What's in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania

Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania  Mircea Anghelinu*, Loredana Nit¸a Valahia University of Târgovis¸te, History and Letters, Lt. Stancu Ion, 34-36, 130105 Târgovis¸te, Dâmbovit¸ a, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

The key position held by Romania’s territory for the available scenarios regarding the expansion of the Upper Paleolithic “cultural package” in Europe has been recently reinforced by the finds of the oldest European Homo sapiens sapiens remains in the Oase Cave (Southwestern Romania). However, in spite of its paradigmatic association to the first anatomically modern humans in Europe, the Aurignacian in Romania remained inadequately known and rarely referred to in the European literature. The poor descriptions of the Aurignacian-called lithic industries and their unusually young numerical chronology or geochronological estimations explain this caution. A brief evaluation of the available information regarding these issues is proposed. Based on a comparatively restricted definition of the Aurignacian variability as acknowledged in the recent European literature (e.g. numerical chronology, large retouched blades, bladelet production from carinated forms, bone industry), the present approach dismisses many postulates widely held in Romanian literature: the local origin, the wide occurrence and the late survival of the Aurignacian. However, given the lack of numerical dates and the fragmentary state of most archaeological collections, the precise timing of its emergence and the details of its regional evolution require further research. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

criticism suffered by the Bachokirian (Rigaud and Lucas, 2003; Tsanova and Bordes, 2003; Teyssandier, 2006), a Balkan emergence of a European pre-Aurignacian is now supported only by the Temnata sequence in Bulgaria (Kozlowski, 2006). The presumed Eastern origin of the Aurignacian waits for confirmation as well: neither Central Asia (Otte and Kozlowski, 2004; Olszewski and Dibble, 2006; Otte et al., 2007a), nor the Middle East (Straus, 2003) has yet provided the old chronology needed to support the paternity of the entire technocomplex. A purely European origin of the Aurignacian, already suggested by several authors (e.g. Laplace, 1966; Bar-Yosef, 2006; Teyssandier, 2008) is therefore still plausible. Fortunately, the opposed theoretical barricades and the uncertainties regarding the Aurignacian’s origins and authorship did not impede the more empirical research, focused on its chronology and regional variability. For the most generous estimations e to include, as a chronological stage (Zilhão, 2006a; Teyssandier, 2008), the Mediterranean facies (variously named as “Protoaurignacian”, “Mochian”, “Fumanian”) (Bordes, 2003; Mellars, 2006) e the emergence of this technocomplex does not seem to predate 42 ka cal. BP (but see also Szmidt et al., 2010a, 2010b; all dates in the text were calibrated using CalPal_2007_Hulu). The last archaeological contexts conventionally attributed to the Aurignacian disappear in most European areas around 32 ka cal. BP (Nioradze and Otte, 2000; Chabai, 2003; Haesaerts et al., 2003; Meshveliani et al.,

The time-honored association between the Aurignacian and the appearance of the Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) in Europe easily explains the attention this technocomplex enjoyed in the last years (e.g. Kozlowski and Otte, 2000; Zilhão and D’Errico, 2003; Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005; Zilhão et al., 2005; Bar-Yosef and Zilhão, 2006; Teyssandier, 2006, 2007, 2008; Zilhão, 2006a). Two extreme views seem to channel the current debates regarding this technocomplex. While the supporters of the “traditional” view persistently emphasize Aurignacian allogeny or at least homogeneity (e.g. Kozlowski and Otte, 2000; Kozlowski, 2004; Mellars, 2006), for the authors stressing the adaptive continuity which in their opinion connects the first stages of the Upper Paleolithic to the preceding Mousterian, the Aurignacian technocomplex has more of a taxonomic illusion (e.g. Clark, 1997, 1999, 2009; Riel-Salvatore and Barton, 2004; Straus, 2009). These disputed standpoints are further complicated by the meager human fossil record. Although the systematical presence of AMH in later Aurignacian contexts (Churchill and Smith, 2000) gives credit to a similar equation for the first Aurignacian occurrences (Bailey et al., 2009), the hypothesis lacks direct empirical support. Moreover, after the harsh * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Anghelinu). 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

2

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

2004; Demidenko, 2008). Additionally, an improved set of diagnostic 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. Together with the superior radiometric resolution, they seem to reinforce the already acknowledged view on the stadial character of the Aurignacian 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 the traditional theory, for which the Aurignacian represents a chronocultural entity coherent enough to be considered empirically “real”, even if its extension in time and space has certainly been overstated. As is becoming increasingly clear, the Aurignacian stands as a shortcut for a series of complex and mutually related phenomena, whose spatial and chronological extent cannot be exclusively elucidated on dichotomist grounds (ethno-cultural tradition vs. adaptive convergence/recurrence). The rapid extension of this technocomplex (Davies, 2001) is certainly to be correlated with the MIS3 ecological instability, which caused visible macrodemographical movements (van Andel and Davies, 2003; Zilhão, 2006a) and presumably local adjustments of residential and logistical mobility. The last changes are clearly suggested by the increasing portability of the composite hunting equipment, well expressed 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 internal dynamics of the Aurignacian technocomplex appears less unambiguous than in its original definition (and re-definition) areas, that is Western, Central and Mediterranean Europe. This situation owes much to the scarcity of properly identified and well dated Aurignacian 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 for the definition of some regionally based cultural entities. However, the less intense, chronologically focused and relatively late Aurignacian presence documented so far may be tentatively correlated to the great number of contemporary or even later Early Upper Paleolithic “cultures” more or less related to the local Middle Paleolithic (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 Upper Paleolithic in Romania In the Aurignacian landscape, Romania’s case looks rather exceptional. A brief review of the Romanian archaeological literature leaves the impression that the Aurignacian is not only autochthonous, but also the first, the most widespread and long lasting Upper Paleolithic technocomplex. This status stands in sharp contrast with the chrono-cultural framework acknowledged everywhere else in Europe and Middle East, including Romania’s neighboring areas. Such insularity looks even more bizarre given Romania’s location and landscape structure, both unable to sustain any sort of extended isolation. Evaluating this originality is the main objective of this paper’s approach, but there are also a few others. First, synthetic contributions of Romanian authors are uncommon in foreign languages (e.g. Dumitrescu et al., 1983; unescu, 1989; Chirica et al., 1996; Cârciumaru, 1999; Borziac et al., Pa 2007; Borziac and Chirica, 2008a). With the exception of several archaeological sequences of wide regional significance (Haesaerts et 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 looks almost invisible for the European audience. The Aurignacian especially enjoyed only a marginal attention in synthetic reviews (e.g. Hahn, 1977; Djindjian et al., 1999) and thematically focused volumes (e.g. Zilhão and D’Errico, 2003; Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005; Bar-Yosef and Zilhão, 2006) and it is only partially treated in the contributions dedicated to the Eastern European Upper Paleolithic (e.g. Kozlowski, 1999; Noiret, 2004, 2005, 2009; Zwyns, 2004). This discretion stands in a disturbing contrast to the now richly documented 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) (Soficaru et 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 not the only causes for the feeble presence of the Romanian archaeological information in the debate regarding the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic. It is actually the accuracy of these data which made their proper scientific evaluation extremely difficult for a foreign audience (see also Djindjian, 2000; Horvath, 2009). For instance, under the Aurignacian label were gathered various flake and bifacial rich assemblages such as Ripiceni-Izvor Aurignacian I unescu, 1993), unexpectedly young assemblages and II (Pa (30e25 ka cal. BP), such as those on the Bistrit¸a (North-Eastern unescu, 1998; Borziac and Chirica, 2008b) or Danube Romania) (Pa valleys (Alexandrescu et al., 2004), but also many loosely differentiated toolkits, lacking any chronological reference. The poor radiometric support and the young geochronological estimations left even the few cases displaying certain Aurignacian features open to rather speculative interpretations (Djindjian et al., 1999; Teyssandier, 2006). The discouraging originality of the Romanian Aurignacian owes much to the theoretical and methodological core which has been dominating the Romanian prehistoric research since the interwar time. For reasons largely discussed elsewhere (Anghelinu, 2003, 2006), many of the Romanian Paleolithic researchers defended a research paradigm closely related to the French “phylogenetic” perspective (sensu Sackett, 1991). The main consequence has been the propensity towards a naïve evolutionary framework, selectively documented by the means of type fossils. The emergence of Upper Paleolithic, essentially assimilated to a gradual adoption of blade technology, provides the paradigmatic example. With very few exceptions (Moros¸an, 1938; Mogos¸anu, 1978; Borziac and Chirica, 2008a), its local origin remained the dominant postulate, from escu-Plops¸or, 1938, 1954, 1956; the early investigations (Nicola escu-Plops¸or et al., 1966; Bitiri, 1965; Pa unescu, 1970, 1980; Nicola unescu, Bitiri and Cârciumaru, 1978), to the most recent ones (Pa 1980, 1998, 1999a, 2000, 2001; Chirica, 1987, 1995; Cârciumaru, 1995, 1999; Chirica et al., 1996; Dobrescu, 2008). Particularly the emergence of an “Early Aurignacian” from the local Mousterian survived in spite of views to the contrary, usually expressed by the few foreign specialists working in Romania (e.g. Honea, 1994; Noiret, 2004). This popular belief, although admittedly lacking any clear theoretical support (Borziac and Chirica, 2008a) has had severe consequences in what the Aurignacian classification was concerned. 3. The Aurignacian in Romania: a starting picture The sites attributed to the Aurignacian in Romania cover a wide array of geographical and topographical contexts, in both caves and open air settings (Fig. 1). Most cave sites are to be found in Southern Carpathians and are situated on an average altitude (400e650 m), usually at the edge of the mountain range, with the single exception of Mare-Moeciu Cave (950 m). The open air sites are located on

