This chapter discusses some of the more important information from the artefact analysis, including the dating of the site’s material remains. A discussion is advanced on the relationship between the Chinaman’s Point fish curers and the larger overseas Chinese community. Evidence of the existence of a controlling force behind the site’s operations, composition of the labouring workforce and the possible number of site occupants is examined. The activities performed on site are then summarised, followed by an examination of the site’s fish-curing methods and the equipment used. In this chapter, it is necessary to reiterate (as succinctly as possible) some of the historical evidence discussed in previous chapters.

OCCUPATION DATES

The material remains from Chinaman’s Point have revealed much new information for historical archaeology in Australia. However, to obtain accurate beginning and end dates for the site occupation period, a more focused analysis of the artefact collection is required. The following section uses a broad assortment of artefacts from the site to establish – in conjunction with the historical documents discussed in chapter 2 – a site-occupation period.

To aid the site-dating process, two formulas for dating historical sites are briefly discussed, early overseas Chinese activities in Victoria are considered and the methods of dating of Chinese ceramics is explored. This is followed by an examination of the available material remains and documentary evidence.

The exercise results in a very good understanding of how long overseas Chinese people ran a commercially viable fish-curing operation at Chinaman’s Point. It was possible to identify the site’s abandonment period more accurately than the initial occupation period.

DATING METHOD

Until recently, South’s (1977: 217) mean ceramic date formula was often used in dating historical sites. South’s formula uses averages of site-specific ceramic manufacture dates (also adaptable to other materials) to establish possible occupation periods. Recent works by Adams (2003: 30–40) and Brooks (2005: 53–55), however, demonstrate that South’s mean ceramic date formula contains a number of unpredictable distortions that undermine the validity of the data obtained. While South’s formula does have some useful applications, it will not be applied to material remains from the Chinaman’s Point site.

Time lag is defined as the period between when an item was manufactured to when it fell into disuse, becoming part of the archaeological record (Adams and Gaw 1977: 218). In a detailed evaluation of time lag, Adams (2003) notes that sites with a short occupation time or known start period “should be expected to contain few if any ceramics made in that decade because it takes time for these objects to be broken and discarded” (Adams 2003: 38). Storage, transport, item lifespan and recycling are elements that can create time lags, potentially decades long (Brooks 2005: 54). Issues of time lag can only be effectively addressed when artefacts or artefact assemblages display a specific period and place of manufacture. The wide range of artefacts from the Chinaman’s Point site seldom reveals such specific dates. While issues of time lag will be considered where applicable, as with the mean ceramic date formula, time lag is unsuitable to aid in dating the Chinaman’s Point site.

In order to date this site, recovered artefacts are examined for their own unique dating features. Once artefactual information has been extracted, documentary and material evidence are considered together to establish when and for how long Chinese fish-curing activity occurred at the site.

HISTORICAL SETTING

When investigating Chinese sites in Victoria, an earliest possible date of occupation can be easily established. Historically, the first group of Chinese people known to have entered Victoria arrived in December 1848 when 219 men were contracted as labourers for the rapidly growing pastoral industry (Cronin 1982: 4). Their activities are reasonably well documented and none, as far as it is known, entered the fishing industry or any other industry during their first few years in the colony. By 1854, Victoria’s gold rush had been gaining 142momentum for three years, enticing many nationalities, including more than 5000 Chinese people to seek a share of the wealth (Moore & Tully 2000: 4). A year later, Victoria’s Chinese population had increased to over 11 500 and over the next four years this figure almost tripled (Cronin 1982: 141). Against this background, it is unlikely that historical sites in Victoria could have had Chinese occupation before 1848. Many thousands of Chinese people stayed in Victoria after the gold-rush period, leaving an end date for Chinese sites in Victoria open to site-specific historical and material examination.

An earlier, European occupation of the site is unlikely, as this area was originally uninhabitable swampland that was deliberately channelled and drained by the Chinese to create small (approximately 10 by 10 m), dry working areas. Europeans are not historically known to have undertaken such processes to create only a small working area. However, such methods were and still are the custom in many regions of China (Knapp 1989: 20, 68; Mote 1977: 197). Furthermore, early European settlement in Gippsland was centred on pastoral rather than coastal industry.

CHINESE CERAMICS

The majority of ceramics (97.5%) recovered from the site were of Chinese form, decoration and origin. Such a large proportion of Chinese compared to European wares justifies a brief discussion of the dating potential for Chinese ceramics.

