follow his outline (1950:170-172, 1970:461). Lothrop also thought the ball court early (1952), and Charlot, in his discussion of the art of the Warriors complex, states flatly that the ball court sculptures are earlier than those of the Chac Mool Temple or the Temple of the Warriors (Morris, Charlot and Morris 1931:340-343). The problem of the chronological position of the ball court in the architectural history of ChichĂŠn ItzĂĄ is one of the fundamental questions that a study of the ball court must attempt to resolve. The traditional view of a relatively early date is probably correct. A date coeval with or later than the Chac Mool Temple or the Temple of the Warriors is unlikely in light of the best evidence now available. It is also necessary to analyze the sequence of construction of the four ball court buildings themselves. Although the Lower Jaguar Temple is almost certainly the oldest of the structures, the lack of comparable architectural and sculptural features among all four of the buildings makes the establishment of a secure sequence tenuous. The Upper Temple of the Jaguars may be the latest of the ball court buildings, but probably little time separated it from the North and South Ball Court Temples.
Great Ball Court, Plan and Elevations Marquina 1964:Pl. 264