| Jane Lydon (Australian National
University)
Elizabeth.CJ.Lydon@student.anu.edu.au
Introduction
Representations of the Rocks from its earliest
days stressed its dangerous, rebellious,
qualities: it was, as proclaimed by one
of its early pubs, ‘The World Turned Upside
Down’, a heterogeneous, shifting, subversive
place outside the usual order of things.
By the late nineteenth century, Sydney’s
mainly Anglo inhabitants still eyed the
Rocks’ exoticism, now enhanced by its relative
age, with caution. Middle class attempts
to survey and control it persisted, although
some were attracted by its heterogeneity
and seedy excitement. Most of the city’s
foreign population clustered near the waterside,
and from outside, in elite eyes, the Rocks
represented the conflation of the city’s
other - the poor, the immoral, the foreign
Chinese. Against its supposed filth and
degeneracy, the upright middle classes defined
themselves. But from within, this untidy
domain resolved itself into meaningful patterns
created by women and their families, some
living in the area for generations, pursuing
their productive ways of life. Archaeological
analysis of this key site reveals the actual
complexity of cultural relations in specific
historical context.
Since colonization, debate about race has
played an important role in shaping Australians’
perceptions of themselves. This history
of tension itself continues to play an active
role in current political argument (e.g.
Gray and Winter 1997). In recent decades,
Sydney’s Rocks area has been promoted as
the ‘birthplace of a nation’, and visitors
to its nineteenth century relics and spaces
shown a sanitized, consensual vision of
White settlement which effaces differences
of all kinds, including those of class,
gender and race (Bennett 1993; Lydon 1995).
I argue that substantive investigation
of cultural exchange between Chinese and
Whites in Sydney’s Rocks area at the turn
of the century may contribute to current
debate in several specific ways. First,
it demonstrates important flaws in arguments
based on a notion of culture as monolithic
and homogeneous, and cultural identity as
structured solely by race, through revealing
the multiple, contingent, dynamic nature
of these social processes. Second, it demonstrates
that related views of our history as consensual
and White are also mistaken. Finally, one
implication of such historical analysis
is the perception of a convergence between
our racist past and our supposedly tolerant
present: a recognition which may serve to
unsettle complacent understandings of our
history as progressive, and of ourselves
as having moved beyond conflict founded
on ‘racial’ difference. Attempts to jettison
aspects of our ‘racist bigoted history’
(John Howard, 25/10/96) will fail while
the past is still so clearly seen to be
entangled with the present.
The debate on immigration
In her maiden speech on 10 September 1996,
independent Member of Parliament Pauline
Hanson stated: “I believe we are in danger
of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984
and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming
into this country were of Asian origin.
They have their own culture and religion,
form ghettoes and do not assimilate.” The
legacy of the White Australia Policy is
evident in the continuing resonance of Hanson’s
views with the Australian community. Support
for her position has been widespread, despite
reports of increased attacks on people of
Asian background, diminished numbers of
tourists visiting from Asian countries,
international perceptions of Australia as
racist and a heightened social climate of
racial conflict (Lydon 1997; and see Ricklefs
1997).
Views such as Hanson’s which articulate
a desire for a ‘united’ Australia appear
to rest on a monolithic and essentializing
notion of culture, and of a community with
shared values. Cultural contact is conceived
as a linear, one-way process of ‘acculturation’,
comprising the absorption of one, less powerful
culture into another. Australian history
is assumed to have been a shared, consensual
past, experienced by a mainly Anglo-Celtic
population. More recently, however, cultural
theorists have demonstrated the complexity
of cultural process (e.g. Dallmayr 1996;
Thomas 1994), while Australian historiography
has produced a more diverse past (e.g. Docker
1992; Gunew 1990).
Studies such as Edward Said’s Orientalism
(1978) have established the nature of cultures
and identities, and the devices we use to
conceive, construct and convey meaning about
them, as a focus of analysis. Crucially,
by questioning Western conceptions of ‘Oriental’
cultures, and their function in the service
of imperialism and oppression, Said has
cast doubt on the idea of culture itself.
