748 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [ETH. ANN. 19 
calculation as the thing calculated. He makes the statement, already 
quoted: 
It was taken for granted that a year of 365 days must necessarily enter into the 
reckoning; whereas, the moment the Mayas departed from specifie dates and 
embarked upon an extended time reckoning, they left their annual calendar behind 
and made use of a separate chronological one. 
It is the error made in this statement that vitiates the entire 
stupendous fabric he has built upon it, though all of his computations 
may be correct so far as calculation is concerned. The Maya, in 
order to calculate time, had necessarily, just as any other people, to 
use some system of notation. Maudslay, though usually so carefully 
conservative, seems to have been led astray in this matter, as he 
remarks: 
All the dates and reckonings found on the monuments which can be made out by 
the aid of these tables are expressed in ahaus, katuns, ete., and not in years; but Mr 
Goodman maintains that the true year was known to the Mayas, and that it is by 
the concurrent use of the chronological and annual tables that the dates caryed on 
the monuments can be properly located in the Maya calendar. 
Dr Férstemann and Dr Seler seem also to have missed the true signi- 
fication of this time counting. If the former intended to be under- 
stood, in suggesting an ‘‘ old year” of 360, that this number of days 
was at an early period in the history of the Mayan people actually 
counted as a year, as seems to be a fair inference from his language, 
it follows as a necessary consequence that the years and also the 
months always commenced with the same day, though not with the 
same day-number (Zur Entzifferung der Mayahandschriften, ry, 1894, 
and elsewhere). Although Dr Seler distinguishes the 360 days from 
the true year of 3865 days, he alludes to it as a real time period. 
Speaking of the ‘* katun,” he says: 
And hence the discussion—upon which many profitless papers have been written— 
whether the katun is to be considered 20 or 24 years. The truth is, it consists neither 
of 20 nor of 24 years—the years were not taken into account at all by the old chron- 
iclers—but of 20 x 360 days. 
His katun was therefore 7,200 days, the same as that afterwards 
adopted by Mr Goodman. 
As a Mayan date is properly given when it includes the day and day 
number, and the month and day of the month, this determines the 
year in the system and the dominical day. As dates are found in the 
oldest inscriptions and in the Dresden codex, the oldest, or one of the 
oldest codices, and these dates show beyond question a year of 365 
days, and hence a four-year series, there is no reason for believing 
that there are allusions, either in the inscriptions or codices, to a year 
of 360 days. The simple and only satisfactory explanation is that the 
360 is a mere counter in time notation. 