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

3

lines¸ti; 4 e Bus¸ag; 5 e Mitoc (Malul Galben/Valea Fig. 1. Map of presumed Aurignacian settlements mentioned in the text: 1 e Remetea S¸omos¸; 2 e Boines¸ti; 3 e Ca rie I, Podis¸, Cetat¸ica I, Dârt¸u); 11e12 e Cremenea (Poienit¸a/Malu Dinu Buzea); 13 e Lapos¸; Izvorului); (6 e Ripiceni-Izvor/Stânca); 7e10 e Ceahlau Basin (Bistricioara-Luta dastra; 18 e Muierii Cave; 19 e Bordu Mare Cave; 20 e Cioclovina Cave; 21 e Hot¸ilor Cave; 22 e Oase Cave; 23. 14 e Mamaia-sat; 15 e Giurgiu Malu Ros¸u; 16 e Ciuperceni; 17 e Va vit¸a; 25 e Cos¸ava. Tincova; 24 e Românes¸ti-Dumbra

terraces, in various topographical shapes: plateau like, submountain, hilly areas of average altitude (Bistrit¸a Valley, SubCarpathians, Banat, Oas¸, Prut Valley), or low plains (Danube). The settlement concentration needs to be correlated to an uneven intensity of research, which have constantly aimed for natural shelters or visible occurrences of siliceous raw materials. The state of preservation also played an important role: with very few exceptions, the vast majority of open air sites were found in heavily eroded, short geological sequences, while the intense aeolian accumulation in open areas like the Prut or Danube Valley limited their successful identification. Given the general absence of organic artifacts, the identification of 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 of typological groups for larger, statistically treatable toolkits. With the exception of assemblages originating from caves, most Aurignacian toolkits appear dominated by the massive use of local raw materials. The frequent coincidence between Aurignacian-called industries and natural raw material occurrences is by no means accidental. , 2008) none With very few exceptions (e.g. Dobrescu, 2008; Nit¸a of the toolkits attributed to the Aurignacian in Romania benefited from comprehensive technological studies or attribute analysis. Most technological observations, when formally made, were based on the cores’ and blanks’ general shape. In general, the Aurignaciancalled toolkits seem to witness a poorly standardized blade technology, from unidirectional, bidirectional or multidirectional cores. The bad quality of blade production has been normally attributed to the “archaic” character of this technocomplex, to “degeneration” in purportedly late Aurignacian contexts, or exceptionally to the low quality raw material (e.g. Bitiri, 1965; Mogos¸anu, 1978). The occasionally important presence of various flake reduction sequences

has been unanimously interpreted as a persistence of Mousterian escu-Plops¸or et al., 1966; Bitiri, knapping traditions (e.g. Nicola unescu, 1993; Chirica et al., 1996; 1972b; Mogos¸anu, 1983; Pa Cârciumaru, 1999). Typological evaluation of most assemblages remained equally loose: retouched blades of various sizes (with or without “Aurignacian” retouch); carinated, nosed or simply thick endscrapers; burins of various types (dihedral, multiple); marginally retouched bladelets, more or less devoted to the Dufour typology (sensu Demars and Laurent, 1989) etc. Significantly, although the presence of the Dufour bladelets scored as a positive additional criterion for an Aurignacian classification, the total absence of bladelet production never acted conversely, as a negative one. The size of assemblages and the related aspects (site functions, accumulation type), have rarely been explicitly treated. The only unescu et al., 1977) proposed a linear correexisting attempt (Pa spondence between the Upper Paleolithic toolkits size and the nature and duration of settlement use (seasonal vs. sedentary). As a rule, an empirical settlements typology seems to separate the lithic workshops from habitation sites or hunting stations. Concerning the local evolution of the Aurignacian technocomplex, a three-staged model stands as favorite. The corresponding inner division was either based on the increase in exotic raw material use and the related finer technological expertise in escu-Plops¸or et al., 1966), or on the few blade production (Nicola radiometric landmarks, coupled with the covariance of main tool categories (e.g. endscrapers and burins) (Alexandrescu, 1997; unescu, 1998). Generally, the Aurignacian is replaced by an Pa unrelated, allogenous Gravettian. The existing numerical chronology for the entire Romanian Paleolithic is modest. With the notable exception of Mitoc-Malul Galben, few of the assumed Aurignacian sites benefited from a proper radiometric evaluation (Table 1). Most of them were dated

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

4

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

Original cultural attribution

Sample

Lab number

Uncal. age BP

Cal. age BP (CalPal-2007_Hulu)

Mitoc-Malul Galben

Aurignacian

Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Bone Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal (?) Charcoal

GrN-14914 GrN-12637 GrN-15453 GrA-27261 GrA-27268 GrN-13007 GrN-15451 GrN-15454 GrA-1355 GrN-14037 GrN-15457 OxA-1646 GrA-1648 GrN-15456 GrN-20443 GrN-20770 GrN-20442 GrN-20444 GrA-1357 Bln-809 GrN-12670

27,410
31,850
27,100
27,700
27,750
>24,000 26,530
29,410
25,380
26,910
24,400 þ 31,100
31,000
25,930
30,240 þ 31,160 þ 30,920
31,160 þ 32,730
28,420
18,330


430 800 1500 180 160

32,131 36,336 31,739 32,267 32,301 e 31,240 33,760 30,211 31,511 28,713 35,495 35,076 30,898 34,482 35,294 35,042 35,281 37,251 32,891 21,968

Charcoal ? ? ? Charcoal Bone ? Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Charcoal Bone ? Charcoal (?) Charcoal (?) Human tibia and scapula Human cranium Human temporal bone Bone (?)

GrN-16982 Gx-8726 Gx-8727 Gx-8845 GrN-10529 GrN-11586 Gx-8844 GrN-14629 GrN-14632 GrN-14633 GrN-16985 GrN-12673 Gx-9415 GrA-5094 GrA-6037 LuA-5228

20,310
20,300
23,450 þ 23,560 þ 24,100
24,760
27,350 þ >24,000 21,050
26,700
21,100 þ 24,390
25,450 þ 21,140
22,790
30,150


150 1300 2000/1450 1150/980 1300 170 2100/1500

OxA-15529 OxA-16252

29,930
170 29,110
190

34,227
175 33,585
329

GrN-14627

28,780
290

33,264
444

Human temporal Human occipital Charcoal (?) Human mandible Human cranium

LuA-5229 OxA-15527 GrN-16980 GrA-22810 GrA-24398

29,000 28,510 25,940 34,290 28,980

Ripiceni-Izvor rie II Bistricioara-Luta

Aurignacian Ib Upper Aurignacian (Pre-Gravettian)

Middle Aurignacian

u-Ceta t¸ica I Ceahla u-Ceta t¸ica II Ceahla u-Dârt¸u Ceahla

Lower Aurignacian Unknown Lower Aurignacian Middle Aurignacian

Giurgiu Malu Ros¸u

Aurignacian

Muierii Cave

Aurignacian

Bordul Mare (Ohaba Ponor) Cave Cioclovina Cave

Aurignacian Aurignacian

Hot¸ilor Cave Oase Cave

Aurignacian Unknown

in the 1980s (Honea, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1994), usually through survey trenches in the proximity of previous excavations. The published reports suggest severe sampling deficiencies: many samples contained mixed bone, charcoal and burnt sediment; the huge depth intervals provided refer to geological layers rather than to clear archaeological contexts. This rough contextualization unfortunately explains the resulting contradictory chronology (e.g. unescu, 1998, 2001). Pa Notwithstanding these aspects, the young chronology of the Aurignacian in Romania seems unanimously accepted (Mogos¸anu, unescu, 1998, 1978; Chirica et al., 1996; Alexandrescu, 1997; Pa 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001; Cârciumaru, 1999; Alexandrescu et al., 2004; Borziac and Chirica, 2008b). The oldest radiocarbon dates available frame the Aurignacian layers at Mitoc-Malul Galben between 37 and 32 ka cal. BP (Otte and Chirica, 1993; Otte et al., 1996a; Haesaerts et al., 2003). A single sample from the nearby settlement Ripiceni-Izvor provided a 32 ka cal. BP age for the unescu, 1993). The presumed Aurignacian “Aurignacian Ib” layer (Pa u Basin (Bistrit¸a Valley, North-Eastern Romania) layers in the Ceahla




þ þ

400 310 120 450 2200/1700 900 330 450 470/440 570/530 390 550/510 220 400 300

650 1100 490/460 180 4450/2850 120 130 800

700 170 230 970/870 180/170

24,254 24,400 27,805 28,160 28,697 29,795 31,838 e 25,249 31,054 25,279 29,155 29,478 25,297 27,455 34,403

33,332 32,915 30,933 39,180 33,487








379 1212 1374 276 277


















438 366 277 458 2395 952 401 470 409 586 428 561 669 504 413










316 1617 2279 1401 1504 337 1959











879 989 671 474 4726 365 406 805








671 359 369 1410 339

References Otte et al. (2007b)

unescu (1999a) Pa

Alexandrescu et al. (2004) Soficaru et al. (2006)

unescu (2001) Pa Soficaru et al. (2007) unescu (2001) Pa Trinkaus et al. (2003) Trinkaus et al. (2005)

offered a considerably younger (31e24 ka cal. BP), but contradictory chronology (P aunescu, 1998). Unfortunately, the two recent AMS samples dating the lower part of the geological sequence u-Dârt¸u (40 and 35 ka cal. BP) (Steguweit, 2009) cannot be at Ceahla securely associated to the “Middle Aurignacian” layer there escu-Plops¸or et al., 1966). In the southern half of Romania, (Nicola ignoring the bone sample of unclear stratigraphical provenance unescu, 2001: p. from the Ohaba Ponor cave (around 32 ka cal. BP, Pa 297), the only radiocarbon landmarks come from the so-called Aurignacian contexts on the Danube shore: 27e25 ka cal. BP (corroborated by an OSL age of 26 ka) at Giurgiu Malu Ros¸u (Alexandrescu et al., 2004). One may add the ISLR estimation from Ciuperceni (32 ka), but its relationship to the cultural layers there is yet unclear (Dobrescu et al., 2009). Neither the Banat sites (Românes¸ti-Dumbr avit¸a, Cos¸ava, Tincova), nor the Oas¸-Maramures¸ lines¸ti, Boines¸ti, Remetea-S¸omos¸), or other settlements in ones (Ca Southern Romania (V adastra, Nicolae B alcescu, Lapos¸), provided numerical dates. The geochronological estimations, when available, propose remarkably late chronologies and even suggest

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

a Tardiglacial survival of the Aurignacian (Mogos¸anu, 1978; unescu, 2000, 2001). Cârciumaru, 1999; Pa The scarcity of radiometric estimations explains the coarse paleoclimatical framework available today. With the exception of the lithostratigraphic sequence from Mitoc, the climate framework of the Upper Paleolithic in Romania either hangs on broad unescu, 1998, connections to the old Alpine chronology (e.g. Pa 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001), or stands on the more detailed pollenbased scheme proposed by Cârciumaru (1980, 1995, 1999). In the loess sequence at Mitoc-Malul Galben, the Aurignacian starts in a cold climatic phase at the end of the Middle Pleniglacial, but younger layers have also been correlated to two positive episodes corresponding to the humiferous soils MG 10 and MG 9 (Haesaerts et al., 2003). However, for decades, the main reference for Romanian Upper Paleolithic has been the geochronological sketch elaborated in the 1960s in the East-Carpathian area and tailored after escu-Plops¸or et al., 1966). the classical Alpine chronology (Nicola According to it, most Aurignacian occurrences belong to the Würm t¸ica-Ceahla u I layer I, II stadial, with the exception of the Ceta apparently older (Würm IeII), and to the Aurignacian in Oas¸ (Northwestern Romania), Banat (Southwestern Romania) and Southern Romania, presumably much younger (Würm III) (Bitiri, 1972b; Mogos¸anu, 1983). The pollen-based geochronology (Cârciumaru, 1980), still disputed by some scholars (e.g. AllsworthJones, 1986; Chirica et al., 1996; Djindjian, 2000), particularly on the grounds of insufficient radiometric support, has not only reversed the paleoclimatical interpretation of many Upper Paleolithic layers involved, but also changed their presumed chronology, usually in favor of younger ages. For instance, most Aurignacian-called layers u Basin were reframed into the Ohaba Interstadial from the Ceahla Complex (Arcy/Kesselt/Denekamp) typically in its second oscillation, Ohaba B (P aunescu et al., 1977). The Banat Aurignacian endowed a yet younger age, correlated to a few positive climate oscillations from the Late Glacial (Herculane I e Tursac, Herculane II e Laugerie) (Mogos¸anu, 1978). However, while aiming for a wider geochronological connection between Romania and other European areas, the pollen-based scheme did not seriously question the validity of the previous cultural ascriptions. This led to rather startling conclusions, such as the parallel existence of Aurignacian u Basin, and Gravettian in small geographical areas (e.g. the Ceahla unescu et al., 1977), or the suggestion of a contemporary presPa ence of Late Mousterian, Aurignacian and Gravettian on Romanian territory as a whole (Cârciumaru, 1999), in spite of the total lack of in situ inter-stratification between them. As a general feature, however, the available pollen diagrams did not support any systematic link between the Aurignacian and some particular climatic settings. The seasonality and the paleofaunistical context of the Aurignacian in Romania are even more difficult to asses, giving the poor preservation of organic material, particularly at open air sites. The Aurignacian I at Mitoc-Malul Galben, the only assemblage clearly attributed to a warm season, provided a horse-bison faunal association (Noiret, 2004). A similar association seems to feature the unescu, “Aurignacian” layers at the nearby site of Ripiceni-Izvor (Pa 1993), but also the Aurignacian-called contexts from the Bistrit¸a Valley (Bolomey, 1989). The paleontological contexts of the assemblages found in the Carpathian caves, dominated by carnivores and Capra ibex and lacking any certain taphonomic evaluation unescu, 2000, 2001). The microappear hardly relevant (Pa mammals provided equally equivocal environmental information for the Aurignacian layers found in caves: cold and arid (MareMoeciu Cave, Gura Cheii-Râs¸nov Cave), or rather temperate (Ohaba unescu, 1991, 1996; P Ponor) (Pa aunescu and Abassi, 1996). To conclude, the diversity of depositional context, the different resolution of the methods involved, the geographical distances

5

separating the Aurignacian sites, not to mention the lack of a proper radiometric support doom to speculation any correlation between the available geochronological systems. Understanding the diachronic evolution of the Aurignacian in Romania in connection to a paleoclimatical framework, as already attempted for Europe as a whole (ex. Djindjian et al., 1999; Mellars, 2006; Zilhão, 2006a), is even more hazardous as long as the supposed longevity of this technocomplex in Romania rests on at best disputable cultural recognition. 4. Reevaluating the Aurignacian in Romania The improved knowledge on the Aurignacian in Europe, the ongoing research projects and the recently available comprehenunescu, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001; sive publications (e.g. Pa Otte et al., 2007b; Dobrescu, 2008) are now giving the opportunity for a better evaluation of the Romanian Aurignacian. What is proposed here is a preliminary clarification of the actual content of the most consistent lithic toolkits labeled as Aurignacian, as mirrored in the available Romanian literature or resulting from evaluation of several archaeological collections. This mission has been 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 archeological collections, particularly lacking microlithic items. Selective publication, inappropriate technical illustration, inaccurate or plainly erroneous typological descriptions raised additional difficulties. Consequently, both the accuracy and the solidity of these conclusions will naturally wait future substantiation. 4.1. An operational definition The first logical step to make is to give an operational definition of the Aurignacian itself. It is acknowledged as a fully laminar Upper Paleolithic technocomplex, generally framed between 42 and 32 ka cal. BP. Although naturally variable in its content, the Aurignacian lithic production display a set of specific attributes, documented in most assemblages, irrespective of their geographical location or chronological status (cf. Lucas, 2006; Olszewski and Dibble, 2006; Zilhão, 2006b; Teyssandier, 2008): systematic blade production from prismatic or pyramidal cores, with a careful preparation of the flaking platforms through abrasion of faceting; use of soft hammers in advanced knapping stages; the use of large blade blanks with parallel edges, secondary transformed through retouch (occasionally intensive) into long cutting edges or endscrapers; the use of large flakes (cortical or not) for the production of small bladelets of Dufour type (of various subtypes), used either in their raw state, or after the application of marginal, inverse, alternate or (more rarely) direct retouch; the production of these bladelets can be done either through dedicated production sequences starting from carinated forms (endscrapers, busked burins), or in the final stage of reduction of unidirectional blade cores (the “Protoaurignacian” case); in the latter case, the bladelet blanks, usually larger, were further transformed into Krems/FontYves points; constant presence of common Upper Paleolithic tools (endscrapers, burins, truncated pieces, notches and denticulates etc.). The Aurignacian technological “package” regularly includes a specific bone/antler industry (Liolios, 2006), dominated in the first chronological stages by the production of split base points, and in the later, “classical” phases, by biconical, massivebase points of Mlade c type. The occurrence of individual adornment objects (pierced shells, teeth pendants) or other organic artifacts is also common. The relative importance of each of the features mentioned above varies widely. For instance, an important flake production had been

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

6

noticed in some Aurignacian contexts (e.g. Warwasi e Iran, Olszewski and Dibble, 2006). The organic artifacts are also often missing. Moreover, the recurrent presence of the carinated forms in many Upper Paleolithic industries (Belfer-Cohen and Bar-Yosef, 2006), much like the constant presence of pseudo-Dufour bladelets (directly retouched) in Gravettian and Epigravettian contexts should also be mentioned. However, the technological homogeneity of the Aurignacian technocomplex is still impressive, irrespective of the many causes which most likely caused it. The best example is the presence of marginally retouched bladelets, which actually give the Aurignacian the most preeminent feature (see contributions 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 mountain chain. As already suggested by some authors (e.g. Djindjian, 2000), the Carpathian barrier, although not impenetrable, apparently acted as an effective border between Eastern, Southern and Central Romania. The orientation of major river systems and the dominant

landscape forms further deepen this admittedly broad geographical autonomy. While Eastern Romania is widely open to the steppe spaces north from the Black Sea, Central (Transylvania), Southwestern (Banat) and Northern Romania (Oas¸) are much more accessible from Central Europe. The basic raw material circulation pattern generally supports this groundwork division: radiolarite and obsidian of presumably Pannonian origin regularly show up in Upper Paleolithic collections from Oas¸-Maramures¸ (Dobrescu, 2008). Eastern Carpathian sources reached Mitoc (Chirica, 2001) or even Ukraine (Stepanchuk and Petrougne, 2005), while the Cretaceous and Buglovian flint originating from the Prut area circulated widely across Eastern Romania during the entire Upper Paleolithic (Muraru, 1990). The use of the abundant, local raw material sources characterizes most settlements from Southern Romania.

4.3. The Aurignacian in Eastern Romania Apart from a few isolated finds, the alleged Aurignacian settlements in Eastern Romania are concentrated in extremities, on the Ceahl au Basin, along the Bistrit¸a River to the west, and on the middle sector of the river Prut, to the east. Both areas enjoyed

t¸ica I, layer I: 1, 8e9 e retouched blades; 2, 6e7 e endscrapers; 3e4 e bladelets; 5 e blade; 10e11 e cores; 12 e entame blade (photos Leif Fig. 2. Lithic artifacts from Ceta Steguweit).

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

significant field research which explain the apparently focused human presence. The Western concentration had been intensively explored escu-Plops¸or et al., 1966). Later research during the 1950s (Nicola unescu, 1998; was mainly guided by radiometric sampling (Pa Steguweit et al., 2009). Most excavated settlements are located on the middle Bistrit¸a terraces, in similar topographical settings. Their comparable geological sequences were initially thought to comprise a complete archive of the Last Glaciation. The common archaeological succession includes Aurignacian, Gravettian and u-Ceta t¸ica (I and II), Epigravettian layers. Only four sites e Ceahla u-Dârt¸u, Ceahla u-Podis¸ and Bistricioara-Luta rie I e offered Ceahla lithic collections attributed to the Aurignacian (Figs. 2and 3), in

7

spite of their young numerical chronology, ranging between t¸ica II) and 24 ka cal. BP (Dârt¸u, 31 ka cal. BP (Bistricioara II, Ceta unescu, 1998). As both the toolkits and the Bistricioara II) (Pa chrono-stratigraphical sequences above have been recently reas, 2008; Steguweit, 2009; Steguweit et al., 2009), only sessed (Nit¸a the main conclusions are given here. The so-called Aurignacian toolkits display many features in common: small size, local raw material use (with the exception of Podis¸), ordinary blade technology and Upper Paleolithic typological forms (endscrapers, retouched blades). Apart from Bistricioararie (layer I) and Podis¸ (layer I), unmistakably Gravettian, none of Luta the other spots has offered true diagnostic elements for an Aurignacian attribution, although the presence of a few large,

Fig. 3. Lithic artifacts from Dârt¸u, layers IeII: 1e6 e endscrapers; 7e14 e retouched blades (photos Leif Steguweit).

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

8

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

continuously retouched blades at Dârt¸u has to be mentioned. The t¸ica I is even more distant in this small assemblage (47 lithics) at Ceta respect. Both the coherence and the estimated age of this supposedly “Early Aurignacian” toolkit, coming from the first stratigraphical unit over imposing the terrace gravels, seem doubtful. While the presence of bifacial technology and the lack of any other indicative features clearly dismiss the Aurignacian label, the alternative proposals e the transitional Brânzeni facies (Borziac and Chirica, 2008b), or the Upper Paleolithic “Prut culture” (Noiret, 2004) e are equally uncertain, given the AMS estimation of the lower sequence in Dârt¸u (40e35 ka cal. BP) (Steguweit et al., 2009), which by extrapolation t¸ica I layer involved. suggests an older age for the Ceta

On the Prut Valley, the long geological and archaeological sequence at Mitoc-Malul Galben comprises five assemblages attributed to the Aurignacian, dated between 37 and 32 ka cal. BP. The most consistent belong to the first part of this chronological interval and generally mirror a workshop activity correlated to the export of blade and bladelet blanks. The toolkits are mainly composed from flakes (86.09%), burin spalls, prismatic and sub-prismatic cores, but also from an important number of burins and carinated endscrapers on flakes or blades (Figs. 4and 5). The formal typology, quite poor, is dominated by retouched flakes (lower Aurignacian level), burins and simple endscrapers (Aurignacian levels I and II) or endscrapers (Aurignacian III) (Otte et al., 2007b). Despite the in situ lack of Dufour

Fig. 4. Lithic artifacts from Mitoc-Malul Galben: 1. ivory point; 2. Mladec bone point; 3, 5e6, 8e9 e carinated burins; 4, 7 e carinated endscrapers (modified after Chirica, 2001: p. 170).

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

9

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 toolkits clearly support the Aurignacian identification, further reinforced by the two reindeer antler points found, at least one conforming to the Mlade c typology (Chirica and Noiret, 2007). Less certain is the attribution to the Aurignacian of the assemblages at the nearby spot, Mitoc-Pârâul lui Istrati. Here, three separated 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, but a carinated endscraper is mentioned in the second layer. While the abrupt retouch noticed in the upper layer clearly points to the Gravettian, the stratigraphical position, the workshop aspect and the faunal association (horse-bison) support a provisional link of the lower layers to the Aurignacian at Malul Galben (Chirica et al., 1996: p. 84).

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

10

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

The “Aurignacian” layers (Ia, Ib, IIa, IIb) at Ripiceni-Izvor unescu, 1993) raise different problems. Placed on top of the (Pa last Mousterian VI occupation, the four layers were not stratigraphically separated, either between them or from the Gravettian layers above, a fact which seriously questions the taphonomic integrity of these toolkits. The first two assemblages (Ia, including 1011 lithics and Ib, amounting to 2306) comprise Levallois points, sidescrapers, denticulates and notches, a few carinated or atypically carinated endscrapers (unfortunately not illustrated), burins, retouched blades, flakes, various flake and blade cores and a small number of unretouched bladelets (17 and 28, respectively). The composition of the other two, Aurignacian IIa and IIb, assemblages (4020 and 4534 lithics, correspondingly) are equally diverse: bifacial forms (including foliate and concave base points), sidescrapers, notches and denticulates, burins, endscrapers (including a few carinated and nosed ones, partially unrecognizable in the illustration), a tanged piece (level IIb), flakes, blades and unretouched bladelets (43 and 73, respectively). From the illustrated pieces, a single carinated endscraper might be acknowledged as a bladelet unescu, 1999a: p. 242, Fig. 78/12). The presence of a clear core (Pa bifacial component, the lack of a systematical bladelet production and the rarity or absence of the relevant typological forms clearly prohibits an Aurignacian attribution for any of these layers. The content and the single date obtained for the layer Ib e 32,821
504 cal. BP (Bln-809) e has already persuaded few scholars to propose different cultural attributions: Prut or Brânzeni cultures (Chirica et al., 1996; Noiret, 2004), Zwierzyniecian for the upper IIa and IIb layers (Kozlowski, 2004). Given the likely contamination, the proper cultural identification of these Upper Paleolithic layers require at least a throughout reevaluation of the lithic collections.

Located nearby the Ripiceni-Izvor settlement, Stânca Ripiceni Cave, now completely destroyed, contained a four layered cultural sequence, which from layers I and III were identified as Aurignacian by the original excavator (Moros¸an, 1938). The description of the lithic sample from layer I rather suggest an undifferentiated Upper Paleolithic industry (blade and bladelet production, endscrapers, retouched blades). The two items illustrated as rabot and carinated endscraper respectively can be rather interpreted as blade/bladelet cores (flaking surfaces of 60 mm wide and 90 mm long). The sample from layer III displays different features, dominated by smaller blanks, pointed and abruptly retouched blades, rather resembling an early Gravettian stage (Otte et al., 1996b), well documented in several sites from Central and Eastern Europe (Willendorf II/7e8, Mitoc-Malul Galben, layers 6 and 7, Molodova V/IXeX, Kostenki VIII/1). 4.4. “The Late Aurignacian” from Southern Romania Comparatively few archaeological contexts have been attributed to the Aurignacian in the vast space of Southern Romania: 29, from unescu, 2000). which 14 are only isolated surface collections (Pa With the exception of Lapos¸-Poiana Roman, located in the subCarpathians, most assemblages were found in the Southern Romanian Plain and all have been indiscriminately attributed to a “Late Aurignacian” or “Aurignacoid” facies. None of the surface collections provided diagnostic attributes needed for an accurate classification. They are usually very small (less than 40 items) and often hardly distinguishable from the Neolithic assemblages in the same area, although isolated carinated and nosed endscrapers were occasionally mentioned. As a rule,

Fig. 6. Lithic and organic artifacts from Muierii Cave: 1e3 e bone points; 4e6 e retouched blades (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 152).

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

they consist of retouched flakes and blades, blade cores, endscrapers and sidescrapers. Amongst the 15 documented settledastra, Ciuperceni, Giurgiu Malu Ros¸u, ments, only 5 (Lapos¸, Va lcescu) furnished more consistent lithic toolkits. Nicolae Ba The short geological sequence at the settlement Lapos¸-Poiana Roman, located in the Sub-Carpathians, has been considered for decades to host in its main part a late survival of the Aurignacian unescu, technocomplex (Mogos¸anu, 1969; Alexandrescu, 1997; Pa 2000; Alexandrescu et al., 2004). In the absence of organic material, the Aurignacian label of the workshop here relied on the “rudimentary” blade technology, and especially on the occurrence of unidirectional and prismatic cores, mistakenly defined and

11

unescu, 2000: pp. illustrated as “core endscrapers” or rabots (e.g. Pa 121, 122). The poor mechanical characteristics of the local raw material were also invoked in order to explain the “archaic” shape of the industry and the rarity of formal tools (less then 1%). The presence of Gravettian implements (i.e. backed bladelets) in the oldest layer here, though clearly noticed, has been explained away as “acculturation”, an interpretation undoubtedly recommended by the estimated young geochronology (Würm III). The latter had been indeed reinforced by the later pollen analysis, suggesting a Tardiglacial age for the entire sequence (Cârciumaru and Cîrstina, 2005). A sample of 3385 lithics (out of around 10,000 from recent excavations) was submitted to a preliminary techno-typological

Fig. 7. Lithic artifacts from Cioclovina Cave: 1, 4, 6, 11e12 e blades; 2e3, 5 e flakes; 7e10 e retouched blades (modified after Teodorescu and Roska, 1923: 38e39, 41).

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

12

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

, 2009). Even though it confirmed some analysis (Cîrstina and Nit¸a of the previous observations (opportunist blade production conditioned by the poor quality raw material, systematic export of blanks, rare occurrence of formal tools etc.), this analysis has nevertheless found no grounds for an Aurignacian cultural attribution. It only documented an undifferentiated and continuous production of blade and flakes, rarely bladelets, from the same cores. With the exception of a few undiagnostic retouched blades and flakes, all the type forms identified (backed bladelets, microlithic endscrapers etc.) point to an Epigravettian tradition. After the artificial separation of the Neolithic implements from unescu, 2000), the Va dastra the original, mixed collection (Pa sample amounts to 2702 lithics and comprises 46.81% unretouched flakes, 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 illustrated do not indicate an involvement in bladelet production,

according to the metric criteria proposed by Demidenko et al. (1998), while most cores actually show flakes’ negatives in the last reduction stage. Unfortunately, little information is available on the 82 bladelets found. The Aurignacian classification, much like the 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 the area of Ciuperceni village. The first one (Ciuperceni-La Vii) mainly consists from a surface collection and merges 758 items presumunescu, 2000: p. 237), ably coming from two separated layers (Pa originally located in a loess sequence on the 10 m high Danube terrace. The assemblage, made entirely in local flint, appears surprisingly dominated by sidescrapers, notches and denticulates although a well-mastered blade reduction is well represented by 22 prismatic cores. Bladelet production, probably continuous, starting from blade cores, is attested, even if few details regarding

Fig. 8. Lithic artifacts from Remetea S¸omos¸ I, II: 1e5 e endscrapers; 6e7 e retouched blades; 8 e burin (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 159e160).

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

the secondary modification of bladelets are available. An analogous image provided the collection (1421 items) from the nearby spot Ciuperceni-La Tir, also originating from two different unescu, archaeological layers, but similarly treated as a whole (Pa 2000: p. 240). 227 cores, from which only 14 prismatic and 3 pyramidal were described. The presence of rejuvenation tablettes and crested blades suggests an equally elaborated blade production, which stands in sharp contrast to the narrow typological variety, dominated by notches and retouched cortical flakes. Recent research in Ciuperceni-La Vii, although only concentrated on the slope accumulation, have actually identified four different

13

archaeological layers (Dobrescu et al., 2009), thus highlighting the previous biases induced through merging the assemblages. The geological sequence, now entirely framed into the Middle Pleniglacial, provided an IRSL age of around 32 ka, although hardly relevant for the chronology of the archaeological layers, as the loess there had been likely redeposited. However, the presence of an elaborate blade production including soft hammer use is now clearly documented along the entire sequence. The cultural ascription of both spots in Ciuperceni is rendered difficult by the workshop function of the settlements. However, the supposed presence of a Late Aurignacian lacks any support: the 3 “nosed and

lines¸ti II: 1e2, 8, 10e12 e endscrapers, 3, 5, 7, 9 e retouched blades; 4 e burin; 6 e endscraper-burin (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 156e157). Fig. 9. Lithic artifacts from Ca

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

14

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

unescu, 2000, his Fig. 66/nr. carinated” illustrated endscrapers (Pa 6, 10, 20) do not permit this description. Given the lack of a proper chronology, the continuous production of blade and bladelets from the same cores leaves more possibilities open: Early Aurignacian/ Protoaurignacian, Gravettian or a still undefined local Upper Paleolithic industry. unescu, In spite of a constant avowal (Alexandrescu, 1997; Pa 2000) the attribution to the Aurignacian of the two layers at Giurgiu Malu Ros¸u raise serious doubts, particularly because of their 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” forms suggest they actually represent simple, thick endscrapers. While the possibility of a bladelet production from the numerous burins recorded may appear reasonable, the few alleged “Dufour” bladelets (Alexandrescu et al., 2004: p. 415e416) obviously wear a direct, marginal retouch, typical for the pseudo-Dufour type.

Although usually pooled together with the other “Late Aurignacian” occurrences in Southern Romania, the small toolkit (309 lcescu (Pa unescu, 2000: pp. 104e106) displays lithics) at Nicolae Ba no particular Aurignacian feature. It mainly consists in an opportunist blade and flake production starting from small flint pebbles leading to a common, albeit expedient Upper Paleolithic inventory. The toolkit consists of retouched blades and flakes, burins, sidescrapers, truncated blades, and endscrapers. Across Dobrudja (the area between the Danube and the Black Sea), the Aurignacian, including the late Aurignacoid complex documented North of the Black Sea (Zwyns, 2004; Demidenko, 2008), is simply missing. With the exception of a tiny blade toolkit (9 items) at Cheia-La Izvor Cave (Târgus¸or), labeled as Aurignacian for no particular reason, of a few Dufour and pseudoDufour bladelets found at the nearby caves Bursucilor and La unescu, 1999b: Adam, but lacking any chronological reference (Pa pp. 101, 208), the entire area has only provided isolated artifacts.

Fig. 10. Lithic artifacts from Boines¸ti: 1e3 e endscrapers; 4e5 e burins; 6 e splintered piece; 7 e retouched blade; 8 e sidescraper (modified after Hahn, 1977: Taf 155).

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

The settlement at Mamaia-Sat, long attributed to two chronologically distant (Riss-Würm, Brörup interstadial, respectively) Mousterian occupations, has been recently qualified as a “Preaurignacian with bifacial forms” (Borziac and Chirica, 2008b), in spite of the flake technology dominating both series. For obvious reasons, the present authors disagree, although these severely mixed collections do indeed display original features, such as the

15

presence of Kostenki knives, a few endscrapers and fragments of biconvex foliate points. Another presumably Aurignacian occurrence has been described at Muierii Cave. The lithic toolkit here (61 items) comprised common Upper Paleolithic tools: retouched blades, endscrapers, flakes, unescu, 2000). The Aurignacian designation, simple blades (Pa certainly plausible, has been empathically encouraged by the early

Fig. 11. Lithic artifacts from Tincova: 1e2 e Font-Yves points; 3e11 e Dufour bladelets; 12e15 e retouched blades; 16e18 e cores (modified after Mogos¸anu, 1978: pp. 11, 46e47).

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

16

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

AMH finds (recently dated around 34e33 ka cal. BP) (Alexandrescu et al., 2010), but also by the three distal fragments of bone points (Fig. 6). However, it is worth stressing that the contextual association of these categories of documentation is totally insecure. 4.5. The Aurignacian in Transylvania and Banat 4.5.1. Western, Southern, and Southeastern Transylvania caves As a result of fortuitous discoveries or of some small excavated gura, Devent¸ului, test pits, Western Transylvanian caves (Igrit¸a, Ma Zmeilor) have only provided few lithic items, usually simple blades and endscrapers, and one bear bone fragmented point (?) at Igrit¸a Cave (Dobrescu, 2008, her Fig. 19/14: p. 375). The alleged Aurignacian layers at Bordu Mare and Cioclovina caves in southern Transylvania feed skepticism. At Bordu Mare Cave, the Aurignacian layer is contaminated by post-Paleolithic material and directly overlies the last Mousterian layer. The collection 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) comes from an imprecisely located bone samples, collected from a 30 cm long stratigraphical sector at the contact between the Mousterian layer and the Upper Paleolithic one. If the exact context of the finds would have been known, an Aurignacian presence at the nearby Cioclovina Cave might have been of interest, due to the discovery of an AMH skull (Harvati et al., 2007), along with two blades, one flake and some Ursus spelaeus vertebrae (Rainer and Simionescu, 1942). Unfortunately, even the most detailed presentations of the industry recovered from other sectors of the cave (Teodorescu and Roska, 1923: pp. 38e41, 43, 45) failed to provide clear Aurignacian diagnostic elements (Fig. 7). The so-called Aurignacian toolkits from the Southeastern Trantarului), as well as sylvania’s caves at Meres¸ti (Calului, Ursului, Ta  e Moeciu Cave, or Coaca zei Cave (Pa unescu, 2001) consist of Mica chunks, quartzite flakes, fragmented sandstones or simple flint blades. Some carinated and nosed endscrapers were mentioned in the Gura Cheii-Râs¸nov Cave collection (58 items), as well as in Mare e Moeciu Cave collection (173 items) (Dobrescu, 2008); for the latter, some carinated forms and Dufour bladelets were also recorded (P aunescu, 2001), but the recent reevaluation identified only endscrapers, burins, sidescrapers, and retouched blades (Dobrescu, 2008). 4.5.2. Northern, Western, and Southern Transylvania open air sites Much like Southern Romania, almost all of the 20 Aurignaciancalled open air sites in Transylvania (Dobrescu, 2008) provided small surface or poorly contextualized collections, without particular diagnostic features. Only two of these, both from Cremenea  and Malu Dinu Buzea) offered richer lithic collections. (Poienit¸a A small part (around 270 lithics of precise provenience, according to the labeling) of the Aurignacian layer collection from  was available for study (Ma rga rit and Nit¸a , 2007). The Poienit¸a toolkit is mainly obtained from local flint, available in the form of large blocks, pebbles, and plaques, which often exhibit natural accidents and seem to allow only a bipolar frontal debitage of large blades and flakes. Rarely, small homogenous flint blocks and pebbles show wider and shorter debitage surfaces, from which the bladelets were the last blanks obtained. Some 14e25 mm wide blades and 8e10 mm wide bladelets were directly retouched; the toolkit also includes dihedral burins, carinated and nosed endscrapers, and borers. The Aurignacian collection from Malu Dinu Buzea consists of numerous massive blades, flakes and small-sized abandoned cores with one, sometimes two striking platforms, for which the last debitage sequence is restricted to the producing of bladelets. A few carinated items, endscrapers, retouched blades,

and according to the illustration, at least one Dufour bladelet unescu, 2001, his Fig. 151/5: p. 363), were also mentioned. (Pa 4.5.3. Northwestern Romania (Oas¸-Maramures¸ area) In two of the substantially eroded sites from Northwestern Romania (Boines¸ti, Remetea S¸omos¸ I), the Aurignacian layers directly overlay the Mousterian layers. The lithic assemblages share many features: the use of local raw material, massive blanks, isolated presence of bifacial technique, sidescrapers, endscrapers on flakes, and big retouched flakes. The identification of an Aurignacian lithic component at the two sites employed as basic criteria only the use of exotic obsidian and the presence of bipolar blade debitage (Dobrescu, 2008). lines¸ti II, the Aurignacian layers (comprising flakes, cores, At Ca retouched blades and endscrapers, among which one carinated), are lines¸ti I provided a richer overlaid by Gravettian assemblages. Ca context, including a collection of 1595 artifacts, together with hearths, and burnt stones grouped together (Bitiri, 1972a). A recent technological reevaluation of the Aurignacian collections from Boilines¸ti (Dobrescu, 2008) nes¸ti, Bus¸ag, Remetea S¸omos¸ and Ca emphasized cores (mostly with one striking platform and wide debitage surfaces), for the production of flakes or blades and bladelets, the alternate use of hard and soft hammer and the occurrence of massive rectilinear laminar blanks. Bladelets were mostly obtained from jasper, homogenous opal, and obsidian. The toolkits include

