The results of research conducted in recent years in Hindustan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Arabian Peninsula have expanded our understanding of the Middle Paleolithic of these regions. However, the extreme south-east of the Le Valloise Moutier range is still poorly understood. Typically, Levallois industries are found in Iran, Afghanistan, and Uzbekistan, but they are almost unknown in the Indian subcontinent (with the exception of Lower Sindh and the Indus Valley). Materials from Ongar and other sites of Lower Sindh allow us to reconstruct possible south-eastern routes of Neanderthal settlement, which probably belonged to these industries.

Key words: Levallois-Moustier, Middle Paleolithic, Homo neanderthalensis, Sindh, Indus Valley, Indian subcontinent.

Introduction

One of the most exciting problems of studying the Middle Paleolithic period is determining the southernmost range of Neanderthal populations, "which inhabited vast territories from Europe to Western Asia and the Middle East" [Febre, Condemi. Degioanni, 2009, p. 1]. However, this problem, despite its great importance, turned out to be outside the sphere of attention of a wide range of specialists and attracted, perhaps, very few scientists (see, for example: [Bar-Yosef, 2011, fig. 11.1]). The area of distribution of bone remains of Homo neanderthalensis identified so far in Asia includes significant areas between the Zagros and Taurus Mountains in the west (Trinkaus and Biglari, 2006), the territories of the former Soviet republics of Central Asia, and Siberia in the east (Viola, 2009). However, in the vast area between the western and eastern regions, there are no traces of Neanderthal habitation.

The Levallois-Mousterian stone technology used by N. neanderthalensis is typical of the Middle Paleolithic complexes of Eurasia. It is found in the territories from the Iberian Peninsula (Giles Pacheco et al., 2000) to Central Asia and adjacent regions (Krause et al., 2007; Bar-Yosef and Wang, 2012). It is believed that in some areas Neanderthals lived to the beginning of the Upper Paleolithic (Rybin and Kolobova, 2009). The Levalloisian technology, which is somewhat different from the Eurasian one (Beyin, 2011, p. 7), is reflected in the Middle Paleolithic materials of North and North-East Africa, which belonged to people of modern times.

page 18
an anthropological type [Hublin, 2000, p. 163]. Many scientists suggest that the industries of the initial stage of the Upper Paleolithic of the Levant, which developed from the Middle Paleolithic complex of the Levantine Mustier (Kuhn et al., 2009), are typologically different from synchronous sets of artifacts from North-East Africa (Beyin, 2006, p. 24). Recently obtained data on Central Asia can serve as a confirmation of the opinion that modern anthropological people introduced transitional assemblages with a Levallois technological component to this region (Krivoshapkin, Anoikin, Brantinghan, 2006).

Anatomical features of H. neanderthalensis and its relatively early divergence from the genus Homo, as evidenced by the results of mitochondrial DNA analysis, suggest that the evolution of Neanderthals began approximately 600 thousand years AGO (Krings et al., 1997). Classical Neanderthals are recognized only for those individuals who lived during the last ice cycle on the European continent, from about 100 to 30 thousand years ago (Henke and Hardt, 2011, fig. 3.7], or, if we take a broader framework, on the territory of Eurasia from approximately 200 thousand years AGO "until its mysterious disappearance, which occurred 28 thousand years ago" [Zilhao, 2010a].

The material culture of H. neanderthalensis is characterized by various Mousterian complexes. Many of them show variability in the specific weight of Levallois artifacts. The Levallois technology, whose roots have not yet been identified, developed during the Lower, Middle, and also early stages of the Upper Paleolithic in many regions of Europe, Asia, and Africa (Foley and Lahr, 1997, p. 24).

The technological approach that emerged after the long domination of the typological method of studying stone tools was based on the analysis of the operational chain or sequence as the main factor underlying the morphological variations of artifacts. The next stage of the study was the identification of variants of artifacts of the Levallois technology proper among the cleavage products (Boeda, 1994). Today, it is known that the use of different splitting methods results in artifacts that are both identical and differ in type (Meignen, 1988). However, in our opinion, the controversy surrounding the significance of the technical and typological variability of stone assemblages does not yet go beyond the discussion of the chronology, style, function, limitations associated with the characteristics of stone raw materials, their use and intensity of their utilization, and often does not take into account the cognitive abilities or cultural behavior of representatives of the human species that made these tools. Apart from participants in the debate over the transition from Mousterian to Aurignacian in Europe (Marks and Monigal, 2004), only a few experts considered the diversity of material culture as a key to understanding its variability (Ranov, 1995). According to paleoanthropological data, in addition to H. heidelbergensis, at least five human species - H. neanderthalensis, H. sapiens, H. erectus, H. denisovensis, and H. floresiensis-co-existed in Eurasia during the Middle Paleolithic (Cavalli Sforza and Pievani, 2011).

It is impossible to determine exactly which hominid taxon is responsible for the creation of a particular industry and technology, so it is impossible to fully understand the significance of the technical and typological variability of stone assemblages. There are reasons to suggest a connection between the anatomical and cognitive features of various human taxa and the specifics of their material culture and technology. First of all, this applies to stone complexes, which are considered "special industries associated with a specific hominid taxon" (Foley, 1987, p.391), although this is not always true if we recall that "stone technology is based on learned behavior" (Conard, 2007, p. 2005).

Taking into account recent climatic reconstructions, some milder periods of KIS-3 and KIS-5 contributed to the expansion of Neanderthal communities towards the Russian Plain (Hublin, 2000, p. 163). According to available evidence, human groups may have followed two main routes to reach the Indian subcontinent and the southern regions of Eurasia. The first one passed along a corridor along the northern Black Sea coast, where subtropical climatic conditions were preserved during CIS-3 [Bar-Yosef, Belfer-Cohen, Adler, 2006, p. 50], the second one - along a natural bridge that connected the Balkans with Anatolia. To reach the Indian subcontinent from Asia Minor, one had to cross Mesopotamia, the then dry bottom of the Persian Gulf, and the Makran coast in Balochistan (Armitage et al., 2011). This hypothesis should be taken into account, since Levallois-Mousterian assemblages were found near the southern coast of the Persian Gulf in Saudi Arabia [Petraglia et al. 2012], and the Middle Paleolithic industries of the "typical moutier" type with faceted and non-faceted Levallois components are located on the coast of Yemen and Dhofar in the Sultanate of Oman (Amirkhanov, 2006, p. 611). However, this largely simplified picture was corrected by the discovery of Levallois-Nubian complexes in Dophar (Rose et al., 2011). In addition, the Central Asian route cannot be excluded from the list of

page 19
This is considered a priori [Bar-Yosef, 2011], although the Gindu-kush was probably a serious obstacle for human groups moving towards the Indian subcontinent.

These data show that the distribution of Middle Paleolithic human populations was a much more complex process than previously assumed. However, all maps of the distribution of the genus Homo in the Indian subcontinent contain a question mark [Ibid., fig. 11.1; Henke, Hardt, 2011, fig. 3.8] due to the complete absence of anthropological finds and the small number of sites belonging to this period (see [Beyin, 2006, fig. 3]).

Middle and Late Pleistocene technologies in the Indian subcontinent

Studies carried out over the past decades in the Indian subcontinent, Central Asia, Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula have undoubtedly expanded our knowledge of the Middle Paleolithic of these territories and allowed us to answer several questions concerning the origin of Middle Paleolithic complexes [Petraglia and Alsharekh, 2003] and their temporal affiliation [Petraglia et al., 2012], variability and cultural relations [Petraglia et al., 2007].

Indian Middle Paleolithic industries were first identified as being based on flakes and characterized by "a marked absence of formal artefact types inherent in the Mousterian industries of Europe and other parts of Western Asia". AllchinB., 1992, p. 70]. According to his point of view," in India, Acheulean slowly evolved into the Middle Paleolithic, while some types of tools disappeared and new forms and new techniques appeared " (Misra, 2001, p.495). Accordingly, in Western Rajasthan, a region bordering Sindh, " the Middle Paleolithic Loonie industry has its roots in the Angelic tradition "(Misra, 1977, p. 37). Other researchers have proposed similar concepts based on recently discovered complexes in India [Pal, 2002, p. 67], reflecting "the gradual local development of the technology of splitting specially prepared nuclei, which originates in the previous Acheulean" [James and Petraglia, 2009, p. 256]. The above opinions contrast with the assumption put forward in the late 1960s [Wainwright and Malik, 1968], which is based on a very thorough description of the complexes discovered in the early 1960s.in situ at other Middle Paleolithic sites.

