Folia archeologica 38.
8 VIOLA 'Г . DOBOSI — ISTVÁN VÖRÖS 1914. During their survay of the rock-shelter in April T. Kormos and L. Balla found a flint blade 3. Systematic excavations began a few weeks later "... because of the World War which broke out in the July of 1914, I was unable to make up the thread of the excavation before October". The work lasted for 8 days. At some places the fill was 3 m thick and it was extremely rich in fossile bones and the remains of the culture of Magdalenian man 4. The war caused even more serious problems; the Speleological Department was unable to provide financial assistance which would have been necessary to continue the excavation. It was the Geological Institue that finally helped Kormos, and thus in. 1915, after three weeks' work the excavations were finished. Four weeks and 5 days of exploration altogether yielded 41 tools and 44 000 items of palaeontological material — the latter has not been surpassed since. 5 1941. According to Kadic's report J. Kerekes committes member of the Hungarian Speleological Society made a study of the rock shelter. Unfortunately, we do not know what this „study" exactly means." 1951. The baulk left by Kormos gradually began collapse. He did not remove it because he did not think it was "worth the trouble" M. Gábori started rescue excavations, but in view of the rich palaeontological material to be expected the work was continued by D. Jánossy. The removal of the "very small" corner still proved to be fruitful; this part of the fill, representing 1/8 of the whole sequence of layers of the rock shelter yielded 28 additional tools. Considering this ratio it is highly probable that the waste dump thrown aside after Kormos'excavation might also contain tools. 1954. Gábori, Mikós's paper on the excavation was published in this year. Instead of a routine description and discussion of the finds the author attempted a theoretical evaluation. He claimed that the culture represented by the finds of the Pilisszántó rock-shelter could not be the Magdalenian, and also that it cannot be derived from the older Upper Paleolithic culture of Hungary the (i. e. Aurignacian, or the Solutrean). It would rather appear that the Pilisszántó material can be linked to the areas to the north, namely with the Vág valley and the region of Moravany. The Late Aurignacian industry in this regions is of Eastern origin; Moravany is the locality of the classical Kostienki-type point à cran. This tool assemblage is older than the one found at Pilisszántó and microlithic tools already make their appearance in it. The probable route of the east to west migration of this culture started from the Southern Russian steppes, and led westwards in the zone to the N of the Carpathians. Along the valleys of north-south flowing rivers this culture penetrated in to the central parts of the Carpathian Basin. 7 Even though the terminology has been modified since then, there is no better alternative of the above-mentioned migration route at present. 3 Kadic 1915, 17. 4 Kormos 1915, 308. 5 Kormos 1915, 308-309. 6 Kadic 1942, 20-27. 7 Gábori 1954, 6-8.
