D 2036 Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in Archaeology of Art

is of a phenomenon related to but not the actual

Dating Methods (Absolute time of manufacture of the art. If these indirect ages
and Relative) in Archaeology of Art are in a stratigraphic relation to rock art (older or
younger), then they produce minimum/maximum
Juan Francisco Ruiz1 and Marvin W. Rowe2 direct dates for related imagery (Bednarik 2007;
1
Facultad de Ciencias de la Educación Morwood et al. 2010; Ruiz et al. 2012).
y Humanidades, Universidad de Castilla La Rock art research has been treated for years as
Mancha, Cuenca, Spain a minor aspect of archaeology. Lack of reliable
2
Texas A&M University at Qatar, Museum of methods to date ancient imagery, both
New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM, USA pictographs and petroglyphs on open-air sites or
inside of deep caves, kept it outside of main-
stream archaeology. This began to change with
Introduction the introduction of scientific dating approaches,
and there are reasons to feel optimistic about
Chronology of rock art, ranging from Paleolithic dating rock art at this time. Several dating groups
to present times, is a key aspect of the archaeol- are currently working on this around the world,
ogy of art and one of the most controversial. It and it is now possible to hope for interlaboratory
was based for decades in nonscientific methods comparison tests to help evaluate the reliability
that used stylistic analysis of imagery to establish and accuracy of the techniques.
one-way evolutionary schemes. Application of
scientific methods, also called absolute dating,
started to be used in the 1980s and since then Key Issues/Current Debates/Future
has increased more and more its significance, as Directions/Examples
judged by the large number of papers published in
the last two decades on this subject (Rowe 2012). Archaeological studies of rock art demand
a temporal framework in which a particular
imagery was produced, as it is the only way to
Definition relate decontextualized imagery to archaeological
cultures. The earlier traditional methods to estab-
Absolute and relative dating methods have been lish chronologies of rock art sites and imagery
used to establish tentative chronologies for rock were based on assumptions made on iconography,
art. Relative dating refers to non-chronometric style, and comparison with excavation evidence
methodologies that produce seriation based on sty- and technical analysis. For example, Paleolithic
listic comparison and stratigraphic assumptions. mobiliary art from excavated sites in Europe was
On the other hand, absolute dating methods are used as a base for stylistic comparison with cave
based on scientific techniques that yield imagery. These evidences, supported by superim-
a chronometric age for a phenomenon in direct or position analyses, produced the great stylistic
indirect physical relation to rock art (same age, schemes for Paleolithic art in Western Europe,
older, or younger). Dating of some binders in pic- which defended a one-way evolution from simple
tographs or the alterations of surfaces by petro- to complex figures, expanding from Aurignacian
glyphs are examples of direct ages related to rock to Magdalenian times (Pettitt & Pike 2007). These
art production. However, it is controversial to con- systems lack enough resolution to produce an
sider these dates as “absolute” as they merely accurate temporal frame for rock art, above all
reflect experimental propositions, which often for styles without consensus on their mobiliary
lack independent verification (Bednarik 2007; parallels.
Pettitt & Pike 2007). Most scientific dating Weaknesses of these stylistic paradigms were
methods are indirect because they produce pointed out (see (Bednarik 2007; Pettitt & Pike
constraining ages for imagery, and the age obtained 2007) for recent reviews of them), but it is
Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in Archaeology of Art 2037 D
important to recognize that they are still useful Dating of charcoal pictographs has been
for rock art chronology because it is obviously broadly used in French and Spanish Paleolithic
impossible to date every figure in a site and every caves (Alcolea & Balbı́n 2007; Steelman & Rowe
site all over the world. A well-defined proxy with 2012), but also in North America and Australia,
stylistic, technical, and chemical composition and other regions of the world. The largest part of
data would be very helpful as a complement to the charcoal pigment dates is considered reliable
scientific dating. A date archaeologically but, for example, in Chauvet Cave, dates
decontextualized is of little value, so it must be are controversial because they are unusually
stressed that any dating should be included in old and conflict with stylistic paradigm. Several D
archaeological hypotheses. authors claimed for a likely contamination of
The first radiocarbon dating on rock paintings datings of Chauvet, as the dates from different
was carried out on a charcoal pictograph in South samples of one single figure in Peña de Candamo
Africa in the late 1980s quickly followed by (Asturias, Spain) showed that results by
others in 1990 in Australia, the USA, and Europe, Geochron Lab (USA) were 15,000 years younger
which added to pioneer research on engravings than those produced by LSCE (France), respon-
dating. A few years later, a broader conscience sible of all Chauvet dates (Pettitt & Pike 2007).
