An alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet cave.
Pettitt, Paul ; Bahn, Paul
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored"
Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays 2, 1926-1929.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
Carl Sagan, Cosmos.
Introduction: Chauvet, the most dated cave in the world?
Discovered in 1994, figurative and non-figurative images in the
Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc cave (Ardeche, France) number in excess of 450
and constitute some of the most impressive examples of Upper
Palaeolithic cave art known to archaeology. The images were initially
identified through their style, content and technique as Mid and Late
Upper Palaeolithic (Gravettian-Early Magdalenian) in age, but the
results of a preliminary radiocarbon dating programme led to the
reassignment of many of the cave's impressive 'black
series' charcoal drawings to the Early Upper Palaeolithic
(Aurignacian). If this assessment is valid, our whole understanding of
the development of more than 25 000 years of Upper Palaeolithic art
would be shown to be incorrect. Debate began almost immediately,
however, and continues to this day, although the scholarly community
seems largely to have accepted these preliminary results.
We believe that the current chronology of human and animal activity
in Chauvet is unrepresentative and problematic, and we urge that the
radiocarbon dating of its art, as it stands, should be wholly rejected.
No comprehensive statement exists detailing the number of radiocarbon
dates that have been produced on materials from the cave: we estimate
that about 99 have been published. Ostensibly, this is a large
sample--Valladas et al. (2004: 82) referred to the site as "le
mieux date du monde [the best dated in the world]"--but that is
actually misleading. It probably contains the most comprehensively dated
context in the world (29 measurements on a single hearth), but this does
not make its art the best dated; instead, it is the most problematic.
About 47 of the published measurements are on charcoal fragments, over
40 of which derive from its floor. The entire case for an early age for
its art rests solely on eight dubious measurements on charcoal from six
images in three chambers (e.g. Valladas et al. 2001, 2005; Petrognani
2013: 31). Comprehensive information detailing pretreatment and
measurement has never been published, and for only one image was the
charcoal split into humic and humin fractions. Results were taken at
face value to indicate an Aurignacian age for the art, although they
were clearly problematic and have been seen by the Chauvet team
themselves as being in need of further verification (see below). As this
simple protocol of splitting into humic and humin fractions was not
followed for the remainder of the assays, we have no confidence in them.
We feel that it is now imperative to conduct a measured, objective,
informed and detailed debate about the age of Chauvet's art. As the
Chauvet team have been unable to address the numerous contradictions in
their model point by point, we suggest that their early chronology'
should now be rejected. In its place, we propose a later chronology for
the cave. We suggest that this is a more appropriate default
chronological model for Chauvet, at least until it can be modified or
eliminated on scientific grounds. It will be shown that all evidence
from the cave indicates artistic activity over several phases from the
Gravettian to Early Magdalenian. More speculatively, some of the
cave's red images may belong to the Aurignacian, although these are
not among the images that the Chauvet team have suggested belong to this
period.
The debate so far
We do not wish to rehearse the history of the debate over the
Chauvet images. Suffice it to say that there are a number of problematic
issues. A fuller explanation of this debate is included in supplementary
online material. Our main conclusions are:
* The few dates on the art itself cannot be trusted and do not
reflect the age of the art.
* The wider radiocarbon dating programme for the cave indicates
only that a small and unspecified number of hearths were lit in the cave
30-32 ka BP, and other human activity occurred after this. It is
irrelevant to the age of the art.
* The attribution of some of the cave's art to the Aurignacian
is highly problematic and requires a number of assumptions that are not
justified.
* The number of entrances used by the cave's artists has not
been established, and the closure of the current entrance has been
inaccurately dated: whatever the case, data are consistent with access
to the cave until at least 18 ka BP, and possibly much later.
* The archaeology and palaeontology on the cave's floor are
chrono-culturally undiagnostic and are irrelevant to the age of
Chauvet's art.
* In all cases, the art of Chauvet can be attributed to the
Gravettian, Solutrean and Magdalenian. Wide artistic parallels with
securely dated art from elsewhere make this the most parsimonious--and
most likely--interpretation.
In light of this, we can now propose a new understanding of the
Chauvet art in its chronological context.
