L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
et également disponible sur www.em-consulte.com

Original article

Coliboaia is not Chauvet

Coliboaia n’est pas Chauvet
Marin Cârciumaru a,b,*, Elena-Cristina Nit, u a, Paul Bahn c
a
‘‘Princely Court’’ National Museum Târgovişte, Museum of Human Evolution and Technology in Palaeolithic,
7 Justiţiei Street, 130017 Târgovişte, Dâmboviţa County, Romania
b
Valahia University of Târgovişte, Doctoral School, 32–34 Lt. Stancu Ion Street, 130105 Târgovişte,
Dâmboviţa County, Romania
c
Independent researcher, 428 Anlaby Road, HU3 6QP Hull, nited Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: The decorated cave of Coliboaia in Romania has been claimed to
Available online 23 March 2019 date to the Aurignacian period, and to supply support for the
Aurignacian attribution of France’s Chauvet cave. In this paper, we
Keywords: examine the evidence and show that neither the radiocarbon dates
Coliboaia obtained at Coliboaia nor the style and content of its cave art
Chauvet correspond to the Aurignacian period, and that comparisons with
Aurignacian
Chauvet cave – itself badly dated and erroneously attributed – are
Gravettian
Radiocarbon dating
equally ill-founded. We also show that both caves are in regions
Cave art which are bereft of Aurignacian occupation, and neither cave
contains any artefacts from the period.
C 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

R É S U M É

Mots clés : La grotte ornée de Coliboaia en Roumanie, jusqu’à présent

Coliboaia attribuée à la période aurignacienne, a servi de référence pour
Chauvet l’attribution aurignacienne de la grotte Chauvet en France. Dans cet
Aurignacien
article, nous allons pourtant démontrer le fait que ni les artefacts
Gravettien
qui y ont été découverts, en raison de leur style et leur typologie, ni
Datation radiocarbone
Arte en grotte les datations au radiocarbone obtenues à Coliboaia ne correspon-

* Corresponding author. ‘‘Princely Court’’ National Museum Târgovişte, Museum of Human Evolution and Technology in
Palaeolithic, 7 Justiţiei Street, 130017 Târgovişte, Dâmboviţa County, Romania.
E-mail addresses: mcarciumaru@yahoo.com (M. Cârciumaru), elenacristinanitu@yahoo.com (E.-C. Nit, u),
pgbahn@anlabyrd.karoo.co.uk (P. Bahn).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anthro.2019.02.005
0003-5521/ C 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
20 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

dent à la période aurignacienne ; par conséquent la comparaison

de cette grotte avec la grotte Chauvet – elle-même inexactement
datée et attribuée – ne se justifie pas. De même, nous allons
souligner que les deux grottes se trouvent dans des régions où il n’y
a pas d’occupations aurignaciennes et que celles-ci manquent
d’artefacts remontant à cette période.
C 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.

1. Introduction

The discovery of a new cave with Palaeolithic parietal art is always a significant event that makes
news around the world. In 2010, it was announced that several Palaeolithic drawings had been found
in the Coliboaia Cave in Romania, an event which had a particularly great impact due to its location in a
region where such finds are extremely scarce. Until then, only the Cuciulat Cave paintings, found
30 years before and with an estimated age between 12,000 and 14,000 years ago, had been known in
Romania (Cârciumaru, 1988; Kozlowski, 1992). The new discoveries proved that the Cuciulat Cave
drawings were not an isolated phenomenon in this part of Europe. The scientific world reacted
promptly, especially as the idea of a similarity between Coliboaia and Chauvet was postulated from
the very beginning. This situation was all the more surprising since the two caves are very far apart,
given that one is located in Western Europe and the other in Eastern Europe. Yet there has even been
speculation (Guy, 2017, p. 186) about the geographical route that linked these caves via the Swabian
Jura sites!
The constant mentioning of supposed similarities between the Coliboaia and Chauvet caves, as well
as the existence of radiocarbon dates suggesting quite early ages, led to the inclusion of the Coliboaia
Cave among the Aurignacian settlements in Europe, a claim which has been made in several recent
studies (e.g. Bourrillon and White, 2015; González Sainz et al., 2013). Subsequent discussions of the
Chauvet Cave dates inevitably attracted more attention to the Coliboaia Cave.
The association of the Aurignacian with the Coliboaia Cave drawings is part of a recent trend in
research on the Palaeolithic in Romania, in which the search for settlements belonging to the Early
Upper Palaeolithic has been encouraged by the discovery, in Pes, tera cu Oase, of the oldest Homo
sapiens known in Europe. Western Romania has therefore become a kind of ‘‘El Dorado’’ of the Early
Upper Palaeolithic through the assigning of some settlements at Banat to the Proto-Aurignacian or the
early Aurignacian. Naturally, the Coliboaia Cave has not escaped this tendency, thanks to its drawings
being attributed to the Aurignacian.
In this study, we shall analyse the validity of the arguments invoking similarities between the
Coliboaia and Chauvet caves, with a view to clarifying some aspects regarding the existing C14 dates,
the interpretation of drawings and the establishment of possible analogies, and we shall also discuss
the context of several Aurignacian finds in Romania.

2. The context of the discovery

The Coliboaia Cave is located in Western Romania, in the Sighis, tel Gorge in the Apuseni Mountains,
at an absolute altitude of about 560 m and a relative altitude of roughly 50 m, with an impressive
entrance facing south-west (Fig. 1; 2/1). The cave had been known to speleologists before 1900; in
1981 it was visited by G. Halasi, who crossed the active gallery as far as siphon 4, probably not noticing
the entrance to the Galeria desenelor (‘Gallery of drawings’). Although the cave’s exploration was
resumed in several stages starting in 1997, the Coliboaia drawings remained unnoticed until
20 September 2009 (Ghemis, et al., 2011a, b) when, in an upper gallery of the cave, 700 m from the
entrance, five speleologists – Mihai Besesek, Valentin Alexandru Radu, Roxana Laura Tociu, Tudor Rus
and Marius Kenesz, from the Speowest Speleology Association of Arad, the Speodava Speleology Club
of Stei and the Zarand Speleo Club of Brad – found the images and broke the news of their existence
(Besesek et al., 2010). The discovery of drawings in the Coliboaia Cave had therefore been preceded by
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 21

Fig. 1. Map of Romania showing sites mentioned in the text.

Carte de la Roumanie avec les sites mentionnés dans le texte.

spectacular speleological investigations of the karstic system, more often than not with inherent risks
(Besesek, 2008; Besesek et al., 2008; Brijan and Rus, 2012).
The discoverers of the drawings deemed it necessary to resort to the expertise of some specialists
from France (B. Gély, M. Meyssonnier, V. Plichon and F. Prud’homme), but the harsh conditions of
October 2009 made it impossible for them to enter and cross the siphon’s water in order to reach the
chamber with images. Therefore the first publication of the drawings was produced by a group of
Romanian speleologists (Besesek et al., 2010). It was stated that the article had been produced in
collaboration with B. Gély, but logically this was probably without him having seen the drawings
himself. Even before advice from the French team, the three Romanian speleologists had inferred that
the drawings were of Palaeolithic age.
Surprisingly, in the absence of experts on the Palaeolithic who were familiar with the distribution
of sites, the authors asserted that the Coliboaia Cave ‘‘se trouve au bout d’un « couloir sous-carpatique »
qui comprend les dépressions des rivières de Crisul Negru et Crisul Repede, où les occupations préhistoriques
remontent jusqu’au Paléolithique, le début du Paléolithique supérieur étant assez bien représenté’’ (is at the
end of a ‘‘sub-Carpathian corridor’’ which includes the depressions of the rivers Crisul Negru and Crisul
Repede, where the prehistoric occupations date back to the Palaeolithic, with the Upper Palaeolithic
quite well represented) (Besesek et al., 2010, p. 8). Unfortunately, archaeological research, including in
a number of caves located in the Sighis, tel Gorge, has shown clearly that this valley was not an area of
the slightest interest for Palaeolithic communities, despite all its remarkable and spectacular caves
and rock-shelters (Cârciumaru and Dobrescu, 2010). In addition, it should be mentioned that other
investigations we have undertaken in the Apuseni Mountains, such as the excavations carried out in
the Şura de Piatră Cave in the Ampoiu valley, have not led to the discovery of any substantial
Palaeolithic habitations in the area, and certainly nothing from the Aurignacian or even Gravettian. In
short, this part of Romania is particularly poor in Palaeolithic sites of all periods.
The drawings in Coliboaia’s small decorated chamber were reportedly made with wood charcoal
and, according to the authors of these first testimonies, consisted of animals, especially a bison, a
possible feline, a rhinoceros, a small bear and a number of engravings, including a vulva whose
anthropic origin is mentioned with some reservations. The homogeneity of the decoration, the black
linear traces, the rendering of animals consisting of protomes in upright profile through the frequent
use of the natural relief of the support are to be noted. The apparent prevalence of dangerous animals,
along with some stylistic features, led the discoverers to formulate a first assumption, the attribution
22 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

of the drawings to an early stage of Palaeolithic art, between c. 35.000 and 25.000 years B.P. These
considerations, along with the presence of a bear skull, in association with a long bone stuck in
sediment behind the skull and another one lying in a horizontal position in front of the skull, located in
the gallery that precedes the chamber with drawings (first noticed as early as 1984 by P. Brijan and I.
Mateut, ă – see Brijan and Rus, 2012), were deemed sufficient arguments to launch analogies between
Coliboaia and Chauvet (Besesek et al., 2010). This first study concluded by announcing a project, which
was to be carried out in the next stage, under the authority of the renowned expert on parietal art in
general, and on the art in Chauvet Cave in particular, Jean Clottes.
The French team were to enter the cave in May 2010: under the leadership of V. T. Lascu, there were
two specialists in parietal art (Jean Clottes and Bernard Gély), a palaeontologist specialising in Ursidae
(Michel Philippe), two speleologists (Marcel Meyssonnier and Valérie Plichon), as well as Françoise
Prud’homme from the Musée de Préhistoire d’Orgnac, Ardèche. They were accompanied by a group of
Romanian speleologists. This collaboration resulted in a number of studies of the parietal art of the
Coliboaia Cave (Clottes et al., 2011a, b, 2012; Ghemis, et al., 2011a, b).

