THOMAS] GOODMAN'S SYSTEM AS, 
: ° 
the same day, a fact to which I have heretofore called attention 
(see The Maya Year, pages 47 and 53). But the series may be arbi- 
trary; that is, the engraver or painter may have chosen to begin one 
series with one day and another with another day. This, however, 
goes to the yery root of the subject, as Mr Goodman’s system abso- 
lutely requires that the ahaus or 360-day counts shall all begin with 
the same day, and as worked out by him with a day Ahau. Dr 
Seler, impressed by the result of Dr Férstemann’s investigations, has 
been led to believe that most of the series of the Dresden codex have 
4 Ahau 8 Cumhu as their initial date, or the day to which they refer. 
While I admit that this is undoubtedly the day which seems to be 
most prominent in this codex, my investigations do not lead me to 
indorse his conclusion. 
Now, it is true that the series on plates 46-50 of the Dresden codex, 
of which there are in reality 39 sectional, or 3 complete, have Ahau 
as the initial day, but the initial days of the three series are not all 
360 days or an even multiple of 360 days apart, as they should be if 
Mr Goodman’s theory be correct. But the series are all exact multiples 
of 260, showing that they are based on a 260-day period. 
The long series on plates 51-58 does not commence with the day 
Ahau, whether we consider the upper line or lower line of days the 
proper one to count back from. It is also apparent that in this case 
the series is based primarily on the 260-day period. As the least 
common multiple of 260 and 360 is 4,680, it does not appear possible 
to bring those series based on the 260-day period into harmony with 
the Goodman theory except where the total number of days is a 
multiple of 4,680, unless we suppose that there are two series of non- 
coincident factors running through them. It is true that we may use 
the week of our calendar in counting 100-day periods by allowing for 
the supplementary days, as is undoubtedly done in some of the series 
of the codices and inscriptions; but the theory that the ahaus are time 
periods which can not overlap (thus indicating two starting points not 
consistent with the idea of uniform unbroken succession) is the point 
aimed at in the above references to the series of the Dresden codex. 
Another point in connection with the series on plates 51-58 difficult to 
account for on this theory is that the first day of the chuens (suppos- 
ing the numbers in the lower order of units to represent the day of 
the chuen) is Muluc throughout. It is true that the number in the 
lower order of units may commence anywhere in the chuen, but if 
these are fixed time periods and the chuens (but not true months) as 
well as the ahaus commence with Ahau it seems that such important 
series as this one would reveal this fact somewhere in the reckoning. 
In the inscription at the end there are two symbols of the usual type, 
one indicating 1 katun, the other 13 ahaus=11,880 days, while the 
sum of the series is 11,960, or 80 days more. 
The series on plates 71-73 has, if we may judge by the numbers 
