] that some of the
forms were Phoenician, as notably the use of a circle for twenty, but the
resemblance is in general too remote to be convincing.

There is also some slight possibility that Chinese influence is to be seen
in certain of the early forms of Hindu numerals.[116]

{33}

More absurd is the hypothesis of a Greek origin, supposedly supported by
derivation of the current symbols from the first nine letters of the Greek
alphabet.[117] This difficult feat is accomplished by twisting some of the
letters, cutting off, adding on, and effecting other changes to make the
letters fit the theory. This peculiar theory was first set up by
Dasypodius[118] (Conrad Rauhfuss), and was later elaborated by Huet.[119]

{34}

A bizarre derivation based upon early Arabic (c. 1040 A.D.) sources is
given by Kircher in his work[120] on number mysticism. He quotes from
Abenragel,[121] giving the Arabic and a Latin translation[122] and stating
that the ordinary Arabic forms are derived from sectors of a circle,
[circle].

Out of all these conflicting theories, and from all the resemblances seen
or imagined between the numerals of the West and those of the East, what
conclusions are we prepared to draw as the evidence now stands? Probably
none that is satisfactory. Indeed, upon the evidence at {35} hand we might
properly feel that everything points to the numerals as being substantially
indigenous to India. And why should this not be the case? If the king
Srong-tsan-Gampo (639 A.D.), the founder of Lh[=a]sa,[123] could have set
about to devise a new alphabet for Tibet, and if the Siamese, and the
Singhalese, and the Burmese, and other peoples in the East, could have
created alphabets of their own, why should not the numerals also have been
fashioned by some temple school, or some king, or some merchant guild? By
way of illustration, there are shown in the table on page 36 certain
systems of the East, and while a few resemblances are evident, it is also
evident that the creators of each system endeavored to find original forms
that should not be found in other systems. This, then, would seem to be a
fair interpretation of the evidence. A human mind cannot readily create
simple forms that are absolutely new; what it fashions will naturally
resemble what other minds have fashioned, or what it has known through
hearsay or through sight. A circle is one of the world's common stock of
figures, and that it should mean twenty in Phoenici