See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273293017

Current problems in dating

Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and
Chauvet

Article in Antiquity March 2015

DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X00061421

CITATIONS READS

53 374

2 authors, including:

Paul B Pettitt
Durham University
130 PUBLICATIONS 2,663 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paul B Pettitt on 14 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original docum
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Antiquity
http://journals.cambridge.org/AQY

Additional services for Antiquity:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Current problems in dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo

and Chauvet

Paul Pettitt and Paul Bahn

Antiquity / Volume 77 / Issue 295 / March 2003, pp 134 - 141

DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X00061421, Published online: 02 January 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003598X00061421

How to cite this article:

Paul Pettitt and Paul Bahn (2003). Current problems in dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and
Chauvet. Antiquity, 77, pp 134-141 doi:10.1017/S0003598X00061421

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/AQY, IP address: 129.234.252.65 on 14 Apr 2015

Current problems in dating Palaeolithic
cave art: Candamo and Chauvet
Paul Pettitt & Paul Bahn*

New discoveries of cave art at Chauvet and elsewhere have produced radiocarbon dates
which may seem startlingly early and demand dramatic revision to the traditional stylistic
sequence. The authors warn that the radiocarbon dates may themselves need better
validation.
Keywords: Palaeolithic, cave art, radiocarbon

Introduction style versus radiocarbon

It is now 12 years since Michel Lorblanchet first coined the term Post-stylistic era to denote
the new period dawning in Palaeolithic art studies, in which direct dating was going to play
the definitive role (Lorblanchet 1990: 20). Subsequent publications on this topic (e.g.
Lorblanchet & Bahn 1991; 1993a) aroused controversy in some circles, but much of this
was due to misunderstanding of the position adopted. In particular, some critics claimed
that it was being argued that direct dating had entirely replaced, or would soon replace, the
use of style in establishing chronologies. Nothing could be further from the truth. The use of
the term post-stylistic merely denoted the arrival of a new phase, but did not reject the value
of style: It is self-evident that the impact of absolute dating methods on other areas of
archaeological study, while enormous, has changed but by no means obliterated the role of
typologies of stone tools or pottery. The term post-stylistic does not suggest the death of
style, any more than the term post-glacial means that ice vanished from the face of the
earth! (Lorblanchet & Bahn 1993b: v).
It is obvious that style will continue to play a major role, because very few paintings are
eligible for direct dating few contain organic material, and in any case the procedure is
extremely expensive, so the vast majority of Palaeolithic parietal figures will always have to be
dated by other, indirect means. The present principle should be that direct dating and stylistic
chronology will need to exist side by side, complementing each other or exposing
inconsistencies. This paper discusses some examples where radiocarbon dating and stylistic
dating are currently discordant. We suggest that while we must be ready to adapt traditional
stylistic sequences to new absolute dates, the context and chemistry of the radiocarbon samples
on the cave wall are critical, and can give rise to dates that may be anomalous.

* Pettitt, Keble College, Oxford OX1 3PG, England. (paul.pettitt@keble.ox.ac.uk)

*Bahn, 428 Anlaby Road, Hull HU3 6QP, England.

Received 29 May 2002; Revised 2 September 2002; Accepted 3 January 2003.

134
 Current problems in Dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet

Increasing numbers of radiocarbon determinations from samples of parietal art have been
obtained over the past decade, with dates currently published from over a dozen caves in
France and Spain (Bahn & Vertut 1997: 75). Most of the results conform well to stylistic
dates which in turn are corroborated by comparisons with portable art the Palaeolithic
parietal art of Eurasia is blessed in that it stands alongside a corpus of thousands of
contemporaneous portable images which are generally well dated. As predicted (Bahn 1993),
radiocarbon has also proved useful in weeding out fakes and wrongly attributed motifs; for
example, in the Pyrenean cave of Labastide, some organised black dots in three different
places were thought to be Magdalenian signs, but have yielded radiocarbon dates of modern
times, the 15th century AD, and (for the most Magdalenian examples) the 10th century AD
(Simonnet 1999: 188).

Sources of error
At the same time, some radiocarbon dates seem to be in severe conflict with stylistic

Method
expectations, ostensibly demanding a startling new perspective on the artistic sequence.
However, in these cases it may not always be the style that needs rethinking: sources of
radiocarbon error are well known and can be determinant. For example, the date of charcoal
used in drawing is the date of death of the tree-rings incorporated, not the date of the tree, or
the date that the charcoal was made or used to draw with; so the date obtained can be much
earlier than the drawing. The risks of contamination on an exposed rock surface are also
high, both from material that is too old (fossil carbon) and material that is too young (micro-
organisms infesting the surface).
AMS dating, in particular, has taught us to be increasingly critical of what is measured,
since very small samples adjacent to each other on a cave wall may in fact derive from different
materials with different formation processes. The AMS dating of cave-art pigments is a
relatively new application, and rock painting samples are some of the most difficult to date
reliably and directly, for at least five reasons which we summarise here (Hedges et al. 1998):
the necessarily small size of available samples (usually 1050 mg) much of which is
calcite or bedrock, and the very small amounts of datable carbon ultimately obtained
from these (usually <1.5 mg, sometimes <0.5 mg),
the exposure of such samples to the environment over long periods of time;
the complex chemical history of charcoal, pigments, rock substrates and surface organic
accumulations;
the lack of association between such samples and other datable materials which may be
used as dating crosschecks;
the relative lack of experimentation in pre-treatment, understandable given the precious
character of the original material
The principal sources of carbon in cave art are derived from charcoal, used for drawing or
deposited as soot from lamps, and organic materials used in pigments, which may be extracted
in solution as humic acids. Forms of intrusive carbon are microfauna or micro-organisms
infesting the cave walls. Charcoal should be stable and thus provide the most reliable samples,
but even here, measurements can be inconsistent. Charcoal samples in apparent association
selected for direct dating can have often widely different 14C ages, such as those fragments
from the floor of Cosquer Cave which ranged from c. 15 500 to c. 27 900 BP in age, a

135
 Paul Pettitt & Paul Bahn

difference of two half-lives (Clottes et al. 1992b). If one assumes that it is such charcoal
fragments that formed the source material for execution of the art on the walls, it is easy to
see how resulting AMS measurements will reflect the differing ages of the charcoal rather
than the execution of the art.
Pigment and binding compounds are more subject to later changes by mineral, chemical
or micro-biological invasion in ways that are not yet well understood. They may add more
recent carbon by percolating in surface water, or by ingesting atmospheric carbon, or perhaps
add earlier carbon by digesting fossil carbonates (Gillespie 1984). There is a possibility therefore
that the dates obtained are composite results to which carbon from different sources and ages
may have contributed.
One way in which the relative homogeneity of carbon in rock-art samples may be examined
is by dating the soluble humic acid fraction, which can be isolated from the charcoal carbon
(often referred to as the humin fraction) during routine pre-treatment for this material. Humic
acid is the umbrella term for the products of the organic breakdown of plant materials.
These acids are poorly understood, highly mobile in soils, sediments and through rocks, and
often accumulate in the porous structures of charcoal, wood and bone (Gillespie 1984: 7).
Humic acids, therefore, may contain carbon from a number of sources, each of which bears
little relation to the age of the charcoal sample containing them in its chemical matrix. If,
however, the resulting wood-charcoal and humic acid measurements are the same at 1 or 2
sigma then this may be a good indication of the relative integrity of the material selected. For
example, two measurements of the wood-charcoal carbon on the depiction of a horse from
Cosquer Cave (Gif A 92416, 18 840240 BP; Gif A 92417, 18 820310 BP) are in statistical
agreement with one on a humic fraction from the same depiction (Gif A 92422, 18 760220
BP) (Clottes et al. 1992a). But other paired measurements at Cosquer reveal that the situation
is not entirely clear: charcoal carbon from a depiction of a bison was dated to 18 010190
BP (Gif A 92419) while the humic fraction was dated to 16 390260 BP (Gif A 92423)
which is a statistically different age at 2 sigma and enough to raise doubts as to the homogeneity
of the carbon. Humic fractions can also contain older carbon than the charcoal fractions, as
in the case of both small and large left-facing bison at Altamira which, while closer in age
than the above examples, still do not overlap at 2 sigma (Valladas et al.1992).

A case study Candamo

At the Palaeolithic decorated cave of Candamo, in Asturias (northern Spain), samples from
black dots were initially dated to more than 32 000 years ago, which was surprising, especially
as there were older red paintings beneath them (Fortea 1999: 627). An unusually full account
of the dating procedure has now been provided, together with the results produced by another
laboratory (Fortea 2000/1).
The original paint samples were taken in 1993 from intact black dots on a panel with
several figures of bulls. This is a complex panel, with several phases of pictorial activity, some
before and some after the black dots, and there is clear evidence for some retouching here
and there (Fortea 2000/1:18890). Sample CAN12 was composed of pigments from two
black dots, one from the head of bull 15, another from just right of the tail of bull 16, which
were combined by J. Fortea Prez and sent to the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de
lEnvironnement (LSCE) at Gif-sur-Yvette (Fortea 2000/1:191). The result, produced in

136
 Current problems in Dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet

1996 from a total mass of carbon of 1540 micrograms, was 32 310690 (Gif A 96138), i.e.
33 69030 930 BP at 2 sigma. In 1999, LSCE provided a second determination from
Candamo which broadly corroborated the first, produced from 460 micrograms which
remained of CAN12: 33 910840 BP (Gif A 98201). The laboratory suggested that either
the prehistoric people might have used ancient charcoal for their drawings, or perhaps the
drawings really were done at this remote period.
In 1997, the late Manuel Hoyos was asked by Javier Fortea to join him in sampling the
same dots from points immediately adjacent to those previously sampled. An equivalent
amount of material was taken and first examined with a scanning electron microscope [SEM].
Hoyos report (in Fortea 2000/1:19196) showed that one sample (called CAD1 and CAD
1B) was normal, with the morphology, structure and composition of plant charcoal. The
second sample, however, CAD2, was burnt bone, which, since the carboniferous collagen is
depleted during burning, is relatively deprived of carbon and can depress the date. The SEM
also revealed the presence of micro-organisms in both samples, of a kind noted in others
from Altamira and Tito Bustillo (Hoyos, in Fortea 2000/1:193). This extraneous organic

Method
material (bacteria, etc) is fundamentally composed of carbon, but may have drawn its carbon
from pre-existing carbonates, not from the surrounding atmosphere (Gillespie 1984). These
carbonates are inevitably more ancient than their host micro-organisms, so that the latter
incorporate 14C, 13C and 12C from older samples. If the carbonate attacked by the micro-
organisms is of an infinite 14C age (effectively >50 000 BP), then its isotopic composition
will only have 13C and 12C which, when added to the carbon sample being measured, will
diminish the 14C ratio in the total, and thus make the result older than it should be. The
sample may therefore have been rich in carbon but relatively reduced in 14C.
In February 2001 Fortea (2000/1:19697) took new samples from exactly the same groups
of dots in Candamo decidimos volver a muestrear los mismos lugares (we decided to
resample the same places) (Fortea ibid.: 196; and see Figure 5, p.189 for the precise location
from which the samples were taken) and sent them to Geochron Laboratory in the USA
which produced results as follows:
CAN3: 15 1600 BP (13C: 27.2. Weight of sample 87.1 mg. Weight of carbon for analysis:
280 micrograms. Carbon rendered: 0.32%) (GX27841AMS)
CAN4: 15 87090 BP (13C: 27.0. Weight of sample: 64.9 mg. Weight of carbon for
analysis: 289 micrograms. Carbon rendered: 0.43%). (GX27842AMS)
Geochron has affirmed that the small size of the samples was not critical, as the smallest
sample dated by this lab was of only 30 micrograms of carbon.
We have an intriguing situation here, in that the two LSCE results are consistent, i.e.
statistically the same age, as are the two Geochron results, but there is a discrepancy of
approaching three half-lives between the two sets. Such a difference, if due to contamination
alone, would require about 90% dead carbon contamination to change a true age of around
15 000 BP to around 33 000 BP, or alternatively about 13% modern carbon contamination
to change a true age of around 33 000 BP to around 15 000 BP (M. Rowe pers. comm.).
In explanation of the discrepancy, Geochron suggested that either different parts of the
wall were painted or retouched at different times, or that there were problems of contamination.
Given the complex and small size of the samples there may have been absorption of organic
contaminants of different ages through the effects of flowing water. The samples dated as

