Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T20:38:51.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent developments in radiocarbon and stylistic methods of dating rock-art

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Andrée Rosenfeld and
Claire Smith
Andrée Rosenfeld
Affiliation:
Rosenfeld, Department of Archaeology & Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 0200, Australia
Claire Smith
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, University of New England, Armidale NSW 2351, Australia
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 1950s, era of the first radiocarbon revolution, saw famous clashes between confidence in the old chronologies and the new results from radiocarbon, which sometimes appeared ‘archaeologically unacceptable’. The same issues continue in respect of the radiocarbon dating of rock art, where the sheer technical difficulty of securing a dating number in which one can have confidence, remains a large real obstacle.

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 272 , June 1997, pp. 405 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1997

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Armitage, R., Hyman, M. & Rowe, M.. In press. Plasma-chemistry for dating pictographs by AMS, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Bahn, P. & Rosenfeld, A.. 1991. Rock-art and prehistory: papers presented to symposium G of the A URA Congress, Darwin, 1988. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Bednarik, R. 1992. A new method to date petroglyphs, Archaeometry 34: 279–91.Google Scholar
Bednarik, R. 1994. Conceptual pitfalls in Palaeolithic rock-art dating, Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 3: 95–102.Google Scholar
Bednarik, R. 1995a. The Côa petroglyphs: an obituary to the stylistic dating of Palaeolithic rock-art, Antiquity 69: 877–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednarik, R. 1995b. The age of the Côa valley petroglyphs in Portugal, Rock Art Research 12(2): 86–103.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. In press. Laser-AMS dating at Chillagoe and Laura: a preliminary statement on the ARC multi-year large grant project, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Carlson, R. 1993. Content and chronology of northwest coast (North America) rock-art, in Steinbring et al.: 7–12.Google Scholar
Chaffee, S., Hyman, M. & Rowe, M.. 1993. AMS 14C dating of rock paintings, in Steinbring et al.: 67–73.Google Scholar
Chippendale, C. & Tacón, P. S. C.. 1993. Two old painted panels from Kakadu: variation and sequence in Arnhem Land rock-art, in Steinbring et al: 32–56.Google Scholar
Glottes, J. 1996. The Chauvet cave dates implausible?, Íníer-national Newsletter on Rock Art 13: 27–9.Google Scholar
Clottes, J. & Couktin, J.. 1993. Dating a new painted cave: the Cosquer Cave, Marseille, France, in Steinbring et al.: 22–31.Google Scholar
Clottes, J., Lorblanchet, M. & Beltr, A.ÄN. 1995. Are the Foz Côa engravings actually Holocene?, International Newsletter on Rock Art 12: 19–21.Google Scholar
Colf, N. In press. The rock-art dating programme at Laura: progress and future directions, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Cole, N. A. & Watchman, A.. 1992. Painting with plants: investigating fibres in Aboriginal rock paintings at Laura, North Queensland, Rock Art Research 9: 27–36.Google Scholar
Cole, N., Watchman, A. & Morwood, M.. 1995. Chronology of Laura rock-art, in Morwood, M. & Hohbs, D. (ed.), Quj'ni:anprehistory: 147 —GO. St Lucia: Anthropology Museum, University of Queensland. Tempus 3.Google Scholar
Conkey, Y.M.W. 1980a. Context, structure and efficacy in Palaeolithic art and design, in Foster, M. & Brandes, S. (ed.), Symbol as sense: 225–48. New York (NY): Academic Press.Google Scholar
Conkey, Y.M.W. 1980b. The identification of prehistoric hunter-gatherer aggregation sites: the case of Altamira, Current Anthropology 21: 609–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conkey, Y.M.W. 1962. Boundedness in art and society, in Hoddcr, I. (ed.), Symbolic and structural archaeology: 115–28. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conkey, Y.M.W. 1990. Experimenting with style in archaeology: some historical and theoretical issues, in Conkey & Hastorf: 5–17.Google Scholar
Conkey, Y.M.W. 1992. Preface, Rulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariegoise 47: 5–15.Google Scholar
Conkey, M. & Hastorf, C. (ed.). 1990. The uses of style in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
David, B. 1992. An AMS date for north Queensland rock-art, Rock Art Research 9: 139–41.Google Scholar
David, B., Clayton, E. & Watchman, A.. 1993. Initial results of PIXE analysis on northern Australian ochres, Australian Archaeology 36: 50–57.Google Scholar
Davidson, I. 1989. Freedom of information: aspects of art and society in western Europe during the last ice age, in Morphy: 440–56.Google Scholar
Davidson, I. 1996. The power of pictures, in Conkey, M., Soffer, O. & Stratmann, D. (ed.), Beyond art:Pleistocene image and symbol. San Francisco (CA): California Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Deboer, W. 1990. Interaction, imitation, and communication as expressed in style: the Ucayali experience, in Conkey & Hastorf: 82–104.Google Scholar
