Open-air Szeletian site and its relations at

Szécsénke-Kis-Ferenc-hegy
(Cserhát Mountains, Northern Hungary)
A. Péntek – K. Zandler

11th SKAM Lithic Workshop

The multifaceted biface - Bifacial technology in Prehistory
20th-22nd of October, 2014, Miskolc, Hungary
Attila Péntek Krisztián Zandler
attila.pentek@yahoo.com Dornyay Béla Museum
3100 Salgótarján, Múzeum tér 2.
zkrisztian77@yahoo.com
Geographical position of the discussed site

Szécsénke
The site
Legénd
Central and Eastern
Western
Cserhát Mountains
Cserhát Mountains

Vác

Hatvan

Budapest
11,0 km
 The site and its environment

Szécsénke

The
Legénd site

km Palaeolithic sites with leaf shaped implements.

 The site and its direct environment

Szécsénke-Kis-
Ferenc-hegy.
370,3 m
Legénd-Káldy-tanya.
368,1 m 292,0 m Palaeolithic sites will
be not mentioned in the
300,2 m presentation.

 A typical topographic
286,4 m

The site
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

0 750 m
a.s.l.
 Introduction
 During the intensive field surveys a lot of palaeolithic sites have been localized around
Legénd village.
 The localized sites have some common characteristics:
• Intensive usage of the long distance raw material, the felsitic porphyry (metarhyolite).
• The presence of the bifacial technique.
• The presence of the diverse leaf shaped tools.
• An unusual intensive usage of the local silex pebbles, even nummulitic chert.
 The only site with published archaeological material is Legénd-Káldy-tanya. This site has
a very close relation to 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.].

 The 1003 lithic artefacts from the Szécsénke Kis-Ferenc-hegy site unifies all the above
mentioned characteristics. The chipped stone artefacts show typological resemblances to the
so-called Szeletian industry. We took typological parallelism from the archaeological
material from well known moravian and bavarian sites which are aspected as belonging to
the Szeletian.
 A short description of the site
 On an asymmetrical hill-comb, located
between the valleys of the Szécsénke and
Halyagos streamlets at an altitude of 265-
270 m a.s.l..
 The site is lying on a plateau of
about 250×200 m area. Its relative altitude
is 70 m from the valley-foot.
258,0 m  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
256,0 m • Radiolarite pebbles
• Hydrothermal chunks
• Petrified woods

● Altitude datas: meter a.s.l.

0 1 km
 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 and Bér 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.
 Raw material usage
● 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 raw material , 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
the Bükk 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 statistics of the artefacts
Artefact/Raw Limnic Felsitic Silex Radiolarite Quartzite Total Percentage
material quartzite porphyry number

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
4 4 0.37
chunks

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.
Raw material statistics of the artefacts

1.66 0.83

17.07
42.44 Limnic quartzite
Felsitic porhyry
38.01 Silex
Radiolarite
Quartzite
 Raw material statistics of the tools

Limnic Felsitic Silex Radiolarite Quartzite Total Percentage

Tool/Raw material quartzite porphyry number

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

Raw material statistics of the tools

1.66 0.83

17.07
42.44 Limnic quartzite
Felsitic porhyry
38.01 Silex
Radiolarite
Quartzite
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 technological analysis 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 (34
pieces - 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.
End-scrapers

 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. and II.
This could be found at other moravian
Szeletian sites as eg. Trboušany,
Neslovice, Vedrovice V., Vincencov
and 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 made of felsitic porphyry

 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
 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. or
Vincencov or at Zeitlarn too.

#60

 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
at Moravany-Dlhá to be found. #35
 End-scrapers
 The Upper Palaeolithic types are represented by some carénoid [#36, #40, #42] and 2
Aurignacian-like high end-scraper [#49 and #55 ]. These last pieces are made on massive
blades or on blade-like flakes. These forms occur in varying proportion at all known
moravian and slovakian Szeletian sites too.

#36 #40 #42

#49 #55
 Leaf shaped tools

 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 pieces
are 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 section is mostly biconvex.

 There are pieces with biconvex, with plano-convex and even with parallelogramm cross
section.
 Most pieces are fragmentary, from the 20 pieces there are 9 pieces of 15-30 mm long base
fragment.
 Because of the high fragmentary ratio a detailed morphological analysis isn„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.

#3

Clactonian notch

#76
 Leaf shaped tools
 Some relatively short and wide pieces [#1, #57, #74, #75].

#1 #57 #74

 A piece made of
nummulitic chert [#57].

