In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

2.1. H.E.D. POLLOCK Architectural Problems in the Maya Field YB 30:117–119, 1931 Certainly one of the most impressive facts pertaining to the civilization of the ancient Maya is the extraordinary activity of these people as builders. Any one even moderately well acquainted with the territory occupied by this civilization can not but have marveled at the vast number of ruins that lie hidden on every hand in the dense growth of bush and jungle that covers those parts of Mexico and Guatemala inhabited by the Maya. The narrow trails that traverse this country are continually passing by, or leading over, low mounds and platforms, often difficult to separate from the natural contours of the land, but usually offering some peculiar features to distinguish them as the handiwork of man rather than of nature. The number and extent alone of such artificial hillocks mark the Maya as indefatigable builders, but fortunately for the student there are also many buildings in a sufficiently good state of preservation to show that these people were not only untiring workers, but architects of a relatively high order. The great stone cities of Yucatán and Guatemala, first brought to general at2 .0. Art and Architecture 187 tention nearly 100 years ago, and much discussed in recent years, contain many excellently preserved structures ; and every worker in the field knows that there are scores of less conspicuous sites containing literally hundreds of buildings in various stages of ruin, many of which offer valuable architectural details to the student. It is now believed that nearly all surviving Maya structures served in one way or another for religious purposes, but whether this surmise is correct or not, their size and elaboration mark them as works of communal labor; and it seems fair to assume that, outside of work pertaining to the ordinary domestic economy, no other activity occupied, so much of the energy of the Maya as did his architecture. In two articles appearing in recent Year Books of the Carnegie Institution [Chapters 1.17 and 1.18] attention has been called to the need of a general survey of Maya architecture. The importance of this work can hardly be overestimated, but before attempting to discussanyfuturecourseofaction ,itmaybewelltoreview T H E C A R N E G I E M A Y A 188 ART AND ARCHITECTURE briefly the present status of the Maya architectural problem. At present there is a very considerable body of published material upon Maya buildings. No serious effort, however, has yet been made to coordinate the available data, the reason presumably being that those acquainted with the literature realize that in its present form it is too fragmentary to provide a basis for an adequate survey of Maya architecture. Dealing with the broader aspects of the situation, our present knowledge allows us to divide the Maya area into eight or nine regions that appear to be characterized by more or less distinctive features of assemblage, construction , or decoration. Because these regions have been associated with certain periods in Maya history through nebulous historical records, and through a somewhat larger and more reliable body of hieroglyphic calendrical inscriptions, it is customary to assign their architectural remains to time periods that accord with the historical and calendrical data; and although some effort has been made empirically to trace the development of architectural forms, our knowledge of the evolution of Maya architecture is still for the most part dependent upon external, rather than internal evidence. In the present embryonic state of Maya archaeology, a situation of this sort is not extraordinary . The possibilities of a short cut to the reconstruction of history offered by the understanding of so fine a time machine as the Maya calendar have of course long been apparent to workers in the field with the result that during the past two or three decades intensive work on hieroglyphic material has obscured the value and caused neglect of such other important lines of research as architecture and ceramics. It is indeed not impossible that the supposed “open sesame” of the calendar may actually have led us into erroneous beliefs in regard to certain aspects of Maya history . The addition, therefore, of another category of evidence, such as it is hoped may be found in architecture , should not only tend to fill the gaps in our present knowledge, but should serve as an extremely salutary check upon hypotheses now current. Whatever the eventual worth of a survey of Maya architecture...

Share