Much of the knowledge concerning the dating of Chinese ceramics – including earthenware, stoneware and porcelain – comes from work conducted by Jones (1992) and Stenger (1993) at historical sites in the United States. Chinese porcelain is often difficult to date, as the shape and decorative style of some vessels continued unchanged in some cases for up to 17 centuries and it often displays no maker’s mark or very ambiguous marks (Lenz 1920: 395; Beals & Steele 1981: 7; Stenger 1993: 315). Stenger (1993), building on the early work of Kaplan (1952), conducted highly magnified visual examinations of Chinese glazes and discovered a broadly datable variation in glaze opacity. During the Song Dynasty (960–1280 AD), Chinese potters used an ash glazing flux produced from bracken ferns to create a barely opaque finish on porcelains. In the Ming Dynasty (1368–1643 AD) potters used feldspar, a mineral flux that produced a noticeably clearer glaze. By the Quin Dynasty (1644–1911 AD) potters had switched back to plant ash as a fluxing agent, only this time the ash left a slight bubble pattern in the glaze (Stenger 1993: 316). Although magnified visual identification is a very useful technique for identifying dynastic periods, it is not accurate enough to be useful when dating Australian historical sites.

Chinese stoneware vessels (brown and green glazed) produced as storage containers, generally display little or no decoration. Like porcelain items, their shape and style was often unchanged for many centuries (Quellmalz 1976: 292). Chinese brown glaze is produced from iron mineral extracted from sedimentary river silt; green glaze differs only in that it has crushed colour extracts mixed with the silt (Wood 1999: 137, 224). Some success in dating Chinese stoneware has been achieved through the use of X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy and optical emission spectroscopy. These two methods identify, source and collate trace elements such as nickel, copper, lead and manganese, which in conjunction with historical records may identify which region and what potter produced an item under examination. These methods are only accurate to within approximately one century and are often too expensive for general site-dating purposes (Stenger 1993: 321). Stoneware vessels dominate the ceramics recovered from most Chinese sites in Australasia and the United States. As yet, no adequate methods have been developed for dating these items. The use of artefact association combined with historical documentation remains the most accessible and appropriate method for dating Chinese (and European) wares from historical sites.

DATABLE ARTEFACTS

There is a wide range of colonial-period artefacts that have historically documented dates of manufacture. These often provide the only means of ascertaining meaningful occupation dates for a site. The artefacts discussed in this section are metal nails, buttons, window glass, bottle glass and European ceramics.

Nails

The difficulty of dating nails has been discussed in chapter 6. Of the 76 nails recovered from Chinaman’s Point that were recognisable and datable, 20 were machine-cut square/rectangle shaft, rose-head type nails commonly available in Australia from 1810 to the 1870s. The remaining 56 were hard drawn, round shaft, wire rose head type nails generally used in Australia from 1853 to the 1890s (Varman 1980: 108).

143Throughout their production periods, cut plate and round shaft rose head nails were imported from England, Europe and the United States and were also produced in Australia (Varman 1993: 169). Initial prejudice by builders, re-use issues and uncertainty over whether the nails were imported or produced locally are factors that create highly variable determinates. Any attempt to apply factors of time lag to an artefact with such highly variable features would result in meaningless estimates of site-occupation periods. In the case of nails from Australian assemblages, it is more practical to simply work within the dates established by Varman (1993: 211) for the period during which each nail type was commonly available (figure 7.1). Varman’s estimates suggest that the nails from Chinaman’s Point were commonly used in Australia from 1810 to 1890, enabling slightly better than broad dates to be established for the site.

Clothing buttons

Many button types have markings that enable accurate dates of manufacture to be ascertained (Houart 1977: 18; George 1999: 66; Lindbergh 1999: 50). Buttons, like nails, also have a high re-use rate; so at best can only indicate general site occupation dates (Kirk 1975: 299–30; Cameron 1985: 17). Six machine-made buttons were recovered from the site (figure 6.45). Five of these were plain machine-pressed, opaque milk glass, two-hole, British-style utilitarian buttons that fall within the manufacturing period 1880 to 1890. Vast quantities of these machine-made buttons were imported from England during this time (Epstein 1968: 62). The remaining button was a four-hole, pressed copper alloy fastener, with ‘BEST MAKE’ stamped into the metal. Press manufactured buttons stamped with words denoting quality such as ‘best make’ have a production period beginning in the early 1800s (Luscomb 1974: 18). Cameron’s (1985: 20–27) chronology of metal buttons suggests that this type of button was manufactured in Britain from 1850 to 1900.

