style="font-size:15px;"> One objection to U. 27 being part of a stairway for 3rd is that its bottom step rests on fill 0.38 m above the plaza pavement that served 3rd. This can be countered, though, by the argument that there once existed a lower step, which was removed when the plaza was given its final surface. Consistent with this, Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 was totally removed over a wide area in front of Str. 7F-30, including where such a step would have been, when the final floor was laid. Moreover, if one assumes that the lowest two stair risers were the same height as the known height of the third riser, and that the tread of the lowest step was a few centimeters below the base of the next stair block (just as the lowest surviving tread of U. 27 is below the base of the next block up), then the reconstructed bottom step fits perfectly between U. 27 and Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1.
To sum up, the work that produced Str. 7F-30-3rd seems to have resulted in a structure much like the one that preceded it, although it was less long and narrow (cf. Fig. 6 and 7). As with the preceding structure, the burial axis included a cache placed W of the interment. The following construction stages may be tentatively defined: CS. 3 for partial demolition of 4th; CS. 2 for placement of Bu. 132, Ca. 161, and construction of the western extension; CS. 1 for reconstruction of whatever building stood on top of the substructure.
STRUCTURE 7F-30-2ND
Evidence from the deep trench suggests that construction began with the partial demolition of the earlier 3rd and intrusion of Bu. 150 through 3rd (actually, the floor and fill of 4th that served 3rd as well; Fig. 8). Operations (CS. 4) ended with the placement of PD. 98 and 103, which, to judge by their high ash and charcoal content, not to mention the heavily burned appearance of U. 22 between the two, were connected with a single ceremonial event. Implied is ritual activity similar to that noted between construction stages of Str. 5D-33-1st (TR. 14:529–533, 545, and 549), which was roughly coeval with 7F-30-2nd. As already noted (see 7F-30-3rd), this event took place at a time when Ik pottery was still available, even though Imix production had begun (see discussion of Bu. 150), explaining the seeming anomaly of an Ik vessel in PD. 98 and Tulix (Imix contemporary) censers in PD. 103. With their ceremonial concerns satisfied for the moment, the Maya began (as CS. 3) to pile mixed earth and rubble over U. 22 and its exposed fill E of Bu. 140 and 150. This was built up in a series of three layers at the same time that a rough wall (U. 29) was installed to retain it on the W. Presumably, courses were added to the existing E wall (represented by U. 23) for the same purpose, and to serve as finished rear facing. Supporting this interpretation is a line E of which the structure fills have collapsed, continuous from U. 28 down to the surviving basal course of U. 23. Had a new wall been built farther E, say, extending U. 6 upwards, the old U. 23 would have been buried inside the fill of 2nd. When 7F-30 later fell into ruin, one would expect to see more of U. 23 surviving, with some more recent fill evident just E of it (similar to the fill of 7F-30-4th E of U. 19). Instead, it looks as if U. 23 “peeled off,” with some of its fill then following.
When CS. 3 reached the top of U. 29, there was further extensive burning (on top of the third layer of fill) suggestive of another round of ceremonial activity. Then (as CS. 2) the top layer of fill was put in place, retained on the W by a finished, one-course wall (U. 30). Evidently an upper riser, U. 30 is the sole survivor of a stairway that, for unknown reasons, was later destroyed. A reasonable reconstruction is that there were three steps leading to U. 30 from U. 26, which continued to serve now as a pavement for a lower building platform level in front of the upper one. Assumed is that these stairs were as wide as those that led up to U. 26 from Plat. 7F-1.
Following CS. 2, there seems to have been a third round of ritual activity, manifest by signs of extensive burning on the material over which a new floor, U. 28, was to be laid. Thus, this pavement appears to mark another construction stage, rather than termination of CS. 2, which is, therefore, probably associated with a building (unfortunately, evidence either for or against such an edifice is lacking). Since the front edge of U. 28 falls short of the front of 7F-30-3rd, a return of the building to the long (N to S), narrow (E to W) proportions of old 4th might be suggested. On the other hand, Bu. 159, initial and dedicatory to Str. 7F-31-2nd, appears to be contemporary with Bu. 150. Implied is contemporaneity of 31-2nd with 30-2nd, in which case the length of the latter was reduced relative to 3rd. So the relative proportions of 3rd were likely retained in 2nd.
