Pa 20080218

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

1/16

T Lor Palolitic o Romania: A Critical Ri

ABSTRACT

I the last few ecaes, our uerstaig of the Lower Paleolithic has expae, ue to multiple avaces i

research methos a the umerous sites recetly iscovere. As a cosequece, there have ee may chagesi the iterpretatio of Lower Paleolithic techocomplexes, i terms of lithic iustry characteristics, geographi-cal sprea, a chroological framig. This article presets a sythesis of the research carrie out o the LowerPaleolithic i Romaia i the 20th cetury. Several prolems are iscussethe cocept of Osteootokeraticiustries, which was use i the 1960s, still is has ot ee completely aaoe; termiology is very equivo-cal a there is o explicit elimitatio etwee various stages of the Lower Paleolithic; tools fou i isturecotext are use as cultural markers, which is ot recommee for the Lower Paleolithic. Romaia has very fewsites with stratigraphy. Of those, eve fewer have faual-lithic associatios a most of the lithics, scarce as theyare (fewer tha 10 per site), are ofte taphoomic or outfully athropogeic. I aitio, there are o trustwor-thy or raiometric ates. Therefore, ase upo the eviece so far, the existece of the Lower Paleolithic i theterritory of the curret Repulic of Romaia is outful.

INTRODUCTION

The course of humaity has remote a oly partiallykow origis. I recet ecaes, ata o this topichas ecome more extesive. The iterpretatio of variouschroological a cultural techocomplexes has chageue to the relatively larger umer of ewly fou sites, beer excavation techniques, more reliable dating meth-os, a more complex paleoevirometal recostruc-tios. This article aalyzes the Lower Paleolithic recorfrom Romaia withi the cotext of curret approaches.A aalysis of this sort is ecessary for several reasosthe iterpretatio of the Lower Paleolithic i Romaiarelies o a total of aout 1,100 pieces, out of which moretha 90% come from isture cotexts; the few sythe-ses aout this perio i Romaia still use some osoletecocepts, like Osteootokeratic a Premousteria; a,the criteria use i assigig the pieces to the Lower Pa-leolithic are completely ustaarize, ecause they varyfrom oe pulicatio to aother.

This paper is divided into four sections. The rst is a rief presetatio of curret perspectives o the techo-complexes that elog to the Lower Paleolithic. The secoeals with the history of research i Romaia, where threeresearch stages can be identied. The third section pres-

ets the iscoveries that presumaly elog to the LowerPaleolithic. The in situ nds are few and do not yield manyartifacts. For that reaso, all of them are presete withas may etails as ca e gaie from the pulicatios.Some commets regarig their particular situatios aremae here. The various types of pieces fou i erivecotexts are groupe i two graphs, accorig to the pu-lishe sources, i orer to ifer the criteria use i assig-ig them to a certai techocomplex. The fourth sectioiscusses issues i the Romaia Lower Paleolithic. The

PaleoAhropology2008: 218233. 2008 PaleAnpl Scie. All is eseed. ISSN 1545-0031

AdRIAn dObOInstitutul de Arheologie, Vasile Prvan, 11 Henri Coand, Sector 1, Bucureti 010667, ROMANIA; [email protected]

icosistecies i termiology are metioe a illustrat-e through extesive quotatios. The iscussio cotiueswith a aalysis of the argumetatio use to support theallege Osteootokeratic. Other issues iscusse icluethe Log/Short Chroology eate a the cocept of Pre-mousteria, which is aresse from the perspective of theRomaia ata, where issues regarig its valiity ca eraise.

CURReNT PeRSPeCTIveS

The OSTeODONTOkeRATIC

The theory that homiis who, prior to usig stoe tools,were employig aimal oes, etitio, a atler as rawmaterial was evelope y R. dart i the ecaes after theWorl War II, for sites i South Africa (dart 1957, 1960). Ithat regio, roke oes from large mammals were foui the same layers as Australopithecus africanus. Amog thevarious fragmets, some ha peculiar shapes that resem-bled clubs, points, borers, etc. Dart thought this paerningwas the sig of itetioal actios performe y the Aus-tralopithecines, so the alleged types of tools were classiedas the Osteootokeratic iustry a were assige mul-tiple fuctios, like staig a iggig, scrapig a

polishig, gougig a leverig, twistig a orig areamig a so o (dart a Wolerg 1971: 233) The exis-tece of homii ehavior coecte solely to har orgaicmaterials was strogly criticize (brai 1981; Siger 1956;Wolerg 1970), a the umerous pieces i questio, previ-ously iterprete as tools, were prove to e the result ofpreators activity a of taphoomic processes.

Recently, some true bone tools have been identiedi three sites i Souther Africa. They were mae o lim oe shaft fragmets a were use yAustralopithecus

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

2/16

Lor Palolitic o Romania 219

africanus for iggig ito termite mous (backwell aErrico 2000). nevertheless, these caot accout for theexistece of the Osteootokeratic iustries sensu dart.

LoNg vS. Short ChroNoLo gyI the iterpretatio of homii coloizatio of Europe,

two mai approaches have omiate the last ecaesthe Long vs. the Short Chronology (for a cocise presetatio,

see balter 2001). The avocates for the log chroology as-sert that the earliest occupatio of Europe took place ithe Lower Pleistocee, arou 2 MA (boifay a Vaer-meersch 1991). Their oppoets argue that the coloizatiotook place (with some exceptios) maily i the MilePleistocee (deell 2003; Roeroeks 2001).

For the early Lower Pleistocene , some lamark sitesuse to support the log chroology are Chilac, Sait Ele,Le Coupet, La Rochelamert, a Perrier-Etouiares i theFrech Massif Cetral (boifay 1991, Chavaillo 1991) aPrezletice a berou i bohemia (Fririch 1991). The siteswere included in the rst phase of the Trs Ancien Palo-lithique (TAP). From a archaeological poit of view, the i-ustries of this archaic perio maily comprise choppers,choppig tools, a polyheros. The huma types are u-kow, ut are presume to e either Homo erectus muchearlier tha expecte (prior to 1.5 MA) or the presece ofeve more archaic homiis (boifay a Vaermeersch1991: 315318).

The athropogeic character of most of these sites has ee challege for two reasos. First, the lithics, scarcea ruimetary as they are, coul e the result of vari-ous atural actios (Rayal a Magoga 2000; Roeroeks1994; Roeroeks a Va Kolfschote 1994). Seco, otrue living oors were found, so it is dicult to get reliable

iostratigraphical ata (Korrisetar a Petraglia 1998; Roe-roeks 2001; Rolla 1998).A true archeological site of this age is dmaisi (Geor-

gia), which was securely ate at ca. 1.8 MA. The site hasyiele umerous homii fossils associate with Moe 1lithic iustries (bosiski 1996: 3334; Lorkipaize 1998:16; Lorkipaize et al. 2007). At the other e of the co-tiet, i Souther Spai, the earliest presece of Homo isat the sites of barraco Leo a Fuete nueva 3, i a pre-Jaramillo episoe (ca. 1 MA) (Oms et al. 2000).

