UDK 902.65(57i-i/-5)"63i/634" Documenta PraehistoricaXXXIV (2007) The Mesolithic at the Danube's Iron Gates: new radiocarbon dates and old stratigraphies Alexandru Dinu1, Andrei Soficaru2, Doru Miritoiu3 1 University of Wisconsin, Madison, USA, adinu@facstaff.wisc.edu 2 The Center for Anthropological Research 'Francisc I. Rainer', Bucharest, Romania, asoficaru@yahoo.com 3 The Center for Anthropological Research 'Francisc I. Rainer', Bucharest, Romania ABSTRACT - In this paper we present 31 new AMS radiocarbon dates from the Mesolithic Iron Gates sites. The new dates allowed for a total reconsideration of the chronological sequences, and offer new insights for a reinterpretation of both Upper Paleolithic-Mesolithic and Mesolithic-Neolithic develop- ments in the region. IZVLEČEK - V tem članku predstavljamo 31 novih AMS radiokarbonskih datumov iz mezolitskih naj- dišč na območju Železnih vrat na romunski obali Donave. Novi datumi so omogočili v celoti ponov- no pretehtati kronološke sekvence in ponujajo nove vpoglede za ponovno interpretacijo tako mlajše- paleolitsko-mezolitskega kot mezolitsko-neolitskega razvoja v regiji. KEY WORDS - Tardigravettian; Mesolithic; Neolithic; site stratigraphy Introduction* The construction during the 1960's of the Iron Gates dam across the Danube triggered an intense archaeo- logical survey of the region, which resulted in the di- scovery of a number of archaeological sites on both sides of the river. The remains uncovered at some of these sites were later associated with a Mesolithic culture called Lepenski Vir in Serbia, and Schela Cla- dovei in Romania (Fig. 1). Presently all the sites are under water or destroyed by subsequent construc- tion projects, except for the eponymous site of Sche- la Cladovei. Although numerous radiocarbon dates are available for the sites on the southern shore of the Danube (Bonsall 1997; Bonsall, Boroneant and Srejović 1996; Bonsall et al. 2000; Bonsall et al. 2004; Bon- sall et al. 2002/3; Borić 2001; 2002; 2005; Borić and Miracle 2004; Cook et al. 2002; Radovanović 1996a; Srejović 1965; 1990) the understanding of the evolutionary trajectory of Lepenski Vir-Schela Cladovei culture has been much restricted by an acute absence of dates from the sites uncovered on the northern shore, for which before 1990 only some 18 dates were available (Paunescu 2000; Radova- nović 1996a; 1996b). After 1990, archaeological excavation restarted at Schela Cladovei, and more dates were published for this site (Bonsall 1997; Bonsall, Boroneant and Srejović 1996; Bonsall et al. 2004; Bonsall et al. 2002/3; Cook et al. 2002). In this paper we present 31 new AMS radiocarbon dates from the Schela Cladovei culture sites of Raz- vrata, Icoana, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Mare, and Schela Cladovei (Tab. 1). The implication of these new dates will be discussed in reference to the pub- lished stratigraphic information, older dates availa- * It has been acknowledged to us (A. Boroneant, pers. comm.) that additional stratigraphic profiles and a great volume of informa- tion about excavations at the sites presented here exist in an unpublished format. This work considers only the published mate- rial, and we only hope that in the near future the additional material will be made available in printed form. Copyright by Department of Archaeology, Faculty of arts, University of Ljubljana. 31 ble for the Romanian sites (Tab. 2), and some of the radiocarbon dates from the Serbian sites. Although some authors (Boroneant 1973a; 1973c; 1980; 1990a; 1990b; 2000b; Boroneant et al. 1995; Boroneant and Boroneat 1983; Boroneant, Craciu- nescu, and Stinga 1979; Boroneant and Nicolaes- cu-Plopsor 1990; Voytek and Tringham 1990) have emphasized similarities among the Serbian and Ro- manian sites, others (Borić 2001; Paunescu 2000; Radovanović 1996a; 1996b; 1999) have made evi- dent a number of differences. It is generally agreed, however, that all Iron Gates Mesolithic sites repre- sent one culture. It must be underlined that in most previously pub- lished maps of the Iron Gates sites, the geographical location of sites at Razvrata and Icoana have been reversed (Bonsall 1997; Bonsall, Boroneant and Srejović 1996; Bonsall et al. 2002/3; Borić 1999; 2001; 2002; 2004; Boroneant 1970; 1990b; Prinz 1987; Radovanović 1996a; 1999; Radovanović and Voytek 1997; Tringham 2000; Voytek and Tringham 1990). Razvrata was located on a small alluvial fan at the left of Mraconia River mouth, right across the site of Hajdučka Vodenica. Icoana was located about 700-800 m downstream (Boroneant 1973c; Paune- scu 2000). The exact location of these sites is pre- sented in Figure 2. Site New Dates Depth (-) m AA # MC Age BP Cal. BC range (10) Sample Icoana M AA65564 9403±93 8820-8540 (67.2%) Sus scrofa Icoana 0.6 AA67748 9247±89 8570-8330 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Icoana °.9 AA65558 9196+89 8490-8300 (61.3%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.55 AA66586 9ioi±87 8450-8240 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.3 AA67750 9044+88 8350-8180 (53.9%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.6 AA65565 8989+88 8290-8160 (38.1%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.9 AA65556 8966+87 8120-7970 (35.4%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.1 AA65560 8955±73 8120-7980 (36.2%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.65 AA65566 8952+88 8130-7970 (39.0%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.7 AA65554 8913±87 8240-7960 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.2 AA65562 8907±98 8250-7940 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Icoana 2.1 AA66377 8855+93 8210-8030 (35.3%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1 AA65559 8840+86 8010-7810 (38.5%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.15 AA65561 8729±79 7840-7600 (61.7%) Sus scrofa Icoana °4 AA66369 8702+86 7830-7590 (65.6%) Sus scrofa Icoana 0.5 AA65547 8648+83 7760-7580 (67.5%) Sus scrofa Icoana 1.95 AA65551 8575+83 7680-7530 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Icoana 0.3 AA66368 7604+76 6530-6390 (63.5%) human Icoana 1.25 AA65563 7245±62 6210-6130 (35.8%) Sus scrofa Ostrovul Banului 0.4 AA66370 8219+87 7350-7080 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Ostrovul Mare 1.7 AA66379 7890+78 6830-6640 (52.7%) Sus scrofa Razvrata 2.1 AA66378 8971+86 8280-8160 (34.3%) Sus scrofa Razvrata 1.8 AA65555 8891+87 8240-7930 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 1.67 AA66376 8192+79 7310-7070 (62.2%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 1.42 AA66374 8128+90 7310-7030 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 0.82-0.87 AA67749 8065+79 7150-6900 (54.7%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 1.17 AA66372 8056+80 7090-6820 (61.8%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 0.77 AA66371 7975±80 7050-6770 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 1.37 AA66373 7956±78 7030-6750 (68.2%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 1.62 AA66375 7921±78 6840-6680 (42.4%) Sus scrofa Schela Cladovei 0.45-0.53 AA67751 6773±7° 5725-5625 (65.2%) Sus scrofa Tab. 1. New AMS radiocarbon dates for Iron Gates Mesolithic, Schela Cladovei culture. All samples ran by the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson. BC calibration using OxCal. The status of S. scrofa was established in conformity with the DNA analysis results fDinu 2006; Larson et al. 2007^ and compared metrics and morphology fDinu 2006; Dinu et al. 2006/ General site characteristics Except for Ostrovul Corbului and Schela Cladovei, all Mesolithic sites on the Romanian shore of the Da- nube were discovered and excavated by Boroneant (Boroneant 1970; 1973a; 1973b; 1973c; 1980; 1990a; 1990b; 2000a; 2000b; Boroneant and Nico- laescu-Plopsor 1990). The Schela Cladovei site was excavated also by British archaeologists between 1990-1994 (Bartosiewicz et al. 1995; Bartosiewicz et al. 2001; Bonsall 1997; Bonsall, Boroneant and Srejović 1996; Bonsall et al. 2000; Bonsall et al. 2004; Bonsall et al. 2002/3; Cook et al. 2002). Ostrovul Corbului at Botul Cliuciului was surveyed in 1933 by a team led by Dumitru Berciu; the actual site was discovered by Marin Nica in 1970, and ex- cavated between 1970-1984 by Petre Roman, Ale- xandru Paunescu and Florea Mogoseanu (Mogosea- Site Old Dates Depth AA# 14C Age BP Cal. BC range (1c) Sample Alibeg NA NA NA 8410±100 BC Alibeg NA Bln-1193 7195±100 6120-5980 (46.7%) charcoal Icoana 0.5 Bln-1078 8605±250 8200-7350 (68.2%) charcoal Icoana 2.1 Bln-1077 8265±100 7460-7170 (68.2%) charcoal Icoana NA Bonn 2 8070±130 7190-6770 (66.7%) charcoal Icoana NA Bonn 3 8010±120 7070-6740 (64.4%) charcoal Icoana NA Bonn 4 7660±110 6610-6420 (65.9%) charcoal Icoana NA Bln-1056 7445±80 6400-6230 (68.2%) charcoal Icoana NA Bonn 1 5830±120 4840-4540 (68.2%) charcoal Ostrovul Banului NA Bln-1080 8040±160 7180-6690 (68.2%) charcoal Ostrovul Banului NA Bln-1079 7565±100 6510-6340 (56.2%) charcoal Ostrovul Corbului 4.50-4.53 SMU-587 8093±237 7350-6650 (68.2%) charcoal Ostrovul Corbului 4.02-412 SMU-588 7827±237 7050-6450 (68.2%) charcoal Ostrovul Corbului 4.20-4.38 Bln-2135 7710±80 6610-6460 (68.2%) charcoal Ostrovul Corbului 4.20-4.39 Bln-2135A 7695±80 6600-6460 (68.2%) charcoal Ostrovul Corbului 4.23 GrN-12675 7640±80 6570-6430 (65.5%) charcoal Razvrata NA Bln-1057 7690±70 6590-6460 (68.2%) charcoal Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4384 8570±105 7691-7496 NA Human Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4379 8550±105 7588-7490 NA Human Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4385 8510±105 7577-7443 NA Human Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4382 8490±110 7573-7434 NA Human Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4380 8460±110 7547-7425 NA Human Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4378 8415±100 7535-7319 na Human Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4381 8400±115 7535-7303 NA Human Schela Cladovei NA Poz-5206 8300±50 7480-7300 (68.2%) Human Schela Cladovei NA OxA-4383 8290±105 7479-7093 NA Human Cuina Turcului NA Bln-802 8175±200 BC charcoal Cuina Turcului NA Bln-803 10650±120 BC charcoal Cuina Turcului NA Bln-804 10100±120 BC charcoal Tab. 2. Old radiocarbon dates for Iron Gates Mesolithic, Schela Cladovei culture. BC calibration using OxCal (The date was offered in this form by V. Boroneant (Boroneant 2000b.86j. Fig. 1. Iron Gates sites associated with Mesolithic remains. Red: Schela Cladovei culture. Yellow: Le- penski Vir culture. Blue: other sites on the Roma- nian shore not associated with the Mesolithic Iron Gates, but mentioned in this paper. r ■ f r ■ ■■ » A _ A Ei - ' /' \ / ' ' ' H'SŠf yTHajdückar 4 «F ^ Vode s Z i.i—'t.