Chauvet's art: stratigraphic, stylistic and thematic
perspectives
The starting point for understanding Chauvet's art has been
its division into two series: red and black. Clottes (1996) drew
attention to superimpositions from which it can be inferred that many
(but not all) of the cave's 'red series' of images and
signs were created earlier than most (but not all) of its 'black
series'. This superimposing occurs, for example, on the Daguet
pendant in the Chamber of the Skull (Feruglio & Baffler 2005: 153;
see also Alcolea & de Balbin 2007). While the red series is
relatively homogeneous and genuinely seems to pre-date much of the black
series, the latter, by contrast, is heterogeneous and represents at
least two distinct phases, and thus at least two periods. Relatively
simple animal outlines were created in both red and black, although only
the black series contains the cave's impressive charcoal drawings
of horses, bison and lions. On technical grounds, therefore, it is
over-simplistic to speak of an earlier 'red' and later
'black' series; in reality, there is an earlier series of
relatively simple animal outlines and signs, generally in red but with
black examples, followed by several phases of exclusively black
depictions. As Zuchner (e.g. 1999a), Alcolea and de Balbin (2007) and
Combier and Jouve (2012, 2014) have argued, the red animals can be
assigned to the Gravettian and perhaps early Solutrean on the basis of
stylistic comparison with examples clearly shown to relate to these
periods (see Table 1); nobody would argue with this. It therefore
follows that most (but not all) of the cave's black images must be
later than the red, i.e. they must be late or post-Gravettian.
The earliest phase of the black series is characterised by animal
outlines drawn with technically simple (although highly naturalistic)
methods, whereas the later phase includes several elements of
preparation of the cave walls, shading, considerable attention to
detail, group composition and perspective and movement, as well as a
number of stylistic and thematic traits not seen anywhere else to date
before the Solutrean (Feruglio & Baffler 2005: 152; see also Table
1). Some thematic differences also seem apparent between the two;
Feruglio and Baffler (2005: 154) note that the first phase includes
depictions of cave bears, reindeer and mammoths, the former of which
does not appear later. Thus, thematic, stylistic and technical
differences distinguish all three recognised phases. A spatial
distinction between most of the red and black images is also evident.
Most red signs and animal outlines are located close to the
cave's current entrance, whereas the black drawings and engravings
are located in the cave's current central and rearmost areas (e.g.
Chauvet et al. 1996: 111-13). Clear stylistic and spatial distinctions
occur between the cave's depictions of cave bears (which cluster
close to the current entrance) and lions (deeper in the cave).
Robert-Lamblin (2005) assumed that the depictions of the two were
contemporaneous and inferred a symbolic distinction between the two, but
this is hard to justify. The cave bears are drawn as simple outlines,
mostly in red; the lions, most in black, vary technically but are often
drawn with shading, considerable attention to detail and are usually
incorporated into scenes that depict perspective and movement (Clottes
& Azema 2005a & b). It is therefore highly likely that they
belong to separate periods; the black and red outline drawings of bears
dating to the earlier period, and the black charcoal drawings of lions
to the later period. It is impossible to quantify the time separating
these: as has been noted, "les deux phases de dessins noirs sont
separees par un temps difficilement quantifiable [the two phases of
black drawings are separated by a period of time that is difficult to
quantify]" (Feruglio & Baffier 2005: 153).
We can use the activities of another of the cave's denizens to
improve this picture further. Cave bears left numerous claw marks on its
walls, many of which 'deface' red and black depictions. Where
claw marks clearly overlie lines in both black and red in the end
chamber (Clottes 2003a: fig. 125), these lines plainly form part of
relatively simple outline paintings of lions in both red and black
(Clottes 2003a: fig. 126), assigned to the first black phase of the art
by Feruglio and Baffier (2005: 158). As one of these is depicted in
red--'sandwiched' between the two black examples--it
constitutes clear evidence of the contemporaneity of simple red and
black images during the cave's earlier phase. All other images
defaced by claw marks are similarly simple, e.g. on the panel of the
rhinoceros in the Megaloceros gallery (Feruglio & Baffier 2005:
150-52). As we hope we can safely assume that the bears were not making
decisions about which art to deface and which to ignore, the
stratigraphic information of bear defacing provides an important
chronological marker within the art phases. Numerous examples of claw
marks deface the images of the first black phase, but no such marks
deface images of the second (Feruglio & Baffier 2005). Thus, if we
can assume that the bears had not 'religiously respected' the
latter (Alcolea & de Balbin 2007: 447), we can infer that the cave
bears were present in the cave during or after the creation of the red
series and the earliest black series, but that they were not present
during or after the creation of the second black series. The Chauvet
team conclude that cave bears did not use Chauvet after 23 ka BP (Bon et
al. 2008, 2011; although taking errors into account, this should be 22
ka BP), and thus we can infer that the art of the second black series
must be more recent than 22 ka BP. Further support for this relative
chronology is the fact that the depiction of cave bears in
Chauvet's art is always technically simple--fitting the earlier
outline phase--and in no case is this species depicted in the second
black phase (Feruglio & Baffier 2005: 157).
