12                                        Cultural Heritage Assessment

12.1                                  Introduction

This section presents the results of the cultural heritage impact assessment (CHIA) for the construction and operation of the proposed an LNG terminal at Black Point.  It summarises information gathered from a literature review and field surveys to establish the baseline cultural heritage and marine archaeological conditions.  The detailed field survey findings are presented in Annex 12.  Potential impacts have been evaluated and measures have been recommended to mitigate potentially adverse impacts, where appropriate.

The study area for terrestrial archaeological investigation included areas within 100 m from the Project Site boundary and works areas that were considered to potentially have adverse impacts on known and unknown archaeological sites.  The Study Area for the marine archaeological investigation included the seabed that will be affected by the marine works on the Project.  These areas are shown on Figure 12.1.

12.2                                  Legislative Requirements and Evaluation Criteria

The following legislation and guidelines are applicable to the assessment of sites of cultural heritage in Hong Kong:

·       Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (EIAO) (Cap. 499.S16);

·       Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance (Cap. 499.S16). Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process (EIAO TM);

·       Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53)(AM Ordinance);

·       Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28);

·       Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines;

·       Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA); and

·       Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI).

12.2.1                            Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance

According to the EIAO, Schedule 1 Interpretation, “Sites of Cultural Heritage” are defined as:

an antiquity or monument, whether being a place, building, site or structure or a relic, as defined in the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) and any place, building, site, or structure or a relic identified by the Antiquities and Monuments Office to be of archaeological, historical or palaeontological significance”.


12.2.2                            Technical Memorandum on the EIA Process

The technical scope for evaluating and assessing cultural heritage impacts is defined in Annexes 10, 18 and 19 of the EIAO TM.  The approach recommended by the guidelines can be summarized as follows.

·       The general presumption in favour of the protection and conservation of all sites of cultural heritage because they provide an essential, finite and irreplaceable link between the past and the future and are points of reference and identity for culture and tradition; and

·       Adverse impacts on sites of cultural heritage shall be kept to an absolute minimum.

12.2.3                            Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53)

The Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53) (AM Ordinance) provides statutory protection against the threat of development on Declared Monuments, historical buildings and archaeological sites to enable their preservation for posterity.  The AM Ordinance also establishes the statutory procedures to be followed in making such a declaration.

In practice, the Antiquities and Monuments Office (AMO) also identifies Deemed Monuments([1]) and then seeks to reach agreements with the owners of the monuments to provide for specific measures that will ensure preservation.  Deemed Monuments have the potential to be upgraded to statutory Declared Monuments under the AM Ordinance.

A large range of potential sites of cultural heritage, among which are historical buildings and structures and archaeological sites, have been identified and recorded by AMO in addition to those for which a declaration has been made under the AM Ordinance. 

Historic buildings and structures are recorded by AMO according to the grading system summarised in Table 12.1.

Table 12.1      The Grading of Historical Buildings




Buildings of outstanding merit; every effort should be made to preserve if possible


Buildings of special merit; effort should be made to selectively preserve


Buildings of some merit, but not yet qualified for consideration as possible monuments.  These are to be recorded and used as a pool for future selection

It should be noted that the grading of historical buildings is intended for AMO’s internal reference only and has no statutory standing.  Although there are no statutory provisions for the protection of recorded archaeological sites and historical buildings and features (including deemed, graded and recorded), the Government has established a set of administrative procedures([2]) for giving consideration to the protection of these resources.

Over the years, surveys have been undertaken to identify archaeological sites in Hong Kong.  The AMO has established boundaries for the identified sites and a set of administrative procedures for the protection of the known archaeological sites.  However, the present record of archaeological sites is known to be incomplete as many areas have not yet been surveyed.  Therefore procedures and mechanisms, which enable the preservation and formal notification of previously unknown archaeological resources that may be revealed or discovered during project assessment or construction, must be identified and implemented at an early stage of the planning of a project.

Section 11 of the AM Ordinance requires any person who discovers an antiquity, or supposed antiquity, to report the discovery to the Antiquities Authority.  By implication, construction projects need to ensure that the Antiquities Authority, the Antiquities Advisory Board (AAB)([3]), is formally notified of archaeological resources which are discovered during the assessment or construction of a project. 

12.2.4                            Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28)

Under this Ordinance, it is required that a permit be obtained for any excavation within government land prior to commencement of any excavation work commencing. 

12.2.5                            Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines

Chapter 10, Conservation, of the HKPSG provides general guidelines and measures for the conservation of historical buildings, archaeological sites and other antiquities.

12.2.6                            Criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment(CHIA)

The criteria as stated in EIA Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005 details the criteria for the CHIA which include a baseline study, field evaluation and impact assessment. 

12.2.7                            Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) Guidelines

Guidelines for MAI outlined in Appendix D of the EIA Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005 provide details on the standard practice, procedures and methodology that must be undertaken in determining the marine archaeological potential, presence of archaeological artefacts and establishing suitable mitigation measures.  The first step, a Stage 1 MAI involves a baseline review, geophysical survey and establishing archaeological potential.  Subject to the results of the Stage 1 MAI, a Stage 2 MAI investigation may or may not be required.

12.3                                  Existing Conditions

12.3.1                            Terrestrial Cultural Heritage Resources

A comprehensive inventory of cultural heritage resources has been prepared from a desktop review supplemented by field surveys and identified the following:

·      No declared monuments or graded buildings identified;

·      Built Heritage – two building structures at Terraces 1 and 3, a WWII cave at Terrace 2 (see Figures 12.2 to 12.5) and a grave site(G001)(see Figure 12.2); and

·      Former Yung Long and existing Lung Kwu Sheung Tan archaeological sites (see Figure 12.6).

The sites are described below.

Built Heritage - Building Structure 1 at Terrace 1

Two separate building structures were identified and were named Structure 1a and 1b (see Figures 12.2 and 12.3).  The two structures are located at the northern tip of the Project Area facing northeast at approximately +22mPD.


Structure 1a is a dilapidated building measuring approximately 2m x 2m.  It has a pitch roof with mostly broken roof tiles.  The foundations of the gable walls were built with granite blocks with lime plastered with grey and reddish bricks built on top of the foundations.  The structure measures about 1.6 m high.  No decorative features or datable artefacts were identified and therefore, it is not known when the structure was built.  Based on the material used for the building, it is considered to have been built in the late 19th century to early middle 20th century.  Since buildings of similar material can still commonly be found in most of the New Territory areas, the structure is considered to have little architectural value.


Structure 1b is a stone wall measuring approximately 2m x 4m, a terraced platform with stone wall supports and a circle shaped stone structure likely to have been used for cooking.  Based on the material used for the building, it is likely to have been built in the late 19th century to early 20th century.  The structure is considered to have little architectural value.

Built Heritage – WWII Cave at Terrace 2

A terrace area with granite block built retaining walls was identified (see Figures 12.2 and 12.4).  However, no artefacts were identified.  On the slope from the terrace towards the rocky shore, a 1.5 m high cave was identified.  The cave is approximately 2.3 m deep facing northwest towards the Urmston Road.   It is expected that the cave was constructed during the Japanese occupation for military purposes([4]). 

Built Heritage - Building Structure at Terrace 3

A stone built rectangular structure measuring approximately 2 m x 4 m is located by the coast at approximately +20mPD facing the sea (see Figures 12.2 and 12.5) on a terraced platform.  The structure is unroofed with stone built stairs were constructed linking the terraced platform to the rocky shore.  No datable artefacts were identified around the structure, and thus, it is not known when the structure was built.  Based on the construction materials, it is estimated that the structure was built in the late 19th to early 20th century.  The structure is considered to have little architectural value as similar structures can commonly be found in most areas of the New Territories.

Grave Site

A grave site was identified within the project area (see Figures 12.7 and 12.8).  It is facing the south and generally in good condition.  It is not know which clan group the grave belongs to.   

Figure 12.7     Grave of Unknown Person


Former Yung Long Archaeological Site

The Project Site is located next to the former Yung Long archaeological site (at the beach area beneath the existing Black Point Power Station) (see Figure 12.7).  The archaeological site was identified by the Hong Kong Archaeological Society in 1974 and listed as an archaeological site in 1981.  In 1983 two test pits were excavated and kiln furniture such as kiln bars, kiln brick, kiln cover, fire grille and pot-stands were identified that identified the site as a Neolithic pottery kiln complex ([5]).  During 1992 and 1993, due to the construction of the Black Point Power Station, a full rescue excavation was conducted to preserve the site by record. The findings included archaeological features such as a house foundation, post holes, firing stove, burials, workshop areas and artefacts such as stone tools and stone rings, stone weights, pottery shards and bone tools dated to the early phase of the Late Neolithic Age([6]) (2,900 BC to 2,400 BC).

Lung Kwu Sheung Tan Archaeological Site

The site was first recorded by the Hong Kong Archaeological Society in 1976 where a small excavation was conducted and identified finds which included coarseware, chalk pottery and quartz discs.  It was again then visited by AMO in 1978 during which celadon and prehistoric shards were identified.  In the 1980s, Peacock and Nixon undertook investigations at the site and prehistoric artefacts and Song dynasty artefacts were identified([7]) .  

Archaeological Survey Result

As the Project Area is located relatively close to the former Yung Long Archaeological Site where Neolithic Age artefacts have been unearthed, the archaeological potential could not be ruled out. 

To obtain field data for the CHIA, an archaeological survey at Black Point as part of the EIA was therefore undertaken between 12 and 15 October 2005. 

A total of 40 auger holes and 9 test pits were conducted for the archaeological survey (see Figure 12.8).  Some late 19th to early 20th century common village ware pottery shards and roof tiles fragments were identified.  However, as these artefacts can still be commonly found in the New Territories, they are considered to have low cultural heritage significance.  No earlier period finds were discovered from the survey.  Thus, it is considered that the Project Area is of negligible to low archaeological potential.


12.3.2                            Marine Archaeological Resources

The waters between Shekou (situated in Shenzhen) and Black Point were used as a war junk anchorage from the 8th century.  In the 8th century (Tang Dynasty), Black Point was within the military division area of Tunmen Bing Zhen (屯門兵鎮) whose 2,000 soldiers were under the command of one Defence Commissioner.  The headquarters of this division was situated in the present Nantou (南頭) walled city of Shenzhen and its military division area also covered the HKSAR, as well as the Huizhou (惠州) and Chaozhou (潮州) areas ([8]).  The military division was serving the same area until the Yuan Dynasty (A.D.1279-1368). 

In the late 16th century (Ming Dynasty), China was facing frequent disturbance from coastal invaders and more forts and beacon towers were set up to protect the key locations from Japanese pirates.  The Nantou Military Division (南頭寨) was established in 1565 and commanded 53 war junks and 1,486 soldiers ([9]).  The military force was increased to 1,659 soldiers in 1645.

During this period, the Portuguese explorer, Jorge Alvares was permitted to land on Lintin Island (Neilingding 內伶仃) in 1513 ([10]). He then built a fort and erected a stone column with a carving of the Portuguese national symbol.  The Chinese navy attacked and demolished the Portuguese fort in 1518 ([11]).  In 1522, it was recorded that a sea battle between the Chinese navy and Portuguese ships was fought in the water between Lantau Island and Tuen Mun.  The Chinese navy won the battle.

A review of a historical chart of the mouth of the Pearl River dated 1658 ([12]), also indicated that the waters between Black Point and Lintin Island were part of the main shipping route from the West to the East.  

During the Ming to Qing Dynasties (A.D.1368 -1911), Imperial Junks sailing from Guangdong to Southeast Asian countries were required to anchor at a bay known as Chiwan (赤灣) on the Nantou peninsula, located to the west of Shenzhen City (located some 9 km north of Black Point).  The Nantou area used to zone as the Nantou Military Division.  During the early Qing Dynasty in the 1660s, although the Nantou Military Division was replaced by Xin’an Camp (新安營), it was still situated within the Nantou Walled City ([13]).  A Tin Hau Temple was established in this Chiwan Bay, probably in 1410 according to an inscription of the Temple where sailors worshipped Tin Hau seeking protection from mishaps at sea([14]).  Two stone forts were also built near the Tin Hau Temple during the Qing Dynasty and the remains of the forts can still be found.

Based on this historical review, it is considered that Black Point is located in the vicinity of a historically busy marine sea route.  The waters at Black Point, Deep Bay and Neilingding Island have provided the main shipping channel between Guangdong and the Southern China Sea and Southeast Asian countries as well as East and West for centuries.  On this basis, the waters at Black Point are considered to have marine archaeological potential. 

A review of the Study on the Potential, Assessment, Management and Preservation of Maritime Archaeological Sites in Hong Kong undertaken in 1998([15]) identified a number of shipwrecks recorded some 3.5 km Northwest outside the proposed project area but no shipwrecks were identified within the proposed project area.  A review of the wreck files kept by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office identified no shipwrecks were found to be within 1km of the Project Area.

