Jack Linthicum
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:02 pm Post subject: Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian introductio |
 |
|
Not high quality recovery of text.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/25/10335.full.pdf+html for original
Radiocarbon and DNA evidence for a pre-Columbian
introduction of Polynesian chickens to Chile
Alice A. Storey*¢Ó, Jose¢¥ Miguel Ram©¥¢¥rez¢Ô, Daniel Quiroz¡×, David V.
Burley¢Ò, David J. Addison , Richard Walter**,
Atholl J. Anderson¢Ó¢Ó, Terry L. Hunt¢Ô¢Ô, J. Stephen Athens¡×¡×, Leon
Huynen¢Ò¢Ò, and Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith*¢Ó
*Department of Anthropology and Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular
Ecology and Evolution, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019,
Auckland 1142,
New Zealand; ¢ÔProyecto Dipuv-Reg No. 26/2005, Universidad de Valpara©¥
¢¥so, Chile; ¡×Direccio¢¥ n de Bibliotecas, Archivos y Museos-Proyecto
Fondecyt, 1020272
Santiago, Chile; ¢ÒDepartment of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University
EBD 9635-8888 University Drive, Burnaby, BC, Canada V5A 1S6;
Institute of Samoan
Studies, American Samoa Community College, Pago Pago, American Samoa
96799; **Department of Anthropology, University of Otago, 2nd Floor
Sir John
Richardson Building, Castle Street, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin 9054, New
Zealand; ¢Ó¢ÓResearch School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian
National University,
Canberra ACT 0200, Australia; ¢Ô¢ÔDepartment of Anthropology, University
of Hawai>i-Manoa, 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, HI 96822; ¡×¡×International
Archaeological Research Institute, 2081 Young Street, Honolulu, HI
96826-2231; and ¢Ò¢ÒInstitute of Molecular BioSciences and Allan Wilson
Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution, Massey University, Albany,
Auckland 0632, New Zealand
Communicated by Patrick V. Kirch, University of California, Berkeley,
CA, May 1, 2007 (received for review February 10, 2007)
Two issues long debated among Pacific and American prehistorians
are (i) whether there was a pre-Columbian introduction of chicken
(Gallus gallus) to the Americas and (ii) whether Polynesian contact
with South America might be identified archaeologically, through
the recovery of remains of unquestionable Polynesian origin. We
present a radiocarbon date and an ancient DNA sequence from a
single chicken bone recovered from the archaeological site of El
Arenal-1, on the Arauco Peninsula, Chile. These results not only
provide firm evidence for the pre-Columbian introduction of chickens
to the Americas, but strongly suggest that it was a Polynesian
introduction.
ancient DNA Gallus gallus Polynesia
Argument about the origins and date of introduction of the
domestic fowl or chicken (Gallus gallus) to the Americas has
raged for over 30 years. Despite claims that it might be native to
the region (1), it has never been recovered or reported from
paleontological, Paleo-Indian, or, until now, prehistoric
archaeological
contexts in the Americas. A Portuguese or Spanish
introduction to the east coast of South America around AD 1500
has been suggested (2), but when Pizarro reached Peru in 1532,
he found that chickens were already an integral part of Incan
economy and culture, suggesting at least some history of chickens
in the region. Consequently, there have been numerous
suggestions of a pre-European chicken introduction to the west
coast of South America (3-5), in which both Asian and Polynesian
contacts have been proposed (1, 4, 6). Here, we provide the
first unequivocal evidence for a pre-European introduction of
chickens to South America and indicate, through ancient DNA
evidence, that the likely source of that introduction was Polynesia.
This evidence has implications for debates about ancient
Polynesian voyaging capabilities as well as those addressing
prehistoric population interactions and exchange. This study also
presents the first published ancient DNA sequences for chickens
providing valuable data for researchers concerned with the loss
of genetic variation in modern domestic stocks (7).
The Indo-Pacific origins of the Polynesians are linked to Southeast
Asia through the Austronesian expansion and particularly to
the Lapita culture that first appears in the Pacific 3300 years
before present (B.P.). Lapita colonists moved rapidly through
eastern Melanesia to Samoa and Tonga by 2900 B.P. Beginning
1500-1000 B.P., the settlement of East Polynesia began, probably
from Samoa, with colonization of Hawai>i by 1000 B.P., Easter
Island by 800 B.P. and New Zealand by 700 B.P. Polynesians
introduced dogs, pigs, rats and chickens to many of the islands they
settled (8). Chicken remains first appear in Vanuatu and Tonga
between 3000 and 2800 B.P., where they are associated with Lapita
sites (9, 10), in Niue (11) from 2000 B.P. and in early occupation
layers throughout most of East Polynesia (8).