Some researchers, based on the characteristics of the above-mentioned complexes, believe that the Middle Paleolithic of the Mousterian type is not represented on the subcontinent [AllchinB., Goudie, Hedge, 1978, p. 314], while others refer the Middle Paleolithic complexes of peninsular India to the local Nevasan industry [Allchin R., Allchin B., 1997, p. 55-60]. Recently, these complexes were separated according to three main stages of development (Pal, 2002, p. 79), and most of them did not contain typical Levallois elements of the cleavage technology. In places where artefacts occur in well-stratified conditions and are radiometrically dated, for example, in the sediments of the Didvan 16R dune site in the Great Indian Desert (Misra and Rajagum, 1989), the Middle Paleolithic complexes are located between layers containing Early Paleolithic (Angelic) and Late Paleolithic (so-called microlithic, using the terminology of 50-year-old rock). long-standing complexes (see [Subbarao, 1956]) and [James and Petraglia, 2005].

According to a few absolute dates, the Middle Paleolithic assemblages in the region date from about 150 Ka BP. The Late Paleolithic (Upper Paleolithic) assemblages probably appeared immediately after 40 KA BP (Chakrabarti, 1999, p. 75). However, the settlement of the modern type of people who followed the coastal route probably took place 10 thousand years earlier (Field, Petraglia, Mirazon Lahr, 2007). Recently published results of genetic studies suggest that this event occurred between 75 and 60 thousand years ago (Bulbeck, 2007, p. 316), although there is very little archaeological evidence supporting this date (Beyin, 2011, p.3). The problem of determining the anthropological type of the creators of Middle Paleolithic assemblages is still debated [Haslam et al., 2010], mainly due to the lack of any anthropological materials related to this time from the territory of Hindustan [Stock, Mirazon Lahr, Kulatilake, 2007].

The distribution of H. neandertha-lensis and Levallois-Mousterian plants to the south is one of the most important and, at the same time, the least discussed issues. Typical Levallois-Mousterian complexes are found on the Iranian coast of Makran (Vita-Finzi and Copeland, 1980), the islands of the Strait of Hormuz (Dashtizadeh, 2010), Iran (Jaubert et al., 2009), Afghanistan (Dupree, 1972), and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia (Movius, 1953). Typical Levallois assemblages on the Indian subcontinent are almost unknown, with the exception of several surface complexes and individual artifacts from the Lower Sindh and Indus Valley (Biagi, 2006; Biagi and Starnini, 2011).

page 20

1. Levallois-Mousterian complexes in Lower Sindh.

1-Karachi and neighboring sites; 2 - Ongar; 3-Arzi; 4-approximate location of sites in the Rohri hills. Drawing by P. Biaggi and E. Starnini.

Research in Sindh

Geographical conditions

Sindh is the southernmost province of modern Pakistan. Its territory is divided into two parts according to the meridian direction of the Indus river. The western region is composed of the Kirtara, Ranikota, Bragui, and Gadja limestone formations (Blandford, 1880), some of which contain rich outcrops of high-quality flint (Biagi and Starnini, 2008; Biagi and Nisbet, 2010). The central part of the province is represented by the alluvial plain of the Indus River, which has repeatedly changed its course [Flam, 1999], and its delta, which is constantly expanding towards the Arabian Sea [Giosan et al., 2006]. The eastern part of Sindh is covered with sand dunes of the Thar Desert, or Great Indian Desert, and is dotted with numerous salt marshes. The Rohri Hills in upper Sindh are located between the Indus and the western edge of the Thar Desert dunes.

Levallois-Mousterian complexes of Lower Sindh

Typical Levallois-Mousterian industries are known from several sites in Lower Sindh, located to the west of the Indus (Figure 1). The most important of these is the Ongar site, better known as the "101st mile" (AllchinB., 1976, p. 486); it is located approximately 25 km south of the Indus River.- southeast of Hyderabad. This location was discovered by the UA. Fairservice Jr. in 1959 [Fairservice, 1975, p. 76]. Later, Ongar was visited by B. Allchin, who partially published the materials in the 1970s [Allchin V., Goudie, Hedge, 1978, p. 300]. On the top of a horseshoe-shaped limestone terrace, B. Olchin investigated Paleolithic complexes and a workshop for splitting stone containing materials of various times (Figure 2). The published complex included 22 artifacts: 5 scrapers, 2 points, 6 plates, 8 two-type flakes and a technical chip. All items were assigned to the Middle Paleolithic period [Ibid., tab. 8.9b].

In the early 1970s. Ongar was visited by Prof. A. R. Khan. At that time, there was a limestone quarry at the site of the parking lot. During the rescue work, A. R. Khan collected hundreds of Leval-Loise artefacts, including typical turtle-shaped nuclei with traces of centripetal cleavage removal, retouched and non-retouched points, flakes, plates, and various types of longitudinal and transverse scrapers with faceted chapeau de gendarme-type platforms, and a typical Mousterian spike (Figs. 3, 4). A. R. Khan first reported on "the presence of the Levallois industry in this region, without any doubt" [Khan, 19796, p. 80]. Unfortunately, Professor A. R. Khan did not accurately record the location of the Levalloise cannon collection on the map

Fig. 2. Satellite image of the Ongar location. On the right is a horseshoe-shaped terrace, which was studied by B. Olchin in the 1970s. The circle indicates the place where Levallois artifacts were collected in 2006.

page 21

3. Levallois nuclei collected by A. R. Khan at the Ongar site in the 1970s. Drawings by P. Biaggi, ink drawing by G. Almerionia.

4. Finds from the Ongar site.

1-6-Levallois Mousterian longitudinal and transverse scrapers; 7-Mousterian spikelet; 8, 9, 11-non-etched plates and lamellar flakes; 10-non-etched Levallois spikelet. Drawings by P. Biaggi, ink drawing by G. Almerionia.

he identified several points where Paleolithic artefacts were discovered. They were also not provided with any descriptions of the rescue operations. According to an unpublished map, all the sites were located in the southern and eastern parts of the horseshoe hill mentioned above [Ibid.].

The Ongar collections, collected by Professor A. R. Khan in the 1970s, are now preserved in an undisclosed state in the Museum of Prehistory and Paleogeography, Department of Geography, University of Karachi. One of the authors of this article, P. Biaggi, was able to get acquainted with 300 artifacts from this location, some of which were on display in the museum. All items are covered with a light brown patina. Among them, there are 11 rounded, one-sided, radially prepared, partially covered with a natural crust of Levallois nuclei with traces of centripetal removals (see Fig. 3); pseudoprismatic (subprismatic) nucleus with a smooth straight shock pad and negative sna-

page 22
12 cm long lamellar flake; 4 longitudinal scrapers with traces of unilateral impact retouching on flakes with a faceted impact pad (see fig. 4, 2, 4 - 6); 2 longitudinal-transverse scrapers with signs of impact retouching on flakes with retouched areas (see Fig. 4,1); retouched Levallois peaked with faceted the site (see fig. 4,10); a typical Mousterian tip, treated with a bilateral widespread impact retouch, made on a chip with a faceted platform (see Figs. 4, 3). The composition of non-retouched chips includes flakes and lamellar flakes (see Fig. 4, 8, 9, 11), some of them have faceted platforms.

After analyzing the collections of Professor A. R. Khan, P. Biagi conducted systematic surveys in 2005-2008 on the hills of Ongar, Daphro and Bekhain, on the plain located to the west of the Metin railway station, and on the surrounding plateaus (Biagi, 2005). During these explorations, he discovered artefacts with a characteristic light patina, complexes that are typologically comparable to the sets of tools collected by Professor A. R. Khan (Fig. 5). The products were extracted from the upper part of the section of a low alluvial terrace, dissected by the channels of seasonal watercourses that flowed in an easterly direction towards d. Ongar and the trails (Biagi and Nisbet, 2011) (Fig. In addition, there are several artefacts, including Levallois nuclei,

5. Finds from the Ongar site. All items were collected on the bank of a temporary watercourse in 2005-2008.

Drawings by P. Biaggi, ink drawing by G. Almerionia. 1-3, 5-levallois Mousterian flakes; 4-plate; 6-point.

6. Location of the Levallois-Mousterian artefacts at the Ongar site. The circle indicates the place of training camps in 2006. Photo by P. Biaggi.

page 23
They were collected on the surface of one of the low erosional hills with a flat top.

Finds from the first of the two localities included only Levallois flakes and plates with a faceted impact pad chapeau cle gendarme. All products were covered with a white patina. On the longitudinal edges of the products, individual chips of the secondary finish are traced. Due to the lack of dating material, it is difficult to determine their absolute chronology, but some technological features of the stone complexes, such as the presence of long unbrushed plates, may indicate that they belong to the late stage of the Upper Paleolithic.

Other small typical Levallois-Mousterian assemblages and individual artefacts have been found at other sites and on the surface in the area east of Karachi, including the Mulri, Landhi, and Deh Konkar uplands (Khan, 1979a, p. 13) and the Lucky Ridge (Biagi, 2008). One characteristic Levallois-Mousterian split with a faceted platform was found on the surface of a limestone terrace near the Baloch village of Arzi, east of the national road, a few kilometers north of Hyderabad (Biagi, 2010).

Middle Paleolithic complexes in the Rohri Hills (Upper Sindh) and Thar Desert (Rajasthan)

Middle Paleolithic artifacts were found in the Rohri Hills in Upper Sindh (Allchin B., 1976). Part of their west-facing terraces was the site of systematic archaeological surveys conducted in 1994-2002 by participants of a joint project to study the Rohri Hills (Starnini and Biagi, 2011).

The Rohri Hills are located east of the Indus. At their northern end, the river turns west and flows through the Bukkur Gorge, located between Sukkur and the Rohri Hills, where their eastern edge is defined by the old Hakra channel (the current Nara Channel). The hills are formed by Eocene limestones of the Bragui formation, which are very rich in outcrops of excellent quality flint, which has been used since the Early Paleolithic (De Terra and Paterson, 1939, p. 331). On the hilltops there are numerous archaeological sites, including various workshops for chipping flint; they date from the period from Acheul to the advanced stage of the Indus Valley civilization (Biagi and Cremaschi, 1991). The landscape of the hills can be described as a semi-desert steppe characterized by very low precipitation (Seth, 1978, fig. 2]; the maximum temperature in June is up to 46 C (Ahmad, 1951).

According to P. R. Chauhan (2009, p.132), the use of various flint springs in the Rohri Hills is unlikely to have been constant throughout the entire Paleolithic. But most likely, this occurred only in certain periods of the Paleolithic on clearly defined areas of uplands, mainly on terraces south of Rohri, on the northern border of hills in the region to the east of the Shadi Shahid sanctuary and the Ziarat Pir Shaban mausoleum (Figure 7). Flint varieties vary from single-colored to multi-colored depending on the source. smooth to striped with a slightly striated structure. Raw material outlets in the western central part of the hills (Shadi Shaheed Hills) were exploited during the well-defined Acheulean and Late (Upper) Paleolithic periods, in the third millennium BC, and during the developed Harappan period there were flint mines (Starnini and Biagi, 2006).

Thanks to exploration and excavations in 1994-1997 on Shadi Shahid, the sequence of the Paleolithic development of the Rohri hills was mainly reconstructed. Based on the technical and typological characteristics of stone finds, data on the degree of weathering and romanization of their surface, six main series of artifacts were identified. Series 5 was assigned to the final Middle Paleolithic; it included only a few artifacts that "resembled Levallois flakes with dihedral and faceted impact pads", and two nuclei "with traces of centripetal stripping, very similar to Levallois samples" (Negrino and Kazi, 1996, p. 32). According to F.'s data. Negrino and M. Kazn, series 5 was preceded by series 4, which belonged to the late Acheulean period. The greatest concentration of workshops of this period, characterized by the specific production of bifacial hand-hewers made from large flakes, was noted in Ziarat pir Shaban. The remains of the workshops were located in situ. They were partially overlain by a thin layer of sediments presumably dating back to the first phase of the last glaciation (Biagi, Kazi, and Negrino, 1996). Series 5 is followed by series 6, which includes close-to-cone lamellar nuclei, lamellar flakes, and wafer by-products. All these objects were found in situ in hundreds of workshops of the early Late (Upper) Paleolithic period (Biagi et al., 1998-2000). Several Levalloisian artefacts with smooth and faceted impact pads were collected from the surface in the Ziarat Pir Shaban area (Negrino and Kazi, 1996, fig. 22).

The northern and southern margins of the hills are surrounded by dunes in the western part of the Thar Desert, where many Paleolithic sites have been found (Allchin V., Goudie, Hedge, 1978). According to R. Dir and A. Singhvi, the Aeolian activity in this region was particularly intense around 100-150 Ka BP, and it was replaced by epi-

page 24

Figure 7. Location of the most important sites mentioned in the text in the Rohri Hills. Drawing by P. Biaggi.

sediment accumulation periods, resulting in the formation of calcified horizons. The period from 60 to 40 Ka BP is again marked by Aeolian activity (Dhir and Singhvi, 2012). The two arid phases mentioned above contributed to the "sealing" of most of the Middle and Late Pleistocene horizons. Stone artefacts from this period come from both alluvial deposits and stabilized dune deposits. Lake basins, whose shores are sometimes covered with numerous Paleolithic artifacts, are indicators of the humid phase, which is reconstructed for this region 125-100 Ka BP [Deotare et al., 2004, p. 23], while red-colored deposits date from 58-39 Ka BP [Tandon and Jain, 2001, p. 19].

B. Allchin and A. Goudie note that the "long Middle Paleolithic humid phase" was associated with soil formation and weathering of dunes (AllchinB. and Goudie, 1978, pp. 309-310). According to the luminescent chronology of the Luni River Valley, it is dated to the period after 70 Ka BP (Jain et al., 1999). During KIS-5 in the lake basin. Didvan and other parts of the desert (Deotare et al., 2004) were characterized by a humid climate.

Middle Paleolithic assemblages from this region include tools of various types, including Levallois artifacts that reflect the "preparation of the impact site" [AllchinB., Goudie, Hedge, 1978, p. 311]. However, the author of this article did not manage to find any typical Levallois nuclei or cleavages during exploration at sites in the Thar Desert or in Upper Sindh, although the discovery of similar artifacts on the Rohri hills was reported in the work of B. Olchin and his co-authors [Ibid., 1978, tab. 8.3]. There are no known finds in the form of Levallois tools from sites such as Navar Punjabi (Unnar) and Chancha Baluj in the southwestern part of the Rohri hills, or from Khokra, Gurkha and oz. Shambar in the Indian part of the Thar desert. Typological lists of artefacts from the above sites include various percentages of chisels, cleavers, choppers, and choppers, but they do not mention either Levallois or Mousterian tools [Ibid., tab. 4.8]. According to a review of data on the Paleolithic of the Thar Desert, the Middle Paleolithic of this region "demonstrates continuity with the previous period" [Petraglia, Groucutt, Blinckhorn, 2013, p. 72], however, the authors of the publication do not provide any evidence of this.

The archaeological sites of Unnar were completely destroyed when a quarry appeared here in the 1980s (Biagi, 2008, fig. 13). During exploration in January 1986, several Harappan stone workshops were found along the northwestern part of the hill, and several angelic hand-hewers were collected on the territory of the latter [Biagi and Cremaschi, 1988, p. 428].

Unnar is a very important site for science, since its research has allowed us to obtain one of the most complete paleopedological sequences for this region [Biagi and Cremaschi, 1990, p. 32]. Several hundred Palaeolithic artefacts were found in the exposed position 300 m east of Unnar on a hill called Unnar Hill. Among them, several flakes have been identified that are morphologically close to Levalloisian; they are most likely incorrectly called Proto-Levalloisian (Biagi and Cremaschi, 1988, p. 429).

Nothing is known about the location at Chancha Baluj, as the tract is not represented on the official 1:50,000 scale topographic map of Pakistan. This place is not even known to the locals. In the works of some researchers, Chancha Baluj is erroneously designated on the west bank of the Indus, in Southern Punjab [James and Petraglia, 2005, fig. 1, n. 2; James, 2007, fig. 3, n. 2]. However, B. Olchin and his colleagues published a description and illustrations of the stone assemblage from this locality, ras-

page 25
It is supposed to be located 4 km from Kot Dji [Allchin B., Goudie, Hedge, 1978, p. 284]. The collection consists of various types of nuclei and tools, including plates and plate cores, karenoid scrapers, chisels, adzes, cleavers and choppers, which have no analogues among the finds from other sites in the Rohri hills. The authors compare these items with artefacts from Khokra, located 5 km northeast of Budha Pushkar in Rajasthan, and from other sites in the region [Ibid., tab. 4.8]. It is important that the typology and structure of these complexes are radically different from those discovered by Professor A. R. Khan in Ongar. As already mentioned, the latter are represented by oval turtle-shaped Levallois nuclei with traces of centripetal cleavage removal, various types of longitudinal and transverse scrapers on Levallois flakes with a faceted impact pad chapeau de gendarme, a typical Mousterian tip, characteristic Levallois flakes and several wide plates. Because in the parking lots reported by B. Olchin and his co-authors [Ibid., tab. 8.9 b], the listed artifacts were absent, and finds from the surface, including incisors, adzes, cleavers and choppers [Ibid., tab. 8.7], were heterogeneous, and it is hardly possible to attribute artifacts from sites on the Rohri hills as Middle Paleolithic. The characteristics of the complexes described above do not allow us to doubt that the technical and typological differences between the Middle Paleolithic industries of the Tar Desert and the typical Levallois-Mousterian complexes of Ongar and Karachi were striking.

Discussion

According to studies of paleoanthropological remains from Europe, the Neanderthal represents a separate species, H. neanderthalensis, which, as previously thought, did not participate in the evolutionary history of modern humans (Krings et al., 1997). However, according to recent data, it may be mixed with modern humans, at least in Central Asia (Viola, 2009, p. 215). The chronological boundary between the Middle and Upper Paleolithic remains unclear, but the results of studying the technical and typological characteristics of stone material and its use indicate a sharp change in the Aurignacian traditions by the Baradostian traditions and thus support the view that Neanderthals were displaced by anthropologically modern humans in most of Eurasia [Joris et al., 2011, p. 22]. Given the presence of transitional complexes of the early Upper Paleolithic in many regions, the overall picture undoubtedly looks uncertain, contradictory [Zilhao, 20106], and complex [Glantz et al., 2008]. It is assumed that these complexes were left behind by modern humans, and they are chronologically earlier than the Aurignacian sensu lato complexes (Bar-Yosef and Pilbeam, 2000).

The Levallois-Mousterian complexes from Lower Sindh show characteristic features of this type of industry. For example, the presence of disk-shaped tortoiseshell nuclei with traces of centripetal cleavage removal, non-dried Levallois points, longitudinal and transverse scrapers, Levallois flakes and plates with a faceted chapeau de gendarme platform and Mousterian pinnacle (see Figs. 4, 5). From our point of view, these complexes mark the southernmost limit of the range of H. neanderthalensis (Biagi, 2006, 2008; Biagi and Starnini, 2011), which it reached in the northwestern periphery of Hindustan, probably moving along the Anatolian-Caucasian-Mesopotamian corridor. The fact that Neanderthals could not go beyond the Indus Valley, taking into account the reconstruction of the migration routes of modern humans [Stock et al., 2007, fig. 1], can be explained by the existence of a landscape or ecological barrier. We know almost nothing about the exact location and climatic characteristics of the Indus Delta in the late Pleistocene, but we can state that the relief of the Lower Sindh of that period was significantly different from the modern or, for example, Hellenistic period (Wilhelmy, 1968; Eggermont, 1975; Biagi, 2011).

Several Levallois flakes with a smooth, convex impact plate were found in sites located further to the east, for example, on Baridhani and in other regions of India (Gordon, 1958, fig. 2; Allchin V., Goudie, Hedge, 1978, p. 211]. Flakes with Levallois features were collected on the surface of several sites on the Rohri hills, for example, on Unnar (Negrino and Kazi, 1996, p. 31). It is known that Levallois cores and flakes were found in the Sanghao Cave located in the Northwestern Border Province (Allchin V., 1973); they are also found in complexes of the so-called Late Soan in Northern Pakistan (Movius, 1948; De Terra and Paterson, 1939, pi. XLII). The content of the term soan (Paterson and Drummond, 1962) and its subdivisions was recently revised (Chauhan, 2007), and some Soan industries show a general similarity with the Late-Loisian technocomplexes of Europe (the presence of elements of Levallois nuclei technology, as well as typical Levallois points with faceted sites (Krishnaswamy, 1947, fig. 6; Gordon, 1958, p. 10]), which gives grounds for some researchers to assume the presence of Neanderthals in this territory (Sen, 1976, p. 10). 64].

page 26
Data on the Lower Sindh make it possible to represent the south-eastern boundary of the Le Valloise technique; it runs approximately along the Malir River (Karachi) in the south and up to Arzi in the north. The presence of Levallois artefacts elsewhere in the Indus Valley is not known, possibly because no systematic exploration has been carried out there. The assumption that the Lower Sindh materials correspond to the south-eastern boundary of the Neanderthal intrusion zone may be criticized or rejected, but given the available evidence, it has a right to exist.

Levallois-Mousterian assemblages, which were discovered on limestone terraces stretching from north to south in the west of the Indus alluvial plain, may mark the southeastern boundary of the Levallois-Mousterian cultural province. Levallois-Mousterian industries are not known from sites located east of the Indus. This is consistent with the statement that "the Middle Paleolithic of India is non-Mousterian", supported recently on the basis of the evidence cited above [Biagi, 2005, 2006, 2008; Biagi and Starnini, 2011], by a number of experts [Boivin et al., 2013, suppl., Material B].

The data presented here seem to support the recently formulated conclusion that the "Early Middle Paleolithic (or Middle Stone Age)" is the most significant period in the world. India and Nepal probably developed independently" (Dennell, 2009, p. 144). This suggests the existence of a clear border that probably ran along the Indus River, which contradicts V. A. Ranov's opinion that Central Asia was settled as a result of" migration, most likely from the Middle East " (Ranov, 2001, p.23).

Middle Paleolithic and Late Pleistocene stone assemblages from Lower Sindh are represented by typical Levallois-Mousterian complexes. Their very presence in the western part of the lower Indus river is a unique phenomenon for the Indian subcontinent. Several important topics can be discussed in this regard: 1. South-eastern boundary of the Levallois-Moutier distribution and the relationship of Levallois-Moutier with the Middle (and late) Paleolithic of the Indian subcontinent; 2. Technical, typological and chronological sequence of the Paleolithic complexes of Sindh; 3. The easternmost area of the Aurignacian distribution and comparison of the Aurignacian with the late (upper) Paleolithic of Hindustan; 4. Species belonging of hominids 5. Chronology of events that took place in the region described during the Middle Paleolithic.

1. The typical Levallois-mousterian industries discovered in Lower Sindh do not find close parallels in other regions of the Indian subcontinent. They can be compared with complexes from Iran in the west and Central Asia in the north, many of which are attributed as belonging to Neanderthals. East of the Indus, the Middle Paleolithic is characterized by cleavage complexes, which sometimes include a small number of objects that resemble Levallois in morphology. As already reported, even the Middle Paleolithic assemblages from the Rohri Hills and the Thar Desert differ from the assemblages from the Ongar sites and in the Prov. Karachi, located to the southwest.

2. The flint deposits in the Rohri hills have always been considered the most important source of stone resources in the Indus Valley. They were exploited from the Early Paleolithic to the Bronze Age (Allchin R., Allchin V., 1997, p. 69). Until the 1990s, these localities were not systematically investigated; there were only a few short trips to easily accessible places near Rohri and the national road to Karachi in the Kot Diji region (Allchin B., 1976). Accordingly, there was almost no information about the region's richness in Stone Age monuments, the characteristics of countless workshops and flint mines scattered on the hilltops, and chronocular attribution of most sites. Many Late Pleistocene flint workshops in the Rohri Hills were assigned to the Late (Upper) Paleolithic, taking into account the peculiarity of the technical and typological appearance of collections consisting mainly of sub-cone-shaped nuclei with negatives of serial plate removal and lamellar flakes, and the presence of an end scraper on a long plate. Thus, the determination of the Late/Upper Paleolithic age of these rocks (see: [Allchin B., Goudie, Hedge, 1978, p. 280]) was based on data: a) on the thickness and color of the Latinized crust of artifacts, which differed from the surface of Early Paleolithic (Acheulean) artifacts and stone products of the Bronze Age (Harappa Culture) [Biagi and Cremaschi, 1988, p. 426]; b) on the stratigraphic position of assemblages [Biagi et al., 1998 - 2000]; c) finds in the form of bifacial peaks, which were probably used to extract flint nodules (Biagi, 2008, fig. 19). In the complexes of the Rohri hills, billets for Acheulean chops, as well as plates and lamellar flakes obtained by splitting subcon-shaped late/Upper Paleolithic nuclei, were chipped off by the direct impact of a rigid chipper, which was used for the disposal of flint fragments covered with a natural crust (Biagi, Kazi, and Negrino, 1996). Nothing is known about the Middle Paleolithic technique of primary exploitation of nuclei, since there is no information about the flint workshops of this time on the Shadi Shahid hills. Geographical boundaries of habitats

page 27
several Acheulean and more numerous Late/Upper Paleolithic workshops in this area do not coincide. A similar situation is known in Ongar; most of the Levallois complexes originate from the lower alluvial terrace (Biagi and Nisbet, 2011), while Angelic, Late/ Upper Paleolithic, and Harappan workshops are recorded on hilltops.

3. The eastern boundary of the Aurignacian and Baradostian distribution zones coincides with the border of the Levallois-Mousterian technocomplexes that we have outlined. These industries are recorded in Iran [Otte and Kozlowski, 2007] and Central Asia [One and Derevianko, 2001; Otte and Kozlowski, 2011, fig. 8], but nothing is known about any such assemblage in Hindustan, where the beginning of the Late (Upper) Paleolithic is characterized by completely different assemblages (Murty, 1979), as well as industries with geometric microliths in South and Central India (Clarkson et al., 2009). This situation gives rise to a renewed discussion about the continuity between the Middle and Late (Upper) Paleolithic in South Asia (Kuhn et al., 2004).

4. The absence of Late Pleistocene human remains in Hindustan makes the overall picture even more difficult to interpret. Neanderthal bone remains found in Iran and Central Asia are associated with the Levallois-Mousterian assemblages. In most of the studied stratigraphic sequences of the Zagros Levallois-Mousterian complexes are replaced by Aurignacian/Baradostian industries; however, in Central Asia assemblages of the Lower Upper or Early Upper Paleolithic are considered as transitional to the developed Upper Paleolithic. Both the Levallois-Mousterian and Aurignacian sites are not known on the Indian subcontinent; the exceptions are the Lower Sindh sites, as well as a few typical Levallois artefacts of the Late Soan from the Northwestern Frontier Province [De Terra and Paterson, 1939, pi. XLII] and, possibly, the Sanghao Caves in Northern Pakistan [Derevyanko, LuZun-E, 1992, fig. 3]. Thus, anthropological remains have not yet been found in a reliable stratigraphic and cultural context on the Indian subcontinent, so it is impossible to link a specific human species with a specific industry; this is a problem for most Middle Paleolithic complexes in Eastern Europe and Central Asia [Marks and Monigal, 2004, p. 78].

5. The Middle-and Late-Paleolithic chronological sequence of the entire Indian subcontinent is still poorly understood and is based on only a few radiometric dates (see [Chakrabarti, 1999, p. 74]), which most researchers rely on, at least as far as sites in the Thar Desert are concerned. It is precisely because of the small number of dates that it is impossible not only to fit the Ongar site and other Lower Sindh complexes into the overall picture of the Indian Middle Paleolithic, but also to identify the sequence of changes in various cultural events that took place in the late Pleistocene in the studied territories.

In conclusion, the Middle Paleolithic of Sindh is a poorly studied phenomenon (Marks, 2012). Unlike the Levallois-Mousterian complexes of Lower Sindh, stone industries from the Thar Desert and Rohri hills may reflect a different, possibly independent path of development of the Indian Late and Middle Paleolithic.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Professor A. R. Khan (University of Karachi) for supporting the research of the stone collections of the Ongar site, currently held at the Faculty of Geography of the University of Karachi. The 2005-2008 exploration of Ongar was carried out in collaboration between Ka ' Foscari University, the University of Venice (I) and the University of Sindh in Jamshoro. The authors are grateful to Mir Atta M. Talpur and Mir Farooq A. Talpur, as well as to all the friends in Sindh who helped organize field research on Ongar. Special thanks to Prof. W. Henke (University of Mainz), J. K. Kozlowski (University of Krakow), K. Szymczak (University of Warsaw) and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions, and Prof. C. Bonsall (University of Edinburgh) for participating in the preparation of an English-language text. Research on Ongar was made possible by financial support from the Italian Foreign Ministry, Ca'Foscari University, the University of Venice, and Jamshoro University of Sindh. The article was written with the support of an Archaeological Research Grant from the University of Ca'Foscari.

List of literature

Amirkhanov Kh. A. The Stone Age of Southern Arabia, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 2006, 694 p.

Rybin, E. P. and Kolobova, K. A., The Middle Paleolithic of Altai: Variability and Evolution, Stratum plus, 2009, No. 1: The Middle Paleolithic (in Search of Dynamics), pp. 33-78.

Ahmad K. S. Climatic Regions of West Pakistan // Geographical Review. - 1951. -Vol. 4 (1). -P. 1 - 35.

Allchin B. Blade and burin industries of West Pakistan and Western India // South Asian Archaeology / ed. N. Hammond. -L.: Duckworth, 1973. -P. 39 - 50.

Allchin B. Palaeolithic Sites in the Plains of Sind and their Geographical Implications // The Geographical J. - 1976. -Vol. 142 (3). - P. 47189.

Allchin B. Middle Palaeolithic Cultures // History of Civilizations in Central Asia. P.: UNESCO Publishing, 1992. -

page 28
Vol. I: The dawn of civilization: earliest times to 700 B.C. / eds. H. A. Dani, V. M. Masson. - P. 65 - 88.

Allchin B., Goudie A. Climatic Change in the Indian Desert and North-West India during the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene // The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East / ed. W.C. Brice. - L.; N. Y; San Francisco: Academic press, 1978. -P. 307 - 318.

Allchin B., Goudie A., Hedge K The Prehistory and Palaeogeography of the Great Indian Desert. - L.; N. Y; San Francisco: Academic Press, 1978. - 370 p.

Allchin R., Allchin B. Origins of a Civilization the Prehistory and Early Archaeology of South Asia. - New Delhi: Viking, 1997. -287 p.

Armitage S. J., Jasim S. A., Marks A. E., Parker A. G., Usik V. L., Uerpmann H. -P. The southern Route "Out of Africa": Evidence for an Early Expansion of Modern Humans into Arabia//Science. -2011. -Vol. 331. -P. 453156.

Bar-Yosef O. A Geographic Overview of Neanderthal-Modern Human Encounters // Casting the Net Wide: Papers in Honor of Glynn Isaac and his approach to human origins research / eds. J. Sept, D. Pilbeam. - Oxford; Oakville: Peabody Museum: Harvard University: Oxbow Books, 2011. -P. 193 - 212.

Bar-Yosef O., Belfer-CohenA, Adler D. S. The Implications of the Mddle-Upper Paleolithic Chronological Boundary in the Caucasus to Eurasian Prehistory // L'Anthropologic. - 2006. -Vol. 44 [1]. -P. 49 - 60.

Bar-Yosef O., Pilbeam D. Afterword // The Geography of Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean / eds. O. Bar-Yosef, D. Pilbeam. - Cambridge, Massachussets: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology: Harvard University, 2000. - P. 182 - 187. - (Peabody Museum Bull.; N8).

Bar-Yosef O., Wang Y. Palaeolithic Archaeology in China //Annual Review of Anthropology. - 2012. - Vol. 41. -P. 319 - 335.

Beyin A. The Bab al Mandab vs the Nile-Levant: An Appraisal of the Two Dispersal Routes for Early Modern Humans out of Africa // African Archaeological Review. -2006. -Vol. 26. -P. 5 - 30.

Beyin A. Upper Pleistocene Human Dispersals out of Africa: A Review of the Current State of the Debate // International J. of Evolutionary Biology. - 2011. - Vol. 2011. - P. 1 - 17.

Biagi P. Ongar revisited // Sindhological Studies. - 2005. -Vol.21 (1/2). -P. 1 - 21.

Biagi P. The Levalloisian assemblages of Sindh (Pakistan) and their importance in the Mddle Palaeolithic of the Indian subcontinent // Archaeology of Early Northeastern Africa in Memory of Lech Krzyzaniak / eds. K. Kroeper, M. Chlodnicki, M. Kobusiewicz. - Poznan: Archaeological Museum, 2006. -P. 1005 - 1017. - (Studies in African Archaeology; vol. 9.).

Biagi P. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Sindh: A Review // Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran and Turan. - 2008. -Vol.40. -P. 1 - 26.

Biagi P. Archaeological Surveys in Lower Sindh: Preliminary Results of the 2009 Season // J. of Asian Civilizations. - 2010. -Vol. 33(1). -P. 112.

Biagi P. Changing the prehistory of Sindh and Las Bela coast: twenty-five years of Italian contribution // World Archaeology. -2011. -Vol. 43 (4). -P. 523 - 537.

Biagi P., Cremaschi M. The early Palaeolithic sites of the Rohri Hills (Sind, Pakistan) and their environmental significance //World Archaeology. - 1988. - Vol. 19 (3). -P. 421133.

Biagi P., Cremaschi M. Geoarchaeological Investigations on the Rohri Hills (Sind, Pakistan) // South Asian Archaeology 1987 / ed. M. Taddei. - 1990. - Vol. LXVI (1). - P. 3112. -(Rome Oriental Studies).

Biagi P., Cremaschi M. The Harappan flint quarries of the Rohri Hills (Sind, Pakistan) //Antiquity. - 1991. -Vol. 65(246). -P. 97 - 102.

Biagi P., Kazi M. M., Negrino F. An Acheulian Workshop at Ziarat Pir Shaban on the Rohri Hills, Sindh, Pakistan // South Asian Studies. - 1996. - Vol. 12. - P. 49 - 62.

Biagi P., Kazi M. M., Madella M., Ottomano C. Excavations at the Late (Upper) Palaeolithic site of Ziarat Pir Shaban 2 (ZPS2) in the Rohri Hills, Sindh, Pakistan // Origini. -1998 - 2000. -Vol. 22. -P. 111 - 132.

Biagi P., Nisbet R. The prehistoric flint mines at Jhimpir in Lower Sindh (Pakistan) // Antiquity Project Gallery. -2010. - Vol. 84 (325). - URL: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/ nisbet325/

Biagi P., Nisbet R. The Palaeolithic sites at Ongar in Sindh, Pakistan: a precious archaeological resource in danger // Antiquity Project Gallery. - 2011. - Vol. 85 (329). - URL: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/biagi329/

Biagi P., Starnini E. The Bronze Age Indus Quarries of the Rohri Hills and Ongar in Sindh (Pakistan) // Geoarchaeology and Archaeomineralogy / eds. R. I. Rostov, B. Gaydarska, M. Gurova. - Sofia: St. Ivan Rilski, 2008. - P. 77 - 82.

Biagi P., Starnini E. Neanderthals at the southeasternmost edge: the spread of Levalloisian Mousterian in the Indian Subcontinent // Papers in Honour of Viola T. Dobosi / eds. K. Biro, M. Andras. - Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2011. -P. 5 - 14.

Blandford W. T. The Geology of Western Sind. - Calcutta, 1880. - 210 p. - (Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India; vol. 17(1)).

Boeda E. Le concept Levallois: Variabilite des methodes. -P.: CNRS editions, 1994. - 285 p. - (Monographie du CRA; N9).

Boivin N, Fuller D. Q., Dennell R., Allaby R., Petraglia M. D. Human Dispersal Across Diverse Environments of Asia during the Upper Plesitocene // Quaternary International. - 2013. - Vol. 300 - P. 3217. - DOL10.1016/j.quaint. 2013.01.008.

Bulbeck D. A Parsimonious Model for Homo sapiens Colonization of the Indian Ocean Rim and Sahul // Current Anthropology. -2007. -Vol. 48 (2). -P. 315 - 321.

Cavalli Sforza L. L., Pievani T. Homo Sapiens La Grande Storia della Diversa Umanita. - Torino: Codice Edizioni, 2011. -193 p.

Chakrabarti D. L. India in Archaeological History. Palaeolithic Beginnings to Early Historic Foundations. - New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1999. - 374 p.

Chauhan P. R. Soanian core and core-tools from Toka, northern India: Towards a technological organization // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. -2007. -Vol. 26 (3). -P. 412 - 441.

Chauhan P. R. The South Asian Paleolithic Record and its Potential for Transitions Studies // Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions Methods, Theories, and Interpretations / eds. M. Camps, P. R. Chauhan. - Berlin; Heidelberg; N. Y: Springer, 2009. -P. 121 - 139.

page 29
Clarkson C., Petraglia M., Korisettar R., Haslam M., Boivin N., Crowther A., Ditchfleld P., Fuller D., Harris C., Connell K, James H., Koshy J. The oldest and longest enduring microlithic sequence in India: 35000 years of modern human occupation and change at the Jwalapuram Locality 9 rock shelter //Antiquity. - 2009. - Vol. 83. - P. 326 - 348.

Conard N. Cultural Evolution in Africa and Eurasia During the Middle and Late Pleistocene // Handbook of Paleoanthropology / eds. W. Henke, I. Tatterstal. - Berlin; Heidelberg; N. Y.: Springer, 2007. - Vol. 3: Phylogeny of Hominids. -P. 2001 - 2037.

Dashtizadeh A. Preliminary Report on the Discovery of a Late Lower Palaeolithic and Middle Palaeolithic Site on the Island ofQeshm, Persian Gulf// Iranian Archaeology. -2010. -Vol. 1(1). -P. 15 - 20.

Dennell R. The Palaeolithic Settlement of Asia. - Cambridge: Cambridge World Archaeology, 2009. - 548 p.

Deotare B. C., Kajale M. D., Rajaguru S. N., Basavaiah N. Late Quaternary geomorphology, palynology and magnetic susceptibility of playas in western margin of the Indian Thar Desert // J. of Indian Geophysical Union. - 2004. -Vol. 8(1). -P. 15 - 25.

Derevyanko A. P., Lü Zun-E. Upper Palaeolithic cultures // History of Civilizations in Central Asia / eds. H. A. Dani, V. M. Masson. - Vol. I: The dawn of civilization: earliest times to 700 B. C. -P.: UNESCO Publishing, 1992. -P. 89 - 108.

De Terra H., Paterson T. T. The Ice Age in the Indian Subcontinent and associated Human Cultures with Special Reference to Jammu, Ladakh, Sind, Liddar and Central and Peninsular India. - Wash. D.C.: Carnegie Institute, 1939. -354 p. + 54 pi.

Dhir R. P., Singhvi A. K. The Thar Desert and its Antiquity // Current Science. -2012. -Vol. 102 (7). -P. 1001 - 1008.

Dupree L. Prehistoric research in Afghanistan (1959- 1966) // Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. - 1972. - Vol. 62 (4). - P. 5 - 84.

Eggermont P. H. L. Alexander's campaigns in Sind and Balochistan and the siege of the Brahmin town of Harmatelia. -Leuven: Leuven Univ. Press, 1975. - 233 p. - (Orientalia LovaniensaAnalecta; vol. 3).

Fairservis W. A. Jr. The Roots of Ancient India. The Archaeology of Early Indian Civilization. - 2nd ed. - Chicago; L.: The University of Chicago Press, 1975. - 480 p.

Febre V., Condemi S., Degioanni A. Genetic Evidence of Geographical Groups among Neanderthals // PLoS ONE. -2009. -Vol. 4 (4). -P. 1 - 8.

Field J. S., Petraglia M. D., Mirazon Lahr M. The southern dispersal hypothesis and the South Asian archaeological record: Examination of dispersal routes through GIS analysis // J. of Anthropological Archaeology. - 2007. - Vol. 26. -P. 88 - 108.