Beyond the deep trench, the N substructure wall, and front wall N of the stairway, probably remained much as before. Consistent is continued use of U. 23 in the E wall, continued use of Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 (and possibly U. 6), and configuration of the ruin mound for Str. 7F-30. The only difference between 2nd and its predecessor N of the stairway seems to have been the addition of the higher platform level. By contrast, the southern portion of 7F-30 was changed considerably, owing to construction of 31-2nd (cf. Fig. 7 and 8). Therefore, the S face of 30-2nd was built considerably N of the S end of 3rd (on the basis of information about 7F-31, the location of the S wall of 30-2nd can be located with reasonable confidence, as in Fig. 8). With such radical shortening of 30-2nd, its stairway (U. 27, retained from 3rd) was probably reduced in width to maintain the symmetry of its axial placement. Thus, the 4 m N-S dimension of U. 27, as reused in 30-1st, probably was realized with construction of 2nd. Given this dimension, U. 26 and 30 are approximately the same length S of the stairs as they are to the N.
A result of the shortening of 30-2nd was elimination of its supplementary platform on the S (retention here would have blocked access to the stairs of 31-2nd). Assumed is that the supplementary platform was retained on the N, E, and W faces of 30-2nd, although excavation was not carried out to confirm or refute this.
STRUCTURE 7F-30-1ST-C
As a last major modification, the Maya increased the height of 7F-30 by 1.30 m. For this, they piled fill on top of U. 28, over which they laid a plaster floor (U. 31), mere traces of which now survive (Fig. 9 and 10:37). For access, seven or so new steps (U. 32) were added to the top of existing U. 27, although these are now so badly ruined that broken masonry is all that remains. Before these upper stairs were built, those leading to the top of 2nd were torn out, and so, at least two construction stages may be defined, the earliest (CS. 3) for partial demolition of 2nd and a later one (CS. 2) for construction of U. 31 and 32. The presence of deep debris E of the structure, and an abundance of modeled stucco all over the surface of the ruin mound, point to the existence of some sort of building as part of Str. 7F-30-1st-C, and for its construction, CS. 1 is proposed.
It is likely that, as part of CS. 3, the basal step of U. 27 was removed. (Reasons for supposing that such a step once existed have already been given.) That it was removed at this rather than some other time is suggested by the presently observable relationship between Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1 and U. 27, lack of a burial in the fill of Str. 7F-30-1st-C on the Bu. 160 axis, and the presence in front of 1st-C of Bu. 190 and 191, which flank that axis. These burials were intruded through Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, most probably when Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1 was laid (consistent are the dates for that surface and the burials). Since the interments flank the Bu. 160 axis, they may be regarded as the missing ones for Str. 7F-30-1st-C. Thus, it appears as if the burials were put in place, the bottom step of U. 27 was removed with Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1, and the final pavement was laid to turn up to the base of what used to be the second step of U. 27.
Owing to exceedingly poor preservation of 7F-30-1st-C, an overall reconstruction has to be almost purely speculative. The one presented in Fig. 9 is conservative, in the assumption that, where possible, older substructure walls continued to be used in the new substructure. This is consistent with the overall configuration of the ruin mound, established earlier practices, and the little that is known of Str. 7F-31-1st. Also assumed is that, where not buried beneath U. 32, part of U. 26 continued to serve as a supplementary platform surface in front of the building platform of 1st-C. Possibly, though, U. 26 was removed where it was not to be covered by the stair fill, in which case the surface it represents was eliminated.
STRUCTURE 7F-30-1ST-B
The distinctly minor modification seen in 1st-B consists of
