Folia archeologica 38.
26 VIOLA 'Г . DOBOSI — ISTVÁN VÖRÖS left edge, there is a scalar retouch on its ventral face, its has an atypical borer-like tip blade, Pb 51/169.4. D: 125x10 mm, raw material: obsidian flat blade with triangular cross-section and pointed base, recently broken L. Vértes assigned the finds inventorized under No Pb 51/169 to the material of the Pilisszántó rock-shelter merely on typological grounds. He selected them from those items which had reached the Hungarian National Museum from the Hungarian Geological Institute. The finds inventorized under No Pb 51/125 (blade fragment), Pb 51/126 (precessed flake) and Pb 51/139 (fragment of a microlithic blade) are lost. Other finds: charred animal bones (Pb/650): 9 items cave bear tooth blade (Pb/574): 2 items Turritella turris (Pb/575) a fragmentary specimen, the hole on it does not seem to be an artificial one (Kormos's monograph, p. 338). "Finger biscuit idol" (Pb/651 c.) a finger biscuit-shaped "ornament" carved from mammoth-tusk (?); its surface was polished one of its ends is broken pipe (Pb/649): a perforated rein deer phalanx. Kormos does not mention it in his original paper! bone point (Pb/651/b): broken tip of a bone awl or a spear; it is carved, graved, subsequently polished. (Kormos's monograph, p. 337, Fig. 13). D: 24x6 mm. "The one-lined primitive bone harpoon" (Pb/651.a.) which even Kormos regarded as an "experiment" is no longer considered an object worked by human hards. It is nothing more but a peculiarly split bone-fragment. ON THE RELATIONS OF THE PILISSZÁNTÓ INDUSTRY The rock shelter yielded 66 implements. The proportion of blade points to backed is approximately 1/3 to 2/3. There are no other typical implements in the tool assemblage. This unique feature of the tool-kit led the excavator to attribute this phenomenon to the special function of the site. It is exactly this peculiar feature that caused difficulties is the cultural definition of the finds, and that prointed widely differing interpretations of this assemblage. Kormos, in accordance with the knowledge and scientific fashion of his age and with characteristic typological precision assigned the finds to the Magdalenian culture. Gábori noted the weak points of the above definition and, with his thorough knowledge of the new results of Soviet research, favoured an eastern origin for the culture which had arrived to Hungary via northern routes. Vértes on the other hand emphasized the degree of difference from both the Magdalenian and Gravettian cultures, rather than the similarities and thus he created a new culture. Let us now review the available evidence:
