an 
760 MAYAN CALENDAR SY 

STEMS (ETH. ANN.19 
actually counted. These facts seem to indicate that there is some 
omission, in truth a very large one; but with our present knowledge 
we are unable to solye the problem. 
I have already alluded to the question of connection between the 
left and right slabs, direct, or by means of the characters in the mid- 
dle space. Mr Goodman evidently follows the idea that the beginning 
of the inscription on the right slab (six columns) follows directly the 
close of that on the left slab. He does not make this plain in his 
notes on this tablet (op. pp. 185, 136), but when his remarks and figure 
on a previous page are considered (p. 96) it becomes evident, as the two 
upper glyphs of this figure are the last (E17 and F17) of the insecrip- 
tion on the left slab, and the other three the first three (S1, T1, and 
52) in the inscription on the right slab. In connection therewith he 
remarks as follows: 
The reckoning here is from the beginning of a great cycle. A notation of 
1-6-7 «12 (the 12 erroneously appears as 13) precedes the glyphs and is to be incor- 
porated with them. The reckoning shows the difference between the dates in the 
annual calendar. 
His reckoning (1-6-7 x 12) is 1 katun, 6 ahaus, 7 chuens, 12 days= 
9,512 (given in the sixth series of our list of the left slab as 9,513). If 
it were true, as he states, that the ‘‘reckoning shows the difference 
between the dates of the annual calendar,” meaning the date preced- 
ing and that following the numeral series, this would be strong proof 
of connection, but unfortunately Mr Goodman is mistaken in this 
instance, as neither the last preceding date (9 Ik 5 Mol), nor the initial 
date, nor any other date of the left slab connects by 9,512 or 9,513 
with either of the first two dates of the right slab, or any other date 
thereon. If there be any connection between the dates in the different 
spaces, it is between those of the middle space and those of the right 
slab, reading forward, and the last date on the inscription of the right 
slab and one of those on the left. 
It is evident from what has been shown that the proof of Mr Good- 
man’s theory, drawn from the Tablet of the Cross, is not very satis- 
factory, as not more than one-third of the dates thereon can be 
connected thereby. But where two and three series connect in suc- 
cession the probability of the double or treble coincidence is so 
extremely remote that the theory as to the numeral symbols and their 
use may be accepted as demonstrated. If the double connection 
occurred but once in the whole range of the inscriptions it would be 
best to conclude this to be a mere coincidence, but as this occurs again 
and again in the inscriptions, and even, as will be seen, a succession 
of three and four, the proof is too strong to be resisted. Even without 
this mathematical demonstration the strong, in fact, evident resem- 
blance of these numerical series to those of the codices is almost, 
if not quite, sufficient to justify Goodman’s interpretation of the 
numeral symbols to which allusion has been made. 
