Res

earc

h

A question of style: reconsidering thestylistic approach to dating Palaeolithicparietal art in FranceGenevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell∗

The authors deconstruct the basis for datingthe Palaeolithic cave paintings of France andfind it wanting. Only five per cent are directlydated and the remainder belong to a stylisticframework that has grown organically, andwith much circularity, as new paintings werebrought to light. Following a constructivebouleversement, the authors recommend anew chronometric foundation based on chainsof evidence anchored by radiocarbon dates.The story so far is striking: it brings many ofthe themes and techniques thought typical ofthe later painters into the repertoire of theirmuch earlier predecessors.

Keywords: France, Palaeolithic, Aurignacian, Gravettian, Solutrean, Magdalenian, cavepainting, parietal art

“Le premier desir du prehistorien en face d’une paroi portant un decor est peut-etremoins celui de comprendre le secret des images que d’etablir leur chronologie, deprendre pied en temps” Andre Leroi-Gourhan (1984: 197).

IntroductionIt is estimated that no more than five per cent of European caves containing Palaeolithicparietal art have direct chronometric dates (Pettitt & Pike 2007). This situation is due to anumber of factors including cost, the required presence of carbon (charcoal) in the paintingsand, until recently, the destructive sample size required for radiocarbon dating. At present

∗ Department of Anthropology, University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC V8P 5C2, Canada(Email: gvonpetz@gmail.com; anowell@uvic.ca)

Received: 6 September 2010; Accepted: 17 November 2010; Revised: 15 February 2011

ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 1165–1183 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0851165.htm

1165

A question of style

there are no reliable alternative direct chronometric methods (see Pettitt & Pike 2007). Thesituation is further complicated by the fact that seemingly contemporaneous images can beseparated by hundreds if not thousands of years (Clottes et al. 1990; Davidson 1997: 148)and, therefore, multiple dates may be required to identify independent episodes of imagemaking. As a result, while AMS dating requiring smaller sizes and more precise and accuratecalibration curves is now available (Reimer et al. 2010), the discipline still relies mainlyon stylistic dating to temporally order Palaeolithic decorated caves (Bahn & Vertut 1997:73).

These stylistic schemes, principally those formulated by Breuil (1952) and Leroi-Gourhan(1962), have enormously influenced the way we understand the origins and developmentof parietal art. These researchers based their schemes on the presence of stratified, in situportable art that could be linked stylistically to parietal art in the same cave. Parietal art inother caves that could in turn be associated stylistically with these caves was then used toproduce an overall chronological framework within which to study Palaeolithic art (Gonzalez& Behrmann 2007; Pettitt & Pike 2007). While there are many differences between theirapproaches (e.g. Breuil saw two cycles, with the second building on the first, whereasLeroi-Gourhan saw a single progression), both scholars emphasised the gradual origin andlinear progression of the art. Within this scheme, animals developed from simple, archaicforms into complex, detailed, accurate figures, and non-figurative signs evolved from simple,naturalistic markings into abstract, stylised expressions (Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1995: 439,441, 456, 491; Bahn & Vertut 1997: 70; Clottes 1998: 125; Lewis-Williams 2002: 81–2). Later discoveries were fitted into these chronologies, which solidified over time. In avery real sense, this stylistic framework has come to dictate what we expect to see in thearchaeological record. Using the dating record for French parietal art, this paper will examinethe chronometric foundations of stylistic dating.

MethodNearly 80 per cent of all known Upper Palaeolithic (UP) parietal and portable art in Franceis attributed to the Magdalenian period (c. 18 000 BP–11 000 BP) (Leroi-Gourhan et al.1995: 491). Is this spike in artistic production primarily the result of hominin behaviour,differential preservation due to taphonomic processes, or the manner in which the stylisticframework is implemented? In all likelihood, this ‘explosion’ of art is likely a result ofsome combination of these factors, but in this paper we focus only on the role playedby stylistic dating. Drawing on the established stylistic framework as a point of reference,researchers often attribute a newly discovered site to the Solutrean or Magdalenian unlessthere is substantial physical evidence to the contrary. Bahn comments “who, for example,would have assigned the Vogelherd animals, the Hohlenstein-Stein statuette, the Galgenbergfigurine, or the Brassempouy head to the Aurignacian if they had not been found in layersfrom that period?” (Bahn & Vertut 1997: 71).

Similarly, the art at Chauvet was tentatively assigned to the Solutrean or Magdalenianperiod before the early radiocarbon dates were obtained (c. 33 000 BP and 26 000 BP)(Clottes 1998: 120), and even though there are now 82 radiocarbon dates attesting to itsantiquity, the Aurignacian date continues to generate controversy (Cuzange et al. 2007).

1166

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

Figure 1. Breakdown of dating methods used at French Aurignacian sites containing parietal art (n = 9).

This is likely because Chauvet challenges the well-entrenched notion of the gradual, lineardevelopment of parietal art. For some, it is too complex stylistically and thematically tofit comfortably within the Aurignacian as traditionally envisioned (see e.g. Pettitt & Bahn2003; Zuchner 2003; Pettitt 2008; Pettitt et al. 2009). In challenging Chauvet, Pettitt andBahn (2003: 139) argue that many of the features, themes, styles and techniques present atthis site are “strongly and indubitably associated with much later periods.” But how reliableis their frame of reference?

