The settlement of Ulalinka or Улалинка, in Russian (co-ordinates 51°57'20.0"N 85°58'18.6"E) was
discovered in 1961 by Okladnikov, it lies partly under the old city cemetery on
the south-eastern outskirts of Gorno-Altaisk.
The first, source I could find regarding the manner of his discovery was Anatolevna
(2013). She quotes the author himself: “In his book "The High Hill" Okladnikov wrote: "In 1961, during the
local lore conference, the instinct of a hunter for primitive man led me and
ethnographer Tashchakov to this hill, forced me to cross a small mountain river
Ulalinka and climb up a steep hillside strewn with stones."”
Reading between the lines, I think we can conclude that local people
directed him to the site and upon inspection he found stone tools eroded out of
the slope.
This, is more or less, confirmed by a second source, Gavrilov (2012), who gives a little more detail about
the site’s discovery: “In 1961, the
famous Soviet archaeologist and historian AI Okladnikov came to Gorno-Altaisk
for several days. In his spare time, after a long-established habit, the
scientist began to search for new monuments of antiquity in the vicinity of the
city. His attention was drawn to the left bank of the Ulalinka River near
the old city cemetery. Here the river washed away a high terrace, in the upper
layers of which, before 1961, a parking lot was found for people who lived in
the late Paleolithic era (the end of the Stone Age).
At the bottom of the terrace
L.P. Okladnikov found several yellow-hazel, quartz with traces of rough
treatment by their man. It was these findings that struck him with his
closeness in the processing technique to the pebble tools of the Punjab (India)
and distant Africa, i.e. the oldest known tools of man's labour, which preceded
the tame chisels of the lower (early) Palaeolithic.”
However, when Okladnikov reported his finds and suggested great age for
them his colleagues were sceptical. They pointed out that two questions needed
answering about the site, before the tools could be accepted as truly ancient.
These were:
1.Do the pebble tools belong to the lower, ancient layers of the terrace
or have they been transported there, perhaps by water?
2. If so, then what is the age of these layers?
Therefore, a full excavation was required. This had to wait for eight
long years before it could be organised. Garilov (ibid.) continues:
“In June 1969 a group of
researchers from the Institute of the Institute of Physics and Technology of
the Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by AP Okladnikov
(including the associate professor of the history department of the Barnaul
Pedagogical Institute, Umansky Aleksey Pavlovich, and the student-historian BGPI V.
Mamaykin) laid an exploratory dig on the slope terraces. During
excavations, in addition to a series of stone tools of labor, bones of some
fossil animals were found, in particular a tusk of an elephant or a mammoth.
In July of the same year,
students-historians BGPI on behalf of AP Okladnikov made a step-by-step
cleansing of the slope of the terrace. These were the first excavations in
the Ulalinsky parking lot.
During the excavation in 1969,
more than 500 pebble tools were found, as well as bones of small rodents.
Part of the slope was cleared
from the base to the top so that geologists could make a complete picture of
the structure of the terrace and, consequently, solve the question of its
origin and the age of the layer in which primitive tools of labour were
discovered.
I must say that before the
excavations in 1969, geologists were also not unanimous in explaining the
origin of the terrace and differently dated the time of its
formation. Thanks to excavations in 1969, the structure of the terrace was
traced on a wide front.
After studying it in the autumn of 1969,
geologists - Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences VN Saks and
candidate of geological sciences S. L. Troitsky came to the conclusion that the
terrace (120-100 thousand years ago) was very old. This time was also
dated the layer containing pebble tools.
But the excavations of 1969 did
not give a clear answer to the question of how these weapons fell into the
ancient layer: whether they were left by the people who lived then (and,
therefore, are very ancient) or in fact, slid from the upper layer to the lower
one (and then belong to later time). This problem could only be solved after
excavation at the top of the terrace.”
