For thousands of years, colonising groups have utilised marine environments to provide subsistence resources. Indigenous groups were the first people to exploit Australia’s fish resources. Aboriginal people harvested food from their marine surroundings and shared the rewards within their own tribal groups. After European colonisation, new concepts of marine exploitation were introduced into Australia. Non-Aboriginal people harvested Australian waters in much greater quantities than had previously occurred, bartering or selling their catch within their own settlements for personal gain. Indigenous Australians soon adapted their own more prudent fishing methods to begin catching surplus fish, which they bartered or sold to European people.

The ease with which Aboriginal Australians entered the European fishing industry is significant, as it shows that any person with the knowledge to fish could participate through simply catching and selling fish. To the buyer, it was irrelevant who caught the fish – the product remained the same. The intensity of any exploitation is proportionate to demand and as Australia’s population increased, so did the demand for ocean resources.

As Victoria’s gold rush in the 1850s gained momentum, the demand for fish grew to voracious levels. This created an opportunity for people of various nationalities – including Chinese people – to enter Victoria’s commercial fishing industry. During this period, Victoria’s south Gippsland region emerged as an important supplier of fish. A history of south Gippsland focuses on the then-remote town of Port Albert, which was central to the establishment and growth of Gippsland commerce. In time, Port Albert developed a strong local fishing industry including – as a key part of the industry – a Chinese fish-curing establishment.

A broad history of fishing in Britain and Australia provides a context for discussion of early Chinese involvement in Victoria’s fishing industry. It also demonstrates the enterprising atmosphere of the times. People could work hard and prosper in fishing. The Chinese fish curers at Port Albert became an integral part of the area’s commercial fishing industry – with local, regional and international implications. The historical background presented in this chapter includes aspects of a much broader history of fishing. Further detail can be found through the references cited in this chapter.

In Australia’s colonial period, wives occasionally paired with their husbands to fish commercially, but an individual woman or a female crew have not been historically identified. As this project is concerned only with the colonial period when men were the predominant fishing people, the term ‘fisherman’ seems most appropriate – except when referring to Aboriginal fishing practices.

AUSTRALIAN ABORIGINAL FISHING

Aboriginal fishing technology

Many archaeological excavations of prehistoric sites throughout the world reveal evidence of fish consumption (Balme 1983; Bowdler 1993). Methods used to catch these fish are generally difficult to discern and are rarely researched in detail (Colley 1983: 162).

Archaeological investigations in Australia often show evidence that Aboriginal people exploited fish (Dargin 1976; Walters 1987; Haysom 1999). Middens containing considerable quantities of shell and fish remains – dating to 36 000 BP – reveal that Aboriginal people consumed and used fish long before European settlement (Bowler et al. 1970; Bowler 1976: 57; Bowdler 1993: 61; Johnston 1993: 197).

Balme (1983) conducted a study of fresh water-fish remains from Aboriginal sites in western New South Wales, noting not only a dominance of the species golden perch, but also that remains were restricted to a particular size perch. Coleman (1980) noted the same occurrence with the marine fish flathead and bream from midden analysis in eastern New South Wales. Both researchers concluded the select species and size restrictions represent the use of nets – either gill or drum nets – to catch fish.

In 1790, Reverend J. G. Wood described Australian Aboriginal people using a net in a similar manner to that of a seine net (circling a net around a school of fish) (Roughley 1953: 324). Dargin (1976: 25) describes drag nets, 12 ft (4 m) long and 4 ft (1.2 m) deep, made of thin, strong twine, constructed from the inner bark of a kurrajong tree. He suggests that Aboriginal men swam or waded through water with a net stretched between them to catch fish.

15The prehistoric remains of several hundred stone walls designed as fish traps are evident in the Darling River and fishhooks made of shell and bone have been recovered from middens on the northeast coast of New South Wales (Bowdler 1976: 253; Dargin 1976: 32). Wicker traps resembling a basket or round cage have been recorded ethnographically, along with the Aboriginal catching of fish by hand, poisoning, diving, brush fencing and most commonly spearing (Bowdler 1976: 249; Colley 1987: 16).

The evidence presented above is adequate to demonstrate that before European settlement and at the time of first contact, Aboriginal people used fish as a food source and their fishing techniques incorporated a range of nets, hook, line and various types of traps.

Adoption and adaptation

A strong feature of Aboriginal culture is the sharing of subsistence resources (Flood 1980: 100). Fishing was conducted on a subsistence exchange basis, where the acquisition of fish and its distribution occurred in accordance with strict obligations to share. While male and female group members participated in the catching of fish (depending on region and fishing technique), their individual activity was for the benefit of the general society (Bowdler 1976: 249–51). Accordingly, in Aboriginal society there was no ‘sale’ or commercialisation of fish. On occasion, fish may have been used for exchange with neighbouring groups. However, this did not reflect a desire for gains that would reward the individual alone (Patel 1989: 54). Aboriginal fishing in prehistoric Australia was not a capitalistic venture (Haysom 1999: 25).

It is interesting from the point of view of imitation and transfer of cultural objects and ideas between two communities to examine how Aboriginal society adapted – and how fishing practices made the transition – to a set of new, European, technologies and ideas.

Prehistoric Aboriginal and colonial-period European cultures both used fishing hooks. European hooks were made from metal, whilst Aboriginal hooks were constructed from a variety of materials, predominantly shell and bone (Walters 1987: 22). Both were successful in catching fish, although shell hooks took considerable time to manufacture whilst metal ones were mass produced and arrived in Australia in bulk (Roughley 1953: 324; Pearson 1983: 49). During the colonial period, Aboriginal people began using metal fishhooks and other utensils introduced by Europeans. Time previously spent making a shell hook could now be put towards other pursuits, prompting a shift in social structure and providing the means for a cultural change in the patterns of coastal Aboriginal people (Das and Kolack 1989: 2; Bimber 1994: 84). Bowdler (1976: 251–54) discusses this situation, arguing that after the introduction of metal fishhooks, fishing with hook and line altered traditional Aboriginal fishing patterns from a mixed sex activity (depending on region) to a predominantly male task.

