CLOTTES J. (dir.) 2012. — L’art pléistocène dans le monde / Pleistocene art of the world / Arte pleistoceno en el mundo Actes du Congrès IFRAO, Tarascon-sur-Ariège, septembre 2010 – Symposium « Datation et taphonomie de l’art pléistocène »

Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?

Paul S.C. TAÇONa and Michelle C. LANGLEYb

Abstract One of the biggest challenges in rock art research is accurate and reliable dating. A related issue is that of interpretation –what do the numbers obtained really mean? In this paper we briefly review the results of rock art dating programs in Australia with those undertaken in other parts of the world. We identify a number of common problems arising from the results as well as patterning related to taphonomy and cultural difference. We also observe some common trends, both in terms of temporal and spatial rock art change and in terms of how dating results are (mis)interpreted. We conclude that rock art dating is still in its infancy so that we should be very cautious about results, how they are interpreted and how they are used to support theoretical models. A particular question that focuses discussion is whether there is a case for Pleistocene figurative art outside Europe and, if not, why it developed to such a great extent elsewhere during the Holocene.

Résumé – Que nous apprennent les datations de l’art rupestre australien et d’ailleurs ? La recherche en art rupestre pose le défi majeur de proposer une datation précise et fiable. En cela, l’interprétation des données obtenues est une importante question : que signifient réellement les chiffres obtenus ? Au cours de cette présentation, nous examinerons brièvement les résultats du programme de datation de l’art rupestre mené en Australie, ainsi que les travaux entrepris dans d’autres parties du monde. Nous identifierons un certain nombre de problèmes communs découlant des résultats, ainsi que les disparités liées à la taphonomie et aux différences culturelles. Nous avons néanmoins observé quelques points de convergence, en termes de mutations spatiales et temporelles de l’art rupestre, et également en termes d’interprétations (erronées) des résultats de datation. Nous en conclurons donc que la datation en art rupestre en est toujours à ses débuts, d’où l’intérêt d’être prudent face aux résultats, dans la manière dont ils sont interprétés puis utilisés pour soutenir des modèles théoriques. Une des questions qui attirent l’attention est de savoir s’il y a un cas d’étude pour l’art figuratif du Pléistocène en dehors de l’Europe et, sinon, pourquoi cet art a-t-il pu se développer autant pendant l’Holocène ?

Introduction: the challenge of directly dating rock art How old is it and what does it mean? These are two of the most commonly asked questions of rock art research but in many ways they are related; knowing how old something is tells us about an aspect of its meaning. For instance, it can inform us about the probable group of people that produced the rock art. But assigning age and meaning to rock art is both highly challenging and controversial, with the literature littered with speculation, miscalculation and misinterpretation (e.g. see reviews by a Griffith University, Australia. b The University of Queensland, Australia. Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1130

Bednarik 1995, 2002; Pettit & Pike 2007). In recent decades archaeological (e.g. Taçon & Chippindale 1998) and broader scientific (e.g. Bednarik 2001b) approaches to rock art research have been advocated, especially for rock art dating. A variety of dating techniques have been employed and a mix of results obtained. Many rock art dating attempts have been trumpeted as accurate and reliable only to later be found to be inaccurate, unreliable or both. Even what some consider the most robust results have been challenged, especially if they produced exceptional dates (e.g. Bednarik 2002; Clottes 1998; Dorn 1996a, 1996b; Pettitt et al. 2009). There are also acceptable dates, especially if confirmed by multiple methods (e.g. see Chippindale & Taçon 1998 for an Australian example) or taken for rock art made of beeswax (Nelson 2000; Taçon et al. 2004). Recently these have been used in new ways to shed light on meaning or to explore what, if any, patterns emerge from the dating dataset (e.g. Langley & Taçon 2010). In this paper, we review the results of 696 global rock art dating attempts, commencing first with those undertaken within Australia as it is here that more rock art dating has occurred than elsewhere. From this analysis we discuss common trends, challenges and problems with the use of results for both developing specific chronologies and comparing chronologies from different regions. We then analyse the results in order to test the hypothesis that naturalistic figurative rock art arose in Europe in the Pleistocene and that it subsequently spread elsewhere during the Holocene. Of course, in any attempt to date rock art it is important to know exactly what it is one is dating and how that relates to the rock art design of interest. Consequently, we have not included results from associated dating of archaeological deposits and have rejected as unreliable and inaccurate cation-ratio dates (see Dorn 1996a, 1996b), so-called blood residue dates (e.g. contrast Loy et al. 1990 and Nelson 1993) and others where contamination is obvious. We also have not included microerosion results as, although the technique is promising, “the accuracy of the method is probably poor” (Bednarik 2002: 1120). Furthermore, it is important to point out that this is a preliminary analysis that, although comprehensive and representative, does not include every dating result in the dataset. Furthermore, many new results were announced at the 2010 IFRAO conference and are in press, as are others from various parts of the world. Indeed, the direct dating of rock art is increasing at a rapid pace so that databases need to be continually updated. What we provide here is a snapshot as of late 2010.

1. Direct dating in Australia At the time of writing 432 direct dates for rock art found in 92 sites located in all environmental regions of Australia had been obtained by a range of research groups (see Langley & Taçon 2010 including online table with dating details). The first direct absolute rock art date in Australia was reported in 1987 (Watchman 1987), though absolute dates associated with rock art (those from charcoal etc. dated from adjacent archaeological deposits) had been reported since 1968 (Polach 1968). Most dates (92.21%) have been obtained since 1990. The majority of determinations were taken for rock art sites in northern regions of Australia (Kakadu, Arnhem Land, The Kimberley, Cape York, Keep River; Fig. 1), with very little rock art dated in the south (particularly Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT). Beeswax figures (Fig. 2) make up the bulk of dated rock art in the Northern

CD-1130 TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C., Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?1131

Territory and northern Western Australia, while paintings and engravings contribute most of the data for the remaining regions of Australia.

Fig. 1. Alan Watchman and Sven Ouzman sampling oxalate crust over red painting of a macropod, Keep River region 2000. (Photo P.S.C. Taçon.)

CD-1131 Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1132

Fig. 2. Patrick Lamilami and Paul S.C. Taçon sampling beeswax design for dating, Wellington Range, Arnhem Land, 2009.

For various reasons, including the large number of beeswax dates, most results are Holocene and less than 5,000 years of age, with a large percentage consisting of dates younger than 500 years BP (48.3%). In the dataset, 37 (8.5%) of the determinations placed the tested art within the Pleistocene but most very early dates have been rejected or are considered controversial. Of all the direct dates for rock art taken in Australia 14C/AMS was used for 96.7% (n=418) of the art and OSL for only 3.2% (OSL n=4).

CD-1132 TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C., Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?1133

Beeswax figures are the most commonly dated medium in Australia (47.9%), with paintings (24.7%) and engravings (13.1%) together accounting for a similar amount of the dataset as that provided for beeswax figures alone. Drawings are the next best dated medium (8.5%), with cupules (3.9%) and finger flutings (0.9%) contributing only small amounts each. Painting sites, consisting of rock shelters, are the most common landscape location identified for dating in Australia (41.3%). While the oldest evidence for painting in Australia dates to between 33600±500 (ANUA 7626) and 42,800±1850 (OZD 161) for a small slab of painted roof fall from Carpenter’s Gap 1, Western Australia (O’Connor and Fankhauser 2001), the earliest dated figurative art dates to between 23,800±2400, 17,500±1800 at a “Bradshaw” site in the Kimberley, Western Australia (Roberts et al. 1997) and 29,700±500 (OZA 390), 28,100±400 (OZA 391) and 16,100±130 (OZA 395) at Walkunder Arch Cave, Queensland (Campbell 2000; Campbell et al. 1996; David 2002; David et al. 1994). The majority of sites where figurative art has been dated have recorded art dating to between modern determinations and 6,000 years BP. These large gaps in our record of rock art in Australia, and particularly figurative art, has consequently left holes in our understanding of the use of rock art throughout Australia’s artistic past, especially in terms of the nature and timing of its production before 6,000 years ago.

2. Direct dating outside Australia In 1997 Bednarik and Chakravarty (1997: 202) reported that only 25 rock art places had been directly dated reliably, 8 in Australia and 17 across the rest of the world, including South Africa, India, China, Russia, USA (Texas), France, Spain, Portugal and Italy (see also Bednarik 1997 for a few others). Most outside Australia were from France, 26 results from 6 sites and most were dated using AMS radiocarbon. They did not include cation-ratio dating attempts because they are not considered reliable. Three years later Rowe (2000) noted an exponential growth in attempts to directly date rock art imagery and reviewed almost 90 AMS radiocarbon results from 11 countries, which now included the addition of Angola, Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala and Mexico, as well as several American states. Ten years later the total number of direct dating results from outside Australia was now 264 for 169 figures from 76 sites (see Table 11). Additional countries include Canada, Egypt, Libya, Indonesian Borneo, New Caledonia, Timor and Vanuatu. A total of 115 results gave a Pleistocene age, most from cave sites in France and Spain (82 from 10 sites). However, this is not 115 figures as many results are from over, under or within the same image. 14C/AMS was used for 93.5% (n=247) of the art, U-series for 6.1% (n=16) and TL for 0.4% (n=1). Exceptions/rejects include one date each from Brazil and Utah, USA that have to be rejected because they predate the accepted arrival of humans in the Americas by tens of thousands of years, a date of over 11,000 BP for Mayan hieroglyphic text, which is not consistent with other dates for text and the Mayan archaeological record, and 9 from the Côa Valley, Portugal that have uncertain relationships to nearby engravings (see Dorn 1997).

1 Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia.  see separate document DAT7 Tacon-Langley Table1.pdf

CD-1133 Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1134

Ten Pleistocene minimum and maximum results from Timor are interesting, with two bracketing a red paint layer of an unidentifiable image (Aubert et al. 2007) and others suggesting engraved human-like faces could be of Pleistocene age (O’Connor et al. 2010). Four Pleistocene minimum ages from Borneo are associated with hand stencils rather than figures (Plagnes et al. 2003). Most of the 89 Pleistocene dates from France (6 sites: Chauvet, Cosquer, Cougnac, Le Portel, Niaux, Pech-Merle) and Spain (4 sites: Altamira, Candamo, Covaciella, El Castillo) are direct AMS dates for black naturalistic animal figures and are considered reliable, although some from Chauvet have been questioned as to accuracy but generally agreed to be Pleistocene (see Pettitt & Bahn 2003; Pettitt & Pike 2007; Pettitt et al. 2009). These 89 Pleistocene dating results are for 42 paintings, 34 from the French sites listed above and 8 from the Spanish sites. Thus only 42 figures from 10 cave sites in Western Europe have naturalistic animal depictions reliably directly dated to the Pleistocene. This is far less than the impression ones gets from both the popular and scientific literature, although sites with similar images not yet directly dated are potentially Pleistocene.

