252 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [eth. ann. 22 



on the north and south faces of Stehi J at Copau. Here, it is true, 

 we find a succession of ahau symbols of the usual type, placed in 

 somewhat regular order and numbered in regular succession from 1 

 to 16, beyond which the remaining glyphs (onlj- two, however) are 

 obliterated. Whether these numerals are intended as a successive 

 numbering or intended merely to indicate so mauj- ahaus, is not 

 known; however, it looks like regular numbering, and is so accepted. 

 F>ut, unfortunately for Goodman's theory, the series clearly begins 

 with number 1. To get around this ditiiculty he assumes that it is 

 to be understood that 1 ahau has passed, j^et lie admits that the 

 S3"nibol on that numbered 1 signifies "beginning." Thus the only 

 example of numbering these so-called periods found in all the records 

 is emphatically against his theory, in order to sustain which he 

 literally begs the question by saying it must be assumed as under- 

 stood that 1 ahau has passed. We are justified, therefore, in regard- 

 ing his scheme of numbering as wholly unnecessarj' to explain the 

 numeral and time series of the inscriptions, for considering his 

 so-called time jjeriods merelj' orders of units will give a full explana- 

 tion, .so far as the counting is concerned, in every case. 



But these items do not show all the errors in the above-quoted 

 statement from Goodman's work. That but 13 C3'cles were counted 

 to the great cycle, I have shown by matheinalical demonstration is 

 iintrue, so far, at least, as the Dresden codex is conceinied. I have 

 shown that this codex, instead of counting 13 cj^cles to the great cycle, 

 counts 20, thus following regularity, as would naturally be supposed, 

 the vigesimal system. It is true that Goodman admits that the codices 

 belonging to what he calls the Yncatee group not only count 20 cycles 

 to the great cycle, but count from some three or four different initial 

 days. This admission, however, does not avail him anj-thing in the 

 way of clearing his theory of the difficulty presented. In the first 

 place, the Dresden codex can not be classed with the so-called Yucatec 

 grouiJ. This group, which includes the Troano and Cortesian codices, 

 and the codex used by Landa, makes Kan, Muluc, Ix, and Cauac the 

 dominical days; while the Dresden codex, from which the examples 

 given above showing the use of 20 cycles to the great cycle were 

 taken, follows the system of the inscriptions in using throughout 

 Akbal, Lamat, Ben, and Ezanab as dominical days. Moreover, it 

 gives high series whollj* unknown to the Troano and Cortesian codices; 

 and it introduces in some three or four places, as numerical charac- 

 ters, precisely the same symbols as those of the inscriptions named by 

 Goodman katun, ahau, and chueu, and in one or two places uses a 

 face character to represent the ahau. 



What grounds, therefore, can Goodman have for asserting that the 

 system used in the inscriptions is different from that used in the Dres- 

 den codex, which he evidently includes under the term " Yucatec 