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

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

carinated endscrapers (some of which could represent bladelet cores), burins, big retouched blades, sidescrapers, and retouched bladelets (Figs. 8e10). Unfortunately, for taphonomic reasons, the otherwise positive presence of Aurignacian elements remain hard to demarcate from the Mousterian and Gravettian elements. 4.5.4. The Aurignacian in Banat vit¸a Three of the sites in Banat e Tincova, Românes¸ti-Dumbra and Cos¸ava (Hahn, 1977; Mogos¸anu, 1978; Sitlivy et al., in this issue) e deserve the Aurignacian designation, in spite the lack of organic

17

industry and numerical chronology. As a detailed re-examination of the Banat Aurignacian is now available (Sitlivy et al., in this issue), this discussion is limited to a few observations on the previous data (Mogos¸anu, 1978). Tincova yielded a single archeological layer, with numerous flakes, fragments, pyramidal or prismatic cores, 2384 unretouched blades and bladelets, and 110 retouched items, most of which are carinated and nosed endscrapers, Dufour bladelets, and Font-Yves points (Fig. 11). The three cultural layers discovered in Cos¸ava also suggest an Aurignacian affiliation, due to the carinated items,

vit¸a I: 1, 9 e retouched blades; 2e7 e Dufour bladelets; 8, 11e14 e cores; 10 e crested blade (modified after Mogos¸anu, 1978: pp. Fig. 13. Lithic artifacts from Românes¸ti-Dumbra 58e59, 63, 65).

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

18

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

the production of bladelets, the presence of alternatively retouched bladelets and Font-Yves points (Fig. 12). The youngest cultural layer suggests a mixture of the Aurignacian lithic material with nailshaped endscrapers and obsidian blades. At Românes¸ti-Dumbvit¸a I, the alleged four Aurignacian layers (II, III, IV, and V) idenra 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 Southern Banat (Mogos¸anu, 1978) does not provide arguments for an unambiguous cultural attribution. The only cave site in Banat with ile Herculane). an Aurignacian-called layer is the Hot¸ilor Cave (Ba Layer II here has only provided some flint and quartz items, without diagnostic features, but with a late chronology of unescu, 2001). 30,933
369 cal. BP (GrN-16980) (Pa 5. Discussion and conclusions Following a rather widespread model (Goring-Morris and Belfer-Cohen, 2006; Svoboda, 2006), the Aurignacian simply seems to have provided the Romanian Paleolithic research an allpurpose label for any assemblage which was neither clearly Mousterian, nor overtly Gravettian, regardless of its actual content, site function, likely palimpsests, stratigraphical contaminations or numerical chronology. The propensity of defining as Aurignacian all the assemblages opening a longer Upper Paleolithic sequence, as well as almost every blade-shaped isolated find is evocative unescu, 1998, 1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001). Moreover, its Western(Pa derived, imported status as the first Upper Paleolithic technocomplex, left the Aurignacian extremely vulnerable to a “transitional” position, to which one could indiscriminately assign all the assumed archaic features (e.g. use of local raw materials, production of massive blanks, less elaborated laminar debitage, persistence of flake technology, poor standardization of formal tools etc.). As many of these features are naturally to be found in lithic workshops contexts, the ensuing agreement between the Aurignacian presence and the raw material extraction sites is indeed astonishing: virtually no other technocomplex seems to have used the same raw material sources. Summing up, it appears that the inherited image of the Aurignacian in Romania requires a significant adjustment. The only occurrences accurately corresponding to the Aurignacian definition are the layers at Mitoc-Malul Galben and, although still awaiting vit¸a, a proper chronological setting, those at Românes¸ti-Dumbra Cos¸ava and Tincova. Scattered evidence for an Aurignacian presence also appear in Northwestern (Oas¸) and Southwestern Transylvania (Cremenea, Gura Cheii), Southern Romania (V adastra, Muierii), but they are all missing both the numerical chronology and a reasonable taphonomic integrity. With the exception of the few assemblages severely affected by post-depositional contamit¸ica I), Gravettian/ nation (e.g. Ripiceni), displaying bifacial (Ceta Epigravettian (Bistricioara, Podis¸, Lapos¸), or full flake technological features (Mamaia), all of the recorded toolkits need to be considered as rather belonging to an undifferentiated Upper Paleolithic. None of the previous observations give support to the traditional postulates (i.e. local origin, long duration and widespread presence of the Aurignacian in Romania). The flake dominated Aurignacian-called assemblages display no particular Mousterian feature. They appear either in workshop settings (with flakes coming from the preparation of blade cores, e.g. Ciuperceni), exhibit clear post-depositional mixtures (Ripiceni), or simply t¸ica I, Lapos¸). The last belong to different technological phyla (Ceta explanation also entails the assumed Late Aurignacian in Southern Romania. In the light of its strong presence in Eastern Romania, the current lack of documented Gravettian settlements in the area is certainly 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 some of the leptolithic occurrences along the Danube (e.g. Giurgiu), much like the Aurignacian V in Western Europe (Zilhão, 2006b; Sitlivy et al., in this issue), require a different taxonomical framing. If one adds to this observation the recent reconsideration of the Aurignacian in Banat (Sitlivy et al., in this issue) and the missing chronology in Oas¸, the late presence of the Aurignacian in Romania lacks any empirical support. Both the origin and the geographical extension of the Aurignacian across Romania are waiting for further research. The lack of connections to the previous Middle Paleolithic, but also the chronology securely established so far obviously point to an allogenous origin. However, to the present knowledge the role played by the Romanian segment of the Danube, as a main access way to Central Europe for the incoming Early Upper Paleolithic or simply for the Aurignacian dispersion towards Central Europe (e.g. Conard and Bolus, 2003, 2006) is impossible to assess, as the massive aeolian accumulation along the river has limited the identification of relevant sites. In the same time, the distant location of the documented Aurignacian occurrences, scattered across the three geographical sectors proposed, and the well documented early presence of AMH overtly suggest a much more consistent presence, which might also include some of the settlements dismissed as inexpressive in the lack of a proper documentary support. Acknowledgments The present study benefited from the financial and logistical support offered by the National Council of Scientific Research for Higher Education (CNCSIS) through the research grant ID_628. We are also indebted to our colleagues Valery Sitlivy, Victor Chabai, Thorsten Uthmeier and Leif Steguweit for the kind help provided during our documentation for this paper and for a now years-long exchange of ideas. All the opinions expressed here, including the remaining errors or omissions are obviously our responsibility. We also wish to thank Ulrich Hambach for the invitation to contribute to this special issue and to our colleague Florin Dumitru for the help provided with the illustration. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for Quaternary International, whose comments seriously improved the quality of the text and illustration. References lescu, S., Tuffreau, A., 2004. Nouvelles données chronologiques, Alexandrescu, E., Ba technologiques et typologiques sur le Paléolithique supérieur ancien de la Plaine roumaine du Danube: le gisement de Giurgiu Malu Rosu. L’Anthropologie 108, 407e423. } m, K., Hellborg, R., 2010. Os fossils Alexandrescu, E., Olariu, A., Skog, G., Stenstro humains des grottes Muierii et Cioclovina, Roumanie. L’Anthropologie 114, 341e353.  despre evolut¸ ia complexului cultural aurignacian Alexandrescu, E., 1997. O ipoteza . In: Ciho, M., Nistor, V., Zaharia, D. (Eds.), Timpul istoriei, I, din Câmpia Româna Memorie S¸ i Patrimoniu. Universitatea Bucures¸ti, Facultatea de Istorie, Centrul t¸ilor antice, Bucures¸ti, pp. 11e36. de istorie comparat a a societa Allsworth-Jones, P., 1986. The Szeletian and the Transition from Middle to Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe. Clarendon, Oxford. Anghelinu, M., 2003. Evolut¸ia gândirii teoretice în arheologia din România. Concepte s¸i modele aplicate în preistorie. Cetatea de Scaun, Târgovis¸te. Anghelinu, M., 2006. O paleontologie a “omului etern”: arheologia paleoliticului din România. Cercet ari Arheologice XIII, 135e158. Anikovitch, M., 1992. Early Upper Paleolithic industries of Eastern Europe. Journal of World Prehistory 6 (2), 205e245. Bailey, S.E., Weaver, T.D., Hublin, J.-J., 2009. Who made the Aurignacian and other Upper 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.