Deboer, W. 1991. The decorative burden; design, medium and change, in Longacre, W. A. (ed.), Ceramic archaeology. 144–81. Tuscon (AZ): University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1975. Against method. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar
Franklin, N. 1991. Explorations of the Panaramitee style, in Bahn & Rosenfeld: 120–35.Google Scholar
Gamble, C. 1991. The social context for European Palaeolithic art, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 57: 3–15.Google Scholar
Hedges, R., Housely, R., Law, I., Perry, C. & Gowlett, J.. 1987. Radiocarbon dates from the Oxford AMS system: archaeometry dateiist, Archaeometry 29: 289–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodder, I. (ed.). 1987. The archaeology of contextual meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hotchkis, M. A. C., Fink, D., Hua, Q., Jacobson, G., Lawson, E. M., Smith, A. & Tuniz, C.. In press. High precision radiocarbon measurements at the ANTARES AMS centre, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Layton, R. 1991. The anthropology of art. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1988. The rock-art paintings of Arnhem Land, Australia: social, ecological and material culture change in the post-glacial period. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. International series 415. In press. Bradshaws: the view from Arnhem Land, Australian Archaeology.Google Scholar
Lewis-Williams, I. D. 1990. Documentation, analysis and interpretation: dilemmas in rock-art research, South African Archaeological Rulletin 45:126–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. 1993. From styles to dates, in Lorblanchet & Bahn: 61–71.Google Scholar
Lorblanchet, M. & Bahn, P. (ed.). 1993. Rock-art studies: the post-stylistic era, or where do we go from here? Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Loy, T., Jones, R., Nelson, D., Meehan, B., Vogel, J., Southon, J. & Cosgrove, R.. 1990. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of human blood proteins in pigments from Late Pleistocene art sites in Australia, Antiquity 64: 110–16.Google Scholar
Macdonald, W. 1990. Investigating style: an exploratory analysis of some Plains burials, in Conkey & Hastorf: 52–60.Google Scholar
Mcdonald, J. 1994. Sydney Basin rock-art: original style in the context of its prehistory. Ph.D thesis, Australian National University, Canberra. In press. AMS dating charcoal drawings in the Sydney region: results and issues, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Mcdonald, J., Officer, K., Jull, T., Donahue, D., Head, J. & Ford, B.. 1990. Investigating C14 AMS: dating prehistoric rock-art in the Sydney Sandstone Basin, Australia, Rock Art Research 7: 83–92.Google Scholar
Morphy, H. 1991. Ancestral connections: art and an Aboriginal system of knowledge. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morwood, M. J. 1988. Comment on F. D. McCarthy's ‘Rock-art sequences: a matter of clarification’, Rock Art Research 5: 32–3.Google Scholar
Morwood, M. J. 1992. Changing art in a changing landscape: a case study from the upper Flinders region of the North Queensland Highlands, in McDonald, J. & Haskovec, I. (ed.), State of the art: regional rock-art studies in Australian and Melanesia: 60–70. Melbourne: Australian Rock-art Research Association. Occasional AURA Publication 6.Google Scholar
Morwood, M.J. & Smith, C. E.. 1994. Rock-art research in Australia 1974-1994, Australian Archaeology 39: 19–38.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. E. 1993. Second thoughts on a rock-art date. Antiquity 67: 893–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, D. E., Chippindale, C., Chaloupka, G., Taçon, P. & Southon, J. R.. 1993. AMS dating of bees wax rock-art in northern Australia. Melbourne: First Archaeological and Anthropological Society of Victoria Symposium on Archaeological Dating.Google Scholar
Nelson, D. E., Chaloupka, G., Chippindale, C., Elderson, M. S. & Southon, J. R.. 1995. Radiocarbon dates for beeswax figures in the prehistoric rock-art of northern Australia, Archaeometry 37(1): 151–6.Google Scholar
Nobbs, M. In press. Rationale for the selection of petroglyph sites and figures for dating in the Olary district of South Australia, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Officer, K. 1991. What's in an anthropomorph?, in Bahn & Rosenfeld: 112–20.Google Scholar
Reevell, S. 1995. The Côa controversy as conceived at the 1995 IFRAO Congress in Turin, Italy, WAC News 3(2): i–ii.Google Scholar
Ridges, M. 1995a. An investigation into the Aboriginal rock-art paints of the Selwyn Ranges region in north west Queensland. BA (Hons) thesis, University of New England, Armi dale.Google Scholar
Ridges, M. 1995b. Implications of an investigation into the Aboriginal rock-art paints of the Selwyn Ranges region in north west Queensland for the direct dating of the Côa engravings, WAC News 3(2): iv–v.Google Scholar
