Evidence of external contact between the Pacific Basin and the east coast of Australia during the Holocene: A review

Abstract

The prospect that First Nations Australians were in contact with cultures beyond Australia prior to European arrival has fascinated theorists for over a century. Early views tended to see Aboriginal culture as too primitive to have independently developed ‘higher level’ cultural traits. Once this view was abandoned, further enquiry into external contact largely ceased. However, it has been gradually recognised that transformations occurred within Australia not only independently but also through external elements arriving from the north (Macassans and Papuans). This paper offers perhaps the first comprehensive overview of a less studied potential conduit: the eastern seaboard of Australia. Given the vast scale of the eastern seaboard (and its geographic position directly opposite the seafaring cultures of the Pacific Basin it is surprising that the notion of contact between these two realms has received such limited attention. The east coast is a potentially very large target for contact. Queensland and New South Wales mainland and island coastlines comprise in excess of 15,000 km. The Pacific Basin is similarly a huge potential source for contact, covering over one-third of the world’s surface, and containing over 20,000 islands. Our paper first considers the contrast between studies of the eastern and western edges of the Pacific Basin, and then the means (and evidence) by which ‘contact’ is normally discerned. We next consider the potential for contact based on ocean currents and similar factors. The bulk of the paper assesses specific source regions and purported evidence of contact from these regions: Papua New Guinea, Island Melanesia, Polynesia and two islands between these areas (Norfolk and Lord Howe). Our study concludes that evidence for Pacific-Australian contact ought to be relatively abundant, given the size of the source area (the Pacific Basin) and the target area (the eastern seaboard). Instead, contact must have been very limited and sporadic, as most evidence has been either inconclusive or requires further substantiation. Equally, the impact of these cultures on the development of Australian First Nations seems to have been negligible. On the other hand, this review accumulated enough evidence to suggest there was considerable potential for such contacts. We conclude that archaeological frameworks should be developed to investigate purported and possible Pacific-Eastern seaboard contacts.

Putting the Dark Emu debate into context

“…Indigenous contribution is dominant, as noted for taro (Ahmed et al, 2020;Matthews 1991;Matthews & Terauchi, 1994). Notes: 1 Balme et al, 2018, 2 McNiven 2022Rowland & Kerkhove, 2022, 3 MacKnight, 1976, 4 Chase, 1980. The greater yam is a cultivar, namely a domesticated plant that was introduced to the Australian mainland at some time in the past and subsequently incorporated into Aboriginal subsistence practices in some capacity.…”

“…Comparably, greater yam cultivars could have been sequentially introduced by different groups of immigrants along the northeastern Queensland Coast, including English, Chinese and Pacific Islanders (Chase 1980). However, earlier introductions are possible by Torres Strait Islanders visiting the Australian mainland of Cape York and travelling down the east coast; by people from Cape York travelling to the south coast of New Guinea to obtain canoes and other trade goods; and, through social interactions between communities on Cape York and those in the Torres Strait (see Rowland & Kerkhove, 2022; McNiven 2022; cf. Wasef et al., 2021 for contrary perspective from human genetics).…”

“…Indigenous contribution is dominant, as noted for taro (Ahmed et al., 2020; Matthews 1991; Matthews & Terauchi, 1994). Notes: 1 Balme et al., 2018, 2 McNiven 2022; Rowland & Kerkhove, 2022, 3 MacKnight, 1976, 4 Chase, 1980, 1989.…”