few small cuts were made to locate corners and base lines where it appeared that the data could be obtained with very little disturbance. Some upper parts were measured for plan data along the lines where wall faces emerged from debris. Since many wall faces are not exactly vertical, these measurements include small dimensional errors. In the case of Great Temple IV (Str. 5C-4), restoration was underway at the same time that recording was being done and some features are the restored versions.
Sculptural details, where present, are generally poorly preserved and can be indicated only approximately. One exception to this is the sculptural feature on the upper part of the rear axial outset of Great Temple III. Often vaults have partially collapsed, presenting sectional details that reveal processes of construction otherwise inaccessible.
In TR. 12:37 (1982), TR. 23B was projected to be jointly authored by myself, William R. Coe, and Christopher Jones. Sadly, both Jones and Coe are no longer with us. Jones’s material is now to appear in 23C and 23D. As a result, TR. 23B presents data on four of the six Great Temples. Great Temples I and II appear in TR. 14 (1990). The greater level of detail available for these two structures reflects the impact of excavation.
From the start, Tikal was distinguished by a wealth of relatively well-preserved standing architecture. One Tikal Project objective was that of putting on record all accessible details of structures that were not scheduled for more intensive investigation. Since standing architecture was always at risk of collapse due to on-going erosion and tree growth, it was felt as a responsibility that all extant features not concealed by debris should be recorded as soon as possible. This report presents one set of these “standing architecture” examples. Others appear in TR 23A (2002), and TR 23C and 23D (forthcoming).
The four structures presented here, Great Temple III, IV, V, and VI, together with Great Temples I and II, stand as the dominant features of the city center. If tree growth were to be removed, five of these would be immediately obvious as a coherent set of major monuments (Great Temple VI is remotely located but connected with the others by plaster paving). All but Great Temple V represent Late Classic construction and can be associated with known rulers. It is tempting to think of them as funerary monuments, but this is only a supposition. Their relationship with rulers may have been much more complex.
Tikal Project personnel who measured these structures and prepared the drawings that provided the data for this report are noted in the introductory paragraphs for each structure. Manuscript preparation has greatly benefited from the editorial work of Barbara Hayden, Simon Martin, Jim Mathieu, and Page Selinsky. Alessandro Pezzati and Virginia Greene assisted greatly in providing various types of material. Alert outside readers spotted problems and made helpful suggestions. I wrote the reports and must take responsibility for any errors or omissions.
II
Great Temple IV
Structure 5C-4
As seen from the doorway of Str. 5D-I (Great Temple I), looking W, the superstructure of Str. 5C-4 rises above the forest canopy to the right of Str. 5D-2 (Great Temple II; Fig. 1a,b). Removal of intervening forest would show the two Great Temples (I and IV) as the E and W limits of the plateau occupied by the monumental structures and plazas of epicentral Tikal. Beyond this complex, contours fall away and set the center of the city apart from the less intensive development around it. This effect is heightened by the massiveness of the largest structures. Structure 5C-4, for example, rises approximately 67 m above its sustaining surface, at the junction of the Tozzer and Maudslay Causeways.
Three of the five great temples (II, III, and IV) are located so that from Great Temple I, looking W, all are visible frontally. They are sited so that each stands on a unique axial line. This is true even for Great Temples I and II, located on opposite sides of the Great Plaza. Such obvious separation of axial lines must have been intentional. One possible argument for intentional separation of axes is that each one may have embodied iconographic significance specific to each structure. A consideration such as this may have influenced the site selection of Str. 5C-4 relative to the other great temples. Harrison (1999:fig. 123), noting that 5C-4, 5D-5, and 5D-1 form a right-angle triangle, proposes a different account for the Str. 5C-4 location, not incompatible with the conjecture presented above.
The 5C-4 Pyramid, on top of its basal platform (Fig. 2a,b), measures 88 m across the front (Fig. 3). Height (62 m) appears dominant, despite being less than the width by the ratio of 62:88 or 1:1.42. These proportions give the structure a quality of massiveness and solidity particularly appropriate to its site at the W edge of epicentral Tikal.
When newly built, and while in use, its proximity to the Great Plaza would have been much more apparent than it is now. Intervening forest currently makes 5C-4 seem more remote. A continuous paved surface, the Tozzer Causeway, once extended from the East Plaza through to 5C-4 the size and proportions of which are calculated to match the scale of the causeway, probably not an accident. Indeed, the quality of monumentality is very strongly developed in this structure, both by its own properties and by its position.
The Maudslay Causeway leads from a corner of Str. 5C-4 to the North Group and completes a circuit that returns via the Mendez Causeway to the East Plaza (see TR. 11:Temple IV Sheet). Structure 5C-4 is a major node along this circuit. The wide, plaster-paved, wall-lined avenues seem set up for processional ceremonies. Presumably Str. 5C-4 would have acted as one station-point in ceremonial proceedings staged on the causeways.
A series of quarries is located immediately to the E of Str. 5C-4 and behind it. Stone from these workings might have been part of the fabric of 5C-4; proximity of such a resource surely would not have been ignored. Two groups of small structures adjacent to the quarries (see Haviland, TR. 20A) may have housed the workmen and their families.
Excavations at Str. 5B-6 and 7 (ibid.) reveal Manik and Imix occupation in the area of intensive quarrying. These structures appear to have been continuously occupied from ca. 700 to ca. 869 AD. Occupants may have worked on Str. 5C-4, but that would not have been their only project.
The basal platform and pyramid of 5C-4 required enormous amounts of material (see the estimates, below). Land previously occupied nearby may have been cleared to bedrock for quarrying. This may explain the paucity of housemounds in the vicinity. Residential trash and demolition debris could have been used in the basal platform. For stability, it seems more likely that quarried stone would have been used for the pyramid.
Not surprisingly, Str. 5C-4 is represented in early investigations at Tikal. Teobert Maler designated the structure as Great Temple IV, cleared it of large trees, and provided photos (Maler 1911:pl. 1, 5) showing vegetation rooted even on the face of the roofcomb, as was still the case years after the inception of the Tikal Project (Fig. 1). This vegetation was removed in 1965 for stabilization (Fig. 4). The foreground in Maler’s print shows a tangle of old-growth tree trunks felled to open up vistas for his views of the major structures. These scenes reveal both the extent of forest growth resisted by the architecture over a span of a thousand years and the speed of its subsequent recovery. Although the Peabody Museum did not receive Maler’s site map in time for the 1911 publication, Tozzer provided one (1911:fig. 41). It shows a pyramid of nine terraces, probably by analogy with Str. 5D-1. Although higher than 5D-1, which has nine terraces, 5C-4 has only seven.
On-floor debris in the rooms was examined and cleared early in Tikal Project investigations (Op. 5A, 1957). Selective clearing to determine plan lines and terrace profiles was conducted primarily on E and N faces of the pyramid and basal platform terraces (Op. 5B, 1965). An axial tunnel penetrated a short distance into core material at the base of the main stair (Op. 5C, 1965), but did not encounter anything other than construction material.
Wilbur Pearson did the
