THE BEGINNING OF THE EXCAVATIONS AT THE GEGALASHUR 1 (NORTH-EASTERN CAUCASUS)
Dublin Core | PKP Metadata Items | Metadata for this Document | |
1. | Title | Title of document | THE BEGINNING OF THE EXCAVATIONS AT THE GEGALASHUR 1 (NORTH-EASTERN CAUCASUS) |
2. | Creator | Author's name, affiliation, country | Anton A. Simonenko; State Historical Museum ; Russian Federation |
2. | Creator | Author's name, affiliation, country | Ekaterina P. Kulakova; Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth of RAS ; Russian Federation |
2. | Creator | Author's name, affiliation, country | Yulia V. Kuzminova; Institute of Archeology of RAS; Museum of Moscow ; Russian Federation |
3. | Subject | Discipline(s) | |
3. | Subject | Keyword(s) | Central Daghestan; Gegalashur 1; Early Paleolithic; Oldowan; chopper; pick; small flake |
4. | Description | Abstract | The early Paleolithic archaeological sites of the North-Eastern Caucasus comprise three distinct groups: Ainikab (Ainikab 1 and 2), Mukhkai (Mukhkai 1, 2, and 2a), and Gegalashur (Gegalashur 1, 2, and 3). These sites are situated within the central mountainous region of Central Dagestan, at an approximate elevation of 1500-1600 meters above sea level. They were initially discovered by A.A. Amirkhanov between 2005 and 2007. In 2023, an expedition from the State Historical Museum, under the leadership of A.A. Simonenko, undertook excavations at the previously uninvestigated Gegalashur 1 site. A primary objective of this excavation was to examine the hypsometric level analogous to layer 80 at the Mukhkai 2 site, a context known for its in situ lithic assemblage and associated fauna. The 2023-2024 excavation at Gegalashur 1 yielded a representative collection of lithic artifacts characteristic of the Oldowan tradition. Technical and typological analysis of these materials revealed the presence of various tool categories, including choppers, picks, and scrapers. Notably, the assemblage was dominated by small flakes, with a complete absence of bifacial tools and flakes exceeding 10 centimeters in maximum dimension. These findings support the classification of the materials from cultural horizons 1 and 2 within the “chopper and pick” technocomplex. Furthermore, preliminary paleomagnetic and palynological analyses tentatively suggest that cultural horizons 1 and 2 correlate with the Olduvai subchron and date no earlier than the onset of the Matuyama paleomagnetic epoch. The formation of these horizons is estimated to have occurred between 1.93 and 2.6 Ma. |
5. | Publisher | Organizing agency, location | Daghestan Federal Research Centre |
6. | Contributor | Sponsor(s) | The authors express their deep gratitude to the head of the Stone Age Department of the Institute of Archaeology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Dr. Sci. Kh.A. Amirkhanov, the head of the Akushinsky District of the Republic of Dagestan M.K. Abdulkerimov and the director of the Akushinsky Museum of History and Local Lore Z.G. Mirzaeva for their comprehensive assistance and support. The publication was prepared as part of the research work on the topic “Development of Material Culture in the Stone Age on the Territory of the Russian Plain and the Caucasus: General Trends and Local Manifestations” (№NIOKTR 122011200271-7); Rock and paleomagnetic studies are carried out within the state assignment of Schmidt IPE RAS (FMWU-2025-0033). |
7. | Date | (DD-MM-YYYY) | 14.04.2025 |
8. | Type | Status & genre | Peer-reviewed Article |
8. | Type | Type | |
9. | Format | File format |
PDF (Rus) |
10. | Identifier | Uniform Resource Identifier | https://caucasushistory.ru/2618-6772/article/view/17253 |
10. | Identifier | Digital Object Identifier (DOI) | 10.32653/CH21193-123 |
11. | Source | Title; vol., no. (year) | History, Archeology and Ethnography of the Caucasus; Vol 21, No 1 (2025) |
12. | Language | English=en | ru |
13. | Relation | Supp. Files |
Fig.1. Geographical location of the Oldowan sites of the Caucasus and Circaucasia on the modern map: 1 – 3 a group of the Early Pleistocene sites of Central Dagestan (Ainikab 1; Muhkai 1, 2, 2a; Gegalashur 1–3); 4–6 – Bogatyri/Sinyaya Balka; Kermek; Rodniki; 7 – Dmanisi (27MB) Fig. 2. Topographic plan of Mukhai 2 and Gegalashur 1 sites. Relative position of the hypsometric levels of Mukhai 2, layer 80, and excavations №№1-2 at Gegalashur 1. (3MB) Fig. 3. Relative position of the hypsometric levels of Mukhai 2, layer 80, and excavations №№1-2 at Gegalashur 1 in the aerial photograph. View from the NW. (31MB) Fig. 4. General view of Gegalashur 1, excavation 2 (2024) from the south. Exposure of the bottom of the paleochannel. (5MB) Fig. 5. The profile of the paleochannel in the western wall of the excavation №2. View from the NE. (3MB) Fig. 6. Gegalashur 1, excavation №1. Southern wall, view from NNW. (4MB) Fig. 7. а) Southern (excavation № 1) and western (excavation № 1-2) profiles of the Gegalashur 1. б) Fragment of the tooth (M3) of a cloven hoof from the gravel layer (7). (15MB) Fig. 8. Gegalashur 1, excavation №№1-2. Microstratigrapgy through the A lane of the gridding. (2MB) Fig. 9. Gegalashur 1, excavation №1, cultural horizon 1: 1 – scraper; 2, 6 – fragment of a nodule with flake scars; 2а – flake from a nodule’s fragment; 3 – small half-cortical flake; 4 – medium half-cortical flake; 5 – small cortical flake; 7 – side-scraper. (8MB) Fig. 10. Gegalashur 1, excavation 1, cultural horizon 1: pick. (8MB) Fig. 11. Gegalashur 1, excavation №1, cultural horizon 2: 1 – scraper; 2 – end-scraper on a small flake; 3 – oblique end-scraper; 4 – end-scraper; 5 – medium cortical flake; 6 – cracked flake; 7 – backed knife; 8 – small flake. (2MB) Fig. 12. In situ and possibly in situ palynomorph assemblages of Gegalashur 1. (339KB) Fig. 13. Summary lithological column of excavations in 2023-2024, variations in bulk magnetic susceptibility and its frequency dependence, magnetic declination (D), inclination (I), and calculated on their basis latitudes of the virtual geomagnetic pole (VGP) for the studied levels. (1MB) Fig. 14. Representative plots of NRM alternating field demagnetization, vector end-point diagrams (Zijderveld diagrams), and stereograms of directions. In the Zijderveld diagrams, the orange line denotes the low-coercivity superimposed component of magnetization, the blue line denotes the high-coercivity characteristic component. (902KB) Fig. 15. Distribution of the characteristic component of magnetization in the studied samples (with confidence intervals) and the average direction (red dot) for samples of reverse polarity. (671KB) Fig. 16. Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS) results for samples from sandy silt and loam layers: a) – stereographic projection of main axes of AMS ellipsoid (K1 – maximum, K2 – intermediate, K3 – minimum axis); b) – contour plot of the distribution of the main axis of AMS; c) the relationship between the degree of anisotropy (Pj) and foliation (F); d) – the relationship between the shape factor (T) and the degree of anisotropy (Pj). (1MB) Fig. 17. Magnetostratigraphy and geochronology of Muhkai 1, 2a; Ainikab 1 and Gegalashur 1 (based on: [12, p. 7, fig. 3]). (3MB) |
14. | Coverage | Geo-spatial location, chronological period, research sample (gender, age, etc.) | |
15. | Rights | Copyright and permissions |
Copyright (c) 2025 Simonenko A.A., Kulakova E.P., Kuzminova Y.V.![]() This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |