Paradoxically, it was curiosity as to what lay beyond the confines of the TR. 11 map that prompted further investigation of Gp. 7F-1, which seemed to resemble in size and complexity some of the small outlying sites that Tikal Project personnel were just then (1964) beginning to explore (TR. 13:xi). The presence of carved monuments at some of these—El Encanto, Jimbal, and Uolantun—focused attention anew on St. 23 and also on St. 25, from nearby Gp. 7F-3 (TR. 8 and 20A). At the time, the prevailing idea was that both had been dragged from somewhere on or near the Great Plaza, even though Linton Satterthwaite had suggested that there might have been two centers of early monument erection at Tikal (TR. 3:74–75). Building on his suggestion, I put forward the hypothesis that the original placement of both St. 23 and 25 was somewhere in Gp. 7F-1, which may have had a function analogous to that of an El Encanto or Uolantun. The precise nature of that function, of course, remained unknown.
In a final effort to solve the puzzle of Gp. 7F-1’s purpose, I carried out a third season of excavation in 1965. Since all previous work had been done in or near Str. 7F-30 and 31, most of this work was devoted to the others, especially 7F-29, 32, and 35 (Op. 3E, 3F, 3G). Three others (7F-33, 34, and 36) were only tested (Op. 3I, 3H, 3J); one of them (7F-34) proved not to be a structure at all. The two “temples” 7F-30 and 31 were not entirely neglected, however, as they were probed in front for plaza floors by which they might be linked to other construction, to learn more about the buried construction that Coe and Broman (in TR. 2) labeled “Feature 3,” and to seek evidence (which was never found) for the original setting of monuments in front of the building beneath which Becker had found the chamber burial, 160 (Op. 3B, 3C, 3D). I have since regretted not digging more here, for as will be seen in part II herein, there are still loose ends. On the other hand, project resources were limited, and further investigation of the two “temples” would have come at the expense of knowledge about other elements of the group. Moreover, it is now certain (for reasons given in part VI) that neither St. 23 nor 25 originally stood in Gp. 7F-1, but were moved there from epicentral Tikal later in the history of the group.
Preparation of this report, like the excavations on which it is based, was accomplished in three stages. A first draft was prepared and circulated to Becker and Coe in 1968 for their criticism and comments. At the same time, plans and sections were sent to John McGinn for drafting. All three individuals had important things to say and questions to raise that proved vital to completion of the report, although other commitments prevented further work until 1974. It was then that Clemency Coggins began asking questions about the group and its burials that she needed answered for her study of painting and drawing styles at Tikal. By then, too, there was a pressing need to straighten out various “messes” in the burials and caches that had been pointed out by Coe. Spurred on by the need to provide both individuals with reliable information, a thorough reconsideration and revision of the earlier effort was undertaken. This was encouraged by Coggins’s work, which opened up new interpretive leads; although not all of her hypotheses have been borne out, her questions of me, and her answers to my questions of her, have been as important to the completion of this report as have Becker’s, Coe’s and McGinn’s comments and criticisms.
Following this revision, a summary article on Gp. 7F-1 was published (Haviland 1981), but the full report was again set aside in favor of other priorities (including completion of TR. 20); contributing as well was my discomfort with reconstructions of Str. 7F-30 in its various forms. Not until 2011 was work resumed on TR. 22, by which time it was thought that a fresh look at 7F-30 would be beneficial. Unfortunately, numerous uncertainties remain, which are spelled out in its write-up. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that further extensive excavation of this evident temple should have been carried out.
This publication, which has as its central purpose the recording of all data from the Op. 3 excavations, is concerned as well with a series of hypotheses. In broad outline, these are that, from late Early Classic times until its abandonment, Gp. 7F-1 was an elite residential group that included houses, ceremonial structures, and perhaps servants’ quarters. It was founded, upon the death of one of Tikal’s Early Classic rulers, by his co-ruler, who moved here when he died and buried him in an elaborate tomb. (Although the formal definition of tomb must await completion of TR. 35. Throughout this report, the term is used to refer to a burial in which an individual was placed with his or her elite belongings, without earth covering the body or dirt in the face, in a chamber far larger than needed for mere containment of the corpse and associated materials; see Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:53.) The co-rulers’ descendants continued their residency well into Terminal Classic times, but over this period their fortunes waxed and waned, perhaps partially in response to political developments at Tikal. As this report proceeds, these hypotheses will be developed in greater detail. That said, care has been taken to avoid “stacking the deck” in their favor by being selective and omitting important data. As was done in TR. 19 (especially pp. 1–4), basic information is first presented, and then examined for its bearing on the hypotheses under consideration. Here, parts II, III, IV, and V correspond to II, V, VI, and VII of TR. 19, although there are some differences: all architectural data will be found in part II (instead of a separate section as in TR. 19), definition and discussion of lot groups are in part V (see also Appendix B), and group time spans are defined in part VII, prior to integrating insights from all preceding sections in a final assessment of the hypotheses noted above. Discussion of St. 23, 25, and several miscellaneous stones will be found in VI. The report concludes on a more speculative note (in Appendix A) with a trial reconstruction of kinship and residence in Gp. 7F-1. Although data from the 1957 excavations are fully integrated with those from more recent ones in this report, not all details reported in TR. 2 are presented anew here. Instead, aided by Table 1.1 (TR. 2 was written before terminology was standardized as per TR. 12), the reader is referred back to the earlier publication whenever appropriate.
TABLE 1.1 Revision of Architectural Designations Used in Tikal Report 2
| New Designation | Old Designation |
| Str. 7F-30:U. 33 | Feature 2 |
| Str. 7F-30:U. 34 | Feature 1 |
| Str. 7F-Sub.1 | Feature 3 |
| Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1 | Floor 1 |
| Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 | Floor 2 |
| Plat. 7F-1:U. 14 | Floor 3 |
| Plat. 7F-1:U. 5 | Floor 5 |
| Plat. 7F-1:U. 1 | Floor 4 |
Terminology utilized in this report is that set forth in TR. 12 (esp. pp. 47–49 and 61–63), with emendations as described in TR. 19 (pp. 3–4) and 20A (p. 2), as well as above with respect to the word “tomb.” Establishment of time spans for each structure and platform follows the precedent TR. 19 sets by defining a single series for each in all its guises, rather than separate series for each 1st, 2nd, and so forth (as in TR. 14). This produces, for example, one set of seventeen time spans (Table 2.2 [see below] for Str. 7F-30 [1st through 5th]), instead of five separate series: TS. 1–7 for 1st, another TS. 1–2 for 2nd, TS. 1–2 for 3rd, TS. 1–2 for 4th, and TS. 1–4 for 5th. By adopting this approach, the logical connection between products of development is stressed, although time span content would be the same whichever procedure