From number sense to number symbols. An archaeological perspective
Tóm tắt
How and when did hominins move from the numerical cognition that we share with the rest of the animal world to number symbols? Objects with sequential markings have been used to store and retrieve numerical information since the beginning of the European Upper Palaeolithic (42 ka). An increase in the number of markings and complexity of coding is observed towards the end of this period. The application of new analytical techniques to a 44–42 ka old notched baboon fibula from Border Cave, South Africa, shows that notches were added to this bone at different times, suggesting that devices to store numerical information were in use before the Upper Palaeolithic. Analysis of a set of incisions on a 72–60 ka old hyena femur from the Les Pradelles Mousterian site, France, indicates, by comparison with markings produced by modern subjects under similar constraints, that the incisions on the Les Pradelles bone may have been produced to record, in a single session, homologous units of numerical information. This finding supports the view that numerical notations were in use among archaic hominins. Based on these findings, a testable five-stage scenario is proposed to establish how prehistoric cultures have moved from number sense to the use of number symbols.
This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The origins of numerical abilities’.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Agrillo C, 2014, Numerical and arithmetic abilities in non-primate species
Dehaene D, 1997, The number sense: how the mind creates mathematics
Weber EH, 1834, De pulsu, resorptione, auditu et tactu: annotationes anatomicae et physiologicae
d'Errico F, 1998, Cognition and material culture: the archaeology of symbolic storage, 19
d'Errico F, 2002, In the mind’s eye, 33
Overmann KA, 2014, Finger-counting in the Upper Palaeolithic, Rock Art Res., 31, 63
Maureille B, 2010, Préhistoire entre Vienne et Charente. Hommes et sociétés du Paléolithique, 145
Bourguignon L. 1997 Le Moustérien de type Quina: nouvelle définition d'une entité technique [The Quina Mousterian: New definition of a technological entity]. Doctoral thesis Université de Paris X. (In French.)
Meignen L, 2010, Préhistoire entre Vienne et Charente. Hommes et sociétés du Paléolithique Association des publications chauvinoises, 163
Mussini C. Les restes humains moustériens des Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc Charente France). Étude morphométrique et réflexions sur un aspect comportemental des Néandertaliens [Mousterian human remains from Les Pradelles (Marillac-le-Franc Charente France). Morphometric analysis and reflections on Neanderthal behaviour]. Doctoral thesis Université de Bordeaux 1. (In French.)
Binford LR, 2014, Bones: ancient men and modern myths
Mélard N, 2010, L’étude microtopographique et la visualisation 3D dans l'analyse de gravures préhistoriques – l'exemple des pierres gravées de La Marche [Microtopography and 3D modeling for the analysis of prehistoric engravings - The example of the engraved slabs from La Marche], In Situ Rev. Patrim., 13
d'Errico F, 1991, Microscopic and statistical criteria for the identification of prehistoric systems of notation, Rock Art Res., 8, 83
d'Errico F, 1995, Image analysis and 3-D optical surface profiling of Upper Palaeolithic mobiliary art, Microsc. Anal., 51, 27
Marshack A, 1972, The root of civilization: the cognitive beginnings of man’s first art, symbol and notations
Majkić A, 2017, Sequential incisions on a cave bear bone from the Middle Paleolithic of Pešturina Cave, Serbia, J. Archaeol Method Theory, 1
Mania D, 1988, Deliberate engravings on bone artefacts of Homo erectus, Rock Art Res., 5, 91
Fischer MH, 2005, Handbook of mathematical cognition, 43
Domínguez-Rodrigo M, 2016, 3.3-million-year-old stone tools and butchery traces? More evidence needed, PaleoAnthropology, 2016, 46