Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c6.42

c6.42

It has been known for some time³ that the books of Nepal and those of the N. Jains have their pages numbered by a singular series of letters which are ‘e’ (1); ‘dvi’ (2); ‘tri’ (3); kha’ (4); ‘tṛi’ (5); ‘phra’ (6); ‘gra’ (7); ‘hra’ (8); ‘ō’ (9); ‘bṛi’ (10); ‘tha’ (20); ‘la’ (30); ‘su’ or ‘sū’ (100) etc. As primitive customs and usages often linger in out-of-the-way corners like Nepal, it was a very shrewd idea of Paṇḍit Bhagvānlāl Indrajī⁴ to compare these syllable-figures with the Cave numerals, and the resemblance, at once found in many cases, is very striking, but there are most serious difficulties in the way of accepting these Buddhist numerals as a *complete* explanation of the Cave forms. *a*) It must be observed that the Nepal Buddhists and also the Northern Jains have a distinct series of syllables for *all* the units; but the Cave numerals show at once that the figures for the units from one to five, at all events, cannot possibly have been derived from such syllables¹; the figures for *one*, *two* and *three* consist of a corresponding number of strokes, those for *four* and *five* are derived from a cross and a cross with the addition of a curved line. But the figures for the units are of the greatest importance as showing the origin of the system, for they were certainly always in common use, and thus could not readily be changed. Again, I cannot see the least resemblance between the *oldest* forms of the Cave figures for *seven*, *eight*, *nine* and *ten*, and the syllables ‘**gra**’, ‘**hra**’, ‘**o**’ and **bṛi** as used to mark those figures in the Nepal system. The partial resemblance of the figure for *six* to **phra** seems accidental. Where the evidence should be clearest, it thus fails entirely. With still higher numbers the explanation often again fails, for strokes or figures of units are added to the right side of the figures used to express ‘hundred’ and ‘thousand’, and here, again, there is a striking resemblance to the Phœnician system. How by an indigenous system of notation 100×4 could be equal to 400 is very hard to understand. *b*) It also remains to be explained on what principle these syllables were selected. The meaning of ‘**e**’, ‘**dvi**’ and ‘**tri**’ is plain, but the rest baffle all attempts to trace their meaning, and, thus, there is reason to believe that the selection was not made on a consistent principle throughout, as one might expect. *c*) It must, lastly, be noticed that the resemblance to the syllables in question can only be said to begin with later forms of the numeral figures, such as the Gupta and Valabhi; in these it is plain, but it is not so in the earlier forms.