191 
as 120 or 160 avo impossible ages, ciem must mean “ twice/' and 
ci-em-zathrms must be eighty. This is confirmed by the effigy on 
the sarcophagus, which represents a very aged man. 
Now, if ciem means twice, it must contain as its stem the Etruscan 
word for “ two.” That is, it must have as its stem one of the words 
on the dice. The only word on the dice from which ci-em could 
be formed is ci. Therefore ci means “ two,” and ciem-zathrm is 
twice forty or “ eighty,” as the effigy would lead us to expect* 
There is yet another test of the correctness of our results. The 
effigy of the man whose age was cis cealchls is now in the British 
Museum. It represents a man in the prime of life, neither old nor 
young. According to the preceding analysis, ce-a-lchl would 
be “ two score,” and the words cis cealchls would inform us that 
the man died in his forty-second year. Our English numerals 
“ forty ” and “ two score ” denote the same number, so there is no 
difficulty in supposing that the Etruscan numeral zathrum may 
have been a synonym of cealchl. 
Four of the dice digits are left — zal, huth, mach, and thu. 
The word zal has not much resemblance to any Aryan numeral, 
though Professor Max Muller thinks it might be identified pho- 
netically with the Latin tres. It is hardly needful to resort to so 
violent an expedient, as we find the e^xact word in the Siberian 
tongues. It is obviously the Yukagir jal in jal-ou, “ three. ”f 
This is obviously the same as the Ostiak chol in chol-ym, “ three,” 
which again is the same word as the Finnic words for “ three,” 
viz., kol-m , l 'col-on , Jcor-om, and har-om. 
The word iiutii (elsewhere written iiut) corresponds very 
closely to the Finnic words for “six.” In Lapp, Wogul, Tsche- 
remiss, and Ostiak, “ six ” is hut or chut. In Wotiak the vowel 
changes, and “six is Jcuat. In Magyar we have the further 
change to hat, where the initial letter is the same as in the Etrus- 
can word, though the vowel sound is different. 
The two remaining words, macii and tiiu, are both explained 
by the Samoycd muk-tuh, “ six,” or I + V. The first syllabic of 
* There is no escape whatever from this conclusion. The effigy absolutely 
restricts the meaning of ciemzathrm to either 70, 80, or 90. The first of 
these meanings is excluded, because seven being a prime number, there is 
no decade ot which 70 can be a multiple. Again, if ciem-zathrm were 90, 
then -zathrm must be 30, and ciem- must mean “ thrice.” Hence the dice 
digits sa and ci would both of them denote “ three,” which is absurd. There- 
fore the only possible solution which the two effigies permit is to take sa= 4, 
and ri—2.— Q. E. D. 
t Dr. Schott has shown that zal=jal. (Tat. Spr., pp. 34, 35.) The 
sounds are so close that the Mongol has only one sign for z and j. The 
suffix -on in jal-on, is a numerical formative, meaning “ number,” and does 
not belong to the root. 
