Adler et al. Palaeolithic Hunting in the Caucasus 107 in terms of the social approach advocated by Adler et al. the significant differences between Middle and Upper Palaeolithic technologies were the result not of extractive efficiency but of people’s metaphorical understanding of their worlds through their material culture. Social technologies will therefore vary by locale rather than by hominin fossil. In this case the material metaphors (Chapman 2000; Tilley 1999) of flakes and blades will have to be understood in the context of establishing re- latedness not only with people but with objects (Knappett 2005). The difference between flakes and blades lies not in extractive advantage but in the role of fragmentation in ne- gotiating identity through hybrid networks of people and ob- jects. This is perhaps a rather different social framework from the one Adler et al. intended. John F. Hoffecker Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0450, U.S.A. (jfhoffeck@aol. com). 12 IX 05 I have followed with interest the ongoing research undertaken by Adler and his colleagues in the southern Caucasus, and I am pleased to see this paper, which—along with other recent publications—is an indication that they have used their pre- cious funding dollars well. The southern Caucasus is a par- ticularly suitable region for the comparative study of Nean- derthals and modern humans. In this paper, Adler et al. have chosen to address this study specifically in terms of the in- ferred hunting behaviors of the two hominin taxa. Their con- clusion that there were no significant differences in large- mammal hunting tactics between Neanderthals and modern humans extends to advanced planning abilities and the role of technology in hunting and buttresses similar conclusions reached during the past two decades in other parts of Eurasia. More generally, they conclude that hunting tactics and tech- nology related to hunting provide a poor basis for identifying major behavioral differences between Neanderthals and mod- ern humans and probably were not critical variables in the replacement of the former by the latter. Along with other recent research that has contributed to a more sophisticated portrait of the Neanderthals, this “force(s) us to reconsider our definition of behavioral ‘modernity,’ ” and Adler et al. observe that “the vast behavioral and cognitive gulf that was once thought to exist . . . has now narrowed considerably.” While I have reached similar conclusions about Neanderthal hunting (at least with respect to large mammals), I think that some of their broader observations could be qualified. Although it is to some extent merely a question of perspective and em- phasis, I believe that the behavioral and cognitive gulf between Neanderthals and moderns was a vast one despite the lack of differences in hunting behavior. Moreover, I think that this gulf is apparent in the archaeological record (although I do not deny that it is less obvious in the Early Upper Palaeolithic [EUP]). Much of the problem lies in an excessive focus among archaeologists on the economic aspects of that record. I think that modern humans are virtually unique among animals in their ability to communicate and project mental constructs not only through language, art, music, dance, and so forth, but also through technology and organization. Al- though EUP settlements tend to be small, they exhibit col- lectively the archaeological imprint of such constructs—or their means of articulation—in the form of sculptures, mu- sical instruments, and traces of burial ritual. Similar structural complexity is evident in the artificial shelters, sewn clothing (inferred from eyed needles), and other technological means by which EUP people remade themselves and the world around them. And some of their technology did have an impact on their foraging tactics—EUP folk designed tech- nologies for harvesting small mammals that apparently eluded the Neanderthals and thereby broadened their niche. Some archaeologists have complained that comparisons be- tween Neanderthals and modern humans have exaggerated the contrast by incorporating later segments of the Upper Palaeo- lithic record, including the Magdalenian. I would argue the reverse—that in the absence of any evidence for major behav- ioral or cognitive differences between EUP people and their successors, the Middle and Late Upper Palaeolithic (and ev- erything since) are implicit in the EUP. The difference simply reflects accumulated technological knowledge and its effect on the size of the groups and their settlements. It is the same sort of contrast that may be seen in Western Europe between AD 1200 and 1700, and the tendency to accumulate such knowledge through the engagement of mental constructs with the material world—clearly evident throughout the Upper Palaeolithic—is a crucial part of modernity. Finally, I would suggest that the Neanderthals are the least suitable nonmodern hominins on which to base a compar- ative definition of modernity. Of all the Eurasian nonmodern hominins, they are the most closely related to modern hu- mans, and their archaeological record may yield some evi- dence for the expression of mental constructs in the form of, for example, burial of the dead. The Neanderthals seem to have evolved their own version of modernity. Comparisons with the East Asian contemporaries of the Neanderthals or earlier Afro-Eurasian forms of Homo provide a clearer picture of what modernity is not. Jean-Jacques Hublin and Teresa E. Steele Department of Human Evolution, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany (hublin@eva.mpg.de and steele@eva.mpg. de). 8 IX 05 Differences in ecogeographical adaptation, technology, cog- nitive abilities, and social organization have previously been considered as possible explanations for the replacement of Neandertals by humans displaying anatomically modern fea- This content downloaded on Thu, 13 Dec 2012 10:00:01 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions