Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T18:14:01.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Model and its Implications for the Origin of Writing: The La Marche Antler Revisited

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2009

Francesco d'Errico
Francesco d'Errico
Affiliation:
UMR 9933 du CNRS, Institut du Quatemaire, Avenue des Facultés, 33604 Talence, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current models for the origin of writing do not pay sufficient attention to the origin and early development of means adopted by modern humans to record, transmit and process information outside the human body. The present article attempts to fill this gap by elaborating a theoretical model able to classify and describe the variability of these systems. The model is applied to the study of the engraved antler from La Marche, one of the better-known Palaeolithic objects to have been interpreted as an early system of notation. Technical analysis of the marks, through application of a range of experimental criteria, suggests that the sets of marks carved on this object should be interpreted as an artificial memory system with a complex code based on the morphology and the spatial distribution of the engraved marks. These results have important implications for current theories on the origin of writing.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , October 1995 , pp. 163 - 206
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Absolon, K., 1957. Dokumente und Beweise der Fähigkeiten des Fossilen Menschen zu Zählen im Mährischen Paläolithikum. Artibus Asiae 20, 123–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ascher, M. & Ascher, R., 1981. The Code of the Quipu. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Bottéro, J., 1980. De l'aide mémoire à l'écriture, in Ecritures — Systèmes Idéographiques et Pratiques Expressives, ed. Christin, A.M.. (Actes du Colloque International de l'Université Paris VII.) Paris: Le Sycomore, 13–35.Google Scholar
Bouchud, J., 1968. Les Paléolithiques connaissent-ils le cycle lunaire? L'Anthropologie 72(1–2), 193–5.Google Scholar
Breuil, H., 1912. Les subdivisions du Paléolithique supérieur et leur signification. Comptes rendus du 14ème Congrès International d'Anthropologie et d'Archéologie Préhistorique. 14ème session, Genève, vol. 1, 165–238.Google Scholar
Bromage, T.G., 1984. Interpretation of scanning electron microscopic images of abraded forming bone surface. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 64, 161–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromage, T.G., 1985. Systematic inquiry in tests of negative/positive replica combinations for SEM. Journal of Microscopy 137, 209–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bromage, T.G., 1987. The scanning electron microscopy/replica technique and recent applications to the study of fossil bone. Scanning Microscopy 1(2), 607–13.Google Scholar
Bromage, T.G. & Boyde, A., 1984. Microscopic criteria for the determination of directionality of cutmarks on bone. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 65, 359–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, B., 1985. Human Kind Emerging. Toronto: Little Brown & Co..Google Scholar
Cohen, M., 1958. La Grande Invention de l'Ecriture. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.Google Scholar
Corchón Rodriguez, S., 1986. El arte mueble paleolitico cantábrico: contexto y análisis interno. (Monografías 16.) Santander: Ministerio de Cultura, Centro de investigación y Museo de Altamira.Google Scholar
Couraud, C., 1980. Numérotations et rythmes préhistoriques. La Recherche 109, 356–8.Google Scholar
Couraud, C. & Lorblanchet, M., 1986. Les galets aziliens de l'abri Pagès et l'art azilien en Quercy. Préhistoire Quercynoisc 2, 5–37.Google Scholar
Crump, T., 1990. The Anthropology of Number. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1987. Nouveaux indices et nouvelles techniques microscopiques pour la lecture de l'art gravé mobilier. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris, 304(13), 761–4.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1988a. Study of Upper Palaeolithic and Epipalaeolithic engraved pebbles, in Scanning Electron Microscopy in Archaeology, ed. Olsen, S.L.. (British Archaeological Reports S452.) Oxford: BAR, 169–84.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1988b. The use of resin replicas for the study of lithic use-wear, in Scantling Electron Microscopy in Archaeolog, ed. Olsen, S.L.. (British Archaeological Reports S452.) Oxford: BAR, 155–67.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1988c. Lecture technologique de l'art mobilier gravé, nouvelles méthodes et premiers résultats sur les galets gravés de Rochedane. L'Anthropologie 92, 101–22.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1989a. Palaeolithic lunar calendars: a case of wishful thinking? Current Anthropology 30(1), 117–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1989b. A reply to Alexander Marshack. Current Anthropology 30(4), 495–500.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1991a. Etude technologique à base expérimentale des entailles sur matière dure animale. Implications pour l'identification de systèmes de notation, in 25 Ans 'Etudes Technologiques en Préhistoire. Antibes: APDCA, 83–97.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1991b. Microscopie and statistical criteria for the identification of prehistoric systems of notation. Rock Art Research 8, 83–93.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1992a. A reply to Alexander Marshack. Rock Art Research 9(1), 59–64.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1992b. Technology, motion and the meaning of epipaleolithic art. Current Anthropology 33(1), 94–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Errico, F., 1993. La vie sociale de l'art mobilier paléolithique. Manipulation, transport, suspension des objets en os, bois de cervidés, ivoire. Oxford Journal of Archaeology 12(2), 145–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
'Errico, F., 1994. L'art gravé azilien. De la technique à la signification. (XXXIe supplément à Gallia Préhistoire.) Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F., in preparation. Memories out of Mind. Origin and First Development of Artificial Memory Systems in the Palaeolithic.Google Scholar
d'Errico, F. & Cacho, C., 1994. Notation versus decoration in the Upper Palaeolithic: a case-study from Tossal de la Roca, Alicante, Spain. Journal of Archaeological Science 21, 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Errico, F. & David, S., 1993. L'analyse technologique de l'art mobilier. Le cas de l'abri des Cabônes (Ranchot, Jura). Gallia-Préhistoire 35, 139–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
d'Errico, F., Giacobini, G. & Puech, P.-F., 1982–1984. Varnish replicas. A new method for studying worked bone surfaces. Ossa 9–10, 29–51.Google Scholar
Dalmeri, G., 1985. L'arte mobiliare dell'abitato tardopaleolitico-mesolitico di Terlago (Trento). Preistoria Alpina 21, 21–31.Google Scholar
Derrida, J., 1967. De la Grammatologie. Paris: Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Dewez, M., 1974. New hypotheses concerning two engraved bones from La Grotte de Remouchamps, Belgium. World Archaeology 5(3), 337–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dewez, M., 1975. Nouvelles recherches à la grotte du Coléoptère à Bomal-sur-Ourthe (Province du Luxembourg). Rapport provisoire de la première campagne de fouille. Helinium 15, 105–33.Google Scholar
Dewez, M., 1981. Les galets encochés et incisés du Paléolithique supérieur final de Belgique. Bulletin de la Société royale belge d'Anthropologie et Préhistoire 92, 67–86.Google Scholar
Dewez, M., 1987. Le Paléolithique Supérieur récent dans les Grottes de Belgique. Louvain-la-Neuve: Publication d'Histoire de l'Art et d'Archéologie de l'Université Catholique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Diringer, D., 1962. Writing. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
During, E.M. & Nilsson, L., 1991. Mechanical surface analysis of bone: a case study of cut marks and enamel hypoplasia on a Neolithic cranium from Sweden. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 84, 113–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Février, J., 1984. Histoire de l'écriture. Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Fritz, C., Menu, M., Tosello, G. & Walter, Ph., 1994. Lagravure sur os au Magdalénien: étude microscopique 'une cote de la grotte de La Vache (commune d'Alliat, Ariège). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 90(6), 411–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frolov, B.A., 1970. Aspects mathématiques dans l'art préhistorique, in Valcamonica Symposium. Capo di Ponte: Edizioni del Centro, 475–8.Google Scholar