The late Lower/early Middle Pleistocene. The log chrool-ogy scholars dened a second phase of the TAP, in whichthe lithic industries have a higher percentage of akes,

the core tools more elaorate forms, a also protoifacesappear. This phase is represete at the sites of Soleilhac(Frech Massif Cetral), the caves of lEscale a Valloeti South-Easter Frace (boifay 1991), Straska Skala iMoravia (Valoch 1991), a Iseria la Pieta i Italy (Per-eo 1991; Pereo et al 2004: 6466). Questions have beenraise regarig the athropogeic character a/or theage of some of these sites (Roeroeks a Va Kolfschote1994; Rolla 1998). nevertheless, the umer of sites se-curely ate is greater tha for the preceig phase. Avery importat site is Atapuerca Gra dolia, i northerSpai. Level Td6, ate to ca 800 KYr, has yiele Homo

antecessor i layers with Moe 1 iustries (Arsuaga et al1999; Caroell et al. 1999; Pars a Prez-Gozalez 1999)At the site of Pakeeld, Mode 1 industries found in securecontext, were dated to ca. 700 KYr (Par et al. 2005).

TheMiddle Pleistocene . The map of the Europea LowerPaleolithic chages with the egiig of the Mile Pleistocee; for this perio, there are a umer of sites with et-ter kow cotexts a may more artifactsboxgrove

(Bergman and Roberts 1988), Cagny-La Garenne (Tureauet al. 1997: 229232), bilzigslee (brhl 2003; Gamle1999: 153173; Maia a Maia 2003), Schige (Thieme2003), notarchirico (Lefevre et al 1994), Vrtesszls (doosi 1988; doosi 2003). The excavate surfaces revealehaitatio structures a umerous artifacts, faua, ahuman skeletal remains. In some cases, reings of artifactsdemonstrated the existence of living oors, which could beaccurately ate.

PReMOUSTeRIAN

The e of the Lower Paleolithic was associate with ius-tries that were calle Premousterian. Some scholars elievethat the Mousteria ha evolve exclusively urig colerperiods, so this term was created to dene Mousterian-likeiustries, with very few ifaces, which were associatewith the last iterglacial. I the past few ecaes, the termwas aaoe, ecause ew research reveale that thisMile Paleolithic iustry was alreay preset urig theEemian (Tureau 1979; Tureau 1982).

A BRIef hISTORIC Of ReSeARCh

Research o the Lower Paleolithic i Romaia is almost acentury old and is associated with many prominent guresof Romaia prehistoric archaeology. Withi this legthy

perio of research, several stages ca e iscere, oth ac-cording to the dierent theoretical orientations within theRomaia acaemic commuity, o the oe ha, a, theiteratioal perspective o this topic, o the other ha.

The rst phase began with discoveries made by MRoska i the 1920s a 1930s i Trasylvaia. Amog thepieces he fou, he pulishe some that he calle coupsde poing, bifaces, and ake tools, which he assigned toChellea, Acheulia, a Micoquia (Roska 1928, 19311933), usig the Europea chroology of the time. Oe ofthe rst critical analyses of the Romanian Lower Paleolithicwas wrien by H. Breuil who visited some of the sites in1924. I his review of the Paleolithic i Trasylvaia (breui

1927), he ackowlege very few pieces as eig possileAcheulia a Premousteria. Amog Romaia scholarsthese pieces geerate a eate that rarely was cetereo their cultural cotext, ut more o whether they werehuma-mae or just atural acciets. A series of articlespublished in the 1930s conrmed the consensus view thatthe majority of the tools were ot of athropogeic origi(Moga 1936; Moroan 1933; Nicolescu-Plopor 1929, 19301931).

A seco phase of research ega after Worl War IImaily i the 1950s whe the ew authorities were eagerto nd traces of populations that had inhabited Romanias

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

3/16

220 PaloAnpl 2008

territory through the ages. Their aim was to re-create a loga glorious past. At that time there was a oom i archae-ological eld research, including the Paleolithic. This onceagai rought the prolem of the Lower Paleolithic to theforefrot ecause, throughout the coutry, may choppers,chopping tools, polyhedrons, discoids, and various aketools, which seeme to elog to the early perios of thePaleolithic, were iscovere. All of the pieces were fou

in derived contexts and cultural aribution was made us-ig the typology of the pieces. Thus, ase o the prici-ple of fossiles directeurs , tools were assige to the PeleCulture, the Clactoia, the Acheulia, a the Premous-terian (Nicolescu-Plopor 1957; Nicolescu-Plopor andMoroan 1959; Punescu 1970). In the early 1960s, the dis-covery of large mammal fossil sites in the Olte River Valleyprompte the iea that Pre-Paleolithic iustries, such asthe Osteootokeratic, may have playe a role i the his-tory of Romaia Paleolithic. This was i part cause ya politically motivate esire to see Romaias territoryas another cradle of humanity (Nicolescu-Plopor 1964b;Nicolescu-Plopor and Nicolescu-Plopor 1963).

The thir phase is associate with P. Samso a C.Rdulescu, two paleontologists who developed a biochro-ological framework that covere the etire Late Plioceea Pleistocee sequece a trie to correlate it with theEuropean sequences (Rdulescu et al. 1998; Punescu et al.1982). From a archaeological poit of view, the work ofAl. Punescu (1999a, 1999b, 2000, 2001) had the greatest im-pact on this stage of research. He was the rst to cataloguea sythesize all the pieces reporte as Lower Paleolithicito a sigle compeium, as well as proviig staar-ize criteria for their escriptio.

The ARChAeOLOg ICAL DATAThe recor assige to Lower Paleolithic is presete herein detail. It is divided into two categories. The rst consistsof all in situ iscoveries, which are orere accorig totheir chrono-cultural aribution. The second comprises themajority of the pieces, which were fou i isture co-texts.

The In sItuDISCOveRIeSFigure 1 illustrates the Romaia geochroological scalea iclues the sites where lithics were reporte i asso-ciatio with faual material (with oe exceptio, the chop-pers of Tetoiu dealul Mijlociu).

Oe of the olest a richest veues with paleotologi-cal remains is in the Olte Valley, near the village of Tetoiu[Bugiuleti]1 (Figure 2). durig the Villafrachia, this areawas o the shore of Lake Getia. Three of the sites from thislocality, which are very importat for the geochroology ofthe Lower Paleolithic i Romaia, are presete elow.

teiu Pieiu vijiei (vlcea Cun)At this site, a area of 126m2 was excavate to a maximumepth of 7.2 m i 19601961. Over a area of aout 50m2,umerous aimal oes were fou i a say layer e-tween 5.7m and 6m in depth. The taxa identied were Ar-

chidiskodon meridionalis, Nyctereutes megamastoides, Lynx issi-odorensis, Eucladocerus sp., Pliotragus ardeus, Stephanorhinusetruscus, Plessipus athanasiui, Beremendia cf.ssidens, Trogon-theriumdacicum, a Vulpes alopecoides (Punescu 2000: 304305; Rdulescu et al 1998: 283285). Most of the bones werefou i aatomical positio i the marshy aks of LakeGetia. This marshy eviromet presumaly trappe ai-mals o their way to the water a thus ture them ito

easy victims for their predators (Nicolescu-Plopor 1964a:(Nicolescu-Plopor 1964a:305306, Nicolescu-Plopor et al. 1964: 40).

