May
3, 1978
The
reason for this picture which you have already seen is that a friend of mine
was sent the Australian Catalogue of the Chinese Exhibition and it seemed to me
that the picture of this pot with
the chicken head spout, was in color but not as sharp and clear as this one,
which appeared in the Exhibition Catalogue here. Your catalogue was in every
way more beautiful more than the one we got. Ours have no color plates or
cover.
About
the petrogliphs, this was something a fiend visiting Hawaii brought me. I the
wrote the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, and they sent me 3 copies of the things
they consider chickens, but you have to use your imagination. They are just
barely skeletons. I think them much older then their guess. I have pictures of
a Babylonian Cylinder Seal, an ancient Hebrew seal, and the Greek and Roman
mosaics, which are definitely chickens, and these are not prehistoric by any
means. What we are trying to find is some representation of a prehistoric
creature that is something between Archaeopteryx
and Gallus bankiva. This may be as
illusive as the missing link between apes and men. The chicken’s bones are
so fragile, it would be a miracle if any survived.
None
of that, of course, has any bearing on your search for the origin of
Pekin-Cochin Bantam. We must keep searching for artefacts, and I think your
discovery of the 4th century Celadon pot
is splendid. Let me know what the Japanese article told.
Pardon
me for not writing more today. I am still in much shoulder pain, and typing
doesn’t help much. More anon.
Sincerely,
P.S.
There are 2 Davenports. One is called Inheritance
in Poultry 1906, and the other Inheritance
of characteristics in domestic fowl 1909. I bought them way back in 1951,
and I am ashamed to tell you how little I paid.
P.S.
#2. Yes, Camarillo, California, is about 500 miles from here. I wrote him
there, but no answer. He may be getting old, just out here get away from the
frightfully cold East Cost.