3. Description of the drawings

The drawings, made with charcoal, are concentrated in a single gallery, located about 7 m above the
bed of the rivulet that flows through the main gallery, which can be reached by climbing over a small
stalagmite cascade. They occur on both walls of the gallery, with a preference for the right wall which
is somewhat more vertical and appropriate for drawing (Fig. 2/2–3). With the exception of a horse and
a rhinoceros, which appear to be placed opposite each other, no tendency to organise the setting
within the gallery was identified. In the floor sediment, disseminated scraps of charcoal were found.
The following animal representations were noted on the two walls:
On the right wall, between 143 and 202 cm from the ground surface, in the first register, there is the
drawing of a male bison (Fig. 2/2–4), its horns in frontal perspective. The wall configuration was
exploited pretty well in order to make the animal’s silhouette, which reaches 83 cm in length. The
grey-bluish colour is considered to belong to an earlier generation of cave drawings. The image is
affected by a number of bear claw-marks. Above the head, traces of smoke, probably from the torch
which provided the necessary light, are said to be visible.
In a cavity, 60 cm from the bison, and between 117 and 142 cm from the gallery floor, a series of
black lines, 32 cm long, with a bluish tint, suggest the silhouette of an animal that is difficult to identify
as to species (Fig. 2/5).
About 30 cm from these lines, between 179 and 202 cm from the ground, a possible bear head was
drawn (Fig. 2/6). This image is attributed to a second stage of cave decoration, because the aspect of the
colour is fresher, and calcite does not cover the drawing.
Somewhat further, 70 cm from the supposed bear head, between 170 and 195 cm from the gallery
floor, the shape of an animal 89 cm long and 39 cm high is drawn, but it is very hard to say whether it is
a horse or a feline or indeed something else (Fig. 2/7). The lack of calcite and the fresh aspect of its
colour also attribute this image to the second stage of drawing in the Coliboaia Cave. The first charcoal
samples used for dating were taken from on and near this drawing.
On the right wall, several black spots are still preserved over a length of 10 m, but it is difficult to
judge if they belonged to animal silhouettes preceding the outline of a 45-cm long horse, first observed
by Viorel Lascu during the visit of the cave made in order for the French experts to authenticate the
paintings. It is located very close to the ground in the concavity of a niche (Fig. 3/1) and is 45 cm long,
its head tilted to the right. Only a little farther, still very close to the ground level, in the same
concavity, there is a possible, very sketchy rhinoceros head (20 cm long), also drawn in black, but at
best only its two horns and ears can be seen (Fig. 3/2).
On the left wall, besides several black spots scattered over the entire surface (Fig. 3/4), a black
rhinoceros head, 47 cm long, stands out, perhaps the most spectacular representation in the Coliboaia
Cave, all the more so as it is located in front of a horse on the opposite wall (Fig. 3/3). It was painted
between 59 and 98 cm from the ground. The extremity of its nasal horn is covered with calcite and,
because of the bluish tint, it belongs to the first generation of drawings in the Coliboaia Cave.
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 23

Fig. 2. Coliboaia Cave. 1-entrance to the cave; 2-placement of paintings; 3-decorated gallery; 4-bison; 5-indeterminable animal
silhouette; 6-cave bear head; 7-feline or horse (after Clottes et al., 2012).
Grotte de Coliboaia : 1–entrée de la grotte ; 2–emplacement des peintures ; 3–galerie ornée ; 4–bison ; 5–silhouette d’animal
indéterminé ; 6–tête d’ours des cavernes ; 7–félin ou cheval (d’après Clottes et al., 2012).
24 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

Fig. 3. Coliboaia Cave. 1-horse; 2-rhinoceros head; 3-rhinoceros; 4–5 black spots; 6-taking charcoal samples for dating (after
Clottes et al., 2012).
Grotte de Coliboaia : 1–cheval ; 2–tête de rhinocéros ; 3–rhinocéros ; 4–5–taches noires ; 6- échantillonnages de charbon pour datation
(d’après Clottes et al., 2012).

Many different arguments have been invoked in order to attest the authenticity of the drawings –
e.g. the erosion and concretioning of black traces; the lack of freshness of the colour; the bear
(probably Ursus spelaeus) claw-marks and the presence of bats affecting some of the drawings; the use
of the wall relief and natural contours to make animal silhouettes; and the compliance with stylistic
conventions that are characteristic of European Palaeolithic art, such as the horse’s crest or the bison’s
horns in frontal perspective. The estimation of the age of the images – attributed to the Upper
Palaeolithic, more specifically to the Gravettian (23.000–29.000 B.P.) or the Aurignacian (29.000–
35.000 B.P.) – relied at first only on comparisons with Western European Palaeolithic art, and
especially on the species represented, such as rhinoceroses and bears, which are rather infrequent in
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 25

the parietal art representations of later periods. Despite assumptions regarding the existence of two
stages of drawing, one of which is specific to a more recent phase, it has been stated that ‘‘L’ensemble
donne une impression d’unité et pourrait être dû à une même main’’ (The assemblage gives an impression
of unity, and could have been drawn by a single hand) (Clottes et al., 2012, CD-525).

4. C-14 dates

As mentioned above, in 2010 a sample of black pigment was taken in order to be subjected to C-14
dating. It was taken from the head area of the representation not yet identified, considered to be either
a horse or a feline, drawn on the right wall of the gallery (Fig. 2/7), which was said to belong to a more
recent drawing stage. The result was 27.870  250 B.P. (31.450/32.820 calibrated age) (GifA 11002/Sac
A23417). Moreover, a charcoal also recovered in 2010 from a ledge below the drawing was dated to
31.640  390 B.P. (35.120/36. 780 calibrated age) (GifA 11001/SacA 23416) (Clottes et al., 2011a, b; 2012).
Most commentators ignored the later date and focused on the early one: e.g. Guy (2017 p. 183) claims that
‘‘La datation C14 des dessins de Coliboaia indique qu’ils ont été réalisés vers 32.000 BP, soit à peu près à la même
époque que Chauvet’’ (The C14 dating of the Coliboaia drawings indicates that they were made around
32.000 BP, that is, around the same time as Chauvet). Need one point out how rash and unscientific it is to
make such sweeping judgements based on a single date which was not even obtained from charcoal in a
drawing? Regarding both the single date of 27.870 from the art and the single earlier date of 31.640 (not
from the art), one should recall the wise words of Clottes (1993 p. 21), ‘‘one date is no date’’! He continued
‘‘It is just one piece of data that must be kept in mind but should be considered tentative until other dates
have been obtained and a picture emerges’’.
In 2012, two new charcoal samples were taken from the Coliboaia Cave in order to be radiocarbon
dated by accelerator mass spectrometry at the Laboratory for Sciences of Climate and Environment in
Gif-sur-Yvette (Gély et al., 2018). It is mentioned (ibid. p. 44) that, before dating, the samples were
chemically treated in order to eliminate foreign carbon contaminations, which consisted of a
succession of processes: acid (0.5 N) to remove carbonates and fulvic acids, base (0.1 N) to destroy
humic acids and, lastly, acid again (0.5 N) to eliminate carbonaceous gas. In between these phases,
distilled water rinses were carried out.
One of the samples is charcoal recovered from a wall crack located right after the ‘‘horse-feline’’
representation, of which only the humic fraction that provided the age of 28.950  810 B.P. (34.574/
31.340 cal. BP) (GifA 13457/SacA3648) was used. Another sample of charcoal came from the Median
chamber without decoration: GifA 13453/SacA36479: 27.240  600 B.P. (32.911/30.282 cal. B.P.). The
humic fraction associated with this charcoal sample was also dated: FHGifA 13456/SacA36481:
23.350  480 B.P. (28.525/26.605 cal. B.P.).
There are many problems concerning all the dates from Coliboaia. First, no indication is given that
the charcoal samples were examined under the microscope to determine their precise nature (e.g.
combustion residues, organic material) and to verify that they were indeed wood charcoal and, if so,
from what species. Nothing is said about this, but it is particularly vital for what are described as
‘‘micro-charbons’’ (micro-charcoals) (Gély et al., 2018 p. 21) since they were almost certainly highly
contaminated. Second, the account given of the treatment of samples is irrelevant, since it is also
stated that the Coliboaia samples were so small that less concentrated solutions were used (ibid. p.
45) – that being so, it is quite possible that not all carbonates (calcited samples) were eliminated if the
concentration of acid used was insufficient, and this could have made the results older. Third, the
investigators have provided absolutely no information on the d13 C values, a crucial piece of
information which enables one to differentiate wood charcoal from bone charcoal (see below).
Dating a representation on the wall of a cave cannot be extrapolated without risks to the entire
assemblage of drawings in that particular cave. In fact, the age remains strictly valid only for the
pigment and not for the moment when that representation was made (Alcolea and de Balbı́n, 2007).
The results from the latest dating of charcoals recovered from contexts other than the drawings
proper – i.e. from sediment or other areas of the gallery – show that the Coliboaia Cave was also visited
after the date of 27.870  250 B.P. (the only age provided by a charcoal collected directly from one of the
drawings). Naturally, the question is whether or not the dated charcoal from that particular drawing
26 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