The time saved making traditional fishhooks could potentially be put towards catching more fish, which would create a surplus that could be sold for money or exchanged for more time-saving equipment. In accordance with Hughes’ (1994: 102) concept of ‘technological momentum’, it is speculated that the introduction of the metal fish-hook contributed to the transition of Aboriginal society from an egalitarian to a hierarchical social order. This situation can be seen on the New South Wales coast at Jervis Bay, where the Jerringah Aboriginal community changed their ancestral fishing traditions to fit a European monetary economy (Egloff 1993: 8). By the 1860s, six Jervis Bay Aboriginal fishing families were considered professional fishers and were catching enough fish to sell at the fish markets in Sydney (Nugent 1980: 8). In 1876, two of these fishermen, Sadler and Timbery, asked the Australian Government for a fishing boat. Four years later they received it:

This demonstrates the ease with which many Aboriginal people entered commercial fishing. All that was required was the knowledge to fish and a small amount of fishing equipment. Similarly, the European population could enter into commercial fishing simply with the knowledge to fish and the ability to acquire a small rowboat and net. Fish were an abundant natural resource during the colonial period and cost very little to catch. Despite its early reputation as a low paid, difficult and dangerous occupation, a small percentage of people including Aboriginal, European and Chinese found it an excellent industry in which to establish themselves with few start-up costs. 16

THE EUROPEAN FISHING INDUSTRY

Fishing methods

From the fifth century AD there are records of ancient Greeks, Romans and Phoenicians using gill nets (figure 2.1) to catch fish (Roughley 1953: 200). Drag nets towed behind a sail boat – an earlier form of the modern trawl – were in use by 952 AD in the English Channel (figure 2.2) (Daumas 1969: 479). Seine netting (figure 2.3) and drift netting (figure 2.4) also have a long history – over nine hundred years – of recorded use in British waters (Roughley 1953: 201). Rich concentrations of plankton and other marine biomass are present along the west coast of Scotland and in the English Channel (Banbury 1975: 172). This source of nutrients has ensured a liberal supply of fish, which in part accounts for the early development of advanced British river and ocean-going fishing vessels (Robinson 1987: 2). When British people colonised Australia, they naturally placed the same importance on catching fish – and used the same fishing methods – as they had done in Britain. Modern fishing techniques in Australia were in large part transferred from Europe during the first few years of colonisation.

Fishing methods in Britain, from at least the fifth century AD, consisted of nets, line with hooks and traps. The remains of tidal salmon traps in Britain indicate that trapping was also a common means of catching fish (Jenkins 1974: 40). Garratt (1989: 2) discusses wicker pot traps of various sizes that were used for centuries to catch fish in Britain.

Historical evidence from the 12th century AD indicates that the town of Birdpot on the south coast of England was a major manufacturer of flax and hemp used for fishing nets and line (Jenkins 1974: 67). It is difficult to establish when the widespread use of metal fish hooks by Europeans began. Metal fish-hooks have been in use from the Bronze Age, as demonstrated by Coles & Coles’ (1989) discussion of bronze hooks from an excavation at Cortaillod-Est in Switzerland (cited in Fallowfield 2001: 12). Initially, steel was probably prohibitively expensive and iron insufficiently ductile for fish hook production (Diderot 1959: 184; von Brandt 1972: 41). However, by 1607 iron fish hooks were in use, as evidenced by their archaeological recovery from an early colonial settlement at Jamestown, in Virginia, US (Schmidt 2006: 84). During the mid 1700s, good quality pins were manufactured from brass in Britain (Berg 1994: 268) and this material was probably also used to make fish-hooks. A note from British explorer and scientist Joseph Banks to the British Government indicates metal fish hooks were in common use by 1779. The note suggests that during sea voyages, metal fish hooks made an excellent bartering tool for acquiring fresh supplies from island inhabitants (Martin 1978: 23). 17

Importance

The importance of commercial fishing in Britain’s social and economical history is demonstrated by the continuous development in techniques and the detailed laws concerning fishing that have been in place since the 12th century AD (Daumas 1969: 482).

For centuries fish has been a vitally important source of protein for the people of Britain. As early as the 12th century AD, British fishing boats were sailing 40 miles offshore to fish in the deep waters of the North Sea (Banbury 1975: 173). Fresh inland waterways, tidal rivers, close to shore seas and distant deep oceans were all targeted by British fisheries and fish was a much more common meal than today (Dickinson 1987: 1; Palmer and Neaverson 1994: 29). Fresh or dried and salted fish has been the staple of marching armies, explorers, slaves, the incarcerated and the poor. More recently, with Britain’s early 1800s population explosion, the famous British fish ’n’ chip shops often provided a cheap, hot, nutritious meal for families without the regular means to cook (Goddard and Spalding 1987: 11). Whole British regions such as Plymouth, Scarborough and Whitby have, at various periods, been dependant on the catching and trading of fish (Dickinson 1987: 7).

It could be expected that when British people arrived in Australia, they brought with them their fishing traditions and technology. Interestingly, European and pre-contact Aboriginal fishing methods are remarkably similar, with three dominant techniques persisting to the present – nets, hook and line and traps.

Australia

The first commercial exploiters of marine resources in Australia appear to be the Indonesian trepang fishermen from Makassar. Trepang (a type of sea slug also called bêche-de-mer) were harvested by hand in shallow coastal waters along Australia’s northern coast, then cured through a process of boiling and sun-drying (Cooke 1987: 7). In MacKnight’s (1976) detailed history of the Makassan trepangers, he suggests they began annual trepang harvesting voyages to the Northern Territory in about 1700 AD (MacKnight 1976: 1). During the trepang season – from late December to mid-April – between 200 and 350 tons (dry weight) of this highly 18valuable marine resource would be processed and traded as a delicacy throughout the Indonesian archipelago and into mainland China (MacKnight 1976: 15; Campbell 2002: 72).

In 1770, when Captain James Cook first voyaged to Australia on the Endeavour, part of his exploration instructions were to test waters for fish resources (Dunn 1991: 36). For this task he carried on board a number of fishhooks, lines, drag nets and seine nets (Dunn 1991: 59). Similarly, cargo manuscripts for the First Fleet to Australia reveal that fishing lines, hooks, nets, needles and twine were deemed necessary for the establishment of a new colony (Martin 1978: 24). It was inevitable that European people would transfer their ideas, values and technology to their new surroundings. Some of this technology was transported in the physical form, but most of it, as McNeil (1988: 75) has argued, would have been cultural, technological and social knowledge.

John Palmer, a purser on board the Sirius in 1789 (he later became the commissary in charge of food distribution), documented that 1000 lb of fish was eaten weekly in the new settlement. Fish was an easily obtainable and cheap source of food for the British colonists. The authorities encouraged convicts to eat fish by issuing 6 lb of fish as a substitute for one pound of salt pork (Ollif and Crosthwaite 1977: 60). Karskens (1997: 207) discusses the keen eye that convicts had for making a profit. As free settlers began arriving in Australia, convicts with knowledge of how to fish probably sold or bartered their catch within the settlement and many would have continued fishing upon their emancipation. These actions would place fishing among the first market-based, economic activities in Australia.

