Archaeological Interpretations of Upper Paleolithic Cave Paintings

Introduction

There are many questions related to the chronological spread of Paleolithic tool production and paintings due to geographical differences in the progress of that spread. While radiocarbon dating has furthered the ability to identify specific time period information, there are still significant limitations to this type of data. Chronological periods of production have been identified only loosely, and in cave paintings the more complex works are not always those most recently created. Difficulty also exists in establishing regional progressions of development. Although the combination of radiocarbon, thermoluminescence, and electron spin resonance dating techniques has assisted investigators in reconstructing "a reasonably coherent global chronology" for the Upper Paleolithic period (Bar-Yosef, 2002), significant standard deviations and other limitations remain in the dating of archaeological findings. This paper examines these issues and limitations and reports on findings from the relevant scholarly literature.

Evolution of Prehistoric Cave Art

DeLeo et al. (2001) report that there are "sophisticated examples of European Paleolithic parietal art" in the caves located at Altamira, Lascaux, and Niaux near the Pyrenees, dated to approximately 12,000–17,000 years ago during what is known as the Magdalenian period. However, paintings comparable in skill and complexity have also been found that were created approximately 30,000 years ago. Drawings in the Chauvet cave in Vallon-Pont-d'Arc have undergone radiocarbon dating and have been confirmed to date to 30,000 years ago, created by Aurignacian artists who were "accomplished carvers [and who] could create masterpieces comparable to the best Magdalenian art" (DeLeo et al., 2001).

Chronological data on European prehistoric art has been based, although loosely, "on the style of fauna depicted or on dated remains left by cave occupants." However, radiocarbon dating of the pigments in charcoal has made dating more precise. Accelerator mass spectrometry, which relies on the separation and counting of carbon isotopes, requires less sample material than traditional carbon-dating techniques (DeLeo et al., 2001).

Smudges left by torch-bearers in the caves are also datable. There is reported to be indirect evidence of painting activity prior to the Solutrean period that is described as "extensive," derived from paintings in two French caves: a 26,900-year-old bone chip removed from a fissure across a stenciled hand at Gargas; three bones that had been burned and mixed with red and yellow ochre at Grotte d'Arcy-sur-Cure, aged at 26–28 thousand years; and torch smears on the red frieze dated to approximately 27,000 years BP (DeLeo et al., 2001).

Charcoal from drawings at four other French caves has also been dated, including investigations at Cougnac, which dated to approximately 23,000–25,000 years BP. The Chauvet caves, comprising several chambers, yielded radiocarbon dates of 29,700–32,400 years BP for charcoal (0.27–1.40 mg carbon) from animals in the Salle du Fond and from the "horse" panel of the Hillaire chamber.

References

Bar-Yosef, O. (2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 363–393.

Bicho, N., et al. (2007). The Upper Paleolithic rock art of Iberia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(1).

Cave art interpretation II. (2006). Guest editorial essay. Perception, 35, 719.

De Leo, G. A., et al. (2001). Evolution of prehistoric cave art. Nature, 413, 4 October 2001.

Fritz, C., & Tosello, G. (2007). The hidden meaning of forms: Methods of recording Paleolithic parietal art. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14(1).