Ruppert’s 1952 volume on the architectural notes and plans of Chichén Itzá is an invaluable source to understand the architectural archaeology of the site. Tozzer’s monumental study of Chichén Itzá contains over 700 illustrations and detailed discussion of the archaeology of the site (1957). Marquina’s volume on the architecture of Mesoamerica is an important source (1964), and for the Great Ball Court Maudslay is still best (1889-1902, Volume 3, cited hereafter Maudslay 3:). The report of the excavations at the complex of the Temple of the Warriors is important for the stratigraphic information, architectural details, pictures, and drawings it contains (Morris, Charlot, and Morris 1931), and finally, the long article on Chichén Itzá by the prolific German scholar Eduard Seler is still important for his illustrations and discussion of the site (Seler 1902-1923, Volume 5:197-388, hereafter cited Seler 5:). The buildings of Chichén Itzá are known by a number that refers to their position within the numbered and lettered quadrants of the map of the site produced by Kilmartin and O’Neill, which is reprinted with revisions in Ruppert (1952:Fig. 151). On the map, buildings are individually numbered within rectangles designated 1-7 north to south and A-E west to east. In addition, many of the structures at the site are known by a descriptive or popular name, like the Temple of the Big Tables or the Temple of the Initial Series (structures 2D7 and 5C4 respectively on the Kilmartin-O’Neill map). This monograph often refers to structures by name if they have one and by number if they do not, following Ruppert (1952). A named structure that is not well known, like the Temple of the Sculptured Jambs (4B1), is often referenced by both name and number, but well-known structures like the Castillo or the Temple of the Warriors generally are not identified by number. The terminology used by Andrews is better than any other for the regional archaeological sequence. Throughout this volume the term Pure Florescent refers to the twenty-odd Puucrelated buildings at Chichén Itzá, following Andrews. This work does not use the term Florescent to encompass both the Pure Florescent and Modified Florescent periods in the way Andrews does, and it limits the term to architecture only of the Puuc style in agreement with Andrews V (Ball and Andrews V 1975:242, note 3). I use the term Modified Florescent in the sense used by Andrews.