teiu Dealul Mjlciu (vlcea Cun)In 1960, eld research was done on the western slope of ahill ear the village of Tetoiu. It is uclear if the remaiswere excavate or simply recovere from a expose pro-le. In a 1.5m thick layer, consisting of sand and gravel,two or three pele tools were fou. Although ot in situ,they were cosiere to have origiate very close to thespot where they were fou ecause they exhiite fewtraces of post-epositioal movemet. The paleotologistswho recovere the artifacts metioe three choppig to-olstwo in int (Figure 3: 12) and one in quarite (Rdu-lescu a Samso 1991: 285). Susequet pulicatios olymention two, namely those made on int (Bosinski 1996:37; Punescu 2000: 307). No faunal remains were found; ne-vertheless, the layers age was estimate at arou 1.7 MY(Upper Pliocene Tiglien) (Rdulescu and amson 1991)ulescu a Samso 1991)a the choppig tools were assige to the TAPchoppig tools were assige to the TAP.

teiu valea lui gunceanu (vlcea Cun)(vlcea Cun)This is the est kow of the Tetoiu sites, ecause of re-ports of Osteootokeratic artifacts. Ufortuately, the o-cumentation regarding the site is very poor; no proles or

plas were prite. The excavatio covere approx. 200mThe excavatio covere approx. 200m2

.This site was very rich i faua; the majority were foui a area of 90m2 , i a clayey-say layer at a epth ofetwee 4.77m a 5.6m. Associate faua icluesArchi-diskodon meridionalis, Equus stenonis, Gazellospira troticornis,Pliotragus ardeus, Macedontherium martini, Dicerorhinus sp.,Cervus philisi, Croizetoceros ramosus, Castor plicidens, Tro-

gontherium cuvieri, Nyctereutes megamastoides, Ursus etrus-cus, Crocuta perrieri, Homotherium crenatidens, Megantereonmegantereon, Felis issiodorensis, Felis toscana , aMeles sp.Most of the skeletos were fou with the oes i aa-tomical positio. Asie from the these taxa, the remais ofa primate, Paradolicopithecus arvernensis geticus, were fou.

The faual assemlage le scholars to ate the layer tothe Villafrachia a suggeste similarities with the siteof enze in the Massif Central, France (Punescu 2000:Punescu 2000:uescu 2000:300304; Rdulescu et al. 1998). Among the 20,0000 bones,dulescu et al. 1998). Among the 20,0000 bones,1998). Amog the 20,0000 oes,certai fragmets were cosiere tools a ase o thedierent presumed active parts, they were called clubs,scrapers, orers, etc. These allege tools forme the maieviece for the athropogeic origi of this assemlage.I the same layer, three uworke coles were iter-preted as manuports (Nicolescu-Plopor 1964a: 311312,Nicolescu-Plopor 1964b: 49, Nicolescu-Plopor andNicolescu-Plopor 1965: 3234).

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

4/16


Figure 1. Correlation of the fossil sites of Romania assigned to the Lower Paleolithic (LP), together with their principal Europeanbiochronological equivalents (redrawn from Rdulescu et al. 1998).

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

5/16

222 PaloAnpl 2008

I the same layer, three rocks were fou. After a mac-roscopic aalysis, it was state that they coul oly havecome from sources some 40 kilometers away, althougho mieralogical aalysis was carrie out. Together, theyweighe aout 1 kilo. After elimiatig the hypothesisof atural trasportatio, the scholars coclue that therocks were trasporte y Australopithecies i orer to euse for reakig a shapig the large oes.

Finally, a quarite chopper found in the layer abovethe faunal deposit (Punescu 2000: 303), also was described,unescu2000: 303), also was described,uescu 2000: 303), also was escrie,

ut the associate rawig suggests that it is a taphoomi-cally-modied piece (see Figure 3: 3).

The eviece from these three sites presets a ratherawkwar situatio (see Figure 1). I theory, the Osteoo-tokeratic shoul precee ay stoe-tool-earig assem-lage, ut give the geochroological assigmets of theTetoiu sites, the three choppig tools from dealul Mijlociuseem to pre-ate the Osteootokeratic level from Valea luiGrunceanu.

gua Dbei (Cnsana Cun)Gura dorogei is a cave site, also referre to as Peea

Lilicilor (bats Cave). The excavatios that yiele Paleo-lithic artifacts were carrie out i 1971 i a sectio callethe Secoary Gallery. The stratigraphic sequece isdicult to follow, as is identifying the layers in which thelithics were fouthere is o rawig that woul makethe ese escriptio of seimet ispositio more com-prehesile.

The upper part of the seimet, which mostly cosist-e of loess with clastic limestoe fragmets, was ivieito three loess levels separate y a silty level (towars the

boom) and a brown paleosoil (towards the top).The silt level a the loessic levels aove a eea-

th it were place i the geochroological framework asPhase Gura dorogei 2 (cotemporary to the late Crome-rian), based on the rodent faunal taxa identiedAllacta-gaorghidani,Apodemussylvaticus, Cricetulus gr. migratorius,Mesocricetus newtoni, Cricetus cricetus praeglacialis, Ellobiuscalabaei, Spermophilus gr. nogaici, Clethrionomys glareolus,Lagurus transiens dacicus, Eolagurus gromovi vistornensis,Ar-vicola cantianus,Microtus guentheri,Microtus arvalis, Pitymisarvaloides, Stenocranius gregalis, Ochotona pussila, a uspe-cied Caprinae. The loess level aove the silt layer yiele

Figure 2. The most important sites of the Romanian Lower Paleolithic. Squares = i situ discoveries; triangles = disturbed contextlocales with 40100 pieces; circles = disturbed context locales with more than 100 pieces.

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

6/16


Figure 3. Tetoiu Dealul Mijlociu: 1, Chopping tool; 2, Protobiface (Punescu 2000); Tetoiu Valea lui Grunceanu: 3, Chopping too(Punescu 2000); Gura Dobrogei Petera Liliecilor: 4, Chopping tool; 5, Flake with retouched edge; 6, Side scraper; 7, Flake (Samsonet al. 1998); Slatina Terrace: 8, Levallois retouched ake (Punescu 2000) [all illustrations from Punescu used with permission ofthe AGIR; illustration from Samson et al. used with permission of the AFEQ].

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

7/16

224 PaloAnpl 2008

oly two artifacts, which were iterprete as a choppigtool and a ake with a retouched edge (see Figure 3: 45).I the loess level elow the silt level, a uious sie-scra-per and a quarite ake were reported (see Figure 3: 67).All the pieces were assige to the TAP (Crciumaru 1999:4546; Punescu et al. 1982: 5556; Punescu 1999: 130132;unescu et al. 1982: 5556; Punescu 1999: 130132;Punescu 1999: 130132;Rdulescu et al. 1998: 285287).

Slaina (ol Cun)There are ve archaeologically or paleontologically inte-restig locatios ear this city. Of these, two sites yieleoly faua, oe site oly lithics (i isture cotext), athe other two were reporte as cotaiig oth faua alithics. I Figure 1I Figure 1, Slatia is categorize as havig LowerPaleolithic nds whose age was indicated by the fossil fau-a. below are the two caiates.

