Open-air Szeletian siteandits relationsatSzécsénke-Kis-Ferenc-hegy

(Cserhát Mountains, Northern Hungary) A. Péntek– K. Zandler

11th SKAM Lithic WorkshopThe multifaceted biface - Bifacial technology in Prehistory

20th-22nd of October, 2014, Miskolc, Hungary

Attila Péntek Krisztián Zandlerattila.pentek@yahoo.com Dornyay Béla Museum

3100 Salgótarján, Múzeum tér 2.zkrisztian77@yahoo.com

Szécsénke

Geographical position of the discussed site

11,0 km

Budapest

LegéndThe site

Vác

Hatvan

Western Cserhát Mountains

Central and Eastern Cserhát Mountains

The site and its environment

The site

km

Legénd

Szécsénke

Palaeolithic sites with leaf shaped implements.

The site and its direct environment

Szécsénke-Kis-Ferenc-hegy.

Legénd-Káldy-tanya.

Palaeolithic sites will be not mentioned in the presentation.

A typical topographic situation, well known in the Cserhát Mountains. The most Middle Paleolithic and/or Early Upper Paleolithic sites are lying along or at the heads of“dead end valleys”.

● Altitude datas: meter a.s.l.

368,1 m

The site

0 750 m

370,3 m

292,0 m

300,2 m

286,4 m

Introduction

During the intensive field surveysa lot of palaeolithic sites have been localized aroundLegénd village.

The localized sites have somecommon characteristics:• Intensive usage of the long distance raw material, thefelsitic porphyry (metarhyolite).

• The presence of thebifacial technique.

• The presence of the diverse leaf shaped tools.• An unusual intensive usage of the localsilex pebbles, evennummulitic chert .

The only site with published archaeological material is Legénd-Káldy-tanya. This site hasa very close relationto the Micoquian-Bábonyian industry [MARKÓ A.– PÉNTEK A. 2003-2004: Raw material procurement strategy on the palaeolithic site of Legénd Káldy-tanya (Cserhát Mountains, Northern Hungary). Praehistoria 4-5., 165-177.].

The1003lithic artefactsfrom theSzécsénkeKis-Ferenc-hegysite unifies all the abovementioned characteristics. The chipped stone artefacts show typological resemblancesto theso-called Szeletian industry. We took typological parallelismfrom the archaeologicalmaterial from well known moravian and bavarian sites which are aspectedasbelongingtothe Szeletian.

A short description of the site

On an asymmetrical hill-comb, locatedbetween the valleys of the Szécsénke andHalyagos streamletsatan altitude of 265-270 m a.s.l.. The siteis lying on a plateau ofabout 250×200 m area. Its relative altitudeis 70 m from the valley-foot. At the south-west corner of the site there is a pebble outcrop of 50×50 m area. Its geological age is Upper Oligocene Chattian Stage ~ Budafok Sand Formation.

• Quartzite pebbles dominate• Diverse silex pebbles • Radiolarite pebbles • Hydrothermal chunks • Petrified woods

● Altitude datas: meter a.s.l.

0 1 km

258,0 m

256,0 m

Raw material usage The so-called local raw materials defined as which can be collected in the direct vicinity of

the site or in an area has at longest 25 km distance from the site.

● Hydrothermal raw materials (hereafter only limnic quartzite):

The lithic material conatin only variants of Csehát Mountains origin but of unknown provenance.It could come from the vicinity of Püspökhatvan or Galgagyörk in a distance of about15 km as the crow flies, where hydroquartzite banks occur. This variant contain much inclusions, fossils and plant remains, and isn„t of good quality. Another possibility of the provenance is the vicinity of Buják andBér where a tabular form of better quality could be found.

● Silex pebble and nummulitic chert: We use this term as general and not as a scientific, petrographic term as the distinction between the diverse types are problematic. This raw material category contains a kind of

porous silicified volcanic rock of yellowish colour, which manifested in pebble form.

● Radiolarite (carpathian): It is known in pebble form at the east side of the Börzsöny Mountains in the„Nagyorosz Formation“. Actually all potential raw material sources, pebble outcrops contain some radiolarite pebbles in few amounts of good knapping quality.