— . J • • / / >j i Fig. 2. Exact location of Icoana and Razvrata sites. nu 1978; Necrasov and Botezatu 1981; Paunescu 1990; 2000; Roman 1987). Schela Cladovei was discovered by Misu Davidescu, who excavated a portion of the Neolithic Starčevo area of the site (Davidescu 1965). There are a number of characteristics common to all Mesolithic Schela Cladovei sites. As a general pat- tern, Schela Cladovei sites can be divided into two categories: those located within the Gorge: Alibeg- Pescari, Veterani Terasa, Razvrata, and Icoana; and a second group located downstream from the Gor- ges: Ostrovul Banului-Gura Vaii, Schela Cladovei, Os- trovul Corbului, and Ostrovul Mare. All of the excavated Schela Cladovei culture sites lo- cated in the canyon were found in places where the limestone mountain wall sandwiches through basalt directly into the Danube's waters, forming extensive karstic phenomena. There are a good number of grottos and cave formations right on the Danube shore or no farther than 10-60 m from the water: Gaura Livaditei, Pazariste, Liubcova, Gaura Chindiei I, Gaura Chindiei II, Proluca lui Climente, Gaura cu Musca, Ponicova, Cuina Turcului, Pestera Fluturilor, Pestera lui Caramfil, and Pestera Veterani. None of the Mesolithic sites, however, were located in caves (Boroneant 2000a). Without exception, the sites were found only in the open air, on the Danube shore, next to the water, in most cases below the modern flood level on very low land, sandy and hu- mid, even swampy. According to geological and hy- drological studies of the region, it appears that flo- oding of the Danube shore was equally frequent by the time of the Mesolithic occupation (C.S.A. 1967; Grupulde Cercetari Complexe 1976; I.G.G.A.R.S.R. 1969). The sites belonging to the second group outside the Gorge are located on islands, with the exception of Schela Cladovei itself. Before the formation of the lake, however, these islands had always been divi- ded by the Danube's northern shore by a very nar- row secondary river branch. These branches were rather easy to cross, and the fishing was exceptio- nally good. Generally, the channels were not very deep, the water flowed slowly, and during some less rainy years the water drained off almost entirely. One other characteristic of all the sites is that their location was such as to permit easy access to the nearest best fishing and hunting sites regardless the nature of the terrain surrounding the site within a radius of a 30-190 minute walk. This would allow the inhabitants immediate and easy access to terres- trial resources, raw material and, in all cases, better defence. Sites, stratigraphies, and problems Regrettably, Boroneant did not publish excavation maps for any of the sites except Schela Cladovei (Boroneant 2000b.277). As a consequence, at pre- sent it is impossible to determine the relationship between artefacts uncovered in different excavation sections, other than considering the depth inscribed on them. Because the stratigraphic information is also scant and a datum was never used except at Os- trovul Corbului (Paunescu 1990), presently, compa- ring artefacts from the same site and excavation depth, but different excavation sections becomes nonsense, a problem signalled also by others (Pau- nescu 2000). The new radiocarbon dates presented here were selected and therefore considered only according to the depth inscribed on them. Due to the inconsistent terminology used for strati- graphic description and analysis, the overall picture of cultural sequences at all sites is confusing. Some authors (Prinz 1987; Radovanović 1996a; Trin- gham 2000) advanced periodization models of the northern Danube shore sites relying mostly on infor- mation offered by Boroneant, who appears to have been strongly influenced by the periodization of the site at Lepenski Vir, and attempted to apply it indis- criminately to the Romanian sites (Boroneant 1973c; 1990b). Others (Tringham 2000), including some Romanian authors (Lazarovici 1979), mainly specia- lized in the Neolithic period. Some (Paunescu 2000) based their hypothesis on their own lithic analysis, almost excluding any other available material. Finally, some archaeologists pre- sented models based on their own excavations and a synthesis of the previously published material (La- zarovici 1979; Mogoseanu 1978). The inconsistency in using the same archaeological terms by all the Romanian authors is extremely con- fusing and it has deep theoretical roots (Boroneant and Dinu 2007), but it was accentuated by a paper published in the mid 1960's by the one of the most influential Romanian archaeologists (Nicolaescu- Plopsor 1965). Following the opinions expressed in this publication, Boroneant uses indiscriminately the term 'Epipaleolithic' in reference to both the actual Epipalaeolithic and the Mesolithic periods at Iron Gates. Fortunately, some authors attempted to rec- tify this problem (Mogoseanu 1978; Paunescu 1990; 2000). The most notable attempt in this direction comes from Paunescu: "Faza evoluata a culturii gravetiene apartinind epiapaleoliticului, cunoscuta sub denumirea de tardigravetian de tip mediteranean, este represen- tata prin cele 9 puncte descoperite numai in zona Portilor de Fier. Mezoliticul din teritoriul cuprins intre Carpati si Dunare este cunoscutprin cele doua culturi care au evoluat parallel sau partial parallel, in doua zone diferite. Prima - cea tardenoasiana - este atestata in nord-estul si nordul Munteniei ... Cea de-a doua cultura mezolitica - cultura Schela Cla- dovei - este representata de cele 8 puncte desco- perite prin sapaturi sistematice in zona Portilor de Fier ..." (Paunescu 2000.40) (The evolved phase of the Gravettian culture belon- ging to the Epipaleolithic, and known as Tardigra- vettian of Mediterranean type is represented by the 9 sites discovered only in the Iron Gates area. The Mesolithic of the territory enclosed by the Car- pathian Mountains and the Danube River is known by the cultures that evolved in parallel or partly in parallel, in two different areas. The first - the Tar- denoisian - is attested in the northern and north- eastern Muntenia ... The second Mesolithic culture - Schela Cladovei culture - is represented by the 8 sites uncovered by systematic excavations in the Iron Gates region.) (Our translation) Therefore, Paunescu makes a clear distinction be- tween the Epipalaeolithic as the final stage of the Upper Palaeolithic, and the Mesolithic period at Iron Gates, but mostly as terminology, and less as a con- cept (Boroneant and Dinu 2007). The general image is further complicated by the use of alterna- tive names for the cultural sequences at Iron Gates (Boroneant 1999): O Final Epi-Gravettian - or Proto-Clisurean, or Proto- Romanellian at site Climente I Cave. © Late Epi-Gravettian - Clisurean or Romanellian, or Tardigravettian (Paunescu 1970; Paunescu 1987) Romanello- Azilian at Climente II, Cuina Turcului I and II, Ostrovul Banului I-IIIa, compri- sing four stages of development. © Mesolithic Schela Cladovei, comprising four sta- ges of development (Boroneant 1973c). In relation to the above classification, it is interes- ting to notice that logically, the late phase of Epi-Gra- vettian would sequentially occur before, not after the final phase of the same period, as the Proto-Cli- surean occurs before the Clisurean. No further de- tails were published by Boroneant, so it is not pos- sible to know if the stratigraphies published by him follow the same rational. For instance, the first phase of his periodization of Schela Cladovei culture is cha- racterize as the oldest phase at both Veterani Terrace and Veterani Cave, and associated with "la phase finale du romanellien" (Boroneant 1973c.15). On the other hand, no remains associated with Schela Cladovei culture were uncovered at Cave Veterani (Boroneant 2000a; 2000b; Paunescu 2000), al- though Boroneant lists the stratigraphic sequence of the cave as Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic (Clisurean), Mesolithic, Neolithic (Boroneant 2000a.90) with no further explanations. For a better understanding of the problems related to site stratigraphy, terminology, as well as to the implications of the new radiocarbon dates presented in this paper it is therefore necessary to offer a brief presentation of the sites and their stratigraphies. Pescari-Alibeg This is the most western Schela Cladovei culture site on the northern shore of the Danube. According to Paunescu (Boroneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2001) the site was located on the south-eastern end of the village of Pescari (Coronini), at the base of Re- dut Hill, on Alibeg Creek. Paunescu also states that it was located on a portion subject to Danube floo- ding, and that a good part of the site was destroyed by the river prior to and during excavations. There was a small alluvial peninsula at the mouth of Ali- beg Creek, where this site was located (Boroneant 2000b). Boroneant discovered the site in 1968, but excava- tions did not started until 1971 when the water le- vel was already covering part of it. There are no published general maps of the area or site distribu- tion maps. Excavation information is scant, and very little material was recovered. Excavations comprised eight sections of an unspecified area. The results of Fig. 3. Old photo of the Danube at the entrance to Pescari-Alibeg Canyon, seen from the Romanian shore. The river flows right to left. Photo courtesy of the Institute of Geography, Bucharest. excavation were briefly mentioned over the years by Boroneant (Boroneant 1973a; 1973c; 1980), and to a larger degree at a more recent date (Boroneant 2000b; Paunescu 2000). Boroneant suggests that there was one level of ha- bitation, belonging to a late phase of Schela Clado- vei culture varying between 0.60 m to 1.00 m in thickness (Boroneant 2000b; Paunescu 2001). He associa- tes the Mesolithic at Alibeg with: "... une phase finale d'Icoana, hori- zon I, qui poursuit son evolution jusqu'au commencement de l'ha- bitat d'Alibeg." (Boroneant 1973a. 22) Paunescu was, however, very cautious in advancing this hypothesis, due to the fact that Boroneant did not separate the findings for each cultural layer. Veterani Terasa The problems posed by this site are presently extre- mely difficult to address. It was located precisely in front of Veterani Cave, at the base of Ciucarul Mare Mountain. There was a small alluvial deposit, sug- gesting that at one time a small stream probably flo- wed from the cave (Paunescu 2000). Boroneant dis- covered the site in 1968, but excavations started only in 1969. Although earlier and later cultural la- yers were uncovered in the cave, Mesolithic material was not found; moreover, all the cultural strata were extremely disturbed and mixed up. According to some accounts (Paunescu 2000.376) excavations of the Veterani Cave yielded remains as- sociated with the Medieval period, the Roman period, Neolithic Cotofeni and Starcevo-Cri§, and Tardigra- vettian (Boroneant 2000a; Paunescu 2000); no Me- solithic remains were found, and the stratigraphy appears to have been extremely disturbed. A contrasting image is offered elsewhere; the cul- tural sequences identified in the cave are listed as Palaeolithic, Epipalaeolithic (Clisurean), Mesolithic, Neolithic Starcevo-Cri§, Neolithic Cotofeni, Hallstatt (Basarabi), Dacian, Daco-Roman, Byzantine and Me- dieval, modern (Boroneat 2000a.90). The stratigra- phy is also presented as extremely disturbed. Logically it is impossible to understand why a group of people would chose to face meteorological discom- Paunescu (Paunescu 2001) advan- ced the hypothesis that this level had to be associated with two cultural la- yers: one belonging to late Mesolithic Schela Cladovei, and an Early Neoli- thic Starcevo-Cri§ just above it, with no archaeological sterile in between. Fig. 4. Profile of Section II -NW at Alibeg (Boroneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2001): 1. recent humus of about 0.40m; 2. sandy yellowish soil, sterile archaeological of about 0.40-1.65m; 3. black- brown soil, Mesolithic occupation of about 0.60-1.00m; 4. yellow soil with lime stone penetration 0.60-0.90m; Boroneant (1973c.7) uses neither Epipalaeolithic or Mesolithic in defining level 3. Instead, he simply named it 'couche culturelle'. A scale was not originally published by (Boroneant 1973c), but added by Paunescu (Paunescu 2001). Fig. 5. North profile, Section IV, Veterani Terasa (Boroneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2000). Paune- scu (2000.376-377) identifies the following strata: 1. debris of about 0.05-0.40m; 2. ashes of about 0.05-0.12m; 3. sandy yellow soil of about 0.03- 0.05m; 4. ashy yellow soil of about 0.20-0.30m; 5. black soil of about 0.05-1.00m; 6. yellow-grey soil of about 0.05-0.90m; 7. yellow soil of about 0.45-0.65m; 8. yellow soil, Salcuta culture of about 0.25-0.35m; 9. dark brown soil of about 0.30- 0.65m - archaeologically sterile; 10. light brown soil of about 0.40-0.65m - Mesolithic Schela Cla- dovei culture; 11. gravel and sand of about 0.15- 0.60m - Level II of Tardigravettian of Mediterra- nean type; 12. sand lens of about 0.03-0.05m - Le- vel I Tardigravettian of Mediterranean type; 13. limestone bed. Paunescu offers no information for layers 14 and 15; however, level 15 is defined as bedrock, levels 13 and 14 as archaeologically ste- rile, and levels 1-8 as post - Paleolithic deposition (Paunescu 2000.377). Scale was offered by V. Bo- roneant (1973c). fort living in the open, in front of the cave, if a natu- ral shelter was available only a few steps away. On the other hand, it is more likely that earlier and later inhabitants of the cave did throw a great quantity of refuse at and below the entrance. A great part of this refuse washed away by rain, as well as other refuse from inside the cave carried by the ancient stream, would have naturally ended on the terrace. It ap- pears that the excavator may have not been aware of this problem. Moreover, the stratigraphic sequence of the terrace (Boroneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2000) is unclear. No perforated antler tools characteristic of Mesoli- thic Schela Cladovei culture were found at this site. In Paunescu's interpretation (2000.377), there ap- pears to be two Epipalaeolithic- Tardigravettian ex- cavation levels 11 and 12, and a Mesolithic Schela Cladovei excavation level 10. He mentions the re- mains of a hearth, which is associated with the Tar- digravettian period, excavation level 12. Boroneant describes excavation level 10 at Veterani Terasa as "terre jaune comportant des rares traces epipaleolithiques" and does not mention any cultu- ral remains for excavation levels 11 and 12 (Boro- neant 2000b.271). There are no radiocarbon dates from this site. Razvrata Before it flows into the Danube, the Mraconia River forms a bassinet (a small semi-enclosure) named Mraconia Depression, of about 1.5 km long and 400 m wide behind Ciucarul Mic Mountain. It then bores through the mountain through a short defile of about 500 m long and, before the formation of the lake of the hydroelectric plant, diverted into the Danube, bringing a great amount of alluvium with it. This alluvium built up two fenny peninsulas at each side of the river mouth. It was on the smaller pen- insula that the site of Razvrata was located. The site was already in great part destroyed by the Danube by the time Boroneant (1973a) located it 1967. Excavations took place in 1967 and 1968. Five trenches were dug. There are no details of the area excavated, no excavation plans, or site distribution maps. Two layers of Schela Cladovei culture were re- Fig. 6. Photo of Mraconia River alluvial deposits in the Danube, before the building of the dam. The Razvrata site was located on the left (of the photo) alluvial section. Hajdučka Vodenica was located just opposite the Mraconia River mouth. The Danu- be flows left to right. Upper right: Mraconia Depres- sion, a possible location of a base-site for Icoana- Razvrata outpost sites. (Courtesy of Ivana Radova- nović) vealed. There is one published stratigraphy of the SE wall of section S I. At Razvrata it is not clear if the explanation offered by the published stratigraphy refers to the second phase of Schela Cladovei culture, or generally to the second cultural level of the site. Boroneant (1973c. 9) simply refers to the two cultural levels as 'Epipa- leolithic I and II'. Paunescu (2000.393) defines the lower cultural level as 'Level I Epipaleolithic Tardi- gravettian', and the upper cultural level as 'Level II Mesolithic'. Icoana The site was located on a narrow strip of the Danube bank at the foot of Ciucarul Mic. It appears that the width of this strip was only of about 6 m (V. Boro- neant, personal communication). Information about the exact location of the site varies. Paunescu (2000. 394) gives a distance of 600 m east of Razvrata; Ra- dovanović (1996a.324) thinks that this distance is about 200 m; Boroneant (1973c.8) refers to "quel- ques centaines de metres''. In any case, the exact lo- cation of the site is known due to a landmark: an icon mounted in the wall of the mountain after the formation of the artificial lake. According to Boroneant (personal communication), there was a feeble stream of water springing from the mountain wall. The site produced a large amount of archaeological material, especially faunal remains (Bolomey 1973). According to the published stratigraphy of Section II (Boroneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2000), there are two Mesolithic Schela Cladovei cultural levels. Archaeologically, from upper to lower it was possible to distinguish the following levels of site occupation: Very little can be said about the cultural evolution of the site. As seen in Table 1, there is a sharp discre- pancy between the depth inscribed on the samples and the results obtained by the dating of the sam- ples. The situation is not new: the only old dates for which depths were mentioned showed an age of 7460-7170 BC for a depth of 2.1 m, and 8200-7350 BC for a depth of 0.5 m (Paunescu 2000.407). It may be that at the time, Boroneant may have not noticed the difference, and therefore did not offer any details about the samples' cultural levels of pro- venance. Also, according to Boroneant's published stratigraphy, at a depth of -0.30 m there should Fig. 7. Southeast profile of Section I, Razvrata ^Bo- roneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2000): 1. alluvial sand of about 0.05-0.30m; 2. brown-black humus of about 0.35-0.40m; 3. soil light yellow of about 0.20-0.30m; 4. black soil of about 0.17-0.35; 5. light-grey soil, Level II Mesolithic Schela Cladovei Culture of about 0.14-0.34m; 6. yellow sandy soil - Level I Tardigravettian of Mediterranean type of about 0.35m; 7. brown-yellow soil. Levels 1-4 are listed as archaeologically sterile. V. Boroneant re- fers to layer 5 as 'epipaleolithique II' and layer 6 as 'epipaleolithique I' (Boroneant 1973c.5). No scale is offered originally by Boroneant (Boroneant 1973c), but Paunescu adds one (Paunescu 2000). have been a layer associated with Neolithic Starcevo- Cri§ culture, separated by the Mesolithic layers by some 1.00 m of deposition. The stratum was extre- mely disturbed (Boroneant, personal communica- tion; Boroneant field notes). However, the human sample AA66368 (Tab. 1) inscribed by Boroneant as IC. 1969 SVII -0.30 m produced a date undoubtedly associated with the Mesolithic Schela Cladovei cul- ture occupation of the site, also confirmed by the morphological and metrical analysis comparative to other Mesolithic Schela Cladovei human remains held Fig. 8. Old photo of the Danube's left bank at Ico- ana before the construction of the dam, seen from the Serbian bank. The Hajdučka Vodenica location was in the lower left corner of the picture. The Da- nube flows left to right. Courtesy of Ivana Radova- novic. Fig. 9. The West profile of Section I, Icoana (Boro- neant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2000): 1. mass of recently fallen rocks of about 020-0.87m; 2. light- brown soil, Starcevo-Cri§ of about 0.10-0.28m; 3. grayish-black soil of about 0.17-0.33m - Level IIb Mesolithic Schela Cladovei; 4. grey yellow soil of about 0.18-0.75m Level IIa Mesolithic Schela Cla- dovei; 5. yellow soil, sterile of about 0.25-0.57m; 6. grey soil of about 0.15m - Level I Tardigravettian of Mediterranean type. Boroneant (1973c.9) only refers to layers 3 and 6 simply as Epipalaeolithic. A scale was not originally offered by Boroneant (Boro- neant 1973c), but Paunescu (2000) adds one. at the Institute of Anthropology 'Rainer' (Miritoiu, personal communication) in Bucharest (Miritoiu, Sultana and Soficaru 2004) (Tab. 3). This discrepancy may suggest that levels of occupa- tions at the same depth on different excavation sec- tions belong to different phases of site evolution. If this were true, it may be that the periodization and chronologies offered by Boroneant may be subject to reinterpretation. The circumstances are aggrava- ted by the fact that no datum was used, and that the excavation depth was measured individually for each section from the ground level down; according to pictures taken by the excava- tor (Boroneant 1970), the terrain was far from horizontally level- led, and such a method of depth measurement would offer stron- gly inaccurate premises for com- parison. Most regrettably, at this point it is simply impossible to advance any speculations regar- ding the stratigraphy of the exca- vated sections. Boroneant (2000b.275) only men- tions two layers of Epipalaeolithic and one layer of Neolithic Starče- vo. On the same stratigraphic pro- file, Paunescu (2000.395) notes a cultural level I Tardigravettian, a cultural level IIa Schela Clado- vei, and a level IIb Schela Clado- vei. Ostrovul Banului - Gura Vaii The site was located on the island of Ostrovul Banului, precisely vis-a-vis the village of Gura Vaii. There was actually a group of three islands, of which only Os- trovul Banului belonged to Roma- nia. Not mentioned in the literature previously pub- lished is the fact that, at this point, directly across the Danube, the small River Jidostita disperses its wa- ters. Before the formation of the hydroelectric plant, the Jidostita formed an alluvial fen advancing far into the river and considerably narrowing the dis- tance to the