248 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [eth. anx. 22 



or li, 488, 8-1 days. Adding the shorter series and counting forward 

 from 4 Aliaii 8 Curahu, we reach the date 4 Kan -2 Yaxliin. This 

 again is wrong. Using the larger series as corrected and counting 

 from Kan 12 Kayab we reach, as lias already been shown, the cor- 

 rect date, 3 Chicchan 13 Pax. It is therefore fair to conclude that 

 there are no sufficient grounds for Seler's supposition. 



These erroneous conclusions arise chiefly from tlie mistaken idea 

 that these numbers, ahaiis, katuns, etc. , are real time periods. More- 

 over, it does not necessarily follow, where such high numbers are 

 used, that 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu is what Seler calls the "normal date"'; 

 that is to say, the initial day of Goodman's 54th. great cycle. But this 

 does n(jt matter in the present case, as the date can not be connected 

 with any of the others given in the series. 



Even could the series be reasonably changed so as to make the con- 

 nection between the given dates, we still have staring us in the face the 

 fact that 9 Kan 12 Kayab is actually and beyond question used in the 

 codex as the initial day of the so-called great cycle in six instances, 

 and that a Kan is the initial date in 3 times 6 other instances. It is 

 true that these so-called great cycles are but orders of units, steps in 

 numei-ation, and not real time periods; nevertheless, thej' are just as 

 real when counting from a Kan as from an Ahau. 



In order that the reader may clearly understand the object in view 

 in introducing these calculations, and see the bearing they have on 

 the question, it is necessary again to refer to the basis of Goodman's 

 theory of the Mayan time system, and especially of his supjiosed 

 separate "chronological calendar." 



Goodman maintains that in addition to their regular annual cal- 

 endar in which time was counted by years, months, days, etc., the 

 Mayas made use of another time system which he terms the "chrono- 

 logical calendar." In this system, according to his theorj-, they 

 coimted time by certain determinate periods, which, according to the 

 nomenclatare arbitrarily adopted by him, are termed cliuens (each of 

 20 daj's) ; ahaus (each of 18 chuens or 300 days) ; katuns (each of 20 

 ahaus or 7,200 days); cycles (each of 20 katuns or 144,000 days); 

 great cycles (each of 13 cycles or 1,872,000 days), and a grand era 

 equal to 73 great cycles. These he believes to be real time periods, 

 as truly so as the years, etc., of the annual calendar, systematically 

 arranged and all above the chuens always (so far as time count in 

 the inscriptions is concerned) beginning with a day Ahau, the great 

 C3-cles always with the day 4 Ahau. It is in this supi)osition that 

 Goodman's great error lies, and, in order to support his premise, he 

 changes two of the steps of the Mayan numeral sj^stem without the 

 slightest evidence on which to base the change, and he also introduces 

 factors into the numeral system which are wholly unknown to it. If 

 these statements which I make can be maintained by satisfactory 

 evidence, then his theoretic "Archaic Chronological System" falls to 



