Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Quaternary International
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/quaint
From Gravettian to Epigravettian in the Eastern Carpathians: Insights from
the Bistricioara-Lutărie III archaeological site
Mircea Anghelinu a, *, Marc Händel b, Loredana Niță a, Cristina Cordoș c, Daniel Veres d,
Ulrich Hambach e, George Murătoreanu a, Alexandru Ciornei f, Christoph Schmidt e,
Tiberiu Sava g, Cristian Mănăilescu g, Maria Ilie g, h, Läetitia Demay i, Valentin Georgescu a
a
Faculty of Humanities, Valahia University Târgoviște, Lt. Stancu Ion 34-36, 130105, Târgoviște, Romania
Institute for Oriental and European Archaeology (OREA), Austrian Academy of Sciences, Hollandstrasse 11-13, 1020 Vienna, Austria
Institute of Archaeology, Codrescu 6, 700, 479, Iași, Romania
d
Romanian Academy, Institute of Speleology, 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
e
BayCEER & Chair of Geomorphology, University of Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany
f
Department of Paleolithic Archaeology, Institute of Archaeology Vasile Parvan, 13 September Street, no. 13, Sector 5, Bucharest 050711, Romania
g
Horia Hulubei National Institute for Physics and Nuclear Engineering (IFIN-HH), Reactorului 30, Măgurele, Romania
h
University of Bucharest, Faculty of Physics, Doctoral School of Physics, 405 Atomistilor str., 077125, Magurele, Ilfov, Romania
i
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, UMR 7194 HNHP CNRS/MNHN/UPVD, 1 rue René Panhard, 75013 Paris, France
b
c
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Eastern Carpathians
Chrono-stratigraphy
Gravettian
Epigravettian
Lithic variability
The Eastern Romanian Carpathians harbor a rich Upper Paleolithic archaeological record, mostly concentrated
on the Bistrița river terraces. Despite extensive field research spanning decades, the regional archaeological
record has long suffered from poor chronometric support and contradictory taxonomy.
The recently excavated spot at Bistricioara-Lutărie III, located in the Ceahlău Basin, brought a wealth of fresh
chronostratigraphic and archaeological information, here summarized for the first time. The site preserves a
thick (up to 9 m) sedimentary archive of mixed colluvial and aeolian origin, capping the fluvial gravel of a
Bistrița terrace and likely extending back to Marine Isotope Stage 5. Six well preserved archaeological layers
located in the upper part of the sequence were assigned to the Gravettian and Epigravettian technocomplexes.
Earlier archaeological traces are indicated by presence of charcoals and burnt sediment, but have not yet been
fully assessed.
BL III hosts a well preserved Late Gravettian layer with shouldered points dated to around 27 ka cal BP. The
Epigravettian occupations starting at 24 ka cal BP provided rich lithic assemblages as well. The robustly dated
sequence at BL III brings a major contribution to the understanding of the regional Upper Paleolithic cultural
landscape across the Late Glacial Maximum. At the same time, exotic raw materials (Cretaceous flint, obsidian,
radiolarites and cherts) pointing at extensive provisioning areas connect the Eastern Carpathian record to the
wider East-Central European paleo-cultural dynamics.
1. Introduction
In contrast to many less intensively investigated areas in Romania,
the Paleolithic record of the Eastern Carpathians, especially of the Bis­
trița valley’s middle sector, benefited from a systematic research focus
extending back for decades. Initiated already in the 1950’s, before the
construction of the Bicaz dam and the formation of the Izvorul Muntelui
reservoir, archaeological excavations in this area continued, albeit
intermittently, to the present day. Two dozen Upper Paleolithic (UP)
findspots, half corresponding to multilayered sites (Fig. 1), were
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mircea_anghelinu@yahoo.com, mircea.anghelinu@valahia.ro (M. Anghelinu), marc.haendel@oeaw.ac.at (M. Händel), loredana_nita2003@
yahoo.com (L. Niță), elenacordos@gmail.com (C. Cordoș), daniel.veres@ubbcluj.ro (D. Veres), ulrich.hambach@uni-bayreuth.de (U. Hambach), muratoreanug@
yahoo.com (G. Murătoreanu), eualex1984@gmail.com (A. Ciornei), christoph.schmidt@uni-bayreuth.de (C. Schmidt), tiberiu.sava@nipne.ro (T. Sava), cristian.
manailescu@tandem.nipne.ro (C. Mănăilescu), maria.ilie@tandem.nipne.ro (M. Ilie), laetitia.demay@mnhn.fr (L. Demay), georgescuvalentin75@yahoo.com
(V. Georgescu).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2020.06.044
Received 27 April 2020; Received in revised form 19 June 2020; Accepted 28 June 2020
Available online 25 July 2020
1040-6182/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd and INQUA. All rights reserved.
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
identified in the upstream Ceahlău area, and many of these benefited
from large scale excavations often exceeding 250 m2 per site (Nic­
olăescu-Plopșor et al., 1966; Păunescu, 1998). According to the initial
assessment (Nicolăescu-Plopșor et al., 1966) and further reiterations
(Păunescu, 1998; Mogoșanu, 1986; Chirica et al., 1996; Cârciumaru,
1999; but see Steguweit et al., 2009; Anghelinu et al., 2012, 2018), the
regional paleo-cultural sequence included several Aurignacian, Gravet­
tian and Epigravettian stages, most comprehensively documented on the
middle (40–50 m) terrace at Ceahlău-Cetățica, Ceahlău-Dârțu,
Ceahlău-Podiș, Bofu Mic and Bistricioara-Lutărie I-II. Several other
settlements downstream (Buda, Lespezi, Piatra Neamț-Poiana Cir­
eșului), located in comparable settings, provided similarly extensive
Gravettian and Epigravettian cultural sequences (Bitiri-Ciortescu et al.,
1989; Păunescu, 1998; Cârciumaru et al., 2006a, b).
Despite the unusual settlement density and extensive field explora­
tions, the Eastern Carpathian record remained, for decades, underrep­
resented in regional (e.g. Noiret, 2007, 2009) or continental-wide
syntheses (e.g. Djindjian et al., 1999). Several reasons, but especially the
weak and contradictory numerical chronology (28–20 ka cal BP)
rendering the Eastern Carpathian record particularly odd in relation to
neighboring areas (cf. Anghelinu and Niță, 2014; Anghelinu et al., 2012,
2018), accounted for such relative neglect. More recently, a series of
reassessments based on previously recovered data, supplemented by
new field research and chronometric data (Cârciumaru et al., 2006a;
Niță-Bălășescu, 2008; Steguweit et al., 2009; Anghelinu et al., 2012,
2018; Ciornei, 2015; Trandafir et al., 2015; Nițu et al., 2019a, b;
Fig. 1. Upper Paleolithic sites on the Bistrița terraces: A. General location; B. Topography and key sites (1. Grințieș; 2. Bistricioara-Lutărie; 3. Podiș; 4. Dârțu; 5.
Cetățica; 6. Bofu; 7. Izvorul Alb; 8. Poiana Cireșului; 9. Buda; 10. Lespezi); C. Multilayered sites in the Ceahlău Basin.
211
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Tuffreau et al., 2018; Schmidt et al., 2020) aided in providing an
improved chronological and stratigraphic understanding of the regional
UP record. These reassessments, however, also brought to light the many
issues inherited from earlier stages of research, such as inadequate
regional chronometric support, underestimation of site formation pro­
cesses, bias by excavation methodologies, inaccurate raw material
identification, curation problems, and typological misidentification,
revealing the necessity of fundamental reconsideration of previous in­
terpretations (Anghelinu and Niță, 2014; Anghelinu et al., 2012, 2018).
Because of the large areas already excavated, aggravated by massive
reforestation in the last decades, as well as property issues, the scope of
direct reassessment of previously explored sites remained limited in
most cases (Steguweit et al., 2009). Fortunately, the identification of
new sites, unaffected by previous research and accessible to excavations
applying state of the art research methodologies is still possible. Here,
we provide a first comprehensive report of the data recovered so far in a
recently explored multilayered site, Bistricioara-Lutărie III (hereafter BL
III). Although hitherto only partially investigated, this site located in the
middle of the Ceahlău settlement concentration brought a wealth of
archaeological, chronometric and paleoenvironmental data, critical to
the understanding of the Gravettian and Epigravettian dynamics in the
Eastern Carpathians and beyond. It also allows for a fresh reassessment
of the regional UP record established by previous excavations along the
Bistrița valley.
2. BL III: a general outline
2.1. Location and excavation history
BL III is located on the right bank of the Bistrița River and was
identified during a field survey along the river terraces in 2007. The site
is located on the lower (15–18 m) terrace, at ~510 m asl, ~200 m
northeast of the Bistricioara-Lutărie I/II Paleolithic site, and ~500 m
southeast of the confluence between the Bistrița and its tributary, Bis­
tricioara. By the time it was identified, BL III had already been affected
by modern loam quarrying and subsequent erosion; additional anthro­
pogenic destruction, albeit on a smaller scale, took place between 2008
and 2013. Fortunately, a large area of the site is presently covered by a
coniferous forest limiting potential additional destruction, although this
also restricts extensive archaeological works. Archaeological explora­
tion of the site took place between 2008 and 2019, and included survey
trenches, coring, as well as chronometric and paleoenvironmental
sampling (Fig. 2). The total surface explored at various depths reaches
36 m2 (trenches T0/2008, T1 and T2/2015, T3/2018, T4/2019). The
sediments between T0 and T1, as well as T1 and T3 were lost due to loam
quarrying and erosion. Systematic excavations (32 m2) focused mainly
on the exposed area of the terrace in the north where archaeological
intervention was urgently required. To assess the size and complexity of
the site, systematic drilling (13 cores/2019) and excavation of one
survey trench (T2) were carried out to the south, west and east of the
exposed area. Based on the available data, the Paleolithic site at BL III
extends over at least 2000 m2, pointing at an exceptionally high po­
tential for further research.
Fig. 2. Bistricioara-Lutărie III: DEM model with location of trenches and dril­
lings (DEM design: Lukas Dörwald, RWTH Aachen).
et al., 2020). Four additional charcoal samples preserved insufficient
carbon and therefore indicate only minimal radiocarbon ages, while four
other charcoal samples provided Holocene ages indicating modern
carbon contamination in the uppermost part of the deposit. Nine
radiocarbon samples are herein discussed for the first time. All charcoal
samples were processed according to the acid-base-acid (ABA) protocol
(Sava et al., 2019) and calibrated with the IntCal13 calibration dataset
(Reimer et al., 2013). Only two samples (DeA-4462; RoAMS 1415.101)
provided ages incongruent with stratigraphic observations and the other
radiocarbon and OSL measurements, and will therefore be treated as
outliers. The documented integrity of both the geological archive and
the archaeological succession at BL III are thus complemented by the
most robust chronometric support available so far for UP settlements in
the Ceahlău area.
In contrast to most multilayered UP sites along the Bistrița river that
are located in higher topographic positions, BL III lies on a lower terrace
capped in some areas by unusually thick loess and loess-derivate de­
posits, reaching ca. 9 m according to recent data obtained by coring. The
gentle slope of the terrace at BL III (ca. 10◦ to the northeast) and the
physical connection to the higher level of the middle terrace in the south
are indications for the crucial role of colluvial input at BL III. Sediment
relocation from deposits uphill (i.e. deposits from the middle 40–50 m
terrace and higher slopes) is indicated by the omnipresent occurrence of
small-scale sand and gravel admixture, especially noticeable in the
lower part of the sediment sequence (Schmidt et al., 2020). While the
drill cores to the south, east and west of the excavated area generally
replicated the succession revealed during excavations, variations in
layers’ thicknesses and lithology were also noted. To present knowledge,
2.2. The geo-archive at BL III
2.2.1. Lithology, pedology and chrono-stratigraphy
Detailed assessments of the BL III chrono-stratigraphy and geological
archive together with their wider implications regarding the local
Pleistocene deposits are already available (Trandafir et al., 2015;
Schmidt et al., 2020). Consequently, we opt here for an abstracted
presentation of these issues, supplemented by previously unpublished
chronometric and environmental rock magnetism measurements. A
total of 22 optically-stimulated luminescence (OSL), 12
thermo-luminescence (TL) and 17 AMS radiocarbon measurements on
charcoal (Table 1) are currently available for the site (see also Schmidt
212
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Table 1
Bistricioara-Lutărie III radiocarbon data. Calibration with IntCal13 calibration curve (Reimer et al., 2013) using OxCal 4.3 web tool - web interface build number: 122;
last updated: March 12, 2020; accessed March 20, 2020 (Bronk Ramsey, 2009). Calibrated ages given with 95.4% confidence intervals.
