TR. 11:Temple IV Sheet) imply that a wall encloses the area containing the basal platform. The term “precinct wall” (Fig. 2a,b) has not previously cropped up in relation to Tikal architecture. It is introduced here and for Str. 6F-27. Although apparently lower and less massive than causeway walls, the precinct wall may define an extension of causeway pavement provided as a sustaining surface for the structure about to be built. Were precinct and causeway walls cleared and rebuilt, Str. 5C-4 would appear to open directly onto the causeways.

Dimensional differences between causeway and precinct wall, as implied by surface contours, suggest that the latter (which was smaller) was seen as part of the structure and, hence, is considered here as a 5C-4 component. Details of height, mass, and position in the sequence of construction operations have not been established. Masonry for the precinct wall is not included in the volume estimates.

BASAL PLATFORM

Surface features indicate the presence of a basal platform (Fig. 2a,b, 5a; TR. 11:Temple IV Sheet). It appears to cover an area of about 150 m N-S by 100 m E-W to a height of about 5 m; this equates to a volume of approximately 102,000 m³. Surface profiles and minimal excavation indicate a simple rectangular format of two terraces with a stair on the E side debouching directly onto the causeway surface. The 5C-4 pyramid is centered on this platform. It appears to be an integral part of the structure, but this assumption needs to be tested because its plastered top surface runs under the pyramid. Though treated here as a 5C-4 component, the basal platform could belong to an earlier feature (see Basal Platform Sustaining Surface, and Terrace 1, below).

BASAL PLATFORM SUSTAINING SURFACE

At the stair-side excavation, a hard, smooth plaster surface on ca. 0.20 m of ballast runs under basal platform masonry (Fig. 5a:2). This appears to be a resurfacing over an earlier hard plaster surface that was not penetrated. One or both of these floors may relate to causeway construction. These floors raise the possibility that an earlier structure, now hidden by the basal platform, may exist. A drop of 0.10 m in a W to E, 5 m span is indicated along the base of the stair side.

TERRACE 1

The basal platform has two terraces. Plaster run-under (a floor or top surface that continues under a supra-positioned feature) at the top surface of terrace 1 implies that it was built as a distinct construction stage completed and plastered (both face and top surface) prior to commencement of terrace 2. Masonry characteristics, similar in both terraces, suggest they were installed during the same episode of construction (see also evidence for the stair, below).

Profiles, obtained by limited clearing at the junction of stair side and terrace, extend upward ca. 0.90 m with no indication of a basal molding (Fig. 5a). This implies absence of basal moldings and probably also absence of apron moldings, since Late Classic profiles generally do not have one without the other. Preservation did not extend high enough to test this assumption.

An excavation at the NE corner revealed a rounded form with a radius of four meters, greatly contrasting with the sharp corners of the pyramid and upper features. Structure 5C-4 is not unique at Tikal in presenting both rounded and sharp (arrised) corners. This report will bring together the various Tikal structures that possess this property.

BASAL PLATFORM STAIR

Construction of the second terrace coincided with installation of the stair following completion of terrace 1. A run of masonry facings of terrace 1, unplastered, extends 1.5 m behind core masonry of the stair. Terrace 2 facings, on the other hand, stop on the line of stair-side facings. Thus, it appears that the stair was built after terrace 1 had been completed but during construction of terrace 2.

Tread and riser dimensions are projected from the average of in situ observations (Fig. 5b). Extrapolating from limited observations, the stair probably consists of 14 treads, 0.50 m deep, and 15 risers, 0.33 m high, for an estimated total height at the E face of 5 m. Risers are vertical, formed by single masonry units sharply tapered in plan. The stair has no balustrade and the stair side is vertical (little or no batter). Stair-side facing masonry appears to consist exclusively of headers (Fig. 5a,b).

The top of the basal platform is a hard, white plaster surface running under pyramid masonry. A very thin topping, a mere skin coat, overlies this. It disintegrates a few centimeters away from the pyramid foot. The hard surface beneath it hints that an earlier version of 5C-4 may exist within the pyramid.

The basal platform had been resurfaced with a hard, white plaster finish on about 0.06 m of fine topping over about 0.20 m of graded ballast. This floor abuts the foot of the pyramid and precedes installation of St. P43 and Alt. P35. It is unclear whether resurfacing was primary or secondary to plastering of the pyramid terrace. Weathering and erosion have destroyed this floor beyond the zone protected by collapse debris.

PYRAMID

The pyramid (Fig. 2a,b, 6, 7) is distinctly rectangular; 82.2 (N-S) by 64.1 m (E-W mean) at its base as measured at inset corners. These would be the measurements most likely employed by the builders at the start of construction. Setting primary corners is always critical for initial layout. The length-to-depth ratio (length across the front:front to rear, at inset corners) is 1:0.78. That is, the front-to-rear depth is between three-quarters and two-thirds of the side-to-side length across the front. Designers may have arranged this relationship in order to emphasize frontality.

North-to-south lengths, that is rear length and front length at base level to inset corners, are equal as measured by Pearson using tape and transit; east-to-west lengths (N side and S side at base level) vary by 2 cm. In other words, dimensional control appears to have been remarkably precise, at least within the precision of our measuring techniques. The rectangle at the top of the pyramid measures 39.5 by 23 m (at inset corners), a ratio of 1:0.58 (Fig. 6). On axial lines the ratio is 1:0.42. By both measures, the top is distinctly more rectangular than the base. The change reflects the fact that the sides are slightly steeper than the front and the rear is slightly steeper than the sides.

At the pyramid base, that is terrace 1, corner angles measured at inset corners are close to 90° (90° at NE, 88.5° at NW, 91° at SW, and 89° at SW).

The error measured as the differences between lengths of the sides, which would be equal if corners were exactly 90°, is about 2%. The SE to NW diagonal exceeds the NE to SW diagonal by 2.2 m, that is, by 2%.

On the plan (Fig. 6), diagonals drawn to connect the inset corners cross exactly on the central axis at a point precisely midway between front and rear of the building. This is either adventitious or evidence of very careful planning and remarkable dimensional control.

Plan configuration (Fig. 6) is based on numerous small excavations at base level, terrace 2 level, and terrace 6 level. Although presented in broken line in Fig. 6, plan details are reasonably well known (the solid lines provided by excavations are too short to appear at the Fig. 6 scale). There are seven terraces, each with inset corners. North and S sides have side outsets and an extra outset intervening between the inset corner and the side outset. On the rear facade, a comparable arrangement is established by the rear axial outset, extra outsets, and the corner inset. The front stair balances the rear axial outset and stair-side outsets balance the extra side and rear outsets.

North and S rear corners could be regarded as double inset corners. Front corners cannot be seen this way because stair-side outsets are not terrace outsets, and they have different profiles (Fig. 8a,b). This distinction may relate to some sort of significance associated with the stair. This is the only subcomponent rising more than one terrace in height, and it extends to full height, base to top. Side and rear outsets are all contained within terrace levels.

A cross pattern, apparent in the plan diagram (Fig. 6), is formed by the stair, side outsets, and rear outset. With the pyramid still obscured by vegetation and not consolidated, this figure is not readily apparent, but ancient Maya users may have been aware of it, and those who designed the structure must have considered it important.

Although all terrace profiles appear similar, setbacks are greater on the front than on the sides and rear. As a result, sides and rear are steeper than the front. The pyramid is symmetrical side-to-side but not front-to-rear. The building component, centered on the pyramid base, is placed slightly forward on the top so that the top terrace is wider behind than in front. There is no effective landing at the top of the great stair. Evidently, this was not a location for staging events.