Unlike Britain’s large ocean going fishing fleets, Australian colonial fishing boats were comparatively small. In Australia, the standard fishing vessel was a small boat manned by two or three people (figure 2.5) and estuary, beach and inshore locations were the common fishing grounds. Cohen discussed this in 1892:

This focus on inshore fishing can be attributed to the East Australian Current, which flows along the east and part of the South Coast of Australia carrying large quantities of plankton, fish larvae, mollusc larvae, crustaceans and other nutrients into the relatively shallow waters of the Australian continental shelf and inland waterways (Hutchins and Swainston 1986: 7; Bennett 1974: 230; Pownall 1979: 12). The rich variety of marine species supported by the current eliminated the need to hunt deep-water fish and facilitated the establishment of efficient inshore fishing operations.

Fishing methods were suited to estuary, beach and lake species. Hooks were used with line and nets were hauled into a boat or into shore by hand or hand-operated winches (figure 2.6 and 2.7). The types of fish targeted included sea mullet (Mugil cephalus), bream (Acanthopagrus butcheri), luderic (Girella tricuspidata), sand whiting (Sillago ciliata), sand flathead (Platycephalus bassensis) and eastern salmon (Arripis trutta) (Hutchins and Swainston 1986). 19

Fish was seen as a virtually inexhaustible source of food and employment for the colonies. In 1892, Frank Farnell MP made this statement about the colony’s fishing industry “instead of 800 or 900 men, we ought to have thousands of men employed in this business” (Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Council, Papers Laid Upon the Table 1892: 5590). In 1894, he argued that commercial fishing should be a topic of national importance, as it was adding wholesome food and considerable wealth to Australia (Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Council, Report from the Fisheries Commission 1894: 1439).

20From the late 1800s to early 1900s, fishing developed into a major Australian industry. An increasing number of commercial fishermen – predominantly Australian Aboriginal people and immigrants from China, Italy, Greece and Britain – ensured a healthy industry, including equipment manufacturers, distribution agencies and markets (Sydney Morning Herald 1915, January 23).

In 1915, the New South Wales state government established the NSW State Trawling Industry, aimed at exploiting deep-ocean fish resources to supply a growing demand for fresh, affordable fish to government institutions and the public (Sydney Morning Herald 1915, March 20). Three ocean trawlers containing the most modern trawling technology were brought from England to ensure the success of the new industry (Sydney Morning Herald 1915, January 23). While early operations proved very promising, after ten years of poor administration, over-expenditure and general mismanagement, a royal commission closed the industry and sold all the equipment to private enterprise, where it was used to develop what is now one of Australia’s largest primary industries (Secomb 1995: 41).

Fish remains recovered through archaeological excavation confirm the establishment of deep-ocean fishing. For example, from the Rocks area in Sydney, Karskens (1999a: 94) reported that only shallow water and estuarine fish species were represented in early 19th-century archaeological assemblages, while later 19th-and 20th-century assemblages contained shallow water and deep-ocean fish species.

In 2007, commercial fishing is Australia’s fifth most valuable rural industry after wool, beef, wheat and dairy (www.affa.gov.au, 7 May 2007).

VICTORIA’S COMMERCIAL FISHING HISTORY

Commercial fishing in Victoria began soon after European settlement in the mid-1830s. Fishermen lived in huts at Fisherman’s Bend on the Yarra River and from here fished the Port Phillip Bay waters. Government Surveyor Robert Russell set aside a general market reserve slightly west of Princes Bridge and commercial fishermen would row or sail up the Yarra to this market, blowing a horn to announce their arrival with fresh fish (Bennett 2002: 3). Any evidence of fishing huts and the open market place has long since disappeared with the development of the city of Melbourne.

During the 1850s, the gold rush fuelled an enormous increase in Victoria’s population. This led to a greater demand for food including relatively cheap sources of protein such as fish. About 20 boats were fishing commercially in Port Phillip Bay during the 1840s and by the mid-1850s numbers had risen to approximately 170 boats (Bennett 2002: 6). This led to fears that Port Phillip fish stocks were becoming depleted, prompting fishermen to move to the sheltered bays and harbours east and west of Melbourne.

Eastern Victoria

For reasons of practicality, this project focuses predominantly on eastern Victoria. Western Victoria’s fishing history is discussed briefly in chapter 4, mainly in relation to Chinese fishing activities. The first coastal bays exploited by fishermen east of Melbourne were those of Western Port (see location map Figure 1.1). Commercial fishing was underway in this area by the 1840s, as indicated by newspaper reports that Thomas and James Wren were running horse-drawn fish carts from Hastings (then King’s Creek) to Melbourne markets (Peninsula Post 1917, October 26). Laden with up to one hundred baskets of fish and drawn by three horses, spring carts would travel in the cool night air to reduce spoilage of the fresh product (Illustrated Australasian News 1880, February 16).

A cartage industry quickly developed, with fish transported to Melbourne markets and the carts returning with merchandise for the distant settlements (Bennett 2002: 16). The carts travelled from Western Port through Frankston, Mordialloc, Carrum Swamp, Cheltenham, Beaumaris, Brighton and through to Prince’s Bridge. This track became known as ‘the old fish track’ and was the forerunner to today’s Nepean Highway (figure 2.8) (Bognuda and Moorhead 1981: 34).

Ice was largely unavailable before approximately 1880 – depending on region as the Patent Ice Company was operating in Geelong by 1862 (Aspinall 1862: 120) – and transport of fish to market by steamboat or horse and cart was expensive, time consuming and unreliable in inclement weather (Bennett 2002: 6). As commercial fishing moved further from Melbourne, transport of fish to market before the flesh putrefied became the main obstacle for Victoria’s rural fishing industry.

From the mid-1800s, many small settlements around Western Port Bay, such as Phillip Island, Crib Point, Bittern, Hastings, Tyabb, Cannons Creek, Warneet and Tooradin were to some extent dependent on fishing. Many commercial fishermen used coastal sailing boats for trading as well as for fishing, thereby facilitating the development of these small settlements into larger townships (Capps 1994: 141; Little 2004: 7). 21

Field reconnaissance (by the author) in 2003 revealed that archaeological evidence of past European fishing activities has survived around Western Port including isolated slipways, wharf timbers and concrete ice boxes (in common use by the 1890s) and more complete fishing stations that reveal the multifaceted workings of European fishing sites. Surface examinations, documentary and oral evidence suggest these sites date to approximately 1870–1910 (Bognuda & Moorhead 1981: 72; Woolley 2003 pers. comm.; Johnstone 2002 pers. comm.). Earlier fishing sites would have been positioned in the main settlement area, where over time archaeologically damaging development has occurred. It is possible the identified sites may have been subject to successive occupation, in which case excavation or archival research may reveal earlier dates.

