History of Hindu Mathematics: A Source Book v1.c7.s7.21

v1.c7.s7.21

2. Bayley² asserted that the principles of the Brâhmî system have been derived from the hieroglyphic notation of the Egyptians, and that the majority of the Indian symbols have been borrowed from Phoenician, Bactrian, and Akkadean figures or letters. As has been already remarked³ the principles of the Brâhmî and the hieroglyphic systems are entirely different and unconnected. The reader will find the hieroglyphic and the Brâhmî systems shown together in Tables II (*a*), (*b*), (*c*), and convince himself of the incorrectness of Bayley's assertion. Moreover, the assumption that the Hindus borrowed from four or five different, partly very ancient and partly more modern, sources, is extremely difficult to believe. Regarding the resemblance between the Bactrian and Akkadean numbers and the Brâhmî forms postulated by Bayley, Bühler¹ remarks that in four cases (four, six, seven and ten) the facts are absolutely against Bayley's hypothesis. Some writers have also criticized Bayley's drawings as being affected by his theory.² Under these circumstances his derivation has to be rejected.