Finally got around to reading this, after printing it off a month ago.
I'm not convinced.
I will certainly accept that the dots and lines represent a numerical notation of some sort - it makes little sense otherwise. But find the authors' conclusions that they are linked to lunar months (specifically mating and birth months)
as a method of recording time, a stretch.
They, more or less, dismiss the notion that the dots/lines represent actual numbers:
It seems to us unnecessary to need to convey information about the numbers of individual animals, the times they have been sighted, or the number of successful kills of these;
I would suggest that the dots/lines could indeed represent the number of kills. It could simply be an indication of prowess, i.e.,
"hey! we killed this many!". Or more seriously,
"we needed to kill this money to feed the tribe", or perhaps
"it needed this many humters to kill this animal". It could also represent a rating
"this animal tastes this good".
The authors, in the same sentence, link it to numbers of individuals
"it seems far more likely that information pertinent to predicting their migratory movements and periods of aggregation, i.e. mating and birthing when they are predicably located in some number and relatively vulnerable, would be of greatest importance for survival." but I question the leap I have emboldened; my suggestions above could still fit with periods of migration, mating, birthing.
One illustration, taken from Lascaux, shows a red deer with seven dots (part of a larger fresco with more deer).
The authors note that
among its row of ‘swimming’ deer stags—usually interpreted as an autumn migration scene—one stag is marked with seven red dots; and this they later link to mating season. But why should this show a migration? It could simply be a herd stampeeding. And at any time of the year.
If one does accept their hypothesis regarding the dots/dashes as indicating months, then there does seem to be a correlation regarding the "Y" mark (birth) and they make the assumption that the "Y" represents parted legs which is reasonable, but not conclusive. In addition, I did not see any evidence that they could link this to depictions of animals wth an obvious gender. And it's interesting to note that the same mark is
"one of the most commonly depicted in Palaeolithic art" so it could mean many things.
I have to admit that the statistical analysis that they detail in the paper is beyond me so I cannot speak to its validity. However, and that said, I'm not convinced.
Very interesting though!