[
    {
        "id": 204483,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1962",
        "page_number": 115,
        "title": "RAS-1962",
        "content_text": "104\n\nELSPETH MANEELY\n\n16\n\nhill slopes of the western islands and in the Castle Peak area; but perhaps only four places investigated since archaeological work began in the Colony may be dignified by the term \"site\". These are: So Kun Wat #, a series of low hilltops to the west of the Tai Lam Chun reservoir; Lamma Island (Pok Liu Chau14), which really comprises several distinct sites; Shek Pik and Man Kok Tsui, both on Lantau Island (Tai Yu Shan). A report on the findings at So Kun Wat was presented by C. M. Heanley and J. L. Shellshear in 1932 at the first Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East held at Hanoi. Father Finn's publications on the Lamma sites, begun in 1932, have recently been reprinted in one volume, Archaeological Finds on Lamma Island Near Hong Kong.3 The Shek Pik site, on the south-west coast of Lantau Island, was excavated by W. Schofield and J. G. Andersson in 1937 and a report was published in the Proceedings of the Third Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East, Singapore, in 1938. The artifacts uncovered at Man Kok Tsui are similar to those found at these earlier sites and are of three kinds: stone tools and ornaments, pottery and bronze.\n\nBefore describing the discovery of Man Kok Tsui in more detail however, reference should be made to Father R. L. Maglioni's extensive discoveries in Hoifung as they bear a definite relationship to finds in the Hong Kong area. Hoifung lies on the China coast about one hundred miles north-east of Hong Kong. In 1934 Fr. Maglioni, then a priest in the Hoifung region, embarked on a thorough search for prehistoric remains. He located as many as twenty distinct sites. In general the finds were of the same type as those described by archaeologists working in Hong Kong, but Fr. Maglioni was able to distinguish three separate Neolithic cultures. These three he called the SON, SAK and PAT cultures from the capital letters of the romanized names of villages adjacent to the sites. So far Neolithic remains in Hong Kong resemble closely those of Fr. Maglioni's PAT culture, the latest of the three.\n\nIn April 1958, Dr. S. M. Bard first reported Man Kok Tsui as a possible area for investigation by the University Archaeological Team. The site, given the number 30 by the Team, lies at the extreme tip of the northern arm of Silvermine Bay, Lantau Island. It consists of two sheltered, sandy beaches, a flat fertile valley",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204910,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1965",
        "page_number": 18,
        "title": "RAS-1965",
        "content_text": "ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY\n\n13\n\nof conventionalized T'ao T'ieh is also highly prized. There are also fine specimens of both glazed and unglazed pottery decorated with the \"Double-F\" pattern, a design thought to be unique in the Hong Kong area and not so far found elsewhere, even around Canton. The design was quite new to such an eminent authority as Professor Paul Pelliot. Much study and conjecture was given to this design by Father Finn (7).\n\nApart from exhibits of Lamma archaeology at the British Museum and locally at the City Hall and the Fung Ping Shan Museum there are other smaller ones held in Ricci Hall (a University Hostel) and the University Team Working Centre. Further away there are collections in Honolulu at the Bishop Museum and at Harvard University. There are without doubt also many other good private collections that have not been recorded,\n\nFollowing the historical sequence of discovery in and around Hong Kong come the Hoifong sites located about eighty miles away in northeast Kwangtung. All these sites are fairly close to the indented coastline and near well-established ports such as Swabue.\n\nIt was a student in the Jesuit Seminary at Aberdeen (Hong Kong Island) who first reported the presence of remains in Hoifong that were similar to those in the Seminary collection. He brought several pieces to Father Finn who was soon convinced that he should visit the area for an on-the-spot examination. This he did in 1934 and very quickly established the fact that there were many rich sites with remains probably the same in age and culture as those in Hong Kong, especially Lamma.\n\nFather Maglioni, an Italian priest in the Pontifical Institute of the Milan Foreign Mission accompanied Father Finn on much of his fieldwork, especially around Swabue where he was stationed in a Catholic Mission. During this time he learned much from Father Finn and when Father Finn died it was natural that he should continue collecting and studying the remains.\n\nFather Maglioni modestly proclaimed himself as being strictly an amateur archaeologist without any scientific training. However, while this amateur status was correct, when he took over",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1965.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s752cj653",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204911,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1965",
        "page_number": 19,
        "title": "RAS-1965",
        "content_text": "S. G. DAVIS\n\nthe work he very quickly graduated to a well-informed archaeologist capable of making shrewd observations and comparisons.\n\nAltogether, 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,\n\nFather 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.\n\nOn 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.\n\nFather 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.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1965.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s752cj653",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205395,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1967",
