Folia archeologica 34.

18 VIOLA 'Г. DOBOSI ments of the implements or the quality of the working, or else for the hunting methods determined by the prey; practically so many sites, so many faciès;

34 2) or else to have confidence in the possibility that lucky finds and exact excavations will authenticate the interdependence of the sites and to prove by evaluations of the fauna the "wintery" type of the sites (we think this latter direction will be the more feasible). b) The wider environments of the site (the Carpathian Basin) The direction of the connections of the Tata site was distinct already in the times of T. Kormos: among the sites known in the time of the publication the Krapina has been acquainted with Tata.

3

3 According to Vértes the Middle Palaeolithic derivatives of the pebblechopper phylum are industries the leading type of which is the sector-form scraper of a rough edge, made on a pebble chip with crust ("Spaltenschaber",, "a spicchio", "Zitrus-Schaber"). These are the finds of the Citrus-industry according to Rust.

3

6 K. Zebera makes another step regarding the "Bohemian" pebble culture as the predecessor of the whole Central European Moustérian.

37 J. Bárta connects Tata with the travertine sites in Slovakia: the three Middle Palaeolithic sites found on the outer brim of the Bojnice travertine cone interlinks the North-Slovakian and Hungarian sites.

3

8 According to the hypothesis of K. Valoch the typical Moustérian appears on the Eastern part of Central Europe morphologically in two groups: on the 3

4 If, evaluating a site, we strive to a reconstruction of the historical processes, the methods of classical typology are not sufficient any longer. Deductions drawn from a couple of tools — maybe even atypical ones — make one sceptic; only complex comparisons from an ecologic view can give good results. Already L. Vértes called the attention to this: (Régészeti Kézikönyv), V. Gábori—Csánk and M. Kretzoi elaborated this process (Érd), while V. Gábori Csánk [Acta Arch. Hung. 20(1968) 21—32] adapted the ecologic method only to the archaeological material; at last A. Ringer listed examples from the foreign literature for an elaboration from an ecological point of view: Paleográfia, paleoökológia és archeológia. In: Régészeti Továbbképző Füzetek. 1. (Budapest 1982) 13—23. Two papers refer to our subject in the strict sense: Vértes, L., „Zitrus"... 28—33 and Gábori, Al., Acta Arch. Hung. 31(1979) 239—248. Vértes compared the anthropological finds (the evolutional levels of the genus Homo), Gábori the hunting methods with the typological characteristics of the stone industries. Both comparisons led to negative results: neither the subspecies of Homo, nor the hunting techniques determined by the prey can be linked to the facies of the Moustérian industries. The circle of the investigations can be further widened towards different components of the geosphere and biosphere. Standpoints can be found in the work of Butter, K. W., Environment and archaeology. (Chicago 1964). — V. Gábori—Csánk had the possibility in Érd to demonstrate within one site some evolutional regularities which can be used — by investigating several sites in a similar way — for drawing a general view and the direction of the accumulation of goods, both of a material and a spiritual culture: Acta Arch. Hung. 20(1968) 21—32. 3

5 Kormos, T., op. cit. 3

6 Vértes, L., „Zitrus"... 30—31. 3

7 2ebera, К., Das „Bohémien", eine Geröllindustrie als Vorläufer des mitteleuropäischen Moustériens. Quartär 15—16(1964—65) 59—60. 3

8 Bárta, /., INQUA VII Congress. (Moscow 1965); Id., Einige beachtenswerte paläolithische Fundstellen in der Westslowakei. VII

e Congrès International des Sciences Préhistoriques et Protohistoriques à Prague 1966. Excursion en Slovaquie. (Nitra 1966); Id., Pravek Bojnic. (Nitra 1977); Id., Important sites paléolithiques de la Slovaquie Centre et Occidentale. (Nitra 1980) 7—17.