THOMAS] TABLET OF THE CROSS 747 
‘**for all ordinary purposes the point of beginning is of no importance, 
since the annual calendar is only an orderly rotation of the days until 
each of them with the same numeral has occupied the seventy-three 
places allotted to it in the year,” if ‘tall ordinary purposes” be limited 
to finding the beginning, closing, and length of periods without regard 
to the absolute position in the higher Mayan time periods. 
To illustrate, I take the last day of the series just examined. If 
the dominical days be Akbal, Lamat, Ben, Ezanab, in the order given, 
as first declared by Seler, this day will be 13 Ik, the 20th day of Mol 
in the year 10 Akbal, and the forty-ninth year of the 52-year period, 
where the count is by true years, and the 52-year period begins with 
the year 1 Akbal. According to Mr Goodman’s system, using Ik, 
Manik, Eb, and Caban as the dominical days in the order given (20 Ik 
being first in the 52-year period), counting the beginning day of the 
months as the 20th, it would be (though absolutely the same day in 
time) the 20th day of the month Chen in the year 9 Ik, the 9th year 
of the 52-year period. 
It is undoubtedly true that if the days were written out in proper 
succession with the proper numbers attached and the months properly 
marked, as in my Maya Year, we might, if the series should be made 
of sufficient length, begin the cycle at any point where we could find a 
day numbered 1 and standing as the first (beginning) day of the month 
Pop. But the cycles of years beginning at different points would not 
coincide with one another unless they were exactly 52 years, or a mul- 
tiple of 52 years, apart. 
As the system has, for the periods above the year, no fixed historical 
point as a basis or guide, the dates are only relative, that is to say, a 
date though readily located in the 52-year period, unless connected 
with some determinate time system, may refer to an event that occurred 
200, 500, or 5,000 years ago; intother words, is but a point in each of 
an endless succession of similar series. 
It is possible, after all, that Goodman and I are both in error as to 
the initial year of the 52-year period, though this will in no way affect 
the calculation of series and determination of dates. The result in 
these calculations will be the same with any year as the initial one, 
provided that the regular order of succession be maintained. If the 
ordinary calendar among enlightened nations had nothing fixed by 
which to determine relative positions in time, our centuries might be 
counted from any one selected year, and all calculations made would 
be relatively correct. 
Although Mr Goodman’s computations may be, as we shall doubt- 
less find them as we proceed, usually correct, yet there is, if I read 
him aright, one radical error in his theory. He has taken the appa- 
ratus, the aid, the means which the Mayas used in their time counts 
as, in reality, their time system. In other words, he has taken the 