Alternative conceptions of these imagined
totalities visualize culture as negotiated,
present processes rather than an essentializing
or unified entity, yet retaining the element
of collectively constituted difference,
which need not be static or dichotomous
(Clifford 1988; Gardner 1993). The tension
between the conceptualization of culture
as fluid and negotiable, and ethnic identity
as an ascriptive and contingent construction,
on the one hand, with analysis of collective,
or shared systems of meaning, the traditional
object of anthropological analysis, on the
other, is especially evident in Chinese
history, often seen as the interplay between
inherent diversity and a centralized bureaucratic
empire administered by scholar-officials
who shared ‘a remarkably uniform cultural
outlook’ (Smith 1994). Allen Chun, for example,
argues that the traditionally diverse origin
and fluidity of identity of the ‘Chinese
overseas’, ordered by kinship and dialect,
meant that there was little to unite them
except an ultimate destination, China, and
a relationship as a bounded community vis-a-vis
others (Chun 1996; Siu 1993). Recognition
of identity as positioning helps us understand
the ways that Chinese sojourners fashioned
a range of multiple identities against both
the authority of a Sinocentric core, and
the hostility of foreign ‘host’ society
(e.g. Reid 1996).
Following Said, many have theorized the
cultural encounter in relations of imperial
power. Against what has been seen as Said’s
over-attribution of power to colonizers,
Bhabha (1995) identifies a degree of autonomy,
which is the effect of hybridity and mimicry
in contesting and drawing attention to signs
of authority as being nothing more than
“‘empty’ presences of strategic devices”.
By seeing colonization as fundamentally
ambivalent, its absolute dominance, both
within the subjected culture, and in our
attempts to understand what happened in
the past, is undermined: “not less effective,
but effective in a different form”. Similarly,
representations of the Chinese in Australia
have often sought to present a dualistic,
hierarchical relationship structured solely
by race: without denying the power of colonial
discourse, or of systems of exclusion such
as the White Australia Policy, a more nuanced
understanding which incorporates gender
and class as analytic categories destabilizes
this crude dichotomy (Lydon 1996).
Similarly, archaeological accounts of cultural
exchange have re-considered processualist
views of archaeological assemblages as structures
functioning within culture, conceived as
a differentiated social system acting as
an adaptive mechanism between humans and
the environment (e.g. Binford 1962:217-225,
1965:203-210, 1972). The New Archaeologists’
emphasis on functionalist explanation of
social processes and cultural evolution
aimed to identify relationships between
variables in cultural systems; explanation
was seen to be the prediction of relations
between variables, and it was assumed that
quantification could be used to assess the
significance of associations, ultimately
leading to laws of cultural process (Binford
1965:199). Within historical archaeology,
an interest in ethnic identity developed
from around 1970, entailing an instrumentalist
notion of ethnic groups as self-defining
systems (Barth 1969) and related concepts
of ‘assimilation’ as a process perceived
to eliminate the need for ethnicity, and
‘acculturation’ as one aspect of this process,
removing “particular behavioural and material
patterns that symbolically distinguish those
individuals who are members from those who
are non-members of the ethnic population”
(Staski 1990:123-4).
This perspective can be criticized on a
number of grounds. First, the view of culture
(and of ethnicity as covariant with culture)
as an adaptive mechanism which allows humans
to adjust to their environment sees change
in one ‘variable’ (social domain or cultural
trait) as relating in a quantifiable and
predictable way to change(s) in other variables.
Ethnicity and status are often seen to be
similar, and competing, variables: for example,
Staski suggests that ‘foodways’ are more
sensitive indicators of ethnicity than of
status; McGuire argues that “economic status...should
be considered the dominant social dimension
evident” (Staski 1990:129; McGuire 1982:164).