● Quartzite:

Due to its high resistance to weathering quartz is one of the most ubiquitous raw

materials, explaining its high frequency in many Palaeolithic sites, usually linked to expeditive strategies. It is of common occurence even in the Cserhát Mountains. On the base of our observations it is related mainly to Middle Palaeolithic or Early Upper Palaeolithic sites. According to K. Valoch it is the characteristical raw material of the so-called „Begleitindustrie“ at some moravian and slovakian Szeletian sites.

The only long distance rawmaterial , which originates more than 100 km distance from the site is the felsitic porphyry (metarhyolite). Its primary geological source is in the east side of theBükk Mountains, at Bükkszentlászló in the valley of the Kaán Károly spring. Some years ago a PGAA analysis was carried out with positive results on some archaeological samples of the Cserhát Mountains too [MARKÓ et al 2003, 297-314].

Raw material usage

Raw material statistics of the artefacts

Artefact/Raw material

Limnicquartzite

Felsiticporphyry

Silex Radiolarite Quartzite Total number

Percentage

Tools 21 53 37 5 3 119 10.98

Cores 4 4 1 9 0.83

Blades (l >= 2*w) * 7 6 13 1.20

Flakes (> 15 mm) 103 131 87 7 6 334 30.00

Flakes (< 15 mm) 325 224 51 5 605 55.81

Raw material chunks

4 4 0.37

Total number 460 412 185 18 9 1084

Percentage 42.44 38.01 17.07 1.66 0.83 100.00

* The pieces are actually elongated, mostly asymmetrical blade-like flakes with irregular cross section.

42.44

38.01

17.07

1.66 0.83

Limnic quartzite

Felsitic porhyry

Silex

Radiolarite

Quartzite

Raw material statistics of the artefacts

Raw material statistics of the tools

Tool/Raw materialLimnic

quartzite Felsitic

porphyrySilex Radiolarite Quartzite Total

numberPercentage

End-scrapers 5 13 14 2 34 28.57

Leaf points 2 13 5 20 16.81

Side-scrapers 4 13 5 1 23 19.33

Bifacial tools 3 4 7 1 15 12.61

Other tools 7 10 6 1 3 27 22.69

Total numbers 21 53 37 5 3 119

Percentage 17.65 44.54 31.09 4.20 2.52 100.00

42.44

38.01

17.07

1.66 0.83

Limnic quartzite

Felsitic porhyry

Silex

Radiolarite

Quartzite

Raw material statistics of the tools

Some technological characteristics of the lithic assemblage

Few cores were left(9 pieces altogether), among them there are no core of felsitic porphyry.

Flake industry without Levallois-debitage.

The detailed technologicalanalysis lacks, we have no concrete theory about the applied debitage.

The ratio of the flakes greater than 15 mm inclusive the blade-like flakes is 31,20 %, that of the flakes less than 15 mm is 55,81 %. That is 86,81 % is debitage-material.

Among the flakes there are no blanks usable for tool making, there are mainly flakes originate from the shaping and preparation of the cores and from the tool making and retouching.

Among the flakes there is no raw material preference.

Some technological characteristics of the lithic assemblage

The traces of the Upper Palaeolithical blade technology are scarce, there are only 3 tools made on blades or on blade–like blanks. Two high end-scrapers of Aurignacian-character [#49, #55] and. a leaf point [#81].

There are releatively much (13 pieces altogether) elongated, blade-like flakes, they come to 1.2 % of the lithic material.

#49 #81

End-scrapers

The most numerous category(34pieces- 28,57 %).

Great raw material preference. The most pieces are made of silex and felsitic porphyry (14-13 pieces), 5 pieces are made of limnic quartzite and 2 pieces are made of radiolarite.

Among the Upper Palaeolithic types (carénoid, Aurignacian-like high end-scrapers) there are no pieces made of felsitic porphyry.

The end-scrapers have a very varied morphology. Besides the circular ones there are atypical nosed end-scrapers, carénoid pieces and particularly fan-shaped forms with narrow base too.

There are pieces with retouched lateral edge(s). These tools are combination tools of end-scraper and side-scraper as a matter of fact. This phenomena was mentioned by K. Valoch in relation with the archaic lithic material of Jezerany I. andII.This could be found at other moravian Szeletian sites as eg. Trboušany, Neslovice, Vedrovice V., Vincencovand even in Bavaria at Zeitlarn.

