Zusammenfassung
Die Urgeschichte des europäischen Kontinents ist von bedeutenden Ereignissen geprägt, unter denen die Einwanderung des anatomisch modernen Menschen (AMH) während des marinen Isotopenstadiums 3 (MIS 3, ~60 000 bis 30 000 cal BP) besonders hervorzuheben ist. Um die Dynamik dieser Migration zu verstehen, muss man die Routen der AMH zurückverfolgen und ihre Ausbreitung über verschiedene Regionen, wie den Donaukorridor, dokumentieren. Die Periode des MIS 2, die das Letzte Glaziale Maximum (LGM) umfasst, stellt eine weitere entscheidende Zeit in der europäischen Urgeschichte dar. Jüngste Forschungen deuten auf die Existenz eines Refugiums im Karpatenbecken während des LGM hin. Unser Verständnis der Bevölkerungsdynamik und der kulturellen Entwicklung während dieser Zeit in dieser Region ist jedoch nach wie vor begrenzt. Fundstellen mit gut erhaltenen stratigrafischen Abfolgen sind von entscheidender Bedeutung, um diese Wissenslücken zu schließen.
Die Region des rumänischen Banat bietet mit ihrer vielfältigen Geographie und ihren reichen archäologischen Hinterlassenschaften eine einzigartige Basis, diese Epochen zu untersuchen. Dennoch bleiben Herausforderungen bestehen, z. B. das begrenzte Wissen über bestimmte Fundstätten und die Notwendigkeit weiterer Ausgrabungen, um deren Status als paläolithische Fundstellen zu bestätigen.
In diesem Beitrag wird die Forschungsgeschichte des Paläolithikums im Banat detailliert vorgestellt. Hierbei wird die Entwicklung der Untersuchungen des frühen 19. Jahrhunderts bis zu den modernen systematischen Ausgrabungen nachgezeichnet. Mittels der Analyse von Daten aus der rumänischen Datenbank des Nationalen Archäologischen Repertoriums (RAN) sowie das Heranziehen von Primärliteratur werden die paläolithischen Fundstätten in der Region kategorisiert und die Zuverlässigkeit der verfügbaren Informationen kritisch bewertet. Besondere Aufmerksamkeit wird der Höhle Peştera cu Apă in Româneşti, Kreis Timiş, gewidmet, einer potenziell bedeutenden paläolithischen Fundstätte. Hier sind weitere Ausgrabungen erforderlich, um dies zu untermauern. Die Bedeutung der Banat-Region für die Vertiefung unseres Verständnisses der menschlichen Urgeschichte, insbesondere in Bezug auf Migrationsmuster, kulturelle Entwicklung und Umweltanpassungen während kritischer Perioden wie MIS 3 und MIS 2, und der Mangel an bestätigten und gut untersuchten Fundstellen unterstreichen die Bedeutung laufender Forschungen in der Banat-Region für das Verständnis von Schlüsselereignissen der europäischen Urgeschichte.
Introduction
One pivotal time in the prehistory of the European subcontinent is the immigration of anatomically modern humans (AMH) during the Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3, ~60,000 to 30,000 cal BP) (Adler and Jöris 2008; Hoffecker 2009; Mellars 2011; Hublin 2015). Originating in Africa, AMH spread over the whole planet over time, where they met and mixed with other humans like Neanderthals or Denisovans (Liu et al. 2021; Stoneking and Krause 2011), but finally pushing these humans to extinction and leaving us as the only remaining species of the genus Homo. To understand the dynamics of this process, it is necessary to follow the migration routes of AMH and to document their spread into different regions of the world. One of these migration routes is the so-called Danube corridor (Conard and Bolus 2003; Svoboda 2006; Krauß and Floss 2016; Chu 2018). Coming from the Southeast, the Danube is an important pathway into Central Europe and was repeatedly used throughout human history. Early AMH populations used the Danube as a corridor. Consequently, they migrated into mid-mountain areas following smaller tributaries and their valleys, where they found rich ecosystems, shelter, raw materials, and game.
The initial phase of the immigration of AMH took place between roughly 46,000 and 40,000 cal BP (Hoffecker 2009; Mellars 2011; Hublin 2015; Mylopotamitaki et al. 2024). Some important Initial and Early Upper Paleolithic (EUP) sites along the Danube corridor are, for example, Temnata Cave (Ginter et al. 2000) and Bacho Kiro (Kozłowski 1982) in Bulgaria, Willendorf II in Austria (Haesaerts et al. 1996; Nigst et al. 2014), and the caves sites of the Swabian Jura in Germany (Riek 1934; Wetzel 1961; Hahn 1988; Conard et al. 2015; Kind 2019; Conard and Wolf 2020). Human remains from this period are known from Bacho Kiro in Bulgaria (Hublin et al. 2020), as well as caves such as Oase, Cioclovina Mare, and Muierii in Romania (Alexandrescu et al. 2010; Olariu et al. 2005; Trinkaus et al. 2003a). The several archaeological cultures that appeared during this time are the so-called transitional industries and, finally, the pan-European techno-complex of the Aurignacian (Kozłowski and Otte 2000; Bar-Yosef,2006; Otte 2010; Chu and Richter 2020). Serial blade and bladelet production, the extensive use of osseous materials (mammoth ivory, antler, and bone), increased population density, and the use of three-dimensional designed personal ornaments characterize this period. Most impressive, however, is the emergence of figurative art and musical instruments. The latter are best documented in the sites of the Swabian Jura (Conard 2015, 2009; Conard et al. 2009; Dutkiewicz 2021; Hahn 1986) with their early dates for the Aurignacian as old as 43,000 cal BP (Conard and Bolus 2003; Higham et al. 2012; Richter et al. 2000), supporting the Danube-corridor hypothesis (Conard and Bolus 2003; Floss et al. 2016; Jöris et al. 2010). Considering the early dates for art and music in this region, and their scarcity in other Aurignacian regions, some researchers claimed that art, music, and shreds of evidence for religious practices emerged there and, according to the Kulturpumpehypothesis, spread from this region all over Europe (Conard 2002; Conard and Bolus 2003; Lewis-Williams 2002). To test this hypothesis, EUP sites with similarly old or even earlier dates along the Danube corridor are particularly interesting.
Another pivotal epoch in the prehistory of Europe unfolds during the zenith of the glaciation within the last Ice Age (Upper Pleniglacial, MIS 2), also known as the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), spanning roughly from 26,000 to 19,000 cal BP (Clark et al. 2009; Hughes et al. 2013; Hughes and Gibbard 2015). This period dramatically plummeted average temperatures, creating vast Cold Steppe environments. The Scandinavian and other Glaciers extended, rendering large parts of Europe practically inhabitable. Consequently, human groups were compelled to migrate from these frigid expanses, dispersing towards Europe’s southwest, east, south, and southeast. In the realm of archaeological cultures, the great pan-European technocomplex of the Gravettian with its diverse sub-units vanished in Central and Western Europe. While Central Europe is largely considered uninhabited, the Solutrean technocomplex emerges in Western Europe. In East-, South-, and Southeast Europe, we see a continuation through the LGM from the Gravettian to the Epi-Gravettian (Anghelinu et al. 2018; Kozłowski 1992). Notably, regions like the Carpathian Basin, buffered from the harshest climatic extremes experienced in Central Europe and with its sufficiently mild conditions, served as refugia during the LGM (Bösken et al. 2018; Fitzsimmons et al. 2012; Kels et al. 2014; Lehmkuhl et al. 2021).
Geographical location of the Romanian Banat
The Banat is a geographical and historical region which owes its name to the noble and administrative title of “Ban” (Lozici et al. 2015). The geographical Banat is part of the Pannonian Basin and totals an area of 28,522 km² (Gaudenyi and Milošević 2023), with two prominent features: the Banat Plain and the Banat Mountains. The Banat Plain is bounded hydrographically on three sides, to the north by the Mureș River, to the west by the Tisza River and to the south by the Danube. The most prominent river running relatively centrally across the Banat Plain from east to south-west is the Timiş River, originating from the Semenic Mountains and flowing into the Danube. The western boundary of the region is formed by the Banat Mountains, the southern subdivision of the Western Carpathians. The latter are bounded by the Danube Gorges to the south, the Timiş-Cerna Corridor to the east, the Lugoj Plain to the north and a succession of hills to the west. They consist from north to south, of the following mountain groups: to the north, the Poiana Ruscă Mountains; to the center, the Dognecea Mountains, the Vršac Mountains, the Anina Mountains and the Semenic Mountains and in the south, the Locva Mountains and the Almăj Mountains (Gaudenyi and Milošević 2023).
After the First World War, with the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Banat Republic was proclaimed in Timişoara on 31 October 1918, in an attempt to maintain the multiethnic integrity of the Banat threatened by the territorial claims of interested nations. Its life was very short, with the Republic ceasing to exist on 15 November 1918 (Marin 1980, 1978; Munteanu and Munteanu 2002). The Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919 and the subsequent Treaty of Trianon of 1920 divided Banat between Romania, Serbia, and Hungary (Fig. 1). Two-thirds of the Banat’s total area belongs to Romania, 18,966 km², one-third to Serbia, 9,276 km², and a small part to Hungary, 284 km² (Lozici et al. 2015).
The Romanian Banat region has a very rich record of archaeological remains, and among them, important sites from the Aurignacian period. The Danube crosses the geographical Banat giving way to the colonization of tributaries, such as the Timiş and the Mureş rivers. These rivers are of interest, as they lead to the Apuseni Mountains. The Apuseni Mountains are, for the large parts, mid-ranged mountains, crossed by valleys, giving way to the Transylvanian Plateau. The karstic environment, the presence of small rivers, and the presumed migration routes of animal herds are good indicators for human presence during the Pleistocene, and the foothill zones of the Apuseni Mountains and the Southern Carpathian Mountains are promising regions to study the Paleolithic of Romania. The presence of AMH in this region at the beginning of the EUP is well documented by numerous and well-studied open-air sites like Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa, Coşava, Temereşti, and Tincova (Băltean 2011; Kels et al. 2014; Chu et al. 2016; Chu and Szentmiklosi 2017; Chu et al. 2022; Schmidt et al. 2013; Chu et al. 2019; Sitlivy et al. 2014a, 2014b). Unfortunately, due to the chemical constitution of the sediments and the general vulnerability of open-air sites to erosion and weathering, these sites only delivered lithic assemblages. They are unsuitable to answer questions about the emergence of the osseous industry, the presence of personal ornaments, and possibly art and musical instruments. The protected environment and chemical constitution of cave sediments give the best chances to the preservation of osseous finds and long stratigraphical sequences that allow answering the questions of when the AMH entered the region, what their relations were to their predecessors, and what sort of archaeological culture was prevailing at the given time. Human remains from the EUP were found in three caves in western Romania, namely Oase, Cioclovina Mare, and Muierii (Trinkaus et al. 2003a; Alexandrescu et al. 2010). However, only very little is known about the associative archaeological culture, as these remains were either found in no association with artifacts or were poorly documented due to the early excavation dates. Both strings of evidence, the presence of open-air sites as well as the human fossils found in caves, demonstrate that the region of the Banat bears an immense potential for Paleolithic research, particularly for the question of when and how AMH entered southeastern Europe and which cultural, technological, and biological processes happened during this time.
