Abstract :
[en] During the Upper Palaeolithic, the Aurignacian to Gravettian “transition” represents a considerable cultural change that occurred between 30.000 BP and 27.500 BP, marked by modifications in both socioeconomic behaviours and material remains, including the lithic domain. In spite of a longtime debate and an increasing interest over this last decade, this issue still lacks any explanatory consensus. Focusing on the controversial early emergence of the Gravettian in the Middle Danube region around 30.000 BP, some researchers lean towards the hypothesis of a unique origin in central Europe before its expansion, while some others favour a convergence model and the existence of different appearance centers [1].
Among the diverse European key-regions concerning that issue, the East-Carpathian area (restricted here to Western Ukraine, North-East Romania and Moldova) remains one of the least investigated, despite the presence of different sites related to final Aurignacian and early Gravettian [2]. Noticeable within these sites, Molodova V contains some of the earliest occurrences of the Gravettian in Europe in the presence of cultural layers 10 and 9 (dated around 29.000 BP) [3], making it a cornerstone in the debate. Furthermore, several east-Carpathian sites consist of secure sequences with high-resolution climatic context, allowing correlations between stratigraphies. Works by geologist P. Haesaerts have indeed highlighted the fast succession between the two technocomplexes [3], even suggesting an anteriority of the early Gravettian appearance over the last Aurignacian levels in this specific region (dated around 27.700 BP in Mitoc-Malu Galben), a fact that curiously matches a corresponding potential overlapping noticed in central Europe [4].
Most of the related lithic collections were attributed in the second half of the 20th century, but have rarely been examined else than typologically. We have then decided to lead some new researches, applying a detailed technological approach to Ukrainian (including Molodova V and Korman IV), Romanian (including Mitoc-Malu Galben) and Moldovan (including Corpaci-Mâs) assemblages. Concerning the late Aurignacian assemblages, this re-examination leads us to strengthen their attribution, as their technical system clearly correspond to the Aurignacian lithic production patterns identified throughout Europe, and despite their late dates. On the other side, the reappraisal of the Ukrainian early Gravettian sites brings new elements to refine the technological understanding of its specificities. These new results allow a re-evaluation for the emergence of the Gravettian in eastern Europe specifically, but also provide fresh reflections on the debate in its broad extent over Europe.
