what’s in a name: the aurignacian in romania

at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Quaternary International 351 (2014) 172e192

Contents lists available

Quaternary International

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/quaint

What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania

Mircea Anghelinu*, Loredana Nit�aValahia University of Târgoviste, History and Letters, Lt. Stancu Ion, 34-36, 130105 Târgoviste, Dâmbovita, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 13 March 2012

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (M

1040-6182/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd adoi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

a b s t r a c t

The key position held by Romania’s territory for the available scenarios regarding the expansion of theUpper Paleolithic “cultural package” in Europe has been recently reinforced by the finds of the oldestEuropean Homo sapiens sapiens remains in the Oase Cave (Southwestern Romania). However, in spite ofits paradigmatic association to the first anatomically modern humans in Europe, the Aurignacian inRomania remained inadequately known and rarely referred to in the European literature. The poordescriptions of the Aurignacian-called lithic industries and their unusually young numerical chronologyor geochronological estimations explain this caution. A brief evaluation of the available informationregarding these issues is proposed. Based on a comparatively restricted definition of the Aurignacianvariability as acknowledged in the recent European literature (e.g. numerical chronology, large retouchedblades, bladelet production from carinated forms, bone industry), the present approach dismisses manypostulates widely held in Romanian literature: the local origin, the wide occurrence and the late survivalof the Aurignacian. However, given the lack of numerical dates and the fragmentary state of mostarchaeological collections, the precise timing of its emergence and the details of its regional evolutionrequire further research.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The time-honored association between the Aurignacian and theappearance of the Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) in Europeeasily explains the attention this technocomplex enjoyed in the lastyears (e.g. Kozlowski and Otte, 2000; Zilhão and D’Errico, 2003; LeBrun-Ricalens, 2005; Zilhão et al., 2005; Bar-Yosef and Zilhão, 2006;Teyssandier, 2006, 2007, 2008; Zilhão, 2006a). Two extreme viewsseem to channel the current debates regarding this technocomplex.While the supporters of the “traditional” view persistentlyemphasize Aurignacian allogeny or at least homogeneity (e.g.Kozlowski and Otte, 2000; Kozlowski, 2004; Mellars, 2006), for theauthors stressing the adaptive continuity which in their opinionconnects the first stages of the Upper Paleolithic to the precedingMousterian, the Aurignacian technocomplex has more of a taxo-nomic illusion (e.g. Clark, 1997, 1999, 2009; Riel-Salvatore andBarton, 2004; Straus, 2009). These disputed standpoints arefurther complicated by the meager human fossil record. Althoughthe systematical presence of AMH in later Aurignacian contexts(Churchill and Smith, 2000) gives credit to a similar equation forthe first Aurignacian occurrences (Bailey et al., 2009), the hypoth-esis lacks direct empirical support. Moreover, after the harsh

. Anghelinu).

nd INQUA. All rights reserved.

criticism suffered by the Bachokirian (Rigaud and Lucas, 2003;Tsanova and Bordes, 2003; Teyssandier, 2006), a Balkan emergenceof a European pre-Aurignacian is now supported only by theTemnata sequence in Bulgaria (Kozlowski, 2006). The presumedEastern origin of the Aurignacian waits for confirmation as well:neither Central Asia (Otte and Kozlowski, 2004; Olszewski andDibble, 2006; Otte et al., 2007a), nor the Middle East (Straus,2003) has yet provided the old chronology needed to support thepaternity of the entire technocomplex. A purely European origin ofthe Aurignacian, already suggested by several authors (e.g. Laplace,1966; Bar-Yosef, 2006; Teyssandier, 2008) is therefore stillplausible.

Fortunately, the opposed theoretical barricades and the uncer-tainties regarding the Aurignacian’s origins and authorship did notimpede the more empirical research, focused on its chronology andregional variability. For themost generous estimationse to include,as a chronological stage (Zilhão, 2006a; Teyssandier, 2008), theMediterranean facies (variously named as “Protoaurignacian”,“Mochian”, “Fumanian”) (Bordes, 2003; Mellars, 2006) e theemergence of this technocomplex does not seem to predate 42 kacal. BP (but see also Szmidt et al., 2010a, 2010b; all dates in the textwere calibrated using CalPal_2007_Hulu). The last archaeologicalcontexts conventionally attributed to the Aurignacian disappear inmost European areas around 32 ka cal. BP (Nioradze and Otte,2000; Chabai, 2003; Haesaerts et al., 2003; Meshveliani et al.,

mailto:[email protected]

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013&domain=pdf

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/10406182

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013



M. Anghelinu, L. Nit�a / Quaternary International 351 (2014) 172e192 173

2004; Demidenko, 2008). Additionally, an improved set of diag-nostic parameters for the identification of the Aurignacian lithic(Demidenko et al., 1998; Blades, 2002; Lucas, 2006; Zilhão, 2006b)and organic production (Teyssandier and Liolios, 2003; Liolios,2006; Vanhaeren and D’Errico, 2006) is now available. Togetherwith the superior radiometric resolution, they seem to reinforce thealready acknowledged view on the stadial character of the Auri-gnacian phenomenon (Djindjian et al., 2003; Otte and Kozlowski,2003; Conard and Bolus, 2006; Mellars, 2006; Zilhão, 2006a;Teyssandier, 2007). Thus, many authors seem to give credit to thetraditional theory, for which the Aurignacian represents a chrono-cultural entity coherent enough to be considered empirically “real”,even if its extension in time and space has certainly been over-stated. As is becoming increasingly clear, the Aurignacian stands asa shortcut for a series of complex andmutually related phenomena,whose spatial and chronological extent cannot be exclusivelyelucidated on dichotomist grounds (ethno-cultural tradition vs.adaptive convergence/recurrence). The rapid extension of thistechnocomplex (Davies, 2001) is certainly to be correlated with theMIS3 ecological instability, which caused visible macro-demographical movements (van Andel and Davies, 2003; Zilhão,2006a) and presumably local adjustments of residential andlogistical mobility. The last changes are clearly suggested by theincreasing portability of the composite hunting equipment, wellexpressed in the Aurignacian lithic technology (Hays and Lucas,2000; Bon, 2005; O’Farrell, 2005; Pelegrin and O’Farrell, 2005).

In the Eastern part of the European continent, the internaldynamics of the Aurignacian technocomplex appears less unam-biguous than in its original definition (and re-definition) areas, thatis Western, Central and Mediterranean Europe. This situation owesmuch to the scarcity of properly identified and well dated Auri-gnacian contexts (Mitoc-Malul Galben, Kostenki 1, 14, Siuren)(Sinitsyn, 2003; Noiret, 2004, 2005, 2009; Chabai, 2005;Demidenko, 2008), but also to the preference of Eastern authors forthe definition of some regionally based cultural entities. However,the less intense, chronologically focused and relatively late Auri-gnacian presence documented so far may be tentatively correlatedto the great number of contemporary or even later Early UpperPaleolithic “cultures” more or less related to the local MiddlePaleolithic (Anikovitch, 1992; Chirica et al., 1996; Chabai, 2003,2005; Sinitsyn, 2003; Brantigham et al., 2004; Noiret, 2004;Demidenko, 2008).

2. The Oasis around “Oase”: emergence of the UpperPaleolithic in Romania

In the Aurignacian landscape, Romania’s case looks ratherexceptional. A brief review of the Romanian archaeological litera-ture leaves the impression that the Aurignacian is not onlyautochthonous, but also the first, the most widespread and longlasting Upper Paleolithic technocomplex. This status stands insharp contrast with the chrono-cultural framework acknowledgedeverywhere else in Europe and Middle East, including Romania’sneighboring areas. Such insularity looks even more bizarre givenRomania’s location and landscape structure, both unable to sustainany sort of extended isolation. Evaluating this originality is themain objective of this paper’s approach, but there are also a fewothers.

First, synthetic contributions of Romanian authors areuncommon in foreign languages (e.g. Dumitrescu et al., 1983;P�aunescu,1989; Chirica et al., 1996; Cârciumaru,1999; Borziac et al.,2007; Borziac and Chirica, 2008a). With the exception of severalarchaeological sequences of wide regional significance (Haesaertset al., 2003), or the results of a few other international projects(e.g. Alexandrescu et al., 2004; Cârciumaru et al., 2006, 2008;

Steguweit et al., 2009), the Upper Paleolithic in Romania looksalmost invisible for the European audience. The Aurignacianespecially enjoyed only a marginal attention in synthetic reviews(e.g. Hahn, 1977; Djindjian et al., 1999) and thematically focusedvolumes (e.g. Zilhão and D’Errico, 2003; Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005;Bar-Yosef and Zilhão, 2006) and it is only partially treated in thecontributions dedicated to the Eastern European Upper Paleolithic(e.g. Kozlowski, 1999; Noiret, 2004, 2005, 2009; Zwyns, 2004). Thisdiscretion stands in a disturbing contrast to the now richly docu-mented and widely discussed early presence of AMH in Romania:Oase Cave (41e39 ka cal. BP) (Trinkaus et al., 2003, 2005, 2009;Rougier et al., 2007), Cioclovina Cave (33e32 ka cal. BP) (Soficaruet al., 2007); Muierii Cave (34e33 ka cal. BP) (Dobos et al., 2009;Trinkaus et al., 2009).

The less intensive field research and the language barrier are notthe only causes for the feeble presence of the Romanian archaeo-logical information in the debate regarding the emergence of theUpper Paleolithic. It is actually the accuracy of these data whichmade their proper scientific evaluation extremely difficult fora foreign audience (see also Djindjian, 2000; Horvath, 2009). Forinstance, under the Aurignacian label were gathered various flakeand bifacial rich assemblages such as Ripiceni-Izvor Aurignacian Iand II (P�aunescu, 1993), unexpectedly young assemblages(30e25 ka cal. BP), such as those on the Bistrita (North-EasternRomania) (P�aunescu, 1998; Borziac and Chirica, 2008b) or Danubevalleys (Alexandrescu et al., 2004), but also many loosely differ-entiated toolkits, lacking any chronological reference. The poorradiometric support and the young geochronological estimationsleft even the few cases displaying certain Aurignacian features opento rather speculative interpretations (Djindjian et al., 1999;Teyssandier, 2006).

The discouraging originality of the Romanian Aurignacian owesmuch to the theoretical and methodological core which has beendominating the Romanian prehistoric research since the interwartime. For reasons largely discussed elsewhere (Anghelinu, 2003,2006), many of the Romanian Paleolithic researchers defendeda research paradigm closely related to the French “phylogenetic”perspective (sensu Sackett, 1991). The main consequence has beenthe propensity towards a naïve evolutionary framework, selectivelydocumented by the means of type fossils. The emergence of UpperPaleolithic, essentially assimilated to a gradual adoption of bladetechnology, provides the paradigmatic example. With very fewexceptions (Morosan, 1938; Mogosanu, 1978; Borziac and Chirica,2008a), its local origin remained the dominant postulate, fromthe early investigations (Nicol�aescu-Plopsor, 1938, 1954, 1956;Nicol�aescu-Plopsor et al., 1966; Bitiri, 1965; P�aunescu, 1970, 1980;Bitiri and Cârciumaru, 1978), to the most recent ones (P�aunescu,1980, 1998, 1999a, 2000, 2001; Chirica, 1987, 1995; Cârciumaru,1995, 1999; Chirica et al., 1996; Dobrescu, 2008). Particularly theemergence of an “Early Aurignacian” from the local Mousteriansurvived in spite of views to the contrary, usually expressed by thefew foreign specialists working in Romania (e.g. Honea, 1994;Noiret, 2004). This popular belief, although admittedly lacking anyclear theoretical support (Borziac and Chirica, 2008a) has hadsevere consequences in what the Aurignacian classification wasconcerned.

3. The Aurignacian in Romania: a starting picture

The sites attributed to the Aurignacian in Romania cover a widearray of geographical and topographical contexts, in both caves andopen air settings (Fig. 1). Most cave sites are to be found in SouthernCarpathians and are situated on an average altitude (400e650 m),usually at the edge of themountain range, with the single exceptionof Mare-Moeciu Cave (950 m). The open air sites are located on

Fig. 1. Map of presumed Aurignacian settlements mentioned in the text: 1 e Remetea Somos; 2 e Boinesti; 3 e C�alinesti; 4 e Busag; 5 e Mitoc (Malul Galben/ValeaIzvorului); (6 e Ripiceni-Izvor/Stânca); 7e10 e Ceahl�au Basin (Bistricioara-Lut�arie I, Podis, Cet�atica I, Dârtu); 11e12 e Cremenea (Poienit�a/Malu Dinu Buzea); 13 e Lapos;14 e Mamaia-sat; 15 e Giurgiu Malu Rosu; 16 e Ciuperceni; 17 e V�adastra; 18 e Muierii Cave; 19 e Bordu Mare Cave; 20 e Cioclovina Cave; 21 e Hotilor Cave; 22 e Oase Cave; 23.Tincova; 24 e Românesti-Dumbr�avita; 25 e Cosava.

M. Anghelinu, L. Nit�a / Quaternary International 351 (2014) 172e192174

terraces, in various topographical shapes: plateau like, sub-mountain, hilly areas of average altitude (Bistrita Valley, Sub-Carpathians, Banat, Oas, Prut Valley), or low plains (Danube). Thesettlement concentration needs to be correlated to an unevenintensity of research, which have constantly aimed for naturalshelters or visible occurrences of siliceous raw materials. The stateof preservation also played an important role: with very fewexceptions, the vast majority of open air sites were found in heavilyeroded, short geological sequences, while the intense aeolianaccumulation in open areas like the Prut or Danube Valley limitedtheir successful identification.

Given the general absence of organic artifacts, the identificationof most Aurignacian sites in Romania was based on lithic toolkits.The main criteria used were the general shape of blanks and tools(for small collections or isolated finds) and/or the covariance oftypological groups for larger, statistically treatable toolkits. Withthe exception of assemblages originating from caves, most Auri-gnacian toolkits appear dominated by the massive use of local rawmaterials. The frequent coincidence between Aurignacian-calledindustries and natural raw material occurrences is by no meansaccidental.

With very few exceptions (e.g. Dobrescu, 2008; Nit�a, 2008) noneof the toolkits attributed to the Aurignacian in Romania benefitedfrom comprehensive technological studies or attribute analysis.Most technological observations, when formally made, were basedon the cores’ and blanks’ general shape. In general, the Aurignacian-called toolkits seem to witness a poorly standardized blade tech-nology, from unidirectional, bidirectional or multidirectional cores.The bad quality of blade production has been normally attributed tothe “archaic” character of this technocomplex, to “degeneration” inpurportedly late Aurignacian contexts, or exceptionally to the lowquality raw material (e.g. Bitiri, 1965; Mogosanu, 1978). The occa-sionally important presence of various flake reduction sequences

has been unanimously interpreted as a persistence of Mousterianknapping traditions (e.g. Nicol�aescu-Plopsor et al., 1966; Bitiri,1972b; Mogosanu, 1983; P�aunescu, 1993; Chirica et al., 1996;Cârciumaru, 1999). Typological evaluation of most assemblagesremained equally loose: retouched blades of various sizes (with orwithout “Aurignacian” retouch); carinated, nosed or simply thickendscrapers; burins of various types (dihedral, multiple); margin-ally retouched bladelets, more or less devoted to the Dufourtypology (sensu Demars and Laurent, 1989) etc. Significantly,although the presence of the Dufour bladelets scored as a positiveadditional criterion for an Aurignacian classification, the totalabsence of bladelet production never acted conversely, as a nega-tive one.

The size of assemblages and the related aspects (site functions,accumulation type), have rarely been explicitly treated. The onlyexisting attempt (P�aunescu et al., 1977) proposed a linear corre-spondence between the Upper Paleolithic toolkits size and thenature and duration of settlement use (seasonal vs. sedentary). Asa rule, an empirical settlements typology seems to separate thelithic workshops from habitation sites or hunting stations.

Concerning the local evolution of the Aurignacian tech-nocomplex, a three-staged model stands as favorite. The corre-sponding inner division was either based on the increase in exoticraw material use and the related finer technological expertise inblade production (Nicol�aescu-Plopsor et al., 1966), or on the fewradiometric landmarks, coupled with the covariance of main toolcategories (e.g. endscrapers and burins) (Alexandrescu, 1997;P�aunescu, 1998). Generally, the Aurignacian is replaced by anunrelated, allogenous Gravettian.

The existing numerical chronology for the entire RomanianPaleolithic is modest. With the notable exception of Mitoc-MalulGalben, few of the assumed Aurignacian sites benefited froma proper radiometric evaluation (Table 1).Most of themwere dated

Table 1Detailed list of radiocarbon dates mentioned in the text.

Settlement Original culturalattribution

Sample Lab number Uncal. age BP Cal. age BP(CalPal-2007_Hulu)

References

Mitoc-Malul Galben Aurignacian Charcoal GrN-14914 27,410 � 430 32,131 � 379 Otte et al. (2007b)Charcoal GrN-12637 31,850 � 800 36,336 � 1212Charcoal GrN-15453 27,100 � 1500 31,739 � 1374Charcoal GrA-27261 27,700 � 180 32,267 � 276Charcoal GrA-27268 27,750 � 160 32,301 � 277Bone GrN-13007 >24,000 e

Charcoal GrN-15451 26,530 � 400 31,240 � 438Charcoal GrN-15454 29,410 � 310 33,760 � 366Charcoal GrA-1355 25,380 � 120 30,211 � 277Charcoal GrN-14037 26,910 � 450 31,511 � 458Charcoal GrN-15457 24,400 þ 2200/�1700 28,713 � 2395Charcoal OxA-1646 31,100 � 900 35,495 � 952Charcoal GrA-1648 31,000 � 330 35,076 � 401Charcoal GrN-15456 25,930 � 450 30,898 � 470Charcoal GrN-20443 30,240 þ 470/�440 34,482 � 409Charcoal GrN-20770 31,160 þ 570/�530 35,294 � 586Charcoal GrN-20442 30,920 � 390 35,042 � 428Charcoal GrN-20444 31,160 þ 550/�510 35,281 � 561Charcoal GrA-1357 32,730 � 220 37,251 � 669

Ripiceni-Izvor Aurignacian Ib Charcoal (?) Bln-809 28,420 � 400 32,891 � 504 P�aunescu (1999a)Bistricioara-Lut�arie II Upper Aurignacian

(Pre-Gravettian)Charcoal GrN-12670 18,330 � 300 21,968 � 413

Charcoal GrN-16982 20,310 � 150 24,254 � 316? Gx-8726 20,300 � 1300 24,400 � 1617? Gx-8727 23,450 þ 2000/�1450 27,805 � 2279

Middle Aurignacian ? Gx-8845 23,560 þ 1150/�980 28,160 � 1401Charcoal GrN-10529 24,100 � 1300 28,697 � 1504Bone GrN-11586 24,760 � 170 29,795 � 337? Gx-8844 27,350 þ 2100/�1500 31,838 � 1959

Ceahl�au-Cet�atica I Lower Aurignacian Charcoal GrN-14629 >24,000 e

Ceahl�au-Cet�atica II Unknown Charcoal GrN-14632 21,050 � 650 25,249 � 879Lower Aurignacian Charcoal GrN-14633 26,700 � 1100 31,054 � 989

Ceahl�au-Dârtu Middle Aurignacian Charcoal GrN-16985 21,100 þ 490/�460 25,279 � 671Bone GrN-12673 24,390 � 180 29,155 � 474? Gx-9415 25,450 þ 4450/�2850 29,478 � 4726

Giurgiu Malu Rosu Aurignacian Charcoal (?) GrA-5094 21,140 � 120 25,297 � 365 Alexandrescu et al. (2004)Charcoal (?) GrA-6037 22,790 � 130 27,455 � 406

Muierii Cave Aurignacian Human tibia andscapula

LuA-5228 30,150 � 800 34,403 � 805 Soficaru et al. (2006)

Human cranium OxA-15529 29,930 � 170 34,227 � 175Human temporalbone

OxA-16252 29,110 � 190 33,585 � 329

Bordul Mare (OhabaPonor) Cave

Aurignacian Bone (?) GrN-14627 28,780 � 290 33,264 � 444 P�aunescu (2001)

Cioclovina Cave Aurignacian Human temporal LuA-5229 29,000 � 700 33,332 � 671 Soficaru et al. (2007)Human occipital OxA-15527 28,510 � 170 32,915 � 359

Hotilor Cave Aurignacian Charcoal (?) GrN-16980 25,940 � 230 30,933 � 369 P�aunescu (2001)Oase Cave Unknown Human mandible GrA-22810 34,290 þ 970/�870 39,180 � 1410 Trinkaus et al. (2003)

Human cranium GrA-24398 28,980 þ 180/�170 33,487 � 339 Trinkaus et al. (2005)


in the 1980s (Honea, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1994), usually throughsurvey trenches in the proximity of previous excavations. Thepublished reports suggest severe sampling deficiencies: manysamples contained mixed bone, charcoal and burnt sediment; thehuge depth intervals provided refer to geological layers rather thanto clear archaeological contexts. This rough contextualizationunfortunately explains the resulting contradictory chronology (e.g.P�aunescu, 1998, 2001).

Notwithstanding these aspects, the young chronology of theAurignacian in Romania seems unanimously accepted (Mogosanu,1978; Chirica et al., 1996; Alexandrescu, 1997; P�aunescu, 1998,1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001; Cârciumaru, 1999; Alexandrescu et al.,2004; Borziac and Chirica, 2008b). The oldest radiocarbon datesavailable frame the Aurignacian layers at Mitoc-Malul Galbenbetween 37 and 32 ka cal. BP (Otte and Chirica, 1993; Otte et al.,1996a; Haesaerts et al., 2003). A single sample from the nearbysettlement Ripiceni-Izvor provided a 32 ka cal. BP age for the“Aurignacian Ib” layer (P�aunescu, 1993). The presumed Aurignacianlayers in the Ceahl�au Basin (Bistrita Valley, North-Eastern Romania)

offered a considerably younger (31e24 ka cal. BP), but contradic-tory chronology (P�aunescu, 1998). Unfortunately, the two recentAMS samples dating the lower part of the geological sequenceat Ceahl�au-Dârtu (40 and 35 ka cal. BP) (Steguweit, 2009) cannot besecurely associated to the “Middle Aurignacian” layer there(Nicol�aescu-Plopsor et al., 1966). In the southern half of Romania,ignoring the bone sample of unclear stratigraphical provenancefrom the Ohaba Ponor cave (around 32 ka cal. BP, P�aunescu, 2001: p.297), the only radiocarbon landmarks come from the so-calledAurignacian contexts on the Danube shore: 27e25 ka cal. BP(corroborated by an OSL age of 26 ka) at Giurgiu Malu Rosu(Alexandrescu et al., 2004). One may add the ISLR estimation fromCiuperceni (32 ka), but its relationship to the cultural layers there isyet unclear (Dobrescu et al., 2009). Neither the Banat sites(Românesti-Dumbr�avita, Cosava, Tincova), nor the Oas-Maramuresones (C�alinesti, Boinesti, Remetea-Somos), or other settlements inSouthern Romania (V�adastra, Nicolae B�alcescu, Lapos), providednumerical dates. The geochronological estimations, when available,propose remarkably late chronologies and even suggest


a Tardiglacial survival of the Aurignacian (Mogosanu, 1978;Cârciumaru, 1999; P�aunescu, 2000, 2001).

The scarcity of radiometric estimations explains the coarsepaleoclimatical framework available today. With the exception ofthe lithostratigraphic sequence from Mitoc, the climate frameworkof the Upper Paleolithic in Romania either hangs on broadconnections to the old Alpine chronology (e.g. P�aunescu, 1998,1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001), or stands on the more detailed pollen-based scheme proposed by Cârciumaru (1980, 1995, 1999). In theloess sequence at Mitoc-Malul Galben, the Aurignacian starts ina cold climatic phase at the end of the Middle Pleniglacial, butyounger layers have also been correlated to two positive episodescorresponding to the humiferous soils MG 10 and MG 9 (Haesaertset al., 2003). However, for decades, the main reference for Roma-nian Upper Paleolithic has been the geochronological sketch elab-orated in the 1960s in the East-Carpathian area and tailored afterthe classical Alpine chronology (Nicol�aescu-Plopsor et al., 1966).According to it, most Aurignacian occurrences belong to the WürmII stadial, with the exception of the Cet�atica-Ceahl�au I layer I,apparently older (Würm IeII), and to the Aurignacian in Oas(Northwestern Romania), Banat (Southwestern Romania) andSouthern Romania, presumably much younger (Würm III) (Bitiri,1972b; Mogosanu, 1983). The pollen-based geochronology(Cârciumaru, 1980), still disputed by some scholars (e.g. Allsworth-Jones,1986; Chirica et al., 1996; Djindjian, 2000), particularly on thegrounds of insufficient radiometric support, has not only reversedthe paleoclimatical interpretation of many Upper Paleolithic layersinvolved, but also changed their presumed chronology, usually infavor of younger ages. For instance, most Aurignacian-called layersfrom the Ceahl�au Basin were reframed into the Ohaba InterstadialComplex (Arcy/Kesselt/Denekamp) typically in its second oscilla-tion, Ohaba B (P�aunescu et al., 1977). The Banat Aurignacianendowed a yet younger age, correlated to a few positive climateoscillations from the Late Glacial (Herculane Ie Tursac, Herculane IIe Laugerie) (Mogosanu, 1978). However, while aiming for a widergeochronological connection between Romania and other Euro-pean areas, the pollen-based scheme did not seriously question thevalidity of the previous cultural ascriptions. This led to ratherstartling conclusions, such as the parallel existence of Aurignacianand Gravettian in small geographical areas (e.g. the Ceahl�au Basin,P�aunescu et al., 1977), or the suggestion of a contemporary pres-ence of Late Mousterian, Aurignacian and Gravettian on Romanianterritory as a whole (Cârciumaru, 1999), in spite of the total lack ofin situ inter-stratification between them. As a general feature,however, the available pollen diagrams did not support anysystematic link between the Aurignacian and some particularclimatic settings.

The seasonality and the paleofaunistical context of the Auri-gnacian in Romania are evenmore difficult to asses, giving the poorpreservation of organic material, particularly at open air sites. TheAurignacian I at Mitoc-Malul Galben, the only assemblage clearlyattributed to a warm season, provided a horse-bison faunal asso-ciation (Noiret, 2004). A similar association seems to feature the“Aurignacian” layers at the nearby site of Ripiceni-Izvor (P�aunescu,1993), but also the Aurignacian-called contexts from the BistritaValley (Bolomey, 1989). The paleontological contexts of theassemblages found in the Carpathian caves, dominated by carni-vores and Capra ibex and lacking any certain taphonomic evaluationappear hardly relevant (P�aunescu, 2000, 2001). The micro-mammals provided equally equivocal environmental informationfor the Aurignacian layers found in caves: cold and arid (Mare-Moeciu Cave, Gura Cheii-Râsnov Cave), or rather temperate (OhabaPonor) (P�aunescu, 1991, 1996; P�aunescu and Abassi, 1996).

To conclude, the diversity of depositional context, the differentresolution of the methods involved, the geographical distances

separating the Aurignacian sites, not to mention the lack of a properradiometric support doom to speculation any correlation betweenthe available geochronological systems. Understanding thediachronic evolution of the Aurignacian in Romania in connectionto a paleoclimatical framework, as already attempted for Europe asa whole (ex. Djindjian et al., 1999; Mellars, 2006; Zilhão, 2006a), iseven more hazardous as long as the supposed longevity of thistechnocomplex in Romania rests on at best disputable culturalrecognition.

4. Reevaluating the Aurignacian in Romania

The improved knowledge on the Aurignacian in Europe, theongoing research projects and the recently available comprehen-sive publications (e.g. P�aunescu, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001;Otte et al., 2007b; Dobrescu, 2008) are now giving the opportunityfor a better evaluation of the Romanian Aurignacian. What isproposed here is a preliminary clarification of the actual content ofthe most consistent lithic toolkits labeled as Aurignacian, asmirrored in the available Romanian literature or resulting fromevaluation of several archaeological collections. This mission hasbeen less straightforward that it may appear, for several reasons.Most research concerned here took place in a pioneering stage,which often resulted in mixed and severely fragmented archeo-logical collections, particularly lacking microlithic items. Selectivepublication, inappropriate technical illustration, inaccurate orplainly erroneous typological descriptions raised additional diffi-culties. Consequently, both the accuracy and the solidity of theseconclusions will naturally wait future substantiation.

4.1. An operational definition

The first logical step to make is to give an operational definitionof the Aurignacian itself. It is acknowledged as a fully laminar UpperPaleolithic technocomplex, generally framed between 42 and32 ka cal. BP. Although naturally variable in its content, the Auri-gnacian lithic production display a set of specific attributes, docu-mented in most assemblages, irrespective of their geographicallocation or chronological status (cf. Lucas, 2006; Olszewski andDibble, 2006; Zilhão, 2006b; Teyssandier, 2008): systematic bladeproduction from prismatic or pyramidal cores, with a carefulpreparation of the flaking platforms through abrasion of faceting;use of soft hammers in advanced knapping stages; the use of largeblade blanks with parallel edges, secondary transformed throughretouch (occasionally intensive) into long cutting edges or end-scrapers; the use of large flakes (cortical or not) for the productionof small bladelets of Dufour type (of various subtypes), used eitherin their raw state, or after the application of marginal, inverse,alternate or (more rarely) direct retouch; the production of thesebladelets can be done either through dedicated productionsequences starting from carinated forms (endscrapers, buskedburins), or in the final stage of reduction of unidirectional bladecores (the “Protoaurignacian” case); in the latter case, the bladeletblanks, usually larger, were further transformed into Krems/Font-Yves points; constant presence of common Upper Paleolithictools (endscrapers, burins, truncated pieces, notches and denticu-lates etc.). The Aurignacian technological “package” regularlyincludes a specific bone/antler industry (Liolios, 2006), dominatedin the first chronological stages by the production of split basepoints, and in the later, “classical” phases, by biconical, massive-base points of Mlade�c type. The occurrence of individual adorn-ment objects (pierced shells, teeth pendants) or other organicartifacts is also common.

The relative importance of each of the featuresmentioned abovevaries widely. For instance, an important flake production had been


noticed in some Aurignacian contexts (e.g. Warwasi e Iran,Olszewski and Dibble, 2006). The organic artifacts are also oftenmissing. Moreover, the recurrent presence of the carinated forms inmany Upper Paleolithic industries (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef,2006), much like the constant presence of pseudo-Dufour blade-lets (directly retouched) in Gravettian and Epigravettian contextsshould also be mentioned. However, the technological homoge-neity of the Aurignacian technocomplex is still impressive, irre-spective of the many causes which most likely caused it. The bestexample is the presence of marginally retouched bladelets, whichactually give the Aurignacian the most preeminent feature (seecontributions in Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005).

4.2. Geographical framework

The approach is geographically structured for an obvious reason:the separation of Romanian territory by the Carpathian mountainchain. As already suggested by some authors (e.g. Djindjian, 2000),the Carpathian barrier, although not impenetrable, apparently actedas an effective border between Eastern, Southern and CentralRomania. The orientation of major river systems and the dominant

Fig. 2. Lithic artifacts from Cet�atica I, layer I: 1, 8e9 e retouched blades; 2, 6e7 e endscSteguweit).

landscape forms further deepen this admittedly broad geographicalautonomy. While Eastern Romania is widely open to the steppespaces north from the Black Sea, Central (Transylvania), South-western (Banat) and Northern Romania (Oas) are much moreaccessible from Central Europe. The basic raw material circulationpatterngenerallysupports this groundworkdivision: radiolarite andobsidian of presumably Pannonian origin regularly show up inUpper Paleolithic collections from Oas-Maramures (Dobrescu,2008). Eastern Carpathian sources reached Mitoc (Chirica, 2001) oreven Ukraine (Stepanchuk and Petrougne, 2005), while the Creta-ceous and Buglovian flint originating from the Prut area circulatedwidely across Eastern Romania during the entire Upper Paleolithic(Muraru, 1990). The use of the abundant, local rawmaterial sourcescharacterizes most settlements from Southern Romania.

4.3. The Aurignacian in Eastern Romania

Apart from a few isolated finds, the alleged Aurignacian settle-ments in Eastern Romania are concentrated in extremities, on theCeahl�au Basin, along the Bistrita River to the west, and on themiddle sector of the river Prut, to the east. Both areas enjoyed

rapers; 3e4 e bladelets; 5 e blade; 10e11 e cores; 12 e entame blade (photos Leif


significant field research which explain the apparently focusedhuman presence.

The Western concentration had been intensively exploredduring the 1950s (Nicol�aescu-Plopsor et al., 1966). Later researchwas mainly guided by radiometric sampling (P�aunescu, 1998;Steguweit et al., 2009). Most excavated settlements are located onthe middle Bistrita terraces, in similar topographical settings. Theircomparable geological sequences were initially thought tocomprise a complete archive of the Last Glaciation. The commonarchaeological succession includes Aurignacian, Gravettian andEpigravettian layers. Only four sites e Ceahl�au-Cet�atica (I and II),Ceahl�au-Dârtu, Ceahl�au-Podis and Bistricioara-Lut�arie I e offeredlithic collections attributed to the Aurignacian (Figs. 2and 3), in

Fig. 3. Lithic artifacts from Dârtu, layers IeII: 1e6 e endscra

spite of their young numerical chronology, ranging between31 ka cal. BP (Bistricioara II, Cet�atica II) and 24 ka cal. BP (Dârtu,Bistricioara II) (P�aunescu, 1998). As both the toolkits and thechrono-stratigraphical sequences above have been recently reas-sessed (Nit�a, 2008; Steguweit, 2009; Steguweit et al., 2009), onlythe main conclusions are given here.