Given the climatic conditions during MIS 2, recent research provides evidence supporting the hypothesis of a refuge in this region during the LGM. Despite the presence of Gravettian and Epi-Gravettian assemblages in western Romania, our understanding of the intricacies and dynamics of this period in this particular region remains scant. Sedimentological and geochemical studies of Upper Pleniglacial deposits (MIS 2) with clear evidence of human presence at open-air sites such as Coşava and Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa show no signs of permafrost conditions (Kels et al. 2014). However, there is still limited knowledge regarding population dynamics and techno-cultural evolution during this period in this region. Identifying sites with good preservation and well-documented long stratigraphic sequences could provide deeper insights into human settlement and adaptation during this crucial period. Furthermore, detailed examinations of the artifacts and materials found within these sequences could offer insights into the technological innovations and cultural changes that occurred during MIS 2.
To grasp the present state of Paleolithic research in the Banat region, it is essential to delve into its historical trajectory. Compared to other regions in Europe, scientific interest in geology, speleology, and paleontology started as early as the beginning of the 19th century. Speleological inquiries and establishing savant societies are closely linked to nobles, clerics, and wealthy bourgeois individuals (Horusitzky and Siegmeth 1914). Through the late 19th and early 20th centuries, systematic methodologies evolved, integrating the full array of natural sciences into archaeological and speleological endeavors. After the First World War, archaeological pursuits in Romania were modest. Marius Moga, Director of the National Museum of the Banat, was the first to systematically excavate the Banat region (Moga 1964, 1949). His contributions stand as pivotal early systematic archaeological investigations in this region. Most influential for the Paleolithic research, however, is Florea Mogoşanu, whose thorough exploration of several Paleolithic sites yielded the first dedicated compendium to this period (Mogoşanu 1978). During the 1960s, research primarily centered on the Danube Gorges, driven by construction activities related to the Iron Gates Hydroelectric Power Plant, unearthing several significant sites, though now submerged and inaccessible. Renewed interest in Paleolithic research ignited with the discovery of Peştera cu Oase, where human remains dating to the Early Upper Paleolithic were discovered (Trinkaus et al. 2003a). Subsequently, numerous international teams initiated exploratory missions, leading to systematic excavations, primarily at open-air sites such as Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa, Coşava, Temereşti, and Tincova (Băltean 2011; Kels et al. 2014; Sitlivy et al. 2014a, 2014b; Chu et al. 2016; Chu and Szentmiklosi 2017; Chu et al. 2022; Schmidt et al. 2013; Chu et al. 2019).
Nowadays, most archaeological sites in Romania are catalogued in the National Archaeological Repertory (RAN) database. To ascertain the number of known sites in the Banat region, we meticulously examined all records in the RAN and thoroughly reviewed all available information concerning them. It quickly became apparent that the level of knowledge varied significantly depending on the information source for these sites. The majority were catalogued based on inventories compiled by Sabin Adrian Luca (2006, 2004), some derived from excavation reports, and others relied on anecdotal evidence. To establish a dependable overview, we meticulously scrutinized primary literature and traced the earliest mentions, following the progression of information leading to their inclusion in the RAN. Based on the findings of this inquiry, we categorized the sites in the RAN in principle as follows: 1) confirmed, 2) questionable (for various reasons), or 3) non-existent (for more detailed information about each site, see the Annex [PDF]).
Paleolithic Research in the Romanian Banat
To describe the history of Paleolithic research in the Banat and Transylvania, we consider presenting a brief overview of the framework in which these studies gradually evolved from myth to research.
In 1913, the Speleological Commission of the Hungarian Geological Society tasked Heinrich Horusitzky to undertake the cataloguing of Hungary’s caves, compiling literature related to them, and participating in the creation of a cave map for Hungary (Horusitzky and Siegmeth 1914). It is important to specify that the geopolitical relations during that period were entirely different, and it is not our place to discuss or interpret them. Such an undertaking is detrimental to archaeological research and understanding of humanity’s past. Speleological and archaeological research in Banat and Transylvania began before the First World War, in the early 20th century. Until then, all research conducted in the Banat region and reported in the specialized literature pertains to Southern Hungary (Délmagyarország). We find it important to mention this aspect because not everyone is familiar with the geopolitical developments in this part of the world, and consulting specialized literature can create confusion regarding the spatial location of certain localities, isolated discoveries, and even archaeological sites. At the same time, it should be noted that many villages operate with bilingual or trilingual names or have entirely changed their names. Another aspect to consider is the use of different toponyms for the same place. This problem can be eliminated through cartographic analyses and primary literature. However, a serious issue is the loss of old toponyms and micro-toponyms, regardless of the language which were replaced by new toponyms that no longer correlate with the initial ones. Such situations have led to multiple problems related to locating sites known only descriptively from old, specialized literature, attributing archaeological materials to other sites, or even placing sites at different localities.
Horusitzky’s categorization divides cave exploration into four periods, offering insights into the beginnings of cave research in Romanian Banat.
Period I (1549-1820) saw limited scientific discussion, with occasional records mentioning caves and bones, often intertwined with mythical beliefs.
In Period II (1821-1870), cave exploration became more systematic, with valuable data collected despite the absence of formal excavations.
Period III (1871-1892) witnessed rapid growth in scientific interest, marked by significant excavations and paleontological studies, notably by figures like Antal Koch.
Period IV (1893-1913) saw a shift towards more interdisciplinary research, driven by a desire to uncover evidence of early human habitation. This period also marked the formalization of cave studies within scientific organizations.
Research on caves and the Paleolithic era in Banat integrate in Period III through the investigations and descriptions provided by Tivadar Orthmayr (1873). One of these investigations of particular interest to us is related to the “Peștera cu Apă” in Româneşti. It is possible that Orthmayr’s publication on this cave prompted Ferencz Hathalmi (1900) to visit this location 27 years later. Orthmayr’s publication most likely had a significant influence on Marius Moga, who initiated the first archaeological research of this cave (Moga 1949). Throughout Period IV, in the Romanian Banat, very few developments occurred. However, the interest in caves seems to have increased with the intensification of Guano’s exploitation and the diversification of tourist objectives, as reflected in Hathalmi’s article on the Româneşti Cave (Hathalmi 1900). This period is also remarkable due to the fundamental repertoires of archaeological sites created by Felix Milleker (1897) for Banat and Márton Roska (1942) for Transylvania.
After the end of the First World War, a new era of research in the caves and Paleolithic sites of Romanian Banat began. This period gradually evolved, and we will attempt to summarize it while following the periodization established by Horusitzky (1914), focusing solely on Romanian Banat. As such, the Paleolithic research in Romanian Banat continued with what we may call Period V (1920–1950), a particularly modest period in terms of archaeological investigations in this part of Romania. The most significant research is conducted by Marius Moga (1964, 1949) in Peştera cu Apă (Water Cave) at Româneşti. Although his research did not reach Paleolithic levels, it sparked the interest of two researchers, Florea Mogoşanu and Ion Stratan, who would become defining figures for the subsequent period and the Paleolithic research in Banat. We will return later to discuss both the importance of the cave and the impact generated by Moga through the partial publication of his results.
Period VI, from 1950 to 1990, was marked by renewed research in Româneşti Cave in 1960 by Mogoşanu and Stratan (1966). However, they had to abandon their work due to a layer of boulders that had fallen from the cave’s ceiling. Despite this setback, they stressed the cave’s significance for understanding Banat’s Paleolithic era. During their research, they discovered several sites that became crucial in the study of the Paleolithic in Banat, including the Dumbrăviţa, Coşava, and Tincova open-air sites (Mogoşanu 1978). During this period, extensive research was conducted along the Danube Gorges due to the construction works at the Iron Gates Hydroelectric Power Plant. Several sites belonging to the Middle and Upper Paleolithic were investigated, with two notable examples at Gornea-Dealul Căuniţei and Gornea-Dealul Păzărişte, both excavated by Mogoşanu (1978, 1972, 1970). During the entire period, the process of investigating caves and mapping them as a result of speleological research has experienced rapid growth. Among these efforts, the cataloging conducted by Richard Petrovsky (1979, 1977, 1975; Petrovszky et al. 1982, 1981, 1981) and Béla Jungbert (1979, 1978), the geological research and cave mapping conducted by Stefan Negrea and colleagues (1964) as well as Marcian Bleahu and colleagues (1976), are considered to be essential. A comprehensive catalogue of the works from this period was done by Vasile Boroneanţ (2000).
Period VII, between 1990 and 2003, is characterized by a decline in interest in Paleolithic research in Banat. Notable at this point is the research conducted in 1991 in the Water Cave of Româneşti (Muntean 1995; Rogozea 1994), which, however, is only partially published and leaves many open questions. Nevertheless, a significant achievement during this period was the publication by Florin Draşovean and Nicola Tasić of The Prehistory of Banat – The Paleolithic and Mesolithic (2011).
The discovery of human bones at Peştera cu Oase (Cave of Bones) in 2003 has ignited a renewed fascination with the Paleolithic era in the Banat (Olariu et al. 2005; Trinkaus et al.,2003a; Zilhão et al. 2007; Anghelinu et al. 2012). Thanks to systematic research following modern standards, conducted by international teams, there has been significant progress in understanding the chronostratigraphy and the climatic and population dynamics of the early Upper Paleolithic period. The focus of this research has predominantly centered on uncovering insights from key Aurignacian open-air sites such as Coşava and Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa (Chu et al. 2022; Chu and Szentmiklosi 2017; Kels et al. 2014; Schmidt et al. 2013; Sitlivy et al. 2012, 2014a, 2014b), Tincova (Chu et al. 2016; Sitlivy et al. 2014a), and Temereşti (Micle and Niţu 2015; Szentmiklosi et al. 2019, 2019; Chu et al. 2019). Through these endeavors, a more comprehensive understanding of the Paleolithic landscape in Banat has emerged, shedding light on critical aspects of human history and prehistoric culture in the region.
Paleolithic sites in the Romanian Banat – the present-day state-of-art
To gain better understanding of the overall picture of the Paleolithic research in the Banat, as well as of the chronology of several sites listed in various reports/publications over time, we have consulted the National Archaeological Inventory of Romania (RAN), accessible at https://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp. The RAN is a scientific tool that helps manage, protect, and enhance archaeological heritage. Its purpose is to locate and assess identified archaeological sites, evaluate the areas where heritage may be at risk, and identify new archaeological sites. With the help of this tool, the collected information can be comprehensively inventoried and visually represented on geographical and cartographic maps.
For the Banat region, RAN lists 47 archaeological sites with Paleolithic occupations. Among these, 13 are located in Timiş County (12 open-air and one cave site). In Caraş-Severin County, there are 25 archaeological sites (10 open-air and 15 cave sites). There are also 8 archaeological sites in Mehedinți County that we will discuss further. Among these, one is an open-air site while seven are cave sites located along the Danube Gorges.
After going through the RAN, it was obvious that many sites listed have only been broadly considered Paleolithic without any specific chronological classification. In addition, it has been observed that there were only two primary sources (Luca 2004, 2006) for including most of them in the database. For instance, in Timiş County, of the 13 sites, 8 were added based on Luca’s 2006 repertoire. In Caraş-Severin County, of the 25 sites attributed to the Paleolithic era, 19 were included based on Luca’s 2004 repertoire. In the Banat part of Mehedinți County, 8 out of 8 sites were included based on Lucas’s 2006 repertoire. To understand these sites’ positioning and precise chronology, we examined the primary literature on which Luca’s inventories were based. We thus drafted an annex that provides more accurate information on the sites’ locations, research history, and chronology. The following categories of sites have been highlighted: confirmed sites, uncertain sites, non-existent Paleolithic sites, and non-existent sites (Fig. 2).
- Confirmed sites (Fig. 2.4, 5, 10, 11, 15, 25, 30, 31, 33, 36, 39-45) are considered those where systematic archaeological excavations has taken place, with published results, materials and stratigraphic contexts.
- Questionable (Fig. 2.1, 3, 8, 9, 12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24, 28, 29, 33, 35, 37) site (the largest category) refers mainly to archaeological sites that have been attributed to the Paleolithic based on a single lithic artifact that has not been published or whose graphic representation provides no clear indication of its chronological classification (a), or archaeological sites that no longer exist for various reasons and the archaeological materials have never been published (b).
- A third category, non-Paleolithic, consists of sites that yielded no convincing evidence of Paleolithic occupation (Fig. 2.13, 19, 23, 43), but their classification was based on the phrase “An earlier occupation cannot be excluded.” One example in the a category is the cave site at Peştera de la Gura Ponicovei/Peştera Ponicovei (Fig. 2.40), where based on flint and quartzite tools, a Paleolithic occupation has been assumed (Boroneanţ et al., 1979).
- Non-existent sites (Fig. 2.2, 6, 7, 26, 27, 31, 46). This category includes sites that have either been identified during field surveys as new sites but were in fact confirmed sites with published results or incorrectly located sites.
In our area of interest, the cave sites are located in Caraş-Severin County and the westernmost part of Mehedinți County, particularly along the Danube Gorges. In Timiş County, confirmed Paleolithic sites are exclusively open-air settlements while the information on the cave sites still needs further confirmation.
Based on the recovered archaeological remains, confirmed sites can be sorted into three primary categories: Middle Paleolithic (Fig. 3), Aurignacian (Fig. 4), and Upper Paleolithic (Fig. 5). The sites included in the Upper Paleolithic refer to those sites that have confirmed archaeological horizons post-Aurignacian and have been verified through archaeological and stratigraphic evidence to belong to the Gravettian and Epigravettian.
Among the sites attributed to the Middle Paleolithic (Fig. 3.10, 11, 31, 36), the most recent research conducted according to modern methodological standards and featuring the most accurate stratigraphic documentation, whose results have been recently published, is Dumbrăviţa I (Fig. 3.10) (Chu and Szentmiklosi 2017; Schmidt et al. 2013; Sitlivy et al. 2012). The sites at Dumbrăviţa II (Fig. 3.11), Dealul Căuniţei (Fig. 3.31), as well as Băile Herculane – Peştera Hoţilor (Fig. 3 MP. 36) can be confidently attributed to the Middle Paleolithic based on materials published by the authors of the excavations and subsequent published reconfirmation.
Aurignacian sites are primarily found in the eastern part of Timiş County. The cluster of confirmed sites in the northeast of Timiş County is mainly concentrated on the right bank of the Bega River (as seen in Fig. 4.4, 5, 10, 11) and includes Temereşti – Dealul Vinii (Fig. 4.4), Coşava – Podişul Lipovei (with two sites, Coşava I and Coşava II: Fig. 4.5), and the two Dumbrăviţa sites (I: Fig. 4.10 and II: Fig. 4.11). Another site is located on the right bank of the Timiş River, also facing south, at Tincova – Săliștei (Fig. 4.15).
A possible Aurignacian cluster may be located in the southern part of Caraș-Severin County. However, only one site, Gornea – Dealul Păzăriște, has been confirmed (Fig. 3.34) while several other sites are questionable. For instance, finds from some sites have not been published (Gornea – Vodneac: Fig. 3.35), while other sites no longer exist (Gornea – “Peștera” Păzăriște: Fig. 3.33). However, attributing Gornea – Dealul Păzăriște to the Aurignacian (Păunescu 2001) based only on the typology of a small assemblage is problematic. Mogoșanu (1978, 1973), also on typological basis and the similarity to those from Românești – Dumbrăvița placed it at the end of the Upper Paleolithic.
Confirmed sites attributed to the Upper and Final Paleolithic also concentrate on the eastern part of Timiș County. These are sites of Temereşti – Dealul Vinii (Fig. 5.4), Coşava – Podişul Lipovei (Fig. 5.5), as well as the sites Dumbrăviţa I (Fig. 5.10) and Dumbrăviţa II (Fig. 5.11), whose occupations include the Gravettian and Epi-Gravettian occupations (Chu et al., 2016; Chu and Szentmiklosi, 2017)). Sites in the eastern part of Caraș-Severin County, such as Băile Herculane – Peștera Hoților (Fig. 5.36), and those in the southern part of Caraș-Severin County and the western part of Mehedinți County, such as Veterani (Fig. 5.39), Peștera Climente I (Fig. 5.41), Peștera Climente II (Fig. 5.42), Adăpostul de sub stânca de la Cuina Turcului (Fig. 5.44) belong to the Epipaleolithic, with different stages and local facies. An exception is Gornea – Păzăriște (Fig. 5.33), considered contemporary with Românești – Dumbrăvița (Fig. 5.10), therefore most likely Epi-Gravettian (Mogosanu 1978).
The most common situations encountered within the questionable category involve attributing sites to the Paleolithic based on isolated finds of lithics, such as Cruceni – Módosiút/Objective 32a (Fig. 2.1), Vişag – Valea Bogarului (Fig. 22.14), Caransebeş – Carbonifera Veche (Fig. 2.18), Zăvoi – La gară (Fig. 2.17), Caraşova – Peştera Vraska (Fig. 2.20), Caraşova – Peştera Cerbului (Fig. 2.22), Ineleţ – Peştera 2143/– Cheile Bobotului (Fig. 2.37) and Svinița – km 1004 (Fig. 2.45). For more details regarding the circumstances of the recovery of the specific artifacts and the proposed chronology, see the Annex in the online version of this chapter.
Several open-air sites were assigned based mostly on one artefact found during field surveys. At times, such sites (see Zăvoi – La gară (Fig. 2.17)) were identified as Paleolithic by a third party who had never seen the respective artifact (Petrovszky 1977). We have still decided to leave both locations in the questionable category until further evidence. For instance, the site at Caransebeş – Carbonifera Veche (Petrovszky 1975) (Fig. 2.18) is located in the center of the main riverbed of the Timiş, an area where several tributaries converge. The area most likely consists of eroded and water-transported material which may explain the occurrence of the so-called Paleolithic artifact. Similarly, at Zăvoi – La gară (Fig. 2.17), the only artifact was discovered along the railroad embankment (Petrovszky, 1977).
The sites Căvăran – Dealu Păning (Fig. 2.16) and Gornea – “Peştera” Păzărişte (Fig. 2.33) are considered questionable because they no longer exist, having been destroyed by limestone quarrying activities. At both sites, the existence of caves or shelters was conveyed to the authors by third parties. However, the accounts for Căvăran – Dealu Păning (Fig. 2.16) talk of a series of quartz pieces and several remains of fossil fauna. Păunescu (2001) thus attributed this site to the Mousterian. Similarly, Gornea – “Peştera/Cave” Păzărişte (Fig. 2.33), located in the vicinity of the Gornea-Păzărişte open-air site, was attributed by Boroneanţ to the Aurignacian based on the material recovered in the proximity of the destroyed cave (Păunescu 2001). In addition, questionable includes also sites where archaeological excavations took place but with no published results or illustration of the recovered materials. This is the case at Leucuşeşti (Fig. 2.3), Curtea – Dealul Viei (Fig. 2.8), Curtea – Pământ Roşu (Fig. 2.9), Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă (Fig. 2.12) and Sasca Montană – Peştera Dubanăţ (Fig. 2.28).
Our brief account of the past research also highlighted the lack of recently excavated cave sites. The research on the open-air sites in Timiş County clearly indicated the remarkable archaeological potential of this region. One particular cave in the region appears recurrently in publications as a Paleolithic site, namely Peştera cu Apă from Româneşti. However, little is known about the specifics of this site, including its precise assignation to a specific Paleolithic culture or the evidence supporting its classification. To address the question of whether Peştera cu Apă is indeed a Paleolithic site, we gathered all available information regarding its research history and available documentation. Unfortunately, the field documentation for the various archaeological investigations in the cave could not be located, and the same goes for most of the artifacts mentioned in the literature. While the site holds significant potential for containing Paleolithic layers, our current assessment suggests that the Paleolithic age cannot be definitively confirmed at present. Further excavations are necessary to determine if Peştera cu Apă should be included in the inventory of the Paleolithic sites in the Romanian Banat.
Peştera Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă
The archaeological site of Peştera Româneşti also known as Peştera cu Apă (Water Cave) (RAN Code 158957.03, LMI Code TM-I-s-B-06081, speleological code 1/2273) is situated in western Romania in the Banat region, Timiş County, southeast of the village of Româneşti, in the karst landscape of the upper Bega River basin, around 4.2 km northeast of the confluence of the Bega Luncanilor and Bega Poieni rivers. The cave entrance is 9.2 m wide and 2 m high and opens to the north at 370 m NN at the top of a steep slope above DC111 (Communal Road 111). The cave is about 1,450 m long and has several halls (Fig. 6). In the penultimate, easily accessible hall is a very large and impressive double stalagmite (known as the Tibia and the Fibula), as well as detached remains of other smaller stalagmites.
The first geological account of the Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă was made by Negrea in 1963, within the framework of a larger exploration project of caves formed within karstic nuclei in the upper Bega basin, Poganis basin, Barbosu-Valeapai, and Birzava basin northwest of Reşita (Negrea et al. 1964). Negrea described the “Bat Hall” within this complex cave as a vast corridor intersecting tectonic fissures and leading to various branching galleries, mainly to the south and east. However, eastern pathways have become increasingly restricted. The cave consists of interconnected tall galleries formed primarily along tectonic lines. Inside, the cave features water-related formations such as sinkholes and puddles, with stalagmite ‘heads’ capable of holding water. The walls exhibit distinctive patterns, such as “hieroglyphics” and “leopard skin” formations, created by decalcification and clay deposits. While the cave houses initial stalagmite formations and clastic materials, it lacks alluvial deposits. The cave’s genesis is believed to originate from water erosion of poorly stratified dolomitic limestone along tectonic fissures. Beyond this limestone area, the cave reveals a tectonic breccia base, suggesting a mechanical subsidence origin.
Research History
The Româneşti Cave was first mentioned in 1833 when it became the property of Fàbry Jànos along with the forests on Merişorul Hill (Cranberry Hill). The Hungarian Treasury facilitated this transaction for Fàbry Jànos, who was an accessor for several county courts and also a landowner of several farms in the area, spanning between Româneşti and Fereşeşti, and who also shortly afterwards entered nobility. The name of the cave has changed over time, with various designations such as Bega-barlang, Facsadi-barlang Rumunyezt-barlang, Peştera Mare de la Fereşeşti, Peştera Româneşti – Fereşti and Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă (Luca 2010). Yet, the singular insight into the origin of its name, specifically “Water Cave,” is attributed to Gabnay Ferenc Hathalmi in 1900 (Hathalmi 1900) who suggested that when the bats in cave were disrupted during the guano mining, their sounds mimicked those of water trickling from a partially opened faucet.
Hathalmi’s article dedicated to promoting tourism gives a series of highly valuable pieces of information. Thus, we find out that guano exploitation in the 1900s was no longer active, which led to a guano accumulation in the Bat Hall of 3 to 4 meters. Hathalmi also described the return route to the village as the one used for regular guano transportation with ox carts. This road still facilitates the access to the cave. We must also credit Hathalmi for creating the first cave plan (Fig. 7) and, last but not least, with the only historical image of the cave entrance (Fig. 8) (Hathalmi 1900), before the massive alterations that occurred after the initiation of modern concerts in 1984 (see below).
The cave does not appear on the first two topographic surveys of the Habsburg Empire (1769–1772 and 1819–1869). It first appears in cartographic records on the third topographic survey of the Habsburg Empire (1869–1887), the 1:25000 scale map (Fig. 9). From a toponymic standpoint, this naming aligns closely with contemporary designations. Also, it shows that it already had this name before Hathalmi’s description.
Between 1870 and 1872, Professor Orthmayr Tivadar led the initial geological research on the Water Cave while teaching at the Roman Catholic high school in Lugoj. His account was a historical one, linked to Marcus Licinius Crassus’ military campaign of 29 BC (Orthmayr 1873). After World War I, Bokor Elemír conducted a faunistic examination of the cave and published his finds on Arthropods in 1921 (Bokor 1921). However, it is possible that Bokor did not explore the Water Cave himself but rather relied on two earlier studies from 1887/8 on Obisium praecipuum, and 1900 concerning Acantholophus tridens, which he cited in his 1921 work. Our presumption is based on the fact that the cave mentioned in the 1900 reference refers to the cave Rumunyest but in Bihor County, not Caraş.
Archaeological investigations in the area began in 1948, after a survey conducted in the previous year, supervised by Marius Moga, at that time the director of the Regional Museum Banat. During his time, Moga conducted two significant excavations, one 45 m from the entrance and a second one near the cave entrance (Moga 1949). Between 1960 and 1961, Florea Mogoşanu and Ion Stratan resumed the research (Mogoşanu and Stratan 1966).
A pivotal advancement came in 1963 when Ştefan Negrea carried out a comprehensive speleological examination of the Water Cave and produced its inaugural map (Fig. 11) (Negrea et al. 1964). The plan comprehensivelydocuments the various faults and anomalies observed within the cave, and is consistent with the decimated 3D model of the Româneşti Cave (Fig. 10) carried out during the 2023 research campaign by our team. Negrea’s cave map enriched our understanding of the archaeological progress in the cave by incorporating both the trenches from Moga’s excavations and those of Mogoşanu and Stratan into the cave’s layout (Fig. 11). Contrary to earlier assumptions, the trench initially believed to be the result of a poaching incident happening between 1988 and 1989 (Moga and Bochiş 2002) (Fig. 12) was identified as one of the excavation sites overseen by Mogoşanu. There is no evidence to suggest poaching activities, at least at that time, in this part of the cave.
The quest for knowledge at the Româneşti Cave was reignited in 1991, with excavations conducted by Florin Draşovean, Florin Gogâltan, and Petru Rogozea (1994). Their investigations resulted in three additional trenches, two in front of Moga’s “L” shaped excavation at the entrance, and one parallel to Mogoşanu’s trench to the east. However, specific details or additional references to these explorations remain.
Inconsistencies in research documentation
Addressing the inconsistencies surrounding the research history of Peştera cu Apă, the primary concern centers on the lack of field documentation and excavation reports. It is crucial to emphasize that there is an absence of archaeological records pertaining to the studies undertaken both by Moga in 1949 and Mogoşanu and Stratan in 1960. Given the commendable scientific endeavors of these researchers, it seems highly unlikely that these two studies lacked rigorous documentation. Unfortunately, instances where excavation records were misplaced or lost, are not uncommon. Various factors contribute to such situations, ranging from misplacement or loss by hosting institutions to the failure to hand over documentation post-research and even the transfer of documentation to a third party for publication, which, for various reasons, may never materialize. A detrimental practice that was prevalent among researchers of the past generation, resulting in adverse effects, was the notion of so-called “scientific legacies,” perpetuating the non-publication of research indefinitely and, in many cases, becoming an enduring problem. Fortunately, these unconventional practices are gradually becoming obsolete.
As mentioned earlier, the cave map created by Negrea in 1963 (Negrea et al. 1964) holds paramount importance in understanding the layout of the research trenches depicted on subsequently adapted plans (Moga and Bochiș 2002; Moga and Sîrbu 2002; Rogozea 1994). Negrea’s published plan on sheet 81 is mirrored in the north. Using his 1963 plan as a starting point, which illustrates a total of four trenches, we observe an “L”-shaped trench right at the cave entrance, indicating no depth. Presumably, its shape was still visible during the cave mapping, with a length of 8 m and a width of 1 m, although the depth remained undetermined. The trench immediately following the “L”-shaped one, as per Negrea’s plan, has a length of 4 m and a width of 2 m, oriented on the N-S axis. Despite the depth shown on the plan being -1.5 m, this likely represents the trench conducted by Mogoşanu and Stratan in 1960. According to their publication on cave research, they executed a single trench without specifying dimensions, noting only that it was a small excavation with a depth of -3.2 m. This level proved unbreachable due to dislocated boulders from the cave ceiling. The mere fact that it is visible in 1963 eliminates the possibility of it being an unauthorized excavation carried out between 1988 and 1989. Archaeological poaching, frequently alluded to (Moga and Bochiș 2002; Mogoşanu and Stratan 1966; Rogozea 1994), should not be dismissed. However, Negrea’s plan features four trenches with regular shapes. The ones inside the cave both have widths of 1 m and lengths of 2 m, morphologically making them similar to the “L”-shaped trench at the entrance to the cave, a trench attributed to Moga (Moga and Bochiș 2002; Rogozea 1994). At this point, however, it is necessary to consider a detail that has likely escaped those quoting Moga, especially from his 1949 article (Moga 1949), namely, when referring to the interior cave survey, Moga uses the plural. Therefore, we are not dealing with a single survey at the cave entrance. According to Moga’s description, he placed a trench approximately 45 m from the cave entrance, where he discovered the canines of Ursus spelaeus and two presumed bone tools associated with them. Simultaneously, Moga specified that the purpose of the survey of the cave interior is to determine the habitation’s extent. Once this objective was achieved, he stated he would move the research to the cave entrance to systematize it. The trench that coincides with the approximate distance of 45 m from the cave entrance is the one on Negrea’s plan with a depth of -1 m oriented approximately on the NW-SE axis. The trench, with a depth of -0.3 m, is located approximately 20 m from the cave entrance and is oriented N-S.
According to Rogozea’s publication on research conducted in 1991 in the Româneşti Cave (Rogozea 1994), three trenches were excavated, two near the entrance with dimensions of 2 m by 1 m, S1/1991 on the left side and S3/1991 on the right side. The third trench S2/1991, measuring 3 m by 1 m, according to the description in the publication, was placed approximately 30 m from the cave entrance on the left side of the Mogoşanu and Stratan survey. Considering that Negrea’s plan features four trenches, one of which is credited to Mogoşanu and Stratan, and the other three to Moga, adding the three trenches excavated by Rogozea, it amounts to a total of seven trenches. On the Negrea plan, four of these seven trenches are already present, and one is credited to Mogoşanu and Stratan. We conclude that trench S2/1991 is not 30 m from the cave entrance and is not on the right side of Mogoşanu and Stratan’s trench but on the left side according to the plan. It is not excluded that the position description of the trench was made on-site, looking from inside the cave outward, thus placing the trench scripturally on the right side. However, the traces on the ground coincide with the plan generated as a result of the 1991 research, but the 30 m distance does not match from any angle.
Although neither Moga’s research nor that of Mogoşanu and Stratan reaches a level that can be attributed to the Paleolithic, both studies stopping at collapse level of the ceiling, the conclusion of both researchers is that the Water Cave at Româneşti is “the most important for understanding the Paleolithic in the area.”
After analyzing materials attributed to Moga’s 1949 excavation found in the National Museum of Banat and the primary publications concerning this research, discrepancies were noted in later publications that refer to Peştera cu Apă. According to Boroneanţ (2000): “Săpăturile arheologice au fost conduse de M. Moga in 1949. Au fost identificate dovezi de locuire din paleoliticul superior: o vatră de foc pe care erau opt colţi de Ursus spelaeus şi două instrumente din os.” (Translation: “Archaeological excavations were conducted by M. Moga in 1949. Evidence of Upper Paleolithic occupation was identified: a hearth on which were found eight teeth of Ursus spelaeus and two bone tools.”). Moga’s 1949 publications regarding the excavation in Peştera cu Apă indeed mention eight cave bear canines and two “bone tools” associated with them. However, they do not specify that these are associated with hearths. Moga (1949) associates the “scarce hearths remains,” and the ceramic materials with two other cultural layers. Moga’s 1964 publication does not mention the cave bear canines or bone tools, but emphasizes the importance of the cave for understanding the Paleolithic era in Banat.
