Folia archeologica 43.

MATERIAL OF THE KISKEVÊLY CAVE 29 first session when he reported "tooth blades" from layer 3, too.

3

9 Reindeer remains are found "scarcely" in layer 4. while the teeth of red deer occur "rather frequently". The yellow (plastic) clay layer (layer 5.) did not contain stone tools at all.

4

0 Certain items in the animal bone material from the 1912 excavation of the Kiskevély cave which are stored in the Paleovertebrate Collection of the Hungarian Geological Institute (Inv. No. MÁFI V. 14430-14526), were supplied also by informations on the layer of their provenance. These are the following layers (Fig. 7.): layer 2. - 1st. diluvium: yellowish grey layer, layer 3. - yellow diluvium: yellow upper layer = 2-2,2 m layer 4. - lower diluvium: Illrd. brown layer layer 5. - IVth. diluvium: yellow layer with hyena above the bottom, 4-4,5 m. The majority of fossils are not supplied by notes on their stratigraphie position. A greatest part of them may belong to tne so called Und. diluvium (= layer 3., yellow clay) layer which is missing in the inventory cards. Stratigraphie data, too, we have to accept with reservations. For example: in case of two species - accepting also the observations of the excavator— the stratigraphie classification is undoubtedly wrong. It is quite sure that it is not layer 2. where tne Crocotta remains were found and it is also sure that it is not layer 4. where 80 per cent of Rangifer remains were found! Later, because of his other engagements Tivadar Kormos did not make further studies on thepaleomammal material of the Kiskevély cave. Almost 30 years later Mária Mottl - most probably because of scanty stratigraphie data available on bone finds - published the almost identical fauna lists of only two layers (4. and 3.) of Kiskevély cave.

4

1 Apart from micromammals he found only one difference as regards the fauna of the two layers, namely according to her "Megaloceros

", "Bos" and Crocotta do not occur in layer 3. After a survey of the bone material we may state that two species of them, that is. "Megaloceros" and "Bos" are absent not only in layer 3. but they are absent even in the whole sequence! We have only indirect informations on the presence of Hystrix, that is on some bones there are traces of nibbling originated from this animal. Dominance relations of different species according to the contemporary usage were denoted as "dominant", "frequent" and "rare". A few examples are enough to illustrate the subjective and relativ nature of this usage. It is far from giving information on the actual number of pieces. At Jenő Hillebrand a "very large quantity"

4

2 of tooth blades means 29 pieces, the first teeth of be^rs found "in large quantity" means 606 pieces! According to Mária Mottl Rangifer was "dominant" and Equus was "frequent" in layer 3 ; at Hillebrand these two species were "dominant" in layer 2. At M. Mottl cave bear is "rare" in layer 3. while according to J. Hillebrand it occurs in a "mass quantity".

4

3 As it is clear from the above-mentioned as well, earlier interpreted data, contradictory even to each other, are useless lacking further informations. 3

9 Hillebrand 1913a, 21. 4

0 Hillebrand 1914, 116. 4

1 Mottl 1941,11., 16. 4

2 Hillebrand 1913b, 162.; at KubacskaA. 32 pieces (Kubacska 1930,1. Tafel.). 4

3 Mottl 1941,16.; Hillebrand 1913a, 20-21.