3. The rise of naturalistic figurative rock art Since the 1800s, when rock art depictions of animals and human-like figures were discovered by people of European descent in various parts of the world (e.g. for Australia see Flinders 1814, Grey 1841, Mathews 1893, 1897; for India see Cockburn 1899, Franke 1902; for Malaysia see Daly 1879), there has been a fascination with naturalistic figurative rock art. This interest continues strongly today with major new discoveries from every part of the globe often receiving much media attention. There are now thousands of books and scientific papers on rock art and most of them have one thing in common: a general acceptance that the greatest rock art imagery, consisting of naturalistic animals and humans, was produced in Europe throughout at least the last 20,000 years of the Pleistocene. Certainly much of this art is enthralling, appealing to a European sense of aesthetics to the present day. But is the European body an exception or a taphonomic anomaly? Because the number of sites in Europe is low compared to other parts of the world, and because of longstanding scientific, government and general public interest, these places have been subject to intense scientific scrutiny for, in some case, over 130 years (e.g. Altamira; see Bahn & Vertut 1997: 14-22) and enormous amounts of funding have been provided for detailed recording and dating. Other significant areas, such as Southern Africa, India and Australia, each with at least 100,000 sites, have seen only a fraction of this funding and scientific effort into the study of their bodies of rock art in comparison. In recent years, there has been much activity focused on attempting to date rock art, as outlined above, and we now have over 682 reliable “dates”, that provide minimum, maximum or direct ages for rock art designs from across the globe. Despite concerns about some dating attempts, the first impression the results give confirms the contention that the oldest naturalistic figurative art can be found in Europe and that it does not appear in most other parts of the world until the Holocene. However, new research in various places, including Timor (as outlined above) and in Australia, India and China (see below), is challenging this idea. An analysis of factors that have influenced differential preservation of rock art across the globe, studies about the history or rock art research in different regions and neuroscience research applied to rock art indicates that humans from Australia to France had the capacity to produce naturalistic

CD-1134 TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C., Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?1135 figurative rock art during the Pleistocene and that we should not be surprised if hard evidence is found to confirm this. 3.1. Differential preservation The biggest difference between the location of surviving rock art of Europe reliably dated to the Pleistocene and that of the rest of the world is that it invariably is found in well protected limestone caves, with some sites such as Cosquer and Chauvet rediscovered as recently as the 1990s (e.g. see Clottes 1998 for a review). Most rock art that has survived in the rest of the world is in exposed shelters or in the open. Consequently, much of the earliest rock art, especially pigmented art, has not survived. This has distorted our perception of world rock art in favour of Europe being the place of the “dawn” of naturalistic figurative art but what the archaeological record has unveiled may be more related to taphonomic processes and the greater investment into rock art research at European sites. For instance, Bednarik (2001a) has shown how taphonomy has affected beeswax rock art dating results and Langley has demonstrated the impact of taphonomy on our perception of Neanderthal symbolic behaviour (Langley et al. 2009), as well as that of the earliest Australians (Langley 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Langley et al. 2011). 3.2. New perspectives from Asia and Australia Bednarik (e.g. 2010a, 2010b) has argued that there is no evidence to support the idea that figurative rock art was produced during the Pleistocene in Australia and that non-figurative art is common instead. He has also argued the same for Asia (Bednarik 1994, 2003). Otte (1997: 20) and Pigeaud (2007) highlight the potential for figurative rock art to have been produced outside Pleistocene Europe. They argue naturalistic art is not exclusive to particular places or times: “formal vignettes… can have emerged in several places at different times” (Pigeaud 2007: 411). In other words, naturalistic figurative traditions can and have been independently invented in different areas and at various times by culturally distinct groups of people living similar, and sometimes different, lifestyles. Evidence from northern Australia and parts of Asia reinforces the view that naturalistic animals and humans, often in outline form, were a key part of early hunter-gatherer rock art across much of the world, without direct connections between them, because these images efficiently conveyed key information of cultural and, presumably adaptive, value (Taçon et al. 2010b; Taçon et al. 2010c). For instance, new research into the rock art of the Kurnool region of south India is tantalizing as there are old naturalistic figures that underlie all subsequent forms and styles of painted rock art (Taçon et al. 2010a, 2010b). These consist of small red wild animals such as deer and gazelle, mostly in outline but occasionally with a light wash of solid infill, and small outline human figures in profile. These figures are very naturalistic and found only at one site, Katavani Kunta 1, a well protected sandstone rock shelter. Chandramouli (2002) and Neumayer (1993) have reported similar art in nearby parts of Andhra Pradesh. There is also a sub or transitional phase with patterned infill added to some figures. This art appears typical of hunter-gatherers. The research program includes attempts to obtain minimum ages for some of these figures using AMS radiocarbon dating, as well as for abstract engravings recently discovered in a limestone cave. Definitive results are still pending. In China, there has been a recent push to date naturalistic figures from the Jinsha River area of northwest Yunnan Province (Taçon et al. 2010c; Taçon et al. 2012).

CD-1135 Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1136

These figures are unlike rock art of any other part of China in terms of style, form and subject matter and lack a resemblance to any other rock art body or province in East Asia, including nearby Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam and other parts of Southeast Asia. Curiously, they resemble Magdalenian art of western Europe more than other forms of prehistoric art. Common subject matter includes various species of deer, wild goat, bison, wild cattle (aurochs), horse and human-like forms, some holding artefacts. Less common subjects include bharal (Himalayan blue sheep), bear, boar, donkey, monkey, snake-like designs, a tapir and a tiger. Sometimes only the heads of animals were depicted, especially deer and goat. Large deer heads consistently lie over smaller naturalistic figures at sites where they co-occur. Animals are shown in a range of poses, from standardised profiles to highly innovative and creative positions. They appear to be running, standing, climbing, leaping either on their own or as part of a group. Some of the human-like figures appear to be falling forward but most are portrayed standing upright. Their condition varies from very poor to fair but a few paintings are relatively well preserved. At many sites they are so faded that they can only be viewed clearly by using digital enhancement techniques. At some sites the rock wall is heavily weathered, cracked and crumbling, with only fragments of some paintings left in situ. In a few locations flowstone covers parts of paintings (Fig. 3), with the potential for dating using Uranium-series and AMS (Taçon et al. 2010c, Taçon et al. 2012).

Fig. 3. Flowstone above and below part of a painting of a large deer head, Yunnan, China, sampled in 2008.

CD-1136 TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C., Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?1137

Some Jinsha River rock art has the potential to have considerable antiquity. Depictions of extinct animals, including bison, various large deer and a tapir also hint at great time depth for some of the art. Current dating results suggest large deer heads date to mid-Holocene, perhaps made by hunters when farming was being adopted at lower altitudes nearby (Taçon et al. 2012). Older animal and human figures lie underneath. Future research will focus on reliably dating these naturalistic figures and testing the hypothesis that some are of Pleistocene age, as this art has more potential to be of Pleistocene age than any other within China. Australia’s Kakadu –Arnhem Land region– is world renowned for magnificent rock art of varying age. Most has been dated to the Holocene, using both direct and indirect methods (e.g. see Chippindale & Taçon 1998) but there are strong arguments to support the contention that some forms date to at least the terminal Pleistocene. For instance, Dynamic Figure paintings are generally agreed to be older than 9,000 years of age (Chaloupka 1993; Lewis 1988) and probably 10,000 years of age or more (Chippindale & Taçon 1998: 107; Flood 1997: 322; Taçon & Brockwell 1995). This age estimate was arrived at on the basis of depicted fauna typical of a long vanished arid environment, analysis of environmental records, direct dating of more recent art and material culture depicted, such as hunting boomerangs believed to have not been used in Arnhem Land for thousands of years (e.g. see Chaloupka 1993: 122-123). Large Naturalistic paintings are thought to be up to 13,000 years of age (Flood 1997: 322-323). This is because they consistently lie underneath Dynamic figures where superimpositions occur and at excavated sites the amount of used ochre suddenly increases from levels dated 13,000 years ago onward (Flood 1997: 322; Jones 1985). Unfortunately, direct dating attempts by Bert Roberts and Alan Watchman are inconclusive, with Dynamic Figures dating to somewhere between 6,000–15,000 years of age. Elsewhere in northern Australia one direct dating attempt suggests some of the Gwion Gwion (Bradshaw) paintings of the Kimberley are at least 17,000 years of age (Roberts et al. 1997) but this needs to be supported by further research. In this regard a new investigation into the age of Gwion Gwion paintings was initiated by Mike Morwood and June Ross in 2009 (Morwood & Ross 2010). 3.3. Neuroscientific studies of rock art In the past decade neuroscientific approaches have increasingly been applied to the study of rock art. In the context of this paper the most revealing finding is that naturalistic figurative art is something all modern human groups have the capacity to produce and that its production has adaptive value. Halverson (1992: 402), for instance, investigated how naturalistic outline drawings might have arisen: “It is of some interest that the earliest two-dimensional depictions known should be outline drawings… They exhibit first of all what appears to be the most fundamental connection between perception and graphic representation, namely line surrogacy, which works, it has been argued, because it engages the same perceptual faculties, and in the same way, as does three-dimensional viewing.” Outline drawings convey an impression of three-dimensional objects in humans because of the way our brain works. In other words, they are ideal two-dimensional shorthand statements for the three-dimensional things they are meant to represent. And they could easily be independently discovered by many groups of people at various times.

CD-1137 Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1138

Watson (2009), has studied this in great detail, concluding that “universal aspects of human visual perception and neurology help to account for (a.) the derivation and persistence of faunal themes in palaeoart, and (b.) common characteristics or similar traits and the depiction of animals in certain ways” (2009: 143). As Watson (2009: 178) also notes “Animals in paleoart of the world are exemplified by their depiction in outline form (otherwise known as contour drawings), and are typically portrayed in profile (lateral) view and as single units” (see also Halverson 1992: 390). Thus aspects of human physiology, perception and shared forms of life style (i.e. hunting) may account for the similarity we see between naturalistic figurative rock art from different parts of the world and different time periods. A further implication of this research is that during the Pleistocene the capacity to produce such art would have existed both within and outside Europe.

Conclusions about the global picture We conclude that the direct dating of rock art is still in its early stages, that results to date have produced a skewed picture of the past and that we are still not in a position to reliably construct let alone compare accurate chronologies from different parts of the globe. This is not to suggest that such comparisons are futile or that they will not be possible in the future. On the contrary, the construction of robust chronologies is a priority for global rock art research. However, current dating methods need to be challenged, refined and cross-checked against each other whenever and wherever possible. New techniques need to be invented and new forms of technology employed. New ways of comparing rock art from one region to another also need to be developed in order to bring rigor and validity to such exercises. Too often in the past regional and global comparisons have focused on a few key elements (e.g. so-called x-ray depictions, naturalistic images, certain aspects of “style”), leading to speculation about the movement of imagery, ideas and people across great expanses of territory, or the interaction of widely separated peoples, that have produced results unsupported by other forms of investigation. In this regard new insights from neuroscience research into rock art could be used as a control in such comparative studies, especially for naturalistic figurative imagery. But what does our current knowledge tell us about the origin and spread of the practice of depicting humans and animals at rock art sites in a naturalistic figurative manner? For decades the majority of researchers have argued that naturalistic figurative imagery first arose in Europe, over 30,000 years ago, and then somehow spread to other parts of the globe. Others contend it arose at different times in different places. Our research suggests that although ancient naturalistic figurative rock art certainly has survived longer in Europe, there are good taphonomic reasons why this is the case. Furthermore, direct and indirect dating from various parts of the world suggests there is some Pleistocene naturalistic figurative rock art in isolated areas (e.g. parts of northern Australia, Timor, possibly northwest Yunnan, China, some parts of India and Africa) but that our knowledge of its age is obscured by our current state of dating technology. Another issue to consider is how and why naturalistic figurative imagery arose in supposedly isolated areas such as Australia at any time? If there was no contact with outsiders until very recently, as archaeological evidence suggests (Mulvaney & Kamminga 1999; Hiscock 2008) it must have been independently invented. This

CD-1138 TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C., Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?1139 supports what neuroscientists have argued, that the potential to produce naturalistic figurative imagery lies within all modern human groups and that this capacity was taken to Australia and other places when modern humans first settled areas outside of Africa. In this context it is important to remember that an absence of evidence (that Pleistocene rock art in many locations simply could not survive) does not mean the practice did not occur. Despite taphonomic processes having a greater impact the further we go back in time, the use of naturalistic figurative imagery increased substantially during the Holocene across the world. Some of this is a reflection of population growth but with great environmental change the usefulness of such imagery as a communication device would certainly be important, if not essential, for survival. Aspects of economy, identity, spirituality, relationships to land, relationships to other creatures and relationships to other human groups would have all changed in extreme ways during the Pleistocene–Holocene transition and beyond. Naturalistic figurative images would have played many roles, mediating and expressing change as well as reaffirming the past in order to assist with decisions about the future. Thus the picture that is emerging is not a simple one. Old naturalistic art has survived best in Europe. Neuroscience tells us all modern human groups had the capacity to produce naturalistic figurative imagery. Taphonomy has affected the survival of old art in detrimental ways outside limestone caves and outside Europe. The state of rock art dating technology in many ways is still experimental and limited. Much interpretation remains speculative. Contrary to Occam’s Razor, and as with many aspects of humanity and human behaviour, the true picture is likely much more complex than we envision. It is predicted that in the next decade new rock art dating studies will start to reveal this complexity, unraveling simple interpretations of the past in the process. They will also highlight the significance of our global rock art archive as a key resource for a scientific understanding of the human past and that the achievements of all human ancestors remain important in the 21st Century.