island, making it easily accessible. The site was located on the south end of the island, which was flooded 2 or 3 months of the year. Pre- sently only a small portion of the island remains Bones Frontal - 2 fragments Parietal - 6 fragments Occipital - 1 fragment Description Frontal squama and eminences, left coronal suture and small one on the right side. Left parietal has almost entire sagital suture, the parietal tuber, and a small portion of parietal striae. The right parietal was fused to the left parietal in the second half region of sagital su- ture. There is another fragent of right parietal with striae region. Piece with external protuberance. Thickness of bones Metopion right (12.00mm) and left (10.5mm); on left bregma (8.7mm) and limits of first and second coronal suture (11.4mm) 11-12.5mm 13.5mm Estimated sex The nuchal crest shows a little development, and sexually diagnostic features are ambiguous; but the thickness might indicate a male. Estimated age Using the cranial suture, the age at death could be 30-35 years. BUIKSTRA J. E. & UBELAKER D. H. (eds.), 1994. Standards for Data Collection from Human Skeletal Remains. Arkansas Archaeological Survey Research Series, no. 44. WHITE T. D. 1991. Human Osteology. San Diego. Tab. 3. Icoana. Human skull and related morphological data. above the water level. The excavations were begun in 1966, and performed by Petre Roman for the up- per, post Mesolithic period, and by Boroneant for the Mesolithic and earlier periods (A. Boroneant, V. Boroneant, personal communication). Boroneant excavated six trenches of an unknown area. No site distribution map has been published. Paunescu advances the hypothesis that the Mesoli- thic Schela Cladovei found at Ostrovul Banului rep- resents a very late phase of this culture, but some doubts may arise from the reliability of the 14C dates (2000.391). Concerning the archaeological stratigra- phy, Paunescu (2001.381) identifies the following cultural levels from upper to lower. The stratigraphy at Ostrovul Banului is problematic as a result of the fact that there are two strata associated, according to lithic typologies, with pre-Mesolithic cultures (Bo- roneant 2000b; Mogoseanu 1978; Paunescu 2000). Some authors (Boroneant 1973c.8) simply noted the stratigraphy at Ostrovul Banului as 'Epipaleolithic I' (the oldest), 'Epipaleolithic II', 'Epipaleolithic IIIa' (oldest Mesolithic Schela Cladovei?), and 'Epipaleo- lithic IIIb' (youngest Mesolithic Schela Cladovei?). Others (Paunescu 2000.382) describe the stratigra- phic sequence at Ostrovul Banului as cultural levels I (the oldest) and II Tardigravettian of Mediterranean type, and level III and IV as Mesolithic Schela Clado- vei. Yet others (Mogoseanu 1978), referring only to the pre-Mesolithic layers, use the term 'Romanello- Azilian'. Typologically, the stone tools from the pre-Mesolithic levels at Ostrovul Banului were thought to be identi- cal with those at Cuina Turcului (Paunescu 1970; 2000), a cave situated on the Romanian Shore of the Danube Canyon, less than 200 m from Veterani Te- rasa (Fig. 2). The confusion is accentuated by the ra- diocarbon dates for the tool assemblages from Cui- na Turcului, of 10 650+120 BC, 10 100+120 BC, and one date of 8175+200 BC (Mogoseanu 1978.339) and a possible relation with the proximate site of Baile Herculane-Pestera Hotilor on the Danube's tri- butary Cerna River (Fig. 1), dated 11 460-11 310 BC (1g) (Paunescu 2000a.146). Mogoseanu cautiously underlines the estimated 2000 year difference be- tween these dates, if Ostrovul Banului is to be consi- dered one of the most recent pre-Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture sites; at Iron Gates sites, dates of about 8000 BC are associated with Mesolithic Schela Cladovei assemblages. The dates from Ostrovul Ba- nului and Cuina Turcului will be discussed in more detail in a subsequent section of this paper. Fig. 10. The Island of Ostrovul Banului, median- left. In the background the 'Iron Gates I' dam. Samples associated with Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture remains at Ostrovul Banului yielded dates be- tween 6300-7300 BC (Tabs. 1, 2). As a consequence, according to our present state of knowledge, it is al- most impossible to outline a temporal framework for the ending of Tardigravettian and the beginning of the Mesolithic Schela Cladovei at Ostrovul Banului; on the other hand, it seems unlikely that a Tardigra- vettian group would have survived that late only at Ostrovul Banului, surrounded by Mesolithic Schela Cladovei groups. Attempts to parallel pre-Mesolithic Schela Cladovei developments with other Iron Gates sites like Cuina Turcului and Baile Herculane - Pes- tera Hotilor {Boroneant 1973a; 1973c; 2000a; 2000b; Prinz 1987; Radovanović 1996a; 1996b; Tringham 2000) remain problematic (Mogoseanu 1978; Pau- nescu 2000). As a parenthesis, it must be noted that no Mesolithic Schela Cladovei remains have been uncovered at Baile Herculane-Pestera Hotilor (Bitiri 1959; Nicolae- scu-Plopsor 1959; Nicolaescu-Plopsor and Comsa 1957; Nicolaescu-Plopsor et al. 1957; Nicolaescu- Plopsor and Paunescu 1961; Paunescu 2001a) or at Cuina Turcului (Paunescu 1970; 2000). Schela Cladovei Given the archaeological material uncovered, this is the most important Schela Cladovei culture site. The site is located in Turnu Severin, at the SW end of the city. Although located directly on the bank of the Da- nube, prior and after the construction of the dam it was less affected by river flooding and increases in the water level compared to any of the other sites because the bank was higher. Technically, the loca- tion is still part of the Iron Gates, but in fact it is pla- ced downstream of Gura Vaii point, where the river valley widens and the current slows. There was rela- Fig. 11. South profile of the test pit Nr. 3 at Ostro- vul Banului (Boroneant 1973c; Paunescu 2000): 1. brown-reddish soil of about 0.15-0.48 m - Level IV Mesolithic Schela Cladovei (Boroneant 1973c.8 re- fers to 'Epipaleolithic IIIb'); 2. yellow-grey com- pacted soil of about 0.28-0.50 m - Level III Meso- lithic Schela Cladovei (Boroneant 1973c.8 refers to 'Epipaleolithic IIIa'); 3. yellow-grey sandy soil of about 0.37-0.52 m - Level II Tardigravettian of Mediterranean type (Boroneant 1973c.8 refers to 'Epipaleolithic II'); 4. clay sediment of about 0.05- 0.12 m; 5. light-yellow sandy soil of about 0.20- 0.25 m - Level I Tardigravettian of Mediterranean type (Boroneant 1973c.8 refers to 'Epipaleolithic I'); 6. dark-yellow soil of about 0.37-0.48 m, ste- rile; 7. gravel. Boroneant did not originally offer a scale (Boroneant 1973c), but Paunescu added one (Paunescu 2000). tively reduced shore erosion, although it was obvi- ous that the water had destroyed part of the site. Archaeological work was begun in 1965 under Boro- neant, and continued in 1967, 1968, and 1982. A se- cond campaign was undertaken from 1991 to 1996 by a British team (Bonsall et al. 1997; Bonsall 2004; Bonsall et al. 1996b; Bonsall et al. 2000a; Bonsall et al. 2002). During the summer of 2002 the local authorities reinforced the shore, in an attempt to prevent its further erosion. Presently there is left an area about twice the size of a football field, which gradually has been occupied by the local people and used for gardens and small corn fields. The site is in great danger of being totally destroyed by the locals. Schela Cladovei offers a number of advantages as a location. It is placed right on the river bank, which gently rises into a forested hill. At about 300 m up the hill there is a small spring that flows in seven smaller streams down into the Danube around and across the site, insuring fresh, clean water. Being placed at the eastern extremity of the Gorge, the site inhabitants could practically control access to and from the canyon. The surroundings consist of very low hills covered by rich, mixed vegetation offering food for humans and animals. The hills are very easy to cross by foot. There are no pictures of the site before excavations began, but Paunescu mentions that it covered an area of about 2 km between the naval dock and a bor- der patrol post (Boroneant 1990a; Paunescu 2000). The site was continuously affected by different con- struction projects such as installations of water ab- duction pipes, the transformation of the beach into a gravel and sand quarry, and other smaller or lar- ger, and recently more or less permanent structures were built. According to Boroneant (2000b), the site is divided into two sections, east ('Sector A') and west ('Sector B'), of the small creek that flows into the Danube. Although scant Mesolithic traces were found west of the creek, the actual Mesolithic habitation was found only on the area east of the creek, up to the proximity of a railway check point. A map of the ex- cavations was published (Boroneant 2000b.277): in 'Sector B', during 1967-1968, excavations extended for about 140 m and a width of about 1.80 m-4 m, depending of the sinuosity of the shore. During 1982-1989, apparently on the same 140 m, excava- tions were extended into the shore to a depth of 4.50 m. In 1990, excavations were performed west of the1968 area, on both sides of an access road from a closed gravel quarry. The total of area unco- vered during this episode appears to be of about 30 m in length and 1.80 m to 6 m in width (V. Bo- roneant and A. Boroneant, personal communica- tion). Paunescu (2000.449) inserts the observation that at least part of the faunal osteological material identi- fied by Bartosiewicz (Bartosiewicz et al. 1995) has its provenance in amalgamated remains that strati- Fig. 12. The Schela Cladovei site, partly covered by vegetable gardens and corn plantations. graphycally have been almost impossible to separate by levels, and is therefore unsure. Although comparable in importance with Lepenski Vir, before 1990 there were no radiocarbon dates for this site. Some dates were offered after 1990 (Bonsall 1997; Bonsall et al. 1996; Bonsall et al. 2004; Bonsall et al. 2000; Cook et al. 2002). Stratigraphycally, there appears to be a level defined by Boroneant (1973c; 2000b) Epipalaeolithic II (the oldest), and one Epipalaeolithic I. The same author uses 'Schela Cladovei' (Boroneant 1973c.8) and 'Schela Cladovei II' (Boroneant 1973c.9), but it is impossible to determine if the former means Epipa- laeolithic I and the latter Epipalaeolithic II, or vice versa. In the periodization offered by the same au- thor, the Schela Cladovei site appears under Schela Cladovei culture phases II and III (Boroneant 1973c. 15). According to the fact the phase I of the periodi- zation is the oldest, it may only be assumed that phase II is associated with Schela Cladovei II, or, Epi- palaeolithic I, and phase II with Schela Cladovei I, or, Epipalaeolithic II. thers (Paunescu 2000) iden- tify an oldest Tardigravettian level, and a second up- per level of Mesolithic Schela Cladovei. There is no mention of an archaeological sterile dividing these two levels. In Paunescu's (2000.439) opinion, enu- merating from