S. G. DAVIS
the work he very quickly graduated to a well-informed archaeologist capable of making shrewd observations and comparisons.
Altogether, Father Maglioni mapped and recorded twenty-one principal sites and nine others where odd fragments of pottery were picked up. And here it is important to note that all the remains were collected from the surface and that no excavations were ever carried out. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume (on the basis of our experience in Hong Kong, especially at Lamma, Shek Pik, Man Kok Tsui and Fanling) that re-examination of the Hoifung sites with spot digs could be most revealing and fruitful. Perhaps this may be possible one day,
Father Maglioni in his report (16) on the Hoifung District underlined and confirmed many of the conclusions reached by Dr. Heanley and Father Finn: principally that all the sites were either on raised beaches or low granite hills and that the absence of building remains pointed to their having been built of clay and wood (probably as at Tai O today on piles) and therefore easily and quickly disintegrated by weathering and typhoon attrition. He also concluded that all sites are neolithic with a strong reservation that the use of the term "neolithic" might be misleading. This was because he recognized distinctly different cultures present. In order to identify them he used the capital letters of the largest villages near the sites; SOW, SOS, PAT, KEB and SAK. Dr. Heanley in a letter (11) to Father Maglioni also was emphatic that the term "neolithic" should not be used for Asia. He felt that polished stones were almost certainly in common use in Hong Kong until iron became cheap and abundant.
On the basis of European usage of the terms "palaeolithic" and "neolithic" it seems that there is no solid evidence of a pure palaeolithic culture being present. But many palaeolithic artifacts have been found both in Hong Kong and Hoifung and presumably were used by the later neolithic peoples.
Father Maglioni noted that villages were usually located on the western hill slopes below the summit. This village siting is paralleled in Hong Kong and was done to provide shelter from the strong northeast monsoon winds. He also reported that "Double-F" pottery was not much in evidence in Hoifung. He concluded that this type of pottery had been imported from Hong Kong by sea.
14
S. G. DAVIS
the work he very quickly graduated to a well-informed archaeo- logist capable of making shrewd observations and comparisons.
Altogether, Father Maglioni mapped and recorded twenty-one principal sites and nine others where odd fragments of pottery were picked up. And here it is important to note that all the remains were collected from the surface and that no excavations were ever carried out. It would therefore seem reasonable to assume (on the basis of our experience in Hong Kong, especially at Lamma, Shek Pik, Man Kok Tsui and Fanling) that re- examination of the Hoifong sites with spot digs could be most revealing and fruitful. Perhaps this may be possible one day,
Father Maglioni in his report (16) on the Hoifung District underlined and confirmed many of the conclusions reached by Dr. Heanley and Father Finn: principally that all the sites were either on raised beaches or low granite hills and that the absence of building remains pointed to their having been built of clay and wood (probably as at Tai O today on piles) and therefore easily and quickly disintegrated by weathering and typhoon attrition. He also concluded that all sites are neolithic with a strong reservation that the use of the term "neolithic" might be misleading. This was because he recognized distinctly different cultures present. In order to identify them he used the capital letters of the largest villages near the sites; SOW, SOS, PAT, KEB and SAK, Dr. Heanley in a letter (11) to Father Maglioni also was emphatic that the term "neolithic" should not be used for Asia. He felt that polished stones were almost certainly in common use in Hong Kong until iron became cheap and abundant.
On the basis of European usage of the terms "palaeolithic" and “neolithic” it seems that there is no solid evidence of a pure palaeolithic culture being present. But many palaeolithic artifacts have been found both in Hong Kong and Hoifung and presumably were used by the later neolithic peoples.
Father Maglioni noted that villages were usually located on the western hill slopes below the summit. This village siting is paralleled in Hong Kong and was done to provide shelter from the strong northeast monsoon winds. He also reported that "Double-F" pottery was not much in evidence in Hoifung. He concluded that this type of pottery had been imported from Hong Kong by sea.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.