Indian Palaeography from about B.C. 350 to about A.D. 1300 c9.s2.t1.71

c9.s2.t1.71

In 1877, I agreed with him, and KERN¹ likewise concurred, but explained the 4 and 5 as combinations of four and five strokes, arranged in the form of letters. But BURNELL differed entirely. He denied that the older "cave-numerals," with the exception of rare cases, resemble letters, and dwelt strongly on the impossibility of finding a principle, according to which the Akṣaras of the MSS. have been converted into numerals. He further pointed out the general agreement of the principles of the Indian system with those of the Demotic notation of the Egyptians. From this fact, as well as from the resemblance [78] of the Demotic signs for 1 to 9 to the corresponding Indian symbols, he inferred that the "cave-numerals" have been borrowed from Egypt, and after further modifications have been converted into Akṣaras. Finally, E. C. BAYLEY tried to show in his lengthy essay, quoted above, that, though the principles of the Indian system have been derived from the hieroglyphic notation of the Egyptians, the majority of the Indian symbols have been borrowed from Phoenician, Bactrian, and Akkadian figures or letters, while for a few a foreign origin is not demonstrable.