137
 Paul Pettitt & Paul Bahn

with all cave art pigments contained a great quantity of calcareous wall (the carbon content
of which has not been reported or used in the evaluation of the result) and less than 0.5% of
non-carbonate carbon. Alternatively the more recently dated samples may have been
permeated with more recent micro-organisms.
As the information currently stands, the Candamo paintings thus admit to one of three
conclusions: that they were painted 33 000 years ago (Aurignacian), but some samples
contained more recent carbon. Or that they were painted 15 000 years ago (Magdalenian),
but some samples were contaminated by more ancient carbon. Or painting took place in
both the Aurignacian and Magdalenian and that pigment survives from both these periods
(Fortea 2000/1:19798). On learning of the Geochron results, LSCE agreed that there may
have been types of pigment of differing ages, or that prehistoric people retouched the paintings
at different times (Fortea ibid.:197). It is important that lessons should be learned from the
Candamo experience and applied to other caves, most notably Chauvet.

A second case study Chauvet

The cave at Chauvet (Ardche, France) provides perhaps the most interesting and controversial
of all recent dating exercises in European cave art. Here, in some opinions, the radiocarbon
dates can be said to be at odds with each other as well as with considerations of style. An
example of conflicting dates obtained by radiocarbon dating is provided by a sample taken
from a black horse figure. This gave a result of 20 790340 BP (Gif A 98157) from charcoal
carbon but 29 670950 BP (Gif A 98160) from the humic fraction (Valladas et al. 2001:
33). The scholars working in this cave have chosen to adopt the earlier date, derived from the
humic fraction, and asked for the style to be reconsidered in that light: the age of the humic
fraction resulting from the basic treatment appears to us to be more reliable (Valladas et
al. 2001: 216). But given the problems of formation processes associated with humic fractions,
as mentioned above, it may be that the earlier date should be treated with caution.
In this case we also feel that stylistic arguments for a later date are persuasive. Zchner
(1996; 1999) has highlighted the many features of Chauvets art which seem to him to imply
a later period: the depiction of Megaloceros and reindeer, hand prints and hand stencils; the
Magdalenian style of some bison, rhinos and big cats; the treatment of horse movement and
anatomy; the rendering of volume, shading and perspective; the representation of herds and
lines of animals; the full-face heads. He believes strongly that the caves art belongs to the
Gravettian (red figures) and to the late Solutrean/early-mid Magdalenian (black figures).
The recent book on the cave (Clottes 2001 b) has reported yet more figures which seem to
support Zchners scepticism: there is what looks like a red claviform, a sign which is closely
linked with the middle Magdalenian. There is also an engraved tectiform (Clottes & Le
Guillou 2001: 148), another classic Magdalenian phenomenon; and an indented circle
(Aujoulat & Gly 2001: 91), yet another post-Aurignacian (probably Gravettian) feature.
There are a whole series of scenes the famous confronting rhinos, two scenes featuring lion
couples, a complex hunting scene and scenes, always extremely rare in Ice Age art, are not
really known elsewhere till somewhat later than the Aurignacian, and primarily the
Magdalenian. The extensive scraping of the wall surfaces prior to the figures being drawn is
known elsewhere, but primarily at the Magdalenian caves of Altxerri and Covaciella (Aujoulat
et al. 2001: 152). Clottes (1996b: 282; 2001a: 213) sees the caves vulvas as being linked to

138
 Current problems in Dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet

Aurignacian specimens from south-west France, but they are in fact far more similar to
examples from Magdalenian sites, and bear little resemblance to the range of Aurignacian
motifs which some see as being vulvas (see Bahn 1986). In addition, it has to be borne in
mind that virtually all of the other decorated caves in the Ardche probably date to the
Solutrean and Magdalenian.
Clottes (2001a: 219; see also 2001b: 63, 68) accepts that Magdalenians may have entered
the cave, though he sees no evidence that they made any figures other than the claviform.
Clottes is certainly correct to warn that stylistic criteria are by no means an infallible diagnostic
tool (1996a: 27; 2001a). We are still ignorant of many aspects of Ice Age art such as the
origin and duration of numerous features, and we know of remarkably sophisticated figurines
from the European Aurignacian. Nevertheless, the rock and cave art which is definitely known
to be Aurignacian looks pretty crude and simple, a long way from Chauvet which of course
is why the Chauvet dates caused such a shock. One certainly cannot deny that Chauvet may
indeed date to the Aurignacian, but in simple terms of the laws of probability, what are the
chances that a single Aurignacian cave would contain so many different features, themes,

Method
styles and techniques which, over a hundred years of study, have become so strongly and
indubitably associated with much later periods?