Okladnikov (1982), states that he opened a pit on top of the terrace and
dug down over 5m. Garilov (ibid.) concludes:
“In the summer of 1970
excavations at Ulalinka were continued. In the lower part of the cover
layer, that is, at a depth of two meters [note the depth discrepancy with Okladnikov’s paper], dozens of the oldest pebble tools were found on the entire area of
the site. They proved that there is no question of any sliding of the
found tools from the upper layer, that they really, belonged to the lower
layer, that is, their grey antiquity was proved. This was confirmed by
archaeological materials, from which the tools of labour were made, and the
technique of production, and their types.”
Ulalinka excavation in 1969, from the Assa at the Megalithic Portal
(2016)
Okladnikov at Ulalinka in 1979, the year before his death. Original
caption reads: The excavation site; journalist B. Alushkin, academician
A. Okladnikov (center) and geologist V. Mylnikov at Ulalinsky parking lot
(1979). Source: Badanova (2015).
Anatolevna (ibid.), a local resident of Gorno-Altaisk, describes the site
as it is today:
“The site was named after the Ulala River. It is located near the
old cemetery on the left bank of the taiga river Ulala”.. “Poplar planting in
the old cemetery serves as fencing around the site. Garages, sheds,
residential buildings are built under the very precipice.”
Of the finds made by Okladnikov she states “more than 600 samples of
primitive tools from quartz were extracted.”
According to the ООПТ
России (Protected Areas of Russia) website (2018) the site’s importance was
first recognised by a decision of the Altai Territory Council of People's
Deputies in 1978 in a document entitled "On the Approval of Natural
Monuments of the Gorno-Altai Autonomous Region". In 1996 it received
national recognition as an ‘object of
historical and cultural heritage of all-Russian significance’, by presidential
decree. The site, however, was
largely ignored and left unprotected until 2012. Then, the Altai Republic,
prosecutor's office stepped in. It was reported, by Federal Press (2012) that
they demanded that the federal agency for managing state property and the
Ministry of Culture take measures to preserve the cultural heritage site,
Ulalinsky.
According to, Badanova (2015), action seems to have been taken: the site
now has a sign-board, and improvised
open-air museum based in a yurt, which also serves as a ticket booth. A museum complex is also planned.
Recent images of Ulalinka:
Ulalinka site from the south, showing the creeping development
threatening the site. Source: Wikipedia commons (2016).
New sign board at Ulalinka.
Source Badanova (2015)
Ulalinka site plan from the
Protected Areas of Russia, Natural Monument Passport. PDF download from ООПТ России (Protected Areas of Russia)
website (2018). Original caption reads: Fig 1 Site plan of the Ulalinka Natural
Monument.
View of Ulalinka from the
north(?). Source: Assa at the Megalithic
Portal (2016).
The only published paper on it is
that by its excavators A.P. Okladnikov, A.P. and G.A Pospelova (1982).
In their own words:
“The Ulalinka site, discovered in 1961, is located on the right
tributary of the Maima River, on the left bank of the Ulalinka below the
cemetery of Gorno-Altaisk. The site is situated in the submeridional fault
[meaning a fault in an almost north-south direction]. Zone separating the
Biisk-Katun and Kiam synclinoria. It is located on the edge of Iolgo Range,
which is composed of flint limestones, quartzites and other rocks of late
Proterozoic age [ended 542Mya]. These rocks are occur at a depth of 12m below
the Ulalinka River level and are overlain by Neogene and Pliocene-Quaternary
sediments.”
In this section, the authors are
trying to put the cultural levels in context to show what age they are.
