BACKGROUND

During the 1860s, most Melbourne and Sydney-based European fishermen were earning approximately £50 per year (Gippsland Times 1879, May 21). In this same period, some Chinese people working in Australia’s colonial fishing industry were earning that much every day (Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1879–80, vol. 3: 1224). In fact, as will be shown, during the 1860s, one Chinese fish dealer in Australia (and there were many) earned over ten times more money from fish sales annually than both Melbourne and Sydney’s fish markets combined. The Chinese involvement in Australia’s colonial fishing industry was much bigger than previously realised.

The majority of Chinese people who migrated to Victoria in the colonial period were impoverished lower-class men who came predominantly from the province of Guangdong, Fujian and the island of Amoy (Willard 1923: 12; Cronin 1982: 17). In each of these Chinese regions, fishing has historically played a major economic role (Choi 1975: 5). With the influx of Chinese miners to Australia during the gold and later tin rush period (from 1851 to approximately the early 1880s), some must have possessed knowledge of fishing and so instead of mining, they fished, bought fish and supplied fresh and cured fish (a cultural preference) to their fellow Chinese countrymen. Their aim was to meet the enormous demand for fish, which they knew (perhaps from experience during the 1849 Californian gold rush) would be created by the Chinese gold miners. This satisfied a culturally important component in the Chinese diet.

Written histories, newspaper reports and official documents from the mid-1850s reveal the large scale on which Chinese fish curers were operating, not only in Victoria, but also in Tasmania, South Australia, New South Wales and the Northern Territory. It appears that wherever large numbers of Chinese people gathered in Australia, Chinese fish curers began operating from the nearest coastline (and probably, but yet to be investigated, from inland Australian waterways).

Transport of fresh fish to market during the 19th century was the biggest factor hampering development in Australia’s fishing industry. Ice was unavailable before approximately 1880 (depending on region) and transport to market by boat or horse and cart was expensive, time consuming and unreliable, particularly in bad weather. It was common for whole catches of fish to be condemned because of putrefaction before a market was reached. In areas distant to market, European commercial fishing operations – which relied on the sale of fresh fish – were simply not a viable option.

Chinese cured fish lasts several months, effectively eliminating any problems of putrefaction before market. To supply the thousands of Chinese gold miners in colonial Australia (Census figures show over 38 000 in 1861) with cured fish, Chinese fish curers required huge quantities of fresh fish. To supplement their own catches, they would purchase almost all fish brought to them, so creating a new and reliable market outlet for fish. Chinese fish curers established themselves close to existing European fishing stations (to facilitate easy purchase of fish) and in remote, coastal regions (to exploit waters teeming with fish that had never before been commercially fished). This stimulated the movement of European fishermen into regions previously regarded as unsuitable for commercial fishing and led to a significant increase in European fishing activities.

With minimum cost to themselves, fishermen could row or sail their catch directly to a Chinese fish-curing camp and receive payment immediately. Through this new market, Chinese fish curers contributed to the growth and continuation of Australia’s fishing industry and to Australia’s economy more broadly. This project uses historical archaeological methods to investigate Chinese involvement in Australia’s colonial fishing industry, specifically, in Victoria.

Victoria was the first Australian region in which Chinese curers were active. Chinese fish curers established themselves around the shores of Port Phillip Bay and in areas distant from Melbourne such as Corner Inlet, Port Albert and Metung (figure 1.1). 2

Many coastal locations in Victoria have experienced environmental change, the development of new industries, land subdivisions, marina developments and tourism, all of which are detrimental to archaeological investigation. Nevertheless, physical evidence for a colonial period Chinese fish-curing establishment was located near the coastal town of Port Albert on a headland called Chinaman’s Point (figure 1.2). Port Albert has a small population, has not been greatly affected by tourism or land development and maintains a long association with the fishing industry. As part of this project, the Chinaman’s Point site was archaeologically excavated.

A surface scatter of Chinese-style ceramic and glass artefacts, lead net sinkers, dilapidated boat parts and other colonial period remains revealed solid evidence of a Chinese fish-curing site. Together with this material record, the place name ‘Chinaman’s Point’, historical newspaper reports and land title documents confirm that this site was occupied by Chinese people involved in Victoria’s colonial fishing industry.

The site represents the only remains of Chinese fish-curing activities found during extensive field research in eastern Victoria. It also provides the only material evidence of Chinese fish-curing activities currently known in Australia and what is believed to be the only archaeologically excavated Chinese fish-curing site in the world (a Chinese shrimp curing site was excavated in California, see Schulz & Lortie 1985). Historical documentation and the site’s material remains reveal a detailed picture of how these establishments worked, how the occupants lived, internal and external relationships associated with fish-curing activities and the links between such sites and the wider local, regional and global overseas Chinese communities during the Australian colonial period.

This previously unexplored aspect of overseas Chinese activity in colonial Australia has prompted questions regarding the nature of colonial encounters and the consideration of more theoretical aspects of overseas Chinese society. This project takes a step back from the standard broad colonial encounters framework of changing social organisation. Instead, it considers Chinese fish-curing establishments at the 3micro-community level, investigating the strategic actions of Chinese individuals and the social structures of small groups that combine to influence change. This has led to the identification of significant aspects of overseas Chinese communities in colonial Australia including their social and economic organisation and the impetus and consequences of cross-cultural (Chinese–European) interactions.

