[
    {
        "id": 205194,
        "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-1966",
        "page_number": 150,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "144\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\nIyer,\" a revised transcription of a UNESCO radio broadcast in April 1959. This was the origin of both the book and its title.\n\nPHILIP SHEN\n\nChung Chi College\n\nThe Chinese University of Hong Kong.\n\nTHE CHINESE IN PHILIPPINE LIFE 1850-1898, Edgar Wickberg. Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1965. 280 pages.\n\nFor students and scholars interested in Southeast Asian studies this is an illuminating book. It discusses the Chinese in the Philippines during the period from the date of the changed Spanish policy on the status of Chinese in 1850 to the end of Spanish rule in the Philippines in 1898.\n\nThe limited number of serious studies that have previously been made of the Chinese in the Philippines have concentrated on the problems of the twentieth-century community. However, since many important features of Philippine economy and society are traceable to developments in the latter half of the nineteenth century, this period comprises the formative years of modern Philippine economic and social life.\n\nProfessor Wickberg's book is the first exhaustive research on a period of significant change of the Chinese in the Philippines. It concentrates on their institutions, and on their relations both with their host society and with China. The fully documented book is supplemented by maps, showing Manila and other areas in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and includes reproductions of paintings, vividly showing the dress fashions of Chinese and Chinese mestizos in the mid-nineteenth century. There is a glossary of Chinese names and terms, and a comprehensive bibliography listing published works in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Japanese, on Chinese both in the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, and on other topics relative to Southeast Asian studies. The sources of unpublished material used are also listed.\n\nThe book begins with a lucid narrative of the Philippine Chinese before 1850. The Chinese had early contacts with the Philippine Archipelago and were directly involved in the economic and social affairs of the Philippines long before the arrival of the\n\nPage 150\n\nPage 151",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205195,
        "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-1966",
        "page_number": 151,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "BOOK REVIEWS\n\n145\n\nSpanish conquerors in 1560. During the early Spanish period, Chinese merchants in Fukien and other areas capitalized on the opportunities of the newly developing Manila Galleon trade between the Philippines and Mexico, as the way was then open for Chinese vessels to carry goods from China to Manila, there to be loaded for markets in Mexico. However, within a few years after the Spanish conquest, relations between the Chinese and Spaniards fell into a pattern of distrust and latent hostility. The term sangley, the Spanish name for Chinese immigrants, came to connote an invidious cultural stereotype. The distrust led to the shaping of harsh Spanish policies towards the Chinese and the establishment of the Parian, a kind of Chinese ghetto, for the Chinese in Manila.\n\nThe author devotes much space in the first part of the book to a lengthy discussion on the subject of the Chinese mestizos, vital to an understanding of the social history of the Philippines. The lineage history of the Filipino national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, is an example of the position of the Chinese mestizos in the social history of the Philippines. Dr. Rizal's paternal ancestor, a Catholic Chinese born in China, married a Chinese mestiza in the Philippines. Their son and grandson both married Chinese mestizas. The grandson was later able to have his family transferred from the mestizo padron (the tax-census register) to that of the indios (native Filipinos). Thus, Rizal's father, and Rizal himself, were considered indio. As a very relevant aside, this writer recommends that the reader consult Filipino historian, Mr. Esteban A. de Ocampo's article, “Chinese Greatest Contribution to the Philippines The Birth of Dr. Jose Rizal,\" in Dr. Shubert S. C. Liao's Chinese Participation in Philippine Culture and Economy (Manila: Bookman Inc., 1964).\n\nProfessor Wickberg continues on to discuss the growth of the Chinese economy in Manila and other areas, foreign trade and other kinds of economic activity in the Philippines, the general cultural and social context, and the position of Chinese during the years 1880 to 1890. He touches on the nature of the Chinese community in the Philippines, the relations of the Philippine Chinese with China, and the position of the Chinese at the end of the nineteenth century.\n\nBefore 1850, the Chinese in the Philippines were a largely",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 205196,
        "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-1966",
        "page_number": 152,
        "title": "RAS-1966",
        "content_text": "146\n\nBOOK REVIEWS\n\nunorganized group of individuals living mostly in the Manila area.\n\nBut, fifty years later the Philippine Chinese were an organized community with members in every part of the Philippines. The author concludes that the period 1850-1898 may be regarded as not only a critical era in terms of the survival and future of the Philippine Chinese, but as a necessary period of preparation for both closer bonds with China and the organization of the sophisticated Chinese Chambers of Commerce that were to follow.\n\nOf special interest is the discussion of Philippine foreign trade, especially regarding trade between Hong Kong and the Philippines during the nineteenth century. Due to the dearth of statistics and materials available concerning this trade with Hong Kong, the author was unable to measure its extent during the period covered by his book. This is an interesting subject in which students and scholars might conduct further research.\n\nReading Professor Wickberg's long-awaited book was a great pleasure. I would second Professor William Skinner's appraisal that the book does break new ground and that in \"terms of solid historical scholarship, it is superior to anything in the literature on the overseas Chinese of any country.”\n\nFoo TAK-SUN\n\nAN ANECDOTAL HISTORY OF OLD TIMES IN SINGAPORE, 1819-1867. Charles Burton Buckley. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1965. Two volumes in one; pp. xi + 790 + xxii; 19 illustrations. M$25.\n\nThis photographic reprint of Buckley's two volumes in one makes available once again an interesting and unusual sourcebook for the history of Singapore, first published in 1902 but long out of print. Essentially a scrapbook based upon newspaper articles, private papers and personal reminiscences, it contains a mine of miscellaneous information on Singapore affairs and personalities between 1819 and 1867. Outstanding events and issues of each year are recorded and discussed, ranging from the administration of Raffles, the growth of trade and shipping and the rise of business houses, to Chinese riots, piracy, man-eating tigers and amateur theatricals. The careers and activities of prominent European and Asian personalities — such as John Crawfurd,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1966.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/bz60k0811",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 206330,
        "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-1971",
        "page_number": 147,
        "title": "RAS-1971",
        "content_text": "THE DISTRICT WATCH COMMITTEE\n\n141\n\nin the Colony. In 1948 they were taken over by the Medical and Health Department.\n\n58 G. W. Skinner, Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand, Ithaca, New York, Yale University Press, 1958, p. 79.\n\n59 James Michie wrote: \"The means taken to conciliate the Chinese (in Hong Kong) must be deemed on the whole to have been successful. There was first police supervision, then official protection under a succession of qualified officers, then representation in the Colony Legislature and on the Commission of the Peace. The colonial executive has wisely left to the Chinese a large measure of a kind of self-government which is more effective than anything that could find its expression in votes of the Legislature. The administration of purely Chinese affairs by native committees, with a firm ruling hand over their proceedings, seems to fulfil every purpose of government.\" The Englishman in China during the Victorian Era, Edinburgh and London, William Blackwood, 1900, vol. 1, pp. 280-1.\n\n60 The Labour Advisory Board was established in 1937 and consisted of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs, the Secretary and Cashier of His Majesty's Naval Yard, the Assistant Director of Supply and Transport of the China Command, a representative of the Public Works Department, the Manager of the Taikoo Sugar Refinery, the manager of the Hong Kong Electric Company, and the manager of the Taikoo Dockyard. The members consisted entirely of representatives of large government departments and employers of labour. The board rarely functioned.\n\n61 The Chinese General Chamber of Commerce was founded in 1896 principally by Ho Kai and Wei Yuk. It was called at first the Chinese Merchants Bureau. In 1913, after a period of decline, a new building costing $40,000 was erected in Connaught Road. After 1913 the Chamber became one of the most influential bodies in Hong Kong, and many members of the District Watch Committee served at one time or another on its executive committee. The Chinese Club was founded in 1899 by Sir Robert Ho Tung and modelled on the European Hong Kong Club. A description of the Club's premises is to be found in Mrs. Archibald Little, The Land of the Blue Gown, London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1902, p. 323: \"We were taken by the Committee into an upper room, where European comforts of curtains and cushioned arm-chairs were judiciously intermingled with Cantonese elegances of black carved wood and landscape marble.