Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania)

Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

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

Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania)  c, Valéry Sitlivy a, *, Victor Chabai b, Mircea Anghelinu c, Thorsten Uthmeier d, Holger Kels e, Loredana Nit¸a f b g ltean , Andrei Veselsky , Cristian T¸ut¸u Ion Ba a

Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Cologne, Weyertal 125, 50923 Köln, Germany Crimean Branch of the Institute of Archeology, National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (NUAS), Yaltinskaya Street 2, 95007 Simferopol, Ukraine c Department of History and Letters, Faculty of Humanities, Valahia University of Târgovis¸te, Str. Lt. Stancu Ion 35, 130115 Târgovis¸te, Romania d Institute of Prehistoric Archaeology, University of Erlangen, Kochstraße 4/18, 91054 Erlangen, Germany e Department of Geography, RWTH Aachen University, Germany f Heritage Advice S.R.L., Str. Nicolae Titulescu 1, 280/B/63, 510096 Alba Iulia, Romania g Str. Tineretului 4, 29/D/80, 130073 Târgovis¸te, Romania b

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Available online xxx

Despite its richness, the Romanian Paleolithic record has remained for decades relatively poorly known to the broader scientific community. The situation swiftly changed after the find at Oase Cave, which brought the Romanian paleoanthropological and archeological record into intensive focus, spurring several international research projects devoted to the regional Early Upper Paleolithic. The present paper provides the first summary of recent research undertaken in the neighboring area of Oase, the Romanian Banat, particularly focused on the Aurignacian open air occupation at Cos¸ava. A detailed attribute analysis of both old and recently excavated Aurignacian collections from Cos¸ava, supplemented by a comparative overview of the allegedly similar industry at Românes¸ti-Dumbr avit¸a, is presented. An initial chronological assessment of the Banat Aurignacian by means of several OSL samples from Românes¸ti is also proposed. The results of the lithic analysis, much like the new chronological estimations (in excess of 30 ka BP) confirm the early assignment of the Banat assemblages to the Krems-type Aurignacian, but also dismiss the unusually young chronology initially attributed to these settlements. While several features, including the constant presence of Krems/Dufour tools, point strongly to an archaic stage of the Aurignacian technocomplex (Protoaurignacian/Aurignacian 0), other elements (carinated forms, twisted bladelets, and Aurignacian blades) recall more ‘classical’ features conventionally associated to the Aurignacian I. No coherent chrono-stadial trend or functional requirements can explain these ‘mixed’ features in the Banat industries with the data at hand. Their presence nevertheless points to the internal variability of these early Aurignacian occurrences. Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

poorly known to the broader scientific community. One of the main reasons for this is the long period of political isolation, which led to delay in adopting new approaches and models for prehistoric research. For the Paleolithic, this resulted in diminishing theoretical and methodological compatibility between the Romanian data and the cultural and chronological frameworks commonly used in Western, Central or Eastern Europe (Anghelinu, 2003, 2006; see also Horvath, 2009). Although the local Paleolithic record had long attracted scientific attention aimed at incorporating it into the Western European framework, or correlating, classifying and comparing lithic assemblages, particularly those belonging to the Late Middle Paleolithic and onset of the Upper Paleolithic (e.g. Gabori, 1976; Allsworth-Jones, 1986; Yevtushenko, 1998; Djindjian et al., 1999; Djindjian, 2000; Chabai et al., 2004; Sitlivy and Zie˛ ba, 2006), Romania is still perceived as a peripheral zone and almost

Despite a rich archaeological and paleoanthropological record, to which many generations of scholars have contributed and which has been periodically revised (e.g. P aunescu, 1989, 1993, 2000, 2001; Chirica et al., 1996; Cârciumaru, 1999; Chirica, 2001; Borziac et al., 2006; Cârciumaru et al., 2007a; Borziac and Chirica, 2008; leanu, 2008), the Romanian Paleolithic has remained Chirica and Va

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (V. Sitlivy), [email protected] (V. Chabai), [email protected] (M. Anghelinu), Thorsten.Uthmeier@ ufg.phil.uni-erlangen.de (T. Uthmeier), [email protected] (H. Kels), ), [email protected] (L. Nit¸a [email protected] ltean), [email protected] (A. Veselsky), [email protected] (C. T¸ut¸u). (I. Ba 1040-6182/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

2

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

systematically excluded from discussing the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition. The narrow focus on typological description of the lithic assemblages by Romanian authors and the poor chronology available has kept much of the regional information out of the mainstream debate, while most synthetic interpretations and critical overviews have come from Western researchers carrying out projects in this country (e.g. Honea, 1984, 1986, 1987; Mertens, 1996; Otte et al., 2007; Riel-Salvatore et al., 2008; Horvath, 2009; Noiret, 2009). In recent decades, several international field projects carried out in various parts of Romania have yielded significant new results and fresh perspectives: Prut Valley and Moldavia (e.g. Otte and Chirica, 1993; Otte et al., 1996a, 2007; Noiret, 2004, 2009; Tuffreau et al., 2009), South Carpathians (Otte et al., 1996b; Cârciumaru et al., 2000, 2002; Patou-Mathis, 2000e2001; Moncel et al. 2002), Bistrita Valley (Cârciumaru et al. 2006, 2007b; Steguweit et al., 2009), Danube Valley (Alexandrescu et al., 2004) and North-western Banat (Tuffreau et al., 2006, 2007). Systematic dating programs meant to complete the initial dating campaign in the 1980s (Honea, 1984, 1986, 1987) have also been undertaken lescu et al., 2003), although the amount of available data (Ba remains insufficient. The situation further improved after the discovery of the oldest Anatomically Modern Human (hereafter AMH) fossil remains in Europe at Oase Cave (Southern Banat) in 2002, followed by direct dating, detailed paleoanthropological analysis and publication (Moldovan et al., 2003; Trinkaus et al., 2003, 2005, 2006, 2009). The lack of an associated archaeological context, in combination with the traditional view of a long persistence of the Middle Paleolithic in the area and the very late Upper Paleolithic chronology docuunescu, 2000, 2001) mented across Romania (Cârciumaru, 1999; Pa made the story all the more exciting. The initial Oase discovery led to systematic research at Oase Cave (Lazarovici et al., 2005; B altean et al., 2008), followed by different analyses (Richards et al., 2008) and have spurred several scientific projects: a paleoanthropological project re-examining ‘forgotten’ human fossils from Romanian caves and their direct dating (Olariu et al., 2002, 2004, 2005; Soficaru et al., 2006, 2007; Harvati et al., 2007; Alexandrescu et al., ltean et al., 2008), thus 2010) and new research in Banat (Ba bringing the Romanian record into the broader Afro-Eurasian discussions on the origins and dispersal of AMH (Trinkaus et al., 2006; Zilhão et al., 2007). Regardless of the disputable authorships of European ‘transitional’ industries (e.g. see Peresani, 2008; Hoffecker, 2009; Benazzi et al., 2011) and given the time frame of Oase moderns (ca. 35 ka 14C BP), the earliest cultural entity to which one would likely assign the initial dispersal of AMH into Europe is the Protoaurignacian; for at least some authors, the latter extends throughout the continent (including the Danube valley and Romanian Banat) to the Near East, matching the Early Ahmarian (Tsanova, 2006; Zilhão, 2007). As a dispersal following the ‘Danube corridor’ is still one of the main scenarios (Conard and Bolus, 2003; Mellars, 2006; Zilhão, 2007) for the appearance of AMH populations and their likely cultural correlate (i.e. Aurignacian sensu lato) in Europe, a proper reevaluation of the archaeological record in the proximity of the Oase Cave was required. The present paper discusses the preliminary results of the recent research which have taken place in the Banat area, particularly focused on the Aurignacian sites of Cos¸ava I vit¸a I. and Românes¸ti-Dumbra 2. The study area Due to its geographic position and diverse topographies, several distinct zones have been identified for Paleolithic cultures in Romania (Djindjian, 2000; see also Anghelinu and Nit¸ a, submitted

for publication). These were linked to the broad cultural areas of Europe: Eastern Romania to the North Pontic zone, the western areas to Central Europe and the southern part to the circumMediterranean zone. Banat is a micro-region bordered to the south and east by high mountains representing a kind of refuge influenced by both Mediterranean and continental climates, reflected in the fauna and flora (Mogos¸anu, 1972). This region is largely accessible from Central Europe to the west, where the Mures¸, Bistra and Bega river valleys provided natural connections with the large Carpathian Basin, while for Oltenia, the likely connection was by following the Danube and the northesouth oriented Timis¸-Cerna corridor, where the Tincova settlement is actually located. The Mures¸ valley bordering the historical Banat to the north also provides a natural communication passage to Central Transylvania. Gradually shifting from a mountain landscape to the east and south to open plain to the west, the Banat geomorphological setting is dominated by hilly piedmonts, plains and local terrace steps. Quaternary deposits are to be found as thin loess-like sediment cover (see also Kels et al., in preparation). Except for the occurrences in the Carpathian caves, all Paleolithic settlements yet known belong to low energy/highly eroded open air depositional contexts. 3. The Banat Paleolithic record e a brief outline The Paleolithic record known so far in Banat is not particularly rich (Fig. 1). Apart from the Aurignacian, there are few traces of other industries: ‘Quartzitic Paleolithic’, Mousterian and Gravettian/Epigravettian. Nearly all of the Paleolithic sites known were discovered during the 1950se1960s, mostly due to the energy of Ion Stratan, excavated and published by Mogos¸anu unescu (2001) and (1972, 1978), and recently inventoried by Pa ltean (2011a, b). Ba 3.1. The Middle Paleolithic The Middle Paleolithic is represented by small, mostly quartz/ quartzite-based assemblages (which traditionally, after Mogos¸anu, were assigned to the so-called ‘Quartzitic Mousterian’ of the Southern Carpathians, i.e. a variant of the Eastern Charentian). These assemblages have been recovered from uncertain stratigraphic position in two caves and two open-air sites. Layer I at Hot¸ilor Cave yielded 83 (Mogos¸anu, 1978) or 130 unescu, 2001; see also Ba ltean, 2011a, b) debitage products (Pa (flakes, often cortical, including naturally backed flakes and 29 formless or exhausted cores) and 25 tools (various simple scrapers and notches). A preliminary evaluation based on drawings of quartzite artifacts suggests non-Levallois Mousterian, with sidescrapers and retouched flakes, lacking bifaces. At Livadit¸ei Cave, only 18 pieces were recovered, including simple, double and convergent sidescrapers, one modified by semi-Quina retouch unescu, 2001), as well as a Neanderthal phalanx. (Pa vit¸a I, the lowermost At the open-air site of Românes¸ti-Dumbra level I (beneath the Aurignacian sequence) was classified as Late unescu, 2001). This assemblage includes 48 Mousterian (Pa quartzite artifacts: three Mousterian unretouched points (?), flakes used as scrapers, simple flakes, two ‘quasi-prismatic’ cores, two atypical endscrapers (Mogos¸anu, 1972), sidescrapers (simple, transverse, canted), choppers and naturally backed flakes unescu, 2001). If the Late Middle Paleolithic assignment is (Pa correct, a potential ancestor for this industry may come from the brani in the Arad region, recently re-excavated open-air site of Za and attributed to the Early Weichselian. Curiously, half of the artifacts from the three Mousterian layers here were made on quartzite

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

3

Fig. 1. Geographic map with position of the main sites mentioned in the text.

