Читать книгу Excavations in Residential Areas of Tikal--Group 7F-1 - William A. Haviland - Страница 10

II

Architecture and Construction History

Introduction

Before worrying about by whom, and for what, Gp. 7F-1 was used, it is important to have as thorough an understanding as possible of the architectural entities that comprise the group. Accordingly, it is the purpose of this section to describe each structure, platform, and chultun that has been investigated, and to discuss in detail its construction history. The latter is necessary not only because the composition of Gp. 7F-1 changed from time to time, but also because the basis for architectural reconstructions cannot be made clear otherwise. Little attention is given to the hypotheses with which this report is concerned, lest these exert an undue influence on the architectural reconstructions. These hypotheses are best left to subsequent sections, once the physical composition of Gp. 7F-1 is understood. Datum for all the excavations in the group is St. 23 itself.

Structure 7F-29

In its final form, Str. 7F-29, located on the N side of Plat. 7F-1, was a range-type structure of five rooms (Fig. 2). Its plan is similar to those of the upper stories of Str. 4D-14 and 5E-51 (TR. 23A:fig. 9b and 45a). As Op. 3E, the major portions of the three eastern rooms were cleared, and selective probes exposed portions of the S and E walls. A trench to bedrock penetrated the front-rear axis and a tunnel beneath the interior platform of Rm. 1 revealed details of construction of the rear (N) wall. Structure 7F-29 is discussed here as three architectural developments, the latest of which was subsequently modified. Since the supplementary platform of 29-1st and each of the three rooms that were investigated all showed evidence of only one modification, it is assumed that a single act of renovation was responsible.

Portions of earlier construction were noted in the axial trench, as well as beneath the S wall of Str. 7F-29. Some of this pertains to a structure or structures that might represent architectural developments for 7F-29, or structures that more properly might be placed in the “Sub” series. For reasons discussed below, this construction is treated as architectural developments of Str. 7F-29 (Table 2.1).

STRUCTURE 7F-29-3RD

As seen in the axial trench (Fig. 3), the earliest activity at this locus consisted of quarrying operations (Fig. 23b), followed by construction of a plaza floor (Plat. 7F-1:U. 2). This is discussed elsewhere (see Plat. 7F-1-4th). After a period of use of unknown duration, the northern portion of the plaza floor was torn out (CS. 4). Fill was then dumped over the remaining portion of the floor, and above bedrock to the N. At the same time, a wall of a single course of well-cut, rectangular masonry (U. 7) was built to retain this fill on the N. Unit 6, a pause-line of compact, light-colored earth, marks the termination of this operation (CS. 3). Unit 6 served as the base surface for the structure represented by U. 2.

Unit 2 is pavement that clearly served as a platform floor. As seen in the axial trench (Fig. 3), it was laid over a fill that was put in place in two stages. Dark earth, with several stone blocks in it, was dumped on U. 6. This was covered by a compact, light-colored earth fill on which the floor itself was laid. The N limit of U. 2 is not known, for it was later torn out for construction of the N wall of Str. 7F-29-1st-B (Fig. 3:14).

Unit 3, identified in a trench along the E portion of the front wall of Str. 7F-29-1st-A, apparently is a portion of the same structure represented by U. 2 (Fig. 1). This wall now runs beneath the final wall of 29-1st-A to a point 7.24 m E of the axial trench. Here, a probe established the presence of a corner, inside of which a floor surface at the level of the top of U. 3 was located. Since it has the same elevation as U. 2, it must be a portion of the same floor. For lack of more detailed information, a single construction stage (CS. 2) has been defined for construction of U. 2 and 3.

The entire form and size of the architecture represented by U. 2 and 3 cannot be reconstructed with certainty without further excavation. Moreover, much of it appears to have been destroyed in the course of later construction. Excavation along U. 3 revealed a break 2.24 m W of its E end, beyond which there is no further masonry. Evidently, the wall was ripped out W of this point. This is consistent with evidence from the axial trench. An entirely different kind of fill from that of 29-3rd runs S into the area of Plat. 7F-1, and begins at a point 0.10 m S of the front wall for Str. 7F-29-1st-B (Fig. 3:14), overlying U. 6. This fill is precisely like that seen elsewhere for Plat. 7F-1-2nd, so it appears that Str. 7F-29-3rd was partially destroyed when Plat. 7F-1-2nd was constructed.

TABLE 2.1

Structure 7F-29: Time Spans

Since much of the front of Str. 7F-29-3rd was eventually destroyed, it is impossible to be sure what the structure looked like. It is reconstructed in Fig. 1 by analogy with 29-1st as having had a straight front wall, with U. 3 running to a SW corner the same distance E of the W wall of 29-1st-A, so that the SE corner is W of the E wall of 1st-A. Further excavation would be necessary to prove this; since 1st-A and B were range-type structures, however, and since there is a similar possibility for 2nd, Str. 7F-29-3rd may have been as well. There is no proof of this, though, and the extent of U. 2 so far N might seem to argue against this. Instead, what is suggested is that 29-3rd was a wide building platform. It could have supported a pole-and-thatch range-type building. In favor of this is the absence of a posthole in the SE corner of U. 2, such as would be expected in the case of an ordinary rectangular, one-level building platform (TR. 20B), and indications discussed later that the fortunes of the residents of Gp. 7F-1 were just beginning to recover from a particularly low ebb.

STRUCTURE 7F-29-2ND

This architectural development is represented by U. 1, a floor remnant W of the axial trench (Fig. 1). Its elevation is 0.45 m above that of U. 2, and 0.22 m below that of Fl. 2 of Str. 7F-29-1st in Rm. 1 (Fig. 3). That Fl. 2 of 1st postdates U. 2 is clearly indicated by the presence of U. 2 beneath it. Unit 2 was built when Ik pottery was in vogue, and when contemporary platform floors were laid up to, but not beneath, associated buildings or other constructions above their surface (TR. 35).

Since Str. 7F-29-2nd was at some point almost totally demolished, little can be said about it. Only 0.60 m of U. 1 survived this demolition, but its N edge shows a clear turnup, so a wall must once have stood here. Its stratigraphic relationship to Str. 7F-29-3rd, plus the fact that 3rd seems to have been done away with when Plat. 7F-1-2nd was built, suggests that 29-2nd was served in front by the floor of Plat. 7F-1-2nd. As noted elsewhere, U. 2 of 7F-29 seems to have been incorporated into that floor. The height of U. 1 above this is sufficient to suggest that it is the floor of a building platform (equivalent to Fl. 1 and 2 of Str. 7F-29-1st in Rm. 1), and that there was probably a lower platform level in front of it to the S. Just where the front wall of this would have been is a matter for speculation. The turnup of U. 1, then, could have been to a rear-building wall, or to a “bench” such as was constructed in 29-1st-B. The latter appears most probable, since it looks as though destruction of the rear wall of 29-3rd took place when 1st-B was built. Given this, it seems likely that the rear of 2nd was built up from the rear of Str. 29-3rd.

STRUCTURE 7F-29-1ST-B

Construction of this structure (Fig. 2) may be divided into at least six construction stages on the basis of evidence from the axial trench, although it is possible that more were involved. Construction Stage 6 saw the almost complete demolition of the earlier Str. 7F-29-2nd. Along with this, the N portion of U. 2 was apparently torn down to its base surface where the wall of the new structure was to be built.

Following preparation of the site, the supplementary platform for 29-1st was built, probably as a single construction stage (CS. 5). Gray earth fill was dumped on the surviving surface of U. 2, and the front retaining wall was set down into that floor. Evidence for this intrusion consists of the stratigraphic relationship between U. 2 and the floor of Plat. 7F-1-2nd already discussed, as well as the presence of Imix sherds in the partially sealed sample from beneath U. 2 (Table 5.1 [see below]; LG. 1b). The only way to account for these sherds is by the intrusion of the wall for Str. 7F-29-1st-B (Fig. 3:3), for sealed samples from beneath U. 2 did not produce such sherds. To the N, where U. 2 had been destroyed, a battered wall was built. Composed of two rows of rectangular masonry against a rubble core, it sat on the old base surface (U. 6) for the structure represented by U. 2. An old retaining wall (U. 7), associated with U. 6, continued to serve with the new structure, which was set back 0.48 m from U. 7. Unit 4, a pause-line with some rubble to the S, marks the top of the fill for CS. 5.

The actual building platform was built as CS. 4. For this, single-course walls were assembled on the fill of the supplementary platform; 3.30 m N of its front wall, 1.64 m from its end walls, and 0.04 m S of the face of its back wall. As seen in Rm. 1, a fill of rubble was placed under what was to become the floor of the room, while earth was dumped N of this over U. 4. The pavement of the supplementary platform may have been laid up to the walls of the building platform at this time. It is more likely, however, that this floor was laid at a later time, when the interior was finished.

The next stage of construction (CS. 3) saw completion of the building walls, although probably not the roof. These walls were set back 2 to 4 cm from those of the building platform. They were constructed of thin rectangular masonry stretchers as facing on a core of rubble (Fig. 39a). Some of the corners were bonded, others were not. The original height of the walls is unknown. There was no sign of wall inserts near the entrances to Rm. 1, 4, or 5.

The roof of Str. 7F-29-1st had completely collapsed, but the amount of debris, and the presence of beveled stones, clearly proves that the building was vaulted. It is assumed that the vault was built before the interiors of the rooms were finished (CS. 2). The angle of the bevel of the vault stones averages 116 degrees. The back ends of the stones were tapered, so as to bond into the hearting of the vault. Roof collapse on the E end platform of Rm. 1 showed an intact vault spring of 0.10 m.

Construction Stage 1 saw completion of 29-1st-B. In the rear of Rm. 1, 4, and 5 (and probably Rm. 2 and 3), platforms were constructed on the fill of the building platform (Fig. 2). They were faced with vertically set rectangular masonry that abuts the room-end walls. A second course of like masonry was set horizontally above the first, so as to produce a cornice on the platforms in Rm. 1 and 4 (and probably 2). The fill of the interior platforms was covered by plaster surfaces, and plaster floors (Fl. 2) were laid in each room. These floors cover the masonry of the building platforms in the doorways, and turn up to the building walls and interior platform walls. A peculiarity of Fl. 2 in Rm. 5 is the presence of a round hole (Fig. 2:U. 8). Its regularity suggests that a post was set here, but for what reason it is hard to imagine. Unit 8 is located directly in front of the S end of the interior platform. It was probably also in the course of CS. 1 that the exposed top of the supplementary platform was surfaced.

STRUCTURE 7F-29-1ST-A

After a period of use, Str. 29-1st was extensively renovated. The exact sequence of events is not known, but an overall contemporaneity seems indicated. The supplementary platform was modified by the construction of a new front wall, 0.60 m S of the original front wall (Fig. 1 and 3:11). This new wall was based on Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, which was associated with Str. 7F-29-2nd. Whether an entirely new floor was laid on the exposed surface of the supplementary platform is not known. Evidence from the E end suggests that much of the original floor continued in use, with new floor surface added where necessary. In front of the doorway to Rm. 5 (Fig. 2:2), a single floor surface was found, with a plaster patch that turns up to an extension of the building platform (see below).

Room 1 was altered by the addition of two very high room-end interior platforms (Fig. 2:12,13). The walls for these were built directly on the original floors of the room and interior platform. A new floor (Fl. 1) was then laid. This turns up to the face of the old interior platform, the faces of the new platforms, and the building walls. The room-end platforms, like the earlier platform, were built with a cornice. The total length of the platforms is 0.32 m, less than the width of the room, with the added thickness of the front building wall.

