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