Acknowledgements We thank Jean Clottes and Robert Bednarik for inviting us to present a paper in their Pleistocene dating session of the 2010 Ifrao Congress. Griffith University and the University of Queensland are thanked for supporting this research. Various and many colleagues who work with us on projects that involve rock art dating in Australia, China, India and elsewhere are also gratefully acknowledged.

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARMITAGE R.A., HYMAN M., SOUTHON J.R., BARAT C., ROWE M.W. 1997. — Rock-art image in Fern Cave, Lava Beds National Monument, California: not the AD 1024 (Crab Nebula) Super-nova. Antiquity, 71, p. 715-719. ARMITAGE R.A., BRADY J.E., COBB A., SOUTHON J.R., ROWE M.W. 2001. — Mass spectrometic radiocarbon dates from three rock painting of known age. American Antiquity, 66 (3), p. 471-480. AUBERT M., O’CONNOR S., MCCULLOCH M., MORTIMER G., WATCHMAN A., RICHER-LAFLÈCHE M. 2007. — Uranium-series dating rock art in East Timor. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, p. 991-996. BEDNARIK R. 1994. — The Pleistocene art of Asia. Journal of World Prehistory, 8 (4), p. 351-375. BEDNARIK R. 1995. — Logic in direct dating of rock art. SAHARA, 7, p. 69-78.

CD-1139 Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1140

BEDNARIK R. 1997. — Direct dating results from rock art: a global review. AURA Newsletter, 14 (2), p. 9-12. BEDNARIK R. 2001a. — The taphonomy of beeswax figures. Rock Art Research, 18 (2), p. 91-95. BEDNARIK R. 2001b. — Rock art science: the scientific study of palaeoart. Turnhout, Brepols. BEDNARIK R. 2002. — The dating of rock art: a critique. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, p. 1213-1233. BEDNARIK R. 2003. — The earliest evidence of palaeoart. Rock Art Research, 20 (2), 89-135. BEDNARIK R. 2010a. — Australian rock art of the Pleistocene. Rock Art Research, 27 (1), p. 95-120. BEDNARIK R. 2010b. — Pleistocene rock art in Australia. Anthropos, 105 (1), p. 3-12. BEDNARIK R. & CHAKRAVARTY K.K. 1997. — Indian rock art and its global context. New Delhi: Shri Jainendra Press. BAHN P. & VERTUT J. 1997. — Journey through the Ice Age. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. CAMPBELL J.B. 2000. — The Chillagoe and Laura laser-AMS dating project. In: WARD G.K. & TUNIZ C. (eds.), Advances in dating Australian rock-markings: papers from the First Australian Rock-Picture Dating Workshop, p. 80-83. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. CAMPBELL J.B., COLE N., HATTE E., TUNIZ C., WATCHMAN A. 1996. — Dating of rock surface accretions with Aboriginal paintings and engravings in North Queensland. In: ULM S., LILLEY I., ROSS A. (eds.), Australian archaeology '95: proceedings of the 1995 Australian Archaeological Association annual conference (Tempus 6), p. 231-239. St. Lucia: University of Queensland. CHAFFEE S.D., HYMAN M., ROWE M.W. 1993. — AMS 14C dating of rock paintings. In: STEINBRING J. & WATCHMAN A. (eds.), Time and Space: Dating Considerations in Rock Art Research, p. 67-73. Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association. (Occasional AURA Publication; 8). CHAFFEE S.D., HYMAN M., ROWE M.W. 1994a. — Radiocarbon dating of rock paintings. In: WHITLEY D. & LOENDORF L.L. (eds.), New light on old art: recent advances in hunter-gatherer rock art, p. 9-12. Los Angeles, CA: University of California, Institute of Archaeology. (Monograph; 36). CHAFFEE S.D., HYMAN M., ROWE M.W. 1994b. — Vandalism of rock art for enhanced photography. Studies in Conservation, 39, p. 161-168. CHAFFEE S.D., HYMAN M., ROWE M.W., COULAM N.J., SCHROEDL A., HOGUE K. 1994c. — Radiocarbon dates on the All American pictograph. American Antiquity, 59, p. 769-781. CHALOUPKA G. 1993. —Journey in time. Sydney: Reed Books. CHANDRAMOULI N. 2002. — Rock art of south India: with special reference to Andhra Pradesh. Delhi: Bharatiya Kala Prakashan. CHIPPINDALE C. & TAÇON P.S.C. 1998. — The many ways of dating Arnhem Land rock art. In: CHIPPINDALE C. & TAÇON P.S.C. (eds.), The archaeology of rock-art, p. 90-111. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CLOTTES J. 1998. — The ‘Three Cs’: fresh avenues towards European Palaeolithic art. In: CHIPPINDALE C. & TAÇON P.S.C. (eds.), The Archaeology of Rock-art, p. 112-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CLOTTES J. 1999a. — The Chauvet Cave dates. In: HARDING A.F. (ed.), Experiment and Design. Archaeological Studies in Honour of John Coles, p. 13-19. Oxford: Oxbow books. CLOTTES J. 1999b. — Twenty thousand years of Palaeolithic cave art in southern France. In: COLES J.M., BEWLEY R., MELLARS P. (eds.), World history: Studies in the memory of Grahame Clark, p. 161-175. Oxford: Oxbow Book. (Proceedings of the British Academy; 99). CLOTTES J., COURTIN J., VALLADAS H. 1992. — A well-dated Palaeolithic cave: the Cosquer Cave at Marseille. Rock Art Research, 9 (2), p. 122-129. CLOTTES J., CHAUVET J.-M., BRUNEL-DESCHAMPS É., HILLAIRE C., DAUGAS J.-P., ARNOLD M., CACHIER H., ÉVIN J., FORTIN P., OBERLIN C., TISNERAT N., VALLADAS H. 1995. — Les peintures paléolithiques de la grotte Chauvet- Pont d’Arc, à Vallon-Pont-d’Arc (Ardèche, France): Datations directes et indirectes par la méthode du radiocarbone. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, 320, p. 1133-1140. CLOTTES J., COURTIN J., VALLADAS H. 1996. — New direct dates for the Cosquer CAVE. International Newsletter on Rock Art [Inora], 15, p. 2-4. CLOTTES J., COURTIN J., COLLINA-GIRARD J., ARNOLD M., VALLADAS H. 1997. — News from Cosquer Cave: climatic studies, recording, sampling, dates. Antiquity, 71, p. 321-326. COCKBURN J. 1899. — Cave drawings in the Kaimur range, Northwest Provinces. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, p. 89-97. CRUZ D.J. 1995a. — Cronologia dos monumentos con tumulus do Noroeste e da Beira Alta. Estudos Pre-Historicos, 3, p. 81-119. CRUZ D.J. 1995b. — Dolmen de Antelas. Un sepulcro-templo do Neolitico Final. Estudos Pre-historicos, 3, p. 263-264.

CD-1140 TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C., Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?1141

DALY D.D. 1879. — Caves at Sungei Batu in Selangor. Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, 3, p. 116- 119. DAVID B. 2002. — Landscapes, Rock-Art and the Dreaming: An Archaeology of Preunderstanding. London: Leicester University Press. DAVID B., ROWE M., TUNIZ C., HEAD J. 1994. — Dating charcoal paintings and drawings from Chillagoe: current research. Rock Art Research, 11 (2), p. 127-128. DAVIDSON I. 1997. — The power of pictures. In: CONKEY M., SOFFER O., STRATMANN D., JABLONSKI N.G. (eds.), Beyond art: Pleistocene image and symbol, p.125-159. San Francisco, CA: University of California Press. (Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences; 23). DIAZ-GRANDOS C., ROWE M.W., HYMAN M., DUNCAN J., SOUTHON J.R. 2001. — AMS radiocarbon dates for charcoal from three Missouri pictographs and their associated iconography. American Antiquity, 66 (3), p. 481-492. DORN R. 1996a. — A change of perception. La Pintura, 23 (2), p. 10-11. DORN R. 1996b. — Uncertainties in 14C ages for petroglyphs from the Olary province, South Australia. Archaeology in Oceania, 31, p. 214-215. DORN R.I. 1997. — Constraining the age of the Côa valley (Portugal) engravings with radiocarbon dating. Antiquity, 71, p. 105-115. FLINDERS M. 1814. — A voyage to Terra Australis. London: G. and W. Nicol, 2 vol. FLOOD J. 1997. — Rock art of the Dreamtime. Sydney: Angus and Robertson. FORTEA J. 2000. — Los comienzos del Arte Paleolitico en Asturias: aportaciones desde una arqueologia contextual no postestilistica. Zephyrus, 53-54, p. 177-216. FRANCIS J.E., LOENDORF L.L., DORN R.I. 1993. — AMS radiocarbon and cation-ratio dating of rock art in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming and Montana. American Antiquity, 58 (4), p. 711-737. FRANKE A.H. 1902. — Notes on rock carvings from Lower Ladakh. The Indian Antiquary, 31, p. 398-401. GEIB P.R. & FAIRLEY H.C. 1992. Radiocarbon dating of Fremont anthropomorphic rock art in Glen Canyon, South-Central Utah. Journal of Field Archaeology, 19, p. 155-168. GREY G. 1841. — Journals of two expeditions of discovery in north-west and western Australia during the years 1837, 38, and 39. London: T. & W. Boone, 2 vol. HALVERSON J. 1992. — The first pictures: perceptual foundations of Paleolithic art. Perception, 21, p. 389-404. HISCOCK P. 2008. — Archaeology of ancient Australia. London: Routledge. HUYGE D., WATCHMAN A., DE DAPPER M., MARCHI E. 2001. — Dating Egypt's oldest 'art': AMS (14)C age determinations of rock varnishes covering petroglyphs at El-Hosh (Upper Egypt). Antiquity, 75, p. 68-72. ILGER W., DAUVOIS M., HYMAN M., MENU M., ROWE M., VÉZIAN J., WALTER P. 1994. — Datation radiocarbone de deux figures pariétales de la grotte du Portel (Commune de Loubens, Ariège). Préhistoire ariégeoise, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, XLIX, p. 231-236. ILGER W.A., HYMAN M., ROWE M.W. 1995. — Dating pictographs with radiocarbon. Radiocarbon, 37, p. 299-310. JONES R. (ed.). 1985. — Archaeological research in Kakadu National Park. Canberra: Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. (Special Publication; 13). LANGLEY M.C. 2009a. — Material culture and behaviour in Pleistocene Sahul: examining the archaeological representation of Pleistocene behavioural modernity in Sahul. Brisbane: The University of Queensland. (Unpublished MPhil thesis). LANGLEY M.C. 2009b. — Behavioural modernity in Sahul’s Pleistocene archaeological record: taphonomy, archaeological sampling and previous hypotheses. Paper presented to the Australian Archaeological Association Annual Conference, Adelaide, Australia, December 2009. LANGLEY M.C. 2009c. — Behavioural modernity in Sahul’s Pleistocene archaeological record: taphonomy, archaeological sampling and previous hypotheses. Paper presented to the 19th Annual Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Conference, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 2009. LANGLEY M.C. & TAÇON P.S.C. 2010. — The age of Australian rock art: a review. Australian Archaeology, 71, p. 70-73 LANGLEY M.C., CLARKSON C., ULM S. 2008. — Behavioural complexity in Eurasian Neanderthal populations: a chronological examination of the archaeological evidence. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 18 (3), p. 289-307. LANGLEY M. C., CLARKSON C., ULM S. 2011. — From small holes to grand narratives: The impact of taphonomy and sample size on the modernity debate in Australia and New Guinea. Journal of Human Evolution, 61 (2), p. 197-208. LEWIS D.J. 1977. — More striped designs in Arnhem Land rock paintings. Archaeology and Physical Anthropology in Oceania, 12 (2), p. 98-111.

