746 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS (ETH. ANN.19 
It will be seen from this that 13 Ik, the last day of the month Mol 
(year 10 Akbal) in our table 1, by the change made by Mr Goodman 
becomes the 20th day of the month Chen, which is in fact the begin- 
ning day of this month, and would in all ordinary calculations be 
counted the first, or 1. 
Although the numbering of the days of the month and of the days 
is not changed by this transposition, it does make a change in two 
important respects. First, the days which would be last in the month, 
if the count of the days of the month began with 1, become the begin- 
ning days of the following month, though counted as the 20th by Good- 
man’s method. Second, the position of the years in the 52-year period 
is changed. For example, the year 10 Akbal of the series exam- 
ined, which will—as can be seen by reference to table 3—be the 
49th year of the 52-year cycle, becomes the 9th by Goodman’s 
method. 
In the preface or preliminary remarks to his Archaic Annual Cal- 
endar, this author states as follows: 
[have put Ik at the head of the days because it is nearest to Kan of any of the 
Archaic dominicals, and because the Oaxacan calendar shows a tendency toward ret- 
rogression in the order of the days. There is no good reason, however, why any of 
the other dominicals may not have been the first. In fact the frequent and peculiar 
use of Caban in the inscriptions and its standing as the unit of the numeral series 
constituted by the day symbols would appear to go far toward justifying an assump- 
tion that it was the initial day; but the former circumstance may be only a chance 
happening, and the latter may attach to the remote pre-Archaic era when the year 
began with the month Chen; so that neither of these considerations, nor the signifi- 
sant recurrence of Manik in certain places, has had weight enough to induce me to 
change the order originally adopted; nor will it be worth while to alter it until some 
style of reckoning from the beginning of the annual calendar is discovered not in 
harmony with the present arrangement. 
In regard to these statements, it may be affirmed that the reason 
given for placing ‘Ik at the head of the days” is wholly insufficient, 
as it is not, in fact, nearest Kan of any of the Archaic dominicals, 
being nearer to Akbal, which certainly was a dominical, than to Kan; 
nor, in fact, would this be any reason for the change were it true. 
Second, as he begins the count of the days of the month with 20, it 
is in fact not first in the count. It is proper, however, to add here 
that if Dr Brinton (The Native Calendar, p. 22) bas interpreted cor- 
rectly his authorities, Ik was the initial dominical day in the Quiche- 
Cakchiquel calendar, though it must have been in comparatively 
recent times, as will appear from what follows farther on. Mr Good- 
man’s remark that ‘‘there is no good reason, however, why any of 
the other dominicals may not haye been first” is certainly correct. 
But this statement involves the correctness of his entire calendar sys- 
tem so far as the determination of the position of dates is concerned. 
It is true, as he states in the paragraph next below that quoted, that 