Ridges, M., Davidson, I & Tucker, D., In press. The organic environment of paintings on rock, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, A. In press. Meanings in chronology: direct dating and style, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Scott, S. 1993. Fourth-century Romano-British villa mosaics: aspects of form and meaning. Ph.D thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
SimöEs De Abreu, M. & Jaffe, L.. 1995. Stop press, WAC News 3(2): vii–viii.Google Scholar
Smith, C. 1994. Situating style: an ethnoarchaeological analysis of social and material context in an Australian Aboriginal artistic system. Ph.D thesis, University of New England, Armidale.Google Scholar
Steinbring, J., Watchman, A., Faulstich, P. & Taçon, P. (ed.). 1993. Time and space: dating and spatial considerations in rock-art research. Melbourne: Australian Rock-art Research Association. Occasional AURA Publication 8.Google Scholar
Stuppkrich, R. 1980. A reconsideration of some fourth century British mosaics, Britannia 11: 289–301.Google Scholar
Taçon, P. S. C. 1989. From rainbow snakes to ‘x-ray’ fish: the nature of the recent rock painting tradition of Western Arnhem Land. Ph.D thesis, Australian National University, Canberra.Google Scholar
Taçon, P. S.C, Garde, M., Nelson, E. & Soutiion, J. R.. In press. Dating beeswax rock-art: the view from central Arnhem Land, in Ward & Tuniz.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. 1989. Seeing the inside: Kunwingu paintings and the symbol of the divided body, in Morphy: 372–88.Google Scholar
Thomas, N. 1995. Oceanic art. London: Thames & Hudson.Google Scholar
Tratebas, A. 1993. Stylistic chronology versus early dates for early hunting style rock-ail on the North American plains, in Lorblanchet & Bahn: 163–78.Google Scholar
Ucko, P. J. 1977. Opening remarks, in Ucko, P. J. (ed.), Form in indigenous art: 7–10. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Ucko, P. & Rosenfeld, A.. 1967. Palaeolithic cave art. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolsan.Google Scholar
Valladas, H., Cachœr, H., Maurice, P., Bernalda De Quiros, F., Clot-Tes, J., Cabreda Valdés, V., Uzquiano, P. & Arnold, M.. 1992. Direct radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves, Nature 357: 68–70.Google Scholar
Van Der Merwe, N. J. 1982. Carbon isotopes and archaeology, South African Journal of Science 78: 14–16.Google Scholar
Van Der Merwe ??OK??, N.J., Sealy, J. & Yates, R.. 1987. First accelerator carbon-14 date for pigment from a rock painting, SoufJi African Journal of Science 83: 56–7.Google Scholar
Vinnicombe, P. 1991. Perspectives and traditions in Australian rock-art research, in Helskog, K. & Olsen, B. (ed.), Perceiving rock-art: social and political perspectives: 87–103. Oslo: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforskning.Google Scholar
Ward, G & Tuniz, C. (ed.). In press. Proceedings of the first Australian workshop on rock picture dating, Lucas Heights, February 1996. Melbourne: Australian Rock-art Research Association.Google Scholar
Wallace-Hadrill, A. 1988. The social structure of the Roman house, Papers of the British School at Home 56: 43–97.Google Scholar
Watchman, A. 1991. Age and composition of Oxalate-rich crusts in the Northern Territory, Australia, Studies in Conservation 36: 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watchman, A. 1992. Composition, formation and age of some Australian silica skins, Australian Aboriginal Studies 1: 61–6.Google Scholar
Watchman, A. 1993. Evidence of a 25,000-year-old pictograph in northern Australia, Geoarchaeology 8(6): 465–73.Google Scholar
Watchman, A. 1994. Radiocarbon dating fatty acids in Holocene siliceous rock surface accretions, Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 41: 179–80.Google Scholar
Watchman, A. 1995. Historic antiquity for the Foz Côa rock engravings, Portugal, WAC News 3(2): iii–iv,Google Scholar
Watchman, A. 1996. A review of the theory and assumptions in the AMS dating of the Foz Côa petroglyphs, Portugal, Rock Art Research 13(1): 21–30.Google Scholar
Watchman, A. & Cole, N. A.. 1993. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of plant-fibre binders in rock paintings from northeastern Australia, Antiquity 67: 355–8.Google Scholar
Welsh, D. 1993. The early rock-art of the Kimberley, Australia: developing a chronology, in Steinbring et al.: 13–21.Google Scholar
Wlessner, P. 1988. Style and changing relations between the individual and society, in Hodder, I. (ed.), The meaning of things: material culture and symbolic expression: 5G— 63. London: Harper Collins Academic Google Scholar
Zilhao, J. 1995a. The age of the Côa valley (Portugal) rock-art: validation of archaeological dating to the Palaeolithic and refutation of scientific dating to historic or proto-historic times, Antiquity 69: 883–901.Google Scholar
Zilhao, J. 1995b. A refutation of the direct dating of the stylistically Palaeolithic petroglyphs of the Côa valley to recent times, WAC News 3(2): v–vii.Google Scholar
Züchner, C. 1995. Some comments on the rock-art of Foz Côa, Portugal, International Newsletter on Rock Art 12: 18–19.Google Scholar
Zilhao, J. 1996. The Chauvet cave: radiocarbon versus archaeology, International Newsletter on Rock Art 13: 25–7.Google Scholar