Flam L. The Prehistoric Indus River System and the Indus Civilization in Sind // Man and Environment. - 1999. -Vol. 24(2). -P. 35 - 69.

Foley R. Hominid species and stone-tool assemblages: how are they related ? //Antiquity. - 1987. - Vol. 61 (233). -P. 380 - 392.

Foley R., Lahr M. M. Mode 3 Technologies and the Evolution of Modern Humans // Cambridge Archaeological J. -1997. -Vol. 7(1). -P. 3 - 36.

Giles Pacheco F., Santiago Perez A., Gutierrez Lopez J. M., Mata Almonte E., Aguilera Rodriguez L. The Transition from the Final Acheulian to the Middle Palaeolithic in the South of the Iberian Peninsula // Neanderthals on the Edge / eds. C. B. Stringer, R. N. E. Barton, C. Finlayson. - Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2000. - P. 4118.

Giosan L., Constantinescu S., Clift P. D., Tabrez A. R, Danish M., Inam A. Recent morphodynamics of the Indus delta shore and shelf// Continental Shelf Research. - 2006. -Vol.26. -P. 1668 - 1684.

Glantz M. M., Viola B., Wrinn P., Chikisheva T., Derevianko A., Krivoshapkin A., Islamov U., Suleimanov R., Ritzman T. New hominin remains from Uzbekistan // J. of Human Evolution. - 2008. - Vol. 55 (2). - P. 223 - 237.

Gordon D. H The Prehistoric Background of the Indian Culture. - Bombay: Tripathi Ltd., 1958. - 199 p.

Haslam M., Clarkson C., Petraglia M., Korisettar R, Jones S., Shipton C, Ditchfleld P., Ambrose S. H. The 74 ka Toba super-eruption and southern Indian hominins: archaeology, lithic technology and environments at Jwalapuram Locality 3 // J. of Archaeological Science. - 2010. - Vol. 37 (12). -P. 3370 - 3384.

Henke W, Hardt T. The Genus Homo: Origin, Speciation and Dispersal // Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe: One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study / eds. S. Condemi, G. -C. Weniger. - Berlin; Heidelberg; N. Y: Springer, 2011. -P. 1715.

Hublin J. -J. Modern-Nonmodern Hominid Interactions: A Mediterranean Perspective // The Geography of Neanderthals and Modern Humans in Europe and the Greater Mediterranean / eds. O Bar-Yosef, D. Pilbeam. - Cambridge, Massachussets: Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology: Harvard University, 2000. - P. 157 - 182. - (Peabody Museum Bull, N8).

Jain M., Tandon S. K, Bhatt S. C., Singhvi A. K., Mishra S. Alluvial and Aeolian Sequences Along the River Luni, Barner District Physical Stratigraphy and Feasibility of Luminescence Chronology Methods // Vedic Sarasvati Evolutionary History of a Lost River / eds. B. P Radhakrishna, S. S. Merh. -1999. - Vol. 42. - P. 273 - 295. - (Geological Society of India Memoir).

James H. V. A. The emergence of modern human behavior in South Asia: A review of the current evidence and discussion of its possible implications // The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia / eds. M.D. Petraglia, B. Allchin. -Dordrecht: Springer, 2007. - P. 201 - 227.

James H. V. A., Petraglia M. D. Modern Human Origins and the Evolution of Behaviour in the Later Pleistocene Record of South Asia // Current Anthropology. - 2005. - Vol. 46, suppl. -P. S3-S27.

James H. V. A., Petraglia M. D. The Lower to Middle Paleolithic Transition in South Asia and its Implications for Hominin Cognition and Dispersal // Sourcebook of Paleolithic Transitions Methods, Theories, and Interpretations / eds. M. Camps, PR. Chauhan. -Berlin; Heidelberg; N. Y: Springer, 2009. -P. 255 - 264.

Jaubert J., Biglari E., Mourre V., Bruxelles L., Bordes J. -G, Shidrang S., Naderi R., Mashkour M., Maureille B., Mallye J. -B., Quinif Y., Rendu W, Laroulandie V. The Middle Palaeolithic Occupation of Mar-Tarik, a New Zagros Mousterian Sitein Bisotun Massif (Kermanshah, Iran) // Iran

page 30
Palaeolithic Le Paleolithique d'Iran / eds. M. Otte, F. Biglari, J. Jaubert. - Oxford: Archaeopress, 2009. - P. 7 - 27. - (BAR International Ser.; 1968).

Joris O., Street M., Terberger T., Weniger B. Radiocarbon Dating the Middle to Upper Palaeolithic Transition: The Demise of the Last Neanderthals and the First Appearance of Anatomically Modern Humans in Europe // Continuity and Discontinuity in the Peopling of Europe: One Hundred Fifty Years of Neanderthal Study, Vertebrate Paleobiology and Paleoanthropology / eds. S. Condemi, B. Weniger. - 2011. -URL: DOI 10.1007/978 - 94 - 007 - 0492 - 3_22: 239 - 298.

Khan A. R. Ancient Settlements in Karachi Region // Studies in the Geomorphology and Prehistory of Sind / ed. A. R. Khan. -Jamshoro: Pakistan Studies Centre: University of Sind, 1979a. -Vol. Ill (2), spec. iss. - P. 1 - 24.

Khan A. R. Palaeolithic Sites Discovered in the Lower Sind and their Significance in the Prehistory of the Country // Studies in the Geomorphology and Prehistory of Sind / ed. A.R. Khan. -Jamshoro: Pakistan Studies Centre: University of Sind, 19796. -P. 80 - 82. - (Grassroots; vol. Ill (2), spec. iss.).

Krause J., Orlando L., Serre D., Viola B., Priifer K, Richards M. P., Hublin J. -J., Hanni C., Derevianko A. R, Paabo S. Neanderthals in central Asia and Siberia // Nature. -2007. -Vol. 449. -P. 902 - 904.

Krings M., Stone A. C., Schmitz R. W., Krainitzki H., Stoneking M., Paabo S. Neanderthal DNA sequences and the origins of modern humans // Cell. - 1997. - Vol. 90. -P. 19 - 30.

Krishnaswamy V. D. Stone Age India // Ancient India. -1947. -Vol. 3. -P. 11 - 57.

Krivoshapkin A. I., Anoikin A. A., Brantinghan P. J. The lithic industry of Obi-Rakhmat grotto, Uzbekhistan // Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association Bull. - 2006. - Vol. 26. -P. 5 - 19.

Kuhn S. L., Branthingham P. J., Kerry S. L. The Early Upper Paleolithic and the Origins of Modern Human Behavior // The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe / eds. P. J. Branthingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry. - Berkeley; Los Angeles; L.: University of California Press, 2004. - P. 242 - 248.

Kuhn S. L., Stiner M C., Giilec E., Ozer L, Yilmaz H, Baykara I., Acikkol A., Goldberg P., Martinez Molina K., Unay E., Suata-Alpaslan F. The Early Upper Palaeolithic occupations at Ucagizli Cave (Hatay, Turkey) // J. of Human Evolution. -2009. -Vol. 56. -P. 87 - 113.

Marks J. My ancestors, myself//Aeon. - 2012. - N 12, Nov. -P. 1 - 7.

Marks A. E., Monigal K. Origin of the European Upper Paleolithic, Seen from Crimea: Simple Myth or Complex Reality? // The Early Upper Paleolithic beyond Western Europe / eds. P.J. Brantingham, S. L. Kuhn, K. W. Kerry. - Berkeley; Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004. -P. 64 - 79.

Meignen L. Le Paleolithique Moyen au Levant Sud et Central: Que Nous Apprennent les Donnees Recentes? // Pre-histoire d'Anatolie. Genese des deux mondes / ed. M. Otte. -Liege: Univ. de Liege, 1988. - P. 685 - 708. - (ERAUL, vol. 85 (2)).

Misra V. N. Prehistory and Palaeoenvironment of Rajastan // Ecology and Archaeology of Western India / eds. D. P. Agrawal, B. M. Pande. - Delhi: Concept Publishing Company, 1977. -P. 31 - 54.

Misra V. N. Prehistoric human colonization of India // J. of Biosciences. -2001. -Vol. 26 (4). -P. 491 - 531.

Misra V. N., Rajaguru S. N. Palaeoenvironment and Prehistory of the Thar Desert, Rajastan, India // South Asian Archaeology 1985 / eds. K. Frifelt, P. Serensen. - L.: Curzon Press, 1989. - P. 296 - 320. - (Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies Occasional Papers; N 4).

Movius H. L. The Lower Palaeolithic Cultures of Southern and Eastern Asia // Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. - 1948. -Vol. 38 (4). -P. 329120.

Movius H. L. Palaeolithic and Mesolithic sites in Soviet Central Asia // Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. - 1953. -Vol. 97 (4). -P. 383 - 421.

Murty M. L. K Recent Research on the Upper Palaeolithic Phase in India // J. of Field Archaeology. - 1979. - Vol. 6. -P. 301 - 320.

Negrino E., Kazi M. M. The Palaeolithic industries of the Rohri Hills (Sindh, Pakistan) //Ancient Sindh. - 1996. -Vol. 3. -P. 3 - 78.

Otte M, Derevianko A. The Aurignacian in Altai // Antiquity. - 2001. - Vol. 75 (287). - P. 4418.

Otte M., Kozlowski J.K. L'AurignacienduZagros. -Liege: Univ. de Liege, 2007. - 203 p. - (ERAUL; vol. 118).

Otte M., Kozlowski J. K. La Transition du Mousterien a l'Aurignacien au Zagros // The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic in the Middle East and Neighbouring Regions / eds. J. -M. Le Tensorer, R. Jagher, M. Otte. - Liege: Univ. de Liege, 2011. -P. 183 - 195. -(ERAUL; vol. 126).

Pal J. N. The Mddle Palaeolithic Culture of South Asia // Indian Archaeology in Retrospect/eds. S. Settar,R. Korisettar. -Delhi: Manohar, 2002. - Vol. I: Prehistory. - P. 67 - 83. -(Archaeology of South Asia, ICHR).

Paterson T. T., Drummond B. J. H. Soan the Palaeolithic of Pakistan. -Karachi: Ferozsons, 1962. - 171 p. + 59 fig. -(Memoirs of the Department of Archaeology in Pakistan; vol. 2).

Petraglia M. D., Alsharekh A. The Mddle Palaeolithic of Arabia: Implications for modern human origins, behaviour and dispersal //Antiquity. - 2003. - Vol. 77 (298). - P. 671 - 684.

Petraglia M. D., Alsharekh A., Breeze P., Clarkson C, Crassard R., Drake N. A., Groucutt H. S., Jennings R., Parker A. G., Parton A., Roberts R.G., Ship ton G., Matheson C., al-Omari A., Veall M-A. Hominin Dispersal into the Nefud Desert and Mddle Palaeolithic Settlement along the Jubbah Palaeolake, NorthernArabia //PLoS ONE. -2012. -Vol. 7(11). -P. 1 - 21. -DOI: 10.1371/journal. Pone.0049840

Petraglia M. D., Groucutt H., Blinckhorn J. Hominin Evolutionary History in the Arabian Desert and the Thar Desert // Changing Deserts: Integrating People and their Environment / eds. L. Mol, T. Stenberg. - Cambridge: White House Press, 2013. -P. 61 - 82.

Petraglia M., Korisettar R., Boivin N., Clarkson C., Ditchfleld P., Jones S., Koshy J., Mirazon Lahr M., Oppen-heimer C., Pyle D., Roberts R., Schwenninger J. -L., Arnold L., White K. Mddle Palaeolithic Assemblages from the Indian Subcontinent Before and After the Toba Super-Eruption // Science. - 2007. - Vol. 317. -P 114 - 116.

Ranov V. A. The Levallois paradox // The Definition and Interpretation of Levallois Technology / eds. H. -L. Dibble, O. Bar-Yosef - Madison Wisconsin: Prehistory Press, 1995. -P. 69 - 78. - (Monographs in World Archaeology; vol. 23).

page 31
Ranov V. A. Loess-Palaeosoil Formation of Southern Tajikistan and the Loess Palaeolithic // Praehistoria. - 2001. -N2. -P. 7 - 27.

Rose J. L., Usik V. L., Marks A. E., Hilbert Y. H., Galletti C.S., Parton A., Geiling J. M., Cerny V., Morley M. W., Roberts R. G. The Nubian Complex of Dhofar, Oman: An African Middle Stone Age Industry in Southern Arabia // PLoS ONE. - 2011. - Vol. 6 (1). - P. 1 - 22. - Doi: 10.1371/Journal. pone. 0028239

Sen D. Rethinking on the Lower Palaeolithic of the Punjab (India and Pakistan) // Le Paleolithique Inferieur et Moyen en Inde, en Asie Centrale, en Chine et dans le Sud-Est Asiatique: Union Internationale des Sciences Prehistoriques et Protohistoriques, IXе Congres / ed. A. K. Ghosh. - Nice, 1976. -P. 60 - 64.

Seth S. K. The Desiccation of the Thar Desert and its Environs during Protohistorical and Historical Periods // The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East / ed. W.C. Brice. -L.;N. Y.; San Francisco: Academic press, 1978. -P. 279 - 305.

Starnini E., Biagi R. Excavations at the Harappan Flint Quarry 862 on the Rohri Hills (Sindh, Pakistan) // Der Anschnitt. -2006. -Vol. 19. -P. 195 - 202.

Starnini E., Biagi R. The Archaeological Record of the Indus [Harappan] Lithic Production: The Excavations of RH862 Flint Mne and Flint Knapping Workshops on the Rohri Hills (Upper Sind, Pakistan) // J. of Asian Civilizations. - 2011. -Vol. 34(2). -P. 1 - 60.

Stock J. T., Mirazon Lahr M., Kulatilake S. Cranial diversity in South Asia relative to modern human dispersal and global patterns of human variation // The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia / eds. M. D. Petraglia, B. Allchin. - Berlin; Heidelberg; N. Y: Springer, 2007. -P. 245 - 268.

Subbarao B. The Personality of India. - Baroda: Maharaja SayajiraoUniv, 1956. -76 p. -(MaharajaSayajirao University of Baroda, University of Archaeology Ser; N 3).

Tandon S. K, Jain M. Late Quaternary Environments -Focus on the Thar and its Western Margin // First International Symposium on Kampilya Project / ed. B. Marcolongo. - Padua: CNR, 2001. -P. 17 - 24.

Trinkaus E., Biglari F. Mddle Palaeolithic human remains from Bisutin Cave, Iran // Paleorient. - 2006. - Vol. 32. -P. 105 - 111.

Viola B. T. New Hominin Remains from Central Asia and Siberia: the Easternmost Neanderthals?: Thesis submitted for Dr. re. Nat. Degree. - Vienna, 2009. - 233 p. - (Unpublished).

Vita-Finzi C., Copeland L. Surface finds from Iranian Makran//Iran. - 1980. -Vol. 18. -P. 149 - 155.

Wainwright G. J., Malik S. C. Recent Field Research on the Problems of Archaeology and Pleistocene Chronology in Peninsular India // Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. -1968. -Vol. 33. -P. 132 - 146.

Wilhelmy H. Indusdelta und Rann of Kutch // Erdkunde. -1968. -Vol. 22(3). -P. 177 - 191.

Zilhao J. Did Neanderthals think like us? // Scientific American. - 2010a. - June. - P. 72 - 75.

Zilhao J. Neanderthals are us: genes and cult // Radical Anthropology. -20106. -Vol. 4. -P. 5 - 15.

The article was submitted to the Editorial Board on 14.03.13, in the final version-on 02.09.13.

Abstract

The research carried out in the Indian Subcontinent, Central Asia, Iran and the Arabian Peninsula has improved our knowledge of the Middle Paleolithic in the regions. However, the far southeastern distribution of the Levallois Mousterian is still poorly defined. Although typical Levallois industries are known from Iran, Afghanistan, and western Central Asia, they are almost unknown in the Indian Subcontinent, except for the Lower Sindh and Indus Valley. The evidence from Ongar and other sites in the Lower Sindh has shed some light on the possible far southeastern distribution routes of the Neanderthals that are considered the probable creators of the assemblages included in this study.

Keywords: Levallois Mousterian, Middle Palaeolithic, Homo neanderthalensis, Sindh, Indus Valley, Indian Subcontinent.

page 32

Permanent link to this publication: