Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:58:58.850Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some botanical characteristics of green foxtail (Setaria viridis) and harvesting experiments on the grass

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Tracey L.-D. Lu
Tracey L.-D. Lu*
Affiliation:
Department of Archaeology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia, tdlu@ibm.net
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Green foxtail (Setaria viridis) is an annual grass widely distributed over the Old World, including China, where evidence of the earliest foxtail millet domestication to date has been discovered in the Cishan assemblage, Hebei province, dated to approximately 7900–7500 BP (Institute of Archaeology CASS 1991). Isozymic analysis and interspecific cross between S. viridis and S. italica (domesticated foxtail millet) demonstrated that S. viridis is the progenitor of domesticated foxtail millet (Gao & Chen 1988; Li et al. 1945). Yet little is known about the process of millet domestication, and even less about either the botanical characteristics of S. viridis or its cultural significance regarding human domestication.

Keywords

experimental archaeologygreen foxtailmilletgrowing scheduleharvestingdomesticationChina
Type
Special section: Rice domestication
Information
Antiquity , Volume 72 , Issue 278 , December 1998 , pp. 902 - 907
Copyright
Copyright © Antiquity Publications Ltd. 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cane, S. 1989. Australian Aboriginal seed grinding and its archaeological record: a case study from the Western Desert, in Harris, D.R. & Hillman, G.C. (ed.), Foraging and farming: the evolution of plant exploitation: 99–119. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
Chen, Wenhua. 1994. Zhongguo Nongye Kaogu Tulu (Atlas of Agricultural Archaeology in China). Nancheng: Jiangxi Press of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Gao, Ming-Jun & Jiaju, Chen. 1988. Isozymic studies on the origin of cultivated foxtail millet, ACTA Agronomica Sinica 14(2): 131–6.Google Scholar
Harlan, J.R. 1967. A wild wheat harvest in Turkey, Archaeology 20(1): 197–201.Google Scholar
Helbaek, H. 1960. The palaeoethnobotany of the Near East and Europe, in Braidwood, R. & Howe, B. (ed.), Prehistoric investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan: 99–118. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hillman, G. & Davies, M.S. 1992. Domestication rate in wild wheat and barley under primitive cultivation; preliminary results and archaeological implements of field measurements of selection coefficient, in Anderson, P. (ed.), Préhistoire de l’agriculture: 113–48. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Institute of Archaeology Cass. 1991. Archaeological radiocarbon dates 1965–1991. Beijing: Cultural Relics Publishing House.Google Scholar
Li, H.-W., Li, H. & Pao, W. K. 1945. Cytological and genetic studies of the interspecific cross of the cultivated foxtail millet, Setaria italica Beauv., and the green foxtail millet, S. viridis L., Journal of the American Society of Agronomy 37: 32–54.Google Scholar
Lu, Tracey L.-D. 1998. The transition from foraging to farming and the origins of agriculture in China. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Nanking University. 1965. An illustration of major plants in China. Beijing: Science Press.Google Scholar
Smith, B.D. 1995. The emergence of agriculture. New York (NY): Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
Society of Crop Genetic Resources. 1994. Crop genetic resources in China. Beijing: Agronomy Press.Google Scholar
Wang Jian, Xiangqan Wang & Zheying, Chen. 1978. The Xiachuan culture, Kao Gu Xue Bao (Archaeologica Sinica) 3: 259–87.Google Scholar
Wilke, P.J., Bettinger, R., King, T.F. & O’Connell, J.F. 1972. Harvest selection and domestication in seed plants, Antiquity 46: 203–9.Google Scholar