 A piece made of felsitic

#75 porphyry with about #92
rounded base [#75].
 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 which
occur in the moravian Szeletian, eg. Neslovice és Ondratice . This phenomena could be
interpreted as the influence of the Jerzmanowician industry postulated by W. Chmielewski.
Side-scrapers

 A numerous tool category (23

pieces -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 simple

side-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

#58
 Double/convergent side-scraper made of silex. The
Dorsal face #54
dorsal face is nicely elaborated, the base is thinned on
the ventral face, the butt is prepared.

#69
Ventral face #54
 Double side-scraper of small dimensions  Double side-scraper made of felsitic porphyry.
made of radiolarite. Its right edge is The right edge is partially bifacially retouched, on
bifacially retouched. the right side of the base a notch could be seen.
 Bifacially elaborated tools

 Among the tools there are 15 pieces bifacial

tools others than leaf points. Its ratio in the
assemblage is 12,61 %.

 This tool category contain the nondescript,

atypical or due to the recent state (fracture, thermic
scars etc.) hardly classifiable pieces. Among these
tools could be found those pieces, half products
too, which because of technological ground or
knapping accident or raw material flaws have been
abandoned, 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 Clactonian
notch secondary, unpatinated retouching could be
seen.
 Dimensions: 64×43×21 mm

#32
 Bifacially elaborated tools

#33 #34

 Fragment of an atypical bifacial knife.  Fragment of an atypical bifacial knife.

On the distal edge of the ventral face a Plano-convex cross section, concavo-convex
transversal Prądnik-like sharpening spall working edges. The distal part and the base
could be seen. Dimensions: (38)×(39)×12 mm are broken. Dimensions: (44)×30×12 mm
 Bifacially elaborated tools

Eliminated bulb
of percussion

 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
subsidence could be seen (traces of hafting?).
Dimensions: 45×26×12 mm
#56
 Miscellaneous tools

Limnic Silex Felsitic Radiolari- Quartzite Total % %

Misc. Tools/Raw quartzite porphyry te number correlated correlated
material to MISC. to ALL
tools tools

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 unspecified
6 3 1 1 1 12 44.44 10.08
tools

Total number 7 6 10 1 3 27

Percentage 25.93 22.22 37.04 3.70 11.11 100.00 22.69

 Miscellaneous tools

 There are 3 tranchets with chisel-like

working edge these come to 2,52 % of
all tools. Such tools could be found eg.
in the Szeletian lithic assemblage of
Neslovice.

 The core-tools are represented by a

#15

burin made of limnic quartzite [#15].

According to K. Valoch these core-tools
are very characteristic in the moravian
Szeletian.

 4 notched pieces alltogether (3,36 %).

2 pieces are made of quartzite with
unretouched Clactonian notch [#111 and
#91].

#111 #91 #102  A borer made of quartzite [#102].

 Miscellaneous tools

 The most interesting tool of

the assemblage is the limace
made of felsitic porphyry. The
ventral face is a natural
cleavage surface along a
diaclase, the dorsal face is
rough-and-ready elaborated.
On the right side very next to
the base recent damage could
be seen. The tool has an almost
deltoid shape.
Dimensions: 76x32x12 mm

#113
 Summary
 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.
 Evaluation
 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
Thank you for your attention!
 Bibliography
• 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
Région d‟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-K poros dans le
Paléolithique moyen et supérieur de la Hongrie du nord. Valorisation of a former
eponymous site: Eger-K poros 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 k eszközök a galgagyörki Csonkás-hegyr l.
srégészeti 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 Debercsényb l. 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.
P ehled 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: O echov I a II. K problému existence levalloiského konceptu v
szeletienu. Pravěk N 9, 19-40.
• NERUDOVÁ, Z. 2010: Ondratický szeletien: poloha Drysice III, V a Ondratice IV.
Pravěk N 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 Jeze any.
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: K emencová 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: sk kori és skori pattintott k eszközeink nyersanyagának for­rásai. Sources
of Lithic Raw Materials for Chipped Implements in Hungary. Archaeologiai Értesít
111.,42-52.
• T. DOBOSI V. 1ř7Ř: A pattintott k eszközök 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 Jeze any (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 lel helyek Eger környékén. Egyetemi szakdolgozat.
Kézirat ELTE-BTK Budapest.
• ZANDLER K. 2008: Nyíltszíni paleolit lelôhely Erdôtarcsa-Daróci hegyen. Open-air Palaeolithic site at
Erd tarcsa-Daróci-hegy. Paläolitische Freilandstation in Erd tarcsa-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.): ,,Régr l kell kezdenünk…” Studia Archaeologica in
honorem Pauli Patay. Régészeti tanulmányok Nógrád megyéb l Patay Pál tiszteletére.
Szécsény, 23-49.
• ZANDLER K. – BÉRES S. 2011: Három nyíltszíni paleolit lel hely 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/