“The Ulalinka section, in which two distinct cultural levels were
found, was exposed on the slope of the and in a pit dug into the hilltop to a
depth of 5.8m. The section’s strata differ in genesis and form three informal
units”
“In one of the pit’s walls the section was as follows: (1) modern,
black, soil 0.70m; (2) greyish-brown loam with worm tunnels and roots of
vegetation, 0.3m; (3) loessy light-grey loam with columnar parting and lime nodules,
0.3m and (4) loessy light-brown loam with lime nodules 0.4m. These four layers
comprise a loam unit of typical late-Quarternary appearance, an identification
confirmed by finds of molluscs. The first cultural level is confined to the
lower part of this loam unit. The section proceeds with (5) lumpy brown clay,
0.45m; (6) compact brown clay with iron hydrates, 0.5m; and (7) yellowish-brown
clay with some crushed stone, 0.45m. These layers comprise a middle clay unit
of which the general appearance indicates a much earlier Quarternary age than
that of the loam unit. Finally, the section includes (8) a boulder-pebble
horizon with gravel, crushed stone, unsorted fragments, flint limestones, porphyrites
and diabases associated or stained with yellow-brown ochre clay, 0.6m; (9)
yellow-brown ochre compact clay with rhythmically alternating thin inclusions
of white clay, 0.35m; (10) bright-yellow clay, 0.25m; and (11) crushed stone and
pebbles of quartzite and limestones, 1.5m. Layer 8 is the second main cultural
level of the section. These four layers comprise the lower clayey unit, the
rocks of which are typical of the Pliocene Altai foothills in their lithology
and multi-coloured character. Until this discovery, Palaeolithic artifacts had
not been found in Siberia under the thick cover of loessy loams in rough
sediments with pebbles and crushed stone. The upper cultural level is a typical
assemblage of Upper Palaeolithic implements, including a few flakes, some
fragments of prismatic core, a point, and a small scraper with semi-lunar blade
made of obsidian. These tools and many others from similar sites can be
attributed an age younger than the Sartan glaciation (less than 25,000 years).”
“The main cultural level of the section, associated with the boulder-pebble
horizon, differs from the upper one and from all other known Palaeolithic sites
in Siberia principally in the strikingly archaic shapes of the tools and their
primitive technology. The tools were made almost entirely from pebbles of
yellowish-white quartzite, whole or split in half, and sometimes from pebbles
of obsidian and quartzite fragments. The finds include choppers, chopping
tools, scrapers, a peculiar pebble core and tools with a spoutlike curved
projection that might have served as cutting instruments. All these tools are
nearly untreated pebbles, only slightly retouched (fig 1). All the artifacts
are amorphous. They may sometimes have served as cutting tools, sometimes as
scrapers, sometimes both functions at once. Their primitive diversity seems to
reflect the pursuit of a useful and stable shape. The stone inventory and the
techniques of manufacture are so primitive and peculiar that they cannot be
classified in the framework of the classic Lower Palaeolithic typology. The
nomenclature of the Western European schemes cannot be applied to them.”
A closer look at the
stone tools
In their paper Okladnikov and Pospelova (1982) sparsely
illustrate their collected lithics:
Ulalinka primitive stone tools from Okladnikov and Pospelova
(1982). Original caption reads: Fig.1. Stone inventory Ulalinka, lower horizon.
1, pebble with marks of percussion
along the longitudinal edge; 2, tool
with re-touched projections; 3,
pebble chopping tool; 4 scraper-like
tool; 5, pebble core.
Ulalinka lithics from Russia’s Archaeological Web Museum
(1999). Original caption reads:
According to the latest archaeological finds, ancestors of
present man lived in Gorny Altai many hundred thousand years ago. Ulalinka
which lies within the limits of today's Gorno-Altaisk, is the most ancient
settlement of primitive man. During the excavation of the Ulalinka site some
primitive stone tools were found. The fire technique, that is the heating and
quick cooling of stones, was used when making the tools. Ulalinka's finds are dated
within the limits of the lower Palaeolithic period - from 150000 BC to 1.5
million years.
Stone tools, purportedly, from Ulalinka from Anatolevna (2013).
No source is given and no caption. Provenance unknown. Although, I must say,
they do have a marked similarity with those pictured on the Russian Archaeological
Web Museum website.
Ulalinka lithics from the Guide to the Republic of Altai
website (2014). Source not stated and no caption. Left hand specimens and
hafted point possibly from the upper cultural levels, whilst the black and white
line drawings are much more in keeping with the other sets of lithic tools
above. However, the largest flaked tool at middle, with the black
bar on it is from Fig. 3 of Derevianko
et al. (2005) and is, actually from Kara-Bom!
