A recent paper by Christian Bentz and Ewa Dutkiewicz of the Saarland University in Saarbruken, Germany investigated deeply the human applied marks on Paleolithic carved bone and stone to attempt to gain deeper understanding toward their possible significance. “First, our analyses illustrate that these sign sequences are clearly distinguishable from modern day writing. Second, however, their statistical properties are comparable to sign sequences on the earliest protocuneiform tablets. Third, Paleolithic signs were systematically applied to yield higher information density on certain types of objects, e.g. ivory figurines compared to tools.” (Bentz and Dutkiewicz 2026:1) We need to carefully distinguish between what these authors claim and what the headline editors of reports on it have stated. Bentz and Dutkiewicz have not claimed that these marks constitute a form of writing. “However, they prove that the first hunter-gatherers arriving in Europe already applied sign sequences of comparable complexity in a deliberate, systematic, and conventional manner—several ten thousand years before the advent of genuine writing.” (Bentz and Dutkiewicz 2026:1) News outlets and others who have referred to their paper have, unfortunately, tended to use the word ‘writing’ in their descriptions.
To set the scene - “At the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic around 45,000 calibrated years before present (cal BP), modern humans arrived in Eastern and Central Europe. On their journey they encountered their distant relatives—Neanderthals. In this time of migrations and population turn-overs, modern humans produced a panoply of so-called mobile objects, such as tools and figurines made of ivory, bone, or antler. These are present right from the earliest period of the Upper Paleolithic, the so-called Aurignacian technocomplex. Especially the Dordogne region in southwestern France, the cave systems of the Swabian Jura in southwestern Germany, and a cluster of sites in Belgium have yielded hundreds of objects adorned with sequences of geometric signs.” (Bentz and Dutkiewicz 2026:1) Many explanations for these signs on the ivory, bone and antler carvings have been proposed. People have tried to make them out to be complicated mathematical or calendrical records. Many of us have suspected that some of them represent tallies.
A press release from Saarland University, where Bentz and Dutkiewicz are both employed states that “More than 40,000 years ago Ice Age humans were carving repeated patterns of dots, lines, and crosses into tools and small ivory figurines. A new computational study of more than 3,000 of these Paleolithic signs reveals that they were not random decorations but structured sequences with measurable complexity. Surprisingly, their information density rivals that of proto-cuneiform, the earliest known writing system that emerged around 3,000 BCE.” (Saarland University) This part depended on the statistical analysis that goes way beyond my ability, and sometimes past believability.
“the people of the Swabian Aurignacian were among the first modern humans to settle in Central Europe. They inhabited the caves of the Lone and Ach Valleys around 43,000 to 34,000 calibrated years ago. They have left behind a panoply of tools and mobile artwork—testimony to their technical skills, and their rich culture. This includes a collection of several dozen ivory figurines, representing animals occurring in the environment at the time, as well as mystical figures of an imaginary world forever lost to us. A subset of these mobile artifacts carry sequences composed of overall more than 3000 signs intentionally carved into their surfaces.” (Bentz and Dutkiewicz 2026:7)
“Our analyses show that these sequences are clearly statistically distinct from those generated with modern day writing systems to represent spoken languages. However, they have a very similar “statistical fingerprint” as the earliest numeric and numeroideographic protocuneiform tablets stemming from the Uruk V period of 3500 to 3350 BC. Moreover, the Aurignacian sequences were not indiscriminately applied to different objects, rather, ivory figurines carry the sequences of highest information density—independent of material constraints such as volume and preservation.” (Bentz and Dutkiewicz 2026:7)
“The hunter-gatherers of the Swabian Aurignacian have hence developed a sign system with some incipient design features also found in writing, that is, an inventory of different sign types and their linear arrangement, but lacking other design features, e.g. productive combinatoriality of different sign types as well as the rebus principle. It remains hard—or impossible—to prove that Aurignacian sign systems served the same numero-ideographic functions as protocuneiform. Moreover, there is another stark contrast between them: Protocuneiform developed into a full-blown writing system representing the Sumerian language within the subsequent 1,000 y. The sign sequences of the Swabian Aurignacian, on the other hand, were stable in terms of information density—for 10,000 y—and then disappear.” (Bentz and Dutkiewicz 2026:7) But, what sort of information were they recording. One possibility is that they were recording details of the animals that were so important to their lives.
This seems
to be very much a descendant of the seminal 1978 article in Scientific American
by Denise Schmandt-Besserat. Her breakthrough identified the beginnings of
Mesopotamian hieroglyphs as being marks on the clay seals of packages and clay
envelopes indicating their contents. “The
earliest examples of writing in Mesopotamia may not, as many have assumed, the
result of pure invention. Instead they appear to be a novel application late in
the fourth millennium B.C. of a recording system that was indigenous to western
Asia from early Neolithic times onward. In this view the appearance of writing
in Mesopotamia represents a logical step in the evolution of a system of record
keeping that originated some 11,000 years ago.” (Schmandt-Besserat 1978:59)
One of the pieces of evidence presented by Bentz and Dutkiewiecz of a piece of
clay with some indentations in it.
One of the other
examples covered in Bentz and Dutkiewiecz is a car ved piece of mammoth ivory
called the Ache Tusk. Also known as the so-called ‘Adorant’ it was recovered
from Geissenklosterle Cave. “Geissenklosterle
is an archaeological site of significance for the central European Upper
Paleolithic, located near the town of Blaubeuren in the Swabian Jura in
Baden-Wurttemberg, southern Germany. First explored in 1963, the cave contains
traces of early prehistoric art from between 43,000 and 30,000 years ago,
including some of the oldest known musical instruments and several animal
figurines.” (Wikipedia) One side of this artifact has a carved, seemingly
anthropomorphic, figure, and the other side has a large number of dots. This
has been proposed in the past to be a calendrical inscription.
Many of the carved animals from Geissenklosterle Cave are engraved with patterns of carved diamonds, Xs or Vs. These diamonds, Xs and Vs carved on ivory figurines might well represent hair. Their locations are in the same places that long hair would be found on the animals, as in the lion’s mane, the body of the wooly mammoth and the hairy line down the croup of the horse. This usage would be recording information and thus is totally compatible with the premise of Bentz and Dutkiewicz. Details of winter vs. summer pelage might be important to teaching hunting skills.
Recovered
from Vogelherd Cave are carved horses, lions, and unknown animals dating back
to ca. 40k years BCE. Anotheer example is a carved ivory mammoth from Vogelherd
Cave located in the eastern Swabian Jura of southwestern Germany. Patterns of
Xs and diamonds range around its body possibly represented the hair of a wooly
mammoth.
All of this is to bring me to my point that the press reports are unfair to Bentz and Dutkiewicz. Every article headline that used the word ‘writing’ led readers to unfound assumptions. Their primary claim was that the marks may have represented data and that is totally true, they do. The data just isn’t written. X marks representing hair on an animal is a record of data, a record of where the animals heavy winter pelage might be found for example. Dots of related marks may represent tallies. While Schmandt-Besserat came up with these concepts first, and somewhat deeper and more insightful analysis, their paper is a reasonable contribution to the literature. I have only one other criticism, they did not cite Schmandt-Besserat in their paper or list her in their references, but this was probably just an oversight.
NOTE: Some images in this column were retrieved from the internet with a search for public domain photographs. If any of these images are not intended to be public domain, I apologize, and will happily provide the picture credits if the owner will contact me with them. For further information on these reports you should read the original reports at the sites listed below.
REFERENCES:
Bentz, Christian and Ewa Dutkiewicz, 2026, Humans 40,000 y ago developed a system of conventional signs, 14 January 2026, PNAS, Vol. 123, No. 9, https://doi.org/10/1073/pnas.2520385123. Accessed 4 February 2026.
Saarland University, 40,000-year-old signs show humans were recording information long before writing, Science Daily, 25 February 2026. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/02/2600225001301.htm. Accessed online 4 February 2025.
Wikipedia, Geissenklosterle, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geissenklosterle. Accessed
10 April 2026.