THE PREHISTORY OF BANAT I. The Palaeolit

THE PREHISTORY OF BANAT
I. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY THE SERBIAN ACADEMY
OF SCIENCES AND ARTS
THE MUSEUM OF BANAT TIMIŞOARA
Editors-in-Chief
Nikola Tasić (Belgrade)
Florin Draşovean (Timişoara)
Editors of the first volume

Borislav Jovanović (Belgrade)
Editorial Board
Bogdan Brukner (Novi Sad)
Nikola Tasić (Belgrade)
Borislav Jovanović (Belgrade)
Gheorghe Lazarovici (Cluj-Napoca)
Dragana Antonović (Belgrade)
Valeriu Sîrbu (Brăila)
THE PREHISTORY OF BANAT
Editors-in-Chief
Nikola Tasić and Florin Draşovean
I. THE PALAEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC
Edited by
Florin Draşovean and Borislav Jovanović
The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy

Bucharest, 2011
Copyright © 2011, The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy.
All rights reserved.
THE PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY

Calea 13 Septembrie nr. 13, sector 5, 050711
Bucureşti, România, P.O. Box 5-42
Tel.: 4021-3188146; 4021-3188106
Fax: 4021-3182444
E-mail: edacad@ear.ro
Internet: http://www.ear.ro
Peer reviewer: Acad. Alexandru Vulpe
Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

The Prehistory of Banat / editors-in-chief: Nikola Tasić and Florin Draşovean ;
ed. by Florin Draşovean and Borislav Jovanović. - Bucureşti : Editura Academiei
Române, 2011-
vol.
ISBN 978-973-27-2057-8
Vol. 1 : The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic.- 2011. - ISBN 978-973-27-2058-5
I. Tasić, Nikola (ed.)

II. Draşovean, Florin (ed.)
III. Jovanović, Borislav (ed.)
94(498)
THE PUBLICATION OF THIS VOLUME WAS SUPPORTED BY

THE TIMIŞ COUNTY COUNCIL AND THE MUSEUM OF BANAT
Technical operator: Crina Sincovici

Cover design: Javor Rašajski
English text revised by Alex W. Barker and Clive Bonsall
Final proof: 22.04.2011; Format: 8/64 × 88; Proof in sheets: 15

9(498.74)<<…:00>>
{
D.C.L. for large libraries: 902.6(498.74)
D.C.L. for small libraries: 9
Printed in Romania by Mega Print SRL, Cluj-Napoca

www.edituramega.ro | e-mail: mega@edituramega.ro
Table of Contents
FOREWORD 11
(Dr Nikola TASIĆ)
FOREWORD 13
(Dr Florin DRAŞOVEAN)
I. INTRODUCTION 15
II. THE PALAEOLITHIC IN BANAT 19

(Ion Cornel BĂLTEAN)
II.1 General considerations 21
II.1.1 General remarks on the period 21
II.1.2 Some terminological remarks on the use of quartz/quartzite
as raw material in some Palaeolithic settlements in the Banat 22
II.2 Geological structure in the Banat region 23
II.2.1 General remarks 23
II.2.2 The Sviniţa–Svinecea 24
II.2.3 The Presacina 25
II.2.4. The Cerna–Jiu 26
II.2.5 The Reşiţa–Moldova Nouă 27
II.2.6 The Haţeg 29
II.2.7 The Rusca Montană 29
II.2.8 The Caransebeş–Mehadia Depression 30
II.2.9 The Bozovici Depression 30
II.2.10 The Sicheviţa Depression 31
II.2.11 The Făget Depression 31
II.2.12 The Lugoj Depression 31
II.2.13 The Oraviţa Depression 31
II.2.14 The southern Apuseni Mountains 31
II.2.15 Some remarks on the rock types used in Prehistory 32
II.3 Quaternary sedimentary deposits in the Banat region 34
II.4 Research history of the Palaeolithic in the Banat region 39
II.5 The Palaeolithic archaeological evidence in the Banat area 40
II.5.1 Pedological analyzes, sedimentological remarks on stratigraphical
profiles of the Palaeolithic settlements in the Banat 40
6 | Table of Contents
II.5.1.1 Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave 40

II.5.1.2 Coşava 41
II.5.1.3 Gornea–Dealul Căuniţei 42
II.5.1.4 Gornea–Păzărişte 42
II.5.1.5 Pescari–Livadiţei Cave 42
II.5.1.6 Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa 43
II.5.1.7 Tincova–Sălişte 44
II.5.2. Repertoir of Palaeolithic archaeological sites 45
II.5.2.1 Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave 45
II.5.2.2 Caransebeş 46
II.5.2.3 Constantin Daicoviciu 47
II.5.2.4 Coşava 47
II.5.2.5 Curtea 49
II.5.2.6 Curtea 49
II.5.2.7 Duleu 50
II.5.2.8 Gornea–Dealul Căuniţei 50
II.5.2.9 Gornea–Păzărişte 51
II.5.2.10 Gornea–Vodneac 53
II.5.2.11 Grădinari 53
II.5.2.12 Iabalcea–Cerbului Cave 53
II.5.2.13 Iabalcea–Popovăţ Cave 53
II.5.2.14 Leucuşeşti 53
II.5.2.15 Liborajdea 54
II.5.2.16 Pescari–Gaura Chindiei I Cave 54
II.5.2.17 Pescari–Livadiţei Cave 54
II.5.2.18 Adi’s Cave 55
II.5.2.19 Dubanăţ Cave 55
II.5.2.20 Oilor–Bobot Cave 55
II.5.2.21 Vraşka Cave 55
II.5.2.22 Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa 56
II.5.2.23 Româneşti–Water Cave 60
II.5.2.24 Sadova Veche 60
II.5.2.25 Bones Cave 61
II.5.2.26 La Hoţu Cave 62
II.5.2.27 Tincova–Sălişte 65
II.5.2.28 Vişag 68
II.5.2.29 Zăvoi 68
II.6. Geochronological elements of the Upper Pleistocene from southwest Romania 68
II.6.1 Introductive issues. Several palaeoclimatical and chronological landmarks 68
II.6.2 Chrono-climatic slotting of the Banat Palaeolithic levels 69
II.7. Conclusions 70
II.7.1 Lithic industries using quartz/quartzite raw materials from southwest Romania 70
II.7.2 The Banat Aurignacian industries. Characterisation and chronologic position 73
II.7.3 Lithic industries from southwest Romania assigned to the Tardigravettian horizon 75
III. THE PALAEOLITHIC IN NORTHERN SERBIA 77

(Dušan MIHAILOVIĆ, Bojana MIHAILOVIĆ, Milica LOPIČIĆ)
III.1 Natural environment 79
III.2 History of researches 81
III.3 Palaeolithic sites 82
III.3.1 Crvenka-At, Balata and other Palaeolithic sites in the vicinity of Vršac 82
III.3.2 Petrovaradin Fortress 85
III.3.3 Baranica Cave and Tabula Traiana Cave 87
III.3.4 Šalitrena Cave 89
III.3.5 Other Palaeolithic sites 90
Table of Contents | 7
III.4. Palaeolithic of Northern Serbia in its regional context 91

III.4.1 Middle Palaeolithic 91
III.4.2 Upper Palaeolithic 93
IV. THE MESOLITHIC IN BANAT 103

(Adina BORONEANŢ)
IV.1 Introduction – Mesolithic studies in Romania 105
IV.2 Mesolithic in the Banat area 106
IV.2.1 The Hoțu Cave 106
IV.2.2 The Iron Gates 107
IV.2.2.1 The environmental context of the Iron Gates sites 107
IV.2.2.2 The Iron Gates climate 109
IV.3 Short history of the research 110
IV.4 Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic in the Iron Gates 111
IV.4.1 The Early Mesolithic (13200–7200 cal BC) 113
IV.4.1.1 Cuina Turcului Rockshelter 114
IV.4.1.2 Climente II Cave 116
IV.4.1.3 Veterani Cave 117
IV.4.1.4 Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave 118
IV.4.1.5 Ostrovul Banului 118
IV.4.1.6 The Early Mesolithic – a summary 120
IV.4.2 The Late Mesolithic (7200–6300 cal BC) 121
IV.4.2.1 Veterani Terasă 121
IV.4.2.2 Răzvrata 122
IV.4.2.3 Icoana 123
IV.4.2.4 Ostrovul Banului 126
IV.4.2.5 Schela Cladovei 126
IV.3 The Final Mesolithic (6300–6000 cal BC) 132
IV.3.1 Alibeg 132
IV.3.2 Final Mesolithic–Early Neolithic contacts? 134
IV.4 Conclusions 136
V. CONTINUITY AND FUTURE RESEARCH 143
VI. APPENDIX 151

VI.1 Bibliography 153
VI.2 Figures 169
Foreword
F ew regions in prehistoric Europe were the scene of such a lively and constant
cultural, ethnic, stylistic, and economic interaction as the modern-day
Pannonian Plain in general and the Banat in particular. Over the millennia,
different prehistoric cultural groups coexisted or succeeded one another there, and
their different stylistic features lend particular interest to the study of the Banat
region’s cultural past.
The Banat, as well as the entire Middle Danube region of which it forms part,
is one of Europe’s most interesting geographical regions when it comes to studying
the formation and development of prehistoric cultures. In the north, it opens onto
the Pannonian expanses, onto the tall loess ridges and steppes, an area rich in water
resources and fertile land. In the east, the left-bank tributaries of the Tisa (Tisza)
provided easy access to the rich Transylvanian hills which offered game hunting
opportunities, but also precious mineral resources, copper, iron, gold and, especially,
salt indispensable for a pastoral economy. In the south, the Morava river valley
provided communication with the central-Balkan hinterland and, in some periods,
the Danube tribes, as a result of pastoral movement or, rarely, plundering campaigns,
reached as far as the prosperous Mediterranean world. Finally, in the west, the Sava
and the Drava, two large right-bank tributaries of the Danube, enabled contact,
varying in intensity, with the Alpine foothills which played an important role in
the development of metallurgy in the Bronze and Iron ages. In such a markedly
favourable geographical setting, the cultures to which the multivolume series “The
Prehistory of the Banat” will be devoted arose and developed.
Geo-topographic and economic factors led to the Banat region’s cultural and
historical unity. It is reflected in the same or similar processes of culture formation,
the same or similar autochthonous substratum, the same or similar forms within
material culture, and similar levels of socioeconomic development. The region’s
cultural unity can be traced as far back as the late Palaeolithic. Continuing into
the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods, it was at its peak in the late Bronze and the
Iron Age. The archaeological record abounds with supporting evidence – such as
pottery and, even more, metal tools, weapons and jewellery – for very close ties and
economic interests among the prehistoric cultures in this broad area.
The region’s cultural unity on the one hand and the artificial barriers in the
form of modern state borders on the other have reinforced the old idea of publishing
12 | Foreword
a series devoted to the prehistory of the Banat as a region. Engaged in the project are the Romanian
Academy of Sciences, the Timişoara Branch, the Museum of Banat and the Serbian Academy of
Sciences and Arts, the Novi Sad Branch, but also a number of Banat and Vojvodina museums: the
Museum of Vojvodina, Novi Sad; the city museums at Bečej and Vršac; and the national museums at
Zrenjanin, Kikinda and Pančevo. The series will consist of five volumes, each devoted to a period of
prehistory: I. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic; II. The Neolithic; III. The Eneolithic; IV. The Bronze
Age; and V. The Iron Age. The project assembles many archaeologists from both Serbia, notably
Vojvodina, and Romania. The two countries have a long tradition of archaeological collaboration
headed by G. Lazarovici, V. Dumitrescu, P. Roman, D. Berciu, F. Draşovean, M. Garašanin, N. Tasić,
B. Jovanović, R. Rašajski, M. Girić, and especially the late Bogdan Brukner, who was one of the initi-
ators of the publication project and the co-author, along with the writer of these lines and Borislav
Jovanović, of the seminal volume “The Prehistory of Vojvodina” published by the Institute for the
Historical Study of Vojvodina in 1974. Given that many important prehistoric sites have since been
discovered in the Banat and other parts of Vojvodina, the basic idea of the team assembled round
this project is to present all excavation results for prehistoric sites in the Banat, and to offer, based
on the archaeological record, an interpretation as complete as possible of the formation and devel-
opment of cultures in this part of Europe, their stylistic, cultural and chronological relationship with
the adjacent regions – Pannonian, Transylvanian and Balkan – their importance for the genesis of
other cultures in vertical and horizontal projections. The plentiful archaeological material, previ-
ously unpublished, will also be included in this multivolume publication which will undoubtedly
make useful reading of more than local interest.
Belgrade, September 2010

Dr Nikola Tasić
Vice-President of the
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Foreword
T he historical province of Banat, defined by natural borders – the Tisza

River to the west, the Danube to the south, the West Carpathians to the
east and the Mureş River to the north – is one of those areas which, due to
their special geographic position, represented an important contact zone between
the Balkans and Central Europe. Due to this fact, as both historical documents and
the present day situation show, Banat became an ethnic and cultural mosaic rarely
encountered elsewhere on the Continent, a mosaic in which various peoples and
ethnic groups settled, lived together and largely preserved their cultural identity
unchanged despite the vicissitudes of history. This characteristic feature, which can
also be traced in prehistory, was the main reason why a group of scholars from Serbia
and Romania came to the conclusion that it would be both useful and necessary to
edit a book dedicated to the prehistory of this area, an area divided after World War
I among Serbia, Hungary and Romania.
From the very beginning, we must mention as the initiator and promoter
of this editorial project the outstanding personality of the late Professor Bogdan
Brukner, who, with his exuberant energy, managed to gather in 1995 a group of
researchers from the two countries who began to plan the writing of a prehistory
of Banat. This initial group included Nikola Tasić, Borislav Jovanović, Milorad
Girić, Gh. Lazarovici but also the late Florin Medeleţ, Marian Gumă, Jovan
Uzelac. Following lively debates of ideas upon the archaeological data, the editorial
committee decided to structure the work into five volumes which focus, in sequence,
on the Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Eneolithic, Bronze Age and Iron Age. The research
work is to close with the period of the Roman conquest of Banat.
The work, inaugurated now by the first volume dedicated to the Palaeolithic
and Mesolithic, gathers the results obtained by research undertaken in this
geographic area in the latter half of the twentieth century and the first decade of
the new century and millennium. In this period, archaeological research in the two
parts of Banat, Romanian and Serbian, evolved at varying paces. If during the first
three decades after World War II the research undertaken by Serbian specialists
developed significantly and materialized in remarkable publications, since the
1980s the Romanian specialists have been the ones to take the initiative. At present,
a positive moment in Romanian archaeology, large-scale archaeological excavation
14 | Foreword
areas have been opened in the most important prehistoric sites under the patronage of the museums
in Timişoara, Reşiţa and Cluj-Napoca. Despite this fact, and although extensive research has been
undertaken on both sides, the vast majority of the material discovered has remained unpublished
or has only been the subject of dig reports, small-scale studies or, at best, of several monographs.
This situation, corroborated with the unfortunate lack of a joint strategy for the scholarly use of the
results, rendered difficult the understanding of the cultural phenomena which took place in Banat
and made it impossible for researchers to write works of synthesis that present the ancient history
of the province in its entirety. This was the first argument that triggered the initiative of editing the
Prehistory of Banat.
In the same time, the prehistoric civilizations that developed in Banat naturally expanded
beyond the present-day political borders and exerted a very strong influence upon the neighbouring
areas, determining the birth and development of a new culture, both in the Pannonic and Central
European areas as well as the area of the Lower Danube. All these important contributions of Banat
to the evolution of the ancient history of a great part of Europe have strengthened the need for the
existence of such a work. These are several of the arguments that determined specialists in the two
countries to set out to edit a work of synthesis.
We hope that the publication of the Prehistory of Banat, which relies on previously unpub-
lished material resulting from research undertaken over the last six decades, will offer specialists a
useful and necessary research tool both for understanding the cultural phenomena that took place
in this area at the dawn of history and for the clearer definition of the role that Banat played in the
genesis and evolution of some of the prehistoric civilizations in Central and Southeast Europe.
Timişoara, September 2010

Dr Florin Draşovean
The Museum of Banat Timişoara
T here is no doubt that the Banat region is of great significance for understanding
the cultural processes during the Palaeolithic and the Mesolithic, both
because of its geographical position and ecological characteristics, and of
the archaeological finds recorded so far. On the one hand, the Banat is situated at
the intersection of geographical routes connecting the East and Central Balkans
with Central Europe and the Southwest Carpathians, making investigations in this
area of exceptional importance for the study of human migrations during early
prehistory. On the other hand, the Banat is situated on the southwestern fringes
of the Carpathian basin, where climatic and ecological factors were relatively
favourable (in comparison with the northern regions) and where conditions for the
exploitation of diverse ecological zones also existed. Therefore, it is not surprising
that the Banat was inhabited throughout most of the ages. It is no surprise that rich
Middle Palaeolithic sites, the earliest remains of modern man in Europe and very
important sites from Early and Late Upper Palaeolithic are to be found here or the
neighbouring regions. Of particular significance is the fact that a whole series of
Mesolithic sites were investigated in the southern Banat (including only a part of the
Iron Gates region). These sites gained worldwide fame for their unique heritage in
terms of the art, economy and society of the Mesolithic period.
The writing of the first volume on the Banat prehistory was associated with
great difficulties resulting from the uneven degree of investigations as well as the
inadequate degree of publication of archaeological and palaeoecological material.
Important problems were encountered when dealing with poor knowledge of
the palaeogeography of the region, the lack of absolute dates for some of the sites
and little information on the sources of raw materials used for knapping. All these
factors made a synthetic approach to an integrated study of the Banat Palaeolithic
extremely difficult.
Because of relatively small number of systematically investigated sites, we were
compelled to study the Palaeolithic of the region within a wider regional framework.
Another justification for such an approach lies in the fact that the lowland areas of
the Banat are naturally linked to the Pannonian basin, while the mountainous areas
are connected to the rest of the Carpathian range. Still, we had to deviate from this
particular approach as far as the Iron Gates area was concerned. The volume only
presents the sites formally included in the Banat area, while the sites downstream
of the Iron Gates gorge proper were not included. The sites on the right bank of
the Danube appear in the volume with less detailed information and are mentioned
only within the general approach to the Mesolithic development in the area.
Some of the Palaeolithic investigations from both sides of the Romanian–
Serbian border were brought to the public eye for the first time. We described in
detail the sites in western Romania with finds from earlier excavations, but also
18 | Introduction
new data on recent Palaeolithic investigations in northern Serbia. Special attention was paid to
questions of wider regional importance and particularly to the transition from the Middle to the
Upper Palaeolithic. These new issues were triggered by the considerable breakthrough achieved in
this particular field in both countries during the past few years.
The Mesolithic sites on the left Danube bank are considered in the context of more recent
interpretations, generated both by the availability of new 14C dates, stable isotope analysis and new
excavations, employing new techniques and methodologies.
It is true that investigations of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic in Southeastern Europe did
not follow the tempo of those in the western part of the continent, neither from the theoretical,
nor from the methodological aspect. At one point in time, research was mostly directed at compre-
hending the phenomena exclusively within state borders. The Mesolithic research in the Iron Gates
was perhaps an exception, as specialists from various other countries were included quite early in the
research teams. More recent discoveries in Romania and Serbia also prompted international cooper-
ation. However, many things still need to be done. It is necessary to provide the conditions to ensure
access to scientific resources and facilitate information exchange, as well as to coordinate and unify
research criteria and methods. Only these will help to address and perhaps solve problems of general
importance for understanding the cultural, economic and social changes in the early prehistory of
Southeast Europe.
II.1 General consideration
II.1.1 General remarks on the period
T he passage to the Upper Palaeolithic, from the archaeological point of view,

across wide spaces, still involves some discussions about both the type of
the material and especially about its creators in the anthropological sense.
The fact is generally known that in the Near East the first Homo sapiens sapiens
populations came before the Neanderthalian groups and that in Europe the two
groups lived together and came in contact with each other by around 30,000 BP.
The interdisciplinary research undertaken by contemporary archaeology
highlights different strategies of raw material exploitation, thus determining the local
origin, the origin from the nearest neighbouring area or from an area up to a radius
of 20 km, in some cases, up to 80 km (meso-local sources) or even beyond that, up to
a 1,000 km (extra-local sources). The raw material supply took place either by direct
exploitation of an outcropping source at the moment of dwelling or by digging wells
through which the strata containing the desired raw material were reached, or by
bartering relations with other communities, a situation in which one could come by
both semi-finished tools (cores, blades, chips) or by finished tools (scrapers, chisels,
scratchers, etc.). It is the period in which we witness the qualitative and quantitative
increase of spiritual and artistic phenomena (ornamented pieces, cave paintings,
statuettes, etc.), the “planned” exploitation of a well-delineated territory (“logistic
mobility”) by “task groups”, circumstances under which we can speak of a hierarchy
of dwelling systems (“residential settlements”, “temporary settlements”). Starting from
the data supplied by the ethnology of the present-day groups of hunters-gatherers,
we can speak in the case of the Upper Palaeolithic of basic groups of 25 individuals,
of groups made up of 175 individuals who can ensure biological reproduction
and thus the survival of a population and of regional populations that can reach a
maximum number of 500 individuals. From an ethno-archaeological point of view
it is considered that a group made up of 25 individuals take up an area of approxi-
mately 250 sqm1.
Obviously, the scarcity of available data does not allow us a more nuanced
approach based on the archaeological material dug up on the Banat territory, in the
present-day state of research. We can only correlate the data reaped from this area
with the data from the more or less nearby areas, which, on account of objective
reasons and, why not, on account of sometimes subjective reasons, benefited from
a clearly superior extent of archaeological research focusing on the Palaeolithic Age.
1
DJINDJIAN, F. et alii 1999.
22 | Ion Cornel Băltean
The Quaternary was beyond any doubt a fertile period regarding the morphological trans-
formations undergone by the temperate zone as the successive geographic states left their strong
imprint on the organization of terrestrial geosystems. Some of these transformations were
substantial (extensions and withdrawals of sea shore, the shaping and building of subglacial and
proglacial morphological levels, the organization and reorganization of hydrographical systems
with the entire array of their consequences, the repeated reshuffling of biotic systems under the
climatic spell, etc.). Others were more discrete, but almost everyone has left conclusive evidence of
their existence.
These traces are not always easy to read and the spacial and temporal influences often render
scientific analysis difficult. The forms that remained relatively inert relict forms are relatively scarce
and they are only on a macroscale. Most of them have undergone functional changes depending on
the intensity and typology of morphogenetic field typology.
Unfortunately, the archaeological research undertaken along the time in the Palaeolithic
settlements of the Banat have not benefited from extensive studies regarding the microsedimen-
tation context of the Palaeolithic dwelling levels, on the one hand, and on the other hand, they have
not considered the geomorphologic evolution of the area to which the Palaeolithic site belonged,
and so much the less it has considered the coroboration of relief forms with the Palaeoclimatic
information.
The geomorphologists role is not only to identify the forms that belong to this period, but
also to solve the difficult question of their genesis. To this effect, the specialist falls back on a varied,
interdisciplinary methodology. The scientific product is only valid when the form is expressed by
means of the geomorphological environment parameters, environment that engendered the form and
when it is contextualized in time and space.
The expansion of spatial-analytical techniques may solve the inconsistencies that crop up
between the processual and areal geomorphological approaches, thus lending climatic geomor-
phology the power to solve the issue of spatial-temporal variations brought about by climate on the
forms of relief on condition that the relations climate-process-form should be clearly sorted out.
To conclude, we can say that the morphological transformation of the relief under the spell of
climatic parameters is a continuous process, even if the morpho-stratigraphic and pedo-stratigraphic
testimony may sometimes give the impression of sudden leaps of evolution followed by long periods
of relative balance.
As a consequence thereof, the present-day forms of relief keep many of the features of the
past states as the form has an intrinsic capacity of self-preservation and, in addition to it, the new
geological processes have partially or completely erased the testimony of the older ones2.
II.1.2 Some terminological remarks on the use of quartz/quartzite

as raw material in some Palaeolithic settlements in the Banat
Considering the fact that the terminological aspect represents one of the important sources of gener-
ating confusion in archaeology, we have tried as much as possible to use the international termi-
nology avoiding translations more often than not inaccurate as well as the use of terms referring
directly to certain more or less conspicuous human activities. Regarding the tool types we shall use
the recognized terms by the special-field literature (especially by the French one), both for the purely
typological and for the technological aspects.
Technology. Before highlighting some aspects of quartzite chipping, the sorting out of a
terminological aspect of cortex and neocortex should be done:
2
PENDEA, F. 2005: 3.
The Paleolithic in Banat | 23
• the cortex is an often irregular surface, of a different geological nature from the mass of
the material which delineates it and which is usually a poor transmitter of the percussion
energy. This is the reason why generally when one chips flint, one should first decorticate
the nodule before one shapes the core and begins the actual knapping.
• the neocortex is the outer layer of the river nodules, formed by mechanical weathering in
the water during transport; it is a smooth, regular surface, of the same geological nature as
the raw material that delineates it and which may be used as a percussion plane3.
The knapping accidents, of the “burin de Siret type”, crop up as a result of an unwanted fracture
plane, which cuts through the percussion point and which divides the support into two more or less
equal parts4. One also finds réfléchi type accidents and, to a lesser extent, the outrepassé type, which
are to be put down to a poor dosage of percussion intensity and to the variation of the mechanical
characteristics of the quartz block. One should also mention that the outrepassé type accidents are
somewhat atypical forms due to the sudden change of direction of the shock waves along a less
resistant area falling perpendicularly on the cutting axis5.
In general, the lithic industries of quartz have been characterized as mediocre and atypical,
which made some prehistorians speak of an archaic character of these and this due to the raw
material which has a diaclasis-rich structure. Thus, the accidental fractures due to the shock
waves propagation along a plane of tectonical diaclasis are frequent accompanying the chipping
of vein quartz.
In the case of the vein quartz, the percussion bulb is visible, even the bulb cracks are sometimes
visible if the material evinces a fine structure. Anvil percussion is a technique that enables one to
obtain a series of chips of foreseeable shape, starting from nodules or vein quartz blocks that are
too big for one to hold them in one’s hand, or from unusable cores on account of the dwindling
favourable angles6.
The stigmata due to the use of a nodule as a percussor are recorded by the material on
percussion areas in two ways: with and without loss of material. The hard direct percussion bring
about any knapping accidents, especially those of “burin de Siret type”, whereas direct percussion
with a soft percussor is used to accomplish certain edge shapes of some bifacial tools or retouchings.
What concerns the terminological aspect of typological makeup of quartz tool industries,
one generally uses recognized terms for the flint implements, but the typological variability is much
narrower and implicitly the use of some terms referring to subtypes of well-defined flint pieces is
harder to justify.
Before closing these lines, we would surely like to utter our wish and hope to be able to resume
the archaeological research on the Banat in order to grant more depth to the issues brought up by the
Palaeolithic discoveries here.
II.2 Geological structure of the Banat region
II.2.1 General remarks

From a geological perspective, the territory of the Banat belongs to the Southern Carpathians in
which one distinguishes two tectonic units: the Danubian Autochtonous and the Getic nappe7. The
tectonic structure lends architecture to the relief, this being in close connection with lithology, too,
3
MOURRE, V. 1997: 202.
4
MOURRE, V. 1996: 208–209; 1997: 205.
5
MOURRE, V. 1997: 208.
6
MOURRE, V. 1997: 207.
7
SĂNDULESCU, M. 1984: 210–216; ONCESCU, N. 1965: 15; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 373.
which differentiates the relief according to the origin of the constitutive rocks8 and last, but not least,
with palaeoclimatology, which brings on structural changes9.
The Danubian Autochtonous is generally built up of epimetamorphic crystalline schists
pierced by old granite intrusions, and sedimentary formations that cover the crystalline mountain
ranges; it crops out in the southwestern part of the Southern Carpathians, between the Olteţ Valley
and the Danube.
In the considered area, the Danubian unit outcrops within the Retezat Mountains and
within the larger part of the Ţarcu, Cerna Mountains, Almăj and the Mehedinţi plateau10. Across
this area certain parts are covered by formations that belong to the Getic nappe and partially to the
Severin nappe11.
In the Almăj Mountains there are three pre-Hercynic granitoid bodies laid out from north
to south. The Sfârdinu body, the northernmost one, is emplaced into the Ielova and the Poiana
Mraconia crystalline basement. The Cherbelezu granite, lying more to the south, shoots through
the Corbu crystalline. The Ogradena granite body, the southernmost one, was intruded into the
Neamţu crystalline schists and has a complex structure12. Also in the area of the Almăj Mountains
one can mention the basic and ultrabasic rocks from Iuţi and Plavişeviţa set off by the serpentinite
range of Tisoviţa13.
The intrusive body Muntele Mic has a northeast–southwest strike and is made up of granites,
granodiorites and quartziferous diorites with porphiritic structure14.
The pre-alpine sedimentary sequences have been preserved only on limited areas, most of
them being removed during the later exondations15.
Within the Alpine cycle, the Danubian autochthonous becomes submerged again; the
sedimentation occurs within longitudinally oriented areas which evolve as depressions (Sviniţa-
Svinecea, Presacina, Cerna-Jiu)16 and lasts until the end of the Cretaceous with some discontinuities.
II.2.2 The Sviniţa–Svinecea area is located in the southern part of the Almăj Mountains
and is drained by the Danube between Cozla and Sviniţa; to the north it extends somewhat towards
the Svinecea Mare peak17.
The Upper Carboniferous deposits are of a continental facies, prevailingly psephitic-psammitic
sequences, with coal, conglomerates, sandstones, and clay shales18.
Following the Carboniferous, the Permian sedimentary deposits have a continental-lacus-
trine character and are of terrigenous and volcanogenic origin. The terrigenous deposits are made up
of conglomerates, sandstones, clay shales (often of a red colour) and freshwater limestone. The flora
from the clay shales and the fauna from the freshwater limestone interspersed with the sandstones
8
IANOVICI, V. et alii 1969: 73; COTEŢ, P. 1973: 38; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 104.
9
PENDEA, F. 2005.
10
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 338, Fig. 107; HARTA GEOL. 25: 16, 51–52; HARTA GEOL. 31: 29; HARTA GEOL. 32: 11,
17; HARTA GEOL. 40: 11; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 364–365; GEOG. ROM. 1983, 91; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 227–231, Fig. 59.
11
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 20–21.
12
HARTA GEOL. 31: 29; HARTA GEOL. 32: 17–20; HARTA GEOL. 40: 11–12; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L.
1974: 366–367, 377; SĂNDULESCU, M. 1984: 242; 248; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 233.
13
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 338–339; HARTA GEOL. 32: 25–26; HARTA GEOL. 40: 13–15; COTEŢ, P. 1973: 40, 236;
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 381–382; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 373; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 235.
14
HARTA GEOL. 25, 28, 52; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 369, 376–377; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 233.
15
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 236.
16
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 383; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 91; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 236–237.
17
GEOG. ROM. 1987: 373.
18
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 344; HARTA GEOL. 40: 16; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 384; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 237.
point to a Lower Permian age19. The volcanogenic material is made up of rhyolites and more rarely
of basalts20.
The beginning of the Jurassic is characterized by a marine transgression after the exondation
which began during Permian. On the area outskirts, the Liassic starts with massive conglomerates,
followed by siliceous sandstones interspersed with argillaceous shales with coals. This succcession
is also present in Drencova area, where quartzarenites are overlaid by clay sandstones, marls and
abundant fossiliferous sandstones. The Lower Jurassic sedimentary sequence ends with Toarcian
arcosik quartzarenite21.
In the central part of the Sviniţa-Svinecea area (at Munteana) one encounters a limestone
facies of the Liassic22. Here, after a sedimentation intermission, the Dogger (Middle Jurassic) starts
with a micro-conglomerate level followed by spatic limestones, oolitic limestones and ferrugineous
limestones23, and in other marginal areas, as for example west of Sviniţa, this becomes very thin or is
completely absent. One mentions in the basal part an important sequence of whitish quartzarenites
interspersed with micro-conglomerates24.
The Malm is mainly composed of limestones (the complete succession may be found in
the Munteana area and in the area of the village Sviniţa). At its basis lies a nodular red limestone
horizon, 5 to 15 m thick, followed by a reddish-grey or greyish limestone horizon with silica bands
(jaspers). These bands become so frequent that they make up a 3 to 4 m thick horizon of silico-
lites (radiolarites)25. This horizon is followed by red limestones (marly limestones) with siliceous
accidents, with a thickness of 10–15 m26.
At the beginning of the Cretaceous, the Danubian domain evolves under conditions of tectonic
calmness, with the formation of carbonatic deposits. The Neocomian includes stratified, fossiliferous
micritic limestones, with flint bands27. The Berriasian contains a bundle of fine limestone, and the
Valanginian and the Hauterivian include the rest of the limestone suite of the Neocomian, stratified
micritic limestones with siliceous accidents, often in the form of bands28 with a thickness of 25–50 m
which are outcropping in the Sirinia Valley and along the Vodânschi rut, close to Sviniţa village29.
The stratigraphic column continues with alternating limestones and marly-limestones with
siliceous accidents30. The Upper Cretaceous is represented by deposits bearing the imprint of tectonic
movements of the Late Cretaceous, which are made up of carbonatic sandstones and marly clays31.
II.2.3 The Presacina area, in its present-day structure, is delineated between the Caransebeş–
Mehadia couloir to the west and the Godeanu to the east, the lower Cerna river marking off its
southern edge, and the Ţarcu Mountains, marking its northern edge32.
19
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 345; HARTA GEOL. 40, 16; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 384–386; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 237.
20
HARTA GEOL. 40: 17.
21
ONCESCU, N. 1965:, 345; HARTA GEOL. 40: 17–18; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 387; MUTIHAC, V. 1990:
239, Fig. 60.
22
HARTA GEOL. 40: 17; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 239.
23
HARTA GEOL. 40: 18–19; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 388; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 239.
24
HARTA GEOL. 40: 19.
25
HARTA GEOL. 40: 19; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 389, Fig. 143; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 113; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 239–240.
26
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 389.
27
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 347.
28
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 347; HARTA GEOL. 40: 20; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 199, Tab. 17; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 240.
29
30
HARTA GEOL. 40: 21.
31
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 347; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 390–391; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 240.
32
The conglomerates from the southern part of the Presacina area, on the basis of the similar-
ities to the area of Sviniţa–Svinecea are ascribed to the Carboniferous. The conglomerates and the
red sandstones, with thin clay strips to which volcanic material is added, are ascribed to the Permian
and may be found on the southwestern edge of the area, while in the central part they can be seen
along the Mehadia–Cornereva alignment33.
The alpine cover is similar to the one of the Sviniţa–Svinecea area, belonging to the Jurassic-
Cretaceous. Within the base of the Liassic suite conglomerates and sandstones prevail, and then
follow black clays and sandstones, with marly-limestone lenses34. The Dogger starts with quart-
zarenites and arkosic sandstones and then the sedimentation continues with limestone deposits.
The Malm (Upper Jurassic) is mainly carbonaceous, the series beginning with limestones and
siliceous accidents (50 m thick)35, which, without a palaeontological argumentation, are ascribed
to the Oxfordian. These strata are overlain by stratified nodular, black-greenish limestones, which
are 20–60 m thick. The Malm deposits crop out in the basins of the valleys of the Ramna, Topla,
Ciumârna (the central part of the area of Presacina), in the valleys to the south and east of Mount
Arjana and two alignments running parallel to the river Cerna36. In the Bogâltin area one mentions
nodular limestone of a reddish or greenish tint with rare siliceous accidents37.
From the Cretaceous (Valanginian and Hauterivian) one can observe micritic limestones
alternating with siliceous concretions38.
During the Upper Cretaceous, due to tectonic instability, a huge mass of rocks was deformed.
The northern half of the Presacina area is covered by a volcano-sedimentary formation,
in which the pyroclastic material is associated with terrigenous materials made up of black clays,
sandstones, different limestone varieties (often fossiliferous), nodular limestones and jasper
limestones39. Based on palaeontological evidence one considers that the formation belongs to the
Middle and Late Jurassic (running up perhaps even to the Early Cretaceous).
From the tectonic point of view, the Presacina area is folded as one can distinguish synclines
and anticlines oriented north–south40.
II.2.4 The Cerna–Jiu area is delineated to the east by the Cerna valley as it stretches beyond
the Jiu valley along the southern slope of the Vâlcan Mountains into the Olteţ valley, towards
Polovraci. To the south and the west the Cerna–Jiu area stretches out towards the Cazane area41. This
area functioned as a marginal sedimentation area on which Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous
reefs formed42. Starting at the end of the Lower Cretaceous the Cerna–Jiu area entered into a period
of tectonic instability43.
In the Cerna area, the grey stratified limestones with siliceous accidents and the nodular black-
greenish, sometimes reddish limestones, which bear up against Stamberg facies massive limestones
are ascribed to the Oxfordian–Kimmerindgian44.
Along the Dubova-Topleţ alignment a clear alochthonous succession crops out. Three forma-
tions have been distinguished: the first one is clayey-silty shales (80 m thick), with siliceous nodules
33
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 347; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 393–394; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 242.
34
35
36
TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 113; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 243–244, Fig. 60.
37
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 348; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 395.
38
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 244.
39
40
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 396–397; GEOG. ROM. 1983, 91; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 246–247.
41
42
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 389–399; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 91.
43
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 247–254.
44
TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 114.
and thin strips of micrites and biomicrites belonging to the Oxfordian–Early Tithonic; the second
one, prevailingly carbonatic (30 m thick), contains especially clayey micrites and biomicrites with
silicious nodules and belongs to the Upper Tithonic-Berriasian; the third formation, an upper
clayey-silty one, does not contain silicolites45.
On the Mehedinţi plateau, the “Nadanova strata” that belong to the Vranconian–Cenomanian
includes a lower level made up of alternating limestones with siliceous accidents (black flint) and marly
shales and an upper level made up of marly-limestones, marls and clays interspersed with fine sandstones46.
The main tectonic elements and at the same time typical of the Danubian Autochthonous are
the duplicates. The tectonic lay-out of the Danubian Autochthonous bears the imprint of the Getic
nappe overthrust47.
The Getic nappe crops out across a wide surface in the Southern Carpathians from the Olt
Valley to the Danube and it contains mesometamorphic crystalline schists and a group of epimeta-
morphic schists48.
In our area of interest, the southern Poiana Ruscă Mountains, Muntele Mic, the Semenic
Mountains, part of Almăj Mountains and the Reşiţa–Moldova Nouă area belong to the Getic nappe49.
The mesometamorphic crystalline schists of the Getic nappe are one of the most developed
and homogenous units from the Southern Carpathians, being made up of micaceous paragneisses,
micaschists, together with amphibolites, quartzites and subordinately crystalline limestones and
dolomites50. The epimetamorphic crystalline schists are located in the southern half of the Poiana
Ruscă and Semenic Mountains, where they overlay the mesometamorphic crystalline schists51.
After the completion of the Baikalian cycle52, the Getic domain evolved as an exondated area,
becoming again an accumulation area during the Upper Carboniferous. In the Jurassic it appeared
as a depression zone which would evolve later as a sedimentation area that is the Reşiţa–Moldova
Nouă area53.
II.2.5 The Reşiţa–Moldova Nouă area lies in the western part of the Banat, between the
two towns having a north–south orientation54. The pre-Alpine sedimentary cover contains prevail-
ingly continental deposits ascribed to the Upper Carboniferous (breccias and conglomerates with
torrential stratification, well-stratified sandstones with clayly shales strips with coals) and to the
Lower Permian (black clayly shales interspersed with sandstones and micro-conglomerates, red
conglomerates, red or green clays)55.
The Alpine sedimentary cover formed after the Upper Permian–Triassic exondation. One
ascribes to the Werfenian the quartz conglomerates and the quartzarenites with plant traces lying at
the bottom of the succession, which discordantly cover older formations56.
45
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 402, Fig. 151; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 252, Fig. 60.
46
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 348; HARTA GEOL. 32, 31; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 405; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984:
202, Tab. 17; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 250.
47
HARTA GEOL. 25: 53–54; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 254–255.
48
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 15–16, 324; HARTA GEOL. 32: 11, 12; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 409–410;
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 257.
49
HARTA GEOL. 25: 16, 17, 50–51; HARTA GEOL. 31: 9; HARTA GEOL. 32: 12; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 90–91;
GEOG. ROM. 1987: 373; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 257, Fig. 64.
50
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 259.
51
HARTA GEOL. 25: 17–19; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 414–417, Fig. 157–158; GRIDAN, T. 1981: 14–16,
Fig. 2; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 261–262, Fig. 64.
52
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 421–423, Fig. 160–161.
53
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 263.
54
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 332, Fig. 105A; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 91.
55
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 335; HARTA GEOL. 31: 14–15; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 430–432; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 264.
56
TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 49.
The Liasic develops in the Gresten facies and includes polygenic conglomerates followed by
sandstones and shales with coal layers57. Basically, this period of time relates to so-called Steierdorf
Formation made up by three members: the conglomeratic member of Budinic, sandy member from
Terezia Valley and clay member of Uteriş58. The Dogger is prevailingly made of limestone, as one
encounters limestone with siliceous accidents (elipsoids) with Reineckeia anceps59. These sequences
are also called “Gumpina limestones”60 followed by a sequence of metric or decimetre banks of
siliceous limestone, where the silica may sometimes prevail resulting in genuine silicolite banks. The
Malm starts out through a marly-limestones level followed by dark limestones with siliceous bands
(250m thick), which lends a special aspect to those sedimentary rocks (they represent the Upper
Oxfordian and Lower Kimmeridgian) which pass into nodular limestones with rarely siliceous
accidents (“Brădet limestones” belong to Upper Kimmeridgian–Lower Tithonian61. In the Reşiţa
area the Lower Oxfordian formations are overlaid by a horizon of fine grey-yellowish limestones,
which is characterized by the presence of numerous layered siliceous accidents62. Basically, their age
is established without palaeontologic arguments, being deducted on grounds of stratigraphical links
with the under and suprajacent deposits63. Taking into consideration that the Inferior Oxfordian is
palaeontological dated within the marl-limestones of Tămaşa through a fauna of ammonites, it is
admitted for the limestone from Anina Valley a Superior Oxfordian age, established according to the
presence of the Colomisphaera fibrata species, but corroborated with the Superior Kimmridgian age
of the subsequent layers – thus, it can be said that part of the limestone from Anina Valley are dated
from the Inferior Kimmeridgian64.
The basis of the Cretaceous is represented by an alternance of sub-micritic limestones and
marly-limestones followed by a 150 m thick sequence of marls and marly-limestones (Valanginian
and Hauterivian) covered by limestones with siliceous concretions (especially north of Cobelişte
range)65 and takes up the largest part of the Reşiţa–Moldova area. The Inferior Cretacic in the
section is based on the Formation of Marila Limestones (Inferior and Middle Berriasian–Superior
Valaginian), the Formation of the limestones from Plopa (Superior Barremian–Gargasian) and the
Formation of sandstone from Gura Golumbului (Superior Clansayesian – Albian)66. The central
facies is well developed on the Miniş Valley up to the confluence with Steier Valley and encloses
marly-limestones and grey or yellowish limestones with more or less spherical flint concretion,
with the diametre of 3–40 cm67. The Barremian (massive organogenic limestones) in the Reşiţa-
Moldova Nouă area marks off the setting in of favourable conditions to the formation of the reef
facies. To the Lower Barremian one ascribes a level of stratified limestones with spherical silici-
fications68. With the Albian deposits (conglomerates, glauconite bearing sandstones, micaceous
sandstones and siltic clay) the sedimentary suite from the Reşiţa–Moldova Nouă area ends69. In the
57
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 335–336; HARTA GEOL. 31: 16–17; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 111; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 265–266.
58
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 30–38; 50.
59
HARTA GEOL. 31: 18–19; HARTA GEOL. 121B; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 433, Fig. 163; TĂTĂRÂM, N.
1984: 111; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 266, Fig. 65; BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 50.
60
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 336; BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 125.
61
HARTA GEOL. 31: 21–22; HARTA GEOL. 121B; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 434; TĂTĂRÂM, N.
1984: 112.
62
HARTA GEOL. 31: 20.
63
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 46–47.
64
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 47
65
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 336; HARTA GEOL. 31: 24; HARTA GEOL. 121B; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 435;
TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 197, Tab. 15; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 266–267.
66
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 90–91.
67
HARTA GEOL. 31: 24.
68
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 336; BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 127.
69
HARTA GEOL. 31: 25–27.
Reşiţa area the Upper Cretaceous may be sporadically found at Doman, Radimna Valley and east
of Coronini70. On the other hand, there also may be encountered the so-called “transition deposits”
represented by the limestone from Lindinei Valley, accumulated in four sequences and charac-
terized by decimetre up to metric banks with numerous spheroidic, ellipsoidal or irregular silica
intrusions, located from stratigraphical and chronological perspective between the marl of Crivina
and the massive Barremien limestone71.
The complete succession of the Lower Cretaceous (conglomerates and carbonaceous
limestones, marly sandstones, marly-limestones, detrital deposits and marl deposits) may be found
in the western part of the Almăj Mountains, in the Şopot area, respectively72.
Having reached this point of our geological trip, it would be polite to mention that the Minişului
Valley, well-known to the archaeological literature from the past years due to the discoveries of early
times human bones, as well as due to multiple inhabiting levels, – is is dug in the so-called Limestone
of Minişului Valley, of Superior Barremian age – Apţian (Bedoulian and Gargasian) settled due to
some conditions of the Urgonian bio-sedimentary system (plurality of favourable biologic, climatic
and dynamic conditions)73. The karstic hyporelief from the Miniş basin is made up of several small
and middle-sized caves, with relatively wide outward-looking openings, which were once part of
one of more underground complexes, whose communication is nowadays to a great extent silted up.
Within this karstic system, the main drainage levels are the following:
1. main drainage, active at present;
2. subfossile level;
3. fossile level, to which both Peştera cu Oase (Cave with Bones) and other caves belong,
which at present are separated as a consequence of cave-ins and silt-ups (Peştera Ponor-
Uscată, Peştera din Dolină, Peştera La Hoţu, Peştera cu Abri).
The sediment input that has been carried out by wind or by water seems to have been very
intense during the interglaciary periods74. Basically, the deposits accumulated in Pleistocene–
Holocene in this micro-region are characterized by Pleistocene and/or Holocene gravel, clays
and sands, or calcareous tufa mainly encountered along the valleys which cross the calcareous
massif75.
II.2.6 In the Haţeg area, the Middle Jurassic stratigraphic column (Dogger) also includes a
sequence of spatic violaceous silty limestones with siliceous accidents of about 40 m thick76. The
Malm encloses a series of silexite stratified limestones, identical with those from the Anina Valley
from the Reşiţa–Moldova Nouă area, and the Upper Jurassic ends with nodular, weakly silty strat-
ified limestones, with rare red-greenish siliceous concretions77.
II.2.7 The Rusca Montană area was singled out as a sedimentation basin towards the end of
the Lower Cretaceous (reef massive limestones, detrital deposits) and evolved until the end of the
Cretaceous78.
70
HARTA GEOL. 31: 27–29.
71
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 134.
72
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 337; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 438; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 199; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 274, Fig. 67.
73
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 80–87.
74
LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 2005: 355–359.
75
BUCUR, I. I. 1997: 103.
76
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 444; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 111; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 268.
77
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 445; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 112; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 269.
78
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 363; HARTA GEOL. 25, 31, 33–34; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 440–443;
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 273–274, Fig. 67.
The Turonian–Coniacian deposits consist of grey muscovitic carbonaceous sandstones,

which gradually pass into hard reddish-grey marly-limestones, stratified in banks (with a thickness
ranging between 5 cm to 1–2 m), within which a level of silicolites crop up79.
The Supragetic units also includes the northern part of the Poiana Ruscă, Dognecea and
Locva Mountains, where one can find small exposures of mesometamorphic crystalline schists80; a
great development is shown by the Hercynic crystalline schists81.
Along a north–south alignment, between Sasca and Moldova Nouă, one can notice a flake-like
structure consisting of Triassic and Jurassic deposits82. These sedimentary rocks which belong to
the Jurassic (Dogger and Malm), are represented by micritic limestones, nodular limestones with
frequent siliceous accidents and silty-limestones83.
Towards the end of the Cretaceous and the beginning of the Palaeogene, an intense magmatic
activity took place. The intrusive bodies spread out along three north-south alignments84. The
westernmost alignment runs along the Moldova Nouă–Sasca–Oraviţa–Bocşa Română–Nădrag line.
Along this alignment, in the Rusca Montană area, one can find the Tincova–Nădrag mountain range,
consisting of diorites, granodiorites, andesites and subordonately rhyolites and dacites85. The second
alignment, Berzasca–Şopot–Poiana Ruscă, consists of granodiorites, diorites, gabbros, dacites,
andesites, lamprophyres86. The easternmost alignment runs along the line Lăpuşnicel–Teregova–
Armeniş and also includes small intrusive bodies, similar to the previous alignment87.
Laramic (Banatitic) magmatism represents the final act in the major lay-out of the Southern
Carpathians; the later changes (ruptural) have led up to the sinking of limited parts, which have
become sedimentation basins thus forming the posttectonic or intramountainous depressions88.
II.2.8 The Caransebeş–Mehadia Depression is delineated to the east by the Godeanu

and Ţarcu Mountains, to the west by the Semenic Mountains, and to the south by the Almăj
Mountains. This depression formed during the Badenian (represented by a sandy-conglomerate
level, followed by a marly-sand one and then by detrital and carbonatic deposits), being silted up
at the beginning of the Pliocene, represented by sands, gravels and clays89. This depression repre-
sents the last gulf through which the water from the Pannonian Lake thrust into the range of the
Carpathians.
II.2.9 The Bozovici Depression lies in the Nera basin90. It came into being during the
Burdigalian or even during the Aquitanian and is filled by continental-lacustrine deposits with
torrential stratification including conglomerates, carbonatic limestones, sands, gravels, marls and
ribbon clays91.
79
HARTA GEOL. 25, 32; MUTIHAC, V. 1990:273.
80
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 279–280.
81
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 281–285, Fig. 68–69.
82
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 288.
83
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 289.
84
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 292.
85
HARTA GEOL. 24, 16–18; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 448–450; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 293.
86
HARTA GEOL. 31, 30–31; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 450–451.
87
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 451; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 204; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 375; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 293.
88
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 355–356; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 294.
89
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 368–369, Tab. 10; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 460–462; GRIDAN, T. 1981: 63–64;
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 299–300, Fig. 71.
90
GEOG. ROM. 1987: 401.
91
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 369, Tab. 10; HARTA GEOL. 31, 32; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 462; MUTIHAC, V.
1990: 300.
II.2.10 The Sicheviţa Depression lies in the western part of Almăj Mountains. Its filling
consists of continental-lacustrine deposits that contain conglomerates and gravels, followed
by sandstones, marls and clays92. On the outskirts of the depression one may find freshwater
limestones with siliceous concretions93. The age of these deposits is the same as those from the
Bozovici depression.
Starting with the Badenian, some areas on the outskirts of the elevated areas that came in
contact with the Pannonian depression underwent a sinking and were covered by water. Thus,
they functioned as nearby (adjacent) depression areas near to the Pannonian Depression as the
tectonic lay-out and the lithofacial composition thereof lending the aspect of a plain to these
morphological units94.
II.2.11 The Făget Depression is bounded to the east by Dobra, and to the south of the Mureş
it is crossed by the Bega River. The Badenian develops in the eastern part being represented by marls
and clays, in some places with a carbonatic character (Lăpugiu and Coşteiu area), and the Pliocene
covers most of the depression with sands, gravels, clays and marls with torrential stratification95.
II.2.12 The Lugoj Depression stretches out among the Poiana Ruscă Mountains (to the east),
Dognecea Mountains (to the southwest) and the Semenic Mountains (to the south). It is crossed by
the Timiş River, and to the southeast it is connected to the Caransebeş–Mehadia Depression. The
Badenian covers the crystalline-mesozoic basement and crops out only along the edges of the area.
The Sarmatian can be found in limited areas and includes sands with gravels, argillites, and 2–3 m
thick concretionary limestones. The Pliocene, as in other depressions is represented by gravels,
sandstones, sands, clays and very fossiliferous marls96.
II.2.13 The Oraviţa Depression formed by the caving in of the western part of the Banat
Mountains (during the Badenian) and had a similar evolution with the other adjoining depressions97.
II.2.14 The southern Apuseni Mountains crop out limestones with sliceous accidents
(Oxfordian), which support the Upper Jurassic limestones mountain ranges98. During the
Kimmeridgian a uniformization of the sedimentation conditions takes place in the Mureş couloir
as one may come across grey limestones sometimes with rare silicification99 while in other areas it is
assumed that this state of geological evolution might be usually represented by stratified limestones
with siliceous accidents100.
As far as the Căprioara sector is concerned, it is appreciated that the Malm succession starts with
brown or greenish jaspers (they only crop out southwest of Căprioara village, in banks of 0.5 to 1 m thick
and continue with grey slaty limestones with siliceous intrusions101. Frequently encountered between
the Peştiş Valley and the village of Pojoga are siliceous intrusions of a brown or violet colour (amorphous
opal sometimes with the tendency to get recrystallized) ocurring as lenses, nodules or bands102. In the
92
ONCESCU, N. 1965, 369, Tab. 10.
93
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 463; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 300–301.
94
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 390.
95
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 395–396.
96
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 623–624; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 396–397.
97
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 625; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 397.
98
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 403–404; IANOVICI, V. et alii 1969: 152–153; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 115.
99
IANOVICI, V. et alii 1969: 154–155.
100
101
HARTA GEOL. 25, 35; DUŞA, A. 1969: 24, 27; IANOVICI, V. et alii 1969: 153; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L.
1974: 538, Fig. 205.
102
DUŞA, A. 1969: 28.
Deva-Zam area, upon a layer of jaspers develops the Căbeşti strata consisting of siliceous sandstones
alternating with dark argillites103 which belong to the Barremian–Aptian104.
In the Petriş area, the series belonging to the Neocomian (800–1000 m thick) is based upon
rough conglomerates, with diabasic elements, porphyritic granites, jaspers (green and brown),
Stramberg limestones hold together in an argillaceous–carbonatic cement overlaid by pyroclastic
sandstones and white limestones, marly-limestones, marly-schists and sandstones. In detrital and
argillaceous rocks one can find interspersions of siliceous rocks with a high occurrence of radio-
larians and sponge spicules105.
II.2.15 Some Remarks on the rock types used in Prehistory