According to Păunescu (2001): “Până la această adâncime (3.2 m) s-au găsit doar dovezi de locuire postpaleolitică. Se menţionează totuşi, în afara resturilor osoase de Ursus spelaeus şi altele atribuite lui Ursus arctos, Vulpes vulpes. Este foarte posibil ca peştera să fi fost locuită şi în paleolitic.” (Translation: “Up to this depth (3.2 m) the only evidence of post-Palaeolithic habitation has been found. In addition to the skeletal remains of Ursus spelaeus and others attributed to Ursus arctos, Vulpes vulpes, are mentioned. It is quite possible that the cave was also inhabited in the Paleolithic.” The bone remains of Ursus arctos and Vulpes vulpes are not mentioned in the publications of Moga (1964, 1949), nor in the publication of Mogoşanu (1978) and Stratan (1966) regarding the Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă excavation.
Sorin-Marius Petrescu’s publications (2010, 2000) mention Peştera cu Apă and raise a significant question about Moga’s research. There is a citation regarding Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă that surprisingly refers to Moga’s excavation journal from 1948. Petrescu stated that he does not have the journal in question but would investigate and provide clarification (pers. comm., February 2024). The information found in Petrescu’s publications aligns with that of Moga (1964, 1949) and Mogoşanu and Stratan (1966), although there may be some confusion regarding the extent of the discoveries. Specifically, Petrescu’s publication states that at a depth of 3.2 meters, Paleolithic finds were mentioned. We know from Mogoşanu and Stratan’s publication that this depth was reached in a trench excavated in 1960 and no Paleolithic levels were uncovered until that point.
It is unclear whether the discrepancies are due to details being conveyed orally to third parties, later references having access to unknown documentation, or alterations being made to the primary literature. These discrepancies contribute to the perpetuation of the mystery or myth of the Paleolithic in this cave. One aspect, however, is clear, even if it remains currently difficult to understand, namely, several researchers consider Peştera cu Apă from Româneşti important for Paleolithic research. Time and patience will probably tell us if this statement is valid.
Summary of the current state of knowledge of the archaeological cultures present in Peştera cu Apă
According to the publications on the archaeological research and materials found in Peştera cu Apă, we can draw some references on the stratigraphy of the cave’s entrance area and the chronological sequence. Based on the published profile of Rogozea (1994), the stratigraphy of trench 2/1991 consisted of two layers of topsoil and six occupation layers. The first of the two upper layers representing the present cave floor is composed of black granulated sediment, followed by white granular sediment, incorporating a mixture of Middle Age, La Tène and Iron Age (Ba- sarabi Culture) materials. Layer 1 was attributed to the Bronze Age (the Balta Sărată Group), and the following five, from Layer 2 to Layer 6, to the Coţofeni Culture (Rogozea 1994).
The archaeological materials underwent a thorough typological and stylistic analysis. Regrettably, due to the unavailability of archaeological context, it was not given precedence (Moga and Bochiş 2002; Moga and Sîrbu 2002).
A small collection of lithic materials originating from Marius Moga’s excavation at Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă was discovered to be part of the collections of the National Museum of Banat. However, the materials lack a clear stratigraphic context and are not diagnostic (Fig. 13). Among the finds is a skull of Ursus spelaeus, labelled as originating from Româneşti (Fig. 14). The associated finds, such as the skull of an ibex and a fragment of mammoth ivory, could not be located so far. The canines of Ursus spelaeus were not identifiable in the museum’s inventories, preventing a more detailed analysis. Therefore, based on the skull of the cave bear and atypical lithics, one cannot infer that the cave had a Paleolithic occupation.
The pottery from Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă, identified as Tiszapolgár culture (Moga and Bochiş 2002), have unique features such as gray, black, or yellowish colors, vessels with perforated legs, and a diverse range of vessel shapes. Similar ceramics have been found in Hungary. The lid fragment from Româneşti has analogies in other locations but none were found for the nail decorated pottery. The presence of raised rims suggests the period of transition to the Bodrogkeresztúr culture (Moga and Bochiş 2002).
The Coţofeni material in the cave belongs to Phase III (Moga and Sîrbu 2002). During this phase, pottery shows Banat-specific elements, such as cups and bowls with raised band-shaped handles, flared bowls, tall-necked amphorae, and large vessels. The site shows the influence of the Coţofeni culture in Transylvania and showcases well-polished black pottery as well as vessels that imitate the shapes of metal vessels (Moga and Sîrbu 2002). The pottery features patterns such as network incisions, chessboard patterns, appliques, knobs, and strings of lentil-shaped beads. The appearance of diamond-shaped strings or network bands in the pottery, originating from the late Kostolac and Vučedol environments, indicates the spread of these influences towards Transylvania (Moga and Sîrbu 2002). All these aspects suggest that the Coţofeni settlement at Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă belongs to a Coţofeni III b-III c horizon.
The Bronze Age pottery was given analogies in Phases II-III of the Balta Sărată cultural group. Rogozea (1994) dated them to Br. D -P. Reinecke/SD I -B. Hänsel (Hänsel 1968). The discovery is notable for the emergence of new vessel shapes influenced by the Vatina and Cruceni cultures, while still preserving specific Balta Sărată forms and decorations. According to Rogozea (1994), this indicated later stylistic developments. The ceramic paste, polish, and color on the exterior and, in some cases, on the interior surfaces finds analogies in Early Iron Age pottery from in this region as well. Additionally, there are also new ornaments, such as broad and narrow incisions and horizontal, vertical, and garland-shaped patterns (Rogozea 1994).
Current situation
Given that the Româneşti Cave is a prominent tourist attraction, annually hosting symphonic music concerts that draw thousands, its level of deterioration has reached alarming extents. Throughout the year, concertgoers and casual visitors consistently deface the cave’s walls with graffiti, scribbles, and chisels. It is quite probable that the last group is responsible for burning tires and wooden pallets and leaving an overwhelming amount of varied waste behind. In contrast to Gabnay Ferencz Hathalmi’s detailed account of the guano extraction process in the cave, as described by the locals (likely the Fàbry family’s employees who had up multiple fire sites inside the cave for illumination – Hathalmi 1900), the current actions are merely acts of ignorance towards nature and cultural heritage, since in front of the cave, there is a generously-sized panel highlighting the importance of this location. This predicament is especially pronounced in the cave’s entrance and first chamber.
The cave has witnessed repeated guano extractions, leading to a significant removal of its natural deposits. The 1980s saw the most extensive alterations to the cave entrance and main hall, probably in preparation for the concerts that started on 11.10.1984, as relayed by Ioan Oprescu, a restorer affiliated with the National Museum of Banat. During that decade, Oprescu was closely associated with the Tomeşti glass factory, allowing him to be aware of the ongoing activities in this vicinity. Given the consistent removal of the cave’s inherent deposits, an urgent examination of the entrance chamber’s state is imperative.
A matter of significant concern is that the cave was recently (1991) discovered to be the location of a Bronze Age necropolis (Muntean 1995; Rogozea 1994). Still, no measures have been taken to safeguard this burial site, which is crucial for research. The successive modifications to the hall, where symphonic concerts are held annually, significantly altered the ground surface and the graves. Stones, displaced from the hall’s center, were haphazardly thrown to the sides. While this unintended action has inadvertently protected at least a portion of the graves, it complicates the research process. Presently, the floor of the first hall, the venue for concerts, is literally paved with human remains and archaeological materials.
The Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă archaeological site is under grave threat. The relentless human-inflicted degradation of its walls and archaeological strata jeopardizes its integrity and heritage, owing to the continual human activities in this unique location.
Conclusions
Paleolithic research in the Romanian Banat region dates back to the mid-19th century. Initially, it showed similar developments to other intensively researched regions in Europe such as Germany or France. Geology, Paleontology, and Archaeology were subjects of interest to nobles, clerics, and wealthy bourgeois individuals who conducted the first investigations. However, the First and Second World Wars, and the subsequent challenging political developments in the region, disrupted the existing interest and unfortunately, did not lead to systematic and consistent research over time. Although several archaeologists showed interest in the Paleolithic age, their work often remained isolated, and much information was lost. Therefore, it was necessary to collect all the information available extensively.
Thus, we examined all the archaeological sites recorded in the RAN. We cross-checked this information with both early and recent publications. Our findings indicate that, of the 47 Paleolithic sites, 35 were listed in the RAN based on inventories conducted by Adrian Sabin Luca (2006, 2004). However, the database is often incomplete and lacks precise location and topographic data, making it unsuitable for GIS analyses, altimetric studies, exposure assessments, or spatial distribution analysis. Additionally, many sites are challenging to locate due to the disappearance of original local toponyms, with new names that cannot be reliably correlated with the originals. Moreover, the orientation of certain caves has not been consistently mapped and varies depending on the descriptions used or created later, which makes it risky to rely on this data for other analyses until the sites have been re-identified.
One of the most concerning matters is that information from various sources has been adopted at times without verifying the original literature. This has resulted in a more significant problem of site-dating and, more importantly, with their location or duplication. At present, we can confidently assert that only 14 of the 47 Paleolithic sites listed provided enough data to be considered as confirmed sites. The remaining 28, after removing duplicates or non-existent ones, require verification through archaeological research using accepted methodologies. Confirming or rejecting these sites is crucial for developing a future model based on their chronological and spatial distributions.
Following the investigation, five confirmed sites can still be assigned to the Middle Paleolithic period. These sites include two open-air sites in Timiş County, and one open-air and two cave sites in Caraş-Severin County. Among, the Coronini – Gura Livodiţei site yielded human remains, most likely belonging to Homo neanderthalensis. Six sites are likely Aurignacian (five open-air and one cave site, Peştera Plopa-Ponor/Peştera cu Oase). Ten sites are attributed to the Upper Paleolithic (four in Timiş County, two in Caraș-Severin County, and four in Mehedinți County).
The confirmed sites are concentrated in two groups, one in the east of Timiş County and the second along the Danube Gorge. This concentration is a result of intensive research in both areas. Though currently questionable, the multitude of sites reported between these two concentrations must be confirmed or refuted through modern research. Otherwise, understanding population movements and potential contacts between different groups of populations, as foreseen by Mogoșanu during his excavations at Dealul Păzăriște, will be challenging. The Paleolithic cave sites with systematic research and published results are primarily located along the Danube Gorges, with only two outside this area— Băile Herculane-Peștera Hoților in the Cerna Valley, and Peștera cu Oase along the Miniș River Valley. Unfortunately, the latter has not yielded any archaeological material, except for the famous human remains.
The archaeological research of the caves in the Poiana Ruscăi Mountains is very modest, considering that this mountain range has 125 registered caves (https://www.speologie.org/), of which 31 are in Timiș County. However, the archaeological research of the caves in Timiș County is virtually non-existent. The only cave that has been partly investigated is Peştera cu Apă at Româneşti, which is also the most significant cave in the Bega River area. The history of researching this cave is complex and shows many problems. We share the opinion of the researchers who have carried out archaeological excavations at this site and believe that, given the density of Paleolithic settlements in this area, this site is essential for understanding the Paleolithic in the region and in Banat.
Unfortunately, although open-air sites have provided extremely important data and exhibit a stratigraphic sequence of very long duration, they offer a highly compressed image due to pedological processes to which the occupation levels have been subjected. Additionally, due to the nature of the soil, no organic matter was preserved, regardless of type or nature.
We consider the exploration of Peştera cu Apă to be significant. Primarily, it is imperative to ascertain the presence or absence of Paleolithic levels within the cave. This investigation holds immense potential for shedding light on migration patterns, cultural evolution, and environmental adaptations during pivotal epochs, such as the influx of anatomically modern humans at the onset of the Upper Paleolithic or the dynamics amidst the Last Glacial Maximum. To delve into these inquiries effectively, well-preserved Paleolithic stratigraphies in the caves of the Romanian Banat are essential, such as Peştera cu Apă at Româneşti might provide in the future. During the fall of 2022 and 2023, our team conducted systematic surveys in the Romanian Banat with the aim of identifying additional potential Paleolithic sites beyond those discussed here. We are confident that we will be able to complete and expand the maps of confirmed Paleolithic sites in the Romanian Banat in the coming years.
References
Adler, D. S., and Jöris, O. 2008: Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary across Eurasia. Eurasian Prehistory 5, 5–18.
Alexandrescu, E., Olariu, A., Skog, G., Stenström, K., and Hellborg, R. 2010: Os fossiles humains des grottes Muierii et Cioclovina, Roumanie. L’Anthropologie 114, 341–353.
Anghelinu, M. 1998: Observaţii Asupra Musterianului Carpatic. Cercet. Istor. XVII/1, 19–36.
Anghelinu, M., Niţă, L., and Murătoreanu, G. 2018: Le Gravettien et l’Épigravettien de l’Est de la Roumanie: une ré-évaluation. L’Anthropologie 122, 183–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2018.03.002.
Anghelinu, M., Niţă, L., Sitlivy, V., Uthmeier, T., and Băltean, I. 2012: Looking around Peştera Cu Oase: The beginnings of Upper Paleolithic in Romania. Temporal Spat. Corridors Homo Sapiens Sapiens Popul. Dyn. Late Pleistocene Early Holocene 274, 136–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2012.01.012.
Babeş, M. 1971: Les fouilles archeologiques en Roumanie (1970). DACIA NS XV, 359–393.
Balogh, E. 1942: Ösemberi Maradványok a Bánsági- Hegyvidék Két Barlangjából. Közelmenyek – Az Erdélyi Nemzeti Múz. Érem- És Régiségtárából II, 3–13.
Balogh, E. 1940: A bánsági Szarvas-barlang.— Die Hirsch-Höhle im Banat. Erdélyi Muz. 45, 248–252.
Băltean, I. 2011: The Palaeolithic in Banat. In: N. Tasić and F. Draşovean (eds.), The Prehistory of Banat. I. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Bucharest: The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, 19–76.
Bar-Yosef, O. 2006: Defining the Aurignacian. In: O. Bar-Yosef and J. Zilhão (eds.), Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia. Lisboa: Instituto Português de Arqueologia, 11–18.
Bleahu, M., Decu, V., Negrea, S., Pleșa, C., Povară, I., and Viehmann, I. 1976: Peşteri Din România. Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică, București.
Bokor, E. 1921: A magyarhoni barlangok ízeltlábui. Barlangkutatás IX, 1–29.
Bonsall, C. and Boroneanț, A. 2018: The Iron Gates Mesolithic–A brief review of recent developments. L’Anthropologie 122, 264–280.
Bonsall, C., Boroneanţ, A., Evatt, A., Soficaru, A., Nica, C., Bartosiewicz, L., Cook, G. T., Higham, T. F., and Pickard, C. 2016: The ‘Clisurean’ finds from Climente II cave, Iron Gates, Romania. Quaternary International 423, 303–314.
Boroneanț, A. and Bonsall, C. 2012: Burial practices in the Iron Gates Mesolithic. Presented at the HOMINES, FUNERA, ASTRA: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Funerary Anthropology, 5-8 June 2011,‘1 Decembrie 1918’ University (Alba Iulia, Romania), Archaeopress, 45–56.
Boroneanț, V. 2000: Arheologia peșterilor și minelor din România. CIMeC.
Boroneanț, V. 1973: Recherches archeologiques sur la cultura Schela Cladovei de la zone des Portes de Fer. DACIA NS XVII, 05–40.
Boroneanţ, V., Crăciunescu, G., and Stîngă, I. 1979: Raport preliminar privind săpăturile de la Ostrovul Mare (Campania 1978). Mater. Şi Cercet. Arheol. 13, 17–19.
Bösken, J., Sümegi, P., Zeeden, C., Klasen, N., Gulyás, S., and Lehmkuhl, F. 2018: Investigating the last glacial Gravettian site ‘Ságvár Lyukas Hill’ (Hungary) and its paleoenvironmental and geochronological context using a multi-proxy approach. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 509, 77–90.
Chu, W. 2018: The Danube corridor hypothesis and the Carpathian Basin: Geological, environmental and archaeological approaches to characterizing Aurignacian dynamics. Journal of World Prehistory 31, 117–178.
Chu, W., McLin, S., Wöstehoff, L., Ciornei, A., Gennai, J., Marreiros, J., and Doboș, A. 2022: Aurignacian dynamics in Southeastern Europe based on spatial analysis, sediment geochemistry, raw materials, lithic analysis, and use-wear from Românești-Dumbrăvița. Science Reports 12, 1–16.
Chu, W., Pötter, S., Doboș, A., Albert, T., Klasen, N., Ciornei, A., Bösken, J. J., and Schulte, P. 2019: Geoarchaeology and geochronology of the Upper Palaeolithic site of Temerești Dealu Vinii, Banat, Romania: Site formation processes and human activity of an open-air locality: Geoarchäologie und Geochronologie der jungpaläolithischen Fundstelle Temerești Dealu Vinii, Banat, Rumänien: Natürliche und menschliche Einflüsse auf die Genese einer Freilandfundstätte. Quartär–Internationales Jahrb. Zur Erforsch. Eiszeitalt. Steinzeit 66, 111–134.
Chu, W. and Richter, J. 2020. Aurignacian cultural unit. Encycl. Glob. Archaeol. Springer Int. Publ. Cham 1–10.
Chu, W. and Szentmiklosi, A. 2017: The early Upper Paleolithic settlement of Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I, Timiş County. Analele Banat. Sn Arheol. – Istor. XXV, 19–24.
Chu, W., Zeeden, C., and Petrescu, S. 2016: The Early Upper Paleolithic of the Banat and recent research at the Paleolithic site of Tincova. Banatica 26, 51–72.
Clark, P. U., Dyke, A. S., Shakun, J. D., Carlson, A. E., Clark, J., Wohlfarth, B., Mitrovica, J. X., Hostetler, S. W., and McCabe, A. M. 2009: The Last Glacial Maximum. Science 325, 710–714. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1172873.
Comşa, E. 1971: SILEXUL DE TIP “BĂNĂŢEAN”. Apulum 9, 15–19.
Conard, N. J. 2015: Current research in caves of the Swabian Jura, the origins of art and music, and the outstanding universal value of the key sites. World Heritage Papers 41, 6–16.
Conard, N. J. 2009: A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany. Nature 459, 248–252. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07995.
Conard, N. J. 2002: The timing of cultural innovations and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe. Terra Nostra 2002, 82–94.
Conard, N. J. and Bolus, M. 2003: Radiocarbon dating the appearance of modern humans and timing of cultural innovations in Europe: New results and new challenges. Journal of Human Evolution 44, 331–371.
Conard, N. J., Bolus, M., Dutkiewicz, E., and Wolf, S. 2015: Eiszeitarchäologie auf der Schwäbischen Alb. Die Fundstellen im Ach- und Lonetal und in ihrer Umgebung, Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.
Conard, N. J., Malina, M., and Münzel, S. C. 2009: New flutes document the earliest musical tradition in southwestern Germany. Nature 460, 737–740. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08169.
Conard, N. J. and Wolf, S. 2020: Der Hohle Fels in Schelklingen. Anfänge von Kunst und Musik, Tübingen Publications in Prehistory. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.
Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice, 1995: in: A XXIX-A Sesiune Naţională De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 1994, CIMEC, Cluj-Napoca.
Doboș, A. 2017: Doboș Adrian – The Middle Paleolithic research in Romania. Past and current issues. Mater. Şi Cercet. Arheol. SN 13, 5–14. https://doi.org/10.3406/mcarh.2017.1042.
Drașovean, F. 2018: Contribuții la repertoriul arheologic al județului Timiș. Topografia arheologică a comunei Foenii. Patrimonium Banaticum, VIII, 103–138.
Dutkiewicz, E. 2021: Zeichen. Markierungen, Muster und Symbole im Schwäbischen Aurignacien, Tübinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.
Fitzsimmons, K. E., Marković, S. B., and Hambach, U. 2012: Pleistocene environmental dynamics recorded in the loess of the middle and lower Danube basin. Quaternary Science Reviews 41, 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2012.03.002.
Floss, H., Fröhle, S., and Wettengl, S. 2016: The Aurignacian along the Danube: Its two-fold role as a transalpine and cisalpine passageway of early Homo Sapiens into Europe. In: R. Krauß and H. Floss (eds.), Southeast Europe before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Research Centres Sfb 1070 “RessourcenKulturen”, Schloss Hohentübingen, 9th of May 2014, RessourcenKulturen. Tübingen: Tübingen University Press.
Gaudenyi, T. and Milošević, M. V. 2023: The Banat Plain and the Banat Mountains: Toward its definition. European Journal of Environment and Earth Sciences 4, 46–51.
Ginter, B., Kozłowski, J., Guadelli, J.-L., and Laville, H. (eds.) 2000: Temnata Cave, excavations in Karlukovo Karst, Bulgaria. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française.
Gudea, N. and Moțu, I. 1983: Observaţii în legatura cu istoria Banatului în Epoca Romana. Banatica 7, 151–202.
Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Bachner, M., and Trnka, G. 1996: Revised stratigraphy and chronology of the Willendorf II sequence, Lower Austria. Archaeologia Austraica 80, 25–42.
Hahn, J. 1988: Die Geißenklösterle-Höhle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fundhorizontbildung und Besiedlung im Mittelpaläolithikum und im Aurignacien, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte in Baden-Württemberg. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag.
Hahn, J. 1986: Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien Süddeutschlands? Tübingen: Verlag Archaeologia Venatoria.
Hahn, J. 1977: Aurignacien, das ältere Jungpaläolithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Köln: Böhlau Verlag.