Some prehistoric contact between the Americas and Polynesia
is evident from the presence of South American sweet potato
(Ipomoea batatas) in pre-European archaeological sites in
Polynesia (6, 12, 13), most notably from Mangaia, Cook Islands,
where it is dated indirectly to AD 1000 (13). Linguistic and
archaeological evidence suggest that the bottle gourd (Lagenaria
siceraria), also from the Americas, was present in Eastern
Polynesia before AD 1200 (14, 15). Voyaging from Polynesia to
the Americas has been proposed (16), and debated (17) recently
in relation to linguistic and archaeological evidence for the
occurrence of some watercraft, namely sewn plank canoes, and
fishhook forms found in southern California which resemble
Polynesian types. Sewn plank canoes have also been documented
in Chile by ethnographers (18) and claims have been made
suggesting artifactual and linguistic evidence for Polynesian
influence in the Mapuche region of south central Chile (3).
Computer simulations suggest that voyaging eastward from
Polynesia in the southern hemisphere where the mid-latitude
westerlies are more accessible, is a more likely prospect than a
northern route to the Americas (19). These southern hemisphere
voyages would have brought landfalls in the central and southern
regions of Chile and could have introduced the Polynesian
chicken to South America. However, no securely dated pre-
Columbian chicken remains or unequivocal archaeological evidence
for Polynesian contact with the Americas has been
reported until now.
The archaeological site of El Arenal-1 (see Fig. 1), first
excavated in 2002, is three kilometers inland on the southern side
of the Arauco Peninsula, south central Chile (lat 37¡Æ22 15 S,
long 73¡Æ36 45 W). Analyses of pottery and other artifacts show
that the site belongs to the El Vergel Cultural Complex of
horticulturalist communities dating to the period between AD
1000 and 1500 (20). Three thermoluminescence dates on ceramics
from the site place the occupation between AD 700 and 1390
(D.Q. and L. Contreras, unpublished data). Most importantly,
excavators recovered 50 chicken bones from the site, representing
a minimum of five individual birds. These remains provide
Author contributions: A.A.S., J.M.R., and E.A.M.-S. designed research;
A.A.S., L.H., and
E.A.M.-S. performed research; J.M.R., D.Q., D.V.B., D.J.A., R.W.,
A.J.A., T.L.H., and J.S.A.
contributed new reagents/analytic tools; A.A.S. and E.A.M.-S. analyzed
data; and A.A.S.,
J.M.R., D.Q., D.V.B., D.J.A., R.W., A.J.A., T.L.H., J.S.A., L.H., and
E.A.M.-S. wrote the paper.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Data deposition: The sequences reported in this paper have been
deposited in the GenBank
database (accession nos. EF535236-EF535249).
¢ÓTo whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail:
asto062@ec.auckland.ac.nz or
e.matisoo-smith@auckland.ac.nz.
This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/
0703993104/DC1.
(c) 2007 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.0703993104 PNAS June 19, 2007
vol. 104 no. 25 10335-10339
CHART PACIFIC OCEAN
the earliest evidence for the presence of chicken in the Americas.
Direct dating and ancient DNA analyses of these remains were
therefore essential for identifying the origins and pre-Columbian
provenience of chickens in Chile. These were compared with
ancient mtDNA obtained from chicken bones from archaeological
sites in Polynesia and with modern Araucana chicken
materials.
Results and Discussion
The radiocarbon date obtained for the El Arenal chicken bone
was 622 35 B.P., resulting in a calibrated age range of AD
1321-1407 with two intercepts. At two sigma (AD 1304-1424)
the sample still lies within the pre-Columbian era, and thus
provides directly dated evidence for pre-Columbian chicken in
South America. Chicken first occurs in Pacific archaeological
sites 3,000 years ago in the Reef/Santa Cruz (22) and shortly
thereafter in Vanuatu (9), but people did not reach Central and
East Polynesia for another 1,500-2,000 years. The direct dating
of chicken bones from the El Arenal-1 site in Chile falls within
the expected range of dates, 600-800 B.P., for colonization in the
easternmost islands of Polynesia, including Rapa, Pitcairn, and
Easter Island (23). As a result of this temporal affinity, ancient
DNA analyses were warranted to understand the relationship
between these South American chickens and ancient Oceanic
populations and to identify the likely origins of the El Arenal
bone.
A total of 37 chicken bones obtained from prehistoric archaeological
sites dating from between 2900 and 500 years B.P. from
five Polynesian archipelagos were obtained for use in our study.
Positive PCR amplification and DNA sequence was obtained for
12 of the 37 ancient samples attempted, resulting in a success rate
of 32%, which is consistent with the degraded nature of biomolecules
in ancient remains (24). The variable sites identified in the
archaeological chicken bones, modern Araucana chicken feathers
and modern chicken sequences obtained from GenBank are
shown in Table 1. In the most variable area of the D-loop, the
common SNPs (25) are observed. In ancient material, these
include an additional four sites that identify two haplogroups in
prehistoric chickens. In total, SNPs were most common between
sites 199 and 339. Therefore, the most interesting section of the
D-loop was 150 bp long creating an ideal target length for
ancient DNA studies.
The El Arenal bone produced an identical sequence to chicken
bones from two prehistoric archaeological sites in the Pacific:
Mele Havea in Tonga, from upper plainware layers dating to
between 2000 and 1550 B.P., which is significantly earlier than El
Fig. 1. Map of the Pacific showing locations mentioned in the text.
10336 www.pnas.org cgi doi 10.1073 pnas.0703993104 Storey et al
Table 1. Variable sites identified in ancient and modern chicken
samples
Sample no.
Variable site location
196 214 222 225 278 293 303 331 339 GenBank accession no.
Reference sequence T T T C A C T G A NC001323
CHLARA001 T C C C A C T G A EF535241
Ton_HB T C C C A C T G A EF535237
AMSFTF001 T C C C A C T G A EF535240
Ton_TD C C C C A C T G A EF535236
NIUPKI009 C C C C A C T G A EF535239
HWIKUA001 C C C C A C T G A EF535238
PAQANA011 Y* C C C A C T G A EF535246
PAQANA004 T T C C G T C G G EF535242
PAQANA006 T T C C G T C G G EF535243
PAQANA009 T T C C G T C G G EF535244
PAQANA010 T T C C G T C G G EF535245
PAQHAN001 T T C C G T C C G EF535247
Araucana feather 1 T C C T A C T G A EF535248
Araucana feather 2 T T T C A C T G A EF535249
Miyake Lombok 1 T T C C G C C G G AB009437, AB009438
Miyake Lombok 2 T T C C G C C G A AB009436
Miyake Vietnam 1 C T C C A C T G A AB009435
Miyake Vietnam 2 T T C C G C T G A AB009434
Miyake Thailand 1 T T C C G C C G A AB009432
Miyake Thailand 2 T T C C G C C G G AB009441
Miyake Philippines T T C C G C C G A AB009433
Liu Yunnan T T C C G C T G A AF512163, AF392339
Numbering based on Desjardins and Morais (42).
Arenal-1; and Fatu-ma-Futi in American Samoa, which dates to
about the same period as El Arenal-1. All ancient West Polynesian
samples, early samples from Anakena, Easter Island and
Kualoa, Hawai>i, and the El Arenal sample share a single unique
point mutation (a T to C transition) at site 214. One of the
modern Araucana feather samples also shares this unique mutation.
Three other SNPs (all transitions) at sites 278, 303, and
339 are shared by these West Polynesian, early Anakena and
Hawai>i, and the Chilean bone samples and sequences reported
from modern chickens in Southeast Asia, specifically samples
from the Yunnan region of China and Vietnam (see Table 1 for
GenBank accession numbers). Interestingly, samples from archaeological
layers dating to later periods at Anakena and from
another later prehistoric period Easter Island site, Hanga Hahave,
did not share these three SNPs. These sequences appear to
be more closely related to those of chickens from Island Southeast
Asia, specifically from Lombok, the Philippines, and Thailand
(see Table 1). This suggests that there were two mitochondrial
lineages present in prehistoric Polynesian chicken
populations. This result is consistent with ancient DNA analyses
of Polynesian dogs that suggest two distinct lineages originating
from similar geographic locations: mainland and island Southeast
Asia (26). The presence of the Polynesian sequence in a
contemporary Chilean Araucana chicken also suggests that some
modern populations of this breed may be at least partially
derived from this ancient Polynesian source. Only further research
on mtDNA variation in other American chickens, both
modern and archaeological, and particularly those associated
with early Spanish and Portuguese settlements, will provide data
on the overall impact of Polynesian chickens to the American
chicken gene pool.
Voyaging and Settlement of the Pacific. Since Heyerdahl>s Kon Tiki
expeditions and resulting works (27), public attention has been
focused on the possibility of American origins for Polynesians
and/or later prehistoric contact between the Americas and
Polynesia. Archaeological, linguistic, and human genetic data
have shown that Polynesian origins are clearly in the region of
island Southeast Asia and Melanesia rather than in the Americas
(8). In the past 10 years, mounting evidence has indicated at least
some interaction between Polynesians and the indigenous peoples
of South America. Computer simulations (19) and experimental
sailings (28) have shown that Polynesian voyaging was
indeed purposeful. The presence of the sweet potato in Mangaia
(13) and possibly also the American haplotypes present in
Polynesian bottle gourds (15) demonstrate that some level of
contact occurred between Polynesia and South America. Despite
the similarities of a few artifact types and the presence of sewn
plank canoes (3, 18), no conclusive evidence existed for the
arrival or presence of Polynesians in South America.
Debates About the Origin of the Chicken in South America. Several
hypotheses about how the chicken reached the Americas have
been presented in the past. The possibility of natural dispersal
has been explored and repudiated (29), and most scholars
believe the chicken was introduced to the New World by Spanish
or Portuguese explorers when they arrived on the east coast
around AD 1500 (30). However, the presence of chickens in Peru
when Pizarro arrived in 1532 and its integration in Incan culture
would require not only a very rapid dispersal across the continent,
but the almost immediate incorporation of chickens into
the economy, a highly unlikely combination of events. Recognition
of this has led to several suggestions for the presence of
pre-Columbian chicken on the west coast. Those supporting
what has been referred to as the hyperdiffusionist perspective
assert that chickens were brought to South America as part of a
cultural complex directly from mainland or island Southeast Asia
(4, 31), but no conclusive archaeological evidence has yet come
to light to support this. An alternative theory presented is that
chickens were introduced from Polynesia (1, 5, 32). The evidence
presented here supports the latter hypothesis, and the similarities
in ancient DNA patterns across wide geographic distances and
Table 1. Variable sites identified in ancient and modern chicken
samples
Sample no.
Variable site location
196 214 222 225 278 293 303 331 339 GenBank accession no.
Reference sequence T T T C A C T G A NC001323
CHLARA001 T C C C A C T G A EF535241
Ton_HB T C C C A C T G A EF535237
AMSFTF001 T C C C A C T G A EF535240
Ton_TD C C C C A C T G A EF535236
NIUPKI009 C C C C A C T G A EF535239
HWIKUA001 C C C C A C T G A EF535238
PAQANA011 Y* C C C A C T G A EF535246
PAQANA004 T T C C G T C G G EF535242
PAQANA006 T T C C G T C G G EF535243
PAQANA009 T T C C G T C G G EF535244
PAQANA010 T T C C G T C G G EF535245
PAQHAN001 T T C C G T C C G EF535247
Araucana feather 1 T C C T A C T G A EF535248
Araucana feather 2 T T T C A C T G A EF535249
Miyake Lombok 1 T T C C G C C G G AB009437, AB009438
Miyake Lombok 2 T T C C G C C G A AB009436
Miyake Vietnam 1 C T C C A C T G A AB009435
Miyake Vietnam 2 T T C C G C T G A AB009434
Miyake Thailand 1 T T C C G C C G A AB009432
Miyake Thailand 2 T T C C G C C G G AB009441
Miyake Philippines T T C C G C C G A AB009433
Liu Yunnan T T C C G C T G A AF512163, AF392339
Numbering based on Desjardins and Morais (42).
*Y, ambiguous site that can be either a C or a T.
Storey et al. PNAS June 19, 2007 vol. 104 no. 25 10337
ANTHROPOLOGY
Arenal-1; and Fatu-ma-Futi in American Samoa, which dates to
about the same period as El Arenal-1. All ancient West Polynesian
samples, early samples from Anakena, Easter Island and
Kualoa, Hawai>i, and the El Arenal sample share a single unique
point mutation (a T to C transition) at site 214. One of the
modern Araucana feather samples also shares this unique mutation.
