The Archaeology of Hong Kong

The Archaeology ofHong Kong

Hong Kong University Press thanks Xu Bing for"而 iting the Press's name in his Square Word Calligraphy [or Lhεcovers o[ iLS books. For [unher in[orma Li on , see p. iv

Th能 Arch說eolo勸r of 詞。直至gKo豆豆露

William Meacham

香港式學出版社

HONG KONG UNIVERSITY PRESS

Hong Kong University Press

141F Hing Wai Centre 7 Tin Wan Praya Road Aberdeen Hong Kong

hqHE 63c tpJHE dtvtn mour tuln nnvn5

154

Historical Archaεology

A linguistic confusion resulted in a rather serious dispute over this feature of 10ca1 archaeo1ogy when a de1egation from the Hong Kong Archaeo1ogica1 Society made its first visit to the Main1and in 1978. During a 1engthy post-dinner discussion with our hosts in Guangzhou , Chairman Hugh Cameron described the work on the kilns and concluded with their dating and function. The Chinese archaeo1ogists listened polite1y to the trans1ation , but they firm1y disagreed , insisting that the historica1 record was very clear on the subject , and lime did not come into use unti1 the Sung era. Our de1egation respond吐， equally politely and firm1y, that the evidence was absolutely irrefutable and the dating unshakeable. It went back and forth severa1 times. The立， someone from our side added that on some sites there were shells and coral , and some kilns had tons of lime in the bottom from the 1ast firing , so there was no doubt about what the ki1ns were producing. At that point , there were huge sighs from the Chinese side as they exclaimed: “ Ah , shell lim亡， not rock lime!" They said that shelllime goes back even to the Neolithic. Our translator had been using the term "rock lim亡"的 it is the common word for lime in Cantonese. Perhaps the most intriguing question posed by the discovery of the early kiln comp1ex in Hong Kong is the suggestion of continuity through time suggested by the occupation patterns of the prehistoric and early historical inhabitants. Virtually every kiln site is on a prehistoric si仗， with ki1n debris often direct1y over1ying the Late Neolithic or Bronze Age cultura1 deposits. The converse is a1so beginning to appear tru亡， that is , every coasta1 prehistoric site a1so yie1ds ki1n debris when thorough1y searched. This corre1ation can hard1y be attributed to chance or to topographic factors a10ne A sense of continuity is suggested , not on1y by site choice , but a1so by buria1 traditions. At the Sham Wan si仗， two Tang buria1 jars were found in the same area of the site used for buria1 during the BronzeA阱. A1so , rather remarkab1y, in this s日me area cremated bone fragments were uncovered in both Tang and in Midd1e Neolithic 1evels Finally, at Hai Dei Wan a 1arge early historica1 vesse1 was found in the midst of a number of Bronze Age vessels , indicating that the same area was re-emp1oyed for buria1 purposes in the Tang era. We shou1d a1so take note of the continuity of negative e\吐ence: in both prehistoric and ear1y historica1 period , no p

Ho月 Kong's

First lndus盯

24.7 Kilns from various sites

155

156

Historical Archaεology

24.8 The slaking pit at Pui 0 , Lantau

elsewhere) that did not leave any archaeological traces on the sites of their activities But overriding all these obvious continuities is the m吋 or break of around 700 BC to AD 300 , notwithstanding the minor Han sites. The direct continuity from prehistoric to early historical populations cannot be established for this reason. It seems quite like旬" however that the people who worked the kilns in the Tang period remained in the territory after the demise of the lime industry, perhaps reverting back to exploiting marine resources for subsisten凹. They would be the aboriginal “ barbarian" population recorded in Hong Kong when the territory began to be settled by rice farming clans from around AD 1000.

ThεSung

Era

It is claimed by some that Hong Kong's recorded history begins in the Sung dynasty era or even earlier , when written records refer specifìcally to places believed to be in the territory Previously, we have discussed the Han to Tang proto-historical periods , for which archaeology is still the major source of knowledge about the life of the local population , even though the larger region of Guangdong province had a recorded history from early Han. Reconciling the information from archaeology with that of history and clan genealogies presents a number of major problems. From archaeology alone we have a reasonably clear picture of how Hong Kong developed in early historical times , although there are still many unanswered questions and a major gap in the record. As discussed above , one of the most important discoveries of local archaeology in recent years was the thriving lime-production indust可 that existed during the 五rst millennium AD It is unclear what economic activity

25.1 Test excavation at Diamond Hill , north Kowloon , in 2005

158

Historical Archaεology

之5.2

Sung celadon s拾你 from Nim Shu Wan , Lantau

月υ

K n I n 1inyfo 月υ

PL

σb

F 、d

J

』

un-d npudy

fIJ qj

H 司

3

戶、 J

d

γ'

戶、 υ

勻、 υ

7J 』

戶J 、

A 'n

the kiln workers took up as the indust叮 faded. Fishing and shell collecting could certainly have reabsorbed some of them And ifthem叮叮 local clan genealogies are to be believed , the clan founders settled in the New Territories during the Sung era. These clans have traditionally practised rice agriculture Thus far , however , there is little archaeological evidence bearing directly on the early clan villages. Sung ceramics have been found in large quantity at several sites , notably Nim Shu Wan and Shek Pik on Lantau , Diamond Hill in Kowloon , and Lung Kwu Sheung Tan near Tuen Mun , as well as many other minor sites; at latest count , there were 斗o in total (Wong 2006) At Lung Kwu Sheung Tan , there were literally hundreds of pounds of potsherds , mostly plain , black , domestic-type storage jars , but also a large amount of celadon bowl fragments Caches of Sung coins and high-quality celadon ceramics were found during the construction of the reservoir at Shek Pik. These were on the hillslope above the reservoir and most probably derived from an aristocrat's burial , although , at the time , there was much excitement over the (rather far-fetched) speculation that this was the grave of the Sung boy emperor or someone in his entourage as they fled south. Other Sung coin caches were found at Fan Ling , Sheung Shui , Mai Po , Tai Po , San Tin near Yuen Long and in a pot on Kellet Island in Causeway Ba乎 Most involve several hundred coins , more than 500 were recorded at Fan Ling , but the discovery at San Tin took place around 1912 , and few details are available These coin caches may represent burials ,

The Sun呂 Era

offerings , or simply money hidden away in a sock (so to speak) A different sort of coin cache (a handful) plus a teapot and several bowls were found at Peng Chau , and this group of artefacts is more suggestive ofburials. Sham Wan Tsuen also had a ve可 similar group , with 14 coins , 2 bowls and a ewer. In addition , the latter site also had another group of two bowls , one dish , one brown jar and a long iron knife. Although no human remains were found with these artefact clusters , they are typical of burial offerings. Elaborate "ash jars" have also been found in the territol水 such as those found at Sek Kong in 1960. Two ash jars were also found in fragments during the excavation at Lung Kwu Sheung Tan in 1990. Finally, cremated human bone fragments were found in one of a pair of jars with covering bowls also found at Sham Wan Tsuen. Oddly, these jars were buried in the mouth of a lime kiln from the earlier activity on the site. One wonders if it were a faint folk memory of the previous generations who worked there From historical sources it is known that salt production and pearl collection were other major industries practised along the coast of Guangdong as ear甘 as Han tim白， but , in each ca仗， the first mention of the Hong Kong area specifically occurs in the Sung literature. The exploitation of the “ TaiPO Sea" (possibly Tolo Harbour or Deep Bay) for pearls was administered by a military post employing native divers from around AD 900. The collection of pearls from the Tai-Po sea was revived briefly in the twelfth century Salt pans were operated in this area under government monopoly in the Sung period , and the visit

25.5 Burial pots with cremated remains at Sham Wan Tsuen

之 5.4

Tang and Sung coins from

\叫lOUS sit的

159

160

Historical Archaεology

25.6 The Sung inscription at Fat Tong Mun

of a “ salt fìeld offìcial" is recorded in an inscription at Fat Tong Mun dated 1274. This industry of salt pan evaporation continued into more recent tlm忱的 a number of local place names with “Yim Tin" (salt fìeld) indica仗， and one such fìeld was still in operation in nearby Daya Bay as recentlyas 1980. However, there is no archaeological evidence for either salt production or pearl collection , nor are there important sites with Sung ceramics in the places where such activities would likely have been carried ou t. While one might not expect to fìnd pearls , and the process of obtaining salt from sea water might not have required tools , nonetheless , there should be sites where the people lived The Sung inscription at Fat Tong Mun also mentions the renovation of two Tin Hau temples there by people originally from Fujian and Zhejiar嗯. The present temple at Fat Tong Mun dates from later periods but is believed to be on the site of the earlier structure. There are a couple of dozen temples , ancestral halls , monasteries or tombs in Hong Kong that are believed to have been rebuilt on the site of an earlier pre-Ch'ing structure , but there is 日o building or structure above ground today in

