IMPUESTOS DIRECTOS

Discussions of the spread of agriculture to deep South and Southwest China have focused primarily on documenting the spread of rice (Fuller 2012; Fuller and Qin 2009; Zhang 2008; Zhang and Hung 2010; Zhao, et al. 2005). Although the spread of millet agriculture equally if not more critically than rice was accompanied by the movement of languages, peoples and material culture, the manner in which this spread occurred has been relatively neglected. A closer look at the archaeobotanical record shows that both rice and millets played crucial roles in the spread of agriculture into Southwest China. The lack of systematic flotation and the use of practices such as handpicking have favored the recovery of larger grains such as rice or western domesticates. As a result, the role of millets in the spread of agriculture in East and Southeast Asia has been underrated.

As the history of archeological research in highland Southwest China is still in its infancy, early work on understanding the spread of agriculture and peoples into this region has focused on linguistic evidence. Linguistic evidence, primarily focused on rice has been used to hypothesize how early farming spread throughout China, and early studies by Bellwood argue that the spread of rice agriculturalists had the most profound impact on the dispersal of language phyla

More recently, the possibility that agriculturalists may have played a role in the spread of agriculture has been explored. In particular, it has been argued that people‘s inhabiting Northwestern and Southwestern China, particularly Sichuan Province, could have played important roles in the development and spread of the Sino-Tibetan language families. However, several conflicting models exist regarding the timing of this spread and how this spread occurred. Van Driem (1998, 1999, 2002, 2005) believes that the origins of Sino-Tibetan (Tibeto-Burman) are to be found in Sichuan Province, where hunter-gatherer speaking these languages resided as early as 11,500 BC (Van Driem 1999). Based on connections with Burmese language families, he argues that populations moved out of this area into the Himalayas and into Northern India c. 7000 BC, then move into the Indian Himalayas creating the Indian Eastern Neolithic (c. 7000- 2000 BC). He then argues that part of these groups spread north to form the Dadiwan culture and Northeast to form the Cishan cultures. From here, Van Driem (1999) argues that one offshoot of the late Majiayao culture migrated south from Northern Sichuan into eastern Tibet, then into Sikkim. Finally, Van Driem (1999) argues that these people began to move into Peninsular Southeast Asia from Sichuan around 1000 BC.

Starosta (2005) on the other hand, believes that one can trace the origins of most languages in East Asia to a Proto-East Asian language that he argues was spoken by millet agriculturalists in the Cishan and Peiligang cultures. He (2005) argues that these people spread East and West. The eastern group became the speakers of Pre-Austronesian, which he identifies with the Longshan culture (discussed in Chapter 7). He argues that these people then spread southward to

moved to the west, became the speakers of Sino-Tibetan-Yangzian, which he identifies as the individuals responsible for the spread of the Yangshao culture and its spread around 5500 BC. In a somewhat similar model, Sagart (2008) has argued that c. 6500-5500 BC foxtail, broomcorn millet and rice farmers present in the Yellow River valley spoke PSTAN (Proto-Sino-Tibetan Austronesian). These people then split into two different groups:

a.) A group that moved west and expands throughout the mid and upper Yellow River Valley. Their language evolves into PST (Proto-Sino-Tibetan) that then expands to the south and west. b.) A group that moved east along the coast and to Taiwan, via the lower Yellow River valley. Eventually develops into AN (Austronesian Languages).

More recently, Fuller (2012; 2010) has argued that the spread of agriculture throughout East Asia took place in a series of 11 thrusts. He correlates 8 of these thrusts with the potential spread of rice agriculture (Fuller 2012). With regards to the spread of millet agriculture Fuller (2012) agrees with Sagart that the speakers of STAN (Sino-Tibetan Austronesian) should be associated with the Yangshao culture and believes that the Yangshao expansion should be tied to the development of Sino-Tibetan.

Archaeological excavations, surveys and analyses carried out over the past twenty years contains important evidence for understanding the movement of people into and out of Southwest China and their relationship to the crops they brought with them.

In this chapter, I discuss the earliest evidence for the spread of agriculture to this region and its implication for the movement of language phyla. I argue that the earliest spread of agriculture to Southwest China involved millet agriculture moving into the highlands of western Sichuan.

