Jiahu 1: earliest farmers beyond the Yangtze River.

Chi, Zhang ; Hung, Hsiao-chun

Introduction

The cultivation of rice (Oryza cativa) significantly shaped the development of human civilisation, especially in eastern Asia. Since the 1970s, discoveries of early rice at sites such as Hemudu (ZPICRA 2003), Pengtoushan (HPlCRA 2006), and Chengbexi (HPICRA 2001) in China, dating to between e. 7000 and 5000 cal BC, have drawn attention to the Yangtze Valley as the most probable region of origin for early domesticated rice of the japonica subspecies (e.g. Crawford & Chen 1998; Higham & Lu 1998; Zhao 1998; Bellwood 2005:111, 2011; Jiang & Liu 2006; Londo et al. 2006; Fuller et al. 2007, 2009; Liu et al. 2007; Zhang & Hung 2008, 2010; Fuller 2011; Molina et al. 2011). However, recent discoveries north of the Yangtze Valley proper, from Jiahu in the upper Huai Valley and Baligang in the middle Hanshui Valley, located between the Yangtze and the Yellow rivers, have revealed the first significant occurrence of morphologically domesticated rice in China, at c. 7000-6500 cal BC.

Interestingly, the Huai and Hanshui valleys at that time were very close to (Fuller 2011: fig. 1), or perhaps even beyond (Fan et al. 1999), the early Holocene northern boundary of wild rice distribution, suggesting possible transport of rice seed into the region for cultivation purposes by humans. This cultivation of rice at or close to the edge of its natural early Holocene range could have been an important factor that enhanced its eventual domestication, involving both climatic stress and spatial separation of early domesticated rice from its wild forebears. The significance of edge-of-the-range domestication in the case of rice was suggested originally by Yan Wen-ming (1991), based on the discoveries in the Yangtze site of Pengtoushan.

Until recently, the Neolithic dry-land farmers (especially of millets) of the Yellow River region, such as Laoguantai, Peiligang and Cishan, were regarded as the earliest food producers in northern China. With the discovery of Jiahu, further to the south in Henan, Chinese archaeologists commented on the similar cultural characteristics shared between Jiahu and the Yellow River Neolithic assemblages, especially Peiligang (KBCRM & XBCRM 1978; KBCRM et al. 1979; HPICRA 1999: 531; DTHTA et al. 2002). However, the true role of the phase 1 assemblage at Jiahu, and the contemporary assemblage at Baligang, in the rise of domesticated food production in China has only recently been realised. This paper intends to situate Jiahu and Baligang in Chinese Neolithic prehistory through the most recent findings.

Jiahu 1: chronology and discovery

Jiahu is located in the Huai Valley in Wuyang county, Henan province (Figure 1). From 1983 to 2001, more than 2600[m.sup.2] of an estimated total of 50 000[m.sup.2] (5ha) of occupation area with three successive cultural phases was excavated during seven successive seasons of research (e.g. Zhang & Wang 1998; HPICRA 1999; DTHTA et al. 2002; Luo & Zhang 2008). In addition to the earliest evidence for domesticated rice (Liu et al. 2007, 2009) and pigs (Luo & Zhang 2008), and a claim for the earliest examples of Chinese notation akin to writing (Li et al. 2003), the site has also offered evidence for China's oldest known wine residues (McGovern et al. 2004; Zhang & Lan 2010) and bone flutes (Zhang et al. 1999, 2004).

Jiahu 1 pottery is reddish or reddish-brown with fine sand temper. Most vessels are plain or cord-marked jars, bowls or basins. Many jars (hu) have a straight rim profile, flat base, and two small vertical lug handles (Figure 2, top row). Some vessels, especially at Jiahu itself, are red-slipped (Figure 2). At Jiahu, 148 excavated structures were placed by the excavators in phase 1, including circular or oval sunken house floors ringed with postholes for roof support, burial pits and storage pits. The Jaihu phase 1 graves contained mostly extended supine skeletons (Figure 3). Burial goods included pottery hu placed near the head of the deceased, with stone and bone tools placed elsewhere. Most storage pits at Jiahu were round, about 1-2m in diameter and as deep as 1m.

Jiahu has 19 conventional radiometric dates that span three phases, according to the Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology (HPICRA 1999:515- 19). Jiahu 1 is c. 7000-6600 BC, phase 2 is c. 6600-6200 BC, and phase 3 is 6200-5800 BC. One of the most reliable [sup.14]C results for Jiahu phase 1 came from a carbonised fruit seed, at 7050-6600 BC (BK-91007) (Tables 1 & 2).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The cultural assemblage that characterised phase 1 at Jiahu is known also from several other sites, including Baligang (Zhang, C. 2009), Bancun (Zhang, J.Z. 2009), Huangpo (HCRB & HPICRA 1999, 2008), Changquan (HCRB & HPICRA 1999) (all in western Henan), and Shigu (central Henan) (HHCRA 1987) (Figure 1; Table 1).

