Heritage Technology
Antiquity Vol 82 Issue 316 June 2008
In their comment on our paper on early rice cultivation in China, Fuller et al. (2008) include the following paragraph:
“Another issue from Jiahu, is the report of new metrical data from the site. Of course new data may always force us to change our interpretations, but what is troubling here is more of an ethical issue. We considered Jiahu on the basis of a final published monograph of which one of Liu's co-authors, Zhang, was chief editor. In excavation reports one expects to see full publication of excavated samples and expert analysis, as is the standard procedure with ceramics and stone tools. That there is additional material, so different from what was published, that was not included and discussed, then pulled out as though a parlour trick, highlights a problem with the archaeobotanical data” (italics mine).
At the core of this paragraph is the implication that Zhang as the chief editor did not include all his available data in the Jiahu excavation report published in 1999 (Henan Institute of Cultural Relics 1999). However, Jiahu has been continuously excavated since the 1999 site report was published, more rice remains have been revealed from excavation in 2001, and the brief report of the latter excavation has been published. In our paper (Liu et al. 2007), we provided a reference to an additional excavation report published in 2002. I quote this paragraph below:
“Jiahu yielded many carbonised, dehusked rice grains (Henan Institute of Cultural Relics 1999: 887; University of Science and Technology of China & Henan Institute of Archaeology 2002). We measured 566 intact grains, dating to Jiahu Phases I-III (Figure 3).”
Because of the word-limit in Antiquity’s Project Gallery, we were unable to provide detailed discussion on this issue there, so our full response to Fuller et al.’s (2007) paper was published in The Holocene 2007, Nov. issue (Liu et al. 2007b). Fuller et al. certainly had an opportunity to read it before they finalised their contribution to the 2008 Antiquity Project Gallery. In this Holocene paper we clearly indicated where our data came from:
“We have measured 566 complete grains that derived from seven features (pits and house floor), excavated in recent years (University of Science and Henan Institute, 2002). Compared [with] previously published findings on Jiahu rice (Henan Institute, 1999: 887), the new measurements suggest that Jiahu rice grains are not small, but show great variation in size. There is also a general tendency of decreasing size but less divers[ity] in shape over 1000 years from Phase I to Phase III (Table I; Figure 4). Previous measurements seem to have suffered from small sampling size.”
The 2002 report of Jiahu excavations is a preliminary report, which indicated that many plant remains, including rice, were uncovered and multidisciplinary research on the specimens was underway (University of Science and Technology of China & Henan Institute of Archaeology 2002). Our analysis of the Jiahu rice is a part of ongoing research on the Jiahu site. Zhang as the chief director of the Jiahu excavations has every right to further the research on the Jiahu material and publish the results. There is nothing ‘unethical’ about this. Evidently, the problem is that Fuller et al. are reaching conclusions without adequate knowledge about what researches have been done.
Ethical issues certainly should be considered in archaeological research, and, ironically, Fuller et al.’s groundless criticism of our research on the Jiahu rice and their intemperate language, such as ‘pulled out as though a parlour trick’, are indeed unethical.
In recent years, Chinese archaeologists have been very keen to work with their colleagues in the West, and have provided great opportunities for international collaboration. However, it is important that such collaboration pay careful attention to Chinese sources and respect the scholarly and scientific achievements of other researchers. The debate on the origins of rice cultivation is of global interest and should be considered as a measured intellectual and academic discourse.