Conclusion
These examples show how crucial is the dating of cave art and how difficult it remains, and
where radiocarbon and stylistic studies disagree, it is clear that we need a critical approach to
both. In radiocarbon determinations few things are more important than the composition
and context of the sample: AMS dating is revealing that many previously dated samples were
mixtures, so small samples, even taken from the same paint mark, may have very different
origins and histories. The preparation of pigment may initially involve gathering the ashes
from a hearth; but if this results in one sample being charcoal and another burnt bone, the
dates obtained will vary. Similarly, the degree of contamination may vary greatly within a
short distance, and the contaminants may raise or lower the date depending on whether the
intrusive carbon is ancient or recent.
One necessary prescription is to use a SEM to determine the nature and composition of
samples as far as possible before measurement and isolate the material likely to have the
greatest integrity.
Another is to take control samples of unpainted bedrock close to the dated depictions
and to recover humic fractions from them as a guide to the extent of contamination
from the local chemical environment. Some contaminants (such as oxalates) may not
always be successfully removed by standard acid pre-treatments.
The obvious scientific strategy which must be followed is to broaden the range of AMS
laboratories undertaking such cutting-edge measurements of complex samples. A call
for independent verification of results by separate laboratories was first made by
Lorblanchet & Bahn (1999: 119) and it may be that given that large differences in date
may be due to differences in pre-treatment it would be sensible for replication of
measurement to become routine. Of more than 60 direct AMS radiocarbon dates
published for French and Spanish Upper Palaeolithic cave art, all but two were undertaken
by LSCE at Gif-sur Yvette.

139
 Paul Pettitt & Paul Bahn

For Candamo, attention is naturally attracted by the anomaly that one laboratory should
only have samples from one period, and the other should only have samples from a different
period apparently up to three half lives younger, when the samples were taken from essentially
the same group of apparently identical dots. There is no reason to doubt that both laboratories
routinely meet the highest standards in filtering and processing samples, and controlling for
pollution by modern carbon. But it would be interesting to discover if current differences in
pre-treatment, analysis and measurement methods were sufficient to account for such different
results. For such a control the determinations would of course need to be made on material
divided from exactly the same sample. In any case, given the potentially serious problems
with plateaux and age inversions of measurements over c. 5 half-lives (i.e. 30,000 BP) we
should in any case treat ages beyond this as provisional at best (e.g. Richards & Beck 2001;
Pettitt & Pike 2001).
The implications of the Aurignacian dates at Candamo and Chauvet for our knowledge of
the early development of Ice Age art are immense. It is therefore imperative that the dating
programme be enhanced and the results corroborated as far as possible, by investigating the
micro-composition of samples, investigating formation processes, testing thoroughly for
possible contaminants. and splitting samples for use by several co-operating laboratories. In
the recent sequencing of MtDNA from Neanderthal remains, independent replication of
results by a number of other institutions was a crucial and integral part of the research design
from the outset. Independent verification of results should be undertaken routinely with all
cutting-edge science in archaeology. Our purpose here, therefore, is not to question the
performance of the laboratory at Gif-sur-Yvette, which has led the pioneering programme
for the AMS dating of cave art in Europe, but to call for replication of the results and the
research and for full publication of the context and treatment of samples, a call with which
all scientists will surely agree.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their appreciation to Javier Fortea for making his Candamo data available, and
to Marvin Rowe and an anonymous reviewer for invaluable comments, but all responsibility for the conclusions
of this article is ours alone.

