Archaeologiai Értesítő 138 (2013) 7–28 © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

DOI: 10.1556/ArchErt. 138.2013.1

T A N U L M Á N Y O K – S T U D I E S

ON THE MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC INDUSTRY OF THE JANKOVICH CAVE (NORTHEASTERN TRANSDANUBIA)

András MArkó*

The eponymous locality of the Middle Palaeolithic industry was first excavated 1913. As a result of nine years investigations, 104 lithic artefacts, made predominantly of radiolarite were collected from the exceptionally thick yellowish red sediment. According to our reconstructions, on the top of the layer s. str. Szeletian artefacts and osseous tools, in the lowermost level Micoquian-type stone tools were found. Unfortunately, the majority of the artefacts, including the retouched Levallois blanks, “raclettes”, leaf-shaped implements and some antler tools cannot be linked to well-defined levels. Instead of the connections of the find material with the industries found in southern Germany or on the Balkans, we suggest draw attention to the similarities with the assemblage of layer G1 of the Vindija cave (Croatia).

Keywords: Levallois, radiolarite, Jankovich-type industry, Szeletian

One hundred years ago, 20 April 1913 a test ex­cavation was started in the large cave opening to North at a relative height of 80 m on the Öregkő (“Old Cliff”) near Bajót. As in the sound seven “Palaeoliths” were found, J. Hillebrand carried on the works until 1918 and in 1925 (Table 1; Fig. 1). The cave, of which the first section with the artefact­bearing sediment was destroyed well before the excavations, soon became one of the best­known and most important cave localities in the Transdanubia, and it was named after Béla Jankovich, the minister of religion and education of that time, who visited and financially supported the excavations.

Before the World War II the leaf­shaped assem­blage, the main topic of this work was placed in chronological and typological point of view between the lower and the upper culture bearing layers of the Szeleta cave and it was classified as

“Altsolutréan” after the terminology of that time.1 From the beginning of the fifties the pieces were compared to that ones, found in southern Germany.2 After the definition of the Szeletian entity, the Jankovich cave was considered as the only one important site of the so called “Transdanubian group”, different from that one of the Szeleta cave3 and the industry, having strong Middle Palaeolithic traits was rather com­pared to the Slovakian Szeletian.4 Since the eigh­ties the site was looked as the eponymous locality of a Middle Palaeolithic industry,5 dated to the early Würm6 or to the first Pleniglacial period 1 HillebrAnd 1915, 133–137; HillebrAnd 1935, 17.2 Kleine Ofnet, Obere Klause, Ranis 2 and Kösten: Gábori 1953,

31, 60. See also: Vértes 1955, 274, 276.3 Vértes 1955, 273–274, 276.4 Gáboriné Csánk 1956.5 Gáboriné Csánk 1983, 1984, 1990, 1993. The first review of

this unit was presented on a conference held in Paris, 1974.6 According to Zs. Mester (Mester 2011b, 30) the two main

arguments by Gábori Csánk (the presence of musk­ox and Neanderthal remains in the Remete Upper cave) for the dat­ing the industry before the first Würmian Pleniglacial was refuted by the recent investigations. In fact, however, Neanderthals were simply never declared to have a strict

The article received: February 2013; accepted: June 2013. * András Markó. Archaeological Department, Hungarian

National Museum, H­1088 Budapest, Múzeum krt. 14–16. markoa@hnm.hu

8 ANDRáS MARKó

Fig. 1. Jankovich cave: pictures of an excavation

1. kép. Jankovich­barlang: egy ásatás képei

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 9

and characterized by the presence of Middle Palaeolithic and plano­convex leaf­shaped tools, displaying about 30% of the pieces. Importantly, the characteristic pieces, including several bifa­cial tools were often made on flakes with facetted base and large bulb of percussion. On the other hand, the Upper Palaeolithic lithics are practic­ally absent and the presence of the osseous tools was generally interpreted as the effect of natural mixing or the imprecise methods of excavations.

Since the description and the definition of the “Jankovichian civilisation” new field works only in the Dzeravá skála cave were carried out,7 how­ever, the stratigraphical and cultural interpreta­tion of the excavated artefacts seems to be prob­lematic.8 At the same time, several assemblages and single pieces, found far from the Jankovich cave were sorted into this entity.9 Recently the technology of the leaf­shaped tools from the site were studied and compared to the material of the Szeleta cave.10 Finally reviewing all the available evidences of the field documentations and the

chronological importance (Gábori-Csánk 1984), but the com­position of the faunal community was generally considered as typical for that period.

7 kAMinská et al. 2005. 8 For the details see: MArkó 2011, 97–98. 9 Mester 2000; rinGer–Mester 2000; rinGer–Mester 2001;

MArkó 2003; Foltyn 2003; PAtou-MAtHis 2000; c.f. below.10 Mester 2011a; Mester 2011b.

original excavation reports we suggested that the antler and ivory tools and the leaf­shaped indus­try was found in the same stratigraphical posi­tion, similar to the case in the Szeleta and the Istállóskő caves in the Bükk mountains in Hungary, in layer G1 in the vindija (Croatia) or in layer XI in the Obłazowa cave in Poland.11 This way we agree with the palaeontological age determination (to the Middle Würm) of the arte­fact­bearing yellowish red layer of the Jankovich cave.12

Distribution of the lithic artefacts in the cave

According to our information, the occurrence of the leaf­shaped lithics was restricted to the rear part of the cave and especially to the new section, discovered in 1915. This side corridor and a hall was closed by Holocene sediments yielding “Bronze Age” artefacts until that time and it was totally excavated by 1925. Thirty­one years later

11 MArkó 2011; MArkó 2013.12 The most recent review of the large mammal faunas placed

the assemblages from the yellowish red layer of the Jankovich cave, layer C of the Szelim cave, layer 4 in the Remete Upper cave and e.g. layers 2–6 of the Szeleta cave to the Szeleta faunal phase (Vörös 2000, 189–190, c.f. note 6).

Table 1. excavations in the Jankovich cave 1913–1956

1. táblázat. A Jankovich­barlang ásatásai, 1913–1956

1913 April J. Hillebrand rear section 7 artefacts: bone needle, not retouched bladesMousterian point, end­scraper on blade, leaf­point

HillebrAnd 1913

1913 8 days in June J. Hillebrand rear section leaf­shaped tool, ivory rod HillebrAnd 19141914 26 May – 25 June J. Hillebrand first section decorated bone rod HillebrAnd 19151915 2 August – 7 September J. Hillebrand entrance and

rear sectionbone awl, microlithic blades;>100 lithics, osseous industry

HillebrAnd 1915

1916 12 June – 1 July J. Hillebrand, l. Bella, T. Kormos

rear section, lower cave

ivory amulet; lithics HillebrAnd 1917

1916 27 October – 6 December J. Hillebrand1917 6 May – 28 May J. Hillebrand entrance,

rear section, lower cave

metapodial awl HillebrAnd 1919

1918 J. Hillebrand1925 May, June J. Hillebrand,

F. Tompaentrance, rear section

HillebrAnd 1926

1956 21 May – 8 June l. vértes, D. Jánossy, S. Bökönyi

entrance, rear section

(epi)Gravettian artefacts HerrMAnn et al. 1956

10 ANDRáS MARKó

Fig. 2. Jankovich cave: Gravettian and Middle Palaeolithic artefacts from the 1915 excavations (drawing: K. Nagy)

2. kép. Jankovich-barlang: gravetti és középső paleolitikus eszközök az 1915. évi feltárás anyagából (Nagy K. rajza)

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 11

the stratigraphical trenches of Vértes did not find the culture bearing sediment or artefacts.

