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 position 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], d, consists of a hand and a tassel-like postfix, not unlike 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 slight difference that the hand in e holds a rod. Indeed, the similarity of the two forms is so close that in default of
any evidence to the contrary the writer believes they may be accepted as signs for one and the same period, namely, the great-great cycle.
The points on which this conclusion is based may be summarized as follows:
1. Both glyphs are made up of the same elements—(a) The normal form of the cycle sign; (b) a superfix composed of a hand with a tassel-like postfix.
2. Both glyphs occur in numerical series the next term but one of which is the cycle, showing that by position they are the logical next term but one, the seventh or great-great cycle, of the series.