Window glass

The majority of flat glass entering Australia during the colonial period was produced in England (Boow 1991: 102). Jones & Sullivan (1989: 172) give two main reasons for exercising caution in using window glass to date site-occupation periods. Firstly, window glass was often in use at a site for many years before it moved into the archaeological record and secondly, the present methods of dating window glass (generally through a measurement of thickness) can be ambiguous as early glass thickness could vary even within one window pane. Jones & Sullivan, however, suggest that when used with caution, window glass may provide a useful indication of initial site occupation period. The two types of window glass recovered from Chinaman’s Point were crown type (1800–70) and improved flattened cylinder type (1834–1910) (Boow 1991: 100–02). Combined with the nail data, this may enable a date for shelter/house construction at the site to be estimated. Window glass can also be safely used to complement other data from the site. 144

Bottle glass

Changing methods of manufacture during the mid 19th to early 20th centuries have resulted in a sound chronology of physical characteristics of glass bottles (Jones 1971: 63). From the late 19th to early 20th centuries, newly invented machines began outclassing the existing method of hand-blowing glass vessels (Miller & Sullivan 1984: 104). By 1920, the vast majority of bottles produced in or entering Australia were fully machine made and are easily identified through their characteristic machine mould markings (Boow 1991: 70). Terms used here to describe the basic bottle components from the top down are: finish, neck, shoulder, body and base (after Jones 1986: 34).

Table 7.1 illustrates the fragmentary nature of the glass assemblage. Fragmentary assemblages are not ideal for dating purposes, however bottle attributes such as base, finish, turn marks, embossing, engraving, stamping and seals can still be used to obtain a good indication of period (Dumbrell 1983: 34). See table 7.2 for an assessment of datable glass-bottle shards according to manufacture periods and percentages.

Bases

Various forms of English, European and American makers’ marks enabled 20-four base shards to be identified as having been manufactured within the period 1860 to 1890. No specific early dates were detected on bottle markings. The latest makers’ mark was from John Lesson’s Cordial Factory in Alberton. This factory was local to the Port Albert district and was only in operation from 1901 to 1907. As this bottle was produced locally, issues of time lag are considered marginal. Of those bottles datable through stylistic changes, 96% were ascertained as having been manufactured between 1850 and 1920. A small number of bases display a manufacture period between 1920 to present. These most likely represent the discards from picnickers, pleasure walkers and recreational fishing people after the site fell into disuse by the Chinese.

Mamelons

Mamelons, sometimes called vent marks, are protruding, rounded lumps of glass often positioned in the centre of a bottle base (figure 7.2). Mamelons are formed through the action of molten glass forced out of vent holes in a bottle mould. These holes are designed to allow air to escape the mould as a bottle is formed (Boow 1991: 48). Jones & Sullivan (1989: 47) suggest that bottles displaying mamelons were only produced from 1875 to 1920. Eighteen percent (221 bases) of bases recovered from Chinaman’s Point display push ups with mamelons. 145

Finishes

Finishes allow a sequence of datable stylistic changes to be observed (Jones 1986: 36). The crack off and applied single collar types only enable very broad dates, approximately from 1820 to 1920, to be ascertained and represent 14% (43 finishes) of the finishes recovered. The remaining 86% (289 finishes) have various forms of applied finish such as double collar, foil covered, blob top, cod variant, champagne, crown and external screw types each dating to the 1850 to 1920 period (Boow 1991: 117).

Turn marks

Turn marks are clearly distinguishable on the outer surface of hand-blown bottles that have been rotated in a bottle mould. The inner surfaces of two-piece bottle moulds were often pasted with water or lanolin to create a layer of steam between the molten glass and the mould. The blown bottle was then spun in the mould, leaving distinct turn marks in the glass (figure 7.3). This procedure produced a seam-free, smooth, outer-glass surface (Boow 1991: 8). Paste and turn methods were in use from approximately 1870 to 1920, thereby enabling good manufacture dates to be identified for glass shards displaying these markings. Twenty-five percent (3310 shards) of glass from the Chinaman’s Point site show turn marks on their outer surface.

Bottle attributes from the site demonstrate the wide range of bottle manufacturing processes used during Australia’s colonial period. These basic bottle elements enable a broad indication of the Chinaman’s Point bottle production dates and their contents. Bottle dates from the site span a period of 100 years, from 1820 to 1920. The majority of recovered bottles were in common use in Australia from the 1860s to the 1900s.

European ceramics

The non-decorative and unmarked shards of European bone china and salt-glazed stoneware found at the Chinaman’s Point site are not very useful for dating purposes.

The Asiatic pheasant and Rhine transfer print patterns are both commonly recovered from Australian sites. On white ware material, the Asiatic pheasant pattern dates from 1834 to 1890 and the Rhine pattern from 1820 to 1890 (Coysh & Henrywood 1986: 29, 286, 301).

Majewski & O’Brien (1987: 161) and Brooks (2005: 36) suggest that plain white ware with a regular horizontal decorative band (such as the maroon banded white ware from Chinaman’s Point) was produced after 1860.

146A printed maker’s mark was visible on the underside of a ceramic plate shard. This was identified as the B & L beehive symbol from Hill’s Pottery in Britain, which was in use from 1862 to 1890 (Godden 1991: 117).

