710 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [ETH. ANN. 19 
to Dr Férstemann the number of days indicated by these numeral 
symbols as thus placed is 1,364,360, the length of the periods being as 
follows: 
Days. 
INGY ClO PS Deca) feb tyes Soe ee ercresee state eee Sats nec eee 144, 000 
kaput cao eo cee tole oe ale eaters ores eters 7, 200 
Dah sue. cos, Sct wai aeoe mee sise Sooke sees aoe 360 
Be) aT ea I a eee eM ne tee ae ane Eee 20 
Now let us test it by Mr Goodman’s system, using his own tables 
(last page of his paper) for this purpose: 
Days. 
One Clegaee tre ta feeiner tae pte ee te a eae 1, 296, 000 
Oikatune tees ace era stole ee see sem See eer 64, 800 
9 ANA = se ee Res oe se clssoee water ciecjeertate 3, 240 
16 CHUCNE eee 2c ee ee ee eee 320 
DEW Eidoscccasonc cack oc cocr cn sotahaespuadsesuseeso 0 
1, 364, 360 
It is evident from this result that this, so far as the system is con- 
cerned, is, up to the fifth order of units, precisely that discovered and 
applied by Dr Foérstemann, except as to the *‘naught” symbol. Even 
the very order and method of expressing a series which Mr Goodman 
uses, so far as applicable to the codices, was, as will be seen a little 
further on, used by Dr Foérstemann. In order that I may not do 
injustice to Dr Foérstemann when I speak of the discoveries by Mr 
Goodman, it is proper to add that not only had he discovered and 
applied to the time series of the Dresden codex the orders of units 
accepted and used by Mr Goodman, but had determined as early as 
1891 the value of the symbols designated ‘‘ahau” and *‘katun,” as 
appears from his article Zur Maya-Chronologie in the Zeitschrift 
fiir Ethnologie for that year. Mr Goodman’s paper was not published 
until 1897, though it is apparent from his preface that it was com- 
pleted in 1895. If Dr Férstemann had not seen Mr Goodman’s 
paper when his article entitled Die Kreuzinschrift von Palenque, was 
published in the Globus in 1897—which makes no mention of the 
former, though referring to works on the subject—it is evident he 
had discovered independently the value of the symbols which Good- 
man designates chuen and cycle. To the 360-day period he applied 
the name *‘ old year” under the supposition that in an earlier stage of 
their culture the Mayas counted only 360 days to the year; and to 
the 7,200-day period the name ‘‘old ahau.” However, it appears 
from his Entzifferung der Mayahandschrift, number tv, 1894, that as 
early as June of this year he had calculated correctly the value of 
some six or eight numeral series on the stelae and altars of Copan 
from Maudslay’s work. This implies necessarily a knowledge of the 
value of the so-called time periods, and indicates that he had made 
