The Number Concept | Page 9

scanty. A still larger number of tribes show
an ability to count one step further, to 4; but beyond this limit the
majority of Australian and Tasmanian tribes do not go. It seems most
remarkable that any human being should possess the ability to count to
4, and not to 5. The number of fingers on one hand furnishes so
obvious a limit to any of these rudimentary systems, that positive
evidence is needed before one can accept the statement. A careful
examination of the numerals in upwards of a hundred Australian
dialects leaves no doubt, however, that such is the fact. The Australians
in almost all cases count by pairs; and so pronounced is this tendency
that they pay but little attention to the fingers. Some tribes do not
appear ever to count beyond 2--a single pair. Many more go one step
further; but if they do, they are as likely as not to designate their next
numeral as two-one, or possibly, one-two. If this step is taken, we may
or may not find one more added to it, thus completing the second pair.
Still, the Australian's capacity for understanding anything which
pertains to number is so painfully limited that even here there is
sometimes an indefinite expression formed, as many, heap, or plenty,
instead of any distinct numeral; and it is probably true that no
Australian language contains a pure, simple numeral for 4. Curr, the
best authority on this subject, believes that, where a distinct word for 4
is given, investigators have been deceived in every case.[32] If
counting is carried beyond 4, it is always by means of reduplication. A
few tribes gave expressions for 5, fewer still for 6, and a very small
number appeared able to reach 7. Possibly the ability to count extended
still further; but if so, it consisted undoubtedly in reckoning one pair
after another, without any consciousness whatever of the sum total save
as a larger number.
The numerals of a few additional tribes will show clearly that all

distinct perception of number is lost as soon as these races attempt to
count above 3, or at most, 4. The Yuckaburra[33] natives can go no
further than wigsin, 1, bullaroo, 2, goolbora, 3. Above here all is
referred to as moorgha, many. The Marachowies[34] have but three
distinct numerals,--cooma, 1, cootera, 2, murra, 3. For 4 they say
minna, many. At Streaky Bay we find a similar list, with the same
words, kooma and kootera, for 1 and 2, but entirely different terms,
karboo and yalkata for 3 and many. The same method obtains in the
Minnal Yungar tribe, where the only numerals are kain, 1, kujal, 2, moa,
3, and bulla, plenty. In the Pinjarra dialect we find doombart, 1, gugal,
2, murdine, 3, boola, plenty; and in the dialect described as belonging
to "Eyre's Sand Patch," three definite terms are given--kean, 1, koojal, 2,
yalgatta, 3, while a fourth, murna, served to describe anything greater.
In all these examples the fourth numeral is indefinite; and the same
statement is true of many other Australian languages. But more
commonly still we find 4, and perhaps 3 also, expressed by
reduplication. In the Port Mackay dialect[35] the latter numeral is
compound, the count being warpur, 1, boolera, 2, boolera warpur, 3.
For 4 the term is not given. In the dialect which prevailed between the
Albert and Tweed rivers[36] the scale appears as yaburu, 1, boolaroo, 2,
boolaroo yaburu, 3, and gurul for 4 or anything beyond. The
Wiraduroi[37] have numbai, 1, bula, 2, bula numbai, 3, bungu, 4, or
many, and bungu galan or bian galan, 5, or very many. The
Kamilaroi[38] scale is still more irregular, compounding above 4 with
little apparent method. The numerals are mal, 1, bular, 2, guliba, 3,
bular bular, 4, bular guliba, 5, guliba guliba, 6. The last two numerals
show that 5 is to these natives simply 2-3, and 6 is 3-3. For additional
examples of a similar nature the extended list of Australian scales given
in Chapter V. may be consulted.
Taken as a whole, the Australian and Tasmanian tribes seem to have
been distinctly inferior to those of South America in their ability to use
and to comprehend numerals. In all but two or three cases the
Tasmanians[39] were found to be unable to proceed beyond 2; and as
the foregoing examples have indicated, their Australian neighbours
were but little better off. In one or two instances we do find Australian
numeral scales which reach 10, and perhaps we may safely say 20. One

of these is given in full in a subsequent chapter, and its structure gives
rise to the suspicion that it was originally as limited as those of kindred
tribes, and that it underwent a considerable development after the