Geophysical Survey Data Review

Geophysical surveys were undertaken by CAPCO’s geophysical contractor EGS(Asia) Limited (EGS), covering the proposed LNG marine facilities associated with Black Point site (see Figure 12.1).  The objective of the geophysical survey was to define the areas/sites of greatest archaeological potential, assess the depth and nature of the seabed sediments and map any seabed and sub-bottom anomalies which may have archaeological material.  The survey data obtained by EGS were reviewed by a qualified marine archaeologist and a summary of the findings are described below and detailed in Annex 12-B. 


The geophysical survey using multi beam system, side scan sonar system and sub-bottom profiler system showed that the surveyed area has been impacted by anchoring, trawling and the dumping of materials.  A site was identified as possible wrecks on the seabed (Figures 12.9 and 12.10, and Table 12.2).

Figure 12.10   Possible Wreck (SC086)


Table 12.2      Sonar Contact SC086

Based on the side scan sonar image SC086 was considered to be a possible wreck.  In order to address the doubt as well as the possibility that the recognizable shipwreck could be modern sites, (i.e., post-1800 the date which AM Ordinance defines an antiquity as a relic) a magnetic survey was conducted to ascertain how much ferrous material remained on the anomalies.  While pre-1800 ships would have carried ferrous equipment and used ferrous material in their construction, it was considered that the amount of ferrous material detected during a magnetic survey could provide an indication on the age of the vessel.

Magnetic Survey

EGS performed the magnetic survey and conducted a measurement of turbidity from 2 to 4 September 2005 at 14 Sonar Contacts of archaeological potential between South Soko and Black Point.  Sonar Contact SC086 is located within the Black Point Study Area. 


The magnetometer survey confirmed the presence of ferrous material at SC086 to contain in excess of 1,000nt more that the surrounding area.  This was estimated to be in excess of 2-3 tons of ferrous material and given the size of SC086, this site was interpreted as a wooden vessel containing a reasonable amount of iron/steel.

Remote Operated Vehicle (ROV)

In order to investigate the age and nature of SC086, an ROV survey was undertaken on 15 February 2006 by EGS under the marine archaeologist’s supervision.  The finding is summarized in Table 12.3 and detailed in Annex 12-B.

Table 12.3      ROV Survey Findings

Because of the poor (nil) visibility, the nature and ages of SC086 could not be determined.  The presence of fishing nets found on SC086 also made a diver survey too hazardous due to the prominence of the nets on the seabed and the likelihood of trapping nets.  Therefore, a more detailed sonar survey was carried out in an attempt to further define SC086. 

Side Scan Sonar and Multi Beam Sonar Survey

A further detailed side scan sonar and multi beam sonar survey was undertaken by EGS in April 2006 for Sonar Contact SC086.  An analysis of this new data in context with the earlier survey work (side scan sonar survey and magnetometer data) was carried out by the marine archaeologist.  The summary result is presented below and detailed findings are presented in Annex 12-B.

The result indicated that the vessel and its location has the appearance of a ‘recent’ motorised wooden sampan.  Located close to the rocks at Black Point and effected by the swells breaking over it, and the continual sea traffic, the vessel could not be expected to maintain its integrity for very long (perhaps months or just a year or so).  Seats can be seen in the vessel and it shows damage to its hull which is considered to have been caused from its continual movement/sinking.  A vessel of pre-1800 age would not be in this condition at this location. 

The Marine Department salvaged a similar looking sampan on the 22 March 2006 which they reported was about 30 years old.  SC086 is probably of a similar vintage.  Based on the survey data, SC086 is considered to be a motorised sampan and is therefore not an antiquity or relic of archaeological value according to the Antiquities and Monuments Ordinance (Cap. 53).

12.4                                  Assessment Methodology for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment

The CHIA methodology follows the criteria and guidelines in Annexes 10 and 19 of the EIAO TM and the criteria for Cultural Heritage Impact Assessment (CHIA) and Guidelines for Marine Archaeological Investigation (MAI) as stated EIA Study Brief No. ESB-126/2005.

12.4.1                            Baseline Study for Terminal Site

A comprehensive inventory of cultural heritage resources within the project area was compiled and includes:

·          All declared monuments or graded historical buildings listed by AMO;

·          All sites of archaeological interest (including marine archaeological sites);

·          All pre-1950 buildings and structures;

·          Selected post-1950 buildings and structures of high architectural and historical significance and interest; and

·      Landscape features including sites of historical events or providing a significant historical record or a setting for buildings or monuments of architectural or archaeological importance, historic field patterns, tracks and fish ponds and cultural elements such as fung shui woodlands and clan graves.

Information sources included the AMO, Hydrographic Office of Marine Department, the Royal Naval Hydrographic Department in UK, Lands Department, Public Records Office, tertiary libraries and the internet. 

12.4.2                            Field Surveys

Historical Buildings and Features Survey

The Project Area (defined as the area within and up to 100 m from the terminal site boundary) was field scanned to identify all historical buildings and structures.  Photographic records of each building or structure, (exterior and interior where possible) as well as the surroundings were taken.  Architectural and historical appraisals of identified sites were also developed. Three building structure sites located at three Terrace areas were identified.  They are detailed in Section 12.3.1 above.

Terrestrial Archaeological Survey

Prior to fieldwork commencement, a desktop review was undertaken through the review of old maps, aerial photographs, topography, geological background and previous archaeological survey findings to establish the fieldwork scope for agreement with AMO.  Relevant licences and permits were obtained from DLO/Tuen Mun and AMO.  The fieldwork was undertaken between 12 and 15 October 2006.  A total of 40 auger holes and 9 test pits were conducted within the surveyed area (see Figure 12.8).  The detailed findings are presented in Annex 12-A and summarised in Section 12.3.1   

Marine Archaeological Investigation

Following a baseline review including review of literature and old maps, consultation with UK Hydrographic Office and Hong Kong Hydrographic Office on their database of shipwrecks, comprehensive geophysical survey comprising the use of side scan sonar system, multi-beam system, magnetometer system, sub-bottom profiler system and Remote Operated Video (ROV) system were undertaken in varies stages covering the proposed submarine Project Area.  Table 12.4 summarised the systems adopted and survey period undertaken for the Geophysical Survey.  The survey data obtained by EGS were reviewed and interpreted by the marine archaeologist to identify features of possible archaeological potential.  The detailed methodology and findings are presented in Annex 12-B and summarised in Section 12.3.2.

Table 12.4      Geophysical Survey Conducted for MAI


Survey System Adopted

Survey Period



Side Scan Sonar System, multi-beam system, sub-bottom profiler system

May to July and August to September 2005

Covers the submarine project area


Magnetometer system

1-4 September 2005

For 14 Sonar Contacts only


Remote Operated Video

15 February 2006

For 6 Sonar Contacts only


Side Scan Sonar System, multi-beam system

6-7 April 2006

For 6 Sonar Contacts only  

12.5                                  Potential Sources of Impact

12.5.1                            Construction Phase

The construction phase of a development may have direct or indirect impacts to sites of potential sites of cultural heritage.  Such impacts may arise from the following activities:

·      Direct loss of historical buildings or structures due to temporary or permanent landtake for development;

·      Indirect impact on access for future archaeological surveys due to temporary or permanent landtake for development where the archaeological deposits are preserved in situ within the development site but in instances where no soil excavation work is required at the archaeologically sensitive area;

·      Temporary or permanent change of cultural landscape around standing heritage that indirectly reduces the associated cultural landscape value;

·      Construction vibration impacts on standing heritage;

·      Temporary or permanent access disturbance to standing heritage due to construction work near standing heritage.

·      Direct loss of potential marine archaeological deposits due to seabed construction works such as dredging and piling; and

·      Direct loss of archaeological deposits due to soil excavation in archaeological deposits area.

12.5.2                            Operation Phase

The operation phase of a development may have direct or indirect impacts to sites of potential sites of cultural heritage from the following activities:

·       Indirect impact on access for future archaeological surveys; and

·       Permanent access disturbance to standing heritage if the standing heritage are conserved within the developed area.

12.6                                  Impact Assessment

As there are no Declared Monuments or Deemed Monuments located within the Project Area and no sites of cultural heritage protected under the AM Ordinance have been identified, construction and operational impacts to sites of cultural heritage are not expected. 

Direct loss of two building structures at Terrace 1, a WWII cave at Terrace 2 and a stone structure at Terrace 3 is expected due to the site formation works for the development within the Project Boundary.  As these features are considered to have low heritage value their loss is acceptable.

Impact to the grave is not expected as it is located outside the project boundary. 

One potential marine archaeological site (SC086) was identified from a review of geophysical data and magnetometer data review.  A ROV survey and further detailed side scan sonar and multi beam survey was undertaken to inspect the nature and age of the site.  The surveys indicated that SC086 is a modern motorized sampan and is therefore considered to have no archaeological value.  Since no marine archaeological resources were identified within the marine area of the proposed development, no impact is expected.

At present there are no planned projects on Black Point that could have cumulative cultural heritage impacts with the construction of the LNG terminal. 

12.7                                  Mitigation Measures

Although the direct loss of two building structures at Terrace 1, a WWII cave at Terrace 2 and a stone structure at Terrace 3 is expected due to the site formation works for the development, these cultural heritage resources are considered to have low cultural heritage value.  Thus, the impact is considered acceptable provided that a photographic and cartographic recording is undertaken for the sites following AMO’s requirements.

As no impact on the grave is expected, no mitigation measure is required.

As no marine archaeological interest sites have been identified, no impact is expected.  Thus, no mitigation measures are considered necessary. 

12.8                                  Conclusions

A literature review supplemented by a field survey has identified four terrestrial sites of cultural heritage comprising two building structures at Terrace 1, a WWII cave at Terrace 2, a stone structure at Terrace 3 and a grave site.  Construction activities will impact the three building structures, but they are considered to have little cultural heritage value.  Appropriate mitigation measures comprising the preparation of photographic and cartographic records prior to their removal will be undertaken to preserve these structures by record. 

No impact to the identified grave is expected as it is located outside the project boundary.

No marine archaeological sites have been identified, thus, the proposed development imposes no marine archaeological impact and no mitigation measures are considered necessary.

With the implementation of the mitigation measures as detailed in Section 12.7, no residual impact is expected.


([1])      Deemed Monument – a building that has been identified by AMO as historically significant. The owner of the building has entered an agreement with AMO to allow restoration work to take place and reasonable access for the public.  This designation provides no legal protection over the building under the AM Ordinance.

([2])      Administrative procedures are adopted by AMO with the intention to protect sites of archaeological and historical interests that not protected under the provisions of AM Ordinance. For example, reserve area may be imposed on a particular area or building consultation with AMO for advice when development within the reserve area is proposed.  These AMO measures are referred to as administrative procedures.

([3])      The Antiquities and Monuments Office is the entry point to pass information to the AAB.   The AAB is a statutory body consisting of expertise in relevant fields to advise on any matters relating to antiquities and monuments.

([4])      Ko, TK 1996 Ruins of War : A Guide to Hong Kong's Battlefields and Wartime Sites. Hong Kong : Joint Publishing (H.K.) Co., Ltd.

([5])      Peacock and Nixon 1985 “Yung Long”, The Hong Kong Archaeological Survey: Subsurface Investigation Reports, Hong Kong, Antiquities and Monuments Office, p25-36.

([6])      香港古物古蹟辦事處 1997 湧浪新石器時代遺址發掘簡報,考古1997年第六期,科學出版社,p35-53.

([7])     Peacock and Nixon 1986  Report of the Hong Kong Archaeological Survey Hong Kong, Antiquities and Monuments Office.

([8])      Siu, K.K 1997 Forts and Batteries: Coastal Defence in Guangdong During Ming to Qing Dynasties, Hong Kong, Urban Counil.

([9])      蕭國健 1994 〈明代粵東海防中路之南願頭寨〉,《香港歷史與社會》,香港教育圖書公司。

([10])    Brage, J.M. 1965  China Landfall 1513, Jorge Alvares Voyage to China, Macau, Imprensa Nacional.

([11])    Cortesão, A 1944, The Suma Oriental of Tome Pires and the Book of Francisco Rodrigues. London, Hakluyt Society. 龍思泰 (Anders Ljungstedt) 1832, 1997 《早期澳門史》,北京,東方出版社。 

([12])    Nessel , Johan 1658 Tngqvin, in 格斯‧冉福立 (Kees Zenlvliet) 江樹生  1997 《十七世紀荷蘭人繪製的台灣老地圖》,台北,漢聲出版社。

([13])    靳文謨 1688 《新安縣志》,新安縣衙。

([14])    王應華 1660年代,2000〈赤灣天妃廟記〉,《明清兩朝深圳檔案文獻演繹》,廣州,花城出版社蔡學元 18142000 〈重修赤灣天后廟記〉,《明清兩朝深圳檔案文獻演繹》,廣州,花城出版社。 

([15])    Ali, Sarah 1998 Study on the Potential, Assessment, Management and Preservation of Maritime Archaeological Sites in Hong Kong. Hong Kong: Lord Wilson Heritage Trust

([16])    This includes both submarine project areas for Black Point and South Soko