Difference between revisions of "Sgang Gwaay"

From ArchaeoWiki

Jump to: navigation, search
(Loss and Repatriation)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
[[File:Sganggwaay.jpg|350px|thumbnail|right|Totem poles at SGang Gwaay]]
 
[[File:Sganggwaay.jpg|350px|thumbnail|right|Totem poles at SGang Gwaay]]
 
*'''Location''': Anthony Island, Northwest Coast of British Columbia, Canada (Approx. [[Coordinate Is::52.098889°N, 131.2175°W]])
 
*'''Location''': Anthony Island, Northwest Coast of British Columbia, Canada (Approx. [[Coordinate Is::52.098889°N, 131.2175°W]])
*'''Period''': [[Period Is::Middle Developmental Substage]], [[Period Is::Late Developmental Substage]], [[Period Is:::Historic Period]] (Fedje and Mackie 2005; Acheson 1998)
+
*'''Period''': [[Period Is::Middle Developmental Substage]], [[Period Is::Late Developmental Substage]], [[Period Is:::Historic Period]] ([[Ref:FedjeDWMackieQ-2005|Fedje and Mackie 2005]]; [[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]])
*'''Date Range''': ''circa'' [[Date Start Is::360]] to [[Date End Is::1888 AD]] (Acheson 1998)
+
*'''Date Range''': ''circa'' [[Date Start Is::360]] to [[Date End Is::1888 AD]] ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]])
  
 
=Significance=
 
=Significance=
SGang Gwaay was the latest occupied, the largest, and very likely the oldest, of the villages of the Kunghit Haida in southern Haida Gwaii, and is therefore an excellent type site for studying Kunghit culture (Acheson 1998).  
+
SGang Gwaay was the latest occupied, the largest, and very likely the oldest, of the villages of the Kunghit Haida in southern Haida Gwaii, and is therefore an excellent type site for studying Kunghit culture ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]).  
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>This site also has the distinction of a UNESCO World Heritage Site designation, which was granted in 1981, as “Nowhere else can one view the in-situ remains of an entire Northwest Coast Indian village, in ruins, and stand in awe of the powerful presence of its monolithic carved cedar totems and mortuary columns” (Bennett 1980). However, at this time, little was still known about the site's occupational history ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).  
+
<br>This site also has the distinction of a UNESCO World Heritage Site designation, which was granted in 1981, as “Nowhere else can one view the in-situ remains of an entire Northwest Coast Indian village, in ruins, and stand in awe of the powerful presence of its monolithic carved cedar totems and mortuary columns” ([[Ref:BennetPH-1980|Bennett 1980]]). However, at this time, little was still known about the site's occupational history ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).  
  
 
=Research History=
 
=Research History=
 
==Site Description and Initial Study==
 
==Site Description and Initial Study==
SGang Gwaay is a large Kunghit Haida village located on Anthony Island in southern Haida Gwaii. It is situated in a sheltered bay, where it is shielded from the brunt of harsh Pacific winter storms by a rocky inlet that faces the village. The village consisted of 20 plank houses and dozens of totem and mortuary poles at its peak, and was occupied by about 300 Kunghit Haida (MacDonald 1983; MacDonald 1996). Unlike many other Haida settlements, SGang Gwaay survived well into the historic period, but was finally abandoned in 1888 after a dramatic decline in population due to European disease and the failing maritime fur trade (Hebda et al. 2005).
+
SGang Gwaay is a large Kunghit Haida village located on Anthony Island in southern Haida Gwaii. It is situated in a sheltered bay, where it is shielded from the brunt of harsh Pacific winter storms by a rocky inlet that faces the village. The village consisted of 20 plank houses and dozens of totem and mortuary poles at its peak, and was occupied by about 300 Kunghit Haida ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]; [[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1996|MacDonald 1996]]). Unlike many other Haida settlements, SGang Gwaay survived well into the historic period, but was finally abandoned in 1888 after a dramatic decline in population due to European disease and the failing maritime fur trade ([[Ref:HebdaRJetal-2005|Hebda et al. 2005]]).
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>Anthropological studies of SGang Gwaay, and the Haida more broadly, have been conducted since the late 19th century with inquiries into the origin of the multi-lineage Haida villages of the historic period ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). Two photographic inventory projects followed – the first carried out between 1897 and 1913 by Charles Newcombe, and the second in 1947 by Marius Barbeau (MacDonald 1983). These projects were both undertaken as efforts to protect the heritage of the site that had been abandoned at the end of the 19th century and was already falling into a state of ruin. Barbeau’s expedition had also negotiated with the Haida descendants of the original owners of artifacts and totem poles regarding the removal of the pieces in order to have them preserved and protected (MacDonald 1983).
+
<br>Anthropological studies of SGang Gwaay, and the Haida more broadly, have been conducted since the late 19th century with inquiries into the origin of the multi-lineage Haida villages of the historic period ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). Two photographic inventory projects followed – the first carried out between 1897 and 1913 by Charles Newcombe, and the second in 1947 by Marius Barbeau ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]). These projects were both undertaken as efforts to protect the heritage of the site that had been abandoned at the end of the 19th century and was already falling into a state of ruin. Barbeau’s expedition had also negotiated with the Haida descendants of the original owners of artifacts and totem poles regarding the removal of the pieces in order to have them preserved and protected ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]).
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>In 1957, the purchase of many of these pieces was arranged by Wilson Duff, and a salvage expedition was funded by the University of British Columbia and the Provincial Museum of British Columbia. This expedition allowed for the first archaeology of the site to be conducted by Wayne Suttles and Michael Kew, who conducted limited excavations within the village site, at a field just south of the village, and in burial caves near the village (Hebda et al. 2005; MacDonald 1983).
+
<br>In 1957, the purchase of many of these pieces was arranged by Wilson Duff, and a salvage expedition was funded by the University of British Columbia and the Provincial Museum of British Columbia. This expedition allowed for the first archaeology of the site to be conducted by Wayne Suttles and Michael Kew, who conducted limited excavations within the village site, at a field just south of the village, and in burial caves near the village ([[Ref:HebdaRJetal-2005|Hebda et al. 2005]]; [[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]).
  
