Coniplutum, 5, 1994: 197-202

SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS 11W ¡CE AGE ART

Paul G. Bahn*

cx. - Recent research has considerably changed our knowledge about Art. Entirely new sites have been discovered, as well as new decorated walls on previously well known . Mo- dern techniques related with chronology and pigment analysis are transforming classical schemes and offer new perspectives about this subject

Rssuurn. - Los estudios recientes han transformado nuestro conocimiento sobre el Arte Paleolíti- co. Se han descubierto nuevos yacimientos, así como paneles en cuevas ya conocidas. Las nuevas tecnologías relacionadas con la cronología y el análisis de pigmentos están cambiando los esque- mas clásicos, y abren nuevasperspectivassobre este tipo de arte.

KEYWÚRDs: Cave Art. Palaeolithic. Chronology. PigmentAnalysis. Distribution. New trends.

PAL4BRA5 CLAVE: Arte Rupestre. Paleolítico. Cronología. Análisis de Pigmentos. Distribución. Nuevas tendencias.

1. INTRODUCTION of probable Palaeolithic engravings on rocks in the open air have been found in (see Martínez It is now some years since 1 wrote a review 1992; Balin 1992; Balbín and Alcolea, Uds volume). of Ice Age imagery (Baba & Vertut 1988), and ineví- The apparent doniinance of decorated caves tably in that time a great deal has been learned, and in the Upper Palaeolithic record is almost certainly some major new discoveries havebeen made. Indeed, illusory (Baba 1993a). Just as cave-mouts and rock- thanks to the introduction of detailed analysis of pig- shelters were merely te sites where early archaeolo- ments and of direct dating, the last few years can ar- gists could most easily discover the accumulated resí- guably be described as te most exciting and most dues of Ice Age occupation, so tese were also te important phase in lee Age art studies since te plie- places where parietal art of te period had merely nomenon was first discovered and authenticated. survived successfully. Neither cave-dwelling nor This paper will examine a few of these new develop- cave-decoration is truly characteristic of te Upper ments and look at the future directions of te disci- Palaeolithic. pline. Conversely it seems probable that decora- tion of rock-shelters was far commoner than we sup- pose, even in the earliest phases of the Upper Pa- 2. NEW DISCOVERIES laeolithic, but that most of te evidence has weate- red away over te millennia: tis is exemplifled by New decorated caves and rock-shelters con- te abri Pataud (Dordogne) where every layer of oc- tinue to be found, at a rate of about one per year. cupation contains fallen fragments of what seems to Most comprise previously unnoticed marks on the have been a pennanently painted and engraved wall walls of well-known sites —such as Gourdan or Le and ceiling (Delluc & Delluc 1991: 206, 211). Toge- Placard— whíle entireíy new decorated sites such as ter wit te reccntly discovered early engravings fa- te Grotte Cosquer (see Clottes, this volume) remain llen from cave walls in sout-west (Haba major exceptions. At the sanie time, new occurrences 1991), this evidence shows tat it is primarily geo-

* 428 Anlaby Road. Huil. HU3 6QP. GranBretaña. 198 PAUL G. BAHN morphological selection rather thaa “cultural refu- of Palaeolithic decoration has come to light (Bedna- gia” that determined the surviving example of cave rik & You 1991): an engraved piece of antíer from art. Longgu Cave, dating to about 13000 years ago. In Hahn has also found a block inthe Aurigna- Nort America, ANIS and cation-ratio ages have cian levels of Gcissenklósterle cave bearing traces of been obtained from the rock vamish covering pe- red and yellow paint (Kozlowski 1992: 41). Other troglyphs, some of which are in the late Pleistocene possible remnants of Central European cave art have (Whitley & Dom 1993); a geometric pattern in Ari- also been found in former Czechoslovakia, where zona gaye results around 18000 BP, wbile a zoo- Oliva encountered some “y” signs in red ochre cove- morphic engraving from California was dated to red by calcíte on te wall of Mladec Cave, and in around 14000 years ago. In Sout America, at Pedra where some possibly Palaeolithic engraved Furada (), fallen rock paintings have been da- motifs have been found on te wall of the cave of ted lo between 10000 and 12000 years ago, and per- Jenó Hillcbraad (ibid.: 41/2). The Russian cave of Ig- haps even to 17000, on the basis of charcoal in the natiev, in the Urals, has now been published more sanie layers (Baba 1991a: 92). Direct dating of orga- fully aud contains far more images than liad been nic carbon in a pigment balí, fashioned by humans flrst reported, including a remarkable stylised bovid and apparently worn as an ornament, from the Brazi- and a stylised human female wíth 28 dots between lían shelter of Perna (Chaifee, Hyman & Rowe 1993) her legs (Petrin & Sirokov 1991; Petrin 1992); ifthe- gaye a result of 15250 + 335 BP. se figures can be proved to be Palaeolithic (some Ice In Western , a necklace of 22 small Age occupation has been found in the cave, but tat Conus shells, deliberately modified as beads, aud da- does not necessarily date tese figures) they will be a ting to about 32000 years ago, has been discovered at remarkableaddition to our knowledge of the period. Mandu Mandu Creek rock-sheltcr (Morse 1993). Da- Where portable art of te period is concer- ting of rock varnish covering petroglyphs —by both ned, most of te important new flnds of recent years ANIS radiocarbon and by cation-ratio— has produ- have been made in northern Spain (see Fortea, Cor- ced startling results in South Australia, with mi oval chón, this voluine), but a special mention must be at Wharton Hill producing a result of more than made of the remarkable female figurine found at 42000 years, and a complex curvilinear motif at Pa- Galgenberg, near Krems (), in 1988 (Neuge- naraañtee Nortb giving 43140 + 3000 years ago bauer-Maresch 1987); dating to more than 31000 (Nobbs & Dorn 1993), while what may be a painting years ago, it is a small, fiat stone carving depicting a on te wall of a rockshelter in Queensland has pro- woman standing with one hand on the hp and tbe duced a date of 24600 BP (Watchmaa 1993). In oter arm folded back at the elbow. Such a lively other words, it is becoming ever clearer that Europe design forms a stark contast with the static, solid, was not alone in producíng art during te last Ice symnietrical “venus” figurines of some millenaia la- Age. TUs does not diminish the importance of Euro- ter, aud proves once again, like the early ivory sta- pe’s Palacolitie art in any way, but sets it into a tuettes from south-west Germany, that thc early clearer context of worldwide artistic activity, some of Upper Palaeolitbic contains some of te most start- which predates the European imagery. ling aud sophisticated imagery of tbe whole Ice Age. More exámples of Pre-Upper Palaeolitic “art” are also accumulating, though many of tem are still a 3. THE source of contention. An extensíve but by no means exhaustive list of the wide variety of apparéntly non- The tecbniques of modern science have re- functional plienomena present in Middle and even cently been brought to bear on Palacolithic art wit Lower Palaeolitic sites has been compiled by Bed- profound consequences. Analysis of pigments liad narik (1992), but since tben more examples have co- been carried out since the turn of the century, but in me to light —most notably at Prolom II Cave in the te past was only done in relatively crude ways Crimea (Stepanchuk 1993) where the Middle Palaco- which depended on chemical reaction. Today, only a lithic layers have yielded a large series of perforated tiny amount of pigment is required, and tbe new bones as well as a horse canine marked withfive pa- techiques that can be applied to it —such as scan- raid engraved lines aad a saiga plialange bearing a ning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction and fan-like engravedmotif proton-induced X-ray emission— produce a highly At te same time, the list of examples of detailed analysis of the paint’s content. Similarly, ra- Pleistocene art Vn other continents (Bahn 199 la) has diocarbon dating could not be applied tu cave art in also expanded. In , the first definite specimen the past, partly because thc pigments were not SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN ICE AGE ART 199 tbought to contain organic material, aud even if they cave is by no means a homogeneous whole, but be- did the amount required to produce a date would ha- longs to a number of different periods, and perhaps ve removed entire figures. Thc scientific advances even in paft to dxc holocene. The analysis of pig- have not only shown that organic material (notably ments and, one hopes, direct dating of parietal figu- charcoal) was used far more ofien tban had been res (the buge black aurochs contain wood charcoal) thougbt, but also can obtain a date from a mere pin- are guaranteed to produce some surprises, as they ha- prick of pigment thanks 40 Accelerator Mass Spec- ve in every case so far. One can confldently predict trometry. that ’s days as a bomogeneous composition Tbis kind of analysis was pioneered by Mi- are numbered, aud it will soon be revealed as a chel Lorblanchet in tbe Quercy and then taken up by high]y complex accumulation of compositions span- Jean Clottes and his team in the Ariége, and subse- ning a far longer period of prehistory tan has been quently elsewhere (set Clottes, this volume). The ap- supposed (Bahn, ibid). plication of direct dating methods to Palaeolithic An incidental but nevertheless important parietal decoration has only just begun, and so far contribution of the new scientiflc techniques is that has beenacitieved at only five sites (Cougnac, Niau~x, we are now belter able to invesúgate potential fakes Altamira, El Castillo, Cosquer). Naturally, the tech- and either expose or authenticate tem. The analysis nique is in its infancy and eacb date must be conside- of some pieces of dubious portable art, such as te red only tentative and imperfect. Nevertheless, one abri Pataud “venus” or te Brassempouy head (see message has already emerged loud and clear from Baba 1993c), is still beyond current expertise, but the (albeit sparse and preliminary) results obtained: wliere parietal art is concerned, great progress has te execution of te decoration in tese caves was far been made. It was primarily scientific analysis which more complex and episodic than had hitherto been confirmed dic grave doubts aroused among specia- supposed. lists by newspaper photographs of te figures iii Zu- It seems that neither Breuil, who saw cave bialde Cave and proved that most, if not alt, its figu- art simply as an accumulation of figures, nor Leroi- res were of recent manufacture (Balin ibid.); and Gourhan, who saw each cave essentially as a bomo- equally it was scientific analysis whicli brought firm geneous composition,was correct: as usual in ar- and final proof of te authenticity of chaeology, te truth lies somewhere between the two (see Clottes, this volume). Where specific doubts lin- extremes, and the decoration of caves can be seen as ger —for exainple, over a handful of figures in the an accmnulation of different composítions scattered cave of Rouffignac (see Bahn 1993c)— such analyses through time. Cosquer, for example, has at least two and/or dating should now be able to settle te issue phases (Clottes et aL 1992). Tbe Salon Noir of once and for alí and either prove them to be recent or Niaux, previously tbought to be extremely homoge- confirm their attribution to te Palaeolitic. neous, also has at least two (Clottes et aL 1992), Ono overalí result of the new analyses aud while Cougnac —whose famous Megaloceros panel dates —oven bearing in mmd their uncertainties and was confidently thougbt to belong 40 a single pha- pítfalls— is that excessively subjective metods of se— has at least tbree or four episodes spanning datíng by style alone are beginning to beat a retrcat, many millennia, with even its adjacent Megaloceros since they are being sbown to be hopelessly inade- figures producing markedly different ages (Lorbían- quate (Lorblanchet 1993). Tbis is not 40 say that style cbet 1993). no longer has a place in studies of Palaeolitbic art II apparently “simple” caves like these hayo —such a proposition would be absurd (see debate in yieldcd such surprising results, it is a priori higbly Lorblanchet & Bahn 1993)— but direct dates have probablethat tbe same will be true of caves with mo- already demonstrated the imprecise nature of stylistic re complex decoration. Amongst te most complex is dating. Palaeolitbic art is already rapidly moving tat of Lascaux, and a recent reexamination of alí the away from the linear evolutive schemes of te past, evidence available about that the cave has lcd to a ra- as it is being realised that two very diffcrent periods dical reinteipretation of dic orthodox view (Baba or widely separated places can produce very similar 1993b). In my opinion, te famous sbaft or “Puits” styles, a single style can span a very long time aud a constituted a separate site wbich was frequented so- big area and, conversely, that a single period can mewhat later tan the period of Lascaux’s arcbaeolo- produce very different styles side by side, trough ar- gical layer; and contrary to the view tat has been tistic choice and devclopment, varying function, and accepted for te past few decades, te art of the main differing rock surfaces or location. 200 PAUL O, BAHN

4. NEW particular rock shapes, they would also have utilised ART any acoustic peculiarities to te 14111.

The most importaní development in recent years has been the creation of the “Groupe de Pifie- 5. CONCLUSION xion sur l’Art Pariétal Paléolithique”, whose mee- tings several times per year since 1984 have lcd to The inunediate future will, 1 believe, see a the publication of a volume (Groupc 1993) contai- concentration on tbe improvement of our data-base. ning an appraisal of the “state of the art”: terms are Ml early finds of doubtful provenance must be chec- definecl, and the volume constitutes a collective sur- ka! aud dated where possible; early tracings by me- vey of the aims and metbods used at present in re- íhods more subjective tlan those of today must be scarch on Palaeolithic cave art in . cheeked and redone. The traditional assumptions Individual members of tbe group have also tat hayo been made. such as tose concerning sty- continued to make contributions to specifie aspecís of listic attribution, or tbe dominance of cave art, and Palaeolitic cave art. Michel Lorbianchel, for exam- te distribution of Palaeolithic art in Europe, are al- píe, has carried out furtber experiments in replica- ready being called into question. New flnds, particu- ting different kinds of figures, mosí recently by using larly those from pre-Upper Palaeolithic periods aud the spitting technique of tbe Australian Aborigines to from outside Europe, will increase in number and recreate thc spotted horse panel of Pecb Merle importance, so tat a world-view of Pleistocene art (Lorblanchet 1991) and a Lascaux-type biclirome will eventually become dominaní. Altliough it is now horse (Jobanson et aL 1994: 3 14-323). Michel Dau- 6 years since Babn & Vertut (1988) appeared, it re- vois has undertaken detailed studies of several caves mains, as far as 1 am aware, te ouly bock on Ice in tcrms of teir acoustic properties (Dauvois & Bou- Age art lo accord a chapter lo flnds outside Europe. tillon 1990; Reznikoff & Dauvois 1988), fxndíng a Several large books on Palaeolithíc art have been pu- frequent correlation between tbe locations of decora- blished in tat time, both in France and , yet tion and te arcas of best resonance for men’s voices. flnds outside Eurasia are not even mentioned in More recently, Waller (1993 a/b) has tried lo extend them. this idea to te content of rock art, claiming that Since te death of André Leroi-Gourhan, no early artists ingeniously used tbe caves’ acoustics and new all-embracing theo¡y has been put forward for echoes to conjure up the sounds made by moving Palaeolitic art, at least none by anyone well ac- herds of lioofed animals. Ile has found —by yelling, quainíed with te data and which terefore canbe la- clapping or striking stones together— thai in deep ken seriously. Attemps to resurrect oíd ideas of caves like Lascaux and Font de Gaumne echoes in ihe huníing magic, dressed up in te modern guise of painted chambers produce sound levels of bctween “transmitting information about bunting” (see Baba 23 and 31 decibels, whereas deep cave walls decora- 1991b), are based on a good deal of wisbful thinking lcd with stealtliy cats (like Lascaux’s “Cabinet des —removing figures from their contexí, aud setting Félins”) produce sound levels of only 1 to 7 decíbels, out argumenís wit very poor second- or tird-hand while undecorated surfaces are often ‘totally fiat’. copies gleaned highly subjectively from corpuses. Some of Waller’s interpretations, linking the The few figures which can be made to f¡t the hypo- acoustics to thundering ungulate herds or lo silení tbesis are so rare and unrepresentative of the whole carnivores, are less tan convincing and fail to fit the that it is self-evident that te vast majority of Palaco- data. Nevertheles, studies of this type are valuable in lithic art has notbing whatsoever to do wit hunling that they are trying to revive something that one or teaching in such simple temis. might imagine gone for ever: te sound dimension There is currently a tendency among tose thai accompanied whatever rituals may have been ca- with little knowledge of Palaeolitic art to want or rried out in decorated caves and rock-shelters. Natu- assume it to be useful in simple evolutionary terms, rally tey can prove nothing about something so lo see it as primarily functional —yet its location xvi- ephemeral and short-lived: but ifa consisíent corre- tin the caves, its repeated patterns, and te contrasts lation can be found between acoustic quality aud between parietal and portable art alí cry out against ‘principal decorated panels’ it will certainly provide this. One hopes tat tese ideas represent te last some indication that sound played an importaní role. gasp of such simplistic aud erroneous views, because In view of dic obvious intelligence of te cave artisis, over dic nexí few years te rapid accumulation of it is extremely likely that, since íhey book fulí advan- pigmentanalyses aud of solid direct dates from many tage of the morpho¡ogy of the cave end especially of caves is going to revolutionise tbe subjecl: nol only SOME NEW DEVELOPMENTS 114 ICE AGE ART 201

