Talk:Ishango bone

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chopperology.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Egyptian Multiplication?
This article claims that the bone is an example of Egyptian multiplication. Could someone please point it out more explicitly to me? I don't see what's being multiplied, or what the result is. And yes, I understand the concept of Egyptian multiplication. -Rwv37 18:10, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Age of Artifact
I believe the modern scholarly concensus dates this bone to approximately 6,500 BC. I've changed the date.


 * The reference used for this article states that it's 20,000 years old. --Sean Brunnock 12:09, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Age of Artifact 2
See the following paper for the age. The "consensus" is false. Brooks A.S. and Smith C.C., 1987 "Ishango revisited: new age determinations and cultural interpretations" The African Archaeological Review, 5 : 65-78.

Ishango Bone

 * The following came from a merged article. - RoyBoy 800 04:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The Ishango bone is a tally stick, made of bone, which contains 3 sequences of grouped carvings. The bone was found in the area of what are now the headwaters of the Nile River. The bone has three rows of notches, with the row a) below having 2 sets of numbers in excess-one format, base 10: 9,19, 21,11. Row b) is a descending series of prime numbers from 19; row c) continues the series of prime numbers, down to 5; row c) then contains multiples of 3, 4 and 5, in an example of Egyptian multiplication.
 * Rows of tally notches below:

Originally from Africa, this artifact now resides at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium. The bone is dated to around 18,000 BC. 

The middle column begins with 3 notches, and then doubles to 6 notches. The process is repeated for the number 4, which doubles to 8 notches, and then reversed for the number 10, which is halved to 5 notches. These numbers then, are not purely random and instead suggests some understanding of the principle of multiplication and division by 2. The bone may therefore have been used as a counting tool for simple mathematical procedures.

Furthermore, the number of notches on either side of the central column indicate more counting prowess. The numbers on both the left and right column are all odd numbers (9, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 21). Furthermore, the numbers on the left column are all prime numbers, demonstrating some mathematical knowledge. The numbers on each side column add up to 60, with the numbers in the central column adding up to 48. Both of these numbers are multiples of 12, again suggesting an understanding of multiplication and division.

Removed speculation
I removed the following, from a sentence beginning with - The Ishango grouping may have been used to construct a number system "which is speculated to have spread north to Egypt and contributed to the development of mathematics". We would definitely need a reliable source on this, this speculation seems highly unlikely to me. This number system from 20,000 years ago is speculated to have spread to egypt, appearing over 10,000 years later in the egyptian mathematics? Given the gap of many millennia, one would need serious evidence to make this claim. --Xyzzyplugh 13:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

HEY UM THE AFRICANS CREATED MATH WHATS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND THEY CREATED EVERYTHING ELSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.45.86.8 (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment
This article has been reassessed as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a couple of problems with the article that make further work necessary to keep it at GA status. Here is my review, my concerns are references and comprehensiveness. Please contact me on my talk page if you have specific questions. I will hold the article for a week and then reevaluate. H1nkles (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on my talk page, H1nkles. I haven't had much of a chance to look at this the past week, but I'll try to brush it up Monday or Tuesday.  Thank you!  &mdash; Catherine\talk 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd like a little more time to work on it please let me know. H1nkles (talk) 04:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's been on hold for two weeks, any work being done? H1nkles (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot explain how this ever became a GA in the first place without assuming that the GA assessment process is utterly and completely broken. This article is closer to hoax than to GA. --dab (𒁳) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many speculations
Peter Rudman's "How Mathematics Happened: The First 50,000 Years", has a nice discussion on the validity of the speculations. The concept of the prime numbers for example cannot predate the division concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.243.47 (talk) 04:09, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Finally got the book and added something to the article. Dougweller (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

There are TWO Ishango Bones
Looking at the Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences website there are two ishango bones. The first is the most well known with the 168 notches and a piece of quartz in one end. The second bone has an opening in one end with 90 major and minor notches on six sides.