Baligang, located on a terrace of the Tuan River, a tributary of the middle Hanshui Valley (AFS of PKU 1998), is about 50 000[m.sup.2] (5ha) in area, and about 3-4m in stratigraphic depth. It contains several important cultural layers, commencing with the pre- Yangshao (corresponding to Jiahu 1) and continuing through Yangshao, Qujialing, Shijiahe, Longshan, Shang, Zhou, Han and into post-Han. From 1991 until 2010, Peking University conducted nine successive seasons of excavation at Baligang (Figure 4). Baligang has produced 15 AMS dates from its early layer, including one from a carbonised fruit seed, two from carbonised rice grains, and 12 from other types of charcoal. The earliest is 6700-6480 BC (BAO8129), and the latest 6390-6080 BC (BAO-8122). Two direct AMS dates on rice grains are 6530-6420 BC (BA-10080) and 6600-6440 BC (BA-10081) (see Table 2).

For the related Peiligang cultural assemblages from further north in the Yellow River valley, 18 conventional [sup.14]C dates from wood charcoal were obtained from eight sites, including Peiligang itself, Zhongshanzhai, Egou, Shuiquan, Tieshenggou, Huawo, Malianggou and Sawoli (IA of CASS 2010: 804-805). Except for one anomalously early date of 8780-8290 BC (ZK-0572), and one with a very large standard deviation that calibrates to 8000-5700 BC (ZK-0434), the remaining 16 dates indicate that the Peiligang cultural phase commenced around 6000 BC (Table 2). Cishan (HCRB & HOCRM 1981) appears similarly to be not older than 6000 BC (unpublished Peking University laboratory dates, Xiao-hong Wu pers. comm. 2011).

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

The botanical remains

Research on carbon isotopes to infer dietary preferences in Jiahu human bone suggests that the food base was dominated by C3 plants, which include rice (Hu et al. 2006). C4 plants such as common millet and foxtail millet are almost absent. During the first six excavation seasons (1983-1987), Jiahu 1 yielded 1000 carbonised rice grains, that revealed no clear differentiation between Oryza sativa subsp, hsien (indica) or Oryza sativa subsp, keng (japonica) (Chen et al. 1995). According to initial morphological studies, this Jiahu rice was an early cultivated form with some surviving wild rice characteristics (HPICRA 1999: 887). Large quantities of acorns (Quercus spp.), water chesnuts (Trapa sp.) and wild soybeans were also found at Jiahu, suggesting that hunter-gatherer subsistence still played an important role in the economy.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

During the seventh excavation season in 2001, flotation of Jiahu soil samples provided a much more detailed view of ancient subsistence in the site. Among 59 floated samples, mostly from phases 1 and 2, a total of 4121 seeds, 228 tuber fragments and 7828 nut fragments were identified (DTHTA et al. 2002). According to Zhao and Zhang (DTHTA et al. 2002), 15 percent of all plant remains (by number of identifiable fragments) were rice, and less than 5 per cent were wet-field rice weeds such as Digitaria sp. and Echinochloa sp. (also known as 'rice weed'). Water chestnuts (Trapa sp.) and tubers, such as lotus roots (Nelumbo nucifera), accounted for more than 30 per cent of all plant remains, and wild soybeans and acorns (Quercus spp.) represented over 20 per cent (Table 3).

The Jiahu research team published complete data on grain sizes and shapes of rice remains from the seventh excavation, showing that grain sizes increased between cultural phases 1 and 3 (Liu et al. 2007, 2009). The team further compared the shapes of the rice grains from Jiahu phases 1 to 3 to those from other Neolithic to Bronze Age Chinese and Korean sites and concluded that they were all highly similar. However, hunter-gatherer subsistence, according to the 2007 results, still formed the major focus of the Jiahu economy, especially in phase 1.

In the eighth season of excavation at Baligang in 2007, a total of 22 whole rice grains (carbonised), 148 fragments, 516 spikelet bases and 116 acorns were unearthed through systematic sampling and flotation of the contents of 11 well-preserved storage pits dated to Jiahu 1 (Figure 5) (Deng 2009:9-11). Acorns were present in only two pits, and rice was more abundant in almost every pit. Some millet-like and wild soybean remains were found in two pits but it is not clear if these were wild or immature domesticated varieties.

Deng Zhen-hua (Deng 2009; Deng & Gao 2012) made a systematic study of the widths, lengths and thicknesses of the rice grains from the Jiahu 1 occupation at Baligang, and compared them to the early rice samples from Jiahu itself, and also from the Yangtze sites of Kuahuqiao and Tianluoshan in Zhejiang, Longqiuzhuang in Jiangsu, and Bashidang in Hunan. In terms of shape and size, the Baligang rice most closely resembles that from Kuahuqiao in the lower Yangtze Valley (Deng 2009: 30).

Storage pit H2000 at Baligang contained 84 per cent of the identified rice spikelets from the site. Following the criteria outlined by Fuller ar al. (2009), and under the supervision of Qin Ling at Peking University, Deng's study suggested that 71.5 per cent of the spikelets were of domesticated morphology, 10.4 per cent were wild, and the rest were immature or unidentifiable (Figure 6). Deng further compared the rice remains from Baligang to those from Tianluoshan, a site of the Hemudu phase in northern Zhejiang, which produced a total of 2461 rice spikelet bases.

[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]

Between 4900 BC and 4600 BC at Tianluoshan, rice spikelets with domesticated (tough rachised, non-shattering) attachment scar morphologies increased from 27.4 to 38.8 per cent of the spikelet sample (Fuller et al. 2009). At Kuahuqiao, Luojiajiao and Tianluoshan, Zheng et al. (2007) divided the rice spikelet bases into two types: domesticated Oryza sativa var. japonica, and wild. Of 120 samples of spikelet bases from Kuahuqiao, 100 from Luojiajiao and 351 from Tianluoshan, the percentages with domesticated morphology were 41.7, 51 and 51 per cent respectively. This suggests, given the dates for these sites (6000-5500 BC), that the proportion of domesticated rice in the plant remains increased by 9 per cent within a time span of 500 years.

As we can see, the percentage of rice spikelet bases that have non-shattering domesticated morphologies at Baligang (71.5 per cent), at a date of c. 7000-6500 BC, is significantly higher than the percentages in the three lower Yangtze sites. Furthermore, the Baligang basal layer is 500-1000 years older than the Yangtze sites (Table 2). This high percentage of domesticated morphology exceeds even the 67 per cent reported from the site of Liangzhu, dated much later at 3000-2200 BC (Fuller et al. 2009: 1609). In other words, if this high percentage of morphologically domesticated rice spikelets from Baligang accurately reflects the progress of rice domestication in that site, then the Jiahu phase 1 sites show an unusually advanced rate of change.

The cultural origin of Jiahu 1

Several sites in the upper Huai and middle Hanshui river valleys have produced diagnostic Jiahu 1 archaeological materials, but there is no obvious origin for this phase from any preceding local cultures. So far, the only other site with early pottery in Henan is Lijiagou (Table 1; Figure 1), which presents totally different pottery forms and designs from Jiahu (SAM & ZIA 2010). Lijiagou itself has a lower microlithic assemblage related to that from Wuyang (Zhang & Li 1996), dated to 8500-8300 BC. Above this, the early Lijiagou pottery has been dated to 8000-6600 BC (partly contemporary with Jiahu 1) and shows no cord-marking, unlike the Jiahu pottery series, but instead has rouletted impressions. So far, neither rice nor millet has been found at Lijiagou.

Therefore, it is necessary to compare the cultural traits represented in Jiahu 1 to other sites over a broader geographical area. This reveals that similar pottery forms to Jiahu 1, especially jars (hu) and bowls/basins, occur in the Pengtoushan phase sites of the middle Yangtze (Figure 7, and zone G in Figure 9) and the early-middle phases of Xiaohuangshan in the lower Yangtze (Figure 8, and zone H in Figure 9) (HPICRA 2006; Wang et al. 2006; Wang 2008) (Table 1). These sites are about 500km apart from each other, but it seems implausible that each region independently developed the similar pottery forms. Further similarities are noted in house forms, the shapes of storage pits and burial practices.

[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]

The Pengtoushan cultural phase is best represented at Pengtoushan and Bashidang, where groups of postholes suggest stilt houses. A total of 21 inhumation burials were excavated at Pengtoushan and 89 at Bashidang, but skeletal remains were too poorly preserved to assess burial positions. Xiaohuangshan near the lower Yangtze also revealed postholes for a 5.5 x 4.8m stilt house, with five extended supine burials provided with pottery vessels, including hu.

It is therefore possible that the Jiahu 1 assemblage in the Huai and Hanshui valleys was a result of population expansion by, or cultural influence from, a more southerly population resident in the Yangtze Valley, with an existing knowledge of pottery production and rice cultivation. Perhaps this population also expanded further northwards to reach the middle and lower Yellow River, where the Houli sites in Shandong province (Crawford et al. 2006; and see Table 1 and zone D in Figure 9) have also produced rice grains with domesticated morphologies dated as early as 7000 BC (Jin Gui-yun, pers. comm.), together with pottery similar to that from Jiahu 1.

So far in China, the earliest evidence of exploitation of wild rice has been unearthed from regions south of the Yangtze, in late Pleistocene cave sites in Jiangxi (Crawford & Chen 1998; Zhao 1998) and from the open site at Shangshan in Zhejiang. The latter dates to 9000-7000 BC and has also provided the earliest evidence for rice utilisation in China in a context with stilt houses (Zheng & Jiang 2007).

[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]

If the suggested move from the south actually occurred, then the northward spread of rice cultivation beyond the Yangtze, to Jiahu, Baligang and Houli, occurred during the warm climatic conditions of the Holocene Megathermal climatic phase. An alternative is that pre-farming hunter-gatherers in the Huai-Hanshui valleys adopted rice cultivation from the south, without migration. Current data are insufficient to choose clearly between these two options, but it is important to note that, based on the modern distribution of wild rice, plus historical records from Shang-Zhou times (Fan et al. 1999), the Huai and Hanshui valleys today lie beyond the northward limit for wild rice. However, during the warmer climatic conditions of the early Holocene, this region could have been very close to the limit (e.g. Fuller 2011: fig. 1), and thus potentially in an environmental zone that would have been conducive to the development of planting if climatic conditions and the lengths of growing seasons became unstable.

This observation could be important if we wish to ask why such a high percentage of morphologically domesticated rice occurred initially in the Jiahu and Baligang sites. Stress factors would have enhanced any behavioural tendencies towards increasing investment in cultivation, and the very process of moving wild rice up to and beyond its natural range may have been fundamental for the process of morphological domestication, since backcrossing with wild forms would have been restricted. Humans could therefore have selected, consciously or unconsciously, for increasing percentages of non- shattering panicles over time (Allaby et al. 2008; Bellwood 2011).

[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]

The idea of rice domestication at the northern edge of its wild range is not new in Chinese archaeology. Yan Wen-ming (1991, 1997, 1998, 2002) first proposed his 'theory of peripheral origins' during the 1980s, to explain why rice agriculture originated in the Yangtze Valley, at the northern edge of the range as it was understood then, instead of in southern China or Southeast Asia, where common wild rice was much more widely distributed. His explanation for rice domestication was as follows:

This was due to the subtropical monsoon climate in the Yangtze Valley with a comparatively long winter [...]. There was a need for some kind of food that could be preserved until the following spring, and rice fitted this requirement. On the other hand, although wild rice was found in the Yangtze Valley, it was not abundant. So, the natural output was far from enough to meet the daily needs of the inhabitants. Cultivation was necessary. Only by cultivation could rice survive the harsh winter and give rise to the next generation. These two essential conditions did not exist in the centre of the wild rice distribution area. Therefore, rice agriculture originated first in the Yangtze Valley, located at the northern edge of the wild rice distribution area (Yan Wen-ming 2002:152).

[FIGURE 8 OMITTED]

This 'theory of peripheral origins' is also sometimes termed the 'edge of the range hypothesis' (Bellwood 1996). In this view, the ancient populations on the northern fringes of the subtropical zone not only lacked reliable natural sources of wild rice, but also they needed to store cold-resistant plant foods for longer and colder winters than in the south. Starting during Jiahu phase 1, the domestication rate of rice was exceptionally rapid, especially at Baligang, compared to the much slower trend at Xiaohuangshan and Kuahuqiao in the lower Yangtze.

Conclusion

We propose that the creators of Jiahu 1 moved northwards from the Yangtze Valley in order to establish settlements supported by incipient rice agriculture in the Huai and Han valleys. Although available archaeological evidence might be insufficient confirm the actuality of Neolithic migration from south to north, it is nevertheless evident that the rice-focused aspect of the subsistence pattern in Jiahu 1 was ultimately of southerly origin.

[FIGURE 9 OMITTED]

The Huai and Han valleys themselves were unavailable for wild rice cultivation before the early Holocene maximum in temperature and monsoon rainfall. The pottery assemblage of Jiahu 1 is dated to 7000-6500 BC, and is thus about 500 years older than its Peiligang derivatives further north in Hebei, which are dated to c. 6000 BC. Based on dose similarities in pottery, stone tools, subsistence and burial practices (Zhang & Wei 2008), the material culture and population of the millet-based Peiligang culture (Zone C in Figure 9) was most likely derived from Jiahu phase 1. As well as Peiligang, the Jiahu 1 complex probably also gave rise also to the Laoguantai (Baijia) culture in Henan and Guanzhong (central Shaanxi province) (Zone B in Figure 9).

As in other early-middle Neolithic sites in the lower Yangtze Valley, from Xiaohuangshan to the Hemudu cultural phase 7000-4000 BC (e.g. Jiang & Liu 2005; Fuller et al. 2011), rice cultivation at Jiahu 1 occupied only part of an economy that was still based largely on hunter-gatherer strategies (Liu et al. 2010). But this cultural phase at Jiahu and Baligang has nevertheless revealed the most advanced percentage (71.5 per cent) of morphologically domesticated of rice during this time span in China, exceeding that in the slightly younger Yangtze sites of Kuahuqiao (41.7 per cent) and Tianluoshan (51.0 per cent). We suggest that the northerly location of Jiahu and Baligang, with respect to the Yangtze basin proper, might have encouraged a more rapid development and retention of the domesticated features in rice during the temporarily warmer conditions of the early Holocene. This makes it possible that this region played a very significant formative role in the development of rice agriculture within China.

Acknowledgements

We deeply appreciate advice from Drs Qin Ling (Peking University) and Dorian Fuller (University College London) on the study of rice spikelets. Professor Wang Hai-ming (Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology) provided first-hand information on the chronology of Xiaohuangshan. Profesor Liu Li (Stanford University) shared her research knowledge on early Holocene sites in China. This manuscript was read by Professor Peter Bellwood and Dr Mike Carson (The Australian National University), who gave us many valuable suggestions.

Received: 15 February 2012; Accepted: 11 May 2012; Revised: 29 May 2012

References

AFS of PKU (Archaeological Field School of Peking University). 1998. A brief report of the excavation at the Baligang site in Dengzhou, Henan. Wenwu 9: 31-45 (in Chinese).

ALLABY, R, D. FULLER & T. BROWN. 2008. The genetic expectations of a protracted model for the origins of domesticated crops. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105: 13982-86.

BELLWOOD, P. 1996. The origins and spread of agriculture in the Asian-Pacific region, in D. Harris (ed.) The origins and spread of agriculture and pastoralism in Eurasia: 465-98. London: University College Press.

--2005. First farmers. Oxford: Blackwell.

--2011. The checkered prehistory of rice movement southwards as a domesticated cereal: from the Yangtze to the equator. Rice: 4: 95- 103.

CHEN, B.Z., X.K. WANG & J.Z. ZHANG. 1995. The finds and morphological study of carbonized rice in the Neolithic site at Jiahu in Wuyang county, Henan province. Chinese Journal of Rice Science 9(3): 129-34.

CRAWFORD, G.W. & S. CHEN. 1998. The origins of rice agriculture: recent progress in East Asia. Antiquity 73: 858-66.

CRAWFORD, G.W., X.X. CHEN & J.H. WANG. 2006. Carbonized rice from the Yuezhuang site, Jinan, Shandong, in Eastern Archaeology Research Center of Sandong Universiry (ed.) Dongfang Kaogu [Studies of eastern archaeology], Volume 3:247- 51. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese).

DENG, Z.H. 2009. Study on the botanic remains excavated from the Baligang site, Dengzho, Henan. Unpublished Masters dissertaton, Peking University (in Chinese).

DENG, Z.H. & Y. GAO. 2012. Study on the botanic remains excavated from the Baligang site, Dengzho, Henan. Nanfang Wenwu 2012(1): 156-63 (in Chinese).

DTHTA (Department of Technology History and Technological Archaeology, Science and Technology University of China), Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology & Wuyang Museum 2002. A brief report of the 2001 spring excavation at Jahu in Wuyang, Henan. Huaxia Kaogu 2:14-30 (in Chinese).

FAN, S.G., Z.J. ZHANG, L. LIU, H.X. LIU & C.Y. LIANG. 1999. Species and geographical distribution of wild rice and their biological characteristics in China, in Biodiversity Committee, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Department of Natural Conservation, State Environmental Protection Administration & Department for Wildlife and Forest Plants Protection, the National Forestry Administration (ed.) China's biodiversity conservation toward the 21st century. Proceedings of the Third National Symposium on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biological Diversity: 84-95. Beijing: China Forestry Publishing House (in Chinese).

FULLER, D.Q. 2011. Pathways to Asian civilizations: tracing the origins and spread of rice and rice cultures. Rice 4: 78-92.

FULLER, D.Q., E. HARVEY & L. QIN. 2007. Presumed domestication? Evidence for wild rice cultivation and domestication in the fifth millennium BC of the lower Yangtze region. Antiquity 81: 316-31.

FULLER, D.Q., L. QIN, Y.E ZHENG, Z.J. ZHAO, X.G. CHEN, L.A. HOSOYA & G.P. SUN 2009. The domestication process and domestication rate in rice: spikelet bsases from the lower Yangtze. Science 323: 1607-10.

FULLER, D.Q., L. QIN, Z.J. ZHAO, Y.E ZHENG, L.A. HOSOYA, X.G. CHEN & G.P. SUN 2011. Study on the botanic remains from the Tianluoshan site, in Center for the Study of Chinese Archaeology, Peking University & Zhejiang Province Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Heritage (ed.) lntegrated studies on the natural remains from Tianluoshan: 47-96. Beijing: Wenwu Press.

HCRB & HOCRM (Hebei Cultural Relics Bureau & Handan Office of Cultural Relics Management). 1981. Cishan site in Wuan, Hebei. Kaogu Xiebao 1981 (3): 3030-38 (in Chinese).

HCRB & HPICRA (Henan Cultural Relics Bureau & Henan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology). 1999. Huanghe Xiaolangdi Dato in Huangpo, Xinan, Volume 1. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Press (in Chinese).

-- 2008. Huanghe Xiaolangdi Dam in Huangpo, Xinan, Volume 3. Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou Press (in Chinese).

HIGHAM, C. & T.L.D. LU. 1998. The origin and dispersal of rice cultivation. Antiquity 72: 867-77.

HPICRA (Henan Provincial lnstitute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology). 1987. Excavation report of Shigu site in Changge. Huaxia Kaogu 1:3-125 (in Chinese).

-- 1999. Wuyang Jiahu. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese).

HPICRA (Hubei Provincial lnstitute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology). 2001. Yidu Chengbeixi. Beijing: Wenwu Press (in Chinese).

HPICRA (Hunan Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology). 2006. Pengtoushan and Basidang. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese).

HU, Y., S.H. AMBROSE & C. WANG. 2006. Stable isotopic analysis of human bones from Jiahu site,

Henan, China: implications for the transition to agriculture. Journal of Arehaeological Science 33: 1319-30.

LA of CASS (Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences). 2010. Chinese archaeology: Neolithic volume. Beijing: Chinese Social Sciences Press (in Chinese).

JIANG, L.P. & L. LIU 2005. The discovery of an 8000-year-old dugout canoe at Kuahuqiao in the lower Yangtze River, China. Antiquity 79. Available at: http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/liu305/(accessed 29 May 2012).

-- 2006. New evidence for the origins of sedentism and rice domestication in the lower Yangtze River, China. Antiquity 80: 355-61.

KBCRM & XBCRM (Kaifeng Bureau of Cultural Relics Management & Xiuzheng Bureau of Cultural Relics Management). 1978. Peiligang Neolithic site in Xinzheng, Henan. Kaogu 2:73-79 (in Chinese).

KBCRM et al. (Kaifeng Bureau of Cultural Relics Management, Xinzheng Bureau of Cultural Relics Management & the Archaeology program of the Department of History, Zhengzhao University). 1979. A brief report on the excavation at Peiligang site in 1978. Kaogu 3:197-205 (in Chinese).

LI, X.Q., G. HARBOTTLE, J.H. ZHANG & C.S.WANG. 2003. The earliest writing? Sign use in the seventh millennium BC at Jiahu, Henan province, China. Antiquity 77:31-44.

LIU, L., G.A. LEE, L.P. JIANG & J.Z. ZHANG. 2007. Evidence for the early beginning (c. 9000 cal BP) of rice domestication in China: a response. The Holocene l7(8): 1059-68.

LIU, L., G.A. LEE, L.R JIANG, J.Z. ZHANG & W.L. LAN. 2009. The discussion and deliberation on the origin of rice agriculture in China. Nanfang Wenwu 3: 25-37 (in Chinese).

LIU, L., J. FIEI,D, A. WEISSKOPF, J. WEBB, L.P. JIANG, H.M. WANG & X.C. CHEN. 2010. The exploitation of acorn and rice in early Holocene lower Yangtze River, China. Acta Anthropologica Sinica 29(3): 317-36.

LONDO, J.P., Y.C. CHIANG, K.H. HUNG, T.Y. CHIANG & B.A. SCHAAL. 2006. Phylogeography of Asian wild rice, Oryza rufipogon, reveals multiple independent domestications of cultivated rice, Oryza sativa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103: 9578-83.

LUO, Y.B. & J.Z. ZHAN',;. 2008. Re-study on the pig bone remains fronr Jiahu site in Wuyang, Henan. Kaogu 1:90-96 (in Chinese).

McGOVERN, PE., J. ZHANG, J. TANG, Z. ZHANG, G.R. HALL, R.A. MOREAU, A. NUNEZ, E.D. BUTRYM, M.P. RICHARDS, C-S. WANG, G. CHENG, Z. ZHAO & C. WANG. 2004. Fermented beverages of pre-and proto-historic China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Seiences of the United States of America 101 : 17593-98.

MOLINA, J., M. SIKORA, N. GARUD, J.M. FLOWERS, S. RUBINSTEIN, A. REYNOLDS, P. HUANG, S. JACKSON, B.A. SCHAAL, C.D. BUSTAMANTE, A.R. BOYKO & M.D. PURUGGANAN. 2011. Molecular evidence for a single origin of domesticated rice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America: 108: 8351-56.

SAM & ZIA (School of Archaeology and Muscology, Peking University & Zhengzho Institute of Archaeology). 2010. An important discovery of the transition from Palaeolithic to Neolithic in the Zhongyun region: the discovery from Lijiagou site in Xinmi. Zhongguo Wenwubao, 22 January 2010, p. 6 (in Chinese).

WANG, H.M. 2008. Exploration and study of the early Neolithic remains in Zhejiang, in Ningbo city Institute of Archaeology and Cultural Relics & Ningbo city Bureau of Cultural Relics Management (ed.) Essays of the archaeological studies on the cultural remains in Ningbo: 14-23. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese).

WANG, H.M., H. ZHANG & W. YANG 2006. The excavation at Xiaohuangshan site, in Shengzhou in National Bureau of Cultural Relics (ed.) Important archaeological discoveries in China in 2005: 9-13. Beijing: Wenwu Press (in Chinese).

YAN, W.M. 1991. China's earliest rice agriculture remains. Bulletin of the Indo-Pacific Prehistory Association 10:118-26.

-- 1997. Research progress on the study of the origin of rice domestication. Kaogu 9:71-76 (in Chinese).

-- 1998. Essays of prehistoric archaeology. Beijing: Science Press (in Chinese).

-- 2002. The origins of rice agriculture, pottery and cities, in Yoshinori Yasuda (ed.) The origins of pottery and agriculture: 151-56. New Deli: Roli Books and Lustre Press.

ZHANG, C. 2009. Baligang Neolithic site, Dengzhou city. Zhongguo Kaogu Xue Nianjian [Chinese archaeology annals] 2008:268-69 (in Chinese).

ZHANG, C. & H-C. HUNG 2008. The Neolithic of southern China: origin, development, and dispersal. Asian Perspectives 47: 299-329.

-- 2010. The emergence of agriculture in southern China. Antiquity 84: l1-25.

ZHANG, C. & N. WEI. 2008. Study on the burial goods from the Peiligang cultural tombs, in Chinese Archaeology Research Center of Peking University (ed.) Guodai Wenming Yanjiu [Studies on ancient Chinese civilization], Volume 7: 1-20. Beijing: Wenwu Press (in Chinese).

ZHANG, J.Z. 2009. Pre-Yangshao remains from the Bancun sites, in School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University & National Museum of China (ed.) Essays in honor of Professor Yu Wei-chao: 157-63. Beijing: Wenwu Press (in Chinese).

ZHANG, J.Z. & W.L. LAS. 2010. Research on the fermented beverage discovered in Jiahu, in P. Kupfer (ed.) Wine in Chinese culture: historical, literary, social and global perspectives: 69-78. Monster: LIT.

ZHANG, J.Z. & Z.Y. LI. 1996. Report of the excavation at Dagang microlithic site in Wuyang, Henan. Renleixue Xuebao 15(2): 105-13 (in Chinese).

ZHANG, J.Z. & X.K. WANG. 1998. Notes on the recent discovery of ancient cultivated rice at Jiahu, Hunan. Antiquity 72: 897-901.

ZHANG, J.Z., G. HARBOTTLE, C.S. WANG, & Z.C. KONG. 1999. Oldest playable musical instruments found at Jiahu early Neolithic site in China. Nature 401 : 366-68.

ZHANG, J.Z., X.H. XIAO & Y.K. LEE. 2004. The early development of music. Analysis of the Jiahu bone flutes. Antiquity 78: 769-78.

ZHAO, Z.J. 1998. Middle Yangtze region in China is one place where rice was domesticated: phytolith evidence from the Diaotonghuan Cave, northern Jiangxi. Antiquity 72: 885-97.

ZHAO, Z.J. &J.Z. ZHANG. 2009. Report of the flotation from 2001 excavation at Jiahu. Kaogu 8: 84-93 (in Chinese).

ZHENG, Y.E & L.P. JIANG. 2007. Ancient rice remain from the Shangshan site and its significance. Kaogu 9:19-25 (in Chinese).

ZHENG, Y.E, G.P. SUN & X.G. CHEN. 2007. The characters of spikelet bsases unearthed from 7000 years old archaeological sites. Kexue Tongbao 9: 1037-41 (in Chinese).

ZPICRA (Zhejiang Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology). 2003. Hemudu: an excavation report of the Neolithic site. Beijing: Wenwu Press (in Chinese).

Zhang Chi (1) & Hsiao-chun Hung (2)

(1) School of Archaeology and Museology, Peking University, Beijing, 100871, P.R. China

(2) Department of Archaeology and Natural History, School of Culture, History, and Language and School of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia (Email: hsiao-chun.hung@anu.edu.au)

Table 1. Chronologies of the early Neolithic in the Yangtze, Hui,
Hanshui and Yellow basins.

 Region Middle and Lower Yangtze River

 Hubei Dongting Yangtze
Age Phase region Lake Plain Delta

18000-7000 Late Palaeo- Yuchanyan
BC lithic to Cave
 early
 Neolithic Shangshan

7000-5000 Middle Pengtoushan Pengtoushan Yiaohuangshan
BC Neolithic
 Chengbeixi Zaoshi Kuahuqiao

5000-3000 Early phase Daxi Daxi Hemudu-
BC of late Majiabang
 Neolithic Songze

 Qujialing Qujialing Liangzhu

 Hui-Hanshui Middle and Lower
Region region Yellow River

 Hui and
Age Phase Hanshui rivers Henan Shaanxi

18000-7000 Late Palaeo-
BC lithic to
 early
 Neolithic Dagang

7000-5000 Middle Jiahu phase 1 & Lijiagou
BC Neolithic Baligang
 Jiahu phase 2 Peiligang Laoguantai

5000-3000 Early phase Hui River: Yangshao Yangshao
BC of late Longgiuzhuang
 Neolithic Dawenkou
 Hanshui River:
 Yangshao
 Quijialing

 Middle and Lower
Region Yellow River

Age Phase Shandong Hebei

18000-7000 Late Palaeo- Nanzhuangtou
BC lithic to Donghulin
 early
 Neolithic

7000-5000 Middle Houli
BC Neolithic
 Cishan

5000-3000 Early phase Beixin Yangshao
BC of late
 Neolithic

 Dawenkou

Table 2. Radiocarbon dates for Jiahu (HPICRA 1999: 515-19); Bancun
(Zhang, J.Z. 2009: 157-63), and other sites (IA of CASS 2010: 804-805).

Lab no. Site Unit Material

WB79-60 Shigu (in H159 charcoal
 Changge,
 Henan)

WB80-15 H238 charcoal

WB80-17 H197 charcoal

BK94173 Jiahu (in H37 (12) charcoal
 Wuyang,
 Henan)

BK94177 H229 (114) charcoal

BK95018 M344 (115) human bone

BK91007 H76 (12) fruit seed

WB83-60 H1 (115) charcoal

BK94174 H105 (1118) charcoal

BK94176 H339 (116) charcoal

DY K0185 H82 (11) plant ashes

BK94175 H102 (1118) charcoal

BK94127 H174 (1117) charcoal

BK94172 H84 (11) plant ashes

BK95014 M375 (12) human bone

DY KO189 H39 (114) plant ashes

DY KO186 H29 (114) plant ashes

BK95013 M341 (11) human bone

BK95017 M282 Jia (115) human bone

DY KO188 H5 (1118) plant ashes

BA94087 Bancun (in H2013 fruit pit
 Minchi,
 Henan)

BA94088 H3052 charcoal

BAO-8129 Baligang (in H1987 charcoal
 Dengzhou,
 Henan)

BAO-8122 H1986 charcoal

BA-10080 H1992 rice grain

BA-10081 H2000 rice grain

ZK-0572 Peiligang (in T31 (1) T34 charcoal
 Xinzheng, (1)(2)
 Henan)

ZK-0434 T1H1 T2H2 charcoal

ZK-0754 T111 (2) charcoal

ZK-0753 H17 charcoal

ZK-0571 H11 charcoal

ZK-0751 H18 charcoal

ZK-1367 Zhongshanzhai H16 charcoal
 (in Linru,
 Henan)
ZK-1368 H20 charcoal

WB78-17 Egou (in Mixian, H27 charcoal
 Henan)
WB78-39 T24 charcoal

ZK-0580 H27 charcoal

WB78-38 H1 charcoal

ZK-2345 Shuiquan (in H80 charcoal
 Jiaxian, Henan)
ZK-2344 H43 charcoal

ZK-0748 Tieshenggou (in T2 charcoal
 Gongxian,
 Henan)

ZK-1130 Sawoli (in H17 charcoal
 Xinzheng,
 Henan)

ZK-0755 Huawo (in TIH3 charcoal
 Qixian, Henan)

ZK-0747 Malianggou (in Hl charcoal
 Mixian,
 Henan)

 OxCal 3.0 cal BC
Lab no. BP (95% probability)

WB79-60 7450 [+ or -] 90 6460-6090

WB80-15 7295 [+ or -] 85 6370-6010

WB80-17 7010 [+ or -] 85 6030-5720

BK94173 8190 [+ or -] 75 7380-7040

BK94177 8090 [+ or -] 110 7450-6650

BK95018 8000 [+ or -] 100 7250-6600

BK91007 7960 [+ or -] 60 7050-6600

WB83-60 7920 [+ or -] 150 7300-6450

BK94174 7825 [+ or -] 80 7050-6450

BK94176 7650 [+ or -] 70 6640-6400

DY K0185 7561 [+ or -] 125 6650-6100

BK94175 7510 [+ or -] -90 6570-6210

BK94127 7450 [+ or -] 80 6460-6100

BK94172 7415 [+ or -] 80 6430-6090

BK95014 7240 [+ or -] 70 6240-5990

DY KO189 7137 [+ or -] 130 6250-5700

DY KO186 7105 [+ or -] 120 6220-5740

BK95013 7050 [+ or -] -80 6060-5750

BK95017 7035 [+ or -] 70 6030-5750

DY KO188 7017 [+ or -] 130 6250-5600

BA94087 6930 [+ or -] 140 6070-5610

BA94088 4720 [+ or -] 250 4100-2700

BAO-8129 7790 [+ or -] 45 6700-6480

BAO-8122 7370 [+ or -] 60 6390-6420

BA-10080 7625 [+ or -] 35 6350-6420

BA-10081 7670 [+ or -] 45 6600-6440

ZK-0572 9300 [+ or -] 100 8780-8290

ZK-0434 7885 [+ or -] 480 8000-5700

ZK-0754 7445 [+ or -] 200 6700-5850

ZK-0753 7185 [+ or -] 200 6450-5700

ZK-0571 7145 [+ or -] 300 6600-5400

ZK-0751 6435 [+ or -] 215 5750-4800

ZK-1367 7390 [+ or -] 100 6440-6060

ZK-1368 6955 [+ or -] 90 6010-5670

WB78-17 7290 [+ or -] 120 6420-5980

WB78-39 7265 [+ or -] 160 6450-5800

ZK-0580 7240 [+ or -] 80 6260-5980

WB78-38 6975 [+ or -] 100 6030-5670

ZK-2345 7270 [+ or -] 120 6410-5970

ZK-2344 7100 [+ or -] 110 6220-5740

ZK-0748 7265 [+ or -] 200 6500-5700

ZK-1130 7170 [+ or -] 105 6250-5830

ZK-0755 7130 [+ or -] 120 6230-5740

ZK-0747 6855 [+ or -] 200 6250-5350

Table 3. The plant remains (raw counts of identified fragments)
from the seventh excavation season at Jiahu in 2001
(after Zhao & Zhang 2009).

 Jiahu Jiahu Jiahu
Plant remains phase 1 phase 2 phase 3 Total

Oryza sativa 324 78 402
Glycine soja 548 32 1 581
Digitaria sp. 1247 958 2205
Echinochloa sp. 53 53
Pooideae 1 1 2
Panicoideae 6 2 8
Vitis spp. 92 10 8 110
Broussonetia payrifera 23 2 1 26
Abutilon theophrasti 1 1
Polygonum 13 14 27
Amaranthus 129 129
Nelumbo spp. 1 1 2
Zelkova spp. 2 2
Legum inosae 89 11 100
Compositae 306 1 307
Cyperaceae 2 2
Unknown plant seeds 156 8 164
Nelumbonucifern 75 1 76
Other tuber 43 82 27 152
Quercus spp. 267 97 1 365
Trapa spp. 116 7307 6 7429
Carya cathayensis 59 59
Other fruit pits 6 23 29