40
EDGAR WICKBERG
The small Hakka village of Shui Lau Tin was quite different. This was essentially a two-lineage village. The Tsois was the more numerous and owned most of the houses. But the one Tang lineage was quite prosperous as were many of the Tsois. Yet, while the largest landowners among both Tsois and Tangs owned much of their lands away from the village, and more to the west near Yuen Kong, other lineages and other villages owned land right up to the walls, so to speak, of Shui Lau Tin. Without tracing the affiliations of each of these surname groups it would be difficult to classify Shui Lau Tin in any typology of New Territories lineage villages.
Finally, the large village of Yuen Kong, a mixed Hakka-Punti village nearest to Kam Tin of any I have looked at. Here, the Leung surname was preeminent, since Leungs owned almost 30 percent of the houses in the village, twice as many as any other of the major surnames of the village, and they also owned 26 percent of the cultivated land in the village area. There were seven lineage trusts - one for each of the major surnames and five religious associations. 75 percent of the cultivated land around the village was locally-owned, but there were important enclaves of ownership by the Kam Tin Tangs, the Wang Toi Shan Tangs, and individuals from Shui Lau Tin, Lin Fa Tei and Sheung Tsuen.
Having surveyed the area in this way, I find myself puzzled by what appears to have been an absence of Kam Tin influence east of Kam Tin, other than in the way we know about: that is, the earlier overlordship. Is it possible they never held land in the Pat Heung other than within a mile or two of their own gates? To the west of Kam Tin there were Tang branches, large-scale land ownership, market control, and overlordship over ha-lu. It would seem that the Kam Tin Tangs expanded to the west, but not much to the east. If so, why? Surely, the Pat Heung, a fertile area, was attractive.
I can think of some possibilities. One might be united local opposition. We know that, strong though they are, Tang branches could be successfully opposed when several groups united. The Pat Heung opposition to overlordship discussed above is one instance; the Taipo Market case is another. Was there a united Pat Heung organization well before 1900 and well before the opposition to Tang overlordship, perhaps centering on the Tong Yick Tong, or something like it, that could prevent sales of land to Kam Tin? A second possibility: were there, perhaps, village-level agreements not to sell land to Kam Tin, but rather, if one must sell, to sell to another surname in the
40
EDGAR WICKBERG
The small Hakka village of Shui Lau Tin was quite different. This was essentially a two-lineage village. The Tsois. was the more numerous and owned most of the houses. But the one Tang lineage was quite prosperous as were many of the Tsois. Yet, while the largest land- owners among both Tsois and Tangs owned much of their lands away from the village, and more to the west near Yuen Kong, other lineages and other villages owned land right up to the walls, so to speak, of Shui Lau Tin. Without tracing the affiliations of each of these surname groups it would be difficult to classify Shui Lau Tín in any typology of New Territories lineage villages.
Finally, the large village of Yuen Kong, a mixed Hakka-Punti village nearest to Kam Tin of any I have looked at. Here, the Leung surname was preeminent, since Leungs owned almost 30 percent of the houses in the village, twice as many as any other of the major surnames of the village, and they also owned 26 percent of the cultivated land in the village area. There were seven lineage trusts - one for each of the major surnames and five religious associations. 75 percent of the cultivated land around the village was locally-owned, but there were important enclaves of ownership by the Kam Tin Tangs, the Wang Toi Shan Tangs, and individuals from Shui Lau Tin, Lin Fa Tei and Sheung Tsuen.
Having surveyed the area in this way, I find myself puzzled by what appears to have been an absence of Kam Tin influence east of Kam Tin, other than in the way we know about: that is, the earlier overlordship. Is it possible they never held land in the Pat Heung other than within a mile or two of their own gates? To the west of Kam Tin there were Tang branches, large-scale land ownership, market control, and overlordship over ha-lu. It would seem that the Kam Tin Tangs expanded to the west, but not much to the east. If so, why? Surely, the Pat Heung, a fertile area, was attractive.
I can think of some possibilities. One might be united local opposition. We know that, strong though they are, Tang branches could be successfully opposed when several groups united. The Pat Heung opposition to overlordship discussed above is one instance; the Taipo Market case is another. Was there a united Pat Heung organ- ization well before 1900 and well before the opposition to Tang over- lordship, perhaps centering on the Tong Yick Tong, or something like it, that could prevent sales of land to Kam Tin? A second possibility: were there, perhaps, village-level agreements not to sell land to Kam Tin, but rather, if one must sell, to sell to another surname in the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.