In Rm. 4, a new floor (Fl. 1) was laid over Fl. 2, as in Rm. 1. A plastered masonry block (Fig. 2:U. 5) may have been placed on the surface of the interior platform at this time. The plastered face of the block was even with the cornice face of the platform. The E end of the block abuts the E wall of the room. The purpose of the block is unknown; perhaps the whole E end of the interior platform was raised.

The modification of Rm. 5 apparently commenced with the interment of Bu. 192 through Fl. 2 in front of the interior platform and against the S wall of the room. The end wall of the building platform was extended to the E by the addition of a new wall (Fig. 2:10). The surface of the supplementary platform was patched to turn up to this wall, and a new floor was laid inside the room (Fl. 1). This sealed Bu. 192 and turned up to the walls of the building and the interior platform. The U. 8 hole is also apparent in Fl. 1. Later, another hole was dug into the floor to receive PD. 166.

Structure 7F-30

Structure 7F-30 is the larger of two structures on the E side of the plaza area bounded on the N and S by Str. 7F-29 and 32. Coe and Broman in 1957 (TR. 2) investigated St. 23, which was reset in front of Str. 7F-30. Their excavations revealed four burials, one apparently initial relative to a later, small, terracelike feature that was added onto the front of Str. 7F-30. The structure, though, was substantially untouched by their work, which was focused on the stela. In 1963, Becker returned to investigate the structure itself. To do so, he began a deep trench through the apparent E-W axis, beginning where Coe and Broman left off in 1957. This work revealed a complex sequence of burials, caches, and problematical deposits associated with the initial construction and later renovations of 7F-30. The overall pattern suggested an elaborate version of a pattern seen elsewhere at Tikal: relatively formal burials associated with the construction or alteration of an apparently ritual structure, always positioned on the E edge of a plaza (TR. 21). Finally, in 1965, I dug two tunnels into the structure N and S of Becker’s trench, producing more burials, a cache, and further architectural data.

In spite of all this work, Str. 7F-30 is still difficult to interpret. All available information is from the deep trench, the N and S tunnels, and a trench through the axis of neighboring Str. 7F-31 (built over earlier architecture associated with Str. 7F-30). Hence, the full extent of various walls and floors is not certainly known. In addition, the correlation of walls and floors between trenches and tunnels is dependent on indirect evidence. The only remedy would be to excavate extensively Str. 7F-30, something that, in hindsight, should have been done. In 1963, Becker was merely seeking verification for his hypothesis that 7F-30 conformed to his “temple on the E” pattern (“Plaza Plan 2,” TR. 21). At that time he thought his trench would suffice. In 1965, interest lay in the other structures of the group as I sought to put 7F-30 in the context of Gp. 7F-1 as a whole. Further work on 7F-30 was limited to what might produce evidence for the one-time erection of monuments in front of an early version of it. Only later was the complexity of what was naively assumed to be a fairly “straightforward” architectural sequence realized. Thus, in the face of numerous uncertainties, a probabilistic reconstruction of 7F-30 in its various forms is all that we have. Justification of that reconstruction requires considerable discussion of the evidence, and the alternative ways that it might be interpreted. The deep trench excavated by Becker constitutes the basic point of reference, so for each architectural development, the data from it are discussed first. Following this, available evidence from the two tunnels and the trench through 7F-31 is related to that from the deep trench (Table 2.2).

An added complication is that some forms of 7F-30 featured a substantial terrace (Plat. 7F-3) on its W. Even though it extends farther S, the evidence indicates that this terrace was built as an integral part of the structure. Although it is described separately, the stratigraphic relationships of units of Plat. 7F-3 to those of Str. 7F-30 are noted here.

STRUCTURE 7F-30-5TH

Architectural elements (Fig. 4, 5, and 10) that evidently belong to the earliest version of Str. 7F-30 are U. 1 through 12, with their various fills as seen in the deep trench (Fig. 10). In summary, these were assembled as bedrock was cleared, and the chamber excavated for Bu. 160 (CS. 13). Following the interment, workers laid up a three-course masonry wall in its entrance, the interior of which they plastered. Impressions of textile are evident in the plaster used to finish the inside surface of this wall. Left was a space 0.44 m high through which to exit. This was then sealed with large stone blocks, at the same time that fill (described in the caption to Fig. 10) was loaded into the shaft. Completion of this operation (as CS. 12) is marked by a pause-line, U. 1.

Following CS. 12, the core of a structure was built up in a series of four stages (CS. 11–8) to a height of about 2.20 m, for which a rough retaining wall on the W (U. 2) was erected in 0.40 to 0.70 m increments. As each section was installed, fill was placed E of it, and pause-lines (U. 3, 4, and 5) mark completion of all but CS. 8. That the top of U. 2 and its fill marks the end of this stage is indicated by apparent continuity of overlying fill to the W (see below). Although not confirmed by excavation, the elements of CS. 11–8 probably ran E to abut U. 6, which is something of an enigma. In Fig. 10, this nearly vertical wall is depicted as the rear of the substructure of 5th (not to mention succeeding versions of 7F-30; see Fig. 4–9). Yet, it is distinctly different from the walls of other substructures at Tikal, which normally were built with a pronounced batter. Even in Gp. 7F-1, the contemporary Str. 7F-32-2nd-C displays such walls. There is good reason for this, as battered walls are less prone to collapse. Multicourse vertical walls, however, worked perfectly well for temporary purposes, and U. 6 strongly resembles the walls that face construction cores within the substructure of Str. 5D-33-1st (TR. 14; Fig. 9b; see especially the core walls within the upper three levels). All this raises doubts that U. 6 really was the back wall of 7F-30, but no other likely candidate was seen in the 1.20 m excavated E of it. Possibly, a battered E wall did once exist, but its total collapse has rendered it unrecognizable. Perhaps deeper excavation behind the structure might reveal its base. Meanwhile, in the absence of visible evidence to the contrary, 7F-30 is reconstructed as if U. 6 was its back wall, despite doubts.

Returning to construction of 30-5th, the next action seems to have been placement (as CS. 7) of the lowest five steps of a stairway, U. 13, fill for which rests on light-colored earth, U. 7. Above this, stair fill abuts U. 2. A pause-line, U. 9, runs from the rear of the riser stone for the fifth step to U. 2 just below its top, and marks the end of CS. 7. Whether stones were set as stretchers or headers is not noted in excavation records.

The question arises as to why the first five steps were built at this time, rather than earlier or later in the construction sequence. A reasonable hypothesis is that work could not proceed further without some special provision being made to get both men and materials up to the elevated construction surface. This is supported by the height of U. 2 with its fills, the presence of U. 7 and 8 beneath the stairway and its fill, and what is known of male stature at Tikal (Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:fig. 4.1, scheduled for full discussion in TR. 30). There is no clear structural reason for U. 7 and 8; indeed, structural soundness would have been enhanced by placing the stairs and their fill directly on bedrock, in the manner of U. 2 with its fill. Yet, U. 7, at least, was purposely placed; it abuts U. 2, and its thickness (ca. 0.30 m) is too great for it to be dust that accumulated naturally between CS. 11 and 7. A logical reason for its placement is that, as U. 2 with its fill was built up higher and higher, access to the construction surface became more difficult. Average stature for “working class” males at Tikal in Early Classic times (when this construction took place; see below) was close to 1.63 m; therefore, U. 4 (the pause-line that separates the fills of CS. 9 and 10) would have been, roughly, at neck height for a man of average stature standing on bedrock. Unit 5, the pause-line dividing the fills of CS. 8 and 9, would be at about the same height if the “average man” were standing on U. 7. The top of U. 2, though, is 2.20 m above bedrock and 1.86 m above U. 7. Construction could have proceeded to this height, in the absence of some special means of access to the construction surface, only if some makeshift means were available to allow workers to pass materials from below to those on the construction surface above. Earth or other debris dumped by the structure walls in the manner of U. 7 would have served this purpose. Something more was needed to proceed beyond the top of U. 2, and the lower five steps of U. 13 appear to have solved the problem.

TABLE 2.2 (Part 1)

Structure 7F-30: Time Spans

TABLE 2.2 (Part 2)

Structure 7F-30: Time Spans

As CS. 6, the height of the growing structure was increased by some 0.60 m (cf. to the increments of CS. 10 and 11) as additions were made to the walls, fills, and the U. 13 stairway. Materials for this were probably carried up the previously constructed part of that stairway. Marking the end of CS. 6 is U. 10, a pause-line; the fill itself is continuous from the stairway across the top of U. 9, up over U. 2, and all the way to U. 6. Black material included in this fill is not known in any of the preceding ones, although there could be some in unexcavated portions. Similar material was used in succeeding construction stages.

Another increment in height, this time of close to 1.00 m, defines CS. 5. Again, additions were made to walls and stairs as fill was piled up between them and over that already in place. As before, most fill was rubble, but in this case the upper portion consists of alternate bands of black earth (like that seen in CS. 6), and white earth. The uppermost light-colored stratum, U. 11, appears to be a pause-line marking the end of CS. 5. It runs from U. 6 eastward, ending 0.80 m or so from the stairway (about 0.10 m E of a later intrusive cut for Bu. 140).

The substructure was brought to its final desired height with the completion of U. 6, installation of a fill-retaining wall to the W (U. 12), and the dumping of fill in between (CS. 4). The top of U. 12 probably served as the top step of U. 13, although later intrusion of Bu. 140 (immediately W of U. 12) destroyed proof. Nevertheless, upward projection of U. 13 treads and risers meets U. 12 at a reasonable distance below U. 14, a remnant of the substructure floor. This pavement runs E from the top of U. 12, which it covers. Stratigraphy indicates that fill beneath U. 12 was dumped from W to E, confirming use of U. 13 stairs to gain access to the elevated construction surface.

At first glance, fill of CS. 4 looks quite different from fills used in earlier stages. Because of this, one might regard it as a later addition to an earlier structure, associated with the U. 18 stairway (discussed below). Against this, the only feature that conceivably could be a floor earlier than U. 14 is U. 11. Because this surface seems to end (on the W) a good 0.10 m E of the cut for Bu. 140, it could not have extended as far as the U. 13 stairway. Even if it did, this interpretation would require that the upper three courses of U. 6 postdate those courses below by a significant amount of time. Yet, there is no evidence for this; the masonry is similar and no traces of plaster patching (indicative of an addition to an existing wall) occur on the outer face. Finally, if one looks at the fills of CS. 7–4, one notices a transition from all rubble, to rubble with black earth, to less rubble and more black earth with some light-colored earth, to almost no rubble and much dark, as well as light-colored, earth. Evidently, the supply of rubble showed signs of exhaustion as early as CS. 6, and new sources of fill began to be tapped. The latter, apparently, became the prime sources by CS. 4.

The question arises here: was the construction just summarized all that remains of earliest Str. 7F-30, or was there more to it? Deferring, for the moment, discussion of finished exterior structure walls, four possibilities deserve consideration: (1) Unit 13 in its entirety was a finished stairway up to the earliest summit floor, but without a paved plaza in front. Instead, exposed bedrock served, except for the area extending 1.70 m W of the bottom step, where compact earth overlies bedrock (Fig. 10:14), steadily thinning out to the W so as to meet the rock surface without any great unevenness. (2) A terrace, about 0.65 m high, was built in front of 7F-30, with its unpaved surface (Plat. 7F-3:U. 1) turning up to the fourth riser of U. 13. Thus, earliest Str. 7F-30 was served by all but the lowest three steps of U. 13. (3) Platform 7F-3 with its unpaved surface was built in front of the original 7F-30, but U. 13 was buried beneath another set of steps that served as the finished stairway (represented by U. 15, based on Plat. 7F-3:U. 1). (4) A terrace, about 1.00 m high, was constructed in front of 7F-30, surfaced with plaster pavement (Plat. 7F-3:U. 5), on which the Maya built a finished stairway, likely represented by U. 18. In this view U. 15, though well built, served as a short mason’s stairway, and U. 16 and 17 (see below) were fill-retaining walls analogous to U. 2.

There are problems with each of these hypotheses. For the first, the rough construction of U. 13 seems more appropriate for a mason’s, rather than a finished stairway. Furthermore, the absence of plaster on, or in front of the stairway, seems peculiar, given its use in Bu. 160 as well as for the structure floor. Lack of evidence for a turndown of U. 14 over U. 12 to form the top step of U. 13 is also a problem. Perhaps later intrusion of Bu. 140 is responsible for this lack, although one might expect that, with U. 12 forming part of the E wall of the burial shaft, those who dug it would have followed the plaster face of the top step down (had it existed), rather than destroying the plaster, but not the masonry behind it. These same two problems apply to the second possibility as well; indeed, the absence of finished pavement on the terrace is particularly odd. It seems improbable that the Maya would have built a structure with a good plaster floor, only to provide it with a terrace on the front with well-built masonry walls, but no such pavement. Not only is Plat. 7F-3:U. 1 not plaster, but its turnup to U. 13 indicates that it was not mere foundation for a plaster surface. There is, though, a further difficulty: the wall that Plat. 7F-3:U. 1 abuts on its W edge appears to be an E wall of Plat. 7F-1, rather than a W wall of Plat. 7F-3 (see Plat. 7F-1). Platform 7F-3:U. 1 continues the level of Plat. 7F-1 eastward to Str. 7F-30:U. 13. Yet, it was not plastered, although Plat. 7F-1 was. An unpaved gap between a plaza and a structure, both with plaster floors, seems extremely unlikely.

The third possible interpretation involves the same problems as the first two, with three additional ones: (1) Platform 7F-3:Unit 1 turns up to the U. 13, rather than the U. 15 stairway, although this could be explained as the incidental result of workmen using U. 13 after this terrace surface was laid, but before U. 15 was built. (2) More serious: if U. 15 was used with Plat. 7F-3:U. 1, then it was later almost completely torn down when Plat. 7F-3:U. 5 was laid. This plaster floor extends 0.50 m beyond the back of the fourth step of U. 15, although the known tread depths of these steps do not exceed 0.25 m. Consistent with this, the first step of well-built U. 18, sequentially the next known stairway for Str. 7F-30, overlies Plat. 7F-3:U. 5 by 6 cm, and unites with a later pavement of Plat. 7F-3. What is inconsistent is that the fill behind U. 18 is continuous with that behind U. 15, which rules out destruction of a U. 15 stairway. Moreover, the steps of U. 15 and 18 are positioned in such a way relative to one another as to imply that the treads of the latter are exactly where those of the former would have been (if indeed U. 15 was once a full-fledged stairway). One may note also that the fourth step of U. 15 is similar in construction to the second through fifth steps of U. 18. What is suggested is that, at most, two steps of U. 15 were removed. (3) The steps of U. 15, rather than being plastered, have a thin coating of packed marl on the lowest two, and on the second tread this coating turns up to the face of the third riser masonry itself. It seems clear that this is not a case of a finished stairway that was later removed above this point.

Although the fourth alternative interpretation is favored here, there are problems with it, too. The main one is the presence of so much preceding construction. This required that, as the bulk of Str. 7F-30 was brought to the desired height necessitated by U. 13, work was begun on a terrace W of the structure. Platform 7F-3:Unit 1 marks a pause between CS. 2 and 3, creating a packed surface on which a stairway (U. 15) was begun. Its four steps were used briefly for construction purposes, until workers were ready to build the terrace up to its final height. At that time, the terrace floor (Plat. 7F-3:U. 5) was laid, extending partly over U. 15 and some of its fill, following which the stairway was extended upwards to completion (U. 18). Even if these efforts may seem excessive, they are consistent with the practice of building walls on floors, rather than running floors up to walls, as seen in contemporary Str. 7F-32-2nd (see below).

Another problem—the union of the lower step of U. 18 with a floor postdating Plat. 7F-3:U. 5—disappears, if the Maya removed and altered the masonry blocks that formed the lower tread when they laid Plat. 7F-3:U. 8; this would have caused no disturbance to U. 18 or its fill. Why this should have been done remains a mystery, but it does recall removal, for no practical reason, of the basal step of Str. 5D-22-3rd-B (TR. 14:351). Consistent with removal and replacement of the 7F-30 step is that all known stairs of U. 18 are of identical construction, except this lowest one. Unfortunately, plaster on U. 18 was not sufficiently preserved to confirm or refute later disturbance of this lowest step.

Although none of these possibilities can presently be conclusively proven or disproven, the fourth seems most likely. At least seven points may be used to argue in its favor: (1) Evidence presented above suggests that U. 13 was a mason’s stairway. (2) There is no clear sign that U. 15 was ripped out above the fourth riser, yet the similarity of this to all but the basal riser of U. 18 suggests no great time-lapse between their construction. Thus, the most economical way to explain these two stairs (with their fills in relation to Plat. 7F-3:U. 5) is as just outlined. (3) Consistent is the lack of plaster on U. 15, but its onetime presence on U. 18. Although the Maya later removed most of this plaster, some of it remained on the fifth stair tread and the riser behind (see Fig. 10). (4) Lack of turn-down of U. 14 over U. 12, already noted, would be expected if U. 14 were not laid as part of CS. 4 to serve with U. 13, but rather as part of the final construction to serve with U. 18. (5) Fills of CS. 4 and (to a degree) CS. 5 are similar to those of Plat. 7F-3 below both U. 1 and 5. These consist largely of layers of light and dark earth. A pavement, above which Plat. 7F-3:U. 2 was built (and which is perhaps contemporary), also has a dark fill (Fig. 10:40). Thus, all may have been drawn from the same sources and so are contemporary, especially since the black material does not occur in later fills. (6) All of the sherds from these fills are from Manik pots, whereas Ik sherds appear in the fill of the next known architectural development. (7) It seems improbable that the floor of original Str. 7F-30 would be plastered, while the area in front was not. The earliest plaster pavement in front of the structure is Plat. 7F-3:U. 5, which may well be contemporary with the earliest plaster floor of Plat. 7F-1, to the W. It follows that only the fourth possibility has the virtue of consistency here: plastered plaza, terrace, structure floor, and stairs. In sum, despite uncertainties, the interpretation favored here is that Str. 7F-30-5th included U. 18, with the terrace in front represented by Plat. 7F-3:U. 2 and 5. Accordingly, U. 14 and 18 are assigned to CS. 2, U. 15 to CS. 3, and other units as already noted to CS. 4–12.

Construction Stage 1 is defined for features on the summit pavement; minimally some sort of platform represented by U. 19. Built of masonry blocks on the surface of U. 14, its W face stood 2.70 m in from the top of the last riser of U. 18. With a height of 0.60 m, it may be ruled out as a mere upper level of the 7F-30-5th summit. Unfortunately, excavation was not sufficient to reveal its lateral extent, and eventual destruction by the Maya 0.60 m E of its W face precludes determination of its E-W dimension. Perhaps at the same time that its back portion was ripped out, all plaster was removed from its W face and top.

Whether or not U. 19 ranks as an “interior platform” (perhaps a freestanding one, like U. 66 and 67 of Str. 5D-22-1st; TR. 14:378) is not known, for excavations were too limited to provide evidence for or against the existence of a building. Because a vaulted building of masonry was part of contemporary Str. 7F-32-2nd, the same may have been true here. No vault stones from demolition of such an edifice were found. Numerous fragments of stucco, most of which bore traces of paint, were discovered overlying Plat. 7F-1:U. 5. Although they could have been brought in from anywhere with material to be used for fill, proximity to Str. 7F-30-5th favors it as their source. Similar to stucco from Early Classic structures at Uaxactun (TR. 2:33), these pieces could be from a building, but could as well be from substructure ornamentation. So when all is said and done, we simply do not know whether or not the summit of 30-5th stood open or was roofed.

So far, this necessarily extensive discussion of Str. 7F-30-5th has dealt with those architectural elements seen in the deep trench through the presumed structure axis. Various walls and floors that may also relate to 5th were encountered in the two tunnels, as well as within the trench into Str. 7F-31. It is these that are discussed next.

Unit 16 and 17 are retaining walls that were encountered in the N and S tunnels, respectively (Fig. 4). Both run roughly N-S, but they are not well aligned with one another; U. 16 runs 6 degrees W of magnetic N, whereas U. 17 runs 6 degrees E of magnetic N. The masonry, too, is very roughly dressed. Unit 16 ends at a NW corner in the N tunnel; with the wall that runs E it forms a 75-degree angle. Unit 17 runs S of the trench through Str. 7F-31, but where it ends is unknown.

Unit 17 is positioned, roughly, in line with the first riser of U. 18, the supposed stairway for Str. 7F-30-5th. Unit 16 is positioned 0.60 m or so W of the stairway. The top of U. 17 is at the same elevation as the top (fourth) tread of U. 15; it too is abutted by Plat. 7F-3:U. 4, and Plat. 7F-3:U. 5 runs over its top. Given these relationships, along with their rough dressing and alignment, U. 16 and 17 are interpreted as fill-retaining walls. Presumably, they are analogous to U. 2, having retained structure fill prior to construction of the W terrace (Plat. 7F-3). Unit 15 of Str. 7F-30-5th would have been an aid in carrying up the fill for these walls once Plat. 7F-3:U. 1 was in place, for from here up U. 13 would have been behind the wall cutting off access to it. Once the W terrace was completed, the 4.60 m of U. 16 N of the terrace must have been plastered and incorporated into the facing of Str. 7F-30-5th, for the N wall of the terrace abuts this wall.

If the above is correct, then it offers further support for the hypothesis that Str. 7F-30-5th was served by U. 18. Otherwise, U. 13 would have to have been wholly inset relative to U. 16 and 17, which is virtually unheard of for stairways at Tikal in Classic times.

Given the scanty data available, the overall appearance of Str. 7F-30-5th is difficult to visualize. With U. 18 a fully projecting stairway, its final riser would mark the front of the actual structure. Assumed is axial placement, reasonable considering that later stairways for 7F-30 were so placed, and that this was common practice at Tikal, at least in Classic times. Moreover, axial placement was common for burials comparable to 160, in front of which U. 18 was observed (but note exceptions, such as Bu. 116 beneath Str. 5D-1; TR. 14:609). Unknown is how wide the stairs were, for they run N and S of their exposure in the deep trench. They are arbitrarily reconstructed in Fig. 4 as the same length as those for 30-1st, which puts their N end perhaps 0.60 m N of the deep trench. They could not have ended much farther S, or their N end would have been exposed in the trench.

