Beyond colonialism? A comment on the formulation of ‘contact’ archaeology in Australia

Australian archaeologists have been grappling with the complexities of ‘contact archaeology’ since the early 1990s, following pioneering work undertaken by Jim Allen, Judy Birmingham and Campbell Macknight, amongst others. Since that time various alternatives to the usage of the term ‘contact’ have been offered, including ‘cross-cultural encounter’, ‘interaction’, ‘engagement’, ‘negotiation’, ‘exchange’ and ‘entanglement’. Readers well-versed in the Australian literature will recognise this as a familiar problem rather than a revelation. Nonetheless, this paper highlights that ongoing issues persist with regard to how we name, frame and explain archaeologies of culture contact. This field of research gained momentum at a time when Australia and the USA were celebrating key events in the foundational narratives of their nations: the Bicentenary of the First Fleet and the Quincentenary of Columbus, respectively. As archaeologies of the ‘new world’ they are both shaped by the contingencies and consequences of the colonial project. Events and discussion surrounding these commemorations of invasion were controversial, thought-provoking and, importantly, laid the groundwork for renewed thinking about the ongoing impacts and influences of colonialism. Newly expanded formulations of ‘contact’ emerged from debates informed by focussed on-the-ground investigations. They were also shaped by developments in community archaeologies, gender in archaeology, and a growing recognition of Indigenous knowledges and sovereignty. These studies progressed our understanding of the nature, timing and breadth of cross-cultural relations and their material signature. Hence, archaeological studies of exploration, pastoralism, mining, forestry, whaling and migration have indeed indicated that ‘imperial debris’ (Stoler 2008) is scattered far and wide across the continent. But this 30þ year history of Australian archaeology also demonstrates that archaeologies of crosscultural interaction go beyond an IndigenousEuropean framework. We have complex multicultural archaeologies that record the presence of Afghan, Chinese, Japanese, South Sea Islander, and Indonesian individuals and communities, to name a few. These studies have broadened our understanding of what ‘contact’ archaeology may actually embrace, and have drawn attention to acts of resistance, agency, barter, gifting, resilience and other nuanced forms of cross-cultural interaction and exchange. I assume that these advances have been overlooked in this paper because, judging from the reference list, relatively little of the Australian literature has been canvassed. Likewise, many of the archaeologists who fostered the study of ‘contact’ archaeology and/or its theoretical agenda are women, a fact that is silenced in the references therein. These are disappointing elisions, particularly given the authors’ overall intent to redress and ‘recognise structural inequalities’. Here I name a few simply to reinstate some balance: Birmingham (e.g. 1992), Clarke (e.g. 1994), Colley and Bickford (1996), Feakins 2020, Ferrier (e.g. 2016), Ireland (e.g. 2010), Lydon (e.g. 2009), McBryde (e.g. 1989), McDonald (e.g. 2008), Macfarlane (e.g. 2010), May (e.g. May et al. 2013) for Australia; and in North America: Beaudry (e.g. 2013), Deagan (e.g. 1990) Rubertone (e.g. 1989, 1996) and Voss (e.g. 2005). Recalling this history is important, not only because it entails good scholarship, but because it enables us to grasp what has and has not changed, and how much further we have to go. It is important, therefore, to acknowledge that this work is ongoing, and I applaud the authors for taking up the challenge of (re)theorising ‘contact’ in the Australian context. Their aim of generating a ‘decolonising’ and emancipatory approach to research is an especially important prospect. I look forward to following their progress as it unfolds. The authors identify the term ‘contact’ as a central concern of their paper, and a problem which