Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The main focus of this paper is to present the stone assemblage of one of the Lower Palaeolithic layers of Medzhibozh 1. Detailed typological and technological characteristics of the stone industry of layer III of the locality Medzhibozh 1 are given against the background of geomorphological characteristics and features of the Quaternary structure of the area. Medzhibozh 1 represents one of several multi-layered sites of Lower Palaeolithic age on the Upper Bug, among which are also Medzhibozh A, Golovchintsy 1 and Golovchintsy 2. Two layers containing Lower Palaeolithic evidence are distinguished in the profile of Medzhibozh to date. Medzhibozh 1 layer III is more recent, the age of culture-bearing sediments is currently correlated to MIS 11. This dating is fundamentally consistent with diverse biostratigraphic indications as well as several pilot ESR dates ranging between 373– 399 thousand years. Geomorphological features of the structure of the Medzhibozh area allow for the age estimation of culture-bearing sediments as older and presumably attribute them to MIS 15– 13. Despite its relatively young age, the Medzhibozh 1 layer III industry demonstrates quite archaic technology and typology. The knapping technology is almost totally characterised by the application of the bipolar on anvil technique. The basic range of lithic products includes bipolar cores, segmented supports, choppers, segments, flakes, and debris. Despite the abundance of items with signs of utilisation, pieces with secondary worked edges are isolated and atypical. Well-defined types of flake tools are practically not present. There are no freehand cores. There is no indication of use of bifacial technology. Currently, there is absolutely no formal ground to attribute the industry to the Acheulean. Instead, the Medzhibozh 1 layer III industry can currently be compared to a “ core-and-flake” industry, what is traditionally defined as Oldowan or mode 1. Perhaps the reason for the observed archaism can to some extent be explained by the properties of the available raw materials (granitoides of crystalline shield and mostly small-sized siliceous supports of Upper Cretaceous age) and the economic profile of occupation or recovered area (recurrent butchering site).
Степанчук et al. (Fri,) studied this question.