740 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [ETH. ANN. 19 
intervening numeral intended to be used as a connecting series, we 
must assume that if it is connected with any of the following dates it 
must be by means of one of the series coming after the second date. 
Mr Goodman does not begin his attempts at tracing the connections 
in the inscription on this slab with the first date, but, after noticing 
the initial series, and taking 1 Ahau 18 Zotz as his starting point, 
says (page 135): 
After three glyphs, which are probably directives stating that the computation is 
from that date, there is a reckoning of 8-520 [that is, 8 ahaus 5 chuens 20 days], 
with the directive signs repeated, to 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu [the third date given above]. 
* * * This reckoning is a mistake. It should be either 6-14 20, the distance 
from 8 Ahau 18 Tzee to 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, or 6-15 20, the distance from 1 Ahau 18 
Zotz—imore likely the latter, as it will presently be seen that other reckonings go 
back to that date. 
Before veferring to Mr Goodman’s suggestions, we find by trial 
that this first date (S Ahau 18 Tzec, year 2 Akbal) will not connect 
with any of the dates on the left slab, nor middle space, by either of 
the numeral series as given. If, however, we add two days to the 
first numeral series, making it 2,982 days, and count forward from 
8 Ahau 18 Tzec, we reach 13 Ik 20 Mol in the year 10 Akbal, the 
date following the second series. This, it is true, skips over the 
immediately following date (4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, year $ Ben), but if we 
subtract the second numeral series (542) from the first (2,982. as cor- 
rected) the remainder, 2,440, counting forward from the same date, 
will bring us exactly to 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu 8 Ben. Are these two 
coincident correct results to be considered accidental? They might 
be but for the additional fact that if 542 be subtracted from the sum 
of the first three series (first, second, third) with added two days to 
the first, the remainder, counting forward from 8 Ahau 18 Tzee 2 
Akbal, will reach 9 Ik 15 Ceh 9 Lamat, the date following the third 
numeral series. 
Turning now to Mr Goodman’s explanation of the first series and the 
accompanying dates, I notice first the fact that here as elsewhere he 
interprets what I consider the symbol for naught (0) as equivalent 
to 20; thus the number of days of the first series instead of 2,980 would 
be, following his explanation, 3,000—that is to say, the numeral series, 
as he gives it, is 8 ahaus 5 chuens 20 days, my interpretation being 
8S ahaus 5 chuens 0 days. The chuen symbol here is of the usual form, 
that shown in figure 1 a; the ahau is a face form sivnilar to that shown 
at figure 24. That there is a mistake here, as Mr Goodman asserts, 
is evident, if the two dates given, 1 Ahau 18 Zotz and 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu, 
are to be connected by the intermediate time periods. As 1 Ahau 18 
Zotz falls in the year 2 Akbal, and 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu in the year 8 
Ben, the interval is six years and the fractional days of the two years 