The base of some pieces is intentionally broken (because of hafting?). In a case of the felsitic porphyry is the base sometimes the naturally cleavage surface along a diaclase.

End-scrapers

An end-scraper made of felsitic porphyry has a Clactonian notch at the left side of the base [#65]. Typological resemblances are reported in Bavaria at Zeitlarn. These pieces are combination tools as a matter of fact.

#65

End-scrapers made of felsitic porphyry

End-scraper made of felsitic porphyry [#60]. Both lateral edges are retouched, on the distal part of the right edges has an atypical nose. Such pieces occur at some moravian Szeletian sites as eg. Neslovice, Vedrovice V. orVincencov or at Zeitlarn too.

It is noteworthy to mention the carénoid end-scraper made of silicified volcanic rock [#35]. Both lateral edges are retouched. The base has a narrow fan-tail like shape and is thinned on the ventral face. It is a combination of a double side-scraper and an end-scraper as a matter of fact. Typological resemblances are atMoravany-Dlhá to be found.

#60

#35

End-scrapers

The Upper Palaeolithic types are representedby some carénoid [#36, #40, #42] and2 Aurignacian-like high end-scraper [#49and#55]. These last pieces are made on massive blades or on blade-like flakes. These forms occur in varying proportionatall knownmoravian and slovakian Szeletian sites too.

#36 #40 #42

#49 #55

End-scrapers

Among the tools the percentage of the leaf shaped tools is high (20 pieces- 16,81 %).

The raw material preference is significant. 13 pieces are made of felsitic porphyry, 5 piecesare of silex and only 2 pieces are of limnic quartzite.

Most pieces are symmetric or slightly asymmetric to the longitudinal axis. These pieces are actually leaf points.

Leaf shaped tools

The longitudinal sectionis mostly biconvex.

There are pieces with biconvex, with plano-convex and even with parallelogramm crosssection.

Most pieces are fragmentary, from the 20 pieces there are 9 pieces of 15-30 mm long basefragment.

Because of the high fragmentary ratioa detailed morphological analysisisn„t possible.

Leaf shaped tools

Two pieces made of felsitic porphyry are

characterized by the relatively narrow, elongated

form [#3 and#76]. The first one has a slightly

rounded base with a Clactonian notch on the left

side of the base. The other one has a nice, tipped

distal end.

#76

Clactonian notch

Leaf shaped tools

#3

Some relatively short and wide pieces [#1, #57, #74, #75].

#92

#1 #57 #74

#75

A piece made of felsitic porphyry with about rounded base [#75].

A piece made of nummulitic chert [#57].

Leaf shaped tools

A fragmentary piece made of limnic quartzite [#81]. Relatively symmetric to the longitudinal

axis, has a biconvex longitudinal and a plano-convex cross section. On the ventral face only

the edges are retouched, givig the piece some similarities to the „pointe à face plane“ point whichoccur in the moravian Szeletian, eg. Neslovice és Ondratice . This phenomena could be

interpreted as the influence of the Jerzmanowician industry postulated by W. Chmielewski.

Leaf shaped tools

A numerous tool category (23pieces -19,33%).

A pronounced raw material preference, 12 pieces are made of felsitic porphyry, 5 pieces of silex, 3 pieces of limnic quartzite and 1 piece of carpathian radiolarite.

The most pieces are simpleside-scrapers with straight or concave working edge.

Especially the pieces made of felsitic porphyry are relatively small in dimensions. Its obvious reason could be the saving, economizing housekeeping with this long distance raw material.

Side-scrapers

Double side-scraper of small dimensions made of radiolarite. Its right edge is bifacially retouched.

Double/convergent side-scraper made of silex. The dorsal face is nicely elaborated, the base is thinned on the ventral face, the butt is prepared.

Double side-scraper made of felsitic porphyry. The right edge is partially bifacially retouched, on the right side of the base a notch could be seen.

Side-scrapers

#58

#69#54

#54Dorsal face

Ventral face

Among the tools there are 15 pieces bifacialtools others than leaf points. Its ratio in theassemblageis 12,61 %.