A common method of Chinese emigration was the ‘credit–ticket’ system (Campbell 1969: 2–3; Richardson 1982: 2). Under this scheme, wealthy Chinese individuals paid passage for an individual or group to emigrate. The passage recipients were then bound to work solely for their creditor until the passage was paid, or more commonly for a specified period. The importance of this debt bondage system to Chinese activities in colonial Australia has been underestimated in the relevant literature. The credit–ticket system, together with binding Chinese cultural kinship methods of social organisation was central to the functioning of Chinese fish-curing operations – and overseas Chinese activities generally – in colonial Australia. After the initial gold-rush period, the kinship system continued unchanged. However, the credit–ticket system for labour procurement became less important, prompting a significant change in the overseas Chinese system of social organisation.

This project conceptualises, investigates, tests and further develops theories regarding the internal dynamics of small groups of overseas Chinese people in colonial Australia. It allows a much broader perspective on the complexities of the overseas Chinese population and their social and economic support systems, social divisions (including aspects of power) and inter-group relationships. Three broad categories of overseas Chinese class rankings have been identified in colonial Australia: a wealthy minority of influential elite (the merchants), a broad range of middle-class workers/headman (the merchant aspirants) and the lower ranking workforce majority (the lower classes).

Evidence from the Chinese fish-curing establishment excavated for this project and investigation of historical documentation has brought to light previously unknown details of the colonial period overseas Chinese community. This project attempts to explain the Chinese involvement in Victoria’s colonial fishing industry and to better understand how overseas Chinese communities in colonial Australia operated and coexisted with existing populations. The conceptual and theoretical base of this project revolves around social organisation and interaction themes.

It is hoped this research will hold intellectual interest across a range of disciplines as well as for the general public. Archaeology, although an integral component, will not rule this text. Instead, it will be used in conjunction with a wide range of sources not only to provide a good understanding of Chinese fish-curing activities in colonial Victoria, broader Chinese activities in colonial Australia and an appreciation of Chinese–European colonial encounters, but also to provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of the Chinese experience in colonial Australia.

AIMS AND QUESTIONS

To help focus this research, a number of aims and questions have been formulated. Little is currently known about Chinese fish curers in colonial Australia. Consequently, the initial aim is simply to obtain an understanding of Chinese involvement in Victoria’s fishing industry, from commencement to the end of the Chinese fishing era. Traditional Chinese fishing and fish processing techniques encompass a number of traditional practices. It is interesting to examine whether these were put into operation unchanged in a new and unique Australian environment. Accordingly, the second aim is to obtain an indication of the methods the Chinese in Victoria used to procure and cure fish. With no detailed descriptions of colonial period Chinese fish-curing establishments (in Australia or elsewhere), the third aim is to examine the layout, structure, function and associated material culture of Victorian Chinese fish-curing sites. The final aim is to use historical documents and material remains to investigate aspects of social organisation and economic interactions of Chinese people in colonial Victoria.

The internal workings of Chinese society in colonial Australia and the implications for both Chinese and non-Chinese populations are a general theme of this research. A number of questions are posed to bring together different areas of existing research on the Chinese in colonial Australia. It is commonly acknowledged that the large number of Chinese people arriving in Australia during the gold-rush period were extremely well-organised and were typically under the supervision of a commanding ‘headman’. However, information regarding the manner in which Chinese fish curing gangs established themselves and functioned in Australia’s fishing industry is completely absent from the historical record. Therefore, a question asked in this research is: was Chinese fish curing an organised component of Chinese involvement in the gold rush, or does it represent a separate economic activity? This project also considers the mutually beneficial relationships between colonial period European and Chinese populations. The question is asked: how important was the Chinese involvement to the growth and survival of Victoria’s fishing industry? Other questions, answerable more readily from the Chinaman’s Point excavation than from historical documents, are: what activities actually took place at a 4Chinese fish-curing site? What did these establishments look like? How many people did they take to operate? How did they function? Over what period did they work? What is the material culture like? Realising each of these aims and answering these questions will go a long way towards building a picture of the Chinese fish curers, their lives and life systems in colonial Australia.

SIGNIFICANCE

The significance of this research is in its potential to reveal unknown aspects of Australia’s colonial past and some of the influences of the Chinese in the development of Australia. Chinese involvement in Victoria’s colonial fishing industry has not been researched previously. Similarly, there has been very little archaeological or historical research on this topic in Australia more broadly, or in Britain or Europe. In the United States, the topic has received slightly more attention. For example Nash (1973), Melendy (1984), Schulz & Lortie (1985), Roeder (1993), Kemp (1996), Lee (1999) and Berryman (1999) each discuss Chinese participation in California’s early fishing industry. These studies, however, tend to focus on the shrimp and abalone fisheries rather than fish with scales and provide limited detail on Chinese fishing methods, fish curing procedures, social and economic themes or lifestyle patterns.

Due to the demanding nature of commercial fishing, people in this industry led and continue to lead very busy lives. Perhaps this explains why they rarely documented or relayed to others the events, activities and details of their industry. As a result, purely historical or anthropological methods are inadequate for exploring Chinese involvement in Victoria’s early fishing industry. The presently untapped nature of this topic is demonstrated by the limited available literature.

Michael Lorimer (1984) completed a Masters thesis in history concerning aspects of historical fishing in New South Wales from 1850–1930. While Lorimer’s research focuses predominantly on European fishing technology, he does discuss Chinese fishing in colonial New South Wales. Lorimer’s work represents the only academic literature to acknowledge (in more than just a brief mention) Chinese involvement in Australia’s early fishing industry. Possibly, this has been overshadowed by interests in prehistoric fisheries, or historical sealing and whaling activities. In Digital Dissertations on the database Proquest, 14 anthropological and eight historical (no archaeological) dissertations relating to aspects of historical fishing, mostly from Japan, Malaysia, the United States and Europe (the database does not include Australia) are registered from 1970 onwards. Searches of electronic and hard copy journals (from 1970 to present) have revealed no archaeological, anthropological or historical articles relating to Chinese involvement in Australia’s early fishing industry. This current blind spot in our knowledge has limited the potential of Australian historical archaeology to “make its contribution to the history of Australia in the modern world” (Murray 2002:12).