In order not have to come back during the work to some aspects touched upon in the previous pages,
we should discuss now some matters concerning the raw material used in Palaeolithic settlements
from the study area.
In the Româneşti, Coşava and Tincova settlements, the raw material is uniform,
characterized by the prevalence of opal (over 80%), with different brownish shades and with black-
purple inclusions, along with which we can also find jaspers, radiolarites, black or green schists
and quartzites106. For the southern Banat one mentions the prevalence of quartziferous rocks,
sandstones, schists and calcedonia107.
For the classification of the sedimentary rocks, the compositional criteria allow the determi-
nation of the main petrographical types: detrital, pyroclastic, clays, siliceous, aluminium, phosphatic,
ferruginous and manganese, evaporitic rocks108.
Mineralogically, the silicolites are dominated by the presence of the metastable and stable
components of silica (SiO2) opal A, opal C–T, calcedonia109, quartz110 and to an extent of 5–10%,
clay minerals, carbonates, haematite, volcanic glass, and organic matter111.
Nodular silicolites (siliceous accidents) are green, red or black and, considering the host rock
and their relationships, we can divide them into:
• flint, consisting of hard cryptocrystalline material, 98% silica, which mainly occur in
chalks;
• chert, siliceous cryptocrystalline thick and compact rocks;
• chaille, siliceous accidents that formed through the silification of limestones and merge
with the host rock112.
Stratiformous silicolites may be organogenic (diatomites, radiolarites, and spongolites),
chemical (sinters or siliceous crusts) and mechanical113. Jaspers formed through the epigenesis of
the radiolarites: jasper is a ferruginous chert, usually red, but it can be yellow, brown or black114.
Radiolarites are made up of radiolaria remnants held together in a silicious matrix and are usually
103
MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 354, Fig. 79.
104
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 408–409, Fig. 135; DUŞA, A. 1969: 43–44; TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984: 204–207, Tab. 18.
105
HARTA GEOL. 24: 15.
106
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 18.
107
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 533; 1973: 17; 1978: 19.
108
GRIDAN, T. 1983: 94.
109
RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 367, Fig. 9.1.; PAVELESCU, L. 1980: 40.
110
CAILLEUX, A. 1974: 39, Tab.1–2; HAMILTON, W. R. et alii 1976: 128; PÂRVU, G. et alii 1977: 29; PAVELESCU,
L. 1976: 57–60; 1980:, 38–39; ANASTASIU, N. 1988: 162–164.
111
ANASTASIU, N. 1988: 283, 287.
112
HAMILTON, W. R. et alii 1976: 204; RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 373–374; GRIDAN, T. 1983:
102; ANASTASIU, N. 1988: 286, 288–289.
113
CAILLEUX, A. 1974: 43; ANASTASIU, N. 1988: 284, Tab. 4.20; 288.
114
HAMILTON, W. R. et alii 1976: 130; RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 373; GRIDAN, T. 1983: 102.
red, brown, black or green115. Spongolites – of grey, brown or reddish colour – consist of sponge
spicule clusters caught in an opal or chalcedonic mass116. Sandstones are a psammitic cemented rock
consisting of clastic grains with a diameter ranging between 0.2–2 mm. Marls are a sedimentary rock
lying between clays and limestones according to the mineralogical composition117.
The term quartz covers a wide variety of materials, differing from the point of view of their
nature (crystals and monocrystalline rocks), their colour, their homogeneity (the presence or
absence of diaclases), their texture and petrographic structure (the relative display of the consti-
tuting minerals).
Quartz, the most frequent crystalline variety of silica, is the constitutive mineral of certain
polycrystalline rocks, but it can also exist in an isolated state, or in the shape of automorphic crystals
in the case of hialin quartz, or in the shape of monocrystalline aggregates made up of xenomorphic
quartz crystals in the case of vein quartz118.
Hialin quartz or rock crystal is a crystalline form encountered in numerous geological contexts,
which, under normal formation circumstances has prism, rhombohedron or bipyramid faces. The
anisotropy of this material comes in in two types: cleavage and diaclases.
Vein quartz or ordinary quartz covers a wide variety of monocrystalline agglomerates of
xenomorphic quartz. The chromatic variations are put down to the contained impurities depending
on the temperature of the formation inside the vein. The presence of diaclases is accounted for by the
tectonic evolutions to which the vein quartz is subjected after crystallization119.
The essential difference between quartz and quartzite is linked to their formation mode:
the quartz is a vein magmatic rock (hydrothermal origin) whereas quartzite is a massive
metamorphic rock120.
Quartzites are compact siliceous rocks with conchoidal fracture consisting of detrital quartz
grains, which may be sedimentary (orthoquartzites), when they come from the cementation of
sandstones through diagenesis or metamorphic (metaquartzites), when they come from the recrys-
tallization of a sandstone or even of a quartz vein; they are white or yellow-reddish or grey121. The
distinction between orthoquartzites and metaquartzites is only possible by observing their structure
along a thin section. The quartzarenites are characterized by over 90% quartz content122.
Concerning the use of “quartzite” in Palaeolithic settlements we should mention that the
distinction cannot be carried out by naked eye between vein quartz (consisting of a complex of
quartz crystals, but of a magmatic origin) and quartzite123, that is why petrographical analyzes are
necessary as the use of the generic term of quartz is not to the benefit of lithic technology studies124.
The difference between the name given by the archaeologists (quartzite) and the one given by the
geologists (quartz) is also remarked by Florea Mogoşanu, although he prefers the term of quartzite125.
Concerning the raw material sources, we consider that they are local as we here understand
mobility in a limited area126, and they exist in outcrops of Mesozoic deposits127, obviously without
115
RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 372; GRIDAN, T. 1983: 103; ANASTASIU, N. 1988: 285.
116
RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 373; GRIDAN, T. 1983: 102–103; ANASTASIU, N. 1988: 286.
117
PÂRVU, G. et alii 1977: 23–24; RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 282; GRIDAN, T. 1983: 99.
118
MOURRE, V. 1996: 206; 1997: 202.
119
MOURRE, V. 1996: 207; 1997: 203.
120
MOURRE, V. 1996: 207.
121
MOURRE, V. 1997: 204, Tab. 1; PÂRVU, G. et alii 1977: 14–15.
122
CAILLEUX, A. 1974: 42; HAMILTON, W. R. et alii 1976: 194; PÂRVU, G. et alii 1977: 20–22; RĂDULESCU, D.
& ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 233, 236–237; GRIDAN, T. 1983: 96–97.
123
MOURRE, V. 1997: 204.
124
COLLINA-GIRARD, J. 1997: 212–213; MOURRE, V. 1997: 202–203.
125
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 18–19.
126
STRATAN, I. 1970: 10; COMŞA, E. 1971: 16; MOGOŞANU, F. 1973: Note 10; 1978: 19; PĂUNESCU, A. 1970a: 85.
127
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970a: 83–84; STOICOVICI, E. 1985–1986: 51.
being able to rule out in the present state of research – for lack of petrographic analysis (according to
our knowledge for the Palaeolithic setlements in the Banat only one petrographic analysis has been
carried out, the one from Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa, level II)128 – and a travel in order to come by the
raw material across a larger territory.
II.3 The quaternary sedimentary deposits in the Banat region
The drainage network (for example its lay-out is swayed by the neotectonic movements) is seen as
being the most important motive force of moulding relief129, having as a first consequence both the
terrace formation with prevailingly river deposits and the sinking of the mountainous valleys130.
Generally speaking, the geological studies underline the fact that most of the Lugoj and
Oraviţa depressions are covered by Quaternary deposits131. Thus one considers the yellow-reddish
clays deposits to belong to the Upper Pleistocene132, with ferromanganoan concretions, from the
western part of the Oraviţa depression133.
Across the Caransebeş–Mehadia depression (Fig. 4), from this period, we encounter river
terraces, bottom land plains and debris cones134. The sedimentation within this depression- couloir,
but also within other depressions of the Banat came about through more erosion cycles that affected
the mountains, yielding sand and gravel spreads often encountered in the make-up of geomorpho-
logical formations of Pleistocene age. Along the Timiş Valley, in the region of Gărâna–Brebu Nou,
the terraces that correspond to the first interstadium of the Würm Glaciary Age have a width of
20–30 m (the third terrace), 30–35 m (the fourth terrace) and are made up mainly of well-rounded
gravels; the fifth terace is poorly developped and belongs to the Riss–Würm Interglaciary Age135. In
the Zgribeşti and Copăcele area (north-west of Caransebeş) the old Timiş Valley terrace is made up
of alluvial deposits and belongs to the Middle Pleistocene136 (Fig. 4).
In the Poiana Ruscă Mountains, the sediments belonging to the Pleistocene (Lower – Upper)
can be found on the terraces with relative heights of 8–12 m, 18–25 m, 35–40 m, 50–60 m, 80–90 m,
100–110 m137.
The reddish clays typical of the Upper Pleistocene, can be found both in the north–east
of Mănăştur along the Bega Valley as well as to the west, on the territory covered by Timişoara
geological sheet138. In the Căprioara – Coşteiu de Sus area, the Quaternary deposits have a small
development, being represented by terrace deposits, boulder fields, debris cones139.
Along the Bega River, in the area of Româneşti village, Quaternary deposits are well developed.
These can be especially found to the west and north-west of the village, on the terraces with a height
of 90–100 m ascribed to the Middle Pleistocene (Mindel – Riss) made up of gravels and sands
covered by reddish clays with concretions, but also on the terraces with a height of 60–65 m of Riss
Age, made up of gravels and sands. For the considered area there are other deposits mentioned as
128
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970a: 218.
129
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 138–144.
130
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 134, 141, 145–146; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 145; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 399.
131
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 625, 632; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 397.
132
133
HARTA GEOL. 31: 34.
134
ONCESCU, N. 1965: 369.
135
GEOG. ROM. 1987: 383.
136
HARTA GEOL. 25: 46.
137
GEOG. ROM. 1987: 428.
138
HARTA GEOL. 24: 23; HARTA GEOL. 25: 47.
139
DUŞA, A. 1969: 82–83.
belonging to the Quaternary (Upper Pleistocene) and namely the deluvial deposits (clays mixed
with gravel in the area of morphological contact), the colluvial deposits (detritus) and proluvial
deposits (gravels, sands belonging to the debris cones) to which one can add the terrace alluviums
of 35–40 m (W1) and 20–25 m (W2) consisting mainly of gravels and sands140 .
Along the Danube141 (between Baziaş and Moldova Veche) and Nera, the Pleistocene is
represented by the high (upper) and medium terrace deposits142 consisting mainly of gravels with
altered crystalline schist fragments and sandy material.
Loessoid deposits formed during Quaternary143 can be found in the West Plain (Timiş Plain)144.
In the West Plain the Quaternary deposits contain an alternance of sandy clays, gravels and
cobblestones, with a thickness that ranges from a few centimetres to approximately 400 m145. The rough
deposits in this area have been intepreted either as debris cones or alluviums of the higher terraces
settled in places due to continuous sinking146. On the whole, the West Plain has the shape of a stripe
running from north to south, with variable breadth. Its maximum breadth is between Lipova and Beba
Veche. It is tranversally furrowed by a rich drainage network with lower, lacustrine-marshy areas147.
In the present-day structure, the Banat relief is characterized by an obvious asymmetry, an
intense tectonic fragmentation, the lay-out of rivers and depressions, the sloping of the relief from
east to west, being as many features thereof148.
From the geographic point of view, in the Occidental Carpathians (that are bounded to the
south by the Danube) one can distinguish two subunits of the third degree, the Apuseni Mountains
and the Banat Mountains149, the last one beeing situated between the Mureş Valley, to the north and
the Danube Valley to the south150. The western edge of the Meridional Carpathians is set by the Cerna–
Timiş couloir and the Danube gorge151. Thus the relief of the area under discussion is dominated
in the eastern part by the Ţarcu, Godeanu Mountains and to the south by the Cerna Mountains152
140
HARTA GEOL. 25: 46.
141
The sector of the Gorge (Baziaş – Vârciorova) represents a transversal valley consisting of several narrow areas
(ravines and gorges) and wide areas (Neogene Depressions of Moldova, Liubcova – Berzeasca, Iuţi – Milanovăţ,
Ogradena – Orşova), remnants of an Old Miocene Sea Channel (COTEŢ, P. 1973: 143, 229). Along the Gorge,
the Danube cuts into rocks of various petrography and structure, yielding an unhomogenous morphology of the
valley along a longitudinal section. Between Baziaş and Pescari the Danube river bed cuts the crystalline schists of
the Locva Mountains up to the confluence with the Liborajdea River it cuts the limestone of the sedimentary area
Reşiţa – Moldova Nouă, then it flows through the granite of Liborajdea, the sandstones, conglomerates, gravels and
clays from the Liubcova Neogene basin. Between Berzasca and Cozla, the Danube cuts through the Ialova crystalline
and then through carboniferous conglomerates and ardesian shales, suddenly sloping down into the syncline of
Sirinia, further down from Cozla (SENCU, V. 1979: 13). Up to Plavişeviţa the river cuts into limestones, marls,
carbonaceous sandstones, gabbros and serpentinites, further down from this village the Danube flows throught the
Cazane, after which the riverbed rises in the area of the granites from Ogradena, and then it slopes steadily down into
the Bahna – Eşelniţa neogene basin. Along the last tract of the gorge, between Orşova and Drobeta Turnu Severin,
the Danube cuts through crystalline schists, through a small limestone area at Vârciorova through the Sinaia strata,
Neogene and Quaternary deposits (SENCU, V. 1979: 14, Fig. 2–3).
142
HARTA GEOL. 31: 35.
143
ZEUNER, F. E. 1959: 24, 29–40; ONCESCU, N. 1965: 512; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 632, 637;
RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979: 240–242, 249–250; GRIDAN, T. 1983: 97; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 399;
PETRESCU, I. 1990: 193–195; TUFFREAU, A. & MARCY, J. L. 1998: 8.
144
HARTA GEOL. 24: 24; COTEŢ, P. 1973: 96, Fig. 42a, 360; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 639.
145
GEOG. ROM. 1983: 86.
146
GEOG. ROM. 1983: 154; MUTIHAC, V. 1990: 403.
147
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 354–355.
148
GEOG. ROM. 1983: 611; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 373.
149
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 232–233; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 611, Fig. 143.
150
GEOG. ROM. 1983: 611; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 365.
151
COTEŢ, P. 1973: Fig. 105; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 605; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 365.
152
CARAŞ 1981: 13, Fig. 1; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 342–344.
and Mehedinţi Mountains153. The Banat Mountains are made up of the Semenic Mountains, which
have a maximum height of 1447 m with the Piatra Goznei peak154, the Almăj Mountains which rarely
rise above 1000 m reaching 1224 m only with the Svinecea Mare peak155, Anina Mountains with
the Leordiş peak, 1160 m156 and Locva and Dognecea Mountains157. Poiana Ruscă Mountains, lying
in the north-east of the Banat stand out as a well delineated unit, set off by a system of faults and
couloirs (Bistra, Timiş, Mureş, Strei) reaching a maximum height of 1374 m with the Padeş peak158
representing at the same time a typical horst lying among crystalline geomorphological units Ţarcu–
Retezat, Cibin and Biharia.
On their whole, the Banat Mountains have the appearance of horsts, semi-horsts and
grabens159, a distinct note being lent by the big river gorges of the Danube, Cerna, Timiş, Bistra and
Mureş160.
As we have mentioned before, the mountain relief of the Banat decreases in height from east
to west (under the shape of an amphitheatre), being continued in the mentioned direction by the
Piedmont Hills (Western Hills), with heights generally ranging between 200 m and 300 m, whose
main morphological features were imprinted by the drainage network by its settling into the bottoms
of the depressions – the Mureş in the Bega depression, the Timiş in the Caransebeş depression,
the Bârzava in the Bocşa depression and the Caraş in the Oraviţa depression161. Among the most
representative units are worth mentioning: the Lipova Plateau, the Făget Hills, the Buziaş Hills,
the Ramna Hills, the Tirol Hills162, these being in their turn followed by plains like the Timiş and
Bârzava Plains163. The depressions are generally small, being either of tectonic origin or generated by
erosion, developing a hilly relief with large terraces164.
Before closing our brief presentation of the Banat relief, we should mention the gorges
(typical of and important for archaeology, from the viewpoint of habitation and not only) which
cut through the mountains. So, in the south of the Banat we find the gorges of the Danube165, from
this towards north, through the little golf cut by the Cerna river, up with the Orşova town, one can
enter the Cerna–Timiş gorge166 which connects the area with the Bistra Valley to the east, this one
making the access way towards the Ţara Haţegului. The northern part of the Banat is delineated by
the Mureş couloir, which connects the area with the Transylvania depression167. This couloir has the
appearance of a geomorphological contact region, which gets singled out by the graben character,
consisting of the Mesozoic basement and intensely fractured crystalline rocks168.
153
CARAŞ 1981: 13; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 339–342.
154
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 239–240; CARAŞ 1981: 15; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 613; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 375, 379, Fig. 138.
155
CARAŞ 1981: 13–15; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 611; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 398–399.
156
CARAŞ 1981: 15–16; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 611; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 386.
157
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 240–241, Fig. 110; CARAŞ 1981: 15–16; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 611; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 392, 398.
158
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 242–244; TIMIŞ 1981: 21; CARAŞ 1981: 12; GEOG. ROM. 1983: 613; GEOG. ROM. 1987:
421–426.
159
GEOG. ROM. 1987: 375.
160
GEOG. ROM. 1987: 375.
161
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 298, 307.
162
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 297–298, Fig. 145, 305–307, Fig. 152; TIMIŞ 1981: 24–25; CARAŞ 1981: 17.
163
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 354–358, Fig. 174, 360–362; TIMIŞ 1981: 25–26.
164
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 242.
165
By the name of the Cazane one designates the gorge tract between Plavişeviţa and Ogradena, the Miocene basin
Dubova dividing the area in Cazanele Mari and Cazanele Mici (SENCU, V. 1979: 17). The Iron Gates of the Danube
is the name given to the area between Gura Văii and Vârciorova where the Danube rolls over craggy rocks (SENCU,
V. 1979: 14); COTEŢ, P. 1973: 143, 229–232, Fig. 107; CARAŞ 1981: 16.
166
CARAŞ 1981: 16, 25–26, 28–29; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 412–415, Fig. 151.
167
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 243–244; MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974: 620–622; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 426, Fig. 153.
168
COTEŢ, P. 1973: 243.
Obviously one should not leave out, in the present context of the discussion, the other rivers
wich cut their river bed through the Banat, of which we only mention the most important ones: the
Nera, Caraş, Bârzava, Bega rivers, the hydrographic network being almost completely tributary to
the Danube169.
***
The numerous studies of Quaternary geomorphology carried out on the continental scale put
forward different situations from one case to another; that is why the detailed extrapolation of the
results and especially of the regional models cannot be unanimously accepted. Most studies carried
out in the last decades take into consideration reference periods of the size of stadial-interstadial
cycles from a Quaternary macro-cycle170, as being relevant from the geomorphological viewpoint,
sometimes spelling out things in detail within these cycles. Other studies of palaeogeomorphology
uncover and analyze distinct geomorphological events within a stadial-interstadial hemicycle. For
example, ANDRES et al. (2001) pointed out changes of the river geomorphological regime within
an extremely short span of time such as the Young Dryas and deal with the changes in the state of the
geomorphological system with periods running up to several hundreds of years. In another study,
VANDENBERGHE et al. (1998) sets forth at least 5 tempered-cold climate changes within a time
span ranging between 41 and 27 ka on the basis of geomorphological evidence.
All these issues are not anything else but problems connected to the change of balance states of
the geomorphological systems as a response to the climatic changes, of course with the secondary contri-
bution of other factors like the neotectonic ones171.
Unfortunately, on the Banat territory, the geomorphological studies have a general character;
the detailed geological studies have focussed mainly on the industrial exploitation of coals,
bituminous shales, stones as construction materials and of other raw materials.
The Quaternary deposits are treated briefly by the archaeologists, in general terms and on a
very wide scale, which makes the obtaining of information an almost impossible business, which
might enable one to understand the chrono-climatic and palaeo-sedimentological context of palaeo-
lithic habitation in the Banat.
The lack of any information from Palaeolithic sites slow down or even render impossible the
reconstruction of the palaeogeographic environment of the Pleistocene within the area delineated
by the Mureş and the Danube.
From the palaeofloristical viewpoint, with palaeoclimatic consequences, we only have the
pollen analysis available, which were carried out in the 70’s, and which are often considered lacunary
and not-representative, especially because of the fact that they were not verified in the region from
nearby the prehistoric site, to which we add the total absence of absolute dating (14C sau TL). This
practically renders impossible the link to the new studies on the European geomorphology, palaeo-
climate and, last, but not least, the geomorphological development of this area172.
The recent analysis of Geomorphological Palaeoenvironment of Upper Quaternary in the
Depression of Transylvania (Eemian-Weichselian-Holocene)173 focuses on the special features of the
Transylvanian Depression micromorphology, of the slope processes, of the permafrost issues,
finding some general features, too, which are also valid for the adjoining micro-areas174:
169
CARAŞ 1981: 24–30; GEOG. ROM. 1987: 376.
170
DE MOOR, G. et alii 1978; GIBBARD, P. L. et alii 1981; LATRIDOU, J. P. 1986; MANGERUND, J. 1991;
VANDENBERGHE, J. 1992; 1993; KASSE, C. BOHNCKE, S. 1992; KASSE, C. et alii 1995; MOL, J. 1997;
HUIJZER, A. S. & VANDENBERGHE, J. 1998.
171
PENDEA, F. 2005: 9.
172
HAESAERTS, P. et alii 2003; SHACKLETON, N. J. et alii 2004; WILLIS, K. & VAN ANDEL, T. H. 2004.
173
PENDEA, F. 2005.
174
PENDEA, F. 2005: 11.
• the alluvial aggradation terraces stand proof of intense, alluvial processes, followed by
short periods of incision into the own alluvia, the terrace bridge corresponding to the old
alluvial surface of the river meadow;
• the alluvial erosion terraces crop up when there is lateral erosion from the river onto the
alluvial river flood plain during a period of river level stagnation (static balance) after
which the river gets deep again leaving the old erosion surface in the alluvia as a terrace
bridge;
• the terraces hard rock can be genetically likened to the previous ones, the only difference
is that in the statical balance periods the river frets sideways at the stone in situ, leaving
sometimes a thin alluvial deposit on the surface. The subsequent aggradation periods,
climatically induced, can heap over this “erosion surface” thick alluvial deposits of the
following cycle.
On the other hand, the concept of response time175 helps us understand that the climatically
induced changes in the shape and morphology of the riverbed, for example, do not occur at the same
time as the climatic event in question, but after a period which is made up of the response time (the
time between the occurrence of the disturbance and the beginning of the erosion or accumulation
processes) and the relaxation time or the time necessary for the system to reach another balance state176.
The main geomorphological effects which the numerous glaciary cycles had on Europe are
in general: proximal glaciation-induced morphogenesis, which contains the complex of processes and
forms directly connected to the action of ice masses and those associated with it (e.g. river-glaciation
complex, glacial-lacustrine complex) and distal glaciation-induced morphogenesis, which contains a
wide variety of processes and forms, but which falls into different categories according to distance to
the glaciary bodies: periglacial processes and forms of relief and Quaternary processes and forms of relief
from low latitudes177.
The Eemian (Oxygen Isotope Stage 5) is, unfortunately, very hard to assess from the geomor-
phological viewpoint as due to its nature, the long temperate period with which this macrocycle
started, did not evince any expressive morphodynamic features and, moreover, most deposits or
morphology that goes back to this stage were strongly fretted away during the Weichselian.
The Lower Plenicial (Weichselian, 75–60 ka BP) represents one of the main phases of
severe cold climate of the Last Glacial. From the geomorphological point of view one can notice
a substantial wind activity responsible for the loessoid deposits syngenetically modified through
areola processes. One can also notice cryoclastism and torrentialitaty processes, but these do not
reach the size of the later glacial maximum. The gasteropodes fauna from the loessoid deposits point
out to a quite cold steppe environment. The alluvial cycle of the present-day terrace no. 2 (8–12 m)
highly probably started out in this stage. The evacuation of Carpathian origin materials and their
deposition as gross hydraulic bed of the above-mentioned terrace was delayed by either the reduced
transport capacity of the rivers or by the relaxation time of the river systems178.
The geomorphocronological information of the Interpleniglacial and Upper Pleniglacial
stops at the level of the years 25 ka BP, when a new period of sparing climate is proved by the devel-
opment of some pedogenetical processes of sub-arid type within the span 25–21 ka BP. The devel-
opment of very high energy processes down the slopes and with almost integral evacuation down
to the level of the main riverbed of the present-day terrace no. 2 is prompted by the small amount of
accumulative formations across the slope sections. We can say that the slopes are typified by erosive
processes. This is proved by the numerous stratigraphic hiatus instances and the small thickness
175
ALLEN, J. R. L. 1974.
176
BULL, W. B. 1991.
177
PENDEA, F. 2005: 15.
178
PENDEA, F. 2005: 185.
of the slope deposits from the present-day terrace no. 2 which also suggests its instability due to
frequent riverbed modifications179.
In Tardiglacial (15–10 ka BP), the morphodynamic regime of the rivers is predominantly
meandering throughout this period.
Obviously, in general, these are the features that can be found along the Timiş, Bega, Cerna
or Danube valleys.
II.4 Research history of the Palaeolithic in the Banat region
For the Banat territory, although the signalling of archaeological material appeared quite early180, the
first mentions of Palaeolithic discovery showed up in the 20th century.
In the 19th century the main palaeontological discovery is assigned to R. Hoernes – or Bodog
Milleker in 1891181 – who, in 1875, signals some fauna remains belonging to the Upper Pleistocene
(Ursus spelaeus, Capra ibex) in Buhui Cave from Steierdorf–Anina182. One should mention that the
cave is active, having a length of 3200 m, and near the main exit there is a secondary gallery with
sediments, but the research carried out by Emilian Alexandrescu did not lead to the discovery of
lithic pieces. The repertory of palaeolithical findings would be later on enriched by the activity of the
speologist Ernö Balogh, who, between 1936 and 1939, carried out research in several caves from the
Caraş Valley. Heinz Feichter carried out research down the Timiş Valley, finding a macrolithic piece
in 1943 which he traces back to the Palaeolithic.
After WW 2, Marius Moga carried out systematic diggings in the Peştera cu Apă (Water Cave)
from Româneşti considering, under reserve, that some osteological materials are palaeolithic183. The
research in this cave would be resumed in 1960 by Florea Mogoşanu.
The start of the Palaeolithic research in the Banat, based on theorethical and methodological
foundations, occurs in 1954 on the occasion of the resuming of the diggings in the Peştera Hoţilor
(Thieves’ Cave) from Băile Herculane by a group headed by C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor. The impor-
tance of the discovery (Palaeolithic and post-Palaeolithic) and the problems it raised spurred on the
pursuit of research headed by C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, Alexandru Păunescu (1960–1961) and Petre
Roman (1965–1972)184. The co-operation of the Herculane group with the Banat museums – and
here we should mention the important role played by Ion Stratan, in his capacity as Director of the
History Museum of Lugoj – turned out to be very fruitful, as one had managed to identify and inves-
tigate the settlements of Tincova (1958), Româneşti (1959), Coşava (1961). The research in these
settlements was conducted by C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor at Tincova (between 1965 and 1966 the
diggings were conducted by Florea Mogoşanu) and by Florea Mogoşanu at Româneşti and Coşava.
To all these discoveries one will add the Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic sites
brought to light by the “Iron Gates” research complex group starting with the year 1964. On this occasion
four Palaeolithic settlements were dug up: Băile Herculane (Florea Mogoşanu, 1968–1970, 1972),
Gornea – Căuniţei Hill and Păzărişte Hill – (Florea Mogoşanu, 1969–1970 and Vasile Boroneanţ,
1970) and Climente I (Vasile Boroneanţ, 1965)185. The natural result of this research has been the
publication of several reports, articles and studies that round off the image of the Palaeolithic in
Banat as much as possible186. All these will peak with the publication of Paleoliticul din Banat (The
179
PENDEA, F. 2005: 187.
180
MEDELEŢ, F. 1997: 63–67.
181
PĂUNESCU, A. 1987: 15.
182
183
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 13–15; PĂUNESCU, A. 1987a: 15.
184
185
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 15–16, 25, 30, 79; PĂUNESCU, A. 1987: 15–16.
186
MEDELEŢ, F. 1997: 67–69.
Banat Palaeolithic) (Florea Mogoşanu, 1978) and of Paléolithique supérieur et épipaléolithique de la

zone des Portes de Fer (Vasile Boroneanţ, 2000a).
In the period between the two monographic studies, the research concerning the Banat
Palaeolithic comes down to a few cases of lithic materials dug up in some caves or on the occasion of
some building works. In 1989, during a digging campaign, at the prehistoric settlement of Gornea187,
at the Păzărişte point, one reached the Palaeolithic layer, too and the resulting materials could round
off the image of Palaeolithic at this point.
In the summer of 2001, the archaeological survey aiming at the Banat Palaeolithic settle-
ments were resumed under the supervision of Emilian Alexandrescu with a view to start systematic
digging, especially at the Româneşti settlement and let us hope that in a not too distant future, at the
Tincova settlement, too.
Starting with 2002–2003, the accidental discovery of human bones from early modern times
from the Peştera cu Oase, was the stimulus staring a multidisciplinary archaeological research project,
with international participation. In this context, archaeological, sedimentological and palaeonto-
logical research was carried out among the bear bones deposits from the Peştera cu Oase and in
the multi-layered site from the Peştera La Hoţu (The Thief ’s Cave). All these and the resuming of
research in the sites that are in the open (Tincova, Românești and Coșava) will shed a new light on
the archaeological evidence of Pleistocene in southwestern Romania.
II.5 The Palaeolithic archaeological evidence in the Banat area
Over time the archaeological literature has recorded more than 20 find spots with archaeological
materials considered as the Palaeolithic in the Banat, ranging from the Lower Palaeolithic to the
Epipalaeolithic.
Obviously, not many of these materials have lived up to criticism as they were the results of
natural factors and did not hold any special scientific interest. Having in mind Banat’s archaeological
potential, we cannot believe that only 4 caves were able to offer real dwelling conditions to the
Palaeolithic man188 (we consider, as we mentioned in the introductory chapter, only the Palaeolithic
discoveries from the present-day counties Caraş-Severin and Timiş) of approximately 100189 – in
this repertory there some caves were also included that lie the present-day Mehedinţi county).
Regarding to the open air settlements, we consider that their existence should be an argument for
the resuming of Palaeolithic research in Banat.
II.5.1 Pedological analyzes and sedimentological remarks on

stratigraphical profiles of the Palaeolithic settlements in the Banat
II.5.1.1 Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave (Caraş-Severin County) (Fig. 3). Also known as
Grota Haiducilor (Thieves’ Cave), this cave lies on the right bank of the Cerna river, at approximately
200 m behind the present-day Hotel Roman, at an absolute height of 257 m. The cave has three
entrances, named A, B, C, oriented towards east and southeast, but the only accessible one is the
middle one, which, through a corridor, connects to the large gallery (20 × 8 m), where one finds the
rotonda (with a maximum diametre spans 10 m and a height of approximately 12 m). This is where
the excavations took place, leading to the discovery of the “quartzite” tool190.
187
188
PĂUNESCU 1992, 3.
189
PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 18–35.
190
The geological stratigraphy, resulted from the 14 m2 excavated in the cave rotonda, is the
following191 (Fig. 9a):
1. a deposit with gromerular aspect, made up of small clay concretions mixed with sundry
organic-mineral compounds (the lower tract follows the micro relief of the cave bed, so
that one cannot rule out the water environment sedimentation); this stratum may be
traced back to the end of Interglacial W1–W2 and the beginning of W2.
2. a deposit of loessoid aspect, of a dark yellow colour on its lower part (with limestone
grains cropping up) and of a light colour on its upper side, within a mixture of rolled
pebbles; at the base of this deposit (Würm II), the “quartzite” pieces were found;
3. a layer of brown colour with sedimentedly rolled pebbles dating to the interstadium
W2–W3;
4. non-homogenous deposits (in what their structure and colours are concerned);
5. a 15 cm thick deposit made up of large rocks, bound together by a limestone cement of a
light yellow colour on its lower side and of a reddish colour on its upper side;
6. a deposit of a reddish colour, affected on its upper part by a fire taking place during the
first stage of Neolithic habitation.
II.5.1.2 Coşava (Curtea village, Timiş County). In the summer of 1961, the Palaeolithic
settlement of Coşava192 was uncovered on the banks of the Bega river. The site was lying at a height
of over 100 m from the river level, on a spot the locals call Cuca, consisting of two knolls (Cuca
Mare and Cuca Mică), that are connected by a slightly riverbed-like area (Fig. 7). The site lies to the
southwest of the Coşava village outskirts, on the right bank of the river Bega, in the southeast part
of the Lipova plateau193.
Earliest archaeological research (with a mere sampling purpose) occured as early as 1961194,
continuing until 1964. After a two year intermission, the research was resumed in 1967 and went on
until 1969. A total area of 226 m2 was excavated, the trenches running as deep as 1.5 m but in order
to get a complete stratigraphical succession, they should have been approx. 3.00 m deep195.
The succession of deposits in the settlement area is the following one (from bottom to top)
(Fig. 10b):
1. a white-yellowish sandy layer (∇ – 320–280 cm);
2. a layer with reddish sandy bands (∇ – 280–255 cm);
3. a layer made up of very fine white-yellowish sand (∇ – 255–230 cm);
4. a layer made up of very fine yellow-reddish sand (∇ – 230–135 cm);
5. reddish sandy clay, shot through by grey-bluish stripes (∇ – 135–85 cm);
6. a layer made up of brown-reddish compact sandy clay, with rich prismatic structure,
containing iron oxyde concretions and rolled pebbles on its lower side (∇ – 85–35 cm);
7. a wind blown deposit of yellow-whitish colour (∇ – 35–15 cm);
8. a grey-yellowish dusty layer (∇ – 15– 0 cm).
Archaeologically speaking a stratigraphic196 succession of three layers (yielding only lithic
material) was identified. Thus, the first level one, known as Coşava I, lies between the depth of
191
MOGOŞANU, F. 1971: 3–6; 1972: 10; 1973: 14; 1978: 25–27.
192
STRATAN, I. 1965: 412.
193
MOGOŞANU, F. 1967a: 556; STRATAN, I. 1970: 12.
194
STRATAN, I. 1965: 412.
195
MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 344; 1969: 89–90; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 73–74; STRATAN, I. 1970:
12–13.
196
We must say that this stratigraphic profile, like those determined for the other settlements also, lacks a spatial context
framing (no information on the trench number, its location within the settlement or orientation of the profile).
Concerning the numbering of the layers, we shall consider as “1” for the oldest sedimented layer, references such as
“in the lower part of” or “in the upper part of…” were expressed considering on a present-day “zero” level.
85–75 cm, in the lower part of layer 6; second archaeological layer, known as Coşava II lies between
the depths of 60–45 cm, approximately in the middle of the same layer 6; Coşava III was observed at
the depths of 35–25 cm, to the lower part of layer 7197.
II.5.1.3 Gornea–Dealul Căuniţei (Sicheviţa village, Caraş-Severin County) (Fig. 2). The site
is located in the Danube Gorge, on the north–eastern edge of the depressionary basin of Liubcova,
at the contact point between the Almăj and Locva Mountains.
The geological stratigraphy (from bottom to top) (Fig. 10a) is the following198:
1. a grey-yellowish sandy layer with limestone concretions (∇ – 80–60 cm);
2. a brown-reddish layer with prismatic structure (∇ – 60–30 cm);
3. a transition reddish layer (∇ – 30–15 cm);
4. a grey, less compact with yellowish shades (∇ – 15–0 cm).
To the lower part of layer 2 of a variable depth between –60–40 cm, a cultural layer was
found, containing 154 lithic pieces. Their stratigraphic position calls for some remarks. The above
mentioned layer is directly overlapped by Holocene deposits (lacking the typical W3 deposits),
thus drawing attention to possible processes of solifluction; therefore we are in fact dealing with an
uncertain stratigraphic position of the Palaeolithic layer199. Taking into consideration some charac-
teristics of lithic tools of Upper Palaeolithic origin and also the prismatic structure of layer 2, Florea
Mogoşanu suggested the layer belonged to the interstadium W2–W3, which also entails an even later
position for the Palaeolithic layer200. We hope the resumed research will clarify the stratigraphic
position of this Palaeolithic occupation.
II.5.1.4 Gornea–Păzărişte. Păzărişte Hill lies east of the Cameniţa Valley (Fig. 2) and has a
height of 40 m against the Danube level. The researched area excavated until now measures 36 m2
reaching an average depth of 75 cm201. For stratigraphic purposes, an area of 9 m2 was deepened to
180 cm202, and the following succession was observed (from bottom to top):
1. a layer with loessoid aspect, rich in limestone concretions (∇ – 180–60 cm);
2. a brown-reddish layer with prismatic structure (∇ – 60–25 cm);
3. a grey-reddish arable layer (∇ – 25–0 cm).
In the lower part of layer number 3, at the point of contact with layer 2 at a depth of
∇ – 25–20 cm (at the centre of the plateau reaching 40–30 cm) a few Palaeolithic pieces were found.
II.5.1.5 Pescari–Livadiţei Cave (spelaeological code 2222/xxx) lies within the area of Pescari
village at a relative height of 70–80 m; it is a small slightly ascending cave, oriented towards south-
southwest, dug out in the limestone rock of the Pescari-Alibeg strait. Vasile Boroneanţ, following his
research carried out here between 1972 and 1975 (together with Elena Terzea), determines on the
ground of the profiles from SI and SII the following stratigraphic succession203 (from bottom to top):
1. an archaeologically sterile layer, made up of two clay horizons (a lower brow-dark reddish
one, 10–15 cm thick, overlain by a brown-light reddish to orange one, noted 1A) 40 cm
thick;
2. a layer rich in clastic material, made up of three loessoid horizons, 85 cm thick, named 2,
3, 4;
197
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 74, 78; MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 341.
198
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 535, Fig. 5; 1978: 30, Fig. 7.
199
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 537; 1972: 10; 1973: 17; 1978: 32, 105.
200
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 537; 1978: 32.
201
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 34; LAZAROVICI, G. 1977: 22–23.
202
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 532; 1978: 34.
203
BORONEANŢ, V. 1979: 143; 2000b: 20; TERZEA, E. 1979: 111–114, Fig. 23.
3. a layer from the Iron Age (Basarabi culture), 15 cm thick;

4. a Medieval layer (14th–15th centuries), 5–7 cm thick.
The lithic implements from the first two horizons with clastic materials is represented by “a
series of flint chips, of which some seem to have some atypical finish” which, even if they are “hard to
classify”204, may be traced back to a Mousterian facies without bifacial forms205.
The fauna of layer 1 suggests a temperate climate, which allowed the growth of forests with
moist meadows and of oasis of herbaceous vegetation206. On layer 2, horizon 2 (according to the
authors’ notation) the faunal record comprised Ursus spelaeus, Crocuta spelaea, Canis lupus and
Martes martes, Cervus elaphus (forest forms), Microtus nivalis, Capra ibex (Alpine immigrants) which
suggest a harsher climate meaning that the temperature dropped and rich rainfalls set in207. The fauna
associations of layers 3 and 4 include numerous steppe species (Cricetus cricetus, Mesocricetus newtoni,
Cricetulus migratorius, etc.) which underline a progressive marking of the continental note of the
climate, whereby the forest areas shrank and the open areas expanded208. Through a few pieces of
evidence uncovered at the Mousterian level, the presence of the Large Pachidermae has thus been
attested (Mammuthus primigenius and Coelodonta antiquitatis) which seem to have been hunted in the
areas around the gorge, but without the specimens having reached the gorge, as they are missing in
the Mousterian sediments from the Climente cave209. As a characteristic note of the loessoid deposits
from this cave we can quote the relatively significant remains of Ursus spelaeus and Microtus arvalis.
Together with carnivorous species (Vulpes vulpes, Canis lupus, Panthera spelaea, etc.) or those typical
to forested areas (Martes martes, Ursus arctos, etc.) and rodents they complete the image of the fauna
present in the area during the time of the latest glaciation210. The comparative analysis of the fauna
from some caves in the Danube gorge (Livadiţa cave, Climente cave) shows that the steppe elements
crop up in the area (at the end of W1) probably coming from the Banat plain and, in a primary stage,
do no seem to have gone beyond the western end of the gorge, while the Alpine species seem to
have migrated downhill in the proximity of the caves only during the coooling stages. Their reduced
occurence suggests a gentler climate inside the gorge even in the maximum glacial periods211.
II.5.1.6 Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa (village belonging to Tomeşti, Timiş County) (Fig. 6).

The Palaeolithic settlement lies on the north-east edge of the Poiana Ruscă mountain range, on a
terrace lying at the confluence of the Bega Mare and Bega Mică rivers, NNW part of the village212.
It was dug up in 1959, as the research unfolded during several campaigns in 1960, 1961–1964 and
1967–1972213.
Stratigraphy. A rich, pluristratified settlement was exposed revealed over an area of 450 sqm,
with a 150 cm profile (along some sections it reached down to 300 cm for geological purposes).
The succession of deposits214 (from bottom to top) is the following215 (Fig. 10c):
204
BORONEANŢ, V. 1979: 143.
205
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
206
TERZEA, E. 1979: 112.
207
TERZEA, E. 1979: 113, Tab. 8.
208
TERZEA, E. 1979: 113.
209
TERZEA, E. 1979: 135–136.
210
TERZEA, E. 1979: 114, 135.
211
TERZEA, E. 1979: 135–136.
212
ALEXANDRESCU, E. 2002.
213
MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 336–340; MOGOŞANU, F. 1967a: 556; 1978: 51.
214
The succession of deposits from Româneşti will be set out according to the data offered by F. Mogoşanu in the study
from 1978, without mentioning the numberings of the Palaeolithic levels during the diggings the way they appear in
older studies.
215
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968b: 644, Fig. 1; 1972: 12–13; 1978: 51, Fig. 22; MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 332,
Note 3; 1969: 84.
1. terrace foundation, cone of dejection ∇ – 320 cm;

2. fine, reddish clay, mixed with pebbles ∇ – 320–280 cm;
3. compact horizon of iron oxydes and water rolled pebbles ∇ – 280–250 cm;
4. clay mixed with fine pebbles ∇ – 250–200 cm;
5. clay mixed with rolled pebbles and iron oxydes ∇ – 200–180 cm;
6. fine, reddish clay with vertical greyish-blueish veins ∇ – 180–110 cm;
7. brown-reddish clay with prismatic structure, rich in iron oxydes concretions especially on
the lower side ∇ – 110–50 cm;
8. intermediate yellow-reddish layer with “brown stains” ∇ – 50–35 cm;
9. loessoid deposit with an intermediary web of iron oxydes ∇ – 35–15 cm;
10. present-day level of impression ∇ – 15–0 cm.
Layer I lies in the upper part of deposit 6, between the depths of 115–105 cm. The lithic tools
found here are atypical, mainly in connection with the raw material that was used, “quartzite”, respec-
tively. Level II of habitation belongs to the Aurignacian and lies at the base of layer 7, being exposed
over an extremely small surface, with a thickness of 5 cm (∇ – 95–90 cm). Level III, alongside Tincova
Palaeolithic level and level I of Coşava, represent one of the most important habitation levels of the
Banat Palaeolithic. The excavations carried out at Dumbrăviţa did not show a clear delineation of
this level, which, thus still in deposit 7 from the stratigraphy mentioned above. Level IV, identified
across a surface of 20 m2, has a thickness of approximately 7 cm, stratigraphically lying between the
depths of –67–60 cm. Level V lies at a depth of –50–40 cm, in the yellow-reddish deposit (no. 8),
evincing a discontinuous aspect. It contained several flint concentrations (workshops like) lying at a
distance of 3–4 m from each other. They contained a large number of atypical flakes and a very low
number of tools. Level VI, the last level of the stratigraphic sequence from Româneşti lies at a depth
of –30–20 cm, in the upper part of the sediment evincing a loessoid aspect (Fig. 10c).
II.5.1.7 Tincova–Sălişte (Sacu village, Caraş-Severin County) (Fig. 5). The Palaeolithic
(Aurignacian) settlement from the place called Sălişte was discovered in 1958; from the geomorpho-
logical point of view it lies on a dejection cone on the western edge of the Poiana Ruscă Mountain
range216. It lies 60 m above the right bank of the river Timiş. The archaeological research began in 1958;
the first two campaigns took place under the supervision of C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor and Ion Stratan217.
Starting with 1965–1966 the research in this settlement was taken over by Florea Mogoşanu218.
The stratigraphic succession (from bottom to top) (Fig. 9b) is the following219:
1. alternating gravel, blocks and clay that make up the foundation of the dejection cone;
2. fine, deep reddish, sandy, earth (∇ – 300–265 cm);
3. sand and rolled pebbles mixed with iron oxydes (∇ – 265–235 cm);
4. reddish earth clay with greyish-bluish strips (∇ – 235–125 cm);
5. clay with prismatic structure of brown-yellowish colour with iron oxydes concretions
(∇ – 125–55 cm);
6. yellowish-whitish loessoid deposit, mixed with small iron oxydes concretions (∇
– 55–20 cm);
7. present-day greyish-yellowish level of impression (∇ – 20–0 cm);
We would first like to mention several lithic quartzite pieces uncovered during the 1967
campaign at a distance of approximately 20 m south of the Aurignacian settlement (or …in the summer
216
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & STRATAN, I. 1961: 29; STRATAN, I. 1962: 123; 1970: 8; MOGOŞANU, F.
1972: 10; 1973: 22; 1978: 37.
217
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & STRATAN, I. 1961: 29–31; STRATAN, I. 1962: 123–125; 1970: 8.
218
MOGOŞANU, F. 1967a: 555–556.
219
of 1966… about 200 m north…)220 – in a small test pit (3 × 2 m)221. Their stratigraphic position is
uncertain, as one could not determine if the deposit they originated from was “reshuffled” or not.
There are about 15 “quartzite” pieces uncovered in the degraded loess deposit (lying at the base of
the present day vegetal deposit) of yellowish-greyish colour, at a depth of 40–30 cm. The Aurignacian
lithic materials included in a single cultural level, have been dug up in the upper part of deposit 5.
II.5.2 Repertoir of Palaeolithic archaeological sites

II.5.2.1 Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave (Fig. 11). The first information on the archaeological
research carried out in this cave was given to us from Nicolae Stoica de Haţeg, who mentions that in
1778 the priest Samoilă Popovici and Ignatie Sandală from Mehadia discovered various ‘buckles’ and
‘harnessing pieces’222. In 1872, the year when the Society for History and Archaeology of Timişoara
was founded, the first excavations also started, under the supervision of dr. Ludwig Arányi, A. Józsa and
Th. Lehotzky223 followed by the research carried out by Bódrog Milleker and G. Téglás around 1880,
by Agoston Solymásy in 1904, Ottokar Kadić in 1916 and by a group of museologists from Craiova
in 1927224. The scientific research began in 1954, Peştera Hoţilor being tackled under the framework
of “the archaeologic site Cerna-Olt”225. The excavations carried out on several campaigns have brought
forth a stratigraphic sequence that is important for several cultural-chronological horizons. The lithic
tools uncovered at the foot of the loessoid deposits that make up layer 2, at the depth of 270–250 cm,
count 125 pieces; typologically we should mention the following pieces226 (Fig. 12):
• 5 scrapers created on triangular-shaped falkes (2) with neocortical butt or on alternately
retouched flakes (3);
• 3 Mousterian atypical points of a triangular shape with a thick neocortical butt;
• 8 retouched flakes with a neocortical butt, some seeming to be denticulated;
• pieces of a natural couteau à dos.
This tool points out to a Mousterian industry characterized by the absence of the Levallois
technique and of the bifacial shapes, but rich in scrapers. The stratigraphic position and the uncovered
fauna remainders (high frequency of Microtus nivalis and Marvalis suggesting a cold climate) enabled us
to attribute these pieces back to a presumed Late Mousterian, which developed at the beginning of W2227.
Other than the above-mentioned pieces, in the same (greyish-yellow) sediment as well as in
sediment B (dark yellowish with many pebbles) from the big gallery, pieces of Upper Palaeolithic
origin were found228. Among them we would like to mention some blades with continuous retouches
on one side, one notched piece, one piece with retouched truncation, a burin-scraper, an angle burin
on break, 5 atypical scrapers and two prismatic cores- that can be traced back to the Aurignacian.
Within this context one should also mention the only hearth identified for the Palaeolithic. It was
quasi-round in shape, with a size of 90 × 80 cm and a thickness of 6–9 cm. The fauna associated with
this horizons consists of, among others, micromammals (Microtus nivalis, Microtus arvalis, Microtus
agrestis etc.), Ursus spelaeus, Cervus elaphus, etc., all pointing out to a certain amelioration of the
climate, favouring an expansion of forest, mainly of decidous trees229. This occupation period here
represents the only Aurignacian cave occupation discovered in the Banat up to the present moment.
220
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968a: 303; 1972: 11.
221
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 48–49.
222
PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 16.
223
224
PĂUNESCU, A. 1987: 15; MOGOŞANU, F. 1971: 3; 1972: 9; 1978: 23.
225
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. et alii 1955: 140–146.
226
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 27–29; PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
227
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3; MOGOŞANU, F. 1968a: 309; 1971: 9–12; 1972: 9–10; 1973: 14–17; 1978: 29, 102.
228
229
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 4–5; 2002.
The first pre-Neolithic discoveries made in this cave provoked a lengthy debate among the
Romanian archaeologists. The topic of this debate was the discovery of hearth with microliths and
no pottery in squares 11–14 on the 1954 campaign230. Essentially, it centered around the occupation
level III from Herculane, identified both in the rotonda (in a light yellow sediment in the lower part
and reddish in the upper part) and in the big gallery in sediment C of greyish-black colour. In this
gallery an oval shaped “habitation complex” (385 × 180 cm, approx. 10 cm thick) was found. In its
proximity there were four hearths231. In the lithic assemblage there were 475 (mostly) flint pieces, and
some radiolarite pieces. 90 of them are tools: scrapers (in great numbers), backed blades, notched
pieces, side-scrapers, pieces of the raclette type, burins, piercers, pieces esquillées232, narrow backed
blades, truncated blades and very few geometrical armatures (scalene triangle, circle segments,
asymmetrical trapezese) and pieces of backed knife type (Fig. 13)233.
From the floristic point of view one identified following coal samples testing, Pinus sp. and
some indeterminable decidous trees. The uncovered fauna comprises micromammals (Microtus
arvalis, Microtus agrestis, Cricetulus migratorius, etc.), big mammals (Ursus arctos, Cervus elaphus,
Castor fiber, etc.), birds (Pyrrhocorax cf. graculus), fish (Cyprinus carpio, Aspis rapax) and several
(fossile Cerithium sp.) shells used for adornments234.
The discovery of these complexes made 14C dating possible. Thus, sample 1 (calcinated bones
from hearth no. 2, squares 3–4 of the longitudinal sections (southern profile) in the big gallery,
119–107 cm deep) provided the date 11490±75 BP (GrN–16978) considered to be accurate, if
we consider the features of the lithic material, of the fauna and flora, being at the same time an
argument for considering this Epipalaeolithic dwelling that probably developed within the Alleröd
and Dryas III oscillation235. All these lead one to trace this lithic assemblage to the Tardigravettian of
a Mediterranean type, also found in the Danube Gorge at Cuina Turcului236.
II.5.2.2 Caransebeş (Caraş-Severin County). At Carbonifera Veche (New Caransebeş, left of the
Caransebeş–Orşova road) 3–4 flint objects were found and assigned by Richard Petrovszky to the
Upper Palaeolithic. Another piece was found while digging a ditch for a high voltage post. In the Timiş
floodplain on its left bank, at the Măhală, other pieces were found and considered to be Palaeolithic237.
In the absence of a stratigraphic context as well as a formal description and graphic illustration, they
should be looked upon with utmost caution. During some field research carried out recently isolated
lithic pieces that could be Palaeolithic were found: a “quartzite” flake found on Dealul Iepura, about
1 km east of the town, on the right-hand side of the road to Lugoj, or an atypical flake from the same
raw material found at Zborâşte (approximately 1.5 km from Dealul Iepura)238. Beside these pieces, in
the colections of the County Museum of Ethnography and of the Border Brigade Caransebeş one
can also find an opal chip with retouchings in the distal area found in the area of the village Lăpugiul
de Sus (Hunedoara County), a macrolithic yellowish-brown flint piece with directly retouched parts
on either side, the back side preserving cortex areas, found in the area of the villages Româneşti–
Baloşeşti (Timiş County) and a ‘quartzite’ blade found by Octavian Popescu at the point called Ocna
lui Vucu, near the peak of Pleşiva in Anina Mountains239.
230
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. et alii 1955: 143; NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. et alii 1957: 51–53.
231
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 5; NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & COMŞA, E. 1957: 18–21; NICOLĂESCU-
PLOPŞOR, C. S. & PĂUNESCU, A. 1961: 203–213.
232
BITIRI, M. 1959: 453–454.
233
234
235
236
PĂUNESCU 1970b: 3–28; 1979: 11–28; 1984: 251–252; 1989: 146–150; 2001: 68–70, 336–361.
237
PETROVSZKY, R. 1975: 365; JUNGBERT, B. 1978: 9–10.
238
Octavian Popescu, personal communication.
239
Emilian Alexandrescu, personal communication.
II.5.2.3 Constantin Daicoviciu (Caraş-Severin County) on Dealul Păning at the point

La cariera veche (At the Old Quarry) lying on the right bank of the Vălişor brook, at approximately
2 km north–north-east of the bridge over the river Timiş, on the road to Tincova, while lime was
being extracted, one came across former avens, maybe of a cave destroyed by the quarry works, filled
up with breccia, in which fossile bones and “quartzite” nodules may be found. Atypical « quartzite »
chips have been found in this area240.
II.5.2.4 Coşava (village belonging to Curtea, Timiş County).

Typological study
Coşava I
In the first horizon there were 609 pieces of which only 110 are typical. In order to have a
clearer picture of the implements we listed the piece types in the table below241 according to the
model-list of D. De Sonneville-Bordes – J. Perrot (Fig. 15):
Ord. no. Types of pieces No. %

1. End-scrapers 2 1,81
2. Atypical end-scrapers 2 1,81
4. Ogival scrapers 1 0,90
5. End-scrapers on retouched blade 3 2,72
6. End-scrapers on Aurignacian blade 3 2,72
7. Fan shaped end-scraper 1 0,90
8. End-scraper on flake 8 7,27
11. Carinated end-scraper 9 8,18
12. Atypical carinated end-scraper 4 3,63
13. Nosed end-scraper 2 1,81
13a. Atypical nosed end-scraper 3 2,72
15. Core-like end-scraper 5 4,54
16. Rabot 2 1,81
27. Dihedral straight burin 3 2,72
28. Offset dihedral burin 1 0,90
29. Diehadral angle burin 3 2,72
30. Burin de angle along the break 1 0,90
31. Multiple dihedral burin 1 0,90
47. Atypical Châtelperron point 1 0,90
52. Font-Yves point 1 0,90
65. Blade with continuous retouch on one side 15 13,63
66. Blade with continuous retouch on two sides 15 13,63
67. Aurignacian blade 10 9,09
68. Strangled blade 1 0.90
74. Notched piece 2 1,81
75. Dentriculated piece 4 3,63
77. Side-scrapers 6 5,45
90. Dufour bladelett 1 0,90
Total implements 110
Cores and simple blades 103
Flakes 178
Atypical flakes 218
Overall total 609
240
Octavian Popescu, personal communication.
241
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 74–78.
The characteristic typological indices for this level are:

IG 39.09%
IB 8.18%
IGA 16.36%
IBd 8.18%
Analysing the table and indices from above we notice a relative quantitative prevalence of
retouched blades, including here also the Aurignacian blades (one is of the pointed type) produced
through scaled retouch. Among the end-scrapers an important place falls to those making up the
Aurignacian group. Carinated end-scrapers were made cores (some worn and broken), massive
points or crested blades and are produced by direct covergent or semi-convergent blade retouches.
The two nosed end-scrapers were manufactured, one on a core tablet, and the other on an Aurignacian
blade. One should remember the presence of the core-like end-scrapers and of the rabot type pieces,
elements encountered in other Aurignacian settlements in the Banat. The group of the burins is
numerically small, being generally made up of atypical items. From this level we have a strangled
blade and two very important pieces, respectively a Dufour bladelet and a Font-Yves point (Fig. 15).
We regret that we cannot have a view of the butt types, of the metrical variation of the support,
of the frequency of the pieces that stem from the first stages of the reduction sequence as the material
(nowadays in the custody of the History Museum of Lugoj), whose storing conditions render its
study difficult if not even impossible with a view to reconstructing its archaeological contexts from
which it stems has not been processed and one makes no references to the lithic implements (the
same holds for the other two levels). At level I, the same as for the other two levels, no other elements
have been discovered that should enable one to make additional references to the activities of the
Palaeolithic man.
Coșava II stratigraphically lies between the depths of 60–45 cm, in the sediment of layer 6,
this cultural level is poor in lithic implements, including a total number of 56 typical pieces, made of
flint. Typologically we obtain the following data:
Ord. no. Types of pieces No.

1. End-scraper on blade 2
2. Atypical end-scraper on blade 3
5. End-scraper on retouched blade 2
8. End-scraper on falke 2
11. Carinated end-scraper 3
12. Atypical carinated end-scraper 6
13. Nosed end-scraper 1
15. Core-like end-scraper 3
16. Rabot 2
24. Atypical piercer 1
27. Straight dihedral burin 2
29. Diehadral angle burin 2
30. Angle burin along the break 1
65. Blade with continuous retouchs on one side 5
66. Blade with continuous retouch on both sides 9
67. Aurignacian blade 3
75. Denticulated piece 3
77. Side-scrapers 5
90. Dufour bladelets 1
Total implements 56
From the table from above it results that at this level, one generally encounters, to a smaller
proportion, the same tools type as on the first level. The presence of the carinated, nosed, core-like
end-scrapers, but also of the Dufour bladelets allows us to assign this layer to the Aurignacian. The
scarcity of the materials prevent one from launching other hypotheses referring to the position of
this level within the wider framework of the Central-East European Aurignacian.
Coșava III. The lithic assemblage uncovered on this layer are numerically reduced, amounting
to a total of 183 pieces, of which only 24 are tools, but they are interesting from the composition
standpoint:
Ord. no. Types of pieces Nr.

1. End-scraper on end of blade 1
2. Atypical end-scraper on end of blade 2
4. Ogival end-scraper 1
8. End-scraper on flake 2
9. Circular end-scraper 2
10. Thumb-nail end-scraper 1
11. Carinated end-scraper 2
27. Straight dihedral burin 1
52. Font-Yves point 1
65. Blade with continuous retouch on one side 2
66. Blade with continuous retouch on two sides 3
Total implements 24
Analysing the table above we notice the existence of two cultural components. The first,
the Aurignacian one, is represented by pieces such as carinated and core-like end-scraper, the tip
Font-Yves points and of the Dufour bladelets and the second, the Gravettian one, is set forth by
microlithic tools that include circular and thumb-nail end-scrapers, to which one adds the presence
of several obsidian points242.
II.5.2.5 Curtea (Curtea village, Timiş County) the toponym of archaeological interest, the Dealul
Pământ (or Pământ Roşu), lies at a distance of approximately 0.5 km southwest of the edge of the
Curtea and at approximately 2.5 km southwest of “Izvorul lui Miron” monastery. Florea Mogoşanu, in
1972, after a small test pit (10 m2) has brought to light the existence of a flint-processing workshop,
mentioning that some cortex and cores points stem from here243. On the above-mentioned hill plateau,
three atypical “quartzite” pieces were found that could be assigned to the Middle Palaeolithic244.
II.5.2.6 Curtea (Curtea village, Timiş County) the place called Dealul viei (Vineyard Hill or “in
the vineyard”) lies at a distance of about 0.4 km east–southeast from the Dealul Pământ. Following
the sondages carried out here, in a yellowish dust-like deposit, at the depth of –45–20 cm, several
flint pieces were found. Among them there were: a carinated end-scraper, two core-like end-scrapers
and several blades and cores245, which actually determined Florea Mogoşanu to consider these
materials as Aurignacian. During the field research of the last year no other archaeological materials
were found246.
242
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 78, 130; 1967a: 559; MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 343; 1969: 90; STRATAN, I.
1970: 14–15; CHIRICA, V. 1996a: 138.
243
244
245
246
II.5.2.7 Duleu (Caraş-Severin County). Richard Petrovszky mentions at Corcanu a flint blade
of blackish colour “that may be assigned to the Palaeolithic”247. Without further details we cannot
consider this as a Palaeolithic settlement.
II.5.2.8 Gornea–Dealul Căuniţei (Sicheviţa village, Caraş-Severin County). The site is

located in the Danube gorge, on the north-east edge of the depression basin of Liubcova, at the
contact between Almăj Mountains and Locva Mountains. The present day village Gornea lies at
about 3 km north of the Danube, along the Cameniţa Valley248. The hill of Căuniţa lies at about
400 m north of the Orşova–Moldova Nouă road and at about 500 m southwest of the village, it
slopes gently to the south (to the Danube) and to the east (towards the Cameniţa Valley, which
separates it from the the hill of Păzărişte) stepwise, being interspersed with gentle slope249 (Fig.
2). As we mentioned in the research history, during the activity of the Complex Research Group
“Iron Gates” under the supervision of Florea Mogoşanu two short excavation campaigns took place
in 1969 and 1970. On Căuniţa hill the excavation took place on one of the middle steps, at the
point called Ţîrchevişte with a total surface of 28 m2 (in three sections) having been dug, generally
running as deep as –0.80 m.
In the lower part of layer 2 (brown-reddish), with a variable depth of –60 to –40 cm, a cultural
horizon was identified. It was poor in archaeological material and yielded only 154 lithic pieces, in
need for some stratigraphical details: the above mentioned stratum is directly overlain by Holocene
deposits (the W3 characteristic deposits are lacking), which draws our attention to possible solifluction
processes, meaning we could be dealing with an uncertain stratigraphic position of the Palaeolithic
layer 1250. Considering several characteristics of the lithic tools of Upper Palaeolithic nature and the
prosmatic structure of layer 2, Florea Mogoşanu suggests assigning it to interstadium W2–W3, which
also entails a later position of the Palaeolithic layer 1251. Of course, it is desirable that the resuming of
research should bring along clearer elements on the stratigraphic position of this Palaeolithic settlement.
The lithic inventory comprising 154 pieces is made especially of black shales, jasp, quartz-
iferous rocks, flint and siliceous gritstone252. Although the number of typical pieces is very small
and cannot be subjected to the technical-typological analysis after the Bordian method, we can still
identify types such as (Fig. 16):

1 Typical Levallois flake 19
1a Typical Levallois blade 5
2 Atypical Levallois flake 7
3 Unretouched Levallois point 5
4 Retouched Levallois point 3
9 Single straight side-scrapers 2
11 Single concave side-scrapers 2
12 Double straight side-scrapers 1
14 Double straight-concave side-scrapers 1
17 Double convex-concave side-scrapers 2
38 Naturally backed knife 1
42 Notched piece 1
43 Denticulated piece 1
Total implements 50
247
PETROVSZKY, R. 1975: 373.
248
ŢEICU, D. & LAZAROVICI, G. 1996: 9–11.
249
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 535; LAZAROVICI, G. 1977: 23.
250
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 537; 1972: 10; 1973: 17; 1978: 32, 105.
251
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 537; 1978: 32.
252
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 336; 1978: 30; PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3.

