Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY OF PADDY RICE AND ARID AGRICULTURE IN ANCIENT CHINESE CIVILIZATION CHEN, Chun Culture And Museum Department, Fudan University, 220 Handan Road, Shanghai 200433, PRC Agricultural Archaeology, pp. 51-53, 86, vol. 3, 1997 (translated by Elaine Wong; edited by Elaine Wong & Bryan Gordon) The origin of agriculture is a revolutionary process in the history of human evolution. Not only does it reflect increased manipulation of nature and the environment, but more importantly, increased land yield in the agricultural economy. It allowed larger population living in a community environment. People can combine their collective intelligence and effort to improve and invent new technique to increase yield. It is the foundation for improving society, wherein the urban and industrial revolutions could not have happened earlier (Childe,1951) without agriculture. In mankind’s long slow 2 million year history, economic agriculture only began ca. 10,000 years ago, with animal and plant domestication appearing 8-9000 years ago in widespread parts of the world (western Asia, Central America, China). This indicates a similar catalytic mechanism in major economic progress, but we know very little about its overall process. But one thing is very obvious: countries with the earliest civilization had the earliest agriculture, meaning economic progress directly affects advanced social growth. Considering present archaeological evidence, the lower Yellow and Yangtze Valleys are two independent origins of agriculture. They both not only were very early, but their domesticated plants differed vastly. In central China, agriculture is mainly maize, pinnacle millet, millet and sorghum, the middle and lower Yangtze mainly paddy rice; i.e., arid and aquatic agriculture, respectively; with obviously different motivations and paths in plant domestication. Two main theories of agricultural origin are Optimal Foraging and Competitive Feasting. The first by Boserup (1965) was thoroughly discussed and substantiated by Cohen (1977), and implies animal and plant domestication as a reaction to food shortage from massive population increase; i.e., the food chain was greatly disturbed by drastic postglacial environmental change, with some animals moving away or disappearing. In the long Palaeolithic period, people slowly increased and spread to all corners of the world except Antarctica. With this and low hunter-gatherer yield due to large animal extinction, they faced food shortage and used lower grade foods that were smaller and widespread, needing more time and effort to process for consumption. If large hoofed animals were abundant, these lower grade seeds, mollusks, snails, fish, fruit, etc., were ignored. Gathering and processing these foods required new tools and methods, with labor investment and improved methods obviously higher than large hoofed animals. To assuage hunger, lower grade foods were harvested, with some of them unavoidably domesticated. This foraging change is regarded as common in the Palaeolithic, with many very reliable examples in the study of optimal foraging theory. In contrast to Optimal Foraging, Canadian academic Brian Hayden (1992) coined Competitive Feasting Theory. He believes agriculture began when animals and plants lost their effectiveness in solving food shortages. As these foods had limited harvest, they were not very important food resources. Even some animal and plants abundant after domestication had nothing to do with solving hunger; e.g.s, grain to make wine, plants as herbs and condiments, gourds as drinking and eating vessels, dogs used for hunting as well as food. While both theories contrast greatly on agricultural origin, both are reasonable, and indicate different agricultural origin stimuli in diverse areas. Along the Yellow and Yangtze Rivers of China, aquatic agriculture and arid agriculture originated in completely different environments, with certain representations from both theories. In Great Plains research on ancient cultural change, Madson (1982) found hunter-gatherers fissioned when wildlife became sparse, becoming nomads in their food search, with agricultural beginnings very unlikely due to difficulties in settling and dealing with unpredictable agricultural experiments. Where wildlife was abundant and people were free of “eat or wear worries”, they spent little time trying unpredictable experiments in animal domestication. Thus, agriculture originated mainly in areas where available wildlife was uncertain, people rarely travelled and seasonal food shortages existed. Survival required people to know the necessity of animal and plant domestication to counter hunger from uncertain wildlife. Agriculture dominated the economy only after long experimentation, when harvesting far exceeded domesticated animal yield. Modern data is limited in China on arid agricultural origins, especially on human survival and ancient maize, pinnacle millet, millet and sorghum ecology, but from an arid agricultural viewpoint involving barley and wheat, motivation for countering seasonal shortages greatly effected the onset of cultivation. Paddy rice is an aquatic crop, its ecology distinct from arid crops. Madson’s Great Basin research indicates wet environments like marshland have abundant food, with shallow lakes having unusually dense site remains. Whether large or small, there is an obvious increase in the number of site remains in lake areas. This indicates marshland is not only ideal for growing aquatic animals and plants, but attracts many