806 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [ETH. ANN. 19 

fore, that neither of his large periods—cycle and great cycle—can 
begin with the first day of a year. This, however, is true of most, if 
not all, of the series of the Dresden codex, which goes far toward 
proving that Mr Goodman’s supposed time periods are not really such 
in a true sense, but are simply time counters or orders of units; other- 
wise we must suppose that the Maya had two time systems coincident 
only at certain points, which is what Mr Goodman assumes. 
Why the calendar used should be called ** Archaic,” as compared 
with that of the codices, is not altogether apparent from the inscrip- 
tions examined. As given and explained by Mr Goodman, it was as 
complete and perfect in all its details as that which would be designated 
more recent. The months, years, and 52-year periods, the method of 
numbering the days, and hence the 4-year series and all the peculiari- 
ties of the system, were precisely the same as those of the codices. 
As it is a rule in the progress of human culture to advance from the 
imperfect and crude to that which is more nearly perfect, that the 
archaic Maya calendar system might be expected to exhibit imperfec- 
tions which were gradually remedied by experience. Dr Férstemann, 
reasoning on this very justifiable assumption, concluded (though we 
must admit he fails to present satisfactory evidence) that primarily 
their years consisted of only 360 days, and that the next step in 
advance was to a year of 364 days, the final correction resulting in the 
year of 365 days. Mr Goodman says (page 3) that the Cakchiquel time 
system included two different years, the calendar year consisting of 
366 days; and the chronologic year of 400 days (it was 400 days). His 
scheme includes not only a 360-day period, but carries with it the 365- 
day period or true year, as this is one of his essential factors, and more- 
over is apparent in almost every inscription and must be admitted as 
a part of the chronologic system of the oldest inscribed records which 
have been discovered, be our theory as to their time system what it may. 
IDENTITY OF SYSTEMS AND CHARACTERS OF THE 
DIFFERENT TRIBES 
That there are found in the inscriptions on the now ruined structures 
of Tabasco, Chiapas, Yucatan, and Central America forms for the 
months and for some of the days, as well as some other peculiarities 
in symbols, not observed in the codices, is true. But considering what 
has been given by early writers concerning the names and order of 
the days and months among the different tribes, the agreement in the 
forms and order of the days and months as shown by the inscriptions 
is remarkable. Take the day Ahau for example; although we meet 
here and there a face form, yet the usual symbol at Palenque, Tikal, 
Menche, and Copan is the same as that found in all the codices. The 
same is true of Ik, Akbal, Kan, Ben, Ezanab, Imix, and some others. 
And each holds the same relative position throughout, which indicates 
