THOMAS] IDENTITY OF SYSTEMS AND CHARACTERS $11 
the question of danger from outside sources is practically eliminated from the prob- 
lem of their national existence. Their unity of origin, the simple numeral worship 
indicated by their monuments, the civic spirit to be inferred from the absence of all 
warlike insignia in the inscriptions, point unmistakably toa happy, contented, peace- 
ful state of internal affairs, akin to brotherhood. Under such conditions, how long 
might not a nation endure? We go back ten thousand yearsand find them then ciy- 
ilized. What other tens of thousand years may it have taken them to reach that 
stage? From the time of the abrupt termination of their inscriptions, when all sud- 
denly becomes a blank, back to that remote first date, the apparent gradations in 
the growth of their civilization are so gradual as to foreshadow a necessity for their 
280,800 recorded years to reach the point of its commencement. Manifestly, we 
shall haye to let out the strap that confines our notion of history. The field of native 
nationality in America promises, when fully explored, to reveal dates so remote that 
it will require a wider mental range to realize them (page 149). 
This conclusion is reached by the following process of reasoning: 
That the concluding date (he always calls it ‘‘initial date”) of the 
initial series **could have but a single purpose—that of recording the 
date at which the monument was erected.” The fact that some of the 
stele have different ‘‘initial dates” on opposite sides is explained 
by the statement that ‘‘in these instances one date is reckoned from 
the other, the latter one undoubtedly designating the time of dedica- 
tion.” This, however, is a supposition not sustained by satisfactory 
evidence. As to the two on Stela C, he confesses he can give no expla- 
nation of them without radical changes in each. 
By a comparison of the dates in the various inscriptions he arrives 
at the conclusion that the lapse of time between the earliest and latest 
of these was 8,383 years. Adding to this 2,348 years, the time 
preceding 1895 A. D., at which he thinks the record closed (page 148), 
‘*we shall arrive at the time when that ancient Maya conqueror trod his 
enemies under foot, 10,731 years ago, the oldest historical date in 
the world”; that is to say, the monument on which the earliest 
date is recorded was erected 8,836 years before the Christian era. To 
obtain the enormous stretch of 280,800 years, mentioned in the above 
extract, he counts back according to his theoretic time system to the 
beginning of the grand era. Of course, such startling result, based 
upon the kind of testimony offered, can hardly be accepted as historic. 
The inscriptions showing what may be called ‘initial series” exist; 
they show the counters up to the sixth order of units, or the great 
eycle, but all else upon which his great structure is built consists of 
speculation. There is no basis for his grand era, his 73 great cycles, 
or his fifty-third, fifty-fourth, and fifty-fifth great cycles. That the 
great cycles were numbered, just as we number thousands and mil- 
lions, is undoubtedly true, but 14 is the highest numbering of which 
we have any positive evidence in the inseriptions or codices, which 
indicates that the count would have ended at 20, following the vigesimal 
system if carried higher. 
Notwithstanding these criticisms Mr Goodman seems to be right in 