Non-Levallois points 21
Non-Levallois blades 4
Levallois core 1
Discoidal core 1
Quasi-discoidal core 1
Atypical flakes 76
Overall total 154
As far as the technical study is concerned, we do not have a representative sample, thus we do
not know what value the indices and the characteristic groups after the Bordes method might have
been; we only retain that the plain butts prevail. Apart from those we encounter the following types:
facetted (convex and flat), diedrical and punctiform. Our attention is drawn by the low percentage
of the cores (1.94) from the total number of discovered pieces, by the cortex points, the crested
blades, etc. useful elements for the determination of the settlement character. On the basis of this
material we consider the lithic industry of Gornea–Căuniţa as belonging to a typical Mousterian of
Levallois flaking, rich in side-scrapers253, made on Levallois points with a facetted convex butt (4),
non-Levallois butt (3) and Levallois blade butt (1) (Fig. 16).
As there is no match between the total number of discovered pieces claimed by Florea
Mogoşanu (147)254 and the number resulting from the above table (154)255. In the collections of
the Mountainous Banat Museum from Reşiţa we have noticed the existence of materials marked as
Gornea (Căuniţa and Păzărişte, with the mention of having been dug up by Florea Mogoşanu). We
do not know whether they have been subjected to the analysis of Florea Mogoşanu (some of them,
retouched, not being graphically rendered). From these materials, which we have not included in the
table, we mention: transversal convex side-scrapers256 (from a siliceous rock of greyish colour with
whitish intrusions) cortical flake (L = 32,5 mm, W = 44 mm, T = 9 mm) with a plain butt, inventory
entry no. 2702, A 7068, box no. 3f51); end-scraper on retouched flake, it has a wide plain, oblique
butt (L = 28 mm, W = 30 mm, T = 12 mm, box no. 3f45, inventory entry number 2517, A 7065);
point with retouch in the distal part – atypical end-scraper – with plain butt, made of quartzite rock
of greyish colour (L = 32 mm, W = 29 mm, T = 6 mm, box no. 3f51 having inventory entry number
2708 A 7005) (Fig. 16).
The palinological analyses257 did not reveal any geochronological information, but thus the
indicated palaeoenvironment should be looked upon with much caution.
II.5.2.9 Gornea–Păzărişte. The Hill of Păzărişte lies east of the Cameniţa Valley and is 40 m
above the level of the Danube (Fig. 2). In the lower part of stratum 3, at the contact area with
stratum 2 (–25–20 cm, at the centre of the plateau, the Palaeolithic level runs as deep as 40–30 cm)
a Palaeolithic was exposed, poor in archaeological remains. The same as at Căuniţa, the position of
the lithic material is uncertain, as it could have originated either in the upper part of stratum 2, or at
a certain level of the Eolian stratum that petered out following a process of erosion258, assigned, as an
hypothesis, to the end of stadium W3.
The lithic tools display an atypical character: out of about 180 discovered pieces, the following
types were identified259 (Fig. 17):
253
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 537; 1973: 19; 1978: 31; PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3.
254
255
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
256
BORDES, F. 1961: 12, Fig. 3/1–4, 28.
257
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1978: 101; 1980: 142–144.
258
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970, 535; 1978, 36; LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 1993, 300.
259
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 34–36; PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
• 3 end-scrapers, one on end of blade, one on a retouched cortex point, a finely denticulated
and a double one;
• 1 dihedrical burin;
• 1 piercer on a crested blade;
• 1 notched piece;
• 1 esquillée piece;
• 1 side-scraper;
• denticulated pieces and many points, some of triungular shape with wide facetted or
plain butt;
• 9 microlithic blades of which some retouched (4) and macrolithic blades with fine wear
retouches (10);
• 57 simple blades of which three Levallois;
• 11 cores, of which 7 prismatic.
For a while, the continuing archaeological research did not reach any Palaeolithic occupation,
but the 1989 campaign brought to light typical materials. The 1989 excavation aimed both at the
spread of the Bronze Age fortification and the stratigraphy of the hill260. Thus, in the middle of
the hill Păzărişte a trench was cut (S11, 75 × 2 m) that crossed the plateau from the north to the
south261 in which “at the depth of –30–40 cm, in a brown soil with small limestone concretions, the
remains of a Palaeolithic level occurred in two different places. For time saving reasons, the section was
narrowed to 1 m, which did not allow us to classify the nature of the complexes (place of knapping,
hearth or dwelling”262. Starting from here we tried to discuss this material in different terms than
the previous attempts simply employing terms such as “tips”, “scrapers”, “drills” etc.) in another
cultural environment, but our striving was in vain. Unfortunately the materials from the 1989
campaign could not be found among the collections of the Mountainous Banat Museum Reşiţa or
of the National History Museum of Transylvania. Beyond this ironical overtone, we believe that
all we are left with are the 62 published pieces (which can represent all the discovered pieces in
1989 according to some opinions). We would not have been so disappointed if the drawings had
been carried out after the required principles of the graphic rendering of lithic material, but in the
present case this thing is of little avail, too. By analysing the three published plates, we observe the
(potential) existence of the following piece types: a simple end-scraper on a point263, a dihedrical
burin264, a piece of the raclette type265, flakes and balde with marginal wear retouch266, a discoid
core267 and a Levallois point268.
Among the collections of the Mountainous Banat Museum in Reşiţa we have also identified a
concave side-scrapers made on a rejuvenating tablet with a dihedrical butt (L = 25 mm, H = 40 mm,
T = 7 mm, box no. 3f46, inventory entry number A. 10846, the 1967 campaign), a simple flake and
an end-scraper on end of blade.
Without granting too much importance to these pieces, we consider the lithic industry at
Păzărişte as belonging to the Aurignacian, in a maybe later evolution period of this culture in the
Banat269.
260
LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 1993: 291.
261
262
263
LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 1993: Fig. 8/13.
264
265
266
LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 1993: Fig. 7/5–6.
267
268
269
MOGOŞANU, F. 1972: 10; 1973, 19; PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 4; 2002.
II.5.2.10 Gornea–Vodneac (Caraş-Severin County). Here, lying on a sloping plateau at the

Păzărişte foothill, 400 m north of the Orşova–Moldova Nouă road, Alexandru Păunescu (quoting
page 3 of the abstract of V. Boroneanţ’s doctoral thesis from 1981) mentions the discovery of
several flint pieces (a core-like end-scraper, a double notched, an end-scraper, etc.) assigned to the
Aurignacian270 the same as those from Păzărişte. Vasile Boroneanţ’s published version of the doctoral
thesis is said that “…l’homme continua-t-il d’habiter cette contrée pendant le paléolithique supérieur,
comme le prouvent les documents archéologiques mis au jour dans la grotte Climente I de Dubova, à
Gornea, dans la colline de Păzărişte, ainsi qu’à Vodneac”271. Also “in the same area, and even in the profile
of a section of the colleague Boroneanţ, I have found pottery fragments that belong to Starčevo-Criş culture
to which the flint discoveries made by our colleague may belong”272. According to more recent opinions
referring to these materials, one cannot rule out the possiblity of their provenance from Păzărişte273.
II.5.2.11 Grădinari (Caraş-Severin County). Among the collections of the Mountainous Banat
Museum from Reşiţa there is a piece (box no. 3f45, inventory entry number 2487) of orange colour,
very strongly water rolled, without a clear pointing facet and evincing on its right side, two deep
depressions giving it the appearance of a denticulated piece. It was considered to be Palaeolithic.
II.5.2.12 Iabalcea–Cerbului Cave (spelaeological code 2240/1, village of Caraşova, Caraş-

Severin County) lies at about 5.5 km southeast of the village, on the right bank of the Caraş river, at a
height of 504 m. During the sondages carried out here, Ernő Balogh found (under a guano stratum,
at the depth of –0.50) several (“purposely”), broken bones which he assignes to the Aurignacian.
Together with them there were limestone and quartzite rocks among which a triungular point with
several retouches, which he considers to be Mousterian274. We retain here, under some reserve,
for the present-day state of the research, the presence of the points and of a “Musterian tip made of
quartzite” as arguments referring to the existence of a Palaeolithic settlement in this cave. It is worth
mentioning that, periodically, the cave becomes wet as there probably are underground springs275.
II.5.2.13 Iabalcea–Popovăţ Cave (Popovăţ Cave, village of Caraşova, Caraş-Severin County)

has only one entrance, its maximum length amounts to 112 m, and its absolute altitude is 421 m276.
Ernö Balogh carried out a sondage here (12 × 1 m, –0,75 m). In clayish yellow deposit, he found
several Ursus spelaeus broken bones, among which he identified some tools: daggers, points, scarpers
and even some blades of the Kiskevély type. Between 1958 and 1960 field surveys took place in this
cave, on which occasion several Ursus spelaeus bone were gathered277 which ended up in the custody
of the then County Museum of Reşiţa. It needs to be stressed that the so-called Palaeolithic bone
tools discovered are doubtful showing nothing else but natural breaks278 a result of the physical-
chemical and mechanical processes that have affected the cave sediments.
II.5.2.14 Leucuşeşti (village of Bethausen, Timiş County). On the upper terrace of the Bega river,
following some surface research carried out by Ion Stratan between 1967 and 1968, an Aurignacian
270
271
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a: 22.
272
LAZAROVICI, G. 1977: 30.
273
274
PETROVSZKY, R. 1975: 368; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 13–14; JUNGBERT, B. 1979: 400; PĂUNESCU, A. 1987:
15; PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 21.
275
276
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000b: 27.
277
PETROVSZKY, R. 1975: 368; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 14; JUNGBERT, B. 1979: 400–401.
278
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 14; PĂUNESCU, A. 1987a: 15.
settlement was postulated279. Considering the range of the Palaeolithic research in the Banat in the
60’s and 70’s we believe that a new Aurignacian settlement would have made the subject of at least a
modest test pit. The fact that this station has not been retained by the special field literature leads us
to believe that its signalling is a mere step of the field survey research in the Banat, obviously until the
field corroboration of the above mentioned information.
II.5.5.15 Liborajdea (village of Sicheviţa, Caraş-Severin Country). The point Gura Liborajdea
lies at the intersection of the river Liborajdea into the Danube, near the road leading to Pescari.
Four microlithic flint blades, three flint cores and a crested blade were found here à crête, but on the
occasion of the field survey from the summer of 2001 no other materials were found280. Without
further sondages looking for new materials and clear detemination of their stratigraphic position, we
cannot consider this point as a Palaeolithic settlement.
II.5.5.16 Pescari–Gaura Chindiei I Cave (spelaeological code 2222/1) lies at 6 km downstream

of village Pescari (Caraş-Severin Country) at a relative height of 80 m. It consists of one gallery with a
total length of 24 m281. We do not know what the Palaeolithic finds (the material has disappeared) from
the cave were like282 but the author of the research remarked that “the oldest cultural stratum probably
belongs to the Early Iron Age”283. In order to clarify the matter, we briefly describe the stratigraphy of the
cave (from bottom to top), resulting after the excavation in 1971 of three trenches:
• archaeologically sterile stratum (overlapping the rock bed).
• stratum with materials from the First Iron Age
• stratum with mixed materials (Dacian and Medieval).
• recent stratum of cattle and goats’ droppings, ashes and coal, contemporary pottery fragments284.
For these reasons we do not consider this cave as a new Palaeolithic settlement.
II.5.2.17 Pescari–Livadiţei Cave (spelaeological code 2222/xxx) lies within the area of the
village of Pescari, at a relative height of 70–80 m; it is a small cave, gently sloping up, with south-
south-west orientation, dug out in the limestone mountain range of the strait of Pescari-Alibeg.
Vasile Boroneanţ, after excavations carried out between 1972 and 1975 (together with Elena Terzea),
found some lithic tools in the first two clastic material horizons: “a series of flint points, some of which
appear to have an atypical retouch”. Despite the fact they are typologically “difficult to classify”285, may
be assigned to a Mousterian without bifacial shapes286.
In a black-brown-greyish soil, rich in clastic material, stratum 2, horizon 4 (we believe that
is horizon 5 since stratum 1 has two clearly chromatically distinguishable horizons), the Bucharest
researcher uncovered a Palaeolithic occupation287 from which “several pieces” were gathered288
among which a few side-scrapers stand out289. The number of discovered pieces is very small (8, 7
on flint of different nuances and 1 of grey gritstone), but one can make out the following types290:
279
MOROZ-POP, M. 1983, 475.
280
281
BORONEANŢ, V. 1979: 144; 2000b: 35.
282
ROGOZEA, P. 1987: 348; PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 25.
283
284
285
286
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
287
JUNGBERT, B. 1982: 551; PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 29.
288
BORONEANŢ, V. 1979: 143, Pl. XXVI/1–3.
289
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000b: Pl. 28.
290
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
• simple bifacial straight side-scraper (dos aminci) with retouches of the semi-Quina type
(dimensions: L = 6,9 cm, H = 3,8 cm, T = 1,3 cm);
• double biconvex side-scraper on a non-Levallois blade with a partially removed butt
(dimensions: L = 8.1 cm, H= 3.6 cm, T = 1.1 cm);
• convergent convex side-scraper on a non-Levallois point with a quasi-plain butt;
• simple straight side-scraper, with thick retouches, made on a Levallois blade;
• simple non-Levallois flake with cortical butt;
• simple non-Levallois fake with facetted butt;
• two atypical, microlithic flakes.
Although numerically reduced, the lithic inventory of this horizon might belong to a
Mousterian knapping non-Levallois facies, rich in side-scrapers291. At this level, a human bone was
found which, according to Dardu Nicolăescu-Plopşor, represents phalanx I of Homo, probably,
Neandertaliensis292. One should mention that no tests have been run in order to obtain an absolute
dating chronology for the level of Mousterian from that cave. Based on the fauna and the archaeo-
logical material, one practically traces this stratum back to final Würm I293.
The archaeological research did not reveal any hearths from the Mousterian ocupation neither
any element that might point out to artistic expression is lacking.
II.5.2.18 Adi’s Cave (spelaeological code 3022/6) lies in the basin of Căprionişca, on the left slope
of the Mureş; it has the length of 58.5 and a relative height of 50 m. Palaeolithic tools were mentioned294
but the materials are lost. The field research was carried out in 1976–1977 by Vasile Boroneanţ, and
continued later by groups of speleologists from Arad. On these ocassions fossile faunal elements were
found (Ursus spelaeus) but also some flint pieces which might belong to the Upper Palaeolithic295.
II.5.2.19 Dubanăţ Cave lies within the area of the village of Sasca Montană296. Flint points, a
side-scraper a tip and Palaeolithic end-scrapers were mentioned here297. All these materials (occuring
with some slightly burnt, brown pottery) are thus no conclusions can be drawn.
II.5.2.20 Oilor–Bobot Cave (spelaeological code 2143/2) is a slumped (fossile) cave with a
grotto aspect lying at about 150–200 m from the landmark of km 14 towards Godeanu (26 km
towards Băile Herculane). During the sondages (0.50–0.60 m, –0.50 m) carried out near the left wall
of the first entrance a flint piece was found of brown colour. It was seen as Upper Palaeolithic298. On
the grounds of the presented drawing and in the absence of the description we cannot subscribe to
the authors’ firm claim and consider this piece as a Palaeolithic one.
II.5.2.21 Vraşka Cave (spelaeological code 2238/10) lies at a height of about 50 m against the
Caraş river middle line within the area of Caraşova299. In this fossile warm cave, without air currents,
a test pit was excavated in which an Aurignacian flint of light brown colour was discovered300. From
the drawing, the piece is an end-scraper on a retouched blade with a slightly convergent front side, but
291
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3; 2002.
292
TERZEA, E. 1979: 114; PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3.
293
BORONEANŢ, V. 1979: 143; TERZEA, E. 1979: 114.
294
ROGOZEA, P. 1987: 353, 360; PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 19.
295
296
297
ROGOZEA, P. 1987: 349, 358; PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 24; BORONEANŢ, V. 2000b: 38.
298
PETROVSZKY, R. et alii 1981: 436, Pl. II/3; PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 31; BORONEANŢ, V. 2000b: 33.
299
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000b: 27–28.
300
PETROVSZKY, R. et alii 1981: 432, Pl. II/2; PETRESCU, S. M. 2000: 35.
its isolated presence without a certain stratigraphic context makes its assignation to the Aurignacian
problematic (prehistorical ceramic fragments were also found, probably Coţofeni).
II.5.2.22 Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa (village of Tomeşti, Timiş County). The Palaeolithic

settlement (Fig. 18) lies at the confluence of the rivers Bega Mare and Bega Mică, in the NNV part of
the village. It was found in 1959; the research took place over several campaigns in 1960, 1961–1964
and 1967–1972301.
The stratigraphical sequence. A rich, multistratified area of 450 m, with a profile of 150 cm
(on some trenches even 300 cm) was excavated. The succession of the deposits from this settlement
(from bottom to top, see supra) made the object of several presentations302.
Horizon I lies in the upper part of deposit 6, between the depths of 115–105 cm. The lithic
tools found here show an atypical character, triggered mostly by the raw material that was used,
respectively «quartzite». Of the 48 discovered pieces only a few can be classified typologically
(Fig. 19/1–5):
• 3 pieces of triangular shape of Musteroid aspect with a neocortical butt (2) and wear
retouches on the distal end (1);
• 1 massive flake partially covered by neocortex with its left side retouched on the distal
end;
• 2 pieces of the naturally backed knife type couteau à dos naturel, one of them with fine
wear retouches;
• 2 end-scrapers made on flakes; one has a convex active part and the other has a rectilinear
part;
• 1 prismatic core preserving the negatives of laminary knapping.
Based on the presence of these tools Florea Mogoşanu believed that this horizon I could be
dated to a later date, proof thereof being both the stratigraphic position and the last three mentioned
pieces deemed to be Upper Palaeolithic303. From here, V. Chirica saw this entire horizon as Upper
Palaeolithic304 making up a different Aurignacian and obviously previous culture, respectively “the
Upper Quartzite Palaeolithic”305. Such issues cannot be solved through a mere approach of the raw
materials used, but mainly through further interdisciplinary research.
Horizon II lies at the base of stratum 7. It was exposed over an extremely small surface, with
a thickness of only 5 cm (–95–90 cm). The lithic assemblage is also very poor, including only a
few piece types. Together with the atypical material there are several fragmented blades with direct
or reverse retouches (2), two atypical end-scrapers, a dihedrical burin made on a massive blade,
partially covered in cortex, with the right side directly retouched, and a macrolithic side-scraper
(Fig. 19/6–9) (L = 16.2 cm, H = 13.9 cm, T = 4 cm) with scalariform retouches306. No other remains
assigned to this Palaeolithic level were found.
Horizon III. Together with the Tincova horizon and Coşava I, this horizon represents one of
the most important elements of the Banat Palaeolithic. The excavations carried out here did not lead
to the delineation of this occupational level, which stratigraphically lies at a depth of –86–70 cm,
301
MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 336–340; MOGOŞANU, F. 1967: 556A; 1978: 51.
302
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968b: 644, Fig. 1; 1972: 12–13; 1978: 51, Fig. 22; MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 332,
Note 3; 1969: 84.
303
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968a: 304–306; 1978: 54.
304
CHIRICA, V. 1996a: 132.
305
CHIRICA, V. 1996a: 137.
306
MOGOŞANU, F. 1967a: 556, Fig. 1; 1978: 54–56; MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 336, Fig. 1.
therefore in deposit 7. The lithic assemblage, although relatively numerous (with a total number of
pieces close to 5000) has only a few tools (114 pieces). The following types were identified (D. de
Sonneville-Bordes and J. Perrot typology):
Ord. no. Types of pieces Lev. III % Lev. IV Lev. V

1. End-scraper on blade 6 5.26 1 0
2. Atypical end-scraper on blade 1 0.88 1 4
3. Double end-scraper 1 0.88 0 1
5. End-scraper on retouched blade 1 0.88 0 1
6. End-scraper on Aurignacian blade 2 1.75 0 1
8. End-scraper on flake 15 13.16 3 1
10. Thumb-nail end-scraper 1 0.88 1 0
11. Carinated end-scraper 7 6.14 0 1
12. Atypical carinated end-scraper 6 5.26 1 2
13. End-scraper à museau 2 1.75 1 0
14. Nosed end-scraper 1 0.88 0 0
15. Core-like end-scraper 8 7.02 3 1
16. Rabot 6 5.26 1 3
17. End-scraper-burin 1 0.88 1 1
21. Piercer end-scraper 1 0.88 0 0
24. Atypical piercer 2 1.75 0 0
27. Dihedral straight burin 7 6.14 6 5
28. Dihedral offset burin 3 2.63 3 2
29. Dihedral angle burin 2 1.75 4 3
30. Angle burin along the break 4 3.51 2 4
31. Multiple dihedral burin 1 0.88 1 4
32. Burin busqué 1 0.88 0 0
34. Burin on straight retouched truncation 2 1.75 3 1
35. Burin on oblique retouched truncation 2 1.75 4 0
36. Burin on concave truncation 1 0.88 1 0
37. Burin on convex retouched truncation 1 0.88 1 0
39. Transversal burin on a notch 1 0.88 0 0
43. Core-like burin nucleiform 1 0.88 0 0
60. Piece on straight retouched truncation 0 0.00 2 0
61. Blade with oblique retouched truncation 1 0.88 3 0
63. Blade with convex retouched truncation 1 0.88 3 0
65. Blade with continuous retouches on one side 6 5.26 0 1
66. Blade with continuous on both sides 1 0.88 3 0
67. Aurignacian blade 5 4.39 1 0
74. Notched piece 1 0.88 1 0
75. Denticulated piece 1 0.88 2 0
76. Scalar piece 0 0.00 1 0
77. Side-scraper 2 1.75 4 0
84. Truncated blade 0 0.00 2 0
85. Backed bladlets 0 0.00 0 1
89. À coche flake 1 0.88 1 1
90. Dufour bladelets 8 7.02 0 0
Total tools 114 61 38
Simple blades 788
Flakes 1941
Cores 47
Atypical flakes 2165
General total 5055
On the ground of the data in the table above, the following characteristic typological indices
were calculated:
IG 44.74%
IB 22.80%
IGA 14.04%
IBd 14.91%
IBt 5.26%
ILD+FY 7.02%
As one can see, the end-scrapers group holds the greatest weight, taking up 44.74% of the
total number of tools found at this level. Our attention naturally goes to the typical nosed and
carinated shapes of the Aurignacian that reach 14.04% to which we add the core-like end-scrapers
and the pieces of the rabot type. Seen against the group of the end-scrapers, the percentage of the
burins group, which amounts to 22.80%, definitely higher than the Tincova percentage, seems quite
important to us. Interesting is the fact that inside this group the dihedral burins prevail, reaching
almost 15%. Compared to the Aurignacian settlement from Tincova here the Dufour bladelets
amount to only 7.02%. The rest of the lithic tools is made up of retouched blades on one or both
sides (1), mostly fragmented, while one can distinguish the pieces with scalar retouches typical of
the Aurignacian (Fig. 20–21).
The raw material, which is quantitatively important, is largely unstudied. Given the storage
conditions it seems unlikely for a future attempt to meet a high degree of success. Naturally, the
great number of the blades, points and atypical points speak themselves for the character of the
settlement, obviously connected to the processing of flint. Unfortunately lacking such information
it is imposible to determine the frequency of the butts types, the type of economy, or the operational
chain. The discovered cores make 0.92% of the total numer of pieces of this level; most of them
do not have a typical shape, but there are some pyramidal, prismatic, uni- or bipolar (Fig. 24–26),
shapes frequently encountered in the Aurignacian environment. Without knowing what “middle-
size blades” mean, we retain that they prevail (592), followed by 158 microlithic blades and 38
macrolithic blades (Fig. 27/2, 5, 6; Fig. 28/1, 2; Fig. 36)307.
Horizon IV. Identified across a surface of about 20 m2 this level of occupation has a thickness
of about 7 cm, stratigraphically lying between 67 and 60 cm. Compared to the previous level,
it is much poorer, yielding only 61 typical pieces. Generally, the same types as in level III were
identified, even if in a smaller proportion in the case of the end-scraper group, but slightly higher
in the case of the burins on retouched truncation (Fig. 22/1–7) or of the pieces with retouched
truncation. We have no information on the rest of the discovered material in this horizon, and even
less metrical data or technological data. No other elements that might be connected to Palaeolihic
man were discovered.
Horizon V lies at the depth of 50–40 cm in the yellow-reddish deposit (8) evincing a discon-
tinuous aspect showing several flint concentrations, perhaps workshops lying at a distance of 3–4 m
of each other. They yielded a high number of atypical points and a very small number of tools, many
of them atypical (Fig. 22/8–12). Studying the typological table, one can notice a decrease on the
number of the end-scrapers and an increase on the number of burins. Based on the characteristic of
the assemblage, this horizon was assigned to the Aurignacian.
307
Horizon VI. The last occupational from Româneşti lies at the depth of –30–20 cm in the
upper part of the loessoid sediment. The lithic assemblage is also numerically reduced, but it is
comparable to the previous ones. Thus the following types have been distinguished:
Ord. no. Types of pieces No. of pieces

1. End-scraper on blade 5
2. Atypical end-scraper on blade 2
7. Fan-like end-scraper 1
8. End-scraper on flake 8
9. Circular end-scraper 3
10. Thumb nail end-scraper 9
16. Rabot 1
27. Dihedral straight burin 3
28. Dihedral offset burin 1
30. Dihedral angle burin 2
34. Burin on straight retouched truncation 1
36. Burin on concave truncation 1
48. La Gravette point 3
67. Aurignacian blade 1
74. Notched piece à encoche 1
77. Side-scraper 2
78. Raclette 2
79. Triangle 2
85. Backed flakes 3
Total tools 56
One can notice that together with the types characteristic to the Aurignacian new ones also
appear, suggesting another cultural component (one should however notice the absence of the
carinated and nosed end-scrapers). The new ones include the La Gravette points, backed flakes, pieces
typical of the Gravettian, but also scalene triangles and thumb-nail like and circular end-scrapers,
shapes mainly encountered during the Epipalaeolithic. As well as in Coşava III, the first Gravettian
in the Banat Palaeolithic appears in Româneşti VI, but the Aurignacian background suggested by the
Dufour bladelets is not gone yet (Fig. 23/1–12).
Another aspect of this settlement is represented by the so-called Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa II308
which Florea Mogoşanu saw as a distinct settlement lying at about 80 m north of the previously
discussed one, on the same geomorphological unit. The anthropical elements are represented exclu-
sively by ithic tools found in of small concentrations (from their expansion standpoint), some of
them quite rich quantitatively. The material is generally atypical, characteristic to the knapping
workshops, but some typical pieces were identified making the classification of these workshops
possible (while one considered their stratigraphic position, too) within the horizon represented by
levels V–VI from Româneşti (Fig. 23/13–15, 16–21, 22–23).
From the series of these workshops, two have been singled out, lying at the east-north-east
edge of the terrace; one of them specialized in the production of Dufour bladelets and the other one
in “quartzite” processing. The first workshop was lying at the depth of –45–30 cm, taking up some
4 m2, and yielded (beside some retouched flakes and two atypical end-scrapers) 15 Dufour bladelets.
One should note the absence of cores and/or carinated end-scrapers. The second workshop309 is
308
MOGOŞANU, F. 1972: 14; 1978, 67; MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1969: 85, 89.
309
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968a: 306–307.
characterized by “quartzite” as raw material and yielded macrolithic tools among which one singles
concave lateral side-scraper made on a flake with well-marked neocortical and chonchoidal butt,
with reverse retouches, a piece of a triangular shape with well-marked neocortical and chonchoidal
aspect. The character of this material is Musteroid, raising the problem of its classification within the
context of the Banat Palaeolithic; on one hand, the relations with other “quartzite” discoveries, and
on the other hand, with the Aurignacian environment.
In what the present author is concerned, Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa II is not considered as
a distinct Palaeolithic settlement, mainly because level V is described as being “very large, but
discontinuous, being made up of small agglomerations, small workshops for flint processing, lying at
3–4 m from each other“310. As refitting and technology studies are lacking (it is well-known the case
when after refitting the potential contemporaneity between two occupations was brought to the
fore311, despite the fact they lay at a far greater distance than those discussed by us at Româneşti)
we suggest as a working hypothesis that these workshops belong to occupational level V from
Româneşti. Our hypothesis takes into account both the stratigraphic position and the compo-
sition of the lithic assemblage (as it is set out), from which elements are absent that particularize
level VI, but are of Aurignacian origin (Dufour bladelets, Font-Yves points, core-like end-scrapers,
notched pieces).
Like other Banat Palaeolithic settlements, at Româneşti too one failed to find other remains
than the lithic material such as hearths, floral and faunal elements that should support the succession
of 6 chronological Palaeolithic horizons. Under such circumstances, the only edifying tests are the
granulometrical ones, while the palinological tests carried out by Marin Cârciumaru312, according to
whom the climatic oscillation Româneşti = Lascaux was defined313, are not deemed to be relevant
by specialists.
II.5.2.23 Româneşti–The Water Cave (Peştera cu Apă, spelaeological code 2273/1). It lies at
5 km east–southeast of the village of Româneşti (Tomeşti, Timiş County), on the road leading to
Fărăşeşti. Marius Moga considered, under some reserve, that among the numerous broken bones
of Ursus spelaeus some Palaeolithic tools might have been lying around314. The research in this cave
was hindered by the existence of a thick layer of rocks fallen from the cave ceiling and covering the
deposits of the Upper Pleistocene315. It was mentioned316 that down the depth of –3.20 m only
Postpalaeolithic materials were uncovered while Palaeolithic finds occured at a depth of –3.20 m317.
Among the lithic materials discovered here and stored in the Banat Museum of Timişoara, Vasile
Boroneanţ identified several pieces he considered to be Palaeolithic318.
II.5.2.24 Sadova Veche (village of Slatina Timiş, Caraş-Severin County). Heinz Feichter
discovered a macrolithic piece (L = 30 cm, lH= 14 cm, T = 6 cm) in the Timiş Valley, within the
area of Sadova Veche which he assigned to the Lower Palaeolithic319. As it was shown in the field
literature, this piece is, based on its size, the result of natural processes.
310
311
CATTIN, M. I. 1992: 35–42.
312
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1978: 90–97; 1980: 190–196; 1985: 19; 1993: 229.
313
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1987: 101; 1999b: 138–139, Fig. 88, Tab. 3.
314
315
MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966: 335; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 15; ROGOZEA, P. 1994: 155, Pl. I–II.
316
Marius Moga, Field notes, 1948.
317
318
V. Cedică, personal communication.
319
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 14; JUNGBERT, B. 1985–1986: 389–390.
II.5.2.25 Bones Cave (Peştera cu Oase, village of Steierdof–Anina, Caraş-Severin County). It lies
in the karstic system of the Miniş Valley, on the right slope, thereof practically enclosed in the under-
ground between Peştera Plopa and Ponor (N. 45o 01’; E. 21o 50’).
Summerizing, we mention 3 important sectors: 1. Peştera Plopa – the lower sector (from
the entrance of the cave to the Syphon), 2. Puţul (the Well) (from the Syphon to the upper level),
3. Peştera cu Oase (the upper sector). Peştera cu Oase has about 12 galleries, but we discuss here the
gallery called Galeria Culcuşurilor (the Lairs Gallery) (between the gate and the topo 7 station),
Panta Strămoşilor (“The Ancestors’ Slope” (between topo 7 station and 7a) and Sala Mandibulei (the
Mandible Hall, after Panta Strămoşilor). The human bones were found in Sala Mandibulei (Oase/
Bones 1 – lower jaw) and Panta Strămoşilor (Oase/Bones 2).
The grid system (1 m2) is linked to the topo 7a–7 station, point “0” (the horizontal plane)
being determined with a water level Laser Mark Magna Pro Level. If we consider topography of the
area, we see the distance from the gate to the topo-station 7a (30 m): squares numberings begins at
31, increasing towards station 7, while the other axis is marked with letters M–O. Each square was
subdivided into 4 quadrants (A–D) from left to right and from top to bottom.
In the period 2004–2005 excavations were carried out, in the area overlaying the place where
the human bones were found in the previous years.
The archaeological situation does not differ from that presented following the 2004
campaign320; practically, no anthropic activity was remarked in the cave (artefacts, coal, parietal art or
others). Thus, with the 2005 campaign, the research at this point ended, but in order to understand
the context in which the human bones ended in the underground, our attention should be focussed
on the upper levels of the karstic system, especially on those galleries with Pleistocene fauna and
sedimental deposits which seem undisturbed.
Chronologically, the deposit succession from the cave Peştera cu Oase is the following one:
• Level 2, a succession of different torrential events, the latest occuring around approx.
47 ka cal BP ago;
• Level 1 – about 46 ka cal BP – similar to material in the whole area from the Oase/Bones.
The surface material from the sector Panta Strămoşilor is made up of:
• bone material from Level 1 (bear, deer, wolf);
• late human remains OIS–3 (< 42 ka cal BP);
• ibex remains OIS–2 (< 30 ka cal BP).
Until recently, the presence and biological nature of the Southeastern European early modern
humans has remained largely hypothetical, based on palaeogeography and unsubstantiated assump-
tions of associations between archaeological complexes and human biology, accompanied by a few
poorly dated and/or undiagnostic human remains. However, the 2002, 2003 and 2004 discoveries
of early modern human remains in a palaeontological context (without archaeological evidence)
in the Peştera cu Oase, in the Banat Mountains of Caraş-Severin, has provided a window on the
biology of these earliest modern humans in Europe321.
Because these materials were the subject of more numerous scientific publications in the
last few years, we will not repeat the same descriptive discussions regarding the anthropological
features of these human bones322. In the present article we are referring only to the conditions
in which the remains were found, and to their age. They were discovered in a secondary strati-
graphical position at the surface of a palaeontological deposit without an archaeological context.
Their presence in the cave is explained through an accidental fall from the exterior. Due to this fact,
we can presume the existence of a contemporaneous archaeological horizon located in one of the
caves from this karstic system.
320
321
TRINKAUS, E. et alii 2005a.
322
TRINKAUS, E. et alii 2003; 2003a; 2005a; 2005b; ROUGIER, H. et alii 2007; RICHARDS, M. P. et alii 2008.
As the Oase 1 mandible was a surface find, a bone sample of 350 mg was removed from the
broken edge of its inferior right ramus and submitted for AMS radiocarbon dating to the Oxford
Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit (ORAU). The second sample provided a δ13C of –19.0‰, a C:N ratio
of 2.6, and an organic yield weight of 28.5 mg. The resulted age is 34,290 14C years BP +970–870
(GrA–22810). Combining the 14C activity ratios from the two analyzes yielded a combined age of
34,950 14C years BP, +990, –890 (38,561 ± ca1025 cal. years BP)323.
II.5.2.26 La Hoţu Cave (village of Steierdorf – Anina, Caraş-Severin County). Peştera La Hoţu’
or Hoţilor – (Thieves’ Cave, spelaeological code 2233/6)324 lies in the karstic system of the Miniş
Valley, on its right slope, at an approximate height of 600 m (N. 45o 01’; E. 21o 49’).
Geologic context – general framework

The Miniş Valley has been hollowed out in massive limestone, Barremian reefs, of Plopa and
Miniş, and is part of the limestone from the Southwestern Carpathians, which represent the largest
karstic area of Romania. The karstic hyporelief from the basin of the Miniş is made up of several
small and middle-size caves, with relatively widely gaping openings to the outside, which were once
part of one or more underground complexes, whose communication is silted up to a large extent.
Given the intense degree of fragmentation of this karstic system, supported by numerous
cave-ins sink holes, of big dimensions, we draw the attention to the fact that the understanding of
the anthropic presence in this karstic system in the Upper Pleistocene and Holocene cannot be done
without an analysis going into two directions, a vertical analysis (underneath – Peştera cu Oase and the
at surfacce – cave-ins sink holes, fossile floors, partially caved-in galleries) and one horizontal analysis
(intercorrelation of undisturbed stratigraphic sequences of some cave-galleries with natural access –
Peştera cu Abri (quasi-silted up), Peştera din Dolină (3 galleries with Pleistocene), Peştera La Hoţu.
In this context the excavations in Hoţu cave and Peştera cu Abri (2004–2007) are very
important for the understanding of the palaeoclimatic changes and also for understanding the
prehistoric human presence in Plopa-Ponor sector. It is also very important to continue excavations
in these caves, so that we can better understand the chronology, the palaeoclimatic and cultural
changes from the Upper Palaeolithic until the modern age.
The sector of the karstic system where our research is located is defined by the following
geographic coordinate in national reference system STEREO 70:
Y: 249360 X: 396307 | Y: 249360 X: 398307 | Y: 251360 X: 398307 | Y. 251360 X: 396307
Archaeological occupation levels and structures325:
- modern level (Level. 1.1) (black sediment);
- medieval level (Level. 1.2) (brown-black sediment);
- roman level(Level. 2) (brown sediment with rocks);
- Coţofeni level (Levels. 3.1–3.5) (grey sediment);
- Neolithic level (Level. 4.1);
- Starčevo-Criş level (Level. 4.2) (yellow-brownish sediment)326;
323
TRINKAUS, E. et alii 2003a; 2003b; 2005a.
324
GORAN, C. 1982: 156.
325
LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 2005; 2006; PETRESCU, S. M. et alii 2007; 2008.
326
A very important fireplace discovered at a depth of –261/263–271/275 cm was investigated in 2004–2005 and
appears to be from the IIb-IIIa phase of the Starčevo-Criş complex (LAZAROVICI, G. 1979; BIAGI, P. &
SPATARO, M. 2004). The fireplace had a quasi-oval stone arrangement, developed around a big limestone block,
well pegged in the cave sediment at the moment when the Starčevo-Criş inhabitants were using the cave. The charcoal
in this Starčevo-Criş context was entirely made up of thin branches of Fagus sylvatica, whence a sample submitted
to the Lisbon Radiocarbon Laboratory yielded a conventional date of 6710±80 BP (SAC–2001). Associated with
this structure we found more pottery fragments, lithic and bone tools dated to the Starčevo-Criş cultural complex
(LAZAROVICI, G. 1979; 1984; 1998; LAZAROVICI, G. & MAXIM, Z., 1995).
- Mesolithic level (Level. 5.1) (reddish loam);

- Mesolithic level (Level. 5.2) (yellow-reddish loam);
- archaeological sterile level (Level. 6.1) (yellow-reddish loam with clastic material);
- 1 archaeological sterile level (Level. 6.2) (yellow-reddish matrices with clastic material);
- sediment fine, grey with clastic material (Level. 7.1);
- greyish-yellow sediment with rocks, charcoal and burned bones (Level. 7.2);
- white-yellow sediment very fine with charcoal and bones (Level. 7.3).
At the –280–285 cm below datum, two charcoal samples were collected: the first, from
squares 4A–4B and in association with a microlithic backed point, was entirely made up of charcoal
from a single xylomorphological type, either Fagus or Prunus; the second, collected from the entire
thickness of the hearth in square 4B, was also made up of a single xylomorphological type belonging
to a species of Quercus. Radiocarbon dates are: 7590±100 BP (Sac–2104) and 7610±60 BP
(OxA–15067) (see below calibrated plot).
Atmospheric data from Reimer et al. (2004); OxCal
Sac-2104 7590±100BP
Oxa-15967 7610±60BP
9500 CalBP 9000 CalBP 8500 CalBP 8000 CalBP
Calibrated date
At –311–330 cm depth below datum, a thin, extensive charcoal scatter was identified in square
4A, in grey sediments some 25 cm below the base of the Mesolithic layers; however, no diagnostic
artifacts were associated with it (only bones fragments with postdepositional mechanical traces). The
charcoal was identified as Pinus, with features suggestive of the group P. cemba/P. peuce/P. strobus.
Radiocarbon age: 13710±60 BP (OxA–15992).
During the last research campaign of (2006), in square 3B at a depth of –420–428 cm from
point “0” , was discovered an archaeological level with 3 atypical flint pieces, burnt bone fragments
and charcoal was discovered. From these materials were taken two samples for 14C AMS dating. We
can also refer to a fireplace in the proximity of square 3B, from the Upper Palaeolithic, but anterior to
LMG. In support of this we have in mind also the date of 23.97 (+2.52; –2.48) ka (U-series, sample
#3059) preserved from a calcite crust in 2005 (the lower part – 7 mm).
Separatly, a small test pit was opened in 2007 in Peştera cu Abri (located near by Hoţu Cave)
where there is a stratigraphic sequence of 6 occupational levels, marked by many fireplace struc-
tures associated with pottery fragments, flint tools and bones, characteristic of modern/medieval
and prehistoric time (Bronze Age, Coţofeni, Neolithic). Very important is the discovery of a burnt
archaeological complex in level 3, which continues in levels 4.1–4.2, 6.1–6.2 (the notation for these
levels is preliminary).
The stratigraphic sequence from Hoţu Cave and from Peştera cu Abri, corroborated with the
palaeoclimatic and anthropological information from Oase Cave, gives us a consistent understanding
of the prehistoric, medieval and modern presence in Miniş karstic system.
Even if the direct association between the human bones and an Aurignacian horizon (similar
to the discoveries from Tincova and Româneşti) cannot be unequivocally sustained at present,
we think that future researches in this sector will bring new archaeological evidence for the early
modern human presence in this area327.
327
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978; PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
Another important feature of this archaeological assemblage is the presence of the Late
Mesolithic levels (and Epipalaeolihic levels), unknown until now in the Banat area; it is almost
impossible to correlate them, from a cultural point of view, with the Schela-Cladovei – Lepenski Vir
horizons328 or with the Tardenoisian329 and is sure anterior to first Starčevo-Criş horizons.
GrA-24115 (DDV) 6920±80BP
GrA-25621 (FGZ) 6925±45BP
GrN-28113 (DDV) 6930±50BP
GrN-28111 (DDV) 6990±50BP
GrN-28454 (FSN) 7080±50BP
Sac-2104 7590±100BP
Oxa-15967 7610±60BP
9500 CalBP 9000 CalBP 8500 CalBP 8000 CalBP 7500 CalBP
Calibrated date
Calibration plot of Late Mesolithic ages vs. Carpathian Early Neolithic ages
At the same time, the Epipalaeolithic horizons, through their stratigraphic position and their
dating, are situated in a stratigraphic hiatus between Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa VI–Coşava II levels
and the Epipalaeolithic fireplaces from Băile Herculane and Cuina Turcului330.
Bln-802 (Ct2) 10125±200BP
GrN-11490 (BH) 11490±75BP
GrN-12665 (CT1) 11960±60BP
Bln-804 (CT1) 120500±120BP
OxA-15992 (HOT) 13710±60BP
20000 CalBP 18000 CalBP 16000 CalBP 14000 CalBP 12000 CalBP 10000 CalBP
Calibrated date
Calibration plot of Epipalaeolithic age vs. Tardigravettian ages
This chronological succession is very important for this area of the Banat Mountains,
revealing that the post-Palaeolithic levels consistently show a seasonal habitation, which is consist-
ently repeated until the medieval-modern period.
328
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a; 1996b; PĂUNESCU, A. 1990; 1996; BORONEANŢ, V. 1996.
329
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
330
PĂUNESCU, A. 1989; 1990; 2001; BORONEANŢ, V. 2000.
In conclusion is very important to continue excavations in these caves in order to develop

a better understanding of the human habitation, and also for understanding the palaeoclimatic,
environmental and geomorphologic evolution of the Plopa-Ponor sector.
II.5.2.27 Tincova–Sălişte (village of Sacu, Caraş-Severin County). The Palaeolithic settlement

(Aurignacian) from Sălişte was discovered in 1958. It is located on a dejection cone at a relative
altitude of 60 m above the Timiş river, on the western edge of the mountain range of Poiana Ruscă331
(Fig. 29).
The Mousterian settlement. In the series of the Palaeolithic discoveries from Tincova one
should first mention several pieces from the 1967 campaign brought to light at about 200 m south
of the Aurignacian settlement – or …in the summer of 1966…at about 200 m north…332 – on a small
sampling of only 3 × 2 m333. There were 15 “quartzite pieces” found in the grey-yellowish sediment
of degraded loess (lying at the foot of the vegetal layer), at a depth of 40–30 cm. Together with the
similar materials found at Băile Herculane and Româneşti, they raise interesting issues concerning
the Banat Palaeolithic. The pieces discovered at Tincova have an atypical character (Fig. 30/1–5;
Fig. 35/1–2) as we can typologically distinguish the following334:
- simple side-straight scraper;
- simple convex side-scraper ;
- double slightly biconvex side-scraper;
- simple straight side-scraper with semi-Quina retouch;
- denticulated side-scraper;
- denticulated pieces.
These materials in spite of their uncertain stratigraphic position were traced back, after a
typological study, to a late non-Levallois Mousterian facies, apparently rich in side-scrapers like the
one from Peştera Livadiţei or Peştera Hoţilor335.
The Aurignacian settlement. Florea Mogoşanu is of the opinion that after the 4 campaigns
carried out here, the Palaeolithic settlement has been exhaustively dug up, the total excavated surface
amounting to about 280 m2.336 As far as we are concerned, we consider that we should have reserves
as to this claim, proof thereof being the materials yielded by the surface research in the summer of
2000. As one did at the other discussed settlements, at Tincova, too the maximum depth ran to 3 m,
obtained in order to determine the geological deposits.
The materials of archaeological interest were found in the lower part of deposit 5 at a depth
ranging between 120 and 80 cm. Quantitatively, this stratum yielded approx. 2494 pieces, of which
110 are typical337. Although we are dealing with just one occupational level, the Tincova settlement
is beyond doubt one of the most important Palaeolithic sites from the Banat.
The typological analysis of the lithic inventory of Tincova sheds light on the existence of the
following piece types338 (Fig. 30/6–10; 31–34):
331
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & STRATAN, I. 1961: 29; STRATAN, I. 1962: 123; 1970: 8; MOGOŞANU, F.
1972: 10; 1973: 22; 1978: 37.
332
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968a: 303; 1972: 11.
333
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 48–49.
334
335
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3; 2002.
336
337
338
MOGOŞANU, F. 1972: 11–12; 1978: 50; CHIRICA, V. 1996a: 128–129.
Ord. no. Types of pieces No. %

1a. End-scraper on blade 10 9.09
2. Atypical end-scraper on blade 2 1.82
5. End-scraper on retouched blade 4 3.64
8. End-scraper on flake 3 2.73
11. Carinated end-scraper 3 2.73
12. Atypical carinated end-scraper 1 0.91
13. Nosed end-scraper 1 0.91
14. Atypical nosed end-scraper 1 0.91
15. Core-like end-scraper 4 3.64
16. Rabot 2 1.82
17. End-scraper-burin 1 0.91
21. Piercer-end-scraper 1 0.91
27. Dihedral straight burin 1 0.91
29. Dihedral angle burin 2 1.82
30. Burin along the break angle 2 1.82
34. Burin on straight retouched truncation 2 1.82
43. Core-like burin 1 0.91
52. Font-Yves point 3 2.73
60. Piece with straight retouched truncation 1 0.91
65. Blade with continuous retouchings on one side 6 5.45
66. Bade with continuous retouchings on both sides 10 9.09
67. Aurignacian blade 9 8.18
74. Notched piece 7 6.36
75. Denticulated piece 2 1.82
77. Side-scraper 6 5.45
84. Truncated flake 2 1.82
89. Flake à coche 1 0.91
90. Dufour bladelets 22 20.00
Total number of tools 110
Simple blades 359
Cores 10
Atypical flakes 2015
Overall total 2494
According to the compiled table, the following typological indices were calculated:
IG 26.36%
IB 7.27%
IGA 5.45%
IBd 4.55%
IBt 1.82%
ILD+FY 22,73%
From the typological table results a numerical prevalence of the end-scrapers group and of the
group of the blades retouched either on one side or on both sides, to which one adds the Aurignacian
blades (3 are of the pointed type) characterized by a typical scalar retouch339. The end-scrapers group
is made up of the common types of end-scraper on blade ends, end-scraper on retouched blade
end (Fig. 30/6–10) or end-scraper on flake, but the distinct note is given by the pieces that make
up the Aurignacian end-scraper group. The carinated end-scrapers (Fig. 31/1–6) are usually made
on core-like, pyramidal supports, through a direct flake retouchings, be they convergent or not. The
339
nosed end-scrapers, although numerically few, are important because as they provide clues pointing
to the cultural assignation of the Tincova site.
These pieces are made, one on a massive point ad one on a rejuvenation tablet, but they evince
a less typical character340. To the pieces typical of the Aurignacian belong the Dufour bladelets, too
(Fig. 32/1–6, 9–10), which together with the points of the Font-Yves type (Fig. 32/7–8) stand for
it within the Tincova settlement 22.73%341. The Dufour bladelets are defined as small sized pieces
with “edges that are retouched abruptly or semi-abruptly”342 (Fig. 33b) often alternately, suggesting the
cultural assignment to a certain technical complex. Another important group is the burins group
seen thought its relation with the end-scrapers group (Fig. 31/7–11). Inside the burins group a high
rate is hold by the dihedral burins, but there are two pieces on straight retouched truncation, too.
A relatively important weight within the tools from this settlement is held by the notched pieces
(Fig. 32/14–16; Fig. 33a) accounting for 6.36%. They are made on flake supports through direct
retouches. The side-scrapprs generally have an atypical character, but a double biconvex piece stands
out showing a Mousterian character.
The raw material is quantitatively dominated by atypical points (knapping debris), which is
a natural fact if we consider the invoked character of a workshop-settlement. We do not know what
the weight of the cortical points, of the crested blades, of the rejuvenation tablet type is but our
attention was drawn by the very small number of cores that account for only 0.40% of all the imple-
ments (situation explained out by Florea Mogoşanu through the re-use of the cores as supports for
the core-like end-scrapers or the carinated ones). Most of these pieces are of globular type343, but
one can come across cores of prismatic type (2) or conic type (1). Tehnologically speaking, from
the published material results that most of the pieces stem from the phase of pleine débitage; the
anarhical knapping brought out by the sinousity of the margins and edges is caused by the poor
quality of the raw material. It is illustrated by various cracks that break off the normal knapping
procedure, thus resulting in many knapping accidents of the réfléchi type or outrepassé type, which
would explain the presence of the many atypical points.
Altough the material displays a fragmentary character, we do not know what the frequency
of the different parts of the piece, a similar situation being valid for the butt types of which we
only know344 that the plain (sometimes wide) and the facetted types (with a well developed bulb
suggesting the use of indirect percussion with hard percussor or punctiform percussor).
After the surface survey done in 2001, more than 30 lithic pieces were gathered of which we
mention 2 end-scrapers (one on retouched point and one on a blade end with a plain butt, with
convex active part, being oblique against the percussion axis, manufactured through non-convergent
flake retouching), a double angle burin along the break made on retouched blade, a blade with direct
retouches in the median area, on one side, a macrolithic core, blades and fragmented flakes (especially
median parts, some with edge wear retouches). The presence of these pieces in a somewhat eccentric
position compared to the systematically researched area made us believe that the settlement was
larger than we were able to ascertain at the moment of the excavations.
Unfortunately, no other elements were identified that would allow us to complete the data on
the Palaeolithic man. To this effect, one tried to carry out palinological tests or better said the testing
of one profile, which was encountered for that matter at the other stations in question345. Following
these tests, the dating set forth by Florea Mogoşanu was not altered (interstadium W2–W3) only
340
341
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 45–48.
342
BRÉZILLON, M. 1983: 114, 262.
343
344
345
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1978: 97–101; 1980: 196–200; 1985: 20.
mentioning (if the test is deemed to be relevant) that the Aurignacian habitation took place in the
last part of this interstadium346.
II.5.2.28 Vişag (village of Victor Vlad Delamarina, Timiş County). In 1956, at about 1 km south-
east of the village, at the confluence of the Bogarul Mare and Pârâul Satului brooks, one found a folia-
ceous, bifacial (“szeletian” style) piece made of black-grey opal was found (but lacking a stratigraphic
position and, consequently, special scientific interest)347. The field research from the summer of 2001
did not lead to the discovery of any other siliceous artefacts348.
II.5.2.29 Zăvoi (Caraş-Severin County), while construction works were being carried out within
the limits of the railway station, several flint pieces were found, some of them likely Palaeolithic349.
Obviously, in the present state of the research, these materials could not be seen as evidence for the
existence of a Palaeolithic settlement at Zăvoi.
As we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, many of the places mentioned in the
archaeologic literature as places where Palaeolithic discoveries were made, should be treated with
some reserve since, in most cases, the materials disappeared before they were analyzed (also isolated
lithic pieces found do not represent a piece of evidence for a Palaeolithic occupation; for that matter
we all know the “beauty” of the pieces created by nature). Many of these discoveries were made at
random, and lack a precise stratigraphic context.
II.6 Geochronological elements of the Upper Pleistocene

from southwest Romania
II.6.1 Introductive issues. Several palaeoclimatical

and chronological landmarks
According to the research results of the past 30 years carried out by Marin Cârciumaru350, it was
considered that the oldest Pleistocene sequence exists in the Cioarei–Boroşteni cave (also called the
warming complex of Boroşteni). From a sedimentological point of view seems to be older than the age
yielded by the 14C dates (about 50000 BP). From the flora point of view, one retained for this period
first a steppe, cold and dry episode, than an episode with coniferous trees and cold and wet climate
and finally another cold and dry episode, to which one adds the temperate stage, characterized by
coniferous and decidous trees. From the fauna standpoint, one noticed the following association:
Cervus elaphus, Capreolus capreolus, Sus scrofa, Megaceros giganteus, Bos Primigenius351.
After a cooling (stadial) came a warmer climate again called the Nandru interstadial complex,
including the climatic oscillations Nandru A and B (with the stages Nandru 1, 2 respectively 3,
4). Variation Nandru A (45000 +1400/–1200 BP, 49300+3200/–1100 BP) has been equalized
to interstadia Amersfoort and Brörup. A date for the final sequence of stage Nandru 4 gave the
result of 37750+950 BP, which seems to be the end of this interstadial complex and practically
the beginning of a new glacial stadium, contemporary chronologically to the Upper Palaeolithic in
Western Europe352.
346
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 102.
347
STRATAN, I. 1970: 8, Pl. I/Foto 1; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 15; JUNGBERT, B. 1985–1986: 399; MOROZ-POP,
M. 1983, 481.
348
349
JUNGBERT, B. 1985–1986: 399.
350
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1980; 1985; 1987; 1993; 1995.
351
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 57.
352
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 52–53.
This cooling period is followed by the Ohaba interstadial complex, with the variations Ohaba A
(warmer) and Ohaba B, ending around 28780±290 BP353. It involved, in general, a massive affores-
tation, especially through the spread of the decidous trees in the western region354. Until approx.
25,000–24,000 BP another stadial type period took place, followed by the climatic variation
Herculane I (23450+2000/–1450 BP, Bistricioara). The next glacial state, which set in right after
Herculane I variation, saw a short climate amelioration period called Mitoc I (22,160±90 BP – Gura
Cheii-Râşnov/Râşnov gorge mouth). The forest returned during the next two climatic variations
Herculane II (about 20,000 BP) and respectively, Româneşti (about 16,000 BP), but a decrease of
the forest can be noticed, in a period of slight climatic improvement, between these two variations,
dated at Bistricioara in about 18800±1200 BP355. At Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa, during Herculane II
variation, the landscape remains of moderate silvo-steppe, with slightly higher temperatures,
followed by steppe landscape, opening the way for the Româneşti climatic variation.
After the Româneşti variation followed another period with a harsher climate, interrupted by
the Mitoc II variation. Towards 12600±120 BP a climatic variation Erbiceni started, followed by a
short cold period, halted by the Erbiceni B variation.
The palinologic and palaeoclimatic records from the Alpine areas point out, after variation
Româneşti, to a cold period characterized by the prevalence of the pine (stage of the pine) that can be
paralleled at the continental level with Dryas I–Bölling (Erbiceni A)–Dryas II–Alleröd (Erbiceni B)–
Dryas III356.
Since the climatic reconstruction of the Upper Pleistocene in the Carpathian space was based
on the pollinic tests sampled from caves, but also from outdoors sites, this new geochronological
schema should be looked upon with caution until new interdisciplinary takes place. We support the
idea that “la reconstitution paléoclimatique est obtenue par la corrélation de séquences de grottes carpa-
tiques lacunaires calées chronologiquement essentiellement à partir des dates 14C de niveaux moustériens
démarche particulièrement fragile pour les raisons évoquées plus haut. Cette courbe paléoclimatique est
en contradiction avec les courbes connues pour l’Europe, obtenues à partir de carottes de calotte glaciaire,
de carottes de lacs glaciaires et de carottes de mer Méditerranée. … En conclusion, les dernières résultats
connus à Mitoc (fouilles Chirica), tendent à remmener le Paléolithique supérieur et moyen de Roumanie
à un schéma identique à celui des territoires avoisinants, en contradiction avec le schéma chrono-clima-
tologique proposé, dont les faiblesses sont dues à la trop grande confiance dans les datations 14C surtout
anciennes et à la fragilité des corrélations des séquences lacunaires de grottes, et qui est à reprendre avec de
nouvelles dates 14C A.M.S. et des enregistrements paléoclimatiques continus”357.
II.6.2 Chrono-climatic context of the Banat Palaeolithic levels

As we lack all absolute dating elements for the Palaeolithic occupational levels in the Banat, the only
methods that were available to the researchers were the comparative techno-typological analysis
of the materials, the stratigraphic position of the pieces corroborated with some pedological and
granulometrical observations, to which one adds pollinic tests carried out during the seventies.
Thus, Fl. Mogoşanu chose a Würmian chronology with three stadia and two interstadia making the
specialized terminology purely speculative, as such research ended in the eighties while comple-
mentary multidisciplinary information is lacking.
“The quartzite complex” from the southwest of Romania (Herculane I, Româneşti I, Tincova)
is very poorly documented, showing a quantitatively reduced material and uncertain stratigraphic
context (the exception is Herculane I), often in a disturbed sediment. It seems to develop during the
353
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 54.
354
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 65
355
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 119–120.
356
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 124–125.
357
DJINDJIAN, F. 2000, 311–312.
Interpleniglacial, isotopic stadium 3a (the interstadia Hengelo-Arcy). In support of this observation

we bring some pedological arguments and, as far as we consider them correct and relevant for some
of the sites the pollinic tests carried out by M. Cârciumaru in the Banat Palaeolithic sites358. Level I
from Peştera Hoţilor, from Băile Herculane through its stratigraphic position and the discovered
faunal remains enable us to assign the quartzite lithic tools to a Mousterian, considered to be late,
developing at the beginning of W2359.
The latest archaeological discovery that contains “quartzite” pieces is the workshop of
Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa (II). Its stratigraphic position, places it at the end of W3, thus being a much
later expression of the quartzite Upper Palaeolithic. According to Florea Mogoşanu, this survival
of the quartzite Upper Palaeolithic might form the base for the later development of the Schela
Cladovei–Lepenski Vir culture360, with the quartzite, present to a large extent during the Mesolithic
in the Iron Gates region of the Danube 361.
According to the granulometrical tests mentioned in the previous chapter, level I from
Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa belongs to stadium W2, levels II–IV fall under interstadium W2–W3, level V
covers the transition from interstadium W2–W3 to stadium W3, level VI covers the end period of W3362.
At Tincova, paleoclimatic data was needed and last, but not least, a relative chronology, so
it was tried to carry out palinological tests, or better said one test for one profile. This situation
occurred also in other sites. Still, the date put forward by Florea Mogoşanu (interstadium W2–W3)
did not change with the provision that, if the test will be considered relevant, then the Aurignacian
habitation might have evolved during the last part of this stadium363.
At Gornea, both at Păzărişte and Căuniţa, one can notice that the position of lithic materials
is uncertain, as they were assigned to the upper part of stratum 2, or at a certain level to the Eolian
stratum (which disappeared after an intense erosion process)364, so that this archaeologic horizon
may be hypothetically assigned to the end of stadium W3 also.
II.7 Conclusions
II.7.1 Lithic industries using quartz/quartzite raw materials

from southwest Romania
Considering all the above mentioned archaeological materials, we notice that the situation of the
discoveries from the caves in the Middle Carpathians is not a clear one. Neither is the one of similar
discoveries in the Banat Mountains. Thus several hypotheses concerning the origin and the place of
this facies within the Palaeolithic from the Carpathians region can be launched.
Florea Mogoşanu defined the Quartzite Upper Palaeolithic as the result of the Charentinian
+ Pontinian + Quartzite365 and was seen as a culture belonging to the Upper Palaeolithic, separated
from the Aurignacian that developed in parallel and lasted until the Holocene366.
358
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1978: 97–101; 1980: 196–200; 1985: 20.
359
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3; MOGOŞANU, F. 1968: 309; 1972: 9–10; 1973: 14–17; 1978: 29, 102.
360
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 138, 139.
361
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970b: 2, 12, 18–19; 1996: 65–68; 2000a: 97–212; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978a:, 342–343, 347;
PĂUNESCU, A. 1990: 130–134; 1996: 136–141; 2001: 49–52, 421–427, 444–445; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a:
225–252.
362
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 102–103.
363
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 102.
364
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970: 535; 1978: 36; LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 1993: 300.
365
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 134.
366
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968: 309; 1978: 133.
Vasile Chirica believes too that the stratigraphic situation and the lithic assemblages from
Băile Herculane and Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa I, level I show that the quartzite Upper Palaeolithic
comes before the Aurignacian and that it survived among isolated groups until the Tardiglacial and
even later into the Holocene367.
Stratigraphically, the earliest level of this “culture” in the Banat was revealed in Peştera Hoţilor
from Băile Herculane in a sediment traced back to W2, followed by level I from Româneşti.
The discovery of level I in Peştera Hoţilor from Băile Herculane made possible a cultural
connection to the Mousterian from the Carpathian Caves (Peştera Curată, Peştera Spurcată, Peştera
Muierilor, Peştera Cioarei, Peştera Bordu Mare, Peştera Gura Cheii), seen as a regional variant of
the Charentinian. Chronologically, this Mousterian facies develops between 49,500±3200/2100
BP (GrN 13002), data obtained for level II of Peştera Cioarei, 43,600±2800/2100 BP (GrN
12676) for level IIIb from Peştera Bordu Mare and 33300±900 BP (GrN 13009) for level IIa and
29700±1700/1400 BP for level IIb from Peştera Gura Cheii–Râşnov368. We would like to mention
within this context other two dates obtained recently, the one from Peştera Mare at Cioclovina (a skull
fragment of Homo sapiens) 29,000±700 BP (LuA 5229), respectively the one from Peştera Muierilor
in Baia de Fier (skull, lower jaw, shoulder blade, tibia diaphysis of Homo sapiens) 30,150±800 BP
(LuA 5228)369, dates that fall within the limits of the Aurignacian.
In general lines, the industries from the above mentioned caves are characterized, the same
as the one from Peştera Hoţilor, by non-Levallois knapping, a great number of end-scrapers, denticu-
lated pieces, notched pieces, and a small numer of bifacials. Another common element is represented
by the use of ‘quartzite’ as raw material, 90%. Within this context one should mention the materials
discovered in the Peştera Climente I (lev. I–II)370 or in the Alpine caves from Slovenia, dated to the
end of W1 (Mornova Zijialka, Špehovka, Jama, Beralov Spodmol), characterized by the prevalence
of a “quartzite” of low quality, making them less expressive typologically371.
Within a wider framework, the industries from the Meridional Carpathians were paralleled to
the Mousterian levels from Erd (Hungary), where quartz/quartzite is used in a proportion of 75%.
Considering the archaeological materials from here, one considered that this cultural manifestation
on nodules, employing the so-called “Pontinian” knapping technique, represents the Charentinian of
Southeastern Europe372. In what the position and role played by these materials within the Romanian
Palaeolithic are concerned, other opinions existed: Marin Cârciumaru, suggests that these indus-
tries represent the transition from Middle Palaeolithic to the Upper Palaeolithic forming a so called
Carpathian facies373. This attempt at defining a transition period as being represented by a certain
Mousterian facies was rejected by many researchers374. At the same time, M. Cârciumaru makes the
distinction between the caves with only one habitation level and the ones with two habitation levels,
separated by an archaeologically sterile level and which developing prior to the Ohaba interstadial375.
It remains problematic the settlement with a Mousterian character from Tincova, whose
stratigraphic position is uncertain and we cannot determine if the sediment in which the quartzite
pieces were found was disturbed or not376. Florea Mogoşanu considered these materials to be part
of another evolution stage of the Quartzite Upper Palaeolithic, to which the “quartzite” knapping
367
CHIRICA, V. 1996a: 137–138.
368
PĂUNESCU, A. 1984: 246; 1988: 75–76; 1989: 135–136; 1991: 17; HONEA, K. 1991: 19–20; 1993: 66–72.
369
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002, 86.
370
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000: 362–363, 366–367.
371
OSOLE, F. 1971: 248; BRODAR, S. 1971: 201–203.
372
DOBOSI, V. T. 1991: 93; PĂUNESCU, A. 1988: 77; 1989: 136; 2000a: 43.
373
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 112–113; 1995: 101–103.
374
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000: 280, 284; ALEXANDRESCU, E. 2002; DJINDJIAN, F. 2000: 312.
375
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999: 109–111; 1985: 7–34, 1988: 50–51.
376
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3; 2002: 170.
workshop from Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa could also be assigned to. This stage developed around the
area of the Balta Caldă spring377, dated to the end of W3, being thus a much later expression of the
Quartzite Upper Palaeolithic.
Also, from point of view of the history of the research, we must note here another Florea
Mogoşanu’s opinion: the survival of the Quartzite Upper Palaeolithic might underlie the development
of the Schela Cladovei–Lepenski Vir culture 378, with a high occurrence of the quartzite, present
there to high proportions during the Mesolithic in the area of the Iron Gates of the Danube379.
The survival into the Holocene of the Quartzite Upper Palaeolithic is actually a hypothesis put
forth by Florea Mogoşanu, still needing to be proved through interdisciplinary archaeologic research.
Lacking clear data, we cannot rule out the fact that the late Mousterian from Băile Herculane, Gornea,
Româneşti, Tincova etc. could have paralleled the evolution of the Aurignacian380, from which
it seems isolated in space381. But if we accept such a situation one can naturally ask the following
question: anthropologically speaking, who are the creators of this culture?
Obviously, the present state of the Palaeolithic research in the Banat, and not only, does not
allow us an immediate answer to the question. Starting from here, we consider that only multidis-
ciplinary archaeological research can answer many of the problems set forth today in the special
field literature.
Summing up, the quartzite Palaeolithic is characterized by lithic tools with an arcahic
Mousteroid aspect, made on “quartzite” supports, a raw material most probably gathered from places
near the settlement as its choice probably answered some preferences yielded by a possible tradition
of the group (e.g. Peştera Cioarei Boroşteni).
From the technological point of view, the nodule morphology was used, most of the times
without a special prior preparation; surely this happened because the cortex did not call for it and
the knapping was based on putting to good use of nodule volume through a centripetal approach
or entrecroisé approach on more percussion planes, as uni- and bipolar cores were also found. The
supports, generally splinter-like, sometimes flake-like, are of average size, rarely macrolithic, with
a neocortical butt, frequently fractured during the knapping along some diaclases, which explains
the high number of knapping accidents of the Burin de Siret type (ex. Porţ). Broad butts facilitate
the visibility of the impact point to which we add the existence of so-called metal loss percussors,
suggesting direct percussion with hard percussor. On the other hand, the variability of the “opera-
tional chain” cannot be but presupposed, speculated upon as no lithic assemblage in question has
ever been subjected to a refitting; in order to bring out continuity or variability of technical gestures
in a given space and within a given chronological span, the refitting as an experimental study is
absolutely necessary382.
From the typological point of view, the lateral or transversal scrapers (racloirs) are prevalent.
They are made on flakes, sometimes of Levallois type, through a slim edge retouch, on supports with
suitable morphology, as the retouch is superficial and does not alter the shape of the flake (ex. Porţ,
Peştera Cioarei). On the other hand, many “tools” were obtained a posteriori through the mere use of
supports in a raw state, and the so-called “retouching” appears as a reuse retouching, often as émousse
retouching (ex. Porţ). The character of bifacial pieces, numerically reduced, is somewhat atypical
with the exception of the pieces found at Cladova.
377
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002: 200–201.
378
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 138, 139.
379
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970b: 2, 12, 18–19; 1996: 65–68; 2000a: 97–212; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978a: 342–343, 347;
PĂUNESCU, A. 1990: 130–134; 1996: 136–141; 2000: 49–52, 421–427, 444–445; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a:
225–252.
380
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992: 3; 2002: 52, 170; CHIRICA, V. 1995: 105–109; 1996, 137.
381
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 131, 132.
382
BOËDA, E. 1994: 27–45; 1995: 57–72; PASTY, J. P. 2000: 165–190.
From the data available to us, the lithic indistries with quartz/quartzite tools belong to a lithic
techno-complex deemed to be of non-Levallois knapping, rich in scrapers (racloirs), notched pieces
in general globular, prismatic or most often shapeless cores, without one’s being able to remark that
the Levallois technique is absent.
The pieces of the backed knife type, with or without neocortex, the pieces in the shape of a
“lemon slice” and the inside splinters, most often fragmentary are also frequent.
The quartzite complex of the Upper Palaeolithic from southwest Romania seems to develop in
the Interpleniglacial, isotopic stage 3a (interstadial Hengelo–Arcy).
II.7.2 The Banat Aurignacian industries.

Characterization and chronologic position
The Aurignacian is the first compact civilization of the Superior Palaeolithic of whose
origins, geographic location and chronology engaged numerous pre-historians in searching an
“Aurignacian 0” horizon stratigraphical located below, and different from typology perspective,
from the standard Aurignacian383. In general, we can say that the lithic industry of the Aurignacian
is characterized by the supremacy of the scrapers, a group that holds a high index of Aurignacian
scrapers, in comparison to the burins, where the dihedral burins prevail over those on truncation384.
As it has been noticed above, the Aurignacian is observed through systematic archaeological
research within several sites with the most important ones being those at Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa,
Tincova and Coşava. One of the first tools used by Florea Mogoşanu in establishing connections
with the Aurignacian from the neighbouring territories are the Dufour bladelets and the Font-Yves
type points in the Banat area Palaeolithic settlements385 occuring in percentages of 22.73% at Tincova
and 7.02% at Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa, level III. To this we add the group of Aurignacian scrapers
(16.36% at Coşava, level I, 14.04% at Româneşti, level III and 5.45% at Tincova) and the group
of burins (22.80% at Româneşti level III, 8.18% at Coşava level I, 7.27% at Tincova). The statis-
tical assessments conducted by Florea Mogoşanu highlighted the existing propinquity between the
settlements from Tincova and that from Krems–Hundssteig (Austria), Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa,
level III and that from Breitenbach (Germany), Coşava level I and those from Willendorf I (layers
II–IV), Getzersdorf (Austria) and Vogelheard (Germany). From such perspective emerges the fact
that the Aurignacian represented by those three Banat settlements belongs to the same cultural area
developed in Central-Eastern Europe386.
In comparison to the discoveries of “Aurignacian 0” in Europe387, the Aurignacian discoveries
from the above mentioned settlements seem a bit later, presenting the characteristics of an advanced
Aurignacian, dated in the Arcy oscillation388. According with the new results in Palaeolithic researches
in Banat (OaseCave chronology and anthropological data and the review of the lithic industry)
and corroborating with the new regional context and chronology389, we consider the Aurignacian
horizons of the Tincova, Românești layer II–III and Coșava layer I–II similar to Proto-Aurignacian
industries dated between 39–36 ka390.
Without getting into much detail, we can say that, in the Central-Eastern European area, the
beginning of the Upper Palaeolithic is characterized by the existence of several techno-complexes,
383
DJINDJIAN, F. 1993: 136–142.
384
BANESZ, L. 1993: 135–136.
385
MOGOŞANU, F. 1967b: 141–146; 1968b: 643–647; 1978: 122.
386
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 125–126, 128; PĂUNESCU, A. 1984: 258–259; 1992, 4.
387
DJINDJIAN, F. 1993, 142–149.
388
DJINDJIAN, F. 1993: 137.
389
BĂLTEAN, I. 2011.
390 TEYSSANDIER, N. 2007.
considered of transition, which seem to develop, at least in some cases, in parallel with the horizon
named “Aurignacian 0” and basically, with the first arrived Homo sapiens391.
Transition industries at Central-Eastern European level:
– Bohunician and Szeletian–Brno-Bohunice and Stránska skála 36–43 kyr BP392.
– Bachokirian–Bacho Kiro, Cultural Horizon I, level 11 and Temnata, level VI, Sector TD-II.
14C old dating are over 43 kyr, but the AMS ages for level 11/11a are 38.5±1.7, 37.7±1.5, 34.8±1.2
and 33.8±0.9 kyr BP. At Temnata, level 4, Sector TD-I was dated at 38.2, 38.8, 39.1 kyr BP. The upper
part of the sequence has the age of 33.9±0.9, 31.9±1.6 kyr BP393.
– In the Vindija cave from Croatia, level G1 was dated at 33±0.4 kyr BP and 28–29 kyr BP.
The main raw material is the quartz. The Neanderthalian presence in this cave is documented after
the occurrence of the Aurignacian and Homo sapiens in other parts of the Central Europe394.
In the same context, we are also reminding about the techno-complex395:
– Streletian (Kostienki 12, level III 36280 ±360 BP);
– Spitsyan (Kostienki 17, level II 36400 ± 1700/–1400 BP);
– Jerzmanovician (Nietoperzowa, level 6 38500 ±1240 BP).
Aurignacian “0”
– Castillo Cave: 38500 ±1300 BP (level 18b2)
– Arbreda Cave: 37700 ±1000 BP (level E2BE111)
– Willendorf II: 37930 ±750 BP (level 3-C8)
– Aurignacian 2
– Willendorf II: 31210 ±260 BP (level 4-C4)
– Oblazowa Cave: 32400 ±650 BP (level VIII)
– Mitoc: 32730 ±220 BP (level 12b)
– Kostienki I: 32600±400 BP (level 3)
The next progress phase of the Aurignacian in Banat could be represented, according to the
opinion of Florea Mogoşanu, by the level IV from Româneşti396. Perhaps we could also place the
occupations from Gornea–Vodneac, Gornea–Păzărişte and Peştera Hoţilor (Thieves’ Cave) at this
chronologic level397 but we also subscribe to the observations of Vasile Chirica according to which
“en l’absence de certains éléments de chronologie absolue il est difficile de réaliser un encadrement certe de
ces canpements dans une évolution des étapes du Paléolithique supérieur…”398.
The last occupational levels with Aurignacian elements discovered in Banat are those observed
at Româneşti, level V–VI and at Coşava, level III. The current status of the research, the scarcity of
the material and especially their unusual character determine the impossibility of having a more
nuanced discussion regarding these settlements. The last horizons from Româneşti and Coşava, as
shown above, are characterized by the existence of the first tools used for engraving, represented by
the backed bladelets, La Gravette points and pieces standard for Epipalaeolithic (circular, thumb-nail
scrapers, obsidian pieces). It is to be noticed that Aurignacoide items such as streamlined scrapers
and even Dufour bladelets are also present.
Naturally, the issues concerning the Aurignacian horizons and the use of the first engraving
items must be studied thoroughly, and we can only hope this will be the aim of future research.
391
ZILHAO, J. & D’ERRICO, F. 2003.
392
BOLUS, M. & CONARD, N. 2001: 29–30.
393
ZILHAO, J. & D’ERRICO, F. 2000, 36, 39–40.
394
BOLUS, M. & CONARD, N. 2001: 31.
395
DJINDJIAN, F. et alii 1999: 158–159, 179–180.
396
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978: 129.
397
398
CHIRICA, V. 1996a: 132–133.
In a larger area, the Aurignacian from Banat represents an earlier phase in comparison to some
Aurignacian occupations from Moldova399.
In the Romanian Plain it is assumed that the beginning of the first evolution phase of the
Aurignacian techno-complex is placed “before the commencement of the Würmx III” being repre-
sented by the settlements from Ciuperceni–La Tir and Vădastra, level I400. For the Aurignacian level
from Giurgiu Malu-Roşu two radiocarbon dates were obtained, indicating the age of 22790±130 BP
(GrA–6037) and 21140±120 (GrA–5094). We can thus conclude that in this area, the Aurigancian
lasts longer, developing in parallel with the Gravettian from Moldova and Dobrogea401. The lithics
industry from Giurgiu Malu-Roşu consists of carinated scrapers, core-like, dihedral burins, burins on
truncation, strangled blades, Dufour bladelets, side-scrapers402 showing many similarities with the
finds from Banat, to which is was genetically linked (hypothetically) especially after the discovery of
a workshop “specialized” in Dufour bladelets.
In the same time, for the chronologic interval 23000–17000 BP over large areas, a series of
Aurignacoide industries were recorded. They were given various names: Aurignacian, inter-gravetto-
solutréen industries, Epi-Aurignacian, Epi-gravettian-aurignacoid. The territory of Banat can not be
excluded from such a context taking into consideration especially level V from Româneşti and III
from Coşava403.
Under the circumstances, we believe it is a necessity to resume the Palaeolithic research in
Banat, as the hypothetically rhythm of transformations can no longer be supported by the materials
assessed at the limit of statistics method (typological indexes and cumulative charts). New research
is needed which could highlight the technological particularities of the Aurignacian techno-complex
from Banat.
II.7.3 Lithic industries from southwest Romania

assigned to the Tardigravettian horizon
The last Palaeolitic inhabiting from the discussed area is Peştera Hoţilor (Thieves’ Cave) from Băile
Herculane assigned to the Mediterranean Tardigravettian type.
The first evolution phase of this cultural manifestation is represented in the region of Porţile
de Fier (Iron Gates) by Climente I Cave; the second phase is represented by the finds from Climente
II cave, and the third phase consists of the inhabiting of layer I from Cuina Turcului, dated between
12600±120 BP (Bln 803) and 11960±60 BP (Gr N 12665), the fourth phase is illustrated by
levels I and II from Ostrovul Banului, the fifth phase relates to layer II from Cuina Turcului, dated
10125±200 BP (Bln 802), and the last phase could be illustrated by the finds from Veterani–terrace
(level I), Ogradena–Icoana (level I), Ogradena–Răzvrata (level I) and Schela Cladovei (level I)404.
In this chronological-evolution scheme, the inhabiting from Băile Herculane could be placed in the
fourth phase of Mediterranean type Tardigravettian evolution405.
The technical-typological assessment of the lithic material enables us to establish certain links
to the final Epigravetian from the Italian Peninsula, especially with the sites from the Adriatic coast.
399
PĂUNESCU, A. 1984: 247–248, 1989: 136–139; 1993: 131–140; 1998: 39, 68–69; 1999: 29–30, 33, 59;
CHIRICA, V. & BORZIAK, I. 1996: 99–121.
400
ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1997: 17, Pl. 15; PĂUNESCU, A. 2000b: 28–31.
401
PĂUNESCU, A. 1999: 59–60; ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1997: 16.
402
PĂUNESCU, A. & ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1996: 44–48; 1997a: 19–23; 1997b: 19–26; ALEXANDRESCU, E.
1998a: 33–52; 1998b: 59–67; ALEXANDRESCU, E. & POPA, I. 2000, 41–45; PĂUNESCU, A. 2001, 249–284.
403
DJINDJIAN, F. 1996: 41–54; BAZILE, F. 1996: 55–67; OLIVA, M. 1996: 69–81; 1991: 111, 114–115;
KOZŁOWSKI, J. 1996: 83–98; BOSSELIN, B. & DJINDJIAN, F. 1997: 107–125; DJINDJIAN, F. et alii 1999: 241.
404
PĂUNESCU, A. 1984: 251; 1989: 146–150; 2001: 48–49; 68–69, 338–360, 366–367, 376–379, CHIRICA, V.
1996b: 80–81; BORONEANŢ, V. 1996: 63–64.
405
The imbuing of the final Epigravetian from the Italian Peninsula happened in several waves, through
two ways, a maritime one crossing the Adriatic sea and a terrestrial one along the Northern and
Western side of Adriatic sea, following the flow of Sava and Drava Rivers up to the Danube406.
The lack of recent research leads to the fact that the end of this cultural manifestation becomes
a contradictory subject for the experts, concerning the existing transfer or technological-typological
hiatus in Tardigravettian and the Schela Cladovei–Lepenski Vir Mesolithic cultural manifestation407.
Overall, the Upper Palaeolithic from Banat, as it’s currently understood, seems to be formed
by cultural manifestations located at the outskirts of the great Central European techno-complex.
From such a perspective, we believe that the data of the issues raised in relation to the discoveries
from Banat should be re-assessed (“Quartzitic Palaeolithic”, belay Aurignacian, the late Gravettian
influences, stratigraphical issues and chronology, raw material supply sources, technology of lithics
industry), but this is not possible only by resuming the research for the purpose of obtaining as many
information as possible about the humans from Palaeolithic.
406
PĂUNESCU, A. 1989: 151.
407
SREJOVIĆ, D. et alii 1980: 195–205; KOZŁOWSKI, J. & KOZŁOWSKI, S. 1982: 11–109; 1983: 259–278;
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a: 225–252, 286–287; BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a: 156–183.
I n the Serbian part of Banat, in contrast to the Romanian Banat, a very small
number of the Palaeolithic sites have been confirmed. Not one of them has
been systematically excavated so the Palaeolithic period in this part of Banat
can be discussed only within its wider regional context. There are, however, also
other reasons for the regional approach in these investigations. South Banat could
be considered from a climatic, ecological and geomorphologic point of view as an
integral part of the south Pannonian area, which mostly also includes the low hilly
terrain to the south of the rivers Sava and Danube. In this treatise we will therefore
discuss the Palaeolithic of northern Serbia in a similar way as the Palaeolithic of
the southwestern Romania has been treated. In recent years a few Palaeolithic sites
offering an entirely new insight into the early prehistory of this part of Europe have
been investigated in this region. So, we are going to present here, in detail, the results
of these recent investigations, and we will try to document the distinct role of the
Carpathian-Danubian region in the different phases of the Palaeolithic period.
III.1 Natural environment
The geological substructure of the south part of the Pannonian basin consists of
deeply sunken ground similar in origin to the modern Rhodope mass consisting of
schists and igneous rocks408. On top of this substructure are deep marine deposits
of the Thetis and Parathetis seas, and on top of them thick layers of loess had been
deposited in the Neogene period. The elevations constituting the mountain fringe –
the Fruška Gora and Vršac Mountains – are the remains of the ancient ground. Fruška
Gora are composed of schists, phyllites, serpentinites, granites, basalts, peridotites,
andesites and dacites, as well as Mesozoic limestones and basal conglomerates, and
the Vršac Mountains are composed of Paleozoic schists, which represent the north-
ernmost exposure of the ancient Serbian-Macedonian mass409.
Vojvodina is geographically divided into Srem, Bačka and south Banat. Srem
encompasses the area between the rivers Danube and Sava, Bačka includes the area
between the rivers Tisza and Danube, and the south Banat includes an area from
the Tisza River to the southwestern Carpathians. The geomorphological structure
of these regions is quite similar but there are still certain differences. Loess deposits
are very frequent in Srem and Bačka and they are most prominent on the Srem loess
plateau, the Titel Breg, middle Bačka loess plateau and south Banat loess plateau.
These plateaus are intersected by the Danube and the Tisza river basins, and in
408
BUKUROV, B. 1975; KUKIN, A. 1984.
409
ZEREMSKI, M. 1985.
80 | Dušan Mihailovic
northern and eastern sections sand areas were formed in contact with loess, such as near Ludoš
Lake on the fringes of which Mesolithic and Neolithic sites have been discovered, and at Deliblatska
Peščara (Deliblato Sands) in the area of the south Banat.
The relief of the Serbian Banat differs to a certain extent from the relief of Bačka and Srem. It
is well known that until recently many parts of Vojvodina were covered with marshes, which were
drained only in the 19th and the 20th centuries.
The marshy-lake zone was particularly prominent in the north of the Serbian Banat so it must
be emphasized that, despite the fact that this area had been inhabited in the past, the northern Banat
was unsuitable for settlement during most of the prehistoric period. The situation is somewhat
different in the central and south Banat where the sediments had been deposited mostly in a dry
environment. The loess deposits are not so prominent in the central Banat while in the south is the
South Banat loess plateau where the deposits are up to 10 metres thick.
In the eastern Banat there are two depressions. These are Alibunar and Vršac depressions
at the foot of the Vršac Mountains on the very border with Romania. It is thought that the Vršac
depression was formed during the maximum of the last glacial and the Alibunar depression in
much earlier times410. These two depressions are separated by the elevated plateau called At where
numerous finds from the early Upper Palaeolithic have been discovered.
Mačva and Donja Kolubara to the south of the Sava represent the bottom of the Pannonian
plain and the segment of the Srem-Mačva basin extending from Fruška Gora in the north to the Sava
fault-erosive section in the south411. In the Sava Valley occur large fluvio-denudational zones and in
Podrinje and Podgorina are island mountains composed of schist, limestone and serpentine. In the
Lelić and Valjevo karst and in the Pocerski merokarst appear many karst forms, while in Šalitrena
Cave situated in Gornja Kolubara were discovered many finds dating from the Upper Palaeolithic.
Because of differences in the quantity of precipitation the area closer to the Sava is characterized by the
steppic-continental climate while temperate continental climate prevails in Podrinje and Podgorina.
Central Serbia as well as northern Bosnia belongs to the fringes of the Pannonian basin, i.e.
to the peri-Pannonian region extending to the Jastrebac Mountains and the Starovlaške Mountains
in the south. In Šumadija, which includes the territory from Velika to Zapadna Morava hilly relief is
prevalent, while karst forms are few: they appear in the Belgrade merokarst and in rather small zones
around the Bukulja Mountains. The climate nowadays in this area is of a distinctively temperate-
continental type.
The east part of northern Serbia, from the Danube to the Nišava river basin, belongs to the
Carpathian-Balkan geotectonic unit412. Isolated limestone areas appear, separated by the neogenic
basins and rocks reflecting Tertiary volcanism. This area is inseparably connected with the south-
western Carpathians not only on the basis of geologic structure but also based on climatic and
ecological characteristics. The single distinct entity within this unit is the Iron Gates gorge, which
was in the past the refugium for many plants and animal species413. In this area a few Palaeolithic and
many Mesolithic sites have been investigated.
In contrast to the Romanian Banat where much information had been gathered in the course
of archaeological investigations, most of the palaeoecological data in Vojvodina were obtained by
investigating the loess deposits. The Middle Pleistocene deposits were studied in the loess profiles
of Čot at Stari Slankamen, Batajnica-Kapela and Neštin414, while Late Pleistocene sediments have
been investigated at many locations in Srem and Bačka415. On the basis of sedimentological and
410
ZEREMSKI, M. 1985.
411
MARKOVIĆ, J. D. 1970.
412
ĆIRIĆ, B. 1996.
413
MIŠIĆ, V. 1981.
414
ZEREMSKI, M. et alii 1991.
415
MARKOVIĆ, S. 2001; MARKOVIĆ, S. et alii 2004.
The Palaeolithic in Northern Serbia | 81
malacological investigations and the study of magnetic susceptibility a correlation has been estab-
lished between the south Pannonian and Chinese loess deposits416. These investigations confirmed
the assumptions that somewhat more mild (and wetter) climate prevailed in south Pannonia during
the Late Pleistocene and that forest vegetation existed not only in the interglacials but also in the
glacial refugiums417.
In the caves in eastern Serbia has been confirmed the association of the Pleistocene
mammals characteristic of the north Balkans418. Large faunal species inhabiting the steppe
and open areas (horses, bisons and even rhinoceroses), forest areas (deers, roe deers, etc.) and
mountain areas (ibexes and chamoises) were identified, as well as various types of carnivores and
animals living in caves (hyenas, wolves, cave bears). Because of the limited investigation results
it is still unknown what the incidence of species from different biomes was in different phases of
the Middle and Late Pleistocene.
III.2 History of researches
The investigations of the Palaeolithic in the territory of present-day Serbia were belated in relation
to the study of the later prehistoric periods, despite the fact that first Palaeolithic artifacts had been
discovered already by the end of the 19th century. In 1891 J. Cvijić and Đ. Jovanović found one stone
blade in the Pleistocene layer of Prekonoška cave419, while F. Mileker gathered quite a lot of chipped
stone artifacts from the Zapadna strana (modern At), Mesić kanal and Kozluk sites near Vršac
between 1888 and 1919420. Unfortunately, investigations of the Palaeolithic did not gain currency
in Serbia after these first discoveries. In the 1920s H. Breuil mentions the Palaeolithic sites in the
vicinity of Belgrade and some of these caves (where just the faunal remains were recorded) were
identified by Gavela in 1955421.
In the beginning of the 1950s B. Gavela started investigations in Pećina pod Jerininim brdom
near Kragujevac and in Risovača Cave near Arandjelovac. Both caves yielded large quantities of
remains of Pleistocene fauna and smaller number of stone artifacts. The artifacts from the Upper
and Middle Palaeolithic were found in Pećina pod Jerininim brdom, while in Risovača an industry
was recorded, which, because of the leaf-like points, was associated with the Szeletian422 and later
with the Middle Palaeolithic facies Muselievo-Samuilitsa423.
Just when it seemed that investigations of the Palaeolithic would gain momentum everything
came to a standstill once again. The end of the 1960s and beginning of the 1970s were characterized
by gathering activity, which continued also in the 1980s. R. Rašajski gathered many thousands
of Aurignacian artifacts at the Crvenka-At site near Vršac and Aurignacian finds were gathered at
the Balata site424. P. Medović found one Middle Palaeolithic artifact at the Cigan site near Irig425
while J. Šarić gathered considerable numbers of artifacts from various periods at the Beljarica and
Ekonomija 13. maj in Zemun sites in the beginning of the 1980s426.
416
MARKOVIĆ, S. et alii 2004.
417
JANKOVIĆ, M. 1984; MARKOVIĆ, S. et alii 2004.
418
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 1997.
419
CVIJIĆ, J. 1891.
420
MILLEKER, F. 1937.
421
GAVELA, B. 1988.
422
GAVELA, B. 1988.
423
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z. 1991.
424
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 1992a; 1992b.
425
MEDOVIĆ, P. 1970.
426
ŠARIĆ, J. 1984; ŠARIĆ, J. 2009.
The decisive step forward came in the 1980s when I. Radovanović started to apply modern
methods of investigation to the Palaeolithic sites and to analyses of their chipped stone artifacts.
These investigations were focused on Montenegro where D. Srejović organized excavations of a few
rich and multilayered Palaeolithic sites: Mališina Stijena, Medena Stijena, Trebački Krš, and Bioče427.
The excavations in Serbia continued but on a limited scale. Z. Kaludjerović carried out test-trench
excavations in many caves finding just a few artifacts in many of them, while more significant results
were achieved in Smolućka and Šalitrena caves428. The Middle Palaeolithic horizons, which yielded
around two hundred artifacts, were investigated in Smolućka Cave, while many hundreds of artifacts
were found in Šalitrena Cave near Mionica. The artifacts from this site have been ascribed to the
Middle and Late Upper Palaeolithic.
These investigative activities decreased once again during 1990s due to the unfavorable social
circumstances, and small-scale excavations have been carried out at just a few Palaeolithic sites
(Mirilovska Cave, Baranica, and Pečurski kamen)429. Only with the beginning of this millennium
did the investigations of Palaeolithic sites start to yield more tangible results. First, three Middle
Palaeolithic and one Upper Palaeolithic horizons were investigated in Hadži Prodanova Cave near
Ivanjica in 2003430 and many finds from the Middle Palaeolithic were discovered in the same year
at the Petrovaradin fortress431. In the same year a rich Gravettian horizon was reached in Šalitrena
Cave432, while many layers with the Middle Palaeolithic finds have been recorded in Balanica Cave in
southeast Serbia433. The investigations continued also in the following years: layers with Aurignacian
and Middle Palaeolithic finds were investigated in Šalitrena Cave while in the Balanica Cave complex
human remains had been encountered beside the Mousterian artifacts434. The results of these inves-
tigations, along with already known facts, made it possible for the first time to understand in general
terms the beginning of human settlement in the central Balkans.
III.3 Palaeolithic sites
We included in this survey excavated sites, sites for which the context of finds is known and also
any homogeneous assemblages. As there is no clear border between the north and middle part
of the central Balkans we presented only the sites in the area to the north of the rivers Nišava
and Zapadna Morava which we think to be relevant for the study of these phenomena in south
Pannonia (Fig. 37).
III.3.1 Crvenka-At, Balata and other Palaeolithic sites

in the vicinity of Vršac
Appearance, investigation results and stratigraphy
Almost all artifacts gathered at the sites in the vicinity of Vršac were obtained by purchase from
communal works and work on sand exploitation. The material from Kozluk, Zapadna strana and
Mesić kanal were gathered by F. Mileker at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century435,
427
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1986b; SREJOVIĆ, D. 1996.
428
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z. 1991.
429
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. et alii 1997.
430
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2003a.
431
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2003b.
432
MIHAILOVIĆ, B. 2008.
433
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2008a; 2009a.
434
ROKSANDIĆ, M. et alii in press.
435
MILLEKER, F. 1937; BRODAR, S. 1955.
while the finds from At, Crvenka and Balata were gathered by R. Rašajski between 1952 and 1978.
I. Radovanović also conducted test-trench excavations of the Pleistocene layers at At436.
All sites are situated on the fringes of the Vršac depression at the foot of the Vršac Mountains
Kozluk is located on the east side of the depression, on the bank of the Kozluk brook and the site
Crvenka is just across from it at Zapadna strana. Therefore it is assumed that Mileker’s site Zapadna
strana is in fact the Crvenka site. This site was reidentified only in the 1950s when R. Rašajski
noticed there were chipped stone artifacts in the sand exploited at that location (Fig. 38). The
archaeological sites Crvenka and At belong geomorphologically to the At plateau (Crvenka is the
fossil valley crossing the plateau in the north) but the southeastern part of the plateau is marked as
Crvenka on the topographic maps. Therefore, the archaeological site is also known by that name.
Balata and Mesić kanal are located on the surface of the ‘lake-loess terrace’ near the terminal end of
the plateau437.
The At plateau was created, according to Zeremski (1985), as a result of tectonic movements
after formation of the Vršac depression. This is confirmed, according to this author, by the fact that
at its base appear layers of sand deposited there before the formation of the depression, in the time
of intensive denudation of the quartz material from the northern slopes of the Vršac Mountains.
Thanks to the data of R. Rašajski, who recorded the finding context for most of the artifacts, and the
stratigraphic observations of D. Rukavina438, it has been established that the stratigraphy of deposits
in different sand mines in this area corresponds to a great extent. In all sand mines under the humus
loess up to 4 metres thick appears, whose upper segment is darker in color and more compact, and
lighter in the lower segment. Upper and lower levels of loess are separated in some places by greenish
to gray-brown sediment containing many small quartz pebbles439. Under the loess are layers of sand,
and at the bottom is clay. The top layer of sand is of yellowish color and rather thin and is followed
by layers of fine sand, coarse sand and fine sand again resting on the clay layer. There is also a layer of
sand under the clay, at the relative depth of 8.30 m. The chipped stone artifacts were found in all sand
layers. The largest number of finds were located in the lower segment of the stratigraphic sequence
(in the coarse sand and the layer immediately beneath).
Structure of raw materials and products of knapping

A detailed analysis was performed in the early 1990s in order to establish whether the industry
is homogeneous and whether there are differences in spatial and stratigraphic distribution of the
artifacts and their attributes440. It was concluded that at both locations the artifacts were made of
the same raw materials: quartz and quartzite, jasper and different sorts of the good quality flint. At
Crvenka and At alike the most frequent is a flint of heterogeneous structure sometimes with black
spots (so-called Banat flint), green, red and brown flint of homogeneous structure and polychro-
matic reddish-yellow and brown flint, which is difficult to define macroscopically. Artifacts covered
with patina and burnt are considerably more frequent at At.
The cores (Fig. 39) appear in the structure of the industry in very small quantity (under
2% in all layers) and in the lower layers, there are 65–80% unretouched artifacts and 30% tools
(Table 1). The cortical flakes and flakes with traces of cortex do not exceed 15% at Crvenka while
there are 25–30% of them in the lower layers at At. Considering that very small numbers of discoid
and irregular cores have been recorded at both sites it might be assumed that most of the flakes
with multidirectional scars originate from preparation and rejuvenation of the single-platform cores,
436
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1986a.
437
ZEREMSKI, M. 1985.
438
RUKAVINA, D. 1984.
439
RUKAVINA, D. 1984.
440
which are significantly more common. Besides these cores, which often have cortex and traces of
lateral preparation, were also found cores on smaller pieces of flint without traces of preparation.
Burin-like cores as well as the cores for microbladelets were also recorded.
The structure of striking platform is similar to the structure of the dorsal side but the specimens
with cortical platforms are even less frequent than the specimens with cortex on the dorsal side. The
specimens with plain platforms prevail, the facetted platform is less frequent and edge platforms
are rather frequent on the blades. A certain percentage of specimens (ca 10%) at At have the broad
platform of the ‘chapeau de gendarme’ type while a few flakes could be ascribed to the flakes of the
Levallois type with certain reservations (as there are no elements allowing complete reconstruction
of the technological process).
When, however, the products of knapping are concerned it should be emphasized that the
most common specimens among the blades are those of 2.5–5 cm in size. The larger pieces have
been found only in the lower layers, while specimens of smaller size (under 2.5 cm) at Crvenka as
well as at At have been encountered only in the coarse sand in the middle segment of the sequence.
Tool structure
Endscrapers are the most commonly encountered tools (30–50%) followed by retouched
blades (10–25%), which are somewhat more frequent near the bottom than in the middle segment
of the sequence (Table 2). Burins are more frequent than retouched blades at At, while the situation
is reversed at Crvenka. The endscrapers are also more frequent at At, in part because of a higher
incidence of denticulated and notched tools.
Distinct typological variability has been noticed within these three categories of tools
(Fig. 40). The various variants of multiple burins on retouched truncations of thick blades and flakes
are confirmed at Crvenka, while dihedral burins are characteristic of the lowest horizon at At. Besides
plain endscrapers on retouched and unretouched blades and flakes, the fan-shaped endscrapers are
characteristic of both sites – for Crvenka the endscrapers on cortical flakes and conical-core-like
endscrapers, and for At the carinated endscrapers on flakes. Plain shallow retouched blades are well
represented both at Crvenka and at At, while the blades retouched by invasive Aurignacian retouch
are more frequent at Crvenka. Strangled blades have been also found at this site.
Most frequent among the sidescrapers are lateral specimens, and a couple of specimens with
undoubtedly Middle Palaeolithic characteristics have been also encountered at At. Retouched
truncations and borers are not particularly frequent. The same situation is found with notched tools
and splintered pieces but they are significantly more numerous. Lateral denticulated sidescrapers of
larger size are characteristic of Crvenka; transversal specimens were recorded at At, while one semi-
abruptly retouched segment was found at Crvenka.
Assemblage from Balata

The Balata site where 173 artifacts have been found is in the immediate vicinity of Crvenka
and At441. This assemblage greatly resembles the assemblages from Crvenka and At in terms of raw
materials, technological products and tools. The structure of raw materials is identical and good
quality flint of heterogeneous structure prevails as is also the case at Crvenka and At. The same patina,
roundness, gloss and traces of burning were identified on some specimens. In contrast to the material
from Crvenka and At among the finds from Balata were typical Levallois specimens: one Levallois
core and five Levallois flakes. In all other elements, however, the industry exhibits Upper Palaeolithic
characteristics. Typical Upper Palaeolithic cores, blades and rejuvenation flakes have been recorded
and among the retouched tools there were no identified Middle Palaeolithic tool types apart from
a few sidescrapers. Considering the structure of industry and stylistic traits of tools there are many
441
parallels with the industry from Crvenka and At. The endscrapers, retouched blades and burins are
the most frequent tool categories, denticulated and notched tools are also present in considerable
quantity and many tool types documented at Crvenka and particularly at At (fan-shaped, carinated
and nosed endscrapers etc.) have also been found. As at At there are no Aurignacian blades but
bladelets were found, which have not been found at the two neighboring sites.
Summary for the sites around Vršac

The analyzes revealed that industries from Crvenka, At and Balata are rather homogeneous.
Many correlations between the assemblages from Crvenka and At originating from approximately
the same level have been noticed. It is obvious that structure of the assemblages could be explained
by cultural factors and activities of the communities rather than as a result of the post-depositional
disturbances. The distribution of sites on the fringes of the depression indicates that this area
had been settled probably after the depression formation. Although the inventory of the assem-
blages from these sites is rather similar, certain differences were still encountered. The Levallois
component is most frequent at Balata where distinct association of the Middle Palaeolithic and
Upper Palaeolithic elements has been perceived. The Middle Palaeolithic elements are also present
at At, situated in the north, and the industry is characterized by the presence of dihedral burins,
pointed and carinated endscrapers and large-sized sidescrapers. At Crvenka, which perhaps could
be most closely related to the Aurignacian of the Krems type (documented at the sites in Romanian
Banat442) the Middle Palaeolithic artifacts are least common and the industry includes carinated-
conical endscrapers, Aurignacian blades, nosed endscrapers on blades and various types of burins
on truncations. All in all, the investigations of the material from the Vršac sites carried out so far
have raise many unanswered questions concerning the time and character of settling of the northern
slopes of the Vršac Mountains.
III.3.2 Petrovaradin Fortress

Investigation results and stratigraphy
The Petrovaradin fortress is situated on a dominant elevation above the right Danube bank near Novi
Sad. Palaeolithic artifacts were discovered in the course of rescue excavations at the fortress in 2002,
and already by 2003, systematic excavations of the Pleistocene layers at the site had been organized.
An area of 38 square metres (sector I) was explored at the highest section of the plateau, and in
the following year excavations were extended to sector II (parallel to sector I) covering 54 square
metres. More than one thousand artifacts have been discovered during two campaigns and additional
Palaeolithic finds have also been encountered in other trenches in the course of rescue excavations.
In contrast to the surrounding terrain where the Pleistocene layers and virgin rock are much
deeper, at the top of the plateau they appear just under the surface. Under the Holocene layer, which
contains a variety of remains from prehistory, antiquity and the Middle Ages, there is a somewhat
darker loess denoted as layer 2a. Near the bottom of this layer a horizon with rock fragments was
recorded, while the lower layer consists of somewhat lighter loess sediment resting on the virgin
rock. The contact zone between layers 2a and 2b is considerably disturbed as the strips of sediment
from the upper layer penetrate deeply in the lower layer. The character of this disturbance has not
yet been explained.
It was assumed after preliminary observations that the upper layer is the palaeosoil in the
initial phase of formation while the lower layer dates from the phase L1L2 (i.e. MIS4) after the
Chinese stratigraphic system443. However, as the material of the Middle Pleistocene date that could
442
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978.
443
MARKOVIĆ, S.B. et alii 2004.
correspond to OIS6 has also been recorded in the lowest layer444 the question could be asked whether
the finds from layer 2a (which are most frequent) belong to OIS3 or to some of the interstadial
phases within OIS5 from which the sediment is not preserved and when the erosion of the terrain
could had occured.
Material analysis results

Detailed analysis of the material from the Petrovaradin fortress has recently been published445.
The analysis included over one thousand artifacts from layer 2a, horizon of disturbance (2a/2b)
and layer 2b. The assemblage from layer 2a contains the largest number of finds, which are mostly
distributed in the lower segment of the layer.
Most of the artifacts are made of white flint, from deposits which were recently discovered
about 15 kilometres from the site, and of quartz pebbles which were probably gathered on the river
bank. Only small numbers of artifacts were made of other raw materials: black and green and yellow
flint, matt flint, etc. These raw materials were mostly used for tool production, so it could be assumed
that at least some of them had been brought to the settlement.
In general structure the incidence of cores is 3–3.5%, flakes 67–73% and tools 18–23%
(Table 3). Therefore, as at Crvenka and At, the structure of the industry corresponds to the settlement
activities and a somewhat longer occupation of the settlement. This is also confirmed by the fact that
a rather high proportion of burnt pieces (around 9%) appear in the assemblages, although it should
be emphasized that neither hearths nor animal bones have been encountered during excavations.
Analysis of cores and products of knapping revealed that different knapping techniques were
used. The use of the preferential (lineal) Levallois method is confirmed by small numbers of cores
and flakes with a central scar on the dorsal side. Products of knapping indicating the use of recurrent
technique were also recorded, but much more abundant are artifacts which could be related to some
sort of simplified Levallois technique adapted to the small dimensions of cores and the low quality
of raw materials. Many flakes have a broad and prepared platform of the ‘chapeau de gendarme’
type, and rejuvenation flakes of the ‘éclat debordant’ type were also recorded, although there is lack
of agreement regarding whether they should be associated with Levallois technology or with the
technology of knapping discoid and centripetal cores. It is interesting that only a few retouched tools
had been made on Levallois flakes.
Most of the quartz artifacts were struck from pieces of raw material where only one or two scars
are discernible, and also the Kombewa technique was used with flakes being struck from the edge of
other, larger flakes. Special techniques were used for the production of backed tools. The cores of this
type have not been found but it is clear on some massive flakes that, before their striking, a series of
smaller flakes had been struck from the former core platform (preserved on the back of the flake).
The products of knapping from various raw materials and produced using different techniques
are of surprisingly uniform size. Thus an average length of artifacts in sector I in layer 2a is 25.5
mm and 25.2 mm in sector II, while their average width in sector I is 24.0 mm and 23.4 mm in
sector II. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that there are differences between the technique
of knapping the cores of flint and those of quartz. Among the artifacts made of quartz there is
somewhat greater incidence of cortical flakes (29.4%), and platform preparation was recorded on
just 7.9% of specimens, in contrast to the flint artifacts where a prepared platform appears on 28.6%
of specimens.
The most frequent tools in layer 2a and in both sectors are sidescrapers, and denticulated
and notched tools are also rather frequent (Fig. 41; Table 4–5). The most common sidescrapers
are straight and arched lateral sidescrapers but transversal sidescrapers (Fig. 45, 46), sidescrapers
444
T. Gaudenyi, personal communication.
445
of déjeté type and massive backed sidescrapers have also been found (Fig. 42, 43, 44). Tools of the
Upper Palaeolithic type are relatively frequent but they are not standardized, and they obviously had
an ad hoc purpose (many of them were made of quartz). The denticulated tools, though frequent, are
not characteristic. Mousterian points have not been recorded.
The small quantity of artifacts from layer 2a were found only in sector I and based on the
structure of raw materials, technological products and tools do not differ substantially from the
material from the upper layer. In that regard it could actually be concluded that the industry from
the Petrovaradin fortress is homogeneous and includes the finds from the upper as well as from
the lower layer. Nevertheless, it has been noted that a small number of artifacts of yellow flint,
Charentian elements and bifacial backed sidescrapers were grouped in the lower horizon of layer 2a,
in the contact zone and in layer 2b. For that matter it is quite probable that this location was settled
in different phases, which are impossible to distinguish stratigraphically at this moment.
The spatial analysis of artifacts revealed that the center of the settlement was on top of the
plateau, under the present building of the City Museum of Novi Sad. Separate zones of activities
are not clearly distinguished. Higher concentration of cores, notched pieces and endscrapers and
sidescrapers were recorded in the squares of the western section of sector II, while the sidescrapers
and burins appear in somewhat larger quantity in the eastern section of the same sector. These were
perhaps associated with a working area in the western section of sector I (where a higher incidence
of artifacts was also recorded) some ten metres away.
Based on the high incidence of sidescrapers and low Levallois index, the industry from the
Petrovaradin fortress corresponds to the non-Levalloisian facies of typical Mousterian and the
taxonomic status of the assemblage is compromised at least formally only by the high incidence
of denticulated tools (Table 6). It is, however, evident that three components are combined in the
material from the fortress. The Taubahian-Charentian component is manifested in the tradition of
producing tools on asymmetrical flakes, the use of quartz and transversal sidescrapers (although it
should be emphasized that there is no typical Quina retouch on tools); the Levallois technology
is rather infrequent while a middle European component is evident in the fact that production
technology of bifacial sidescrapers from the fortress corresponds closely with the method of
production in the Micoquian and the earlier industries in the northwest of the Carpathian basin.
III.3.3 Baranica Cave and Tabula Traiana Cave

Many site surveying campaigns and test-trench excavations of the prehistoric cave sites have been
undertaken in northeastern Serbia. Yet, only a few artifacts have been discovered at many sites: thus
only two Middle Palaeolithic artifacts were recorded in the cave of Pećurski Kamen near Sokobanja,
and one backed implement was found in Mirilovska Cave in the vicinity of Senje. Somewhat better
results were achieved in the excavations of two caves: Baranica near Knjaževac where two Upper
Palaeolithic and one Middle Palaeolithic horizons have been investigated and Tabula Traiana Cave
where a small number of artifacts from the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic were recorded.
Baranica
Baranica Cave is situated 5 km to the southeast of Knjaževac, about ten metres above the
right bank of the Trgoviški Timok River. It has a rock shelter entrance and three rather small inner
rooms (Fig. 47). The Palaeolithic artifacts were found in the course of test-trenching in 1994 and
most of the finds were collected from systematic excavations, conducted in 1995, 1997 and 2004446.
In the upper layer, consisting of lighter brown sediment with eboulis (geological layer 2), only three
Palaeolithic artifacts were recorded: one laterally retouched sidescraper, one blade and one bladelet.
446
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. et alii 1997.
Two horizons of loose gray (layer 3a) and light brown sediment (layer 3b) with no artifacts
were encountered under that layer and under these two layers were confirmed two geological layers
with cultural remains. In the geological layer 4b (rather dark brown sediment with eboulis) have
been found: two larger and three smaller flakes, three blades (distal fragment of a regular blade, an
asymmetrical cortical blade and a thick rejuvenation blade with traces of rejuvenation on its central
ridge), an endscraper on a retouched thick blade and an atypical carinated endscraper on a massive
retouched flake, which was broken but could be refit (Fig. 48). In layer 4c (reddish sediment with
eboulis), investigated only within an area of few square metres, only a couple of irregular quartz
flakes (two of which with traces of cortex) and one fragment of asymmetrical blade were recorded.
It is obvious that Baranica Cave was just transitory campsite for the communities inhabiting
this region. In considering the archaeological material this is indicated not only by small number
of artifacts but also the fact that almost all artifacts were made of diverse, mostly good quality raw
materials (chalcedony, bluish and grayish good quality flint, yellowish flint, greenish chert, etc.) and
also by the fact that most artifacts are finished products (blades, tools) and not the by-products of
knapping. Besides, analyzes revealed that this cave was a hyena den at the time of the formation of
layer 2. This is confirmed by many remains of the hyenas and their prey with recognizable traces of
gnawing. Polished bone fragments indicating water transport were also found. However, it could be
assumed that post-depositional factors did not have too much impact on the spatial distribution of
the material as fragments of a broken carinated endscraper from layer 4a/4b have been found in two
adjacent squares (G9 and H9).
It is difficult at this point to determine which faunal remains are the remains of human-
hunted prey and which could be associated with the activity of hyenas and other carnivores447. Large
quantities of animal species have been recorded in Baranica including rhinoceros (Dicerorhinus
sp.), bovines (Bos/Bison), cervines (Cervus elaphus, Megaloceros), caprines (Capra ibex) equides
(Equus caballus), cave lion (Panthera spelaea) and cave hyena (Crocuta spelaea).
The lower layer (4b) at Baranica is dated in 35780 +/– 320 BP (OxA–13828) while the date
obtained for the upper layer is 23520 +/– 110 BP (OxA–13827) (Dimitrijević, forthcoming). The
lowest horizon with artifacts (4c) has not been dated. Judging by the dates, layer 2 belongs probably
to the Gravettian (although the diagnostic tool types were not recorded), while the material from
layer 4b belongs without doubt to the initial Upper Palaeolithic. The artifacts from layer 4c are impos-
sible to assign for the time being; the fragment of asymmetrical blade is not characteristic and could
not be related to the Upper Palaeolithic with any certainty. On the other hand, although the inves-
tigations conducted so far reveal that many quartz artifacts do appear at many Middle Palaeolithic
sites in Serbia, there is no confirmation thus far that material from the lowest layer at Baranica date
from that particular period.
Tabula Traiana Cave

This cave is situated on the right Danube bank in the Iron Gates, above the Trajan’s table, and
investigations there began in 2005. At least two Palaeolithic horizons were recorded in the cave448.
The remains of a hearth with many animal bones were found in the upper layer. The bones of ibexes
predominate, but sturgeon bones were also found. The recorded artifacts include one endscraper
on a bilaterally retouched thick blade and a distal fragment of a retouched bladelet. Quartz artifacts
and Levallois flakes of low quality chert have been recorded in the lower layer. The investigators
dated the finds from the upper layer to the early Aurignacian and material from the lower layer to the
Middle Palaeolithic.
447
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 1997.
448
BORIĆ, B. 2005; 2008.
III.3.4 Šalitrena Cave

Šalitrena Cave is, thus far, the richest Palaeolithic site in Serbia and the only site where layers with
Gravettian, Aurignacian and Middle Palaeolithic artifacts have been encountered449. The cave
is situated about ten metres above the bank of Ribnica River (Fig. 49) in the village Breždje near
Mionica (western Serbia). It has been investigated, with pauses, since 1983.
In Šalitrena Cave trench E–G, covering an area of around 49 square metres, was excavated at
the cave entrance (Fig. 50), and many trenches were also excavated in the cave interior. The following
stratigraphy was confirmed at the cave entrance: grayish surface sediment (layer 1), grayish-brown
sediment (layer 2), yellowish sediment with large eboulis and rock fragments (layer 3), dark brown
sediment with admixture of soot (layer 4) and brown sediment with eboulis (layer 5) These layers
appear in the upper section of the stratigraphic sequence and their total thickness does not exceed
1.20 m. The finds from later prehistory and historical periods were recorded in layer 1, in layer 2 the
remains of the Starčevo culture were found, in layers 3 and 4 were Gravettian artifacts and in layer 5
the Aurignacian finds. Under these layers are the horizons with the Middle Palaeolithic finds, but
their investigation begun.
The stratigraphy in the cave interior is somewhat different. The humus layer is considerably
thicker (because of accumulation of guano), the Gravettian horizon has not been confirmed so far
and the layer with the Aurignacian artifacts, although eroded to a considerable extent, covers the
larger part of the cave interior, while the Middle Palaeolithic artifacts appear in sandy sediment on
top of the rocky floor. All layers were dated but the dates have not yet been published. It is only known
that Gravettian dates from the 24th and 25th millennia, Aurignacian from the 32nd millennium and
the very end of the Middle Palaeolithic dates from the 38th millennium BP. The archaeozoological,
macrobotanical and sedimentological analyzes are still in progress.
Two preliminary reports concerning the Gravettian industry from layer 4 in Šalitrena cave
have been published so far. It was concluded that various sorts of good quality flint, some of which
were possibly obtained from considerable distances, occur among the raw materials but there was
also the so-called light white stone, which was used for knapping even in the Neolithic period450. Also
various core types have been encountered: massive single-platform cores, atypical double-platform
cores, burin-like cores and cores for microbladelets. A rather exhaustive survey of types and variants
of tools was presented but without data regarding their statistical frequency.
Among the burins were identified burins on truncation and dihedral burins as well as angle
and carinated burins. The endscrapers include specimens made on laterally or bilaterally semi-
abruptly retouched blades, nosed endscrapers on blades, endscrapers on flakes over 25 mm in size,
fan-shaped endscrapers and double endscrapers. Pointed blades retouched by lateral or bilateral
raised retouch were also found (Fig. 51).
The sidescrapers, borers, splintered pieces and denticulated and notched tools are not partic-
ularly characteristic, but on the other hand various types of composite tools are frequent and very
distinctive including endscraper-points, endscraper-burins and point-burins. One projectile of
flechette type has also been recorded. This specimen is inverse retouched on one edge and alter-
nating semi-abrupt retouched on the other.
The Gravettian industry from layer 4 is characterized by a high degree of variability and by
standardization of the backed tools (Fig. 52). Among these tools were recorded backed points of
larger size and with retouched base, laterally and bilaterally backed bladelets and microbladelets
with top and base tapered by shallow surface retouch, atypical shouldered points of larger size and
double tools on truncation (similar to the rectangles). The double tools on truncation are generally
449
MIHAILOVIĆ, B. 2008; MIHAILOVIĆ, D. & MIHAILOVIĆ, B. 2009.
450
ANTONOVIĆ, D. 1997.
retouched by inverse retouch on the ends and on one (rarely on both) edges by semi-abrupt and
deep retouch.
From the technological and typological point of view the industry from layer 4 could be
related to the Gravettian industries in central Europe (Willendorfian and Pavlovian), but that will be
discussed later. It is essential, however, to mention that the structure of the assemblage of artifacts
from layer 3, which was created only a thousand years later, differs substantially from the industry
from layer 4. The geometrized forms of microliths or many other tool types, which occur in layer 4,
were not recorded in the assemblage from this layer and there just simple backed points and bladelets,
endscrapers on flakes and other not particularly characteristic tools were recorded. But it will be
possible to compare these two assemblages in detail once the full analysis of material is completed.
The finds from the Aurignacian layer, which has been excavated since 2006, are not published
in detail. We know at the moment that artifacts from this layer are significantly specific and that they
do not correspond to the assemblages from the neighboring Aurignacian sites in the Sava valley.
First, the carinated endscrapers and burins, which are not easily distinguishable even formally from
the cores, are very frequent in this assemblage. Second, the bladelet component is very prominent, as
is confirmed by the fact that bladelets and points retouched by semi-abrupt, often marginal retouch
have also been found. Finally (and of particular importance), it has been noticed that the structure of
the industry and stylistic characteristics of the tools from different parts of the cave differ, although
they date (by all appearances) from the same period. Thus the artifacts made of low quality raw
materials and the cores are most frequent at the cave entrance (trench E-G), the carinated endscrapers
and burins and other tool types were found in the trench near the cave entrance, while the tools on
blades of rather large size were recorded among the finds from the trench in the cave interior (trench
H). All this forewarns that the structure of the assemblages for not only the Middle Palaeolithic (that
is widely known) but also the Aurignacian may reflect more the character of settling in the habita-
tions than the cultural identity of the populations.
III.3.5 Other Palaeolithic Sites