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a Belfer-Cohen, A., Bar-Yosef, O., 2006. The geography and chronology of carinated core chaîne opératoire. In: Tostevin, G. (Ed.), Reduction Sequence, Chaîne opératoire and Other Methods: the Epistemologies of Different Approaches in Lithic Analysis. Electronic Symposium, San Juan, Puerto Rico. Bitiri, M., Cârciumaru, M., 1978. Atelierul de la Mitoc-Valea Izvorului s¸i locul lui în ri de Istorie Veche s¸i cronologia Paleoliticului României. Studii s¸i Cerceta Arheologie 29 (4), 463e480. Bitiri, M., 1965. Cu privire la inceputurile paleoliticului superior in România. Studii s¸i ri de istorie veche 16 (I), 5e16. cerceta Bitiri, M., 1972a. Evolut¸ia culturii materiale în paleoliticul din Depresiunea Oas¸, Satu Mare. Studii s¸i comunic ari II, 35e49. Bitiri, M., 1972b. Paleoliticul în T¸ara Oas¸ului. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. Blades, B., 2002. Aurignacian Lithic Economy. In: Ecological Perspectives from Southwestern France. Kluwek Academic Publisher, New York. Bolomey, A., 1989. Considerat¸ii asupra resturilor de mamifere din stat¸iunea graverie (jud. Bac tian a de la Lespezi-Luta au), Carpica, XX, 271e290 pp. Bon, F., 2005. Little Big Tool. Enquête autour du succès de la lamelle. In: Le BrunRicalens, F. (Ed.), Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Collab.), Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. MNHA, Luxembourg, 479e484 pp. Bordes, J.-G., 2003. Lithic taphonomy of the Châteperronian/Aurignacian interstatifications in Roc de Combe and Le Piage (Lot, France). 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. 223e244. Borziac, I., Chirica, V., 2008a. Periodisation culturelle, chronologie relative et radiometrique des facies du Paleolithique superieur de l’espace carpato-dniestreen. leanu, M.C. (Eds.), Etablissements et habitations préIn: Chirica, V., Va historiques. Structure, organisation, symbole. Pim, Ias¸i, pp. 7e50. Borziac, I., Chirica, V., 2008b. Paleoliticul superior din spat¸iul carpato-nistrean: aspecte culturogenetice s¸i cronostratigrafice. Tyragetia s.n., II(XVII) (1), 9e36. Borziac, I., Chirica, V., David, A., 2007. L’Aurignacien moyen et tardif de l’espace carpatique-dniestreen. Le gisement Climaut¸i II. Pim, Ias¸i. Brantigham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), 2004. The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cârciumaru, M., Cîrstina, O., 2005. Considerat¸ii asupra cronostratigrafiei Paleoliticului superior de la Lapos¸. Valachica 18, 24e32. , L., Fontana, L., Brugère, A., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Steguweit, L., Nit¸a rg Hambach, H., Ma arit, M., Dumitras¸cu, V., Cosac, M., Dumitru, F., Cârstina, O., 2006. The Upper Paleolithic Site from Poiana Cires¸ului, Piatra Neamt¸ (NorthEastern Romania). Recent results. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 36, 319e331. toreanu, G., Cosac, M., S¸tefa nescu, R., Cârciumaru, M., Nit¸u, E.C., Bordes, J.-G., Mura 2008. Le Paléolithique de la Grotte Gura Cheii e Râs¸nov (Etude interdisciplinaire). Valahia University Press, Târgovis¸te. Cârciumaru, M., 1980. Mediul geografic în Pleistocenul superior s¸i culturile paleolitice din România. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. Cârciumaru, M., 1995. Transition du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique supérieur en 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 Upper Paleolithic transition in Eastern Europe. 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. 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 de la Péninsule Ibérique, vol. 17. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 25e35. Chirica, V., Noiret, P., 2007. Mitoc Malu-Galben: industrie osseuse et témoins esthétiques. In: Otte, M., Chirica, V., Haesaerts, P. (Eds.), 2007. L’Aurignacien et le Gravettien de Mitoc Malu-Galben (Moldavie Roumaine), vol. 72. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 143e144. Chirica, V., Borziac, I., Chetraru, N., 1996. Gisements du Paléolithique supérieur ancien entre le Dniestr et la Tissa. Helios, Ias¸i.  de la Mitoc e Pîrîul lui Istrate, Din trecutul Chirica, V., 1974. As¸ezarea paleolitica judet¸ului Botos¸ani, Muzeul judet¸ean Botos¸ani, 25e32 pp. Chirica, V., 1987. La génèse et l’évolution des cultures du Paléolithique supérieur dans 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 Roumanie. BAI, Iasi, pp. 25e40. Chirica, V., 1995. Les pièces bifaciales et la transition du Paléolithique moyen au Paléolithique 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. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 43, 61e115. , L., 2009. Etude techno-typologique préliminaire de l’échantillon Cîrstina, O., Nit¸a lithique du site paléolithique de Lapos¸, Poiana Roman (département de Prahova). Les fouilles de la Colline D. Annales de l’Université Valahia de Târgovis¸te, XI, 1, 21e35 pp. Clark, G., 1997. The Middle-Upper Paleolithic transition in Europe: an American perspective. Norwegian Archaeological Review 30, 25e53. Clark, G., 1999. Modern human origins: highly visible, curiously intangible. Science 28, 2029e2032.

19

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 modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: new results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331e371. Conard, N., Bolus, M., 2006. The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in European Prehistory. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 211e239. Davies, W., 2001. A very model of a modern human industry: new perspectives on the origins and spread of the Aurignacian in Europe. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 67, 195e217. Demars, P.-Y., Laurent, P., 1989. Types d’outils lithiques du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire 14. Paris: CNRS. Demidenko, Y.E., Chabai, V.P., Otte, M., Yevtushenko, A.I., Tatartsev, S.V., 1998. Siuren-I, an Aurignacian site in the Crimea (the investigation of 1994e1996 field season). 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 Sea region: 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 Upper Paleolithic (40 000e30 000 BP): a synthesis. 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. 29e47. Djindjian, F., 2000. Compte-rendu, Cârciumaru, M. (1999) e Le Paléolithique en Roumanie, collection “L’Homme des origines” serie “Prehistoire d’Europe”, n 7, Grenoble: Editions Jerome Million. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française t. 97 (2), 309e324. Dobos¸, A., Soficaru, A., Popescu, A., Trinkaus, E., 2009. Radiocarbon dating and faunal stable isotopes for the Galeria Principal a, Pes¸tera Muierii, Baia de Fier, ri Arheologice (s. n.), 5, 15e20. Gorj County, Romania. Materiale s¸i Cerceta lescu, S., Goval, E., Dobrescu, R., Boroneant¸, A., Popescu, G., Dobos¸, A., Tuffreau, A., Ba 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, Supplementum, vol. 3. Renaissance, Bucures¸ti. Dumitrescu, V., Bolomey, A., Mogos¸anu, F., 1983. Esquisse d’une préhistoire de la Roumanie. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. Goring-Morris, N., Belfer-Cohen, A., 2006. A hard look at the “Levantine Aurignacian”: how real is the taxon?. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a 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 Late Pleniglacial stratigraphy in Central Europe. Quaternaire 14, 163e188. Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel-und Osteuropa. }ln & Wien, Bo }hlau. Fundamenta A/9. Ko Harvati, K., Gunz, P., Grigorescu, D., 2007. Cioclovina (Romania): affinities of an early modern 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 privind Paleoliticul mijlociu din Pes¸tera Cioarei de la Boros¸teni (Jud. Gorj) s¸i Paleoliticul superior timpuriu de la Mitoc-Malu Galben (Jud. Botos¸ani). Studii s¸i Cercet ari de Istorie Veche s¸i Arheologie 37 (4), 326e332. Honea, K., 1987. The chronology of Romania’s Palaeolithic. In: Chirica, V. (Ed.), La genèse et l’évolution des cultures paléolithiques sur le territoire de la Roumanie. B.A.I, Iasi, pp. 49e61. Honea, K., 1994. Tranzitii culturale in paleoliticul superior timpuriu s¸i cronostratigrafia de la Mitoc-Malu Galben (Jud. Botos¸ani). Arheologia Moldovei XVII, 117e146. Horvath, I., 2009. The Early Upper Palaeolithic in Romania: past and current research. In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The Mediterranean from 50 000 to 25 000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 137e162. Kozlowski, J.K., Otte, M., 2000. The formation of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journal of 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: Studies in 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 and Eastern Europe. In: Brantigham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley, 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. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 21e34. Laplace, G., 1966. Recherches sur l’origine et l’évolution des complexes leptolithiques. De Boccard, Paris.

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

20

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a

Le Brun-Ricalens, F. (Ed.), Bordes, J.-G., Bon, F. (Collab.), 2005. Productions lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. MNHA, Luxembourg. Leroi-Gourhan, A., Mateesco, C., Protopopesco-Pake, Em, 1967. Contribution à l’étude du climat de la station de Vadastra du Paléolithique supérieur à la fin du Néolithique. 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 Early Aurignacian. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, 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: BarYosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, pp. 173e186. rg , Covasna Ma arit, D., Nit¸ a, L., 2007. The Palaeolithic Site from Cremenea e Poienit¸a Department. An attempt towards a techno-typological reassessment. Annales d’Universite Valahia Târgovis¸te, 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 of Western Georgia. In: Brantigham, P.J., Kuhn, S.L., Kerry, K.W. (Eds.), The Early Upper Paleolithic Beyond Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 129e143. Mogos¸anu, F., 1969. Paleoliticul s¸i epipaleoliticul de la Lapos¸. Studii s¸i materiale privitoare la trecutul istoric al jud. Prahova II, 5e12. Mogos¸anu, F., 1978. In: Paleoliticul din Banat, vol. 32. Biblioteca de Arheologie, Bucures¸ti. Mogos¸anu, F., 1983. Paléolithique et épipaléolithique. In: Dumitrescu, V., Bolomey, A., Mogos¸anu, F. (Eds.), Esquisse d’une préhistoire de la Roumanie. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. Moros¸an, 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, Bucures¸ti. Muraru, A., 1990. Le gisement de silex de la Vallée du Prut, source de matière première pour l’outillage lithique dans la préhistoire. Etude monographique préliminaire. In: Séronie-Vivien, M.-R., Lenoir, M. (Eds.), Le silex de sa genèse à l’outil. Cahiers du Quaternaire, vol. 17, t. 1. CNRS, Paris, pp. 149e159. unescu, A., Mogos¸anu, F., 1966. Le Paléolithique de Nicol aescu-Plops¸or, C.S., Pa u. Dacia (N.S.), X, 5e116 pp. Ceahla escu-Plops¸or, C.S., 1938. Le paléolithique en Roumanie. Dacia, VeVI, 41e107 pp. Nicola Nicol aescu-Plops¸or, C.S., 1954. Introducere în problemele paleoliticului din R.P.R, Probleme de antropologie, I, 59e62 pp. rilor paleolitice in Nicol aescu-Plops¸or, C.S., 1956. Rezultatele principale ale cerceta ri de Istorie Veche VII (1), 7e39. ultimii patru ani in R.P.R. Studii s¸i Cerceta Nioradze, M., Otte, M., 2000. Paléolithique supérieur de Géorgie. L’Anthropologie 104, 265e300. Nit¸ a, L., 2008. Le Paléolithique supérieur de la Vallée de Bistrit¸a dans le contexte des recherches de Poiana Cires¸ului, Piatra Neamt¸ (Nord-est de la Roumanie). Cetatea de Scaun, Târgovis¸te. 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. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. MNHA, Luxembourg, 395e412 pp. Olszewski, D.I., Dibble, H.L., 2006. To be or not to be Aurignacian: the Zagros Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 355e373. Otte, M., Chirica, V., 1993. Atelier aurignacien à Mitoc Malul Galben (Moldavie roumaine). 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 the Transitional 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 Paléolithique supérieur d’Eurasie. L’Anthropologie 108, 395e406. Otte, M., López Bayón, I., Noiret, P., Borziac, I.A., Chirica, V., 1996a. Recherches sur le Paléolithique supérieur de la Moldavie. Anthropologie et Préhistoire: Bulletin de la Société royale belge 107, 45e80. Otte, M., Noiret, P., Chirica, V., Borziak, I., 1996b. Rythme évolutif du Gravettien oriental. In: Palma di Cesnola, A., Montet-White, A., Valoch, K. (Eds.), The Upper Palaeolithic, 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 the Zagros 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 de Mitoc-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 de l’Institute de Speologie “Emile Racovitza”. 153e174.

unescu, A., Cârciumaru, E., Cârciumaru, M., Vasilescu, P., 1977. Semnificat¸ia Pa  s¸i paleoclimatica  a unor analize chimice, granulometrice s¸i cronostratigrafica ri paleolitice din bazinul Ceahla ului. Considerat¸ii palinologice în unele as¸eza rilor. Studii si Cerceta ri de Istorie Veche si asupra tipului s¸i caracterului as¸eza Arheologie 28 (2), 157e183. unescu, Al, 1970. Evolut¸ia uneltelor s¸i armelor de piatr Pa a cioplit a descoperite pe teritoriul României. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. unescu, Al, 1980. Evolut¸ia istoric  la Pa a pe teritoriul României din Paleolitic pâna ri de Istorie Veche s¸i Arheologie 31 (4), începutul neoliticului. Studii s¸i Cerceta 519e546. unescu, Al, 1989. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique de Roumanie (un bref Pa aperçu). L’Anthropologie 93 (1), 123e158. unescu, Al, 1991. Paleoliticul din pes¸tera Gura Cheii-Râs¸nov s¸i unele considerat¸ii Pa privind cronologia locuirilor paleolitice din sud-estul Transilvaniei. Studii si ri de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 42 (1e2), 5e20. Cerceta unescu, Al, 1993. Ripiceni-Izvor. In: Paleolitic s¸i Mezolitic. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. Pa unescu, A.-C., 1996. Les microvetebres de la Grotte Spurcata (ou la Grotte de Sus e Pa Nandru, departement de Hunedoara, Roumanie), vol. 35. Travaux de l’Institute de Speologie “Emile Racovitza”. 175e196. unescu, Al, 1998. Paleoliticul s¸i epipaleoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprins Pa între Carpat¸i s¸i Siret, vol. I/1. Satya Sai, Bucures¸ti. unescu, Al, 1999a. Paleoliticul s¸i mezoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprins Pa între Siret s¸i Prut, vol. I/2. Satya Sai, Bucures¸ti. unescu, Al, 1999b. Paleoliticul s¸i mezoliticul de pe teritoriul Dobrogei, vol. II. Satya Pa Sai, Bucures¸ti. unescu, Al, 2000. Paleoliticul s¸i mezoliticul din spat¸iul cuprins între Carpat¸i s¸i Pa re. Agir, Bucures¸ti. Duna unescu, Al, 2001. Paleoliticul si epipaleoliticul din spat¸iul transilvan. Agir, Pa Bucures¸ti. 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 lamellaires attribuées à l’Aurignacien. Chaînes opératoires et perspectives technoculturelles. MNHA, Luxembourg, 103e121 pp. Rainer, Fr., Simionescu, I., 1942. Sur le premier crâne d’homme fossile paléolithique trouvé en Roumanie. Analele Academiei Române, Memoriile Sect¸iunii S¸tiint¸ifice, III, XVII, 12, 489e507 pp. Riel-Salvatore, J., Barton, C.M., 2004. Late Pleistocene technology, economic behavior, 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. Towards a 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 of America 104, 1165e1170. Sackett, J., 1991. Straight archaeology French style: the phylogenetic paradigm in historic perspective. In: Clark, G.A. (Ed.), Perspectives on the Past. Theoretical Biases in Mediterranean Hunter-Gatherer Research. University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 109e142. Sinitsyn, A., 2003. A Palaeolithic “Pompei” at Kostenki, Russia. Antiquity 77, 9e14. , L. Ba ltean, I., VesSitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Nit¸a selsky, A., T¸ut¸u, C., in this issue. Along or nearby the Danubian Corridor? A preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (Southwestern Romania). Quaternary International. Soficaru, A., Dobos¸, A., Trinkaus, E., 2006. Early modern humans from the Pes¸tera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103 (46), 17196e17201. Soficaru, A., Petrea, C., Dobos¸, A., Trinkaus, E., 2007. The human cranium from the Pes¸tera Cioclovina Uscat a, Romania: context, age, taphonomy, morphology, and paleopathology. Current Anthropology 48, 611e619. , L., 2009. Reframing the Upper Steguweit, L., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a Palaeolithic in the Bistrit¸a Valley (Northeastern Romania). Quartär 56, 139e157. Steguweit, L., 2009. Investing the Aurignacian/Gravettian transition in the Bistrit¸a Valley (NE Romania). In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The Mediterranean from 50 000 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 tracing prehistoric migration: the case of the UP assemblage of Mira in middle Dnieper } hely 4, 38e45. area. Archeometriai Mu 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 outlived its 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 cultural taxonomy 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.

Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

 / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e21 M. Anghelinu, L. Nit¸ a Szmidt, C.C., Normand, C., Burr, G., Hodgins, G., LaMotta, S., 2010a. AMS 14C dating the Protoaurignacian/early Aurignacian of Isturitz, France. Implications for Neanderthal-modern human interaction and the timing of technical and cultural innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 758e768. Szmidt, C.C., Brou, L., Jaccottey, L., 2010b. Direct radiocarbon (AMS) dating of splitbased points from the (Proto)Aurignacian of Trou de la Mère Clochette, Northeastern France. Implication of the characterization of the Aurignation and the timing of technical innovations in Europe. Journal of Archaeological Science 37, 3320e3337. Teodorescu, D.M., Roska, M., 1923. Cercet ari arheologice în Munt¸ii Hunedoarei. Publicat¸iile Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice, Sect¸iunea pentru Transilvania, Cluj, 27e51 pp. Teyssandier, N., Liolios, D., 2003. Defining the earliest Aurignacian in the Swabian Alp: the relevance of the technological study of the Geissenklösterle (Blaubeuren, 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 cultural phenomenon during the formation of the Upper Paleolithic in Central Europe and the Balkans. Anthropologie, International Journal of the Science of Man XLIV (1), 9e29. Teyssandier, N., 2007. L’émergence du Paléolithique Supérieur en Europe: mutations culturelles et rythmes d’évolution. Paléo 19, 367e390. Teyssandier, N., 2008. Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40 (4), 493e519. Trinkaus, E., Milot a, S¸., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., Moldovan, O., 2003. Early modern human cranial remains from the Pes¸tera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 245e253. ltean, I.C., Constantin, S., Gherase, M., Horoi, V., Milot Trinkaus, E., Ba a, R.S¸., , L., Moldovan, O., Petrea, C., Quiles, J., Rodrigo, R., Rougier, H., Sarcina

21

Soficaru, A., Zilhão, J., 2005. Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat: Pes¸tera 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: Pes¸tera cu Oase, Pes¸tera Muierii and Pes¸tera Cioclovina Uscat a. Materiale s¸i ri Arheologice V (N. S.), 5e14. Cerceta 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 la couche 11 de Bacho-Kiro. In: Tsonev, T., Montagnari, K. (Eds.), 2003. Towards a social et symbolic evaluation of prehistoric technology in South Eastern Europe, vol. 103. ERAUL, Liège, pp. 41e50. van Andel, T.H., Davies, W. (Eds.), 2003. Neanderthals and Modern Humans in the European Landscape During the Last Glaciation: Archaeological Results of the Stage 3 Project. McDonald Institute Monograph, Cambridge. Vanhaeren, M., D’Errico, F., 2006. Aurignacian ethno-linguistic geography of Europe revealed by personal ornaments. Journal of Archaeological Science 33, 1105e1128. Zilhão, J., D’Errico, F. (Eds.), 2003. The Chronology of the Aurignacian and of the Transitional 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 la Péninsule Ibérique, vol. 17. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon. Zilhão, J., 2006a. Neandertals and Moderns mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 183e195. Zilhão, J., 2006b. Aurignacian, behavior, modern: issues of definition in the emergence of the European Upper Paleolithic. In: Bar-Yosef, O., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2006b. Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian, vol. 45. Trabalhos de Arqueologia, Lisbon, pp. 53e70. Zwyns, N., 2004. La problématique de l’Aurignacien tardif dans la zone des steppes nord-pontiques. L’Anthropologie 108, 471e493.

, L., What’s in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania, Quaternary International (2012), Please cite this article in press as: Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013