Nevertheless archaeological argumentation is getting out of fashion (Lorblanchet & Bahn 1993).
Even prehistoric research argues with the “style”, i.e. No one would accept a Magdalenian harpoon as Aurignacian, a Medieval dagger as a Bronze Age one only because of a radiocarbon date.
Such a determination would be rejected as aberrant.
The origin of the suspicion of stylistic dating may be that “stylistic analyses” in prehistoric literature are normally very superficial and are never up to standard customary in history of art or Greek and Roman archaeology.
Figure 1: From Gravettian to Badegoulian: 8000 years of Palaeolithic art: Pair-non-Pair (Gravettian): Delluc 1991, Fig. 1996; Grotte Cosquer (“Late Solutrean/Badegoulian”): Clottes et al. 13; Lascaux: Late Badegoulian (Bataille 1955, 113); Pech-Merle: Lemozi 1929, Pl. Therefore we cannot reject dates only because they do not fit to our concepts.
The Grotte Chauvet was discovered at Christmas 1994.
A beautiful picture book came out only a few months later (Chauvet et al. It has been the main source of our knowledge and discussion up to now I am very grateful to J. We refer always to the German edition of Chauvet et al. The Grotte Chauvet was discovered at Christmas 1994.
Clottes for his kind permission to use drawings taken from his publications for my comparative plates (letter 1998-XI-12). It is situated near the upper end of the huge Ardèche Canyon in front of the famous Pont-d´Arc, a natural bridge spanning over the river.
Only a few days later the information about the discovery of a unique, extremely old cave sanctuary spread all over the world.
A beautiful picture book came out only a few months later (Chauvet et al. It has been the main source of our knowledge and discussion up to now. Clottes himself emphasized, that direct dating of rock art may yield very useful results, but should not be used uncritically (Clottes 1994; 1997; cf. But the tide turned immediately after the publication of the first AMS- und 14C – dating. 32,000 – 30,000 BP) – calcite layer – black torch mark (ca.
In 1995 Clottes took the view in an epilogue to the book of Chauvet et al.(1995) that the art of Grotte Chauvet is more or less homogeneous and originates from the Solutrean period (Clottes in Chauvet et al. 26,000 BP) yielded seemingly coherent results: the dates of the stratigraphically earlier paintings are higher than that of the torch marks on the calcite layer covering some paintings after an unknown span of time (Clottes et al. As a consequence of these very high AMS-dates, Grotte Chauvet is now considered to be an Aurignacian sanctuary, previous to all other cave art.
This opinion is taken for granted by different authors.