This tool category contain the nondescript, atypical or due to the recent state (fracture, thermicscars etc.) hardly classifiable pieces. Among thesetools could befoundthose pieces, half productstoo, which becauseof technological groundorknapping accident or raw material flaws have beenabandoned, but bifacially elaborated.

Rough-and-ready shaped and because of raw material flaws abandoned tool made of silicified volcanic rock. On the left edge in the Clactoniannotch secondary, unpatinated retouching could be seen. Dimensions: 64×43×21 mm

Bifacially elaborated tools

#32

Fragmentof an atypical bifacial knife.On the distal edge of the ventral face atransversal Prądnik-like sharpening spallcouldbeseen. Dimensions: (38)×(39)×12 mm

Fragment of an atypical bifacial knife. Plano-convex cross section, concavo-convex working edges. The distal part and the base are broken. Dimensions: (44)×30×12 mm

Bifacially elaborated tools

#33 #34

On the base of the blank morphology the tool resembles to a slightly convex transversal scraper.The distal edge (i.e. the left edge on the photo) is very steep retouched. The ventral face is partially thinned, the bulb of percussion is eliminated. On the one tipped base undefined, tar-like superficial subsidencecould be seen (traces of hafting?).

Dimensions: 45×26×12 mm

Eliminated bulb of percussion

Bifacially elaborated tools

#56

Miscellaneous tools

Misc. Tools/Raw material

Limnicquartzite

Silex Felsitic porphyry

Radiolari-te

Quartzite Total number

% correlated to MISC.tools

%correlated to ALLtools

Limace 1 1 3.70 0.84

Retouched flakes 1 5 6 22.22 5.04

Notched tools 2 2 4 14.81 3.36

Tranchets 2 1 3 11.11 2.52

Core-tools 1 1 3.70 0.84

Other unspecifiedtools

6 3 1 1 1 12 44.44 10.08

Total number 7 6 10 1 3 27

Percentage 25.93 22.22 37.04 3.70 11.11 100.00 22.69

There are 3 tranchets with chisel-likeworking edge these cometo 2,52% ofall tools. Such tools could befoundeg. in the Szeletian lithic assemblage ofNeslovice.

The core-tools are represented bya burin made of limnic quartzite [#15]. Accordingto K. Valoch these core-toolsare very characteristic in the moravianSzeletian.

4 notched pieces alltogether(3,36 %).

2 pieces are made of quartzite with

unretouched Clactonian notch [#111and#91].

A borer made of quartzite [#102].

#15

#111 #102#91

Miscellaneous tools

The most interesting toolofthe assemblageis the limacemadeof felsitic porphyry. The ventral faceis a naturalcleavage surface alonga diaclase, the dorsal faceisrough-and-ready elaborated. On the right side very nexttothe base recent damage couldbeseen. The tool has an almostdeltoid shape.

Dimensions: 76x32x12 mm

Miscellaneous tools

#113

It could be established that in the lithic tool set the ratio of the tools (side-scrapers and bifacial tools), characterizing the Middle Palaeolithic is 31,94 %.

The ratio of the leaf points is high (16,81 %), their elaboration is generally relatively rudimentary, don„t reach the refinement typifies the leaf points of the developed Szeletian industry.

The most end-scrapers have an archaic character, only some 6 pieces represents the Upper Palaeolithic types.

There are only one burin (a core burin) and one borer in the lithic assemblage.

Among the miscellaneous tools is significant the ratio of the archaic pieces (tranchets, notched tools).

The industry is an evident flake industry, no strong laminarity could be observed.

Actually all tool have a typological, morphological resemblance in the archaeological assemblages belonging to the Szeletian industry.

Summary

Investigating the following table containing the well known Bordes indices for 13 moravian open-air Szeletian site, published by M. Oliva, some characteristics could be observed. [OLIVA, M. 1995: Le Séletien de Tchécoslovaqiue: industrie lithique et répartion géographique. Paléo Supplement, 83-90]. Passing from the archaic, next to Micoquian assemblage of Jezeřany to the younger (developed) sites, the laminarity index, especially the ratio of the end-scrapers and generally of all other Upper Palaeolithic types increases. At the same time the ratio of the Middle Paleolithic components (side-scrapers, bifacial tools, leaf points) decreases. The Kis-Ferenc-hegy site at Szécsénke fits well in these tendencies, and could be regarded as a relatively early, open-air Szeletian site

Evaluation

Thank you for your attention!

