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

A recent review and response highlight the significance of the Ural Mountains' cave Palaeolithic, particularly focusing on the Shulgan-Tash/Kapova Cave's rock paintings. The study integrates fragmented Russian-language archaeological data into a broader geo-contextual framework, emphasizing the region's strategic position at the Europe-Asia boundary. While Ruiz-Redondo's comments suggested a brief discussion of Kapova Cave, the review balanced this with palaeoenvironmental and geoarchaeological concepts. The research avoids exhaustive cataloging, instead presenting essential data on Pleistocene cave occupations. It acknowledges the complexity of interpreting the Urals' cave art, noting that while stylistic similarities to southwestern European Upper Palaeolithic art exist, definitive origins remain speculative. Chronological assessments are nuanced, with U-Th and radiocarbon dating providing broad time intervals rather than precise ages for the paintings. The study underscores the importance of contextual associations between paintings and archaeological materials, which are not always straightforward due to sediment mixing and repeated cave occupations.

Chlachula, J. (2026). Response to Comment on ‘Cave Palaeolithic of the Ural Mountains—a review’. Boreas, 55(2), 604–608. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1111/bor.70054