The litho­stratigraphical observations of the cave sediment show quite clear picture (Table 2). Below the unusually thick Holocene layer, yel­low or red coloured clay with lithic and osseous artefacts was found, overlying a sterile plastic yellow clay. The presence of more than hundred pieces of not charred wood (sticks?) found in 1915 at the depth of 1.8 m suggests a relatively quick sedimentation during the Pleistocene.13

Unfortunately, about the majority of the Jankovichian artefacts lack the basic information about their original finding place with the excep­tion that the culture bearing layer was lying below a level containing cave bear bones, Gravettian (published as “Magdalenian I”) lithics and ivory tools. The speculation, that the “Aurignacian” osseous industry belongs to the late period of the leaf­point occupation, as it was mainly found in the first three years of the ex ca­vations,14 seems to be misleading. In fact, the Gravettian end­scraper depicted on Fig. 2.1 and the well­known ivory amulet with ladder­like ornament was found in 1916, following the ex ca­vations of the largest collection of leaf­shaped tools and levallois points.

13 HillebrAnd 1915, 137–140.14 Vértes 1955, 276.

According to the publication on the first sea­son,15 the Pleistocene layer sequence in the sound was 1 m in thickness and the first leaf-shaped tool, a Mousterian point and an end­scraper on blade were found in the yellowish clay. These artefacts, however, cannot be identified with cer­tainty in the collections today. On the other hand, a finely elaborated leaf-shaped scraper, found in July 1913 together with an antler point of bevelled base16 was reproduced on our Fig. 2.5.17 In 1915 and 1916 the culture­bearing sedi­ment was reported as reddish or yellow clay hav­ing a thickness of 2 or 3 meters.18 From these sea­sons the hand written lists of artefacts are avail­able in the archives of the Hungarian National Museum, however, the lithological character of the imbedding sediment was not recorded. From 1915 we have data about the occurrence of 57 lithic artefacts (45 of them are identifiable even today) – three antler points and two ivory pieces, dated to the “Solutréan ages” in the recently dis­covered part of the cave. In the next year three blades were found “at the border between the Solutréan and the Magdalenian layers” (Fig. 2.5–6;

15 HillebrAnd 1913, 127–128.16 MArkó 2011, 98, 2. kép 1.17 According to the inventory number this piece was found in

1925. However, the drawings by J. Hillebrand (HillebrAnd 1914, 2. ábra) clearly identify the piece.

18 HillebrAnd 1915, 133; HillebrAnd 1917, 98–102.

Table 2. Stratigraphical data from the Jankovich cave

2. táblázat. A Jankovich­barlang rétegtani adatai

1913 rear section

2 m black, greyish­brown layer domesticated animals “Neolithic” potsherds, blades

1 m yellowish grey, yellow clay with few limestone frag­ments

upper half: reindeer, rodentsmiddle part: reindeer, rhino, cave bearlower part: cave bear

retouched blades, bone needle

Mousterian point, blade­like scraper, crude leaf­point

yellow clay sterile sterile1914– 1915

entrance brown humic level “Bronze age” sherds

yellowish grey layer sterileyellow clay with limestone fragments

reindeer, microfauna “Magdalenian II”

yellow clay sterile sterilerear

sectionyellow clay with fragments reindeer, microfauna “Magdalenian II” /

“Magdalenian I”?red clay with fragments cave bear “Solutréen”yellow clay sterile sterile

1917 entrance yellow clay reindeer, microfauna Magdalenianplastic clay sterile sterile

12 ANDRáS MARKó

Fig. 3. Jankovich cave: tools from the 1915, 1916 and 1917 excavations (drawing: K. Nagy)

3. kép. Jankovich­barlang: eszközök az 1915., 1916. és 1917. évi ásatásokból (Nagy K. rajza)

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 13

Fig. 4. Jankovich cave: levallois points with ventral thinning and convergent scrapers from the 1915 collection (drawing: K. Nagy)

4. kép. Jankovich­barlang: ventrális oldalon vékonyított levallois­hegyek és hegyes kaparók az 1915. évi ásatásból (Nagy K. rajza)

14 ANDRáS MARKó

the third one is missing from the collection). Until the depth of 2 meters two blades (Fig. 6.4), five leaf-points (Fig 6.1–2) and three scrapers were found (Fig. 6.3, 6.5, Fig. 3.6).19 Finally, two pieces (Fig. 6.6–7) were reported from the under­lying half meter thick sediment. Regrettably, the excavation report is inconsistent with this list, as it claimed that the convergent scraper (Fig 6.5)

19 One of the blades and three of the leaf­shaped tools are miss­ing today.

and a leaf­shaped implement (Fig. 3.420) are typo­logically similar to the artefacts found 3 meter above.21

In the field report of the 1917 excavations the embedding sediment was published as having a banded character with darker and lighter layers and the artefacts were mainly collected from the

20 According to the inventory number this piece was listed among the finds of the 1925 season; see: Mester 2011b, 1. táblázat: 61/925.2.

21 HillebrAnd 1917, 101, 3–4. kép.

Fig. 5. Jankovich cave: retouched tools and cores (?)

5. kép. Jankovich­barlang: megmunkált eszközök és magkövek (?)

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 15

Fig. 6. Jankovich cave: pieces from the 1916 excavations (drawing: K. Nagy)

6. kép. Jankovich­barlang: az 1916. évi ásatás leletei (Nagy K. rajza)

16 ANDRáS MARKó

Fig. 7. Jankovich cave: lithic tools from the upper and lower hearth layer of 1925 (drawing: K. Nagy)

7. kép. Jankovich­barlang: az 1925. évi ásatás leletei (Nagy K. rajza)

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 17

darker ones.22 Again, no differences were recog­nised in the character of the archaeological mater­ial separated by four or five meter thick cave clay levels.23

From the short season of 1918 neither pub­lished report nor documentation is available. In 1925 three discrete hearth levels were excavated at a previously not accessible part of the cave. The lowermost one yielded a half hand­axe (Halbkeil) and a double scraper24 (Fig. 7.3–4). In the uppermost level two fine leaf-shaped tools25 (Fig. 7.1–2) and a burnisher of ivory26 was found. From the “middle hearth layer”, not mentioned by J. Hillebrand, a (missing) “little spear point” and a fragment of a highly fossilized antler tool fragment27 was also inventoried.

As the result of the nine seasons of investiga­tion v. Gábori­Csánk enumerated 113 diagnostic pieces and 12 not modified flakes in the largest collection of the Jankovichian industry.28 However, the stratigraphical or typological determinations and even the provenance of the artefacts should be revised in several cases. First of all, two bifa­cial tools were found in fact in the Pálffy (Dzeravá skála)29 and in the Kiskevély cave.30 Although two end­scrapers (Fig. 2.1–2), a burin and ten blades (Fig. 2.4, 2.7) published by v. Gábori­Csánk as Upper Palaeolithic elements of the Jankovichian31 were excavated in the Gravettian32 or Epigravettian (i.e. “Magdalenian I or II”) layer of the Jankovich cave. Another burin, documented by J. Hillebrand as part of the Middle Palaeolithic assemblage, belongs to one fragmentary piece (identified by V. Gábori-Csánk as a raclette: 22 HillebrAnd 1919, 7.23 HillebrAnd 1919, 6–7.24 HillebrAnd 1926, Abb. 3–4.25 HillebrAnd 1926, Abb. 1–2; Gábori-Csánk 1993, Pl. IIa–b:

6, 10.26 MArkó 2011, 102, 8. kép 1.27 MArkó 2011, 102, 9. kép.28 Gábori-Csánk 1993, 131–138, Pl. I–vIII. earlier l. vértes enu­

merated 121, later 116 stone tools, J. K. Kozłowski 152 lithics (93 of them were classified as tools and 52 of them of leaf-shaped implements), finally Ph. Allsworth-Jones 102 retouched tools into this industry: Vértes 1955; Vértes 1965; KozłowsKi 1965, 62, 68–69; Allsworth-Jones 1986, 114, Table 4.4.