 
==Major Insights==
 
==Major Insights==
Archaeology at SGang Gwaay has been particularly advantageous for studying the effects of external influences on a culture’s development, and especially in the context of European contact with North American native communities (Mackie and Acheson 2005). Through settlement archaeology and ethnographic evidence, the initial formation of a multi-lineage Haida village can be clearly observed at SGang Gwaay, and can clearly be seen as a product of European contact ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). While SGang Gwaay grew in size following first contact with European fur traders in the 18th century, this was the result of declining Kunghit Haida populations, as they converged on SGang Gwaay from the surrounding area. Though the population of SGang Gwaay was quickly bolstered with multiple lineages, it was only a short lived boost, and the village still declined and was eventually abandoned as the few remaining survivors relocated to larger Masset and Skidegate to the north ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). This study of changing settlement patterns SGang Gwaay is important to our understanding of the history of Haida Gwaii as a whole, as it appears as a microcosm of what occurred throughout the rest of the islands during the historic period, which led to a region encompassing hundreds of settlements and thousands of people being reduced to just two villages with a population of just a few hundred (MacDonald 1996).
+
Archaeology at SGang Gwaay has been particularly advantageous for studying the effects of external influences on a culture’s development, and especially in the context of European contact with North American native communities ([[Ref:MackieQAchesonS-2005|Mackie and Acheson 2005]]). Through settlement archaeology and ethnographic evidence, the initial formation of a multi-lineage Haida village can be clearly observed at SGang Gwaay, and can clearly be seen as a product of European contact ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). While SGang Gwaay grew in size following first contact with European fur traders in the 18th century, this was the result of declining Kunghit Haida populations, as they converged on SGang Gwaay from the surrounding area. Though the population of SGang Gwaay was quickly bolstered with multiple lineages, it was only a short lived boost, and the village still declined and was eventually abandoned as the few remaining survivors relocated to larger Masset and Skidegate to the north ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). This study of changing settlement patterns SGang Gwaay is important to our understanding of the history of Haida Gwaii as a whole, as it appears as a microcosm of what occurred throughout the rest of the islands during the historic period, which led to a region encompassing hundreds of settlements and thousands of people being reduced to just two villages with a population of just a few hundred ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1996|MacDonald 1996]]).
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>While there is not yet much know about the early prehistoric occupation of SGang Gwaay, the site’s remoteness and isolation has also made it ideal for studying the impact of occupation on the environment. Hebda et al.’s (2005) study on the vegetation history of the island has demonstrated that shortly after the site’s initial occupation around 360 CE, pine stands appear to have been actively selected for and this was controlled by human activities such as clearing the forest and possibly the use of controlled fires.
+
<br>While there is not yet much know about the early prehistoric occupation of SGang Gwaay, the site’s remoteness and isolation has also made it ideal for studying the impact of occupation on the environment. [[Ref:HebdaRJetal-2005|Hebda et al.’s (2005)]] study on the vegetation history of the island has demonstrated that shortly after the site’s initial occupation around 360 CE, pine stands appear to have been actively selected for and this was controlled by human activities such as clearing the forest and possibly the use of controlled fires.
  