\" Mrs. Little was a member of the Anti-Footbinding League or Natural Feet Society.\n\n62 See G. William Skinner for a detailed analysis of Chinese associations. See especially ch. 6 of his Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand.\n\n63 For Overseas Chinese associations, see important works by the following: Maurice Freedman, \"Immigrants and Associations: Chinese in Nineteenth Century Singapore,\" Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 3, no. 1, 1960, and Chinese Family and Marriage in Singapore, London, H.M.S.O., 1957; G. W. Skinner, Chinese Society in Thailand: An Analytical History, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1957, and Leadership and Power in the Chinese Community of Thailand, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1958; William E. Willmott, The Political Structure of the Chinese Community in Cambodia, London, The Athlone Press, 1970; and Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life 1850-1898, New Haven, Conn., Yale University Press, 1965.\n\n64 See Wilfred Blythe, The Impact of Chinese Secret Societies in Malaya, London, Oxford University Press, 1969.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1971.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/z029vt43g",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 207282,
        "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-1975",
        "page_number": 50,
        "title": "RAS-1975",
        "content_text": "42\n\nWELLINGTON K. K. CHAN\n\n23 P'eng Tse-i, \"Shih-chiu shih-chi,\" 1:73, 90-95.\n\n24 Edgar Wickberg, The Chinese in Philippine Life (New Haven, 1965), pp. 216-17.\n\n25 Chang Chih-tung, Chang Wen-hsiang-kung chi (The papers of Chang Chih-tung), ed. Hsu T'ung-hsin (Peiping, 1919-21), \"tsou-kao,\" 12:1-5b.\n\n26 Ibid.\n\n27 E.g., Hsiang-kang Hua-tzu jih-pao (Chinese Mail of Hong Kong), 1901: 4/27, 5/9.\n\n28 Hua-tzu jih-pao, 22/3/1901.\n\n29 Mark Elvin, \"The Gentry Democracy in Chinese Shanghai,” in Jack Gray (ed), Modern China's Search for Political Form (Oxford, 1969), pp. 41-65.\n\n30 Imperial Maritime Customs, Decennial Reports 1882-1891 (Shanghai, 1893), p. 34.\n\n31 Morse, Gilds of China, pp. 53-54; Decennial Reports, 1882-1891, pp. 537-38.\n\n32 In 1892, those of Yunnan and Kweichow were added.\n\n33 Decennial Reports, 1882-1891, pp. 119-20.\n\n34 Sheng Hsuan-huai, Yü-chai ts'un-kao ch'u-k'an (Collected drafts of Sheng Hsuan-huai, first issue), ed. Lü Ching-tuan (Shanghai, 1939), 7:36a.\n\n35 The China Weekly Review (Shanghai), 24/7/1926, pp. 188, 190.\n\n36 Hua-tzu jih-pao, 10/10/1907; 28/10/1908.\n\n37 The Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce: The Fiftieth Anniversary Commemorative Issue (Singapore, 1954), pp. 2-3. These practices, somewhat modified, are still going on today, see Sin Chew Jit Poh (Singapore Daily), 9/2/1975, p. 3.\n\n38 See my own forthcoming article \"The Chamber of Commerce in Late Ch'ing China.\"\n\n**\n\n39 North-China Herald (Shanghai), 23/2/1906.\n\n40 Chang Ts'un-wu, Chung-Mei kung-yüeh fang-chiao (Disputes over the Sino-American labor agreement) (Taipei, 1965).",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1975.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/j0995146d",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 208857,
        "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-1980",
        "page_number": 19,
        "title": "RAS-1980",
        "content_text": "to be a particular casualty, and regret that I did not get round to acknowledging his work, which I now have pleasure in doing. By the same token, I wish to thank Ed Wickberg for very kindly proof-reading much of the 1979 Journal during his sabbatical year at the Centre of Asian Studies. After my 1978 experience, I hardly dared to acknowledge his help, but am glad to do so now!\n\nOne regret is that I hardly managed to get a good book review section going during the whole period, and never did get down to producing a local publications section. It shows up the weakness of my \"one man approach\" to the work. This was occasioned partly by the scrappy way in which I got the work done as time and energy left from my labours in Tsuen Wan and elsewhere allowed, and partly by my own liking for doing the whole job.