From number sense to number symbols. An archaeological perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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'.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".