 
==Difficulties with Continued Investigations==
 
==Difficulties with Continued Investigations==
There currently appears to be little, if any, research being done at SGang Gwaay, which is due to a number of factors. The first is the simple inaccessibility of the site, as it is geographically difficult to reach, and only 12 people are permitted on the site at any one time in order to protect and preserve its cultural resources (Acheson 1998; Parks Canada 2006). This understandably makes organizing work on SGang Gwaay difficult and costly.
+
There currently appears to be little, if any, research being done at SGang Gwaay, which is due to a number of factors. The first is the simple inaccessibility of the site, as it is geographically difficult to reach, and only 12 people are permitted on the site at any one time in order to protect and preserve its cultural resources ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]; [[Ref:ParksCanada-2006|Parks Canada 2006]]). This understandably makes organizing work on SGang Gwaay difficult and costly.
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>It is also worth noting that very few excavations have been undertaken when compared to mainland sites largely because the Haida themselves have not encouraged further study in this manner. As a result of the smallpox epidemics of the 19th century, it is extremely difficult to conduct archaeological research without disturbing burials at the site (MacDonald 1996).  
+
<br>It is also worth noting that very few excavations have been undertaken when compared to mainland sites largely because the Haida themselves have not encouraged further study in this manner. As a result of the smallpox epidemics of the 19th century, it is extremely difficult to conduct archaeological research without disturbing burials at the site ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1996|MacDonald 1996]]).  
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>However, if research could be properly funded and conducted without disturbing burials, there are a few areas of study that should be explored. These include further excavation of the village in the marshy northern area, which is likely to yield well-preserved wooden artifacts, and an investigation into paleoshorelines, which may yield a longer human occupation record (Acheson 1998; Fedje et al. 2005).
+
<br>However, if research could be properly funded and conducted without disturbing burials, there are a few areas of study that should be explored. These include further excavation of the village in the marshy northern area, which is likely to yield well-preserved wooden artifacts, and an investigation into paleoshorelines, which may yield a longer human occupation record ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]; Fedje et al. 2005).
  
 
=Formation and Occupational History=
 
=Formation and Occupational History=
 
+
==Layout and Construction==  
==Layout and Construction==
+
[[File:Skidegate.jpg|350px|thumbnail|right|Plank houses with frontal pole at Skidegate]]
 
+
The location of SGang Gwaay, in a sheltered bay on the eastern coast of Anthony Island, appears to have been consciously chosen with protection, defensibility, and resource access in mind ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]; [[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]).
The location of SGang Gwaay, in a sheltered bay on the eastern coast of Anthony Island, appears to have been consciously chosen with protection, defensibility, and resource access in mind (Acheson 1998; MacDonald 1983).
+
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>About twenty houses were eventually constructed, though the houses of the northern side of the village were not built until the beginning of the post-contact period (MacDonald 1983). Two exterior plank house types were used in Haida Gwaii, which differ only in construction method rather than finished appearance. The question of whether these two different house types are simply different methods of construction that developed through time or if they are methods practiced simultaneously for differing purposes, is still up for debate (MacDonald 1983; Acheson 1998).
+
<br>About twenty houses were eventually constructed, though the houses of the northern side of the village were not built until the beginning of the post-contact period ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]). Two exterior plank house types were used in Haida Gwaii, which differ only in construction method rather than finished appearance. The question of whether these two different house types are simply different methods of construction that developed through time or if they are methods practiced simultaneously for differing purposes, is still up for debate ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]; [[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]).
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>Many of these houses have elaborate frontal totem poles and interior poles that are carved with the crests of the inhabiting family’s lineage that were earned or inherited (MacDonald 1983). Carved mortuary poles were also erected in SGang Gwaay, in which nobles’ remains were installed (Kew and Duff 1957).  
+
<br>Many of these houses have elaborate frontal totem poles and interior poles that are carved with the crests of the inhabiting family’s lineage that were earned or inherited ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]). Carved mortuary poles were also erected in SGang Gwaay, in which nobles’ remains were installed ([[Ref:DuffWKewM-1957|Kew and Duff 1957]]).  
  