Slaina suen side e ci ( Slaina eace) suen side e ci ( Slaina eace)The nd-spot at the latina terrace is a river-cut prole (seeFigure 1). The sequece escrie here (45m epth) co-). The sequece escrie here (45m epth) co-. The sequece escrie here (45m epth) co-The sequece escrie here (45m epth) co-tains an important stratied palentological collection, whi-ch was use i Romaias geochroological framework. Iparticular, Level 37 was thought to represet the Pliocee-Pleistocene boundary, according to the taxa identiedTrogontherium dacicum, Mimomys sp., Unio aspcheronicus,Unio bozdagiensis, Anodonta sp., Euphrata sp, Corbicula sp.,a Viviparus lineatus. Usig paleomagetic atig carrieo i the area (Areescu et al 1981), the layers age was es-timate at 1.81.6 MY a came to represet Phase Slatia3 (Tiglia). O the other ha, i the gravel of the Elsteriaterrace of Olt, a single Levallois ake was found (see Figure3: 8) which was assige to the Premousteria (Crciuma-ru 1999: 4546; Rdulescu et al. 1998: 285; Punescu 2000:

205206). Slatia terrace thus is reporte as havig LowerPleistocene fauna and a presumed Middle Pleistocene a-ke. There is o argumet for presetig it as a site yieligoth faua a lithics (as i Figure 1), ecause o correlati-1), ecause o correlati-), ecause o correlati-o etwee them (lithics a faua) ca e mae.

Slatina vala Clococioului

I aother part of the city, i 1970, two pieces were repor-teda chopper and a ake that exhibited serious edgeamage. They came from a isture cotext a wereassige to TAP. A few years efore, i the same valley,a Elephas antiquus molar was reported (cf. Punescu 2000:uescu 2000:205207). I this case, aother impossile correlatio was. I this case, aother impossile correlatio was

mae, etwee lithics a faua, oth with ukow stra-tigraphical proveiece.

Ami (Dlj Cun)This site is locate i a piemot area a was iscoverewhe a am was uilt ear the village. A small excavatiowas mae (size is ukow). I a clay layer, fou at aepth etwee 2.7m a 4.05m, some parts of a Elephastrogontherii skeleton and eight quarite pieces were recov-ere. The lithics were two mauports with some kappigscars (Figure 4: 12), two unretouched cortical akes (seeFigure 4: 4), three akes with denticulate retouch, and one

tranche de citron ake (see Figure 4: 3). This discovery wasiterprete as the remats of a hutig party. The lithicmaterial was presume to elog either to some post-TAPiustry of the Lower Paleolithic or to the Premousteri-an, with no further renement (Crciumaru 1999: 4344;Punescu 2000: 454456).

Sndminic (haia Cun)

This site is locate i a travertie quarry that was exploiteegiig i 1967. The stratigraphic sequece fou i alarge rock ssure was analyzed by Rdulescu and amsonulescu a Samso(1998), who identied two distinct layers1 (lower) and 2two istict layers1 (lower) a 2(upper).

Level 1, aout 0.5m thick, was terra rosa (4YR 5/6); a-se o the presece ofArvicola terrestris a Pliomys relictus,its age was estimated as late Holsteinian. Four lithics werefound, three in quarite (a cortical ake, a proximal ake,and a shaer) and a sandstone fragmentary biface (see Fi-gure 4: 6). They were assige to the post-TAP Lower Pale-olithic, with no further renement.

Level 2, aout 1.5m thick, mostly cosiste of clasticfragmets. base o the presece of Stenocranius gregalismartelensis, its age was estimate as early Saalia. The ex-cavatio of this layer yiele a piece iterprete as simpleside scraper on a Levallois ake and a proximal ake (seeFigure 4: 5 a 7) which were assige to the Premouste-rian (Punescu 2001: 401404; Punescu et al. 1982: 6061;Punescu 2001: 401404; Punescu et al. 1982: 6061;unescu 2001: 401404; Punescu et al. 1982: 6061;unescu 2001: 401404; Punescu et al. 1982: 6061;Punescu et al. 1982: 6061;: 6061;Rdulescu et al. 1998: 287288).ulescu et al. 1998: 287288).

It thus appears that all the in situ iscoveries haveyiele less tha two oze pieces. Ufortuately, for mostof the situations mentioned above, proles were not pub-lishe, a etails aout the excavatio techique a/orsurface are insucient.

The DISTURBeD CONTexTS

before presetig the material i this sectio, some clari-cation should be made. Find-spots where only pebbletools were fou were assige to the TAP. Fi-spots thatyielded pebble tools plus bifaces and/or akes were pre-sented as having TAP and some vaguely dened Lower Pa-leolithic iustries; o ouary was raw to separate thetwo categories of lithics. If only bifaces and/or akes werefou, the lithics were assige to the Lower Paleolithic(post-TAP) a presumaly to the Premousteria2. The to-tal umer of pieces is arou 1,100; the exact amout isuclear, ecause for some sites pulishe reports simply

say there are a few artifacts.There are 65 locatios where TAP, later Lower Paleo-

lithic (post-TAP), a Premousteria pieces have ee re-porte. Most are locate o river terraces. The largest um-er of these are i Walachia a Olteia (53); i the otherprovinces, the locations are far fewerve in Moldavia,four i Trasylvaia, a three i doruja. I Figure 2, those that have yiele more tha 40 pieces are show.

The TAP AND LOweR PALeOLIT hIC SITeS

The majority of these sites is locate i the souther partof Romaia, amely i Walachia a Olteia. As show i

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

8/16


Figure 5, the total of 729 pieces that dene the TAP plus thelater Lower Paleolithic (post-TAP) cosists mostly of chop-pers (202) a choppig tools (347), followe y variouskinds of akes, pebble tools, polyhedrons, and discoids.because ifaces were sometimes associate with the LowerPaleolithic a at other times with the Premousteria, their

column is shown with a dierent paern.

The PReMOUSTeRIAN

The lithic types ca e groupe as followscores (quasiprismatic, iscoial, or iform), Levallois laks (laesand akes), common blanks (unretouched akes and

Figure 4. Amrti Baraj: 12, Pebbles with knapping negatives; 3, Flake; 4, Tranche de citron ake (Punescu 2000); Sndominic Travertine Quarry: 5, Simple side scraper on Levallois ake; 6, Biface fragment; 7, Flake fragment (Punescu 2001) [all illustrationsfrom Punescu used with permission of the AGIR].

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

9/16

226 PaloAnpl 2008

laes), sie scrapers (sigle, oule, a trasverse),acke kives (aturally acke a with retouche ack),a otches/eticulates (Figure 6).

DISCUSSION

tErMINoLogyThis is a topic that is still very uclear for the Lower Pa-leolithic recor of Romaia. Icosistecies regarig the

terms are metioe here.

tes Ancien Palliique (tAP)This term refers, sensu boifay (boifay a Vaermeer-sch 1991), to iustries that were prior to the emergeceof evelope Acheulia ifaces a Levallois techology.

I Romaia archaeology, it is use as a syoym for thePele Culture a is meat to esigate Moe I ius-tries, as ca e iferre from the typology of the material(see Figure 5).

