6.7 White Chickens and the Cultural Complex of Sacrifice and Divination
115
the melanotic chicken and still preserved in China and Mesoamerica. The second
mitochondrial chicken lineage Storey et al. define links to modern chickens from
Island Southeast Asia, specifically from Lombok, the Philippines and Thailand.
Whether this lineage corresponds to the white chicken bred in Polynesia and Asia
for sacrifice and divination is unclear. The later arrival of the white chicken in Easter
Island and the presence of the second lineage in later sites there suggest this is a
possibility.
Carter and Johannessen both argue for an early introduction of the melanotic
chicken to America and for slow diffusion of this breed from Mexico to Chile. As
we have seen, Carter supports an introduction at about 1500 BC, based on timings
for diffusion of the chicken in both Asia and Europe and on comparable rates for the
diffusion of maize from Mexico to Chile, beginning in about 1500 BC. Johannessen
offers evidence for the patterned diffusion of the Chinese/Maya shamanic/medical
system with Maya speakers from a Mayan “culture hearth”, the system weakening
with distance from the hearth. Carter’s suggestion would accord with a first-wave
introduction of the chicken before 1000 BC, and Johannessen’s, given its connection with a Mayan “culture hearth”, with a second-wave introduction. The fact that
Mexico borders southern California and that early chicken breeds were more likely
to survive in Mexico than in California in historic times, as indeed is seen in the
modern survival of melanotic chickens in Mexico, supports a Kuro Shio migration
route to America for the melanotic chicken whether brought by Chinese or Spice
Island mariners or both. A late Eastern Polynesian introduction of the white chicken
to America, as well as to Easter Island, after AD 1000 seems possible. This period
would correspond to the active voyaging period during the medieval global warm
period that brought the American sweet potato to Eastern Polynesia.
The insights provided by Carter and Johannessen’s work illustrate the value of
consilient historical and cultural evidence in situations where migration and diffusion pathways cannot easily be tracked through genetics alone, where migration and
diffusion pathways may be multiple rather than singular and the timings of introductions unclear. Consilient historical and cultural evidence can provide contexts for
interpreting genetic evidence too when morphological characteristics and genetic
lineages may not be obviously correlated. Such evidence can allow conflicting interpretations of genetic evidence to be evaluated more readily. For example, as we have
suggested, the interpretation by Gongora et al. that Indian and Southeast Asian mitochondrial lineages in the Chilean chicken indicate a late Spanish introduction of the
European chicken is challenged by archaeological and historical evidence which
supports the possibility that the Chilean chicken could have been sourced either
directly or indirectly from India or Southeast Asia or Japan by Spice Island traders
and brought to America before 1000 BC. Or that it could have been introduced by
Chinese traders along with an ancient medical system and been spread to South
America from a Mayan hearth. The possibility that from the 16th century onwards
the Chilean chicken could have been interbred with a Spanish-introduced European
chicken ultimately derived from the same Indian or Southeast Asian or Japanese or
southern Chinese sources complicates the modern geneticist’s task of determining
migration and diffusion pathways from genetic evidence alone.
115
the melanotic chicken and still preserved in China and Mesoamerica. The second
mitochondrial chicken lineage Storey et al. define links to modern chickens from
Island Southeast Asia, specifically from Lombok, the Philippines and Thailand.
Whether this lineage corresponds to the white chicken bred in Polynesia and Asia
for sacrifice and divination is unclear. The later arrival of the white chicken in Easter
Island and the presence of the second lineage in later sites there suggest this is a
possibility.
Carter and Johannessen both argue for an early introduction of the melanotic
chicken to America and for slow diffusion of this breed from Mexico to Chile. As
we have seen, Carter supports an introduction at about 1500 BC, based on timings
for diffusion of the chicken in both Asia and Europe and on comparable rates for the
diffusion of maize from Mexico to Chile, beginning in about 1500 BC. Johannessen
offers evidence for the patterned diffusion of the Chinese/Maya shamanic/medical
system with Maya speakers from a Mayan “culture hearth”, the system weakening
with distance from the hearth. Carter’s suggestion would accord with a first-wave
introduction of the chicken before 1000 BC, and Johannessen’s, given its connection with a Mayan “culture hearth”, with a second-wave introduction. The fact that
Mexico borders southern California and that early chicken breeds were more likely
to survive in Mexico than in California in historic times, as indeed is seen in the
modern survival of melanotic chickens in Mexico, supports a Kuro Shio migration
route to America for the melanotic chicken whether brought by Chinese or Spice
Island mariners or both. A late Eastern Polynesian introduction of the white chicken
to America, as well as to Easter Island, after AD 1000 seems possible. This period
would correspond to the active voyaging period during the medieval global warm
period that brought the American sweet potato to Eastern Polynesia.
The insights provided by Carter and Johannessen’s work illustrate the value of
consilient historical and cultural evidence in situations where migration and diffusion pathways cannot easily be tracked through genetics alone, where migration and
diffusion pathways may be multiple rather than singular and the timings of introductions unclear. Consilient historical and cultural evidence can provide contexts for
interpreting genetic evidence too when morphological characteristics and genetic
lineages may not be obviously correlated. Such evidence can allow conflicting interpretations of genetic evidence to be evaluated more readily. For example, as we have
suggested, the interpretation by Gongora et al. that Indian and Southeast Asian mitochondrial lineages in the Chilean chicken indicate a late Spanish introduction of the
European chicken is challenged by archaeological and historical evidence which
supports the possibility that the Chilean chicken could have been sourced either
directly or indirectly from India or Southeast Asia or Japan by Spice Island traders
and brought to America before 1000 BC. Or that it could have been introduced by
Chinese traders along with an ancient medical system and been spread to South
America from a Mayan hearth. The possibility that from the 16th century onwards
the Chilean chicken could have been interbred with a Spanish-introduced European
chicken ultimately derived from the same Indian or Southeast Asian or Japanese or
southern Chinese sources complicates the modern geneticist’s task of determining
migration and diffusion pathways from genetic evidence alone.