[
    {
        "id": 211569,
        "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-1988",
        "page_number": 286,
        "title": "RAS-1988",
        "content_text": "DAVID FAURE'S REJOINDER:\n\nThere is much in this review that I dislike how can Chun take me to task, on the one hand, for dabbling in Anthropology, and on the other hand, conclude that I think “local history can be understood simply by looking at events and personages as they take place on the ground”?\n\nHowever, let me answer the several criticisms that I think touch on some of the major issues. First, Chun thinks I do not have a salient criticism of Freedman's thesis. Let me reiterate that much as we have learnt from Freedman, I found him wanting for not being able to incorporate village religion into his lineage framework, and for being sloppy in his use of terms such as \"local lineage\", \"higher-level lineage\" and \"clan\". I think my argument for the importance of \"settlement rights\" salvages his concept of the \"local lineage\".\n\nSecond, Chun does not present here accurately my argument concerning the grandiose freestanding ancestral halls built in the official style. I do not argue that there was a \"period\" of the \"Five Great Clans” not even in the eastern portion of the New Territories. I think the linkage of lineage groups across settlement, and the adoption of a code of conduct that included the compilation of written genealogies and that was consistent with officially prescribed standards, took root as a change in style that began in the sixteenth century and gradually worked its way from the richer and more powerful lineages to the poorer ones. This process took fully three centuries, and during this period different territorial groups dominated different parts of the eastern New Territories. In a nutshell, Lung Yeuk Tau (Tang surname) was overlord of all this area, with minor concessions to the Haus of Hung Leng and Ho Sheung Heung, up to the end of the Ming dynasty, The Lius of Sheung Shui sprang into prominence in the early Qing, nibbling into former Tang terrain, while possibly some time in the eighteenth century, the Hung Leng Haus lost their holdings. Of the other two surnames in the “Five”, the Fan Ling P'aangs did not achieve prominence until the nineteenth century, and while the Tai Hang Mans were taken into account by Lung Yeuk Tau, Sheung Shui and Ho Sheung Heung when the Po Tak Tz Old Alliance was formed in the early Qing (possibly eighteenth century), its influence declined subsequently until it became a party of the Kau Yeuk, along with the P'aangs, that founded Tai Po new market in the late nineteenth century. This history notwithstanding, my argument is quite simply that the ancestral worship one sees the villagers practise",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 211570,
        "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-1988",
        "page_number": 287,
        "title": "RAS-1988",
        "content_text": "263\n\nin his home and in the ancestral hall that is no more than a compartment in a row of village houses, comes from a culture that is different from the ancestral worship that villagers are so fond of remarking on as being indicative of the ancestors' official status.\n\nThird, Chun's claim that I argue that the alliances known as the “yeuk” were ever “suppressed\" again misses the mark. My argument is that what villagers remember as the \"yeuk\" were founded on common territorial worship and lineage bonds, and, indeed, as Chun points out, there were different kinds of yeuk formed for different reasons. I also argue that these particular types were formed in the nineteenth century. However, I do not argue that there were no village alliances before that time. Rather, with the exception of the Po Tak Tz Old Alliance, the word “yeuk” was apparently not used in this area for them. Some alliances were known then as “heung“, and quite a few were formed in the guise of lineages. Of the nineteenth century yeuk, the Luk Yeuk and the Kau Yeuk were obviously formed in areas where the \"great surnames\" of the eastern New Territories had lost influence.\n\nFourth, Chun's question on the universal application of the concept of “settlement rights\" is, of course, justified. As a supporter for the study of local history in China, I should be the last to ever want to claim that until we have many more detailed local studies, any concept that is generalized from any local study should be any more than tentative. Nonetheless, I seriously doubt if Wo Hang could have been settled without the Lei surname resident therein coming to terms with the incumbents, both in Wo Hang and in the wider territory of which Wo Hang was a part. Wo Hang is located in an area that formed the boundary between the Punti-dominated territory of the eastern New Territories, and the Hakka-dominated terrain that stretched from Sha Tau Kok to Po Kut and beyond. The Wo Hang Leis achieved considerable clout very quickly; by the fourth generation after settlement, according to the genealogy, they were tax-collectors at Sha Tau Kok.\n\nWhile on the question of “settlement rights”, it may also be pointed out that Chun's comments in his notes 6 and 8 confuse settlement with residence. As he knows, residence is not the issue, the right of building a house on land that is unclaimed is. That overseas Chinese people should be allowed to build houses in acknowledged ancestral villages shows that the concept of the \"rights of settlement\" is very much alive.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1988.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q",
        "rank": 0
    }
]