THOMAS] Goodman's tables — succession of the ahaus 271 



It is apparent to an3'one at all acciuainted with the Mayan time and 

 numeral systems that, having a continuous sei'ies of days written out 

 in regular order and of sufficient length, with the day numbers and 

 month numbers attached, we may start at any point and count oil the 

 numbers given in the aliau, katun, and cycle periods, and we will 

 have precisely what is given in Goodman's "Archaic Chronological 

 Calendar," except that we may have some other initial daj' than 

 Ahau. If it should be Kan it would at some point correspond exactly 

 with the series of the Dresden codex which have been referred to; if 

 Ahau, then the periods would agree with those of the inscriptions and 

 some of those in the Dresden codex. Now, it is evident that in count- 

 ing off a number in the next higher group above the so-called cycle, 

 if we count off the latter periods by 20, instead of 13, the succession 

 would be as regular as in the other case, there being nothing whatever 

 in the system requiring or even suggesting 13. Hence we might take 

 Goodman's tables, if more extended, and making 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu 

 our starting point, count forward or backward by steps of 20 cycles 

 each, and thus find the correct initial days of the great cycles as we 

 have shown above. With the tables given in his work we can only 

 count forward from the beginning of his o4th great cycle to the 7th 

 cycle of the ooth great cycle as he has numbered them, showing tliat 

 10 Ahau 13 Yaxkin is the beginning day of the next great cycle, 

 counting 20 cycles to the great cycle, which I have shown to be the 

 correct method. 



I shall not discuss Goodman's theory of the number values of the 

 daj^ and mouth symbols, as there does not appear to have been any 

 use made of them as numerals. 



Let us turn again to the order in which the numbers of the ahaus 

 follow one another, to wit: 13, 9, 5, 1, 10, 6, 2, 11, 7, 3, 12, 8, 4, 13, 

 etc. This has been fully discussed in one light in this paper, but the 

 object at present is to view it in another light and with special refer- 

 ence to Goodman's theory in regard to it. That has also been 

 noticed to some extent in mj'^ previous paper, but there are some 

 points omitted in that discussion to which it is desirable to call atten- 

 tion. I quote in full Goodman's statement of his discovery of the 

 order of succession : 



Ymix is the day following Ahan: heuce. I reasoned to myself, if a period begin 

 with the former it must tei-minate with the latter; moreover, 1 succeeding 13 in 

 the day count, if 1 Ymix begin a period Vi Ahau must end it; and. further, this 

 period being composed of 13 lesser ones of 20 years each, it is at a distance of 260 

 years apart in the annual calendar that I must look for a corresponding 1 Ymix 

 and 13 Ahau, recollecting that I need not expect to find them falling on any fixed 

 date. But, as the order of the 13 subdivisions is given, with the terminal Ahan 

 numbers, it is not necessary to attempt so extended a research, and prudence dic- 

 tates that I keep my experiments mthin the narrowest possible limits to gnard 

 against mistake. I will, therefore, at the start proceed only to the end of the first 

 20-year period, or katun, and look for 11 Ahau. The trial is made. It proves 

 abortive, as I anticipated. The Ahau number at the end of 20 years is 7 instead 

 of 11. The desired 11 Ahau is '> mouths away to the left. It is the same old 