In order to complete the picture of Palaeolithic investigations in northern Serbia we are going to
present here the available data from incompletely published sites, the sites with small numbers of
finds and concerning assemblages containing artifacts found out of the stratigraphic context.
Most important among these sites are Pećina pod Jerininim brdom near Kragujevac and
Risovača Cave near Arandjelovac451. In Risovača a leaf-point was found together with Middle
Palaeolithic tool types, while Pećina pod Jerininim brdom definitely yielded Upper Palaeolithic
types of artifacts (some of which are housed in the National Museum in Belgrade). Unfortunately,
most of the archaeological material from these caves is lost and the finds have not been published in
detail, so it is unknown what else these assemblages originally contained.
Similar sites with sparse archaeological remains and rich fauna have also been encountered at
other locations in the northern part of western and eastern Serbia. Palaeolithic sites in western Serbia
are confirmed in the vicinity of Valjevo, in Drenaićka ave (known in the literature also as Pećina u
crvenim stenama and Medvednička Cave) and in Visoka Cave in the canyon of the Gradac River452. It
could be assumed on the basis of photographs of the artifacts that Middle Palaeolithic artifacts were
found in Visoka cave453. Besides in Tabula Traiana Cave and Baranica Cave, Palaeolithic materials
were recorded in eastern Serbia, also in Mirilovska Cave near Senje, in Pećurski kamen and Markova
Cave near Sokobanja454. One backed point and one bone projectile were found in Mirilovska Cave,
451
GAVELA, B. 1988.
452
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z. & JEŽ, Z., 1996.
453
MILOŠEVIĆ, N. 1985.
454
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z., 1996; MIHAILOVIĆ, D. et alii 1997.
one flake and one typical Middle Palaeolithic sidescraper were found in Pećurski kamen, while in
Markova Cave one core which the author of the excavations report believes to date from the late
Upper Palaeolithic was recovered455.
Sites in the open have not been systematically excavated. One transversal sidescraper dated to
the Middle Palaeolithic was found at Rušanj near Belgrade456, while a rather large quantity of artifacts
were found at the Beljarica and Ekonomija 13. Maj sites near Zemun. These artifacts have been
gathered on the Danube river bank under the profile of the Zemun loess plateau457. The finds were
classified according to their technological and typological characteristics as: a) artifacts of the Middle
Palaeolithic type (Mousterian points, tools of cleaver type, sidescrapers, Levallois flakes), b) finds
that could be related to Gravettian or Epigravettian (abruptly retouched points, short endscrapers,
etc.); and c) tools, which could be dated to the Mesolithic period (trapezes and truncated bladelets).
The data about the sites in Vojvodina (except those already described) do not provide much
information. The artifact from Irig in the Fruška Gora Mountains was found in the sand and gravel
mine in the vicinity of the mammoth remains458; a few loess profiles with traces of hearths have been
recorded and as we already mentioned the Middle Palaeolithic and Upper Palaeolithic tool types have
been recorded in the impoverished assemblages from Kozluk and Mesić kanal in the vicinity of Vršac459.
III.4 Palaeolithic of Northern Serbia in its regional context
III.4.1 Middle Palaeolithic

As we already mentioned we can discuss the Palaeolithic in the Balkans as well as in the entirety
of northern Serbia only in a broader regional context because of the limited investigation results.
This approach is particularly significant if we discuss the very beginning of settlement of the south
Pannonian–north Balkan region.
The issue of the so-called quartzite Palaeolithic and the Carpathian Mousterian has been
raised by Romanian archaeologists, and with reason considering that Palaeolithic industries with
quartz and quartzite artifacts are only documented in the south Carpathians460. It is entirely justified
to mention in that context the material from Betalov Spodmol461 and other sites in the westernmost
areas of the Pannonian-Slavonic region as well as the Erd site in Hungary462. We believe in that
context that recent investigations of the Palaeolithic in Serbia and southern Romania contribute
to the completion of the fragmentary picture of the quartz industries, which in many parts of the
Carpathian basin have been recognized as geographically limited cultural phenomenon, and also
make possible its reconsideration as a regional technological tradition.
It is well-known that there are similarities between Taubahian industries of the Carpathian
basin (Tata, Kulna 11, Predmost II, Oblazowa XXb–XVI) and microlithizied industries with tools
on pebbles and flakes from Vértesszöllös and Bilcingsleben463. Small-sized flakes had been struck
from the cores regardless of whether smaller or larger pebbles were used as raw material. Most of the
pebbles were just roughly knapped. It has been noticed that the chaine operatoire is similar in many
455
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z., 1996.
456
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z., 1991.
457
ŠARIĆ, J. 1984; ŠARIĆ, J. 2009.
458
MEDOVIĆ, P. 1970.
459
BRODAR, S. 1955; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1984.
460
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968a; PAUNESCU, A. 1989; CARCIUMARU, M. & ANGHELINU, M. 2000.
461
OSOLE, F. 1991.
462
GÁBORI-CSÁNK, V. 1968.
463
MONCEL, M. E. 2003.
elements and that two flaking surfaces often appear on the cores. The knapping technology at Erd
deviates slightly from this standard because somewhat larger pebbles had been used.
The succession of Taubahian and Charentian has been confirmed at a few sites in the northern
Carpathians. For example, at the site of Oblazowa in Poland the Charentian layer was encountered
under the Taubahian layer and under the Charentian layer was recorded an industry with a larger
quantity of denticulated tools464. The Levallois technology is not significantly represented at this site,
as the most of the Taubahian sites, and a small number of the bifacially retouched tools were also
recorded. Similarly, in the area eastward of the Carpathians, the eastern Taubahian is followed by
the late Taubahian and Stinkovian, which also has the traits of the denticulated Mousterian465. The
industry from the Petrovaradin fortress has parallels with all mentioned facies: the tools on irregular
flakes are prevailing, quartz was used to a considerable extent, denticulated tools are abundant,
microlithization is prominent and the Levallois technique and bifacially chipped sidescrapers were
recorded in small quantity.
The Charentian and quartz component in the material from the Petrovaradin fortress is
somewhat unexpected phenomenon, considering that Charentian sites situated to the north (Erd),
west (Betalov Spodmol, Krapina, Vindija) and east of Petrovaradin fortress are at a considerable
distance. Even though the Charentoid character had been at one time ascribed to the Balkan
Mousterian466, that facies has not been confirmed until recently at any sites to the south of the Sava
and the Danube. The only exception is the industry of the Pontinian type in layers XXII, XXI and
XVIII at Crvena Stijena467.
Significant progress has been made in recent years in comprehending the Charentian in
southeast Europe. The rich Charentian industry has been recorded in the cave complex at Balanica
near Niš (in Mala Balanica of the Quina type) and the Middle Palaeolithic quartz industry has been
encountered also at the site of Golema Pesht in the vicinity of Skopje468. It has become apparent
that the territory within which Charentian and quartz industries do appear reaches to the southern
fringes of the Pannonian basin and that penetrate deep into the Balkan interior along the Morava-
Vardar route. It is still impossible to conclude whether this reflects the problem of mutually connected
phenomena, chronological or regional facies, or a distinct method of adaptation to the environment.
In contrast to western Europe where most of the Charentian sites are dated in OIS4, the Charentian
in central and southeast Europe and in Anatolia covers a long time span: the proto-Charentian in
Karain is generally dated to 330–300 ka469, the date obtained for Krapina is 130 ka470 and industries
from Betalov Spodmol and Erd continued until the end of OIS4 and the beginning of OIS3471.
Typical Mousterian is a common phenomenon in many parts of the Carpathian basin and the
Balkan peninsula, but due to circumstances it is not well documented in Serbia. Levallois artifacts
have been encountered at Petrovaradin fortress and many other sites including Hadži Prodanova
Cave, Smolućka Cave, Tabula Traiana Cave, Beljarica and Ekonomija 13. maj. The preferential
technique had been mostly used but specimens confirming the use of the recurrent method have also
been recorded. Rejuvenation flakes of the éclat debordant type were also found, which are difficult
to relate to either the centripetal recurrent Levallois technique or the discoid technique.
Industries with leaf-points confirmed at many sites in Bulgaria have not been documented
in Serbia. Still, bifacially retouched tools occur at sites in the north of the Balkans even in the early
464
VALDE-NOWAK, P. 2009.
465
COHEN, V. & STEPANCHUK, V. N. 1999.
466
KOZŁOWSKI, J. 1992.
467
BASLER, D. 1975.
468
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2008a; 2009a; SALAMANOV-KOROBAR, L.J., 2008.
469
KOZŁOWSKI, J. 2002.
470
SIMEK, J. F., SMITH, F. H. 1997.
471
GÁBORI-CSÁNK, V. 1968; OSOLE, F. 1991.
phase of the Middle Palaeolithic. The backed sidescrapers from the Petrovaradin fortress could not
be directly related to the Micoquian of central Europe either technologically, stylistically or according
to size and context472 but they certainly confirm that communities inhabiting south Pannonia had
similar concepts of biface production. Leaf-points were recorded at a few sites in the Sava valley and
in the western Balkans (Kamen, Vindija)473 and in Risovača they were found together with artifacts
of the Middle Palaeolithic type474.
Middle Palaeolithic sites with impoverished assemblages, which could not be taxonomically
determined, are rather numerous in northern Serbia and in the neighboring regions. The artifacts of
quartz (made on the spot) generally prevail at these sites and a small quantity of (often worn-out)
tools of flint and some Levallois flakes mostly brought from other locations are also recorded.
Because of the dominance of quartz these assemblages were once ascribed to the ‘cave’ or quartz
Mousterian475. However, it should be pointed out that means of procurement and use of quartz in
the temporary cave habitations (obtaining it on the way along with other activities) probably differs
substantially from the means of procurement of this raw material during longer occupations at base
camps. And while technological tradition may have played an important role in the pebble-flake
industries in central Europe, the appearance of quartz in temporary camps was certainly decisively
influenced by functional factors.
III.4.2 Upper Palaeolithic

The question of the emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic techno-complexes is inseparable from the
question of their bearers, and the North Balkan–South Carpathian region offers great opportunities
to study this topic. The oldest remains of Homo sapiens in Europe are 36000 years old (in the case of
Peştera cu Oase) and were found in the caves of southwestern Romania476, while in the westernmost
parts of the south Pannonian region (in Vindija) very well-known Neanderthal remains dated to
the 32nd–33rd millennia BP have been documented477. The earliest Upper Palaeolithic sites in this
part of Europe (Kozarnika, Temnata, Bacho Kiro) were discovered in this area and they, according
to some scholars, suggest the expansion of Upper Palaeolithic and modern humans from the east
or southeast towards central Europe, while according to the others this is evidence of technological
transformation within the Mousterian techno-complex. These investigations posed many questions:
how to explain the morphological variability of populations inhabiting south Pannonia and the
northern Balkans before around 40 ka, whether certain facies could be associated with distinct kinds
of hominids, along which routes, when and how the Upper Palaeolithic expanded, and what was the
character of interactions between the Neanderthals and modern humans?
The key for understanding the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in the eastern
Balkans are the remains from Bacho Kiro and Temnata caves in northern Bulgaria. The finds from
layer 11 at Bacho Kiro were initially dated to the period before 43000 BP, attributed to the Upper
Palaeolithic and defined as Bachokirien478. In the same layer a fragment of human mandible which
was assumed to belong to a primitive type of modern man transitional between the Neanderthal
and Homo sapiens was found. In Temnata, however, in layer VI in trench TD–II an industry of transi-
tional type dated to the period before 38700 BP479 is confirmed, while the Bachokirien was also
472
BOSINSKI, G. 1967.
473
IVANOVA, S. 1979.
474
GAVELA, B. 1988.
475
PĂUNESCU, A. 1989.
476
477
HIGHAM, T. et alii 2006.
478
KOZŁOWSKI, J. et alii 1982.
479
DROBNIEWICZ, B. et alii 2000a.
encountered in layer 4 in trench TD-I dated to 38200–39100 BP480. It has been assumed that Bacho
Kiro and Temnata were ‘on the path to the west’ of Upper Palaeolithic communities, which had
inhabited Europe, and that the transitional industry from Temnata only confirms that a process of
leptolithization (elongation) of the artifacts and technological transformations from the Levallois
technology towards the production of blades from the volumetric cores had started but had not
been completed481.
The 1990s witnessed the reinterpretation of finds from the Bulgarian sites. It has been
pointed out that new dates for Bacho Kiro are somewhat later and that they correspond to the
38th –39th millennium BP. There were also opinions that fossil remains from layer 11 should
be related more to the Neanderthals than to modern humans, and many authors suggested
that Bachokirien, i.e. pre-Aurignacian industries from Bacho Kiro and Temnata, are of Middle
Palaeolithic character and that they represent the final phase in the evolution of the transitional
industries482. The so-called Protoaurignacian was identified as the earliest representative of the
Upper Palaeolithic, while early Aurignacian with carinated endscrapers and split-based points was
ascribed to a somewhat later period483. On the basis of the material from layer VII at Kozarnika a
distinct facies (Kozarnikien) has been distinguished and dated to the 36th–38th millennium BP.
This industry was associated with the Protoaurignacian as well as with the Ahmarien from the
Near East because of its lamellar character484.
In contrast to Bulgaria and the Czech Republic, industries of transitional type have not been
discovered in south Pannonia and in the central Balkans, with the only exceptions being Vindija
(where the remains of the Neanderthals and a split-based point were found in layer G1), Mališina
Stijena (where Upper Palaeolithic artifacts occur in a Middle Palaeolithic context) and previously
described assemblages from Balata. It turns out, however, that the stratigraphic context of the finds
from Vindija is not entirely certain485, that the industry from Mališina Stijena probably does not go
beyond the frameworks customary for the Middle Palaeolithic486, and the artifacts from Balata are
neither obtained from regular excavations nor are there any transitional forms, which are recorded
at Temnata and at Bohunician sites487. Therefore it must be concluded that for the time being there
are no reliable indications that the process of transformation documented in Bulgaria ever took place
here. In contrast to that, an almost monotonous succession of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic
appears at most sites in this area.
The artifacts from Baranica and (probably) Tabula Traiana Cave date, judging by the absolute
dates and the characteristics of the finds, from the early Upper Palaeolithic. Unfortunately these
assemblages are too impoverished to be meaningfully related to some Aurignacian facies. On the
other hand, there is no question that Aurignacian finds from Tincova, Coşava and Româneşti–
Dumbrăviţa in the Romanian Banat488 and Crvenka and At on the Serbian side belong to the same
cultural complex, and the same catchment area connected the Begej (Bega) and the Tamiš (Timiş)
river basins. These industries have been at one time attributed to the Aurignacian of the Krems type,
and dated generally to Arcy-Stillfried B times. However, the industry from Tincova has recently
been attributed to the Protoaurignacian. It is important to emphasize here that almost all elements
480
DROBNIEWICZ, B. et alii 2000b.
481
DROBNIEWICZ, B. et alii 2000a.
482
CHURCHILL, S. E. & SMITH, F. H., 2000; TSANOVA, T. & BORDES, J-G., 2003; RIGAUD, J-P. & LUCAS, P.,
2006; TSANOVA, T. 2008.
483
TEYSSANDIER, N. 2003; 2008.
484
TSANOVA, T. 2008.
485
D’ERICCO, F. et alii 1998; KARAVANIĆ, I. & SMITH, F. H., 2000; KARAVANIĆ, I. 2000.
486
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1986b; MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2009b.
487
488
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978.
of the Protoaurignacian489 like pyramidal cores, carinated core scrapers and plain retouched blades
(sometimes of strangled type) rarely with typical Aurignacian retouch, actually do appear at Crvenka
and At as well as at Tincova (and also at two other Romanian sites). Simple endscrapers on blades are
also prevalent, nosed and carinated endscrapers are rather infrequent, and the points of the Krems
type and Dufour bladelets were also found at sites in Romania (in contrast to Crvenka and At, which
have not been systematically investigated). It should be borne in mind, however, that the chronology
of these sites has not yet been established with certainty, so their attribution to the Protoaurignacian
remains open to discussion.
As we can see, the existing material offers the potential for different interpretations. We
consider it, however, not debatable that investigations conducted so far revealed that dates for the
earliest Upper Palaeolithic and the latest Middle Palaeolithic sites decrease from the east to the west
of the Balkans. It is also obvious that the Aurignacian sites do not appear in the interior of the Balkans,
outside the Sava-Danube corridor. Therefore, it seems at the moment that the Upper Palaeolithic
cultures advanced along the Danube route but that advance was of a diffusional character and that it
encompassed a rather large territory. But it still remains to be established whether other communi-
cations (Morava-Vardar route, valleys of the rivers Strumica and Nišava) have also been employed in
areas where more wide-ranging investigations have not yet been conducted.
There still remains an open question whether the expansion of the Upper Palaeolithic followed
the retreat of Neanderthal communities in the inaccessible mountainous regions of the Balkans
(for which there are certain indications), or the retreat had been in the face of the direct advance of
Upper Palaeolithic populations. Despite the fact that the Neanderthals and the bearers of the Upper
Palaeolithic cultures had been coexisting in the Balkans for many thousand years (as evidenced by the
finds from Vindija), and even though the Neanderthals took over many innovations usually associated
with the Upper Palaeolithic and modern humans, it has not been established with any certainty that
members of these two species inhabited some of the smaller geographic regions concurrently. This
suggests that strong social and ecological competition existed between the Neanderthals and modern
humans, that social interactions were of low intensity and that modern humans probably did not
perceive Neanderthals as members of their own species. In that context it is not very probable that
hybridization between these two populations took place to any considerable extent.
The Aurignacian entirely replaced the Middle Palaeolithic in the south Pannonian region
after 35000BP. In that period this culture had the traits of typical Balkan Aurignacian but it should
be pointed out that the industry from Šalitrena Cave (which has yet to be published) differs consid-
erably on the basis of distinct association of carinated and nosed endscrapers and burins, straight
semi-abruptly retouched lamellae and points and pointed blades, from all Aurignacian industries,
which have been encountered in this part of the Balkans so far.
The Gravettian was, until recently, insufficiently studied in central and southern regions of the
Carpathian basin. Only a few sites dating from that period have been confirmed in Hungary, northern
Bosnia, northern Croatia and Slovenia and the situation was similar in northern Serbia, where
outside of a couple of artifacts discovered in the course of regular excavations (Baranica) and a small
quantity of artifacts collected out of context, there were no traces of its presence. Investigations in
Bulgaria and northern Serbia have shed more light on this problem. In Šalitrena Cave an industry has
been found which corresponds in many elements to the industry from layers 8 and 9 at Willendorf
II490: the backed truncations are frequent, there were also recorded pointed blades, and two (not so
typical) shouldered points have been also found. Parallels could also be drawn with the industries
from Temnata and particularly Kozarnika (layer IVb) where, as in Šalitrena Cave, laterally and bilat-
erally retouched points (including the points of Kozarnika type), micropoints with retouched base
489
TEYSSANDIER, N. 2008.
490
OTTE, M. et alii 1996; VALOCH, K. 1996.
and backed truncations have been encountered491. All these sites except Temnata (which covers a
somewhat longer time span) date from the 26th and 25th millennia BP.
Bearing in mind the fact that Gravettian sites in the north of the Balkans are grouped in the
Sava-Danube corridor, and considering that elements which occur somewhat earlier in the north of
central Europe (in Pavlovian) also appear at these sites, it is not out of the question that shifting of
human communities from central Europe towards the Balkans took place in the beginning of the
Upper Pleniglacial (26000–20000 BP)492. Nevertheless, it remains unclear why Gravettian sites have
not been encountered so far in the central parts of the Balkans, which are considered a refugium in
that period. The reason why typical (central European) Gravettian does not appear in this area lays
perhaps in the fact that with the advance of the maximum of the last glacial the industries in the
Balkans lost Gravettian traits and acquired more and more the characteristics of the undifferentiated
early Epigravettian493. It has been established that these industries are characterized by a restricted
repertoire of endscrapers, burins, retouched blades, retouched truncations and backed tools. This
change is quite noticeable in Temnata, it is conspicuous in the Climente I Cave in the Iron Gates494
and it is also suggested by the finds from Šalitrena Cave, but that will be clearer after completion of
the analysis of this material. The lack of Gravettian characteristics could be the result of a breaking
with tradition (in the technological sphere) but may also reflect different hunting activities related
to the use of shouldered points495.
An entirely different process of spreading the technological innovations that could be more
closely related to cultural change than population movements took place in the late glacial, and
it is confirmed by the appearance of ‘Mediterranean’ elements in the south Pannonian and south
Carpathian Epigravettian. In contrast to the coastal region, the final Epigravettian is insufficiently
known in the northern Balkans but it is, on the other hand, very well studied in the south Carpathians,
at the Climente II and Cuina Turcului sites in the Iron Gates496.
Almost all elements characteristic of the final Epigravettian of the Adriatic-Ionian zone
including microlithization of artifacts, thumbnail and circular endscrapers, geometric microliths
(segments and triangles) and arched backed points, have been recorded in the industry from Cuina
Turcului497. That period is characterized by complex specialization in various fields of human activity,
the eclectic obtaining of resources from different biomes and the introduction of fishing – which had
already been practiced in the earlier period as the finds from Tabula Traiana Cave and Climente I
confirm498. The cold spell in Younger Dryas could have forced these communities to more inten-
sively inhabit the sheltered area of the Iron Gates gorge and to intensify hunting the ibexes (which in
association with bison and other steppic species represent 60% of total remains)499.
The hunter-gatherer communities in the Iron Gates established an entire network of settle-
ments in the beginning of the Holocene. Whether because of affluence, diversity and/or reduced
seasonality of resources, or because the fishing could ‘have had the role of the key resource for
the survival of the communities’, (regardless of whether it was really the case), social and cultural
integration took place at this time in the Iron Gates, and settlements with formal interment areas
also emerged500. In the Balkans a tendency toward general technological decline, manifested in
491
DROBNIEWICZ, B. et alii 1992; TSANOVA, T. 2003.
492
KOZLOWSKI, J. 1996.
493
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. & MIHAILOVIĆ, B. 2007.
494
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a.
495
KOZLOWSKI, J. 1999.
496
PĂUNESCU, A. 1978; BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a.
497
PĂUNESCU, A. 1978.
498
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a; BORIĆ, D. 2005.
499
500
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996.
the technological sphere by a decrease in the quality of raw materials used for knapping, in the use
of expedient technology, in the decrease in quantity of the Epigravettian tool types, and in use of
asymmetrical tools on flakes, is noticeable during this period501. Similar tendencies in economy and
technology have been encountered in all three regions where Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic sites
have been investigated: in the Iron Gates, in Montenegro and in Greece. These tendencies could be
traced from the earliest phase (Cuina Turcului II, Ostrovul Banului I–II, Padina A) and reached a
climax with the appearance of the quartz industries in the Lower Gorge (Razvrata, Icoana, Schela
Cladovei). From these foundations originated the Lepenski Vir culture in the beginning of the 7th
millennium cal BC.
501
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2001.
Table 1. Crvenka-At – general structure of the main artifact categories
Crvenka At Crv.-At
Layer 3 4 5 6 8 Total Layer 3 4 5 6 Total
Cores No 0 1 4 3 0 8 0 0 2 4 6 14
% 0.0 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 2.0 1.6 1.2
Blades No 27 20 73 48 4 172 4 4 45 49 102 274
% 30.0 24.1 20.0 18.5 25.0 21.1 26.7 23.5 30.0 24.5 26.7 22.9
Flakes No 41 38 157 116 6 358 5 6 55 71 137 495
% 45.5 45.8 43.0 44.8 37.5 44.0 33.3 35.3 36.7 35.5 35.9 41.4
Rejuv. No 5 6 12 9 1 33 0 1 11 17 29 62
% 5.5 7.2 3.3 3.5 6.2 4.1 0.0 5.9 7.3 8.5 7.6 5.2
Chunks No 1 0 13 6 0 20 0 0 3 6 9 29
% 1.1 0.0 3.6 2.3 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 2.3 2.4
Tools No 16 18 106 77 5 222 6 6 34 53 99 321
% 17.8 21.7 29.0 29.7 31.2 27.3 40.0 35.3 22.7 26.5 25.9 26.9
Total No 90 83 365 259 16 813 15 17 150 200 382 1195
% 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Table 2. Crvenka-At – general strucure of the retouched tool categories
Crvenka At C0A
Layer 3 4 5 6 8 Total Layer 3 4 5 6 Total
Burins No 0 1 10 9 0 20 0 0 4 10 14 34
% 0.0 5.5 9.4 11.7 9.0 11.8 18.9 14.1 10.6
Endscrapers No 3 8 36 23 2 72 2 3 12 27 44 116
% 18.7 44.4 34.0 29.9 32.4 35.3 50.9 44.4 36.1
Retouched blades No 6 4 14 19 2 45 3 2 3 8 16 61
% 37.5 22.2 13.2 24.7 20.3 8.8 15.1 16.2 19.0
Sidescrapers No 0 1 5 4 0 10 0 0 1 4 5 15
% 0.0 5.5 4.7 5.2 4.5 2.9 7.5 5.0 4.7
Truncations No 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 3
% 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 2.9 1.0 0.9
Perforators No 0 0 5 1 0 6 0 0 1 0 1 7
% 0.0 0.0 4.7 1.3 2.7 2.9 1.0 2.2
Raclettes No 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
% 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.3
Retouched No 1 1 14 7 0 23 1 1 3 1 6 29
flakes % 6.2 5.5 13.2 9.1 10.4 8.8 1.9 6.1 9.0
Denticulated No 3 1 7 2 0 13 0 0 0 1 1 14
tools % 18.7 5.5 6.6 2.6 5.8 1.9 1.0 4.4
Notched No 0 1 2 10 0 13 0 0 4 0 4 17
tools % 0.0 5.5 1.9 13.0 5.8 11.8 4.0 5.3
Pieces with surface No 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
retouch % 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.9 0.6
Splintered No 3 1 5 1 0 10 0 0 4 0 4 14
pieces % 18.7 5.5 4.7 1.3 4.5 11.8 4.0 4.4
Combined No 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 4
tools % 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.9 3.8 2.0 1.2
Fragments No 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 4
of tools % 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.3 1.3 2.9 1.0 1.2
Total No 16 18 106 77 5 222 6 6 34 53 99 321
% 99.8 99.6 99.0 100.1 99.8 99.9 100.0 99.8 99.9
Table 3. Petrovaradin fortress – general structure of the main artifact categories: cores, blades, flakes, chunks,
tools, products of the secondary tools modification, chips and small undeterminable fragments (≤ 15 mm)
Sector I Sector II
Layer 2a 2a/2b 2b Total 2a 2a/2b
Cores 6 3 1 10 8 1 9
3.5% 5.4% 7.1% 4.2% 3.2% 5.0% 3.3%
Blades 5 2 0 7 10 0 10
2.9% 3.6% 0.0% 2.9% 4.0% 0.0% 3.7%
Flakes 125 38 10 173 173 14 187
73.1% 69.1% 71.4% 72.1% 68.6% 70% 68.7%
Chunks 3 1 0 4 3 0 3
1.8% 1.8% 0.0% 1.7% 1.2% 0.0% 1.1%
Tools 31 10 3 44 57 5 62
18.1% 18.2% 21.4% 18.3% 22.6% 25.0% 22.8%
Sec.m. 1 1 0 2 1 0 1
0.6% 1.8% 0.0% 0.8% 0.4 0.0% 0.4%
Total 171 55 14 240 252 20 272
100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100% 100.0%
+ Chips 79 37 7 123 168 14 182
+ Frg. 74 14 6 94 98 10 108
Table 4. Petrovaradin fortress – general strucure of the retouched tool categories
Sector I Sector II
Layer 2a 2a/2b 2b Total 2a 2a/2b Total
Endscrapers 5 1 1 7 5 0 5
Burins 1 1 0 2 6 0 6
Retouched blades 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Retouched flakes 5 1 0 6 11 1 12
Sidescrapers 6 4 2 12 12 2 14
Denticulated tools 4 0 0 4 3 1 4
Notched tools 6 0 0 6 10 0 10
Splintered pieces 0 0 0 0 2 0 2
Raclettes 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Perforators 0 1 0 1 2 0 2
Truncations 1 1 0 2 2 0 2
Fragments of tools 3 1 0 4 3 0 3
Total 31 10 3 44 57 5 62
Table 5. Petrovaradin fortress – occurrence of types according to F. Bordes list, by layers
Sector I Sector II
Layer 2a 2a/2b 2b 2a 2a/2b
1 2 2 6
2 5 1 1
5 4 2 4
8
9 3 5
10 1 2 4
15 1
21 1
22 1
23 2 1 1
24 1
25 1
28 2 1
30 1 1
31 4 1 1 3
33 1 1 6
34 1
35 1 1
37 1
38 2
39 1
40 1 1 2
42 6 10
43 4 3 1
45
46–49 5 1 11 1
56 1
62 3 1 5
Total 43 (31) 14 (11) 4 (3) 70 (52) 5 (4)
Table 6. Petrovaradin fortress – typological and technological indices according to F. Bordes

Sector I Sector II Both sectors
Layer 2a 2a/2b Average (2a+2a/2b) 2a Average (2a+2a/2b) Average (2a+2a/2b)
IL 4.09 3.63 3.98 2.77 2.57 3.21
IF (l) 20.45 20.00 20.33 23.61 24.34 22.59
IF (ess) 5.68 20.00 9.32 9.02 9.21 9.25
ILam* 4.67 5.45 4.86 5.55 5.14 5.02
ILty (l) 16.27 14.28 15.78 10.00 9.33 12.12
IR (l) 13.95 28.57 17.54 18.57 20.00 18.93
IC (l) 4.65 28.57 10.52 8.57 9.33 9.84
I (l) 16.27 14.28 15.78 10.0 9.33 12.12
II (l) 23.25 42.85 28.07 24.28 25.33 26.51
III (l) 18.60 28.57 21.05 20.00 18.66 19.69
IV (l) 23.25 0 17.54 18.57 18.66 18.18
IR (ess) 19.35 36.36 23.80 25.00 26.78 25.51
IC (ess) 6.45 36.36 14.28 11.53 12.50 13.26
II (ess) 32.25 54.54 38.09 32.69 33.92 35.71
III (ess) 25.80 36.36 28.57 26.92 25.00 26.53
IV (ess) 32.25 0 23.80 25.00 25.00 24.48
H
IV.1 Introduction – Mesolithic studies in Romania
“ ow can we summarize the Mesolithic age? Was it the glorious finale to hunter-gatherer
adaptations in Europe or the prelude to the social and economic systems of later prehistory?
Or, was it a play within itself, requiring reference neither to what went before, nor after, for
its identity? Perhaps we should try to see it as all three: a period with many complex threads which we
are just beginning to unravel and understand. If we need a single image to characterize the Mesolithic we
cannot choose a particular environmental type, settlement system or socio-economic organization. These
all varied markedly across Mesolithic Europe and through time. The only constant we have is at the level
of the individual forager making decisions about which tools to produce, which resources to exploit, and
which alliances to form. Such decisions were made on the basis of imperfect information about the options
available, under the influence of the society’s traditions, and with the creativity that is inherent to the human
mind. It was from such decisions, from the many intended and unintended consequences that the social and
economic structures of the Mesolithic emerged. It was these day-to-day, indeed minute-minute, decisions –
made as Mesolithic foragers went about their daily business – that created one of the most critical periods
of transformation in European prehistory.” (S. Mithen)502
In South-East Europe, the general perception of the role and importance of

the Mesolithic has always been acutely variable, function of its presence/absence
within different areas, or the archaeological traditions of the region.
Romanian archaeologists started to pay attention to the Mesolithic age at the
beginning of the XX century. In many cases it was quoted just as just a period of
transition, a bridge between the Palaeolithic and the Neolithic – the two bright stars
of Prehistory503, or as simply the surviving remains of the Palaeolithic.504 It was very
rarely seen as a time ‘of deep changes of the material and the spiritual, of transformations
and adaptations to new ways of life”.505
The second half of the XXth century saw the attempt by C. S. Nicolăescu-
Plopşor506 to eliminate the term “Mesolithic” altogether, as it was ‘lacking substance,’
and ‘the Proto-Neolithic is naturally and directly linked to the Epipalaeolithic, with no
other intermediary period between them”.507 The same authors stressed that “there is a
direct transition from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Early Neolithic, developing on a late
502
MITHEN, S. 1994: 133.
503
MOROŞAN, N. N. 1932: 12; BERCIU, D. 1939: 11.
504
BERCIU, D. 1939:11, NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1941.
505
BERCIU, D. 1941: 14.
506
The irony is that the same archaeologist was the first one to introduce the term in Romanian archae-
ology (NICOLĂESCU-PLOPȘOR, C. S. 1929, 1931).
507
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPȘOR, C. S. 1954: 69; 1965.
106 | Adina Boroneanţ
microlithic Magdalenian background, with tight connections in the East”.508 The idea was pushed forward
again and again509 and echoed until the 1980s.510
After the death of C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor, a fraction of the Romanian archaeologists
reintroduced the Mesolithic in the early 1970s, but never explaining its meaning. Its characteristics
were rather blurred, differences between the Mesolithic and the Epipalaeolithic were never substan-
tiated and sometimes the two were used as interchangeable terms.511
With the discovery of the Iron Gates sites, terminology became even more complicated and
more controversies appeared. For reasons that will be explained further on, the present author has
chosen to use (for the Iron Gates area only) the term Mesolithic even when dealing with sites previ-
ously identified as Epipalaeolithic.
IV.2 Mesolithic in the Banat area
The Mesolithic of Banat is represented, with a couple of exceptions, by sites located in the Iron Gates
region of the Danube (Fig. 53). The first exception is Hoţu Cave, near Steierdorf (Caraș Severin
county)512. The second one is the Peştera Hoţilor, at Băile Herculane513. Both are just 50–60 km north
from the Danube, but not within the Iron Gates proper. Whether this situation reflects only the
present state of research, time will tell.
Until now, no direct link (other than chronological) can be made between Hoţu Cave and the
Iron Gates sites. Thus, the former will be presented separately.
IV.2.1 The Hoţu Cave514 (Fig. 55/1–3)

The cave, part of a karstic system dug in Barremian–Aptian limstones, is located in the Miniş valley,
in the south-western part of Romania, not far away from the town of Anina (Caraş Severin county).
The local karst consists of a series of small and medium sized caves, once upon a time forming an
impressive subterranean system. Nowadays communication among caves is blocked.
Excavations started in 2004, in the hope the cave would offer a cultural context for the human
remains found in Oase Cave (Peştera cu Oase), dated ca 38.500 cal BP515. Research continued until
2008.
17 occupation layers were identified:
• Level. 1.1: black sediment, modern period;
• Level. 1.2: brownish-black sediment, Medieval age;
• Level. 2: brown sediments with medium and large clasts;
• Levels 3.1 – to 3.5: grey sediment, Bronze Age (Coţofeni culture);
• Level. 4.1: yellowish-brown sediment, rich in clastic material, Early Neolithic;
• Level. 4.2: yellowish-brown sediment, Early Neolithic;
• Level. 5.1: reddish clay, Final Mesolithic;
508
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPȘOR, C. S.1954: 70: 1965.
509
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPȘOR, C. S. 1957: 56; NICOLĂESCU-PLOPȘOR, C. S. et alii 1959: 63; MOGOȘANU, FL.
1960: 128; PĂUNESCU, A. 1966.
510
BRUDIU, M. 1971:363; 1974:7; CÂRCIUMARU, M. & PĂUNESCU, A. 1975: 317; IST.MIL 1984: 8; CHIRICA,
V. & ENACHE, GH. 1984: 317.
511
PĂUNESCU, A. 1978: 280; 1979a: 239; 1979b: 507; DUMITRESCU, V. 1971: 88; BORONEANŢ, V. 1970a: 28.
512
BĂLTEAN, I. et alii 2011a, in press.
513
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & PĂUNESCU, A. 1962; PĂUNESCU, A. 2000.
514
BĂLTEAN, I. et alii, in press; PETRESCU, S. M. et alii 2009: 202–204.
515
The Mesolithic in Banat | 107
• Level. 5.2: yellowish-reddish clay, Mesolithic;

• Level. 6.1: yellowish-reddish clay with clastic material, Epipalaeolithic;
• Level. 6.2: yellowish-redish matrix with clastic material, Epipalaeolithic;
• Level. 7.1: grey fine sediment fin, with clastic material;
• Level. 7.2 grey-yellowish sediment with pebbles, charcoal and burnt bones,
• Level. 7.3 very fine white-yellowish sediment with charcoal and bones.
In Level 5.1 the excavation exposed a hearth (Fig. 55b) and a few lithic artefacts (among which a
backed microlithic point made of flint (Fig. 55c). Two samples from the hearth (Fagus and/or Pru-
nus, Quercus) yielded the dates of 7590±100 BP (Sac–2104) (6633–6244 cal BC – OxCal 4.1) and
7610±60 BP (OxA–15067), 6596–6378 cal BC.
Charcoal from the grey sediment underlying the Mesolithic (where two “atypical” flint piec-
es and some bone fragments affected by post-depositional processes appeared) gave the date of
13.710±60 BP (OxA–15992) (15 075–14 718 cal BC).
Given the small number of Mesolithic finds and features it is impossible at this point to make
any correlation other than chronological between the Mesolithic of this cave and the sites in the
Danube Gorge.
IV.2.2 The Iron Gates

IV.2.2.1 The environmental context of the Iron Gates sites
In geographical terms, the Iron Gates used to designate only a part of the Danube gorges, a short area
of approx. 3 km in length, between the villages of Vârciorova and Gura Văii. With the construction of
the first hydro-electric power station at Gura Văii, the term of Iron Gates was extended to the whole
Danube valley between Baziaş and Gura Văii. With the building of the second dam further down,
on the Ostrovul Mare island, the term of “Iron Gates region” extended further down, reaching the
village of Gogoşu, Mehedinţi county.
Morphologically speaking, the Iron Gates region is composed from three geographically
distinct elements: the Danube valley, the mountain ranges bordering it and the Turnu Severin
depression.
The Danube Gorges area stretches for 144 km between the localities of Baziaş and Gura Văii,
featuring “a dramatic narrowness of the valley and a continuous change on the general east-west flowing
direction of the Danube”.516 It is formed of a series of smaller gorges, separated by depressionary ba-
sins (Fig. 54): the Gura Nerei–Valea Rilii gorge, the Moldova Veche depression, the Pescari–Alibeg
gorge, the Liubcova basin, the Berzasca–Greben gorge, a widening of the valley between Greben and
Plavișevița, the Milanovač basin, Cazanele Mari (the Big Cauldrons), the Dubova basin, Cazanele
Mici (the Little Cauldrons), the Ogradena–Orşova basin, and finally, the Iron Gates region proper.
Exiting the latter, the Danube leaves the Carpathian area and enters the Turnu Severin depression.517
The changes in the river direction and the alternation of gorges and basins led to the
development of a “variety of meso and micro-climates, thus of various types of habitat”518 with, as it shall
be seen below, a great impact on the evolution of the human communities in the area. Apart from
the Mesolithic sites, Early Neolithic sites will also be mentioned, as they bear importance on the
Mesolithic-Early Neolithic transition.
***
516
ROŞU, A. 1973: 278.
517
GHINEA, D. 1997: 353, GEOGRAFIA 1969: 277–278.
518
MISIĆ, V. 1981: 65–67.
When entering the Pescari–Alibeg gorge, the Danube meets the Moldova Veche island. For
almost 6 km, the valley narrows down to 420–450 m in width, flowing through steep rocky walls
reaching heights of approx. 100–120 m.519 In this area, the river cuts through Jurassic and Cretaceous
deposits, and downstream Sicheviţa (Early Neolithic) also through some crystalline schists.520 At the
point where the Alibeg river flows into the Danube, on a small dejection cone, the Pescari-Alibeg site
was located (Mesolithic and Early Neolithic). Not far away was the Early Neolithic site of Sf. Elena.521
Between the confluences of the Danube with the Cameniţa, respectively the Berzasca river,
the Danube flows through the post-tectonic depression of Liubcova. The main valleys in the area
(Valea Mare, Oreviţa, Cameniţa) exhibit erosion and accumulation basins, both along the valleys
themselves and at their confluence with the Danube, resulting in a large number of dejection cones
(Valea Mare, Oreviţa, Cameniţa and Liborajdea) associated with Early Neolithic sites (Gornea,
Liubcova-Orniţa, Berzasca-sat).
The second gorge follows between Berzasca/Drencova and Greben, with an average width
of the valley of 700–750 m. The Danube cuts here through Jurassic limestones, Cretaceous shales
and limestones, Permian conglomerates and gritstones.522 The only wider area (approx. 850 m),
where a small meadow developed, was at Cozla (with two Early Neolithic sites: Cozla–Sirina,
Cozla–Piatra Ilişovei).
Along the 25 km long V-shaped sector of Greben-Plavişeviţa, the Danube flows through
metamorphic, eruptive and sedimentary formations. During the first 11 km, in the Şviniţa depression
quite a few Mesolithic and Early Neolithic sites were discovered: Ilişova, Şviniţa-Izlaz, on the
right bank of the Danube corresponding on the left bank to the sites of Padina (Mesolithic, Early
Neolithic), Donji Milanovac, Stubica (Early Neolithic), Lepenski Vir, Vlasac (Mesolithic, Early
Neolithic), Aria Babi (Early Neolithic). The Şviniţa valley is also considered to be one of the main
sources for prehistoric flint and silicious schists.523
The third gorge is made up of two parts, Cazanele Mari (the Big Cauldrons – 3.8 km long) and
Cazanele Mici (the Little Cauldrons – 3.6 km long), separated by the tectonic basin of Dubova.524
The Big Cauldrons is Danube’s narrowest gorge, with a width never exceeding 150–170m and
a water depth of 25–30 m (before the rise in the water level). The sediments are Jurassic limestones
and crystalline rocks, rising up to 300 m above the water level. On the left bank, the archaeological
sites were caves located in the Ciucaru Mare massif: Climente I and II Caves (Mesolithic, Early
Neolithic), Gura Ponicovei Cave (Early Neolithic), Veterani Cave (Mesolithic?, Early Neolithic),
Cuina Turcului rockshelter (Mesolithic, Early Neolithic) or open air sites: Veterani Terasă
(Mesolithic, Early Neolithic) and Sacoviştea Mare (Early Neolithic).
The Little Cauldrons stretches between the Ciucarul Mic and Mali Strbac, an area of steep
slopes with gravels at the base.
Only open air sites were identified at the time of research: on the left bank Răzvrata (on the
east side of the dejection cone of the Mraconia river – Mesolithic), La Balon (Early Neolithic, at the
confluence of the Mraconia with the Danube) and Icoana (Mesolithic, Early Neolithic), with only
Hajdučka Vodenica (Mesolithic, Early Neolithic) on the left bank.
Separated from the above-mentioned gorge by the Ogradena–Orşova depression, follows the
Orşova-Bahna depression (where the valley widens and the terraces are well contoured) and the
Iron Gates gorge (around the present day Iron Gates I powerplant), stretching from the mouth of the
Bahna river to Drobeta Turnu Severin.
519
GEOGRAFIA 1969: 280.
520
GEOGRAFIA 1969: 31.
521
LAZAROVICI, G. 1974.
522
GEOGRAFIA 1969: 31.
523
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a: 19.
524
GEOGRAFIA 1969: 289–290.
The Ada-Kaleh island, in the Ogradena–Orşova depression, with a possible Mesolithic

occupation, was covered by the waters of the artificial lake. In this area, sites were located both on
islands (Ostrovul Banului – Mesolithic, Early Neolithic) and the open air (Schela Cladovei Pichet –
Mesolithic, Early Neolithic, Schela Cladovei Canton – Mesolithic, Early Neolithic, Drobeta-Turnu
Severin – Fabrica de Celuloză, Early Neolithic)
Other sites, both Mesolithic (Ostrovul Corbului, Ostrovul Mare km 873, Ostrovul Mare km
875), but mainly Early Neolithic (Fig. 53), were located downstream of Drobeta-Turnu Severin.
They are not presented in detail in the following pages, since they do not fall within the historical
boundaries of the Banat.
IV.2.2.2 The Iron Gates climate

With its series of micro-climates, the Iron Gates are rather special in the general context of the region,
particularity explained by the interaction of the local, physical and geographical factors (orientation
of the slopes, sandy/limestony soils, agricultural and wooded lands) with the dynamic and reactive
ones (waters, athmospherical circulation, sun radiation).525
The area also shows perceptible differences from the temperate continental climate of
Romania and Serbia. The average annual temperatures are 0.5–0.8° lower when compared to the
surrounding areas. The average temperatures in July are also 2–3° C lower, and those in January,
0.1–1.2° higher. There is 20% more rain than the average annual percentage in Romania.
Four types of microclimates were established for the Iron Gates (with a number of local
variants), two of them activating in areas where archaeological sites were identified and possibly
playing a major part in location choice of the respective prehistoric communities:
• the microclimatic complex of the islands (bearing significance for the sites of Moldova
Veche, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Şimian, Ostrovul Corbului, Ostrovul Mare), charac-
terized by average thermal indicators controlled by the caloric regime of the Danube;
• the microclimatic complex of meadows and lower terraces, affecting the sites at Pescari-
Alibeg, Icoana, Răzvrata, Ieşelniţa, Schela Cladovei, Veterani Terasă, Pojejena, Șușca,
Gornea, Liubcova, Cozla, Şviniţa, Cuina Turcului;
• the microclimatic complex of middle terraces (II–IV), with a colder climate compared to
that of the meadows, with less sunny days on the western and northern slopes, with daily
average temperatures 1–2 °C lower compared to the meadows;
• the microclimatic complex of the higher terraces (V–VII), characterized by accentuated
dynamics of the air, more nebulosity, and a further reduction of sunny days.
During the Pleistocene, the topographical configuration of the land, the altitude, soil and subsoil
types, made the climatic oscillations less harsh in the Iron Gates area compared to the mainland.
At the end of the Younger Dryas (ca 10 000–9000 BC) the climate throughout Europe was
warming up. Using pollen analysis, the study of varves and the ice cores, the reconstruction of the
European climate during the Holocene was possible, showing a succession of different climatic
periods: the Pre-Boreal, Boreal and the first part of the Atlantic were associated with the Mesolithic,
while the Atlantic saw the development of the Neolithic.
During the Pre-Boreal (ca 8300–7500 BC) temperatures got substantially higher, summers
were comparable to the ones today but winters remained quite cold, as huge glaciers still existed.
Vegetation took the form, in most cases, of beech and pine forests, with local occurrences of oak,
elm, linden and hazel.
During the Boreal (ca 7500–6200 BC) the same climate amelioration persisted, with
summers warmer than today but extremely cold winters. Precipitations were low. Vegetation saw the
appearance of the deciduous forests.
525
ATLASUL 1973: 141.
The Atlantic (ca 6200–3000 BC) was the warmest period, also called of climatic optimum,
with extremely mild winters. The last ice sheets disappeared in Europe, followed by an extremely
humid period at the end of the period. Vegetation diversified, with mixed forests taking over in the
largest part of the areas, while the pine confined itself to the higher regions.
Consequently, hunters no longer followed the herds over vast territory. Due to the new
environmental conditions, territorial game such as deer and wild pig colonized the new forests. In
the Iron Gates, there is evidence for hunting of deer, aurochs, brown bear, chamois, wild cat, brown
hare, wolf, wild pig, beaver.526
Forests also contained many edible plants that could be easily gathered, such as nuts, tubers,
berries, fruits, leaves, herbs. Fish, shellfish and snails completed the diet.
At the onset of the Atlantic, the period of 6300–6000 cal BC is associated with the most drastic
cooling period of the Holocene, also known as “8.2 ka cold event”, determined it seems by the melting of
the Laurentide icesheet and the flowing of this vast amount of cold water into the North Atlantic.527 This
cooling phase was detected in various Northern Hemisphere marine and terrestrial climatic records528.
During the “8.2 ka cold event” Europe went through a climatic period characterized by a drop
of 2–3 °C in the average temperatures, correlated to a change in the atmospheric circulation, and,
on a regional scale, to a change in the precipitation regime (Fig. 56a): the area between 43°–50° N
latitude (covering also the Iron Gates) saw a climate far wetter than before and after, while in the
southern areas the climate become drier.529 It is this cooler and wetter period that is associated with
the end of the foraging economy in the Iron Gates and the arrival of first agriculturalists.
IV.3 Short history of the research
In November 1963, the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Socialist Federative Republic of
Yugoslavia signed an agreement regarding the construction of a first hydro-electric power system
in the Gura Văii – Sip km 943 area (Iron Gates I), to be followed by a second one, downstream, in
the area of the 865–860 river km, called Iron Gates II. The first stage of the project (Iron Gates I)
developed between 1965–1971, while the second one (Iron Gates II) began in 1977 and was finished
in general lines in 1985.
I. The Iron Gates I

The rise in the Danube level with as much as 34 m at the dam and 12 m at the end of the
artificial lake, was going to flood both banks, affecting not only the human communities but also
the archaeological sites. Under the circumstances, the Romanian Academy created the Iron Gates
Complex Research Group, aiming to study the affected area in all its cultural and environmental
aspects. Archaeological research was to take place along the whole left bank of the river, an area
stretching for more than 125 km, from Moldova Veche to the village of Şimian.
During this first stage a series of sites, designated then as “Epi-Palaeolithic” were identified
and some, partially excavated:
Climente I Cave – 1965, 1968–1969, Climente II Cave – 1969, Veterani Cave – 1964–1969,
Cuina Turcului Rockshelter – 1966–1969, Schela Cladovei – 1965, 1967–1968, Ostrovul Banului –
1966, Răzvrata – 1967, 1968, Icoana 1967–1969, Veterani Terasa – 1969, Alibeg – 1971. All of them,
apart from Schela Cladovei are nowadays submerged.
526
527
MAGNY, M. et alii 2003.
528
GRONENBORN, D. 2009.
529
BONSALL, C. 2007: 56.
In many cases, possible sites were spotted without the option of being excavated, mostly
because of the short interval left. It is the case of the Mesolithic finds on the alluvial plain at Vârciorova,
another two locations on the Ada-Kaleh island (sites that had already been affected by the Vauban
fortress built on the top of them), Ieşalniţa (further upstream from the Roman fortress of Dierna),
Dubova (on the banks of the local rivulet springing from ‘Tăul lui Mila’ pond)530, Păzărişte531,
Vodneac, Ilişova, Islaz532, Tişoviţa (further up from the road ramification leading to the Eibenthal
mine), Cozla, Drencova, Şviniţa km 1004, Plavişeviţa (near the border police headquarters, at the
entrance in the Big Cauldrons)533, Varniţa (Pescari–Coronini village), Moldova Veche, Pojejena534.
On the right bank of the Danube535, archaeological excavations took place at Lepenski Vir
(1965–1970), Hajdučka Vodenica (1966–1967, 1969) Padina (1968–1969 and two campaigns in
1970). The last site to be excavated on the right bank during this stage was Vlasac (1970 – 1971).536
II. The Iron Gates II (1977–1984)

The second stage of the project, with a maximum rise in the Danube waters of 12 m at the Iron
Gates II dam included rescue excavations at Schela Cladovei, Ostrovul Mare (km 873, km 875 and
Schela), Ostrovul Corbului (Botul Cliuci) on the left bank, and Ajmana, Velesnica, and Kula on the
right bank of the Danube.
As in the case of the Iron Gates I, certain sites were spotted with no time for further investiga-
tions, such as the Mesolithic ones on Şimian island (on the northern bank of the island, upstream
from the former pier, with a second location on the same bank but towards the middle area of the
island), Şimian village (La Isvoare – south of the local springs, and a second possible location between
the villages of Şimian and Hinova), Batoţi (north of the village), Izvorul Frumos and Vrancea537.
After the above mentioned sites were flooded, Schela Cladovei was the only place where
archaeological excavations continued until 1997 (1992–1996 within a joint Romanian–British
project), and with the exception of a small trench excavated in 2001–2002, research was not resumed
until 2007, again within a Romanian–British joint project.
IV.4 Epipalaeolithic and Mesolithic in the Iron Gates
First field surveys on the left bank538 started in 1961, followed by excavations, from 1964539 and
ending in 1971 when the banks were completely flooded. Given the purpose of the research (salvage
as much from the flood threatened sites), only the areas in the nearby vicinity of the river were
surveyed, thus explaining the apparent lack of Mesolithic sites on the higher terraces and also along
the valleys of the small tributary rivers.
530
V. Boroneanţ, personal communication.
531
COMORI 1978: 29.
532
533
534
535
There was a difference in the method of the research between the left and the right banks of the Danube. While the
Romanian archaeologists tried to cover as large an area and identify as many sites as possible, on the right bank the
accent fell on the intensive and systematic study of the already located ones (RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a: 4).
536
537
538
Previous archaeological research took place on the left bank at the beginning of the 1920-ies. Al. Bărcăcilă collected
prehistoric items from the areas of Schela Cladovei, Gura Văii, Ostrovul Banului and Ostrovul Corbului, items
considered at the time to be Neolithic (BĂRCĂCILĂ, A. 1924: 280–296). Many of them were later reinterpreted as
part of the Schela Cladovei culture (BORONEANŢ, V. 1973a: 11).
539
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. et alii 1968: 8.
From early 1961, following soundings in Climente II Cave and Cuina Turcului rockshelter,
human habitations dated to the end of Pleistocene were identified. Two separate stages – seen
as cultural layers within the sites – were postulated and assigned to the Epipalaeolithic. With the
progress of the research, this local Epipalaeolithic facies was described as Clisurean540 (after the local
name given to the Iron Gates Gorge, Clisura in Romanian), Romanellian541, Romanello-Azillian542,
Epigravettian and eventually Tardigravettian of Mediteraneean origin543.
On the left bank, a second cultural aspect was uncovered by V. Boroneanţ and Mişu
Davidescu, first at Schela Cladovei and later on in many of the upstream sites. Its features were
defined as very different from those of the earlier Epipalaeolithic (the new facies had a poorer
typology of the lithic industry – based mainly on quartz and quartzite, but a very rich bone and
antler industry, distinctive hearths and houses, and, at Schela Cladovei, a significant number of
human burials). This new aspects was named by V. Boroneanţ as the Schela Cladovei culture, and was
seen as a ‘natural continuation of the Clisurean, with possible influences of the quarzitic Palaeolithic’.544
Fl. Mogoşanu, on the other hand, the main excavator of the Upper Palaeolithic sites in Banat, saw
Schela Cladovei culture as the direct descendant of Palaeolithic traditions from Hoţilor Cave (Băile
Herculane) and the Banat mountains.545
During the following years, various researchers assigned the discoveries in the Iron Gates sites
to the Protoneolithic546, Epipalaeolithic547, Epipalaeolithic in its earlier phase and Protoneolithic in the
final one548, Epipalaeolithic for the earlier sites (Cuina Turcului, Climente II) and Mesolithic for the
later ones549, Mesolithic and Early Neolithic550, Epipalaeolithic/Mesolithic551.
Given the scarcity of absolute 14C dates (at least for the left bank) the chronological
distinction between the Epipalaeolithic and the Mesolithic was at times studied merely based on
differences in the lithic typology and use of raw materials, suggesting perhaps the existence of an
early Epipalaeolithic layer (not noticed at the time of the excavations) on most of the sites on the left
bank (Icoana, Răzvrata, Veterani Terasă, Schela Cladovei)552.
Initially, discoveries on the two banks of the river were seen as uncorrelated, and Schela
Cladovei and Lepenski Vir were defined as cultural groups with parallel evolutions553, with some of
the Romanian archaeologists considering the site of Lepenski Vir as an isolated phenomenon within
the archaeology of the Iron Gates554.
The very first to formulate the hypothesis of a common ground between the two banks were
the Serbian archaeologists. The suggestion was received with some reluctance by their Romanian
counterparts, reluctance explained both by the lack of monumental architecture and carved boulders
on the left banks sites, and also by the chronological differences suggested at the time by the very few
14
C dates.
Thus, local chronologies were put forward for each of the individual sites, based mostly on the
stratigraphic sequences observed by the respective authors. Correlations and cultural parallels were
540
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1965, BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a.
541
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968.
542
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b.
543
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000.
544
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973a, 1973b.
545
MOGOŞANU, F. 1973; 1978.
546
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1968.
547
BORONEANŢ, V. 1969, 1970; LETICA, Z. 1971; PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b; 1978.
548
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1971; 1979.
549
MOGOŞANU, FL. 1978a; PRINZ, B. 1987; PĂUNESCU, A. 1984; SREJOVIĆ, D. 1988; 1989.
550
JOVANOVIĆ, B. 1972; 1973; 1974.
551
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000.
552
PĂUNESCU, A. 1989; 1996; 2000.
553
BORONEANȚ, V. 1972, 1973a; SREJOVIĆ, D. 1970.
554
PĂUNESCU, A. 1980; 1984; 1996; 2000.
sought among the various sites based on architectural features, lithic typologies, bone and antler
industries. But as was observed elsewhere555, very few of these proposed chronologies (Fig. 57)
were at the time backed by reliable series of 14C dates. Many more 14C dates (see Table 7) have
been published since, showing (at least for the sites of Lepenski Vir, Vlasac and Schela Cladovei),
major chronological inconsistencies between the initial subdivisions in phases, on one hand, and the
results of the 14C dating, on the other hand556.
With the availability of new 14C dates, a provisional chronology of the sites was suggested, and
is illustrated in the table below557:
Period (cal BC) Age Representative sites with calibrated 14C)

13 000–7200 Early Mesolithic Cuina Turcului, Lepenski Vir, Padina, Vlasac
(the former Clisurean/Azillian,
Tardigravettian)
7200–6300 Late Mesolithic Hajdučka Vodenica, Icoana, Ostrovul Corbului,
(Schela Cladovei–Lepenski Vir culture) Ostrovul Banului, Schela Cladovei, Vlasac
6300–6000 Final Mesolithic Lepenski Vir, Alibeg?
(Schela Cladovei–Lepenski Vir culture )
6000–5500 Early Neolithic Cuina Turcului, Lepenski Vir, Padina, Schela
Cladovei, Vlasac
IV.4.1 The Early Mesolithic (13200–7200 cal BC)

Based mainly on the typological analysis of the respective lithic industries, on the left bank, five
sites were traditionally associated with this period: Climente II Cave, Cuina Turcului rockshelter,
Veterani Cave, Ostrovul Banului (in the Iron Gates) and Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave, some 60 km
up north, on the Cerna river valley (a major tributary of the Danube).
Radiocarbon dates (see Table 7) also suggest an Early Mesolithic occupation for the sites at
Vlasac, Lepenski Vir and Padina, although the duration and character of these occupations remain
rather obscure558. Location wise, apart from Ostrovul Banului, all Iron Gates sites seem to cluster in
the upper area of the Gorges.
The scarcity of sites during the Late Glacial could be explained by the climatic instability
during the respective period: “The fractionation of nitrogen and argon isotopes at the end of the
Younger Dryas cold interval, recorded in Greenland ice, demonstrates that warming at this time was
abrupt. This warming coincides with the onset of a prominent rise in atmospheric methane concen-
tration, indicating that the climate change was synchronous (within a few decades) over a region of
at least hemispheric extent”559. This indicates that the Danube level fluctuated a lot from season
to season, caused by the melting of snows and glaciers, presumably forcing the communities of
hunter-gatherers to occupy the higher terraces, an area that had not been surveyed during the
1960–1970. It is not impossible that the banks of the river were inhabited during the nice seasons,
but the flooding and erosion during Younger Dryas and later have distroyed any trace of evidence
from the very beginning.560
555
BONSALL, C. 2008.
556
BONSALL, C. et alii 1997; 2000; 2002; BONSALL, C. 2008; BORONEANȚ, V. et alii 1999.
557
Only sites with 14C dates are listed in the table. Adapted after BONSALL, C. 2008.
558
BONSALL, C. 2008.
559
SEVERINGHAUS, J. P. et alii 1998: 141.
560
BONSALL, C. 2008.
IV.4.1.1 Cuina Turcului Rockshelter (Fig. 58)

The site was located half a kilometre upstream from the entrance of the Danube in the Big Cauldrons.
Formed in the Ciucaru Mare Mountain, the site was, like Climente II Cave, at a relative altitude of
12 m, and an absolute one of 60 m. Reasonable in size, it was 40 m long, 10 m wide and 25 m high.
Prior to its research (1964–1969) the site had already been affected by road building late in the
XVIIIth century – a road that cut through the terrace in front of the shelter and probably elimi-
nated a large part of the archaeological deposits. The research in the 1960s focused on the impressive
Early Mesolithic remains, and thus, the Early Neolithic, although equally spectacular, did not receive
proper attention.561
The internal chronology of the cave, based on the observed stratigraphy, was established in
1965 and refined later on562:
1. Light greyish soil, poor in archaeological remains (La Tène, Late Roman, Early and Late
Medieval);
2. Dark greyish soil, Early Hallstatt remains;
3. Fine yellow-greyish soil, Coţofeni remains;
4. Fine yellow-greyish soil, Starčevo-Criş layer III;
5. Fine yellow-greyish soil, Starčevo-Criş layer II;
6. Dark greyish sediment with limestone boulders, Starčevo-Criş layer I;
7. Brown-reddish sediment with large limestone boulders, archaeologically sterile;
8. Brown-reddish sediment with pebbles – Early Mesolithic (Tardigravettian IIb);
9. Yellow sediment, sterile;
10. Brown-reddish sediment with pebbles – Early Mesolithic (Tardigravettian IIa);
11. Reddish-yellowish sediment with large boulders of limestone, archaeologically sterile
12. Dark yellow-greyish sediment (sometime overlapping the rock) – Early Mesolithic
(Tardigravettian I);
13. Layer of compact yellow-brown clay, archaeologically sterile, laying in most cases directly
on the bedrock.
Two Early Mesolithic layers (the most recent one with two horizons) were identified based
on the geological stratigraphy, the lithic typology and the presence of medium sized boulders
with traces of ochre. There are two 14C dates for the earlier layer: 12 600 ±120 BP (Bln–803) and
12 050±120 BP (Bln–804) – the time of the Late Glacial Interstadial and they match Al. Bolomey’s
faunal determinations563. For the second layer there is only one 14C date, 10 250±200 BP (Bln–802),
setting it at the end of the Glacial or beginning of the Holocene. The avifauna and the pollen
spectrum suggest temperate conditions – such as those at the beginning of the Holocene, while
the faunal remains indicate a forested temperate habitat. It is thus possible that part of the human
activity on the site took place at the beginning of the Holocene, when the Iron Gates was a mosaic
of small habitates.564 It is equally possible that human occupation stretched in fact over a longer
time interval (not meaning continuous occupation) until the Late Mesolithic (Schela Cladovei
culture). This latter hypothesis had been suggested earlier on, based on the differentiation between
the decorative styles of the bone implements from layers I (parallel zig-zag lines) and II (network
and lattice patterns) that occurred also at Schela Cladovei and Lepenski Vir565. The only way of
settling this matter is dating the artefacts directly.
561
BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
562
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1965; PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b; 1978; 2000.
563
BOLOMEY, A. 1970; 1973.
564
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b; BONSALL, C. 2008.
565
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1969.
The Mesolithic remains from the rockshelter consisted of hearths, human and faunal remains,
lithics (flint, jasper, quartzite and obsidian), bone and antler tools (some decorated), small fragments
of ochre and graphite566.
As in all Palaeolithic/Epipalaeolithic research, the lithic industry (Fig. 66) was given the
greatest care, with the development of a very detailed and rather thick typology, later on used for
drawing parallels and establishing chronological correlations with other sites in the Gorges567. The
predominant types were the endscrapers, followed by retouched blades, backed bladelets, and
La Gravette points. Geometric implements and burins were rather rare. A total of 72 614 lithics
were reported from both layers, with some 3700 of them being tools or weapons. Over 96.80% of
the assemblage was made of flint, with obsidian holding 3%. Among the stone artefacts, plaques of
siltstone with traces of ochre were mentioned.
A carved boulder (Fig. 68, 2a–2b), similar to those of Padina and Lepenski Vir, singled out
Cuina Turcului among the sites on the Romanian bank. Unfortunately, this rather special find seems
to have occurred in a post-Neolithic pit. A second boulder, with a circular depression on one of the
faces is also mentioned – found in the same archaeological context. It is difficult to argue for an Early
Mesolithic context for the beautifully carved boulder – its occurrence at Cuina Turcului should
be rather seen connected to a possible Final Mesolithic/Early Neolithic occupation of the shelter,
hypothesis suggested also by the presence of the second type of boulder, a lot more common in the
Late/Final Mesolithic on the left bank
Based on the typological lithic analysis, Cuina Turcului I was paralelled to Climente II
and Băile Herculane568 while Cuina Turcului II showed analogies to Padina A1–A2 and Ostrovul
Banului I and Băile Herculane569.
Bone and antler tools appeared in much larger numbers than in other Early Mesolithic sites.
Among them awls, projectile points, chisels, a small harpoon fragment, presumably of the same type
as the one from Climente II. There was no typological distinction among the two layers. 15 pierced
teeth (deer, wolf, wild boar, ruminants) used as pendants were recovered. Two pierced fish vertebras
are also mentioned – although they look conspicuously similar to those in the Early Neolithic layers.
A rectangular pendant, made of bone, showing traces of ochre, has good parallels at Lepenski Vir.
Pierced snails and Mediterannean shells occurred in both layers, some possibly originating from the
fossilized deposits in the area.
It is the number of decorated bone fragments (19) and the complexity of the patterns on the
decorated wild horse phalanx that also plead for Cuina Turcului as an Early Mesolithic site (Fig. 71).
Decorations seem to have been a characteristic reserved for the bone, as only two antler fragments
bear traces of decoration. Most of them are small incised irregular lines, isolated or in groups,
hachures framed in between two parallel lines, wavy lines, meanders. Medium sized (15–20 cm in
length) river boulders with a shallower or deeper depression were observed, a rather frequent occur-
rence in all the sites in the area. They were interpreted by Al. Păunescu as a strong argument for an
earlier occupation on certain sites, and played a part on his determination of an Early Mesolithic
horizon at Icoana, Răzvrata and Schela Cladovei570.
There were 5 hearths attributed to the first Mesolithic layer, mostly oval in shape, and
variable in size. The 6 hearths of the second layer were in a poorer state of preservation. All hearths
lack detailed descriptions but for some of them the presence of ashes and fragments of charcoal
was mentioned571.
566
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000.
567
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b; 1978; 2000.
568
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a.
569
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a.
570
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
571
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b; 2000.
Among the faunal remains, in both strata were mentioned chamois, ibex, wild pig, bison,
elk, roe deer, wild horse, wolf, fox, wild cat, brown bear, beaver, together with bird bones (grouse,
jackdaw) and fish. The large number of fish bones recovered from the cave (bream, carp, pike, and
Stizostedion lucioperca) suggest strong fish consumption by the inhabitants of the cave.572
The human remains from Cuina Turcului were never acknowledged as formal burials by the
excavator. The first Mesolithic layer contained two molars of an adult male, while in the second layer
the remains of four individuals were found – three adults (among which a female? and a male? were
identified) and a foetus573. Still, from the anthropological report574, at least in three cases (male, female,
foetus) the bone fragments found represented bone fragments from the entire skeleton, suggesting,
the presence of the complete skeleton originally. And with the rather frequent of occupation of the
cave (11 hearths) and no animal teeth marks on the bones, there’s a strong probability that those
individuals were intentionally buried inside the rockshelter.
IV.4.1.2 Climente II Cave (Fig. 59)

Nowadays covered by the Danube, the cave was located in the Big Cauldrons area, at the feet of the
Ciucarul Mare Mountain, approximately half a kilometre downstream from the entrance of the river
into the straits. It was situated at a relative altitude of 12m and an absolute one of 60 m. Relatively
small in size (47 m2), it offered a sheltered environment, warm but rather humid. Daylight only
penetrated to the front of the cave.
Explored in 1964 by C. S. Nicolăescu-Plopşor and V. Boroneanţ, archaeological excavations
took place in 1968 and 1969, while previous speleological and faunal research was undertaken by
Alexandrina and Ştefan Negrea in 1956 and 1957.575
A general stratigraphy of the cave was established based on the information gathered from all
8 excavated trenches. The thickness of the deposits rarely surpassed 1 m576.
1. Post-Palaeolithic depositions (Coţofeni, Hallstatt, III–IV centuries AD, Early and Late
Medieval)
2. Layer rich in clastic material (sometimes overlapping the rock directly) – contained the
Mesolithic remains; this layer was strongly disturbed by pits dug by the treasure hunters
3. Layer of gravel mixed with sand and faunal remains
4. Layer of sand overlapping the rocky floor of the cave, archaeologically sterile
The Early Mesolithic finds were scattered within a layer 60–70 cm thick that was noticed only
in certain areas of the cave (trenches SI, SII, SIII, SVI, SVII)577. They comprised a relatively large
number of lithics, a few bone and antler tools (awls, needles, spatulas, projectile points, fragment of
a harpoon, perforated pendants), small fragments of ochre and hematite, worked river boulders –
some with traces of red ochre, faunal remains (beaver, fox, brown bear, wild boar, red deer, hedgehog,
birds, fish) and two decorated bone fragments578 (Fig. 71).
No results were obtained from pollen analysis.
The assignation to the Early Mesolithic was made based on the typological study of the lithics.
Although the two available studies offer different percentages for similar typological categories,
both archaeologists579 agree on the main features of the lithic assemblages: high percentages for the
572
BOLOMEY, A. 1970; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
573
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b; 2000.
574
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, D. 1970.
575
NEGREA, A. & NEGREA, ŞT. 1979.
576
577
578
BORONEANŢ, V. 1978; 2000a.
579
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a; PĂUNESCU, A. 2000.
endscrapers, followed by backed bladelets, sidescrapers, points. Over 90% of the tools are micro-
lithic. The predominant raw material is flint of various textures and colours (brown, yellowish, grey,
greenish) of local origin – the area of the Cauldrons and Şviniţa580. Radiolarite and quartzite occurred
in much smaller percentages, with a very rare presence of rock crystal.
Based on typological analogies, the industry was paralleled to those of Cuina Turcului I and
Tincova581, Băile Herculane, Veterani Cave582.
Early Mesolithic human occupation of the cave was also documented through the presence
of a hearth, of approximately circular shape. It had been built around a natural depression in the cave
floor and bordered with stones. Size: 90 cm in diametre and a depth of 10 cm.
Two human burials were also uncovered, an adult (Fig. 59b) and perhaps a child (in a very poor
state of preservation)583. The adult skeleton was lying in a natural depression of the cave floor (1.60 ×
0.80 m, 0.50 m deep), lying on its left side on a “bed of red ochre”, with the hands brought up towards
the head. Legs were flexed. Traces of red ochre were also noted on the bones. The skull, the cervical
vertebras, the clavicles and scapulas had been carried away by a small torrent of water springing from
the cave wall. The mandible was found nearby, together with a number of scattered teeth. Within the
perimeter of the “grave” a fragment of an endscraper, two crescent shaped implements and a point
were found, but it is difficult to say whether they were grave goods or part of the pit infill.
The child skeleton was found a few metres away. It was oriented E–W, probably lying on the
back but the very poor state of bone preservation did not allow for for its prelevation584. Scattered
human remains were also recovered from the very back of the cave585.
Although the first skeleton has been sampled for 14C dating, the results are not yet available.
IV.4.1.3 Veterani Cave (Fig. 60)

The cave is located in the Ciucarul Mare Mountain, at the foot of the slope called Pânza Curii, 800 m
east of Climente II Cave, at an absolute altitude of 73–75 m586.
Veterani Cave has been used during historical times for various purposes (even functioned as
an Austrian garrison for a while), thus explaining the disturbed stratigraphy of the site. Archaeological
excavations took place from 1964 to 1969 both inside the cave and in front of it. Poor illumination led
to the abandonment of excavations in the central hall despite several attempts in the different years.
Some trenches going down to 4.20 m in depth were excavated to the left of the entrance and at the
very back of the cave, revealing a very disturbed stratigraphy, with very mixed cultural finds. Efforts
concentrated in the trenches from the entrance gallery revealed the following cultural sequence587
(with the caveat that excavations never reached the cave bedrock:
• Finds from the XIX, XVII–XVIII, XIII–XVI centuries
• Roman times (II–IV centuries)
• Iron Age
• Transition to Bronze Age (Coţofeni – Kostolac – Vučedol cultures)
• Starčevo-Criş Early Neolithic
The above-mentioned cultural sequence shows that a Mesolithic layer or Mesolithic features
were never identified inside the cave. Still, some lithic implements (20–23 pieces) from excavations
taking place both in front of, and inside the cave were typologically identified as Early Mesolithic
580
581
582
583
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970a; 1978; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
584
585
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970a, 2000.
586
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970a, 2000.
587
(Clisurean) and consequently published as such: circular endscrapers on blades, segments, retouched
flakes588. From the same collection, Al. Păunescu, selected some 146(?) lithic pieces (mostly micro-
lithic) and attributed them to the Mesolithic. It should mentioned that in both cases the artefacts
came from various contexts, containing also “pottery and other habitation remains”589, thus making
their attribution to the Early Mesolithic questionable.
IV.4.1.4 Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave (Caraş Severin county)

The Hoţilor Cave is located 0.5 km north of Băile Herculane, on the right bank of the Cerna river, at
a relative altitude of 50 m and an absolute one of 257 m. The cave was studied starting with the late
XIX century, with archaeological excavations in 1904, 1916, 1929, 1954–1955, 1960–1961, 1965,
1968–1970, 1972.590
The stratigraphy of the cave will not be discussed here as it has been presented in the chapter
dealing with the Palaeolithic research.
The Mesolithic layer here was compared to Cuina Turcului I–II, based on the typology of
lithic industry. There is a 14C date591: Gr–16978, reading 11 490±75BP (11 559–11 215 Cal BC).
The main raw materials for the lithics were the local rocks: flint (90%), radiolarite (9%), shales
(1%). The lithic industry was microlithic (96%), with endscrapers, burins, geometric segments,
backed bladelets and Azillian points. No bone or antler tools were recovered.
Faunal remains belonged to mammals (bear, deer, badger), micro-mammals and a smaller
quantity of bird and fish bones.
The three archaeological features (“complexes” – usually meaning ‘habitation areas’) observed
were described as oval patches of darker soil with traces of burning and ashes. A large number of
lithics was collected from the surface of two of the features. Around them were noted many bone
fragments, some calcined.
There are two hearths mentioned in the field reports – also surrounded by faunal remains.
There are no details about the possible links between the ‘complexes” and the hearths.
IV.4.1.5 Ostrovul Banului (Fig. 61)

Ostrovul Banului island is located approx. 1 km downstream from the present-day Iron Gates I
dam. During the construction of the power station, research on the island was triggered more by
the local exploitation of sand and gravels used for building the dam, than the threat of flooding. The
Mesolithic site, located at the downstream end of the island, on the beach facing the mainland, was
submerged, while the other sites on the island (Early Neolithic, Hallstatt, Byzantine, Medieval) were
covered by tons of gravel.
Excavations started in 1965 at the Byzantine fortress, bringing to light Hallstatt and Early
Neolithic remains (sectors A, B, C) with research on the Mesolithic site (sector D) commencing
in 1966592.
In fact, very little is known on the excavations in sector D, other than brief summaries given by
the author of the research593. The site appears to have stretched along the shore. The 8 trenches (four
588
589
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002.
590
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002: 136–137.
591
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002: 146.
592
ROMAN, P. & BORONEANŢ, V. 1974.
593
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970b; 1973; 2000.
along the river bank on the northern side of the island and four towards the centre of the island)
pointed to the following general stratigraphy:
1. Layer of brown soil containing Medieval remains (variable thickness of 0–0.85 m);
2. Layer of brown-yellow soil containing the Hallstatt remains (variable thickness of
0.90–1.4 m);
3. Layer of light brown soil, containing remains of the Early Neolithic, variable thickness of
15–60 cm;
4. Layer of alluvial sand containing horizon III, further subdivided in two sub-horizons: IIIa
(lower, greyish yellow, dark brown, variable thickness 20–90 cm) and IIIb (upper, reddish
brown, variable thickness of 20–90 cm);
5. Alluvial sand (containing Mesolithic horizons I and II). In places the two horizons were
separated by dark yellow clay;
6. Layer of dark yellow sandy clay, archaeologically sterile;
7. Layer of gravel.
Initially, V. Boroneanţ atributted the first two horizons (I and II) to the Early Mesolithic
(Clisurean) while the third horizon (further divided into IIIa and IIIb) was attributed to the Late
Mesolithic (the Schela Cladovei culture)594. In his most recent work (2000) he assigned sub-horizon
IIIa to the Early Mesolithic also, leaving only IIIb as part of the Late Mesolithic, but without further
explanations. There are no 14C dates to support the Early Mesolithic dating of these horizons.
Reported archaeological remains from the Early Mesolithic layers comprised a large number
of lithics (their typology dictated the Early Mesolithic assignation – Fig. 66), very few bone tools
and very little fauna. It is difficult to tell whether this is an accurate reflection of the degree of
occupation, as only a very small part (85 m2) of the site was excavated, partly because of the lack of
time, partly because the largest part of it had already been covered/destroyed by waters at the time
of the discovery.
The study of lithic industry595 (mainly on local flint from Svineac and Vârtop hills in Șviniţa
area, with rare occurrences of quarztite, radiolarite and obsidian) show different typologies in
the two different studies, triggered by the different methods of “separating” the lithics among the
different “cultural layers”. While the author of the excavation (V. Boroneanţ) analyzed lithics based
on a contextual and stratigraphic criterion, Al. Păunescu, analyzed the lithic collection following
particular tool types and raw materials. Still, both typologies saw endscrapers as diagnostic tools,
followed by backed bladelets and splintered pieces.
Thus, it was said that the lithic typology links Ostrovul Banului I to Cuina Turcului I and
Padina A1–A2596, while the second horizon shows similarities to Veterani Terrace597.
Apart from their rather rare occurrence, bone implements in Early Mesolithic layers do not
bear any differences to those found in the Late Mesolithic contexts: bone points and awls, spatulas.
There seem to be no antler in horizons I or II and only one boar tusk piece598.
Decorated objects are few: a bone object ornamented with three small horizontal hollows
and a bone spatula (anthropomorphic?). The presence of medium sized river boulders with traces
of ochre was also noted in both horizons.
New analyzes of the faunal remains indicate as the main hunted wild species, deer, red deer,
wild boar, badger, Bos primigenius and Equus hydruntinus. Dog was also noted599.
594
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970b; 1973a.
595
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000; BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a.
596
597
598
599
Published information on habitation structures mentions a hut with a large boulder on its
center and traces of burning and charcoal in the south-east corner. The large boulder was surrounded
by quartz/quartzite and flint blades, flakes and chips, perhaps the remains of a knapping workshop.
Among the lithics there were four endscrapers (one of obsidian) and two flint points. Other remains
included snail shell beads (pierced), a pierced mussel shell, animal teeth (badger, Canis) and many
bone flakes600.
Further study of the field notes and the excavation plans showed that other archaeological
complexes were also identified, but lacking chronological landmarks, and also exhibiting features
ressembling closer those of the Late Mesolithic, will be presented later on.
IV.4.1.6 The Early Mesolithic – a summary

The sites were located in the near vicinity of the Danube bank (or the Cerna river in the case of Băile
Herculane), in caves and rockshelters. Lithic typology appears homogenous (endscrapers, backed
bladelets, splintered flakes) with a predominance of local flint as the main raw material. Medium
sized rock boulders, with small circular depressions and at times painted with red ochre were
documented in most of the sites and were seen as a link to the Epipalaeolithic groups to the south,
in the Italian peninsula. They were also used at times as diagnostic finds when claiming proof for
earlier occupations of certain sites. The bone industry is mainly represented by awls and projectile
points, with very few occurrences of tusk and antler. Decorated pieces exhibited the “fishnet” pattern
(crosshatching), parallel incisions and meanders.
The human population of the Early Mesolithic is well documented through burials and good
14
C for sites on the right bank of the Danube (Padina, Vlasac, Lepenski Vir). Formal disposal areas
occur within the settlements. Position in the grave varies: extended on the back with arms and legs
stretched, on one side with legs slightly flexed, lying on the back with flexed legs splayed on both
sides and soles touching, or sitting in the Turkish position. Initially, based on ‘stratigraphic’ observa-
tions, some of these burials had been attributted to the Lepenski Vir–Schela Cladovei culture (Late
and? Final Mesolithic) but the 14C dates showed differently.
As far as the left bank is concerned, burials were found at Climente II Cave and probably
Cuina Turcului. Stratigraphic and contextual information was the decisive factor for their cultural
determination but no 14C dates are yet available for the human remains.
It is even more difficult to talk in general terms about the architecture, as most such features
are very poorly dated and documented – if at all, on both banks of the Danube. In most cases we still
rely heavily on the initial local stratigraphies and suggested house/hearth-shape typologies. Apart
from being largely subjective, these make incorporating new data from unpublished documen-
tation rather difficult and raise questions over faunal and archeobotanical determinations, at times
originating from unclear chronological contexts. Still, stable isotope studies for the sites of Vlasac,
Lepenski Vir and Padina, suggest that at the beginning of the Holocene, local communities relied
heavily on the resources of the river, but significantly less than those of the Late Mesolithic, after
7200 cal BC. Diet analyses show that fish was eaten throughout the year, despite the fact that fishing
might have taken place on a seasonal basis. This also pointed to the existence of some means of
preserving the fish for later consumption, indicating a certain degree of sedentarization of the Early
Mesolithic communities.601
600
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a, BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
601
BONSALL, C. 2008.
IV.4.2 The Late Mesolithic (7200–6300 cal BC)

(the Schela Cladovei–Lepenski Vir culture)
Based on newer or older (recalibrated) 14C dates there are nine sites where human activities are
documented during the Late Mesolithic: Hajdučka Vodenica, Lepenski Vir, Răzvrata, Icoana,
Padina, Vlasac, Schela Cladovei, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Corbului. Other two – Veterani Terasă
(Veterani Terrace) and Ostrovul Mare, are likely candidates, when considering various architectural
features similar to above listed ones.
IV.4.2.1 Veterani Terasă (Veterani Terrace) (Fig. 60b)

The site was discovered by V. Boroneanţ in 1968, and excavated the following year. Located on the
dejection cone of a former rivulet at the foot of Ciucarul Mare mountain, Veterani Terrace site had
already been affected by various factors, such as river erosion, construction of medieval fortifications
(XVII–XVIII centuries) and road building (end of XVIII century)
Four trenches were cut, with the following general stratigraphy602:
1. Fallen rock boulders;
2. Discontinuous patches of soil, various structures and colours, in areas among the fallen rocks;
3. Dark soil with Roman and Medieval remains;
4. Yellowish-grey soil with Late Neolithic–Bronze Age remains (Sălcuţa – Coţofeni IV);
5. Yellowish soil, archaeologically sterile;
6. Yellow sand, poor in Mesolithic remains (Schela Cladovei culture);
7. Late Mesolithic (Schela Cladovei culture) in two horizons: the lower one in a light brown
soil, the upper one in a dark brown one;
8. River bed covered by alluvial sand or a mixture of alluvial sand and gravel.
When studying the lithic material from Veterani Terrace, Al. Păunescu attributed the
two horizons in the brown soil to the ‘Tardigravettian’603, while the layer poorer in artefacts was
attributed to the Schela Cladovei culture. V. Boroneanţ saw in Veterani Terasă chronological parallels
to Ostrovul Banului IIIa while others604 classified it as Early Mesolithic, with parallels at Vlasac I,
Ostrovul Banului IIIa, Răzvrata I, Icoana I, Schela Cladovei I and Veterani Cave.
The lithic industry at Veterani Terasă was diagnosed as earlier than those of other sites in the
area, based on a higher percentage of flint in the assemblage (37.70%), but still a lot lower when
compared to those of the Early Mesolithic. Svineac and Vârtop hills (Şviniţa area) were considered
the areas for flint procurement. Among flint tool-types were mentioned endscapers, burins, notched
tools, segments, retouched blades and bladelets, microlithic flakes finely retouched. A “workshop”
for tool manufacturing was also uncovered605. Quartz holds 62.23% of the raw material, with tools
such as endscrapers, borers, splintered pieces, and raclettes.606
The average-sized river boulders with a circular depression were also present. One had three
such depressions, a second one was fired and had traces of red ochre while a third one had only traces
of ochre607.
The bone and antler tools displayed the usual array of types (bone: awls/daggers, spatulas;
antler: adzes, hoes, awls), with the remark that they appear to show a high degree of use.608 Boar
602
603
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000: 377.
604
VOYTEK, B. & TRINGHAM, R. 1989.
605
606
607
BORONEANŢ , V. 2000a: 187.
608
tusks seemed to appear more frequently in horizon II. Also, the presence of some areas for manufac-
turing tools was observed, consisting of bone/antler flakes and debris but no finished implements.609
The only artistic manifestation at Veterani Terrace was a spatula ornamented with the ‘fishnet’
pattern combined with the triangle one (Fig. 72).
The site provided a large number of faunal remains but poorly preserved. Species identified
included Castor fiber, Ursus arctos, Martes cf. martes, Sus scrofa, Alces alces, Cervus elaphus, Canis Lupus,
Ovis sp., showing food consumption relying heavily on deer and wild boar. Fish bones are frequently
mentioned in the fieldnotes.610
According to A. Bolomey611 from the faunal point of view taken alone, the site of Veterani, did
not present a special interest. But corroborating these results with those from Răzvrata and Icoana,
the three faunal assemblages appear very similar. One cannot determine the habitation duration
of the Veterani Terasă site (seen shorter than that at Icoana) or determine the size of the human
community. Certain indications on the possible timing for site habitation are the deer remains
pointing to the period of May–June612.
A sunken hut was uncovered in the lower Mesolithic horizon. It was oval in shape, with a
rectangular hearth (partially destroyed) and three postholes. V. Boroneanţ thought the hut had two
stages of occupation. On the floor of the hut, and mainly around the hearth were scattered bone and
antler fragments, flint tools, many fish bones, an average-sized boulder (used as a hammer?) with
symmetrical circular depressions on opposite faces. Pits were noticed on the floor of the house and
were interpreted as storage facilities for raw materials (they contained large fragments of deer antler,
and some contained flint). A human mandible was also collected from the floor of the hut613.
IV.4.2.2 Răzvrata (Fig. 62)

The site of Răzvrata was located in the Little Cauldrons, on the left side of the dejection cone
of the Mraconia river. From there to Icoana is a distance of approximately 200 m. Discovered and
excavated in 1967 (when it was already partly flooded) the time left allowed for excavating only 5
(rather small) trenches.614
A general stratigraphy of the site was published, with the reservation that no trench showed
the complete stratigraphical sequence615:
1. Alluvial sand containing scattered Dacian remains
2. Black-brownish soil
3. Yellow-brown soil, archaeologically sterile
4. Black-brownish soil, Early Neolithic remains
5. Yellow-grey soil, Late Mesolithic (horizon Răzvrata I)
6. Yellowish sandy soil, in its upper part with Late Mesolithic remains (horizon Răzvrata II)
7. Yellow-brownish soil, steril
As in the case of Veterani Terasă, “based on the depths marked on the lithics but mainly on the
techno-typology of the lithic assemblage and the preference of different communities for certain types of
raw materials, and also on the size of the tools”616, Al. Păunescu saw Răzvrata’s earliest horizon (I) as
Tardigravettian while Răzvrata II (Schela Cladovei culture) was compared to Veterani Terrace II,
Icoana II, Ostrovul Banului III, Schela Cladovei II, and Ostrovul Mare I–II.
609
610
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a: 104; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
611
BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a quoting A. Bolomey, unpublished manuscript.
612
BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a; BOLOMEY, A. 1973.
613
614
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a: 99–100; 1973: 8; 1970b: 18.
615
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973: 9; 2000a: 99.
616
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000a: 393.
There is one 14C date for Răzvrata (Bln–1057) 7690±70BP (6645–6434 cal BC), on a charcoal
sample of the hearth in a ‘hut’ in Răzvrata I horizon, falling within the limits of the Late Mesolithic.
The number of lithic pieces is relatively small when compared to other sites (1541 from the
Late Mesolithic – Schela Cladovei culture617 or 90 from the Tardigravettian and 1340 from Schela
Cladovei culture618) but this might just be a reflection on the size of the excavated area. The lithic
assemblage was mostly debitage, with few tools (mostly endscrapers). The main raw material was
quartzite and quartzitic rocks (99.43%), use of flint having diminished drastically (to only 0.57% –
91 pieces)619.
The relatively small number of bone and antler tools (faunal remains also) was blamed on the
poor preservation state of the site. Quite a number of the fragments were badly affected by waters
and in most cases tool type determination was not possible. Still, among the identified types were
fragments of awls, a spatula and a fragment of a dagger. Antler tools included hoes, adzes, picks,
shaft-holes. Boar tusk was very scarce – only 7 fragments. It must be noted that nearly all bone and
antler was concentrated in trench SI.620
V. Boroneanţ also mentioned a rock boulder (chance find from the beach) painted with ochre
and partly worked (polished?)621.
The excavation documented one semi-sunken hut (fond de cabane), probably of an oval shape
and a circular hearth in the centre. An oval/circular hearth, made of stones was uncovered nearby,
east of the hut. Flooding prevented the hut and the hearth from being completely exposed during
excavation. Many deer antler fragments were scattered on the floor, mainly the inedible parts of the
carcass. Antler tools were also noticed. Other bones on the floor were identified as wild boar, badger,
fish, and a small number of mussel and snail shells were collected as well622.
IV.4.2.3 Icoana (Fig. 63a)

The site was located at the foot of the Ciucaru Mic Mountain, in the Little Cauldrons, 200 m
downstream from Răzvrata.
Excavations were carried out between 1967 and 1969, but they all amounted to only 31 days
and 91 m2 excavated in 8 different trenches. At the time of the excavations the site had already been
affected by river erosion and road construction (at the end of XVIII century). Excavations were
possible only during the days when the Danube level was low.
The present volume presents for the first time the correct profile plan623 (Fig. 63c), as it origi-
nally appeared in the manuscript of V. Boroneanţ’s 1973a paper, and also in his PhD thesis. The
plan shows no archaeologically sterile sediment between the two Mesolithic horizons, proves the
excavation reached the archaeologically sterile bedrock.
Thus, the general stratigraphy of site is given below:
1. Large sized rock boulders (Hallstat and Medieval remains);
2. Light brown soil (Early Neolithic – Starčevo-Criş remains);
617
618
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000.
619
620
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a: 128–129, 155; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
621
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973; 2000.
622
623
Unfortunately, there was a mistake in the initially publication of the only profile plan ever published (trench SII, western
profile in BORONEANŢ, V. 1973: 9, Fig. 3; 2000a: 295). Due to a printing error, layer no. 4, was left without explanation,
layer 5 was said to be sterile (although the presence of an antler tool – no. 7 – was marked on the plan) and no. 6 is presented
as an Epipalaeolithic layer (Fig. 63b). This is probably what made Al. Păunescu when republishing the plan, to introduce a
Tardigravettian horizon (also accounted for by his lithic analyzes), and to split layer II (and not I as originally explained by
V. Boroneanţ) in the two horizons a and b (PĂUNESCU, A. 2000: 395, Pl. 14).
3. Black-grey soil (Schela Cladovei culture – horizon II);

4. Dark coloured soil (Schela Cladovei culture – horizon Ib);
5. Lighter coloured soil (Schela Cladovei culture – horizon Ia);
6. Alluvial sand overlapping the river bedrock.
V. Boroneanţ saw Icoana I as part of phase II of the Schela Cladovei culture (with parallels in
Schela Cladovei I, Ostrovul Banului IIIb), D. Srejović saw it as Early Mesolithic (parallels in Proto-
Lepenski Vir, Vlasac I, Padina A, Schela Cladovei I, Ostrovul Banului IIIa) while others, although
defining it as Early Mesolithic, paralleled it to Vlasac I, Ostrovul Banului IIIa, Veterani Cave, and
Schela Cladovei I624.
The second horizon, Icoana II – seen as Late Mesolithic, was paralleled to Vlasac II and III,
Lepenski Vir I and II, Padina A, Ostrovul Corbului III, Răzvrata II, Schela Cladovei II, Ostrovul
Banului IIIb, or to Lepenski Vir I and II, Vlasac II and III, Padina B–1, Hajdučka Vodenica, Schela
Cladovei II, Ostrovul Banului IIIb.625
As far as the absolute chronology is concerned, there are six conventional radiocarbon dates
on charcoal samples:
1. Bln–1077: 8265±100BP (7518–7070 cal BC) – charcoal from a hearth in horizont Ib,
SIV, 2,10 m;
2. Bln 1078: 8605±250BP (8287–7075 cal BC), charcoal sample from SIV, 0,50 m;
3. 8070±130BP (7448–6647 cal BC), Bonn sample 2, level Ia, SII, 1,60 m, type of sample
unknown;
4. 7660±110BP (6750–6247 cal BC) , Bonn sample 4, level Ib, SII, 2 m);
5. 5830±120 BP (4993–4402 cal BC), Bonn sample 1, level II, SIII, 1 m;
6. 8010±120 BP (7306–6610 cal BC), Bonn sample 3, level Ib, SII, 1,20 m, type of sample
unknown.
Five of them suggest that human activity at Icoana took place during the Late Mesolithic. The
fifth date is conspicuous, and there is always the issue of the sample type (perhaps a mixed sample of
bones and ashes) that might account for the very late result.
The main raw material for lithics was quartzite (98.52%), with endscrapers as the main type.
Flint implements were rare, constituing the rest of 1.48 % of the total assemblage (Fig. 67). The
main tool types determined were endscrapers, sidescrapers, burins, retouched blades, splintered
pieces, micro-cores. The medium-sized boulders, burned or ochre-painted were also quiet frequent
(Fig. 70).626
Extremely abundant at Icoana was the bone and mainly antler industry, with a remarkable
number of finished tools (hoes, mattocks, picks, awls), but also debris and implements in the process
of being manufactured (cut at both ends – sockets?).
Bone implements (mainly projectile points) were more frequent in horizon II, while the
antler implements seemed to dominate in horizon I (Fig. 69). The number of tusk tools and debris
is also impressive.
Icoana provided some of the nicest decorated implements in the Iron Gates: 10 decorated
bone fragments and 4 decorated antler pieces. The main decorative patterns are zigzagged lines,
hachures inside two parallel lines, and incised short lines (Fig. 72).
Analyses of the rich faunal assemblage showed the domination of Suidae and Cervidae,
followed by wildcat, badger, wolf, brown bear, and hare. The presence of dog bones was noted.
The large number of fish bones (sterlet, beluga, Leuciscus cephalus, bream, carp) is a good
indicator of high intensity fish consumption but also of successful fishing. Strangely enough, among
624
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973; 2000a; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a; VOYTEK, R. & TRINGHAM, B. 1989.
625
626
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973; 2000a.
the bone and antler tools mentioned above, the fishing gear is missing, an important fact especially
as the fish remains (mainly vertebrae) show them as being extremely large.
The architectural structures of the first Late Mesolithic horizon were described as the fond
de cabane type, oval in shape, with no observed postholes. In horizon Ib was documented a circular
hearth made of blocks of limestone of irregular shape, with a few ash traces627.
Also to the earlier horizon were attributed (at the time of the excavation) the following
features628:
• A simple circular hearth (0.40 m diameter) found at the base of layer II, with a scatter of
fish bones, quartzite flakes and a flint endscraper on its surface.
• Pit feature (possible hut), trapeze in shape, having in its immediate vicinity the remains of
a rectangular stone hearth.
• Sunken hut, rectangular (?) in shape, only partially excavated. A simple hearth was
observed in the NW corner (diameter approx. 1 m). On the hearth there was a deer antler
tool. Probably associated with the hut and the hearth, nearby, in a patch of soil mixed with
lots of ashes, appeared 15 round or oval river boulders with a circular depression. They
were either fired and/or had traces of ochre on them.
• Pit (approx. diameter 40 cm) containing a large number of deer antler fragments, inter-
preted as a raw material storage pit
The habitation structures of horizon II were reported as being semi-sunken huts, trapeze in
shape, with a simple circular hearth in the interior. It is with this type of hut that the Icoana burials
were associated (Fig. 73). Scattered on its floor there were numerous flint and quartzite tools, bone
and antler implements629.
A few other structures were also identified within horizon II630:
• Sunken hut, probably circular, approx. 1 m deep, diameter 2–1.10 m at the bottom. From
the floor of the house many quartzite flakes, burnt animal bones, flint and bone tools
were collected. At a later date, following the abandonment of the hut, after a partial fill
of the pit, a circular hearth bordered with stones was built, with the base made of yellow
battered soil,
• Circular? sunken hut with a circular hearth (diameter 0.55–0.70 m); it was only partly
excavated.
The burials discovered on the site were seen as directly linked with the trapeze house in
horizon II: underneath the hearth level/house floor, two complete skeletons and an isolated skull
were excavated. The skeletons were lying on the back having the hands on the pelvis/along the body.
The contours of the graves could be observed, showing them to be rectangular, and slightly larger
than the skeleton size. Both skeletons were ochre powdered. In the vicinity of one of them, ochre
fragments were also found, together with a tusk tool631. Various disarticulated human remains were
collected from other contexts.
The isolated skull was dated 6530–6390 cal BC (AA 66368)632 but without having been
corrected for the freshwater reservoir effect633, and thus the date should be disregarded.
627
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973: 17, 2000a.
628
629
BORONEANŢ 1973: 18; 2000a: 108.
630
631
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970b: 18; BORONEANŢ, A. et alii 2008.
632
DINU, A. et alii 2007: 32, 39; COOK, G. T. et alii 2002.
633
COOK, G. T. et alii 2002.
IV.4.2.4 Ostrovul Banului

The location and stratigraphy of the site were presented above, together with some of the finds, seen
as part of the Early Mesolithic horizons (I and II).
Relative chronology parallels horizon IIIa with Veterani Terrace, Proto-Lepenski Vir, Vlasac
I, Padina A, Schela Cladovei I, Răzvrata I, Veterani Cave. Horizon IIIb finds itself grouped with
Icoana I, Schela Cladovei II–III, Lepenski Vir I and II, Vlasac II-III, Padina B–1, Icoana II, Hajdučka
Vodenica, Ostrovul Corbului III, Răzvrata II634.
For the entire horizon III (no distinction between a or b horizons) there are two “old” radio-
carbon dates: the first, Bln 1079: 7565 ±100 BP, ca 6530–6285 cal BC falls at the very end of Late
Mesolithic interval. The second sample, Bln 1080, 8040±160 BP, ca 7220–6720 cal BC, consisted of
a mixture of charcoal and calcinated bone and thus should be dismissed.
The use of flint as a raw material saw a dramatic drop in horizon IIIa to only 10.81%, with
an increase to 22.10% in horizon IIIb. The rest of the assemblage was made of quartzitic rocks. The
main tool types were the same in both horizons: endscrapers, burins and splintered pieces for flint,
and endscrapers and splintered pieces for quartz (Fig. 67)635.
The bone industry comprised awls, chisels, projectiles, perforated bone flakes, numerous
antler tools (hoes, adzes, picks, awls) and numerous tusk tools.
Published information mentions an oval semi-sunken hut structure. The pit of the hut was
dug in the yellowish sandy soil, and two postholes, filled with river boulders were observed. With a
rectangular hearth in the centre, the hut was relatively small. This type of hearth had a stone ‘recipient’
and its foundation layer was made of sand and battered earth. It was partially covered by a stone
slab. When sectioned, the hearth appeared to overlap an earlier one, built during an alleged earlier
habitation stage. The “floor” was covered with scattered lithic implements, antler tools, mammal and
fish bones, mussel and snail shells. One of the altar type large stones (with a circular depression in
the middle of it, at times described as “grindstone”) was found nearby the hearth636.
A second hut had similar features (oval in shape, a reactangular hearth bordered with stones)
and possibly, posthole pits. Its size remained unknown, part of it having been eroded by the Danube.
Two other oval huts were partially excavated, perhaps with hearths in the unexplored areas. The
exposed parts showed also scatters of lithics, bones, antler and shells on the floor637.
No formal burials were found at Ostrovul Banului. However, the presence of two human
mandibles (one with traces of ochre) was mentioned in the field notes638.
IV.4.2.5 Schela Cladovei (Fig. 64a)

Schela Cladovei–Canton is located some 7 km below the exit of the Danube from the Gorges, on
the first river terrace, nowadays 6–8 m above the original river level639. Traditionally, the site was
described as stretching for almost 1.5 kilometres along the river, and is preserved nowadays in the
area between the dammed river bank and the railway line. Originally, the site area was divided in
two sectors, A and B, west and east of a former rivulet, nowadays a canal (Fig. 64b). According to
V. Boroneanţ640, Mesolithic finds only occurred west of the canal, with rare occurrences to the east,
mostly containing a dense Early Neolithic habitation. Still, human burials assigned to the Mesolithic
634
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a; VOYTEK, B. & TRINGHAM, R. 1989.
635
636
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973: Fig. 9; 2000a: 108, pl. 20; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
637
638
639
BORONEANŢ, A. et alii 1996: 386.
640
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973a, 2000a.
had been recovered from the western side, unfortunately not during archaeological excavation but
as chance finds, in the eroded bank of the Danube.
A possible location for a second Mesolithic site was identified in 1967 in the area known
as Schela Cladovei–Pichet/Karaula (Border police headquarters). During a field survey various
Mesolithic artefacts were collected, but there was no time for archaeological excavations prior to the
flooding of the area641.
A third location, difficult to pin down nowadays, was said to have existed in the area of the old
Byzantine port. It was covered by waters most of the time even prior to the flooding.
Excavations at Schela Cladovei–Canton started in 1965, were resumed in 1967–1868, and
as the site was not threatened by flooding but rather by river erosion, little was done prior the
construction of the Iron Gates II dam. This triggered the second stage of excavations starting in 1982.
They continued until 1991, when a joint Romanian-British project (co-directed by V. Boroneanţ and
C. Bonsall) started, ending in 1996. Soundings were conducted in 2001 and 2002 by A. Boroneanţ,
while a new Romanian–British project (A. Boroneanţ, C. Bonsall) started in 2006 and is continuing
to this day.
Despite the fact that excavations extended over quite a number of years, few detailed field
reports were published, with a lot more known on the earlier excavations (1965, 1967–1968) than
the later ones642.
Stratigraphy643
Danube’s first terrace consists of silty early Holocene river alluvium (1.5–2 m thick),
overlapping fluvial gravels, deposited in a periglacial environment. Sedimentary stratigraphy is
inexistent, and the soil has been decalcifield through leaching to a depth of 34–35 cm:
• To the surface, an Ap horizon, darker in colour and non-calcareous, affected by ploughing.
It contains mixed archaeological artefacts
• An Ah2 horizon, anthropically overdeepened, equally dark coloured reaches a depth of
55–60 cm. It contains artefacts and features from modern times to Early Neolithic.
• The B horizon (Bk) has a prismatic structure and was strongly affected by the illuviation
of calcium carbonate in the form of irregular tubular nodules. It contains the Mesolithic
finds.
• The gravel is covered by a fine, humic dark lentil with a thickness of up to 3 cm. The gravel
stops at a depth of 1.40–1.55 cm. Some of the Mesolithic or Early Neolithic features
reached down into the gravel.
V. Boroneanţ identified at Schela Cladovei three different cultural stages, but in none of the
excavated trenches were present all three. In most of the cases, two stages were noticed: the earliest
one was characterized by the presence of flint micro-cores together with small flint and quartzite
flakes. The upper layer was characterized by cores with irregular flake debitage, as well as many
quartz and quartzite implements644.
In his study of the site, Al. Păunescu, based on the typology of the lithic industry and
the raw materials, selected a number of flint implements that he assigned typologically to the
Tardigravettian645.
The results of the Romanian–British research (1992–1996, 2006–2010) confirmed the
existence of the Meolithic and Early Neolithic cultural horizons, but the stratigraphic data and
641
BORONEANŢ. V. 2000a; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
642
BORONEANŢ, A. & BORONEANŢ, V. 2009.
643
BORONEANŢ, V. et alii 1996: 386–387.
644
645
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000: 440.
the 45 14C dates (see Table 7) did not suggest the existence of a Tardigravettian/Early Mesolithic
occupation (the earliest date at Schela is OxA 9140: 8105±60 BP, 7312–6830 cal BC) or further
sub-divisions of the Mesolithic occupation into chronologically discrete stages646.
The bone industry (Fig. 69) was represented by various types of awls and projectiles, while
antler tools are represented by adzes, hoes, picks, awls, shaft-holes, fish bone awls, with rare occur-
rences of tusk tools. Fauna included deer, Bos, boar, ovi-caprids, fox, turtle, dog, birds, and a large
number of fish bones.
Quartz seems to be the preferred raw material for the lithics (95.82%) (splintered pieces,
blades) while flint tools are represented by endscrapers, burins, trapezes and splintered pieces
(Fig. 67). Still, this information should be taken cautiously, as it refers mainly to the very early-
excavations of the 1960s.
Rectangular or trapeze house ‘platforms’ were identified, made not of plaster like the ones
on the right bank but of a mixture of stones and bones. Hearths were documented both inside and
outside the platforms: either circular, paved with stones, or rectangular in shape, bordered with
stones and plastered in the interior with battered clay647.
The 1967–1968 ‘house’ was rectangular, of the semi-sunken type, with the bottom of the pit
‘paved’ with stones (Fig. 74). A trapeze-shaped hearth bordered with stones was located in its centre.
No postholes were noticed. From the floor of the hut were collected a large number of animal bones
(fish, deer, dog) and shells648.
To the north, east and west, the hearth was surrounded by burials (Fig. 75). Burials might
have existed south of the house, but that area was been later disturbed by two Early Neolithic pits
and a Dacian one. The house floor was ca 30 cm above the gravel layer while the graves had been dug
into the latter. On the other hand, some of the burials appear to have been located right under the
house floor (the eastern side of it), but there were no signs of the house floor having been disturbed,
pointing to the deposition of the dead in the area prior to the building of the ‘house’.
Out of the 13 burials, 12 were more or less complete skeletons. 10 were in extended
position, head pointing to the Danube. The only infant burial was oriented with the head pointing
in opposite direction. One skeleton was lying on the right side, hands and legs slightly flexed and
was somehow ‘singled-out’ on the northern side of the house. Ochre traces were noted on the
chest and head areas of two skeletons lying in overlapping graves. One skeleton had five arrow-
points found on the chest area and an isolated skull lying on his pelvis. Quite a few other skeletons
had arrowpoints either embedded in their bones or found inside the grave limits, having probably
hit the soft tissue649.
Grave goods are generally difficult to discuss, as their position inside the grave is not always
clear. In most cases they might have been part of the infill of the pit, especially when talking about
flint flakes or shell fragments.
The house and burials described above has a parallel in Area III, excavated during the
Romanian–British joint project (Fig. 76). The latter was described as ‘a dense concentration of stones
ca 2.5 m across with a “hearth” (trapezoidal setting of stones) reminescent of stone-lined hearths at Lepenski
Vir and Vlasac. No postholes were observed. It was suggested that the stone concentration and hearth were
lying in a pit. Skeletons were found to the north and south of the ‘house’.650 It must be observed that the
area to the east of the house was never excavated while the area to the west of the house had been
disturbed by two large pit-features. Red ochre occurred with the burials (two cases) while fragments
646
BONSALL, C. 2008; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010b.
647
648
649
650
BORONEANŢ, V. et alii 1996: 387.
of (or complete) arrowheads were found with three skeletons. Grave goods could have been repre-
sented by shells of freshwater molluscs (some with artificial perforation).651
During the research years approx. 100 burials were uncovered throughout the site but their
study is not yet complete. Most of them were said to have occurred grouped around or under house
platforms, but old plans also show isolated burials. It is difficult to discuss their distribution (or
that of the house/hearths) within the site, mainly because all trenches (apart from the 2001–2001,
2006–2010) concentrated on a narrow 3–4 m strip along the edge of the river bank, in the effort of
keeping up with the river erosion.652 Apart from the (more or less) complete graves, the occurrence
of isolated mandibles, in some cases with traces of ochre, was noted.
The size of the Mesolithic community at Schela Cladovei is difficult to estimate only from
the number of excavated burials. For example, Area III provided 8 articulated skeletons but over 25
individuals were determined in the bone assemblage653.
Summary
The Late Mesolithic hunter-gatherer communities in the Iron Gates were almost always
associated to sedentism, house building, intensive exploitation of the local resources, food storage,
exchange and social complexity.654
It is clear that sites in the Iron Gates appear to be diverse and hard to classify. Part of the
problem is the bias introduced by excavations themselves (size and intensity of excavation, excava-
tions means, authors of the excavations, etc). A second factor might be site preservation issues
limiting the research at the time (Ostrovul Banului was already partly under water, Icoana was
covered by the Austrian road, river erosion was present almost everywhere) making difficult to tell
how much of the sites was affected and how. In many cases, information on site size and organization
is impossible to infer.
Chronology of the sites (see Table 7)

There are 45 date AMS 14C for Schela Cladovei, all from secure contexts. 36 of them span
between 8100–7450 BP (7100–6300 cal BC), and all dated burials (12) fall within this time frame.
Vlasac also has a large number of AMS dates. In the light of these new dates, some of the features
initially attributed to the Mesolithic, fall within the chronology of the Early Neolithic. Moreover, there
are new 14C dates sugesting (as seen above), the occupation of the site during the Early Mesolithic as
well. Lepenski Vir, despite the fact that it has some 14C falling within the earlier occupation phases,
seems to point mostly for an intense activity of the site after 6300 BC.655
The rest of the sites are poorly dated, making a ‘refined’ chronology of the area difficult. There
are five dates for Icoana, two for Hajdučka Vodenica, one for Răzvrata and only two for Padina that
fall within this time period. Ostrovul Corbului, on the left bank, has 5 dates, with four of them falling
within the limits of Late Mesolithic.
Architecture
From publications, houses were of the single room, semi-sunken hut type, oval or trapeze
shaped. The oval ones were noted at Veterani Terrace, Icoana, Ostrovul Banului. The trapeze shaped
ones had the entrance on the large side and were dug at variable depths (0.32 m at Schela, 0.40 m at
Icoana, 0.82 m at Vlasac)656. The floor of the ‘house’ was a scattered mixture of rocks, bone, antler
651
BORONEANŢ et alii 1996, 388.
652
653
BORONEANŢ, V. et alii 1999: 389.
654
VOYTEK, B. & TRINGHAM, R. 1989; BONSALL, C. 2008.
655
BONSALL, C. 2008.
656
BONSALL, C. 2008.
(tools included), lithics, at times disarticulated human remains (mandibles – Veterani, Ostrovul
Mare, Schela Cladovei).
The rectangular hearths, with the border made of worked stones appear less frequent on the
left bank, and mainly on the lower part of the Gorges (Schela Cladovei, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul
Mare, Ostrovul Corbului). The simple round hearths seem to be a lot more common, with examples
in all sites. On the left bank, presence of the hearths inside the house was almost always documented.
Sometimes they occurred outside houses, but no clear connection between the two could be
established.
Postholes were observed at Vlasac, Veterani–Terasă, Ostrovul Banului. Small pits dug into the
floor of the house/outside the house might have been used for the storage of raw materials (antler,
flint). In the exterior of the houses, similar small pits but containing a large number of fish bones –
perhaps for storage purposes, were documented657.
At Vlasac, out of the 43 excavated houses, some fell chronologically into the time frame of the
Early Neolithic (6000–5500 cal BC). These are in fact the larger ‘houses’, with a trapeze shape and
facing the Danube, with analogies at Lepenski Vir and Padina B.
Burials
An impressive number of burials were assigned to this period at Lepenski Vir, Vlasac, Padina
on the right bank, and at Schela Cladovei on the left one. Burials were also documented at Icoana,
Ostrovul Corbului, Kula658, but in much smaller numbers, with size of the excavation explaining
perhaps the small number of skeletons.
In most cases the burial rite is inhumation, although claims for cremation have been made for
Schela Cladovei and Vlasac659. Skeletons were generally found in extended position on their back,
hands along the body or on the pelvis/chest. Lying on one side with arms and legs slightly flexed
was also reported. The presence of disarticulated bones was explained either as extraction of certain
bones and their separate re-inhumation at an ulterior moment or as remains of disturbed burials.660
Both at Schela Cladovei and Vlasac skulls were found buried separately, as a group or as a
single item.661 Again, this suggestes the extraction of the skull from the grave, after the soft tissue was
gone, an argument also supported by the lack of cut-marks on the bones. Such practices were noted
in the Natufian sites in Levant, as a characteristic of the PPNA (c. 9500–8800 cal BC), in connection
with worshipping of the ancestors and the preservation of the social memory of the community.662
It is debatable though whether the chronological overlapping of the funerary space and the
living space is real. In most of the sites, field reports talk about the dead being buried under the floor
of houses or around hearths. In the case of the Schela Cladovei, within the first group of burials
presented, the skeletons appeared under the level of the floor, and around the hearth, but there is no
indication that they were introduced after the “house” was built663. It is thus possible, that the living
and the dead occupied indeed the same space but at different times.664
In some cases the funerary space had been used for a rather long period of time: at Padina, the
12 skeletons found in the funerary chamber (and covered with stones), provided dates starting from
the Early Mesolithic to the Late one665. The funerary practice of covering the body with stones, was
657
BONSALL, C. 2008; BORONEANŢ, A. & BORONEANŢ, V. 2009.
658
BORONEANŢ, A. 2010; BORONEANŢ, A. & BORONEANŢ, V. 2009; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a.
659
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a; BORIĆ, D. et alii 2009.
660
BONSALL, C. 2008; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
661
BORONEANŢ, V. et alii 1999; BORONEANŢ, A. & BORONEANŢ, V. 2009.
662
BONSALL, C. 2008.
663
BORONEANŢ, A. & BORONEANŢ, V. 2009; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a.
664
BONSALL, C. 2007; 2008.
665
BONSALL, C. 2008: 258; JOVANOVIĆ, B. 2008.
also documented at Lepenski Vir, both during the Early and the Late Mesolithic.666 The practice of
using stones to cover the skeletons was also noted on the left bank at Schela Cladovei and Ostrovul
Corbului, but lack of 14C dates makes impossible to say when this practice started667.
Social status – although suggested by the presence in some graves of shell beads (at times in
impressive numbers like at Ostrovul Banului and Schela Cladovei668) – is difficult to discuss. Traces
of red ochre on skeletons were reported in most of the sites with burials. Other items reported as
associated to burials were flint and bone/antler implements – but in most cases it was impossible to
tell whether they were part of the grave goods or part of the infill of the pit. Although a systematic
study was never undertaken – most of the published data being fragmentary – there does not seem
to exist a status differentiation based on sex or age.
Presence of the domestic dog in the area was documented from the Early Mesolithic (Cuina
Turcului, Ostrovul Banului), but the Vlasac dog burial so far appears as a singular case, although it
occurred in other parts of Europe.669
Subsistence
Hunting has always been seen as one of the major sources for food and raw materials in the
Iron Gates. Hunted game included deer, roe, wild boar but perhaps also animals hunted for fur,
such as brown bear, wolf, otter, badger. The presence of bird bones explained their hunting both for
meat and feathers. Large fish was caught, together with fresh water mussels and snail, completing
the riverine diet. The large quantities of fish bone found, and their size mainly, raise the question of
storage. With at least a semi-sedentary population, food storage was an important issue, and although
the Iron Gates area was rich in resources, providing for food during winters must have been difficult.
Fishing is abundant on the Danube during March/April and September/October. Catfish is less
active in winter while sturgeon can be easily caught only during their migration period670.
Unfortunately, no features that could be safely associated with food storage have been
reported. Still, it was suggested that the so called rectangular hearths (with no traces of burning
on the inside) might have been used as storage recipients671. Small pits filled with fish bones were
reported on the left bank at Schela Cladovei and Ostrovul Corbului.672 On the other hand, storage
containers made of hide, tree bark, wood or other materials are likely not to have survived673.
Plant remains are rare in the archaeological record. Even at Schela Cladovei where flotation
was employed during 1992–1996 excavations, their presence was scarce674. Undoubtedly, although
gathering fruit and berries would not have been difficult in a habitat such as the Iron Gates, it is rather
a time and energy consuming activity, and needs a specialized gear. Analysis of the Mesolithic diet (on
the Vlasac population) suggested that 60–80% of the food was of aquatic origin, probably mostly fish,
considering the number and the size of the fish bones. As for the rest of 20–40% of food of terrestrial
origin, it is impossible at this point to discern between the meat or plant/vegetable consumption.675
It was suggested that the living animals themselves were the means of storing food. A possible
later Mesolithic occupation was sugested in the present paper for Cuina Turcului. Studying the
faunal assemblage from this site, Al. Bolomey observed the unusually large number of dog remains,
666
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996: fig. 4.2, 4.6.
667
BORONEANŢ, A. & BORONEANŢ, V. 2009; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978a; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010.
668
669
BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a; BONSALL, C. 2008.
670
BONSALL, C. 2008.
671
672
BONSALL, C. et alii 1997; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a; BORONEANŢ, A. 2010b.
673
BONSALL, C. 2008.
674
MASON, S. et alii 1996.
675
BONSALL, C. 2008.
pointing to dog consumption676. Dog bones are also very numerous at Vlasac (the second important
animal (20%) after deer (68%), wild boar coming only to 12%). They have high percentages at
Schela Cladovei also.677 The number of broken and disarticulated bones, the breakage patterns of the
long bones and skull also might point to dogs as a possible food source.678 For Padina, A. T. Clason
suggested the same thing679. Also, a change in the dog size for the Iron Gates sites from Mesolithic to
Neolithic (larger in the former period and smaller in the second) could be an indicator of a change
in the utilitarian use of the dog.680
Exchange perhaps occurred between the Iron Gates communities and other groups, as
suggested by the presence of shells of Adriatic or Mediterannean origin681. Exchange implies
contacts with other groups, and it is hard to believe they could only be of a trading nature. After
C. Bonsall682, such communties (of tens of individuals perhaps) would not have been viable unless
they functioned within a larger social network, providing for an exchange of goods and information,
religious ceremonies and even mating.
Such contacts might have been at times violent, as suggested by the number of trauma cases
within the Schela Cladovei (15%) and Ostrovul Corbului population, causing in many cases the
death of the individual.683 Such manifestions, although more seldom, occurred on the right bank of
the river also.684
IV.4.3 The Final Mesolithic, 6300–6000 cal BC

(Schela Cladovei–Lepenski Vir culture)
The only site that has a good series of radiocarbon dates for the 6300–6000 cal BC is Lepenski Vir. At
Schela Cladovei and Vlasac a conspicuous gap in the radiocarbon list was noted (Fig. 56 b), suggesting
either a decrease in the site activity or a major change in the nature of the activity of the site685.
During this time period, the west and central Europe knew a colder and wetter climate,
possibly causing in the area of the Iron Gates frequent and severe floodings of the banks and leading
to the relocation of the local communities on the higher terraces.686 Two or three sites from the left
bank of Danube are possible candidates for human occupation during the Final Mesolithic, based
on old 14C dates and some of their cultural features: Alibeg, Ostrovul Corbului and Ostrovul Mare.
Only the first one, falling within the limits of historical Banat, will be presented below in more detail.
IV.4.3.1 Alibeg (Fig. 65)

The site of Alibeg was located in the alluvial plain of the Danube, “at the foot of the hill upstream from
the stream of Alibeg, at the entrance of the Upper Gorges”687. As it was the farthest site from the dam, it
was the last to be excavated on the left bank (1971). When the site was first located, various types of
artefacts (animal bones, flint and quarzite pieces, remains of a hearth) were already visible scattered
on the beach. Because of the short time granted to, excavations never reached the sterile riverbed.
676
677
BONSALL, C. 2008.
678
BÖKÖNY, S. 1975: 168.
679
CLASON, A. T. 1978.
680
BÖKÖNYI, S. 1975: 168; BONSALL, C. 2008.
681
SREJOVIĆ, D. & LETICA, Z. 1978; BORONEANŢ, V. et alii 1999.
682
BONSALL, C. 2008: 263.
683
BONSALL, C. 2008; MOGOŞANU, F. 1978a.
684
ROKSANDIĆ, M. 2000; 2008; BONSALL, C. 2008.
685
BONSALL, C. 2008.
686
BONSALL, C et alii 2002; MAGNY, M. et alii 2003; BONSALL, C. 2007, 2008.
687
General stratigraphy of the site688:

1. Humus (archaeologically sterile);
2. Yellow sandy soil with limestone concretions (archaeologically sterile);
3. Black-brownish soil – Schela Cladovei culture, and scattered Early Neolithic artefacts in
its upper part;
4. Yellow-brownish soil (archaeologically sterile).
V. Boroneanţ (who saw Alibeg as the final stage of the Schela Cladovei culture) suggested that
Alibeg illustrated best, for the left bank, the transition from the Mesolithic to the Early Neolithic:
“together with the deer antler tools and the tusk, with quartzite and flint knapping, there are also small
axes-chisels, showing the same technique and typology as the Neolithic ones of Starčevo and Criş types. Thus,
it is only this final stage that comprises features specific to the Neolithic together with the Epipalaeolithic
ones, which are still predominant”689.
The presence of pottery fragments in the upper part of the black-brownish soil made
Al. Păunescu, suggest the existence of a compact Starčevo-Criş layer also690. In his attempt to
separate the Mesolithic material from the Neolithic one, he used the techno-typological criteria
(for both the lithic and bone/antler industries), corroborating them with the depths marked on the
artefacts. He claimed that “there are two culturally distinct layers, separated chronologically by at least
a few hundred years”691.
Voytek and Tringham692 saw Alibeg as a transitional phase from the Late Mesolithic to the
Early Neolithic, together with Ostrovul Mare III, Lepenski Vir IIIa and Padina B. D. Srejović also
saw the site as one of transition, with parallels at Kula, Padina B2 and Ostrovul Mare.693
Alibeg has an old 14C date, on a charcoal sample from a hearth in trench SII, Bln 1193
7195±100BP (ca 6150–6000 cal BC). This would situate it at the limit between the Final Mesolithic
and the Early Neolithic. While we still lack a series of new 14C dates, some evidence supports the
hypothesis that part of the human occupation at Alibeg would fall within this time frame.
The lithic industry shows the same small percentages of flint (5.15%) of the Final Mesolithic,
with an overwhelming predominance of quartz and quartzite as the main raw materials. Together
with this, from contexts associated to the Mesolithic, were recovered miniature chisel-axes, a small
plaque of sandstone channelled on one side, probably polished on the other side694.
A semi-sunken hut (2.4 m × 1.5 m), oval in shape, dug in a relatively shallow pit and the
entrace to the north was noticed in trenches SII–SIII. A fireplace was located in the centre of the
hut, surrounded by six large boulders. The pit of the hearth was filled with lots of ashes, charcoal and
fish bones695.
A second excavated structure was a semi-sunken hut, possibly rebuilt after a temporary
abandoment (Fig. 77). The initial hut was oval in shape, with a rectangular hearth bordered by
stone slabs. Postholes were observed at its extremities. It was suggested that the structure had been
damaged by fire and rebuilt. The shape of the rebuilt hut was trapeze, the remains of the ‘walls’ (?)
were calcined and its interior yielded a large quantity of bones, many also calcinated. The hearth in
the centre was restored to the same type as the first one. The floor of the second hearth was made of
a well-fired mixture of sand and limy clay, having the composition of a mortar. Adjacent to it there
were pottery sherds and a couple of beads (raw material unknown – bone was suggested in the field
688
BORONEANŢ , V. 1973: 11.
689
690
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000: 156.
691
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000: 159.
692
693
694
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a; BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a.
695
notes), together with fragments of bone, deer antler, tusk. To the western part of the hut some fired
slab stones – seen as fragments of the initial hearth- were discovered. On the hut floor, not far from
the hearth, there were three large stone boulders, all worked. One of them had a circular depression
on it while the side facing the ground was flattened and polished.696
Under the floor of the rebuilt hut, a small pit was observed, containing a flint axe and two
almost complete deer antlers697. A second pit contained an almost complete deer antler also. Both
pits were seen by V. Boroneanţ as ‘raw material storage pits’698. Similar finds (deer antler fragments in
pits) were reported on the left bank at Lepenski Vir and Vlasac699.
The presence of pottery has been noted in other Mesolithic contexts in the Iron Gates also700.
***
The 6300–6000 cal BC period when the ‘gap’ in the 14C dates occurred on most sites is the
time when Lepenski Vir site flourished and when houses with plastered floors and burials around
the houses or under their floors are mostly documented on this particular site. The frequency of
the decorated objects increased (among them the sculpted boulders – associated also to the Late
Mesolithic but in smaller numbers), as well as the deposition of animal parts inside the houses.701
One explanation for the continuing occupation at Lepenski Vir might be the very special character
of the site, perhaps a ritual centre.702
Despite the appearance of new elements (questionable pottery fragments, polished stones)
old traditions still persist. The type of burial does not change. Diet remains almost the same – as
indicated by stable isotope analyzes: Lepenski Vir people had a diet similar to those of the Schela
Cladovei and Vlasac people during the Late Mesolithic, with a heavy reliance on aquatic resources,
perhaps even a bit more so during the Final Mesolithic.703
The most straightforward explanation for the gap observed in the 14C dates is the 8200 BP
cooling event, the most dramatic climatic oscillation of the Holocene.704 For 3–400 years the whole
Europe experienced a cooling of the climate of 2–3 °C compared to the previous period, with
temperatures during the winter even lower than that, and major changes in the precipitation system.
Mesolithic sites were affected, with sites probably being moved up the terrace. Their absence in the
archaeological record during this period might be the result of the archaeological efforts having
concentrated on the floodable areas of the Danube valley during the building of the two dams and not
on the higher terraces. It is rather unlikely that the communities left the river banks for good, given
the fact the river was an excellent food source. At least fishing camps must have existed on its banks.
IV.3.2 Final Mesolithic–Early Neolithic contacts?

Most Neolithic specialists accept nowadays the idea that Early Neolithic spread from the area of
Thessaly and Marmara Sea up north, following the valleys of the main rivers. There is a Blagotin
(Morava valley) radiocarbon date of ca 6200 cal BC, thus situating Early Neolithic at this time only
125 km from the Danube.705 Early Neolithic dates from the Pannonian Plain, from southern Romania
696
697
698
699
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 2000; 2008.
700
GARAŠANIN, M. & RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 2001; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 2008; BONSALL, C. 2008.
701
BÖKÖNY, S. 1972; DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 2000; 2008; BONSALL, C. 2008.
702
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1972; GIMBUTAS, M. 1991.
703
BONSALL, C. 2008: 266.
704
BONSALL, C. et alii 2002; MAGNY, M. et alii 2003; BONSALL, C. 2008.
705
WHITTLE, A. et alii 2002; BONSALL, C. 2008.
(Măgura) or southwestern Romania (Schela Cladovei), as well from Transylvania are statistically
inseparable, situating the beginning of Neolithic in the area around 6000 cal BC706. The contact was
thus possible. Was it also probable?
We chose to follow below some of the main points, as proposed by C. Bonsall707 when
discussing the posibility of Mesolithic–Early Neolithic contacts, backed by more data from the sites
on the left bank of the Danube:
Discrepancies of old stratigraphies
Recent research on the pottery in problematic contexts708, showed that at least part of the
“unwanted” pottery fragments associated to some of the houses really belonged there (contrary to
the idea of D. Srejović). They also seem to range between 7083±69BP (ca 5950 to 5700 cal BC)709.
At Padina, B. Jovanović710 observed that the trapeze houses associated (by. D. Srejović) to the
Mesolithic, were frequently associated to Early Neolithic pottery
At Alibeg, V. Boroneanţ observed the occurrence of pottery fragments inside ‘Mesolithic’
huts while at Ostrovul Corbului, Fl. Mogoşanu also identified some Early Neolithic pottery in a
burial considered ‘indubitably Epipalaeolithic”711.
Correlating the field documentation with new 14C dates on contexts seen as secure, D. Borić
and V. Dimitrijević712 suggested that in fact pottery was present at Lepenski Vir around 6300 cal
BC, thus, chronologically, during the Final Mesolithic. On the other hand, an attempt to seriate the
trapeze shaped buildings based on their 14C – buildings seen as characteristic to the Late Mesolithic
period – situated them at the earliest at 7083±73 uncal BP (ca 5950 cal BC) Consequently, a division
for the trapeze houses time of use, in an earlier phase with no pottery, and a later one when the
pottery was present, was advanced.713
At Vlasac, C. Bonsall and D. Borić714 observed a discrepancy between the new radiocarbon
dates and the old chronology (Vlasac I(a, b), II, III) proposed by D. Srejović & Z. Letica715 based
mainly on stratigraphic observations, stressing the fact that stratigraphic layers are useful when
establishing a cultural succesion at a ‘feature’ or a trench level, but this should not be easily gener-
alized to the entire site.
At Padina also, from the radiocarbon dates obtained on faunal remains, it was suggested that
the trapeze houses associated with pottery occurred earlier than 6000 cal BC716. The hypothesis was
later contested by C. Bonsall who invoked the unsecure context of the samples.717
Infant burials
D. Borić and S. Stefanović suggested that the practice of burying neonates under the floor
of the buildings (occurring at Lepenski Vir) is an element that spread from the Epipalaeolithic and
Neolithic sites in the Eastern Mediteranean, and thus a proof of contact between the two types of
populations718. But, as observed719, none of these burials was dated, and thus their Late Mesolithic
706
ANDREESCU, R. & MIREA, P. 2008; WHITTLE, A. et alii 2002; BIAGI, P. et alii 2005; BONSALL, C. 2008.
707
BONSALL, C. 2008.
708
GARAŠANIN, M. & RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 2001.
709
BONSALL, C. 2008: 270.
710
JOVANOVIĆ B. 1987; 2008.
711
712
BORIĆ, D. & DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 2007.
713
BONSALL, C. 2007; 2008.
714
BONSALL, C. et alii 1997; BORIĆ, D. 2008.
715
SREJOVIĆ, D. & LETICA, Z. 1978.
716
BORIĆ, D. & MIRACLE, P. 2004.
717
BONSALL, C. 2007: 58.
718
BORIĆ, D. & STEFANOVIĆ, S. 2004.
719
BONSALL, C. 2008.
date is doubtful. This specific type of burial could as well be another special feature of the Lepenski
Vir site.
Diet studies
Presence of carbon and nitrogen isotopes in the human collagen allows the determination of
the diet type the individual of a certain community had. In the Lepenski Vir population from 6300
to 6000 cal BC (Final Mesolithic), two types of diets were noticed: a predominantly aquatic one
(fish and shells, with high values of N15 and C13, present on other sites during the Late Mesolithic in
the Iron Gates), and a second, showing a very important terrestrial component. This latter diet was
determined only in three individuals, making them perfect candidates for individuals of a Mesolithic
community who lived their lives in a Neolithic community and were brought back to be buried in
their place of origin720 or who were perhaps individuals with special diet requirements.
Other evidence also indicates that some Mesolithic traditions survived in the Iron Gates area
after 6000 cal BC: buildings with a trapezoidal ground plan continued to be erected on sites such as
Lepenski Vir, Padina and Vlasac, together with the deposition of the sculpted river boulders.
Other suggested arguments for a contact between the two types of populations were the
appearance in Mesolithic contexts of ‘exotic’ goods – such as the Mediteranean mussel and snail
shells occurring on some sites, as well as the pyrotechnology of the lime plaster floors, a technique
unknown in the European Mesolithic, but present in the Early Neolithic of Greece.721
IV.4.4 Conclusions
The Mesolithic sites on the left bank of the Danube were presented in general lines within a proposed
chronological framework. The short time allocated for excavations and the difficult working condi-
tions had influenced the outcome of the excavations. Quite a number of field surveys took place,
with results still waiting for publication. When comparing sites, the quantity of the available infor-
mation is highly variable, both between the right and the left bank, but also within the left bank
itself. Variation is given not so much by the amount of published information but by the excavation
methodology and professional interests on the part of the authors of the research. Lithic analyzes
played the major part, as the main excavators of the Mesolithic sites (Fl. Mogoşanu, Al. Păunescu,
V. Boroneanţ) were all specialists of the Palaeolithic. Less importance was given to architectural
structures and burials, as indicators of change within human communities. On the other hand,
Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron Gates were always studied separately, as two different
ages that had nothing in common. Each of them was ’diagnosed’ taking as a starting point the type of
most common archaeological finds for the respective age, e.g. lithic industry for the Mesolithic and
pottery for the Early Neolithic.
With new available data, no longer relying just on stratigraphies and typologies, the image
of the Iron Gates Mesolithic is starting to change, as we must distance ourselves from the tradi-
tional view:
“The prevailing view of the Iron Gates Mesolithic, based on excavations conducted in the 1960s, is of
a foraging society, which, in the course of its long development from the Late Glacial to the mid-Holocene,
exhibited an increasing degree of social complexity and sedentism. In this scenario, there was an initial
period of cave occupation when people followed a nomadic lifestyle based on hunting terrestrial herbi-
vores. Then, around 7600 cal BC, the foragers began to intensify their exploitation of aquatic resources,
which made possible a reduction in residential mobility leading to the establishment of semipermanent or
720
BONSALL, C. 2007: 62, Fig. 5; BONSALL, C. 2008: 274.
721
PERLES, C. 2001; BONSALL, C. 2008.
permanent settlements on the banks of the Danube. According to some archaeologists, so successful was
this foraging adaptation that the Mesolithic inhabitants of the Iron Gates were able to resist the adoption
of agriculture for centuries after it became established in the surrounding regions, even though they traded
with neighbouring farmers for pottery and other goods.”722
Although most of the sites are nowadays submerged, the old collections are a valuable source
of information. Further field research on the upper terraces of the Danube can bring new data on
what the pattern of the human occupations might have been at the beginning of the Holocene.
The study of the faunal remains can yield information on seasonality, group mobility or function
of a certain site. AMS dating and stable isotope analyzes already suggested some changes in the
chronology of the area and in certain aspects of the Mesolithic–Neolithic transition, while tracking
population movements in and out of the Gorges.
Some of the issues that have been addressed recently are still highly speculative: food storage,
social complexity, long-distance exchanges. It has been said that it is not complexity that charac-
terized these Iron Gates Mesolithic communities, but rather stability723. Between 9500–6300 cal
BC there seemed to be very few changes in subsistence, architecture, lithic and bone/antler assem-
bleges. It is only after 6300 cal BC that new features are seen in the Iron Gates: the carved boulders,
burials under the floor of the houses, plastered floors, pottery fragments (?), polished stone artefacts.
This coincides with a cooling of the climate, triggering frequent and severe floodings of the Danube
banks, forcing human communties to relocate their settlements on the higher terrace of the Danube.
As shown previously, these terraces never made the subject of research. It is also possible that this
cooling event stopped the advance of Neolithic communities only approximately 100 km from the
Iron Gates. And during this period (6300–6000 cal BC) the two types of communities came into
contact – as the stable istope analyzes suggested for the site of Lepenski Vir. A contact that perhaps
involved a change of population, goods and ideas.
If we have a look at the map in Fig. 53, along the Danube bank between Baziaş and the dam at
Iron Gates II, there are at least 50 Mesolithic and/or Early Neolithic archaeological sites724. Mesolithic
finds were reported in 17 of them, and in each one of these 17, an Early Neolithic occupation was also
documented. Coincidence? In some of the remaining 33 Early Neolithic sites, Mesolithic presence
was at times suspected. Either way, with all the rediscovered sites along the left river bank, the image
of the Iron Gates area around 6000 cal BC looks a lot more dynamic than previously thought.
722
BONSALL, C. 2008: 275.
723
BONSALL, C. 2008.
724
BORONEANȚ, A. 2010a.
Table 7. List of radiocarbon dates for the Iron Gates sites (after BONSALL, C. 2008: 246–251). Dated material: B = terrestrial mammal bone; C = charcoal; F = fish bone;
H = human bone.
Site Context Material Lab. No. BP cal BC (2σ)

Cuina Turcului Hearth, layer 1, 5.90–5.95 m C Bln–803 12,600 ± 120 13221–12275
Hearth, layer I, 6.20–6.40 m C Bln–804 12,050 ± 120 12232–11711
Hearth, layer I, 5.70–5.85 m c GrN–12665 11,960 ± 60 12023–11754
Hearth, layer II, 3.68–3.85 m C+B Bln–802 10 125 ± 200 10639–9251
Hajdučka Vodenica Burial 8 H OxA–11128 8165 ± 90 7477–6833

Burial 15 (‘younger’) H OxA–11126 7524 ± 77 6503–6227
Burial 12 H OxA–11127 7522 ± 82 6561–6222
Burial 20 H OxA–11109 7389 ± 84 6419–6078
Icoana Trench IV, 2.10 m, horizon lb C Bln–1078 8605 ± 250 8287–7075
Trench IV, 0.50 m, horizon la C Bln–1077 8265 ±100 7518–7070
Trench II, 1.60 m, horizon la C Bonn no. 2 8070 ± 130 7448–6647
Trench II, 1.20 m, horizon lb C Bonn no. 3 8010 ± 120 7306–6610
Trench II, 2.00 m, horizon lb C Bonn no. 4 7660 ±110 6750–6247
Trench III, 1.00 m, horizon II C Bonn no. 1 5830 ± 120 4993–4402
Lepenski Vir Burial 60 (‘LV Ic’) H OxA–11715 9020 ± 80 8445–7953
Burial 69 (‘Proto-LV’) H OxA–11703 8784 ± 72 8202–7609
Under house 23 B OxA–8610 8770 ± 60 8180–7605
House 62 (‘LV lb’) C KN–405 7430 ± 160 6592–6006
Burial 61 (‘LV Ic’) H OxA–11698 7374 ± 80 6406–6071
Burial 14 (‘LV I—II’) H OxA–11704 7368 ±75 6396–6072
House 36 (‘LV la’) C Bln–74ob 7360 ± 100 6425–6049
Burial 54d (‘LV lb’) H OxA–11700 7353 ± 72 6385–6067
Burial 54c (‘LV lb’) H OxA–11696 7346 ±57 6365–6074
Burial 45b (‘LV I’) H OxA–11701 7337 ± 79 6388–6053
House 36 (‘LV la’) C Bln–740a 7310 ± 100 6392–6010
Burial 31a (‘LV III’) H OxA–5827 7308 ± 108 6401–5997
Burial 79a H OxA–11705 7312 ± 79 6366–6029
House 54 (‘LV Ib-c’) C Z–143 7300± 124 6426–5928
Burial 26 (‘LV I’) H OxA–11693 7284 ± 47 6233–6056
House 54 (‘LV Ib-c’) C KN–407 7280 ± 160 6445–5845
Burial 54e (‘LV lb’) H OxA–11697 7250 ±59 6227–6017
House 54 (‘LV Ib-c’) C Bln–738 7225 ± 100 6354–5896
Burial 7/I (‘LV I’) H OxA–11692 7218 ± 81 6243–5917
House 27 (‘LV Id-e’) C KN–406 7210 ± 200 6445–5720
Rear of house 51, under level of house XLIV B OxA–8618 7200 ± 60 6217–5986
Burial 7/I (‘LV F’) (repeat) H OxA–12979 7157 ± 77 6215–5892
Burial 44 (‘LV III’) H OxA–5830 7152 ± 106 6233–5797
Burial 89a (‘LV IF) H OxA–11702 7133 ± 75 6208–5845
Between houses 20 and 33 (‘LV Ia-b’) F OxA–8725 7060 ± 114 6207–5721
House 54 (‘LV Ib-c’) C Bln–653 7040 ± 100 6081–5719
Burial 32a (‘LV III’) H OxA–5828 7036 ± 95 6066–5728
House 54 (‘LV Ib-c’) C Z–115 6984 ± 94 6028–5676
Burial 9 (‘LV Illb’) H OxA–11695 6982 ± 50 5983–5747
House 47 (‘LV Id-e’) C UCLA–1407 6970 ± 60 5983–5735
House 37 (‘LV Id’) C BM–379 6900 ± 150 6055–5544
House 37 (‘LV Id’) C Bln–678 6900 ±100 5984–5636
House 1 (‘LV Id’) C Bin–575 6860 ± 100 5982–5572
House 9 (‘LV Id’) C Bln–647 6845 ±100 5978–5565
House 16 (‘LV Ie’) C Bln–576 6820 ± 100 5972–5554
House 34/43 (‘LV I?’) C Bln–650 6820 ± 100 5972–5554
House 32 (‘LV Ie’) C P–1598 6814±69 5867–5571
House 37 (‘LV Id’) C Bln–649 6800 ± 100 5899–5526
Burial 35 (‘LV III’) H OxA–5829 6718 ±93 5777–548o
House IX (XV IF) C Bln–654 6630 ± 100 5723–5378
House 51 (‘LV Ie’) C Bln–652 6620 ± 100 5718–5376
House XXXII (‘LV II’) C Bln–655 6560 ± 100 5657–5324
Ostrovu Banului Trench IV, horizon III, hearth 2 C Bln–1080 8040 ± 160 7455–6593
Trench I, horizon III, hearth 1 C Bin–1079 7565 ± 100 6606–6227
Ostrovu Corbului Hearth, level I, 4.50–4.53 m C SMU–587 8093 ±237 7567–6503
Hearth, level II, 4.02–4.12 m C SMU–588 7827 ±237 7350–6228
Hearth, level I, 4.20–4.38 m C Bln–2135 77i0± 80 6692–6423
Hearth, level I, 4.20–4.38 m C Bln–2i35a 7695 ± 80 6681–6421

Level I, 4.23 m C GrN–12675 7640 ± 80 6647–6368
Padina Under house 14 B OxA–11102 9990 ± 55 9760–9307
Burial 21 H OxA–mo6 9729 ± 73 9314–8839
Burial 11 H OxA–11104 9700 ± 72 9292–8835
Burial 15 H OxA–11105 9138 ± 71 8547–8247
Midden – profile 3, segment 1, excavation level 3 B OxA–9055 8445 ± 60 7590–7357
Bear (Ursus arctos) bone B BM–1403 8138 ± 121 7477–6710
Burial ia (antler artefact) B OxA–11108 7750 ± 50 6654–6471

Burial ia H OxA–11107 7525 ± 77 6504–6227
House 17, hearth (bone artefact) B OxA–11103 7315 ± 55 6353–6053
‘Occupation layer’ (?) (‘Padina B2’) C GrN–8230 7100 ± 80 6203–5778
Trapezoidal building (?) (‘Padina B3’) C GrN–7981 7075 ± 50 6047–5845
Padina Bi C GrN–???? 7065 ± no 6206–5725
House 18, floor B OxA–9052 6965 ± 60 5983–5732
Under floor of house 15 (bone artefact) B OxA–9054 6790 ± 55 5784–5574
Hearth (in trapezoidal building (‘Padina BI’) C GrN–8229 6570 ±55 5625–5390
Razvrata II ‘Hut’ C Bin–1057 7690 ± 70 6645–6434
Schela Cladovei Bone artefact, Area VI B OxA–9140 8105 ± 60 7312–6830
Bone artefact, Area VI B OxA–9135 8085 ±60 7302–6818
Burial, Area III H OxA–4385 8090 ± 118 7448–6681
Bone artefact, Area VI B OxA–9139 8075 ± 60 7293–6775
Burial, Area VI H OxA–9007 8055 ± 86 7296–6690
Bone artefact B OxA–9207 8000 ± 80 7128–6654
Burial H OxA–8502 7988 ± 72 7072–6665
Bone artefact B OxA–9374 7980 ± 60 7055–6696
Burial, Area VI H OxA–8583 7960 ± 97 7126–6601
Bone artefact, Area V B OxA–9131 7925 ± 60 7033–6656
Bone artefact, Area III B OxA–8582 7880 ± 290 7515–6227
Burial H OxA–8547 7886 ± 92 7051–6532
Square C/III, layer 22 (‘Vlasac IF) C Lj–2047a 7925 ±77 7049–6643
Dwelling 5 – square BC/V, layer 18 (‘Vlasac lb’) C Bln–1170 7840 ± 100 7034–6486
Square d/5, layer 9 (‘Vlasac lb – end’) C Bin–1171 7830 ± 100 7030–6478
Burial 83 (‘Vlasac III’) H OxA–5826 7804 ± 104 7028–6461
Burial 54 (‘Vlasac I’) H OxA–5823 7756 ± 113 7028–6421
Square c/9, layer 14 (‘Vlasac II’) C Bln–1169 7665 ± 60 6632–6429
Square b/18, layer 13 (‘Vlasac II’) C Bln–1052 7610 ± 60 6594–6379
Burial 24 (‘Vlasac III’) H OxA–5825 7598 ± 113 6653–6227
Square b/9, beneath hearth 16 (‘Vlasac II’) C Z–267 7559 ±93 6591–6236
Square b/9, layer 6 (‘Vlasac II – end’) C Bln–1168 7475 ± 60 6439–6233
Square A/II, Layer 13 (‘Vlasac III’) C Bin–1954 7440 ± 60 6438–6125
Dwelling 1 – square C/III, layer 26 (‘Vlasac lb’) C Z–262 7000 ± 90 6032–5718
Dwelling 1 – square C/III, layer 26 (‘Vlasac lb’) C Bln–1951 6905 ±100 5984–5638
Dwelling 2 – square a/18, layer 18 (‘Vlasac lb’) C Bln–1053 6865 ±100 5983–5617
Dwelling 2 – square a/18, layer 18 (‘Vlasac lb’) C Bln–1014 6805 ±100 5964–5532
Dwelling 1 – square C/III, layer 26 (‘Vlasac lb’) C Bln–I05ia 6790 ± 100 5891–5522
W e hope that we have demonstrated in the previous chapters that, despite
relatively low levels of investigation of the region and a lack of absolute
dates for some of the sites, the study of Palaeolithic and Mesolithic Banat
is of great importance for understanding cultural changes and population
movement in central and southeast Europe. In this summary we shall try to recapit-
ulate conclusions reached by individual authors and to present a short survey of
the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic periods in the entire Banat region. Our intention is
to both highlight points of contact and open questions, but also to emphasize the
significance and potential of investigations of the earliest remains of the human
past in this area.
The Palaeolithic
Despite the fact that large numbers of Palaeolithic sites have been recorded
in southwest Romania, very few of them have been investigated systematically.
The most complete data were obtained by excavations at Coşava, Tincova and
Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa, Hoţilor cave and sites in the Iron Gates (Climente I and
II, Cuina Turcului) where remains from the end of Pleistocene and the beginning
of Holocene have been found. In Serbian areas of the Banat, on the other hand,
only sites in the vicinity of Vršac that provided huge quantities of material but
have never been systematically excavated have been recorded, while the results of
more recent investigations at most other sites (such as Šalitrena Cave, Baranica,
and Tabula Traiana Cave) are, with the exception of Petrovaradin fortress, only
partially published.
Not a single Lower Palaeolithic site has been identified with certainty in Banat,
in contrast to Dobrugea, where their existence is at least mentioned725 although not
yet confirmed726. It still remains to be seen whether these sites produce pebble and
flake tool industries as in central Europe or the flake industries similar to those at
Kozarnika. In any case it must be emphasized that the occurrence of Acheulean has
not been confirmed with certainty either in Romania or in other countries in central
and southeast Europe. The appearance of bifacially flaked tools could be rather linked
to technologically diverse industries of early Micoquian whose occurrence has been
recorded in the border areas of the Carpathian basin. One such industry is that from
Petrovaradin fortress where Taubachian/Charentian and Levallois elements appear
together with bifacial tools727.
The interpretation of Charentian has also evolved. This facies was once
attributed to the so-called Charentian of southeast Europe that was dated to the late
725
PĂUNESCU, A. 1989; 2000.
726
DOBOŞ 2008.
727
146 | Continuity and future research
phase of the Middle Palaeolithic.728 Nevertheless, after re-dating the remains from Krapina and other
recent investigations it is now clear that industries of this type appear in much earlier periods and
that, at least in Serbia, they probably precede and perhaps partially coincide with the appearance of
the Levallois technique in the Balkans.729 This confusion resulted, among other things, from the fact
that this facies had been related to the late quartz/quartzite industries, which are confirmed not only
in southwest Romania (Eastern Charentian or Cave Mousterian) but also in Slovenia, Croatia and
even Serbia.730 Authors of this book agree, however, that the quartz character of the industry should
not be strictly connected to distinct Mousterian facies but perhaps rather reflects the settlement
pattern and technology of knapping the quartz pebbles.
Levallois artifacts have been found at many sites in Banat (Crvenka-At, Balata, Gornea,
Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa). For the time being everything indicates a long and complex history of use
of this technique, which appears in both early and late phases of the Middle Palaeolithic in various
Mousterian facies. It is interesting that Middle Palaeolithic industries with leaf points (where the
Levallois component is also very prominent) have not been confirmed, but just single specimens
of this tool type. This is rather surprising because industries of this type have been encountered at
many sites in the Pannonian basin, in north Romania and north Bulgaria.
Early Upper Palaeolithic in western, central and eastern parts of the Carpathian basin is repre-
sented by great numbers of sites and considerable variability in the ‘transitional’ industries, which are,
however, often in uncertain stratigraphic position or poorly dated. They roughly cover the lengthy
time-span between 40-25ka BP (after 30ka BP) and comprise Mousterian-based units (Mitoc facies,
Brynzenian, Szeletian, Prut culture and Corpaci facies), which contain different frequencies of
Levallois debitage and/or sidescrapers, denticulates and notches – and a tool in common, the bifacial
leaf point.731 Still, some recent studies/results are in line with general arguments in the Romanian liter-
ature suggesting the long coexistence of MP and EUP industries and their uniform evolution without
rapid population replacement, which should be verified by the application of new geoarchaeological
methods and techniques, and by undertaking new analyses and especially field investigations732.
Something that is not controversial is the fact that anatomically modern humans appeared in
this area before ca. 36 ka. The 2002, 2003 and 2004 discoveries of early modern human remains in
a paleontological context (but without archaeological evidence) in the Peştera cu Oase caves in the
Banat Mountains (Caraş-Severin County), has provided a window on the biology of these earliest
modern humans in Europe733. The initial discovery led to systematic study of Peştera cu Oase734,
followed by different analyses735 and have spurred several scientific projects: a palaeoanthropological
project re-examining ‘forgotten’ human fossils from Romanian caves (old fossil discoveries) and
their direct dating736 and new research in Banat,737 thus bringing the Romanian record into broader
Afro-Eurasian discussions of the origins and dispersal of anatomical modern humans738.
The question of the bearers of early Upper Palaeolithic culture has, however, not yet been
solved as human remains at the sites in Romanian caves have not been found in association with
artifacts. Most authors think that the appearance of Homo sapiens could be related to the ‘Aurignacian
728
GÁBORI, V. 1976.
729
SIMEK, J. F. & SMITH, F. H. 1997.
730
OSOLE, F. 1971; PĂUNESCU, A. 1989; AHERN, J. C. M. et alii 2004.
731
ANGHELINU, M. et alii 2011.
732
HORVATH, I. 2009.
733
TRINKAUS, E et alii 2005.
734
LAZAROVICI, G. et alii 2005; BĂLTEAN, I. C. et alii 2008.
735
RICHARDS, M. P. et alii 2008.
736
SOFICARU, A. et alii 2006; 2007; ALEXANDRESCU, E. et alii 2010.
737
BĂLTEAN, I. C. et alii 2008.
738
TRINKAUS, E. et alii 2006.
Continuity and future research | 147
0’ or proto-Aurignacian industries within the wider region of the Carpathian basin. The earliest dated
Aurignacian sites (Tabula Traiana Cave, Baranica) are dated to 36-35 ka but a very small quantity
of finds has been discovered that do not allow drawing of wider conclusions739. A rich Aurignacian
layer has been recently confirmed in Šalitrena cave but absolute dates and results of the analyses of
material have not yet been published740.
Many Aurignacian sites were encountered in the Romanian and Serbian part of Banat, the
most important being Coşava, Tincova and Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa in the Romanian Banat741 and
Crvenka, At and Balata in the vicinity of Vršac742 in the Serbian Banat. These settlements probably
belong to the same settlement pattern and the material found at them is very similar. The raw
materials are identical, knapping technology is the same or similar and the structure and stylistic-
typological characteristics of tools are almost identical. At most of the mentioned sites conical
cores for bladelets, carinated, nosed and conical endscrapers, Aurignacian blades, dihedral burins,
strangled blades and (at Romanian sites) Dufour bladelets and Font-Yves points were recorded. As a
result these sites could be identified as the Banat group of the Krems type Aurignacian.
The first Aurignacian stage of the Romanian Banat (Coşava – lower layer, the single layer
in Tincova) was attributed to the last, Würm II–III, interstadial. Pollen-based geochronological
estimations in Româneşti suggested a much later Tardiglacial chronology. The general typological
structure of the toolkits (carinated, nosed end-scrapers, dihedral burins and burins on truncation,
Aurignacian blades, as well as Dufour bladelets and Font-Yves points) suggested direct connection
to Central Europe, especially Krems type Aurignacian. In a typical culture-historical vein, Mogoşanu
viewed the Banat Aurignacian as a late echo of the Krems Aurignacian groups, retreating into the
Banat refuge in favor of the Central European Gravettian743. Its late survival and ‘degeneration’
explained the less and less characteristic toolkits from the upper layers in Coşava and Româneşti744.
In recent times, however, some Romanian sites such as Tincova have been related to the
proto-Aurignacian745. Authors of this text, although not denying that possibility, agree that this
assumption has yet to be confirmed. The new comparative analyses of the lithic industries show
many similarities and at the same time some differences (raw material exploitation, core compo-
sition, debitage structure, blade production, toolkit structure) between the lithic assemblages from
Coşava, Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa746 and Tincova747. In that light the re-evaluation of the Aurignacian
in Banat requires more detailed technological and typological studies748.
As a consequence of these new results, the new approaches on the Palaeolithic in Romanian
Banat are focused on:
a) re-evaluating the lithic assemblages from the old excavations at Tincova (studies in
2007–2008 )749, Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa and Coşava (2009–2010); and
b) resuming excavations in all above mentioned Romanian sites, within the CRC project –
“Our Way to Europe”, aiming for a detailed chronological framework750.
The three sites (Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa and Coşava in 2009 and Tincova in 2010) were
selected for complete stratigraphical, chronological and archaeological re-evaluation. This was to
739
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. et alii 1997; BORIĆ 2008.
740
MIHAILOVIĆ, D., MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2009.
741
MOGOŞANU, F. 1972; 1976; 1978; 1983; HAHN, J. 1970; 1977.
742
743
SITLIVY, V. et alii 2011.
744
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978; 1983.
745
TEYSSANDIER, N. 2003; 2008; ZILHÃO, J. 2006.
746
SITLIVY, V. et alii 2011.
747
BĂLTEAN, I. C. 2011.
748
749
750
Unpublished data/research in progress.
include test pits, TL, OSL, pollen analyses, sedimentological and tephra sampling, all correlated
to the study of both old and new archaeological collections. It should be noted that recent debates
on the definition of the Banat Aurignacian usually involved Tincova and Oase Cave early modern
human fossils.
In the current understanding, the re-evaluation of the old collections together with new results
from the recent excavations (TL, OSL and tephra sampling, biology of the Early Modern Humans
from Oase Cave) will offer us a new image on the significance of the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic
of the Banat region in a regional context – the Carpathian area and the Danube corridor751.
The richest and probably among the earliest Gravettian sites in north Serbia and southwest
Romania is Šalitrena Cave. A broad repertoire of technological and typological elements which relate
this site to the central European Gravettian, particularly to the Willendorfian, has been encountered
in the very rich industry from this site752. However there are also parallels with the industries from
Temnata and Kozarnika (layer IVb) in Bulgaria753. It is still unclear whether the finds from this cave
bear witness to the shifting of Gravettian communities from the Carpathian basin toward the south at
the beginning of last glacial maximum. Early and middle phases of the Epigravettian are characterized
by uniform industries with straight-back bladelets and a rather restricted tool repertoire. The indus-
tries of that type were confirmed in the Climente I Cave and dated to the Last Glacial Maximum754.
Similar phenomena as in the final Epigravettian in the Mediterranean were confirmed in the
final Epigravettian in Banat, coinciding with the transition from the Pleistocene to the Holocene.
The microlithization of artifacts took place in that period and thumbnail and circular endscrapers,
geometric microliths (segments and triangles) and arched backed points also appeared. According
to some authors these phenomena could indicate migration of the bearers of the Epigravettian
techno-complex from the Mediterranean zone toward the Balkan hinterland755. According to others,
however, these elements could be instead related to technological changes and changes in the
settlement pattern and economy that have been recorded in this period across a much larger area756.
There is, however, almost unanimous agreement that these changes had a decisive impact on the
beginning of the evolution of the Mesolithic in the Iron Gates.
The Mesolithic
Despite the fact that the information presented in this volume on the Iron Gates Mesolithic is
somehow incomplete, lacking a detailed presentation of the sites on the right bank of the Danube and
also of the two Romanian sites on the left bank located outside the boundaries of the historical Banat,
the authors hope they have managed to offer a comprehensive overview of the main characteristics
of the hunter-gatherer communities, and their possible interactions with the Early Neolithic ones.
The chronology proposed for the Iron Gates sites is a provisional one, based on the 14C dates
available at the present moment: Early Mesolithic (13200–7200 cal BC), Late Mesolithic (7200–
6300 cal BC), Final Mesolithic (6300–6000 cal BC).
Within the chronological limits of the Early Mesolithic fall 14C dates from sites in caves
(Climente II, Veterani and Hoților), rockshelters (Cuina Turcului), islands (Ostrovul Banului)
or open air sites (Vlasac, Lepenski Vir, Padina). The economy was based on hunting, but with an
important fishing component757. The flint industry shows techno-typological characteristics similar
to the Epigravettian, while displaying a strong use of local raw materials, especially local flint.
751
SITLIVY, V. et alii 2011; BĂLTEAN, I. C. 2011.
752
753
DROBNIEWICZ 1992; TSANOVA, T. 2003.
754
755
756
757
BONSALL, C. 2008.
Continuity and future research | 149
Presence of obsidian was noted on some sites. Bone artifacts appear a lot more often than their antler
or tusk counterparts, with awls and projectile points among the most frequent types. Decorated
bone tools (the fishnet pattern), pierced animal teeth and medium sized boulders with small circular
depressions were seen by some archaeologists as the diagnostic tools of this period. Burials are
documented, at times within formal disposal areas, mainly on the right bank of the Danube758.
The sites of the Late Mesolithic appear to have been established mainly in the open air:
Răzvrata, Icoana, Veterani Terasă, Schela Cladovei, Vlasac, Lepenski Vir, Hajdučka Vodenica, and
Kula. Architectural features become more numerous, with oval or trapezoid shaped habitations,
circular or rectangular hearths made of stones, some of them worked. The largest quantity of finds in
the settlements dates from this period. Quartz started to prevail among the chipped stone artifacts
particularly in the Lower Gorges while flint use decreases dramatically on some of the sites and
obsidian disappears. Bone assemblages are extremely abundant and diversified. Antler becomes an
important resource for tool manufacturing.
Judging by the faunal remains and isotopic analyses, aquatic food sources predominate over
the terrestrial ones. Domestic dog remains (possibly domesticated during the earlier period) were
encountered on most sites, with a suggestion of the dog itself being a possible food source. Food
storage was possible, although definite evidence is still missing759. Opinions on the social complexity
of the communities vary greatly760. The number of burials seems to have increased dramatically, still
with a higher prevalence on the right bank761. Presence of art items was unevenly noticed among
the sites, some with many beautifully decorated bone/antler/tusk artifacts (Icoana) whereas others
yielded just a few pieces or none. Shells originating from the Adriatic and the Mediterranean areas
suggest the existence of complex exchange networks762. Evidence of violent death and injuries is
difficult to interpret at a large scale, given the fact they were observed in a significant number of cases
only at Schela Cladovei763.
It appears that with the time of ‘8.2 ka cold event’764 occupation came to an end at most settle-
ments of the Late Mesolithic. There is ample evidence of continuation on the right bank at Lepenski
Vir while on the left bank a possible candidate (but needing to be confirmed by further research and
14
C dates) is Alibeg, in the Upper Gorges. Archaeological evidence (types of habitations, hearths
and burials765 – suggests Ostrovul Corbului and Ostrovul Mare as likely candidates too, but again,
more 14C dates are needed.
The Final Mesolithic flourishes at Lepenski Vir, with its renowned trapezoid houses and
sculptured boulders. Together with the burials between and underneath houses they point towards
a distinct, probably sacred character of this particular settlement766. Burial practices are similar to
those of the Final Mesolithic but in the funerary rite, as well as in other aspects, new elements also
appear (burying the dead lying on one side with legs and arms flexed, the presence of pottery and
ground stone tools within the settlements)767. Reliance on aquatic sources becomes even stronger768.
One of the directions to be followed in future research is that of Mesolithic-Early Neolithic
contacts, as suggested by the presence of the above-mentioned Early Neolithic elements in Mesolithic
758
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996.
759
BONSALL, C. 2008.
760
VOYTEK, B. & TRINGHAM, R. 1989; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. & VOYTEK, B. 1997; BONSALL, C. 2008.
761
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996; BORONEANȚ, A. 2009; BORONEANȚ, A. & BORONEANȚ, V. 2010.
762
SREJOVIĆ, D. & LETICA, Z. 1978; BORONEANȚ, V. et alii 1999.
763
ROKSANDIĆ, M. 2000; 2008; BONSALL, C. 2008.
764
MAGNY, M. et alii 2003.
765
BORONEANȚ, A. 2010a; 2010b.
766
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1969.
767
GARAŠANIN, M. & RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 2001; RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 2008; BONSALL, C. 2008.
768
BONSALL, C. 2008.
contexts. One possible method is through a thorough study of the existing collection of finds and field
documentation of the earlier excavations. Also, the past few years have seen excavation and publi-
cation of interesting new data from recent field research at Vlasac, Aria Babi, and Schela Cladovei.
Other than excavations on the few sites that survived the flooding, field surveys are necessary both on
the higher terraces of the Danube (previously unexplored – at least on the left bank) and in the area
further downstream of the Iron Gates II dam. There is no reason that Mesolithic occupations of the
river banks should have been confined only to the area suggested by the present state of the research.
***
We hope that we have managed to show in this book that the importance of understanding
the Banat far exceeds its regional limits, even though almost all we know about its early prehistory
is based on the results of older excavations, and despite the fact that many essential elements for the
reconstruction of cultural, social and economic change are still missing. We therefore hope that this
book will encourage further regional as well as international collaboration in solving the many open
questions remaining in the study of the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic cultures of this area.
VI.1. Bibliography
ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1997. O ipoteză despre evoluţia complexului cultural aurignacian

din Câmpia Română. Timpul istoriei I: 11–36. Bucureşti.
ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1998a. Observaţii asupra industriei litice de la Giurgiu – Malu
Roşu. Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu” 2–4: 13–57.
ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1998b. Şantierul arheologic Giurgiu – Malu Roşu. Campania 1998.
Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu” 2–4: 59–74.
ALEXANDRESCU, E. 2002. O nouă sinteză cu privire la epoca palaeolitică pe teritoriul
României. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie 51 (1–2) 2003: 103–115.
ALEX0ANDRESCU, E. & POPA, T. 2000. Şantierul arheologic Giurgiu – Malu Roşu.
Campania 1999. Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu” 5–6: 41–63.
ALEXANDRESCU, E., OLARIU, A., SKOG, G., STENSTRŐM, K, HELLBORG, R., 2010.
Os fossils humains des grottes Muierii et Cioclovina, Roumanie. L’ Anthropologie,
114, 341–353.
ALLEN, J. R. L. 1974. Allen, Reaction, relaxation and lag in natural systems; general
principles, exemples and lessons. Earth Science Reviews 10: 263–342.
ANASTASIU, N. 1988. Petrologie sedimentară. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
ANASTASIU, N. 1999. Petro-Sed. Glosar de sedimentologie şi petrologie sedimentară.
Bucureşti: Universităţii.
ANDRES, W., BOS, J. A. A., HOUBEN, P., KALIS, A. J., NOLTE, S., RITT WEGER, H.
& WUNDERLICH, J. 2001. Environmental change and fluvial activity during the
Younger Dryas in Central Germany. Quaternary International 79: 89–100.
ANDREESCU, R. & MIREA, P. 2008. Teleorman Valley. The beginning of Neolithic in
southern Romania: Acta Terrae Septemcastrensis 7: 56–71.
ANGHELINU, M. 2002. Conservatorism şi spontaneitate în tehnologia litică palaeolitică.
Reflecţii asupra unei industrii musteriene. Memoria Antiquitatis XXII: 333–349.
ANGHELINU, M., 2006. O paleontologie a “omului etern”: arheologia paleoliticului din
România. Cercetări Arheologice, XIII, 135–158.
ANGHELINU, M., NIŢĂ, L., SITLIVY, V., UTHMEIER, T., BĂLTEAN, I. 2011. The mist
around Peştera cu Oase: The beginning of Upper Palaeolithic in Romania, in press.
ANTONOVIĆ, D. 1997. Use of Light White Stone in the Central Balkans Neolithic.
Starinar N. S XLVIII: 33–39.
ATLASUL 1973. Atlasul Complex ‘Porţile de Fier’. Bucharest: Academia R.S.R.
BANESZ, L. 1993. Contrubution au probleme de l’Aurignacien, in J. Pavúk (ed.), Actes du XIIe
Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques: 135–136. Bratislava.
154 | Bibliography
BASLER, Đ. 1975. Stariji litički periodu u Crvenoj stijeni, in Đ. Basler (ed.), Crvena stijena – zbornik radova.
Zajednica kulturnih ustanova: 11–120. Nikšić.
BAZILE, F. 1996. La question de “L’ Aurignacien terminal” en Languedoc, in The Upper Palaeolithic vol. 6,
Actes XIII CISPP: 55–67. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
BĂLTEAN, I. 2011. Paleoliticul superior din Banat in contextul paleoliticului superior din spațiul central-est
european. Phd. thesis, unpuplished.
BĂLTEAN, I. PETRESCU, S. M. CINCĂ, A. NEGREI, D. & ZILHÃO, J. in press. Prezența umană și
nivelurile ocupaționale identificate în sistemul carstic la Văii Minișului.
BĂRCĂCILĂ, A. 1924. Antiquites prè- et proto-historiques des environs de Turnu Severin, Dacia I: 280–296.
BERCIU, D. 1939. Arheologia preistorică a Olteniei. Craiova.
BERCIU, D. 1941. Repertoriu arheologic de staţiuni şi descoperiri preistorice în România. Revista Arhivelor
3: 4–16.
BIAGI, P. &SPATARO, M. 2004. Noi datări cu radiocarbon în aşezările culturii Criş din Banat şi Transilvania
(România). Patrimonium Banaticum III: 7–20.
BIAGI, P. SHENNAN, P. & SPATARO, M. 2005. Rapid rivers and slow seas? New data for the Radiocarbon
chronology of the Balkan peninsula, in L. Nikolova, J. Fritz & J. Higgins (eds.), Prehistoric Archaeology
& Anthropological Theory and Education. Reports of prehistoric research projects 6–7: 41–52.
BITIRI, M. 1959. Un nou tip de unealtă între microlitele de la Băile Herculane. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie
Veche 10, 2: 453–457.
BOËDA, E. 1994. Le concept Levallois: variabilité des méthodes, CRA-Monographie n° 9 Centre National de
la Recherche Scientifique. Paris.
BOËDA, E. 1995. Caractéristiques techniques des chaînes opératoires lithiques des niveaux micoquiens du
Külna, in, Paleo suppl. 1, Actes du Colloque de Miskolc: 73–79.
BOLOMEY, A. 1970. Câteva observații asupra faunei de mamifere din straturile Romanello-Azilliene de la
Cuina Turcului. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 21, 1: 37–39.
BOLOMEY, A. 1973. An outline of the late Epipalaeolithic economy at the Iron Gates: the evidence on
bones. Dacia N. S. XVII: 41–52.
BONSALL, C. 2007. When was the Neolithic transition în the Iron Gates?, in M. Spataro& P. Biagi (eds.), A
short walk through the Balkans: the first farmers of the Carpathian Basin and the adjacent regions: 53–66.
London: Oxbow Books.
BONSALL, C. 2008. The Mesolithic of the Iron Gates, in G. Bailey & P. Spikins (eds.), Mesolithic Europe:
238–279. Cambridge: University Press.
BONSALL, C., ROSEMARY, L., MCSWEENEY, K., CAROLINA, S., DOUGLAS, H., BORONEANŢ, V.,
BARTOSIEWICZ, L., ROBERT, P. &CHAPMAN, J. 1997. Mesolithic and Early Neolithic in the Iron
Gates: A Paleodietary Perspective. Journal of European Archaeology 5: 50–92.
BONSALL, C., COOK, G., LENNON, R., HARKNESS, D., SCOTT, M., BARTOSIEWICZ, L. &
MCSWEENEY, K. 2000. Stable isotopes, radiocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in the
Iron Gates. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 119–132.
BONSALL, C., MACKLIN, M. G., PAYTON, R. & BORONEANȚ, A., 2002. Climate, floods and river
gods: Environmental change and the Meso-Neolithic transition in south-east Europe, Before Farming.
The Archaeology of Old World Hunter-Gatherers 3–4 (2): 1–15.
BOLUS, C. BOLUS, M. & CONARD, N. 2001. The late Middle Paleolitic and earliest Upper Palaeolithic in
Central Europe and their relevance for the Out of Africa hypothesis. Quaternary International 75: 29–40.
BORDES, F. 1961. Typologie du Paleolithique Ancien et Moyen. Cahiers du Quaternaire 1, Centre National
de la Recherche Scientifique 2: 101. Bordeaux: Delmas.
BORIĆ, D. 2008. Kultura Lepenskog vira u svetlu novih istraživanja (Lepenski Vir Culture in the Light of
New Research). Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 24: 9–44.
BORIĆ, D. & DIMITRIJEVIĆ V. 2007. When did the Neolithic package reach Lepenski Vir?. Radiometric
and faunal evidence. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 53–72.
BORIĆ, D. & MIRACLE, P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic (Dis)continuities în the Danube Gorges: New
AMS Dates from Padina and Hajdučka Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23, 4: 341–371.
Bibliography | 155
BORIĆ, D. & STEFANOVIĆ, S. 2004. Birth and death: infant burials from Vlasac and Lepenski Vir.
Antiquity 78: 526–546.
BORIĆ, D., RAIČEVIĆ, J. & STEFANOVIĆ, S. 2009. Mesolithic cremations as elements of secondary
mortuary rites at Vlasac (Serbia). Documenta Praehistorica 36: 247–282
BORIĆ, D. 2005. Forager-farmer Encounters in the Balkans: Spatial Distribution of the Lepenski Vir Culture
(Serbia). McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research – Annual Report 2004–2005: 36.
BORIĆ, D. 2008. Palaeolithic Occupation of the Danube Gorges and its Hinterlands. McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research Annual Report 2007–2008, 22.
BORONEANŢ, A. 2010a. Perioada de trecere de la Mezolitic la neoliticul timpuriu la Porțile de Fier. Bucharest:
Academia Română, unpublished PhD Thesis.
BORONEANŢ, A. 2010b. Ostrovul Corbului – o discuție asupra mormintelor mezolitice și neolitice
timpurii. Buletinul Muzeului Județean Teleorman–Seria Arheologie 2: 5–28.
BORONEANȚ, A. & BORONEANȚ, V. 2009. Schela Cladovei 1965–1968. După 40 de ani. Studii de
Preistorie 6: 6–24.
BORONEANȚ, A., BORONEANȚ, V., MIRIŢOIU, N. & SOFICARU, A. 2008. The Icoana burials
revisited. Studii de preistorie 5, 2008: 24–41.
BORONEANŢ, V. 1969. Decouvertes d’objets d’art épipalaeolithiques dans la zone des Portes de Fer du
Danube. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche XXIV, 2: 283–298.
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970a. Un mormînt din perioada de trecere de la palaeoliticul superior la epipalaeolitic,
(Une tombe de la période de transition du paléolithique à l’épipaléolithique). Studii și Cercetări de
Istorie Veche 21, 1: 129–132.
BORONEANŢ, V. 1970b. La periode Epipalaeolithique sur la rive roumaine de Portes de Fer du Danube.
Prehistorische Zeitschrift 45, 1: 1–25.
BORONEANŢ, V. 1972. Noi date despre cele mai vechi manifestări de artă plastică pe teritoriul României,
(Nouvelles données sur les plus anciennes manifestations d’art plastique sur le territoire de la
Roumanie). Studii și Cercetări de Istoria Artei 19, 1: 109–115.
BORONEANŢ, V. 1973. Recherches archeologiques sur la culture Schela Cladovei dans la zone des Portes
de Fer. Dacia N. S. XVII: 5–39.
BORONEANŢ, V. 1979. Descoperiri arheologice în unele peşteri din Defileul Dunării. Speologia. Grupul de
cercetări complexe “Porţile de Fier”: 140–185. Bucureşti: Academiei.
BORONEANŢ, V. 1996. The Mesolithic habitation complexes in the Balkans and Danube basin, in The
Mesolithic, Actes XIII CISPP: 7: 59–77. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000a. Paleolithique superieur final et Épipalaeolithique dans la zone des Portes de Fer.
Bucharest: Silex.
BORONEANŢ, V. 2000b. Arheologia peşterilor şi minelor din România. Bucureşti: cIMeC.
BORONEANŢ, V., BONSALL, C., MCSWEENEY, K., PAYTON, R. & MACKLIN, M. G. 1999. A
Mesolithic burial area at Schela Cladovei, Romania, in A. Thevenin (ed.), L’Europe des derniers
chasseurs. Epipalaeolithique et Mesolithique, Actes du 5-e Colloque International UISPP (Commission
12), Grenoble, 18–23 September 1995: 385–390. Paris: Éditions du CTHS.
BORZIAC, I., CHIRICA, V., 2008. Periodisation culturelle, chronologie relative et radiometrique des
facies du Paleolithique superieur de l’espace carpato-dniestreen, in: Chirica, V., Văleanu, M. C. (eds.),
Etablissements et habitations préhistoriques. Structure, organisation, symbole: 7–50. Iaşi: Pim.
BOSINSKI, G. 1967. Die Mittelpaläolithischen Funde im Westlichen Mitteleuropa. Köln – Graz: Böhlau.
BREZILLON, M.-N. 1981. La denomination des objets de pierre taillee: materiaux pour on vocabulaire
des prehistoriens de langue langue francaise. Paris: CNRS CNRS Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique France.
BRODAR, S. 1955. Palaeolitik v Vršcu in njegovi okolici?. Arheološki Vestnik VI/2: 181–203.
BRUDIU, M. 1971. Primele descoperiri tardenoasiene din sud-estul Moldovei. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie
Veche 22, 3: 361–375.
BRUDIU, M. 1974. Paleoliticul superior şi epipalaeoliticul din Moldova. Biblioteca de Arheologie-Seria
complementară 2. București.
156 | Bibliography
BOSSELIN, F. & DJINDJIAN, F. 1997. L’ Aurignacien tardif: Un facies de transition du Gravettien au

Solutreen, in Préhistoire Européenne 10: 107–125. Liège: Université de Liège.
BÖKÖNY, S. 1972. The vertebrate fauna, in D. Srejović (ed.), Europe’s first monumental sculpture, new
discoveries at Lepenski Vir: 186–189. London: Thames & Hudson.
BÖKÖNY, S. 1975. Vlasac: An early site of dog domestication, in A. T. CLASON (ed.), Archaeozoological
studies. Papers at the archaeozoological conference 1974, held at the Biologisch–Archaeologisch Institut of
State University of Groningen: 167–178. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company.
BRODAR, S. 1971. Betalov Spodmol près de Postojna. Station Paléolithique, in Epoque préhistorique et
protohistorique en Yougoslavie – Recherche et résultats, CISPP VIII: 201–203. Beograd.
BUCUR, I. I. 1997. Formaţiunile mezozoice din zona Reşiţa – Moldova Nouă (Munţii Aninei şi estul Munţilor
Locvei). Cluj-Napoca: Presa Universitară Clujeană.
BUKUROV, B. 1975. Fizičko-geografski problemi Bačke. Srpska akademijanauka i umetnosti, Odeljenje prirodno-
matematičkih nauka 43, Beograd: Srpska Akademija Nauka i Umetnosti.
BULL, W. B. 1991. Geomorphic responses to climatic change. New York: Oxford University Press.
CAILLEUX, A. 1974. Les roches. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
CARAŞ 1981. *** Caraş–Severin. Monografie. Bucureşti: Sport–Turism.
CATTIN, M.–I. 1991. Un raccord entre deux sites magdaleniens, in Préhistoire Européenne 1 Liège: Université
de Liège.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. & PĂUNESCU, A. 1975. Cronostratigrafia şi palaeoclimatul tardenoasianului din
depresiunea Întorsura Buzăului. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Araheologie 26, 3: 315–342.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1978. Studiul palaeoclimatic şi geocronologic asupra unor staţiuni palaeolitice din
Banat, in F. Mogoşanu, Paleoliticul din Banat: 83–101. Bucureşti: Academiei.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1980. Mediul geografic în Pleistocenul superior şi culturile palaeolitice din România.
Bucureşti: Academiei.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1985. La relation homme-environnement élément important de la dynamique de la
sociéte humaine au cours du paléolithique et l’épipaléolithique sur le territoire de la Roumanie. Dacia
N. S. XXIX, 1–2: 7–34.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1987. L’environnement et géochronologie du paléolithique et l’épipaléolithique de
la Roumanie, in V. Chirica (ed.), La genése et l’évolution des cultures paléolithiques sur le teritoire de la
Roumanie, B. A. I. II:197–104.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1988. L’environnement et le cadre chronologique du Paléolithique Moyen en Roumanie,
in Actes L’Homme de Neandertal, L’environnement 2: 45–54.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1993. Paleoenvironnements et chronostratigraphie du paléolithique moyen te
supérieur en Roumanie, in J. Pavúk (ed.), Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques
et Protohistoriques: 224–231. Bratislava: Institut Archéologique de l’Academie Slovaque des Sciences.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1995. La transition du Paléolithique Moyen au Paléolithique Supérieur en Roumanie:
contexte palaeoclimatique et chronologique, in Actes du Colloque de Miskolc, Paleo suppl. 1: 101–104.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999a. Evoluţia omului în Cuaternar. Târgovişte: Lumina Lex.
CÂRCIUMARU, M. 1999b. Le Paléolithique en Roumanie. Grenoble: Jérôme Millon.
CÂRCIUMARU, M., MONCEL, M,-H. & CÂRCIUMARU, R. 2000. Le Paléolithique moyen de la
grotte Cioarei-Boroşteni. Etude préliminaire de l’industrie lithique. La question des Moustériens
sub-carpatiques et de l’occupation des Carpates. L’ Anthropologie 104, 2: 185–237.
CARCIUMARU, M. & ANGHELINU, M. 2000. The Carpatian Mousterian and the Transition from Middle
to Upper Palaeolithic in Southern Roumania, in J. Orchiedt & G. C. Weinger (eds.), Neanderthals
and Modern Humans – Discussing the Transition: 190–195. Mettmann Neanderthal Museum,
Wissenschaftliche Schriften 2.
CÂRCIUMARU, M., ANGHELINU, M., BITIRI-CIORTESCU, M., CÂRCIUMARU, D. D.,
CÂRCIUMARU, R., CHALINE, J., CÎRSTINA, A., COSAC, M., DINCĂ, R., DOBRESCU, R.,
GÁL, E., KESSLER, E., MĂRGĂRIT, D. I., MONCEL, M. H., OTTE, M., PAVEL, R., SANDU, M.,
ŞECLĂMAN, M., TERZEA, E., ULRIX-CLOSSET, M. & VASILESCU, P. 2000. Peştera Cioarei
Boroşteni. Paleomediul, cronologia şi activităţile umane în Paleolitic. Târgovişte: Macarie.
Bibliography | 157
CHIRICA, V. & ENACHE, GH. 1984. Noi descoperiri palaeolitice şi epipalaeolitice în Podişul Moldovei.
Acta Moldaviae Meridionalis 5–6: 15–29.
CHIRICA, V. 1995. Les pieces bifaciales et la transition du Paléolithique Moyen au Paléolithique Supérieur
en Roumanie, in Actes du Colloque de Miskolc, Paleo suppl. 1: 105–109.
CHIRICA, V. 1996a. Le paléolithique supérieur ancien du Banat, in V. Chirica, I. Borziac, N. Chetraru (éds),
Gisements du paléolithique supérieur ancien entre le Dniestre et la Tissa, B. A. I. V: 125–138. Iaşi: Helios.
CHIRICA, V. 1996b, La formation des complexes mesolithiques dans les Balkans et en Roumanie, in The
Mesolithic7, Actes XIII CISPP: 79–90. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
CHIRICA, V., 2001. Gisements paléolithiques de Mitoc. Iaşi: Helios.
CHIRICA, V. & BORZIAK, V. 1996. L’Aurignacien tardif des Carpates à Dniestr, in The Upper Palaeolithic. 6,
Actes XIII CISPP: 99–121. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
CHURCHILL, S. E. & SMITH, F. H. 2000. Makers of the Early Aurignacian of Europe. Yearbook of Physical
Anthropology 43: 61–115.
CLASON, A. T. 1978. Padina and Starčevo game, fish and cattle. Paleohistoria 20: 141–173.
COHEN V. YU & STEPANCHUK, V. N. 1999. Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Evidence from the
East European Plain and Caucasus: A New Look at Variability, Interactions, and Transitions. Journal of
World Prehistory 13/3: 265–319.
COLLINA-GIRARD, J. 1997. Les outillages sommaires sur supports naturels tenances (quartz et quartzites).
Technomorphologie et évolution psychique, in Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 6: 211–226.
COMŞA, E. 1971. Silexul de tip “bănăţean”. Apulum IX: 15–19.
CONSTANTIN, E. 2003. Evoluţii palaeoclimatice în Cuaternar pe baza speleotemelor din carstul Munţilor
Banatului şi Mehedinţi, Univ. Bucureşti, unpublished PhD Thesis.
COTEŢ, P. 1973. Geomorfologia României. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
COMORI 1978. Comori arheologice din Regiunea Porțile de Fier, Bucharest.
COOK, G. T., BONSALL, C., HEDGES, R. E. M., MCSWEENEY, K., BORONEANȚ, V.,
BARTOSIEWICZ, L. & PETTITT, P. B. 2002. Problems of dating human bones from the Iron Gates.
Antiquity 76: 77–85.
CVIJIĆ, Ј. 1891. Prekonoška pećina. Geološki anali Balkanskog poluostrva III: 272–299.
ĆIRIĆ, B. 1996. Geologija Srbije: građa i razvoj zemljine kore. Geokarta. Beograd: Izdavač “Geokarta”.
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 1997. Pleistocenska sisarska fauna istočne Srbije, in M. Lazić (ed.), Arheologija istočne
Srbije, Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozofskog fakulteta u Beogradu: 45–53. Beograd: Filozofski
fakultet – Centar za arheološka istraživanja.
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 2000. The Lepenski Vir fauna: bones in houses and between houses. Documenta
Praehistorica 27: 101–117.
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. 2008. Lepenski Vir animal bones: what was left in the houses?, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanț
& I. Radovanović (eds.), Iron Gates in Prehistory, BAR International 1893: 175–204.
DINU, A. SOFICARU, A. & MIRIȚOIU, N. 2007. Mesolithic at the Danube’s Iron Gates: new radiocarbon
dates and old stratigraphies. Documenta Praehistorica XXXIV: 31–52.
DEMARS, P-Y. 1989. Les stratégies dans la recherche de matière première en Périgord au Paléolithique:
contrainte du milieu ou choix culturel? Un état du probléme, in H. Laville (ed.), Variations des
Paléomilieux et Peuplement Préhistorique Cahiers du Quaternaire. 13: 169–178. Paris: Centre National
de la Recherche Scientifique.
DE MOOR, G. I. HEYSE, I. & DE GROOTE, V. 1978. An outcrop of Eemian and Early Weichselian deposits
at Beernem (N. W. Belgium). Bulletin Société Belge de Géologie 87: 27–36.
DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V. forthcoming. Late Pleistocene hyaena Crocuta crocuta spelaea (Goldfuss, 1823) from
Baranica Cave (southeast Serbia): competition for a den site.
DJINDJIAN, F. 1993. Les Origines du peuplement aurignacien en Europe, in JURA J PAVÚK (éd.), Actes
du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques: 136–154. Bratislava: Institut
Archéologique de l’Academie Slovaque des Sciences.
158 | Bibliography
DJINDJIAN, F. 1996. Les industries aurignacoides en Aquitaine entre 25000 B. P. et 15000 B. P., in The
Upper Palaeolithic 6, Actes XIII CISPP: 41–54. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
DJINDJIAN, F., KOZLOWSKI, J. & OTTE, M. 1999, Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Paris: Armand
Colin.
DJINDJIAN, F. 2000. Cârciumaru Marin. Le Paléolithique en Roumanie, collection “L’Home des origines”,
série “Prehistoire d’Europe” no 7, Grenoble: Éditions Jérôme Million, 330 p., 100 fig. Bulletin de la
Société Préhistorique Française tome 97: 309–312.
DOBOŞ, A. 2008. The Lower Paleolithic of Romania: A Critical Review. PaleoAnthropology: 218–233.
DOBOSI, V. 1991. La recherche du Paléolithique en Hongrie, in Le Paléolithique et le Néolithique de la
Roumanie en contexte Européen: 90–104. Iaşi: Bibliotheca Archaeologica Iassiensis IV.
DROBNIEWICZ, B., GINTER, B., KA ZIOR, B. & KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 2000a, “Transitional” industry from
layer VI, trench TD–II, in B. Ginter, J. K. Kozłowski, J-L. Guadelli, H. Laville (eds.), Temnata Cave:
Excavations in Karlukovo Karst Area – Bulgaria 2, Part 1: 243–316. Kraków: Jagellonian University.
DROBNIEWICZ, B., GINTER, B., KA ZIOR, B. & KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 2000b. Early Upper Palaeolithic
assemblages from layer 4, trench TD–I, in B. Ginter, J. K. Kozłowski, J.-L. Guadelli, H. Laville (eds.),
Temnata Cave: Excavations in Karlukovo Karst Area – Bulgaria 2, Part 1: 333–418. Kraków: Jagellonian
University.
DROBNIEWICZ, B., GINTER, B. & KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 1992. The Gravettian sequence, in J. K. Kozłowski,
H. Laville, B. Ginter (eds.), Temnata Cave – Excavations in Karlukovo Karst Area 1: 295–501. Kraków:
Jagellonian University.
DUMITRESCU, V. 1971. Le début du néolithique au nord du Danube en Roumanie, in Actes du VIIIe
Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques I: 85–96. Belgrade.
DUŞA, A. 1969. Stratigrafia depozitelor Mezozoice şi Terţiare de la Căprioara – Coşteiu de Sus. Bucureşti: Academiei.
d’ERRICO, F. ZILHÃO, J. JULIEN, M. BAFFER D. PELEGRIN, J. 1998. Neanderthal Acculturation in
Western Europe. Current Anthropology 39 (Suppl.): 1–43.
GARAŠANIN, M. & RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 2001. A pot in house 54 at Lepenski Vir. Antiquity 75: 118–125.
GAVELA, B. 1988. Paleolit Srbije. Muzej u Aranđelovcu i Centar za arheološka istraživanja Filozofskog
fakulteta u Beogradu, Aranđelovac-Beograd.
GÁBORI-CSÁNK, V. 1968. La station du Paléolithique moyén d’Erd-Hongrie. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó.
GEOG. ROM. 1983. *** Geografia României I, Bucureşti: Academiei.
GEOG. ROM. 1987. *** Geografia României III, Bucureşti: Academiei.
GEOGRAFIA 1969. Geografia Văii Dunării Româneşti, Bucureşti: Academia R.S.R.
GHINEA, D. 1997. Enciclopedia geografică a României, II, Bucharest: Enciclopedică.
GIBBARD, P. L., COOPE, G. R., HALL, A. R., PREECE, R. C. & ROBINSON, J. E. 1981. Middle Devensian
deposits beneath the Upper Floodplain Terrace of the River Thames at Kempton Park, Sunbury,
England. Proceedings Geologists Association 93: 275–289.
GIMBUTAS, M. 1991. The civilization of the Goddess, San Francisco: Harper.
GORAN, C. 1982. Catalogul sistematic al peşterilor din România, Bucureşti.
GRIDAN, T. 1981. Petrologia Semenicului de nord-est, Bucureşti: Academiei.
GRIDAN, T. 1983. Petrologia – ştiinţă a rocilor, Bucureşti: Albatros.
GRONENBORN, D. 2009. Climate fluctuations and trajectories to complexity in the Neolithic: towards a
theory. Documenta Praehistorica 36: 97–110.
HAESAERTS, P. ,BORZIAC, I., CHIRICA, V., DAMBLON, F., KOULAKOVSKA , L. & VAN DER
PLICHT, J. 2003. The East Carpathian Loess Record: A reference for the Late Pleniglacial Stratigraphi
in Central Europe. Quaternaire 14, (3): 63–188.
HAHN, J. 1970. Recherches sur l’Aurignacien en Europe centrale et orientale. L’ Anthropologie (Paris) 74:
195–220.
HAMILTON, W. R. WOOLLEY, A. R. & BISHOP, A. C. 1976. The Hamlyn Guide to Minerals, Rocks and
Fossils London: Hamlyn.
HARTA. GEOL. 24. *** Harta Geologică (1:200. 000): 24. Timişoara, Institutul Geologic, Bucureşti, 1968.
Bibliography | 159
HARTA. GEOL. 25. *** Harta Geologică (1:200. 000), 25. Deva, Institutul Geologic, Bucureşti, 1968.
HARTA. GEOL. 31. *** Harta Geologică (1:200. 000), 31. Reşiţa, Institutul Geologic, Bucureşti, 1968.
HARTA. GEOL. 32. *** Harta Geologică (1:200. 000), 32. Baia de Aramă, Institutul Geologic, Bucureşti, 1968.
HARTA. GEOL. 40. *** Harta Geologică (1:200. 000), 40. Turnu Severin, Institutul Geologic, Bucureşti, 1967.
HARTA. GEOL. 88B. *** Harta Geologică (1:50. 000), 88b. Luncani, Institutul Geologic, Bucureşti, 1972.
HARTA. GEOL. 121B. *** Harta Geologică (1:50. 000), 121b. Reşiţa, Institutul de Geologie şi Geofizică,
Bucureşti, 1985.
HIGHAM T., BRONK RAMSEY C., KARAVANIĆ I., SMITH F. H. & TRINKAUS E. 2006. Revised direct
radiocarbon dating of the Vindija G1 Upper Palaeolithic Neandertals. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 103/3: 553–557.
HONEA, K. 1991. Perspectives of the Romanian Palaeolithic, in Le Paléolithique et le Néolithique de la
Roumanie en contexte Européen: 16–24. Iaşi: Bibliotheca Archaeologica Iassiensis IV.
HONEA, K. 1993. Southeast Charentian technocomplex in Roumania: Boroşteni – Cioarei Cave, Gorj County,
Radiometric values, in J. Pavúk (ed.), Actes du XIIe Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et
Protohistoriques: 66–72. Bratislava: Institut Archéologique de l’Academie Slovaque des Sciences.
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: 137–
162. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
HUIJZER, A. S. & VANDENBERGHE, J. 1998. Climatic reconstruction of the Weichselian Pleniglacial in
North-Western and Central Europe. Journal of Quaternary Science 13: 391–418.
IANOVICI V., GIUŞCĂ, D., GHIŢULESCU, T. P., BORCOŞ, M., LUPU, M., BLEAHU, M. & SAVU, H.
1969. Evoluţia geologică a Munţilor Metaliferi. Bucureşti: Academiei.
IST. MIL. 1984. Istoria militară a poporului roman. Bucureşti: Militară.
IVANOVA, S. 1979. Cultural Differentiation in the Middle Palaeolithic of Balkan Peninsula, in J. K. Kozłowski
(ed.), Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic in Balkans: 13–33. Warszawa-Krakow: Zeszyty Naukowe
Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego.
JANKOVIĆ, M. 1984. Vegetacija SR Srbije: istorija i opšte karakteristike, in M. Sarić (ed.), Vegetacija SR Srbije
I: 1–189. Beograd: Srpska akademija nauka i umetnosti – Odeljenje prirodno-matematičkih nauka.
JOVANOVIĆ, B. 1972. The Autochtonous and the Migrational Components of the Early Neolithic of the
Iron Gates. Balcanica 3: 49–58.
JOVANOVIĆ, B. 1973. The Early Neolithic architecture of Đerdap (Iron Gate), in Actes du VIII-e Congrès
International des Sciences Prèhistoriques et Protohistoriques II: 290–293. Belgrade.
JOVANOVIĆ, B. 1974. Praistorija Gornjeg Djerdapa. Starinar N. S. XXII: 1–22.
JOVANOVIĆ, B. 1987. Die Arhitektur und Keramik der Siedlung Padina am Eiserner Tor, Jugoslawien.
Germania 65, 1 : 1–16.
JOVANOVIĆ, B. 2008. Micro-regions of the Lepenski–Vir culture: Padina in the Upper Gorge and Hajdučka
Vodenica in the Lower Gorge of the Danube. Documenta Praehistorica 35: 289–324.
JUNGBERT, B. 1978. Repertoriul localităţilor cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (I). ActaMN XV:
1–17.
JUNGBERT, B. 1979. Repertoriul localităţilor cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (II). ActaMN XVI:
389–410.
JUNGBERT, B. 1982. Repertoriul localităţilor cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (III). ActaMN
XIX: 543–555.
JUNGBERT, B. 1985–1986. Repertoriul localităţilor cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (IV).
ActaMN XXII–XXIII: 385–400.
KASSE, C. & BOHNCKE, S. 1992. Weichselian Upper Pleniglacial aeolian and ice-cored morphology in the
Southern Netherlands (Noord Brabant, Groote Peel), in Permafrost and Periglacial Processes 3: 327–342.
KASSE, C., HUIJZER, A. S., KRZYSZKOWSKI, D., BOHNCKE, S. J. P. & COOPE, G. R. 1998. Weichselian
Late Pleniglacial and Late-glacial depositional environments, Coleoptera and periglacial climatic
records from central Poland (Bechatów). Journal of Quaternary Science 13: 455–469.
160 | Bibliography
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z. 1991. Palaeolithic in Serbia in the light of the recent research. Starinar N. S. XLII: 1–8.
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z. 1996. Sokobanjska kotlina – palaeolitska nalazišta. Starinar N. S. XLVII: 290–292.
KALUĐEROVIĆ, Z. & JEŽ, Ž. 1996. Paleolitsko nalazište Drenaićka pećina na Medvedniku kod Valjeva.
Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog društva 12: 49–54.
KARAVANIĆ, I. 2000. Olschewian and appearance of bone technology in Croatia and Slovenia, in J. Orchiedt
& G. C. Weinger (eds.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans – Discussing the Transition: 159–168.
Mettmann: Neanderthal Museum.
KARAVANIC, I. & SMITH, F. H. 2000. More on the Neanderthal problem: the Vindija case. Current
Anthropology 41/5: 838–839.
KOZLOWSKI, J. 1996. The Latest Aurignacian and “Aurignacoid” elements in the Epigravettian of the
Carpathian Basin, in The Upper Palaeolithic 6, Actes XIII CISPP: 83–98. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
KOZLOWSKI, J. & KOZLOWSKI, S. 1982. Lithic industries from the multi-layer Mesolithic site Vlasac
in Yugoslavia, in Origin of the chipped stone industries of the early farming cultures in Balkans: 11–109.
Krakow: Uniwersytetu Jagielloanskiego.
KOZLOWSKI, J. & KOZLOWSKI, S. 1983. Chipped Stone Industries from Lepenski Vir, Yugoslavia.
Preistoria Alpina19: 259–294.
KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 1992. The Balkans in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: the gate to Europe or a cul-de-
sac?. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58: 1–20.
KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 1996. L’origine du Gravettien dans le Sud-Est européen, in A. Palmadi Cesnola,
A. Montet White & K. Valoch (eds.), The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and
Protohistoric Sciences, Colloquium XI – The Late Aurignacian, Colloquium XII – The Origin of Gravettian:
191–202. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 1999. Gravettian/Epigravettian sequences in the Balkans: environment, technologies,
hunting strategies and raw material procurement, in G. N. Bailey, E. Adam, E. Panagopoulou, C. Perles
& K. Zachos (eds.), The Palaeolithic Archaeology of Greece and Adjacent Areas, British School at Athens
Studies 3: 319–329.
KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. 2002. The Middle and the Early UpperPalaeolithic around the Black Sea, in T. Akazawa,
K. AokI & O. Bar-Yosef (eds.), Neandertals and Modern Humans in Western Asia: 461–482. New York:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.
KOZŁOWSKI, J. K., DAGNAN-GINTER, A., GATSOV, I. & SIRAKOVA, S. 1982. Upper Palaeolithic
Assemblages, in J. K. Kozłowski (ed.), Excavation in the Bacho Kiro Cave (Bulgaria) – Final Report:
119–167. Warszawa: Panstwowe wydawnictwo naukowe.
KUKIN, A. 1984. Kratak prikaz geološke evolucije Panonske nizije. Praistorijske kulture Vojvodine: 5–6.
Novi Sad.
LAUTRIDOU, J. P. 1986. The loess and other Pleistocene periglacial deposits of North-West Europe including their
relationships with marine formations and features. Caen: Centre de Geomorphologie du CNRS.
LAZAROVICI, G. 1977. Gornea. Preistorie. Reşiţa: Caiete Banatica, seria arheologie 5.
LAZAROVICI, G. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Cluj-Napoca: Bibliotheca Mvsei Napocensis 4.
LAZAROVICI, G. 1984. Neoliticul timpuriu pe teritoriul României. ActaMP 8: 49–104.
LAZAROVICI, G. 1998. About the neolithisation process of the second migration of the Early Neolithic, in
F. Draşovean (ed.), The Late Neolithic of the middle Danube Region: 7–37. Timişoara: Mirton.
LAZAROVICI, G., MAXIM, Z., ŢEICU, D. & OPRINESCU, A. 1993. Şantierul arheologic Gornea.
Banatica 12/1: 295–319.
LAZAROVICI, G. & MAXIM, Z. 1995. Gura Baciului. Monografie arheologică. Cluj-Napoca.
LAZAROVICI, G. 1974. Cu privire la neoliticul din Banat. Tibiscus 3: 45–63.
LAZAROVICI, G. & BĂLTEAN, I. C., 2005. Steierdorf (oraş Anina), jud. Caraş Severin, Punct: Peştera
Hoţilor (La Hoţu’). Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2004: 355–498. București.
LAZAROVICI, G. & BĂLTEAN I., C. 2006. Steierdorf, oraş Anina, jud. Caraş Severin, Punct: Peştera Hoţilor
(La Hoţu’). Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România. Campania 2005: 334–475. București.
Bibliography | 161
LETICA, Z. 1971. Vlasac – Nouvel habitat de la culture de Lepenski Vir a Đerdap. Archaeologia Iugoslavica
X: 7–12.
MAGNY, M., BÉGEOTA, C., GUIOT, J. & PERONA, O. 2003. Contrasting patterns of hydrological changes
in Europe in response to Holocene climate cooling phases. Quaternary Science Reviews 22: 1589–1596.
MANGERUND, J. 1991. The Scandinavian Ice Sheet through the last interglacial/glacial cycle, in B. Frenzel
(ed.), Klimageschichtlichte Probleme der letzten 130 000 Jahre: 307–330. Stuttgart: Paleoklimaforschung
Volume 1.
MASON, S., BORONEANȚ, V. & BONSALL, C. 1996. Plant remains from Schela Cladovei, Romania.
Mesolithic Miscellany 17, 2, 1996: 11–14.
MARKOVIĆ, J. Đ. 1970. Geografske oblasti Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije. Zavod za udžbenike
i nastavna sredstva. Beograd.
MARKOVIĆ, S. 2001. Paleozemljišta Srema, in R. Davidović (ed.), Zemljišta Srema: 133–155. Novi Sad:
Univerzitet u Novom Sadu – Prirodno-matematički fakultet.
MARKOVIĆ, S. B., MIHAILOVIĆ, D., OCHES, E. A., JOVANOVIĆ, M. & GAUDENYI, T. 2004. The Last
Glacial climate, environmet and the evidence of Palaeolithic occupation in Vojvodina province, Serbia:
an overview. Antaeus 27, 147–152.
MEDELEŢ. F. 1997. Zona Porţilor de Fier ale Dunării. Istoricul cercetărilor arheologice dintre Baziaş şi
Orşova pe malul românesc al Dunării. Analele Banatului V: 63–74.
MEDOVIĆ, P. 1970, Cigan–Irig – palaeolitski nalaz. Arheološki pregled 12: 11–12.
MIHAILOVIĆ, B. 2008. The Gravettian Site Šalitrena Pećina near Mionica (Western Serbia), in A. Darlas &
D. Mihailović (eds.), The Palaeolithic of the Balkans, BAR International series: 1819:101–106. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 1992a. Zbirka orinjasijenskih nalaza sa lokaliteta Balata kod Vršca. Glasnik Srpskog
arheološkog društva 7: 92–98.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 1992b. Orinjasijenska kremena industrija sa lokaliteta Crvenka-At u blizini Vršca. Beograd:
Filozofski fakultet – Centar za arheološka istraživanja, Knjiga11.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2001. Technological Decline of the Early Holocene Chipped Stone Industries in
South–East Europe, in R. Kertesz & J. Makkay (eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic: 339–347.
Budapest:Archaeolingua.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2008a. New data about the Middle Palaeolithic of Serbia, in A. Darlas& D. Mihailović
(eds.), The Palaeolithic of the Balkans, BAR International series 1819: 93–100. Oxford: Archaeopress.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2008b. Lithic technology and settlement systems of the Final Palaeolithic and Early
Mesolithic in the Iron Gates, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanţ& I. Radovanović (eds.), The Iron Gates in
Prehistory – New Perspectives. BAR International Series 1893: 11–18. Oxford: Archaeopress.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2009a. Pećinski kompleks Balanica i palaeolit Niške kotline u regionalnom kontekstu.
Arhaika 2: 3–26.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. 2009b. Middle Palaeolithic Settlement at Petrovaradin Fortress. Novi Sad: Petrovaradin
edition II, The City Museum of Novi Sad.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D., DURIČIĆ, L. & KALUÐEROVIĆ, Z. 1997. The Palaeolithic research in East Serbia, in
M. Lazić (ed.), Archaeology of Eastern Serbia: 33–44. Beograd.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. & MIHAILOVIĆ, B. 2007. Considération sur le Gravettien et l’Epigravettien ancien aux
Balkans de l’Ouest. Paleo 19, 115–129.
MIHAILOVIĆ, D. & MIHAILOVIĆ, B. 2009. Cultural Regionalization in the Palaeolithic of the Middle
Danube Basine and Western Balkans, in F. Djindjan, J. Kozłowski& N. Bicho (eds.), Le concept de
territoires dans le Paléolithique supérieur européen. BAR International Series 1938: 93–101. Oxford:
Archaeopress.
MILLEKER, F. 1937. Vorgeschihte des Banats. Starinar XII: 71–79.
MILOŠEVIĆ, N. 1985. Paleolitske stanice u Petničkoj i Visokoj pećini kod Valjeva i njihov antropološko-
arheološki značaj. Istraživanja II: 11–42.
162 | Bibliography
MISIĆ, V. 1981. Šumska vegetacjia Klisura i Kanjona Istočne Srbije. Beograd: Institut za Biološka Istraživanja
Siniša Stanković.
MITHEN, S. J. 1994. The Mesolithic Age, in B. Cunliffe (ed.), The Oxford illustrated prehistory of Europe:
79–135. Oxford: University Press.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1960. Unele aspecte ale palaeoliticului de sfârşit din ţara noastră. Studii și cercetări de istorie
veche 11, 1: 125–129.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1967a. Descoperirile palaeolitice ale Muzeului din Lugoj. Revista Muzeelor IV, 6: 555–559.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1967b. Prezenţa lamelelor Dufour în aşezările acropalaeolitice din Banat. Studii şi Cercetări
de Istorie Veche 18, 1: 141–146.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968. Importanța descoperirilor arheologice din zona Porțile de Fier pentru înțelegerea
palaeoliticului din Banat. Comunicări VIII: Craiova.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1968b. Din nou despre prezenţa lamelelor Dufour în Paleoliticul superior din Banat. Studii
şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 19, 4: 643–647.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1970. Descoperiri palaeolitice la Gornea (Porţile de Fier). Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche
21, 4: 531–538.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1971. Rezultatele ultimelor săpături arheologice din peştera Hoţilor de la Băile Herculane.
Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 22, 1: 3–14.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1972. Information générale sur le paléolithique du Banat (sud-ouest de la Roumanie).
Dacia N. S. XVI: 5–27.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1973. Date cu privire la palaeoliticul din judeţul Caraş-Severin. Banatica 2: 13–23.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978. Paleoliticul din Banat. Bucureşti: Academiei.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1978a, Mezoliticul de la Ostrovul Corbului, o nouă aşezare de tip Schela Cladovei. Studii
şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 29, 3: 335–351.
MOGOŞANU, F. 1983. L’ Aurignacien du Banat, in M. Otte (ed.), Aurignacien et Gravettien en Europe, fasc. I:
223–237. Liege: ERAUL 13.
MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1966. Noi descoperiri palaeolitice în Banat. Studii şi Cercetari de Istorie
Veche 17, 2: 335–344.
MOGOŞANU, F. & STRATAN, I. 1969. Rezultatele ultimelor săpături arheologice privind palaeoliticul din
nordul Banatului. Revista Muzeelor 1: 84–90.
MOL, J. 1997. Fluvial response to climate variations: the last glaciation in Eastern Germany, PhD Thesis, Vrije
Universitet Amsterdam.
MOLDOVAN, O., MILOTA, S. BÂLGĂR, A. SARCINA, L. TRINKAUS, E., BĂLTEAN, I., SOFICARU, A.
& RA JKA , G. 2004. The oldest modern humans in Europe. Theoretical and Applied Karstology 16: 5–13.
MONCEL M.-H. 2003. Tata (Hongrie). Un assemblage microlithique du début du Pléistocène supérieur en
Europe Centrale. L’ Anthropologie 107: 117–151.
MOROŞAN, N. N. 1932. Asupra mezoliticului din Oltenia. Craiova: Institutul de Arheologie Olteană,
Memoriul VI, Muzeul Regional al Olteniei.
MOROZ-POP, M. 1983. Contribuţii la repertoriul arheologic al localităţilor din judeţul Timiş din Paleolitic
până în Evul Mediu. Banatica VII: 469–489.
MOURRE, V. 1996. Les industries en quartz au Paléolithique. Terminologie, méthodologie et technologie.
Paleo 8: 205–223.
MOURRE, V. 1997. Industries en quartz: Précisions terminologiques dans les domaines de la pétrographie
et de la technologie. Préhistoire Anthropologie Méditerranéennes 6: 201–210.
MUTIHAC, V. 1990. Structura geologică a teritoriului României. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
MUTIHAC, V. & IONESI, L. 1974. Geologia României. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
NEGREA, A. & NEGREA, ȘT. 1979. Peșterile din Defileul Dunării și fauna terestră, in Grupul de Cercetări
Complexe Porțile de Fier. Speologia, seria monografică: 30–75, Bucharest: Academiei.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1929. Mezoliticul în România (Le mesolithique en Roumanie). Arhivele
Olteniei VIII: Craiova.
Bibliography | 163
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1931. Les cultures mesolithiques en Oltenie. Communication faite au 15e

Congrès internaţional d’antropologie et d’archéologie préhistorique. Portugal, 1931. Arhivele Olteniei
X: Craiova.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1941. Industries microlithiques en Oltenie. Dacia VII–VIII: 1–12.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1954. Introducere în problemele palaeoliticului în R. P. R. Probleme de
Antropologie 1: 59–71.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & COMȘA, E 1957. Microlitele de la Băile Herculane. Studii și Cercetări
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. 1965. Epipalaeolitic şi mezolitic. O problemă de terminologie, Studii și
Cercetări de Istorie Veche 16, 4: 765–773.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & PĂUNESCU, A. 1962. Azilianul de la Baile Herculane în lumina noilor
cercetari. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 12, 2: 204–210.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S., PETRESCU-DÂMBOVIȚA, M., TEODORU, D. G., ZAHARIA, E.,
FORESCU, A., FLORESCU, M. & DIACONU, GH., 1959. Şantierul arheologic Bicaz. Materiale și
Cercetări Arheologice 6: 57–83.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S., PĂUNESCU, A. & MOGOȘANU, F. 1966. Le palaeolithique de
Ceahlău. Dacia, N. S. 10: 5–116.
NICOLAESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S., BUJOR, E., BORONEANŢ, V., COMŞA, E., CONSTATINESCU,
N., DIACONU, P., MORINTZ, S., PĂUNESCU, A., POPILIAN, G., ROMAN, P. & ROSETTI,
D. V. 1968. Rezultatele arheologice din zona « Porţilor de Fier » (Academia Română. Centrul de
Istorie, Filologie şi Etnografie), Comunicări, Seria arheologică IV. Craiova.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, D. 1970. Expertiza antropologica asupra osemintelor umane descoperite în
straturile Romanello-aziliene de la Cuina Turcului. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 21, 1: 35–36.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & MATEESCU, C. 1955. Şantierul arheologic Cerna – Olt. Studii și
Cercetări de Istorie Veche VI, 1–2: 129–149.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR et alii 1957. NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S., BOLOMEY, A., COMȘA, E.,
PĂUNESCU, A. Şantierul arheologic Băile Herculane. Materiale și cercetări arheologice III: 51–57.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & COMŞA, E. 1957. Microlitele de la Băile Herculane. Studii și Cercetări
de Istorie Veche VIII, 1–4: 17–25.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & PĂUNESCU, A. 1962. Azilianul de la Băile Herculane în lumina noilor
cercetări, in Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche XII, 2: 203–213.
NICOLĂESCU-PLOPŞOR, C. S. & STRATAN, I. 1961. Săpăturile de la Tincova. Materiale VII: 29–31.
OLIVA, M. 1991. L’Aurignacien morave dans son contexte géographique et culturel, in V. Chirica (éd.), La
genése et l’évolution des cultures paléolithiques sur le teritoire de la Roumanie, B. A. I. II: 105–162.
OLIVA, M. 1996. Epiaurignacien en Moravie: le changement économique pendant le deuxieme
interpléniglaciaire wurmien, in The Upper Palaeolithic Actes XIII UISPP 6: 69–81. Forli: A. B. A. C. O.
Edizioni.
ONCESCU, N. 1965. Geologia României. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
OSOLE, F. 1971. Paléolithique et Mésolithique (Slovénie, Serbie et Macédonie), in Epoque préhistorique et
protohistorique en Yougoslavie – Recherche et résultats: 247–252. Beograd.
OSOLE, F. 1991. Betalov spodmol, rezultati palaeolitskih iskopavanj S. Brodarja – II del, in Poročilo o
raziskovanju palaeolita, neolita in eneolita v Sloveniji XIX: 7–129.
OTTE, M., NOIRET, P., CHIRICA, V. & BORZIAK, I. 1996. Rythme evolutif du Gravettien oriental, in
A. Palmadi Cesnola, A. Montet White & K. Valoch (eds.), The Colloquia of the XIII International
Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric Sciences, Colloquium XI – The Late Aurignacian, Colloquium XII
– The Origin of Gravettian: 213–226. Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
PASTY, J.-P. 2000. Le gisement Paléolithique moyen de Meillers (Allier): un exemple de la variabilité du
débitage Discoïde. BSPF 97, 2: 165–190.
PAVELESCU, L. 1976. Petrologia rocilor eruptive şi metamorfice. Bucureşti: Facultatea de Geologie şi Geografie,
ediţia a III-a.
164 | Bibliography
PAVELESCU, L. 1980. Petrografia rocilor magmatice şi metamorfice. Bucureşti: Tehnică.

PĂUNESCU, A. 1966. Cercetări palaeolitice. A. Ţara Bârsei. Săpăturile de la Costanda-Lădăuţi (r. Tg. Secuiesc,
reg. Braşov). Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 17, 2: 319–335.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970a. Evoluţia uneltelor şi armelor de piatră cioplită descoperite pe teritoriul României.
Bucureşti: Academiei.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1970b. Epipalaeoliticul de la Cuina Turcului. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 21, 1: 3–47.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1975. Cronostratigrafia şi palaeoclimatul tardenoasianului din depresiunea Întorsura
Buzăului, Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche 26, 3: 315–342.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1979. Cercetările arheologice de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova (jud. Mehedinţi). Tibiscus V:
11–56.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1979a. Aşezarea tardenoasiană de la Icuşeni (com. Vorona, jud. Botoşani). Studii și Cercetări
PĂUNESCU, A. 1979b. Tardenoazianul din sud-estul Romaniei și unele consideratii asupra perioadei
cuprinse între sfârșitul palaeoliticului și începuturile neoliticului în aceasta regiune. Studii și Cercetări
de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 30, 4: 507–526.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1980. Evoluţia istorică pe teritoriul României din palaeolitic până la începutul neoliticului.
Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 31, 4: 519–545.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1984. Cronologia palaeoliticului şi mezoliticului din românia în contextul, palaeoliticului
central-est şi sud european. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 35, 3: 235–265.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1987. Exposé sur la recherches paléolithiques en Roumanie, in V. Chirica (ed.), La genése et
l’évolution des cultures paléolithiques sur le teritoire de la Roumanie, B. A. I. II: 1–23.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1988. Chronologie du paléolithique moyen en Roumanie dans le contexte de celui de
l’Europe Centre-Orientale et Meridionale, in L’Home de Neandertall. 1: 73–80.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1989. Le palaeolithique et mesolithique de Roumanie (Un bref aperçu). L’ Anthropologie
93, 1: 123–158.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1990. Locuirea mezolitică de tip Schela Cladovei de la Ostrovul Corbului (jud. Mehedenţi).
Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 41, 2: 123–147.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1991. Paleoliticul din Peştera Gura Cheii-Râşnov şi unele consideraţii privind cronologia
locuirilor palaeolitice din sud-estul Transilvaniei. Studii și Cercetări de Istorie Veche şi Arheologie 42, 1–2:
5–20.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1992. Scurtă privire asupra palaeoliticului din est – sud-estul Banatului. Symposia Thracologica
9: 2–7.
PĂUNESCU A. 1993. Ripiceni–Izvor. Paleolitic şi Mezolitic. Studiu monografic. Bucureşti: Academiei.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1996. Ostrovul Corbului. Locuirea mezolitică de tip Schela Cladovei, in Ostrovul Corbului,
vol. I. 1., X. Bucureşti: Academiei.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1996. Ostrovul Corbului. Bucharest: Caro.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1998. Paleoliticul şi epipalaeoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprins între Carpaţi şi Siret. I/1,
Bucureşti: Satya Sai.
PĂUNESCU, A. 1999. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprins între Siret şi Prut. I/2, Bucureşti:
Satya Sai.
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul din spaţiul cuprins între Carpaţi şi Dunăre. Bucharest: Agir.
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000a. Peştera Cioarei de la Boroşteni (jud. Gorj). O peşteră mică, dar cu descoperiri de
“excepţie”. Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu” 5–6: 279–292.
PĂUNESCU, A. 2000b. Paleoliticul de la Vãdastra. Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu 5–6: 23–39.
PĂUNESCU, A. 2001. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul din spaţiul cuprins între Carpaţi şi Dunăre. Bucureşti: Agir.
PĂUNESCU, A. 2002. Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul din spaţiul transilvan. Bucureşti: Agir.
PĂUNESCU, A. & ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1996. Giurgiu – Malu Roşu, campagnes 1992–1995, in Le
Paléolithique supérieur de Roumanie, ERAUL 76: 41–60.
PĂUNESCU, A. & ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1997a. Rezultatele preliminare ale cercetărilor privind aşezarea
aurignaciană de la Giurgiu – Malu Roşu (campaniile 1992–1996). Culture et civilisation au Bas Danube
X: 16–59.
Bibliography | 165
PĂUNESCU, A. & ALEXANDRESCU, E. 1997b. Săpăturile arheologice de la Giurgiu – Malu Roşu

(campaniile 1992–1993). Cercetări arheologice X: 17–51.
PÂRVU, G. MOCANU, G. HIBOMVSCHI, C. & GRECESCU, A. 1977. Roci utile din România. Bucureşti:
Tehnică.
PENDEA, F. 2005. Paleomediile geomorfologice ale Cuaternarului superior în Depresiunea Transilvaniei (Eemian-
Weichselian-Holocen). Unpublished PhD Thessis. Cluj-Napoca: UBB.
PETRESCU, I. 1990. Perioadele glaciare ale Pământului. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
PETRESCU, S. M. 2000. Locuirea umană a peşterilor din Banat până în epoca romană. BHAB XXVII.
Timişoara: Mirton.
PERLÉS, C. 2001. The Early Neolithic in Greece, Cambridge: University Press.
PETRESCU, I. 1990. Perioadele glaciare ale Pământului, Bucureşti: Tehnică.
PETRESCU, S. M. & BĂLTEAN, I. 2007. Peştera “La Hoţu”. Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice din România.
Campania 2006: 344–346. București.
PETRESCU S. M. & BĂLTEAN I. 2008. Peştera Hoţu (La Hoţu), Peştera cu Abri. Cronica Cercetărilor
Arheologice din România. Campania 2007: 288–290. București.
PETRESCU, S. M., BĂLTEAN, I. C., LAZAROVICI, GH., POLLARD, J., ZILHAO, J., CINCĂ, A.,
SOAMEȘ, D. & MOLDOVAN, O. 2009. Peștera Hoțu. Campania 2008. Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice
din România/Campania 2008. Valachica 21–22 (2008–2009): 202–204.
PETROVSZKY, R., POPESCU, O. & ROGOZEA, P. 1981. Peşteri din judeţul Caraş-Severin – Cercetări
arheologice (II). Banatica 6: 429–462.
PETROVSZKY, R. 1975. Contribuţii la repertoriul arheologic al localităţilor judeţului Caraş-Severin din
paleolitic până în secolul al V-lea î.e.n. Banatica III: 365–378.
PRINZ, B. 1987. Mesolithic adaptations on the Lower Danube: Vlasac and the Iron Gates Gorge. Oxford: BAR
International Series 330.
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1984. Paleolit i mezolit na tlu Vojvodine. Praistorijske kulture na tlu Vojvodine: 7–8.
Novi Sad.
RADOVANOVIĆ I. 1986a. Vršac-At, palaeolitsko nalazište. Arheološki pregled 25: 11–12.
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1986b. Novija istraživanja palaeolita i mezolita u Crnoj Gori. Glasnik Srpskog arheološkog
društva 3: 63–76.
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996b, Mesolithic/Neolithic contacts: a case of the Iron Gates region, in Poročilo o
raziskovanju palaeolitika, neolitika in eneolitika v Slovenji XXIII: 39–48.
RADOVANOVIĆ, I. 1996a. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ann Arbor – Michigan: International Monographs in
Prehistory.
RĂDULESCU, D. & ANASTASIU, N. 1979. Petrologia rocilor sedimentare. Bucureşti: Didactică şi Pedagogică.
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 Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 105, 2: 600–604.
RIGAUD, J.-P. & LUCAS, G. 2006. The first Aurignacian technocomplexes in Europe: a revision of the
Bachokirian, in O. Bar-Yosef & J. Zilhao (eds.), Towards a Definition of the Aurignacian: 277–286.
Lisboa:American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia.
ROGOZEA, P. 1987. Cercetări arheologice în endocarstul din sud-vestul României. Banatica 9: 347–362.
ROGOZEA, P. 1994. New archaeological finds in the cave from Româneşti, Timiş county, in The Early Hallsttatt
period (1200–700 B.C.) in south-eastern Europe: 155–166. Alba Iulia: Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis I.
ROKSANDIĆ, M., MIHAILOVIĆ, D., MERCIER, N., DIMITRIJEVIĆ, V., MORLEY, M., RAKOČEVIĆ,
Z., MIHAILOVIĆ, B., GUIBERT, P. & BABB, J., forthcoming. A human mandible (BH–1) from
the Pleistocene deposits of the Mala Balanica cave (Sićevo Gorge, Niš, Serbia). Journal of Human
Evolution.
ROKSANDIĆ, M. 2000. Between Foragers and Farmers in the Iron Gates Gorge: Physical Anthropological
Perspective. Documenta Praehistorica 27: 1–100.
166 | Bibliography
ROKSANDIĆ, M. 2008. The Mesolithic-Neolithic in the Đerdap as evidenced by non-metrical anatomical

variants, in C. Bonsall, V. Boroneanț & I. Radovanovic (ed.), Iron Gates in Prehistory: 55–76. Oxford:
BAR International 1893.
ROMAN, P. & BORONEANȚ, V. 1974. Locuirea neolitică de la Ostrovul Golu. Drobeta I: 117–128.
ROŞU, A. 1973. Geografia fizică a României. Bucureşti: Didactica și pedagogică.
ROUGIER, H., MILOTA, S., RODRIGO, R., GHERASE, M., SARCINӼ, L., MOLDOVAN, O.,
ZILHÃO, J., CONSTANTIN, S., FRANCISCUS, R. G., ZOLLIKOFER, C. P. E., PONCE DE
LEÓN, M. & TRINKAUS, E. 2007. Peştera cu Oase 2 and the cranial morphology of early modern
Europeans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 104, 4: 1165–1170.
RUKAVINA, D. 1984. Arheološki lokaliteti Crvenka-At (Vršac) – geološki odnosi, unpublished report, Archive
of the National Museum in Vršac.
SALAMANOV-KOROBAR, LJ. 2008. First Palaeolithic Researches in the R. Macedonia (FYROM): the
Cave “Golema Pesht” Near Village Zdunje – Preliminary Results, in A. Darlas & D. Mihailović (eds.),
The Palaeolithic of the Balkans: 83–92. Oxford: BAR International 1819.
SANDULESCU, M. 1984. Geotectonica României. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
SENCU, V. 1979. Carstul din Defileul Dunării, in Speologia. Grupul de cercetări complexe “Porţile de Fier”.
Bucureşti: Academiei:11–29.
SEVERINGHAUS, J. P., SOWERS, T., BROOK, E. J., ALLEY, R. B. & BENDER, M. L. 1998. Timing of
abrupt climate change at the end of the Younger Dryas interval from thermally fractionated gases in
polar ice. Nature 391: 141–146.
SIMEK, J. F. & SMITH, F. H. 1997. Chronological Changes in Stone Tool Assemblages from Krapina
(Croatia). Journal of Human Evolution 32: 561–575.
SHACKLETON, N. J. FAIRBANKS, R. G. TZU-CHIEN CHIU & PARRENIN, F. 2004. Absolute
calibration of the Greenlan time scale: implications for Antarctic time scales and for ∆14C. Quaternary
Science Review 23: 1513–1522.
SOFICARU, ANDREI, DOBOS, ADRIAN, TRINKAUS, ERIK, 2006. Early modern humans from the
Pestera Muierii, Baia de Fier, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103, 17196–
17201.
SOFICARU, A., PETREA, C., DOBOŞ, A., TRINKAUS, E., 2007. The human cranium from the Peştera
Cioclovina Uscată, Romania: Context, age, taphonomy, morphology, and paleopathology. Current
Anthropology 48: 611–619.
SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D. & PERROT, J. 1954–1956. Lexique typologique du paléolithique supérieur.
Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Française, tome 51/1954, 52/1955, 53/1956.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1996 (ed.) Prehistoric Settlements in Caves and Rock-shelters of Serbia and Montenegro – fascicule
I. Belgrade: Centre for Archaeological Research.
SREJOVIĆ D. KOZLOWSKI, J. & KOZLOWSKI, S. 1980. Les industries lithiques de Vlasac et de Lepenski
Vir (Position taxonomique et corrélations), in Problèmes de la néolithisation dans certaines régions de
l’Europe. Krakow: 195–205.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1968. Lepenski Vir (Boljetin) – predneolitska i neolitska naselja. Arheološki Pregled 10: 85–87.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1969. Lepenski Vir: Nova Praistorijska Kultura u Podunavlju. Belgrade: Srpska Književna
Zadruga.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1970. Lepenski Vir, Boljetin – predneolitska i neolitska naselja i nekropole. Arheološki Pregled
12: 72–73.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1971. The roots of Lepenski Vir culture. Archaeologia Iugoslavica 10: 13–21.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1972. Europe’s First Monumental Sculpture: New Discoveries at Lepenski Vir. London: Thames
& Hudson.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1979. Protoneoliti – kultura Lepenskog Vira, in Praistorija Jugoslavenskih Zemlja II: 33–76.
Sarajevo: Akademia nauka i umjetnosti Bosne i Hercegovine.
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1988. The Neolithic of Serbia: A Review of Research, in D. Srejović (ed.), The Neolithic of
Serbia: 5–19. Belgrade: University of Belgrade.
Bibliography | 167
SREJOVIĆ, D. 1989. The Mesolithic of Serbia and Muntenegro, in C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe.
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium: 481–491, Edinburgh: John Donald.
SREJOVIĆ, D. & LETICA, Z. 1978. Vlasac. A Mesolithic settlement in the Iron Gates. Beograd: Serbian
Academy of Sciences and Arts Monograph, DXII.
STOICOVICI, E. 1985–1986. Calcedoniile de la Gornea – Sicheviţa, jud. Caraş-Severin. ActaMN XXII–
XXIII: 51–58.
STRATAN, I. 1962. Şantierul Tincova. Materiale VIII: 123–125.
STRATAN, I. 1965. Aşezarea palaeolitică de la Coşava. Revista Muzeelor II: 412.
STRATAN, I. 1970. Contribuţii la cunoaşterea palaeoliticului din Banat. Tibiscus I: 7–18.
ŠARIĆ, J. 1984. Prilog istraživanju najstarijih kultura na tlu Beograda. Godišnjak grada Beograda XXXI: 5–33.
ŠARIĆ, J. 2009. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic finds from profile of the Zemun loess. Starinar LVIII: 9–27.
SITLIVY, V., CHABAI, V., ANGHELINU, M., UTHMEIER, T., KELS, H., NIŢĂ, L., BĂLTEAN,
I., VESSELSKY A. & ŢUŢU, C. 2011. Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat
(Southwestern Romania), in press.
TERZEA, E. 1979. Mamiferele cuaternare din unele peşteri şi adăposturi sub stâncă din zona Porţilor de
Fier, în Speologia. Grupul de cercetări complexe “Porţile de Fier”: 105–139. Bucureşti: Academiei.
TEYSSANDIER, N. 2003. Les débuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe. Discussion à partir des sites de Geissenkösterle,
Wilendorf II, Krems-Hundssteig et Bacho Kiro. Thèse de doctorat, Université de Paris X-Nanterre.
TEYSSANDIER, N. 2007. En route vers l’ouest. Les debuts de l’Aurignacien en Europe, BAR International
Series, 2007.
TEYSSANDIER, N. 2008. Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the Upper Palaeolithic in Europe.
World Archaeology 40: 493–519.
TĂTĂRÂM, N. 1984. Geologie stratigrafică şi palaeogeografie. Mesozoic şi Cainozoic. Bucureşti: Tehnică.
TIMIŞ 1981. *** Timiş. Monografie, Bucureşti: Sport – Turism.
TRINKAUS, E., MOLDOVAN, O., MILOTA, Ş., BÎLGĂR, A., SARCINA, L., ATHREYA, S., BAILEY, S.
E., RODRIGO, R., GHERA SE, M., HIGHAM, T., BRONK RAMSEY, C. & VAN DER PLICHT, J.
2003. An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 100: 11231–11236.
TRINKAUS, E., MILOTA, Ş., RODRIGO, R., GHERASE, M. & MOLDOVAN, O. 2003a. Early modern
human cranial remains from the Peştera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 200: 245–253.
TRINKAUS, E., ZILHÃO, J., ROUGIER, H., RODRIGO, R., MILOTA, Ş., GHERA SE, M., SARCINA, L.,
MOLDOVAN, O., BĂLTEAN, I. ,CODREA, V., BAILEY, S. E., FRANCISCUS, R. G., PONCE DE
LEÓN, M. &. ZOLLIKOFER, C. P. E. 2005. The Peştera cu Oase and early modern humans in southeastern
Europe, in N. J. Conard (ed.), Neanderthals and Modern Humans Meet?. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag (in press).
TRINKAUS, E., BĂLTEAN, I. C., CONSTANTIN, S., GHERASE, M., HOROI, V., MILOTA, Ş.,
MOLDOVAN, O., PETREA, C., QUILES, J., RODRIGO, R., ROUGIER, H., SARCINA, L.
SOFICARU, A. & ZILHÃO, J. 2005. Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat. Peștera cu Oase.
Banatica 17: 9–27.
TRINKAUS, E. 2005b. Early modern humans. Reviews in Advance May 2005: 207–230.
TRINKAUS, E. 2007. European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences: 18, vol. 104: 7367–7372.
TUFFREAU, A. & MARCY, J. L. 1998. Les premiers habitants du Pas-de-Calais. Editions du Musée
départemental de Préhistoire du Pas-de-Calais, 1998.
TSANOVA, T. 2003. Le Gravettien en Bulgarie du Nord: Niveau IVb de la grotte Kozarnika, in T. Tsonev &
E. Montagnari Kokelj (eds.), The Humanized Mineral World: Towards Social and Symbolic Evaluation of
Prehistoric Technologies in South Eastern Europe, ERAUL 103: 33–39. Liège –Sofia.
TSANOVA, T. 2008. Les débuts du Paléolithique supérieur dans l’Est des Balkans. BAR International Series
1752. Oxford: Archaeopress.
TSANOVA, T. & BORDES, J.-G. 2003. Contribution au débat sur l’origine de l’ Aurignacien: pricipaux
résultats d’une étude technologique de l’industrie lithique de la couche 11 de Bacho Kiro, in T. Tsonev
168 | Bibliography
& E. Montagnari Kokelj (eds.), The Humanized Mineral World – Towards social and symbolic evaluation
of prehistoric technologies in South Eastern Europe: ERAUL 103: 41–50. Liège-Sofia.
ŢEICU, D. & LAZAROVICI, G. 1996. Gornea. Din arheologia unui sat medieval din Clisura Dunării. Reşiţa:
Banatica.
VALDE-NOWAK, P. 2009. Obłazowa and Hłomcza: Two Palaeolithic Sites in the North Carparthians
Province of Southern Poland, in B. Adams & B. S. Blakes (eds.), Lithic Materials and Palaeolithic
Societies: 196–207. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
VALOCH, K. 1996. L’ origine du Gravettien de l’Europe Centrale, in A. Palma di Cesnola, A. Montet White
& K. Valoch (eds.), The Colloquia of the XIII International Congress of Prehistoric and Protohistoric
Sciences, Colloquium XI – The Late Aurignacian, Colloquium XII – The Origin of Gravettian: 203–212.
Forli: A. B. A. C. O. Edizioni.
VANDENBERGHE, J. 1992. Geomorphology and climate of the cool oxigen isotope stage 3 in comparison
with the cold stages 2 and 4 in The Netherlands. Zeitschrift fur Geomorfologie 86: 65–75.
VANDENBERGHE, J. 1993. Changing fluvial processes under changing periglacial conditions. Zeitschrift fur
Geomorfologie 88: 17–28.
VANDENBERGHE, J., HUIJZER, S. B., MUCHER, H. & LAAN, W. 1998. Short climatic oscillations in
a western European loess sequence (Keselt, Belgium). Journal of Quaternary Science 13 (5): 471–485.
VOYTEK, B. & TRINGHAM, R. 1989. Rethinking the Mesolithic: The Case of South-East Europe, in
C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic of Europe: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium: 492–499,
Edinburgh: John Donald.
WILLIS, K. & VAN ANDEL, H. 2004. Trees or no trees? The environments of central and eastern Europe
during the Last Glaciation. Quaternary Science Reviews 23: 2369–2387.
ZEREMSKI, M. 1985. Geomorfologija Vršačkih planina. Novi Sad: Matica srpska – Odeljenje prirodnih
nauka.
ZEREMSKI, M., MARUSZCZAK, X. & BUTRIM, J. 1991. Problemi hronostratigrafije lesa Vojvodine.
Zbornik radova Geografskog instituta “Jovan Cvijić“ SANU 53: 17–32.
ZEUNER, F. E. 1959. The Pleistocene Period. Its climate, chronology and faunal successions. London: Hutchinson
Scientific & Technical.
ZILHAO, J. & D’ERRICO, F. 2000. La nouvelle « bataille aurignacienne ». Une révision critique de la
chronologie du Châtelperronien et de l’ Aurignacien ancien. L’ Anthropologie 104: 17–50.
ZILHAO, J. & D’ERRICO, F. (eds.) 2003. The Chronology of the Transitional Technocomplexes. Dating,
Stratigraphies, Cultural Implications. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 33. Lisabona.
WHITTLE, A., BARTOSIEWICZ, L., BORIĆ, D. P. , PETTITT, P. & RICHARDS, M. 2002. In the beginning:
new radiocarbon dates for the Early Neolithic in northern Serbia and south-east Hungary. Antaeus 25:
63–117.
Figures | 169
10 4
5
17
20
21 3
6 22
18
9
16
8
19
15
14
1
12 11 7
170 | Figures
Figures | 171
172 | Figures
Figures | 173
174 | Figures
0 1m
Figures | 175
176 | Figures
Figures | 177
178 | Figures
Figures | 179
180 | Figures
Figures | 181
182 | Figures
Figures | 183
184 | Figures
Figures | 185
186 | Figures
Figures | 187
188 | Figures
Figures | 189
190 | Figures
Figures | 191
192 | Figures
Figures | 193
194 | Figures
Figures | 195
196 | Figures
Figures | 197
198 | Figures
Figures | 199
200 | Figures
Figures | 201
202 | Figures
Figures | 203
204 | Figures
Figures | 205
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
206 | Figures
Figures | 207
208 | Figures
0 3 cm
0 3 cm
Figures | 209
210 | Figures
0 3 cm
Figures | 211
212 | Figures
Figures | 213
214 | Figures
Figures | 215
216 | Figures
Figures | 217
218 | Figures
2m
Figures | 219
220 | Figures
Figures | 221
222 | Figures
Medieval, Hallstatt
Early Neolithic
1 2
Modern pit 3 Late Mesolithici
Late Mesolithic
4
Late Mesolithic
5
Hut C3b
pit G1
6
Figures | 223
SA
6 5 4 3 2 1
gr.
224 | Figures
Figures | 225
226 | Figures
Figures | 227
10
10 cm
228 | Figures
Figures | 229
10 cm
230 | Figures
Figures | 231
232 | Figures
Figures | 233
234 | Figures
Figures | 235
N SVII
Flint
Boulder with circular
depression
Bone
Antler
Pottery
Red ochre
Hearth
1m
Limit of area SVII

THE PREHISTORY OF BANAT I. The Palaeolit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE PREHISTORY OF BANAT I. The Palaeolit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

THE PREHISTORY OF BANAT

I. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic

THE MUSEUM OF BANAT TIMIŞOARA

Editors of the first volume

I. THE PALAEOLITHIC AND MESOLITHIC

The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy

THE PUBLISHING HOUSE OF THE ROMANIAN ACADEMY

Peer reviewer: Acad. Alexandru Vulpe

Descrierea CIP a Bibliotecii Naţionale a României

I. Tasić, Nikola (ed.)

THE PUBLICATION OF THIS VOLUME WAS SUPPORTED BY

Technical operator: Crina Sincovici

English text revised by Alex W. Barker and Clive Bonsall

Final proof: 22.04.2011; Format: 8/64 × 88; Proof in sheets: 15

Printed in Romania by Mega Print SRL, Cluj-Napoca

II. THE PALAEOLITHIC IN BANAT 19

II.5.1.1 Băile Herculane–Hoţilor Cave 40

III. THE PALAEOLITHIC IN NORTHERN SERBIA 77

III.4. Palaeolithic of Northern Serbia in its regional context 91

IV. THE MESOLITHIC IN BANAT 103

V. CONTINUITY AND FUTURE RESEARCH 143

VI. APPENDIX 151

Belgrade, September 2010

T he historical province of Banat, defined by natural borders – the Tisza

Timişoara, September 2010

II.1.1 General remarks on the period

T he passage to the Upper Palaeolithic, from the archaeological point of view,

II.1.2 Some terminological remarks on the use of quartz/quartzite

II.2 Geological structure of the Banat region

II.2.1 General remarks

The Turonian–Coniacian deposits consist of grey muscovitic carbonaceous sandstones,

II.2.8 The Caransebeş–Mehadia Depression is delineated to the east by the Godeanu

II.2.15 Some Remarks on the rock types used in Prehistory

II.3 The quaternary sedimentary deposits in the Banat region

II.4 Research history of the Palaeolithic in the Banat region

Banat Palaeolithic) (Florea Mogoşanu, 1978) and of Paléolithique supérieur et épipaléolithique de la

II.5 The Palaeolithic archaeological evidence in the Banat area

II.5.1 Pedological analyzes and sedimentological remarks on

3. a layer from the Iron Age (Basarabi culture), 15 cm thick;

II.5.1.6 Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa (village belonging to Tomeşti, Timiş County) (Fig. 6).

1. terrace foundation, cone of dejection ∇ – 320 cm;

II.5.2 Repertoir of Palaeolithic archaeological sites

II.5.2.3 Constantin Daicoviciu (Caraş-Severin County) on Dealul Păning at the point

II.5.2.4 Coşava (village belonging to Curtea, Timiş County).

Ord. no. Types of pieces No. %

The characteristic typological indices for this level are:

Ord. no. Types of pieces No.

Ord. no. Types of pieces Nr.

II.5.2.8 Gornea–Dealul Căuniţei (Sicheviţa village, Caraş-Severin County). The site is

Ord. no. Types of pieces No.

Ord. no. Types of pieces No.

II.5.2.10 Gornea–Vodneac (Caraş-Severin County). Here, lying on a sloping plateau at the

II.5.2.12 Iabalcea–Cerbului Cave (spelaeological code 2240/1, village of Caraşova, Caraş-

II.5.2.13 Iabalcea–Popovăţ Cave (Popovăţ Cave, village of Caraşova, Caraş-Severin County)

II.5.5.16 Pescari–Gaura Chindiei I Cave (spelaeological code 2222/1) lies at 6 km downstream

II.5.2.22 Româneşti–Dumbrăviţa (village of Tomeşti, Timiş County). The Palaeolithic

Ord. no. Types of pieces Lev. III % Lev. IV Lev. V

Ord. no. Types of pieces No. of pieces

Geologic context – general framework

- Mesolithic level (Level. 5.1) (reddish loam);

9500 CalBP 9000 CalBP 8500 CalBP 8000 CalBP

GrA-24115 (DDV) 6920±80BP

GrA-25621 (FGZ) 6925±45BP