Elements of South-Indian Palæography, from the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A.D. c6.46

c6.46

If it be kept in mind that the Egypto-Phœnician system of notation was certainly known and used in N. India², and also that the syllabic origin of the Indian figures can only be fully shown in certain cases³ where (*e.g.* 80 and 90) that system had originally no distinct marks but used compound figures; if, again, it be remarked that the resemblance of the numeral figures to the syllables in question—at least so far as the units and the figures for 20, 100, 1000 go—is hardly to be traced in the earlier, but is plainer in the later form of the figures, I think that the natural inference to be drawn is that this proposed explanation of the Indian (Cave) numeral figures by assigning a syllabic origin for them, can only be accepted in some cases (*e.g.* 80 and 90) and that in others (or the majority of cases) it has arisen from a fancied resemblance found between the Cave numerals and certain syllables, but which, so far as their origin goes, have really nothing in common.