[
    {
        "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": 204915,
        "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": 23,
        "title": "RAS-1965",
        "content_text": "18\n\nS. G. DAVIS\n\nBIBLIOGRAPHY\n\n1. Bard, S. M., Chiu, T. N., and So, C. L. \"Stone Ring at Loh Ah Tsai, Lamma Island, Hong Kong,\" Asian Perspectives, VIII.\n\n2. Ch'en Kung-che (1957). \"Archaeological Surveys and Excavations at Hong Kong,\" Kao Koo Hsueh Po, No. 4.\n\n3. Davis, S. G. (1952). The Geology of Hong Kong (Archaeology), Government Printers, Chapter XI, pp. 188-194.\n\n4. Davis, S. G. and Tregear, M. (1961). \"Man Kok Tsui. Archaeological Site, 30, Lantau Island, Hong Kong,\" Asian Perspectives, IV.\n\n5. Davis, S. G. (1962). \"Hong Kong University Team Archaeological Activities for Period 1958-61,\" Asian Perspectives, V, 53.\n\n6. Davis, S. G. (1964). \"Rock Carvings at Shek Pik, Lantau Island, Hong Kong,\" Asian Perspectives, VII, 19-21.\n\n7. Finn, D. J. (1933-1936). \"Archaeological Finds on Lamma Island, Hong Kong,\" The Hong Kong Naturalist, Reprinted 1958, Ricci Hall Publications, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.\n\n8. Heanley, C. M. (1928). \"Hong Kong Celts,\" Bull. Geol. Soc. of China, VII, 209-214.\n\n9. Heanley, C. M. and Shellshear, J. L. (1932). A Contribution to the Prehistory of Hong Kong and the New Territories.\n\n10. Heanley, C. M. (1935). \"Fields of Hong Kong,\" The Hong Kong Naturalist, VI, 233-239.\n\n11. Heanley, C. M. (1938). \"Letter to the Editor on Archaeological Finds in Hoifung,\" The Hong Kong Naturalist, IX.\n\n12. Laufer, B. (1909). Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty, American Museum of Natural History Publication, East Asiatic Committee.\n\n13. Laufer, B. (1914). Chinese Clay Figures, Part I, Chicago Field Museum of Natural History, Publication 154.\n\n14. Laufer, B. (1917). The Beginnings of Porcelain in China, Field Museum of Natural History, Publication 192, Anthropological Series, XV, No. 2.\n\n15. Lo, H. L. (1956). \"The Sung Wong Toi and the Location of the Travelling Courts by the Seashore in the Last Day of the Sung,\" Journal of Oriental Studies, Vol. 3, No. 2, 185-217.\n\n16. Maglioni, R. (1938). \"Archaeological Finds in Hoifung District, China,\" The Hong Kong Naturalist, No. 8, 208-214.\n\n17. Maglioni, R. (1940). \"Archaeology: New Nomenclature,\" The Hong Kong Naturalist, X, No. 2, 130-133.\n\n18. Maglioni, R. (1940). \"Some Aspects of South China Archaeological Finds,\" Proceedings of the Third Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East, Singapore, 209-229.\n\n19. Maglioni, R. (1952). \"Archaeology in South China,\" Journal of East Asiatic Studies, No. 2, University of Manila, Philippine Islands, 1-20.\n\n20. Meanelly, E. (1962). \"Excavations at Man Kok Tsui on Lantau Island,\" Journal of the Hong Kong Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 2, 103-108.\n\n21. Schofield, W. (1935). \"Implements of Palaeolithic Type in Hong Kong,\" The Hong Kong Naturalist, VI, Nos. 3-4, 272-275.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1965.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/s752cj653",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206065,
        "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-1970",
        "page_number": 145,
        "title": "RAS-1970",
        "content_text": "140\n\nS. F. BALFOUR\n\nOn the one hand are the Tanka and Hoklo who do not know the use of stone in building, who live by fishing and who represent in fact a water culture. On the other hand is the culture of the wall-building and rice-growing Hakka and Punti, who migrated overland from parts of China unconnected with these shores.\n\nIt is not correct to say that these two cultures merge, for clearly the land culture is a much stronger force than the water culture and has already almost entirely smothered it. Such has been the fate of many ancient peoples who were pushed to the seaboard by invaders, and have finally disappeared.\n\nII. ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE\n\nOur analysis of the existing population has revealed that the order of migration into the region corresponds roughly with the height above sea level of each part of the community. The Tanka and Hoklo, who were the earliest people, live on the seacoast, the Punti who came next occupy the fertile plains and valleys, and the latest comers, the Hakka, are to be found mostly in the uplands. We must now consider traces of a still earlier culture found as it were below sea level, buried in the ground.\n\nThe principal archaeological sites are on the South coast of Lamma and Lantao islands. Evidence of primitive communities has been found buried below three to four feet of sand in dunes only a few yards from the high water mark. There are no traces of houses or of any construction. Agriculture would have been possible at some distance from the settlements but not particularly near them. The sites are not easy of access from any other place except by sea, nor are they conveniently situated as regards access to the Canton river estuary.\n\nThis must be qualified by the fact that finds have been made in other places including hillsides and islands in the Canton river estuary, but in much lesser quantities. Outside the region important excavations have been made near Swabue in the Hoifung district and this link points, in the absence of other evidence, to a distribution eastward along the coast.\n\nUnfortunately it has not been possible to find out the age of the settlements by comparing the strata of the soil, as is generally done in archaeology. Indications as to the rate of accumulation",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1970.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ww72j0241",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209855,
        "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-1983",
        "page_number": 114,
        "title": "RAS-1983",
        "content_text": "92\n\n3.\n\n4.\n\nThese speak a different language from the other three races. They have a history of having migrated ages ago from the Yangtse valley, and economically are pioneers, opening up inferior lands, and doing all quarry work. They occupy the eastern and northern islands, and are often called \"Chinese Scotchmen”. For this reason Scottish regiments here are called “Hakka ping\" (Hakka soldiers). Nearly all regimental servants here, I believe, are Hakkas: formerly the Hakkas were anti-Manchu and often joined Triad Societies. As such, they gave vigorous assistance to the British in 1857-61, and the connection with the Army has been kept up.\n\nHoklos, a Cantonese nickname for the coast peoples of Northeast Kwangtung; it means \"men of Hok1\", meaning Fukien. Most come from the area around Swatow and Swabue. Their language is very widely different from both Cantonese and Hakka: as different as German from English. They are fishermen, grasscutters, limekiln and saltpan workers. Their major settlements are at Tai O, Pingchau, Cheung Chau, Taipo (by the District Officer's island), and probably others. They are migrating here steadily, and many appear in court for offences of all sorts. A major reason behind the migration is probably that the coastal areas from which they come are suffering erosion and losing soil: the collapse of the Hoi Luk Fung Soviet Republic is another factor: finally, piracy is no longer as profitable as it was.\n\nPolitical divisions\n\nThe Ladrones or \"Pirate Islands\" of which Hong Kong and its outlying islands are part were so named by the Portuguese pioneers of sea trade to the East. They are shared unequally between China, Britain and Portugal. In China they are administered by the nearest district magistrates, of Hoifung, Po On, Chungshan, Sanwui, and Toishan districts. Macao has only two or three nearby isles. The British Islands are divided between the District Officer, North, and the District Officer, South, so that the latter is sometimes called \"Lord of the Isles\". I had that job for nearly 3 1/2 years.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1983.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j9607p61v",
        "rank": 0
    }
]