upper to lower the cultural levels at Schela Cladovei, he notes level II, Mesolithic Schela Cladovei, the only level associated with this culture (according to Boroneant the Epipaaleolithic I, in ot- her words Mesolithic II Schela Cladovei culture) and level I Epipalaeolithic Tardigravettian of Mediterra- nean type (according to Boroneant the Epipalaeoli- thic II, in other words Mesolithic I Schela Cladovei culture). Ostrovul Corbului The island of Ostrovul Corbului is 16 km upstream from Schela Cladovei on the Danube, between flu- vial Km 911 and 916. At the point where the Danube waters separate embracing the island, is Hinova vil- lage, and the point is called 'Botul Piscului'; again where the two branches of the Danube reunite there is the village of Baloti and the point is called 'Botul Cliuciului'. The excavations at Botul Cliuciului were conducted in two areas: A1, right at the point where the Great Danube (the main branch) and the Lesser Danube (the smaller branch) reunite, and A2, about 120 m upstream on the Greater Danube bank. Only in area A1 have Mesolithic Schela Cladovei remains been uncovered. Fig. 13.The west profile of Section B1 at Schela Cla- dovei (Boroneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2000): 1. Humus, XVII-XIX cent. of about 0.12-0.16 m; 2. light-brown soil of about 0.25-0.38 m - Starče- vo-Cris; 3. dusty dark yellow soil of about 0.15- 0.25 m - Starčevo-Cris; 4. dark yellow dusty soil of about 0.12-0.30 m, Mesolithic Schela Cladovei (V. Boroneant 1973c.4 refers to 'Epipalaeolithic I'); 5. dusty light-yellow soil 0.16-0.20 m - Tardigravet- tian; 6. mud and stones layer of about 0.05-0.08 m; 7. gravel (V. Boroneant 1973c.4 refers to 'Epipala- eolithic II'). A scale was not originally offered by Boroneant (1973c), but added by Paunescu (2000). The excavators conducted a more careful and detai- led excavation. As a result, the nature and the volume of information available from Ostrovul Corbului is far superior compared to any of the other Schela Cladovei sites. One particular event occurred during excavations (Petre Roman, personal communication) not men- tioned in any publications about this site. The mana- gement of the hydroelectric plant announced that a stop was going to be put on the water drainage for 4 hours. The excavation team took advantage of the lowering water level and were able to extend the ex- cavation for almost 7 m into the riverbed, uncove- ring Mesolithic Schela Cladovei artefacts to a depth of about -2 m. The excavation map included the area (Paunescu 1996.71), but explanations were never offered in print. There are a number of available stratigraphies for the Mesolithic sections. Here we will be present the ones most discussed by the excavators (Mogoseanu 1978; Paunescu 2000). According to all stratigraphic profiles (Mogoseanu 1978; Paunescu 1990; 2000; Roman 1987) there are two Mesolithic Schela Cla- dovei culture strata, not separated by archaeological sterile, and not preceded by an Epipalaeolithic layer. It appears that for archaeologists unfamiliar with the Romanian language, there is a recurring misun- derstanding of one particular characteristic of Sec- tion XI (A-B). The section was excavated by Mogosea- nu (1978), who uncovered seven fire hearths with- in the two Mesolithic Schela Cladovei levels. Four of these hearths, representing three superimposed le- vels of Mesolithic occupation, were uncovered in the Fig. 14. Ostrovul Corbului at Botul Cliuciului. Ex- cavations were covered by the dam and the road from where the picture was taken. On the right the Lesser Danube can be seen. shelter or hut marked with a red X in Fig. 15. There is one hearth at the bottom of the hut, one at a me- dian level, and two at the upper level, separated by alluvial sediment suggesting powerful floods. Mogo- seanu suggests that one and the same group of peo- ple built and rebuilt the first two levels of hearths, and a second group built the third, upper level of hearths. As a total, however, for the entire cultural deposition associated with Mesolithic Schela Clado- vei culture, Mogoseanu specifies: "In total, stratul de cultura Schela Cladovei, gros de circa 0.70 m (din care este exclusa adincimea locuintei) numara 7 nivele de locuire, fiecare ni- vel fiind marcat printr-o noua constructie de vat- ra de foc." [As a total, Schela Cladovei cultural level, about 0.70 m thick (from which the depth of the shelter is excluded) contains 7 levels of habitation, each being marked by a new construction of fire hearths.] (Mogoseanu 1978.339) The three fire hearth levels associated with the shel- ter are considered to be two levels of occupation: the bottom two hearths one level, as constructed by the same group of people, and the upper hearths another level, built by a different group of people. The total of 7 levels of habi- tation consists of these two, plus 5 other fire hearths uncovered only on level I (phase I) Mesolithic Schela Cladovei (Fig. 15, excavation level 7; Fig. 16, excavation level 11), as explained by Paunescu (1996. 134-135). For the second phase of Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture, only 3 hearths were uncovered, all in Section I (Fig. 16, excavation level 10). Fortunately, the excavators made available both the depths of the hearths and their association with phase I or II of Mesolithic Schela Cladovei, and the depths of the radiocarbon samples and their asso- ciation with the phase I or II of this culture. Due to this fact, Ostrovul Corbului is the only site where it is possible to obtain a better evolutionary image of Schela Cladovei culture. Ostrovul Mare The island of Ostrovul Mare is the easternmost Me- solithic Schela Cladovei culture site. The island is en- gulfed by the Danube proper and a lesser branch of the river, called Dunarea Mica (Lesser Danube). It is 14.5 km long, and has a width varying between 3.2 km at Bivolari-Schela and 0.800 km at Padurea Mica. The island has been excavated since the beginning of the century by numerous archaeologists, revealing remains belonging to the Neolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age, Roman, and Medieval periods (Paunescu 2000). In 1978 Boroneant began to excavate at Danube Km 873 and 875. Most unfortunately, the excavator ne- ver published articles dedicated entirely to this site, except for a preliminary report (Boroneant et al. 1979). Scant information and vague references were inserted in texts on the Schela Cladovei culture, pro- viding a general description (Boroneant 1990; 1982; 1980; 1979). The excavations were performed in two locations: Point Km. 873, and Point Km. 875. Information is tangential and extremely brief. There is no stratigra- phic chart or specification on the depth of the strata. At both points there are two levels of Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture, not separated by archaeolo- gical sterile (Paunescu 2000). According to the infor- Fig. 15. South profile of Section XI (A-B) (Mogoseanu 1978; Pau- nescu 1990; 2000). 1. archaeologically sterile. 2. Neolithic Cotofe- ni hole; 3. grey yellow soil of about 2.63m - Neolithic Salcuta; 4. Light brown layer of about 0.35m, archaeologically sterile; 5. dark brown soil of about 0.25m - Neolithic Starcevo-Cri§; 6. black clay of about 0.45m - Level II Mesolithic Schela Cladovei; 7. Light brown soil of about 0.20m - Level I Mesolithic Schela Cladovei; 8. Alluvial material. White X: hut. mation offered in this section, it is only possible to assume that by 'Paleolithique Superieur' (Boroneant 2000b) Boroneant generally meant Epipalaeolithic; by Epipalaeolithic he generally meant Mesolithic; by 'Epipaleolithic I' he meant 'Mesolithic I'; and by 'Epi- palaeolithic II' was meant 'Mesolithic II'. Considering also the fact that at some sites there were actual Epi- palaeolithic I and II levels, this would translate chro- nologically as Epipalaeolithic, Mesolithic I, and Meso- lithic II. According to other sources, 'Paleolithicque Superieur' meant the Aurignacian from Baile Hercu- lane-Pestera Hotilor, and by Epipalaeolithic is meant both the Tardigravettian and the Mesolithic as one cultural phenomenon (Boroneant, personal com- munication). It has been suggested that at most Schela Cladovei sites there are two phases of occupation for Schela Cladovei Culture (Boroneant, personal communi- cation) generally divided by an archaeological ste- rile layer. However, as shown in the published stra- tigraphies (Boroneant 1973c; 2000b; Paunescu 2000), it is not possible to distinguish an archaeolo- gically sterile between the Mesolithic levels. Instead, in some cases there is such a stratum between an Epipalaeolithic level, sometimes called Tardigravet- tian of Mediterranean type, and the layers associated with Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture. As can be seen, there is a major problem regarding stratigra- phic explanations residing from a total lack of diffe- rentiation between such concepts as excavated layer, cultural layer, cultural phase. For instance, while Bo- roneant (1973a) refers to the Mesolithic deposits at Ostrovul Banului as 'Epipaleolithic IIIa' and 'Epipa- leolithic IIIb', Paunescu (2000) refers to the same deposits as 'Ostrovul Banului level III' and 'Ostrovul Banului level IV'. Subsequently, in the same publica- tion, Paunescu (2000.386) uses 'Ostrovul Banului IIIa' and 'Ostrovul Banului IIIb', and only one page further on (2000.387) refers only to 'Ostrovul Banu- lui III'. Also Paunescu informs us that the samples for radiocarbon dating were collected by Boroneant from 'level III' (Paunescu 2000.67). The unanswe- red question: does 'level III' and 'Epipaleolithic IIIb' refer to the same cultural phase of Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture at Ostrovul Banului? The 'tell' of the new radiocarbon dates All samples for the new AMS dates presented here (Tab.1) were obtained from strata associated with the remains of Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture such as antler tools (Boroneant 1970; 1990b; 2000b) (Fig. 17) or lithics (Paunescu 2000). Fig. 16. Segment of the West profile of Section I (central) (Paunescu 1990; 2000): 1. modern depo- sition of unspecified depth; 2. unspecified soil of about 0.30m - Doco-Roman; 3. unspecified soil of about 0.90m - Bronze Age; 4. unspecified soil and depth - archaeologically sterile; 5. unspecified soil of about 1.24m - Neolithic Cotofeni; 6. unspecified soil and depth - archaeologically sterile; 7. unspe- cified soil of about 0.60m - Neolithic Salcuta; 8. unspecified soil and depth - archaeologically ste- rile; 9. unspecified soil of about 0.42m - Starčevo- Cris; 10. unspecified soil of about 0.34m - Level II Mesolithic Schela Cladovei; 11. light yellow clay of about 0.29m - Level I Mesolithic Schela Cladovei. These dates confirm some of the facts suggested by the old dates obtained from Icoana (Tab. 2): the depth of the samples is not always in accordance with the age. This situation was signalled at an early stage of site analysis by the samples Bln-1078 and Bln-1077 