land animals and birds. Thus, this type of environment tends not to have potential food shortages. As paddy rice is a swamp grass, widespread marshland produces abundant food. The Hemudu site had abundant excavated husked rice and animal bone, indicating its environment was rich in wildlife. Thus, the reason for paddy rice agricultural origin relates more to Competitive Feasting Theory, meaning rice was collected and domesticated because it tasted good. Different motivation and yield of aquatic and arid crops greatly effected civilization growth in north and south China. While equally long histories of agricultural origins occur in Yellow and Yangtze River basins, their civilizations evolved differently. The great Central Plains was center stage for a bright ancient civilization, with many generations of heroes competing and acting epic scene after scene for 5000 years. Except for the mighty Chu, Wu and Yue kingdoms, the lower Yangtze Valley southern kingdoms of backward barbarians were not as strong as some Central kingdoms. Why did equally long civilizations and economies grow so differently? We will search for political and social reasons from their different economies based on arid and aquatic crop yield. Even though we do not know full maize, pinnacle millet, millet and sorghum potential, arid crop yield is considerably lower, each hand-plowed acre producing ca. 550 kg (Allen’s 1972 estimate), food for 12 people/sq. km. Canada’s greatest pre-European yield was the south Ontarian Huron Indian growing maize supplemented with hunting-gathering and fishing, allowing 25-50 people/sq. km (Butzer, 1990). Early maize, pinnacle millet, millet and sorghum yield was likely at this level. Paddy rice has the highest yield of the five grains, each big SE Asian delta harvest supporting 500 people/sq. km (Allen 1972), with biannual harvesting to 1000 people/sq. km. We see the magnitude of lower Yangtze Valley yields in the Song Dynasty saying “the whole world is fulfilled when Shu Lake ripens”. Further, paddy rice yield was 70% of that of all China in Ming Dynasty (Tong, PingYeh, 1979); i.e., much higher than arid grain and with important economic controls on political growth. American academic Cohen believes countries and governments were created to balance population and land. When a population exceeded land yield, government grew to balance them (Cohen, 1981). Assuming Yellow and lower Yangtze Early Neolithic populations were similar and growing at the same rate, crop yields in the latter were much higher, and people were constantly battling to survive and grow. As ancient technology outgrew agriculture and animal husbandry, Bronze Age technology was not tied to an agriculture-based economy. When technology raced from Stone to Bronze Ages, bronze was mainly used in making ceremonial vessels and weapons and not farm tools to raise crop yield. As the agricultural economy relied on manual labor and arable land growth rather than bronze technology, there was little increase in land yield. As government and society grew, extra provisions were needed to support noble and ruling class lifestyles, plus many supporting officials, workers and soldiers. Rather than increase crop yield with technology, powerful states invaded weaker neighbours, robbing their laborers and annexing land. War initiated by land and labor fights motivated an evolution from primitive to complex society. Such conflict-based progress occurred from Spring and Autumn Periods to the Qin Empire and Han Dynasty. Considering land size and population, middle and lower Yangtze paddy fields had much higher yields than Central Plains arid agriculture. The agricultural richness of the many lower and middle Yangtze lakes, plus unmotivated social and military growth in nearby provinces, were major reasons for the latter to assume a comparatively secondary role in the growth of Chinese civilization. The flat Central Plains is easy for cultural exchange between distant places, but also served as a battlefield, setting the stage for the evolution of civilization. The above gives reasons for differing growth in Yellow and Yangtze civilizations by comparing their agricultural base and environment, plus the effect of powerful officials and their supporters. To understand this, we must persevere in understanding reasons and needs for major historic change. By going outside historic bounds, we can rebuild China’s ancient face and track its growth on a deeper scientific level. Bibliography Allen, W. 1972. Ecological technique and settlement pattern. In Man, Settlement, and Urbanism (P. J. Uckle et al., eds.). London: Duckworth, pp. 211-226. Boserup, E. 1965. The Condition of Agricultural Growth. Chicago: Aldine. Butzer, K. W. 1990. Archaeology as Human Ecology. Cambridge University Press. Childe, V. G. 1951. Man Makes Himself. New York: Mentor. Cohen, M.H. 1977. The food crisis in prehistory. New Haven. Yale University Press. 1981. The ecology basis of New World state formation: general and local model. In The Transition of Statehood in the New World (G.D. Jones et al., eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hayden, B. 1992. Models of domestication. In Transition to Agriculture (A.B. Gebauer et al., eds.). Prehistory Press, 11-19. Madson, D. B. 1982. Get it where gettin’s good: A variable model of Great Basin subsistence and settlement based on eastern Great Basin data. In Man and Environment in the Great Basin (D.B. Madson et al., eds.). SAA paper.2, pp. 207-226. Tong, PingYeh, 1979. History of Agricultural Products. China Youth Publishing Society.