One other departure from TR. 14 is definition herein of two distinct architectural developments (1st and 2nd) for Str. 7F-32. This is largely a matter of labeling, for certainly what is called 1st represents a major alteration of original 2nd; the whole structure in a very real sense was turned around to face N instead of S (although access to the now isolated Rm. 1 from the S was retained). Yet, because the Maya managed to do this without actually tearing down the structure and putting up a new one on the same spot, some might hesitate to label these 1st and 2nd, but would instead speak of a 7F-32-A and B. Whichever alternative one chooses, however, does not change the basic facts.
A word about the definition of Gp. 7F-1 itself is also necessary. Almost all of what is known about this group begins with construction of Str. 7F-30-5th, 7F-32-2nd-C, 7F-Sub.1, Plat. 7F-1-4th, and Plat. 7F-3-2nd, even though traces of earlier architecture (Str. 7F-Sub.2) exist. As will become apparent, there is reason to regard the nature of the oldest occupation as quite different from that of the later Gp. 7F-1. In the text, the oldest occupation will be referred to as “Old Gp. 7F-1,” the latest as “New Gp. 7F-1.”
Although basic chronological control in Gp. 7F-1 is based primarily on stratigraphy, dating of time spans relies heavily on established dates of late Manik, Ik, Imix, and Eznab Ceramic Complexes of Tikal. For convenient reference, these are given in Table 1.2, together with currently used period names appropriate to the era represented by occupation of Gp. 7F-1. Since two different dates have been published for the end of Late Classic and onset of Terminal Classic times (TR. 33A:table 1; TR. 25A:table 1), some explanation is required for the one used here. T. Patrick Culbert (in TR. 25A) bases his estimate on the close resemblance of Eznab pottery to Bayal ceramics, which appeared at Seibal about 10.0.0.0.0; he thinks it highly unlikely that as many as three katuns (60 years) would have passed before similar pottery appeared at Tikal (T. P. Culbert pers. comm., 1985). By contrast, Christopher Jones (TR. 33A:31 and 130), following Coe, argues that St. 11 with its altar and underlying cache are so within Classic traditions that continuity of Imix pottery is probable. Support for this view comes from Bu. 77, which contained Imix ceramics; Coe (in TR. 14:865–866) argues that this interment, beneath an unfinished Str. 5D-11, is that of the ruler portrayed on St. 11. Peter D. Harrison (pers. comm.) disagrees with Coe’s interpretation, citing (among other reasons) a likely female sex for the corpse in Bu. 77. Nevertheless, a date some time after 10.2.0.0.0 (recorded on St. 11) is possible for the appearance of Terminal Classic Eznab pottery. Furthermore, up to 60 years of coexistence of late Imix with Bayal ceramics is not out of line with the degree of overlap that seems to have existed between Postclassic complexes in the Maya lowlands (cf. Chase and Chase 1985:13; Freidel 1985:305–306).
The assistance of numerous individuals in writing this report needs acknowledgment. My great debt to Becker, Coe, Coggins, Jones, and McGinn should be clear from what has already been said, and I am most appreciative of their contributions of both data and ideas. Becker and Coe deserve added recognition for having called attention to the potential importance of Gp. 7F-1 at times when it might otherwise have been neglected in favor of investigations elsewhere at Tikal. Other important contributions were made by Henry Schwartz, Becker’s field assistant in 1963, Edward Crocker, who assisted him briefly in the same year, and Anthony Gahan, who joined these other two in offering aid when the “tomb” was discovered. In 1965, Francis P. Bowles helped map the excavations and rigged up lighting systems for tunnel excavation; Karen L. Mohr and Martha Schiek participated in the excavation of Bu. 190, 192, and 193. Invaluable assistance was furnished by Ismael Terceco, who drew the field plan of Str. 7F-32 and the supplementary sections and wall elevations that appear here in Fig. 19. Without his help, much less could have been accomplished in 1965.
TABLE 1.2
Chronological Divisions and the Long Count
1. After TR. 27A:xiv
2. After TR. 14
3. After Laporte 2003:290
Others who have contributed in one way or another to this report are Linda Schele, who provided assistance with inscriptions, Culbert, who was forthcoming with evaluations of the ceramics in the field and (later on) was responsive to my questions about burial pottery, and Hattula Moholy-Nagy, who most kindly provided me with extended comments on the artifacts and who also answered numerous questions. Jane Homiller did preliminary drafts of all the plans and sections except for the plan and wall elevation of Bu. 160, which were done by Virginia Greene. Homiller’s patience with the author’s directions and sometimes tardiness in returning things to her is appreciated. Jennifer Quick and after her Betty Christensen provided the valuable function of filling requests for information from the Tikal files in Philadelphia. Kathryn Greer and especially Barbara Hayden deserve special thanks for their word processing and editing of endless manuscript drafts, made no easier by having to decipher my writing. To Toni Rosencrantz goes my gratitude for much tedious proofreading.
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