by revealing tbe enormous complexity of decoration big theory”, tough one remains sceptical whether a in cadi site, but also by enabling us lo know better singletheory to encompass so many millennia and so what was drawn in wbich parts of te cave aud in many different kinds and contexts of art is eíther how many episodes. It is wben we have more data of possible or necessary any more. tat kind tat it may be possible to produce the “next

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BMN, P.G. (1991a): “Pleistocene images outside Eu- de la Société Préhistorique fran~a¡se LXXXIX rope”. Proceedings of the Prehistoríc Society 2704. LVII: 91-10. DAuvois, M. & BOUTJLLON, X. (1990) Eludes acousti- DM114, PO. (I99Ib): Review of “Thoughffiul Fo- ques au Réseau Clastres: Salle des peintures et Ii- ragers” by 5. Mitien. Antiquity LXV: 158-62. tophones naturels. Bulletin de la Société Préhis- BAHN, PO. (1992): “Open-air rock art in te Palaco- toriqueAriége-Pyrénées XLV: 175-86. lithic”, En M. Lorbíanchel (ed.) “Rock art in the DELLUC, B. & DELLUC, 0. (1991): 1./Art Pariétal Ar- Oíd World’. Indira Gandhi National Centre for charque en Aquitaine. 28e Supplément á Gallia dic Arts; New Delhi: 395400. Prébistoire. C.N.RS. Paris. B.uii~, P.G. (1993a): “Dancing in the dark: probing GROUPE DE REFLEXION SUR L’ART PARJÉTAL PALÉOLITHI- tie plienomenon of Pleistocene cave art”. Paper QUE (1993): L’Art Pariétal Paléolithique. Techni- given at tie “Human Utilisation of Caves” confe- ques et méthodes d’étude. Editions du Comité des rence, Newcastle, July (in press). Travaux Historiques et Scientiflques. Paris. BAHN, PO. (1993b): “Lascaux: Composition or accu- RAEN, J. (1991): Hóhlenkunst aus dem Hohlen FeIs mulation?”. Paper given at the Global Specialists bei Schelldingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Archdologis- Rock Art Congress, New Delhi, December (in cheAusgrabungen in Baden-Wflrttemberg X: 19- press). 21. RAEs!, PO. (1993c): “The dead wood stage’ of pre- JOHANSON, D.; Jou~sos!, L. & EDGAR, B. (1994): An- historic art studies: style is not enough”. En M. cestors: In Search of Human Origins. Villard Lorblanchet & PO. Babn (eds.): “Rock Art Stu- Books. New York. dies: The Post-Stylistic Era or Where do we go KozLowsM, J.K. (1992): L’Art de la Préhistoire en from here4”’. Oxbow Monograpb 35. Oxford: 51- Europe Orienta/e. C.N.RS. Paris. 59. LGRBLANCHET, NI. (1991): Spitting images: replicating

