THOMAS] Goodman's "archaic chronological calendar" 249 



the ground, tlioiigh his discoveries as to the signification of certain 

 glyphs and the manner in which thej^ were used be genuine, and his 

 calculations of series be cori-ect, and though his tables be also correct 

 in the main. 



The annual calendar sj^stem, which is that one long ago explained 

 and accepted (that of months, years, etc.), is not in dispute. It is 

 his theory of another time system, his so-called "Chronological Cal- 

 endar," which I assert is without basis of fact. This calendai-, which 

 he says he "finally deduced," he expects will be challenged, but he 

 "leaves it to defend itself, conscious that it is as infallible as the 

 multiplication table." 



Before referring to the proof bearing on this subject already pre- 

 sented, we shall call attention again to Goodman's method of num- 

 bering the.se periods. The chuens he says were numbered 18, 1, 2, 3, 

 etc., up to 17; the ahaus and katuns were numbered 20, 1, 2, li, etc., 

 up to 19; the cycles, 13, 1, 2, 3, etc., up to 12; and the great cycles, 

 73, 1, 2, 3, etc., up to 72. On this subject he remarks as follows: 



Another consideration which must be constantly borne in mind is that all Maya 

 dates relate to elapsed time. When a date is given it must be remembered that 

 it is not the beginning of a period yet to run its course, but the beginning of one 

 denoting a period already concluded. The ingenious numeration of their periods 

 was designed to prevent confusion in this regard. The first day, chuen. ahati, 

 katim, cycle, and great cycle is not numerated 1. but 30, 18, 20, 20, 13, 73, as the 

 case may be, denoting that the full round of the period has run and that this is 

 the commencement of a new count. In other words, these beginning numerals 

 are equivalent to naught or no count, the periods being designated only until after 

 they had fully passed. It is very difficult to keep track of this style of numera- 

 tion — so difficult, in fact, that familiar as I am with it I am distrustful of having 

 made some lapses in these pages. 



That he has made a mistake in this statement, in order to fit the 

 facts with his theory, and that he carries this mistake throughout his 

 entire work, is easily shown, and will appear from what follows. 



That the count is foi-ward to some date in the future, as eompai-ed 

 with the initial date, in most of the series of the inscriptions, is appar- 

 ent from the examples given by Mr Goodman in his work; and that 

 it is forward to some future date, as compared with the initial day, in 

 every initial series, must be admitted. Therefore, his assertion can 

 not be intended to contradict this fact. What he intends to declare 

 is this, that when a date is given, as the first day of the 2nd katun or 

 ahau, we must understand that it is really the first day of the 3rd 

 katun or ahau, the 2nd being completed; or when 2 ahaus and 3 

 chuens are mentioned, we are to understand 2 completed ahaus and 

 3 completed chuens. 



Let us see if we can a.scertain how this strange method of number- 

 ing these so-called periods originated. It must be remembered that 

 this numbering is the consecutive numbei-ing, as that of the daj's of 



