Magnetic Polarity Stratigraphy of the Upper Cenozoic Deposits of Near-Sea Dagestan (Russia) and the Age of the Early Paleolithic Site Rubas-1

  • A. Yu. KazanskyEmail author
  • A. A. Anoikin
  • A. P. Derevianko
  • G. G. Matasova
  • V. Yu. Bragin
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Geophysics book series (SPRINGERGEOPHYS)


We studied magnetic polarity in four Upper Neogene (Akchagylian stage) sections of Near-Sea Dagestan. Paleomagnetic studies have shown that Shor-Dere section is the most complete section of Late Neogene—Late Quaternary in this territory. The section Rubas-1, which contains Paleolithic artifacts, corresponds to the upper part of the Shor-Dere section, while sections Ajinour and Rubas River are likely short fragments, so their correlation with the reference section is ambiguous. A composite magnetic polarity section of Near-Sea Dagestan was constructed on the base of correlation between Shor-Dere, Rubas-1 and, in part, Rubas River sections. Magnetic polarity pattern of the composite paleomagnetic section is well correlated with the polarity zonation of Akchagylian stage for the neighboring regions of the Caspian basin (Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan), the south of the European part of Russia and the Transcaucasia (the Northern Caspian and the Lower Volga region). Such correlation of the magnetic polarity with those from startotype regions of Akchagylian stage made it possible to identify magnetic polarity zones in the composite section with the magnetic polarity chrons of the Neogene and Quaternary Time Scale (2016). We suggest that the upper part of the composite section can be correlated with Matuyama Chron including Olduvai and Reunion subchrons, while the lower part attributes to Gauss Chron with Kaena subchron. The proposed correlation provides the basis for approximate age estimates for the studied strata and supposes the age of the stone industry from Rubas-1 site not later earlier than 2 million years ago.


Magnetostratigraphy Near-Sea Dagestan Akchagylian Paleolithic 



We are very grateful to A. Yu. Guzhikov for the useful comments to our manuscript. The work was supported by RFBR grants № 10-06-00085-a and № 11-06-12000-ofi-m-2011 and by RSF grant №. № 14-50-00036. This study has also been carried out following the plans of the scientific research of the Geological Institute of RAS (for AYK, project no 0135-2016-0009).