CD-1141 Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1142

LORBLANCHET M., LABEAU M., VERNET J.-L., FITTE P., VALLADAS H., CACHIER H., ARNOLD M. 1990. — Palaeolithic pigments in the Quercy, France. Rock Art Research, 7 (1), p. 4-20. LORBLANCHET M., CACHIER H., VALLADAS H. 1995. — Datation des chevaux ponctués du Pech-Merle. International Newsletter on Rock Art [Inora], 12, p. 2-3. LOY T.H., JONES R., NELSON D.E., 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, p. 110- 116. MATHEWS R.H. 1893. — Rock paintings by the Aborigines in caves ob Bulgar Creek, near Singleton. Journal of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 27, p. 353-358. MATHEWS R.H. 1897. — Rock carvings and paintings of the Australian Aborigines. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 36, p. 466-77. MAZEL A.D. & WATCHMAN A.L. 1997. — Accelerator radiocarbon dating of Natal Drakensberg paintings: Results and implications. Antiquity, 71, p. 445-449. MAZEL A.D. & WATCHMAN A.L. 2003. — The dating of rock paintings in the Natal Drakensberg and the Biggarsberg, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Southern African Humanities, 15, p. 59-73. MORI F., PONTI R., MESSINA A., FLIEGER M., HAVLICEK V., SINIBALDI M. 2006. — Chemical characterization and AMS radiocarbon dating of the binder of a prehistoric rock pictograph at Tadrart Acacus, southern west Libya. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 7 (4), p. 344-349. MORWOOD M. & ROSS J. 2010. — Change and continuity: Pleistocene art in the north Kimberley, northwest Australia. Paper presented in Congrès de l’Ifrao, Tarascon-sur-Ariège, 6-11 Sept. 2010, symposium “Pleistocene art of Australia”. MULVANEY J. & KAMMINGA J. — 1999. Prehistory of Australia. St. Leonards: Allen and Unwin. NELSON D.E. 1993. — Second thoughts on a rock-art date. Antiquity, 67, p. 893-895. NELSON D.E. (ed.) 2000. — The beeswax art of northern Australia. Burnaby, Canada: Simon Fraser University. Compact disc. NEUMAYER E. 1993. — Lines on stone: the prehistoric rock art of India. New Delhi: Manohar. O'CONNOR S. & FANKHAUSER B. 2001. — Art at 40,000 BP? One step closer: an ochre covered rock from Carpenter's Gap Shelter 1, Kimberley Region, Western Australia. In: ANDERSON A., LILLEY I., O'CONNOR S. (eds.), Histories of old ages: essays in honour of Rhys Jones, p. 287-300. Canberra: Pandanus Books. O’CONNOR S., ALPIN K., ST. PIERRE E., YUE-ING F. 2010. — Faces of the ancestors revealed: discovery and dating of Pleistocene-aged petroglyphs in Lene Hara Cave, East Timor. Antiquity, 84 (325), p. 649-665. OTTE M. 1997. — Constitution d’une grammaire plastique préhistorique. L’Anthropologie, 101, p. 5-23. PETTITT P. & BAHN P. 2003. — Current problems in dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet. Antiquity, 77, p. 134-141. PETTITT P. & PIKE A. 2007. — Dating European Palaeolithic cave art: progress, prospects, problems. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 14 (1), p. 27-47. PETTITT P., BAHN, P., ZÜCHNER C. 2009. — The Chauvet conundrum: are claims for the ‘birthplace of art’ premature? In: BAHN P.G. (ed.), An enquiring mind: studies in honour of Alexander Marshack, p. 253-278. Oxford: Oxbow Books. PIGEAUD R. 2007. — Determining style in Palaeolithic cave art: a new method derived from horse images. Antiquity, 81 (312), p. 409-422. PLAGNES V., CAUSSE C., FONTUGNE M., VALLADAS H., CHAZINE J.-M., FAGE L.-H. 2003 — Cross dating (Th/U-14C) of calcite covering prehistoric paintings in Borneo. Quaternary Research, 60 (20), p. 172-179. POLACH H., GOLSON J., LOVERING J.F., STIPP J.J. 1968. — ANU radiocarbon date list II. Radiocarbon, 10, p. 179-199. ROBERTS R., WALSH G.L., MURRAY A., OLLEY J., JONES R., MORWOOD M.J., TUNIZ C., LAWSON E., MACPHAIL M., BOWDERY D., NAUMANN I. 1997. — Luminescence dating of rock art and past environments using mud-wasp nests in northern Australia. Nature, 387, p. 696-699. ROWE M.W. 2000. — Dating by AMS radiocarbon analysis. In: WHITLEY D. (ed.), Handbook of rock art research, p. 139- 166. Walnut Creek, AltaMira Press. ROWE M.W. & STEELMAN K.L. 2003. — Comment on "Some evidence of a date of first humans to arrive in Brazil". Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, p. 1349-1351. RUSS J., HYMAN M., ROWE M. 1992. — Direct radiocarbon dating of rock art. Radiocarbon, 34 (3), p. 867-872. RUSS J., HYMAN M., SHAFER H.J., ROWE M.W. 1990. — Radiocarbon dating of prehistoric rock paintings by selective oxidation of organic carbon. Nature, 348, p. 710-711.

CD-1142 TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C., Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?1143

RUSS J., HYMAN M., SHAFER H.J., ROWE M.W. 1991. — 14C dating of ancient rock art: a new application of plasma chemistry. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing, 11 (4), p. 515-527. RUTHERFORD A.A., WITTENBERG J., WILMETH R. 1981. — University of Saskatchewan radiocarbon dates IX. Radiocarbon, 23 (1), p. 94-135. SAND C., VALLADAS H., CACHIER H., TISNERAT-LABORDE N., ARNOLD M., BOLE J., OUETCHO A. 2006. — Oceanic rock art: first direct dating of prehistoric stencils and paintings from New Caledonia (Southern Melanesia). Antiquity, 80, p. 523-529. STEELMAN K.L., RICKMAN R., ROWE M.W., BOUTTON T.W., RUSS J., GUIDON N. 2002a. — AMS radiocarbon ages for an oxalate accretion and rock paintings at Toca do Serrote da Bastiana, Brazil. In: JAKES K. (ed.), Archaeological Chemistry, p. 22-35. Washington: American Chemical Society. STEELMAN K.L, ROWE M.W., BOUTTON T.W., SOUTHON J.R., MERRELL C.L., HILL R.D. 2002b. — Stable isotope and radiocarbon analyses of a black deposit associated with pictographs at Little Lost River Cave, Idaho. Journal of Archaeological Science, 29, p. 1189-1198. STEELMAN K.L, ROWE M.W., SHIROKOV V.N., SOUTHON J.R. 2002c. — Radiocarbon dates for pictographs in Ignatievskaya Cave, Russia: Holocene age for supposed Pleistocene fauna. Antiquity, 76, p. 341-348. STEELMAN K.L., CARRERA RAMIREZ F., FABREGAS VALCARCE R., GUILDERSON T., ROWE M.W. 2005. — Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia. Antiquity, 79, p. 379-389. TAÇON P.S.C. & BROCKWELL S. 1995. — Arnhem Land prehistory in landscape, stone and paint. Antiquity, 69 (259), p. 676-695. TAÇON P.S.C. & CHIPPINDALE C. 1998. — An archaeology of rock-art through informed methods and formal methods. In: CHIPPINDALE C. & TACON P.S.C. (eds.), The Archaeology of Rock-art, p.1-10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. TAÇON P.S.C., NELSON E., CHIPPINDALE C., CHALOUPKA G. 2004. — The beeswax rock art of the Northern Territory: direct dating results and a ‘book of record’. Rock Art Research, 21 (2), p. 155-160. TAÇON P.S.C., BOIVIN N., BLINKHORN J., HAMPSON J. 2010a. — Kurnool region rock art: from the Pleistocene to the present. Paper presented at The Toba super-eruption; a critical moment in human evolution? A Leverhulme Trust Conference. School of Archaeology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 21 February 2010. TAÇON P.S.C., BOIVIN N., HAMPSON J., BLINKHORN J., KORISETTAR R. & PETRAGLIA M. 2010b. — New rock art discoveries in the Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Antiquity, 84, p. 335-350. TAÇON P.S.C., LI G., YANG D., MAY S.K., LIU H., AUBERT M., JI X., CURNOE D., HERRIES A.I.R. 2010c. — Naturalism, Nature and Questions of Style in Jinsha River Rock Art, Northwest Yunnan, China. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, 20 (1), p. 67-86. TAÇON P.S.C., AUBERT M., GANG L., YANG D., LIU H., MAY S.K., FALLON S., XUEPING J., CURNOE D., HERRIES A.I.R. 2012. — Uranium-series age estimates for rock art in southwest China. Journal of Archaeological Science, 39 (2), p. 492-499. VALLADAS H., CACHIER H., ARNOLD M. 1990. — AMS C-14 dates for the prehistoric Cougnac Cave paintings and related bone remains. Rock Art Research, 7, p. 18-19. VALLADAS H., CACHIER H., MAURICE P., BERNALDO DE QUIROS F., CLOTTES J., CABRERA VALDÉS V., UZQUIANO P., ARNOLD M. 1992. — Direct radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves. Nature, 357, p. 68-70. VALLADAS H., TISNERAT N., CACHIER H., ARNOLD M., BERNALDO DE QUIROS F., CABRERA VALDÉS V., CLOTTES J., COURTIN J., FORTEA-PEREZ J.J, GONZALES-SAINZ C., MOURE-ROMANILLO A. 2001a. — Radiocarbon AMS dates for paleolithic cave paintings. Radiocarbon, 43 (2B), p. 977-986. VALLADAS H., TISNERAT N., ARNOLD M., ÉVIN, J., OBERLIN C. 2001b. — Les dates des frequentations. In: CLOTTES J. (dir.), La grotte Chauvet. L'art des origines, p. 32-34. Paris, Éditions du Seuil. VON WERLHOF J., CASEY H., DORN R.I., JONES G.A. 1995. — AMS 14C age constraints on geoglyphs in the Lower Colorado River region, Arizona and California. Geoarchaeology, 10 (4), p. 257-273. WATANABE S., AYTA W.E.F., HAMAGUCHI H., GUIDON N., LA SALVIA E.S., MARANCA S., BAFFA FILHO O. 2003. — Some evidence of a date of first humans to arrive in Brazil. Journal of Archaeological Science, 30, p. 351-354. WATCHMAN A. 1987. — Preliminary determinations of the age and composition on mineral salts on rock art surfaces in the Kakadu National Park. In: AMBROSE W.R. & MUMMERY J.M.J. (eds.), Archaeometry: Further Australasian Studies, p. 36-42. Canberra: The Australian National University, Department of Prehistory. (Research School of Pacific Studies). WATCHMAN A. 1995. — Recent petroglyphs, Foz Côa, Portugal. Rock Art Research, 12 (2), p. 104-108. WATSON B. 2009. — Universal visions: neuroscience and recurrent characteristics of world palaeoart. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne. (Unpublished PhD thesis).

CD-1143 Symposium Datation et taphonomie 1144

WILSON M., SPRIGGS M., LAWSON E. 2001. — Dating the rock art of Vanuatu: AMS radiocarbon determinations from abandoned mud-wasp nests and charcoal pigment found in superimposition. Rock Art Research, 18, p. 24-32.

Quote this article TAÇON P.S.C. & LANGLEY M.C. 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In: CLOTTES J. (dir.), L’art pléistocène dans le monde / Pleistocene art of the world / Arte pleistoceno en el mundo, Actes du Congrès IFRAO, Tarascon-sur-Ariège, septembre 2010, Symposium « Datation et taphonomie de l’art pléistocène ». N° spécial de Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, LXV-LXVI, 2010-2011, CD: p. 1129-1155.

CD-1144 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs 24CB602 Montana, USA engraving en toto style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6544 AMS rock varnish 1250 65 1 Francis et al. 1993 24CB1090 Montana, USA engraving en toto style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6539 AMS rock varnish 1470 75 1 Francis et al. 1993 48HO469 Wyoming, USA engraving dinwoody style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6545 AMS rock varnish 225 60 1 Francis et al. 1993 48HO4 Wyoming, USA engraving dinwoody style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6536 AMS rock varnish 5775 80 1 Francis et al. 1993 48FR372 Wyoming, USA engraving dinwoody style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6538 AMS rock varnish 1820 65 1 Francis et al. 1993 must be treated with caution - may have been 48BH499 Wyoming, USA engraving unspecified min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6541 AMS rock varnish 325 70 1 Francis et al. 1993 containminated in historical times Abu Tanqurah Bahari, El-Hosh, Egypt engraving panel 1, 'Fish Trap' motif min age rock varnish covering motif sampled CAMS 57553 AMS rock varnish 6690 270 1 Huyge et al. 2001 Locality 2 Abu Tanqurah Bahari, El-Hosh, Egypt engraving panel 1, 'Fish Trap' motif min age rock varnish covering motif sampled CAMS 60893 AMS rock varnish 3740 300 1 Huyge et al. 2001 Locality 7 Abu Tanqurah Bahari, El-Hosh, Egypt engraving panel 3, 'Fish Trap' motif min age rock varnish covering motif sampled CAMS 60891 AMS rock varnish 2280 320 1 Huyge et al. 2001 Locality 3 Chaffee et al. 1994c; Ilger et al. all american man pictograph (red, direct charcoal in pigment sampled AA 8359 AMS charcoal 753 57 2 All-American Man site 1995 Utah, USA painting white and blue man with decorated (42SA1614) Chaffee et al. 1994c; Ilger et al. shield) direct charcoal in pigment sampled AA 8361 AMS charcoal 575 68 2 1995 Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 91181 AMS charcoal 14330 190 3 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a large polychrome bison XXXIII direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96071 AMS charcoal 14820 130 1 Valladas et al. 2001a facing right Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct humic fraction Gif A 91330 AMS charcoal 14250 180 3 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 91179 AMS charcoal 13940 170 3 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a large polychrome bison XXXVI Altamira Spain painting direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96060 AMS charcoal 14800 150 1 Valladas et al. 2001a facing left Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct humic fraction Gif A 91254 AMS charcoal 14710 200 3 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 91178 AMS charcoal 13570 190 3 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a small black bison XLIV facing left direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96067 AMS charcoal 13130 120 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct humic fraction Gif A 91249 AMS charcoal 14410 200 3 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a megalith with art - paint sampled Anta de Serramo Spain painting direct paint sampled CAMS 88195 AMS charcoal 6050 110 1 Steelman et al. 2005 outlying date (authors) from lower part of upright C1 Cruz 1995a,b; Steelman et al. Antelas Viseu, Portugal painting black-painted tomb panel in corridor direct charcoal in pigment sampled OxA 5433 AMS charcoal 4655 65 3 2005 Barnes South Africa painting red paint min age encrustation over paint N/A AMS encrustation 1060 65 1 Mazel & Watchman 2003 Bear Shield Wyoming, USA engraving en toto style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6543 AMS rock varnish 1595 60 1 Francis et al. 1993 brown goat-like motif min age silica films CAMS n/a AMS silica 2680 90 1 Watchman 1995 panel sample - brown min age silica films CAMS 20757 AMS silica 2830 110 1 Watchman 1995 panel sample - grey- white silica min age silica films CAMS 20759 AMS silica 1460 80 1 Watchman 1995 panel sample - silt from joint in min age silica films CAMS 21105 AMS silica modern 1 Watchman 1995 schist Insufficient graphite for brown horse-like motif min age silica films CAMS 20758 AMS silica NA 1 Watchman 1995 analysis panel surface - Within overlying Canada do Inferno, Coa min age silica films Beta 82450 AMS silica 4700 70 1 Dorn 1997 Portugal engraving rock coating Valley panel surface - Exposed min age silica films Beta 82451 AMS silica 9400 60 1 Dorn 1997 weathering rind panel surface - Exposed, at the min age silica films Beta 87058 AMS silica 18510 80 1 Dorn 1997 interface between rind and coating left-orientated ox motif min age silica films Beta 82449 AMS silica 3700 60 1 Dorn 1997 min age silica films Beta 82452 AMS silica 4350 60 1 Dorn 1997 upper horse motif min age silica films Beta 82453 AMS silica 4590 50 1 Dorn 1997 min age silica films Beta 87060 AMS silica 3980 60 1 Dorn 1997

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1145 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs Uncertain if Geochron or direct charcoal in pigment sampled GifA 96138 AMS charcoal 32310 690 2 Fortea 2000; Pettitt & Bahn 2003 LSCE results are correct Uncertain if Geochron or two black dots, one from the head direct charcoal in pigment sampled GifA 98201 AMS charcoal 33910 840 2 Fortea 2000; Pettitt & Bahn 2003 LSCE results are correct Candamo, Asturias Spain painting of bull 15, another from just right of Uncertain if Geochron or the tail of bull 16 direct charcoal in pigment sampled GX 27841 AMS charcoal 15160 0 2 Fortea 2000; Pettitt & Bahn 2003 LSCE results are correct Uncertain if Geochron or direct charcoal in pigment sampled GX 27842 AMS charcoal 15870 90 2 Fortea 2000; Pettitt & Bahn 2003 LSCE results are correct megalith with art - paint sampled Casota do Paramo Spain painting direct black pigment sampled CAMS 77427 AMS charcoal 4740 120 1 Steelman et al. 2005 from left side of chamber Ceremonial Cave (site panel 1- anthropomorph figure with 42KA2739), Glen Utah, USA painting direct charcoal in pigment sampled AA 5223 AMS charcoal 675 55 1 Geib & Fairly 1992 horns and upper headdress band Canyon unspecified N/A N/A AA 9466 N/A N/A 11600 150 1 Clottes 1999a Clottes 1999a; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95132 AMS charcoal 32410 720 2 right rhinoceros 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95133 AMS charcoal 30790 600 1 Valladas et al. 2001a left rhinoceros direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95126 AMS charcoal 30940 610 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95128 AMS charcoal 30340 570 1 Valladas et al. 2001a bison direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95155 AMS charcoal 30800 1500 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Clottes 1998, 1999; Valladas et direct charcoal in scraping sampled Gif A 95129 AMS charcoal 26980 410 3 al. 2001a torch scraping 1 Clottes 1998, 1999; Valladas et direct charcoal in scraping sampled Gif A 95130 AMS charcoal 26980 420 3 al. 2001a direct charcoal in scraping sampled Gif A 95158 AMS charcoal 25700 850 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Chauvet France painting Clottes 1998, 1999; Valladas et torch scraping 2 direct charcoal in scraping sampled Gif A 95127 AMS charcoal 26100 400 3 al. 2001a charcoal on ground of cave with Clottes 1999; Valladas et al. direct charcoal found on floor of cave sampled Ly 6878 AMS charcoal 29000 400 2 paintings 2001a charcoal on ground of cave with direct charcoal found on floor of cave sampled Ly 118/Oxa AMS charcoal 24770 780 1 Valladas et al. 2001a paintings charcoal on ground of cave with direct charcoal found on floor of cave sampled Ly 6879 AMS charcoal 22800 400 1 Valladas et al. 2001a paintings Pettitt & Bahn 2003; Valladas et direct charcoal in pigment sampled GifA 98157 AMS charcoal 20790 340 2 al. 2001b black horse figure humic Pettitt & Bahn 2003; Valladas et direct charcoal in pigment sampled GifA 98160 AMS 29670 950 2 fraction al. 2001b Not considered reliable by authors owing to uncertainins Clarke's, Natal over the origin of the South Africa painting cream eland motif direct plant fibres in pigment sampled OZB 13OU AMS plant fibres 420 340 1 Mazel & Watchman 1997 Drakensberg carbonate, possible presence of contaiminants and the very small sample size. Coal Draw Wyoming, USA engraving dinwoody style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6535 AMS rock varnish 325 70 1 Francis et al. 1993 Clottes 1999b; Clottes et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92409 AMS charcoal 27110 390 3 1992; Davidson 1997 black hand stencil no. MR7 Clottes 1999b; Clottes et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92491 AMS charcoal 27110 350 3 1992; Davidson 1997 black hand stencil no. MR7 direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92424 AMS charcoal 26180 370 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Clottes 1998, 1999b; Clottes et direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95358 AMS charcoal 24840 340 4 al. 1997; Valladas et al. 2001a hand stencil no.12 Cosquer Cave, Marseille France painting humic Clottes et al. 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95372 AMS 23150 620 2 fraction 2001a Clottes 1999b; Clottes et al. hand stencil no.19 direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96073 AMS charcoal 27740 410 3 1997; Valladas et al. 2001a Clottes et al. 1997; Valladas et al. oval mark direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96074 AMS charcoal 28370 440 2 2001a Clottes 1999b; Clottes et al. painted feline head direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92418 AMS charcoal 19200 220 3 1992; Davidson 1997

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1146 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs Clottes et al. 1992a; Davidson direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92417 AMS charcoal 18820 310 4 1997; Pettitt & Bahn 2003; Valladas et al. 2001a Clottes et al. 1992a; Davidson painted horse direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92416 AMS charcoal 18840 240 4 1997; Pettitt & Bahn 2003; Valladas et al. 2001a Pettitt & Bahn 2003; Valladas et direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92422 AMS charcoal 18760 220 2 al. 2001a Clottes et al. 1992a; Davidson direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92419 AMS charcoal 18010 190 3 1997; Pettitt & Bahn 2003 painted bison direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92492 AMS charcoal 18530 180 1 Clottes et al. 1992a Pettitt & Bahn 2003; Valladas et direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92423 AMS charcoal 16390 260 2 al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 91419 AMS charcoal 18010 190 1 Clottes 1998 direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 92492 AMS charcoal 18530 180 2 Clottes 1998; Davidson 1997 Clottes et al. 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96069 AMS charcoal 26250 350 2 2001a bison 2 Clottes et al. 1997; Clottes, Cosquer Cave, Marseille France painting direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95195 AMS charcoal 27350 430 3 Courtin & Valladas 1996; Valladas et al. 2001a humic Clottes 1998; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95308 AMS 23080 640 2 fraction 2001a Clottes 1998; Clottes et al. 1997; direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95135 AMS charcoal 19340 200 3 megaceros 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95365 AMS charcoal 13460 330 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 98186 AMS charcoal 19720 210 1 Valladas et al. 2001a horse 7 direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 98186 AMS charcoal 19740 340 1 Valladas et al. 2001a deer direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 98188 AMS charcoal 19290 340 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Clottes et al. 1997; Valladas et al. star shape mark direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96075 AMS charcoal 17800 160 2 2001a Clottes et al. 1997; Valladas et al. horse 5 direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96072 AMS charcoal 24730 300 2 2001a sample largely composed of manganes with very litte charcoal/manganese in pigment jellyfish' shape direct Gif A 96101 AMS charcoal 14050 180 1 Clottes et al. 1997 carbon; thus this date is sampled considered less reliable by authors caution suggested by authors direct paint sampled CAMS 83116 AMS charcoal 3830 60 1 Steelman et al. 2005 for this date Coto dos Mouros Spain painting megalith with art - unspecified caution suggested by authors direct paint sampled CAMS 83631 AMS charcoal 5540 70 1 Steelman et al. 2005 for this date Davidson 1997; Lorblanchet et al. black dot near megaloceros image direct charcoal in pigment on panel sampled Gif A 89250 AMS charcoal 14300 180 3 1990; Valladas et al. 1990 on pavel VIII Gif A 92500 AMS 13810 210 1 Davidson 1997 Cougnac Cave, France painting Gif A 91183 AMS 23615 351 1 Davidson 1997 Payrignac, Lot male Megaceros Gif A 92426 AMS 22750 390 1 Davidson 1997 Gif A 91324 AMS 19498 267 1 Davidson 1997 female Megaceros Gif A 92325 AMS 25120 390 1 Davidson 1997 female bison (25) painted in black direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95281 AMS charcoal 14060 140 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Covaciella Cave Spain painting male bison (26) painted in black direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95370 AMS charcoal 13700 140 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Authors view dates with pictograph no. 2 direct black pigment sampled AA 9226 AMS N/A 295 115 1 Ilger et al. 1995 'skepticism' pictograph no. 6 - anthropomorphic Authors view dates with Cueva del Raton Mexico painting direct red pigment sampled AA 9234 AMS N/A 1325 125 1 Ilger et al. 1995 figure with schematized features 'skepticism' Authors view dates with background direct N/A CAMS 14091 AMS N/A 3490 60 1 Ilger et al. 1995 'skepticism'