Frolov, B.A., 1976. Variations cognitives et créatrices dans l'art mobilier au Paléolithique supérieur: rythmes, nombres, images. XIth UISPP Congress, Colloque XIV, Nice, 8–23.Google Scholar
Frolov, B.A., 1978. Numbers in Paleolithic graphie art and the initial stages in the development of mathematics. Soviet Anthropology and Archaeology 16(3–4), 142–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frolov, B.A., 1979. Reply to A. Marshack. Current Anthropology 20(3), 606–7.Google Scholar
Gelb, I.J., 1952. A Study of Writing. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gob, A., 1983. Découvertes 'un fragment de galet gravé dans le gisement de la station Leduc à Remouchamps (Aywaille). Alumni 53, 1–5.Google Scholar
Gollmer, C.A., 1885. On African symbolic messages. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 14, 169–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, J., 1977. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, R., 1986. The Origin of Writing. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
Harris, R., 1990. Quelques réflexions sur la tyrannie de l'alphabet, in L'Écriture: le Cerveau, l'Oeil et la Main, eds. Sirat, C., Irigoin, J. & Poulie, E.. (Bibliologia 10.) Turnhout: Brepols, 195–9.Google Scholar
Householder, F.W., 1969. Review of Langacker, ‘Language and its Structure’. Language 45, 886–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huyge, D., 1990. Mousterian skiffle, note on a Middle Palaeolithic engraved bone from Schulen, Belgium. Rock Art Research 7(2), 125–32.Google Scholar
Huyge, D., 1991. The ‘Venus’ of Laussel in the light of Ethnomusicology. Archeologie in Vlaanderen 1, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ifrah, G., 1994. Histoire Universelle des Chiffres. Paris: Robert Laffont.Google Scholar
Larichev, V.Ye., 1986. The mammoth tusk blade from Mal'ta: a calendar-astronomical calculating table of the Old Stone Age of Siberia. Xlth UISPP Congress, Southampton.Google Scholar
Lartet, E. & Christy, H., 1865–1875. Reliquae Aquitanicae, being Contributions to Archaeology and Palaeontology of Perigord and the Adjoining Provinces of Southern France. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1964. Le Geste el la Parole. I. Technique et Language. Paris: Albin Michel.Google Scholar
Locke, L.L., 1912. The ancient quipu, a Peruvian knot record. American Anthropologist 14, 325–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lwoff, S., 1942. La Marche, commune de Lussac-les-Châteaux, industrie de l'os. Bullétin de la Société Préhistorique Française 39, 1–14.Google Scholar
Lwoff, S., 1962. Grotte de La Marche. Commune de Lussac-les-Chateaux (Vienne). 8ème publication. Industrie microlithique du Magdalénien III et industrie lithique du Magdalénien IV–V. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 59, 500–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lwoff, S. & Pericard, L., 1938. Communication sur les résultats de leur première campagne de fouilles dans la grotte de La Marche. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 35, 382–4.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1964. Lunar notation on Upper Paleolithic remains. Science 184, 28–46.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1970. Notation dans les gravures du Paléolithique superieur. Nouvelles méthodes d'analyse. Bordeaux: Publications de l'Institut de Préhistoire de l'Université de Bordeaux.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1972a. Cognitive aspects of Upper Paleolithic engraving. Current Anthropology 13(3–4), 445–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshack, A., 1972b. The Roots of Civilization. New York (NY): McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1972c. Upper Paleolithic notation and symbol. Science 178, 817–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marshack, A., 1975. Exploring the mind of Ice Age Man. National Geographic 147(1), 64–89.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1986. Reply. Rock Art Reserarch 3(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1988. Paleolithic calendar, in Encyclopedia of Human Evolution and Prehistory, eds. Tattersal, I., Delson, E. & van Couvering, J.. New York (NY): Garland, 419–20.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1991a. The Taï plaque and calendrical notation in the Upper Palaeolithic. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 1(1), 25–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshack, A., 1991b. The Roots of Civilization. New York (NY): Moyer Bell.Google Scholar