A very dicult issue is learning what meaning under-lies the term Lower Paleolithic itself. I orer to clarify thisprolem, oe must look ack a few ecaes, whe therewas a elief that the cultures that postate the Pele Cul-

ture were the Aevillia, Acheulia a Clactoia, allemergig from Pele Culture iustries. After the cul-tural meaig of the Aevillia a the Clactoia werechallege, i Romaia archaeology the framig of thisperio ecame more cautious. There was o explicit shiftefee i pulicatios, ut graually the two terms fell

Figure 5. Tool types assigned to the Tres Acie Palolithique and the Lower Paleolithic.

Figure 6. Tool types assigned to the Premousterian.

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

10/16


out of use in dening distinct industries and became justa typological a a techical escriptio, respectively. Atthe same time, the existece of the Acheulia orth of thedaue was o loger claime, ut the term still was usein classication of bifaces.

It seems that vague formulatios were preferre, athe reaer coul uersta aythig he or she wate:

Au Plistocene moyen, aux formes doutils speciquesPlistocene moyen, aux formes doutils speciquespour cee industrie archaque sur galets, sajoutent deouveaux types, comme par exemple les pices proto-

ifaciales (represetet semle-t-il ue volutio partiru choppig tool) ou les ifaces e type aevillie com-me ceux couverts as la valle u drjov, ou ceux erjov, ou ceux e, ou ceux etype Acheulee trouvs parmi les graviers es valles elOlt et u drjov, e mme que es clats e techiquerjov, e mme que es clats e techiqueclactonienne (Punescu 1989: 129)unescu 1989: 129)uescu 1989: 129)3.

What ca e iferre from the quote aove is that Moe2 iustries (with o particular assigmet to Acheulia,o-Acheulia, or oth) evolve from Moe 1; they havebifaces and akes. For some of the tools, terms like Abbevil-

lia, Acheulia, a Clactoia are use, ot i a culturalut i a typological sese.

PemuseianThe Premousterian also is very equivocally dened, as fol-lows:

Par cee culture, ou plutt par les cultures prmoust-riees, o ete e geeral ces iustries eclats eitage Levallois ou o Levallois, as lesquelles lesformes aciees outils travaills sur galets (e typechoppers, choppig-tools) ou les ifaces peuvet trerecotrs as u pourcetage plus ou mois gra,ou sot asets, et qui se sot velopes as la erie-

re partie u Palolithique ifrieur. Leur origie semlese situer au eut u Riss; quat a leur isparitio, ellepourait aeindre mme les dbuts du Wrm infrieur(Punescu 1989: 129)unescu 1989: 129)uescu 1989: 129)4.

This geerous escriptio leaves room for practically every-thig, ecause the oly criterio is a very log time spa.

As oe ca see, there is much amiguity cocerig themeaig of each term ivolve i classifyig the RomaiaLower Paleolithic. The denitions are too general and thusvirtually every artifact ca e assige to ay techocom-plex.

The PUBLISheD SOURCeS

because most of the lithic pieces were fou i erive co-texts, they were pulishe i reports usually etitle alogthe lies of: Pebble tools found at [the village of] Frcaelercaele(nica 1970) or Lower Paleolithic tools found in the Drjov andrjov andrjov and

Mozac Valleys (naia 1972). Usually the presetatio co-siste of a escriptio of the pieces a a few rawigs;the nal part of the article was concerned with assigningthem to various periosusually the choppers a chop-pig tools were suppose to show the presece of the Pe-le Culture a the ifaces, the presece of the Acheulia.The akes, based on their internal platform angle, were

suppose to e either Clactoia or Premousteria. Sometimes, ue to the particular morphology of the piece, a-itioal iterpretatios were mae regarig the piecesvarious presumed functions, such as cuing, crushing andscrapig (naia 1972: 241). Those pieces were regare astrue eviece of the existece of the Lower Paleolithic aa tacit assumption was that future eld research would reveal the in situ sites.

A complete escriptio of all the pieces was mae yAl. Punescu, who applied identical criteria to all the piecunescu, who applied identical criteria to all the piec, who applie ietical criteria to all the piec-es. The pieces were presete usig two perspectives:

typological; for the choppers a choppig toolshe escrie the shape of the pele/cole athe shape and size of the cuing edge; for theifaces, the shape a the egree of complexitywere mentioned; and, for the ake and blade supports, the criteria were the techique (Levalloisor o-Levallois), the presece/asece of cortexthe platform type, the size of the percussio ula the ki of retouch, if ay (see for examplePunescu 2000: 167177).

physical; three variales were take ito accoutthe patia, the gloss, a the egree of rolligEach of them was evaluate o a scale from aset(-) to very itese (+++). Accorig to the egreeto which the variales were preset, the pieceswere iterprete as havig ee trasporte ashorter or a loger istace, although this aspectwas identied as a criterion which should not begeneralized (Punescu 2000: 41)unescu 2000: 41)

The OSTeODONTOkeRATIC

As presete aove, the argumets for supportig the exis-

tece of the Osteootokeratic rely o the presume oetools and the three manuports at Tetoiu Valea lui Grmanuports at Tetoiu Valea lui Grmanuports at Tetoiu Valea lui Gruceau. Eve urig the 1960s, whe the cocept was stilin use, the argumentation was insucient, no maer howethusiastically it was presete. Regarig the oe iustry, researchers prove that the Osteootokeratic, sensu dart, is ot a vali cocept (brai 1981; Siger 1956; Wol(brai 1981; Siger 1956; Wol-erg 1970). R. Feustel, for example, particularly referre tothe bones of Bugiuleti [Tetoiu] as presenting tooth marksti [Tetoiu] as presenting tooth marksti [Tetoiu] as presenting tooth marksof carivores (Feustel, reply i Wolerg 1970: 32). As forAs forthe existece of the three mauports, is har to elieve thais har to elieve thatearly hominins, no maer how primitive, would only prefer rocks fou 40km away. There are may other potehere are may other pote-

tial explaatios for their presece eyo the purposefutrasportatio over such a istace.

With the avet of the 1970s, irect refereces to the oe iustries were tacitly aaoe, ut ot etirelyespecially in popular journals (Nicolescu-Plopor 1970)Later work metios the two compoets separately amore cautiously, ut the reaer is still allowe to coclueathropogeesis for some materials a possiility:

i Valea lui Grunceanu de Bugiuleti [Tetoiu] des[Tetoiu] desespierres taiet apportes epuis es gisemets istatsde plusieurs jours, on ne saurait en aucun cas aribuer

1.

2.

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

11/16

228 PaloAnpl 2008

cet acte u comportemet istictif. Cela suppose, aucotraire, u marche cosciete apparteat u trehumai. O peut ire autat es os logs trasportsas ce mme gisemet et ot les xtrmites taiettrasformes e outils estiatio itetioelle, eemployat chaque fois ue techique e trasformatiosimilaire (Crciumaru 1999: 47)4.

This was ot the oly prolem regarig the chroolo-

gy a iterpretatio of the Tetoiu sites. For all three Tetoiusites metioe aove, a age of ca 1.7 MY bP was estimat-e. Amog them, dealul Mijlociu is suppose to e olerthan Valea lui Grunceanu. At Dealul Mijlociu, however,the iscovery of three choppig tools was reporte; thesewere assige to the TAP, a thus, they preate the levelwith the presume oe tools. This creates a situatio that

simply cotraicts the rules of time a place.