 
==Prehistoric Period==
 
==Prehistoric Period==
Still not much is known about the prehistoric period of SGang Gwaay, and much has been inferred from the ethnographic evidence of the historic period (Acheson 1998). However, this is not a perfect analogue, and there are many notable differences between the pre- and post-contact periods.
+
Still not much is known about the prehistoric period of SGang Gwaay, and much has been inferred from the ethnographic evidence of the historic period ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]). However, this is not a perfect analogue, and there are many notable differences between the pre- and post-contact periods.
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>Since well before the beginning of SGang Gwaay’s occupation, the Haida have been had extremely strong maritime adaptors (Fedje and Mathewes 2005). Faunal remains analysis at SGang Gwaay reflects this, as the subsistence base is almost entirely made up of maritime resources from its very beginning: rockfish, salmon, halibut, sea otter, harbour seal, alcids, and mussels (Acheson 1998). The extensive use of red cedar for various purposes, including dugout canoes that enabled this form of subsistence, is observable in pollen and plant macrofossil analyses since the beginning of the site’s occupation. Among other purposes, the construction of plank houses, dugout canoes, and the carving of totem poles all almost exclusively utilized red cedar (Lacourse et al. 2007).
+
<br>Since well before the beginning of SGang Gwaay’s occupation, the Haida have been had extremely strong maritime adaptors (Fedje and Mathewes 2005). Faunal remains analysis at SGang Gwaay reflects this, as the subsistence base is almost entirely made up of maritime resources from its very beginning: rockfish, salmon, halibut, sea otter, harbour seal, alcids, and mussels ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]). The extensive use of red cedar for various purposes, including dugout canoes that enabled this form of subsistence, is observable in pollen and plant macrofossil analyses since the beginning of the site’s occupation. Among other purposes, the construction of plank houses, dugout canoes, and the carving of totem poles all almost exclusively utilized red cedar ([[Ref:LacourseTetal-2007|Lacourse et al. 2007]]).
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>Around 1200 CE there was a shift in intensity of certain resource procurement and an increase in site size. At this time, there was a sudden influx of salmon, replacing the previous emphasis on rockfish (Orchard and Clark 2005). This change was accompanied by the establishment of the village, as well as an intensification of the harvest of California mussels (Hebda et al. 2005; Acheson 1998). Though it had been previously believed that this period saw specific seasonal use of sites for differing resources, it is now known that the variety of exploited resources at SGang Gwaay and surrounding sites means there was actually little differentiation between site use. The intensification at this time of salmon and mussel procurement allowed for even greater sedentism, and it is likely that SGang Gwaay was occupied year round (Acheson 1998).
+
<br>Around 1200 CE there was a shift in intensity of certain resource procurement and an increase in site size. At this time, there was a sudden influx of salmon, replacing the previous emphasis on rockfish (Orchard and Clark 2005). This change was accompanied by the establishment of the village, as well as an intensification of the harvest of California mussels ([[Ref:HebdaRJetal-2005|Hebda et al. 2005]]; [[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]). Though it had been previously believed that this period saw specific seasonal use of sites for differing resources, it is now known that the variety of exploited resources at SGang Gwaay and surrounding sites means there was actually little differentiation between site use. The intensification at this time of salmon and mussel procurement allowed for even greater sedentism, and it is likely that SGang Gwaay was occupied year round ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]).
 
<br>
 
<br>
 
<br>In the prehistoric period, SGang Gwaay, as well as all other Kunghit Haida villages, was a unilineal village, in which all inhabitants were essentially a part of the same extended family, which was the base unit of production and consumption. A hierarchy of a chiefly class, commoners, and slaves governed these villages ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).
 
<br>In the prehistoric period, SGang Gwaay, as well as all other Kunghit Haida villages, was a unilineal village, in which all inhabitants were essentially a part of the same extended family, which was the base unit of production and consumption. A hierarchy of a chiefly class, commoners, and slaves governed these villages ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).
Line 58: Line 57:
 
While subsistence remained the same, the historic period saw a shift in settlement pattern in response to population decline resultant from the introduction of European diseases (especially smallpox) and the changing fortunes of the maritime fur trade ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). As individual villages were decimated by disease or had individuals move to the north to follow the changing economy, those that remained opted to merge with other villages in an effort to survive as a community. Nine Kunghit lineages ultimately settled together at SGang Gwaay, beginning with the leading Sa’ki Eagle lineage of Gowgaia Bay at the end of the 1700s and ending in 1853 with the resettlement of the Ta’dji Ravens from Qayjun. This was not a phenomenon unique to the Kunghit Haida at this time, but Kunghit villages were especially weary of their declining numbers and increased vulnerability due to a fear of their reputation of fierce warriors and slavers inviting retribution from enemies. SGang Gwaay thus became a beacon for the Kunghit Haida ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).
 
