Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40718591›Full record

ArticleArchaeological and anthropological sciences2025

Identifying potential palaeolithic artificial memory systems via Spatial statistics: Implications for the origin of quantification.

Lloyd Austin Courtenay, Francesco d'Errico, Rafael Núñez, Damián E Blasi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archaeological and anthropological sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Humans 40,000 y ago developed a system of conventional signs.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Lloyd Austin CourtenayCNRS, PACEA UMR 5199, Université de Bordeaux, Bât. B2, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS50023, Pessac, 33600 France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4810-2001
Francesco d'ErricoCNRS, PACEA UMR 5199, Université de Bordeaux, Bât. B2, Allée Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, CS50023, Pessac, 33600 France.
Rafael NúñezEidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich (ETH), Rämistrasse 101, Zürich, 8092 Switzerland.
Damián E BlasiCenter for Brain and Cognition, Pompeu Fabra University, Jaume I Building, Edifici Merce Rodereda, C/ de Ramon Trias Farcas 25, Barcelona, 08018 Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial Memory Systems (AMSs) are tools that allow for the storage and retrieval of coded information beyond the physical body, ranging from computers and writing systems to tallying sticks. Current scientific knowledge suggests humans are the only species to manufacture and use these tools. While a number of artifacts dating back to the Middle Paleolithic have been considered to be early instances of AMS, conclusive and systematic evidence of this function is absent. Here we contrast the spatial distribution of markings on these potential early AMSs to other Paleolithic artifacts displaying butchery and ornamental marks, as well as ethnographically recorded cases of AMS. We find that both ethnographic and Upper Paleolithic AMSs are endowed with systematically different signatures that distinguish them from the other artifacts. These findings suggest that modern humans in at least Africa and Europe had sophisticated cognitive capabilities for information storage and retrieval, providing insights into the possible development of quantity-related cognition. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12520-025-02286-4.

Indexed as

CognitionCountingMobiliary ArtNotationsPoint pattern processes

Identifiers

PMID40718591
PMCPMC12287167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.