Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T22:46:57.928Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current problems in dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Paul Pettitt  and
Paul Bahn
Paul Pettitt
Affiliation:
Keble College, Oxford OX1 3PG, England. (paul.pettitt@keble.ox.ac.uk)
Paul Bahn
Affiliation:
428 Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 6QP, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

New discoveries of cave art at Chauvet and elsewhere have produced radiocarbon dates which may seem startlingly early and demand dramatic revision to the traditional stylistic sequence. The authors warn that the radiocarbon dates may themselves need better validation.

Keywords

Palaeolithiccave artradiocarbon
Type
Method
Information
Antiquity , Volume 77 , Issue 295 , March 2003 , pp. 134 - 141
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aujoulat, N., Baffier, D., Feruglio, V., Fritz, C. & Tosello, G.. 2001. Les techniques de l’art pariétal, in Clottes, J. (ed.), La Grotte Chauvet. L’Art des Origines: 152–8. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Aujoulat, N. & Gély, B.. 2001. La salle Hillaire. .., in Clottes (ed.) 88–95.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. G. 1986. No sex, please, we’re Aurignacians,’ Rock Art Research 3: 99–120. 1993. The ‘dead wood stage’ of prehistoric art studies: style is not enough, in Lorblanchet & Bahn (ed.): 51–9.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. G. & Vertut, J.. 1997. Journey through the Ice Age. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. 1993. Post-stylistic?, in Lorblanchet & Bahn (ed.): 19–25.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. 1996a. The Chauvet Cave dates implausible?, –INORA 13: 27–9.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. 1996b. Thematic changes in Upper Palaeolithic art: a view from the Grotte Chauvet, Antiquity 70: 27688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clottes, J. 2001a. Conclusion, in Clottes (ed.): 210–14, 219.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. (Ed.). 2001b. La Grotte Chauvet. L’Art des Origines. Paris: Le seuil.Google Scholar
Clottes, J., Courtin, J. & Valladas, H.. 1992b. A well-dated Palaeolithic cave: the Cosquer Cave at Marseille, Rock Art Research 9: 122–9.Google Scholar
Clottes, J., Courtin, J., Valladas, H., Cachier, M., Mercier, N. & Arnold, M.. 1992a. La Grotte Cosquer datée, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Frangaise 89 (8): 230–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clottes, J. & Le Guillou, Y.. 2001. La Salle du Fond, in Clottes (ed.): 128–48.Google Scholar
Fortea, J. 1999. El arte paleolítico, El Campo de las Cienciasy las Artes 136(6): 1–37.Google Scholar
Fortea, J. 2000/1. Los comienzos del Arte Paleolítico en Asturias: aportaciones desde una arqueologfa contextual no postestilfstica, Zephyrus 53/4:177–216.Google Scholar
Gillespie, R. 1984. Radiocarbon user’s handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Monograph 3.Google Scholar
Hedges, R. E. M., Bronk Ramsey, C., Van Klinken, G. J., Pettitt, P. B., Nielsen-Marsh, C., Etchegoyen, A., Fernandez Niello, J. O., Boschin, M. T. & Llamazares, A. M.. 1998. Methodological issues in the radiocarbon dating of rock paintings, Radiocarbon 40(1): 35–44.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. 1990. The archaeological significance of the results of pigment analyses in Quercy caves, Rock Art Research 7(1): 19–20.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. & Bahn, P.. 1991. Rock art studies: the post-stylistic era. Where do we go from here? Rock Art Research 8 (1): 65.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. & Bahn, P.. (Ed.). 1993a. Rock art studies: The post-stylistic era or Where do we go from here?: 51–9. Oxford: Oxbow. Monograph 35.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. & Bahn, P.. 1993b. Introduction, in Lorblanchet & Bahn (ed.): v–viii.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. & Bahn, P.. 1999. Diez años después de la ‘era postestilística’: Donde estamos ahora? Edades, Revista de Historia 6: 115–21 Google Scholar
Pettitt, P. B. & Pike, A. W. G.. 2001. Blind in a cloud of data: problems with the chronology of Neanderthal extinction and early modern human expansion, Antiquity 75: 415–20.Google Scholar
Richards, D. A. & Beck, J. W.. 2001. Dramatic shifts in atmospheric radiocarbon during the last glacial period, Antiquity 75: 482–5.Google Scholar
Simonnet, R. 1999. Les Magdaléniens dans les Pyrénées. La Grotte de Labastide (Htes- Pyrénées), Espace réel et espace imaginaire, Archéologie des Pyrénées Occidentales et des Landes 18: 183–209.Google Scholar
Valladas, H., Cachier, H., Maurice, P., Bernaldo de Quiros, F., Clottes, J., Cabrera Valdéz, V., Uzquiano, P. & Arnold, M.. –1992. Direct radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves, Nature 357: 68–70.Google Scholar
Valladas, H., Tisnérat, N., Arnold, M., Evin, J. & Oberlin, C.. 2001. Les dates des fréquentations, in Clottes (ed.): 32–4, 216.Google Scholar
Züchner, C. 1996. The Chauvet Cave: radiocarbon versus Archaeology, INORA 13: 25–7.Google Scholar
Züchner, C. 1999. La cueva Chauvet datada arqueológicamente, Edades, Revista de Historia 6: 167–85.Google Scholar