While subsistence remained the same, the historic period saw a shift in settlement pattern in response to population decline resultant from the introduction of European diseases (especially smallpox) and the changing fortunes of the maritime fur trade ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]). As individual villages were decimated by disease or had individuals move to the north to follow the changing economy, those that remained opted to merge with other villages in an effort to survive as a community. Nine Kunghit lineages ultimately settled together at SGang Gwaay, beginning with the leading Sa’ki Eagle lineage of Gowgaia Bay at the end of the 1700s and ending in 1853 with the resettlement of the Ta’dji Ravens from Qayjun. This was not a phenomenon unique to the Kunghit Haida at this time, but Kunghit villages were especially weary of their declining numbers and increased vulnerability due to a fear of their reputation of fierce warriors and slavers inviting retribution from enemies. SGang Gwaay thus became a beacon for the Kunghit Haida ([[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>European contact also had a material impact at SGang Gwaay, as MacDonald (1983) suggests that one of the house types is a product of the use of European iron tools and shipbuilding techniques. There is also plenty of evidence of the use of European materials as well, such as glass, copper pots, and muskets (MacDonald 1983).
+
<br>European contact also had a material impact at SGang Gwaay, as MacDonald (1983) suggests that one of the house types is a product of the use of European iron tools and shipbuilding techniques. There is also plenty of evidence of the use of European materials as well, such as glass, copper pots, and muskets ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]).
  
 
==Decline and Abandonment==
 
==Decline and Abandonment==
The aggregation of nine Kunghit lineages at SGang Gwaay still did not secure the village’s survival, and after enduring multiple smallpox epidemics and the migration of individuals to work in canneries and salteries in the north, the village’s population plummeted from 308 in 1801 to just about 30 in 1884. In 1888 the remaining families at SGang Gwaay abandoned their village and made their way north to Skidegate and other villages. With this move, the Kunghit effectively became extinct as a distinct culture (Acheson 1998; [[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).
+
The aggregation of nine Kunghit lineages at SGang Gwaay still did not secure the village’s survival, and after enduring multiple smallpox epidemics and the migration of individuals to work in canneries and salteries in the north, the village’s population plummeted from 308 in 1801 to just about 30 in 1884. In 1888 the remaining families at SGang Gwaay abandoned their village and made their way north to Skidegate and other villages. With this move, the Kunghit effectively became extinct as a distinct culture ([[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]; [[Ref:AchesonS-2005|Acheson 2005]]).
  
 
=Material Culture=
 
=Material Culture=
Early in the occupation history of SGang Gwaay, the Northwest Coast woodworking toolkit appeared in the material culture of Haida Gwaii’s Graham Tradition. While dugout canoes were already extensively used (along with the stone adze), additions to this tradition included large plank houses, pole structures, and ornamentation objects. Early stone artifacts include flakes with projections, notched flakes, and core tools. Ground bone and antler technology, such as bird bone drills and bone wedges, became more common than stone tools over time, and the full range of fishing and sea mammal-hunting equipment, including harpoons, was adopted (Fedje and Mackie 2005; Mackie and Acheson 2005; Acheson 1998; MacDonald 1983).  
+
Early in the occupation history of SGang Gwaay, the Northwest Coast woodworking toolkit appeared in the material culture of Haida Gwaii’s Graham Tradition. While dugout canoes were already extensively used (along with the stone adze), additions to this tradition included large plank houses, pole structures, and ornamentation objects. Early stone artifacts include flakes with projections, notched flakes, and core tools. Ground bone and antler technology, such as bird bone drills and bone wedges, became more common than stone tools over time, and the full range of fishing and sea mammal-hunting equipment, including harpoons, was adopted ([[Ref:FedjeDWMackieQ-2005|Fedje and Mackie 2005]]; [[Ref:MackieQAchesonS-2005|Mackie and Acheson 2005]]; [[Ref:AchesonS-1998|Acheson 1998]]; [[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]).  
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>European materials were incorporated as well into common use in the historic period. Common objects included glass bottles, copper pots, muskets, and metal objects that were repurposed. An illustration of this adoption of European material can be seen in the excavation of the base of a mortuary pole at SGang Gwaay that produced two adzes placed there during the erection ceremony – one has a blade of stone, the other of metal (MacDonald 1983).
+
<br>European materials were incorporated as well into common use in the historic period. Common objects included glass bottles, copper pots, muskets, and metal objects that were repurposed. An illustration of this adoption of European material can be seen in the excavation of the base of a mortuary pole at SGang Gwaay that produced two adzes placed there during the erection ceremony – one has a blade of stone, the other of metal ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]).
  