While we will examine the validity of the stylistic approach as it pertains specifically toChauvet elsewhere, in this paper we address this issue more broadly. We look first at theratio of chronometrically to non-chronometrically dated sites within each cultural periodof the UP (Figures 1–4). We then explore whether or not the chronometrically dated sites(Table 1) are used as anchor points for dating other sites or whether sites are stylisticallydated in comparison with sites that are themselves stylistically dated (Figure 5).

Following this, we provide several examples of specific sites and image types where theassumption of a default to a later date may well need to be reconsidered. The implications ofthis reorganisation for our understanding of the age of individual sites and their relationshipswith each other are discussed. Finally, we argue for a method for dating Palaeolithic parietalart that is based on a greater reliance on sites with direct chronometric dates (or reasonablysecure indirect chronometric dates) and the use of these sites as ‘anchor-points’ aroundwhich other sites could then be grouped stylistically.

1167

A question of style

Figure 2. Breakdown of dating methods used at French Gravettian sites containing parietal art (n = 28).

Figure 3. Breakdown of dating methods used at French Solutrean sites containing parietal art (n = 33).

1168

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

Figure 4. Breakdown of dating methods used at French Magdalenian sites containing parietal art (n = 87).

Chronometric vs non-chronometric datingThe ratios of chronometrically to non-chronometrically dated sites within each UP culturalperiod were derived from a database created for the study of French UP sites containingnon-figurative signs (von Petzinger 2009). While it does not include every site in France,with 142 physical locations and 156 identified periods of activity, the size of the datasetis adequate to address the issues considered here. What is immediately apparent from thegraphs is the complete absence of sites stylistically dated to the Aurignacian. This standsin stark contrast to the very high percentage of stylistically dated sites associated with laterperiods. What this seems to suggest is that sites are never thought to be Aurignacian unlessthere are radiocarbon dates or archaeological materials uncovered in situ that support thisdesignation — style is never used as the sole criterion. It is only with later periods that westart to see many more sites being dated by reference to style alone.

Starting in the Gravettian, the number of stylistically dated sites rises to above 50 percent, but what differentiates this period from the Solutrean and Magdalenian is its relativelyhigh number of direct chronometrically dated sites. In the Gravettian, there are four directlydated sites — Pech-Merle, Grotte Cosquer, Cougnac and Mayenne-Sciences. In addition,there are another six sites where radiocarbon dates were obtained from indirect sources suchas materials from occupation layers or, as in the case of Gargas, from a bone wedged in thewall beside the negative hand panel at the site (Clottes 1998: 115). When these two datingtypes are combined, over 30 per cent of the sites from the Gravettian have chronometric

1169

A question of style

dates, making it the second most securely dated period of parietal art during the UpperPalaeolithic after the Aurignacian.

By comparison, the Solutrean and Magdalenian periods demonstrate a heavy reliance onstylistic dating. There are very few directly dated sites from these periods — the Solutreanhas only Grotte Cosquer, while the Magdalenian has Cougnac, Niaux and Le Portel. With33 sites in the Solutrean, and 87 sites in the Magdalenian, having such a small number ofwell-dated sites to use for comparison means that most sites are dated by stylistic comparisonwith sites that are themselves less solidly anchored in time. The situation in the Solutreanis particularly problematic in that only three indirect chronometrically dated sites —including La Tete du Lion (Combier 1984: 597) and Le Placard (Clottes et al. 1991) —can be attributed to this period, meaning that nearly all Solutrean sites have been assignedstylistically. The Magdalenian does at least have 17 indirect chronometrically dated sites andwhen combined with the directly dated sites, about 23 per cent of parietal art sites fromthis period do rely on chronometric dating of one type or another. But, considering that theMagdalenian boasts the largest number of sites with parietal art, the fact that more than 75per cent of these sites are dated by non-chronometric means is problematic.

Table 1 provides a full listing of all French UP sites that have yielded chronometricdates (14C) directly from parietal imagery. As this table clearly shows, the directly datedsites in France are truly a minority. To further investigate the basis for dating theremainder, we looked at whether the stylistic assignment of sites was done with reference tochronometrically dated sites, or based solely on other stylistically dated sites. To accomplishthis, we created a flowchart that documented the basis for each site’s assignment to itsrespective time period (Figure 5). The top portion of the chart includes listings of Gravettian,Solutrean and Magdalenian sites stylistically dated by perceived similarities in general themesand techniques. The other sites included in this chart are those that have been comparedwith a specifically named site or sites for their stylistic assignment, even though, as thischart shows, many of those source sites themselves are also stylistically dated. The result is a‘family tree’, with a large number of stylistically dated sites being used to date other sites —what Clottes (1993) calls a “double assumption” — without any linkages back to primarysites with chronometric dating.

While this flowchart does not capture every case of double assumption, the number ofsites and the tangle of relationships are sufficient to highlight the problems that exist in thecurrent framework. Grotte Cosquer, which is currently the only site directly dated to theSolutrean, has not been used to date a single site in that period. Two periods of activity havebeen documented there based on seven radiocarbon dates obtained from charcoal scatteredon the floor, and nine dates directly from the images (Clottes 1998: 116). The lack ofits usage as an anchor-point within the Solutrean period is puzzling. Instead, what we seeare indirectly or stylistically dated sites being used in a very circular manner. In his 2007article on style and horse imagery in the UP, Pigeaud also addresses this concern aboutchronological reliability by observing that “many sites are dated purely by stylistic means. Ifrepresentations were selected according to chronological attributions, was there not a dangerof falling into a circular argument?” (2007: 412).

