George E. Watson - Curator - Division of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution - Washington DC 20860

19-11-1980

Dear Mr Watson,

I was delighted to receive your letter and enclosures on the chicken bone from Mocha Island in answer to my recent enquiry. Your assistance is much appreciated and does in fact gives me a line to follow up.

I am enclosing some photostats of extracts from Finsterbusch (1929). It would be appreciated if you would after looking them over pass on to me your comment of comparison of the bone discovered by Bullock and Finsterbusch’s deliberations. Finsterbusch apparently travelled extensively, I believe, and his book I consider the most informative on the Game Fowl that has been written. He really made a study of the subject.

I agree with his argument regarding the Malay and the Bankivoids being different species. I am also of the opinion that the Asiatics (Cochin, Brahma, Langshan) from China were grouped into another species, all 3 perhaps descending from an extinct ancestor which we will have to depend on the archaeologists and others to inform of. This of course may take some time.

I have recently received a paper by Jànossy, from Aquila  vol.83, Budapest 1977, pp. 29-43, wherein he speaks of Gallus remains (fossilised) from Hungary (Lowest Pleistocene) and Neolithic finds from the Middle East pointing to an Eastern European origin of the domestic fowl. He speaks of Gallus beremendensis, Gallus bravardi and Gallus aesculapii. You would no doubt have this paper in your library.

Your information regarding the sizes of the tarsus-metatarsus from Bullock suggests it may be of Malay origin and if of the age suggested (250 years) by Bullock could have descended from the Malays and brought to Chile by the Dutch pirates in the 17th century (commanded by Oliver van Noort). They came across the Pacific from the East Indies and traded with the Araucana Indians in Chile (Mocha Island) lies just off the Araucan territory in Southern Chile. They could also have brought Bankivas  but it is unlikely that Bullock’s chicken bone considering the size belonged to Bankivas. This is of course hypothetical but I consider quite probable. On the other hand the Araucana chickens named after these Indians and purported to be raised by them lay blue or tinted eggs, a trait not found anywhere else in the world (except when they have be imported). Was the blue egg trait a mutation in that particular area or does it go back pre-Columbian. The $ 64.00 question.

During my researches I have thought along the line that from India perhaps there was a distribution of the chicken into 2 directions, West through Persia, Egypt, Africa, across the Atlantic into South America then to Polynesia.

Thor Heyerdahl’s voyages, Ra and Kon Tiki, certainly proved that this could happened pre-Columbian, and from Professor Carter in Man across the sea the diffusion in South America appeared to happen too quickly after the Spaniards arrived, suggesting Gallus species may have been in South America pre-Columbian.

The other route from India easterly through the Indies and into Polynesia also probable but again when and how for? I am at the moment waiting for a book (Ball) from Bishop Museum Hawaii concerning chicken in Polynesia. When Easter Island was discovered by Roggeveen in 1722 there were chickens in the island. I followed this lead and from an account of Roggeveen voyage the chickens looked much like chickens from the Vierländen (near Hamburg in Germany). However my information tells me there was a breed of Vierländer Landhuhn This breed is now extinct but it was used to make up a breed called the Ramelsloher in conjunction with the Andalusian. How would this type of fowl get to Easter Island before 1722? It would more likely to be descended from the Bankivoids. It is not known whether the chickens laid blue eggs at the time of Roggeveen. I have checked this out. However in a communication from Thor Heyerdahl he told they did lay blue eggs when he visited the island. However this doesn’t count for much as Easter Island has been in contact with Chile for a considerable time. Although I do not know the method of carbon dating I can quite understand it would be necessary to destroy part of the bone for dating purposes.

You will most probably find my writings a little disjointed but I do feel I am getting a few facts together and although the subject becomes very frustrating at times I find the research challenging and satisfying.

I have written to Dr Johannessen some little time back but as yet received no answer. He may perhaps be away from the University at the moment, so will wait and hope he may be able to assist.

I do appreciate you sending copies of the papers on the Mocha Island chicken bone and would also be happy hear from you your deliberations comparing the bone with Finsterbusch’s remarks, especially regarding the spur.

Unfortunately there is so little positive evidence available on this subject one can only be hypothetical at the moment.

Mr Specht at the Australian Museum in Sydney is endeavouring to get hold of the Watom Island bone for further study (comparison with Finsterbusch). I have also sent Prof S.J.Olsen of the University of Arizona Finsterbusch notes hoping he may be able to compare with the bone unearthed in Northern China where he has recently been. These were from a Neolithic site. I am awaiting his reply.

Once again my apologies for the disjointed text of this letter.

Hope you can follow it.

Sincerely yours,