The Sun呂 Era

Hong Kong that dates from the Sung or Ming periods 一- nor have ruins or foundations from those periods been securely identified , apart from several house floors. The difficulty for the archaeologist is that none of these temples or ancestral ha11s have be11s , plaques or inscriptions dating earlier than Ch'ing. It is hard to imagine that a11 such items were destroyed or looted during the coastal evacuation Two of the five m句 or clans of the New Territories have genealogical records indicating that their early settlements go back to Sung times. According to the genealogy, the 且rst member of the prominent Tang clan came fromjiangsi and settled in Kam Tin around 1050-1100. Other settlements followed as the clan expanded and 1的 wealth increased. The Ho clan came from Canton and settled in the Sheung Shui area about the same time. Settlement of other m吋 or clans , such as the Liu , Man and Pong , date from the Ming era. These genealogies are difficult to prove or disprove because hard evidence is lacking. There are a number of legendary associations of places with Sung dynasty figures , such as the Che Kung Temple in Shatin , said to have been built after Che Kung (a general in the Sung army) accompanied the last Sung emperor on his exile in South Chi凹， according to some accounts , he later settled in the area. According to historical references , Tung Chung is an area that should provide evidence of Sung settlement and activi作 Yet an extensive survey of the entire Tung Chung valley that 1 directed in 1992 with several assistants yielded , in total , onlya few dozen sma11 pieces of Sung ceramics. The va11ey and lower hillslopes have been heavily terraced for cultivation in the last two centuries , and there are several deep erosion faces as we11. These conditions should have revealed cultural deposits if any were present The area of Castle Peak , Tuen Mun and Ha Tsuen is another that is believed to be of considerable antiquit芋 The Ling Tu monastery and the fort at Tuen Mun (“ fortified gate") are recorded even earlier than Tang , but extensive archaeological surveying of the area several times over has not brought to light a single item of military equipme凹， nor any significant Sung sites. Especia11y perplexing is the Ling Tu monaste叮 south of Ha Tsu凹， for which there is specific historical evidence of an origin in the Chin era (AD 265 -4 20). The present building and the bell inside date from the middle Ch'ing period. The monaste可 is at

p

the end of a long , narrow va11ey that has road cuts ，五sh

161

162

Historical Archaεology

It is difficult to account for this complete absence of archaeological material 丘，

indeed , the historical record is accurate and the location of the monaste叮叮ld of “ Tuen Mun" itself has not changed over time. Historical texts also mention the indigenous population of the area in Sung times. On Lantau , there was a m句 or settlement of “ Tan" fisherfolk who resisted efforts to enforce the salt monopoly Other sources mentlO n “Yao" who also lived on Lantau. Chinese sources describe several efforts to bring these folk to heel and , finally, a campaign to annihilate them. A thirteenth century source states that “ the local Tan and Man ["barbarians"]live near the pearl-oyster beds [presumably in Tolo Harbour or Deep Bay] but they are more wretched and starved than the poorest people . . ." Later sources refer to the Tanka boat people as “Yao" or “ barbarian ," and for centuries they were shunned and not allowed to settle on land. Even as late as 1729 , the Sun On county gazetteer recorded that “ in Guangdong there is a tribe of Yao barbarians called the Tanka , who have boats for homes and live by fishing." These presumed remnants of the Yueh and their traditional way of life were looked down upon by Han Chinese through the centuries , even (or perhaps especially) by literati and scholars. The poet , author and traveller Qu Dajun wrote ofthe “ Tan" in Guangdong in the mid-1700s All Tan women are known to eat raw fish and swim under water In the past they were seen as belonging to the family of dragons. It was because they dived into the water with tattooed bodies in order to look like dragons. They could move in water for thirty, forty li without difficulty. They were seen as sea otters . . . they are really non-human. Ccited in Crossely et al. 2006) In spite of the continued use of the pejorative barbarian labels Yueh , Yao , Tan and Man for the local folk , the population in most of Guangdong , by Sung tim白， was at least partly assimilated into Chinese culture , language and society; pristin亡， unsinicized aboriginal villages survived only in more remote areas of the province. Influenc巴， trade and intermarriage (plus doses of force) since Han tim凹， ln most areas , had replaced previous languages and cultur亡， exce阱， of course , those Cmany) cultural items that had become accepted as "Chinese." Even the “ wretched" Tan and Man barbarians living near the oyster beds were , no doubt , on the road to assimilation. Further “ acculturation" and economic interdependence would soon obliterate the last traces of any distinct aboriginal heritage in this coastal region

A UniquεKiln

Complεx

One of the most attractive beaches on Chek Lap Kok was at Ha Law Wan , located between two major archaeological sites. Although there was no sand bank formation behind the beach , there was a relatively flat isthmus at an elevation of nearly 15 m. During the initial survey of the island , the site was identi五ed as ofhigh potential for Neolithic or Bronze Age material , although no artefacts were recovered during surface search. The site has some natural advantages. Villagers reported that Ha Law Wan had a very reliable water supply, even when the rest of the island suffered from drought. We were able to confirm this situation during June 1990 when the island had its worst drought in living mem。可 An open well at the base of the ravine still had water Schofield searched the site in the 1930s but reported no finds. Our team spent several weeks in conducting surface survey, test pits and excavation. No prehistoric deposit was found , in spite of the marked similarity of the site to the others nearby (Fu Tei Wan and Kwo Lo Wan) that possessed a relatively flat area well above the beach Seven stone adzes of neolithic type were found at Ha Law Wan , either on the surface or in late contexts. This absence of prehistoric deposit is puzzling During the survey, it was noted that the beach was deposited against a hard , gritty, reddish brown hillslope soil. Most of the flat area above the beach was extensively terraced , and the terrace cuts showed clear stratigraphy down to 1 m below ground surface. No cultural deposits or features were seen , with the sole exception of part of the wall of a fired-clay structure exposed in one of the terrace walls. In spite of the lack of surface finds and observable deposit in the terrace cuts , it , nonetheless , was considered worthwhile to commit two to

164

Historical Archaεology

26.1 Kiln wall and vent as dis 正 overedα tHaLawWan

Chek Lap Kok , 1991

three weeks to the investigation of this site because of its setting and probable attractiveness to prehistoric people in the area Three weeks of rather disappointing test excavation did not yield any Neolithic or Bronze Age material , with the exception of several polished stone axes. The final task that remained was the excavation of the fired-clay structure partially exposed in one of the terrace walls It was almost dismissed as modern because it had a large iron pole embedded in one corner and seemed to be related to the terraced field system. Meanwhile , other terrace walls were shaved , but no other structures were found. A small patch of reddish clay just beyond the end of a cement footpath was noticed , and , although strange , it did not appear at first to be of archaeological significance. Upon excavation , the fired-clay wall exposed in the terrace cut turned out to be a rather elaborate kiln of considerable interes t. The structure was clearly a kiln or furnace; it had a thick layer of charcoal at the bottom under hard red clay that seemed to be part of a superstructure or interior furnitu仗; and it had three vents , one of them an L-shaped chimney.. Attention then turned to the red clay patch at the end of the footpath , and a female worker was assigned to clear away the soil but not remove any of the red clay. Fifteen minutes later, an assistant reported: “She's got a kiln there." Further excavation revealed that it too was a large kiln similar to the 五rst on亡， with channels in the floor that continued outside the mouth , which was bridged by a stone

165

A Unique Kiln Complex

f仁，

γ'

的

vh

八U

U

，但

月U?ru

d

門 1

仿制

structure. The soil inside this kiln had built up to a thickness of about 60 cm before the 五red-clay blocks had fallen in , and these seemed to be fragments of the roof. It was unclear what purpose these kilns served , but they were very different from the Tang lime kilns that are so common on Hong Kong sites. All sorts of possibilities were discussed as the excavation proceeded , including that they were an evolution and refìnement of the lime kilns. Several surprises were in store! Clearing of the area outside the second kiln revealed large quantities of charcoal , mainly in and around the channelleading out from the mouth. But the spread of charcoal seemed to be slightly askew to the east , well outside the general “ flow" out from the kiln. It appeared that further evidence of activity might be found in that direction , and a large 2 m x 5 m trench was opened A massive charcoal flow was immediately revealed , and , eventually, three more kilns were found by following charcoal trails right up to their mouths. At the same time , the walls of an old irrigation ditch were shaved. and another three kilns were discovered. A call of nature answered by the deputy director revealed the existence of another kiln. Further shaving of the terrace walls brought to light charcoal trails that led to four more kilns. It was now clear that this was a major si仗， but the dating was still unknoWll. Quite surprisingl其 no pottery or tools of any kind had been found. A sample of the charcoal was despatched for urgent carbon dating (at twice the usual cost). The result came back as 620 years , confìrming that the kilns were defìnitely later than Tang , but their

們 nvL

2

LH l? 2wew 315 Ett YA tel tm -t x'h nunc < u

166

Historical Archaεology

function remained unclear lt was considered a distinct possibility that this ki1n industry was a continuation of the Tang lime indust門， but this hypothesis was 1ater

26.3

Nem炒正omplete

kiln begins to emerge

26.4 The kiln after exωvatlO n

rejected. All 13 ki1ns had been constructed in a simi1ar fashion: a cavern was dug in the resid ua1 hills10pe so泣， it was p1as胎兒d with a clay mortar and fired. The over-1ying soil stratigraphy was undisturbed by the kiln construction and use , except in cases where the roof collapsed and brought the soi1 profile down into the ki1n cavern. Severa1 ki1ns had some or most of the roof intact , and two were on1y partially filled when discovered. One fine examp1e was comp1ete1y silted up , a condition that preserved its roof a1most intact All ki1ns had 1arge amounts of charcoa1 inside on the floor and outside near the mouth. Another C-14 date of 720 years ago was obtained on a samp1e from inside one of the ki1ns. The over1ap of the two C-14 dates at around AD 1260-1380 allowed a secure dating of the ki1n comp1ex to the 1ate Sung and Yuan eras. During the excavation , villagers produced a Sung coin dating to AD 1256. They reported that a jar full of coins had been found in the area of the ki1ns many years ago , but all but one were 10st Pottery from the ki1n comp1ex was remarkab1y scarce - on1y some undistinguished pieces of p1ain ware and a few Sung ce1adon fragments were found. Most surprising1y, no too1s of any kind were found in the kiln ar凹， nor were there any pieces of containers or ki1n furniture

A Unique Kiln Complex

In addition to excavating each kil丘， several exploratory trenches were excavated to provide stratigraphic sections and to search for further clues on what sort of industry was being carried out on the site. The first hint came from a solitary, tiny, grey metallic pellet resembling lead from the mouth of one of the kilns. This was followed by the discovery of a pit containing dozens of such pellets 4 m away from the kiln mouth. This material appeared to be some sort of slag; other pieces appeared to be clinker with pellets embedded within The possibility presented itself that the industry was a smelting or castmg operatlon. Another trench yielded a pellet deposit in a thin 2-3 cm layer at one end of the trench not far from , and obviously related to , a kiln nearby This material could have been what remained on the ground surfac亡，

ensnared in grass and roots , after the bulk of the pellets was collected and taken awa手 Other trenches in a small ravine between the two main groups of kilns revealed no more structures but several areas of pellets and charcoal deposit Chemical analysis of the slag revealed that it was composed almo位 entirely of iron. In view of this , it seems reasonable to assume that the pellets are not slag at all but represent the output of the kilns. Pelletization is one method of smelting iron , but exact1y how the kilns operated remains a mystery One might hypothesize that the iron ore or iron-rich sand was si日tered or only partially smelted , resulting in the formation of the pellets embedded in the slag matrix These slag clumps would then have been manually broken up , and the true waste slag pushed downslope. The steepness of the ravine would then , over time , have washed away the slag deposits Many questions remain If the kilns did indeed function in some manner for the smelting of iron ore or iron-rich sand , and the pellets are the end product , where is the slag? On most iron smelting sites , slag deposits are massive. Even if most of it went down the ravine , it is hard to understand how there could be no trace of it on the site. How did the kilns operate? There is no possibility that molten iron ever flowed in the channels since numerous crevices have no traces of metal. If the channels were not for the product of the kiln , what purpose did they serve? Why was this particular site chosen? There are only insignificant occurrences of iron in the ar凹， certainly not sufficient raw product to run an indust可 on the scale of the operation in evidence. Was

