I think you'll find that's most likely wrong, as the first known appearance of the number zero is much, much later than that of numbers 1, 2, and 3. A handful does not mean 5. A foot has nothing to do specifically with 12; it's a length, not a number. How is any of this related to whether the number 2 came first? It'll repeat myself again: if you are counting, you are going to have the number one first (or at the same time). Nobody starts counting at 2. You can believe that all you want, but you have zero evidence for it, and there are many arguments against it. But now you say: "I believe"; are you now agreeing with me that your stating it as fact in post #37 was incorrect? Thank you for proving my point. You need 1 scratch before you can have 2 scratches. 1 came before 2. Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sure, and in fact, it's given me some additional insight. The romans didn't have a special glyph for the number 2; it was just 1 + 1. I think the ancient Egyptian didn't either. So when you're talking about glyphs, it's quite likely you are demonstrably wrong if you say that the number 2 (glyph) came before the number 1 (glyph). I don't disagree, but that doesn't prove the number 2 came before the number 1. Sure, but nobody starts counting at 2. Yes, that's the idea. Once scratch a day, to indicate the passage of time. Yes, and this process gets to the number 1 before it gets to the number 2. An interesting observation, but we're not talking about the set-of-5, we're trying to figure out why you think the number 2 came before the number 1.