(defined as ‘‘horse-feline’’) is a sample recovered from a hearth or a torch prior to the moment of drawing.
Curiously, the age of 31.640  390 B.P., obtained from a charcoal recovered from the gallery, has been
invoked as the age of the Coliboaia Cave drawings. But this date – if valid – merely proves that the cave was
visited at that time. Moreover the dates obtained – if valid – imply that the cave was frequented over a
timespan of at least 4.000 years, yet not a single feature or artefact has been found in it. This situation is
known in other decorated caves – such as Niaux, for example (Clottes, 1995) – but nevertheless is unusual.

5. Some considerations on the Chauvet Cave paintings

In order to better understand the consequences of comparing the parietal art in the Chauvet and
Coliboaia caves, we feel it necessary to briefly mention the discussions and controversies over the
Chauvet Cave. Generally, they have focused on the cultural context of the finds, and perhaps more on
the results from C14 dating conducted in this cave.
The chronological attribution of Chauvet’s art predominantly to the Aurignacian is based
exclusively on radiocarbon dates, since the archaeological environment as well as the styles of its
parietal figures do not confirm this, as has been emphasized since 1995 by many of the specialists in
Palaeolithic art who have examined the problem (e.g. Combier and Jouve, 2012, 2014). It is ironic that
Clottes originally produced a perfectly sound stylistic assessment of the cave’s figures, attributing
them to the Gravettian, Solutrean and Magdalenian, using appropriate comparisons with
neighbouring caves (Clottes, 1996 p. 118–121), an assessment which was consistent with his earlier
championing of style in the face of direct dating: ‘‘. . .even if we had dozens of dates, we would still be
obliged to extrapolate those results to other figures and other caves through stylistic comparisons, the only
ones we can use, to try and build a coherent idea of the rock art under study’’ (Clottes, 1993 p. 21). Yet the
first early radiocarbon dates obtained from drawings in Chauvet led him to an immediate and
complete volte-face (Clottes, 1996 p. 121–126) where the early dates were accepted without question,
and all stylistic comparisons with later caves rejected or ignored.
This was in fact the spark that ignited the dispute, which was soon to turn into a real war, regarding
Chauvet Cave. Serious doubts regarding the validity of its dates, and questions about the technical
limitations of the method due to risks occurring during sampling and the possibility of contamination,
led many specialists to join in the fray (e.g. Züchner, 1995, 1996, 2007; Alcolea and de Balbı́n, 2007;
Pettitt and Bahn, 2003, 2014, 2015; Pettitt et al., 2009), but this did not end the necessity of continuing
the C-14 dating of Palaeolithic parietal paintings. For example, Fortea Pérez (2002) emphasised the
need to continue the radiometric dating of parietal paintings, since this technique contributed
essentially to establishing their age prior to the Magdalenian, while Lorblanchet and Bahn (1993) had
advocated the importance of isotopic dating that marked significant progress in the chronology of
parietal art, because now one could even talk about a post-stylistic period. However, whenever such
dates are in contradiction with the archaeological reality, in that they provide an age that is too early or
too late, they should be regarded with great discernment (Combier and Jouve, 2012, 2014). Such a
situation was created by the publication of C-14 dates undertaken on the charcoal used to draw a
number of paintings in the Chauvet Cave (Clottes et al., 1995a, b), which prompted Combier (1995–
1996) to remark that the parietal decoration would remain poorly known until deeper analytical
research and new dating were undertaken. His observations were followed by harsh criticism of the
Aurignacian age of the Chauvet Cave paintings formulated by Züchner (1995, 1996, 2007), who put
forward a variety of powerful arguments.
Most recently, a paper appeared (Quiles et al., 2016) which claimed to be the last word on Chauvet’s
dating, presenting no less than 350 radiocarbon results. Unfortunately, it is riddled with errors and
inconsistencies, including dates that have been changed or omitted. Moreover, despite the huge
number of dates presented from different laboratories, it remains the case that only the Gif laboratory
has been permitted to date charcoal from the figures – all other dates by other labs are from charcoal
from the floor or hearths (e.g. 88 of the dates are from 5 charcoal fragments from a small portion of one
gallery!). This is an utterly unscientific state of affairs, since samples from the art should have been
split and dated by other labs for verification. As it is, only 13 figures have been dated, out of the
more than 450 in the cave! There are also numerous problems with the decontamination of samples
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 27

(see Jouve, 2017); we are presented with no precise information on where the samples were taken
from the art; and above all, the d13 C values provided by some labs suggest that many samples were
charcoal from bone rather than wood, and hence this calls into question the success of some
decontamination procedures.
The Ardèche Gorges, where the Chauvet Cave is located, are an area dominated by a human
presence particularly in the Gravettian and the Solutrean periods, with most of the caves in this region
being attributed to these cultures. At the same time, an objective reality has been invoked, namely that
parietal art in most of Europe is closely related to portable art, as there are often undeniable stylistic
resemblances, the result of a common inspiration. But curiously, in the Ardèche, it seems that, where
Palaeolithic art prior to the Magdalenian is concerned, portable art evidence – which could allow such
analogies – is completely absent. For Chauvet, Combier and Jouve (2012, 2014) have emphasised the
analogies presented or initially accepted by Clottes himself (Clottes, 1996, 2001), such as the red dots
from Pech-Merle; the use of yellow colour in Chauvet which reminds one of the Solutrean and
Magdalenian paintings from the Quercy or the Cantabrian region; the presence of Megaloceros
depictions similar to those in Cosquer Cave dated to between 18.500 and 19.000 years ago; the
particular shape of bison horns (S-shaped) that is well-known at Ebbou; and the ‘‘duck-bill’’ horses
characteristic of the Solutrean from the Pech-Merle or Parpalló caves.

6. The bear bone arrangement

As we have said, at the time when the Coliboaia Cave paintings were first published, the presence of
a cave bear skull was noted at the entrance to the gallery of drawings, lying on the ground facing
upwards. Right behind it, in the same direction, a long bone, probably also from a bear, was stuck in the
sediment (Fig. 4/1). In front of the skull there was also a bone fragment of smaller size, in a horizontal
position (Besesek et al., 2010). It is very interesting that this bear skull and the long bone stuck in the
ground, as well as the Gallery of Drawings in Coliboaia, had also been noted by other specialists long
before: ‘‘In August 1984, Brijan Petru and Mateuţă Ioan passed through siphon 3 in the Coliboaia Cave and
discovered, at the end of the passage, a chamber with bear claw marks and bones and noticed the skull of an
Ursus spelaeus on a clay ledge and a tibia stuck in vertical position at about 10 cm behind the skull’’. . . ‘‘On
25 October 2008, a Speodava-Speowest team (Tudor Rus, Anamaria Suciu, Valentin Alexandru Radu)
managed to clean out siphon 3 of the Coliboaia Cave and thus reached the end of the cave. But, on their way
back through a fossil side gallery (the Gallery of Drawings), they noticed only the claw marks and bones of
Ursus spelaeus’’ (Brijan and Rus, 2012, p. 70–71).
The resemblance between the position of the bear skull in the cave in association with the long
bone in the Coliboaia Cave and a similar situation from the Chauvet Cave (Fig. 4/2) was much too
striking not to be noted and invoked from the very beginning as an important element in support of
the analogy between the two caves (Besesek et al., 2010). It was natural that such a situation, such an
apparent analogy, should have encouraged the hypothesis of the resemblance between the two caves,
so it is not surprising that it was also seized upon by the French media. For example, Lima mentioned:
‘‘Dernier fait troublant : l’association d’un os planté dans la paroi de la grotte roumaine avec un crâne d’ours
dessiné, qui rappelle le crâne d’ours de la cavité ardéchoise déposé sur un « autel » rocheux et les ossements
qui y ont été fichés dans la pierre par les artistes’’ (one final, troubling fact is the association of a bone
stuck in the Romanian cave’s wall with a drawn bear skull, which recalls the bear skull in the Ardèche
cave placed on a rocky ‘‘altar’’ and the bones that were stuck into the stone by the artists) (Lima, 2011
p. 1).
The subsequent surprise came from a group of French authors and two Romanians, V. T. Lascu and
C. Ghemis, , under the leadership of J. Clottes, who were to state that ‘‘l’association d’un os planté avec un
crâne d’ours évoquait des faits semblables connus dans la grotte Chauvet. En fait, lors de l’expertise de mai
2010, nous avons pu constater que ces ossements de Coliboaia avaient été déplacés à l’époque moderne, à en
juger d’après les traces de manipulations récentes qu’ils portent, sans doute par des spéléologues
antérieurement à la découverte de l’art’’ (the association of a bone stuck in the ground with a bear skull
evoked a similar occurrence known in Chauvet cave. In fact, during the assessment of May 2010 we
were able to ascertain that these bones in Coliboaia had been displaced in modern times, judging by
28 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

