Room 1 was altered by the addition of two very high room-end interior platforms (Fig. 2:12,13). The walls for these were built directly on the original floors of the room and interior platform. A new floor (Fl. 1) was then laid. This turns up to the face of the old interior platform, the faces of the new platforms, and the building walls. The room-end platforms, like the earlier platform, were built with a cornice. The total length of the platforms is 0.32 m, less than the width of the room, with the added thickness of the front building wall.
In Rm. 4, a new floor (Fl. 1) was laid over Fl. 2, as in Rm. 1. A plastered masonry block (Fig. 2:U. 5) may have been placed on the surface of the interior platform at this time. The plastered face of the block was even with the cornice face of the platform. The E end of the block abuts the E wall of the room. The purpose of the block is unknown; perhaps the whole E end of the interior platform was raised.
The modification of Rm. 5 apparently commenced with the interment of Bu. 192 through Fl. 2 in front of the interior platform and against the S wall of the room. The end wall of the building platform was extended to the E by the addition of a new wall (Fig. 2:10). The surface of the supplementary platform was patched to turn up to this wall, and a new floor was laid inside the room (Fl. 1). This sealed Bu. 192 and turned up to the walls of the building and the interior platform. The U. 8 hole is also apparent in Fl. 1. Later, another hole was dug into the floor to receive PD. 166.
Structure 7F-30
Structure 7F-30 is the larger of two structures on the E side of the plaza area bounded on the N and S by Str. 7F-29 and 32. Coe and Broman in 1957 (TR. 2) investigated St. 23, which was reset in front of Str. 7F-30. Their excavations revealed four burials, one apparently initial relative to a later, small, terracelike feature that was added onto the front of Str. 7F-30. The structure, though, was substantially untouched by their work, which was focused on the stela. In 1963, Becker returned to investigate the structure itself. To do so, he began a deep trench through the apparent E-W axis, beginning where Coe and Broman left off in 1957. This work revealed a complex sequence of burials, caches, and problematical deposits associated with the initial construction and later renovations of 7F-30. The overall pattern suggested an elaborate version of a pattern seen elsewhere at Tikal: relatively formal burials associated with the construction or alteration of an apparently ritual structure, always positioned on the E edge of a plaza (TR. 21). Finally, in 1965, I dug two tunnels into the structure N and S of Becker’s trench, producing more burials, a cache, and further architectural data.
In spite of all this work, Str. 7F-30 is still difficult to interpret. All available information is from the deep trench, the N and S tunnels, and a trench through the axis of neighboring Str. 7F-31 (built over earlier architecture associated with Str. 7F-30). Hence, the full extent of various walls and floors is not certainly known. In addition, the correlation of walls and floors between trenches and tunnels is dependent on indirect evidence. The only remedy would be to excavate extensively Str. 7F-30, something that, in hindsight, should have been done. In 1963, Becker was merely seeking verification for his hypothesis that 7F-30 conformed to his “temple on the E” pattern (“Plaza Plan 2,” TR. 21). At that time he thought his trench would suffice. In 1965, interest lay in the other structures of the group as I sought to put 7F-30 in the context of Gp. 7F-1 as a whole. Further work on 7F-30 was limited to what might produce evidence for the one-time erection of monuments in front of an early version of it. Only later was the complexity of what was naively assumed to be a fairly “straightforward” architectural sequence realized. Thus, in the face of numerous uncertainties, a probabilistic reconstruction of 7F-30 in its various forms is all that we have. Justification of that reconstruction requires considerable discussion of the evidence, and the alternative ways that it might be interpreted. The deep trench excavated by Becker constitutes the basic point of reference, so for each architectural development, the data from it are discussed first. Following this, available evidence from the two tunnels and the trench through 7F-31 is related to that from the deep trench (Table 2.2).
An added complication is that some forms of 7F-30 featured a substantial terrace (Plat. 7F-3) on its W. Even though it extends farther S, the evidence indicates that this terrace was built as an integral part of the structure. Although it is described separately, the stratigraphic relationships of units of Plat. 7F-3 to those of Str. 7F-30 are noted here.
STRUCTURE 7F-30-5TH
Architectural elements (Fig. 4, 5, and 10) that evidently belong to the earliest version of Str. 7F-30 are U. 1 through 12, with their various fills as seen in the deep trench (Fig. 10). In summary, these were assembled as bedrock was cleared, and the chamber excavated for Bu. 160 (CS. 13). Following the interment, workers laid up a three-course masonry wall in its entrance, the interior of which they plastered. Impressions of textile are evident in the plaster used to finish the inside surface of this wall. Left was a space 0.44 m high through which to exit. This was then sealed with large stone blocks, at the same time that fill (described in the caption to Fig. 10) was loaded into the shaft. Completion of this operation (as CS. 12) is marked by a pause-line, U. 1.
Following CS. 12, the core of a structure was built up in a series of four stages (CS. 11–8) to a height of about 2.20 m, for which a rough retaining wall on the W (U. 2) was erected in 0.40 to 0.70 m increments. As each section was installed, fill was placed E of it, and pause-lines (U. 3, 4, and 5) mark completion of all but CS. 8. That the top of U. 2 and its fill marks the end of this stage is indicated by apparent continuity of overlying fill to the W (see below). Although not confirmed by excavation, the elements of CS. 11–8 probably ran E to abut U. 6, which is something of an enigma. In Fig. 10, this nearly vertical wall is depicted as the rear of the substructure of 5th (not to mention succeeding versions of 7F-30; see Fig. 4–9). Yet, it is distinctly different from the walls of other substructures at Tikal, which normally were built with a pronounced batter. Even in Gp. 7F-1, the contemporary Str. 7F-32-2nd-C displays such walls. There is good reason for this, as battered walls are less prone to collapse. Multicourse vertical walls, however, worked perfectly well for temporary purposes, and U. 6 strongly resembles the walls that face construction cores within the substructure of Str. 5D-33-1st (TR. 14; Fig. 9b; see especially the core walls within the upper three levels). All this raises doubts that U. 6 really was the back wall of 7F-30, but no other likely candidate was seen in the 1.20 m excavated E of it. Possibly, a battered E wall did once exist, but its total collapse has rendered it unrecognizable. Perhaps deeper excavation behind the structure might reveal its base. Meanwhile, in the absence of visible evidence to the contrary, 7F-30 is reconstructed as if U. 6 was its back wall, despite doubts.
Returning to construction of 30-5th, the next action seems to have been placement (as CS. 7) of the lowest five steps of a stairway, U. 13, fill for which rests on light-colored earth, U. 7. Above this, stair fill abuts U. 2. A pause-line, U. 9, runs from the rear of the riser stone for the fifth step to U. 2 just below its top, and marks the end of CS. 7. Whether stones were set as stretchers or headers is not noted in excavation records.
The question arises as to why the first five steps were built at this time, rather than earlier or later in the construction sequence. A reasonable hypothesis is that work could not proceed further without some special provision being made to get both men and materials up to the elevated construction surface. This is supported by the height of U. 2 with its fills, the presence of U. 7 and 8 beneath the stairway and its fill, and what is known of male stature at Tikal (Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:fig. 4.1, scheduled for full discussion in TR. 30). There is no clear structural reason for U. 7 and 8; indeed, structural soundness would have been enhanced by placing the stairs and their fill directly on bedrock, in the manner of U. 2 with its fill. Yet,