

264 



MAYAN CALENDAR SYSTEMS 



[ETH. ANN. 22 



interesting that I herewith give a series of glyphs, all taken from great-cycle 

 symbols, showing the gradations [figure 101]. 



The reason why I selected the particular symbols given above, is that I think the 

 number of the great cycle is sijecifically stated in them. Close observers will 

 have noticed several peculiar things about the great-cycle character. The most 

 peculiar of these is that, while the form of the katun symbol is preserved in it 

 fully in every other respect, the cttunc sign disappears from the superfix and is 

 replaced by some other character. In more than three-fourths of the dates in the 

 ,i4th great cycle a dragon's head occupies its place; a tiger's head predominates 

 in the .?5th, whil6 the remainder is made up of faces and signs that may represent 

 a day, a cycle, or some other period. Whatever their character, they have no 



Fig. IfiO. Great cycle symbols. Goodman, page .s:i. 



peculiarities that can at present be construed into numerals, except in case of the 

 three glypiis here reproduced; so, if the others have any numeric value, it must 

 be arbitrarily expressed. The three in question indicate the 54th great cycle, and 

 I think that all of them announce that fact, but each in a different way. The 

 center of the katun superfix in the first is composed of a sign for IS and a face. 

 If it were plainly the face for H we should be left in no doubt: but, in consequence 

 of the defacement of the stone, it is impossible to determine if a band — the char- 

 acteristic of the 3 head — extends across the forehead or not. In the second glyph 

 the ik symbol — a sign for 6— appears in an inclosur^ that probably represents 9, 

 but as the coil is not clearly discernible we are again left in uncertainty. The 

 third glyph has the meaningless face, which elsewhere serves as a mere vehicle 



Fi(i. IHl. Comb-like symbols for 20. Goodman, page 83. 



for numerals, bearing a sign for 9, surmounted by three objects evidently intended 

 for spheres, whose vahie is doubled by the dotted lines in them, rendering it prob- 

 able that the combination was designed to express 9 X 6 = 54. I make no claim 

 to absolute certainty in any of these cases; but, however uncertain the renderings 

 may be separately, they collectively derive a high degree of probability from a 

 single significant fact. The unmistakable numeral sign in each glyph is a divisor 

 of 54. That these glyphs — the only ones with recognizable numerals — shoiild 

 contain signs for three out of the six numbers by which 54 is divisible, is a circum- 

 stance too singular to be attributed to accident when a more reasonable explana- 

 tion is to be found in the theory that these three particular figures were chosen 

 with the definite purpose of arriving at that number. 