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1147 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96079 AMS charcoal 12620 110 1 Valladas et al. 2001a bicoloured bison facing right 18a Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. with negative hand print and 2 direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 91004 AMS charcoal 13060 200 3 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a unspecified animals direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96068 AMS charcoal 13520 130 1 Valladas et al. 2001a bicoloured bison facing right 18b Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 91172 AMS charcoal 12910 180 3 with 4 human hand imprints 1992; Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95136 AMS charcoal 10510 100 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95146 AMS charcoal 11270 80 1 Valladas et al. 2001a El Castillo Spain painting bicoloured bison 18c direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96077 AMS charcoal 10720 100 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 96078 AMS charcoal 10740 100 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95375 AMS charcoal 12390 190 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95227 AMS charcoal 13520 120 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 95226 AMS charcoal 13570 130 1 Valladas et al. 2001a black bison 19 direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 98152 AMS charcoal 13710 140 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 98151 AMS charcoal 14090 150 1 Valladas et al. 2001a direct charcoal in pigment sampled Gif A 98159 AMS charcoal 13510 190 1 Valladas et al. 2001a Chaffee et al. 1994b; Ilger et al. Elk Creek Cave Montana, USA painting pictograph no. 24BH501 direct N/A AA 8843 AMS N/A 840 50 2 1995 Esikolweni, Natal South Africa painting orange eland motif direct plant fibres in pigment sampled OZB 127U AMS plant fibres 330 90 1 Mazel & Watchman 1997 Drakensberg lower circle - below crescent direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 27229 AMS charcoal 840 70 1 Armitage et al. 1997 upper circle - above crescent direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 27860 AMS charcoal 230 70 1 Armitage et al. 1997 Fern Cave California, USA painting charcoal - downward pointing direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 27861 AMS charcoal 330 50 1 Armitage et al. 1997 crescent round stencil direct charcoal pigment sampled GifA 100642 AMS charcoal 1110 70 1 Sand et al. 2006 black painted bird direct charcoal pigment sampled GifA 100643 AMS charcoal 1770 70 1 Sand et al. 2006 hand stencil direct charcoal pigment sampled GifA 100644 AMS charcoal 2590 60 1 Sand et al. 2006 Fetra-He, Lifou New Caledonia painting hand stencil direct charcoal pigment sampled GifA 100648 AMS charcoal 2400 60 1 Sand et al. 2006 hand stencil direct charcoal pigment sampled GifA 100646 AMS charcoal 2490 60 1 Sand et al. 2006 hand stencil direct charcoal pigment sampled GifA 102577 AMS charcoal 2500 70 1 Sand et al. 2006 hand stencil direct charcoal pigment sampled GifA 102578 AMS charcoal 2490 70 1 Sand et al. 2006 megalith with art - red and black Forno dos Mouros Spain painting horizontal zigzag painting on C1 direct black pigment sampled CAMS 80501 AMS charcoal 4900 60 1 Steelman et al. 2005 upright Gebelet Jussef, El-Hosh, Egypt engraving panel 1, Fish trap motif min age rock varnish covering motif sampled CAMS 60892 AMS rock varnish 2450 320 1 Huyge et al. 2001 Locality 2 Great Gallery, Chaffee, Hyman& Rowe 1994a; Utah, USA painting pictograph no. 42WN318-3a direct N/A AA 8747 AMS N/A 32900 900 2 Horseshoe Canyong Ilger et al. 1995 min age calcite sampled Bor 5 Useries calcite 9870 60 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 min age calcite sampled Bor 7A Useries calcite 12560 130 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 min age calcite sampled Bor 7B Useries calcite 12490 160 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 red hand stencil and possible min age calcite sampled Bor 7C Useries calcite 13200 90 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 Gua Saleh Cave Borneo painting second red hand stencil min age calcite sampled Bor 2 Useries calcite 27320 210 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 min age calcite sampled Bor 5 AMS carbon 9010 90 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 min age calcite sampled Bor 7A AMS carbon 8675 90 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 min age calcite sampled Bor 2 AMS carbon 9010 100 1 Plagnes et al. 2003 red hartebeest max age encrustation under paint N/A AMS encrustation 2310 70 1 Mazel & Watchman 2003 Highmoor 1 South Africa painting red eland max age accretion under paint N/A AMS accretion 2770 75 1 Mazel & Watchman 2003 black hand stencil direct black pigment sampled OZD 528 AMS charcoal modern 1 Wilson et al. 2001 black hand stencil direct black pigment sampled OZD 529 AMS charcoal modern 1 Wilson et al. 2001 black hand stencil direct black pigment sampled OZD 525 AMS charcoal 110 50 1 Wilson et al. 2001 Hopnarop Vanuatu painting black hand stencil direct black pigment sampled OZD 526 AMS charcoal 70 45 1 Wilson et al. 2001 black hand stencil direct black pigment sampled OZD 524 AMS charcoal modern 1 Wilson et al. 2001 black hand stencil direct black pigment sampled OZD 527 AMS charcoal n/a 1 Wilson et al. 2001 mammoth (black pigment) direct black pigment sampled CAMS 56586 AMS charcoal 7370 50 1 Steelman et al. 2002c Ignatievskaya Cave Russia painting radiating lines (black pigment) direct black pigment sampled CAMS 56271 AMS charcoal 7920 60 1 Steelman et al. 2002c lines (black pigment) direct black pigment sampled CAMS 67688 AMS charcoal 6030 100 1 Steelman et al. 2002c red and yellow coloured animals, Lancusi rock shelter, with long shaped horns, probably unspec. Libya painting direct organic matter in binding medium N/A AMS 6145 70 1 Mori et al. 2006 Tadrart Acacus cows or gazelles - attributed to Organic Pastoral phase.

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1148 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs pecked anthropomorphic figure with charcoal buried in stratigraphic section min age N/A N/A charcoal 1920 140 1 Francis et al. 1993 horns, dinwoody style. covering feet of figure min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6552 AMS rock varnish 6005 105 1 Francis et al. 1993 Legend Rock Wyoming, USA engraving must be treated with caution - en toto style petroglyph min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6542 AMS rock varnish 295 55 1 Francis et al. 1993 may have been containmi- nated in historical times min age calcite sampled N/A Useries calcite ~6300 1 Aubert et al. 2007 painting unspecified min age calcite sampled N/A Useries calcite ~24000 1 Aubert et al. 2007 min age calcite sampled N/A Useries calcite ~29000 1 Aubert et al. 2007 frontal, stylised faces, one with max age calcite sampled LHO9-ST1-3 Useries calcite 36760 1300 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 circular head dress with rays motifs - max age calcite sampled LHO9-ST1-1 Useries calcite 29400 530 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 Lene Hara Timor column A max age calcite sampled LHO9-St1-2 Useries calcite 39620 1200 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 max age calcite sampled LHO9-ST2-1a Useries calcite 13720 160 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 engraving max age calcite sampled LH09-ST2-1b Useries calcite 12630 220 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 B1 -frontal, stylised face motifs - min age calcite sampled LH09-ST2-2c Useries calcite 10100 350 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 column B min age calcite sampled LH09-ST2-2a Useries calcite 10170 190 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 min age calcite sampled LHO9-ST2-2b Useries calcite 10180 200 1 O'Connor et al. 2010 AA 9465 AMS 12180 125 2 Davidson 1997; Igler et al. 1994 AA 9766 AMS 11600 150 2 Davidson 1997; Igler et al. 1994 horse Davidson 1997; Lorblanchet et al. Gif A 95357 AMS 24640 390 2 1995 Clottes et al. 1995; Davidson Gif A 95126 AMS 30940 610 2 1997 Le Portel France painting rhino 1 Clottes et al. 1995; Davidson Gif A 95133 AMS 30790 600 2 1997 Clottes et al. 1995; Davidson rhino 2 Gif A 95132 AMS 32410 720 2 1997 Clottes et al. 1995; Davidson bison Gif A 95128 AMS 30340 570 2 1997 black layer covering Little Lost River Cave Idaho, USA painting min age deposit over paintings sampled CAMS 72240 AMS charcoal 2990 50 1 Steelman et al. 2002b anthropomorphic figures Lower Colorado River Arizona, USA engraving winterhaven stick figure geoglyph min age organics under rock varnish OS 2158 AMS rock varnish 840 25 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Region, Site 1 Lower Colorado River Arizona, USA engraving pilot knob anthropomorph geoglyph min age organics under rock varnish OS 2159 AMS rock varnish 945 25 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Region, Site 2 blythe giant anthropomorph 1 min age organics under rock varnish ETH 6572 AMS rock varnish 1060 65 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 geoglyph Lower Colorado River Arizona, USA engraving blythe giant quadruped geoglyph min age organics under rock varnish ETH 6575 AMS rock varnish 1145 65 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Region, Site 3 blythe giant anthropomorph 2 min age organics under rock varnish ETH 6574 AMS rock varnish 1195 65 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 geoglyph largest anthropomorph, ripley min age organics under rock varnish OS 1331 AMS rock varnish 1260 60 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Lower Colorado River complex geoglyph Arizona, USA engraving Region, Site 4 lizard (fertility) figure, ripley min age organics under rock varnish OS 1268 AMS rock varnish 1560 40 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 complex geoglyph largest anthropomorph, quartzite min age organics under rock varnish OS 1831 AMS rock varnish 1380 25 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Lower Colorado River airport geoglyph min age organics under rock varnish OS 2162 AMS rock varnish 1540 25 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Arizona, USA engraving Region, Site 5 amorphous form, quartzite airport min age organics under rock varnish OS 1830 AMS rock varnish 1480 25 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 geoglyph Lower Colorado River singler complex, head section Arizona, USA engraving min age organics under rock varnish OS 2161 AMS rock varnish 1600 25 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Region, Site 6 geoglyph Lower Colorado River museum site complex 'snake', nr Arizona, USA engraving min age organics under rock varnish OS 2163 AMS rock varnish 2640 30 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Region, Site 7 ocotillo geoglyph Lower Colorado River schneider dance scircle, yuha mesa Arizona, USA engraving min age organics under rock varnish OS 2160 AMS rock varnish 2790 25 1 von Werlhof et al. 1995 Region, Site 8 geoglyph Mamoa do Monte: dos megalith with art - paint sampled direct paint sampled CAMS 77924 AMS charcoal 5330 80 1 Steelman et al. 2005 Spain painting Marxos from orthostat 7 direct paint sampled CAMS 77925 AMS charcoal 4920 60 1 Steelman et al. 2005

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1149 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs polychrome rhebuck max age encrustation under paint N/A AMS encrustation 2360 70 1 Mazel & Watchman 2003

Main Cave North South Africa painting red & white eland max age encrustation under paint N/A AMS encrustation 2760 80 1 Mazel & Watchman 2003

red & white eland max age encrustation under paint N/A AMS encrustation 2900 80 1 Mazel & Watchman 2003 inconsistent age - considered outlined-pecked anthropomorphic to have been contaminated by Medicine Lodge Creek Wyoming, USA engraving min age organic matter in rock varnish sampled AA 6540 AMS rock varnish 70 60 1 Francis et al. 1993 figure chalking in historical times by authors mucubal 1a - black line drawn direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 11594 AMS charcoal 2340 50 1 Ilger et al. 1995 beneath a 'goat' Mucubal 1, Opeleva mucubal 1b - black line drawn Angola painting direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 10891 AMS charcoal 1880 100 1 Ilger et al. 1995 Cave beneath a 'goat' mucubal 1c - black line drawn direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 11325 AMS charcoal 1900 60 1 Ilger et al. 1995 beneath a 'goat' maya heiroglyphic text (black direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 47788 AMS charcoal 1480 120 1 Armitage et al. 2001 pigment) - D19 direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 47786 AMS charcoal 1590 160 1 Armitage et al. 2001 maya heiroglyphic text (black identified as an outlier - pigment)- D29 direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 50330 AMS charcoal 1930 100 1 Armitage et al. 2001 Naj Tunich Cave Guatemala painting ignored by authors direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 47787 AMS charcoal 1380 80 1 Armitage et al. 2001 maya heiroglyphic text (black direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 50331 AMS charcoal 1450 100 1 Armitage et al. 2001 pigment) - D82 rejected by authors - problem direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 50791 AMS charcoal 11770 100 1 Armitage et al. 2001 with sample Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled GifA 91319 AMS charcoal 12890 160 2 the 'salon noir' - large bison facing 1992 right humic Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. direct charcoal in pigment sampled GifA 91173 AMS 12440 190 2 fraction 1992 Niaux France painting Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. line Gif A 92499 AMS 13060 200 2 1992 Davidson 1997; Valladas et al. bison Gif A 92501 AMS 13850 150 2 1992 panel 3 - black cow-like motif min age silica films CAMS 20748 AMS silica 6870 110 1 Watchman 1995 panel 3 - white horse-like motif min age silica films CAMS 20749 AMS silica 6310 110 1 Watchman 1995 panel 3 - white cow-like motif min age silica films CAMS 20750 AMS silica 4950 130 1 Watchman 1995 panel 3 - panel sample - black min age silica films CAMS 20751 AMS silica 620 60 1 Watchman 1995 surface panel 3 - panel sample - brown min age silica films CAMS 20752 AMS silica 2640 90 1 Watchman 1995 base panel 3 - panel sample - upper min age silica films CAMS 20753 AMS silica 2060 50 1 Watchman 1995 silica panel 3 - panel sample - lower min age silica films CAMS 20754 AMS silica 3490 90 1 Watchman 1995 silica panel 3 - panel sample - fine min age silica films CAMS 21103 AMS silica modern 1 Watchman 1995 fraction of silt from joint panel 3 - panel sample - silty min age silica films CAMS 21106 AMS silica modern 1 Watchman 1995 Panel Penascosa, Coa surface Portugal engraving Valley panel 3 - panel sample - silt, partly min age silica films CAMS 21108 AMS silica 70 60 1 Watchman 1995 covers engravings panel 7 - panel sample - grey silia base - where engravings are min age silica films CAMS 20760 AMS silica 4340 140 1 Watchman 1995 located panel sample - exposed, min age silica films Beta 82456 AMS silica 10990 60 1 Dorn 1997 weathering rind panel sample - exposed, at the min age silica films Beta 86013 AMS silica 10300 60 1 Dorn 1997 interace between rind and coating panel sample - rind within unexposed join crevice, bulk min age silica films Beta 82457 AMS silica 23550 190 1 Dorn 1997 sample panel sample - sample split of less unspec. min age unspecified organics Beta 86632 AMS 17460 70 1 Dorn 1997 dense organics organic panel sample - sample split of unspec. min age unspecified organics Beta 86633 AMS 29990 240 1 Dorn 1997 dense organics organic

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1150 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs min age silica films Beta 82454 AMS silica 5010 50 1 Dorn 1997 top goat motif min age silica films Beta 82455 AMS silica 4960 60 1 Dorn 1997 Panel Penascosa, Coa Portugal engraving min age silica films Beta 82458 AMS silica 2690 60 1 Dorn 1997 Valley big ox motif min age silica films Beta 82459 AMS silica 2690 50 1 Dorn 1997 min age silica films Beta 86014 AMS silica 2120 50 1 Dorn 1997 Clottes 1999b; Lorblanchet et al. Pech-Merle France painting spotted horse direct N/A GifA 95357 AMS N/A 24640 390 2 1995 Chaffee, Hymann & Rowe 1993; pictograph no. 41VV75-1 - pecos unspec. direct organic binders in pigment ETH 5909 AMS 3865 100 4 Ilger et al. 1995; Russ et al. 1990, river style painting organic Russ, Hyman & Rowe 1992 Chaffee, Hymann & Rowe 1993; pictograph no. 41VV576-1a - pecos unspec. direct organic binders in pigment ETH 6962 AMS 3355 65 3 Ilger et al. 1995; Russ, Hyman & river style painting organic Rowe 1992 Chaffee, Hymann & Rowe 1993; Pecos River Texas, USA painting pictograph no. 41VV5763a - pecos unspec. direct organic binders in pigment ETH 7047 AMS 3000 70 3 Ilger et al. 1995; Russ, Hyman & river style painting organic Rowe 1992 pictograph no. 41VV576-1b - pecos Chaffee, Hymann & Rowe 1993; direct N/A AA 7063 AMS N/A 4200 90 2 river style painting Ilger et al. 1995 pictograph no. 41VV576-3b direct N/A AA 8426 AMS N/A 1450 75 1 Chaffee, Hymann & Rowe 1993 pictograph no. 50-3a direct N/A AA 8699 AMS N/A 2950 60 1 Chaffee, Hymann & Rowe 1993 pictograph no. 41VV50-3a - pecos direct N/A AA 8699 AMS N/A 2950 60 1 Ilger et al. 1995 river style painting Pecos River, Site unspec. Texas, USA painting unspecified pictographs direct organic binders in pigment N/A AMS 3865 100 1 Russ et al. 1991 41VV75 organic megalith with art - paint sampled Pedra Cuberta Spain painting direct black pigment sampled CAMS 77923 AMS charcoal 5010 60 1 Steelman et al. 2005 from left side of corridor megalith with art - black paint from Pedra da Moura Spain painting direct black pigment sampled CAMS 77761 AMS charcoal 4980 70 1 Steelman et al. 2005 the left side of the corridor large anthropomorph figure w/ wrap direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 41464 AMS charcoal 940 80 1 Diaz-Grandos et al. 2001 Picture Cave Missouri, USA painting underwater spirit direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 41465 AMS charcoal 950 100 1 Diaz-Grandos et al. 2001 direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 38458 AMS charcoal 1000 70 1 Diaz-Grandos et al. 2001 bent arm with pelt direct charcoal pigment sampled CAMS 41466 AMS charcoal 1090 90 1 Diaz-Grandos et al. 2001 charcoal in midden covering petroglyph - min age S 1270 C14 charcoal 280 50 1 Rutherford et al. 1981 unspecified pecked sandstone level 4 Protection Island Site British Columbia engraving petroglyph charcoal in midden covering petroglyph - min age S 1271 C14 charcoal 350 40 1 Rutherford et al. 1981 level 1 Quarry surface, between Ribeira dos Piscos and panel sample - silty brown top - Portugal engraving min age silica films CAMS 21107 AMS silica modern 1 Watchman 1995 Canada do Inferno, Coa where engravings are located Valley Railway Quarry rock panel sample - brown top only min age silica films CAMS 21102 AMS silica modern 1 Watchman 1995 Portugal engraving face, Couro River panel sample - base plus rind min age silica films CAMS 21696 AMS silica 4140 410 1 Watchman 1995 red monochrome pictograph no. direct N/A AA 9270 AMS N/A 1315 50 1 Ilger et al. 1995 41VV233-1 Red Monochrome red monochrome image of a human shelter, Lewis Canyon, Texas, USA painting with headdress with lines (spears?) Site direct N/A CAMS 11891 AMS N/A 1660 70 1 Ilger et al. 1995 touching the body - pictograph no. 41VV233 background brown horse-like motif min age silica films CAMS 20755 AMS silica 2170 80 1 Watchman 1995 panel sample - brown silty min age silica films CAMS 20756 AMS silica 1530 60 1 Watchman 1995 panel sample - silt from joint in min age silica films CAMS 21104 AMS silica modern 1 Watchman 1995 schist panel sample - exposed weathering min age silica films Beta 82463 AMS silica 9180 60 1 Dorn 1997 rind Ribeira dos Piscos, Coa Portugal engraving panel sample - exposed, at the Valley min age silica films Beta 87059 AMS silica 17090 70 1 Dorn 1997 interface between rind and coating panel sample - rind within min age silica films Beta 82464 AMS silica 10350 60 1 Dorn 1997 unexposed joint crevice min age silica films Beta 82460 AMS silica 5480 60 1 Dorn 1997 horses motif min age silica films Beta 82461 AMS silica 4540 60 1 Dorn 1997 min age silica films Beta 82462 AMS silica 5130 70 1 Dorn 1997

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1151 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

Direct/ Sample No. of Site Name Country Medium Motif Details Details Lab Code Method Age SD Reference Notes Max-Min Material Refs organic Rowe & Steelman 2003; red "batonnets" direct organic binders in pigment sampled CAMS 62934 AMS 2280 110 2 binders Steelman et al. 2002a organic Rowe & Steelman 2003; black sloth 1 direct organic binders in pigment sampled CAMS 62935 AMS 1880 60 2 binders Steelman et al. 2002a organic Rowe & Steelman 2003; black sloth 2 direct organic binders in pigment sampled CAMS 67685 AMS 2970 300 2 binders Steelman et al. 2002a Toca do Serrote de organic Rowe & Steelman 2003; Brazil painting black figure direct organic binders in pigment sampled CAMS 68108 AMS 3320 50 2 Bastiana shelter binders Steelman et al. 2002a min age rock varnish covering motif sampled N/A TL calcite layer 35900 1 Watanabe et al. 2003 organic Rowe & Steelman 2003; direct organic binders in pigment sampled CAMS 77890 AMS 3730 90 2 binders Steelman et al. 2002a red anthropomorph Rowe & Steelman 2003; min age oxlate from calcite layer over art N/A AMS oxalate 2490 30 3 Steelman et al. 2002a; Watanabe et al. 2003 Queva Quebrada Texas, USA painting red linear pictograph no. 41VV162A direct N/A AA 10549 AMS charcoal 1280 45 1 Ilger et al. 1995 Chaffee, Hyman & Rowe 1993; White Bird Shelter Utah, USA painting pictograph no. 42SA20615 direct N/A AA 9179 AMS N/A 2710 75 2 Ilger et al. 1995 White Elephant South Africa painting red human motif min age encrustation over paint N/A AMS encrustation 1930 65 1 Mazel & Watchman 2003

Table 1. Details of 264 direct dates for rock art imagery outside Australia. CD‐1152 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