Fig. 4. Similarities and differences between Coliboaia and Chauvet caves. 1 - cave bear skull and femur stuck in the ground in the
Coliboaia Cave; 2 - cave bear skull and femur stuck in the ground in the Chauvet Cave; 3 - Coliboaia Cave bear; 4–8 - bear
representations in the Chauvet Cave (1 - after Besesek et al., 2010; 2, 4–8 - Clottes, 2001; 3 - Clottes et al., 2012).
Similitudes et différences entre les grottes de Coliboaia et Chauvet : 1–crâne d’ours des cavernes et fémur coincé dans le sol dans la
grotte de Coliboaia ; 2–crâne d’ours des cavernes et fémur coincé dans le sol dans la grotte Chauvet ; 3–grotte de Coliboaia, ours ; 4–8–
représentations d’ours dans la grotte Chauvet (1 - d’après Besesek et al., 2010 ; 2, 4–8 - Clottes, 2001 ; 3 - Clottes et al., 2012).

the traces of recent handling that they bear, doubtless by speleologists prior to the discovery of the art)
(Clottes et al., 2011b, p. 1; Jouve, 2017, p. 178). Therefore, one of the first arguments in favour of the
association of the two caves was, according to the authors cited, a fabrication by some speleologists in
modern times. We, however, would point out that such positionings of bear bones are not uncommon
in caves – for example, some odd arrangements were found in Oase (Trinkaus et al., 2013, p. 19;
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 29

2003) – and are usually attributable to the bears’ movements or hydrological activity. In any case, even
if done by the speleologists, they could have been accidental rather than intentional or mischievous.
Be that as it may, the crucial point is that the bones, by the authors’ own admission, provide no link
whatsoever with Chauvet.

7. Stylistic considerations on the paintings

Some specialists have been particularly desperate to link the two caves: for example, Guy (2017,
p. 183) has claimed that Coliboaia contains drawings not only of a horse and bison but also of a ‘‘horse
or feline’’, ‘‘one or two bear heads’’, a possible mammoth and two rhinoceros heads – ‘‘on retrouve donc
la même thématique qu’à Chauvet’’ (one thus finds the same themes as at Chauvet). But in fact the
‘‘horse or feline’’ is so vague it could be all kinds of things; there is only one possible bear head, only
one definite rhino head (the second being extremely sketchy), and no mammoth at all.
Moreover, a comparative analysis, from a stylistic point of view, of the Coliboaia Cave drawings and
those from the Chauvet Cave reveals some highly significant differences:
The Coliboaia ‘‘cave bear’’ (Fig. 2/6; 4/3) is so schematic and sketchily represented that it is hard to
find any analogies for it at all. However, as can be seen in Fig. 4/4–8, one could hardly say that
stylistically it has very much in common at all with the Chauvet Cave bears either. Given that only the
‘‘head’’ (if that is indeed what this mark is) is represented in the Coliboaia Cave, one of the details, such
as the ears, is missing, which is strange because such elements are specific to representations of this
animal in parietal art, alongside other details such as its massiveness, the roundness of the body, and
the pronounced trapezoid shape of the head. It may be said that there was perhaps an uncompleted
intention to sketch the animal’s ear! There are some rare exceptions such as a bear head engraved in
the Rouffignac Cave (Magdalenian period – roughly 19.000–11.000 years) or a bear engraved on a
bone, also attributed to the Magdalenian, from the site of La Madeleine in Dordogne. The manner of
depicting the bear generally varied very little over time, and a number of aspects which might have
been expected to impress Palaeolithic people particularly, such as canines or claws, are totally
neglected (Schwab and Man-Estier, 2016). The stylistic features mentioned in relation to the possible
bear head drawn in the Coliboaia Cave, with its evident tendency towards stylisation, are one of the
aspects that clearly distinguish the drawings of this cave from those in Chauvet.
Concerning the horse in the Coliboaia Cave (Fig. 3/1; 5/1), it has been stated, surprisingly, that ‘‘la
crinière est traitée en « cimier »’’ (the mane has a ‘‘crest’’) (Clottes, 2012, CD 521). This description is
perfectly suitable for the splendid horses from the ‘‘panel of horses’’ or those in the niche of Chauvet
Cave, but by no means for the Coliboaia horse (Fig. 5/2–5). The Coliboaia Cave horse has no such
feature, in contrast to the striking ‘‘crest’’ which makes the Chauvet Cave horses so special. We
consider it far more reasonable to note the analogies with one of the horses in the Pech-Merle Cave,
attributed to style III by Leroi-Gourhan (1965 fig. 76, p. 166), or with the Las Monedas horse attributed
to style IV by the same author (Leroi-Gourhan, 1965 fig. 84, p. 175). The head of the Coliboaia Cave
horse is part of that category of linear representations which lack sense organs, such as the
Magdalenian horses of Estebanvela (Segovia-Spain) or even those from Pestillac and Carriot, which
belong to the Upper Magdalenian (Sauvet and Rivero Vilá, 2016).
Although the contour of the horse head is rather poorly preserved and unrepresentative, in a recent
interpretation it has been asserted, with much exaggeration, that the drawing ‘‘évoque un animal qui
hennit, attitude très rarement signalée dans l’art paléolithique’’ (evokes an animal that is neighing, an
action very rarely reported in Palaeolithic art) (Gély et al., 2018, p. 40). However it is also highly
noteworthy that these authors admit that the horse-head has Gravettian features!
The Coliboaia Cave bison does not present too many details; for example, it lacks the ‘‘beard’’ which
is so typical of such representations (Fig. 2/4; 6/7). Just like the horse, it is a depiction with a linear
outline and no sense organs. Guy (2017, p. 183) claims that the horns are seen from the front, like in
Chauvet. However, regarding the manner of drawing the horns, one should note that there are
specimens in the Chauvet Cave which have S-shaped horns, therefore double-curved (Fig. 5/8–9),
while in the Coliboaia Cave the bison horns are represented in a much simpler style, with a single
curvature in normal position (Fig. 6/7); in this respect they bear a much greater resemblance to the
30 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

Fig. 5. Stylistic differences between the horse depiction of Coliboaia (1) and the Chauvet Cave horses (2–5) (after Clottes, 2001;
Clottes et al., 2012).
Différences stylistiques entre la représentation du cheval de la grotte de Coliboaia (1) et les chevaux de la grotte de Chauvet (2–5)
(d’après Clottes, 2001 ; Clottes et al., 2012).

great bison of the Clastres network of Niaux Cave (Clottes, 1995, fig. 67) or a bison engraved in Gabillou
Cave (Gaussen, 1964, pl. 30/1).
Conversely, the rhinoceros head in the Coliboaia Cave (Fig. 3/3; 6/1) does not comply with the
principles of realism of Palaeolithic animal art. There have been attempts to link it with the detailed
and very naturalistic depictions of this animal in Chauvet (Guy, 2017, p. 183, fig. 11), including that
cave’s characteristic rendering of the ears as two joined curved lines. But strangely enough, in stark
contrast to the rhinoceros representations in Chauvet, the extremely crude and sketchy Coliboaia
rhinoceros seems to have only one ear depicted, with the curvature backwards and not to the front, as
is the case in most images of this animal in parietal art in Western Europe. A mark below could be an
eye, or it could be the second ear (Gély et al., 2018, p. 38) – either way, this underlines the difference
from the Chauvet rhinos which have both ears joined together. Even Gély et al. (ibid.) admit that the
ears in the two caves are similar, not identical, which we feel is something of an understatement!
The comparison of Coliboaia Cave’s drawings with those in the Chauvet Cave has therefore been
grossly exaggerated, bereft of any stylistic arguments for most of the drawings in terms of the
organisation of the drawn area, and of the depiction of animal species. In stark contrast to the
complexity of the parietal representations of Chauvet, the Coliboaia ones are merely sketches, without
any major similarities for most of the existing drawings, and often lacking significant details; therefore
one cannot speak about symbolic constructions in the sense proposed by Vialou (1986). The Coliboaia
Cave representations are, of course, part of the general phenomenon of Palaeolithic parietal art and, as
we have seen, have better analogies in a number of West European caves, certainly in a much more
convincing manner than with those in the Chauvet Cave. Naturally, the C14 dates have greatly
influenced these comparisons between the two caves. As shown above, the severe doubts expressed
about the accuracy of dating in the Chauvet Cave are nolens volens also applicable to Coliboaia,
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 31