References 1996a. The Chauvet Cave dates implausible?,INORA

AUJOULAT, N., D. BAFFIER, V.FERUGLIO, C. FRITZ & G.
TOSELLO. 2001. Les techniques de lart parital, in
J. Clottes (ed.), La Grotte Chauvet. LArt des
Origines: 1528. Paris: Le Seuil.
AUJOULAT, N. & B. GLY. 2001. La salle Hillaire , in
Clottes (ed.) 8895.
BAHN, P.G. 1986. No sex, please, were
Aurignacians,Rock Art Research 3: 99120. 1993.
The dead wood stage of prehistoric art studies:
style is not enough, in Lorblanchet & Bahn (ed.):
519.
BAHN, P.G. & J. VERTUT. 1997. Journey through the Ice
Age. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
CLOTTES, J. 1993. Post-stylistic?, in Lorblanchet &
Bahn (ed.): 1925.
13: 279.
1996b. Thematic changes in Upper Palaeolithic art: a
view from the Grotte Chauvet, Antiquity 70: 276
88.
2001a. Conclusion, in Clottes (ed.): 21014, 219.
(Ed.). 2001b. La Grotte Chauvet. LArt des Origines.
Paris: Le Seuil.
CLOTTES, J., J. COURTIN & H. VALLADAS. 1992b. A
well-dated Palaeolithic cave: the Cosquer Cave at
Marseille, Rock Art Research 9: 1229.
CLOTTES, J., J. COURTIN, H. VALLADAS, M. CACHIER, N.
MERCIER & M. ARNOLD. 1992a. La Grotte
Cosquer date, Bulletin de la Socit Prhistorique
Franaise 89 (8): 23034.

140
 Current problems in Dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet
CLOTTES, J. & Y. LE GUILLOU. 2001. La Salle du Fond,
in Clottes (ed.): 12848.
FORTEA, J. 1999. El arte paleoltico, El Campo de las
Ciencias y las Artes 136(6): 137.
2000/1. Los comienzos del Arte Paleoltico en
Asturias: aportaciones desde una arqueologa
contextual no postestilstica, Zephyrus 53/4:177
216.
GILLESPIE, R. 1984. Radiocarbon users handbook.
Oxford: Oxford University Committee for
Archaeology. Monograph 3.
HEDGES, R.E.M., C. BRONK RAMSEY, G.J. VAN KLINKEN,
P.B. PETTITT, C. NIELSEN-MARSH, A. ETCHEGOYEN,
J.O. FERNANDEZ NIELLO, M.T. BOSCHIN & A.M.
LLAMAZARES. 1998. Methodological issues in the
radiocarbon dating of rock paintings, Radiocarbon
40(1): 3544.
LORBLANCHET, M. 1990. The archaeological significance
of the results of pigment analyses in Quercy caves,
Rock Art Research 7(1): 1920.
LORBLANCHET, M. & P. BAHN. 1991. Rock art studies:
the post-stylistic era. Where do we go from here?
Rock Art Research 8 (1): 65.
(Ed.). 1993a. Rock art studies: The post-stylistic era or
Where do we go from here?: 519. Oxford: Oxbow.
Monograph 35.
1993b. Introduction, in Lorblanchet & Bahn (ed.): v
viii.
141
View publication stats
1999. Diez aos despus de la era postestilstica:
Donde estamos ahora? Edades, Revista de Historia
6: 11521
PETTITT, P.B. & A.W.G. PIKE. 2001. Blind in a cloud of
data: problems with the chronology of
Neanderthal extinction and early modern human
expansion, Antiquity 75: 41520.
RICHARDS, D.A. & J.W. BECK. 2001. Dramatic shifts in
atmospheric radiocarbon during the last glacial
period, Antiquity 75: 4825.
SIMONNET, R. 1999. Les Magdalniens dans les
Pyrnes. La Grotte de Labastide (Htes- Pyrnes),
Espace rel et espace imaginaire, Archologie des
Pyrnes Occidentales et des Landes 18: 183209.
VALLADAS, H., H. CACHIER, P. MAURICE, F. BERNALDO
DE QUIROS, J. CLOTTES, V. CABRERA VALDZ, P.
UZQUIANO & M. ARNOLD.1992. Direct
radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the
Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves, Nature 357:
Method
6870.
VALLADAS, H., N. TISNRAT, M. ARNOLD, J. EVIN & C.
OBERLIN. 2001. Les dates des frquentations, in
Clottes (ed.): 324, 216.
ZCHNER, C. 1996. The Chauvet Cave: radiocarbon
versus Archaeology, INORA 13: 257.
1999. La cueva Chauvet datada arqueolgicamente,
Edades, Revista de Historia 6: 16785.