¡ BAMN, PO. & VERT1JT, J. (1988): Images of ¡he Ice the spotted horses of . Archaeology Age. Windward, Lcicester/Facts on File, New XLIV (6): 24-31. York. LCRBLANCEET NI. (1993): “From styles lo dates”. En BEDNARiK, RO. (1992): Palaeoart and arcbaeological M.Lorblanchet & PO. Baba (eds.) ‘SRock Art Stu- mytlis. Cambridge Archaeological Journal II: 27- dies: The Post-Stylistic Era “. Oxbow Mono- 57. graph 35: Oxford: 61-72. BEDNARiK, R.G. & You Yuzmi (1991): Palaeolitic art LDRBLANCHET NI. & BAHN, PO. (eds.) (1993): Rock from China. RockArt Research VIII: 119-23. Art Siudíes: Pie Post-Stylistíc Era or Where do CHAFFEE, S.D.; Hyzytpa.~, M. & RowE, M. (1993): AMS we gofrom here? Oxbow NIonograph 35. Oxford. 14C dating of rock paintings, En J. Steinbring, A. MARTÍNEZ G~szcÑ, J. (1992): Arte paleolitico en Al- Watchman, P. Faulstich & P.S.C. Taqon (eds.): meria. Los primeros documentos. Revista de Ar- “Time and Space. Dating and spatial considera- quealogía CXXX: 24-31 tions in rock art research<’. AURA Publication 8, MORSE, 1<. (¡993): Shell beads from Mandu Mandu Melbourne: 67-73. creek rock-shelter, Cape Range peninsula, Wes- CLOnES, 1.; COURTIN, J.; VALLAnAS, H.; CACHIER, II.; tern Australia, dated before 30000 bp. Antiquity NIERCIER, N. & ARNOLO, M. (1992): La Grotle Cos- LXVII: 877-83. quer datée. Bu/lean de la Société Préhistorique NEUGEBAUER-MAXESCH, C. (1987): Vorbericht úber die frangaise LXXXIX: 2304. Rettungsgrabungen an der Aurignacien-Station CLOTTES, 1.; VALLAnAS, H.; CACHIER, H. & ARNOLO, M. StratzinglKrems-Rehberg in den Jahren 1985- (1992): Des dates pour Niaux et Gargas. Bulletin 1988. ZumNeuhnd einer weiblichen Statuette. 202 PAUL O. BAHN

Fundberichte aus (u sterreich XXVI: 73-84. laeolitíc cave site in the eastcrn Crimea with NonaS. M. & DORN, R. (1993): New surface exposure non-utilitarian bone artefacís. Proceedings of the ages for petroglyphs from te Olary province, Prehistoric Society LIX: 17-37. South Australia. Archaeology in Oceanía WALLER, S.J. (1993a): Sound and rock art. Nature XXVIII: 18-39. CCCLXIII: 501. PETRIN. V. (1992): The Palaeolithic Sanctuarv of Ig- WALLER. S.J. (1993b): Sound reflection as an expía- natieí’ Cave in Ihe Sou¡hern Urals. NAUKA, No- nation for the contení and context of rock art. vosibirsk. (In Russían). RockArtResearchX: 91-101. PErant VI & SrnoKov. VV. (1991): Dic Ignatieva- WATCHMAN, A. (1993): Evidence of a 25000 year oíd Hóble (Ural). Jahrbuch des Rómisch- Germanis- hematite rock painting in nortbern Australia. chen Zentral,nuseumsMainz XXXVIII: 17-31. Geoarchaeology VIII: 465-73. REZNIKOFF, 1. &DAuvoJs, M. (1988): La dimension so- WmWEY, D.S. &Dom4, Rl. (1993): New perspectives nore des groltes ornées. Bulletin de la Société on tbe Clovis vs Pre-Clovis controversy. Ameri- PréhistoriquefranQaise LXXXV: 238-46. can Antiquity LVIII (4): 626-647. STEPANCHUK, VN. (1993): Prolom 11, a Middle Pa-