Abstract
The authors examine the arguments and validity of the conclusions of a recent statistical study of the chronology of human activity in Chauvet Cave. At first sight the study seems to present a considerable advance in the understanding of the cave's art, and, in particular, a validation of the arguments for an early (presumed Aurignacian) age for its earliest art. Examining it in detail, however, reveals that it is misleading, and does not provide the clear evidence requested by a number of scholars over the last two decades that would reinforce the view that its charcoal drawings are of Aurignacian age, and thus unique in the development of human art. Chauvet's art remains unconvincingly dated. (Unless otherwise stated, the radiocarbon dates cited are uncalibrated)
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
