MORLEY] INTRODUCTION TO STUDY OF MAYA HIEROGLYPHS 119 



and in the middle there are two infixes like shepherds' crooks facing 

 away from the center (*). In c of the last-mentioned figure the |jp]) 

 superfix is of the same size and shape, and although it is partially * 

 destroyed the left-hand "shepherd's crook" can still be distinguished. 

 A faint dot treatment around the edge can also still be traced. 

 Although the superfix of the head variant in a is somewhat weathered, 

 enough remains to show that it was similar to, if indeed not identical 

 with, the superfixes of the normal forms in h and c. The line of circles 

 defining the left side of this superfix, as well as traces of the lower 

 ends of the two "shepherd's crook" infixes, appears very clearly in 

 the lower part of the superfix. Moreover, in general shape and pro- 

 portions this element is so similar to the corresponding elements in 

 figure 61, h, c, that, taken together with the similarity of the other 

 details pointed out above, it seems more than likely that all three 

 of these superfixes are one and the same element. The points which 

 have led the writer to identify glyphs a, h, and c in figure 61 as forms 

 for the great cycle, or period of the sixth order, may be summarized 

 as follows: 



1. All three of these glyphs, head-variant as well as normal forms, 

 are made up of the corresponding forms of the cycle sign plus 

 another element, a superfix, which is probably the determining char- 

 acteristic in each case. 



2. All three of these superfixes are probably identical, thus showing 

 that the three glyphs in which they occur are probably variants of 

 the same sign. 



3. All three of these glyphs occur in numerical series, the preceding 

 term of which in each case is a cycle sign, thus showing that by posi- 

 tion they are the logical "next" term (the sixth) of the series. 



Let us next examine the two texts in which great-great-cycle 

 glyphs may occur. (See figs. 59, 60.) The two glyphs which may 

 possibly be identified as the sign for this period are shown in figure 

 61, d, e. 



A comparison of these two forms shows that both are composed of 

 the same elements: (1) The cycle sign; (2) a superfix in which the 

 hand is the principal element. 



The superfix in figure 61, <?, consists of a hand and a tassel-Hke 

 postfix, not unhke the upper half of the ending signs in figure 37, 

 l-q. However, in the present case, if we accept the hypothesis that 

 d of figure 61 is the sign for the great-great cycle, we are obliged to 

 see in its superfix alone the essential element of the great-great-cycle 

 sign, since the rest of this glyph (the lower part) is quite clearly the 

 normal form for the cycle. 



The superfix in figure 61, e, consists of the same two elements as 

 the above, with the sUght difference that the hand in e holds a rod. 

 Indeed, the similarity of the two forms is so close that in default of 



