was to stand. They then began to build the wall, probably intending to remove the rest of the pavement W of it, as they were going to eliminate Plat. 7F-3 altogether and lay a new floor for Plat. 7F-1. They had a change of heart, however, and eventually incorporated Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 into Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1. Although this “change of heart” is hypothetical, this is precisely what happened in the case of Str. 7F-Sub.1 when Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 was laid, and Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 is at the same elevation. At any rate, U. 25 (of 7F-30) seems to have been installed before this change of heart, and the steps were built afterward (a sequence of construction, with wall preceding stairs, that was earlier seen in the case of U. 2 and 13).
Confirmation of this reconstruction could probably be gained by a probe through U. 25. There is reason to suspect that Plat. 7F-3:U. 8 will be found behind the wall, as suggested by the floor of Bu. 159, in Str. 7F-31 behind Str. 7F-30:U. 25. The burial was dug down to an older pavement, which then served as the floor for the grave (Fig. 11). The elevation of this is 6 cm above that of Plat 7F-3:U. 8, 3.30 m to the W (an insignificant difference) but 0.12 m above that of Plat. 7F-3:U. 5. Thus, the plaster surface beneath Bu. 159 is probably part of Plat. 7F-3:U. 8, which means that U. 25 has to be intruded through that floor.
The surviving height of U. 25, as seen in the trench through Str. 7F-31, is 1.16 m above Plat. 7F-3:U. 8. Almost surely, the wall did not stand as high as U. 22, for this would have placed its top 1 m W of U. 21, requiring a partially inset stairway. Furthermore, as already noted, the evidence of U. 6, 23, and 24 in the deep trench suggests that the substructure was terraced. Presumably, then, U. 25 was built up to a height of 1.30 m—the elevation of U. 24—whereupon a second wall (equivalent to U. 23) for an upper substructure level was constructed an unknown distance to the E. If positioned the same distance from U. 25 as U. 23 is from U. 6, then the top of the stairway projected about 1 m beyond the substructure wall. Perhaps, though, the wall was in line with U. 21 (as reconstructed in Fig. 6); otherwise, the structure floor would have been unusually long and narrow.
The overall dimensions of Str. 7F-30-4th are not known. It seems clear that the old N wall (and possibly U. 6) continued to serve the new structure. Platform 7F-1-2nd:Floor 1 (which served Str. 7F-30-4th) ends on the N at the top of a wall that continues W from the N face of the structure. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the building platform is reconstructed as being set back an equivalent amount as U. 23 is from U. 6. The precise location of the S wall is unknown, but may be reconstructed within fairly narrow limits. First, it is clear that the building platform extended at least as far as the S edge of the trench through Str. 7F-31, for its fill here survives to a height of 1.16 m above the top of the supplementary platform (Fig. 11). It could not have extended significantly farther S, based on what is known of the stairway. The N end of the stairs could have been no farther than 5.20 m from the NW corner of the building platform, or it would have been seen in the deep trench.
Assuming a symmetrical relationship between substructure and stairway, the latter must be at least 7 m wide, putting its S edge 5.20 m N of the S side of the trench through 7F-31. The stairway wall could not have been more than 0.30 m S of this, or its junction with U. 25 would have been seen in the S tunnel.
Given this information, it is clear that though the measurements cannot be precise, the reconstruction in Fig. 6 is reasonable. Almost certainly, therefore, the front-rear axis of Str. 7F-30-4th was shifted considerably to the S of where it had been for 5th.
STRUCTURE 7F-30-3RD
As shown in Fig. 7, a reconstruction of this version of 7F-30 must be done almost completely in broken line. The only architecture surely referable to it is U. 26 (seen in the deep trench), although 22, 23, and 24 (and possibly 6) seem to have continued in service. The greatest problem is the stairway.
On stratigraphic grounds, the first act was removal of a large portion of the stairway (U. 20) for 4th, so that the remarkable Bu. 132 could be placed due W of the earlier Bu. 160. Once this was done, workers piled up light-to-dark gray earth, with some rubble, covering the burial and providing a fill over which a pavement, U. 26, was laid (at exactly the same elevation as existing U. 22).
As seen in the section through the deep trench (Fig. 10), U. 26 no longer runs all the way E to U. 21. Three possible explanations for this come to mind, the first being that PD. 98 was put in place, U. 26 was then laid up to it, followed by construction of the stairs above the problematical deposit to a new, higher floor represented by U. 28. Against this possibility is the presence of Tulix (Imix contemporary) censers in PD. 103, sealed beneath the fill of U. 28. The dates for Bu. 132 and Ca. 161 (discussed in parts III and IV) are consistent with one another, but not with PD. 103, suggesting that U. 28 is a later construction than U. 26. Another objection is that interments related to the old Bu. 160 axis all are associated with some modification of Str. 7F-30. Burial 150, which is related to that axis, clearly postdates Bu. 132 and predates Bu. 190 and 191. The only construction to which this burial can be connected is one of which U. 28 was a part, an interpretation consistent with stratigraphy as well as the dates for Bu. 150 and PD. 103.
A second, more likely possibility is that U. 26 originally ran all the way to U. 21, where U. 22 and U. 23 continued its surface eastward. Thus, 7F-30-3rd represented a widening to the W of 4th, making the structure less elongate. Later (when 2nd was built) PD. 98 was intruded into U. 26 over the old Bu. 132, destroying floor continuity. In favor of this is the elevation of U. 26 (precisely that of U. 22), an apparent “chop-line” beneath the problematical deposit, and the evidence just noted against the first possibility. Although the problematical deposit does contain a broken Ik vessel (Imix ceramic production had begun by the time 3rd was abandoned), Bu. 150, which marks replacement of 3rd by 2nd, contains Ik as well as Imix pottery (see also discussion of PD. 98).
A third and final possibility is that U. 26 is the surface of a deep landing that ran from the top of a stairway to a building wall, to which it turned up. Later, when 2nd replaced 3rd, the building was torn down, leaving a gap between the inside and outside floors where the wall had been. Problematical Deposit 98 was then placed in this gap, to be covered by fill for stairs leading up to U. 28. Lacking further evidence, a choice cannot be made between these last two interpretations.
Consequently, Str. 7F-30-3rd almost surely represents an enlargement to the W of 4th, portions of which (U. 22, 23, and 24 in the deep trench and the E wall) continued in use as parts of the new structure. Given reuse of older walls and floor E of the juncture of U. 22 and 26, logic requires that the N and S walls of 4th were augmented by extensions to the W (consistent with that of U. 26 W of U. 22). There is, however, no proof for this. The N tunnel did not probe above Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, and as seen in the trench through Str. 7F-31 (Fig. 11), the later construction of that structure would have destroyed evidence for 7F-30-3rd (worth noting, though, is a break in Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 just about where one would expect a front wall for Str. 7F-30-3rd to have been ripped out; see Fig. 7 and 8:59).
Nothing certain is known about the front wall and stairs of 7F-30-3rd, but since its N, E, and S faces seem to have been “terraced” (as was true for 4th), its front may have been as well. Also reasonable is the supposition that the front stairs were as wide as those for 4th, although those for the succeeding 2nd (U. 27) were considerably narrower. It may be, though, that U. 27 represents not a new stairway for 2nd, but the stairway for 3rd, later altered by the removal of its southern 3 m, when a new S wall was provided for 2nd. In favor of this is the fact that it looks very much (in Fig. 10) as if U. 27 was built in conjunction with placement of fill for 7F-30-3rd behind it. Given the state of ruin of the steps, this is not conclusive, but it is consistent with the presence of Ca. 161 directly beneath the lowest surviving step of U. 27 (there is no evidence for its intrusion). The cache belongs to the Uz Offertory Assemblage (TR. 27A:20), which is noteworthy considering that the eccentric flints and obsidians in Bu. 132 are appropriate for Uz offerings. Apparently, Ca. 161 was placed during construction of 3rd, but if the stairway for 3rd had been torn out to be replaced by U. 27 (when 2nd was built), it is hard to see how the offering could escape being disturbed. Yet, there is no evidence for such disturbance.