• BÁRTA, J. 1960: Autour du probléme des pointés foliacées du type Moravany-Dlhá. (résumé)Slovenská Archeológia VIII-2(1960)295-324

• BLUSZCZ, A. – KOZLOWSKI, J. K. – FOLTYN, E. 1994: New Sequence of EUP Leaf Point

Industries in Southern Poland. Préhitoire Européenne, Volume 6, 197-222.

• BORDES, F. 1988: Typologie du paleolithique ancien et moyen. CNRS Editions.

• BOSINSKI, G. 1967: Die mittelpaläolitische Funde im Westlichen Mitteleuropa. Fundamenta

A4, Köln-Graz, Böhlau-Verlag

• HÁMOR G. 1985: A Nógrád-cserháti kutatási terület földtani viszonyai. The geology of the

Nógrád-Cserhát area. Geologica hungarica, Series geologica Tomus 22, Budapest

• HEINEN, M.-BECK, D. 1997: Ausgrabungen auf dem Szeletien-Fundplatz Zeitlarn, Lkr.

Regensburg. Beiträge zur Archäologie in der Oberpfalz, Band 1, 71-88

• HLADÍKOVÁ , L. 2002: Szeletian chipped industry from Trboušany I.Časopis Moravského Musea, LXXXVII.:ő7-80

• KAMINSKÁ, L. - KOZŁOWSKI , J. K.-ŠKRDLA, P. 2011: New Approach to the Szeletian –Chronology and Cultural variability. Eurasian Prehistory 8/1-2, 29-49

• KOZŁOWSKI, J. K. – MESTER Zs. 2003-2004: Un nouveau site du Paléolithique supérieur dans la Régiond‟Eger (Nord-est de la Hongrie). Praehistoria 4-5, 109-140.

• KOZŁOWSKI et al. 2009: Le Paléolithique moyen et supérieur de la Hongrie du nord : nouvelles

investigations dans la région d‟Eger. Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of Northern Hungary: New

investigations in the Eger region. L‟anthropologie 113, 3řř–453.

Bibliography

• KOZLOWSKI et al 2012.: La mise en valeur d‟un ancien site éponyme : Eger-KQporos dans le Paléolithique moyen et supérieur de la Hongrie du nord. Valorisation of a former

eponymous site: Eger-KQporos in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic of Northern Hungary. L‟anthropologie 116, Ő0ő–465.

• LÁNG S. 1967: A Cserhát természeti földrajza. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

• MARKÓ, A. – PÉNTEK, A. – BÉRES, S. 2002: Chipped stone assemblages from the environs of

Galgagyörk (Northern Hungary). Praehistoria 3., 245-257.

• MARKÓ A. – T. BÍRÓ K. – KASZTOVSZKY Zs. 2003: Szeletian felsitic porphyry: non-destructive

analysis of a classical palaeolithic raw material. Acta Archaeologica Scientiarum

Hungaricae 54., 297-314.

• MARKÓ, A. – PÉNTEK, A.2003-2004: Raw material procurement strategy on the palaeolithic site

of Legénd Káldy-tanya (Cserhát Mountains, Northern Hungary). Praehistoria 4-5.,

165-177.

• MARKÓ A. 200Ő: Újabb kQeszközök a galgagyörki Csonkás-hegyrQl. Psrégészeti Levelek. Prehistoric Newsletter 6., 10-12.

• MARKÓ A. 200ő: Limnokvarcit a Cserhát hegységben. Archeometriai Műhely 200ő/Ő. ő2-55.

http://www.ace.hu/am/2005_4/AM-2005-4-MA.pdf

• MARKÓ A. 2007: Preliminary report on the excavations of the middle palaeolithic site

Vanyarc - Szlovácka-dolina. Communicationes Archaeologicae Hungaricae , 5-18.

• MARKÓ A. 2008-2009: Raw Material Use at the Middle Palaeolithic Site of Vanyarc (Northern Hungary). Praehistoria 9-10, 183-194.

Bibliography

• MARKÓ A. 200řa: Levéleszközös leletegyüttes DebercsénybQl. Leaf-shaped industry from

Debercsény. Archeológiai Értesítô 134., 155-163.

