The article I choose is "Cultivation and Domestication had Multiple Origins: Arguments Against the Core Area Hypothesis for the Origins of Agriculture in the Near East." This article debates the core area hypothesis that species domestication originates in a single restricted area of Near East and developed rapidly. However, the authors hold the opinion that both crops and animals domestication had multiple origins and experienced a prolonged process and argues the core area cannot represent by providing two aspects of evidences. First, the modern genetic data provided by molecular genetic approaches which used to support the core area hypothesis has serious flaws. Because modern genetic data did not record species during local extinctions and evolution, so it cannot represent all species in the past, therefore the so called core area does not have the species somewhere else has. According to the data table in the paper, some sites in the core region have small amount of domesticated species and even have fewer wild progenitors than sites out of core region. Second, as the analysis method applied in the origin research overlooks the hybridization among species with gene flow, it turns out the wrong results with single origin instead of referring other simulated origins. Furthermore, the authors analyses the Near Eastern Fertile Crescent becomes the core area not because it plays a prominent role of domestication origin but the key geographic position for aggregating various material cultures of South, North and Upper zones during PPNA. In the end, reason of the phenomenon that domestication happened in multiple regions has been explained, sharing knowledge that inherited from the same ancestor Homo sapiens facilitate domestication occur in several original places concurrently. I approve the multi origin hypothesis, even if set aside the scientific data and proof from the paper, only concerns about the common sense, domestication ori