1. While the cave art may be animals only, which I have said remains a strong possibility, it is really out of place to presume that anyone knows if this is true.
That possibility may have been stated (I'm not sure) ,but the odds of that occurring are certainly not 100%.
It's not just constellations under discussion, it's quite specific constellations viz. those constellations which are along the ecliptic and comprise the zodiac.
The AOM is endeavoring to correlate SW European paleolithic cave art with sculptural stones at Gobleki Tepe. Nothing wrong with the challenge.
What is in question is his methodology.
As stated in another post, of the 900 paintings in Lascaux Cave, only one is a duck. Why did the AOM ignore the majority motif of 364 horses which, as I attempted to convey to him, would have been a far better fit for Sagittarius which, when using Newcomb's Formula to ascertain the Rate of Precession, is the correct zodiacal age for that time period?
Why did he focus on the one duck?
2. And yes, the ancients, or some of them, had a strong interest in precession. So, how is it not rational, or reasonable to consider this possibility at GT?
Again, I'm not sure that this possibility has been ruled out.
As far as the ancients "strong interest" is concerned, it would behoove the AOM, or anyone else interested in this subject, to explore all the methods of measuring the Rate of Precession. That is why I provided the link to NASA to him.
These are valid formulae. Have you read them?
In a nutshell, the further back in time one goes, the slower the Rate of Precession. The result being that this rate slows to a speed that makes the movement of the constellations along the ecliptic, imperceptible to the naked eye.
Secondly, the AOM could consider changes in the Earth's obliquity (Hendrik Dirker has done a lot of work in this area), as a change of this nature will present skywatchers with a different zodiac. The upshot being a state of confusion in attempting to compare images from one era with those of an earlier time.