at Icoana, as explained in the preceding section. The new dates put a particular accent on this site, suggesting that it may represent the oldest Mesolithic in the Iron Gates region, at least for the northern bank of the Danube; there is one date la- ter than 8800 BC, twelve dates older than 8000 BC. In assigning two levels of Mesolithic at Icoana, Boro- neant considered the fact that there were antler and wild boar canine tools in both levels, and that these tools were identical to those from the site at Schela Cladovei. No such tools were found in the Tardigra- vettian levels at Cuina Turcului or other Mesolithic Iron Gates sites, such as Ostrovul Banului. As a consequence, if Boroneant was right in his judg- ment and there are indeed two Mesolithic levels at Icoana, it means that: O a Mesolithic population showed up in the Danu- be Gorge immediately after 9000 BC, with an already well-defined antler and bone tool-making techno- logy; © these people were already adapted to an economy consisting of both intensive fishing and hunting; Fig. 17. Mesolithic Schela Cladovei antler tools from Razvrata, Icoana, Alibeg, and Ostrovul Corbului. © the antler and bone tool, and stone tool techno- logies were therefore not rooted in the previous Tar- digravettian; © by the time these people settled the Danube bank there may have been Tardigravettian groups inhabi- ting the river's defile, and these two cultures coexis- ted in parallel for some time. One of the three radio- carbon dates from the Tardigravettian layers (Mogo- seanu 1978; Paunescu 2000) at Cuina Turcului (Fig. 1), a cave site where no remains associated with Me- solithic Schela Cladovei were uncovered (Paunescu 1970; 2000), shows a time range of 8175+200 BC (Mogoseanu 1978.339). There are six date at Icoana older that 8200 BC. It is also possible that late Tar- digravettian groups were present at Ostrovul Banu- lui (Mogoseanu 1978). Paunescu (2000.394-400) considers the lowest level at Icoana to be Tardigravettian, on the basis of the lithic technology of some 100 identifiable pieces. It has to be noted that, generally, the cultural remains of this level are scarce. However, there is one huge problem regarding the dates from Cuina Turcului. As shown above, Mogoseanu lists the date Bln-802 as 8175+200 BC. The same sample is presented by Pau- nescu (2000.342) as being dated 10 125+200 BP. If OxCal calibrated for one sigma, it shows a range of 10 150-9350 BC (68.2 %), or, about 9750+400 BC, a time period far earlier than the one presented by Mogoseanu. There are no details offered by the Mo- goseanu, therefore it is impossible to comment on his source for the calibration of this date. If the old- est date of about 8800 BC is compared to the late date of about 9700 BC from Cuina Turcului, there is a difference of about 900 years. Such a time span may be long enough, but all the same, short enough to leave room for speculation on the relationship be- tween the final Tardigravettian and the early Meso- lithic at Iron Gates. One other significant fact revealed by the corrobo- ration of the new and old dates from Icoana is the longevity of the site occupation from about 8800 BC to perhaps 6000 BC. The long sequence of radiocar- bon dates offers a most needed reference point for a comparison among all the Mesolithic sites on both sides of the Danube. There is one old radiocarbon date of about 4800 BC, which doubtlessly should not be associated with the Mesolithic period. Unfor- tunately, there are no details about the sample, but it appears that the cultural layer of its provenance should be associated with the Neolithic Starčevo- Cri§. It is impossible at this point to speculate on the na- ture of the site's occupation. It is more likely, how- ever, that the site was not occupied permanently all year round. Considering its location and proximity to the site at Razvrata, it has been suggested that these were probably twin sites, probably outposts of a base-site located in the Mraconia River Depression (Fig.2) (Bolomey 1973) which is at present mostly under water. There are two new dates from Razvra- ta, both showing a time range of about 8100 BC, and an old one of about 6500 BC. The new dates make Razvrata one of the oldest Mesolithic sites on the northern shore of the Danube, and strongly suggest either a parallel, or an alternate coexistence with Ico- ana. It is simply impossible to say if people were mo- ving back and forth between the two locations, or if they were actually living at the two locations at the same time, or both. It is clear, however, that the sites were contemporary, and that human activity at Raz- vrata lasted for a very long time. The stratigraphy of the site is identical to the one at Icoana, generating the same controversial interpretations. Probably the most interesting thing about the cultural develop- ment in the vicinity of the River Mraconia is the pos- sibility that Icoana and Razvrata on the northern side of the Danube, and Hajdučka Vodenica (Fig. 2) on the southern side represent in fact a related cultu- ral evolution. There are only a few dates from Hajdu- čka (Borić and Miracle 2004) ranging about 7400- 8200 BC; the three sites appear to have been con- temporary for some time. Again, according to the available data, it may not be possible yet to specu- late if same group of people settled on both sides of the Danube at the mouth of the Mraconia, but accor- ding to the location of the sites, it is hard to believe that if inhabited at the same time, these people would have ignored each other. Also, according to some stable isotope results of human, animal, and snail shell, it appears that the Mesolithic people of Iron Gates did move up and down the defile at least to some degree. One great exception appears to be the inhabitants of the Schela Cladovei site. The va- lues obtained from these individuals may be inter- preted in a two ways: either people from along the Danube defile came over and settled at Schela Cla- dovei, or inhabitants of Schela Cladovei travelled in- tensively on the river (Dinu 2006). Hopefully, future research related to the human DNA of individuals uncovered on the both sides of the Danube (present authors; Dusan Borić, personal communication) will shed some light in this direction. From Ostrovul Banului there is only one new radio- carbon date ranging around 7300 BC, which is some- how close to one of the old dates ranging around 7100 BC. A second old sample produced a date of about 6500 BC. Comparing these dates with the se- quence from Icoana, it appears that at least at one point in time this site also represented a cultural de- velopment contemporary with the one present at the mouth of the Mraconia River. The new radiocar- bon date is almost identical to one of the old dates from Ostrovul Corbului, and comparing all the dates from the two sites, they appear to cover the same period. Considering also the four dates available from both Mesolithic levels at Ostrovul Corbului, it appears that these sites represent a later Mesolithic develop- ment at Iron Gates; and comparing them to the dates from Ostrovul Banului, it may be that the Mesolithic at the later site also represent a late phase in the de- file. Ostrovul Banului is a site that, in corroboration with the information from Cuina Turcului and Icoa- na, may offer crucial information on the cultural se- quences at Iron Gates. The Tardigravettian and the Mesolithic layers are well defined, allowing for a clear differentiation between the cultural layers and phases. However, the lack of more precise stratigra- phic information does have an effect on the interpre- tation of the radiocarbon dates. The new date of about 7300 BC was generated by a sample whose provenance context was surely Mesolithic, but whose depth was relatively low: only -0.40 m. According to the stratigraphic profile and the scale (Fig. 11) such a depth must be somewhere on the border between the first and the second phases of the Mesolithic. No details are available about the other two samples from Ostrovul Banului for a comparison. The new date of about 6800 BC from Ostrovul Mare is curren- tly the only one available, making any chronological speculation about this site impossible, other than that at one point it was contemporary with Icoana- Razvrata, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Corbului, Sche- la Cladovei. Interestingly, the eight new radiocarbon dates from Schela Cladovei, comprising a time span from about 7300 BC to about 5700 BC represent a perfect conti- nuation of the dates offered previously (Cook et al. 2002) covering a range from about 7600 BC to about 7400 BC, and offering a comparative reference for some 2000 years of cultural development. None of these 8 dates is older than about 7300 BC, which may confer some degree of confidence in conside- ring Schela Cladovei a site that formed and develo- ped at a much later time than Icoana, Razvrata, or the very little understood site of Alibeg. Equally im- portant, the date of 5725-5625 BC generated by a sample from -0.45-0.53 m, may reflect the last pe- riod in the existence of the Mesolithic at Iron Gates. It has been suggested that the Neolithic Starčevo elements appeared in the region by 6070-5720 BC (Bonsall et al. 2004). Considering some of the older dates, it has to be noted that offered more recently (Boroneant 2000.85-86) for Alibeg (Pescari-Coroni- ni), of about 8410+100 BC, that appears to be less known to scholars interested in the Mesolithic and Mesolithic-Neolithic transition in Europe. Besides this date, there is another of about 6100-5980 BC (Pau- nescu 2000) according to which Alibeg was conside- red a very late site (Paunescu 2000; Prinz 1987; Radovanović 1996a;1996b; Tringham 2000). The date of about 8400 BC drastically changes this sta- tus, matching some of the oldest dates for Icoana, and making Alibeg one of the earliest Mesolithic sites at Iron Gates. In summarizing the above information, a few ideas can be outlined. First, the chronological sequence at Icoana seems to cover most, if not the entire evolu- tion of the Mesolithic at Iron Gates. It provides a comparative timetable for all the other sites on both banks of the Danube. Second, the new radiocarbon dates reshape the entire chronological sequence for the Mesolithic at Iron Gates. The sites at Icoana, Raz- vrata, and Alibeg appear to be much earlier than previously thought, substantially pushing back the time range for the appearance of the Mesolithic groups in the region. Third, the situation at Icoana- Razvrata and the early date from Alibeg raises some questions about the cultural sequence for all the Iron Gates Mesolithic sites: O if there was a cultural continuity from Tardigra- vettian to Mesolithic, why would an abrupt change in the antler tools technologies occur by 8800 BC, and © comparing the radiocarbon dates from Icoana, Alibeg and Cuina Turcului, it is very difficult to ex- plain why perforated antler tools were present at Icoana by 8800 BC, but not present only a few hund- red meters upstream at Cuina