On the Origin of the Indian Brahma Alphabet c9: Appendix II. The Origin of the Ancient Brāhma Numerals

On the Origin of the Indian Brāhma Alphabet c9

Language: English

Appendix II. The Origin of the Ancient Brāhma Numerals

c9.2

In my *Grundriss der Indischen Paläographie*, p. 77 f., I have briefly discussed the various theories regarding the origin of the ancient system of numeral notation found in the older inscriptions and MSS. which are written in Brāhma characters. And I have expressed the opinion that in spite of serious difficulties Dr. Burnell's suggestion have separate signs for 1—9, 10—90, 100 and 1000. In both the numerals 1—3 are expressed by strokes, either vertical or horizontal¹ or by combinations thereof and the symbols begin with 4. In both the signs for 200 and 300 consist of that for 100, united respectively with the signs for one and two.² The not very important differences are (1) that the Indians form 2000 and 3000 on the same principle as 200 and 300, while the Egyptians add in these cases the signs for two and three to the symbol for 1000; (2) that the Indians form 400—900 and 4000—9000 by the combinations of 100 with 4—9 and of 1000 with 4—9, while the Egyptians have at least for 400 the combination 100+3; (3) and that the Egyptians have a separate sign for 10,000 which is wanting in the Indian system. The first two discrepancies may possibly be due to the formalism of the Hindus, which may have induced them to reject the vacillation in the Egyptian system and to rigorously adhere to one and the same principle.

c9.3

¹ Horizontal strokes occur in the Egyptian signs for 2 and 3, referring to the days of the month.

c9.4

² The strokes no doubt represent an original repetition of the symbols for 100, and it is as if the Romans wrote CI and CII for CC and CCC.

c9.5

If we turn to the comparison of the several symbols beginning with 4, it is evident that the oldest Indian forms of eight out of the total of seventeen come close to the hieratic or to both the hieratic and the demotic. It is also evident that those differences, which are observable, are due either to the desire to simplify the cumbersome Egyptian signs or to the tendency to transform them into Brāhma letters and syllables.³ The five of Col. V, a, appears to be derived from the hieratic sign of Col. I, which has been turned from the left to the right, while the side-limb has been attached lower in order to obtain an approach to the Brāhma *tra*. The six of Col. III, a, likewise comes close to that of Col. I, the slight alteration being made in order to obtain the looped Brāhma *ja*, from which latter the signs in Col. III, b—c, and in Col. V, a looped *sa* and *phra* or *phu*, seem to have been developed in their turn. The seven of Cols IV—V looks like a modification of that in Col. I, a, made in order to obtain a sign similar to *gra* or *gu*, the later Indian letter-symbol. The nine of Cols IV—V agrees almost exactly with the hieratic and demotic signs in Cols I—II. The fifty of Col. III, b, is produced by a slight simplification of the symbols in Cols I—II, while the fifty of Col. III, a, has been turned round from the left to the right. More strongly modified and more remote from the hieratic signs are the Indian symbols for 60 and 70 in Col. V, the second of which has been converted into a Brāhma *pū*. Finally the thousand of Cols IV—V, especially the second, look like derivatives from the corresponding Egyptian signs in Cols I—II, which however have been turned topsy-turvy and slightly altered in order to produce the Brāhma syllables *ro*, *cu* and *dhu*.

c9.6

³ Regarding this tendency and its ultimate effects, see the Grundriss, p. 75 ff.

c9.7

The list of closely similar signs will also include the hundred, if it may be assumed that the Indian signs of Col. V, which look like modifications of the hieratic in Col. I, in reality are older than those of the Aśoka Edicts and of the Nānāghāt inscription in Cols III—IV. And it seems to me possible to defend such an assumption. For the Andhra and Kṣatrapa signs for 100, which are also found very frequently in the Sanskrit inscriptions of the 5^th—8^th cent. A. D. from Western India as well as in the Kaliṅga landgrants of the 8^th cent., in all probability represent the syllable *śu*.¹ Its *śa* has a form which corresponds to the oldest Semitic *Shin*² with two angles but has been turned topsy-turvy, and which is older than the *śa* of the third century B. C.³ Further, with the assumption that the hundred of Col. V is really the oldest, it becomes possible to explain the origin of those in Col. III—IV. As the Aśoka sign opposite 200⁴ in Col. III, a, clearly shows, they represent the Brāhma syllable *su*, and *su* is in Prakrit the regular representative of a Sanskrit *śu*. The process of the development of the Indian hundreds would therefore be as follows. The Hindus first converted the hieratic hundred into an archaic *śu* (Col. V). Next they substituted its phonetic Prakrit representative *su* for it (200, Col. III, a) and finally they again modified the form of *su* in order to indicate that it has not a phonetic but a numeral value (200, Col. III, b—c; 100—700, Col. IV).

c9.8

¹ See the Grundriss, p. 77 and note 20, where two inscriptions are referred to, in which more modern forms of *śu* or *śa* appear in the hundred.

c9.9

² See above Plate I, 21, Cols I—II.

c9.10

³ See above Plate I, 21, Col. V, as well as Tafel II, 37, I—II, XI etc. of the Grundriss, and compare the remark made above p. 71.

c9.11

⁴ Equivalent to the ordinary *su* with an unusual elongation of the vertical, which seems to do duty for the additional horizontal stroke, commonly found in 200 on the right side.

c9.12

With the admission of another conjecture the The results of this comparison, the nearly complete identity of the principles of the two systems and the closer or remoter resemblances between the great majority of their symbols, raise, it seems to me, a strong presumption in favour of Dr. Burnell's theory, which, however, has to be modified by the admission that the hieratic signs rather than the demotic are the parents of the Indian Brāhma numerals and that the tendency to frame out of them Brāhma letters or syllables and again to differentiate these from the ordinary letters is already visible in a number of cases. And I believe that this tendency is due to the fact that the Hindus since ancient times were accustomed to express numerals by such words as *rūpa* = 1, *bhūta* = 5 and so forth.¹ In order to convert Dr. Burnell's theory into an absolute certainty, the discovery of more ancient signs of the third and earlier centuries B. C. is required as well as the discovery of historical or traditional information regarding an ancient intercourse between India and Egypt. For the present this is entirely wanting and the only way, in which one could try to account for the introduction of the Egyptian numerals into India, would be to conjecture that the early Indian navigators and merchants might have reached countries which stood under Egyptian influence or might have met on their voyages with Egyptian traders. But such a conjecture is, of course, precarious, as long as it is not supported by collateral proof.

c9.13

¹ See the *Grundriss*, I, 11, p. 80 ff.