New Advances in the Field of Ice Age Art

  • Paul G. Bahn
Part of the Interdisciplinary Contributions to Archaeology book series (IDCA)


Although generally regarded as a fairly static field which only comes to life when a new theory or explanation comes along, the study of Ice Age art is, in fact, constantly changing and expanding, in terms of its data base, its geographical and chronological spread, and the kinds of information that can be extracted from it. I hope to provide a brief outline here of some of the most recent advances in this field, which is currently experiencing perhaps its most exciting and revolutionary phase since the existence and authenticity of Ice Age art were recognized at the turn of the century.


Radiocarbon Date Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Giant Deer Animal Figure Preliminary Sketch 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bahn, P. G. 1986. No sex, please, we’re Aurignacians. Rock Art Research 3:99–120.Google Scholar
  2. Bahn, P. G., and J. Vertut. 1988. Images of the Ice Age. New York: Facts on File.Google Scholar
  3. Balbin Behrmann, R. de, J. Alcolea Gonzalez, M. Santonja, and R. Perez Martin. 1991. Siega Verde (Salamanca). Yacimiento artistico paleolitico al aire libre, 33–48. In Del Paleolitico a la Historia. Salamanca: Museo de Salamanca.Google Scholar
  4. Bednarik, R. G. 1989. The Galgenberg figurine from Krems, Austria. Rock Art Research 6(2):118–25.Google Scholar
  5. Bednarik, R. G. 1992a. Palaeoart and archaeological myths. The Cambridge Archaeological Journal 2:27–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednarik, R. G. 1992b. Oldest dated rock art: A revision. The Artefact 15:39.Google Scholar
  7. Bednarik, R. G., and Y. Yuzhu. 1991. Palaeolithic art from China. Rock Art Research 8:119–23.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, S. 1991. Art and Tasmanian prehistory: Evidence for changing cultural traditions in a changing environment, 96–108. In Rock Art and Prehistory, ed. P. Bahn and A. Rosenfeld. Oxford: Oxbow Monograph 10.Google Scholar
  9. Buisson, D., M. Menu, P. Walter, and G. Pincon. 1989. Les objets colores du Paleolithique superieur: Cas de la grotte de La Vache (Ariege). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 86:183–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chase, P. G., and H. L. Dibble. 1987. Middle Paleolithic symbolism: A review of current evidence and interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:263–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clottes, J. 1993. Paint analyses from several Magdalenian caves in the Ariège region of France. Journal of Archaeological Science 20:223–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clottes, J., A. Beltran, J. Courtin, and H. Cosquer. 1992. La Grotte Cosquer (Cap Margiou, Marseille). Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 89:98–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clottes, J., J. Courtin, H. Valladas, H. Cachier, N. Mercier, and M. Arnold. 1992. La grotte Cosquer datée. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 89:230–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clottes, J., L. Duport, and V. Feruglio. 1990. Les signes du Placard. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées 45:15–49.Google Scholar
  15. Clottes, J., M. Menu, and P. Walter. 1990a. New light on the Niaux paintings. Rock Art Research 1:21–26.Google Scholar
  16. Clottes, J., M. Menu, and P. Walter. 1990b. La preparation des peintures magdaleniennes des cavernes ariegeoises. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 87:170–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Clottes, J., H. Valladas, H. Cachier, and M. Arnold. 1992. Des dates pour Niaux et Gargas. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 89:270–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Delluc, B., and G. Delluc. 1978. Les manifestations graphiques aurignaciens sur support rocheux des environs des Eyzies. Gallia Préhistoire 21:213–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Delluc, B., and G. Delluc. 1991. L’Art Pariétal Archaïque en Aquitaine, 28e Supplément à Gallia Préhistoire, Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
  20. Griffin, J. B., D. J. Meltzer, B. D. Smith, and W. C. Sturtevant. 1988. A mammoth fraud in science. American Antiquity 53:578–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guidon, N. 1991. Peintures Prehistoriques du Bresil: L’art rupestre du Piauf, Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.Google Scholar
  22. Guidon, N., and G. Delibrias. 1986. Carbon-14 dates point to man in the Americas 32,000 years ago. Nature 321:769–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hachi, S. 1985. Figurines en terre cuite du gisement iberomaurusien d’Afalou Bou Rhummel. Travaux du Laboratoire de Prehistoire et d’Ethnographie des Pays de la Mediterranee Occidentale, etude 9, 6 pp.Google Scholar
  24. Hahn, J. 1991. Höhlenkunst aus dem Hohlen Pels bei Schelklingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis. Archäologische Ausgrabungen in Baden-Württemberg 10:19–21.Google Scholar
  25. Lorblanchet, M. 1988. De l’art parietal des chasseurs de rennes a Tart rupestre des chasseurs de kangourous. L’Anthropologie 92:271–316.Google Scholar
  26. Lorblanchet, M. 1990. Etudes des pigments des grottes ornees. Bulletin de la Societe des Etudes du Lot 111:93–143.Google Scholar
  27. Lorblanchet, M., and P. Bahn, eds. In press. The Post-Stylistic Bra? Oxford: Oxbow Books.Google Scholar
  28. Lorblanchet, M., M. Labeau, J. L. Vernet, P. Fitte, H. Valladas, H. Cachier, and M. Arnold. 1990. Palaeolithic pigments in the Quercy, France. Rock Art Research 7:4–20.Google Scholar
  29. Loy, T. H., R. Jones, D. E. Nelson, B. Neehan, J. Vogel, J. Southon, and R. Cosgrove. 1990. Accelerator radiocarbon dating of human blood proteins in pigments from Late Pleistocene art sites in Australia. Antiquity 64:110–16.Google Scholar
  30. Marshack, A. 1988. The Neanderthals and the human capacity for symbolic thought: Cognitive and problem-solving aspects of Mousterian symbol, 57–91. In L’Homme de Néandertal Vol. 5, La Pens’ee, ed. M. Otte. Liège: Etudes et Recherches Archéologiques de l’Université de Liège 32.Google Scholar
  31. Marshack, A. 1991. A reply to Davidson on Mania and Mania. Rock Art Research 8:47–58.Google Scholar
  32. Martinez Garcia, J. 1986/87. Un grabado paleolitico al aire libre en Piedras Biancas (Escullar, Almeria). Ars Praehistorica VJVI:49–58.Google Scholar
  33. Menu, M., and P. Walter. 1991. Les premiers artistes peintres. La Recherche 22:1086–89.Google Scholar
  34. Morwood, M. 1992. Rock Art and Ethnography, Melbourne: Australian Rock Art Research Association.Google Scholar
  35. Neugebauer-Maresch, C. 1987. Vorbericht über die Rettungsgrabungen an der Aurignacien-Station Stratzing/Krems-Rehberg in den Jahren 1985–1988. Zum Neufund einer weiblichen Statuette. Fundberichte aus Osterreich 26:73–84.Google Scholar
  36. Pepe, C., J. Clottes, N. Menu, and P. Walter. 1991. Le liant des peintures paleolithiques ariegeoises. Comptes rendus de l’Academie des Sciences de Paris 312 serie II:929–34.Google Scholar
  37. Valladas, H., H. Cachier, P. Maurice, F. Bernaldo de Quiros, J. Clottes, V. Cabrera Valdés, P. Uzquiano, and M. Arnold. 1992. Direct radiocarbon dates for prehistoric paintings at the Altamira, El Castillo and Niaux caves. Nature 357:68–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Whitley, D. S., and R. I. Dorn. 1988. Cation-ratio dating of petroglyphs using PIXE. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B35:410–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul G. Bahn
    • 1
  1. 1.Hull, EnglandUK

Personalised recommendations