Three other SNPs (all transitions) at sites 278, 303, and
339 are shared by these West Polynesian, early Anakena and
Hawai>i, and the Chilean bone samples and sequences reported
from modern chickens in Southeast Asia, specifically samples
from the Yunnan region of China and Vietnam (see Table 1 for
GenBank accession numbers). Interestingly, samples from archaeological
layers dating to later periods at Anakena and from
another later prehistoric period Easter Island site, Hanga Hahave,
did not share these three SNPs. These sequences appear to
be more closely related to those of chickens from Island Southeast
Asia, specifically from Lombok, the Philippines, and Thailand
(see Table 1). This suggests that there were two mitochondrial
lineages present in prehistoric Polynesian chicken
populations. This result is consistent with ancient DNA analyses
of Polynesian dogs that suggest two distinct lineages originating
from similar geographic locations: mainland and island Southeast
Asia (26). The presence of the Polynesian sequence in a
contemporary Chilean Araucana chicken also suggests that some
modern populations of this breed may be at least partially
derived from this ancient Polynesian source. Only further research
on mtDNA variation in other American chickens, both
modern and archaeological, and particularly those associated
with early Spanish and Portuguese settlements, will provide data
on the overall impact of Polynesian chickens to the American
chicken gene pool.
Voyaging and Settlement of the Pacific. Since Heyerdahl>s Kon Tiki
expeditions and resulting works (27), public attention has been
focused on the possibility of American origins for Polynesians
and/or later prehistoric contact between the Americas and
Polynesia. Archaeological, linguistic, and human genetic data
have shown that Polynesian origins are clearly in the region of
island Southeast Asia and Melanesia rather than in the Americas
(8). In the past 10 years, mounting evidence has indicated at least
some interaction between Polynesians and the indigenous peoples
of South America. Computer simulations (19) and experimental
sailings (28) have shown that Polynesian voyaging was
indeed purposeful. The presence of the sweet potato in Mangaia
(13) and possibly also the American haplotypes present in
Polynesian bottle gourds (15) demonstrate that some level of
contact occurred between Polynesia and South America. Despite
the similarities of a few artifact types and the presence of sewn
plank canoes (3, 18), no conclusive evidence existed for the
arrival or presence of Polynesians in South America.
Debates About the Origin of the Chicken in South America. Several
hypotheses about how the chicken reached the Americas have
been presented in the past. The possibility of natural dispersal
has been explored and repudiated (29), and most scholars
believe the chicken was introduced to the New World by Spanish
or Portuguese explorers when they arrived on the east coast
around AD 1500 (30). However, the presence of chickens in Peru
when Pizarro arrived in 1532 and its integration in Incan culture
would require not only a very rapid dispersal across the continent,
but the almost immediate incorporation of chickens into
the economy, a highly unlikely combination of events. Recognition
of this has led to several suggestions for the presence of
pre-Columbian chicken on the west coast. Those supporting
what has been referred to as the hyperdiffusionist perspective
assert that chickens were brought to South America as part of a
cultural complex directly from mainland or island Southeast Asia
(4, 31), but no conclusive archaeological evidence has yet come
to light to support this. An alternative theory presented is that
chickens were introduced from Polynesia (1, 5, 32). The evidence
presented here supports the latter hypothesis, and the similarities
in ancient DNA patterns across wide geographic distances and
perhaps 1,500 years suggest that the pre-Columbian chicken
remains from El Arenal-1 are descended from Polynesian stock.
Commensal Models. Commensal models are now widely applied in
the Pacific to understand migration and interactions in prehistory.
Through the examination of the ancient DNA of fauna and
flora that was purposefully transported into the Pacific,
archaeologists
are able to add another dimension to evaluate the
direction and spread of Lapita and Polynesian peoples. One
interesting finding of commensal studies is that some domesticates
were introduced to the Pacific more than once. Data for
Pacific rats (Rattus exulans) shows at least two introductions of
the species into Oceania (33), studies of Pacific dogs (Canis
familiaris) have revealed two mitochondrial lineages of canines
to Remote Oceania (26), and studies of the bottle gourd have
shown influences from both Asia and the Americas in the
distribution of modern plants in the Pacific (15). This study has
revealed not only a Polynesian origin for pre-Columbian chickens
at El Arenal-1 in Chile, but the existence of two chicken
mitochondrial lineages in the Pacific indicating the possibility of
two introductions of these domesticates to the region. The idea
of multiple introductions of chickens to the Pacific was originally
proposed by Carter (5) based on linguistic grounds and by
Crawford (32) based on morphology. The analysis of further
archaeological chicken samples from across Oceania will help to
elucidate the specific timing of introductions and geographic
origins of these stocks.
