ANOTHER LOOK AT LAND AND LINEAGE IN THE NEW TERRITORIES, CA. 1900
EDGAR WICKBERG*
Preface
The title of this paper may sound presumptuous, as if I have, after only six months' research, discovered the utter foolishness of all previous research on the subject, which I will now correct with one revisionist flourish. No such thing. What I really mean is: "Yet another look at Land and Lineage in the New Territories, ca. 1900". Why is "yet another look" worth taking? Because my methods and my experience are somewhat different from those of previous students of the subject, I think that I may be able to raise some old and some new questions in different ways than before and thereby advance discussion.
I approach this task with some diffidence, since I am well aware of the years of experience, the skills and the effort that many people — including some in this room — have lavished on the subject. I am presenting my findings and views after only six months on the job because I want and need your comments and criticisms before it is too late; in other words, before my research year ends, as it will next July, and I must return to Canada. Better to correct mistakes now while I am still in the field and can do so.
With these comments as background, let me turn to Part I of the paper.
1. The multi-tiered land tenure system of east and south China.
Our understanding of agricultural land tenure in the New Territories ca. 1900 will be enhanced by considering first the general type of Chinese system of which it was a representative. This system, usually called "one-field, two-owners” (or, sometimes, when circumstances warranted, "one-field, three-owners"), has been written about extensively by Chinese, and especially, by Japanese scholars. Widely found in south China during the Ch'ing period, this system was characterized by a separation of agricultural land ownership and occupancy into several
* Professor of History, University of British Columbia.
ANOTHER LOOK AT LAND AND LINEAGE IN THE NEW TERRITORIES, CA. 1900
EDGAR WICK BERG*
Preface
The title of this paper may sound presumptious, as if I have, after only six months' research, discovered the utter foolishness of all previous research on the subject, which I will now correct with one revisionist flourish. No such thing. What I really mean is: "Yet another look at Land and Lineage in the New Territories, ca. 1900". Why is "yet another look" worth taking? Because my methods and my experience are somewhat different from those of previous students of the subject, I think that I may be able to raise some old and some new questions in different ways than before and thereby advance discussion.
I approach this task with some diffidence, since I am well aware of the years of experience, the skills and the effort that many people — including some in this room have lavished on the subject. I am presenting my findings and views after only six months on the job because I want and need your comments and criticisms before it is too late in other words, before my research year ends, as it will next July, and I must return to Canada. Better to correct mistakes now while I am still in the field and can do so.
―
With these comments as background, let me turn to Part I of the paper.
1. The multi-tiered land tenure system of east and south China.
Our understanding of agricultural land tenure in the New Territories ca. 1900 will be enhanced by considering first the general type of Chinese system of which it was a representative. This system, usually called "one-field, two-owners” (or, sometimes, when circumstances warranted, "one-field, three-owners"), has been written about extensively by Chinese, and especially, by Japanese scholars. Widely found in south China during the Ch'ing period, this system was characterized by a separation of agricultural land ownership and occupancy into several
* Professer of History, University of British Columbia.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.