DOCSLIB.ORG

Rock Art Dating in Australia and Beyond: What Does It Tell Us?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rock Art Dating in Australia and Beyond: What Does It Tell Us? 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Upper Palaeolithic Rock Art of Europe 159 16: 159-166, 2004
    Historia naturalis bulgarica, The cave hyaena in the Upper Palaeolithic rock art of Europe 159 16: 159-166, 2004 The presence of cave hyaena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) in the Upper Palaeolithic rock art of Europe Nikolai SPASSOV, Todor STOYTCHEV SPASSOV N., STOYTCHEV T. 2004. The presence of cave hyaena (Crocuta crocuta spelaea) in the Upper Palaeolithic rock art of Europe. – Historia naturalis bulgarica, 16: 159-166. Abstract. The very few images of cave hyaena, from the Upper Palaeolithic rock art of Europe are analyzed in the paper. The images show a very close exterior appearance (coloration pattern) with the African spotted hyaena. The causes for the extremely low number of preserved cave hyaena pictograms as well as the lack of “fantastic” zoomorphic images in the Upper Palaeolithic rock art of Europe are discussed. Key words: Rock art, Paleozoology, Europe, Pleistocene, Cave hyaena, Crocuta crocuta spelaea Introduction After looking through thousands of large mammal depictions in the rock art of Europe’s Upper Palaeolithic published during the last century, our interest was raised by the inexplicably low number of Cave Hyaena zoomorphic pictograms. It is in discrepancy with the numerous fossil finds and the large area (KAHLKE, 1999) of Late Pleistocene Crocuta crocuta spelaea. During the Late Pleistocene this species inhabited all of Europe except the northern part of the continent. Many caves (so called hyaena caves) are known for the large number of cave hyaena remains: Kent’s Cavern, Tornewton Cave (England), Teufelslucken (Austria), Lindental Hyaena Cave (Germany), Sveduv Stul (Czech Republic), etc. (WERDELIN & SOLOUNIAS, 1991; KAHLKE, 1999). France also has numerous remains and localities from this time (BALLESIO, 1979; CLOT, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Aestheticus’
    Conceptual Paper Glob J Arch & Anthropol Volume 11 Issue 3 - June 2020 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Shuchi Srivastava DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2020.11.555815 Man and Artistic Expression: Emergence of ‘Homo Aestheticus’ Shuchi Srivastava* Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, University of Lucknow, India Submission: May 30, 2020; Published: June 16, 2020 *Corresponding author: Shuchi Srivastava, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, An Autonomous College of University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India Abstract Man is a member of animal kingdom like all other animals but his unique feature is culture. Cultural activities involve art and artistic expressions which are the earliest methods of emotional manifestation through sign. The present paper deals with the origin of the artistic expression of the man, i.e. the emergence of ‘Homo aestheticus’ and discussed various related aspects. It is basically a conceptual paper; history of art begins with humanity. In his artistic instincts and attainments, man expressed his vigour, his ability to establish a gainful and optimistictherefore, mainlyrelationship the secondary with his environmentsources of data to humanizehave been nature. used for Their the behaviorsstudy. Overall as artists findings was reveal one of that the man selection is artistic characteristics by nature suitableand the for the progress of the human species. Evidence from extensive analysis of cave art and home art suggests that humans have also been ‘Homo aestheticus’ since their origins. Keywords: Man; Art; Artistic expression; Homo aestheticus; Prehistoric art; Palaeolithic art; Cave art; Home art Introduction ‘Sahityasangeetkalavihinah, Sakshatpashuh Maybe it was the time when some African apelike creatures to 7 million years ago, the first human ancestors were appeared.
    [Show full text]
  • The Oldest Known Rock Art in the World
    The Oldest Known Rock Art in the World • XXXIX/2–3 • pp. 89–97 • 2001 ROBERT G. BEDNARIK THE OLDEST KNOWN ROCK ART IN THE WORLD ABSTRACT: The question of the earliest currently known rock art is considered from the empirical evidence available. The paper focuses on very early anthropogenic rock markings in central India and reviews these in a global context. The implications of taphonomic logic are considered to show that the most convenient interpretation of the available evidence is not necessarily the most parsimonious. KEY WORDS: Petroglyphs – Acheulian – India – Cupules – Taphonomic logic For about a century now – ever since de Sautuola's great There can be little doubt that the corpus of Ice Age rock discovery, the rock art of Altamira, was posthumously art found in Australia is considerably greater than that of accepted by archaeology – we have been given the general Europe, and yet technologically, Pleistocene Australia is impression that art essentially originated in south-western of essentially Middle rather than Upper Palaeolithic Europe, and in the Upper Palaeolithic period. Even though technology. Indeed, in Tasmania a typologically Middle the unmasking of Piltdown Man half way through this Palaeolithic tool industry continued right up to European century had moved the actual cradle of humanity some colonization. This does not suggest, however, that the oldest distance away from England, it was reassuring for rock art should be expected to occur in Australia. There is Europeans to know that the grand cave art in up to 300 presently no credible evidence that the island continent limestone caves of the Franco-Cantabrian region provided was settled any earlier than about 60,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • Beads and Cognitive Evolution Robert Bednarik
    Time and Mind: The Journal of Beads and Cognitive Archaeology, Evolution Consciousness and Culture Robert G. Bednarik Volume I—Issue III November 2008 pp. 285–318 Robert G. Bednarik specializes in the origins of human DOI constructs of reality, cognitive archaeology, rock art dating, 10.2752/175169708X329354 and microscopic studies, and he has conducted extensive Reprints available directly fieldwork in all continents except Antarctica. He is the Editor from the publishers and Permanent Convener of the International Federation of Rock Art Organizations (IFRAO), and the founder, Editor, and Photocopying permitted by Secretary of the Australian Rock Art Research Association licence only (AURA). He edits three scientific journals and three series of © Berg 2008 monographs. His over 1,000 articles and books include over 450 works in refereed scientific journals, and have appeared in 32 languages. [email protected] Abstract The study of human evolution has largely focused on skeletal developments and on the stone tools of successive technological traditions. The cultural and cognitive evolution of hominins has been comparatively neglected. Here it is proposed that beads and pendants provide some of the most reliable evidence for our non- physical (cognitive) evolution. The available corpus of such finds from the Middle and Late Pleistocene periods is presented and reviewed. It is shown to demonstrate not only the use of complex symbolisms several hundred millennia ago, but also the application of concepts of perfection and self-awareness. This finding agrees with other indicators of hominin cognition, but it clashes with the dominant notion that “modern” human faculties appeared with a hypothetical replacement of Europeans by Africans just 40,000 years ago.
    [Show full text]
  • LAMPEA-Doc 2014 – Numéro 5 Vendredi 7 Février 2014
    Laboratoire méditerranéen de Préhistoire (Europe – Afrique) Bibliothèque LAMPEA-Doc 2014 – numéro 5 vendredi 7 février 2014 [Se désabonner >>>] Suivez les infos en continu en vous abonnant au fil RSS http://lampea.cnrs.fr/spip.php?page=backend 1 - Congrès, colloques, réunions - Green Arabia : Human Prehistory at the Cross-Roads of Continents - La place des modèles ethnologiques dans l’interprétation du mégalithisme néolithique européen - Archéologie de la frontière : 9ème Journée doctorale d'archéologie - Drones et moyens légers aéroportés d'observation : recherche, développement, applications : l’état de l’art - Landscape study with Historical Photographs through Monoplotting – Workshop - International Rock Art Symposium - Palaeolithic Archaeozoology: Advances on hunter-gatherer’s subsistence - Genetic analysis of modern and ancient samples - Field-Workshop On Lower–Middle Pleistocene Transition In Italy 2 - Emplois, bourses, prix - Le département de la Charente maritime recrute un archéologue départemental (h/f) - Post-doc applicant for Marie Sklodowska-Curie Individual Fellowships (IF-European) in Pleistocene Lithic technology - La Société Géologique de France recrute en CDI un/une Directeur(trice) administratif - Appels à candidatures de l'IMéRA (Université d’Aix-Marseille) pour des résidences 3 - Expositions & animations • Premiers nomades de Haute-Asie, voyage au coeur de la steppe mongole et sibérienne 4 - Séminaire, conférence • L'art de la préhistoire 5 - Soutenance : Habilitation à diriger des recherches - Recherches sur les
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Erectus, the Species Before H
    Beads and the origins of symbolism, Robert G. Bednarik Robert G. Bednarik ([email protected]) Beads and the origins of symbolism Introduction An archaeological issue that has been hotly debated in recent years, and that is of considerable relevance to semiotics, is the question of the origins of symbolism. There is no consensus in contemporary archaeology of how, where and, especially, when symbolism began. Broadly speaking, two schools of thought have emerged, which are best described as a short-range and a long-range model. Few if any researchers occupy the middle ground between them. According to the currently dominant short-range model, the earliest evidence we possess of human symbolism is in the forms of art and indications of language ability. No art-like productions are recognized of an age exceeding 32,000 or 35,000 years, and the earliest available language evidence is seen to be the first successful colonization of Australia, thought to have occurred perhaps 60,000 years ago. This school of thought is probably most coherently articulated in the work of two Australians, Davidson and Noble (1989, 1990, 1992; Noble and Davidson 1996; Davidson 1997). It categorically denies the possibility of human symboling abilities beyond, say, 100 ka (100,000 years) ago. The long-range model, while favoured by most linguists who have considered this topic (Bickerton 1990, 1996; Aitchison 1996; Dunbar 1996), enjoys little support from archaeologists. It postulates a very significantly longer use of symbolism by hominids, at the very minimum in the order of several hundred millennia, but more probably one file:///E|/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrator...ocuments/amohtash/semioticon/frontline/bednarik.htm (1 of 37) [1/19/2002 23:01:39] Beads and the origins of symbolism, Robert G.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Team
    Paper No. : 03 Archeological Anthropology Module : 22 Palaeolithic Art of Europe Development Team Principal Investigator Prof. Anup Kumar Kapoor Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Dr. M. K. Singh Paper Coordinator Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Dr. D.K. Bhattacharya (Retd.Prof.) Content Writer Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi Prof. Falguni Chakraborty Content Reviewer Department of Anthropology, Midnapur University 1 Archeological Anthropology Anthropology Palaeolithic Art of Europe. Description of Module Subject Name Anthropology Paper Name 03 Archeological Anthropology Module Name/Title Palaeolithic Art of Europe. Module Id 22 2 Archeological Anthropology Anthropology Palaeolithic Art of Europe. PALAEOLITHIC ART OF EUROPE No other activity expresses man's feeling as directly as art does. These have been very successful media of communication of joy or sorrow and fear or of man's victory over them. Palaeolithic archaeology basically retrieves and analyzes human technology and economy, evidence of art, on the other hand, opens a window to his mind. Prehistoric art was practised by our ancestors either on stones or bones or on walls of caves. The art found executed on stones or bones or similar moveable objects is more widely distributed. This is called "art mobilier" or home art. As against these, the art executed on cave walls, ceilings or floors are called “art parietal" or cave art. Cave art is present mainly in southern France and northern Spain. Besides these cave art is also noted from Italy, Arctic Circle of Euro-Asia and Spanish levant. The latter groups of rock art are from Holocene period and hence cannot be included in Palaeolithic Art.
    [Show full text]
  • “Arte Paleolítico”
    KREI 2012-2013 n.º 12 Círculo de Estratigrafía Analítica • Gasteiz • INDICE Página CONVENCIONES TERMINOLÓGICAS EN ESTRATIGRAFÍA ANALÍTICA Propuesta de 2012 ........................................................................................................................... 5-6 ANDONI SÁENZ DE BURUAGA et al. Resultados de las expediciones científicas vasco-saharauis de 2012 y 2013 en relación al pasado cultural de la región del Tiris (Sahara Occidental)................................................................. ..................................7-29 JOSÉ RAMOS MUÑOZ Panorama de las sociedades cazadoras-recolectoras del Pleistoceno Medio y Superior con tecnología de modo 3 en la región geohistórica del Estrecho de Gibraltar. Planteamiento de relaciones y contactos. ............................................................... 31-62 HAIZEA CASTILLA LANDA, XABIER MURELAGA, JUAN CARLOS LÓPEZ QUINTANA, AMAGOIA GUENAGA LIZASU. Estudio de los microvertebrados del nivel Slnc (Magdaleniense superior-final) de la cueva de Santimamiñe (Kortezubi, Bizkaia) ............................................................................................... 63-82 EDUARDO PALACIO-PÉREZ Génesis, consolidación y crisis del concepto de “arte paleolítico” ...................... 83-117 JOSÉ MIGUEL EDESO FITO, ANE LOPETEGI GALARRAGA Incidencia de la actividad humana sobre los depósitos fluviales de la cabecera del río Oiartzun ....................................................... 119-135 5 Convenciones terminológicas en Estratigrafía Analítica.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Rock Art Bibliography Extracted from the Rock Art Studies Bibliographic Database for the Years 1841 to 2018 — Part 1
    188 Rock Art Research 2018 - Volume 35, Number 2, pp. 188-248. L. MARYMOR KEYWORDS: Australia – Aboriginal rock art – Bibliography – Rock art studies AUSTRALIAN ROCK ART BIBLIOGRAPHY EXTRACTED FROM THE ROCK ART STUDIES BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE FOR THE YEARS 1841 TO 2018 — PART 1 Leigh Marymor Abstract. The Rock Art Studies Bibliographic Database is an open access, online resource that fulfils the need for a searchable portal into the world’s rock art literature. Geared to the broadest interests of rock art researchers, students, cultural resource managers and the general public, the RAS database makes rock art literature accessible through a simple search interface that facilitates inquiries into multiple data fields, including authors’ names, title and publication, placename and subject keywords, ISBN/ISSN number and abstract. The results of a data search can further be sorted by any of the data fields, including: authors’ names, date, title and so forth. An ever increasing number of citations within the database include web links to online versions of the reference cited, and many citations include full author’s abstracts. The data compilation has been undertaken by Leigh Marymor with the year 2018 marking the 25th year of continuous revision and expansion of the data. Over 37 200 citations are currently contained in the database. The RAS database first launched online as a joint project of the Bay Area Rock Art Research Association and University of California’s Bancroft Library. After thirteen years of collaboration, the project found a new home and collaborator at the Anthropology Department at the Museum of Northern Arizona. The Australian Rock Art Bibliography results from an export of approximately 1980 citations from the RAS da- tabase and captures a freeze-frame in the state of Australian rock art literature as compiled here in the year 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture No. 3. the Evidence of Paleoart
    Semiotix Course 2006, Cognition and symbolism in human evolution Robert Bednarik Lecture No. 3. The evidence of paleoart Introduction In the previous lecture, we have seen that the replacement/African Eve model of Late Pleistocene human evolution, is probably false, especially in Europe. To survive, this model has to deny any evidence suggestive of complex technologies and, most particularly, of symboling abilities prior to 45 ka ago in Europe. It has done this by several strategies. First, most reports of advanced hominid abilities predating the advent of “Moderns” have been rejected out of hand, either as being unreliable or as being susceptible to alternative explanations. Those finds that could not be swept under the carpet were grudgingly accepted as flukes, as the work of unusually gifted individuals, even as evidence of “running ahead of time” in human development (Vishnyatsky 1994). Their claimed small number was often cited as being enough reason to ignore them (Chase and Dibble 1987; Davidson and Noble 1989; Noble and Davidson 1996), because for them to be of significance, “the use of symbolism must be systematic, often repeated”. When in response it was pointed out that the number of known instances was actually very much greater than assumed (Bednarik 1992a), the response was that this still made no difference. This is one of numerous instances of the application of double standards in assessing possible paleoart finds or purported evidence of symbolism. The (false) premise of this accommodative thinking is that the Aurignacian is by “Moderns”; therefore, finding “art” objects in it is acceptable. Finds such as figurines, beads or engravings are not judged by their inherent characteristics, but invariably by their age — as if we already knew what the abilities of the humans concerned were.