An E-W dimension for 7F-30-5th comparable to that of the contemporary Str. 7F-32-2nd substructure is reasonable in view of what is known (and not known) about the back of 30-5th. Where its N and S walls lay is even more problematical. Its S wall must lie N of the trench through Str. 7F-31, as Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 was encountered beneath the grave of Bu. 159 (see Fig. 11). The shape of the mound overlying the ruins of Str. 7F-30 suggests that, in its later forms, its lateral dimension was less than that of 7F-32-2nd. To anticipate later conclusions, we suspect 30-5th to have been a temple, and suggest a ratio of length-to-breadth similar to that of Str. 5D-22-2nd (TR. 14), a structure probably in use when 7F-30-5th was built. But in the face of so many uncertainties, one must be cautious. The best that can be hoped for is a rough idea of what 7F-30-5th was like, but no more.

STRUCTURE 7F-30-4TH

Although this has a less complex construction sequence than 5th (Fig. 6, 10, and 11), there are still problems of interpretation. One thing seems clear: operations began with partial demolition of features that were part of 5th (see preceding discussion), and this defines CS. 3. As this proceeded, the floor of 5th (U. 14) and 0.20 m of fill beneath were removed, at least at its eastern and western extent. On the W, this may have been less extensive than on the E, where paving was removed up to a point 2.60 m in from U. 6. Here, a new plaster surface (U. 24) was laid (in CS. 2) at an elevation 0.20 m below the older U. 14. Burial 140 is thought to have intruded into 5th on its front-rear axis at this time.

As CS. 2, a new substructure, represented in the deep trench by U. 20 through 24, was built over what was left of the older one. Unit 20 is the remains of a stairway that was built on Plat. 7F-3:U. 8. A projection of its surviving four steps upwards meets the base of U. 21, a single course of masonry set into the gray earth fill of 7F-30-4th. Apparently, this is the top step of the same stairway as U. 20; the intervening steps are missing owing to later intrusion of Bu. 132. Running E 2.40 m from the top of U. 21 is a floor, U. 22, which probably once ran as far as the rear wall of the structure. Its partial destruction stems from the later placement of PD. 103, probably Bu. 150, and construction of Str. 7F-30-2nd. In the fill beneath U. 21 is Ca. 162, which is aligned with Bu. 140 (see below).

The Maya may have retained the original rear of 7F-30 in the new 4th, just as the original substructure of nearby Str. 7F-32 was retained in all subsequent versions. This possibility for 7F-30, however, was never investigated and so remains speculative. What is known is that the Maya built a new wall—U. 23—at least 2 m W of its face, on the surface exposed after removal of U. 14. Surviving now as a single course of masonry, U. 23 seems to be the base of a wall that must have been as high as U. 22. From the base of U. 23 a pavement, U. 24, runs E onto the top of U. 6. Evidently, the substructure of 4th consisted of a supplementary platform, topped by what may be a building platform. Unfortunately, excavations were too limited to reveal traces of a building, if one was present. Since there are clues that one may have been part of 3rd, the possibility must be allowed for 4th as well, and for its construction a provisional CS. 1 is defined.

The only other architecture referable to 7F-30-4th (seen in the S tunnel) was a wall, U. 25 (Fig. 6). Built on Plat. 7F-3:U. 5, Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 runs up to the W side of its base, and therein lies a problem. In the deep trench, the basal step of Str. 7F-30:U. 18 is based above Plat. 7F-3:U. 5 and is in union with Plat 7F-3:U. 8. From this, one might suppose that the basal step of U. 18 and 7F-30:U. 25 are parts of the same architectural entity. The trouble is, though, that it would require a fully inset stairway, which is unheard of in Intermediate Classic Tikal architecture. The only outset stairway that could possibly go with U. 25 is U. 20. There is, though, an alternative reconstruction: after Str. 7F-30-5th had been in use for a while, modifications were carried out on Plat. 7F-3, in the course of which Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 was laid. Although its basal step was altered in the process, 7F-30-5th continued in use with no other modification (Fig. 5). Then, just prior to building 7F-30-4th, the Maya began the removal of Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 where the new W wall of the structure was to stand. They then began to build the wall, probably intending to remove the rest of the pavement W of it, as they were going to eliminate Plat. 7F-3 altogether and lay a new floor for Plat. 7F-1. They had a change of heart, however, and eventually incorporated Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 into Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1. Although this “change of heart” is hypothetical, this is precisely what happened in the case of Str. 7F-Sub.1 when Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 was laid, and Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 is at the same elevation. At any rate, U. 25 (of 7F-30) seems to have been installed before this change of heart, and the steps were built afterward (a sequence of construction, with wall preceding stairs, that was earlier seen in the case of U. 2 and 13).

Confirmation of this reconstruction could probably be gained by a probe through U. 25. There is reason to suspect that Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 will be found behind the wall, as suggested by the floor of Bu. 159, in Str. 7F-31 behind Str. 7F-30:U. 25. The burial was dug down to an older pavement, which then served as the floor for the grave (Fig. 11). The elevation of this is 6 cm above that of Plat 7F-3:U. 8, 3.30 m to the W (an insignificant difference) but 0.12 m above that of Plat. 7F-3:U. 5. Thus, the plaster surface beneath Bu. 159 is probably part of Plat. 7F-3:U. 8, which means that U. 25 has to be intruded through that floor.

The surviving height of U. 25, as seen in the trench through Str. 7F-31, is 1.16 m above Plat. 7F-3:U. 8. Almost surely, the wall did not stand as high as U. 22, for this would have placed its top 1 m W of U. 21, requiring a partially inset stairway. Furthermore, as already noted, the evidence of U. 6, 23, and 24 in the deep trench suggests that the substructure was terraced. Presumably, then, U. 25 was built up to a height of 1.30 m—the elevation of U. 24—whereupon a second wall (equivalent to U. 23) for an upper substructure level was constructed an unknown distance to the E. If positioned the same distance from U. 25 as U. 23 is from U. 6, then the top of the stairway projected about 1 m beyond the substructure wall. Perhaps, though, the wall was in line with U. 21 (as reconstructed in Fig. 6); otherwise, the structure floor would have been unusually long and narrow.

The overall dimensions of Str. 7F-30-4th are not known. It seems clear that the old N wall (and possibly U. 6) continued to serve the new structure. Platform 7F-1-2nd:Floor 1 (which served Str. 7F-30-4th) ends on the N at the top of a wall that continues W from the N face of the structure. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the building platform is reconstructed as being set back an equivalent amount as U. 23 is from U. 6. The precise location of the S wall is unknown, but may be reconstructed within fairly narrow limits. First, it is clear that the building platform extended at least as far as the S edge of the trench through Str. 7F-31, for its fill here survives to a height of 1.16 m above the top of the supplementary platform (Fig. 11). It could not have extended significantly farther S, based on what is known of the stairway. The N end of the stairs could have been no farther than 5.20 m from the NW corner of the building platform, or it would have been seen in the deep trench.

Assuming a symmetrical relationship between substructure and stairway, the latter must be at least 7 m wide, putting its S edge 5.20 m N of the S side of the trench through 7F-31. The stairway wall could not have been more than 0.30 m S of this, or its junction with U. 25 would have been seen in the S tunnel.

Given this information, it is clear that though the measurements cannot be precise, the reconstruction in Fig. 6 is reasonable. Almost certainly, therefore, the front-rear axis of Str. 7F-30-4th was shifted considerably to the S of where it had been for 5th.

STRUCTURE 7F-30-3RD

As shown in Fig. 7, a reconstruction of this version of 7F-30 must be done almost completely in broken line. The only architecture surely referable to it is U. 26 (seen in the deep trench), although 22, 23, and 24 (and possibly 6) seem to have continued in service. The greatest problem is the stairway.

On stratigraphic grounds, the first act was removal of a large portion of the stairway (U. 20) for 4th, so that the remarkable Bu. 132 could be placed due W of the earlier Bu. 160. Once this was done, workers piled up light-to-dark gray earth, with some rubble, covering the burial and providing a fill over which a pavement, U. 26, was laid (at exactly the same elevation as existing U. 22).

As seen in the section through the deep trench (Fig. 10), U. 26 no longer runs all the way E to U. 21. Three possible explanations for this come to mind, the first being that PD. 98 was put in place, U. 26 was then laid up to it, followed by construction of the stairs above the problematical deposit to a new, higher floor represented by U. 28. Against this possibility is the presence of Tulix (Imix contemporary) censers in PD. 103, sealed beneath the fill of U. 28. The dates for Bu. 132 and Ca. 161 (discussed in parts III and IV) are consistent with one another, but not with PD. 103, suggesting that U. 28 is a later construction than U. 26. Another objection is that interments related to the old Bu. 160 axis all are associated with some modification of Str. 7F-30. Burial 150, which is related to that axis, clearly postdates Bu. 132 and predates Bu. 190 and 191. The only construction to which this burial can be connected is one of which U. 28 was a part, an interpretation consistent with stratigraphy as well as the dates for Bu. 150 and PD. 103.

A second, more likely possibility is that U. 26 originally ran all the way to U. 21, where U. 22 and U. 23 continued its surface eastward. Thus, 7F-30-3rd represented a widening to the W of 4th, making the structure less elongate. Later (when 2nd was built) PD. 98 was intruded into U. 26 over the old Bu. 132, destroying floor continuity. In favor of this is the elevation of U. 26 (precisely that of U. 22), an apparent “chop-line” beneath the problematical deposit, and the evidence just noted against the first possibility. Although the problematical deposit does contain a broken Ik vessel (Imix ceramic production had begun by the time 3rd was abandoned), Bu. 150, which marks replacement of 3rd by 2nd, contains Ik as well as Imix pottery (see also discussion of PD. 98).

A third and final possibility is that U. 26 is the surface of a deep landing that ran from the top of a stairway to a building wall, to which it turned up. Later, when 2nd replaced 3rd, the building was torn down, leaving a gap between the inside and outside floors where the wall had been. Problematical Deposit 98 was then placed in this gap, to be covered by fill for stairs leading up to U. 28. Lacking further evidence, a choice cannot be made between these last two interpretations.

Consequently, Str. 7F-30-3rd almost surely represents an enlargement to the W of 4th, portions of which (U. 22, 23, and 24 in the deep trench and the E wall) continued in use as parts of the new structure. Given reuse of older walls and floor E of the juncture of U. 22 and 26, logic requires that the N and S walls of 4th were augmented by extensions to the W (consistent with that of U. 26 W of U. 22). There is, however, no proof for this. The N tunnel did not probe above Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, and as seen in the trench through Str. 7F-31 (Fig. 11), the later construction of that structure would have destroyed evidence for 7F-30-3rd (worth noting, though, is a break in Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 just about where one would expect a front wall for Str. 7F-30-3rd to have been ripped out; see Fig. 7 and 8:59).

Nothing certain is known about the front wall and stairs of 7F-30-3rd, but since its N, E, and S faces seem to have been “terraced” (as was true for 4th), its front may have been as well. Also reasonable is the supposition that the front stairs were as wide as those for 4th, although those for the succeeding 2nd (U. 27) were considerably narrower. It may be, though, that U. 27 represents not a new stairway for 2nd, but the stairway for 3rd, later altered by the removal of its southern 3 m, when a new S wall was provided for 2nd. In favor of this is the fact that it looks very much (in Fig. 10) as if U. 27 was built in conjunction with placement of fill for 7F-30-3rd behind it. Given the state of ruin of the steps, this is not conclusive, but it is consistent with the presence of Ca. 161 directly beneath the lowest surviving step of U. 27 (there is no evidence for its intrusion). The cache belongs to the Uz Offertory Assemblage (TR. 27A:20), which is noteworthy considering that the eccentric flints and obsidians in Bu. 132 are appropriate for Uz offerings. Apparently, Ca. 161 was placed during construction of 3rd, but if the stairway for 3rd had been torn out to be replaced by U. 27 (when 2nd was built), it is hard to see how the offering could escape being disturbed. Yet, there is no evidence for such disturbance.