Marshack, A., 1992. A reply to F. d'Errico. Rock Art Research 9(1), 59.Google Scholar
Minkoff, H., 1975. Graphemics and diachrony: some evidence from Hebrew cursive. Afroasiatic Linguistics 1, 193–208.Google Scholar
Miranda Rivera, P., 1958. Quipus y jeroglificos. Zeitschrift fur Ethnologie 53, 118–32.Google Scholar
Muller-Karpe, H., 1966. Handbuch der Vorgeschichte. Band I, Allsteinzeit. Munich: Beck'sche Verlagbuchhandlung.Google Scholar
Oates, J., 1993. Early writing in Sumer: a review. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(1), 149–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, S.L. & Shipman, P., 1988. Surface modification on bone: trampling versus butchery. Journal of Archaeological Science 15, 535–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otte, M., Gautier, A. & Bibuyck, P., 1982. Interpretation d'un ossement encoché de la préhistoire syrienne. Paléorient 8(1), 85–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pales, L., 1969. Les Gravures de La Marche, vol. I: Equidés et Bovides. Bordeaux: Delmas.Google Scholar
Pales, L., 1976. Les Gravures de La Marche, vol. II: Les Humains. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Pales, L., 1981. Les Gravures de La Marche, vol. III: Félins et Ours. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Pales, L., 1989. Cervidés, Mammouths et Divers. Gap: Ophrys.Google Scholar
Pericard, L. & Lwoff, S., 1940. La Marche. Commune de Lussac-les-Chateaux (Vienne). Premier atelier III à dalles mobiles (fouilles 1937–1938). Bullétin de la Société Préhistorique Française, 37(7–9), 155–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pradel, L., 1958. La grotte magdalénienne de La Marche (commune de Lussac-les-Châteaux, Vienne). Mémoires de la Société Préhistorique Française 5, 170–91.Google Scholar
Renfrew, C., 1993. Cognitive archaeology: some thoughts on the archaeology of thought. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 3(2), 248–50.Google Scholar
Robinson, J., 1992. Not counting on Marshack: a reassessment of the work of Alexander Marshack on notation in the Upper Palaeolithic. Journal of Mediterranean Studies 2(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Rose, J.J., 1983. A replication technique for scanning electron microscopy: application for anthropologists. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 62, 225–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozoy, J-G., 1990. The revolution of the bowmen in Europe, in The Mesolithic in Europe, ed. Bonsall, C.. Edinburgh: John Donald, 13–28.Google Scholar
Sampson, G., 1985. Writing Systems. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1978. The earliest precursor of writing in human communication. Readings from Scientific American. 81–9.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1979. An archaic recording system in the Uruk-Jemdet Nasr period. American Journal of Archeology 83, 19–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1984. Before numerals. Visible Language 18(1), 48–60.Google Scholar
Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1992. Before Writing, vol. I: From Counting to Cuneiform, vol. II: A Catalogue of Near Eastern Tokens. Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Shipman, P., 1981. Applications of scanning electron microscopy to taphonomic problems. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 376, 357–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thévenin, A., 1972. Les galets gravés aziliens de l'abri de Rochedane à Villars-sous-Dampjoux (Doubs). Congrès Préhistorique de France 19, 341–7.Google Scholar
Tratman, E.K., 1976. A Late Upper Palaeolithic calculator(?) Gough's Cave, Cheddar Somerset. Proceedings of the University of Bristol Spelaeological Society 14(2), 115–22.Google Scholar
Walker, P.L. & Long, J.C., 1977. An experimental study of the morphological characteristics of tool marks. American Antiquity 42(4), 605–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, R., 1982. The manipulation of burins in incision and notation. Canadian Journal of Anthropology 2(2), 129–35.Google Scholar
Zimansky, P., 1992. Review of Schmandt-Besserat, ‘Before Writing (2 vols.)’. Journal of Field Archaeology 20(4), 513–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar