Miscellaneous Investigations in Central Tikal--Great Temples III, IV, V, and VI. H. Stanley Loten

is always critical for initial layout. The length-to-depth ratio (length across the front:front to rear, at inset corners) is 1:0.78. That is, the front-to-rear depth is between three-quarters and two-thirds of the side-to-side length across the front. Designers may have arranged this relationship in order to emphasize frontality.

      North-to-south lengths, that is rear length and front length at base level to inset corners, are equal as measured by Pearson using tape and transit; east-to-west lengths (N side and S side at base level) vary by 2 cm. In other words, dimensional control appears to have been remarkably precise, at least within the precision of our measuring techniques. The rectangle at the top of the pyramid measures 39.5 by 23 m (at inset corners), a ratio of 1:0.58 (Fig. 6). On axial lines the ratio is 1:0.42. By both measures, the top is distinctly more rectangular than the base. The change reflects the fact that the sides are slightly steeper than the front and the rear is slightly steeper than the sides.

      At the pyramid base, that is terrace 1, corner angles measured at inset corners are close to 90° (90° at NE, 88.5° at NW, 91° at SW, and 89° at SW).

      The error measured as the differences between lengths of the sides, which would be equal if corners were exactly 90°, is about 2%. The SE to NW diagonal exceeds the NE to SW diagonal by 2.2 m, that is, by 2%.

      On the plan (Fig. 6), diagonals drawn to connect the inset corners cross exactly on the central axis at a point precisely midway between front and rear of the building. This is either adventitious or evidence of very careful planning and remarkable dimensional control.

      Plan configuration (Fig. 6) is based on numerous small excavations at base level, terrace 2 level, and terrace 6 level. Although presented in broken line in Fig. 6, plan details are reasonably well known (the solid lines provided by excavations are too short to appear at the Fig. 6 scale). There are seven terraces, each with inset corners. North and S sides have side outsets and an extra outset intervening between the inset corner and the side outset. On the rear facade, a comparable arrangement is established by the rear axial outset, extra outsets, and the corner inset. The front stair balances the rear axial outset and stair-side outsets balance the extra side and rear outsets.

      North and S rear corners could be regarded as double inset corners. Front corners cannot be seen this way because stair-side outsets are not terrace outsets, and they have different profiles (Fig. 8a,b). This distinction may relate to some sort of significance associated with the stair. This is the only subcomponent rising more than one terrace in height, and it extends to full height, base to top. Side and rear outsets are all contained within terrace levels.

      A cross pattern, apparent in the plan diagram (Fig. 6), is formed by the stair, side outsets, and rear outset. With the pyramid still obscured by vegetation and not consolidated, this figure is not readily apparent, but ancient Maya users may have been aware of it, and those who designed the structure must have considered it important.

      Although all terrace profiles appear similar, setbacks are greater on the front than on the sides and rear. As a result, sides and rear are steeper than the front. The pyramid is symmetrical side-to-side but not front-to-rear. The building component, centered on the pyramid base, is placed slightly forward on the top so that the top terrace is wider behind than in front. There is no effective landing at the top of the great stair. Evidently, this was not a location for staging events.