TABLE 2.2 (Part 1)
Structure 7F-30: Time Spans
TABLE 2.2 (Part 2)
Structure 7F-30: Time Spans
As CS. 6, the height of the growing structure was increased by some 0.60 m (cf. to the increments of CS. 10 and 11) as additions were made to the walls, fills, and the U. 13 stairway. Materials for this were probably carried up the previously constructed part of that stairway. Marking the end of CS. 6 is U. 10, a pause-line; the fill itself is continuous from the stairway across the top of U. 9, up over U. 2, and all the way to U. 6. Black material included in this fill is not known in any of the preceding ones, although there could be some in unexcavated portions. Similar material was used in succeeding construction stages.
Another increment in height, this time of close to 1.00 m, defines CS. 5. Again, additions were made to walls and stairs as fill was piled up between them and over that already in place. As before, most fill was rubble, but in this case the upper portion consists of alternate bands of black earth (like that seen in CS. 6), and white earth. The uppermost light-colored stratum, U. 11, appears to be a pause-line marking the end of CS. 5. It runs from U. 6 eastward, ending 0.80 m or so from the stairway (about 0.10 m E of a later intrusive cut for Bu. 140).
The substructure was brought to its final desired height with the completion of U. 6, installation of a fill-retaining wall to the W (U. 12), and the dumping of fill in between (CS. 4). The top of U. 12 probably served as the top step of U. 13, although later intrusion of Bu. 140 (immediately W of U. 12) destroyed proof. Nevertheless, upward projection of U. 13 treads and risers meets U. 12 at a reasonable distance below U. 14, a remnant of the substructure floor. This pavement runs E from the top of U. 12, which it covers. Stratigraphy indicates that fill beneath U. 12 was dumped from W to E, confirming use of U. 13 stairs to gain access to the elevated construction surface.
At first glance, fill of CS. 4 looks quite different from fills used in earlier stages. Because of this, one might regard it as a later addition to an earlier structure, associated with the U. 18 stairway (discussed below). Against this, the only feature that conceivably could be a floor earlier than U. 14 is U. 11. Because this surface seems to end (on the W) a good 0.10 m E of the cut for Bu. 140, it could not have extended as far as the U. 13 stairway. Even if it did, this interpretation would require that the upper three courses of U. 6 postdate those courses below by a significant amount of time. Yet, there is no evidence for this; the masonry is similar and no traces of plaster patching (indicative of an addition to an existing wall) occur on the outer face. Finally, if one looks at the fills of CS. 7–4, one notices a transition from all rubble, to rubble with black earth, to less rubble and more black earth with some light-colored earth, to almost no rubble and much dark, as well as light-colored, earth. Evidently, the supply of rubble showed signs of exhaustion as early as CS. 6, and new sources of fill began to be tapped. The latter, apparently, became the prime sources by CS. 4.
The question arises here: was the construction just summarized all that remains of earliest Str. 7F-30, or was there more to it? Deferring, for the moment, discussion of finished exterior structure walls, four possibilities deserve consideration: (1) Unit 13 in its entirety was a finished stairway up to the earliest summit floor, but without a paved plaza in front. Instead, exposed bedrock served, except for the area extending 1.70 m W of the bottom step, where compact earth overlies bedrock (Fig. 10:14), steadily thinning out to the W so as to meet the rock surface without any great unevenness. (2) A terrace, about 0.65 m high, was built in front of 7F-30, with its unpaved surface (Plat. 7F-3:U. 1) turning up to the fourth riser of U. 13. Thus, earliest Str. 7F-30 was served by all but the lowest three steps of U. 13. (3) Platform 7F-3 with its unpaved surface was built in front of the original 7F-30, but U. 13 was buried beneath another set of steps that served as the finished stairway (represented by U. 15, based on Plat. 7F-3:U. 1). (4) A terrace, about 1.00 m high, was constructed in front of 7F-30, surfaced with plaster pavement (Plat. 7F-3:U. 5), on which the Maya built a finished stairway, likely represented by U. 18. In this view U. 15, though well built, served as a short mason’s stairway, and U. 16 and 17 (see below) were fill-retaining walls analogous to U. 2.
There are problems with each of these hypotheses. For the first, the rough construction of U. 13 seems more appropriate for a mason’s, rather than a finished stairway. Furthermore, the absence of plaster on, or in front of the stairway, seems peculiar, given its use in Bu. 160 as well as for the structure floor. Lack of evidence for a turndown of U. 14 over U. 12 to form the top step of U. 13 is also a problem. Perhaps later intrusion of Bu. 140 is responsible for this lack, although one might expect that, with U. 12 forming part of the E wall of the burial shaft, those who dug it would have followed the plaster face of the top step down (had it existed), rather than destroying the plaster, but not the masonry behind it. These same two problems apply to the second possibility as well; indeed, the absence of finished pavement on the terrace is particularly odd. It seems improbable that the Maya would have built a structure with a good plaster floor, only to provide it with a terrace on the front with well-built masonry walls, but no such pavement. Not only is Plat. 7F-3:U. 1 not plaster, but its turnup to U. 13 indicates that it was not mere foundation for a plaster surface. There is, though, a further difficulty: the wall that Plat. 7F-3:U. 1 abuts on its W edge appears to be an E wall of Plat. 7F-1, rather than a W wall of Plat. 7F-3 (see Plat. 7F-1). Platform 7F-3:U. 1 continues the level of Plat. 7F-1 eastward to Str. 7F-30:U. 13. Yet, it was not plastered, although Plat. 7F-1 was. An unpaved gap between a plaza and a structure, both with plaster floors, seems extremely unlikely.
The third possible interpretation involves the same problems as the first two, with three additional ones: (1) Platform 7F-3:Unit 1 turns up to the U. 13, rather than the U. 15 stairway, although this could be explained as the incidental result of workmen using U. 13 after this terrace surface was laid, but before U. 15 was built. (2) More serious: if U. 15 was used with Plat. 7F-3:U. 1, then it was later almost completely torn down when Plat. 7F-3:U. 5 was laid. This plaster floor extends 0.50 m beyond the back of the fourth step of U. 15, although the known tread depths of these steps do not exceed 0.25 m. Consistent with this, the first step of well-built U. 18, sequentially the next known stairway for Str. 7F-30, overlies Plat. 7F-3:U. 5 by 6 cm, and unites with a later pavement of Plat. 7F-3. What is inconsistent is that the fill behind U. 18 is continuous with that behind U. 15, which rules out destruction of a U. 15 stairway. Moreover, the steps of U. 15 and 18 are positioned in such a way relative to one another as to imply that the treads of the latter are exactly where those of the former would have been (if indeed U. 15 was once a full-fledged stairway). One may note also that the fourth step of U. 15 is similar in construction to the second through fifth steps of U. 18. What is suggested is that, at most, two steps of U. 15 were removed. (3) The steps of U. 15, rather than being plastered, have a thin coating of packed marl on the lowest two, and on the second tread this coating turns up to the face of the third riser masonry itself. It seems clear that this is not a case of a finished