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 stairway that was later removed above this point.
Although the fourth alternative interpretation is favored here, there are problems with it, too. The main one is the presence of so much preceding construction. This required that, as the bulk of Str. 7F-30 was brought to the desired height necessitated by U. 13, work was begun on a terrace W of the structure. Platform 7F-3:Unit 1 marks a pause between CS. 2 and 3, creating a packed surface on which a stairway (U. 15) was begun. Its four steps were used briefly for construction purposes, until workers were ready to build the terrace up to its final height. At that time, the terrace floor (Plat. 7F-3:U. 5) was laid, extending partly over U. 15 and some of its fill, following which the stairway was extended upwards to completion (U. 18). Even if these efforts may seem excessive, they are consistent with the practice of building walls on floors, rather than running floors up to walls, as seen in contemporary Str. 7F-32-2nd (see below).
Another problem—the union of the lower step of U. 18 with a floor postdating Plat. 7F-3:U. 5—disappears, if the Maya removed and altered the masonry blocks that formed the lower tread when they laid Plat. 7F-3:U. 8; this would have caused no disturbance to U. 18 or its fill. Why this should have been done remains a mystery, but it does recall removal, for no practical reason, of the basal step of Str. 5D-22-3rd-B (TR. 14:351). Consistent with removal and replacement of the 7F-30 step is that all known stairs of U. 18 are of identical construction, except this lowest one. Unfortunately, plaster on U. 18 was not sufficiently preserved to confirm or refute later disturbance of this lowest step.
Although none of these possibilities can presently be conclusively proven or disproven, the fourth seems most likely. At least seven points may be used to argue in its favor: (1) Evidence presented above suggests that U. 13 was a mason’s stairway. (2) There is no clear sign that U. 15 was ripped out above the fourth riser, yet the similarity of this to all but the basal riser of U. 18 suggests no great time-lapse between their construction. Thus, the most economical way to explain these two stairs (with their fills in relation to Plat. 7F-3:U. 5) is as just outlined. (3) Consistent is the lack of plaster on U. 15, but its onetime presence on U. 18. Although the Maya later removed most of this plaster, some of it remained on the fifth stair tread and the riser behind (see Fig. 10). (4) Lack of turn-down of U. 14 over U. 12, already noted, would be expected if U. 14 were not laid as part of CS. 4 to serve with U. 13, but rather as part of the final construction to serve with U. 18. (5) Fills of CS. 4 and (to a degree) CS. 5 are similar to those of Plat. 7F-3 below both U. 1 and 5. These consist largely of layers of light and dark earth. A pavement, above which Plat. 7F-3:U. 2 was built (and which is perhaps contemporary), also has a dark fill (Fig. 10:40). Thus, all may have been drawn from the same sources and so are contemporary, especially since the black material does not occur in later fills. (6) All of the sherds from these fills are from Manik pots, whereas Ik sherds appear in the fill of the next known architectural development. (7) It seems improbable that the floor of original Str. 7F-30 would be plastered, while the area in front was not. The earliest plaster pavement in front of the structure is Plat. 7F-3:U. 5, which may well be contemporary with the earliest plaster floor of Plat. 7F-1, to the W. It follows that only the fourth possibility has the virtue of consistency here: plastered plaza, terrace, structure floor, and stairs. In sum, despite uncertainties, the interpretation favored here is that Str. 7F-30-5th included U. 18, with the terrace in front represented by Plat. 7F-3:U. 2 and 5. Accordingly, U. 14 and 18
