DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation, Many People Have Contributed in Great and Small Ways to This Eventual Result

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation, Many People Have Contributed in Great and Small Ways to This Eventual Result Methodology in the Evolutionary Study of Art Perspectives in philosophical anthropology, cognitive archaeology, and evolutionary theory Eveline Seghers Proefschrift voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van Doctor in de Kunstwetenschappen Promotoren: Prof. dr. Steven Jacobs en Prof. dr. Wilfried van Damme Supervisors: Prof. Dr. Steven Jacobs & Prof. Dr. Wilfried van Damme Dean: Prof. Dr. Marc Boone Rector: Prof. Dr. Anne De Paepe Nederlandstalige titel: Methodologie in de evolutionaire studie van kunst: perspectieven in filosofische antropologie, cognitieve archeologie, en evolutietheorie. Cover inspiration and images: Guthrie (2005) Cover design: Gitte Callaert Faculteit Letteren en Wijsbegeerte Eveline Seghers Methodology in the evolutionary study of art Perspectives in philosophical anthropology, cognitive archaeology, and evolutionary theory Proefschrift voorgelegd tot het behalen van de graad van Doctor in de Kunstwetenschappen 2015 Promotoren: Prof. Dr. Steven Jacobs & Prof. Dr. Wilfried van Damme Table of contents Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xi List of figures ............................................................................................................................ xiiv General introduction ................................................................................................................... 1 PART I - PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY Introduction to Part I ................................................................................................................. 15 Chapter 1. Art and the evolutionary framework 1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 19 1.2. The archaeological record for visual art ................................................................. 20 1.2.1. Human evolution and migratory patterns .................................................... 21 1.2.2. Classifying prehistoric art ................................................................................. 25 1.2.3. Ca. 50.000 - 10.000 BP ....................................................................................... 28 1.2.4. Ca. 100.000 - 50.000 BP ................................................................................... 46 1.2.5. Before ca. 100.000 BP ........................................................................................ 48 1.2.6. General issues with interpreting this record ................................................ 53 vi Table of contents 1.3. Connecting art and evolution .................................................................................... 57 1.3.1. Historical antecedents of current evolutionary research on art................ 57 1.3.2. Why use evolutionary theory to account for art? ........................................ 60 1.3.3. Mapping evolutionary hypotheses of art ....................................................... 62 1.4. Adaptationist thinking on visual art ....................................................................... 65 1.4.1. The artification hypothesis .............................................................................. 65 1.4.2. The aesthetic fitness indicator hypothesis .................................................... 71 1.4.3. The ancestress hypothesis .................................................................................. 82 1.4.4. The simulation hypothesis .............................................................................. 88 1.5. Byproduct views on visual art ..................................................................................... 94 1.5.1. The cheesecake hypothesis ................................................................................ 94 1.5.2. The sensory exploitation hypothesis .............................................................. 97 1.6. Gene-culture co-evolution and exaptation ...........................................................101 1.6.1. The indirect bias hypothesis ............................................................................101 1.7. Archaeology’s contribution to evolutionary thinking ...................................... 109 1.7.1. Cognitive fluidity ...............................................................................................110 1.7.2. Neurovisual resonance theory ........................................................................ 114 1.8. Evolutionary aesthetics ............................................................................................... 117 1.8.1. Aesthetics in evolutionary hypotheses of art ............................................... 117 1.8.2. Themes in evolutionary aesthetics ................................................................. 119 1.9. Visual art and the brain .............................................................................................. 121 1.9.1. Neuroarthistory and neuroaesthetics ............................................................ 121 1.9.2. The relevance of neuroscience for evolutionary hypotheses ................... 123 1.10. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................. 125 Chapter 2. Defining art in evolutionary research: conceptual and methodological considerations 2.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 127 2.2. The matter of defining art ....................................................................................... 128 2.3. Evolutionary attempts at defining art ................................................................... 130 2.3.1. Analytic confusion ............................................................................................ 130 2.3.2. Evolutionary approaches .................................................................................. 133 2.4. Whither art in evolutionary research? ................................................................... 138 2.4.1. First art and an evolutionary concept of art ............................................... 138 2.4.2. The matter of traits .......................................................................................... 