Search

The early Upper Palaeolithic marks the introduction at a continental scale of a fully-fledged laminar industry, and it is associated with the presence of Homo sapiens in the Near East and in Europe. For this period there are three commonly recognised early Upper Palaeolithic technocomplexes : the Early Aurignacian and the Protoaurignacian, in Europe, and the Early Ahmarian, in the Levant. They have been used to illustrate different dispersal routes and behavioural adaptations to climate change, different regional settings or to infer different land-use and mobility strategies. Still, there is no consensus on the criteria for assigning one lithic assemblage to a particular early Upper Palaeolithic technocomplex. The early Upper Palaeolithic assemblages from Banat are among those showing ambiguous results when observed through the current taxonomical lens. This paper evaluates the taxonomical stances comparing technological raw data from extensively published early Upper Palaeolithic sites in Europe and the Levant. The comparison of assemblages attributed to different technocomplexes reveals a much more homogenous picture than expected. Various behaviours that are ascribed to a particular technocomplex are widespread in others too, but they are overlooked because of unclear and non-standardised terminology. The present paper shows that trying to fit the archaeological record in abstract, short definitions leads to misunderstandings, with clear implications on the further conclusions made on human past behaviours. It further advocates for creating new shared criteria for analysing lithic assemblages and thus overcoming the taxonomical impasse

This paper reports briefly on the results of a short reconnaissance at the site of Qumayrah–Ayn 2 (QA 2), a new prehistoric site located in a poorly studied part of the Qumayrah Valley in northern Oman. A survey and limited probing by the Omani–Polish Qumayrah Archaeological Project confirmed the presence of a sediment, approximately 15–20 cm thick, which yielded not just lithics, but also stone installations discovered in situ. One of these installations was evidently a hearth, the other a kind of platform. The lithic assemblage is characterized by a prevalence of flake technology with rare blade products. Predominant in the tools group are side-scrapers, notches and perforators produced by direct-scaled retouch. The most characteristic tools are tanged projectile points made on flakes. The main problem is contextualizing these materials. On the grounds of certain premises they may be associated with the Fasad technocomplex, but not necessarily the pre-Neolithic one as is the case of the classic types. However, a much later chronology is also quite possible.

The paper presents, in detail, the investigations on the chipped stone assemblage discovered, during archaeological excavations, in the early Chalcolithic settlement at Isaiia - Balta Popii. The technological and typological analysis of the entire collection was accomplished taking into account the various raw materials that are its constituents. In the case of the raw material with the greatest frequency – the flint from the Moldavian Platform –, artefacts coming from all phases of the debitage are certified. The results obtained for Isaiia were then compared with those from other Precucuteni II - Tripolje A sites, highlighting the existence of technological and typological elements common for the lithic industries of the early Chalcolithic in Eastern Europe (North-East of Romania, Republic of Moldova and Ukraine)

The “ La Vii 1” (Ciuperceni) settlement, situated in the Danube Plain, has been excavated during the last years. A loessic sequence attributed to the MIS 3 because of an IRSL age includes several Upper Palaeolithic assemblages whose characteristics are very similar. The raw material of the most numerous assemblages (level CR) is a local flint for the majority of the artifacts. This assemblage is typical of a workshop site using a hard percussion for the production of blades, bladelets and flakes with different reducing sequences. Because of the scarcity of the tools, it is difficult to precise the cultural attribution of the assemblage which could belong to an Aurignacian, or probably to an original facies. The presence of particular rabots is an outstanding characteristic

Since its inception, the Romanian archaeological school of the Palaeolithic maintained the interpretation of archaeological layers through the lenses of the geomorphological data as an objective. Our study presents one of the situations in which archaeological researches did not benefit from a direct collaboration between the two fields of inquiry, which led to an erroneous understanding of the sedimentary genesis in the Palaeolithic settlement of Malu Dinu Buzea (Covasna Department). Recent observations offered a glimpse of both vertical and horizontal movement of the archaeological material, due to the periodical reactivation of a dejection cone, and to sedimentary peculiarities. The technological analysis of the recently excavated lithic assemblage revealed the existence of a single, heavily disturbed cultural unit, found in secondary position, along with numerous naturally fragmented flint, sandstone, quartzite, and limestone blocks. The largest part of the technological and typological features of the mostly local flint assemblage indicates a possible final Upper Palaeolithic timing for its origin, with no arguments in favour of a putative Aurignacian designation, and only several hints at a Tardenoisian one, both previously stated for what used to be recognized as a twofolded cultural sequence