Part 2

Figure 3

In figure 3, which probably dates to the first half of the 1^st century BC, the earlier building had been kept while all substructure units were changed.  A vaulted roof shown here is, again, conjectural.  The lower substructure was transformed into a two- platform system repeated in the rebuilt mid-level platform, each with a very low basal unit.   Twin stairs were retained as in the previous structure.  The mid-level substructure had no front stair; access to the upper level was from east and west sides.  The north building, its building platform partly submerged, was now the dominant element of an open-cornered quadrangle.  Unfortunately, only basal stubs of the three other units remained.   The quadrangular format of upper units again suggests residential function, and again, I interpret this as use of residential form for non-residential purposes, primarily because of the strict axiality on the quadrangle on cardinal lines.

 Figure 4

The acropolis that followed (figure 4), still in the first century BC, left lower substructure features substantially unchanged while completely reworking the upper parts.  A two-terrace upper substructure platform with generously rounded corners now had a central axial stair.  At the summit, flanking this stair, were two thatched buildings that acted as a threshold, or gateway, to the space behind, defined by two identical units of distinctly non-residential form.  These had high building platforms with mask panels and were almost certainly vaulted.  By Mesoamerican conventions they are “temples” presumably built to serve ceremonial purposes.   This change either indicates a new function for the acropolis, or confirms the previous function as ceremonial despite the residential character of the earlier architecture. 

Two features seem puzzling; absence of a single dominant element, and imbalance between east and west.   The former may have been met by the whole upper ensemble including the round-cornered, two-terraced  platform with central stair; indeed this may be the explanation for the positioning of this stair, as if the stair of the north axial building platform in the earlier acropolis had been transferred to the two-terrace upper substructure of this one.  East-west imbalance is harder to interpret.  Perhaps the west side of the upper complex was reserved for ceremonial activities that required open space.    

The approximate time of construction and use of this acropolis appears to coincide with initial paving of the Great Plaza, though of relatively modest extent (Coe 1990: 818).  This development would seem to indicate a general increase in size and impressiveness of the whole ceremonial centre at Tikal, perhaps reflecting growth in importance of the city, or alternatively, power and status of the folks using the centre.

continue to Part 3