It is going to take years of co-operative field work by both archeologists and the natural scientists who are most helpful to them before the _how_ and _why_ answers begin to appear. Anthropologically trained archeologists are fascinated with the cultures of men in times of great change. About ten or twelve thousand years ago, the general level of culture in many parts of the world seems to have been ready for change. In northwestern Europe, we saw that cultures “changed just enough so that they would not have to change.” We linked this to environmental changes with the coming of post-glacial times. In western Asia, we archeologists can prove that the food-producing revolution actually took place. We can see _the_ important consequence of effective domestication of plants and animals in the appearance of the settled village-farming community. And within the village-farming community was the seed of civilization. The way in which effective domestication of plants and animals came about, however, must also be linked closely with the natural environment. Thus the archeologists will not solve the _how_ and _why_ questions alone--they will need the help of interested natural scientists in the field itself. PRECONDITIONS FOR THE REVOLUTION Especially at this point in our story, we must remember how culture and environment go hand in hand. Neither plants nor animals domesticate themselves; men domesticate them. Furthermore, men usually domesticate only those plants and animals which are useful. There is a good question here: What is cultural usefulness? But I shall side-step it to save time. Men cannot domesticate plants and animals that do not exist in the environment where the men live. Also, there are certainly some animals and probably some plants that resist domestication, although they might be useful. This brings me back again to the point that _both_ the level of culture and the natural condition of the environment--with the proper plants and animals in it--must have been ready before domestication could have happened. But this is precondition, not cause. Why did effective food-production happen first in the Near East? Why did it happen independently in the New World slightly later? Why also in the Far East? Why did it happen at all? Why are all human beings not still living as the Maglemosians did? These are the questions we still have to face. CULTURAL “RECEPTIVENESS” AND PROMISING ENVIRONMENTS Until the archeologists and the natural scientists--botanists, geologists, zoologists, and general ecologists--have spent many more years on the problem, we shall not have full _how_ and _why_ answers. I do think, however, that we are beginning to understand what to look for.