{"id":3651,"date":"2024-12-12T15:50:13","date_gmt":"2024-12-12T14:50:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/?p=3651"},"modified":"2024-12-23T17:49:41","modified_gmt":"2024-12-23T16:49:41","slug":"exploring-myth-and-reality-at-paleolithic-sites-in-the-romanian-banat","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/exploring-myth-and-reality-at-paleolithic-sites-in-the-romanian-banat\/","title":{"rendered":"Exploring Myth and Reality at Paleolithic Sites in the Romanian Banat"},"content":{"rendered":"
\nAndrei B\u0103l\u0103rie1,3<\/sup>, Ewa Dutkiewicz2<\/sup>, Adriana S\u0103r\u0103\u015fan1<\/sup><\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/sup> Muzeul Na\u0163ional al Banatului
\nPia\u0163a Huniade nr. 1
\nTimi\u015foara
\nTimi\u015f County
\nRomania
\nandrei.balarie@gmail.com<\/p>\n

2<\/sup> Museum f\u00fcr Vor- und Fr\u00fchgeschichte
\nStaatliche Museen zu Berlin \u2013 Stiftung Preu\u00dfischer Kulturbesitz
\nArch\u00e4ologisches Zentrum
\nGeschwister-Scholl-Str. 6
\n10117 Berlin
\nGermany<\/p>\n

3<\/sup> Institut f\u00fcr Ur- und Fr\u00fchgeschichte und Arch\u00e4ologie des Mittelalters
\nEberhard Karls Universit\u00e4t T\u00fcbingen
\nSchlo\u00df Hohent\u00fcbingen
\nBurgsteige 11
\n72070 T\u00fcbingen
\nGermany\n<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n

The early prehistory of the European subcontinent is marked by significant events, among which the immigration of anatomically modern humans (AMH) during the Marine Isotope Stage 3 (MIS 3, ~60,000 to 30,000 cal BP) stands out. Understanding the dynamics of this migration requires tracing the routes taken by AMH and documenting their spread across different regions, such as the Danube corridor. The Upper Pleniglacial period (MIS 2), encompassing the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), presents another pivotal time in European prehistory. Recent research suggests the existence of a refuge in the Carpathian Basin during the LGM. However, our understanding of population dynamics and cultural evolution during this period in this region remains limited. To address these gaps, sites with well-preserved stratigraphic sequences are crucial.<\/p>\n

With its diverse geography and rich archaeological record, the Romanian Banat region provides a unique opportunity to study these periods. However, challenges remain, including limited knowledge about specific sites and the need for further excavations to confirm their Paleolithic status. This paper investigates the historical trajectory of Paleolithic research in the Banat region, tracing its evolution from early 19th-century inquiries to modern systematic excavations. By analyzing data from the National Archaeological Repertory (RAN) database of Romania and scrutinizing primary literature, it categorizes Paleolithic sites in the region and evaluates the reliability of available information. Special attention is given to Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 in Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti, Timi\u015f County, as a potentially significant Paleolithic site requiring further excavation for definitive confirmation. The importance of the Banat region in deepening our understanding of human prehistory, particularly regarding migration patterns, cultural evolution, and environmental adaptations during critical periods such as MIS 3 and MIS 2 and the scarcity of confirmed and well studies sites highlight the importance of ongoing research in the Banat region for understanding key events in European prehistory.<\/p>\n

Introduction<\/h2>\n

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 J\u00f6ris 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<\/span>. 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; Krau\u00df 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.<\/p>\n

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 (Koz\u0142owski 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 (Koz\u0142owski 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; J\u00f6ris 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 Kulturpumpe<\/span>hypothesis, 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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; Koz\u0142owski 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 (B\u00f6sken et al. 2018; Fitzsimmons et al. 2012; Kels et al. 2014; Lehmkuhl et al. 2021).<\/p>\n

Geographical location of the Romanian Banat<\/h2>\n

The Banat is a geographical and historical region which owes its name to the noble and administrative title of \u201cBan\u201d (Lozici et al. 2015). The geographical Banat is part of the Pannonian Basin and totals an area of 28,522\u00a0km\u00b2 (Gaudenyi and Milo\u0161evi\u0107 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 Mure\u0219 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 Timi\u015f 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 Timi\u015f-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 Rusc\u0103 Mountains; to the center, the Dognecea Mountains, the Vr\u0161ac Mountains, the Anina Mountains and the Semenic Mountains and in the south, the Locva Mountains and the Alm\u0103j Mountains (Gaudenyi and Milo\u0161evi\u0107 2023).<\/p>\n

After the First World War, with the break-up of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Banat Republic was proclaimed in Timi\u015foara 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\u2019s total area belongs to Romania, 18,966\u00a0km\u00b2, one-third to Serbia, 9,276\u00a0km\u00b2, and a small part to Hungary, 284\u00a0km\u00b2 (Lozici et al. 2015).<\/p>\n

\"map<\/a>
Fig. 1: Banat \u2013 Romanian Banat, Counties Timi\u0219, Cara\u0219-Severin and western part of Mehedin\u021bi.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

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 Timi\u015f and the Mure\u015f 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 Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a, Co\u015fava, Temere\u015fti, and Tincova (B\u0103ltean 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.<\/p>\n

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 Co\u015fava and Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a 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.<\/p>\n

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 Mogo\u015fanu, whose thorough exploration of several Paleolithic sites yielded the first dedicated compendium to this period (Mogo\u015fanu 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 Pe\u015ftera 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 Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a, Co\u015fava, Temere\u015fti, and Tincova (B\u0103ltean 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).<\/p>\n

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]<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Paleolithic Research in the Romanian Banat<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In 1913, the Speleological Commission of the Hungarian Geological Society tasked Heinrich Horusitzky to undertake the cataloguing of Hungary\u2019s 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\u2019s 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 (D\u00e9lmagyarorsz\u00e1g). 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.<\/p>\n

Horusitzky\u2019s categorization divides cave exploration into four periods, offering insights into the beginnings of cave research in Romanian Banat.<\/p>\n

Period I (1549-1820) saw limited scientific discussion, with occasional records mentioning caves and bones, often intertwined with mythical beliefs.<\/p>\n

In Period II (1821-1870), cave exploration became more systematic, with valuable data collected despite the absence of formal excavations.<\/p>\n

Period III (1871-1892) witnessed rapid growth in scientific interest, marked by significant excavations and paleontological studies, notably by figures like Antal Koch.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cPe\u0219tera cu Ap\u0103\u201d in Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti. It is possible that Orthmayr\u2019s publication on this cave prompted Ferencz Hathalmi (1900) to visit this location 27 years later. Orthmayr\u2019s 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\u2019s exploitation and the diversification of tourist objectives, as reflected in Hathalmi\u2019s article on the Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave (Hathalmi 1900). This period is also remarkable due to the fundamental repertoires of archaeological sites created by Felix Milleker (1897) for Banat and M\u00e1rton Roska (1942) for Transylvania.<\/p>\n

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\u20131950), 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 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 (Water Cave) at Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti. Although his research did not reach Paleolithic levels, it sparked the interest of two researchers, Florea Mogo\u015fanu 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.<\/p>\n

Period VI, from 1950 to 1990, was marked by renewed research in Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave in 1960 by Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan (1966). However, they had to abandon their work due to a layer of boulders that had fallen from the cave\u2019s ceiling. Despite this setback, they stressed the cave\u2019s significance for understanding Banat\u2019s Paleolithic era. During their research, they discovered several sites that became crucial in the study of the Paleolithic in Banat, including the Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a, Co\u015fava, and Tincova open-air sites (Mogo\u015fanu 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 C\u0103uni\u0163ei and Gornea-Dealul P\u0103z\u0103ri\u015fte, both excavated by Mogo\u015fanu (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 B\u00e9la 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 Boronean\u0163 (2000).<\/p>\n

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 Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti (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 Dra\u015fovean and Nicola Tasi\u0107 of The Prehistory of Banat \u2013 The Paleolithic and Mesolithic<\/span> (2011).<\/p>\n

The discovery of human bones at Pe\u015ftera 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; Zilh\u00e3o 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 Co\u015fava and Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a (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 Temere\u015fti (Micle and Ni\u0163u 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.<\/p>\n

Paleolithic sites in the Romanian Banat \u2013 the present-day state-of-art<\/h2>\n

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<\/a>. 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.<\/p>\n

For the Banat region, RAN lists 47 archaeological sites with Paleolithic occupations. Among these, 13 are located in Timi\u015f County (12 open-air and one cave site). In Cara\u015f-Severin County, there are 25 archaeological sites (10 open-air and 15 cave sites). There are also 8 archaeological sites in Mehedin\u021bi County that we will discuss further. Among these, one is an open-air site while seven are cave sites located along the Danube Gorges.<\/p>\n

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 Timi\u015f County, of the 13 sites, 8 were added based on Luca\u2019s 2006 repertoire. In Cara\u015f-Severin County, of the 25 sites attributed to the Paleolithic era, 19 were included based on Luca\u2019s 2004 repertoire. In the Banat part of Mehedin\u021bi County, 8 out of 8 sites were included based on Lucas\u2019s 2006 repertoire. To understand these sites\u2019 positioning and precise chronology, we examined the primary literature on which Luca\u2019s inventories were based. We thus drafted an annex that provides more accurate information on the sites\u2019 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).<\/p>\n