One objection to U. 27 being part of a stairway for 3rd is that its bottom step rests on fill 0.38 m above the plaza pavement that served 3rd. This can be countered, though, by the argument that there once existed a lower step, which was removed when the plaza was given its final surface. Consistent with this, Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 was totally removed over a wide area in front of Str. 7F-30, including where such a step would have been, when the final floor was laid. Moreover, if one assumes that the lowest two stair risers were the same height as the known height of the third riser, and that the tread of the lowest step was a few centimeters below the base of the next stair block (just as the lowest surviving tread of U. 27 is below the base of the next block up), then the reconstructed bottom step fits perfectly between U. 27 and Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1.

To sum up, the work that produced Str. 7F-30-3rd seems to have resulted in a structure much like the one that preceded it, although it was less long and narrow (cf. Fig. 6 and 7). As with the preceding structure, the burial axis included a cache placed W of the interment. The following construction stages may be tentatively defined: CS. 3 for partial demolition of 4th; CS. 2 for placement of Bu. 132, Ca. 161, and construction of the western extension; CS. 1 for reconstruction of whatever building stood on top of the substructure.

STRUCTURE 7F-30-2ND

Evidence from the deep trench suggests that construction began with the partial demolition of the earlier 3rd and intrusion of Bu. 150 through 3rd (actually, the floor and fill of 4th that served 3rd as well; Fig. 8). Operations (CS. 4) ended with the placement of PD. 98 and 103, which, to judge by their high ash and charcoal content, not to mention the heavily burned appearance of U. 22 between the two, were connected with a single ceremonial event. Implied is ritual activity similar to that noted between construction stages of Str. 5D-33-1st (TR. 14:529–533, 545, and 549), which was roughly coeval with 7F-30-2nd. As already noted (see 7F-30-3rd), this event took place at a time when Ik pottery was still available, even though Imix production had begun (see discussion of Bu. 150), explaining the seeming anomaly of an Ik vessel in PD. 98 and Tulix (Imix contemporary) censers in PD. 103. With their ceremonial concerns satisfied for the moment, the Maya began (as CS. 3) to pile mixed earth and rubble over U. 22 and its exposed fill E of Bu. 140 and 150. This was built up in a series of three layers at the same time that a rough wall (U. 29) was installed to retain it on the W. Presumably, courses were added to the existing E wall (represented by U. 23) for the same purpose, and to serve as finished rear facing. Supporting this interpretation is a line E of which the structure fills have collapsed, continuous from U. 28 down to the surviving basal course of U. 23. Had a new wall been built farther E, say, extending U. 6 upwards, the old U. 23 would have been buried inside the fill of 2nd. When 7F-30 later fell into ruin, one would expect to see more of U. 23 surviving, with some more recent fill evident just E of it (similar to the fill of 7F-30-4th E of U. 19). Instead, it looks as if U. 23 “peeled off,” with some of its fill then following.

When CS. 3 reached the top of U. 29, there was further extensive burning (on top of the third layer of fill) suggestive of another round of ceremonial activity. Then (as CS. 2) the top layer of fill was put in place, retained on the W by a finished, one-course wall (U. 30). Evidently an upper riser, U. 30 is the sole survivor of a stairway that, for unknown reasons, was later destroyed. A reasonable reconstruction is that there were three steps leading to U. 30 from U. 26, which continued to serve now as a pavement for a lower building platform level in front of the upper one. Assumed is that these stairs were as wide as those that led up to U. 26 from Plat. 7F-1.

Following CS. 2, there seems to have been a third round of ritual activity, manifest by signs of extensive burning on the material over which a new floor, U. 28, was to be laid. Thus, this pavement appears to mark another construction stage, rather than termination of CS. 2, which is, therefore, probably associated with a building (unfortunately, evidence either for or against such an edifice is lacking). Since the front edge of U. 28 falls short of the front of 7F-30-3rd, a return of the building to the long (N to S), narrow (E to W) proportions of old 4th might be suggested. On the other hand, Bu. 159, initial and dedicatory to Str. 7F-31-2nd, appears to be contemporary with Bu. 150. Implied is contemporaneity of 31-2nd with 30-2nd, in which case the length of the latter was reduced relative to 3rd. So the relative proportions of 3rd were likely retained in 2nd.

Beyond the deep trench, the N substructure wall, and front wall N of the stairway, probably remained much as before. Consistent is continued use of U. 23 in the E wall, continued use of Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 (and possibly U. 6), and configuration of the ruin mound for Str. 7F-30. The only difference between 2nd and its predecessor N of the stairway seems to have been the addition of the higher platform level. By contrast, the southern portion of 7F-30 was changed considerably, owing to construction of 31-2nd (cf. Fig. 7 and 8). Therefore, the S face of 30-2nd was built considerably N of the S end of 3rd (on the basis of information about 7F-31, the location of the S wall of 30-2nd can be located with reasonable confidence, as in Fig. 8). With such radical shortening of 30-2nd, its stairway (U. 27, retained from 3rd) was probably reduced in width to maintain the symmetry of its axial placement. Thus, the 4 m N-S dimension of U. 27, as reused in 30-1st, probably was realized with construction of 2nd. Given this dimension, U. 26 and 30 are approximately the same length S of the stairs as they are to the N.

A result of the shortening of 30-2nd was elimination of its supplementary platform on the S (retention here would have blocked access to the stairs of 31-2nd). Assumed is that the supplementary platform was retained on the N, E, and W faces of 30-2nd, although excavation was not carried out to confirm or refute this.

STRUCTURE 7F-30-1ST-C

As a last major modification, the Maya increased the height of 7F-30 by 1.30 m. For this, they piled fill on top of U. 28, over which they laid a plaster floor (U. 31), mere traces of which now survive (Fig. 9 and 10:37). For access, seven or so new steps (U. 32) were added to the top of existing U. 27, although these are now so badly ruined that broken masonry is all that remains. Before these upper stairs were built, those leading to the top of 2nd were torn out, and so, at least two construction stages may be defined, the earliest (CS. 3) for partial demolition of 2nd and a later one (CS. 2) for construction of U. 31 and 32. The presence of deep debris E of the structure, and an abundance of modeled stucco all over the surface of the ruin mound, point to the existence of some sort of building as part of Str. 7F-30-1st-C, and for its construction, CS. 1 is proposed.

It is likely that, as part of CS. 3, the basal step of U. 27 was removed. (Reasons for supposing that such a step once existed have already been given.) That it was removed at this rather than some other time is suggested by the presently observable relationship between Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1 and U. 27, lack of a burial in the fill of Str. 7F-30-1st-C on the Bu. 160 axis, and the presence in front of 1st-C of Bu. 190 and 191, which flank that axis. These burials were intruded through Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, most probably when Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1 was laid (consistent are the dates for that surface and the burials). Since the interments flank the Bu. 160 axis, they may be regarded as the missing ones for Str. 7F-30-1st-C. Thus, it appears as if the burials were put in place, the bottom step of U. 27 was removed with Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, and the final pavement was laid to turn up to the base of what used to be the second step of U. 27.

Owing to exceedingly poor preservation of 7F-30-1st-C, an overall reconstruction has to be almost purely speculative. The one presented in Fig. 9 is conservative, in the assumption that, where possible, older substructure walls continued to be used in the new substructure. This is consistent with the overall configuration of the ruin mound, established earlier practices, and the little that is known of Str. 7F-31-1st. Also assumed is that, where not buried beneath U. 32, part of U. 26 continued to serve as a supplementary platform surface in front of the building platform of 1st-C. Possibly, though, U. 26 was removed where it was not to be covered by the stair fill, in which case the surface it represents was eliminated.

STRUCTURE 7F-30-1ST-B

The distinctly minor modification seen in 1st-B consists of U. 33, which is an addition to the bottom step of the U. 27 stairway (Fig. 10). Exposed in the original excavations of St. 23 (Table 1.1 and TR. 2:28, 36), Coe and Broman assumed that the entire stairway postdated Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1, on which U. 33 rests. As it turns out, U. 33 was a later addition that increased the depth of the lowest tread to 0.85 m. A secondary turnup to it from Fl. 1 can be seen.

STRUCTURE 7F-30-1ST-A

Defining this structure is a small platform, U. 34 (Fig. 9), added onto the base of the stairway on Fl. 1 of Plat. 7F-1-1st, on Str. 7F-30:U. 33, and on the lowest two steps of U. 27 (Fig. 10). Within its fill were several smashed censers, PD. 100. Excavated in 1957 by Coe and Broman, it is adequately described in TR. 2 (pp. 28 and 36–38; Table 1.1 herein).

Structure 7F-31

The only excavation of 7F-31, a small, squarish structure built against the S side of Str. 7F-30, was a trench through its front-rear axis, and a probe along the N side of its W wall (see Fig. 8, 9, and 11). Although few details are known, these, coupled with inferences from mound configuration and reconstructions of Str. 7F-30, permit a general understanding of the structure (see Table 2.3).

STRUCTURE 7F-31-2ND

Evidence from the axial trench shows that construction of 7F-31-2nd was preceded by partial destruction of Str. 7F-30-3rd (as CS. 3), which evidently extended this far S (Fig. 7). Apparently, the W fill, floors, and walls of 3rd were completely stripped back to Str. 7F-30:U. 25 (the front wall of the supplementary platform for 4th). In the process, the top of U. 25 (along with whatever floor existed behind it), the wall of the building platform of 4th, Str. 7F-30:U. 22, 23, and 24, and some of their fills were removed. Into what remained, a grave was dug for Bu. 159, the shaft of which was subsequently filled and sealed by a thin stratum of small stones (Str. 7F-31:U. 3).

As CS. 2, a substructure wall (U. 1) was installed against the E face of fill for Str. 7F-30-4th. Built of well-dressed, rectangular blocks of stone, how high this stood is unknown, for its top has since collapsed. Suspected is that one course of masonry is missing, placing a substructure pavement that is no longer present just above U. 3. The latter would have served above the burial fill as a foundation for a plaster surface. This reconstruction accords reasonably well with what is known of the stairway for 7F-31-2nd, and places the summit of 2nd about 0.35 m below that of the lower level of the 30-2nd building platform (as seen in the deep trench, Fig. 10).

West of Bu. 159, medium-brown earth was dumped over what survived of Str. 7F-30-4th fill (Fig. 11:7). Although the later intrusion of Bu. 193 had disrupted the stratigraphy, it is probable that the packed gray earth fill for the stairs (U. 2) was piled up against this fill; the stairs themselves were built on Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 (beneath the stair fill, this joins Plat. 7F-3:U. 8). A projection upwards of the average tread and riser measurements of the surviving five steps that were not destroyed by intrusion of Bu. 193 accords reasonably well with the reconstructed elevation for the substructure floor, discussed above. Moreover, the juncture occurs in line with the later front wall of Str. 7F-31-1st. Since U. 1 was probably reused in that structure, the location of the front walls may have been about the same for the earlier one. In short, the reconstruction of Str. 7F-31-2nd up to this point is fairly secure.