• MARKÓ A. 2009b: Raw material circulation during the Middle Palaeolithic period in northern

Hungary. Krosno

• MESTER Zs. 2011: A Magyarországi középsô és felsô paleolitikum bifaciális levéleszközeinek

technológiája. Technologie des pièces foliacées bifaces du Paléolithique moyen et

supérieur de la Hongrie. In: T. Biró Katalin – Markó Adrás (eds.): Emlékkönyv

Violának. Tanulmányok T. Dobosi Viola tiszteletére. Papers in honour of Viola T.

Dobosi. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum, Budapest 15-42. http://www.mek.oszk.hu/09200/09253/pdf/

• NERUDOVÁ, Z. 2000: Vedrovice V. The Szeletian Lithic technology.

Acta Musei Moraviae, scientiae sociales. LXXXV:13-28

• NERUDOVÁ, Z. 2002: The Early Upper Paleolithic Blade Technology.

PUehled Výzkumu Ő3, 15.-29.

• NERUDOVÁ, Z. 2008-2009: The Technology of the Szeletian Lithic Industry int he Context of

Moravian UP Cultures. Praehistoria 9-10., 47-60.

• NERUDOVÁ, Z. 200ř: OUechov I a II. K problému existence levalloiského konceptu v szeletienu.Pravěk NT 9, 19-40.

• NERUDOVÁ, Z. 2010: Ondratický szeletien: poloha Drysice III, V a Ondratice IV.

Pravěk NT 10, 1-25.

Bibliography

• NOSZKY J. 1940: A Cserháthegység földtani viszonyai. Magyar tájak földtani leirása III. Das

Cserhát-Gebirge. Geologische Beschreibung Ungarischer Landschaften III. Budapest.

• OLIVA , M. 1ř7ř: Die Herkunft des Szeletien im Lichte neuer Funde von JezeUany. Časopis Moravského Musea, LXIV:Őő-78

• OLIVA, M. 1988: The role of the Levallois method and of the leaf points int he older phase of

Moravian upper palaeolithic. Časopis Moravského Musea, LXXIII:3-13

• OLIVA, M. 1992: The Szeletian occupation of Moravia, Slovakia and Bohemia.

Časopis Moravského Musea, LXXVII:3ő-58

• OLIVA, M. 1995: Le Séletien de Tchécoslovaqiue: industrie lithique et répartion géographique.

Paléo Supplement, 83-90

• OLIVA, M. 2008-2009: Questions du Szélétien supérieur en Moravia.

Praehistoria 9-10., 61-70.

• RINGER Á. 1982: Bábonyien – Eine mittelpaläolitische Blattwerkzeugindustrie in

Nordostungarn. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Ser. II. No. 11, Budapest

• SCHÖNWEISS,W. - WERNER,H.-J. 1986: Ein Fundplatz des Szeletien in Zeitlarn bei Regensburg.

Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 16/1, 7-12

• SONNEVILLE-BORDES D. de -PERROT J. 1řő3: Essai d‟adaptation des méthodes statistiques au Paléolithique supérieur. Premiers résultats. - Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, t. 50, fasc. 5-6, 323-333.

Bibliography

• SONNEVILLE-BORDES D. de - PERROT J. 1954: Lexique typologique du Paléolithique

supérieur: outillage lithique I. Grattoirs, II. Outils solutréens. - Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, t. 51, 327-335.

• SONNEVILLE-BORDES D. de - PERROT J. 1955: Lexique typologique du Paléolithique

supérieur (suite). III, Outils composites. Perçoirs. - Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française,

t. 52, 76-79.

• SONNEVILLE-BORDES D. de - PERROT J. 1956: Lexique typologique du Paléolithique

supérieur : outillage lithique. - Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, t. 53, fasc. 7-8,

408-412.

• SONNEVILLE-BORDES, D. – PERROT, J. 1956: Lexique typologique du Paléolithique

supérieur. Outillage lithique – V-IX. Bulletin de la Société préhistorique française, t. 53,

fasc. 547-559.

• SVOBODA, J.-PRICYSTAL, A. 1987: Szeletian industry from Vincencov (Otaslavice near

Prostéjov). Časopis Moravského Musea, LXXII:ő-19

• SVOBODA, J. 1řŘ0: KUemencová industrie z Ondratic: k problému počátk mladého paleolitu.Studie Archeologického Ústavu Českolslovenské Akademie věd v Brně, Academia Praha.

• SVOBODA, J. 2001: La question Szélétienne.

In: Les industries aux outils bifaciaux du Paléolithique moyen d'Europe occidentale.

Belgie : Université de Liege, 2001. ERAUL 98, ISBN 2 -930322 -27, pp.221 -230.

Bibliography

• T. BIRÓ K. 1řŘŐ: PskQkori és Qskori pattintott kQeszközeink nyersanyagának for­rásai. Sources of Lithic Raw Materials for Chipped Implements in Hungary. Archaeologiai ÉrtesítQ 111.,42-52.

• T. DOBOSIV. 1ř7Ř: A pattintott kQeszközök nyersanyagáról. Über das Rohmaterial der retuschierten Steingeräte. Folia Archaeologica XXIX., 7-19.

• VALOCH, K. 1955: Die Erforschung der paläolitischen Fundstätte in Rozdrojovice bei Brünn.

Časopis Moravského Musea, XL:ő-32

• VALOCH, K. 1956: Paläolitische Stationen mit Blattspitzen über dem Obrawa-Flusse.

Časopis Moravského Musea, XLI:ő-44

• VALOCH, K. 1965: Industrien des Szeletien im Raume des Kromauer Waldes in Südmähren.

Časopis Moravského Musea, L:ő-20

• VALOCH, K. 1960: Die Blattspitzenindustrie von Orechov bei Brno (Brünn). (Zugleich ein

Beitrag zur Problematik des Szeletien). Anthropozoikum 10(1960), 35-47

• VALOCH, K. 1ř66: Die altertümlichen Blattspitzenindustrie von JezeUany (Südmähren). Časopis Moravského Musea, LI:ő-60

• VALOCH, K. 1967: Die altsteinzeitlichen Stationen im Raum von Ondratice in Mähren.

Časopis Moravského Musea, LII:5-45

• VALOCH, K. 1973: Neslovice, eine bedeutende Oberflächenfundstelle des Szeletien in Mähren.

Časopis Moravského Musea, LVIII:ő-76

Bibliography

• VALOCH, K.-L. SEITL. 1966:Grabung auf der paläolitischen Fundstelle Marsovice II (Bez.

Znojmo) in Südmähren. Časopis Moravského Musea, LXIII:1ő-28

• VALOCH, K. 1984:Paläolitische Grabung in Vedrovice V (Bez. Znojmo).

Časopis Moravského Musea, LXIII:1ő-28

• VALOCH, K. 1993: Vedrovice V, eine Siedlung des Szeletien in Südmähren. Quartär 7-93

• ZANDLER K. 2006: Paleolit lelQhelyek Eger környékén. Egyetemi szakdolgozat. Kézirat ELTE-BTK Budapest.

• ZANDLER K. 2008: Nyíltszíni paleolit lelôhely Erdôtarcsa-Daróci hegyen. Open-air Palaeolithic site at ErdQtarcsa-Daróci-hegy. Paläolitische Freilandstation in ErdQtarcsa-Daróci-Berg.

A Nógrád Megyei Múzeumok Évkönyve XXXII., 46-66.

• ZANDLER K. 2010: Paleolit telep Hont-Csitáron. A palaeolithic site at Hont-Csitár.

In: Guba Szilvia –Tankó Károly (eds.): ,,RégrQl kell kezdenünk…” Studia Archaeologica in

honorem Pauli Patay. Régészeti tanulmányok Nógrád megyébQl Patay Pál tiszteletére.Szécsény, 23-49.

• ZANDLER K. – BÉRESS. 2011: Három nyíltszíni paleolit lelQhely revizíója: Bükkmogyorósd, Csokvaomány, Nekézseny. Revision of three open-air palaeolithic sites in the Bükk

Mountains, NE-Hungary. In: T. Biró Katalin – Markó András (eds.): Emlékkönyv

Violának. Tanulmányok T. Dobosi Viola tiszteletére. Papers in honour of Viola T.

Dobosi. Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum Budapest, 55-76.

http://www.mek.oszk.hu/09200/09253/pdf/

Bibliography