\"Map<\/a>
Fig. 2: Map of all sites from RAN classified as \u201cPaleolithic\u201d \u2013 1-Cruceni \u2013 M\u00f3dosi \u00fat\/ Obiectiv 32a 157022.12, 2-Chiz\u0103t\u0103u \u2013 Dealul Cuca , 3-Leucu\u015fe\u015fti, 4-Temere\u015fti \u2013 Dealul Vinii, 5-Co\u015fava \u2013 Podi\u015ful Lipovei, 6-Co\u015fava \u2013 D\u00e2mbu Ple\u015f, 7-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dealul Viei, 8-Curtea \u2013 Dealul Viei, 9-Curtea \u2013 P\u0103m\u00e2nt Ro\u015fu, 10-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbravi\u0163a I, 11-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a II, 12-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103, 13-Duleu \u2013 Curcanu, 14-Vi\u015fag \u2013 Valea Bogarului, 15-Tincova \u2013 S\u0103li\u015fte, 16-C\u0103v\u0103ran – Dealu P\u0103ning, 17-Z\u0103voi – La gar\u0103, 18-Caransebe\u015f – Carbonifera Veche, 19-Buchin – Sat B\u0103tr\u00e2n, 20-Cara\u015fova – Pe\u015ftera Vraska, 21-Cara\u015fova – Pe\u015ftera Popov\u0103\u0163, 22-Cara\u015fova – Pe\u015ftera Cerbului, 23-Pe\u015ftera Buhui, 24-Steierdorf – Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor, 25-Steierdorf – Plopa-Ponor\/Pe\u0219tera cu oase, 26-Ciclova Montan\u0103, 27-Sasca Rom\u00e2n\u0103 \u2013 Pe\u015ftera Dubov\u0103\u0163, 28-Sasca Montan\u0103- Pe\u015ftera Duban\u0103\u0163, 29-C\u0103rbunari – Pe\u015ftera Urzicari, 30-Coronini – Gura Livodi\u0163ei, 31-Gornea – Pe\u015ftera de la Gornea – ,,\u0162\u00e2rchevi\u015fte\u201d, 32-Gornea – Dealul C\u0103uni\u0163ei, 33-Gornea \u2013 \u201dPe\u0219tera\u201d P\u0103z\u0103ri\u0219te, 34-Gornea \u2013 Dealul P\u0103z\u0103ri\u015fte, 35-Gornea \u2013 Vodneac, 36-B\u0103ile Herculane – Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor, 37-Inele\u021b – Pe\u015ftera 2143\/- Cheile Bobotului, 38-Cornereva – Pe\u0219tera Oilor \u2013 Bobot, 39-Pe\u0219tera Veterani, 40-Pe\u0219tera de la gura Ponicovei\/Pe\u0219tera Ponicovei, 41-Pe\u0219tera Climente I\/Pe\u0219tera Climente, 42-Pe\u0219tera ClimenteII\/Pe\u0219tera nr. 1 de la gura Ponicovei, 43-Pe\u0219tera Cuina Turcului, 44-Ad\u0103postul de sub st\u00e2nca Cuina Turcului, 45-Situl arheologic de la Svini\u0163a – Km fluvial 1004, 46-Dubova – Ad\u0103postul lui Climente.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \n
  1. Confirmed<\/em> 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.<\/li>\n
  2. Questionable<\/em> (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).<\/li>\n
  3. A third category, non-Paleolithic<\/em>, 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 \u201cAn earlier occupation cannot be excluded.\u201d One example in the a category is the cave site at Pe\u015ftera de la Gura Ponicovei\/Pe\u015ftera Ponicovei (Fig. 2.40), where based on flint and quartzite tools, a Paleolithic occupation has been assumed (Boronean\u0163 et al., 1979).<\/li>\n
  4. Non-existent<\/em> 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In our area of interest, the cave sites are located in Cara\u015f-Severin County and the westernmost part of Mehedin\u021bi County, particularly along the Danube Gorges. In Timi\u015f County, confirmed Paleolithic sites are exclusively open-air settlements while the information on the cave sites still needs further confirmation.<\/p>\n

    Based on the recovered archaeological remains, confirmed<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

    \"Map<\/a>
    Fig. 3: Map of confirmed Middle Paleolithic sites \u2013 10-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbravi\u0163a I, 11-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a II, 30-Coronini – Gura Livodi\u0163ei, 31-Gornea – Pe\u015ftera de la Gornea – \u201c\u0162\u00e2rchevi\u015fte\u201d, 36-B\u0103ile Herculane – Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    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 Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a I (Fig. 3.10) (Chu and Szentmiklosi 2017; Schmidt et al. 2013; Sitlivy et al. 2012). The sites at Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a II (Fig. 3.11), Dealul C\u0103uni\u0163ei (Fig. 3.31), as well as B\u0103ile Herculane \u2013 Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor (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.<\/p>\n

    Aurignacian sites are primarily found in the eastern part of Timi\u015f County. The cluster of confirmed<\/em> sites in the northeast of Timi\u015f County is mainly concentrated on the right bank of the Bega River (as seen in Fig. 4.4, 5, 10, 11) and includes Temere\u015fti \u2013 Dealul Vinii (Fig. 4.4), Co\u015fava \u2013 Podi\u015ful Lipovei (with two sites, Co\u015fava I and Co\u015fava II: Fig. 4.5), and the two Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a sites (I: Fig. 4.10 and II: Fig. 4.11). Another site is located on the right bank of the Timi\u015f River, also facing south, at Tincova \u2013 S\u0103li\u0219tei (Fig. 4.15).<\/p>\n

    \"Map<\/a>
    Fig. 4: Map of confirmed Aurignacian sites \u2013 4-Temere\u015fti \u2013 Dealul Vinii, 5-Co\u015fava \u2013 Podi\u015ful Lipovei, 10-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbravi\u0163a I, 11-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a II, 15-Tincova \u2013 S\u0103li\u015fte, 36-B\u0103ile Herculane – Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    A possible Aurignacian cluster may be located in the southern part of Cara\u0219-Severin County. However, only one site, Gornea \u2013 Dealul P\u0103z\u0103ri\u0219te, has been confirmed<\/em> (Fig. 3.34) while several other sites are questionable<\/em>. For instance, finds from some sites have not been published (Gornea \u2013 Vodneac: Fig. 3.35), while other sites no longer exist (Gornea \u2013 \u201cPe\u0219tera\u201d P\u0103z\u0103ri\u0219te: Fig. 3.33). However, attributing Gornea \u2013 Dealul P\u0103z\u0103ri\u0219te to the Aurignacian (P\u0103unescu 2001) based only on the typology of a small assemblage is problematic. Mogo\u0219anu (1978, 1973), also on typological basis and the similarity to those from Rom\u00e2ne\u0219ti \u2013 Dumbr\u0103vi\u021ba placed it at the end of the Upper Paleolithic.<\/p>\n

    Confirmed<\/em> sites attributed to the Upper and Final Paleolithic also concentrate on the eastern part of Timi\u0219 County. These are sites of Temere\u015fti \u2013 Dealul Vinii (Fig. 5.4), Co\u015fava \u2013 Podi\u015ful Lipovei (Fig. 5.5), as well as the sites Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a I (Fig. 5.10) and Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a 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 Cara\u0219-Severin County, such as B\u0103ile Herculane \u2013 Pe\u0219tera Ho\u021bilor (Fig. 5.36), and those in the southern part of Cara\u0219-Severin County and the western part of Mehedin\u021bi County, such as Veterani (Fig. 5.39), Pe\u0219tera Climente I (Fig. 5.41), Pe\u0219tera Climente II (Fig. 5.42), Ad\u0103postul de sub st\u00e2nca de la Cuina Turcului (Fig. 5.44) belong to the Epipaleolithic, with different stages and local facies. An exception is Gornea \u2013 P\u0103z\u0103ri\u0219te (Fig. 5.33), considered contemporary with Rom\u00e2ne\u0219ti \u2013 Dumbr\u0103vi\u021ba (Fig. 5.10), therefore most likely Epi-Gravettian (Mogosanu 1978).<\/p>\n

    \"Map<\/a>
    Fig. 5: Map of confirmed Upper Paleolithic sites \u2013 Temere\u015fti \u2013 Dealul Vinii, 5-Co\u015fava \u2013 Podi\u015ful Lipovei, 10-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbravi\u0163a I, 11-Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a II, 33-Gornea \u2013 \u201dPe\u0219tera\u201d P\u0103z\u0103ri\u0219te, 36-B\u0103ile Herculane – Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor, 39-Pe\u0219tera Veterani, 40-Pe\u0219tera de la gura Ponicovei\/Pe\u0219tera Ponicovei, 41-Pe\u0219tera Climente I\/Pe\u0219tera Climente, 42-Pe\u0219tera ClimenteII\/Pe\u0219tera nr. 1 de la gura Ponicovei, 44-Ad\u0103postul de sub st\u00e2nca Cuina Turcului.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The most common situations encountered within the questionable<\/em> category involve attributing sites to the Paleolithic based on isolated finds of lithics, such as Cruceni \u2013 M\u00f3dosi\u00fat\/Objective 32a (Fig. 2.1), Vi\u015fag \u2013 Valea Bogarului (Fig. 22.14), Caransebe\u015f \u2013 Carbonifera Veche (Fig. 2.18), Z\u0103voi \u2013 La gar\u0103 (Fig. 2.17), Cara\u015fova \u2013 Pe\u015ftera Vraska (Fig. 2.20), Cara\u015fova \u2013 Pe\u015ftera Cerbului (Fig. 2.22), Inele\u0163 \u2013 Pe\u015ftera 2143\/\u2013 Cheile Bobotului (Fig. 2.37) and Svini\u021ba \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

