[snip]
Could these results also have a formidable impact on the dating of some parietal art?
Hi Paul,
Consider my answers as tentative and to be taken with several grains of NaCl, but I'll do the best I can and hope someone corrects whatever I've botched.
I'd say, yes, the calibration refinement would apply to radiocarbon-dated rock art. However, everything that Mellars says about the advance in accuracy for AMS radiocarbon dating of bones (the ultrafiltration of bone sample gelatin) will only be applicable to bone sample radiocarbon dating. Since radiocarbon dating is also performed on samples of vegetal material containg carbon (wood charcoal, etc.), this ultrafiltration advancement is not applicable to samples which are not bone. So the ultrafiltration (of gelatin) technique cannot be used to date parietal art for which, to the best of my knowledge, the samples contain no gelatin as in bone. So, the ultrafiltration technique cannot be used to improve the accuracy of radiocarbon-dated parietal art, meaning that until some new advance in 14C dating of samples that are not bone, we'll have to accept the uncalibrated 14C dates of parietal art as they now stand . Nevertheless, I would say that the
calibration refinement of the uncalibrated 14C datings to calendar year ages would apply to any carbon-containing sample material.
It's been common knowledge for years that radiocarbon dates in the range of 30,000-40,000 years are several thousand years too young in calendar years , for reasons better explained
HERE, and most folks have been using the easy online conversion of CalPal
HERE. The calibration refinement referenced by Mellars is not CalPal, but calibration of radiocarbon dates to calendar years using CalPal (you must be sure to enter some +/- figure to make the online conversion operate) will yield results not too much different from the calibration refinement Mellars uses in his article.
In the
paper signalled by Daryl, the caption under the Chauvet Cave paintings says :
“These drawings from the Chauvet cave were originally dated to around 31,000 years ago. But a new analysis pushes that back four or five thousand years.”
If this is confirmed that would push back the apparition of parietal art to 34,000 years to 35,000 years BP… Are there other articles on this new dates subject addressing specifically dating of art works?
The new analysis does push the 31,000 radiocarbon BP Chauvet parietal art back to 34,000-35,000 calendar years BP after calibration. So far as I know, there has not been publication of any articles addressing a recent advance in radiocarbon dating of parietal art comparable with the improved technique (ultrafiltration) applied to bone samples.
Would these new dates also apply to the Fels Cave, Hohlenstein-Stadel and Vogelherd statuettes ? This is all very exciting… I’m impatient to see how this information will evolve in other publications.
Paul
Yes, the new calibrated dates apply to all radiocarbon-dated materials. However, you must remember that the statuettes from Hohle Fels, Hohlenstein-Stadl, Vogelherd are not directly-dated from samples obtained from the statuettes themselves. Nobody wants to drill a sample from such priceless pieces of art, even if some are bone. So all of these are dated from samples found in association with them. The sample of associated material used might have been charcoal from a hearth or other material containing carbon, in which case the calibration to calendar years can be done, but there will be no improvement on the accuracy of the uncalibrated age of the associated sample (only the older calendar-year age obtained by calibration). But, hypothetically, if the sample associated with a statuette is bone, there is a chance (only a chance, mind you) that redating of the associated bone sample (using the improved ultrafiltration technique) could result in an older uncalibrated radiocarbon age. This has occurred for previously dated bone samples taken from Vindija Cave and Kents Cavern and the ultrafiltration results have been several thousand years older than the dates obtained from previous methods. The older age obtained would still be an uncalibrated 14C age, but could be several thousand years older than the previously accepted 14C uncalibrated age. After calibration the new, older (by several thousand years) uncalibrated date would be even older (by several thousand additional years) in calendar years. But, so far as I know, there has been no attempt yet made to redate (by ultrafiltration) any bone sample found in association with any statuette. For now, we have to be content with the simple calibration of the previously accepted radiocarbon dating of the statuettes, which does calibrate to an increase of 4,000 or 5,000 calendar years. All this is hypothetical. Without checking the literature, I do not know if any of the German statuettes are dated by association with radiocarbon-dated bone samples, but any age determined anywhere from associated bone samples would be a target for the new improved AMS ultrafiltration technique.
Of course, you realize I might just be talking out of my posterior, for all I know. This is merely the way I comprehend all this, and it's subject to correction from more knowledgable persons. Send me an email if you need access to the Mellars Nature paper.
Dar