29 After the list of artefacts, kept in the Archives of the HNM (32.Sz.I) and the report by J. Hillebrand (HillebrAnd 1913) the stratigraphical position of the artefacts is obvious; c.f. Gábori-Csánk 1993, Tab. Ia–b: 3. See: Mester 2011a, 83, note 1; Mester 2011b, 21, 37. jegyzet; c.f. kAMinská et al. 2005, 38–39.

30 Gábori-Csánk 1993, Pl. IIIa–b: 2.31 Gábori-Csánk 1993, Pl. vIII: 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18; IX: 4, 8,

9, 14, 15.32 The “Magdalenian I” industry, excavated together with cave

bear remains possibly antedates c. 24 000 radiocarbon years: PACHer–stuArt 2008.

Fig. 2.3),33 from the Gravettian period and as we mentioned above, two pieces (Fig. 2.5–6)34 were found at the border of the Upper and the Middle Palaeolithic layers. Finally, according to the data of the inventory books, two backed bladelets, not listed by v. Gábori­Csánk were found in the “Early Solutréan” layer, however, most probably in a secondary position.35 Similarly, we can inter­pret the presence of two blades of Szentgál­type and greenish grey radiolarite,36 and artefacts of Prut flint, obsidian and hydroquartzite, all found in 1913–1914, in the same way.

As the result of our review we sorted 104 pieces into the eponymous assemblage of the Jankovichian industry. Our investigations are based on these artefacts.

Lithic raw material types (Table 3; Fig. 8)

The petrology of the siliceous rocks excavated in the Jankovich cave was first studied by E. Vadász, who identified the presence of flint, imported from a distance of 3 hours walking, from the lias formations near Dorog.37 Most recently K. Simán summarising the raw material circulation of the Middle Palaeolithic sites in Hungary,38 identified the same rocks as different radiolarite variants (60% of the studied 40 pieces). According to the macroscopic investigations, half of the pieces were imported from 120 km, from the vág/váh valley,39 while the others had the source area in the Bakony mountains, lying more than 25 km from the site.40

Our studies showed that 19 artefacts (18.27%) of yellowish red coloured radiolarite with pale yellow chalcedony inclusions are practically identical with the pieces found near Szentgál, in the southern part of the Bakony mountains, lying at a distance of 90–95 km from the Jankovich cave, respectively. The chocolate­brown variant, named after the outcrops around Hárskút (5 pieces in the Jankovich assemblage), the yellow coloured pieces, general in the vicinity of eplény 33 Gábori-Csánk 1993, Pl. vIII: 19 and Pl. IX: 9.34 Gábori-Csánk 1993, Pl. IX: 3, 14.35 Vértes 1955, 274; c.f. Allsworth-Jones 1986, 114.36 Gábori-Csánk 1993, 137, Pl. vIII: 9–10.37 HillebrAnd 1913, 128.38 siMán 1991, 52.39 The occurrence of radiolarite pebbles in the alluvia of west­

ern Slovakia, published by M. Mišík (Mišík 1969, Obr. 1; Mišík 1975, Obr 1.) seems to be misleading, as south of Moravány there are no traces of this raw material in the allu­via of the váh river. The pebbles collected from the Danube probably originate from the Alpian sources (communication by A. Přychístal).

40 siMán 1991, Table 4.2.

18 ANDRáS MARKó

Table 3. Frequency of the raw material types used in the Jankovich cave

3. táblázat. A Jankovich­barlangban használt nyersanyagtípusok gyakorisága

radi

olar

ite

hidr

oqua

rtzi

te

opal

chal

cedo

ny

cher

t

flint

?

fels

itic

porp

hyry

silic

ified

san

dsto

ne

silic

eous

peb

ble

burn

ed s

ilex

othe

r sile

x

tota

l

perc

ent

1913–1914 18 1 1 1 1 22 21.151914 1 1 1 3 2.881915 31 3 2 3 1 4 44 42.311916 8 1 9 8.651917 5 1 2 1 9 8.651918 3 1 1 5 4.811925 4 4 3.85

wrong inv. nr. 2 2 1.92not identified 4 1 1 6 5.77

total 76 4 3 3 1 4 3 1 5 2 2 104 100.00percent 73.08 3.85 2.88 2.88 0.96 3.85 2.88 0.96 4.81 1.92 1.92 100.00

Fig. 8. Sources of radiolarite and felsitic porphyry, used in the Jankovich cave (map by B. Holl, HNM–NÖK)

8. kép. A lelőhelyen használt radiolarit és üveges kvarcporfír előfordulásai (Holl B. térképe, MNM–NÖK)

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 19

and lókút (3 pieces), and the green and red rock with marble­like pattern, traditionally linked to the váh valley were all used in the cave.

In the Gerecse mountains several primary sources of red and reddish brown radiolarite vari ant, seemingly identical with the raw materi­al known from the archaeological assemblage (29 pieces, i.e. 27.88% of the assemblage) are known, at a distance of 4–12 km from the Jankovich cave. Moreover, large territories of these mountains are covered by angular fragments of this rock

(Fig. 8), and the Tertiary alluvial formations in the Tata valley contain radiolarite pebbles also.41

Moreover, the occurrences of the different radi­olarite types, known from the petroarchaeolo­gical literature are not restricted to single out­crops or even regions. The pieces of Szentgál­type rocks were also reported from the Pisznice sources in the Gerecse42 and our data shows that pieces of the “Carpathian” or “váh valley” vari­ant can be collected today from primary context in the region of Agostyán and Tata, lying only 15 and 18 km from the cave in western direction.

As a summary we can point out that the vari­ants of the main raw material, constituting nearly three quarters of the bifacial industry of the Jankovich cave are quite easy to identify even by macroscopic methods, however, the question of their geological sources is problematic for the time being. Seemingly the different types were collected from a large territory from the Szentgál region to the váh valley, but our not systematic studies suggest that the same macroscopic types are present in local and meso­local primary and secondary sources too.

The other raw material types are represented in the assemblage by considerably lower num­bers. The “silex”, hydrothermal raw material and the siliceous pebble variants, and a single flake of hornstone pebble were reported to originate from the vicinity of the site or from the nearby volcanic mountains. The felsitic porphyry (3 pieces, 2.88% of the assemblage) on the other hand is a classical extralocal raw material in Transdanubia, as it was imported from 160 km,

41 In the lower and Middle Palaeolithic assemblages of vértes­szőlős and Tata, where this pebble formation was exploited, both the so­called Carpathian and the Bakony variants of radiolarite are present (biró 2004).

42 biró 1984, 49. We collected worked pieces of this variant at the nearby geological section and Prehistoric extraction site of Margit-árok and the hill called Flint (Tűzköves-hegy) also. At this later place a single piece of “Carpathian” radiolarite (green and red variant) was also found.

from the eastern part of the Bükk mountains.43

The silicified sandstone from eastern Slovakia (200 km), mentioned by K. Simán may be iden­tical with the (menilithic) chert from the alluvia laborc and the Ondava rivers.44 Finally a single piece of flint from northern Moravia was identi­fied by K. Simán, imported from a distance of 220 km. In the collection we identified four pieces of excellent quality and heavily patinated pieces as possibly made of flint. However, there are not exact data of their provenance.

