One of the pioneering archaeological expeditions undertaken in the Fiji Islands was done by Edward Winslow Gifford.
On February 24, 1947, he had arrived on the shores of Suva with his wife, Delila, and for around seven months surveyed sites on Viti Levu.
These sites included the Sigatoka Dune and at two significant places, Navatu and Vuda.
In a short biography by Wilhelm Solheim II, a graduate student of Gifford, he stated how Gifford, with only a high school qualification, became an outstanding individual, competent in conchology, ornithology, and anthropology.
Gifford was only 17 when he was employed as an assistant in the Department of Ornithology of the California Academy of Sciences.
Solheim II said three years later, because of his exceptional work , Gifford was promoted as the assistant curator of the department.
He later served as the curator of a museum, a lecturer in anthropology, associate professor and became one of the few men of that century to hold a full professorship at a major university without any college qualification.
His first fieldwork trip was as a conchologist (collector of molluscs) at Revillagigedo Island, Mexico.
According to Mathew Spriggs, in his book chapter, “The first Lapita Pottery found in Fiji: links to an early Pacific world,” Gifford’s archaeological expedition was initiated by the head of the Fiji administration, Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.
Spriggs wrote that Ratu Sukuna had sent a young Fijian chief, Ratu Rabici Vuikadavu Logavatu to assist Gifford.
He had been educated at Queen Victoria School. Logavatu was supposedly the ‘eyes and ears’ for the project to ensure that Gifford’s work did not negatively impact the iTaukei population.
“The excavations produced a nearly 2,000-yearold sequence of occupation for the island when the first radiocarbon dates were published in 1955, only five years after this direct dating technique became available to archaeologist,” Spriggs stated.
In his book, ‘Archaeological excavations in Fiji,’ Gifford recorded his fieldwork data and discoveries on excavations made at Navatu and Vuda.
Based on the observations noted by Ratu Rabici, Gifford relayed descriptions of the site visits including one to Vuda on May 19, 1947.
“At present Vunda (Vuda) is uninhabited. The last resident of whom I learned was Naivoleoni who lived in a house which once stood on the house mound Ndele (planting place) which we excavated,” Gifford wrote.
“Our excavating crew was composed largely of descendants of the ancient inhabitants of Vunda.
“At Vunda we devoted most of our time to digging location A, which included the house mound of the aforementioned ‘Napolean’ and the level space in front of it which was bounded by the Vunda River on the west.
“The pottery found on the surface at site 26 (Vuda) was said to be from Malolo Island.
“Some Vunda people it was said settled on Malolo which lies off the Vunda coast, Malolo and other outlying islands and settlement supplied Vunda with pottery since it was a chief village.
“Before getting pottery from Malolo, the Vunda people obtained it from Waya Island whose inhabitants were also from Vunda.”
It was discovered that plain sherds were dominant at Vuda. Gifford said Viti Levu was the ‘land of potters’ judging from the abundance of potsherds found on the surface and beneath the ground.
“Turning to relationships between the Fijian archaeological maternal and similar artifacts elsewhere we find that resemblances are with Melanesia and other regions to the westward, non with Polynesia to the east.
“The single shell hook recovered at site 17 (Navatu) matches a Solomon Island type. Stone adzes resemble some of those from New Caledonia, New Guinea and the Philippine early neolithic. “Fijian pottery both prehistoric and modern exhibits some kinship with that elsewhere in Melanesia.”
Ratu Rabici was quick to pick up the skills and proved invaluable to Gifford in all these discoveries. In Gifford’s field-notes, much of Rabici’s work can be found there.
This includes, maps, surveys of sites, photographs and notes of excavations. Spriggs, in chapter 28 of Uncovering Pacific Pasts wrote how Ratu Rabici was key in ensuring that traditional protocols were followed when accessing sites.
“He was able to smooth over injured feelings when a key landowner’s rights were inadvertently infringed upon and when the discovery and removal of a human skeleton at Navatu led to the spirit possession of a local chief and pastor.
“In 1947 Gifford was already 60 years old and was not fit enough to visit some of the cultural sites of interest, so he sent Ratu Rabici to scale the peak of Uluinavatu and for a horseback survey of parts of Nakauvadra on Viti Levu.
“During the expedition Ratu Rabici was independently reporting on progress of the expedition to the deputy Talai, the anthropologist George Kingsley Roth.”
Following Giffords return to the USA in September 1947, the pair continued to correspond regularly as he prepared for his major publication.
A year later, the first Lapita pottery in Fiji was found by Ratu Rabici who was at the time a provincial scribe along with the acting district medical officer for Nadroga-Navosa, Lindsay Verrier, based at Lawaqa.
“It was found on a visit to the Sigatoka Sand Dunes in May 1948, showing that Ratu Rabici retained an interest in archaeology after Gifford’s departure,” Spriggs noted. “Verrier sent the pottery to Gifford in time for the latter to include photographs and a description of it in his monograph.
“The find by Rabici and Verrier was later to inspire a major series of excavations at Sigatoka in the 1960s through to the 2000s making the Sigatoka Dunes one of the most famous archaeological sites in the Pacific.”
The connection between Gifford and Ratu Rabici continued for another decade as they continued to write more on personal matters.
“The last known letter is from 1957, detailing his marriage and the birth and upbringing of his children, and sending photographs of them to Gifford and his wife Delila.
“The second son of Ratu Rabici was named Rabici Gifford Vuikadavu and the first daughter Varanisese Delilah.”
History being the subject it is, a group’s version of events may not be the same as that held by another group. When publishing one account, it is not our intention to cause division or to disrespect other oral traditions. Those with a different version can contact us so we can publish your account of history too — Editor.