References Aikens C.M. & Higuchi T. 1982 Prehistory of Japan. Academic Press, London. Armitage R.A., Hyman M., Southon J., Barat C., Rowe Rock-Art Image in Fern Cave, Lava Beds National Mon- ument, California: Not the AD 1024 (Crab Nebula) Super-Nova. 1997 M.W. Antiquity 71: 715-719. Armitage R.A.A., Hyman M., Rowe M.W., Loendorf L.L., 2000 Dated Rock Painting at Red Cliffs, Arizona. Kiva 65: 253-266. Southon J.R. Armitage, R.A., J.E. Brady, A. Cobb, J.R. Southon, M.W. 2001 Mass spectrometic radiocarbon dates from three rock painting of known age. American Antiquity 66(3): 471-480. Rowe Aubert M., O'Connor S., McCulloch M., Mortimer G., 2007 Uranium-series dating rock art in East Timor. Journal of Archaeological Science 34: 991-996. Watchman A., Richer-Laflèche M. Bednarik R.G. & Yuzhu Y. 1991 Palaeolithic art from China. Rock Art Research 8(2): 119-123. AMS 14C dating of rock paintings. In J. Steinbring and A. Watchman (eds), Time and Space: Dating Considerations in Rock Art Chaffee S.D., Hyman M., Rowe M.W. 1993 Research, pp. 67-73. Victoria : Australian Rock Art Research Association (Occasional AURA Publication ; No. 8) Radiocarbon dating of rock paintings. In D. Whitley and L.L. Loendorf (eds), New Light on Old Art: Recent Advances in Hunter- Chaffee S.D., Hyman M., Rowe M.W. 1994a Gatherer Rock Art. Berkeley/Los Angeles, Institute of Archaeology, University of California Press, pp. 9-12. (Monograph ; 36) Chaffee S.D., Hyman M., Rowe M.W. 1994b Vandalism of rock art for enhanced photography. Studies in Conservation 39: 161-168. Chaffee S.D., Hyman M., Rowe M.W., Coulam N.J., 1994a Radiocarbon dates on the All American pictograph. American Antiquity 59: 769-781. Schroedl A., Hogue K. Chaffee S.D., Loendorf L.L., Hyman M., Rowe M.W. 1994b Dating a pictograph in the Pryor Mountains, Montana. Plains Anthropologist 39: 195-201. Clottes J. 1994 Dates directes pour les peintures paléolithiques. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 91: 51-70. Clottes J. 1996 New direct dates for the Cosquer Cave. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 15: 2-4. The Chauvet Cave Dates. In A.F. Harding (ed.), Experiment and Design. Archaeological Studies in Honour of John Coles, pp. 13- Clottes J. 1999a 19. Oxford: Oxbow. Twenty thousand years of Palaeolithic Cave Art in Southern France.In J. Coles, B. Bewley, P. Mellars (eds.), World Prehistory. Clottes J. 1999b Studies in Memory of Grahame Clark. Proceedings of the British Academy 99: 161-175. The 'Three Cs': fresh avenues toward European Palaeolithic art. In P.S.C. Tacon and C. Chippindale (eds), The Archaeology of Clottes J. 1998 Rock-Art, pp. 112-129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clottes J., Courtin J., Valladas H. 1992 A well-dated palaeolithic cave: The Cosquer Cave at Marseille. Rock Art Research 9(2): 122-129. Clottes J., Courtin J., Valladas H. 1993 Des Mains très anciennes. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 15: 2 4: 3-4. Clottes J., Courtin J., Valladas H. 1996 New direct dates for the Cosquer Cave. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 15: 2-4. Clottes J., Valladas H., Cachier H., Arnold M. 1992c Des Dates pour Niaux et Gargas. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 89: 270-274. Clottes J., Valladas H., Cachier H., Arnold M. 1992b La Grotte Cosquer Date. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 89: 230-234. Clottes J., Chauvet J.-M., Brunel-Duchamps É., Hillaire C., Daugas J.-P., Arnold M., Cachier H, Évin J., Fortin P., 1995 Radiocarbon Dates for the Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc Cave. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] I 1: 1-2. Oberlin C., Tisnérat N., Valladas H. Clottes J., Chauvet J.-M., Brunel-Duchamps É., Hillaire Les peintures paléolithiques de la grotte Chauvet-Pont-d'Arc, à Vallon-Pont d'Arc (Ardèche, France): datations directes et C., Daugas J.-P., Arnold M., Cachier H, Évin J., Fortin P., 1995 indirectes par la méthode du radiocarbone. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences de Paris séries IIa 320: 1133-1140. Oberlin C., Tisnérat N., Valladas H. Clottes J., Courtin J., Collina-Girard J., Arnold M., 1997 News from Cosquer Cave: Climatic Studies, Recording, Sampling, Dates. Antiquity 71: 321-326. Valladas H. Cruz D.J. 1995a Cronología dos monumentos con tumulus do Noroeste e da Beira Alta. Estudos Pré-Históricos 3: 81-119. Cruz D.J. 1995b Dólmen de Antelas. Un sepulcro-templo do Neolítico Final. Estudos Pré-Históricos 3: 263-264. Birds of Cosquer Cave: The Great Auk (Pinguinus impennis) and its significance during the Upper Palaeolithic. Rock Art D'Errico F. 1994 Research 11(1): 45-57.

CD‐1153 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

References Diaz-Granados C., Rowe M.W., Hyman M., Duncan J.R., AMS radiocarbon dates for charcoal from three Missouri Pictographs and their associated iconography. American Antiquity 2001 Southon J.R. 66(3): 481-492. Dating Tom Ketchum: The Role of Chronometric Deter- minations in Rock Art Analysis. North American Archaeologist 13: 219- Farrell M.M. & Burton J.F. 1992 247. Fortea J. 1996 The Cave of Covaciella (Carrena de Cabrales-Asturias- Spain). International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 13: 1-3. Los comienzos del Arte Paleolítico en Asturias: aportaciones desde una arqueología contextual no postestilistica. Zephyrus Fortea J. 2000/01 53/4: 177-216. AMS radiocarbon and Cation-ratio dating of rock art in the Bighorn Basin of Wyoming and Montana. American Antiquity 58(4): Francis J.E., Loendorf L.L., Dorn R.I. 1993 711-737. Radiocarbon Dating of Fremont Anthropomorphic Rock Art in Glen Canyon, South-Central Utah. Journal of Field Archaeology Geib, P. R. & H. C. Fairley 1992 19: 155-168. Girard, M., D. Baffier, H. Valladas, R. Hedges 1995 14C Dates at the Grande Grotte at Arcy-sur-Cure (Yonne, France). International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 12: 1-2. Hedges R.E.M., Housley R.A., Law I.A., Perry C., 1987 Radiocarbon Dates from the Oxford AMS System: Archaeometry Datelist 6. Archaeometry 29: 289-306. Gowlett J.A.J. Dating Egypt's oldest 'art': AMS (14)C age determinations of rock varnishes covering petroglyphs at El-Hosh (Upper Egypt). Huyge D., Watchman A., De Dapper M., Marchi E. 2001 Antiquity 75: 68-72. Hyman M. & Rowe M. 1997a Plasma-chemical extraction and AMS radiocarbon dating of pictographs. American Indian Rock Art 23: 1-9. Hyman M. & Rowe M. 1997b Plasma Extraction and AMS 14C Dating of Rock Paint- ings. Techne 5: 61-70. Ilger W.A., Dauvois M., Hyman M., Menu M., Rowe M.W., Datation radiocarbone de deux figures pariétales de la grotte du Portel (Commune de Loubens, Ariège). Préhistoire Ariégeoise 1994 Vézian J., Walter P. 50: 231-236. Ilger, W. A., M. Hyman, M. W. Rowe 1995 1995 Dating Pictographs with Radiocarbon. Radiocarbon 37: 299-310. Comment: The Petroglyphs of West Yorkshire: Explorations in Analaysis and interpretation by J. Steinbring and M. Lanteigne. Jackson P. 1991 Rock art Research 8(1): 24-26. Lorblanchet M. 1994a Cougnac. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 7: 6-7. La datation de l'art pariétal paléolithique. Bulletin de la Société des Études littéraires, scientifiques et artistiques du Lot 115: 161- Lorblanchet M. 1994b 182. Lorblanchet M., Labeau M., Vernet J.-L., Fitte P., 1990 Palaeolithic pigments in the Quercy, France. Rock Art Research 7(1): 4-20. Valladas H., Cachier H., Arnold M. Lorblanchet M., Cachier H., Valladas H. 1995 Datation des chevaux ponctués du Pech-Merle. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 12: 2-3. Mori F., Ponti R., Messina A., Flieger M., Havlicek V., Chemical characterization and AMS radiocarbon dating of the binder of a prehistoric rock pictograph at Tadrart Acacus, southern 2006 Sinibaldi M. west Libya. Journal of Cultural Heritage 7(4): 344-349. Datation 14C d'une zone décorée de la grotte Fuente del Salin en Espagne. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 3: 1- Moure Romanillo A. & Gonzalez Morales M. 1992 2. Moure Romanillo A., González Sainz C., Bernaldo de 1997 New Absolute Dates for Pigments in Cantabrian Caves. International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 18: 26-29. Quirós F., Cabrera Valdés V., Valladas H. O'Kelly M.J. 1980 Newgrange: Archaeology, Art and Legend. London: Thames and Hudson. Pettitt P. & Bahn P. 2003 Current problems in dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet. Antiquity 77: 134-141. 1999 Dating Rock Art in Brazil. In M. Strecker and P. Bahn (ed.), Dating and the Earliest Known Rock Art, pp. 29-34. Oxford, Prous A. 1999 Oxbow Books. Ripoll Lopez S. 1994 The Paleolithic Rock Art of the Cueva de Ambrosio (Almeria, Spain). International Newsletter on Rock Art [INORA] 7: 1-2. Rowe M.W. & Steelman K.L. 2003 Comment on "Some evidence of a date of first humans to arrive in Brazil". Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 1349-1351. Russ J., Hyman M., Rowe M. 1992 Direct radiocarbon dating of rock art. Radiocarbon 34(3): 867-872.

CD‐1154 TAÇON P.S.C., LANGLEY M.C., 2012. — Rock art dating in Australia and beyond: what does it tell us?. In : CLOTTES J. (dir.), L'art pléistocène dans le monde

References 14C dating of ancient rock art: A new application of Plasma chemistry. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing 11(4): 515- Russ J., Hyman M., Shafer H.J., Rowe M.W. 1991 527. Russ J., Hyman M., Shafer H.J., Rowe M.W. 1990 Radiocarbon dating of prehistoric rock paintings by selective oxidation of organic carbon. Nature 348: 710-711. Rutherford A.A., Wittenberg J., Wilmeth R. 1981 University of Saskatchewan radiocarbon dates IX. Radiocarbon 23(1): 94-135. Sand C., Valladas H., Cachier H., Tisnérat-Laborde N., Oceanic rock art: First direct dating of prehistoric stencils and paintings from New Caledonia (Southern Melanesia). Antiquity 80: 2006 Arnold M., Bole J., Ouetcho A. 523-529. Steelman K.L., Rickman R., Rowe M.W., T.W. Boutton, AMS radiocarbon ages for an oxalate accretion and rock paintings at Toca do Serrote da Bastiana, Brazil. In K. Jakes (ed.), 2002a Russ J., Guidon N. Archaeological Chemistry, pp. 22-35. Washington DC: American Chemical Society. Steelman K.L, Rowe M.W., Boutton T.W., Southon J.R., Stable Isotope and radiocarbon analyses of a Black deposit associated with pictographs at Little Lost River Cave, Idaho. Journal 2002b Merrell C.L., Hill R.D. of Archaeological Science 29: 1189-1198. Radiocarbon dates for pictographs in Ignatievskaya Cave, Russia: Holocene age for supposed Pleistocene Fauna. Antiquity 76: Steelman K.L, Rowe M.W., Shirokov V.N., Southon J.R. 2002 341-348. Steelman K.L., Carrera Ramirez F., Fabregas Valcarce 2005 Direct radiocarbon dating of megalithic paints from north-west Iberia. Antiquity 79: 379-389. R., Guilderson, T., Rowe M.W. Steinbring J. & Lanteigne M. 1992 Reply to Peter Jackson. Rock Art Research 9(1): 65-67. Valladas H., Cachier H., Arnold M. 1990 AMS C-14 Dates for the Prehistoric Cougnac Cave Paintings and Related Bone Remains. Rock Art Research 7: 18-19. Valladas H., Cachier H., Maurice P., Bernaldo de Quirós 1992 Direct radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves. Nature 357: 68-70. F., Clottes J., Cabrera Valdés V., Uzquiano P., Arnold M. Valladas H., Tisnérat-Laborde N., Cachier H., Arnold M., Bernaldo de Quirós F., Cabrera-Valdés V., Clottes J., 2001a Radiocarbon AMS dates for paleolithic cave paintings. Radiocarbon 43(2B): 977-986. Courtin J., Fortea-Perez J.J., Gonzales-Sainz C., Moure- Romanillo A. Valladas H., Tisnérat N., Arnold M., Évin J., Oberlin C. 2001b Les dates des fréquentations. In J. Clottes (dir.), La Grotte Chauvet. L'Art des Origines, 32-33, 216. Paris: Le Seuil. Van der Merwe N.J., Sealy J., Yates R. 1987 First Accelerator Carbon-14 Date for Pigment from a Rock Painting. South Afriican Journal of Science 83: 56-57. AMS 14C age constraints on geoglyphs in the Lower Colorado River Region, Arizona and California. Geoarchaeology 10(4): 257- Von Werlhof J., Casey H., Dorn R.I., Jones G.A. 1995 273. Watanabe S., Ayta W.E.F., Hamaguchi H., Guidon N., La 2003 Some evidence of a date of first humans to arrive in Brazil. Journal of Archaeological Science 30: 351-354. Salvia E.S., Maranca S., Baffa Filho O.

CD‐1155