Quaternary International 432 (2017) 98e99
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
Further comment on: “Uraniumethorium dating method and
Palaeolithic rock art” by Sauvet et al. (2015, in press)
Maxime Aubert a, b, *
a
Research Centre of Human Evolution, Environmental Futures Research Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia
b
Place, Evolution and Rock Art Heritage Unit (PERAHU), Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia
In Volume XXX of Quaternary International, Sauvet et al. (in
press) write a critique of the application of uranium-thorium
dating to Palaeolithic rock art. These authors misrepresent key as-
pects of the dating method they are criticising, as illustrated in the
comment by Pons-Bronchu et al. (in press). Furthermore, they
present a flawed understanding of the sampling methodology used
in some of the cited case studies. In this comment, I draw attention
to these critics' faulty interpretation of the sampling methodology
employed in Aubert et al. (2007, 2014).
Apart from the three concepts discussed in Pons-Bronchu
et al. (in press), Sauvet et al. (in press) stipulate that: “the ura-
nium/thorium dating method gives reliable and relatively precise
results in the case of massive speleothems, because the sampling
is carried out at the heart of the material where the hypothesis of
a closed system (that is, no exchange with the outside environ-
ment) is justified in most cases. Unfortunately, the situation is
quite different in the case of thin layers of calcite that overlie
Palaeolithic cave drawings”. This concept is also incorrect as the
closed system behavior of the calcium carbonate deposit has
more to do with crystal structure and porosity than size. In fact,
in the cited example of Plagnes et al. (2003), the samples came
from a large and porous cave drapery and was selected and
sampled by non-dating specialists who had limited under-
standing of these concepts (P. Setiawan, Pers. Comm.). It is true
that “the protactinium-231 (231Pa) dating method may be used to
check the results obtained by U/Th dating of calcite” but Sauvet
et al. (in press) argue that the method has not been used for
rock art “because the concentration of Pa is much lower than that
of Th”. In fact, the greatest strength of measuring 231Pa/235U is its
use in combination with 230Th/234U-238U data in identifying and
potentially dating open-system. The problem with the use of the
method relies in the difficulty in obtaining a spike for the accu-
rate measurement of protactinium-231 by mass spectrometry
DOIs of original article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.03.053, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.10.016, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2015.10.
015.
* Place, Evolution and Rock Art Heritage Unit (PERAHU), Griffith University, Gold
Coast, Queensland 4222, Australia.
E-mail address: m.aubert@griffith.edu.au.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2016.04.020
1040-6182/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
coupled with the high level of precision required for such
measurements.
Sauvet et al. (in press) also write: “A more precise sampling
protocol was implemented by Aubert et al. (2007) in East Timor
using laser ablation MC-ICPMS (multicollector-inductively coupled
plasma mass spectroscopy). A core sample “excavated” through the
calcite layer overlying the paintings was later subdivided by laser
ablation into layers about 100 mm thick to obtain a micro-
stratigraphy. A thin layer of pigment imbedded in the deposit could
be bracketed between 24 and 29.3 ka […]. Recently, U/Th dating of
paintings at Sulawesi (Indonesia) was performed using the same
technique of laser ablation MC-ICPMS (Aubert et al., 2014). Dates in
the range of 35e40 ka were obtained for the lowest sublayer of
calcite less that 1 mm thick overlying several hand stencils”. This is
incorrect, as laser ablation MC-ICPMS was not employed to date the
rock art in Aubert et al. (2007, 2014).
In East Timor, “laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometry (Eggins et al., 2003) was used to profile a series of
elements along individual layers of interest. Uranium concentra-
tion was measured to establish sample size requirements for the
determination of the U and Th isotopic ratios. Under 30
magnification the fine carbonate laminations were ground into
fine powders using a micro-drill and dental burrs, maintaining
control over the micro-stratigraphic level (Watchman, 2000). An
area measuring approximately 1 cm  1 cm was removed to a
depth of about 0.1 mm per sample and the powder collected on
aluminium foil. Each sample was then dissolved in nitric acid,
spiked and prepared according to the method described by Luo
et al. (1997). Isotopic ratio measurements were made on a Fin-
nigan Neptune multi-collector ICPMS equipped with desolvating
nebuliser” (Aubert et al., 2007: page 994). Further on we write:
“This technology also enables the potential use of laser ablation
for in situ uranium series dating of rock art where U concentra-
tions are higher then 1 ppm (Eggins et al., 2005)” (Aubert et al.,
2007: page 994).
In Sulawesi, “each coralloid sample was sawn in situ so as to
produce a continuous microstratigraphic profile extending from
the outer surface of the coralloid through the pigment layer and
into the underlying rock face […]. In the laboratory, the samples
were microexcavated in arbitrary ‘spits’ over the entire surface of
 M. Aubert / Quaternary International 432 (2017) 98e99
the coralloids, creating a series of aliquots less than 1 mm thick […].
The uranium-series isotopes were measured on a Thermo Finnigan
Neptune Plus Multi-Collector inductively coupled plasma mass
spectrometer […] (Aubert et al., 2014: page 226).
In the first study, laser ablation ICPMS was used to determine
the relative concentrations of 238Uranium and 232Thorium across
the sample. This was then used to 1) identify areas with ‘clean’
calcium carbonate depositional layers; 2) determine the amount of
material (how many milligrams) needed to be micro-excavated
using a micro-drill and burrs and; 3) determine the amount of
spike needed to accurately measure the isotopic ratios by solution
based MC-ICPMS. In Sulawesi, laser ablation ICPMS was not
employed. Instead, conventional solution based ICPMS was used to
determine 1), 2), and 3). The powdered material was also collected
using a micro-drill and burrs.
Sauvet et al. (in press) further write: “The significant damage
caused by sampling, conducted by scraping with a scalpel or dril-
ling with a carbide drill bit (Pike et al., 2012) is a matter of grave
concern. The alternative technique of core sampling with a rotating
diamond sawblade is probably also very invasive, as the excavated
section is very large (up to 200 mm2, corresponding to circular pits
of 16 mm diameter) (Aubert et al., 2014) […]. Given the un-
certainties of the U/Th method outlined above, a serious discussion
needs to take place among physical scientists, archaeologists,
conservation specialists and authorities concerning the costs and
benefits of such sampling”.
“Core sampling through the calcite layer overlying the paint-
ings” did not occur in East Timor. Instead “A test specimen (off-art)
was collected from the cave wall near a painted figure. This sample
contains the limestone bedrock covered by a ~2.5 mm thick calcite
coating” (Aubert et al., 2007: page 994). The sample was already
exfoliating and was near an Austronesian-type painting providing a
probable maximum age for the image. A red layer was subsequently
observed within the micro-stratigraphy of the sample and we were
able to bracket its age. This red layer is possibly the remnants of a
much older painted image […] but “specialised analysis of the red
layer is required to identify the constituents, such as organic
binders and mineral phases to confirm its anthropogenic origin as
paint” (Aubert et al., 2007: page 995). This paper was a proof of
concept to show that thin natural calcite laminations can provide
the means for bracketing the age of cave paintings and no rock art
was ‘damaged’.
Similarly, core sampling was not used in Sulawesi. Instead, “a
small segment (100e200 mm2) of each coralloid was removed from
99
the rock art panels using a battery-operated rotary tool equipped
with a diamond saw blade” (Aubert et al., 2014: page 226). We used
a rotary tool to make four incisions in the material and then used a
flat-end micro screwdriver to carefully remove the sample. More-
over, each potential sample was assessed by a representative of the
Indonesian Heritage Department (who was also part of the Team)
and permission was given before collecting each sample, with the
collection process also supervised by representatives of the former
institution. Since the age of the rock art was unknown and faced
serious threats from large-scale industrial activities (i.e., limestone
quarrying) our Indonesian colleagues deemed it essential to pro-
ceed with sampling and dating speleothems already obscuring
motifs. U/Th dating has established the extreme antiquity and
global significance of the Sulawesi rock art and it is this discovery
that may ultimately save it from destruction.
References
Aubert, M., O'Connor, S., McCulloch, M., Mortimer, G., Watchman, A., Richer-
LaFle
che, M., 2007. Uranium-series dating rock art in East Timor. Journal of
Archaeological Science 34, 991e996.
Aubert, M., Brumm, A., Ramli, M., Sutikna, T., Saptomo, E.W., Hakim, B.,
Morwood, M.J., van den Bergh, G.D., Kinsley, L., Dosseto, A., 2014. Pleistocene
cave art from Sulawesi, Indonesia. Nature 514, 223e227.
Eggins, S., Grün, R., Pike, A.W.G., Shelley, M., Taylor, L., 2003. 238U and 232Th
profiling and U-series isotope analysis of fossil teeth by laser ablation-ICPMS.
Quaternary Science Reviews 22, 1373e1382.
Eggins, S.M., Grün, R., McCulloch, M.T., Pike, A.W.G., Chappell, J., Kinsley, L.,
Mortimer, G., Shelley, M., Murray-Wallace, C.V., Spo €tl, C., Taylor, L., 2005. In situ
U-series dating by laser ablation multi-collector ICPMS: new prospects for
Quaternary geochronology. Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (23-24),
2523e2538.
Luo, X., Rehk€amper, M., Lee, D.-C., Halliday, A.N., 1997. High precision 230Th/232Th
and 234U/238U measurements using energy filtered ICP magnetic sector
multiple collector mass spectrometry. International Journal of Mass Spec-
trometry 171, 105e117.
Pike, A.W.G., Hoffmann, D.L., García-Diez, M., Pettitt, P.B., Alcolea, J., De Balbín, R.,
Gonz alez Sainz, C., De Las Heras, C., Lasheras, J.-A., Montes, R., Zilhao, J., 2012.
U-series dating of Paleolithic art in 11 caves in Spain. Science 336, 1409e1413.
Plagnes, V., Causse, C., Fontugne, M., Valladas, H., Chazine, J.-M., Fage, L.-H., 2003.
Cross dating (Th/U-14C) of calcite covering prehistoric paintings in Borneo.
Quaternary Research 60, 172e179.
Pons-Bronchu, E., Fontugne, M., Michel, V., Valladas, H., 2015. Comment on: “Ura-
niumethorium Dating Method and Palaeolithic Rock Art” by Sauvet et al (in
press).
Sauvet, G., Bourrillon, R., Conkey, M., Fritz, C., G arate-Maidagan, D., Rivero, Vil a,
Tosello, G., White, R., 2016. Uraniume-Thorium Dating Method and Palaeolithic
Rock Art (in press).
Watchman, A.L., 2000. Micro-excavation and laser extraction methods for dating
carbon in silica skins and oxalate crusts. In: Ward, G.K., Tuniz, C. (Eds.), Ad-
vances in Dating Australian Rock-Markings. Occasional AURA Publication 10,
pp. 35e39.