about these new possibilities dictated that This situation reflects pitfalls of the method that
scientific dating of the passage of time became could be accompanied by contamination of
an alternative to stylistic paradigms (Lorblanchet unknown origin, possible repainting for younger
& Bahn 1993). However, debates on very old dates, mistakes in laboratory treatment of sam-
AMS 14C dates from Chauvet Cave (France) ples, and the presence of carbon of different ori-
and very young ones on open-air engravings gin, for example, incomplete dissolution of
dated by several methods in Foz Côa (Portugal) calcium oxalates. An improved specific protocol
showed that style and scientific dates were still to remove contamination produced by calcium
necessary for archaeology of art. oxalates from charcoal paintings has recently
The most common technique for dating rock been developed (Bonneau et al. 2011).
paintings worldwide is the radiocarbon dating of It is indispensable to follow a strict protocol to
the charcoal pigments often used to construct the collect samples during fieldwork. The protocol
drawings. A large number of publications have described in literature tries to avoid contamina-
been collected in the bibliography composed by tions using sterile latex gloves and surgical
Rowe (2012). Dating charcoal has been well masks. Samples are removed from walls with
honed by the radiocarbon community, and the a sterile surgical blade, which is changed and
results can be considered to be generally reliable. discarded after each sample. They are put inside
The main disadvantage to radiocarbon dating of a sheet of folded sterile aluminum foil and
charcoal pigments is that the date measured is placed inside of a labeled plastic bag. The exact
NOT that of the time of execution of the painting. position where samples were removed should be
Rather it dates the pigment and there are two recorded with photographs. Extreme care
caveats that accompany any date of charcoal: ought to be observed on the selection of the
old wood and old charcoal (Steelman & Rowe sampling points to avoid major visual impact or
2012). Old wood phenomena are situations, usu- harm to the pictographs, for example, selecting
ally encountered in desert areas where wood flakes that appear likely to spall from the walls
decays slowly, in which the wood burned to naturally. The size of samples required is uncer-
make charcoal may be up to centuries old. Old tain but around 2 cm2 is generally used for
charcoal may occur when freshly hewn wood is pictographs with inorganic pigments and much
burned, but not used to construct a painting until less for charcoal-pigmented paintings, as for
much later. Both these caveats should be kept in AMS 14C dating only 50–100 mg of carbon is
mind at all times when interpreting charcoal pig- needed for an accurate date. For pictographs
ment radiocarbon dates. with inorganic pigments, e.g., iron ochre or
D 2038 Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in Archaeology of Art

manganese oxides, it is essential to take an It has been shown to be useful to get minimum
unpainted rock sample as near to the sample ages for petroglyphs and minimum/maximum
taken as is feasible. That background rock sample ages for pictographs. On certain locations,
should be processed identically to the pictograph researchers has bracketed dates for rock paintings
sample. A more detailed report on sampling between two oxalate skins, producing a temporal
protocol, reporting of radiocarbon results and frame for pictographs in agreement with archaeo-
laboratory pretreatment of samples, has been logical expectations (Ruiz et al. 2012).
just published (Steelman & Rowe 2012). Sample removal procedure is similar to
AMS 14C has been used to date any other kind that described for radiocarbon dating (Cole &
of carbon-bearing substances related to picto- Watchman 2005). Sample sizes range from
graphs or petroglyphs (Aubert 2012). The 25 mm2 to 1 cm2, depending on oxalate content.
presence of binders has been used to produce Oxalate dating demands microstratigraphic
direct radiocarbon dates of beeswax paintings in analysis and micro-excavation techniques to
Australia (Morwood et al. 2010). Vegetal resins avoid contamination between upper and lower
and wax are binders of these paints. It is consid- layers of calcium oxalate. Mechanical proce-
ered that wax would have been fresh when dures and laser ablation have been used so far
applied on walls to construct the drawings, so it for this purpose (Watchman 2000). There are
should be ambient source of carbon to date rock two main drawbacks for oxalate dates: (1) radio-
art. In the Australian Kimberley area, a range of carbon age of any calcium oxalate crust is
dates from 3,780
60 BP to present times were a weighted “average” of oxalate deposited for
obtained (Morwood et al. 2010). Rowe and long periods of time, even into modern times, so
coworkers have dated non-charcoal paintings in (2) they always yield minimum ages, and in
several sites in North and South America (Rowe consequence the archaeological significance of
& Steelman 2003; Steelman & Rowe 2012). them is limited by our ignorance of time lapse
These pictographs were made with inorganic among rock art creation and formation of the
pigments, mainly iron oxides, so it is assumed oxalate crust (Fig. 1).
that some organic binder must be present in them. A similar approach can be used with silica
Replicate measurements on samples of the same skins. These accretionary crusts are formed
pictograph yield an uncertainty of
250 years during evaporation of runoff water solutions
suggesting results are reliable (Steelman & containing monomeric silicic acid that after
Rowe 2012). dehydration forms a hard noncrystalline film on
Indirect dating by AMS 14C has been widely the surface of rocks (Watchman 2000). Organic
used to date carbon-bearing accretionary crusts matter like diatoms and other algal has been
(like calcium oxalate skins) or organic matter found inside of finely laminated silica crusts
inclusions in mineral coatings (amorphous silica overlying pictographs in Australia, for example,
skins). Calcium oxalate dating is a procedure to set giving a minimum age for related Bradshaw-style
a temporal frame on the age of a pictograph or a figures. The same procedure has been described
petroglyph. Calcium oxalate coatings appear to date a silicate accreted paint layer.
naturally on walls in two mineral forms: Calcium carbonate coatings interstratified
whewellite and weddellite. The exact process of with pictographs or engravings can be used to
formation of these accretionary crusts is still obtain constrains on their time of manufacture.
unknown, but there is a broad consensus that they U-Th series disequilibrium method is applied to
form from ambient carbon dioxide and that they date the formation time of calcite coatings. They
are deposited on external faces of rocks after met- are formed from the redeposition of dissolved
abolic activity of lichens, microbes, and bacteria. calcium carbonate from saturated solutions of
This method was first used in Australia in the early water that flow across the surfaces of rocks and
1990s, and since then it has been used in sites all eventually deposit over rock art. In these flow-
over the world (see review by Ruiz et al. 2012). stone crusts are contained small quantities of
Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in Archaeology of Art 2039 D
Dating Methods
(Absolute and Relative)
in Archaeology of Art,
Fig. 1 Group of zigzags
and Levantine zoomorphs
from Cueva del Tı́o
Modesto (Henarejos,
Cuenca, Spain).