http://ishango.naturalsciences.be/Flash/flash_local/Ishango-02-EN.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhotep (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It may just be an engraved bone
Whilst the English-speaking world is still seeking a suited reading of the bone to fit the conclusion already decided (scientists, when operating outside their domain, tend to be gullible) the French have already faced what is probably the truth: there is no mathematical meaning in the bone's engravings - it's in the eye of the beholder http://www.bibnum.education.fr/sites/default/files/ishango-analysis_v2.pdf Note that this article mentions that there are dozens of similar engraved bones in the drawers of French musea, waiting for naive mathematicians to be "interpreted". Also note that another bone, from Czechia, has 55 marks in it. Some see them divided in groups of 5. Some don't. There is nothing. but once someone decided that something is mysterious, there is no way back: read Charles Dickens' Pickwick Papers, where the "learned" M. Pickwick finds an engraved stone and decides it to be a mysterious archeological find. It reads BILST UMP SHI S.M. ARK. After M. Pickwick's declaration, no member of the Pickwick Society is willing anymore to accept the simple interpretation of the hieroglyphs, given by a spoilsport (namely, the text means BILL STUMPS HIS MARK). If so many learned men have wondered at it, it can't be simple any more. Riyadi (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This seems like a useful source, but the link is broken. Can anyone find it? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Joe, I repaired the link. Riyadi (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * There is also a response to the source above by Pletser and Huylebrouck (link below) criticizing its arguments.
 * The abstract:
 * "We answer to criticisms of O. Keller about our interpretation work on the Ishango rod, the oldest mathematical tool of humankind. Our hypothesis, that is widely accepted, is that this prehistoric rod is the first mankind manifestation of a basic arithmetic intention, with simple arithmetic operations and possibly showing passages between 10 and 12 bases."
 * https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.00860.pdf
 * "Contradictions and narrowness of views in "The fables of Ishango, or the irresistible temptation of mathematical fiction", answers and updates"
 * Caleb Everett seems also to have a similar view. Skllagyook (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ishango bone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080721075947/http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~schultz/3M3/history.html to http://www.maths.uwa.edu.au/~schultz/3M3/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304051733/https://www.naturalsciences.be/expo/old_ishango/en/ishango/introduction.html to https://www.naturalsciences.be/expo/old_ishango/en/ishango/introduction.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a handle for an engraving tool / scalpel / carving knife
The marks' layout is clearly not optimized for legibility. Prime example of scientists "seeing what they want to see", or rather, creating the outcome that brings the most publications, fame, and funding.

