| Braidwood criticizes Childe's dependence on climatic change as being the main reason for the origins of agriculture because he holds a cultural perspective in regards to its development. Braidwood states that if cultural change, the transition to agriculture, depended solely on noncultural factors, the climate, then there should be evidence of cultural change before the last Ice Age that separates the end of the Pleistocene and the Holocene (3 Nov 2009). Against Klein's Big Bang Theory regarding human cognition, agriculture simply did not happen before the Holocene because humans were not ready or complex enough to have the capability of creating the idea of agriculture (10 Nov 2009). Braidwood and Childe both suggest that agriculture occurred in small optimal zones, however, through Braidwood's research in the mountainous regions of Iraq, he concludes that there was no significant climate change because the areas were still relatively fertile and therefore there was a large concentration of animals and plants that could be exploited. According to the Willy Sutton principle, where there are ample resources, then people will settle there and take advantage of those resources (3 Nov 2009). A weakness in Braidwood's theory however is that he does not try to answer the question: why did agriculture occur at the time that it did? It is suggested that agriculture developed independently throughout the world at relatively the same time. Braidwood does not question why this happened but only concentrates on how it happened. Braidwood provides good reasons as to why he criticizes Childe's hypothesis, however, his weakness is that he does not provide a strong alternative theory. In his book, Prehistoric Man, he states, "the groups became agricultural villagers because they were ready for it" (MacNeish 9) which demonstrates his theory that man only developed agriculture when the culture and cognition were more complex. This however is not an effective alternative hypothesis because it needs evidence to support the claim. The only evidence available is the size of the human brain, which does not deduce much information because archaeologists cannot question the cognitive capabilities of the deceased. Artifacts are available to suggest development in ideas and concepts, but this is also highly subjective. An alternative hypothesis to the development of agriculture is directly correlated with population growth. Both Mark Cohen and Lewis Binford attribute that with the pressures on food availability caused by population growth, agriculture was an innovative development which helped sustain growing societies. Louis Binford's model for agriculture weaves pieces of both Childe's and Braidwood's hypotheses. Binford suggests that hunting-gathering groups maintained equilibrium between their population size and availability of resources in order to remain under the environment's carrying capacity (Watson 26). This idea explains why foraging groups were successful; they kept a control on the food intake for each person. During the Younger Dryas, as climate became colder and drier, groups moved to the coastal regions where they became sedentary, as Childe had concluded. The difference however is that Binford focuses on population size as the stressor and instigator for agriculture. Groups congregated into the optimal zones, putting pressure on the available resources as well as creating an imbalance on the carrying capacity. This caused some groups to move out of the optimal zones and settle along the peripheries that had drought-resistant plants and smaller-sized animals (5 Nov 2009). With the increased pressure of supporting population sizes and the need to remain under the area's carrying capacity, "groups intensif their subsistence practices in the direction of domesticating plants and animals" (Watson 26). The necessity for subsistence strategies in addition significantly impacted society's social and economic factors, demonstrated through Brian Hayden's social competition theory. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Keep a civil tongue.