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.

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).

Evolution of Prehistoric Cave Art

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.

Ofer Bar-Yosef (2002) writes that Paleolithic archaeology "primarily addresses issues of stratigraphy, chronology, object assemblage analysis for defining cultural entities and adaptive strategies, examination of faunal and vegetable components and site formation processes," with investigations often culminating in "a coarse-grained reconstruction of prehistoric lifeways within an evolutionary context" (p. 363). Modern research emphasizes the necessity of "establishing regional sequences and their Pleistocene and Holocene paleo-ecological conditions," with radiometric dates facilitating chronological correlations and integration of findings into a continent-wide record (Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 363).

Questions Regarding Paleolithic Archaeological Dating

Combined radiocarbon, thermoluminescence, and electron spin resonance dating techniques have assisted investigators in reconstructing a reasonably coherent global chronology for the Upper Paleolithic period. However, "large standard deviations in the Upper Paleolithic" and "ambiguities concerning the calibration of ¹⁴C dates at the range of 40–30 thousand years ago make it difficult to establish the precise onset of the Upper Paleolithic revolution" (Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 363).

Bar-Yosef notes that the term "Upper Paleolithic" was coined in Western Europe and marks the time "when Homo sapiens, referred to as Cro-Magnons, replaced the European Neanderthals" (Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 364). The hallmarks of Homo sapiens achievement include "cultural manifestations of the blade-dominated lithic assemblages along with mobile and cave art" (p. 364). However, doubts have lingered due to limitations in the scope and knowledge of the pioneers of prehistoric research.

Questions that still remain include: (1) how long Neanderthals survived in the various regions of Eurasia; (2) the identity of prehistoric cultures such as the Chatelperronian, Aurignacian, Gravettian, and others; and (3) whether prehistoric migrations or climatic changes were the main causes of cultural change (Bar-Yosef, 2002). Further topics of current debate include: (1) whether the transition to the Upper Paleolithic was a major global evolutionary event or a gradual one; (2) whether the drivers of change were biological, cultural, or both; (3) whether Upper Paleolithic archaeological manifestations serve as markers for the capacity for modern culture; and (4) at what point in time the archaeological record can be interpreted as indicating the emergence of modern behavior (Bar-Yosef, 2002).

The Chatelperronian period is notable as a period in which blade production is a distinctly new phenomenon marking the onset of the Upper Paleolithic. However, detailed lithic analysis later confirmed evolutionary continuity, demonstrating "its origin in the Late Mousterian of the Acheulian Tradition industry" (Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 374). Furthermore, Neanderthal remains discovered in a Chatelperronian layer at Saint-Césaire provided the hard evidence needed "for biological continuity concurrent with cultural change within a single population" (p. 374).

Traits of the Upper Paleolithic Chatelperronian include "the production of curved-backed blades, the presence of body decorations, and a bone tool assemblage," all described as "instructive" (Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 374). Two issues are raised, however: (1) the biological and cultural implications of the term "transitional industry," and (2) the question of how other entities in Europe and Africa should be taken into account (p. 374). Upper Paleolithic industries have been identified on the basis of cultural attributes, and different populations may have produced similar assemblages. The identification of the people who manufactured lithic assemblages therefore depends on the discovery of human remains, since the absence of human fossils limits the "correlation between the industries of specific biological populations" (p. 374).

A "major ambiguity" is also reported due to the "mixture of lithic assemblage-based definitions and chronological determination with what was probably a new social structure or a new landscape as represented by certain Upper Paleolithic entities" (Bar-Yosef, 2002). The Upper Paleolithic revolution is thought to have originated in "a core area and expanded by demic diffusion, migration over long distances, and the transmission of technologies" (p. 372). As a result, Initial Upper Paleolithic assemblages appeared earlier in some regions than in others, and the spread of technology across Africa and Eurasia remains "debatable" (p. 372).

The gradualist school of thought holds that regional continuities and environmental adaptations drove the changes, while other schools of thought "employ the molecular, nuclear genetic evidence as well as the currently available radiometric chronology to suggest that migration, contact, and accumulation determined the course of history around 45,000 to 30,000 years ago" (Bar-Yosef, 2002, p. 372). Studies indicate that the Upper Paleolithic began earlier in the eastern Mediterranean and later in Western Europe, with a similar temporal and geographic trajectory traceable eastward across Central Asia and into northern Asia.

Accepting the dates from Kara Bom, a site in the Altai Mountains, still leaves unresolved questions regarding site-formation processes in that locale. The shift to the Upper Paleolithic occurred much more rapidly in that part of Asia than in Europe, which would challenge the assumption that the Aurignacian was the first Cro-Magnon culture. Questions also arise regarding assemblages classified as Aurignacian, given insufficient numbers of defining attributes, as the original definition of that entity was based on a particular set of stone tools found in France. Bar-Yosef (2002) asks: how many attribute types are needed to label an assemblage as Aurignacian (p. 372)?