Lab number
Archaeological context
Lithological unit
14
RoAMS 1067.101
Erl-12851
RoAMS 1411.101
RoAMS 1069.101
RoAMS 1418.101
DeA-3685.1.1a
DeA-7462
RoAMS 1070.101
RoAMS 1417.101
RoAMS 1413.101
DeA-3688.1.1a
DeA-4462a
DeA-4466a
DeA-4460a
DeA-7464a
RoAMS 1415.101a
RoAMS 1236.101a
AH 2.2
AH 2.3
AH 2.3
AH 2.3
AH 2.4
AH 2.4
AH 2.5
AH 2.5
AH 2.5
AH 2.5
AH 3.0
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G2
G3
G3
G3
G3
G3 (Core 9)
G3 (Core 9)
18992 ±
19749 ±
19864 ±
20108 ±
21543 ±
21950 ±
23342 ±
23332 ±
23699 ±
23284 ±
24153 ±
24490 ±
27249 ±
30249 ±
31938 ±
23450 ±
28142 ±
a 14
(Epigravettian)
(Epigravettian)
(Epigravettian)
(Epigravettian)
(Gravettian?)
(Gravettian?)
(Gravettian)
(Gravettian)
(Gravettian)
(Gravettian)
C/AMS ka uncal. BP
121
149
94
141
129
90
133
185
137
139
112
99
240
169
279
152
100
14
C/AMS ka cal BP (IntCal 13)
23232–22515
24159–23398
24180–23620
24525–23829
26059–25604
26421–25940
27775–27348
27824–27274
28051–27551
27754–27300
28516–27875
28785–28271
31503–30881
34628–33931
36405–35191
27851–27391
32442–31511
Reference
This study
Trandafir et al. (2015)
This study
This study
This study
Trandafir et al. (2015)
Schmidt et al., 2020
This study
This study
This study
Trandafir et al. (2015)
Schmidt et al., 2020
Schmidt et al., 2020
Schmidt et al., 2020
Schmidt et al., 2020
This study
This study
C/AMS samples without directly associated archaeological material.
however, these variations mostly concern the lowermost part of the
sequence, and are therefore of lesser relevance for the UP archaeology of
the site.
In the northern area of the site which is currently under excavation,
the exposed cover beds are up to 5 m thick and consist of paleosols and
silt accumulations capping the fluvial terrace body. In terms of lithology,
the sedimentary cover consists of silt-dominated (units G1, G2) and
more heterogenous, loamy deposits (units G3, G4) of mixed colluvial
and aeolian origin (Fig. 3).
From bottom up, beginning with unit G4, the paleosol sequence
starts with a cambisol complex (paleosol 3, PS3) initially developed on
fluvial gravels. The formation of PS3 continued during the deposition of
the lowermost overlying mixture of loess derivates and reworked fine
terrace sediments. PS3 points at a warm and humid environmental
context, as indicated by heavily weathered siliciclastic gravels. The
upper part of this unit has been OSL-dated to 76.3 ± 8.4 ka on fine quartz
(Trandafir et al., 2015; Schmidt et al., 2020; all OSL/TL ages given with
1σ uncertainties). Considering that OSL ages on fine quartz in that age
range likely underestimate the true depositional age (cf. Timar-Gabor
and Wintle, 2013; Veres et al., 2018; Perić et al., 2019), the formation of
PS3 at BL III can be broadly considered of MIS 5 age, an inference which
is strongly supported by the results of environmental magnetic proxy
data (see Fig. 3 and discussion below).
The next paleosol complex (PS2) is embedded in lithological unit G3.
In its middle part, it is OSL-dated to around 54 ka on fine quartz
(Schmidt et al., 2020), or to between 50.7 ± 6.7 ka and 33.7 ± 4.2 ka on
fine, respectively coarse quartz (Trandafir et al., 2015). PS2 was iden­
tified between ca. 3 to 2 m depth and is composed of a stack of sediments
with more or less pronounced pedogenic features. Its upper part, where
pedogenic features are only weakly developed, it also includes a mottled
Fig. 3. Lithology, pedology and environmental magnetism data in the northern sector of BL III. Synthetic age modelling and archaeological succession based on data
from trenches T1 (2015) and T3 (2018).
213
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
horizon characterized by a three-dimensional dark (likely humic)
network framing a pale beige silty matrix; this polygonal horizon is
discontinuously capped by lenses of rounded and angular pebbles indi­
cating input of slope-washed materials washed material from higher
slopes (Fig. 4c). The episode of aeolian input represented by the silty
matrix of the mottled horizon and the subsequent slope processes ac­
count for changing environmental conditions and destabilization of
surfaces. Several scattered charcoal samples recovered in the upper part
of PS2/G3 provided radiocarbon ages in the time range between 36.5
and 30.9 ka cal BP (Table 1). Together with an OSL age of 29.3 ± 2.9 ka
from the bottom part of G2, these ages can be taken as a terminus post
quem for the start of aeolian accumulation at BL III (Schmidt et al.,
2020).
In the uppermost 2 m, that is, in unit G2, the sedimentary matrix is
indeed dominated by silt, although thin sandy lenses and isolated small
pebbles were also noted. At the base of G2, at a depth of 2.15 to 1.9 m,
slope-washed silt, partly laminated due to slight sediment relocation,
hosts brick-red traces of combustion up to 10 cm thick that could be
related to human activity (see below). Chronological control is provided
by an OSL age of 25.5 ± 1.7 ka for the matrix (T2/2015) and a charcoal
sample dated to ca 28 ka cal BP (Schmidt et al., 2020). A
well-pronounced Gravettian layer with preserved settlement structures
dated around 27 ka cal BP is located above the combustion features. At a
depth of 1.8 to 1.7 m, a second mottled horizon (7–15 cm thick) is also
characterized by a dark three-dimensional network framing of the silty
matrix. The source of the dark colored polygonal framing is probably
related to frost activity intruding the underlying Gravettian archaeo­
logical layer, which is very rich in dark materials such as ash and organic
matter. This mottled horizon, previously not described anywhere in the
area, points at increased humidity in a generally very cold environment.
Slope-washed silt up to 1 m in thickness covers this unit. In
geochronological terms, the entire phase of mixed aeolian/colluvial
accumulation (G2) corresponds to Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 2/Late
Glacial Maximum (LGM) sensu lato. This is supported by the intercalated
archaeological layers and the absolute chronology provided by all OSL,
TL and radiocarbon samples recovered from G2, not only at BL III but
also at other sites in the Ceahlău area, indicating an age range between
30 and 15 ka BP (Păunescu, 1998; Trandafir et al., 2015; Schmidt et al.,
2020).
The top of the sequence at BL III exhibits, much like all sites in the
area, a strongly developed reddish to orange (marbled) ~0.5 m thick
pedo-complex (PS1), with a loamy texture dominated by coarse silt,
prismatic features and patches/tongues of grey silt indicating reducing
conditions by percolating water. PS1 witnessed in its last formation
phase harsh frost events creating small-scaled polygonal features with
ice wedges and frost lamination reaching in places more than 1 m into
unit G2. These features together with the many root channels and other
bioturbation features hinder a clear definition of PS1’s lower boundary.
PS1 can be interpreted as a polygenetic, gelistagnic cambisol, typical for
arctic ecozones today. The onset of pedogenetic processes in PS1 can
only be estimated based on immediately underlying TL ages ranging
between 17.3 and 14.9 ka (Schmidt et al., 2020).
The top of the PS1 pedo-complex is covered by a ~20 cm thick layer
of greyish relatively fine silt (G1) on which a 5–10 cm thick humic ho­
rizon of the recent soil (S0) developed. All attempts of age determination
for unit G1 by means of radiocarbon failed due to contamination with
young carbon (of Holocene age). While at BL III two OSL samples
indicate an early Holocene age (~8 ka), an OSL sample from the same
unit at the neighboring site Bistricioara-Lutărie I (BL I) on the middle
terrace provided an age of ~15 ka (Trandafir et al., 2015; Schmidt et al.,
2020), which can be provisionally used as a terminus ante quem boundary
for the formation of the PS1 gelistagnic cambisol. A subsequent
erosional episode at the beginning of G1 may explain the age discrep­
ancy between BL I and BL III (Schmidt et al., 2020). This incongruity,
which can be generally followed across the two sequences at Bis­
tricioara, with sediment ages in the upper half at BL III being slightly
younger than at BL I, is nonetheless significant as it validates the basic
formation model proposed by Schmidt et al. (2020), which suggests a
colluvial contribution from older deposits at BL III that had originally
accumulated on the higher terrace.
Fig. 4. Combustion features at the base of lithological unit G2 and in the upper part of G3: a. Drill core 9 (3.6–4.6 m depth): charcoal, burnt sediment and ash lenses
sequence in upper part of unit G3; b., c. Trench T3 (2018): burnt sediment and charcoal at the base of unit G2; d. Trench T2 (2015): thick burnt layer at the base of
unit G2.
214
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
2.2.2. Environmental magnetism
For environmental magnetic analyses, the 4.8 m long T3 profile at BL
III was sampled contiguously in 2 cm increments. The rock magnetic
analyses follow the protocol in Zeeden et al. (2018). The dried and
ground material was filled into 6.4 cm3 plastic boxes and slightly com­
pressed to prevent movement of sediment particles during measure­
ments. The magnetic susceptibility was measured with a susceptibility
bridge (VFSM; Magnon, Germany) at AC-fields of 300 A m− 1 at 0.31 kHz
and 3 kHz (Zeeden et al., 2018). Results are presented in Fig. 3, as
low-field susceptibility (χ) and respectively, the frequency dependent
magnetic susceptibility (χfd) as direct proxy for pedogenesis, alongside
lithostratigraphy, chronology and archaeological layers at the BL III
profiles T1 (2015) and T3 (2018).
Based on the available chronological information (Trandafir et al.,
2015; Schmidt et al., 2020), the T3 profile likely covers most if not all of
the last glacial cycle. The profile is marked by significant lithological
variability denoting both the imprint of past climate, as well as the
human impact in course of periodic site occupation. For example, below
2 m depth, variability in magnetic proxies well reflects the documented
lithostratigraphy. The χ, a proxy that reflects mainly the concentration
and grain size of ferrimagnetic minerals (Maher, 2011), indicates clear
maxima in unit G4 comprising the well-developed paleosol complex (i.e.
forest cambisol PS3) overlying and developed on and into fluvial terrace
gravels. Noteworthy, in PS3 χfd exceeds values of 10% clearly proving
the interglacial character of the soil formation and thus strongly sup­
porting the likely underestimated OSL age of 76.3 ± 8.4 ka on fine
quartz (Trandafir et al., 2015; Maher, 2016). Maxima in χ are also seen
between 2 and 3.5 m depth (i.e. G3, PS2). Broadly, this interval consists
of a stack of weakly developed cambisols, separated by loess and loess
derivate horizons with marked minima in χ at 2.5–3 m and around 3.5
m, respectively.
The available chronological data suggests that lithostratigraphic
units G4 and G3 most likely span the time interval from MIS 5 to mid MIS
3. In general, the pattern seen in χ in the lower half of the T3 profile at BL
III appears reminiscent of millennial-scale variability, with enhanced
susceptibility values characterizing paleosol formation, and minima
denoting aeolian deposition of mainly-silt-sized material. This vari­
ability is also traced by χfd, a proxy usually employed in loess research
for tracing pedogenetically formed ultra-fine superparamagnetic parti­
cles (Evans and Heller, 2003; Schaetzl et al., 2018). The χfd closely fol­
lows the trend described by χ, documenting low values in the loess
horizons, followed by sudden transition towards elevated pedogenic
magnetic enhancement in paleosols (Fig. 3).
In unit G2, characterized mainly by fine grained aeolian material
(slightly impacted by colluvial and slope-wash activity), the trends in χ
and χfd generally correspond to the succession of archaeological layers,
separated by sterile intervals with low values in the magnetic proxies.
The magnetic enhancement seen in most archaeological layers reflects
the alteration of the depositional environment through human input of
ashes, small aggregates of burnt sediment and other particulates. These
results demonstrate that rock magnetic proxies provide a clear view on
the imprint of the long sequences of human occupations at BL III, with
elevated susceptibility values laterally (i.e. within different excavation
trenches) tracing all cultural layers discussed here. The sharp variability
in magnetic proxies closely tracks the lower and upper boundaries of the
cultural layers and denotes the integrity of the archaeological record at
BL III/T3.
record. As is the case with most sites on the Bistrița river terraces, the
archaeological succession acknowledged at BL III so far is very rich and
documents recurrent UP occupation. Six distinct archaeological hori­
zons (hereafter AH) exhibiting different states of preservation and
showing variable spatial extents, were so far recognized. All docu­
mented layers lie in the upper half of the sediment sequence, in litho­
logical units G2 and G1, and are bracketed by PS2 and the Holocene soil
(S0). Due to the current research focus, the lateral extent and continuity
of the layers are better documented in the north part of the site.
Although trench T2/2015 (Fig. 2), located farther to the south shows a
very similar archaeological succession, the 10–12 m distance that sep­
arates it from the excavation area in the north, unequal chronological
support, acknowledged variations in thicknesses of the geological ho­
rizons, and the generally tight succession of occupational episodes do
not yet allow for unambiguous matching of all individual layers between
the trenches. However, as a general feature, most of the identified
archaeological layers maintain a sub-horizontal, well segregated layout
towards the southern part of the site, but appear less clearly separated in
the north sector where erosive processes have been more active.
Indications for the earliest occupations are associated with PS2 and
have been punctually observed in both northern and southern areas of
the site. In the southernmost part, three deep drilling cores (9, 11, 12)
showed thick successions of charcoal lenses and burnt sediment (Fig. 4).
This combustion sequence appeared most pronounced in core 9
(Fig. 4a), where it extended from a depth of 3.6–5.2 m. Lithologically,
this sequence of burning events falls into unit G3. A charcoal sample
from the upper part of this sequence in core 9 provided an AMS age of
~32 ka cal BP (Table 1), pointing at an earlier UP occupation than
hitherto established for the site. This, however, needs to be further
explored through systematic excavation. Other indications for an earlier
UP occupation are provided by two artifacts made of exotic brown flint
(one bladelet and one flake), which were also identified in the upper part
of G3, in trench T1/2015 at a depth of 2.35 m. The secondary position of
these slope-washed artifacts, recovered from a pebble lens atop PS2, is
supported by the scatter of ages (Table 1) provided by associated
charcoals, which range between 36 and 31 ka cal BP (Schmidt et al.,
2020).
The earliest consistent archaeological traces of human presence
documented across the entire excavated area are massive combustion
features, apparently two-staged (AH 3.0, AH 3.1), at the very base of the
G2 silty accumulation (Fig. 4b). Apart from charcoal and burnt sedi­
ment, these features usually lack archaeological material. The oftennoted physical separation of the red-burnt sediment and the scattered
charcoals and ash lenses, respectively, points at heavily eroded, frag­
mented, and partially relocated bowl-shaped burnt basal interfaces of
hearths (i.e. features that are probably connected to human occupa­
tions), and suggest that the main occupation area was located further
upslope to the south. One charcoal sample dated to 28 ka cal BP in­
dicates a Gravettian timeframe for these features, which are separated
from the overlying Gravettian horizon by only a thin (2–15 cm) layer of
sterile sediment. Observations in the southernmost part of trench T4/
2019 suggest a connection of a few redeposited (albeit undiagnostic)
lithic artifacts to the burnt features. It is thus possible that future
research will be able to connect these anthropogenic features to a
defined technocomplex.
The earliest well-preserved and clearly delimited archaeological
layer (AH 2.5; Fig. 3) can be typologically and technologically classified
as a Late Gravettian with shouldered points. It lies at a depth of ca. 2 m,
and dates consistently to around 27 ka cal BP (Table 1). Although
affected by slope processes and solifluction, the layer provides anthro­
pogenic features in situ, such as distinct combustion features, pits and
stone plates or anvils (Fig. 5e). Short-distance (0.2–2.7 m) lithic refits
and faunal remains in anatomical connection further emphasize the
layer’s high degree of integrity.
AH 2.5 is the only archaeological layer at BL III that preserves
recognizable bone remains (Fig. 6). Although the faunal remains are
2.3. Formation of the archaeological record at BL III
2.3.1. General overview of the archaeological sequence
The geological archive at BL III points at a dynamic sedimentary
environment, where palaeoclimatologically and topography-controlled
cycles of sediment accumulation and relocation (possibly also accom­
panied by occasional erosion), together with clearly marked periglacial
processes, are directly relevant for understanding the archaeological
215
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Fig. 5. Bistricioara-Lutărie III trench T4 (2019): Profile and top view of evident anthropogenic features: a. West profile of trench T4 – evident features are preserved
in the south part while find layers fan out downslope to the north; b. AH 2.2, feature 2 – Epigravettian occupation surface; c. AH 2.3, feature 3 – preserved burnt base
of eroded Epigravettian combustion structure; d. AH 2.4, feature 5 – stone-lined base of hearth; e. AH 2.5, feature 7 – Gravettian occupation surface with pits (for
position and depths of pits see profile view in a.).
well identifiable and display most morphological features, the material
itself has been heavily degraded by decalcification processes, and is
often preserved as a soft powderish substance only. This poses a
considerable challenge upon excavation, exposure and documentation,
not to mention recovery. Around 900 faunal remains were recorded thus
far. The great majority can be assigned to reindeer for which ca. 20
individuals are documented. Fox, hare and larger mammals were also
identified in small numbers. In a number of cases, reindeer remains (e.g.
carpals, tarsals and phalanges) were found in anatomical connection.
Bone fragmentation is mostly related to human activity and not to postdepositional processes. The scatter of inferred ages at death suggests
either multiple hunting episodes, or a late spring/early summer or midautumn mass hunt of assembled herds.
Apart from the good preservation of features and distribution of finds
suggesting a rapid burial, the layer also stands apart with a lithic
assemblage almost entirely knapped in exotic flint.
The subsequent occupational layer that provided a clear primary
anthropogenic context (AH 2.4) was only recently exposed in a depth of
ca. 1.7 m in T4/2019. Part of a well-preserved sandstone pavement was
uncovered in the very southwest corner of the trench (Fig. 5d). It
probably represents the stone-lined base of a hearth, surrounded by
combustion traces and connected to a yet undiagnostic lithic assem­
blage, of only 3 knapped artifacts. The chronology of this occupation
was established by one radiocarbon sample dating to around 25.5 ka cal
BP, indicating a more recent, possibly Late Gravettian occupation.
Before AH 2.4 was recognized as a separate layer, a radiocarbon date
performed on a charcoal recovered at the same depth during profile
cleaning in 2013 provided a comparable age (Table 1).
Two early Epigravettian occupation layers (AH 2.3 and AH 2.2)
clearly segregated by a sterile layer of ca. 0.15 m follow suit. While
clearly distinguishable upslope (in trenches T3/2018, T4/2019), where
the layers are marked by partially preserved hearths, the segregation of
these occupations appears increasingly less clear downslope towards the
north (trenches T0/2008, T1/2015), where the associated artifacts
intermingle. To the south and west, trench T4/2019 shows a welldeveloped AH 2.2 with a two-phased hearth embedded in several cm
thick in situ occupation debris where a high density of charcoals,
calcined bone fragments, red ochre, fragments of sandstone and burnt
sediment, as well as lithic artifacts and poorly preserved undiagnostic
bone fragments occur in an ashy dark-brown to blackish sediment ma­
trix (Fig. 5b). The occupation layer fans out downslope to the north. In
trench T4, AH 2.3 is strongly eroded and shows good preservation
mainly for the more consolidated and thus more stable burnt base of the
associated combustion feature (Fig. 5c). Only a few lithic finds remained
in situ while most were apparently transported downslope. AMS ages on
charcoals indicate a 24 ka cal BP age for the lower (AH 2.3) and a ca. 23
ka cal BP age for the upper layer (AH 2.2). It is unclear how much further
AH 2.3 and AH 2.2 extend to the south; two distinct archaeological
layers were however noted at roughly comparable depths (1.4 m and
1.2 m, respectively) in T2/2015. For the moment, the 10 m distance
separating the two excavated sectors and the differences noticed in the
associated lithic assemblages (see below), render this correlation
unsecure.
Another, younger Epigravettian occupation episode (20–15 ka,
216
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
potential for the investigation of earlier occupation episode(s) in the
future. The chronostratigraphic position of these layers in the upper part
of G3/PS2 suggests an occupation towards the end of MIS 3 interstadial
(s).
An interplay of aeolian and slope processes presumably accounts for
the lack of archaeological material connected to the massive combustion
features (AH 3.0, AH 3.1) in the lower part of G2. While not all of these
features are strictly speaking in situ, the sediment laminarity and the
features’ morphology point at rather small-scale displacements. It is
important, however, to emphasize that the combustion features are
truncated, leaving only the bases preserved. The concave shape of the
features suggests that the hearths had been constructed in shallow pits.
The actual occupation surfaces are therefore eroded, which explains
why the archaeological material is missing. Excavations in 2019 indi­
cated that preservation may be more favorable upslope. Similar com­
bustion features have been observed in contemporaneous contexts at
sites in comparable slope positions in east Austria (e.g. Händel, 2017).
Ongoing fieldwork, micromorphological, and geochemical analyses will
hopefully clarify this issue.
Although well-preserved, the Gravettian layer AH 2.5 was clearly
affected by subsequent cryoturbation coupled with slope processes. The
morphology of the pits preserved in the west profile of T4/2019 shows
periglacial deformation (Fig. 5a), and the upper part of the occupation
horizon is obviously truncated by slope processes. The early Epi­
gravettian layers AH 2.2 and AH 2.3 were also visibly affected by
polygonal frost structures, as shown by the vertical offsets of several cm
(Fig. 5a). Moreover, all layers point at slope impact, particularly visible
downslope to the north and overall, in the upper part of the sequence,
where dislocated archaeological material fans out (Fig. 5a), leading to
undeterminable boundaries between archaeological layers and eventu­
ally to mixed assemblages.
Nevertheless, the preservation state of most archaeological layers is
remarkably favorable considering both the mountainous environment,
with high rainfall, and the topography, with relatively steep slopes.
Among the artifacts and faunal remains, no systematic size/weight
sorting and only a low degree of preferential orientation along and/or
perpendicular to the slope were recorded. The available technological
refits of lithic artifacts further strengthen the case for a generally low to
moderate impact of post-depositional processes, especially on the main
archaeological layers in G2. These observations point at a reasonable
stratigraphic integrity and therefore analytical relevance of the associ­
ated lithic assemblages, even for the layers with redeposited finds.