Excavations did not encounter the N and S walls of U. 2 so there is no certainty about its width. In Fig. 8, it is reconstructed as being the same width as the stairway for Str. 7F-31-1st, making it about as wide relative to the N-S dimension of the structure as U. 27 is relative to the same dimension of the building platform for 7F-30-2nd. A reconstruction of the N and S faces of the structure is somewhat problematical (Fig. 8:63, 64). Since the E wall of 2nd seems to have been reused for 1st, the N and S walls may have been as well. It also appears that the location of the W face of 2nd was the same as that of 1st. Given all this, it is reasonable to project the reconstruction of 1st backwards to 2nd; moreover, it conforms well with a reconstruction of a building platform for Str. 7F-30-2nd that is symmetrical relative to its stairway. Worth noting, too, is that the posited location of the S end of 7F-31-2nd is virtually the same as the S end of the supplementary platform for Str. 7F-30-3rd and 4th (Fig. 7:56). Thus, it is possible that a portion of that wall, rather than being demolished, was incorporated into the new wall for Str. 7F-31-2nd; alternatively, the new wall for 7F-31-2nd could have been laid up against fill for Str. 7F-30-4th (as was done with Str. 7F-31:U. 1).

In sum, Str. 7F-31-2nd appears to have been roughly square in shape, and considerably smaller and lower than Str. 7F-30-2nd, which it abutted. Assumed is that some sort of building stood on its platform as was true of 1st; a final construction stage (CS. 1) is proposed for its construction.

STRUCTURE 7F-31-1ST-B

This structure is somewhat of an enigma, so far as its top is concerned, but its substructure can be reconstructed with a fair measure of confidence (Fig. 9). Work began with the partial demolition of 2nd (CS. 3), including removal of the substructure floor, and all but five of the U. 2 stairs (see Fig. 11). This demolition seems to have been specifically for the intrusion of Bu. 193 through stairway fill, and into the old Plat. 7F-3:U. 8. Following this, the burial shaft was filled with gray-colored earth, similar to that originally used for U. 2, mixed with blocks of masonry. The same material dug out for the grave was probably replaced, along with the stair masonry. New steps (U. 4) were then built directly over the old ones (CS. 2). Of these, only five now remain, but they once rose a total of 2.22 m above Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, on which they were built. Beginning at this elevation, but 1.20 m E of the final riser of U. 4, is another stairway, U. 7, consisting of four steps. These lead to an elevation 1.00 m above the top of U. 4. It appears, then, that U. 4 led to some sort of a “landing,” and that the substructure floor was higher, possibly at the elevation of the uppermost step of U. 7. No pavement survives, however, and it is possible that U. 7 rose higher, the uppermost steps having since been destroyed. If so, the substructure summit would have been quite small, and so this possibility seems remote. There is no evidence that Str. 7F-31-1st-B was served by a new rear wall; more likely, U. 1 was built upwards to the new floor level. This is at least consistent with the configuration of the ruin mound, and no trace of another wall was found.

Enigmatic are two walls, U. 5 and 6, exposed N of the stairway. Unit 5 is of a single course, built on about the same level as the “landing” between U. 4 and 7. Unit 6 was built immediately behind it, at the same elevation as the top of U. 5. Unit 6 now stands 1.20 m in height, probably not far from its full original height, for it seems too thin to have supported much above what survives. Perhaps the stone (Fig. 11:12) on the top of U. 4 is the now-fallen top course. Evidently, then, U. 4 led to a doorway in U. 5 and 6, with U. 7 continuing up inside these walls. Similar recessed stairs may be seen in structures W of 5C-54 in the “Lost World” Group.

TABLE 2.3

Structure 7F-31: Time Spans

There are two possibilities for U. 5 and 6: either they represent the front of an upper platform for 1st, into which the U. 7 stairs were inset, or else they represent the wall (possibly base-wall) for a building. The second alternative is favored for three reasons: (1) The relationship between U. 5 and 6 is suggestive of a building wall with plinth, albeit a large one (cf. Str. 7F-29-1st:Fig. 2); (2) There is no evidence that U. 7 ever rose as high as the top of U. 6; (3) Large blocks of masonry above the reconstructed floor level for 1st (Fig. 11:13) suggest masonry fallen from building walls onto accumulating debris over such a surface. Thus, a final construction stage (CS. 1) is proposed for erection of such a building, probably partially of pole-and-thatch, given absence of vault stones and the thinness of U. 6.

Units 5 and 6 were followed northwards for a distance of 2.08 m from the doorway, at which point there seems to be a corner (expectable if the building platforms for Str. 7F-30-2nd and 1st were basically symmetrical; see Fig. 9). Assumed is that counterparts to U. 5 and 6 ran S of the doorway about the same distance, a hypothesis that accords nicely with the configuration of the ruin mound. The width of the stairs (U. 4) is reconstructed on the assumption that they were as wide relative to the structure as are the stairs to the building platform of Str. 7F-30-2nd and 1st. This seems to fit well with the presumed width of the structure doorway.

STRUCTURE 7F-31-1ST-A

This modification of Str. 7F-31-1st is nearly irrelevant; it was caused by the laying of Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1, which eliminated the bottom step of the U. 4 stairway.

Structure 7F-32

This is a range-type structure of four rooms on the S edge of Plat. 7F-1; as Op. 3G, three of its rooms (2, 3, and 4) were completely cleared, along with the major portion of the fourth (Rm. 1; Fig. 12–16). The substructure was tunneled along its front-rear axis down to base surface (Fig. 17); the bottom of its N wall was followed to its W end (Fig. 12), and supplementary probes revealed further details. Although Str. 7F-32 underwent numerous modifications, only two full-scale architectural developments have been defined (Table 2.4; see below).

STRUCTURE 7F-32-2ND-C

In its original form, 7F-32 was a large, range-type structure that faced S (Fig. 12). On the basis of the excavations through the centerline, construction may be divided minimally into four stages, although the size of the building platform suggests that it must have been erected in several parts. The first one known (CS. 4) saw a wall built on Plat 7F-1:U. 3, about 6.50 m N of the S edge of that floor; as masonry work proceeded, debris was dumped behind it (Fig. 17:21), ensuring its stability. To retain this fill on the S, a rough wall (U. 1), battered like the N one, was laid up 1.20 m S of the edge of Plat. 7F-1:U. 3 (Fig. 17). A major pause-line may be seen in the fill just over 1 m above the plaza floor level (Fig. 17:24), and two minor ones may also be seen (Fig. 17:22, 23).

To complete the building platform (CS. 3), workers piled up fill S of U. 1, widening the platform in that direction, and providing a base for the stairway. Little is known of this stairway, owing to its extremely poor preservation, but it may have been no wider than the doorway to which it led (see Fig. 17:25). It appears that, as each step was constructed, a layer of mortar for the tread was laid over fill, masonry for the next riser up was then set on this, following which the mortar in front was smoothed to provide a finished surface. The top three treads are quite narrow with low risers, while the two below were higher, with deeper treads. Perhaps the original stairway was subsequently rebuilt, and the original steps were all low with shallow treads (see discussion of 1st).

Excavations exposed portions of the N, E, and W building platform walls; the one on the N has a large center outset of 9 cm, with an apron molding 0.80 m above the surface of Plat. 7F-1:U. 3. On either side of this is a basal molding, 0.48 m in height and 0.09 m deep, from which the wall rises to an apron molding 0.93 m above Plat. 7F-1:U. 3. These moldings probably turn the corners onto the E and W faces, but there has been no excavation to confirm this. Each end wall does seem to have a center outset, though, so it is likely that they were smaller versions of the rear one. All these walls were battered, and were constructed of large, roughly shaped blocks of various sizes that were given a heavy coat of plaster. At the spring of the apron, masonry was installed as headers deep into the fill (Fig. 17).

The last act of CS. 3 was to pave over the entire top of the building platform (Fl. 1 of 2nd, described in Fig. 12). Although the N platform wall is as high as this floor, the E (and presumably the W) end wall is not; there, the floor drops 0.39 m to a lower level, which runs out 0.42 m to the wall top (Fig. 12:4). On the S is a plaster surface 1.30 m deep 19 m below the floor in Rm. 1 (Fig. 17:4). The wall at which this ends on the N was set into the pavement mortar, which was then smoothed off in front (similar to stair construction, as described above).

As CS. 2, a building was erected on Fl. 1 of 2nd, the N and S walls about 0.30 m in from the edge of the substructure. The E (and probably W) walls were set on the very edge of this pavement, but there was an exposed ledge at a lower level just outside (see above). The building itself has two large rectangular rooms, tandemly placed, with their long axis running E-W; a smaller rectangular room is located at each end. Thus, the outside walls form a rectangle, and the partition an “I” shape. This same arrangement of rooms is seen in the Early Classic Str. SE-423 at Navahuelal, and the lower story of Str. 5D-46 at Tikal (also Early Classic). Each room of 32-2nd has a centrally placed doorway to the outside, even though the only steps were on the S, but from Rm. 1 (the S one), small vaulted doorways gave access to Rm. 2 on the W and Rm. 3 on the N (Fig. 19 and 39b–d). Similar doorways connected Rooms 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 (Fig. 41a, 42a); Rm. 2 and 3, then, could be entered directly from Rm. 1, but Rm. 4 could be entered only via Rm. 3.

Used in building wall construction was a veneer of small stones, irregular in shape and size, which were given a heavy coat of plaster. This turns down onto the floor of the building platform. In Rm. 1, a small vent at floor level penetrates the S wall near its W end (Fig. 12:6), with perhaps another one to match it on the E. At a height of 2.70 m, the walls were topped by specially shaped spring stones (Fig. 17:26) installed as stretchers, above which vaults were built for each room (as CS. 1). These vaults have long since collapsed completely, but the stones were shaped into long, thin headers with bevels averaging an angle of 112 degrees.

There is evidence that the plaster of room walls and floors was painted red. This was particularly prominent in Rm. 1, where red paint was seen on the plaster of Fl. 1 of 2nd and the walls where they were protected by later construction. In addition, there were burned patches on Fl. 1 of 2nd in the W end of Rm. 3, and in Rm. 4 near its outside doorway.

STRUCTURE 7F-32-2ND-A AND B

Structure 7F-32-2nd underwent two minor modifications, the first of which was the walling up of the doorway between Rm. 1 and 3 (Fig. 12:7 and 39b,c). The masonry used for this duplicates that of the building walls, so perhaps this took place not long after construction of 1st-C. It rests directly on Fl. 1 of 2nd and, in Rm. 3, rises without a break to the top of the doorway. In Rm. 1, however, there is a square niche 0.40 m deep and 1.30 m above Fl. 1 of 2nd (see Fig. 19a:1; 39c and 40a). Both faces of the doorway masonry were plastered.

Later, an interior platform (U. 3) was built in the NW corner of Rm. 1 against the masonry in the doorway. Based on Fl. 1 of 2nd, from which there is a secondary turnup (Fig. 12 and 19a), its walls abut those of the building. Although the top of U. 3 was paved, this was torn out in the course of later construction.

STRUCTURE 7F-32-1ST

The only major modification of 7F-32 seems to have come after an extended period of use, judging from the amount of debris that accumulated against its N wall (Fig. 17:30, 31). Actually, there were several alterations, which are best to examine room by room, following discussion of external changes. The discussion will conclude with a “summing up” of the sequence of events.

