disproved itself; it was then suggested that they were initial letters of numerical words; then it was propounded that the symbols were aksharas or syllables; then it was again claimed that the symbols were initial letters (this time Kharoshthī) of the corresponding numerals. These theories have been severally disproved.
The notation was possibly developed on different principles at different times. The first three symbols are natural and only differ from those of many other systems in consisting of horizontal instead of vertical strokes. No principle of formation of the symbols for "four" to "thirty" is now evident but possibly the "forty" was formed from the thirty by the addition of a stroke and the "sixty" and "seventy" and "eighty" and "ninety" appear to be connected in this way. The hundreds are (to a limited extent) evidently built upon such a plan, which, as Bayley pointed out, is the same as that employed in the Egyptian hieratic forms; but after the "three hundred" the Indian system forms the "four hundred" from the elements of "a hundred" and "four," and so on. The notation is exhibited in the table annexed.