The circular dating phenomenon is especially apparent in the south-east region of France(Ardeche and Gard) where the sites that make up the purported ‘Ardeche Solutrean culture’

1170

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

Table 1. Listing by stylistic period of all French UP sites with direct chronometric dating ofparietal art.

Chauvet Aurignacian 32 410+−720 Rhino 2 Gif A 95132 Valladas et al. 200131 350+−620 Megaceros Gif A 96063 Valladas et al. 200130 940+−610 Rhino 1 Gif A 95126 Valladas et al. 200130 790+−600 Rhino 2 Gif A 95133 Valladas et al. 200130 340+−570 Bison Gif A 95128 Valladas et al. 200130 230+−530 Auroch Gif A 96065 Valladas et al. 200129 670+−950 Horse 1 - Gif A 98160 Valladas et al. 2001

humic fraction27 130+−490 ‘Trace Chinois’ Gif A 101454 Valladas et al. 2001

Gravettian 20 790+−340 Horse 1 Gif A 98157 Valladas et al. 2001

Cosquer Gravettian 28 370+−440 Oval sign Gif A 96074 Clottes et al. 199627 740+−410 Hand stencil 19 Gif A 96073 Clottes et al. 199627 350+−430 Bison 2 Gif A 95195 Clottes et al. 199627 110+−390 Hand stencil 7 Gif A 92409 Clottes & Courtin 199327 110+−350 Hand stencil 7 Gif A 92491 Clottes & Courtin 199326 250+−350 Bison 2 Gif A 96069 Clottes et al. 199624 840+−340 Hand stencil 12 Gif A 95358 Clottes et al. 199624 730+−300 Horse 5 Gif A 96072 Clottes et al. 1996

Solutrean 19 340+−200 Megaceros Gif A 95135 Clottes et al. 199619 200+−220 Feline head Gif A 92418 Clottes & Courtin 199318 530+−180 Bison 1 Gif A 92492 Clottes & Courtin 199318 840+−240 Horse 1 Gif A 92416 Clottes & Courtin 199318 820+−310 Horse 1 Gif A 92417 Clottes & Courtin 199318 010+−190 Bison 1 Gif A 92419 Clottes & Courtin 199317 800+−160 Star-shaped sign Gif A 96075 Clottes et al. 1996

Magdalenian 14 050+−180 ‘Jellyfish’ sign Gif A 96101 Clottes et al. 1996

Cougnac Gravettian 25 120+−390 Female Megaceros Gif A 92425 Valladas et al. 199323 615+−351 Male Megaceros Gif A 91183 Valladas et al. 199322 750+−390 Male Megaceros Gif A 92426 Valladas et al. 199319 498+−267 Female Megaceros Gif A 91324 Valladas et al. 1993

Magdalenian 14 290+−180 Dot Gif A 89250 Valladas et al. 199313 810+−210 Dot Gif A 92500 Valladas et al. 1993

Le Portel Magdalenian 12 180+−125 Horse AA-9465 Igler et al. 199411 600+−150 Big horse AA-9766 Igler et al. 1994

Mayenne- Gravettian 24 900+−360 Horse 15 Gif A 100645 Pigeaud et al. 2003Sciences 24 220+−850 Horse 15 Gif A 100647 Pigeaud et al. 2003

Niaux Magdalenian 13 850+−150 Bison, panel 5 Gif A 92501 Valladas et al. 199213 060+−200 Line, panel 1 Gif A 92499 Clottes et al. 199212 890+−160 Bison, panel 1 Gif A 91319 Valladas et al. 1992

Pech-Merle Gravettian 24 640+−390 Spotted horse Gif A 95357 Lorblanchetet al. 1995

1171

A question of style

Figure 5. Flowchart of stylistic dating relationships between French UP sites.

1172

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

Figure 5. Continued.

1173

A question of style

are all dated by reference to each other, with only two indirectly dated source sites with 14Cdates from occupation layers, and just one of these, Grotte d’Oulen, is used to date othersites. There are also two sites with relative dating (Solutrean tools in occupation layers) andof these only Chabot is used as a source site; all of the other sites in this region are stylisticallydated, most often based on each other. With Chauvet in the same region, and without trulypersuasive data to show that a Solutrean sub-culture existed, it is interesting to speculatehow the dating in this region would have evolved if Chauvet had been discovered and datedat an earlier point in research history (this question will be addressed elsewhere).

Similarly, the Magdalenian directly dated sites of Cougnac and Niaux are used to dateonly seven other sites, and Le Portel has not been used in a single case. Considering thenumber of sites from the Magdalenian period, this suggests a significant under-utilisationof these securely dated and visually rich sites. While there are many examples that could bepulled from the chart, we have chosen to focus on Font-de-Gaume, a well-known Frenchsite, as a case study of the larger, systemic issues of the stylistic approach as it is applied toFrench cave art.

