must await completion of TR. 35. Throughout this report, the term is used to refer to a burial in which an individual was placed with his or her elite belongings, without earth covering the body or dirt in the face, in a chamber far larger than needed for mere containment of the corpse and associated materials; see Haviland and Moholy-Nagy 1992:53.) The co-rulers’ descendants continued their residency well into Terminal Classic times, but over this period their fortunes waxed and waned, perhaps partially in response to political developments at Tikal. As this report proceeds, these hypotheses will be developed in greater detail. That said, care has been taken to avoid “stacking the deck” in their favor by being selective and omitting important data. As was done in TR. 19 (especially pp. 1–4), basic information is first presented, and then examined for its bearing on the hypotheses under consideration. Here, parts II, III, IV, and V correspond to II, V, VI, and VII of TR. 19, although there are some differences: all architectural data will be found in part II (instead of a separate section as in TR. 19), definition and discussion of lot groups are in part V (see also Appendix B), and group time spans are defined in part VII, prior to integrating insights from all preceding sections in a final assessment of the hypotheses noted above. Discussion of St. 23, 25, and several miscellaneous stones will be found in VI. The report concludes on a more speculative note (in Appendix A) with a trial reconstruction of kinship and residence in Gp. 7F-1. Although data from the 1957 excavations are fully integrated with those from more recent ones in this report, not all details reported in TR. 2 are presented anew here. Instead, aided by Table 1.1 (TR. 2 was written before terminology was standardized as per TR. 12), the reader is referred back to the earlier publication whenever appropriate.
TABLE 1.1 Revision of Architectural Designations Used in Tikal Report 2
| New Designation | Old Designation |
| Str. 7F-30:U. 33 | Feature 2 |
| Str. 7F-30:U. 34 | Feature 1 |
| Str. 7F-Sub.1 | Feature 3 |
| Plat. 7F-1-1st:Fl. 1 | Floor 1 |
| Plat. 7F-1-2nd:Fl. 1 | Floor 2 |
| Plat. 7F-1:U. 14 | Floor 3 |
| Plat. 7F-1:U. 5 | Floor 5 |
| Plat. 7F-1:U. 1 | Floor 4 |
Terminology utilized in this report is that set forth in TR. 12 (esp. pp. 47–49 and 61–63), with emendations as described in TR. 19 (pp. 3–4) and 20A (p. 2), as well as above with respect to the word “tomb.” Establishment of time spans for each structure and platform follows the precedent TR. 19 sets by defining a single series for each in all its guises, rather than separate series for each 1st, 2nd, and so forth (as in TR. 14). This produces, for example, one set of seventeen time spans (Table 2.2 [see below] for Str. 7F-30 [1st through 5th]), instead of five separate series: TS. 1–7 for 1st, another TS. 1–2 for 2nd, TS. 1–2 for 3rd, TS. 1–2 for 4th, and TS. 1–4 for 5th. By adopting this approach, the logical connection between products of development is stressed, although time span content would be the same whichever procedure was used (e.g., content of TS. 11 of 7F-30 is no different than what content of a TS. 2 of 7F-30-3rd would be). Furthermore, whether one defines time spans as here, or as defined in TR. 14, the group time spans derived from them would be the same twenty-seven group time spans in Table 7.1 (see below).
One other departure from TR. 14 is definition herein of two distinct architectural developments (1st and 2nd) for Str. 7F-32. This is largely a matter of labeling, for certainly what is called 1st represents a major alteration of original 2nd; the whole structure in a very real sense was turned around to face N instead of S (although access to the now isolated Rm. 1 from the S was retained). Yet, because the Maya managed to do this without actually tearing down the structure and putting up a new one on the same spot, some might hesitate to label these 1st and 2nd, but would instead speak of a 7F-32-A and B. Whichever alternative one chooses, however, does not change the basic facts.
A word about the definition of Gp. 7F-1 itself is also necessary. Almost all of what is known about this group begins with construction of Str. 7F-30-5th, 7F-32-2nd-C, 7F-Sub.1, Plat. 7F-1-4th, and Plat. 7F-3-2nd, even though traces of earlier architecture (Str. 7F-Sub.2) exist. As will become apparent, there is reason to regard the nature of the oldest occupation as quite different from that of the later Gp. 7F-1. In the text, the oldest occupation will be referred to as “Old Gp. 7F-1,” the latest as “New Gp. 7F-1.”
Although basic chronological control in Gp. 7F-1 is based primarily on stratigraphy, dating of time spans relies heavily on established dates of late Manik, Ik, Imix, and Eznab Ceramic Complexes of Tikal. For convenient reference, these are given in Table 1.2, together with currently used period names appropriate to the era represented by occupation of Gp. 7F-1. Since two different dates have been published for the end of Late Classic and onset of Terminal Classic times (TR. 33A:table 1; TR. 25A:table 1), some explanation is required for the one used here. T. Patrick Culbert (in TR. 25A) bases his estimate on the close resemblance of Eznab pottery to Bayal ceramics, which appeared at Seibal about 10.0.0.0.0; he thinks it highly unlikely that as many as three katuns (60 years) would have passed before similar pottery appeared at Tikal (T. P. Culbert pers. comm., 1985). By contrast, Christopher Jones (TR. 33A:31 and 130), following Coe, argues that St. 11 with its altar and underlying cache are so within Classic traditions that continuity of Imix pottery is probable. Support for this view comes from Bu. 77, which contained Imix ceramics; Coe (in TR. 14:865–866) argues that this interment, beneath an unfinished Str. 5D-11, is that of the ruler portrayed on St. 11. Peter D. Harrison (pers. comm.) disagrees with Coe’s interpretation, citing (among other reasons) a likely female sex for the corpse in Bu. 77. Nevertheless, a date some time after 10.2.0.0.0 (recorded on St. 11) is possible for the appearance of Terminal Classic Eznab pottery. Furthermore, up to 60 years of coexistence of late Imix with Bayal ceramics is not out of line with the degree of overlap that seems to have existed between Postclassic complexes in the Maya lowlands (cf. Chase and Chase 1985:13; Freidel 1985:305–306).
The assistance of numerous individuals in writing this report needs acknowledgment. My great debt to Becker, Coe, Coggins, Jones, and McGinn should be clear from what has already been said, and I am most appreciative of their contributions of both data and ideas. Becker and Coe deserve added recognition for having called attention to the potential importance of Gp. 7F-1 at times when it might otherwise have been neglected in favor of investigations elsewhere at Tikal. Other important contributions were made by Henry Schwartz, Becker’s field assistant in 1963, Edward Crocker, who assisted him briefly in the same year, and Anthony Gahan, who joined these other two in offering aid when the “tomb” was discovered. In 1965, Francis P. Bowles helped map the excavations and rigged up lighting systems for tunnel excavation; Karen L. Mohr and Martha Schiek participated in the excavation of Bu. 190, 192, and 193. Invaluable assistance was furnished by Ismael Terceco, who drew the field plan of Str. 7F-32 and the supplementary sections and wall elevations that appear here in Fig. 19. Without his help, much less could have been accomplished in 1965.
TABLE 1.2
Chronological Divisions and the Long Count
1. After TR. 27A:xiv
2. After TR. 14
3.
