CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesRice Cultivation and Yield ImprovementAmazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory

Approaching rice domestication in South Asia: New evidence from Indus settlements in northern India

Open access
Bates, J., Petrie, C.A., Singh, R.N.·2017·Journal of Archaeological Science
DOI 10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.018PMC PMC7773629
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The nature and timing of rice domestication and the development of rice cultivation in South Asia is much debated. In northern South Asia there is presently a significant gap (c.4200 years) between earliest evidence for the exploitation of wild rice (Lahuradewa c.6000 BCE) and earliest dated evidence for the utilisation of fully domesticated rice (Mahagara c.1800 BCE). The Indus Civilisation (c.3000–1500 BCE) developed and declined during the intervening period, and there has been debate about whether rice was adopted and exploited by Indus populations during this ‘gap’. This paper presents new analysis of spikelet bases and weeds collected from three Indus Civilisation settlements in north-west India, which provide insight into the way that rice was exploited. This analysis suggests that starting in the period before the Indus urban phase (Early Harappan) and continuing through the urban (Mature Harappan/Harappan), post-urban (Late Harappan) and on into the post-Indus Painted Grey Ware (PGW) period, there was a progressive increase in the proportion of domesticated-type spikelet bases and a decrease in wild-types. This pattern fits with a model of the slow development of rice exploitation from wild foraging to agriculture involving full cultivation. Importantly, the accompanying weeds show no increased proportions of wetland species during this period. Instead a mix of wetland and dryland species was identified, and although these data are preliminary, they suggest that the development of an independent rice tradition may have been intertwined with the practices of the eastern most Indus peoples. These data also suggest that when fully domesticated Oryza sativa ssp. japonica was introduced around 2000 BCE, it arrived in an area that was already familiar with domesticated rice cultivation and a range of cultivation techniques.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.018

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Domesticated indica rice was introduced ∼1600 to 1500 BCE in the Upper and Middle Ganges.

    “The domesticated indica rice introduced ∼1600 to 1500 BCE in the Upper and Middle Ganges (104, 105)”

    From The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens (2022) · cites this paper as [104]

    The Background section, “Rice domestication and South Asia” (page unavailable), places evidence of domesticated rice at Mahagara in the Middle Ganges around 1800–1600 BCE. It does not say domesticated indica was introduced to the Upper and Middle Ganges around 1600–1500 BCE; the Abstract instead describes the introduction of japonica around 2000 BCE. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • There is evidence for proto-indica rice management by hunter-fisher-gatherers in the middle Ganges plains predating ∼2000 BCE.

    “While there is evidence for proto-indica rice management by hunter–fisher–gatherers in the middle Ganges plains predating ∼2000 BCE (102, 104, 105)”

    From The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens (2022) · cites this paper as [104]

    The Background section (page not provided) describes rice cultivation at Lahuradewa in the Middle Ganges plains well before 2000 BCE and discusses a proposed ‘proto-indica’ phase. It does not identify the people managing that rice as hunter–fisher–gatherers, and presents the proto-indica interpretation as a hypothesis rather than an established finding. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Bates J. Social Organisation and Change in Bronze Age South Asia: a Multi-proxy Approach to Urbanisation, Deurbanisation and Village Life through Phytolith and Macrobotanical Analysis Unpublished PhD dissertation 2015 University of Cambridge Cambridge
  2. Wheeler R.E.M. The Indus Civilisation 1953 Cambridge University Press Cambridge

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bates, J., Petrie, C. A., & Singh, R. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Banaras Hindu University (IN)
Corresponding author
Bates, J.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Archaeological Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-02
Volume
78
Pages
193-201
ISSN
0305-4403 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jas.2016.04.018
PMC
PMC7773629
OpenAlex
W2552679753
Cited by
59
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
erratum (2019-01-01)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Archaeological Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (from 2011-2014 is 1080510)
  • UK India Education Research Initiative (from 2007 is 47456)
  • British Academy Stein Arnold Fund (from 2007 is SA-47604)
  • Isaac Newton Trust (from 2007 is Minute 7.26(b))
  • McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research (from 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012)
  • Research Councils UK is NERC grants (from 2009 NF/2009/2/7 and from 2011 NF/2011/1/9)
  • AHRC, Rouse-Ball Research Fund (from 2012, 2013)
  • Cambridge India Partnership Fund (from 2012)
  • Division of Archaeology Fieldwork Fund (from 2009)
  • Trinity College Projects Fund (from 2009)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Rice Cultivation and Yield Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Amazonian Archaeology and Ethnohistory
Keywords
rice domestication, Indus Civilisation, wild rice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review