Agricultural origins in North China pushed back to the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two grains, common (proso or broomcorn) millet (Panicum miliaceum) (Fig. 1) and foxtail millet (Setaria italica), were fundamental to the development of agricultural societies that eventually evolved into the first urban societies of China between 4500 and 3800 calibrated years (cal.) B.P. (1). Today, these grains are important mainly in parts of Russia, South Asia, and East Asia. How, when, and in what settings these millets initially evolved is not well known (2). One hypothesis holds that common millet was domesticated rapidly in the central Wei river basin shortly after ca. 8000 cal. B.P. (3). Another hypothesis proposes that common millet was domesticated in the Northeast China Liao river basin around the same time (4). In reality, archaeological data have simply not been adequate to resolve the issues surrounding the domestication of millet and the development of the first agricultural communities in North China. Complicating the problem, common millet is also present in Europe ca. 8000–7500 cal. B.P. (2), so this timing opens the possibility that the crop was domesticated more than once. Otherwise, its origins must predate 8000 cal. B.P. The Early Holocene Cishan site in North China is one of several sites considered key to understanding millet domestication and the origin of dry-land agriculture in China, yet the dating and identity of the crops recovered there have never been adequately documented. The study published in this issue of PNAS (5) revisits Cishan, located on a terrace on the western edge of the North China Plain ≈9 km from where the Nanming river emerges from the Taihang mountains. Two outstanding issues regarding the early archaeological record of millet at Cishan first reported nearly 30 years ago (6, 7), their dating and identification, are resolved in the new study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".