Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
cut through the Acropolis by the Copan River (Becker) is the least-informative contribution to this volume. As an editorial note indicates, no illustrations were supplied by the author. The contribution does not, in any coherent way, describe the work carried out or results obtained in excavations of this area. It subordinates presentation of these results to a superficial discussion of the possible function of various areas of the Acropolis, which seems overly speculative and without grounding in research at the site. The final volume may be the most valuable contribution of this set, providing important data for comparative studies of Maya settlement. A brief but valuable introduction details the conventions of rectified mapping and recapitulates the site typology used (Fash). It includes a table presenting group composition, numbering, and investigations from the late nineteenth century to the date of publication. Since the numbering systems used have changed, this concordance is the only easy way to correlate existing reports on excavations in the Copan Valley. The maps (Long) include 24 individual 1-km blocks at 1:2,000 incorporating rectified site plans. Two maps at 1:6,250 covering the entire valley, presented in two sections each, show the relative location of these remains.
Schreiber et al. (Mon,) studied this question.