Fig. 6. Faunal remains in AH 2.5.
based on TL ages – Schmidt et al., 2020) has been discontinuously
recorded in the same silty unit G2 towards the contact with the PS1
cambisol, at a depth of 0.6–0.9 m. The boundary at the base of PS1 is,
however, heavily affected and blurred by natural post-depositional
processes (bioturbation, modern roots, frost cracks, variation in slope
inclination, etc.). It is therefore not possible to stratigraphically differ­
entiate this most likely multi-episode accumulation (AH 2.1) across the
entire excavated area. Noticeably, the segregation from the underlying
earlier Epigravettian layers is much clearer further south in trench
T2/2015, where AH 2.1 corresponds to a 25–30 cm thick occupational
palimpsest, preserving a large lithic toolkit, combustion features and
calcined bone remains; a fragmented eyed bone needle was also recov­
ered from the same accumulation (Anghelinu et al., 2017). In contrast,
due to post-depositional sedimentary processes, the northern sector
(trench T4/2019) showed marginal admixtures with the overlying late
Epigravettian (AH 1.1) and even intruded Holocene material (pottery).
The latest UP presence (AH 1.1) at BL III is connected to a relatively
large assemblage of scattered lithics recovered from the G1 silt unit
across all trenches. No in situ features or organic materials are associated
with this lithic scatter, a situation replicated at all sites in the area, from
which this final Epigravettian was invariably reported (Nic­
olăescu-Plopșor et al., 1966; Păunescu, 1998; Anghelinu et al., 2012).
Due to its position very close to the modern surface, this archaeological
horizon was the most affected by erosion and anthropogenic in­
terventions in historic times.
3. Lithic assemblages
Lithics provide by far the most abundant category of artifacts pre­
served at BL III. When viewed against the excavated surfaces, the lithic
assemblages at BL III are considerably larger and have a different
structure than the collections recovered in early research stages in the
Ceahlău Basin. This is, however, more likely related to excavation
methods than to occupation intensity or preservation issues; for
instance, due to the lack of sieving (cf. Bolomey, 1989) old collections
appear size-sorted and generally lack small debitage, fragments and
chips (Niță-Bălășescu, 2008). The lithic assemblages at BL III are also
generally well segregated stratigraphically, and thus exclude another
major noise plaguing previous collections (Niță-Bălășescu, 2008;
Anghelinu et al., 2012).
2.3.2. A closer look at the natural formation processes
The geological archive at BL III documents a regime of alternating
sediment accumulation and relocation, which directly influenced the
preservation of the archaeological record. Only few relocated traces of
earlier UP occupation deposits (i.e. older than 30 ka cal BP) have been
assessed in the trenches and in most of drillings. Three drilling cores (9,
11, and 12) displaying massive combustion sequences, however, suggest
that the connected sediments are locally preserved, and that there is
3.1. Raw materials
Although very diverse (Fig. 7), the raw materials identified for all
lithic assemblages at BL III generally correspond, in terms of prove­
nance, to the two basic categories exploited by all UP communities in the
Eastern Carpathian area (Păunescu, 1998; Ciornei, 2015; Anghelinu
et al., 2018): (1) local and regional Carpathian raw materials from
original or secondary deposits (e.g. river gravels) along the middle and
217
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Fig. 7. Main lithic raw materials at BL III: 1. menilite (lower left corner, no. 729, 360, 463, 331, 404, 316); 2. siliceous sandstone (lower mid part, no. 731, 560, 684);
3. ‘Audia black schist’ (lower right corner, no. 554, 803, 117, 453, 575); 4. Dămuc-Lacu Roșu radiolarite/jasper (no. 366 and 590); 5) Cretaceous flint (upper left
corner and mid part, no. 389, SIA3-02, SIII Pas-04, 341, 356, SIA3-01, SIIIPas-05, SIIIN1-M1-03, 367, 513); 6. Toplița chert (upper right corner, no. 626, 649, 511,
452, 382, 632); 7. Sita Buzăului chert (no. 666).
flakes and short blades, occasional battered striking surfaces and small
cortical areas. Laminar blanks exhibit mostly unidirectional dorsal
negatives; few bidirectional negatives (4.5% of all blanks) are mainly
encountered on rejuvenation products, trapezoidal cross-section
laminar blanks and burin spalls. Also, blank morphology exemplifies
at least two levels of knapping proficiency (Niță et al., 2018): one
employed for producing most of the retouched and unretouched blanks,
including long, slightly concave blades with parallel straight edges
(Fig. 8), and another, less skilled and possibly related to an appren­
ticeship process, resulting in large flakes, fragmented cores, and only
few retouched pieces. Blank production is almost equally split between
flakes 460 and blades/bladelets, while retouched implements represent
7.84% of the assemblage. Laminar products exhibit rectilinear profiles,
punctiform and flat striking platforms, triangular cross-sections, and
unidirectional dorsal negatives on both modified and unmodified
blanks. Some of the blades show crushed striking platforms and scarred
percussion bulbs indicating use (at least occasionally) of hard hammer
percussion. Much like the cortical and rejuvenation products, complete
unmodified flakes and blades are rarely over 45 mm long; however, with
several notable exceptions of 80-120 mm long complete and fragmented
laminar products. Regarding formal tools (Fig. 9), a focus on size-related
selected blanks –blades and bladelets (one flake being the exception) is
illustrated; length and width values are consistently larger than those of
unmodified laminar products, especially for burins and marginally
retouched blades, even when fragmented pieces are considered. Burins,
marginally retouched blades and bladelets, and backed bladelets pre­
vail, followed by truncated blades, points and several endscrapers. Ar­
matures include shouldered points, pointed bladelets (lamelles
appointées), microgravettes, as well as bilaterally retouched fragments of
backed bladelets, which are susceptible of being former microgravettes.
Due to fragmentation, length and weight values are highly variable,
lower Bistrița sectors, ranging from the immediate proximity (5–10 km)
up to ca. 60 km: menilite, siliceous sandstone, black shale/schist,
red/green radiolarite, jasper, and dark cherts; (2) exotic raw materials
from sources outside this radius, such as several varieties of Cen­
omanian/Turonian flint (Dniester-Prut area) and Sita Buzăului radio­
larian cherts, both occurring at distances of ca. 150 km to the northeast
and south, respectively; whereas Carpathian obsidian (500 km to the
northwest) and Lower Danube/‘Balkan’ flint (~350 km to the south)
represent the most distant raw materials recorded. Ongoing petro­
graphic and geochemical analyses will supplement existing attempts
(Ciornei, 2015; Moreau et al., 2019) and provide a more accurate picture
in the future. The twofold distinction above, however, suffices in illus­
trating the basic provisioning patterns involved.
3.2. Almost exclusively flint - the peculiar AH 2.5 Gravettian
The Gravettian lithic assemblage associated with AH 2.5 (Figs. 8–9,
Table 2) uncovered so far represents one of the earliest consistent human
occupations in the Ceahlău Basin. As much as 92.87% of the 2217 lithic
artifacts recovered so far consist of allogenous Cenomanian/Turonian
flint from the Prut-Dniester interfluve. Other raw materials are locally
available menilite, sandstone, and black shale/schist, as well as radio­
larite and chert, the latter possibly originating from deposits of the
western (Transylvanian) side of the Eastern Carpathians (Toplița area).
Within technological categories, secondary debitage products (un­
determined pieces and chips/esquilles < 5 mm) reach 45.78%, while
cores/core fragments, primary (100% dorsal cortex), secondary (>50%
dorsal cortex), cortical (<50% dorsal cortex) and rejuvenation pieces
(crested/half crested products, core tablets, etc.), amount to 11.72%.
Equally infrequent, the abandoned heavily reduced cores and core
fragments show multiple debitage surfaces with negatives of hinged
218
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Fig. 8. Selected lithics from AH 2.5: Blades (1–3), crested elements (4–6), cores (7, 8). Drawings by R. Ionescu.
while width and thickness values are constant, 3-6 mm and 2-4 mm
respectively. Length and weight of the three complete shouldered points
are 83 mm/3.7 g, 39 mm/0.9 g, 29 mm/0.4 g. It is possible that the
differences in size are related to variable shafts and/or ballistic
requirements.
3.3. The early Epigravettian: AH 2.3 and AH. 2.2
AH 2.3 is the first consistent Epigravettian lithic assemblage
(Figs. 10–11, Table 3) with a total of 1402 artifacts recovered so far. Raw
material selection favored local sources (menilite, sandstone, black
shale/schist – 61.34%) over allogenous types (Cenomanian/Turonian
flint, and possibly Balkan flint – 24.96%) and regional materials (radi­
olarite, jasper, opal, chalcedony – 11.69%). The largest technological
219
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Fig. 9. Formal tools from AH 2.5: Burins (1–6), shouldered points (7–12), backed bladelet (13), microgravette (14), pointed bladelet (15). Drawings by R. Ionescu.
category is represented by unretouched blanks (63.26%), where frag­
mented and complete flakes occur almost twice as frequent as laminar
pieces. These are followed by undetermined fragments and chips/
esquilles < 5 mm (24.03%). Cores, primary and secondary or cortical
blanks, and rejuvenation pieces amount to only 5.92%.
Regarding the last stages of the reduction sequence, the abandoned
cores show various exploitation options. Large prismatic (i.e. 40-46 mm
long and 30–47 mm wide) cores with two opposite striking platforms
were used for producing flakes or short blades and bladelets. These were
obtained from relatively wide debitage surfaces opposing dihedral or
flat, partially cortical areas. The pyramidal (i.e. 34 mm long, 31–38 mm
wide) cores are slightly smaller, with one striking platform, and bladelet
or short hinged flake-like negatives cover their entire circumference.
Less frequently, the unidirectional production of bladelets or narrow
blades uses the thickest edge and parts of the ventral side of large flakes
or fragments. Unretouched laminar blanks exhibit flat and punctiform
striking platforms, frequent cracked or scarred percussion bulbs, recti­
linear or concave profiles, but also several cases of twisted ones, as well
as trapezoidal and triangular cross-sections. Complete blades are 28–48
mm long, 13–19 mm wide, and 3–5 mm thick, while bladelets are 19–26
220
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Table 2
Bistricioara-Lutărie III: lithic assemblage of AH 2.5.
Raw material
Cenomanian/Turonian
flint
Menilith, black schist
Radiolarite, jasper, flint,
opal
Sandstone
Quartzite, marlstone,
diorite
Undetermined
Total
Lithic sample
Stone
Secondary debitage products
Slabs/
pebbles
Chips (<5 mm)/
fragments
Cores
Rejuvenation
products
Cortical
products
Unmodified blanks
Flakes
Laminar
blanks
–
942
5
89
155
359
–
–
3
2
–
–
1
1
–
–
22
3
16
23
1
–
–
–
7
32
29
1015
–
6
–
91
mm long, 7–10 mm wide, and 2–4 mm thick. Within the formal tools’
category (5.99% of the assemblage) marginally retouched laminar
blanks are the most numerous, followed by endscrapers, burins,
retouched flakes and truncated blades, and few backed (26–38 mm long,
8–11 mm wide, 2–3 mm thick) and truncated bladelets (lamelles à dos
tronquées). Raw material selection for the retouched pieces seems to
follow the same choices exhibited by the rest of the assemblage, and
relies on use of local sources. In addition, blank selection points at
similar average size values for complete unretouched and retouched
blades and bladelets, with slightly reduced width values, due to edge
modifications, for the retouched artifacts.
AH 2.2 is the most consistent of the excavated assemblages,
providing 5902 artifacts (Fig. 12, Table 4). The assemblage displays a
wide spectrum of long-distance (Cenomanian/Turonian flint, Balkan
flint – 3.52%), regional (radiolarite, jasper, chalcedony, opal – 28.92%)
and local (menilite, black shale/schist, sandstone – 51.82%) raw mate­
rials. Chips/esquilles < 5 mm and fragments without recognizable stig­
mas (63.91% of the assemblage) are the most numerous categories for
all raw material types. Among the local raw materials, cortical and
rejuvenation products are slightly underrepresented. This could indicate
an exterior or hitherto unassessed intra-site location for preparing and
shaping of the blocks/nodules. Regionally available radiolarite, jasper,
and chalcedony completely lack rejuvenation products, although these
raw materials were reduced on site, given the occurrence of debitage
products for all other technological categories. The heavily reduced
cores/core fragments are prismatic/pyramidal and rather small (average
length, width and thickness values of 23, 21, and 15 mm respectively),
with one or two (rarely three) flat striking platforms and debitage sur­
faces bearing small (average length of 10 mm) flake-like negatives. The
cores were primarily abandoned due to exhaustion/small size, but
accidental removals or structural accidents, which hindered the reduc­
tion process, do also occur, particularly on opal cores. Given the high
quantity of flakes and chips recorded for all raw material categories,
there are unusually few cores – between 0.5% and 1.42% of each cat­
egory’s debitage products, except for a slightly elevated portion of 3.7%
for the allogenous Cenomanian/Turonian flint. Moreover, there are no
cores for the locally available sandstone, as well as for the flint types
from more distant sources (i.e. Balkan flint). Apparently, blank pro­
duction resulted in more flakes than laminar products, irrespective of
the raw material. Among the laminar pieces, bladelets are most
numerous, with average values of 21 mm (length), 7.5 mm (width) and
2.7 mm (thickness). Dorsal negatives are mostly unidirectional; usually,
blades and bladelets exhibit flat striking platforms, with only few cases
of dihedral or faceted ones. Formal tools include marginally retouched
blades, bladelets, and flakes, followed by backed bladelets, retouched
flakes, endscrapers, and burins. All in all, 56.11% of the modified pieces
are bladelets, and 19.4% are blades. Raw material selection for
retouched objects follows the same pattern observed for the entire
assemblage, with 54.85% of all intentionally modified blanks using local
Retouched
Total
337
172
2059
10
2
–
4
–
2
14
11
–
7
7
10
–
1
–
–
46
44
1
163
5
393
1
343
–
174
43
2217
raw materials, and 29.53% regionally available sources. Several of the
backed bladelets are truncated (lamelles à dos tronquées), while several
others can be classified as pointed bladelets (small – 15–25 mm long,
7–10 mm wide, 2–4 mm thick, and light – 0.5–1 g, with convergent
abruptly retouched long edges).
It is also worth mentioning the two small assemblages recovered in
the more distant trench T2/2015 that may be related to AH 2.2 and AH
2.3. 284 lithics were recovered, almost exclusively made of local raw
material types (menilite, sandstone, black shale/schist – 94.24%). Blank
production is primarily focused on flakes; primary, secondary, cortical
and rejuvenation items are few, as are the undetermined fragments and
chips/esquilles < 5 mm. A single menilite globular core exhibits multiple
debitage surfaces, with flake and hinged blade-like negatives. Unre­
touched complete blanks are quite massive, constantly over 50 mm long
and 18 mm wide, showing mostly flat striking platforms, trapezoidal
cross-sections, and rectilinear or concave profiles. Formal tools (4.92%
of the assemblage) include mainly burins and retouched blades, fol­
lowed by a few endscrapers and a single marginally retouched bladelet.
It is currently unclear whether these assemblages, distinguished by an
almost exclusive use of local raw materials and larger blanks, relate to
functionally different areas of occupation/lithic production within AH
2.2 and AH 2.3, or represent unrelated, different occupations.
3.4. A dense palimpsest: AH 2.1
AH 2.1 is the latest directly dated archaeological layer at BL III. It
represents a palimpsest accumulated between ~20 ka and 15 ka ac­
cording to several TL ages produced on burnt flint (Schmidt et al., 2020).
A charcoal with low carbon content also provided a ~20 ka cal BP age
for the lower limit of occupations represented by this accumulation. The
assemblage gathers 2802 artifacts (Table 5) of various distant (Cen­
omanian/Turonian, Balkan types of flint, Sita Buzăului chert, obsidian –
39.72%), regional (radiolarite, jasper, chalcedony, opal – 12.66%), and
local (sandstone, black shale/schist, menilite – 42.18%) raw material
sources.
Undetermined pieces, chips/esquilles < 5 mm and slabs/pebbles ac­
count for slightly less than half of the assemblage. Unmodified flakes,
blades, and bladelets form the next most numerous groups, while cores,
primary, secondary, cortical and rejuvenation products and formal tools
are clearly underrepresented. Cortical products (<50% dorsal cortex)
are more numerous than primary and secondary pieces (50–100% dorsal
cortex), possibly due to some degree of spatial segregation of the
reduction process for most raw material types, at least during its initial
stage. Rejuvenation products (crested and half-crested blade and bla­
delets, core tablets, debitage surface renewal flakes) are absent for some
local and regional raw material types, despite the consistent presence of
flakes and chips/esquilles < 5 mm of the same materials. Prismatic,
25–27 mm long, 24–39 mm wide, 20–37 mm thick cores and core
fragments exhibit one or two opposite/adjacent striking platforms, and,
221
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Fig. 10. Selected lithics from AH 2.3: Cores (1–4), endscrapers (5, 6), blades (7, 9–12), crested bladelet (8), secondary flake (13). Drawings by M. Scheer.
in one case, residual cortical areas. During the final stages of the
reduction sequence, short and narrow blades or bladelets, and occa­
sionally flakes were obtained from semi-circular or frontal debitage
surfaces. Cores or core fragments of allogenous types of flint or local
black shales/schist are absent. Blank production provided mainly flakes,
while among laminar blanks, bladelets are most numerous. Triangular
cross-sections and rectilinear/slightly concave profiles are common, as
well as flat striking platforms, occasionally accompanied by cracked or
scarred bulbs. Blades and bladelets are 30–50 mm long, 12–20/4-10 mm
wide, and 3–8 mm thick and exhibit unidirectional dorsal negatives.
Formal tools (1.49% of the assemblage) are mainly produced of distant
and regional raw material types, and only several can be ascribed to
local materials. Rectilinear, 20–30 mm long backed bladelets prevail,
followed by partially retouched/truncated undetermined fragments,
rectilinear/slightly concave 20–40 mm long marginally retouched or
truncated blades and bladelets, only few double/dihedral burins, end­
scrapers and a single partially retouched flake. In addition, a single point
is represented by a fragmented backed blade with convergent retouched
222
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Fig. 11. Selected lithics from AH 2.3: Retouched/backed blades and bladelets (1–6, 8–10), blade (7), endscraper (11), flakes (12, 13). Drawings by M. Scheer.
long edges.
represented by the Paleolithic remains. On the adjacent middle terrace
at BL I/II, where the preserved sediments are less affected by slope
processes, the sediment matrix of G1 was OSL-dated to ca. 15 ka
(Schmidt et al., 2020), providing a more convincing terminus for the
accumulation of this late Epigravettian assemblage.
Raw material percentages are balanced between the allogenous types
of flint (Cenomanian/Turonian and possibly Balkan types – 33%) and
local menilite, sandstone and black shale/schist (48%), while regional
raw materials like radiolarite, jasper, chalcedony and opal make up for
only 15%. Within the technological categories, secondary debitage
3.5. Final Epigravettian episode(s)
The uppermost Epigravettian layer AH 1.1 represents a scatter of
lithic artifacts (1968 pieces, Table 6) in unit G1, close to the modern
surface. Two OSL ages (ca. 8 ka) are available for this thin sedimentary
unit (Trandafir et al., 2015). Since G1 has been considerably affected by
slope redeposition we consider this age an outlier and invalid for the
primary deposition of the silty sediment and the occupation(s)
223
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Table 3
Bistricioara-Lutărie III: lithic assemblage of AH 2.3.
Raw material
Cenomanian/Turonian flint
Menilite
Sandstone
Black schist
Opal
Radiolarite, jasper,
chalcedony
Flint (?)/Balkan flint
Quartzite, limestone,
marlstone
Undetermined
Total
Lithic sample
Stone
Secondary debitage products
Slabs/
Pebbles
Chips (<5 mm)/
fragments
Cores
Rejuvenation
products
Cortical
products
Unmodified blanks
Flakes
Laminar
blanks
Retouched
Total
–
–
8
–
–
–
54
71
115
18
42
–
9
2
2
2
2
–
13
15
3
8
1
1
6
–
9
1
4
–
123
111
180
51
62
10
66
117
57
38
27
7
23
23
11
18
8
–
294
339
385
136
146
18
–
3
26
–
4
–
–
–
–
–
17
1
8
–
1
–
56
4
–
11
11
337
–
21
–
41
1
21
7
562
5
325
–
84
24
1402
macroscopic traces of use. Apart from including mostly burins and
backed bladelets, the formal tools spectrum introduces a type of arma­
ture previously undocumented in the Gravettian of the Ceahlău Basin –
shouldered points on lamellar blanks of various morphologies (long/­
short stem, right/left shoulder lateralization) and sizes.
The Epigravettian assemblages, on the other hand, reveal a provi­
sioning pattern with mostly local and regional raw materials, together
with one preferential exploitation strategy – unidirectional debitage,
aimed at obtaining mostly flakes and bladelets, and a formal tool kit
dominated by backed bladelets, with considerably fewer endscrapers
and burins. Hereby, the AH 2.2 assemblage stands out by the overall
small size of the blanks, as well as the intensely reduced cores, seemingly
independent from raw materials’ distance-related availability or knap­
ping quality; more likely, the microlithic trend originated from a
particular socio-technical context (sensu Högberg and Lombard, in
press). Seemingly counter-intuitively, although half of the raw materials
used in all Epigravettian layers come from local/regional sources, the
AH 2.2 and AH 2.3 assemblages comprise few cortical elements, sug­
gesting that early stages of reduction took place on the provisioning
spot. The diversity of raw materials, including silicites from very distant
sources, is also a prominent feature of these assemblages. The presence
of Carpathian C1 obsidian (C. Bonsall, pers. com.) in AH 2.1 represents
another unique clue to remarkably remote raw material supply,
although small amounts of ‘striped’ obsidian, possibly from a different
source, have been reported in earlier Eastern Carpathian contexts as well
(Bitiri-Ciortescu et al., 1989).
Lumping all Epigravettian assemblages together is of course un­
warranted, considering the timespan of roughly 10,000 years for the
connected occupations as established by chronometric measurements.
There are perceptible differences in terms of raw material use patterns
and technology. For the earlier layers AH 2.3 and AH 2.2, locally
available raw materials met most of the lithic production needs, whereas
for AH 2.1 and AH 1.1, distant raw material types are not only almost as
frequent as the local ones, but also more diverse. Moreover, a techno­
logical reading of the assemblages in terms of last stages of core
exploitation reveals slightly different patterns – flakes/short blades
production, from prismatic, relatively large cores, combined with
blades/bladelet production from pyramidal/flake-edge cores (AH 2.3,
AH 1.1) vs. bladelets production from small prismatic/pyramidal cores
(AH 2.2) vs. narrow blades/flakes bidirectional production from pris­
matic cores, with wide debitage surfaces (AH 2.1).
products (undetermined fragments and chips/esquilles < 5 mm–30.48%)
are surpassed by unretouched blanks (flakes, blades and bladelets –
61.53%), while cores, primary, secondary, cortical and rejuvenation
products represent 4.42% of the assemblage.
The abandoned cores exhibit at least two debitage options, employed
during the last stages of blank production: prismatic cores with two
striking platforms and dihedral or cortical areas opposing one or two
adjacent wide debitage surfaces with laminar or flake-like negatives,
and pyramidal cores with one striking platform and one debitage sur­
face, extended on most of the circumference, for the production of
blades and bladelets. Laminar blanks exhibit mostly rectilinear profiles,
almost equal examples of trapezoidal and triangular cross-sections, flat
striking platforms, and unidirectional dorsal negatives. Complete blades
are 31–40/50–63 mm long, 12–20 mm wide, and 2–5 mm thick; bla­
delets are 16–28 mm long, 4–8 mm wide, and 2–4 mm thick. Formal
tools (3.25% of the assemblage) include marginally retouched blades
and bladelets and backed bladelets, followed by endscrapers, truncated
burins, several marginally retouched flakes and undetermined frag­
ments, and a single borer. Complete retouched artifacts exhibit roughly
the same morphology and size as the unretouched blanks, with slightly
smaller width values, due to edge modification. Also, raw material
preferences for most formal tools replicate those observed for the rest of
the assemblage, with allogenous (37.5%) and local sources (50%) used
most frequently.
3.6. Synthesis: Gravettian and Epigravettian lithic assemblages at BL III
Although recovered from surfaces of comparable sizes, variations in
number and composition of the lithic assemblages indicate differences in
site layout and/or functionality (i.e. different activity/abandonment
areas) for the occupations evidenced by the BL III sequence. Even when
considering that proportions may change with ongoing research, both
the hitherto excavated surface and the current sizes of the assemblages
are nevertheless large enough to allow for first synthetic considerations.
Perceptible diachronic differences in raw material management,
technology, blank selection and formal typology distinguish between
lithic assemblages at BL III. Diachronic differences appear particularly
pronounced when the Gravettian assemblage AH 2.5 is viewed against
the Epigravettian lithic collections. The Gravettian assemblage stands
apart not only by the marked focus on exploiting almost exclusively
allogenous Cenomanian/Turonian flint, apparently introduced as entire
nodules, but also by exhibiting two levels of technological skills. Also, as
a typical feature of Gravettian industries (Lengyel and Chu, 2016),
laminar blank production occasionally results in considerably long
blades, with parallel edges and dorsal nervures. Many of these large
blanks were further transformed into tools, mostly used for cutting, as
indicated by the many fragments of wide and long blades with
4. Discussion
Our recent chronological, sedimentological and lithic investigations
recommend BL III as the most comprehensive geological and archaeo­
logical archive in the Ceahlău Basin known to date. Although research is
224
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Fig. 12. Selected lithics from AH 2.2: Cores (1–4, 8), crested bladelet (5), core tablet (6), retouched/backed blades and bladelets (7, 9–18), burin (19), endscrapers
(20, 21). Drawings by R. Ionescu.
still ongoing, the complex sedimentary context and the area excavated
so far already allows for substantial fresh insights regarding both the
intra-site variability of UP occupations in the Ceahlău Basin and their
larger, regional context.
The upper part of the long geological archive at BL III holds many
litho-stratigraphic features in common with the nearby sites in the
Ceahlău Basin (Nicolăescu-Plopșor et al., 1966), but also shows parallels
to several UP sites known downstream, at Poiana Cireșului-Piatra
Neamț, Buda and Lespezi (Cârciumaru et al., 2006a,b; Steguweit et al.,
2009; Tuffreau et al., 2018). Moreover, like all other multilayered sites
in the Eastern Carpathians, BL III preserves the densest succession of UP
layers in a coarse-silt sedimentary environment, here referred to as unit
G2, further recommending a comprehensive, comparative approach.
While the presentation of a synthetic view is beyond our objectives here,
we choose several aspects to highlight the relevance of the archaeo­
logical record at BL III for a better assessment of the regional UP in the
Eastern Carpathians.
225
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Table 4
Bistricioara-Lutărie III: lithic assemblage of AH 2.2.
Raw material
Cenomanian/Turonian flint
Menilite
Sandstone
Black schist
Radiolarite, jasper,
chalcedony
Opal
Flint (?)/Balkan flint
Marlstone, green schist
Undetermined
Total
Lithic sample
Stone
Secondary debitage products
Slabs/
pebbles
Chips (<5 mm)/
fragments
Cores
Rejuvenation
products
Cortical
products
Unmodified blanks
Flakes
Laminar
blanks
Retouched
Total
1
–
46
1
3
31
1049
406
459
65
4
15
–
4
2
3
17
3
7
–
20
27
5
2
3
28
440
71
230
45
10
107
15
25
10
11
81
19
30
12
108
1736
565
758
140
–
–
69
12
132
1002
60
–
700
3772
8
–
–
1
34
22
1
–
2
55
27
2
–
5
91
397
34
1
93
1339
53
2
–
20
242
58
1
–
25
237
1567
100
70
858
5902
Retouched
Total
Table 5
Bistricioara-Lutărie III: lithic assemblage of AH 2.1
Raw material
Lithic sample
Cenomanian/Turonian flint
Menilite
Sandstone
Black schist
Opal
Flint (?)/Balkan flint
Radiolarite, jasper, chalcedony,
obsidian
Argillite, marlstone, quartzite
Undetermined
Total
Stone
Secondary debitage products
Unmodified blanks
Slabs/
pebbles
Chips (<5 mm)/
fragments
Cores
Rejuvenation
products
Cortical
products
Flakes
Laminar
blanks
1
–
8
–
–
–
–
292
492
137
114
31
220
14
–
3
1
–
4
–
1
2
1
–
–
3
7
1
19
26
2
1
5
16
7
153
278
21
54
174
353
48
38
29
10
5
40
50
9
13
4
2
1
15
4
3
518
833
181
175
272
650
83
8
1
18
18
25
1343
–
–
9
–
–
14
2
–
78
12
23
1116
1
–
182
–
–
42
41
49
2802
Retouched
Total
Table 6
Bistricioara-Lutărie III: lithic assemblage of AH 1.1
Raw material
Cenomanian/Turonian flint
Menilite
Sandstone
Black schist, argillite
Radiolarite, jasper,
chalcedony
Opal
Flint (?)/Balkan flint
Quartzite, marlstone, schist
Undetermined
Total
Lithic sample
Stone
Secondary debitage products
Slabs/
pebbles
Chips (<5 mm)/
fragments
Cores
Rejuvenation
products
Cortical
products
Unmodified blanks
Flakes
Laminar
blanks
–
–
3
–
–
125
95
50
111
2
–
6
–
2
–
10
8
–
3
1
33
12
–
2
–
149
124
75
103
6
180
134
93
95
3
15
14
10
8
1
512
393
231
324
13
–
–
2
1
6
157
23
6
31
600
1
1
–
1
11
2
2
–
–
26
–
2
–
1
50
72
42
5
1
577
60
59
1
9
634
6
9
–
1
64
298
138
14
45
1968
4.1. The Late Gravettian with shouldered points: a punctuated presence?
production of large blades and backed/shouldered projectiles, large
amounts of exotic flint etc.) with a contemporaneous assemblage at
Buda, located further downstream in the Bistrița valley (Fig. 1). In the
recently recovered Late Gravettian (~27 ka cal BP) assemblage there,
the portion of exotic flint amounts to ~80%. The unusually large
number of retouched pieces, including a high percentage of large
retouched blades and backed implements (microgravettes, Gravette
points), replicates the general structure of the much larger previous
collection, which also reportedly included several shouldered points
(Bitiri-Ciortescu et al., 1989; Tuffreau et al., 2018). Although a complete
publication of the lithic data is missing, some similarities (massive use of
Cretaceous flint, high retouch frequency, diversity of armatures
The hitherto flimsy support for a Late Gravettian presence with
shouldered points around 27 ka cal BP in the Eastern Carpathians
(Anghelinu et al., 2018) is now clearly documented at BL III. The AH 2.5
flint-dominated assemblage, featuring a small number but high diversity
of shouldered implements, adds to the acknowledged variability of this
Late Gravettian phenomenon in East Central Europe (e.g. Noiret, 2009;
Koulakowska et al., 2015; Nuzhnyi, 2015; Wojtal et al., 2015). Lacking
analogies in the Ceahlău Basin, where dozens of Gravettian layers were
reported (but see below), the AH 2.5 assemblage at BL III, surprisingly,
shares many features (high laminar and retouch index, systematic
226
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
including atypical shouldered/tanged implements and fléchettes with
ventral retouch etc.) with the small and slightly earlier (ca. 28 ka cal BP)
Gravettian assemblage at Piatra Neamț-Poiana Cireșului (Cârciumaru
et al., 2006a, b), may also be invoked. BL III also recalls more distant
(although earlier) occurrences in the Prut-Dniester area at sites such as
Mitoc-Malul Galben or Molodova V, both located in the proximity of
sources for similar Cretaceous flint (Noiret, 2009; Nuzhnyi, 2015).
The apparent isolation of these flint-rich assemblages with shoul­
dered points in the Eastern Carpathians is certainly surprising, given the
number of sites preserving archaeological layers of Late Gravettian age
(Păunescu, 1998; Anghelinu et al., 2018). A sudden increase of Creta­
ceous flint has long been considered a hallmark of the Gravettian pres­
ence in the Ceahlău area (Nicolăescu-Plopșor et al., 1966). According to
more recent reassessments, however, these originally ‘Low’ and ‘Middle
Gravettian’ occupations, generally post-dating 27 ka cal BP, should
rather be assigned to the final stage of this technocomplex, if not to an
early Epigravettian (Anghelinu et al., 2012, 2018). Furthermore, none of
the presumably chronologically closer assemblages (BL I/II, Dârțu,
Podiș, Ceahlău-Bofu Mic etc.) display comparable features. It is of course
possible that due to fragmentation some shouldered points went un­
recognized in previous collections, especially if only the abruptly
retouched stems remained attached to the haft before retooling. Large
percentages of flint and/or large blade blanks were occasionally re­
ported (e.g. BL I/II – Nicolăescu-Plopșor et al., 1966: Fig. 15), so that
preservation and/or excavation biased mixed collections may have
further smoothed out some of these features. Three small-sized frag­
mented shouldered points were reported at Bicaz-Ciungi, but the
integrity of the associated assemblage, recovered from a 1 m thick
‘layer’, is highly doubtful. It is however very likely that these finds,
much like other microlithic shouldered implements reported at
Ceahlău-Dârțu, BL I/II or Bofu Mare (Păunescu, 1998), in fact belong to
much later, final Epigravettian contexts.
On the other hand, taking the available radiocarbon ages at face
value, most known Gravettian layers in the Eastern Carpathians lacking
the features encountered at BL III are either older (31–28 ka cal BP) or
somewhat younger (26–25 ka cal BP). The only other well-dated
Gravettian layer with significant material evidence at Piatra NeamțPoiana Cireșului (~30–31 ka cal BP), while rich in typical Gravettian
armatures and featuring some large laminar blanks, lacks shouldered
implements. Moreover, despite a consistent amount of Cretaceous flint
(ca. 19%), this layer features high amounts of local raw materials, sili­
ceous sandstone and black shales (Cârciumaru et al., 2006a, b).
It is therefore possible to suggest a standout behavioral profile for
this Late Gravettian presence in the Eastern Carpathian Gravettian
landscape. Whether or not these peculiarities are related to functional/
duration aspects or to a punctuated presence of a different ‘tradition’ or
‘stage’ (cf. Noiret, 2009), is a matter of future research. Whatever the
case, the lack of standardization of shouldered points at BL III, coupled
with the wide time span (from ca. 28 to ca. 24 ka cal BP) documented for
their presence among East-Central European Gravettian industries
(Noiret, 2009; Nuzhnyi, 2015; Koulakowska et al., 2015; Wojtal et al.,
2015), greatly reduce their assumed value as ‘type-fossils’ (see also
Polanská and Hromadová, 2015). It is rather the diversity of these ar­
matures, likely related to different ballistic properties and propulsion
devices, coupled with the peculiarity of raw material management (i.e.
distant procurement from places with high-quality raw materials) and
large blank production and use, which indicate more profitable research
avenues for the future. These aspects are especially relevant when
looking at the Epigravettian assemblages, which at least at BL III
contrast sharply with the Gravettian.
linked to climate constraints (Veres et al., 2018) during and post LGM,
this break seems less conspicuous further east to the east, where the
Epigravettian, although diverse, still appears formally connected to the
preceding Gravettian/Molodovian (e.g. Noiret, 2009; Nuzhnyi, 2015).
The alleged Gravettian/Epigravettian continuity owes a lot to the very
nature of the regional archaeological record, where many multilayered
Gravettian and Epigravettian sites suggest similar settlement choices,
but especially to the rather fuzzy, typologically-laden understanding of
the Gravettian and Epigravettian notions. The massive use of Cen­
omanian/Turonian flint from the abundant outcrops along the Prut and
Dniestr across the entire interval added to the strong levelling effect of
lithic typology. This is particularly visible in the Eastern Carpathians (cf.
Anghelinu et al., 2018), where the Gravettian/Epigravettian boundary
was long placed into the late glacial (e.g. Nicolăescu-Plopșor; Mogoșanu,
1986; Păunescu, 1998). The new data recovered at BL III support pre­
vious studies (Steguweit et al., 2009; Anghelinu et al., 2012, 2018), and
suggest that a chronological redrawing is appropriate.
At BL III, the Gravettian lithic assemblage stands in sharp contrast to
the overlying layer AH 2.3 and AH 2.2 (24/23 ka cal BP) in virtually all
respects: raw material sources and provisioning patterns, technology
and typology. Both AH 2.2 and AH 2.3 comprise large amounts and high
diversity of local and regional raw materials, a microlithic production
focused on bladelets and flakes, and an armature typology generally
reduced to backed bladelets and pointed bladelets.
Similar features also characterize an early Epigravettian layer at
Piatra Neamț-Poiana Cireșului. Despite field observations indicating a
palimpsest with a minimum of three layers, and the scatter of radio­
carbon ages (Cârciumaru et al., 2006b; Nițu et al., 2019a) suggesting a
certain degree of admixture of younger Epigravettian occupation(s),
most radiocarbon ages suggest that the bulk of this accumulation goes
back to ca. 24 ka cal BP. Almost half of the lithic collection (~15,000
pieces, Nițu et al., 2019b) has been published (Niță-Bălășescu, 2008),
which makes the sample statistically relevant. The assemblage made
massive use of menilite and other local/regional raw materials (siliceous
sandstones, cherts, opal, black schist/shales), with Cretaceous flint
present in small amounts only; the formal toolkit (3%) lacks Gravettian
projectiles and includes only a small amount of simple backed armatures
and a much larger number of long, narrow, straight or twisted,
marginally retouched bladelets removed from burin-like cores. A diverse
organic industry is associated with this peculiar lithic assemblage. Much
like at BL III, this layer stands in sharp contrast to the two smaller and
armature-rich Gravettian layers beneath it (Cârciumaru et al., 2006a, b).
Unfortunately, very few sites in the Eastern Carpathians provided
comparable stratigraphic control and/or directly dated layers, either
Gravettian or later (Anghelinu et al., 2012, 2018). However, the shift
towards a more consistent use of local/regional raw materials, the
decreasing importance of Cretaceous flint, the introduction of a higher
variety of raw materials from distant sources, the reduced average blank
size, and the disappearance of some armatures (especially typical
Gravette points) seems to represent a general trend. This tendency is
followed by all subsequent Epigravettian industries in the area,
including AH 2.1 and AH 1.1 at BL III. The established chronology at BL
III and Poiana Cireșului places this shift at around 24 ka cal BP. As these
assemblages have more in common with subsequent assemblages than
with the underlying Gravettian, an early Epigravettian label seems
appropriate (Anghelinu et al., 2012, 2018).
What exactly caused these changes is presently unclear and some old
taxonomical issues (Reynolds and Riede, 2019) resurface. Due to the
aggregated causality hidden behind the formation of lithic assemblages
(e.g. Shott, 2010; Barton and Riel-Salvatore, 2014), any catch-all
explanation (i.e. population change, environmental adaptation, tech­
nological convergences along roughly similar technical lineages etc.) is
doomed to speculation. The impact of the LGM obviously provides a
tempting, but ambiguous explanation. The sedimentary archive at BL III
preserves no evidence for marked paleoenvironmental changes within
the main coarse silt unit G2 hosting both the Gravettian and most of the
4.2. A behavioral switch? The (early) Epigravettian
While the Epigravettian label may appear inappropriate for certain
industries in Central Europe, given the noticeable demographic and
cultural interruption (e.g. Svoboda, 2007; Lengyel, 2018; Maier, 2017)
227
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Epigravettian layers. A generally cold environment and a landscape
where the density of vegetation was low enough to allow for both
aeolian accumulation and colluvial redeposition of sediment seem to
have characterized most of the interval. The lack of faunal preservation
in all Epigravettian layers at BL III as in most other sites along the Bis­
trița Valley reduces the availability of additional contextual data for
explaining the diachronic changes noticed in lithic behavior. In contrast,
the few sites with organic preservation suggest continuity of the prey
species spectrum (reindeer, bison, horse, fox, hare etc.) related either to
prevalence of comparable habitats or to a similar hunting focus (Bolo­
mey, 1989; Dumitrașcu and Vasile, 2018). The available data are not,
however, able to track short-term environmental changes and explain
related oscillations in resource availability. Habitation traces, reduced
to shallow hearths, small pits, boulders and slabs, point at similar light
structures indicating comparable short-time encampments. The
increased size of Epigravettian lithic assemblages may thus be connected
to repeated visits and not necessarily to longer occupations.
Further north and west in East-Central Europe (e.g. Svoboda, 2007;
Lengyel, 2014, 2016, 2018), the peak of the LGM (ca. 24–20 ka cal BP)
brought a similar focus towards local and regional raw materials, a
reduction in the size of laminar blanks and a typological ‘impoverish­
ment’, particularly visible in the realm of armatures, now dominated by
simple backed bladelets, whereas typical Gravette points, micro­
gravettes, shouldered or bifacial leafpoints, and more complex organic
technologies disappear. This apparently reflects a demographic decline
starting earlier in the Late Gravettian whereas continuation of these
changes into the Epigravettian after 20 ka cal BP suggests a certain
consolidation of the population during the LGM (Maier, 2017).
Due to uncomparable field methodologies, distances between the
sites, poor chronometric support and mutually incommensurable tax­
onomies (compare for instance Păunescu, 1998; Noiret, 2009; Nuzhnyi,
2015), particularly misleading in the absence of numerical chronologies,
the areas located further east mirror this picture only in parts. Based on
the number of existing radiocarbon ages, the open lowlands of eastern
Romania for instance experienced a population contraction during the
LGM, while the vast majority of Eastern Carpathian chronometric data
fall within this interval (Anghelinu et al., 2012, 2018). With hundreds of
undated open-air findspots (Păunescu, 1998, 1999), the present picture
is clearly deceptive, especially as raw material transfers from the
northeastern Prut-Dniester area, albeit much reduced, continued
throughout the UP. It is therefore reasonable to expect a severe under­
estimation of the number of sites in the more open spaces east of the
Carpathians. In their absence, however, any understanding of the
Eastern Carpathian UP record, overtly connected to the Dniester-Prut
interfluve, will stay partial.
indicate earlier (35–31 ka cal BP) human presence at the site before the
onset of (mainly loess) sedimentation forming unit G2. As recorded at BL
III, earlier UP occupation beneath unit G2 appears reduced to combus­
tion traces/charcoals without diagnostic archaeological material.
Undiagnostic lithic collections from below the coarse silty sediment of
unit G2 (Păunescu, 1998; Steguweit et al., 2009; Schmidt et al., 2020)
were documented at several other sites in the Ceahlău area (e.g. Cetă­
țica, Dârțu, BL I/II), as well as downstream at Poiana Cireșului-Piatra
Neamț (Steguweit et al., 2009; Zeeden et al., 2011; Niț;u et al., 2019b)
and Lespezi (Tuffreau et al., 2018). Although these assemblages likely
belong to different occupation episodes, they obviously exceed the
acknowledged Gravettian timeframe. Further research targeting these
deposits at BL III and elsewhere will hopefully contribute to solving this
issue.
Much like previous work at BL I/II (Steguweit et al., 2009; Schmidt
et al., 2020), recent research at BL III highlights the many issues raised
by the sedimentary contexts in the Ceahlău Basin, especially the impact
of post-depositional changes affecting the UP record. Among these, poor
organic preservation, slope processes, erosion and periglacial features
are especially worth stressing, as they represent a challenge even for
state-of-the-art documentation systems. The documented range of
post-depositional processes reinforce previous doubts (Anghelinu et al.,
2012) regarding the integrity and relevance of many contexts excavated
during early stages of research and stress the importance of renewed
field investigations in the Eastern Carpathians.
A succession of a minimum of six coherently dated Late Gravettian
and Epigravettian occupations is preserved at BL III, which point at
significant diachronic behavioral changes across the LGM and into late
glacial times. Although similar raw material categories are represented
in all lithic assemblages, their quantitative input is highly dissimilar.
The strong connection to the Prut-Dniestr area documented for the Late
Gravettian appears significantly weaker, although constant, throughout
the Epigravettian, which, at the same time, provided much larger lithic
assemblages as well as evidence for yet more distant connections to­
wards the Lower Danube area and the Carpathian Basin. These wide
territorial ranges indicate a high level of mobility and also highlight the
significance of the Eastern Carpathian record for the East-Central Eu­
ropean paleo-cultural landscape. To present knowledge, BL III and the
neighboring multilayered sites seem to generally support the Central
European trend showing a discrete presence of the Late Gravettian and a
more consistent human presence from the early Epigravettian on.
However, in contrast to Central Europe, a very rich and diverse organic
industry (e.g. Piatra Neamț-Poiana Cireșului), which lacks antecedents
in regional Gravettian contexts, was apparently associated with the
more expedient Epigravettian lithic assemblages in the Eastern
Carpathians.
More research is needed in order to clarify the connections between
BL III and other sites along the Bistrița valley, as well as to the
contemporaneous network of Gravettian and Epigravettian sites to the
northeast, along the Prut and Dniestr river valleys. Ongoing geochemical
and petrographic analyses of both artifacts and potential sources for
Cretaceous flint will hopefully improve our present vague geographic
focus regarding raw material supply. Additional chrono-stratigraphic
and paleoenvironmental reassessments based on standardized method­
ologies and reliable isochronous markers should also contribute to a
better integration of the regional archaeology-bearing archives.
5. Conclusions and future prospects
Located in the core area of the densest network of UP sites known so
far in Romania, BL III documents a huge research potential to be fol­
lowed in the future. The long series of chronometric measurements
available strengthen the improving chrono-stratigraphic framework of
the UP in the Eastern Carpathians (Steguweit et al., 2009; Zeeden et al.,
2011; Trandafir et al., 2015; Schmidt et al., 2020) and allow for further
inter-site comparisons and paleoenvironmental reconstructions. The BL
III geo-archive confirmed a lower chronological boundary of around 30
ka cal BP for the main archaeology-bearing unit G2. With only slightly
older ages documented at the nearby BL I/II (Schmidt et al., 2020), BL III
now strengthens the case for the previously advocated (e.g. Steguweit
et al., 2009; Anghelinu et al., 2012) renewed taxonomy of the archae­
ological layers preserved in this sedimentary unit in the Eastern Car­
pathians. It seems now clear that the earliest anthropogenic traces
preserved in unit G2 belong to a (not particularly early) Gravettian
which therefore excludes the original Aurignacian assignment for oc­
cupations preserved in this sediment unit. At the same time, charcoal
samples, some associated with massive combustion features or lithics,
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian Ministry of
228
M. Anghelinu et al.
Quaternary International 587-588 (2021) 210–229
Research and Innovation CNCS UEFISCDI, project number PN III-P4-IDPCE-2016-0262, within PNCDI-III.
Nițu, E.C., Cârciumaru, M., Cârstina, O., Nicolae, A., Lupu, F.I., Leu, M., Văleanu, M.C.,
Preoteasa, C., Goutas, N., Lacarrière, J., 2019b. Poiana Cireșului, Oraș Piatra Neamț,
Jud. Neamț. Cronica Cercetărilor Arheologice Din România, Campania 2018.
Institutul Național al Patrimoniului/Muzeul Național Brukenthal, București/Sibiu,
pp. 154–157.
Niță, L., Cordoș, C., Anghelinu, M., 2018. Apprenticeship lithic debitage. Examples from
a 27.3 ka cal BP Gravettian collection from Bistricioara-Lutărie III (Ceahlău Basin,
NE Romania. Stud. Preist. 15, 13–27.
Niță-Bălășescu, L., 2008. Le Paléolithique supérieur de la Valée de Bistrita dans le
contexte des recherches de Poiana Cireșului, Piatra Neamț (Nord-Est de la
Roumanie). Cetatea de Scaun, Târgoviște.
