Pages:  373-382 |  DOI: https://doi.org/10.55086/sp236349357

This paper is a response to the monograph by L. B. Vishnyatsky and V. A. Burlacu “Buzdujeni 1. Multi-layer cave site of the Middle Paleolithic in the Prut River basin”. This paper criticizes a number of conclusions of the authors of the monograph, including the definition of the stone industry from this site. The earlier definition of industry as a denticulated Mousterian was based on the use of F. Bordes’ technique. The authors of the monograph, on the other hand, ignored Bordes’s method, using their own, devoid of exact definitions and rather based on intuitive estimates. According to them, all denticulated tools are regarded as pseudo-retouched stone artifacts. According to the authors of the monograph, this retouching occurred naturally in the layer. This point of view does not take into account the totality of facts, just ignores them. The counterarguments given in the paper point to the reality of the denticulated Mousterian. The monograph under consideration also proposes the idea of the simultaneous formation of all grottos in Moldavia with Middle Palaeolithic stone tools. This idea is based on an erroneous assumption about the simultaneous geomorphological formation of these grottos in the Riss-Würm interglacial. The authors of the monograph ignored the fact of the existence of a well-studied grotto with older deposits — Duruitoarea Veche.

Keywords: Moldova, Buzdujeni grotto, Middle Palaeolithic, controversial issues

Information about author:

Nikolai Anisyutkin (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Doctor of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation
E-mail: [email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0002-3761-8299