Prof
Stanley J. Olsen - Dept of Anthropology
University of Arizona - Tucson
11-9-1980
Dear
Professor Olsen,
Thank
you for your letter of August 29th and the information contained
therein. I am pleased to hear that you are also interested in the ancestry and
origin of the domestic chicken. It is without doubt a challenging subject and
I feel worthy of attention. Perhaps some answers in this field would also
provide links in the field of the distribution of man himself.
I
am sure that your trip to China proved interesting and the fact that chicken
bone was unearthed at the Pan-p’o site could be of importance.
I
am enclosing some photostat material from Finsterbusch (1929) and Darwin’s Variation of plants and animals under domestication. Perhaps if you
still have the chicken bone from China on hand you may find time to compare it
with this material. This could assist in my theory of the 3 species, the
Asiatics (Brahma, Cochin, Langshan) apparently evolved in China. I am inclined
to believe that bone found in China should follow the pattern of the bone as
described by Finsterbusch of the Malay species as the Asiatics were not flyers
as were the Bankivoids.
Thank
you for the comments on no pre-Columbian chicken bones in the Americas. From
Professor Carter on pre-Columbian chicken in Man
across the sea he mentions that Dillman Bullock found chicken bones on
Mocha Island, Chile, but although the bones were identified by the Smithsonian Institution as Gallus,
no dating was given. In a recent communication from Professor Carter he
advised me he had done little work on the pre-Columbian chicken since 1971
when he did the treatise. This is unfortunate indeed.
You
mentioned Dr Pierce Broadkord I recently wrote to him on this subject and am
hoping to receive a reply in the not too distant future. I am hoping that
information may come to hand from both Mr Specht on the Watom Island bone and
Professor Higham on the NE Thailand bone. Information also on the
identification of the Pan-p’o bones could also assist in putting a few loose
ends together.
I
find the problem arising from this study is that a little more information
keeps coming to hand and I have delayed putting together notes but after
getting them together probably something else will turn up. However I will do
something shortly in this regard and hope for the best.
I
am also enclosing part of the notes I put together some little time ago on the
history of the Pekin or Cochin Bantam. They perhaps will be of interest to
you.
If
you do hear of any chicken bone discoveries apart from what I already am aware
of, I would appreciate hearing from you. I will certainly keep you advised of
anything in the field that comes my way.
One
thing that does seem odd (from Carter page 200) that the diffusion of the
chicken in South America was very rapid after 1519. I would imagine that the
local Indian population would not move very far from their own areas which
would naturally make the diffusion fairly slow.
The
blue egg chicken (Araucana) as far as I know has only ever been found in South
America, therefore if there were no pre-Columbian chickens there a mutation
must have occurred since 1519!!
Thor
Heyerdahl in correspondence told me the chickens laid blue eggs on Easter
Island when he was there but of course Easter Island had taken in contact with
Chile over quite a period. There were chickens on Easter Island in 1722 when
discovered by Roggeveen which were described as being like those of the
Vierlanden which is apparently an agricultural area adjacent to the city of
Hamburg. I have yet to discover what these chickens from the Vierlanden looked
like but am working on it. Therefore there is still a lot for us to discover
in the field but hopefully the facts may eventually become apparent.
Once
again thank you for the information and interest. It is much appreciated. I
will keep in touch.
Sincerely
yours,