 
=Loss and Repatriation=
 
=Loss and Repatriation=
The burial caves at SGang Gwaay show recent evidence of vandalism and theft, and where there should be painted Haida burial chests, there only remains a few bones and pieces of matting. Other remains have been removed from mortuary poles, and a huge number of artifacts have been either stolen or bought by collectors over the last few decades (MacDonald 1983).  
+
The burial caves at SGang Gwaay show recent evidence of vandalism and theft, and where there should be painted Haida burial chests, there only remains a few bones and pieces of matting. Other remains have been removed from mortuary poles, and a huge number of artifacts have been either stolen or bought by collectors over the last few decades ([[Ref:MacDonaldGF-1983|MacDonald 1983]]).  
 
<br>
 
<br>
<br>This physical and spiritual loss of ancestors’ remains and cultural heritage objects has remained an open wound for many present-day Haida, and projects have been undertaken in recent years to assist with repatriation efforts to have this heritage returned to Haida Gwaii. These efforts have challenged existing museum practices regarding repatriation of artifacts and remains and have secured the return home of a number of ancestral remains. Cara Krmpotich (2014) has documented the biggest success of these efforts in the Force of Family: Repatriation, Kinship, and Memory on Haida Gwaii, which details the return of ancestral remains from the Pitt Rivers Museum at the University of Oxford after decades of Haidas creating new songs and dances to celebrate repatriation, hosting massive feasts, and preparing button blankets and bentwood boxes with clan crest designs in which to bring these ancestors home. For many Haida, this is just one part in a healing process that has been centuries in the making.
+
<br>This physical and spiritual loss of ancestors’ remains and cultural heritage objects has remained an open wound for many present-day Haida, and projects have been undertaken in recent years to assist with repatriation efforts to have this heritage returned to Haida Gwaii. These efforts have challenged existing museum practices regarding repatriation of artifacts and remains and have secured the return home of a number of ancestral remains. [[Ref:KrmpotichC-2014|Cara Krmpotich (2014)]] has documented the biggest success of these efforts in ''the Force of Family: Repatriation, Kinship, and Memory on Haida Gwaii'', which details the return of ancestral remains from the Pitt Rivers Museum at the University of Oxford after decades of Haidas creating new songs and dances to celebrate repatriation, hosting massive feasts, and preparing button blankets and bentwood boxes with clan crest designs in which to bring these ancestors home. For many Haida, this is just one part in a healing process that has been centuries in the making.
  
 
=Site Map=
 
=Site Map=

Latest revision as of 03:19, 31 March 2016

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITE
Loading map...
Culture(s) Late Graham Tradition
Temporal Period(s) PERIOD

Summary Details

Totem poles at SGang Gwaay

Significance

SGang Gwaay was the latest occupied, the largest, and very likely the oldest, of the villages of the Kunghit Haida in southern Haida Gwaii, and is therefore an excellent type site for studying Kunghit culture (Acheson 1998).

This site also has the distinction of a UNESCO World Heritage Site designation, which was granted in 1981, as “Nowhere else can one view the in-situ remains of an entire Northwest Coast Indian village, in ruins, and stand in awe of the powerful presence of its monolithic carved cedar totems and mortuary columns” (Bennett 1980). However, at this time, little was still known about the site's occupational history (Acheson 2005).

Research History

Site Description and Initial Study

SGang Gwaay is a large Kunghit Haida village located on Anthony Island in southern Haida Gwaii. It is situated in a sheltered bay, where it is shielded from the brunt of harsh Pacific winter storms by a rocky inlet that faces the village. The village consisted of 20 plank houses and dozens of totem and mortuary poles at its peak, and was occupied by about 300 Kunghit Haida (MacDonald 1983; MacDonald 1996). Unlike many other Haida settlements, SGang Gwaay survived well into the historic period, but was finally abandoned in 1888 after a dramatic decline in population due to European disease and the failing maritime fur trade (Hebda et al. 2005).

Anthropological studies of SGang Gwaay, and the Haida more broadly, have been conducted since the late 19th century with inquiries into the origin of the multi-lineage Haida villages of the historic period (Acheson 2005). Two photographic inventory projects followed – the first carried out between 1897 and 1913 by Charles Newcombe, and the second in 1947 by Marius Barbeau (MacDonald 1983). These projects were both undertaken as efforts to protect the heritage of the site that had been abandoned at the end of the 19th century and was already falling into a state of ruin. Barbeau’s expedition had also negotiated with the Haida descendants of the original owners of artifacts and totem poles regarding the removal of the pieces in order to have them preserved and protected (MacDonald 1983).

In 1957, the purchase of many of these pieces was arranged by Wilson Duff, and a salvage expedition was funded by the University of British Columbia and the Provincial Museum of British Columbia. This expedition allowed for the first archaeology of the site to be conducted by Wayne Suttles and Michael Kew, who conducted limited excavations within the village site, at a field just south of the village, and in burial caves near the village (Hebda et al. 2005; MacDonald 1983).

