Review
Uranium series dating reveals a long sequence of rock art at Altamira Cave (Santillana del Mar, Cantabria)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.05.011Get rights and content

Abstract

The rock art in Altamira Cave was the first ensemble of Palaeolithic parietal art to be identified scientifically (Sautuola, 1880). Due to the great thematic, technical and stylistic variety of the art in the cave, which constitutes one of the most complete Palaeolithic art ensembles, Altamira was listed as World Heritage by UNESCO in 1985. Uranium-series dating has recently been applied to figures on the decorated ceiling in the cave. Several motifs are partly covered by thin layers of calcite precipitates, whose formation process is datable by this method. The results provide the date when the calcite formed, which gives a minimum age for the underlying depictions. These results confirm that the parietal art at Altamira was produced during a prolonged period of time, at least 20,000 years (between 35,000 and 15,200 years ago), and that part of the ensemble corresponds to the Aurignacian period.

Introduction

Rock art was originally dated by making stylistic comparisons with the depictions on portable objects recovered from datable archaeological levels and by studying the order of superimposed figures (Lorblanchet, 1995: 241–280). The first method provided evidence of the synchronicity of the figures, whereas the second revealed diachronic differences. Later, accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon dating (Valladas et al., 2005) opened new perspectives as a way to obtain radiometric dates and determine the diachronic development and synchronic and spatial variability of Palaeolithic art. This method has specific limitations in procedure (size of the samples, problems of contamination) and interpretation of the results (e.g. the possible use of charcoal some time after the fuel – either wood or bone – was burnt) (Clottes and Valladas, 2003; Pettit and Bahn, 2003; Valladas, 2003). Additionally, as this method could only be applied to black paintings made with organic matter (charcoal), it meant that few depictions painted in the first half of the Upper Palaeolithic could be dated, as most black figures were produced in the middle and late phases of the Magdalenian period (Valladas et al., 2005; Alcolea and Balbín, 2007; Pettitt and Pike, 2007; Ochoa, 2011). Due to these problems, Uranium series dating of carbonates directly associated with the parietal art is an indispensable procedure to obtain high-quality chronological information for engravings and paintings made with inorganic colouring matter (Aubert et al., 2007; Taçon et al., 2012).

Precise chronological determinations of cave art are essential to be able to understand and study the social and symbolic structure of human groups, and advance beyond the inferences made from generic considerations. For instance, it is necessary to determine which figures are synchronic or diachronic, the relationship between the human occupations in the caves and the production of parietal art, and the number of times the same places were used for symbolic acts. It is therefore necessary to apply high-resolution chronological procedures to obtain precise information about the dates of Palaeolithic rock art ensembles and approach the symbolic structure of Palaeolithic human groups with greater precision.

In an attempt to provide greater chronological constraints on cave art in northern Iberia, Pike et al. (2012) reported 50 U-series determinations on calcite deposits overlying, and occasionally underlying cave paintings and engravings from 11 caves in Spain. Here we report in greater detail on the dates Pike et al. (2012) obtained from Altamira Cave and integrate them with site's broader archeological context.

Section snippets

Altamira Cave: archaeological context and palaeolithic cave art

Altamira Cave, listed as World Heritage by UNESCO in 1985, is located in the north of the Iberian Peninsula, in Santillana del Mar (Cantabria, Spain) (Fig. 1). It was the first cave where Palaeolithic cave art was identified, as the discoverer, Marcelino Sanz de Sautuola, affirmed in 1880 that the engravings and paintings were Palaeolithic in age (Sautuola, 1880). This claim, which implied that “Prehistoric Men” were capable of producing Art, was widely dismissed, and the controversy about the

Method

The decay of radioactive 238U to radiogenic and radioactive 234U and 230Th can be used to date the formation of calcite precipitates such as stalactites and stalagmites (e.g. Ivanovich and Harmon, 1992; Richards and Dorale, 2003). Where these precipitates have formed directly on cave paintings or engravings, the date of precipitation can provide a minimum age for the underlying art, or where previously precipitated calcite has been painted a maximum age can be provided. The sample removal,

Sampling and results

A total of eight calcite samples associated with the rock art were taken and analysed by the Uranium series method. Four samples were either taken for a minimum age determination but not dated because of detrital contamination detected at an early stage of the analysis, or taken for a maximum age determination and their age turned out to be too old for them to be of any significance. The representations associated with the relevant samples are (Table 1):