With the addition of a stairway along its N side, a major change was effected in structure orientation; previously, it could be entered only from the S but now it could be entered directly from Plat. 7F-1 (Fig. 16). For this, a series of broad, deep steps were built, the end walls of which abut the old N face of 2nd, concealing all but 0.75 m of the original wall at either end. The masonry used for this construction consists for the most part of well-dressed rectangular blocks installed as stretchers and is quite different from that of the earlier walls, including that which seals the doorway between Rm. 1 and 3, or that of U. 3. At least three steps were built, leading up from the level of Fl. 1 of Plat. 7F-1-1st. A wall (U. 2) found beneath that plaza pavement, parallel to and 1 m N of the first riser from Fl. 1 (Fig. 17), suggests the presence of a lower step, however. This had the same tread depth as the others, and was later covered by a new floor. It could have been associated with Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, and indeed, there is a break in the fill beneath the stairway at about the level of this plaza surface. Thus, three broad steps seem to have led up from Fl. 1 of Plat. 7F-1-2nd; beneath them is a primary midden that probably was leveled off (at the elevation of Fl. 1 of Plat. 7F-1-2nd) to allow their construction. Structure 7F-32:Unit 2 was evidently based on this, and gray earth was dumped behind it to serve as fill. As the next two risers were set in place, gray earth and rubble were loaded in behind them against the old structure wall. Plaster surfaces, long since destroyed, were undoubtedly provided for the treads, and the top one is thought to have abutted the leading edge of the original platform, which served as an upper riser. There is no evidence that a new room floor was laid.

A limited test by the W wall of the building platform (Fig. 18a) seems to indicate that broad, deep steps were constructed against the structure in a manner similar to those on the N (probably at the same time). Preservation was poor in this area, but U. 4 and 5, a wall and floor remnant respectively, suggest a step with a tread 2 m deep built against the original end wall of the building platform. Above this tread, that wall may have continued to serve as another riser with the original end plinth as a top step. Later on, another wall (U. 6) extended the lower step by 0.44 m, and a new floor (U. 7) was laid above U. 5, which was partially demolished at the time. Still later, a riser (U. 8) was built on U. 7, extending the tread depth of the upper step beyond that of the old end plinth.

A probe along the E face of the building platform disclosed some slight evidence of another outside stairway (Fig. 16), in the form of a wall (U. 9) that abuts the building platform on the N end of its central outset. Because post-abandonment destruction was extensive in this area, there were no other remains. Since the later surface of Plat. 7F-1 apparently did not extend this far S, and since stairways were added onto the N and W of the structure, it is fairly certain that U. 9 represents the N end of one that was added onto the E.

It is not known if there were changes to the S exterior of 7F-32, but the S stairway may have been altered, for the construction of the basal steps seems different from those above (Fig. 17). Perhaps deeper and higher steps were built over the original ones; if so, the more recent upper steps have left no traces. Considerable excavation would be required to verify this suggestion.

Room 1 was the only one of 7F-32 that was not completely excavated, but even so a sequence of at least three modifications is apparent. As the first (Fig. 13 and 19a), two new interior platforms were built, one expanding existing U. 3 in the W end of the room (U. 10) and one in the center rear (U. 11). For U. 10, the E wall of U. 3 was extended all the way to abut the S room wall. The doorway into Rm. 2 was eliminated at this time (Fig. 39d); above U. 10, all but the uppermost 0.50 m or so is blocked by masonry, but below, the stone and sherd fill of U. 10 extends into the doorway. Construction of U. 10 terminated with removal of the original pavement of U. 3 and the laying of a new one on the enlarged platform.

Also built on Fl. 1 of 2nd was U. 11, and like the contemporary interior platforms of Rm. 1 and 4 of Str. 7F-29, it had a cornice. Retained by its walls is a fill of stones of assorted sizes, over which was laid plaster paving that abuts the building wall and the top of U. 11. The total length of U. 11 is unknown (its E end was not excavated), but it was evidently rectangular.

With U. 10 and 11 in place, Fl. 1 of 1st was laid in Rm. 1, directly over Fl. 1 of 2nd. This new pavement, which averages 6 cm in thickness, turns up to the S building wall, U. 10 and 11, and the N wall between these two platforms (Fig. 17 and 19a).

The second alteration in Rm. 1 saw replacement of U. 10 by a new room-end interior platform (U. 12) and conversion of U. 11 into a thronelike “bench” (Fig. 14 and 19a). Following partial demolition of U. 10, a new N-S wall 4 cm higher than the old one was built 0.60 m farther E, on Fl. 1 of 1st. The space between the old and new platform faces was then filled, and the new enlarged platform was paved. On U. 11, a wall 0.34 m thick at its base, vertical on its W side but sloped on the other, was put up on the W end of the existing platform, which (assuming a comparable wall on the E end) gave it its thronelike appearance. Floor 1 of 1st was given a secondary turnup to both U. 11 and 12.

As a last alteration in Rm. 1, U. 11 and 12 lost their separate identities to be incorporated into a single large and complex interior platform, U. 13 (Fig. 15 and 20a). From the face of U. 12, a new wall was built on Fl. 1 of 1st—patched to turn up to it—that runs eastward 0.24 m in front of the E-W wall of U. 11. Behind this new wall the Maya placed a distinctive mixture of sherds and small stones, which they then covered with a plaster surface 0.16 m thick. This pavement also covers U. 12 fill (its floor having been torn out), and runs 2.10 m E of the W wall of the room, whereupon it turns up and over a vertical wall 1 m thick, and then down to join the sloping surface of the old raised end wall of U. 11 (Fig. 19a and 40d; the old floor of U. 11 was extended out to the new E-W wall of U. 13). It is likely that a similar pavement in the unexcavated portion of Rm. 1 matched this raised area of the platform.

At this time, or perhaps previously when U. 12 was built, two ceramic inserts were placed in the N wall of the room (Fig. 19a:U. 14 and 15 and Fig. 39b,c, 40b,c). The smaller of the two, U. 14, is located 0.84 m E of the W wall, 0.55 m above the surface of U. 13. Unit 15, the larger, is located 1.67 m E and 0.59 m above the surface of U. 13. Their placement raises questions as to their purpose. Did they support a wall hanging between them? Or were there at one time matching inserts in the now-collapsed opposite wall so that a curtain could be hung along the front of U. 10, and later, U. 12? Ceramic analysis indicates contemporaneity between these and the fill sherds of U. 12 and 13. Both were specially made, rather than recycled jar necks, and one is illustrated in TR. 27A (fig. 149b). Interestingly, no ceramic inserts were found near any outside doorway of 7F-32.

Five modifications of Rm. 2 are evident, the first being the closing of the doorway to Rm. 1, discussed above. That this predates by some time the construction of U. 17, the second modification, is indicated by the finished door masonry that extends all the way down to Fl. 1 of 2nd. Probably at the same time, but perhaps earlier, U. 16 (Fig. 13) came into being in the NW corner of the room. This small interior platform was also built on Fl. 1 of 2nd, of a bricklike masonry; patchwork around the base of U. 16 produced a secondary turnup from the floor. The fill of the new platform consisted of earth and some sherds, and the surface pavement was largely destroyed.

The third alteration was construction of a room-end interior platform (U. 17) in the S portion of Rm. 2 (Fig. 13 and 19c). The wall for this, based on Fl. 1 of 2nd, was given a batter and abuts the E and W room walls. Ultimately, U. 17 was partly demolished, followed by enlargement of the S room-end platform (U. 18), built over the remains of the older one (Fig. 14 and 19c). For this, new facing masonry was placed on Fl. 1 of 2nd, abutting the E and W building walls. A fill of stone and lime was dumped behind this and over the remnant of U. 17, all of which was covered by a floor 0.10 m thick.

A fourth modification was to close off the doorway to Rm. 3 (Fig. 15, and see below), at which time a new pavement was laid in Rm. 2 (Fig. 19c,d: Fl. 2 of 1st). This turns up to U. 16 and (apparently) 18, as well as the masonry that closed the doorway. In preparation for this paving, Fl. 1 of 2nd was extensively roughened, apparently to produce a firmer bond with the new one. Perhaps at this time U. 6 and 7 were constructed outside the room. It was sometime later, though, that the S wall of U. 16 (Fig. 14) was extended to the E to produce a room-end interior platform (U. 19:Fig. 15). Part of this new masonry was based on Fl. 2 (Fig. 19c) that was, however, ripped out S of U. 16 (except for patches by U. 18). Unit 19 abuts the E building wall and U. 16; earth fill was placed behind it and pavement 5 cm thick was laid over the whole new platform (at some point in this process, the old floor of U. 16 was largely destroyed). Floor 1 of 1st, laid between U. 18 and 19 (Fig. 19c), completed this last remodeling of Rm. 2.

Changes in Rm. 3 began with construction of an interior platform (U. 20) against the center of the back wall (Fig. 13, 14, 41a). All that survives of the platform is its W end abutting the S room wall. Its walls rest on Fl. 1 of 2nd, from which there is a secondary turnup. The shape of U. 20 was unusual, in that it has an inset in the center of its W end, 0.50 m deep and 0.35 m wide. Presumably, it had a matching inset in its E end, but the Maya demolished this when they built U. 22.

The next modification of Rm. 3 saw creation of a new interior platform (U. 21) in the W end of the room, at which time the doorway to Rm. 2 was closed off (Fig. 15 and 41b,c). The face for U. 21 (Fig. 41d) was built of large blocks of masonry, with spalls, on Fl. 1 of 2nd (which had been extensively burned here) with a secondary turnup from that floor (Fig. 19e). A mixture of large stone blocks with what appeared to be habitation debris (abundant carbon and sherds) was placed behind this wall. This was prevented from spilling into Rm. 2 by the large masonry with spalls that the Maya used to seal the doorway. On the Rm. 2 side, this masonry rises from Fl. 1 of 2nd, while on the Rm. 3 side, it extends up from the top of U. 21 (Fig. 41c). Near the top in Rm. 3 (2 m above Fl. 1 of 2nd), a vent was left, although this was later plugged with a single stone (Fig. 41a,b). Unit 21 was finished off with a plaster surface, 7 cm thick, which abuts the room walls, the masonry in the old doorway to Rm. 1, and the base of the masonry in the doorway to Rm. 2.

The next addition to Rm. 3 was another interior platform, U. 22, built on Fl. 1 of 2nd against the center of the back wall (Fig. 17, 18). Serving as fill for U. 22 was a remnant of the largely demolished U. 20 along with light-colored earth and stones, all of which were covered by a plaster surface that abuts the building wall behind. The room floor was also repaved, its new surface (Fl. 1 of 1st) abutting the walls of both U. 21 (Fig. 19e) and 22. To bring the uppermost riser of the N stairs up to the level of this new floor (0.10 m above the old one), new masonry was set into Fl. 1 of 2nd just outside the door. Ultimately Fl. 1 of 1st was extensively burned N and E of U. 22.

Two other interior platforms were eventually built in Rm. 3 (Fig. 16), one of which, U. 23, joined together the surfaces of U. 21 and 22 into a single, L-shaped platform (Fig. 15), the main portion of which completely filled the W half of the room (Fig. 41b). The new facing for U. 23, based on Fl. 1 of 1st, runs from the W jamb of the outside door to abut the front wall of U. 22. It retains an earth fill, which was covered by a plaster floor 6 cm in thickness. The other interior platform (U. 24), similarly constructed on Fl. 1 of 1st, occupies the E end of Rm. 3 (Fig. 16). Its front abuts the N and S room walls and retains earth fill, over which a plaster surface (7 cm thick) was laid to abut the top of a wall filling the lower portion of the doorway to Rm. 4 (see below). Left was a raised threshold 0.09 m high and 0.24 m wide (Fig. 16:9). Thus, the doorway continued in use as a crawlway between the rooms (Fig. 19f, 42b). Traces of burning were apparent over all the S half of the platform pavement.

