The reading for this week is Brian Fagan’s look at how Cro-Magnons interacted with environment, specifically the significance of the hunt. It’s taken from his book Cro-Magnon: How The Ice Age Gave Birth to the First Modern Humans and it is (I believe) a nice blend of imaginative recreation, a look at the physical evidence, and discussion of how we make sense of that evidence.
I’ll enlist the help of a couple of guest speakers:, whose documentary history of the entire history of the world includes a nice section on the agricultural revolution and (later on, whose series of lectures on ‘big history’ (i.e. the history of the entire universe) also places the rise of agrarian societies within a larger context. Lots to get through, but as with our distant origins and early evolution,
Question 6
Based on your critical reading of these two short chapters, which view (i.e. the environment shapes human nature/character or humans shape the environment) do you believe is more prominent or persuasive? Say why.
The civilization of Ancient Greece lasted for maybe 500 years or more. The Roman Empire lasted 1000 years. Ultimately, however, despite their respective cultural, economic, political and military achievements, neither civilization lasted forever. If the success of a civilization is marked by expansion — in terms of population and territory — and exploitation — of land and resources — does this mean, in your opinion, that ALL civilizations are inevitably doomed to eventual collapse? Briefly explain your answer.