167

168

Historical Archaεology

Why are there no crucib1白， too1s and other articles necess且可 m a sme1ting centre? The kilns are unlike any described in historica1 sources or reported from China. The grooves in the floor suggest that something was meant to flow out of the ki1n; in some ways , the kilns seem more appropriate for the production of an organic substance , such as resin , charcoa1 or even lime. The fact that they were burrowed into the hills10pe and their shape suggest that a higher temperature was required than what wou1d be needed for charcoa1 or lime The kilns at Ha Law Wan are unique in Hong Kong archaeo1ogy Despite intensive archaeo1ogica1 investigation since their discoverγ， no similar kilns or sites have been found. The fÌ na1 word on the site must await future excavation. A 1ate modi五cation in the design for the new airport made it possib1e to preserve the ki1n comp1ex at Ha Law Wan for future disp1ay and research. This was a most fortunate deve10pme凹， and the site had great potentia1 for heritage purposes and cou1d have been a nice disp1ay on the airport grounds. However, the site has 1anguished since then , and poor monitoring during the construction of the airport resulted in severa1 of the kilns' roofs collapsing. Despite this 10ss , the site is the on1y one of its kind in Hong Kong and remains a mystery to be reso1ved in the future. The kilns are now properly buried , and stone walls have been bui1t around them. Hopefully, the key to the site's de五nitive interpretation is still in the ground around the kilns

Later Historical Archaεology

The Ming period , like the Han , is another period of relative scarcity in Hong Kong's archaeolo gy, but for reasons that can be more readily postulated. Many of the Ming settlements continued into the Ch'ing era and down to the prese凹， presumably leaving little obvious archaeological evidence of their existence. The coastal evacuation of 1662-69 to combat piracy and rebel activity resulted in many villages being abandoned and falling into ruin. One contemporary (cited in 5iu 1989) wro仗，“Their houses were demolished to provide materials for fortifìcatio肘， and their graves were dug up to make deep moats." It is stran阱， however, that the villages abandoned at that time have proven so di且cult to identi年 Them句 or Ming archaeological sites include a remote site (probably a trading or smuggling station) at Penny's Bay, Lantau , datable to 1480-1530; a cemetery at 50 Kun Wat; a coastal village at Ho Chung; house floors with drainage system at Mong Tseng Wai; and the remains of a junk found in the seabed 0旺 High Island , dated to the early 1400s The site at Penny's B可 now completely destroyed by development related to the Hong Kong Disneyland theme park , is a mystery The site was fìrst noticed by then district of五cer and local historian]ames Hayes on a visit to the adjacent Choy Lee 5hipyard in 1975. He recognized that the pottery was likely to be earlier than nineteenth century, when the area was fìrst farmed according to local records Hayes collected a few dozen representative sherds and handed them over to the Hong Kong Museum of History The Archaeological 50ciety tool歪扭 interest in the site in 1983 when it became apparent that the pottery was from the Ming dynasty During several surface collections organized by the Archaeological 50ciety, huge quantities of Ming blue-and-white porcelain were recovered , not only from the

1 70

Historical Archaεology

low

lying 五εlds ，

but also from the tidal mudflats below and

the hillsides above. After a period of rather absurd dispute with government bureaucrats over the status of the si仗， a permit was finally issued. Several excavations were mounted by the Archaeological Society in the period 1986-90 and by the Antiquities Office in 1992. The dating of the site was narrowed to the first three decades of the 五fteenth century based on the styles ofMing blue-and-white pottery Examples of Southeast Asian ceramics were also identi且ed ， namely Khmer, Vietnamese and Bau-Malay types Various theories have been bandied about to account for this unique si仗， including that it was involved in smuggling or piracy and supported by the fact that the site is not visible from the sea lanes off Lantau and se ems to have been chosen for this reason. Another possibility is that it was a base for 之 7. 1 Excavat何 Ming

pottery from the mud at Penny's Bay, Lantau ,

1994

ship provision and repair, fed by a perennial stream. None of these notions are entirely satisfactory, and certain facets of the evidence argue against each interpretation that has been offered. Claims that building foundations and structures on the site date to the Ming era are almost certainly incorrect Despite all the archaeological investigation , the matter still stands 且sJames Hayes (1 981) wrote in first reporting the si仗， “ There is clearly some mystery to be unravelled here."

斗， 5

，U 汁 VYJ

晶晶

f古ιy

74γL 可/。

l

pu

M 仇

-y dMU MP un -pw nn

2pi

uy

l1

1 71

Later Histo此al Archaeology

On 23 May 1974 , an article appeared in the Chinese-language newspaper Ching Dao reporting the discovery of what was described as a “ Sung dynasty old junk and pottery" The discovery had apparently been made a month earlier by a hike r. What was remarkable about the report was that the materials were found on the exposed seabed off Sha Tsui near High Island , an area that had been dammed off and pumped out for the construction of a reservoir. The report further stated that , when the hiker “ removed some sand , he found a number of rare vessels and bowls." The next day all m司jor newspapers carried the st。可 some with headlines reading “ Archaeologists excited by n.nd." The problem was that no active local archaeologist knew anything about the discovery By luck 1 was free that day and went straight to the si仗， arnvmg mid-morning. Several people were ther宅， poking around in the sand , and 1 persuaded them to stop and wait for the site to be investigated properly As luck would have 泣， a fellow member of the Archaeological Society, Ray Fro哎， was one of the resident engineers on the High Island Reservoir pr叮 ect ， and he came out to the site at noon. Things then began to happen: police arrived to exercise control , a fence went up around the area in an amazing two hours and arrangements were made for staff from the museum to visit the site. A grid was laid out over the area , and a proper excavation began the next day However, the n.ne Sung and Ming ceramics featured in the newspaper article were never recovered

Lκr

G UMU nu 』

1J%' ，

τd

γιThHi­

m

w pud, •

eTS

hmu月

5dt叩

，仙

古

RdM 山

戶、 u

hH 句、 JV仆U 可

FPIσ

Uα 印

WMG -mn tt'

1 72

Historical Archaεology

The junk had burned before it sank , and only isolated planks and other pieces survived. The potte可 associated with it was dated to the 5ung and early Ming period. In add 出ltlOntωot由 he Chines仗 ewa 盯re 臼s ， t出 he 叮re wa 站s a quantit句 y 吋 0 f Khme 叮r pott怯阻 臼r咱γy dating 仕 E fromt出 he 且缸fteent出 h1 臼 C ent凹 ur 可弘 Ba 叫 u

50ut出 he 臼as泣tAs釘ia ， pos臼Sl由 bl甘 yde 叮riving ultimately from

Lr

Lpu

「[

V切

間， drs

們可

vly 川，

L

nzd

公

吵吵

d

fmmdem 叫

TL

itνELt-c

ωn

古 rmCAU

khu

的

Mh↓川叫扒叫W 叫 W 心而山A 叫m 叫 m

們

Erw

引νAVURhdrL

刁寸寸ιotιnτdnr

India. The presence of 50utheast Asian artefacts at this site and at Penny's Bay sites showed that long-distance trade had begun to play an important part in the Hong Kong region by the 五fteenth century A few isolated burial jars dating to the Ming era have been found over the years. These isolated finds could have been related to a transient or floating population as opposed to a settlement. The Ming burial ground at 50 Kun Wat , however, seems to be derived from a small village and is the only one of its kind thus far discovered At least 20 burials were found the咒， most of them characterized by uoOHUE tzlil;r t t T [ ' ] d'hrct5 a pair of pots with covering bowls. One pot of each pair contained MPFjdnk FGLHOZ remains of rice or other grain; the other was empty and presumably 1:1 had once contained wine. In addition , coins , iron implements and a long iron knife were found in the burials

Later Historical Archaeology

27.5 Insα.ibed plaque found near the Ti n Hau temple at SoKwu 訊而1n， Lamma

The local historian Anthony K. K. 5iu (1989) has written: During the Ming Dynasty, because of the cultivation of incense trees , which gave great pro祉， the population [in the Hong Kong area] increased rapidly However, the Coastal Evacuation at the 1st year of the K'ang Hsi Reign [1661] obliged the people to retreat to the mainland. Fields were left barren , and houses were pulled down As mentioned previous旬， there is no archaeological evidence of an increase in population; indeed , quite the contrary is true , as there are fewer Ming sites than of the preceding 5ung era. It is not clear whether this lack of evidence relates to destruction of sites or real lack of settlement. From a list of villages recorded in late Ming tim白， onlya few can be linked at present to Ming materials excavated at or near those locations: Mong Tseng Wai , 50 Kun Wat , Ho Chung and Wun Yiu (discussed below). With the repopulation of this area after the coastal evacuation order was revoked in 1669 , villages still in existence today were founded. Many of these were walled and moated , indicative of interclan warfare and marauding piracy that is well known from history