Hänsel, B. 1968: Beiträge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpartenbecken. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag.
Hathalmi, G. F. 1900: A rumunyesti barlang és a lobogó forrás. Tur. Lapja, Folyóirat a Turistaság És Honismeret Terjesztésére XII, 138–141.
Higham, T., Basell, L., Jacobi, R., Wood, R., Bronk Ramsey, C., and Conard, N. J. 2012: Τesting models for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent of figurative art and music: The radiocarbon chronology of Geißenklösterle. Journal of Human Evolution 62, 664–676.
Hoernes, R. 1875: Vorlage von Wirbelthierresten (Ursus spelaeus und Capra Ibex) aus der Bohoi-Höle bei Anina, Geschenk des Herrn A. Barré. Verhandlungen K K Geol. Reichsanst. 17, 339–343.
Hoffecker, J. F. 2009: The spread of modern humans in Europe. PNAS 106, 16040–16045. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0903446106
Horusitzky, H. and Siegmeth, K. 1914: Zusammenfassung der Literatur über die Höhlen Ungarns 1549-1913., A Magyar Királyi Földtani Intézet Kiadványai. Budapest: Nyomatott Fritz Ármin Könyvnyomdájában.
Hublin, J.-J. 2015: The modern human colonization of western Eurasia: when and where? Quaternary Science Reviews 118, 194–210.
Hublin, J.-J., Sirakov, N., Aldeias, V., Bailey, S., Bard, E., Delvigne, V., Endarova, E., Fagault, Y., Fewlass, H., Hajdinjak, M., Kromer, B., Krumov, I., Marreiros, J., Martisius, N. L., Paskulin, L., Sinet-Mathiot, V., Meyer, M., Pääbo, S., Popov, V., Rezek, Z., Sirakova, S., Skinner, M. M., Smith, G. M., Spasov, R., Talamo, S., Tuna, T., Wacker, L., Welker, F., Wilcke, A., Zahariev, N., McPherron, S. P., and Tsanova, T. 2020: Initial Upper Palaeolithic Homo sapiens from Bacho Kiro Cave, Bulgaria. Nature 581, 299–302. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2259-z.
Hughes, P. D. and Gibbard, P. L. 2015: A stratigraphical basis for the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Quat. Syst. Its Form. Subdiv. 383, 174–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2014.06.006.
Hughes, P. D., Gibbard, P. L., and Ehlers, J. 2013: Timing of glaciation during the last glacial cycle: evaluating the concept of a global ‘Last Glacial Maximum’ (LGM). Earth-Science Reviews 125, 171–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.07.003.
Jöris, O., Neugebauer-Maresch, C., Weninger, B., and Street, M. 2010: The radiocarbon chronology of the Aurignacian to Mid-Upper Palaeolithic transition along the Upper and Middle Danube. In: C. Neugebauer-Maresch and L. Owen (eds.), New aspects of the Central and Eastern European Upper Palaeolithic – Methods, chronology, technology and subsistence. Symposium by the Prehistoric Commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; Vienna, November 9-11. Wien: Mitteilungen der Prähistorischen Kommission, 200.
Jungbert, B. 1979: Repertoriul localităților cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (II). Acta Mvsei Napoc. XVI, 389–410.
Jungbert, B. 1978: Repertoriul localitaţilor cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (I). Acta Mvsei Napoc. XV, 1–17.
Kels, H., Protze, J., Sitlivy, V., Hilgers, A., Zander, A., Anghelinu, M., Bertrams, M., and Lehmkuhl, F. 2014: Genesis of loess-like sediments and soils at the foothills of the Banat Mountains, Romania–Examples from the Paleolithic sites Româneşti and Coşava. Quaternary International 351, 213–230.
Kind, C.-J. (ed.) 2019: Löwenmensch und mehr. Die Ausgrabungen 2008–2013 in den altsteinzeitlichen Schichten der Stadel-Höhle im Hohlenstein (Lonetal), Gemeinde Asselfingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis mit Beiträgen von Alvise Barbieri, Thomas Beutelspacher, Àngel Blanco-Lapaz, Nicole Ebinger-Rist, Sireen El Zaatari, Christophe Falguères, Katerina Harvati, Tina K. Hornauer-Jahnke, Claus-Joachim Kind, Keiko Kitagawa, Petra Krönneck (†), Christopher Miller, Edwige Pons-Branchu, Maïlys Richard, Daniel Richter, Sibylle Wolf, Kurt Wehrberger, Reinhard Ziegler, Forschungen und Berichte zur Archäologie in Baden-Württemberg. Esslingen: Landesamt für Denkmalpflege im Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart.
Kozłowski, J. 1982: Excavations in the Bacho-Kiro cave (Bulgaria): final report. Polish Scientific Publishers, Warszawa.
Kozłowski, J. and Otte, M. 2000: La formation de l’Aurignacien en Europe. L’Anthropologie 104, 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-5521(00)90001-3.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0079497X00004059.
Krauß, R. and Floss, H. (eds.) 2016: Southeast Europe before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Research Centres SFB 1070 “RessourcenKulturen”, Schloss Hohentübingen, 9th of May 2014, RessourcenKulturen. Tübingen: Büro für Design, Martin Emrich, Lemg.
Lazarovici, G., Trinkaus, E., Petrescu, S.-M., Zilhão, J., Rodrigo, R., Moldovan, O., Rougier, H., Constantin, S., Soficaru, A., and Quilles, J. 2006a: Steierdorf, oraş Anina, jud. Caraş-Severin Punct: Peştera Hoţilor (La Hoţu). In: A XL-A Sesiune Naţională De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 2005, CIMEC, Constanța, 334–336.
Lazarovici, G., Trinkaus, E., Petrescu, S.-M., Zilhão, J., Rodrigo, R., Moldovan, O., Rougier, H., Constantin, S., Soficaru, A., and Quilles, J. 2006b: Steierdorf, oraş Anina, jud. Caraş Severin – Punct: Peştera cu Oase. In: A XL-A Sesiune Naţională De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 2005, CIMEC, Constanța, 336–337.
Lehmkuhl, F., Nett, J. J., Pötter, S., Schulte, P., Sprafke, T., Jary, Z., Antoine, P., Wacha, L., Wolf, D., and Zerboni, A. 2021: Loess landscapes of Europe–Mapping, geomorphology, and zonal differentiation. Earth-Science Reviews 215, 103496.
Lewis-Williams, J. D. 2002: The mind in the cave. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.
Lista Monumentelor Istorice 1991-1992 – Județul Timiș, 1992.
Liu, Y., Mao, X., Krause, J., and Fu, Q. 2021: Insights into human history from the first decade of ancient human genomics. Science 373, 1479–1484. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abi8202.
Lozici, A., Petroman, C., Constantin, E. C., Marin, D., and Schill, O. 2015: Traditions in Banat. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 197, 730–736.
Luca, S. A. 2010: Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul românesc: repertoriu, Ediția a doua. ed, Bibliotheca Brukenthal. Muzeul Național Brukenthal ; Editura Altip, Sibiu: Alba Iulia.
Luca, S. A. 2006: Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul românesc: repertoriu, Ediția a doua. ed, Bibliotheca Brukenthal. Muzeul Național Brukenthal ; Editura Altip, Sibiu: Alba Iulia.
Luca, S.A. 2004. Repertoriul arheologic al judeţului Caraş-Severin. Ed. Economică.
Marin, W. 1980: Kurze Geschichte der Banater Deutschen: mit bes. Berücks. ihrer Beziehungen zur rumän. Bevölkerung u. ihrer Einstellung zur Vereinigung von 1918. Facla-Verlag.
Marin, W. 1978: Unirea din 1918 şi poziţia şvabilor bănăţeni. Ed. Facla.
Mellars, P. 2011. The earliest modern humans in Europe. Nature 479, 483–485. https://doi.org/10.1038/479483a.
Micle, D. and Nițu, E.-C. 2015: Un sit arheologic din epoca pietrei își dezvăluie secretele Temereşti – Dealu Vinii, oraş Făget Arheologia Banatului. Cercetări-Descoperiri-Intervenții., 26–27.
Milleker, B. 1897. Délmagyarország régiségleletei a honfoglalás előtti időkből. Délmagyarországi Tört. és Rég. Muzeum-Társulat, Temesvár.
Moga, M. 1964: Muzeul Reginal al Banatului. Rev. Muzeelor 3, 294–296.
Moga, M. 1949: Cercetările arheologice din R.P.R. din anul 1948. Studii II, 95–97.
Moga, M. and Bochiș, B. 2002: Ceramica Tiszapolgar de la Româneşti – Peştera cu apă (com. Curtea, jud. Timiş). Săpături – Marius Moga, 1948. Analele Banat. SN Arheologie-Istorie X-XI, 83–98.
Moga, M. and Sîrbu, M.-S. 2002: Ceramica Coţofeni de la Româneşti – Peştera cu Apă (com. Curtea, jud. Timiş). Analele Banat. Sn Arheol. – Istor. X–XI, 45–65.
Mogoşanu, F. 1978: Paleoliticul din Banat. București: Editura Academiei.
Mogoşanu, F. 1973: Date cu privire la paleoliticul din judeţul Caraş-Severin. Banatica 2, 13–23.
Mogoşanu, F. 1972: Information generale sur le paleolithique du Banat (sud-ouest de la Roumanie). DACIA NS XVI, 5–77.
Mogoşanu, F. 1970: Descoperiri Paleolitice La Gornea (porţile De Fier). Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 21, 531–538.
Mogoşanu, F. and Stratan, I. 1966: Noi descoperiri Paleolitice în Banat. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 17, 335–344.
Moldovan, O., Milota, Ş., Sarcina, L., Trinkaus, E., Băltean, I., Soficaru, A., and Rajka, G. 2003: The oldest modern humans in Europe. Theoretical and Applied Karstology 16, 77–81.
Morintz, S. 1973: Les Fouilles Archeologiques En Roumanie ( 1972). DACIA NS XVII, 361–398.
Moroz-Pop, M. 1983: Contribuţii la repertoriul arheologic al localitaţilor din judeţul Timiş, din paleolitic pina în Evul Mediu. Banatica 7, 469–489.
Muntean, M. 1995: Consideraţii antropologice asupra unor oase umane provenite din peştera de la Romaneşti (jud. Timiş). Banatica 13, 145–148.
Munteanu, I. and Munteanu, R. 2002: Timișoara: monografie. Editura Mirton.
Mylopotamitaki, D., Weiss, M., Fewlass, H., Zavala, E. I., Rougier, H., Sümer, A. P., Hajdinjak, M., Smith, G. M., Ruebens, K., Sinet-Mathiot, V., Pederzani, S., Essel, E., Harking, F. S., Xia, H., Hansen, J., Kirchner, A., Lauer, T., Stahlschmidt, M., Hein, M., Talamo, S., Wacker, L., Meller, H., Dietl, H., Orschiedt, J., Olsen, J. V., Zeberg, H., Prüfer, K., Krause, J., Meyer, M., Welker, F., McPherron, S. P., Schüler, T., and Hublin, J.-J. 2024: Homo sapiens reached the higher latitudes of Europe by 45,000 years ago. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06923-7.