The so-called Aurignacian toolkits display many features incommon: small size, local raw material use (with the exception ofPodis), ordinary blade technology and Upper Paleolithic typologicalforms (endscrapers, retouched blades). Apart from Bistricioara-Lut�arie (layer I) and Podis (layer I), unmistakably Gravettian, none ofthe other spots has offered true diagnostic elements for an Auri-gnacian attribution, although the presence of a few large,

pers; 7e14 e retouched blades (photos Leif Steguweit).


continuously retouched blades at Dârtu has to be mentioned. Thesmall assemblage (47 lithics) at Cet�atica I is evenmore distant in thisrespect. Both the coherence and the estimated age of this supposedly“Early Aurignacian” toolkit, coming from thefirst stratigraphical unitover imposing the terracegravels, seemdoubtful.While thepresenceof bifacial technology and the lack of any other indicative featuresclearly dismiss the Aurignacian label, the alternative proposalse thetransitional Brânzeni facies (Borziac and Chirica, 2008b), or theUpper Paleolithic “Prut culture” (Noiret, 2004) e are equally uncer-tain, given the AMS estimation of the lower sequence in Dârtu(40e35 ka cal. BP) (Steguweit et al., 2009), which by extrapolationsuggests an older age for the Cet�atica I layer involved.

Fig. 4. Lithic artifacts from Mitoc-Malul Galben: 1. ivory point; 2. Mlade�c bone point; 3, 5ep. 170).

On the Prut Valley, the long geological and archaeologicalsequence at Mitoc-Malul Galben comprises five assemblages attrib-uted to the Aurignacian, dated between37 and 32ka cal. BP. Themostconsistent belong to the first part of this chronological interval andgenerallymirror aworkshop activity correlated to the export of bladeand bladelet blanks. The toolkits are mainly composed from flakes(86.09%), burin spalls, prismatic and sub-prismatic cores, but alsofrom an important number of burins and carinated endscrapers onflakes or blades (Figs. 4and 5). The formal typology, quite poor, isdominated by retouched flakes (lower Aurignacian level), burins andsimple endscrapers (Aurignacian levels I and II) or endscrapers(Aurignacian III) (Otte et al., 2007b). Despite the in situ lack of Dufour

6, 8e9 e carinated burins; 4, 7 e carinated endscrapers (modified after Chirica, 2001:

Fig. 5. Lithic artifacts from Mitoc-Malul Galben: 1e6 e burins (modified after Chirica, 2001: p. 172).


bladelets, both the content and the chronology of these lithic toolkitsclearly support the Aurignacian identification, further reinforced bythe two reindeer antler points found, at least one conforming to theMlade�c typology (Chirica and Noiret, 2007).

Less certain is the attribution to the Aurignacian of the assem-blages at the nearby spot, Mitoc-Pârâul lui Istrati. Here, threeseparated cultural layers amounted to a total of around 1700 lithics,including decortication flakes, crested blades, simple flakes,

retouched or raw blades, but also 77 “microlithic blades” (Chirica,1974). A proper description of those bladelets is missing, buta carinated endscraper is mentioned in the second layer. While theabrupt retouch noticed in the upper layer clearly points to theGravettian, the stratigraphical position, the workshop aspect andthe faunal association (horse-bison) support a provisional link ofthe lower layers to the Aurignacian at Malul Galben (Chirica et al.,1996: p. 84).


The “Aurignacian” layers (Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb) at Ripiceni-Izvor(P�aunescu, 1993) raise different problems. Placed on top of thelast Mousterian VI occupation, the four layers were not strati-graphically separated, either between them or from the Gravettianlayers above, a fact which seriously questions the taphonomicintegrity of these toolkits. The first two assemblages (Ia, including1011 lithics and Ib, amounting to 2306) comprise Levallois points,sidescrapers, denticulates and notches, a few carinated or atypicallycarinated endscrapers (unfortunately not illustrated), burins,retouched blades, flakes, various flake and blade cores and a smallnumber of unretouched bladelets (17 and 28, respectively). Thecomposition of the other two, Aurignacian IIa and IIb, assemblages(4020 and 4534 lithics, correspondingly) are equally diverse: bifa-cial forms (including foliate and concave base points), sidescrapers,notches and denticulates, burins, endscrapers (including a fewcarinated and nosed ones, partially unrecognizable in the illustra-tion), a tanged piece (level IIb), flakes, blades and unretouchedbladelets (43 and 73, respectively). From the illustrated pieces,a single carinated endscraper might be acknowledged as a bladeletcore (P�aunescu, 1999a: p. 242, Fig. 78/12). The presence of a clearbifacial component, the lack of a systematical bladelet productionand the rarity or absence of the relevant typological forms clearlyprohibits an Aurignacian attribution for any of these layers. Thecontent and the single date obtained for the layer Ib e

32,821�504 cal. BP (Bln-809)e has already persuaded fewscholarsto propose different cultural attributions: Prut or Brânzeni cultures(Chirica et al., 1996; Noiret, 2004), Zwierzyniecian for the upper IIaand IIb layers (Kozlowski, 2004). Given the likely contamination, theproper cultural identification of these Upper Paleolithic layersrequire at least a throughout reevaluation of the lithic collections.

Fig. 6. Lithic and organic artifacts from Muierii Cave: 1e3 e bone poin

Located nearby the Ripiceni-Izvor settlement, Stânca RipiceniCave, now completely destroyed, contained a four layered culturalsequence, which from layers I and III were identified as Aurignacianby the original excavator (Morosan, 1938). The description of thelithic sample from layer I rather suggest an undifferentiated UpperPaleolithic industry (blade and bladelet production, endscrapers,retouched blades). The two items illustrated as rabot and carinatedendscraper respectively can be rather interpreted as blade/bladeletcores (flaking surfaces of 60mmwide and 90mm long). The samplefrom layer III displays different features, dominated by smallerblanks, pointed and abruptly retouched blades, rather resemblingan early Gravettian stage (Otte et al., 1996b), well documented inseveral sites from Central and Eastern Europe (Willendorf II/7e8,Mitoc-Malul Galben, layers 6 and 7, Molodova V/IXeX, KostenkiVIII/1).

4.4. “The Late Aurignacian” from Southern Romania

Comparatively few archaeological contexts have been attributedto the Aurignacian in the vast space of Southern Romania: 29, fromwhich 14 are only isolated surface collections (P�aunescu, 2000).With the exception of Lapos-Poiana Roman, located in the sub-Carpathians, most assemblages were found in the SouthernRomanian Plain and all have been indiscriminately attributed toa “Late Aurignacian” or “Aurignacoid” facies.

None of the surface collections provided diagnostic attributesneeded for an accurate classification. They are usually very small(less than 40 items) and often hardly distinguishable from theNeolithic assemblages in the same area, although isolated carinatedand nosed endscrapers were occasionally mentioned. As a rule,

ts; 4e6 e retouched blades (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 152).


they consist of retouched flakes and blades, blade cores, end-scrapers and sidescrapers. Amongst the 15 documented settle-ments, only 5 (Lapos, V�adastra, Ciuperceni, Giurgiu Malu Rosu,Nicolae B�alcescu) furnished more consistent lithic toolkits.

The short geological sequence at the settlement Lapos-PoianaRoman, located in the Sub-Carpathians, has been considered fordecades to host in its main part a late survival of the Aurignaciantechnocomplex (Mogosanu, 1969; Alexandrescu, 1997; P�aunescu,2000; Alexandrescu et al., 2004). In the absence of organic mate-rial, the Aurignacian label of the workshop here relied on the“rudimentary” blade technology, and especially on the occurrenceof unidirectional and prismatic cores, mistakenly defined and

Fig. 7. Lithic artifacts from Cioclovina Cave: 1, 4, 6, 11e12 e blades; 2e3, 5 e flakes; 7

illustrated as “core endscrapers” or rabots (e.g. P�aunescu, 2000: pp.121, 122). The poor mechanical characteristics of the local rawmaterial were also invoked in order to explain the “archaic” shapeof the industry and the rarity of formal tools (less then 1%). Thepresence of Gravettian implements (i.e. backed bladelets) in theoldest layer here, though clearly noticed, has been explained awayas “acculturation”, an interpretation undoubtedly recommended bythe estimated young geochronology (Würm III). The latter had beenindeed reinforced by the later pollen analysis, suggesting a Tardi-glacial age for the entire sequence (Cârciumaru and Cîrstina, 2005).A sample of 3385 lithics (out of around 10,000 from recent exca-vations) was submitted to a preliminary techno-typological

e10 e retouched blades (modified after Teodorescu and Roska, 1923: 38e39, 41).


analysis (Cîrstina and Nit�a, 2009). Even though it confirmed someof the previous observations (opportunist blade productionconditioned by the poor quality raw material, systematic export ofblanks, rare occurrence of formal tools etc.), this analysis hasnevertheless found no grounds for an Aurignacian cultural attri-bution. It only documented an undifferentiated and continuousproduction of blade and flakes, rarely bladelets, from the samecores. With the exception of a few undiagnostic retouched bladesand flakes, all the type forms identified (backed bladelets, micro-lithic endscrapers etc.) point to an Epigravettian tradition.

After the artificial separation of the Neolithic implements fromthe original, mixed collection (P�aunescu, 2000), the V�adastrasample amounts to 2702 lithics and comprises 46.81% unretouchedflakes, only 4.44% blades and 6.73% formal tools: blades, burins,endscrapers (which from 8 carinated), rabots, 1 notched bladelet,cores, knapping debris, pebbles. Most of the carinated forms illus-trated do not indicate an involvement in bladelet production,

Fig. 8. Lithic artifacts from Remetea Somos I, II: 1e5 e endscrapers; 6e7 e

according to the metric criteria proposed by Demidenko et al.(1998), while most cores actually show flakes’ negatives in thelast reduction stage. Unfortunately, little information is available onthe 82 bladelets found. The Aurignacian classification, much likethe geochronological framing (Paudorf) (Leroi-Gourhan et al., 1967)is therefore uncertain, although still plausible (R. Dobrescu,personal communication to M. A., March 2011).

Two assemblages classified as Aurignacian originated in thearea of Ciuperceni village. The first one (Ciuperceni-La Vii) mainlyconsists from a surface collection and merges 758 items presum-ably coming from two separated layers (P�aunescu, 2000: p. 237),originally located in a loess sequence on the 10 m high Danubeterrace. The assemblage, made entirely in local flint, appearssurprisingly dominated by sidescrapers, notches and denticulatesalthough a well-mastered blade reduction is well represented by22 prismatic cores. Bladelet production, probably continuous,starting from blade cores, is attested, even if few details regarding

retouched blades; 8 e burin (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 159e160).


the secondary modification of bladelets are available. An analo-gous image provided the collection (1421 items) from the nearbyspot Ciuperceni-La Tir, also originating from two differentarchaeological layers, but similarly treated as a whole (P�aunescu,2000: p. 240). 227 cores, from which only 14 prismatic and 3pyramidal were described. The presence of rejuvenation tablettesand crested blades suggests an equally elaborated blade produc-tion, which stands in sharp contrast to the narrow typologicalvariety, dominated by notches and retouched cortical flakes.Recent research in Ciuperceni-La Vii, although only concentratedon the slope accumulation, have actually identified four different

Fig. 9. Lithic artifacts from C�alinesti II: 1e2, 8, 10e12 e endscrapers, 3, 5, 7, 9 e retouche

archaeological layers (Dobrescu et al., 2009), thus highlighting theprevious biases induced through merging the assemblages. Thegeological sequence, now entirely framed into the Middle Plen-iglacial, provided an IRSL age of around 32 ka, although hardlyrelevant for the chronology of the archaeological layers, as theloess there had been likely redeposited. However, the presence ofan elaborate blade production including soft hammer use is nowclearly documented along the entire sequence. The culturalascription of both spots in Ciuperceni is rendered difficult by theworkshop function of the settlements. However, the supposedpresence of a Late Aurignacian lacks any support: the 3 “nosed and

d blades; 4 e burin; 6 e endscraper-burin (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 156e157).


carinated” illustrated endscrapers (P�aunescu, 2000, his Fig. 66/nr.6, 10, 20) do not permit this description. Given the lack of a properchronology, the continuous production of blade and bladelets fromthe same cores leaves more possibilities open: Early Aurignacian/Protoaurignacian, Gravettian or a still undefined local UpperPaleolithic industry.

In spite of a constant avowal (Alexandrescu, 1997; P�aunescu,2000) the attribution to the Aurignacian of the two layers atGiurgiu Malu Rosu raise serious doubts, particularly because oftheir documented late age e 25,297 � 365 cal. BP (GrA-5094),27,455 � 406 cal. BP (GrA-6037) (Alexandrescu et al., 2004).Moreover, the metric features of the illustrated “carinated” formssuggest they actually represent simple, thick endscrapers. Whilethe possibility of a bladelet production from the numerous burinsrecorded may appear reasonable, the few alleged “Dufour” blade-lets (Alexandrescu et al., 2004: p. 415e416) obviously wear a direct,marginal retouch, typical for the pseudo-Dufour type.

Fig. 10. Lithic artifacts from Boinesti: 1e3 e endscrapers; 4e5 e burins; 6 e splintered

Although usually pooled together with the other “Late Auri-gnacian” occurrences in Southern Romania, the small toolkit (309lithics) at Nicolae B�alcescu (P�aunescu, 2000: pp. 104e106) displaysno particular Aurignacian feature. It mainly consists in an oppor-tunist blade and flake production starting from small flint pebblesleading to a common, albeit expedient Upper Paleolithic inventory.The toolkit consists of retouched blades and flakes, burins, side-scrapers, truncated blades, and endscrapers.

Across Dobrudja (the area between the Danube and the BlackSea), the Aurignacian, including the late Aurignacoid complexdocumented North of the Black Sea (Zwyns, 2004; Demidenko,2008), is simply missing. With the exception of a tiny blade tool-kit (9 items) at Cheia-La Izvor Cave (Târgusor), labeled as Auri-gnacian for no particular reason, of a few Dufour and pseudo-Dufour bladelets found at the nearby caves Bursucilor and LaAdam, but lacking any chronological reference (P�aunescu, 1999b:pp. 101, 208), the entire area has only provided isolated artifacts.

piece; 7 e retouched blade; 8 e sidescraper (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 155).


The settlement at Mamaia-Sat, long attributed to two chronologi-cally distant (Riss-Würm, Brörup interstadial, respectively) Mous-terian occupations, has been recently qualified as a “Pre-aurignacian with bifacial forms” (Borziac and Chirica, 2008b), inspite of the flake technology dominating both series. For obviousreasons, the present authors disagree, although these severelymixed collections do indeed display original features, such as the

Fig. 11. Lithic artifacts from Tincova: 1e2 e Font-Yves points; 3e11 e Dufour bladelets; 12e

presence of Kostenki knives, a few endscrapers and fragments ofbiconvex foliate points.

Another presumably Aurignacian occurrence has been describedatMuierii Cave. The lithic toolkit here (61 items) comprised commonUpper Paleolithic tools: retouched blades, endscrapers, flakes,simple blades (P�aunescu, 2000). The Aurignacian designation,certainly plausible, has been empathically encouraged by the early

15 e retouched blades; 16e18 e cores (modified after Mogosanu, 1978: pp. 11, 46e47).

Fig. 12. Lithic artifacts from Cosava: 1e2 e Dufour bladelets; 3e5 e retouched blades;6e9 e cores; 10 e endscraper (modified after Mogosanu, 1978: pp. 76e77, 79).


AMH finds (recently dated around 34e33 ka cal. BP) (Alexandrescuet al., 2010), but also by the three distal fragments of bone points(Fig. 6). However, it isworth stressing that the contextual associationof these categories of documentation is totally insecure.

4.5. The Aurignacian in Transylvania and Banat

4.5.1. Western, Southern, and Southeastern Transylvania cavesAs a result of fortuitous discoveries or of some small excavated

test pits, Western Transylvanian caves (Igrita, M�agura, Deventului,Zmeilor) have only provided few lithic items, usually simple bladesand endscrapers, and one bear bone fragmented point (?) at IgritaCave (Dobrescu, 2008, her Fig. 19/14: p. 375).

The alleged Aurignacian layers at Bordu Mare and Cioclovinacaves in southern Transylvania feed skepticism. At Bordu MareCave, the Aurignacian layer is contaminated by post-Paleolithicmaterial and directly overlies the last Mousterian layer. Thecollection includes one worked bone item (Dobrescu, 2008,Fig. 109/12: p. 375), one perforated canine, and several flint items.The radiocarbon age of 33,264 � 444 cal. BP (GrN-14627) comesfrom an imprecisely located bone samples, collected from a 30 cmlong stratigraphical sector at the contact between the Mousterianlayer and the Upper Paleolithic one. If the exact context of the findswould have been known, an Aurignacian presence at the nearbyCioclovina Cave might have been of interest, due to the discovery ofan AMH skull (Harvati et al., 2007), alongwith two blades, one flakeand some Ursus spelaeus vertebrae (Rainer and Simionescu, 1942).Unfortunately, even themost detailed presentations of the industryrecovered from other sectors of the cave (Teodorescu and Roska,1923: pp. 38e41, 43, 45) failed to provide clear Aurignacian diag-nostic elements (Fig. 7).

The so-called Aurignacian toolkits from the Southeastern Tran-sylvania’s caves at Meresti (Calului, Ursului, T�atarului), as well asMic�a e Moeciu Cave, or Coac�azei Cave (P�aunescu, 2001) consist ofchunks, quartzite flakes, fragmented sandstones or simple flintblades. Some carinated and nosed endscrapers were mentioned inthe Gura Cheii-Râsnov Cave collection (58 items), as well as in Maree Moeciu Cave collection (173 items) (Dobrescu, 2008); for thelatter, some carinated forms and Dufour bladelets were alsorecorded (P�aunescu, 2001), but the recent reevaluation identifiedonly endscrapers, burins, sidescrapers, and retouched blades(Dobrescu, 2008).

4.5.2. Northern, Western, and Southern Transylvania open air sitesMuch like Southern Romania, almost all of the 20 Aurignacian-

called open air sites in Transylvania (Dobrescu, 2008) providedsmall surface or poorly contextualized collections, without partic-ular diagnostic features. Only two of these, both from Cremenea(Poienit�a and Malu Dinu Buzea) offered richer lithic collections.

A small part (around 270 lithics of precise provenience,according to the labeling) of the Aurignacian layer collection fromPoienit�a was available for study (M�arg�arit and Nit�a, 2007). Thetoolkit is mainly obtained from local flint, available in the form oflarge blocks, pebbles, and plaques, which often exhibit naturalaccidents and seem to allow only a bipolar frontal debitage of largeblades and flakes. Rarely, small homogenous flint blocks andpebbles show wider and shorter debitage surfaces, fromwhich thebladelets were the last blanks obtained. Some 14e25 mm wideblades and 8e10 mm wide bladelets were directly retouched; thetoolkit also includes dihedral burins, carinated and nosed end-scrapers, and borers. The Aurignacian collection from Malu DinuBuzea consists of numerous massive blades, flakes and small-sizedabandoned cores with one, sometimes two striking platforms, forwhich the last debitage sequence is restricted to the producing ofbladelets. A few carinated items, endscrapers, retouched blades,

and according to the illustration, at least one Dufour bladelet(P�aunescu, 2001, his Fig. 151/5: p. 363), were also mentioned.

4.5.3. Northwestern Romania (Oas-Maramures area)In two of the substantially eroded sites from Northwestern

Romania (Boinesti, Remetea Somos I), the Aurignacian layersdirectly overlay the Mousterian layers. The lithic assemblages sharemany features: the use of local raw material, massive blanks, iso-lated presence of bifacial technique, sidescrapers, endscrapers onflakes, and big retouched flakes. The identification of an Aurigna-cian lithic component at the two sites employed as basic criteriaonly the use of exotic obsidian and the presence of bipolar bladedebitage (Dobrescu, 2008).

At C�alinesti II, the Aurignacian layers (comprising flakes, cores,retouched blades and endscrapers, amongwhich one carinated), areoverlaid by Gravettian assemblages. C�alinesti I provided a richercontext, including a collection of 1595 artifacts, together withhearths, and burnt stones grouped together (Bitiri, 1972a). A recenttechnological reevaluation of the Aurignacian collections from Boi-nesti, Busag, Remetea Somos and C�alinesti (Dobrescu, 2008)emphasized cores (mostly with one striking platform and widedebitage surfaces), for the production of flakes or blades and blade-lets, the alternate use of hard and soft hammer and the occurrence ofmassive rectilinear laminar blanks. Bladelets were mostly obtainedfrom jasper, homogenous opal, and obsidian. The toolkits include


carinated endscrapers (some of which could represent bladeletcores), burins, big retouched blades, sidescrapers, and retouchedbladelets (Figs. 8e10). Unfortunately, for taphonomic reasons, theotherwise positive presence of Aurignacian elements remain hard todemarcate from the Mousterian and Gravettian elements.

4.5.4. The Aurignacian in BanatThree of the sites in Banat e Tincova, Românesti-Dumbr�avita

and Cosava (Hahn, 1977; Mogosanu, 1978; Sitlivy et al., 2014) e

deserve the Aurignacian designation, in spite the lack of organic

Fig. 13. Lithic artifacts from Românesti-Dumbr�avita I: 1, 9 e retouched blades; 2e7 e Dufo58e59, 63, 65).

industry and numerical chronology. As a detailed re-examination ofthe Banat Aurignacian is now available (Sitlivy et al., 2014), thisdiscussion is limited to a few observations on the previous data(Mogosanu, 1978).

Tincova yielded a single archeological layer, with numerousflakes, fragments, pyramidal or prismatic cores, 2384 unretouchedblades and bladelets, and 110 retouched items, most of which arecarinated and nosed endscrapers, Dufour bladelets, and Font-Yvespoints (Fig. 11). The three cultural layers discovered in Cosavaalso suggest an Aurignacian affiliation, due to the carinated items,

ur bladelets; 8, 11e14 e cores; 10 e crested blade (modified after Mogosanu, 1978: pp.


the production of bladelets, the presence of alternatively retouchedbladelets and Font-Yves points (Fig. 12). The youngest cultural layersuggests a mixture of the Aurignacian lithic material with nail-shaped endscrapers and obsidian blades. At Românesti-Dumb-r�avita I, the alleged four Aurignacian layers (II, III, IV, and V) iden-tified display similar features: burins, endscrapers, pyramidal cores,unipolar or bipolar prismatic cores, and Dufour bladelets (Fig. 13).

The simple blade production recorded at Gornea in SouthernBanat (Mogosanu, 1978) does not provide arguments for anunambiguous cultural attribution. The only cave site in Banat withan Aurignacian-called layer is the Hotilor Cave (B�aile Herculane).Layer II here has only provided some flint and quartz items, withoutdiagnostic features, but with a late chronology of30,933 � 369 cal. BP (GrN-16980) (P�aunescu, 2001).

5. Discussion and conclusions

Following a rather widespread model (Goring-Morris andBelfer-Cohen, 2006; Svoboda, 2006), the Aurignacian simplyseems to have provided the Romanian Paleolithic research an all-purpose label for any assemblage which was neither clearlyMousterian, nor overtly Gravettian, regardless of its actual content,site function, likely palimpsests, stratigraphical contaminations ornumerical chronology. The propensity of defining as Aurignacian allthe assemblages opening a longer Upper Paleolithic sequence, aswell as almost every blade-shaped isolated find is evocative(P�aunescu, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001). Moreover, its Western-derived, imported status as the first Upper Paleolithic tech-nocomplex, left the Aurignacian extremely vulnerable to a “transi-tional” position, to which one could indiscriminately assign all theassumed archaic features (e.g. use of local raw materials, produc-tion of massive blanks, less elaborated laminar debitage, persis-tence of flake technology, poor standardization of formal tools etc.).As many of these features are naturally to be found in lithicworkshops contexts, the ensuing agreement between the Auri-gnacian presence and the raw material extraction sites is indeedastonishing: virtually no other technocomplex seems to have usedthe same raw material sources.

Summing up, it appears that the inherited image of the Auri-gnacian in Romania requires a significant adjustment. The onlyoccurrences accurately corresponding to the Aurignacian definitionare the layers at Mitoc-Malul Galben and, although still awaitinga proper chronological setting, those at Românesti-Dumbr�avita,Cosava and Tincova. Scattered evidence for an Aurignacian pres-ence also appear in Northwestern (Oas) and Southwestern Tran-sylvania (Cremenea, Gura Cheii), Southern Romania (V�adastra,Muierii), but they are all missing both the numerical chronologyand a reasonable taphonomic integrity. With the exception of thefew assemblages severely affected by post-depositional contami-nation (e.g. Ripiceni), displaying bifacial (Cet�atica I), Gravettian/Epigravettian (Bistricioara, Podis, Lapos), or full flake technologicalfeatures (Mamaia), all of the recorded toolkits need to be consid-ered as rather belonging to an undifferentiated Upper Paleolithic.

None of the previous observations give support to the tradi-tional postulates (i.e. local origin, long duration and widespreadpresence of the Aurignacian in Romania). The flake dominatedAurignacian-called assemblages display no particular Mousterianfeature. They appear either in workshop settings (with flakescoming from the preparation of blade cores, e.g. Ciuperceni),exhibit clear post-depositional mixtures (Ripiceni), or simplybelong to different technological phyla (Cet�atica I, Lapos). The lastexplanation also entails the assumed Late Aurignacian in SouthernRomania. In the light of its strong presence in Eastern Romania, thecurrent lack of documented Gravettian settlements in the area iscertainly intriguing and presumably points to a regional

segregation in relation to the Aurignacian related industries,already suggested for Crimea and Northern Black Sea area(Demidenko, 2008). Nevertheless, is it quite clear that at least someof the leptolithic occurrences along the Danube (e.g. Giurgiu), muchlike the Aurignacian V in Western Europe (Zilhão, 2006b; Sitlivyet al., 2014), require a different taxonomical framing. If one addsto this observation the recent reconsideration of the Aurignacian inBanat (Sitlivy et al., 2014) and the missing chronology in Oas, thelate presence of the Aurignacian in Romania lacks any empiricalsupport.

Both the origin and the geographical extension of the Aurigna-cian across Romania are waiting for further research. The lack ofconnections to the previous Middle Paleolithic, but also the chro-nology securely established so far obviously point to an allogenousorigin. However, to the present knowledge the role played by theRomanian segment of the Danube, as a main access way to CentralEurope for the incoming Early Upper Paleolithic or simply for theAurignacian dispersion towards Central Europe (e.g. Conard andBolus, 2003, 2006) is impossible to assess, as the massive aeolianaccumulation along the river has limited the identification ofrelevant sites. In the same time, the distant location of the docu-mented Aurignacian occurrences, scattered across the threegeographical sectors proposed, and the well documented earlypresence of AMH overtly suggest a muchmore consistent presence,which might also include some of the settlements dismissed asinexpressive in the lack of a proper documentary support.

Acknowledgments

The present study benefited from the financial and logisticalsupport offered by the National Council of Scientific Research forHigher Education (CNCSIS) through the research grant ID_628. Weare also indebted to our colleagues Valery Sitlivy, Victor Chabai,Thorsten Uthmeier and Leif Steguweit for the kind help providedduring our documentation for this paper and for a now years-longexchange of ideas. All the opinions expressed here, including theremaining errors or omissions are obviously our responsibility. Wealso wish to thank Ulrich Hambach for the invitation to contributeto this special issue and to our colleague Florin Dumitru for the helpprovided with the illustration. We also thank two anonymousreviewers for Quaternary International, whose comments seriouslyimproved the quality of the text and illustration.

References

Alexandrescu, E., B�alescu, S., Tuffreau, A., 2004. Nouvelles données chronologiques,technologiques et typologiques sur le Paléolithique supérieur ancien de laPlaine roumaine du Danube: le gisement de Giurgiu Malu Rosu. L’An-thropologie 108, 407e423.

Alexandrescu, E., Olariu, A., Skog, G., Stenstr}om, K., Hellborg, R., 2010. Os fossilshumains des grottes Muierii et Cioclovina, Roumanie. L’Anthropologie 114,341e353.

Alexandrescu, E., 1997. O ipotez�a despre evolut ia complexului cultural aurignaciandin Câmpia Român�a. In: Ciho, M., Nistor, V., Zaharia, D. (Eds.), Timpul istoriei, I,Memorie S i Patrimoniu. Universitatea Bucuresti, Facultatea de Istorie, Centrulde istorie comparat�a a societ�atilor antice, Bucuresti, pp. 11e36.

Allsworth-Jones, P., 1986. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to UpperPaleolithic in Central Europe. Clarendon, Oxford.

Anghelinu, M., 2003. Evolutia gândirii teoretice în arheologia din România. Con-cepte si modele aplicate în preistorie. Cetatea de Scaun, Târgoviste.

Anghelinu, M., 2006. O paleontologie a “omului etern”: arheologia paleoliticului dinRomânia. Cercet�ari Arheologice XIII, 135e158.

Anikovitch, M., 1992. Early Upper Paleolithic industries of Eastern Europe. Journal ofWorld Prehistory 6 (2), 205e245.

Bailey, S.E., Weaver, T.D., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Who made the Aurignacian and otherUpper Paleolithic industries? Journal of Human Evolution 57, 11e26.

Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45.Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon.

Bar-Yosef, O., 2006. Defining the Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006.Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia,Lisbon, pp. 11e18.


Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2006. The geography and chronology of carinatedcore chaîne opératoire. In: Tostevin, G. (Ed.), Reduction Sequence, Chaîneopératoire and Other Methods: the Epistemologies of Different Approaches inLithic Analysis. Electronic Symposium, San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Bitiri, M., Cârciumaru, M., 1978. Atelierul de la Mitoc-Valea Izvorului si locul lui încronologia Paleoliticului României. Studii si Cercet�ari de Istorie Veche siArheologie 29 (4), 463e480.

Bitiri, M., 1965. Cu privire la inceputurile paleoliticului superior in România. Studii sicercet�ari de istorie veche 16 (I), 5e16.

Bitiri, M., 1972a. Evolutia culturii materiale în paleoliticul din Depresiunea Oas, SatuMare. Studii si comunic�ari II, 35e49.

Bitiri, M., 1972b. Paleoliticul în Tara Oasului. Academiei, Bucuresti.Blades, B., 2002. Aurignacian Lithic Economy. In: Ecological Perspectives from

Southwestern France. Kluwek Academic Publisher, New York.Bolomey, A., 1989. Consideratii asupra resturilor de mamifere din statiunea grave-

tian�a de la Lespezi-Lut�arie (jud. Bac�au), Carpica, XX, 271e290 pp.Bon, F., 2005. Little Big Tool. Enquête autour du succès de la lamelle. In: Le Brun-

Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Collab.), Productions lamellaires attrib-uées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles.MNHA, Luxembourg, 479e484 pp.

Bordes, J.-G., 2003. Lithic taphonomy of the Châteperronian/Aurignacian inter-statifications in Roc de Combe and Le Piage (Lot, France). In: Zilhão, J.,D’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the TransitionalComplexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33. Trabalhos deArqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 223e244.

Borziac, I., Chirica, V., 2008a. Periodisation culturelle, chronologie relative et radi-ometrique des facies du Paleolithique superieur de l’espace carpato-dniestreen.In: Chirica, V., V�aleanu, M.C. (Eds.), Etablissements et habitations pré-historiques. Structure, organisation, symbole. Pim, Iasi, pp. 7e50.

Borziac, I., Chirica, V., 2008b. Paleoliticul superior din spatiul carpato-nistrean:aspecte culturogenetice si cronostratigrafice. Tyragetia s.n., II(XVII) (1), 9e36.

Borziac, I., Chirica, V., David, A., 2007. L’Aurignacien moyen et tardif de l’espacecarpatique-dniestreen. Le gisement Climauti II. Pim, Iasi.

Brantigham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), 2004. The Early Upper PaleolithicBeyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Cârciumaru, M., Cîrstina, O., 2005. Consideratii asupra cronostratigrafiei Paleo-liticului superior de la Lapos. Valachica 18, 24e32.

Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Steguweit, L., Nit�a, L., Fontana, L., Brugère, A.,Hambach, H., M�arg�arit, M., Dumitrascu, V., Cosac, M., Dumitru, F., Cârstina, O.,2006. The Upper Paleolithic Site from Poiana Ciresului, Piatra Neamt (North-Eastern Romania). Recent results. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36,319e331.

Cârciumaru, M., Nitu, E.C., Bordes, J.-G., Mur�atoreanu, G., Cosac, M., Stef�anescu, R.,2008. Le Paléolithique de la Grotte Gura Cheii e Râsnov (Etude interdisciplin-aire). Valahia University Press, Târgoviste.

Cârciumaru, M., 1980. Mediul geografic în Pleistocenul superior si culturile paleo-litice din România. Academiei, Bucuresti.

Cârciumaru, M., 1995. Transition du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique supérieuren Roumanie: contexte paléoclimatique et chronology. Paléo (Supplement) 1(1), 101e104.

Cârciumaru, M., 1999. Le Paléolithique en Roumanie. In: Préhistoire d’Europe, vol. 7.J. Millon, Grenoble.

Chabai, V., 2003. The chronological and industrial variability of the Middle to UpperPaleolithic transition in Eastern Europe. In: Zilhão, J., D’Errico, F. (Eds.), TheChronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Complexes. Dating,Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon,pp. 71e86.

Chabai, V.P., 2005. The Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic in Crimea (Ukraine). In:Zilhão, J., Aubry, T., Carvalho, A.F. (Eds.), 2005. Les premiers hommes modernes dela Péninsule Ibérique, vol. 17. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 25e35.

Chirica, V., Noiret, P., 2007. Mitoc Malu-Galben: industrie osseuse et témoinsesthétiques. In: Otte, M., Chirica, V., Haesaerts, P. (Eds.), 2007. L’Aurignacien etle Gravettien de Mitoc Malu-Galben (Moldavie Roumaine), vol. 72. ERAUL,Liège, pp. 143e144.

Chirica, V., Borziac, I., Chetraru, N., 1996. Gisements du Paléolithique supérieurancien entre le Dniestr et la Tissa. Helios, Iasi.