Turcului by about the same time. It must be underlined that no perforated antler tools were found in the level diagnosed as Me- solithic at Veterani Terasa. Of course, the discrepancy between the dates for the final Tardigravettian at Cuina Turcului must be also considered. Fourth, the corroboration of the new and old dates raises some questions on the validity of the relative chronology on which previous periodization models were constructed, and the stratigraphic considera- tions on which these relative chronologies were ba- sed. There is an obvious discrepancy between some of the depths inscribed on the radiocarbon samples and the results. Although at present it is extremely difficult to reevaluate the stratigraphy at some of these sites, it is not impossible, and hopefully, future research will at least in part clarify this problem. Periodization: absolute and relative chronology Due to the fact that at present the archaeological material at most of the sites presented above, can only be analyzed according to the depth inscribed on it, and that the scale offered for each stratigra- phic profile appears to be rather approximate and in some cases totally wrong, it is extremely challenging to determine where one particular sample actually came from. Moreover, in cases such as Icoana, early signs that the relative and absolute chronology were in total contrast as confirmed by Bln-1078 and Bln- 1077 were ignored. As a consequence, items found at a particular depth may have been interpreted as they belong to an earlier or later level of occupation, but generally the logic according to which, the upper- younger, and the lower-older, seems not to have been always true for a site like Icoana. Such being the situation at one site, questions may be raised about others excavated by the same archaeologist. This situation is perpetuated mainly due to the pe- riodization advanced by some Romanian archaeolo- gists (Boroneant 1973c; Paunescu 2000) as a re- flection of their views of the cultural evolution at Iron Gates. Some even advanced the hypothesis that there was an uninterrupted evolution from the Up- per Paleolithic to Neolithic: "If the Neolithic was introduced from outside, where did it come from? The present author belie- ves that it did not come from outside... The present author believes that the discovery of clay baking and processing towards the end of the Epi-Paleoli- thic in this particular zone led to the abandon- ment of the processing of river boulders into ar- tistic forms in favour of the processing of clay into pottery and idols." (Boroneant 1990b.479) Such models, in which the evolution of Mesolithic Schela Cladovei culture is seen as a smooth linear evolution from local Tardigravettian developments and a basis for a locally evolving Neolithic (Borone- ant 197315-16) were based on the interpretation of an earlier and a later phase of the Mesolithic at Iron Gates. Although similar in results, such models are in total contrast with those advancing the idea that in most cases the earlier Mesolithic level was in fact Tardigravettian (Paunescu 2000.40, 49, 52). Other authors are critical of these views (Mogosea- nu 1978.345-346), considering the absence of some raw material as quartzite, art, and portable artefacts, and stratigraphy at sites such as Ostrovul Corbului. Such authors advanced hypotheses according to which the Mesolithic at Schela Cladovei could have originated rather the very late echoes of a Mouste- rian found at Baile Herculane-Pestera Hotilor (Fig. 1). The absence of radiocarbon dating meant that these models had to be constructed mainly, and in some cases solely, on a parallel analysis of the archaeolo- gical material. Of all periodizations, the most influ- ential is that offered by Boroneant (1973c), who ex- plains that: "La periodization de la culture Schela Cladovei pro- cede des donnees fournies par sa structure mate- rielle et des modifications que cette-derniere a su- bies." (Boroneant 1973c.15) According to such changes in the material culture, four stages of evolution were identified (Boroneant 1973.15): 1st stage and the oldest at Veterani Terasa; 2nd stage at Icoana I, Razvrata, Schela Cladovei, Ostrovul Cor- bului IIIa; 3rd stage at Icoana II, Schela Cladovei, Razvrata, Ostrovul Corbului IIIb; 4th stage at Alibeg. In the absence of radiocarbon dates from Veterani Terasa, it is not possible to make any references to this site. Considering only the absolute chronology offered by the new and old dates from the rest of the sites, it is possible, however, to offer a Mesolithic absolute chronology (Fig. 18), on approximately 500 year periods: 1st stage, about 8800-8300 BC: Icoana, Alibeg, (Ve- terani Terasa?); 2nd stage, about 8300-7800 BC: Icoana, Razvrata; 3rd stage, about 7800-7300 BC: Icoana, Schela Cla- dovei, Ostrovul Banului, Ostrovul Corbului; 4th stage, about 7300-6800 BC: Icoana, Ostrovul Banului, Schela Cladovei, Ostrovul Corbului, Os- trovul Mare; 5th stage, about 6800-6300 BC: Icoana, Ostrovul Corbului, Ostrovul Banului; 6th stage, about 6300-6100 BC: Icoana, Alibeg; 7th stage, about 5700-4800 BC: Schela Cladovei, Icoana. The cultural phases of the Mesolithic layer were not noted for reasons related to discrepancies between sample depth, dating results, and stratigraphic inter- pretations as explained earlier in this paper. Paunescu's identification of a Tardigravettian layer at sites as Alibeg, Razvrata, Icoana, was based solely on lithic analysis, sometimes the entire sample con- sisting of a rather small number of pieces being ac- cepted as reliable; at Razvrata, for instance, the lower Mesolithic level labeled as Tardigravettian yielded a total of 90 pieces (Paunescu 2000.393). All other cultural elements were largely disregarded. As a con- sequence, we have considered this interpretation as unreliable. Considering the fact that the new radiocarbon sam- ples were collected from depths associated with Me- solithic cultural remains, among which signature Schela Cladovei antler tools represent a noticeable reference point, the fact that such tools were not found in pre-Mesolithic cultural levels at any of the sites at Iron Gates, and that Boroneant constructed his judgments on the presence of Mesolithic cultural evidence, we tend to agree with his identification of two Mesolithic cultural layers at the sites presented in this paper. On the other hand, we tend to disagree with the Boroneant model of a local cultural and de- mographic continuity from the Upper Palaeolithic to the Neolithic. Rather, based on the data presented in this paper, we suggest that the Upper Palaeolithic, the Mesolithic, and the Neolithic at Iron Gates repre- sent separate stages of cultural development, and that the human populations associated with these stages were not related in any way. It is interesting to notice that the earliest Neolithic remains at Iron Gates were uncovered at none of the sites associated with the Mesolithic, but at Cuina Turcului Cave, and, contrary to what may be expec- ted, that is not the earliest Neolithic Starčevo in Ro- mania. The two known Early Neolithic sites north of the Danube appeared at Circea (Bolomey 1976; Nica 1976; 1977; 1993), and Gura Baciului (Biagi, Shen- nan and Spataro 2005; Biagi and Spataro 2005), rather far from the Iron Gates. There are no dates for Circea, but Gura Baciului produced a date of about 7140+45 BP (Biagi et al. 2005.46). Calibrated OxCal (1g, 68.2%) the date ranges from 6055-5985 BC. Al- though there are no radiocarbon dates for the low- est Neolithic Starčevo levels at Cuina Turcului, the Starčevo ceramic appears to be clearly of a later Star- čevo phase, associated by some with Starčevo-Cri§ IIA-IIB (Nica 1979.22). Also contrary to expectations, the only Neolithic hu- man remains, consisting of very few bones and skulls (Paunescu 1996.146) uncovered on the northern bank of the Iron Gates, came from Ostrovul Corbu- lui (Necrasov and Botezatu 1981; Paunescu 1996), and not from large, complex Mesolithic sites such as Schela Cladovei. Unfortunately, the Neolithic human remains from Ostrovul Corbului have been not dated. Comparing the radiocarbon date from Gura Baciului with the new and old dates listed in this paper, it is not difficult to see that there is only a date from Sche- la Cladovei, of about 5725- 5625 BC (Tab. 1), and one from Icoana later than 5000 BC, that may be associated with the appearance of the Starčevo culture on the north- ern shore of the Danube at Iron Gates. Also, considering the ceramic typology and its association with a later phase of Starčevo, the date of 6120- 5980 BC from Alibeg may still be too early to be connected in any way with possible Me- solithic-Neolithic contacts in the region. It may be said, therefore, with a fair degree of confidence, that the radio- carbon dates presented in this study rather infirm the hypo- thesis of Mesolithic-Neolithic contacts at Iron Gates. Conclusions The data presented in this pa- per is of dual importance: it reconfigures the absolute chro- nology for the Mesolithic at Iron Gates, and it raises some questions about the stratigra- phic interpretation of the sites discussed here. the Danube, there are still numerous gaps that may produce surprises. More dates are needed from sites at Ostrovul Mare, Ostrovul Banului, and Veterani Te- rasa in order to better understand the evolutionary trajectory of the Mesolithic at Iron Gates. The dates presented in this paper shed some light on the Me- solithic cultural trajectory at Iron Gates, but also raise questions about the beginning and the end of this period. For these questions to be answered at least in part, it is absolutely necessary for more ra- diocarbon dates to be obtained from the Tardigra- vettian levels at Ostrovul Banului, and the Neolithic site of Circea, the Neolithic human remains from Os- trovul Corbului, and from samples stratigraphically associated with the Starčevo ceramic at Cuina Tur- cului. Although the new radiocar- bon dates shed new light on the evolution of the Mesoli- thic on the northern bank of Fig. 18. Radiocarbon dates from sites discussed in this paper: CT, Cuina Turcului; PH, Pestera Hotilor - Baile Herculane; Rz, Razvrata; Ic, Icoana; SC, Schela Cladovei; OB, Ostrovul Banului; OC, Ostrovul Corbului; OM, Os- trovul Mare; Al, Alibeg; GB, Gura Baciului. Fortunately, the site at Schela Cladovei is still acces- sible for future archaeological excavation. It appears, however, that the huge importance of this site in the general context of the European Mesolithic and Me- solithic-Neolithic transition is either not understood, or absolutely ignored by the Romanian forums; if no drastic measures for salvaging it are taken soon, it may be lost forever. Whereas it is not excluded that more Mesolithic sites are waiting to be discovered in places like Ostrovul Corbului and Ostrovul Mare, the complexity of Schela Cladovei, comparable only with Lepenski Vir, makes it unique among all the Mesoli- thic sites in Southeastern Europe and beyond. -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS- Many thanks to Adina Boroneant, who provided all of the samples for the new radiocarbon dates, as well as a great volume of information about the sites dis- cussed here. Without her help, this paper could have never been written. REFERENCES BARTOSIEWICZ L., BONSALL C., BORONEANT V. and STAL- LIBRASS S. 1995. Schela Cladovei: A Review of the Prehi- storic Fauna. Mesolithic Miscellany 16:2-19. 