It assumes that quantification can be used
to assess the significance of associations
and cultural process (Binford 1972; for
critiques see Hodder 1992:92-121; Staski
1990:128). An unproblematic link is made
between culture and the material record:
for example, the origin of artefacts or
associations identified as culturally distinct
are equated with cultural practices and
thus ethnicity. These traits or associations
of features are then seen to be ‘diagnostic’
of cultural practices. Baker’s study of
Lucy Foster’s home in Massachusetts, for
instance, investigates the archaeological
visibility of Black African culture. He
claims that a pattern comprising serving
bowls as 40% of tableware, and chopped bones
as 100% of faunal remains, was ‘diagnostic’
of an Afro-American site. He identifies
a distinctive Afro-American architecture
based on a 12 foot module (Baker 1980).
Several studies which investigate
the symbolic dimensions of the material
record (e.g., McGuire 1982; Praetzellis
et al. 1987, 1996), make an artificial
distinction between symbols and general
cultural patterns, creating a false dichotomy
between ‘normative’ culture, based on shared
ideas, and functional utility. Further,
in this approach material culture, like
culture in its broader sense, is seen to
have only a functional, adaptive role, and
to reflect action in a passive and straightforward
way. Changing proportions of artefacts are
equated with cultural change. There is an
assumption that degrees of similarity and
difference in material culture indicate
a specific and measurable degree of interaction;
proportions of Chinese-made artefacts in
an assemblage are argued to represent ‘social
distance’ in a mechanistic equation of material
and social patterns.
But differences are often the foci of interaction
rather than representing social isolation
and distance. As Hodder (1982) has shown,
the signification of identity is generated
by conceptual schemes which determine all
aspects of social relations, and forms of
self-conscious ethnic identification are
echoed in other dimensions of material culture
which do not overtly signify ethnicity.
Assessment of functional use is determined
by their cultural framework, and stylistic
variation is actively produced and manipulated
in the process of communication. Material
culture plays an active role in creating,
maintaining and transforming culture. The
denial of the historical and cultural dimensions
of activity obscures the dynamic, complex
relationship between material culture and
ethnicity. More sophisticated approaches
toward cross-cultural exchange, as noted
above, point to a need to understand the
particular context of material culture in
creating identity, to recognize its dynamic
and manipulable character, and to explore
its strategic symbolic meanings.
The Rocks
These theoretical insights inform my own
substantive archaeological investigation.
In examining interaction between the Rocks’
Chinese community and its White population,
I address White perceptions of the Chinese,
as well as Chinese responses to their new
environment, turning inwards, for pleasure,
or peace, but also outwards, to develop
a form of communication which I refer to
as ‘pidgin English’, built from ideas, cultural
practices and objects (Lydon 1996b). I argue
that the complexity of this situation challenges
views of the Chinese-White encounter as
wholly determined by White racism, providing
evidence for a more contested relationship
in which the Chinese asserted their own
identity and objectives. It destabilizes
dualistic oppositions structured by race,
demonstrating that gender and class alliances
crossed the racial line, while divisions
within both White and Chinese communities
fragmented supposedly coherent systems of
cultural meaning. Finally, this more complex,
ambivalent account of the Rocks’ history
of cultural diversity undermines essentializing
and monolithic notions regarding the process
of cultural contact and exchange.
The Chinese community
Despite the restrictions on Chinese immigration
imposed from the 1880s in NSW, and enshrined
in what is known as the White Australia
Policy, new Commonwealth legislation introduced
with Federation, a substantial Chinese community
developed in the Rocks from the 1850s, following
major goldrushes in various parts of the
country. As documented by a substantial
body of historiography, White endeavours
to exclude and control the Chinese had been
continual since their arrival in Australia,
and some argue that racism was an inherent
part of the Anglo-Australian world view,
sustained by 19th century anthropological
‘knowledge’ (Evans 1988; Cronin 1982; Price
1974; Yarwood and Knowling 1982; Curthoys
1973). The Chinese were despised as racially
inferior, but because of their numbers and
the competition they offered, were hated
and feared (Markus 1979, Markus 1994). In
the later nineteenth century the focus of
Chinese settlement shifted further south
to its present-day location, around Belmore
Markets, but the Rocks remained a key station
on an intricate international network of
commerce and communication.
