This paper is a survey of Maya archaeology of the last ten years. A brief historical examination of the years prior to 1958 is made. There follows an intensive look at fieldwork from 1958 to 1968. An examination is made of the state of the field with respect to research design and analytical techniques along with a consideration of data contributed by collateral fields. On the level of explanation and synthesis, there is an examination of the major problems of Maya culture-history to the solution of which recent research has contributed. The concluding sections summarize the characteristics of recent work and attempt to sketch the critical areas for future investigation. I may have unfairly slighted some investigations and workers because much recent work is still in unpublished form. I have depended not only on preliminary reports and the standard publication sources, but also to some degree on the “bush telegraph” of anthropology in assessing the field. Thus the following can only be regarded as one (albeit active) worker's perception of his own specialty.

In this section a sample of interesting cases is provided to illustrate the problems involved when attempting to judge the reliability of Cuban statistics. The paper does not attempt to cover all the existing difficulties nor to offer final answers to some of the intriguing puzzles discussed. Yet the process of describing these statistical abnormalities occasionally clarifies the way in the search for truthful figures. The eight reconstructed tables included in this section do not have to be taken as absolutely reliable, but at least they offer a ten-year perspective (1957-66) of the most credible statistics available. The fact that this section has a negative approach should not lead the reader to the conclusion that all Cuban statistics are purposely misleading. Examples of accurate data are given when dealing with foreign trade, for instance. In some cases of erroneous data, the fault lies with the flaws in the system, including those detailed in the two previous sections. In other cases figures are deliberate misrepresentations. The author's ultimate objectives in this section are to alert the researcher to the frequent difficulties he will encounter when working with Cuban data, and to suggest criteria for selecting the more accurate figures from the Cuban statistical tangle.

Several years ago, students of Latin American politics discovered with some alarm that the subdiscipline of comparative politics had not only been ignoring their scholarly efforts, but the area altogether. At that time the principal focus of discontent was conceptualization. Classification systems, typologies, checklists, functions and isolated concepts about the politics of transition were being derived and applied without reference to and relevance for Latin America. While the terminological estrangement has by no means ended, some reconciliation has subsequently occurred. Recent theoretical works make occasional references to the area. It has become essential for all readers or collections of essays on political development to contain at least one (often the same) article on Latin American politics. Conversely, new research in Latin America has been increasingly sensitive to approaches prevalent in the general comparative politics literature.