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,