Radiocarbon AMS Dates for Paleolithic Cave Paintings

Abstract

Advances in radiocarbon dating by accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) have made it possible to date prehistoric cave paintings by sampling the pigment itself instead of relying on dates derived from miscellaneous prehistoric remains recovered in the vicinity of the paintings. The work at the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement (LSCE) concentrated on prehistoric charcoal cave paintings from southern France and northern Spain. In most caves, pigment samples were collected from several paintings, and in some instances the sample size allowed for multiple independent measurements on the same figure, so that the coherence of the calculated dates could be tested. Before being dated, each specimen was subjected to a thermal treatment preceded by an acid and basic treatment of intensity commensurate with the sample size.Nine bison drawings from three caves in the Cantabrian region of Spain—two from Covaciella, three from Altamira, and four from El Castillo—were sampled and dated. The 27 dates fell between 13,000 and 14,500 BP, allowing us to attribute the drawings to the Magdalenian period. The 24 dates for 13 drawings in the Cosquer cave indicated two distinct periods of painting activity—one around 28,000 BP and the other around 19,000 BP. The Chauvet cave paintings turned out to be the oldest recorded to date, as five dates fell between 32,000 and 31,000 BP. After discussing the sample preparation protocol in more detail, we will discuss the ages obtained and compare them with other chronological data.

Successfully Dating Rock Art in Southern Africa Using Improved Sampling Methods and New Characterization and Pretreatment Protocols

“…Moreover, charcoal and soot seem to be more affected by this pretreatment than carbon-blacks, maybe due to the difference in the heating process used to manufacture them. This loss is slightly lower than the 90% reported by Valladas et al (2001) during pretreatment of Paleolithic cave paintings composed of charcoal. However, a part of this loss is due to the presence of humic acids that were extracted for dating separately.…”

“…Subsequently, a large number of rock art and Paleolithic cave art samples from Europe and Australia have been dated (e.g. Nelson et al 1995;Gillespie 1997;Valladas et al 2001;Valladas 2003;Pettitt and Pike 2007;David et al 2013;Valladas et al 2013;Quiles et al 2014;Quiles et al 2016). …”

Context and dating of Aurignacian vulvar representations from Abri Castanet, France

“…More than 50 dates have been obtained on charcoal samples collected on the soil of the different chambers or on the wall (punctuations and torch rubbings) of the Chauvet cave. Most of the 14 C dates, including the dated drawings, range from 30,000 to 32,500 y BP (uncalibrated), whereas a younger occupation occurred between 26,000 and 28,000 y BP (29)(30)(31). We present here (Table 4) only direct dates on wall paintings that fall within the known range of dates for the Aurignacian culture.…”

Cave acoustics in prehistory: Exploring the association of Palaeolithic visual motifs and acoustic response

“…Early attempts at establishing a chronology were based on the assumption of a unilinear stylistic progression (Breuil, 1952;Leroi-Gourhan, 1965). From the 1990 s, however, the application of scientific dating techniques, particularly accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon and uranium series dating (e.g., Clottes et al, 1995;Garc ıa-Diez et al, 2013;Pike et al, 2012;Valladas et al, 2001;Valladas et al, 2005) have challenged these earlier schemes. While the validity of the dates and the methods that underpin them have met with varying degrees of criticism, it is undeniable that we can no longer treat the chronological arrangement of Upper Palaeolithic art as a simple progression from rudimentary to complex forms.…”