> No, although place-value systems do seem to be younger than the non-place-value system the article calls "ciphered-additive", place-value numerals date from 0

> No, although place-value systems do seem to be younger than the non-place-value system the article calls "ciphered-additive", place-value numerals date from 02000 BCE This is of course correct; I should have mentioned it. (Though I was specifically talking about the numeral system 0123456789, which has no direct connection to the Babylonian numerals.) > Even the Hindu decimal place-value numeral system is likely older than 00500 CE; the Bakhshali manuscript, which uses a dot for zero like modern Eastern Arabic numerals, probably dates from about 00300 CE. As it happens, an earlier draft of my post did indeed say ‘300–500 CE’, but I cut it out because I figured the extra precision didn’t really add anything to the post. (Also, because no-one would care about exact dates; looks like I was wrong there!) > It turns out that Arabic-speakers in Africa were using a divergent set of digits for the Hindu–Arabic place-value system, not descended from ٠١٢٣٤٥٦٧٨٩, and these are entirely readable to modern European-educated eyes, except for the 4, which is rotated 90° and has a tail Interesting, I hadn’t known this — thanks for the correction! > These numerals are called "Western Arabic" because the Western Arabs in the Maghreb used them, as opposed to the Eastern Arabs in Arabia itself. It's not a juxtaposition of the names of two separate polities, "Western" and "Arabic". I am aware of this, and I never meant to imply otherwise.