THOMAS] NUMBERING OF SO-CALLED GREAT CYCLES 263 



Before referring to the uuiiibers of the great cycles as obtained by a 

 study of the forms of the symbols, 1 introduce the following quotation 

 from Goodman's work (page 38) : 



The number and diversity of these signs and the fantastic character of some of 

 theiu — notably the face series — suggest a hieratic design to conceal the purport 

 of the inscriptions from tlie uninitiated; but I think the determinative feature of 

 their numeration, the desire to give symmetry and grace to their glyphs, and the 

 possible purpose to avoid sameness and repetition, siifBciently account for the 

 variety without ascribing it to a cryptogramic intention. It is probable, there- 

 fore, that all the other series of numerals were as intelligible to the populace as 

 the simple one of dots and bars — being, as it were, a mere difference in the style 

 of characters, such as is to be seen in fancy printing or ornamental sign- writing. 



While it is lil^ely that in most instances there is a full series of similar signs, 

 just enougli modified to distinguish them from each otlier, running from 1 to 20, 

 I do not thinli this to be the ease throughout. It will be found, I believe, that 

 there are many sporadic signs, or signs without any serial connection. The fre- 

 quent use of certain numbers accounts for this, and it is to designate these that 

 solitary symbols are oftenest employed. There will probably be more signs dis- 

 covered for 13, 18, and 20. than for any other number. 



I do not claim that the value of any sign about to be given is correct beyond 

 question. On the contrary. I think it very likely that in some instances I shall 

 myself find reason for a change. But, as in most cases I sliall exxdain why I have 

 attached the vahie given to particular signs, the reader will not be misled, but 

 can accept, reject, or modify my estimate, according to his owai judgment. It 

 will be only by jjersistent trial, assumption, alteration, and readjiistment, until a 

 figure that fulfils the requirement of every condition under which a character 

 appears is hit upon, that we shall be able to fix the values of all the numeral 

 signs. 



That the great cj^cle symbol can be determined by position in a 

 series, even though imperfect in form, is evident from what has been 

 shown, but the number must be determined otherwise. In order to 

 show on what Goodman basses his conclusion as to the numbers of the 

 great cycles so far as determined by the form, I quote the following 

 from his woi-k (page 8-3) : 



ELEMENTS OF THE GREAT CYCLE SIGN 



Here the reckoning reverts to the .5-day period. It is multiplied by 72, making 

 an ahau: that by 20, making a katun; that by 20 again, making a cycle; and that 

 by 13, making a great cycle. The last multiplier is the outflaring trinal character 

 at the top [figure '.60] . It is a 13 sign, duplicated to balance the glyph. The two 

 20 multipliers appear only in the first of the sj-mbols given above — or, rather, 

 only in that does the single one extend all the way to the bottom, as is commonly 

 the ease. There should be two separate signs, however, as shown in some of the 

 gh"phs: but I have selected these j^articular specimens for another puri^ose, 

 which I shall ]»resently state. The 20 sign in the first gl.viih looks like anything 

 but the same sign in the other two, and resembles a fish more than anything else. 

 Yet they are identical in character, both representing the feathered dragon, the 

 fringed jaw alone of which, reduced to the cursive comb-like character, is 

 the commonest sign for 20. The evolution of this character is so curious and 



