the limits of number systems, we found many instances where anything above 2 or 3 was designated by some one of the comprehensive terms much, many, very many; these words, or such equivalents as lot, heap, or plenty, serving as an aid to the finger pantomime necessary to indicate numbers for which they have no real names.  The low degree of intelligence and civilization revealed by such words is brought quite as sharply into prominence by the word occasionally found for 5.  Whenever the fingers and hands are used at all, it would seem natural to expect for 5 some general expression signifying hand, for 10 both hands, and for 20 man.  Such is, as we have already seen, the ordinary method of progression, but it is not universal.  A drop in the scale of civilization takes us to a point where 10, instead of 20, becomes the whole man.  The Kusaies,[110] of Strong’s Island, call 10 sie-nul, 1 man, 30 tol-nul, 3 men, 40 a naul, 4 men, etc.; and the Ku-Mbutti[111] of central Africa have mukko, 10, and moku, man.  If 10 is to be expressed by reference to the man, instead of his hands, it might appear more natural to employ some such expression as that adopted by the African Pigmies,[112] who call 10 mabo, and man mabo-mabo.  With them, then, 10 is perhaps “half a man,” as it actually is among the Towkas of South America; and we have already seen that with the Aztecs it was matlactli, the “hand half” of a man.[113] The same idea crops out in the expression used by the Nicobar Islanders for 30—­heam-umdjome ruktei, 1 man (and a) half.[114] Such nomenclature is entirely natural, and it accords with the analogy offered by other words of frequent occurrence in the numeral scales of savage races.  Still, to find 10 expressed by the term man always conveys an impression of mental poverty; though it may, of course, be urged that this might arise from the fact that some races never use the toes in counting, but go over the fingers again, or perhaps bring into requisition the fingers of a second man to express the second 10.  It is not safe to postulate an extremely low degree of civilization from the presence of certain peculiarities of numeral formation.  Only the most general statements can be ventured on, and these are always subject to modification through some circumstance connected with environment, mode of living, or intercourse with other tribes.  Two South American races may be cited, which seem in this respect to give unmistakable evidence of being sunk in deepest barbarism.  These are the Juri and the Cayriri, who use the same word for man and for 5.  The former express 5 by ghomen apa, 1 man,[115] and the latter by ibicho, person.[116] The Tasmanians of Oyster Bay use the native word of similar meaning, puggana, man,[117] for 5.

Wherever the numeral 20 is expressed by the term man, it may be expected that 40 will be 2 men, 60, 3 men, etc.  This form of numeration is usually, though not always, carried as far as the system extends; and it sometimes leads to curious terms, of which a single illustration will suffice.  The San Blas Indians, like almost all the other Central and South American tribes, count by digit numerals, and form their twenties as follows:[118]