12-8-1980

Dear Dr Higgs,

Over the past few years I have been doing private research on the origin, evolution and distribution of the domestic chicken.

I do not have an academic background but have found the subject both interesting and challenging though at times frustrating as information available appears to be somewhat scanty.

I have gathered together quite a deal of material and have formed some conclusions although somewhat at the moment of a hypothetical nature due to the lack of positive evidence.

I have made contact with a number of people who work in the fields of anthropology and archaeology who have been most helpful but find there are still a lot of gaps to fill.

In a recent letter from Pat Rich of the Department of Earth Sciences at the Monash University in Melbourne she advised me that it may be a good idea to make contact with you as you have done much archaeological work in the Middle East with emphasis on domestic animals.

Therefore I felt that perhaps over recent times during your work you may have unearthed chicken bones which may throw some light on the evolution and distribution of the domestic chicken. If so any information which could assist my research would be most appreciated.

I do have papers written by Coltherd and have written on the chicken in the Middle East. You may have further to add which may have occurred since those papers were written.

My belief is that there are 3 species or sub-species of the domestic chicken, i.e. the Bankivoids, Malay and Asiatics (Cochin, Brahma, Langshan). These 3 groups being mostly different in so many aspects that it is hand to believe that these differences came only as mutations.

Charles Darwin suggested all domestic chickens had as progenitor only Gallus Bankiva (Red Jungle Fowl). I have based my thoughts on the evidence put forward by Finsterbusch (1929) wherein he described the differences in bone structure between the Bankivoids and the Malay, the first being a flyer, the other a runner.

I do not have information on the bone structure of the Asiatics except from Darwin’s narration of Plants and Animals under domestication where he states that the shapes of the occipital foramen between Bankiva and the Cochin (Asiatics) shows a remarkable difference. Further he admits that if any of the varieties of the chicken come from a different ancestor to Bankiva it could have been the Cochin.

Unfortunately at this time of writings Darwin was not aware of the work of Mendel in genetics. If he had I presume come of his views may have been modified especially in the field of mixing colours. Through our knowledge now of genetics we can in many cases predict the result when putting together 2 colours in our domestic chickens.

My belief is that perhaps an extinct ancestor was responsible for the chickens we have today, the 3 species or sub-species afore mentioned emerging along the way. There still appears to be no evidence as to the origin of Gallus Bankiva itself. Therefore I feel the information much come from persons such as yourself (archaeologists, anthropologists) through discoveries made during excavations.

I am very interested in the distribution also of the chicken. My belief in this field was that whilst the chicken moved west from India through Persia, Egypt and eventually across the Atlantic to the Americas hence into the Pacific, it also moved in an easterly direction through the islands of the Indies also into the Pacific. Thor Heyerdahl’s voyages certainly proved that the westerly drift could have crossed the Atlantic but of course there does not appear as yet any positive evidence of this occurrence.

If however through your work you have unearthed any chicken bones I would only be too pleased to send you a copy of Finsterbusch’s findings on the differences of bone structure for comparison with anything you may have unearthed. Any information, suggestion or advice on thus I might follow in my research I can assure you would be very much appreciated. I hope in the not too distant future to put together some notes on the material I have and some appreciated conclusions I have assumed. Lack of positive evidence however is one of the difficulties surrounding these conclusions.

Sincerely yours,