139 Table of contents vii 2.4.3. Towards a pluralist view of art in evolutionary research......................... 142 2.5. Concluding remarks ................................................................................................. 144 Chapter 3. Cross-species comparison in the evolutionary study of art: a cognitive approach to the ape art debate 3.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 147 3.2. A history of the ape art debate ................................................................................. 148 3.3. Artistic cognition in the human species ................................................................. 153 3.3.1. Recognition of intentionality ......................................................................... 155 3.3.2. Symbolism .......................................................................................................... 156 3.3.3. Aesthetic sensitivity .......................................................................................... 156 3.4. But is it art? .................................................................................................................... 157 3.4.1. Recognition of intentionality ........................................................................ 157 3.4.2. Symbolism .......................................................................................................... 158 3.4.3. Aesthetic sensitivity ......................................................................................... 159 3.5. Discussion: the relevance of ape art for the evolution of art and an aesthetic sense among humans ......................................................................................................... 161 3.6. Concluding remarks .................................................................................................. 167 PART II - COGNITIVE ARCHAEOLOGY Introduction to Part II ............................................................................................................. 171 Chapter 4. Symbolism and the nature of art: the case of geometrically engraved artefacts 4.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 175 4.2. The behavioural modernity debate in Palaeolithic archaeology ................... 176 4.2.1. The nature of behavioural and cognitive modernity .............................. 176 4.2.2. Debating modernity ........................................................................................ 181 4.3. Symbolism and geometric mark-making: the burden of evidence ............... 188 4.3.1. The nature of symbolism in archaeological research ............................... 188 4.3.2. The objects of analysis and their primary interpretation ....................... 195 4.4. The argumentation assessed ................................................................................... 205 4.4.1. Eliminating other potential explanations ................................................ 205 4.4.2. Circumstantial evidence ..............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mladopaleolitické Skalní Umění Tomáš Tesařík
    Západočeská univerzita v Plzni Fakulta filozofická Bakalářská práce Mladopaleolitické skalní umění Tomáš Tesařík Plzeň 2019 Západočeská univerzita v Plzni Fakulta filozofická Katedra archeologie Studijní program Archeologie Studijní obor Archeologie Bakalářská práce Mladopaleolitické skalní umění Tomáš Tesařík Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Luboš Chroustovský, Ph.D. Katedra archeologie Fakulta filozofická Západočeské univerzity v Plzni Plzeň 2019 Prohlašuji, že jsem práci zpracoval samostatně a použil jen uvedených pramenů a literatury. Plzeň, duben 2019 ……………………… Poděkování: Rád bych poděkoval vedoucímu práce Mgr. Lubošovi Chroustovskému, Ph. D. za pomoc, odborné rady a poskytnutí cenných připomínek k vypracování této bakalářské práce. Dále děkuji své rodině a přátelům za velkou podporu a trpělivost. Obsah 1. Úvod .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Význam pojmu skalní umění ......................................................................... 2 3. Dějiny bádání ................................................................................................. 4 3.1. Umění pro umění .................................................................................... 4 3.2. Lovecká magie a totemismus ................................................................. 4 3.3. Strukturalismus ....................................................................................... 5 3.4. Období druhé poloviny 20. století ..........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 5 Years on Ice Age Europe Network Celebrates – Page 5
    network of heritage sites Magazine Issue 2 aPriL 2018 neanderthal rock art Latest research from spanish caves – page 6 Underground theatre British cave balances performances with conservation – page 16 Caves with ice age art get UnesCo Label germany’s swabian Jura awarded world heritage status – page 40 5 Years On ice age europe network celebrates – page 5 tewww.ice-age-europe.euLLING the STORY of iCe AGE PeoPLe in eUROPe anD eXPL ORING PLEISTOCene CULtURAL HERITAGE IntrOductIOn network of heritage sites welcome to the second edition of the ice age europe magazine! Ice Age europe Magazine – issue 2/2018 issn 2568­4353 after the successful launch last year we are happy to present editorial board the new issue, which is again brimming with exciting contri­ katrin hieke, gerd­Christian weniger, nick Powe butions. the magazine showcases the many activities taking Publication editing place in research and conservation, exhibition, education and katrin hieke communication at each of the ice age europe member sites. Layout and design Brightsea Creative, exeter, Uk; in addition, we are pleased to present two special guest Beate tebartz grafik Design, Düsseldorf, germany contributions: the first by Paul Pettitt, University of Durham, cover photo gives a brief overview of a groundbreaking discovery, which fashionable little sapiens © fumane Cave proved in february 2018 that the neanderthals were the first Inside front cover photo cave artists before modern humans. the second by nuria sanz, water bird – hohle fels © urmu, director of UnesCo in Mexico and general coor­­­di nator of the Photo: burkert ideenreich heaDs programme, reports on the new initiative for a serial transnational nomination of neanderthal sites as world heritage, for which this network laid the foundation.
