Dating European Palaeolithic Cave Art: Progress, Prospects, Problems

Abstract

Over the last decade several dozen direct dates on cave art pigments or associated materials have supplemented more traditional style-based attempts to establish a chronological (and developmental) scheme for cave art. In the "post-stylistic" era an holistic integration of pigment "recipe" analysis, formal stylistic analysis and direct chronometric dating have been applied to a handful of dates. Here, we examine the state-of-the-art of Palaeolithic cave art dating, with particular emphasis on certain radiocarbon and Uranium-series projects. We examine the relative successes and weaknesses of this cutting edge science. We conclude that there are several weaknesses in current applications that are in serious need of addressing. Issues of sample contamination and of the heuristic relationship between materials dated and the production of the art are particularly problematic. It follows that one should at present be very cautious about straightforward interpretations of apparent "dates" of cave art.

Mid-Holocene age obtained for nested diamond pattern petroglyph in the Billasurgam Cave complex, Kurnool District, southern India

“…Pettitt and Pike, 2007;Pike et al, 2012;Rowe, 2000Rowe, , 2012 and Australia (Aubert, 2012;David et al, 2013;Langley and Taçon, 2010 are in radiocarbon years before present (BP), and the corresponding calibrated age ranges (cal BP) are given for the 68.2% (1σ) and 95.4% (2σ) confidence intervals.…”

The Upper Palaeolithic of Europe

“…The evidence consists of animal and human igurines sculpted in bone, ivory and slate found at sites in Austria and southern Germany (Conard 2003), plus animal and geometric parietal engravings from a number of rock shelters in Southwest France, as well as, if their dating is accurate, the famous animal paintings from the Cave of Chauvet, in the Rhône Valley (Valladas et al 2001;Pettitt & Pike 2007). Although cognitive models have been put forward to explain this development, they are inconsistent with the empirical data , which are rather more suggestive of (a) those inds that so far have been made being but the tip of an iceberg extending across at least the entire areafrom Portugal to the Urals -covered by the associated archaeological culture (the Aurignacian II; see later in this chapter); (b) the evidence from caves and rock shelters being but a glimpse of a behaviour that impacted the entire landscape, as demonstrated by the slightly later open-air rock art sites from the Côa Valley, in Portugal (Zilhão et al 1997;Baptista 2009); this symbolic marking of territories representing in the irst place, as among ethnographic hunter-gatherers, the staking of property claims over a given geographical space and its resources (Gamble 1983;Gilman 1984;Layton 1992;Bahn & Vertut 1997).…”

Estudio arqueológico y fisicoquímico de pinturas rupestres en Hornillos 2 (Puna de Jujuy)

“…Estos son: 1) Datación relativa, que consiste en intentos no cronométricos para asignar edades relativas, como superposiciones o intercalaciones de un estrato al arte rupestre; 2) Datación indirecta asociativa, por asociación del arte con material datable, sea fisicoquí-mico (pigmentos, etc.) o estilístico (estilo del arte de la cueva similar con arte mobiliar debidamente datado); y 3) Datación indirecta estratigráfica, que puede hacerse a través de fragmentos de pared pintada caídos en un nivel estratigráfico (Pettitt y Pike 2007).…”