Some documentary reference to Chinese fishing activities in Australia does exist, although it is generally limited to small sections in local history books. For example, Adams (1990) and Glowrey (2000) attribute small sections of their books to fishing in Victoria and acknowledge Chinese participation. Bennett (2002) gives an excellent history of Melbourne’s fish markets and this work represents one of the better available references. Ellis & Lee (2002) provide a good although very general account of the early fishing industry in Gippsland, compiled from interviews with working and retired fishing people, some of who briefly discuss early Chinese involvement.

This monograph presents a better understanding of Chinese activities in colonial Australia, the physical and social mechanisms driving these activities and some of the processes that have helped shape present-day Australian society. In delving into unknown aspects of Australia’s past, the project “answer[s] specific historical questions” (Lawrence 1998: 9), enables “the building of new theories” (Murray & Allen 1986: 90) and contributes to knowledge of colonial fishing and Chinese people in Australia. In a broader sense, this work is significant in further developing historical archaeology in Australia.

DATA SOURCES

Research techniques in historical archaeology are interdisciplinary, permitting the use of a wide range of methods and resources in collating and evaluating information for this project. Primary and secondary historical texts, pictorial and oral histories and material remains are principal sources used to draw out information.

Many details of Chinese people in colonial Australia were never recorded in English. Accordingly, what cannot be located in primary documents or proven archaeologically is now either totally lost, within the realm of inferred theory or possibly exists in Chinese language sources. This is especially the case with Chinese people in Victoria’s fishing industry, as the industry employed relatively few men, took up little physical 5space in very marginal areas and generally attracted little attention outside of the Chinese community. The fragmentary sources that do exist are extremely valuable to understanding this part of Australia’s history.

The most significant of these sources are a number of Victorian and New South Wales royal commissions and parliamentary enquiries. During the mid to late colonial period, royal commissions were the standard means used by colonial authorities to investigate developments in industry and new technologies (Frost and Harvey 1997: 431). A small number of these investigations relate specifically to the colonial fishing industry and have proved to be the best source of written information on the Chinese and their fishing activities. Colonial authorities typically targeted people working in the fishing industry as their primary information source, subjecting them to lengthy interviews, which were fully transcribed. In these dialogues, fishermen (predominantly European) often refer to Chinese involvement in the fishing industry. This has resulted in the preservation of some excellent first hand information. Of particular interest is an 1880s royal commission into the state of and prospects for New South Wales fisheries, during which an English-speaking Chinese fish curer was interviewed. The fish curer provided invaluable insight into this Chinese activity in colonial Australia. Another inquiry of note is an 1892 Victorian Legislative Assembly report into Victoria’s fishing industry, in which European fishermen in the Port Albert district answered questions relating directly to the Chinese fish curers at Port Albert.

Attempts by Christian missionaries to convert or simply communicate with the Chinese in colonial Australia have also resulted in the production of a small body of useful literature. In regard to the Chinese presence in colonial New Zealand, the best known source is the diaries of the Reverend Alexander Don (1894–1911). No missionary-derived New Zealand or Australian documents are known to exist specifically in relation to Chinese fishermen or fishing activities. There is, however, a four-part report on the situation of Victoria’s Chinese residents by Reverend W. M. Young, completed in 1868 (reproduced in full by McLaren 1985). Young’s work gives important insight into the activities of the Chinese population in Victoria during the colonial period.

Other good sources of information have come from columns in colonial newspapers, especially local papers such as the Gippsland Guardian, Gippsland Standard, Gippsland Mercury and The Gippslander. General accounts from European travellers such as Wheelwright (1861: 248), who befriended or simply observed Chinese people engaged in fishing activities, are also of interest. Newspapers and general historical and first-hand accounts have been used with great caution in this project, as they tend to be influenced to some degree by the writer’s own beliefs and prejudices.

A good deal of historical text concerning Port Albert, Victoria and the overseas Chinese is in the State Library of Victoria and the Victorian Public Records Office. Some relevant documents are in the National Library of Australia. The local Port Albert Museum is a valuable source of more obscure literature such as unpublished local histories, personal diaries, early nautical charts and local official documentation.

A broad understanding of related topics such as the traditional cultural practices, material culture, architecture and technology of Chinese people in Australia, New Zealand, the United States and China was facilitated through literature including dissertations, archaeological reports, papers and official documents.

A wealth of material remains were archaeologically surveyed and excavated from the Chinese fish-curing establishment at Port Albert. These artefacts comprise a major source of information. In many instances, individual or groups of artefacts provide solid evidence of a particular aspect of overseas Chinese life in colonial Australia. The collection as a whole is used to develop theories concerning the site’s importance – both during its period of operation and currently. The material remains play a key role in forming hypotheses regarding Chinese social organisation in Victoria. Through comparing the full spectrum of datable remains from the site with primary and other historical documentary sources (discussed in chapter 2 and chapter 6), the Chinese occupation period at Chinaman’s Point is estimated to have been from the early 1860s to the early 1900s.

Oral evidence was gathered whenever possible. Due to the period under investigation, oral information can only be third generation oral history. In the coastal towns of Victoria, third generation fishing people were able to supply a good deal of information on the overseas Chinese fishermen – from preferred fish types to fish-curing processes – and upon further documentary and field investigations, it was surprising how often this information proved to be accurate.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Historical and to a lesser extent historical archaeological texts relating to the overseas Chinese in Australia, New Zealand and the United States constitute a major source of information for this project. The term 6‘overseas’ Chinese is a modern expression of identity, referring to people with a Chinese cultural background and homeland who live (temporarily or permanently) outside of China (Chun 1996: 122). American historical literature has also been of great comparative value. General historical and archaeological literature on the overseas Chinese in the United States is too vast and not central enough to this project to warrant a detailed review. It is suggested that Melendy (1984), Schuyler (1980), Wegars (1993), Lydon (1999: 179–202) and Schulz and Allen (2004) are good starting points for new researchers to the American texts in this field.

Chinese people have travelled and migrated to many world regions during the past few centuries. To understand properly this ‘global culture’ requires research at a local, site-specific level and in the wider regional, state, national and global context. This is not to argue for a single global interpretation of any consistencies, but to establish points of reference to assist in identifying similarities and differences (Schuyler 1970; Karskens 1999b: 121; Lydon 1999: 179–235; Lawrence 2003: 3). Documentary evidence has been gathered from as broad a geographical range as possible in order to facilitate a contribution to historical archaeology in the international setting.

In Australasia and regions north of Australia, Chinese people have settled in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, the island of Borneo, the Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand and many of the small islands and atolls in between these. In these regions – and elsewhere – Chinese people have turned their hands to a surprising array of social and economic roles (Schulz and Allen 2004: 1). Researchers such as Jackson (1970) and Wu (1982), present patterns of similarities in the way Chinese people settled and entered the workforce in various Australasian locations. However, the knowledge of overseas Chinese activities throughout these regions is incomplete. Accordingly, until similarities in the actions of overseas Chinese people in Australasia have been established historically and archaeologically, it is not accurate to refer to the activities of one group in one area as being general to Australasia – except in referring to very broad circumstances. Throughout this text, comparisons of Chinese activities are drawn predominantly from China, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The term ‘Australasia’ has not been eliminated, but is restricted in use to reference only broad patterns of activity.

The following is a selective overview of early historical and historical archaeological literature on the overseas Chinese in Australia. A full understanding of the literature becomes clear as topics are further explored and arguments developed.

History

The history of Chinese people in Australia has certainly not been ignored and there is an abundance of literature regarding their colonial presence. It would be impractical to attempt an exhaustive discussion of these general works. Therefore, a selection of the writings significant to this study will be considered. Some regionally specific publications that list documentary sources of Chinese history in Australia are also available. Two relatively recent and good literature guides – particular to New South Wales – are Young and Barneveld (1997) and Bagnall (2000).

A variety of noteworthy literature is contained in Choi (1975), Yong (1977), Price (1978), Markus (1979), Cronin (1982), May (1984) and Andrews (1985). These are very good in the quantity and quality of information concerning historical matters such as Chinese emigration, lineage systems, movement patterns, logistics, family ties, merchants, hostilities and Australian government regulations and the Chinese reaction to them. Such early works will always be a valuable aid to investigators of Chinese history in Australia. However, as noted in more recent literature, these early investigations are limited in the scope and nature of information provided and often portray quite narrow and Eurocentric points of view (Lydon 1999: 199; Chan 2001: 3).

In a very significant review article, Cushman (1984) was the first to bring attention to a heavy academic focus on Australian attitudes towards incoming Chinese and the colonial government’s legal reaction to their presence. This narrow historical focus tended to result in broad generalisations. The overseas Chinese were portrayed in a very submissive light, as victims of Australia’s restrictive laws and whose principal actions were in response to these laws and the persistent racism they encountered. Cushman (1984: 101) argued that scholars should strive to “establish the characteristics of these societies as individual entities” and thereby obtain a deeper understanding of the Chinese experience in Australia. Encouraged by Cushman’s ideas, Australian historians began looking more critically at the available literature and in doing so, greatly altered lines of investigation in this field.

Historical research on the overseas Chinese in Australia became much more productive and a myriad of Chinese-related themes came under examination. Topics such as lifestyle, customs, values, social and economic structures, Chinese literature sources and importantly, individual Chinese people, became popular. 7Increasingly, historians began to understand that the overseas Chinese in Australia were not one homogenous group of Asian people, but were ethnically, socially and economically diverse. By the early 1990s, a greater depth of understanding had been achieved in regard to past Chinese communities, behaviour, lifestyle and the Chinese contribution to Australian society.

This fertile refocus of inquiry created a good deal of scholarly interest Chan (2001: 3) described it as “something of a revolution in scholarship”. Research conferences, workshops, museum displays, government-funded projects, several doctoral and masters dissertations and a number of very good publications on Chinese activities in Australia appeared after 1990.

The key recent development to note is the major shift in research focus. Initial work in the early-to-mid 1980s gave a relatively narrow perspective, shedding limited light on Chinese activities in Australia. From approximately 1985 to 1995, the investigation of a much broader range of topics allowed a better understanding of the internal workings of colonial Australian Chinese communities, lifestyle complexities and culture. Methods now used by historians such as analysing current Chinese communities in China and elsewhere, exploiting Chinese literature sources (in Australia and China), critically examining colonial court proceedings, royal commissions and other primary records, understanding the subjective nature of documents and undertaking very focused topical research, have brought new substance and credibility to the gathering and interpreting of historical information.

At the same time, the dynamic methods employed by modern historians are not exclusively responsible for the current insight into past Chinese communities in Australia and do not always take into account broader research areas. After much scholarly debate, it is now generally accepted that to gain the fullest possible understanding of Australia’s past, an interdisciplinary approach should be taken (Carment 1993: 139; Orser 1996: 10; Pedrotta and Romero 1998: 127). Professional historians are trained to identify, examining and decipher broad historical perspectives, while the expertise of historical archaeologists lies in very detailed analysis of particular sites. Ian Jack (1993: 131) puts it this way:

This statement underlines the value of historical archaeological methods in considering overseas Chinese sites in Australia, especially in this study of a previously undocumented colonial Chinese fish-curing site and its occupants.

Historical archaeology and historical research in Australia have passed through many parallel stages of growth. The following is an account of the development of historical archaeological research on the overseas Chinese in Australia and New Zealand. It also explains why a social and economic theoretical base is appropriate for this project.

Historical archaeology

Historical archaeological studies on Chinese activity in Australia have been under way for over 20 years. The earliest located work is an excavation in 1982 by Ian Jack of a Chinese garden site in north Queensland, followed by a 1983 study by Peter Bell on Chinese mining sites in the Pine Creek district of the Northern Territory (cited in Bell et al. 1993: 8; Jack et al. 1984).

For the next ten years, Jack’s excavation remained the only academically based archaeological project on the Chinese in Australia (Bell 1996: 13). More common, however, were archaeological consultant projects generally resulting from heritage conservation requirements or as a component of environmental impact statements. The level of information obtained during this period was accordingly limited by the financial constraints of contract work. Nevertheless, contract work has resulted in many basic but useful research designs, simple site identifications, surface collections and inventory lists. Regrettably, archaeological contractors have largely ignored the task of setting up and testing new theoretical constructs or testing previously established archaeological hypotheses, so limiting the usefulness of their site explanatory analysis. Bell (1996: 13) then Lydon (1999: 191) and most recently Ritchie (2003: 4) have each commented on the superficial nature of this early archaeological work on the Chinese in Australia.

The initial inadequacies of historical archaeology in Australia were not limited to Chinese themes, but reflected Australian historical archaeology more broadly. Concern about the value of historical archaeology in Australia was first voiced in the early 1980s by Birmingham & Jeans (1983). Also in 1983, Connah expressed alarm about ‘stamp-collecting’ in Australian historical archaeology, arguing that practitioners were merely gathering information and not continuing with further analysis. The challenge was taken up and over the next ten years historical archaeology in Australia began moving out of a predominantly ‘record and describe’ 8methodology to a more ‘problem oriented’ form of research using ‘open ended’ questions (Connah 1998: 3; Mackay & Karskens 1999: 112). Practitioners developed new research methods, enabling archaeology to “actually contribute to our understanding of Australian history” (SM Jack 1993: 124; Connah 1998: 3). Many published works have considered how historical archaeology in Australia can continue to move forward as an intellectual discipline (for example Byrne 1996–97; Mackay 1996; Karskens 1996–97, 1999c; Lydon 1999).

New research methods in historical archaeology complement the investigative approaches that historians are now employing. Much of the relevant literature discusses the need for historians and historical archaeologists to work more closely (see for example SM Jack 1993: 128; Carment 1993: 141; I Jack 1995: 21). Historical archaeologists generally consult the work of historians to enable a greater depth of understanding in their archaeological projects. More importantly, however, historical archaeologists are now beginning to adopt the research techniques of historians together with their own increasingly dynamic systems.

However, besides notable exceptions such as Staniforth and Nash’s (1998) porcelain/trade analysis, Lydon’s (2001) work on social networks, Smith’s (2006) analysis of social and economic aspects of overseas Chinese in southeast New South Wales and Muir’s (2007) study of Chinese urban identity, most work so far on the archaeology of the overseas Chinese in Australia and New Zealand involves identifying and interpreting markers for ethnicity and acculturation. This is also an overwhelmingly dominant theme in the American archaeological literature on overseas Chinese communities (Voss 2005: 426; Orser 2004: 86).

Ethnicity, as defined archaeologically and as recognised in the material record, poses a problem-oriented research area for historical archaeologists (Chan 1995: 420). To counter inconsistencies in interpreting expressions of cultural traits, Lydon (1999) suggests that symbolic expressions of culture need to be placed in the context of individual or small group experiences, rather than considering cultural identities as a whole.

Whether smaller ethnic group identities – as opposed to Chinese generally – can be distinguished through archaeology remains a point of debate (see for example Smith 1998: 8–11; Lydon 1996: 21). The Chinese association with Victoria’s fishing industry represents an ethic minority group (Chinese) working in an industry dominated by an ethnic majority (Europeans). While the excavated fish-curing site presents an opportunity to further investigate aspects of ethnicity, this has already attracted considerable attention in the archaeology of the overseas Chinese. The narrow focus on ethnicity has to some extent limited the type of research questions so far asked in archaeological studies. Although ethnicity remains important, it is now time for other major conceptual approaches – such as social and economic aspects and the results from cross-cultural encounters – to be explored.

A further factor in the “large gap in our knowledge of the Chinese experience in Australia” (Lydon 1999: 192) is that research undertaken so far revolves around a limited number of Chinese activities such as mining, market gardening and urban activities. Many areas of Chinese activity in colonial Australia – that may also be recognisable archaeologically – remain to be examined. For example, in 1868 Reverend W Young (who had lived in China for seven years and who had a good knowledge of the Chinese in Victoria) wrote a report on the Chinese population in Victoria that contains a section on common Chinese industries. Surprisingly, Chinese were identified as shopkeepers, market gardeners, barbers, butchers, carpenters, tailors, doctors, tobacco growers, sheepshearers, bakers, blacksmiths and fish mongers (cited in McLaren 1985: 31–58).

Consideration of new areas of Chinese social organisation and economic activities, such as fish curing, are essential to broadening current knowledge of Australian history and will enable new research to move beyond previous ethnicity-based studies. The Chinese fish curers in Victoria were financially motivated and were reliant on both Chinese and European networks for the supply, sale and distribution of their product. Accordingly, these Chinese fish curers are an important medium for studying the dynamic nature of intercultural encounters and social and economic activities in colonial Australia.

Examination of a small industry such as Chinese fish curing will also contribute to the ongoing need in modern archaeology for further theoretically based thematic investigations. To achieve meaningful results, an interdisciplinary approach that combines historical, archaeological, anthropological, sociological, economic, geographic and other methodologies as appropriate, will be used.

Social archaeology

The social organisation and economic interactions of overseas Chinese people in colonial Australia provides the theoretical framework for this project. Social and economic themes concerning Chinese and non-Chinese interaction in colonial Australia have to date attracted little archaeological attention, although Lydon (1999) explores a broad range of contacts between Chinese and European people, including some economic activities.

Historians have shown somewhat more interest in social and economic themes, including McGowan (2005) in his paper on the economic contribution and social status of Chinese miners in colonial Australia 9and Frost (2002) in his discussion on Chinese entrepreneurship in early Australian farming enterprises. Other relevant literature usually only makes brief generalisations, for example on European perceptions that Chinese people were taking too much gold out of the country, were too greedy, too numerous, sold gold of dubious quality or were depriving Europeans of a livelihood (McGowan 2005: 19–20). Rarely do Australian, New Zealand or American-based studies examine situations where Europeans benefited through their interactions with Chinese populations (Voss 2005: 426).

Other researchers have focused on the complex relationships between ethnicity and culture or expressions of culture and cultural change (see for example Schuyler 1980; Ritchie 1986; Piper 1988; Wegars 1993; Upton 1996; Smith 1998; Jones 1999; Lydon 1999: 18; Stein 2005: 8–9). This current project examines the past social organisation and interactions of an incoming group to Australia (the Chinese) and the resultant cross-cultural (Chinese–European) encounters. Archaeological and historical information will be used to develop and test hypotheses regarding the Chinese system of social order in colonial Victoria, especially where social and economic factors are decisive.

Methodological and theoretical background

American archaeologists would classify the line of study in this project as ‘colonial encounters’, which cover cultural contacts from prehistory (ancient state/empires) to the present (historic European nations) (see for example Trigg 2003; Gosden 2004; Dietler 2005; Gasco 2005; Rogers 2005; Schreiber 2005 and Stein 2005). In Australia, the much narrower study area of ‘contact archaeology’ is designed to examine Indigenous Australian–European interactions during the period of initial contact. Australian archaeologists have yet to place a classificatory name on endeavours to explore the myriad of complex cross-cultural relationships that occurred after initial Aboriginal–European contact. This is a period when people of many nationalities migrated to Australia, especially during Australia’s gold rush years of 1850 to 1900.

Tens of thousands of Chinese people arrived in Australia during the 1850s and lived in company with the existing European and Aboriginal population. This differs from the usual perception of a colonial encounter (or colonialism), as involving a group of people (usually European) occupying and ultimately dominating a less technologically developed population. Lightfoot (2005: 210) argues the futility of prolonging such a narrow perspective of colonial contact in archaeology, asserting “we do great injustice to the study of cross-cultural variation by attempting to pigeonhole our case studies into a few discrete colonial types”. There are many promising areas in this realm of colonial period studies such as class divisions, cross-cultural contact, demography, consumerism, social and technological development, acculturation, diaspora and economics. This is especially the case with a mid-industrial, mixed nationality society such as Australia during the gold-rush period.

Australian archaeologists have often incorporated colonial encounter research (generally of the mid-colonial period) into social archaeology, a component of historical archaeology. However, archaeological methodological practices for studying colonies, their establishment, how they were maintained, expanded or abandoned and associated social activities (especially as a cross-cultural phenomenon) are rather hazy and lack any solid theoretical or comparative framework (Stein 2005: 4; Rogers 2005: 353). This is particularly the case in Australia and to some extent in America. The social processes of Chinese or European groups are too complex to contemplate in a single model or even in one project. Two current archaeological methods for examining colonial contacts – world-systems theory (see Wallerstein 1974; Kardulias 1999) and postcolonial theories (see Said 1978; Gosden 2004) – will be combined to identify and investigate social and economic aspects of the 1850 to 1900 Chinese–European contact period in Australia.

World-systems and postcolonial theories

The two methods are complementary. World-systems examines broad, long-term global trends in colonialism. Its original purpose was to help explain why separate societies living in similar environments developed differently over the same period and in turn to identify what processes contributed to the rise of power and uneven divisions of wealth, labour and resources (Gasco 2005: 71). These research methods enable major stages and broad trends in societal advancement to be identified (such as the rise of Europe during the last 500 years) thus opening avenues for researchers to conduct valuable comparative work with other world regions. World-systems theory therefore allows a better understanding of long term, global patterns in human history (Gosden 2004: 12). In contrast, postcolonial theory is concerned with events of colonisation and resultant cross-cultural phenomena. It seeks to explain social change by focusing on local agents, particularly the culture, actions and reactions of colonising and colonised societies (Stein 2005: 17). However, due to the complexities of human interactions, neither method is entirely satisfactory from an archaeological point of view. This has prompted recent developments in the study of colonial encounters (Gosden 2004; Stein 2005).

10While world-system theories are useful in explaining the long-term effects that Europen colonisation has had on colonised populations and how modern capitalist civilisations have developed (Gasco 2005: 71), the model is moulded through the narrow experience of European expansion and therefore takes a Eurocentric stance. The world-systems model neglects the roles of the colonised people and so limits consideration of the labyrinth of colonial interactions (Dietler 2005: 58). In particular, factors such as unique cultural group reactions, the roles of existing local cultural systems, consequences of changing identity and consideration of material objects tend to be ignored and colonised people are seen as passive victims of global expansion (Nash 1981; Wolf 1982; Gosden 2004: 7: Gasco 2005: 71; Rogers 2005: 335).

Postcolonial theory, although opposite in approach to world-systems theory, also lacks any detailed consideration of the value of material remains (Gosden 2004: 7). In focusing on the actions (or level of resistance to colonisers) of individuals and small groups within a society, postcolonialists view social actions and culture as the most important agents in shaping a colonised society. Thomas (1994: 9) comments that postcolonial ideas are about local histories, not global theory. This suggests that postcoloial theory could be useful in examining the Chinese in colonial Australia.

Gosden (2004) and Stein (2005) share the view that a general theoretical understanding of colonisation is best obtained through a comparative approach. Gosden’s approach is based on postcolonial thought, but is enhanced by an understanding of the material record of interactions. He also includes archaeologically-identified local variations and inconsistencies within a comparative framework. This facilitates the identification of broad consistencies in colonisation processes, as well as more subtle variations brought about by differing local situations (Gosden 2004: 24).

Establishing the social and economic characteristics (or survival strategies) of past societies is of key interest to anthropologists, historians, archaeologists and the wider-ranging social sciences. Although economic activities are often an exclusive focus of archaeological research (not incorporated into larger themes), economic activities are considered in this project as just one component of social archaeological research.

The theory

In exploring and interpreting the often ambiguous history of social interactions, the range of research avenues available to historical archaeologists gives the discipline considerable advantages compared to other social sciences. Long-distance movement of people, behaviours and material culture can be identified through artefacts or expressions of culture that do not belong to the region or society under examination (Adams 1974: 240; Gilchrist 2005: 331). In regard to the Chinese fish curers of Port Albert, domestic and industrial artefacts, ground features, structural evidence, oral evidence, historical documentation and theoretical deduction suggest the Chinese were involved in complex local, regional and global interactions. This evidence will be used to identify social aspects of Chinese people in Port Albert and the wider Victorian region and to theorise on the types of social interactions that were occurring during Australia’s colonial period.

Archaeological theory is appropriately one of the most heavily discussed and critiqued areas of the discipline. Two theoretical approaches – processual and post-processual – have been instrumental in the development of social archaeology. In parallel with the development of historical archaeology was the founding of ‘processual’ or appropriately termed ‘New Archaeology’ in the 1960s. This line of research emphasises a functionalist explanation of past social processes and cultural evolution and focuses on the wider processes in human interactions (as opposed to the actions of small groups or individuals). New Archaeologists such as Binford (1962; 1965; 1972) place importance on the use of precise and repeatable methodologies. Material and empirical archaeological remains and comparative analysis are used to identify relationships within and between cultural systems. The processual movement facilitated major scientific advances in archaeological thinking and also acted as a springboard for progress in social reconstruction and historical archaeology generally (Orser 2002: 468).

The methodologies of processsual archaeology fuelled archaeological debate and facilitated the development of post-processual archaeological theory. While post-processual theory also uses material and ephemeral remains to suggest meaning (such as cultural identity, social practices and events), it is primarily concerned with using material remains to provide a dynamic historical and archaeological interpretation of small groups and individuals (Bahn 1992: 406). With a strong focus on social topics such as identity and economic interaction, post-processual theories provide a local/regional picture of social factors in past human societies (Orser and Fagan 1995: 276).

Both processual and post-processual movements remain relevant to modern archaeology. Cultural and social systems are complex, highly changeable and often difficult to decipher through one set of theoretical 11concepts. To reconstruct the social interactions of a small minority group of individuals – the Port Albert fish curers – and postulate on the social organisation of a much larger group – the Chinese in Victoria and in Australia more broadly – both processual and post-processual archaeological theories will be combined with the current broad, multi-disciplinary methods of historical archaeology.

The Chinese fish curers of Port Albert had many mutually beneficial levels of social interaction with European and Chinese people. They purchased large quantities of fresh fish from Europeans and made business arrangements to have their product of dried fish transported to Melbourne, interstate and international destinations. The fish curers also would have purchased some of their domestic and industrial supplies from within the local and regional area. Such contact was, strictly speaking, strategic action grounded in occupational necessity. Through these functional interactions the fish curers would have known – probably quite well – all of the fishermen in the district, the harbour masters, pilots, shipping agents and the general store owners. These interactions would have contributed to their everyday social integration.

This reasoning may be taken further. Through their business dealings, the fish curers at Port Albert may have come to enjoy friendly social relations with local European people. Such situations have been documented elsewhere in Australia. For example in 1898, Tam Sie, a very successful Chinese farmer in Queensland, earned great respect from the non-Chinese community and from colonial authorities for his contribution to the development of regional farming (Shen 2001: 50). Also, Frost (2002: 127) describes two colonial instances in Victoria’s north-eastern region where farming partnerships between Chinese and European people resulted in annual harvests of high quality tobacco and hops. Interestingly, Frost notes that in each instance the Chinese received a higher percentage of the annual net profits than their European partners. Lydon (1999: 57–58) argues that through Chinese industries such as vegetable selling in Sydney’s Rocks area, Chinese and European people developed friendly associations, often exchanging gifts.

Certainly these brief examples represent a different relationship to the ones generally documented between the European and Chinese populations. The Australian gold-rush period provides a useful opportunity for historians and archaeologists to explore the unique character of contact between various cultures in a colonial setting. This project forwards the theory that, during Australia’s colonial gold-rush period, Chinese people in Victoria maintained a much greater complexity of social networks – between themselves and with European people – than previously known. The intricacies of these social situations and the cultural mechanisms sustaining them can be explored through the use of a theoretical archaeological framework.

Class

Social stratification, as defined by Orser and Fagan (1995: 200) refers to a society comprising of two or more differently ranked social, economic or other groups of people. Theories will be developed concerning three broad, often competing, categories of capitalist Chinese society: a minority economic and social elite, a growing number of middle-class merchants and the lower ranking workforce majority. Overseas Chinese society in Australia and in Australasia more broadly, displayed class rankings through occupation and wealth. Importantly, an indication of class can often be discerned through material remains at archaeological sites. Several researchers (such as Horsely 1879; Oddie 1961; Jones 1990; and Gungwu 1992) have identified select aspects of overseas Chinese elite, middle merchants and the working class during colonial times. An examination of these social classes will enable a more detailed understanding of Chinese social organisation and economic activities in colonial Australia.

Arguments will be forwarded regarding power relations, scale, function and responsibilities of social units in overseas Chinese communities. Theories are developed on how and why Chinese people were able to obtain and sustain niche positions in commercial ventures, how the Chinese fared economically, coordinated labour, organised commodity transport and utilised family and kinship connections and the nature of Chinese interactions with each other and with European people.

Stein (2005: 7) notes rewarding results obtained by recent American research of colonial encounters which acknowledged the postcolonial notion that

While the validity of this approach is demonstrated in his recent publication (Stein 2005) and other studies (such as Stein 2002; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Wells 1998), the situation of overseas Chinese in colonial Australia demands a step back from the broader issue of changing social organisation. Researchers of Australian colonial social themes in a Chinese–European cross-cultural context first need to identify the social structures and strategic actions of Chinese individuals and small groups that have combined to create change. Only then 12can broader social interaction between colonial period Chinese and Europeans be considered in comparative studies of other complex societies.

The approach taken in this project complements and actively takes forward the widely accepted concept that Australian historical archaeology must seek “an inside view denied us by standard historical accounts” to allow us to “grasp the full nature of our colonial past” (Mackay & Karskens 1999: 111). This project further explores early migrant activities and how the Chinese lived, utilised resources and became integrated into Australian colonial society.

MONOGRAPH OUTLINE

The following section provides a summary of the remaining chapters in this study.

Chapter 2 concerns the history of commercial fishing in Australia. It begins with a discussion on Australian Aboriginal fishing practices before European settlement, their adaptation of technology after European contact, the entry of Aboriginal people into commercial fishing activities and the resultant impact on Indigenous culture. This history is important as it shows the colonial European fishing industry was open to anyone with the knowledge to catch fish. A background to Britain’s early fishing industry then acts as an introduction to the colonial fishing industry in Australia, with a focus on Victoria and more narrowly coastal Gippsland. This leads to discussion on the fishing methods used in Australia and the importance of the fishing industry to Victoria, east Victoria and the town of Port Albert. Lastly, general information is provided on coastal south Gippsland, including its Indigenous population, European discovery and history of settlement and a brief introduction to overseas Chinese activity in this region.

Chapter 3 commences with an examination of China’s 19th-century fishing industry. It discusses the importance of fish in the Chinese diet, aspects of the organisation of commercial fishing activities in Kwangtung Province and the various methods used to catch fish in this region. This is followed by discussion on relevant aspects of 19th-century Chinese culture, traditional Chinese social structure and elements of Chinese social organisation in China and other world regions. The ways in which Chinese social organisation and labour utilisation functioned in colonial Victoria and Australia generally is then examined. The chapter concludes that the original systems of social organisation of overseas Chinese people in colonial Australia underwent considerable transformation, taking on aspects of the host culture.

Chapter 4 presents a thorough examination of the documentary evidence concerning Australia’s colonial Chinese fish curers and their involvement in commercial fishing activities. To make clear the interpretive process, the amount of primary versus circumstantial evidence is discussed explicitly. Evidence of overseas Chinese fish-curing activities in New South Wales, the Northern Territory, South Australia and Tasmania is explored, before a more detailed examination of the situation in Victoria. This reveals a far greater level of Chinese participation in Australia’s colonial fishing industry than previously realised and sheds light on many answers to the questions asked in this project.

Chapter 5 discusses the field methodology and archaeological results of site survey and excavation at the Chinaman’s Point site. Initial survey work enabled a detailed plan of site boundaries and established the main physical and cultural features of the site. A thorough surface collection and excavation of four site areas yielded a good representative sample of the material equipment required to maintain a colonial period Chinese fish-curing site. A detailed account of each excavated area is given along with the excavation results. The recovered material remains assist in evaluating the contribution the Chinese fish curers made to Victoria’s colonial fishing industry.

Chapter 6 describes, analyses and interprets the artefacts recovered from Chinaman’s Point. This reveals the methods Chinese fish curers used to sustain a livelihood, the domestic and industrial equipment required and the living conditions, consumption patterns and recreational activities at the site. Distinct artefact types and distribution densities reveal different site activity areas and assist comparative analysis with other overseas Chinese sites in Australia and elsewhere. In general, the artefacts are seen as evidence that the site was one working component of a much larger, largely homogeneous overseas Chinese community in colonial Australia.

Chapter 7 is comprised of two main sections: consideration of the site occupation period and an interpretation of the site. The first section examines the full spectrum of datable material remains from the site and compares these with primary and other historical documentary sources. The aim is to date, as accurately as possible, the occupation period at Chinaman’s Point. The chapter’s second half discusses the more significant information gained from the artefact analysis. This is followed by an examination of the relationship between the Chinaman’s Point fish-curing establishment and the broader overseas Chinese community. The evidence for site ownership, identity of the labouring workforce and the possible number of site occupants are discussed. 13The activities performed on site are then summarised, followed by an examination of fish-curing methods and the equipment this required.

The final chapter brings together the evidence from all avenues of inquiry, including in-text discussions used in this project. The conclusions confirm the significant contribution this project makes to the historical understanding of the Chinese experience in colonial Australia, especially regarding Chinese involvement in Victoria’s fishing industry.