[
    {
        "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": 204489,
        "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": 121,
        "title": "RAS-1962",
        "content_text": "108\n\nELSPETH MANEELY\n\nThe suggestion of glaze on two of the pots, the bronze, the variety of shapes of the polished stone adzes, and the impressed patterns on the pottery similar to Fr. Maglioni's PAT culture, all indicate a Late Stone Age or Early Bronze Age date (Warring States, 481-221 B.C.) for the Man Kok Tsui site. However, the people living in this area may have continued to use stone tools and pottery of this type well into the Han period.\n\nREFERENCES\n\n1 William Watson, Archaeology in China, Max Parrish, London, (1960).\n\n2 C. M. Heanley and J. L. Shellshear, “A Contribution to the Prehistory of Hong Kong and the New Territories\", Proceedings of the First Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East, Hanoi, (Jan. 1932),\n\n3 Daniel J. Finn, S. J., Archaeological Finds on Lamma Island Near Hong Kong, Ricci Publications, Ricci Hall, University of Hong Kong, (1958).\n\n4 W. Schofield, \"A Protohistoric Site at Shek Pik, Lantao, Hong Kong\", Proceedings of the Third Congress of Prehistorians of the Far East, Singapore, (1938).\n\n5 R. L. Maglioni, S. J., \"Archaeology in South China\", Journal of East Asiatic Studies, Manila, II, No. 1, (Oct. 1952).\n\n6 R. L. Maglioni, S. J., \"Archaeology Finds in Hoifung\", Hong Kong Naturalist, VIII, Nos. 3-4, (March 1938).\n\n7 S. G. Davis and Mary Tregear, \"Man Kok Tsui, Archaeological Site 30, Lantau Island, Hong Kong\", Asian Perspectives, IV, Nos. 1-2, (1960), 183-212.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1962.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9s166f47f",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 204906,
        "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": 14,
        "title": "RAS-1965",
        "content_text": "9\n\n# ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY IN AND\n\n## AROUND HONG KONG\n\nA lecture delivered on 15th February, 1965\n\nS. G. DAVIS\n\nThe exhibition of neolithic finds in our City Hall has for the first time brought together the choicest specimens from the collections of Rev. Fr. D. J. Finn S.J., who concentrated his main work on Lamma Island, Rev. Fr. R. Maglioni who worked along the Kwangtung coast around Swabue, and the University of Hong Kong Archaeological Team that excavated at Man Kok Tsui on Lantau Island. The sites were all dug carefully and have fortunately been written-up in detail and published. But they represent a very small fraction of the total number of sites that have been recorded together with those not so far discovered in this part of South China.\n\nMany sites have only been examined cursorily and there is still very much work to be done with well-organized \"digs\". Unfortunately many sites have suffered and many finds have been lost through free-lance enthusiasts with varying degrees of competence not working systematically and not keeping detailed records.\n\nThe vast amount of pottery and artifacts already found in this area certainly indicates the population in neolithic times was considerable and that there were well-established communications throughout. The types of materials used, the quality of design and the workmanship also point to a civilization that was highly cultured and organized.\n\nIt is strange that neolithic archaeology in China was neglected or barely known until the present century. Berthold Laufer claimed in his Chinese Pottery of the Han Dynasty (12) that the first mention of Han pottery in European literature was made by S. W. Bushell in his book Oriental Ceramic Art (New York,\n\nEditor's note: Numbers in parentheses in the text are references to fuller particulars on specific book titles in the bibliography which accompanies the article.",
        "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": 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": 205775,
        "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-1969",
        "page_number": 81,
        "title": "RAS-1969",
        "content_text": "TUNG KWU ISLAND\n\n75\n\nnon-liquid food such as grain, nuts or fruit, or for holding food of some sort for the use of the dead, who would not be likely to find their food jars dissolving in their graves. The use of the net pattern with what were probably magic signs in each mesh may indicate that such jars were funerary vessels, covered with watching eyes or other patterns to repel demons from seizing and carrying off the food. (See R. Maglioni “Some Aspects of South China Archaeological Finds\" in Proceedings, Third Congress of Far East Pre-historians). The variety of patterns is illustrated in Plate 8.\n\nThe distribution of ornamented sherds in depth and locality presents some interesting points. In my collection, there are 33 such pieces. 16 were picked off the beach at unrecorded spots; the others were found in known stretches of beach, indicated on the sketch-map, or in situ at measured depths in the sand. It was not always easy to decide either the nature or the purpose of the designs inside the meshes, but round raised studs were probably ‘eyes', and most other designs were perhaps 'life-giving' or occasionally 'phallic'. A few were indeterminable: these were raised ridges in meshes of rhombic shape, or so shapeless that no conclusion could be drawn.\n\nFour designs of each type came from known depths, and four were found in the I, J, L, and M sectors. One, as well as four loose pieces with ‘eye' patterns, came from C sector. No real conclusion can be drawn from the recorded depths with so few specimens, except that the patterns seem to have been equally fashionable throughout the occupation of the site. From other sites, however, notably Sha Chau, a mile or two south of Tung Kwu, I got the impression that the raised stud in a single-line, square-net pattern was more popular when the upper layers of the sandbank formation were deposited.\n\nThe lines of the netting on the sherds differ in number from one to four, and the angles of the meshes are either right angles, enclosing squares, or obtuse and acute angles, enclosing rhombs. Of the square-meshed nets, only four are from known depths, none lower than 122 cm., and there are three with one line round the meshes and one with three. The rhombic net impressions are much commoner than the square in the pottery found at measured levels: 16 as against 4. Nets of one and three lines show average depths of 111 cm., those of two lines—much commoner—average 170 cm.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1969.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/9g553n20d",
        "rank": 0
    }
]