and show good control of pebble reduction, which was done using several different techniques, depending on the stratigraphic layer: flake unidirectional, bidirectional, centripetal, rare discoidal and laminar production are all indicated (Tuffreau et al., 2007). These quartzite flakes were more often modified into tools than blanks on other raw materials and do not show any ‘archaic’ features. Just 7 km to the north, the multi-stratified site of Cladova yielded bifacial tools made on quartzite, attributed to the Upper Acheulian of the Last Interglacial (Boroneant¸, 1991) or to the Mousterian of unescu, 2001). Acheulian Tradition (Pa In contrast, at the extreme south of Banat at the open-air site of unit¸ei, a short sequence affected by solifluction Gornea-Dealu Ca yielded an indubitable Levallois industry with corresponding points and flakes. The sample of 147 artifacts includes several different kinds of cores: Levallois, discoidal, polyhedral, globular and ‘quasi-prismatic’/‘quasi-pyramidal’ (Mogos¸anu, 1978). The industry here, labeled as Typical Mousterian with Levallois debitage unescu, 2001), represents, to date, the only example of Levallois (Pa point/flake production in this region. 3.2. The Aurignacian The Banat Paleolithic record is better known for three undated vit¸a and Aurignacian open-air sites: Tincova, Românes¸ti-Dumbra Cos¸ava (Hahn, 1970, 1977; Mogos¸anu, 1972, 1978, 1983), while other Upper Paleolithic evidence remains quite limited. For Mogos¸anu, these open-air sites, with one or several occupations, represented short-term workshops or relais de chasse, preserving exclusively lithic artifacts. The first Aurignacian stage of the Banat (Cos¸ava e lower layer, the single layer at Tincova) was attributed to the last, Würm IIeIII, interstadial. The pollen-based geochronological estimations at Românes¸ti suggested a much later, Tardiglacial

chronology (Mogos¸anu, 1978). The general typological structure of the toolkits (carinated, nosed endscrapers, dihedral burins and on truncation, Aurignacian blades, as well as Dufour bladelets and Font-Yves points) suggested a direct connection to the Central European, especially Krems-type, Aurignacian (sensu Demidenko, 2000e2001). In a typical culture-historical vein, Mogos¸anu viewed the Banat Aurignacian as a late echo of the Krems Aurignacian groups, retreating into the Banat refugia in the face of expanding Central European Gravettian populations. Its late survival and ‘degeneration’ were used to explain the less and less characteristic toolkits from the upper layers at Cos¸ava and Românes¸ti (Mogos¸anu, 1978, 1983). Recent debates on the definition of the Aurignacian that also invoked the Banat settlements have mainly involved Tincova (Teyssandier, 2006, 2007a, b, 2008; Zilhão, 2006; Zilhão et al., 2007; Teyssandier et al., 2010; Tsanova et al., in press). This single-layered workshop (where mostly local opal/‘Banat flint’ was exploited) contained 2494 artifacts: 2015 waste products (fragments, flakes, and cores), 369 blades and bladelets, and 110 tools (Mogos¸anu, 1978). The toolkit is dominated by endscrapers (31) with carinated, nosed, core-like forms, rabots (all in all 12 pieces) and many Dufour bladelets (22). Font-Yves points are also present (3). Burins are rare (8) and are mostly dihedral (5). Little is known about cores: 2 prismatic, 1 pyramidal, 7 globular, 55 core fragments unescu, 2001). and formless specimens are reported (Pa vit¸a I, the Aurignacian (levels II, III, IV and At Românes¸ti-Dumbra V) is sandwiched between ‘Quartzitic Mousterian’ and Gravettian levels (Mogos¸anu, 1972, 1978). The richest assemblage (>5000 pieces, including 114 tools) was recovered from level III. Endscrapers number 51 pieces (including many Aurignacian types) and predominate over burins (26, including 18 dihedral types). Eight Dufour bladelets and some retouched blades (five of which are

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

4

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

Aurignacian) were also collected from this layer. Among the 77 unescu (2001), there are 14 prismatic single/ cores mentioned by Pa double platform cores, 8 pyramidal, 25 globular and 30 formless and fragments. Level IV differs from the previous one due to the presence of truncated blades/flakes and a decrease in the frequency of endscrapers, with a corresponding increase in burins. Aurignacian artifacts become less common and Dufour bladelets are absent. Level V (consisting of extensive but clustered workshops) contains an assemblage rich in debitage products and few tools (39). The composition of the retouched tool component contrasts with levels III and IV. Burins are more common than endscrapers, and Aurignacian pieces are comparatively infrequent. It should be noted vit¸a II yielded small workshop clusters that Românes¸ti-Dumbra which appeared stratigraphically in level V of the main site. One workshop was specialized in Dufour production, associated with alternately retouched bladelets, retouched flakes, two endscrapers and several Krems points (Mogos¸anu, 1978). These Dufour bladelets are shorter (<3 cm) than those from Tincova (Chirica, 1996). Knappers at the second workshop (in the same stratigraphic position) also exploited quartz, producing Mousterian-like artifacts. A similar case was noted in a test pit outside the main concentration at Tincova, where quartzite artifacts (sidescrapers and points) were found in the uppermost loess. Together with the Românes¸tivit¸a II workshop, this situation led Mogos¸anu to the Dumbra conclusion of a late, Tardiglacial survival of a Middle Paleolithic technological tradition. Cos¸ava yielded three Upper Paleolithic industries, of which at least the two lowermost levels contain Aurignacian tools without mixture. According to Mogos¸anu (1978), the most representative level I contains 110e116 tools and contrary to Tincova, this toolkit is dominated by carinated and nosed endscrapers, as well as nucléiformes and rabots (simple endscrapers are less common), associated with abundant retouched blades, including 10 Aurignacian blades (e.g. strangled, notched and denticulated with continuous retouch on one or both sides), rare, exclusively dihedral, burins, as well as single examples of Dufour bladelets and Font-Yves points. This level vit¸a I, was usually compared with Tincova and Românes¸ti-Dumbra level III. Middle level II comprises 56 tools with a similar composition: a high frequency of endscrapers, particularly carinated, a limited number of dihedral burins and a single Dufour bladelet. Uppermost level III (24 tools) contains Aurignacian types (5 Dufour, 2 carinated and one Font-Yves point) as well as some elements (thumbnail endscrapers, blades on exotic obsidian, which normally

appear much later in the Epipaleolithic in this region (Mogos¸anu, unescu, 2001)). This assemblage together with the 1978; Pa vit¸a I are thought to uppermost levels of Românes¸ti-Dumbra present a local development of Aurignacian (Mogos¸anu, 1983) or its unescu, 2001). final stage (Pa In the light of a much needed reevaluation of the Aurignacian in , submitted for publication; Romania (Anghelinu and Nit¸a Anghelinu et al., in press), the importance of new, detailed technological and typological studies of available collections appeared vit¸a and Cos¸ava were selected in evident. Both Românes¸ti-Dumbra 2009 for a thorough stratigraphical, chronological and archaeological reevaluation, including test pits, TL, OSL, pollen, sedimentological and tephra sampling, correlated to the study of both old and new archaeological collections. The present paper is focused principally on information from Cos¸ava I, along with a first revit¸a I site, as the study of both appraisal of the Românes¸ti-Dumbra old and new (2009e2010) assemblages from the latter site is still in progress. 4. Cos¸ava: current results 4.1. Geographic setting The Cos¸ava I site (45
51011.920 N, 22
190 32.710 E) is located 4 km vit¸a, which from it is separated by the north of Românes¸ti-Dumbra large Bega valley (Fig. 2). The settlement is situated on a plateau spur (up to 282 m a.s.l. and over 90 m above the Bega river level) ’, correspondand slopes of two hills (‘Cuca Mare’ and ‘Cuca Mica ingly Cos¸ava I and II), connected by a slightly depressed riverbedlike area (Fig. 3). In contrast to Tincova and Românes¸ti-Dumbvit¸a, both located at the periphery of Poiana Rusca  Mountains, ra this settlement is situated on the hill marking a meridian limit of the vast Lipova Plateau (Mogos¸anu, 1967; Stratan, 1970; Kels et al., in preparation), on the right bank of the upper Bega river (tributary to the Tisa river) (see also Kels et al., in preparation). 4.2. Previous research Cos¸ava was first excavated in 1961e1964 (Stratan, 1965) and later from 1967 to 1969 (Mogos¸anu and Stratan, 1966, 1969; Stratan, 1970; Mogos¸anu, 1978). An area of 226 m2 was opened to a maximum depth of around 1.5 m to recover archaeological remains. A geological stratigraphic section up to 3 m deep was

Fig. 2. View of Cos¸ava and Românes¸ti-Dumbravit¸a (I, II) sites during field campaign in 2009. View to north.

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

5

Fig. 3. View of Cos¸ava site during excavations in 2009. View to north.

also opened. Lack of field documentation (only one profile is available e Mogos¸anu, 1978, Fig. 41) makes any correlation between Mogos¸anu’s and our excavated areas impossible. According to the original excavators, Cos¸ava represents a horizontally extensive site(s) partly destroyed by a sand quarry, though strongly clustered and yielding a rather small lithic assemblage, in which ‘typical’ (tools) and ‘atypical’ pieces (i.e. debitage) are nearly equal in abundance (Mogos¸anu, 1983). Previous excavations led to the discovery of three Aurignacian occupations (Mogos¸anu, 1978):

Three separate levels with lithic artifacts were distinguished, at an average depth ranging between 15 and 80 cm. The lowermost finds were documented in geological horizon 4 (GH4), which might correspond to Mogos¸anu’s archaeological level I (sandy clay with iron concentrations), an intermediate level with artifacts occurred in GH3 (¼level II in the same geological horizon without iron concentrations) and uppermost lithic pieces appeared in GH1-2

- level I lies between 85 and 75 cm depth from the modern surface in the lower part of geological layer 3 (brown-reddish compact sandy clay, with rich prismatic structure, iron oxide concretions and rolled pebbles on its lower side e where Tinvit¸a I occur) cova and levels II, III and IV at Românes¸ti-Dumbra (Fig. 4); - level II lies between 60 and 45 cm approximately in the middle of the same layer 3; - level III (slightly contaminated by Epipaleolithic) lies between 35 and 25 cm in the lower part of layer 2 (a wind-blown deposit of yellow-whitish color). In SeptembereOctober 2009, research was continued by an interdisciplinary team at Cos¸ava I (‘Cuca Mare’) in order to verify Paleolithic remains and collect samples for a dating program (OSL, TL) and geological analysis (5 test pits and several geo-profiles in different areas of the site). 4.3. Stratigraphy and archaeological sequence The uncovered stratigraphic and archaeological sequence in all complete test pits correspond in general terms to Mogos¸anu’s initial description (see above). Different sedimentary units and overprinted fossil soils were distinguished (see Kels et al., in preparation). The loess-like sediments at Cos¸ava show different sedimentary units which, analogous to the palaeosoil and soil development, reflect climatic changes from the Last Interglacial to the Holocene. The typical surface soil in the study area is a type of a Stagnic Albeluvisol, which has a complex genesis, overprinting former interglacial and interstadial soils of MIS 5 and MIS 3. At Cos¸ava, this soil is well developed as shown by the intense clay coatings visible in the lower parts of all profiles.

vit¸a and Tincova stratigraphic sections of the Fig. 4. Cos¸ava, Românes¸ti-Dumbra Aurignacian levels excavated by Mogos¸anu (1972): modern soil; yellow-whitish fine dusty layer; reddish clay with prismatic structure; red-yellowish clayish silt; fine sand; iron-manganese concretions with gravel; terrace alluvium; alluvial fan (erosion cone).

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

6

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

cobbles with alluvial cortex as well as nodules with fresh cortex of opal were used. Most of these (often poor quality) one can find now in the river gravels and on old eroded terraces. Nevertheless, the exact sources of good quality opal and some other ‘exotic’ raw materials are still unknown. The latter (radiolarite, jasper, flint, quartz, quartzite, chalcedony and sandstone) are present in much smaller quantities. However, the range of raw materials used in Cos¸ava is higher than in other sites. Regarding the raw material, there are no significant diachronic changes within the Cos¸ava sequence: opal remains the main raw material category used for knapping. However, opal cores show significant decline from the base to the top (79.1%e65.2%e42.8%) in favor of different rocks, especially radiolarite (although the pre-cores are of opal and sometimes of quartz). The tools display a stable choice of opal across all layers, but the frequencies vary significantly from tool-flakes (73.8%e63.4%e75%) to tool-blades/ bladelets (56.2%e48.8%e58%). Unretouched blades in lowermost level (54.4%) display the same trend (56.2% of opal was modified into tools). This is not the case in the two uppermost levels: the frequency of opal laminar debitage increases (from 59.7% to 69.5%), while opal tool-blades/lets decline in level II (48.8%) or increase in level III (58%). As for the state of preservation, artifacts recovered by excavations, as well as recently collected ones from eroded surfaces (not presented in this analysis) are usually fresh, non-rolled, and nonpatinated with rare gloss and some mechanical damage, which most likely occurred during excavation and storage. Heated/burnt material is not rare.

Fig. 5. Cos¸ava I, Trench 2, Profile S (2009). Aurignacian levels and corresponding Geological Horizons: I/GH4, II/GH3 and III/GH2-1.

(¼level III in dusty loess-like sediments) (Fig. 5). The first obtained luminescence dates (61  7 ka and 56  6 ka below lowermost level I and very recent at the top: 4.49  0.52 ka) provide the general, albeit wide, chronological frame for the archaeological assemblages. Combined with other analyses these show that the genesis of the soil system here and the related post-depositional processes were much more complex than expected. Nevertheless, the constant presence of small knapping debris in all recently excavated collections point to a rather limited post-depositional impact, at least where vertical sorting of material was concerned. 4.4. Lithic assemblages We present the first results of attribute analysis (cores, mostly laminar debitage and tools) of the old Cos¸ava assemblages available which is designed to provide information on lithic technology, typology and raw material exploitation (for attributes see Tixier, 1963; Hours, 1974; Marks, 1976; Demars and Laurent, 1989; Inizan et al., 1995; Chabai and Demidenko, 1998; Soriano et al., 2007; Zie˛ ba et al., 2008; Le Brun-Ricalens et al., 2009; Sitlivy et al., 2009). New excavations, while small-scale and providing less abundant recovered remains, complement the old data and particularly the microlithic record, generally lost during Mogos¸anu’s excavations. 4.4.1. Raw materials The most common raw material in this region is opal (‘Banat flint’), variable in quality (from very good to poor), homogeneity (with/without inclusions) and colors (light, dark brown, reddish and combination). Large and medium-sized oblong well-rounded

4.4.2. The general structure of the lithic assemblages All three of Mogos¸anu’s assemblages are dominated by large debitage products (flakes e from 44.3% to 51.1% and blades e from 17.4% to 24.8%). Relative abundances remain nearly unchangeable throughout the entire sequence (Table 1). The proportion of retouched tools is rather high, especially in

Table 1 Cos¸ava. Artifacts. Mogos¸anu’s excavations Level I

Pre-cores Cores Flakes Blades Bladelets Micro-blades Tools Tools/cores Burin spalls Chips Small fragments Chunks Total 2009 excavations

Cores Flakes Blades Bladelets Micro-blades Tools Pre-forms Chips Small fragments Chunks Total

Level II

%

%ess n

5 43 331 130 26 2 145 3

0.7 5.8 44.3 17.4 3.5 0.3 19.4 0.4

2 22 38 747

0.3 2.9 5.1 100

0.7 3 0.5 0.6 6.3 23 4.2 4.4 7 2.3 2.3 48.3 269 49.1 51.1 158 51.0 53.0 19.0 120 21.9 22.8 77 24.8 25.8 3.8 20 3.6 3.8 16 5.2 5.4 0.3 21.2 91 16.6 17.3 39 12.6 13.1 0.4 1 0.3 0.3 2 0.4 2 0.6 7 1.3 3 1.0 13 2.4 7 2.3 100 548 100 100 310 100 100

GH4/Level I

%

Level III

n

%ess n

GH3/Level II

%

%ess

GH1-2/Level III

n

%

%ess

n

%

%ess

n

%

%ess

1 17 2 4 1 1

1.1 18.7 2.2 4.4 1.1 1.1

3.8 65.38 7.7 15.4 3.8 3.8

91

100

1 40 12 12 2 9 3 81 32 3 195

0.5 20.5 6.2 6.2 1.0 4.6 1.5 41.5 16.4 1.5 100

1.3 50.6 15.2 15.2 2.5 11.4 3.8

58.2 13.2

0.8 6.3 4.7 7.9 6.3 3.9 0.8 56.7 11.0 1.6 100

2.6 20.5 15.4 25.6 20.5 12.8 2.6

53 12

1 8 6 10 8 5 1 72 14 2 127

100

100

100

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

lowermost level I e 19.4% (or 21.2% in essential counts, i.e. without chips and chunks), where they are even more common than blades. Tools decrease slightly in frequency to 13.1% (essential counts) at the end of the sequence. Cores and chunks are quite numerous in the lowermost layer and gradually decrease to the top, while bladelets, always rare, become slightly more abundant toward the top of the sequence. The tool/core ratio is moderate in all assemblages: from 3:1 up to 5.5:1. The blank to core ratio progressively increases from the bottom to the top and shows rather low productivity in level I (10.1:1) and a higher ratio in level III (35.8:1). This observation is influenced by the lack of small laminar products in the old collections, quite apparent in comparison with the new assemblages. Chips (<15 mm), small fragments (<25 mm) and micro-blades (W < 7 mm) are nearly absent in all assemblages. Thus, a few differences in artifact composition were documented in the old inventories.

Table 2 Cos¸ava. Cores (including cores on tools). Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Level III

n

n

n

%

%

Pre-cores 5 3 Cores 46 100 23 100 7 Carinated bladelet/Micro-blade: 13 30.2 8 36.4 4 Unidirectional 8 6 3 Bidirectional-adjacent 1 Bidirectional 2 1 Orthogonal-adjacent 2 1 Orthogonal-alternate 1 Carinated blade/Bladelet: 2 4.7 1 4.5 Unidirectional 1 1 Bidirectional-adjacent 1 Carinated flake/Bladelet: 4 9.3 1 4.5 Unidirectional 1 Bidirectional-alternate 1 Bidirectional-adjacent 1 Bidirectional 1 Perpendicular 1 Blade: 2 4.7 1 4.5 Unidirectional 2 Bidirectional-adjacent 1 Blade/Bladelet: 6 14.0 3 13.6 Unidirectional 3 Unidirectional, narrow flaking surface 1 2 Bidirectional, narrow flaking surface 1 Bidirectional 1 1 Bladelet/Micro-blade: 7 16.3 7 31.8 3 Unidirectional 2 Unidirectional, narrow flaking surface 2 4 1 Orthogonal-adjacent, narrow flaking surface 1 Bidirectional 1 Bidirectional, narrow flaking surface 1 Unidentifiable 4 1 Blade/Bladelet core on tool: 3 7.0 Unidirectional, narrow flaking surface, 3 on thick endscraper Flake/Bladelet, semi-polyhedral 1 2.3 Flake: 5 11.6 1 4.5 Semi-polyhedral 1 Polyhedral/discoidal 1 Discoidal 1 Bidirectional-transverse 1 Orthogonal, trifacial 1 Unidentifiable 1 Unidentifiable 3 1 Core Main Groups

n

%ess

n

%ess

n

Carinated Prismatic & Narrow/Burin-like laminar Flake cores Total (identifiable)

19 19 5 43

44.2 44.2 11.6 100

10 11 1 22

45.5 50.0 4.5 100

4 3 7

% 100 57.1

7

Recently recovered assemblages from three geological horizons (GH4 correlated with level I, GH3/level II and GH1-2/level III) differ dramatically from the collections from older excavations in the dominance of small-sized artifacts (especially chips: from 58.2% to 41.5%) over large pieces, even taking in consideration biases due to unequal numbers of artifacts. The presence of many chips along with large items confirms that there was little geological or hydrological sorting of the material. While the general structure of new assemblages appears different from Mogos¸anu’s collections (due to different sieving practice), changes in artifact categories throughout the sequence are almost negligible. Cores are frequent in the old assemblages (especially in the two lowermost levels) and dominated by carinated and prismatic types (Table 2). Cores for flakes (discoidal, polyhedral and orthogonal) are rare (5 items) and all but one occur in lowermost level I. Pre-cores are also rare and were documented in the two lowermost levels (5 and 3, correspondingly). These are represented by (a) narrow-faced bladelet pre-cores on flakes, (b) blade pre-cores on chunk/nodule/ pebbles and (c) failed (hinge fractures) on flakes and chunks. The reduction of cores (whether flat or voluminous) was usually aimed at blade, bladelet and micro-blade production. Carinated cores display a certain variability in regard to final products/reduction stages (blade/micro-blade, blade/bladelet, flake/bladelet), debitage direction, platform(s)/working surface(s), quantity and position (uni-/bidirectional, orthogonal and their combination: adjacent, alternate) and extension of flaking surfaces (narrow, partly turned/ semi-circular and turned/circular) (Fig. 6). They are often made on massive flakes. ‘Regular’ laminar cores are frequently narrow-faced (often through reduction of flake slices/edges). These ‘burin-like’ cores occur in all levels and except for two cases are unidirectional (Fig. 7: 3e5). There are also some partly turned (semi-tournant) cores on nodules and chunks (Fig. 7: 1) bearing some remnants of

42.9

%ess 57.1 42.9 100

Fig. 6. Cos¸ava I. Carinated cores: 1 e blade/bladelet unidirectional with bilateral narrowing on massive flake (level I); 2 e blade/bladelet bidirectional-alternate (level I); 3 e bladelet orthogonal-adjacent (level III); 4 e bladelet unidirectional (GH3).

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

8

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20 Table 3 Cos¸ava. Debitage structure (including tools). Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Flakes Blades Bladelets Micro-blades Total Laminar products: Blades Bladelets Micro-blades Total 2009 excavations

Flakes Blades Bladelets Micro-blades Total Laminar products: Blades Bladelets Micro-blades Total

Fig. 7. Cos¸ava I. Unidirectional cores: 1 e blade partly turned on chunk (level I); 2 e flake/blade narrow-faced on chunk (GH4); 3, 5 e bladelet narrow-faced (“burin-like”) on flake (3 e level II, 5 e level III); 4 e blade/bladelet narrow-faced (“burin-like”) on flake (level I).

crests. Three cores recovered in 2009 include a carinated bladelet core e GH3, (Fig. 6: 4), a narrow-faced flake/blade core on chunk e GH4 (Fig. 7: 2) and a bidirectional transversal flake core made on a pebble e GH1. Debitage structure of the old inventories shows the dominance of flakes (from 62.5% to 57%) over laminar blanks, which include blades (from 32.6% to 34.7%), bladelets (from 4.6% to 6.9%) and micro-blades (only two in lowermost level I and four in uppermost level III, including tools). The changes across the sequence are negligible (Table 3). Newly recovered assemblages display a shift in the structure in favor of small laminar products e bladelets and micro-blades. Between 68% and 72% of flakes and especially laminar products have no cortex. The most frequent cortex position is lateral and forming a back. Such removals play a significant role in the creation and maintenance of flaking surfaces on prismatic cores. While blades with 100% and >50% of cortex are uncommon, primary flakes are much more numerous across the sequence (9.8%e12.1%e3.6%). The ratio of corticated (primary) flakes to cores is quite high and suggests on-site preparation of at least some cores: from the bottom to the top e 39 corticated flakes to 48 cores, 38 to 26 and 6 to 7. Not surprisingly, blades with unidirectional dorsal scars dominate all assemblages (63.7%e60.6%e76%) over blades with convergent (15.2%e7.5%e13%) or crested scar patterns (8.8%e17.5%e9%). Bladelets more often show convergent scars

Level I

Level II

Level III

n

%

n

%

n

%

396 207 29 2 634

62.5 32.6 4.6 0.3 100

315 164 21

63.0 32.8 4.2

500

100

166 101 20 4 291

57.0 34.7 6.9 1.4 100

207 29 2 238

87.0 12.2 0.8 100

164 21

88.6 11.4 0.0 100

101 20 4 125

80.8 16.0 3.2 100

185

GH4/Level I

GH3/Level II

n

%

n

%

GH1-2/Level III n

%

17 3 4 1 25

68.0 12.0 16.0 4.0 100

10 8 11 8 37

27.0 21.6 29.7 21.6 100

42 16 13 4 75

56.0 21.3 17.3 5.3 100

3 4 1 8

37.5 50.0 12.5 100

8 11 8 27

29.6 40.7 29.6 100

16 13 4 33

48.5 39.4 12.1 100

(19.4%e19%e17.4%). Crested flakes and core tablets are common and appear in similar proportions. Table 4 shows some changes in lateral profiles of laminar products throughout the sequence: generally incurvate blade/let and flat (rectilinear) profiles decline slightly from the base to the top, while twisted profiles (as frequent as incurvate) increase markedly, especially for bladelets (38.7%e42.9%e59.1%). Interestingly, no major differences in profiles between blades and bladelets were recorded, except for the uppermost level III, where blades are much less often twisted than bladelet (44.7% contra 59.1%). The abundance of triangular sections may also be explained by the frequent use of narrow-faced cores to obtain narrow laminar blanks, nevertheless trapezoidal (similar frequency) and multiple sections (also for bladelets) confirms the intensity of both blade and bladelet production. This is also true for micro-blades recovered during recent excavations. With respect to platform preparation of laminar debitage, plain butts dominate in all Cos¸ava levels (from 53.8% to 72.8%), accompanied by linear butts, especially frequent for bladelets (Table 5). Bladelet punctiform butts show a sudden increase in the uppermost level (15.4%). In total laminar blanks with plain, linear, and punctiform butts account for between 76% and 100% (the latter figure refers to the bladelets in level III). Dihedral and crudelyfacetted platforms were also recorded, but account for a maximum of 13.9% of specimens. Butt lipping of laminar products is common in all levels (Table 6). This attribute displays several tendencies among these laminar products: (a) blade lipped butts dominates over bladelet, (b) bladelet unlipped butts increase, while (c) blade unlipped butts display a slight decrease. As for bulbs, a stable trend was recorded for all laminar blanks (including tools made on them): (a) diffused bulbs dominate (from about 52.6% to 63% for blades and from 50% to 71.4% for bladelets) over blanks without bulbs (ca. 30.9% for blades and slight decreasing from 25% to 14.3 and 23.1% for bladelets) and over developed bulbs (from 16.5% to 13.2% for blades and from 25% to 15.4% for bladelets); (b) there is an increase within the sequence of diffused bulbs, while developed bulbs decline (Table 7). Table 8 displays the typical dominance of obtuse interior flaking angles over right angles and the frequency of inverted angles for all laminar products. Abrasion

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

9

Table 4 Cos¸ava. Blank lateral profiles (including tools). Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Blade n Convex Flat Incurvate Twisted Irregular Total

Blet/Micro-blade

Blade

Level III Bladelet

%

n

%

n

%

4 46 64 66

2.2 25.6 35.6 36.7

7 12 12

22.6 38.7 38.7

180

100

31

100

23 53 79 2 157

14.6 33.8 50.3 1.3 100

of the butt edges was frequent, although a gradual decrease in this technique, both on blades (61.1%e51.4%e40.5%) and on bladelets (37.5%e30.8%e23.1%) was documented. Tools-on-blades display the same trend, though with a sudden decrease in the upper layer (74.1%e70.6%e33.3%). Also, abrasion is more frequent on blades modified into tools. Interestingly, trimming of the overhang by small removals became more commonly used over time, accompanied by or replacing abrasion. Thus, trimming of butt edges increased on blades (55.8%e61.1%e79.5%), on blades used as tool blanks (66.7%e66.7%e77.8%) and especially on bladelets (43.8%e 61.5%e92.3%). This fact suggests that different techniques were used to eliminate overhang on blade cores. 4.4.3. Core maintenance products These products, which include crested blades/lets and flakes, tablet-flakes, débordant flakes and flank-flakes from laminar cores are abundant throughout the Cos¸ava sequence, especially in the two lowermost levels. Technical flakes are numerous in all levels, often showing core platform rejuvenation by tablets, as well as core working surface maintenance by various crests and débordant removals (though some of these might derive from polyhedral and discoidal core reduction). Crested blades are both primary and secondary. Primary crested blades with two prepared slopes/ versants (central crest position) are rather rare. Instead, most have one preparation surface (partial or complete) with flakes directed from a flat natural surface: these come from the sides of cores (lateral crests). Secondary crested blades are frequent, including mostly lateral examples, some neo-crests and combined items with overpassed ends. Crested blades (Fig. 8: 4; 11: 5) were also selected for tool production together with crested/débordant flakes. Only three crested bladelets were observed: one-sloped (level I), primary and secondary (level III). 4.4.4. Tools Opal plays a major role in tool manufacturing (55%e65%). Radiolarite, flint and chalcedony were also regularly used for tool production, while tools on jasper, quartz, and quartzite occur

n

Blade

Blet/Micro-blade

%

n

%

n

%

3 9 9

14.3 42.9 42.9

25 27 42

26.6 28.7 44.7

4 5 13

18.2 22.7 59.1

21

100

94

100

22

100

episodically. Tools are rather abundant (from the base to the top: 19.4%e16.6%e12.6%). In the two lowermost levels tools are made on both flakes (level I e 44.8% and II e 50.5%) and blades (level I e 53.1% and II e 48.4%). Blades (61.5%) together with small laminar blanks (bladelets e 7.7% and micro-blades 10.3%) were selected for tool production much more often in uppermost level III. The rarity of tools on bladelets and micro-blades can be explained by past excavation practices and the lack of lithic concentrations during recent fieldwork. Analysis of the old Banat collections revealed more retouched tools in all levels than were published by Mogos¸anu (this is also true for most Cos¸ava samples). Inconsistencies in frequencies of some tool types between Mogos¸anu’s published inventories (Mogos¸anu, 1978: 80) and recently re-studied material (Table 9) are due to the loss of some artifacts and illegible labeling, as well as differences in classification practices (e.g. carinated endscraper/core or retouched blade/retouched piece on blade). Despite these biases, the main tool categories display quite similar proportions. Endscrapers are still dominant among the retouched tool types throughout the sequence: from 40% to 50% (Mogos¸anu’s data) and from 25.9% to 16.2% (our analysis: essential counts) (Table 9; Fig. 8). Combining endscrapers with carinated cores, which were mostly classified as tools by previous workers, produces counts similar to Mogos¸anu’s. The decline in numbers of these tools in uppermost level III can be explained by the loss of some pieces (12 circa 6). Carinated and thick endscrapers were usually made on massive flakes, while the simple ones mostly on blades. Carinated (with lamellar sub-parallel/parallel retouch) and thick endscrapers (mostly scalar modifications) are frequent in two lowermost levels. However carinated pieces (tools/cores) and thick endscrapers were also recorded in uppermost level III. Carinated and thick endscrapers show variability, including nosed, shouldered, and double specimens on lateral/bilateral retouched blanks, including Aurignacian blades (Table 10). Some of them were distally/proximally thinned or truncated. Burins occur in small numbers (7 and 3 items; Mogos¸anu’s data: 9 and 5 items) in the two lowermost levels and only a single piece

Table 5 Cos¸ava. Butts (including tools). Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Blade

Cortical Plain Linear Punctiform Dihedral Crudely-facetted Total

n

%

4 67 7 1 6 7 92

4.3 72.8 7.6 1.1 6.5 7.6 100

Level III

Blet/Micro-blade

Blade

n

n

%

4 49 3 3 3 10 72

5.6 68.1 4.2 4.2 4.2 13.9 100

% 8 4 1

57.1 28.6 7.1

1 14

7.1 100

Bladelet n

Blade

Bladelet

%

n

%

8 3

61.5 23.1

27 5

71.1 13.2

2

15.4

13

100

4 2 38

10.5 5.3 100

n

% 7 4 2

53.8 30.8 15.4

13

100

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

10

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

Table 6 Cos¸ava. Butt lipping (including tools). Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Blade

Lipped Semi-lipped Unlipped Total

Blet/Micro-blade

Level III

Blade

Bladelet

Blade

Bladelet

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

50 24 19 93

53.8 25.8 20.4 100

3 7 5 15

20.0 46.7 33.3 100

35 29 10 74

47.3 39.2 13.5 100

4 6 4 14

28.6 42.9 28.6 100

16 15 7 38

42.1 39.5 18.4 100

5 1 7 13

38.5 7.7 53.8 100

in level III. These are represented by carinated transverse (2 in level I), as well as by single examples of carinated transverse double (level II) and carinated dihedral double burins (level III) on flakes and blades. Angle burins on snap and/or on retouched blanks and on truncation (oblique and straight) were documented in levels I and II (one is angle on snap multifaceted e level II) (Table 11; Fig. 9). Retouched blades (with continuous non-marginal quite invasive retouch) are numerically significant in all levels and equal to endscraper frequencies in levels I and II. Mogos¸anu’s category probably contains our ‘retouched pieces on blade’ (with partial, discontinuous and/or marginal retouch), e.g. in level I. Regardless, retouched blades are significant in all Cos¸ava assemblages and include Aurignacian types in all levels: with scalar lateral/bilateral retouch, some pointed (Fig. 10: 7, 8) and strangled items (Fig. 11: 6). Abundant unidentifiable retouched blades, often small medial fragments (20 in level I and 12 in level II) might increase the Aurignacian blade category. Retouched pieces on blades and on flakes with light short discontinuous or partial retouch (while non-marginal) are common. These pieces on blades have obverse retouch (contra tools on bladelets with inverse and alternate modification). Sidescrapers in the two lowermost layers (10 and 12 respectively, i.e. ca. double the number in comparison with published data) were seen as proof for the archaism of these industries (Chirica et al., 1996). These tools were produced mostly on flakes and are variable, including single lateral and transverse, double bilateral, convergent and canted forms, some with thinned back, base or truncated base (Fig. 11: 1e3). Notched and denticulated pieces (Fig. 11: 4e5) are present in small quantities and were made more on flakes in level I and more on blades in levels II and III (they also occurred in assemblages from the new test pits). Only one denticulate on flake per level was recorded in Mogos¸anu’s collection. Non-geometric microliths on bladelets were documented in all levels (e.g. Hahn, 1977, Tafel 164: 3, 10; 165: 13): they are rare in the lowermost levels (3e1 or 2.2%e1.1%) and more frequent in uppermost level III (8 items or 21.6%). Additional tools were recovered from test pits in 2009 (1 in GH3 and 3 in GH1-2) (Fig. 15: 1e4). Recorded ‘small-sized’ tools are represented by three types: Dufour bladelets/micro-blades of Dufour subtype (alternate or inverse fine/micro-scalar, semi-steep retouch), pseudo-Dufour bladelets/micro-blades (idem obverse retouch) and Font-Yves

points (idem obverse convergent retouch). In the lowermost levels bladelets were used as blanks to produce pseudo-Dufours, while in level III micro-blades (W < 7 mm) are as frequent as bladelets as ‘supports’ for all three types of ‘micro-tools’. Curiously, one blade (W ¼ 15.7 mm) was alternatively retouched in the Dufour manner. A single Font-Yves point was recorded by Mogos¸anu in level I (unfortunately absent from published drawings and the studied collection) as well as in level III (Fig. 15: 14). In terms of fragmentation mode and metrics, only the Font-Yves point and one Dufour bladelet are complete: 37.8; 9.3; 3.4 mm and 30.8; 7.9; 2.6 mm respectively. The remaining Dufours and pseudo-Dufours are broken (proximal, medial and distal parts) with max. L > 29.4 mm. Despite the quantitative difference between levels, these tools exhibit similar morphological, technological and typological patterns: 1) exclusively ‘on-axis’ detachment; 2) unidirectional, rarely convergent dorsal scars; 3) incurvate and rectilinear/ flat lateral profiles e exclusively in the lowermost levels and combined with less frequent twisted, i.e. 4 contra 7 incurvated þ straight); 4) plain and linear butts, lipped and unlipped, with developed, diffused bulbs and without them; 5) right and obtuse internal butt angles; 6) dorsal butt edge reduction/ overhang elimination by small removal trimming and/or abrasion; 7) continuous semi-steep fine/micro-scalar retouch; 8) use of local opal together with rarer or exotic raw materials (brown/red radiolarite, jasper and white/grey flint). Thus, there no evidence for a clear shift of retouched bladelet/micro-blade Dufour and pseudoDufour into the Roc-de-Combe sub-type. Truncated and thinned pieces on blades and flakes appear at the beginning and at the end of Cos¸ava sequence and might represent pre-forms, e.g. burins on truncation. 4.4.5. Lithic technology: summary observations Core reduction was mainly aimed at production of mediumsized blades, bladelets and micro-blades throughout the sequence. Although flakes appear as the dominant debitage category, their production was marginal and unsystematic (five different cores in level I and a single in level II). Apart from exhausted pieces, only one mixed polyhedral/discoidal core might suggest systematic use of a Middle Paleolithic manner of flaking. Abundant flakes were obtained during different stages of blade core reduction: cortex removal, initial platform preparation/repreparation, crest installation, flaking surface maintenance (e.g.

Table 7 Cos¸ava. Bulbs (including tools). Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Blade

Developed Diffused None Total

Blet/Micro-blade

Blade

Level III Bladelet

Blade

Bladelet

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

16 51 30 97

16.5 52.6 30.9 100

4 8 4 16

25.0 50.0 25.0 100

8 46 19 73

11.0 63.0 26.0 100

2 10 2 14

14.3 71.4 14.3 100

5 21 12 38

13.2 55.3 31.6 100

2 8 3 13

15.4 61.5 23.1 100

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

11

Table 8 Cos¸ava. Butt angles (including tools). Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Blade

Inverted Obtuse Right Acute Total

n

%

11 64 14 1 90

12.2 71.1 15.6 1.1 100

Level III

Blet/Micro-blade

Blade

n

%

n

%

%

n

%

n

%

5 5

50.0 50.0

9 45 12

13.6 68.2 18.2

2 6 2

20.0 60.0 20.0

14.3 71.4 14.3

100

66

100

10

100

14.3 74.3 8.6 2.9 100

1 5 1

10

5 26 3 1 35

7

100

narrowing) and exhaustion. On the other hand, it appears that massive flakes were brought to the site to be exploited in different ways: 1) transversally from ventral face (striking platform) e widefaced cores, carinated scraper pattern (exploitation of support thickness); 2) longitudinally on narrow slice/edge e narrow-faced cores, burin pattern (exploitation of narrow support length). Blade production was principally based on longitudinal volumetric nodule/chunk/pebble reduction (prismatic cores), while bladelet technology was more variable and resulted from: (a) advanced blade core reduction, (b) longitudinal flake slice reduction (narrow-faced cores, including exploitation of flattish fragments or tool recycling) and (c) transversal flake/flat fragment reduction (carinated cores/tools). The scarcity of cortical blades and cortical butts in comparison with primary flakes shows that many fully

Bladelet

Blade

n

Bladelet

shaped laminar cores were prepared by short removals prior to blade production. Nodule pre-forming was usually accomplished through the creation of a lateral (often partial) one-sloped crest (rarely central/frontal two-sloped). Other cores were unprepared and together with a series of primary and secondary removals with high triangular and lateral steep cross-sections document direct exploitation following natural convexities/ridges of the initial noncortical chunk. Thus as in many blade industries, Cos¸ava debitage was (a) prepared and (b) direct (without crest installation). Striking platforms are usually single-blow (acute or right), sometimes crudely-faceted. Core maintenance was achieved by additional lateral crests, re-preparation (neo-crests), narrowing, back flattening, and systematic platform rejuvenation by large flake-tablets (partial or total), platform edge abrasion and trimming by short elongated removals that resulted in sub-cylindrical cores. Longitudinal uni-/bidirectional reduction of narrow parts of flattish chunks/plaquettes (with/without crest installation) was common practice as well as exploitation of narrow flake edges (burin-like pattern). All but one of these narrow-faced cores-on-flakes also Table 9 Cos¸ava. Tool types. Mogos¸anu’s excavations Endscraper Borer Burin Retouched blade Aurignacian Retouched pieces on blade Notched piece Denticulated piece Sidescraper Microlith Dufour Pseudo-Dufour Font-Yves point Backed piece Backed blade Backed flake Retouched piece on flake Truncated piece Thinned piece Bifacial piece Unidentifiable Total

Fig. 8. Cos¸ava I. Endscrapers: 1 e carinated shouldered on flake (level II); 2 e carinated nosed on flake (level II); 3 e thick ogival distally thinned on flake (level I); 4 e carinated on crested bilaterally retouched blade (level I); 5 e thick on bilaterally retouched blade (level I).

Level I n

Level II

%

%ess

36

24.8

7 32 12 16

4.8 22.1

7 1 10 3

n

%

Level III %ess

25.9 22 1 5.0 3 23.0 18 10 11.5 13

24.2 1.1 3.3 19.8

25.0 1.1 3.4 20.5

14.3

14.8

4.8 0.7 6.9 2.1

5.0 1 0.7 2 7.2 12 2.2 1 1

1.1 2.2 13.2 1.1

1.4

1.4

16.5

11.0

12.4

12.9 15

%ess

15.4

16.2

1 9 2 6

2.6 23.1

2.7 24.3

15.4

16.2

1.1 2.3 13.6 1.1

2 1 2 8 2 5 1

5.1 2.6 5.1 20.5

5.4 2.7 5.4 21.6

17.0

1

2.6

2.7

1

2.6

2.7

4 2.8 2.9 2 1.4 1.4 1 0.7 0.7 6 4.1 3 3.3 145 100 100 91 100 100

SUB-Total tools 77 53.1 on blades SUB-Total tools 3 2.1 on bladelets SUB-Total tools on micro-blades SUB-Total tools 65 44.8 on flakes Total 145 100.0

% 6

3 2 1 1 18

n

2 5.1 39 100 100

44

48.4

24

61.5

1

1.1

3

7.7

4

10.3

8

20.5

46

50.5

91 100.0

39 100.0

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

12

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

Table 10 Cos¸ava. Endscrapers. Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Level III

n

n

n

%

%

Endscraper on blade: 18 50.0 9 40.9 4 Carinated, on bilaterally retouched blade 1 Thick, nosed, on bilaterally retouched blade 1 Thick, on bilaterally retouched Aurignacian blade 2 1 Thick, on bilaterally retouched blade 4 Thick, on laterally retouched blade 1 1 Simple, on laterally retouched blade 3 1 1 Simple, on laterally retouched Aurignacian blade 1 Simple, on bilaterally retouched blade 5 1 Simple 1 3 2 Fan-shaped 1 Unidentifiable 1 Endscraper on flake: 18 50.0 13 59.1 2 Carinated, double 1 Carinated, thinned base 1 Carinated, lateral-proximal 1 Carinated, on laterally retouched flake 1 Carinated, shouldered 1 Carinated, nosed 1 1 Shouldered (flat) 1 Thick, shouldered 2 Thick, on bilaterally retouched flake 1 Thick 2 5 Thick, nosed, on laterally retouched flake 1 Thick, nosed, with truncated-faceted base 1 Thick, on bilaterally retouched flake 1 Thick, lateral, thinned base 1 Thick, ogival 1 Thick, ogival, distaly thinned 1 Thick, unidentifiable 1 Simple 3 Fan-shaped, on bilaterally retouched flake 2 1 Ogival 1 1 Total 36 100 22 100 6

% 66.7

33.3

100

show pre-forming traces (crest, lateral narrowing and distal thinning) or direct unidirectional reduction. Flaking surfaces were placed on distal or lateral edges, with platforms correspondingly on lateral or distal/proximal parts of a blank. Final products are midsized, small blades and/or bladelets variable in shape (commonly rectangular), with dominant ‘on-axis’ detachment pattern, with more frequent flat or incurvate than twisted lateral profiles. Carinated reduction sequences are quite variable judging from cores. Usually unidirectional transversal exploitation began with the flat, thick part of a massive flake using the ventral face or naturally flat surface of a chunk as a platform producing first generation of laminar products (some blades and bladelets). With progress of Table 11 Cos¸ava. Burins. Mogos¸anu’s excavations

Level I

Level II

Level III

n %

n

n

%

Burin on blade: Angle, on snap, on laterally retouched blade Angle, on bilaterally retouched blade Angle, on oblique truncation Carinated, transverse, double, on laterally retouched blade Burin on flake: Angle, on snap Angle, on snap, on bilaterally retouched flake Angle, on snap, multifaceted Transverse, on straight truncation Carinated, transverse Carinated transverse, on laterally retouched flake Carinated, diheadral, double Total

2 28.6 2 1 1

1

100

% 67

1 1 5 71.4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 100

3

33

100

1 1

100

Fig. 9. Cos¸ava I. Burins: 1, 2 e carinated transverse on flake (level I); 3 e carinated transverse double on laterally retouched blade (level II); 4 e carinated dihedral double (level III).

debitage, two tendencies are observed. The first shows continuous parallel or convergent unidirectional circular/semi-circular or distal frontal reduction (combined with bilateral narrowing by means of ordinary flakes and rejuvenation removals) and consequently resulted in wide- or narrow-fronted cores. Combination of flaking surfaces is another trend, in which platform re-orientation or second platform preparation resulted in (a) bidirectional removals from one or two core faces (placed adjacently or alternatively) or (b) change in core orientation. Additional flaking surfaces placed in different plans one to another create wide-fronted carinated orthogonal-adjacent/-alternate cores. Platforms of carinated cores are commonly plain but sometimes crudely-faceted (a result of rejuvenation by partial tablets). Overhangs were often eliminated by abrasion and/or trimming using small elongated removals. Final products are blades, bladelets and micro-blades. It is likely that wide-fronted carinated cores produced different laminar blanks with more incurvate profiles and pointed shapes, while narrowfaced coring with nosed pattern (including nosed scrapers) offered more twisted ‘of-axis’ products. Also, twisted blanks might be obtained from flanks of wide carinated pieces (as in ChampParel, Dordogne e Chadelle, 2005). The increase in the twisted pattern, especially for bladelets/micro-blades throughout the Cos¸ava sequence from the base to the top (38.7%e42.9%e59.1%) fits well with the frequency of carinated bladelet/micro-blade cores (44.2%e45.5%e57.1%). 4.4.6. Reduction sequences Laminar production in Cos¸ava includes three co-existing systems with continuous reduction of (a) ‘regular’ prismatic cores (b) narrow-faced (burin-like) cores and (c) carinated pieces (cores and tools). Continuity of debitage systems is confirmed by blade/let

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

Fig. 10. Cos¸ava I. Retouched blades: 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 e bilaterally retouched (1 e level I; 2, 3, 6 e level II; 5 e GH4); 4 e bilaterally retouched with distal oblique truncation (GH3); 7, 8 e pointed (level I); 9 e laterally retouched (9 e level III).

scars on working surfaces of mid-sized prismatic, narrow-faced (burin-like) cores and large carinated cores (e.g. mixed blade/bladelet, see Table 2). The overall composition of the study sample (the dominance of large knapping products in the old collection and small blanks and waste in the new assemblages, numerous cores at different reduction stages and high tool frequencies), various debitage products (with/without cortex, core maintenance pieces and blanks) and metric data, suggests on-site reduction of at least some opal cores from the very beginning. This includes cortex removal, crest preparation, maintenance of debitage by neo-crests and often platform rejuvenation by flake-tablets. Reduction sequences were advanced and often successful as suggested by 27 items or 69.2% fully shaped cores intermediate between pre-cores and exhausted ones in good condition for subsequent flaking in level I, as well as the rarity of initial and failed cores in general. Metric data of complete cores in level I is in agreement with this statement: maximum dimensions (L; W; Th) are 93.6; 47.5; 42.7 mm (blade core), while averages are 44.6; 40.2; 42.8 mm and 45.2; 40.8; 43.2 mm (including pre-cores). However, duration of laminar production varied, with long sequences for prismatic and carinated cores, and short ones for narrow-faced cores-on-flakes. At the same time, good quality raw material is scarce in the site’s nearby surroundings, and on-site gravels provide mostly quartz and quartzite which were also knapped. Several other aspects, including the lack of nodules and rarity of tested pieces, low/ moderate frequency of opal cortical elements provide evidence for off-site pre-shaping of opal cores (testing, partial pre-forming/ cortex removal, production of large flakes for carinated and narrow-faced cores). This is also true for some tools, e.g. burins (a single jasper burin spall in level III) and especially for many artifact

13

Fig. 11. Cos¸ava I. Tools: 1 e sidescraper transverse (level I); 2 e sidescraper straightconcave (level II); 3 e sidescraper convergent (level II); 4 e denticulated piece lateral on core tablet (level I); 5 e notched piece on crested blade (GH2), 6 e strangled blade (level I).

vit¸a I, Trench 4, GH3. Technological refitting (A e flake and Fig. 12. Românes¸ti-Dumbra micro-blade with core; B e micro-blade with notched piece on blade) and conjoining of broken retouched piece on blade (C).

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

14

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

vit¸a I: (1) main core and (2) tool groups. Fig. 13. Cos¸ava I and Românes¸ti-Dumbra

categories of rare/exotic chalcedony, several varieties of flint and radiolarite, jasper, etc. Many items of these raw materials (often tools) seem to have been transported to the site in finished form. 4.4.7. Techniques Hard stone hammer percussion was normally used at the beginning of laminar debitage (testing, core preparation) and for maintenance of blade production surfaces (platform rejuvenation, restoring of working surface), as well as for extraction of large flakes or more rarely in flake core reduction (discoidal, polyhedral). Laminar detachment commonly started from creation of a wide striking platform (single-blow cores) or without any preparation, using naturally flat surfaces on non-cortical chunks or flake ventral faces. The ‘easy’ beginning was followed by very careful maintenance (elimination of overhang by abrasion and/or trimming by

small elongated removals) and platform restoration by flake-tablets (partial or complete). Blanks commonly have abraded and/or trimmed proximal/dorsal parts and plain/linear butts. During production stages striking blows were aimed mostly close to the edge of the core platform (marginal percussion), which resulted in narrow flat butts of final products. These laminar products (including many flakes) clearly display weak/absent bulbs often combined with butt lipping and obtuse or right (less common) interior platform angles. The use of direct soft hammer percussion is well-documented. Seemingly, soft stone percussion was accompanied by organic tools (indicated by invisibility of impact points), which should be clarified in the future. Available data are too scarce to reconstruct the difference in percussors used for blade and bladelet manufacture. Curiously, not a single hammerstone was recorded in Cos¸ava or Românes¸ti.

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

15

vit¸a I bladelet attributes: (1) lateral profiles, (2) butt lipping and (3) bulbs. Fig. 14. Cos¸ava I and Românes¸ti-Dumbra

vit¸a: site potential and comparative 5. Românes¸ti-Dumbra outline The newly obtained data from Românes¸ti I (test pits and excavations in 2009e2010) and the ongoing study of old collections provide an interesting set of comparative information and gives

a first impression of this site’s potential (Sitlivy et al., in preparation). These assemblages will not be described in detail but used to show some differences between the two Banat sites. Românes¸ti-Dumbr avit¸a I is a huge open-air settlement, which, in contrast to Cos¸ava, revealed a set of high density clusters (Mogos¸anu, 1978). One of these, discovered in 2009 and excavated

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

16

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

over a small area (5 m2), accounted for 253e396 artifacts recorded in situ per square from all Paleolithic occupations (reaching a total of 7505 Aurignacian artifacts with water sieving). This clustering strongly differs from the entire Cos¸ava record, including both new (413 items in 2009) and old collections (1605 items). In contrast to Cos¸ava, the Românes¸ti site differs in several ways, including morphological position, finer sediment and slightly dissimilar soil development (see Kels et al., in preparation). For Românes¸ti I, the lowermost quartz industry (level I, belonging to GH4) might not be older than 57  5.4 ka (luminescence). The Aurignacian assemblages from GH3 most likely date to MIS 3, with ages between 45.1  4.9 ka and 35.5  3.9 ka BP (luminescence) from the middle part of the analyzed section. Toward the top of the profile and from the lower part of the sediments of GH2, the luminescence age of 19.2  2.3 ka dates loess sedimentation during the Upper Pleniglacial (MIS 2), which fits to the archaeological level with a Gravettian/Epigravettian inventory. The newly excavated Aurignacian inventories occur continuously in the different levels of GH3 showing no sterile, but variable vertical artifact density, clearly suggesting repeated occupations. Similar to Mogos¸anu’s stratigraphic record, the Aurignacian assemblages were found in different levels of GH3 (rarely GH4), sandwiched by less abundant Epigravettian/Gravettian at the top and an industry with isolated, mostly quartz artifacts (Middle/ Upper Paleolithic?) at the base of the sequence. The horizontal distribution of artifacts appears to indicate their primary position as both conjoining of broken artifacts and technological refitting were possible (Fig. 12). Preliminary observations made on a new sample of 7505 artifacts from GH3, trench 4 and A (2009/10) and 2654 items of Mogos¸anu’s level III from the same geological horizon allow us to point out some differences between the lowermost Aurignacian industries of the two neighboring sites, notwithstanding their common features. With respect to raw material exploitation, the assemblages at Cos¸ava exhibit broader diversity in knapped stones and frequency of rare/‘exotic’ rocks, usually of better quality. The general artifact structure shows that cores/pre-cores (6.4%) and tools (19.4%) are more abundant in Cos¸ava, level I (contra 1.1%/0.3% of cores and 6.1%/ 2.3% of tools in Românes¸ti, level III/GH3, respectively). The core composition is similar: carinated and laminar prismatic ones are abundant in both sites, while in Românes¸ti, GH3 (new excavation) carinated cores occur episodically, replaced by blade prismatic and especially blade/let narrow-faced cores-on-flakes (burin-like) (Fig. 13: 1). Moreover, two recycled tools were used as cores with the same burin-like technique. Some differences have also been recorded in bladelet production. The bladelet lateral profiles vary (Fig. 14: 1): rectilinear (flat) profiles are more common in level III in Românes¸ti (32.2%) than in Cos¸ava lowermost level I (22.6%), regardless of the high percentage of twisted blade/lets in both assemblages (37.1/37.7%e36.7/38.7% for blade/lets); the new sample (371 pieces) in GH3 at Românes¸ti also shows a dominance of flat (49.3%) and twisted profiles (37.5%) for bladelets as well as for blades (247 pieces e 43.7% flat and 38.1% twisted profiles). Bladelet butt lipping is more common for GH3 in Românes¸ti (32.7%) (Fig. 14: 2), while the bulb pattern shows stronger bulbs in Românes¸ti, level III (developed bulbs rise to 31.8%, while this attribute in Cos¸ava comprises 25%) (Fig. 14: 3). Bladelet butt edge abrasion is well represented in GH3 at Românes¸ti (60.9%) and much less frequent in level III of Românes¸ti (32.4%) and in Cos¸ava level I (37.5%). However, this technique was accompanied by trimming of butt edges with small elongated removals in Românes¸ti, level III (51.5%) and to a lesser extent in Cos¸ava (43.8%). For the toolkits, the absence of burin spalls in Cos¸ava (except a single one in the uppermost layer) is correlated to the low

Fig. 15. Non-geometric microliths on blade/lets/micro-blades. Cos¸ava I: 1, 2, 3 e Dufours (GH1-2), 4 e pseudo-Dufour (GH3), 14 e Font-Yves point (level III); Românes¸ti-Dumbravit¸a I, GH3: 5e11 e Dufours, 12 e Font-Yves point, 13 e Krems point.

frequency of burins (G > B at minimum 5 times; in level III in Românes¸ti these tools appeared in similar numbers); burins are also more diverse in the latter site. Retouched blades, including Aurignacian, are more common in Cos¸ava I (23% contra 10.8% in Românes¸ti, level III and 3.5% in GH3 e Fig. 13: 2), while microliths show an opposing pattern (2.2% contra 12.8%). Finally, combined (endscraper/burin) and mixed tools (i.e. burins) occur in small quantity only in the Aurignacian sequence of Românes¸ti. Moreover, preliminary analysis of the tool sample (141 identifiable pieces) from the Românes¸ti cluster in GH3 differs dramatically from all other assemblages by its very high microlithic component (56%, including 64 Dufour bladelets/micro-blades with a systematic pattern of fine semi-steep/abrupt retouch, i.e. direct on the left edge and inverse on the right) and rare (6) often fragmented Krems and Font-Yves points (Fig. 15: 5e13). Small tools were accompanied by some burins, marginally or partially directly retouched pieces on blades/flakes, few retouched blades (including Aurignacian), notches, sidescrapers, and only two simple endscrapers (one of which is on exotic flint). Thus, while having a general Aurignacian background and many common characteristics, the assemblages of both sites demonstrate a certain degree of technological and typological variability. 6. Discussion and conclusion The examination of old and new assemblages from Cos¸ava confirms the slight contamination of uppermost level III by some later Upper Paleolithic (e.g. isolated small round and nail-shaped

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

endscrapers, and two non-patinated blades of black obsidian). It is commonly accepted that exotic obsidian (of Hungarian/Slovakian e North -Tokaj, Oas¸, or South Mediterranean origin) occurred in this region much later, during the Epipaleolithic (Mogos¸anu, 1983). However, several micro-artifacts (chips, bladelet and a micro-blade with characteristic grayish thin matte patina) made from obsidian were also recorded during our excavations at Cos¸ava and Românes¸ti in the Aurignacian inventories, including GH3 and lowermost GH4, as well as one small unworked obsidian pebble with neo-cortex in GH1. Our observations, as well as the revision of the Romanian , submitted for publication), make Aurignacian (Anghelinu and Nit¸a the Aurignacian attribution of both Cos¸ava I (levels I, II and III) and Românes¸ti I (at least level III) indisputable. However, another important question arises: to which facies and chronological phase of the Aurignacian technocomplex may these industries be assigned? Can these assemblages, especially the lowermost, be attributed to an initial, emergent stage of the Aurignacian technocomplex (and tentatively to the first AMH entering Europe along the Danube from the Mediterranean zone), or are they rather late (that is, contemporary or later) presences of the Central European type Aurignacian, as the initial excavator thought (Mogos¸anu, 1978)? The general typological structure of the toolkits of the Banat inventories clearly suggested a direct connection to the Central European, especially the Krems type Aurignacian (e.g. Kozlowski and Kozlowski, 1975; Mogos¸anu, 1978; Demidenko, 2002). Apart from the Krems-Hundssteig collection, whose integrity is actually questionable (Teyssandier, 2008), other similar assemblages in Central and Eastern Europe can also be assigned to this group: Siuren I rock shelter, Units H and G (e.g. Kozlowski and Kozlowski, 1975; Demidenko et al., 1998; Demidenko, 2000e2001; Demidenko and Otte, 2007; Demidenko et al., 2012) and Beregovo I (Usik, 2008), as well as the number of “Archaic Aurignacian/Protoaurignacian assemblages with Dufour bladelets” in Western Europe (Demidenko and Noiret, 2012: 343e347). To current knowledge, the cultural assignment to the Krems-Dufour type, proposed long ago by Mogos¸anu (1978), generally fits Cos¸ava (all levels) and at least the main concentration at Românes¸ti, level III. However, the recent refinement in the chrono-technological subdivision of the Aurignacian (e.g. Chiotti, 1999; Lucas, 2000; Bon, 2002; Bordes, 2002; Teyssandier, 2003, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Le Brun-Ricalens, 2005; Zilhão, 2006, 2007; Teyssandier et al., 2010) makes the interpretation of these inventories less straightforward. For instance, Tincova was recently seen as a good candidate for inclusion into the Protoaurignacian (Teyssandier, 2003; Zilhão, 2006) on the basis of the dominance of continuous blade core reduction sequences, which resulted in blades (first generation of blanks) and then elongated bladelets with a straight profile (second generation), modified into points and Dufour sub-type bladelets; carinated scrapers are rare, Aurignacian retouch is absent (Teyssandier, 2008). For the Banat sites, a proper reevaluation of the all of the assemblages involved is required in order to allow a detailed comparison both with other Protoaurignacian and ‘classical’ Aurignacian assemblages. Although the stratigraphic (and presumably the chronological) position of the lowermost industries of the Banat sites is nearly identical, technological and typological features are not similar. At first view, from a ‘Protoaurignacian perspective’, Cos¸ava, level I differs from Tincova by the higher frequency of carinated pieces (19 pieces/44.2% of carinated cores and 6 items/ 4.3% of carinated endscrapers were recorded in Cos¸ava), the presence of Aurignacian blades (12 pieces or 8.6% in essential counts) and the quite high frequency (about 38.7%) of twisted bladelets. Thus, these features are not ‘archaic’ enough to place Cos¸ava within

17

the Protoaurignacian as defined above, but rather in the range of the classic Aurignacian phases. However, recent attribute analysis of Banat assemblages demonstrates the presence of ‘classical Aurignacian features’ in the Tincova inventory as well: dominance of carinated cores over prismatic, similar frequency of Aurignacian blades, and higher twisted bladelet pattern. In addition, 12 carinated pieces/cores (including atypical, nosed, core-like and rabot) were already recorded and partially illustrated in earlier publications (Hahn, 1977, Tafel 170: 9e10; Mogos¸anu, 1978, Fig. 16: 1e8). On the other hand, the newly excavated cluster in GH3 at Românes¸ti apparently expresses some ‘archaism’ in core types: dominance of prismatic and bladelet narrow-faced core-on-flakes similar to bladelet technology at Kozarnika, level VII (Tsanova, 2006), but also at Mitoc-Malu Galben, unit I (Noiret, 2009: Fig. 309); higher frequency of bladelet rectilinear profiles; and especially the abundance of Dufour sub-type bladelets with ‘classical’ retouch placement. Aurignacian blades are rare at Românes¸ti. There is also no evidence for a clear shift from retouched Dufour and pseudo-Dufour bladelet/micro-blade to the Roc-de-Combe sub-type, as documented in several Mediterranean sequences (Bon, 2002; Bordes, 2002; Demidenko and Otte, 2007). A similar case can be made for the Cos¸ava sequence. As for pointed bladelets (Font-Yves and Krems), these appear in all Banat industries in small quantity, including Cos¸ava uppermost level III. In brief, while the non-geometric microliths suggest an ‘early Aurignacian’ sensu lato/ Protoaurignacian pattern, other criteria (carinated forms, intensively retouched blades) rather point to a classical Aurignacian (or Aurignacian I, sensu Mellars, 2006). Thus, having a general Aurignacian background, the assemblages of Cos¸ava and Românes¸ti, as well as Tincova, display a certain degree of technological and typological variability due either to (a) chronological and/or (b) functional impact within the broad time frame suggested by the luminescence chronology at Românes¸ti (45.1  4.9 ka and 35.5  3.9 ka BP, see Kels et al., in preparation). While the available chronological data are obviously too distant and scattered for accurately following the diachronic changes separating these assemblages, the second causal factor for the variability recorded (functionality) is already better supported by the Banat Aurignacian record. Cases of certain specialization, variable activities and clustering of lithic remains in the context of a larger settlement were already recorded by Mogos¸anu, but also during the new excavation at Românes¸ti. For example, the neighboring Românes¸ti II spot yielded a compact area with numerous retouched bladelets/micro-blades, including Dufour, rare Krems points and a few non-modified bladelets (Hahn, 1977, Tafel 169: 17e28; Mogos¸anu, 1978). Regardless of their high stratigraphic position and metric parameters (shorter than those from other industries), these laminar products appeared rather ‘non-twisted’ and seemingly ‘archaic’. Obviously, assigning the Banat Aurignacian inventories, including this concentration and a similar but older locus in GH3 at Românes¸ti I (trench 4, 2009e10), as well as the Cos¸ava I assemblages (with high retouched tool frequency) to the ‘workshop’ category is much too simplistic, if not plainly false. None of the settlement/layers involved fit the exclusive ‘workshop’ definition. Even the allegedly local raw material was actually brought to settlements from a certain distance, sometimes as pre-worked nodules. Other activities (e.g. recycling, resharpening, hunting, domestic tasks) are evidenced by curated lithic items, high percentage of tools (e.g. Cos¸ava), and abundant mobile hunting micro-tools (Românes¸ti, Tincova). Noticeable changes in assemblage structure and typological range between the lower levels (I and II) and the uppermost level III at Cos¸ava are no less telling for such a functional noise. Varying topographic concentrations suggest at least repeated or longer duration

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

18

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

occupations (Românes¸ti I), as opposed to short halts (Românes¸ti II, Cos¸ava). As for Cos¸ava and Românes¸ti, they might be either strictly contemporaneous with different functions (as expected given their proximity, which place each settlement in the exploitation range of the other), or simply distant in both time and function. As such, they may belong to the same chrono-cultural stage or not. In the lack of a better chronological control and basic subsistence data, not to mention the poor segregation of living floors (at Românes¸ti at least), we are currently far from being able to elaborate on these aspects. Unfortunately, although highly elaborated, most of the available chrono-cultural frameworks acknowledged for the Aurignacian suffer from similar weaknesses. For objective (i.e. lack of additional information) or rather subjective (i.e. theoretical/methodological) reasons, they retain preferentially the stylistic-normative aspects in their description of the Aurignacian lithic technology. The risk is obvious: unless strongly supported by absolute chronology, stylistic-based approaches may separate in evolutionary stages and thus explain away a rather fluid, likely functional and possibly synchronous variability. The Banat situation seems to provide a cautionary tale in this respect. Despite some clear variability (expressed in frequencies of almost the same tool types and some laminar attributes), these assemblages have nevertheless a number of common characteristics and appear rather homogeneous within a single technocomplex. At least in the case of the settlements discussed above, the alleged succession of the Protoaurignacian and Aurignacian I appears at best unclear: ‘archaic’ (e.g. straight Dufour/ Krems implements) and ‘classic’; (i.e. carinated forms, Aurignacian blades, and twisted bladelets) appear, albeit in various amounts, in all assemblages. Summing up, the Aurignacian (Krems-type) attribution of Cos¸ava I (levels I, II and III), Românes¸ti I (at least level III), including the newly recovered samples from both sites, and apparently Tincova, is correct and supports Mogos¸anu’s original interpretation. Technologically and typologically, these inventories exhibit a range of features that tentatively link them to the Protoaurignacian/ Aurignacian 0 (Tincova, Românes¸ti), but also to an early Aurignacian/Aurignacian 1 (Cos¸ava). In fact, the Banat assemblages, especially Românes¸ti I, feature rather a combination of Proto- and early Aurignacian traits, similar to that observed recently, e.g. in the assemblage C 4c4 at Isturitz (sandwiched between Proto- and early Aurignacian industries and dated to 37,180 420 BP e Szmidt et al., 2010). The techno-typological variability of the Banat industries seems to have partially chronological (throughout the Cos¸ava sequence) and/or functional explanations (probably for all inventories) within the broad period from 45.1  4.9 ka and 35.5  3.9 ka BP (luminescence), the chronology obtained so far only for Românes¸ti I and which likely encompasses all these archaeological sequences. Still, depending strictly on the five-phase stylisticallybased succession currently developed for Western Europe is perhaps unproductive for an accurate estimation of the regional variability of the Aurignacian in South-Eastern Europe and particularly in Romanian Banat. Given the isolation and the distant comparative data currently available for the Banat Aurignacian, only a fresh chronology supported by absolute dates will enable the reconstruction of the regional time distribution and functional patterns of these industries, as well as their integration in the Eurasian record. Hopefully, the TL samples recovered from Românes¸ti and currently under study will shed more light on these issues. Acknowledgements Fieldwork at Cos¸ava and Românes¸ti was supported by the University of Cologne and “Valahia” University of Târgovis¸te. The

research in Romania was carried out in the framework of the CRC 806 ‘Our way to Europe’, project B1 ‘The ‘Eastern Trajectory’: Last Glacial Palaeogeography and Archeology of the Eastern Mediterranean and of the Balkan Peninsula’, supported by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). Many colleagues have contributed to the fieldwork organization (M. Odangiu, B. Joit¸a), and provided access to the archaeological collections in Lugoj Regional Museum (R. Pinca) and the Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Science in Bucharest (R. Dobrescu). Drawings were made by F. Dumitru (“Valahia” University of Târgovis¸te). Luminescence dating was carried out by Alexandra Hilgers and Anja Zander (Institute of Geography, University of Cologne). Corrections and polishing of the text were kindly made by S. L. Kuhn, followed by fruitful discussions. Further language editing was done by R. Miller. Pierre Noiret and an anonymous reviewer for Quaternary International further contributed to the improvement of our paper. To all of them we express our deepest gratitude. 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 (3e4), 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. 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. Anghelinu, M., Nit¸ a, L. What’s in a name: the Aurignacian in Romania. Quaternary International, submitted for publication. Anghelinu, M., Nit¸ a, L., Sitlivy, V., Uthmeier, Th., B altean, I. Looking around Pes¸tera Cu Oase: the beginnings of Upper Paleolithic in Romania. Quaternary International, in press. Benazzi, S., Douka, K., Fornai1, C., Bauer, C., Kullmer, O., Svoboda, J., Pap, I., Mallegni, F., Bayle, P., Coquerelle, M., Condemi, S., Ronchitelli, A., Harvati, K., Weber, G.W., 2011. Early dispersal of modern humans in Europe and implications for Neanderthal behaviour. Nature 479, 526e529. Bon, F., 2002. L’Aurignacien entre Mer et Océan. Réflexion sur l’unité des phases anciennes de l’Aurignacien dans le sud de la France. Mémoire XXIX de la Société Préhistorique Française, Paris. Bordes, J.-G., 2002. Les interstratifications Chatelperronien/Aurignacien du Roc de Combe et du Piage (Lot, France). Analyse taphonomique des industries lithiques: consequences archeologiques. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut de Préhistoire et Géologie du Quaternaire, Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux. Boroneant¸, V., 1991. L’acheuléen supérieur de Cladova (Roumanie) et la question du paléolithique quartzitique. Anthropologie (Brno) XXIX/1e2, 29e39. Borziac, I., Chirica, V., 2008. Periodisation culturelle, chronologie relative et radiometrique des facies du Paleolithique superieur de l’espace carpato-dniestreen. In: Chirica, V., V aleanu, M.C. (Eds.), Etablissements et habitations préhistoriques. Structure, organisation, symbole. Pim, Ias¸i, pp. 7e50. Borziac, I., Chirica, V., V aleanu, M.-C., 2006. Culture et société pendant le Paléolithique supérieur à travers l’espace carpato-dniestréen, Institut d’Archéologie. PIM, Ias¸i. lescu, S., Lamothe, M., Mercier, N., Huot, S., Ba lteanu, D., Billard, A., Hus, J., 2003. Ba Luminescence chronology of Pleistocene loess deposits from Romania: testing methods of age correction for anomalous fading in alkali feldspars. Quaternary Geochronology 22 (10e13), 967e973. ltean, I., 2011a. Paleoliticul superior din Banat în contextul paleoliticului superior Ba din spat¸ iul central-est european. Unpublished PhD. thesis, Archaeological Institute, Romanian Academy. Ias¸i. ltean, I., 2011b. The Palaeolithic in Banat. In: Tasic, N., Drasovean, F. (Eds.), The Ba Prehistory of Banat; I. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. ltean, I.C., Petrescu, S.M., Cinca, A., Negrei, D., Zilhão, J., 2008. Human presence Ba and prehistoric settlements in the Minis Karstic System an overview. In: leanu, M.C. (Eds.), Etablissements et habitations préhistoriques. Chirica, V., Va Structure, organisation, symbole. Pim, Ias¸i, pp. 183e196. Cârciumaru, M., 1999. Le Paléolithique en Roumanie. “Préhistoire d’Europe”, 7. J. Millon, Grenoble. Cârciumaru, M., Moncel, M.-H., Cârciumaru, R., 2000. Le Paleolithique moyen de la grotte CioareieBorosteni (commune de Pestisani, department de Gorj, Roumanie). L’Anthropologie 104, 185e237. Cârciumaru, M., Moncel, M.-H., Cârciumaru, R., 2002. The CioareieBorosteni Cave (Carpathian Mountains, Romania), Middle Paleolithic finds and technological analysis of the lithic assemblages. Antiquity 76, 681e690.

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20 , L., Fontana, L., Brugère, A., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Steguweit, L., Nit¸a rg Hambach, U., Ma arit, M., Dumitras¸cu, V., Cosac, M., Dumitru, F., Cârstina, O., 2006. The Upper Palaeolithic site of Poiana Cires¸ului (Piatra Neamt¸, Northeastern Romania) e recent results. Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 3, 1e20. Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Nit¸u, E.-C., Cosac, M., Mur atoreanu, G., 2007a. Geoarchéologie du paléolithique moyen, paléolithique supérieur, épipaléolithique et mésolithique en Roumanie. Cetatea de Scaun, Târgovis¸te. , L., 2007b. The Upper Palaeolithic in the Bistrita Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a Valley (Northeastern Romania). A preliminary review. Annales d’Université Valahia Târgovis¸te, section d’Archéologie et d’Histoire VIIIeIX, 107e124. Chabai, V.P., Demidenko, Yu.E., 1998. The classification of flint artifacts. In: Marks, A.E., Chabai, V.P. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic of Western Crimea, vol. 1. ERAUL 84, Liège, pp. 31e51. Chabai, V.P., Marks, A.E., Monigal, K., 2004. Crimea in the context of the Eastern European Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic. In: Chabai, V., Monigal, K., Marks, A.E. (Eds.), The Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic of Eastern Crimea, vol. 3. ERAUL 104, Liège, pp. 419e460. Chadelle, J.-P., 2005. Productions “intriquées” de lames et de lamelles dans l’Aurignacien de Champ-Parel locus 3 (Bergerac, Dordogne). 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, pp. 193e208. Chiotti, L., 1999. Les industries lithiques des niveaux aurignaciens de l’Abri Pataud, Les Eyzies-de-Tayac (Dordogne): étude technologique et typologique. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut de Paléontologie Humaine, Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Chirica, V., 1996. Les habitats de Banat. In: Chirica, V., Borziac, I., Chetraru, N. (Eds.), Gisements du Paléolithique supérieur ancien entre le Dniestr et la Tissa. B. A. I. V. Helios, Ias¸i, pp. 125e138. Chirica, V., 2001. Gisements paléolithiques de Mitoc. Helios, Ias¸i. Chirica, V., V aleanu, M.C. (Eds.), 2008. Etablissements et habitations préhistoriques. Structure, organisation, symbole. Pim, Ias¸i. Chirica, V., Borziac, I., Chetraru, N., 1996. Gisements du Paléolithique supérieur ancien entre le Dniestr et la Tissa. Helios, Ias¸i. 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. Demars, P.-Y., Laurent, P., 1989. Types d’outils lithiques du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Cahiers du Quaternaire 14. Paris: CNRS. Demidenko, Yu.E., 2000e2001. The European Early Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour type industries: a view from Eastern Europe. European Prehistory 16e17, 147e162. Demidenko, Yu.E., 2002. Siuren I rock-shelter (Crimea): industrial-chronological sequence of the site and Aurignacian complexes. Archeological Proceedings (Rostov-na-Donu) 2, 29e67 (in Russian). Demidenko, Yu.E., Noiret, P., 2012. The Siuren-I Aurignacian of Krems-Dufour type industries in the context of the European Aurignacian. In: Demidenko, Yu.E., Otte, M., Noiret, P. (Eds.), Siuren I Rock-shelter. From Late Middle and Early Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea, IV. ERAUL 129, Liege, pp. 343e357. Demidenko, Yu.E., Otte, M., 2007. Siuren I (Crimea) as a key site for Aurignacian industries of Krems-Dufour type in Eastern Europe. In: Bicho, N.F. (Ed.), From the Mediterranean Basin to the Portuguese Atlantic Shore: Papers in Honor of Anthony Marks. Promontoria Monografica 07. Centro de Estudos de Patrimonio, Departamento de Historia, Arqueologia e Patrimonio, Universidade do Algarve, pp. 101e107. Demidenko, Yu.E., Chabai, V.P., Otte, M., Yevtushenko, A.I., Tatartsev, S.V., 1998. Siuren-I, an Aurignacian site in the Crimea (the investigations of the 1994e1996 field season). In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Anatolian Prehistory. At the Crossroads of Two Worlds, vol. 1. ERAUL 85, Liège, pp. 367e413. Demidenko, Yu.E., Otte, M., Noiret, P. (Eds.), 2012. Siuren I Rock-Shelter. From Late Middle Paleolithic and Early Upper Paleolithic to Epi-Paleolithic in Crimea. The Paleolithic of Crimea, IV. ERAUL 129, Liège. Djindjian, F., 2000. Compte-rendu, Cârciumaru, M. 1999. Le Paléolithique en Roumanie, collection “L’Homme des origines” serie “Prehistoire d’Europe”, n
7, Grenoble: Editions Jerome Millon. Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française 97 (2), 309e324. Djindjian, F., Kozlowski, J., Otte, M., 1999. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Armand Colin, Paris. Gabori, M., 1976. Les civilisations du Paléolithique moyen entre les Alpes et l’Oural: esquisse historique. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. Hahn, J., 1970. Recherches sur l’Aurignacien en Europe centrale et orientale. L’Anthropologie (Paris) 74, 195e220. Hahn, J., 1977. Aurignacien das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel-und Osteuropa. }hlau, Fundamenta A/9, Ko }ln & Wien. Bo Harvati, K., Gunz, P., Grigorescu, D., 2007. Cioclovina (Romania): affinities of an early modern European. Journal of Human Evolution 53 (6), 732e746. Hoffecker, J.F., 2009. The spread of modern humans in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science U S A 22 (106), 16040e16045. 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