The manufacture dates for European ceramic from the Chinaman’s Point site show – as do the glass bottles – broad production periods that begin in the 1800s (table 7.3).

Discussion

An examination of the datable artefacts places the Chinaman’s Point site confidently within the second half of the 19th century. Nails, buttons, window glass, bottle glass and European ceramics strongly suggested 1850 to 1860 as an initial site occupation period and 1901 to 1907 as the site abandonment period. The greater portion of datable items is from the 1870 to 1900 period. The most rewarding artefacts for determining occupation periods were the glass and ceramics. No artefacts were capable of yielding an exact date of manufacture, however it was possible in several cases to identify good manufacture date ranges, the tightest dating from 1901 to 1907.

As discussed in chapter 2, the relevant non-primary historical documents individually could not be considered reliable sources of information. However, when viewed in conjunction with the site’s material remains they – as with the artefacts – suggest an initial site occupation period in the 1860s. The latest evidence of payment of a land residence licence fee (primary documentary evidence discussed in chapter 2) was in early 1904 and allowed legal occupancy until early 1905. This again complements the material record. The land title documents show that payments could be missed for two or three years and then backpayed, making it possible that the Chinese stayed on site for several years after the last recorded payment. A periodic occupation of the site must also be considered probable.

The only item worth discussing in relation to time lag is the Hill’s Pottery beehive symbol, dating from 1862 to 1890. As it has a known place and date of manufacture, time lag elements could be applied to estimate when this item arrived on site. However, as many of the other recovered artefacts have a possible manufacture period before 1862 and after 1890, this exercise would not result in the discovery of any significant new information.

During the mid 1860s, Port Albert was in its heyday and thousands of Chinese miners passed through the town on their way to goldfields in the Gippsland region (Lennon 1975: 216). The Chinese on the Gippsland goldfields would also have provided an excellent market for cured fish, which in turn makes the 1860s an opportunistic period for a fish-curing site to have been established.

Through collating general aspects of Chinese activities in Victoria, material evidence and non-primary and primary historical documentation, a good indication of the initial occupation period has been identified for the site at Chinaman’s Point. The combination of material and documentary evidence indicates Port Albert’s Chinese fish-curing establishment was occupied for approximately 40 years, from the 1860s to the early 1900s.

SITE INTERPRETATION

Broader overseas Chinese community

Chinese fish-curing activities represent just one element of a much larger overseas Chinese community in colonial Australia. Identifying Chinese fish-curing establishments in association with the broader Chinese community is important to the overall understanding of early Chinese activities in Australia. The main reason for the existence of fish-curing sites was to supply cured fish to the overseas Chinese gold miners. This satisfied the most culturally important part of the standard Chinese 147diet (Herklots & Lin 1964: 6; Anderson 1970: 7; Wang 1920: 293) and would have assisted greatly in maintaining Chinese cultural life.

Fish-curing sites were designed to obtain fresh fish, produce a cured product and assemble the merchandise for transport. This required a substantial level of infrastructure and organisation in order to procure workers (especially ones with knowledge of fish-curing processes), equipment, everyday supplies, transport of the cured product and broader distribution and marketing beyond the site. During the peak period of Chinese population in colonial Australia – approximately the mid 1850s to the 1870s (Horsely 1879: 417; Choi 1975: 20, 22) – fish-curing operations were financed by Chinese merchants, as in the case of Chin Ateak (Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1879–80, vol. 3: 1224). The Chinaman’s Point artefact analysis provided further evidence for merchant involvement and was very useful in determining the site-specific aspects of a Chinese fish-curing site in colonial Australia.

The artefacts found at Chinaman’s Pont confirm that the residents had regular contact with suppliers of Chinese goods and with the European population to purchase European-manufactured commodities. New information gained from the excavation and artefact analysis explains how the site functioned, how the occupants lived and worked and aspects of their social and economic interactions. It has been established that the site occupants themselves fished (often at night), did their own boat maintenance, brined fresh fish before drying them on racks, weighed and purchased fish, interacted on site with European people in a mutually beneficial manner, prepared and ate meals, socialised and conducted recreational activities all within the site bounds.

Chapter 4 showed that colonial-period overseas Chinese fish-curing establishments were generating substantial sums of money through the sale of cured fish (Bendigo Advertiser 1857, January 5; The Gippslander 1865, November 10; Parliamentary Debate, Votes and Proceedings of the South Australian Legislative Council 1861, 858; Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1879–80, vol. 3: 1224). However, the artefacts from Chinaman’s Point do not display wealth, affluence or any elements of material comfort much above essential requirements. On this basis, the following section examines the evidence for a controlling force behind the site’s operations. The likely social status of the site workers is also discussed.

Site workings

Merchant involvement

The material evidence for Chinese merchant control of the Chinaman’s Point site is indirect. Etter (1980: 100) and Wylie & Higgins (1987: 346) argue that stoneware opium smoking bowls were dearer than earthenware varieties and hence less likely to be recovered from overseas Chinese worker camps. A minimum of two stoneware opium smoking bowls are the only items above basic quality recovered from Chinaman’s Point. All other material remains (except perhaps specific site requirements such as weighing scales) are standard utilitarian wares or, like the cheapest meat cuts and home made-net sinkers, reflect the most economical option. Accordingly, the Chinaman’s Point artefact assemblage is indicative of lower-class overseas Chinese occupation and shows that large sums of money were not at the disposal of the site occupants.

It is unlikely, due to the large amount of money generated from the sale of cured fish, that these basic living conditions simply reflect the common perception that most income from overseas Chinese activity was shipped back to family in China (Wu 1982: 93; Chou 1993: 76) or that overseas Chinese populations were exceptionally thrifty (Gittins 1981: 72).

A percentage – possibly even the majority – of money earned by individual overseas Chinese workers was obligatorily – and usually willingly – sent back to immediate family in China (Choi 1975: 13; Chou 1993: 76). With the remaining portion, overseas workers could – with the aid of kinship contacts – set about improving their own personal social ranking and through this, that of their family back in China (Hwang 1976: 6; Yang 1994: 123). This traditional Chinese social behaviour has been noted in many overseas Chinese communities such as Wu (1982) and Inglis (1975) for Papua New Guinea, Willmott (1960) for Indonesia, Moench (1963) for Tahiti, Watson (1975) for England and importantly Smith (2006) for New South Wales and – as described above in chapter 3 – in Victoria through the case of Louey Ah Mouy.

Individuals or groups of overseas Chinese people holding status and wealth can be recognised historically and archaeologically from the working classes through a more lavish selection of personal possessions (for example see Horsely 1879; Oddie 1961; Jones 1990; and Gungwu 1992). Pictorial evidence from Australia’s colonial period reveals displays of overseas Chinese people striving – through poise and attire – to appear to their Chinese compatriots and to European eyes prosperous and socially advanced (see for example pictorial evidence in www.chia.chinesemuseum.com.au). If the workers at Chinaman’s Point were personally earning the large monetary sums associated with fish curing, this would almost certainly be reflected in their personal 148and occupational possessions, architecture at the site and their presence in the Port Albert community. Instead, the modest nature of the material remains indicates clearly that the site residents themselves were not receiving the large sums of money they were generating. The specific individual (or group) who profited from the fish-curing operations at Chinaman’s Point is unknown, but through general historical information on overseas Chinese social systems, Chinese merchant involvement seems highly likely.

Further evidence for Chinese merchant involvement at Chinaman’s Point can be inferred through the lack of material house remains. In chapter 5, historical documents were used to show that at least one dwelling at Chinaman’s Point was a substantial, sturdy house made of palings (PROV, VPRS 5357/P0000, unit 5899). During the 1850s, ships arriving in Melbourne from Hong Kong and Singapore would carry as many as thirty prefabricated wooden houses per voyage (Syme 1987: 207). On 9 July 1870, the Australian Town and Country Journal reported on both of the Chinese fish-curing establishments at Lake Macquarie, New South Wales, stating “They have each two or three very comfortable slab cottages … which is more than can be said of all the European dwelling-houses on the lake”. Evidence from California describes Chinese imported prefabricated houses that were “infinitely superior and more substantial than those erected by the Yankees” and “built chiefly of logs of wood, or scantling [timber palings]” (Frost 1853: 100).

Research on the Chinese gold-rush period migrants generally agrees that the credit–ticket system was active and that participating merchants were under obligation to supply rations and accommodation to their indebted workers (Yong 1977: 1; Wang 1978: 89; Cronin 1982: 19). In remote regions where fish-curing establishments were often situated, such as Chinaman’s Point and Lake Macquarie, prefabricated houses would have been ideal for merchants requiring immediate lodgings for a working crew.

The frugal nature of the site’s material remains is inconsistent with the substantial (approximately 8.5 by 10m) house at Chinaman’s Point. The lack of material remains of a dwelling, the availability of easily constructed (and deconstructed) prefabricated Chinese houses and the likely benefits of such housing for Chinese merchants is good evidence to suggest that a prefabricated house existed at Chinaman’s Point. The cost of purchasing or importing a Chinese prefabricated house in colonial Victoria is unknown, but it probably exceeded the financial means of lower-class overseas Chinese workers. Therefore, a Chinese merchant may have supplied the house and removed it at a later period. This provides an explanation for the absence of house-remains at the site.

Strong historical evidence and some archaeological inference suggest that Chinese merchants were behind the founding and management of the Chinaman’s Point site (and, very likely, Chinese fish-curing activities in colonial Australia more broadly). The site’s merchant would have financed much of the domestic and industrial material remains recovered from Chinaman’s Point. The identity of the workers to whom these commodities were supplied is now examined.