    Several open-air sites were assigned based mostly on one artefact found during field surveys. At times, such sites (see Z\u0103voi \u2013 La gar\u0103 (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<\/em> category until further evidence. For instance, the site at Caransebe\u015f \u2013 Carbonifera Veche (Petrovszky 1975) (Fig. 2.18) is located in the center of the main riverbed of the Timi\u015f, 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 Z\u0103voi \u2013 La gar\u0103 (Fig. 2.17), the only artifact was discovered along the railroad embankment (Petrovszky, 1977).<\/p>\n

    The sites C\u0103v\u0103ran \u2013 Dealu P\u0103ning (Fig. 2.16) and Gornea \u2013 \u201cPe\u015ftera\u201d P\u0103z\u0103ri\u015fte (Fig. 2.33) are considered questionable<\/em> 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 C\u0103v\u0103ran \u2013 Dealu P\u0103ning (Fig. 2.16) talk of a series of quartz pieces and several remains of fossil fauna. P\u0103unescu (2001) thus attributed this site to the Mousterian. Similarly, Gornea \u2013 \u201cPe\u015ftera\/Cave\u201d P\u0103z\u0103ri\u015fte (Fig. 2.33), located in the vicinity of the Gornea-P\u0103z\u0103ri\u015fte open-air site, was attributed by Boronean\u0163 to the Aurignacian based on the material recovered in the proximity of the destroyed cave (P\u0103unescu 2001). In addition, questionable<\/em> includes also sites where archaeological excavations took place but with no published results or illustration of the recovered materials. This is the case at Leucu\u015fe\u015fti (Fig. 2.3), Curtea \u2013 Dealul Viei (Fig. 2.8), Curtea \u2013 P\u0103m\u00e2nt Ro\u015fu (Fig. 2.9), Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 (Fig. 2.12) and Sasca Montan\u0103 \u2013 Pe\u015ftera Duban\u0103\u0163 (Fig. 2.28).<\/p>\n

    Our brief account of the past research also highlighted the lack of recently excavated cave sites. The research on the open-air sites in Timi\u015f 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 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 from Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti. 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 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 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 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 should be included in the inventory of the Paleolithic sites in the Romanian Banat.<\/p>\n

    Pe\u015ftera Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103<\/h3>\n

    The archaeological site of Pe\u015ftera Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti also known as Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 (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, Timi\u015f County, southeast of the village of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti, in the karst landscape of the upper Bega River basin, around 4.2\u00a0km northeast of the confluence of the Bega Luncanilor and Bega Poieni rivers. The cave entrance is 9.2\u00a0m wide and 2\u00a0m high and opens to the north at 370\u00a0m NN at the top of a steep slope above DC111 (Communal Road 111). The cave is about 1,450\u00a0m 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.<\/p>\n

    \"Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/a>
    Fig. 6: Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103, entrance in November 2022 (photo: Ewa Dutkiewicz).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The first geological account of the Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 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 Re\u015fita (Negrea et al. 1964). Negrea described the \u201cBat Hall\u201d 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 \u2018heads\u2019 capable of holding water. The walls exhibit distinctive patterns, such as \u201chieroglyphics\u201d and \u201cleopard skin\u201d formations, created by decalcification and clay deposits. While the cave houses initial stalagmite formations and clastic materials, it lacks alluvial deposits. The cave\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

    Research History<\/h3>\n

    The Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave was first mentioned in 1833 when it became the property of F\u00e0bry J\u00e0nos along with the forests on Meri\u015forul Hill (Cranberry Hill). The Hungarian Treasury facilitated this transaction for F\u00e0bry J\u00e0nos, who was an accessor for several county courts and also a landowner of several farms in the area, spanning between Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti and Fere\u015fe\u015fti, 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, Pe\u015ftera Mare de la Fere\u015fe\u015fti, Pe\u015ftera Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Fere\u015fti and Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 (Luca 2010). Yet, the singular insight into the origin of its name, specifically \u201cWater Cave,\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

    Hathalmi\u2019s 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\u00a0meters. 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).<\/p>\n

    \"First<\/a>
    Fig. 7: First plan of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 by Gabnay Ferencz Hathalmi, scale 1-2000 (after Hathalmi, 1900).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \"Photograph<\/a>
    Fig. 8: Photograph of the entrance of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave in 1900 (photo made by Hathalmi, 1900).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The cave does not appear on the first two topographic surveys of the Habsburg Empire (1769\u20131772 and 1819\u20131869). It first appears in cartographic records on the third topographic survey of the Habsburg Empire (1869\u20131887), 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\u2019s description.<\/p>\n

    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\u2019 military campaign of 29 BC (Orthmayr 1873). After World War I, Bokor Elem\u00edr 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<\/span>, and 1900 concerning Acantholophus tridens<\/span>, 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 Cara\u015f.<\/p>\n

    \"The<\/a>
    Fig. 9: The third topographical survey of the Habsburg Empire with the location of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave (1869\u20131887), scale 1:25.000.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    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 Mogo\u015fanu and Ion Stratan resumed the research (Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan 1966).<\/p>\n

    \"Decimated<\/a>
    Fig. 10: Decimated 3D model of the Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 (Muzeul Na\u0163ional al Banatului, scanning and processing: Adriana S\u0103r\u0103\u015fan and Adrian-Cristian Ardelean, https:\/\/sketchfab.com\/3d-models\/romanesti-cave-90b887cbe90f468c89b3e3759e8b5770).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    A pivotal advancement came in 1963 when \u015etefan 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 Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave (Fig. 10) carried out during the 2023 research campaign by our team. Negrea\u2019s cave map enriched our understanding of the archaeological progress in the cave by incorporating both the trenches from Moga\u2019s excavations and those of Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan into the cave\u2019s 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 Bochi\u015f 2002) (Fig. 12) was identified as one of the excavation sites overseen by Mogo\u015fanu. There is no evidence to suggest poaching activities, at least at that time, in this part of the cave.<\/p>\n

    The quest for knowledge at the Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave was reignited in 1991, with excavations conducted by Florin Dra\u015fovean, Florin Gog\u00e2ltan, and Petru Rogozea (1994). Their investigations resulted in three additional trenches, two in front of Moga\u2019s \u201cL\u201d shaped excavation at the entrance, and one parallel to Mogo\u015fanu\u2019s trench to the east. However, specific details or additional references to these explorations remain.<\/p>\n

    \"Plan<\/a>
    Fig. 11: Plan of Pe\u015ftera Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti with the locations of different trenches by Stefan Negrea (after Negrea et al., 1963).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \"Plan<\/a>
    Fig. 12: Plan of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera ca Ap\u0103 with the locations of different trenches by Bogdan Bochi\u0219 (after Moga and Bochi\u0219, 2001, Pl. II).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    Inconsistencies in research documentation<\/h3>\n

    Addressing the inconsistencies surrounding the research history of Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103, 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 Mogo\u015fanu 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 \u201cscientific legacies,\u201d perpetuating the non-publication of research indefinitely and, in many cases, becoming an enduring problem. Fortunately, these unconventional practices are gradually becoming obsolete.<\/p>\n

    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 Bochi\u0219 2002; Moga and S\u00eerbu 2002; Rogozea 1994). Negrea\u2019s 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 \u201cL\u201d-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\u00a0m and a width of 1\u00a0m, although the depth remained undetermined. The trench immediately following the \u201cL\u201d-shaped one, as per Negrea\u2019s plan, has a length of 4\u00a0m and a width of 2\u00a0m, oriented on the N-S axis. Despite the depth shown on the plan being -1.5\u00a0m, this likely represents the trench conducted by Mogo\u015fanu 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\u00a0m. 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 Bochi\u0219 2002; Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan 1966; Rogozea 1994), should not be dismissed. However, Negrea\u2019s plan features four trenches with regular shapes. The ones inside the cave both have widths of 1\u00a0m and lengths of 2\u00a0m, morphologically making them similar to the \u201cL\u201d-shaped trench at the entrance to the cave, a trench attributed to Moga (Moga and Bochi\u0219 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\u2019s description, he placed a trench approximately 45 m from the cave entrance, where he discovered the canines of Ursus spelaeus<\/span> 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\u2019s 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\u00a0m from the cave entrance is the one on Negrea\u2019s plan with a depth of -1\u00a0m oriented approximately on the NW-SE axis. The trench, with a depth of -0.3\u00a0m, is located approximately 20\u00a0m from the cave entrance and is oriented N-S.<\/p>\n

    According to Rogozea\u2019s publication on research conducted in 1991 in the Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti Cave (Rogozea 1994), three trenches were excavated, two near the entrance with dimensions of 2\u00a0m by 1\u00a0m, S1\/1991 on the left side and S3\/1991 on the right side. The third trench S2\/1991, measuring 3\u00a0m by 1\u00a0m, according to the description in the publication, was placed approximately 30\u00a0m from the cave entrance on the left side of the Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan survey. Considering that Negrea\u2019s plan features four trenches, one of which is credited to Mogo\u015fanu 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 Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan. We conclude that trench S2\/1991 is not 30\u00a0m from the cave entrance and is not on the right side of Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan\u2019s 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\u00a0m distance does not match from any angle.<\/p>\n

    Although neither Moga\u2019s research nor that of Mogo\u015fanu 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 Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti is \u201cthe most important for understanding the Paleolithic in the area.\u201d<\/p>\n

    After analyzing materials attributed to Moga\u2019s 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 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103. According to Boronean\u0163 (2000): \u201cS\u0103p\u0103turile arheologice au fost conduse de M. Moga in 1949. Au fost identificate dovezi de locuire din paleoliticul superior: o vatr\u0103 de foc pe care erau opt col\u0163i de Ursus spelaeus<\/span> \u015fi dou\u0103 instrumente din os.\u201d (Translation: \u201cArchaeological 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<\/span> and two bone tools.\u201d). Moga\u2019s 1949 publications regarding the excavation in Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 indeed mention eight cave bear canines and two \u201cbone tools\u201d associated with them. However, they do not specify that these are associated with hearths. Moga (1949) associates the \u201cscarce hearths remains,\u201d and the ceramic materials with two other cultural layers. Moga\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

    According to P\u0103unescu (2001): \u201cP\u00e2n\u0103 la aceast\u0103 ad\u00e2ncime (3.2\u00a0m) s-au g\u0103sit doar dovezi de locuire postpaleolitic\u0103. Se men\u0163ioneaz\u0103 totu\u015fi, \u00een afara resturilor osoase de Ursus spelaeus<\/span> \u015fi altele atribuite lui Ursus arctos<\/span>, Vulpes vulpes<\/span>. Este foarte posibil ca pe\u015ftera s\u0103 fi fost locuit\u0103 \u015fi \u00een paleolitic.\u201d (Translation: \u201cUp to this depth (3.2\u00a0m) the only evidence of post-Palaeolithic habitation has been found. In addition to the skeletal remains of Ursus spelaeus<\/span> and others attributed to Ursus arctos<\/span>, Vulpes vulpes<\/span>, are mentioned. It is quite possible that the cave was also inhabited in the Paleolithic.\u201d The bone remains of Ursus arctos<\/span> and Vulpes vulpes<\/span> are not mentioned in the publications of Moga (1964, 1949), nor in the publication of Mogo\u015fanu (1978) and Stratan (1966) regarding the Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 excavation.<\/p>\n

    Sorin-Marius Petrescu\u2019s publications (2010, 2000) mention Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 and raise a significant question about Moga\u2019s research. There is a citation regarding Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti – Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 that surprisingly refers to Moga\u2019s 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\u2019s publications aligns with that of Moga (1964, 1949) and Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan (1966), although there may be some confusion regarding the extent of the discoveries. Specifically, Petrescu\u2019s publication states that at a depth of 3.2 meters, Paleolithic finds were mentioned. We know from Mogo\u015fanu and Stratan\u2019s publication that this depth was reached in a trench excavated in 1960 and no Paleolithic levels were uncovered until that point.<\/p>\n

    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 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 from Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti important for Paleolithic research. Time and patience will probably tell us if this statement is valid.<\/p>\n

    Summary of the current state of knowledge of the archaeological cultures present in Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103<\/h3>\n

    According to the publications on the archaeological research and materials found in Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103, we can draw some references on the stratigraphy of the cave\u2019s 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 T\u00e8ne and Iron Age (Ba- sarabi Culture) materials. Layer 1 was attributed to the Bronze Age (the Balta S\u0103rat\u0103 Group), and the following five, from Layer 2 to Layer 6, to the Co\u0163ofeni Culture (Rogozea 1994).<\/p>\n

    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 Bochi\u015f 2002; Moga and S\u00eerbu 2002).<\/p>\n

    A small collection of lithic materials originating from Marius Moga\u2019s excavation at Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 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<\/span>, labelled as originating from Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti (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<\/span> were not identifiable in the museum\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

    \"Lithic<\/a>
    Fig. 13: Lithic artifacts from Pe\u015ftera Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti in the collection of the Banat National Museum, Timi\u015foara (Muzeul Na\u0163ional al Banatului, photo: Milan \u015eepe\u0163an).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
    \"Skull<\/a>
    Fig. 14: Skull of a cave bear (Ursus spelaeus<\/span>) from Pe\u015ftera Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti in the collection of the Banat National Museum, Timi\u015foara (Muzeul Na\u0163ional al Banatului, photo: Milan \u015eepe\u0163an).<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

    The pottery from Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103, identified as Tiszapolg\u00e1r culture (Moga and Bochi\u015f 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 Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti 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 Bodrogkereszt\u00far culture (Moga and Bochi\u015f 2002).<\/p>\n

    The Co\u0163ofeni material in the cave belongs to Phase III (Moga and S\u00eerbu 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 Co\u0163ofeni culture in Transylvania and showcases well-polished black pottery as well as vessels that imitate the shapes of metal vessels (Moga and S\u00eerbu 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 Vu\u010dedol environments, indicates the spread of these influences towards Transylvania (Moga and S\u00eerbu 2002). All these aspects suggest that the Co\u0163ofeni settlement at Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 belongs to a Co\u0163ofeni III b-III c horizon.<\/p>\n

    The Bronze Age pottery was given analogies in Phases II-III of the Balta S\u0103rat\u0103 cultural group. Rogozea (1994) dated them to Br. D -P. Reinecke\/SD I -B. H\u00e4nsel (H\u00e4nsel 1968). The discovery is notable for the emergence of new vessel shapes influenced by the Vatina and Cruceni cultures, while still preserving specific Balta S\u0103rat\u0103 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).<\/p>\n

    Current situation<\/h3>\n

    Given that the Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti 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\u2019s 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\u2019s detailed account of the guano extraction process in the cave, as described by the locals (likely the F\u00e0bry family\u2019s employees who had up multiple fire sites inside the cave for illumination \u2013 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\u2019s entrance and first chamber.<\/p>\n

    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 Tome\u015fti glass factory, allowing him to be aware of the ongoing activities in this vicinity. Given the consistent removal of the cave\u2019s inherent deposits, an urgent examination of the entrance chamber\u2019s state is imperative.<\/p>\n

    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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

    The Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti \u2013 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 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.<\/p>\n

    Conclusions<\/h2>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n

    Following the investigation, five confirmed<\/em> sites can still be assigned to the Middle Paleolithic period. These sites include two open-air sites in Timi\u015f County, and one open-air and two cave sites in Cara\u015f-Severin County. Among, the Coronini \u2013 Gura Livodi\u0163ei site yielded human remains, most likely belonging to Homo neanderthalensis<\/span>. Six sites are likely Aurignacian (five open-air and one cave site, Pe\u015ftera Plopa-Ponor\/Pe\u015ftera cu Oase). Ten sites are attributed to the Upper Paleolithic (four in Timi\u015f County, two in Cara\u0219-Severin County, and four in Mehedin\u021bi County).<\/p>\n

    The confirmed<\/em> sites are concentrated in two groups, one in the east of Timi\u015f County and the second along the Danube Gorge. This concentration is a result of intensive research in both areas. Though currently questionable<\/em>, 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 Mogo\u0219anu during his excavations at Dealul P\u0103z\u0103ri\u0219te, 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\u2014 B\u0103ile Herculane-Pe\u0219tera Ho\u021bilor in the Cerna Valley, and Pe\u0219tera cu Oase along the Mini\u0219 River Valley. Unfortunately, the latter has not yielded any archaeological material, except for the famous human remains.<\/p>\n

    The archaeological research of the caves in the Poiana Rusc\u0103i Mountains is very modest, considering that this mountain range has 125 registered caves (https:\/\/www.speologie.org\/<\/a>), of which 31 are in Timi\u0219 County. However, the archaeological research of the caves in Timi\u0219 County is virtually non-existent. The only cave that has been partly investigated is Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 at Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti, 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.<\/p>\n

    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.<\/p>\n

    We consider the exploration of Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 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 Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 at Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti 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.<\/p>\n

    References<\/h2>\n
    \n

    Adler, D. S., and J\u00f6ris, O. 2008: Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic boundary across Eurasia. Eurasian Prehistory 5, 5\u201318.<\/p>\n

    Alexandrescu, E., Olariu, A., Skog, G., Stenstr\u00f6m, K., and Hellborg, R. 2010: Os fossiles humains des grottes Muierii et Cioclovina, Roumanie. L\u2019Anthropologie 114, 341\u2013353.<\/p>\n

    Anghelinu, M. 1998: Observa\u0163ii Asupra Musterianului Carpatic. Cercet. Istor. XVII\/1, 19\u201336.<\/p>\n

    Anghelinu, M., Ni\u0163\u0103, L., and Mur\u0103toreanu, G. 2018: Le Gravettien et l\u2019\u00c9pigravettien de l\u2019Est de la Roumanie: une r\u00e9-\u00e9valuation. L\u2019Anthropologie 122, 183\u2013219. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.anthro.2018.03.002.<\/p>\n