19

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. 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. Hours, F., 1974. Remarques sur l’utilisation de listes-types pour l’etude du Paléolithique supérieur et de l’Epipaléolithique du Levant. Paléorient 2 (1), 3e18. Inizan, M.-L., Reduron, M., Roche, H., Tixier, J., 1995. Technologie de la pierre taillée. Préhistoire de la pierre taillée 4. CREP, Meudon. Kels, H., Protze, J., Sitlivy, V., Hilgers, A., Zander, A., Anghelinu, M., Lehmkuhl, F. Genesis of loess-like sediments and soils at the foothills of the Banat Mountains, Romania e examples from the Paleolithic sites Românes¸ti and Cos¸ava. Quaternary International, in preparation. Kozlowski, J.K., Kozlowski, S.K., 1975. Pradzieje Europy od XL do IV tysiaclecia p. n. e. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa. , A., Zilhao, J., Petrescu, S., Lazarovici, G., B altean, I.C., Trinkaus, E., Cinca Moldovan, O., Rodrigo, R., Rougier, H., Pendea, F., Constantin, S., Quiles, J., Soficaru, A., Petrea, C., Milota, S., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Codrea, V., 2005. rilor Archaeological excavation report, NAR-code 50905.01. In: Cronica cerceta arheologice din România. CIMEC. 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. Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Bordes, J.-G., Eizenberg, L., 2009. A crossed-glance between southern European and Middle-Near Eastern early Upper Palaeolithic technocomplexes: existing models, new perspectives. In: Camps, M., Szmidt, C. (Eds.), The Mediterranean from 50 000 to 25 000 BP: Turning Points and New Directions. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 11e34. Lucas, G., 2000. Les industries lithiques du Flageolet 1 (Dordogne): approche économique, technologique et analyse spatiale. Ph.D. dissertation, Institut de Préhistoire et Géologie du Quaternaire, Université de Bordeaux I, Bordeaux. Marks, A.E., 1976. Glossary. In: Marks, A.E. (Ed.), Prehistory and Paleoenvironments in the Central Negev, Israel, vol. 1. SMU Press, Dallas, pp. 371e383. Mellars, P., 2006. Archaeology and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe: deconstructing the “Aurignacian”. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 167e182. Mertens, S.B., 1996. The Middle Paleolithic in Romania. Current Anthropology 37, 515e521. Mogos¸anu, 1967. Descoperirile paleolitice ale Muzeului din Lugoj. Revista Muzeelor IV (6), 555e559. Mogos¸anu, F., 1972. Information générale sur le Paléolithique du Banat (Sud-Ouest de la Romanie). Dacia N.S 16, 5e27. Mogos¸anu, F., 1978. Paleoliticul din Banat. Biblioteca de Arheologie, 32, Bucures¸ti. Mogos¸anu, F., 1983. L’Aurignacien du Banat. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Aurignacien et Gravettien en Europe I. ERAUL 13, Liège, pp. 223e237. Mogos¸anu, F., Stratan, I., 1966. Noi descoperiri paleolitice în Banat. Studii s¸i Cercetari de Istorie Veche 17 (2), 335e344. pa turi arheologice privind Mogos¸anu, F., Stratan, I., 1969. Rezultatele ultimelor sa palaeoliticul din nordul Banatului. Revista Muzeelor 1, 84e90. Moldovan, O., Milota, S¸., Sarcina, L., Trinkaus, E., B altean, I., Soficaru, A., Rajka, G., 2003. The oldest modern humans in Europe. Theoretical and Applied Karstology 16, 77e81. Moncel, M.-H., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., 2002. Le paléolithique moyen des Carpates Méridionales (Roumanie) et la grotte Cioarei-Borosteni. Des témoignages d’une fréquentation de la moyenne montagne a la faveur d’amélioration climatique par des groupes de Néandertaliens? Anthropologie (Brno) 40, 11e32. Noiret, P., 2004. Le Paléolithique supérieur de la Moldavie. L’Anthropologie 108, 425e470. Noiret, P., 2009. Le Paléolithique supérieur de Moldavie. ERAUL 121, Liège. Olariu, A., Hellborg, R., Stenström, K., Skog, G., Faarinen, M., Persson, P., Erlandsson, B., Alexandrescu, E., 2002. Dating of some Romanian fossil bones by combined nuclear methods. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear Chemistry 253 (2), 307e311. Olariu, A., Skog, G., Hellborg, R., Stenström, K., Faarinen, M., Persson, P., Alexandrescu, E., 2004. Dating of Two Human Fossil Bones from Romania Bay Accelerator Mass Spectronomy. Report Wp1 IDRANAP 80-04/2004 of the European Center of Excellence. Olariu, A., Skog, G., Hellborg, R., Stenström, K., Faarinen, M., Persson, P., Alexandrescu, E., 2005. Dating of two Paleolithic human fossil bones from Romania by accelerator mass spectrometry. In: Olariu, A., Stenström, K., Hellborg, R. (Eds.), Applications of High-Precision Atomic and Nuclear Methods. Academiei, Bucures¸ti, pp. 222e226. Otte, M., Chirica, V., 1993. Atelier aurignacien à Mitoc Malul Galben (Moldavie roumaine). Préhistoire Européenne 3, 55e66. Otte, M., López Bayón, I., Noiret, P., Borziac, I.A., Chirica, V., 1996a. Recherches sur le Paléolithique supérieur de la Moldavie. Bulletin de la Société Royale Belge, Anthropologie et Préhistoire 107, 45e80. Otte, M., Ulrix-Closset, M., Cârciumaru, M., Beldiman, C., 1996b. Comportements techniques au Mousterien de la ‘‘Pestera Cioarei” (Oltenie). In: Bietti, A., Grimaldi, S. (Eds.), Reduction Processes for the European Mousterian. Quaternaria Nova VI, pp. 83e92. Otte, M., Chirica, V., Haesaerts, P. (Eds.), 2007. L’Aurignacien et le Gravettien de Mitoc-Malu Galben (Moldavie Roumaine). ERAUL 72, Liège.

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024

20

V. Sitlivy et al. / Quaternary International xxx (2012) 1e20

Patou-Mathis, M., 2000e2001. Les grands mammiferes de la grotte Cioarei (Boros¸teni, Roumanie): repaire de Carnivores et halte de chase. Préhistoire Européenne 16e17, 57e63. Peresani, M., 2008. A new cultural frontier for the last Neanderthals: the Uluzzian in Northern Italy. Current Anthropology 49, 725e731. P aunescu, Al, 1989. Le Paléolithique et le Mésolithique de Roumanie (un bref aperçu). L’Anthropologie 93 (1), 123e158. P aunescu, Al, 1993. Ripiceni-Izvor. Paleolitic s¸i Mezolitic. Academiei, Bucures¸ti. P aunescu, Al, 2000. Paleoliticul s¸i mezoliticul din spat¸iul cuprins între Carpat¸i s¸i Dun are. Agir, Bucures¸ti. P aunescu, Al, 2001. Paleoliticul si epipaleoliticul din spat¸iul transilvan. Agir, Bucures¸ti. Richards, M.P., Pacher, M., Stiller, M., Quilès, J., Hofreiter, M., Constantin, S., Zilhão, J., Trinkaus, E. , 2008. Isotopic evidence for omnivory among European cave bears: late Pleistocene Ursus spelaeus from the Pes¸tera cu Oase, Romania. PNAS 105 (2), 600e604. Riel-Salvatore, J., Popescu, G., Barton, M., 2008. Standing at the gates of Europe: human behavior and biogeography in the Southern Carpathians during the Late Pleistocene. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27 (4), 399e417. Sitlivy, V., Zie˛ ba, A., 2006. Eastern and Central Europe before 30 kyr BP: Mousterian, Levallois & Blade industries. In: Chabai, V., Richter, J., Uthmeier, Th (Eds.), Kabazi II: the 70,000 Years Since the Last Interglacial, The Palaeolithic Sites of Crimea, 2. Simferopol-Cologne, Shlyakh, pp. 361e419. Sitlivy, V., Zie˛ ba, A., Sobczyk, K., Kolesnik, A., 2009. Lithic assemblages. In: Sitlivy, V., Zie˛ ba, A., Sobczyk, K. (Eds.), Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic of Krakow Region. Ksiecia Jozefa, Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Bruxelles, pp. 19e169. Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Hilgers, A., Schmidt, C., ltean, I., Vesselsky, A., Hauck, T. The Aurignacian sequence at Nit¸ a, L., Ba Românes¸ti-Dumbr avit¸a I site in Banat (Southwestern Romania). 40 years later, in preparation. 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 103, 17196e17201. Soficaru, A., Petrea, C., Dobos¸, A., Trinkaus, E., 2007. The human cranium from the , Romania: context, age, taphonomy, morphology, and Pes¸tera Cioclovina Uscata paleopathology. Current Anthropology 48, 611e619. Soriano, S., Villa, P., Wadley, L., 2007. Blade technology and tool forms in the Middle Stone Age of South Africa: the Howiesons Poort and post-Howiesons Poort at Rose Cottage Cave. Journal of Archaeological Science 34, 681e703. , L., 2009. Reframing the Upper Steguweit, L., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Nit¸a Palaeolithic in the Bistrit¸a Valley (Northeastern Romania). Quartär 56, 139e157.  de la Cos¸ava. Revista Muzeelor II, 412. Stratan, I., 1965. As¸ezarea paleolitica Stratan, I., 1970. Contribut¸ii la cunoas¸terea palaeoliticului din Banat. Tibiscus I, 7e18. Szmidt, C.C., Normand, C., Burr, G.S., Hodgins, G.W.L., LaMotta, S., 2010. 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 (4), 758e768. Teyssandier, N., 2003. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. Discussion à partir des sites de Geissenklösterle, Willendorf II, Krems-Hundssteig et Bacho Kiro. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris X-Nanterre. 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., 2007a. L’émergence du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe: mutations culturelles et rythmes d’évolution. Paléo 19, 367e390. Teyssandier, N., 2007b. En route vers l`Ouest. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. In: BAR International Series 1638. Oxford. Teyssandier, N., 2008. Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. World Archaeology 40 (4), 493e519.

Teyssandier, N., Bon, F., Bordes, J.-G., 2010. Within projectile range. Some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe. Journal of Anthropological Research 66, 209e229. Tixier, J., 1963. Typologie de l’Epipaléolithique du Maghreb. Mémoires du Centre de Recherches anthropologiques et préhistoriques et ethnographiques 2. AMG, Alger, Paris. , S¸., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., Moldovan, O., 2003. Early modern Trinkaus, E., Milota human cranial remains from the Pes¸tera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 245e253. , R.S¸., Trinkaus, E., B altean, I.C., Constantin, S., Gherase, M., Horoi, V., Milota Moldovan, O., Petrea, C., Quiles, J., Rodrigo, R., Rougier, H., Sarcina, L., Soficaru, A., Zilhão, J., 2005. Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat: Pes¸tera cu Oase. Banatica 17, 9e27. Trinkaus, E., Zilhão, J., Rougier, H., Rodrigo, R., Milota, S., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Moldovan, O., B altean, I., Codrea, V., Bailey, S.E., Franciscus, R.G., Ponce De Léon, M., Zollikofer, C.P.E., 2006. The Pes¸tera cu Oase and early modern humans in Southeastern Europe. In: Conard, N.J. (Ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans Met. Kerns Verlag, Tübingen, pp. 145e164. Trinkaus, E., Soficaru, A., Dobos¸, A., Constantin, S., Zilhão, J., Richards, M., 2009. Stable Isotope evidence for early modern human Diet in Southeastern Europe: . Materiale s¸i Pes¸tera cu Oase, Pes¸tera Muierii and Pes¸tera Cioclovina Uscata ri Arheologice, V, (N. S.), 5e14. Cerceta Tsanova, T., 2006. Les débuts du Paléolithique supérieur dans l’Est des Balkans. Réflexion à partir de l’étude taphonomique et tehcnoéconomique des ensembles lithiques des sites de Bacho Kiro (couche 11), Temnata (couches VI et 4) et Kozarnika (niveau VII). Thèse de doctorat de l’Université Bordeaux 1. Tsanova, T., Zwyns, N., Eizenberg, L., Teyssandier, N., Le Brun-Ricalens, F., Otte, M. Le plus petit dénominateur commun: réflexion sur la variabilité des ensembles lamellaires du Paléolithique supérieur ancien d’Eurasie. Un bilan autour des exemples de Kozarnika (Est des Balkans) et Yafteh (Zagros central). L’Anthropologie, in press. Tuffreau, A., Boroneant¸, V., Goval, E., Boroneant¸, A., Dobos¸, A., Lefevre, A., Popescu, G., 2006. L’utilisation du quartz dans l’industrie moustérienne de brani (Banat, Roumanie). WS 15- Technological analysis on quartzite Za exploitation. Congrès U.I.S.P.P., Lisbonne. Tuffreau, A., Boroneant, V., Goval, E., Lefevre, B., Boroneant, A., Dobos¸, A., brani (Département Popescu, G., 2007. Le gisement paléolithique moyen de Za d’Arad). Materiale s¸i Cercet ari Arheologice (NS) III, 5e18. lescu, S., Haesaerts, P., 2009. Nouvelles recherches sur le Tuffreau, A., Chirica, V., Ba gisement paléolithique de Mitoc-Valea Izvorului (dép. de Botos¸ani), Fouilles 2003e2004. Materiale s¸i Cercet ari Arheologice (NS) V, 21e31. Usik, V.I., 2008. The Upper Paleolithic of Transcarpathia: chronology and cultural affinity of Beregovo I Aurignacian. In: Materials and Investigations of Carpathian and Volyn Archeology, vol. 12, pp. 49e67 (in Russian). Yevtushenko, A.I., 1998. The industries of the Eastern Micoquian: some approaches to typological variability. In: Otte, M. (Ed.), Préhistoire d’Anatolie, Genèse de deux mondes I. ERAUL 85, Liège, pp. 113e123. Zilhão, J., 2006. Neandertals and Moderns mixed, and it matters. Evolutionary Anthropology 15, 183e195. Zilhão, J., 2007. The emergence of ornaments and art: an archeological perspective on the origins of ‘behavioral modernity’. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 1e54. Zilhão, J., Trinkaus, E., Constantin, S., Milota, S., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Danciu, A., Rougier, H., Quilès, J., Rodrigo, R., 2007. The Pes¸tera cu Oase people, Europe’s earliest modern humans. In: Mellars, P., Boyle, K., Bar-Yosef, O., Stringer, C. (Eds.), Rethinking the Human Revolution, New Behavioural and Biological Perspectives on the Origin and Dispersal of Modern Humans. McDonald Institute, Cambridge, pp. 249e262. Zie˛ ba, A., Sitlivy, V., Sobczyk, K., 2008. The lithic assemblages. In: Sitlivy, V., Zie˛ ba, A., Sobczyk, K. (Eds.), Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic of Krakow Region. Piekary IIa. Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Bruxelles, pp. 57e148.

Please cite this article in press as: Sitlivy, V., et al., Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania), Quaternary International (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024