{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0297466030113845, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017627616599338966, 'mean_word_length': 5.1909090909090905, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Twenty years on, a new date with Lascaux. Reassessing the chronology of the cave’s Paleolithic occupations through new 14C AMS dating

Aside from the stylistic debates and quarrels fueled by the studies of its painted and engraved walls, the Lascaux Cave stands out by its very weak and contradictory radiometric framework (Delluc and Delluc 2012). In addition to this, no comprehensive, interdisciplinary study of the rich archaeological assemblages has been conducted for almost forty years (Leroi-Gourhan and Allain 1979). The LAsCO project (Langlais and Ducasse coord.) aims to fill this gap by proposing a global reassessment of the osseous and lithic artifacts, ornaments, ochres and lamps. As part of this work, a new effort has been made to clarify the Paleolithic chronology of the human activities documented by this stratified evidence. Five reindeer remains taken from the cave’s main areas (Axial Gallery, Passageway, Nave, Shaft), some showing clear evidence of anthropic exploitation, were therefore selected to be dated in order to test (1) the chronological homogeneity of the occupations, as already suggested by a high typo-technological coherence and, if this was confirmed, (2) the hypothesis of an attribution to the Badegoulian-to-Magdalenian transition phase, as indicated by prior inter-site comparisons (Langlais 2010 ; Ducasse et al. 2011; DEX_TER project: Ducasse and Langlais coord.). All the selected samples were sent to the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU) and run on a MIni CArbon DAting System (MICADAS) after an ultrafiltration pretreatment. While the sample from the Passageway area failed due to low collagen yield, the other four produced reliable and highly comparable measurements centered on a 14C age of 17,600 uncal. BP (21.5-21 cal ka BP). These results confirm the two basic assumptions described above and contradict the diachronic framework defined by the 1948-2002 radiometric data, while restoring a certain degree of chronological consistency which fits well with the main typo-technological features of the lithic and osseous equipment (Allain 1979, Leroy-Prost 2008 and ongoing analysis). After a brief outline of the existing radiometric data and a detailed description of the sampling and dating strategy, the reliability of the results and their impact on our understanding of the cave’s phase(s) of occupation(s) are discussed in depth. While the issue of the precise “cultural” attribution of the dated assemblages and the links between the latter and the parietal art are beyond the scope of this paper, these new data represent a first but significant step towards a global renewal of the highly controversial chronological framework of the Lascaux Cave.