The LIThIC INDUSTRIeS Of The LOweR

AND MIDDLe PLeISTOCeNe SITeS

Except for the poorly ocumete in situ nds presentedaove, the majority of pieces were fou i isture co-texts. Besides the vaguely dened industries, other seriousouts occur:

Anthropgenic action. That homiis prouce someof the simplest choppers is questioale, if oekeeps i mi that the rivers carry millios of stoelocks, a so it is very likely that may such piec-es were create aturally. For the Romaia case,there are some peles that harly exhiit aytrace of voluntary modication (Figure 7). When

Figure 7. 14, Choppers discovered in disturbed context from the Drjov Valley.

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

12/16


Figure 8. Slatina Valea Muierii: 1, Chopper. Valea Mare: 2, Chopping tool; Brebeni: 3, Chopping tool. (Drawings after Punescu2000; used with permission of the AGIR).

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

13/16

230 PaloAnpl 2008

pulishe, they were coute for the statistics utever illustrate.Chronological value. There are umerous artifactsthat were assige to the Lower Paleolithic (PeleCulture, Moe 2 iustries, a Premousteria)accorig to their typological features, althoughthe cotext was lackig. Certai types may have agreater occurrece i certai perios, ut that oes

ot mea that they shoul solely e coecte toa uique techocomplex, a, especially for thisperio, they shoul ot e assige chroologicalrelevace (Roeroeks 1994).Presentation. Some pieces were upgrae while eig raw, i orer to e closer to the iea ofpele tools (Figure 8). This situatio is ot uique;for example, Roeroeks a Kolfschote (1994)metio this regarig some bohemia material.Bifacial tools. These pieces rage from proto-ifac-es to Aevillia a Acheulia ifaces, athey have ee the suject of the most varialeiterpretatios. From the expae presetatioof data (Crciumaru 1999; Punescu 1999b, 2000)it ca oly e iferre that they postate the TAPiustries. Other tha that, o cosistet chroo cultural iterpretatio was mae. Sometimesthese pieces were assigned to undened Lower Pa-leolithic iustries; elsewhere, Acheulia ifacesare interpreted as being Premousterian (Punescu2000: 42, Table 1); nally, some of them are regard-e as possily Mousteria (see ote 2 aove).

The PReMOUSTeRIAN

For Romania, Punescu vaguely dened the Premous-teria as a set of Levallois or o-Levallois iustries iwhich pele tools may e preset or ot; these iustriesevolved from the Riss up to the early Wrm (Punescu1989: 129). According to this denition, the only criterionis the chroological iterval, a thus this cocept shouloly apply to pieces that were fou in situ, amely i sei-mets whose age woul fall withi this temporal rage. be-cause all of the so-calle Premousteria pieces were foui erive cotexts, there is o iformatio aout the ageof their original layer and thus they should not be classiedthis way, at least not according to this denition.

CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this paper was to show that the RomaiaLower Paleolithic recor ees to e reevaluate. The atagathere for this perio is the result of a cetury of re-search, uertake y itrepi scholars who stuie theOl Stoe Age; thus far, the recor for the earlier phasesof this age is scarce if compare to the Mile a UpperPaleolithic i Romaia. I have presete some issues that,if ackowlege, show that there are some importat ques-tios regarig the valiity of the iscoveries mae so far.

The importat paleotological site of Tetoiu-Valea luiGrunceanu should be divorced from the idea of presumedhomii activity i the Villafrachia. Eve for the 1960s,

this iterpretatio relie o virtually o soli ata. The insitu iscoveries assige to the Lower Paleolithic are veryfew a relatively poor. The ca. 1,100 pieces fou i is-ture cotext ca e ivie ito two major categoriessome whose artifactual character is outful, ecause theyare very ruimetary, a others, which are true artifactsut shoul ot e use as chroo-cultural markers. Schol-ars must e cautious whe iterpretig them. O the other

ha, the presece of these pieces iicates that LowerPaleolithic sites may exist i Romaia, ut have yet to eiscovere.

ACkNOwLeDgeMeNTS

The research for this paper was supporte y CnCSIS(grat 137/01.10.2007), Romaia, a y the Fulright Com-missio, USA. I also wish to thak to all who have guieme through writing this paper: Harold Dibble, Radu Iovi,Utsav churmans, Alain Tureau, Gabriel Popescu, JohnEly, a two aoymous reviewers. I also am eeply grate-ful to de Olszewski for eitig this text a polishig theEglish.

eNDNOTeS1. Tetoiu is curret ame of the village. At the time whe the research

began, it was called Bugiuleti.2. The following excerpt is relevant for the vague cultural aribution. It

refers to many pieces found at Drgneti, Olt County, in a disturbedgneti, Olt County, in a disturbed, Olt Couty, i a isturecotext. The lot cosists of seve choppers, six choppig tools, six

bifaces and protobifaces, seven simple akes, ve naturally backedknives, one Levallois ake, three side scrapers, and one denticulate:

We elieve that the material escrie aove elogs todierent industries. The choppers and the unretouchedakes could be assigned to the TAP (probably to the ar-chaic industry of worked manuports and simple akes);the other pieces (the protoifaces, the ifaces, the Leval-lois akes, the naturally backed knives, the side scrap-ers a the oe eticulate) may elog to the LowerPaleolithic, a some of them to the Premousteria oreven to the Mousterian. (Punescu 2000: 194) [authorsuescu 2000: 194) [authorstranslation]

3.durig the Mile Pleistocee, i aitio to the typi-cal tools of this archaic cole/core iustry, ew typesappear, such as proto-ifaces (which presumaly haveevolve from the choppig tools), Aevillia ifaces(fou i the drjov Valley)aAcheulia ifaces (fromdrjov Valley)aAcheulia ifaces (fromrjov Valley) a Acheulia ifaces (fromthe gravels of the Olt a drjov Valleys); Clactoiadrjov Valleys); Clactoiarjov Valleys); Clactoiaakes also appear during this period (Punescu 1989:unescu 1989:uescu 1989:129). [authors translation].

4.This culture, or, rather, the Premousteria cultures,generally refers to Levallois or non-Levallois akeiustries, i which aciet forms of tools mae ocoles (choppers, choppig tools) or ifaces may epreset i variale percetages or may e completelylackig, evelope urig the last part of the Lower Pa-leolithic. Their origi seems to have ee at the egi-ig of the Riss; as to their isappearace, they last utilthe beginning of the lower Wrm (Punescu1989: 129).unescu 1989: 129).uescu 1989: 129).[authors translation].

5.If it is acknowledged that the rocks of Valea lui Gr -unceanu, Bugiuleti [Tetoiu] were carried from distant[Tetoiu] were carried from distant

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

14/16


locatios of several ays walk, oe caot i ay casearibute this to mere instinctive behavior. Rather, thisis the result of the coscious actio of a huma eig.It coul e sai that the same coscious actios wereivolve i carryig log oes to the site, i orer to

e shape ito tools, y similar techiques every time(Crciumaru 1999: 47). [authors translation].[authors translation].