Major Insights

Archaeology at SGang Gwaay has been particularly advantageous for studying the effects of external influences on a culture’s development, and especially in the context of European contact with North American native communities (Mackie and Acheson 2005). Through settlement archaeology and ethnographic evidence, the initial formation of a multi-lineage Haida village can be clearly observed at SGang Gwaay, and can clearly be seen as a product of European contact (Acheson 2005). While SGang Gwaay grew in size following first contact with European fur traders in the 18th century, this was the result of declining Kunghit Haida populations, as they converged on SGang Gwaay from the surrounding area. Though the population of SGang Gwaay was quickly bolstered with multiple lineages, it was only a short lived boost, and the village still declined and was eventually abandoned as the few remaining survivors relocated to larger Masset and Skidegate to the north (Acheson 2005). This study of changing settlement patterns SGang Gwaay is important to our understanding of the history of Haida Gwaii as a whole, as it appears as a microcosm of what occurred throughout the rest of the islands during the historic period, which led to a region encompassing hundreds of settlements and thousands of people being reduced to just two villages with a population of just a few hundred (MacDonald 1996).

While there is not yet much know about the early prehistoric occupation of SGang Gwaay, the site’s remoteness and isolation has also made it ideal for studying the impact of occupation on the environment. Hebda et al.’s (2005) study on the vegetation history of the island has demonstrated that shortly after the site’s initial occupation around 360 CE, pine stands appear to have been actively selected for and this was controlled by human activities such as clearing the forest and possibly the use of controlled fires.

Difficulties with Continued Investigations

There currently appears to be little, if any, research being done at SGang Gwaay, which is due to a number of factors. The first is the simple inaccessibility of the site, as it is geographically difficult to reach, and only 12 people are permitted on the site at any one time in order to protect and preserve its cultural resources (Acheson 1998; Parks Canada 2006). This understandably makes organizing work on SGang Gwaay difficult and costly.

It is also worth noting that very few excavations have been undertaken when compared to mainland sites largely because the Haida themselves have not encouraged further study in this manner. As a result of the smallpox epidemics of the 19th century, it is extremely difficult to conduct archaeological research without disturbing burials at the site (MacDonald 1996).

However, if research could be properly funded and conducted without disturbing burials, there are a few areas of study that should be explored. These include further excavation of the village in the marshy northern area, which is likely to yield well-preserved wooden artifacts, and an investigation into paleoshorelines, which may yield a longer human occupation record (Acheson 1998; Fedje et al. 2005).

Formation and Occupational History

Layout and Construction

Plank houses with frontal pole at Skidegate

The location of SGang Gwaay, in a sheltered bay on the eastern coast of Anthony Island, appears to have been consciously chosen with protection, defensibility, and resource access in mind (Acheson 1998; MacDonald 1983).

About twenty houses were eventually constructed, though the houses of the northern side of the village were not built until the beginning of the post-contact period (MacDonald 1983). Two exterior plank house types were used in Haida Gwaii, which differ only in construction method rather than finished appearance. The question of whether these two different house types are simply different methods of construction that developed through time or if they are methods practiced simultaneously for differing purposes, is still up for debate (MacDonald 1983; Acheson 1998).

Many of these houses have elaborate frontal totem poles and interior poles that are carved with the crests of the inhabiting family’s lineage that were earned or inherited (MacDonald 1983). Carved mortuary poles were also erected in SGang Gwaay, in which nobles’ remains were installed (Kew and Duff 1957).

Prehistoric Period

Still not much is known about the prehistoric period of SGang Gwaay, and much has been inferred from the ethnographic evidence of the historic period (Acheson 1998). However, this is not a perfect analogue, and there are many notable differences between the pre- and post-contact periods.

Since well before the beginning of SGang Gwaay’s occupation, the Haida have been had extremely strong maritime adaptors (Fedje and Mathewes 2005). Faunal remains analysis at SGang Gwaay reflects this, as the subsistence base is almost entirely made up of maritime resources from its very beginning: rockfish, salmon, halibut, sea otter, harbour seal, alcids, and mussels (Acheson 1998). The extensive use of red cedar for various purposes, including dugout canoes that enabled this form of subsistence, is observable in pollen and plant macrofossil analyses since the beginning of the site’s occupation. Among other purposes, the construction of plank houses, dugout canoes, and the carving of totem poles all almost exclusively utilized red cedar (Lacourse et al. 2007).

