In August of last year world media focused on Dr Martin Sweatman’s research, ‘Representations of calendars and time at Göbekli Tepe and Karahan Tepe support an astronomical interpretation of their symbolism’, published in Time and Mind: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1751696X.2024.2373876?src=exp-la
George Howard at The Cosmic Tusk, a co-author of the original 2007 Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis (YDIH) paper, lauded it for mainstreaming the YDIH: https://cosmictusk.com/new-york-times-mainstreams-martin-sweatman-and-gobekli-tepe-as-a-time-stamp-for-younger-dryas-impact/ Indeed, the ancient impact disaster was a theme emphasized: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/10/world/asia/worlds-oldest-calendar-gobekli-tepe.html
The discussion, however, also provides a fairly comprehensive overview of archaeoastronomy and how calendars might have evolved. Professor Necmi Karul dismissed the YDIH ‘cosmic collision’ element for lacking evidence, which as a scientific hypothesis it does not, but he also questioned the need for calendars in prehistory in a somewhat questionable way: https://www.turkiyetoday.com/culture/oldest-calendar-gobeklitepe-38881/ I’m sure Karul will revisit that specific point afresh with more consideration of primary and secondary sources on palaeoastronomy, calendars and their relationship with archaeology.
On a similar topic I recall in early 2023 the press release of a paper authored by Bacon et al titled: ‘An Upper Palaeolithic Proto-writing System and Phenological Calendar’ in the Cambridge Archaeological Journal. I recall being surprised at this for two reasons: firstly, a co-author of the article had intemperately dismissed an article I’d co-authored with Sweatman supporting Upper Palaeolithic star calendars titled ‘Decoding European Cave Art’ 2018), and secondly because we’d similarly raised the question of proto-writing systems in relation to Palaeolithic (and Neolithic) artworks recording dates and eras. A rebuttal to Bacon et al came to my attention recently: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-archaeological-journal/article/evaluating-the-evidence-for-lunar-calendars-in-upper-palaeolithic-parietal-art/33D4BE1ACD91E3B01A5B2ED83015D36B The authors flag the Bacon paper up for failing to cite several relevant articles published just before that dealt with the same matter including, A. Ringer (2020) ‘Decoding an Upper Palaeolithic system of symbols’ (2020) and B. Taylor ‘Lunar timekeeping in Upper Palaeolithic cave art’. It’s surprising that they would likewise have been unaware of Sweatman and Coombs 2018. Though calendars zodiacally conceived rather than lunation and phenology was the focus, proto-writing in cave graphics forming calendars was there.
The rebuttal itself, however, is extensive and brought a few things to my attention. I was formerly under the impression that it was Henri Breuil (1877-1961) who first mused cave art relating to celestial imagery. Turns out it was another Frenchman named Ollier de Marichard who suggested it in 1868. This was virtually before archaeology was born and about 80 years before Lascaux was discovered which has since attracted the majority of cave art-as-constellation interest.
The rebuttal also critiques non-lunar readings of Lascaux’s shaft scene: namely, M. Rappenglück’s summer triangle interpretation and C. Jėgues-Wolkiewiez’s solstice positions (solar rays she thought underlay the scene’s slaying aspect). Also raised is N. Aujolat’s (2005) treatment of seasonality amid Lascaux’s wider fauna taxonomy, to suggest that calendrical systems needn’t bear relation to lunation or astronomy. Although that could be the case, instances where they appear to overlap would warrant further scrutiny, especially in terms of the notoriously standalone figures of the shaft and the rest of the cave. In our 2018 reading of the shaft figures for example, it is relevant that the summer coated bison corresponds with Capricornus at midsummer; the constellation the sun occupied at that solstice according to stellarium. On the opposite wall, the horse sketch corresponds with Leo’s position at midwinter. Though only a bare outline in its shaft appearance, it is significant that a horse of its likeness occupies a position corresponding to Leo, relative to Taurus and Gemini, in the Rotunda according to zodiacal interpretations.
Basically, if the bison and horse had been reversed, their proposed meanings might be considered arbitrary, but they’re not.
The undercurrent of the rebuttal is fairly tangible in that it sees the theories of calendar proponents unhelpful in understanding why people began to create art in caves (calendars and constellations overlap with lots of other areas, however). Though they raise some valid criticisms, cave art agendas can’t be assessed as a single phenomenon for example, the Bacon paper is a particularly vulnerable target, and there’s more problems arising from art for art’s sake theories which is what they silently appear to endorse.