THE ORIGIN OF NUMBER SYSTEMS. 529 



since A. von Humboldt first pointed out the resemblance between 

 the Sanskrit pank'an and the Persian penjeh, ' the outspread hand/ 

 some connection between the two has always been admitted. . . . 

 So also dvakan seems to be for dvakankan, meaning ' twice five ' 

 or ' two hands ' ; dakan points to Sextos, dexter, Sexo/xai, etc., or else 

 to 8a/crvXo5, digitus, zehe, toe. Thus, whatever original forms we 

 assume for these two numerals their roots appear again in some 

 name or other for the hand or fingers. It is intrinsically proba- 

 ble, therefore, that pankan means ' hand/ and that dakan means 

 'two hands' or 'right hand/ It may be suggested here that the 

 intervening numerals are the names of the little, third, middle, 

 and fore fingers of the right hand. Thus, the little finger was 

 called by the Greeks wrmys, by the Latins auricidaris. This name 

 is apparently explained by the Germans, who call this finger the 

 ' ear-cleaner/ Now, ksvaks or ksvaksva seems to be a redupli- 

 cated form, containing the same root as ew, atvo>, vpea>, etc., and 

 meaning ' scraper/ The name saptan seems to mean ' follower ' 

 (CTT-O/UU, etc.), and the third finger might very well be so called 

 because it follows and moves with the second, in the manner 

 familiar to all musicians. The name dkfan seems to contain the 

 common root AK, and to mean, therefore, 'projecting/ a good 

 enough name for the middle finger. Lastly, the first finger is 

 known as do-Trao-riKos, index, salutatorius, demonstratorius (= 'beck- 

 oner/ 'pointer'), and the meaning probably underlies navan, 

 which will then be connected with the root of novus, veos, new, 

 etc., or that of vcvw, nuo, nod, etc., or both. Whatever be thought 

 of these suggested etymologies, it must be admitted that there is 

 no evidence - whatever that our forefathers counted the fingers of 

 the right hand in the order here assumed. They may have 

 adopted the reverse order, from, thumb to little finger, as many 

 savages do,* and as, in fact, the Greeks and Romans did with that 

 later and more complicated system of finger- counting which we 

 find in use in the first century of our era. If this reverse order 

 be assumed, the numerals may still be explained in accordance 

 with other finger-names in common use, besides those which have 

 been cited. But, after all, the main support of these etymologies 

 is their great a priori probability. The theory on which they are 

 based brings the history of Aryan counting into accord with the 

 history of counting everywhere else ; and it explains the Aryan 

 numerals in a way which is certainly correct for nearly all other 

 languages. It is hardly to be expected that such a theory should 

 be strictly provable at all points." 



* The order of counting from the little finger to the thumb is, however, the mflre usual 

 method with savages. See a paper by Lieutenant F. H. Gushing, entitled Manual Concepts, 

 in the .American Anthropologist for October, 1892 (vol. v). 



TOL, LJ. 41 