\n\nTaking a broader and more impersonal view of the Journal over this period, and indeed since its inception twenty-one years ago, it has made its own unique contribution to the research and recording of Hong Kong history and society. In this sense, it has surely helped what one might call the Hong Kong balance sheet. Despite the devoted intentions of the Hong Kong Heritage Society and other bodies, it is simply not possible for Hong Kong to keep many of its historic buildings, given the rights attached to private ownership, the exceedingly high value of land, and the formidable cost of running a business enterprise. The recording work done by the Society and others of its kind helps in some measure to offset the losses that occur through the destruction and replacement of old buildings.*\n\nBeside being my final Journal, this is also the last for our Honorary Life Member and printer, Mr. Y. F. Lam (***) of Ye Olde Printerie. It is fitting that he and I finish our joint association with the Journal together. I cannot imagine editing and producing it for all these years without his enthusiastic persistence, patience, and, above all, friendship.\n\nFinally, I have handed over to David Faure, whose knowledge, energy, zeal and efficiency are of a high order. He has proved this by getting out the 1981 issue before I had finished this one! The Society is fortunate to have enlisted his interest and services.\n\nSeptember 1982\n\nJAMES HAYES\n\n* Our published work includes Hong Kong, Going and Gone, 1980.\n\nix",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1980.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/kh04md207",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209110,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 13,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "CONTENTS\n\nPRESIDENT'S REPORT ... 1\n\nHON. TREASURER'S REPORT 6\n\nHON. LIBRARIAN'S REPORT.\n\nTRANSACTIONS:\n\nFolk Medicine in Borneo: Diagnosis and Cure-Stephen Morris 10\n\nAnother Look at Land and Lineage in the New Territories, c. 1900-Edgar Wickberg 25\n\nARTICLES:\n\nReligious Response to Modernization in Taiwan: the Case of I-kuan Tao-Hubert Seiwert 43\n\nThe Public Records Office of Hong Kong-A.I. Diamond 71\n\nHong Kong and China in the village World-David Faure 75\n\nThe Chinese Church, Labour and Elites and the Mui Tsai Question in the 1920's-Carl T. Smith 91\n\nResidential Mobility and Kinship Ties among Urban Chinese Families in Hong Kong-Lee Ming-kwan 114\n\nEducation as a By-product of Fish Marketing-T.A. Acton 120\n\nJuan Yuan's Management of Sino-British Relations in Canton, 1817-1826-Wei Peh-t'i 144\n\nThe Hong Kong Origins of Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Address to Li Hung-chang-Alice Ng Lun Ngai-ha 168\n\nREPRINT:\n\nBro. Tsung Lai Shun in Massachusetts 179\n\nNOTES AND QUERIES:\n\nThe Yung Muk Tong Factories in Macau-David Faure 185\n\nLetters from World War II-David Faure 187\n\nTraditional Funerals-Patrick Hase 192\n\nNotes on Rice Farming in Shatin-Patrick Hase 196\n\nFuneral pots from an Ancestral Grave-David Faure 206\n\nBOOK REVIEWS 207\n\nMEMBERSHIP AS AT 31ST DECEMBER, 1981 211",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209136,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 39,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "ANOTHER LOOK AT LAND AND LINEAGE IN THE NEW TERRITORIES, CA. 1900\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG*\n\nPreface\n\nThe title of this paper may sound presumptuous, as if I have, after only six months' research, discovered the utter foolishness of all previous research on the subject, which I will now correct with one revisionist flourish. No such thing. What I really mean is: \"Yet another look at Land and Lineage in the New Territories, ca. 1900\". Why is \"yet another look\" worth taking? Because my methods and my experience are somewhat different from those of previous students of the subject, I think that I may be able to raise some old and some new questions in different ways than before and thereby advance discussion.\n\nI approach this task with some diffidence, since I am well aware of the years of experience, the skills and the effort that many people — including some in this room — have lavished on the subject. I am presenting my findings and views after only six months on the job because I want and need your comments and criticisms before it is too late; in other words, before my research year ends, as it will next July, and I must return to Canada. Better to correct mistakes now while I am still in the field and can do so.\n\nWith these comments as background, let me turn to Part I of the paper.\n\n1. The multi-tiered land tenure system of east and south China.\n\nOur understanding of agricultural land tenure in the New Territories ca. 1900 will be enhanced by considering first the general type of Chinese system of which it was a representative. This system, usually called \"one-field, two-owners” (or, sometimes, when circumstances warranted, \"one-field, three-owners\"), has been written about extensively by Chinese, and especially, by Japanese scholars. Widely found in south China during the Ch'ing period, this system was characterized by a separation of agricultural land ownership and occupancy into several\n\n* Professor of History, University of British Columbia.