Font-de-GaumeDiscovered in 1901, Font-de-Gaume has been the subject of detailed archaeologicalexcavations, as well as having parietal images that have been well documented and studied(see e.g. Capitan et al. 1910; Roussot et al. 1983: 151–63; Roussot 1984: 129–34; Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1995: 508–510). The paintings at the site are classified as late Solutrean/earlyMagdalenian, with the majority of images dating to the latter period (Roussot 1984: 133;Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1995: 508). This dating is based entirely on stylistic attributes. Theimages in Font-de-Gaume, such as the polychrome paintings and the tectiforms, are seen tobe typical of Leroi-Gourhan’s Style III–IV (Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1995: 508–509) and thissite has been used on several occasions as the source site for stylistically dating other parietalfinds.

However, while there is well-stratified archaeological evidence for Mousterian,Chatelperronian and Aurignacian use of the cave, there are no Solutrean or Magdalenianremains other than a scatter of possible Solutrean surface material that is unprovenanced(Roussot 1984: 131). The strength of belief in the stylistic dating system is so great,however, that this lack of evidence to support Font-de-Gaume’s assignment to later periodshas been dismissed in favour of the stylistic attributes of the art. As Roussot has stated, “Bienque la majeure partie sinon la totalite des figurations parietales de la grotte appartienneau Magdalenien, cette epoque n’apparaıt pas evidente dans le materiel de Font-de-Gaume”(1984: 131). While it is always possible that these later artists did not leave anything behind,the presence of early periods with good stratigraphy within the principal gallery would havebeen sufficient in most cases to result in an assignment to a corresponding period.

Not using tools uncovered at the site as part of the chronological assessment of Font-de-Gaume is a good example of what can happen when a specific paradigm becomes so deeplyentrenched in the minds of researchers that other lines of evidence are ignored when they arein conflict with what we expect to see. The presence of tectiforms and polychrome paintings,both considered ‘type-fossils’ of the later periods, rendered an earlier date unthinkable. But

1174

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

as Bahn and Vertut have rightly argued, “there are no real ‘type-fossils’, and styles are veryhard to define and separate” (1997: 72). While we are not denying the possibility thatFont-de-Gaume could very well be from the Magdalenian period, or that Pech-Merle couldindeed have had three periods of occupation, we believe these examples highlight some ofthe weaknesses and inconsistencies that exist in the current stylistically based approach todating Palaeolithic parietal art.

The way forwardAs Moro-Abadıa and Gonzalez Morales (2007: 110) have suggested, “stylistic approacheswill be useful only if specialists take the new chronological developments into consideration.”Since we do have both directly and indirectly chronometrically dated sites in every period,these could be used as the primary and secondary anchors. While we would still need to becareful about sites that appear to have multiple periods of activity, this approach would atleast provide researchers with a firmer starting point.

Use of the chronometrically dated sites allows us to create a baseline of what was beingdepicted at any given point in time. With stylistic dating, similarities are usually discernedwith reference to theme and technique, or as Pigeaud puts it, “style is not what unites,but what differentiates” (2007: 410). Moro-Abadıa and Gonzalez Morales (2007: 115) havesuggested “the concept of ‘style’ implies a specific way of doing something in a specific time.”The use of these securely dated sites as a means of documenting the presence and absenceof different characteristics of the imagery during each time period would result in a moresecure seriation of the art itself. While a full reorganisation of the stylistic dating system hasyet to be undertaken, below are two case studies, finger fluting and negative hands, showinghow this might be accomplished.

Finger flutingFinger fluting is defined as “lines made with fingers drawn over a soft surface” (Sharpe &Van Gelder 2006: 281). In form it can be figurative, non-figurative, or have no recognisablesymbol, picture or pattern (Sharpe & Van Gelder 2006: 281), making it both a technique(usually characterised as a sub-type of engraving) and an image type. If we omit examplesof finger fluting as a technique (i.e. when it is used to create figurative or non-figurativeimages) and focus on examples of finger fluting as an image type (such as depicted inFigure 6), a clear pattern of temporal usage begins to emerge.

There are 23 sites in France across all periods that have image-type finger fluting (vonPetzinger 2009). From currently accepted dating (Figure 7), it appears that the Magdalenianhas by far the largest proportion of sites with figure fluting present, and this would seem tobe the period when this image type is most common.

However, a list distinguishing which dates are based on direct chronometric, indirectchronometric, indirect relative and stylistic dating, reveals a less straightforward situation(Table 2). Once again, the sites from the earlier periods are much more securely dated thanthose from the latter half of the UP. Even the sites from the Gravettian that are stylisticallydated are more likely to be accurate as their dates are derived from source sites that are

1175

A question of style

Figure 6. Finger fluting at Gargas cave (Clottes 2002: 62).

Figure 7. Percentage of sites with finger fluting by period (n = 23).

1176

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

Table 2. List of sites with figure fluting by period and associated dating technique.

StylisticSite period Dating method

Grotte Chauvet Aurignacian Direct chronometricGrotte L’Aldene Aurignacian Indirect chronometric (14C and U-Th dates from floor)Grotte Cosquer Gravettian Direct chronometricGargas Gravettian Indirect chronometric (14C dates obtained from bones

embedded in negative hand panel)Pech-Merle Gravettian Direct chronometricLe Croc-Marin Gravettian Stylistic (comparison with Gargas [indirect chronometric])La Croze a Gontran Gravettian Stylistic (comparison with Gargas [indirect chronometric]

and Pair-non-Pair [indirect relative — tools])Grotte de Cussac Gravettian Stylistic (Pech-Merle [direct chronometric])La Baume-Latrone Solutrean Stylistic (general theme and technique)Les Trois-Freres Solutrean Stylistic (general theme and technique)La Martine Solutrean Stylistic (Pech-Merle [stylistic Solutrean])Bedeilhac Magdalenian Indirect relative (artefacts found at site)Le Tuc d’Audoubert Magdalenian Indirect relative (artefacts found at site)Rouffignac Magdalenian Stylistic (Font-de-Gaume [stylistic] and

Les Combarelles I [stylistic])Grotte du Magdalenian Stylistic (Font-de-Gaume [stylistic], Les Combarelles

Cheval (Arcy) I [stylistic]), Rouffignac [stylistic] and Bernifal[indirect relative — tools])

Bara-Bahau Magdalenian Stylistic (general theme and technique)Cournazac Magdalenian Stylistic (mammoth technique)Grotte de la Bergerie Magdalenian Stylistic (but without much certainty, also multiple periods

de Charmasson of occupation all removed, only Magdalenian artefactsand faunal remains were left in situ)

Reseau Clastres Magdalenian Stylistic (Niaux [direct chronometric])Massat Magdalenian Stylistic (general theme and technique)Oxocelhaya Magdalenian Stylistic (general theme and technique)Erberua Magdalenian Stylistic (general theme and technique)Bois du Cantet Magdalenian Indirect chronometric (14C from archaeological layer)

directly or indirectly chronometrically dated themselves (see Figure 5), creating a betterchain of evidence.

The three sites from the Solutrean are less firmly anchored in time. Two of these sites arestylistically dated based only on general theme and technique associated with the Solutreanperiod, and the third, La Martine, uses the proposed stylistically identified Solutrean periodfrom Pech-Merle (Delluc & Delluc 1984: 101; Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1995: 468). The directGravettian dates from Pech-Merle would be a more credible option, especially when thefinger flutings at Pech-Merle are themselves identified as being Gravettian in origin. Theassignment of a Solutrean date to La Martine is based on the argument that the depictionof a bison at this site, located in an isolated chamber down a long corridor, is similar tothose in the Black Frieze ensemble at Pech-Merle that is stylistically dated to the Solutrean(Delluc & Delluc 1984: 101).

1177

A question of style

Figure 8. Percentage of sites with negative hands by period (n = 23).

As shown in Table 2, 75 per cent of the Magdalenian sites are stylistically dated. Nearlyall of these use general theme and technique as the diagnostic, rather than having a specificsource site for comparison. This makes the assignment of all these sites to the Magdalenianperiod far from certain. There are no later UP sites with finger fluting that have directchronometric dates. Only one site has indirect chronometric dating from a bone (13370+−270 BP and 13 060+−430 BP) found in an archaeological layer (Clot 1984: 526);two sites use indirect relative dating, based on artefacts found in context at the site, whilethe rest are stylistically dated. If, as proposed above, we relied only on chronometrically datedsites as anchor-points for stylistic dating then the temporal distribution of the incidence ofimage-type figure fluting would look quite different from that depicted in Figure 7. It mightsuggest that finger fluting as an image type was, in fact, behaviour typical of the early UPthat eventually diminishes in popularity.

Negative handsFor the second case study we selected ‘negative hands’, and considered not only thedistribution frequency of the image type but also the co-occurrence between this andother types. A negative hand, also known as a hand stencil, is an image made by placingthe hand against the wall and spraying it and the surrounding area with paint, leaving anoutline of the hand when the hand is removed (Lewis-Williams 2002: 216; Clottes 2008:314). There are 22 sites in France across all periods that have negative hands present, with23 separate episodes of decoration being identified (von Petzinger 2009). Negative handsare a stylistic marker often used to identify Gravettian sites (Clottes 2008: 314) as indicatedby their attribution to period summarised in Figure 8.

1178

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

Table 3. List of sites with negative hands by period and associated dating technique (Melard et al.2010).

Site name Period Dating method

Grotte Chauvet Aurignacian Direct chronometricGrande Grotte Aurignacian/ Indirect chronometric (10 14C dates obtained

d’Arcy-sur-Cure Gravettian from 10 layers, including 4 layers ofoccupation spanning these periods)

Abri du Poisson Gravettian Indirect relative (artefacts found at site)Grotte Cosquer Gravettian Direct chronometricGargas Gravettian Indirect chronometric (14C dates obtained from

bones embedded in negative hand panel)Pech-Merle Gravettian Direct chronometricVilhonneur Gravettian Indirect chronometric (two 14C dates obtained from

human remains in the decorated gallery)Roc de Vezac Gravettian Stylistic (Pech-Merle [direct] and Roucadour [stylistic])Le Moulin Gravettian Indirect chronometric (14C date obtained from a hearth

de Laguenay that is associated with the parietal art)Les Fieux Gravettian Stylistic (Pech-Merle [direct], Cougnac [direct],

Les Merveilles [stylistic] and Roucadour [stylistic])Roucadour Gravettian Stylistic (Pech-Merle [direct] and Cougnac [direct])Labattut Gravettian Indirect relative (parietal blocks had collapsed into

this layer of occupation, providinga minimum age for the art)

