220 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [eth. ann. 22 



so-called oitli, the remaining nunibei-s maj' lie determined tlius: Cimi 

 may be the l!>th day of the month only in the j'ears in which Ahau 

 is the loth day of the mouth. Ky turning to Goodman's "Archaic 

 Chronological Calendar," 54tli great cycle, cycle 1 and katim 18, we 

 see that the 5th ahan begins with the day 12 Ahau Id Chen. Turning 

 to his "Archaic Annual Calendar," we find that 12 Aiiau 13 Chen 

 falls in the year he numliers 34 (equivalent to the year li Laraat in 

 my condensed calendar). Cimi is the 19th day of the month in this 

 year, but the month can not be determined until the day number 

 attached to Cimi is ascertained. As the face numeral attached to 

 the chuen symbol in the inscriiition is without the skeleton jaw we 

 infer tliat it does not exceed 0, and as it has none of the signs of full 

 count or naught it can not be 0. As Cimi comes 6 days after Ahau, 

 then we must count forward in the talile of the year 34 until we 

 reach the 19th day of the month Ceh. This count we find to be 3 

 months and 6 days, and the number attached to Cimi is 13. There- 

 fore the entire series is 54-1-1 8-5-3-(5, to 13 Cimi 19 Ceh, which is as 

 it is given by Goodman. The weak point in this solution is the 

 assumption of the 54th great cj'cle. Even without this, we can, by 

 a range of nine trials, determine that no other numbers than those 

 given can be found within the scope of Goodman's three great cj'cles 

 (53d, 54th, and 55th), but this, though strengthening the conclusion, 

 is not absolute demonstration, as the objection to his method of 

 counting the cycles, hereafter noticed, and the uncertainty as to the 

 scope of his tables, come into the problem. As M'ill be seen later, the 

 only certainty in regard to the tallies of his "Archaic Chronological 

 Calendar" is the order y and correct succession of dates and periods 

 and the fact that 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is the first day of a great cycle. 

 Assuming for the present that the series has been correctly deter- 

 mined, we gain evidence as to the value of two additional face numer- 

 als, 3 (figure 12Go) and (i (figure 129a). 



Goodman's interpretation of the initial inscription of the Tablet of 

 the Cross, which is 53-12-19-13-4-0, 8 Ahau 18 Tzec, is not satisfac- 

 tory. The face numeral attached to the cycle symbol, which he 

 interprets 12 (figure 135 o) has, as a superfix, a figure very much like 

 the superfix to the face character which he has correctly interiDreted 

 5 (as is shown by the evidence I have presented) (figure 128 a). In 

 his representation of face numerals no one save tliose denoting 5 or 

 15 have a superfix of this kind, excepting one for 12, and that one 

 is the character of this inscription (figure 135a). Moreover, it lacks 

 the skeleton jaw, which is true of some others above 10 as given by 

 him. As has been shown in my previous paper, where this inscrip- 

 tion is discus.sed at length, and as is admitted by Goodman, there is 

 no connection between the terminal date of the initial series and any 

 of the dates which follow, if the numeral series which intervene be 

 taken as given in the inscription. 



