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