What's in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania

Anghelinu, Mircea; Niță, Loredana

doi:10.1016/j.quaint.2012.03.013

Cited by 20 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The knowledge of the sedimentary pathways, thus the transport chains from the initial production of silt-sized particles to its final deposition and loess formation, is crucial to understand past environmental and climatic systems in varying geographical settings (Muhs, 2018). The reconstruction of atmospheric circulation patterns and climatic gradients is crucial to understand past environmental constraints on the spread of early modern humans (Obreht et al, 2017;Staubwasser et al, 2018), especially in areas which are believed to be important trajectories for their migration into Europe (Anghelinu and Niţȃ, 2014;Chu, 2018;Fitzsimmons et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling Sedimentary Pathways for the Pleniglacial Lower Danube Loess Based on Geochemical Signatures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The source of aeolian sediments such as loess has been investigated since decades. Reliable knowledge on potential dust sources is crucial to understand past climatic and environmental conditions accompanying the dispersal of early modern humans (EMH) into Europe. Provenance studies are usually performed on small sample sets and most established methods are expensive and time-consuming. Here, we present the results of high-resolution geochemical analyses performed on five loess-palaeosol sequences from the Lower Danube Basin (LDB), a region, despite its importance as a trajectory for EMH, largely underrepresented in loess provenance studies. We compare our results with geochemical data of loess-palaeosol sequences from Austria, Hungary, Serbia, and Ukraine. Based on published literature, we thus evaluate five plausible sedimentary pathways for the LDB loess: 1) the Danube alluvium (DA) pathway, which constrains the transport and re-deposition of detrital material by the Danube and its tributaries; 2) the Carpathian Bending (CB) pathway, where sediment is mainly transported from the Cretaceous to Neogene flysch of the Eastern Carpathian Bending; 3) the Eastern Carpathian (EC) pathway, in which sediment is eroded from the flysch of the Outer Eastern Carpathians, transported by rivers, and deflated by northwesterly to westerly winds; 4) the glaciofluvial (GF) pathway, where dust is deflated from glacial outwash plains in nowadays Ukraine, and 5) the Black Sea (BS) pathway, where dust originates from the exposed shelf of the Black Sea. Based on geochemical data, we consider the DA pathway to be the major sediment trajectory for loess in the LDB. Especially the sequences located close to the Danube and the Dobrogea show similarities to sites in Central and Northeast Hungary as well as Northern Serbia. For the northeastern part of the LDB, we demonstrate that dust input is mainly sourced from primary material from the Eastern Carpathians. Mineralogical estimations and geochemical data render the CB pathway as an additional substantial source of detrital material for the loess of this area. We consider the influence of the GF pathway in the LDB as negligible, whereas some minor influences of the BS pathway cannot be ruled out based on geochemical data.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disentangling Sedimentary Pathways for the Pleniglacial Lower Danube Loess Based on Geochemical Signatures

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous chronologically restricted types of Aurignacian assemblages can be identified in various parts of Europe based on lithic and osseous evidence (especially the presence/absence of index fossils such as burins busqués); examples include the Early Aurignacian and Evolved Aurignacian groups in Western Europe (e.g. Noiret 2009;Michel 2010;Sinitsyn 2010;Bordes et al 2011;Anghelinu and Niţă 2014;Chu et al 2018). The situation concerning Gravettian assemblages is rather similar, in that numerous Gravettian faciès are described for different time periods and areas based on assemblage contents, particularly the presence of particular index fossils: our knowledge of these across Europe is perhaps better than for Aurignacian assemblages, and examples include the Rayssian, Noaillian and Kostënki-Avdeevo Culture groups (e.g.…”

Section: Upper Paleolithic Cultural Taxonomymentioning

confidence: 99%

Threading the Weft, Testing the Warp: Population Concepts and the European Upper Paleolithic Chronocultural Framework

Reynolds

2020

Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretations of the European Upper Paleolithic archaeological record have long relied on concepts of past populations. In particular, cultural taxonomic units-which are used as a framework for describing the archaeological record-are commonly equated with past populations. However, our cultural taxonomy is highly historically contingent, and does not necessarily accurately reflect variation in the archaeological record. Furthermore, we lack a secure theoretical basis for the inference of populations from taxonomic units. In order to move past these problems and satisfactorily address questions of Upper Paleolithic 2 populations, we need to entirely revise our approach to chronocultural framework building. Here, I outline a specific way of describing the archaeological record that deliberately avoids the use of cultural taxonomic units and instead concentrates on individual features of material culture. This approach may provide a more appropriate basis for the archaeological study of Upper Paleolithic populations and for comparison with genetic data.

show abstract

“…in Ripiceni-Izvor, an open-air site on the right bank of the Prut (for a critical assessment of the claims see Anghelinu et al . 2012, especially 145–6; Anghelinu and Niță 2014, especially 181). In this case too, I will refrain from further discussion.…”

Section: Leaf-points In Europe and Their Distribution Temporal And Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaf-Points From Petrota (Greek Thrace) and the Palaeolithic Chronology of the Vrahos Chert Quarry

Fotiadis

2016

Annu. Br. Sch. Athens

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Petrota chert source, in Greek Thrace, was exploited in the Middle Palaeolithic and again in the Neolithic and the beginning of the Early Bronze Age. An extensive scatter of products of that exploitation today surrounds the source. The site was systematically surveyed between 1998 and 2010. The present paper is devoted exclusively to the issue of the chronology of the Middle Palaeolithic component. The best, though still imperfect, indicator of chronology is the presence in the scatter of bifacially flaked leaf-points. A review of the literature on the chronostratigraphy of such artefacts in Europe, from Thuringia to Crimea, shows that they had a long career. They first appeared about 200,000 years ago and were still manufactured about 45,000 years ago. On the basis of various considerations, it is suggested that the leaf-points of Petrota and, accordingly, the Palaeolithic component at the site, belong to an advanced stage of that long period, probably dating between roughly 100,000 and 45/40,000 years ago.

show abstract

What's in a name: The Aurignacian in Romania

Cited by 20 publications

References 39 publications

Disentangling Sedimentary Pathways for the Pleniglacial Lower Danube Loess Based on Geochemical Signatures

Disentangling Sedimentary Pathways for the Pleniglacial Lower Danube Loess Based on Geochemical Signatures

Threading the Weft, Testing the Warp: Population Concepts and the European Upper Paleolithic Chronocultural Framework

Leaf-Points From Petrota (Greek Thrace) and the Palaeolithic Chronology of the Vrahos Chert Quarry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About