Tibiran Gravettian Stylistic (Gargas [indirect])Margot Gravettian Stylistic (general theme and technique)Les Merveilles Gravettian Stylistic (Pech-Merle [direct])Font-de-Gaume Solutrean Stylistic (general theme and technique)Le Portel Solutrean Stylistic (Pech-Merle [stylistic Solutrean])Les Trois-Freres Solutrean (?) Stylistic (general theme and technique)Les Merveilles Solutrean Stylistic (Pech-Merle [stylistic Solutrean])Les Combarelles I Magdalenian Stylistic (general theme and technique)Bernifal Magdalenian Indirect relative (artefacts found at site)Erberua Magdalenian Stylistic (general theme and technique)Grotte d’Antoine Magdalenian Indirect relative (artefacts found at site)

Table 3 lists the sites where negative hands are present, as well as the method ofdating related to each one. As with finger fluting, the majority of direct and indirectchronometrically dated sites correspond to the Aurignacian and Gravettian, while three-quarters of the Solutrean and Magdalenian sites are stylistically dated. In fact, two of thesites stylistically dated to the Solutrean, Les Merveilles and Le Portel, use Pech-Merle forcomparison, even though the negative hands at Pech-Merle are attributed to the Gravettian,and come from the panel that yielded a radiocarbon date of 24 640+−390 BP (Clottes 2008:84). The identification of Solutrean imagery at Le Portel makes no mention of negativehands as a potential diagnostic tool, and instead cites similarities in technique with theGravettian horses at Pech-Merle and L’Abri Labatut (Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1995: 477),so the reasoning for an assignment to the Solutrean period (Leroi-Gourhan’s Style III) isunclear.

1179

A question of style

Figure 9. Crooked thumb stencils at Pech Merle, panel of the Black Dappled Horses. (Clottes 2008: 86).

Clottes (2008: 84) mentions a recurrent association with negative hands — that of crookedthumb stencils (Figure 9). They appear at Pech-Merle in the panel directly chronometricallydated to the Gravettian, and he notes that they are also present near hand stencils at Gargasand Les Trois-Freres, which he sees as possible confirmation of them all being from thesame Gravettian period (Clottes 2008: 84). What makes this all the more suggestive isthat Les Trois-Freres is currently stylistically dated mainly to the Magdalenian based oncommonalities of general theme and technique with other nearby sites from this periodsuch as Enlene and Tuc d’Audoubert (Begouen & Clottes 1984: 406–408; Leroi-Gourhanet al. 1995: 532). While there has been some ongoing debate regarding an earlier periodof decoration at this site (Begouen & Clottes 1984: 406–408; Leroi-Gourhan et al. 1995:532), no consensus has been reached. When the occurrence of negative hands, crookedthumb stencils, dots and image-type finger fluting at Les Trois- Freres is compared to thedirectly dated Gravettian site of Pech-Merle, where all four image types are also present andattributed to this period, it starts to seem more plausible to prove the possibility of an earlierGravettian date.

Discussion and conclusionIt is clear that the stylistic approach to dating Palaeolithic parietal art is in need of revision.At the same time, as noted above, it remains one of our only means of ascribing a place intime to many of these sites. In 1993 Clottes argued that we are not yet in a post-stylistic eraand this remains true today. As long as the directly dated sites remain such a small minority,

1180

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

we are going to have to find ways to strengthen and improve existing stylistic chronologies. Aseriation of Upper Palaeolithic art appears to be a real possibility, but only through a broaderintegration of all the information we currently have regarding image types and through theuse of chronometrically dated sites and their inventories as anchor-points. As Bahn (Bahn &Vertut 1997: 72–3) argues, “Rather than rely blindly on a fixed scheme, or on any particularfeature such as twisted perspective, it is wiser to establish assemblages of features: in thesame way, archaeological layers are no longer given a cultural attribution because of a single‘type-fossil’, but rather on the basis of the whole stone and bone industry present, on theassociations, interrelations and presence/absence of different features”.

The case study of Les Trois-Freres discussed above is an example of Bahn’s integrativeapproach where multiple lines of evidence were correlated in order to suggest a plausibledate for some of the images at that site (see further examples in Clottes 1993). Useablechronologies of the imagery would emerge through the integration of research such as Sauvetand Wlodarczyk’s (2008) large-scale work on the interrelationships of animal imagery withobservations such as those made by Clottes (1996) about the frequency of dangerous animalsin early periods, and with in-depth studies such as that of Pigeaud (2007) on the developmentof horse depictions, and the recently identified Gonnersdorf-Lalinde schematic female figuresequence (Bosinski 1991; Sentis 2005). If these developing chronologies were then combinedwith information on image type, including geometric signs, technique, material, contextand the like, then it might be possible to develop a broad enough base of knowledge tobegin assigning, or re-assigning, sites to periods within the Upper Palaeolithic with greaterconfidence, consistency and reliability. In archaeology, as in life, context is everything.Because the origins and development of Pleistocene visual cultures are key to understandingmuch of what makes us human, the re-examination and painstaking reconstruction of theirchronological context remains a necessary and worthwhile undertaking.

Note: Since we revised our paper, a recent publication by Lorblanchet (2010) has come to our attention. In it

he proposes that the site of Pech-Merle is entirely Gravettian (based on style and direct chronometric dating),

and rejects the notion of there being later additional periods of activity (Solutrean and Magalenian) based on

style alone.

AcknowledgementsWe gratefully acknowledge Jean Clottes, Iain Davidson and Romain Pigeaud for their helpful comments andsuggestions and the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for funding (GvP).

ReferencesBAHN, P.G. & J. VERTUT. 1997. Journey through the Ice

Age. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press.

BEGOUEN, R. & J. CLOTTES. 1984. Grotte desTrois-Freres, in Ministere de la Culture (France)(ed.) L’art des cavernes: atlas des grottes orneesPaleolithiques Francaises: 400–409. Paris:Imprimerie Nationale.

BOSINSKI, G. 1991. The representation of female figuresin the Rhineland Magdalenian. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 57: 51–65.

BREUIL, H. 1952. Four hundred centuries of cave art.Montignac: Centre d’Etudes et de DocumentationPrehistoriques.

CAPITAN, L., H. BREUIL & D. PEYRONY. 1910. Lacaverne de Font-de-Gaume aux Eyzies (Dordogne).Monaco.

1181

A question of style

CLOT, A. 1984. Grotte du Bois du Cantet, in Ministerede la Culture (France) (ed.) L’art des cavernes: atlasdes grottes ornees Paleolithiques Francaises: 523–6.Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

CLOTTES, J. 1993. Post-Stylistic? in M. Lorblanchet &P.G. Bahn (ed.) Rock art studies: the post-stylistic era,or where do we go from here? (Oxbow monograph35): 19–25. Oxford: Oxbow.

– 1996. Thematic changes in Upper Palaeolithic art —a view from the Grotte Chauvet. Antiquity 70:276–88.

– 1998. The ‘three c’s’: fresh avenues towards EuropeanPalaeolithic art, in C. Chippindale & P.S.C. Tacon(ed.) The archaeology of rock-art. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

– 2002. World rock art. Los Angeles (CA): GettyPublications.

– 2008. Cave art. London: Phaidon Press.

CLOTTES, J. & J. COURTIN. 1993. La grotte Cosquer:peintures et gravures de la caverne engloutie. Paris:Seuil.

CLOTTES, J., M. MENU & P. WALTER. 1990. New lighton the Niaux paintings. Rock Art Research 7: 21–6.

CLOTTES, J., L. DUPORT, V. FERUGLIO. 1991. Dernierselements sur les signes du Placard. Bulletin Societeprehistorique Ariege-Pyreneees 46: 119–32.

CLOTTES, J., H. VALLADAS, H. CACHIER & M. ARNOLD.1992. Des dates pour Niaux et Gargas. Bulletin dela Societe Prehistorique Francaise 89: 270–74.

CLOTTES, J., J. COURTIN & H. VALLADAS. 1996.Nouvelles dates directes pour la grotte Cosquer.International Newsletter on Rock Art 16: 2–4.

COMBIER, J. 1984. La Tete du Lion, in Ministere de laCulture (France) (ed.) L’art des cavernes: atlas desgrottes ornees Paleolithiques Francaises: 597. Paris:Imprimerie Nationale.

CUZANGE, M.-T., E. DELQUE-KOLIC, T. GOSLAR, P.MEIERT GROOTES, T. HIGHAM, E. KALTNECKER,M.-J. NADEAU, C. OBERLIN, M. PATERNE, J. VAN

DER PLICHT, C. BRONK RAMSEY, H. VALLADAS, J.CLOTTES & J.-M. GENESTE. 2007. RadiocarbonIntercomparison Program for Chauvet Cave.Radiocarbon 49(2): 339–47.

DAVIDSON, I. 1997. The power of pictures, in M.Conkey, O. Soffer, D. Stratmann & N. G.Jablonski (ed.) Beyond art: Pleistocene image andsymbol: 125–59. Berkeley (CA): University ofCalifornia Press.

DELLUC, B. & G. DELLUC. 1984. Grotte La Martine, inMinistere de la Culture (France) (ed.) L’art descavernes: atlas des grottes ornees PaleolithiquesFrancaises: 100–101. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

GONZALEZ, J.J.A. & R. DE BALBIN BEHRMANN. 2007.14C et style: la chronologie de l’art parietal a l’heureactuelle. L’anthropologie 111: 435–66.

IGLER, W., M. DAUVOIS, M. HYMAN, M MENU, M.ROWE, J. VEZIAN & P. WALTER. 1994. Datationradiocarbone de deux figures parietales de la grottedu Portel (Commune de Loubens, Ariege). Bulletinde la Societe de Prehistoire de l’Ariege 49: 231–6.

LEROI-GOURHAN, A. 1962. Chronologie de l’artpaleolithique, in M. Pallottino, L. Cardini & D.Brusadin (ed.) Atti del VI Congresso Internazionaledelle Scienze Preistoriche e Protostoriche, Roma 29agosto-3 settembre. Volume 1: Relazioni generali:341–55. Tivoli: G.C. Sansoni.

– 1984. Grotte de Lascaux, in Ministere de la Culture(France) (ed.) L’art des cavernes: atlas des grottesornees Paleolithiques Francaises: 180–200. Paris:Imprimerie Nationale.

LEROI-GOURHAN, A., B. DELLUC & G. DELLUC (ed).1995. Prehistoire de l’Art Occidental. Paris:Citadelles et Mazenod.

LEWIS-WILLIAMS, D. 2002. The mind in the cave:consciousness and the origins of art. London: Thames& Hudson.

LORBLANCHET, M. 1984. Grotte des Merveilles, inMinistere de la Culture (France) (ed.) L’art descavernes: atlas des grottes ornees PaleolithiquesFrancaises: 490–94. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

–2010. Art Parietal: Grottes Ornees du Quercy. Rodez:Editions du Rouergue.

