Abstract

Two approaches to prehistoric numeracy are analyzed and compared. The first uses traditional archaeological methods and criteria to examine and characterize marks on prehistoric artifacts for the purpose of assessing whether they were notations. The second uses a theoretical framework in which cognition is extended—meaning that material forms are a component of the mind—in order to understand the role of counting devices in numerical cognition. Each answers a different question: The traditional approach is concerned with understanding the intent and meaning of artifactual marks, while the extended approach focuses on how material forms contribute to numerical realization, explication, and elaboration. Both highlight ongoing issues in investigating prehistoric numeracy, which might benefit from a combined and expanded methodology.