Compared to studies of the origins of rice agriculture, the archaeological record for the origins of millet agriculture in Northern China is patchy. Very little systematic flotation has been carried out on early Holocene sites in Northern China and much of our understanding of the transition to agriculture in this region is largely based on chance finds where archaeobotanical remains were visible to the excavators. Although this situation is rapidly changing, much work remains to be done on understanding the transition to agriculture in Northern China. Two main crops are of importance to this transition: these are broomcorn (Panicum miliaceum) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica). The differing phenology of both broomcorn and foxtail millet played important roles in defining the patterns underlying their spread.

6.1) Origins in the North China Microlithic

Highland southwest China may have been an important area for the movement of hunter-gatherer populations. To date, little evidence from southwest China has become available to document the presence of these peoples, therefore in order to gain an idea of what their lifestyle may have been like, we need to turn to developments in the better studied area of northern China. In order to understand the origins of millet agriculture in Northern China, it is first necessary to review the lifestyle of the hunter-gatherers who occupied this region and who interacted with and began cultivating these plants. Microliths are an important feature of the cultural assemblage associated

with the hunter-gatherers that occupied Northern China during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene (26,000-6000 BC). These microliths are less then 5cm in length, and 1cm in width and were likely used in wooden or bone implements (Lu 1998).

In sites of the terminal Pleistocene, such as Shizitan, grinding slabs accompany these tools, hinting at an intensification of resources. The ―North China Microlithic‖ (Bettinger, et al. 2007) covers a wide area and over 200 sites containing these characteristic microliths have been unearthed in northern China (Lu 1998). The area consisting of the higher elevation foothills of central plains of the Yellow River valley contains some of the earliest evidence for microlithic sites including Xiachuan (26,000-15,000 cal BC), Shizitan (13,800- 8500 cal. BP), Xueguan (14,500 cal BC), and Hutouliang (12,100 cal BC) (Figure 6.1). Little was previously known about the distribution or dates of microliths in the highlands of north-western China, and it was assumed that movement into these areas only occurred later. However, recent small excavations at the sites of Dadiwan (c. 20,000-13,000 cal BP) and Pigeon Mountain (c. 12,700 BP) have demonstrated the early occupation of these regions (Bettinger, Barton, Morgan, et al. 2010). A few finds of microliths have been unearthed in Eastern China (Lu 1998), however, they are not well dated. The distribution of microlithic sites appears to be confined to areas of middle to high altitude (Lu 1998).

Previously, little to no work had been carried out on the subsistence strategies practiced by the occupants of these sites, however, over the past few years an increasing amount of

archaeobotanical research has begun to be carried out. Starch grain analysis has been carried out on grinding stones and slabs unearthed from Locality 9 from the site of Shizitan (c. 13,800–8500 cal. BP) (Liu, et al. 2011) (Figure 6.1). The authors uncovered starch that resembled the

following taxa: starch from grass seeds of the Panicoideae and Pooideae subfamilies, acorns (Quercus sp.), beans (Phaseoleae tribe) and yams (Dioscorea sp.), however the small size of the reference collection used makes these results inconclusive at best.

Although deposits from the site of Donghulin (11,000-9000 BP) were not subjected to systematic flotation, a few seeds of hackberry were hand-picked by excavators from a grave, hinting at their possible consumption (Hao, et al. 2008). Recently, starch grain analysis was performed by the same group on grinding stones unearthed from the early Holocene layers of this site (c. 9200- 8700 cal. BP). Although this paper suffers from the same small reference collection as the previous paper, it reveals that these grinding stones may have been used to process acorns (Liu, et al. 2010).

While microbotanical analysis can be very revealing of ancient subsistence patterns, these recent studies remain too focused on only one line of evidence. In order to gain a more complete picture of the subsistence patterns of the inhabitants of these sites, it is necessary to carry out systematic flotation to see if the patterns inferred from these studies hold true.

6.2) A hunter-gatherer legacy in Southwest China?

Prior to the arrival of millet agriculture in Southwest China, little is known about its early inhabitants. It is assumed that hunter-gatherers must have occupied Southwest China during the early Holocene. Current archaeological evidence, has, however unearthed little to no trace of these peoples. Evidence from the site of Ziyang in Eastern Sichuan makes it clear that the mountainous peripheries of the Sichuan Basin have been occupied since Paleolithic times (Ye

1998). However, there is a long gap of time between these Pleistocene occupations and the later Majiayao culture agricultural sites discovered in this region. The discovery of microliths at many sites in the mountainous foothills of Sichuan province suggests this gap in time may be an artifact of excavation practice, and that hunter-gatherers forming part of the North China microlithic interaction sphere could have occupied this region as early as 20,000 BC (Bettinger,Barton and Morgan 2010; Bettinger et al., 2010).

Microliths have been unearthed at many sites to the Northwest and Northeast of the Sichuan Basin. However at all of these sites, microliths are found in association with cultural material such as pottery, adzes, axes and chisels characteristic of later agricultural settlements. Unless they are somehow intrusive, they appear to be dated to much later than those known from the microlithic in Northern China. To the Northeast of the basin, a number of sites have yielded microliths that show similarities to cultural traditions further north in Qinghai or Gansu (Ye 1992; Zhongguo and Sichuan 1991). In 1990, a survey carried out at the site of Zhongzipu by the

Chinese Academy of Social Sciences recovered large quantities of microliths from a visible section in the site. While the authors found microliths in all three visible stratigraphic layers of the site, they claim that the stratigraphy was not clear at the time. As a result the authors remained unsure that the pottery and ground stone tools found in prospection dated to the same period as the microliths. Four C-14 dates were been carried out at Zhongzipu, leading the

prospectors to suggest the remains date to between 5000-3500 BC (Zhongguo and Sichuan 1991) (Figure 6.1). As these dates were carried out on wood charcoal it is possible that this site may date to even later.

Figure 6.1 Sites containing microliths discussed in the text: 1) Cuona Hu; 2)Buquhe; 3) Jianggepona; 4)Jiaritang; 5)Tuizhunaka; 6) Changdu Karuo; 7) Shizishan and Maiping 8) Haxiu ; 9)Yingpanshan; 10) Guiyuanqiao; 11) Zhongzipu; 12) Dadiwan; 13) Xueguan; 14) Shizitan; 15)Xiachuan

In the northwestern foothills of the Sichuan Basin, microliths have been found in association with the pottery and ground stone tools characteristic of the Majiayao expansion into the area. Interestingly, microliths re-appear in the archaeological record during this period of time after an apparent hiatus in sites of the Miaodigou phase. An area containing cores and unfinished

products as well as microliths has been unearthed at the site of Yingpanshan (c.3300 BC) (Chengdu et al. 2002; Chen Jian: Personal Communication 2011).While no direct dates have been placed on the feature from which these tools came, this further complicates the picture

excavations of this site has been released, it is difficult to make judgments on the stratigraphic position of these finds. Similar lithic material has also been unearthed in the southern peripheries of the Chengdu Plain at the sites of Shizishan and Maiping (Ma 1992; Zhongguo and Sichuan 1991). Up until recently no microliths were known from sites in the low lying Sichuan Basin, however, excavations at the site of Guiyuanqiao have revealed that microlith producing people also descended onto the plain (Wan Jiao: Personal Communication 2012). At Guiyuanqiao, as with sites in the highlands, these microliths are associated with pottery representative of the Majiayao expansion. Further south in Sichuan, microliths have also been found in large numbers at sites in Dechang County, including Maojiakan, and Wangjiatian (Sichuan Sheng Wenwu Kaogu Yanjiusuo and Liangshan Yizu Zizhiqu Bowuguan 2006, 2007). Microliths have also been found near the Sichuan Yunnan Border (Anke Hein: Personal Communication 2012), namely at the sites of Huili Houzidong, as well as in Yongren county and the Yuanmou Basin (Zhou 1980).

Rock art picturing wild animals suggesting a lifestyle based on hunting is also found in the highlands of Northwestern Yunnan (Jinsha River valley) (Tacon, et al. 2012). This rock art may also point to the possible early occupation of this region. Recent attempts to date this rockart have been made using a combination of Uranium series and radiocarbon dating, and the results suggest that the occupation of this region may go as far as 3700 BC (Tacon, et al. 2012). Further to the West, microliths have also been unearthed at the site of Changdu Karuo on the Tibetan Plateau where they are associated with ground stone tools, pottery and larger flaked tool industries (Xizang Wenguanhui 1985). Large quantities of microliths were also uncovered in a survey of sites in 2003-2004, along the route of the Qinghai-Tibet railroad. These include the

Wenwuju, et al. 2005). Jiaritang (alt. 4300 m) was the only site out of this group that was excavated. Two distinct cultural layers were superimposed above sterile soil both of which contained pottery, microliths and some ground stone tool. Based on similarities with pottery and stone tools found at the sites of Changdu Karuo and Lhasa Qugong, excavators believe that this site could have dated to 3200-2900 BC, however, the lack of radiocarbon dates makes it possible that it dates to much earlier.

What does the apparent discrepancy in time between sites in the South and sites in the North tell us? The frequent association of microliths with pottery that appears to be linked to the Majiayao expansion into this region, has led many excavators to believe that these microliths form part of a cultural package of expansion into this region. Does this mean that we are looking at the survival of this technology into agricultural periods in Southwest China? If so, did the hunter-gatherers who manufactured these tools continue their use until after they already adopted agriculture? Did agriculturalists moving into these regions re-adopt this technology? Why did microliths

disappear from Northern China after the early Holocene and why was their use continued well into the Holocene in Southwest China? These questions clearly have important implications for understanding the history of population movement into this area and for understanding the hunter- gatherer legacy of Southwest China. Recent excavations and systematic sieving at the site of Dadiwan itself (Bettinger, Barton and Morgan 2010), reveal that post-LGM and late Pleistocene/early Holocene hunter-gatherer occupations at the site were characterized by a nanolithic industry where flakes measured less than 9 mm. Such remains would not be found unless all fractions from excavations were sieved using a fine mesh. Future, more systematic and careful research in highland Southwest China may show that this was the case.

In addition to problems of recovery, few of the sites mentioned in Southwest China have been the object of careful excavations or direct dating. It is thus unclear whether the microliths, ceramics and other remains are actually contemporaneous. As later agriculturalists moved into this area, it is possible that their settlements were placed on top of hunter-gatherer encampments. As they built house foundations and dug graves, they could have brought earlier material to the surface. Much more careful and finer excavation of these sites is needed in order to resolve these chronological problems. Doing so may prove that the hunter-gatherer occupation of this region has a much longer history than previously thought.

The lack of evidence for hunter-gatherer occupation in Southwest China, thus far, should not be taken as evidence of the fact these people did not exist. Their presence in less clement climatic conditions in northern China makes it unlikely that the resource rich and diverse area of highland Southwest China was entirely uninhabited until the spread of agriculture. It is, however, likely that these people were highly mobile and their ephemeral occupations have not been picked up on by current archaeological work in the region. Given the very small number of excavated sites in this area in general, this is not altogether unsurprising. The potential presence of an earlier hunter-gatherer presence in Southwest China lends some support to Van Driem‘s (1999) hypothesis that hunter-gatherers living in Sichuan may have contributed to the early spread of languages and culture across East Asia. The review in chapter 4 of the vegetation of the Yunnan- Guizhou plateau and western Sichuan suggests that a large number of edible wild fruits (peach, jujube, kiwi, nuts (pine nut, walnut, acorn) and tubers (Potentilla etc) were present throughout southwest China and could have successfully sustained populations of foragers in this region.

Future work on modeling the density of these resources is necessary to understand how large of a population these resources could have sustained.

Given the current nature of the evidence, it does, however, appear that the hunter-gatherers inhabiting the highlands of northern and southern China were likely highly mobile and were engaged in long distance movement and exchange across these highland territories. They were likely too mobile and too few to leave more than very sparse records. Future research and more careful excavations are needed to test this hypothesis.

6.3) Spread of Millet Agriculture to the Sichuan Highlands

Very little is known about the process that led to the domestication of broomcorn and foxtail millet and so far no clear morphological evidence for a trajectory to domestication has been elucidated. In addition, no single site contains evidence of a clear transition from foraging to farming and deposits containing already domesticated millets are found directly on top of hunter- gatherer sites. As a result, we know little about the timing and process underlying their

domestication. A clear criterion for identifying morphological domestication in these millets is necessary to understand the mechanisms and timing by which these two crops began to be cultivated. More systematic excavations at early sites in general are also needed. Both of these crops appear relatively suddenly in Northern China in what seems to be a fully domesticated