    Anghelinu, M., Ni\u0163\u0103, L., Sitlivy, V., Uthmeier, T., and B\u0103ltean, I. 2012: Looking around Pe\u015ftera Cu Oase: The beginnings of Upper Paleolithic in Romania. Temporal Spat. Corridors Homo Sapiens Sapiens Popul. Dyn. Late Pleistocene Early Holocene 274, 136\u2013157. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.quaint.2012.01.012.<\/p>\n

    Babe\u015f, M. 1971: Les fouilles archeologiques en Roumanie (1970). DACIA NS XV, 359\u2013393.<\/p>\n

    Balogh, E. 1942: \u00d6semberi Maradv\u00e1nyok a B\u00e1ns\u00e1gi- Hegyvid\u00e9k K\u00e9t Barlangj\u00e1b\u00f3l. K\u00f6zelmenyek – Az Erd\u00e9lyi Nemzeti M\u00faz. \u00c9rem- \u00c9s R\u00e9gis\u00e9gt\u00e1r\u00e1b\u00f3l II, 3\u201313.<\/p>\n

    Balogh, E. 1940: A b\u00e1ns\u00e1gi Szarvas-barlang.\u2014 Die Hirsch-H\u00f6hle im Banat. Erd\u00e9lyi Muz. 45, 248\u2013252.<\/p>\n

    B\u0103ltean, I. 2011: The Palaeolithic in Banat. In: N. Tasi\u0107 and F. Dra\u015fovean (eds.), The Prehistory of Banat. I. The Palaeolithic and Mesolithic. Bucharest: The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, 19\u201376.<\/p>\n

    Bar-Yosef, O. 2006: Defining the Aurignacian. In: O. Bar-Yosef and J. Zilh\u00e3o (eds.), Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia. Lisboa: Instituto Portugu\u00eas de Arqueologia, 11\u201318.<\/p>\n

    Bleahu, M., Decu, V., Negrea, S., Ple\u0219a, C., Povar\u0103, I., and Viehmann, I. 1976: Pe\u015fteri Din Rom\u00e2nia. Editura \u015ftiin\u0163ific\u0103 \u015fi enciclopedic\u0103, Bucure\u0219ti.<\/p>\n

    Bokor, E. 1921: A magyarhoni barlangok \u00edzeltl\u00e1bui. Barlangkutat\u00e1s IX, 1\u201329.<\/p>\n

    Bonsall, C. and Boronean\u021b, A. 2018: The Iron Gates Mesolithic\u2013A brief review of recent developments. L\u2019Anthropologie 122, 264\u2013280.<\/p>\n

    Bonsall, C., Boronean\u0163, A., Evatt, A., Soficaru, A., Nica, C., Bartosiewicz, L., Cook, G. T., Higham, T. F., and Pickard, C. 2016: The \u2018Clisurean\u2019 finds from Climente II cave, Iron Gates, Romania. Quaternary International 423, 303\u2013314.<\/p>\n

    Boronean\u021b, 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,\u20181 Decembrie 1918\u2019 University (Alba Iulia, Romania), Archaeopress, 45\u201356.<\/p>\n

    Boronean\u021b, V. 2000: Arheologia pe\u0219terilor \u0219i minelor din Rom\u00e2nia. CIMeC.<\/p>\n

    Boronean\u021b, V. 1973: Recherches archeologiques sur la cultura Schela Cladovei de la zone des Portes de Fer. DACIA NS XVII, 05\u201340.<\/p>\n

    Boronean\u0163, V., Cr\u0103ciunescu, G., and St\u00eeng\u0103, I. 1979: Raport preliminar privind s\u0103p\u0103turile de la Ostrovul Mare (Campania 1978). Mater. \u015ei Cercet. Arheol. 13, 17\u201319.<\/p>\n

    B\u00f6sken, J., S\u00fcmegi, P., Zeeden, C., Klasen, N., Guly\u00e1s, S., and Lehmkuhl, F. 2018: Investigating the last glacial Gravettian site \u2018S\u00e1gv\u00e1r Lyukas Hill\u2019 (Hungary) and its paleoenvironmental and geochronological context using a multi-proxy approach. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 509, 77\u201390.<\/p>\n

    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\u2013178.<\/p>\n

    Chu, W., McLin, S., W\u00f6stehoff, L., Ciornei, A., Gennai, J., Marreiros, J., and Dobo\u0219, A. 2022: Aurignacian dynamics in Southeastern Europe based on spatial analysis, sediment geochemistry, raw materials, lithic analysis, and use-wear from Rom\u00e2ne\u0219ti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u021ba. Science Reports 12, 1\u201316.<\/p>\n

    Chu, W., P\u00f6tter, S., Dobo\u0219, A., Albert, T., Klasen, N., Ciornei, A., B\u00f6sken, J. J., and Schulte, P. 2019: Geoarchaeology and geochronology of the Upper Palaeolithic site of Temere\u0219ti Dealu Vinii, Banat, Romania: Site formation processes and human activity of an open-air locality: Geoarch\u00e4ologie und Geochronologie der jungpal\u00e4olithischen Fundstelle Temere\u0219ti Dealu Vinii, Banat, Rum\u00e4nien: Nat\u00fcrliche und menschliche Einfl\u00fcsse auf die Genese einer Freilandfundst\u00e4tte. Quart\u00e4r\u2013Internationales Jahrb. Zur Erforsch. Eiszeitalt. Steinzeit 66, 111\u2013134.<\/p>\n

    Chu, W. and Richter, J. 2020. Aurignacian cultural unit. Encycl. Glob. Archaeol. Springer Int. Publ. Cham 1\u201310.<\/p>\n

    Chu, W. and Szentmiklosi, A. 2017: The early Upper Paleolithic settlement of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a I, Timi\u015f County. Analele Banat. Sn Arheol. – Istor. XXV, 19\u201324.<\/p>\n

    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\u201372.<\/p>\n

    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\u2013714. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.1172873.<\/p>\n

    Com\u015fa, E. 1971: SILEXUL DE TIP \u201cB\u0102N\u0102\u0162EAN\u201d. Apulum 9, 15\u201319.<\/p>\n

    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\u201316.<\/p>\n

    Conard, N. J. 2009: A female figurine from the basal Aurignacian of Hohle Fels Cave in southwestern Germany. Nature 459, 248\u2013252. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/nature07995.<\/p>\n

    Conard, N. J. 2002: The timing of cultural innovations and the dispersal of modern humans in Europe. Terra Nostra 2002, 82\u201394.<\/p>\n

    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\u2013371.<\/p>\n

    Conard, N. J., Bolus, M., Dutkiewicz, E., and Wolf, S. 2015: Eiszeitarch\u00e4ologie auf der Schw\u00e4bischen Alb. Die Fundstellen im Ach- und Lonetal und in ihrer Umgebung, T\u00fcbingen Publications in Prehistory. T\u00fcbingen: Kerns Verlag.<\/p>\n

    Conard, N. J., Malina, M., and M\u00fcnzel, S. C. 2009: New flutes document the earliest musical tradition in southwestern Germany. Nature 460, 737\u2013740. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/nature08169.<\/p>\n

    Conard, N. J. and Wolf, S. 2020: Der Hohle Fels in Schelklingen. Anf\u00e4nge von Kunst und Musik, T\u00fcbingen Publications in Prehistory. T\u00fcbingen: Kerns Verlag.<\/p>\n

    Cronica Cercet\u0103rilor Arheologice, 1995: in: A XXIX-A Sesiune Na\u0163ional\u0103 De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 1994, CIMEC, Cluj-Napoca.<\/p>\n

    Dobo\u0219, A. 2017: Dobo\u0219 Adrian – The Middle Paleolithic research in Romania. Past and current issues. Mater. \u015ei Cercet. Arheol. SN 13, 5\u201314. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.3406\/mcarh.2017.1042.<\/p>\n

    Dra\u0219ovean, F. 2018: Contribu\u021bii la repertoriul arheologic al jude\u021bului Timi\u0219. Topografia arheologic\u0103 a comunei Foenii. Patrimonium Banaticum, VIII, 103\u2013138.<\/p>\n

    Dutkiewicz, E. 2021: Zeichen. Markierungen, Muster und Symbole im Schw\u00e4bischen Aurignacien, T\u00fcbinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte. T\u00fcbingen: Kerns Verlag.<\/p>\n

    Fitzsimmons, K. E., Markovi\u0107, 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\u2013118. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.quascirev.2012.03.002.<\/p>\n

    Floss, H., Fr\u00f6hle, 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. Krau\u00df and H. Floss (eds.), Southeast Europe before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Research Centres Sfb 1070 \u201cRessourcenKulturen\u201d, Schloss Hohent\u00fcbingen, 9th of May 2014, RessourcenKulturen. T\u00fcbingen: T\u00fcbingen University Press.<\/p>\n

    Gaudenyi, T. and Milo\u0161evi\u0107, M. V. 2023: The Banat Plain and the Banat Mountains: Toward its definition. European Journal of Environment and Earth Sciences 4, 46\u201351.<\/p>\n

    Ginter, B., Koz\u0142owski, J., Guadelli, J.-L., and Laville, H. (eds.) 2000: Temnata Cave, excavations in Karlukovo Karst, Bulgaria. Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9historique fran\u00e7aise.<\/p>\n

