A Pioneering, Innovative Approach to Researching the History of Rice in China

– reflections while reading A History of Rice in China

China is the birthplace of cultivated rice, where it has a history of more than 10,000 years. Even at the dawn of Chinese civilization, the agricultural pattern of millet cultivation in the north and rice cultivation in the south was already established. After the Tang and Song Dynasties, with the national economic focus shifting to the south, cultivated rice became the leading item in food production and consumption. Rice has contributed greatly to the generation of the Chinese nation and the continued development of its civilization. The study of the history of rice holds an important position in the history of Chinese agriculture and civilization. 

You Xiuling was the trailblazer in the systematic study of the history of rice in China. One of his top students, Zeng Xiongsheng, has continued his research. Zeng is an old friend of mine, whom I have known for decades. Recently, he sent me a soft copy of the manuscript of his forthcoming book A History of Rice in China and asked me to write a few words of introduction. In it, Zeng has arranged his published and unpublished research, gathered over the past 30 years, into 22 topics, combining some overlapping pieces into one chapter. He has divided these into six sections, with an additional essay to introduce the volume, entitled “Thirty Years of Research on the History of Rice,” which methodically lays out his life’s work. As I glanced through the book, I noticed many new developments and insights, and I was impressed by the broad vision and the richness of the materials it included. 

An academic paper is nothing more than a process of interrogation, analysis, and problem solving. It begins with the skilled identification of problems or questions and the proposal of valuable topics. The subsequent analysis and problem solving requires a substantial amount of materials and an appropriate methodology. The author’s views and ideas are demonstrated and proven through the process of analysis and problem solving. The life of scholarship lies in innovation, which is reflected in the process of interrogation, analysis, and problem solving. What is called “the four news” in China – new issues, new materials, new methods, and new perspectives – is regarded as the benchmark for academic papers. 

One of the areas of focus in A History of Rice in China is filling in the gaps in the original research in the field. Examples of areas covered in this volume include shiwu, a transplanting tool, water gauges, strains of huanglu rice, direct seeding of rice paddies in a cropping system, double-harvest rice, valuable literature and agriculture, including Legacy in the Countryside by Xu Guangqi (1562–1633) and Zeng’s Agricultural Treatise from Wang Zhen’s Agricultural Treatise, and analysis of concepts such as “early grain” and paddy fields. None of these have been explored by Zeng’s predecessors, or if they were, the studies lacked a systematic approach. In this way, the work presented here is groundbreaking. It should be pointed out that the concepts presented here have not only been teased out from formerly neglected areas, but also from problems that have arisen from commonplace things. For instance, the term “paddy field” is commonly understood, and there is no objection to the understanding of it as a field where deepwater rice is grown. But here, Zeng has carefully combed the ins and outs of the concept of the paddy field and produced a hefty article recording his insights. In it, he points out that the Chinese term shuitian, usually understood to mean paddy field, first appeared in China’s arid regions of the northwest, where “it is impossible to farm without irrigation.” The term refers to any cultivated land that has been subject to water irrigation and can be used to grow either wet or dry crops. Treating the term shuitian as an equivalent of shuidaotian, which specifically refers to a rice paddy field, became common among people in the south, and this later influenced northerners. From the early Song Dynasty, people began to gradually equate paddy fields specifically with rice, then transferred it to the concept of water conservancy in the north. Though this was a misunderstanding of the term, it impacted governmental decisions. Zeng uses this perspective to explain the controversy over water conservation efforts in the north (especially the capital and its surroundings). This perspective offers a refreshing look at a controversy that spanned a millennium. 

Another topic addressed in this volume is the creation of new fields of research. The material covered in A History of Rice in China includes agricultural tools, strains of rice, cropping systems, literature on agriculture, names of and facts about cultural relics related to rice, and environmental, socio-economic, and cultural exchanges between China and other countries. The first section of A History of Rice in China, entitled “The Class Defining Nature of Food,” is a sociological examination of the history of rice. It is not concerned with the natural traits of food, but with the class associations and regional characteristics of the different types of food that humans consume. In the study of agricultural history, little attention is given to the issue of consumption. Similarly, consumption is rarely studied from the perspective of class nature. This topic, then, opens a new window on the history of rice and on agricultural history more generally. Legacy in the Countryside is a lost piece that is not included in anthologies of Xu Guangqi’s work. Zeng includes three articles related to this piece, analyzing it from the perspectives of agricultural literature, agricultural culture, agricultural science and technology, and agricultural economy. “The Collation and Dissemination of Traditional Agronomy Knowledge: Lessons from Xu Guangqi’s Legacy in the Countryside focuses on the political and cultural traditions of the emphasis on and promotion of agriculture, comparing Legacy in the Countryside to other ancient writings of its kind. The article points out that although Xu’s text inherits the form of the genre, it contains content related to the rural relationship, local experience, inheritance and innovation based on practice, and other new content that is unlike anything else that existed in the field at the time. At the same time, it analyzes the diversity of the knowledge conveyed in the text, extending and developing the boundaries and nodes of intersection, and thus offering a useful point for exploring the model upon which traditional agricultural knowledge was built. In the past, there has been great exchange between Chinese and foreign rice culture, including the introduction of rice from Champa (modern day Southern Vietnam), focusing particularly on the impact of the promotion of Champa’s rice on China’s rice cultivation system and socio-economic development. 

The article entitled “The Historical Exchange of Rice Cultivation Culture Between China and Southeast Asia” offers an overview of various aspects of paddy fields, rice seeds, rice crops, rice cultivation, and the folklore surrounding rice. This article is groundbreaking in the field. 

The book also includes a special article on rice farming in Lingnan, approaching the topic from an environmental perspective. I believe there is great significance behind Zeng’s choice to title this volume A History of Rice in China, rather than A History of Rice Cultivation, in that the purpose of the book is not to study rice cultivation or technology in isolation, or even to focus on the technology of rice cultivation at all, but to place it in the larger framework of the socioeconomic, political, cultural, and natural environment. This examination sets up a broader stage for the study of the history of rice than previous generations have enjoyed. 

Another category of topics addressed in this volume is new explorations built on previous discussions. For instance, “Historical Research on the Varieties of Rice in Jiangxi” is based on You Xiuling’s “Historical Research on Natural Varieties of Rice in China,” refining and deepening the research on varieties of rice in a particular region. Most of these topics have been studied by earlier researchers, and Zeng has identified gaps or errors in the work that invite further exploration or discussion. His mind is active, free from constraints or troubles, giving him the courage to put forward his own ideas and opinions so that they may be discussed with other scholars. This sort of discussion is not merely suggestive or beating around the bush, but is instead frank, direct, straightforward, and to the point. The topics for discussion are well-known among scholars, both overseas and domestically, many of whom are the author’s own teachers and friends. For instance, the article “Interpreting Shuitian and Baitian” was developed in discussion with Xin Deyong, while “From the Plow to the Iron Rake in the Lower Reaches of the Yangtze: A Microcosm of Jiangnan from the 9th to the 19th Century” grew out of Zeng’s discussions with Li Bozhong. In addition, “Several Issues Related to Rice Cultivation Culture in Jiangnan” was discussed with Japanese scholar Takaaki Kono, “Research on the Age of Rice in the Ancient Folk Songs of the Dai People” was discussed with Zeng’s mentor You Xiuling, and “A Preliminary Discussion on the Impact of Champa’s Rice on China’s Rice Cultivation in Ancient Times” is a critique of the tendency among both foreign and domestic scholars to exaggerate impact of the introduction of rice from Champa and a suggestion of his own competing ideas on the subject. These articles are of great help in advancing research in the field. Zeng’s open disagreement with some of his masters’ publicly stated opinions is a direct result of You Xiuling’s insights and generosity. You never dismissed dissenting opinions when they were proposed by his students, but always encouraged the discussion of a variety of viewpoints. Zeng’s habitually bold nature was developed under the influence of such enlightened teachers. In the early 1980s, when I had just begun working at the Institute of Economics in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the director of the department, Wu Chengming, told us that the previous director, Sun Yefang, had said, “Diplomacy requires common ground even when we have our differences, but academic work requires us to have our differences even when we share common ground.” This observation made an impact on me – it is truly profound. Alongside our rigorous scholarly work, we academics must discuss and interact with one another. Scholarship can only develop through the confrontation of divergent viewpoints, as Zheng Banqiao notes in his poem, where he states that “study turns doubt into understanding.” The spirit of scientific doubt is often the cornerstone of truth. Zeng and I once had a dispute. When I received my copy of A History of Rice in China, I concluded that the article “Analysis of Crop Rotations of Rice and Wheat in the Song Dynasty” had been written based on that earlier discussion. Though neither of us persuaded the other to change his view, the deliberations led me to reflect on the inadequacy of my own research and provided me with the needed inspiration to pursue it further. This is something for which I am thankful to Zeng Xiongsheng. We thought independently, put forward our own opinions, and conducted a serious discussion and confrontation. I think this is a valuable quality in a scholar. There are far too few candid debates of this sort, built on mutual respect. We should appreciate his spirit of boldness that allows us to argue instead of being confined to established propositions. It should also be pointed out that outstanding students do not just blindly follow those who have gone before. As Zeng points out, the misreading of shuitian is not a modern error, but an ancient one. Clarifying this point not only makes our assessment of the development of rice cultivation in the north more scientific, but also travels through time and space to “rectify the wrongs” in the minds of ancient thinkers. 

