Reassessing the role of the Urals in Palaeolithic Cave-Art Research—Comments on ‘Cave Palaeolithic of the Ural Mountains—a review’

Upper Palaeolithic (UP) sites in the Ural Mountains are key to understanding both the origins and the spread of symbolism and long-distance social networks. The discovery of paintings in Kapova (= Shul'gan-Tash) Cave by the zoologist A. V. Ryumin in 1959 (Bader 1965) marked the first identification of UP rock art outside south-western Europe. This record was subsequently expanded with the discoveries of paintings in Ignatievskaya (Petrin 1997) and Serpievskaya II (Shirokov & Petrin 2013) caves.

Strikingly, the first discovery beyond the well-established core region of Spain, France and Italy did not occur in its margins (for instance, Gruta de Escoural in Portugal was not found until 1963; see Santos 1964), but thousands of kilometres away, on the eastern edge of Europe. Moreover, the artworks exhibited features unknown in contemporary Magdalenian rock art sites of the Franco-Cantabrian region (Ruiz-Redondo 2016). Does this territory represent an independent centre for the invention of UP cave-art? Or does it reflect long-distance social networks linking it to regions in southern Europe? We have addressed these questions in recent publications (Ruiz-Redondo et al. 2020; Ruiz-Redondo 2024), but the available evidence remains insufficient for a definitive answer. Based on the graphic record and radiometric dates from Kapova, we tentatively favour the second hypothesis (Ruiz-Redondo et al. 2020: p. 985). In any case, the existence of a UP cave-art nucleus in the Urals renders the region exceptionally significant for the study of Eurasian UP societies.

In this light, the recent publication of a paper by J. Chlachula (2026) offering an overview of UP cave sites in the Ural Mountains is to be welcomed. However, it fails to present adequately the two key sites—Kapova and Ignatievskaya—thereby misrepresenting their fundamental role in rock art research. In this short comment, a few issues concerning these two sites are addressed, with the aim of situating them according to their significance for the study of global UP cave-art.

The discussion of Kapova Cave is notably brief (~350 words), particularly given that it is, beyond question, the most important site included in the article, as the author himself acknowledges: ‘Shulgan-Tash (Kapova) Cave is a world-famous cave…’ (Chlachula 2026). As a consequence of this brevity, this description contains major omissions that impede an accurate understanding of the site's significance.

In terms of chronology, the author overlooks the extensive U-series dating undertaken on flowstones overlying several artworks. These analyses provide minimum ages of c. 14.5 cal. ka BP for some paintings (Dublyansky et al. 2018), a result fully consistent with the c. 19–16 cal. ka BP radiocarbon chronology derived from the cave-art's archaeological context (Ščelinskij & Širokov 1999; Zhitenev et al. 2015). These data not only offer chronological insight into symbolic practices but also support the hypothesis of a direct relationship between the artworks and the archaeological remains found in the lower galleries of the cave. These remains—including lithics, bone tools, personal ornaments and even a ceramic lamp (Shchelinsky 2016; Zhitenev 2024)—constitute one of the richest Internal Archaeological Contexts (IAC) of any UP cave-art site worldwide (see Medina-Alcaide et al. 2018 for definition of IAC and comparative discussion).

Further inaccuracies contribute to an underestimation of Kapova's importance. Citing our work among others, the author states that Kapova's art ‘includes more than 50 prehistoric paintings’ (Chlachula 2026). While technically true, the actual minimum number is 246, as demonstrated in the most recent comprehensive review (Ruiz-Redondo et al. 2020: pp. 973–974). This discrepancy is substantial: recognising the true figure situates Kapova among the select group of ‘major UP cave-art sites’, the ones that possess more than 100 graphic units, as we highlighted for a recent discovery in Spain (Ruiz-Redondo et al. 2023).

Equally problematic is the fact that the two images presented as ‘ochre-painted zoomorphic and anthropomorphic parental [sic] art images’ (Chlachula 2026: fig. 6A, B) do not correspond to Palaeolithic cave paintings—neither from Kapova nor from any other UP site. Their fig. 6A depicts a modern forgery inspired by Kapova's motifs (Fig. 1 shows a comparison with the original panel), whereas their fig. 6B shows a panel of red elephants from the Stadsaal Elephant Site in the central Cederberg, South Africa—estimated to be more than 15 000 years younger than the art at Shul'gan-Tash (e.g. Deacon et al. 2018) and located roughly 10 000 km away.

A further omission that diminishes the perceived significance of the southern Urals in UP symbolic studies is the complete lack of reference to the Palaeolithic art of Ignatievskaya Cave (= Yamazy-Tash). In 1980, V. T. Petrin, S. E. Chairkin and V. N. Shirokov identified red and black paintings in this cave, located approximately 250 km from Kapova. The art was initially examined by V. T. Petrin and later by V. E. Shchelinsky and V. N. Shirokov (Petrin 1992, 1997; Ščelinskij & Širokov 1999). These scholars documented more than 50 motifs, identified as Palaeolithic on the basis of iconographic, stylistic and comparative criteria, particularly their affinities with Kapova paintings.

The archaeological excavation undertaken in the main chamber of the cave revealed remains of ancient human occupations. Three charcoal samples from an archaeological layer yielded Late Pleistocene dates of ~18–11 cal. ka BP (Ščelinskij & Širokov 1999), which may potentially overlap at ~16 cal. ka BP. Although subsequent direct radiocarbon dates appeared to challenge the Palaeolithic attribution (Steelman et al. 2002), these results were later refuted by U-series dating of overlying calcite (Dublyansky et al. 2021b) and by four radiocarbon dates from the IAC associated with the paintings, which consistently situate the graphic activity between 17.4 and 16.3 cal. ka BP (Dublyansky et al. 2021a).

These more recent dates are not only consistent with the U-series analyses but also with the earliest radiocarbon results from the site and, importantly, with the chronological assessment of Kapova's rock art. After our 2019 fieldwork season in Kapova Cave, and in the context of the Southern Urals Archaeological expedition (led by V. S. Zhitenev), we had the opportunity to examine Ignatievskaya's rock art. Our assessment of the iconographic and stylistic features of this site's paintings confirmed clear connections with Kapova, a conclusion now endorsed by the new radiocarbon dating. Both caves share an identical iconography, dominated by mammoths and horses and, notably, both include a depiction of a Bactrian camel (Fig. 2B), the only two known in the UP cave-art record (Esin et al. 2020). Igniatievskaya's depiction, previously interpreted as a ‘composite’ figure (e.g. Ščelinskij & Širokov 1999; Shirokov 2018), is more plausibly a camel, perhaps with its head turned back. The distinctive morphology of Kapova's horses—compact bodies, robust forms and prominent manes—is replicated in the Ignatievskaya figures (Fig. 2C), reinforcing the impression of a shared symbolic tradition between both sites.

Finally, the description of the cave-art from Serpievskaya 2 provided by Chlachula (2026) is also inaccurate: ‘… a stylized painting in the cave Serpievskaya 2…’. Although it may be considered a minor site, the archaeologists who studied the cave (Shirokov & Petrin 2013) reported a dozen red paintings and several engravings, most of them non-figurative motifs (with the possible exception of two zoomorphic figures). Despite the site not being investigated as extensively as the two previously discussed caves in the Urals, the Palaeolithic age of these artworks appears to be a priori justified on technical and, to some extent, iconographic grounds. Consequently, the site is included in recent overviews of UP cave-art (e.g. Ruiz-Redondo 2024).

The Upper Palaeolithic record of the Ural Mountains constitutes a crucial axis for understanding the emergence, development and circulation of symbolic traditions across Eurasia. The evidence from Kapova and Ignatievskaya, together with the artworks at Serpievskaya 2, demonstrates the existence of an UP cave-art tradition in this territory, far beyond the Franco-Cantabrian core, raising key questions about long-distance social networks and cultural transmission. By clarifying the chronology, scale and stylistic coherence of these sites, our reassessment aims to complement Chlachula's overview and to situate the Ural record more precisely within the broader landscape of research on UP cave-art.

The author confirms that the data supporting the statements of this study are available within the article. Additional raw data that support the statements of this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.