We know little directly of the Chinese
experience through documentary sources,
but at the site of Samson’s Cottage, in
Kendall Lane, archaeological evidence for
the household of Chinese merchant Hong On
Jang was found. The data show how traditional
Chinese social structures persisted, strengthening
social bonds within the community through
sharing food and drink, or reinforcing Chinese
identity through the maintenance of medicinal
practices (Lydon 1996).
There were also, however, profound divisions
within the Chinese community, rooted in
wealth and status within the Confucian social
order, or caused by issues such as gambling
and opium-smoking. In 1890 the Chinese in
Sydney were classified by a White enquiry
as merchants, storekeepers, cabinet-makers,
market-gardeners, hawkers and gamblers (Royal
Commission 1891-2). In this inquiry, the
‘village atmosphere’ of the Rocks emerges
clearly, a landscape in which people constantly
observed and assessed one another, deciding
who measured up, was worthy of respect.
‘Pidgin English’
Cultural difference was blurred by a finer-grained
knowledge which saw the creation of other
kinds of alliances. The term ‘respectable’
for example, had meaning for Chinese and
Whites, relying on appearance and the income
required to maintain it. When White shop-keeper
Thomas Nolan referred to the gambler Moy
Ping as being, as far as he knew, a ‘respectable’
man, the commissioners press him further:
‘when you say respectable I suppose you
mean respectable to look at?’ (Royal Commission
1891-2:35-36).
In the Chinese community also, wealth and
business success signified the ability to
adhere to ritual and rectitude; poorer countrymen
- the gardeners and hawkers - would come,
one by one, to give a merchant such as Way
Kee their savings; they entrusted him with
the books of their native place society.
Loss of wealth caused a corresponding loss
of face. So in this amalgam of economic,
moral and material worth, signified by one’s
outward appearance, the notion of ‘respectability’
represents a class-based conformity between
Chinese and European views, expressed through
everyday and material symbols such as clothing,
accoutrements and general comportment.
In public, watched and distanced, the Chinese
developed strategies of difference and similarity:
the wealthy merchant, well-dressed in European
clothes, moved in paths of respectability,
executing his own goals mostly in private,
relying on known, steady points in his social
world. As well as following traditional
practices, Hong On Jang’s household ate
more meat than was customary in Guangdong,
and drank European alcohol, taking advantage
of newly available resources. Appropriation
of cultural symbols such as transfer-printed
dinner plates and cups to which merchants
would have had easy access, created new
structures of eating and drinking - perhaps
peripheral to traditional Chinese day-to-day
existence. But use of European forms such
as tableware, tobacco pipes and jewellery,
may have acted, as Praetzellis et al.
(1987, 1996) have argued, to define their
role as intermediaries between Chinese and
European. Merchants, whose wealth and resources
distinguished them from poorer countrymen,
were ‘cultural brokers’ between Chinese
and European communities, operating “on
the boundary between their own insular community
and society at large”. Hong On Jang, like
many Chinese living in the Rocks, belonged
to the elite merchant class, which by virtue
of their commercial value and appropriation
of European cultural symbols, were exempt
from many of the restrictions imposed upon
working class migrants. As shipping providore,
Hong On Jang was a link between sources
of supply and visiting ships.
Artefacts and images deriving from Chinese
tradition, but which could also be understood
by Whites, were deployed in pidgin forms
of communication. Food and drink created
a tangible expressions of social relationships
which was manipulated and managed on public
occasions. For example, merchant Quong Tart’s
famous tea-rooms, incorporating elements
of Chinese and European culture, often hosted
events of significance to both communities.
In March 1894, the merchants’ association,
the Lin Yik Tong, presented visiting opera
singer Miss Ada Crossley with a “China cup
and saucer” (Quong Tart papers, 21 March
1894). Guanxi, the traditional Chinese
art of interpersonal relationships, enacted
using gifts, favours and banquets (Yang
1994), was transformed and manipulated in
the Rocks to establish close ties with White
‘gate-keepers’ such as customs inspectors
and policemen. This process is reflected
archaeologically, for example in the popularity
of Chinese artefacts such as ginger jars
in European households.