Stratigraphical observations

Based on the documentations we can consider as the stratigraphically youngest pieces of the industry the finely worked leaf-shaped tools (Fig. 3.5, Fig. 7.1–2) and osseous implements, which were excavated in the upper part of the sequence in 1913 and 1925. The sharp edges of the lithics suggest only minimal post­depositional disturb­ances in this section of the sediment, in accord with the inferences of the investigations of the antler and ivory tools.45 One of the pieces ex ca­vated in 1925 was compared by J. Hillebrand to the point from Miskolc-Petőfi street46 and later to the leaf­points of Moravány type.47 Because of the slight asymmetry of the pieces, as morpho­logical analogies we rather draw attention to the Szeletian artefacts from Vlčkovce or Vel’ký Šariš (western and eastern part of Slovakia),48 origin­ally both dated to the first half of the Middle Würm.49 Finally a similar tool was published 43 We have to mention as an interesting detail, that the first

petrographically correct determination of this rock (“glassy rhyolite”) was reported from the cave site: HillebrAnd 1935, 19 (with the reference to the geologist S. Koch). The term “felsitic porphyry” in connection with the Jankovich cave was used by J. K. Kozłowski (KozłowsKi 1965, 70). Importantly, the handbook on the Hungarian Palaeolithic period did not mentioned the use of this raw material in the assemblage of the Jankovich cave: Vértes 1965, 308.

44 kAMinská 1991, 20–21. Macroscopically the same raw mater­ial is also known from the upper layer of the Istállóskő cave (inv. nr.: 27/917.6) as from the Jankovich cave (Pb. 562).

45 MArkó 2013.46 HillebrAnd 1926.47 bártA 1960, 310.48 bártA 1960, obr. 4. The assemblage from Vlčkovce was

recently identified as belonging to the poorly definied Zwierzyniceian industry: KozłowsKi 2004, 20; kAMinská et al. 2009, 45.

49 Würm 1/2: bártA 1962, 299; bánesz 1960, 196. On typological ground (right on the presence of the Moravány­type leaf point itself) the assemblage of Vlčkovce was tentatively dated to a period of 32–27 kys. The problems with the chronology of the Zwierzyniceian industry and its presence in Vlčkovce were shortly discussed by J. K. kozłowski (KozłowsKi 2004, 20, 27).

20 ANDRáS MARKó

from the Jankovichian assemblage of the Remete Upper cave.50

Most recently it was suggested that the assem­blages containing Moravány­type tools represent the recent phase of the Central european leaf­point industries, possibly independent from the earlier one. However, the chronology of this younger Szeletian group is based on a single radio carbon data measured on a sample collect­ed in 1943,51 without clear association with the excavated lithics. That is why until the publica­tion of further data corroborating this radiocar­bon age we suggest, that the mentioned pieces found in the top of the reddish yellow layer of the Jankovich cave – and probably the pieces from the Remete Upper cave also – belong to the Szeletian industry (sensu Prošek) in typological point of view.

The stratigraphically oldest artefacts from the Jankovich cave are represented by the pieces found in the lower hearth level of 1925 (Fig. 7.3–7.4), identified as Mousterian­like side scrapers by J. Hillebrand,52 Mousterian­type point and con­vergent scraper by l. vértes,53 unifacial laurel­ shaped leaf-tool by J. K. Kozłowski,54 or Bockstein­ and volgograd­type bifacial knifes by v. Gábori­Csánk.55 We suggest, that the “archaic” appearance of these two pieces makes them sim­ilar to the Micoquian half­hand axes and typical Middle Palaeolithic convergent scrapers. even if they are not characteristic enough, the above mentioned pieces of the 1916 (Fig. 6.6–7) and 1917 excavations may possibly belong to this old­est group of the finds.

The artefacts with traces of Levallois technology

Regrettably, we do not have any stratigraphical data about the largest part of the assemblage, so we have to share the pieces as a unit. One of the most important traits of the Jankovich­type industry was the use of the levallois method in the primary flaking56 (e.g. Fig. 2.7–9). According to our data, however, in the collection of the Jankovich cave, the presence of these blanks are

50 Gábori-Csánk 1983, Fig. 16.2. The presence of this tool type suggests a more recent age that is was originally given by v. Gábori­Csánk. For the recent chronological evaluation of the assemblage see note 6.

51 kAMinská et al. 2005, 39.52 HillebrAnd 1926, Abb. 3–4.53 Vértes 1955, 274.54 KozłowsKi 1965, 60.55 Gábori-Csánk 1993, Pl. Iva–b: 1–2.56 Vértes 1955, 274.

restricted to the assemblage excavated in 1915 and only fragmentary pieces were found in 1914 and 1916 (Fig 4.3, Fig. 6.7). The most character­istic tools (Fig. 3.1, Fig. 4.4,1,3, Fig. 5.1) were inter­preted earlier as half­made leaf­points,57 leaf­point of Jankovich type58 or typical Mousterian

points.59 We rather classify these artefacts, made of different radiolarite variants as levallois points with ventral thinning on their distal part.60 Beside two intact pieces a tool was refitted from two fragments (found in 1913–1914 and 1915) and another point, damaged by thermal effects can also be reconstructed with a great probabili­ty. Concerning their dorsal side, three pieces (Fig. 3.1, Fig. 4.4,3, Fig. 5.1) show bidirectional scars,61 however, the general method of preparation was unidirectional: the opposite platform was used only forming and maintaining the distal convex­ity of the cores.

In Central europe generally two different classes of the levallois points are distinguished: the unidirectional flake points (e.g. from complex II in Korolevo) and bidirectional blade points, typical for the Bohunician. However, in the Bohunice and Stránská skála assemblages only one third of the pieces can be classified as blade-like blanks, dominantly with bidirectional scars.62

The Szeletian assemblages in Moravia (Ořechov I and II), as well as the Líšeň and Podoli collection, both considered as belonging to the Bohunician,63

displays mainly tools with flake-like proportion, similar to the Jankovich artefacts (Fig. 9).

The ventral thinning of the levallois points is a relatively rare type of these industries. The tool of Stránská skála III, layer 5 was mentioned as a unique piece in the Bohunician assemblages.64 In the case of Líšeň, the blade points with thinning

57 HillebrAnd 1935, 21; Mester 2011a, 29.58 With two subtypes: KozłowsKi 1965, 60. The piece depicted

on Tab. v.9 was found in fact in the Puskaporos rockshelter and not in the Bivak cave. See also: VAloCH 1966, 48.

59 Gábori-Csánk 1993, 134, Pl. Iva–b: 8–9. Two fragmentary pieces were identified as leaf-shaped scrapers: Gábori-Csánk 1993, 134, 137, Pl. Iva–b: 4, vIII: 12. In connection with the Kecskésgalya piece see notes 45 and 46.

60 This determination is in accord with the view by Ph. Allsworth­Jones (Allsworth-Jones 1986, 115), however, he considered the pieces and the bifacial tools as parts of the same technological continuum; c.f. note 52.

61 In the respect as at least one scar was knapped from the opposite direction: nerudoVá 1999a, 28.

62 nerudoVá 1999a, 28–31.63 The Líšeň assemblage was originally dated to the recent

phase of this industry (VAloCH 1996, 95), however, recently the classification as Szeletian was also suggested, based on the large number of leaf­shaped points, reaching 4% of the tool collection in this surface collected assemblage: VAloCH et al. 2000, 55.

64 sVobodA 2003, 154.

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 21

on both the proximal and distal part of the tools65

are rather similar to the Jerzmanowice type. From the Szeletian circle, only sporadical occur­rence of this peculiar type was published also, e.g. from the surface­collected assemblage of Jezeřany66 or from Neslovice.67 Finally a sur­face-collected cortical, not-Levallois flake with ventral thinning on the tip from vanyarc was compared to the Jerzmanowice types.68

As a result of this short review we suggest that the levallois points with ventral thinning is a characteristic and intentionally shaped tool­type for the Jankovich cave of which there are similar pieces in the Middle european late Middle Palaeolithic assemblages.

Cores from the Jankovich cave

This group of artefacts is generally reported as nearly absent from the assemblage. However, a piece of Szentgál­type radiolarite, earlier inter­preted as a Tata­type scraper69 or angular scraper with ventral thinning,70 is in fact an exhausted core with prepared striking platform and lateral edges, wearing the deep scar of the last flake.