    Gudea, N. and Mo\u021bu, I. 1983: Observa\u0163ii \u00een legatura cu istoria Banatului \u00een Epoca Romana. Banatica 7, 151\u2013202.<\/p>\n

    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\u201342.<\/p>\n

    Hahn, J. 1988: Die Gei\u00dfenkl\u00f6sterle-H\u00f6hle im Achtal bei Blaubeuren I. Fundhorizontbildung und Besiedlung im Mittelpal\u00e4olithikum und im Aurignacien, Forschungen und Berichte zur Vor- und Fr\u00fchgeschichte in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss Verlag.<\/p>\n

    Hahn, J. 1986: Kraft und Aggression. Die Botschaft der Eiszeitkunst im Aurignacien S\u00fcddeutschlands? T\u00fcbingen: Verlag Archaeologia Venatoria.<\/p>\n

    Hahn, J. 1977: Aurignacien, das \u00e4ltere Jungpal\u00e4olithikum in Mittel- und Osteuropa. K\u00f6ln: B\u00f6hlau Verlag.<\/p>\n

    H\u00e4nsel, B. 1968: Beitr\u00e4ge zur Chronologie der mittleren Bronzezeit im Karpartenbecken. Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt Verlag.<\/p>\n

    Hathalmi, G. F. 1900: A rumunyesti barlang \u00e9s a lobog\u00f3 forr\u00e1s. Tur. Lapja, Foly\u00f3irat a Turistas\u00e1g \u00c9s Honismeret Terjeszt\u00e9s\u00e9re XII, 138\u2013141.<\/p>\n

    Higham, T., Basell, L., Jacobi, R., Wood, R., Bronk Ramsey, C., and Conard, N. J. 2012: \u03a4esting models for the beginnings of the Aurignacian and the advent of figurative art and music: The radiocarbon chronology of Gei\u00dfenkl\u00f6sterle. Journal of Human Evolution 62, 664\u2013676.<\/p>\n

    Hoernes, R. 1875: Vorlage von Wirbelthierresten (Ursus spelaeus und Capra Ibex) aus der Bohoi-H\u00f6le bei Anina, Geschenk des Herrn A. Barr\u00e9. Verhandlungen K K Geol. Reichsanst. 17, 339\u2013343.<\/p>\n

    Hoffecker, J. F. 2009: The spread of modern humans in Europe. PNAS 106, 16040\u201316045. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.0903446106<\/p>\n

    Horusitzky, H. and Siegmeth, K. 1914: Zusammenfassung der Literatur \u00fcber die H\u00f6hlen Ungarns 1549-1913., A Magyar Kir\u00e1lyi F\u00f6ldtani Int\u00e9zet Kiadv\u00e1nyai. Budapest: Nyomatott Fritz \u00c1rmin K\u00f6nyvnyomd\u00e1j\u00e1ban.<\/p>\n

    Hublin, J.-J. 2015: The modern human colonization of western Eurasia: when and where? Quaternary Science Reviews 118, 194\u2013210.<\/p>\n

    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., P\u00e4\u00e4bo, 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\u2013302. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/s41586-020-2259-z.<\/p>\n

    Hughes, P. D. and Gibbard, P. L. 2015: A stratigraphical basis for the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Quat. Syst. Its Form. Subdiv. 383, 174\u2013185. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.quaint.2014.06.006.<\/p>\n

    Hughes, P. D., Gibbard, P. L., and Ehlers, J. 2013: Timing of glaciation during the last glacial cycle: evaluating the concept of a global \u2018Last Glacial Maximum\u2019 (LGM). Earth-Science Reviews 125, 171\u2013198. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/j.earscirev.2013.07.003.<\/p>\n

    J\u00f6ris, 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 \u2013 Methods, chronology, technology and subsistence. Symposium by the Prehistoric Commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences; Vienna, November 9-11. Wien: Mitteilungen der Pr\u00e4historischen Kommission, 200.<\/p>\n

    Jungbert, B. 1979: Repertoriul localit\u0103\u021bilor cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (II). Acta Mvsei Napoc. XVI, 389\u2013410.<\/p>\n

    Jungbert, B. 1978: Repertoriul localita\u0163ilor cu descoperiri paleolitice din Transilvania (I). Acta Mvsei Napoc. XV, 1\u201317.<\/p>\n

    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\u2013Examples from the Paleolithic sites Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti and Co\u015fava. Quaternary International 351, 213\u2013230.<\/p>\n

    Kind, C.-J. (ed.) 2019: L\u00f6wenmensch und mehr. Die Ausgrabungen 2008\u20132013 in den altsteinzeitlichen Schichten der Stadel-H\u00f6hle im Hohlenstein (Lonetal), Gemeinde Asselfingen, Alb-Donau-Kreis mit Beitr\u00e4gen von Alvise Barbieri, Thomas Beutelspacher, \u00c0ngel Blanco-Lapaz, Nicole Ebinger-Rist, Sireen El Zaatari, Christophe Falgu\u00e8res, Katerina Harvati, Tina K. Hornauer-Jahnke, Claus-Joachim Kind, Keiko Kitagawa, Petra Kr\u00f6nneck (\u2020), Christopher Miller, Edwige Pons-Branchu, Ma\u00eflys Richard, Daniel Richter, Sibylle Wolf, Kurt Wehrberger, Reinhard Ziegler, Forschungen und Berichte zur Arch\u00e4ologie in Baden-W\u00fcrttemberg. Esslingen: Landesamt f\u00fcr Denkmalpflege im Regierungspr\u00e4sidium Stuttgart.<\/p>\n

    Koz\u0142owski, J. 1982: Excavations in the Bacho-Kiro cave (Bulgaria): final report. Polish Scientific Publishers, Warszawa.<\/p>\n

    Koz\u0142owski, J. and Otte, M. 2000: La formation de l\u2019Aurignacien en Europe. L\u2019Anthropologie 104, 3\u201315. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1016\/S0003-5521(00)90001-3.<\/p>\n

    Koz\u0142owski, 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\u201320. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1017\/S0079497X00004059.<\/p>\n

    Krau\u00df, R. and Floss, H. (eds.) 2016: Southeast Europe before Neolithisation. Proceedings of the International Workshop within the Collaborative Research Centres SFB 1070 \u201cRessourcenKulturen\u201d, Schloss Hohent\u00fcbingen, 9th of May 2014, RessourcenKulturen. T\u00fcbingen: B\u00fcro f\u00fcr Design, Martin Emrich, Lemg.<\/p>\n

    Lazarovici, G., Trinkaus, E., Petrescu, S.-M., Zilh\u00e3o, J., Rodrigo, R., Moldovan, O., Rougier, H., Constantin, S., Soficaru, A., and Quilles, J. 2006a: Steierdorf, ora\u015f Anina, jud. Cara\u015f-Severin Punct: Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor (La Ho\u0163u). In: A XL-A Sesiune Na\u0163ional\u0103 De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 2005, CIMEC, Constan\u021ba, 334\u2013336.<\/p>\n

    Lazarovici, G., Trinkaus, E., Petrescu, S.-M., Zilh\u00e3o, J., Rodrigo, R., Moldovan, O., Rougier, H., Constantin, S., Soficaru, A., and Quilles, J. 2006b: Steierdorf, ora\u015f Anina, jud. Cara\u015f Severin – Punct: Pe\u015ftera cu Oase. In: A XL-A Sesiune Na\u0163ional\u0103 De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 2005, CIMEC, Constan\u021ba, 336\u2013337.<\/p>\n

    Lehmkuhl, F., Nett, J. J., P\u00f6tter, S., Schulte, P., Sprafke, T., Jary, Z., Antoine, P., Wacha, L., Wolf, D., and Zerboni, A. 2021: Loess landscapes of Europe\u2013Mapping, geomorphology, and zonal differentiation. Earth-Science Reviews 215, 103496.<\/p>\n

    Lewis-Williams, J. D. 2002: The mind in the cave. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd.<\/p>\n

    Lista Monumentelor Istorice 1991-1992 – Jude\u021bul Timi\u0219, 1992.<\/p>\n

    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\u20131484. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1126\/science.abi8202.<\/p>\n

    Lozici, A., Petroman, C., Constantin, E. C., Marin, D., and Schill, O. 2015: Traditions in Banat. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 197, 730\u2013736.<\/p>\n

    Luca, S. A. 2010: Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul rom\u00e2nesc: repertoriu, Edi\u021bia a doua. ed, Bibliotheca Brukenthal. Muzeul Na\u021bional Brukenthal ; Editura Altip, Sibiu: Alba Iulia.<\/p>\n

    Luca, S. A. 2006: Descoperiri arheologice din Banatul rom\u00e2nesc: repertoriu, Edi\u021bia a doua. ed, Bibliotheca Brukenthal. Muzeul Na\u021bional Brukenthal ; Editura Altip, Sibiu: Alba Iulia.<\/p>\n

    Luca, S.A. 2004. Repertoriul arheologic al jude\u0163ului Cara\u015f-Severin. Ed. Economic\u0103.<\/p>\n