This contingent and inventive cultural
jargon comprised a wide range of social
forms, including the 1890s gambling craze
which swept Lower George Street; economic
relationships; gender attitudes and relations;
schooling; and manipulation of public displays,
representing a complex system of communication
which operated effectively across cultural
lines. It indicates that alliances and understandings
existed between Chinese and White despite
the intensity of racism and colonial discourse
at the turn of the century (Lydon 1996).
Conclusion
This picture of fragmentation within White
and Chinese communities, of cross-cultural
alliances and communication, and of the
inventiveness and contingency of cultural
identity and exchange in Sydney’s cosmopolitan
Rocks, destabilizes dualistic constructions
of past race relations. It contests notions
of social process involving a consensual
‘monoculture’, and of an Australian past
founded on such ‘coherence’. It challenges
views of culture contact as a process of
‘acculturation’ and linear change towards
a normative, homogeneous society. Rather,
historical analysis reveals the diversity
of nineteenth century Sydney, and that the
contribution of immigrants such as the Chinese
was also acknowledged by White contemporaries.
Without denying the power of structures
of thought and experience built along race
lines, especially in late nineteenth century
society, it is important to acknowledge
the complexity of identity as a process.
Like the working-class advocates of the
White Australian Policy early this century,
the current anti-Asian immigration position
points to economic competition and cultural
incompatibility as the basis for exclusion.
Historical experience shows that many elements
of this argument are erroneous. Ironically,
in the Rocks, the ‘birthplace of a nation’,
this cosmopolitan history of cultural interaction
and diversity challenges views which call
for ‘one nation’, for cultural ‘coherence’,
and cultural ‘unity’ which underpin arguments
advanced by the likes of Pauline Hanson
and her supporters.
Recent arguments by theorists of colonialism
stress the need to reveal the specificity
of ‘colonialism’s culture’ in historical
context, to account for the ways its mechanisms
and agents have operated, and continue to
operate. Relativizing cultural and discursive
regimes is one strategy which works to reveal
the specificity and contingency of the present.
Conversely, demonstration of the conformities
between past and present can also jar our
sense of progressiveness (Thomas 1994:21).
As Greg Dening wrote recently: “the living
need a history disturbing enough to change
the present. I do not mean disturbing in
the sense of destructive anxiety or alienation,
but disturbing in the sense of awakening
a consciousness that brings resolve to change”
(1996:96).
In current debates regarding race, views
such as Pauline Hanson’s employ a conception
of Australian history which distances us
from the events of the past, denying that
we all, every day, experience the effects
of White settlement. Prime Minister John
Howard has avoided making conclusive comment
on Hanson’s assertions, claiming that he
is motivated by a desire to downplay them
and minimize publicity. Howard has, however,
made several statements with respect to
the role of Australia’s past, and specifically
our history of racism, in current debates,
which accord with Hanson’s (and see Markus
1997). On the 24 October 1996 he criticized
the high school history syllabus, stating:
“mow of course we treated Aborigines very,
very badly in the past - very, very badly
- but to tell children who themselves have
been no part of it, that we’re all part
of a, sort of, racist bigoted history, is
something Australians reject” (The
Canberra Times, 26/10/1996). In Howard’s
attempts to distance us from those troubled
times, he too denies the links between past
and present. The guilt of past injustices
can therefore be repudiated and forgotten.
Significantly, the Opposition Leader, Mr
Kim Beazley, has countered Howard’s denial
of our shameful past by re-locating current
debate about Native Title firmly in the
context of a long-term national history.
Responding to Howard’s address to the nation
regarding the significant ‘Wik’ Native Title
determination on 1 December 1997, Beazley
stated “we face here the question of our
history and our national honour... The fact
is that we are making history... As we write
our history over the coming days, the question
is this - will it be one for which our grandchildren
and great-grandchildren will have to atone,
or will it be one that will make them proud
of this generation?” (Sydney Morning
Herald 2 December 1997). By inviting
us to see current debates regarding race
relations from the vantage point of the
future, this view acknowledges that the
past, the present and the future intersect
in complex and inevitable ways.