Noiret, P., 2007. Le gravettien de Moldavie (30.000-23.000 BP). Paléo 19, 159–180.
Noiret, P., 2009. Le Paléolithique supérieur de la Moldavie, ERAUL 121. Liége.
Nuzhnyi, D. Yu, 2015. Upper Paleolithic of the Western and Northern Ukraine (Technotypological Variability and Periodization). Oleg Filyk, Kyiv.
Perić, Z., Lagerbäck Adolphi, E., Stevens, T., Újvári, G., Zeeden, C., Buylaert, J.-P.,
Marković, S.B., Hambach, U., Fischer, P., Schmidt, C., Schulte, P., Huayu, L.,
Shuangwen, Y., Lehmkuhl, F., Obreht, I., Veres, D., Thiel, C., Frechen, M., Jain, M.,
Vött, A., Zöller, L., Gavrilov, M.B., 2019. Quartz OSL dating of late quaternary
Chinese and Serbian loess: a cross Eurasian comparison of dust mass accumulation
rates. Quat. Int. 502 (Part A), 30–44.
Polanská, M., Hromadová, B., 2015. Reflexion autour des industries Gravettienes „postpavloviennes” de Slovaquie Occidentale et de Moravie (25,500-22,000 BP noncalibré). In: Sázelová, S., Novák, M., Mizerová, A. (Eds.), Forgotten Times and
Spaces: New Perspectives in Paleoanthropological, Paleoetnological and
Archeological Studies, Institute of Archeology of the Czech Academy of Sciences.
Masaryk University, Brno, pp. 132–154.
Păunescu, A., 1998. Paleoliticul si epipaleoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprins între
Carpati și Siret. Satya Sai, București.
Păunescu, A., 1999. Paleoliticul și mezoliticul de pe teritoriul Moldovei cuprins între
Siret și Prut. Satya Sai, București.
Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E.,
Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P.,
Haflidason, H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G.,
Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu, M., Reimer, R.W.,
Richards, D.A., Scott, M.E., Southon, J.R., Staff, R., Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht, J.,
2013. IntCal13 and Marine13 radiocarbon age calibration curves 0–50,000 Years cal
BP. Radiocarbon 55, 1869–1887.
Reynolds, N., Riede, F., 2019. House of cards: cultural taxonomy and the study of the
European Upper Paleolithic. Antiquity 97 (371), 1350–1358.
Sava, T.B., Simion, C.A., Gâză, O., Stanciu, I.M., Păceșilă, D.G., Sava, G.O., Wacker, L.,
Ștefan, B., Moșu, V.D., Ghiță, D.G., Vasiliu, A., 2019. Status report on the sample
preparation laboratory for radiocarbon dating at the new bucharest roams center.
Radiocarbon 61 (2), 649–658.
Schaetzl, R.J., Bettis III, E.A., Crouvi, O., Fitzsimmons, K.E., Grimley, D.A., Hambach, U.,
Lehmkuhl, F., Marković, S.B., Mason, J.A., Owczarek, P., Roberts, H.M.,
Rousseau, D.-D., Stevens, T., Vandenberghe, J., Zárate, M., Veres, D., Yang, S.,
Zech, M., Conroy, J.L., Dave, A.K., Faust, D., Hao, Q., Obreht, I., Prud’home, C.,
Smalley, I., Tripaldi, A., Zeeden, C., Zech, R., 2018. Approaches and challenges to
the study of loess. Quat. Res. 89 (3), 563–618.
Schmidt, C., Anghelinu, M., Hambach, U., Veres, D., Lehmkuhl, F., 2020. Reassessing the
timeframe of upper paleolithic deposits in the Ceahlău Basin (eastern Carpathians,
Romania): geochronological and archaeological implications. Quat. Geochronol. 55,
101020.
Shott, M., 2010. Size-dependence in assemblage measures: essentialism, materialism and
‘SHE’ analysis in archaeology. Am. Antiq. 75 (4), 886–906.
Steguweit, L., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., 2009. Reframing the Upper
Paleolithic in the Bistrita valley (northeastern Romania). Quartär 56, 139–157.
Svoboda, J.A., 2007. The Gravettian on the middle Danube. Paléo 19, 201–218.
Timar-Gabor, A., Wintle, A.G., 2013. On natural and laboratory generated dose response
curves for quartz of different grain sizes from Romanian loess. Quat. Geochronol. 18,
34–40.
Trandafir, O., Timar-Gabor, A., Schmidt, C., Veres, D., Anghelinu, M., Hambach, U.,
Simon, S., 2015. OSL dating of fine and coarse quartz from a Paleolithic sequence on
the Bistrița Valley (Northeastern Romania). Quat. Geochronol. 30, 487–492.
Tuffreau, A., Dobrescu, R., Ciornei, A., Niță, L., Kostek, A., 2018. Le Paléolithique
supérieur de la basse vallée de la Bistriţa (Moldavie roumaine): Buda et Lespezi,
nouvelles recherches. L’Anthropologie 122 (2), 129–165.
Veres, D., Tecsa, V., Gerasimenko, N., Zeeden, C., Hambach, U., Timar-Gabor, A., 2018.
Short-term soil formation events in Late Pleistocene European loess records,
evidence from multi-method luminescence dating. Quat. Sci. Rev. 200, 34–51.
A Gravettian site in southern Poland. Kraków spadzista. In: Wojtal, P., Wilczińsky, J.,
Haynes, G. (Eds.), 2015. ISEA PAS, Kraków.
Zeeden, C., Hambach, U., Steguweit, L., Anghelinu, M., 2011. Loess stratigraphy using
palaeomagnetism: application to the Poiana Ciresului archaeological site (Romania).
Quat. Int. 240, 100–107.
Zeeden, C., Hambach, U., Veres, D., Fitzsimmons, K., Obreht, I., Bösken, J., Lehmkuhl, F.,
2018. Millennial scale climate oscillations recorded in the Lower Danube loess over
the last glacial period. Palaeogeogr. Palaeoclimatol. Palaeoecol. 509, 164–181.
References
Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., 2014. What’s in a name: the Aurignacian in Romania. Quat. Int.
351, 172–192.
Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., Steguweit, L., 2012. Not that original after all: the chronocultural framework of the upper paleolithic on the Bistrița valley (northeastern
Romania). Arheol. Mold. XXXV, 7–46.
Anghelinu, M., Mărgărit, M., Niță, L., 2017. A paleolithic eyed needle from bistricioaralutărie III (Ceahlău Basin, northeastern Romania). Studii de Preist 14, 27–35.
Anghelinu, M., Niță, L., Murătoreanu, G., 2018. Le Gravettien et l’Épigravettien de l’Est
de la Roumanie: une réévaluation. L’Anthropologie 122 (2), 183–219.
Barton, M., Riel-Salvatore, J., 2014. The formation of lithic assemblages. J. Archaeol. Sci.
46, 334–352.
Bitiri-Ciortescu, M., Căpitanu, V., Cârciumaru, M., 1989. Paleoliticul din sectorul
subcarpatic al Bistriţei in lumina cercetărilor de la Lespezi – bacău. Carpica XX,
7–52.
Bolomey, A., 1989. Considerații asupra resturilor de mamifere din stațiunea gravettiană
de la Lespezi-Lutărie (jud. Bacău), vol. XX, pp. 271–287. Carpica.
Bronk Ramsey, C., 2009. Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 51 (1),
337–360.
Cârciumaru, M., 1999. Le Paléolithique en Roumanie. Jérôme Millon, Grenoble.
Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Steguweit, L., Niță, L., Fontana, L., Brugère, A.,
Hambach, U., Mărgărit, M., Dumitrașcu, V., Cosac, M., Dumitru, F., Cârstina, O.,
2006a. The upper paleolithic site from Poiana Cireșului, Piatra Neamț (NorthEastern Romania). Recent results. Archaol. Korresp. 36, 319–331.
Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Lucas, G., Niță, L., Steguweit, L., Mărgărit, M.,
Fontana, L., Brugère, A., Dumitrașcu, V., Hambach, U., Cosac, M., Cârstina, O.,
Dumitru, F., 2006b. Paleoliticul superior de la Poiana Cireșului (Piatra-Neamț). Noi
rezultate, interpretări și perspective. Cerc. Arheol. XIII, 11–37.
Chirica, V., Borziac, I., Chetraru, N., 1996. Gisements du Paléolithique supérieur ancien
entre le Dniestr et la Tissa. Helios, Iași.
Ciornei, A., 2015. Petrographic analysis of raw materials from Lespezi-Lutărie:
implications for Upper Paleolithic sites from the middle and lower Bistrița valley.
Mat. Cerc. Arheol. XI, 43–79.
Djindjian, F., Kozlowski, J., Otte, M., 1999. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe.
Armand Colin, Paris.
Dumitrașcu, V., Vasile, Ș., 2018. Steppe bison hunting in the gravettian of Buda (lower
Bistrița valley, eastern Romania). L’Anthropologie 122, 166–182.
Evans, M., Heller, F., 2003. Environmental Magnetism: Principles and Applications of
Enviromagnetics. Academic Press, New York.
Händel, M., 2017. The stratigraphy of the Gravettian sites at Krems. Quartär 64,
129–155.
Högberg, A., Lombard, M., (in press). ‘I can do it’ becomes ‘We do it’: kimberly
(Australia) and Still Bay (South Africa) points through a socio-technical framework
lens. J Pal. Archaeol., https://doi.org/10.1007/s41982-019-00042-4.
Koulakowska, L., Usik, V., Haesaerts, P., Ridush, B., Uthmeier, T., Hauck, T., 2015. Upper
paleolithic of middle dniester: doroshivtsi III site. Quat. Int. 359–360, 347–361.
Lengyel, G., 2014. Distant connection changes from the early gravettian to the
epigravettian in Hungary. In: Otte, M., Le Brun-Ricalens, (coord), F. (Eds.), Modes de
contacts et de déplacements au Paléolithique Eurasiatique, vol. 140. ERAUL, Liège,
pp. 331–347.
Lengyel, G., 2016. Reassessing the middle and late upper paleolithic in Hungary. Acta
Arch. Carpat. LI 47–66.
Lengyel, G., 2018. Lithic analysis of the middle and late upper paleolithic in Hungary.
Folia Quat. 86, 5–157.
Lengyel, G., Chu, W., 2016. Long thin blade production and late gravettian huntergatherer mobility in eastern central Europe. Quat. Int. 406, 166–173.
Maher, B.A., 2011. The magnetic properties of quaternary aeolian dusts and sediments,
and their palaeoclimatic significance. Aeolian Res 3, 87–144.
Maher, B.A., 2016. Palaeoclimatic records of the loess/palaeosol sequences of the
Chinese Loess Plateau. Quat. Sci. Rev. 154, 23–84.
Maier, A., 2017. Population and settlement dynamics from the gravettian to the
magdalenian. Mitt. Gesellsch. Urgesch 26, 83–101.
Mogoșanu, F., 1986. Despre stratigrafia și periodizarea gravetianului din moldova. Studii
și cerc. de Ist. veche și Arh. 37 (2), 159–162.
Moreau, L., Ciornei, A., Gjesfeld, E., Filzmoser, P., Gibson, S.A., Day, J., Nigst, P.R.,
Noiret, P., Macleod, R.A., Niță, L., Anghelinu, M., 2019. First geochemical
‘fingerprinting’ of balkan and Prut flint from paleolithic Romania: potentials,
limitations and future directions. Archaeometry 61 (3), 521–538.
Nicolăescu-Plopșor, C.S., Păunescu, Al, Mogosanu, F., 1966. Le paléolithique de Ceahlău.
Dacia (NS)X 5–116.
Nițu, E.C., Cârciumaru, M., Nicolae, A., Cîrstina, O., Lupu, F.I., Leu, M., 2019a. Mobility
and social identity in the mid upper paleolithic: new personal ornaments from
Poiana cireşului (Piatra neamţ, Romania). PloS One 14 (4), e0214932.
229