LORBLANCHET, M., H. CACHIER & H. VALLADAS. 1995.Datation des chevaux ponctues de Pech-Merle.International Newsletter on Rock Art 12: 2–3.

MELARD, N., R. PIGEAUD, J. PRIMAULT & J. RODET.2010. Gravettian paintings and associated activityat Le Moulin de Laguenay (Lissac-sur-Couze,Correze). Antiquity 84: 666–80.

MORO-ABADIA, O. & M.R. GONZALEZ MORALES.2007. Thinking about style in the ‘Post-StylisticEra’: reconstructing the stylistic context of Chauvet.Oxford Journal of Archaeology 26(2): 109–125.

PETTITT, P. 2008. Art and the Middle-to-UpperPaleolithic transition in Europe: comments on thearchaeological arguments for an early UpperPaleolithic antiquity of the Grotte Chauvet art.Journal of Human Evolution 55: 908–917.

PETTITT, P. & P. BAHN. 2003. Current problems indating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet.Antiquity 77: 134–41.

PETTITT, P. & A. PIKE. 2007. Dating EuropeanPalaeolithic cave art: progress, prospects, problems.Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14(1):27–47.

PETTITT, P., P. BAHN & C. ZUCHNER. 2009. TheChauvet conundrum: are claims for the ‘Birthplaceof Art’ premature? in P.G. Bahn (ed.) An enquiringmind: studies in honor of Alexander Marshack:239–62. Oxford: Oxbow.

1182

Res

earc

h

Genevieve von Petzinger & April Nowell

PIGEAUD, R. 2007. Determining style in Palaeolithiccave art: a new method derived from horse images.Antiquity 81: 409–422.

PIGEAUD, R., H. VALLADAS, M. ARNOLD & H.CACHIER. 2003. Deux dates carbone 14 enspectrometrie de masse par accelerateur (SMA)pour une representation parietale de la grotte orneeMayenne-Sciences (Thorigne-en-Charnie,Mayenne): emergence d’un art gravettien en Franceseptentrionale? Comptes Rendus Paleovol 2: 161–8.

REIMER, P.J., M.G.L. BAILLIE, E. BARD, A. BAYLISS, J.W.BECK, P.G. BLACKWELL, C. BRONK RAMSEY, C.E.BUCK, G.S. BURR, R.L. EDWARDS, M. FRIEDRICH,P.M. GROOTES, T.P. GUILDERSON, I. HAJDAS, T.J.HEATON, A.G. HOGG, K.A. HUGHEN, K.F. KAISER,B. KROMER, F.G. MCCORMAC, S.W. MANNING,R.W. REIMER, D.A. RICHARDS, J.R. SOUTHON, S.TALAMO, C.S.M. TURNEY, J. VAN DER PLICHT &C.E. WEYHENMEYER. 2010. IntCal09 andMarine09 radiocarbon age calibration curves,0–50,000 years cal BP. Radiocarbon 51: 1111–50.

ROUSSOT, A. 1984. Grotte de Font-de-Gaume, inMinistere de la Culture (France) (ed.) L’art descavernes: atlas des grottes ornees PaleolithiquesFrancaises: 129–34. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale.

ROUSSOT, A., N. AUJOULAT & P. DAUBISSE. 1983.Grotte de Font-de-Gaume, Les Eyzies (Dordogne).Les peintures de la galerie d’acces. Bulletin de laSociete prehistorique de l’Ariege 38: 151–63.

SAUVET, G. & A. WLODARCZYK. 2008. Towards aformal grammar of the European Paleolithic caveart. Rock Art Research 25(2): 165–72.

SENTIS, J. 2005. Les silhouettes feminines styliseespeuvent-elles caracteriser des territoires culturels? inJ. Jaubert & M. Barbaza (ed.) Territoires,deplacements, mobilite, echanges durant la Prehistoire:411–20. Paris: CTHS.

SHARPE, K. & L. VAN GELDER. 2006. The study offinger flutings. Cambridge Archaeological Journal16(3): 281–95.

VALLADAS, H., H. CACHIER, P. MAURICE, F. BERNALDO

DE QUIROS, J. CLOTTES, V. CABRERA, P. UZQUIANO

& M. ARNOLD. 1992. Direct radiocarbon dates forprehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castilloand Niaux caves. Nature 357: 68–70.

VALLADAS, H., H. CACHIER & M. ARNOLD. 1993. NewRadiocarbon dates for Prehistoric cave paintings atCougnac, in M. Lorblanchet & P.G. Bahn (ed.)Rock art studies: the post-stylistic era, or where do wego from here? (Oxbow monograph 35): 74–6.Oxford: Oxbow.

VALLADAS, H., N. TISNERAT, M. ARNOLD, J. EVIN & C.OBERLIN. 2001. Les dates des frequentations, in J.Clottes (ed.) La grotte Chauvet. L’Art des origins:32–3. Paris: Seuil.

VON PETZINGER, G. 2009. Making the abstractconcrete: the place of geometric signs in FrenchUpper Palaeolithic parietal art. UnpublishedMaster’s dissertation, University of Victoria.

ZUCHNER, C. 2003. Archaeological dating of rock artnothing but a subjective method. InternationalNewsletter on Rock Art 35: 18–24.

1183