65 sVobodA 1990, Fig. 8. The “pointes à face plane” mentioned from the Szeletian assemblage of Ondratice I are reported as the result of the application of surface retouching on blade blanks: oliVA 1981, 17.

66 oliVA 1979, 48, Taf. II.9.67 Allsworth-Jones 1986, Fig. 41.6; Allsworth-Jones 1990, 84,

Fig. 1.6.68 MArkó 2007, 11, Fig. 3.1.69 KozłowsKi 1965, 69, Tab. vI.8.70 Gábori-Csánk 1993, 135, Pl. va–b: 10.

Most probably the piece was abandoned because of the lack of longitudinal convexity (Fig. 5.3).

A morphologically similar core on raw mater­ial block is also present in the assemblage (Fig. 5.4)71 and a very small piece from the 1916 assemblage is classified as a core remnant (Fig. 3.6). Unfortunately, because of the extreme reduction of the pieces we can only suppose that the pieces were used according to a levallois method.

Jankovichian tool types as imported pieces

According to our knowledge the sites of this industry are distributed in the Pilis and the Gerecse mountains, in the north­eastern part of the Transdanubia with the exception of the Pálffy (Dzeravá skála) cave in western Slovakia. The provenance studies of the lithic raw materials suggest certain connections with the regions of the north­eastern part of the Carpathian basin (presence of felsitic porphyry in the Jankovich cave and a raclette of obsidian from the Pilisszántó II rockshelter72). On the other hand the levallois flake with ventral thinning from the Háromkút cave (Bükk mountains, northern Hungary) is generally compared to the pieces of the Jankovich cave73 and recently single artefacts from the Herman Ottó cave, from the Bársonyház assem­blage and from the Gudenus cave (Austria) were also connected to the Jankovich­type industry.74

Moreover, in the eighties pieces similar to the Jankovichian types (with facetted butt and large bulb) were reported from the Bábonyian open­air site of Sajóbábony­Köves­oldal75 and from the lower layer of the Szeleta cave,76 both in the Bükk mountains. As a result of the extensive revision works carried out on this later assemblage, the scarce elements of the Jankovichian industry were reported from layer 2, dated to the eem until layer 5 i.e. to the period postdated the Arcy–Stillfried B interstade,77 however, the detailed ty­pological or technological description of the given artefacts is absent until today. From the same site Zs. Mester compared 12 leaf­shaped

71 The piece was classified as truncated flake by V. Gábori-Csánk (Gábori-Csánk 1993, 134, Pl. va–b: 8).

72 Gábori-Csánk 1993, 105.73 KAdić 1934, 66–67; Vértes 1965, 142; but see: HillebrAnd

1935, 19–20.74 Gábori-Csánk 1983, 284–285; Gáboriné Csánk 1984, 20–21.75 rinGer 1983, 28–29, 124, Abb. 68.76 rinGer 1983, 126.77 rinGer–Mester 2000, 267–268; rinGer–Mester 2001, 15.

Fig. 9. length to width of the ventrally worked levallois points from the Jankovich cave, compared to some Moravian

assemblages

9. kép. A ventrálisan vékonyított levallois­hegyek hossz–szélesség aránya, összevetve néhány morvaországi lelet­

együttes értékeivel

22 ANDRáS MARKó

tools of the examined 44 pieces (Groups 378) to the Jankovich artefacts. In spite of the fact that 7 pieces of the group were found in the layer 6a, 6 and 5, traditionally identified as “Evolved Szeletian”, based on mere typological considera­tions he ascertained this group as stratigraphic­ally earlier than this Upper culture layer79 and asserted that the Jankovichian and the early Szeletian belong to the same archaeological en­tity.80 In a more recent study, reviewing 77 bifa­cial tools from the same site, however, this quite radical conclusion was considerably modified, as

78 The pieces made on flakes, having asymmetric contour, worked by an alternate method and having generally plano­ convex cross­section belong to this group.

79 At the same time the presence of the Group 3 artefacts in the upper layers of the cave was ascribed to post­depositional admixture. It is striking, however, that not a single asymmet­ric piece was mentioned from layer 4, which separated the two large layer sequences in all the parts of the cave.

80 Mester 2010.

there are no clear differences between the leaf­shaped tools of the early Szeletian81 and Jankovichian industries and that these tools alone are not suitable for the cultural determination of the whole assemblages.82 The same way, it is dif­ficult to interpret the presence of single leaf-points e.g. on the sites near Hont (northern part of the Börzsöny mountains, Northern Hungary),83 especially that the pieces could not be identified in the collections.84 The leaf­shaped scraper from Galgahévíz–Bika­tó site,85 the tool from Mernye, lying south from the lake Balaton in Somogy

81 Again, the chronological and cultural determination of the Group 3 leaf points is far from being obvious, as 10 of the 18 pieces, having clear stratigraphical position were excavated in upper layers 6a, 6, 5 and 4: Mester 2011b, I. táblázat.

82 Mester 2011b, 28–29.83 Gábori 1958, 61, obr. 19: from the site of Babat. See also:

Gábori 1964, 13; Gáboriné Csánk 1984.84 dobosi–siMán 2000, 321; zAndler 2010.85 MArkó 2003.

Fig. 10. Sites with Jankovich­type lithics (map by B. Holl, HNM–NÖK)

10. kép. Lelőhelyek Jankovich-típusú eszközökkel (Holl B. térképe, MNM–NÖK)

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 23

county86 or the tool of chocolate­brown “jasper from the vlára pass” found in Southern Moravia,87

very similar to the scraper of Fig. 3.4 suggest at least a typological category and not a cultural one.

Another cave site in the Bükk mountains, from where the diagnostic pieces of the Jankovichian industry (quite unusually made of obsidian) was reported is layer 6 of the Kecskésgalya cave.88 However, the similar tool from the Jankovich cave89 is not convincing enough, as the ventral side of the Mousterian points from the Kecskés­galya cave was not thinned. We feel adequate to compare these pieces to the tool, excavated in the lowermost level of the 1916 trench of the Jankovich cave (Fig 7.5), which is, however, a rather general form, not typical to the Jankovich cave.

Most recently two little assemblages from the southern part of Poland were classified as Jankovichian.90 No detailed description is avail­able about the site and the assemblage Rybnik­Piasek C,91 but a piece from the little old­collect­ed assemblage of Kraków-Prądnik Czerwony was compared to the artefacts of the Jankovich cave for a long time.92 After the publications, however, the ventral thinning was formed on the proximal part of the tool, which is not character­istic for the artefacts of the Jankovich cave.

Finally we have to mention that recently the Jankovichian industry was compared to the north­western european volcano sites and even more surprisingly Jankovichian and Szeletian sites were reported from the Rhein valley.93 In fact, we are absolutely in a puzzle about the source of these data; possibly the reference to the assem­blage of Kösten was the origin of the miscompre­hension.

86 siMán 1991, 51.87 Scattered find from the environs of Znojmo: MAzálek 1951;

see: Fig. 3.4.88 Assemblage III: Mester 2000; but see: Vértes 1965, 130, 121–

122. Quite interestingly, two pieces from the same strati­graphical unit were identified as belonging to an Aurignacian industry (Assemblage I: Mester 2000, 250–251).

89 With a reference to the handbook by l. vértes (Vértes 1965, XXXvIII1a–b), for the same artefact depicted on Fig. 6.1.

90 Foltyn 2003, 11–12.91 Foltyn 2003, 35, cat. nr. 55.92 KozłowsKi 1969, 35–37, ryc 25, 1; KozłowsKi 1989, 140, 141.93 PAtou-MAtHis 2000, 386, 392. Another erroneous data from

the same article is occurrence of the Neanderthal remains from the upper layer of the Szeleta cave (PAtou-MAtHis 2000, 385, Table 3). In fact the absence of hominid remains from the Szeleta cave and culture is often stressed. For the catalogue of fossil human finds from Hungary see: tillier et al. 2006.