A microsample was
collected from point
indicated in upper picture. D
Cross section shows two
painting events
interstratified with calcium
oxalate layers (down). Two
14
C AMS dates were
obtained related to this
microstratigraphic packet
(q quartz, h hematite, g
gypsum, c-o calcium
oxalate)

uranium (U), an element soluble in water, while activity of another isotope, 232Th, which can be
they are relatively free of thorium (Th), an detected in elevated levels in detritus.
insoluble chemical element. The method is Samples could be extracted by scraping with
based on the radioactive decay chain from parent a surgical blade or with an electric drill. They
238
U into the intermediary isotope 234U and could be very small (10–150 mg) and very
finally to daughter 230Th. Relative measurement thin (0.5–2 mm), depending on uranium
between these three isotopes in calcium carbon- content. Submillimeter-thick laminations can be
ate crusts allows calculation of the age of the accurately dated by this method. Two lab
carbonate host as the decay rate is known. treatments are described in literature, an acid
Detrital materials, such as aeolian dust or silts wash (Taçon et al. 2012) and a micromill
and clays dissolved into water, incorporated into preparation (Hoffmann et al. 2009), after which
calcite layers are a potential contaminant that laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass
could distort the results producing overestimated spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) is used to isotopic
ages (Taçon et al. 2012). Low 230Th/232Th ratios ratio measurements.
are indicative of detrital contamination. This U-Th dating was first used in South Australia
concern can be corrected by measuring the to give an estimation of the age of two
D 2040 Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in Archaeology of Art

petroglyphs concealed by speleothems (Bednarik aeolian sediment accumulations that yielded dates
1999). The result yielded a minimum age for from 10,000
1,000 years at the top to 16,000

these cupules of 28,000
2,000 years BP. At 2,000 years at the base of the sequence. This is
least two research groups are currently working considered as evidence of Pleistocene age rock art
with this method, one in Australia and Asia in Egypt (Huyge et al. 2011). Future directions for
(Taçon et al. 2012) and the other one in Europe this technique could try to date individual quartz
(Pike et al. 2012). A large-scale U-series dating grains underlying paintings, but many uncer-
program has recently been carried out in several tainties have to be resolved first.
Paleolithic caves of northern Spain (Pike et al. At least three techniques are being currently used
2012); the extremely old results of some of these to date petroglyphs. The older of the more com-
dates (a red disk in El Castillo has a minimum age monly used techniques is that of “microerosion
of 41,400
570 years BP) are controversial, analysis” developed by Bednarik who has published
because the older of these dates are very near to widely on the subject (see bibliography Rowe 2012
the time when modern humans appeared in that for references through 2011). The method is based
region. (Pike et al. 2012). On the other hand, on direct microscopic observations on fractures of
since we know that modern humans did art and crystals in rock surfaces produced by petroglyphs.
were present in this same time span, there is little Newly broken or abraded rock surfaces are very
reason to introduce Neanderthals as the artists of sharp, but over time they become progressively
this art. In southern China, U-Th dating has more rounded. Two major advantages of the tech-
yielded minimum/maximum ages for naturalistic nique are (1) that it is nondestructive and (2) it
pictographs in an open-air shelter, and they have measures the date of the targeted event, i.e., the
been compared with 14C AMS dating of plant manufacture of the petroglyph. A perceived prob-
debris and microorganisms trapped inside of lem, one shared by all the described dating tech-
calcite crust, after an estimation of the contribu- niques, is that it has not been independently verified
tion of geological carbon in calcium carbonate by any other laboratory. Its dependence on calibra-
(Taçon et al. 2012). tion from rock surfaces of known age and on
OSL (optically stimulated luminescence) weathering assumptions has been criticized.
dating has been used by several groups. The The other two techniques are as follows:
method is based on an estimation of the time (1) microlamination analysis of desert varnish
since grains of quartz or feldspar were last exposed developed by Liu and coworkers (see bibliography
to daylight. Stimulating samples with laser pro- Rowe 2012 for Liu et al. complete references
duces luminescence signals whose intensity varies through 2011). This has been applied specifically
depending on the radiation absorbed before last to rock art in only one recent instance (Tratebas &
light exposition. Obviously, samples should be Dorn 2012). Although destructive, only a small
collected in absolute darkness. Pioneering work sample is needed for the analysis for a date. The
with this method was on quartz grains on mud- method is fairly straightforward for archaeologists
wasp nests overlying pictographs in Northern Aus- and geologists. It is based on stratigraphy of desert
tralia (Aubert 2012). The resultant ages range from varnish formation over a fresh rock surface. Once
present time to 1,530
220 years old but yielded a rock surface is removed, desert varnish begins to
three very old dates between 17,000 years and form, but not uniformly in depth. Rather it is
24,000 years. These extremely old dates have varied depending on the climatic conditions that
been criticized as it is very difficult to believe change over time. A situation develops that may
that those fragile structures have survived many be viewed in analogy to tree rings, except that with
millennia (Bednarik 2007). Additional concerns microlamination that it has far less resolution,
have been expressed by Bednarik (2007) and changing discernibly on centuries rather than
Aubert (2012). OSL dating has been applied to years. Obviously calibration is needed, using stud-
date petroglyphs in Qurta sites (Nile valley, ies of rock surfaces dated with independent
Egypt). A part of panel QII.4.2 was concealed by methods to construct the necessary curve.
Dating Methods (Absolute and Relative) in Archaeology of Art 2041 D
The method, developed by Dr. Tanzhuo Liu (see ▶ Mobiliary Art, Paleolithic
references his geochemical applications in Rowe ▶ North American Rock Art
2012), has been blind tested and replicated and ▶ Organic Residue Analysis in Archaeology
hence can be viewed with promise for dating pet- ▶ Pigment Analysis in Archaeology
roglyphs. (2) Determining the buildup of ▶ Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology
manganese in desert varnish as it forms over ▶ South American Rock Art
newly exposed petroglyphs over time is the basis ▶ Style: Its Role in the Archaeology of Art
for a technique developed by Lytle et al. (Rogers ▶ Techniques of Paleolithic Art
2010). This technique is also nondestructive; mea- ▶ Unilinear Evolution and Lineal Time: D
surements can be carried out on site. It requires A Critique
construction of a calibration curve. The principle
of the method is quite straightforward. In a newly
constructed petroglyph, the removed surface
References
exposes fresh rock, usually very low in manga-
nese. As the petroglyph weathers over time, man- ALCOLEA, J.J. & R. DE BALBÍN. 2007. C14 et style:
ganese content steadily builds up as a component La chronologie de l’art pariétal à l’heure actuelle.
of the desert varnish that forms over the previously L’Anthropologie 111(4): 435–66.
AUBERT, M. 2012. A review of rock art dating in the
exposed surface over time. Manganese measure-
Kimberley, Western Australia. Journal of Archaeolog-
ments can be performed in a few minutes with ical Science 39(3): 573–7.
pXRF devices without sample removal. Using BEDNARIK, R.G. 1999. The speleothem medium of finger
the calibration curve, the time of formation of the flutings and its isotopic geochemistry. The Artifact 22:
49–64.
petroglyph is directly measured. Only Lytle’s
- 2007. The dating of rock art, in Rock art science. The
group has measured petroglyph construction scientific study of palaeoart: 115–52. New Delhi:
dates using the technique. At present, the method Ayran Books.
claims an uncertainty of 
30 %. BONNEAU, A., F. BROCK, T. HIGHAM, D. PEARCE & A.
POLLARD. 2011. An improved pretreatment protocol
In our opinion, the time has come for the
for radiocarbon dating black pigments in San rock
three groups conducting petroglyph dates to art. Radiocarbon 53(3): 419–28.
compare the methods, one against the other. If COLE, N. & A. WATCHMAN. 2005. AMS dating of rock art in
all agree, petroglyph dating would at that point be the Laura region, Cape York Peninsula, Australia -
protocols and results of recent research. Antiquity 79:
considered viable by all techniques, a very impor-
661–78.
tant verification, and a giant step forward in HOFFMANN, D.L., C. SPÖTL & A. MANGINI. 2009. Micromill
petroglyph dating. and in situ laser ablation sampling techniques for high
spatial resolution MC-ICPMS U-Th dating of carbon-
ates. Chemical Geology 259(3-4): 253–61.
HUYGE, D., D.A.G. VANDENBERGHE, M. DE DAPPER,
Cross-References F. MEES, W. CLAES & J.C. DARNELL. 2011. First evi-
dence of Pleistocene rock art in North Africa: securing
▶ Altamira and Paleolithic Cave Art of Northern the age of the Qurta petroglyphs (Egypt) through OSL
dating. Antiquity 85: 1184–93.
Spain
LORBLANCHET, M. & P. BAHN. 1993. Rock art studies: the
▶ Art, Paleolithic post-stylistic era or where do we go from here? Papers
▶ Australian Rock Art presented in Symposium A of the 2nd AURA Congress,
▶ Bednarik, Robert G. Cairns 1992 (Oxbow Monographs 35). Oxford:
Oxbow Books.
▶ Chronological Systems, Establishment of
MORWOOD, M.J., A. WATCHMAN & G.L. WALSH. 2010.
▶ Côa Valley Rock Art Sites AMS radiocarbon ages for beeswax and charcoal pig-
▶ Dating Techniques in Archaeological Science ments in north Kimberley rock art. Rock Art Research
▶ Europe: Paleolithic Art 27(1): 3–8.
PETTITT, P.B. & A.W.G. PIKE. 2007. Dating European
▶ Europe: Prehistoric Rock Art
Palaeolithic cave art: progress, prospects, problems.
▶ Iberian Mediterranean Basin: Rock Art Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14(1):
▶ Leroi-Gourhan, André 27–47.
D 2042 Dating Methods in Historical Archaeology

PIKE, A.W.G., D.L. HOFFMANN, M. GARCÍA DÍEZ, P.B. HASSIBA, R., G.B. CIESLINSKI, B. CHANCE, F. ABDULLA
PETTITT, J.J. ALCOLEA, R. DE BALBIN, C. GONZÁLEZ AL-NAIMI, M. PILANT & M.W. ROWE. 2012. Determin-
SAINZ, C. DE LAS HERAS, J.A. LASHERAS, R. MONTES & ing the age of Qatari Jabal Jassasiyah Petroglyphs.
J. ZILHÃO, J. 2012. U-series dating of Paleolithic art in QScience Connect 4. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/
11 caves in Spain. Science 336(6087): 1409–13. 10.5339/connect.2012.4.
ROGERS, A.K. 2010. A chronology of six rock art motifs in HESS, D., D.J. COKER, J.M. LOUTSCH & J. RUSS. 2007.
the Cosa Range, eastern California. American Indian Production of oxalates in vitro by microbes isolated
Rock Art 36: 23–36. from rock surfaces with prehistoric paints in the Lower
ROWE, M.W. 2012. Bibliography of rock art dating. Rock Pecos region, Texas. Geoarchaeology 23(1): 3–11.
Art Research 29(1): 118–31. LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1971. Préhistoire de l’art occidental,
ROWE, M.W. & K. STEELMAN. 2003. Comment on “Some 2nd edn. Paris: Mazenod.
evidence of a date of first humans to arrive in Brazil.” MCDONALD, J., K. OFFICER, T. JULL, D. DONAHUE, J. HEAD &
Journal of Archaeological Science 30(10): 1349–51. B. FORD. 1990. Investigating AMS: dating prehistoric
RUIZ, J.F., A. HERNANZ, R.A. ARMITAGE, M.W. ROWE, R. rock art in the Sydney Sandstone Basin. Rock Art
VIÑAS, J.M. GAVIRA-VALLEJO & A. RUBIO. 2012. Cal- Research 7: 83–92.
cium oxalate AMS 14C dating and chronology of post- ROBERTS, R., G. WALSH, A. MURRAY, J. OLLEY, R. JONES,
Palaeolithic rock paintings in the Iberian Peninsula. M. MORWOOD, C. TUNIZ, E. LAWSON, M. MACPHAIL & D.
