Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s4.t2: 2.4.2 Numerical notation in Kharoṣṭhī
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c7.s4.t2
- Language
- English
2.4.2 Numerical notation in Kharoṣṭhī
c7.s4.t2.1
The numerical notation of Kharoṣṭhī script (see table 2.6) follows an additive/multiplicative method essentially similar to that of the old Brāhmī system but considerably different from it in detail. Unlike the latter, which has separate signs for each of the units and decades, Kharoṣṭhī has symbols only for 1, 4 (a later development; see next paragraph), 10, 20, 100, and 1,000. All other numbers are indicated additively, somewhat as in Roman numerals; thus, for example, 76 would be written with the figures 20-20-20-10-4-1-1 (or in the earlier script, 20-20-20-10-1-1-1-1-1-1). The figures for 100 and 1,000 were subject to multiplicative treatment, as in Brāhmī; for example, 300 would be written as 3-100, and 2,000 as 2-1000.²⁰⁵
c7.s4.t2.2
²⁰⁵ On the decipherment of the Kharoṣṭhī numerical system, see section 6.3, p. 218.
c7.s4.t2.3
Like the Kharoṣṭhī script itself, its numerical system did not change greatly in the course of its history, though some significant developments did take place. The sign for 4, shaped like a Roman x, was apparently a secondary development, since in Aśokan Kharoṣṭhī 4 and 5 are written as 1-1-1-1(-1), while in all subsequent Kharoṣṭhī texts the special sign for 4 is used. The sign for 1,000 to date is known only from central Asian Kharoṣṭhī documents, though it probably existed in India as well. As shown by H. W. Bailey,²⁰⁶ it is derived from an Aramaic ligature ‘LP (i.e., *‘alap*, ‘thousand’). Also in the central Asian documents, we find cursively written combinations of the sign for 1 which have evidently developed into distinct characters for 2 (𐩽) and 3 (𐩾).
c7.s4.t2.4
²⁰⁶ “A Problem of the Kharoṣṭhī Script,” in *Essays and Studies Presented to Stanley Arthur Cook . . .*, 121–3 (see n. 138).
c7.s4.t2.5
The origin of the Kharoṣṭhī numerical system presents no difficulties, as its derivation from Aramaic, like that of the script itself, is clear. Not only the system²⁰⁷ but also all of the individual symbols²⁰⁸ can be easily associated with the Aramaic, as represented, for instance, in the papyri from Elephantine (Egypt).²⁰⁹
c7.s4.t2.6
²⁰⁷ The Aramaic system represented the digits up to 9 by simple combinations of the vertical stroke representing 1; this confirms that the later Kharoṣṭhī sign for 4 is a separate Indian development.
c7.s4.t2.7
²⁰⁸ The Kharoṣṭhī symbol for 20 is often described (e.g., in IIEP 125) as a doubling of the Kharoṣṭhī 10, but comparison with the Aramaic prototype indicates that it is rather a direct borrowing of the Aramaic 20.
c7.s4.t2.8
²⁰⁹ See Emil G. Kraeling, *The Brooklyn Museum Aramaic Papyri: New Documents of the Fifth Century B.C. from the Jewish Colony at Elephantine* (London: Yale University Press for the Brooklyn Museum, 1953). Papyrus 4 (168–9) has several numerical figures which are almost identical to the corresponding ones in Kharoṣṭhī.