References
Baker, V. 1980 Archaeological
visibility of Afro-American culture: An
example from Black Lucy’s Garden, Andover,
Massachusetts. In R. Schuyler (ed.)
Archaeological Perspectives on Ethnicity
in America. Afro-American and Asian American
Culture History, pp.29-37. Farmingdale:
Baywood Publishing Co.
Barth, F. (ed.) 1969 Ethnic
Groups and Boundaries. Bergen:
Universitetsforlaget.
Bennett, T. 1993 History on
the Rocks. In J. Frow and M. Morris
(eds) Australian Cultural Studies, A
Reader, pp.222-40. Sydney: Allen
and Unwin.
Bhabha, H. 1995 Signs taken
for wonders: Questions of ambivalence and
authority under a tree outside Delhi, May
1817. Reprinted in B. Ashcroft, G.
Griffiths, and H. Tiffin (eds.) The Post-Colonial
Studies Reader, pp.29-35. Routledge,
London.
Binford, L. 1962 Archaeology
as anthropology. American Antiquity
28(2):217-25.
Binford, L. 1965 Archaeological
systematics and the study of culture process.
American Antiquity 31(2):203-10.
Binford, L. 1972 An Archaeological
Perspective. New York: Seminar Press.
Chun, A., 1996 ‘Fuck Chineseness: on the
ambiguities of ethnicity as culture as identity’,
Boundary 23(2).
Clifford, J. 1988 The Predicament
of Culture. Twentieth-Century Ethnography,
Literature, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Cronin, K. 1982 Colonial
Casualties. Chinese in Early Victoria.
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Curthoys, A. 1978 Conflict
and consensus: The seamen’s strike of 1878.
In A. Curthoys and A. Markus (eds) Who
Are Our Enemies? Racism and the Working
Class in Australia, pp.48-65.
Sydney: Hale and Iremonger and the Australian
Society for the Study of Labour History.
Dallmayr, F. 1996 Beyond
Orientalism. Essays on Cross-Cultural Encounter.
New York: State University of New York Press.
Dening, G. 1996 The history
in things and places. In T. Bonyhady
and T. Griffiths (eds) Prehistory to
Politics. John Mulvaney, The Humanities,
and the Public Intellectual, pp. 85-97.
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Docker, J. 1992 Dilemmas of
identity: The desire for the Other in Colonial
and Post-Colonial Cultural History.
Working Papers in Australian Studies,
No. 74. London: Sir Robert Menzies
Centre for Australian Studies.
Evans, R. 1988 Keeping Australia
clean white. In V. Burgmann and J.
Lee, (eds) A Most Valuable Acquisition.
A People’s History of Australia Since 1788,
pp.170-88. Melbourne: McPhee Gribble.
Gardner, D. 1993 “An unstable
amalgam”: tracing culture’s antimonies to
their roots,’ Canberra Anthropology
16(1):88-101.
Gray, G. and C. Winter (eds) 1997
The Resurgence of racism. Howard, Hanson
and the Race Debate. Monash Publications
in History 24. Melbourne: Department
of History, Monash University.
Gunew, S. 1990 Denaturalizing
cultural nationalisms: Multicultural readings
of “Australia” In H. Bhabha (ed.)
Nation and Narration, pp. 99-120.
London: Routledge.
Hodder, I. 1982 Symbols
in Action. Ethnoarchaeological studies of
material culture. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hodder, I. 1992 Theoretical
archaeology: A reactionary view. In
Hodder, I. (ed.)Theory and Practice in
Archaeology, pp.92-121. London:
Routledge.
Lydon, J. 1995 Gender
in Australian historical archaeology.
In J. Balme and W. Beck (eds) Gendered
Archaeology. The. Second Australian Women
in Archaeology Conference, pp. 72-9.
Canberra: ANH Publications, RSPAS, Australian
National University.
Lydon, J. 1996 ‘Many Inventions’:
historical archaeology and the Chinese in
the Rocks, Sydney, 1890-1930. Unpublished
MA thesis. Australian National University.
Lydon, J. 1997 Newspaper survey,
September 1996-December 1997. Scrapbook,
sources of newspaper reports cited below.
Markus, A. 1979 Fear and
Hatred. Purifying Australia and California
1850-1901 Sydney: Hale and Iremonger.
Markus, A. 1994 Australian
Race Relations, 1788-1993. Sydney:
Allen and Unwin.
Markus, A. 1997 John Howard
and the re-naturalisation of bigotry.
In G. Gray and C. Winter (eds) The Resurgence
of racism. Howard, Hanson and the Race Debate,
pp. 79-86. Monash Publications in History:
24. Melbourne: Department of History,
Monash University.
McGuire, R. 1982 The study
of ethnicity in historical archaeology.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
1:159-78.
Moore, H. 1987 Problems in
the analysis of social change: an example
from the Marakwet. In I. Hodder (ed.)
Archaeology as Long-term History,
pp.85-104. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Praetzellis, A., Praetzellis, M., and M.
Brown 1987 Artifacts as symbols
of identity: An example from Sacramento’s
gold rush era Chinese community. In
S. Turnbaugh (ed.) Living in Cities:
Current Research in Urban Archaeology,
pp.38-47. Society for Historical Archaeology,
Special Publication Series No. 5.
Praetzellis, A. and M. Praetzellis
1996 Artifacts as symbols of identity:
‘Chinese Merchants’ revisited. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Society for Historical Archaeology, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Price, C. 1974 The Great
White Walls are Built: Restrictive immigration
to North America and Australasia 1836-1888.
Canberra: The Australian Institute of
International Affairs in association with
Australian National University Press.
Reid, A. (ed.) 1996 Sojourners
and Settlers. Histories of Southeast Asia
and the Chinese. Southeast Asia
Publications Series, No. 28. Sydney:
Asian Studies Association of Australia in
association with Allen and Unwin.
Ricklefs, M. 1997 The Asian
immigration controversies of 1984-85, 1988-89
and 1996-97: A historical review.
In G. Gray and C. Winter (eds) The Resurgence
of racism. Howard, Hanson and the Race Debate,
pp. 39-62. Monash Publications in History:
24. Melbourne: Department of History,
Monash University.
Sahlins, M. 1981 Historical
Metaphors and Mythical Realities. Structure
in the Early History of the Sandwich Islands
Kingdom. Ann Arbor: University
of Michigan Press.
Said, E. 1978 Orientalism.
Western Conceptions of the Orient.
London Penguin Books.
Siu, H. 1993 Cultural identity
and the politics of difference in South
China. Daedalus, 2:19-43.
Smith, R. 1994 China’s Cultural
Heritage. The Qing Dynasty, 1644-1912.
Boulder: Westview Press.
Staski, E. 1990 Studies of
ethnicity in North American historical archaeology.
North American Archaeologist 11(2):121-45.
Thomas, N. 1991 Entangled
Objects. Exchange, Material Culture, and
Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge
(MA): Harvard University Press.
Thomas, N. 1994 Colonialism’s
Culture. Anthropology, Travel and Government.
Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
Yang, M. 1994 Gifts, Favors
and Banquets. The art of social relationships
in China. Ithaca: Cornell
University Press.
Yarwood, A., and M. Knowling 1982
Race Relations in Australia. A History.
Melbourne: Methuen Australia.
Nineteenth-century sources
Quong Tart papers, Mitchell Library, Sydney.
Report of the Royal Commission into
Chinese Gambling and Immorality, NSW
Parliamentary Papers, Votes and Proceedings
(Legislative Assembly), 1891-2, vol. 8,
pp.497-977.
Newspapers
The Sydney Morning Herald, September
1996-1997
The Canberra Times, September 1996-1997
The Australian, September 1996-1997
|
World
Archaeological Bulletin