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