FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   >>   >|  
ance to that in the Nasik caves, the five (reversed) to that on the K[s.]atrapa coins, the nine to that of the Ku[s.]ana inscriptions, and other points of similarity have been imagined. Some have traced resemblance between the Hieratic five and seven and those of the Indian inscriptions. There have not, therefore, been wanting those who asserted an Egyptian origin for these numerals.[105] There has already been mentioned the fact that the Kharo[s.][t.]h[=i] numerals were formerly known as Bactrian, Indo-Bactrian, and Aryan. Cunningham[106] was the first to suggest that these numerals were derived from the alphabet of the Bactrian civilization of Eastern Persia, perhaps a thousand years before our era, and in this he was supported by the scholarly work of Sir E. Clive Bayley,[107] who in turn was followed by Canon Taylor.[108] The resemblance has not proved convincing, however, and Bayley's drawings {31} have been criticized as being affected by his theory. The following is part of the hypothesis:[109] _Numeral_ _Hindu_ _Bactrian_ _Sanskrit_ 4 [Symbol] [Symbol] = ch chatur, Lat. quattuor 5 [Symbol] [Symbol] = p pancha, Gk. [Greek:p/ente] 6 [Symbol] [Symbol] = s [s.]a[s.] 7 [Symbol] [Symbol] = [s.] sapta ( the s and [s.] are interchanged as occasionally in N. W. India) Buehler[110] rejects this hypothesis, stating that in four cases (four, six, seven, and ten) the facts are absolutely against it. While the relation to ancient Bactrian forms has been generally doubted, it is agreed that most of the numerals resemble Br[=a]hm[=i] letters, and we would naturally expect them to be initials.[111] But, knowing the ancient pronunciation of most of the number names,[112] we find this not to be the case. We next fall back upon the hypothesis {32} that they represent the order of letters[113] in the ancient alphabet. From what we know of this order, however, there seems also no basis for this assumption. We have, therefore, to confess that we are not certain that the numerals were alphabetic at all, and if they were alphabetic we have no evidence at present as to the basis of selection. The later forms may possibly have been alphabetical expressions of certain syllables called _ak[s.]aras_, which possessed in Sanskrit fixed numerical values,[114] but this is equally uncertain with the rest. Bayley also thought[115
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42  
43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66   67   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

Symbol

 

numerals

 

Bactrian

 

hypothesis

 

ancient

 

Bayley

 

inscriptions

 

alphabet

 

alphabetic

 

Sanskrit


letters

 

resemblance

 

possibly

 

resemble

 

agreed

 

doubted

 

generally

 

naturally

 
expect
 

equally


uncertain

 
stating
 

syllables

 

absolutely

 

relation

 

rejects

 

Buehler

 

alphabetical

 

thought

 
expressions

represent
 

selection

 

confess

 

assumption

 
present
 
evidence
 
possessed
 

number

 
pronunciation
 

knowing


numerical

 

values

 

called

 

initials

 

mentioned

 

Egyptian

 

origin

 

civilization

 

Eastern

 

Persia