    Marin, W. 1980: Kurze Geschichte der Banater Deutschen: mit bes. Ber\u00fccks. ihrer Beziehungen zur rum\u00e4n. Bev\u00f6lkerung u. ihrer Einstellung zur Vereinigung von 1918. Facla-Verlag.<\/p>\n

    Marin, W. 1978: Unirea din 1918 \u015fi pozi\u0163ia \u015fvabilor b\u0103n\u0103\u0163eni. Ed. Facla.<\/p>\n

    Mellars, P. 2011. The earliest modern humans in Europe. Nature 479, 483\u2013485. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1038\/479483a.<\/p>\n

    Micle, D. and Ni\u021bu, E.-C. 2015: Un sit arheologic din epoca pietrei \u00ee\u0219i dezv\u0103luie secretele Temere\u015fti – Dealu Vinii, ora\u015f F\u0103get Arheologia Banatului. Cercet\u0103ri-Descoperiri-Interven\u021bii., 26\u201327.<\/p>\n

    Milleker, B. 1897. D\u00e9lmagyarorsz\u00e1g r\u00e9gis\u00e9gleletei a honfoglal\u00e1s el\u0151tti id\u0151kb\u0151l. D\u00e9lmagyarorsz\u00e1gi T\u00f6rt. \u00e9s R\u00e9g. Muzeum-T\u00e1rsulat, Temesv\u00e1r.<\/p>\n

    Moga, M. 1964: Muzeul Reginal al Banatului. Rev. Muzeelor 3, 294\u2013296.<\/p>\n

    Moga, M. 1949: Cercet\u0103rile arheologice din R.P.R. din anul 1948. Studii II, 95\u201397.<\/p>\n

    Moga, M. and Bochi\u0219, B. 2002: Ceramica Tiszapolgar de la Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti – Pe\u015ftera cu ap\u0103 (com. Curtea, jud. Timi\u015f). S\u0103p\u0103turi – Marius Moga, 1948. Analele Banat. SN Arheologie-Istorie X-XI, 83\u201398.<\/p>\n

    Moga, M. and S\u00eerbu, M.-S. 2002: Ceramica Co\u0163ofeni de la Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti – Pe\u015ftera cu Ap\u0103 (com. Curtea, jud. Timi\u015f). Analele Banat. Sn Arheol. – Istor. X\u2013XI, 45\u201365.<\/p>\n

    Mogo\u015fanu, F. 1978: Paleoliticul din Banat. Bucure\u0219ti: Editura Academiei.<\/p>\n

    Mogo\u015fanu, F. 1973: Date cu privire la paleoliticul din jude\u0163ul Cara\u015f-Severin. Banatica 2, 13\u201323.<\/p>\n

    Mogo\u015fanu, F. 1972: Information generale sur le paleolithique du Banat (sud-ouest de la Roumanie). DACIA NS XVI, 5\u201377.<\/p>\n

    Mogo\u015fanu, F. 1970: Descoperiri Paleolitice La Gornea (por\u0163ile De Fier). Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche 21, 531\u2013538.<\/p>\n

    Mogo\u015fanu, F. and Stratan, I. 1966: Noi descoperiri Paleolitice \u00een Banat. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche 17, 335\u2013344.<\/p>\n

    Moldovan, O., Milota, \u015e., Sarcina, L., Trinkaus, E., B\u0103ltean, I., Soficaru, A., and Rajka, G. 2003: The oldest modern humans in Europe. Theoretical and Applied Karstology 16, 77\u201381.<\/p>\n

    Morintz, S. 1973: Les Fouilles Archeologiques En Roumanie ( 1972). DACIA NS XVII, 361\u2013398.<\/p>\n

    Moroz-Pop, M. 1983: Contribu\u0163ii la repertoriul arheologic al localita\u0163ilor din jude\u0163ul Timi\u015f, din paleolitic pina \u00een Evul Mediu. Banatica 7, 469\u2013489.<\/p>\n

    Muntean, M. 1995: Considera\u0163ii antropologice asupra unor oase umane provenite din pe\u015ftera de la Romane\u015fti (jud. Timi\u015f). Banatica 13, 145\u2013148.<\/p>\n

    Munteanu, I. and Munteanu, R. 2002: Timi\u0219oara: monografie. Editura Mirton.<\/p>\n

    Mylopotamitaki, D., Weiss, M., Fewlass, H., Zavala, E. I., Rougier, H., S\u00fcmer, 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., Pr\u00fcfer, K., Krause, J., Meyer, M., Welker, F., McPherron, S. P., Sch\u00fcler, 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.<\/p>\n

    Negrea, S., Negrea, A., Sencu, V., and Boto\u015faneanu, L. 1964: Grottes du Banat (Roumanie) explor\u00e9es en 1963. International Journal of Speleology 1, 397\u2013439.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S. 1959: Discu\u021bii pe marginea paleoliticului de sf\u00e2r\u0219it \u0219i \u00eenceputurilor neoliticului nostru. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche \u0219i Arheologie X, 221\u2013237.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S. 1957: Le Pal\u00e9olithiqe Dans La R\u00e9publique Populaire Roumanie \u00c0 La Lumi\u00e8re Des Derni\u00e8res Recherches. DACIA NS 1, 41\u201360.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S. 1956: Rezultatele principale ale cercet\u0103rilor paleolitice \u00een ultimii patru ani \u00een R.P.R. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche \u0219i Arheologie VII, 7\u201339.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S. 1955: \u0218antierul Arheologic Cerna-Olt. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche VI, 129\u2013147.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S. and Com\u0219a, E. 1957: Microlitele de la B\u0103ile Herculane. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche \u0219i Arheologie VIII, 17\u201326.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S., Com\u0219a, E., and P\u0103unescu, A. 1957. \u0218antierul Arheologic B\u0103ile Herculane (reg. Timi\u0219oara, r. Alm\u0103\u0219). Mater. \u015ei Cercet. Arheol. III.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S. and P\u0103unescu, A. 1961: Azilianul de la B\u0103ile Herculane \u00een lumina noilor cercet\u0103ri. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche \u0219i Arheologie XII, 203\u2013214.<\/p>\n

    Nicol\u0103escu-Plop\u0219or, C. S. and Stratan, I. 1960: S\u0103p\u0103turile de la Tincova (com. Sacul, r. Caransebe\u015f, reg. Timi\u015foara). Mater. \u015ei Cercet. Arheol. VII, 29\u201332.<\/p>\n

    Nigst, P. R., Haesaerts, P., Damblon, F., Frank-Fellner, C., Mallol, C., Viola, B., G\u00f6tzinger, 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\u201314399. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1073\/pnas.1412201111.<\/p>\n

    Olariu, A., Skog, G., Hellborg, R., Stenstr\u00f6m, 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\u201326.<\/p>\n

    Olaru, M. and Cadariu, \u0218. 1977: Pe\u015fteri cu urme de locuire de pe Valea Nerei. Banatica 4, 9\u201318.<\/p>\n

    Orthmayr, T. 1873: A Barlangok Palaontologiai \u00c9s T\u00f6lt\u00e9neti Jelent\u0151s\u00e9ge, Tekintettel Magyarosz\u00e1g, \u00b7 De K\u00fcl\u00f6n\u00f6sen D\u00e9lmagyarorsz\u00e1g Barlangjaira. Magy. Orvosok \u2022 \u00c9s Term\u00e9szetvizg\u00e1l\u00f3k 279\u2013290.<\/p>\n

    Otte, M. (ed.) 2010: Les Aurignaciens, Civilisations et Cultures. Paris: Errance.<\/p>\n

    P\u0103unescu, A. 2001: Paleoliticul \u015fi mezoliticul din spa\u0163iul transilvan: studiu monografic. Editura Agir.<\/p>\n

    P\u0103unescu, A. 1970: Epipaleoliticul de la Cuina Turcului-Dubova. Stud. \u015ei Cercet. Istor. Veche \u015ei Archeol. 21, 3\u201329.<\/p>\n

    Petrescu, S.-M. 2021: Cercet\u0103ri arheologice \u00een pe\u015fteri din bazinul Anina-Steierdorf. Editura Mega.<\/p>\n

    Petrescu, S.-M. 2010: Repertoriul arheologic al Pe\u015fterilor din Banat. Dalami, Caransebe\u0219.<\/p>\n

    Petrescu, S.-M. 2000: Locuirea uman\u0103 a pe\u015fterilor din Banat p\u00e2n\u0103 \u00een epoca roman\u0103, Bibliotheca Historica Et Archaeologica Banatica. Mirton, Timi\u0219oara.<\/p>\n

    Petrescu, S.-M., Lazarovici, G., Zilh\u00e3o, J., Rodrigo, R., Moldovan, O., Constantin, S., and Soficaru, A. 2008: Steierdorf, ora\u015f Anina, jud. Cara\u015f-Severin Punct: Pe\u015ftera Ho\u0163ilor (La Ho\u0163u). In: A XLI-A Sesiune Na\u0163ional\u0103 De Rapoarte Arheologice. Presented at the Campania 2007, CIMEC, Ia\u0219i, 288\u2013290.<\/p>\n

    Petrovszky, R. 1979: Pe\u0219teri \u00een jude\u021bul Cara\u0219-Severin – cercet\u0103ri arheologice (I). Tibiscum, Etnografie-Istorie III, 229\u2013261.<\/p>\n