Around 1200 CE there was a shift in intensity of certain resource procurement and an increase in site size. At this time, there was a sudden influx of salmon, replacing the previous emphasis on rockfish (Orchard and Clark 2005). This change was accompanied by the establishment of the village, as well as an intensification of the harvest of California mussels (Hebda et al. 2005; Acheson 1998). Though it had been previously believed that this period saw specific seasonal use of sites for differing resources, it is now known that the variety of exploited resources at SGang Gwaay and surrounding sites means there was actually little differentiation between site use. The intensification at this time of salmon and mussel procurement allowed for even greater sedentism, and it is likely that SGang Gwaay was occupied year round (Acheson 1998).

In the prehistoric period, SGang Gwaay, as well as all other Kunghit Haida villages, was a unilineal village, in which all inhabitants were essentially a part of the same extended family, which was the base unit of production and consumption. A hierarchy of a chiefly class, commoners, and slaves governed these villages (Acheson 2005).

Historic Period

While subsistence remained the same, the historic period saw a shift in settlement pattern in response to population decline resultant from the introduction of European diseases (especially smallpox) and the changing fortunes of the maritime fur trade (Acheson 2005). As individual villages were decimated by disease or had individuals move to the north to follow the changing economy, those that remained opted to merge with other villages in an effort to survive as a community. Nine Kunghit lineages ultimately settled together at SGang Gwaay, beginning with the leading Sa’ki Eagle lineage of Gowgaia Bay at the end of the 1700s and ending in 1853 with the resettlement of the Ta’dji Ravens from Qayjun. This was not a phenomenon unique to the Kunghit Haida at this time, but Kunghit villages were especially weary of their declining numbers and increased vulnerability due to a fear of their reputation of fierce warriors and slavers inviting retribution from enemies. SGang Gwaay thus became a beacon for the Kunghit Haida (Acheson 2005).

European contact also had a material impact at SGang Gwaay, as MacDonald (1983) suggests that one of the house types is a product of the use of European iron tools and shipbuilding techniques. There is also plenty of evidence of the use of European materials as well, such as glass, copper pots, and muskets (MacDonald 1983).

Decline and Abandonment

The aggregation of nine Kunghit lineages at SGang Gwaay still did not secure the village’s survival, and after enduring multiple smallpox epidemics and the migration of individuals to work in canneries and salteries in the north, the village’s population plummeted from 308 in 1801 to just about 30 in 1884. In 1888 the remaining families at SGang Gwaay abandoned their village and made their way north to Skidegate and other villages. With this move, the Kunghit effectively became extinct as a distinct culture (Acheson 1998; Acheson 2005).

Material Culture

Early in the occupation history of SGang Gwaay, the Northwest Coast woodworking toolkit appeared in the material culture of Haida Gwaii’s Graham Tradition. While dugout canoes were already extensively used (along with the stone adze), additions to this tradition included large plank houses, pole structures, and ornamentation objects. Early stone artifacts include flakes with projections, notched flakes, and core tools. Ground bone and antler technology, such as bird bone drills and bone wedges, became more common than stone tools over time, and the full range of fishing and sea mammal-hunting equipment, including harpoons, was adopted (Fedje and Mackie 2005; Mackie and Acheson 2005; Acheson 1998; MacDonald 1983).

European materials were incorporated as well into common use in the historic period. Common objects included glass bottles, copper pots, muskets, and metal objects that were repurposed. An illustration of this adoption of European material can be seen in the excavation of the base of a mortuary pole at SGang Gwaay that produced two adzes placed there during the erection ceremony – one has a blade of stone, the other of metal (MacDonald 1983).

Loss and Repatriation

The burial caves at SGang Gwaay show recent evidence of vandalism and theft, and where there should be painted Haida burial chests, there only remains a few bones and pieces of matting. Other remains have been removed from mortuary poles, and a huge number of artifacts have been either stolen or bought by collectors over the last few decades (MacDonald 1983).

This physical and spiritual loss of ancestors’ remains and cultural heritage objects has remained an open wound for many present-day Haida, and projects have been undertaken in recent years to assist with repatriation efforts to have this heritage returned to Haida Gwaii. These efforts have challenged existing museum practices regarding repatriation of artifacts and remains and have secured the return home of a number of ancestral remains. Cara Krmpotich (2014) has documented the biggest success of these efforts in the Force of Family: Repatriation, Kinship, and Memory on Haida Gwaii, which details the return of ancestral remains from the Pitt Rivers Museum at the University of Oxford after decades of Haidas creating new songs and dances to celebrate repatriation, hosting massive feasts, and preparing button blankets and bentwood boxes with clan crest designs in which to bring these ancestors home. For many Haida, this is just one part in a healing process that has been centuries in the making.

Site Map

Loading map...

Photos

Personal tools