Discussion: “An Upper Palaeolithic Proto-writing System and Phenological Calendar” by Bennett Bacon et al. (2023)

Abstract

Abstract A recent work by Bacon et al. (2023) proposes to interpret a large part of Palaeolithic art as an ethological calendar. They argue that by studying the association of certain signs (dots, lines, and Y-shapes) with an animal, it is possible to infer vital episodes such as reproduction, birth, and migration of the represented species. However, in the present article, we discuss some methodological errors made by the authors. For instance, they use a tracing to demonstrate the association between a mammoth and a series of lines at El Pindal, although this tracing is not faithful to the actual arrangement of the pictorial motifs in the cave. In Pair-non-Pair, Sotarriza, and Atxurra caves, the signs considered do not really exist. And in other cases, such as Altxerri, Covaciella, or Tito Bustillo, the signs have been misinterpreted. Important problems such as the lack of definition of “association” and various apriorisms and presentisms adopted by the authors are also exposed and discussed. In conclusion, this proposal lacks methodological support and it is not possible to conclude that an ethological calendar was present in Palaeolithic art.