PNAS March 6, 2012 vol. 109 no. 10 3726-3730
Early millet use in northern China
Xiaoyan Yang et al.
It is generally understood that foxtail millet and broomcorn millet were initially domesticated in Northern China where they eventually became the dominant plant food crops. The rarity of older archaeological sites and archaeobotanical work in the region, however, renders both the origins of these plants and their processes of domestication poorly understood. Here we present ancient starch grain assemblages recovered from cultural deposits, including carbonized residues adhering to an early pottery sherd as well as grinding stone tools excavated from the sites of Nanzhuangtou (11.5–11.0 cal kyBP) and Donghulin (11.0–9.5 cal kyBP) in the North China Plain. Our data extend the record of millet use in China by nearly 1,000 y, and the record of foxtail millet in the region by at least two millennia. The patterning of starch residues within the samples allow for the formulation of the hypothesis that foxtail millets were cultivated for an extended period of two millennia, during which this crop plant appears to have been undergoing domestication. Future research in the region will help clarify the processes in place.
Link
Query if this casts the oldest pottery in the region, usually seen as predating the Neolithic, in a new light.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to understand that the presence of grains and starch residues do not show agricultural production in and of themselves, and that humans gathered plants for a great quantity of time before ultimately domesticating them. Need to read the entire paper before seeing whether they have better evidence for cultivation.
ReplyDelete@andrew: "Query if this casts the oldest pottery in the region, usually seen as predating the Neolithic, in a new light."
ReplyDeleteI'd say, yes, it does, since pot sherds were recovered from Nanzhuangtou. If you're thinking of Xianren, it may be too far south.
@Lathdrinor: "It is important to understand that the presence of grains and starch residues do not show agricultural production in and of themselves..."
Point taken, but in the absence of some ulterior motive it's difficult to see why this nit is worth picking.
China is not a sphere, with a uniform distribution of homogeneous Chinese culture and history. It's diverse and multi-regional and the northern Neolithic begins with the cultivation of millet, which appears to have been domesticated at least a thousand years before rice reached the lower course of the Huanghe.
If it emerges that rice was cultivated first, away to the south as you apparently hope to prove, so what? That still doesn't change the facts of northern Chinese prehistory.
"That still doesn't change the facts of northern Chinese prehistory".
ReplyDeleteAnd it fits the region from where the EDAR370A gene expanded. Here you are a subscriber:
http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867413000676
Otherwise:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2013/02/is-girls-generation-the-outcome-of-the-pleistocene-mind/
And a 'discussion' here:
http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.co.nz/2013/02/genetic-origin-of-east-asian-thicker.html
I'm a little surprised you haven't run with this one Dienekes as it appears to be a great example of the expansion of a single gene through the human population.
@terryt: "And it fits the region from where the EDAR370A gene expanded."
ReplyDeleteIt fits the region but not the time frame. Judging from the "heat map" in that paper, the area of most likely origin is centered on Shanxi and Shaanxi provinces, essentially the heartland of the Yellow River and a primary cradle of Chinese civilization.
The time, 30,000 years ago, seems within a few millennia of the Initial Late Paleolithic, when blade technology first appears in northern China.
"It fits the region but not the time frame".
ReplyDeleteThe 'heat map' gives no indication of when the expansion of the EDAR variant occurred though. I agree its expansion south through China may have begun shortly after it entered the human population but we cannot be sure of that. Certaily it made its way as far as Melanesia no earlier than 4-5000 years ago. Therefore the gene may have begun expanding south just a little before that date.
@terryt: The heat map does not provide
ReplyDeletea time of expansion, no, but the summary of that Cell article includes a possible time of origin: "Our computational analysis suggests the allele arose in central China approximately 30,000 years ago".
I honestly don't know whether there was a north-to-south population expansion associated with the domestication of millet. Personally, I would not expect to find such an expansion, at least not to any significant degree, but I don't necessarily have a valid argument to support it.
"The heat map does not provide
ReplyDeletea time of expansion"
Of course not. Sorry. I actually meant it shows where the mutation expanded 'from'. We also know (roughly) the time it first entered the modern human geneome: 30,000 years ago. It must have expanded more recently than that. I actually believe its main expansion was much later. In fact discussion at Maju's blog indicates its expansion into SE Asia may actually be late Neloithic.
"I honestly don't know whether there was a north-to-south population expansion associated with the domestication of millet".
Probably not. The population movements in the region are likely to have been far more complicated than just simply 'north to south' or 'south to north. However we can be fairly sure of a north to south movement at some time that carried the Mongoloid phenotype south. Both Y-DNA O and the EDAR370A mutation offer the best fit for such a movement.
Another consideration, though, is the Hoabinhian of Vietnam and SE Asia. Presumably people with Mongoloid phenotype were probably not involved in the early stages but Y-DNA O2 seems to have become involved in the later stages. Whether the early Hoabinhian had anything to do with agriculture's development in northern China is an interesting problem.
@terryt: "In fact discussion at Maju's blog indicates its expansion into SE Asia may actually be late Neloithic."
ReplyDeleteIsn't that about the time rice culture spread into SE Asia?
"However we can be fairly sure of a north to south movement at some time that carried the Mongoloid phenotype south. Both Y-DNA O and the EDAR370A mutation offer the best fit for such a movement."
But not both, correct? Otherwise, Y-DNA O would have been carried into the New World along with EDAR370A.
I would not be surprised to find that some elements of the Mongoloid phenotype was shared by the north-east Asian population that migrated into the Americas. It's purely anecdotal but, here in the US, when a Mexican busboy stands next to a waiter from SE China, it can be very difficult to tell which is which. The visual differences are often subtle, at best.
"...Y-DNA O2 seems to have become involved in the later stages."
How late?
"Isn't that about the time rice culture spread into SE Asia?"
ReplyDeleteThat has long been the association with Austronesian expansion. However rice was not carried out into the Pacific.
"But not both, correct?"
NO must hve been carried north at some stage, presumably through an expansion of MNOPS.
"Otherwise, Y-DNA O would have been carried into the New World along with EDAR370A".
To me it looks as though O was the southward mover while N was the northward variant. However neither reached America so N's move north must have post-dated the arrival in America. The EDAR variant looks to me to have been carried mainly by women as East Asian mt-DNA haplogroups form a majority there whereas Y-DNAs are mostly the Central Asian R-derived Q. My guess is that Q moved east to the north of where the East Asian population had been able to reach, but picked up women from that East Asian population.
"when a Mexican busboy stands next to a waiter from SE China, it can be very difficult to tell which is which".
I have seen Indigenous Americans who look almost Polynesian in fact. Not many, and mostly from the west coast.
"How late?'
Difficult to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoabinhian
"to describe stone artifact assemblages in Southeast Asia that contain flaked, cobble artifacts, dated to c. 10,000–2000 BCE."
Certainly long before 2000 BCE. Perhaps with the Bacsonian:
"Bacsonian is often regarded as a variation of the Hoabinhian industry characterized by a higher frequency of edge-grounded cobble artifacts compared to earlier Hoabinhian artifacts, dated to c. 8000–4000 BCE"
Perhaps as early as 8000 BCE. Certainly before the Austronesian expansion as it is widely accepted that in many regions the Austronesian language overlies an Austro-Asiatic substrate. But that leaves just 2000 years for the pre-Mongoloid Hoabinhian. However:
"Solheim's chronological chart suggests that 'incipient agriculture' began at about 20,000 B.C. in southeast Asia".
To me that is far too early. So take your pick.
"The apparent concentration of more than 120 Hoabinhian sites in Vietnam reflects intense research activities in this area rather the location of a centre of the prehistoric Hoabinhian activity. Archaeological sites in Terengganu, Sumatra, Thailand, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia have been identified as Hoabinhian, although the quality and quantity of descriptions vary and the relative significance of the Hoabinhian component at these sites can be difficult to determine. Beyond this core area some archaeologists argue that there are isolated inventories of stone artifacts displaying Hoabinhian elements in Nepal, South China, Taiwan and Australia (Moser 2001)".
And New Guinea.
@terryt: "My guess is that Q moved east to the north of where the East Asian population had been able to reach, but picked up women from that East Asian population."
ReplyDeleteNorthern China seems to have always been a somewhat porous barrier.
"To me [20,000 BCE] is far too early."
I think that's too early even for "incipient agriculture".
Many thanks for the response.