CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 76Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesLivestock and Poultry ManagementArchaeological and Geological Studies

Holocene cultural history of Red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) and its domestic descendant in East Asia

Open access
Peters, Joris, Lebrasseur, Ophélie, Deng, Hui, Larson, Greger·2016·Quaternary Science Reviews
DOI 10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.04.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Nearly three decades ago, zooarchaeologists postulated that chicken husbandry was practiced in Northern China by ∼8.0 ka calBP. Recently, ancient mitogenome analyses of galliform remains suggested that Red jungle fowl ( Gallus gallus ) was already present in the Yellow River basin several millennia earlier, shortly after the onset of the Holocene. If these conclusions are correct, the origins of chicken domestication and husbandry in the region may have been spurred by agricultural innovations in the lower Yellow River basin including millet cultivation, pig husbandry, and dog breeding. In addition, the dispersal of poultry farming from East Asia to Asia Minor and Europe could therefore date to the Neolithic along ancient trade routes across Central Asia rather than via South Asia and Mesopotamia. For this scenario to be plausible, the post-Pleistocene climatic conditions must have been favourable to allow for a northward extension of the native distribution of tropical Red jungle fowl currently not found north of ∼25°N. This study combines Holocene palaeoclimate and archaeofaunal archives with new zooarchaeological insights alongside a discussion of methodological issues and cultural aspects in order to revisit the hypothesis of an early Holocene Gallus domestication and Neolithic poultry husbandry in Northern China. Our results regarding the natural and cultural history of Red jungle fowl and domestic chickens in East Asia, and the timing of chicken dispersal across the Old World suggest that an early Holocene domestication of chickens is problematic at best. We conclude by postulating an alternative model for the early exploitation of a key domestic species in present-day East Asia.

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.quascirev.2016.04.004

Cites

66 of 66 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?

  • In Japan, chickens did not arrive until the Middle Yayoi ~100 BCE to 100 CE, consistent with their first appearance in the Korean Peninsula.

    “In Japan, chickens did not arrive until the Middle Yayoi ∼100 BCE to 100 CE, a timing consistent with their first appearance in the Korean Peninsula (1).”

    From The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

    The Conclusions link the beginning of fowl husbandry in Japan to the middle Yayoi Period and say its timing fits the start of poultry farming in Korea. However, the paper dates the Japanese period to approximately 2.2–1.7 ka calBP, not the narrower ~100 BCE–100 CE range in the claim. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Early Holocene bird remains from northern China initially claimed to be chickens were shown by reanalysis based on discrete osteomorphological criteria to be pheasants.

    “Although early Holocene bird remains from northern China were initially claimed to be chickens (8), a reanalysis of those bones based upon discrete osteomorphological criteria demonstrated that the specimens were derived from pheasants (1, 9).”

    From The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Reanalysis of archaeological bones from northern China determined the remains did not belong to chickens.

    “In addition, a reanalysis of the archaeological bones determined the remains did not belong to chickens (1, 9).”

    From The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Previous claims for chickens in the Yellow River basin 11,000 to 8,000 y ago are not supported by climatic, palynological, or archaeofaunal records, which suggest environmental conditions were not conducive to thermophilic Gallus.

    “Previous claims for the presence of chickens in the Yellow River basin 11,000 to 8,000 y ago (8) are not supported by either the climatic, palynological, or archaeofaunal records, all of which suggest the environmental conditions in the region were not conducive to the thermophilic Gallus (1, 31).”

    From The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

  • Subsequent reevaluations of the galliform remains from northern China, as well as photographs and drawings, demonstrate that they are pheasant bones.

    “Regarding northern China, subsequent reevaluations of the galliform remains (1, 9), as well as photographs and drawings, demonstrate that they are pheasant bones (2, 82).”

    From The biocultural origins and dispersal of domestic chickens (2022) · cites this paper as [1]

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: 39

  1. Beebe, W., 1921. In: H.F., Witherby, G. (Eds.), A Monograph of the Pheasants, vol. II (London).
  2. Benecke, N., 2014. Faunal remains of Kurganzol. In: Sverchkov, L.M. (Ed.), Kurganzol e Krepost' Aleksandra Na Juge Uzbekistana. SMI-ASIA, Tashkent, pp. 170e176.
  3. Bo, K., 2011. Animal use in the late phase of Neolithic in China e fauna remains of late longshan culture of Taosi site, Shanxi. In: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Ed.), Sandai Kaogu (Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasty Archaeology), vol. 4. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 129e182 (in Chinese).
  4. Chen, Q., 1993. In: Ji, Qingguo (Ed.), The Identification and Marks of Animal Bones from Zuojiashan Site, Nong'an County, in: the Department of Archaeology, Jilin University. Zhishi Press, Beijng, pp. 57e71 (in Chinese).
  5. Chen, Z., 1994. Natural remains. In: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Archaeological Excavation and Researches in the Yin Ruins. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 415e418 (in Chinese).
  6. Cheng, T. (Ed.), 1978. Fauna Sinica, Series Vertebrata, Aves, Vol. 4: Galliformes. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese).
  7. Eda, M., Inou e, T., 2011. Identification of Phasianidae (chicken and indigenous fowls in Japan) bones using nonmetric characteristics and its application for the re- evaluation of chickens from the Yayoi period. Zoo-Archeology 28 (5), 23e33 (in Japanese, with English summary).
  8. Flad, R.K., Yuan, J., Li, S., 2007. Zooarchaeological evidence for animal domestication in Northwest China. In: Madsen, D., Chen, F.-H., Gao, X. (Eds.), Late Quaternary Climate Change and Human Adaptation in Arid China. Developments in Qua- ternary Science, vol. 9. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 167e203.
  9. Fu, Y., 2000. Study on Animal's Remains from An'Ban Site in Fufeng, Shaanxi. Department of Archaeology of Northwest University,Excavation report of An'Ban site in Fufeng. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 290e294 (in Chinese).
  10. Glutz von Blotzheim, U.N., Bauer, K.M., Bezzel, E., 1973. Band 5. Galliformes und Gruiformes. In: Glutz von Blotzheim, U.N. (Ed.), Handbuch der V€ ogel Mitte- leuropas. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft, Frankfurt a. Main.
  11. Groppi, L., 2006. Alligator sinensis (On-line). Animal Diversity Web. http:// animaldiversity.org/accounts/Alligator_sinensis/ (accessed 23.06.15). Hebei Provincial Cultural Relics Institute, Baoding Municipal Administration of Cultural Relics, Xushui County Office for the Preservation of Ancient Monu- ments, Department of History and Culture of Shanxi University, 2010. Excava- tion to Nanzhuangtou Site in Xushui County, Hebei in 1997. Kaogu (Archaeology), vol. 3, pp. 361e392 (in Chinese, with English summary). Henan Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, 1999. Wuyang Jiahu. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Henan Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Henan Group of the Archaeology Team, the Office for Program of the Works in the Changjiang River Valley, 1989. Xia- wanggang Site at Xichuan. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Henan Working Team No1 of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1984. Excavation of the Neolithic Site at Peiligang. Kaogu Xuebao (Acta Archaeol. Sin.), vol. 1, pp. 23e52 (in Chinese, with English summary).
  12. Higham, C.F.W., 1975. Non Nok Tha: the Faunal Remains. University of Otago, Studies in Prehistoric Anthropology, vol. 7. Dept. Anthropology, University of Otago.
  13. Higham, C.F.W., Kijngam, A. (Eds.), 2010. The Origins of the Civilization of Angkor. Vol. VI. The Excavation of Ban Non Wat: the Iron Age, Summary and Conclu- sions. The Thai Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.
  14. Higham, C.F.W., Kijngam, A. (Eds.), 2012. The Origins of the Civilization of Angkor. Vol. V. The Excavation of Ban Non Wat: the Bronze Age. The Thai Fine Arts Department, Bangkok.
  15. Hochmuth, M., Benecke, N., Witteyer, M., 2005. Cocks and song birds for Isis Pan- thea and Mater Magna: the bird remains from a sanctuary in Mogontiacum/ Mainz. In: Grupe, G., Peters, J. (Eds.), Feathers, Grit and Symbolism, pp. 319e327. Documenta Archaeobiologiae 3. Leidorf, Rahden/Westf.
  16. Hu, S., 2010. The animal's remains from Dongying Site in Gaoling. In: Shannxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, School of Cultural Heritage, Northwest University, Dongying Site in Gaoling. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 147e200 (in Chinese).
  17. Hubei Provincial Museum, 2007. Jiuliandun-large Tomb of a Chu Noble in the Middle Reaches of the Yangtze. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, The Ban P'o Museum, Xi'an, 1963. The Neolithic Village at Ban P'o, Xi'an. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1994a. Archaeological Excavation and Researches in the Yin Ruins. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1994b. Baijiacun Site at Lintong. Bashu Press, Chengdu (in Chinese, with English summary). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 1965. Qujialing-Jiangshan. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1983. Beishouling at Baoji. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1999. The Erlitou Site in Yanshi. The Encyclopedia of China Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 2000. Excavations of the Wangyin Site in Shandong. Science Press, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary).
  18. Kong, Q., 2000. The animal's remains from the Neolithic site at Qianbuxia. In: Shandong Cultural Relics Institute, Liuting Administration of the Preservation of Ancient Monuments, the Collection of Archaeology Reports on the Excavations from Highway Construction in Shandong 1997. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 103e105 (in Chinese).
  19. Li, Y., 1974. The animal's bones from Dawenkou tombs. In: Shandong Cultural Relics Institute, Jinan Museum, Dawenkou. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 156e158 (in Chinese).
  20. Li, Y., Han, D., 1963. The animal's remains from the Neolithic site at Ban P'o, Xian. In: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, the Ban P'o Museum, Xi'an, the Neolithic Village at Ban P'o, Xian. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 255e269 (in Chinese).
  21. Li, F., Peng, L., Eda, M., Yuan, J., Zhu, Y., 2015. Study of the bird remains from the Tengjiagang site: also a retrospect and Prospects of archaeozoological studies on Chinese bird remains. Huaxia Archaeol. 15 (1), 34e40 (in Chinese). Liaoning Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Benxi Museum, 1994. Machengzi e Ancient Remains from the Caves in the Upper Reaches of Taizihe River. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary).
  22. McGowan, P.J.K., 1994. Family Phasianidae (pheasants and partridges). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A., Sargatal, J. (Eds.), Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 2. New World Vultures to Guineafowl. Lynx Editions, Bellaterra, pp. 434e553.
  23. Neimeng Archaeological Team, Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, 1997. Excavation Report of Xinglongwa Site in Aohanqi, Neimenggu in 1992. Kaogu (Archaeology), vol. 1, pp. 1e26 (in Chinese).
  24. Qi, G., Lin, Z., An, J., 2006. The Identification Report of Faunal Remains from Dadi- wan Site in Qin'an, in: the Gansu Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology, Dadiwan in Qin'an. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 861e910 (in Chinese).
  25. Ren, S., 1996. Several major achievements in Early Neolithic China, ca. 5000 BC. Archaeology 1996, 37e49. In Chinese, translated by Wing Kam-Cheung; ed. by B. Gordon. https://www.google.de/search?q¼Prof.þRENþShinan,þ&ie¼utf- 8&oe¼utf-8&gws_rd¼cr&ei¼ZUwKVv75NaTgyQOdm4b4Dg. accessed 29.09.15. School of Cultural Heritage, Northwest University, Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Chunhua County Museum, 2013. The Excavation of Zaoshugounao Site in Chunhua County, Shaanxi in 2007. Cult. Relics, vol. 2, pp. 55e66. Shaanxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Baoji Archaeological Team, 2007.
  26. Guantaoyuan at Baoji. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese, with English summary). Shandong Archaeological Team, Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Museum of Teng County, 1984. The Excavation of the Beixin Neolithic Site in Teng County, Shandong Province. Kaogu Xuebao (Acta Archaeol. Sin.), vol. 2, pp. 159e191 (in Chinese, with English summary). Shandong Cultural Relics Institute, Jining Municipal Administration of Cultural Relics, Rengcheng Administration of the Preservation of Ancient Monuments, 2010. Excavation report of Yuhuangding site in Jining city, Shandong. In: Shandong Cultural Relics Institute, Haidai Archaeology 3. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 1e113 (in Chinese).
  27. Shandong Cultural Relics Institute, Jinan Museum, 1974. Dawenkou. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing (in Chinese). Shanxi Archaeological Team of the Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Linfen Municipal Bureau of Culture, 1980. Brief Excavation Report on Taosi Site in Xiangfen County, Shanxi. Kaogo (Archaeology), vol. 1, pp. 18e31 (in Chinese).
  28. von den Driesch, A., 1987. Evolution und Haustiere, in: Siewing, R. (Hrsg.), Evolu- tion. 3. Aufl. G. Fischer, Stuttgart, New York, pp. 393e414.
  29. von den Driesch, A., P€ ollath, N., 2000. Tierknochen aus dem Mithrastempel von Künzing, Lkr. Deggendorf. In: Schmotz, K., (Hrsg) (Eds.), Vortr€ age des 18. Nie- derbayerischen Arch€ aologentages. Leidorf, Rahden/Westf, pp. 145e162.
  30. Wu, J., 1990. Remains of Animal and Plant, in: Shannxi Provincial Institute of Archaeology, Longgangsi. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 40e42 (in Chinese).
  31. Wu, J., 1993. Preliminary study on faunal remains from Fulinbao site. In: Fulinbao at Baoji: Report on the Excavation of the Neolithic Site. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 221e224 (in Chinese).
  32. Yang, J., 2008. Fauna remains of Erlitou site, Yanshi, Henan. In: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Ed.), the Early Bronze Cul- tures in China: the Thematic Researches on the Erlitou Culture. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 479e539 (in Chinese).
  33. Yuan, J., 2002. The environmental Information of Ancient Animals, in: Archaeo- logical Team of Luoyang City, Luoyang Zaojiaoshu. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 113e119 (in Chinese).
  34. Yuan, J., 2003. Study on remains of aquatic and terrestrial animals. In: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Archaeological Team of Guangxi Autonomous Region, Museum of Zengpiyan Site in Guilin, Archaeo- logical Team of Guiling City, Zengpiyan-a Prehistoric Site in Guilin. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, China, pp. 297e341 (in Chinese).
  35. Zhong, B., 2010. The animal's remains from Yuhuangding site in Jining City. In: Shandong Cultural Relics Institute, Haidai Archaeology, vol. 3. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 98e99 (in Chinese).
  36. Zhou, B., 1983b. The Animal's Remains from Beishouling Neolithic Site in Baoji City, in: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beishouling at Baoji. Cultural Relics Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 145e153 (in Chinese).
  37. Zhou, B., 1994. Identification Report on Faunal Remains from Baijiacun Site, in: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Baijiacun Site at Lintong. Bashu Press, Chengdu, pp. 123e126 (in Chinese).
  38. Zhou, B., 1999. Animal Remains of Shizhaocun and Xishanping Site, in: Institute of Archaeology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Shizhaocun and Xishanping. The Encyclopedia of China Publishing House, Beijing, pp. 335e339 (in Chinese).
  39. Zhou, B., 2000. The animal's remains from Wangyin neolithic site in Yunzhou city, Shandong. In: Excavations of the Wangyin Site in Shandong. Science Press, Beijing, pp. 414e416 (in Chinese).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Peters, J., Lebrasseur, O., Deng, H., & Larson, G.
Affiliations
  • Bavarian Natural History Collections (DE)
  • Shanxi University (CN)
Corresponding author
Peters, Joris
ORCID
Venue
Quaternary Science Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
142
Pages
102-119
ISSN
0277-3791 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.quascirev.2016.04.004
OpenAlex
W2385385836
Cited by
76
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Quaternary Science Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
  • Youth foundation of Humanity and Social Science of the Ministry of Education of China (15YJC780001)
  • Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/L006979/1)
  • European Research Council (337574-UNDEAD)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Archaeology and ancient environmental studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Livestock and Poultry Management
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Archaeological and Geological Studies
Keywords
chicken domestication, Gallus gallus, red junglefowl, chickens, poultry farming, Holocene, Neolithic, Yellow River Basin, northern China, East Asia, paleoclimate, archaeofauna, zooarchaeology, millet cultivation, Central Asian trade routes

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