Note 2 — The Numerical System, Comparative.1

In confirmation of the Polynesian connection with the Aryan stock, at a very early period, I will refer to the numeral systems of both. I believe that it is now pretty well established that the more ancient and rude a people is or was, the more limited is or was its numeral system. The Australians to this day do not count beyond three or four. The wooly-haired indigènes of the peninsula of Malacca count only to two. One is nai, and two is be. The latter calls strongly to mind the Basque bi and the Latin bis, two. The Dravidian languages exhibit signs, by the composition of their higher numbers, that at one time the range of their numerals was equally limited. The Polynesian language gives undoubted evidence that at one time the people who spoke it did not count beyond four, and that its ideas of higher numbers were expressed by multiples of four.2 They evidently counted one, two, three, four, and that amount called “kau-na” was their tally, when the process was repeated again. That the same system obtained in the Aryan family in early times is evident not only from the marked relationship between the four first Aryan and Polynesian numbers, but the method of counting by fours as a tally still obtains among some of the Aryan descendants.3