Dr
Green - Professor in Prehistory - Dept of Anthropology
University of Auckland - New Zealand
13-5-1979
Dear
Dr Green,
I
received your letter of 2nd March in answer to my enquiry on
distribution of the domestic fowl in Polynesia and only a short time ago
received the workings papers on Lapita sites in the Western Pacific (the
papers took quite sometime to arrive as our postal system has been in chaos
here in Australia for quite awhile with long delays).
For
your information I thank you very much. I have not been through the working
papers thoroughly as yet but have found them very interesting. My
congratulations on your work on the subject.
Since
last writing I have obtained a copy of Man
across the sea and have read the section on pre-Columbian chickens by
George Carter. Unfortunately as you say it does not cover any archæological
material. I have other material also by Bate and Coltherd. I am still
endeavouring to obtain a copy of Zeuner History
of domestic animals. However this material mostly follows the line of
Professor Carter except Bate on the domestic fowl in pre-Roman Britain.
I
feel however the eventual answer will come from people such as yourself with
actual as discoveries of bones of the fowl etc.
I
have written to Miss Jenny Cane of the University of Otago as you suggested.
However I have not as yet received a reply. I feel she may have something to
throw light on the subject.
The
palaeontologists have had the same problem with their researches into the
origin and evolution of the bird itself as fossil remains do not show up very
often possibly because of the fact of their fragile nature and perhaps being
devoured by predators. In fact I think there has only been 6 specimens of the
first fossil bird Archæopteryx discovered. Archæologists will no doubt have
the same problems: I would be interested to hear of any discoveries of chicken
bones etc in the Pacific.
Mr
Specht of the Australian Museum advised me that a bone from a member of the
fowl family possibly 3500 years old has been found at a site of Watom Island.
In a further communication from him he advised that the osteologist who
examined the bone was unwilling to be positive in his identification. It would
be interesting to know from what breed of fowl it belonged as Finsterbusch
(1929) believed very strongly the Malay fowl and the Gallus
Bankiva (which Darwin mentioned was the original only ancestor of the
domestic fowl) were two different species. His argument in favour of this
included differences in bone structure, the Bankiva being a flyer and the
Malay a runner. The Asiatics from China could have perhaps been another
species. They may all three have evolved from a common ancestor (extinct).
The
bone from Watom Island if positively identified could perhaps throw light as
to whence it originally came (its ancestors).
Unfortunately
as Mr Specht suggests it could be many years before enough evidence is
available to establish the distribution of the domestic chicken in the Pacific.
From
reading Thor Heyerdahl’s books and his latest trip in a papyrus boat in the
area west of India it does at least prove that distribution could have been
possible into at least the Eastern Pacific although once again no concrete
evidence is available. Mister Heyerdahl did advise me that the chickens on
Easter Island did lay blue eggs which would establish the fact that they came
from South America. However this could have happened since 1722 when the first
Europeans discovered the island. Heyerdahl states that there were fowls on the
island in 1722 from reports. However it would need to be established if at
that time they were laying blue eggs.
However
I will press on. Something may turn up. Once again Dr Green thank you for your
assistance it is appreciated.
Sincerely
yours,