We can also use examples where art is clearly superimposed over
claw marks or other art to develop the relative chronological scheme.
Examples of this fall into two groups: the second series of black
drawings, and engraved animals. A shaded charcoal drawing of a bison is
superimposed upon claw marks on a wall perpendicular to the lion panel
(Chauvet et al. 1996: fig. 92). Another example is the image of three
lions on the left panel in the Hillaire chamber, noted above; the lions
are covered by claw marks--which are overlain by a simple outline
engraving of a mammoth, clearly visible in fig. 79 of Chauvet et al.
1996. Fine engraved lines--some of which seem to be part of animal
engravings similar to a mammoth engraved in the Morel chamber--are
superimposed upon bear claw marks (Le Guillou 2003: 62). Therefore,
shaded charcoal drawings and engraved animal outlines must post-date the
simple red and black series and bear denning, and must be more recent
than 23-22 ka BP.
Such a relative scheme fits with what we know of the wider artistic
context, against which we must surely evaluate Chauvet's art. In
all cases, wider thematic, stylistic and technical parallels support the
notion that Chauvet's function as an artistic sanctuary spans the
Gravettian, Solutrean and Early Magdalenian, and may even have persisted
until the Middle Magdalenian (e.g. Zuchner 1999a & b; see Table 1).
The complex, four-phase sequence of production employed in the depiction
of horses, aurochs and lions of the second black phase (Tosello &
Fritz 2005), and the attention to anatomical detail, perspective and
movement have no parallels elsewhere before the Solutreo-Magdalenian
(Zuchner 1995, 1996, 1999a & b; Alcolea & de Balbin 2007: 446;
Pettitt et al. 2009). In Azema's (2004, 2010) erudite analysis of
the depiction of movement in Upper Palaeolithic art, the overwhelming
number of examples are post-Gravettian. The Chauvet team assign the
caves mostly naturalistic depictions of reindeer to the Aurignacian, yet
no depictions of reindeer occur before the Magdalenian in any other
Palaeolithic art, parietal or portable (Ziichner 1999a; Djindjian 2004).
Feruglio and Baffier (2005: 154) assign reindeer to the first of the
black series on stylistic grounds; this would imply that in Chauvet this
species was depicted in the Gravettian. But what are the grounds on
which this assignation is made? Stylistically, one can discern an
earlier phase in which reindeer are depicted "statiques et
proportionnes, modeles et detailles [static and well proportioned,
modelled and detailed]' and a later in which they are "plus
souvent en movement, aux extremites non-terminees, aux membres demesures
et aux formes quasi expressionistes [more often in movement, with
unfinished extremities, huge limbs and almost expressionist forms]"
(Feruglio & Baffier 2005: 154). We see no reason why reindeer need
not belong to two post-Gravettian (i.e. Solutrean or Magdalenian)
phases; there are several similarities between these two broadly
differing stylistic conventions (e.g. shoulder pelage is always depicted
as a sinuous line) and no stratigraphic distinction between the two is
apparent; we therefore suggest that they are best viewed as part of a
stylistic continuum, and are thus probably close in time.