1 73

1 74

Historical Archaεology

Rice agriculture intensi五ed and expanded into most of the valleys suitab1e for it. Temp1es were erected , and en1arged as the villages prospered , and 1arge fan-shaped graves began to dot the hillsides. A 1arge grave of this type was discovered in a 10w slope just above the sand bank at Lung Kwu Sheung Tan. 1t w晶晶rst believed that the grave might be earlier than Ch'ing , but , on thorough investigation , it too was dated from the textua1 sty1e of an inscription insi世 the tomb to the eighteenth centu可 or 1ater. After Hong Kong was ceded to the British in 1841 , customs stations were established at severa1 points , including Cheung Chau , Ma Wan , Kow1oon andJunk 1s1and. The 1atter has been the subject of severa1 excavations. Fragm凹的 of a 1arge stone tab1et were discovered on the site in 196斗， and the one missing piece was found in the 1978 excavation. 1t can be trans1ated as: “ Annam has gracious1y shown respect by sending tribute." From the use of certain terms , a secondary inscription suggests that the tab1et dates from Ch'ing times. It seems clear that , at some point , the customs station at] unk 1s1and received tribute from Vietnam , perhaps over many years , and there may have been an earlier station there during the Ming or Sung A text dating between 1796 and 1820 noted that “ at Ting Chi 叭lan [quite likely an old name for Junk Bayl the ruins of an old customs house can be seen" (cited in Siu and Meacham 1982). However, the most recent excavation there in 2006 found no materia1 pre-dating the Ch'ing era. 1n the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries , forts at Tung Chung and Fan Lau on Lantau 1s1and , and at Tung Lung 1s1and were built for the stationing of Chinese troops and the contro1 of waterways. These forts have all been excavated and restored by the Antiquities Offìce. A battery overlooking the passage between Tung Chung and Chek Lap Kok has a1so been fully excavated. The information gleaned from excavation proved usefu1 in understanding the 1ayout of the forts' interiors and how they functioned. Other forts or batteries are known from historica1 texts an cIJor nineteenth centu可 paintings to have been in Tsim Sha Tsui and Yau Ma Tei (still remembered in the street named “ Battery Street") , but no archaeo1ogica1 remains have ever been found of them. The administrative and military headquarters of this region was situated in the Kow1oon Walled City, 10cated in the northeastern corner of Kow1oon. It was bui1t in 1843-47 , shortly after Hong Kong 1s1

Later Historical Archaeology

2 7. 6 The Ch'ingfort at Fan Lau , Lantau , in the 19505

Ch'ing offìcials and soldiers depart吐， but the compound remained , and , by the 1950s , had become a slum. In 1994 , it was demolished , retaining only the remaining nineteenth century structures and paving stones. Archaeological excavations on the site recovered remnants of the old garrison wall and fragments of the original plaques that had been mounted on the main ga仗， one of them bearing the Chinese characters for "Kowloon Walled Cit手" The site is now a park with several historical items on display Am句 or pottery-producing village at Wun Yiu near Tai PO was believed to have been established in the early Ch'ing er且， although the clan genealogies indicate that the village and its pottery industry was in existence by the late Ming. The name Wun Yiu (bowl kiln) occurs on an early Ch'ing list of villages reoccupied after the coastal evacuation. A recent archaeological investigation of the site provided material that allowed for a fìrm dating of the early phase of the pottery manufacturing there to the last decades of the Ming dynasty (1 610-44). There are huge mounds of ceramic wastage at this si伐， mostly misfìred bowls and dish白. The clay source for this industry was a kaolin deposit uphill from the village. The archaeological investigation revealed some of the pits where clay was d1.:嗯， in addition to clay-processing metho血， such as watermill or animal powered grinders and clay-soaking tanks. In the early twentieth century, the kilns were still producing pottery, though at a much-reduced rate , 的 competition from mass production of ceramics began to take its toll on the traditional industry The last fìring of the kilns at Wun Yiu took place around 1917 , according to an old potter interviewed by local historian James Hayes A much larger and more important industry of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the N ew Territories was the burning

1 75

176

日iSLorical Archaeology

of shells and coral to make lime. In a Hong Kong Government Gazette notice of 1901 , a survey revealed that this industrγemployed around 2 , 000 m凹， involved more than 400 boats and collected shell and coral from 11 locales. Apart from rice cultivatio日， it was the largest economic activity in the New Territories at the beginning of the twentieth centuηz But it was in declin亡， and , as resources decreased , a number of disputes ending in violence were recorded in subsequent years. Like its predecessor in the Tang dynasty, this industry appears to have died out from over-exploitation and the appearance of a new and cheaper materi泣， in this instance cemen t. Regarding Ch'ing graves and tombstones , large fan-shaped graves dot the hillsides all over Hong Kong. These relate to the indigenous clans and thus are not investigated by archaeologists. However, they often need to be moved because of developme凹， and these occasions constitute huge missed opportunities for providing information on local histo ry, especially on the dating of the earlier clan founders believed to belong to Ming times. 0句 ects or inscriptions inside the tombs would probably allow for such a dating , but the grave removals are carried out by workers from municipal services and have not been supervised by the Antiquities Office. An example is the removal in the 1980s of the grave belonging to the Shatin Wai clan's founding ancestor, believed to date to around 159 1. Ch'ing burials are occasionally encountered during archaeological excavations. These are generally thought to belong to the boat people ,

27.7 Large Ch'ing grave at Lung Kwu Sheung Tan , Tuen Mun

Later Historical Archaeology

who often bury their dead in sand banks behind beaches. Some of these burials exhibit traditional customs , such as coins in the mouth or reburial of bones in a box. A burial at Pui 0 on Lantau had a well-worked piece of flint and beside it a rusty piece of iron. This was instantly recognized as a traditional "strike-a-light" device for creating a fire 一一位riking a spark from the flint. A few years prior to that excavation , 1 had made a trip into the interior of Mindanao , and , during a break, the local guide took out his strike-a-light kit and proceeded to make a small fire. 1 asked why he did not carry a lighter, and he replied that they were less reliable In addition to the main Punti or Cantonese clans described above , other important ethnic groups are the Hakka farme芯， and

2 7. 8 Secondary “boxburial" 01 late Ch'ing at Shek Pik, Lantau

27.9 Ch'ing burial on tile pillows at Pui 0 , Lantau

177

1 78

Historical Archaεology

Hoklo and Tanka boat people. The Hoklo and Tanka n.sherfolk have probably been in the territ。可 for centur肘， but there is no evidence as to their original arrival in these waters. The Hoklo speak a dialect of Fujian province. Previously, it was often said that the Tanka were descendants of the local aboriginal population , but this was something of an urban myth. They are simply Cantonese-speaking n.sherfolk , no more nor less descendants of the Yueh than are the Punti or Cantonese land-dwellers. Hakka farmers have been immigrating into the territory from the eighteenth century, if not earlier, and are noted for settling on and making a living from the least desirable land , the prime farmland already having been occupied by the main clans. The folklore of these ethnic groups has much to contribute to an understanding of life in Ch'ing times. The study of the development of Hong Kong's population and its later history, trade , growth of settlements , etc. is the task of ethnography and history, with archaeology of much-reduced importance , but it still provides useful data to complement historical studies.

Part IV Summary

Prεsεnt Knowledgεand FuturεProspεcts

Investigations into Hong Kong's earliest periods of occupation have made enormous progress since the 五rst archaeological work in the 1920s. The pre-war work of Heanl句; Shellshear, Schofìeld , Finn and Chen resulted in a large number of sites being record吐， a greater public awareness of the wealth of archaeological material in this region , and many good studies of the material recovered More recent work has thrown new light on the cultural sequenc亡， the dating of the different phases , and the technology and way of life of the early people. Fieldwork and publications have become much more systematic and scienti且c. Archaeological material is now held in a centralized collection , and measures are being sought to give important sites some form of protection. On the negative side , bureaucracy has had a suffocating effect on archaeologists , and the central collection is woefully under-catalogued and little more than a giant warehouse. A computerized database is still lacking Proper publication has almost ceased , and there is a huge backlog of unpublished and undigested reports gathering dust on the shelves of the Antiquities Offìce. Probably the most important single accomplishment of the fìrst 80 years of Hong Kong archaeology is the establishment of a welldefìned sequence of cultural phases , beginning at 5000 BC , which provides the framework for the study of local prehist。可 Work on the dating and detailed division of the sequence continues and will remain an important task for some years to come. However, with so much attention focused in recent years on salvage work , the research and collation of data has seriously lagged.

182

Summary

Identification of the main cultural phases represented at properly excavated sites is now a relatively simple matter, with the benefit of pottery seriation studies conducted in the 1970s. An exception is the Late Neolithic , since the characteristic pottery types of that phase appear to continue into the early part of the Bronze Age. Therefore , sites with hard , soft and coarse geometric and coarse corded types (as seen , for example , at Shek Kok Tsui , Lo So Shing , Tai Kwai Wan and Sha Lo Wan to cite a few among many examples) in a single cultural layer may represent either a single period of occupation during a transitional Early Bronze Age or a mixture of assemblages from two phases of occupation. Micro-stratigraphic studies may eventually resolve this issue Dεscription

of Sitεs

A large number of sites were recorded in the 1930s and 1950s on the basis of surface fin血， principally adzes. Unfortunately, in most cas白， it is not possible to classify these sites by cultural pha仗， Slnce many of the adze types are found in all three prehistoric periods. Schofield listed nearly 120 sites on his map in the 1930s , but only 87 sites could be documented for the Archaeological Map of Hong Kong published in 1972. At prese凹， there are well over 200 archaeological sites recorded by the Antiquities Offi白， though many have now been destroyed by developmen t. Hong Kong's known prehistoric sites have no architectural features and cannot properly be termed “ villages" or “ settlements. " The remains , of cours亡， do indicate human presen白， and the sites may thus be referred to simply 的“activity site丸" even though the nature of the activity is not always clear. Stone tool and ornament manufacture has definitely been established to have taken place at a number of sites , and cooking and wood-working can reasonably be inferred from the abundance of pottery and adzes. Only a few sites have anim泣，且sh or shell remains. Bronze casting should be added on the evidence of moulds and bronze slag found at Sha PO Tsuen , and similar bivalve moulds in casting position found in burials at Sha Lo 札1an and Kwo Lo Wan The only structural features securely associated with prehistoric cultural remains are the stone slab structure , probably a burial co伍n or platform , in a Bronze Age context at Sham Wan; and an arc alignment of stones at Shek Pik. Burial sites with skeletal material were found at Sham Wan (Middle Neolithic) , Tung Wan Tsai (Late

Present Knowledge and Future Prospects

Neolithic) and Shek Pik (Bronze Age). The existence ofburial grounds may be surmised also from the discovery of numerous complete pottery vessels and stone artefacts at many sites , notably Sha Chau (Late Neolithic) , Tai Wa口， Man Kok Tsui and Hai Dei Wan (Bronze Age) , and Sha Ha (Neolithic and Bronze Age) Shells and mammal and fish bones (food middens) have only been found in significant quantities at Sham Wan , PO Yue Wan , Sha PO Tsuen , Tung Wan Tsai and Sham Wan Tsuen. The survival ofbones is believed to be due to marine influence (sea spray or significant quantities of shell in the sand) preventing the formation ofhumic acids in the soil or, in the case of Sha PO Tsuen and Sham Wan Tsu凹， large quantities of lime in the overlying layer serving the same purpose. There has been discussion of the “ stone circles" as possible early monuments. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to link any of them with the ancient inhabitants; some of the circles may indeed be natural. The two main candidates (on Lamma and Lantau) are more likely to have been structures built as temporary graves or burial urn sites in late historical times. The Bronze Age rock carvings constitute the only visible feature from local prehistory It has been suggested that the narrow ledge in front of the carvings at PO Toi is also made by humans , but , at the other sites , there is no indication that the natural rock forms were altered in any way except for the carving itse旺， which may have been executed on a naturally flat rock face with little or no preparation of the surface The lime-kiln sites of the early historical era are the first architectural remains , apart from the Han chamber tomb at Lei Cheng Uk. The latter is the only tomb structure of certain pre-Ming age in the territ。可 More recent lime kilns and one potte可 kiln at Tai PO are known to date to Ch'ing dynasty times. Abandoned forts at Fan Lau , Tung Chung and Tung Lung also date to Ch 'ing. Similar甘， all temples and other buildings are Ch'ing or later in tim巴， as are all known grav白， boundary markers , etc Landforms in which prehistoric sites occur are mainly sand bars on tombolo islands or at the mouths of small valleys (former lagoons) , headlands and low hillslopes , or flat ridges near the sea. lnland sites near small streams have been reported in many areas of the New Territories , but these have thus far shown little significance Tombolo island sites are Tung Kwu , Sha Chau , Cheung Chau and Siu A Chau. The former two have been investigated in

183

184

Summa

Wan was a1so a tombo1o formation at an early stage , evo1ving into a unique sand bar 10cated at the back of the sheltered 1agoon rather than at its mouth. Lagoona1 sand bars are the most characteristic and certain1y the most numerous of archaeo1ogica1 sites in the Hong Kong area Marked variations have been observed in the extent and height of these sand deposits. At sites such as Chung Hom Wa立， Hai Dei Wan and Lo 50 5hing , on1y a small stump of sand bar remains of what probab1y were much more extensive deposits; at Chek Lap Kok , an iso1ated sand mound stands in the midd1e of the former 1agoon. On the other hand , at 5ham Wan , Tai Wan and Tai Long , sand bars of 100-200 m in 1ength are found. 5urface e1evations vary from around +4.5 mPD at 5hek Kok Tsui and Hai Dei Wan to +9 and +10 .5 mPD at 5ham Wan and Tai Long. The two 1argest sand bar sites by extent of deposit in Hong Kong are Yung Long and 5ha Ha 5ites on 10wer hills10pes or p1ateaus near the sea are a1most exclusive1y of the Bronze A詐 two exceptions are the sites at 5ai Rcconstructing the Past Wan (Midd1e Neolithic) and at the southern end of 5ha Chau (Late Neolithic) , both on flat ridges 10-20 m above the sea. The sites at 50 Kun Wat , Ngau Hom 5ha and the North Lamma 5choo1 are on 10w (20-25 m) hills over1ooking sheltered bays , while the 10wer slopes at Man Kok Ts凹， Tai Long and Mo Tat Wan have yie1ded materia1 up to 30 m elevation. In contrast , prominent head1ands that jut out into the sea with re1ative1y flat tops 20 to 25 m above sea 1eve1 , such as Pa Tau Ku and 5ha Lo Wan on Lantau , and PO Yue Wan on Cheung Chau , are

28.1 Sites are now surveyed more accurately

m句 or

Late Neolithic sites

Present Knowledge a吋 F肌

Cultural deposits vary widely among the tombolo and sand bar sites. At Shek Kok Tsui , for example , the Late Neolithic culturallayer beganjust 15-20 cm below surfa仗， while at Tai Long , a Bronze Age layer was found generally at depths of 80-90 cm and in one part of the site at 1. 6 to 1. 8 m. At Pui 0 , Tang kiln remains and a slaking pit were found 2.5 m below surface. Many sites previously thought to have onlya single , shallow layer of material have proved , upon reinvestigation after the work at Sham Wan , to have deposits at depths reaching 2 .5 to 4 m below ground surface (for exampl亡， Hai Dei Wan , Chung Hom Wan , Tai Long , Shek Pik). At Tung Kwu , an old test pit was reopened and excavated further , yielding a complete po t. The hill sites generally have been discovered after considerable erosion or cultivation. and most of the materi日1 found has been surface or slightly sub-surface in origin. However, excavations at Sai Wa口， Sha Chau (Southern Plateau) and Ngau Hom Sha revealed deeper cultural deposits Rεconstructing thεPast

As discussed above , excavation techniques have undergone vast improvement over the years. The methods of analysis of material have also improved markedly, and stone tools and pottery are now examined by shape , method of manufacture , function , fabric or rock typ亡， source , et c. Much has been learned from this analysis about the technology employed by the early potter and stone worker, and , eventually, these research methods and oth亡的， such as trace analysis and edge wear study, may also provide information on the precise functions of the various types of pottery and stone tools. Above all , there are two aspects of archaeology that have on甘 recently come to the fore: environment and adaptation. Studies of the ancient environment of the Hong Kong area generally has long been recognized as important , but studies of the former environment around individual archaeological sites only began with Sham Wan. It is highly important for the archaeologist to know about the environment in which the early inhabitants lived. New efforts in recent years to obtain pollen and phytolith evidence have already yielded results , but what is sorely lacking are good dated pollen pro五les from secure clay deposits. Such pro且les are needed as evidence for the environmental impact ofhumans in the area , especially with the appearance of cereal agriculture

186

Summa

28.2 Ti ny bits of charred material ω refully collected

28. 3 Seeds of the castor oil plant recovered from an excavation Geft) 的d modern reference samples (right) T

lntimately related to the reconstruction of the palaeo-environment itself is the question of subsistence patterns - how the human population interacted with the natural setting to extract a livelihood. There has been much speculation on this subject by archaeologists , but little research has been directed here specifìcally towards the identifìcation and analysis of food remains. The simple reason for this is that most of the sites investigated in the past did not have shells , animal bones or other food remains. But there are indications now that marginal areas near some of the main occupation sites do have such material.

Present Knowledge and Future Prospects

Hong Kong archaeology is especially handicapped in the study of food remains for another reason - the absence of hearths and carbonized deposit in which plant remains and animal bones might have survived. M句 or sltes that have yielded tens of thousands of potsherds have not produced a single clearly de五ned hearth area with substantial ash and charcoal deposi t. Of cour哎， this phenomenon has rendered attempts to obtain C-14 dates extremely difficult , and charcoal is a highly valued substance on local excavations. Sieving and flotation are now commonly employed when a site is suspected to have important micro-remai肘， and rice phytoliths from Sha Ha have been identi五edfrom prehistoric contexts Another missing feature of local archaeology is habitation structure; no site of prehistoric or even early historical age has yielded any house or hut foundations , definite evidence of a compacted or sunken 日oor， or postholes in a clear pattern to suggest a hu t. Rather, a confusing variety of postholes often presents itse旺， probably constituting the remains of many seasonal camps with tents or easily erected huts with one or a few supporting poles Finally; we may recall the gaps and missing links in Hong Kong archaeology There is a total absence of Palaeolithic and Early Neolithic sites , whereas about 20 sites of the Middle Neolithic are known. No Han village sites have been found , but the large Han chamber tomb at Lei Cheng Uk would seem to indicate there was at least one substantial settlement. Over a hundred sites have been recorded with lime-kiln debris , but not a single house foundation from that era This lime industry of Tang times disappears for 800-900 years , after which another m司jor limekiln complex re-emerges in this ar凹，

28.4 Soil is sieved to recover very small material

28 .5 Taking soil samples for micro-stratigraphy studies

187

188

Summa

Certainl;叭叭th more careful attention to areas not previously investigated and with better archaeological methods , information will eventually be obtained on many of these topics - but only if suffìcient archaeological sites remain for future study. lronical旬， the science and technology that gave birth to modern archaeology have also spurred the destruction of its resources. In the 1920s and 1930s , the building boom related to Hong Kong's industrial revolution prompted commercial sand digging that destroyed or severely damaged a large number of sites along the coast The urban development of the New Territories today is affecting even well-known sites at such a rate that salvage archaeology can hardly cope. And few detailed surveys have been undertaken of the prime areas slated for developmen t. At present (200 7), no archaeological site (except the rock carvings) is legally protected; at one time in the 1990s , there were moves afoot to have the more important sites gazetted as monuments under the Antiquities Ordinance , but it appears that this plan has been shelved. The preservation of sites is vital to the future of archaeolo gy, an extremely limited fìeld of study in any case 一 limited by the surviving maten日1 evidence and what can be inferred therefrom about past human behaviour. ln the small area in Hong Kong , many dozens or even hundreds of sites have been partially or totally destroyed by erosion or developments of the land since the deforestation of the region began 1,000 or more years ago Perhaps we should count ourselves fortunate to have learned as much as we have about early life here. But we should constantly strive to make better facilities available for the study of what little evidence has survived from the remote past , when our predecessors led an existence ve可 different from our own on these ve可 shores

Appεndix:

ThεUnivεrsity

of Hong Kong and Local Archaεology

The university has had a m句 or role in Hong Kong archaeolo gy, almost from the very beginning. News of the first discoveries of Neolithic stone adzes by Heanley in about 1926 very quickly reached Professor ]oseph L. Shellshear of the Anatomy Department. In a paper that Shellshear (932) wrote a few years later, he recorded: Some 仗凹 time afte 臼r司 I口1926] we became associat仗 ed in making a genera survey of the Colony. . Dr. Heanley left Hongkong in 1930 lea 趴 aVl 叭 盯7凡m 呵 1喀 gme 跎ew 叭lt出 ht由 he cωollection to do with as 1 pleased. We have to acknowledge our indebtedness to Sir William Peel , Governor of Hongkong and Chancellor of the University of Hongkong , for the interest which he has taken in this work

The archaeological work

w佑，

however a purely private endeavour ,

at that stage , and it was not until the 1950s that archaeology became somewhat more integrated into the university with the formation of the Department of Geography and Geology Shellshear was at pains to point out that Heanley deserved the sole credit for discovering Hong Kong's prehistory In a letter written in 1952 , Shellshear remarked: Please do not regard me as a father [of local archaeology] with Dr. Heanley He was the father and 1 should have been able to do nothing if it had not been for his great geological knowledge and previous discoveries However, he and Heanley are generally regarded together as the first investigators of local archaeolog乎 According to Sir Lindsey Ride Ccited in Davis 1965) , who knew both archaeologists quite well and “ often accompanied them on their field tri阱. . . they were superbly

190

Appe叫x

energetic and covered tremendous distances in a day at great speed." Shellshear left Hong Kong for Australia in 1935. By the early 1930s , the other major pioneers in Hong Kong archaeology were on board , namely Fr. Daniel]. Finn and Walter Scho五eld. Fr\Finn was a part-time lecturer in geography at the universi你 but it is not known how long he held this position and whether it was honorary or part-time. He passed away in 1936. As noted in Chapter 6 , most ofhis special 五nds were stored at Ricci Hall when the ]apanese invaded , and some material was taken away by a ]apanese of五cial. Finn's articles on the excavation he conducted on Lamma were re-published in 1958 in a book entitled Archaeological Finds on Lamma Island Near Hong Kong , edited by Fr. F. Ryan of Ricci Hall. Archaeology in the early post-war years was carried on by S. G. Davis (later professor and head of the Department of Geography and Geology) and several of his friends. ln 1953 , the Geographic祉， Geological and Archaeological Society was formed at the universi你Its membership consisted of internal , extern訓， graduate and associated students; it was chaired by Professor Davis. It is not known if any fìeldwork was done by this society prior to the formation of the University Archaeological Team three years later ln 1955 , the university was invited by the colonial secretariat to conduct the excavation of a Han tomb discovered during construction at Lei Cheng Uk in Sham Shui Po. Strangely, neither Davis (1965) nor Bard (1 995) mention the event in their accounts of the development oflocal archaeology, but it is clear that this was a pivotal moment for the discipline. The discovery was reported by a friend to Professor Frederick S. Drake , a noted British sinologist and head of the Department of Chinese. He made contact with the Public Works Department and quickly assembled an excavation team composed of students and lectur它的 Among the former was Michael Lau Wai Mai , who later became curator of the Fung Ping Shan Museum. One of the lecturers involved was the geologist Lynn Berry who would later be a key member in the Univ巴的ity Archaeological Team. Eminent visitors to the excavation included]ao Tsung-yi and Lo Hsiang-lin of the Department of Chinese Drake completed the excavation of the tomb in four days and brought the objects from the tomb back to the Fung Ping Shan Museum for stud乎 He later 五led a report to the governme凹， and a brief pamphlet was published. Drake reportedly p

Appendix

full report on the excavation and took his notes with him to England when he retired in 1964. His death in 1974 intervened , and attempts to locate his papers through his son Bernard (also a participant in the excavation) were fruitless. Professor Lo Hsiang-lin published a series of articles about the tomb and its contents. 1 wrote to him in 1976 to enquire about field notes and photographs , and he replied that “at present 1 am working on a third article about the Han tomb , i.e. the burial and matters relating to it. My final aim is to publish a book incorporating these three theses." Once again , death intervened in 1978. Professor Lo's papers were deposited in the Hong Kong collection of the university's library, and 1 inspected them in 1978 There were valuable photographs of the objects in situ in the tomb and of the excavation in progress. A note on these photographs and also several sketches found with them was published in the Archaeological Society's journal (Meacham 1980c) In March 1956 , a University Archaeological Team was formed lt was to consist of 25 members , approximately half from within the university. It began under the auspices of the Institute of Oriental Studies and was chaired by Professor Drake. Mary Trege缸， curator of the Fung Ping Shan Museum , was secretar手 lts objective was t。 “ further the discovery, excavation and preservation of prehistoric sites and relics in the Hong Kong region." An ambitious plan was drawn up to inspect and record all possible sites , to monitor any construction or other digging on beaches and likely sites , and ，已nally， to excavate and publish any promising sites. Areas of the territory were assigned to individuals or small groups , and potential sites were visited on weekends. A progress report dated November 1957 reveals that numerous sites on Lamma , Cheung Chau and Lantau had been visited and surface finds collected. The report also reveals an impressive number of informal talks given by team members on various subjects related to archaeolog于 Sometime in 1958 , the affiliation and leadership of the team shifted to the Department of Geography and Geology and its head , Professor Davis. Reportedly there was a dispute of some sort between Professor Drake and some members of the tea凹， and he ceased being actively involved , though continuing as an advis。可 member\ Also in 1958 , a member of the team , Dr. S. M. Bard (later director of the University Health Service) , discovered a site at Man Kok Tsu

19 1

192

Appe叫x

29.1 The Man Kok Tsui exhibit at the Fung Ping Shan Li bra吵 the University 01 Hong Kong , 1958

by Davis as the “ largest and most outstanding work" of the team. An exhibition of the fìndings at Man Kok Tsui along with information about other sites was mounted at the Fung Ping Shan Museum in December 1958; it was titled “ Stone Age Man on Lantao." A report on the site was later published by Davis and Tregear (1 961) in the newJo盯nalAs叩1 Perspec帥的， which formerly had been Bulletin of the Far East Prehistory Association. Hong Kong University Press became the publisher of the journal in 1958 , while the editorial management remained with the association. In 1964 , the University of Hawaii Press took over responsibility for the publication

Am句 or event in the history of the team was the fiftieth anniversary celebration of the university in 1961. A symposium was held on historical , archaeological and linguistic studies of southern China , Southeast Asia and the Hong Kong region. Bard presented a paper reviewing Hong Kong archaeolo gy, and contacts were made with a number of prominent scholars of China and Southeast Asia history and prehistory, including Professor W G. Solheim , editor of Asian Perspectives , and the sinologist Michael Loewe Another project of the team was to update the map of archaeological sites that had been started by Heanley, Shellshear and Schofìeld , particularly to accurately locate the pre-war sites and to discover new ones. The collection of data continued on into the late 1960s when the Hong Kong Archaeological Society was formed; the Archaeological Map of Hong Kong was eventually published in 1972 by the City Museum and Art Galle可 The driving force in the mapping project was T. N. Chiu of the Department of Geography and Geology

AF耶叫x

193

Both Bard and Davis mention the involvement of the team in pressing for antiquities legislation. Bard wrote in 1964: “We have also been responsible for promoting a new Bill for the protection of historic relics , soon to be passed into law." More than a decade later, the law was 五nally enacted in 1976 There is some disagreement over how and why the team came to be dissolved and the Hong Kong Archaeological 50ciety created in its place. According to Bard (1 995): Around 1964 , after severa1 years of productive activity . . . the team appeared to decline. By 1967 it became clear that the dep1eted team cou1d no 10月er function effectively a吋 that a w吐er public participation was needed. (3 85) However , Davis told me that the team was doing well , but increasingly reliant on people outside the universi句; it seemed that the logical thing to do would be to go public. A general meeting report dated 6 March 1964 , would seem to bear out Davis' accoun t: it lists 17 members from the university and 20 members from the public , with new applications from another 7 people (2 from the university) John Warner, curator of the City Museum and Art Gallery who was listed in attendance at that meeting , told me that the team had grown beyond its narrow limits. On the other hand , the papers available from the mid-1960s indicate that there was much less fieldwork being carried ou t. Another reason for the transformation cited by Bard (in an article published in the supplement to the University Gazette of 1 April 1964) was the existence of the City Museum and Art Gallerγ. from 1962 onwards i的恆的tence has become both a reason and an incentive for forming a [publicl society which can be based in the Museum and utilise its many facilities and expert guidance The Archaeological 50ciety was founded in 1967 and the team , having given birth to the new organization , disbanded. The founding members of the society and its first executive committee were made up largely of ex-team members: Davis was elected chairman , with Bard , T. N. Chiu and C. L. 50 (both of the Department of Geography and Geology) and Mary Visick, of the English Department , serving on the committ仗. Davis served as chairman until 1972 when he retired , and Bard was elected in his place. The society prospered in the 1970s with the major excavation at 5ham Wa口， Lamma Island Active university members were Chiu , 50 and Henry Talbot , all from the Department of Geography and Geolog乎 Bard served as chairman

29.2 d可r) β叫

Pr可essor S. G. Davis and Henry Talbot in the d仰 pit at Sham Wan ,

1972

194

Appe叫x

29.3 T. N. Chiu (above) and Shih Hsio-yen at an excavation in 1985

until1976 and stepped down to join the civil service and set up the Antiquities and Monuments Office. 1joined the society upon arrival in Hong Kong in 1970 , and one of the greatest first impressions of the colony was to listen to tales from Bard and Davis about the early days of local archaeolo gy, war and POW stories , and other assorted subjects , not to mention past and present personality and factional conflicts. ln 1980 , 1 became af且liated with the university as an Honorary Research Associate (later Honorary Research Fellow) in the Centre of Asian Studies , continuing as editor of the society's journal , a position 1 had held since 1972. ln 1984 , T. N. Chiu was elected chairman of the society, the first Chinese to hold the position. Tze-nang was a very personable man and had many friends both at the university and in the societ乎 He and 1 collaborated on a number of projec的， in particular, the survey of levels of prehistoric cultural deposits in various back beach sand formations. lt was a source of great sadness when he had to step down after just one year in office due to liver cancer; he died on 20 September 1985. lt was decided that the next issue of the journal would be dedicated to his mem。可 and it was my honour as editor to prepare this special issue , which included testimonials and papers from students and colleagues in the Department of Geography and Geology, as well as his friends in the society 1 followed Tze-nang as chairman and continued in that position until 1996. Other members of the university who were involved indirectly in archaeological work were Professor F P Lisowski and Dr. Nina Jablonski - both honorary advisors to the society on human and animal bones , respectively lt was a very fortunate coincidence that Lisowski had studied the effects of cremation on human bone earlier in his career, for the Sham Wan excavation yielded quite a number of Neolithic human bone fragments that he was able to identify definitively as cremated Many other university personnel from various departments have also contributed their expertise to various archaeological studies in recent decades , notably Professor Ron Hill and Dr. Richard lrving of Geography and GeologμD r. Richard Corlett of Botany, Professor Brian Morton of Zoolo gy, Dr. Frank Kendall of the Radioisotope Unit , Professor Shih Hsio-yen of Fine Arts , and Drs. David Workman and w W S. Yim of Earth Sciences. There have also been unfortunate outcomes: certain university members served on the Antiquities Adv

AF耶叫x

In 1995 , the University Museum and Art Gallery (successor to the Fung Ping Shan Museum) organized a conference on “ Archaeology in Southeast Asia" with funding from the Lord Wilson Heritage Trust and the Land Development Corporation. The museum executive director was Michael Lau Wai-mai who as a student at the university had participated in the excavation of the Lei Cheng Uk tomb in 1955 The conference brought together archaeologists from Hong Kong , the Mainland and several Southeast Asian countries plus Australia and the United States. Despite the rather formidable language barrier, the conference was a success , and there were “ frank and productive exchanges." Its proceedings were published in a large volume in the same year (Yeung and Li 1995). The university has had a long and distinguished participation in Hong Kong archaeology spanning 75 years. At present (2008) , however, there is no one at the university who is actively involved in local archaeological fieldwork - a regrettable situation that one hopes will change in the near future.

195

Rεfεrεncεs

Ant Kong:Ar， κζ chaεolog，♂ical Discωovεnεs at Sha Ha , Sai Kung. Hong Kong Leisure and Culture Services Department. Balfour, S. F 1970. Hong Kong before the British. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Socie 紗， 10:134-79 (Reprinted from Ti en Hsia Month妙， vols. 11 and 12 , 1940-1941 , Shanghai.) Bard , S. M. 1967. A survey of prehistoric sites in the Hong Kong region. Symposium on Historiω1， Archaeological , and Linguisti正 Studies on Southern China , Southeast Asia, and Hong Kong. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong 一一-. 1988. In Search of the Past: A Guide to the Antiquities of Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Urban Council. 1995. Archaeology in Hong Kong: A review of achievement. In Archaeology in Southeast As間， ed. C. T. Yeung and Brenda W L. Li. Hong Kong: University Museum and Art Gallery, The University of Hong Kong Chen Kung-jit (Chen Gung-che). 1952. Hong Kong PrehistoricArtifacts. Hong Kong: Kowloon Commercial Association [pamphlet; in

Chinesel 一一一-. 1957. Archaeological surveys and excavations in Hong Kong Kaogu Xuebao. No. 4 [in Chinesel Chiu Siu-tsan. 1995. Major achievements of archaeological rescue pr叮 ects conducted in Hong Kong since 1990. In Archaeology in Southeast Asia , ed. c.T. Yeung and Brenda W L. Li. Hong Kong: University Museum and Art Gallery, The University of Hong Kong.

198

Refere肛es

s. Sutton. 2006. the Margins: Culture , Ethnicity， αnd Frontier in Early Modern China. Berkeley: University of California Press Davis , S. G. 1965. Archaeological discovery in and around Hong Kong. Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society. Vol. 5 Davis , S. G. and M. Tregear. 1960. Man Kok Tsui Archaeological Site 30 , Lantau Island , Hong Kong. Asian Perspectives , 4: 183-212 Drewi缸， Peter. 1995. Neolithic Sha Lo 札'an. Occasional Paper no. 2 Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Offi. ce. Finn , D.]. 1958. Archaeological Finds on Lamma Island near Hong Kong. Adapted from 13 articles appearing in the Hong Kong Naturali泣， vols. 4-7 , 1932-1936; ed. T. F Ryan. Hong Kong Ricci Publications Guangdong Provincial Institute of Cultural Relics and Archaeology 2005. Henglingshan in Boluo County: Eχcaì叫ion R叩ort of Shang and Zhou Period Cemete叮叮1 2000. Beijing: Science Press [in Chinese] Heanley, C. M. 1928. Hong Kong celts. Bulletin of the Geological Society 。fChina ， 7: 209-14. Be可 mg. Heanley, C. M. and]. L. Shellshea r. 1932. A contribution to the pr跎 εhistory of Hong Kong and thεNewT，εr叮ritories. Proζαεεd 品mgs5 of the 甘εF盯 t Con 時 gr陀ε5臼5 of Pr 陀 eh肘 istωor叩 pp. 63-77 , Publisher unknown. Hong Kong Archaeological Socie作 1968-2008. Journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Socie妙， vols. 1-15. 一一一 1972. The Archaeological Map of Hong Kong. Hong Kong Government Printer Hong Kong Museum of Hist。可 2005. Lei Cheng uk Tomb. Hong Kong . Hong Kong Museum of Histor手 Hsu Sung-hsieh. 1939. History of the Peoples of the Pearl River Delta Shanghai: China Book Company [in Chinese] Jao Tsung-yi. 1954. Prehistoric remains in south China and the culture of Yin-hsu. Ta-lu Tsa-chih , vol. 8 [in Chinese]. Lam , Peter (editor and co-author). 1983. Archaeological Finds from Han Tombs at Guangzhou and Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Art Gallle門， The Chinese University of Hong Kong. 一一一-. 1984. Archaeological Finds from Pre-Qin Sites in Guangdong Hong Kong: Art Gallery, The Chinese University of Hong Kong Crossley, Pamela Kyle and Helen F Siu , Donald Empi陀 at

Refere此es

Maglio凹，Rafael.

1975. Archaeological Discovery in Eastern Kwangtung ]ournal Monograph IIl. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Archaeological Society Meacham , William. 1973. Notes on the early Neolithic in Hong Ko月 journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Socie紗， vol. 4 一一一一-. 1976. Roch Carvings in Hong Kong: An Ill ustrated and Interpretive Study. Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture. 一一一一-. 1980a. Archaeology in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Heinemann 一一一一-. 1980b. The Archaeology of Hong Kong. Archaeology 33(4) 16-23 一一一-. 1980 c. Photographs and a fìeld note of the 1955 excavation at Lei Cheng Uk. journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Socie紗， vol. 8 一一一-. 1995. Middle and Late Neolithic at “ Yung Long South." In Archaeology in Southeast Asia , ed. C. T. Yeung and Brenda W L Li Hong Kong: University Museum and Art Gallery, The University of Hong Kong. Meacham , William (ed.) 1978. Sham Wan , Lamma Island: An Archaeological Site Study. ]ournal Monograph IIl. Hong Kong Hong Kong Archaeological Society .(吐.) 1994且. Archaeolo耳cal Investigations on Cheh Lap Koh Island. ]ournal Monograph IV Hong Kong: Hong Kong Archaeological Society 一一一一一 (ed.) 1994b. Archaeological Discovεry at Cheh Lap Koh. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Archaeological Society Peacock , B. A. V and Taryn]. P Nixon. 1988. The Hong Kong ArchaeologicalSurv句 : Subsurface Investigation Reports. Occasional Paper no. 1. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments 0伍ce Rogers , Pamela Rumball and Nan W Leininger, Sophia Mirchandani , ]ulie Van Den Bergh , Ellen A. Widdowson. 1995. Tung ì凡是mTsai A Bronze Age and Han Pe叫od Coastal Site. Occasional Paper no. 3. Hong Kong: Antiquities and Monuments Offìce Schofìeld , Walter. 1975. An Archaeological Site at Sheh Pih. ]ournal Monograph 1. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Archaeological Societ手 Siu Kwok-kin , Anthony 1989. The history of Hong Kong: From a village to a city journal of thεHo嗯 Ko嗯 Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 29: 390-4 Siu , K. K. and W Meacham. 1982. On the question of an early customs house at ]unk lsland. journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Socie吵 9: 95-104.

199

200

Refere肛es

Sun De-rong (Kevin Sun Tak-wing). 2007. Recent archaeological discoveries and research in Hong Kong. Kao Gu , 6: 3-7 [in Chinese]. Tang Chung. 1991. A journey into Hong Kong's Archaeological Past Hong Kong: Regional Council [in Chinese and English]. Watt , James C. Y. (Qu Zhiren). 1970. A Han Tomb at Lei Cheng Uk Hong Kong: City Museum and Art Gallery, Urban Council. . 197 1. Hong Kong's prehistory Arts of Asia , 1( 6) :4 8-52. Weinberger, W 1948-49. Some notes on early pottery and stone artefacts excavated on Lamma Island , Hong Kong. Transactions London: Oriental Ceramic Society Welch , W M. 1962. A new archaeological site in Hong Kong.journal 。f the

Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Socie秒 2: 109-114. WongWai-y哎， Sharon. 2006. A preliminary study of the distribution and consumption of ceramics in Hong Kong during the SongYuan period. Bulletin of the lndo-Pac昕c Prehistory Association , 26:140-6. Williams , Bernard. 1980. Hai Dei Wan. journal of the Hong Kong Archaeological Socie吵， 8: 27-51 Xinhua News Agency 2006. Discovery of ancient quarry rewrites Hong Kong's human histOlγ People's Dωly. January 15 Yeung Chun-tong and Brenda Li Wai-ling (ed.) 1995. Archaeology in Southeast Asia. Hong Kong: University Museum and Art Gallery, The University of Hong Kong

