and numerals, and not the Ancient Tamil and Kol iya, ia &c.,on, the common form of 1, and not the labial or the other forms of the nasal definitive, an, yan &c., - mu the numeral 3, and not vo as in 1, &c. &c. Such a research into the dialectic history of Dravirian would carry us beyond the scope of our present enquiry, fruitful though it probably would be in data illustrative of Australian and early Asonesian philology.

From the accordance between the definitive and numeral systems both in Dravirian and Australian, it is clear that the latter system is equally native with the former in its elements and in their combinations in the lower numbers. Any foreign affinities not due to the spread of the Dravirian terms themselves, must hence be considered as indications not of a derivation of the numerals from another formation, but of a primary community of roots between Draviro-Australian and certain other archaic languages. Such affinities go beyond the history of Dravirian in all its later pre-Arian stages, and even beyond its crude Australian stage. They are vestiges of a period when the mother DraviroAustralian language was, in roots at least, only one of the dialects of a formation that was subsequently to be variously modified and developed in different regions and under different influences. The superimposed quinary and denary systems, with the Dravirian mode of forming 8 and 9, indicate affinities belonging to much later periods. The civilization which originated them was unknown to Draviro-Australian at the time when the early Asonesian migrations took place. It may be possible to connect their introduction with that of other words indicative of a range of ideas and of art above the Australian, and to find in them traces of a pre-historical intercourse of other civilised Asiatic peoples with the ancient Indians. The gradual departure of the Indian physical type from the Australian towards the Scythico-Semitic may also be found to synchronise with the progress of the changes in the vocabulary.

The Dravirian systems have no decided affinity with the adjacent Iranian, Semitic or Caucasian. But several of the terms belong to ancient Asiatic formations which appear to have predominated prior to these. The terms in question are found in the UgroKoriak languages on the North East, and in the Semitico-African on the South West.

The labial unit is found in the N. and E. Asian systems, but it is much less common as a definitive and unit than the sibilant, (varying to dental, guttural &c.). From its more general occurrence in some higher numbers than in 1, it is probable that it was of greater importance in an archaic stage of the Scythic systems. It is still found as 1 in Japanese, Turkish, Tungusian and some Ugrian languages. As 2 it is found in remote Eastern languages, Namollo, Korian and Japanese, and as an element in some Ugrian terms. As 3 it is Japanese. It does not occur as 4. In 5 it is Kamschatkan, Koriak, Ugrian and Turkish. In 6 it is found in Japanese and Samoiede, and as an element in Namollo (2) and Ugrian (1); in 8, Namollo, Chinese and Ugrian; in 9, Namollo and Ugrian; in 10, Kamschatkan, Aino, Tungusian, Samoiede, Ugrian and an element in Namollo; in 100, Chinese; in 1,000, Turkish and Mongolian. As a definitive the labial is very archaic in the N. and E. Asian languages. As a concreted postfix it is found in Scythic vocabularies. In Yeniseian it is still current as the 3rd pronoun, bu, ba-ri. Turkish also preserves it in bu, and Samoiede in pu-da, py-da &c. [See the remarks on the Draviro-Australian 3rd pronoun, ante p. ] In the Scythic languages the sibilant (or guttural) with the liquid postfix predominates as the 3rd pronoun,-son, sin, kini, tha, sya &c. The history of the labial unit and definitive in the Semitico-African systems is of a similar tenor. In the Semitic branch it is only used as an ordinal, the cardinal being the common Scythic and IndoEuropean guttural, aspirate &c. In Africa several languages retain. it as the cardinal, and it re-appears in higher numbers. The common form wal, war, bar, bari, mal, &c. is the same as the Draviro-Australian. The Turkish bir, a variation of the Scythic bis &c. of higher numbers, is a similar form. The prominence of the labial, and the absence of the sibilant, unit is one of the chief peculiarities of the Draviro-Australian system when compared with the N. and N. E. Asian, the Caucasian, the Indo-European and the Semitico-African. In this respect it appears to preserve a more antique character than those in which the labial has given place to the sibilant &c.

The Draviro-Asonesian nasal 1 is Indo-European, Mongolian, Samoiede and Koriak. It is referable in these formations, as in the Draviro-Australian, to a pronominal root. Semitico-African

Y

has la variable in higher numbers to le, ne &c., but it is very rare and may be from the labial, ba, bal, bar, ban &c. The Australian kol, kul &c. and Kol gel, gil, gul is a unit and 3rd pronoun in N. E. Asian languages, and it is also found in the Semitico-African numeral systems.

Semitic in its

The Draviro-Australian contracted root for 2 (ir, ar, ra &c.) is Chinese, Japanese, Ugrian, Caucasian, Indo-European (in 4), and Semitico-African. The combination with the labial as the initial element occurs in Namollo (mal), and it is common in Africa, which it appears to have belonged to a predominant Semitico-Libyan numeral system, of which the Semitic, in its present condition, may be considered as a remnant. existing form has the sibilant and not the labial initial (ath-in, si-l, ta-r &c.), in this resembling Mongolian, Tungusian, Samoiede and Caucasian terms (si-ri, ds-ur, ko-ir &c.). But in 4 it appears to preserve a contracted form of a common African term (ba-r, ma-l, ba-ni, bi-ni, bi-ri, vi-di, fu-la), identical with the KolAustralian. In the occurrence of the labial both in 1 and 2, as well as in its form, the archaic Draviro-Australian system is cognate with the archaic Semitico-Libyan. In the general dual and plural force of the second clement, n, 1, r &c. they also resemble each other and Scythic. In all the formations this generic application appears to have arisen from the use of the particle as a numeral.

The labial does not

The Draviro-Australian 3 is peculiar. appear to occur as a root for 3 in any of the Aso-European or African systems, save in the Turkish wise and Japanese mi (whence mu 6, i. e. 3 dual). In the other systems the sibilant unit has as much currency in 3 as in 1. In its double form, or with the second element as a liquid, it is common to N. and E. Asian, Indo-European and Semitico-African systems. In this numeral Draviro-Australian shows its primitive and persistent character more even than in its 1 and 2.

The S. Dravirian root for 4 is Ugrian and Semitico-African, and the reduplicated form is found in both of these provinces. In the Ugrian it may be referred to the Chino-Tibetan ir, il, li, ni nyi &c., as an archaic Asiatic definitive for 2, preserved in the, Dravirian 2, 4 and higher numbers. In the Semitico-African

province its occurrence in 4 is also explained by its presence in 2 (ri, ar, li, &c). It is found in both the forms of 2, na, ni, &c. and far, fur, &c. contracting to ar as in the corresponding terms for 2. The Indo-European t-var,-in which the dental appears to be a distinct element as in 3, t-ri, and 2, d-wa,-contains the same root, and is a similar form to the Scythic d-wa-ta, d-u-r-ta &c., the d-wa of 2 being the same term, with the liquid elided. From the distribution of the liquid it is probable that it was current in some diffusive Mid-Asian system before it spread as 2 and 2 dual to India, Africa and Northern Asia. The Kol labial 4, is a similar binary term to the Semitico-African far &c.

The S. Dravirian 5, seems to be also purely native. The Kol labial term has affinities with those Scythico-African systems in which the labial unit recurs in 5 and frequently in 10 also. The S. Dravirian labial 10 is a common Aso-African application of the labial unit. The archaic African forms in 5 and 10, pu-na, po-na, mo-n, fu-n, bu-re, ma-r, vu-lu &c. and the forms of the same term in 1, 2, 4, 6, &c. (mal, bar, wan, mo-r, wo-ro, &c. &c.) resemble the Dravirian more closely than the Scythic in which the final element is usually the sibilant. The expression of 5 by a unit, and the formation of higher terms by using 5 as the radix (now generally elided or understood), appears to have preceded the denary scale in every province of the Old World save the Austra lian. In most of the formations of Asia the quinary system is found either as the ultimate one, or with some of its terms keeping their place under a decimal system. It is still very prevalent in Africa, and many of the African systems, like some of the Asonesian, Ultraindian and N. Asiatic, have the quinary terms entire and undisguised.

The formation of lower numerals by subtraction from higher, is found in many systems in different parts of the Old World, (Asia, Africa, Asonesia), and also in America. That of 8 as "2 short of 10" is less common than 9 as "1 short of 10." The fact of such a term for 8 being common to Ostiak, N. E. Asiatic and to some Indonesian languages was remarked by Dr Peacock in his excellent treatise on arithmetic. In several of the N. Asiatic languages both the quinary and denary modes of expressing 8 and 9 are used. In Aino-Kurilion all the numbers between 5 and 10 are denary,

6 (4, 10), 7 (3, 10), 8 (2, 10), 9 (1, 10). In the Semitico-African systems, terms for 7, 8 and 9, formed in the same mode, occur in several languages.

The combination of servile definitives with those which are used as numeral roots, is common to nearly all formations, although in many of the agglutinative and flexional the two elements are more or less concreted, abraded and disguised, and the accordance between the postfix and current possessive or qualitive particles has seldom been preserved. The Dravirian postfixes -du,-ru &c, di, -ti, ji &c, and -ia are not prevalent in the Scythic numeral systenis. They are Caucaso-African. In the Semitico-Libyan systems the dental is a common postfix with numerals. In that formation it has acquired a feminine power, but it appears to have been origin. ally common.

From these notices it appears that the Dravirian system in its ultimate definitive roots, in its successive developments or acquisitions of binary, quinary and decimal modes of numeration, in the mode of expressing the numbers immediately below 10 with reference to it, in the recurrence of the unit to express 5 and 10, and in the use of servile definitives with the numeral roots, resembles most other decimal systems in the world. The roots are found as definitives in many other formations (Scythic, TibetoUltraindian, Caucasian, Semitico-African); and in many other languages they are also used as numerals and numeral clements. The Dravirian system has this peculiarity, that in Asonesian languages we have its purely binary stage preserved to this day. Until all the Aso-African and the connected American numeral systems have been thoroughly analysed and compared, it does not appear possible to trace the later developments of the Dravirian to their historical causes. The system certainly has not been borrowed from any of the later dominant races of S. W. Asia on the one side (Iranian, Semitic, Scythic), nor from the Chinese on the other. It has elements in common with most of these systems, and it must be considered as equally archaic and independent. Its connection with them must be exceedingly remote. It belongs to an era when neither they nor Dravirian had taken their existing forms. The numeral application of the definitives probably originated in a proto-Scythic formation, like