Re unexplained removals of sourced and relevant material
Hello. Regarding your edit here [], you seem to be removing sourced and relevant information without an explanation. This is the second time you have done so in that section. I previously explained the reasons your edit, including the removal of relevant sourced information, was problematic, and have done so again in the edit notes. The information you removed without explanation includes: Pletser and Huylebrouk's reply to Keller, Huylebrouks statements which provide a context for the Joseph quote you added, and a statement from Joseph himself directly sourced to his writing which gives a better and fuller idea of his views on the Ishango bone (your edit seems to misleadingly suggest that Joseph doubts that the bone was a mathematical object, which is very much not the case, and which my edit makes clear with the added quote from him in addition to yours). Also the statement that Joseph "discredits the simultaneous mathematical and astrological use of the object" is not really supported by the source. "Discredits" is a non-neutral term (and suggests more certainty than warranted by one source and also is not supported by the Joseph quote provided by Huylebrouk). The source you cite is by Huylebrouk (not Joseph) and only mentions and quotes Joseph briefly, and the statement that the object is unlikely to have been simultaneously both mathematical and astronomical (not "astrological") is Huylebrouk's not Joseph's (Huylebrouk says, "to credit the computational and astronomical reading simultaneously would be far-fetched", then quotes Joseph afterward), but both he and Joseph in their respective sources (which I made sure to include and quote) state that the object was mathematical and more than a tally stick (important information and context which you removed with no explanation). All of this is explained with quotes and citations on my edit. You also added unsourced commentary (e.g. "Keller and Joseph unanimously assert that far-fetched speculations such as these hinder valid research efforts and make light of significant archaeological discoveries") which is not explicit in the source and seems to violate Wikipedia policy against WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR, especially given that you (for some reason) deleted relevant information on Joseph's other views on the bone as well as those of Huylebrouk (from Huylebrouk's own source you added that mentions Joseph), the other quote and ref from Joseph himself, and Huykebrouk and Pletser (in response to Keller) from the section. I was asked by User:Ninafundisha in an edit summary to give you some lattitude in making decisions about formatting, organization etc. I understand this/that is certainly fair and I since have (and will certainly continue to do so) but I do not think that lattitude includes the removal of sourced material/relevant context and additions without explanation and the reinstatement of misleading edits (after explanations have been given regarding the issues). I have for now restored the material you removed and my phrasing, which I believe significantly more closely follows the sources. But I have not reverted your numerous other recent and earlier edits (as there don't seem to be any problems with those other edits). If you have any objections please discuss them here to reach WP:CONSENSUS instead of reinstating the disputed edit again. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello. The edits I have made only include the removal of non-credible resources, and have rewritten the ideas presented to include academic, reliable sources. Please let us work together on this page to ensure it’s academic integrity. Chopperology (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That does not seem to be the case for the edit of yours I am discussing. Did you read my message above? Again, I am referring to this edit here: []. Your other edits, as far as I can tell, I see no problems with. What sources I did I add that were non-credible? In what way are the 2016 Huylebrouk and Pletser paper responding to Keller and George Joseph's book "Crest of the Peacock: Non-European Roots of Mathematics" currently ref 14 (which your own source mentions) non-credible? They are academic reliable sources by mathematicians who are cited elsewhere. And the source you added, Huylebrouk's piece titled "The bone that began the space Odyssey" in "The Mathematical Tourist", that you used to cite Joseph (somewhat misleadingly - see my message above) is itself by Huylebrouk reviewing various researchers, and all I did with it was represent and quote it more fully (which you reverted).
 * A fuller quote (after his describing some mathematical theories of the bone) from the piece you cited by Huylebrouk (from page 58) is:
 * "Whatever the interpretation, the patterns surely show the bone was more than a simple tally stick. But to credit the computational and astronomical reading simultaneously would be far-fetched; as Joseph stated it, "a single bone may well collapse under the heavy weight of conjectures piled upon it."
 * As explained, the statement and opinion that the bone was unlikely similtaneously astronomical and computational is Huylebrouk's and not Joseph's (though terms like "discredit" seem inapropriate here). However, as mentioned, and as above, Huylebrouk nonethekess also states that the bone's patterns show that it was surely more than a simple tally stick (thus giving support to the view that it had some mathematical significance more complex than that). He then quotes Joseph.
 * Given what I have explained, I'm afraid I do not understand the reason for your deletions. The sources are academic, credible and WP:RS and I do not see any reason to remove them (let alone repeatedly and without explanation).
 * Also, please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Skllagyook (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the paper self-published on arXiv. And unless the conference proceedings paper by the same authors has sufficient citations in peer reviewed publications, I don't see it as an RS either. Doug Weller  talk 17:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. If the Huylebrouk and Pletser response is self-published, it is not WP:RS. That was my mistake. It does also seem upon checking to be a preprint (again my mistake I missed that).
 * The conference proceedings by the same authors has five citations. Some seem to be RS while others do not. See here:
 * https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=3265415116835256136&as_sdt=5,39&sciodt=0,39&hl=en. So I am not sure whether it is RS.
 * Also, the piece that Chopperology cited quoting Keller is a non-academic source. It cites an academic source by Keller ("The Fables of Ishango") but that source has 6 citations, one of which is by Keller as well and another is the non-RS response by Pletser and Huylebrouk. Of these citations it seems perhaps two are may be from peer-reviewed RS and/or by specialists (I cannot tell whether it is self-published). See here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=4994454380231048030&as_sdt=5,33&sciodt=0,33&hl=en. So I am not sure whether it would be RS.
 * The source (the book) by the mathematician George Joseph (which is the source of the quote that appears in the the Huylebrouk piece cited by Chopperology) should be RS. Skllagyook (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * sorry, busy. I don't think the "Journal For Studies In Humanities And Social Sciences" is a terribly reliable source, although the similarly named "Journal of Studies In Humanities And Social Sciences" is. All in all, I don't see the conference proceedings as RS.  Doug Weller  talk 16:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)