Fig. 6. Stylistic similarities and differences in the representation of the rhinoceros (1 - Coliboaia Cave; 2–6 - Chauvet Cave) and of
the bison (7 - Coliboaia Cave; 8–9 - Chauvet Cave) (after Clottes, 2001; Clottes et al., 2012).
Similitudes et différences stylistiques concernant les représentations du rhinocéros (1 - grotte de Coliboaia ; 2–6 - grotte Chauvet) et du
bison (7 - grotte de Coliboaia ; 8–9 - grotte Chauvet) (d’après Clottes, 2001 ; Clottes et al., 2012).
32 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

especially since they were produced by the same laboratory. However, even if the Coliboaia dates
prove to be correct, they fall within the boundaries of the Gravettian period.
The involvement of the team that scientifically exploited the Chauvet Cave has probably influenced
the interpretation of Coliboaia Cave’s drawings to a great extent. That is why the Coliboaia Cave has
become the Chauvet of Central and Eastern Europe. But the stylistic analogies suggested for the two
caves are very hard to accept. Nevertheless, despite these very weak analogies, Guy (2017 p. 183) has
even persisted in claiming that ‘‘Si les dessins de Coliboaia ne possèdent ni les effets de modelés ni la
virtuosité de Chauvet, le style général est là’’ (Although the Coliboaia drawings have neither the
modelling effects nor the virtuosity of Chauvet, the general style is there). To sum up, Chauvet is a cave
with magnificent assemblages of paintings, with animals rendered realistically in their entirety, while
the Coliboaia Cave merely has a few sketchily drawn outlines of protomes, in a single gallery.
Just as the Aurignacian is non-existent in the entire region of Chauvet, making it very hard to
understand how such a major Aurignacian sanctuary could exist in this void, and why it does not
contain a single typical Aurignacian artefact (Combier and Jouve, 2012, 2014), the situation is more or
less the same at Coliboaia: not only does it not contain a single artefact, but, as we shall now see, there
is no Aurignacian known in its region, and almost none in Romania as a whole!

8. The Aurignacian in Romania

The Aurignacian in Romania raises many issues regarding its cultural and chronological definition,
as this culture is, in fact, the most poorly represented of the Upper Palaeolithic. Many cultural layers in
some caves, considered to belong to this culture, have been re-evaluated as Gravettian, or it has simply
been found that those layers do not exist (Cârciumaru et al., 2008, 2010a). C-14 dates from layers
attributed to the Aurignacian proved to be extremely late for the normal evolution of the Aurignacian
in Europe (Table 1). It cannot be excluded that the only genuinely Aurignacian settlement in Romania
is that of Mitoc-Malul Galben (Djindjian et al., 1999), as shown by the C-14 dates obtained from wood
charcoal or bone (Otte et al., 2007; Noiret, 2009). With regard to the Oas, -Maramures, settlements
(Bitiri, 1972; Dobrescu, 2008), the classification relies solely on the analysis of lithic materials, without
any absolute dating. The identification of ‘‘Aurignacian’’ traits in lithic materials has often proved
extremely unfortunate, according to the latest research in Romania. It just so happens that, along the
Bistrit, a valley, several sites, previously attributed to the Aurignacian, have been re-evaluated and
proved to belong to Gravettian traditions, and this has also been demonstrated by absolute chronology
(Cârciumaru et al., 2006, 2010b; Steguweit et al., 2009).
As regards the Aurignacian in Banat, Western Romania, often claimed to be Proto-Aurignacian or
early Aurignacian, and represented by three settlements (Tincova, Românes, ti Dumbrăvit, a and
Cos, ava), any attempt to date the deposits and establish a coherent cultural succession is extremely
difficult, given the sites’ location in a geomorphologically unstable area, caused especially by the
oscillating nature – which continues to this day – of the hydrographical network under the permanent
influence of this region’s subsidence processes (Posea, 1997). Naturally, all this abnormal evolution of
the area must have affected the sedimentary deposits which revealed the Palaeolithic Banat vestiges.
The first observation which needs to be made in relation to the three sites is that following all
excavations, of which the earliest involved areas of hundreds of square metres (Mogoşanu, 1978), no
habitation structures, no hearths or traces of combustion, no fragments of charcoal and no traces of
fauna were discovered. Lithic assemblages with typically Aurignacian tools, such as Dufour bladelets,
Font Yves points and carinated pieces, are to be found in all the cultural levels identified at Românes, ti
Dumbrăvit, a and Cos, ava (Mogoşanu, 1978; Sitlivy et al., 2012 fig. 19, 20, 28; 2014a fig. 7; 2014b
tab 9–10) through the entire thickness of the deposit, including at depths of 20–30 cm, sometimes
mixed with materials specific to late Palaeolithic cultures (Epigravettian, Epipalaeolithic) and even
pottery (Mogoşanu, 1978). The complicated geomorphology of the area, which led to the upsetting of
normal sedimentation processes, is also confirmed by the luminescence dating carried out at the
Cos, ava site that provided abnormal ages for Aurignacian levels. Thus, for the most recent Aurignacian
level (III), in which, paradoxically, the most numerous Aurignacian tools are found as compared with
older levels, the age provided by luminescence is 4.49 + 0.52/- 0.47 ka, (Kels et al., 2014). It is therefore
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 33

Table 1
C14 dates for the Aurignacian in Romania.
Dates C14 pour l’Aurignacien de la Roumanie.

Site Type of material Laboratory Age C-14 B.P.

Dealul Cetăt, uia, Cladova village, com. Băit, a, Arad County Wood charcoal GrN 12666 23.950  550
Ripiceni Izvor, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal Bln 809 28.420  400
Bistricioara-Lutărie, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I Wood charcoal GrN 10529 24.100  1300
Bistricioara-Lutărie, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I Non heated bone GrN 11586 24.760  170
Bistricioara-Lutărie, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I Heated bone GX 8845-G 23.560 +1150/-980
Bistricioara-Lutărie, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I Wood charcoal GX 8844 27.350 + 2100/-1150
Ceahlău-Dârt, u, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer II Wood charcoal GrN 16985 21.100 + 490/-460
Ceahlău-Dârt, u, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I Wood charcoal GrN 12673 24.390  180
Ceahlău-Dârt, u, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I Wood charcoal GX 9415 25.450 + 4.450/-2.850
Ceahlău-Dârt, u, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, at the base Wood charcoal ER 9971 30.772  643
of aurignacian layer
Ceahlău-Cetăt, ica I, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer II – GrN 14630 23.890  290
Ceahlău-Cetăt, ica I, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I – GrN 14629 >24.000
Ceahlău-Cetăt, ica II, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer II – GrN 14632 21.050  650
Ceahlău-Cetăt, ica II, Ceahlău village, Neamt, County, layer I – GrN 14633 26.700  1.100
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN-15457 24.400 + 2200/-1700
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrA-1355 25,380  120
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN-15456 25,930  450
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN-15451 26.530  400
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN-14037 26,910  459
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN 14914 27.410  430
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN 15453 27.100  1.500
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrA 27261 27.700  180
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrA 27268 27.750  160
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN 15454 29.410  310
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Spruce charcoal GrN 20443 30.240 + 470/- 440
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Spruce charcoal GrN 20442 30.920  390
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Spruce charcoal GrA 1648 31.000  330
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal OxA 1646 31.100  900
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Spruce charcoal GrN 20.770 31.160 + 570/-530
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Spruce charcoal GrN 20444 31.160 + 550/- 510
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Wood charcoal GrN 12.637 31.850  800
Mitoc-Malul Galben, Mitoc village, Botos, ani County Spruce charcoal GrA 1357 32.730  220
Giurgiu-Malu Ros, u, Giurgiu town, Giurgiu County Wood charcoal GrA 5094 21.140  120
Giurgiu-Malu Ros, u, Giurgiu town, Giurgiu County Wood charcoal GrA 6037 22.790  130

clear that there has been considerable pedogenesis, with reworking and re-depostion of sediments.
Stratigraphic issues have also arisen in connection with the Românes, ti Dumbrăvit, a site (points I and II,
located about 80 m away), a settlement estimated, according to recent research, to occupy an
impressive area, of about 4 hectares (?) (Sitlivy et al., 2012). Old excavations carried out at Românes, ti I
point revealed the existence of 6 levels, located unevenly on the site surface, 4 of which are
Aurignacian (Mogoşanu, 1978). In all of them an insignificant number of Aurignacian tools were
discovered, which are also found in level IV, located close to the soil surface, between 0.30 and 0.20 cm,
in association with backed bladelets, microgravettes and thumbnail endscrapers encountered in much
later cultures (Epigravettian/Epipalaeolithic) (Mogoşanu, 1978; Păunescu, 2001). The dates obtained
at Românes, ti Dumbrăvit, a I, by TLS and OSL on samples from a small section of 5 square metres,
provided an average age of 40.6  1.5 ka for GH 3, drawn from a multitude of dates with different ages
(Table 2). In contrast, five other TLS-dated samples indicated extremely varied ages, considered inaccurate
by the authors: between 53 ka and 116 ka (MAAD protocol) and between 54 ka and 63 ka (SAR protocol)
(Schmidt et al., 2013 p. 3748). Nevertheless, these figures, given the margin of error, are consistent and fall
within the Aurignacian range, thus supporting the attribution of the lithic tools to that period. The detailed
description of samples is provided in Schmidt et al. (2013) and Kels et al. (2014).
The dates obtained for the settlements attributed to the Aurignacian in Banat must be viewed
within the special geomorphological and palaeohydrological evolution of the area. Following this
34 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

Table 2
Absolute dates obtained for the deposits from the Cos, ava (Cos.) and Românes, ti (Rom) settlements, corresponding to the
Aurignacian levels.
Datations absolues obtenues pour les gisements des établissements de Coşava (Cos.) et Româneşti (Rom), correspondant aux niveaux
aurignaciens.

