Abstract
The decision theoretical components of two, structurally very different models on the origins of agriculture - Flannery's systemic, decision theoretical model and Cohen's monocausal, demographic model - are analyzed. Beyond that, it is examined to what extent their theoretical assumptions meet the existing archaeological data. It can be demonstrated that Flannery's approach allows a much more differentiated modelling of the process of integration and development of agriculture as it is discernible from the archaeological data than Cohen's approach.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