2001. New Data on the Prehistoric Fauna of the Iron Gates: A Case Study from Schela Cladovei, Romania. In R. Kertesz and J. Makkay (eds.), From Mesolithic to Neolithic. Budapest. Akaprint: 15-21. BIAGI P., SHENNAN S. and SPATARO M. 2005. Rapid Ri- vers and Slow Seas? New Data for the Radiocarbon Chro- nology of the Balkan Peninsula. Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education 6-7: 41-52. BIAGI P. and SPATARO M. 2005. New Observations on the Radiocarbon Chronology of the Starčevo-Cri§ and Koros Cultures. Prehistoric Archaeology & Anthropological Theory and Education 6-7:35-40. BOLOMEY A. 1973. An Outline of the Late Epipaleolithic Economy at the Iron Gates: The Evidence of Bones. Dacia 17: 41-52. 1976. Pe Marginea Analizei Arheoosteologice a Mate- rialului de la Carcea-Dolj. Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 27: 765-476. BONSALL C., BORONEANT V. and SREJOVIĆ D. 1996. AMS Radiocarbon Determinations on Human Bone from Lepen- ski Vir, Vlasac and Schela Cladovei. Mesolithic Miscellany 17: 6-10. BONSALL C., COOK G., LENNON R., HARKNESS D., SCOTT M., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and MCSWEENEY K. 2000. Stable Isotopes, Radiocarbon and the Mesolithic-Neolithic Transi- tion in the Iron Gates. In M. Budja (ed.), 7th Neolithic Stu- dies. Documenta Praehistorica XXVII: 119-132. BONSALL C., COOK G, T., HEDGES R. E. M., HIGHAM T. F. G., PICKARD C. and RADOVANOVIĆ I. 2004. Radiocarbon and Stable Isotope Evidence of Dietary Change from the Mesolithic to the Middle Ages in the Iron Gates: New re- sults from Lepenski Vir. Radiocarbon 46:293-300. BONSALL C., MACKLIN M. G., PAYTON R. W. and BORO- NEANT A. 2002/3. Climate, Floods, and River Goods: En- vironmental Change and the Meso-Neolithic Transition in Southeast Europe. Before Farming 4:1-15. BONSALL C., ROSEMARY L., MCSWEENEY K., CAROLINA S., DOUGLASS H., BORONEANT V., BARTOSIEWICZ L., RO- BERT P. and CHAPMAN J. 1997. Mesolithic and Early Neo- lithic in the Iron Gates: A Paleodietary Perspective. Jour- nal of European Archaeology 5:50-92. BORIĆ D. 1999. Places that Created Time in the Danube Gorges and Beyond, c. 9000-5500 BC. In M. Budja (ed.), 6th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXVI: 41-70. 2001. Mesolithic and Early Neolithic Hunters and Fi- shers in the Danube Gorges: An Analysis of Zooarcha- eological Data. In R. Kertesz and J. Makkay (eds.), From the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Budapest: Akaprint: 101-124. 2002. The Lepenski Vir Conundrum: Reinterpretation of the Mesolithic and Neolithic Sequences in the Danube Gorges. Antiquity 76:1026-1039. 2004. Is the Mesolithic-Neolithic Subsistence Dichto- nomy Real? New Stable Isotope Evidence from the Da- nube Gorges. European Journal of Archaeology 7: 221-248. 2005. Deconstructing Essentialisms: Unsettling Fron- tiers of the Mesolithic-Neolithic Balkans. In D. Bailey, A. Whittle and V. Cummings (eds.), (un)settling the Neolithic. Oxbow Books, Oxford: 16-31. BORIC D. and MIRACLE P. 2004. Mesolithic and Neolithic (Dis)continuities in the Danube Gorges: New AMS Dates from Padina and Hajdučka Vodenica (Serbia). Oxford Journal of Archaeology 23:341-371. BORONEANT A. and DINU A. 2007. The Romanian Meso- lithic and the Transition to Farming. Studii de Preistorie 3/2005-2006: 41-76. BORONEANT V. 1970. La Periode Epipaleolithique sur la Rivier Roumaine des Portes de Fer du Danube. Prehisto- rische Zeischrift 45:1-25. 1973a. Apercu de la Culture Epipaleolithique Schela Cladovei. In Actes du V-ieme Congress International des Sciences Prehistoriques, Belgrade, 1973a., vol. VII: 165-172. 1973b. Inceputurile Cultivarii Pamintului in Zona Por- tilor de Fier. Terra Nostra III: 115-123. 1973c. Recherches Archaeologiques sur la Culture Sche- la Cladovei de la Zone des 'Portes de Fer'. Dacia 17: 140-181. 1980. Betrachtung uber das Epipaleolitikum (Mesoli- thikum) in Romanien. In Mesolithikum in Europa. 2-nd Internationales Symposium Posdam, 1980. Verffent- lichungen des Museums fur Ur-un Fruhgeschichte Pots- dam 14/15: 289-294. 1990a. Le Site de Schela Cladovei: Problemes Pose par la Transition de la Culture Cri§-Starčevo a la Culture Vincea. In D. Srejovic and N. Tasic (eds.), Vincea and its World. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Art. Bel- grade: 147-153. 1990b. Thoughts on the Chronological Relations Be- tween the Epi-Paleolithic and the Neolithic of the Low Danube. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. John Donald, Edinburgh: 475-480. 1999. The Mesolithic Habitation Complexes in the Bal- kans and the Danube Basin. on-line . 2000a. Arheologia Pesterilor si Minelor din Romania. cIMeC. Bucharest. 2000b. Paleolithique Superieur et Epipaleolithique dans la Zone des Portes de Fer. Bucharest: SILEX. BORONEANT V., BONSALL C., MCSWEENEY K., ROBERT P. and MACKLIN M. G. 1995. A Mesolithic Burial Area at Schela Cladovei, Romania. In A. Thevenin (ed.), L'Europe des Derniers Chasseurs: Epipaleolithique et Mesolithique. Actes du 5-e Colloque International UISPP (Commission 12), Grenoble, 18-23 September 1995. Paris: 385-390. BORONEANT V. and BORONEAT C. 1983. Consideratii Asu- pra Parametrilor Tehnico-Functionali ai Uneltelor Preisto- rice de Lucrat Pamintul. Ialomita 1:115-122. BORONEANT V., CRACIUNESCU G. and STINGAI. 1979. Ra- port Preliminar Privind Sapaturile de la Ostrovul Mare. Materiale si Cercetari Arheologice XII: 17-18. BORONEANT V. and NICOLAESCU-PLOPSOR D. 1990. Le- sion Traumatiques Violents Datant de L'Epipaleolithique Tardif du Sou-Ouest de la Roumanie. Anthropologie XXVI- II: 55-65. C.S.A., C. d. S. a. A. 1967. Dunarea Intre Bazias si Ceta- tea Izmail. Bucuresti: Institutul de Studii si Cercetari Hi- drotehnice. COOK G. T., BONSALL C., HEDGES R. E. M., MCSWEENEY K., BORONEANT V., BARTOSIEWICZ L. and PETITTE P. B. 2002. Problems of Dating Human Bones from the Iron Gates. Antiquity 76: 77-85. DAVIDESCU M. 1965. O Asezare de Tip Cri§ la Turnu-Se- verin. Revista Muzelor III: 547-549. DINU A. 2006. The Question of Pig Domestication at Me- solithic Iron Gates. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wis- consin in Madison, Dpt. of Anthropology. DINU A., MEIGGS D., BALASESCU A., BORONEANT A., SO- FICARU D. A. and MIRITOIU N. 2006. On Men and Pigs: Were Pigs Domesticated at Mesolithic Iron Gates of the Danube? Part One: Teeth Metrics. Studii de Preistorie 3/ 2005-2006: 77-98. Grupul de Cercetari Complexe, P. d. F. 1976. Geografia. Bucuresti: Grupul de Cercetari Complexe 'Portile de Fier'. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania. I.G.G.A.R.S.R. 1969. Geografia Vaii Dunarii Romanesti. Bucuresti: Institutul de Geologie si Geografie al Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania. Editura Academiei Republi- cii Socialiste Romania. LARSON G., DOBNEY K., ROWLEY-CONWY P., SCHIBLER J., TRESSET A., VIGNE J.-D., EDWARDS C. J., SCHLUMBAUM A., DINU A., BÄLAEgSCU A., DOLMAN G., TAGLIACOZZO A., MANASERYAN N., MIRACLE P., VAN WIJNGAARDEN-BAK- KER L., MASSETI M., BRADLEY D. G., COOPER A. and AL- BARELLA U. 2007. Pigs, Ancient DNA and the Origins of Neolithic Farming in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(39): 15276-15281. LAZAROVICI G. 1979. Neoliticul Banatului. Biblioteca Muzei Napocensis. Cluj. MIRITOIU N., SULTANA N. M. and SOFICARU A. D. 2004. Asupra Unui Craniu Prehistoric dintr-o Descoperire Intim- platoare de la Schela Cladovei. Studii de Preistorie 2: 47-73. MOGOSEANU F. 1978. Mezolithicul de la Ostrovul Corbu- lui, o Noua Asezare de tip Schela Cladovei. Studii si Cer- cetari de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 29:335-351. NECRASOV O. and BOTEZATU D. 1981. Les Caracteri- stiques Anthropologiques d'un Squelette Decouvert a Os- trovul Corbului, Appartenant a L'Aspect Culturel Schela Cladovei. Annuaire Roumain Anthropologique 18:11- 14. NICA M. 1976. Circea, cea mai Veche Asezare Neolitica de la Sud de Carpati. Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 27: 435-463. 1977. Nouvelles Donnees sur le Neolithique Ancien d'Oltenie. Dacia XXI: 13-53. 1993. Citeva Date Despre Necropola Eneolitica de la Garlesti. Arhivele Olteniei (Serie Noua) 8:3-17. NICOLAESCU-PLOPSOR C. S. 1965. Epipaleolitic sau Mezo- litic. O Problema de Terminologie? Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche 16: 765-773. PAUNESCU A. 1970. Epipaleoliticul de la Cuina Turcului- Dubova. Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche si Arheo- logie 21: 3-47. 1987. Les Industries Lithiques du Neolithique Ancien de la Roumanie et Quelques Considerations sur l'Inven- taire Lithique des Cultures du Neolithique de Cette Con- tree. In W. University and J. U. Cracow (eds.), Chipped Stone Industries of the Early Farming Cultures in Eu- rope. Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, War- saw: 75-94. 1990. Ostrovul Corbului. Verlag Caro. Bucuresti. 1996. Ostrovul Corbului. Verlag Caro. Bucuresti. 2000. Paleoliticul si Mezoliticul din Spatiul Cuprins Intre Carpati si Dunare. Editura AGIR, Bucuresti. 2001. Paleoliticul si Mesoliticul din Spatiul Transilva- nean. Editura AGIR, Bucuresti. PRINZ B. 1987. Mesolithic Adaptations on the Lower Da- nube. Vlasac and the Iron Gates Gorge. BAR Internatio- nal Series 330. RADOVANOVIĆ I. 1996a. The Iron Gates Mesolithic. Ar- chaeological Series 11: International Monographs in Prehistory. 1996b. Mesolithic-Neolithic Contacts: A Case of the Iron Gates Region. Poročilo o raziskovanju paleolitika, neo- litika in eneolitika v Sloveniji XXIII: 39-48. 1999. Neither Person nor Beast - Dogs in the Burial Practice of the Iron Gates Mesolithic. In M. Budja (ed.), 6th Neolithic Studies. Documenta Praehistorica XXVI: 71-87. RADOVANOVIĆ I. and VOYTEK B. 1997. Hunters, Fishers or Farmers: Sedentism, Subsistence, and Social Comple- xity in the Djerdap Mesolithic. Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia 29:1931. ROMAN P. 1987. Dspre Istoricul Cercetarilor si Stratigra- fia Unor Asezari din Ostrovul Corbului. Studii si Cerceta- ri de Istorie Veche si Arheologie 38:335-365. SREJOVIC D. 1965. Lepenski Vir - A New Prehistoric Cul- ture in the Danubian Region. Archaeologia Jugoslavica 7: 13-18. 1990. The Mesolithic of Serbia and Montenegro. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. John Donald Publishers LTD, Edinburgh: 481-491. TRINGHAM R. 2000. Southeastern Europe in the Transi- tion to Agriculture in Europe: Bridge, Buffer, Mosaic. In T. D. Price (ed.), Europe's First Farmers. Cambridge Univer- sity Press, Cambridge: 19-56. VOYTEK B. and TRINGHAM R. 1990. Rethinking the Me- solithic: The Case of South-East Europe. In C. Bonsall (ed.), The Mesolithic in Europe. John Donald Publishers LTD, Edinburgh: 492-499.