An attempt for the definition of the Jankovich-type industry

Returning to the lower layer of the Szeleta cave, the heavily cryoturbated bifacial tool of Szentgál­type radiolarite,94 found at the rear part of the cave clear connections between the Bükk moun­tains and the Transdanubia, similar to the felsitic porphyry items in the Jankovich assemblage. The typological or technological concerns of these questions, however, can not be established before the clear definition of the industries themselves. According to our opinion the term “Szeletian” is quite misleading, as on the eponymous site there are no traces of the industry, as it was defined by Fr. Prošek and as it is generally understood today. The Jankovichian, on the other hand has only one larger assemblage, which is known only after old excavations. As it was suggested by l. vértes, possibly several discrete cultural levels could have been dig in the several meter thick geological layer without careful observations. Bearing in mind the rather imperfect documenta­tions, our results suggest something similar: the presence typical Middle Palaeolithic type arte­facts in the lower horizons, and finely elaborated leaf­shaped tools (Szeletian­type) together with antler and ivory artefacts in the uppermost one. The somewhat rolled and cryoturbated leaf­shaped implements, retouched and at the tip ventrally thinned Levallois blanks and some of the osseous tools were found together with con­vergent scrapers (Fig. 5.2, 5.3), some end­scrapers (Fig. 6.3) and numerous artefacts wearing traces of use, not regular secondary working, or natural damages on their edges (Fig. 3.8, Fig. 4.2, 4.3, Fig. 5.5, Fig. 6.2). We interpret the raclettes (e.g. Fig. 4.2, Fig. 7.7 from the lowermost level of the 1916 excavations) as remains of heavily fragmented and repaired blanks and not as intentionally formed tools.

The role of Levallois technology in the Szeletian industry is a controversial question. The find material from Brno­Bohunice I was originally sorted into the levallois facies of the early phase of the Szeletian95 and the term Bohunician and Bohunice­type industry emerged only at the end of the seventies,96 when the leaf­shaped forms of the industry were looked as occasional finds, col­lected by the humans of the Bohunician industry

94 Inv. nr.: 30/913.2; identify number: 1317. See: Vértes 1965, T. XXXII, 5a–b.

95 VAloCH 1976, 52–55.96 oliVA 1979.

24 ANDRáS MARKó

or changed by the Szeletian people.97 The recent works of the excavated material of Bohunice Iv, however, evidently show for the local produc­tion of leaf­shaped tools.98 Taking into considera­tion the questions about the cultural determina­tion of the assemblages from Ořechov I and II99 or from the middle and upper layer of Dzierży-sław 1100 the problems with the Bohunician and the Levallois facies of the Szeletian is an open question again.101 This draw our attention to the questions of the cultural identification of the Jankovich­type industries, however, until new excavations on these short duration hunting sta­tion,102 carried out with modern standards we can not get conclusive answer for our question.

The connections of the industry were searched among the industries in southern Germany since the fifties.103 Recent studies, however, show important differences with the assemblage F of Mauern, as the presence of blade reduction and the connections with the Charentian104 or the technology of the leaf­points and the method of levallois.105 Another region as having connec­tions with the “Transdanubian group” or the

97 Contrarily, the Bohunician of Poland was identified as a leaf-point industry by e. Foltyn, what seems to be surprising in the case of the assemblage of Racibórz­Ocice 10, from where a single leaf­shaped tool is known (settlement type nr. 6: Foltyn 2003, 13–17).

98 škrdlA 2005; tosteVin–škrdlA 2006. 99 In the assemblage from Ořechov I more than one third of the

cores (i.e. 124 of the 363 pieces) are of levallois character and there are 450 blanks of this method. Moreover the presence of crested blades suggests similarities with the Bohunician col­lections: nerudoVá 1999a, 36; nerudoVá 1999b.

100 wiśniewsKi 2006, 100.101 nerudoVá 1999b, 28; kAMinská et al. 2011, 45.102 e.g. KozłowsKi 1965, 69.103 Gábori 1953, 31; Vértes 1955, 274, 276; Vértes 1956, 339;

Gáboriné Csánk 1956.104 KozłowsKi 1990, 128–129.105 Allsworth-Jones 1986, 115; Allsworth-Jones 1990, 82.

Jankovichian was suspected on the Balkan penin­sula: the assemblages of visoko Brdo and Crkvina (Bosnia)106 or the Muselievo­Samuilitsa circle.107 In these later assemblages, dated to the end of the first Würmian Pleniglacial, the leaf-shaped tools have blade­like proportions (generally with a length­width ratio around 3:1) and were made almost without exceptions on flint plaquettes.108 Moreover, the levallois points are also elongated forms, lack the typical preparation and their vent ral thinning is also absent.109

Finally we would like to call attention to the vindija cave, which was largely under­estimated until now. even if the question on the integrity of this assemblage, the co­occurrence of the antler points and the Neanderthal remains are hotly debated,110 we suggest that the co­occurrence of a leaf­shaped tool, made of Szentgál­type radi­olarite111 and the partly split­based osseous tools made similar the assemblage to the uppermost level of the Jankovich cave. Anyway, in the future new field works are necessary to solve the most important questions of the Jankovich­type industry.

106 KozłowsKi 1965, 74.107 KozłowsKi 2003, 156. earlier the Balkan leaf­point industries

with levallois technology were compared to the Bohunician and the Jankovich cave is marked as a Micoquian site: KozłowsKi 1992, 10, Fig. 7.

108 HAesAerts–sirAkoVA 1979, 60–63; sirAkoV 1983, 81–81.109 sirAkoV 1983, 76–79.110 zilHão 2009.111 KArAvAnić–smith 1998, 242.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allsworth-Jones, Ph. 1986 The Szeletian and the transition from Middle to Upper Palaeolithic in Central europe. Oxford. 1990 Les industries a pointes foliacées d’Europe Centrale – Questions de définition et relations avec les autres

techno­complexes. In: Farizy, C. (ed.): Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en Europe. Colloque International de Nemours, 9–11 mai 1988. Mémoire du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France 3, 79–96. Nemours.

Bánesz, l. 1960 K otázke listovtých hrotov z Vel’kého Šariša (À la question des pointes foliacées de Vel’ký Šáriš en

Slovaquie). AR XII, 313–318. 1961 Zist’ovaci výskum na paleolitickej stanici vo Vel’kom Šariši roku 1960. ŠtZ 6, 225–227.

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 25

BártA, J. 1960 K problému listovitých hrotov typu Moravany-Dlhá (Autour du problème des pointes foliacées du type

Moravany­Dlhá). SlA vIII­2, 295–324. 1962 Vlčkovce-sprašový profil a jeho paleolitické industrie (Vlčkovce-Lössprofil und seine paläolithische

Industrie). SlA X­2, 285–318.Biró K. 1984 Őskőkori és őskori pattintott kőeszközök nyersanyagának forrásai (Sources of lithic raw materials for

chipped implements in Hungary). ArchÉrt 111/1, 42–52. 2004 Tata­Porhanyóbánya: the raw material of the stone artefacts. In: Fülöp, É.–Cseh, J. (eds): Topical issues

of the research of Middle Palaeolithic period in Central europe. Tudományos Füzetek 12. Tata, 77–90.doBosi, v.–simán, K. 2000 Upper Palaeolithic in the region of Hont village. In: Mester, Zs.–Ringer, Á. (dir.): À la recherche de

l’Homme Préhistorique. Volume commémoratif de Miklós Gábori et de Veronika Gábori-Csánk. eRAUl 95, 321–337.

Foltyn, e. 2003 Uwagi o osadnictwie kultur z ostrzami liściowatymi na północ od łuku Karpat (Bemerkungen zur

Besiedlung der Blattspitzenkulturen nördlich des Karpatenbogens). PrzA 51, 5–48.GáBori, m. 1953 Solyutreyskaya kul’tura Vengrii (Le Solutréen en Hongrie). ActaArchHung 3, 1–68. 1964 A késői paleolitikum Magyarországon. RégTan III.Gábori, v. 1958 Neue paläolithische Funde im Eipel-Tal. AR X, 55–61.GáBori-CsánK, v. 1983 La Grotte Remete „Felső” (Supérieure) et le „Szeletien de Transdanubie”. ActaArchHung 35, 249–285. 1990 Le Jankovichien en Hongrie de l’Ouest. In: Olive, M. (red.): Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique

supérieur ancien en europe. Colloque international de Nemours, 9–11 mai 1988, 97–102. 1993 le Jankovichien – Une civilisation paléolithique en Hongrie. eRAUl 53.GáBoriné CsánK v. 1956 Megjegyzések a szlovákiai Szeletien kérdéséhez (Beiträge zur Frage des slowakischen Szeletien).

ArchÉrt 88, 78–83. 1984 A Remete Felső-barlang és a „dunántúli Szeletien” (Die Remete Obere Höhle und das transdanubische

Szeletien). BudRég 25, 5–32.hAesAerts, P.–sirAKovA, s. 1979 Le Paléolithique Moyen à pointes foliacées de Mousselievo (Bulgarie). In: J. K. Kozłowski (ed.): Middle

and early Upper Palaeolithic in Balkans. PArch 28, 35–63.herrmAnn, m.–Kretzoi, m.–vértes, l. 1956 Neuere Forschungen in der Jankovich­Höhle. FolArch 8, 3–22.hilleBrAnd J. 1913 A diluviális ősember nyomai a bajóti Öregkő nagy barlangjában (Die Spuren des diluvialen Urmenschen

in der Bajóter Öregkőhöhle). Bk 1, 126–128, 147–149. 1914 Az 1914. évi barlangkutatásaim eredményei (ergebnisse meiner Höhlenforschungen im Jahre 1913). Bk

2, 115–124. 1915 A bajóti Jankovich­barlangban 1914. és 1915. években végzett kutatások eredménye (Die erforschung

der Bajóter Jankovich­Höhle in den Jahren 1914 und 1915). Bk 3, 129–141, 173–179. 1917 Az 1916. évi barlangkutatásaim eredményéről (Über die Resultate meiner Höhlenforschungen im Jahre

1916). Bk 5, 98–108, 125–130. 1919 Az 1917. évben végzett ásatásaim eredményei (Resultate meiner Ausgrabungen im Jahre 1917). Bk 7,

6–13, 39–41. 1926 Über neuere Funde aus dem ungarländischen Paläolithikum. Die Eiszeit 3, 3–5. Leipzig. 1935 Magyarország őskőkora. Die ältere Steinzeit Ungarns. ArchHung XVII.JAnKović, i. 2006 Paleolitik. In: S. Mihelić (ed.): Trgovina i razmjena u pretpovijesti: 13–18. Arheološki Muzej u Zagrebu,

Zagreb.KAdić o. 1934 A jégkor embere Magyarországon (Der Mensch zur eiszeit in Ungarn). MáFIÉ XXX/1.KAminsKá, l’. 1991 Význam surovinej základne pre mladopaleolitickú spoločnost’ vo východokarpatskej oblasti

(L’importance de la matière première pour les communautés du Paléolithique supérieur dans l’espace des Carpathes orientales). SlA XXXIX­1, 7–58.

KAminsKá, l’.–KozłowsKi, J. K.–ŠKrdlA, P. 2011 New approach to the Szeletian – Chronology and cultural variability. eurasian Prehistory 8(1–2),

29–49.

26 ANDRáS MARKó

KAminsKá, l’.–KozłowsKi, J. K.–svoBodA, J. 2005 Sequence of the Palaeolithic occupations. In: Kaminská, L’.–Kozłowski, J. K.–Svoboda, J. (eds):

Pleistocene environments and Archaeology of the Dzeravá skala cave, lesser Carpathians, Slovakia. Kraków, 7–58.

KArAvAnić, i. 1994 Gornjopaleolitičke kamene i koštane rukotvorine iz špilje Vindije (Les outillages de pierre et d’os du

Paléolithique Supérieur de la grotte de vindija). OA 17, 53–163.KArAvAnić, i.–smith, F. h. 1998 The Middle/Upper Palaeolithic interface and the relationship of Neanderthals and early modern

humans in Hrvatsko Zagorje, Croatia. JHe 34, 223–248.KozłowsKi, J. K. 1965 Studia nad zróżnicowaniem kulturowym w paleoliticie Górnym Europy Środkowy. PArch 7. 1969 Problemy geochronologii paleolitu w dolinie Wisły pod Krakowem. FQ 31, 1–54. 1989 La fin du Paléolithique moyen en Pologne. Anthropologie (Brno) 27/2–3, 133–142. 1990 Certain aspects techno-morphologiques des pointes foliacées de la fin du Paléolithique Moyen et du

début du Paléolithique Supérieur en europe Centrale. In: Farizy, C (ed.): Paléolithique moyen récent et Paléolithique supérieur ancien en europe. Colloque International de Nemours, 9–11 mai 1988. Mémoire du Musée de Préhistoire d’Ile-de-France 3, 125–133. Nemours.

1992 The Balkan in the Middle and Upper Palaeolithic: The gate to europe or a cul­de­sac? Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 58, 1–20.

2003 From bifaces to leafpoints. In: Soressi, M.–Dibble, H. (eds): Multiple approaches to the study of bifacial technologies. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 149–164.

2004 early Upper Palaeolithic backed blade industries in Central and eastern europe. In: Brantingham, P. J.–Kuhn, S. l.–Kerry, K. W. (eds): The early Upper Palaeolithic beyond Western europe. Berkeley, los Angeles, 14–29.

mArKó A. 2003 Másodlagos helyzetű levélkaparó Galgahévízről. Ősrégészeti Levelek 5, 5–7. 2007 Preliminary report on the excavations of the Middle Palaeolithic site vanyarc–Szlovácka­dolina.

ComArchHung, 5–18. 2011 A kései középső paleolitikum csontipara a Kárpát-medencében (The osseous industry of the Late

Middle Palaeolithic period in the Carpathian Basin). ArchÉrt 134, 155–163. 2013 leaf­shaped lithic and Osseous Tools from Old excavated Cave Sites – Demonstrating Associations.

In: lang, F. (ed.): The Sound of Bones. Proceedings of the 8th Meeting of the ICAZ Worked Bone Research Group in Salzburg 2011. Schriften zur Archäologie und Archäometrie der Paris Lodron-Universität, Salzburg 5, 191–202.

mAzáleK, m. 1951 Vavřínový list z jižní Moravy (Une pointe solutréenne en feuille de laurier de la Moravie méridional).

AR 3, 298–300, 386.mester, zs. 2000 Apparition du Jankovichien au sud de la Montagne de Bükk (Hongrie). In: Mester, zs.–Ringer, á. (dir.):

Á la recherche de l’Homme Préhistorique. Volume commémoratif de Miklós Gábori et de veronika Gábori­Csánk. eRAUl 95, 247–255.

2010 Technological analysis of Szeletian bifacial points from Szeleta cave (Hungary). Human evolution 25/1–2, 107–123.

2011a Les outils foliacées de la grotte Jankovich: la renessaince d’un problème ancien. Praehistoria 9–10 (2008–2009) 81–98.