In Rm. 4, the sequence of alterations is much simpler than in any of the others. Here, a large L-shaped interior platform (U. 25) was built on Fl. 1 of 2nd (Fig. 13–16), filling the N 1.71 m, and the back 1.15 m of the room. Its face abuts the S and E building walls, and there is a secondary turnup from Fl. 1. Earth fill was placed behind the wall of U. 25, retained in the doorway to Rm. 3 by masonry 0.24 m in thickness and 0.79 m in height (Fig. 13:9, 19f, and 42c). This wall was built of large rectangular blocks, with interstices chinked with small stones, and located on the surface of Fl. 1 of 2nd, even with the face of the building wall in Rm. 3. A coat of plaster covered this exposed face in Rm. 3. The N end of U. 25 was built up to a height of 0.78 m and covered with plaster 0.10 m in thickness, leaving the previously noted low threshold in the doorway to Rm. 3. The central 2.07 m of U. 25 was lower than the N end (only 0.37 m high), and its pavement, 0.03 m in thickness, turned up to the higher N portion, as well as a matching high portion on the S (Fig. 19b).

The only other change in Rm. 4 was the construction of U. 26, an addition to U. 25 that filled in the rest of the S room end (Fig. 16). The front of U. 26 was built on Fl. 1 of 2nd, and against the high E face of the S portion of U. 25. The height of U. 26 is unknown, as only the lowest 0.20 m survived.

Correlation of these various additions and alterations is difficult to make. Nonetheless, there are certain points of reference, and ceramic analysis offers further aid. Construction of the E stairway, the earliest N and W stairways, and renovation of the S stairway are thought to have taken place at a single time, probably along with closure of the doorway between Rm. 1 and 2, and restriction of that between Rm. 3 and 4 (with the construction of U. 25 in Rm. 4). Consistent is the somewhat slim ceramic evidence available (Table 5.1; see below), and certainly elimination of the doorway between Rm. 1 and 2 (that between Rm. 2 and 3 was previously blocked) would have required other stairways than the existing one on the S. It would not be illogical to have built all stairways at this time, although this clearly is not proof that this was done. The N stairway alone could have sufficed.

Closure of the doorway between Rm. 2 and 3, and construction of U. 21 in Rm. 3 surely took place at a single time. Equally certain is that this postdated construction of U. 17 and 18 in Rm. 2, U. 12 in Rm. 1, and (also in Rm. 1) placement of U. 14 and 15 (these last three all postdate construction of U. 18 in Rm. 2). Suspected is that the change to the W stairs represented by U. 6 and 7 took place when Fl. 2 of 1st was laid in Rm. 2.

It seems likely that the last floors in Rm. 2 and 3 were laid at one and the same time. Because this is when the upper riser of the N stairway was set in place, it is thought that this is when the last modification of the W stairway (represented by U. 8, see Fig. 18a) took place. Thus, U. 23 and 24 represent the last alterations of 7F-32.

On the basis of the above, then, a minimum of eight modifications for 1st may be defined (A through H; see Table 2.4 and Fig. 13–16). Not known is where U. 26 fits in this scheme, and U. 14, 15, and 16 are also somewhat of a problem. It must be emphasized once again that a good deal in the way of proof is lacking for this sequence. It is, however, the most logical on the basis of present information, and probably is correct at least in broad outline.

Structure 7F-33

This large structure located about 19 m S of Str. 7F-32, and which faces the open area of Plat. 7F-2, remains virtually untouched by excavation. In 1965, there was time only for a test pit (Op. 3J) to be sunk a little over 1.00 m into its top. A rather inconclusive sample of sherds was recovered (Table 5.1; see below), but no intact architecture was encountered. On the basis of surface configurations, 7F-33 could have been either a “temple,” somewhat smaller than 7F-30, or another range-type structure comparable to Str. 7F-32.

TABLE 2.4 (Part 1)

Structure 7F-32: Time Spans

TABLE 2.4 (Part 2)

Structure 7F-32: Time Spans

Structure 7F-35

This westernmost structure of Gp. 7F-1 faces eastward across Plat. 7F-2, on the opposite side of which is the W end of Str. 7F-32. All that remains of 7F-35 is a three-level platform resembling some others that probably supported buildings of pole-and-thatch (TR. 19:120 and TR. 20B:19). As Op. 3F, a trench was dug through what was thought to be the front-rear axis, although later excavation along the back to the NW corner, and a probe that located the SW corner, revealed that the trench actually is just N of the centerline. A single architectural development is represented (Table 2.5); for illustrations, see Fig. 20 and 21a.

DESCRIPTION

To begin, the Maya partially demolished an existing plaza surface (Plat. 7F-2:U. 1 and 2), following which a thin stratum of earth was placed over what was left (CS. 5). Next, the E wall for the platform was assembled of masonry (CS. 4) that appears to be identical in size and form to that used in the rear wall (discussed below). This E wall was not completely excavated, but there is no reason to doubt its placement on fill of CS. 5. Once in place, gray earth was dumped behind, sloping down from the top of the masonry to the base surface to the W.

As CS. 3, work was begun on the W platform wall, and the front for the second platform level (there was undoubtedly work on the ends at this time, though these may have been begun in CS. 4). The well-cut rectangular masonry used for the outer veneer of the W wall was based on fill of CS. 5; just inside is rubble, some of which was actually put in place at the time of CS. 5. The loading in of brown earth to bring the fill up to the level of the second platform surface terminated CS. 3.

Completion of the uppermost platform level, very little of which has survived subsequent natural destruction, defines CS. 2. From what remains of its front face—built on fill of CS. 3—blocks of masonry, square in cross-section and installed as stretchers, were used for its construction. No postholes were found to attest to the presence of a building of perishable materials, but this occasions no surprise in view of the total destruction of platform floors. Moreover, fill beneath was sufficiently deep where excavated (1 m) so that there was no need to set posts into bedrock, nor into U. 1 and 2 of Plat. 7F-2 (in comparable structures elsewhere at Tikal, main posts were normally not set to a depth of more than 0.70 m; see Haviland 1963:278 and TR. 20B:2). Given the existence of midden material off the end of the structure (see part V), the onetime presence of a building makes sense, and CS. 1 is allowed for its construction.

Rectangular, three-level platforms are known elsewhere at Tikal in Gp. 2G-1 (Str. 2G-58-1st, 2nd, and 3rd); 3D-3 (Str. 3D-10-1st); 3F-1 (Str. 3F-24-1st); 3G-1 (Str. 3G-1-1st and 2nd); 4E-2 (Str. 4E-52); 4F-2 (Str. 4F-13); and 6C-1 (Str. 5C-46-1st; all in TR. 19 and 20B). Of these, 7F-35 resembles most closely 3D-10-1st, which is of comparable size (TR. 20B:table 2–13).

Structure 7F-36

This small, apparently rectangular structure on the S edge of Plat. 7F-1 faces, across Plaza 7F-1, Str. 7F-31. Time did not permit its thorough excavation in 1965, but its S end was tested as Op. 3I (Fig. 20 and 21b). Tentatively, two architectural developments may be posited (Table 2.6).

STRUCTURE 7F-36-2ND

A portion of its S end wall was exposed, built of well-cut rectangular blocks based on Plat. 7F-1:U. 8. It seems to run W to the plaza retaining wall, but its eastern extent is unknown. Structure 7F-36:Unit 1 is a surviving portion of a floor that runs N from the top of the veneer, but since it runs beneath other walls (to be discussed below), it is likely that 7F-36 originally took the form of a single-level rectangular platform, on which perhaps a building of pole-and-thatch was constructed (see TR. 19:106 and table 88 and TR. 20B:table 2.5 for comparable structures).

STRUCTURE 7F-36-1ST

Unit 2 is based on U. 1, and is masonry that runs N, probably originally from the S end of the structure, then turns to run W, turning again (about 1 m W of the NE corner of U. 2) once more to run N. Its placement appears to have converted 7F-32 from a one-level to a two-level platform (see TR. 19:106 and table 91 for comparable structures). If bilateral symmetry is assumed, the center portion of the front face of the upper level was inset about 1 m in relation to the ends.

Structure 7F-Sub.1

Located a short distance W of Str. 7F-30, this is the structure discovered in the fill of Plat. 7F-1 by Coe and Broman in 1957 (Table 1.1; TR. 2:30–32, 47, and TR. 2:fig. 2, 3, 5); their excavations exposed its front steps, a portion of its floor, and small portions of its front (E) wall. Their description was properly cautious, pointing out a number of things that ought to be checked by further excavations, as was done in 1965. Thus, a general reconstruction of Str. 7F-Sub.1 is possible, as in Fig. 22.

TABLE 2.5

Structure 7F-35: Time Spans

TABLE 2.6

Structure 7F-36: Time Spans

TABLE 2.7

Structure 7F-Sub.1: Time Spans

DESCRIPTION

Although the Maya seem to have been unable in this case to build a proper right angle, 7F-Sub.1 basically is a rectangular, one-level platform with axially placed steps, and as such, it is similar to platforms excavated elsewhere at Tikal (especially Str. 4F-7-D, which is of comparable size; see TR. 19:table 88 and TR. 20B:table 2.5). All other structures of this sort are thought to have had buildings of pole-and-thatch on their platforms, but Str. 7F-Sub.1 seems an exception, for there clearly is no posthole in its NW corner, where one would be expected (see TR. 19:118). It was, apparently, constructed as an open platform. Its stairs and front wall were built on Plat. 7F-1:U. 5, which ends at the top of a wall a short distance beneath the structure. A secondary turnup from U. 5 was accomplished by patches of plaster but, as discussed in conjunction with Plat. 7F-1, the structure and Plat. 7F-1:U. 5 are probably contemporary constructions. A projection W of the Bu. 160 axis from Str. 7F-30-5th falls on the first step of Sub.1, roughly on its front-rear axis, an orientation that was no doubt intentional. Ultimately, 7F-Sub.1 was partially destroyed, when Plat. 7F-1-2nd-D was constructed. For time spans, see Table 2.7.

Structure 7F-Sub.2

Located 0.76 m E of later Str. 7F-Sub.1, the very existence of this small structure would not be known had we not excavated beneath U. 5 of Plat. 7F-1, just to see what was there. All that remained was its floor and underlying fill, which were excavated down to bedrock as part of Op. 3D. For illustration, see Fig. 23a.

DESCRIPTION

All that survives are two portions of the interior floor, positioned a mere 0.30 m above the bedrock surface, which form a rough square. The outer edges turn up where an exterior wall must have stood, and there seems to have been an entrance from the E, for a portion of the floor extends beyond the wall line there. A small mass of rubble on the S side of the floor is all that remains of the walls; whether these were entirely of masonry cannot be determined, but at least the lower portion was. Since the overall form and size of this structure is highly reminiscent of Str. 4F-42 in Gp. 4F-2 (TR. 19:fig. 36a and 41a), this would suggest that, like its counterpart, 7F-Sub.2 had walls the thickness of a single block of masonry. If so, the stonework probably did not stand very high.