Negrea, S., Negrea, A., Sencu, V., and Botoşaneanu, L. 1964: Grottes du Banat (Roumanie) explorées en 1963. International Journal of Speleology 1, 397–439.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S. 1959: Discuții pe marginea paleoliticului de sfârșit și începuturilor neoliticului nostru. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie X, 221–237.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S. 1957: Le Paléolithiqe Dans La République Populaire Roumanie À La Lumière Des Dernières Recherches. DACIA NS 1, 41–60.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S. 1956: Rezultatele principale ale cercetărilor paleolitice în ultimii patru ani în R.P.R. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie VII, 7–39.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S. 1955: Șantierul Arheologic Cerna-Olt. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche VI, 129–147.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S. and Comșa, E. 1957: Microlitele de la Băile Herculane. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie VIII, 17–26.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S., Comșa, E., and Păunescu, A. 1957. Șantierul Arheologic Băile Herculane (reg. Timișoara, r. Almăș). Mater. Şi Cercet. Arheol. III.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S. and Păunescu, A. 1961: Azilianul de la Băile Herculane în lumina noilor cercetări. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche și Arheologie XII, 203–214.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C. S. and Stratan, I. 1960: Săpăturile de la Tincova (com. Sacul, r. Caransebeş, reg. Timişoara). Mater. Şi Cercet. Arheol. VII, 29–32.
Nigst, P. R., Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Frank-Fellner, C., Mallol, C., Viola, B., Götzinger, M., Niven, L., Trnka, G., and Hublin, J.-J. 2014: Early modern human settlement of Europe north of the Alps occurred 43,500 years ago in a cold steppe-type environment. PNAS 111, 14394–14399. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1412201111.
Olariu, A., Skog, G., Hellborg, R., Stenström, K., Faarinen, M., Persson, P., and Alexandrescu, E. 2005: Dating of two Paleolithic human fossil bones from Romania by accelerator mass spectrometry. Appl. High-Precis. At. Nucl. Methods 222–26.
Olaru, M. and Cadariu, Ș. 1977: Peşteri cu urme de locuire de pe Valea Nerei. Banatica 4, 9–18.
Orthmayr, T. 1873: A Barlangok Palaontologiai És Tölténeti Jelentősége, Tekintettel Magyaroszág, · De Különösen Délmagyarország Barlangjaira. Magy. Orvosok • És Természetvizgálók 279–290.
Otte, M. (ed.) 2010: Les Aurignaciens, Civilisations et Cultures. Paris: Errance.
Păunescu, A. 2001: Paleoliticul şi mezoliticul din spaţiul transilvan: studiu monografic. Editura Agir.
Păunescu, A. 1970: Epipaleoliticul de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova. Stud. Şi Cercet. Istor. Veche Şi Archeol. 21, 3–29.
Petrescu, S.-M. 2021: Cercetări arheologice în peşteri din bazinul Anina-Steierdorf. Editura Mega.
Petrescu, S.-M. 2010: Repertoriul arheologic al Peşterilor din Banat. Dalami, Caransebeș.
Petrescu, S.-M. 2000: Locuirea umană a peşterilor din Banat până în epoca romană, Bibliotheca Historica Et Archaeologica Banatica. Mirton, Timișoara.
Petrescu, S.-M., Lazarovici, G., Zilhão, J., Rodrigo, R., Moldovan, O., Constantin, S., and Soficaru, A. 2008: Steierdorf, oraş Anina, jud. Caraş-Severin Punct: Peştera Hoţilor (La Hoţu). In: A XLI-A Sesiune Naţională De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 2007, CIMEC, Iași, 288–290.
Petrovszky, R. 1979: Peșteri în județul Caraș-Severin – cercetări arheologice (I). Tibiscum, Etnografie-Istorie III, 229–261.
Petrovszky, R. 1977: Contribuţii la repertoriul arheologic al localităţilor judeţului Caraş-Severin din paleolitic pînă în secolul al V-lea î.e.n. (III). Banatica 4, 437–461.
Petrovszky, R. 1975: Contributii la repertoriul arheologic al localitaţilor judeţului Caraş-Severin din paleolitic pîna în secolul al V-lea Î.e.n. Banatica 3, 365–378.
Petrovszky, R., Popescu, O., and Rogozea, P. 1981: Peșteri din județul Caraș-Severin – cercetări arheologice (II). Banatica 6, 429–462.
Petrovszky, R., Rogozea, P., Popescu, O., and Munteanu, I. 1982: Noi descoperiri arheologice în judeţul Caraş-Severin (II). Tibiscum 4, 323–329.
Popescu, D. 1970a: Săpăturile arheologice din Republica Socialistă România în anul 1969. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 21, 493–522.
Popescu, D. 1970b: Săpăturile arheologice din Republica Socialistă România în anul 1969. Studii şi Cercetări de Istorie Veche 21, 493–522.
Popescu, D. 1963: Săpăturile arheologice din RPR în anul 1962. STUDII ŞI CERCETĂRI DE ISTORIE VECHE 14, 451–465.
Popescu, D. 1962: Săpăturile arheologice din RPR în anul 1961. STUDII ŞI CERCETĂRI DE ISTORIE VECHE 13, 201–214.
Richter, D., Waiblinger, J., Rink, W. J., and Wagner, G. A. 2000: Thermoluminescence, electron spin resonance and 14C-dating of the Late Middle and Early Upper Palaeolithic Site of Geißenklösterle Cave in Southern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 27, 71–89. https://doi.org/10.1006/jasc.1999.0458.
Riek, G. 1934: Die Eiszeitjägerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal. Tübingen: Akademische Buchhandlung Franz F. Heine.
Rogozea, O.-C., Stavilă, A., Rogozea, P., and Vasile, M. 2017: Contribuții La Repertoriul Arheologic Al Clisurii Dunării Și Al Țării Almăjului. Descoperiri Atribuite Culturii Coțofeni, Primei Vârste a Epocii Fierului Și Evului Mediu. Patrimonium Banat. VII.
Rogozea, P. 1994: New archaeological finds in the cave from Romanești, Timiș County. In: International Symposium from Alba Iulia, 10-12June, 1993. Presented at the The Early Hallstatt Period (1200 – . 700 B.C.) in South-Eastern Europe, Alba Iulia, Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis, 155–166.
Roska, M. 1942: Erdély Régészeti Repertóriuma, Thesaurus Antiquitatum Transsilvanicarum. Nagy Jenő És Fia Könyvnyomdája, Kolozsvár.
Schmidt, C., Sitlivy, V., Anghelinu, M., Chabai, V., Kels, H., Uthmeier, T., Hauck, T., Băltean, I., Hilgers, A., and Richter, J. 2013: First chronometric dates (TL and OSL) for the Aurignacian open-air site of Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I, Romania. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 40, 3740–3753.
Sitlivy, V., Anghelinu, M., Chabai, V. P., Niţă, L., Uthmeier, T., Hauck, T., Băltean, I., Hilgers, A., and Schmidt, C. 2014a: Placing the Aurignacian from Banat (southwestern Romania) into the European Early Upper Paleolithic context. In: M. Otte (ed.), Modes de contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique eurasiatique. Liège: ERAUL, 243–277.
Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Hilgers, A., Schmidt, C., Niţă, L., Băltean, I., and Veselsky, A. 2012: The earliest Aurignacian in Romania: New investigations at the open air site of Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I (Banat): Das früheste Aurignacien in Rumänien–Neue Untersuchungen an der Freilandfundstelle Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I (Banat). Quartär–Internationales Jahrb. Zur Erforsch. Eiszeitalt. Steinzeit 59, 85–130.
Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Niţă, L., Băltean, I., Veselsky, A., and Ţuţu, C. 2014b: Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania). Quaternary International, 351, 193–212.
Stoneking, M. and Krause, J. 2011: Learning about human population history from ancient and modern genomes. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12, 603–614.
Stratan, I. 1970: Contribuţii la cunoaşterea Paleoliticului din Banat. Tibiscus, 1, 7–18.
Stratan, I. 1965: Aşezarea paleolitică de la Coşava. Revista Muzeelor 412.
Svoboda, J. A. 2006.:. The Danubian gate to Europe: Patterns of chronology, settlement archaeology, and demography of late Neandertals and early modern humans on the Middle Danube. In: Conard, N.J. (ed.), When Neanderthals and Modern Humans met. Tübingen: Kerns Verlag.
Szentmiklosi, A. 2010: Locuirea de tip Cruceni-Belegiš de la Cruceni– Módosi út (jud. Timiş). Sondajele arheologice din anii 1997 şi 1999. Analele Banatului, 20, 293–306.
Szentmiklosi, A., Chu, W., Doboș, A., Ciornei, A., Albert, T., and Bösken, J. 2019: Temerești, oraș Făget, jud. Timiș Punct: Dealul Vinii. In: Campania 2018. Presented at the A LIII-a Sesiune Națională de Rapoarte Arheologice, Institutul Național al Patrimoniului, Muzeul Național Brukenthal Sibiu, Sibiu, 376–377.
Trinkaus, E., Băltean, I., Constantin, S., Gherase, M., Horoi, V., Milota, Ş., Moldovan, O., Petrea, C., Quiles, J., and Rodrigo, R. 2005: Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat: Peştera cu Oase. Banatica 17, 9–27.
Trinkaus, E., Milota, Ş., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., and Moldovan, O. 2003a: Early Modern Human Cranial remains from the Peștera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 245–253.
Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., and Bailey, S. 2006: The Pestera cu Oase and early modern humans in southeastern Europe. In: When Neandertals and Modern Humans met. Kerns Verlag, 145–164.
Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, Ş., Bîlgăr, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., Bailey, S. E., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., and Higham, T. 2003b: An early modern human from the Peştera cu Oase, Romania. PNAS 100(20), 11231–11236.
Uzum, I., Lazarovici, G., and Dragomir, I. 1973: Descoperiri arheologice la Gornea și Sichevița. Banatica 2, 403–416.
Wetzel, R. 1961: Der Hohlestein im Lonetal. Dokumente alteuropäischer Kulturen vom Eiszeitalter bis zur Völkerwanderung. Mitteilungen des Vereins für Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik Ulm Donau 27, 21–57.
Zilhão, J., Trinkaus, E., Constantin, S., Milota, Ş., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Danciu, A., Rougier, H., Quilès, J., and Rodrigo, R. 2007: The Peştera cu Oase people, Europe’s earliest modern humans. Rethink. Hum. Revolut. Camb. McDonald Inst. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 249–262.