    Petrovszky, R. 1977: Contribu\u0163ii la repertoriul arheologic al localit\u0103\u0163ilor jude\u0163ului Cara\u015f-Severin din paleolitic p\u00een\u0103 \u00een secolul al V-lea \u00ee.e.n. (III). Banatica 4, 437\u2013461.<\/p>\n

    Petrovszky, R. 1975: Contributii la repertoriul arheologic al localita\u0163ilor jude\u0163ului Cara\u015f-Severin din paleolitic p\u00eena \u00een secolul al V-lea \u00ce.e.n. Banatica 3, 365\u2013378.<\/p>\n

    Petrovszky, R., Popescu, O., and Rogozea, P. 1981: Pe\u0219teri din jude\u021bul Cara\u0219-Severin – cercet\u0103ri arheologice (II). Banatica 6, 429\u2013462.<\/p>\n

    Petrovszky, R., Rogozea, P., Popescu, O., and Munteanu, I. 1982: Noi descoperiri arheologice \u00een jude\u0163ul Cara\u015f-Severin (II). Tibiscum 4, 323\u2013329.<\/p>\n

    Popescu, D. 1970a: S\u0103p\u0103turile arheologice din Republica Socialist\u0103 Rom\u00e2nia \u00een anul 1969. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche 21, 493\u2013522.<\/p>\n

    Popescu, D. 1970b: S\u0103p\u0103turile arheologice din Republica Socialist\u0103 Rom\u00e2nia \u00een anul 1969. Studii \u015fi Cercet\u0103ri de Istorie Veche 21, 493\u2013522.<\/p>\n

    Popescu, D. 1963: S\u0103p\u0103turile arheologice din RPR \u00een anul 1962. STUDII \u015eI CERCET\u0102RI DE ISTORIE VECHE 14, 451\u2013465.<\/p>\n

    Popescu, D. 1962: S\u0103p\u0103turile arheologice din RPR \u00een anul 1961. STUDII \u015eI CERCET\u0102RI DE ISTORIE VECHE 13, 201\u2013214.<\/p>\n

    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 Gei\u00dfenkl\u00f6sterle Cave in Southern Germany. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 27, 71\u201389. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1006\/jasc.1999.0458.<\/p>\n

    Riek, G. 1934: Die Eiszeitj\u00e4gerstation am Vogelherd im Lonetal. T\u00fcbingen: Akademische Buchhandlung Franz F. Heine.<\/p>\n

    Rogozea, O.-C., Stavil\u0103, A., Rogozea, P., and Vasile, M. 2017: Contribu\u021bii La Repertoriul Arheologic Al Clisurii Dun\u0103rii \u0218i Al \u021a\u0103rii Alm\u0103jului. Descoperiri Atribuite Culturii Co\u021bofeni, Primei V\u00e2rste a Epocii Fierului \u0218i Evului Mediu. Patrimonium Banat. VII.<\/p>\n

    Rogozea, P. 1994: New archaeological finds in the cave from Romane\u0219ti, Timi\u0219 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\u2013166.<\/p>\n

    Roska, M. 1942: Erd\u00e9ly R\u00e9g\u00e9szeti Repert\u00f3riuma, Thesaurus Antiquitatum Transsilvanicarum. Nagy Jen\u0151 \u00c9s Fia K\u00f6nyvnyomd\u00e1ja, Kolozsv\u00e1r.<\/p>\n

    Schmidt, C., Sitlivy, V., Anghelinu, M., Chabai, V., Kels, H., Uthmeier, T., Hauck, T., B\u0103ltean, I., Hilgers, A., and Richter, J. 2013: First chronometric dates (TL and OSL) for the Aurignacian open-air site of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a I, Romania. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 40, 3740\u20133753.<\/p>\n

    Sitlivy, V., Anghelinu, M., Chabai, V. P., Ni\u0163\u0103, L., Uthmeier, T., Hauck, T., B\u0103ltean, 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 d\u00e9placements au Pal\u00e9olithique eurasiatique. Li\u00e8ge: ERAUL, 243\u2013277.<\/p>\n

    Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Hilgers, A., Schmidt, C., Ni\u0163\u0103, L., B\u0103ltean, I., and Veselsky, A. 2012: The earliest Aurignacian in Romania: New investigations at the open air site of Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a I (Banat): Das fr\u00fcheste Aurignacien in Rum\u00e4nien\u2013Neue Untersuchungen an der Freilandfundstelle Rom\u00e2ne\u015fti-Dumbr\u0103vi\u0163a I (Banat). Quart\u00e4r\u2013Internationales Jahrb. Zur Erforsch. Eiszeitalt. Steinzeit 59, 85\u2013130.<\/p>\n

    Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Ni\u0163\u0103, L., B\u0103ltean, I., Veselsky, A., and \u0162u\u0163u, C. 2014b: Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania). Quaternary International, 351, 193\u2013212.<\/p>\n

    Stoneking, M. and Krause, J. 2011: Learning about human population history from ancient and modern genomes. Nature Reviews Genetics, 12, 603\u2013614.<\/p>\n

    Stratan, I. 1970: Contribu\u0163ii la cunoa\u015fterea Paleoliticului din Banat. Tibiscus, 1, 7\u201318.<\/p>\n

    Stratan, I. 1965: A\u015fezarea paleolitic\u0103 de la Co\u015fava. Revista Muzeelor 412.<\/p>\n

    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. T\u00fcbingen: Kerns Verlag.<\/p>\n

    Szentmiklosi, A. 2010: Locuirea de tip Cruceni-Belegi\u0161 de la Cruceni\u2013 M\u00f3dosi \u00fat (jud. Timi\u015f). Sondajele arheologice din anii 1997 \u015fi 1999. Analele Banatului, 20, 293\u2013306.<\/p>\n

    Szentmiklosi, A., Chu, W., Dobo\u0219, A., Ciornei, A., Albert, T., and B\u00f6sken, J. 2019: Temere\u0219ti, ora\u0219 F\u0103get, jud. Timi\u0219 Punct: Dealul Vinii. In: Campania 2018. Presented at the A LIII-a Sesiune Na\u021bional\u0103 de Rapoarte Arheologice, Institutul Na\u021bional al Patrimoniului, Muzeul Na\u021bional Brukenthal Sibiu, Sibiu, 376\u2013377.<\/p>\n

    Trinkaus, E., B\u0103ltean, I., Constantin, S., Gherase, M., Horoi, V., Milota, \u015e., Moldovan, O., Petrea, C., Quiles, J., and Rodrigo, R. 2005: Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat: Pe\u015ftera cu Oase. Banatica 17, 9\u201327.<\/p>\n

    Trinkaus, E., Milota, \u015e., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., and Moldovan, O. 2003a: Early Modern Human Cranial remains from the Pe\u0219tera cu Oase, Romania. Journal of Human Evolution 45, 245\u2013253.<\/p>\n

    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\u2013164.<\/p>\n

    Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, \u015e., B\u00eelg\u0103r, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., Bailey, S. E., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., and Higham, T. 2003b: An early modern human from the Pe\u015ftera cu Oase, Romania. PNAS 100(20), 11231\u201311236.<\/p>\n

    Uzum, I., Lazarovici, G., and Dragomir, I. 1973: Descoperiri arheologice la Gornea \u0219i Sichevi\u021ba. Banatica 2, 403\u2013416.<\/p>\n

    Wetzel, R. 1961: Der Hohlestein im Lonetal. Dokumente alteurop\u00e4ischer Kulturen vom Eiszeitalter bis zur V\u00f6lkerwanderung. Mitteilungen des Vereins f\u00fcr Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik Ulm Donau 27, 21\u201357.<\/p>\n

    Zilh\u00e3o, J., Trinkaus, E., Constantin, S., Milota, \u015e., Gherase, M., Sarcina, L., Danciu, A., Rougier, H., Quil\u00e8s, J., and Rodrigo, R. 2007: The Pe\u015ftera cu Oase people, Europe\u2019s earliest modern humans. Rethink. Hum. Revolut. Camb. McDonald Inst. Journal of Archaeological Research 15, 249\u2013262.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    \nAndrei B\u0103l\u0103rie1,3, Ewa Dutkiewicz2, Adriana S\u0103r\u0103\u015fan1 1 Muzeul Na\u0163ional al Banatului Pia\u0163a Huniade nr. 1 Timi\u015foara Timi\u015f County Romania andrei.balarie@gmail.com 2 Museum f\u00fcr Vor- und Fr\u00fchgeschichte Staatliche Museen zu Berlin \u2013 Stiftung Preu\u00dfischer Kulturbesitz Arch\u00e4ologisches Zentrum Geschwister-Scholl-Str. 6 10117 Berlin…\n<\/div>\n
    Continue reading “Exploring Myth and Reality at Paleolithic Sites in the Romanian Banat”<\/span>…<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[297,523,304],"tags":[533,472,535,532,534],"class_list":["post-3651","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-english","category-mgfu-32","category-open-access-articles","tag-banat","tag-early-upper-paleolithic","tag-last-glacial-maximum","tag-paleolithic-romania","tag-research-history","entry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3651","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3651"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3651\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3813,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3651\/revisions\/3813"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3651"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3651"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kernsverlag.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3651"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}