Folia archeologica 30.
Viola T. Dobosi - István Vörös: Adatok a lovasi őskori festékbánya leletegyüttesének értékeléséhez
8 V. T. DOBOSI—[ . VÖRÖS 1. Lovas in the literature The site was published in 1954 by Gy. Mészáros and L. Vértes in a small monograph of exemplary thoroughness. 1 The results of the excavation were expounded in two popularizing publications. 2 The site was passed subsequently almost unnoticed in the Palaeolithic literature of Hungary. In the summarizing resolution, 3 issued in Hungary by the participants of the Szeleta-Symposium in September 1966, Lovas, as a site of the Western Szeleta culture, represented by the Jankovich cave, is not mentioned. L. Vértes raises, though the idea about this tool assemblage: "sofern man für die transdanubische Erscheinungsform keinen neuen Namen gebrauchen will". 4 He suggests, though, a new name only in view of the deviation of the finds from the Szeleta ones, by upholding the summarizing denomination „Szeleta culture" as a terminus technicus. M. Gábori makes a step further towards the evaluation of the finds of the jankovich cave and its circle: in 1969 he ranges these sites but conditionally among the „blattspitzenführendes Mittelpaläolithicum", 5 and in 1970 he states that as they have no connections with the Bükk finds and their origin cannot be deduced from the Hungarian Middle Palaeolithic, either, "ihre Bennennung «Szeletien» ist also unberechtigt". 6 Recently, when suggesting the denomination "Jankovich culture" for the Transdanubian find places of leaf-shaped blades, he considers the single typical stone tool, found at Lovas, as not sufficient for ranging the bone tools unambigously among the same group. 7 The find assemblage is represented in the work of Gy. László by one piece - the ulna tool with engraved decoration (Pb. 53/5) - as an object, making with the rythm of producing and the order of lines, recurring rythmically, anaesthetic joy. 8 As a direct analogy, Vértes quotes some bones with hunters' marks from the Middle Palaeolithic. 9 We think, though, that the number of incised lines is even in a damaged and fragmentary condition more than a simple hunters' mark or property mark. As far as we are allowed to assume some "ideal" message based on aesthetic experience, we would rather think of the "epic" contents of the decoration on churungas, but there is also an affinity with the "tectiform" marks. 1 0 As for the technical effectuation, the point-row character of the lines might be due partly to the longitudinalfibrous structure of the bones. 1 Mészáros, Gy-Vértes, L., Acta Arch. Hung. 5 (1954) 1-34. 2 Vértes, .L., Őskori bánya Lovason. (Budapest 1956); Id., Őskori bányák Veszprém megyében. (Veszprém 1969) 3 Id., MTAK II 15(1967) 301-311.; Id., Szeleta-Symposium in Ungarn 4.-11. Sept. 1966. Quartär 19(1968) 381-390. 1 Ibid. 388. 5 Gábori, M., Acta Arch. Hung. 21(1969) 159.; Id., Földr. Közi. 93(1969) 211. 6 Id., Acta Arch. Hung. 22(1970) 360. 7 Id., Les civilisations du Paléolithique moyen entre les Alpes et l'Oural. (Budapest 1976) 80. Fig. 16, belonging to the text, does not indicate the find place, either. 8 László, Gy., Az ősember művészete (Budapest 1968) 44., Fig. 28. 9 Mészáros, Gy.-Vértes, L., op. cit. 12-13., Fig. 10. 1 0 Leroi-Gourhan, A., Préhistoire de l'art occidental. (Paris 1965)
