(Paper given at the Second Session of Agricultural Archaeology Symposium, Nanchang, China, Oct. 1997. Published in Agricultural Archaeology 1998 (1):246-254. Translated/edited by B. Gordon, Elaine Wong & Xiao Li)
There are now more than 11 theories about the origin of rice in China,
as in the metaphor "a hundred flowers bloomed".
On March 3, 1996, the China Cultural Features Newspaper prominently reported l0,000 year-old excavated rough rice in Hama or Yuchan Cave in Baishi Outpost, Shoyan Township, Daoxian County, Hunan. Once thought to maximum date to 12,060±120 years (2), Archaeology 1997:7 announced three C14 intervals: 7042-6059, 8327-7449 & 7911-6414 years, or 8327-6059 BC.
On Feb. 24, 1989, the same newspaper described "ancient rough rice traces in Pengtoushan site in Mengping Town, Daping Township, Lixian County, Hunan". Chinese Archaeology Yearbook of the same year quoted a C14 interval of 8250-9100 years on potsherds, but Anping Pei said "the origin of potsherd carbon is unclear and cannot fully reflect its real age" (Agricultural Archaeology 1989:2:102). Hunan's Cultural Features 1990:8 briefly reported this Early Neolithic site, stating Beijing University archaeologists C14-dated the potsherds between 9100±200 and 8200±200 years before Pengtoushan was officially excavated, but now date charcoal and bamboo charcoal specimens (2) from area T1 at 7815±100 years and T14 (2) at 7945±170 years. Except a quite early one, these tree-ring-unadjusted dates are contiguous, such that absolute site age is 8200-7800 years, an extrapolation different from the above brief report, when Beijing University stated three new dates of 7945±90, 8385±115 & 8135±90 years in Cultural Features (1994:4). Yang of the Hubei Province Institute of Archaeology tabled 7 earlier Hubei and Hunan dates in Agricultural Archaeology (1997:1), including 2 unadjusted Bashidang site dates of 8220±250 (ZK2643) & 8274±234 (ZK2644) years. All 6 known dates are <8400 years, 700 years earlier than the oldest of 9100 years, which was accepted in the brief report by excavators and scholars, but this date must be rejected because the 8500-year age suggested by Hubei scholars excludes it . As detailed below, the dispute is ongoing. (p.1)
A series of earlier Henan dates occur outside the Yangtze area. In 1983-7, Henan Province Institute of Archaeology excavated a site six times in east Jia Lake Village, 22 km north of Wuyang County (Cultural Features 1989:1), but rough rice went unnoticed until spring 1991 when material was organized and paddy rice isolated. China Cultural Features Newspaper (Oct. 31st, 1993) reported "8000 year-old paddy rice in Jia Lake site", listing 3 Standard Deviations: 1 SD at 7960 ±150, 7561±125 and 7920±150 years; 2 at 7137±128, 7105±122 years and 3 at 7017±131 years. Ju Zhong Zhang concluded "Jia Lake age at 7-8000 years (3), with tree-ring adjustment to 7500-8500 years, later adjusted again in 1995 (4) and 1997 (5), the latter for 1 S.D. at 8942-8338 years, 2 at 7919 and 3 at 7870, 7868 & 7801 years. Accordingly, Jia Lake dates ca. 9000 years, a millenium older than the 7960 year date.
Pengtoushan dates also changed after tree-ring adjustment to 9100±120 years (6). Alternately, a red sherd dates 7920±200 and black pottery 8900±200 years, for a range >8000 years and maximum 9000 (7). As one expert says "tree-ring adjustment often adds 200-600 years, so if we use a mean of 400, Pengtoushan dates 9500±200, 8600±200, 8215±100 and 8345±100 years, with upper and lower limits of 9500 and 8345 years"(8).
From this, we may clearly see:
Pengtoushan originated 8200-7800 years ago
Jia Lake originated 8000-7000 years ago
These two developed nearly parallel, but with adjustment Pengtoushan is 9500 years old; Jia Lake 9000 years, dates mentioned not merely for their difference, but as proof of rice origin; e.g., some suggest (9) Pengtoushan dates 8345-9500 years or 800-1000 years earlier than Jia Lake at 8500-7500, suggesting Pengtoushan rice cultivation spread north to Jia Lake after a millennium. While many scholars accept rice cultivation began on the middle Yangtze because Pengtoushan predates Jia Lake at 9100 years, this date is weakened because: (1) it was rejected in the brief report; and (2) dated displaced remains are reference only and not proof, according to archaeological theory. Significant dates are serious, especially Pengtoushan's, because world attention focusses on them. Tia Mei Chen's work is praiseworthy due to his precisely dated Pengtoushan sherds published in Wenwu 1994:3. While carbonized rice dated 7775±90 on only one T1(2)H2 sherd, it suggests the 7700-8000 year estimate maximizes to >8000 years in Pengtoushan. His detailed reliable work is unhampered by corrections and can be used as a time measure.
Pengtoushan is the type-site in Hunan (10) in the sequence: Pengtoushan>Shimen Zao City lower level>Dasi>Jujialing culture. Hubei (11) Pengtoushan sites are under the earlier Chengbeixi sequence: Chengbeixi>Shimen Zao lower level>Dasi>Jujialing>Shijia Heshu culture. Whether Pengtoushan and Chengbeixi cultures on opposite river banks differ merely in name or source is a big question for international scholars (12), but a vital fact in rice origin cannot be ignored; Pengtoushan rice type. Like Pengtoushan, much rice occurred in nearby 8-9,000 year-old Bashidang site in January, 1996 (13). Shape & L/W ratio of 373 grains are overwhelmingly indica (91.7%), with 3 of 4 better preserved ones with bi-tubercular processes identical to indica. Bashidang rough rice is a tiny cultivated grain trending to indica, but its indica, japonica and wild rice traits show continuous evolution. In 1993-4, the Hunan Institute of Archaeology reported (14) a huge mass of Dasi culture carbonized paddy rice in Chengtoushan site, but only 3 of 4 full rough rice grains were indica, the rest placed into 7 categories by shape. Of 100 grains, 79 are indica, 18 possibly japonica and 3 mixed indica-japonica, with 30 small <4-5 mm grains unknown. These grains (1) are possibly aquatic; (2) differ from modern ones in tinyness and discarded over 5-6000 years of natural and artificial selection; and (3) were domesticated as indica and japonica subspecies of 7 subtypes - 5 indica; 1 indica-japonica cross and 1 japonica. These analyses conclude Pengtoushan cultivation was mainly small indica grain, which remained for 2-3,000 years into Dasi culture as the main Liyang Plains cultivated crop. Not all Chengtoushan grain was small; e.g., 3 of 4 grains are 8.0-8.5 mm long, with L/W ratio 2.67-2.8:1. As they are elliptical with awn, one observer suggests farmers widely planted awn indica, which resemble types 2 and 3 above, with 5.59-5.91 mm long grain and 29% of the total as both types. In addition, 18% of carbonized grain of mean length 4.83 mm and L/W ratio 1.86:1 may be like type 2 japonica (18% of total). Also prominent is small grain "type 7", short, wide and round of mean length & width 4.27 & 2.16 mm, L/W ratio l.98:1 and 30% of all carbonized rice. As 6 wide round modern grain types of L/W ratio l.81-2.2 match carbonized small grain type of L/W ratio 1.8-2, the 5.2 mm Chengtoushan grain is a very rare. Similar indica types only occur in the Pearl Basin (15), like Tian Jidu (Tian Ji paddy) and Wu Dajian (Wu Da glutinous) of indica type. Of >5,000 Hunan paddy varieties, only one "cow hair glue" was ca. 4.5 mm long (16), but discarded due to low productivity. Outside China, small grain is mainly SE Asian, weighing 10-12g/1000 grains (17), half that of China's lightest indica (21-22g). Chengtoushan Daxi and Jujialing Cultures overlap 5-6,000 years.
Meanwhile, Jiangsu's Longqiu Village site (18) continued to yield rough grain in the 5500-6300 and 6300-7000 year-old levels, all awnless (non-shed) big grain japonica of improved quality. Uppermost layer 4 japonica averages 5.8x2.57x1.78 mm like modern rice. Late Jujialing period Jingshan japonica, averaging 6.97x3.47 mm and L/W ratio 2.01:1 (19), show a strong trend to large grain. Chengbeixi culture has many grain husk traces, but new research was curtailed. Agricultural Archaeology 1993:1:118 said a tripod sherd with 4 full husk traces was catalogued as "city collection 32" in 1990. Grain #1 is 6.1x3 mm and initially called late period japonica. Chengbeixi and Pengtoushan are only 100 km apart, yet one has japonica, the other indica. The middle Yangtze is a highly acclaimed cultivated rice origin. 18 Chengtoushan grains (mean 6.62x2.68 mm) resemble common wild rice from Jiangyong (7.05x1.76 mm) and Chaling (7.15x1.91 mm) (20), particularly as Jiangyong borders Daoxian, with its 10,000-year-old Hama Cave rice. It is highly likely Pengtoushan people collected wild rice before domestication. Bashidang predates Chengtoushan by 2-3,000 years when small grain indica was favored. It not only retained this inferior grain, as did its neighbor, but continued to be the staple, a cause for concern. A possible explanation is that earliest Pengtoushan rice was used to strengthen descendants and occupy wide new territory, almost sanctifying it. Some scholars note many close ties between Pengtoushan and South China (21). Pengtoushan has mainly large choppers roughly unifacially percussed by striking cobbles into irregular cortextual pieces whose source was the lower Dushan of Yangchun in Canton. The source of tiny bright flint tools is Guangxi's Liuzhou Bailian Cave period 1. While association, contact and influence enrich mainstream culture, the latter is a group's most precious inheritance, its shift reflecting human movement. In this perspective, Pengtoushan inhabitants may be from Dushan or Bailian Caves, migrants from south interior China. Future identification may verify this point.
As some believe middle Yangtze Basin cultivation began with arid crops because its "diverse summer and winter temperatures made wild paddy rice reproduction hard", it was not an original paddy source. But others say it was "one of China's earliest sources of rice agriculture" because indica and japonica originated here quite early. Japonica was unable to link with wild rice in the 30-40,000 year-old Jiangling's Jigong Mountain site to become cultivated rice because the area lacked wild paddy resources. What proof is there for japonica origin on the middle Yangtze? Perhaps "the many ground stone tools" were brought by people who also brought japonica?
Closeby is the Jia Lake site in Wuyang County, its age discussed repeatedly in conferences. Maximized at 9250, its latest date is 8942 years (Agricultural Archaeology 1997:1:55), greatly exceeding Luojiajiao and Hemudu and the original Peiligang date, and like Pengtoushan and Chengbeixi. Jia Lake site is not isolated, as similar finds occur at Funushan, east slope of Waifangshan and upper Huai tributaries of the North Ru, Hong and Sha (22); i.e., Water Fountain in Shaan County; Zhongshan Village in Ruzhou, Yan Bay, Xin Village, Kuishuyang, Qianhu and Houhu, Congxian County's Wushoulingshan and Yichuan's Baishi Geda. A 9-hole bone flute in Zhongshan Village (23) developed from Jia Lake's 7-hole one. Later regional paddy rice remains (24) in sites like Yuzhou's Li Enclave, Ruzhou Mansion, Luoyang High Cliff, etc., supplement Jia Lake rice, while Pengtoushan rice remains are much smaller. While Jia Lake tools include the stone axe, shovel, serrated sickle, mano & metate, plus bone shovel, etc., Pengtoushan stone tools are primitive and unstandardized, and if compared, were not experiencing similar growth. "Doubtless, accurate data show cultivated rice appears 8,000 years ago at Jia Lake, when people advanced farming and many crop varieties (25), although Henan scholars and their colleagues say "earlier Pengtoushan Culture was possibly slightly higher" (26), but both are temporally and spatially alike (29). Both lack directly comparable material in the same level, but we believe we shall find this soon. What is the origin of Jia Lake rice culture? Some believe local development and others by introduction. "It's impossible Jia Lake is unique, but resulted from Pengtoushan rice-culture spreading north" 27). To find the real situation, let's consider a rare event (28): "3 trephined Peiligang Culture skulls in a Longshan urn in Henan's Wubu Dasima site with neat tiny round hole and middle-aged male in Qinghai's Liuhuan Qijia Culture with 7mm smooth mid-parietal hole" relate to ancient medical treatment in Jia Lake Culture. As Qinghai's Qijia people are considered East Asian Mongoloids (30), Jia Lake people also were and passed this special treatment, but this awaits Jia Lake bone tests. As Shandong and its neighbours are East Asian, their westward migration was very early. It is also possible Jia Lake people moved west from Shandong in Early Neolithic, as seen in the discovery "10 years ago of Qingliangang and Dawenko Cultures, plus Cishan bases" (31) which include Peiligang Culture. In the late 1980's, the "North Xin type suggest Cishan and Peiligang Culture in Shandong after passing the bog region " (32). These are all observations following the trend of culture migration by sequence. A common view sees Peiligang Culture tied to ancient South Lu and North Jiangsu culture. Henan scholars compared Jia Lake with Dawenko Culture (33), something that receives little attention: "As Erjian Village sites in Huai Basin and Lienyungang in North Jiangsu" traditionally divide China north and south, "the earliest or Erjian Culture" (34) relate to ancient South Lu and North Jiangsu cultures. Erjian is not only related to North Xin and hence Peiligang, but Daijafu is related to Majiabang", all tied like 1000 silk threads with Qingliangang.
Let's look further:
One hoe is in Lienyungang's Big Village site (35); 9 of 2 types in North Xin sites (36); plus excavations on Shandong's Dawenko and Sanli Rivers; Jiangsu's Dadunzi; Zhejiang's Luojiajiao, Handan's Jiango; Rongcheng's Shangpo Village, Zhengzhou's Dahe Village, etc., (37). "Antler and crane beak hoes" occur in Hemudu's first stage, plus many wood or antler "crane beak" handles attached by mortise & tenon, plus stone axes and handles similar attached and cord-wound" (38) like popular ancient Aohanqi Culture compound tools (39). This tool type using natural pointed material shared the position as an ancestral farm tool with the "digging stick".
This 2-handled tripod pot was made by adding three legs to round base to form an Erjian ding. 6 of 7 pots at Peilijiang have similar traits with Erjian dings (40).
Main features in Erjian jug fragments [Fig. 2-16 (41)] are narrow neck, spout and straight handle with shoulder hole. Also included is the bright big late Shuliang Culture jar, typical Majabing cow-nose handle and Pengtoushan 2-handled, high collared pot with small vertical handle. Common 2-handled, small-mouthed Qingliangang and Peiligang Culture pots originated in Erjian.
This plate from Erjian's M6 was formed by pressing clay into a disk and slightly deepening its center, a refined technique for the time, but surpassed by a Pengtoushan plate. Cishan plate walls are neater and slope steeply, becoming pots with higher walls. Many "straight-mouthed" potsherds in Peiligang Culture's Huaqau sites in Qixian are considered "Erjian plate ancestral style".
7 Erjian tombs have red bowls, former tripod-type, over the head. Part of Erjian burial tradition, Peiligang Culture used the tripod to cover the ash urn, calling it an "urn coffin burial".
Other examples occur, but judging meaning of cultural origin, Erjian contribution was undeniably significant. Rather than view it as "Peilijiang passing bogs and landing in Shandong", we can regard it as "Erjian people passing bogs and spreading in Henan"; i.e., Jia Lake paddy rice agriculture came from the lower Huai Basin.
From Hemudu to Pengtoushan and Jia Lake, rice history rises at a millenial pace. Neolithic sites like 10,800 year-old Nanzhuantou in Hebei's Yushui County (Cultural Features 1994:3:84); 11,200±1000 year-old Deity Cave in Huifeng Mountain, White Horse Country and Jiangsu's Piaushui County all exceed 10,000 years. They further rice history study by showing rice entered the Middle Neolithic known by its ground stone tools. It is analogous to the short Qin and Chui Dynasties crucial to establishing Tang and Han prosperity, but the great Middle to Late Neolithic effects go unrecognized. Ground stone tool function in cultivation origin [Xiachuan Culture Research (42)] are indirect, but I think there were opposite side effects; e.g., Shayuan's (43) Gengjiayuan site north section clearly shows three layers: upper windblown sand; middle 1 m thick non-ceramic grayish-brown dirt with ground stone tools and wood charcoal; and lower Late Pleistocene bone. As investigation shows tools on both shores of an ancient river, its abundant water and forest allowed people to gather and hunt for some time, resulting in the 1 m accumulation. How did this 80x30-mile sector change to wind-blown sand? If we think Shayuan is named from Xiachuan, the first may have been influenced by the latter and initiated agriculture. Slash-and-burn cultivation is not forest cutting and clearing, but the making of endless widespread fires brought spring sandstorms from distant deserts. One might blame over- or abusive use of ground stone tools, where over-cultivation created desert, exiling people and facilitating the birth of the stone axe. Thus, slash-and-burn cultivation opened a new era. Xiachuan Culture terminated 16,000 years ago, with Shayuan forming at the height of mid-Dali Glaciation. If so, it may be too conservative to say plough agriculture began after glacial decline.
There is no evidence Shayuan people reached Lin Well, but Xiachuan stone tools appear in some eastern areas; e.g., ca. 200 found in 1978 at Daxian village in Jiangsu's East Sea County. A keel-shape core resembled one from Shanxi's Qinshui County (44). Other shocking similarities are a Shayuan "inscribed sea clam" suggesting coastal trade (45) and suggesting Xiachuan and Shayuan people reached Shandong, introducing plough agriculture. Regarding regional ground stone tools, >2000 occurred in 1984 in Jiangsu's 3 km E-W by 20 km N-S Malingshan (46), bounded south by Ji County He Village and north by East Sea County Zhong Stronghold. Similar tools are in Heshantou; Nanshan; Shibie; Fandingtzi and Guaduang. In 1982-3 (47), intensive research centered on tools in Shandong's Zheyu Basin, while many occurred in 70-80 sites NE of Linyi City, Yangtou Town and Qingfengling SE of the city; as well as Cangshan; Tancheng, Linyi, Junan; Ju County's Yishui, etc. There are two concentrations: W and S of Yishui County with 18 sites mainly on the W side of the river and along the shores of S tributaries; and Guiyi in Tancheng County in Malingshan, Gaofengtou and Honghuatao areas with 40 sites mainly on both shores of Mu River. More important places are Phoenix Range of Lingyi City, Qingfengling, Quanshangchun and near Tancheng County's Heilongtan reservoir. >1000 fragments are on Phoenix Range and >3000 on Qingfengling Ridge - 20% of all and dense. Four counties meet at Malingshan's 5 (max.)x50 km long N-S valley - Shandong's Linmu, Tancheng, Jiangsu's East China Sea and Xinyi (p.8), with S tool concentrations. >2000 small fine tools are on the mountain, those from Malingshan, Phoenix Range and Qingfengling similar in type, quality and workmanship to North China (48). In fact, the entire Yi-Mu District was called "Yi-Mu Ground stone Tool Culture", it's age by Baijiwo 8 levels at Malingshan to Final Epi-Pleistocene or 10-30,000 years, with Qingfengling ca. 10,000 years. If Malingshan is tied to Luoma Lake, Lienyungang's Yuntai Mountain (49), Peachflower Ravine, Jiangjun Cliff, Jiudian, Jia Mountain, Kongwang Mountain, Locust Ravine, etc., also have fine tools, with Peachflower Ravine older than Jiudian. Not only does occupation appears continuous, but Yi and Mu River sites are so concentrated it is considered a rare phenomenon throughout China. Why did so many people settle here and what effect did they have on the origin of paddy rice?
More recently at 13-23,000 years ago, Pleistocene cold dry Dali Glacial climate showed the importance of animal and plant survival. Those adapting well survived, others "migrated south". East of 118 E. Long. & 36 N. Lat. was heaven, where north and west glaciers were hindered by the Lu and Yi Mountains north and Guimeng and Baotu Hills west. East warm ocean air and Gantai volcanic activity raised temperature and blocked cold, the Yi-Mu River augmented by heavy winter meltwater in summer resulting in endless fertile fields and plains producing copious grass and forest. For south-migrating animals it was the Garden of Eden. Elephant, wild pig, river deer and deer were widely scattered in Huaian, Huaiyang, Lianshui, Sihong, Shuyang, Suqian, Hongze, Gantai and Jinhu (50). Buffalo, Asian elephant, horse and deer in strata like that in the Jiudian lake and swamp area support this, the latter 19,080 years old (51). Hunters followed these animals south. Huaiyang City Museum says Xiacao Bay Neolithic people had ground and polished stone tools (52), simple clothes and matriarchal clans with inter-tribal marriage, one of Jiangsu's earliest community traits. If so, there might have been agriculture based on Yuntai Mountain lu rice, a kind of annual wild rice said to be japonica. While some think it as japonica's wild ancestor, most consider it a "weedy rice" annual descending from a mixed domestic-wild variety. If true, it indirectly proves wild rice existed before agriculture. China's wild rice survey dramatically excluded Zhejiang, Jiangsu and even Lunan, but Director Jiang He of Jiangsu Agronomy Institute "Original Variety Reference" office told me 10 years ago he found the same rice in Shandong's Rizhao County while investigating Yuntai Mountain wild rice. Rizhao County at 35°4'N Lat. on the Yellow Sea is bound north by Liangya, the Yue Kingdom capital in Spring-Autumn Period. If Rizhao wild rice did not result from Yuntai Mountain lu rice expansion north on the tracks of Wu and Yue Kingdom, it best be ignored, but few know this. In Middle Neolithic, Mu River was separated by the west slope of the Wulian Range, but remained closely linked with Malingshan's many ground stone tools; i.e., it was easy and convenient for their makers to use wild rice. In fact, fine tools and lu rice coincide in East Sea County's Zoushankou Village, as cited in Wen Xian (Ancient Literature). I cite the following as rare but important proof:
Wu and Yue Kingdom Spring and Autumn Period - Fuchai (Wu King) Biography:
This Wu Kingdom Record says "they fought three wars and suffered three defeats, and cost the Wu their campaign. Wu thereupon perished in November of the 22 year of Duke Ai Gong of Lu (BC 473). In Warring States Qin Chapter, Su Qin says "the Yue king used 3000 ordinary foot soldiers and captured Fuchai (King of Wu) at Gansui". The Historical Record of Justice says "Fuchai camped at Goosu Mountain, turning the fight NW, but was defeated at Gansui, 40 li NW of Suzhou's Wanan Range on Zu Mountain" (p.153). Chinese Ancient and Modern Geographical Names Dictionary says "Yang (or Qinyuhang or Wanan Mountain) is NW of Wu County, Jiangsu". Jiangsu Province Local Magazine says "Yang Mountain (& Hu Hill) NW of Wu County has rich white soil, repeated in Wu County Record as "white clay smooth like jade." After Fuchai was defeated in 473 BC, he fled to Huxue Peak on Yang Mountain, appeasing his hunger by eating "fresh or wild rice", later committing suicide. While different from cultivated rice, it must be stressed Fuchai did not recognize wild rice, perhaps because he was crawling or leaning. It was also November when one could still pick rough rice. It was possibly like modern wild rice and difficult to hull, a suggestion of japonica origin. Hulling was an important activity of "3-Mountain Culture". As a Nanjing archaeologist found >5000 stone artifacts of this culture at Tai Lake in 1985 like those of Sichuan's Fulin (53), this culture may represent the earliest Tai Lake farmers. If so, west-bound rice culture has a racial origin.
More than 50 years has passed on this ancient but crucial question, and never has there been more research opportunity by international scholars with modern methods, I merely an outside enthusiast. (p.10) At end of the 1950's, I doubted popular theory (54): "Cultivated japonica evolved from artificially selected cultivated indica". I stressed that if you wish to consider Yunnan "Intermediate or Transferring Forms" you must prove all were indica, with evolutionary onset surely leading to japonica; i.e., indica to japonica evolution was unquestioned. Restricted by these conditions, research was undetailed and unconfirmed, but today we have a better idea from Wang Xiangsheng and colleagues, as seen in Agricultural Archaeology 1994(1):
(1) "Nearly 600 common wild samples were tested, 56% mixed wild-cultivated rice, plus cultivated common wild rice". As impure common wild rice was outstanding one must give considerable thought before categorizing ancient wild rice, esp. Hemudu's >10,000 kg. While possible to predict random sampling on "4 wild rice grains", the collective result appears as some kind of authority.
(2) "92 mixed common wild rices showed...definite isozyme splitting of japonica and indica", a trend also seen by Kan Shengcheng in Yuan River common wild rice" (55), while "modern genetics show indica splitting in common wild rice" (56). As we know splitting began before cultivation, the "indica>japonica theory by cultivation" is refuted and my view of both rice types from different sources is correct.
The paper says "common wild rice resembles typical wild rice, isozyme showing the indica-japonica split". As Wenxu Zhang and Linghua Tang also see a phenomenon on the husk surface, the bi-tubercular process evolving before grain shape (57), both ideas conform. Zhang and Zao also say the "Hemudu bi-tubercular process is japonica's obtuse form", negating it is indica". Endless doubt remains if we rely on traditional grain shape to distinguish indica and japonica.
The origin and separation of cultivated rice is a big question on "intermediate indica-japonica" and "bi-tubercular process going from sharp to obtuse as intermediate indica-japonica form". Whether "bi-directional evolutionary hidden traits" or continuous separation "from indica to japonica" is one direction (58): "Exploration should be done only in places with common geography, plus common wild rice with no indica-japonica split, simultaneously analyzing colony gene frequency using biological methods. One hand allows natural selection, the other hand artificial selection and evolution growing wild rice and slightly split cultivated rice of different lengthy origin and climate. (p.11) Perhaps, then we may thoroughly understand cultivated rice onset and evolution ". This would be Obviously, this would be a lengthy arduous experiment. While modern research uses pure common wild rice, multi-disciplinary people must genetically experiment to confirm if common wild rice is ancestral to cultivated rice (59).
Here, I think we should use historical judgment and view the problem cross-sectionally. Normally, we'd think rice evolved in the Cretaceous as it thrives as a warm tropical plant, meaning indica is basic. All should be originally indica between "japonica two subspecies" and "two indica two japonicas Intermediate Form". For split inducement we have no choice but consider glacial effects. As the strength and continuity of China's four glaciations influenced areas differently, their influence on common wild rice also differed. But common wild rice's adaptability varied by type and geographical condition, as reflected in plant silica and the ordinary belt. In the distribution sequence from indica to japonica, indica's "continuous trend" is mainly rising cold resistance, a quantitative to qualitative change, but it should have a limit. To answer what significance this has on the ordinary belt and bi-tubercular process, we await experts. Regarding growth, the simplest means is germination temperature. Japonica germinates at 10°C, indica at 12°C, but does not need soil. Japonica>indica evolution is impossible or you would see japonica>indica change in greater warmth after final glaciation, but that did not happen. Therefore, one must disassociate from historic genetic coalescence, or it may still be transitional. I was very careless when publishing "Discussions of Evolution from indica to japonica" (Chinese Agricultural History 1995:2) as my attention was elsewhere, but here is an important part of the article:
"Indica>japonica evolution is an important issue affecting discussion of the origin of rice culture. Japonica derivation from cultivated indica is negated by natural japonica wild rice. Rice is a tropical plant, with indica basic. Japonica and indica's biological nature completely differ from environmental change. If we reverse our thinking, we find unique evolutionary conditions; i.e., a sudden change under Dagu glaciation, where buds change and not seeds from Tai Lake to the Yuntaishan coast, a product of ice edge climate and volcanic activity."
"Typical pure perennial common wild rice as ancestral cultivated rice" may be true, but the investigation omitted Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Lunan, and traits like "shedding property, water accumulation at resting place", etc., are limited to south China. Japonica grain shedding and good rice root aeration is generally more difficult. Perhaps a better explanation is pure japonica common wild rice because this relates to arid rice, especially the occurrence of arid japonica. (p.12)
On indica>japonica bud evolution, I think the most basic, direct and simplest confirmation is to study the root and bud because their data is blank.
Many Middle Neolithic ground stone tool sites from Malingshan to Yuntai Mountain imply Yiyuan, Xiacaowan, Xiachuan and Shayuan population concentrations having two effects: (a) talent gathering with many inventions; i.e., Neolithic tools with farming onset; and (b) population fission where anthropologists suggest 3 million Palaeolithic people rose slowly to 10 million by Middle Neolithic. Malingshan fission lacks research, but fast stone tool spread suggests a rising population. "While Xiachuan Culture Research" on stone tools has analogies in N & NE Asia and N America, the link between rice and fine stone remains hazy. Tai Lake "3-Mountain Culture" rice planting is a mystery, but regional rice culture is clear in Xiachuan keelshaped cores in East China Sea County, inscribed marine clams in Shayuan and ground tools along the Yi-Shu River. Rice culture formation was natural because Xiachuan and Shayuan people were expert millet farmers, had wild rice and planted rice the same way as millet. Desert expansion caused the Shayuan to plant dry japonica while moving constantly, while the Malingshan remained to found the millet-planting Beixin Culture. As Majiabing and Beixin people are East Asians, if Beixin people descended from Malingshan, then the Majiabing were a Malingshan branch who went south to Tai Lake. In 1989, fine tools on Zhejiang Fenghua Mingshan Mountain were tied to the earliest Ningshao Plain people (60). As S Asian Hemudu people had not yet arrived at Ningshao, "Tai Lake's japonica concentration is a Majiabing product, the Malingshan of Yuntai Mountain" included. But Shayuan stay at Malingshan was short; otherwise, Canton's Xiqiao fine stone tool would be traceable to Neolithic (61). Canton's Xiqiao Mountain sites has keelshaped round-bitted scrapers and like tools. Xuanfenggang has many fine flint conical, wedge-shaped and cylindrical cores with long thin leaf-shaped points, like those in N China, N&E Asia and N America. They show southernmost tools reached the South Sea shore. As the Xiqiang Range has many excellent quarries, people gathered stone since the Neolithic, but from Middle to Early Neolithic, residents used river cobbles and it lost importance. As fine tools need quality stone, crystal, agate, etc., now considered jewelry, was used, and Xiqiang Mountain was their dream place while moving south. If this relates to SE Asian japonica (spec. dry rice), the Malingshan Shayuan are likely disassociated. Past SE Asian aquatic and arid rice cultures did not have strict borders (62) because they used slash-and-burn agriculture; i.e., after burning everything, rice seeds were planted with the digging stick. Rice spread may differ here. If paddy rice dissemination to Yunnan in the west relates to "3-Mountain Culture", rice spread east to Japan is only a matter of route. Of "N, Central and S Latitude theories", the most accurate is "NE Asian Agricultural Occurrence and Spread" (63). On its third spread, rice may have gone from S Korea to W Japan to create Misheng culture, but recent studies challenge this. Han Kangxing & Matushita's "Shandong's Linyuzhou - Comparison of Han Dynasty Human Bone and W Japan Misheng Culture" [Archaeology 1997(4)] is unconcerned with rice culture, but its quantification and graphing confirm "W Japan's Misheng people morphologically resemble Han. As both are considered E Asian, they should have similar ancestral origin there". "War forced some people to cross the sea to neighboring islands 2,300-1,700 years ago, bringing their customs and cultures". In 476 BC, Yue once again attacked Wu, destroying it in three years and moving the capital to Langya. "Mencius - Li Low": Yue attacks Lu; "Biography": "Yue attacks various Lu states"; "Epoch book"; "Talking - Lijie": "Yue attacks Qi"; "Later Han - East foreign land": "Yue moves capital to Langya, fought with everyone, chased away many states and destroyed small states". Destroying Wu and attacking Qi was continuous. Wu, Qi and Lu refugees gathered on the east coast to escape, according to records. As they were all E Asians, this period was the most important of all China rice-culture migrations (mainly japonica) east to Japan. (p.14)
1. Chinese Agricultural History 1996:3:29.
2. Zhiyi Liu. "Great historic significance of Yuchanyan excavations". Agricultural Archaeology 1996:3:96.
3. Ju Zhong Zhang, etc.; "Prehistoric cultivated rice remains along the Huang and Huai Rivers". Agricultural Archaeology 1994:1:68.
4. Baozhang Chen: "Initial studies of excavated carbonized paddy rice in Henan's Jia Lake sites". Agricultural Archaeology 1995:3:94.
5. Baozhang Chen: "Chinese cultivated rice origin" Agricultural Archaeology 1997:1:55.
6. Wei Si: "Research on Chinese rice origin". Chinese Agricultural History 1996:3:9.
7. An Qiang Xiang. "Search for the origin of ancient Dongting Lake agriculture". Agricultural Archaeology 1993:1:30.
8. Zhiyi Liu. "Communication about the question of the origin of rice agriculture". Agricultural Archaeology 1994:3:61.
9. same as 8.
10. "Ten Years of Archaeological Work", p. 205.
11. Quanxi Yang: "Research on ancient Chinese agriculture" Agricultural Archaeology 1997:1:31; "Ten Years of Archaeological Research", p. 192.
12. Jie Jun He: "Middle Yangtze River prehistoric culture. Summary of 2nd session of symposium on Asian civilization". Archaeology 1996:2:90.
13. Wenxu Zhang & Anping Pei: "Study of Ancient Rice of Bashidang of Mengxi in Li County, Hunan". Cultural Features 1997:1:36.
14. Hai Bin Gu: "Neolithic paddy rice in Hunan's Lixian Chengtoushan site". Archaeology 1996:8.
15. Ying Ding et al.: "Chinese Paddy Rice Cultivation Study" p. 195.
16. with 14, p. 84.
17. Kan Sheng Cheng: "Rice origin and Asian cultivation in archaeology". Agricultural Archaeology 1994:1:57.
18. Min Zhang & Ling Hua Tang: "Discussion on agricultural research and correlation between E Jiangsu and Anhui primitive rice". Agricultural Ancient Texts 1996:3:108-110.
19. "Jingshan Lijiajiao site." p. 79.
20 Archaeology 1996:8:79.
21. Anping Pei. "Pengtoushan cultural crop remains in Chinese prehistoric agriculture". Agricultural Archaeology 1989:2:102.
22. Kuo Yan Yuan: "Yan Village research". Archaeology Journal 1996:3:317.
23. "Henan Province Zhongshan site". Archaeology Journal 1991:1:66.
24. Zhao Zhen Kong et al.: "Paddy rice remains and their significance in the ancient environment of 8000 year-old Jia Lake sites in Wuyang County, Henan. Archaeology 1996:12:81; with 3:69.
25. see 24:80.
26. see 3:72.
27. see 8: "Yellow Valley Neolithic plough. Huang Valley Research: Spread of rice from South China and its affects". Agricultural Archaeology 1983:1:47.
28. Xingcan Chen & Zhibi Jia; "Ancient skull research". Archaeology 1996:11:62,63,66.
29. Juzhong Zhang: "Debate on Jia Lake traits and peripheral cultural relations". Cultural Features 1989:1:19.
30. New China Archaeological Discovery and Research, p. 190; with pp. 28 & 63.
31. Anping Pei. "China's Neolithic". Archaeology 1981:3:254.
32. Guangzhi Zhang: Circular formation of Chinese civilization, "Celebration of 55 years of archaeological discussion". Anthropology 3:33:29.
34. Ren Wu: "Correlation questions on the Shandong area prehistoric cultural sequence". Cultural Features 1982:10.
35. Hongfu Li: "Outline of Agricultural Archaeology in Jiangsu's Lienyungang area". Agricultural Archaeology 1985:2:101.
36. "North Shandong Xi County site excavation report". Archaeology Journal 1984:2.
37. Zhaolin Song: "China's primitive farm tools". Agricultural Archaeology, l986:1:125.
38. Jun Liu: "Enlightenment on Hemudu rough rice". Agricultural Archaeology 1991:1:172; with 37:123.
39. Guoqing Chen: Guanghui Xu: Initial debate on the theory of NE China stone hoes". Agricultural Archaeology 1989:2:223-224.
40. Li Hongfan "Cliff stone carving of primitive agriculture in Jiangsu's Lienyungang". Agricultural Archaeology 1983:1:79.
41. "Second visit to Jiangsu's Lienyungang Village sites". Archaeology 1962:3.
42. Xingbang Shi: "Celebrating 55 years of literature in Sichuan archaeological research". In 1989 article.
43. Anping Pei & Wenxu Zhang. "Shaanxi's Dalishayuan area Neolithic remains". Agricultural Archaeology 1957:13. In May 1980, the original surveyor returned to Dalishayuan to "finish records".
44. Thirty Years of Archaeological Research, p. 198.
45. Ten Years of Archaeological Research (with 43).
46. "Cultural Features". Archaeology, p. 101.
47. same as above, p. 163.
48. see 46.
49. see 35 and 40.
50. Ren Zhong: "Lower Huai River prehistoric agricultural sites' Agricultural Archaeology 1996:3:72.
51. with 35:96.
52. with 50:73.
53. "Ten Years of Archaeological Research". Wenwu, p. 101.
54 Zuo Zhuo: "My humble opinion on japonica evolution". Chinese Agricultural History 1995:2:25.
55. Kansheng Cheng: "Search for the Origin of Asian cultivated rice" 1994:1:53.
56. Agricultural Archaeology 1994:1:60.
57. Wenxu Zhang & Linghua Tang: "Research on the bi-tubercular process in Dragon Village excavated rough rice". Agricultural Archaeology 1996:1:96.
58. same as 55.
59. Xiangkun Wang: "First research on Chinese common wild rice (Oryza rufipogon Griff)". Agricultural Archaeology 1994:1:49.
60. Haiming Wang: "Search for the origin of Shao Plain prehistoric agriculture". Agricultural Archaeology 1996:3:55.
61. New China Archaeological Discovery and Research. 62 pp.
62. Central Cultivation Management: "Research on Malayan rice and its spread". Agricultural Archaeology 1996:3:128. This very long article is divided into four issues devoted to very detailed SE Asian rice research.
63. Wenming Yan: "NE Asian agricultural occurrence and spread". Agricultural Archaeology 1963:3:37