Response to Comment on ‘Cave Palaeolithic of the Ural Mountains—a review’

The Ural Mountains represent a key area for the earliest prehistory studies predetermined by their geographical position at the limits of Europe and Asia, and the topography (Astakhov 2024). The recent review (Chlachula 2026) provided an up-to-date synthesis of the largely fragmented information about chronology, palaeo-environmental conditions, cultural expressions and the main evolutionary trajectories of the cave Palaeolithic of the Urals. The study attempted to integrate the existing archaeological data—overwhelmingly published in the Russian language—into the broad territorial frame and regional geo-contexts of the karstic mountain system, following former summarizing studies on the early peopling of this area (Chlachula 2010; Pavlov 2022). The review Comments by Ruiz-Redondo (2026) raised several points concerning the Urals' Palaeolithic exclusively associated with the cave art uncovered at two sites—Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave and Yamazy-Tash/Ignatievskaya Cave. Both sites were listed and repeatedly mentioned in the study (Chlachula 2026) with their geo-contextual and geoarchaeological characteristics, and chronologies (op. cit.: tables 1, 2). Therefore, the statement that ‘The discussion of Kapova Cave is notably brief’ (Ruiz-Redondo 2026) is incorrect. The presentation of the archaeological monuments is balanced with the palaeoenvironmental and geoarchaeological concept of the review. The title of the commentaries of A. Ruiz-Redondo (‘Reassessing the role of the Urals in Palaeolithic cave-art research’) and the argumentation are somewhat misleading, as the cave art clearly was not the main subject of the published study. In order to keep the review within reasonable limits, only the most essential information about the cultural records at Pleistocene-age cave occupation loci was provided, which inevitably led to the selection of the most relevant data only. As stated, the basis of the review and this reply was largely the Russian literature (105 original titles). The goal of the work was neither to present an exhaustive cataloguing of the entire Urals' Palaeolithic archives in their often vague temporal and natural contexts characteristic of some of the earlier (Soviet) investigations, nor to deal in detail with all single aspects of the Urals' Palaeolithic life and its material expressions—including the paintings on cave rock walls (parietal art). The artistic provenance and chronological aspects of the unique Urals' cave paintings have inspired the most attention since their discovery. Their temporal and artistic interpretations, however, are more complex than presented in the Comments. Over 440 images and graphic elements assigned to the Upper Palaeolithic have been found in the Urals' caves—186 in Yamazy-Tash/Ignatievskaya Cave and >250 in Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave (Liakhnitskiy et al. 2013; Shirokov 2013; Zhitenev 2024). The same age is presumed for rock engravings from the latter site based on some graphic similarities with the rock paintings (Kotov 2023). In terms of the Urals' cave rock art, neither the origin (i.e. the place of invention) of these stylistic zoomorphic and geometric images, nor their meaning and symbolic values, were the main subjects of the published study (Chlachula 2026), as it might be presumed from the Comments. These aspects were just perfunctorily addressed by providing references. They are treated in separate publications (mentioned in the list of references), and a repetition of these furnished interpretations would be redundant. The limited presentation, by no means, diminishes ‘the significance of the southern Urals in the Upper Palaeolithic symbolic studies’ (Ruiz-Redondo 2026). Again—the study was not on the Urals' cave art phenomenon—its genesis and research history. Once these issues were brought up, they may be approached more closely within the frame of the presented argumentation. A. Ruiz-Redondo comments on the inauguration of the Upper Palaeolithic cave art. It is agreed that the available evidence remains insufficient for a definitive answer to the questions on the Urals' cave art origin (Ruiz-Redondo 2026). Yet, any reasoning attempting to draw trans-continental cultural (including artistic and ritual) linkages would be, at least, speculative. The postulated model (Ruiz-Redondo 2024) implies a key role of the southwestern European Upper Palaeolithic (Magdalenian) milieu, although it does not exclude an autonomous Urals' cave art appearance and invention. Some image patterns of the depicted Urals fauna—mammoths, horses, rhinoceros or bison—may resemble Ice Age animals living in the Franco-Cantabrian region, since they largely belonged to the same species (Mammuthus primigenius, Equus caballus, Coelodonta antiquitatis and Bison priscus). Their similar stylistic portraying/design would just be anticipated—not even taking into account performances of various artists. The same may be true about some geometric and anthropomorphic signs, and other graphic features and elements. Being so, a close discussion of any of the autochthonous/allochthonous parietal-art origin scenarios was avoided in the review. Indeed, the formal iconographic similarities of the illustrated compositions with the Upper Palaeolithic milieu of SW Europe (Ruiz-Redondo 2026) allow reasoning of a chronologically comparable inauguration of the Southern Urals' cave art (Ruiz-Redondo et al. 2020). The graphic similarities of the art images of both areas are apparent (Kotov et al. 2023). The commented temporal assessment of the past human presence in the Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave and the true age of the unique cave art (Ruiz-Redondo 2026) are undoubtedly of principal relevance. The provided synopsis of the Urals' cave sites' chronology summarized the available radiocarbon dates (Chlachula 2026: table 1). Nonetheless, the chronology of this cave is not as straightforward as presented (Ruiz-Redondo 2026). Whereas the cultural layer in the cave is dated on charcoal to 20 600/19 600–16 300 cal. a BP (Dublyansky et al. 2018a; Zhitenev 2018), the age of the parietal paintings remains open. The U-Th dates of 36 400 a BP (the youngest underlying limestone layer forming the geo-contextual background to the images) and 14 500 a BP (the oldest calcium flowstone layer sealing the paintings—the horses' composition, Hall of Chaos: Fig. 2B) provide a rather broad time interval for the cave's rock art appraisal (Dublyansky et al. 2016, 2018b). Thus, problematic is the statement (Ruiz-Redondo 2026) on the ‘fully consistent’ U-Th and 14C chronologies allegedly associating the cave art and the cave-art's archaeological context (Ruiz-Redondo 2026)—taking into account the ~22 000-year time window of the U-Th dating. In the case of the Ignatievskaya Cave, the antiquity of the local cave rock art is even more complicated. The argued consistency of the Uranium and the radiocarbon chronologies of the monument (Ruiz-Redondo 2026) remains vague. The presumed Pleistocene age was put into question by the dates of 8000–6000 14C a BP (7000–4600 14C cal. a BC) on charcoal pigments of three images, one resembling a mammoth (Steelman et al. 2002). The 230Th dating on the cave flowstone, although of a broad time range (78 000–10 000 a BP), supports the paintings' pre-Holocene age (Dublyansky et al. 2021). Yet, conclusions of the cave occupation at 18 300–15 800 14C cal. a BP based on charcoal and fauna (op. cit.) might be problematic because of shallow archaeological contexts (Petrin 1992; Shirokov & Petrin 2013) and possible sediment mixing, despite numerous Pleistocene fossil remains found (Smirnov et al. 1990). Fundamental for assessing the Urals cave art age assessment is the demonstration of the association of the paintings and the dated archaeological material from the stratified geo-contexts. The uncovered finds (lithics and other artefacts) cannot be a priori linked to the parietal images and serve as a basis for their direct dating (Serikov 2019), especially if both caves were inhabited repeatedly over millennia. Reasonable indices for Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave represent the utilitarian items—lamps (Chlachula 2026: fig. 6C1–2), presuming their connection with the cave wall paintings, as well as the pieces of ochre and ochre-coloured limestone artefacts found in several parts of the cave (Kotov et al. 2023: p. 123, 133). Inorganic iron-mineral (ochre) pigments (also found in a few pieces at Ignatievskaya Cave) constitute constraints, comparing the radiocarbon-dated (datable) charcoal-made paintings. Being so, I personally doubt that under these circumstances and in view of the multiple contextual and chronological uncertainties, a direct linkage can be made in interpreting the stylistic zoomorphic expressions such as of ‘horses’ (see below) from the two principal Urals' Palaeolithic cave art sites (Kapova and Ignatieskaya Caves) ‘reinforcing the impression of a shared symbolic tradition’ as argued (Ruiz-Redondo 2026). The more so, as the real antiquity of the paintings from the latter site remains unclear and open to re-interpretation. Accordingly, the conclusion on ‘a direct relationship between the artworks and the archaeological remains found in the lower galleries of the (Shulgan-Tash) cave’ (Ruiz-Redondo 2026) is likely, but has not been securely proven. The radiocarbon ages 20 600–16 100 cal. a BP and 18 300–15 400 cal. a BP report on the settlements at the Shulgan-Tash and Yamazy-Tash Caves, respectively (Dublyansky & Shirokov 2020), but do not directly date the paintings alone. Indeed, the Pleistocene antiquity of the paintings is, beyond any doubt, inferred from their iconography and supported by the contextual archaeological and palaeoenvironmental multi-proxies. The same concerns Serpievskaya 2 Cave, which, correctly, provided several closely undated paintings (Shirokov & Petrin 2013). A separate theme in the Urals cave art is the interpretation of the depicted animals, which may not be straightforward. For example, the ‘horse’ from the Ignatievskaya Cave (Ruiz-Redondo 2026: fig. 2) may well be a rhinoceros with respect to typical body and head shapes, and the short tail. This was also the original interpretation (Petrin 1992), later changed to a ‘horse’ (Shirokov & Petrin 2013: p. 68). However, these minor matters are not key issues of the investigations. The perceived information on the broad variety of Ice Age animals, including camels, offers unprecedented insights into the Last Glacial Urals' landscapes and Palaeolithic adaptation patterns, largely based on hunting. Of great value are the works detailing the chronology of the Urals monuments and providing complementary information on Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave art (Ruiz-Redondo et al. 2020; Ruiz-Redondo 2024), along with other recent publications (Zhitenev 2018, 2024; Dublyansky & Shirokov 2020; Kotov et al. 2023). The number of references to this principal parietal-art monument cited in the review does underscore the significance of this unique place. It cannot be agreed on the alleged absence (Ruiz-Redondo 2026) of the key reference on the Yamazy-Tash/Ignatievskaya Cave art (Petrin 1992), along with other works to the site, that were provided (Chlachula 2026). There was an unfortunate mistake, pointed out by A. Ruiz-Redondo (2026), in including the two false pictures referred to as being from the Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave (Chlachula 2026: fig. 6A, B). These photographs were taken from a public prehistoric art repository, allegedly presenting the cave scenes of the site, which, by a technical mistake in the legend, were ascribed to Y.B. Serikov. It was not possible to rectify this error at the initial stage of the online publication. The corrected and expanded illustrations replacing fig. 6A, B in Chlachula (2026) are now enclosed here (Fig. 1A–E). On top of this, a series of selected zoomorphic images from the Urals' cave is newly presented (Fig. 2A–F), showing the diverse Ice Age animals expressed in the vibrant Palaeolithic art. Its presence attests to a major cultural advance and the existence of an Upper Palaeolithic centre at the easternmost geographical limits of Europe during the late Last Glacial. The aim of the review was to present an environmental and culture-historical synopsis of the present knowledge on the Pleistocene peopling of the Ural Mountains, geographically segmented into three latitudinal zones, each with specific geological backgrounds, the archaeological records and the level of the conducted investigations. Indeed, some topics could have been (and can be) explored in more depth. The parietal art was far from the main objective of the paper; it was treated just marginally to show all aspects of the Pleistocene-age material culture revealed at the Urals' karstic sites. It is believed that the published work has achieved its goals by providing an original, up-to-date summary of the Urals' cave Palaeolithic from the geoarchaeological and palaeoenvironmental perspective, complementing the cultural evidence alone. The review is principally based on the Russian literature, which may not be available to Western readers. The contributing comments of A. Ruiz-Redondo further underline the importance of Urals' cave rock art. The author thanks the Boreas editor for the opportunity to respond to the Comments, and Y. B. Serikov and V. G. Kotov for providing the original photographs of the Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave parietal art (Figs 1, 2).