Two dates from Abrigo de los Oculados (Henarejos, BOWDERY. 1997. Luminescence dating of rock art and
Cuenca, Spain). Journal of Archaeological Science past environments using mud-wasp nests in northern
39(8): 2655–67. Australia. Nature 387(6634): 696–9.
STEELMAN, K.L. & M.W. ROWE. 2012. Radiocarbon dating ROWE, M. W. 2009. Radiocarbon dating of rock paintings:
of rock paintings: incorporating pictographs into the cold plasma extraction of organic carbon. Analytical
archaeological record, in J. McDonald & P. Veth (ed.) Chemistry 81(5): 1728–35.
A companion to rock art: 565–82. Oxford: Blackwell RUSS, J., M. HYMAN, H.J. SHAFER & M.W. ROWE. 1990.
Publishing Ltd. Radiocarbon dating of prehistoric rock paintings by
TAÇON, P.S.C., M. AUBERT, L. GANG, Y. DECONG, L. HONG, selective oxidation of organic carbon. Nature 348:
S.K. MAY, S. FALLON, J. XUEPING, D. CURNOE & A.I.R. 710–11.
HERRIES. 2012. Uranium-series age estimates for rock TAÇON, P.S.C., S.K. MAY, S. FALLON, M. TRAVERS,
art in southwest China. Journal of Archaeological D. WESLEY & R. LAMILANI. 2010. A minimum age for
Science 39(2): 492–99. early depictions of Southeast Asian praus in the rock
TRATABAS, A. & R. I. DORN. 2012. Utility of varnish art of Arnhem Land, Northern Territory. Australian
microlamination for dating petroglyphs. Presentation Archaeology 71: 1–10.
at the Congreso Internacional Arqueologia y Arte VALLADAS, H., H. CACHIER & M. ARNOLD. 1990. AMS C-14
Rupestre, La Paz, Bolivia, 25-29 de junio, 2012. dates for the prehistoric Cougnac Cave paintings and
WATCHMAN, A. 2000. Micro-excavation and laser extraction related bone remains. Rock Art Research 7: 18–9.
methods for dating carbon in silica skins and oxalate VALLADAS, H. & J. CLOTTES. 2003. Style, Chauvet and
crusts, in G. K. Ward & C. Tuniz (ed.) Advances in radiocarbon. Antiquity 295: 142–5.
dating Australian rock-markings: papers from the First VAN DER MERWE, N.J., J.C. SEALY & R. YATES. 1987. First
Australian Rock-Picture Dating Workshop. Held at accelerator carbon-14 date for pigment from a rock
Woods Centre, Lucas Heights, 8 to 10 February 1996 painting. South African Journal of Science 83: 56–7.
(Occasional AURA Publication 10): 35-9. Melbourne:
Australian Rock Art Research Association.

Further Reading Dating Methods in Historical

BEDNARIK, R.G. 2010. Developments in petroglyph dating. Archaeology
Rock Art Research 27(2): 217–22.
BREUIL, H., 1952. Four hundred centuries of cave art,
1st edn. London: Zwemmer. Kit W. Wesler
CLOTTES, J., 2001. La Grotte Chauvet: l’art des origines. Murray State University, Murray, KY, USA
Paris: Seuil.
DAVID, B., C. TUNIZ, E. LAWSON, Q. HUA, G.E. JACOBSEN,
J. HEAD & M.W. ROWE. 2000. Dating charcoal drawings
from Chillagoe, north Queensland, in Time and space: Introduction and Definition
dating and spatial considerations in rock art research
(Occasional Publication 8): 84-9. Melbourne: Dating methods in historical archaeology differ
Australian Rock Art Research Association.
little from the methods of archaeology in general.
DORN, R.I. & D.S. WHITLEY. 1983. Cation-ratio dating of
petroglyphs from the Western Basin, North America. Both absolute and relative dating approaches are
Nature 302: 816–8. employed. However, historical archaeology has