Just from these three topics, we can see that Zeng’s vision is broad and his mind active, and that he is perceptive and skilled in finding problems and capturing “points of conflict.” These are important traits for a researcher. 

Another feature of A History of Rice in China is that each article is full of rich resources, citing other relevant materials and avoiding empty statements, making it feel quite weighty. It is clear that Zeng has worked hard to collect, collate, and digest the materials. For instance, the study of “The Class Defining Nature of Food” is virgin land that has yet to be developed. There are no complete records available, but only widely scattered data, leaving Zeng the task of finding and collecting it all from scratch. 

In addition to the usual history books, he quotes from a large number of local chronicles, notes, and reports to fill the gaps found in agricultural or history books, including poetry and novels (such as Dream of the Red Mansions), Qing Dynasty palace archives, the archives of the Confucius Mansion, imperial directives, and other similar documents. He has even consulted the newest journals, such as Literary Heritage and Open Times, and books such as Rice of Haidian, Beijing. There are as many as sixty or seventy references in an article of ten thousand words. The author’s diligence in collecting these materials is evident. Each article is certainly informative and well-informed. In fact, topics such as transplanting, Legacy in the Countryside, and the development of the term shuitian were stumbled upon in the course of Zeng’s work collecting and collating the materials. The historical materials have been mastered and digested, and they are readily accessible, which reflects his great familiarity with and ability to manage the historical materials. In addition to various texts, Zeng also makes use of archaeological and ethnographic materials. His master’s thesis covered a combination of ancient history and legends combined with archaeological discoveries, documentary records, and related ethnographic survey materials in his discussion of “earthy folk custom like those in ancient Shun and Yu’s times.” In his study on the early history of the varieties of rice in Jiangxi, he cites many archaeological materials. But for various reasons, his research on the history of rice after the Tang and Song Dynasties is based mainly on various texts. He has inherited the fine tradition of an older generation of agricultural history researchers who combined traditional literature with their fields of investigation. “Investigation and Research on Rice Production Technology in The Exploitation of the Works of Nature” is a product of this combination. Research into the shiwu, an ancient rice transplanting tool, has also grown out of such surveys of the field. 

