258 MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [eth. asn. 22 



entered into a careful examination of the basis on whicli Goodman's 

 theoretical "Chronological System" rests, and that he has accepted 

 Goodman's theory of 13 cycles to the next liigher period, without 

 thoroughly testing it, and noting the 20 cj^cles of the Dresden codex, 

 is somewhat surprising to me. However, he may have reserved the 

 discussion of these points for a future article. 



In speaking of the series last I'eferred to, 5-1— 13-0-0-0-0, 4 Ahau 8 

 Cumhu, he says: 



Here one sees that the final date is the normal date itself. Its distance from 

 the normal date can be placed only at or the above-named immense period of 

 18,720 years. The builders of the monuments have done neither. They have 

 provided all the lower multiplicands, or smaller periods, with the index 0, but to 

 the highest and greatest they have placed the multiplier 13. Thirteen is the 

 number of the index figures whicli are possible with the tun. the katun, and the 

 cycle names. If, consequently, here at the beginning of the initial series the 

 thirteen cycles are named, nothing else is meant than "the periods or epochs 

 generally." And the whole initial series would consequently give about the fol- 

 lowing idea: " This is a chronological monument. The beginning of the number- 

 ing is the day 4 Ahau 8 Cumku." And the fact that on the west side of the 

 same stela another definite date and its distance from the normal date is named 

 agrees very well with this. 



Similarly, in my opinion, are to be understood the thirteen cycles which are 

 chiseled on the two sides of Stela C of Copan, immediately under the katiin signs, 

 the initial and chief hieroglyphs. 



It seems clear from this that he has adopted Goodman's interpreta- 

 tion of the series, unaware of its incongruitj' with the interpretation 

 of all the other initial series, and the fact that it stands in opposition 

 to his own conclusion stated a little farther on in the same article. 

 As proof of the latter statement, I refer to the quotation from his 

 article given hereafter (page 292). 



Now, it is apparent that, if the series l)e interpreted as signifying 

 no lapse of time, but as a mere assertion that the date of the event 

 commemorated was 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu the first day of the 54tli great 

 cycle, which interpretation Seler adopts, then tlie monument must 

 have been erected 3,550 j-ears before the beginning of the cycle 

 which he numbers the tenth (Goodman's ninth). It is apparent, there- 

 fore, that he has failed to see the contradiction between this state- 

 ment and that which places the erection of the monuments of Copan 

 and Quirigua in the tenth cycle. He objects to the lapse of 3,160 

 years between the erection of the monuments of Palenque and those 

 at Copan and Quirigua, as imi^robable, but here admits, by his inter- 

 pretation, a lapse of 3,550 years between monuments at Quirigua. 



I have stated above that Goodman's so-called time periods, chuens, 

 ahaus, katuns, etc., are in reality nothing more than orders of units, 

 or steals in numeration. Although this point has been discussed to 

 some extent in my previous paper, I will add here some further 

 evidence bearing on it. 