By the 1860s, an ever increasing demand for fish and fears of depleting fish stocks again prompted fishermen to move eastward, this time to the Gippsland region (Ellis & Lee 2002: 4).

COASTAL SOUTH GIPPSLAND

The Gippsland coast consists of a series of lakes, rivers, estuaries and inlets covering approximately 20 500 km² of tidal waterways (Barr 2000: 1). South Gippsland’s geology comprises a bedding of Mesozoic tectonic belt (mainly consisting of cretaceous sediments) that extends across southern Victoria and onto the continental shelf (Singleton 1973: 129, 133). In the late Pleistocene period, a siliclastic barrier (sand dune) system was deposited along the Gippsland coast and formed a series of estuarine lakes. Fluvial sediments became trapped by the lakes and created coastal swamp deposits. During the late Quaternary period more sand was deposited along this coastline, forming the beginnings of the present-day Gippsland Lakes and beaches (figure 2.9) (Birch 2003: 355–56).

The Kurnai people

Long before its official European ‘opening’ in 1841, the Gippsland region provided hunting and fishing grounds for the Indigenous Kurnai people. The Kurnai group consisted of five related tribes, each occupying their own separate region of Gippsland but sharing the same basic socio-cultural characteristics (Howitt 1904: 134; Barr 2000: 1). In the early 1840s, Charles Tyers, the Commissioner of Crown Lands, estimated there were approximately 1000 Kurnai people living in and around the Gippsland coastal region (Tyers in Bride 1969: 233). The Port Albert region was populated by the Brataualung tribe of Kurnai people whom, in 1841, Tyers estimated to number 300 (cited in Mulvaney & Colson 1971: 301). The Brataualung exploited the resources of Gippsland’s waterways and from bark canoes they speared, netted, trapped and hooked fish (Synan 1989: 2). The tribal name Tatungalung – neighbours to the Brataualung – attests to their use of marine environment as ‘Tatungalung’ means “men of the sea” (Howitt 1904: 77). 22

After European contact, the Kurnai quickly learned how to fish for financial gain. Writing of the Kurnai, Wells (1986: 45) states, “Sometimes Aboriginals would sell fish, too, when they needed cash”. An engraving from the Illustrated Australian News on April 24 1869 shows Kurnai women fishing from bark canoes (figure 2.10). The reporter states these women often sold fish in the towns around Gippsland’s lakes, “about 20 lb 23weight being given for six-pennyworth” with which they purchased “small supplies of tea, sugar, tobacco and a few other luxuries” (also Attwood 1984). Further pictorial evidence from the 1870s shows Kurnai people dressed in European clothing and standing in a traditional bark canoe containing a large European-style fishing net (figure 2.11). Another photograph from 1912 shows a group of eight Kurnai – men and women – who have been fishing with European style nets from three traditional bark canoes and one European style row boat (figure 2.12). This indicates that the Kurnai, like other Australian Aboriginal people, adapted their traditional fishing techniques to fish commercially.

European discovery of Gippsland

The European discovery and settlement of Gippsland has been discussed adequately by other researchers such as Cuthill (1959); Lennon (1975; 1998), Clements & Richmond (1968), Bognuda & Moorhead 1981, Cox (1890), J Adams (1990) and A Adams (1997). Therefore, the region’s European history will be conveyed here in a succinct manner. Captain Cook documented sailing past the area in April 1770, but did not attempt a landing (Martin 1978). The explorer George Bass sheltered on the eastern side of Wilson’s Promontory in February 1797 and documented the entrances to what are now Corner Inlet and the Port Albert waterways (Le Cheminant 1978: 14). Over the next 40 years, sealing and whaling crews frequented the region, establishing temporary bases and leaving archaeological evidence of their activities (Townrow 1997; Lennon 1998: 64). These were most likely the first Europeans to explore South Gippsland’s coastal inlets. Some Gippsland areas closer to Melbourne, such as Port Franklin, had intermittent settlement from 1836 by timber cutters exploiting the great southern forests (Doran 1954: 1).

There is debate about the first European ‘officially’ to discover the Gippsland region. In 1840, two explorers, Count Paul Strzelecki and Angus McMillan, were separately engaged in exploring Gippsland for quality livestock pastures and suitable access routes into the region (Cuthill 1959: 9; Watson 1984: 115). After several long and difficult expeditions both men were successful in locating fertile country, large fresh water rivers and overland access points in and out of the region. However, Strzelecki was the first publicly to report – in the Port Phillip Herald of 23 June 1840 – the region’s livestock potential, calling it Gipps’ Land after Governor Sir George Gipps.

24Word of the lush, arable country spread rapidly among farmers and squatters, but the rugged country between Melbourne and Gippsland hindered the region’s development. By way of chance, the wreck of a 700 ton steamship, the Clonmel, played a role in developing this region.

Travelling from Sydney on 2 January 1841, the Clonmel was wrecked near the entrance to Port Albert (Cox 1890: 12). Captain Lewis (a harbour master in Port Phillip Bay) was in charge of one of several vessels that assisted in rescuing the Clonmel’s passengers. Motivated by Strzelecki’s account of Gippsland, Captain Lewis took the opportunity to inspect the region’s waterways and returned to Melbourne with stories of a huge navigable inlet, deep waters and sheltered passages (Port Phillip Patriot 1841, January 7).

It was only a matter of days – 16 February 1841 – before a group of Melbourne businessmen engaged in the cattle industry chartered a vessel and began systematically exploring the region’s waterways for a satisfactory shipping harbour (Adams 1990: 9). The group established themselves on the eastern side of the Albert River and called their site ‘Albert Town’ (Cuthill 1959: 11; Halstead 1977: 22).

Early settlers and cattle

A deep shipping channel was located a short distance east of Albert Town and by late 1841, trade was conducted from this location, called Shipping Point (Lennon 1975: 85).

By late 1843, a rudimentary overland stock route had been established (Cuthill 1959: 22). Thousands of sheep and cattle were driven overland to Gippsland, fattened into prime animals and then shipped by sea to market (Maddern 1965: 107; McMahon 1966: 58). As profits from Gippsland’s fertile pastures increased so did general interest and on 28 November 1845, the Port Phillip Herald announced a new road to Gipps’ Land, stating the journey from Melbourne now took less than four days in a wheeled vehicle – horse drawn.

A small community sprang up at Shipping Point, which was now private land that had been purchased from the Crown in 1843 by a Major Davidson (Gippsland Standard 1914, June 5). Turnbull, Orr and Co (a land, cattle and shipping company) purchased Shipping Point – now commonly called Port Albert – from Davidson in late 1844 (Adams 1990: 17). Sea transport from Melbourne to Port Albert was cheaper, more comfortable and generally much quicker than by overland road, which reinforced the usage and importance of Port Albert’s harbour (Clements and Richmond 1968: 131).

By 1845, Port Albert had a resident population of 28, supported a number of general stores, good stockyards, a hotel and a customs office. It was visited by trading vessels 69 times that year and exported 10 440 lb of wool, 6 973 sheep and 1 912 head of cattle (Pearson 1992: 2; Daley 1928: 40). The new settlement was developing into a busy town.

PORT ALBERT

Industries such as timber cutting, wattle bark stripping (for natural tannins) and farming contributed to the development of Port Albert (Dow 1995: 10). However, it was the livestock industry – fresh and salted meat, tallow, hides and skins – that really established Port Albert as a major colonial port during the 1840s to the early 1860s.

Port Albert was three days sailing from Hobart, giving it a geographical advantage as the closest mainland port and therefore able to offer cheaper transport rates (Port Phillip Patriot 1842, August 29). Gippsland graziers saw their opportunity and began exporting livestock to Hobart, finding it a highly profitable market due to the growing number of convicts transported there (Lennon 1975: 103, 105; Clements & Richmond 1968: 132).

By 1850, large quantities of building and general supplies were coming into Port Albert and large numbers of livestock were going out. As the only dock and safe harbour in Gippsland, Port Albert was a busy port, supporting a relatively large – although scattered – regional population (Baggaley 1984: 4). The port had become a vital market depot and distributing centre for the Gippsland region and wider eastern Victoria.

Things were not all easy, however, as by the late 1840s, good quality livestock from Melbourne and Geelong began dominating sales in Van Diemen’s Land. From 1848 to the early 1850s the Californian gold rush – known as the ‘Californian trade’ – took many livestock and general trading vessels away from Australia, again hampering Port Albert’s development (Bateson 1963: 159). Nevertheless, by 1857, Port Albert had a residential population of 211 people and had become an established port, with the livestock industry as its main economic base (Adams 1990: 41). Then came Gippsland’s gold rush and Port Albert really began to boom.

In 1851, large gold deposits were found in Victoria and gold fever struck the colony. Ballarat, Mount Alexander and Bendigo were the first regions to develop major goldfield diggings (Birrell 1998: 15). The 25‘Gippsland rush’ began more slowly, with initial gold discoveries at Omeo in 1851 by Reverend (and geologist) W. B. Clark (Porter 1977: 114). Omeo was remote and rugged country, but gold was a powerful incentive. Food, clothing and mining equipment were carted by bullock-drawn wagons and packhorses from Port Albert 290 km over the mountains (Adams 1997: 6). Other Gippsland goldfields soon opened such as Boggy Creek and Merrijig in 1856, Crooked River in 1860, Woods Point in 1861, Jordan River in 1862 and Walhalla in 1864 (Caldow 2003: 7; Clements and Richmond 1968: 132). Port Albert became the gateway to Gippsland’s goldfields and economic development increased rapidly around the livestock, gold and transport industries.

During this period – mid 1850s to early 1860s – a small fishing industry developed at Port Albert (Gippsland Standard 1894, May 5). Fish was sold door-to-door within the local region, but the market was only small and could not support industry expansion (Gippsland Standard 1888, September 5). Accordingly, fish were packed in wicker baskets – often with wet ferns to keep them cool – and sent on steamers and sailing vessels (at cheap return cargo rates) to markets in Melbourne (Clements and Richmond 1968: 132; Loney 1982: 51). Although the 20-hour sea trip to Melbourne often left fish in a decomposing, un-saleable condition, with a bill for transport still owing (Gippsland Times 1889, August 23), small profits to the fishermen were achieved and the industry continued (Gippsland Times 1866, May 1).

By the early 1860s, Port Albert’s future looked assured. Livestock, gold, forestry and now fishing were contributing to the town’s prosperity. In 1862, Port Albert even rivalled Port Phillip Bay in the number of ships entering its harbour, with some people believing the area would overtake Melbourne to become a capital city (Pearson 1992: 2). However, from the mid 1860s Port Albert’s development took a series of downward turns.

As Melbourne grew, so did its demand for Gippsland’s meat and timber, which was now frequently transported overland, reducing Port Albert’s trade (Clements and Richmond 1968: 133). Convict transportation to Van Diemen’s Land ceased in 1853 and by 1860 the small number of convicts still held there did not require imported meat supplies (Caldow 2003: 6). With the Australian and, from 1862, New Zealand gold rushes in full swing there was still a huge demand for Gippsland’s livestock (Gippsland Guardian 1864, January 1). However, in February 1864, the livestock disease pleuro-pneumonia was detected in Gippsland cattle and the export of livestock came to an instant stop (Gippsland Guardian 1861, July 5; Caldow 2003: 6).

Although Gippsland’s gold deposits were not of the best quality – ₤2 12s per ounce compared to ₤3 18s 9d on Central Victorian goldfields – they were plentiful and thousands of miners travelled through Port Albert on their way to the gold regions of north Gippsland (Daley 1960: 61). Such a large movement of people northwards created considerable incentive to locate a shipping port closer to the goldfields than Port Albert. In April 1858, Malcolm Campbell – motivated by the promise of huge profits through the transport of miners and their supplies – became the first person to sail safely through the entrance to the Gippsland Lakes, 200 km northeast of Port Albert (Bull & Williams 1967: 25; Barr 2000: 4). From the late 1850s to early 1860s, numerous reports appear in the Gippsland Guardian and the Gippsland Times of wrecked or lucky escapes for trading vessels attempting to pass through this entrance. Regardless of the dangers, by 1864, steam and sail vessels regularly navigated the Gippsland Lakes’ natural opening to the sea (Clements & Richmond 1968: 134). The ‘Lakes’ became the new entry point for Gippsland’s inland regions and Port Albert lost its status as the gateway to Gippsland (Bird 1987: 2).

