2y4r MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS [eth. ann. 22 



The Leydeii Sfoni> 

 (33) 53- 8-14- 3- 1-12, 1 Eb 5 ?(YaxMn?). 



Goodman also mentions (p. 148) the follo\vin<^ as at Quirigua: 

 (33) 55- 3-19- 3- 0- 0, 7 Ahau 18 Pop. Stela ? 



Examining this list, we see tliafi the terminal dates of 24 out of the 

 33 series fall in tlie 10th ((Goodman's Dth) eycle from 4 Ahan 8 Cumliu, 

 the initial day of Goodman's 54tli great cycle. It can not l)e doubted, 

 therefore, as we also find the same initial date the most prominent 

 one in the Dresden codex, that, for S(nne reason unknown to ns, it 

 was selected by the people who made the inscriptions and codex as 

 their principal era date. As tlie 24 series ending in the lOtli cycle rim 

 back from the earliest terminal date (number (J) 'J-1-0-0-0, or 3,570 

 years, and from the latest terminal date (number 15) 9-18-15-0-0, or 

 3,920 yeai's, it is evident, as has been stated above, that the normal 

 date (4 Ahau 8 Cumhu) selected as the commencement of this era could 

 have no reference to an historical event remembered bj' the Mayan 

 people. Even if we suppose that the last of these inscriptions was not 

 chiseled until the close of the fifteenth century, this would carry back 

 the era date 2,400 years before the Cliristian era. The only safe and 

 reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that the initial date was arbitrarily 

 selected for some mythological, mystical, or arithmetical reason. It 

 is especiall}' worthy of notice, however, that the lapse of time between 

 the terminal dates of the earliest and latest of these series is only 

 about 350 years, and, if number 6 be omitted, less than 90 years. This 

 fact would seem to give color to the suggestion of Goodman and Seler 

 that the terminal dates of the initial series refer to the time the monu- 

 ments were erected. Nevertheless, there are some serious difliculties 

 to be overcome before this theory can be considered as satisfactorily 

 established, some of which it will be my object now to point out. 



So far as the foregoing list is concerned, all the series which begin 

 with 9 cycles (the 54 indicating the so-called great cycle is omitted 

 from consideration) have, beyond question, the initial date 4 Ahau 

 8 Cumhu. It must be remembered, however, that this date returns 

 at the end of every count of 18,980 days, or 52 years. Now, the ques- 

 tion arises (and it is a crucial one in this discussion). Does the count 

 in each one of these series go back to identically the same 4 Ahau 8 

 Cumhu, or merelj' to any 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu? If, as I think I have suc- 

 cessfully shown, the so-called ahaus, k^ituns, cycles, and great cycles 

 are not absolute time periods, recognized as such in any Mayan time 

 system, but are mere orders of units in the Mayan method of numera- 

 tion, these counts would be precisely like the following in our ordinary 

 time system: Thursday the 15th day of the 7th month of the 48th j'ear 

 of the century, ^^'hat century? Or 1,025 years, 7 months and 15 days 

 from December 25th to Tiiursday the 9th day of the 8th month. It 

 is evident that without the first or last date beinij; fixed in some recog- 