    [Show full text]
  • Homo Aestheticus’
    Conceptual Paper Glob J Arch & Anthropol Volume 11 Issue 3 - June 2020 Copyright © All rights are reserved by Shuchi Srivastava DOI: 10.19080/GJAA.2020.11.555815 Man and Artistic Expression: Emergence of ‘Homo Aestheticus’ Shuchi Srivastava* Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, University of Lucknow, India Submission: May 30, 2020; Published: June 16, 2020 *Corresponding author: Shuchi Srivastava, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology, National Post Graduate College, An Autonomous College of University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India Abstract Man is a member of animal kingdom like all other animals but his unique feature is culture. Cultural activities involve art and artistic expressions which are the earliest methods of emotional manifestation through sign. The present paper deals with the origin of the artistic expression of the man, i.e. the emergence of ‘Homo aestheticus’ and discussed various related aspects. It is basically a conceptual paper; history of art begins with humanity. In his artistic instincts and attainments, man expressed his vigour, his ability to establish a gainful and optimistictherefore, mainlyrelationship the secondary with his environmentsources of data to humanizehave been nature. used for Their the behaviorsstudy. Overall as artists findings was reveal one of that the man selection is artistic characteristics by nature suitableand the for the progress of the human species. Evidence from extensive analysis of cave art and home art suggests that humans have also been ‘Homo aestheticus’ since their origins. Keywords: Man; Art; Artistic expression; Homo aestheticus; Prehistoric art; Palaeolithic art; Cave art; Home art Introduction ‘Sahityasangeetkalavihinah, Sakshatpashuh Maybe it was the time when some African apelike creatures to 7 million years ago, the first human ancestors were appeared.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Hypothesis on the Creation of the Hohle Fels “Venus” Figurine
    CLOTTES J. (dir.) 2012. — 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 mobilier pléistocène » A new hypothesis on the creation of the Hohle Fels “Venus” figurine Gillian MORRISS-KAY* Female figurines, or “Venuses”, are well known from the Gravettian culture (Cohen 2003; Conard & Wolf 2010, and references therein). Their geographical spread extends from western France to Siberia, and their age from 24-29,000 years ago (kya). They are typically characterised by enlarged breasts and belly. If the face is depicted at all, it is purely stylised; in some examples, the head is not represented, or appears to have been broken off. The legs are usually fused in the midline and the feet absent. It seems likely that they are symbolically related to fertility and/or pregnancy, perhaps as amulets to protect against the dangers of childbirth; fingerprints on clay examples from Pavlovian sites indicate that they were made by women (Caldwell 2010, and references therein). They are commonly around 10cm in height. In 2008 a female figurine was excavated from Hohle Fels Cave in the Swabian Jura, Southwest Germany (Conard 2009). Excavations in this cave had already yielded three non-human figurative carvings (Conard 2003) and the oldest known musical instruments, bone and ivory flutes (Conard et al. 2009). Calibrated radiocarbon dating of the charcoal-rich material around the figurine yielded dates ranging from 36 to 40 kya. Given its position at the base of the Aurignacian deposit (28-40 kya), the older end of the range is thought to be more likely.
