ORIGIN OF CHINESE RICE CULTIVATION AND ITS SPREAD EAST

AN Zhimin

 Research Fellow, Department of Archaeology, Chinese Institute of Social Science, Beijing Cultural Relics, No. 2, p. 63-70, 1999

 (This article was first given in an international symposium celebrating the opening of the "Biguti Exhibition Hall of Water Conservation, Folklore and Cultural Relics", July 10, 1998, in Jingti City, Korea. For publication, the author made needed amendments, adding a "Distribution map of prehistoric crop varieties excavated in China" and "Statistics of ancient Chinese excavated cultivated crops". Translated & interpreted by W. Tsao, Ph.D., April 19, 2000, and edited by B. Gordon).

Abstract

        Asian-centered rice-planting culture has wide distribution and long history, with different hypotheses concerning its origin – Assam, Yunnan, East Asian Crescent and middle and lower Yangtze River. Archaeologically, China has the earliest rice site with a rich culture, tracing both to the middle and lower Yangtze River. Its powerful influence on surrounding areas is well evinced by Korean and Japanese finds, but scholars are split over the route of its spread east, with hypotheses involving North, East and South China. The author suggests an almost contemporaneous East China spread to Korea and Japan. Apart from rice plant remains, the discovery of Japanese and south Korean moated settlements, pile-structures, stepped stone adzes, wood si (farm tool) and painted black pottery indicate close cultural ties with China via the sea.

        Rice agriculture centered in Asia has wide distribution, a long tradition and important effects on economic and cultural growth. Archaeological evidence shows China has the oldest rice remains and richest rice culture. The origin of rice culture and its spread attracts various academic fields, with diverse conclusions.

        The present article discusses the special status of rice agriculture in Asian history by concentrating on its origin and spread to northeast Asia, the author making a few points based on his understanding.

A. THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF RICE CULTIVATION
B. NORTHEAST ASIAN PREHISTORIC RICE AND ITS ROUTE OF SPREAD
CONCLUSIONS
BIBLIOGRAPHY

A.    THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF RICE CULTIVATION

        Cultivated rice origin has been a hot topic for more than ten years, with the following different conclusions drawn from agriculture, ethnography and archaeology:

1.    Assam-Yunnan origin

        The theory that cultivated rice originated in Assam and Yunnan is mostly agriculturally based. Assam, a northeast state of India resembling Yunnan, is on the Himalayan subtropical plateau. Both Xia (O. sativa) and Keng (O. japonica) are grown, with Xia concentrated below 1750 m, Keng above 2000 m and both Xia and Keng midway. In addition to Xia and Keng, an undifferentiated Xia-Keng variety and wild rice(1) are widely distributed, but lack archaeological proof. Rice from Yunnan’s Binchuan Baiyangcun, Yuanmou Dadunzi and Jianchuan Haimenkou sites are ca. 3000 year-old or quite recent. Historic growth here is also late, diminishing any major role in the origin of cultivated rice. Added Neolithic rice remains from the lower Yangtze Basin and coexisting Xia and Keng from Hemudu and Loujiajiao sites in Zhejiang also weaken an Assam or Yunnan origin. In harmony with archaeological finds on the origin of cultivated rice, agricultural scientists finally negated Assam and Yunnan as a rice mutation centre in favour of the lower Yangtze Basin(2).

2.    East Asian Crescent Origin

        The search for the origin of agriculture and its growth based on Zhaoye forest (named for its bright sunlit leaves) and its culture is ethnographically based(3). Zhaoye forest is broadleaf evergreen, including liang (chestnut-leaf oak), chu (evergreen oak), kao (mangrove), ke (a hardwood), zhang (camphor), etc., growing at 1500-2500 m on Assam’s south Himalayan hills to Yungui Plateau, and along the south Yangtze shore to Korea and south Japan. Zhaoye culture centres on Yunnan’s "East Asian Crescent", reaching Assam in the west and Hunan in the east. Its unique cultural traits include the three stages of gathering/cultivation, field burning and rice paddy. Some Japanese scholars suggest the "Zhaoye forest road" traces Japanese cultural origin, but Zhaoye forest is a doubtful agricultural birthplace, the so-called "East Asian Crescent" lacks archaeological support(4) and middle and lower Yangtze marshes are better suited to early rice cultivation. The large Zhaoye forest yields tubers and other root crops based on slash-and-burn agriculture and needs clearance only possible with metal tools. Furthermore, Yungui Plateau minorities lived quite primitively until the 1940’s due to environmental and historical restrictions, their area far less developed than the Yangtze Basin for the origin of cultivated rice and advanced agriculture.

3.    Middle and lower Yangtze origin

        This area has many river systems and marshes with widespread wild rice varieties. It also has the richest and oldest archaeological sites: Hunan’s Lixian Pengtoushan, Jiangsu’s Wuxian Caoxieshan and GaoyouXian Longqiuzhuang and Zhejiang’s 6000-7000 year-old Yuyao Hemudu and Tongxiang Xian Luojiajiao. Despite C14 errors(5), >10000 year-old carbonized rice remains and phytoliths are in Hunan’s Daoxian Yuzhanyan and Jiangxi’s Wannian Xianrendong and Diaotonghuan sites. Accumulating finds show the oldest distribution south of Huai River and focussed in the middle and lower Yangtze Basin. Partial statistics show 137 ancient rice sites (Table 1), with 44 (32.1%) on the lower Yangtze; 57 (41.6%) on the middle Yangtze; 10 (7.2%) on the upper Yangtze; 9 (6.6%) in Huai Basin; 6 (4.4%) in Yellow Basin; 2 (1.5%) in Bohai Bay; and 9 (6.6%) on the southeast shore. As the Yangtze’s 101 sites (73.7%) prove it is an ancient rice distribution centre with wide historic spread, archaeological evidence favours a Yangtze origin over one in Assam-Yunnan or East Asian Crescent.

        In addition to the above, several hypotheses on Chinese rice origin(6) are basically analyses from different sciences, but discussions should be archaeologically based. Cultivated rice origin should cover the whole situation and not age alone. While my excavated rice statistics focusses on older middle and lower Yangtze cultivated rice, we must remember cultivation is tied to social activities, with discussion meaningless when ignoring these links.

B.    NORTHEAST ASIAN PREHISTORIC RICE AND ITS ROUTE OF SPREAD

        The original middle and lower Yangtze rice greatly influenced surrounding areas, Korea and Japan being obvious examples.

        While millet, sorghum and wheat sites are peninsula-wide, the earliest Korean rice is in Bronze Age 2000-3000 year-old Wuwen pottery culture. Northern cereals are mainly non-rice because the only rice sites are P’yongyang Nanjing and Seoul Xinyanli. Most rice sites are south Korean, represented by the Songjuli culture centered in Jinjiang Basin caves, with stone graves, clay burial urns, bronzeware and carbonized Keng remains C14 dating ca. 2500 years. Carbonized rice and bronze and metal ware in the Gucheng Beiqiu site in Qingshang Nandao occur with 2000 year-old broken Han Dynasty mirrors. Site distribution suggests rice spread south to north, rather than the reverse.

        Japanese agriculture also appeared quite late in the 12000-2300 BC Neolithic Shengwen (Jomon) hunter-gathering and fishing culture. The possibility of 3000-4000 year-old rice cultivation occurs in phytoliths on a late Shengwen potsherd in the Zongshe Nangoushou site, Okayama County, with more remains in Kyushu’s Caidien, Youtien and Banfu sites indicating incipient rice farming and production in 2300-3000 year-old Late Shengwen culture. Advanced farming soon spread from Kyushu to northern Honshu in 1700-2300 year-old Misheng (Yayoi) culture, production speeding with introduced bronze and metal farm tools. Only Keng was cultivated, with stone and wood tools traced to the Yangtze Basin.

        Rice theoretically spread historically east from North, Central or South China, with Central China the most convincing. From a middle and lower Yangtze origin and growth centre, cultivated rice likely spread via sea to Korea and Japan. Rice-marked burnt red clay from the tiny Zhoushan Islands off the Zhejiang coast suggest an east sea route midpoint. The author pioneered support of the Central route(7), with almost simultaneous rice spread via sea to Korea and Japan(8). North and South routes are unproven archaeologically and may be ignored as North Chinese yellow soil is too dry for rice and there are few remains; e.g., rice-marked burnt clay from Yangshao Village(9) are undated. Rather, North China is a millet and sorghum centre, its little rice an unlikely propagation centre. The sole suggestion it spread from Shandong via Liaodong to Korea(10) lacks support, especially when north Korean rice is rare and other cereals used. In addition, ancient seafaring was capable of connecting the middle Yangtze to Korea without a Liaodong detour. The South route lacks support because Okinawa midway has few rice remains, with fishing and hunting its main economy. As northeast Asia has quite late cultivated rice and is near the middle and lower Yangtze, rice likely passed east via the sea, accompanied by balustrade construction, grouped living areas, stone axes and wood ploughs that are alike in Korea, Japan and southeast China.

CONCLUSIONS

        China was a world agricultural centre comprising south and north areas. The north yellow loam area centered in the dry Yellow Basin supports mainly drought-resistant millet and sorghum; with wheat imported in Shan and Zhou Dynasties. As the huge warm humid area south of Qinling Mountain and Huai River with many lakes and swamps had most rice cultivation (Fig. 1), ancient crops varied with geography. Historic human environmental change and irrigation shifted some rice planting north, but without replacing local drought-resistant cereals. The middle and lower Yangtze Basin is the rice origin centre, its long farming growth certainly influencing its surroundings. As new archaeological finds and scientific analyses widen our understanding of cultivated rice origin and growth, new questions emerge.

        While wild rice is natural and gathered, and cultivated rice man-made and harvested, both are easily mixed but agriculturally unequal and separate when studying cultivated rice origin. Zhejiang’s Hemudu site has some wild rice(11); while Hunan’s Pengtoushan site has it and cultivated rice, their co-existing use hard to exclude(12), and suggesting wild rice supplementation during incipent cultivation. In earlier cave use before cultivated rice, wild rice was likely gathered. As it is difficult to distiguish wild or cultivated rice phytoliths and pollen in various cultural levels or potsherds, they cannot be used to support cultivated rice origin unless co-analyzed with other site remains.

        While ideal storage and scientific identification (not just morphological) minimizes errors, we must use archaeological evidence; e.g., rice identified by ash-imaging(13) on Yangshao Village burn marks is on thick clay(14) from a possible kitchen wall(15). But its age is unknown because this site has Yangshao, Miaodiggou (phase 2), Longshan and East Zhou cultures. Some isolated finds in areas not known for rice growing should also be analyzed; e.g., Liaoning’s Dalian Dazuizi site where 3 of 6 house 3 pots had carbonized rice(16) midway between short and long grain, a trait unseen elsewhere(17). As this site on the hilly Bohai coast lacks water for ideal rice growing, further analysis is needed to see if rice was locally cultivated or left there by trading.

        Harvesting, wood and stone-cutting tools and rice paddy are supplementary evidence, with most Japanese Misheng period wood tools traced to the south Yangtze(18). As later metal tools allowed wide forest clearance and faster farm growth, rice production became the economic base in the Chun-Qiu and Zhan-Guo periods(19). Many Japanese Late Shengwen and Misheng paddies are preserved under vocanic ash, while unpreserved or unreported Chinese and Korean paddies may be under sand and gravel flood deposits and need further work. It is our sincere wish that research on the origin of rice cultivation will be fruitful so we can better understand rice farming in economic history.

No.

Area*

Location of excavation

Culture/Age

Type**

Remains

Reference

Remarks

1

LYB

Yuyao Hemudu, Zhejiang

Hemudu

S, J

kernel, husk

J. Archaeology, 78, 1

with wild rice

2

LYB

Yuyao Fenjiashan, Zhejiang

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology,98.1

 

3

LYB

Yuyao Liushan, Zhejiang

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology,98 1

 

4

LYB

Tongxiang Luojiajiao, Zhejiang

Majiabin

S, J

kernel, husk

Zhejiang Archaeology 1981

 

5

LYB

Ciqi Tongjiajiao, Zhejiang

?

pottery marks

Southeast Culture, 90. 5

 

6

LYB

Ningbo Cihu, Zhejiang

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology,98. 1

 

7

LYB

Ningbo Baziqiao, Zhejiang

?

pottery marks

Kaogu, 79. 6

 

8

LYB

Ningbo Wuxing, Zhejiang

?

kernel husk

Southeast Culture, 90. 1

 

9

LYB

Ningbo Miaoshan, Zhejiang

?

kernel husk

Southeast Culture, 90. 1

 

10

LYB

Ningbo Cicheng, Zhejiang

 

?

pottery marks

Southeast Culture, 90. 1

 

11

LYB

JingXian Dongjiatiao, Zhejiang

 

?

pottery marks

Southeast Culture, 90. 1

 

12

LYB

JingXian Chunjiao, Zhejiang

 

?

kernel, stalk, leaf

Southeast Culture, 90. 1

 

13

LYB

Zhoushan Baiquan, Zhejiang

 

?

kernel husk

Kaogu, 83. 1

 

14

LYB

Wuxing Qianshanyang, Zhejiang

Liangzu

S, J

kernel husk

J. Archaeology, 60. 2

 

15

LYB

Hangzhou Shuitianban, Zhejiang

Liangzu

?

kernel

J. Archaeology, 60. 2

 

16

LYB

Xiaoshan Shushan, Zhejiang

Liangzu

?

burnt clay marks

Hemudu culture research

 

17

LYB

Xiaoshan Kuahuqiuo, Zhejiang

Liangzu

?

husk

Hemudu culture research

18

LYB

Haining Zanshan, Zhejiang

Liangzu

?

burnt clay marks

Hemudu culture research

19

LYN

Jiaxing Shuangqiao, Zhejiang

Liangzu

?

kernel husk

Hemudu culture research

20

LYB

Jiaxing Dawen, Zhejiang

Liangzu

?

kernel husk

Cultural relics, 91. 7

21

LYB

Xianju Xiatang, Zhejiang

Liangzu

?

kernel husk

Kaogu, 87, 12

22

LYB

WuXian Caoxieshan, Jiangsu

Majiabang

S, J

kernel

J. Cultural Source, 3

23

LYB

Wuxian chenghu, Jiangsu

Liangzu

S, J

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 83. 2

24

LYB

Wujiang Longnan, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel husk

Southeast Culture, 98. 3

 

25

LYB

Wuxi Xiannidun, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel

Cultural Reference, 56. 1

 

26

LYB

Wuxi Shidun, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel

Cultural Reference, 56. 1

 

27

LYB

Wuxi Sishan, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel

Cultural Reference, 56. 1

 

28

LYB

Wuxi Majishan, Jiangsu

Songze

?

kernel

East Asian Rice Cultivation

 

29

LYB

Wuxi Qianshan, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel

East Asian Rice Cultivation

 

30

LYB

Suzhou Yuecheng, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 86. 1

 

31

LYB

Changzhou Yudun, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 86. 1

 

32

LYB

Nanjing Miaoshan, Jiangsu

Liangzu

J

pottery marks

J. Archaeology, 59. 4

 

33

LYB

Jiangning Xiaodanyang, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel

Historic Nanjing, 86. 6

 

34

LYB

Jiangyin Nanlou, Jiangsu

Liangzu

?

kernel stalk

Wusi Cult. Museum, 90. 2

 

35

LYB

Juyonh Chentoushan, Jiangsu

 

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 86. 1

 

36

LYB

Jiangpu Longshan, Jiangsu

 

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 86. 1

 

37

LYB

Dantu Mopanshan, Jiangsu

 

?

lernel

Agri. Archaeology, 86. 1

 

38

LYB

Haian Qingdun, Jiangsu

Songze

?

kernel

J. Archaeology, 83. 2

 

39

LYB

Qinpu Songze, Shanghai

Songze

S, J

kernel husk stalk

J. Archaeology, 62. 2

 

40

LYB

Maqiao, Shanghai

Maqiao

?

kernel marks

J. Archaeology, 78. 1

 

41

LYB

Hanshan Xianzhong, Anhui

 

S, J

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 87. 2

 

42

LYB

Feidong Dachengdun, Anhui

 

J

kernel

J. Archaeology, 59. 1

 

43

LYB

Qianshan Xuejiangang,Anhui

Xujiangang

?

burnt clay marks

Agri. Archaeology, 82. 1

 

44

MYB

Wannian Xianrendong, Jiangxi

9000-10000

?

phytoliths

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

 

45

MYB

Wannian Diaotonghuan, Jiangxi

9000-10000

?

phytoliths

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

 

46

MYB

Xiusgui Paomaling, Jiangxi

Shanbei

?

grass soil marks

Kaogu, 62. 7

 

47

MYB

Pingxiang Xingquan, Jiangxi

 

?

kernel stalk

Kaogu, 82. 1

 

48

MYB

Pingxiang Dabaoshan, Jiangxi

 

?

burnt clay marks

Jiangxi Hist. Culture, 80.4

 

49

MYB

Pingxiang Daanli, Jiangxi

 

?

burnt clay marks

Jiangxi Hist. Culture, 79. 1

 

50

MYB

Pingxiang Chishan, Jiangxi

 

?

kernel stalk

Kaogu, 82. 1

 

51

MYB

Hukou Chengdunban, Jiangxi

 

?

husk

Agri. Archaeology, 92. 1

 

52

MYB

Hukou Yinzhushan, Jiangxi

?

husk

Agri. Archaeology, 92. 1

53

MYB

Hukou Xiaoliuqing, Jiangxi

 

?

husk marks

Agri. Archaeology, 92. 1

 

54

MYB

Hukou Wanggoudun, Jiangxi

?

husk marks

Agri. Archaeology, 92. 1

 

55

MYB

Hukou Shihjiaqiao, Jiangxi

 

?

husk marks

Agri. Archaeology, 92. 1

 

56

MYB

Hukou Wenchangfu, Jiangxi

 

?

kernel marks

Agri. Archaeology, 92. 1

 

57

MYB

Yongfeng Yijiaping, Jiangxi

 

?

husk stalk

Agri. Archaeology, 5. 2

 

58

MYB

Qingjiang Fanchengdui, Jiangxi

 

?

husk stalk

Agri. Archaeology, 93. 1

 

59

MYB

Xinyu Shiniangshan, Jiangxi

 

?

husk stalk

J. Archaeology, 91. 3

 

60

MYB

Jiujiang Shendun, Jiangxi

 

?

husk

Jiang Han Arch, 87. 4

 

61

MYB

Daoxian Yuzhanyan, Hunan

18000-22000

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

wild rice ?

62

MYB

Lixian Pengtoushan, Hunan

Pengtoushan

?

pottery marks

Cultural Relics, 90. 8

with wild rice

63

MYB

Lixian Lijiagang, Hunan

Pengtoushan

?

pottery marks

Agri. Archaeology,91. 1

 

64

MYB

Lixian Bashidang, Hunan

Pengtoushan

S, J

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

 

65

MYB

Lixian Duduta, Hunan

Pengtoushan

?

burnt clay marks

Agri. Archaeology, 91. 3

 

66

MYB

Lixian Dingjiagang, Hunan

Pengtoushan

?

husk

J. Hunan Archeology, No. 1

 

67

MYB

Lixian Mengxi, Hunan

 

?

burnt clay marks

Cultural Relics,72. 2

 

68

MYB

Lixian Sanyuanguan, Hunan

Daxi

?

burnt clay marks

J. Archaeology,79.4

 

69

MYB

Linli Hujiawuchang, Hunan

Pengtoushan

?

burnt clay marks

East Asian Rice Cultivation

 

70

MYB

Pingjiang Doushangping, Hunan

 

?

burnt clay marks

Research in Agri.Arch.# 2

 

71

MYB

Yueyang fenbao, Hunan

Zaoshixiachen

?

husk

Chinese Cult.Relics 92.6.14

 

72

MYB

Huayong Chezhuanshan, Hunan

 

?

kernel husk

J. Hunan Archeology, No. 3

 

73

MYB

Huayong Liuputai, Hunan

 

?

burnt clay marks

East Asian Rice Cultivation

 

74

MYB

Xibhuang Datongping, Hunan

 

?

pottery marks

Agri. Archaeology,88. 1

 

75

MYB

Huaihua Gaokanlong, Hunan

?

husk

Agri. Archaeology 88. 1

76

MYB

Yidu Chengbeixi, Hubei

Chengbeixi

?

husk

Agri. Archaeology 91. 1

 

77

MYB

Yidu Zhichangbei, Hubei

 

?

husk marks

Agri. Archaeology, 89. 2

 

78

MYB

Yidu Honhhuatao, Hubei

Daxi

?

husk stalk

Agri. Archaeology,82. 1

 

79

MYB

Jingmen, Hubei

?

pottery marks

Kaogu, 92. 6

80

MYB

Leiyang Diaolongbei, Hubei

?

kernel

Chinese Cult.Relics 91.4.14

81

MYB

Zhijiang Guanmiaoshan, Hubei

Daxi

?

husk

Kaogu, 83. 1

 

82

MYB

Jianli Liuguan, Hubei

Daxi

?

husk

Jiang Han Arch., 84. 2

 

83

MYB

Jianli Futian, Hubei

Daxi

?

husk

Research on Agri.Hist.,# 2

 

84

MYB

Tigui gongjiadagou, Hubei

Daxi

?

husk

Jiang Han Arch., 84. 1

 

85

MYB

Shuizhou Lenpiya, Hubei

Qujialing

?

burnt clay marks

Agri. Archaeology, 86. 1

 

86

MYB

Jiangling Maojiashan, Hubei

Daxi

?

husk stalk

Kaogu, 77. 3

 

87

MYB

YunXian Qinglongquan, Hubei

Qujialing

?

grass soil marks

Kaogu, 61. 10

 

88

MYB

Jingshan Qujialing, Hubei

Qujialing

J

burnt clay marks

J. Archaeology, 59. 4

 

89

MYB

Jingshan Zhujiazui, Hubei

Qujialing

?

burnt clay marks

Kaogu, 64. 5

 

90

MYB

Tianmen Shijiahe, Hubei

Shijiahe

J

burnt clay marks

J. Archaeology, 59. 4

 

91

MYB

Wuchang Fangyintai, Hubei

Qujialing

J

burnt clay marks

J. Archaeology, 59. 4

 

92

MYB

Songzi Guihuashu, Hubei

Daxi

?

husk

Research in Agri.Arch. # 2

 

93

MYB

Yumeng Hujiagang, Hubei

 

?

husk stalk

Kaogu, 87. 2

 

94

MYB

Yumeng Hujiagang, Hubei

 

?

husk stalk

Kaogu, 87. 2

 

95

MYB

Yumeng Longzai, Hubei

 

?

husk stalk

Kaogu, 87. 2

 

96

MYB

Yumeng Haoshiqiao, Hubei

 

?

husk stalk

Kaogu, 87. 2

 

97

MYB

XiXiang Lijiacun, Shaanxi

Lijiacun

?

kernel marks

Agri. Archaeology, 82. 1

 

98

MYB

XiXiang Hejiawan, Shaanxi

 

?

kernel marks

Agri. Archaeology, 86. 1

 

99

MYB

Zhechuan Huanglianshu, Henan

Qujialing

J

burnt clay marks

History of Growth of

Chinese Cultivated Crops

 

100

MYB

Zhechuan Xiaji, Henan

 

?

husk

Cultural Relics, 60. 1

 

101

MYB

Zhechuan Xiawanggong, Henan

Yangshao

?

kernel marks

Agri. Archaeology, 82. 1

partial data

102

UYB

Xichang Zhazhou, Sichuan

 

?

 

Agri. Archaeology, 82. 2

partial data

103

UYB

Xichang, Sichuan

 

?

 

Agri. Archaeology, 82. 2

duplicate?

104

UYB

Yuanmou Dadunzi, Yunnan

 

J

kernel

J. Archaeology, 79. 2

 

105

UYB

Binchuan Baiyangcun, Yunnan

 

?

husk stalk

J. Archaeology, 81. 3

 

106

UYB

Changning Yinpanshan, Yunnan

 

S

kernel

Chinese Cult. Relics, 90. 5. 3

 

107

UYB

Jianchuan Haimenkou, Yunnan

 

?

kernel

Archaeological News, 58. 6

 

108

UYB

Qujing Zhujie, Yunnan

 

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 83. 2

 

109

UYB

Genma Shifudong, Yunnan

 

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 83. 2

 

110

UYB

Genma Nanbiqiao, Yunnan

 

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 83. 2

 

111

UYB

Dianchi Guandu, Yunnan

 

?

pottery marks

Kaogu, 59. 4

 

112

HRB

Lianyungang Erjiancun, Jiangsu

 

?

burnt clay marks

Agri. Archaeology, 85. 2

 

113

HRB

Ganyu Yanchangcheng, Jiangsu

 

?

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 85. 2

 

114

HRB

Gaoyou Longqiuzhuang, Jiangsu

 

J

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

 

115

HRB

Guzheng Haocheng, Anhui

 

?

kernel

Kaogu, 59. 7

 

116

HRB

Mengchengxian Weicisi, Anhui

Dawenkou

?

phytoliths

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

 

117

HRB

Wuhe Haochengzhen, Anhui

 

?

kernel

J. Archaeology, 57. 1

 

118

YRB

Linlu Lilou, Henan

 

J

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

 

119

YRB

YuXian Xilongshan, Henan

 

?

kernel

East Asian Rice Cultivation

 

120

YRB

Wuyang Guhu, Henan

Peiligang

S, J

kernel

Agri. Archaeology, 98. 1

 

121

YRB

Mianchi Yangsaocun, Henan

Yangshao ?

?

burnt clay marks

& ash image

Geologica Society of China,

Vol. 8, No. 4

 

122

YRB

Luoyang Xigaoya, Henan

Yangshao

?

clay marks

Kaogu, 81. 7

 

123

YRB

Zhengzhou Dahecun, Henan

Yangshao

?

kernel marks

Agri. Archaeology, 2. 2

 

124

YRB

Huxian Zhangbashi, Shaanxi

?

kernel

Culture Periodical, 80. 1

125

YRB

Huaxian Quanhucun,Shaanxi

Yangshao

?

husk-like

Kaogu, 59. 2

unspec.sample

126

YRB

Fufeng Anban, Shaanxi

 

?

ash image

Cultural Relics,88, 5,

 

127

BHW

Qixia Yangjiayuan, Shangdong

Longshan

?

burnt clay marks

Prhist.Research, 3,1984

 

128

BHW

Dalian Dazuizi, Liaoning

Shuangtuozi

Sanqi

J

kernel

East Asian Rice Cultivation

 

129

SEC

Qujiang Shixia, Guangdong

Shixia

S, J

burnt clay marks

Cultural Relics, 78,7

130 SEC

SEC

Qujiang Niling, Guangdong

Shixia

S

burnt clay marks

Cultural Relics, 78,7

 

131

SEC

Yongchun Jiudoushan, Fujian

 

?

pottery marks

Xiamen Univ. Soc.Sc, 56, 6

 

132

SEC

Fuqing Dongzhang, Fujian

?

burnt clay marks

Kaogu, 65. 2

133

SEC

Taichung Yingpu, Taiwan

Fengbitou

?

burnt clay marks

Kaogu, 79. 3

134

SEC

Taipei Chihshanyen, Taiwan

Chihshanyen

J

kernel

Cultural Relics, 86, 2

 

135

SEC

Pingdong Kending, Taiwan

 

?

husk marks

J. Zhejiang Academics 90.6

 

136

SEC

Nantou Caoxiedun, Taiwan

 

?

rice pollen

J. Zhejiang Academics 90.6

 

137

SEC

Penghu Chikan B, Taiwan

 

?

husk marks

J. Zhejiang Academics 90.6

 

Table 1. Excavated Chinese prehistoric cultivated rice sites.

*LYB, MYB, UYB = lower, middle, upper Yangtze Basin; HRB = Huai River Basin; YRB = Yellow River Basin; BHW = Bohai Bay; SEC = SE Coast. ** S & J = O. sativa & japonica (Xia & Keng in original table) in keeping with Western usage.

 

 

Fig. 1. Distribution of ancient excavated Chinese agricultural crops

Click to enlarge

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

  1. Dubu Zhongshi, "The Way of Rice", 1989 (in Japanese)
  2. Hezuoye Xijiusen, "Origin of East Asian Wild Rice", East Asian Rice Cultivation, pp. 45-52, 1995 (in Japanese)
  3. Zuozuomu Gaoming, "The Theory of Zhaoye Forest Culture", 1992 (in Japanese)
  4. An Zhimin, "The Archaeological View of Zhaoye Forest", 1992
  5. An Zhimin, "Problems on Early Neolithic C-14 Dating in South China", Research of the Fourth Century, No. 2, 1989
  6. Xu Wangsheng, "Origin of Cultivated Chinese Rice Based on the Origin of Cultivation", Agricultural Archaeology, No. 1, 1988
  7. An Zhimin, "The Influence of Prehistoric Culture of Lower Yangtze Basin on the East of Sea", Kaogu, No. 5, 1984
  8. An Zhimin, "The Remains of Jiyekeli", 1992 (in Japanese)
  9. V.G. Edman und Söderberg, Auffindung von Reis in einer Tonscherbe aus einer etwa fűnftausendjährigen chinesischen Seidlung [A rice find in a clay vessel in a ca. 5,000 year-old Chinese settlement], Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, Vol. Vlll, No. 4, 1929
  10. Yen Wenming, "Significance of Rice Kernel Remains in the Shandong Yangjiaquan Site", East Asian Rice Cultivation
  11. Zuoteng Yilang et al., "Analytical Results of Plant Remains from Chinese Jiangsu and Zhejiang excavations", East Asian Rice Cultivation (in Japanese)
  12. See (2)
  13. See (9)
  14. Zuoteng Mingye, "Yangshao Remains from Chinese Excavations, J. Archaeology, No. 47, 1970 (in Japanese)
  15. An Zhimin, "Chinese Prehistoric Agriculture", J. Archaeology, No. 4, 1988
  16. Wu Qingyun, "Investigation of Carbonized Rice Remains from the Dazuizi Site", East Asian Rice Cultivation.
  17. See (2)
  18. An Zhimin, "Jiangnan Culture and Ancient Japan", Kaogu, No. 4, 1980
  19. Xia Nai, "Archaeological Problems on Yangtze Basin", Kaogu, No. 2, 1960