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209137,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 40,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "26\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nrights. The two most common were: the right to collect revenue from the land, and the right to use the land. A third right, that of permanent sublease tenancy, might also be established and recognized. The first and second of these rights, the ones most commonly found, were called \"ownership\" rights, and it was customary to speak of one \"owner's\" owning the \"topsoil\" and the other \"owner's\" possessing the \"bottom\" soil. Although these terms, used in the New Territories as elsewhere, are colourful and memorable, they are somewhat misleading to those of us who today think of mineral rights, air space, and so on. I prefer to think of these as simply two different rights in land: one a revenue right, the other a right of agricultural cultivation. In most places where this separation of land rights was found, each of the two rights in question was perpetual, could be inherited, and could be freely mortgaged or sold. Thus, the owner of the revenue right might not even know the location of the land from which he drew revenue; he had inherited or purchased a right to income from it, which he, in turn, could freely dispose of. In that sense, the revenue right became, by the late Ch'ing period, more a right to income from a given piece of land than a partial \"ownership\" of that land. The only responsibility he had towards the land was to pay the tax, which, being lower in amount than the revenue he received, allowed him a net profit. The holder of the cultivation right, on the other hand, was closer to what we would consider an \"owner\". He was free to farm the land as he wished, and he might sublet it if he chose. His only responsibility was to pay the revenue charge to the person who held the right to collect it. Since that charge was usually much less in amount than what he might gain from farming the land himself or by collecting rent from a tenant, he, too, made a profit. We tend to think of this person as an \"owner\" because he might very well have farmed the land himself, and, even if he did not, he might reside close by and keep track, thereby, of the condition of the land. Yet there were holders of the cultivation right who did not live near the land in question, and who knew little of its actual condition. In such cases, the tenant who actually held a lease from them might come, in time, to be recognized as having a permanent right to be a tenant on that land. Once that happened, such a tenant might be able to sell his right to be tenant, or mortgage it. He might also, if the land in question were sufficiently sizeable and fertile, sublet part or all of it to someone else. In this way, several different rights in a given piece of land were established, and, thereby, a large and fertile piece of land might support a large number of people, each with a right to some aspect of it. In this way,",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209139,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 42,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "28\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nIn a fourth case, a sale of land was the origin of the relationship and the convenience of the buyer was the reason. In such a case, described as common in the New Territories, the name of the original owner was retained on the property rolls after the land had changed hands, and he continued to pay the tax for the new owner. The reasons were convenience and money-saving for the new owner. A new registration was expensive and inconvenient. It cost less and was less troublesome to pay a fee to the former owner, which he would use to pay the tax. The size of that fee in relation to the amount of tax might be a subject of research interest. It seems likely that in some cases, at least, the practice of pao-lan that is, of tax-farming as a profitable business was a part of this arrangement. In any case, sales of this kind were common in the New Territories at the time of British takeover.\n\n—\n\nIn a fifth case, a would-be seller of land, who wished to dispose of lands that were too distant or otherwise inconvenient for him to manage but did not want to part with them completely, did not sell the lands but instead gave them out on a perpetual lease, subject to payment of a fee by the lessee which would allow the \"owner\" to pay the tax, the land continuing to be registered in his name. In such cases, the owner might be a widow who could neither farm nor manage the land; or it might be a clan or a monastery too distant to administer the holding. The perpetual lessee might be an individual farmer; or it might be a local clan or other institution, like a temple or monastery. Through this \"near sale\" practice of perpetual lease, an official document of lease being part of the arrangement, it appears, the owner maintained at least a tenuous tie to the land, should he wish to recover it for his own use at some later date. Parenthetically, this kind of near-sale was a common practice in late imperial Chinese property dealings. Some of the early British officials remarked that the perpetual lease of this kind was often confused with the Chinese customary mortgage (tien), also in use in the New Territories. By the terms of such mortgages, the borrower did not pay interest to the lender, but instead he transferred his property, on a long-term loan basis, as it were, to the lender, who, during the life of the unredeemed mortgage loan, had the benefit of all income he could derive from the land. Since such mortgages often were in force for decades, the position of the mortgage holder became that almost of an owner, or, at least, of a perpetual lessee. These practices, by which there were degrees of alienation of one's land, provided for flexibility in land dealings. They also responded to the needs of a society in which agricultural land, particularly that",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209145,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 48,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "34\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nOne might infer that in such cases the large owner was using mortgage loans as well as direct purchases to expand his holdings over a large span of territory. Not all large \"absentee\" owners appear as mortgage holders, however.\n\nOur interpretation of the mortgage data is severely limited by the fact that we are looking at a single slice in time, 1905, which may not give us a full picture of the lending and borrowing operations of individuals as they might appear over several years of activity. It also is well known that at the time of British takeover of the New Territories many long-standing customary mortgages were paid off under an apprehension that they might not be recognized by British policy. Therefore, the situation of 1905 as reflected in the Block Crown Lease Schedules, does not necessarily typify that of any given year in the nineteenth century.\n\nIt would be of interest to compare land tenure in Hakka areas and in Punti areas. Of the four major villages that make up my area of study, only one is completely Hakka, although Hakkas are found in one other. In addition, much land in this region was owned by the Hakka clans of the large village of Wang Toi Shan, which is in the eastern part of the Pat Heung but outside the scope of my research so far. The limited amount of information I have allows little generalization. The small Hakka village of Shui Lau Tin contains a few major owners whose holdings are well beyond the lands of the village itself; but many \"outsiders\" owned lands right up to the gates, so to speak, of Shui Lau Tin. The Wang Toi Shan Hakkas, on the other hand, owned land all over the region of my study. More about them below.\n\nHakkas were important as landlords. We do not normally think of Hakkas as landlords. But in this region Hakka-owned tenant-cultivated land amounted to about 175 acres out of 1,472, or about 12 percent. Locally speaking, about 20 percent of tenant-cultivated land in the western end of this area was Hakka-owned; and in the western extremity Hakka-owned land was almost 50 percent of all tenant-cultivated land.\n\n―\n\nThus, of four reasons commonly given for relatively high rates of tenancy - population pressure on land; existence of sizeable land-owning clans; frontier or land reclamation; and commercialization it would appear that the presence of the clan was clearly the most important reason for the level of tenancy in this part of the New Territories, and probably in the entire New Territories as well.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209149,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 52,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "38\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nhalls to see what I could learn about Tang influence on the one hand and local solidarities and influence on the other.\n\nI expected to find a pattern of declining Tang landholdings as one moved away from Kam Tin towards the east end of the Basin. In fact, what I found was solid owned-holdings and mortgage holdings by the Kam Tin Tangs in the area immediately to the east of the lineage stronghold itself, but a complete drop-off thereafter: no Kam Tin Tang holdings beyond a mile or two east of Kam Tin. Instead, what is most noticeable is the widespread land ownership influence of a different set of Tangs - the Hakka Tangs of Wang Toi Shan, a large village of several hamlets in the Northeastern portion of the Pat Heung area. Indeed, it is Wang Toi Shan ownership that follows my presumed pattern of solidity nearby trailing off to smaller amounts over distance. Wang Toi Shan people owned lands at considerable distances from their village well beyond their ability to walk to them and cultivate them themselves and right up to the area where Kam Tin Tang ownership began. Interestingly enough, Wang Toi Shan Tang holdings were mostly those of clan trusts. Where the lands were near to Wang Toi Shan itself, they were both individually-owned and clan-owned; more distant lands were almost all clan-owned. Parenthetically, this seems to resemble an observation made by J. T. Kamm about the holdings of the Kam Tin Tangs: that their individual holdings were close by and their clan holdings were often distant.\n\nThe Tangs of Wang Toi Shan may or may not be related in some way to the Tangs of Kam Tin. The Wang Toi Shan Tangs were Hakkas, of course, and the Kam Tin Tangs are usually thought of as Punti. But there is a Kam Tin tradition that someone of the Punti Tang branches of Ping Shan or Ha Tsuen married a Hakka woman of Waichow and that her male offspring settled in Wang Toi Shan, thereby founding the Tang name and fortune there. And the genealogy of the Hakka Tangs of Shui Lau Tin, who claim affiliation with the Wong Toi Shan Tangs, shows some possible links between themselves and the Kam Tin Tangs. The Wang Toi Shan Tangs with whom I have spoken deny kinship, but their genealogy appears to show a common place of origin in North China with the Kam Tin Tangs. Lo Hsiang-lin, however, finds no modern connection.\n\nV. Localities\n\nLet us look individually at the villages in the area east of Kam Tin, starting with Sheung Tsuen village, the farthest away at the east end",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209151,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 54,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "40\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nThe 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.\n\nFinally, 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.\n\nHaving 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.\n\nI 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",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209153,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 56,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "42\n\nEDGAR WICKBERG\n\nlineage. The lineage has a great deal of clan solidarity but at the same time there is marked internal differentiation. The other type of locality, one without a dominant lineage, is made up of small farmers of several lineages. Only a few are markedly wealthier than their fellows. But there is also only limited solidarity.\n\nIt would be presumptuous of me, on the basis of my limited research, to challenge this analysis, and I have no intention of doing so. I would, however, like to suggest that further refinement may be useful. It seems clear to me, looking at the four villages I have considered, that there is a good deal of variation among villages where there is no dominant lineage. To lump them into a single category without further definition is to define them only negatively - they are NOT lineage strongholds; so they ARE everything and anything else. Can we say more about them? How, for instance, can we further classify the area around Sheung Tsuen where it appears that two lineages - one of them from a neighbouring village - approach “dominance”? What can we say of a small two-lineage village like Shui Lau Tin? What if there is no surname dominance but there is some kind of community organization, either at the village level or at the level of a group of villages? Is there a variety of \"non-dominant\" types along a continuum of relative degrees of clan leadership and/or community solidarity? It would seem reasonable that there should be.\n\nFinally, a proposal. We may readily observe and accept the expansion of the \"great clans\". But we should also wonder about whether, and, if so, how \"non-great clans\" expand in multi-lineage areas. Do their expansive activities have anything to do with the fact that these areas are multi-lineage and are not dominated by single clan? The \"great clans\" are attractive as subjects of study. We wonder about their creation, their expansion and their maintenance. We appreciate their ability to produce scholars and to wield influence. But let me make a plea that we also take as a subject of study those zones where one can see but slight influence of the Great Clans of the New Territories.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209327,
        "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-1981",
        "page_number": 230,
        "title": "RAS-1981",
        "content_text": "216\n\nFABER, Mrs G.A.G. FAWCETT, Mr B.C. FRASER, Mr A.P. GALVIN, Mr J.A.T.\n\nGEORGE, Mr Timothy J.B. GIEDROYC, Mr Michael J.H. GOLDNEY, Miss C.M. HARDEN, Mrs Guy T., Jr. HAYDON, Mr E.S. HECHTEL, Mr F.O.P. HOWARTH, Mr Richard H. HUGHES, Mrs Marion HURT, Miss Evelyn J. INGLES, Miss Jean M. IRETON, Mrs Polly H. JOHNSTON, Mr James J. JORDAN, Dr David K. KIDD, Mr S.T.\n\n7\n\nKNOWLES, Miss Moria G. KNOWLES, Mrs W.C.G. KURATA, Mrs Lucien LANCHESTER Mrs G.W. LAUFER, Mr E.M. LAUFER, Mrs B.M. LI, DR Choh-Ming LINDSAY, Mr T.J. LOTHROP, Mr Francis B. MANSFIELD, Miss M.B. MICHAELIONES, Miss E.O. MILL, Major C.S., USMC MILLER, Mr Carl F.O. NICHOLS, The Hon. Mr E.H. O'BRIEN, Father J.R. PLAG, Rev. Albrecht POLAND, Mr Thomas D. RITCHIE, Mr Douglas J. ROBINSON, Prof. K.E. ROTHE, Mr Ulrich. SINFIELD, Mr G.HC. SPERRY, Mr Henry M. STEVENS, Mr Keith G. SWIRE, Mr A.C.\n\nTILL, The Very Rev. Barry TURNER, Sir Michael WARD, Miss Janet E.A. WELCH, Mr Holmes H. WHITELEGGE, Mr D.S. WOLF, Mr John\n\nORDINARY OVERSEAS MEMBERS\n\nANDERSON, Dr Eugene N., Jr.\n\nBARR, Mr J.W. BEVERIDGE, Mr R.J. BOND, Mr Michael W. CHAR, Mr Tin Yuke CHINN, Mrs Caroline Lee CLARK, Mrs A.T. COOPER, Dr Eugene\n\nDE FAZIO, Mr & Mrs M.F. EASTON, Ms. Linda\n\nFESSLER, Mr Loren FITZGIBBON, Mr Desmond GARD, Dr Richard A.\n\nGILMAN, Ms Claudia\n\nGOODRICH, Prof. L. Carrington\n\nHARRISON, Prof, B.\n\nHEMMING, Miss Janet M. HODGSON, Mr A.F.\n\nHODGSON, Mrs Kirsty Hamilton HOGAN, Mr James HUYSMAN, Mr J.\n\nKNEEBONE, Mrs Susan\n\nKRAMERS, Dr R.P. LIU, Prof. Ts'un Yan LU, Mrs Sylvia MACLEAN, Mr Roderick MATHIAS, Dr John R.G. McCOY, Mr John\n\nMORGAN, Mrs Carole MYERS, Mr John T. PARR, Mr M.J.\n\nREDFERN, Mr O'Donnell S. REID, Mr A.J.H. SCHWARZER, Mr C.A. SELWYN, Mr J.B. SMITH, Dr Ralph B. STEEDS, Mr David\n\nSTOKES, Mr John\n\nSTRAUCH, Dr Judith STURM, Prof. Fred Gillette VILLIERS, Dr John WATSON, Dr James L. WICKBERG, Professor Edgar",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1981.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ff36bt18m",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209714,
        "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-1982",
        "page_number": 371,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "BOOK REVIEWS\n\n349\n\nit is necessary to emphasize this point anew. Secondly, with their likely (outward) bias against it, they did not bring out the importance of the popular religion for its own sake. They also missed its importance as a factor shaping local management. The popular religion emphasized the protection of the people against disease and harmful influences of all kinds, not only as individuals but as families and communities. Hugh Baker's own series Ancestral Images (SCMP Ltd. 1979, 1980 and 1981) and Joan Law and Barbara Ward's recent book on Chinese Festivals (South China Morning Post 1982) help to fill this gap. Thirdly, the daily life of ordinary people and its strong cultural base need to be added to the record. Fortunately, detail on these areas is now being recovered through recent field research conducted mainly from the Chinese University.\n\nThe interested reader could expand his studies beyond the gazetteer, with the help both of Dr. Baker's complementary text and the notes, and the additional material research workers continue to provide for later synthesis. Dr. Baker has touched on land (pp 44-45) and has filled out the account provided in the gazetteer about settlement, especially after the \"Evacuation of the Coast 1662-69\" (pp 26-28) but more information is now becoming available. On land and land-related matters, Edgar Wickberg, David Faure and Michael Palmer have work published or in preparation. For settlement details, the collected genealogies of the long settled families of the New Territories, large and small, are producing a wealth of new material. A new listing of local genealogies, mostly held in manuscript, with an explanation of their contribution to local history, is given in Anthony K. K. Siu's recent book Genealogies and Hong Kong's Local History (in Chinese) published privately by the Hin Chiu Institute in 1983. Mr. Siu has also pointed to the use that can be made of the other and older Chinese sources for the region. This kind of documentary research would greatly assist with identifying more of the (too large) number of village names which remain unidentified on maps 7 and 8 referred to above. The gazetteer's listing of temples can also be extended. It is certain from my field research and enquiries that more existed than are stated in the 1819 edition, and many more were added after that time.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 209733,
        "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-1982",
        "page_number": 390,
        "title": "RAS-1982",
        "content_text": "368\n\nORDINARY OVERSEAS MEMBERS\n\nMORGAN, Mrs. C.\n\nMYERS, Mr. J.T.\n\nPARR, Mr. M.J.\n\nREYNOLDS, Prof. W.A.\n\nREYNOLDS, Mrs. J.\n\nSCHWARZER, Mr. C.A.\n\nSELWYN, Mr. J.B.\n\nSMITH, Dr. R.B.\n\nSTEEDS, Mr. D.\n\nSTOKES, Mr. J.\n\nSTRAUCH, Dr. J.\n\nSTURM, Prof. F.G.\n\nVILLIERS, Dr. J.\n\nWATT, Mr. J.\n\nWICKBERG, Prof. E.\n\nWILLIAMS, Miss S.\n\nWILSON, Miss E.\n\nPage 390\n\nPage 391",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-1982.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mk61z420p",
        "rank": 0
    }
]