        "page_number": 157,
        "title": "RAS-1967",
        "content_text": "150\n\nLIN SHU-YEN\n\nfamilies the men and women were in their fifties. In the third, the son, who is about thirty, did most of the work.\n\nThe leaching process, Lin tells us, was carried out mainly by natives of Lantau Island and was the only method inherited from their remote ancestors. In 1962 I was able to speak to an old lady who came in 1898 at the age of 16 to the village of Leung Uk, at the south-west edge of the salt pans, to be married to one of the villagers. She told me that men and women from the locality worked in the fields, some of them from Leung Uk. Not many people worked in the fields at that time, and they were operated by an outsider. The workers were paid on a piece work basis depending on their output, but it was customary for the company to advance money for daily food and deduct the sum from the final wage.\n\nFor how long the local village people, as opposed to outsiders, carried out the work on the salt-pans is not known. The Leung Uk settlement, since it is named after the Leung family, it is reasonable to suppose that they were the first inhabitants of the present settlement, was apparently settled about 1800. This estimate is based on calculations from a genealogy which also states that the first ancestor came to Tai O from a village near Shum Chun Market to the north of the present Sino-British frontier. These people are Hakkas. The other villages in the Tai O basin, adjacent to the market town, are the similar small settlements of Nam Chung, San Tsuen, and Wang Hang, and it is unlikely that they are earlier than Leung Uk. At the 1911 Colony census, the population of these three small villages was recorded at 50, 42, and 90 respectively, whilst the population of Leung Uk was 104 persons. There were other, larger villages a little further afield, and some of their inhabitants may also have worked at the pans.\n\nSince writing the above, I have chanced upon a note in The Hong Kong Naturalist, also in Vol X (1940), by Father R. Maglioni, the noted archaeologist, in which he offers some comments upon Lin's article and an earlier one by Dr. C. M. Heanley on some of the problems connected with local, i.e., Hong Kong archaeology. He writes:\n\n\"About the furnaces described by Dr. Heanley in The Hong Kong Naturalist (Vol. VI, Nos. 3-4), I must confess that I am not",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1967.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/0c488p70g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206612,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-1972",
        "page_number": 160,
        "title": "RAS-1972",
        "content_text": "ARCHAEOLOGY IN H.K. AND SOUTH CHINA\n\n163\n\nquartz and jade, and stone beads, adzes and lance heads were discovered. Some of the pottery bore makers' marks, which seemed in some cases to resemble archaic Chinese characters. To deal with the problems raised by these and the ornaments on much of the pottery, the chief of which was a symbol resembling a long f and showing several variations, Prof. Shellshear invited the collaboration of the late Father Finn, S.J., a distinguished scholar in the Regional Seminary at Aberdeen, Hong Kong, and a lecturer at the University of Hong Kong. Father Finn devoted himself thenceforward to a careful study of this site and its culture, and published thirteen papers in the Hong Kong Naturalist on the subject, basing his work on a profound study of archaeological literature in neighbouring countries, Japan, China, Indo-China, the Straits and elsewhere.*\n\nThis study was greatly aided by the decision of the Hong Kong Government to have the site excavated at its own expense. In five weeks' work about half the undug portion of the sandbank was excavated to a depth of 6 to 7 feet, and some thousands of pottery fragments, a large number of other objects of stone, quartz, jade, bronze and even two or three partly of iron, were unearthed. Father Finn conducted this excavation, and included the description of the results in his articles.\n\nFather Finn also worked at other sites on Lamma and Hong Kong islands, and during visits to St. John's Island (where St. Francis Xavier died), and the Swabue district near Swatow, discovered more sites. The latter district gave very interesting and important results, which have recently been outlined in a paper by Father Maglioni in the Hong Kong Naturalist.\n\nIn 1932 Professor Shellshear brought the facts then known about Hong Kong's prehistory before the scientific world at the Prehistorians' Congress at Hanoi, whose proceedings were published by the École Française d'Extrême Orient as the Praehistorica Asiae Orientales (Hanoi, 1932). Father Finn summed up the results of his work at the Lamma Island site at the Manila Congress of the same body in 1935.†\n\n* A list of publications on local pre-history that includes those mentioned at various places in this article can be found at the end.\n\n† Whose proceedings were not published. I have Mr. Schofield's notes and can make them available to anyone who may wish to consider filling a gap in our published records.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1972.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/gm80qf99h",
        "rank": 0
    }
]