https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice

The history of rice cultivation is a long and complicated one. The current scientific consensus, based on archaeological and linguistic evidence, is that Oryza sativa rice was first domesticated in the Yangtze River basin in China 13,500 to 8,200 years ago.

There are two most likely centers of domestication for rice as well as the development of the wetland agriculture technology. The first, and most likely, is in the lower Yangtze River, believed to be the homelands of the pre-Austronesians and possibly also the Kra-Dai, and associated with the Kauhuqiao, Hemudu, Majiabang, Songze, Liangzhu, and Maqiao cultures. It is characterized by pre-Austronesian features, including stilt houses, jade carving, and boat technologies. Their diet were also supplemented by acorns, water chestnuts, foxnuts, and pig domestication.[4][6][9][10][11]

The second is in the middle Yangtze River, believed to be the homelands of the early Hmong-Mien-speakers and associated with the Pengtoushan, Nanmuyuan, Liulinxi, Daxi, Qujialing, and Shijiahe cultures. Both of these regions were heavily populated and had regular trade contacts with each other, as well as with early Austroasiatic speakers to the west, and early Kra-Dai speakers to the south, facilitating the spread of rice cultivation throughout southern China.[6][9][11]

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

who?

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

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.

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

Those Austronesians left China way before rice was even cultivated.

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

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.

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.

They were not 100% chinese, but they were not 100% austronesian as well right? How can you conclude that they are austronesian?

You are trying to claim that austronesian was the one who cultivated rice. By ignoring the fact the austronesian doesn't exist during that time as well.

You are trying to be smart by linking pre-austronesian to nullify all the fact without supplying further proof of your claim.

The fact remains as fact, show me proof that where on earth another location had discovered paddy field around the same time ???? Whether or not the locals were pre-austronesian or pre-negro, or pre-hans during that time doesn't make any different.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/how...ng%20originated.

How rice farming may have spread across the ancient world

4000 years ago, China already exist that time.

Those migrate to eurpoe / america never brought rice there.

Wah, using your logic, curry is not from yindia as well.