In a recent stylistic study of pre-Magdalenian cave art, an
'Analyse Factorielle des Correspondences [Correspondence Factor
Analysis]' was carried out on multiple anatomical features in 148
complete horse figures from 26 sites (Petrognani 2013: 138). To
Petrognanis great surprise (2013: 148), the Chauvet horses were found to
occupy a medial position between sites reliably dated to 25 000 BP and
sites dating to 18 000 BP. His chosen explanation, as he fully accepts
the early chronology for the cave's imagery, was that either the
Chauvet horses were millennia ahead of their time, or (more likely, in
his view) the result comes from the great variety of anatomical criteria
used in the analysis, and means that Chauvet's horses are made up
of both early and late features. Needless to say, we consider the result
to be a clear endorsement of our own view--namely that the Chauvet
horses are not early at all, but can indeed be attributed to periods
around 25 000 and 18 000 BP and even later.
Finally, the 'confronted rhinos' provide a useful example
of how best to interpret what seem initially to be contradictory sets of
data. These animated images are clearly an integral part of the panel of
horses in the cave's Hillaire chamber (Fritz & Tosello 2003).
The composition, style and techniques demonstrated on this panel clearly
show that it belongs to--and indeed could serve to define--the
cave's second black phase. As discussed above, this must post-date
23 ka BP. Despite this stylistic evidence, the results of only three
questionable radiocarbon measurements on samples of charcoal from the
two rhinos have been taken to indicate that these images, and thus the
whole panel of horses, date to 30-32 ka BP, that is up to ten millennia
before the cave bears became locally extinct. Notwithstanding the
chrono-stylistic problems these dates raise, cave bears must have
religiously avoided the most technically achieved of Chauvet's art
in this case. The alternatives, of course, are. either there is
something wrong with the radiocarbon measurements that exist, or,
because they pertain to the creation of the charcoal in the cave, they
bear no relation to the date that the art was produced. Neither of these
scenarios has been adequately addressed by the Chauvet team, despite the
fact that Valladas et al. (1992) acknowledge that it is a serious
possibility. Furthermore, in order to eliminate the possibility of
contamination, charcoal samples can be split into two fractions--humic
and humin--which should really be a matter of course with such minuscule
samples. This has, however, only been undertaken and published for one
of the images, a horse head. The results on each fraction were
statistically distinct (around 20 and 29 ka BP respectively), and in the
light of our criticism of such poor results these have been withdrawn
pending 'future verification' (Valladas et al. 2005: 111). As
this methodology apparently has not been used on the samples taken from
the rhinos, how can we know if the results are reliable? The reputation
of the early chronology for Chauvet may stand or fall on the confronted
rhinos.
We also note in passing that the remarkably early dates (c. 32-33
000 BP) obtained by the Gif laboratory for some black dots in Candamo
Cave (Asturias), on which we cast doubt at the time (Pettitt & Bahn
2003), have now been declared unreliable by the laboratory, which has
redated the same dots to c. 18-22 000 BP (Corchon et al. 2014).
An alternative chronology for Chauvet cave
A handful of highly problematic radiocarbon measurements were used
20 years ago to suggest that against all other indications the earliest
art at Chauvet is Aurignacian. No further dates on the art have been
added, nor has information pertinent to the complex chemistry of the
samples been published. If we ignore these results--and we can
justifiably do so for the reasons stated above--all lines of evidence
point towards a parsimonious set of phases for activity in Chauvet cave,
which we summarise here. We can, of course, only consider those phases
of activity for which there is tangible evidence; we do not mean to
imply that these are the only phases of activity in the cave. We regard
the issue of whether there are any Aurignacian age' examples of art
in the cave as genuinely open; although, if these do exist, we suggest a
different set of examples drawn from sound parallels elsewhere, which
the Chauvet team have missed. Our proposed alternative chronology for
Chauvet cave can be summarised as follows:
* Cave bears denned in the cave's central galleries. This was
repeated frequently from at least 37 ka BP until their regional
extinction by or after 23 ka BP.
* Humans--either Homo neanderthalensis or Homo sapiens--entered the
cave at least once around 30-32 000 ([sup.14]C) BP, either through the
current entrance chamber or via the Morel chamber. They lit at least one
hearth. They may have left a small amount of art; if this were the case
we suggest it would be elements of the red series; some combination of
hand stencils, dots and lines (Pike et al. 2012).
* Humans (culturally Gravettian Homo sapiens) entered the cave
around 28 ka BP, leaving torch wipes and at least one hearth, and art in
the form of simple, naturalistic animal outlines in both black and red
and a trace chinois. Among the art, they depicted cave bears, having
observed this animal in the cave's locale, possibly as part of
wider activities that included moving the bones/carcasses of the bears.
If examples of the red series do not belong to the earlier phase, they
will belong to this phase. Artistic activity was restricted for the most
part to the cave's outermost chambers, probably relating to access
(through the current entrance or Morel chamber).
* A later period of culturally Gravettian activity is possible.
Some of the red series or early phase black series could belong to this
period, although this is unclear. Cave bears could still be extant at
this time.
* The cliff face exterior to the current entrance collapsed
somewhere between 22 and 15 ka BP, partially or wholly sealing this
entrance.
* The entrance to the cave was now elsewhere as a result of the
collapse, perhaps the northern wall of the gallery of cross-hatchings.
Solutrean or Early Magdalenian activities included the movement of cave
bear bones and stalactite blocks, and the creation of most of the second
phase of the black series. Unsurprisingly, this has numerous thematic,
stylistic and technological similarities with Solutreo-Magdalenian art
from elsewhere, from which it derives. Activity occurred much more
frequently in the cave's 'depths' than in previous phases
due to the redefined entrance(s).
Until the unlikely 'official' chronology has been proven
beyond reasonable doubt, we suggest that our alternative chronology best
fits the partially represented, partially studied, and partially
published palaeontology, archaeology and art of the cave. As a result,
it should stand as the default hypothesis for activity in Chauvet until
it can be eliminated scientifically.
doi: 10.15184/aqy.2015.21
Supplementary material
To view supplementary material for this article, please visit
http://dx.doi.org/ 10.15184/aqy.2015.21.
References
ALCOLEA GONZALEZ, J.J. & R. DE BALBIN BEHRMANN. 2007.
[C.sup.14] et style. La chronologie de l'art parietal a
l'heure actuelle. L'Anthropologie 111: 435-66.
AZEMA, M. 2004. La decomposition du mouvement dans l'art
parietal: et si ... les hommes prehistoriques avaient invente le dessin
anime et la bande dessinee? Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique
Ariege-Pyrenees 59: 55-69.
--2010. L'art des cavernes en action. Paris: Editions Errance.
BON, C., N. CAUDY, M. DE DEIULEVEULT, P. FOSSE, M. PHILIPPE, F.
MAKSUD, E. BERAUD-COLOMB, E. BOUZAID, R. KEFI, C. LAUGIER, B. ROUSSEAU,
D. CASANE, J. VAN DER PLICHT & J.-M. ELALOUF. 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
BON, C., V. BERTHONAUD, P. FOSSE, B. GELY, F. MAKSUD, R. VITALIS,
M. PHILIPPE, J. VAN DER PLICHT & J.-M. ELALOUF. 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
CHAUVET, J.-M., E. BRUNEL DESCHAMPS & C. HILLAIRE. 1996.
Chauvet Cave: the discovery of the world's oldest paintings.
London: Thames & Hudson.
CLOTTES, J. 1996. Epilogue: Chauvet Cave today, in J.-M. Chauvet,
E. Brunei Deschamps & C. Hillaire Chauvet Cave: the discovery of the
world's oldest paintings-. 89-128. London: Thames & Hudson.
--(ed.) 2003a. Return to Chauvet Cave: excavating the birthplace of
art. London: Thames & Hudson.
--2003b. Un probleme de parente: Gabillou et Lascaux. Bulletin de
la Societe Prehistorique Ari'ege-Pyrenees 58:47-61.
CLOTTES, J. & M. AZEMA. 2005a. Les images de felins de la
Grotte Chauvet. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 102:
173-82. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13349
--2005b. Les felins de la Grotte Chauvet (Les Cahiers de la Grotte
Chauvet). Paris: Editions du Seuil.
CLOTTES, J. & J. COURTIN. 1996. The cave beneath the sea.
Paleolithic images at Cosquer. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
COMBIER, J. & G. JOUVE. 2012. Chauvet Cave's art is not
Aurignacian: a new examination of the archaeological evidence and dating
procedures. Quartar 59: 131-52.
--2014. Nouvelles recherches sur l'identite culturelle et
stylistique de la Grotte Chauvet et sur sa datation par la methode du
[sup.14]C. L'Anthropologie 118: 115-51.
CORCHON, S., D. GARATE, H. VALLADAS, O. RIVERO, E. PONS-BRANCHU, P.
ORTEGA & C. HERNANDO. 2014. Back to the point: new datings for La
Pena de Candamo cave art (Asturias). Zephyrus 73: 67-81.
DJINDJIAN, F. 2004. L'art paleolithique dans son systeme
culturel, IL De la variabilite des bestiaires representes dans
l'art parietal et mobilier paleolithique, in M. Otte (ed.) La
spiritualite. Liege: University of Liege, ERAUL 106: 127-52.
FERUGLIO, V. & D. BAFFIER. 2005. Les dessins noirs des Salles
Hillaire et du Crane, Grotte Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc: chronologie
relative. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 102: 149-58.
FRITZ, C. & G. TOSELLO. 2003. The horse sector, in J. Clottes
(ed.) Return to Chauvet Cave: excavating the birthplace of art. 106-17.
London: Thames & Hudson.
GARATE MAIDAGAN, D. & C. GONZALEZ SAINZ. 2012. Las patas en
'doble Y' en la iconografia animal del arte parietal
paleolitico: una convencion grafica limitada en el tiempo y en el
espacio, in P. Arias, M.S. Corchon, M. Menendez & J.A. Rodriguez
(ed.) El Paleolitico Superior Cantabrico: 225-36. Actas de la primera
mesa redonda, San Roman de Candamo (Asturias), 26-28 de abril de 2007.
IIIPC monografias no. 3, la mesa redonda sobre Paleolitico Superior
Cantabrico. Santander: PUbliCan, Ediciones de la Universidad de
Cantabria.
LE GUILLOU, Y. 2003. The Morel chamber, in J. Clottes (ed.) Return
to Chauvet Cave: excavating the birthplace of art. 62. London: Thames
& Hudson.
LORBLANCHET, M. 2010. Art parietal. Grottes ornees du Quercy.
Rodez: Rouergue.
PETROGNANI, S. 2013. De Chauvet a Lascaux. L'art des cavernes,
reflet de societes prehistoriques en mutation. Paris: Editions Errance.
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
PETTITT, P.B. & P.G. BAHN. 2003. Current problems in dating
palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet. Antiquity 77: 134-41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00061421
PETTITT, P.B., P.G. BAHN & C. ZUCHNER. 2009. The Chauvet
conundrum: are claims for the 'birthplace of art' premature?,
in P.G. Bahn (ed.) An enquiring mind: studies in honor of Alexander
Marshack (American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph series):
239-62. Oxford & Cambridge (MA): Oxbow.
PETTITT, P.B., A. MAXIMIANO CASTILLEJO, P. ARIAS, R. ONTANON PEREDO
& R. HARRISON. 2014. New views on old hands: the context of stencils
in El Castillo and La Garma caves (Cantabria, Spain). Antiquity 88:
47-63.
PIKE, A.W.G., D.L. HOFFMAN, M. GARCIA-DIEZ, P.B. PETTITT, J.
ALCOLEA, C. GONZALEZ-SAINZ, C. DE LAS HERAS, J.A. LASHERAS, R. MONTEZ
& J. ZILHAO. 2012. Uranium-series daring of Upper Palaeolithic art
in Spanish caves. Science 336: 1409-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science. 1219957
ROBERT-LAMBLIN, J. 2005. La symbolique de la Grotte
Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc sous le regard de l'anthropologie. Bulletin
de la Societe Prehistorique Francaise 102: 199-208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf.2005.13352
TOSELLO, G. & C. FRITZ. 2005. Les dessins noirs de la grotte
Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc: essai sur leur originalite dans le site et leur
place dans l'art aurignacien. Bulletin de la Societe Prehistorique
Francaise 102: 159-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.3406/bspf. 2005.13348
VALLADAS, H., H. CACHIER, P. MAURICE, F. BERNALDO DE QUIROS, J.
CLOTTES, V. CABRERA VALDES, P. UZQUIANO & M. ARNOLD. 1992. Direct
radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo
and Niaux caves. Nature 357: 68-70.
VALLADAS, H., N. TISNERAT, M. ARNOLD, J. EVIN & C. OBERLIN.
2001. Les dates des frequentations, in J. Clottes (ed.) La Grotte
Chauvet, les origines de l'art. 32-34. Paris: Le Seuil.
VALLADAS, H., J. CLOTTES & J.-M. GENESTE. 2004. Chauvet, la
grotte ornee la mieux datee du monde. Pour La Science 42 (Temps et
Datations special issue): 82-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/357068a0
VALLADAS, H., N. TISNERAT-LABORDE, H. CACHIER, E. KALTNECKER, M.
ARNOLD, C. OBERLIN & J. EVIN. 2005. Bilan des datations carbone 14
effectuees sur des charbons de bois de la grotte Chauvet. Bulletin de la
Societe Prehistorique Francaise 102: 109-13. http://dx.doi.org/
10.3406/bspf.2005.13342
VILLAVERDE BONILLA, V. 1992. Principaux traits evolutifs de la
colection d'art mobilier de la grotte de Parpallo.
L'Anthropologie 96: 375-96.
--1994. Arte paleolitico de la Cova del Parpallo: estudio de la
collection de plaquetas y cantos grabados y pintados. Valencia: Diputado
de Valencia.
ZUCHNER, C. 1995. Grotte Chauvet (Ardeche, Frankreich)--oder--Muss
die Kunstgeschichte wirklich neu geschrieben werden? Quartar 45/46, 1995
(1996): 221-26.
--1996. La Grotte Chauvet: radiocarbone contre archeologie--the
Chauvet cave: radiocarbon versus archaeology. INORA 13, 1996: 25-27.
--1999a. Grotte Chauvet archaeologically dated. Available at:
http://www.uf.uni-erlangen. de/?page_id=1041 (accessed 18 February
2015).
--1999b. La Cueva Chauvet, datada arqueologicamente. Edades,
Revista de Historia 6: 167-85.
Received: 7 June 2013; Accepted: 8 November 2013; Revised: 8
January 2014
Paul Pettitt (1) & Paul Bahn (2)
(1) Department of Archaeology, Durham University, South Road,
Durham DH1 3LE, UK (Email: paul.pettitt@durham.ac.uk)
(2) 428 Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 6QP, UK (Email:
pgbahn@anlabyrd.karoo.co.uk)
Table 1. Summary of thematic, stylistic and technical aspects
of Chauvet's art, and the chronology of parallels elsewhere.
Specific
Chauvet trait Known age range parallels References
Handprints/ Aurignacian and Numerous, e.g. Pettitt et al.
stencils Early Gravettian Gargas, Cosquer 2014
Style of red Gravettian/Early Cougnac Zuchner 1999a &
animals Solutrean b and references
including rhinos therein
and cave bears
Red cave bears Gravettian Grande Grotte at Zuchner 1999a
Arcy-sur-Cure and references
therein
Dots (red and Aurignacian, Villaverde 1994;
black) Gravettian, Zuchner 1999a &
Solutrean, Early b
Magdalenian
Butterfly/ Gravettian and Roucadour, Zuchner 1999a &
bird-like signs Solutrean Pech-Merle, b and references
Cussac, El therein; Combier
Castillo, & Jouve 2012
La Garma
Crosses Late Solutrean/ Zuchner 1999a &
Early b
Magdalenian
Rectangle Late Solutrean
crossed
by lines
Lattices (poorly Late Solutrean/ Zuchner 1999a &
published) Early b and references
Magdalenian therein
Wavy lines Magdalenian Parpallo Zuchner 1999a &
combined with b and references
animals therein
Animal Late Solutrean Villaverde 1992
depictions: and Magdalenian
three
dimensionality
Black series Magdalenian Les Trois-Freres Zuchner 1999a &
rhinos, b and references
including M-like therein
ears
Aurochsen Gravettian, Zuchner 1999a &
Solutrean, Early b and references
Magdalenian, therein
Late Magdalenian
Horns of Early to Late Parpallo, Mas Zuchner 1999a &
aurochsen Magdalenian: d'Azil, La b and references
depicted in side possibly Early Vache, Teyjat, therein; Combier
view (not to Middle Trou de Chaleux, & Jouve 2012
twisted profile) Solutrean Levanzo: Ebbou
and with S- and Les Deux
twist Ouvertures (near
to Chauvet)
Black bison Magdalenian Angles-sur- Zuchner 1999a &
depicted with l'Anglin, b and references
heavy heads and Font-de-Gaume, therein
voluminous El Pindal
bodies
Depiction of Gravetto- Cosquer, Clottes 2003b:
Y-shaped legs on Solutrean Gabillou, 58; Garate &
bison Parpallo, Gonzalez 2012
Gargas, Cussac
Rows of animal Magdalenian Zuchner 1999a &
heads in profile (portable art) b and references
or frontal view therein
Groups of Late La Madeleine, Zuchner 1999a &
animals Solutrean/Early Lascaux b and references
Magdalenian therein
onwards
Depiction of Very rare before Lascaux, Zuchner 1999a &
felines Early Gabillou, La b and references
Magdalenian in Marche, therein
western Europe: Trois-Freres,
regularly Les Combarelles,
depicted La Vache
thereafter
Depiction of Gravettian Roucadour Lorblanchet
felines with 2010; Combier &
open mouths and Jouve 2012
hanging jaws, in
lines stalking
mammoths
Depiction of Gravettian, Chufin, Zuchner 1999a &
deer Solutrean, Early Covalana, b and references
Magdalenian Lascaux therein
Depiction of Middle Gabillou, Zuchner 1999a &
reindeer Magdalenian Trois-Freres, b and references
onwards Les Combarelles, therein;
Tito Bustillo Djindjian 2004
Duck-billed Gravettian and Lascaux, Cosquer Zuchner 1999a &
horse heads Solutrean b and references
therein;
Petrognani 2013
General Magdalenian Cosquer Clottes &
characteristics Courtin 1996;
of horse Combier & Jouve
depictions 2012
Ogival/ Gravettian and Pech-Merle, Combier & Jouve
horseshoe-shaped Early Solutrean Cougnac, 2012; Petrognani
belly of Roucadour, 2013
mammoths Jovelle, La
Greze, Cueva del
Arco B, Pindal,
El Castillo.
Chabot, Le
Figuier, Oullins
and Les Deux
Ouvertures (near
to Chauvet)
Depiction of Gravettian and Pair-non-Pair, Zuchner 1999a &
Megaloceros Early Solutrean, Le Combel, b and references
possibly Early Cougnac, therein; Combier
Magdalenian Cosquer, & Jouve 2012
Roucadour, La
Garma, Lascaux
Black-painted Gravettian Cougnac Combier & Jouve
hump on withers 2012
and oblique
lines crossing
the body of
Megaloceros
Depiction of Middle Trois-Freres, Zuchner 1999a &
owls Magdalenian Enlene, La Vina b and references
therein
Sorceror' Magdalenian Numerous, e.g. Zuchner 1999a &
('bison man') Trois-Freres, St b and references
Cirq, Gabillou therein
Depiction of Late Lascaux, Zuchner 1999a &
movement in Solutrean/Early Parpallo b and references
animals Magdalenian therein; Azema
2004, 2010
Depiction of Late Lascaux Clottes 2003b:
distal limbs Solutrean/Early 51-52
unconnected to Magdalenian
main body of
animals
Realistic vulvas Magdalenian Laugerie-Basse, Zuchner 1999a &
Angles-sur-F b and references
Anglin therein; Combier
& Jouve 2012
Giant-based Late Solutrean/ Lascaux Pettitt 2008
sagaie Early
Magdalenian
Note that in almost all cases these parallels are consistent only
with an attribution to the Gravettian-Magdalenian, and, with the
exception of aspects of the red series, are never consistent with
an attribution to the Aurignacian. It should be noted that all
other examples of cave art in the broad region (i.e. Ardeche) are
Solutrean and Magdalenian; it is conceivable that some are
Gravettian, but there have been no serious arguments for any of
an earlier age. Thus, our alternative chronology for the cave's
art fits with this broader, regional picture.