By 1864, Port Albert’s situation was dire. Gippsland’s diseased livestock were barely worth boiling down for tallow, improved overland routes through Gippsland were reducing the port’s use and the goldfields trade vanished when shipping bypassed the town. Port Albert’s boom years were over. On 4 February 1865, the Gippsland Times confirmed Port Albert had “yielded up the ghost and there has been a general exodus of population”. A similar comment appeared in the Gippsland Times on September 1 1868: “if it was not for the weekly arrival and departure of the steamers and our personal squabbles, there would be little stirring”. Newspapers advertised firms that were “late of Port Albert” as many businesses simply went with the trend, packed up and moved northeast to the Gippsland Lakes. Within three years of its peak in 1863, Port Albert’s residential population had dropped by 83% from approximately 211 to 36 (Butler’s Gipps Land and Wood’s Point Directory 1866). Port Albert’s continuing existence was largely due to the small but stable fishing industry that operated from its harbour (Clements & Richmond 1968: 132).

Commercial fishing

Dredging oysters in south Gippsland’s waterways was initially more lucrative than fishing and several small craft were in profitable employment dredging and conveying oysters from Corner Inlet to the Melbourne markets (The Port Phillip Patriot and Melbourne Advertiser 1843, October 23). Dredging for oysters was so popular that within 12 years – from approximately 1842 to 1854 – the region’s natural oyster beds were completely destroyed (Gippsland Guardian 1862, February 7; Gippsland Mercury 1892, July 23). Over the 26coming decades, several attempts were made to establish new oyster beds but, besides a brief recovery in 1860, all attempts were unsuccessful (Gippsland Times 1889, August 23). The prolific use of small oyster dredges, designed to be towed behind a small sail vessel, became obvious during fieldwork in 2003. Many of the fishermen interviewed within the Corner Inlet/Port Albert area had an old oyster dredge – used by their fathers or grandfathers – lying in their shed, under a water tank or rusting away in paddocks (figure 2.13).

As with Britain’s early fishing industry, people in the Port Albert region often mixed farming and fishing to sustain a livelihood (Wells 1986: 45; Dickinson 1987: 3; Capps 1994: 56). A small, but increasing number of fishermen settled around the Gippsland waters, making a living by catching and selling fish locally and, when suitable transport was available, at the Melbourne markets.

From the mid-1840s to the mid-1850s, ships were frequently arriving at Port Albert, but not to a regular timetable. Fish could not be stored while waiting for transport to market. Therefore, Port Albert’s shipping arrangements were not favourable for the development of commercial fishing activities. The Victorian Directory for Country Districts and Smaller Townships lists no full-time fishermen living at Port Albert in 1851 (cited in Cox 1995: 47–49).

On 6 June 1856, the Gippsland Guardian published an electoral register, for selected Gippsland towns, in which one fisherman was listed as living in Port Albert. However, people mixing farming and fishing probably only listed their main occupation, which would most likely have been farming, thereby under-representing the extent of fishing activities.

By 1864, Port Albert’s once regular shipping trade had slowed considerably (Lennon 1975: 211). Turnbull, Howden and Co. purchased a steamer called the Ant and began a weekly, on a set timetable, Port Albert–Tasmania–Melbourne passenger and cargo run (Adams 1990: 71). This enabled – for the first time – the regular transport of fish from Port Albert to Melbourne markets. Regular shipping columns in the Gippsland Guardian indicate that within a year, other steamers (those involved in the Gippsland Lakes trade) also began a weekly stop at Port Albert (Gippsland Guardian 1865, April 7; Gippsland Times 1871, September 5; Loney 1982: 51). These vessels were actively seeking cargo, giving fishermen increased opportunity – and competitive rates – to transport their fish to market.

From 1864 to approximately 1880 (with the arrival of rail) these vessels provided a suitable – and usually on time – means to transport fish to market. Fishermen could fish all night before the arrival of the steamer, then have their fresh catch loaded in the morning for transport to Melbourne. Even with this regular service, condemned fish tickets were common and Gippsland fishermen had a long-standing complaint about high fish cartage fees and low financial returns (Gippsland Times 1889, August 23).

27Jock Carstairs, a Gippsland fisherman in the early 1870s stated that

Despite the risks, there seemed to be a never-ending supply of fish to catch and regular transport offered potential for profits. The Gippsland Guardian of 27 April 1866 confirms this by reporting that

The Chinese at Port Albert

Small groups of Chinese cooks, shepherds and farm labourers had worked on Gippsland properties before Victoria’s gold-rush period (Adams 1997: 2). Gold enticed the first substantial number of Chinese people into Gippsland. In 1859, a small group of Chinese miners were working the Omeo field and by 1863, their numbers had risen to approximately 600 (Daley 1960: 67). The majority of these Chinese miners would have travelled through Port Albert to reach the goldfields.

The following section acts as a brief introduction to Port Albert’s Chinese fish curers and is intended to facilitate further discussion of the development of Port Albert’s fishing industry. Documentary evidence for the arrival and departure of the fish curers in Port Albert is also discussed. Insight into their operations, evidence of their fishing and curing activities and their contribution to the fishing industry is discussed in detail in chapters 3 and 4.

In 1861, overseas Chinese numbers in Victoria were estimated at 24 724 (Cronin 1982: 136). Chinese fish curers had probably been involved in Victoria’s fishing industry – predominantly around Port Phillip Bay – since 1855. In the early 1860s, a group of Chinese fish curers arrived in Port Albert, stimulating further growth of the fishing industry. The Chinese remained the best market outlet for Port Albert’s fishermen for the next 20 years (Gippsland Standard 1894, May 5). While the Chinese did catch fish themselves, their major contribution to Port Albert’s fishing industry was in purchasing quantities of fish from European fishermen for curing. With Port Albert industry in a slump, the market created by the Chinese curers played a crucial role in the town’s economic development. Port Albert was again growing in importance, this time as a fishing port. In 1880, the Great Southern Railway began servicing the Gippsland region, creating a new option for cartage of fish to market which lasted until the 1930s, when cheaper refrigerated road transport began to dominate fish cartage. By 1881, Port Albert’s permanent population had risen to 148 (Adams 1990: 112), approximately 40 of whom were fishermen.

With the growing market for fish – which by the late 1860s included local residents, the Chinese fish curers and Melbourne markets – Port Albert’s fishing industry began to take off. Commercial fishing techniques comprised simple nets, hooks and line. As fishermen stayed close to shore, even a small rowboat or sailboat was suitable for fishing (Gippsland Standard 1894, May 5; Baggaley 1984: 5). Hook and line fishermen usually worked alone, targeting snapper and flathead (Wheelwright 1861: 249). Net boats generally had a crew of two, sometimes three and caught a variety of fish types (Gippsland Times 1879, May 21).

The Victorian Fisheries Act 1859 required professional fishermen to register their name, place of residence and where they kept their nets (Baggaley 1984: 4). For the Port Albert region, unfortunately, none of these colonial records have survived. In an 1892 parliamentary inquiry into Victoria’s fisheries held at Port Albert, fisherman George Smith states there were about 25 fishing boats and 50 fishermen operating from Port Albert (Votes and Proceedings of the Victorian Legislative Council 1892). When questioned by the Parliamentary Committee on the types of fish caught in Corner Inlet/Port Albert waterways, local fishermen Joseph Cripps replied “mullet, garfish, pike, flathead and indeed all kinds of fish” (Votes and Proceedings of the Victorian Legislative Council 1892; Pearson 1992: 11; Gippsland Times 1892, July 8). These would also have included whiting, salmon, trevally, bream, snapper and two favourites of the Chinese, flounder and calamari squid (Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1879–80, vol. 3: 1225).

The Port Albert Fisherman Association’s minutes book for 1894 indicates that 32 boats were fishing in the Port Albert region at that time (Minutes Port Albert Fishermen’s Union 1894). This suggests that good financial gains were achieved through commercial fishing at Port Albert.

William Carstairs, a Gippsland fisherman, commented on 12 November 1878 that he and his fishing partner’s catch for that week consisted of 59 baskets of fish – approximately 1 ton – sent by steamer to Melbourne markets. From this catch 13 baskets were condemned, for the remaining 46 baskets he received ₤14 2s, cartage and a sales commission cost ₤11 5s 7d, leaving a net profit of ₤2 16s 5d to be shared between 28the two fishermen. Carstairs noted this was a poor week’s catch and suggested his personal wage averaged out annually to approximately ₤5 per week (Gippsland Times 1879, May 21).

Over the next 14 years, profits from fishing do not appear to have risen. Of the 18 Port Albert fishermen interviewed for the 1892 parliamentary committee, each suggested their fishing profits could vary from ₤1 to ₤5 per week. The main complaints of the fishermen were that their fish often reached market in an unsaleable condition and that fish transport costs, agent commissions and market dues were too high.

When the Chinese fish curers established themselves at Port Albert, the fishermen’s problem of condemned fish and market-related fees were greatly reduced. Without any cost to themselves, fishermen could sail or row their catch over to the Chinese camp – one kilometre by water from the Port Albert wharf – and receive payment immediately. Reminiscing about the early 1860s, a writer for the Gippsland Standard (1944, July 7) commented:

Compared to William Carstairs receiving ₤2 16s 5d in 1878 for a ton of fish sold at Melbourne’s market, the Chinese curer’s rates seem very attractive. Another writer for the Gippsland Standard on 5 May 1894, suggests that in 1864 the Chinese were paying from ₤6 to ₤8 per ton and sometimes as much a ₤9 for sought after varieties. On 26 June 1866, the Gippsland Guardian commented that about half the fish caught at Port Albert was going to the Chinese curers.

During their first few years of curing operations in Port Albert – approximately 1860 to 1875 – Victoria’s gold rush was in full swing and cured fish would have been in great demand by Victoria’s Chinese population. A writer for the Gippsland Standard in 1894 (described only as ‘One Who Was There’), wrote that

The ready market provided by the Chinese fish curers would have been a strong incentive for fishermen to move into the Port Albert region. Historical newspapers show that steamers were carrying tons of fish every week from Port Albert to Melbourne, but there were significant risks involved. The Chinese fish curers would almost certainly have been the preferred market. This suggests a limit to the quantity of fish the Port Albert curing establishment could process, forcing European fishermen to send a portion of their catch to Melbourne markets via steamer.

By the early 1880s, Victoria’s gold was dwindling and many of the Chinese miners had returned to China (Oddie 1959: 22). Rail had come to the Gippsland region, offering another, although relatively inconvenient, option for cartage of fish to Melbourne. After much government debate over the best rail route, the line bypassed Port Albert, going instead through the township of Sale, 85 km north-northeast of Port Albert. By 1891, a line was opened from Sale to Alberton, approximately four miles inland from Port Albert (Adams 1990: 111). To make use of the rail line, fish from Port Albert had to be taken to the railway station, creating extra cartage expenses, greater risk of damaged fish due to increased handling and no great reduction on the number of fish condemned each week at Melbourne markets (Gippsland Times 1891, March 16). Although cartage options had increased and the Chinese fish curers intake would have decreased (due to a reduced Chinese presence in Victoria), the curers still remained a valuable part of Port Albert’s fishing industry.

In 1892, Port Albert fishermen were receiving – depending on season, quality and type of fish – an average of 2s 3d per basket of fish sold at the Melbourne markets, with expenses of approximately half basket value still to be deducted (Votes and Proceedings of the Victorian Legislative Council 1892). After costs, the price received was approximately ₤5 per ton. The best price recorded during the 1892 Fisheries Commission inquiry was an average of 19s on 14 baskets of fish – probably in-season flounder. Such sales demonstrate why fishermen continued sending bulk fish to Melbourne markets, as in this case, approximately ₤10 full profit was obtained for one ton of fish. As the waters were still abundant with fish, wastage through the condemning of fish was acceptable, so long as a few shillings of profit were made.

During the 1892 Fisheries Commission inquiry, William Fitz reveals the value of having two major market outlets – Chinese fish curers and Melbourne markets – for fish:

The steamer services were only a viable option for Port Albert fishermen if large quantities of fish were sent to Melbourne markets. Fish not condemned would cover the expenses for fish that were condemned and 29with luck profits would be made. The Chinese curers could not process such bulk tonnage, but delivered the fishermen with guaranteed good profits, thereby facilitating the development of Port Albert as a fishing port.

The Fisheries Commission inquiry shows that, as late as 1892, Chinese fish curers were still a valuable part of Port Albert’s fishing industry. The Chinese continued buying and curing fish at Port Albert into the early 1900s. By this time, with the mining days over, easy access to ice for preserving fish and good transport options, the curing camp probably only consisted of a couple of Chinese men, seeing out their twilight years as best they could.