Chirica, V., 1974. Asezarea paleolitic�a de la Mitoc e Pîrîul lui Istrate, Din trecutuljudetului Botosani, Muzeul judetean Botosani, 25e32 pp.

Chirica, V., 1987. La génèse et l’évolution des cultures du Paléolithique supérieurdans la zone du Prut moyen d’après les recherches récentes. In: Chirica, V. (Ed.),La genèse et l’évolution des cultures paléolithiques sur le territoire de la Rou-manie. BAI, Iasi, pp. 25e40.

Chirica, V., 1995. Les pièces bifaciales et la transition du Paléolithique moyen auPaléolithique supérieur en Roumanie. Paléo (Supplément) 1, 105e109.

Chirica, V., 2001. Gisements paléolithiques de Mitoc. Helios, Iasi.Churchill, S.E., Smith, F.H., 2000. Makers of the early Aurignacian in Europe. Year-

book of Physical Anthropology 43, 61e115.Cîrstina, O., Nit�a, L., 2009. Etude techno-typologique préliminaire de l’échantillon

lithique du site paléolithique de Lapos, Poiana Roman (département de Pra-hova). Les fouilles de la Colline D. Annales de l’Université Valahia de Târgoviste,XI, 1, 21e35 pp.

Clark, G., 1997. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: an Americanperspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 30, 25e53.

Clark, G., 1999. Modern human origins: highly visible, curiously intangible. Science28, 2029e2032.

Clark, G., 2009. Accidents of History: conceptual frameworks in Paleoarchaeology.In: Camps, M., Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Palaeolithic Transitions.Methods, Theories, and Interpretations. Springer, New York, pp. 19e42.

Conard, N.J., Bolus, M., 2003. Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modernhumans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and newchallenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331e371.

Conard, N., Bolus, M., 2006. The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in EuropeanPrehistory. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of theAurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 211e239.

Davies, W., 2001. A very model of a modern human industry: new perspectives onthe origins and spread of the Aurignacian in Europe. Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 67, 195e217.

Demars, P.-Y., Laurent, P., 1989. Types d’outils lithiques du Paléolithique supérieuren Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire 14. Paris: CNRS.

Demidenko, Y.E., Chabai, V.P., Otte, M., Yevtushenko, A.I., Tatartsev, S.V., 1998. Siu-ren-I, an Aurignacian site in the Crimea (the investigation of 1994e1996 fieldseason). In: Otte, M. (Ed.), 1998. Préhistoire d’Anatolie. Genèse de deux mondes,vol. I. ERAUL 85, Liège, pp. 367e413.

Demidenko, Y.E., 2008. The Early and Mid-Upper Palaeolithic of the North Black Searegion: an overview. Quartär 55, 99e114.

Djindjian, F., Kozlowski, J., Otte, M., 1999. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe.Armand Colin, Paris.

Djindjian, F., Kozlowski, J.K., Bazile, F., 2003. Europe during the early UpperPaleolithic (40 000e30 000 BP): a synthesis. In: Zilhão, J., D’Errico, F. (Eds.), TheChronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Complexes. Dating,Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon,pp. 29e47.

Djindjian, F., 2000. Compte-rendu, Cârciumaru, M. (1999) e Le Paléolithique enRoumanie, collection “L’Homme des origines” serie “Prehistoire d’Europe”, n� 7,Grenoble: Editions Jerome Million. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Fran-çaise t. 97 (2), 309e324.

Dobos, A., Soficaru, A., Popescu, A., Trinkaus, E., 2009. Radiocarbon dating andfaunal stable isotopes for the Galeria Principal�a, Pestera Muierii, Baia de Fier,Gorj County, Romania. Materiale si Cercet�ari Arheologice (s. n.), 5, 15e20.

Dobrescu, R., Boroneant, A., Popescu, G., Dobos, A., Tuffreau, A., B�alescu, S., Goval, E.,Lefevre, B., Hérisson, D., Torcic�a, I., 2009. Ciuperceni, com. Ciuperceni, jud.Teleorman. Cronica Cercet�arilor Arheologice, Valahica XXIeXXII, 100e101.

Dobrescu, R., 2008. Aurignacianul din Transilvania. In: Studii de Preistorie, Sup-plementum, vol. 3. Renaissance, Bucuresti.

Dumitrescu, V., Bolomey, A., Mogosanu, F., 1983. Esquisse d’une préhistoire de laRoumanie. Academiei, Bucuresti.

Goring-Morris, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2006. A hard look at the “Levantine Aurigna-cian”: how real is the taxon?. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towardsa Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45 Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon,pp. 297e314.

Haesaerts, P., Borziac, I.A., Chirica, V., Damblon, F., Koulakovska, L., Van der Plicht, J.,2003. The East Carpathian loess record: a reference for the Middle and LatePleniglacial stratigraphy in Central Europe. Quaternaire 14, 163e188.

Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel-und Osteuropa.Fundamenta A/9. K}oln & Wien, B}ohlau.

Harvati, K., Gunz, P., Grigorescu, D., 2007. Cioclovina (Romania): affinities of an earlymodern European. Journal of Human Evolution 53, 732e746.

Hays, M., Lucas, G., 2000. A technological and functional analysis of carinates.Journal of Field Archaeology 27 (4), 455e465.

Honea, K., 1984. Chronometry of the Romanian Middle and Upper Palaeolithic:implications of current radiocarbon dating results. Dacia XXVIII (1e2), 23e39.

Honea, K., 1986. Rezultate preliminare de datare cu carbon radioactiv privindPaleoliticul mijlociu din Pestera Cioarei de la Borosteni (Jud. Gorj) si Paleoliticulsuperior timpuriu de la Mitoc-Malu Galben (Jud. Botosani). Studii si Cercet�ari deIstorie Veche si Arheologie 37 (4), 326e332.

Honea, K., 1987. The chronology of Romania’s Palaeolithic. In: Chirica, V. (Ed.), Lagenèse et l’évolution des cultures paléolithiques sur le territoire de la Rouma-nie. B.A.I, Iasi, pp. 49e61.

Honea, K., 1994. Tranzitii culturale in paleoliticul superior timpuriu si cronostrati-grafia de la Mitoc-Malu Galben (Jud. Botosani). Arheologia Moldovei XVII,117e146.

Horvath, I., 2009. The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Romania: past and currentresearch. In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The Mediterranean from 50 000 to25 000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions. Oxbow Books, Oxford,pp. 137e162.

Kozlowski, J.K., Otte, M., 2000. The formation of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journalof Anthropological Research 56, 513e534.

Kozlowski, J.K., 1999. The evolution of the Balkan Aurignacian. In: Davies, W.,Charles, R. (Eds.), Dorothy Garrod and the Progress of the Palaeolithic: Studiesin the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East and Europe. Oxbow, Oxford,pp. 97e117.

Kozlowski, J.K., 2004. Early Upper Paleolithic backed blade industries in Central andEastern Europe. In: Brantigham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), The EarlyUpper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Ber-keley, pp. 14e29.

Kozlowski, J.K., 2006. A dynamic view of Aurignacian technology. In: Bar-Yosef, O.,Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Tra-balhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 21e34.

Laplace, G., 1966. Recherches sur l’origine et l’évolution des complexes lep-tolithiques. De Boccard, Paris.


Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Collab.), 2005. Productions lamel-laires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives tech-noculturelles. MNHA, Luxembourg.

Leroi-Gourhan, A., Mateesco, C., Protopopesco-Pake, Em, 1967. Contribution àl’étude du climat de la station de Vadastra du Paléolithique supérieur à la fin duNéolithique. Bulletin de l’Association française pour l’étude du Quaternaire 4,271e279.

Liolios, D., 2006. Reflections on the role of bone tools in the definition of the EarlyAurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of theAurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, pp. 37e51.

Lucas, G., 2006. Re-evaluation of the principal diagnostic criteria of the Aurignacian:the example from Grotte XVI (Cénac-et-Saint-Julien, Dordogne). In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45.Trabalhos de Arqueologia, pp. 173e186.

M�arg�arit, D., Nit�a, L., 2007. The Palaeolithic Site from Cremenea e Poienit�a, CovasnaDepartment. An attempt towards a techno-typological reassessment. Annalesd’Universite Valahia Târgoviste, VIII-IX, 228e238 pp.

Mellars, P., 2006. Archaeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe:deconstructing the “Aurignacian”. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 167e182.

Meshveliani, T., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2004. The Upper Paleolithic ofWestern Georgia. In: Brantigham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), The EarlyUpper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Ber-keley, pp. 129e143.

Mogosanu, F., 1969. Paleoliticul si epipaleoliticul de la Lapos. Studii si materialeprivitoare la trecutul istoric al jud. Prahova II, 5e12.

Mogosanu, F., 1978. In: Paleoliticul din Banat, vol. 32. Biblioteca de Arheologie,Bucuresti.

Mogosanu, F., 1983. Paléolithique et épipaléolithique. In: Dumitrescu, V.,Bolomey, A., Mogosanu, F. (Eds.), Esquisse d’une préhistoire de la Roumanie.Academiei, Bucuresti.

Morosan, N.N., 1938. Le Pléistocène et le Paléolithique de la Roumanie du Nord-Est(Les dépôts géologiques, leur faune, flore et produits d’industrie), vol. XIX.Anuarul Institutului Geologic al României, Bucuresti.

Muraru, A., 1990. Le gisement de silex de la Vallée du Prut, source de matièrepremière pour l’outillage lithique dans la préhistoire. Etude monographiquepréliminaire. In: Séronie-Vivien, M.-R., Lenoir, M. (Eds.), Le silex de sa genèse àl’outil. Cahiers du Quaternaire, vol. 17, t. 1. CNRS, Paris, pp. 149e159.

Nicol�aescu-Plopsor, C.S., P�aunescu, A., Mogosanu, F., 1966. Le Paléolithique deCeahl�au. Dacia (N.S.), X, 5e116 pp.

Nicol�aescu-Plopsor, C.S., 1938. Le paléolithique en Roumanie. Dacia, VeVI, 41e107 pp.Nicol�aescu-Plopsor, C.S., 1954. Introducere în problemele paleoliticului din R.P.R,

Probleme de antropologie, I, 59e62 pp.Nicol�aescu-Plopsor, C.S., 1956. Rezultatele principale ale cercet�arilor paleolitice in

ultimii patru ani in R.P.R. Studii si Cercet�ari de Istorie Veche VII (1), 7e39.Nioradze, M., Otte, M., 2000. Paléolithique supérieur de Géorgie. L’Anthropologie

104, 265e300.Nit�a, L., 2008. Le Paléolithique supérieur de la Vallée de Bistrita dans le contexte des

recherches de Poiana Ciresului, Piatra Neamt (Nord-est de la Roumanie).Cetatea de Scaun, Târgoviste.

Noiret, P., 2004. Le Paléolithique supérieur de la Moldavie. L’Anthropologie 108,425e470.

Noiret, P., 2005. The Aurignacian in Eastern Europe. Anatolia 29, 39e56.Noiret, P., 2009. Le Paléolithique supérieur de Moldavie. ERAUL, Liège, 121 p.O’Farrell, M., 2005. Étude préliminaire des éléments d’armature lithique de

l’Aurignacien ancien de Brassempouy. In: Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Collab.), Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînesopératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. MNHA, Luxembourg, 395e412pp.

Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L., 2006. To be or not to be Aurignacian: the Zagros UpperPaleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of theAurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 355e373.

Otte, M., Chirica, V., 1993. Atelier aurignacien à Mitoc Malul Galben (Moldavieroumaine). Préhistoire Européenne 3, 55e66.

Otte, M., Kozlowski, J.K., 2003. Constitution of the Aurignacian through Eurasia. In:Zilhão, J., D’Errico, F. (Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of theTransitional Complexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33.Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 19e27.

Otte, M., Kozlowski, J.K., 2004. La place du Baradostien dans l’origine du Paléo-lithique supérieur d’Eurasie. L’Anthropologie 108, 395e406.

Otte, M., López Bayón, I., Noiret, P., Borziac, I.A., Chirica, V., 1996a. Recherches sur lePaléolithique supérieur de la Moldavie. Anthropologie et Préhistoire: Bulletinde la Société royale belge 107, 45e80.

Otte, M., Noiret, P., Chirica, V., Borziak, I., 1996b. Rythme évolutif du Gravettienoriental. In: Palma di Cesnola, A., Montet-White, A., Valoch, K. (Eds.), The UpperPalaeolithic, Colloquium XII: the Origin of the Gravettian. A.B.A.C.O, Forli,pp. 213e226.

Otte, M., Biglari, F., Flas, D., Shidrang, S., Zwyns, N., Mashkour, M., Naderi, R.,Mohaseb, A., Hashemi, N., Darvish, J., Radu, V., 2007a. The Aurignacian in theZagros region: new research in Yafteh Cave Lorestan, Iran. Antiquity 81 (311),82e96.

Otte, M., Chirica, V., Haesaerts, P. (Eds.), 2007b. L’Aurignacien et le Gravettien deMitoc-Malu Galben (Moldavie Roumaine), vol. 72. ERAUL, Liège.

P�aunescu, A.-C., Abassi, M., 1996. Les microvetebres de la Grotte Bordul Mare(Ohaba Ponor, Roumanie): Paleontologie et Paleoecology, vol. 35. Travaux del’Institute de Speologie “Emile Racovitza”. 153e174.

P�aunescu, A., Cârciumaru, E., Cârciumaru, M., Vasilescu, P., 1977. Semnificatiacronostratigrafic�a si paleoclimatic�a a unor analize chimice, granulometrice sipalinologice în unele asez�ari paleolitice din bazinul Ceahl�aului. Consideratiiasupra tipului si caracterului asez�arilor. Studii si Cercet�ari de Istorie Veche siArheologie 28 (2), 157e183.

P�aunescu, Al, 1970. Evolutia uneltelor si armelor de piatr�a cioplit�a descoperite peteritoriul României. Academiei, Bucuresti.

P�aunescu, Al, 1980. Evolutia istoric�a pe teritoriul României din Paleolitic pân�a laînceputul neoliticului. Studii si Cercet�ari de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 31 (4),519e546.

P�aunescu, Al, 1989. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique de Roumanie (un brefaperçu). L’Anthropologie 93 (1), 123e158.

P�aunescu, Al, 1991. Paleoliticul din pestera Gura Cheii-Râsnov si unele consideratiiprivind cronologia locuirilor paleolitice din sud-estul Transilvaniei. Studii siCercet�ari de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 42 (1e2), 5e20.

P�aunescu, Al, 1993. Ripiceni-Izvor. In: Paleolitic si Mezolitic. Academiei, Bucuresti.P�aunescu, A.-C., 1996. Les microvetebres de la Grotte Spurcata (ou la Grotte de Sus e

Nandru, departement de Hunedoara, Roumanie), vol. 35. Travaux de l’Institutede Speologie “Emile Racovitza”. 175e196.

P�aunescu, Al, 1998. Paleoliticul si epipaleoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprinsîntre Carpati si Siret, vol. I/1. Satya Sai, Bucuresti.

P�aunescu, Al, 1999a. Paleoliticul si mezoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprinsîntre Siret si Prut, vol. I/2. Satya Sai, Bucuresti.

P�aunescu, Al, 1999b. Paleoliticul si mezoliticul de pe teritoriul Dobrogei, vol. II. SatyaSai, Bucuresti.

P�aunescu, Al, 2000. Paleoliticul si mezoliticul din spatiul cuprins între Carpati siDun�are. Agir, Bucuresti.

P�aunescu, Al, 2001. Paleoliticul si epipaleoliticul din spatiul transilvan. Agir,Bucuresti.

Pelegrin, J., O’Farrell, M., 2005. Les lamelles retouchées ou utilisées de Castanet. In:Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Collab.), Productions lamellairesattribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technocultur-elles. MNHA, Luxembourg, 103e121 pp.

Rainer, Fr., Simionescu, I., 1942. Sur le premier crâne d’homme fossile paléolithiquetrouvé en Roumanie. Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile SectiuniiStiintifice, III, XVII, 12, 489e507 pp.

Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, C.M., 2004. Late Pleistocene technology, economicbehavior, and land-use dynamics in Southern Italy. American Antiquity 69 (2),257e274.

Rigaud, J.-Ph., Lucas, G., 2006b. The first Aurignacian technocomplexes in Europe:a revision of the Bachokirian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006b. Towardsa Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon,pp. 53e70.

Rougier, H., Milota, S., Rodrigo, R., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Moldovan, O., Zilhão, J.,Constantin, S., Franciscus, R.G., Zollikofer, C.P.E., Ponce de Leon, M., Trinkaus, E.,2007. Pestera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern Europeans.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica 104, 1165e1170.

Sackett, J., 1991. Straight archaeology French style: the phylogenetic paradigm inhistoric perspective. In: Clark, G.A. (Ed.), Perspectives on the Past. TheoreticalBiases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research. University of PennsylvaniaPress, pp. 109e142.

Sinitsyn, A., 2003. A Palaeolithic “Pompei” at Kostenki, Russia. Antiquity 77,9e14.

Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Nit�a, L., B�altean, I.,Vesselsky, A., Tutu, C., 2014. Along or nearby the Danubian Corridor? Apreliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (Southwestern Romania).Quaternary International 351, 193e212.

Soficaru, A., Dobos, A., Trinkaus, E., 2006. Early modern humans from the PesteraMuierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciencesof the United States of America 103 (46), 17196e17201.

Soficaru, A., Petrea, C., Dobos, A., Trinkaus, E., 2007. The human cranium from thePestera Cioclovina Uscat�a, Romania: context, age, taphonomy, morphology, andpaleopathology. Current Anthropology 48, 611e619.

Steguweit, L., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Nit�a, L., 2009. Reframing the UpperPalaeolithic in the Bistrita Valley (Northeastern Romania). Quartär 56, 139e157.

Steguweit, L., 2009. Investing the Aurignacian/Gravettian transition in the BistritaValley (NE Romania). In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The Mediterranean from50 000 to 25 000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions. Oxbow Books, Oxford,pp. 465e478.

Stepanchuk, V.M., Petrougne, V.F., 2005. Raw materials as a source for tracingprehistoric migration: the case of the UP assemblage of Mira in middle Dnieperarea. Archeometriai M}uhely 4, 38e45.

Straus, L.G., 2003. “The Aurignacian”? Some thoughts. In: Zilhão, J., D’Errico, F.(Eds.), The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Complexes.Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33. Trabalhos de Arqueologia,Lisbon, pp. 11e17.

Straus, L.G., 2009. Has the notion of “Transitions” in Paleolithic prehistory outlivedits usefulness? The European record in wider context. In: Camps, M.,Chauhan, P.R. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Palaeolithic Transitions. Methods, Theories,and Interpretations. Springer, New York, pp. 2e18.

Svoboda, J.A., 2006. The Aurignacian and after: chronology, geography, and culturaltaxonomy in the Middle Danube region. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006.Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia,Lisbon, pp. 259e274.


Szmidt, C.C., Normand, C., Burr, G., Hodgins, G., LaMotta, S., 2010a. AMS 14C datingthe Protoaurignacian/early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France. Implications forNeanderthal-modern human interaction and the timing of technical andcultural innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 758e768.

Szmidt, C.C., Brou, L., Jaccottey, L., 2010b. Direct radiocarbon (AMS) dating of split-based points from the (Proto)Aurignacian of Trou de la Mère Clochette,Northeastern France. Implication of the characterization of the Aurignation andthe timing of technical innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science37, 3320e3337.

Teodorescu, D.M., Roska, M., 1923. Cercet�ari arheologice în Muntii Hunedoarei.Publicatiile Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice, Sectiunea pentru Transilvania,Cluj, 27e51 pp.

Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the SwabianAlp: the relevance of the technological study of the Geissenklösterle (Blau-beuren, Germany) lithic and organic productions. In: Zilhão, J., D’Errico, F. (Eds.),The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional Complexes. Dating,Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon,pp. 179e196.

Teyssandier, N., 2006. Questioning the first Aurignacian: mono or multi culturalphenomenonduring the formationof theUpperPaleolithic inCentralEuropeandtheBalkans. Anthropologie, International Journal of the Science of Man XLIV (1), 9e29.

Teyssandier, N., 2007. L’émergence du Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe: muta-tions culturelles et rythmes d’évolution. Paléo 19, 367e390.

Teyssandier, N., 2008. Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the UpperPaleolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40 (4), 493e519.

Trinkaus, E., Milot�a, S., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., Moldovan, O., 2003. Early modernhuman cranial remains from the Pestera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of HumanEvolution 45, 245e253.

Trinkaus, E., B�altean, I.C., Constantin, S., Gherase, M., Horoi, V., Milot�a, R.S.,Moldovan, O., Petrea, C., Quiles, J., Rodrigo, R., Rougier, H., Sarcin�a, L.,

Soficaru, A., Zilhão, J., 2005. Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat:Pestera cu Oase. Banatica 17, 9e27.

Trinkaus, E., Soficaru, A., Dobos, A., Constantin, S., Zilhão, J., Richards, M., 2009.Stable isotope evidence for early modern human diet in Southeastern Europe:Pestera cu Oase, Pestera Muierii and Pestera Cioclovina Uscat�a. Materiale siCercet�ari Arheologice V (N. S.), 5e14.

Tsanova, T., Bordes, J.-G., 2003. Contribution au debat sur l’origine de l’Aurignacien:principaux resultats d’une etude technologique de l’industrie lithique de lacouche 11 de Bacho-Kiro. In: Tsonev, T., Montagnari, K. (Eds.), 2003. Towardsa social et symbolic evaluation of prehistoric technology in South EasternEurope, vol. 103. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 41e50.

van Andel, T.H., Davies, W. (Eds.), 2003. Neanderthals and Modern Humans in theEuropean Landscape During the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of theStage 3 Project. McDonald Institute Monograph, Cambridge.

Vanhaeren, M., D’Errico, F., 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europerevealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33,1105e1128.

Zilhão, J., D’Errico, F. (Eds.), 2003. The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of theTransitional Complexes. Dating, Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications, vol. 33.Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon.

Zilhão, J., Aubry, T., Carvalho, A.F. (Eds.), 2005. Les premiers hommes modernes de laPéninsule Ibérique, vol. 17. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon.

Zilhão, J., 2006a. Neandertals and Moderns mixed, and it matters. EvolutionaryAnthropology 15, 183e195.

Zilhão, J., 2006b. Aurignacian, behavior, modern: issues of definition in the emer-gence of the European Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.),2006b. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueo-logia, Lisbon, pp. 53e70.

Zwyns, N., 2004. La problématique de l’Aurignacien tardif dans la zone des steppesnord-pontiques. L’Anthropologie 108, 471e493.

what’s in a name: the aurignacian in romania

Documents