Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-trcsx Total loading time: 0.185 Render date: 2022-01-17T09:32:48.219Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Article contents

An alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet cave

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2015

Paul Pettitt
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK (Email: paul.pettitt@durham.ac.uk)
Paul Bahn
Affiliation:
428 Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 6QP, UK (Email: pgbahn@anlabyrd.karoo.co.uk)

Abstract

It is now 20 years since the discovery of the Grotte Chauvet with its impressive cave art, but controversy continues over the antiquity of the images. Radiocarbon assays have been used to argue that the ‘black series’ charcoal drawings date to the Aurignacian period, more than 20 000 years earlier than traditional stylistic models would suggest. This paper questions the validity of the radiometric dating and cautions against reliance solely on the date of the charcoal. Instead, the authors propose an alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet based on stylistic comparanda, palaeontological remains and stratigraphic evidence.

Type
Research
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd, 2015 

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

Alcolea González, J.J. & de Balbín Behrmann, R.. 2007. C14 et style. La chronologie de l’art pariétal à l’heure actuelle. L’Anthropologie 111: 435–66.Google Scholar
Azéma, M. 2004. La décomposition du mouvement dans l’art pariétal: et si. . .les hommes préhistoriques avaient inventé le dessin animé et la bande dessinée? Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées 59: 5569.Google Scholar
Azéma, M. 2010. L’art des cavernes en action. Paris: Editions Errance.Google Scholar
Bon, C., Caudy, N., de Deiuleveult, M., Fosse, P., Philippe, M., Maksud, F., Beraud-Colomb, E., Bouzaid, E., Kefi, R., Laugier, C., Rousseau, B., Casane, D., van der Plicht, J. & Elalouf, J.-M.. 2008. Deciphering the complete mitochondrial genome and phylogeny of the extinct cave bear in the Paleolithic painted cave of Chauvet. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 105: 17447–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0806143105 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bon, C., Berthonaud, V., Fosse, P., Gély, B., Maksud, F., Vitalis, R., Philippe, M., van der Plicht, J. & Elalouf, J.-M.. 2011. Low regional diversity of late cave bears mitochondrial DNA at the time of the Chauvet Aurignacian paintings. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 1886–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2011.03.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel Deschamps, E. & Hillaire, C.. 1996. Chauvet Cave: the discovery of the world's oldest paintings. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. 1996. Epilogue: Chauvet Cave today, in Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel Deschamps, E. & Hillaire, C. Chauvet Cave: the discovery of the world's oldest paintings: 89128. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. (ed.) 2003a. Return to Chauvet Cave: excavating the birthplace of art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. 2003b. Un problème de parenté: Gabillou et Lascaux. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées 58: 4761.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. & Azéma, M.. 2005a. Les images de félins de la Grotte Chauvet. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 102: 173–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clottes, J. & Azéma, M.. 2005b. Les félins de la Grotte Chauvet (Les Cahiers de la Grotte Chauvet). Paris: Editions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. & Courtin, J.. 1996. The cave beneath the sea. Paleolithic images at Cosquer. New York: Harry N. Abrams.Google Scholar
Combier, J. & Jouve, G.. 2012. Chauvet Cave's art is not Aurignacian: a new examination of the archaeological evidence and dating procedures. Quartär 59: 131–52.Google Scholar
Combier, J. & Jouve, G.. 2014. Nouvelles recherches sur l’identité culturelle et stylistique de la Grotte Chauvet et sur sa datation par la méthode du 14C. L’Anthropologie 118: 115–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corchón, S., Garate, D., Valladas, H., Rivero, O., Pons-Branchu, E., Ortega, P. & Hernando, C.. 2014. Back to the point: new datings for La Peña de Candamo cave art (Asturias). Zephyrus 73: 6781.Google Scholar
Djindjian, F. 2004. L’art paléolithique dans son système culturel, II. De la variabilité des bestiaires representés dans l’art pariétal et mobilier paléolithique, in Otte, M. (ed.) La spiritualité. Liège: University of Liege, ERAUL 106: 127–52.Google Scholar
Feruglio, V. & Baffier, D.. 2005. Les dessins noirs des Salles Hillaire et du Crâne, Grotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc: chronologie relative. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 102: 149–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fritz, C. & Tosello, G.. 2003. The horse sector, in Clottes, J. (ed.) Return to Chauvet Cave: excavating the birthplace of art: 106–17. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Garate Maidagan, D. & González Sainz, C.. 2012. Las patas en ‘doble Y’ en la iconografía animal del arte parietal paleolítico: una convención gráfica limitada en el tiempo y en el espacio, in Arias, P., Corchón, M.S., Menéndez, M. & Rodríguez, J.A. (ed.) El Paleolítico Superior Cantábrico: 225–36. Actas de la primera mesa redonda, San Román de Candamo (Asturias), 26–28 de abril de 2007. IIIPC monografías no. 3, Ia mesa redonda sobre Paleolítico Superior Cantábrico. Santander: PUbliCan, Ediciones de la Universidad de Cantabria.Google Scholar
Le Guillou, Y. 2003. The Morel chamber, in Clottes, J. (ed.) Return to Chauvet Cave: excavating the birthplace of art: 62. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. 2010. Art pariétal. Grottes ornées du Quercy. Rodez: Rouergue.Google Scholar
Petrognani, S. 2013. De Chauvet à Lascaux. L’art des cavernes, reflet de sociétés préhistoriques en mutation. Paris: Editions Errance.Google Scholar
Pettitt, P.B. 2008. Art and the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic transition in Europe: comments on the archaeological arguments for an Early Upper Palaeolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet art. Journal of Human Evolution 55: 908–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2008.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettitt, P.B. & Bahn, P.G.. 2003. Current problems in dating palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet. Antiquity 77: 134–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00061421 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettitt, P.B., Bahn, P.G. & Züchner, C.. 2009. The Chauvet conundrum: are claims for the ‘birthplace of art’ premature?, in Bahn, P.G. (ed.) An enquiring mind: studies in honor of Alexander Marshack (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph series): 239–62. Oxford & Cambridge (MA): Oxbow.Google Scholar
Pettitt, P.B., Maximiano Castillejo, A., Arias, P., Ontanon Peredo, R. & Harrison, R.. 2014. New views on old hands: the context of stencils in El Castillo and La Garma caves (Cantabria, Spain). Antiquity 88: 4763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, A.W.G., Hoffman, D.L., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P.B., Alcolea, J., González-Sainz, C., de las Heras, C., Lasheras, J.A., Montez, R. & Zilhão, J.. 2012. Uranium-series dating of Upper Palaeolithic art in Spanish caves. Science 336: 1409–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1219957 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robert-Lamblin, J. 2005. La symbolique de la Grotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc sous le regard de l’anthropologie. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 102: 199208. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13352 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tosello, G. & Fritz, C.. 2005. Les dessins noirs de la grotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc: essai sur leur originalité dans le site et leur place dans l’art aurignacien. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 102: 159–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13348 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valladas, H., Cachier, H., Maurice, P., Bernaldo de Quiros, F., Clottes, J., Cabrera Valdés, V., Uzquiano, P. & Arnold, M.. 1992. Direct radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves. Nature 357: 6870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valladas, H., Tisnerat, N., Arnold, M., Evin, J. & Oberlin, C.. 2001. Les dates des fréquentations, in Clottes, J. (ed.) La Grotte Chauvet, les origines de l’art: 3234. Paris: Le Seuil.Google Scholar
Valladas, H., Clottes, J. & Geneste, J.-M.. 2004. Chauvet, la grotte ornée la mieux datée du monde. Pour La Science 42 (Temps et Datations special issue): 8287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/357068a0 Google Scholar
Valladas, H., Tisnérat-Laborde, N., Cachier, H., Kaltnecker, E., Arnold, M., Oberlin, C. & Évin, J.. 2005. Bilan des datations carbone 14 effectuées sur des charbons de bois de la grotte Chauvet. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 102: 109–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13342 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Villaverde Bonilla, V. 1992. Principaux traits évolutifs de la colection d’art mobilier de la grotte de Parpalló. L’Anthropologie 96: 375–96.Google Scholar
Villaverde Bonilla, V. 1994. Arte paleolítico de la Cova del Parpalló: estudio de la collección de plaquetas y cantos grabados y pintados. València: Diputació de València.Google Scholar
Züchner, C. 1995. Grotte Chauvet (Ardèche, Frankreich)—oder—Muss die Kunstgeschichte wirklich neu geschrieben werden? Quartär 45/46, 1995 (1996): 221–26.Google Scholar
Züchner, C. 1996. La Grotte Chauvet: radiocarbone contre archéologie—the Chauvet cave: radiocarbon versus archaeology. INORA 13, 1996: 2527.Google Scholar
Züchner, C. 1999a. Grotte Chauvet archaeologically dated. Available at: http://www.uf.uni-erlangen.de/?page_id=1041 (accessed 18 February 2015).Google Scholar
Züchner, C. 1999b. La Cueva Chauvet, datada arqueológicamente. Edades, Revista de Historia 6: 167–85.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Pettitt and Bahn supplementary material

Supplementary material

Download Pettitt and Bahn supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 247 KB
15
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

An alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet cave
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

An alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet cave
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

An alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet cave
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *