Mexico, and few present so many fascinating riddles to the expert. It has therefore been impossible in the present work to keep clear of controversial ground, but I have tried as far as possible to take a sane view of each problem, and to indicate in some measure the evidence for each conclusion. Many of the suggested solutions are purely tentative, and must doubtless be modified in the light of subsequent investigations. This remark applies especially to the scheme of dating which forms an appendix. I am quite prepared to be accused of rashness in presenting it, and I admit that it is purely provisional. But I think it may have its use as a framework for history, and it will at least serve the purpose of exciting criticism. Subsequent to its preparation a monograph on "Maya Art," by Dr. Spinden, has made its appearance under the auspices of the Peabody Museum in America, in which the author provides a somewhat similar scheme. His table differs somewhat from mine, but I think that the reasons for my dating, which I give in the last chapter, render mine the more satisfactory, and I have therefore made no alteration. His full treatment of Maya art has however led me to curtail my remarks on that subject, since much of what I had written appears on his pages; and I have rather given emphasis to those points of difference which exist between us.
My original intention was to include in the present book a sketch of the archaeology of Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama, but the material proved too great, and I have thought it better to deal thoroughly with the related cultures of the Mexicans and Maya rather than to give an incomplete or over-compressed picture of the archæology of a wider area. Even as it is I fear