Firstly, I must say, I find the
typification of the stone tools by Okladnikov and Pospelova as “nearly untreated pebbles, only slightly
retouched”, quite self-serving. By emphasising their primitive aspects and
giving a scant description of their more advanced features, they are leading
the reader to their preferred conclusion: these tools are extremely old.
Secondly their statement that “The stone inventory and the techniques of
manufacture are so primitive and peculiar that they cannot be classified in the
framework of the classic Lower Palaeolithic typology. The nomenclature of the
Western European schemes cannot be applied to them.”, seems to ignore
parallels with other, ancient, tool traditions from India and Africa that the
authors must have been aware of, especially considering his own stated
familiarity with them.
Looking at what Okladnikov’s team
found, if the tools shown on Russia’s Archaeological Web Museum are from
Ulalinka, it seems to me, that even an untrained amateur can attempt an
explanation their manufacture and hence make a stab at their possible age.
Studying the images of these
tools closely I was struck by their close resemblance to a technique used on
pebble raw materials that I have seen before. To me, it seems, that they may
have been produced by bi-polar lithic reduction in addition to the use of, fire
as stated by Okladnikov.
Comparing Okladnikov’s Fig 1-4
and the specimen at right from Russia’s Archaeological Web Museum with a
schematic drawing of this technique from the Lithic Reduction article on
Wikipedia (2017), the similarities are striking:
I was extremely puzzled by this discrepancy, and thus sought
out commentaries on early lithics from central Asia and Siberia to find out
what other authors professional opinions were, about the lithics from Ulalinka.
From Shunkov (2005):
“Until recently, archaeological materials from the Ulalinka site have
been the only evidence of human occupation of the Altai during the Lower
Paleolithic. Stone tools
made of split quartzite pebbles were recovered from multi-coloured soft
sediments, which have been dated to the Middle Pleistocene and Upper Pliocene
(Derevianko et al. 1998a). An
abundant collection of quartzite rocks recovered from the lowermost layers of
Ulalinka comprise such indisputable artifacts as pebbles bearing evidence of
core preparation and negative scars of irregular detachment of amorphous
flakes. Furthermore, massive pebbles trimmed along the long axes to form
chopper/chopping tools, scraper-like tools worked on flat pebbles with a
natural back and the cutting edge formed through stepped retouch, and pebble
tools with a spur-like ovoid protruding part were recovered (Okladnikov 1972).”
Note the reference to Okladnikov
(1972). This is the original paper on the lithic tools, that caused the
controversy in Russian archaeology. The problem was that an extremely ancient
age was being claimed for the Ulalinka based primarily on the typification of
the tools. Some other Russian archaeologists strongly disputed this.
Note also the much greater detail
given. First, let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Shunkov (2005)
gives an accurate translation of the Okladnikov (1972) text. Reading this
second account, it is clear the lithic assemblage was far more diverse and
advanced in terms of the techniques of tool production used than the scant
description given by the author in the only English language paper written
about the site!
So, let us look at
the tow descriptions side by side:
Given these discrepancies I felt
I had to delve into the techniques used in the production of tools from
pebbles, to see if any research carried out since Okladnikov’s time could shed
light on these varying descriptions.
One excellent source I discovered
was Van der Drift (2009).
Van der Drift, is an amateur
scientist from the Netherlands with his own website, espousing a very
nationalistic view of the first waves of migration into his country, by ancient
hominins. His, particular, interest lies in, the lithics found there, and their
categorisation. Many specimens he, and others have collected over three
decades, do not fit the received/orthodox view of the first colonisation of the
region by Neanderthals. His view is that a much earlier, migration must have
occurred. He bases his theory on the types lithics found in this part of
Europe. Controversially, he believes, and has stated, in a number of web-based
publications that, Homo erectus/Homo antecessor/Homo heidelbergensis was
present and making stone tools, in his country, at an extremely remote epoch,
of ca. 800,000 to 1Mya.
Why use his paper? Well his
lithic samples, and his detailed explanation of the lithic techniques, used to
produce them, bear a striking resemblance to some of the lithic inventory from
Ulalinka.
In his paper, he goes into great
detail about how, he believes, ancient hominins, used the bipolar technique on
ovoid pebbles or river cobbles to produce usable stone tools.
I will highlight how his research
matches the lithics from Ulalinka.
Firstly, he states that, the
bipolar technique is used on pebbles or river cobbles of a fine grained, and isotropic
structure, such as quartz, quartzite and especially flint. This is exactly the
material used at Ulalinka.
Next he goes into great, detail
about how freehand flaking produces usable flakes, with the fracture will
always following the outlines of the core. In particular, he states that the
flakes produced, take on a well characterised, defined, conchoidal shape.
He further states: “This basic understanding of freehand
flaking, teaches us that freehand flaking does have its limitations. It is for
instance impossible to peel off flakes from a round, core (i.e. a river pebble)
because it has no striking plane, no reduction face, no edge or rib. And a
freehand blow directed to the centre will be too weak to break the core, at its
best it will produce a dead-end cone. That could certainly prove to be a great
problem for early hominids living on the edge of a river, when all they find at
the river banks are rounded pebbles.”
He then, goes on to show that the
forces exerted, on rounded river cobbles, by the freehand flaking method are
insufficient to break these cobbles. Furthermore, he shows that the use of a
hammerstone AND an anvil – the bipolar technique – are the only method by which
useable core could be prepared for further reduction.
Put simply, the application of
the bipolar technique is the only way in which river cobbles can become
prepared cores.
Putting these observations into
the context of how ancient hominins actually lived Van der Drift (2009), says “The advantage of the freehand technique is
that it produces blades and flakes in an effective, reliable, controlled way.
Because of the control that it gives, it was the technique of choice for most
hominids with access to large isotropic stones. But in the palaeolithic many
hominid groups in lowland river delta areas could not find large isotropic
stones. Instead these hominid groups had to rely on pebbles and bipolar
techniques. The industries that these hominids produced (for instance
Vértesszöllös) are called pebble-tool-cultures due to the obvious use of
pebbles as raw material. But the role of the bipolar techniques in pebble-tool-cultures
has hardly been investigated and often denied. We should get a better
understanding of the possibilities that bipolar techniques offer, few
archaeologists have even recognised that bipolar techniques offer choices. In
order to understand Pebble tool cultures and related industries we must study
the options that the bipolar techniques offered.”
His Fig. 5 shows the results of
different angles of hammer impact on pebbles:
Exploring how different hammer-stone
striking angles, affect the way pebbles shattering when the bipolar technique
is used he defines two modes of reduction: straight bipolar technique and
oblique bipolar technique, each resulting in different, shaped prepared core.
Continuing, his argument, Van der
Drift (2009) makes a crucial point: “It
is difficult to distinguish between oblique bipolar flakes and freehand flakes.
Oblique bipolar flakes never show any double contact points or double ripple
patterns. And smaller differences (i.e. different angle, striking plane,
curvature, bulb formation, bulbar scar location) are easily overlooked. This explains
why for instance László Vértes mistakingly thought that “No traces indicative
of a bipolar technique have been observed.” in Vértesszöllös. Just like any
freehand flake does, flakes made in oblique bipolar technique show only one
contact point, a sharp edge at the opposite side and they have a nearly conchoidal
shape.”
This is the main point of his
entire chain of reasoning: tools made on river cobbles/pebbles have been worked
by the bipolar reduction technique and that the results of the use of it, by
hominins on the Eurasian continent, remain, largely unrecognised.
Lastly he examines bipolar retouching
of these ‘prepared core’:
“It is possible to start out with a rounded pebble, break it open with
the nutcracker technique and as the broken pieces have striking planes and
reduction faces, you can
than proceed using freehand techniques. This is actually what D. Mania
proposes for Bilzingsleben. I do not believe that this is what happened. In
Bilzingsleben there might certainly have been some opportunistic freehand flaking,
just like in other bipolar traditions. But the majority of the further shaping
and retouching of the artifacts was done in bipolar technique, as shown in
figure 5D and 5E. This is proven by the tool shapes (discussed in my film “the
bipolar toolkit concept”) and the signals discussed
in chapter 3. The first reason for bipolar retouching is that anvils
proved to be very helpful in working steep edges, it is often still very
difficult to shape split pebbles using freehand techniques. But this is not the
only reason to use oblique bipolar percussion in shaping and retouching
implements, this choice was also greatly influenced by habit, tradition and culture.”
Lastly Van der Drift (2009),
expresses his opinion on the development of the pebble tool culture in the
middle Pleistocene:
“ ..the repeated and habitual use of bipolar techniques in the initial
shaping of pebbles must have trained the hominid mind in understanding the consequences
of bipolar reduction. Anvil use was a habit in some traditions! And it goes much
further because each step of the production line was part of the integral
tradition, from the gathering of
pebbles as raw material on the banks of a stream to the next step of
bipolar breaking and the following step of bipolar shaping to the final step of
the application of the tools. Groups using the freehand toolkit concept had the
habit of using freehand flaking on good raw material (often found on open
planes and in mountains), most often with the intent of using bifacial
reduction to make handaxes (long cutting tools) that were meant for meat and
hides processing (from large grazers in open landscapes).
Groups using the bipolar toolkit concept often lived where good raw
material was difficult to find such as forests and river deltas. They had the
habit of using bipolar reduction to make choppers, steep scrapers, deep notches
and related tools. In the early Oldowan the choppers were used directly for
food processing and this meant that the invention of long cutting tools was an
improvement and the decisive step towards the Acheulean.
But in the middle Pleistocene bipolar traditions in Europe and Asia,
the steep scrapers and notches and related tools were meant for wood and bone
processing. The combination of stone and wood and bone tools were used to
process food. So the bipolar toolkit traditions had developed a completely
different concept of suitable raw material, a completely different concept of
tool-shapes and a completely different concept of tool-use. The group or microband of hominids had a completely
different concept in their collective memory than the freehand groups. It was not
the simple cracking open of small pebbles (Mania called this Zertrümmern) but
it is this complete concept that ensured survival of the group.”
Van der Drift (2009), also
illustrates some of the lithics he believes were produced by bipolar technique.
Interestingly, these include some retouched specimens very reminiscent of those
from Ulalinka (compare the right-hand specimen from them Russia’s
Archaeological Web Museum (1999) and the bottom left specimen from Okladnikov
(1982)) :
Pebble tools, with retouch, produced
by bipolar technique from Van der Drift (2009). Original caption reads: BIPOLAR
RETOUCHING Tayac-points are converging denticulates and are most often small
(scale 5 cm.) and triangular in cross-section, they should not be compared to
handaxes which are smooth edged bifacial large cutting tools.
Reflecting back on the lithic
tools found at Ulalinka, it seems more than probable that many of the tools
found in the lowest cultural level were produced by the bipolar technique.
The tools these hominins,
produced may instead of being extremely ancient, result from an expedient use of the raw materials
found in the region. The absence of blades and points, whilst seeming to
indicate a truly ancient origin for the tools found, may, in fact indicate that
the tool-makers were simply from a different tool tradition, which used bone
points as hunting weaponry and stone tools for hide and wood working. Thus
their age may NOT be as ancient as Okladnikov (1982) believed.
Let us look now at the dating
techniques used by Okladnikov to see if the evidence he presented is strong
enough to support his ‘late Pliocene’ age for the site. He says:
“The archaeological data alone were insufficient to estimate the age of
the tools. Geological, paleogeographical, and paleontological methods were also
used, though they did not yield a common result. Some scholars, noting the
relatively low elevation of the site, thought it no older than 40,000 years,
while others dated it to the middle Pleistocene (Okladnikov 1964, 1972; Gaiduk
1968; Ceitlin 1979) and still others to the early Pleistocene on the basis of
the geological conditions (Adamenko 1970). A further group of scholars assigned
it to the late Pliocene on the basis of the paleogeographical environment and
the lithology of the cultural level (Okladnikov and Ragozin 1978a and b). The
paleomagnetic method was employed to help solve this complicated and very
important problem (Pospelova, Gnibidenko, and Okladnikov 1980; Okladnikov Pospelova,
and Gnibidenko 1981)”
The Paleomagnetic method was used
to date the stratigraphic column at Ulalinka and, in particular the clay layer
in which the oldest stone tools were found. This method relies on the fact that
lava, clay, lake and ocean sediments all contain microscopic iron particles.
When lava and clay are heated, or lake and ocean sediments settle through the
water, they acquire a magnetization parallel to the Earth's magnetic field.
After they cool or settle, they maintain this magnetization, unless they are
reheated or disturbed. The remanent magnetization, that is the magnetisation of
the rocks or sediments, from the time they were laid down can be found by the
application of suitable laboratory techniques.
The description of the number of
samples taken from the various stratigraphic layers; their special distribution
and the care taken in recording their orientation seems sufficiently detailed
and to my, admittedly, amateur eye to be professional enough to provide
reliable data.
The temporal “cleaning”
techniques applied to the samples in the laboratory; both Alternating Field
Demagnetization and Thermal Demagnetization, also seem sufficient to remove any
of the later, secondary magnetizations and reveal the characteristic Natural Remanent
Magnetization (NRM) component from when the sediment in which the tools were initially
laid down.
In summary Okladnikov and
Pospelova (1982) found two very minor Paleomagnetic reversals in the
stratigraphic column and a major Paleomagnetic reversal in the clays of the
lower cultural level.
They state:
“Thus a summary paleomagnetic section of Ulalinka was compiled after a
set of magnetic cleanings of rocks, the result for three paleomagnetic sections
complementing each other. It consists of two paleomagnetic zones. The sediments
of the upper unit comprise a normal paleomagnetic zone that can be compared
unambiguously with part of the Brunhes polarity epoch and the sediments of the
lower unit represent a reversed zone that can be attributed with nearly equal
probability to part of the Matuyama polarity epoch or an older reversal event
Its age is quite definitively older than 690,000 years.”
The authors go on to note that if
the Brunhes-Matuyama boundary is considered the dividing line between the
Pliocene and the Pleistocene then the site with its lithic implements older
that this boundary is a late Pliocene one.
Since 2009 the
Pliocene-Pleistocene boundary has been re-allocated to 2.588 ± 0.005 Ma.
The Brunhes-Matuyama boundary reversal is now dated, based on further research
to 781,000 years ago. This date has been set as the boundary between, the lower
and middle Pleistocene.
The Ulalinka site, based on Okladnikov
and Pospelova (1982) would thus be of lower Pleistocene age.
Commenting on the dating of the
site Shunkov (2005) says: “The available palaeomagnetic
and radiothermoluminescence (RTL) dates suggest attribution of the lowermost layers
at Ulalinka to a wide chronological range of c. 300 - 400 ka to 1.5 mya
(Okladnikov et al. 1985). The lower
chronological boundary seems doubtful, whereas the upper boundary is reliable,
supporting the age estimates of the Ulalinka site as older than 300 ka.”
The nearby Karama site, with comparable
lithic tools in its lowest cultural level, is provisionally dated to the final
Lower Pleistocene. The two sites may therefore be comparable in age and
presumably, were occupied by the same hominins.
Conclusions
- The Ulalinka site can be dated reliably to older than ca. 300,000 years
old.
- The tools found appeared of ancient derivation due to their primitive form. This fact swayed Okladnikov to posit that they were extremely old, when in fact the hominins who manufactured them were simply making expedient use of local material, a material necessitates the use of the bipolar technique. The tools may therefore be of any age.
- If the Paleomagnetic data collected by Okladnikov and Pospelova (1982) are correct, then the site is older the Brunhes-Matuyama boundary reversal and is thus of final lower Pleistocene era and somewhat earlier than 781,000 years old
- The claim that the site is from an even earlier date of ca. 1.5Mya has only slight evidence and unlikely to be correct
- Further research is required to establish, the exact age of Ulalinka and whether is truly the oldest site of human occupation in Siberia
References
Anatolevna, M.V, Know
Altai. 2013. Ulalinsky loose shaft. [ONLINE] Available at: http://turizm-altay.ru/ulalinskiy-rihliy-val/.
[Accessed 1 January 2018].
Archaeological Web Museum of Russia. 1999. Ancient
Altai Barrows - The Stone Age. [ONLINE] Available at:
http://museum.mmc.nsu.ru/?int=VIEW&el=4899&templ=ENGLISH_INTERFACE_PAGE&PAGE=1.
[Accessed 1 January 2018].
Assa, A. The Megalithic portal. 2016. Oldest
settlement Ulalinka - Ancient Village or Settlement in Russia. [ONLINE]
Available at: http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=42074.
[Accessed 31 December 2017].
Badanova L., Хан-Алтай "Khan Altai". 2015. The
Ulalinsky site will become a museum complex. [ONLINE] Available at: http://gorno-altaisk.ru/tourism/ulalinskaya-stoyanka-gotovitsya-stat-muzejnym-kompleksom.
[Accessed 1 January 2018].
Derevianko, A.P., et al., 2005. The Pleistocene peopling of
Siberia: a review of environmental and behavioural aspects.
Федерал Пресс "Federal Press". 2012. The
prosecutor's office demands to take measures to preserve the Ulalinsky site in
Gorno-Altaisk. [ONLINE] Available at: http://fedpress.ru/news/econom/rest/prokuratura-trebuet-prinyat-mery-dlya-sokhraneniya-ulalinskii-stoyanki-v-gorno-altaiske.
[Accessed 1 January 2018].
Gavrilov, E. Алтай туристский "Altai Tourism".
2012. Ulalinksky Site. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.vtourisme.com/altaj/istoriya/drevnij-altaj/1396-ulalinskaya-stoyanka.
[Accessed 3 January 2018].
Guide to the Republic of Altai. 2014. Ulalinka.
[ONLINE] Available at: http://putevoditel-altai.ru/publ/ulalinka/17-1-0-302.
[Accessed 2 January 2018].
Okladnikov, A.P. 1972. Ulalinka – drevnepaleoliticheskii
pamiatnik
Sibiri. [Ulalinka, Siberian Lower Paleolithic site]. Materialy
i issledovania po arkheologii [Materials and research on archaeology]
SSSR 185:7-19. (In Russian).
Okladnikov, A.P. and Pospelova, G.A., 1982. Ulalinka, the
oldest Palaeolithic site in Siberia. Current Anthropology, 23(6),
pp.710-712.
ООПТ России "Protected areas of Russia".
2018. Улалинский рыхлый вал "Ulalinsky loose shaft".
[ONLINE] Available at: http://oopt.aari.ru/oopt/%D0%A3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9-%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9-%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB.
[Accessed 1 January 2018].
VAN DER DRIFT, J.W., 2009. Bipolar techniques in the
Old-Paleolithic. APAN/EXTER, pp.1-15.
Wikipedia. 2017. Lithic reduction. [ONLINE]
Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithic_reduction.
[Accessed 2 January 2018].
Wikipedia commons. 2016. Улалинский рыхлый вал.
Город Горно-Алтайск "Ulalinsky loose shaft. Gorno-Altaisk".
[ONLINE] Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%A3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D1%80%D1%8B%D1%85%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BB._%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B4_%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D0%90%D0%BB%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA.jpg.
[Accessed 1 January 2018].