    [Show full text]
  • Zoltan Romania Bats Final Report
    Survey of Romania’s underground bat habitats Status and distribution of cave dwelling bats 2002–2004 e h B T a t C o n s e r v a t i on Trust Survey of the Romania’s underground bat habitats Final report for the BP Conservation Programme Survey of Southern and Western Carpathians underground bat habitats & Survey of the Eastern Carpathians and Dobrogea underground bat habitats Projects were generously supported by: BP Conservation Programme Bronze Award 2002 BP Conservation Programme Follow-up Award 2003 in partnership with: Flora and Fauna International Birdlife International Conservation International Wildlife Conservation Society Department of Food and Rural Aff airs, UK Bat Conservation Trust Photo: Csaba Forrásy, Zoltán L. Nagy, Pál Szilágyi Palkó, Farkas Szodoray-Parádi Layout by Lizard Citation: Z. L. NAGY, L. BARTI, A. DÓCZY, CS. JÉRE, T. POSTAWA, L. SZÁNTÓ, A. SZODORAY-PARÁDI, F. SZODORAY-PARÁDI. 2005. Survey of Romania’s Underground Bat Habitats. Status and distri- bution of cave dwelling bats. Report for BP Conservation Programme. pp. 1 -44 2 Status and distribution of cave dwelling bats Summary The present report is a compilation of the results of two BP Conservation Programme funded projects implemented in Romania: the Survey of Southern and Western Carpathians under- ground bat habitats in 2002–2003 and the Survey of the Eastern Carpathians and Dobrogea un- derground bat habitats in 2003–2004. The aims and objectives were to realize after 40 years the fi rst full-scale census of cave-dwelling bat species. These programmes have been completed by a Romanian–Polish bat workers team.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Ochre and Painting During the Upper Paleolithic of the Swabian Jura in the Context of the Development of Ochre Use in Africa and Europe
    Open Archaeology 2018; 4: 185–205 Original Study Sibylle Wolf*, Rimtautas Dapschauskas, Elizabeth Velliky, Harald Floss, Andrew W. Kandel, Nicholas J. Conard The Use of Ochre and Painting During the Upper Paleolithic of the Swabian Jura in the Context of the Development of Ochre Use in Africa and Europe https://doi.org/10.1515/opar-2018-0012 Received June 8, 2017; accepted December 13, 2017 Abstract: While the earliest evidence for ochre use is very sparse, the habitual use of ochre by hominins appeared about 140,000 years ago and accompanied them ever since. Here, we present an overview of archaeological sites in southwestern Germany, which yielded remains of ochre. We focus on the artifacts belonging exclusively to anatomically modern humans who were the inhabitants of the cave sites in the Swabian Jura during the Upper Paleolithic. The painted limestones from the Magdalenian layers of Hohle Fels Cave are a particular focus. We present these artifacts in detail and argue that they represent the beginning of a tradition of painting in Central Europe. Keywords: ochre use, Middle Stone Age, Swabian Jura, Upper Paleolithic, Magdalenian painting 1 The Earliest Use of Ochre in the Homo Lineage Modern humans have three types of cone cells in the retina of the eye. These cells are a requirement for trichromatic vision and hence, a requirement for the perception of the color red. The capacity for trichromatic vision dates back about 35 million years, within our shared evolutionary lineage in the Catarrhini subdivision of the higher primates (Jacobs, 2013, 2015). Trichromatic vision may have evolved as a result of the benefits for recognizing ripe yellow, orange, and red fruits in front of a background of green foliage (Regan et al., Article note: This article is a part of Topical Issue on From Line to Colour: Social Context and Visual Communication of Prehistoric Art edited by Liliana Janik and Simon Kaner.
    [Show full text]
  • Michelle C. Langley Editor
    Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series Michelle C. Langley Editor Osseous Projectile Weaponry Towards an Understanding of Pleistocene Cultural Variability Osseous Projectile Weaponry Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology Series Edited by Eric Delson Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History New York, NY 10024,USA [email protected] Eric J. Sargis Anthropology, Yale University New Haven, CT 06520,USA [email protected] Focal topics for volumes in the series will include systematic paleontology of all vertebrates (from agnathans to humans), phylogeny reconstruction, functional morphology, Paleolithic archaeology, taphonomy, geochronology, historical biogeography, and biostratigraphy. Other fields (e.g., paleoclimatology, paleoecology, ancient DNA, total organismal community structure) may be considered if the volume theme emphasizes paleobiology (or archaeology). Fields such as modeling of physical processes, genetic methodology, nonvertebrates or neontology are out of our scope. Volumes in the series may either be monographic treatments (including unpublished but fully revised dissertations) or edited col- lections, especially those focusing on problem-oriented issues, with multidisciplinary coverage where possible. Editorial Advisory Board Ross D. E. MacPhee (American Museum of Natural History), Peter Makovicky (The Field Museum), Sally McBrearty (University of Connecticut), Jin Meng (American Museum of Natural History), Tom Plummer (Queens College/CUNY). More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/6978
    [Show full text]
  • Human Paleoecology During the Magdalenian in the Swabian Jura of Southwestern Germany
    Human Paleoecology during the Magdalenian in the Swabian Jura of Southwestern Germany Dissertation der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen zur Erlangung des Grades eines Doktors der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. nat.) vorgelegt von Gillian L. Wong aus Fresno/USA Tübingen 2020 Gedruckt mit Genehmigung der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen. Tag der mündlichen Qualifikation: 12.06.2020 Dekan: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Rosenstiel 1. Berichterstatter: Prof. Nicholas J. Conard, PhD 2. Berichterstatter: PD Dr. Britt M. Starkovich ii Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ v Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... viii Summary ............................................................................................................................... ix Zusammenfassung ................................................................................................................. xi List of Publications ............................................................................................................. xiii Personal Contribution .......................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1: Introduction ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of the Stone Bead Drilling Technology in South Asia from Earliest Times to Harappans
    An Overview of the Stone Bead Drilling Technology in South Asia from Earliest Times to Harappans V.N. Prabhakar1 1. Indian Institute of Technology, Gandhinagar, VGEC Campus, Ahmedabad – 382424, Gujarat, India (Email: [email protected]) Received: 10 September 2016; Accepted: 01 October 2016; Revised: 08 October 2016 Heritage: Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Archaeology 4 (2016): 47-74 Abstract: The Harappan Civilization is one among the four Bronze Age Civilizations of third millennium BCE that flourished for nearly 700 years (c. 2600 – 1900 BCE) in the river valleys of Indus- Ghagger-Hakra in modern India and Pakistan. The overall site count is well over 2500 now belonging to all the three phases, viz., early Harappan, Harappan and late / post-urban Harappan. The Harappan Civilization is characterized by well-planned out cities, always with a fortification, often with more than two divisions individually fortified, standardized ceramic tradition, weighing system, seals and sealing and a wide variety of craft activities. The knowledge of copper, gold, silver, lead and bronze was widespread and the Harappans exploited more than two-dozen raw material. The beginnings of stone bead manufacturing in Indian sub-continent can be traced to Upper Palaeolithic and Microlithic traditions in South Asia, say some 35000 years ago. It is from the Neolithic Period from Mehrgarh (from 7th millennium BCE) we get evidence of exploitation of various exotic raw materials from distant regions and perforations made using another hard stone. The technology slowly developed during the succeeding Chalcolithic Period before reaching its zenith during the Harappan Civilization. The Harappans gained access to several raw material sources spread around the Indus valley and its tributaries and it has been estimated that they exploited to around 40 minerals for manufacturing jewels and ornaments.
    [Show full text]
  • Under the Skin of a Lion: Unique Evidence of Upper Paleolithic Exploitation and Use of Cave Lion (Panthera Spelaea) from the Lower Gallery of La Garma (Spain)
    RESEARCH ARTICLE Under the Skin of a Lion: Unique Evidence of Upper Paleolithic Exploitation and Use of Cave Lion (Panthera spelaea) from the Lower Gallery of La Garma (Spain) MariaÂn Cueto1*, Edgard Camaro s2, Pedro Castaños3, Roberto Ontaño n1,4, Pablo Arias1 1 Instituto Internacional de Investigaciones PrehistoÂricas de Cantabria, Universidad de Cantabria, Santander, Spain, 2 Institut Català de Paleoecologia Humana i Evolucio Social, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, a11111 Tarragona, Spain, 3 Sociedad de Ciencias Aranzadi, San SebastiaÂn, Spain, 4 Museo de Prehistoria y ArqueologÂõa de Cantabria, Santander, Spain * [email protected] Abstract OPEN ACCESS Pleistocene skinning and exploitation of carnivore furs have been previously inferred from Citation: Cueto M, CamaroÂs E, Castaños P, archaeological evidence. Nevertheless, the evidence of skinning and fur processing tends Onta oÂn R, Arias P (2016) Under the Skin of a ñ to be weak and the interpretations are not strongly sustained by the archaeological record. Lion: Unique Evidence of Upper Paleolithic Exploitation and Use of Cave Lion (Panthera In the present paper, we analyze unique evidence of patterned anthropic modification and spelaea) from the Lower Gallery of La Garma skeletal representation of fossil remains of cave lion (Panthera spelaea) from the Lower (Spain). PLoS ONE 11(10): e0163591. Gallery of La Garma (Cantabria, Spain). This site is one of the few that provides Pleisto- doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0163591 cene examples of lion exploitation by humans. Our archaeozoological study suggests that Editor: Roberto Macchiarelli, Universite de Poitiers, lion-specialized pelt exploitation and use might have been related to ritual activities during FRANCE the Middle Magdalenian period (ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline for Homo Sapiens - 3Rd Edition from 2.5M B.C.E
    Timeline for Homo sapiens - 3rd Edition From 2.5M B.C.E. to 300,000 B.C.E. Hominin Species had organized the 1st Industrial Complexes making stone tools in quantities. By 1.8M B.C.E. hand axes and stone points that were flaked on two sides, hominins are demonstrating skill and technique. Undisputed evidence of a footprint that dates to 1.5M B.C.E. of a, "most Many Glacial likely", Homo erectus walking upright in Africa. Homo erectus fossils have been dated and from 1.8M B.C.E. to the 210,000 B.C.E. (12 discoveries are outside of Africa). Bone Interglacial Tools are found at the same epoch. From 1.5M B.C.E. to 790,000 B.C.E. evidence of Epochs occur hearths and cooking. The 1st living species that took control of fire. 500,000 B.C.E. over the 2.5 Hominin Species are hunting large animals with spears. Four wooden spears dated million years circa 400,000 B.C.E. have been found in Germany in 1995. Use of pigments on the body B.C.E. to and painting developed next around 400,000 B.C.E. to 300,000 B.C.E.. Descended from 300,000 B.C.E.. Sea levels rise Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis exists as a distinct species from around and fall 300ft 600,000 B.C.E./500,000 B.C.E. to around 26,000 B.C.E. and no fossils exist that are on average. younger than this time. 570,000/470,000 years tops Homo Sapiens by 370,000/270,000 Average years of existence as a distinct species.
    [Show full text]
  • CRISIA 2014 Redactor Responsabil Al Dr
    CRISIA 2014 Redactor responsabil al Dr. Aurel Chiriac publicaţiilor Muzeului Ţării Crişurilor Colegiul de redacţie: Gabriel Moisa – secretar de redacţie Bord editorial (membri): Florina Ciure, Gruia Fazecaş, Olimpia Mureşan Consiliul ştiinţific: Prof. univ. dr. Cesare Alzati – Università Cattolica Del Sacro Cuore, Milano Prof. univ. dr. Mihai Bărbulescu – Universitatea Babeş- Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca Academician Nicolae Edroiu – Institutul de Istorie „George Bariţ”, Cluj-Napoca Dr. György Feiszt – Vas County Archives of Szombathely Prof. univ. dr. Gianfranco Giraudo – Universitatea Ca’ Foscari din Veneţia Prof. univ. dr. László Gróf – Oxford Military College Prof. univ. dr. Francesco Leoncini – Universitatea Ca’Foscari din Veneţia Dr. Gizella Nemeth – Sodalitas Adriatico-Danubiana, Duino Aurisina Prof. univ. dr. Adriano Papo – Universitatea din Udine Prof. univ. dr. Ovidiu Pecican – Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca Academician Ioan-Aurel Pop – Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca Prof. univ. dr. Doru Radosav – Universitatea Babeş-Bolyai, Cluj-Napoca Dr. Matteo Taufer – Universitatea din Leipzig Orice corespondenţă se va MUZEUL ŢĂRII CRIŞURILOR adresa/ Toute correspondance 410464 ORADEA sera envoyée à l’adresse/ Please Bld. Dacia nr. 1-3 send any mail to the following ROMÂNIA address/ Richten sie bitte Tel/Fax: 0259479918 jedwelche korrespondenz an E-mail: [email protected] die adresse ISSN: 1016 – 2798 Fondator: Sever Dumitraşcu (1971) © Copyright by Muzeul Ţării Crişurilor Punctele de vedere exprimate în materialele publicate aparţin în exclusivitate autorilor MUZEUL ŢĂRII CRIŞURILOR C R I S I A XLIV ORADEA 2014 SUMAR (SOMMAIRE – SUMMARY – INHALT) GRUIA TRAIAN FAZECAŞ, DORU MIRCEA MARTA Locuirea eneolitică târzie de la Oradea – str. Cireşilor, Late Copper Age Settlement from Oradea – Cireşilor street 7 CĂLIN GHEMIŞ, T.
    [Show full text]