Ancient DNA of the Chicken and Issues of Conservation. In addition
to their value for tracking prehistoric migrations and providing
evidence for the origins of South American chickens, there are
several other implications of the ancient mtDNA data presented
here. The first is incorporation into studies of the origin(s) of
chicken domestication (34, 35). The second is in the evaluation
of the variability of the chicken mitochondrial genome (7). It has
been shown that the mtDNA of modern chickens is lacking in
variability. The populations examined in this study have been
subject to repeated bottlenecks through the movement of starter
stocks to new islands, and this material shows little variability in
the most mutable sites (25) over more than 1,000 years. This
suggests that mtDNA is not highly variable in the chicken and
that concerns about the genetic conservation of the species may
be well founded (36). We have also shown that an ancient
Polynesian haplotype persists in modern populations of Chilean
chickens and that in the 600 years or more since the introduction
of European chicken these sequences have deviated little from
their ancient Pacific ancestors. Selective breeding for particular
phenotypic traits associated with the Araucana breed may have
by chance preserved the Polynesian haplotype, keeping it from
being swamped by later European-introduced chicken lineages.
Conclusion
This article presents well dated and securely provenienced
evidence of a pre-Columbian chicken introduction to the Americas.
We are not suggesting that the El Arenal-1 site represents
the exact location of introduction or that the related date
corresponds to the first or only introduction of chicken to South
America. The date corresponds well with current archaeological
evidence for the eastward expansion of the Polynesians. Most
importantly, the current results demonstrate that chickens with
a Polynesian genetic signature reached the south central coast of
Chile before European contact with the Americas. Further
analyses of additional samples from East Polynesia and South
America may allow us to narrow down the source population and
timing of introduction of chickens to the Americas. In addition,
further archaeological research to examine possible points and
timing of contact(s) along the coast and on the coastal islands of
South America is clearly warranted.
Methods
Research on the origins of Pacific chickens has been undertaken
in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Auckland
as part of a larger program focusing on the use of mtDNA
variation in commensal animals as a proxy for tracing human
migrations through the Pacific (33, 37). We obtained one of the
El Arenal-1 chicken bones and identified the need for both a
direct radiocarbon date and at least two independent DNA
analyses from the bone. Therefore, the bone was broken into
three pieces under sterile conditions in the ancient DNA laboratory
in the Department of Anthropology at the University of
Auckland. The first piece was submitted to the Rafter Radiocarbon
Laboratory at the Institute of Geological and Nuclear
Sciences (Wellington, New Zealand) for radiocarbon dating. The
two remaining pieces of the El Arenal bone were processed
Table 2. Archaeological context for chicken bones analyzed
Sample name Site and archipelago Context
Assoc. radiocarbon age
(reported dates) Ref.
CHLARA001 El Arenal-1, Chile El Vergel complex Cal AD 1304-1424¢Ó
(note directly dated bone)
21
TON_HB Mele Havea, Tonga Plainware 2000-1550¢Ó cal B.P. D.V.B.,
unpublished data
ASMFTF001 Fatu-ma-Futi, American Samoa A-ceramic period or 'Dark Ages'
1000-500 B.P. 42
TON_TD Ha>ateiho, Tonga Plainware 2000-1550¢Ó cal B.P. D.V.B.,
unpublished data
NIUPKI009 Paluki, Niue Colonization Period Cal AD 360-540* 11
HWIKUA001 Kualoa, Hawai>i Prehistoric Hawai>ian Cal AD 1040-1280¢Ó 43
PAQANA011 Anakena, Easter Island Early, settlement phase Cal AD 1270-
1400¢Ó 23
PAQANA004 Anakena, Easter Island Early, settlement phase Cal AD 1260-
1430¢Ó and cal AD
1370-1380¢Ó; cal AD 1210-1320¢Ó
and cal AD 1340-1390¢Ó
23
PAQANA006 Anakena, Easter Island Early, settlement phase Cal AD 1280-
1430¢Ó 23
PAQANA009 Anakena, Easter Island Early, settlement phase Cal AD 1290-
1430¢Ó 23
PAQANA010 Anakena, Easter Island Early, settlement phase Between cal
AD 1280-1400¢Ó and
cal AD 1250-1410¢Ó
23
PAQHAN001 Hanga Hahave, Easter Island Classic, Ahu-Moai Period
Crematoria
Prehistoric 44
*Date reported at one sigma.
¢ÓDate reported at two sigma.
independently in two separate dedicated ancient DNA laboratories
at the University of Auckland and Massey University.
Dating. Based on visual inspection the bone appeared to be well
preserved. Microscopic particles of dirt were removed with a
brush and scalpel before demineralization in an acid wash. The
extracted gelatin fraction (NZ 26115) was dated and returned a
radiocarbon age of 622 35 B.P. (d13 21¢¶). The sample
was calibrated by using the Calib software package (Ver. 5.0.1)
(21); and the southern hemisphere atmospheric data (38).
DNA Analyses. The genetics of the fowl are now well understood
with the complete nuclear genome sequenced in 2004 (39).
Analyses of the mitochondrial genome (7) have shown that there
is little variation in chickens, with studies of SNPs (25) revealing
only 11 variable sites in the hypervariable D-loop region. Five of
the eleven SNPs occur between site numbers 217 and 261 (40).
We therefore targeted this region for polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) amplification of our archaeological chicken samples.
DNA was extracted, and 400 bp of mitochondrial DNA
(bases 144-556) was PCR amplified by using two overlapping
primer sets. All sequencing was conducted by the Allan Wilson
Centre Genome Service at Massey University. Each amplicon
was sequenced in both directions, and the raw sequences were
aligned by using the Sequencher software package [GeneCodes
Corp., Ann Arbor, MI; see supporting information (SI) Methods
for descriptions of methods].
In addition to the El Arenal sample, we also processed 11
chicken bones recovered from a range of pre-European archaeological
sites in Tonga, American Samoa; Niue, Hawai>i; and
Easter Island. The age ranges and cultural affinities for these
archaeological samples appear in Table 2. It has been suggested
that the unique type of chicken known as the Araucana, which
has no tail and lays blue eggs, is descended from pre-European
stock bred by the Mapuche (formerly called Araucanos) people
of Southern Chile (41). To assess the possible Polynesian origin
of the blue-egg breed we also extracted and amplified the DNA
from feathers belonging to two modern individuals identified as
possible Araucana chickens.
We thank Dr. Fre¢¥de¢¥rique Valentin (CNRS, Paris), who codirected the
excavations on Tutuila with D.J.A.; Kelly Esh (University of Hawai>i),
who sorted the Anakena chickens for use in this study; Gonzalo
Figueroa
Garc©¥¢¥a-Huidobro for providing Aracana chicken feathers; Karolyn
Buhring
Rabanal for translations from Spanish; Peter Quinn for drawing
the map; Judith Robins (University of Auckland), Dr. Thegn Ladefoged
(University of Auckland), and Prof. David Lambert (Massey University)
and as always Prof. Roger Green (University of Auckland) for
assistance
and support; and two anonymous reviewers for suggestions on the
manuscript. Finally, the authors also acknowledge Dr. George F. Carter
who, despite heavy criticism, maintained that Polynesians introduced
the
first chickens to South America. We wish he were alive to see this
result.
Funding for laboratory work and a scholarship to A.A.S. were provided
by the Allan Wilson Centre for Molecular Ecology and Evolution.
Additional funds for laboratory work were provided by the Royal
Society
of New Zealand Skinner Fund.
1. Gilmore R (1950) in Handbook of South American Indians, ed Steward
J (US
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC), Vol 6, pp 345-464.
2. Seligmann LJ (1987) Ethnohistory 34:139-170.
3. Ram©¥¢¥rez JM (1990/91) Rapa Nui J 4:53-55.
4. Johannessen C (1981) Rev Hist Am 93:73-89.
5. Carter GF (1971) in Man Across the Sea: Problems of Pre-Columbian
Contacts,
eds Riley CL, Kelley JC, Pennington CW, Rands RL (Univ of Texas Press,
Austin), pp 178-218.
6. Green RC (2001) Rapa Nui J 15:69-77.
7. Pisenti JM, Delany ME, Taylor RL, Jr, Abbott UK, Abplanalp H,
Arthur JA,
Bakst MR, Baxter-Jones C, Bitgood JJ, Bradley FA, et al. (2001) Avian
Poultry
Biol Rev 12:1-102.
8. Kirch PV (2000) On the Road of the Winds: An Archaeological History
of the
Pacific Islands Before European Contact (Univ of California Press,
Berkeley).
9. Bedford S (2006) Pieces of the Vanuatu Puzzle: Archaeology of the
North, South
and Centre (Pandanus Books Research School of Pacific and Asian
Studies the
Australian National University, Canberra).
10. Steadman DW, Plourde A, Burley DV (2002) J Archaeol Sci 29:571-
578.
11. Walter R, Anderson A (2002) The Archaeology of Niue Island, West
Polynesia
(Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu).
12. Green RC (2005) in The Sweet Potato in Oceania: A Reappraisal, eds
Ballard
C, Brown P, Bourke RM, Harwood T (Centatime, Sydney), pp 43-62.
13. Hather J, Kirch PV (1991) Antiquity 65:887-893.
14. Green RC (2000) J Polynesian Soc 109:191-197.
15. Clarke AC, Burtenshaw MK, McLenachan PA, Erickson DL, Penny D
(2006)
Mol Biol Evol 23:893-900.
16. Jones TL, Klar KA (2005) Am Antiq 70:457-484.
17. Anderson AJ (2006) Am Antiq 71:759-764.
18. Lothrop SK (1932) J R Anthropol Inst 62:229-256.
19. Irwin G (1992) The Prehistoric Exploration and Colonisation of the
Pacific
(Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, UK).
20. Aldunate C (1989) in Prehistoria: desde sus or©¥¢¥genes hasta los
albores de la
conquista, eds Hidalgo J, Schiappacasse V, Niemeyer H, Aldunate C,
Solimano
I (Editorial Andre¢¥s Bello, Santiago, Chile), pp 329-348.
21. Stuiver M, Reimer PJ (1993) Radiocarbon 35:215-230.
22. Sheppard PJ, Green RC (1991) Archaeol Oceania 26:89-101.
23. Hunt TL, Lipo CP (2006) Science 311:1603-1606.
24. Nielsen-Marsh C (2002) Biochemist 24:12-14.
25. Harumi T, Sano A, Kagami H, Tagami T, Matsubara Y, Naito M (2004)
Anim
Sci J 75:503-507.
26. Savolainen P, Leitner T, Wilton AN, Matisoo-Smith E, Lundeberg J
(2004)
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:12387-12390.
27. Heyerdahl T (1963) Am Antiq 28:482-488.
28. Finney B (1985) Am Anthropol 87:9-26.
29. Wilson L, Pollard AM (2002) Acc Chem Res 35:644-651.
30. Nordenskiold E (1922) Deductions Suggested by the Geographical
Distribution
of Some Post-Columbian Words Used by the Indians of South America (AMS
Press, New York).
31. Meggers B (1975) Am Anthropol 77:1-27.
32. Crawford RD (1984) in Evolution of Domesticated Animals, ed Mason
IL
(Longman, London), pp 298-311.
33. Matisoo-Smith E, Robins JH (2004) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9167-
9172.
34. Liu Y-P, Wu G-S, Yao YG, Miao Y-W, Luikart G, Baig M, Beja-Pereira
A,
Ding Z-L, Palanichamy MG, Zhang Y-P (2006) Mol Phylogenet Evol 38:12-
19.
35. Akishinonomiya F, Miyake T, Takada M, Shingu R, Endo T, Gojobori
T, Kindo
N, Ohno S (1996) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:6792-6795.
36. Food and Agriculture Organization/United Nations Environment
Programme
(2000) World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity (Food and
Agriculture
Organization, Rome).
37. Matisoo-Smith E, Roberts RM, Irwin GJ, Allen JS, Penny D, Lambert
DM
(1998) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:15145-15150.
38. McCormac FG, Hogg AG, Blackwell PG, Buck CE, Higham TFG, Reimer PJ
(2004) Radiocarbon 46:1087-1092.
39. Wong GKS, Liu B, Wang J, Zhang Y, Yang X, Zhang ZJ, Meng QS, Zhou
J,
Li DW, Zhang JJ, et al. (2004) Nature 432:717-722.
40. Desjardins P, Morais R (1990) J Mol Biol 212:599-634.
41. Wilhelm OG (1960-1963) Rev Hist Hist Nat 55:97.
42. Addison DJ, Asaua TS (2007) J Samoan Stud 2, in press.
43. Carson MT, Athens JS (2006) in Report Prepared for Haitsuka
Brothers, Ltd.,
Honolulu (International Archaeological Research Institute, Honolulu).
44. Ram©¥¢¥rez JM (2005) in The Ren~aca Papers. VI International
Conference on Easter
Island and the Pacific: VI Congreso Internacional sobre Rapa Nui y el
Pacifico,
eds Stevenson CM, Ram©¥¢¥rez Aliaga JM, Morin FJ, Barbacci N (Easter
Island
Foundation, Los Osos, CA), pp 449-455.
Storey et al. PNAS June 19, 2007 vol. 104 no. 25 10339
ANTHROPOLOGY |
|