  1. Amirkhanov H. A., Ozherel’ev D. V., Gribchenko Yu. N., Sablin M. V., Semenov V. V., Trubikhin V. Early Humans at the eastern gate of Europe: The discovery and investigation of Oldowan sites in northern Caucasus // C. R. Palevol. -2014. V. 13. pp. 717–725Google Scholar
  2. Burdukiewicz J.M. Technokompleks mikrolityczny w paleolicie dolnym środkowej Europy. Wroclaw: WERK, 2003. 374 p. (in Polish)Google Scholar
  3. Derevianko A.P., Anoykin A.A., Kazansky A.Yu., Matasova G. G. New data on the justification of the age of the Early Paleolithic complex of artifacts of the location of Rubas-1 (Primorsky Dagestan) // News of Altai State University 2015, Vol. 2. № 3 (87). P. 78–83. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  4. Derevianko A.P. The earliest human migrations in Eurasia in the Early Paleolithic. Novosibirsk: IAET SB RAS Press, 2009. 232 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  5. Enkin R. J. A computer program package for analysis and presentation of paleomagnetic data. Pasific Geoscience Centre // Geol. Surv., Canada, 1994, 16 pGoogle Scholar
  6. Fisher R.A. Dispersion on a sphere // Proc. R. Soc., 1953, L. A217, pp. 295–305Google Scholar
  7. Geological map of the USSR scale 1: 200000. Series Caucasian [sheet K-39-XIX, XX] / Explanatory note. - M.: Gosgeoltekhizdat, 1961. 76 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  8. Golubyatnikov V.D. Geological structure of the Tertiary deposits of Southern Dagestan between the rivers Rubas-Chay and Samur. - L.-M.: Georazvedizdat, 1933. - Proceedings of the All-Union Geological Exploration Association of the NKTP of the USSR. - Ser. 278. 43 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. Grebenyuk L.V. Magnetostratigraphy of Neogene sediments in the south of European Russia and Transcaucasia. Abstract of diss.… cand. geol.- min. sciences. Saratov. 2004. 22 pp. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  10. Gurary G.Z., Trubihin V.M. Cyclical development of the West-Turkmen part of the Paleo-Caspian in the Late Cenozoic and the paleomagnetic scale // Neogene and Quaternary Border. Moscow: Nauka, 1980. pp. 3–7. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  11. Hilgen F.J., Lourens L.J., Van Dam J.A. The Neogene Period. In: The Geologic Time Scale. Eds. F.M. Gradstein, J.G. Ogg, M. Schmitz, G. Ogg. Elsivier, 2012. pp. 923–978Google Scholar
  12. Kirschvink J.L. The least-square line and plane and the analysis of paleomagnetic data. Geophys. J. R. Astron. Soc., 1980, v. 62, pp. 699–718Google Scholar
  13. Leschinsky S.V, Konovalova V.A., Burkanova E.M., Babenko S.N. Justification of the relative age of the Early Paleolithic sites Darvagchay-1 and Rubas-1 (Southern Dagestan) // The oldest human migration in Eurasia: Materials of the International Symposium. Novosibirsk: Izdatelstvo IAET SB RAS, 2009. pp. 140–149. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  14. Leschinsky S.V. Justification of the relative age of the lower cultural horizon of the location of the Rubas-1 // Derevianko AP, Amirkhanov Kh.A., Zenin VN, Anoykin AA, Rybalko AG Problems of the Paleolithic of Dagestan. Novosibirsk: Izdatelstvo IAET SB RAS, 2012. pp. 277–289. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  15. Lower Palaeolithic Small Tools in Europe and the Levant. J. M. Burdukiewicz, A. Ronen (ed.): BAR International Series. № 1115. Oxford, 2003. 239 pGoogle Scholar
  16. McFadden P.L. A new fold test for palaeomagnetic studies // Geophys. J. Int. 1990, V. 103. pp. 163–169Google Scholar
  17. Minyuk P.S. A.S. 900163 USSR. Sampler for weakly durable soil No 292381422-26; claimed. 08.05.80; publ. 23. 01. 82, 1982, Bul. No. 3. 3 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  18. Pillans B., Gibbard P. The Quaternary Period. In: The Geologic Time Scale. Eds. F.M. Gradstein, J.G. Ogg, M. Schmitz, G. Ogg. Elsivier, 2012. pp. 979–1010Google Scholar
  19. Stratigraphy of the USSR. Quaternary system (semivolume1). M., 1982. 443 p. (in Russian)Google Scholar
  20. Tauxe L. Essentials of Paleomagnetism. University of California Press, Berkeley., Ca. 2010, 512 pGoogle Scholar
  21. Torre de la I., Mora R., Dominguez Rodrigo M., Luque de L., Alcala L. The Oldowai industry of Peninj and its bearing on the reconstruction of the technological skills of lower Pleistocene hominids // Journal of Human Evolution. 2003. Vol. 44(2). pp. 203–224Google Scholar
  22. Van Baak C.G.C., Vasiliev I., Stoica V., K.F. Kuiper K.F., A.M. Forte A.M., Aliyeva E., Krijgsman W.A magnetostratigraphic time frame for Plio-Pleistocene transgressions in the South Caspian Basin, Azerbaijan //Global and Planetary Change. 2013 V. 103. pp. 119–134Google Scholar
  23. Zijderveld J.D.A. A.C. demagnetization of rocks: analysis of results. In: Methods in paleomagnetism. Eds. Collinson D.W., Creer K.M. and Runkorn S., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1967, pp. 254–286Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Yu. Kazansky
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • A. A. Anoikin
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • A. P. Derevianko
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
  • G. G. Matasova
    • 6
  • V. Yu. Bragin
    • 6
  1. 1.Geological DepartmentLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Geological Institute of RASMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the SB RASNovosibirskRussia
  4. 4.Altai State UniversityBarnaulRussia
  5. 5.Novosibirsk State UniversityNovosibirskRussia
  6. 6.Laboratory of Geodynamics and PaleomagnetismTrofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics of the SB RASNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations