The revolution I chose to discuss out of the two was the Neolithic Revolution. Two archaeological theories I best chose on why these Revolutions occurred through change over time was, V. Gordon Chlide's "Oasis theory" and the "Edge zone theory" by Lewis Binford and Kent Flannery. These two theories show the possible reasons for adopting farming and domesticating animals where and why they did.
For example, in Chlide's "Oasis theroy" he tells us that he believed the period of dry weather in the East along with the last Ice Age is what provoked the accumulation of people, plants and animals all fleeing to the last small bodies of water available. Hence forming Chlide's "Oasis Theory", which I agree with Chlide's reasoning's behind his theory because the plants depend on the water, the animals depend on the plants, and the people depend on both the plants and the animals. The cause of this domestic cycle led to the animals and the plants depending on the people. On the other hand, Binford and Flannery's "Edge zone theory" could be justified in the fact that the vegetation might have been so dependent on people that it couldn't have just appeared without human tending to it. Over time however, the domestication of these people brought jobs and …show more content…
When really it should have been a balance of both the planet and the human needs for survival in this fragile existence. I like to think if we take care of our planet, then our planet will take care of us too. Although overly committing or putting all our eggs into one basket as done in the past, so to speak it can be just as detrimental as not having any form of agricultural control at all. Furthermore, having taken the course of Neolithic Revolution with agriculture also came the rise of permanent settlements, social classes, and the upcoming of civilizations
For example, in Chlide's "Oasis theroy" he tells us that he believed the period of dry weather in the East along with the last Ice Age is what provoked the accumulation of people, plants and animals all fleeing to the last small bodies of water available. Hence forming Chlide's "Oasis Theory", which I agree with Chlide's reasoning's behind his theory because the plants depend on the water, the animals depend on the plants, and the people depend on both the plants and the animals. The cause of this domestic cycle led to the animals and the plants depending on the people. On the other hand, Binford and Flannery's "Edge zone theory" could be justified in the fact that the vegetation might have been so dependent on people that it couldn't have just appeared without human tending to it. Over time however, the domestication of these people brought jobs and …show more content…
When really it should have been a balance of both the planet and the human needs for survival in this fragile existence. I like to think if we take care of our planet, then our planet will take care of us too. Although overly committing or putting all our eggs into one basket as done in the past, so to speak it can be just as detrimental as not having any form of agricultural control at all. Furthermore, having taken the course of Neolithic Revolution with agriculture also came the rise of permanent settlements, social classes, and the upcoming of civilizations