New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Wasp Nests Help Date Aboriginal Art

Art created by Australian Aboriginal people used organic carbon-free pigments, but wasp nests above or below the art can be used for radiocarbon dating that supplies boundaries for the age of artworks.

Gwion Gwion, or Bradshaw, Aboriginal rock paintings.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Thousands of years ago, in what’s now the Kimberley region of Western Australia, Aboriginal artists created elaborate rock paintings. Much of the artwork still exists today.

“If you’re walking beside the rivers and creeks and go up into the escarpments, into rock shelters, there are just thousands of rock art sites.”

University of Melbourne geochronologist Damien Finch. The oldest paintings depict plants and animals. But later works show human figures in ceremonial attire and ornate headdresses. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


“And then, around the arms and the elbows and the knees, there’s decorations. And sometimes they’ll be holding a clutch of boomerangs. And very often, they’re very finely executed, using quite long and elegant-looking brushstrokes.”

The human-centered paintings represent what’s known as the Gwion style. How old the artwork is has remained a mystery, however. That’s because the typical method for estimating the age of ancient objects—radiocarbon dating—relies on the presence of organic carbon. But the artists used ocher pigments that had no organic carbon.

“There is nothing organic that we can apply carbon dating to. So the only thing that we can do is look for stuff that’s either been constructed on top of or underneath the paintings.”

That’s where mud wasps come in. The insects often incorporated organic matter into their nests, which they built on the same rock faces where artists painted. The artists would sometimes paint right on top of old nests. Finch and his colleagues were thus able to date the artwork by sampling the remains of those nests.

“If it was over the top of the painting, that tells us that the painting has to be older than that nest. But if the nest was underneath paint, the painting must be younger than the age that we determined for that nest. And in that way, we can help to build up an idea of when these paintings were created.”

The analysis revealed that most of the Gwion style paintings sampled were about 12,000 years old. 

“So now we can place that in the context of all the other archaeological and environmental information that we’ve got for the Kimberley region at that time.”

The study is in the journal Science Advances. [Damien Finch et al., 12,000-year-old Aboriginal rock art from the Kimberley region, Western Australia]

The results provide support for the hypothesis that Aboriginal artists may have switched from painting plants and animals to depicting humans in ceremonial dress around 12,000 years ago in response to the ecological changes and rapidly rising sea levels as the last ice age ended.

Finch is now working out the age of other styles of Aboriginal rock art—with a little help from materials that ancient insects once called home.

—Susanne Bard

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Susanne Bard is a science writer and multimedia producer based on the West Coast. She has created content for Scientific American, Science magazine, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as for museums and zoos.

More by Susanne Bard

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe