Balogh Zoltán (szerk.): Neograd 2018 - A Dornyay Béla Múzeum Évkönyve 41. (Salgótarján, 2018)
Péntek Attila-Zandler Krisztián: Evidence of middle palaeolithic south from Vanyarc (Nógrád county, Northern Hungary)
In the assemblage, there is dihedral burin made on a thick local limnic silicite shatter (48x34x12 mm). With its archaic features, it does not resemble Upper Palaeolithic types. In the diverse other tools category, there is a fragmented tool made on a siliceous pebble flake. Its curved left lateral edge is retouched, the distal end and the right side of the tool broke a long time ago. It can not be unambiguously decided if it is a curved side-scraper or an end-scraper with retouched lateral edge ([27) x [ 18] x 8 mm). 4. Discussion The lithic assemblages of all three shortly reviewed sites are small, the number of formal tools is low. Though this fact makes very probable the homogeneous character of the assemblages, the question of the cultural affiliation can not be solved only on the grounds of typological analogies. The composition of the tool-kits is approximately similar, the end-scrapers and side-scrapers are prevalent. Bifacial tools are only at the site VI9-1 present, leaf-shaped tools can be found only at the sites V19-1 and VI9-2. There are a few typical Aurignacian end-scrapers at the sites of V19-2 and V21. The only, undoubtedly Upper Palaeolithic tool is a dihedral burin made on an erratic flint blade at the V19-2 site. Save these latter ones, essentially all other tools have strong Middle Palaeolithic character. However, neither the end-scrapers nor the side-scrapers can be considered as culture-specific. Morphologically the leaf-shaped tools convey a various impression. There are pointed ones with rounded base. Their cross-section is either biconvex or plano-convex, or even parallelogram (plan-convex/plan-convex). Generally, they are symmetric to their longitudinal axe. The lateral edges of the leaf-shaped tools were worked with the WGK-method („ wechselseitig-gleichgerichtete Kantenbearbeitung’'7). Among the leaf-shaped tools only in a single criterion, namely in the fineness or precision of the elaboration can be observed certain differences. Unfortunately, this criterion can not be regarded as culture-specific one as well. Somewhat surprisingly, despite the tabular character of the raw m aterial, the elaboration of the tools made of felsitic porphyry is the most ambitious. Some of these finely worked pieces are the following: in the assemblage of the V19-1 site the tool on Figure 2: 6; at the site VI9-2 the mesial fragment (Figure 5: 3) and the base fragment (Figure 6:4). The elaboration of the other tools is rather rough-and-ready, Figure 6:4 (V19- 1 site), Figure 5:1,2 (V19-2 site), giving them a spontaneous impression. Because of the low numbers of tools, the differences in the tool-kit composition can not be regarded as statistically relevant. The typological composition of the „Vanyaretype” industry, based on the two richest assemblages of the V5 (Vanyarc-Szlovácka- dolina) and V11 (Vanyarc-Tovi) sites is rather balanced. The share of the side-scrapers of various morphology, leaf-shaped tools and bifacial tools is approximately the same, however, there are significant differences in the share of end-scrapers and retouched flakes. The share of end-scrapers is at the V5 site about the fifth of the 62 formal tools (20,97%), at the V11 site it is only about a 10th (9,62%). The number of the retouched 17 17 BOSINSKI 1967:43 227
