Cited by 40Archaeology and ancient environmental studiesRice Cultivation and Yield ImprovementPacific and Southeast Asian Studies

A tale of two rice varieties: Modelling the prehistoric dispersals of japonica and proto- indica rices

Open access
Silva, Fabio, Weisskopf, Alison, Castillo, Cristina, Murphy, Charlene, Kingwell-Banham, Eleanor, Qin, Ling, Fuller, Dorian Q·2018·The Holocene

Abstract

We model the prehistoric dispersals of two rice varieties, japonica and proto- indica, across Asia using empirical evidence drawn from an archaeobotanical dataset of 400 sites from mainland East, Southeast and South Asia. The approach is based on regression modelling wherein goodness of fit is obtained from log–log quantile regressions of the archaeologically inferred age versus a least-cost distance from the origin(s) of dispersal. The Fast Marching method is used to estimate the least-cost distances based on simple geographical features. We explicitly test three hypotheses for the arrival of japonica rice to India where, it has been proposed, it hybridized with the indigenous proto- indica, subsequently spreading again throughout India. Model selection, based on information criteria, highlights the role of the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor in introducing japonica rice into northeast India, followed closely by a ‘mixed-route’ model, where japonica was also almost simultaneously introduced via Assam, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Finally, we estimate the impact of future archaeological work on model selection, further strengthening the importance of the Inner Asia Mountain Corridor.

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 · 10.1177/0959683618788634

Cites

86 of 86 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 [105]

    The Conclusions (page unavailable) say domesticated rice had become established in the middle Ganges region, and the Discussion notes predominantly non-shattering rice at Mahagara around 1650 BC. But the Discussion gives 1395 BC as the model’s predicted arrival date for domesticated indica at Mahagara; the copy does not establish an introduction throughout the Upper and Middle Ganges specifically around 1600–1500 BC. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    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 [105]

    The Discussion reports evidence of proto-indica cultivation at Haryana sites dated 2500–2000 BC. That supports the early date and rice-management aspect, but Haryana is not the middle Ganges plains, and the passage does not identify the cultivators as hunter–fisher–gatherers. The Conclusions describe proto-indica cultivation elsewhere as a model prediction requiring future testing. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    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: 10

  1. Akaike H (1973) Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN and Caski F (eds) Second International Symposium on Information Theory. Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, pp.267-281.
  2. Costantini L (1979) Plant remains at Pirak. In: Jarrige J-F and Santoni M (eds) Fouilles de Pirak. Paris: Diffusion de Boccard, pp.326-33.
  3. Crawford GW and Shen C (1998) The origins of rice agriculture: recent progress in East Asia. Antiquity 72(278): 858-866.
  4. Edwards AWF (1992) Likelihood. Expanded ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  5. Fuller DQ (n.d.) Archaeobotany. In: Kennet D, Bai MK and VaraprasadaRao J (eds) Transformations in early historic and early medieval India: excavations at Paithan, Maharashtra 1996-1999. Delhi: Archaeological Survey of India, pp.289-327. [in press
  6. Fuller DQ, Rowlands M (2009) Towards a Long-Term Macro-Geography of Cultural Substances: Food and Sacrifice Tradition in East, West and South Asia. Chinese Review of Anthropology 12: 1-37.
  7. Murphy C, Weisskopf, A, Bohingamuwa W, Adikari G, Perera N, Blinkhorn J, Horton M, Fuller DQ and Boivin N (In Review) Early Agriculture in Sri Lanka: New Arcaheobotanical Analyses and Radiocarbon Dates from the Early Historic Sites of Kirinda and Kantharodai. Archaeological Research in Asia [submitted]
  8. Oka H (1988) Origins of cultivated rice. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  9. Rassamakin Y (1999) The Eneolithic of the Black Sea Steppe: Dyanmics of Cultural and Economic Development 4500-2300 BC. In: Levine M, Rassamakin Y, Kislenko A and Tatarintseva N (eds) Late Prehistoric exploitation of the Euriasian Steppe. Cambridge: McDonald Institute, pp. 59- 182.
  10. Zhao Z (2015) Study of how wheat was transmitted into China-based on archaeobotanic data. Nanfang Wenwu [Relics from the South] 2015(3): 44-52. [in Chinese].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Silva, F., Weisskopf, A., Castillo, C., Murphy, C., Kingwell-Banham, E., Qin, L., & Fuller, D. Q.
Affiliations
  • Institute of Archaeology, University College London, UK
  • University College London (GB)
  • Peking University (CN)
Venue
The Holocene
Published
2018-08-07
Volume
28
Issue
11
Pages
1745-1758
ISSN
  • 0959-6836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0911
OpenAlex
W2886057795
Cited by
39
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • The Holocene (publishedVersion)
  • Bournemouth University Research Online (Bournemouth University) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Research Council (Advanced Grant no. 323842)
  • Natural Environment Research Council (NE/G005540/1)
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 › Geography, Planning and Development › Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies
Keywords
Oryza sativa subsp. japonica, archaeobotany, fast marching method, rice hybridization, Northeast India, South and Southeast Asia, model selection, information criteria

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