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