Question

Difficulty: MediumDetermining Paragraph-Level Main Ideas

The following passage is adapted from an article on the history of Mayanist scholarship, focusing on the decipherment of ancient glyphs.

[Paragraph 1] (lines 1–11)
Tatiana Proskouriakoff’s work in the mid-twentieth century fundamentally altered our understanding of Maya hieroglyphs. Before her breakthrough, the prevailing consensus among Mayanists was that the glyphs were primarily astronomical calculations and mystical symbols, disconnected from historical reality. This view was championed by J. Eric S. Thompson, the dominant figure in the field at the time, who argued that the Maya were a peaceful people ruled by priests obsessed with time. Proskouriakoff, an artist and architect by training, brought a different perspective, viewing the inscriptions with a keen eye for structural patterns rather than preconceived theological interpretations.

[Paragraph 2] (lines 12–21)
Her crucial discovery came while analyzing the monumental stone pillars, or stelae, at the ruins of Piedras Negras. She noticed that the stelae were erected in distinct series, each associated with a specific plaza or temple. Within each series, the dates carved into the stones spanned a period of no more than sixty years—a duration roughly equivalent to a typical human lifespan. Furthermore, the first stela in each group always featured a motif showing a figure seated in a niche, which she hypothesized represented an accession to the throne, followed later by glyphs marking war and marriage.

[Paragraph 3] (lines 22–31)
This finding led to the realization that the stelae were not abstract treatises on time, but rather historical records of royal dynasties. The glyphs recorded the actual births, accessions, military victories, and deaths of Maya rulers. By demonstrating that the inscriptions documented historical events and individuals, Proskouriakoff dismantled the myth of the timeless, mystical Maya. Her empirical, pattern-based approach paved the way for subsequent epigraphers to fully decipher the script, transforming the Maya from a civilization of speculation into one with a rich, recorded history.

Match each of the three paragraphs from the passage to its corresponding main idea.

  • Paragraph 1 (lines 1–11)An overview of the scientific consensus regarding Maya glyphs before Proskouriakoff’s work and how her background influenced her perspective.
  • Paragraph 2 (lines 12–21)A description of the specific evidence and patterns Proskouriakoff observed that led to her hypothesis about the stelae's dates.
  • Paragraph 3 (lines 22–31)An explanation of the historical significance of Proskouriakoff’s discovery and its role in enabling the decipherment of the Maya script.

Answer

Paragraph 1 matches the overview of the prior scientific consensus and how Proskouriakoff's background shaped her perspective; Paragraph 2 matches the description of the specific evidence and patterns observed at Piedras Negras; Paragraph 3 matches the explanation of the historical significance and legacy of her discovery.
Paragraph 1 corresponds to the overview of the prior scientific consensus and how Proskouriakoff's background shaped her perspective because the text outlines the astronomical-mystical theory dominant before her arrival and explains how her training as an artist and architect allowed her to look at the inscriptions differently. Paragraph 2 matches the description of the specific evidence and patterns observed because it describes the stelae at Piedras Negras, the sixty-year lifespan of dates, and the specific glyph motifs of the figure in a niche. Paragraph 3 corresponds to the historical significance of the discovery because it focuses on the outcome of her work, explaining how it proved the glyphs were historical records and paved the way for subsequent decipherment.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze Paragraph 1 to determine its main focus.
Paragraph 1 introduces the pre-existing belief that Maya glyphs were merely mystical/astronomical, notes Thompson's influence, and introduces Proskouriakoff's different approach based on her architectural background.
Identifying the introduction of a conflict between historical consensus and a new perspective allows for matching with the item summarizing prior consensus.
2
Analyze Paragraph 2 to identify its primary function.
Paragraph 2 details the specific physical evidence—stelae locations, sixty-year date spans corresponding to human lifespans, and royal motifs.
Recognizing that this paragraph describes data and observations matches it with the description of specific evidence.
3
Analyze Paragraph 3 to determine how it concludes the passage.
Paragraph 3 outlines the legacy of the discovery: it proved the stelae recorded historical dynasties, debunked the myth of the mystical Maya, and set the stage for complete decipherment.
Recognizing the focus on consequences, legacy, and historical impact matches this paragraph with the item detailing historical significance.

Key Concept

Determining Paragraph-Level Main Ideas
Rate this question