Xiang, Anqiang, History Laboratory, South Agriculture University, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province, PR CHINA 510642 (Agricultural Archaeology 2000(3): 73-77. Scanned by P. Lee, format by G. Leir, ed./trans. By Elaine Wong & B. Gordon)

Abstract (B. Gordon): A critique of Cao Keping's data favoring Jiahu rice origin on the Huai River (Peiligang rice-millet culture) rather than Pengtoushan rice origin on the middle Yangtze River. The latter's earlier and more numerous sites disprove Cao's theory.

Keywords: Pengtoushan, Jiahu, Xianrendong, Peiligang, millet, north-south exchange.

Cao Keping's "Further study on 10,000 year-old Xianrendong rice and new understanding of China's agricultural origins (Southeast Culture 1998:3)" introduced a new hypothesis on rice agricultural origin. He believes ancient people on the Huai River S bank (e.g., Henan's Wuyang Jiahu), began rice agriculture 8000-9000 years ago, with later cultural dissemination to the middle-lower Yangtze River to places like Chengtoushan and Bashidang sites in Li County, Hunan, where agriculture became much better established. Economic History1998(6) said his hypothesis quickly echoed in academia, but after reading it I found some suggestions wrong and needing discussion. Contrary to Cao, Pengtoushan rice agriculture definitely did not disseminate from Jiahu, as current archaeological data suggests the Jiahu's Huai River mixed rice/millet agriculture came from N dissemination and influence of Pengtoushan rice agriculture on the middle Yangtze River.

Cao's new hypothesis says "China rice domestication began l0-15,000 years ago..., as seen in 10,000 year-old primitive rice in Yuchanyan site, Dao County, Hunan and Xianrendong, Jiangxi. Rice then disseminated, with people on the broad Huai River S bank (like Henan's Wuyang Jiahu)... discovering early rice agriculture 8000-9000 years ago, tied to cultural exchange. Cultivation quickly spread to the middle-lower Yangtze to Chengtoushan and Bashidang, Li County, Hunan. Cao's unclear history of Chinese domesticated rice beginning 10-15,000 years ago suggests rice agriculture had already begun, but actual 10,000-year-old domesticated rice is irrefutable proof of rice agriculture, its rapid spread confirming it surpassed the original. Here, two items are emphasized: (a) "farm art" or "techniques & management", including extensive farming, horticulture, soil management, fertilization, equipment & tool use, pest control, field irrigation & drainage, initial processing, harvest storage, trade, etc."(1). As farm art had some advanced techniques and management, then surpassed by (b) "thriving growth", how did later period Jiahu pioneer early rice agriculture? This is contradictory and cannot explain the new hypothesis, which is obviously unsatisfactory. Two mistakes in Cao hypothesis are:

1. Cao thinks "so-called rice agricultural origin is the slow growth of farm techniques accompanying paddy rice cultivation and evolution. Although his "evolution" and "farm techniques" are irrelevant to "origin", he suggests Yuchanyan, Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan primitive rice are outstanding results of later domestication, absurdly and inappropriately excluding new evidence. But their discoverers and researchers regard them as new rice origin evidence. In fact, Yuchanyan excavators believe it has "the world's earliest rice, with special meaning where and when paddy rice began", while Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan excavators believe their "finds are important in rice origin research (2), with upper level fan-shaped paddy rice phytoliths being important clues" (3). Liu Zhiyi (4), Peng Guofan (5), Zhao Zhijun (6), Yan Wenming, An Zhimin, etc., think this is new evidence. Yan says the "9-10,000 year-old Early Neolithic embraces incipient rice agriculture, including Yuchanyan, Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan rice" (7). An also believes 10,000 year-old paddy rice phyoliths in these middle-lower Yangtze sites are the oldest, important evidence for the center of origin of rice cultivation"(8) and impossible to reject. We might adopt the direct historic approach because agriculture begins with the literature and cultivated rice origin is agricultural origin. Cao's view of Jiahu "rice cultivation origin" is really growth of farming, and must include middle Yangtze Pengtoushan culture. Yan thinks Jiahu rice was later, with earlier origins beyond middle Yangtze Pengtoushan and Chengbiexi rice(9). As "widespread Pengtoushan rice represents an established agricultural culture"(10), Cao's definition is false because it disagrees with historic data on agricultural origin and growth and omits Yuchanyan, Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan. His new theory that ancient Jiahu inhabitants on the Huai River S bank pioneered the growth of early rice agriculture is unsubstantiated.

2. Cao says Pengtoushan rice agriculture dispersed from Jiahu which "pioneered early rice agriculture" before its culture spread. But paddy rice agriculture quickly dispersed along the lower-middle Yangtze, like Hunan's Pengtoushan and Bashidang, where ancient agriculture was better founded. His view that Jiahu pioneered early rice agriculture is unproven, making its dispersion to Pengtoushan disputable. His timing is problematic, as confusion exists on Jiahu and Pengtoushan dating. By saying Jiahu is 8-9000 years old and Pengtoushan 7-8,000 years, he infers Jiahu ancestry. But Jiahu and Pengtoushan dates are contemporary or Pengtoushan slightly earlier. As many Jiahu excavators and researchers say Pengtoushan age is "equal or slightly earlier" than Jiahu (11) (12) (13), the most they would accept is Huai Basin as another center of rice origin (14), with rice originating in the upper Yangtze Basin (15), and refuting Jiahu spread to Pengtoushan - a more objective approach. >20 Pengtoushan culture sites C14-date >9000 years, while >10 Jiahu C14-dates ca. 8500 years (8-9000 Cao according to Zhang, Juzhong et al., with only one at 9000). When Cao introduced his theory, he chose a dated site supporting his view - Bashidang in a later Pengtoushan stage - and compared it with the earliest announced age of Jiahu. But to ignore the many 9000 year-old Pengtoushan dates shows an incomplete, unfair and purposeless view. Choosing dates to suit one's opinion is improper scientifically, biasing conclusions. Better to mention his ignorance of dates unfavorable to his own when he quoted Zhang, Juzhong et al.'s Jiahu date of 8-9000 years, when Bashidang's 5 dates of 7540-8200 years are almost contemporaneous to Jiahu. Tree ring adjustment of Jiahu's 9 pieces of wood charcoal deduce an age of 8-9000 years, with Pengtoushan's absolute age largely within this range; i.e., regarding absolute age, Jiahu and Pengtoushan growth is synchronous (16), as stated by Zhang. Cao quoted the same material, but said Pengtoushan is almost 1000 years after Jiahu. Interpreting out of context is lamentable, confusing Pengtoushan and Jiahu sequences. Past research says Pengtoushan predates Jiahu, the opinion of most scholars, but how much is hazy (p.74); definitely not 10-100 years, but at least >500, and 1000 cannot be discounted (17). But Cao reversed their ages, saying Jiahu (younger) dispersed to Pengtoushan (older). We believe Pengtoushan rice culture definitely did not come from Jiahu, with historic facts supporting the opposite: Jiahu rice/millet agriculture resulted from Pengtoushan culture moving N from the middle Yangtze River, with most scholars agreeing, based on Pengtoushan predating Jiahu, but also from synthesizing and analyzing current material.

Supported by many experts, Liu Zhiyi (18) and I (19) have already written about the Jiahu rice farming source being Pengtoushan on the middle Yangtze River, spreading via the Han Valley. Yan thinks "not only are rice origins along the Yangtze River, especially its middle-lower parts, but it is the most prosperous. Rice agriculture spread N to Huang-Huai Valleys, mixing with local arid agriculture." Despite existing arid crops like sorghum and millet, paddy rice could be stored over winter, which was longer there. But arid crops remained the staple because rainfall was limited, and paddy rice remained secondary." Jiahu sites are Peiligang culture, which comprised arid agriculture of sorghum and millet using complex farm tools - stone tongue-shaped shovel and serrated sickle, mortar with nipple-shaped feet and pestle. Not only are they near the middle Yangtze rice center, but also in the rich loam suitable for rice and arid crops at the Sand, Ash and N Yu River junction"(20). Another view is that "widespread Pengtoushan culture rice along the Yangtze reflects developed primitive agriculture to 6000 B. C., when it spread to the upper Han and central Huang-Huai Basins; i.e., rice origin involves the Yangtze Basin and S China, with data of N dissemination"(21). Neolithic rice-millet experts support us, saying "the Yangtze and Huai Basins slowly adopted rice/millet mixed agriculture, history's first important N-S exchange of culture and technology"(22).

1.It is indisputable the Huang-Huai Basins had rice & millet. When first detected in Jiahu, some scholars thought "from 8500 years ago to Shang Dynasty, these basins were traditional rice areas like the Yangtze"(23). But their traditional belief of "central China as the origin of paddy rice" needs modification. As the rice/millet area has been mixed since Early Neolithic, Jiahu cannot change traditional acceptance of central China rice origin (24). It also explains why Huai River rice was intimately tied to middle Yangtze Pengtoushan rice; i.e., mixed rice/millet agriculture resulted from the first N-S cultural exchange in Chinese history". As these basins were not only on the N edge of rice and S edge of millet, they became mixed, a transitional area resulting from cultural exchange. As millet increases and rice descreases going N from the upper Huai, we can clearly see rice spread N from middle Yangtze Pengtoushan culture over the centuries.

2. Rice origin has various hypotheses, all from different angles, but An says "all existing archaeological proofs should be used"(25), as they use reliable objects as data. We compare middle Yangtze and Huang-Huai rice site number, age and distribution to interpret rice origin. Partial data reveal 65 sites on the middle Yangtze and 7 on the Huang-Huai, a difference of 58. 16 middle Yangtze sites are Early Neolithic, with only one Huang/Huai site, a difference of 15. Three 10,000-year-old sites are middle Yangtze, while the earliest Huang-Huai site is 8500 year-old Jiahu, a difference of ca. 3000 years. (p.75) Yangtze has many early sites, Huang-Huai a later one, proving the former was the rice distribution center and closely related to paddy rice origin. Huang-Huai is opposite, despite 8000 year-old Jiahu, with piecemeal finds and site number, distribution and age far less than middle Yangtze. Why would Cao say Pengtoushan paddy rice culture came from Jiahu? It is really unimaginable, as Jiahu is Huang-Huai's only Early Neolithic site, with millet the main crop. Further, Jiahu is part of Peiligang millet culture, and explains why it was broadened by Pengtoushan rice from the middle Yangtze.

As scholarly study promotes hundreds of blossoming ideas and debates, it encourages and raises new ideas and theories. But premises must be reasonable and substantiatiated. Research must be exact with sufficient evidence, unlike empty and imaginative literal art. It must not misquote, as Cao did when he omitted Yuchanyan, Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan from rice origin and substituted Jiahu, all unscientifically. Whether studying archaeology or agricultural history, 'rice origin" certainly does not mean "accompanying domestication or slow growth of mutually restrictive farming". His theory of Jiahu rice cultivation origin with spread to middle-lower Yangtze Pengtoushan culture is basically unsubstantiated. Rather, the opposite is true, with Huang-Huai rice/millet agriculture at Jiahu resulting from N dissemination of middle Yangtze paddy rice.

Bibliography:

(1) Large Encyclopedia of Chinese Agriculture I: Large Chinese Encyclopedia Publishing House 1990. 825 pp.

(2) Yuan, Jiarong: Important new proof of paddy rice origins at the Yuchanyan site, Hunan, Chinese Cultural Artifacts Report March 3, 1996.

(3) Liu, Shizhong: Important progress in the Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan sites, Chinese Cultural Artifacts Report January 28, 1996.

(4) Liu, Zhiyi: Great historic meaning of the Yuchanyan finds, Agricultural Archaeology 1996(3).

(5) Peng, Shifan: Important breakthrough in ancient Jiangxi, Agricultural Archaeology 1998(1).

(6) Zhao, Zhijun: New proof of rice origin, Agricultural Archaeology 1998(1).

(7) (9) (20) Yan Wenming: New exhibition on the origin of Chinese rice, Agricultural Archaeology 1997(9).

(8) (25) An, Zhimin: Chinese rice culture origin and its spread east, Cultural Objects 1999(2).

(10) (21) Chinese and Neolithic tool culture seminar, Study of Ancient Relics 1998(10).

(11) (23) Zhang, Juzhong et al.: Henan's Wuyang Jiahu ancient rice, Agricultural Archaeology 1994(1).

(12) Zhang, Juzhong et al.: Chinese rice origin and its spread east, Agriculture Archaeology 1996(1).

(13) Chen, Baozhang et al.: Discovery of Neolithic rice at Jiahu; research on rice appearance and its meaning, Chinese Paddy Rice Science 1995(5).

(14a) Zhang, Juzhong et al.: Cultivated paddy rice in Jiahu site, Henan, Chinese Cultural Object October 31 report, 1993.

(14b) Zhang, Juzhong et al.: Ancient cultivated rice south of Yangtze River, World Cultural Objects 1994(3).

(14c). See (11).

(15a) Wang, Xiangkun et al.: New detection in Chinese rice origin research, Study of Chinese cultivated rice origin and evolution, China Agriculture University Publishing House 1996.

(15b) Wang, Xiangkun: Some key research problems in Chinese rice origins, Study of Chinese cultivated rice origin and evolution, China Agriculture University Publishing House 1996.

(15c) Wang, Xiangkun: Latest progress in Chinese rice origin, Selected Essays of Chinese Scholarship 1996(6)

(15d) See (12).

(16) Zhang, Juzhong et al.: Comparative research on Jiahu and Pengtoushan culture, Agricultural Archaeology 1998(1). (P.76)

(17)(24) Xiang, Anqiang: Middle Yangtze is the origin of rice. Agricultural Archaeology 1998(1)

(18) Liu, Zhiyi: Communication on the origin of rice. Agricultural Archaeology 1994(3)

(19) Xiang, Anqiang. Examining questions on the origin of rice. Southeast Culture 1995(1).

(22) 1995(1) Gong, Xingguang: Brief discussion on the Early Neolithic rice/millet mixed agricultural region in China. Agricultural Archaeology 1998(1)(p.89)