Post
The claim is rather extraordinary:
existence of writing during the Middle Paleolithic.
The claim is based on statistical analysis.
Now, "more than 3,000 characters on 260 objects" means an average of just 12 characters per object, but the BBC article doesn't mention even the range of character counts per object, never mind the variance.
BBC Article:
Patterns on mammoth tusks help to retell history of writing
<https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgknj7yyv2o>
@vnikolov
It's interesting, but there's no claim of (because they have no proof nor even vague indication of) a mapping between the visual markings and whatever language was spoken by the person making the markings.
Certainly humans spoke a language 50,000 years ago, but that's not the point in question.
In the absence of any link between markings and language, it very definitely should not be called "writing", and using that word constitutes a deliberate lie if chosen by someone who has studied linguistics, and journalistic malpractice if chosen by someone merely reporting on the find.
It's in the same category as NASA claiming to have evidence of intilligent space aliens -- something that might very well exist, and we have no reason to doubt, but a subject for which the first evidence in history would be truly enormous news.
Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
To finish clearly: this news should *NOT* use the word "writing" without being far more cautious than it is.