    [Show full text]
  • Parte 4ª Bibliografía
    http://www.bizkaia.eus/kobie PARTE 4ª BIBLIOGRAFÍA ABREVIATURAS DE REVISTAS Y PUBLICACIONES PERIÓDICAS Y SERIADAS En el caso de revistas o publicaciones periódicas (colecciones, ... ) repetidas múltiples veces se ha reducido el nombre a una abreviatura y se ofrece por ello a continuación el listado de todas las abreviaturas. Si la cita es única se concreta en ella el título lugar de edición. En la elaboración de esta lista se ha utilizado como guía completar la información artículo de Mariezkurrena, · Mariezkurrena, K. 1992. El repertorio de es el A. E. A .. Archivo de C.S.l.C., Madrid. A. E. F.• Anuario de Eusko Folklore. Laboratorio de Etnología de Eusko Ikaskuntza-Sociedad de Estudios Vascos. Vitoria. A. E., Arqueología Espacial. Colegio Universitario de Teruel. A. l. P. H .. Archives de l'lnslilut de Paléontologie Humaine. París. Alm., Almansor. Cámara Municipal de Montemor-o-Novo, Portugal. Alt., Altamira. Centro de Estudios Montañeses. Diputación Regional de Cantabria-C.S.l.C.. Santander. Amp .. Ampurias. Desde el año l 9 Museo Arqueológico, Barcelona. A. N.. Nationales. Musée des Antiquités Nationalcs. Saint-Germain-en-Laye, France. Ant.. Antiquity. Antiquity Publications Lld. and Oxford University Press. A. P .. Ars Prnehislorica, Anuario Internacional de Arte Prehistórico. Editorial Ausa, Sabadell (Barcelona). Arqu., Investigación y Ciencias de la Naturaleza. Colectivo para la Ampliación de Estudios de Arqueología y Prehistoria, Grupo de Espeleología e Investigaciones Subterráneas Carballo/Raba. Santander. A. P. L.. Archivo de Prehistoria Levantina. Diputación de Valencia. A. R. A., Annual Review of Anthropology. Stanford University, University of California, Rice University. B. A. P., Bajo Aragón Prehistoria.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. the Contemporary Importance and Future of Sulawesi's Ancient Rock
    4 The contemporary importance and future of Sulawesi’s ancient rock art Paul S.C. Taçon, Muhammad Ramli, Budianto Hakim, Adam Brumm and Maxime Aubert Abstract In October 2014, the world learned that the oldest surviving hand stencils and rock paintings of animals were located in southern Sulawesi rather than in Europe. These results, produced using uranium-series dating methods, were the first reported Pleistocene ages for figurative rock art imagery in Island Southeast Asia. We summarise this discovery and its significance in relation to associated research on the oldest rock art of Europe before discussing future research priorities including contemporary concerns about the rock art’s conservation that resulted from discussions between the authors and others in 2015. This review is relevant for rock art research not only for the greater Sulawesi region but also many other parts of the world. Keywords: rock art, dating, conservation, Toalean, Austronesian Painting Tradition Introduction Sulawesi has produced exciting archaeological discoveries of global significance for over 60 years, as this volume attests. From van Heekeren’s (1952, 1957) early reports on intriguing stone tools and rock art to the recent publication of what may well be the world’s oldest rock art, at least 40,000 years old (Aubert et al. 2014), to the more recent publications about stone tools dated to between 118,000 and 194,000 years BP (van den Bergh et al. 2016) and unique Pleistocene portable symbolic material culture (Brumm et al. 2017), Sulawesi has been at the forefront of our understanding of the long-term human history of Island Southeast Asia (ISEA), Sunda and even Sahul.
    [Show full text]