The type–token distinction and the notion of ‘tokenization’ are proposed as analytical tools that may help us understand better the emergence of numbers and mathematical thinking from the non-mathematical cultural practices of the Upper Palaeolithic such as painting, decorating portable objects, or making ornaments from beads, as described in recent studies in cognitive archaeology. While the type–token distinction has been a salient element in recent debates in the philosophy of mathematics, it seems not yet to have been registered in those areas of cognitive archaeology concerned with numbers—and yet it may help to identify the circumstances under which the conceptual potential of cultural artefacts develops. The concept of tokenization permits us to identify a plausible link between non-numerical cultural resources and the emergence of numerical thought patterns. This approach offers a way of appreciating the role of artefacts without raising the notoriously difficult question of their original ‘meaning’.

中文翻译：

---

史前数字起源中的类型和记号

类型-标记的区别和“标记化”的概念被提出作为分析工具，可以帮助我们更好地理解数字和数学思维从旧石器时代晚期的非数学文化实践中的出现，如绘画、装饰便携式物体或正如最近在认知考古学中所描述的那样，用珠子制作装饰品。虽然在最近的数学哲学辩论中，类型标记的区别一直是一个突出的元素，但它似乎还没有在与数字有关的认知考古学领域中被记录下来——但它可能有助于确定在什么情况下文化艺术品的概念潜力得到发展。标记化的概念使我们能够确定非数字文化资源与数字思维模式的出现之间的合理联系。这种方法提供了一种欣赏人工制品作用的方法，而不会提出众所周知的困难问题，即它们的原始“意义”。