Indεx

Aitken , Martin 49 Antiquities and Monuments Office viii , 33 , 40 , 41 , 53 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 81 , 85 , 95 , 131, 170 , 172 , 174 , 176 , 181 , 182 , 194 Archaeological Society (see Hong KongArchaeological Society) Au Ka Fat 60 Bacsonian 70. 71 Bard , S. M. 35 ，沛， 37 ，誦， 42 ， 43 、斗斗， 191. 192. 193 . 194. 197 Big Wave Bay 125 , 126 , 128 Boluo 114 , 115 , 198

60 ， 117 ，

190 ,

Cameron , Hugh 52 ，弓 4 ， 15 1, 154 Chau Hing-wah 60 Chek Lap Kok 5 ， 37 ， 51 ， 56 ， 57 ， 58 ， 59 ， 61 ， 7斗 ， 75 ， 80 , 86 , 87 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 112 , 113 , 151 , 152 , 163 , 164 , 174 , 184 , 199 Chen Kung-jit 25 , 30 , 32 , 3 斗， 123 , 126 , 181 , 197 Cheung Chau 斗， 39 ， 48 ， 51 ， 75 ， 86 ， 87 ， 106 ， 107 ， 125 , 126 , 127 , 129 , 150 , 174 , 183 , 184 Chinese University of Hong Kong , The 25 , 5斗， 58 ， 59 , 61 , 113 , 198 Chiu Siu-tsun 60 Chiu Tze-nang 78 , 192 , 193 , 194 Ci ty Museum and Art Gallery (Ci ty Hall Museum) 31 , 33 , 40 , 148 , 192 , 200 Corlett , Richard 194 Chung Hom Wan 6 , 37 , 39 , 50 , 53 , 78 , 79 , 86 , 87 , 90 , 18斗， 185 Davis , S. G. 33 , 3斗， 35 , 37 , 43 , 190 , 191 , 193 , 194 Diamond Hill157 , 158 , 190 , 191

Drake , F S. 35 , 143 , 190-191 Fan Lau 174 Fan Ling 36 , 158 Fat Tong Mun 35 , 123 , 129 , 160 Finn , D. J 1斗 ， 15-20 , 26 , 27 , 29 , 30 , 3 1, 39 , 40 , 43 , 90 , 181 , 190 , 198 Frost , Ray 78 , 171 Fu Tei Wan 59 , 74 , 75 , 86 , 90 , 91 , 92-94 , 149 , 163 Fung Ping Shan Museum 17 , 31 , 33 , 190 , 191 , 192. 195 Ha Law Wan 59 , 163-168 Hac Sa Wan 38 , 40 , 53 , 79 , 87 Hai Dei Wan 39 , 11 3 , 119 , 120-122 , 154 , 183 , 184 , 185 , 200 Haigh , Brian 126 Hayes , James 2 斗， 169 ， 170 ， 175 Heanley, C. M. 10-1 斗， 30 , 111 , 150 , 181 , 189 , 189. 192 High Island 38 , 39 , 77 , 169 , 171 Hill , Ron 194 Ho Chung 63 , 169 , 173 Hoabinhian 70 , 71 Hoifung (Haifeng) 2ι凹，刃， 1 阱 ， 132 ， 14 8 Homutu 90 Hong Kong Archaeological Society viii , 214 , 29 , 31 , 32 ， 37 ， 39 ， 40 ， 43 ， 52 ， 53 ， 5斗， 55 ， 58 , 61, 62 , 63 , 65 , 77 , 8 1, 95 , 100 , 102 , 120 , 126 , 151 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 190 , 192 , 193-194 Hong Kong Museum of History 17 , 31 , 33 , 40 ， 的， 43 , 85 , 148 , 169 , 198 Hong Kong University (see University of Hong Kong , The)

202

lndex

Hong Kong University Press Hsienyentung 71 Hung Shing Yee 33 , 34

3 斗， 192

Penny's Bay 5斗， 61 ， 169 PO Toi 89 , 12斗， 126 , 127 , 128 , 183 PO Yue Wan 29 斗 8.51.106.107.108.183.18斗 Pui 0 5 1. 79. 80.149.156.177.185

Irving , Richard 194 Jablonski , Nina 194 Jao Tsung-yi , 115 , 126 , 190 , 198 Joukows缸， Martha 43 Junk Island 17斗， 199 Kau Sai Chau 日tes 57 , 81 , 82 , 85 , 131 , 132 , 133 Kau Sai Chau rock carving 125 , 126 Kellett Island 158 Kendall , Frank 194 Kowloon Walled City 174-175 Kwo Lo Wan 59 ， 86 ， 90 ， 9斗， 1 日， 163 ， 182 Lau Wai-mai , Michael195 Lei Cheng Uk 33 , 3斗， 35 ，斗0 ， 131 ， 133 ， 143-148 ， 183 , 187 , 190 , 19 弓， 198 ， 199 ， 200 Li sowski , F. P 47 , 48 , 194 Lo Hsiang-lin , 1 斗3 ， 190 , 191 Lo So Shing 39 , 51 , 80 , 107 , 150 , 151 , 182 , 184 Lung Ha Wan 125 , 127 Lung Kwu Sheung Tan 60 , 158 , 159 , 174 , 176 Lung Kwu Tan 55 , 56. 60 , 95 Ma-pa 69 , 70 Ma Wan 61 , 107134 , 151 , 1 泣， 174 Macau 13 , 38 ， 40 ，日，呵， 79 ， 87 ， 127 ， 140 MacLehos亡， Murray 43 ，峙，立 Maglioni , Rafael26-29 , 31 , 33 , 132 , 148 , 199 Maher, Bob 31 Mai PO 158 Man Kok Tsui 35 , 111 , 113 , 117-119 , 121 , 183 , 18斗， 191-192 ， 198

Mo Tat Wan 111 , 184 Mong Tseng Wai 日， 169 ， Morton , Brian 194

173

仁時到

n3

Z5

E4α

QU

Pa Tau Ku 61 , 106 , 184 Pak Mong 59 , 107 , 13斗， 1 斗9 Peacock. Bri且n 53 , 95 , 199 Peng , Charles 126 Peng Chau 159

口。

勻、 J

、

M

俊

門、J

叮叮8 叮叮h

叫 52m

qua--

叫 mHvm

arr

tρua

、

σbσbHO

Mhush NNNN u--zvc yufhuna uHhyL

-i

4l

Sai Wan 39 , 86 , 87 , 106 , 18斗， 185 Schofìe肘， Walter 1 斗， 21-25 ， 27 ， 31 ，咒，站，斗 3 ， 1 的， 163 , 181 , 182 , 190 , 192 , 199 Sek Kong 158 , 159 Sha Chau 21 , 10弓， 106 , 109 , 129 , 183 , 18斗， 185 Sha Ha 63 , 6斗， 86 , 90 , 102 , 107 , 109 , 183 , 184 , 187 , 197 Sha Lo Wan 61 , 102 , 106 , 182 , 184 , 198 Sha PO Tsuen 6 ， 7 ， 39 ，斗 8 ， 107 ， 109 ， 110 ， 111 ， 116 ， 149 , 150 , 182 , 183 Sha Tau Kok 85 Sha Tsui 77 , 171 Sham Wan 22 , 37 , 39 , 42一斗9 ， 50 , 51 , 53 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 86 , 87 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 102 , 107 , 108 ， 109 ， 110 ， 112 ， 113 ， 149 ， 15斗， 159 , 182 183 , 184 , 185 , 193 , 19斗， 199 Sham Wan Tsuen 51 , 58 , 80 , 151 , 152 , 153 , 159 183 Shek Kok Tsui 38. 182. 184. 185 Shek Pik site 21-25 , 30 , 32 , 37 , 39 , 54 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 90 , 107 , 109 , 111 , 113 , 119 , 128 , 129 , 158 17斗 177. 182. 183. 185. 199 Shek Pik lower carving 115 , 123 , 12斗， 126 ， 127 Shek Pik upper carving 126 Shellshear,]. L. 10-1 斗， 15 ， 17 ， 30 ， 35 ， 111 ， 181 ， 189 , 190 , 192 , 198 Shih Hsio-yen 194 Siu A Chau 21 , 106 , 183 Siu Kwok-kin , Anthony 173 So Chak-lam , Albert 193 So Kun Wat 12 , 63 ， 111 ， 13斗， 169 , 172 , 173 , 184 Solheim , WG. 3斗， 37 ， 38 ， 39 ， 43 ， 45 ， 192 Souza , Jerry 63 Ssu Ma-ch'ien 8 Sun , Kevin 131 Tai Kwai 叭lan 107 , 182 Tai Long Wan 38 , 39 , 52 , 126 , 18斗， 185 Tai Wan (Lamma) 口， 15-20 ，缸， 27 ， 31 ， 39 ， 86 ， 90 ， 113 , 119 , 183 , 184 Talbot , Henry 194 Tang Chung 5 斗， 60 ， 200 Tregear, Mary 36 , 37 , 117 , 191 , 192 , 198 Tsangpiyen 71 Tung Chung fort 17斗， 183 Tung Chung rock carving 126 , 127 , 128

I吋ex

Tung Kwu 21 , 22 , 39 , 50 , 105 , 106 , 149 , 183 , 185 Tung Lung fort 17斗， 183 Tung Lung rock carving 12斗， 126 ， 129 Tung Wan Tsai 61 , 65 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 13斗， 182 , 183 , 199 University Archaeological Team 33 , 35 , 36 , 40 , 117 , 119 , 134 , 151 , 190 , 191-193 University ofHong Kong , the 10 ， 30 ， 33 ， 3斗， 47 ， 78 ， 126 ， 1 斗3 ， 189-195 ， 197 ， 199 ， 200

Visick , Mary 193 Von Koenigswald 69

203

Warner, John 193 Watt Chi-ying , James 36 , 37 , 43 , 147 , 200 Welch site 81-85 Wong Chuk Hang 115 ， 12斗， 126 , 127 , 128 , 129 Wong Tei Tung 63 , 72-73 , 85 Workman , David 19斗 Wun Yiu 173 , 175 Yi Long 51 , 52 , 150 , 151 , 152 Yim ，嗎TWS.194

Yip Cho-hong , Alex 60 YungLong27 , 53 , 62 , 63 , 86 , 87 , 95-102 , 103 , 108 , 109 , 130 , 184 , 199 Yung Shu Wan 17 , 53 , 111 Zhang Senshui 73