In agricultural history studies, I advocate combining documentary historical materials with cultural relics, tangible historical materials, and living historical materials. Of course, the use of these materials must be adapted to the situation and the questions the researcher is pursuing. But generally, documentary historical materials remain the most basic of the various types of materials available, because neither the “dead” cultural relics excavated from underground nor the “living” sources of traditional historical sites can replace the rich tradition of the classics. All types of historical material rely on mutual confirmation with the documentary records and mutual innovation for the best ways of revealing and displaying their true significance. Zeng has expressed his appreciation for the progress that has been made in archaeologists’ study of the origin and early development of the science and technology involved in rice cultivation, noting that if science and technology archaeologists are not familiar with history, they will be blind, and their findings will be too general. He has expressed his confidence in the study of rice history, which is mainly based on documentary research, since “ultimately, the literature on rice studies is richer than the archaeological data, so there is more room in which to play.” I agree with this view. Earlier scholars in the field of agricultural history have laid the foundation for the establishment of the discipline through the collation of agricultural texts and the systematic collection of various documents and materials. The vast collection of classics is a treasurehouse left to us by previous generations. In the collection of materials, previous generations have advocated “exhausting all avenues.” The development of modern science and technology has increased the possibility of “exhausting all avenues” for a thorough search of the documents available in a given field. As far as the field of rice history is concerned, Zeng has come close to meeting this requirement. I think that, at least in some aspects, the breadth of the historical data he has consulted has surpassed that of his predecessors. This is, of course, the result of his tireless, diligent work, but it was also made possible because of scientific and technological advancements. The collation, publication, and digital development of ancient books has opened up unprecedented prospects for the exploration and utilization of documents and materials, which is a huge benefit for contemporary researchers in the field of agricultural history. 

Materials are the basis of our research, but materials alone are not enough. Proper methods are required to manage the materials in order to analyze and address the issues. Different research objectives will require the adoption of different research methods, but there are still things that all research has in common. I propose the combination of the two methods, the undefined historical method and the defined historical method. As far as I can see, the research method most prominently used in A History of Rice in China approaches each topic with a different central focus, but it does not discuss these issues in isolation. Instead, it examines each topic in relation to economics, society, culture, and nature. In the context of the environment, it gradually expands to different relevant levels, giving the reader a three-dimensional understanding of the issues. For instance, the study of huanglu rice starts from the various names used in different regions at different time, then goes on to discuss its traits, development, and popularization. It also closely examines other varieties of rice from the same or similar seeds. At the same time, from the perspective of population, the growth of social demand, Jiangnan’s natural environment, and the state of overall agricultural development, it evaluates the role huanglu rice has played throughout the history of agriculture. It points out that of the two paths China’s grain growth has taken since the Tang and Song Dynasties, paddy fields have been more important than terrace fields, so its tolerance of waterlogging, early maturation, and suitability to floodlands has made the rush harvest of huanglu rice at the beginning of each season even more important to China than the rice from Champa. The insights offered in this chapter are based on the informative historical data and in-depth analysis that has not previously been published, and it has attracted the attention of foreign researchers. 

In regards to the rain gauge, Zeng expounds on it in his discussion of the development of the overall rainfall reporting system, focusing on the fate of the rain gauge in ancient China. The article notes that China’s Qin and Han Dynasties had a system of reporting rainfall, and the concept of a standard rain gauge had formed as early as the Song Dynasty, but there were never standard rain gauges developed and promoted by the government, let alone a national observation network or uniform standards. Zeng has explored why this might have been the case, considering possibilities that include corruption or false reporting in the bureaucracy, confusion caused by standard forms of predicting rainfall, restraint caused by a sense of the impropriety of human interference in heaven’s affairs, and the political struggle the endeavor may have caused. In this way, the rain gauge, a measure of natural participation, is like a kaleidoscope through which one can see various social phenomena, including technology, economics, politics, and culture. 

The interpretation of Legacy in the Countryside, found in “Rice Cultivation Issues in Legacy in the Countryside,” focuses on how to restore rice cultivation after a flood, which involves the ecological environment, natural disasters, varieties of rice, rice cultivation technology, and irrigation. The exchange of rice seeds and technology across regions, government actions, technical measures, and relations between neighbors in the process of responding to natural disasters are among the issues discussed in relation to Jiangnan’s economic history. In the last article, Zeng points out that Jiangnan was the most developed region in East Asia during the Ming and Qing Dynasties. Its economy was still very fragile, labor productivity was not high, and natural disasters often threatened agricultural production. There was a trend toward industrialization and commercialization, and new measures were taken to restore production after flooding (such as purchasing seeds to replant, purchasing seedlings to replant, etc.). Zeng criticizes the tendency toward fragmentation and polarization commonly seen in academia, but he does not agree with the method of calculating GDP as a means of quantifying and comparing the economies of Jiangnan and Western Europe, because complex social rules cannot be accurately expressed in such equations, and GDP cannot tell us much about lived reality. The key to understanding Jiangnan’s economic history is to return to the fundamentals of the economy and grasp its core. This core is the rice production that so much of the Jiangnan population depended on for its sustenance. In addressing how to overcome the fragmentation and polarization of scholarship, Zeng recommends that scholars share their findings, which will serve to give all researchers in the field a fuller picture. 

The development and innovation of rice history research seen in A History of Rice in China is multifaceted, and it has been hailed as an important work in the recent research into agricultural history. I think it will be recognized by many peers in the field, and its status among the research into rice history is such that it will not easily be surpassed by future researchers. 

A History of Rice in China is rich in content, and I have learned much from reading it, even though constraints on my time and energy have kept me from reading it carefully. This is only a superficial introduction to the text, since it is difficult to reflect the whole picture, and it may not provide a sufficient overview. Fortunately, Zeng’s article “Thirty Years of Research in Rice History” has been included at the beginning of this volume. It systematically introduces the background, inheritance, and history of Zeng’s research into the history of rice. The book will serve as a valuable resource to other researchers in the field. 

Agricultural history is a multidisciplinary subject straddling the natural and social sciences. It requires the researcher to be learned in agronomy, culture, and history. In agricultural history research, those with a background in history often feel they lack knowledge in the field of agriculture, while those with a background in agriculture often feel they are lacking skills in cultural and historical studies. Zeng was born in a farmhouse in Ji’an, Jiangxi, the rice growing town featuring “rich resources and extraordinary people.” He spent his childhood and youth in the countryside. He is an agriculturalist and agronomist. This experience has given him the advantage of having studied both agriculture and history. His literary and historical skills are useful in broadening horizons and mastering the texts, while his experience of rural life and agronomy have lent themselves to the discovery, understanding, and grasp of the scientific, technological, and economic problems faced throughout the history of agriculture. This rural background has been particularly valuable to Zeng in his study of agricultural history. His understanding of some key issues in agricultural history came from his experience of rural life. In the book’s postscript, he says, “My original understanding of rice farming came from my parents’ teaching and the days I walked barefoot through the muddy fields with them. If I had to put my finger on what gives me the greatest confidence in this book, it is not from the words scrawled across a piece of paper, but from the footprints trailing across the fields.” This sentiment is evident throughout A History of Rice in China. As I read “Interpreting Baitian and Shuitian,” I felt that Zeng was able to correct the misreading in Chen Fu’s Agricultural Treatise of the term baitian because he began with the common sense he gained from agricultural life. In discussing why baitian is called thus, he cleverly links the name to other terms such as baibei, gaorang baidi, and baitubaodi, all of which are commonly used in agricultural treatises. He integrates these terms, explaining how the moisture content and movement of the soil change its color and properties. It is a compelling argument, in which Zeng blends his familiarity with agricultural literature with the practical experience of rural life. An argument such as this is clearly superior to a purely textual one. 

Zeng’s research in agricultural history does not focus on just one aspect of the field, but on almost all, and there is a continuous flow of the findings from his research that one can follow throughout the book. He is one of today’s most prominent scholars in the field, and he is just now reaching his prime. A heavy responsibility rests on his shoulders as he inherits and develops the discipline of agricultural research. I wish him every success, hoping that he will excel still more and make even greater contributions to the development of the field. 

Li Genpan

March 7, 2017