RefeReNCeS

Andreescu, I., Rdulescu, C., amson, P., Tschepalyga, A.,dulescu, C., amson, P., Tschepalyga, A.,a Trouikhi, I. 1981. Chroologie (Mollusques,Mammiferes, Paleomagetism) es formatios Plio-Plistocees e la zoe e Slatia (bassi dacique).Travaux de lInstitut de Speleologie Emile Racovia 20:127137.

Arsuaga, J-L., Martez, I., Lorezo, C., Gracia, A., Muoz,A., Aloso, O., a Gallego, J. 1999. The huma craialThe huma craialremais from Gra dolia Lower Pleistocee site (Si-erra e Atapuerca, Spai). Journal of Human Evolution37: 431457.

backwell, L.R., a Errico, F. 2000. Eviece of termiteforaging by wartkrans early Hominids. Proceedings

of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 98 (4): 13581363.

Balter, M., 2001. In search of the rst Europeans. Science291(5529): 17221725.

bergma, C.A. a Roerts, M.b. 1988. Flakig techologyat the Acheulea site of boxgrove, West Sussex (Eg-land). In: Tureau, A., Blanchet J-C., Fagnart, J-P., andIn: Tureau, A., Blanchet J-C., Fagnart, J-P., andSomm, J. (Es.), Industries lithiques en milieu loessique.Amies: Revue Archologique e Picarie, 12: 105113.

boifay, E. 1991. Les premieres iustries u Su-Est e laFrace et u Massif Cetral. I: boifay, E. a Vaer-

meersch, b. (Es.), Les premiers Europens. Paris: Comitdes Travaux Historiques et cientiques, 6380.boifay, E., a Vaermeersch, b. 1991. Vue esemle

sur le trs aciet Palolithique e lEurope. I: boi-fay, E. a Vaermeersch, b. (Es.), Les premiers Euro-pens. Paris: Comit des Travaux Historiques et cien-tiques, 309318.

bosiski, G. 1996. Les origins de lhomme en Europe et en Asie: Atlas des sites du Palolithique Inferieur. Paris: EitiosErrace.

Breuil, H. 1927. tations palolithiques en Transylvanie.Buletinul Societii de tiine din Clujii de tiine din Cluj 2: 193217.

Brhl, E. 2003. The small int tool industry from Bilzingsle-

e Steirime. I: burukiewicz, J. M. a Roe, A.(Es.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and theLevant. Oxfor: british Archaeological Reports Itera-tioal Series 1115, 4963.

brai, C.K. 1981. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduc-tion to African Cave Taphonomy. Chicago: Uiversity ofChicago Press.

Caroell, E., Garca-Ato, M.d., Mallol, C., Mosquera,M., Oll, A., Rorguz, X.P., Sahoui, M., Sala, R.,a Verges, J.M. 1999. The Td6 level lithic iustryfrom Gra dolia, Atapuerca (burgos, Spai): prouc-tio a use.Journal of Human Evolution 37: 653693.

Crciumaru, M. 1999. Le Palolithique en Roumanie. Greoble: Jrme Millon.

Chavaillo, J. 1991. Les esemles lithiques e ChilhacIII (Haute-Loire): typologie, situation stratigraphiqueet aalyse critique et comparative. I: boifay, E. aVaermeersch, b. (Es.), Les premiers Europens. Paris: Comit des Travaux Historiques et cientiques,8192.

dart, R.A. 1957. The Osteodontokeratic culture of Australopithecus Prometheus. Trasvaal Museum Memoir no. 10.Trasvaal Museum Memoir no. 10.

dart, R.A. 1960. The boe-Tool Maufacturig Aility of Australopithecus Prometheus. American Anthropologis62(1): 134143.

dart, R.A. a Wolerg, d.L. 1971. O the Osteootoke-ratic Culture of the Australopitheciae. Current Anthropology 12(2): 233236.

deell, R. 2003. dispersal a coloizatio, log a shorchroologies: how cotiuous is the Early Pleistoceerecor for homiis outsie Africa? Journal of HumanEvolution 45: 421440.

doosi, V. 1988. Le site palolithique iferieur e Vrtes-szls, Hongrie. LAnthropologie 92(4): 10411050.

doosi, V.T. 2003. Chagig eviromet uchageculture at Vrtesszls, Hungary. In Burdukiewicz, JM. a Roe, A. (Es.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Toolsin Europe and the Levant. Oxfor: british ArchaeologicaReports Iteratioal Series 1115, 101111.

Fririch, J. 1991. Les premieres peuplemets humais ebohme (Tchcoslovaquie). I: boifay, E. a VaerI: boifay, E. a Vaer-meersch, b. (Es.), Les premiers Europens. Paris: Comitdes Travaux Historiques et cientiques, 195202.

Gamle, C. 1999. The Palaeolithic Societies of Europe. Camrige: Camrige Uiversity Press.

Korisear, R. and Petraglia, M. 1998. The archaeology of thelower paleolithic: ackgrou a overview. I: PetraI: Petraglia, M. and Korisear, R. (Eds.), Early Human Behaviorin Global Context. The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Paleolithic Record. Loo: Routlege, 122.Loo: Routlege, 122.

Lefevre, d., Rayal, J-P., Veret, G., Pilleyre, T., PiperoM., Sazelle, S., Fai, J., Miallier, d., a Motret, M1994. Simetatio, volcaisme et prsece humaias le assi e Veosa (basilicata, Italie) au Plisto-cee moye: exemple u site e notarchirico. Bulletinde la Socit Prhistorique Franaise 91(2): 103112.

Lordkipanidze, D. 1998. The Pleistocene element of theTranscaucasus by Hominids. In: M. Oe (Ed.), Prehis

toire dAnatolie. Genese de deux mondes. , Liege, ERAUL85, 1998, 1528.

Lorkipaize, d, Jashashvili, T., Vekua, A., Poce e LeM.., Zollikofer, C.P., Rightmire G.P., Poner, H., Ferrig, R., Oms, O., Tappe, M., bukhsiaize, M., Agusti, J., Kahlke, R., Kilaze, G., Martiez-navarro, b.,Mouskhelishvili, A., nioraze, M., a Rook, L. 2007Postcraial eviece from early Homo from dmaisiGeorgia. Nature 449: 305310

Maia, d. a Maia, U. 2003. bilzigslee Homo erectushis culture a his eviromet. The most importaresults of research. I: burukiewicz, J. M. a Roe

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

15/16

232 PaloAnpl 2008

A. (Es.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and theLevant. Oxfor: british Archaeological Reports Itera-tioal Series 1115, 2948.

Moga, M. 1936. Paleoliticul iferior Trasilvaia. Anu-arul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice, Seciunea pentruTransilvania 4: 321.

Moroan, N.N. 1933. Evoluia cercetrilor preistorice-pa-leolitice din Romnia nord-estic i rezultatele obinute.

Chiinu, 121 (Oprint).naia, I. 1972. Uelte ale paleoliticului iferior escoperite

pe vile Dmbovnicului i Mozacului. Studii i Cercetride Istorie Veche i Arheologie 23(2): 235244.

nica, M. 1970. Uelte ale culturii e pru escoperite laFrcaele (jud. Dolj). Revista Muzeelor 7(5): 430433.

Nicolescu-Plopor, C.. 1929. Cultura elean n Romnia?Arhivele Olteniei 8(4546): 469473.

