Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania)
Preliminary reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (South-western Romania)
复制标题
对巴纳特（罗马尼亚西南部）奥里尼亚克人的初步重新评估
DOI：
10.1016/j.quaint.2012.07.024
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Cristian Ţuţu
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
V. Sitlivy;V. Chabai;M. Anghelinu;Thorsten Uthmeier;Holger Kels;L. Niță;Ionut Băltean;A. Veselsky;Cristian Ţuţu
尽管罗马尼亚旧石器时代的记录非常丰富，但几十年来，科学界对它的了解相对较少。在Oase洞穴的发现之后，情况迅速发生了变化，这使罗马尼亚的古人类学和考古学记录成为人们关注的焦点，刺激了几个致力于该地区旧石器时代早期晚期的国际研究项目。本文首次概述了最近在邻近的Oase地区，即罗马尼亚巴纳特进行的研究，特别着重于奥里尼亚契人在couriava的露天占领。本文对来自comuriava的古老和最近出土的奥里尼亚期藏品进行了详细的属性分析，并在Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa上对据称类似的行业进行了比较概述。还提出了利用rom<s:1> ne<e:1>的几个OSL样品对Banat Aurignacian进行初步的时间评估。岩石分析的结果，与新的年代学估计（超过30 ka BP）非常相似，证实了巴纳特组合的早期归属于克雷姆斯型奥里尼亚纪，但也驳斥了最初归因于这些聚落的异常年轻的年代学。虽然一些特征，包括Krems/Dufour工具的持续存在，强烈表明奥日尼亚期技术复杂的古老阶段（原奥日尼亚期/奥日尼亚期0），但其他元素（突起形式、扭曲叶片和奥日尼亚期叶片）让人想起更多的“经典”特征，这些特征通常与奥日尼亚期1相关联。根据现有数据，没有连贯的时间-标准趋势或功能要求可以解释巴纳特工业中的这些“混合”特征。然而，它们的存在表明了这些奥日尼亚期早期事件的内部变异性。
Despite its richness, the Romanian Paleolithic record has remained for decades relatively poorly known to the broader scientific community. The situation swiftly changed after the find at Oase Cave, which brought the Romanian paleoanthropological and archeological record into intensive focus, spurring several international research projects devoted to the regional Early Upper Paleolithic. The present paper provides the first summary of recent research undertaken in the neighboring area of Oase, the Romanian Banat, particularly focused on the Aurignacian open air occupation at Coşava.A detailed attribute analysis of both old and recently excavated Aurignacian collections from Coşava, supplemented by a comparative overview of the allegedly similar industry at Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa, is presented. An initial chronological assessment of the Banat Aurignacian by means of several OSL samples from Româneşti is also proposed.The results of the lithic analysis, much like the new chronological estimations (in excess of 30 ka BP) confirm the early assignment of the Banat assemblages to the Krems-type Aurignacian, but also dismiss the unusually young chronology initially attributed to these settlements. While several features, including the constant presence of Krems/Dufour tools, point strongly to an archaic stage of the Aurignacian technocomplex (Protoaurignacian/Aurignacian 0), other elements (carinated forms, twisted bladelets, and Aurignacian blades) recall more ‘classical’ features conventionally associated to the Aurignacian I. No coherent chrono-stadial trend or functional requirements can explain these ‘mixed’ features in the Banat industries with the data at hand. Their presence nevertheless points to the internal variability of these early Aurignacian occurrences.
罗马尼亚巴纳特山脉山麓的黄土状沉积物和土壤的成因 – 旧石器时代遗址 RomâneÅti 和 CoÅava 的例子
影响因子：
2.2
作者：
Protze;Sitlivy;Hilgers;Zander;Anghelinu;Bertrams;Lehmkuhl
通讯作者：
Lehmkuhl