Through written histories, newspaper reports and official documents, the following section suggests periods of Chinese occupation at Chinaman’s Point. This information will initially be used independently of the material record – which is discussed (in regard to dating) in chapter 7.

Historical documentation

General local histories provide useful information that can assist with dating archaeological sites. However, care must be exercised, as these often rely on human memory and subjective interpretations (S Jack 1993: 125). Contemporary newspaper reports are a slightly better source of information, but should not be fully trusted in isolation. While newspapers discuss local events and provide firm dates, details are often slanted towards the writer’s own opinion. When written local histories are used in conjunction with newspaper reports, reliable information can result. Official documents such as licence fees, land tax payments, court proceedings and royal commissions are generally a reliable source of historical documentation.

It would be expected that a number of Chinese people establishing a fish-curing camp within full view of the township would attract the attention of the local newspaper. A lengthy article appeared in The Gippslander (1865, November 10) when a group of Chinese people began curing fish at Hastings in Western Port Bay. However, no similar article has been located for the arrival of Chinese fish curers in Port Albert. It is suspected the event was reported, but the relevant edition became one of the many newspapers or historical documents that have since disappeared through fire, neglect or some other agent.

Clements and Richmond (1968: 132), when writing on industry and trade networks in Port Albert between 1840 and 1866, give the earliest date so far located for the fish curers at Port Albert. They state, “Chinese fish curers began operations in the town in 1860 and the importance of the industry steadily increased”. Unfortunately, Clements and Richmond give no indication of where they obtained this information.

On May 5 1894, a writer for the Gippsland Standard newspaper – described only as One Who Was There (mentioned above) – discusses Port Albert’s early fishing industry and in doing so supplies the second earliest documented date for Chinese fish curers at Port Albert.

As this article was written in 1894 and reminisces about a period thirty years before, it would be dubious material to specifically date the site on. However, the article gains credibility through another newspaper article. One Who Was There’s article refers to a Chinaman fish curer known as ‘Old Daddy’. In 1867, the Gippsland Guardian ran a short story concerning “a Chinaman familiarly known as Old Daddy” who had gone missing in his small boat in the Port Albert region. After three days, a search party was sent out and Old Daddy was found safe and sound. This article reveals two relevant aspects of information. Firstly, a Chinaman in a small boat is likely to have been a fisherman; secondly, the name ‘Old Daddy’ has now been associated twice with Chinese and fishing (once to the actual curers) in Port Albert during the 1860s.

Bailliere’s Post Office Directory lists Shuo Yet as a fisherman living at Port Albert in 1870. No Chinese fishermen other than the curers from Chinaman’s Point are known to have resided at Port Albert. The directory gives no details of where in Port Albert Shuo Yet lived. Therefore, although tantalisingly close to hard evidence that this man was part of the Chinaman’s Point group, this information can only be used to add weight to the existing data.

Capps (1994) published extracts from the diaries of Richard Smith, an ex-convict who took to fishing at Port Albert in 1865. Capps does not precisely date the diary entries, however, in the early 1870s while writing about teaching his sons to fish, Smith mentions that

30It is very likely that Smith is referring to the Port Albert Chinese fishermen, again placing Chinese fishermen in this vicinity during the early 1870s. Smith’s diaries were consulted directly. Unfortunately, their deteriorated condition renders them almost impossible to read – giving reason for Capps’s unspecified date entries.

On March 4 1884, the Gippsland Standard had this short note: “Large hauls of fish at Port Albert. Five tons sold to Chinamen on eastern beach at £6 per ton”. Chinaman’s Point is east of Port Albert and, although an earlier occupation date can be inferred from the previous references, this report is the first of a number of reliable dates for Chinese occupation at the fish-curing camp.

In 1887, Ah Hoo paid the Department of Lands and Survey £2 7s 5d for a fisherman’s residence licence at Long Point (Chinaman’s Point was formerly called Long Point), then again on 19 February 1889, only this time he was a year overdue and was required to pay £5 to keep the licence current. No further documents are available until two years later when Hop Sing paid £1 15s for the same fisherman’s residence site, which he kept until 31 March 1892. The next relevant document, dated 26 December 1893 states, “the fisherman’s site has been abandoned, Hop Sing left here about 12 months ago” (PROV, VPRS 5357/P0000, unit 5899).

In 1892, the Legislative Assembly of Victoria ordered a progress report into the fishing industry of Victoria. A number of Port Albert fishermen were interviewed for the report on 6 July 1892 including William James Fitz who, when asked how much his average earnings were, responded:

Fitz was then asked if the fish-curing establishment was still there and he answered, “Yes. Sometimes we get £6 and sometimes they get full up and we have to stop home” (Votes and Proceedings of the Victorian Legislative Council 1892: 111). Fitz’s statement relays three important aspects of information: the site was still in use as a commercial fish-curing establishment in mid-1892; the term ‘Chinamen’ and ‘they’ suggests more than one person occupied the site; and during this later period the site’s capacity to cure fish was limited.

Ah Hoo then reappears and is listed in 1896 as paying only five shillings for a fisherman’s residence licence and again on 8 January 1897 and on 9 May 1898. Things are then quiet for another six years when Ah Hoo is again listed as paying a land residence licence of £1 5s for the Chinaman’s Point site, paid in full on 16 March 1904, thereby obtaining legal occupation of the site until March 1905 (PROV, VPRS 5357/P0000, unit 5899). A land residence licence, as opposed to a fisherman’s residence licence, may suggest Ah Hoo was now only living at the site and was no longer involved in the fishing industry.

This examination of secondary historical documentation enables an initial site-establishment period to be estimated at between 1860 and 1870. Solid primary documentation confirms Chinese occupation at the site in 1884 continuing sporadically until 1905.

This chapter has facilitated an understanding of fishing in Australia from before European colonisation to the establishment of a stable fishing industry. Discussion on Gippsland and the town of Port Albert has provided an understanding of the region and its changing social and economic status prior to the establishment of a stable fishing industry.

This chapter has also given an introduction to Port Albert’s Chinese fish curers, including how their activities impacted the local fishing industry and their period of operation. The European fishermen were not making large profits from their commercial fishing activities. The Chinese fish curers, through providing a reliable local market and having a steady demand for their cured product (the Chinese goldminers), were probably doing quite well financially and were almost certainly making more money than their European suppliers.

Who were these Chinese fish curers? What was their background? What do we really know about them and their activities in colonial Victoria? The following chapter discusses in more detail the Chinese in colonial Victoria and chapter 4 details their involvement in commercial fishing activities.