Sample Level Dating type Age ka. Authors

COS1-1 Luminescence 152  15 Kels et al., 2014

209  22
202  21 (residual subtracted)
COS1-2a Luminescence 56  6 Kels et al., 2014
COS1-2b Luminescence 70  7 Kels et al., 2014
67  8
61  7 (residual subtracted
COS1-3 Luminescence 4.49 Kels et al., 2014
+0.52/- 0.47
Rom 17 (type1) GH2 TLS 16.1  1.5 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
15.2  1.3 (SAR)
Average age 15.6  1.4
ROM1-5 GH 2 Luminescence 16.6  1.5 Kels et al., 2014
18.1  3.3 (fad. corr.)
24.1  2.9
19.2  2.3 (residual subtracted)
Rom-86-221-2 GH 2 OSL 26.4  3.0 ka Schmidt et al., 2013
ROM1-4b GH 3 Luminescence 26.7  2.8 Kels et al., 2014
29.7  5.5 (fad. corr.)
40.6  4.5
35.5  3.9 (residual subtracted
Rom116 (type1) GH3 TLS 37.6  3.2 (SAR) Schmidt et al., 2013
37.7  4.0 (SAR 2 mm)
Average age 37.6  3.6
Rom239 (type1) GH3 TLS 39.2  3.2 (SAR) Schmidt et al., 2013
Rom-86-221-2 GH3 OSL 39.3  4.6 ka Schmidt et al., 2013
Rom72 (type1) GH3 TLS 41.7  3.0 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
41.0  3.6 (SAR)
35.8  3.3 (SAR 2 mm)
40.3  3.2 (SARA)
Average age 39.7  3.3
Rom118 (type2, rejected) TLS 40.0  5.8 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
Rom346 (type1) GH3 TLS 53.5  3.7 (age excluded) Schmidt et al., 2013
41.8  3.5 (SAR)
42.7  3.4 (SAR 2 mm)
Average age 42.3  3.5
Rom35 (type1) GH3 TLS 47.7  3.6 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
45.6  1.9 (MAAD)
42.3  3.2 (SAR)
37.9  3.7 (SAR)
36.0  4.5 (SAR 2 mm)
44.3  2.8 (SARA)
49.5  2.4 (SARA)
Average age 44.1  3.3
ROM1-4a GH3 Luminescence 46.6  4.6 Kels et al., 2014
50.2  5.4
45.1  4.9 (residual subtracted)
Rom55a (type2, rejected) GH3 TLS 53.5  9.0 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
Rom140 (type2, rejected) GH3 TLS 59.3  10.5 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
63.3  5.5 (SAR)
47.1  4.2 (SAR 2 mm)
Rom49 (type2, rejected) GH3 TLS 81.6  23.0 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
Rom197 (type2, rejected) GH3 TLS 115.8  7.0 (MAAD) Schmidt et al., 2013
54.2  3.7 (SAR)
Rom-86-221-1 GH4 OSL 54.6  6,4 Schmidt et al., 2013
ROM1-3 GH4? Luminescence > 57.9  5.4 Kels et al., 2014
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 35

general evolution of the region, small flint processing clusters (‘‘workshops’’) were discovered at
Românes, ti II, over an area of half a hectare, which, according to the excavator, belong to different
cultures and ages; thousands of pieces were collected from here (Mogos, anu, 1968 p. 644; 1978). In one
‘‘workshop’’, covering about 4 square metres, of the 136 pieces uncovered, most of them waste and
chips, 25 bladelets stand out, 15 of them Dufour. The pieces were found at depths ranging from 0,45 to
0,30 m and would correspond stratigraphically to layer V at Românes, ti I, going up to the Holocene,
where ceramic fragments actually appear (Mogoşanu, 1968). Even if we put aside the mixture with
Holocene materials, level V of Românes, ti I, corresponding to what has been identified as GH2-1 in the
recent survey (Sitlivy et al., 2012), has two dates, one through TLS, which provided an age of
15.6  1.4 ka BP (Schmidt et al., 2013), and another of 19.2  2.3 determined through luminescence (Kels
et al., 2014), which are, of course, inconsistent with the Aurignacian. If we analysed the lithic materials
strictly typologically – the absence of carinated tools and the presence of Dufour bladelets – we would
believe that the workshop is ‘‘Proto-Aurignacian’’, but the position of items at the limit of the Holocene
and, at times, in the Holocene deposits, implies the existence of great geomorphological issues in the entire
settlement. Therefore, we believe that the Banat settlements require more analyses which should take into
account the position and geomorphological specificity of the region.
It may be that Tincova, which has been most frequently proposed for an attribution to the Proto-
Aurignacian (Teyssandier, 2007, 2008), having a single archaeological level, about 40 cm thick, located
0.80–1.20 m deep (Mogoşanu, 1978), is more reliable, stratigraphically speaking, than the other
settlements. In fact, pollen analysis, interpreted in the absence of any absolute dating, has revealed
that the Aurignacian at Tincova had its beginnings in the glacial phase that preceded the Ohaba
interstage (Arcy-Stillfried B), which certainly means an age of more than 30,000 years, compatible
with the development of the Aurignacian in Romania, as shown by C-14 dates obtained later in a
number of settlements attributed to the Aurignacian (Cârciumaru, 1978). Unfortunately, even after
recent investigations in this area, we have no absolute dates for this settlement.
Any discussion of the Romanian Aurignacian must also mention that the oldest Homo sapiens fossils
discovered in the country come from the cave of ‘‘Cu Oase’’. The radiocarbon dating of the human
mandible from Oase 1 revealed an age of 34.950 BP + 990/ 890 years (GrA-22810) (Trinkaus et al.,
2003), while that of Oase 2 revealed an age of 28 .980 BP +180/ 170 years (GrA-24398) (Trinkaus
et al., 2005). Even though the Oase 1 mandible was considered anatomically typical of modern
humans, it was also stated that it possesses Neanderthal features (Trinkaus et al., 2003). This was
confirmed by its genome, which suggests that 6–9% of its DNA is Neanderthal (Fu et al., 2015). The
human fossils were recovered from among a multitude of bones belonging to Ursus spelaeus and other
cold climate species such as Cervus canadensis, Capra ibex or Canis lupus (Trinkaus et al., 2005, 2013).
Unfortunately, the complete lack of tools, either lithic or non-lithic, makes it impossible to correlate
the fossils with a particular Palaeolithic culture.

9. Conclusions

There are indeed similarities between Chauvet and Coliboaia, but they are not those which have
been proposed hitherto. First, both caves are in regions utterly, or almost completely, bereft of
Aurignacian occupation. This is not in itself a crucial piece of evidence that questions the dating, but is
nevertheless striking. And second, neither cave contains a single diagnostic artefact from that period –
indeed Coliboaia contains nothing whatsoever other than its very crude and sketchy drawings.
There are certainly a few Aurignacian sites in Romania, but considering their scarcity at Banat and
elsewhere, a much more prudent approach is required in the context of the discussions about the
assumption regarding the Aurignacian age of the Coliboaia Cave drawings. We do not think that
accepting the Gravettian age of the Coliboaia Cave drawings would lessen the importance of the finds
here, because it nevertheless remains the oldest decorated cave in this part of Europe. Its role in our
knowledge of the dissemination of parietal art in the Palaeolithic is very great. We must bear in mind
that the only plausible argument for its age remains the above-mentioned C-14 dating, alongside
some stylistic elements, and even some tendency towards stylisation of drawings, which suggest more
recent ages.
36 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

It has been said that the iconocenoses (depicted bestiaries) from the Aurignacian and the
Gravettian cannot be distinguished (Djindjian, 2012), but with the Coliboaia Cave that is not even the
case. The Coliboaia Cave must remain defined by its stylistic and age-specific particularities. Future
research must define the context of this discovery, with a more accurate stylistic study, free from
preconceived approaches. The drawings should be analysed by other experts on Palaeolithic parietal
art as well, because additional assessments are needed. Speleological geomorphological research
should focus on explaining the evolution of the initial configuration of the cave in order to
demonstrate the Palaeolithic people’s access to the current decorated gallery. New dates, carried out in
other laboratories, are also vital. Coliboaia is not Chauvet.

Funding

M.C. and E.-C. N. acknowledge funding received for this project through the UEFISCDI Romania
(Executive Agency for Higher Education, Research, Development and Innovation Funding) (project ID -
PN III-P3-ID-PCE-2016- 0614).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Viorel Lascu for his willingness to provide us with the article by B. Gély
et al., 2018, prior to its publication, and for permission to reproduce the photos of Coliboaia and
Chauvet from Clottes et al., 2012. We would also like to thank João Zilhão for information on Oase.

References

Alcolea González, J.J., de Balbı́n Behrmann, R., 2007. C14 et style. La chronologie de l’art pariétal à l’heure actuelle.
L’Anthropologie 111, 435–466.
Besesek, M., 2008. Povestea noilor explorări. Speomond 13, 20–22.
Besesek, M., Radu, V.A., Brijan, P., Tulucan, T., 2008. Sistemul Pes, tera din Dealul Secăturii-Pes, tera Coliboaia. Speomond 13, 19.
Besesek, M., Radu, V.A., Lascu, V.T., (with the collaboration of B. Gély), 2010. Découverte d’une nouvelle grotte ornée
paléolithique (pestera Coliboaia), Roumanie, département du Bihor. Int. Newsl. Rock Art 57, 8–11.
Bitiri, M., 1972. Paleoliticul ı̂n Ţara Oas, ului. Studiu arheologic. Institutul de arheologie, Biblioteca de arheologie. Seria
complementară 1, Bucharest (196 p., 50 fig.).
Brijan, P., Rus, T., 2012. Coliboaia Cave - Prehistoric Art between Eastern and Western Europe. Euro-Speleo Magazine 1, 69–75.
Bourrillon, R., White, R., 2015. Early Aurignacian graphic arts in the Vézère Valley: in search of an identity? In: White, R.,
Bourrillon, R. (Eds.), Aurignacian Genius: Art, Technology and Society of the First Modern Humans in Europe. Proceedings of
the International Symposium, April 8-10, 2013, New York University, 7, P@lethnology, pp. 118–137.
Cârciumaru, M., 1978. Studiul paleoclimatic şi geocronologic asupra unor staţiuni paleolitice din Banat. In: Mogoşanu, F. (Ed.),
Paleoliticul din Banat. Editura Academiei Române, Bucharest, pp. 83–101.
Cârciumaru, M., 1988. L’art pariétal préhistorique en Roumanie. L’Anthropologie 92 (1), 239–254.
Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Steguweit, L., Nit, ă, L., Fontana, L., Brugere, A., Hambach, U., Mărgărit, M., Dumitras, cu, V., Cosac,
M., Dumitru, F., Cı̂rstina, O., 2006. The Upper Palaeolithic site of Poiana Cires, ului (Piatra Neamt, , north-eastern Romania) –
recent results. Archaeologisches Korrespondenzblatt 32, 319–331.
Cârciumaru, M., Dobrescu, R., 2010. Recherches sur le terrain et sondages archéologiques dans la Vallée du Sighiştel, commune
de Câmpani, département de Bihor. Ann. Univ. Valahia Târgovişte, Sect. Archeol. Hist. XII (1), 185–189.
Cârciumaru, M., Niţu, E.-C., Bordes, J.-G., Cosac, M., Murătoreanu, G., Stefănescu, R., 2008. Le Paléolithique de la grotte Gura
Cheii-Râşnov (étude interdisciplinaire). Valahia University Press, Târgovişte (128 p., 42 fig.).
Cârciumaru, M., Niţu, E.-C., Dobrescu, R., Ştefănescu, R., 2010a. Paleoliticul din judeţul Braşov. Valahia University Press,
Târgovis, te (223 p., 78 fig.).
Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Steguweit, L., Lucas, G., Nit, ă, L., Fontana, L., Brugere, A., Hambach, U., Mărgărit, M., Dumitras, cu,
V., Cosac, M., Dumitru, F., Cı̂rstina, O., 2010b. Recent results from the Upper Palaeolithic site of Poiana Cires, ului-Piatra
Neamt, (north-eastern Romania). In: Neugebauer-Maresch, C., Owen, L. (Eds.), New aspects of the Central and Eastern
European Upper Palaleolithic – methods, technology and subsistence. Vienna. pp. 209–219.
Clottes, J., 1993. Post-stylistic. In: Lorblanchet, M., Bahn, P.G. (Eds.), Rock Art Studies: the post stylistic era or, where do we go
from here? Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 19–25.
Clottes, J., 1995. Les cavernes de Niaux. Éditions du Seuil, Paris (179 p.).
Clottes, J., 1996. How old are these drawings?/The radiocarbon dates of Chauvet cave. In: Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel Deschamps, E.,
Hillaire, C., Cave, C. (Eds.), The Discovery of the World’s Oldest Paintings. Thames & Hudson, London, pp. 118–126.
Clottes, J. (Ed.), 2001. La grotte Chauvet. L’art des origines. Éditions du Seuil, Paris (224 p., 206 fig.).
Clottes, J., Besesek, M., Gély, B., Ghemis, , C., Kenesz, M., Lascu, V.T., Meyssonnier, M., Philippe, M., Plichon, V., Prud’homme, F.,
Radu, V.A., Rus, T., Tociu, R.L., 2012. Découverte d’une nouvelle grotte ornée paléolithique en Roumanie, dans le
département du Bihor. In: Clottes, J. (Ed.), L’art pléistocène dans le monde/Pleistocene art of the world/Arte pleistoceno
en el mundo. Actes du Congrès IFRAO, Tarascon-sur-Ariège, septembre 2010, Symposium « Art pléistocène en Europe ».
 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38 37

No spécial de Préhistoire, Art et Sociétés, Bulletin de la Société Préhistorique Ariège-Pyrénées, LXV-LXVI, 2010-2011, CD. pp.
513–528.
Clottes, J., Besesek, M., Gély, B., Ghemis, , C., Kenesz, M., Lascu, V.T., Meyssonnier, M., Philippe, M., Plichon, V., Prud’homme, F.,
Radu, V.A., Rus, T., Tociu, R.L., 2011a. La grotte ornée Coliboaia, une découverte archéologique majeure par des spéléologues
roumains. Spelunca 124, , 1-6.
Clottes, J., Gély, B., Ghemis, , C., Kaltnecker, E., Lascu, V.T., Moreau, C., Philippe, M., Prud’homme, F., Valladas, H., 2011b. Un art très
ancien en Roumanie. Les dates de Coliboaia. Int. Newsl. Rock Art 61, 1–3.
Clottes, J., Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel Deschamps, E., Hillaire, C., Daugas, J.-P., Arnold, M., Cachier, H., Evin, J., Fortin, P., Oberlin, C.,
Tisnerat, N., Valladas, H., 1995a. Les peintures paléolithiques de la grotte Chauvet. C.R. Acad. Sci. 320 II, 1133–1140.
Clottes, J., Chauvet, J.-M., Brunel Deschamps, E., Hillaire, C., Daugas, J.-P., Arnold, M., Cachier, H., Evin, J., Fortin, P., Oberlin, C.,
Tisnerat, N., Valladas, H., 1995b. Les dates radiocarbone pour la grotte Chauvet-Pont-d’Arc. Int. Newsl. Rock Art 11, 1–2.
Combier, J., 1995–1996. Les grottes de l’Ardèche au centre de nouvelles recherches sur l’art pariétal. Dossiers Archeol. 209, 66–
85.
Combier, J., Jouve, G., 2012. Chauvet cave’s art is not Aurignacian: a new examination of the archaeological evidence and dating
procedures. Quartär 59, 131–152.
Combier, J., Jouve, G., 2014. Nouvelles recherches sur l’identité culturelle et stylistique de la grotte Chauvet et sur sa datation par
la méthode du C14. L’Anthropologie 118 (2), 115–151.
Djindjian, F., 2012. Fonctions, significations et symbolismes des représentations animales paléolithiques. In: Clottes, J. (Ed.),
L’art pléistocène dans le monde/Pleistocene art of the world/Arte pleistoceno en el mundo. Actes du Congrès IFRAO,
Tarascon-sur-Ariège, septembre 2010, Symposium « Signes, symboles, mythes et idéologie. . . ». N̊ spécial de Préhistoire, Art
et Sociétés, Bull. Soc. Préhist. Ariège-Pyrénées, LXV-LXVI, 2010-2011, CD. pp. 1807–1816.
Djindjian, F., Kozlowski, J., Otte, M., 1999. Le Paléolithique supérieur en Europe. Armand Colin, Paris (474 p.).
Dobrescu, R., 2008. Aurignacianul din Transilvania. Asociat, ia Română de arheologie, Studii de preistorie, Suplementum 3.
Editura Renaissance, Bucharest (424 p., 114 fig.).
Fortea Pérez, F.J., 2002. Trente-neuf dates C14-SMA pour l’art pariétal paléolithique des Asturies. Bull. Soc. Préhist. Ariège-
Pyrénées LVII, 7–28.
Fu, Q., Hajdinjak, M., Moldovan, T.O., Constantin, S., Mallick, S., Skoglund, P., Patterson, N., Rohland, N., Lazaridis, I., Nickel, B.,
Viola, B., Prüfer, K., Meyer, M., Kelso, J., Reich, D., Pääbo, S., 2015. An early modern human from Romania with a recent
Neanderthal ancestor. Nature 524, 216–219.
Gaussen, J., 1964. La grotte ornée du Gabillou (près Mussidan, Dordogne). Imprimeries Delmas, Bordeaux (68 p. 69 pl.).
Gély, B., Cailhol, D., Clottes, J., Lascu, V., Le Guillou, Y., Meyssonnier, M., Philippe, M., Plichon, V., Prud’homme, F., Valladas, H.,
2018. Peştera Coliboaia (Campani, Bihor) grotte ornée aurignacienne de Roumanie. État d’avancement des études
pluridisciplinaires (2009-2014). In: Harald Floss, Andreas Pastoors, (Eds.), Palaeolithic rock an cave art in Central Europe,
Session 31 du Congrès IFRAO à Caceres. Marie Leidorf, pp. 118–146.
Ghemis, , C., Clottes, J., Gély, B., Prud’homme, F., 2011a. O descoperire archeologică de except, ie–‘‘Galeria desenelor’’ din pes, tera
Coliboaia, Munt, ii Apuseni (România). Crisia 41, 51–64.
Ghemis, , C., Clottes, J., Gély, B., Prud’homme, F., 2011b. An exceptional archeologic discovery - the ‘‘Art gallery’’ in Coliboaia cave,
Apuseni Mountains, Romania. Acta Archaeologica Carpathica XLVI, 5–18.
González Sainz, C., Ruiz-Redondo, A., Garate-Maidagan, D., Iriarte-Avilés, E., 2013. Not only Chauvet: dating Aurignacian rock art
in Altxerri B Cave (northern Spain). J. Hum. Evol. 65, 457–464.
Guy, E., 2017. Ce que l’Art Préhistorique dit de nos origines. Flammarion, Paris (513 p.).
Jouve, G., 2017. Les Problèmes de datation dans la Grotte Chauvet et quelques grottes du Jura souabe. Books on Demand, Paris
(220 p.).
Kels, H., Protze, J., Sitlivy, V., Hilgers, A., Zander, A., Anghelinu, M., Bertrams, M., Lehmkuhl, F., 2014. Genesis of loess-like
sediments and soils at the foothills of the Banat Mountains, Romania-Examples from the Paleolithic sites Românes, ti and
Cos, ava. Quaternary Int. 351, 213–230.
Kozlowski, J., 1992. L’art de la préhistoire en Europe Orientale. CNRS Editions, Paris (223 p., 162 fig., 89 pl.).
Leroi-Gourhan, A., 1965. Préhistoire de l’art occidental. Éditions d’Art Lucien Mazenod, Paris (621 p.).
Lima P., 2011. L’Europe de la culture est née il y a 36.000 ans ! http://www.universcience.fr/fr/science-actualites/actualite-as/
wl/1248125879489/l-europe-de la-culture-a-36-000-ans/ (accessed date: January 2018).
Lorblanchet, M., Bahn, P. (Eds.), 1993. Rock Art Studies: the post stylistic era or, where do we go from here? Oxbow Books,
Oxford (220 p.).
Mogoşanu, F., 1968. Din nou despre prezent, a lamelelor Dufour ı̂n paleoliticul superior din Banat. Studii s, i cercetări de istorie
veche 19 (4), 643–647.
Mogoşanu, F., 1978. Paleoliticul din Banat. Editura Academiei Române, Bucharest (156 p.).
Noiret, P., 2009. Le Paléolithique supérieur de Moldavie. ERAUL 121, Liège (605 p.).
Otte, M., Chirica, V., Haesaerts, P. (Eds.), 2007. L’Aurignacien et le Gravettien de Mitoc-Malu Galben, 72. ERAUL, Liège (233 p.).
Păunescu, A., 2001. Paleoliticul s, i epipaleoliticul din spat, iul transilvan. Editura Agir, Bucharest (572 p.).
Pettitt, P., Bahn, P.G., 2003. Current problems in dating Palaeolithic cave art: Candamo and Chauvet. Antiquity 77, 134–141.
Pettitt, P., Bahn, P., 2014. Against Chauvet-nism. A critique of recent attempts to validate an early chronology for the art of
Chauvet Cave. L’Anthropologie 118 (2), 163–182.
Pettitt, P., Bahn, P., 2015. An alternative chronology for the art of Chauvet cave. Antiquity 89, 542–553.
Pettitt, P., Bahn, P., Züchner, C., 2009. The Chauvet conundrum: are claims for the ‘‘birthplace of art’’ premature? In: Bahn, P.G.
(Ed.), An Enquiring Mind. Studies in Honor of Alexander Marshack. American School of Prehistoric Research Monograph
series. Oxbow Books, Oxford, pp. 239–262.
Posea, G., 1997. Câmpia de Vest a României (Câmpia Banato-Cris, ană). Editura Fundat, iei ‘‘România de Mâine’’, Bucharest (430 p.).
Quiles, A., Valladas, H., Bocherens, H., Delqué-Količ, E., Kaltnecker, E., Van der Plicht, J., Delannoy, J.-J., Feruglio, V., Fritz, C.,
Monney, J., Philippe, M., Tosello, G., Clottes, J., Geneste, J.-M., 2016. A high-precision chronological model for the decorated
Upper Paleolithic cave of Chauvet-Pont d’Arc, Ardèche. France. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. 113 (17), 4670–4675.
38 M. Cârciumaru et al. / L’anthropologie 123 (2019) 19–38

Sauvet, G., Rivero Vilá, O., 2016. D’un support à l’autre : l’art pariétal à la lumière de l’art mobilier. In: Cleyet-Merle, J.-J., Geneste,
J.-M., Man-Estier, E. (Eds.), L’art au quotidien–Objets ornés du Paléolithique supérieur. Actes du Colloque International Les
Eyzies-de-Tayac, 16-20 juin 2014, PALEO, Numéro spécial. pp. 133–147.
Schmidt, C., Sitlivy, V., Anghelinu, M., Chabai, V., Kels, H., Uthmeier, T., Hauck, T., Băltean, I., Hilgers, A., Richter, J., Radtke, U.,
2013. First chronometric dates (TL and OSL) for the Aurignacian open-air site of Româneşti-Dumbrăviţa I, Romania. J. Arch.
Science 40 (10), 3740–3753.
Schwab, C., Man-Estier, E. (Eds.), 2016. L’Ours dans l’art préhistorique. Editions de la Réunion des Musées Nationaux - Grand
Palais, Paris (83 p.).
Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Hilgers, A., Schmidt, C., Niţă, L., Băltean, I., Vesselsky, A., Hauck, T.,
2012. The earliest Aurignacian in Romania: new investigations at the open air site of Romaneşti-Dumbrăviţa I (Banat).
Quartär 59, 85–130.
Sitlivy, V., Anghelinu, M., Chabai, V., Niţă, L., Uthmeier, T., Hauck, T., Băltean, I., Hilgers, A., Schmidt, C., 2014a. Placing the
Aurignacian from Banat (southwestern Romania) into the European Early Upper Paleolithic context. In: Otte, M., Le Brun-
Ricalens, F. (Eds.), Modes de contacts et de deplacements au Paléolithique Eurasiatique, 140, ERAUL, Liège, pp. 243–277.
Sitlivy, V., Chabai, V., Anghelinu, M., Uthmeier, T., Kels, H., Niţă, L., Băltean, I., Vesselsky, A., Ţuţu, C., 2014b. Preliminary
reassessment of the Aurignacian in Banat (Southwestern Romania). Quaternary Int. 351, 193–212.
Steguweit, L., Cârciumaru, M., Anghelinu, M., Niţă, L., 2009. Reframing the Upper Palaeolithic in the Bistriţa Valley (northeastern
Romania). Quartär 56, 139–157.
Teyssandier, N., 2007. L’émergence du Paléolithique supérieur en Europe : mutations culturelles et rythmes d’évolution. Paléo
19, 367–390.
Teyssandier, N., 2008. Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the Upper Paleolithic in Europe. World Archaeol. 40 (4), 493–
519.
Trinkaus, E., Constantin, S., Zilhão, J. (Eds.), 2013. Life and Death at the Pes, tera cu Oase: a Setting for Modern Human Emergence
in Europe. Oxford University Press, Oxford (452 p.).
Trinkaus, E., Băltean, C.I., Constantin, S., Gherase, M., Horoi, V., Milota, S., Moldovan, O., Petrea, C., Quiles, J., Rodrigo, R., Rougier,
H., Sarcina, L., Soficaru, A., Zilhão, J., 2005. Asupra oamenilor moderni timpurii din Banat: Pes, tera cu Oase. Banatica 17, 9–28.
Trinkaus, E., Moldovan, O., Milota, S., Bı̂lgăr, A., Sarcina, L., Athreya, S., Bailey, E.S., Rodrigo, R., Mircea, G., Higham, T., Ramsey,
B.C., Van der Plicht, J., 2003. An early modern human from the Pes, tera cu Oase. Romania. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sc. 100 (20),
11231–11236.
Vialou, D., 1986. L’art des grottes en Ariège magdalénienne. XXIIe Supplément à ‘‘Gallia Préhistoire’’ Éditions du CNRS, Paris
(425 p., 245 fig.).
Züchner, C., 1995–1996. Grotte Chauvet (Ardèche, Frankreich)–oder–Muss die Kunstgeschichte wirklich neu geschrieben
werden? Quartär 45/46, 221–226.
Züchner, C., 1996. La Grotte Chauvet : radiocarbone contre archéologie–The Chauvet cave: radiocarbon versus archaeology.
INORA 13, 25–27.
Züchner, C., 2007. La grotte Chauvet, Un sanctuaire aurignacien ? Les conséquences pour l’art paléolithique. In: Floss, H.,
Rouquerol, N. (Eds.), Les chemins de l’art Aurignacien en Europe. Colloque international Aurignac 2005, Éditions Musée-
forum Aurignac, Cahier 4. pp. 409–420.