2011b A magyarországi középső és felső paleolitikum bifaciális levéleszközeinek technológiája. In: T. Biró K.–Markó A. (szerk.): emlékkönyv violának. Tanulmányok T. Dobosi viola tiszteletére / Papers in honour of viola T. Dobosi. Budapest, 15–41.

miŠíK, m. 1969 Petrografická príslušnost’ silicitov z paleolitických a neolitických artefaktov Slovenska. Acta Geologica

et Geographics Universitatis Comenianae, Geologica 18, 117–135. 1975 Petrograficko-mikropaleontologické kritériá pre zist’ovanie proveniencie silicitových nástrojov na

Slovensku. Folia Facultatis Scientiarum Naturalium Universitatis Purkynianae Brunensis. Tomus XvI, Geologia 27, opus 10, 89–107.

nerudová, z. 1999a K otázkám výroby levalloiských hrotů v Bohunicienu a Szeletienu (The problem of the Levallois point

production in the Bohunician and Szeletian collections). ČMM, Vĕdy společenské 84, 27–41. 1999b Ořechov I a II. K problému existencie levalloiského konceptu v Szeletienu. Pravěk NŘ 9, 19–40.olivA, m. 1979 Die Herkunft des Szeletien im Lichte neuer Funde von Jezeřany. ČMM, Vĕdy společenské LXIV, 45–78.

MIDDle PAlAeOlITHIC INDUSTRy OF THe JANKOvICH CAve 27

1981 Die Bohunicien-Station bei Podolí (Bez. Brno-Land) und ihre Stellung im beginnenden Jungpaläolithikum. ČMM, Vĕdy společenské LXVI, 7–45.

PACher, m.–stuArt, A. J. 2008 extinction chronology and palaeobiology of the cave bear (Ursus spelaeus). Boreas, 10.1111/j.1502­

3885.2007.00071.x. ISSN 0300­9843.PAtou-mAthis, m. 2000 Neanderthal subsistence behaviours in europe. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 10, 379–395.rinGer, á. 1983 Bábonyien – Eine mittelpaläolithische Blattwerkzeugindustrie in Nordostungarn. DissArch Ser. II.

No. 11.rinGer, á.–mester, zs. 2000 Résultats de la révision de la grotte Szeleta entreprise en 1999 et 2000. Anthropologie XXXvIII/3, 261–

270. 2001 A Szeleta­barlang 1999–2000. évi régészeti revíziójának eredményei (Die ergebnisse der Revision der

Szeleta­Höhle in den Jahren 1999–2000). HOMÉ Xl, 5–19.simán, K. 1991 Patterns of raw material use in the Middle Palaeolithic of Hungary. In: Montet­White, A.–Holen, S.

(eds): Raw material economies among Prehistoric hunter­gatherers. University of Kansa, Publications in Anthropology 19, 49–57.

sirAKov, n. 1983 Reconstruction of the Middle Palaeolithic flint assemblages from the cave Samuilitsa II (Northern

Bulgaria) and their taxonomical position seen against the Palaeolithic of South­eastern europe. FQ 55, 1–100.

ŠKrdlA, P. 2005 Brno-Bohunice, analýza materialu z výzkumu v roce 2002. PV 46, 35–61.svoBodA, J. 1990 Le Bohunician. In: Kozłowski, J. K. (ed): Feuilles de pierre – Les industries à pointes foliacées du

Paléolithique superieur européen. eRAUl 42, 199–210. 2003 Bohunician and Aurignacian typology at Stránská skála. In: Svoboda, J.–Bar­yosef, O. (eds): Stránská

skála. Origins of the Upper Palaeolithic in the Brno Basin, Moravia, Czech Republic. American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 47, Dolní vestonice Studies 10, 152–165.

tillier, A.-m.–mester, zs.–henry-GAmBier, d.–PAP, i.–rinGer, á.–Gyenis, Gy. 2006 The Middle­Upper Palaeolithic transition in Hungary: An anthropological perspective. In: Cabrera

valdés, v.–Bernaldo de Quirós Guidotti, F.–Maíllo Fernández, J. M. (eds): en el Centenario de la Cueva de el Castillo: el ocaso de los Neandertales. Centro Asociado a la Universidad Nacional de educación a Distancia en Cantabria. 89–106.

tostevin, G. B.–ŠKrdlA, P. 2006 New excavations at Bohunice and the question of the uniqueness of the type­site for the Bohunician

industrial type. Anthropologie (Brno) XlIv/1, 31–48.vAloCh, K. 1966 Die altertümlichen Blattspitzenindustrien von Jezeřany (Südmähren). ČMM, Vĕdy společenské LI, 5–60. 1976 Die altsteinzeitliche Fundstelle in Brno­Bohunice. SAB XIv. 1996 Le Paléolithique en Tchéquie et en Slovaquie. Préhistoire d’Europe 3. Grenoble.vAloCh, K.–nerudová, z.–nerudA, P. 2000 Stránská skála III – Ateliers des Bohunicien. PA XCI, 2–113.vértes, l. 1955 Paläolithische Kulturen des Würm I/II Interstadials in Ungarn. ActaArchHung V, 261–278. 1956 Problematika Szeletienu (Problemkreis des Szeletien). SlA Iv­2, 318–340. 1965 Az őskőkor és az átmeneti kőkor emlékei Magyarországon. A Magyar Régészet Kézikönyve I. Budapest.vörös, i. 2000 Macro­mammals on Hungarian Upper Pleistocene sites. In: t. Dobosi, v. (ed.): Bodrogkeresztúr­Henye

(Ne­Hungary) Upper Palaeolithic site. 186–212.wiśniewsKi, A. 2006 Środkovy paleolit w dolinie Odry. Wydawnictwo Univerzytetu Wrocławskiego.zAndler K. 2010 Paleolit telep Hont­Csitáron. In: Studia Archaeologica in honorem Pauli Patay. 23–49.zilhão, J. 2009 Szeletian, not Aurignacian: A review of the chronology and cultural associations of the vindija G1

Neanderthals. In: Camps, M.–Chauhan, P. (eds): Sourcebook of Palaeolithic Transitions. 407–426.

28 ANDRáS MARKó

A Jankovich­barlang 1913 óta ismert levéleszközös leletegyüttesének besorolása több ízben változott az elmúlt száz év folyamán (korai Solutréen, dunántúli Szeletien, Jankovichien). A feltárásokról megjelent rövid jelentések azonban több utalást tartalmaznak arra, hogy a vastag rétegsorban a kőeszközök nem egyetlen szint­ben jelentkeztek, sőt az 1925-ös feltárás kapcsán több, egymás felett húzódó tűzhelyréteg került közlésre. ezeket az utalásokat kiegészítik az 1915. és 1916. évi fel­tárásokról készült, a régészeti adattárban őrzött, kézzel írott leletlisták, amelyek alapján több, korábban Jankovichienként meghatározott kőeszközt rétegtani helyzete szerint a felső paleolitikumba kell helyezni.

A szórványos adatok ellenére kimutatható a barlang­ból a Fr. Prošek által leírt Szeletien­ipar megtelepülése (Moravány­típusú levélhegy), illetve a rétegsor alján egy típusos középső paleolitikus leletegyüttes jelenléte. Valószínűleg e két szint között kerülhettek feltárásra a Levallois jellegű leletek, köztük a ventrálisan vékonyított levallois­hegyek.

A barlang pattintott kőeszközeinek vizsgálata felveti a Jankovichien mint önálló régészeti egység létezésének kérdését. A probléma fontosságát jelzi, hogy az ipart újabban kimutatták Bükk hegységi, kis­lengyelországi és sziléziai lelőhelyeken is.

A JANKOVICH-BARLANG KÖZÉPSŐ PALEOLITIKUS KŐIPARÁRÓL

MArkó András