Nicolescu-Plopor, C.. 1930. Iari cultura elean n Ro-mia.Arhivele Olteniei 9(4950): 211213.

Nicolescu-Plopor, C.. 1931. Asupra culturii acheuleenei micoquiene n Romnia.Arhivele Olteniei 10(53): 4652.

Nicolescu-Plopor, C.. 1957. Cercetri asupra paleoliti-cului timpuriu.Materiale i Cercetri Arheologice 3: 281290.

Nicolescu-Plopor C.. 1964a. Date noi cu privire lacunoaterea nceputurilor i sfritului paleoliticuluiRomiei. Studii i Cercetri de Istorie Veche i Arheologie15(3): 307320.

Nicolescu-Plopor, C.. 1964b. Nouvelles dones sur lapossiilit e lexistece e protohomiies as le vil-lafrachie e Roumaie. Dacia Nouvelle Serie 8: 4752.

Nicolescu-Plopor, C.. and Moroan I.N. 1959. ur lean I.N. 1959. ur lecommecemet u palolithique e Roumaie. Dacia

Nouvelle Serie 3: 933.Nicolescu-Plopor, C.. and Nicolescu-Plopor, D. 1963.The possile existece of protohomiis i Romaiasvillafrachea. Dacia Nouvelle Serie 7: 825.

Nicolescu-Plopor, D. 1970. Vrsta omului.Magazin Istoric 4(36): 8384.

Oms, O., Pars, J. M., Martiez-navarro, b., Agust, J., Toro,, J., Toro,I., Martez-Ferez, G., a Turq, A. 2000. EarlyEarlyhuma occupatio of Wester Europe: Paleomageticates for two Paleolithic sites i Spai. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences U.S.A. 97: 1066610670.

Pars, J.M. a Prez-Gozalez, A. 1999. Magetochroo-logy a stratigraphy at Gra dolia sectio, Atapu-

erca (burgos, Spai). Journal of Human Evolution 37:325342.

Par, .A., Barendregt, R.W., Breda, M., Candy, I., Collins,M. J., Russell Coope, G., Durbridge, P., Field, M.H., Lee,J.R., Lister, A. M., Mutch, R., Penkman, K.E.H., Preece,R.C., Rose, J., tringer, C.B., ymmons, R., Whiaker,J.E., Wymer, J.J., a Stuart, A.J. 2005. The earliest re-cor of huma activity i norther Europe. Nature 438:10081012.

Punescu, Al. 1970. Evoluia uneltelor i armelor de piatr cio-plit descoperite pe teritoriul Romniei . Bucureti: Editura

Acaemiei.Punescu, Al. 1989. Le palolithique et le mesolithique de

Roumaie (u ref aperu). LAnthropologie 93(1): 123158.

Punescu, Al. 1999a. Paleoliticul i mezoliticul de pe teritoriulMoldovei cuprins ntre Siret i Prut. Bucureti: atya ai.

Punescu, Al. 1999b. Paleoliticul i mezoliticul de pe teritoriulDobrogei. Bucureti: atya ai.

Punescu, Al. 2000. Paleoliticul i mezoliticul din spaiul cu-prins ntre Carpai i Dunre. Bucureti: AGIR.

Punescu, Al. 2001. Paleoliticul i mezoliticul din spaiul tran-silvan. Bucureti: AGIR.

Punescu, Al., Rdulescu, C., and amson, P. 1982. Decou-vertes e palolithique iferieur e Roumaie. Travauxde lInstitut de Speleologie Emile Racovia 22: 5362.

Pereo, C. 1991. Les gisements dIsernia la Pineta (Molise,Italie). I: boifay, E. a Vaermeersch, b. (Es.)I: boifay, E. a Vaermeersch, b. (Es.) Lespremiers Europens. Paris: Comit des Travaux Histori-ques et cientiques, 161168.

Pereo, C., Biagi, P., Boschian, G., Broglio, A., tefani, M.,Fasai, L., Fotaa, F., Grifoi, R., Guerreschi, A., Ia-copii, A., Mielli, A., Pala, R., Peresai, M., Rai, G.,Ronchitelli, A., arti, L., Thun Hohenstein, U., and To-zzi, C. 2004. Livig Floors a structures from theLower Paleolithic to the broze Age i Italy. Collegium

Antropologicum 28(1): 6388.Rayal, J-P. a Magoga, L. 2000. Gofacts et tphrophacts

dans le Massif Central. Quand la nature mystie leprhistorie. Revue dAuvergne 554555 (12), 116 (O-prit)

Rdulescu, C. and amson,P. 1991. Traces dactivite humai-dulescu, C. and amson, P. 1991. Traces dactivite humai-activite humai-e a la limite Plioce/Plistoce as le bassi daci-que (Roumaie). I: boifay, E. a Vaermeersch,

b. (Es.), Les premiers Europens. Paris: Comit es Tra-vaux Historiques et cientiques, 203207.Rdulescu, C., amson, P. and tiuc, E. 1998. Cadre bios-Care ios-

tratigraphique u palolithique iferieur e Roumaie.Quaternaire 9(4): 283290.

Roeroeks, W. 1994. Upatig the earliest occupatio ofEurope. Current Anthropology 35(3): 301305.

Roeroeks, W. a Va Kolfschote, T. 1994. The earliestoccupatio of Europe: a short chroology.Antiquity 68:489503.

Rolland, N. 1998. The Lower Paleolithic selement of Eur-asia, with special referece to Europe. I: Petraglia, M.and Korisear, R (Eds.), Early Human Behavior in Global

Context. The Rise and Diversity of the Lower Paleolithic Re-cord. Loo: Routlege, 187220.Loo: Routlege, 187220.

Roska, M. 1928. Le palolithique iferieur e Zimru(Ara). Buletinul Societii de tiine din Clujii de tiine din Cluj 4(2): 3537.

Roska, M. 1931. Paleoliticul Arealului.Anuarul InstitutuluiGeologic al Romniei 14: 99126.

Roska, M. 1933. Recherches palolithiques e Trasylvaiee 1927. Dacia 34: 823.

inger, R. 1956. The Bone Tools from Hopeeld.Bone Tools from Hopeeld. Ameri-can Anthropologist 58(6): 11271134.

Thieme, H. 2003. Lower Paleolithic sites at chningen,Lower Saxoy, Germay. I: burukiewicz, J. M. a

8/2/2019 Pa 20080218

16/16


Roe, A. (Es.), Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europeand the Levant. Oxfor: british Archaeological ReportsOxfor: british Archaeological ReportsIteratioal Series 1115, 927.

Tureau, A. 1979. Les dbuts du palolithique moyen dansla Frace septetrioale. Bulletin de la Socit Prhisto-rique Franaise 76(5) 140142.

Tureau, A. 1982. The transition Lower/Middle Palaeolithic

i norther Frace. I: Roe, A. (E.), The Transitionfrom Lower Paleolithic to Middle Paleolithic and the Originof Modern Human Man. Oxfor: british ArchaeologicaReports Iteratioal Series 151, 137149.

Tureau, A., Lamoe, A., and Marcy J-L. 1997. Land-useLa-usea Acheulea complexes of the Somme Valley. World

Archaeology 29(2): 225241.

Pa 20080218

Documents

Transcript of Pa 20080218