Ok i came to this thread a bit late, but do you realise that 13500 to 8200 years ago the Yangtze river basin was not populated by the Han Chinese. The culture which became the 'Chinese' were from around the Yellow River which is further north. In fact, if you go and read the related wikipedia article regarding history of rice cultivation, it says this:
So if we follow wikipedia, the most likely first rice cultivators are pre-Austronesians. Guess who are Austronesians?

Wikipedia Link

Wow, you had proved that not only rice originated in China, but Austronesians as well.

who?

Well according to wikipedia both did were in the Yangtze river area. Btw during those period there was no China. So to get back to original topic of TS, rice is not Chinese ingredient that is in Malay food.
Austronesian Peoples

Babi hutan rendang lagi sedap 🤣🤣🤣🤣

According to Wikipedia, all human being are African descendant. So rice is nigger food ?!

Since rice only cultivated when people have left Africa and it was first done by pre-Austronesians who do not resemble Africans anymore and call themselves a different people, then no.

Are you saying you're a nigger since your ancestors were from Africa as well?

Since rice only cultivated when people have left Africa and it was first done by pre-Austronesians who do not resemble Africans anymore and call themselves a different people, then no.

Are you saying you're a nigger since your ancestors were from Africa as well?

pre-Austronesian is not Austronesians as well.

Those we left behind in China eventually called themselves Chinese, and left china call Austronesians by histrorian.

Unless you call yourself African, otherwise your logic dosen't work well.

So not Chinese la. Later only some become Chinese while others become Austronesians, etc.

Ok i came to this thread a bit late, but do you realise that 13500 to 8200 years ago the Yangtze river basin was not populated by the Han Chinese. The culture which became the 'Chinese' were from around the Yellow River which is further north. In fact, if you go and read the related wikipedia article regarding history of rice cultivation, it says this:
So if we follow wikipedia, the most likely first rice cultivators are pre-Austronesians. Guess who are Austronesians?

Wikipedia Link

Based on Sunda Theory is the people originated from Pentas Sunda during the last Ice Age.

When Pentas Sunda sunk around 11000 years ago, the people there flee all over the place.

Later the people met with other people.

The one going north met the Inuit/Siberian.

The one going West met the Indians.

The one going South met the Papuan/Australia aborigines.

The one going East met the Islanders which is similar to Papuan.

From genetic and geographical point of view this make sense.

Of course other than the people in Pentas Sunda there are also traces of 'aborigines' that live in the inland which is similar to the Papuan.

Many of the people also have their own version of the Great Flood Legend depicting the sinking of the Pentas Sunda and people fleeing the continent.

Human were nomadic and roam around until they became farmer and settled down.

Those Austronesians left China way before rice was even cultivated.

Eh? Now you don't believe wikipedia anymore? What part of the article I quoted and linked you don't understand? It said specifically that pre-Austronesians first cultivated rice in the Yangtze area. Sudah la, your own source of info also don't support you so just give up man and don't be like Indon want to claim everything (although in this case since most Indonesians are Austronesians, they actually have better claim than you).

Why you kept on associating with pre-Austronesians = Austronesians but refuges to acknowledge pre-Negro = present day negro? Topkek logic right?

Well. There are other civilization who create writing long before Chinese such as egypt, mesopotamia, india (indus).
They never wrote about plant & eat rice.

Chinese only create writing 1200BCE. Dont talk kok k.

Rice cultivation in China thousand years earlier which is 13500 years.
This discovery not based on writing but based on archeology, artifact, tools. Nothing to do invented word or writing.

Go read more la. Pre-Austronesians later mostly became Austronesians la.

Ok if you still want to use silly argument and don't want to accept the above, it still means it was not the Chinese or Chinese precursor culture which first cultivated rice. So no, rice not included in Chinese Ingredients thats is in Malay Food.

Many of the Pre-Austronesian later also became Chinese. What is the problem? Those who left china later became Austronesian. Just like those who left Africa became Mongolian ..... etc...

Rice was first cultivated in modern days China that is a fact (with best evidence now), regardless of whether it was cultivated by pre-negros, pre-hans, pre-Austronesians.

So if pre-austronesians (who are the first cultivators of rice) become austronesians, chinese, etc. what makes it a 'Chinese' ingredient. Don't say because it was cultivated in China la, since no China that time anyway and rice as an ingredient has been used by many cultures since then before China's eventual formation.

Anyway, whatever la, you can claim like the indons la if it makes you feel better.

Are you sure 100% pre-austronesians became austronesians?

The fact is, rice was first cultivated in yangtze river basin, which is modern day china.

Unless there are archeology excavation proof that it was cultivated in other areas at around the same time (+-500 years maybe), it will remains as it is. This is call science. Need proof for whatever you lcaim.