794 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [BTH. ANN. 19 
or ever imagine suchaone? Where isthe proof tobe found? The fact 
that the scheme works out nicely according to the figures is no eyi- 
dence that it was ever in use, ever adopted, known, or even imagined 
by the most advanced Mayan priest. 
Speaking of the grand era, his great rounding-out period, Mr 
Goodman says: 
As the existence of this period is very likely to be questioned, I will give my rea- 
sons more fully here for believing in such an era. The numbers 73 and 949 are as 
important factors in the Maya chronological scheme as 13 and 20, This results from 
two features of the system not hitherto touched upon, which may very properly be 
termed the minor and grand rounds of the periods. After 73 occurrences, and not 
until then, every period of the chronological calendar begins again with the same 
day of the same month, but (with the exception of the burner and great cycle) with 
a different day number. This is the minor round. Thirteen of these, or 949 occur- 
rences, constitute the grand round, when the periods begin again not only with the 
same day of the same month but with the same day number. 
There is no doubt that the calculation here is all right, and that 73, 13, 
and their multiple, 949 (7313), will be divisors of any product of 
which they have been multipliers. Hence there can be no question 
that the results he gives in the two tables following the paragraph 
quoted are correct, but after all he is simply taking apart the pieces he 
has put together. In other words, no amount of figuring in this way 
will furnish proof that such a scheme as his was in vogue among the 
Maya. That they did have a notation with the following multipliers: 
20 18x 20 20, and another, presumably 20 (admitted by Mr Good- 
man to have been 20 in the Dresden codex) we know; but it can hardly 
be granted that the great scheme he has built up on this foundation 
is justified. There is just as much evidence, in fact much more, that 
the count went on after the second order of units according to the 
vigesimal system, than that Mr Goodman’s scheme was in yogue. 
That there was a count or order of units above the fifth or cycle is 
evident both from the codex and from the inscriptions, and I am inclined 
to believe, as heretofore stated, that Mr Goodman is right in interpret- 
ing the large initial glyph of the Tablet of the Cross, Palenque, and 
the other similar initial glyphs as the symbol of such count, order of 
units, or great cycle, as he prefers to call it. But I find no evidence 
in the codices or inscriptions that the count was ever carried beyond 
this sixth order of units or great cycle, though there is nothing in the 
system to prohibit it more than there is to prevent counting beyond 
billions in the decimal system. That this order of units appears to 
have been the limit of computation is inferred in part from the promi- 
nence and position given the symbol, and from the fact that no higher 
count has been found. Although there is no satisfactory evidence in 
the inscriptions of the numbering of these so-called great cycles, 
except the series on Stela N, Copan, yet it is known from the Dresden 
codex that they were numbered; but the limit, unless we assume that 
it was governed by the vigesimal system, is unknown. 