  • BIG-UTh-O-71 (a and b; Table 1 and Fig. 4

Discussion

Detrital contamination was a problem for many of the samples taken at Altamira Cave. However, three (BIG-UTh-O-46, 50 and 53) of the samples contained acceptable levels of contamination and yielded meaningful dates. This proportion justifies the application of the method as a way to obtain valuable chronological information for Palaeolithic parietal art. In addition, Uranium series dating is a vital tool in discussions about the authenticity of figures, as the dates of even Holocene carbonates

Conclusion

Uranium-series dating is a geo-chronological procedure enabling the determination of a minimum age for Palaeolithic parietal art. The results obtained by sampling calcite deposits at Altamira Cave show that part of the non-figurative graphic ensemble belongs at least to the Aurignacian period, during the first expansion of Homo sapiens in the Iberian Peninsula. The thematic and stylistic similarities between the motifs associated with the dated samples and other representations on the

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by a grant to AWGP from the Natural Environmental Research Council (NE/F000510/1) and a grant (Climatic Background and Chronology of Iberian Upper Paleolithic Cave Art -CGL2011-27187-) to DLH from the Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spanish Government). The research of MGD was supported by the High Yield Research Group of Prehistory (IT622-13). We are grateful to Carolyn C. Taylor who performed the sample preparation, and assisted in collecting samples in the field

References (62)

  • F. Bernaldo de Quirós

    Reflexiones en la cueva de Altamira

  • J. Bischoff et al.

    Aplicación del método de series de Uranio al grafismo rupestre de estilo paleolítico: el caso de la cavidad de Covalanas (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria)

    Veleia

    (2003)
  • H. Breuil

    Quatre cents siècles d'art pariétal. Les cavernes ornées de l'age du renne

    (1952)
  • H. Breuil et al.

    La cueva de Altamira en Santillana del Mar

    (1935)
  • H. Breuil et al.

    La Pasiega à Puente Viesgo (Santander)

    (1913)
  • V. Cabrera et al.

    La Transición al Paleolítico superior y la evolución de los contextos auriñacienses (50,000–27,000 BP)

  • J. Clottes

    Art of the light and art of the depths

  • J. Clottes et al.

    Style, Chauvet and radiocarbon

    Antiquity

    (2003)
  • L.G. Freeman et al.

    La grotte d'Altamira

    (2001)
  • D. Gárate et al.

    La grotte ornée d'Askondo (Pays Basque): nouvelle découverte dans le Golfe de Gascogne

    INORA

    (2011)
  • D. Garate Maidagan

    Las ciervas punteadas en las cuevas del Paleolítico. Una expresión pictórica propia de la cornisa cantábrica

    (2010)
  • M. García-Diez

    Comportamiento gráfico durante el Paleolítico superior en el Alto Asón: análisis de los dispositivos iconográficos rupestres

    (2002)
  • M. García-Diez et al.

    La cueva de Covalanas, El grafismo rupestre y la definición de territorios gráficos en el paleolítico cantábrico

    (2003)
  • M. García-Diez et al.

    ¿Del estilo paleolítico a la cronología contemporánea?: una (revisión) nueva versión del arte parietal de la cueva de El Becerral (La Gándara, Cantabria)

    Veleia

    (2007-2008)
  • M.R. González Morales

    La cueva del Tebellín (Bricia, Llanes, Asturias) y sus pinturas rupestres

    (1982)
  • C. González Sainz

    En torno a los paralelos entre el arte mobiliar y el rupestre

    Veleia

    (1993)
  • C. González Sainz

    Sobre la ordenación cronológica de las manifestaciones gráficas del Paleolítico superior. Perplejidades y algunos apuntes desde la región cantábrica. Edades

    Revista de Historia

    (1999)
  • C. González Sainz et al.

    La Pasiega

  • C. González Sainz et al.

    La Garma

  • C. González-Sainz et al.

    Las cuevas del desfiladero. Arte rupestre paleolítico en el valle del desfiladero del río Carranza

    (2001)
  • C. de las Heras et al.

    Nuevas dataciones de la Cueva de Altamira y su implicación en la cronología de su arte rupestre paleolítico

    Cuadernos de Arte Rupestre de Moratalla

    (2008)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text