The workforce

Similarities in artefact assemblages suggest that workers at Chinaman’s Point were of the same social standing and had the same economic means as overseas Chinese gold miners or market gardeners of the period. Six utilitarian, men’s-style buttons from working clothes were the only artefacts of a personal nature recovered from Chinaman’s Point. There was no evidence for the presence of women or children at the site. Similar to the interpretation of the material evidence for merchant activities, a lack of personal artefacts can be used to make inferences about the site workers.

Yong (1977: 1) estimates that 80% of overseas Chinese people in colonial Victoria arrived under the credit–ticket system. Wang (1978: 305) and Cronin (1982: 18) argue that these people were bound to their creditor (under debt bondage) for at least one year, possibly more. For the controlling merchants, this would have created an itinerant workforce and a high turnover rate of workers. Indebted overseas Chinese workers would have likely travelled with only basic, valued and well-guarded possessions and their overseas wage would not have allowed for many purchases of personal items. This theory suggests a reason for the lack of personal material remains recovered from Chinaman’s Point.

As argued in chapter 3, it is highly likely that labour for Chinaman’s Point was procured through the credit– ticket system. Whatever the employment method, at least some of the workers at Chinaman’s Point would have required knowledge of fishing and fish curing. In traditional Chinese society, fishermen are placed among the lowest occupational class (Diamond 1969: 3). Fishing families were generally very poor (Anderson 1970: 7) and often lived in perpetual debt (Ward 1959: 44). Nevertheless, there were a huge number of commercial fishing families living in China’s Kwangtung Province due to the region’s extensive waterways and demand for fish (Ward 1954: 196; Choi 1975: 5; Brienes 1983: 26). Therefore, among the lower-class Chinese destined for overseas goldfields, especially under the credit–ticket system, there would likely have been a good quantity of fishermen.

149Direct, on-site, merchant involvement is not evident from the site’s material remains. This suggests that a headman (perhaps a merchant aspirant) was responsible for overseeing the daily operations at Chinaman’s Point. The actual site workers appear to have been lower-class overseas Chinese men – probably former fishermen themselves – who were willing to work to pay off their passage for the chance (through gold) to relieve themselves and their immediate family from the hardships of 19th-century life in China.

Smith (2006) has examined the location and structural features of overseas Chinese communities in rural south-eastern New South Wales. He demonstrates that two distinctly separate types of mid to late 19th- century Chinese settlements existed (in his study area and in other Australian regions). One settlement type is a ‘central place’, broadly defined as a large overseas Chinese community where the infrastructure (such as Chinese temples and cemeteries) and commodities required to sustain a traditional, self-sufficient Chinese community are assembled, held and redistributed to smaller settlements and, importantly, where Chinese merchants resided. The other settlement type represents a much smaller community living in satellite settlements which were usually task specific – generally mining. These communities were self contained but not self sufficient and their Chinese population was largely dependent on the nearest ‘central place’ for food supplies and other necessities. The highest ranking resident at these satellite settlements was probably a Chinese headman.

Parallels between Chinese mining satellite settlements and the Chinaman’s Point fish-curing camp are clearly visible. For example, Chinaman’s Point consisted of a small, self-contained, task-specific (fish curing) working-class Chinese community. The site occupants relied on an outside ‘central place’ (probably the Chinese community in Melbourne) for the commodities required to sustain a traditional lifestyle, and during its peak period of operation the settlement appears to have been run by a Chinese headman. Smith’s (2006: 209–52) theories on overseas Chinese organisation of settlements suggest that Chinese fish-curing establishments were part of a broader network of overseas Chinese activities in colonial Australia.

Number of occupants

Historical evidence (discussed in chapter 4) suggests that where Chinese people fished and cured fish, up to 16 Chinese workers could be employed, but for operations that only cured fish, two to four people were sufficient. The lack of material remains for a domestic dwelling, lack of personal items and the unknown quantity of artefact removal from site-scavenging activities hampers an accurate estimation of occupation numbers at Chinaman’s Point. Importantly, it is likely that the residents at Chinaman’s Point fished and cured fish for the whole site-occupation period, as opposed to only curing fish (a topic discussed below). After the end of the initial gold rush in the 1870s, the market for cured fish (like Chinese market gardening) was reduced and fish-curing establishments (like Chinaman’s Point) tended to be owned by individuals or groups rather than by merchants as discussed in chapter 3. Therefore, from the early Victorian gold-rush period, there was an initial boomin the 1850s to 1870s when many workers would have been required. This was followed by a slower economic period for the Chinese, which continued to dwindle until eventually the site was abandoned.

Evidence for early Chinese fishing (as opposed to just fish-curing) activities at Chinaman’s Point can be found in historical documents and inferred through the size of the site’s fish-drying racks. During the early 1860s, only a small number of European fishermen worked at Port Albert due to the distance to market. However, the Chinaman’s Point fish-drying rack – known historically to have been in place during the 1860s (Gippsland Standard 1944, July 7; Olson 1947: 118) – was constructed on a large scale and was capable of supporting many tons of fish. In addition, references in historical documents (such as Gippsland Guardian 1867, July 1; Gippsland Standard 1944, July 7; Capps 1994: 56) support the idea that Chinese people were using boats and fishing with nets in Port Albert’s waterways during the 1860s. Combined with the evidence of merchant control of the site and the availability of cheap, flexible, labour resources who knew how to fish, it seems highly likely that, from the period of initial site establishment, the Chinaman’s Point workers were engaged in catching and curing fish. Accordingly, during the first years of operation, up to 16 people may have staffed the Chinaman’s Point fish-curing establishment. This number could easily have been accommodated in the 8.5 by 10 m dwelling shown in the 1888 land title document (PROV, VPRS 5357/P0000, unit 5899). Certainly, the building size itself suggests a large group of people were living at the site.

Early official documentary evidence for land-usage fees or fishing-licence payments for the Chinaman’s Point site could not be located. However, in the latter half of the 19th century, some licensing records become available. These (which are discussed in more detail in the site dating section) show that from the second half of the 1880s to after the 1900s, official residency rights for Chinaman’s Point move back and forth between two Chinese men: Ah Hoo and Hop Sing. As noted by Williams (1999: 85–87) and discussed in chapter 3, Chinese names are difficult to trace through documentary records. Efforts were made to further identity Ah Hoo and Hop Sing through shipping records, mining syndicate papers and official Government registries for Chinese people entering colonial Victoria. However, owing to 150incomplete records and European difficulties in pronouncing and spelling Chinese names, no direct links could be obtained. After the 1870s, the lower demand for cured-fish products must have significantly reduced occupation numbers at the site. Ah Hoo and Hop Sing’s delayed appearance at Chinaman’s Point suggests that they are unlikely to have been Chinese merchants and were most likely retired miners, possibly even past workers at the curing site. During this later period, Ah Hoo, Hop Sing and possibly some others probably managed to earn a steady income through fishing and fish curing, but nothing like the sums generated in previous years.

The select committee reports on the fishing industry in Victoria reveal that in 1892, the Chinaman’s Point fish curers were still purchasing fish from European fishermen (Votes and Proceedings of the Victorian Legislative Council 1892: 111). It is probable that, by this date, the remaining two to four workers at Chinaman’s Point were no longer under direct merchant influence but were instead making an independent living as market gardeners, tobacco growers and fish curers in the same manner as other post gold-rush Chinese workers.

Site activities

From material evidence, the following section provides a summary of the activities at Chinaman’s Point.

Architectural and structural materials such as nails, screws, bricks, lead flashing and window glass, along with historical records, show that structures were a feature of the site. It may be that there was one building for living and sleeping, with places for cooking and other less prominent constructions nearby, or just one substantial dwelling where all indoor activities took place. Other on-site construction is evident in the form of a slipway for boat maintenance, a jetty and fish-drying racks. There must also have been an undercover area to store the cured fish awaiting transport to market.

Domestic items show that meals were prepared from European and Chinese ingredients and cooked using traditional Chinese kitchen equipment. Green leafy vegetables, standard in Chinese cooking, may have been acquired from Chin Lang Tip’s local Chinese market garden (Langtip 1986) (possibly also part of a merchant network), while meat was obtained from European butchers. Some European ceramic food-storage vessels and tableware were used at the site, but traditional Chinese household ceramics were much more common. For liquid storage, although ceramic Chinese containers were used, the vast majority of containers were made of European-produced bottle glass. This glass was modified to suit a number of secondary functions, including lamp chimneys for night fishing or lighting purposes and two separate types of opium-heating lamps.

Weighing scales, slate writing material and inkwells show that business-related activities were conducted on site. The headman, who may have spoken some English, was probably required to tally fish quantities, make payments to European fishermen, keep transaction records and report to the controlling merchant.

In 1892, the NSW Royal Commission on Alleged Chinese Gambling and Immorality stated, “the Chinese as a community are very largely addicted to gambling” (Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1891–92, vol. 5: 19, 21). Many overseas Chinese people in Australia seem to have gambled either because of an addiction or casually as a means of recreation, with fan tan and pak kop piu being the most favoured games (Smith 2006: 28). Archaeological evidence of these games – in the form of black and white ceramic counters, domino disks and dice – are common finds at overseas Chinese sites (Mueller 1987: 385; Ritchie 1984: 101). Ritchie (1986: 39) and Mueller (1987: 385) suggest that gambling was used as a social outlet from the long monotonous days of mining and as a component of Chinese festivities.

It is relatively unusual for an overseas Chinese site like Chinaman’s Point to display no evidence of gambling. Perhaps in their period of debt payment, credit–ticket workers at Chinaman’s Point lacked the funds to gamble or maybe with dreams and optimism for family security still fresh they were unwilling to risk what little money they did have. However, money was spent on other indulgences, as evidenced through alcohol and opium use. It is possible that the site merchant supplied these items under some form of bonus system, but no evidence of this exists. It is also conceivable that the alcohol- and opium-related artefacts are from a period after the site’s most productive times, when there were no credit–ticket workers or direct merchant involvement and so site workers retained the profits from their fish-curing activities. Alternatively, it may be that artefact collectors at Chinaman’s Point have already recovered this evidence, although none was noted in the private artefact collections held by Port Albert residents.

Curing methods

As discussed in chapters 3 and 4, fish cured by overseas Chinese people was either pickled, or salted and then dried in the sun (Bendigo Advertiser 1857, January 5; Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1879–80, vol. 3: 1224–26; Firth 1946: 218–20). Pickling fish required salt, water and an appropriate container. Salting and sun-drying fish required that salt be placed on the fish in a dry form or that fish be placed in salty brine then put in the sun to dry.

151An indication of how the Chinaman’s Point workers cured fish is known. They “Salt[ed] them and dried them in the sun” on “long tables on trestles” (Legislative Assembly report 1892: 111; Gippsland Standard 1944, July 7). Material evidence for these activities at Chinaman’s Point includes timber cask remains and timber stumps from the drying rack system. No ambiguity exists over the rack system’s purpose – which was to support fish while they dried in the sun. The timber casks, however, could have been used to pickle, dry-salt, or brine fish. Therefore, all of the historically known overseas Chinese fish-curing methods could conceivably have been undertaken at the site.

Working components

Fish-curing activities at Chinaman’s Point can be confirmed through specific material remains. For clarity and for use by future researchers, the methods and expected material remains of overseas Chinese fish-curing activities are shown in chart form (table 7.4). The chart comprises three components: activities, which represents the essential activities performed at the site; equipment, which represents the items required for each activity; and archaeological evidence, which shows what physical remains of Chinese fish-curing activities may be left for interpretation. The chart has been developed from archival research and material remains from the excavation at Chinaman’s Point.

Some of the activities at overseas Chinese fish-curing sites are identical to those conducted at colonial sealing, whaling and fishing sites, as each utilised maritime technology to exploit marine resources from a land base. For this reason, artefacts such as Chinese ceramics and opium paraphernalia – a standard feature of overseas Chinese sites – and other more site-specific remains such as fish-drying racks, are essential for accurate site identification. Possibly (once site ethnicity is established) the most defining feature of a Chinese fish-curing site is location. A colonial-period site displaying Chinese occupation that is positioned on the bank of a salt-water estuary or tidal lake is highly likely to be an overseas Chinese fishing or fish-curing camp.

After the 1870s

By the 1870s and beyond, historical records suggest that Chinese merchants no longer found Australian-based Chinese fish-curing operations profitable and abandoned their interests in such business (Votes and Proceedings of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly 1879–80, vol. 3: 1224). At Chinaman’s Point, the original merchant owner appears to have been replaced by Chinese owner-operators who actually worked at the site. The transition details from merchant control to worker ownership are unknown. The Chinese kinship system may have enabled a lower-ranking kin relative of the merchant to take over the site. Some form of monetary payment or product-supply system may have been in place. The site may simply have been abandoned by the merchant, which then enabled an enterprising Chinese person to take up residence and curing operations. Whatever the case, transfer of ownership would have created very little change in the site’s physical appearance and is not apparent through the material remains. Site structures would have become worn with age, some would have been propped up and repaired and others would have been left to collapse, or been dismantled and used for repair work or firewood. Fish procurement and curing methods would have remained the same. It is difficult to determine how many men worked the site during this later period. It is likely that the quantities and profit from cured fish were greatly reduced due to the removal of merchant-controlled labour, organisation and distribution networks and because there were no longer the huge number of Chinese people in Victoria to demand the product. Nevertheless, the establishment was still in operation into the early 1900s. Artefacts from the site show the occupants retained many elements of traditional Chinese lifestyle, however, they had probably adopted European clothing and hairstyles.

In the very broadest terms, the occupants of Chinaman’s Point participated in a range of colonial fishing-industry activities, cured fish in the traditional Chinese manner, conducted economic transactions with European people, had at least one dwelling with glass windows, used traditional Chinese and European foods and other commodities, drank alcohol and smoked opium.